Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRBF CONSULTING - 2002-03-27 t 1 1 Su� Contracts Checklist for Submittal to 4. City Clerk's Office Hunt ,o Beach, (Please transmit this form when your contract is ready to be filed in the City Clerk's office) To: ' Connie Brockway, City Clerk x5404 i 1. Name of Contractor: F—SF <anr,::Fv 141'e-V i 2. Purpose of Contract: For Example:Audit Services or Water Quality Testing Huntington Lake—Huntington Central Park 3. Expiration Date: If no expiration date,please put a tentative expiration date so the City Clerk's office can inquire of your department if the file is ready to inactivate. 4. Amount of Contract: I-to , 00 A. Is the attached contract RELATED to a PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED contract(renewal/amendment/etc)? RYES❑NO B. Did you attach the LIST OF CONSULTANTS from whom proposals were requested—pursuant to HBMC 3.03.100? ❑YES)I NIA OR Is the attached contract a SOLE SOURCE? ❑YES XNIA C. Did you attach a COPY of the insurance certificate/waiver and send the ORIGINAL to Risk Management? RYES PLEASE INCLUDE: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE USE ONLY: �_ • S' •Cate o 'Data En �%/ a Y v A ha NUrn ' a �js1�0 600 10 or "600 30 Pending Name/Extension C �'✓��tG, '/J,/E? �/`O ;et 1fd'ICrf j der Vices Ct�� -I cl ,r E►�'Vts�oritn + a � c 1641 t cior> `'1 ��., uia Department f, oz. Date \ 'RECORDSDIV.?Check`City'Clerk'sDatabase forExtstingFile .'."❑DONE kli h t t k l it f g:/orms/cy clerk contract cecst.doc ��i CiCX�n-f lnUo-v —-- cf- I • I • su `ty PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS .o PURCHASING CERTIFICATION 1 Requested by: Mary Beth Broeren 2. Date: April 12, 2002 3. Name of consultant: RBF Consulting 4. Description of work to be performed: Consulting services pertaining to environmental documentation and remediation action plan for former gun range; this is a continuation of an existing contract. 5. Amount of the contract:- $29,170.00 6. Are sufficient funds available to fund this contract?' ® Yes, ❑ No � 7. Company number and object code where funds are budgeted: 20945101.69365 8. Is this contract generally described on the list of professional service contracts approved by the City Council'? ® Yes, ❑ No 9. Is this contract within $25,000 or 25% (whichever is less) of the amount stated on the list of professional service contracts approved by the City Council?' ® Yes, ❑ No 10. Were (at least) informal written proposals requested of three consultants? ❑ Yes, ® No €� rt 11. Attach list of consultants from whom proposals were requested (including a contact telephone number). 12. Attach proposed scope of work. 13. Attach proposed payment schedule. J RI ARD ADRIL, Man ger P rchasing/Central Services If the answer to any these questions is "No,"the contract will require approval from the City Council. Purchasing Certification 4112/2002 9.35 AM WCk _�. ,�-air=ems �.-- • • PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND FOR �<-e-y�u-�r-I��y� U-P �-�n•r�r�,n..vv-e.,�l-r,..i 1�u�,rne-..�r��-, a-�—z tZax,��•,.-� wv1�4��-Four �rrQ.r � �2a.�^�, Table of Contents 1 Scope of Services.....................................................................................................I 2 City Staff Assistance................................................................................................2 3 Term; Time of Performance.....................................................................................2 4 Compensation ..........................................................................................................2 5 Extra Work...............................................................................................................2 6 Method of Payment........................................................................:.........................3 7 Disposition of Plans, Estimates and Other Documents...........................................3 8 Hold Harmless .........................................................................................................3 9 Professional Liability Insurance.............................................................................4 10 Certificate of Insurance............................................................................................5 i l Independent Contractor............................................................................................6 12 Termination of Agreement.......................................................................................6 13 Assignment and Delegation......................................................................................6 14 Copyrights/Patents...................................................................................................7 15 City Employees and Officials..................................................................................7 16 Notices................................................................................ ......7 17 Consent....................................................................................................................8 18. Modification.............................................................................................................8 19 Section Headings.....................................................................................................8 20 Interpretation of this Agreement..............................................................................8 21 Duplicate Original....................................................................................................9 22 Immigration...............................................................................................................9 23 Legal Services Subcontracting Prohibited................................................................9 24 Attorney's Fees..........................................................................................................10 25 Survival.....................................................................................................................10 26 Governing Law.....................................:...................................................................10 27 Entire 10 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY�OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND FOR cn JC_ —QV0re,r inn'(0AA0�' THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered into this 'Z71 day of r'la-rUV� , 20 oZ,by and between the City of Huntington Beach, a municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "CITY, and P� f✓ (/�y l I l .�c,� , a hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT." WHEREAS, CITY desires to engage the services of a consultant to �2.vre�'e Q w✓��c ✓J1o.M �cs/ - SYiiv�e�Y �rv✓� �(c�-+�`�ie.�- ; and Pursuant to documentation on file in the office of the City Clerk, the provisions of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 3.03, relating to procurement of professional service contracts have been complied with; and CONSULTANT has been selected to perform these services, NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by CITY and CONSULTANT as follows: 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES CONSULTANT shall provide all services as described in Exhibit "A" which is attached hereto.and incorporated into this Agreement by this reference. These services shall sometimes hereinafter be referred to as the 'PROJECT." CONSULTANT hereby designates t_9_/yk,n -C6yrGtS who shall represent it and be its sole contact and agent in all consultations with'CITY during the performance of this Agreement. agree/forms/profserv10/15/61 1 2. CITY STAFF ASSISTANCE CITY shall assign a staff coordinator to work directly with CONSULTANT in the performance of this Agreement. 3. TERM; TIME OF PERFORMANCE Time is of the essence of.this Agreement. The services of-CONSULTANT are to commence as soon as practicable after the execution of this Agreement by CITY(the "Commencement Date"). This Agreement shall expire on Mare, 2-7-Zoo3 unless sooner terminated as provided herein. All tasks -specified in Exhibit "A" shall be completed no later than '(wc.l.rc_ ,n,,o,•�c , from the Commencement Date of this Agreement. These times may be extended with the written permission of CITY. The time for performance of the tasks identified in Exhibit "A" are generally to be shown in Exhibit "A." This schedule may be amended to benefit the PROJECT if mutually agreed to in writing by CITY and CONSULTANT. 4. COMPENSATION In consideration of the performance of the services described herein, CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT on a time and materials basis at the rates specified in Exhibit "B," a fee, including all costs and expenses, not to exceed -tx\cNs&.v4 firc kt.,Ox`ea �ollars ($ '9T 1 O, c)o )• 5. EXTRA WORK In the event CITY requires additional services not included in Exhibit "A" or changes in the scope of services described in Exhibit "A," CONSULTANT will undertake such work only after receiving written authorization from CITY. Additional agree/forms/profsery 10/15/01 2 compensation for such extra work shall be allowed only if the prior written approval of CITY is obtained. 6. METHOD OF PAYMENT CONSULTANT shall be paid pursuant to the terms of Exhibit "B, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference into this Agreement. 7. DISPOSITION OF PLANS, ESTIMATES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS CONSULTANT agrees that title to all materials prepared hereunder, including, without limitation, all original drawings, designs, reports, both field and office notices, calculations, computer code, language, data or programs, maps, memoranda, letters and other documents, shall belong to CITY, and CONSULTANT shall turn these materials over to CITY upon expiration or termination of this Agreement or upon PROJECT completion, whichever shall occur first. These materials may be used by CITY as it sees fit. 8. HOLD HARMLESS CONSULTANT. hereby agrees to protect, defend, indemnify and hold harmless CITY, its officers, elected or appointed officials, employees, agents and volunteers from and against. any and all claims, damages, losses, expenses, judgments, demands and defense costs (including, without limitation, costs and fees of litigation of every nature or liability of any kind or nature) arising out of or in connection with CONSULTANT's (or CONSULTANT's subcontractors, if any) negligent performance of this Agreement or its failure to comply with any of its obligations contained in .this Agreement by CONSULTANT, its officers, agents or employees except such loss or damage which was caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of CITY. CITY agree/forms/profsery 10/15/01 3 shall be reimbursed by CONSULTANT for all costs and attorney's fees incurred by CITY in enforcing this obligation. CONSULTANT will conduct all defense at its sole cost and expense and CITY shall approve selection of CONSULTANT's counsel. This indemnity shall apply to all claims and liability regardless of whether any insurance policies are applicable. The policy limits do not act as limitation upon the amount of indemnification to be provided by CONSULTANT. 9. PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE CONSULTANT shall obtain and furnish to CITY a professional liability insurance policy covering the work performed by it hereunder. This policy shall provide coverage for CONSULTANT's professional liability in an amount not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence and in the aggregate. The above mentioned insurance shall not contain a self-insured retention, "deductible" or any other similar form of limitation on the required coverage except with the express written consent of CITY. A claims-made policy shall be acceptable if the policy further provides that: A. The policy retroactive date coincides with or precedes the initiation of the scope of work (including subsequent policies purchased as renewals or replacements). B. CONSULTANT shall notify CITY of circumstances or incidents that might give rise to future claims. CONSULTANT will make every effort to maintain similar insurance during the required extended period of coverage following PROJECT completion. If insurance is terminated for any reason, CONSULTANT agrees to purchase an extended reporting agree/forms/profserv10/15/01 4 provision of at least two (2) years to report claims arising from work performed in connection with this Agreement. 10. CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE Prior to commencing performance of the work hereunder, CONSULTANT shall furnish to CITY a certificate of insurance subject to approval of the City Attorney evidencing the foregoing insurance coverage as required by this Agreement; the certificate shall: A. provide the name and policy number of each carrier and policy; B. shall state that the policy is currently in force; and C. shall promise that such policy shall not be suspended, voided or canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice; however, ten (10) days' prior written notice in the event-of cancellation for nonpayment of premium. CONSULTANT shall maintain the foregoing insurance coverage in force until the work under this Agreement is fully completed and accepted by CITY. The requirement for carrying the foregoing insurance coverage shall not derogate from CONSULTANT's defense, hold harmless and indemnification obligations as set forth in this Agreement. CITY or its representative shall at all times have the right to demand the original or a copy of the policy of insurance. CONSULTANT shall pay, in a prompt and timely manner,the premiums on the insurance hereinabove required. agree/forms/profservl0/15101 5 11. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR CONSULTANT is, and shall be, acting at all times in the performance of this Agreement as an independent contractor herein and not as an employee of CITY. CONSULTANT shall secure at its own cost and expense, and be responsible for any and all payment of all taxes, social security, state disability insurance compensation, unemployment compensation and other payroll deductions for CONSULTANT and its officers, agents and employees and all business licenses, if any, in connection with the PROJECT and/or the services to be performed hereunder. 12. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT All work required hereunder shall be performed in a good and-workmanlike manner. CITY may terminate CONSULTANT's services hereunder at any time with or without cause, and whether or not the PROJECT is fully complete. Any termination of this. Agreement by CITY shall be made in writing, notice of which shall be delivered to CONSULTANT as provided herein. In the event of termination, all finished and unfinished documents, exhibits, report, and evidence shall, at the option of CITY, become its property and shall be promptly delivered to it by CONSULTANT. 13. ASSIGNMENT AND DELEGATION This Agreement is a personal service contract and the work hereunder shall not be assigned, delegated or subcontracted by CONSULTANT to any other person or entity without the prior express written consent of CITY. If an assignment, delegation or subcontract is approved, all approved assignees, delegates and subconsultants must satisfy the insurance requirements as set forth in Sections 9 and 10 hereinabove. agree/forms/profsery 10/15/01 6 14. COPYRIGHTS/PATENTS CITY shall own all rights to any patent or copyright on any work, item or material produced as a result of this Agreement. 15. CITY EMPLOYEES AND OFFICIALS CONSULTANT shall employ no CITY official nor any regular CITY employee in the work performed pursuant to this Agreement. No officer or employee of CITY shall have any financial interest in this Agreement in violation of the applicable provisions of the California Government Code. 16. NOTICES Any notices, certificates, or other communications hereunder shall be given either by personal delivery to CONSULTANT's agent (as designated in Section 1 hereinabove)or to CITY as the situation shall warrant, or by enclosing the same in a sealed envelope, postage prepaid, and depositing the-same in the United States Postal Service, to the addresses specified below. CITY and CONSULTANT may designate different addresses to which subsequent notices, certificates or other communications will be sent by notifying the other party via personal delivery, a reputable overnight carrier or U. S. certified mail-return receipt requested: TO CITY: TO CONSULTANT: City of Huntington Beach -qA0-w,0-S ATTN: Marl., �Qe,r-ems .8 �s�il-�-r 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 1LA-1Z,i Al-6n Paszt L jet�t y—' ; 1Tv cxc CA 17 cg I9— 2r g-"7: agree/forms/profsery 10/15/01 7 17. CONSENT When CITY's consent/approval is required under this Agreement, its consent/approval for one transaction or event shall not be deemed to be a consent/approval to any subsequent occurrence of the same or any other transaction or event. 18. MODIFICATION No waiver or modification of any language in this Agreement shall be valid unless in writing and duly executed by both parties. 19. SECTION HEADINGS The titles, captions, section, paragraph and subject headings, and descriptive phrases at the beginning of the various sections in this Agreement are merely descriptive and are included solely for convenience of reference only and are not representative of matters included or excluded from such provisions, and do not interpret, define, limit or describe, or construe the intent of the parties or affect the construction or interpretation of any provision of this Agreement. 20. INTERPRETATION OF THIS AGREEMENT The language of all parts of this Agreement shall in all cases be construed as a whole, according to its fair meaning, and not strictly for or against any of the parties. If any provision of this Agreement is held by an arbitrator or court of competent jurisdiction to be unenforceable, void, illegal or invalid, such holding shall not invalidate or affect the remaining covenants and provisions of this Agreement. No covenant or provision shall be deemed dependent upon-any other unless so expressly provided here. As used in this Agreement, the masculine or neuter gender and singular or plural number shall be deemed to include the other whenever the context so indicates or requires. agree/forms/profsery 10/15/01 8 Nothing contained herein shall be construed so as to require the commission of any act contrary to law, and wherever there is any conflict between any provision contained herein and any present or future statute, law, ordinance or regulation contrary to which the parties have no right to contract, then the latter shall prevail, and the provision of this Agreement which is hereby affected shall be curtailed and limited only to the extent necessary to bring it within the requirements of the law. 21. DUPLICATE ORIGINAL The original of this Agreement and one or more copies hereto have been prepared and signed in counterparts as duplicate originals, each of which so executed shall, irrespective of the date of its execution and delivery, be deemed an original. Each duplicate original shall be deemed an original instrument as against any party.. who has signed it. 22. IMMIGRATION CONSULTANT shall be responsible for full compliance with the immigration and naturalization laws of the United States and shall, in particular, comply with the provisions of the United States Code regarding employment verification. 23. LEGAL SERVICES SUBCONTRACTING PROHIBITED CONSULTANT and CITY agree that CITY is not liable for payment of any subcontractor work involving legal services, and that such legal services are expressly outside the scope of services contemplated hereunder. CONSULTANT understands that pursuant to Huntington Beach City Charter Section 309, the City Attorney is the exclusive legal counsel for CITY; and CITY shall not be liable for payment of any legal services expenses incurred by CONSULTANT. agree/forms/profsery 10/15/01 9 24. ATTORNEY'S FEES Except as expressly set forth in Section 8 of this Agreement, in the event suit is brought by either party to construe, interpret and/or enforce the terms and/or provisions of this Agreement or to secure the performance hereof, each party shall bear its own attorney's fees, such that the prevailing party shall not be entitled to recover its attorney's fees from the non-prevailing party. 25. SURVIVAL Terms and conditions of this Agreement, which by their sense and context survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement shall so survive. 26. GOVERNING LAW. This Agreement shall be governed and construed-in' accordance with the laws of the State of California. 27. ENTIRETY The parties acknowledge and agree that they are entering into this Agreement freely and voluntarily following extensive arm's length negotiation, and that each has had the opportunity to consult with legal counsel prior to executing this Agreement. The parties also acknowledge and agree that no representations, inducements, promises, agreements or warranties, oral or otherwise, have been made by that party or anyone acting on that party's behalf, which are not embodied in this Agreement, and that that party has not executed this Agreement in reliance on any representation, inducement, promise, agreement, warranty, fact or circumstance not expressly set forth in this Agreement. This Agreement, and the attached exhibits, contain the entire agreement between the parties respecting the subject matter of this Agreement, and supercede all prior agree/forms/profsery 10/15/01 10 understandings and agreements whether oral or in writing between the parties respecting the subject matter hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by and through their authorized offices the day, month and year first above written. CONSULTANT, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, �F CONSyL�1N6 a municipal corporation of the State of California i ector of PI a n n B (Pursuant To HB C§3.03.100) �v ira '�Not1AS print name ITS: (circle one)Chairman/Preside ice President APPROVED AS TO FORM: • AND ✓� S�1 �- 6 City Attorney By: REVIEWED AND APPROVED: me ITS: (circle on Secretary/ hief Financial Officer/Asst. Secretary—Treas City Administrator (only for contracts over$50,000.00) agree/forms/p'rofsery 10/15/0l 1 1 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of firm e, ss. On Ul aprij U07- before me, C Vn lu-0lnn�e�d5 Date Name and Title of Officer(e.g.,"Jane Doe,Notary Public") l personally appeared Ivt6YV1GtS ��Name(s)of Signer(s) B personally known to me ❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory , evidence to be the personal whose name(oGwe subscribed to the within instrument and ANITA SHIELDS acknowledged to me that(e'she%they executed Commission#1270348 i the same in fs it authorized Notary Public-California Z � capacity(ieo, and that by fs 'r Orange County signature(&;on the instrument the person(&), or MY Comm.ExPin36 Jul 10,2004 the entity upon behalf of which the person*& acted, executed the instrument. 1 WITNESS may.hand and official seal. � Place Notary Seal Above Signature of Notary Public OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document^,, Title or Type of Document: 1 w*wi Mwit Document Datel. U 0­�- Number of Pages: 1� Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: btt Capacity(ies) Claimed y Signer Signer's Name: Cell hS Individual Top of thumb here orporate Officer—Title(s): VIC�QPLS),ACAA f Partner—❑ Limited ❑ General i ❑ Attorney in Fact K ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: Signer Is Representing: 9a C WSVAkK 10 01999 National Notary Association•9350 De Soto Ave.,P.O.Box 2402•Chatsworth,CA 91313-2402•www.nationalnotary.org Prod.No.5907 Reorder:Call Toll-Free 1-800-876-6827 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California , County of ova G ss. �. On before me, Date __,Name and Title of Officer(e.g.,"Jane Doe,Notary Public") personally appeared oloP. t Gf2�ivrP0Y&i Name(s)of Signer(s) (' Vpersonally known to me i ❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence ,i to be the person(4 whose name(4(e subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that9s#eftftey executed ANITA SHIELDS the same in authorized Commission 1270348 capacity(ie4 anIS (9 that by eif Notary Public-Califomia z Orange County signature(&)on the instrument the person(, or My Comm.Expims Jul 10,2004 the entity upon behalf of which the person(&),. L ��a-�>,. acted, executed the instrument. i� WITNESS my.hand and official seal. Place Notary Seal Above Signature of Notary Public OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. i Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: COVIfYAGt'QNMP*G Wh* G I14 D �Vw hV101 ivy Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: ��NIv1S Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: pObgJ Ct; CARW (' ❑ Individual '.M �G Top of thumb here C�Corporate Officer—Title(s): CI AMU i ❑ Partner—❑ Limited ❑ General i i ❑ Attorney in Fact i ❑ Trustee ) ❑ Guardian or Conservator i ❑ Other: I- Signer Is Representing: Ry VIs"thylij 0 1999 National Notary Association•9350 De Soto Ave.,P.O.Box 2402•Chatsworth,CA 91313-2402•www.nationalnotary.org Prod.No.5907 Reorder:Call Toll-Free 1-800-876-6827 MAN 06 '02 19:28 I0-1714374154: FHUM-HBF PLANNINU 1-021 P.02 F-071 Doi JN 10.100972.001 Request No. 1 (Revision 111) January 16,2002 ADDITIONAL WORK REQUEST SUMMARY Client: City of Huntington Beach Work Requested By: City of Huntington Beach Project: Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park Summary of Additional Work: Our original work effort was based upon the preparation of.the Environmental Impact Report(EIR)and Remedial Action Plan(RAP)per the contract for this project dated February 16. 2001. RBF proposes this Additional Work Request to cover both previous and future costs resulting from services performed outside of the original scope of work. Items 1 and 2 were previously authorized by City staff,and have been invoiced under the reimbursabtes and meetings tasks for this contract. Item 3 is a new additional work effort based on discussions with City staff and the LEA. Item 4 is a new additional work effort based on recent direction from City staff. Item 5 is necessary for additional RBF staff time for meetings,coordination,and contract administration relative to the additional work efforts. The breakdown of estimated costs are as follows: TASK DESCRIPTION BUDGET - Meetings with City and County Staff, coordination with the City's Landfill 1 Gas Consultant, and Incorporation of Landfill Gas Issues into Remedial $2,500 Action Plan Hart Crowser letter dated May 23,2001 Additional Meeting Attendance with City/County Staff(Hart Crowser letter dated July 17. 2001) It should be noted that Hart Crowsers original fee included the attendance of two meetings (one with the City and one with 2 OCHCA) as described in the original scope of work adopted by the City. $760 Additional future meeting attendance by Han Crowser would require further contract negotiations. 9 Additional Research, Meetings, and Field Work Based on City/LEA $14,910 Direction(Hart Crowser letter dated October 12,2001) Drag RAP Revisions and Associated Meetings (Mart Cmwaar letter dated 4 March 6, 2002) It should be noted that this fee Is subject to change upon $8,000 room t of final oomments from City ataf/and the LEA. Hart Crowser Subtotal, $26,170 5 Additional RBF Staff Time for Coordination, Meetings, and Contract $3,000 Administration TOTAL S29,170 We appreciate the opportunity to participate in this important project. Please call me at (949) 855-3659 should you have any questions or comments regarding this proposed Contract Amendment. Prepared By: Kevin Thomas,Vice President,Environmental Senrices Authorized By: (Client) (Date) APR 22 '02 16:42 TO-17143741540i FROM-RBF PLANNING T-621 P.02/04 F-290 taienty:oeoa - - - y CERTIFICATE ®F LIABILITY INSURANCE s115 C DDIYY, PRoouceR ���� Ma THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE Dea16y,Renton &Associates HOLDBR. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR P. 0. Box 10550 �QQZ ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. Santa Ana,CA 92711-0550 FEg 19 714 427-6810 INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE 1NsuneD - N�u�n��.• NBUR6RA; Travelers Indemnity Co. of Illinois RSF Consulting 10F C� I INSURER B: National Union Fire Ins Co_of Plttsb_ PO Box 57057 INSURERC' Underwrite►$ at Lloyd's London Irvine,CA 92619.7057 — - _ INsuREaD: 1 1 11V3UAER E; COVERAGES THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED- NOTWITHSTANDiNG ANY REOUIREMENT. TERM 08 CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN. THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS.EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. NSRI LTA TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER It 0 Y EWECT1VE Wici EXPIRATION I LIMITS A GENERALLIASILITY P630SOOD409201 11130101 11130/02 EACH OCCURRENCE__ 51,000,000....._ �( COMMERCIAL GENERAL F(REDAMAOE(Anyonelire) Wt0-00.004 CLAIMS MADE 7X I OCCUR INOP CONTRACTORS MED rXP IAnY 01e.DeMonl i s5,000_—__,•,-,-, X CONTRACTUAL _ IS INCLUDED. PERSONALS AOV INJURY 61,00,000 X. BFPO, XCV,OCP II I GENERALAGGREGATE �S�OQO,OOQ.,.___ �'LADOREDATELIMITAPP4.156OUR' 1 !PRODUCTS •COMPIOPAG I SZ QQQ,Q�o•__-" i POLICY,X PRD-jgey 7X LOC I 1 A AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY P810500D409201 11/30/09 11/30102 I COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT 151,000,OOQ X ANY AUTO I (Ea accident) _ __ I I ALL OWNED AUTOS I ( I BODILY INJURY $ I SCHEDULED AUTOS I I (Per pvr4on1 ^— I Li � 4r•11 1 I 1 X HIRED AUTOS j J l , . I BODILY INJURY IPer acudirml I S X NON-OWNED AUTOS Y t ;• ++ _ —. �I_ — ;::.�:':.; t.`•.:, - ' ��� i P OPEATY DAMAGE. r en GARAGE LIABILITY % ' � ALITO6NCY•tAACCiDENT 'S f I EA ACC SANY AUTO ILl OTI+ER THAN CS AUTO ONLY: AG l= al y XCEB6LIABILITY SE8715762 :P 11/30101 11/30/02 EnC_HOCCUARENCF,X OCCUR r�CLAIMS MADE I AGGREGATE !S10 000,000 DEDUCTIBLE 8 RETENTION S 5 WCSTATLI ' WORKERS COMPENSATION AND I !.�YQHY L!lI1JS.I. Y.�iCTH•. EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY ACCIDENT $ �E.L.DISEASE-CA EMPt.OVEE'S G L.DISEASE-POLICY LIMIT i S . C OTHER Professional P00433000 11/30/01 11/30/02 $1,000,000 Per Claim Liability i $2,000,000 Anni Aggr. j DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONSILOCATIONSNEHICLESIEXCLUSIONS ADDED by RHOORSEMENTISPEC1AL PROVISIONS Re: All Operations as performed by Named Insured. City of Huntington Beach, ila agents, oHlcam,and employooe are Additional Insured as respects to General Liability.Primary and Non Contributing coverage applies to GL. (AI1PRJX) CERTIFICATE HOLDER I AOornoNALINSURED:INSURERLETT R• CANCELLATION Too DaX Notice f2r Non-Payment of EregljuM SHOULD ANYOFTHE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIESBB CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION City of Huntington Beach DATE THEREOF. THE ISSUING INSURER WILL XIIRWylpllnp MAIL 30_._DAYSWRITTEN Attn: Mr. Hankay, Planning Dept. NOTICET07HE CERTIFICATE 14OLDERNAMED TOTHE LEFT,!!t[ 71p1p1p>iN30IE67(JCX 2000 Main Street NMI X6tXRRAOCYbIDcf<7QRRDtIEtRTc(b70HItEUQ16fHppelSfdit{X Huntington Beach,CA 92648 umaxwNgx AUTHDR12EDREPRESENT 11YE I ACORD 26-S(7197)1 of 1 OM68551 (yll( O ACORO CORPORATION 1988 APR 22 '.02 16:42 TO.171437415400 FROM-RBF PLANNING . T-621 P.03/04 F-290 . CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSU ANC j) J 1 DAo�iisioi vaoaucER THIS CER IFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO-RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE PrideMark Insurance HOLDER.THIS CERTIFICATE DOSS NOT AMEND,EXTEND OR 1820 E. First St. , Ste #500 ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. Santa Ana CA 92705 Phone: 714-569-2700 IN AFFORDING COVERAGE INSURED INSURERA Fidelity.and Guaranty Ins. Co.,�Y INSURER B RBF Consulting INSURER C. w 14725 Alton Parkway INSURERO:_ w rvine CA 92718 INSURER E: COVERAGES THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED.NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REOUIREMENT.TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN,THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DBDCRIDED HERElh 19 JUBJGCT TO ALL THE TZRMS.GXCLU610NS AMD CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES.AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS SA TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER LI CTNE P L BtATI N - LIMITS R DATE M IDOIW DATE MMIDOMI GENERAL LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE S COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY FIRE DAMAGE!Any one file)_ S CLAIMS MADE n OCCUR MED EXP(Any one person) S _•i _ 6� A60NAL 1 ADV INJURY 1 GENERAL AGGREGATE E GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER. PRODUCTS-COMPIOP AGG 6 POLICY PRAT LOC AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT S ANY AUTO (Ea amasnl) ALL OWNED AUTOS - -.-I BODILY INJURY S SCHEDULED AUTOS (Par parson) HIRED AUTOS BODILY INJURY S N0N-OWNED AUTOS (Par acudonl) rI,{) t;)hi+1• PROPERTY DAMAGE (Per acGaanq s GARAGE LIABILITY 7 1 v -+� ; AUTO ONLY-EA ACCIDENT S ANY AUTO - I` - s,f L� •• CAACC b - OTHER THAN ;AUTO ONLY AGG S VACESS LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE OCCUR CLAIMS MADE r.<;:�.'.t' AGGREGATE _ S y1 ,•' b DEDUCTIBLE RETENTION S b WORKERS COMPENSATION AND X. To LIMITS I I ER 6MPLOYE44'LIABILITY A D123W00006 07/01/01 07/01/02 I e�L EACH ACCIDENT. S 1,000�000 E L.DISEASE-EA EMPLOYEE!S 1 1,0001000 6.L.DICr.ASE.POLICY LIMIT a 3 000,000 OTHER I DESCRIPTION OF OPERA TIONSILOCATIONSMEHICLES/EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENT/SPECIAL PROVISIONS_ Re: All operations CERTIFICATE HOLDER 'N ADDITIONAL INSURED:INSURER LETTER:_ CANCELLATION CITY14-1 SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF.THE ISSUING INSURER WILLAR"TO MAIL 30 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT,-d L City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 REP+:cs wTIr IOEs- Mark Barrie 1 4 ACORD 25-S(7197) t ACORD CORPORATION 1988 i APR 22 '02 16:42 TO-1714374154* FROM-RBF PLANNING T-621 P.04/04 F-290 • POLICY NUMBER: P6 3 0 S 0 OD4 0 92 O 1 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANOSS THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT.CAREFULLY, ADDITIONAL. INSURE® - OWNERS, LESSEES ®r CONTRACTORS (FORM B) This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART SCHEDULE Name of Person or Organization: City of Huntington Beach Attn: Mr. Bankey, planning Dept . 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (if no entry appears above. Information required to complete this endorsement will be shown in the Declarations as applicable to this endorsement.) WHO 1S AN INSURED (Section 11)is amended to include as an insured the person or organization shown in the Schedule, but only with respect to liability arising out of"your work"for that insured by or for you. Schedule .Continue.d: its agents, officers, and employees PRIMARY INSURANCE: IT IS UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED THAT THIS INSURANCE IS PRIMARY AND ANY OTHER INSURANCE MAINTAINED BY THE ADDITIONAL INSURED SHALL 'BE EXCESS ONLY AND NOT CONTRIBUTING WITH THIS INSURANCE. ur - CG 20 10 11 85 Gun Ran- e 9 E"IR 3 �Day Check Connie Brockway, City Clerk Office of the City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 msPUBLIC NOTICE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 01.03 FOR REMEDIATION OF THE FORMER GUN RANGE WITHIN HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 01.03 for the Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park The firm of RBF Consulting, under contract to the City of Huntington Beach, has prepared Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 01-03 (State Clearinghouse # 2001031067) for the proposed Remediation of the Former Gun Range. The EIR includes an analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the project, including public health and safety, land use, geology, air quality , noise, public services/utilities, aesthetics/light and glare, and other mandated CEQA sections. An unavoidable significant impact has been identified in regards to short-term remediation/construction-related air quality impacts. The EIR will be available for public review and comment for 45 days, commencing Thursday, March 27, 2003 and ending Monday, May 12, 2003. Written comments on the EIR must be submitted to Ricky Ramos, City of Huntington Beach Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, PO Box 190, Huntington Beach, California 92648 by 5:00 p.m., May 12, 2003. The EIR is on file at the following locations: City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach; and Central Library, 7111 Talbert Avenue, Huntington Beach. Project Description: The project, proposed by the City of Huntington Beach Community Services Department, consists of the remediation of a 4.91-acre former gun range site, requiring the removal of structures, asphalt and on-site contaminants resulting from over 20 years of use as a firing range for the general public and the Huntington Beach Police Officers Association (HBPOA). Following remediation, the subject site is ultimately proposed to be developed as an open space/recreation element of Huntington Central Park. On-site improvements are anticipated to consist of facilities typical of open space/recreation uses including parking areas, restrooms/concession structures, irrigation, lighting, and various utilities. The site is located located west of Gothard Street, south of Talbert Avenue and north of Ellis Avenue within Huntington Central Park. The project site is not located on a hazardouse materials site listed on the DTSC-CORTESE list. However, the site is contaminated with lead due to the former gun range use. The purpose of the Draft EIR is to evaluate potential environmental impacts associated with the remediation of the site. Hearinq Date: Subsequent to the comment period, a pubic hearing will be scheduled before the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission. No specific hearing date has been established at this time. For further information, please contact Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner, at 714-536-5624. 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Remediation of the Former Gun Range With ' , un in n Cent ' March 27, 2003 1 i Y f Lead Agency: City of Huntington Beach Consultant: 44p, '+ e < RBF Consulting Screencheck EIR Completed: May 11, 2001 Preliminary Draft EIR Completed: July 20, 2001 2`"" �"� Draft EIR Completed: °� �.���,�� March 27, 2003 MAR 2 6 2003 Preliminary Final EIR Completed: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT #2001031067 REMEDIATION OF THE FORMER GUN RANGE WITHIN HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK 1 Lead Agency: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Contact Mr. Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner (714) 536-5271 1 Consultant: RBF CONSULTING 14725 Alton Parkway Irvine, CA 92618 Contact. Mr. Kevin Thomas, Environmental Services Manager (949) 855-3659 March 27, 2003 JN 10-100972.001 I Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park TABLE OF CONTENTS Draft Environmental Impact Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 2.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE 2.1 Purpose of EIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 2.2 Compliance with CEQA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 2.3 Scope of EIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 2.4 Use of the EIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3 2.5 Documentation Incorporated by Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3 2.6 Technical References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 Project Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 3.2 Environmental Setting 3-1 3.3 Background and History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2 3.4 Project Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6 3.5 Project Objectives and Goals 3-13 3.6 Project Phasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-13 3.7 Agreements, Permits and Approvals Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-14 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS �I 4.0 Overview of EIR Methodology and Significance Determination . . . . . . . . . . 4.0-1 4.1 Public Health and Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1-1 4.2 Land Use/Relevant Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-1 4.3 Geology and Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3-1 4.4 Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.4-1 4:5 Noise . . . .•. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.5-1 4.6 Public Services and Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6-1 4.7 Aesthetics/ Light & Glare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7-1 5.0 LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.1 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes 5-1 5.2 Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 5.3 Cumulative Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3 6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 7.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1 8.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1 City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 i Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park TABLE OF CONTENTS rl Draft Environmental Impact Report 9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1 10.0 APPENDICES A. Initial Study/Notice of Preparation B. Remedial Documentation C. Air Quality Data D. Correspondence r . r r r r r City of Huntington Beach I' March 27, 2003 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park TABLE OF CONTENTS Draft Environmental Impact Report LIST OF EXHIBITS 1 Regional Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3 2 Site Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4 3 Aerial Photo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5 4 Proposed Areas of Soil Excavation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-12 5 Zoning .4. 2-3 ' 6 Land Use Designations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.2-4 7 Soil Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.3-5 8 On-Site Photos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.7-3 9 Off-Site Photos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.7-4 I City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 iii Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park TABLE OF CONTENTS Draft Environmental Impact Report LIST OF TABLES 4.4-1 Local Air Quality Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.4-4 4.4-2 Construction Emissions Threshold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4-11 4.4-3 Daily Construction Emissions (Alternative 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4-12 4.4-4 Energy Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.4-14 -4. Mobile Source Air Emissions . 4.4-14 45 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4-6 Combined Air Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.4-15 ' 4.5-1 Sound Levels and Human Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5-3 4.5-2 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5-5 r City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 iv 1 � 1 .0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i 1.1 PROJECT SUMMARY ' Existing Conditions ' The proposed project site exists within the central portion of the City of Huntington Beach. The site is located east of Goldenwest Street, west of Gothard Street, north of Ellis Avenue, and south of Talbert Avenue. The proposed project site is a former gun range practice facility used by the ' Huntington Beach Police Officers Association until its closure in 1997. The site was operated by the County of Orange as part of a landfill until1962 when it was converted into a,gun range. Currently, on-site improvements include a small,elevated rangemaster's office, a small restroom facility, two office trailers, a covered row of firing stations, and a large storage shed. Wooden posts surround the entire facility and also partition the firing range into three separate areas. Surrounding land uses include the Central Park Sports Complex (under construction) to the north and west, public and open space uses to the north, light industrial, commercial, and public uses to the east, and open ' space and residential to the south. Proposed Project ' The proposed project involves the remediation of the 4.91-acre former gun range site. Remediation would require the removal of structures, wood posting, soil, sand, and asphalt in order to remove ' lead contamination resulting from over 20 years of use as a Huntington Beach Police Officers Association (HBPOA)firing range. ' Subsequent to remediation,the subject site is proposed to become an open space/park element of the 356.8 acre Huntington Central Park Master Plan, which encompasses the project site. On-site improvements are anticipated to consist of facilities typical of open space/park uses, possibly including parking areas, restrooms/concession structures, irrigation, lighting, and various utilities. Implementation of the proposed project will be consistent with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan,Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, and policies contained within the Huntington Central Park Master EIR. 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL,SUMMARY Refer to the followingsummary of project impacts, mitigation measures,and unavoidable significant rY P 1 P 9 9 impacts. _... IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE 77 4.9 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY REMEDIATION HAZARDS ' The proposed project would result in hazards to nearby PHS-1 Prior to excavation of the contaminated and sensitive uses during the short-term remedial process. other areas for rough grading,the project site Significance:Less than signtricant with mitigation. shall be cleared of all excess vegetation, surface trash, piping, debris and other deleterious materials. These materials shall be removed and disposed of properly (recycled if possible). ' City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 1-1 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY , Draft Environmental Impact Report IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE. PHS-2 Unless underground utility locations are well ' documented, as determined by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department, the contractor shall perform geophysical , surveys prior to excavations to identify subsurface utilities and structures. Pipelines or conduits which may be encountered within the excavation and graded areas shall either , be relocated or be cut and plugged according to the applicable code requirements. PHS-3 Proper excavation procedures shall be ' followed to comply with OSHA's Safety and Health Standards. If applicable, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1166 permit shall be , obtained prior to the commencement of excavation and remedial activities. PHS-4 The contractor shall follow all recommendations contained within the adopted Remedial Action Plan for the project site. PHS-5 If asbestos or lead-based paints are identified in any on-site structures,the contractor shall obtain a qualified contractor to survey the , project site and assess the potential hazard. The contractor shall contact the SCAQMD and the City of Huntington Beach prior to asbestos/lead paint removal. PHS-6 Prior to initiating the removal of structures and contaminated materials, the contractor must provide evidence that the removal of materials will be subject to a traffic control plan, as approved by the City Engineer. The intent of this measure is to minimize the time period and disruption of heavy duty trucks. PHS-7 If any hazardous materials not previously addressed in the mitigation measures contained herein are identified and/or ' released to the environment at any point during the site cleanup process,operations in that area shall cease immediately. At the ' earliest possible time, the contractor shall notify the City of any such findings. Upon notification of the appropriate agencies, a , course of action will be determined subject to the approval of the City Manager. PHS-8 All structures must be cleaned of hazardous ' materials prior to off-site transportation, or hauled off-site as a waste in accordance with applicable regulations. City of Huntington Beach March 27,2003 , 1-2 ' Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft Environmental Impact Report IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE PHS-9 Structure removal operations shall comply With all regulations and standards of the SCAQMD. ' PHS-10 The contractor shall post signs prior to commencing remediation, alerting the public to the site cleanup operations in progress. The size, wording and placement of these signs shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planning Department. PHS-11 Any unrecorded or unknown wells uncovered during the excavation or grading process shall be immediately reported to and coordinated with the City and DOGGR. ' LANDFILL GAS HAZARDS ' Project implementation would subject on-site and PHS-12 All lead-impacted soils to be screened/treated surrounding uses to hazards in regards to landfill gas and then reused on-site shall be tested prior generation and migration. Signlricance: Less than to reuse to ensure compliance with all local, slgniticant with mltlgation. state,and federal specifications. PHS-13 Prior to the issuance of building permits for reuse of the subject site, the City shall perform appropriate studies to evaluate the ' potential for landfill gas generation and migration. If deemed necessary, an active landfill gas extraction system designed for the adjacent Sports Complex will be modified and expanded to extract landfill gas from the subject site. Appropriate mitigation measures will be coordinated with the SCAQMD, OCHCA, SARWQCB, and the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department. PHS-14 A comprehensive landfill gas monitoring network shall be implemented around the perimeter of the subject site. Periodic monitoring of the monitoring network and at locations above the surface of the site will be ' performed. PHS-15 The City shall implement a cover system on areas of the site to be irrigated to control ' moisture infiltration into refuse beneath the site. A suitable cover system could consist of a synthetic geomembrane,geotextile fabric for protection of geomembrane and filtering for the drainage layer, a drainage layer, and a vegetation layer or an approved alternative. PHS-16 The contractor shall coordinate with the County of Orange's Integrated Waste Management Department in order to ensure that the proposed project does not impact drainage of the former landfill situated beneath the project site. City of Huntington Beach March 27,2003 1-3 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY , Draft Environmental Impact Report IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE 4.2 LAND USE/RELEVANT.PLANNING ' LAND USE Implementation of the proposed project would have both None required. However, refer to mitigation measures ' short-term and long-term impacts in regards to land use contained in Section 4.1 (Public Health and Safety), compatibility. Significance:Less than significant. Section 4.4(Air),and Section 4.5(Noise). RELEVANT PLANNING The proposed project will be consistent with the City of None required. ' Huntington Beach General Plan,Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance,and Huntington Central Park Master EIR,and does not propose to change any General Plan or Zoning ' designations. Significance:No Impact. 4.3 GEOLOGY AND SOILS WIND/WATER EROSION , Implementation of the proposed project would create GEO-1 Concurrent with the submittal of the Grading adverse impacts in regards to wind and water erosion. Plan, the Applicant shall submit an Erosion ' Significance:Less than significant with mitigation. Control Plan to the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works which will include the following measures: a) Where necessary, temporary and/or ' permanent erosion control devices, as approved by the Department of Public Works, shall be employed to control erosion and provide safety during the rainy season from October 15th to April 15th. Such devices will be designed to avoid infiltration of rainwater and/or surface water into the underlying refuse materials. b) Equipment and workers for emergency work shall be made available at all times during the rainy season. Necessary materials shall be available on-site and stockpiled at convenient locations to , facilitate the rapid construction of temporary devices when rain is imminent. ' c) Erosion control devices shall not be moved or modified without the approval of the Department of Public Works. d) All removable erosion protective devices ' shall be in place at the end of each working day when the 5-day rain probability forecast exceeds 40%. e) After a rainstorm,all silt and debris shall be removed from streets, check berms and basins. f) Graded areas on the permitted area perimeter must drain away from the face City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 ' 1-4 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft Environmental Impact Report IMPACT .. =MITIGATION MEASURE of the slopes at the conclusion of each working day. Drainage is to be directed toward desilting facilities. g) The permittee and contractor shall be responsible and shall take necessary precautions to prevent public trespass onto areas where impounded water creates a hazardous condition. Impoundment areas designed to receive surface water runoff shall be adequately lined in order to prevent infiltration of collected water into underlying refuse. h) The permittee and contractor shall inspect the erosion control work and ' ensure that the work is in accordance with the approved plans. 1) Water shall be applied to the site twice daily during grading operations or as otherwise directed by the County of Orange Inspector in compliance with South Coast AQMD rule 403 (Fugitive Dust Emissions). A grading operations plan may be required including watering procedures to minimize dust, and equipment procedures to minimize ' vehicle emissions from grading equipment. GEO-2 Remediation and construction shall include Best Management Practices(BMPs)as stated in the Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) by the Orange County Stormwater Management Program. BMPs applicable to the project include the following: ❖ Potential pollutants include but are not ' limited to:solid or liquid chemical spills; wastes from paints, stains, sealants, glues, limes, pesticides, herbicides, wood preservatives and solvents; asbestos fibers, paint flakes, or stucco fragments; fuels, oils, lubricants, and hydraulic, radiator, or battery fluids; fertilizers,vehicle/equipment wash water and concrete wash water; concrete, detergent, or floatable wastes; wastes from any engine/equipment steam cleanings or chemical degreasing; and ' superchlorinated potable water line flushings. ❖ During remediation/construction, ' disposal of such materials should occur in a specified and controlled temporary area on-site, physically separated from potential stormwater run-off, with ultimate disposal in accordance with local,state,and federal requirements. ' City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 1-5 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY , Draft Environmental Impact Report IMPACT .. - MITIGATION;:MEASURE GEO-3 As part of its compliance with the NPDES ' requirements, the Applicant shall prepare a Notice of Intent(NOI)to be submitted to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control ' Board providing notification and intent to comply with the State of California general permit. Prior to remediation/construction, completion of a Storm Water Pollution ' Prevention Plan(SWPPP)will be required for remediation/construction activities on-site. The SWPPP shall incorporate BMPs as found in the Orange County NPDES Stormwater Program DAMP,and shall also include BMPs to contain lead-impacted soils on-site and halt excavation/remediation activities during a rain event, including export of soils off-site. A ' copy of the SWPPP shall be available and implemented at the construction site at all times. TOPOGRAPHY ' No significant landform impacts are anticipated, as the None required. existing project area is relatively flat and contains no unique geological or physical features. Significance: Less than significant. GEOLOGY/SOILS , Unstable geologic conditions beneath the subject site GEO-4 A detailed geotechnical report shall be may create hazardous conditions for short-term prepared and submitted with the building remediation/construction and long-term reuse. permit application for the proposed facilities/ Significance:Less than significant with mitigation. structures. This analysis shall incorporate the findings of the Remedial Action Plan and will include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed , recommendations regarding grading, foundations, retaining walls,overexcavation/ recompaction, and chemicalfll properties of underground items including buried pipe and , concrete and protection thereof. The reports shall specifically address lateral spreading and liquefaction potential. The geotechnical ' report shall also be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval in conjunction with the grading plan. Appropriate recommendations regarding soil stabilization for structural loads associated with potential subsidence hazards shall be provided to mitigate potentially adverse conditions. Typical methods include,but are , not limited to: :• pre-loading areas where structures are planned to reduce the elastic ' component of the refuse settlement; in-situ improvement of the upper portions.of the refuse through the use ' of dynamic compaction;and City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 ' 1-6 ' Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft Environmental Impact Report ... -- IMPACT . MITIGATION MEASURE ❖ include a synthetic reinforcement material in the cover soil layer to create a stiff layer of soils capable of 1 supporting structures and tending to distribute. the effects of differential settlement. ' GEO-5 In conjunction with the submittal of application for preliminary or precise grading permits,the City shall ensure that the geotechnical report recommendations have been incorporated into the grading plan unless otherwise specified in the geotechnical report and/or by the City Engineer. ' GEO-6 Prior to interim or long-term facility construction, the City shall ensure that the preliminary geotechnical report ' recommendations have been incorporated into the grading plan unless otherwise specified in the geotechnical report and/or by the City Engineer. SEISMICITY/FAULTING The project area is subject to seismic activity, and may GEO-7 Due to the potential for ground shaking in a be subject to hazards in regards to seismicity/faulting. seismic event, the project shall comply with Significance:Less than signfficant with mitigation. the standards set forth in the UBC (most recent edition)to assure seismic safety to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and ' Safety prior to issuance of a building permit, including compliance with California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 117 (Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California,adopted March 13, 1997). LIQUEFACTION The proposed project may be subject to liquefaction None required. hazards. Significance:Less than significant. LANDFILL GAS Decomposing refuse underlying the subject site may Refer to Mitigation Measures PHS-12 through PHS-16, create hazards to on-site and surrounding uses in above. regards to landfill gas. Significance: Less than significant with mitigation. 4.4 AIR QUALITY SHORT-TERM EMISSIONS Short-term remediation/construction processes for the AIR-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits or ' proposed project would have short-term air quality approval of grading plans, the City shall impacts. Significance: Less than significant with include a dust control plan as part of the mitigation. construction contract standard specifications, which shall include measures to meet the requirements of the City and SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Such measures may include, but are not limited to,the following: City of Huntington Beach March 27,2003 1-7 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ' Draft Environmental Impact Report IMPACT - MITIGATION:MEASURE During grading operations,the following shall , be complied with: ❖ Attempt to phase and schedule activities , to avoid high-ozone days and first-stage smog alerts; ❖ Discontinue operation during second- ' stage smog alerts; ❖ All haul trucks shall be covered prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas; ❖ Comply with AQMD Rule 403,particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to surrounding areas; , ❖ Moisten soil each day prior to commencing grading to depth of soil cut; ❖ Water exposed surfaces at least twice a , day under calm conditions and as often as needed on windy days when winds are less than 25 mile per day or during very dry weather in order to maintain a surface crust and prevent the release of visible emissions from the construction site; ' ❖ Treat any area that will be exposed for extended periods with a soil conditioner to stabilize soil or temporarily plant with vegetation; •S Wash mud-covered tires and under carriages of trucks leaving construction sites; ❖ Provide for street sweeping,as needed, on adjacent roadways to remove dirt dropped by construction vehicles or mud , which would otherwise be carried off by trucks departing project sites; ❖ Securely cover all loads of fill coming to the site with a tight fitting tarp; ' •: Cease grading during periods when winds exceed 25 miles per hour; ❖ Maintain construction equipment in peak ' operating condition so as to reduce operating emissions; ❖ Use low-sulfur diesel fuel in all equipment; Use electric equipment whenever practicable;and ' s• Shut off engines when not in use. City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 , 1-8 ' Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft Environmental Impact Report IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE .. . LONG-TERM EMISSIONS The proposed project would create long-term air quality None required. ' emissions impacts through on-site stationary, off-site mobile, and off-site energy-related emissions. Significance:Less than significant ' CONSISTENCY WITH REGIONAL PLANS Air quality emissions and related impacts for the None required. proposed project have been accounted forboth regionally and locally. Significance:Less than significant SENSITIVE RECEPTORS ' The proposed project may impact sensitive receptors None required. Refer to SHORT-TERM EMISSIONS, surrounding the project site in regards to air quality. above, for a summary of mitigation measures for short- Significance:Less than significant term remediation/construction related impacts. ' 4.5 NOISE SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTION The proposed project may have . short-term N0I-1 Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, remediation/construction related noise impacts on the City shall ensure evidence acceptable to surrounding sensitive receptors. Significance: Less the City of Huntington Beach Departments of than significant with mitigation. Planning and Public Works that: ❖ All construction vehicles or equipment,fixed or mobile,operated within 1,000 feet of a dwelling shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers. ' ❖ All operations shall comply with the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 8.40(Noise Control). ❖ Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practicable from residential areas. ❖ Notations in the above format, appropriately numbered and included with other notations on the front sheet of grading plans,will be considered as adequate evidence of compliance with this condition. NOI-2 Should the project require off-site import/export of fill material during ' remediation/construction,trucks shall utilize a route that is least disruptive to sensitive receptors, preferably Gothard to Talbert to ' ,Beach to 1-405. Construction trucks shall be prohibited from operating on Saturdays, Sundays,and federal holidays. NOI-3 To reduce project-related construction noise impacts generated by the proposed project, the following conditions shall be implemented: City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 1-9 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY , Draft Environmental Impact Report IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE •3 Construction activities shall be limited to ' hours specified by the City Noise Ordinance;and ❖ Unnecessary idling of internal ' combustion engines shall be prohibited. LONG-TERM STATIONARY SOURCES The proposed project may have long-term stationary None required. noise impacts on surrounding sensitive receptors. Significance:Less than significant with mitigation. MOBILE SOURCES Traffic generated by the proposed project may have long- None required. r term mobile noise impacts on surrounding sensitive receptors. SI niricance:Less than si nificant 4.6 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES FIRE SERVICE The proposed project could increase demand for fire and PSU-1 If necessary,the City of Huntington Beach will emergency services within the City. Significance:Less coordinate with the County of Orange to than significant with mitigation. provide permanent right-of-entry emergency , access through County property for the proposed project. POLICE SERVICE ' The proposed project is not anticipated to create a None required. significant increase in service calls to the project vicinity nor is it expected to create a need for additional police facilities within the City. Significance: Less than significant SCHOOLS ' The proposed project may place additional demand on None required. schools located within the vicinity of the project area. Significance:Less than significant with mitigation. LIBRARIES , The proposed project may increase demand on the City's None required. library system. Significance:Less than significant ROADWAY MAINTENANCE Additional traffic generated by the proposed project may None required. increase demand on streets nearby the project site. ' Significance:Less than significant City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 1-10 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft Environmental Impact Report IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE PARKS AND RECREATION The project may increase demand on park facilities within None required. ' the vicinity of the project area. Significance:Less than significant WASTEWATER Implementation of the proposed project could increase None required. demand on the local wastewater system. Significance: ' Less than significant DRAINAGE The proposed project may increase demand on the local PSU-2 Prior to the issuance of grading or building storm water drainage system. Signifcance: Less than permits, the City of Huntington Beach will significant impact with mitigation. require that the project is designed such that there are no substantial increases in the rate ' and amount of surface runoff. Incidental drainage will be routed off of the site to existing storm drains. WATER The proposed project may increase demand on the local PSU-3 If the Green Acres Project is not yet water supply system. Significance: Less than operational and able to supply water to the ' significant with mitigation. proposed project prior to the development of final plans and specifications, additional studies will be undertaken to determine the extent to which one or a combination of the ' following measures will be necessary to reduce impacts to water supply systems for program level elements during the interim until water from the Green Acres Project is ' available: ❖ Reduce the required irrigable areas by ' 10 percent; ❖ Enhance the utilization of existing groundwater systems (i.e., subpotable wells);or ' ❖ Supplement the irrigation supply with water from the domestic waters stem. SOLID WASTE Project implementation may increase the generation of PSU-4 Prior to initiating site demolition or solid waste, thereby increasing demand on solid waste remediation activities,the City will prepare a disposal facilities within the vicinity. Significance:Less waste reduction plan for the generation of ' than significant with mitigation. construction and demolition waste from the proposed project. This plan should involve the recycling coordinator from the City of Huntington Beach to help ensure that AB 939 requirements are properly addressed. ELECTRICITY The proposed project may create impacts in regards to PSU-5 Prior to the construction of program level increased electricity demand. Significance:Less than elements, additional electrical load analyses City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 1-11 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ' Draft Environmental Impact Report aMPACT: MITIGATION MEASURE significant with mitigation. shall be undertaken to determine the need for ' additional electrical transformers. GAS Existing gas facilities in and surrounding the project area None required. , are capable of accommodating additional demand resulting from the proposed project. Significance:Less ' than significant TELEPHONE AND CABLE Existing telephone and cable facilities in and surrounding None required. ' the project area are capable of accommodating additional demand resulting from the proposed project. Significance:Less than significant 4.7. . AESTHETICSILIGHT&GLARE CONSTRUCTION RELATED IMPACTS , Project-related construction may adversely impact views None required. of and across the proposed project site through debris, equipment, and truck traffic. Significance: Less than significant SITE CHARACTER The long-term reuse of the site may alter the aesthetic AES-1 For areas visible by existing or proposed , character of the project area. Significance:Less than residential areas, exterior mechanical significant with mitigation. equipment shall be screened from view on all sides, and rooftop mechanical equipment ' shall be setback 15 feet from the exterior edges of the building. Equipment to be screened includes, but is not limited to, heating, air conditioning, refrigeration ' equipment, plumbing lines, ductwork and transformers. Said screening shall be architecturally compatible with the building in ' terms of materials and colors. If screening is not designed specifically into the building, a rooftop mechanical equipment plan showing screening must be submitted for review and , approval with the application for building permit(s). LIGHT AND GLARE The proposed project may generate light and glare AES-2 If outdoor lighting is included, light intensity through on-site nighttime security lighting. Significance: shall be limited to that necessary for adequate Less than significant with mitigation. security and safety. All outside lighting shall ' be directed to prevent"spillage"onto adjacent properties and shall be shown on the site plan and elevations. City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 1-12 ' Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft Environmental Impact Report ' UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS The proposed project may have an unavoidable significant impact in regards to short-term, remediation/construction related NOx emissions. However, pollutant emissions from hauling vehicles would be dispersed over a large geographical area and would be short-term in nature. No other unavoidable significant impacts have been identified for the proposed project. 1.3 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES The following is a summary of project alternatives described in Section 7.0, ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT, which contains a more detailed discussion. Significant impacts to be reduced or ' avoided include land use, traffic, aesthetics, biological, geological noise, air quality, water quality and recreation. The primary proposed project objective is to remediate the subject site and subsequently incorporate it as an open space/park element of the existing Huntington Central Park. ' ..NO DEVELOPMENT" ALTERNATIVE None of the impacts associated with the proposed development and construction activities would occur if the"No Development"alternative were selected. Implementation of this alternative would leave the existing abandoned gun range facility in place, and would avoid any adverse physical or environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. Existing geologic,soils,and aesthetic conditions in the area would remain the same. Air quality and noise impacts due to building and park construction and increased traffic would not occur with the "No Development" alternative. However,this alternative would not meetthe basic project objectives to remediate and implement an open space/park facility on-site. ' "INTERIM USE" ALTERNATIVE The "interim use" alternative would involve a temporary use on-site after the site has been ' remediated until a long-term open space/park facility is established. Possible interim uses would be consistent with City designations for the site, which include an "Open Space-Park (OS-P)" designation by the General Plan and"Open Space-Parks and Recreation (OS-PR)" by the Zoning ' and Subdivision Ordinance. Based on the large number of possible interim uses for the subject site, it is difficult to present a well-defined"Interim Use"alternative. Potential impacts resulting from the various project implementation scenarios vary greatly from oneanother. Please see Section 6.0, ' ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT, for more detailed discussion. "RELOCATION OF HANSON RECYCLING CENTER" ALTERNATIVE ' This alternative involves the relocation of Hanson Aggregates West, Inc. Huntington Beach Recycling Center(located adjacently northeast of the subject site)onto a portion of the former gun range after remediation is complete. The Hanson Recycling Center is a 2.8-acre facility that ' recycles broken concrete and asphalt solid waste and processes it into road base material. The facility receives an average of 30 trucks per day. A portable rock crusher is brought on-site twice a year, for three to four weeks each use. The existing Hanson facility is currently located within the ' boundaries of Huntington Central Park. Because the subject site is designated "Open Space-Park (OS-P)"by the City's General Plan and"Open Space-Parks and Recreation(OS-PR)"by the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance,the Hanson Recycling Center Relocation would be an"interim"use until long-term open space/park facilities are implemented on-site as designated by the City of Huntington Beach General Plan. This alternative would generally have similar environmental City of Huntington Beach March 27,2003 1-13 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY , Draft Environmental Impact Report impacts as the proposed project in regards to land use/relevant planning, air quality, noise, and aesthetics/light and glare. Impacts in regards to public health and safety and geology and soils may be elevated, as implementation of an aggregate facility on-site may accelerate local differential settlement of the underlying landfill and/or accelerate landfill gas migration. "ALTERNATIVE USE" ALTERNATIVE ' The "Alternative Use" alternative would not be a feasible alternative, primarily due to the site's previous use as a landfill operated by the County of Orange until the 1960's and the City's desire to , maintain the site as open space in the long-term. Subsidence caused by decomposing landfill is currently evident at the former gun range site. Costly and time-consuming amounts of preparation would be necessary for the site to support significant large buildings or structures requiring a solid ' foundational pad. In addition,this alternative would require a General Plan amendment and zoning change, as the subject site is currently designated"Open Space-Park(OS-P)"by the City's General Plan and"Open Space—Parks and Recreation(OS-PR)"by the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. , "ALTERNATIVE SITE" ALTERNATIVE The"Alternative Site"for this project would not be applicable. As stated in Section 4.4,PROJECT ' OBJECTIVES, the remediation of the former gun range facility is a basic objective of the proposed project. On-site contamination, consisting primarily of lead, zinc, and copper, poses a serious health threat to the surrounding community. The selection of an alternative site would void the ' purpose of the project, and therefore is not feasible. "ALTERNATIVE PROJECT DESIGNS" There are two alternatives for site remediation,although the feasible solutions are relatively limited due to the site's size and nature of contamination(discussed in Section 4.1,PUBLIC HEALTHAND ' SAFETY). Any alternative design for remedial operations would most likely result in similar impacts to the proposed project. In regards to reuse of the subject site, the City has yet to select a specific long-term recreational use, and, as such, any alternative project design for reuse would be subject ' to separate discretionary and environmental review. "ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR" ALTERNATIVE ' None of the above alternatives are considered "environmentally superior"to the proposed project. The"No Project"alternative would minimize environmental impacts but would pose significant health ' risks to the surrounding community by leaving the former gun range contaminated, and would not implement the City's General Plan and Zoning for the site. Many of the "Interim Use" alternative land uses would have the same range of impacts as the proposed project, while higher intensity ' recreational uses would most likely have greater impacts than the proposed project. The "Relocation of the Hanson Recycling Center" alternative would likely result in generally similar impacts as the proposed project. Under this alternative,the Hanson facility would be shifted slightly ' (approximately 200 feet)to the southwest of its previous long-term location(where it had existed for about 20 years). When considering ambient noise in the site vicinity and the intervening Sports Complex between the subject site and the Ocean View Mobile Home Park,this alternative would be ' comparable in impacts to the proposed project. Hanson's would be aesthetically screened and would be required to maintain lower piles of aggregate. In addition, prevailing winds in the vicinity tend to carry noise and dust to the north, away from the mobile home park. However, impacts in regards to public health and safety and geology and soils may be elevated,as implementation of an , aggregate facility on-site may accelerate local differential settlement of the underlying landfill and/or City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 1-14 ' Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft Environmental Impact Report ' accelerate landfill gas migration. An "Alternative Use"would not be consistent with General Plan and zoning designations, and would create public health and safety concerns due to landfill gas, ' settlement, and site contamination hazards. "Alternative Project Design" options are.relatively limited due to the site's size and nature of contamination, and any such alternative design would most likely result in similar impacts to the proposed project. ' 1.4 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED ' None have been identified as of publication of the Draft EIR. Refer to Section 5 for a discussion of environmental impact issues. ' City of Huntington Beach March 27,2003 1-15 � 2.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE 2.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE 2.1 PURPOSE OF THE EIR The purpose of this Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is to review the existing conditions, ' analyze potential environmental impacts and suggest feasible mitigation measures to reduce significant adverse environmental effects for the proposed"Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park" project (unless otherwise noted, "project" refers to remediation of ' the former gun range site). This document identifies the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project,including temporary construction-related effects and long-term effects associated ' with project buildout. It is the intent of this EIR to avoid or minimize the need for future environmental documentation for ' the project by utilizing the most current and detailed plans,technical studies and related information available. For more detailed information regarding the proposed development, refer to Section 3.0, PROJECT DESCRIPTION. This EIR will be used by the City of Huntington Beach and other responsible agencies and interested parties to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed project (refer to Section 3.7, AGREEMENTS, PERMITS AND APPROVALS, for a list of responsible agencies and project approvals). ' 2.2 COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA ' This EIR has been prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Statutes (as amended through January, 2002) and the CEQA Guidelines, particularly California Code of Regulations, Article 9, Section 15120 through 15132 (content of an EIR). As an EIR, this ' document will serve as the comprehensive compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines. This EIR evaluates the issues and impacts identified as significant in the Initial Study, in addition to issues identified in the course of project research and in the Notice of Preparation responses (see Appendix A, INITIAL STUDY/NOP). The City of Huntington Beach determined that the project may result in significant adverse effects and therefore requires an EIR. This determination was based on the Initial Study and a preliminary review of available project information. As part of the review process, the Draft EIR is subject to a ' 45-day public review period by responsible and concerned agencies and interested parties. Following this period, responses to comments received from these agencies will be prepared. The Final EIR will consist of the Draft EIR or a revision of the draft,as well as comments received on the Draft EIR and the responses to these comments. 2.3 SCOPE OF THE EIR ' An Initial Study was completed for the proposed project by the City of Huntington Beach on March 15,2001,to determine the potential environmental impacts of the project. The Notice of Preparation (NOP)was distributed by the City of Huntington Beach on March 15, 2001. The comment period ' City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 2-1 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 2.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ' Draft Environmental Impact Report closed on April 13, 2001,following the state mandated 30-day Notice of Preparation review period ' (refer to Appendix A, NOP/Initial Study). This EIR addresses potential significant impacts in the following areas, as identified in the Initial ' Study. Additionally, the EIR includes relevant issues raised throughout the EIR preparation process. Issues discussed within this EIR are as follows: 1. Public Health and Safety 2. Land Use/Relevant Planning , 3. Geology and Soils 4. Air Quality 5. Noise ' 6. Aesthetics/Light and Glare 7. Public Services and Utilities 8. Additional CEQA-mandated discussion (alternatives, growth, cumulative impacts) , The Draft EIR is organized into 9 sections: ' v Section 1.0,EXECUTIVE SUMMARY,provides a brief project description and summary of the environmental impacts, and the mitigation measures for each impact. ' ❖ Section 2.0,INTRODUCTIONAND PURPOSE,provides CEQA compliance information. d• Section 3.0, PROJECT DESCRIPTION, provides a project location, environmental ' setting, background and history, project characteristics, project objectives, phasing, agreements and approvals which are required for the project. v Section 4.0,ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS,discusses the existing conditions for each , environmental issue area . This section will describe the methodology for significance determination and identifies short-term and long-term environmental impacts associated with the project and their level of significance before mitigation, recommends feasible mitigation measures to reduce the significance of impacts; and identifies areas of unavoidable significant impacts after mitigation. 4• Section 5.0,LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT,discusses the significant environmental changes that would be involved in the proposed action, ' should it be implemented;growth-inducing impacts;and cumulative impacts associated with General Plan buildout and concurrent surrounding projects. d• Section 6.0,ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION,describes alternatives to , the project, some of which may be considered during project deliberations. ❖ Section 7.0,EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT, provides an explanation of ' potential impacts which have been determined not to be significant in the Initial Study checklist. ❖ Section 8.0, ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED, identifies the lead ' agency, preparers of the EIR, all federal, state and local agencies and other organizations and individuals consulted during the preparation of the EIR. City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 ' 2-2 ' Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 2.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE Draft Environmental Impact Report ' a'- Section 9.0, BIBLIOGRAPHY, identifies reference sources utilized for the EIR. + Section 10.0, APPENDICES. 2.4 USE OF THE EIR tThis EIR is part of the environmental review process for the Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park project. It is the intent of this EIR to enable the City of Huntington ' Beach and other responsible agencies and interested parties to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed gun range reuse project. (Please refer to Section 3.7,AGREEMENTS, PERMITS AND APPROVALS, for a list of responsible agencies having approval authority over the project.) ' This EIR suggests measures to mitigate potential significant impacts of the proposed project. 2.5 DOCUMENTATION INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE Pertinent documents relating to this EIR have been cited and incorporated, in accordance with ' §15148 and 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines, to eliminate the need for inclusion of voluminous engineering and technical reports within this environmental document. This EIR incorporates the following documents by reference, which are available for review at the City of Huntington Beach ' Planning Department (located at 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California): City of Huntington Beach General Plan EIR, 1995 This document addresses the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the City of Huntington Beach Draft General Plan. The purpose of this EIR is to identify the Draft ' General Plan's significant effects on the environment, to indicate the manner in which significant effects can be mitigated or avoided,and to identify alternatives to the proposed project which could avoid or reduce these impacts. The document also provides objective planning and environmental information for the City of Huntington Beach. City of Huntington Beach General Plan. 1996 ' The Generalr the i f h provides Plan for e City o Huntington Beach is a policy planning document which the framework for management and utilization of the City's physical, economic and human resources. This document guides civic decisions regarding land use, the design and/or character of buildings and open spaces, the conservation of existing housing and the provision of new ' dwelling units, the provisions of supporting infrastructure and public services, the protection of environmental resources, the allocation of fiscal resources, and the protection of residents from natural and human-caused hazards. Final Master Environmental Im act Report for Master Plan of Recreation Uses for Central Park City of Huntington Beach, California. 1999 ' The Draft Master Environmental Impact Report for Master Plan of Recreation Uses for Central Park assesses the environmental consequences of the Master Plan of Recreation Uses for Huntington ' Central Park. This Master EIR is intended to serve as an informational document regarding the i ' City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 2-3 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 2.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ' Draft Environmental Impact Report objectives and components of the proposed project and potential environmental impacts, and to ' describe mitigation measures and reasonable alternatives to the project. Environmental review for the gun range site within this Master EIR is performed at a Program level. t 2.6 TECHNICAL REFERENCES In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15148, this EIR cites appropriate technical studies ' and reference documents,as indicated throughout the EIR and listed in Section 9,BIBLIOGRAPHY. These technical studies are available for review at the City of Huntington Beach Planning , Department located at 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. 1 1 City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 ' 2-4 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 PROJECT LOCATION ' The Huntington Central Park former gun range site is approximately 4.91 acres in size and is located in the central portion of the City of Huntington Beach. The City of Huntington Beach is a ' coastal city along the Pacific Ocean in northwestern Orange County. It is surrounded by Westminster to the north, Fountain Valley to the northeast, Costa Mesa and Newport Beach to the east, and Seal Beach to the west. Los Angeles is located approximately 35 miles to the northwest while San Diego is 95 miles to the southeast. Regional access is via the Interstate 405(1-405)Freeway to the north, Beach Boulevard to the east, and Pacific Coast Highway to the south (refer to Exhibit 1,REGIONAL VICINITY MAP). Local streets surrounding the project site include Goldenwest Street to the west, Gothard Street to the east, Talbert Avenue to the north, and Ellis Avenue to the south (refer to Exhibit 2,SITE VICINITY MAP). The proposed project site is a former gun range practice facility used by the Huntington Beach Police Officers Association and general public. The site is bordered by the Central Park Sports Complex (under construction) to the north and west, Sully Miller Lake to the south, the Hanson Recycling Center to the northeast, and the former Orange County Transfer Station (also known as the Orange County Gothard Street Refuse Disposal Station)to the east(refer to Exhibit ' 3, AERIAL PHOTO). 3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The 4.91-acre gun range site was originally owned by the County of Orange as part of a County- operated landfill, which closed in the 1960's. The current gun range improvements were constructed over this landfill but the facility was closed in 1997 due to unstable soil caused by decomposing landfill waste. Due to the former landfill and gun range activities, the site represents ' a public health and safety hazard due to potential landfill gas migration as well as surface contamination. On-site vegetation consists mainly of non-native low-lying shrubs and bushes throughout the project site. The topography of the site is relatively flat, gently sloping to the ' southwest, with an elevation of approximately 50 feet above mean sea level (msl). Existing on-site structures include a small, elevated rangemaster's office, a small restroom facility, two office trailers, a covered row of firing stations, and a large storage shed. Wooden posts approximately 20-feet tall surround the entire facility and also partition the firing range into three ' separate areas (main firing range, pistol range, and sniper/special forces training area). A six to eight foot berm composed of sand and dirt used as target backing rest along the northern border of the facility for a length of approximately 250 feet. Asphalt paving is present along the entry driveway and the staging area for the main gun range. In addition, two rows of metal and wooden targets are present in an east/west configuration across the floor of the main firing range. Since its closure the site has been overgrown by a variety of vegetation. Surrounding Land Uses. Surrounding adjacent land uses include the Central Park Sports Complex (under construction) to the north and west, Sully Miller Lake to the south, the Orange County ' Transfer Station to the east, and the Hanson Aggregates West Inc. Huntington Beach Recycling City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 3-1 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Draft Environmental Impact Report Center to the northeast. Further land uses surrounding the proposed project site include: Talbert Avenue, Huntington Central Park, and Huntington Central Library to the north; Goldenwest Street, a disc golf course, and equestrian center to the west; Ellis Avenue, residential, light industrial, and ' public uses to the south; and Gothard Street and light industrial/commercial uses to the east. Land Use/Planning. The City of Huntington Beach General Plan designates the Central Park Gun , Range as"Open Space-Park." This designation is intended to preserve open spaces that provide, maintain, and protect significant environmental resources, recreational opportunities, and visual relief from development for the City's existing and future residents. The City envisions that the gun range area will be incorporated into Huntington Central Park in the future. The project site is zoned as"Open Space-Parks and Recreation"(OS-PR). This district provides areas for public or private use and areas for preservation and enhancement. ' 3.3 BACKGROUND AND HISTORY ' PREVIOUS USE OF THE SITE The proposed project site was originally owned by the County of Orange and was used as part of ' the County's Gothard Street Refuse Disposal Station. The former landfill was divided into two distinct areas consisting of 33.2 acres of mixed municipal refuse and 18.3 acres of construction ' demolition material. The subject site reportedly overlies a portion of the mixed municipal waste area of the landfill. The County operated the landfill as a burning dump from September 1947 through September 1956. After that date, the landfill was operated as a cut and cover facility. , Approximately 1.1 million cubic yards of refuse was deposited into the landfill prior to its closure.' When the landfill closed in 1962, the County deeded the property to the City of Huntington Beach ' for public park and recreational uses. The Huntington Beach Police Officers Association then utilized the site to construct the current gun range improvements and operated the facility under a 20-year lease from the City. The lease expired in 1988 and was continued on a year to year basis. , In the early 1990's, it became evident that unstable soil caused by decomposing landfill material would require improvements to the gun range facility. In 1997 it was determined that costs to improve the site exceeded available funds. The City of Huntington Beach then terminated the lease , and closed the facility. CURRENT PROJECT Beginning in 1998,the City of Huntington Beach began considering remediation of the former gun range facility to allow development of the site with recreational uses, consistent with the Huntington , Central Park concept. The City retained RBF Consulting in 2000 to assist in preparing the EIR and Remedial Action Plan. On March 15, 2001 the City completed an Initial Study and distributed the Notice of Preparation (NOP). These documents, as well as public comments in response to the NOP, are provided in Appendix A. 1 Draft Alternatives for Huntington Beach Landfill. Kleinfelder,Inc.,May 2, 1990. ' City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 3-2 rR A CastaIC 1 Y'. 14 Palmdale t \. .Valencia 26 L'O S: A'N,G E LE S r :C O U,N":T Y" Simi Sen.Femando Valley . 18 18 23 10 34 Thousand. 5 ;Oaks ` � 101 2 Pasadena ell 101 10 , 10 ' 10 . `Santa 60 71 Monica Los 0 Angeles ;. 6ERNA. (N 11.. 5 . I \ COU_N 1 Yorba 9157 F. Linda 91 A r nah im 55 i . 22 Santa O R A N G E 1 Ana COUNTY Long Irvine. Beach Huntington 73 Beach j' 5 Newport -Be `-$ante �� 7 Catalina_= l Island f San Clemente A. : -Subject Site f ` REMEDIATION OF THE FORMER GUN RANGE Q WITHIN HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK rr Not to Scale Regional Vicinity Map 1 .• PLANNING ■ DESIGN ■ CONSTRUCTION Exhibit 1 12/02 JN 10-100972 CONSULTING GO "Ow Mills i !,�,h'• ^*��i��ie 1 1,�'"�-I .�_.. I{ �''rT -T- 'Syn�,�t" z} � °o- •rr; � 1 � i�1�' I 0 _•— 'r In 1'� i( f 1 0 �r �I � •'�a tt�L 11 rti,�I 1 :, � r f I.u,t i Y7Y �sllrtr`+p I`'('�' V. i� `�� iIr }Y Tfi li 4 -17p'.�•Itroiil.Mlx.'/ W�'� ti'�I1.� _ ` % �� it YYYr iE 6 N ! ( }'t I { L� '1".1'1p>bIl I, �1 t {•� , ,,Ir rI .L t <V e.l� t I 1 ��• -, �•f� ++ _C s 1 !``�.th +•k44, y,J11 , 1 1� r,.} e,q�py�7 ° �I I _ I' 18 r�. �.' 7,r i'!•�i ��I�II'Y�I t_'y' :h t I�.AI� I `pa.t_��{' L !F 1{'kl I.,n lk.'Y �i't' � T ��_ ��I�•:I�11 I�� I I._ - —= F fart L � 4 f � -i4 1=_ �-- _.y./.•/ii�!��11® c-r'�-•, nr^I .T� In r f' k ux>+ dj 1,t_• t N �r lr>�-1��}{ t � r '; r uW���, ip� .�l' a+�Qil�//� . ' � �,I ��'�II!� � 1- ���1 'Y� �t+ll'' t' ��s IJ g.r. �I'�! r�� Iit�,`� ��I� I I "�.i q1"p�"• '-- 1I f �. i` F r I�.I1 IA + ry K 1 lr � "'_ ri � .,9'.I�k I. �,!C li•��r _ � I ��-� 1 I t �. Y H I ! 1 L T - F n• n T".kn,1;t .:1 y___= •� J—. \�•� / 7 r !I t I � 1 A t� 16th��?{'�j.. 'rl�I• -\ I 4 � ;. �,� �� /-� �'Tr dr.' }— I i �' h i Sil{ 7d! ( 1�; � I � �/•l ii�:,\'11 r)';'q / ri,��! IS f 511�I �I � _4 '�t��1 1 '�y�);� -�—y=•r- ----1— =r��1� i„r EE ' '• 1.. i ,E+�' 1' '•-s, I�� !¢��� `b all �J I �� ���_._: I Via(•'^�, ,, r• �.,1. � • .�ii ..�� '��� l� F \�• ��r ���i��a� :� �:�i+r��v' ' �I . •'���• �I� s� � 1. 1�,1/ ,a, !��•al�``•• •- I �-•c,r+i• �' , ram!,, 1 -=--� _ ;� �; Lam;.::<;;' -lc T r k•Vfit � �f'ml-s '�� ;:,,' f's,",��3 III � •� � �a►�l�l ��� —'— • �.� � �`'�'��§�t$r 't3$� �r+(f�.r�„ 'j,:' �� '�� 9�f:2f7! 'i- i•1`: !il � �{_11i'I r � ft'� �� / � • 11• 1 } Y4 d £ i [ Y tic `���`�� � -: �_;,} ,�� a r -- �• t � � � ""�-�� � '�'! � a x gin . P ..[ o- .£ WWI �77 7 Pe OB- I�1 s, t� ....�,.. .m. 01 ♦�� adt+* --"".vie .. r y � t 1 -Ocean View Mobile Home Park 5-Chevron Facility 2-Sully Miller Lake 6-Huntington Central Library ' 3-Orange County Transfer Station 7-Project Site 4-Hanson Recycling Center REMEDIATION OF THE FORMER GUN RANGE NO/\ WITHIN HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK ' PLANNING ■ DESIGN ■ CONSTRUCTION Aerial Photograph 12/02 A 10-100972 Exhibit 3 CONSULT ND ' Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS ' The project addressed in this EIR consists of two major elements: 1)the remediation of the former gun range facility; and 2) the development of interim and/or long-term recreational/open space uses. Each of these elements is discussed further below. ' SITE REMEDIATION ' Remedial Alternatives ' The proposed project involves the remediation and reuse of the 4.91-acre former gun range site located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Huntington Beach. In order to initiate project remediation, a Remedial Action Plan (RAP), prepared by Hart Crowser, Inc.,was approved ' by the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA)on November 15, 2002. The OCHCA is the lead agency for approval of the RAP. ' On-site sampling performed by Hart Crowser, Inc., on March 12, 13, and 14, 2001, indicated that extensive lead and soluble lead contamination exist throughout the subject site boundaries. Under Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), the following thresholds for on-site lead contamination were exceeded: ❖ The first criteria is referred to as the Total Threshold Limit Concentration(TTLC)and ' is defined as 1,000 mg/kg for lead. Wastes (solids) having lead concentrations above the TTLC are by definition considered hazardous. It should be noted that the ' OCHCA (lead agency for RAP approval) also utilizes the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region 9 Industrial Preliminary Remediation Goal (PRG)for lead of 750 mg/kg. 40 The second criteria is referred to as the Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC). The STLC regulates the amount of hazardous substance that can be ' present in a dilute solution of citric acid repeatedly passed through the waste in a procedure defined as the Waste Extraction Test (WET). The WET is intended to simulate conditions found in landfills where decaying vegetation produces weak ' acidic solutions that can leach metals and carry them to groundwater. The STLC for lead is 5.0 mg/L. If the WET leachate from a sample is analyzed to contain higher than 5.0 mg/L, by definition it is considered hazardous and must be disposed of ' according to applicable regulations. The objective of project implementation is to remediate lead and soluble lead to levels below the TTLC and STLC established by the State of California. In order to meet this objective,the Remedial Action Plan examined several possible lead remediation alternatives. The following is a brief summary of RAP alternatives,.of which one or a combination of several will ultimately be selected for the project(refer to Appendix B,REMED/AL DOCUMENTATION,for a detailed summary of each alternative): City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 3-6 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION , Draft Environmental Impact Report 49 RAP Alternative 1 - No Action The "no-action" alternative leaves the subject property in its current condition with , no remedial treatment actions, no affected soil removals, or capping. There are no specific remedial technologies or process options included under this "no-action" category. The subject site would continue to pose a significant health risk due to lead contamination. This action serves as a baseline against which the effectiveness of other remedial technology action alternatives can be measured. 4• RAP Alternative 2 - Limited Excavation of the Bermed Area and "Hot Spots," , and Limited Asphalt Capping (Recommended Alternative) This alternative entails the excavation of the bermed area and "hot spots" which , present lead concentrations higher than the USEPA PRG of 750 mg/kg. Under this ' option it is estimated that approximately 7,333 tons of soil would require excavation. Limited asphalt capping would cover only those areas where excavation were to occur(bermed area and"hot spot"area),for a total of approximately 24,000 square ' feet of asphalt capping area. It should be noted that asphalt capping is not necessary to meet remediation requirements, but has been proposed in order to provide the City more flexibility in choosing a reuse (given the instability of the , underlying landfill). Assuming implementation of the recommended remedial option for soil remediation (described below),this option would result in approximately 250 truck trips for soil/wood post fencing disposal and asphalt capping.z Trucks would , utilize Gothard Street to Talbert Avenue to Beach Boulevard to 1-405 for hauling. It should be noted that this Alternative is the "recommended remedial option" within the RAP. , 4. RAP Alternative 3 - Limited Excavation of the Bermed Area and "Hot Spots," and Complete Asphalt Capping r This remedial alternative would include all aspects of Alternative 2,but would consist , of complete asphalt capping of the entire project site(approximately 114,000 square feet of capping)instead of limited capping. As stated above, it should be noted that asphalt capping is not necessary to meet remediation requirements, but has been , proposed in order to provide the City more flexibility in choosing a reuse (given the instability of the underlying landfill). Assuming implementation of the recommended remedial option for soil remediation (described below), this option would result in ' approximately 342 truck trips for soil/wood post fencing disposal and asphalt 2 Assumes 1,466.6 tons of soil(113 truck trips at 13 tons per truck),2,241 cubic yards of wooden posting(113 truck trips at 12 cubic yards per truck),and 293 cubic yards of asphalt(24 truck trips at 12 cubic yards per truck)will be ' transported on/off-site. City of Huntington Beach March 27,2003 3-7 , Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Draft Environmental Impact Report ' capping.3 Trucks would utilize Gothard Street to Talbert Avenue to Beach Boulevard to 1-405 for hauling. It should be noted that Alternatives 2 and 3 involve the treatment of lead-impacted soils which can be treated and disposed of by different methods. Potential methods for the soil remediation ' components for Alternatives 2 and 3 include: 4. Option 1 -Off-Site Disposal (California Hazardous) Lead-impacted soils would be excavated and transported off-site for proper disposal ' by licensed trucks to a licensed landfill. This option assumes that the affected soil is classified as a California Hazardous Waste (California Hazardous Wastes are non-RCRA, state-regulated wastes). Engineered fill material would be imported, placed, and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum dry density in ' accordance with American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) D1557 standard. Grading is based on the movement of no more than six inches of material over the ' proposed grading area,and is intended to promote positive drainage. Additional cut and fill (grading) may be necessary depending on actual final grading plans developed for specific future use(s). As these future use(s)and associated grading ' details are not known and may vary, they were not addressed in the RAP or this EIR. ' ti• Option 2 -On-Site Screening, Partial Reuse, and Off-Site Disposal (California Hazardous) ' Lead-impacted soils would be excavated and placed in stockpiles for screening (utilizing "state-of-the-art" stacked pneumatic screening technology) in an effort to ' separate larger lead fragments from the soil. The fragments would be sent to a recycling facility for reuse. The finer grained materials would either be transported off-site as a California Hazardous Waste or reused as backfill material. Backfill, ' compaction, and grading procedures would be similar to those of Option 1. ❖ Option 3 - On-Site Screening, Partial Reuse, and Off-Site Disposal (RCRA ' Hazardous) Remediation operations would be similar to those in Option 2, above. However, ' lead-impacted soils transported off-site would be classified as Resource Conservation Recovery Act(RCRA)Hazardous Waste(RCRA wastes are regulated by the federal government). Backfill,compaction,and grading procedures would be ' similar to those of Option 1. 3 Assumes 1,466.6 tons of soil(113 truck trips at 13 tons per truck),2,241 cubic yards of wooden posting(187 truck ' trips at 12 cubic yards per truck),and 1,393 cubic yards of asphalt(116 truck trips at 12 cubic yards per truck)will be transported on/off-site. ' City of Huntington Beach March 27,2003 3-8 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' Draft Environmental Impact Report oy Option 4 - Off-Site Recycle and Landfill (California Hazardous) ' Lead-impacted soils would be excavated and loaded into licensed trucks for off-site , shipment to a licensed landfill for proper disposal. This material would be classified as a California Hazardous Waste. Backfill, compaction, and grading procedures would be similar to those of Option 1. ' d• Option 5 - On-Site Treatment, Full/Partial Reuse, and Possible Off-Site Disposal (California Hazardous) ' Prior to any on-site treatment, a bench scale treatability test (a small-scale simulation of the treatment process using a small quantity of waste) would be 1 conducted to determine an appropriate mix design for the specified treatment process. A variety of mix designs would be evaluated,and a treatability report would be prepared to describe methods to achieve favorable treatment results below ' regulatory thresholds. Lead-impacted soils would be screened in a fashion similar to Option 2. Subsequent to the screening process, each excavated area would be , sampled for lead analysis. Results may indicate that some or all areas of the site may not require further treatment. A post-screening Risk Assessment analysis would then be prepared, indicating which areas of the site may need further , remediation. Additionally, the Risk Assessment can be used for obtaining overall cleanup goals for the site. Should areas require further remediation after results of the Risk Assessment are known, contaminated soils would undergo soil , stabilization/chemical fixation until lead is immobilized to meet applicable thresholds. If possible, all treated soils would be reused on-site. If on-site reuse of all soil is not possible(due to an exceedance of applicable thresholds),oversized material would be sent to a licensed disposal facility as California Hazardous Waste and the remaining soils would be treated on-site and used as a backfill after treatment. A Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) will need to be obtained from the Regional ' Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for reuse of treated soil as backfill, and a deed restriction may need to be recorded with the City of Huntington Beach. , Backfill, compaction, and grading procedures would be similar to those of Option 1. It should be noted that this option is the recommended soil remediation option, and would be part of RAP Alternative 2 as described above. , `• Option 6 - On-Site Treatment, Partial Reuse, and Off-Site Disposal (RCRA Hazardous) ' This option would utilize techniques similar to those of Option 5. However, lead- impacted soils would be classified as RCRA Hazardous Waste. Backfill, ' compaction, and grading procedures would be similar to those of Option 1. City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 3-9 ' i ' Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Draft Environmental Impact Report ' Wooden Post Fencing Removal Remediation of the site would also require the removal and disposal of the wooden posts which ' surround and partition the former gun range facility. An estimated total of 2,241 cubic yards of wooden post fencing (622 cubic yards of lead-impacted wood and 1,619 cubic yards of non lead- impacted wood, resulting in approximately 187 truck trips) currently exist on-site. a• Option 1 - Dismantling, Cutting, and Off-Site Disposal ' Upon implementation of this option, on-site wooden posts would be dismantled, cut into manageable pieces, and either reused off-site by a third party or transported to ' a licensed landfill for proper disposal. ' •S Option 2 - Dismantling, Shredding, Screening, and Off-Site Disposal This option would include the dismantling of wooden posts, shredding of the posts ' on-site, separation of lead material through screening, followed by off-site disposal of the shredded wood at a licensed landfill or reuse off-site by a third party. This wooden post fencing option is the preferred option for the proposed project. It should be noted that if a third-party user for the on-site wooden post fencing cannot be found, a cost analysis will be prepared to determine which option (Option 1 or Option 2)is more feasible for wooden post fencing removal. Landfill Gas Generation An active landfill 9 Y 9 as extractions stem has been designed for the Central Park Sports Complex (under construction) situated adjacent to the subject site. This system includes 34 vertical gas extraction wells and a 10 horsepower gas extraction blower facility with activated carbon canister scrubbers. If necessary,this landfill gas extraction system can be modified and expanded to extract ' potential landfill gases generated on the project site. Recommended Remedial Option ' Upon consideration of effectiveness for ultimate land usages and minimizing contaminant exposures, feasibility/availability of technologies and handling/disposal methods, durability and ' compatibility of the installed system with potential land uses, and annual maintenance, the RAP recommends the following remedial option to be completed in the chronological sequence presented (this recommended program is derived from excavation Alternative 2 above, soil ' treatment Option 5, and wooden post fencing removal Option 2, above): 4. Wooden posts, approximately 20 feet tall, will be dismantled, shredded and ' screened for lead on-site, and transported off-site for disposal at a licensed landfill. 6• Lead impacted soils in the firing range berm and spoils pile will be excavated to ground level and physically separated (screened)on-site utilizing"state-of-the-art" City of Huntington Beach March 27,2003 ' 3-10 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' Draft Environmental Impact Report stacked pneumatic screening technology for profiling under United Stated ' Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) SW-846 criteria (refer to Exhibit 4, APPROXIMATE AREAS OF EXCAVATION. Soils passing profiling criteria will be , spread over the firing/pistol range areas. Those soils not satisfying profiling critera would be treated on-site utilizing soils stabilization/chemical fixation methods (depending on the results of a bench scale study) and the treated material will be ' reused on-site, if feasible. 4• The excavated areas will be capped by asphalt(refer to Exhibit 4,APPROXIMATE ' AREAS OF EXCAVATION. SITE REUSE , Following remediation,the site is proposed for development as an open space-recreation element of the Huntington Central Park. Huntington Central Park is located south of Slater Avenue, west ' of Gothard Street, north of Ellis Avenue, and east of Edwards Street. The Huntington Central Park Master Plan encompasses 356.8 acres, of which 220.8 acres are developed.° It should be noted that,although the City has not developed a specific proposal for interim or long-term use of the site, ' it is the City's intention to develop the site in a manner consistent with City designations for the site. Existing site designations include "Open Space - Park (OS-P)" by the General Plan and "Open Space-Parks and Recreation (OS-PR)"by the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. In addition, the ' Central Park Master EIR sets forth five land use designations to be used within Huntington Central Park, which includes the subject site: 4• L- Recreation/Low Intensity: Open Space developed for low intensity passive- ' type researched activities. o� M - Recreation/Medium Intensity: Open Space developed for medium intensity ' or semi-active recreation activities. •- H - Recreation/High Intensity: Developed area for high intensity or active type recreation activities. This designation includes structural and/or support ' facilities. o` E - Environmental Sensitive Areas: Limited development, for public use, that , does not adversely impact identified scientific, ecological, cultural, or aesthetic features o0. O- Operations: Land set aside for maintenance/operational facilities .5 ' Possible long term uses; among others, include: ❖ Maintenance/Operations Facility ' o� Camping Area 4• Children's Playground ' 46 Picnic Area 4 Draft Master Environmental Impact Report for Master Plan of Recreation Uses for Central Park, City of Huntington ' Beach,February 26,1999. 5 Huntington Central Park Master Plan of Recreation Uses,February 6, 1999. ' City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 3-11 ' k k. r. ,M i " i. f� .. ... .. .:. _ .Oran a Coun Transfer. _ ,,..' .. g ty er.Station ' I� Hanson Rec cim C er < < , Vck. Ell t ' ol Sully Miller Lake a a� Main Pistol :R Firm Range.. . .. aco ... .. o .. .. o •1� A c <• ..5 > Pro osed Areas of Soil Excavation o _ M B rim �. � po Ple a Huntington Central Library < Ocean.'View- ` Mobile Home Park ..,.:. .. t..� Approximate Boundary of Subject Site REMEDIATION OF THE FORMER GUN RANGE 0' WITHIN HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK Not to scale Proposed Areas of Soil Excavation PLANNING ■ DESIGN ■ CONSTRUCTION Exhibit 4 N SLJ Lf NG 12/02 JN 161OD972 C O ' Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Draft Environmental Impact Report 60 Snack Bar/Restaurant v% Dog Park o� Parking facility Although a wide variety of possible interim or long-term development options exist, this EIR assumes a"Low"to"Medium"intensity recreational use,which may include the following: parking; irrigation; lighting; restroom/concession structure(s) (estimated to be no more than 5,000 square feet); recreational amenities(benches,par course and/or playground facilities);the implementation ' of sewer,water,and telephone utilities; and substantial landscaping. Due to the conceptual nature of potential recreational/open space uses, any future specific proposal for this site will require separate discretionary and environmental review. 3.5 PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND GOALS ' The overall objectives and goals for the proposed remediation and reuse of the former gun range facility are intended to protect the health and safety of the local community and to provide ' recreational opportunities within the City. BASIC PROJECT OBJECTIVES ' The "basic project objectives" of the proposed project are to: ' 1). Remediate the former gun range facility of on-site contaminants resulting from over 20 years of firing range use, in order to protect the health and safety of those in the surrounding community. ' 2). Provide residents within the City of Huntington Beach with open space/recreational opportunities through the provision of interim/long-term park facilities after site remediation is complete. 3.6 PROJECT PHASING Implementation of site demolition and remediation is expected to take approximately six months. A phasing schedule for subsequent interim/long-term park facility implementation has not been determined. Construction could take place immediately after the completion of site remediation,and would require an estimated additional six months to complete(depending on the nature of facilities). City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 ' 3-13 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7 AGREEMENTS, PERMITS, AND APPROVALS REQUIRED ' The following agreements, permits, and approvals are anticipated to be necessary:' ' Approval/Permit Agency Final EIR Certification City of Huntington Beach ' NPDES Permit Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) ddI Landfill Gas Mitigation Plan/Building Plans Orange County Health Care Agency City of Huntington Beach Fire Department ' Grading Plans City of Huntington Beach 1 6 Additional agreements,permits,and/or approvals maybe required depending on the interim/long-term use selected for the proposed project site. ' City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 3-14 ' � 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4.0 OVERVIEW OF EIR METHODOLOGY AND SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION The EIR includes as much detail as possible to maximize information available for public review and thus avoid and/or minimize the need for future environmental documentation(see Section 2.0 of this EIR for further explanation of the EIR process). The EIR includes information gathered from the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (Appendix A), correspondence from utility/service providers (Appendix D), available literature/reference documents, and consultation with potentially affected agencies (see Section 2.7, INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE). In addition, several technical studies were prepared for review and incorporation into this EIR,including the Remedial Action Plan Report (Appendix B) and Air Quality Data (Appendix C). The analysis of the project's impacts, as contained in this EIR, is presented to clearly indicate the significance determination for each of the impacts by numbering each impact, with a correspondingly numbered impact discussion, and, if necessary, mitigation measure(s). The significance determinations are based on a number of factors as explained in each impact section. These primarily include Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, General Plan policies, ordinances, generally accepted professional standards, and established quantified thresholds by the City of Huntington Beach or other agencies. The following is an explanation of the different significance determinations made in this EIR: A. Not Significant This determination is made when any of the three following cases apply: 1) No Impact: Due to the nature or location of the project, this impact will not occur. For example, underground facilities do not have the potential for long-term visual impacts. 2) Less Than Significant: Although an impact may occur, it will not be at a significant level based on the above described standards. For example,construction-related air emissions that fall below the adopted air quality standards are less than significant. 3) Potentially Significant Impact"Mitigated"Through Existing Requirements(No EIR mitigation required): In this case, there is an impact which, although it is potentially significant, will be reduced to less than significant levels through adherence to and/or implementation of various existing requirements. These existing requirements include the City of Huntington Beach Ordinances, engineering and design requirements (through the Uniform Building ' Code and other regulations), and from other regional, state, and federal agencies. City of Huntington Beach March 27,2003 4.0-1 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.0 OVERVIEW OF ' Draft Environmental Impact Report EIR METHODOLOGY B. Less Than Significant With Mitigation ' This determination is made when a potentially significant impact can be reduced, avoided or offset , to less than significant levels by incorporating EIR mitigation measures. C. Significant With Mitigation This determination is made for a potentially significant impact where there is either no mitigation available, or the recommended mitigation measures are not sufficient to reduce the impact to less than significant levels. This determination requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 (this would be adopted by the City of Huntington Beach prior to approving the project). City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 4.0-2 4.1 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY The purpose of this section is to discuss the existing site conditions and potential impacts of project implementation associated with public health and safety, with respect to existing site contamination from former gun range use, and potential issues associated with the underlying landfill. Information used in this section was obtained primarily from several prior site investigations, a Phase 11 Site Investigation conducted by Hart Crowser in April 2001 (see Appendix B), and the Remedial Action Plan prepared by Hart Crowser, October 14, 2002 (see Appendix B). EXISTING CONDITIONS ON-SITE LAND USES The 4.91-acre gun range site was originally owned by the County of Orange as part of a County- operated landfill, which closed in the 1960's. The current gun range improvements were constructed over this landfill but the facility was closed in 1997 due to unstable soil caused by decomposing landfill waste. Existing on-site structures include a small, elevated rangemaster's office, a small restroom facility, two office trailers, a covered row of firing stations, and a large storage shed. Wooden posts surround the entire facility and also partition the firing range into three separate areas. A six to eight foot berm composed of sand and dirt used as target backing rests along the northern border of the facility for a length of approximately 250 feet. For additional information regarding existing on-site features, refer to Appendix B, REMEDIAL DOCUMENTATION, Exhibit 2,SITE VICINITY MAP, Exhibit 3, AERIAL PHOTO, and Exhibit 8, ON-SITE PHOTOS. FORMER GUN RANGE SITE HAZARDS Due to the former landfill and gun range activities, the site represents a public health and safety hazard due to potential landfill gas migration as well as surface contamination. The City of Huntington Beach retained the services of Hart Crowser, Inc. to prepare the Remedial Action Plan (RAP)for the remediation portion of the proposed project. As part of the RAP preparation process, a Remedial Investigation Report, dated April 23, 2001, was prepared for the site. Through site investigation and research, Hart Crowser learned the following: 4• Two firing ranges were operated on the site (the existing main firing range and former pistol range immediately south of the main firing range). �: �• Soil berms for both the main range and pistol range were"screened"on an irregular basis for approximately 25 years. This process apparently intended to achieve the physical removal of the soil berms for the separation of bullets and bullet fragments. The soil was deposited in a roughly 50 by 50-foot area on the southwestern portion of the site ("spoils pile"). An on-site tenant may have melted lead found on the firing range facility into ingots. v Fill soil was routinely imported to replace the soil berms and to compensate for subsidence of soils throughout the property. It is assumed that there is approximately three feet of fill material above the old landfill. The fill may not be uniform over the entire landfill. City of Huntington Beach March 27,2003 4.1-1 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.1 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY Draft Environmental Impact Report ❖ The wood posts used as barriers surrounding and traversing the project site, originally thought to be coated with creosote, were actually coated with other coal tar (polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons [PAH's]). On March 12, 13, 14,20,and 21 st,2001, Hart Crowser performed on-site sampling for heavy metals including zinc, copper, and lead. A total of 143 discreet soils samples, 9 composite soil samples, and 9 wood samples were analyzed from all areas of the site. Results indicated that: 46 The highest concentrations of lead were found throughout the berm of the main (northern) portion of the facility. There did not appear to be a lower depth at which lead concentrations diminished, however, landfill materials were encountered at unexpectedly shallow levels. ¢• No samples exceeded Total Threshold Limit Concentrations (TTLC) values for j copper or zinc, however, 13 samples exceeded the TTLC for lead in the northern and southern portions of the facility. w Of the 17 samples analyzed for soluble lead, a total of 11 exceeded the state established Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC). d• No relationship between total and soluble lead concentrations was found to exist. 4• No direct relationship was identified between total and leachate concentrations for lead on-site. 4• Of the nine samples collected from the wood posts on-site, only anthracene was found to be below its relevant Preliminary Remediation Goals(PRG). All other PAHs were significantly above their relative PRGs. d• Although no soil samples from the spoils pile are were sent for soluble lead analysis, the total lead analyses suggest that lead values from this area are relatively low compared to other areas assessed on-site. ti• No recognizable areal pattern is discernible as to the distribution of detectable lead in soil samples collected throughout the subject property. The existing media of concern on-site involve soils within the berms and spoils pile, main firing range and pistol range soils, and wooden post fencing. The contaminants of concern have been identified as total lead in soil and PAH's in wooden materials. Lead found in soil at the site is in the form of particulates/dust, small fragments, and nearly intact bullets and pellets. It should be noted that Hart Crowser also performed confirmation sampling in November 2001. �. Confirmation sampling was conducted as an array of four samples surrounding each location where USEPA PRG, TTLC, STLC, or Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TLCP) exceedances ' were noted during the remedial investigation. Out of eight sampling locations, seven locations indicated total initial lead concentrations greater than or equal to 1,000 mg/kg. Confirmation samples at four of these locations confirmed the presence of greater than or equal to 1,000 mg/kg of lead. STLC numbers were below 1 mg/I for all submitted samples. i LANDFILL GAS HAZARDS As previously stated, the subject site is located over the former Gothard Street Disposal Station. The former landfill was divided into two distinct areas consisting of 33.2 acres of mixed municipal refuse and 18.3 acres of construction demolition material. The subject site reportedly overlies a City of Huntington Beach March 27,2003 4.1-2 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.1 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY Draft Environmental Impact Report portion of the mixed municipal waste area of the landfill. Decomposing refuse has caused substantial subsidence on-site and also creates the possibility for landfill gas(LFG)migration. LFG contains significant concentrations of methane and carbon dioxide, and generally contains traces of toxic compounds and carcinogens. If LFG accumulates in a building and methane is in the range of 5-15 percent by volume, an explosion can occur. Above 15 percent, combustion can occur from a spark. LFG existence is unknown at this time, as no monitoring has been performed on the project site. However, it should be noted that the adjacent Orange County Refuse Station has a long-term LFG monitoring program in place due to LFG hazards. In addition, an active landfill gas extraction system has been designed for the adjacent proposed Sports Complex that includes 34 vertical gas extraction wells and a 10 horsepower gas extraction blower facility with activated carbon canister scrubbers. If necessary,this landfill gas extraction system can be modified and expanded to handle the migration of gases from the subject site. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) On March 12,2002, Hart Crowser contacted the OCHCA to collect information regarding the Interim Guidance for Evaluating Lead Concentrations in Soil. Based on discussions with the OCHCA, the criteria OCHCA uses in evaluating soil lead concentrations are the USEPA Region 9 Industrial Preliminary Remediation Goal (USEPA-PRG) for lead (750 mg/kg) and the California Title 22 for TTLC (1,000 mg/kg) and STLC (5 mg/L)for the subject site. Orange County Health Care Agency, Environmental Department On March 11, 2002, Hart Crowser contacted the OCHCA's Environmental Department, in order to get information regarding an Interim Guidance for Evaluating Lead Concentrations in Soil. Based on discussions with the Environmental Department, the criteria used in evaluating the concentrations of lead in soil for areas where a child playing outdoors is at risk of lead poisoning is 400 mg/kg. HCA's Environmental Department may also use a soil lead concentration criteria of 1,000 mg/kg for non-child play areas. Orange County Health Care Agency, Hazardous Waste Specialists On March 12,2002, Hart Crowser contacted the HCA's Hazardous Waste Specialists Department, in order to get information regarding an Interim Guidance for Evaluating Lead Concentrations in Soil. Based on discussions with the Hazardous Waste Specialists Department,the criteria used in evaluating the concentrations of lead in soil for areas where a child playing outdoors is at risk of lead poisoning is 400 mg/kg. HCA's Hazardous Waste Specialists Department may also use a soil lead concentration criteria of 1,000 mg/kg for non-child play areas. California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) ' The DTSC's Interim Guidance for Evaluating Lead Based Paint at proposed school sites is based on new laws (AB 387, AB 162, and AB 2644). Although a school is not an allowable use for the subject site, the DTSC's standards for school sites were utilized as an interim/long-term use involving children may be implemented on-site (campground, playground, etc.). For the initial screening of lead concentrations at a proposed school site,the highest concentration of lead should be compared to a screening value of 255 mg/kg derived from the DTSC lead model spreadsheet City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 4.1-3 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.1 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ' Draft Environmental Impact Report (Version 7). The model input concentration for air is based on regional and statewide air concentrations of lead, and water is based on an action level of 15 mg/L. California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) On March 14, 2002, Hart Crowser contacted the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) in order to get information regarding the Interim Guidance for Evaluating Lead Concentrations in Soil. Based on discussions with SARWQCB, the criteria used in evaluating soil lead concentrations is five to 50 mg/kg, depending on groundwater depth, groundwater flow direction, and type of soil at a particular site. California Department of Health Services, Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch (DHS) - On March 14, 2002, Hart Crowser contacted the DHS to collect information regarding an Interim Guidance for Evaluating Lead Concentrations in Soil. Based on discussions with DHS,the criteria used in evaluating soil lead concentrations for areas where a child playing outdoors is at risk of lead poisoning is 400 mg/kg. Through incidental contact with soil from outdoor play, children ingest tiny amounts of soil through what the EPA calls children's normal "hand-to-mouth activity". DHS may also use a soil lead concentration criteria of 1,000 mg/kg for non-child play areas. Unites States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) New rules finalized by the EPA in January 2001 require industries across the country to report even small amounts of lead pollution to a public database maintained by the government called the Toxics Releases Inventory(TRI). However, in spite of scientific agreement on lead toxicity,and the need to reduce it, commercial firing ranges are exempt from the EPA's new lead reporting requirements. In California,the state law specifically exempts shooting ranges from civil liability or criminal prosecution for noise pollution. The state DTSC has authority over shooting ranges only if they are abandoned and classified as toxic dump sites (see Appendix B of the RAP). According to EPA Toxic Substances Control Act(TSCA) Section 403 Standard,January 2001,the criteria for lead concentrations in soil, which are considered to be hazardous, is greater than 400 mg/kg in bare soil in children's play areas, and an average of 1,200 mg/kg for bare soil in the rest of the yard. ' According to G. Fred Lee &Associates (see Appendix B of the RAP), if the lead concentration is below 1,000 mg/kg and the concentrations of leachable lead determined by the California extraction procedure, of the EPA's TCLP is less than 5 mg/kg, the soil is classified as "non-hazardous" in California and it may be disposed of in a municipal soild waste landfill. The soil is classified as a "hazardous waste" in California if the lead concentration is above 1,000 mg/kg. If classified as a "hazardous waste", it would have to be taken to a Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) "hazardous waste" landfill. The EPA's RCRA regulations that govern wastes containing lead are directed to the disposal of the , waste in a municipal landfill. The regulations are designed to protect groundwater supplies from pollution by landfill leachate. The EPA regulations specify a maximum concentration of lead that may be leached under specified conditions before the waste is classified as a hazardous waste. The EPA TCLP for designation of a lead-containing waste as a hazardous waste is based on a City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 4.1-4 �, Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.1 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY Draft Environmental Impact Report leachable lead concentration of 5.0 mg/L. Leachable lead values at or above this level cause a waste to be classified as a hazardous waste. In accordance with RCRA land disposal restrictions,soil which is hazardous due to the lead toxicity characteristic(exceeds 5.0 mg/L when subjected to TCLP analysis)cannot be placed in an ordinary solid waste landfill. The soil will not require pre-treatment before disposal, but must be placed in a hazardous waste landfill. Costs associated with hazardous waste disposal can exceed ordinary landfill costs by 10 to 100 times. Therefore, removing as many lead fragments as possible for recycling in an effort to reduce the overall lead content of the soils should be evaluated to determine whether the cost of disposal can be reduced (see Appendix B of the RAP). California Code of Federal Regulations, Title 22 The California Code of Federal Regulations, Title 22, has established TTLC's used to designate a material as a hazardous waste for disposal evaluation. If the total concentration exceeds the TTLC (lead - 1,000 mg/kg), then the soils may be designated as a hazardous waste when considering landfill disposal. In order to evaluate leaching potential of a constituent, the California Waste Extraction Test (WET) may be run to evaluate the STLC (lead - 5 mg/Q. If the TTLC or STLC are exceeded then the disposal material may be classified as a hazardous waste and require Class I landfill disposal or remediation if removed from the site. If the material exceeds the TTLC or STLC, then the TCLP analyses may be used to determine if the material is a RCRA or non-RCRA waste. Although native material or in-situ soils is no considered waste, the levels detected can be compared to the TTLC values for general evaluation. City of Huntington Beach General Plan Hazardous Materials Element In addition to applicable local, state and federal hazardous materials regulations regarding appropriate remediation standards, relevant policies contained within the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Element include: C. Policy HM 1.1.1 (page Hazardous Materials Element-V-HM-7): "Facilitate proper disposal of hazardous waste by providing means for safe disposal." 4. Policy HM 1.1.4(page Hazardous Materials Element-V-HM-7): "Implement federal, state, and local regulations for the handling, storage and disposal of hazardous materials." ❖ Policy HM 1.4.2 (page Hazardous Materials Element - V-HM-7): "Require the containment of the hazardous waste site,thereby,ensuring the contaminated waste does not migrate or contaminate the ground water." IMPACTS ' Significance Criteria As set forth in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, a project will normally have a significant adverse environmental impact on public health and safety if it results in any of the following: •: create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; March 27, 2003 City of Huntington Beach 1 4.1-5 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.1 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY Draft Environmental Impact Report d• create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment; d• emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; d• be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result,create a significant hazard to the public or environment. A Remedial Action Plan(RAP)has been prepared for the proposed project,which identifies specific site remediation measures to achieve acceptable levels of the applicable contaminants. The remediation process would minimize on-site lead contamination to meet the following criteria: 4. Per OCHCA standards soils within the bermed area and "hot sP ots"which present lead concentrations higher than 750 mg/kg will be excavated. It is estimated that approximately 7,333 tons of soil meet this criteria for excavation. d• Should on-site treatment be utilized, STLC levels would be minimized below the regulatory threshold of less than 5.0 mg/l. A bench scale treatability test would be conducted to determine the appropriate mix design for the specified treatment process. r The LEA establishes target clean-up goals based upon state and federal hazardous materials �. regulations, as well as site-specific conditions. For the purposes of this EIR, a "significant" public health and safety impact would occur if, upon implementation of the RAP, the project site still had contaminants that exceeded the target clean-up goals established by the LEA. Remediation Hazards Remedial alternatives for the proposed project are summarized in Section 3.0, PROJECT DESCRIPTION, and are described in detail in Appendix B, REMEDIAL DOCUMENTATION. Remedial alternatives would involve various levels of excavation,demolition,treatment,and off-site hauling of hazardous and non-hazardous materials, and would differ in scope and degree of potential environmental impacts. These potential impacts are described below: Alternative One(no action)would not involve the implementation of remedial process,technologies, or techniques. On-site hazardous materials would be left in place and would not be handled or transported. Impacts to public health and safety through remedial hazards are not anticipated to occur with Alternative One. However, existing on-site lead contamination would remain, and the site would continue to represent a public health risk due to surface exposure and groundwater contamination. Alternatives Two and Three involve the handling or treatment of hazardous materials on-site, including lead-contaminated soil and wood posting. Any accident resulting from mishandling or human error could possibly expose the community surrounding the project site,truck haul route,or waste disposal facility to lead contamination. However, all on-site remediation activities are required to be in strict compliance with applicable Local,state,and federal regulations regarding the treatment and handling of hazardous materials. Adherence to applicable regulations and the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. City of Huntington Beach March 27,2003 4.1-6 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.1 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY Draft Environmental Impact Report In addition, remedial activities have the potential to disturb the former Gothard Street Disposal Station, which ceased operating in 1962 (this former landfill underlies the project site). The Final Remedial Investigation Report,dated April 2001,prepared by Hart Crowser,indicates that no landfill cap was detected in numerous borings that were performed. Refuse consisting of wood, plastic, glass, and brick was observed at depths as shallow as two to three feet below ground surface (BGS). Care will be taken to protect landfill materials under the site, and no excavation into the 1 landfill is proposed. However,as the precise depth of the landfill material varies throughout the site, additional agency approvals may be necessary should excavation extend into the landfill. In addition, should the recommended remedial option (provided in the RAP) be implemented, all excavated areas of the site would be capped with asphalt, thereby minimizing impacts should the landfill cap be disturbed. This cap will be inspected annually, and maintenance and repair will be performed as needed. As previously stated, laboratory results indicated that wooden post fencing at the site was treated with coal tar(a common byproduct of manufactured gas plants,also referred to as coal gasification), and not creosote. The SARWQCB requires that creosote treated wood products be disposed of at a permitted, lined Class III landfill facility. However,as coal tar was found to coat the wooden posts, verbal clarification was received by Hart Crowser from the SARWQCB that coal tar wood preserved products may be chipped and disposed of under a cap on the site if concurrence is obtained from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for the chipping process and concurrence from OCHCA for on-site disposal beneath the cap. However, it should be noted that the recommended remedial option (as provided within the RAP) includes the dismantling, on-site chipping/shredding, lead screening, and off-site disposal of wooden posts and would not include chipping and on-site disposal beneath a cap. It is also possible that, during site remediation and/or project construction, previously unidentified hazardous materials are discovered, such as lead-based paint or asbestos containing materials (ACMs). Should these materials be discovered,the remediation/construction contractor shall obtain a qualified contractor to survey the project site and assess the potential hazard. The contractor shall contact the SCAQMD and the City of Huntington Beach prior to asbestos/lead paint removal. Impacts in this regard will be mitigated to less than significant levels. In addition, as stated in Section 3.0, PROJECT DESCRIPTION, a total of six options for soil remediation were presented in the RAP. Some of these options involve the reuse of screened/treated soils on-site. As such reuse may pose a health risk due to contaminants other than lead that may remain in the soil (such as arsenic or copper), these soils to be reused will be tested to ensure compliance with all local, state and federal standards prior to on-site reuse. Landfill Gas Hazards As stated previously,landfill gas generation due to underlying decomposing refuse poses a potential hazard to future interim or long-term uses on-site. Potential future structural improvements on-site involving the implementation of concrete/asphaltic flatwork,floor slabs,and foundations may cause accumulations of methane gas. Also, utility corridors and vaults can result in methane accumulations. Where cracks develop in foundations below structures, methane gas can migrate into the interior of overlying structures and create the potential for explosion or fire. Prior to development of any specific interim or ultimate use, the City will conduct a landfill gas generation and migration study specific to the proposed use(s),as this study will require evaluation of site-specific building and grading plans (which are not available at this time since a specific use City of Huntington Beach March 27,2003 4.1-7 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.1 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY Draft Environmental Impact Report has not been identified). If deemed necessary, an active landfill gas extraction system will be implemented for the project site, by modifying and expanding the landfill gas system at the adjacent Sports Complex(which includes 34 vertical gas extraction wells and a 10 horsepower gas extraction blower facility with activated carbon canister scrubbers). The project site's landfill gas mitigation system, specific to any-proposed use(s), will require review and approval by OCHCA, SCAQMD, SARWQCB, and City of Huntington Beach Fire Department. Impacts in regards to landfill gas are not anticipated to be significant with mitigation measures incorporated. ' MITIGATION MEASURES Remediation Hazards - PHS-1 Prior to excavation of the contaminated and other areas for rough grading,the project site shall be cleared of all excess vegetation, surface trash, piping, debris and other deleterious materials. These materials shall be removed and disposed of properly (recycled if possible). PHS-2 Unless underground utility locations are well documented, as determined by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department, the contractor shall perform geophysical surveys prior to excavations to identify subsurface utilities and structures. Pipelines or conduits which may be encountered within the excavation and graded areas shall either be relocated or be cut and plugged according to the applicable code requirements. !� PHS-3 Proper excavation procedures shall be followed to comply with OSHA's Safety and Health Standards. If applicable, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1166 permit shall be obtained prior to the commencement of excavation and remedial activities. PHS-4 The contractor shall follow all recommendations contained within the adopted Remedial Action Plan for the project site. PHS-5 If asbestos or lead-based paints are identified in any on-site structures, the contractor shall obtain a qualified contractor to survey the project site and assess the potential hazard. The contractor shall contact the SCAQMD and the City of Huntington Beach prior to asbestos/lead paint removal. PHS-6 Prior to initiating the removal of structures and contaminated materials, the contractor must provide evidence that the removal of materials will be subject to a traffic control plan, as approved by the City Engineer. The intent of this measure is to minimize the time period and disruption of heavy duty trucks. -7 If n hazardous materials not previously addressed in the mitigation measures contained PHS any u p y g herein are identified and/or released to the environment at any point during the site cleanup process,operations in that area shall cease immediately. At the earliest possible , time, the contractor shall notify the City of any such findings. Upon notification of the appropriate agencies, a course of action will be determined subject to the approval of the - City Manager. PHS-8 All structures must be cleaned of hazardous materials prior to off-site transportation, or hauled off-site as a waste in accordance with applicable regulations. City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 4.1-8 1 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.1 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY Draft Environmental Impact Report PHS-9 Structure removal operations shall comply with all regulations and standards of the SCAQMD. PHS-10 The contractor shall post signs prior to commencing remediation, alerting the public to the site cleanup operations in progress. The size,wording and placement of these signs shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planning Department. PHS-11 Any unrecorded or unknown wells uncovered during the excavation or grading process shall be immediately reported to and coordinated with the City and DOGGR. PHS-12 All lead-impacted soils to be screened/treated and then reused on-site shall be tested prior to reuse to ensure compliance with all local, state, and federal specifications. rLandfill Gas Hazards PHS-13 Prior to the issuance of building permits for reuse of the subject site, the City shall perform appropriate studies to evaluate the potential for landfill gas generation and migration. If deemed necessary, an active landfill gas extraction system designed for the adjacent Sports Complex will be modified.and expanded to extract landfill gas from the subject site. Appropriate mitigation measures will be coordinated with the SCAQMD, OCHCA, SARWQCB, and City of Huntington Beach Fire Department. PHS-14 A comprehensive landfill gas monitoring network shall be implemented around the perimeter of the subject site. Periodic monitoring of the monitoring network and at locations above the surface of the site will be performed. PHS-15 The City shall implement a cover system on areas of the site to be irrigated to control ' moisture infiltration into refuse beneath the site. A suitable cover system could consist of a synthetic geomembrane,geotextile fabric for protection of geomembrane and filtering for.the drainage layer, a drainage layer, and a vegetation layer or an approved alternative. �r PHS-16 The contractor shall coordinate with the County of Orange's Integrated Waste Management Department in order to ensure that the proposed project does not impact drainage of the former landfill situated beneath the project site. UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS None have been identified. r City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 4.1-9 4.2 LAND USE/RELEVANT PLANNING The purpose of this section is to discuss the impacts of project implementation upon land uses on the project site and adjacent areas. This section includes a discussion of existing conditions including on-site and off-site land uses. Potential impacts of the proposed project are examined including compatibility with surrounding land uses, the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, and the City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Information used in this section ' was obtained from a site survey performed by RBF personnel, the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, the City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the Huntington Central Park Master EIR, and the United States Geological Survey(USGS) 7.5-Minute Maps of Newport Beach ' and Seal Beach, California. EXISTING CONDITIONS ON-SITE LAND USES The approximately 4.91-acre site is located within the.City of Huntington Beach, south of Talbert Avenue, north of Ellis Avenue, east of Golden West Street, and west of Gothard Street. The proposed project site consists of a former police/civilian gun range facility which ceased operation ' in 1997, including various deteriorating structures,debris,vacant dirt areas, and limited non-native shrubs and trees. For additional information regarding existing on-site features,refer to Section 3.2, ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, Exhibit 2, SITE VICINITY MAP, Exhibit 3,AERIAL PHOTO, and Exhibit 8, ON-SITE PHOTOS. 1 ADJACENT LAND USES ' Surrounding adjacent land uses include: the Central Park Sports Complex(under construction)to the west and north, the Hanson Recycling Center to the.northeast, the Orange County Transfer Station to the east,and Sully Miller Lake to the south. Additional surrounding land uses include the following: Golden West Street, an equestrian center, and disc golf course to the west; Talbert Avenue, Huntington Central Library, and open space to the north; Gothard Street and light industrial/commercial to the east; and Ellis Avenue, light industrial, public uses, and residential to the south. RELEVANT PLANNING ' Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance The purpose of the City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is to implement the policies of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan. The goal of this document is to promote and protect the public health, safety, and general welfare of Huntington Beach residents and provide the physical, economic, and social advantages which result from a comprehensive and orderly planned use of land resources. The subject site's zoning designation is"Open Space-Parks and Recreation(OS- PR)" (refer to Exhibit 5, ZONING). City of Huntington Beach March 27,2003 4.2-1 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.2 LAND USE/RELEVANT PLANNING , Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Huntington Beach General Plan , The City of Huntington Beach General Plan is used by the City of Huntington Beach as the document to set baseline land use criteria within the City (refer to Exhibit 6, LAND USE DESIGNATIONS). The project site is designated as "Open Space - Park (OS-P)" by the City's General Plan. A description of allowable land uses within the existing General Plan and zoning designations is provided in Section 3,PROJECT DESCRIPTION. The project site, although not expressly identified for specific recreational uses within the Huntington Central Park Master Plan, has long been identified by the City as an important long-term element to complement the City's ' Central Park plans. IMPACTS Significance Criteria A project will normally have a significant adverse environmental impact on land use if it results in any of the following: v a conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community in which it is located; d• a disruption or division of the physical arrangement of an established community; d• a conflict with established recreational,educational,religious,or scientific uses of the area; ❖ induce substantial growth of concentration of people; or o� displace a large number of people. Potential impacts related to relevant planning, land use and growth have been identified and are categorized below according to topic. LAND USE The proposed Remedial Action Plan has the potential to create adverse effects upon adjacent land uses. These issues are discussed within the appropriate EIR section, including 4.1 (public health), 4.4 (air quality), 4.5 (noise), and 4.6 (aesthetics). With implementation of standard construction , measures, safety provisions contained within the RAP, and recommended mitigation measures, there are no anticipated significant land use impacts associated with site remediation or construction activities. With respect to land use compatibility issues associated with potential interim or long-term recreational/open space uses, the project is not anticipated to result in any significant impacts. As discussed in Section 3, PROJECT DESCRIPTION, the recreational/open space uses will be consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations, as well as goals identified in the Central Park Master Plan. The site is not expected to include more intense recreational activities such as an amphitheater or active recreational fields such as lighted ballfields. A number of land use topics are also addressed in other EIR sections, including Air Quality (Section 4.4), Noise (Section 4.5), and Aesthetics/Light&Glare(Section 4.7). It should also be noted that, upon selection of a specific City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 4.2-2 1 bi c sE 1 u r 1 - r TAftrt Ave. s- o b Gun Range Project Site _ _ _ idn;tyMap 0 Zoning - City of Huntington Beach ry I Zoning of Project Site F `� - s project Sits _ Parcels - � �r ,��`'L : 10(Oerlval Irchatrial) - 1 S: O OS-PR(Opm�Patlm-R■ceetion) 100 0 100 200 � x �� W E 10 Feet s rREMEDIATION OF THE FORMER GUN RANGE WITHIN HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK rZoning PLANNING ■ DEBIGN ■ CDNBTRUCTIDN Exhibit 5 12/02 JN 10-100972 CONSULTING 1 A e: 1 OS-P Gun Range Project Site g Vanity Map =.. -., General Plan Land Use - - - c, �z City of Huntington Beach - w't a T �.. General Plan of Project Site71:1%_ 7.- - ® Project Site 4 Oduy _ Per.6 Rp{ht aC W., _ I-F2-d 0nd L%Uiet) »a ^� 100 0 100 200 OS-P(open s,Perk) u N w t: Feet REMEDIATION OF THE FORMER GUN RANGE WITHIN HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK Q Land Use Designations PLANNING ■ DESIGN ■ CONSTRUCTION 12/02 JN 10-100972 Exhibit 6 CONSULTING 1 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.2 LAND USE/RELEVANT PLANNING Draft Environmental Impact Report 1 recreational/open space use,the proposed site plan would be subject to additional discretionary and environmental review. RELEVANT PLANNING The project is consistent with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan and Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The project evaluated within this EIR proposes to remediate and reuse the former gun range within Huntington Central Park in the City of Huntington Beach. The project does ' not propose to change any General Plan or zoning designations. In fact, site remediation is a necessary first step before the site can be used for its planned land use,allowing for implementation of the City's General Plan. In addition, the project site is an important component in the overall development of the City's Central Park, and will be designed for consistency with the Sports Complex currently under construction. During the "design development" stage, the City will be submitting more detailed plans reflecting code and policy compliance with specific issues. No ' significant relevant planning issues have been identified. MITIGATION MEASURES ' LAND USE None required. RELEVANT PLANNING None required. UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS None have been identified. r 1 1 r r r City of Huntington Beach March 27,2003 4.2-5 4.3 GEOLOGY AND SOILS The following section is based on information supplied by the City of Huntington Beach General Plan (May 1996), United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service Soil Survey (September 1978), the United States Geologic Survey Newport Beach Quadrangle(1981), the Alquist-Priolo Earthouake Fault Zoning Act(July 1995), the Geologic Map of Orange County California,Showing Mines and Mineral Deposits, California Division of Mines and Geolo4V (1981), the Geotechnical Report, Central Park Sports Complex, Huntington Beach. California (2000), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map (revised February 13, 2002). EXISTING CONDITIONS ' SITE TOPOGRAPHY ' The project site currently exists as a former gun range facility which ceased operations in 1997. The facility was constructed on portions of a former landfill (the Gothard Street Refuse Disposal Station) operated by the County of Orange until 1962. The site has a gently southerly sloping, undulating surface (due to differential settlement of the underlying refuse and soil cover), with an elevation of about 50 feet above mean sea level(msl). A six to eight foot high soil/firing range berm occupies the northern margin of the site. There is wood post fencing (telephone pole type) surrounding the north, east, and western margins of the site, as well as forming divides between the different firing ranges internal to the gun range. There are also several cinderblock structures and a cinderblock dividing wall within the northern half of the site. Differential settlement of the underlying refuse/soil cover has apparently caused a westward tilting of the north-south oriented telephone pole fencing both within the range and along the-eastern and western margins of the site. The north-south trending cinderblock wall within the northeastern portion of the site has undergone lateral separation and southward tilting as a result of the underlying refuse/soil settlement. Also as the result of refuse/ soil settlement are numerous shallow depressions throughout the site that ' create isolated areas of ponded water during winter rains. According to pre-1950 aerial photographs, the natural topography of the project site was ' represented by a southerly draining, 35-foot deep (+/-) natural drainage channel that had cut into the surface of the Huntington Beach Mesa (CH2MHILL, 1998). Prior to landfill activities, the site was mined for sand and gravel deposits derived from the Pleistocene age Lakewood Formation. The resulting pit began receiving typical nonhazardous municipal waste,including organic materials, in the early 1950's (CH2MHILL, 1998). Various subsurface investigations conducted within the former landfill area found the depth to the bottom of the landfill to be as great as 60 feet: However, there is no site-specific subsurface information relative to the depth of the landfill within the area of the former gun range. According to Hart Crowser's Remedial Investigation Report (2001), no evidence of a"landfill cap"was noted during their limited subsurface investigation of soils within the former gun range. City of Huntington Beach March 27,2003 4.3-1 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.3 GEOLOGY,SOILS&SEISMICITY Draft Environmental Impact Report SURROUNDING TOPOGRAPHY ' The southern edge of the site lies about 50 feet from a steep, 30-foot high (+/-)slope bordering the northern edge of Sully Miller Lake. An incised drainage channel borders the former gun range on the west. The northern and eastern margins of the site are bordered by relatively flat asphalt/ , graded dirt road surfaces associated with neighboring commercial sites. SITE GEOLOGY Bedrock The subject site is situated within the central portion of what is commonly known as the Huntington Beach Mesa,which is located along the coastal plain of Orange County. The Mesa represents an uplifted topographic high that owes its existence to ongoing tectonic uplift along the seismically ' active Newport-Inglewood and Compton Blind Thrust faults. The Mesa is underlain at relatively shallow depths by Pleistocene age marine sediments (11,000 to 1,700,000 years before present), and is surrounded by Holocene age sediments (0 to 11,000 years before present), consisting of , ancient river and flood plain, and tidal flat/lagoonal deposits. These younger Holocene age sediments consist of unconsolidated sand, gravel, silt and clay, as well as isolated pockets of peat and organic soil deposits located at shallow depths below the ground surface. Based on geologic mapping by the U.S. Geological Survey and California Division of Mines and Geology, the project site is not underlain by Holocene age deposits, with the exception of a veneer of native soil. , Artificial Fill Recent geotechnical/environmental investigations by Kleinfelder (1989, 1990), and CH2MHILL (1998), estimate the thickness of the refuse within the former Gothard Street Refuse Disposal Station to be about 35 feet. According to CHWHILL(1996, 1998), amec(2000), and HartCrowser (2001),the majority of the landfill site has been covered with loose to medium dense silty sands and clayey sand from less than four feet to 25 feet in thickness. The Remedial Investigation Report performed by Hart Crowser(2001) found inert trash and other debris within about two feet of the ground surface within the northern portion of the facility. However,due to hydrocarbon odors and associated soil discoloration encountered.by Hart Crowser , within the main firing range area,only the uppermost three feet of soil cover was penetrated by their exploratory borings within the southern half of the site. Although no evidence of landfill refuse was noted within Hart Crowser's shallow test borings in the southeastern portion of the site(i.e.the pistol range), the soil was noted to be stiffer and contained small brick and wood fragments beneath a depth of about two feet below the ground surface. City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 , 4.3-2 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4. SOILS&SEISMICITY g g 3 GEOLOGY, SO IS Draft Environmental Impact Report ' Topsoil ' As shown in Exhibit 7, SOIL TYPES, the subject site is underlain by Xeralfic Arents, which can be characterized as loamy with two to nine percent slopes.' These soils have a high runoff and erosion potential. However,the majority of these native soils were removed during the mining of sand and gravel prior to the site's use as a gun range facility, and Xeralific Arents may only be present along the easternmost portion of the site. Seismicity ' The project site lies within the seismically active Southern California region.that is subject to the effects of moderate to large earthquake events along major faults. Regional faults that could affect the project are the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone(NIFZ),Compton-Los Alamitos Blind Thrust Fault, ' and the Palos Verdes, Whittier-Elsinore, and other active and potentially active faults associated with the San Andreas fault system. The regional faults closest to the site include the NIFZ, located ' about one mile away, and the Compton-Los Alamitos Blind Thrust (ramp) that is situated approximately four miles directly below the project area(Shaw, 1993). The Palos Verdes,Whittier- Elsinore, and other faults of the San Andreas fault system are situated between nine to 48 miles from the site. According to the 1999 Seismic Shaking Hazard Maps of California, the level of ground motion (measured in percent of gravity "g") at the site that has 1 chance in 475 of being exceeded each year is approximately 0.5g. This level of ground acceleration is equal to a 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years, and considers all seismic sources within the southern California area. Faulting No active faults have been mapped or known to cross the site,nor does it lie within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone as defined by the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG). Due to the non-existence of active faults on the site, the likelihood of surface rupture is considered to be very low to nil. There is, however, a likelihood of some minor amount of ground deformation resulting from differential settlement-of the underlying refuse during a major earthquake in the ' region. Liquefaction/Subsidence Potential Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, granular soils behave similar to liquid when subject to intense ground shaking. Liquefaction occurs when three general conditions ' exist: 1) shallow groundwater; 2) low density silty or fine sandy soils; and 3) high-intensity ground motion. Liquefaction occurs when the dynamic loading of a saturated sand or silt causes pore water pressures to increase to the point where grain-to-grain contact is lost and the material temporarily r Soil Survey of Orange County and Western Part of Riverside County, California, U.S. Department of Agriculture,Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service, 1978. City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 4.3-3 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.3 GEOLOGY,SOILS &SEISMICITY ' Draft Environmental Impact Report behaves as a viscous fluid. Liquefaction can cause settlement of the round surface settlement ,q g e and tilting of engineered structures,flotation of buoyant buried structures and fissuring of the ground , surface. A common trait of liquefaction is formation of sand boils-short lived fountains of soil and water that emerge from fissures or vents and leave freshly deposited conical mounds of sand or silt on the ground surface. Review of available information for the site suggests that the liquefaction , potential is nil. Significant subsidence has occurred on-site due to the decomposing landfill, as the proposed ' project site is underlain by the former Gothard Street Refuse Disposal Station. This subsidence has resulted in differential settlement/tilting of the various structures (e.g. masonry walls and buildings, fences,etc.)within the site. In addition, numerous depressions exist throughout the site as a result , of settling. Subsidence issues ultimately resulted in the closure of the firing range facility in 1997. Landslides ' Potential landslide areas within the City of Huntington Beach are limited to the mesa bluffs region. , The proposed project site is not in this region. Therefore,the risk of landslides within the site vicinity is low. It should be noted that given the proximity of the southern margin of the subject site to the steep slope of the Sully Miller Lake (former rock quarry), isolated slope failures could occur as a result of strong ground motion due to an earthquake. However, such a slope failure would not be expected to encroach the project site, given the distance from the top of slope to the southern margin of the subject site. , Groundwater/Percolation and Drainage The elevation of the groundwater table beneath the site closely approximates that of sea level and fluctuates with tidal cycles. Review of available information for the project site does not indicate shallow groundwater conditions for the site. In addition, groundwater was not encountered during soil borings drilled as part of Hart Crowser's (2001) Phase II site characterization testing. Landfill Gas , As previously stated, the subject site is located over the former Gothard Street Disposal Station. , Decomposing refuse beneath the site creates the possibility for landfill gas(LFG)generation. LFG contains significant concentrations of methane and carbon dioxide, and generally contains traces of toxic compounds and carcinogens. If LFG accumulates in a building and methane is in the range of 5-15 percent by volume, an explosion could occur. Above 15 percent, combustion can occur from a spark. LFG existence is unknown at this time, as no monitoring has been performed on the project site. However,it should be noted that the adjacent Orange County Transfer Station(situated ' to the east of the subject site) has a long-term LFG monitoring program in place due to LFG hazards. City of Huntington Beach March 27,2003 ' 4.3-4 t F. --1• 1 3 � �' -7 7. k'1 v � ( ) Y Fw J A. + f. k. 2. h 'Jk L ' t 7 2 $ F ' F d• Xeralfic kents,loamy; f J. >y to 9%slopes t sT 1 *.i. i 7 l 7 --� •4 I 7 t 1 E r^ ? f at ha-_ ii FY T�h dad � l 1 ' Gun Range Project Site Vicinity Map Soil Types a� City of Huntington Beach Soils of Project Site 1% 1' 0 Project Site Boundary + O Percale ✓ Right of Way '- ?a• �.L. A�11715 Bolsa Silty Loam ClayMyford Sandy Loam,2 to 9%elpes{ Myford Sf ndy Loam,9 to 15%elopes Piu N Xeralfic Arerds,loamy,2 to 9%elopes o "'I".,p■4°""r 100 0 100 200 Pw -- Feet s .._......,�e...... - REMEDIATION OF THE FORMER GUN RANGE WITHIN HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK 1 Q Soil Types PLANNING ■ DESIGN ■ CONSTRUCTION 12/02 JN 10-100972 Exhibit 7 ' ■ ■ ■ CONSULTING Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.3 GEOLOGY, SOILS &SEISMICITY Draft Environmental Impact Report IMPACTS Significance Criteria ' Based on the criteria set forth by CEQA,a project may create a significant geological environmental impact if one or more of the following occurs: d• Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: ' - Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issues by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault; - Strong seismic ground shaking; Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; ' - Landslides; •A Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil; 4c• Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in an on-or off-site landslide, lateral ' spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse, creating substantial risks to life or property; `• Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18-1 B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property; ti• Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater; WINDfWATER EROSION Excavation, grading, and backfilling associated with project implementation is anticipated to generate erosive conditions that may include sediment laden storm run-off or dust. Appendix G of ' the Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) by the Orange County Stormwater Management Program states that for any construction site larger than five acres, a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) Permit must be obtained from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) for the construction process. Although the proposed project site is below the current five-acre threshold (the project site is 4.91 acres in size), beginning March 10, 2003, the five-acre threshold for the NPDES construction permit will be lowered to one-acre. Therefore,the City will be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the SARWQCB,due to potential water quality hazards created by the underlying landfill waste. As part of the NPDES process, the project would also comply with the State of California general permit (including the submittal of a Notice of Intent to the SARWQCB) and would include the ' preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP will outline the City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 4.3-6 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.3 GEOLOGY,SOILS &SEISMICITY , Draft Environmental Impact Report source control and/or treatment control BMPs that would avoid or mitigate runoff pollutants at the ' construction site to the "maximum extent practicable". Implementation of best management practices (BMPs) as found in the Orange County NPDES Stormwater Program Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction "Greenbook"which include such measures as use of sand bags and temporary dam building may , be applied to sufficiently reduce sediment laden storm run-off. Additionally, area watering and limiting excavation, backfilling and grading activities to non-windy days will sufficiently control the amount of particulate matter that may migrate off-site. As lead-impacted storm water runoff is a ' particular concern,the SWPPP will incorporate additional BMPs to contain soil erosion on-site,and also to halt any excavation/remediation activities during a rain event,including the export of soil off- site. Therefore, this is not considered a significant impact with mitigation. , The current project site has large areas of exposed soils, which currently generate wind and waterborne sediment. It is anticipated that the majority of the subject site would be either landscaped or paved, thereby reducing the likelihood for long-term operational wind/water erosion impact to less than significant levels. In addition,the City will comply with typical City erosion control measures and those required through the NPDES program. Therefore,future site development is ' expected to have a favorable reduction of existing erosion hazards. TOPOGRAPHY , As stated above, the site has a gently southerly sloping, undulating surface (due to differential , settlement of the underlying refuse and soil cover),with an elevation of about 50 feet above mean sea level(msl). The existing site has been developed/disturbed,and contains no unique geological or physical features. No significant landform impacts are anticipated. GEOLOGY/SOILS As stated previously, earlier analysis has shown that the subject site is mantled by a two-to four- , foot thick(+/-)cap of loose to medium dense fill soils that are underlain in large part by as much as 35 feet of landfill refuse. The subject site has undergone differential subsidence and settling due , to decomposing landfill and the settling/shifting of the overlying layer of soil. Remediation and construction operations will be conducted utilizing available information indicating the depths of the ' former landfill underlying the site. As no landfill cap is apparent, and due to the,lack of complete information regarding the location and depth of fill materials, penetration of the landfill during excavation and grading may occur. However, as part of the Remedial Action Plan prepared for the project, grading for remedial activities is based on the movement of no more than six inches of material over the proposed grading area. Should the landfill be penetrated, additional agency approvals may be necessary. ' Long-term operational impacts in regards to geology and soils vary depending on the type of land use implemented subsequent to remedial activities. As stated previously, possible interim or long- , term development options as allowable by the Huntington Central Park Master Plan include: City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 , 4.3-7 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.3 GEOLOGY,SOILS &SEISMICITY Draft Environmental Impact Report ' L- Recreation/ developed for low intensity passive- type Intensity: Open Spaced ped y p type researched activities. C. M - Recreation/Medium Intensity: Open Space developed for medium intensity or semi-active recreation activities. ' 14• H - Recreation/High Intensity: Developed area for high intensity or active type recreation activities. This designation includes structural and/or support facilities. ❖ E - Environmental Sensitive Areas: Limited development, for public use, that ' does not adversely impact identified scientific, ecological, cultural, or aesthetic features. C. O - Operations: Land set aside for maintenance/operational facilities.Z Possible longterm uses among others include: 9 . ' ❖ Maintenance/Operations Facility •: Camping Area ' ❖ Children's Playground 4. Picnic Area a� Snack Bar/Restaurant �• Dog Park d• Parking facility As a requirement of the Remedial Action Plan for the proposed project, backfill and compaction of clean material is based on utilizing an engineered fill material suitable for construction purposes. Fill material would be placed and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum dry density ' in accordance with American Society of Testing Materials(ASTM) D1557 standards. However, as decomposing landfill materials would remain underneath the subject site following remediation, ' potential reuse alternatives involving on-site structures would require enhancements to provide a stable foundation, including such special design measures as reinforced concrete pads and/or the use of piles and grade beams for support. A detailed geotechnical survey will be performed during the design phase of the proposed project, specific to the particular use(s) proposed. This survey will further characterize on-site geologic ' conditions and will determine the site's soil bearing capacity for any proposed structure(s). This information would be used to develop a detailed foundation design for on-site structures. The City, as the property owner and likely proponent of any future use(s), understands the unique site ' conditions and limitations on structural load capability due to underlying landfill materials,which will ' 2 Huntington Central Park Master Plan of Recreation Uses, February 6, 1999. City of Huntington Beach March 27,2003 4.3-8 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.3 GEOLOGY, SOILS&SEISMICITY ' Draft Environmental Impact Report be considered in development of any future site use(s). With implementation of recommended ' mitigation measures,and adherence to the Uniform Building Code(UBC),impacts in this regard are anticipated to be less than significant. SEISMICITY , Although the project is located in seismically active Southern California, any potential future development will be designed in compliance with the seismic safety requirements of the UBC and , applicable California Department of Mines and Geology(CDMG) publications. As no active faults traverse the site, impacts from surface rupture are not anticipated to be significant. All grading and building plans will be subject to City of Huntington Beach review and approval. The site has limited , structural load capability due to underlying landfill material, which will limit the extent of any structures and therefore limit the extent of potential seismic impacts. Impacts in this regard are expected to be less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated and the required site- , specific geotechnical investigation. I LIQUEFACTION/SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL , While the City's GIS database indicates that a potential for liquefaction exists beneath the subject , site, any potential future development will be subject to the Uniform Building Code (UBC)and City standard design requirements in regards to liquefaction. In addition, as a layer of decomposing landfill refuse(estimated to be 35 feet in thickness)with highly compressible qualities exists beneath the site,the site is also subject to potential landfill material settlement. Any proposed structures will have foundations designed in consideration of seismic, liquefaction and settlement constraints. Impacts in this regard are expected to be less than significant. , LANDFILL GAS As stated previously,landfill gas generation due to underlying decomposing refuse poses a potential , hazard to future interim or long-term uses on-site. Potential future structural improvements on-site involving the implementation of concrete/asphaltic flatwork,floor slabs,and foundations may cause 1 accumulations of methane gas. Also, utility corridors and vaults can result in methane accumulations. Where cracks develop in foundations below structures, methane gas can migrate , into the interior of overlying structures and create the potential for explosion or fire. Prior to development of any specific interim or ultimate use, the City will conduct a landfill gas generation and migration study specific to the proposed use(s),as this study will require evaluation of site-specific building and grading plans (which are not available at this time since a specific use has not been identified). If deemed necessary, an active landfill gas extraction system will be ' implemented for the project site, by modifying and expanding the landfill gas system at the adjacent Sports Complex(which includes 34 vertical gas extraction wells and a 10 horsepower gas extraction blower facility with activated carbon canister scrubbers). The project site's landfill gas mitigation , system, specific to any proposed use(s), will require review and approval by OCHCA and the City Fire Department. Impacts in regards to landfill gas are not anticipated to be significant with mitigation measures incorporated. ' City of Huntington Beach March 27,2003 , 4.3-9 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.3 GEOLOGY,SOILS &SEISMICITY Draft Environmental Impact Report MITIGATION MEASURES ' WINDIWATER EROSION ' GEO-1 Concurrent with the submittal of the Grading Plan, an Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted to the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works which will include the following measures: ' a) Where necessary, temporary and/or permanent erosion control devices, as approved by the Department of Public Works,shall be employed to control erosion ' and provide safety during the rainy season from October 15th to April 151h. Such devices will be designed to avoid infiltration of rainwater and/or surface water into the underlying refuse materials. ' b) Equipment and workers for emergency work shall be made available at all times during the rainy season. Necessary materials shall be available on-site and ' stockpiled at convenient locations to facilitate the rapid construction of temporary devices when rain is imminent. ' c) Erosion control devices shall not be moved or modified without the approval of the Department of Public Works. ' d) All removable erosion protective devices shall be in place at the end of each working day when the 5-day rain probability forecast exceeds 40%. e) After a rainstorm,all silt and debris shall be removed from streets,check berms and basins. f) Graded areas on the permitted area perimeter must drain away from the face of the slopes.at the conclusion of each working day. Drainage is to be directed toward desilting facilities. ' g) The permittee and contractor shall be responsible and shall take necessary precautions to prevent public trespass onto areas where impounded water creates a hazardous condition. Impoundment areas designed to receive surface water ' runoff shall be adequately lined in order to prevent infiltration of collected water into underlying refuse. h) The permittee and contractor shall inspect the erosion control work and ensure that the work is in accordance with the approved plans. i) Water shall be applied to the site twice daily during grading operations or as ' otherwise directed by the County of Orange Inspector in compliance with South Coast AQMD rule 403 (Fugitive Dust Emissions). A grading operations plan may be required including watering procedures to minimize dust, and equipment ' procedures to minimize vehicle emissions from grading equipment. City of Huntington Beach March 27,2003 ' 4.3-10 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.3 GEOLOGY,SOILS&SEISMICITY , Draft Environmental Impact Report GEO-2 Remediation and construction shall include Best Management Practices BMPs as 9 (BMPs) stated in the Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) by the Orange County ' Stormwater Management Program. BMPs applicable to the project include the following: 4• Potential pollutants include but are not limited to: solid or liquid chemical spills; ' wastes from paints, stains, sealants, glues, limes, pesticides, herbicides, wood preservatives and solvents;asbestos fibers,paintflakes,or stucco fragments;fuels, ' oils, lubricants, and hydraulic, radiator, or battery fluids; fertilizers, vehicle/equipment wash water and concrete wash water; concrete, detergent, or floatable wastes; wastes from any engine/equipment steam cleanings or chemical , degreasing; and superchlorinated potable water line flushings. 4• During remediation/construction, disposal of such materials should occur in a , specified and controlled temporary area on-site,physically separated from potential stormwater run-off, with ultimate disposal in accordance with local, state, and federal requirements. ' GEO-3 As part of its compliance with the NPDES requirements, the Applicant shall prepare a Notice of Intent(NOI)to be submitted to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control , Board providing notification and intent to comply with the State of California general permit. Prior to remediation/construction, completion of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP)will be required for remediation/construction activities on-site. , The SWPPP shall incorporate BMPs as found in the Orange County NPDES Stormwater Program DAMP,and shall also include BMPs to contain lead-impacted soils on-site and halt excavation/remediation activities during a rain event, including export of soils off-site. A copy of the SWPPP shall be available and implemented at the construction site at all times. TOPOGRAPHY None required. GEOLOGY/SOILS , GEO-4 A detailed geotechnical report shall be prepared and submitted with the building permit application for the proposed facilities/ structures. This analysis shall incorporate the ' findings of the Remedial Action Plan and will include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading,foundations, ' retaining walls, overexcavation/ recompaction, and chemical/fill properties of underground items including buried pipe and concrete and protection thereof. The reports shall specifically address lateral spreading and liquefaction potential. The ' geotechnical report shall also be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval in conjunction with the grading plan. Appropriate recommendations regarding soil stabilization for structural loads associated with potential subsidence ' City of Huntington Beach March 27,2003 ' 4.3-11 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.3 GEOLOGY SOILS&SEISMICITY 9 Draft Environmental Impact Report hazards shall be provided to mitigate potentially adverse conditions. Typical methods include, but are not limited to: 4C• pre-loading areas where structures are planned to reduce the elastic ' component of the refuse settlement; w in-situ improvement of the upper portions of the refuse through the use of dynamic compaction; and w include a synthetic reinforcement material in the cover soil layer to create a stiff layer of soils capable of supporting structures and tending to distribute the effects of differential settlement. ' GEO-5 In conjunction with the submittal of application for preliminary or precise grading permits, the City shall ensure that the geotechnical report recommendations have been ' incorporated into the grading plan unless otherwise specified in the geotechnical report and/or by the City Engineer. ' GEO-6 Prior to the interim or long-term facility construction, the City shall ensure that the preliminary geotechnical report recommendations have been incorporated into the ' grading plan unless otherwise specified in the geotechnical report and/or by the City Engineer. SEISMICITY GEO-7 Due to the potential for ground shaking in a seismic event, the project shall comply with ' the standards set forth in the UBC (most recent edition)to assure seismic safety to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety prior to issuance of a building permit, including compliance with California Division of Mines and Geology Special ' Publication 117(Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, adopted March 13, 1997). LIQUEFACTION None required. LANDFILL GAS GEO-8 Prior to the issuance of building permits for reuse of the subject site, the City shall perform appropriate studies to evaluate the potential for landfill gas generation and migration. If deemed necessary, an active landfill gas extraction system designed for the adjacent Sports Complex will be modified and expanded to extract landfill gas from the subject site. Appropriate mitigation measures will be coordinated with the SCAQMD, OCHCA, SARWQCB, and City of Huntington Beach Fire Department. ' City of Huntington Beach March 27,2003 4.3-12 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.3 GEOLOGY,SOILS &SEISMICITY Draft Environmental Impact Report GEO-9 A comprehensive landfill as monitoring network shall be implemented around the , P 9 9 P perimeter of the subject site. Periodic monitoring of the monitoring network and at ' locations above the surface of the site will be performed. GEO-10 The City shall implement a cover system on areas of the site to be irrigated to control , moisture infiltration into refuse beneath the site. A suitable cover system could consist of a synthetic geomembrane, geotextile fabric for protection of geomembrane and filtering for the drainage layer, a drainage layer, and a vegetation layer or an approved ' alternative. GEO-11 The contractor shall coordinate with the County of Orange's Integrated Waste ' Management Department in order to ensure that the proposed project does not impact drainage of the former landfill situated beneath the project site. UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS None have been identified. , r City of Huntington Beach March 27,2003 ' 4.3-13 4.4 AIR QUALITY ' Information in this section is based primarily upon the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD), April 1993(as revised through November 1993), Air Quality Data (SCAQMD, 1996 through 2000), the AQMD CEQA Website ' (www.agmd.gov/cega/hdbk.html), the City of Huntington Beach General Plan (1996) and General Plan Environmental Impact Report (1995) and the Final 1997 AQMP (SCAQMD, January 1997). Additional reference material was obtained from the California Air Resources Board. This section ' focuses on potential short-term air quality impacts associated with remediation and construction activity, in addition to long-term local and regional air quality impacts associated with the proposed project. Mitigation measures are also recommended to reduce the significance of impacts. EXISTING CONDITIONS SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN Climate The project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB), characterized as having a ' Southern California "Mediterranean" climate (a semi-arid environment with mild winters, warm summers and moderate rainfall). The SoCAB is a 6,600-square mile area bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north ' and east. SoCAB includes all of Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, in addition to the San Gorgonio Pass area in Riverside County. The distinctive climate of the SoCAB is determined by its terrain and geographical location, as the SoCAB is a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills. The general region lies in the semi-permanent high pressure zone of the eastern Pacific. As a result, the climate is mild, ' tempered by cool sea breezes. The usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds. The climate is characterized by moderate temperatures and comfortable humidities with precipitation limited to a few storms during the winter season (November through April). The average annual temperature varies little throughout the SoCAB,averaging 62 degrees Fahrenheit.' ' All portions of the SoCAB have had recorded temperatures over 100 degrees in recent years. January is usually the coldest month at all locations while July and August are usually the hottest months of the year. In the City of Huntington Beach, the summers are usually cooler than areas ' located further inland within the SoCAB. The annual mean temperature in the Orange County area (which includes the City of Huntington Beach) is 66 degrees Fahrenheit, with small daily and seasonal variations. On rare occasions, temperatures may exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit or fall below freezing. 1 CEQA Air Quality Handbook,South Coast Air Quality Management District,revised November, 1993,page A8-1. City of Huntington Beach March 27,2003 4.4-1 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.4 AIR QUALITY ' Draft Environmental Impact Report ❖ Rainfall , Although the SoCAB has a semi-arid climate, the air near the surface is moist because of the ' presence of a shallow marine layer. Except for infrequent periods when dry, continental air is brought into the SoCAB by off-shore winds, the ocean effect is dominant. Periods with heavy fog are frequent, and low stratus clouds, occasionally referred to as "high fog," are a characteristic , climate feature. Annual average relative humidity is 70 percent at the coast and 57 percent in the eastern part of the SoCAB. Precipitation is typically 9 to 14 inches annually in the SoCAB and is rarely in the form of snow or hail due to typically warm weather. The frequency and amount of ' rainfall is greater in the coastal areas of the SoCAB. ❖ Winds I With very low average wind speeds, the SoCAB's atmosphere has a limited capability to disperse air contaminants horizontally. Inland areas record slightly lower wind speeds than coastal areas. Summer wind speed averages slightly higher than winter wind speeds. The dominant daily wind pattern in the SoCAB is a daily sea breeze and a nighttime land breeze. This regime is broken only ' by occasional winter storms and infrequent strong northeasterly Santa Ana wind flows from the mountains and deserts north of the SoCAB. d• Temperature Inversions and Smog , Under ideal meteorological conditions and irrespective of topography,pollutants emitted into the air would be mixed and dispersed into the upper atmosphere. However,the Southern California region frequently experiences temperature inversions in which pollutants are trapped and accumulate close to the ground. The inversion, a layer of warm, dry air overlaying cool, moist marine air, is a ' normal condition in the south land. The cool, damp and hazy sea air capped by coastal clouds is heavier than the warm,clear air which acts as a lid through which the marine layer cannot rise. The height of the inversion is important in determining pollutant concentration. When the inversion is approximately 2,500 feet above sea level, the sea breezes carry the pollutants inland to escape over the mountain slopes or through the passes. At a height of 1,200 feet,the terrain prevents the pollutants from escaping and it backs up along the foothill communities. Below 1,200 feet, the ' inversion puts a tight lid on pollutants, concentrating them in a shallow layer over the entire coastal basin. Usually, inversions are lower before sunrise than during the daylight hours. Mixing heights ' for inversions are lower in the summer and more persistent, being partly responsible for the high levels of ozone observed during summer months in the SoCAB. Smog in Southern California is generally the result of these temperature inversions combining with coastal day winds and local mountains to contain the pollutants for long periods of time, allowing them to form secondary pollutants by reacting with sunlight. The SoCAB has a limited ability to disperse these pollutants due to typically low wind speeds. However, pollutant conditions on the coast are generally much ' better than inland areas. AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS , Air quality at any location is dependent on the regional air quality and local pollutant sources. Regional air quality is primarily a function of Air Basin topography and wind patterns. , City of Huntington Beach March 27,2003 ' 4.4-2 tRemediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.4 AIR QUALITY Draft Environmental Impact Report Ambient air quality is described in terms of compliance with Federal and State standards. Ambient air quality standards are the levels of air pollutant concentration considered safe to protect the ' public health and welfare. They are designed to protect people most sensitive to respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. National Ambient Air ' Quality Standards(NAAQS)were established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) in 1971 for six air pollutants. States have the option of adding other pollutants, to require more stringent compliance, or to include different exposure periods. California Ambient Air Quality ' Standards(CAAQS)for these same six pollutants and NAAQS are included in Table 4.4-1,LOCAL AIR QUALITY LEVELS. ' The California Air Resources Board (CARE) is required to designate areas of the State as attainment, non-attainment,or unclassified for any State standard. An"attainment"designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations did not violate the standard for that pollutant in that area. A"non-attainment"designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the standard at least once, excluding those occasions when a violation was caused by an exceptional event, as ' defined in the criteria. An "unclassified" designation signifies that data do not support either an attainment or non-attainment status. ' The EPA designates areas for 03, CO, and NOx as either"Does not meet the primary standards," "Cannot be classified," or "Better than national standards." For sulfur dioxide (S02), areas are designated as"Does not meet the primary standards,""Does not meet the secondary standards," "Cannot be classified," or "Better than national standards." All other areas are designated "Unclassified." The attainment status designations for each of the six criteria pollutants are described below within the "Ambient Air Quality" discussion. AMBIENT AIR QUALITY The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) operates several air quality monitoring stations within the Air Basin. The Costa Mesa Monitoring Station, located along Mesa Verde Drive, is the nearest air monitoring station to the project site. The data collected at this Station is considered to be representative of the air quality experienced in the project vicinity. Air quality data from 1996 to 2000 for the Costa Mesa Monitoring Station is provided in Table 4.4-1, ' LOCAL AIR QUALITYLEVELS. As PM,o levels were not monitored at this Station, measurements from the second nearest monitoring station (Anaheim)are also listed in Table 4.4-1. The following air quality information briefly describes the various types of pollutants. City of Huntington Beach March 27,2003 4.4-3 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.4 AIR QUALITY ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Table 4.4-1 ' LOCAL AIR QUALITY LEVELS (As measured at the Costa Mesa and Anaheim ' Ambient Air Monitoring Stations) Federal Days(Samples) California Primary ; Maximum' State/Federal Pollutant. - Year ' Standard Standard Concentration Std. Exceeded 1997 7.3 0/0 , 20 ppm 35 ppm 1998 9.0 0/0 for 1 hour for 1 hour 1999 7.8 0/0 Carbon 2000 7.8 0/0 Monoxide 2001 6.2 0/0 ' (Costa Mesa 1997 5.9 0/0 Station) 9 ppm 9 ppm 1998 7.1 0/0 for 8 hours for 8 hours 1999 6.4 0/0 ' 2000 6.3 0/0 2001 4.7 0/0 Ozone 1997 0.1 0/0 , (Costa Mesa 0.09 ppm 0.12 ppm 1998 0.1 5/0 Station) for 1 hour for 1 hour 1999 0.1 1/0 2000 0.1 1/0 ' 2001 0.1 1/0 1997 0.1 0/0 Nitrogen Oxides 0.25 ppm 0.053 ppm 1998 0.1 0/0 ' (Costa Mesa 1999 0.1 0/0 Station) for 1 hour annual average 2000 0.1 0/0 2001 0.1 0/0 , 0.14 ppm for 24 1997 0.0 0/0 Sulfur Dioxide 0.25 ppm for hours or 1998 0.0 0/0 (Costa Mesa 1999 00 0/0 1 hour 80 kg/m3 . (0.03 ppm) , Station) 2000 0.0 0/0 annual average 2001 0.0 0/0 1997 91.0 11/0 ' PM,o(Anaheim 50 kg/m3 150 µg/m3 /0 1991998 8 81.81.0 0 112/0 Station) for 24 hours for 24 hours 2000 126.0 3/0 2001 93.0 8/0 ' 1997 No Data N/A PM2.' 65 µg/m3 1998 No Data N/A (Anaheim N/A for 24 hours 1999 68.6 N/A/2 , Station) 2000 113.9 N/A/6 2001 55.0 N/A/0 ppm=parts per million ' ug/m3 z micrograms per cubic.meter NOTES 1. Maximum concentration is measured over the same period as the California Standard. 2. PM,,exceedances are derived from the number of samples exceeded,not days. ' 3. PM,,exceedances are based on state thresholds established prior to amendments adopted on June 20,2002. Source: Data obtained from the California Air Resources Board ADAM Data Summaries Website, www.arb.ca.gov/adamtwelcome.html. ' City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 ' 4.4-4 ' Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.4 AIR QUALITY Draft Environmental Impact Report Ozone 03 is a colorless toxic gas that can irritate the lungs and damage materials and vegetation. Levels ' of 03 exceed Federal and State standards throughout the Air Basin. Because 03 formation is the result of photochemical reactions between NO,and reactive organic compounds (ROC), typically ' produced by combustion sources,peak concentrations of 03 occur downwind of precursor emission sources. The entire Air Basin is designated as a non-attainment area for State and Federal 03 standards. As indicated in Table 4.4-1, some exceedances of State standards for 03 occurred at ' local air monitoring stations from 1997 through 2001. The State 03 standard was exceeded between 1 and 5 times over this period. The Federal 03 standard was not exceeded during the last five years. ' Carbon Monoxide ' CO is an odorless, colorless toxic gas, produced almost entirely from combustion sources (automobiles). This pollutant interferes with the transfer of oxygen to the brain and it is generally associated with areas of high traffic density. The Orange County portion of the SoCAB is designated as an attainment area for State CO standards while the entire SoCAB is designated a non-attainment area for Federal CO standards. The 8-hour and 1-hour standard have not been texceeded at the Costa Mesa station in the last five years. Nitrogen Oxides ' Nitrogen oxides (NOx), the term used to describe the sum of nitrogen oxide (NO), nitrogen dioxide (NOA and other oxides of nitrogen,are produced by high-temperature combustion processes(e.g., ' motor vehicle engines, power plants,refineries,and other industrial operations).2 NO2,a term often used interchangeably with NOx, is a reddish-brown gas that can cause breathing difficulties at high levels. The entire Air Basin is designated as a non-attainment area for State and Federal NO ' standards. The NOx standard was not exceeded at the Costa Mesa station over the last five years. On July 1, 1987, the EPA replaced the total suspended particulate (TSP) standard with a new tparticulate standard known as PM,o. PM,o includes particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter (a micron is one millionth of a meter). Sources of PM,o include agricultural operations, industrial ' processes, combustion of fossil fuels, construction and demolition, and windblown dust and wildfires. The entire Air Basin is designated as a non-attainment area for State and Federal PM,. standards. Particulates substantially reduce visibility and adversely affect the respiratory tract. As ' indicated in Table 4.4-1, some exceedances of State standards for PM,o occurred at local air monitoring stations from 1997 through 2001, ranging from six to 15 times in a given year (state standards for PM2.5 [particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter] did not exist during the monitoring period of 1997 through 2001 as shown in Table 4.4-1,LOCAL AIR QUALITY LEVELS). ' 2 Environmental Protection Agency Website,www.eoa.gov/oar/agtmd97/brochure/no2.html. ' City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 4.4-5 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.4 AIR QUALITY ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Fine Particulate Matter ' It should be noted that on June 20,2002,CARB adopted amendments for statewide annual ambient ' particulate matter air quality standards. The ambient annual PM,o standard was lowered from 30 micrograms per cubic meter(ug/m3)to 204g/m3. As no ambient annual state standard existed for PM2_5, a new annual standard was established at 12 /.cg/m3. 24-hour average standards for both ' PM,o and PM2.5 were retained. These standards were revised/established due to increasing concerns by CARB that previous standards were inadequate, as almost everyone in California is exposed to levels at or above the current State PM,o standards during some parts of the year, and ' the statewide potential for significant health impacts associated with particulate matter exposure was determined to be large and wide-ranging.3 Particulate matter impacts primarily effect infants, children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing cardiopulmonary disease. ' Sulfur Dioxide and Lead Sulfur dioxide (SO2), often used interchangeably with sulfur oxides (SOX), and lead (Pb) levels in ' all areas of the Air Basin do not exceed Federal or State standards. The SoCAB is designated as attainment for both State and Federal SQ standards. There is no NAAQS for lead. The Costa ' Mesa Station did not exceed State standards for SOX during the last five years. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ' Federal Clean Air Act of 1970 and 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments ' The Federal Clean Air Act of 1970(CAA)was the first legislation that gave the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority to set federal primary and secondary ambient air quality ' standards. Primary or health-based standards are set at levels necessary to protect the public health. Secondary standards are set to protect the public from air pollution effects such as crop damage, visibility reduction, soiling, nuisances, etc. The resultant national ambient air quality ' standards (NAAQS) included six pollutants: CO (carbon monoxide), 03 (ozone), PM,o (fine particulate matter), NO2 (nitrogen dioxide), SO2 (sulfur dioxide), and Pb (lead). The Act required states that exceeded the NAAQS to prepare air quality plans showing how they would meet the ' standards by December 1987. The Act was amended in 1977 and again in 1990 to extend the deadline for compliance and to require that revised State Implementation Programs (SIPS) be ' prepared. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments established categories of air pollution severity for non-attainment areas ("marginal'to"extreme"). SIP requirements varied based on the degree of severity. , The 1988 California Clean Air Act (CCAA) This legislation was signed into law on September 30, 1988, became effective on January 1, 1989, 1 and was amended in 1992. Also known as the"Sher Bill"(Assembly Bill 2595),the CCAA observes the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act and adds three other pollutants to be regulated, ' 3 Staff Report: Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate , Matter and Sulfates. California Environmental Protection Agency,Air Resources Board,May 3,2002. City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 ' 4.4-6 ' Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.4 AIR QUALITY Draft Environmental Impact Report ' including: HZS(hydrogen sulfide), SO (sulfates), and vinyl chloride. The CCAA established a legal mandate to achieve health-based State air quality standards at the earliest practicable date. The ' Act specified that districts focus particular attention on reducing the emissions from transportation and area-wide emission sources. Additionally, it also gives air districts such as the SCAQMD new authority to regulate indirect sources. �. Each district plan is to achieve a five-percent annual reduction (averaged over consecutive three- year periods)in district-wide emissions of each non-attainment pollutant or its precursors including the effect of any additional development within the region. A strict interpretation of the CCAA"no net" increase prohibition suggests that any general development within the region, no matter how large or small, may have a significant, project-specific air quality impact unless the development- related emissions are offset by concurrent emissions reductions elsewhere within the airshed. Any planning effort for air quality attainment would thus need to consider both State and Federal planning requirements. 1997 Air Quality Management ement Plan The SCAQMD has prepared multiple Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) to accomplish the five percent annual reduction goal. The most recent AQMP was published in 1997. To accomplish its task,the AQMP relies on a multi-level partnership of governmental agencies at the federal,state, regional and local level. These agencies (EPA, CARB, local governments, Southern California Association of Governments(SCAG), and the SCAQMD)are the cornerstones that implement the ' AQMP programs. 1997 AQMP. A 1997 AQMP was prepared by the SCAQMD and adopted by the District on November 15, 1996. The 1997 AQMP was then adopted by CARB on January 23, 1997. The 1997 rPlan contains two tiers of control measures. Short and intermediate term measures are scheduled to be adopted between 1997 and the year 2005. These measures rely on known technologies and other actions to be taken by several agencies that currently have the statutory authority to implement the measures. They are designed to satisfy the Federal CAA requirement of Reasonably Available Control Technology(RACT)and the CCAA requirement of Best Available Retrofit Control ' Technology (BARCT). There are 37 stationary source and 24 mobile source control measures in this group. ' The 1997 AQMP continues to include most of the control measures outlined in the previous 1994 Ozone Plan with minor exceptions, but postpones many marginal measures found to be less cost- effective, drops future indirect-source rules that are now deemed infeasible, and focuses the SCAQMD's efforts on about ten major emission-reduction rules over the next two years. The SCAQMD will focus its efforts on seven major rules to reduce reactive organic compounds (ROC), a key ingredient in smog; and the Plan includes new market-based measures giving businesses ' greater flexibility in meeting emission-reduction requirements, such as intercredit trading and additional credits for mobile source emission reductions. ' The 1997 AQMP shows that measures outlined in the 1994 Ozone Plan are more than sufficient to attain the Federal health standards for the two most difficult ingredients in smog, PM,o and ground-level 03, by the years 2006 and 2010, respectively. Although the AQMP states that the ' federal CO standard will be met by 2000,the SoCAB is still designated as a federal non-attainment City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 4.4-7 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.4 AIR QUALITY ' Draft Environmental Impact Report area (Orange County, however, is considered an attainment area for state CO standards). The ' region already has met the three other Federal health standards for Pb, S02, and NO2. To help reduce PM10 pollution, the 1997 Plan outlines seven control measures for directly emitted ' particulates which will reduce emissions from agricultural areas, livestock wastes, wood-working operations,construction,and restaurants. The measures will also help control dust from paved and unpaved roads, which accounts for two-thirds of the directly-emitted particulates. The 1997 Plan shows that both emissions and ambient pollution levels have continued their downward path toward healthful levels. The number of Stage I smog episodes for 03 declined from 41 days in 1990 to just 14 days in 1995. CO also has declined, with the number of days over the standard down from 42 in 1990 to 13 in 1995. The average number of days exceeding the Federal 24-hour PM10 standard also declined between 1990 and 1995 by 9 percent.° ' 1997 AQMP Control Strategies. The 1997 AQMP includes two tiers of emission reduction measures (short/intermediate and long-term measures), based on availability and readiness of technology. Short- and intermediate-term measures include the application of available technologies and management practices between 1994 and the year 2005. These short- and intermediate-term measures are designed to satisfy the Federal CAA requirement of RACT, and the CCAA requirements of BARCT. To ultimately achieve ambient air quality standards,further development and refinement of known low-and zero-emission control technologies, in addition to technological breakthroughs,would be necessary. Long-term measures rely on the advancement of technologies and control methods that can reasonably be expected to occur between 1994 and 2010. - Because of the EPA's principal authority over many off-road sources, the 1997 AQMP's off-road mobile source control measures are based on the EPA's proposed Federal Implementation Plan (FIP)for the SoCAB. The FIP's proposed control measures are based on a combination of stringent emission standards, declining caps on emission levels and emission/user fees. In December, 1999 the SCAQMD amended the 1997 AQMP. The 1999 Amendment provides revisions to the ozone portion of the 1997 AQMP specifically in the area of short-term stationary , source control measures. In addition, the Amendment revises the adoption and implementation schedule for the short-term stationary source control measures that AQMD is responsible to ' implement. The 1999 Amendment does not revise the PM10 portion of the 1997 AQMP, emission inventories, the mobile source portions of the 1997 Ozone SIP Revision, or the ozone attainment demonstration. Specifically, the 1999 Amendment: 1 4 Article entitled"AQMD Sees Progress in Attaining Federal Clean Air Standards,"AQMD Advisor,Volume 3, Number 7,September 1996. ' City of Huntington Beach March 27,2003 ' 4.4-8 ' Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.4 AIR QUALITY Draft Environmental Impact Report 4• Includes new short-term stationary source control measures; 4• Revises the adoption/implementation schedule for 13 short-term volatile organic compounds(VOCs), nitrogen oxides(NOx)and stationary source control measures from the 1991 Ozone SIP Revision; ' 4• Provides further VOC emission reductions in the near-term; and 4• Revises the emission reduction commitments for the long-term control measures in 1 the 1997 Ozone SIP Revision for long-term stationary source control measures that the SCAQMD is responsible to implement. ' SENSITIVE RECEPTORS Sensitive populations (sensitive receptors)are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the general population. Sensitive populations who are in proximity to localized sources of toxins and CO are of particular concern. Land uses considered sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, athletic facilities, long-term health care facilities, ' rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. Existing sensitive receptors are not located on or adjacent to the project site; however, Ocean View Mobile Home Park exists to the south while Huntington Central Library is located to the north. In addition, a sports complex is currently being constructed adjacently north and west of the subject site. TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS (TACS) TACs, often termed "non-criteria", do not have established ambient air standards. SCAQMD implements TAC controls through Federal, State and local programs. Federally, TACs are regulated by EPA under Title III of the Federal CAA. At the State level, the ARB has designated all 189 federal hazardous air pollutants as TACs, under the authority of AB 1807. The Air Toxins Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act (AB 2588) requires inventories and public notices for facilities that emit TACs. SIB 1731 amended AB 2588 to require facilities with "significant risks"to prepare a risk reduction plan (reflected in SCAQMD Rule 1402). SCAQMD also regulates source- specific TACs. IMPACTS ' Significance g e Criteria Significance thresholds in this Section are based on the CEQA Guidelines(Environmental Checklist Form) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Handbook as indicated below. A potentially significant impact to air quality would occur if the project caused one or more of the ' following to occur: City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 4.4-9 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.4 AIR QUALITY Draft Environmental Impact Report d• conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; ' ti• violation of any air quality standard or substantial contribution to an existing or projected air quality standard; ❖ a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air ' quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors); ❖ exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; and/or 4. the creation of objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook provides significance thresholds for both construction and operation of projects within the SCAQMD jurisdictional boundaries. These thresholds are identified in Tables 4.4-2 through 4.4-6. Projects in the SoCAB with daily or quarterly thresholds which exceed any of the above emission thresholds should be considered significant. The significance of localized project impacts depends on whether ambient CO levels in the vicinity of the project are above or below State and Federal CO standards. If the project causes an exceedance of either the state one-hour or eight-hour CO concentrations, the project would be considered to have a significant local impact. If ambient levels already exceed a state or federal ' standard, then project emissions would be considered significant if they increase one-hour CO concentrations by 1.0 ppm or more, or eight-hour CO concentrations by 0.45 ppm or more. SHORT-TERM EMISSIONS Less than significant,short-term impacts on air quality would occur during the remediation, grading and construction activities required to implement the proposed project. These temporary impacts would include: 4• Particulate fu itive dust emissions from remediation construction grading and ( g ) , g g clearing activities on-site; d• Exhaust emissions and potential odors from the construction equipment used on-site as well as the vehicles used to transport materials to and from the sites; and 4. Exhaust emissions from the motor vehicles of the construction crew. City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 , 4.4-10 ' Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.4 AIR QUALITY Draft Environmental Impact Report Table 4.4-2 Construction Emissions Thresholds ' Construction Emissions Threshold _ - Pollutant Quarterly Daily.. Reactive Organic Compounds 2.5 tons 55 pounds Nitrogen Oxides 2.5 tons 55 pounds Carbon Monoxide 24.75 tons 550 pounds Fine Particulate Matter 6.75 tons 150 pounds Sulfur Oxides 6.75 tons 150 pounds Fugitive Dust Emissions Remediation and construction operations associated with implementing the proposed project would generate fugitive dust emissions. Fugitive dust may be a nuisance to those living and working in the project vicinity. The primary sources of construction-related dust emissions are grading and excavation operations, road construction and building construction. Fugitive dust from demolition, remediation, grading and construction of an interim or long-term recreational/open space use is expected to be short-term and would cease following project completion. Most of this material is inert silicates, rather than the complex organic particulates released from combustion sources,which are more harmful to health. Dust(larger than 10 microns) generated by such activities usually becomes more of a local nuisance than a serious health problem. The amount of PM10 (particulate matter smaller than 10 microns) generated as a part of fugitive dust emissions is of particular concern to health. As previously discussed, PMt, poses a serious health hazard,alone or in combination with other pollutants. The URBEMIS 2001 computer model calculates PM10 fugitive dust as part of the site remediation/construction emissions. As shown in Table 4.4-3, DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS, neither the demolition/remediation process or subsequent construction of a recreational/open space use would exceed the established SCAQMD PM10 threshold, with implementation of recommended mitigation measures (making a conservative assumption that up to 2.5 acres would be under disturbance at any one time). Remediation/Construction Grading and Hauling. The remediation and construction phases of the proposed project would involve grading and hauling of contaminated materials. The remedial process may require excavation and handling of lead-contaminated soils. In addition, the project site exists over a former landfill operated by the County of Orange until 1962. The proposed project ' will also most likely require over-excavation and recompaction in order to create a surface suitable for open space/recreation use, which may require exporting/importing of fill material. It should be noted that the remediation/construction process would not disturb landfill materials situated beneath the former gun range facility. Although these activities will create additional dust and PM10 (as well as other related truck emissions), it would be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of standard dust control practices required as part of the grading permit (periodic ' City of Huntington Beach March 27,2003 4.4-11 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.4 AIR QUALITY Draft Environmental Impact Report Table 4.4-3 , DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (ALTERNATIVE 2) . r Total:project SCAQMD " Threshold Pollutant Emissions Thresholds- Exceeded? (lbs/day) (Ibslday) Yes/No Carbon Monoxide(CO) 6.3 550 No Reactive Organic Gases(ROG) 12.4 55 No Nitrogen Oxides(NOx) 127.4 55 Yes Fine Particulate Matter(PM10) 37.8 150 No ROG=reactive organic gases NOx=nitrogen oxides CO=carbon monoxide PM10=fine particulate matter ' Emissions calculated using the URBEMIS 2001 Computer Model as recommended by the SCAQMD. 2 Calculations include emissions from numerous sources including:site grading,construction worker trips,stationary equipment,diesel mobile equipment,and asphalt off-gassing. Refer to Appendix D,AIR QUALITY DATA,for assumptions used in this analysis. site watering, covering laden trucks with tarps, and periodic street sweeping). It should be noted that all such mitigation measures would be applicable to both the demolition/remediation process as well as subsequent construction of an interim or long-term recreational/open space use. Remediation/Construction Equipment Emissions In addition to impacts resulting from dust generation, remediation/construction equipment exhaust would also contribute to short-term air quality impacts. Primary sources of short-term ROG and NOx emissions are gasoline and diesel-powered heavy-duty mobile construction equipment. The majority of the equipment used today is diesel-powered (approximately 90 percent of the heavy construction machinery), which tends to be more efficient than gasoline-powered equipment, producing lower CO and hydrocarbon emissions. However, diesel engines emit much higher amounts of NOx, SOX, and particulates per hour of activity. - Exhaust from heavy-duty equipment is difficult to quantify because of the day-to-day variability in construction activities and equipment used. As remedial operations would be similar to activities performed on a typical construction site (demolition, excavation, grading, implementation of asphalt),model defaults from the URBEMIS 2001 computer model were used to quantify short-term emissions from construction equipment for the project. Truck trip generation for RAP Alternative 2 was based on the hauling of 2,241 cubic yards of wooden posting (187 truck trips at 12 cubic yards per truck)and 293 cubic yards of asphalt(24 truck trips at 12 cubic yards per truck)for a total of 211 truck trips. Emissions for RAP Alternative 2(the recommended remedial option)are shown in Table 4.4-3. As shown in this table, project demolition/remediation and subsequent construction of an interim or long-term recreational/open space use would not exceed the SCAQMD emissions thresholds for City of Huntington Beach March 27,2003 ' 4.4-12 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.4 AIR QUALITY Draft Environmental Impact Report CO, ROG, or PM,o. However, project-related emissions for NO., would exceed the SCAQMD standard of 55 pounds per day. Short-term impacts in regards to NO,, are considered an unavoidable significant impact. Calculations within Table 4.4-3 for RAP Alternative 2 are based on the worst-case assumption that only partial on-site reuse of soils would occur, and that a portion of contaminated soils from the site would be transported off-site to a licensed landfill. However, it should be noted that even if all soils were remediated to meet regulatory thresholds and reused on- site(thus eliminating off-site transport of soils),an unavoidable significant impact for NO,would still occur, as project emissions for site excavation/grading alone would be approximately 93.1 pounds ' per day. LONG-TERM EMISSIONS ' Long-term air emissions consist of mobile source emissions generated from project-related traffic, and stationary source emissions generated directly from on-site activities and indirectly from electricity and natural gas consumption. Stationary sources of long-term air emissions include equipment and vehicles on the site, as well as indirect emissions from electricity and natural gas consumption. Energy Emissions The proposed project would create a nominal increase in demand for electrical energy, which is generated from power plants utilizing fossil fuels. Electric power generating plants are distributed throughout the SoCAB, and their emissions contribute to the total regional pollution burden. The _ primary use of natural gas by the project would be for combustion to produce space heating,water heating and other miscellaneous heating or air conditioning. Refer to Table 4.4-4,ENERGY EMISSIONS,which lists the energy consumption emission factors for the proposed project. Given the scope and nature of the proposed project, Impacts in regards to long-term energy emissions are not anticipated to be significant. Vehicle Emissions Motor vehicles would constitute the primary source of pollutant emissions associated with the proposed project. As outlined in Table 4.4-5,MOBILE SOURCE AIR EMISSIONS, the estimated long-term emissions from mobile sources do not exceed any of the SCAQMD thresholds. The ' emission factors for the proposed project were determined by trip generation rates provided by the City. Due to the motor vehicle emissions control programs,emission rates from the motor vehicles in Southern California are lower each year. However, the net 'emissions are increasing in the SoCAB due to increases in the number of motor vehicles associated with growth. Impacts as a result of the proposed project in regards to vehicle emissions are not anticipated to be significant. rCombined Air Emissions The combined vehicle emissions and energy emissions would result in the following estimated daily pollutant generation upon build-out: 14.60 pounds of carbon monoxide (CO), 1.76 pounds of nitrogen oxides (NOX), 0.78 pounds of PM,a (including stationary source particulates), and 1.66 ' City of Huntington Beach March 27,2003 4.4-13 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.4 AIR QUALITY ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Table 4.4-4 ENERGY EMISSIONS (stationary sources) , Stationary Source.. SCAQMD . . Threshold Pollutant Emissions, Thresholds.(Ibs/day) -Exceeded? �, Yes/No (Ibslday) Carbon Monoxide(CO) 0.69 550 No ' Reactive Organic Compounds 0.10 55 No (ROC) Nitrogen Oxides(NOx) 0.01 55 No Fine Particulate Matter(PM10) 0.00 150 No ' ROG=reactive organic gases NOx=nitrogen oxides CO=carbon monoxide PM,,=fine particulate matter ' Emissions calculated using the URBEMIS 2001 Computer Model as recommended by the SCAQMD. 2 Refer to Appendix D,AIR QUALITY DATA,for assumptions used in this analysis. Table 4.4-5 MOBILE SOURCE AIR EMISSIONS Mobile Source SCAQMD Threshold Pollutant Emissions Thresholds.(Ibs/day) Exceeded? _- (Ibslday) .. Yes/No. Carbon Monoxide(CO) 13.91 550 No Reactive Organic Compounds 1.56 55 No (ROC) Nitrogen Oxides(NOx) 1.75 55 No Fine Particulate Matter(PM10)__T 0.78 150 No ROG=reactive organic gases NOx=nitrogen oxides CO=carbon monoxide PM,o=fine particulate matter ' Emissions calculated using the URBEMIS 2001 Computer Model as recommended by the SCAQMD. 2 Refer to Appendix D,AIR QUALITY DATA,for assumptions used in this analysis. pounds of reactive organic compounds (ROC)(refer to Table 4.4-6COMBINED AIR EMISSIONS. These levels do not exceed SCAQMD operation emissions thresholds; therefore, less than significant long-term air quality impacts would result,and no special mitigation is required other than standard design features. City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 ' 4.4-14 ' Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.4 AIR QUALITY Draft Environmental Impact Report ' CONSISTENCY WITH REGIONAL PLANS ' Although the project would represent an incremental negative impact to air quality in the SoCAB, of primary concern is that project-related impacts have been properly anticipated in the regional air quality planning process and reduced whenever feasible. Therefore, it is necessary to assess the project's consistency with the AQMP. Table 4.4-6 COMBINED AIR EMISSIONS Total project,.,-,-- SCAQMD Threshold Pollutant Emissions. Thresholds. Exceeded?' , (lbs/day). '(IbsldaD Yes/No ' Carbon Monoxide CO 14.60 550 No Reactive Organic Compounds(ROC) 1.66 55 No Nitrogen Oxides(NOx) 1.76 55 No Fine Particulate Matter(PM10) 0.78 150 No ROG=reactive organic gases NOx=nitrogen oxides CO=carbon monoxide PM10=fine particulate matter ' Emissions calculated using the URBEMIS 2001 Computer Model as recommended by the SCAQMD. Y Refer to Appendix D,AIR QUALITY DATA,for assumptions used in this analysis. The project site is within the Open Space-Park(OS-P) land use category of the General Plan and is zoned Open Space-Parks and Recreation (OS-PR). Project implementation would not conflict with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan or Zoning Ordinance designations. Accordingly, air quality emissions and related impacts for open space/recreation uses have been planned for by the City. SCAG is responsible under the Federal CAA for determining conformity of projects, plans and programs.with the SCAQMD AQMP. SCAG released the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG, May 1995). The RCPG is a compilation of the summaries of Plans for the Southern ' California Region. It establishes a broad set of goals for the region, and identifies strategies for agencies at all levels to use in guiding their decision-making toward implementation of the proposals.' The Growth Management and Regional Mobility Chapters contain policies to help guide 1 local agencies in developing a more balanced number of houses and jobs. Prior to adoption of portions of the RCPG, formal AQMP Conformity Review Procedures were provided by SCAG for local agencies to follow when determining consistency of projects with the AQMP. These guidelines were primarily based on a project's influence on the subregional ' jobs/housing balance. Since adoption of the RCPG, SCAG released the Intergovernmental I Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide,Southern California Association of Governments,May 1995,page 1. ' City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 4.4-15 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.4 AIR QUALITY ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Review Procedures Handbook dated June 1, 1995, which states that project consistency with the , RCPG policies,particularly the core chapters,should be analyzed to determine project consistency with regional growth and air quality documents. Core chapters include Growth Management, , Regional Mobility, Air Quality, Hazardous Waste and Water Quality. Policies within these chapters of the RCPG are aimed at SCAG's overall goals to: 1) reinvigorate the region's economy, 2) avoid social and economic inequities and the geographical isolation of communities and 3) maintain the region's quality of life. Selected policies include the following: ❖ "SCAG shall encourage existing or proposed local jurisdictional programs aimed at ' designing land uses which encourage the use of transit and thus reduce the need of roadway expansion, reduce the number of auto trips and vehicle miles traveled, and create opportunities for residents to walk or bike." ❖ "SCAG shall encourage local jurisdictional plans that maximize the use of existing ' urbanized areas accessible to transit through infill and redevelopment." + "SCAG shall support local plans to increase density of future development located at ' strategic points along the regional commuter rail, transit centers and activity centers." ❖ "SCAG shall encourage efforts of local jurisdictions in the implementation of programs that increase the supply and quality of housing and provide affordable housing as evaluated in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment." Although air quality is a regional problem, SCAG's RCPG and SCAQMD's AQMP place a heavy ' reliance on local implementation measures, such as land use decisions and local employment transportation programs. The implementation process stresses the freedom of cities to choose attainment measures that best suit local conditions. As indicated in SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook, there are two main indicators of ' consistency: ❖ Whether the project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of ' existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP; and ' ❖ Whether the project would exceed the AQMP's assumptions for 2010 or increments based on the year of project build-out and phase. ' The proposed project does not involve a General Plan Amendment,zone change,or other change in land use. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the City of Huntington Beach land use assumptions. Since the AQMP is based on the City's General Plan assumptions, and since the proposed project is consistent with these General Plan assumptions, the project would be considered consistent with the AQMP land use assumptions and goals. Based on the above, the , project is considered consistent with regional plans, and is considered to have no impact. City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 ' 4.4-16 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.4 AIR QUALITY Draft Environmental Impact Report ' SENSITIVE RECEPTORS ' Sensitive receptors in the project vicinity include the Ocean View Mobile Home Park located to the south and Huntington Central Library to the north. In addition, a sports complex is under construction immediately adjacent north and west of the subject site. The long-term impacts from mobile sources and energy consumption are not considered significant; therefore, a significant impact to sensitive receptors is not expected. Project remediation, grading, and construction activities would not impact sensitive receptors in the project vicinity due to the distance between the ' site and these receptors. MITIGATION MEASURES SHORT-TERM EMISSIONS AIR-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits or approval of grading plans, the City shall include a dust control plan as part of the construction contract standard specifications, which shall ' include measures to meet the requirements of the City and SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, the following: ' During grading operations, the following shall be complied with: 1) Attempt to phase and schedule activities to avoid high-ozone days and first-stage ' smog alerts. 2) Discontinue operation during second-stage smog alerts. ' 3) All haul trucks shall be covered prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas. ' 4) Comply with AQMD Rule 403, particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to surrounding areas. ' 5) Wind barriers shall be installed along the perimeter of the site. 6) Moisten soil each day prior to commencing grading to depth of soil cut. ' 7) Water exposed surfaces at least twice a day under calm conditions and as often as needed on windy days when winds are less than 25 mile per day or during very dry weather in order to maintain a surface crust and prevent the release of visible ' emissions from the construction site. 8) Treat any area that will be exposed for extended periods with a soil conditioner to ' stabilize soil or temporarily plant with vegetation. 9) Wash mud-covered tires and under carriages of trucks leaving construction sites. 10) Provide for street sweeping, as needed, on adjacent roadways to remove dirt dropped by construction vehicles or mud which would otherwise be carried off by trucks departing project sites. ' City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 4.4-17 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.4 AIR QUALITY Draft Environmental Impact Report 11) Securely cover all loads of fill coming to the site with a tight fitting tarp. ' 12) Cease grading during periods when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. 13) Provide for permanent sealing of all graded areas, as applicable, at the earliest , practicable time after soil disturbance. 14) Maintain construction equipment in peak operating condition so as to reduce operating emissions. 15) Use low-sulfur diesel fuel in all equipment. , 16) Use electric equipment whenever practicable. 17) Shut off engines when not in use. ' LONG-TERM EMISSIONS None required. CONSISTENCY WITH REGIONAL PLANS ' None required. ' SENSITIVE RECEPTORS None required. ' UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ' The proposed project may have unavoidable significant impacts in regards to temporary,short-term , emissions for NOx. This unavoidable significant impact is anticipated to occur for the duration of the remediation,demolition,and construction process(expected to last approximately 12 to 18 months). City of Huntington Beach March 27,2003 ' 4.4-18 1 4.5 NOISE 1 ' This section addresses potential noise impacts from project construction, traffic and operations. This section is based on the City of Huntington Beach General Plan (1996), the City of Huntington Beach General Plan EIR(1995), the City's"Transportation System Needs Analysis 2000-2010" as ' well as additional project traffic data provided by the City. EXISTING CONDITIONS ' Noise Environment 1 The primary noise sources in the project vicinity include numerous industrial uses and noise from adjacent local roadways. Both mobile and stationary noise sources contribute to the existing noise 1 levels at the project site. Mobile noise sources consist mainly of car and truck traffic, while stationary noise sources include the Hanson Recycling Center to the northeast and Orange County Transfer Station to the east. The Central Park Master EIR includes Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) measurements from four locations surrounding the project site. These locations include the Ocean View Mobile Home Park(CNEL of 59 dBA), the west side of Goldenwest Street (CNEL of 67 dBA), the Huntington Central Library parking lot(CNEL of 59 dBA), and the west side ' of Gothard Street (CNEL of 72 dBA). Noise Scales and Definitions 1 Sound is technically described in terms of the loudness (amplitude) of the sound and frequency (pitch) of the sound. The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel (dB). Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency- dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale(dBA)performs this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner 1 approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. ' Decibels are based on the logarithmic scale. The logarithmic scale compresses the wide range in sound pressure levels to a more usable range of numbers in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquakes. In general, a 1 dB change in the sound pressure levels of a given 1 sound is detectable only under laboratory conditions. A 3 dB change in sound pressure level is considered a"just detectable"difference in most situations. A 5 dB change is readily noticeable and a 10 dB change is considered a doubling (or halving)of the subjective loudness. It should be noted 1 that, generally speaking, a 3 dBA increase or decrease in the average traffic noise level is realized by a doubling or halving of the traffic volume; or by about a 7 mile per hour (mph) increase or decrease in speed. ' For each doubling of distance from a point noise source(a stationary source,such as a loudspeaker or loading dock), the sound level will decrease by 6 dBA. In other words, if a person is 100 feet 1 from a machine, and moves to 200 feet from that source, sound levels will drop approximately 6 dBA. For each doubling of distance from a line source, like a roadway, noise levels are reduced by 3 to 4.5 dBA, depending on the ground cover between the source and the receiver. In terms of 1 City of Huntington Beach March 27,2003 4.5-1 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.5 NOISE ' Draft Environmental Impact Report human response to noise, a sound 10 dBA higher than another is judged to be twice as loud; 20 , dBA higher four times as loud; and so forth. Everyday sounds normally range from 30 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Examples of various sound levels in different environments are , shown in Table 4.5-1, SOUND LEVELS AND HUMAN RESPONSE. There are three methods used to measure sound over a period of time: the Community Noise , Equivalent Level(CNEL),the equivalent energy level(Leq)and the Day/Night Average Sound Level (Ldn). The City of Huntington Beach utilizes all three methods. The predominant community noise rating scale used in California for land use compatibility assessment is the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The CNEL reading represents the average of 24 hourly readings of equivalent levels,known as Leq's,based on an A-weighted decibel with upward adjustments added to account for increased noise sensitivity in the evening and night periods. These adjustments are ' +5 dBA for the evening (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.), and +10 dBA for the night (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.). CNEL may be indicated by "dBA CNEL" or just"CNEL". The Leq is the sound level containing the same total energy over a given sample time period. The ' Leq can be thought of as the steady (average)sound level which, in a stated period of time,would ' contain the same acoustic energy as the time-varying sound level during the same period. Leq is typically computed over 1, 8 and 24-hour sample periods. Another commonly used method is the day/night average level or Ldn. The Ldn is a measure of the , 24-hour average noise level at a given location. It was adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)for developing criteria for the evaluation of community noise exposure. , It is based on a measure of the average noise level over a given time period called the Leq.The Ldn is calculated by averaging the Leq's for each hour of the day at a given location after penalizing the "sleeping hours"(defined as 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.), by a 10 dBA to account for the increased sensitivity ' of people to noises that occur at night. The maximum noise level recorded during a noise event is typically expressed as Lmax. The sound level exceeded over a specified time frame can be expressed as Ln (i.e., L90, L50, L10, etc.). L50 equals the level exceeded 50 percent of the time. , Noise Sensitive Receptors Land uses considered sensitive receptors to noise include residential areas, schools hospitals, , P churches, recreational areas, office buildings and transient lodging. , Residential areas are also considered noise sensitive, particularly during the nighttime hours. The site is located adjacent to primarily open space areas and industrial uses. Sensitive receptors , in the project vicinity include the Ocean View Mobile Home Park, located approximately 750 feet southwest of the project site, and the Huntington Central Library, situated approximately 900 feet north of the subject site. ' City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 ' 4.5-2 ' Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.5 NOISE Draft Environmental Impact Report ' Table 4.5-1 SOUND LEVELS AND HUMAN RESPONSE B(A) NOISE SOURCE Noise RESPONSE ' Level 150 ' Carrier Jet Operation 140 Harmfully Loud 130 Pain Threshold Jet Takeoff(200 ft.) Discotheque 120 ' Unmuffled Motorcycle Maximum Vocal Effort Auto Horn(3 ft.) 110 Rock'n Roll Band Physical Discomfort Riveting Machine Loud Power Mower Very Annoying Jet Takeoff(2000 ft.) 100 Hearing Damage t Garbage Truck (Steady 8-Hour Exposure) Heavy Truck(50 ft.) Pneumatic Drill (50 ft.) 90 Alarm Clock ' Freight Train(50 ft.) 80 Annoying Vacuum Cleaner(10 ft.) Freeway Traffic(50 ft.) 70 Telephone Use Difficult ' Dishwashers Intrusive Air Conditioning Unit(20 ft.) 60 ' Light Auto Traffic(100 ft.) 50 Quiet Living Room 40 ' Bedroom Library Soft Whisper(15 ft.) 30 Very Quiet ' Broadcasting Studio 20 Just Audible 10 Threshold of Hearing ' Source: Melville C.Branch and R.Dale Beland,Outdoor Noise in the Metropolitan Environment, 1970(p.2),and others. City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 ' 4.5-3 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.5 NOISE ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Noise Standards , It is difficult to specify noise levels which are generally acceptable to everyone. What is annoying , to one person may be unnoticed by another. Standards may be based on documented complaint activity in response to documented noise levels, or based on studies on the ability of people to sleep, talk, or work under various noise conditions. All such studies, however, recognize that , individual responses vary considerably. Standards usually address the needs of most of the general population. With this caution in mind, noise standards for planning purposes examine both outdoor and indoor noise levels acceptable for different uses. The standards relate to existing ' conditions in the City so that they are realistically enforceable and consistent with the City's General Plan objectives. The Federal government specifically preempts local control of noise emissions from interstate ' 9 P YP P highways, railroads and aircraft. The State of California has established guidelines for acceptable community noise levels which are based on the CNEL rating scale. The guidelines rank noise land ' use compatibility in terms of "normally acceptable," "conditionally acceptable," and "clearly unacceptable" noise levels for various land use types. As shown in Table 4.5-2,LAND USE ' COMPATIBILITYFOR COMMUNITYNOISE ENVIRONMENT$single-family homes are"normally acceptable"in exterior noise environments up to 60 CNEL and "conditionally acceptable" up to 70 CNEL. Multiple-family residential uses are"normally acceptable"up to 65 CNEL and"conditionally , acceptable" up to 70 CNEL. Schools, libraries and churches are "normally acceptable" up to 70 CNEL, as are office buildings and business, commercial and professional uses. As indicated in Table 4.5-2,many noise-sensitive land uses such as residential areas,schools,churches,hospitals, etc., use a daily noise level value of 70 dBA as the dividing line between a"conditionally acceptable" and a "normally acceptable" noise environment. In addition to Federal and State noise standards, the Cityof Huntington Beach has adopted noise , 9 P objectives and policies in its General Plan. These noise objectives and policies pertain to land use ' impacts, mobile noise sources, and stationary noise sources. The City's Municipal Code sets standards for interior and exterior noise levels. In general, the exterior living areas (yards and patios)of residences should not exceed 55 dBA CNEL from 7 a.m.to 10 p.m. The California Noise , Insulation Standard (California Administrative Code, Title 25, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Article 4) requires that indoor noise levels in multi-family residences do not exceed a CNEL of 45 dBA. Local agencies may regulate noise levels of most sources not regulated by the Federal government; , may provide standards for insulation of noise receivers either within the structure or by placement of noise barriers such as walls; and, through land use decisions, may reduce noise impacts by ' separating noise generators from noise sensitive uses. To provide a satisfactory noise environment and to minimize complaints about community noise, the City has adopted standards for evaluating the compatibility of land uses with respect to outdoor and certain indoor noise levels. The purpose , of the land use compatibility analysis is to screen projects which may require specific design considerations to mitigate noise impacts. The General Plan's noise exposure contours are used in conjunction with the noise standards indicated on Table 4.5-2,LAND USE COMPATIBILITYFOR ' COMMUNITY NOISE ENVIRONMENTS, to make such a determination. City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 , 4.5-4 ' Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.5 NOISE Draft Environmental Impact Report Table 4.5-2 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY FOR COMMUNITY NOISE ENVIRONMENTS COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE tdn orCNEL dBA LAND USE CATEGORY- - Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable; Unacceptable ' Residential-Low Density 50-60 55-70 70-75 75-85 Residential-Multiple Family .50-65 60-70 70-75 75-85 Transient Lodging-Motel, Hotels 50-65 60-70 70-80 80-85 ' Schools, Libraries, Churches, 50-70 60-70 70-80 80-85 Hospitals, Nursing Homes Auditoriums,Concert Halls, NA 50-70 65-85 NA ' Amphitheaters Sports Arenas,Outdoor Spectator NA 50-75 70-85 NA Sports ' Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 50-70 NA 67.5-75 72.5-85 Golf Courses, Riding Stables,Water 50-75 NA 70-80 80-85 Recreation,Cemeteries Office Buildings, Business 50-70 67.5-77.5 75-85 NA Commercial and Professional ' Industrial,Manufacturing, Utilities, 50-75 70-80 75- 85 NA Agriculture Source: Office of Noise Control,California Department of Health,as cited in the City of Huntington Beach General Plan EIR,1995, Figure N-1. Notes: NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE ' Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction,without any special noise insulation requirements. CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements ' is made and needed noise insulation features are included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning,will normally suffice. Outdoor environment will seem noisy. NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, ' a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements needed to mitigate the unacceptable noise levels must be made and needed noise insulation features must be included in the design.Outdoor areas must be shielded. CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE New construction or development clearly should not be undertaken. Construction costs to make the indoor environment ' acceptable would be prohibitive and the outdoor environment would not be useable. NA: Not applicable. ' City of Huntington Beach March 27,2003 4.5-5 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.5 NOISE , Draft Environmental Impact Report IMPACTS Significance Criteria , A project is considered to have a significant noise impact where it causes an adopted noise standard to be exceeded for the project site or for adjacent affected sensitive receptors. In addition ' to being concerned about the absolute noise level that might occur when a new source is introduced into an area, it is also important to consider the existing noise environment. If the ' existing noise environment is quiet and the new noise source greatly increases the noise exposure, even though a criterion level might not be exceeded, some impact may occur. Lacking adopted standards for evaluating such impacts, general rules of thumb for community noise environments are that a change of over 5 dBA is readily noticeable and, therefore is considered a significant impact.' Changes from 3 to 5 dBA may be noticed by some individuals and are therefore considered to constitute an adverse environmental impact since under these conditions sporadic ' complaints may occur. Changes in community noise levels of less than 3 dBA are normally not noticeable and are therefore considered less than significant.Z Adverse impacts would result if increases in noise levels are audible(increases equal to,or greater than 3 dBA),although the noise ' level may not exceed the significant impact criteria specified above. It should be noted that, for traffic-related noise impacts on arterial streets (of 20,000 daily trips or more), it requires a traffic increase of approximately 5,000 daily trips to increase the CNEL by one dBA. , According to the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code (Chapters 8.40.050 and 8.40.070), the maximum permissible sound pressure level measured at the property boundary should not exceed 55 dBA between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., and should not exceed 50 dBA between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Interior noise levels should not exceed 55 dBA between the , hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.,and should not exceed 45 dBA between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The State of California has established guidelines for acceptable community noise levels based on , the CNEL rating scale (refer to Table 4.5-2, LAND USE COMPATIBILITY FOR COMMUNITY NOISE ENVIRONMENTS). , According to the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code (Chapters 8.40.050 and 8.40.070), the maximum permissible sound pressure level measured at the property boundary should not exceed , 55 dBA between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., and should not exceed 50 dBA between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Interior noise levels should not exceed 55 dBA between the hours of 7:00 a.m.and 10:00 p.m.,and should not exceed 45 dBA between the hours of 10:00 p.m. , and 7:00 a.m. 1 Assessment of Noise with Respect to Community Response, ISDR 1996, International Standardization, , Switzerland. 2 Fundamentals and Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise, Bolt, Beranek and Newman, 1973. , City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 ' 4.5-6 ' Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.5 NOISE Draft Environmental Impact Report ' SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTION ' The proposed project would involve the remediation and demolition of the existing gun range facility and the construction of facilities typical of an open space/recreation area. Proposed on-site facilities may include parking areas, restrooms/concession structures, irrigation, lighting, and ' various utilities. Implementation of site demolition and remediation is expected to take approximately six months. A phasing schedule for subsequent interim/long-term park facility implementation has not been determined. Construction could take place immediately after the ' completion of site remediation, and would require an estimated additional six months to complete (depending on the nature of facilities). During the project implementation process, adjacent receptors would be exposed to sporadic high noise levels associated with demolition and construction activities (as a result of power tools, jack-hammers, wood shredding/chipping machinery, truck noise, etc.). ' As stated above, the Ocean View Mobile Home Park is located approximately 750 feet southwest of the project site while the Huntington Central Library is situated approximately 900 feet north of ' the subject site. These sensitive receptors are located within an industrial area, and are typically exposed to noise generated by the Hanson rock-crushing facility and area traffic. Due to the relatively small scale of the project, the more intense remediation, demolition, and construction ' noise would be short-term in nature,and all construction-related noise would comply with applicable City standards. Any off-site remediation/construction truck traffic would utilize the existing access road located off of Gothard Street. This road is currently used by trucks to access the Hanson ' Recycling Center. Given this information, a temporary increase in noise levels from remediation, demolition,and construction is expected to be less than significant with implementation of standard construction practices. LONG-TERM STATIONARY SOURCES The proposed project involves the remediation of the existing gun range facility and the development of a recreational/open space extension of Huntington Central Park. The project site ' exists within an industrial area, with the Hanson Recycling Center and Orange County Transfer Station located adjacent to the site. Implementation of the project would involve additional traffic, increased site usage, and other operational parameters, and may therefore increase the ambient level of on-site noise from both mobile and stationary sources. An increase in employee/public traffic volumes would generate an increase in the noise levels from mobile sources(see discussion below). Potential on-site facilities include .parking areas, restrooms/concession structures, irrigation, lighting, and various utilities. Noise may be generated from proposed stationary sources associated with facility operations, including parking lot noise, recreational activity, water pumps, boilers, compressors, and air conditioning system components. It should be noted, however, that ' the facility is proposed to occur in an open space/park setting and, as such, would be designed to minimize any unnecessary stationary noise sources. Any pumps, compressors or other stationary equipment would be relatively moderate in scale and are not otherwise anticipated to generate ' significant noise impacts. Any air conditioning compressors on-site will incorporate sufficient sound attenuation measures in order to meet City noise standards. ' City of Huntington Beach March 27,2003 4.5-7 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.5 NOISE ' Draft Environmental Impact Report The increase in on-site noise levels from stationary sources associated with long-term recreational , use is not anticipated to result in a noticeable increase in the ambient noise level. When considering the scope and nature of the proposed project, impacts in this regard are anticipated to , be less than significant. MOBILE SOURCES ' The proposed open space/park project is not anticipated to generate a significant amount of noise from mobile sources. Trip generation for the former gun range facility prior to its closure in 1997 , has been estimated to be approximately 500 vehicles per day, with an AM and PM peak hour trip generation of approximately 50 vehicles per hour.3 In comparison, estimated trip generation for potential future interim and long-term use is significantly lower, ranging from approximately 60-100 ' trips generated per day.4 The lower number of trips generated from future use will result in significantly lower noise generation from mobile sources, thereby resulting in less than significant ' impacts. Even in terms of an absolute comparison between the existing inactive facility and potential future recreational use(ignoring past traffic from the former gun range),the project would represent less than a Y2 dBA CNEL increase on adjacent streets (it would require approximately , a 5,000 ADT increase to raise noise levels by one dBA CNEL). MITIGATION MEASURES , SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTION N0I-1 Prior to the issuance of an grading permits,the City shall ensure evidence acceptable , Y 9 9 P tY P to the City of Huntington Beach Departments of Planning and Public Works that: , d• All construction vehicles or equipment,fixed or mobile,operated within 1,000 feet of a dwelling shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers. All operations shall comply with the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code ' Chapter 8.40 (Noise Control). d• Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practicable from residential areas. -• Notations in the above format, appropriately numbered and included with other ' notations on the front sheet of grading plans, will be considered as adequate evidence of compliance with this condition. ' N0I-2 Should the project requiring off-site import/export of fill material during remediation/construction, trucks shall utilize a route that is least disruptive to sensitive ' 3 Per letter received from City of Huntington Beach,"Trip Generation Estimate for Gun Range at Huntington , Central Park", February 22,2001. 4 Per letter received from City of Huntington Beach,"Trip Generation for Hanson's Recycling and Dog Park ' Scenario",April 24,2001. City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 , 4.5-8 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.5 NOISE Draft Environmental Impact Report ' receptors, preferably Gothard to Talbert to Beach to 1-405. Construction trucks shall be prohibited from operating on Saturdays, Sundays, and federal holidays. ' NOI-3 To reduce project-related construction noise impacts generated by the proposed project, the following conditions shall be implemented: •S Construction activities shall be limited to hours specified by the City Noise Ordinance; and 4- Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited. LONG-TERM STATIONARY SOURCES ' None required. MOBILE SOURCES None required. ' UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ' None have been identified. 1 ' City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 4.5-9 I 4.6 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Public services include services such as fire protection, police protection, schools, libraries and ' parks. Utilities include wastewater, water, solid waste, electricity, gas, telephone, and cable. The purpose of this section is to establish existing conditions for each provider, identify potentially significant impacts and recommend mitigation measures to reduce the significance of such impacts. ' The primary question regarding utilities and services, relative to the CEQA process, is whether or not the project has any direct effect on the physical environment through impacts to existing facilities or the requirement to construct new facilities, particularly where such impacts would have an adverse impact on the environment. Information in this section is based on the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, General Plan EIR, and correspondence from public service and utilities agencies (refer to Appendix D, Correspondence). EXISTING CONDITIONS ' Fire Service ' The City of Huntington Beach Fire Department operates a total of seven fire stations within the City, including: ' •8 Station 1 (Gothard Station), located at 18311 Gothard Street; 46 Station 2 (Murdy Station), located at 16221 Gothard Street; ❖ Station 3 (Bushard Station), located at 19711 Bushard Street; ' o*- Station 4 (Magnolia Station), located at 21441 Magnolia Avenue; 4• Station 5 (Lake Station), located at 530 Lake Street; ' 4• Station 6 (Edwards Station), located at 18590 Edwards Street; o*. Station 7 (Warner Station), located at 3831 Warner Avenue; and 4• Station 8 (Heil Station), located at 5890 Heil Avenue. The fire station nearest the project site is Station One,located at 18311 Gothard Street at a distance of approximately one-quarter mile away.The average response time to the project site is under five ' minutes, 80% of the time. The current ISO rating of the_site is ISO Class II.' Police Service ' The proposed project site is served b the City of Huntington Beach Police Department, which Y Y 9 ' operates through one central police station and four smaller substations. Facilities and their locations are as follows: 4• Main Station, located at 2000 Main Street; + Oakview Center Substation, located at 17261 Oak Lane; • Downtown Substation, located at 204 Fifth Street; ' Per phone conversation with Ward Kinsman,Huntington Beach Fire Department,4/17/01. ' City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 4.6-1 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.6 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES ' Draft Environmental Impact Report ❖ Huntington Center Substation, located at 7777 Edinger Avenue; and ' ❖ Huntington Harbor Substation, located at 16889 Algonquin Street. The nearest police facility to the project is the Main Station, situated approximately 1.5 miles south , of the subject site. This police facility serves the entire City population of 200,000 residents spread over 27 square miles. The average response time to the project site is approximately 5 minutes or , less from any part of the City. The Department currently has 234 sworn police officers, 150 civilian employees and 65 black-and-white patrol units. Schools ' The proposed project is within the jurisdiction of the Huntington Beach Union High School District ' and the Ocean View School District. The Huntington Beach Union High School District currently has a total of nine facilities within the cities of Huntington Beach,Westminster,and Fountain Valley. ' The high school nearest the subject site is Ocean View High School, located approximately 1.4 miles north of the project site. Ocean View High School had an enrollment of 1,569 students in the Fall of 2000. ' A total of 25 schools exist within the jurisdiction of the Ocean View School District, with a total of fifteen in operation. The schools nearest the proposed project site are Hope View School and Mesa , View School, with an enrollment of 630 and 721 students, respectively. Hope View School is located approximately 1.5 miles from the subject site,while Mesa View is located approximately 0.5 miles away from the subject site. ' Libraries The Huntington Beach Library System consists of five facilities, including: ' 4• Huntington Central Library and Cultural Center, located at 7111 Talbert Avenue; ' 4• Graham Branch Library, located at 15882 Graham Street; 4• Oakview Branch Library, located at 17251 Oak Lane; ' ❖ Banning Branch Library, located at 9281 Banning Avenue; and 4• Main Street Branch Library, located at 525 Main Street. The Huntington Beach Central Library and Cultural Center would serve the proposed project and , is located approximately 0.25 miles north of the subject site. The Central Library and Cultural Center has an average.of 3,000 visitors per day and maintains 350,000 volumes with an additional , 12,000 genealogy items and 5,700 media items including compact discs and video cassettes.2 2 City of Huntington Beach General Plan,Public Facilities and Public Services Element,May 13, 1996 ' City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 , 4.6-2 ' Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.6 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Draft Environmental Impact Report ' Roadway Maintenance The City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department provides roadway maintenance to the City of Huntington Beach. The Department performs regular maintenance on City owned roadways in the form of re-paving, pothole/curb repairs, and striping. Parks and Recreation The City of Huntington Beach contains 71 parks with a total area of 577.28 acres. The City's park system includes six mini-parks totaling 2.7 acres, 58 neighborhood parks totaling 157.39 acres, seven community parks totaling 143.28 acres,and two regional parks(Huntington Central Park and ' Blufftop Park)encompassing 274 acres. It should be noted that a 45-acre sports complex is under construction immediately north and west of the subject site. Other recreational opportunities within ' the City include two publicly owned golf courses, Huntington Beach City Gym and Pool, Oak View Center, various bikeways, and approximately two miles of equestrian trails. The City's"coastal recreational facilities include the Huntington Beach Municipal Pier,various beach parks,recreational ' vehicle (RV) camping, and Huntington Harbor(a popular boating area). The recreational facility nearest the project site will be the Huntington Central Park Sports Complex, ' scheduled for completion in April 2003. This facility will feature an 800-space parking lot, a batting cage, up to four roller hockey rinks, eight lighted softball fields, eight lighted soccer/football fields, two tot-lots,and two restroom/concession structures.3 In addition,extensions of Huntington Central ' Park exist approximately 0.25 miles to the north, along Talbert Avenue. Wastewater ' The Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) and the City of Huntington Beach Public Works 9 tY ( tY 9 ' Department, Engineering Division provide sanitation treatment and sewerage services for the City of Huntington Beach. Presently, 98 percent of the City is connected to the sewer system while the remainder use septic tanks. The two wastewater treatment plants serving the City of Huntington Beach,Plant 1 and Plant 2,perform primary and secondary treatment procedures and are operated by the OCSD. Within the City, the wastewater system is comprised of major trunk lines, smaller feeder lines, and lift stations. The OCSD has developed engineering plans for plant improvements ' anticipated to meet the needs of the City to the year 2050.4 According to City of Huntington Beach GIS data,wastewater lines currently exist within Goldenwest Street, located west of the project site, and Gothard Street, located east of the project site.5 ' 3 Huntington Central Park Master Plan of Recreation Uses,February 26,1999. 4 City of Huntington Beach General Plan,Utilities Element,May 13, 1996. 5 Gun Range Project Site Sewer Lines and Water Mains,City of Huntington Beach GIS Department. ' City of Huntington Beach March 27,2003 4.6-3 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.6 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Storm Water Drainage ' The Orange County Flood Control District(OCFCD)and the City of Huntington Beach Public Works ' Department operate the storm water drainage system within the City of Huntington Beach. The storm drainage system removes water runoff from streets,and, after filtration,transports the runoff to the ocean. The OCFCD owns,operates,maintains,and improves regional flood control facilities. , The City of Huntington Beach owns and operates 15 storm drainage channel pumping stations which pump the runoff water into the channels and to the ocean. Presently, the County and City are in the process of improving flood control facilities to accommodate higher levels of storm waters ' Water The Huntington Beach Water Department supplies approximately 33 million gallons per day(MGD) , to 49,000 water meters within the City. Typically, 75% of the City's water is supplied by groundwater wells located within the City,while 25%is imported from the Metropolitan Water District ' (MWD). Facilities within the City of Huntington Beach consist of 480 miles of water lines (ranging from 2" to 42" in diameter), water booster pumps, and three storage tanks with a capacity of nine million gallons, 16 million gallons, and 21 million gallons. ' Currently,water distribution mains surround the project site,with facilities located within Goldenwest , Street(located west of the project site),Gothard Street(located east of the project site),and Talbert Avenue (located north of the project site). An extension exists from the water main located within Gothard Street to the southeast corner of the subject site.' , Reclaimed Water Currently, reclaimed water use has not been implemented within the City of Huntington Beach. Reclaimed water infrastructure exists in various locations throughout the City,but,as of yet,has not been used for the distribution of reclaimed water. A reclaimed water main exists within Goldenwest ' Street, located west of the subject site.8 Solid Waste ' Rainbow Disposal has been contracted by the City of Huntington Beach to provide solid waste , collection services under a long-term contract. The City generates 348,219 tons of solid waste per year, resulting from 52,220 tons of commercial waste, 155,625 tons of residential waste, and 140,374 tons of demolition/industrial waste.' The City is responsible for meeting the Assembly Bill 6 City of Huntington Beach General Plan,Utilities Element,May 13, 1996. t T Gun Range Project Site Sewer Lines and Water Mains,City of Huntington Beach GIS Department. ' a Per conversation with Mr.Todd Broussard,City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department,5/2/01. 9 City of Huntington Beach General Plan,Utilities Element,May 13,1996. ' City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 , 4.6-4 ' Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.6 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Draft Environmental Impact Report ' 939 (AB 939) mandate of 50% disposal reduction by the start of 2000, and for preparing AB 939 solid waste planning documents. Rainbow Disposal currently transports City solid waste to a transfer station located within the City and then to either Frank R. Bowerman Landfill or Brea Olinda Landfill.10 ' Electricity The Southern California Edison Company(SCE)currently provides electrical service to the City of Huntington Beach. Major facilities owned by SCE within the City include six substations, various transmission lines and switchyards(AES currently owns and operates a power plant within the City, located along Pacific Coast Highway west of Magnolia Street). Currently, SCE service meets the City's demands for electricity." ' Gas ' The City of Huntington Beach receives natural gas service from the Southern California Gas Company. The Gas Company receives natural gas from Southern California, Northern California, and out of state suppliers. The Gas Company has no immediate plans to update the existing ' equipment or to implement new technologies aside from the routine maintenance checks and replacements of deteriorating supply lines. The Gas Company is currently meeting present demands and can supply additional natural gas to the City, if required.12 ' The Southern California Gas Company currently has mains located within Goldenwest Street, Ellis Avenue, and Gothard Street, located west, south, and east of the subject site, respectively.13 Telephone and Cable Service ' Telephone service to the project vicinity is provided by Verizon. Manhole systems exist within Gothard Street (located east of the subject site), 40 feet east of the Huntington Central Library ' parking lot (located northwest of the subject site), and along Talbert Avenue, located north of the subject site.14 ' Cable television service to the City of Huntington Beach is provided by Time Warner Communications. Existing facilities within the project vicinity are located within Talbert Avenue to ' 10 Letter,Ms.Sandra Jacobs,Rainbow Disposal Company,Inc.,April 11,2001. 1 City of Huntington Beach General Plan,Utilities Element,May 13,1996. ' 12 City of Huntington Beach General Plan,Utilities Element,May 13, 1996. 13 Letter,Mr.Kevin Stonesifer,Southern California Gas Company,April 23,2001. ' 14 Letter,Ms.Janice Davis,Verizon,April 25,2001. ' City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 4.6-5 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.6 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES ' Draft Environmental Impact Report the north and Gothard Avenue to the East. There are no existing facilities within the proposed ' project boundaries.15 IMPACTS Significance Criteria Public Services Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA Guidelines contains the Initial Stud ' PP tY ( ) Y Environmental Checklist form used during preparation of the project Initial Study,which is contained ' in Appendix A of this EIR. The issues presented in the Initial Study Checklist have been utilized as thresholds of significance in this Section. Accordingly,a significant impact to public services would occur if the project would result in: 1) substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the ' provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities; and/or 2) the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of, which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other ' performance objectives for any of the public services. In addition, significant parks/recreation impacts would occur if the project would: 1)increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would ' occur or be accelerated; and/or 2) include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Fire Service ' It is not anticipated that project implementation would result in the need for additional Fire ' Department facilities. The proposed project is not of the scope or nature to create a significant increase in demand for services related to the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department.16 In ' addition, the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department, through mutual aid and automatic aid agreements with Orange County and the cities of Westminster, Santa Ana, Newport Beach, Fountain Valley, and Costa Mesa can provide additional staff as needed. Adequate emergency ' access will be provided in accordance with City and County requirements, including permanent right-of-entry emergency access through County property, if necessary. Police Service ' The proposed project is not anticipated to create a significant increase in service calls to the project ' vicinity nor is it expected to create a need for additional police facilities within the City of Huntington Beach. No impacts are anticipated in this regard.17 1 15 Letter,Mr.Bill Jankowski,Time Warner Communications,April 5,2001. 16 Per phone conversation with Ward Kinsman,Huntington Beach Fire Department,4/17101. 17 Letter,J.W.Arnold,Captain,City of Huntington Beach Police Department,April 10,2001. ' City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 ' 4.6-6 ' Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.6 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Draft Environmental Impact Report Schools The proposed project includes a potential long-term park/recreation use within an industrial area. The project does not propose housing or other student-generating uses. The project is anticipated to have negligible impacts on school facilities within the City of Huntington Beach. No significant ' impacts are anticipated. Libraries The proposed ark/recreation project is not anticipated to create significant additional demand for P P P P J P 9 ' library services, as it does not involve new housing or otherwise represent significant growth- inducing uses. The present capacity of the City's library system is ample to address any impacts of the proposed project.18 Roadway Maintenance ' The development of the proposed project is not of the scope or nature to have significant impacts on roadway maintenance facilities, provided by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department.19 It should be noted that the Huntington Central Park Sports Complex(scheduled for completion in April 2003) includes roadway improvements to Gothard and Goldenwest Streets. Recreation The project is proposed to become an open space/park extension of the existing Huntington Central Park. Implementation of the proposed project would increase the City's open space/park capacity, resulting in positive effects. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated in this regard. Wastewater The Orange County Sanitation District and the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department ' provide sewerage and treatment services for the City of Huntington Beach. Although the proposed project may incorporate restroom/concession facilities, the project is not of the scope or nature to create a significant increase in demand for wastewater services. Impacts to the wastewater system ' are not anticipated to occur.20 Storm Water Drainage ' The Orange County Flood Control District and the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department provide storm water drainage services to the City of Huntington Beach. Any interim or 1 long-term recreational uses would incorporate appropriate on-site drainage facilities, ensuring that 18 Letter,Mr.Ron Hayden,City of Huntington Beach Library Services Department,April 9,2001. 19 Per conversation with Mr.Todd Broussard,City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department,5/2/01. 20 Letter,Mr.Todd Broussard,City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department,April 5,2001. ' City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 4.6-7 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.6 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES ' Draft Environmental Impact Report on-site runoff would be directed to existing storm drains. Therefore, impacts are anticipated to be , less than significant with the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures.21 Water The Huntington Beach Water Division and Metropolitan Water District supply and distribute water to the City of Huntington Beach. The implementation of the proposed project may require new facilities to support interim or long-term uses (such as pipeline extensions, drinking fountains and restrooms), although these are not anticipated to be of a nature to create significant impacts. The Green Acres Project(a regional reclaimed water expansion project) is anticipated to supply water for irrigation purposes for various program-level elements of the Huntington Central Park Master ' Plan. Should water from the Green Acres Project not be available at the time of project implementation,adequate studies will be performed to reduce impacts to water supply systems until water for the Green Acres Project becomes available. In addition, the site is presently designated for open space/recreation uses,and,as such,has been accounted for in the City's long-range water supply planning. The Huntington Beach Water Division does not anticipate significant impacts associated with the proposed project. t Reclaimed Water The City of Huntington Beach currently does not utilize reclaimed water, although reclaimed water ' facilities exist in many locations throughout the City. Project implementation will not increase demand for reclaimed water, as reclaimed water facilities are not in operation within the City.23 Solid Waste The Frank R. Bowerman and Brea Olinda Landfills are the two landfills that are presently used in the disposal of municipal solid waste from the project area. The landfills have sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the proposed project's solid waste disposal needs. Rainbow Disposal Company will provide solid waste pick-up for the proposed project site as long as access is granted.24 In addition, the applicant will prepare a waste reduction plan for the construction and , demolition (C&D)waste generated from this project. Hazardous materials (California Hazardous Waste and Resource Conservation Recovery Act ' [RCRA] Hazardous Waste) associated with site remediation to be disposed of off-site will be transported to a permitted landfill facility. Landfill disposal sites are typically classified within the following three designation categories:25 ' 21 Letter,Mr.Todd Broussard,City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department,April 5,2001. ' 22 Letter,Mr.Todd Broussard,City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department,April 5,2001. 23 Per conversation with Mr.Todd Broussard,City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department,5/2/01. ' 24 Letter,Ms.Sandra Jacobs,Rainbow Disposal Company,Inc.,April 11,2001. 25 http://www.spl.usace.army.mil/pd/coastal/upland.html City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 ' 4.6-8 ' Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.6 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Draft Environmental Impact Report •S Class I: Class I sites are at the upper tier of upland landfills. Typically these sites have limited capacities and are the most costly to use. Class I sites are facilities that can accept hazardous wastes as well as municipal solid waste, construction debris, and yard waste. .C• Class II: The next level of upland landfill sites are Class II sites. Class II sites 1 may receive certain designated waste along with municipal solid waste, construction debris, and yard waste. d• Class III: Class III sites are the most restrictive of the three landfill classifications, with regard to the types of material that can be accepted. In general, Class III sites can only accept non-hazardous waste.These types of waste include solid waste,construction debris, wood and yard waste, and certain industrial waste that meet individual facility permit criteria. All hazardous materials from the project site would be hauled to a permitted Class II or Class III landfill facility in accordance with all local,state,and federal safety regulations. With the preparation of a waste reduction plan, impacts with regards to solid waste are anticipated to be less than ' significant. Electricity SCE provides electrical service to the City of Huntington Beach. The proposed project is anticipated to require a nominal amount of electricity, primarily for lighting. Prior to construction of the project, adequate analysis will be performed to determine the need for additional electrical facilities. SCE is prepared to install electrical distribution facilities to the subject site. No impacts are anticipated in this regard. Gas The Southern California Gas Company provides natural gas service to the project vicinity and has facilities surrounding the project site. The capacity of existing facilities is adequate to serve the project. Project implementation would not result in any construction related impacts to the service area. No impacts are anticipated in this regard. Telephone and Cable Verizon has facilities in the area to serve the proposed project, and telephone service will be available to the subject site. Currently,facilities exist to the east along Gothard Street, to the north along Talbert Avenue, and to the northwest near Huntington Central Library. An extension from these facilities to the project site may be necessary to serve the project site, although this is not anticipated to represent a significant impact, considering that the lines will likely be placed within public right-of-way or existing easements. Impacts in this regard are anticipated to be less than significant. Cable television access to the City of Huntington Beach is provided by Time Warner 1 Communications. Although it is not expected that cable television access will be necessary for 26 Letter,Ms.Spring Bowles,Southern California Edison,April 16,2001. ' City of Huntington Beach March 27,2003 4.6-9 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.6 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES , Draft Environmental Impact Report project implementation,cable television can be provided if an extension is constructed from current facilities located within Gothard Street and Talbert Avenue. Impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. ' MITIGATION MEASURES Fire Service t PSU-1 If necessary, the City of Huntington Beach will coordinate with the County of Orange to provide permanent right-of-entry emergency access through County property for the proposed project. Police Service None required. ' Schools None required. ' Libraries None required. Roadway Maintenance 1 None required. Recreation None required. Wastewater None required. ' Drainage PSU-2 Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the City of Huntington Beach will require that the project is designed such that there are no substantial increases in the rate and amount of surface runoff. Incidental drainage will be routed off of the site to existing storm drains. Water PSU-3 If the Green Acres Project is not yet operational and able to supply water to the proposed t project prior to the development of final plans and specifications, additional studies will be undertaken to determine the extent to which one or a combination of the following measures will be necessary to reduce impacts to water supply systems for program level ' elements during the interim until water from the Green Acres Project is available: City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 ' 4.6-10 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.6 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Draft Environmental Impact Report ❖ Reduce the required irrigable areas by 10 percent; 4- Enhance the utilization of existing groundwater systems(i.e.,subpotable wells); or ❖ Supplement the irrigation supply with water from the domestic water system. Solid Waste ' PSU-4 Prior to initiating site demolition or remediation activities, the City will prepare a waste reduction plan for the generation of construction and demolition waste from ' the proposed project. This plan should involve the recycling coordinator from the City of Huntington Beach to help ensure that AB 939 requirements are properly addressed. 1 Electricity PSU-5 Prior to the construction of program level elements, additional electrical load analyses shall be undertaken to determine the need for additional electrical transformers. ' Gas None required. Telephone and Cable Service None required. UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ' None have been identified. i 1 1 1 1 ' City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 4.6-11 4.7 AESTHETICS/LIGHT & GLARE ' Visual resources information in this section was compiled from site photographs and site surveys conducted by RBF Consulting in March 2001. Project impacts on the aesthetic character of the site from grading activities and building construction are analyzed and evaluated in relation to existing ' and surrounding site conditions. Consideration of public scenic views, introduction of new sources of light and glare, and compatibility of the proposed project with adjacent local aesthetic resources are included in this section. EXISTING CONDITIONS rAESTHETICS On-Site The existing site aesthetic quality can be characterized as low to non-existent, considering that the ' site is an abandoned gun range facility consisting of deteriorating structures, dirt, rubbish and sporadic non-native and weedy plant species. The site is fully-developed,with no unique vegetation or other visual resources. The site is comprised of a small, elevated rangemaster's office, a small ' restroom facility, two office trailers, a covered row of firing stations, and a large storage shed (all abandoned,and in deteriorating condition). Wooden posts form barriers approximately 20 feet high and surround/partition the site into numerous sections. The subject site has been overgrown by ' considerable amounts of non-native shrubs, bushes, and small trees (refer to.Exhibit 3,AERIAL PHOTO and Exhibit 8, ON-SITE PHOTOS). Off-Site Views of the site are available from Ocean View Mobile Home Park located to the southwest, Goldenwest Street to the west and Huntington Central Library to the north. Adjacent land uses include open space to the north and west, Sully Miller Lake to the south, the Orange County ' Transfer Station to the east, and the Hanson Aggregates West Inc. Huntington Beach Recycling Center to the northeast. It should be noted that the Hanson Recycling Center contains several mounds of asphalt and concrete debris, with heights of up to approximately 20-25 feet (refer to Exhibit 9,OFF-SITE PHOTOS). Considering the disturbed nature of the site and its proximity to the Hanson Recyling Center and Orange County Transfer Station, the visual quality of this portion of Huntington Central Park is considered low. The project site does lie adjacent to the Huntington ' Central Park Sports Complex,which is planned for completion in April 2003. Portions of the Sports Complex would have direct views into the project site. ' LIGHT/GLARE On-Site The existing project site does not produce any significant light or glare due to the lack of operational on-site lighting facilities. ' City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 4.7-1 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.7 AESTHETICS/LIGHT&GLARE ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Off-Site , The predominant sources of light and glare within the site vicinity are from street lighting along ' surrounding roads and parking lot lighting at Huntington Central Library located north of the project site. Adjacent buildings and motor vehicles in parking areas and along City streets generate relatively minor amounts of glare. Existing light sources include security and street lighting from ' adjacent uses,as well as vehicles traveling on Goldenwest Street,Talbert Avenue, Gothard Street, and Ellis Avenue. IMPACTS Significance thresholds in this Section are based:on the CEQA Appendix G Environmental Checklist r Form as indicated below. Significance Criteria ' A potentially significant impact to aesthetics would occur if the project caused one or more of the ' following to occur: 4- the project were to affect a scenic vista or scenic highway; ' 4- the project were to have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect; and/or d• the project were to create adverse light or glare effects. ' The significance of an aesthetic impact, in terms of this project, can be determined by examining anticipated project effects from a number of different vantage points, including construction-related visual disruption, observer position, and changes to the existing visual character of the area. CONSTRUCTION RELATED IMPACTS ' Remediation/construction debris, associated equipment and heavy truck traffic may adversely ' impact views of and across the project site. Remediation and construction activities on the site would be visible from adjacent uses including Ocean View Mobile Home Park, Huntington Central Library and the adjacent Sports Complex (under construction). Remediation/construction would ' also be visible from Talbert Avenue and Goldenwest Street. However,these impacts would not be considered significant,.as they would be short-term,and considering the relatively small scale of the project. Standard construction measures such as screened construction fencing would be utilized ' to screen the staging and construction areas from site visitors and the general public. SITE CHARACTER , The project site exists as a former gun range utilized by the general public and Huntington Beach Police Officers Association. The site is located within an industrial area, with Hanson Recycling Center located adjacent to the northeast and the Orange County Transfer Station adjacent to the City of Huntington Beach March 27,2003 , 4.7-2 1 ' , < " ^tb e:.�'� �':,. -°, ..,ba 't•� R}:`..� TIE._ « , •a, , T y o ' .�j�� w{ s. sc'� ,�:s• � �ti r �'_`..>"e, a �` ate. View of the northeast portion of the subject site from the �A westerly view of the gun range facility from the east. �A view of a firing station area and storage shed located on Orange County Transfer Station located adjacent to the ' the southern portion of the subject site. ' east. I i , < I , i r`x y. a`r�� a �•' g' T�. �'�" "y,, � Y,. 5^*9 s i � � #. �a�'` �e � <gt's-i`�;`g. _ a ��$.� flz.�.J.r: <FT '.dire; , a ✓� � '-?I. ��'-�'� �'�� � ":Rz"t �<'�, t, .3 '�,. , r3s�` ice• �e-n'..."�^`.d"��,',,�t 'a,!i- � • ��4.,�t,�, -�,�" '�,r,�;"t'"� 'ter- ca}a�'§,:> .igi'•m;p ,�}u_ ':, e a'a l; "r ,at,' 8 ,r• 't #•> 1 k`. P �'`A. G�.r,«- a'';"•'+,t:;S 14 � . �.:. " I MA view of the western portion of the facility from the ©A northwesterly view of the portion of the site used by the ©A southwesterly view of firing stations used by the general southwestern corner of the gun range. Huntington Beach Police Officers Association. public, located in the southern portion-of the firing range. ' REMEDIATION OF THE FORMER GUN RANGE WITHIN HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK ' On-Site Photographs PLANNING ■ DESIGN ■ CONSTRUCTIDN Exhibit 8 WF 12/02 JN 10-100972 - CONSU Lf NG 1 i :a , .F ,Y ..�...... .. _... .,...rn .. .. �.. --..... ._ tea.. #n s"- , Y� •ia� JJ• ,a s: 8 Northerly view of the Hanson Recycling Center located A southwesterly view of Sully Miller Lake, located A northerly view of Huntington Central Library situated immediately northeast of the subject site. south of the project site. north of the project site. u. ._....... ... � _ _ �... _... m vW ., •e::e•T.-, ram" - :fF i .fix. a; w z `s- -, , " .0 ' Northwesterly view of the Orange County Transfer Station A westerly view of the Ocean View Mobile Home Park, Northerly view of the Chevron facility located northeast of located immediately east of the subject site. ©situated southwest of the proposed project site. the subject site. REMEDIATION OF THE FORMER GUN RANGE WITHIN HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK ' Off-Site Photographs PLANNING ■ DESIGN ■ CONSTRUCTIDN Exhibit 9 MF 12102 JN 10-100972 CONSLI Lf-NG Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.7 AESTHETICS/LIGHT&GLARE Draft Environmental Impact Report ' east. Currently, no aesthetic screening exists around the proposed project site. The proposed project would improve the aesthetic character of the site vicinity by replacing the existing dilapidated gun range facility and associated deteriorated structures and debris with open space/park uses. The project would adhere to all City requirements with regard to building heights, landscaping, lighting, setbacks and lot coverage. Therefore, the project is considered to represent a positive ' impact relative to change in the existing on-site character. Relative to the project's interim and long-term recreational/open space use aesthetic effects on adjacent uses,the potential future uses are anticipated to represent a less than significant aesthetic impact. This is based on the primary assumption that the future use(s) would be consistent with existing site land use and zoning designations for recreational/open space uses. This EIR has iassumed that future uses would be of a "Low"to "Medium" intensity, as defined in the Huntington Central Park Master Plan. In addition, any structures associated with the project would require ' Design Review Board approval, as is required of structures within public-designated areas. With respect to aesthetics, given that the adjacent uses are recreational and industrial, a more intense recreational use would not be expected to have any greater aesthetic impacts. ' LIGHT AND GLARE ' Currently, the project site is void of lighting facilities and lacks reflective surfaces capable of producing significant amounts of glare. Additional light fixtures may be necessary for proposed interim or long-term facilities. Any new lighting would be subject to City design standards and would utilize directional lighting techniques and low wattage bulbs (without compromising site safety or security)in order to direct light downwards and minimize light spillover. Project implementation may also result in additional reflective surfaces on proposed structures, and from vehicles utilizing the ' facility. However, the resulting glare effects would be relatively minor when compared to existing levels of glare in the project area. This impact is considered less than significant with implementation of standard design practices and required mitigation. MITIGATION MEASURES CONSTRUCTION RELATED IMPACTS None required. SITE CHARACTER AES-1 For areas visible b existing or proposed residential areas, exterior mechanical Y 9 P P equipment shall be screened from view on all sides,and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be setback 15 feet from the exterior edges of the building. Equipment to be screened includes, but is not limited to, heating, air conditioning, refrigeration equipment, plumbing lines, ductwork and transformers. Said screening shall be architecturally compatible with the building in terms of materials and colors. If screening is not designed specifically into the building,a rooftop mechanical equipment ' City of Huntington Beach March 27,2003 4.7-5 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 4.7 AESTHETICS/LIGHT&GLARE ' Draft Environmental Impact Report plan showing screening must be submitted for review and approval with the application ' for building permit(s). LIGHT AND GLARE AES-2 If outdoor lighting is included, light intensity shall be limited to that necessary for ' adequate security and safety. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent"spillage" onto adjacent properties and shall be shown on the site plan and elevations. UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS , None have been identified. City of Huntington Beach March 27,2003 ' 4.7-6 � 5.0 LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS � OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 1 1 1 1 1 5.0 LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE. PROPOSED PROJECT ' 5.1 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15126.2(c), an EIR must identify potentially irreversible ' environmental changes associated with a project,including use of non-renewable natural resources during construction and operation,increased accessability to natural resources,increased long-term commitments to using natural resources, and/or potential for project-related accidents that could irreversibly affect the environment. This EIR has identified the following potentially irreversible environmental changes associated with project implementation: o0 The project will not require unusually large quantities of natural resources for remediation construction, due to the relatively limited area of remediation and the ' site's proposed open space/park use; •: Operation and maintenance of the proposed extension of Huntington Central Park ' will result in increased water use for the irrigation of landscaping. However, adequate water supply and facilities are available to serve the proposed project site; or ❖ The proposed remediation plan will have long-term positive public health and safety effects due to reduced potential for risk of upset. However, although actual site ' contamination levels will be reduced to acceptable levels, the proposed long-term recreational open space uses will attract additional people to the site. ' 5.2 . GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION Pursuant to CEQA Section 15126.2(d),the following section discusses ways in which the proposed ' project could foster economic, housing, or population growth, whether directly or indirectly in the surrounding environments. The growth-inducing impacts of the proposed project are assessed in terms of whether the project removes obstacles to development,requires construction of expanded facilities that could serve other future developments, or otherwise facilitate or encourage development of other activities that could significantly affect that environment. "It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial,detrimental,or of little significance to the environment." Population The population of the County of Orange was 2,880,200 as of January 1, 2001 and 2,939,500 as of ' January 1, 2002. This represented a 2.1 percent increase in population over this time period. The population of the City of Huntington Beach was 19.1,500 as of January 1, 2001 and 194,600 as of City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 5-1 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 5.0 LONGTERM IMPLICATIONS , Draft Environmental Impact Report January 1, 2002.' This represented a 1.6 percent increase in population over this time period. ' Therefore, the population of the City of Huntington Beach increased at a slightly slower rate than that of the County over the past year. In 2002, the population of the City of Huntington Beach ' represented 6.6 percent of the total population of the County of Orange. The California Department of Finance estimates an increase in County population to 3,031,440 in the year 2005, and to 3,168,942 in the year 2010.2 ' The proposed project would not directly generate an increase in population since no new housing would be constructed as part of the project. There are no substantial infrastructure improvements ' required for the project. Although the project may require relatively nominal additional staff for long- term recreational uses, the project is not of the scope or nature such that it is anticipated to generate the need for new housing in the area. The proposed project is consistent with all City , planning policies. Therefore, project implementation does not have the capacity to result in an increase in population beyond local or regional population projections. Housing The California Department of Finance estimated approximately 986,606 housing units with a ' vacancy rate of 3.53 percent in the County of Orange,and 76,410 housing units with a vacancy rate of 2.65 percent in the City of Huntington Beach as of January 1, 2002.3 The open space/park project would occur at the former gun range facility location and would not involve the construction ' of any new housing or the relocation of any existing housing. Although the project may result in a minimal increase in employees which would work on-site, it would not affect the availability of ' housing or create additional demand for housing throughout the community. Employment ' The proposed project site exists as a former gun range which ceased operating in 1997. The existing facility is abandoned and does not require the employment of any personnel. ' Implementation of the proposed extension of Huntington Central Park would generate minor short- term and long-term employment within the City of Huntington Beach. Facility enhancements are not expected to result in a substantial need for operational staff at the proposed open space/park , facility, although temporary employment would be provided for gun range remediation and construction (see Section 3, PROJECT DESCRIPTION). Project implementation would not ' appreciably affect the projected employment figure of 1,589,100 jobs in the year 2006 for the County of Orange°. In addition, due to the small scale of the proposed project, the project would not substantially affect the jobs/housing balance of the City of Huntington Beach. It should further ' t California Department of Finance,"City/County Population Estimates,with Annual Percent Change,January 1, ' 2001 and 2002." May 2002. 2 Center for Demographic Research,"Orange County Facts and Figures",March 2002. ' 3 California Department of Finance, Report E-5, "City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 2002,Revised 2001,with 2000 Census Counts." May 2002. 4 California Employment Development Department. "Orange County Occupational Projections,1999-2006."July,1999. ' City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 ' 5-2 ' Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 5.0 LONGTERM IMPLICATIONS Draft Environmental Impact Report be noted that the project is considered consistent with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. As the proposed project does not include the construction of housing, and since proposed on-site enhancements are not expected to result in a substantial increase in employment,the project would ' result in only nominal increases in population and short-termAong-term employment, and no increase in housing within the City of Huntington Beach. In addition, the project would not substantially induce growth in the area directly or indirectly, since the project area is essentially "built-out" and since the project would utilize existing infrastructure facilities, and will be in compliance with the City's General Plan and Zoning. ' 5.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS This section has been included in the EIR to.address the cumulative impacts associated with the ' proposed project. In accordance.with CEQA Guidelines §15130, an EIR shall address cumulative impacts of a project when the project's incremental cumulative effect is considerable, as defined in §15065(c). The discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence, but the discussion need not provide as much detail as is provided for the effects attributable to the project alone. The EIR need not address cumulative impacts for which ' the project does not contribute. The discussion should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness. The following elements are necessary for an adequate discussion of cumulative impacts. 1. Either: a. A list of relevant past, present and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts including, if necessary,those projects outside the control of the agency, or b. A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which, has been adopted or ' certified, which described or evaluated regional or area-wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact. ' 2. A summary of the expected environmental effects to be produced by those projects with specific reference to additional information stating where that information is available, and 3. A reasonable analysis of the cumulative impacts of the relevant projects. An EIR shall ' examine reasonable,feasible options for mitigating or avoiding the.project's contribution to any significant cumulative effects. Geographic Scope of Cumulative Impact Assessment ' Due to the relatively small scale of the project,this EIR focuses primarily on the subject site vicinity and adjacent environs, with some assessment of cumulative impacts on a city-wide basis. 1 City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 5-3 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 5.0 LONG TERM IMPLICATIONS Draft Environmental Impact Report Cumulative Impact Methodology ' The following cumulative impact discussion is based primarily on build-out of the City's General Plan, Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, General Plan EIR, and Central Park Master EIR. These ' documents are contained in Section 2.5,DOCUMENTATION INCORPORATED BYREFERENCE. The cumulative projects identified below represent the currently known probable projects at the time ' of Draft EIR publication. Cumulative impacts may be discussed in terms of project impacts, in combination with impacts ' anticipated for future development(including approved and planned development within the project area and surrounding affected area). The geographic area for each impact varies, depending on the nature of the impact, whether it is regional, such as air quality, or local such as noise. ' Quantification is difficult for cumulative impacts,as it would require speculative estimates of impacts including, but not limited to, the following: the geographic diversity of impacts (impacts of future ' development may affect different areas);variations in time of impacts(many project impacts would occur at different times, and would be reduced or removed before other impacts occurred); complete data are not available for all future development; and data for future development may ' change following subsequent approvals. However, every attempt has been made here to make a qualitative judgement of the combined effect of, and relationship between, cumulative projects. ' CEQA notes that the discussion of cumulative impacts should be guided by standards of practicality and reasonableness (guidelines, §15130 (b)). Only those impacts that might compound or interrelate with those of the project at hand require evaluation. Potential cumulative impacts of the ' proposed project, in combination with cumulative development projects, are discussed below. Precise impacts of future development have been or will be discussed in appropriate environmental documentation (depending on what state of approval the project is in). ' Cumulative Projects In addition to incorporating by reference the cumulative impact discussion from the City of , Huntington Beach General Plan EIR and Central Park Master EIR, this EIR has provided the following list of specific cumulative projects to ensure an adequate assessment: ' The following proposed projects are located within one mile of the subject site: Central Park Sports Complex 45-acre facility with lighted softball/soccer fields '❖ Cen Sp p ( ty g , concession/restroom structures, maintenance facilities, and parking, located near ' Gothard Street and Talbert Avenue). d• Central Park Equestrian Center(20 pipe corrals,three office trailers,6,500 suqare feet of manure bunkers, three farrier work stations, three wash racks, six cross ties, a ' decomposed granite and sand storage area,and a 4,000 s.f.maintenance yard,located near Taylor Drive and Goldenwest Street). ' m The Tides (77 townhouse units located near Goldenwest Street and Clay Avenue). d• In-N-Out Burger(3,100 s.f.restaurant located at Talbert Avenue and Beach Boulevard). ' City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 5-4 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 5.0 LONGTERM IMPLICATIONS Draft Environmental Impact Report ' 4• Woodwind Commerce Industrial Business Park (97,000 s.f. industrial business park located on the north side of Talbert Avenue, between Gothard Street and Beach ' Boulevard). 4• Southridge Homes(13 single family dwellings located at Main Street and Clay Avenue). ' 4• The Fountains Senior Apartments (271 residential units located near Main Street and Yorktown Avenue). ' 4• Nine-unit residential project (located at Garfield Avenue and Huntington Street). ❖ Geil Kiln (21,000 s.f. manufacturing facility located near Gothard Street and Clay Avenue). 4• PLC,four-unit,seven-unit,and 10-unit condominium dwelling subdivisions(located near Gothard Street and Main Street). ' 4• PLC, 29 unit apartment complex (located at Main Street and Gothard Street). 4• Seacliff Business Center(62,000 s.f. industrial business park located near Goldenwest Street and Clay Avenue). The following projects are located more than one mile from the subject site: ' oti 253 single family and townhouse dwellings (located at Palm Avenue and Goldenwest Street).' ' 4• Lowe's Hardware(100,000 s.f. building/garden center located at Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue).e ' 4• 86 detached single family dwellings (located at Beach Boulevard and Atlanta Avenue). 4• Delaware Apartments (30 apartment units located at Delaware Street and Utica ' Avenue). 4• Meadowlark Specific Plan (313 detached single family dwellings located near Heil Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street).' 46 Huntington Beach Mall (1 million s.f. of regional commercial development [rebuild], located north of Edinger Avenue between Gothard Street and Beach Boulevard).' ' 5 The portion of the site owned by PLC was rezoned to the Palm and Goldenwest Specific Plan. Prior to rezoning,the site had a maximum potential for 840 dwelling units.With rezoning and approval of other entitlements,the site will have an ultimate build-out of 253 units. ' S The site is proposed to be rezoned from PS(Public-Semipublic)to CG(Commercial General). This site is currently a vacant school. ' The Meadowlark Specific Plan was revised to allow a maximum of 345 units instead of 600 units. The project was built ' with only 313 units. 8 This project underwent a zone change, however, the intensity of development did not change. The property was rezoned from CG(Commercial General)to a specific plan. However,commercial development is allowed under either zoning. ' City of Huntington Beach March 27,2003 5-5 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 5.0 LONGTERM IMPLICATIONS , Draft Environmental Impact Report v Waterfront Residential (184 attached residential dwellings located near Beach ' Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway). The majority of cumulative projects have been accounted for and previously analyzed within the City , of Huntington Beach General Plan,General Plan EIR,and Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Four cumulative projects require a zoning change or General Plan amendment. However, all four , projects are located over one mile from the subject site. Any environmental impacts resulting from a zoning change or General Plan amendment will be mitigated properly on a case-by-case basis. Impacts in this regard are not anticipated to be significant. ' Public Health and Safety The proposed project has positive public health and safety effects due to remediation of the former gun range facility. On a cumulative basis, other project sites that are constrained due to site contamination will require remediation on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with applicable ' health and safety regulations. Land Use/Relevant Planning The proposed project is not considered to represent a significant cumulative land use or relevant ' planning impact, as the remediation/construction processes are consistent with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan and Central Park Master EIR. Mitigation of cumulative land use impacts are best accomplished by area-wide mitigation programs, conforming to the adopted ' zoning, General Plan designations and zoning, and implementing project-specific mitigation measures where appropriate. Geology and Soils , Cumulative effects related to earth resources resulting from the proposed project and development , in the vicinity of the proposed project include short term increases in erosion due to excavation, backfilling and grading activities. These impacts are anticipated to be mitigated by enforcing proper ' erosion protection measures during remediation and construction of the proposed project, and will be mitigated on a project-by-project basis. In addition,sites with unsuitable development conditions such as liquefaction and seismic hazards,are best mitigated on an individual basis. The proposed , project will comply with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and all erosion control measures established by the City. The proposed project is not anticipated to negatively add to the cumulative impacts of the area with regards to geology and soils. ' Air Quality The proposed project would, in combination with other developments in the area, have cumulative air quality impacts due to direct impacts from vehicle emissions and indirect impacts from electricity consumption. Cumulative air quality impacts are best mitigated by compliance with the City's ' General plan to ensure jobs/housing balance consistency,and through compliance with applicable emissions reduction measures as required by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 ' 5-6 ' Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 5.0 LONG TERM IMPLICATIONS Draft Environmental Impact Report ' Noise ' Potential long-term noise associated with the proposed project is expected to be generated by both mobile and stationary sources. Increased traffic volumes resulting from the implementation of the proposed project and cumulative development of surrounding areas are anticipated to result in ' cumulative increases in noise levels within the City. The project's contribution to this increase, however, is considered negligible (see Section 4.5, NOISE), and has been previously analyzed within the City's General Plan, General Plan EIR, Central Park Master EIR, and the City's ' Transportation System Needs Analysis,2000-2010. Construction-related noise may also contribute to cumulative noise impacts. However,the geographic separation and differing schedules of these projects, together with compliance with the City's standard construction requirements, should ' minimize impacts to any one area. Due to the scope and nature of the open space/park project,on- site stationary noise sources are not expected to generate significant amounts of noise and will be consistent with City standards and analysis contained in the Central Park Master EIR. ' Aesthetics/Light and Glare ' Temporary construction impacts and facility operation will change the aesthetic character of the project site vicinity. The project site exists as a dilapidated gun range which ceased operating in 1997. The proposed project is expected to improve the overall aesthetic character of the site vicinity by replacing the former gun range with an open space/park facility. The proposed extension of Huntington Central Park may introduce new sources of lighting to the area. However, appropriate ' mitigation measures to prevent the occurrence of significant amounts of light spillover.will be incorporated into site design. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to be cumulatively significant with other projects within the City in this regard. Public Services and Utilities ' The proposed project is not expected to result in any individual or cumulative impacts to public services and utilities. Cumulative impacts are best addressed on a project-specific basis and through implementation of City-wide programs such as service connection and impact fees,energy ' conserved and recycling programs. City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 ' 5-7 1 6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 1 1 i r 6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE r PROPOSED ACTION r ' In conformance with CEQA Guidelines §15126.6, the EIR has included a comparative impact assessment of "alternatives to the proposed project". The primary purpose for this section is to provide decision-makers and the public with a"reasonable range"of project alternatives which could feasiblely attain most of the basic project objectives, while avoiding or substantially lessening any of the project's significant adverse environmental effects. Important considerations for this alternatives analysis include (as noted in §15126.6): `• "...An EIR need not consider eve conceivable alternative to a project." every P 1 4- An EIR should identify "alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but r were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process..." C. Reasons for rejecting an alternative include: "...failure to meet most of the basic project objectives"; "...infeasibility"; and "...inability to avoid significant environmental effects". r The EIR has identified an "unavoidable" significant impact of the project in regards to short-term ' remediation/construction-related NO,emissions. It is not anticipated that implementation of any of the feasible alternatives to the proposed project would eliminate this unavoidable significant impact. However, certain cumulative impacts, to which the project will contribute, may be slightly reduced with some of the alternatives. Project-related cumulative impacts include air quality and noise, although the project's contribution is not"cumulatively considerable"as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15126.6. As noted in Section 3.4, PROJECT OBJECTIVES, the proposed project's "basic objectives" consist of: . 1. Remediate the former gun range facility of on-site contaminants resulting from over 20 years of firing range use, in order to protect the health and safety of those in the surrounding community. 2. Provide residents within the City of Huntington Beach with open space/recreational opportunities through the provision of interim/long-term park facilities.upon completion of site remediation. 1 6.1 "NO DEVELOPMENT" ALTERNATIVE rNone of the impacts associated with the proposed development and construction activities would occur if the"No Development"alternative were selected. Implementation of this alternative would leave the existing abandoned gun range facility in place, and would avoid any adverse physical or environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. Existing geologic,soils,and aesthetic conditions in the area would remain the same. Air quality and noise impacts due to building and park construction and increased traffic would not occur with the "No Development" alternative. ' City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 6-1 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 6.0 ALTERNATIVES Draft Environmental Impact Report Under the "No Development" alternative, the project site would not be developed to its planned condition, as set forth in the City of Huntington Beach General Plan. Although ostensibly feasible, the "No Development" alternative is not presently being considered because it fails to meet the basic project objectives and is not consistent with current City plans for the site (given the site's dilapidated condition). In addition, the existing gun range facility, if not remediated as proposed, degrades the aesthetic character of the vicinity and poses a significant health risk due to significant amounts of on-site contamination. 6.2 "INTERIM USE" ALTERNATIVE The "interim use" alternative would involve a temporary use on-site after the site has been remediated until a long-term open space/park facility is established. Possible interim uses would be consistent with City designations for the site, which include an "Open Space-Park (OS-P)" designation by the General Plan and "Open Space-Parks and Recreation (OS-PR)" by the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. In addition, the Central Park Master EIR sets forth five land use designations to be used within Huntington Central Park, which includes the subject site itself: 14• L- Recreation/Low Intensity: Open Space developed for low intensity passive- type researched activities ❖ M - Recreation/Medium Intensity: Open Space developed for medium intensity or semi-active recreation activities , ❖ H - Recreation/High Intensity: Developed area for high intensity or active type recreation activities. This designation includes structural and/or support facilities ❖ E - Environmental Sensitive Areas: Limited development, for public use, that does not adversely impact identified scientific, ecological, cultural, or aesthetic features ❖ O - Operations: Land set aside for maintenance/operational facilities.' Possible uses, among others, include: ❖ Maintenance/Operations Facility •: Camping Area ti• Children's Playground 8• Picnic Area v Snack Bar/Restaurant ti• Dog Park ❖ Parking facility Huntington Central Park Master Plan of Recreation Uses,February 6, 1999. City of Huntington Beach March 27,2003 6-2 ' i f the Former n Range within n Central Park 6.0 ALTERNATIVES Remed anon o e Gun age wi hm Huntington Draft Environmental Impact Report Other interim uses are possible,which may require a Conditional use Permit,Zone Change and/or ' General Plan Amendment. As discussed in Section 3, PROJECT DESCRIPTION, due to the conceptual nature of potential interim or long-term uses,any such use(s)would require separate discretionary review and environmental documentation by the City of Huntington Beach. For the purposes of this discussion,the interim use is assumed to be consistent with City General Plan and I Zoning designations,and generally be characterized as a moderate to low intensity recreational use (such as picnic area,dog park,or similar use). Based on the large number of possible interim uses for the subject site,it is difficult to present a well-defined"Interim Use"alternative. Potential impacts resulting from the various project implementation scenarios vary greatly from one another. The following description is a broad characterization of potential impacts based on the possible"interim 1 use" alternatives described above: Public Health and Safety An interim use would be expected to have similar impacts as the long-term recreational use. All remedial objectives found in the Remedial Action Plan would apply to either a long-term or interim use. Land Use/Relevant Planning As described in detail above, this alternative would be consistent with land use designations in the City's General Plan, zoning ordinance, and policies contained within the Central Park Master EIR. The Ocean View Mobile Home Park and Huntington Central Library are the two sensitive receptors in the immediate project vicinity. Higher intensity recreational uses may create potential land use conflicts within the site vicinity and would be greater than the proposed project, which assumes to be a medium/low-intensity use. . Geology and Soils Structures associated with higher intensity uses would have greater geological impacts than the proposed project, particularly with respect to settlement and special foundation requirements. The project site is situated on a decomposing landfill which ceased operating in the 1960's. Considerable improvements may be necessary to create a stable building pad for uses such as a- maintenance facility or other large structure. Air Quality ' Air quality impacts associated with the majority of allowed interim uses would not be significant. q tY P 1 Y 9 Higher intensity recreational uses attracting high volumes of users (entertainment areas, a maintenance facility, parking facility) may introduce higher volumes of vehicle emissions into the immediate vicinity. Impacts associated with higher intensity recreational uses would be greater than those of the proposed project. City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 6-3 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 6.0 ALTERNATIVES , Draft Environmental.Impact Report Noise Noise impacts associated with the majority of allowed interim uses would not be significant. Higher ' intensity recreational uses attracting high volumes of users (entertainment areas, a maintenance facility, parking facility) may introduce higher noise levels in the project vicinity due to facility operations and increased vehicle trips. Impacts associated with higher intensity recreational uses would be greater than those of the proposed project. Public Services and Utilities Impacts with regards to public services and utilities for interim uses are not anticipated to be significant, as future recreational development has been adequately analyzed within the City's General Plan EIR and the Central Park Master EIR with regards to public services and utilities. Aesthetics/Light& Glare ' Higher intensity recreational uses associated with the "interim use" alternative will have greater impacts with regards to aesthetics, light, and glare than the proposed project, which is assumed to be of moderate/lower intensity. Visually prominent structures, reflective surfaces, and associated lighting have the potential to impact the Ocean View Mobile Home Park and Huntington Central Library. Summary Depending on the nature of the Interim Use, this alternative would generally be expected to have similar impacts as the project. Certain more intense recreational activities or those involving substantial structures may have greater impacts in all issue areas, particularly geotechnical constraints. In addition,a higher intensity interim use may create parking and traffic impacts,which are not expected to occur with the proposed project. Although the City may pursue an interim use in the future, this is not under consideration at this time and would require separate discretionary review and environmental evaluation. 6.3 "RELOCATION OF HANSON RECYCLING CENTER"ALTERNATIVE This alternative involves the relocation of Hanson Aggregates West, Inc. Huntington Beach Recycling Center(located immediately northeast of the subject site)onto a portion of the former gun range, after remediation is complete. The Hanson Recycling Center is a 2.8-acre facility that recycles broken concrete and asphalt solid waste and processes it into road base material. The facility receives an average of 30 trucks per day. A portable rock crusher is brought on-site twice a year,for three to four weeks each use. The existing Hanson facility is currently located within the boundaries of Huntington Central Park. Because the subject site is designated "Open Space-Park(OS-P)" by tY the Ci 's General Plan and "Open Space-Parks and Recreation (OS-PR)" by the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 6-4 ' Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 6.0 ALTERNATIVES Draft Environmental Impact Report Hanson Recycling Center Relocation would be an "interim" use until long-term open space/park Y 9 9 P facilities are implemented on-site as designated by the City of Huntington Beach General Plan. In addition,this alternative would require either a revised or new Conditional Use Permit and undergo a separate discretionary review process. Public Health and Safety Due to the greater structural load placed on the underlying landfill, for both the aggregate rock pile and the rock crusher,this alternative may accelerate local differential settlement and/or landfill gas migration. Special design measures may be necessary to accommodate this use. ' Land Use Planning ' The"Relocation of Hanson Recycling Center"alternative is anticipated to result in similar land use impacts when compared to the proposed project. The relocation of the Hanson facility approximately 200 feet southwest of its previous long-term location (of approximately 20 years) would result in a negligible increase in noise, air, and aesthetic impacts when considering that the Sports Complex separates the project site and the Ocean View Mobile Home Park and the ' requirements that the Hanson facility would be aesthetically screened and maximum heights of aggregate stockpiles on-site would be lower than currently allowed. Geology and Soils As noted above, this alternative may require special design measures due to increased structural load over the former landfill. Air Quality The"Relocation of Hanson Recycling Center"alternative is anticipated to result in similar air quality Y 9 impacts in comparison to the proposed project. The recycling facility would not generate higher levels of traffic, would utilize the same access road as the existing Hanson facility, and truck traffic generated by the facility would use the same routes as the existing facility. The relocation of the 1 Hanson facility approximately 200 feet southwest of its previous long-term location(of approximately 20 years) would result in a negligible increase in air impacts when considering that the Sports Complex separates the project site and the Ocean View Mobile Home Park and the fact that prevailing winds in the site vicinity carry dust to the north. Noise This alternative, as stated above, is anticipated to result in similar noise impacts in comparison to the proposed project. The relocation of the Hanson facility approximately 200 feet southwest of its ' previous long-term location(of approximately 20 years)would result in a negligible increase in noise impacts when considering existing ambient noise levels in the vicinity, that the Sports Complex separates the project site and the Ocean View Mobile Home Park,and the fact that prevailing winds in the site vicinity dissipate noise to the north. City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 6-5 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 6.0 ALTERNATIVES ' Draft Environmental Impact Report Public Services and Utilities ' The alternative will,not create significant impacts to utilities, as the Hanson facility will require r minimal amounts of electricity and water, of which adequate facilities currently exist. Demand for public services will not exceed that of the existing facility in its present location. Aesthetics/Light & Glare The "Relocation of Hanson Recycling Center" alternative is anticipated to have similar impacts in comparison to the proposed project in regards to aesthetics, light, and glare. As stated above, the relocation of the Hanson facility approximately 200 feet southwest of its previous long-term location (of approximately 20 years) would result in a negligible increase in aesthetic impacts when considering that the Sports Complex separates the project site and the Ocean View Mobile Home Park and the requirements that the Hanson facility would be aesthetically screened and maximum heights of aggregate stockpiles on-site would be lower than currently allowed. Summary This alternative, although originally under consideration by the City, is not presently being considered due to the City's desire to utilize the site for recreational uses. Should this alternative be considered in the future, it would require separate discretionary review and environmental analysis. As described above, this alternative, although relocating an existing activity without substantially changing operations, may pose greater impacts in terms of landfill gas and settlement hazards while impacts in regards to aesthetics, air quality, and noise would be similar to those of the proposed project. 6.4 "ALTERNATIVE USE" ALTERNATIVE The Cityis not exploring more intense "Alternative Uses" such as commercial industrial or p 9 residential, primarily due to the site's previous use as a landfill operated by the County of Orange until the 1960's and the City's desire to maintain the site as open space in the long term. 6.5 "ALTERNATIVE SITE" ALTERNATIVE ' "Altemative Site" for this project would not be applicable. As stated in Section 3.4, PROJECT OBJECTIVES, the remediation of the former gun range facility is a basic objective of the proposed project. On-site contamination, consisting primarily of lead, zinc, and copper, poses a serious health threat to the surrounding community. The selection of an alternative site would conflict with the primary purpose of the project, and therefore is not under consideration. 6.6 ALTERNATIVE PROJECT DESIGNS There are two alternatives for site remediation, although the feasible solutions are relatively limited due to the site's size and nature of contamination (discussed in Section 4.1, PUBLIC HEALTH City of Huntington Beach March 27,2003 6-6 1 Form Gun within Central Park 6.0 ALTERNATIVES Remediation of the Former u Range th n Huntington Ce a Draft Environmental Impact Report AND SAFETY). Any alternative design for remedial operations would most likely result in similar impacts to the proposed project. In regards to reuse of the subject site, the City has yet to select a specific long-term recreational use, and, as such, any alternative project design for reuse would be subject to separate discretionary and environmental review. 6.7 "ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR" ALTERNATIVE None of the above alternatives are considered "environmentally superior"to the proposed project. The "No Project" alternative would minimize environmental impacts but would pose significant health risks to the surrounding community by leaving the former gun range contaminated,and would ' not implement the City's General Plan and Zoning for the site. Many of the"Interim Use"alternative land uses would have the same range of impacts as the proposed project,while the higher intensity recreational uses would most likely have greater impacts than the proposed project. The "Relocation of the Hanson Recycling Center" alternative would likely result in greater land use, noise,air,and aesthetic impacts to the Ocean View Mobile Home Park. An"Alternative Use"would not only likely generate greater traffic, air and noise impacts, but would also not be consistent with General Plan and zoning designations, and would create public health and safety concerns due to landfill gas, settlement, and site contamination hazards. 1 1 City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 6-7 � 7.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT 1 t 1 1 1 1 7.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT ' _ TO BE. SIGNIFICANT This discussion is based on the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation dated March 14, 2001, as ' contained in Appendix A to this EIR (circulated for public review between March 15 and April 13, 2001). The City of Huntington Beach prepared an Initial Study to determine the potentially significant effects of the proposed project and to assist in scoping the EIR issues. In the course of this evaluation, certain impacts of the project were found to be less than significant due to the inability of a project of this scope to create such impacts or the absence of project characteristics producing effects of this type. Although the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)Guidelines Section 15128 allows this discussion to incorporate an attached Initial Study by reference (see Appendix A, INITIAL STUDY/NOTICE OF PREPARATION), the following section provides a brief description of effects found not to be significant or less than significant, based on the Initial Study, ' NOP comments and subsequent more detailed analyses conducted through the EIR preparation process. Several issues indicated as "No Impact' or "Less than Significant Impact" in the Initial Study are nonetheless addressed in the EIR as a matter of clarification or convenience for the reader. In addition, certain Initial Study checklist items indicated as "Potentially Significant'were later found to be "Less than Significant' or "No Impact', and are also addressed in the EIR as a ' matter of convenience for the reader. 7.1 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT ' The followingis a discussion of potential project impacts as identified in the Initial Study. P P 1 P Y ' Explanations are provided for each item. 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project. ' a) Physically divide an established community? ' No Impact. The project site has been previously developed, and is surrounded by industrial, public, and open space uses. The project site is proposed to become an open space extension of the existing Huntington Central Park. Project implementation is not of a scope or nature such that it would physically divide an established community or disrupt the physical arrangement of the City. There are no anticipated significant long-term land use or planning impacts. However, the EIR addresses potential land use impacts associated with short-term remediation/construction operations, including lighting, noise, dust and traffic (Section 4.2). ' b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal ' program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? ' City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 7-1 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 7.0 EFFECTS FOUND ' Draft Environmental Impact Report NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT No Impact. The City of Huntington Beach General Plan land use designation for the proposed project site is Open Space-Park and is zoned OS-PR (Open Space-Parks and Recreation). Proposed uses for the project site will be consistent with the General Plan and , Zoning Ordinance,as well as policies contained in the Huntington Central Park Master Plan. However,the EIR addresses relevant planning programs in Section 4.2 and throughout the EIR. , c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact. The proposed project will not conflict with any habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans,as there are no such plans applicable to the project. l 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: , a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly(for example, through extension of roads or other ' infrastructure)? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project site is in an urban area, and was ' previously developed. All major infrastructure systems, including utilities, roads, and other public services are in place. The proposed project is not expected to induce local growth, either directly or indirectly. Therefore, impacts are not expected in the regard. Growth- t inducing issues are discussed in Section 5.2 of the EIR. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of ' replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The proposed project will not displace people or homes, as the project area , does not contain residential units. The proposed project site is within an area of primarily industrial, public, and open space uses. Ocean View Mobile Home Park is located , approximately 0.25 miles to the southwest. No housing in this mobile home park will be displaced by the proposed project. The proposed project will not alter proposed land uses and complies with the City's General Plan. No impacts related to the displacement of the population are anticipated. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. Refer to Response 2b, above. , 3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of , P P P P 9 loss, injury, or death involving: City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 , 7-2 ' Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 7.0 EFFECTS FOUND Draft Environmental Impact Report NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT 1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based ' on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ' No Impact. Several earthquake faults traverse the City of Huntington Beach, the largest of which is the Newport-Inglewood Fault. This fault has been deemed capable of producing fault rupture due to co-seismic or primary seismic activity. ' However, the subject site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone, as the Newport-Inglewood fault zone is located one mile south of the subject site. Because no known or mapped active seismic faults traverse the subject site, ' no impacts would occur in this regard. Geologic constraints are addressed in Section 4.3, Geology and Soils. ' 2) Landslides? ' No Impact. According to the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, potential landslide areas within the City are limited to the mesa bluffs region. The proposed project site is not in this region and is generally flat. Therefore, project implementation would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving landslides. Geologic constraints are addressed in Section 4.3, Geology and Soils. ' b) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? ' No Impact. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed. Therefore, no impacts in this regard are*expected. ' HYDROLOGY N W / h project: 4 H RO AND WATER QUALITY. Would the p � ra) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge.requirements? Less Than Significant Impact. Impacts related to water quality would primarily result from erosion,siltation,and sedimentation occurring both during remediation of the gun range and grading for recreation uses. However, the project will be in compliance with all Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board(SARWQCB)requirements and will obtain a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Permit. Typical urban water quality pollutants usually result from motor vehicle operations, oil and grease residues, ' fertilizer/pesticide uses, and careless material storage and handling. Use of Best Management Practices (BMP's)will ensure that all on-site surface water will be directed.to existing storm drains. In addition, a Water Quality Management Plan in accordance with ' NPDES standards will be prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix A, Attachment 4, Standard Conditions of Approval, Section C). With the incorporation of standard design ' measures, impacts are expected to be reduced.to less than significant levels and eliminates ' City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 7-3 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 7.0 EFFECTS FOUND ' Draft Environmental Impact Report NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT the need for further analysis (see Appendix A, Attachment 5, Huntington Central Park t Master Plan EIR, Measure Water-4). In addition,impacts concerning erosion, siltation, and sedimentation are discussed in Section 4.3, GEOLOGYAND SOILS. , b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ' groundwater table level(e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Less Than Significant Impact. Project implementation would not result in the depletion of groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater recharge since the project does ' not involve the extraction of groundwater from the site. Groundwater wells supply 80% of the City of Huntington Beach's water. Although the project would not interfere with groundwater recharge, future park use would require water use consistent with the City's General Plan. The City will perform necessary studies to determine what measures will reduce the project's impacts to the City's water supply systems, including groundwater ' wells (see Appendix A, Attachment 5, Huntington Central Park Master Plan EIR, Measure Utilities-7). Impacts in this regard are anticipated to be less than significant. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the ' alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? , Less Than Significant Impact. The site has been previously developed and is void of existing drainage courses such as rivers or streams. Although the project may incorporate ' substantial amounts of impermeable surfaces for parking lots,paths,and internal roads,the project is not of the scope or nature to significantly alter the site's absorption rate. The project will be in compliance with all Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board , (SARWQCB) requirements and will obtain a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)Municipal Permit(see Appendix A,Attachment 4, Standard Conditions of Approval, Section C). Use of Best Management Practices (BMP's)will ensure that all on- r site surface water will be directed to existing storm drains, in accordance with standard drainage facility design requirements (see Appendix A, Attachment 5, Huntington Central Park Master Plan EIR, Measure Utilities-8). d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the ' alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact. In addition, the proposed project is not located within a , 100-year flood hazard area nor does the project include any housing. The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of a waterway retained by a levee or dam. Therefore, , standard design measures are expected to reduce impacts to less than significant levels and eliminate the need for further environmental analysis. City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 ' 7-4 ' Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 7.0 EFFECTS FOUND Draft Environmental Impact Report NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT ' e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? ' Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response.4d, above. 1) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less Than Significant Impact. The project will be in compliance with all Santa Ana ' Regional Water Quality Control Board(SARWQCB)requirements and will obtain a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Permit. Typical urban water quality pollutants usually. result from motor vehicle operations, oil and grease residues, ' fertilizer/pesticide uses, and careless material storage and handling. Use of Best Management Practices (BMP's)will ensure that all on-site surface water will be directed to existing storm drains. In addition, a Water Quality Management Plan in accordance with NPDES standards will be prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix A, Attachment 4, Standard Conditions of Approval, Section C). With the incorporation of standard design ' measures,impacts are expected to be reduced to less than significant levels(see Appendix A, Attachment 5, Huntington Central Park Master Plan EIR, Measure Water-4). 1 g) Place housing within a 100 year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? ' No Impact. The proposed project does not include housing nor is it located within a 100- year flood hazard area. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated in this regard. h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? rNo Impact. The proposed project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area, therefore no impacts of this nature will occur. ' i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? ' No Impact. The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of a waterway retained by a levee or dam. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated in this regard. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ' No Impact. Previous evaluations put the tsunami potential for the City of Huntington Beach at very low. Of more concern are seiche waves-caused by tsunamis captured and reflected ' within the enclosed area of an inner harbor, such as Huntington Harbour. The project site is not in the vicinity of a harbor. In addition, the site vicinity is void of land features capable of producing mudflow.Therefore,the potential for inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow ' is sufficiently non-existent or remote so as not to be considered a significant impact. ' City of Huntington Beach March 27,2003 7-5 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 7.0 EFFECTS FOUND ' Draft Environmental Impact Report NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT 5. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air ' quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project. ' a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact.The proposed project may result in temporary construction- related emissions and long term air quality effects. The implementation of the proposed ' project could possibly increase the number of recreational users within the City, thereby resulting in additional vehicular trips. However,the project will be consistent with the City's General Plan and impacts in this regard have been adequately analyzed in the General Plan ' EIR and Central Park Master EIR. These impacts are addressed in the EIR within the air analysis section (Section 4.4). Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ' b) P PP q �Y Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 5a, above. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the ' project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? , Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 5a, above. 6. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project. , a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Less Than Significant Impact. Short-term Traffic Impacts: The proposed project's traffic impacts can be separated into , short-term impacts due to remedial and construction activities and long-term impacts from project operations. Short-term traffic impacts will result from increased trips of vehicles involved in the remediation and construction phases. However, in accordance with the City's Standard Conditions of Approval, a truck and construction vehicle routing plan will be prepared for the project to reduce any short-term traffic impacts to less than significant ' levels (refer to Appendix A, Attachment 4, Standard Conditions of Approval, Section F). Long-term Traffic Impacts: The City's recently adopted "Transportation System Needs ' Analysis 2000-2010 (September 12, 2000, approved by City Council October 2, 2000) indicates that all nearby intersections of Gothard, Talbert, Goldenwest and Ellis are City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 ' 7-6 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 7.0 EFFECTS FOUND Draft Environmental Impact Report NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT projected to operate at LOS D or better in 2010. The proposed recreational use for the former Gun Range site is not anticipated to generate significant traffic impacts, in ' consideration of its current General Plan designation and prior traffic levels associated with the former Gun Range when in operation. Estimated trip generation for the former gun range facility is approximately 500 trips per day.' In comparison, estimated trip generation rates for future interim and long-term use of the project site is considerably lower,estimated at between 60 and 100 trips per day.2 In addition, specific interim or long-term uses will require separate discretion and review and environmental analysis. ' b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? ' Less Than I Significant Impact. Refer to Response 6a, above. J P P ' c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? ' No Impact. Although the City of Huntington Beach is included within the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP)of Orange County, the proposed project site is located more than ' 20,000 feet from the Armed Forces Reserve Center in the City of Los Alamitos. In addition, the height of future structures would not penetrate navigable airspace or otherwise impact air traffic patterns. No impacts are anticipated in this regard. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than SignificantP Imp le act. Im lementation of the proposed project plan may result in ' an increase in vehicle trips, pedestrian activity, and bicycle use which could increase the potential for conflicts. However, implementation of the proposed Central Park Sports Complex(located adjacent to the project site)would include the widening of Gothard Street and the provision of sidewalks. These measures are expected to improve circulation and ' pedestrian safety within the area. Access to the subject site,currently provided via Gothard Street, is not proposed to change. Impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project shall be in compliance with all City of Huntington Beach emergency response and/or emergency evacuation plans. The project site is currently accessible via an entrance located along Gothard Street. Incorporation of ' required evacuation plans and procedures shall be incorporated into site design and the Per letter received from City of Huntington Beach,'Trip Generation Estimate for Gun Range at Huntington Central Park",February 22,2001. ' 2 Per letter received from City of Huntington Beach, 'Trip Generation for Hanson's Recycling and Dog Park scenario",April 24,2001. City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 7-7 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 7.0 EFFECTS FOUND ' Draft Environmental Impact Report NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT project will comply with applicable design standards. In accordance with the City's Standard ' Conditions of Approval, fire access roads shall be provided in accordance with Fire Department codes (see Appendix A, Attachment 4, Standard Conditions of Approval, Section D). Impacts in this regard are expected to be less than significant. Emergency services are addressed in Section 4.6, Public Services and Utilities. t) Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project may create additional demand for ' parking. Development of the project site would be consistent with the City's General Plan and zoning ordinance. The City's Standard Conditions of Approval require that on-site parking be provided for all construction workers and equipment, thereby eliminating short- ' term construction impacts(see Appendix A,Attachment 4,Standard Conditions of Approval, Section G). Interim or long-term uses would require separate discretionary review,including consideration of parking adequacy. No impacts are expected in this regard. ' g) Conflict with adopted policies,plans,orprograms supporting alternative transportation(e.g., , bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact. As stated above,the proposed project would incorporate the goals and policies ' of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan and Central Park Master Plan, and would not conflict with any other known policies. No impacts are expected in this regard. 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project. ' a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through mitigation measure obtain air district permit habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ' No Impact. The project exists as a former gun range practice facility and is located within an urbanized area. The project contains only sporadic trees and patches of non-native grasses and shrubs. The proposed project will not have a significant impact on biological resources by endangering or threatening rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds), as none are known to exist on-site. No Federal or State listed threatened or endangered plant species are known to exist on or near the project site. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated in this regard. ' b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The project area has been previously developed and has not been identified in any local or regional plans, policies or regulations by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No impacts to any riparian habitat or other City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 ' 7-8 ' Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 7.0 EFFECTS FOUND Draft Environmental Impact Report NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT sensitive natural communities would occur with the development of the project, as no riparian or sensitive habitat exists onsite. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) ' through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. The proposed project area has been developed in an urban area and is devoid ' of sensitive habitat, including wetlands. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? ' No Impact. Project implementation would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident ' or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites, since the project has been previously developed. No known wildlife dispersal or migration corridors exist in the area, therefore no impacts in this regard are associated with the development ' of the project. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. The project site is developed and located within an urban setting. Project ' implementation would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. ' t) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? ' No Impact. The project area does not have an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Plan or other habitat conservation plan and no other draft plan is in existence ' or proposed. Thus, the project would not result in impacts in this regard. 8. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project. a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? ' Less Than Significant Impact. No classified or designated mineral deposits of statewide or regional significance are known to occur within the project area. No significant impacts ' are-anticipated in this regard. ' City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 7-9 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 7.0 EFFECTS FOUND , Draft Environmental Impact Report NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site ' delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. The project site is located within a fully developed urban setting. The project ' site has not been delineated as an important mineral resource recovery site within the City's General Plan. No impacts are anticipated in this regard. , 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project. a) Emit hazardous emissions orhandle hazardous oracutely hazardous materials,substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact No existing or proposed school facilities are located within a one-quarter mile , radius of the project site. Therefore, no impacts in this regard are anticipated to occur. b Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled , pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result, would it create a significant ' hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. Although the site is known to be contaminated with lead and other toxic ' substances, the former gun range is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated in this regard. Public Health and Safety issues are addressed in Section 4.1. ' c) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in , a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. Although the City of Huntington Beach is included within the Airport Environs ' Land Use Plan (AELUP)of Orange County, the proposed project site is located more than 20,000 feet from the Armed Forces Reserve Center in the City of Los Alamitos. The height of future structures would not penetrate navigable airspace or otherwise impact air traffic ' patterns. No impacts are anticipated in this regard. d) Fora project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard ' for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. Refer to Response 9c, above. e) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan ' or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. The proposed project shall be in compliance with all City of Huntington Beach ' emergency response and/or emergency evacuation plans. The project site is currently accessible via an entrance located along Gothard Street. Incorporation of required City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 , 7-10' ' Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 7.0 EFFECTS FOUND Draft Environmental Impact Report NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT ' evacuation plans and procedures shall be incorporated into site design and the project will be in compliance with the applicable design standards. Impacts in this regard are not ' expected to occur. f) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland ' fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact. The project site is developed and located within a fully developed urban setting. Therefore,project implementation would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. 10. NOISE. Would the project result in: P ' a) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose ' people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. Although the City of Huntington Beach is included within the Airport Environs ' Land Use Plan (AELUP) of Orange County, the proposed project site is located more than 20,000 feet from the Armed Forces Reserve Center in the City of Los Alamitos. No impacts are anticipated in this regard. ' b) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ' No Impact Although the City of Huntington Beach is included within the Airport Environs P 9 Y 9 P Land Use Plan (AELUP) of Orange County, the proposed project site is not located in the ' vicinity of a private airstrip. No impacts are anticipated in this regard. ' 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. a) Would the project result in.substantial adverse physical impacts .associated with the ' provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or ' other performance objectives for any of the public services: 1) Fire protection? ' No Impact. The proposed project site is currently.developed and has previously been served by the Huntington Beach Fire Department. The proposed project will comply with all City of Huntington Beach safety codes, emergency response and/or emergency evacuation plans, and the City's General Plan. Fire access roads shall be provided in ' compliance with City of Huntington Beach Fire Department standards (see Appendix A, City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 7-11 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 7.0 EFFECTS FOUND , Draft Environmental Impact Report NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT Attachment 4, Standard Conditions of Approval, Section D of the/NIT/AL STUDY/NOP). ' Impacts in this regard have been adequately analyzed in the General Plan EIR and the Central Park Master EIR. However,these issues will be further analyzed in the EIR(Section ' 4.6). 2) Police protection? ' Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the project may result in an overall increased demand for police protection services. Police patrols within the proposed , recreation area will be necessary for crime prevention and safety measures. Police responses may be necessary during site remediation and construction. However, because this issue has been previously analyzed within the General Plan EIR and the Central Park ' Master EIR, impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. These issues are analyzed as part of.the public services and utilities section in the EIR (Section 4.6). 3 Schools? ' No Impact. The project vicinity is served by the Ocean View School District and the ' Huntington Beach Union High School District. The project is not expected to create a need for new or increased school services or to directly impact enrollment figures. However, , these issues are included in the EIR (Section 4.6). 4) Parks? ' No Impact. The project site is proposed as a recreational land use, consistent with the site's General Plan and zoning designations. Implementation of the project will enhance the , City's park system. No adverse impacts would occur in this regard. However,this issue will be further examined in the EIR within the public services and utilities analysis(Section 4.6). 5 Other public facilities? ' No Impact. No other adverse impacts have been identified for public services, therefore, ' no impacts are anticipated in this regard. 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: ' a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control ' Board? Less Than Significant Impact. Although wastewater is expected to be generated from the , potential park use,the amount of wastewater generated is not expected to exceed RWQCB requirements due to the scope and nature of the project. Although impacts are anticipated to be less than significant,these issues will be further examined within the EIR as part of the ' public services and utilities discussion (Section 4.6). City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 ' 7-12 ' Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 7.0 EFFECTS FOUND Draft Environmental Impact Report NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant ' environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact. Water consumption will primarily consist of irrigation of on- site vegetation, and may require the installation of water and wastewater facilities for restroom/concession buildings and drinking fountains. These will be provided as required by applicable City and County agencies. The City will perform necessary studies to ' determine what measures will reduce the project's impacts to the City's water supply systems (see Appendix A, Attachment 5, Huntington Central Park Master Plan EIR, ' Measure Utilities-7). In addition, project-related water demand is anticipated to be consistent with the General Plan EIR and the Central Park Master EIR and would not otherwise result in a significant increase in demand. These issues are analyzed in the EIR (Section 4.6). c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of ' existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will utilize existing storm water drainage facilities and is not expected to exceed the capacity of the drainage system or require new facilities to be constructed. Use of Best Management Practices (BMP's) will ensure that all on-site surface water will be directed to existing storm drains, in accordance with standard drainage facility design requirements (see Appendix A, Attachment 4, Huntington Central Park Master Plan EIR, Measure Utilities-8). Impacts in this regard are anticipated to be less than significant. d Have sufficient water su lies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and J PP P J 9 resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 12b, above. ' 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: ' a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. The project site has been previously developed and currently exists as a former gun range used by the general public and Huntington Beach Police Officers Association. The project area is generally flat and is surrounded by vacant land, light industrial, commercial, and residential uses. The proposed project would improve the aesthetic ' character of the site vicinity by replacing the existing dilapidated gun range structures with open space/park uses.All heating units,air conditioning units,plumbing lines,ductwork,and other unsightly equipment will be screened from view (see Appendix A, Attachment 4, Standard Conditions of Approval, Section H). Although no impacts are anticipated in this regard, these issues are addressed in the EIR (Section 4.7). ' City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 7-13 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 7.0 EFFECTS FOUND ' Draft Environmental Impact Report NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock ' outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. Refer to Response 13a, above. The site does not contain any unique scenic , resources. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? No Impact. Refer to Response 13a, above. The site has a highly degraded appearance ' which will be improved by the project. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project. , a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined ' in CEQA Guidelines§15064.5? No Impact. The proposed project site was operated by the County of Orange as a landfill , until 1968 when it was converted into a gun range facility used by the Huntington Beach Police Officers Association and general public. The proposed project site currently exists ' as a former gun range facility and is in an urbanized area. No significant historical resources have been identified. Therefore, no impacts to cultural or historical resources are anticipated to occur. ' b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines§15064.5? , No Impact. The proposed project area has been previously disturbed, and subsurface material consists of debris and a thin layer of imported landfill cover soil. No known physical , change would result that may have an impact on archaeological resources. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic ' feature? No Impact. The proposed project area has been previously developed, and subsurface , material consists of debris and a thin layer of imported landfill cover soil. No unique paleontological resources or geological features exist on-site. , d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact The project has been previously developed, and subsurface material consists ' of debris and a thin layer of imported landfill cover soil. Due to the developed condition of the site, the disturbance of human remains is not anticipated. ' 1 City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 ' 7-14 ' Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 7.0 EFFECTS FOUND Draft Environmental Impact Report NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT ' 15. RECREATION. ' a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. The project is proposed for development as a recreational component of Huntington Central Park, consistent with existing General Plan and zoning designations. ' Overall, the project will positively contribute to the City's recreation system. No impacts are anticipated in this regard. See Section 4.6 of the EIR. ' b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ' Less Than Significant Impact. The construction of facilities on-site may include such facilities as restroom/concession structures, landscaping, parking lots, internal roads, and ' lighting, some of which may have adverse physical effects on the environment. However, the overall benefits of the project will positively contribute to the City's recreation system. Impacts in this regard are anticipated to be less than significant. c) Affect existing recreational opportunities? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 15a, above. 16. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whetherimpacts to agricultural resources ' are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997)prepared by the California Department ' of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. ' Would the project. a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance ' (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? ' No Impact. The project site is located within an urbanized setting and is occupied by a former gun range practice facility. Designated land uses within the project area do not include agricultural uses. Based upon the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program for ' the California Resource Agency,project components do not affect any agricultural resource area. Therefore, project implementation would not result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to a non- agricultural use. ' City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 7-15 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 7.0 EFFECTS FOUND , Draft Environmental Impact Report NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson act contract? ' No Impact. Implementation of the project would not result in any conflicts with existing ' zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract. The site is within an urbanized area and primarily consists of light industrial, commercial, and public uses. Therefore, no conflicts with existing agricultural zoning would occur. ' c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? ' No Impact. As previously stated,the subject site is not used for agricultural production and agricultural operations do not occur within the project vicinity. Thus, implementation of the ' proposed project would not result in any changes to the environment that would result in the conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use. 17. MAN DATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. , a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially , reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the ' number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project site has been previously developed ' in an urbanized area. No significant fish, wildlife, or plant communities exist on the proposed project site. In addition, significant cultural resources are not expected to occur ' on-site,as the project site is located on a former landfill. Impacts in this regard are expected to be less than significant. City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 ' 7-16 i 1 1 1 1 1 � 8.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND � PERSONS CONSULTED 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED Lead Agency/Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning 2000 Main Street P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Mary Beth Broeren, Principal Planner, AICP Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner Environmental Consulting Team RBF Consulting (EIR Consultant) 14725 Alton Parkway Irvine, CA 92618-2069 Kevin Thomas CEP Environmental Services Manager Project Manager), ro 9 (Project 9 ) Alan Ashimine, Environmental Analyst (Project Coordinator) ' Bruce Grove, REA, Sr. Environmental Analyst Eddie Torres, Environmental Analyst Youji Yasui, Environmental Analyst Hart Crowser(Remedial Work Plan) One World Trade Center, Suite 2460 Long Beach, CA 90831-22460 Ravi Limaye, PE, REA, Senior Associate Engineer D. Scott Magorien (Geotechnical Review) ' D. Scott Magorien, CEG 17502 Cottonwood Irvine, CA 92612 1 ' City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 8-1 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 8.0 ORGANIZATIONS j Draft Environmental Impact Report AND PERSONS CONSULTED PUBLIC AGENCIES 1 City of Huntington Beach Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Department of Planning Control Board 2000 Main Street 3737 Main Street, Suite 500 _ Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Riverside, CA 92501 Ms. Ann Sturdivant ' City of Huntington Beach Police Department 2000 Main Street Southern California Gas Company Huntington Beach, CA 92648 12631 Monarch St. J.W. Arnold, Captain Garden Grove, CA 92841 -, Mr. Kevin Stonesifer City of Huntington Beach Library Services Department Southern California Edison i 7111 Talbert Ave. 7333 Bolsa Ave. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Westminster, CA 92683 Mr. Ron Hayden Ms. Spring Bowles —� City of Huntington Beach GIS Division Time Warner Commdnications 2000 Main Street 7441 Chapman Ave. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 • Garden Grove, CA 92840 . Mr. Bill Jankowski City of Huntington Beach Public Works ! Department Verizon 2000 Main Street 7352 Slater Ave. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Mr. Todd Broussard Ms. Janice Davis Huntington Beach Fire Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 j Mr. Ward Kinsman J Orange County Heath Care Agency P.O. Box 355 Santa Ana, CA 92702 _ Mr. Steve Kim f - t Rainbow Disposal Company _ P.O. Box 1026 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Ms. Sandra Jacobs C' of Huntin ton Beach March 27 2003 City 9. 8-2 T� T O - J m m O O w w w ■� w w iw iw w � w � w ww w �w �■w iww ww '' 9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY Documents: ` AQMD Sees Progress in Attaining Federal Clean. Air Standards", AQMD Advisor, Volume 3, ' Number 7, September 1996. Assessment of Noise with Respect to Community Reponse. International Standardization, Switzerland, 1996. Central Park Sports Complex Geotechnical Report Prepared by Earth and Environmental, Inc., November 28, 2000. Central Park Sports Complex. Prepared b Geoscience Analytical, Inc. April 5 2000. p g P Y Yt p , CEQA Air Quality Handbook, South Coast Air Quality Management District, revised November 1993. City of Huntington Beach General Plan. City of Huntington Beach, May 1996. City of Huntington Beach General Plan EIR. City of Huntington Beach, July 1995. City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. City of Huntington Beach. ' County Population Projections from 1997 through 2040, California Department of Finance, December 1998. ' City/County Population Estimates, with Annual Percent Change, January 1. 2001 and 2002, California Department of Finance, May 2002. Draft Alternatives for Huntington Beach Landfill. Prepared by Kleinfelder, Inc., May 2, 1990. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Huntington Beach. Federal Emergency Mangement Agency, June ' 2000. Final Remedial Investigation Report. Prepared by Hart Crowser, Inc., April 2001. Final 1997 Air Quality Management Plan. South Coast Air Quality Management District, January, 1997. ' Fundamentals of Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise, Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, 1973. 1 Master EIR for Master Plan of Recreation Uses for Central Park, City of Huntington Beach, California (SCH #9791007). Prepared by Sapphos Environmental, August 1999. ' Orange County Occupational Proiections, 1999-2006, California Employment Development Department, 1999. Preliminary Assessment of the Former Police Department Firing Range. Prepared by Americlean Environmental Service, Inc., November 30, 1998. City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 9-1 Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY , Draft Environmental Impact Report Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), May 1995. Remedial Action Plan, Former Firing Range Property, 18191 Gothard Street, Huntington Beach, California. Prepared by Hart Crowser, Inc., October 14, 2002. Report E-5.City/County Population and Housing Estimates,2002,Revised 2001,with 2000 Census Counts, California Department of Finance, May 2002. , Soil Survey of Orange County and the Western Portion of Riverside County, California. United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service, September, 1978. The Thomas Guide, 2002, page 857. Thomas Brothers Maps and Books, 2001. Transportation System Needs Analysis, 2000-2010. Prepared by JR Consulting Engineers, September 2000. USGS 7.5-Minute Maps of Newport Beach and Seal Beach, California. United States Geological Survey, photorevised 1981. Web Sites: www.calmis.cahwnet.gov (State of California Employment Development Department) www.scag.org/homepages/hunting-ton beach/govt.htm (City of Huntington Beach) , www.arb.ca.gov/adam.welcome.html (California Air Resources Board) , www.aqmd.gov/cega/hdbk.html (updated guidance documents) City of Huntington Beach March 27, 2003 9-2 ' t 1 1 1 � 10.0 APPENDICES 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Q x 0 z w IL IL Q X CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 1 Notice of Preparation To: Agencies,Organizations,and Interested Parties Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: Consulting Firm: Agency Name: City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Firm Name: RBF Consulting rStreet Address: 2000 Main Street(P.O.Box 190) Street Address: 14725 Alton Parkway City/State/Zip: Huntington Beach.CA 92648 City/State/Zip: Irvine,CA 92618 Contact: Ms.Mary Beth Broeren,Senior Planner Contact: Mr. Kevin Thomas, Vice President, Environmental Services The City of Huntington Beach will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an environmental impact report for the project identified below. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project. The project description,location,and the potential environmental effects are contained in the attached materials. A copy of the Initial Study(19 is ❑ is not)attached. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please send your response to Ms.Mary Beth Broeren,Senior Planner,at the address shown above. We will need the name for a.contact person in your agency. Project Title: Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park Project Location: City of Huntington Beach,County of Orange Project Description: The proposed project involves the remediation of the 4.91-acre former gun range site, located within Huntington Central Park in the City of Huntington Beach. Remediation of the site would require the removal of structures, asphalt,and on-site contaminants resulting from over 20 years of use as a fining range for the general public and the Huntington Beach Police Officers Association. Following remediation,the subject site is proposed to be developed as an open space/park element,as part of the 356.8-acre Huntington Central Park. On-site improvements are anticipated to consist of facilities typical of open space/park uses,including parking areas,restrooms/concession structures,irrigation,lighting,and various utilities. Date ,``j\ \ Signature Title Senior P1 mer Telephone (714)536-5271 Reference: California Code of Regulations,Title 14,(CEQA Guidelines)Sections 15082(a), 15103, 15375. A-1 �- w _• •s p.E ; +:^ Fa --a:?" c4,- }}"yyr': "Y:»S v`•. �_ "` - -e* - .'Y".,r -..,v" s: __�^x �_ 'b}} ? - f �tw-•�- "���� ;.�f ���. � '°�•� � nit- r�* �e BRIM 1. PROJECT TITLE: Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park Concurrent Entitlements: None i 2. LEAD AGENCY: City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Contact: Ms. Mary Beth Broeren , Phone: (714) 536-5550 r 3. PROJECT LOCATION: The former gun range site is approximately 4.91 acres in size and is located in the central portion of the City of Huntington Beach, within the City's Central Park (See Exhibits 1 and 2, Regional Vicinity Map and Site Vicinity Map, respectively). Access to the site is provided by Gothard Street, located ' south of Talbert Avenue and north of Ellis Avenue. The project is generally located south of the City of Westminster, , west of the City of Fountain Valley, and southeast of the City of Seal Beach. 1 4. PROJECT PROPONENT: City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street i Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Contact Person: Ms. Mary Beth Broeren Phone: (714) 536-5550 i 5. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: The City of Huntington Beach General Plan designates the ' proposed project site as "Open Space—Park (OS-P)", as part of the City's Central Park. This area is designed to preserve open spaces for the City's existing and future residents and provide, maintain, ' City of Huntington Beach Page 1 March 14, 2001 ' A-2 Initial Study Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park ' and significant nificant environmental resources, recreational opportunities, and visual relief from P g development. 6. ZONING: The -project site is zoned as Open Space-Parks and Recreation (OS-PR). This district provides areas for public or private use and areas for preservation and enhancement. 7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project involves the remediation of the 4.91-acre former gun range site, located within Huntington Central Park in the City of Huntington Beach. Remediation of the site would require the removal of structures, asphalt, and on-site contaminants resulting from over 20 years of use as a firing range for the general public and the Huntington Beach Police.Officers Association. The Remedial Action plan will require review and approval by several local and state agencies, including the Orange County Health Care Agency and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. Following iremediation, the subject site is proposed to be developed as an open space/park element, as part of the 356.8-acre Huntington Central Park. On-site improvements are anticipated to consist of facilities typical of open space/park uses, including parking areas, restrooms/concession structures, irrigation, lighting, and various utilities. Implementation of the proposed project will be consistent with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, as well as policies contained in the Master 1 Plan of Recreation Uses for Huntington Central Park. ' 8. OTHER PREVIOUS RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: Huntington Beach General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report,July 5, 1995 This document addresses the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the P P P City of Huntington Beach Draft General Plan. The purpose of this EIR is to identify the Draft General Plan's significant effects on the environment, to indicate the manner in which significant effects can be mitigated or avoided, and to identify alternatives to the proposed project which could avoid or reduce ' these impacts. The document also provides objective planning and environmental information for the City of Huntington Beach. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for Master Plan of Recreation Uses for Central Park,City of Huntington Beach, California,August 2, 1999. The Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR) for Master Plan of Recreation Uses assesses the environmental consequences of the proposed Master Plan of Recreation Uses for Huntington Central Park. The MEIR project area encompasses 157.5 acres of the 356.8-acre Central Park. The purpose of the proposed Master Plan is to plan for facilities and programs that will continue to provide diverse recreation opportunities for all citizens consistent with the goals of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan. City of Huntington Beach Page 2 March 14, 2001 A-3 Initial Study ' Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 9. OTHER AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (AND PERMITS NEEDED) (i.e. permits, financing approval, or participating agreement): ' Remedial Action Plan Orange County Health Care Agency Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board ' . r M City of Huntington Beach Page 3 March 14, 2001 A-4 ' Initial Study Remediation.of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or is "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Public Services ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Biological Resources Utilities/Service Systems %❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Mineral Resources ❑X Aesthetics ' Hydrology/Water Quality 19 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ❑ Cultural Resources ' Air Quality 0 Noise ❑ Recreation . ❑ Agriculture Resources 19 Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, ❑ and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on ❑ an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ❑ ENVIRONMENTAL EWPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant impact"or a"potentially significant unless mitigated impact"on the environment,but at least one impact(1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and(2)has 0 been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. City of Huntington Beach Page 4 March 14, 2001 A-5 Initial Study ' Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and(b)have been avoided ' or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. , Si atur Date— ' Printed Narne Title ' 1 1 r r r r r r r r r City of Huntington Beach Page 5 A-6 March 14, 2001 r. Initial Study Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: ' 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A"No Impact"answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to the project. A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. ' 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved. Answers should address off-site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate, if an effect is significant or potentially significant, or if the lead agency lacks information to make a finding of insignificance. If there are one or more "Potentially ' Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made, preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is warranted. ' 4. Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact"to a"Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level(mitigation measures from Section XVIII,"Earlier Analyses,"may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect 1 has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist. ' 6. References to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances) have been incorporated into the checklist. A source list has been provided in Section XVIII. Other sources used or individuals contacted have been cited in the respective discussions. 7. The following checklist has been formatted after Appendix G of Chapter 3, Title 14, California Code of Regulations, but has been augmented to reflect the City of Huntington Beach's requirements. ' (Note: Standard Conditions of Approval- The City imposes standard conditions of approval on projects which are considered to be components of or modifications to the project, some of these standard conditions also result in reducing or minimizing environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. However, because they are considered part of the project,they have not been identified as mitigation measures.) City of Huntington Beach Page 6 March 14, 2001 A-7 Initial Study ' Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park Potentially Significant , Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact I. LAND USE AND,PLANNING. Would the project: a) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or ' regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, ❑ ❑ a local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Sources: 1,3) b) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?(Sources: 1,2) c) Physically divide an established community? (Sources: 1,3) El (9 ' Discussion: The City of Huntington Beach General Plan land use designation for the proposed project site is Open Space-Park and is zoned OS-PR(Open Space-Parks and Recreation). Proposed uses for the project site will be consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, as well as policies contained in the Huntington Central Park Master Plan. The Remedial Action Plan will be reviewed and approved by appropriate local and state agencies. Existing site contamination will be reduced to acceptable levels by project implementation. On-site improvements will not require a change in land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project. In addition, the proposed project will not conflict with any habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans,as there are no such plans applicable to the project. The project site has been previously developed, and is surrounded by industrial, public, and open space uses. The project site is proposed to become an open space extension of the existing Huntington Central Park. Project implementation is not of a scope or nature such that it would physically divide an established community or disrupt the physical arrangement of the City. There are no anticipated significant long-term land use or planning impacts. However, the EIR will address potential land use impacts associated with short-term remediation/construction operations, including lighting,noise,dust and traffic. II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly ❑ ❑ ❑ a (e.g., through extensions of roads or other infrastructure)? (Sources: 1,2) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,necessitating 0 the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources: 1,3) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the 11 construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources: 1, 3) City of Huntington Beach Page 7 A-8 March 14, 2001 1 Initial Study Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park Potentially ' Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ' ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: The proposed project site is in an urban area,and was previously developed. All major infrastructure systems, including utilities and Toads are in place. The proposed project is not expected to induce local growth, either directly or indirectly. ' In addition, the proposed project is not expected to displace people or homes since the project site does not contain existing residential units. The proposed project is limited to existing areas owned by the City for the purpose of providing recreational opportunities for Huntington Beach residents. Therefore,no impacts are anticipated in this regard. ' III. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: ' a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the ' most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other X substantial evidence of a known fault?(Sources:2,4,5) ' ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?(Sources:2,4,5) ❑ ❑ ❑ iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? " (Sources:2,4,5) ❑ ❑ ❑ iv) Landslides? (Sources:2,4) ❑ ❑ ❑ r b) Result in substantial soil erosion, loss of topsoil,or changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, Q ❑ ❑ ❑ grading,or fill? (Sources:4,5) " c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ potentially result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? (Sources:4,5) d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to ❑ ❑ ❑ life or property? (Sources:2,4,5) ' e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of sep- tic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑ Q (Sources:2,4,5) City of Huntington Beach Page 8 A-9 March 14, 2001 Initial Study Remediation of ihe-Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park Potentially Significant , Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: Surface Rupture: Several earthquake faults traverse the City of Huntington Beach, the largest of which is the Newport- Inglewood Fault. This fault has been deemed capable of producing fault rupture due to co-seismic or primary seismic activity. However, the subject site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone, as the Newport- , Inglewood fault zone is located one mile south of the subject site. Because no known or mapped active seismic faults traverse the subject site,no impacts would occur in this regard. Seismic Ground Shaking: A number of major faults exist in the vicinity of the City of Huntington Beach. The seismic , environment of the area is considered high based on the proximity of these known active or potentially active faults. The Newport-Inglewood Fault is of special concern because of its location within the southern portion of the City. Other faults in the vicinity include: Elsinore Fault-Located 28 miles from the City center and is capable of a magnitude 7.5 earthquake Palos Verdes-Coronado Bank Fault - Located 10 miles from the City center and is capable of a magnitude 7.5 , earthquake. Raymond Fault-Located 30 miles from the City center and is capable of a magnitude 7.5 earthquake. San Andreas Fault-Located 51 miles from the City center and is capable of a magnitude 8.3 earthquake. Sierra Madre-San Fernando Fault - Located 32 miles from the City center and is capable of a 7.5 magnitude I earthquake. Whittier-North Elsinore Fault - Located 19 miles from the City center and is capable of a magnitude 7.5 earthquake. Elysian Park Fault-Located 25 miles from City center and is capable of a 7.0 magnitude earthquake. Compton-Los Alamitos Blind Thrust Fault-Located less than 10 miles from the City center and is capable of a magnitude 7.0 earthquake. Torrance-Wilmington Blind Thrust Fault - Located less than 10 miles from the City center and is capable of a r magnitude 7.0 earthquake. Future structures that may be built in association with park development will be required to comply with Uniform ' Building Code(UBC)standards and will be built to a Seismic Zone 4 standard. In addition, an engineering geologist will prepare a report analyzing seismic effects for the subject property,the findings of which will be used for site design (See Attachment 4,Standard Conditions of Approval, Section A). Impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. Liquefaction: Liquefaction occurs when the dynamic loading of a saturated sand or silt causes pore water pressures to increase to the point where grain-to-grain contact is lost and the material temporarily behaves as a viscous fluid. Liquefaction can cause settlement of the ground surface, settlement and tilting of engineered structures, flotation of buoyant buried structures and fissuring of the ground surface. A common trait of liquefaction is formation of sand boils, which are short-lived fountains of soil and water that emerge from fissures or vents and leave freshly deposited conical mounds of sand or silt on the ground surface. The proposed project site exists within a liquefaction zone, as identified in the City's GIS data base. A geotechnical report is currently being prepared for incorporation within the EIR. The EIR ' will further discuss issues in this regard. Landslide areas: According to the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, potential landslide areas within the City are limited to the mesa bluffs region. The proposed project site is not in this region and is generally flat. Therefore,project implementation would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving landslides. City of Huntington Beach Page 9 March 14, 2001 ' A-10 Initial Study Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park Potentially ' Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ' ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Soil erosion/Unstable soil: Potential significant soil erosion in the City of Huntington Beach is limited to the seaward ' facing bluffs along the coast. These areas are subject to erosion during periods of extremely high tides. The proposed project site is not in this region. However, grading and trenching during the remediation and construction phases of the project would slightly increase the potential for erosion.It should be noted that the site exists over a former landfill which ' ceased operation in approximately 1960. This former landfill has been capped,the degradation of which could cause significant geologic and safety hazards. In accordance with the City's Standard Conditions of Approval, a detailed soils analysis will be prepared for the subject-site, the recommendations of which will mitigate any impacts to less than significant levels. In addition, an erosion control plan shall be prepared for the proposed project (see Attachment 4, Standard Conditions of Approval, Section B and Section J). In addition,a geotechnical report is currently being prepared for incorporation within the EIR. Expansive soils: The City of Huntington Beach General Plan EIR indicates a moderate to high level of expansive soils in the project area. However, the proposed project would be subject to established building codes regulating building and grading practices. Conformance with the Uniform Building Code would reduce impacts from expansive soils to a less ' than significant level. It should be noted that the site exists over a former landfill which ceased operation in approximately 1960. These issues will be further discussed in the EIR. A geotechnical report is currently being prepared for incorporation within the EIR. ' Septic tanks: No septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems are proposed. Therefore, no impacts in this regard are expected. ' IV. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ❑ ❑ Elrequirements? (Sources:2,4) x ' b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- ❑ ❑ Q ❑ existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits ' have been granted? (Sources:2,4) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ' or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off-site? (Sources:2,4) ' City of Huntington Beach Page 10 March 14, 2001 A-ll Initial Study i Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount or surface ❑ Q ❑ ❑ runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off- site? (Sources:2,4) ' e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or ❑ ❑ ❑ , provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Sources:2,4) f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Sources:2,4) ❑ ❑ ❑ , g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate ❑ ❑ ❑ ' Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Sources:2,4) h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which ❑ El ❑ ' would impede or redirect flood flows? (Sources:2,4) 10 i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury , or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 the failure of a levee or dam? (Sources:2,4) j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? (Sources:2,4) ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ' Discussion: Water quality: Impacts related to water quality would primarily result from erosion,siltation,and sedimentation occurring ' both during remediation of the gun range and grading for recreation uses. However, the project will be in compliance with all Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board(SARWQCB)requirements and will obtain a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Permit. Typical urban water quality pollutants usually result from motor vehicle operations,oil and grease residues,fertilizer/pesticide uses,and careless material storage and handling. Use of Best Management Practices(BMP's)will ensure that all on-site surface water will be directed to existing storm drains. In addition, a Water Quality Management Plan in accordance with NPDES standards will be prepared for the proposed project(see Attachment 4, Standard Conditions of Approval, Section C). With the incorporation of appropriate mitigation measures, impacts are expected to be reduced to less than significant levels (see Attachment 5, Huntington Central Park Master Plan EIR,Measure Water4). ' Groundwater: Project implementation would not result in the depletion of groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater recharge since the project does not involve the extraction of groundwater from the site. Groundwater wells supply 80% of the City of Huntington Beach's water. Although the project would not interfere with groundwater recharge, future park use would require water use consistent with the City's General Plan. The City will perform necessary studies to determine what measures will reduce the project's impacts to the City's water supply systems, City of Huntington Beach Page 11 A-12 March 14, 2001 ' Initial Study Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park Potentially ' Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact including groundwater wells(see Attachment 5, Huntington Central Park Master Plan EIR,Measure Utilities-7). Impacts in this regard are anticipated to be less than significant. Drainage PattemJFloodinQ: The site has been previously developed and is void of existing drainage courses such as rivers ' or streams. Although the project is proposed to incorporate substantial amounts of impermeable surfaces for parking lots, paths, and internal roads, the project is not of the scope or nature to significantly alter the site's absorption rate. The project will be in compliance with all Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB)requirements and ' will obtain a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Permit (see Attachment 4, Standard Conditions of Approval, Section Q. Use of Best Management Practices(BMP's)will ensure that all on-site surface water will be directed to existing storm drains, in accordance with standard drainage facility design requirements (see . Attachment 5, Huntington Central Park Master Plan EK Measure Utilities-8). In addition, the proposed project is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area nor does the project include any housing. The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of a waterway retained by a levee or dam. Therefore, mitigation measures are expected to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Tsunamis and Seiches: Previous evaluations designate the tsunami potential for the City of Huntington Beach at very low. Of more concern are seiche waves caused by tsunamis captured and reflected within the enclosed area of an inner harbor, such as Huntington Harbor. The project site is not in the immediate vicinity of a harbor. In addition,the site vicinity is void of land features capable of producing mudflow. Therefore, the potential for inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow is sufficiently non-existent or remote so as not to be considered a significant impact. ' V. AIR OUALITY. Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the ' following determinations. Would the project: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Sources: 4, 6, El El 19 1-1 7) ' b) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 13 concentrations? (Sources:2,4,6,7) c) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of ❑ people? (Sources:4,6,7) d) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air ' quality plan? (Sources:4,6,7) Q ❑ e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality a ❑ ❑ standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Sources: 4, 6, 7) City of Huntington Beach Page 12 March 14, 2001 ' A-13 Initial Study ' Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: Short-tern effects: The proposed project is not anticipated to result in significant short term air quality impacts. The remediation and construction.phases may result in temporary increases in air emissions due to heavy machinery,increased truck trips, and increased vehicular trips by on-site workers. Local nuisances associated with increased dust/particulate levels and remediation and construction odors may affect the Ocean View mobile home park to the south and the Central ' Library to the north. However, appropriate mitigation measures for fugitive dust control and construction equipment/vehicle emissions as provided by the Central Park Master EIR and Standard Conditions of Approval will be implemented(see Attachment 4, Standard Conditions of Approval, Section I,and Attachment 5, Huntington Central Park Master EIR, Measures Air-1 through Air-12). The proposed project's construction impacts, including short-term air quality impacts,will be further analyzed in the EIR. Long-term effects: The proposed project may result in substantial long term air quality effects. The implementation of the proposed project could possibly increase the number of recreational users within the City, thereby resulting in additional vehicular trips. However,the project will be consistent with the City's General Plan and impacts in this regard ' have been adequately analyzed in the General Plan EIR and Central Park Master EIR. VI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to , ❑ ❑ the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (e.g., ❑ result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle ' trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections? (Sources: 1,2,4) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service , standard established by the county congestion management ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ agency for designated roads or highways? (Sources: 1,2,4) , c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial safety risks? (Sources: 1) , d) Substantially increased hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ (Sources: 1) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Sources: 1,2,4) ED ❑ 19 ❑ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Sources: 1,2,4) 13X ' g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative ' transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Sources: 1, ❑ ❑ ❑ 2,4) City of Huntington Beach Page 13 March 14, 2001 A-14 Initial Study Remediation.of fhe Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park Potentially ' Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 1 Discussion:. Short term traffic impacts: The proposed project's traffic impacts can be separated into short term impacts due to remedial and construction activities and long term impacts from project operations. Short term traffic impacts will result ' from increased trips of vehicles involved in the remediation and construction phases. However, in accordance with the City's Standard Conditions of Approval, a truck and construction vehicle routing plan will be prepared for the project to reduce any short-term traffic impacts to less than significant levels (refer to Attachment 4, Standard Conditions of Approval,Section F). ' Lon tern traffic im acts: The City's recently adopted"Transportation System Needs Analysis 2000-2010" (September e p ty Y P P ( P 12, 2000, approved by City Council October 2, 2000) indicates that all nearby intersections of Gothard, Talbert, ' Goldenwest and Ellis are projected to operate at LOS D or better in 2010. The proposed recreational use for the former Gun Range site is not anticipated to generate significant traffic impacts, in consideration of its current General plan designation and prior traffic levels associated with the former Gun Range when in operation. This issue will be further evaluated in the EIR. Air traffic: Although the City of Huntington Beach is'included within the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) of ' Orange County, the proposed project site is located more than 20,000 feet from the Armed Forces Reserve Center in the City of Los Alamitos. The height of future structures would not penetrate navigable airspace or otherwise impact air traffic patterns. No impacts are anticipated in this regard. ' Hazards: Implementation of the proposed project plan may result in an increase in vehicle trips,pedestrian activity, and bicycle use which could increase the potential for conflicts. However, implementation of the proposed Central Park Sports Complex (located adjacent to the project site)would include the widening of Gothard Street and the provision of ' sidewalks. These measures are expected to improve circulation and pedestrian safety, within the area. Access to the subject site, currently provided via Gothard Street, is not proposed to change. Impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. Emergency access: The proposed project shall be in compliance with all City of Huntington Beach emergency response and/or emergency evacuation plans. The project site is currently accessible via an entrance located along Gothard Street. Incorporation of required evacuation plans and procedures shall be incorporated into site design and the project will ' comply with applicable design standards. In accordance with the City's Standard Conditions of Approval, fire access roads shall be provided in accordance with Fire Department codes (see Attachment 4, Standard Conditions of Approval, Section D). Impacts in this regard are expected to be less than significant. ' Parking: Implementation of the proposed project may create additional demand for parking. Development of the project site would be consistent with the City's General Plan and zoning ordinance. The City's Standard Conditions of Approval require that on-site parking be provided for all construction workers and equipment, thereby eliminating short-term construction impacts.(see Attachment 4, Standard Conditions of Approval, Section G). No impacts are expected in this regard. ' Alternative transportation: As stated above,the proposed project-would incorporate the goals and policies of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan and Central Park Master Plan,and would not conflict with any other known policies. No impacts are expected in this regard. City of Huntington Beach Page 14 .March 14, 2001 'A-IS Initial Study a Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park Potentially Significant ' Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through , habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or.regional plans, ❑ El , policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S,Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources: 1,. 2,4) , b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Q Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources: 1,2,4) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected ' wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,but not limited to,marsh, vernal pool,coastal, etc.) Q through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or , other means? (Sources:1,2,4) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native , resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or. with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Sources: 1,2, , 4) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ❑ 11 ' ordinance? (Sources: 1,2,4) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conserva- tion Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other 13 0 0 a approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Sources: 1,2,4) , Discussion: The.proposed project is a former gun range practice facility and is located within an urbanized area. The project contains only sporadic trees and patches of non-native grasses and shrubs. The proposed project will not have a significant impact on biological resources by endangering or threatening rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds). No Federal or State listed threatened or endangered plant species are known to exist on or near the project site. The site is not identified in any local or regional plans,policies, or regulations by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition, no riparian habitat, wetlands, or other sensitive habitats are known to exist in the area. No native resident,migratory fish,wildlife species,or wildlife corridors will be affected by the proposed project,as none exist on-site. The project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Additionally, the project area does not have an adopted ' Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Plan. No impacts are anticipated in this regard. City of Huntington Beach Page 15 March 14, 2001 A-16 Initial Study Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park Potentially ' Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ' ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact ' VIII. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource ' that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Sources:4) ' b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, 11 El El 19 specific plan,or other land use plan? (Sources:4) Discussion: The project site is located within a fully developed urban setting. No classified or designated mineral deposits of statewide or regional significance are known to occur within the project area. In addition, the project site has ' not been delineated as an important mineral resource recovery site within the City's General Plan. No impacts are anticipated in this regard. IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ' through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Sources: 1,2,4) ' b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment El ❑ through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Sources:.l,2,4) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous material, substances, or waste within one-quarter 0 ' mile of an existing or proposed school? (Sources: 11,2,4) d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous ' materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section Q 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Sources: 1,2,4) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or pubic use airport,would the project result in a safety ❑ ' hazard for people residing or working in the project area? El 13 (Sources: 1) ' City of Huntington Beach Page 16 March 14, 2001 A-l7 Initial Study Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact ' f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the ❑ ❑ ❑ Z ' project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Sources: 1) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an ❑ ❑ ' adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation El ❑X plan? (Sources: 1,2,4) ' h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are ❑ Q intermixed with wildlands? (Sources: 1,2,4) ' Discussion: Hazardous materials: The proposed project site is a former practice firing range utilized by the general public and the Huntington Beach Police Officers Association. The site is known to have substantial concentrations of lead and other contaminants. Remediation of the project site could possibly require the transport and disposal of hazardous materials,the accidental release of which could create a hazard to the public and environment. A Remedial Action Plan is currently being prepared and will be incorporated within the EIR. The EIR will further examine impacts in this regard. In addition, appropriate mitigation measures in accordance with the Central Park Master EIR will be implemented during remediation activities(see Attachment 5,Central Park Master EIR,Measures Hazards-9 and Hazards-11). ' Schools: No schools are located within one-quarter mile of the subject site. Therefore, impacts to schools in this regard will not occur. ' Airports: Although the City of Huntington Beach is included within the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) of Orange County, the proposed project site is located more than 20,000 feet from the Armed Forces Reserve Center in the City of Los Alamitos. The height of future structures would not penetrate navigable airspace or otherwise impact air , traffic patterns. No impacts are anticipated in this regard. Emergency response: The proposed project shall be in compliance with all City of Huntington Beach emergency response ' and/or emergency evacuation plans. The project site is currently accessible via an entrance located along Gothard Street. Incorporation of required evacuation plans and procedures shall be incorporated into site design and the project will be in compliance with the applicable design standards. Impacts in this regard are not expected to occur. ' Wildland fires: The project site is developed and located within a fully developed urban setting. Therefore, project implementation would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death involving wildland fires. ' X. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess ' of standards established in the local general plan or noise ❑ ❑ ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Sources: 1,2,4) ' City of Huntington Beach Page 17 March 14, 2001 A-19 Initial Study Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park Potentially ' Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ' ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? (Sources: 1,2,4) c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the ' project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ❑ El El 1,2,4) ' d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the Q project?(Sources: 1,2,4) e) , For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people [] 0 residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Sources: 1,2,4) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the r project expose people residing or working in the project area to ❑X excessive noise levels? (Sources: 1,2,4) . Discussion: Implementation of the proposed project,including remediation/construction-related stationary noise sources and long term operational noise may result in noise levels in excess of City standards. Some demolition may be required during the remediation phase, thus resulting in the potential generation of temporary excessive groundbome noise and ' vibration levels. Construction noise impacts will be reduced in accordance with the Central Park Master EIR through the use of noise reduction control features on all construction equipment (see Attachment 5, Central Park Master EM Measure Noise-5). Potential long-term recreational uses may generate stationary and/or mobile noise although this is ' expected to be consistent with the analysis contained within the Central Park. Master EIR. Although the City of Huntington Beach is included within the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) of Orange County, the proposed project site is located more than 20,000 feet from the Armed Forces Reserve Center in the City of Los Alamitos. These issues will be further analyzed in the EIR. . ' XI. . PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision P J P Y P of new or' physically altered governmental.facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? (Sources: 1,2,4) ❑ ❑ 0 b) Police Protection? (Sources: 1,2,4) ❑X El c) Schools? (Sources: 1,2,4) El 11 El a City of Huntington Beach. Page 18 March"14, 2001 A-19 Initial Study Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park Potentially Significant ' Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact d) Parks?.(Sources: 1,2,4) ' e) Other public facilities or governmental services?(Sources: 1,2 4) ' Discussion: Fire rotection: The p proposed project site is currently developed and has previously been served b the Huntington Beach ' p P P P J Y Y Y gt Fire Department. The proposed project will comply with all City of Huntington Beach safety codes, emergency response and/or emergency evacuation plans, and the City's General Plan. Fire access roads shall be provided in compliance with City of Huntington Beach Fire Department standards (see Attachment 4, Standard Conditions of Approval, Section D). ' Impacts in this regard'have been adequately analyzed in the General Plan EIR and the Central Park Master EIR. Police protection: Development of the project may result in an overall increased demand for police protection services. ' Police patrols within,the proposed recreation area will be necessary for crime prevention and safety measures. Police responses may be necessary during site remediation and construction. However, because this issue has been previously analyzed within the General Plan EIR and the Central Park Master EK impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. Schools: The project vicinity is served by the Ocean View School District and the Huntington Beach Union High School District. The project is not expected to create a need for new or increased school services or to directly impact enrollment, figures. Parks: The project site is proposed as a recreational land use, consistent with the Huntington Central Park Master Plan. Implementation of the project will enhance the City's park system. No impacts would occur in this regard. ' Other facilities: No other adverse impacts have been identified for public services. XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: ' a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable13 19 11 , Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Sources: 1,2,4) b) Require or result in the construction of new water or El wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Sources: 1,2,4) ' c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the ❑ 19 ❑ construction of which could cause significant environmental , effects? (Sources: 1,2,4) City of Huntington Beach Page 19 March 14, 2001 ' A-20 ' Initial Study Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park Potentially ' Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ' ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact ' d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project 0 13 from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Sources: 1,2,4) ' e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate Q 0 .capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to ' the provider's existing commitments? (Sources: 1,2,4) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to ' accommodate the project's . solid waste disposal needs? ❑ (Sources: 1,2,4) g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations a related to solid waste? (Sources: 1,2,4) El 11 Discussion: ' Water/Wastewater/Additional Facilities: Implementation of the project may require the installation of water and wastewater facilities for restroom/concession buildings and drinking fountains. These will be provided as required by applicable City and County agencies. Although wastewater is expected to be generated from potential park use, the ' . amount of wastewater generated is not expected to exceed RWQCB requirements due to the scope and nature of the project. In addition, electrical load analyses will be performed prior to project implementation to determine impacts on local electricity facilities(see Attachment 5,Huntington Central Park Master Plan EIR,Measure Utilities-9). These issues ' will be further examined in the EIR. Storm water: The proposed project will utilize pre-existing storm water drainage facilities and is not expected to exceed ' the capacity of the drainage'system or require new facilities to be constructed. Use of Best Management Practices (BMP's) will ensure that all on-site surface water will be directed to existing storm drains, in accordance with standard drainage facility design requirements (see Attachment 4, Huntington Central Park Master Plan EIR, Measure Utilities-8). Impacts in this regard are anticipated to be less than significant. However, these impacts will be further analyzed in the EIR. Water entitlements: Water consumption will primarily consist of irrigation of on-site vegetation and provision for ' restroom/concession facilities and drinking fountains. The City will perform necessary studies to determine what measures will reduce the project's impacts to the City's water supply systems, including groundwater wells (see Attachment 5, Huntington Central Park Master Plan EIR,Measure Utilities-7). In addition, project-related water demand is anticipated to be consistent with the General Plan EIR and the Central Park Master EIR. These issues will be further analyzed in the EIR. Solid waste: The proposed project will generate significant amounts of solid waste upon removal of existing structures on- site. In addition, the project will generate solid waste in the form of rubbish from park users and green waste from maintenance of vegetation on-site. Project-related solid waste impacts are anticipated to be consistent with the General Plan EIR and the Central Park Master EIR. These issues will be further analyzed in the EIR. ' City of Huntington Beach Page 20 March 14, 2001 A-21 Initial Study ' Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park Potentially Significant ' Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact. No Impact XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Sources: ' 2,4) ❑ ❑ El ❑X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not ' limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings ❑ ❑ ❑ within a state scenic highway? (Sources:2,4) ' c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Sources:2,4) ❑ d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would ' adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Sources: ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 2,4) , Discussion: The project site has been previously developed and currently exists as a former gun range used by the general public and Huntington Beach Police Officers Association. The project area is generally flat and is surrounded by vacant land, light industrial,commercial,and residential uses. The proposed project would improve the aesthetic character of the , site vicinity by replacing the existing dilapidated gun range structures with open space/park uses. All heating units, au conditioning units,plumbing lines,ductwork, and other unsightly equipment will be screened from view (see Attachment 4, Standard Conditions of Approval, Section H). Implementation of the proposed project may include nighttime lighting ' for certain areas of the site. Potential opportunities to reduce impacts would be implemented in order to reduce light spillover effects in accordance with the City's Standard Conditions of Approval(see Attachment 4, Standard Conditions of Approval,Section E). This issue will be further examined in the EIR , XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ❑ ❑ ❑ ' historical resource as defined in 515064.5? (Sources:2,4) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an ❑ ❑ ❑ ' archaeological resource pursuant to 515064.5? (Sources:2,4) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 , resource or site unique geologic feature? (Sources:2,4) d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of ❑ ❑ ❑ a , formal cemeteries? (Sources:2,4) City of Huntington Beach Page 21 A-22 March 14, 2001 ' ' Initial Study Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park i Potentially ' Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 1 Discussion: The proposed project site was operated by the County of Orange as a landfill until 1968 when it was converted into a.gun range facility used by the general public and the Huntington Beach Police Officers Association. The proposed project site currently exists as an abandoned gun range facility and is in an urbanized area. No significant historical, cultural, archaeological, paleontological, geological, or human remains have been identified. Therefore, impacts in this regard are not expected to occur. '. XV. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood, 13_ Q ' community and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Sources: 1,2,4) ' b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Sources: 1,2,4) c) Affect existing recreational opportunities?(Sources: 1,2,4) 13 ' Discussion: The project is proposed for development as a recreational component of Huntington Central Park,consistent with existing General Plan and zoning designations. The construction of facilities on-site may include such facilities as restroom/concession structures,landscaping,parking lots, internal roads,and lighting. Overall,the project will positively ' contribute to the City's recreation system. XVI. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining ' whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: ' a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping.and Monitoring a ❑ ❑ Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? (Sources:2,4) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ❑ ❑ Williamson Act contract? (Sources:2,4) ' City of Huntington Beach Page 22 A-23 March 14, 2001 Initial Study ' Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park Potentially Significant , Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated . Impact No Impact ' c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due El El El Q to their location or nature, could result in conversion of ' Farmland,to non-agricultural use? (Sources:2,4) Discussion: The project site is located within an urbanized setting and is occupied by a former gun range practice facility. Designated land uses within the project area do not include agricultural uses. Based upon the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program for the California Resource Agency,project components do not affect any agricultural resource area. Therefore,impacts to agricultural land or zoning for agricultural use will not occur. t XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of ' the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or ❑ ' animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or ' prehistory? (Sources: 1,2,4) b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but ' cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable ❑ ❑ when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable ' future projects.) (Sources: 1,2,4) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause El substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (Sources: 1,2,4) Discussion: ' Potential to degrade the environment: The proposed project site has been previously developed in an urbanized area. No significant fish,wildlife,or plant communities exist on the proposed project site. In addition,significant cultural resources' are not expected to occur on-site, as the project site is located on a former landfill. Impacts in this regard are expected to be less than.significant. Cumulative impacts: The proposed project consists of a Remedial Action Plan and recreation uses within a previously' developed area. The extent of this proposed project could contribute to cumulative impacts when combined with past, present, and future projects in the area. Potential cumulatively significant impacts may occur in the areas of air quality, noise,water quality,and utilities. These cumulative impacts will be discussed in the EIR City of Huntington Beach Page 23 A-24 March 14, 2001 ' Initial Study Remediation.of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Adverse effects on human beings: The proposed project could result in environmental effects that have adverse impacts on human beings. Potential impacts associated with air quality, noise, and hazardous materials could significantly affect human populations and will be addressed in the EIR. i Il i City of Huntington Beach Page 24 March 14, 2001 A-25 Initial Study Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSIS ' Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c)(3)(D). Earlier documents prepared and utilized in this analysis: Reference# Document Title Available for Review at: 1 City of Huntington Beach General Plan, 1996 City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept. Planning/Zoning Information Counter,3rd Floor 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach 2 City of Huntington Beach General Plan EIR, 1995 3 City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision " Ordinance Master Environmental Impact Report for Master Plan of " 4 Recreation Uses for Central Park, City of Huntington Beach, California, SCH# 97091007,Certified August 2, 1999. 5 Soils Report, Central Park Sports Complex,Huntington " Beach,California,April 5,2000 6 South Coast Air Quality Management District,Air Quality Management Plan 7 South Coast Air Quality Management District,CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993 8 Orange County Airport Environs Land Use Plan,November 16, 1998 9 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map,June 14, 2000 10 Project Vicinity Map See Attachment#1 11 Reduced Site Plan See Attachment#2 12 Aerial Photo See Attachment#3 13 Standard Conditions of Approval See Attachment#4 14 Central Park Master EIR Mitigation Measures See Attachment#5 i City of Huntington Beach Page 25 A-26 March 14, 2001 ' Attachment No. 1 REGIONAL VICINITY MAP N A i A-Z' R A Castaic 14 Palmdale Y \ Valencia 26 LOS AN G E L E S COUNTY Simi I Valley \ San Fernando 18 18 2 0 34 3 Thousand 5 Oaks i � 101 2 Pasadena ! 101 0 406 10 1 10 Santa Los 606 60 71 Monica 0 Angeles s — BERNA IN\ 11 COUN 91 5 57 YOrba Linda 91 Anaheim 55 22 Santa ORANGE 1 4� Ana COUNTY Long Irvine Beach 73 5 Newport Beach 1 Santa 7 Catalina Island San Clemente * -Subject Site 0 FORMER GUN RANGE WITHIN HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK Not to Scale Regional Vicinity Map -LANNING ■ DESIGN ■ CONSTRUCTION Exhibit 1 02101 JN 10-100972 • A-28 CONSULTING Attachment No. 2 SITE VICINITY MAP 't A-29 ': t P - (`_� ,i � ::® '�'^1�. ��� �'"� �� :}t>q:I%�_ ��I�� �T'f*1"`�,I ^I ��'��r I � � � 4�` -II _ mi... .. ....... I U p A ,T TIM 14 1 A. IM,IW, )Pj wwr�m I At LJ11 _C1 1. I ef - wli L,�. �' 7 Nyf:,Y;', _ i.v...y �i.....,z"'}� 1 _ "` _=.+11r1llbw�� .Y':���� \�� _ �. ,�•,� ,yI r t��; f� ,�_ _ 3 � y:. � `t �'�� JJ: ` �=QY�,���� i�• �/Z_��G�6��/' i�!ii��Y � O M 3L -M i-uu uTfl j juv!I it/ Attachment No. 3 ! AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH 1 1 ' A-31 V r ilT Jrr 4'' elP 00 Irl c Cp !-t -1� *t w,-. F r Imo. its j .5 .It :1 4 if 'Zot % ISM toL 1,"h 444 UR I nil pij-() ul If. 3, �nic 91K 4pew 110 Vy ma C 7 =1 Z io Pao- on 3% i tft�7-�7' t j 'i":77 12 --- - ------- -TT V 77v JI N 15 ., N, 1 man !A. OV, 4dT - 141 Attachment No. 4 ' STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A-33 Remediation of the Former Gun Range Within Huntington Central Park Standard Conditions of Approval Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park Standard Conditions of Approval A. An engineering geologist shall be engaged to submit a report indicating the ground surface acceleration from earth movement for the subject property. All structures within this development shall be constructed in compliance with the g-factors as indicated by the geologist's report. Calculations for footings and structural members to withstand anticipated g-factors shall be submitted to the City for review prior to the issuance of building permits. B. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer and submitted with the building permit application. This analysis shall include on- site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding: grading, foundations, retaining walls, streets, utilities, and chemical and fill properties of underground items including buried pipe and concrete and the protection therof. C. In accordance with NPDES requirements, a"Water Quality Management Plan" shall be prepared by a Civil or Environmental Engineer and its recommendations shall be incorporated into the project design. D. Fire access roads shall be provided in compliance with Fire Department City Specification 401. Include the Circulation Plan and dimensions of all access roads. E. If outdoor lighting is included, energy saving lamps shall be used. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties and shall be shown on the site plan and elevations. F. The developer shall coordinate with the Department of Public Works, Traffic Engineering Division in developing a truck and construction vehicle routing plan. This plan shall include the approximate number of truck trips and the proposed truck haul routes. It shall specify the hours in which transport activities can occur and methods to mitigate construction related impacts to adjacent residents. The plan shall take into consideration any street improvement construction occurring in the vicinity. These plans must be submitted for approval to the Department of Public Works. G. On-site parking shall be provided for all construction workers and equipment unless approved otherwise by the Public Works Department. H. All exterior mechanical equipment shall be screened from view on all sides. Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be setback 15 feet from the exterior edges City of Huntington Beach Page 1 March 14, 2001 ' A-34 Remediation of the Former Gun Range Within Huntington Central Park Standard Conditions of Approval of the building. Equipment to be screened includes, but is not limited to, heating, air conditioning, refrigeration equipment, plumbing lines, ductwork and transformers. Said screening shall be architecturally compatible with the ' building in terms of materials and colors. If screening is not designed specifically into the building, a rooftop mechanical equipment plan showing screening must be submitted for review and approval with the application for building permit(s). I. During grading operations,the following shall be complied with: 1. Attempt to phase and schedule activities to avoid high ozone days first stage smog alerts. 2. Discontinue operation.during second stage smog alerts. 3. All haul trucks shall be covered prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas. 4. Comply with AQMD Rule 403, particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to surrounding areas. 5. Wind barriers shall be installed along the perimeter of the site. J. An erosion control plan shall be submitted to Public Works Department for review and approval. 1 . i 1 City of Huntington Beach- Page 2 March 14, 2001 A-35 r Attachment No. 5 1 CENTRAL PARK MASTER EIR MITIGATION MEASURES r A-36 Remediation of the Former Gun Range Within Huntington Central Park Master EIR for Central Park Master Plan Mitigation Measures Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park Master EIR for Central Park Master Plan Mitigation Measures Measure Water-4: The City of Huntington Beach will reevaluate potential impacts ' to surface water quality from implementation of the Active Recreation Area and the Gun Range program level elements.and determine appropriate mitigation measures as are appropriate. 1 Measure Utilities-7: If the Green Acres Project is not yet operational and able to supply water to the program level elements of the Master Plan prior to the development of final plans and specifications, additional studies.will be undertaken to determine the extent to which one or a combination of the following measures will be necessary to reduce impacts to water supply systems for program level elements during the interim until water from the Green Acres Project is available: • Reduce the required irrigable areas by 10 percent; • Enhance the utilization of existing groundwater systems (i.e., subpotable wells); or • Supplement the irrigation . supply with water from the domestic water system. Measure Utilities-8: City of Huntington Beach will require that design of program level elements will be undertaken such that there are no substantial increases in the rate and amount of surface runoff. Incidental drainage will be routed off of the site to existing storm drains. It is assumed that any necessary improvements to existing storm drain systems will be -completed before the completion of program level elements. Measure Utilities-9: Prior to the construction of program level elements, additional electrical load analyses shall be undertaken to determine the need for additional electrical transformers. Measure Air-1: Moisten soil each day prior to commencing grading to depth of soil cut. Measure Air-2: Water exposed surfaces at least twice a day under calm conditions and as often as needed on windy days when winds are less than 25 mile per day-or during very dry weather in order City of Huntington Beach Page 1 March 14, 2001 A-37 Remediation of the Former Gun Range Within Huntington Central Park Master EIR for Central Park Master Plan Mitigation Measures to maintain a surface crust and prevent the release of visible emissions from the construction site. Measure Air-3: Treat any area that will be exposed for extended periods with a soil conditioner to stabilize soil or temporarily plant with vegetation. Measure Air4: Wash mud-covered tires and under carriages of trucks leaving construction sites. Measure Air-5: Provide for street sweeping, as needed, on adjacent roadways to remove dirt dropped by construction vehicles or mud which would otherwise be carried off by trucks departing project sites. Measure Air-6: Securely cover all loads of fill coming to the site with a tight fitting tarp. Measure Air-7: Cease grading during periods when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. Measure Air-8: Provide for permanent sealing of all graded areas, as applicable, , at the earliest practicable time after soil disturbance. Measure Air-9: Maintain construction equipment in peak operating condition so as to reduce operating emissions. Measure Air-10: Use low-sulfur diesel fuel in all equipment. ' Measure Air-11: Use electric equipment whenever practicable. Measure Air-12: Shut off engines when not in use. Measure Hazards-9: Any unrecorded or unknown wells uncovered during the excavation or grading process shall be immediately reported to . and coordinated with the City and DOGGR. Measure Hazards-11: The City Fire Department will prepare a Fire Risk Evaluation prior to issuance of grading permits. ' Measure Noise-5: The U.S. Environmental Protections Agency has estimated that noise levels from construction equipment can be lowered by as , much as 13 dBA by implementing noise control features that require no major redesign or extreme cost. The City of Huntington Beach shall require that all construction equipment incorporate noise reduction control features. All vehicles and City of Huntington Beach Page 2 March 14, 2001 A-38 , ' Remediation of the Former Gun Range Within Huntington Central Park Master EIR for Central Park Master Plan Mitigation Measures compressors should utilize exhaust mufflers, and engine enclosure covers as designed by the manufacturer should be in place at all times. City of Huntington Beach Page 3 March 14, 2001 ' A-39 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS,TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY GRAY DAVIS,Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION �1,Q DISTRICT 12 3337 MICHELSON DRIVE,SUITE CN380 IRVINE,CA 9 261 2-1 699 rD ' March 19, 2001 , Ms. Mary Beth Broeren IGR/CEQA City of Huntington Beach SCH# None 2000 Main Street NOP/DEIR Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Log# 877 Dear Ms. Broeren: , Subject: Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park r Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Remediation of the , Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park. The proposed project would require the removal of structures, asphalt, and on-site contaminants on the 4.91-acre site. Following remediation, the site is proposed to be developed as an open space/park element. The project site is located within the 356.8-acre Huntington Central Park in the City of Huntington Beach. Caltrans District 12 is a reviewing agency as has no comments. Please continue to, keep us informed of projects that may potentially impact our State Transportation Facilities. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Lynne Gear at (949) 724-2241. Sincerely, Robert F. Jose9h, hief Advance Planning cc: Ron Helgeson, HDQTRS Planning Terry Roberts, OPR A-40 South Coastq Air Quality- Management District 4. pool P ;. 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 9 1 765-4 1 82 (909) 396-2000 • http://www.agmd.gov 4 March 23,1001 r - - Ms.Mary Beth Broeren Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach planning Dept. 2000 Main Street P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 ' Dear Ms.Broeren: ' Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report Remedint gn of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park The South Coast Air Quality Management District(AQMD)appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. The AQMD's comments are recommendations regarding the analysis ofpotentiai air quality impacts from the proposed project that should be included in the Draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR). Air Quality Analysis ' The AQMD adopted its California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)Air Quality Handbook in 1993 to assist other public agencies with the preparation ofair quality analyses. The AQMD recommends that the Lead Agency use this Handbook as guidance when preparing its air quality analysis. Copies of the Handbook are available from the AQMD's Subscription Services Department by calling(909)396-3720. The Lead Agency should identify any potential adverse air quality impacts that could occur from all phases of the project and all air pollutant sources related to the project. Air quality impacts from both construction and operations should be considered. Construction-related air quality impacts typically include,but are not limited to, emissions from the use of heavy-duty equipment from grading, earth-Ioadingfunloading,paving,architectural coatings,off-road mobile sources (e.g.,heavy-duty construction equipment)and on-road mobile sources(e.g.,construction worker vehicle trips,material transport trips). Operation-related air quality impacts may include,but are not limited to,emissions from stationary sources(e.g.,boilers),area sources(e.g.,solvents and coatings), and vehicular trips(e.g.,on-and off-road tailpipe emissions and entrained dust). Air quality impacts from indirect sources,that is,sources that generate or attract vehicular trips should be included in the evaluation. An analysis of all toxic air contaminant impacts due to the A-41 Ms.Mary Beth Broeren -2- March 23,2001 ' decommissioning or use of equipment potentially generating such air pollutants should also be included. Mitigation Measures In the event that the project generates significant adverse air quality impacts,CEQA requires that aII feasible mitigation measures be utilized during project construction and operation to minimize or eliminate significant adverse air quality impacts. To assist the Lead Agency with identifying possible mitigation measures for the project,please refer to Chapter I I ofthe AQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook for sample air quality mitigation measures. Additionally,AQMD's Rule 403 ' —Fugitive Dust,and the Implementation Handbook contain numerous measures for controlling construction-related emissions that should be considered for use as CEQA mitigation if not , otherwise required. Pursuant to state CEQA Guidelines §15126.4(aX 1)(1"D),any impacts resulting from mitigation measures must also be discussed. Data Sources AQMD rules and relevant air quality reports and data are available by calling the AQMD's Public Information Center at(909)396-2039. Much ofthe information available through the , Public Information Center is also available via the AQMD's World Wide Web Homepage (ho://www.Umd.ggvj. The AQMD is willing to work with the Lead Agency to ensure that project-related emissions are , accurately identified,categorized, and evaluated. Please call Dr. Charles Blankson, Transportation Specialist,CEQA Section, at(909)396-3304 ifyou have any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, 5to4%e Steve Smith,Ph.D. Program Supervisor, CEQA Section Planning,Rule Development and Area Sources SS:CB:li ' ORC010'3r6-04LI Control Number A-42 Department of Toxic Substances Control 1 Edwin F. Lowry, Director , . .• 5796 Corporate Avenue kinston H. Hickox Cypress, California 90630 Gray Davis gcency Secretary . Governor alifomia Environmental Protection Agency April 9, 2001 Ms. Mary Beth Broeren Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 NOTICE OF PREPARATION-OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE REMEDIATION OF THE FORMER GUN RANGE WITHIN HUNTINGTON BEACH CENTRAL PARK (SCH #2001031067) Dear Ms. Broeren: ' The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your Notice of Preparation.(NOP) of a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the above- mentioned Project. 1 Based on the review of the document, DTSC's comments are as follows: ' 1) The draft EIR needs to identify and determine whether current or historic uses at the Project site have resulted in any release of hazardous wastes/substances at the Project area. 2) The draft EIR needs to identify any known or potentially contaminated site within the proposed Project area. For all identified sites, the draft EIR needs to evaluate whether conditions at the site pose a threat to human health or the environment. 3 The draft EIR should identifythe mechanism to initiate an required investigation Y q 9 and/or remediation for any site that may require remediation, and which government agency will provide appropriate regulatory oversight. 4) The NOP indicate that the remediation of the site would require the removal of structures, asphalt and on-site contaminants. .During the building demolitions, investigate the presence of lead paints and asbestos containing materials (ACMS) in the currently existing building structures. If the presence of lead of ACMs is suspected, proper precautions-should be taken during any future The energy challenge facing Califomia is real. Every Californian needs to take immediate action to reduce energy consumption. For a list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs,see our Web-site at www.dtsc.ca.gov. 0 Printed on Recycled Paper A-43 Ms. Mary Beth Broeren April 9, 2001 Page 2 demolition activities. Additionally, the contaminants should be remediated in ' compliance with the California environmental regulations. 5) If during construction of the project, soil contamination is suspected, construction in the areashould stop and appropriate Health and Safety procedures should be implemented. If it is determined that contaminated soil exists, the draft EIR , should identify how any required investigation and/or remediation will be. conducted, and which government agency will provide appropriate regulatory oversight. 6) -. Additional comments from DTSC's Geology and Corrective Action Branch are enclosed for your information. DTSC provides guidance for the Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) preparation and cleanup oversight through the Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP). For , additional information on the VCP or to meet/discuss this matter further, please contact Mr. Johnson P. Abraham, Project Manager at (714) 484-5476. Sincerely, , Y Haissam Y. Salloum, P.E. Unit Chief ' Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch Cypress Office Enclosure cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research , State Clearinghouse P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 Mr. Guenther W. Moskat, Chief ' .Planning and.Environmental Analysis Section CEQA Tracking Center Department of Toxic Substances Control P.O. Box 806. Sacramento, California 95812-0806 A-44 Department of Toxic Substances Control a Edwin F. Lowry, Director 5796 Corporate Avenue gnston H. Hickox Cypress, California 90630 Gray Davis gency Secretary Governor California Environmental Protection Agency r MEMORANDUM TO: Johnson Abraham Hazardous Substances Scientist Site Mitigation Cleanup Operat2gineering ranch FROM: Chris A. Guerre, CHG Senior Hazardous-Sub Xans Geologist Geological Services.Unit DATE: Aril 9 2001 P . SUBJECT:, INITIAL STUDY, REMEDIATION OF THE FORMER GUN RANGE HUNTINGTON BEACH CENTRAL PARK I have reviewed the Initial Study, dated March 14, 2001, and have prepared the following comments and request that they be addressed in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and during remedial efforts at the subject site. The De atment of Toxic Subtances Control's DTSC's mission is to protect human P ( ) health and the environment. While DTSC may not have statutory authority over this particular site, the following comments have been..prepared so that they may be addressed in the Draft E I R and improve its overall quality. Note: The site does not seem to be located in a park as stated in the document. Exhibit 3 (Aerial Photograph) shows it adjacent to vacant land, Sully.Miller Lake and a recycling facility. For clarity, it is suggested the site be described as residing in a proposed park area that is currently undeveloped. A-45 - 1 Johnson Abraham April 9, 2001 ' Page 2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ' Page 4 The following factors might also need to be considered: • Land Use/ Planning: Depending on the nature and extent of contamination detected at the site, Land Use could be affected by the risk posed by the contamination as well as the physical presence of remedial systems used to remove or contain contamination. Adverse effects from known or potential ' contamination on adjacent properties (recycling facility, transfer station, landfill, farm with/without pesticides and refuse) should also be considered as part of this assessment. Page 7 states; "Existing site contamination will be reduced to acceptable levels by project implementation." This statement should not be made unless the site has already been completely characterized for potential contamination, appropriately evaluated for associated risks, and the feasibility of ' remediation and associated costs have been throughiy studied. Itis not clear if the April 5, 2000 Soils Report (not reviewed) is comprehensive and covered the area. • Mineral/Agricultural Resources: As the site is located near active and former oil wells and former agricultural land (mushroom farm?), it may be prudent to comment on how development will affect this resource. Geology and Soils Page 10 discusses the old landfill beneath the site and mentions that a detailed soils analysis will be conducted, but the scope of the work is not summarized. While , geotechnical information will have to be obtained, environmental samples are also necessary. In addition to environmental soil matrix sampling, soil gas/vapor sampling will be required to determine if landfill or other gases pose a toxic or explosive risk. Permanent or semi-permanent vapor probes should be installed to monitor for landfill and other gases over time. Due to technical reasons, one time soil gas sampling should not be conducted. Appropriate environmental sampling can be only accomplished with good historical research including utilization of historical aerial photographs. The potential for contamination from site activities as well as adjacent operations should be researched and documented. For instance, was mushroom farming actually conducted adjacent to , the site and did it produce wastes including the use of pesticides/herbicides. The potential for onsite oil wells and/or operations (i.e., oil sumps) should be investigated as their presence in this portion of Huntington Beach is common. Will this site have , contamination as found nearby on the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street(What is the source of that contamination?)? A contingency plan A-46 ' Johnson Abraham April 9, 2001 Page 3 should be developed if an unexpected oil (or water)well-is identified during the course of investigation and development so it can be properly decommissioned. While the t Division of Oil and Gas will have protocol for decommissioning oil wells, their regulations require further environmental assessment by other governmental agencies. ' Hydrology and Water Quality ' Page 11, item f, indicates less than significant impact for degrading water quality. The potential for site development to exacerbate migration of contaminants to groundwater and adjacent Sully Miller Lake (assumed lake is groundwater fed) should be evaluated. ' The significant irrigation of a park above a.landfill can have deleterious effects to groundwater if mitigative measures are not enacted. Several monitoring wells must be installed into groundwater to determine if it has already been impacted by former site uses, especially the landfill. Additional analytical data could also be easily obtained from Sully Miller Lake to determine if it has been ' impacted by the site. Air Quality Sites specific data regarding the presence or absence of landfill gases should be P 9 9 P - summarized and references cited. I hope this information is helpful for those involved. Questions regarding this m emo P P 9 9 should be directed to Chris Guerre at (714) 484-5422 or email at cguerre@dtsc.ca.gov. r ® Printed on Recycled Paper A-47 \ t?epartmenu of Toxic Substances Cori ,tro{ - Edwin i= Lbwry,:Drrecto[' - '1°•' 400 P Street,4 x 806 `a Wnston,H Hickox Sacramento, Califomra 95812 0806 , Grey Davis _� %�AgencySecrefary :x Governor , �Cairfomia Environmenfal P-rotecfion Agency 1-S r t 70 Johnson Abraham, ran, Chief } h\� Site Mibgatian Program,Region _• _ ,.FROM Guenmer W Mpskat,Chief , = Planning and Env}�anmental Anatysss Seetioii March \ .t SUBJECT � ` TRANSMITTAL AI�Q RE111Ey+f OF LEAD AGENCY ENUIROtVN1EN"fAt,.'QOCt1l1�iENXS FO Remedratron of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park 2001031067 The Department has eceived=a{nJ Notice of Preparatfonfor-the project listed above As a potendaCResponsrble Agencyr;the Department- is encouraged tQ ma[ce comments pertalnrng to; t sip as {elates o hazardous waste andlor any actiyrbes wtirch may fall wrthri fhe _. Qeparhnen#'s funsdiciion please trays your staff 1}conduct ris review df the attached document prior to theend of the comment period, ' 2}complete fne appropriate items listed in the ibax below,and-3}return is th trans a copy ofany response letter from your �, :�: , Planning&Environmental Analysis Section(PEAS) t Comment CIA Tracking Center \ � � Date PeriodBegan 0311512001 400 P oor Street,'4�Fl i2� '� Gamments u t7 P O Box`806� A,a t Y \ Sacramento Califomra 95t312 0806 � ents o t ° Fax�S18}324-178$ s t R OP , Comm Rue R 041'[31200i \ \ Reviewed gY � T_' ✓ /k Qafe �� � .Y � ` -_: r \_._ ,, -_S = '' wf s.- t --- y max- -- w �, tii -\r ♦ a--.y a -a,„ � n COMMENTS have�be��prepared and �. k=N,��` �� b`, �``serif to the'Lea�A4enctia and to Govemot`s�ce of planning Research{QPR}, Sfafe Gfearinahon§e 1d00-Tenth Street,Sacramento,Cahfdmra 95814 on �' ' . ' a k''lf �'A•copy to PEAS has been;provided,vi [1 Attached ,88} rde Area Network of U t ad 1oeara �t , 1 � � s f k •a�. u� �P- NO CONiMEN7S NECESSARY' Al Department soncems have been �O Rrolecf dues not fall within the Departmen#'s;areas oftesponsibtlrty t y' K s' \ z z• x z : .� 1 i 1 x } � � ?�, .xa 1�•l �i s;j'. Y`l C a T t�3i i • \'lt •�.. ? ':Y...''.,s�,.�'w�.r, +@ c,�v`Ty� ca _ Y-y• �xx.-,c, '.,..:�! \ x3 x� 1s # . � � <z 4.` � }1 � &- ���. t A af'the Notice t)f Cam letron Transmittal Form document hoE rndu or`thts copy h p. p j ,� taaen sent�fo the Permitting Branch c '` : fPrfheir fnforrir'atian�dr#possible•c eratwn�f `%�t,.'.:x k - Y -`>x a �_ y vllh„�_+t •c�''aF��r}C`�L - 9 �d.4'L a.-it�. `�,n�g s'�ti,�� i � i �,*,ysx -(�'��v�2x' 4 v'�.--� '�t3 i s ; --2 - ,o.--. ;' '� Z t\\ ,�_ �''<i A y�Cr .y y,� E yxt 1 y f. '• '' � � t. E.a` r',i j'�[:2(Y'"`- -,,ti'�`S y 4Zly.3F s tea:y?�:}. .?-•tY:.a_NS Ax' 'E � - �'x4 v ;.\C-._ t - .;�, G-.'tea\ x}p.:� zS'�k�t k��Y1�� ;}2.a•� .:.:'x �:x w.4�;�.f''}\•x't_�.3et'� x -. y 4w l�.�e, ` ,� -.2-: K'�, it z` a Note fl�these ��umenfs have,�been misdrrec#ed�a�ou,�.�lease4 mmedta�ely�rtofr�yxour affee antl fotwar�lhe ` ' ,i 4tfi\ ..�: 2 �,aa- ��..s•� Fes_ 4 -. „'� �.M�¢�yl_r- .>ti rs_ ��tt<" �-.� ,r*a t �;��'��'°�•�cs'' - � --z +z}�'-- ?-- # �ljpropr�ate prngramfor review attd��ar�► ;s�.^� r=��,t,. ,, ,ry - \ � -t-}t' xj r i \��� a �� - �h ---L �•�>,.k-_k a ;\ 'k€.- \�„,��1- x ak *K�.aa� ""5`i � - r Sa-- t- t � s -ti r \ _.: - - \ �. - 1," i•.L. ? i y 'Pt 'xl { :: � _4\ �.� Y 2 iE: 4*isJ - k y.�: 'tl _ i -; Thank you for your..assistancewith-this project �you have any questfonsi please cocttact Ken Tipon,CEQA Tracking Center at(9t6y 322:5266 or CALNET 492 5266 ,t j r pax , t w Prrntea on Recycled P per.- � ` ° ' • ,... .. : .: A 48 i DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA April 11, 2001 ,gyp ' DI Ms. Mary Beth Broeren City of Huntington Beach ' .01 K STREET 2000 Main Street S A C R A M E N T O Huntington Beach, CA 92648 CALIFORNIA ' 95814 Subject: Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report H O N E (DEIR)for the Remediation of the Former Gun Range within 916/322-1080 Huntington Central Park—SCH#2001031067 FAX 916/445-0732 Dear Ms. Broeren: TDD 916/3 2 a-:5 s 5 The Department of Conservation's Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal I N T E R N E T Resources (Division) has reviewed the NOP for the referenced project. The consrv.ca.gov Division supervises the drilling, maintenance, and plugging and abandonment ' 0 0 0 of oil, gas and geothermal wells in California. We offer the following GRAY DAVIS comments for your consideration. GOVERNOR The proposed project is located within the administrative boundaries of the Huntington Beach oil field. However, there are no oil, gas or injection wells within the project boundaries. Regardless, if excavation or grading - operations uncover a previously unrecorded well, the Division's district office in Cypress must be noted; such wells may need remedial plugging work. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the NOP. If you have questions on our comments, or require technical assistance or information, please contact David Sanchez at the Cypress district office: 5816 Corporate Avenue, Suite 200, Cypress, California 90630-4731; or, phone (714) 816-6847. in rely, 1 Kenneth E. Trott Environmental Coordinator cc: David Sanchez Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, Cypress Linda Campion Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, Sacramento 1 ' A-49 STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY MAY DAVIS Governor , DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME South Coast Region 4949 Viewridge Avenue ' San Diego,California 92123 (858)4674201 (858)467-4235 FAXr April 12, 2001 Mary Beth Broeren City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Comments on the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the ' Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park (SCH#2001031067) Dear Ms. Broeren The Department of Fish and Game(Department)appreciates this opportunity to continent on the above-referenced project,relative to impacts to biological resources. To enable Department staff to adequately review and comment on the proposed project, we recommend the following information be included in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR): , 1. A complete assessment of the flora and fauna within and adjacent to the project area, with particular emphasis upon identifying endangered,threatened, and locally unique species and sensitive habitats. a. A thorough assessment of rare plants and rare natural communities,following the ' Department's May 1984 Guidelines (revised May 2000)for Assessing Impacts to Rare Plants and Rare Natural Communities(Attachment 1). b. A complete assessment of sensitive fish, wildlife, reptile, and amphibian species. Seasonal variations in use of the project area should also be addressed. Focused species-specific surveys, conducted at the appropriate time of year and time of day when the sensitive species are active or otherwise identifiable, are required. Acceptable species-specific survey procedures should be developed in consultation with the Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife.Service. C. Rare,threatened,and endangered species to be addressed should include all those which meet the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) definition(see CEQA Guidelines, § 15380). d. The Department's California Natural Diversity Data Base in Sacramento should be contacted at(916) 327-5960 to obtain current information on any previously reported sensitive species and habitat,including Significant Natural Areas identified under Chapter 12 of the Fish and Game Code. A-50 ' Mary Beth Broeren April l2,2001 ' Page 2 2. A thorough discussion of direct, indirect,and cumulative impacts expected to adversely ' affect biological resources, with specific measures to offset such impacts. a. CEQA Guidelines, § 15125(a), direct that knowledge of the regional setting is critical to an assessment of environmental impacts and that special emphasis should be placed on resources that are rare or unique to the region. ' b. Project impacts should be analyzed relative to their effects on off-site habitats. Specifically, this should include nearby public lands,open space, adjacent natural ' habitats,and riparian ecosystems. Impacts to and maintenance of wildlife corridor/movement areas, including access to undisturbed habitat in adjacent areas, should be fully evaluated and provided. C. The zoning of areas for development projects or other uses that are nearby or adjacent to natural areas may inadvertently contribute to wildlife-human ' interactions. A discussion of possible conflicts and mitigation measures to reduce these conflicts should be included in the environmental document. d. A cumulative effects analysis should be developed as described under CEQA Guidelines, § 15130. General and specific plans,as well as past, present,and anticipated future projects, should be analyzed relative to their impacts on similar plant communities and wildlife habitats. ' e. If applicable,the document should include an analysis of the effect that the project may have on completion and implementation of regional and/or subregional conservation programs. Under § 2800-§ 2840 of the Fish and Game Code, the Department,through the Natural Communities Conservation Planning(NCCP) program, is coordinating with local jurisdictions, landowners, and the Federal Government to preserve local and regional biological diversity. Coastal sage scrub is the first natural community to be planned for under the NCCP program. The Department recommends that the lead agency ensure that the development of this and other proposed projects do not preclude long-term preserve planning options 1 and that projects conform with other requirements of the NCCP program. Jurisdictions participating in the NCCP program should assess specific projects for consistency with the NCCP Conservation Guidelines. Additionally, the ' jurisdictions should quantify and qualify: 1)the amount of coastal sage.scrub within their boundaries; 2) the acreage of coastal sage scrub habitat removed by individual projects;and 3) any acreage set aside for mitigation. This information should be kept in an updated ledger system 3. A range of alternatives should be analyzed to ensure that alternatives to the proposed ' A-Sl Mary Beth Broeren ' Apri112, 2001 Page 3 project are fully considered and evaluated. A range of alternatives which avoid or otherwise minimize impacts to sensitive biological resources should be included. Specific alternative locations should also be evaluated in areas with lower resource sensitivity where appropriate. a. Mitigation measures for project impacts to sensitive plants, animals, and habitats should emphasize evaluation and selection of alternatives which avoid or otherwise minimise project impacts. Off-site compensation for unavoidable impacts through acquisition and protection of high-quality habitat elsewhere should be addressed. Communities threatened ' b. The Department considers Rare Natural Comm as threa e d habitats having both regional and local significance. Thus,these communities should be fully avoided and otherwise protected from project-related impacts(Attachment 2). C. The Department generally does not support the use of relocation, salvage, and/or ' transplantation as mitigation for impacts to rare,threatened, or endangered species. Department studies have shown that these efforts are experimental in ' nature and largely unsuccessful. 4. A California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Permit must be obtained,if the project has the potential to result in"take"of species of plants or animals listed under CESA, either during construction or over the life of the project. CESA Permit s are issued to conserve, protect, enhance, and restore State-listed threatened or endangered species and ' their habitats. Early consultation is encouraged, as significant modification to a project and mitigation measures may be required in order to obtain a CESA Permit. Revisions to the Fish and Game Code, effective January 1998,may require that the Department issue a separate CEQA document for the issuance of a 2081 permit unless the project CEQA document addresses all project impacts to listed species and specifies a mitigation monitoring and reporting program that will meet the requirements of a 2081 permit. For these reasons,the following information is requested: a. Biological mitigation monitoring and reporting proposals should be of sufficient , detail and resolution to satisfy the requirements for a CESA Permit. b. A Department-approved Mitigation Agreement and Mitigation Plan are required for plants listed as rare under the Native Plant Protection Act. S. The Department has re nsib' ' for wetland and riparian habitats and opposes an , P iYPP Y alteration of a natural watercourse that would result in a reduction of wetland acreage or wetland habitat values. Alterations include,but are not limited to: conversion to ' subsurface drains,placement of fill or building of structures within the wetland and A-52 Mary Beth Broeren April 12, 2001 Page 4 channelization or removal of materials from the streambed. All wetlands and watercourses,whether intermittent or perennial, should be retained and provided with substantial setbacks which preserve the riparian and aquatic values and maintain their value to on-site and off-site wildlife populations. A formal wetland delineation following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(ACE)protocol may also be necessary prior to any ' construction in wetland or riparian habitats. Results should be included in the EIR. Please note,however,that wetland and riparian habitats subject to the Department's authority may extend beyond the areas identified in the ACE delineation. a. The Department may require a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement,pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the Fish and Game Code,with the applicant prior to the applicant's commencement of any activity that will substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank(which may include associated riparian resources)of a river, stream or lake, or use material from a streambed.. The Department's issuance of a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement for a project that is subject to CEQA will require CEQA compliance ' actions by the Department as a responsible agency. The Department as a responsible agency under CEQA,may consider the local jurisdiction's(lead agency)Negative Declaration or EIR for the project. To minimize additional ' requirements by the Department pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. and/or under CEQA,the document should fully identify the potential impacts to the lake, stream or riparian resources and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation,monitoring and reporting commitments for issuance of the agreement. A Streambed Alteration Agreement form may be obtained by writing to The Department of Fish and Game, 4949 Viewridge Avenue, San Diego, CA 92123, by calling(858) 636-3160, or by ' accessing the Departments web site at www.dfg.ca.gov/1600 . ' The Department holds regularly scheduled pre-project phmming/early consultation meetings. To make an appointment, please call our office at (858) 636-3160. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Questions regarding this letter and further coordination on these issues should be directed to Brad Henderson at (310) 214-9950. 1 Since , Donald R. Chadwick Environmental Specialist Supervisor Attachments ' A-53 Mary Beth Broeren , April 12, 2001 Page 5 cc: Department of Fish and Game File San Diego U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad State Cl ,earmghouse Sacramento r A-54 , w Guidelines for Assessing the Effects-of Proposed Projects on-Rare,Threatened, and. Endangered?lants andNatural Communities I State of CSIi mla THE RESOURCES AGENCY Departa mt of Fish and Game Deoomber 9, 1983 Revised May 8, 2000 The following recommendations are intended to help those who prepare and review environmental documents determine when a botanical survey is needed, who should be considered qualified to conduct such surveys,how field surveys should be conducted,and what information should be contained in the survey report.The Department may recommend that lead agencies not accept the results of surveys that are ' not conducted according to these guidelines. 1. Botanical surveys are conducted in order to determine toe environmental effects of proposed projects on all ' rare,threatened,and endangered plants and plant communities.Race,threatened,and endangered plants are not necessarily limited to those species which have been"listed"by state and federal agencies but should include any species that,based on all available data,can be shown to be rare,threatened,and/or endangered under the following definitions: A species,subspecies,or variety of plant is"endangered"when the prospects of its survival and reproduction are ' in immediate jeopardy from one or more causes,including loss of habitat,change in habitat,over-exploitation, predation,competition,or disease.A plant is"threatened"when it is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future in the absence of protection measures.A plant is"rare"-when,-although not presently daratenod with extinction,the species,subspecies,or variety is found in such small numbers throughout its. ' range that it may be endangered if its eaviroameat worsens. Rare natural communities are those communities that are of highly limited distribution.These communities may or may not contain rare,threatened,or endangered species.The most current version of the California Natural Diversity Database's List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities may be used.as a guide to the names and status of communities. ' 2. It is appropriate to conduct a botanical field survey to determine if,or to the extent that,rare,threatened,or endangered plants will be affected by a proposed project when: ' a. Natural vegetation occurs on the site,it is unknown if rare,threatened,or endangered plants or habitats occur on the site,and the project has the potential for direct or indirect effects on vegetation;or b. Race plants have historically been identified on the project site,but adequate information for impact . assessment is laddag. 3. Botanical consultants should possess the following qualifications: ' a. Experience conducting floristic field surveys; b. Knowledge of plant taxonomy and plant community ecology; c. Familiarity with the plants of the area,including rare,threatened,and endangered species; d. Familiarity with the appropriate state and federal statutes related to plants and plant collecting;and, e. Experience with analyzing impacts of development on native plant species and communities. 4. Field surveys should be conducted in a manner that will locate any rare,threatened,or.endangered species that may be present.Specifically,race,threatened,or endangered plant surveys should be: a. Conducted in the field at the proper time of year when rare,threatened,or endangered species are both evident and identifiable. Usually,this is when the plants are flowering. A-SS When tare,threatened,or endangered plants are known to occur in the type(s)of habitat present in the project area, .: nearby accessible occurrences of the plants(reference sites.)should be observed to determine that the species are identifiable at the time of the survey. b. Floristic in nature. A floristic survey requires that every plant observed be identified to the extent necessary , to determine its rarity and listing status. In addition,a sufficient number of visits spaced throughout the growing season are necessary to accurately determine what plants exist on the site..In order to properly characterize the site and document the completeness of the survey,a complete list of plants observed on the site should be included in every botanical survey report. c. Conducted in a manner that is consistent with conservation ethics.Collections(voucher specimens)of rare, threatened,or endangered species,or suspected rare,threatened,or endangered species should be made only when such actions would not jeopardize the continued existence of the population and in accordance with applicable state and federal permit requirements.A collecting permit from the Habitat Conservation Planning ' Branch of DFG is required for collection of state-listed plant species.Voucher specimens should be deposited at recognized public herbaria for future epference. Photography should be used to document plant identification and habitat whenever possible,butespecially when the population cannot withstand collection of voucher specimens. ' d. Conducted using systematic field techniques in all habitats of the site to ensure a thorough coverage of potential impact areas. ' e. Well documented.When a rare,threatened,or endangered plant(or rare plant community)is located,a California Native Species(or Community)Field Survey Form or equivalent written form,accompanied by a I copy of the appropriate portion of a 7.5 minute topographic map with the occurrence mapped,should be completed and submitted to'the Natural Diversity Database. Locations may be best documented using global ,positioning systems(GPS)and presented in map and digital forms as these tools become more accessible. ' 5. Reports of botanical field surveys should be included in or with environmental assessments,negative. declarations and mitigated negative declarations,Timber Harvesting Plans(THPs), EIWs,and EIS's;and should contain the following information: ' a. Project description,including a detailed map of the project location and study area. b. A written description of biological setting referencing the community nomenclature used and a vegetation ' chap. c. Detailed description of survey methodology. d. Dates of field surveys and total peraon4xmrs spent on field.surveys. ' e. Results of field survey including detailed maps and specific location data for each plant population found. Investigators are encouraged to provide GPS data and maps documenting population boundaries. f. An assessment of potential impacts. This should include a map showing the distribution of plants in relation . to proposed activities. ' g. Discussion of the significance of rare,-threatened,or endangered plant populations in the project area considering nearby populations and total species distribution. h. Recommended measures to avoid impacts. ' i. A list of all plants observed on the project area Plants should be identified to the taxonomic level necessary to determine whether or not they are rare,threatened or endangered. j. Description of reference site(s)visited and phenological development of rare,threatened,or endangered , Plant(s)• k. Copies of all California Native Species Field Survey Forms or Natural Community Field Survey Forms. 1. Name of field investigator(s). j. References cited,persons contacted,herbaria visited,and the location of voucher specimens. A-56 ATTACHMENT 2 Sensitivity of Top Priority Rare Natural Communities in Southern California Sensitivity rankings are determined by the D artment of Fish and Game,California Natural Diversity y Data Base and based on either number of known occurrences(locations)and/or amount of habitat remaining(acreage). The three rankings used for these top priority rare natural communities are as follows: ' SIN Less than 6 known locations and/or on less than 2,000 acres of habitat remaining. S2.# Occurs in 6-20 known locations and/or 2,000-10,000 acres of habitat remaining. S3.# Occurs in 21-100-known locations and/or 10,000-50,000 acres of habitat remaining. ' The number to the right of the decimal point after the ranking refers to the degree of threat posed to that natural community regardless of the ranking. For example: S 1.I = very threatened S2.2 = threatened S3.3 = no current threats known Sensitivity Ranldngs(February 1992) Rank Community Name ' S 1.1 Mojave Riparian Forest Sonoran Cottonwood Willow Riparian Mesquite Bosque ' Elephant Tree Woodland Crucifixion Thorn Woodland Allthorn Woodland Arizonan Woodland Southern California Walnut Forest Mainland Cherry Forest ' Southern Bishop Pine Forest Toney. Pine Forest Desert Mountain White Fir Forest Southern Dune Scrub Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub Maritime Succulent Scrub ' Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub Southern Maritime Chaparral Valley Needlegrass Grassland Great Basin Grassland Mojave Desert Grassland Pebble Plains ' Southern Sedge Bog Cismontane Alkali Marsh CDFG Attachment 2 for NOP Comment Letters A-57 Page 1 of 2 S 1.2 Southern Foredunes Mono Pumice Flat Southern Interior Basalt Flow Vernal Pool S2.1 Venturan Coastal Sage Scrub Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub ' Riversidean Upland Coastal Sage Scrub Riversidean Desert Sage Scrub Sagebrush Steppe Desert Sink Scrub Mafic-Southern Mixed Chaparral San Diego Mesa Hardpan Vernal Pool ' San Diego Mesa Claypan Vernal Pool. Alkali Meadow Southern Coastal Salt Marsh`. ' Coastal Brackish Marsh Transmontane Alkali Marsh Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh ' Southern Arroyo Willow Riparian Forest Southern Willow Scrub Modoc-Great Basin Cottonwood Willow Riparian ' Modoe-Great Basin Riparian Scrub Mojave Desert Wash Scrub Engelman Oak Woodland , Open Engelmann Oak Woodland Closed Engelman Oak Woodland Island Oak Woodland ' California Walnut Woodland Island Ironwood Forest Island Cfierry Forest ' Southern Interior Cypress Forest Bigcone Spruce-Canyon Oak Forest S2.2 Active Coastal Dunes Active Deceit Dunes Stabilized and Partially Stabilized Desert Dunes ' Stabilized and Partially Stabilized Desert Sandfield Mojave Mixed Steppe Transmontane Freshwater Marsh , Coulter Pine Forest Southern California Fellfield White Mountains Fellfield ' S2.3 Bristlecone Pine Forest I Limber Pine Forest J CDFG Attachment 2 for NOP Comment Letters I Page.2 of 2 A-58 ' APR 19 2001 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA April 12, 2001 x ' ASSOCIATION of Ms. Mary Beth Broeren .GOVERNMENTS Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Main Office 2000 Main Street Sib West Seventh Street (P. 0. BOX 190) ' 12th Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Los Angeles,California g00T7-3435 RE: SCAG Clearinghouse 120010177 Remediation of the Former Gun t(213)236-s800 Range within Huntington Central Park f(213)236-L825 ' Dear Ms. Broeren: vwvw.scag.ca.gov wren.P,n deN;Mayor Pro Tom Ran Bates. We have reviewed the above referenced document and determined that it is °ry°"�"'r Hal Second Lot again President: not regionally significant per Areawide Clearinghouse criteria. Therefore, the ' Councilmember Hal 8ernson. Loa Angela Jmmedate ha President: Superlsor Zer krod Tarsky.Los Angela Cmmry project does not warrant clearinghouse comments at this time. Should there I—Pn1-LCmmry'"&akK%n;--l-Per Cory' be a change in the scope of the project,we would ap 1, id m ceuoo preciate the opportunity to L)bBlon. Las Angels CnssW Yra�one BrathwY[e Burke, review and comment at that time.. Los Angelis County•Zer Yamdaysky.Los Angels County • Mean Ansel. Diamond Bar• Bob Barden.Monrovia Bruce Barrows.Cernm George Bear.Bell•Hal Brea.Las Anon• A description of the project will be published in the A ril 15 2001 ClaClaris, Cha„tian,en. Covina • Robert Brunch. P P Rosemead• lawn Cbtck.Las Angela•Gene Intergovernmental Review Report for public review and comment. DaNels.hramoum•JoAnne Darcy.Saaua Clain John Ferrate.Los Angeles•Michael rise.Los Angeles • Ruth Galante, Los Angeles • Ray 'men-sus �`Angela�°°•'�' The project title and SCAG Clearinghouse number should be used in all )Nice lieroawdez.Los Angela•Nate Holden.I.os Angela•Lawrence fey.Inglewood•Keith McCarthy.Downy • Cladr Nsakowskl. Los correspondence with SCAG concerning this project. Correspondence should Angela Staaey Murphy. Burbank • Pena be sent to the attention of the Clearinghouse Coordinator. If you have any O'Comor, santa MoNa Ma hrhem. Ina Angela•Aka hdllla.Los Aug"•Beatrice Proo, Ploo Rivera•Mark RIAey-Thmnas.Los Anon• questions,please contact me at(213)236-1867. Richard Riordan.Los Angela•law Rosen". Claren a • Marcia,Shaw Compton •Rudy. - . Svorinick Las Angela•Paul Wbm,Alhambra• - Sldxylykr.Jr.Pasadena•laei Wwl&Ln Anon Sincerely, Las Bin%hers,> Anon•Dennis Washburn. .f . Calabria•Rob Webk Long Beach ' Orange County:Chad-SndthRalph Orange Counrnnagt • - Aoo Rua.LosAlaml[os•Ralph Baum Hunnngmn tErM. Beach•Art Brown.Buena PiA•PJlrabethCann.Cosa Mesa•Cathryn DeYoung.Lague Niguel Richard Di---.lake Forest•Aha Duke.La Palma99rly UcCradeAnaheim•Lk,Tar,:Bra SMITH, AICP ' Rlmside County:Bob&==Riverside Canary• Senior Planner Rio Lovendge.Riverside•Greg Pettis.Cathedral City • Andrea Pupa.Corona • Ran Robes. Temecula.Chula Whim MareenoYa�y Intergovernmental Review ' San Bernatdloo comryt Ion Mikes. San Bernardino Cnunry • Bill Alexander. Rancho- cucunonga•lim BagieRTwenrynine Palau•Dvid m Eshlean,Una•LaeAoa Garda.GrandTeffam •Gxean Norma-Potty.Chino FBBs•Judith Valln. San Bernardino - - - ' VW"n Camty.Judy Math.Ventura County• - Dotty De Paola.San Buenaventura•Glen Becerta. Simi valley•Toni Young.Pon Hueneme Rivadde Canary Transportation Commissi m: Robin Lowe,Lime[ Ventura County Ransporudon Commission Big Dais,Simi valley A-59 FROM : CITY OF HB, COMM DEV DEPT FAX NO. : 714 374 1540 Apr. 20 2001 09:03AM P2 a� o�� THOMAS B. MATHEWS una�c-roa , V County Q Orange ?oo N. FLOWER ST. m SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA Planning & Development Services Department MAtuNC; ADDRESS: o'titFot���� P.O. BOX 4049 SANTA ANA. CA 927024048 401 f � AP84p,%,., , �po� NCL of-zz April 16,2001 Ms. Mary Beth Broeren, Senior Planner ' City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: NOP for the Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park ' Dear Ms.Broeren. The above referenced item is a Notice of Preparation(NOP)of a Draft Environmental Impact ' Report(DEIR)for the City of Huntington Beach_ The proposed project involves to remediation of the 4.91-acre former gun range site,located within Huntington Central Park ' The County of Orange has reviewed the NOP and offers the following comments regarding waste management: ' Potential for Gas Migration 1. Property located to the east of the proposed development is the former Gothard Street Refuse Disposal Station.The County of Orange operated 11 acres of this 33-acre site as a landfill from 1947 to 1962. The County monitors the groundwater quality and reports to ' the regulators. Although it ceased accepting waste in 1962 and is now closed,this landfill must be ' monitored and managed for many years following closure,because buried refuse continues to decompose. Therefore,the City and the developer should be advised that the proposed project site may be vulnerable to landfill gas(LFG)migration from the nearby , closed landfill. LFG contains significant concentrations of methane and carbon dioxide, and generally contains traces of toxic compounds and carcinogens_ If LFG accumulates in a building, and methane is in the range of 5%to 15%by volume, an explosion can occur. Above 15%,combustion can occur from a spark. It is recommended that the City coordinate this ' application with the Orange County Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency. Ms_ Patti Henshaw of that office may be reached at(714) 667-201.4_ t A-60 ' ROM CITY OF HB, COMM DEU DEPT FAX NO. 714 374 1540 Apr. 20 2001 09:03AM P3 ' Construction and Demolition Waste 2. The City of Huntington Beach is responsible .for meeting the Assembly Bill 939 (AB 939) mandate of 50% disposal reduction by the start of 2000, and for preparing AB 939 solid waste planning documents. These documents include the Source Reduction and ' Recycling Element (SRRE), the Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE), and the Non-Disposal Facility Element(NDFE). Construction- and demolition-generated waste (C&D) is heavy, inert material. This material creates significant problems when disposed of in landfills; since C&D debris does not decompose, it takes up valuable landfill capacity_ Additionally, since C&D ' debris is heavy when compared with paper and plastic, it is more difficult for the County and cities to reduce the tonnage of disposed waste. For this reason, C&D waste debris has been specifically targeted by the State of California for diversion from the waste ' stream. Projects which will generate C&D. waste should emphasize deconstruction and diversion planning, rather than demolition. Deconstruction is the planned, organized dismantling of the prior construction project, which allows maximum use of the ' deconstructed materials for recycling in other construction projects and sends a minimum of the deconstruction material to landfills. We recommend that this project address a waste reduction plan for the C&D waste generated from this project. This plan should be coordinated with the recycling coordinator for the City of Huntington Beach to help ensure AB 939 requirements are properly addressed. Hazardous Waste ' 3., Page 17 of the subject NOP indicates that the subject project will require removal of soils g J J P J � contaminated with lead.As an informational measure,it should be noted that no landfills ' in Orange County are permitted to accept hazardous waste. The Orange County Health Care Agency or the Regional Water Quality Control Board may be able to inform you of the closest disposal site which would accept the hazardous wastes which this project may ' generate_ Additional Comments 4. Page 10—in the Soil Erosion/Unstable soil paragraph: Change the date "1960" to 1962. � p�� P The Gothard Street Refuse Disposal Station was closed in 1962. ' 5. Page 10—under the HYDROLOGY AND WATER UALIT section, paragraph c: The c County's Integrated Waste Management Department requests review of the proposed ' grading of the project site to ensure that it does not impact drainage of the former Gothard Street Disposal Station or access to existing groundwater motiituring wells. ' 6. Page 14—in the Hazards paragraph: The potential impact on the former Gothard Street Disposal Station by the "widening of Gothard Street and the provision of sidewalks" should be evaluated. 2 ' A-61 FROM CITY OF HB, COMM DEU DEPT FAX NO. : 714 374 1540 Apr. 20 2001 09:03AM P4 7. Page 14—in the Emergency_access paragraph: Future accessibility thrau h County , g property is not discussed. 77his may require coordination between the City of Huntington Beach and the County of Orange to agree upon a permanent right-of-entry access through County property for the park project. 8. Page 17 in the hazardous materials paragraph: Remediation may require evaluation and ' landfill gas emission monitoring. The impact of contaminated soil and of landfill gas should be addressed in the DEIR. 9. Page 17—in the Emergency response paragraph: See comments to Page 14 (Emergency ' access)paragraph. 1.0. Page 20---in the Water/Wastewater/Additional Facilities paragraph: The potential , landfill gas migration impact on the water/wastewater line and storm drain is not addressed. ' 11. Page 22—in the Discussion paragraph: See comments for page 10. Change the date "1968" to 1962. ' Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the NOP. Please send one complete set of the DEIR to me at the above address when they become available. if you have any questions,please ' contact me or feel free to call Charlotte Harryman directly. Charlotte may be reached at (714) 834-2522_ Very truly yours, t eorge B on,Manager ' Environmental and Project Planning Services Division 1 CH 3 A-62 ' tROM CITY OF FiB, COMM DEV DEPT FAX NO. : 714 374 1540 Apr. 24 2001 08:56AM P2 '1 California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region rnternet Address: http;//www.rwrcb.ca.gov/rweicbg Winston H.Hiekox Davis 3737 Main Sheet,Suite 500,Riverside,Uiromia 92501-3348 Gray Seerr",for Phone(909)792-4130-FAX(909)791-6299 Couernor FAVironmental Protection ' The energy challenge fac*California is reed. Every Cal fo.Wan needs to take Immediate action to reduce energy cansuttt For a list of simple ways you cat reduce demand and cue your energy costs,see our website at www swrcb.ca gov/rn/rl(ArW. April 23,2001 Ms. Mary Beth Broeren Senior Planner �A✓✓✓ 2000 Main Street P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION(NOP)OF A DRAFT ENUIROMMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED REMEDIATION OF THE FORMER GUN RANGE WITHIN HUNTINGTON CENTRAL. . `PARK;;SGH#-2001031067)9-HUNTINGTON BEACH,COUNTY OF ORANGE �- tDear Ms_ Broeren: We have reviewed your letter of transmittal regarding the proposed project referenced above. As stipulated in the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)Guidelines Section 15063, the lead agency shall conduct an initial study to determine if the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. If the lead agency detenrlines from the initial study that a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an EIR is ' necessary for the proposed project,the CEQA report should address the following water quality issues: 1. Water quality and Beneficial Uses A. Potential impacts of the proposed project on surface and groundwater quality: • Any impacts that could cause impairment of narrative numerical water quality objectives or violations of numerical water quality objectives contained in the 1995 Water Quality.Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin need to be addressed • Proposed projects occurring upstream of or discharging into impaired waterbodies listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(D)list may be subject to additional controls(specifically Total Maximum Daily Loads or TMDLs)pursuant to that regulation_ Depending on the proposed project. these controls could include discharge prohibitions,revisions to discharge permits,or management plans to address water quality impacts. This is especially important in the Newport Bay, Chino Basin, Bear Big Lake,and Lake Elsinore watersheds. Environmental documents for proposed projects need to acknowledge that these additional requirements may be imposed in the future. • Construction activities(including grading)that could result in water quality impacts. • Soil characteristics related to water quality(potential for erosion and subsequent siltation, increase or decrease in percolation). • Impacts of toxic substances handling and/or disposal(if appropriate). • In compliance with the State Water Quality Control Board's antidegradation policy,new development projects should address any impacts related to the potential increase of toxins in urban runoff(compared to runoff from.undeveloped areas). These toxins may include pesticides, herbicides, grease,oil and other toxins not normally occurring in runoff from undeveloped areas. B. Potential impacts of the proposed project on surface and groundwater beneficial uses. • habitats a completedescription of the im acts If the protect impacts any riparian or wetland pimpacts. acreage of the impacts,and proposed mitigation should be provided California Environmental Protection Agency WD t + A.-yd d Paper P A-63 FROM` : CITY OF HB, COMM DEU DEPT FAX NO. : 714 374 1540 Apr. 24 2001 09:56AM P3 ' Mary Beth Broeren City of Huntington Beach -Z- April 23.2001 C. Mitigation of Adverse impacts.g pa is. Il. Water,Wastewater and Solid Waste Service ' A. Water • Availability of water for the proposed project. • Existing Infrastructure: location of water supply lines,tie-ins. • Applications or permits required for water acquisition. Impact or calculated project demand on water supply. ' B. Waste Disposal/Treatment • Types and amounts of waste materials generated by project. Proposed.waste treatment and disposal methods. Existing infrastructure: •. treatment facilities: location,current capacity,treatment standards;master; !natmen_t.facilities ' expansion plan(if appropriate) • treatment plant collection system: location of major trunk lines and tie-ins,current capacity • disposal facilities: location,capacity • Applications or permits required to implement waste disposal_ • Impact of calculated project waste volume on capacity of existing and proposed treatment and disposal facilities. III. Permits A. If no new point discharges are created from the proposed project the stormwater runoff will be regulated by an area-wide stormwater discharge permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES). B. A notice of intent(NOI)with the appropriate fees for coverage of the project under the General �I Construction Activity Storm Water Runoff Permit must be submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board at least 30-days prior to initiation of construction activity at the site. This is required for any construction activity over five acres in area. C. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)permit for any discharge of wastes to surface waters or a Waste Discharge Requirements for any discharge of wastes to land is required by the Regional Board. D_ If reclaimed water is to be used in the proposed project,Water Reclamation Requirements will have to be issued by the Regional Board. ;We look forward to reviewing the Draft. when it becomes available. If you have any questions,please call me at(909)782-3221. �. Sincerely, Stephanie M. Gascs , Planning Section—Coastal Waters cc:Scott Morgan—State Clearinghouse California EnWronmewd Protection Agency A-64 FROM_: CITY OF HB, COMM DEU DEPT FAX NO. 714 374 1540 Apr. 30 2001 10:32AM P2 JULIETTE A.POULSON,RN,MN o,Q COUNTY OF ORANGE MCEWURGSM DIRECTOR V M DIRECTOR HEALTH CARE AGENCY REGIA O YGENCY HEALTHSERVICES c+9�j R�ti REGULATORY HEALTH SERVICES er�R OIR � HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HwLIvc ADDRESS: 2W9 EAST EDINGW AVENUE SANTAANA.CA 827054M TEI.EF41CNE:(7I4)W7-3= 9�,p�=� FAX- (7t4)972 074D Aprd 25,2001 fro Q a��j• ®b s`A,(�4*1 J Mary Beth Broen, Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street ' Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for Remediation of the Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park Dear Ms. Broen: The Orange County Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) appreciates the opportunity to assist the City of Huntington Beach in preparation of the Draft Environment Impact Report(EIR) for Remediation of the former glue range. The former gun range property identified in your Notice of Preparation (NOP) is over the closed landfill identified as Huntington Beach Landfill. The City proposes to remediate the former gun range site and develop the subject site as an open spw&park. This open spaeelpark will include parking areas,restroorns,and concession soucWres. After reviewing the subject document the following issues must be adequately addressed: 1. Potential for people to be exposed to lead. 2. Landfill gas accumulation within sttucaires. 3_ Ground differential settlement below structures sited over the landfill. Mitigation measuu es for lead impacted soil includes, site assessment and possible site cleanup including removal of contaminated soils. litigation measures for methane includes placement of foundation membrane barriers and passive ventilation systems. The LEA, prior to construction, must approve all proposed development on closed landfill sites in order to ensure the appropriate level of environmental review and mitigation has been performed. A-65 FROM CITY OF HB, COMM DEV DEPT FAX NO. : 714 374 1540 Apr. 30 2001 10:33AM P1 ' Mary Beth Broen April 25.2001 Page 2 If you have any questions regarding the wmanents provided in response to the subject Notice of Preparation please call Dean Clarke at(714)667-2023. Sincerely, Patricia,Henshaw,REHS Supervising Hazardous Waste Specialist Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency Environmental Health Division CC. Glenn Young,California btegrated Waste Management Board Dixie Lass, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board David Jones,South Coast Air Quality Management District A-66 x Z W a a Q COUNTY OF ORANGE Juuene a POULSM.M,MN HEALTH CARE AGENCY DIRECTOR 1rKE swiMoeoM MIJIVAGENCY 01MOMR REGULATORY HEALTH SERVICES REGILRATORr H"T"ftWd 8 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a"VWJLwowa.aa� y�..�p eNv+RowaErrtw.►+�xTn �XCPKP1llP w.,w Aeonsea. �aooa•sr Lo.oay.va,a,e 9.wT..w.a asiaanflo tep�7ty �6+anowc r+uuraem rI I�Ce November 15,2002 Ron Hagan ' Director of community Strvices City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Subject: Ranedlal Aethm Plan dated Oetober 14,2002 Re: Huntington Central Park—Fanner Firing Range 18191 Gothard Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 ' OCHCA Case#011C004 Dear Mr.Hagan Please be advised that this Agency has reviewed the subject plan submitted by your consultant,Hart Crowser, Inc.,and found it acceptable for implementation provided the following considerations are addressed: 1. Confnnnation sampling of excavations and profile sampling of extracted soil are to be conducted in the presence of Agency staff. 2. Some analyses for soluble lead(Pb) by the modified Waste Extraction Test(WET)using de-ionized water at to be conducted where verification-sampling results indicate total Pb concentrations greater than 10 titres the Pb STLC. 3. Treated soil,if any,containing Pb below 750 mg/kg but in excess of 350 mg/kg nay not be re-used on site unless specifically allowed in accordance with Section 25157 of the California Health do Safety Code,Division 20. ' If you have any questions regarding this matter,please contact the undersigned at(714)667-3717. Sincerely, Luis Lodrigueza Hazardous Waste Specialist Hazardous Materials Mitigation Section Environmental Health Division cc: Ann Sturdivant,Santa Ana Regional_ Water Quality Control Board Ravi Limaye,Hart Crowser,Inc. iC.HCP,6ria"Ze.RAP1W B-1 1 REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN FORMER FIRING RANGE HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA CERTIFICATION i This Report was prepared by the staff of Hart Crowser, Inc., under the supervision of and in conjunction with the Engineer and Geologist whose signature and license appears hereon. The services performed by Hart Crowser have been conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of our profession currently practicing under similar conditions in ' California. No other warranty is expressed or implied. / 9 7 ZAE--� - / / V" ' S. L'mG GARY HALBERT, R. . Rw DmAYE, P.E.,. A ' ASSOCIATE GEOLOGIST SENIOR ASSOCIATE ENGINEER Gel Na 1318 CERTIFIED ENGINEERING +r GEOLOGIST v- r' Oir CA1.1FOPa` �. B-2 ' City of Huntington Beach-Former Firing Range HC Project No. 6914 NN Rem e dial Action Plan October 14, 2002 430 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Hart Crowser Inc. (Hart Crowser) on behalf of the City of Huntington Beach ("City") is pleased to submit this Remedial Action Plan (RAP) related to a former firing range property located at 18191 Gothard Street in Huntington Beach, California (the "Site,. ' The Site is designated as Open Space-Park in the City's General Plan and is part of the Master Plan of Recreation Uses for Central Park. The property is situated southwest of the intersection between Talbert Avenue and Gothard Street, immediately north of Sully Miller Lake. The property was originally part of Huntington Beach landfill, which was owned and operated by the County of Orange ("County"). Hart Crowser understands that: ■ Two firing ranges were operated on the Site, the main (and existing) range and a former pistol range immediately south of the existing range. ■ Soil berms for both the main firing range and the former pistol range were "screened" on an irregular basis for approximately 25 years.This process apparently intended to achieve the physical removal of the soil berms for the separation of bullets and bullet.fragments.We i understand that this soil was deposited in a roughly 50-foot by 50-foot area on the southwestern portion of the Site. We also understand that a tenant may have actually melted lead found on 1 the range into ingots. ■ Fill soil was routinely imported to replace the soil berms and to compensate for subsidence of soils throughout the property.- It is assumed that there is approximately three (3)feet of fill material above the old landfill. The fill may not be uniform over the entire landfill. Hart Crowser has based this RAP on data presented in Hart Crowser's approved Fina/Remedia/ Investigation Report(RI), submitted to Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) on April 23, 2001. The remedial objectives for the former gun range site were developed, screened, and recommended for selection in order to protect human health and the environment. Remedial action alternatives were evaluated for cost effectiveness, through the application of proven technologies to minimize the environmental impacts imposed by heavy metal constituents. In this way, the remediated site would have beneficial usages in light of proposed future developments at this site and the proposed adjoining Sports Complex Facility. The existing media of concerns at Site involve the bermed and spoil pile soils, main firing range/pistol range soils, and the surrounding wood post fencing. The contaminants of concern I ' B-3 City of Huntington Beach -Former Firing Range HC Project No. 6914 AM Remedial Action Plan October 74, 2002 have been identified throughout the media of concern as total lead in soil and PAHs in wooden materials. As part of this RAP, Hart Crowser considered the following remedial alternatives: ■ No Action; ■ Limited Excavation of the Bermed Area and "Hot Spots", and Limited Asphalt Capping; and ■ Limited Excavation of the Bermed Area and "Hot Spots,"and Complete Asphalt Capping. Excavation will be limited in both the alternatives to specific areas. Excavated lead-impacted soils , can be treated and disposed of by different methods. The possible alternatives are: ■ Option 1: Off-Site Disposal (California Hazardous); ,. ■ Option 2: On-Site Screening, Partial Reuse and Off-Site Disposal (California Hazardous); ■ Option 3: On-Site Screening, Partial Reuse and Off-Site Disposal (Resource Conservation Recovery Act[RCRA] Hazardous); ■ Option 4: Off-Site Recycling and Landfill; ■ Option 5: On-Site Treatment, Partial Reuse and Off-Site Disposal (California Hazardous); and ■ Option 6: On-Site Treatment, Partial Reuse and Off-Site Disposal (RCRA Hazardous). Hart Crowser's recommended remedial option is based on effectiveness for ultimate land usages and minimizing contaminant exposures, feasibility/availability of technologies and handling/disposal methods, durability and compatibility for installed system with planned land usages, and annual , maintenance. Hart Crowser's recommended remedial option would involve the following work tasks to be completed in the chronological sequence presented: ■ Wood posts, approximately 20 feet tall,will be dismantled and removed from the property and transported off-site for disposal. ■ Lead impacted soils in the firing range berm and spoils pile would be excavated to ground level and physically separated (screened) on-site for profiling under USEPA SW-846 criteria. Soils passing profiling criteria would be spread over the firing/pistol range areas. Those soils not satisfying profiling criteria would be treated at the Site depending on the results of a bench scale study and the treated material will be transported off-site for disposal as non-hazardous wastes. Oversized material will be sent to a disposal facility as California Hazardous Waste as described in Option 5 of this report. ■ The excavated area will be capped by asphalt. II B-4 , City of Huntington Beach-Former Firing Range HC Project No. 6914 Remedial Action Plan October 14, 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS ' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................I 1.0 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS......................................................................1 ' 2.1 SITE LOCATION.............................................................................................................................1 2.2 SITE HISTORY................................................................................................................................1 2.3 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION................................................................................................................2 2.3.1 Property Improvements......................................................................................................2 2.3.2 Geologic Setting& Topography.........................................................................................2 3.0 SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION FINDINGS..................................................3 4.0 SUMMARY OF RI CONDUCTED FOR ON-SITE WOOD POST FENCING.......................4 5.0 SUMMARY OF CONFIRMATION SAMPLING.......................................................................4 6.0 REGULATORY AGENCY CONSIDERATIONS......................................................................4 Orange County Heath Care Agency(OCHCA)....................................................................................S Department of Toxic Substances Control(DTSC)................................................................................S Regional Water Quality Control Board-Santa Ana RW CB ......................................6 California Department of Health Services, Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch(CDHS).6 1 Orange County Heath Care Agency-Environmental Department(OCHCA-ED)...............................6 - Orange County Meath Care Agency-Hazardous Waste Specialists(OCHCA-HW)...........................6 United States Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)....................................................................... 7 ' The California Code of Federal Regulation, Title 22...........................................................................8 7.0 IDENTIFICATION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES..........................................................8 7.1 ALTERNATIVE 1—NO ACTION......................................................................................................8 7.2 ALTERNATIVE 2-LIMITED EXCAVATION OF THE BERMED AREA AND"HOT SPOTS,"AND LIMITEDASPHALT CAPPING.....................................................................................................................9 7.3 ALTERNATIVE 3 -LIMITED EXCAVATION OF THE BERMED AREA AND"HOT SPOTS," AND COMPLETE ASPHALT CAPPING.................................................................................................................9 8.0 LEAD-IMPACTED SOILS TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES.................................................9 9.0 ASPHALT CAPPING ALTERNATIVES..................................................................................12 10.0 WOOD POST FENCING REMOVAL......................................................................................13 ' 11.0 LANDFILL GAS............................................................................................................................14 III B-S City of Huntington Beach -Former Firing Range HC Project No. 6914 ' Remedial Action Plan October 14, 2002 12.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS........................................................................................................14 13.0 RECOMMENDED REMEDIAL OPTION................................................................................15 , 14.0 LMTATIONS.............................................................................................................................16 APPENDICES A: Regulatory Agency Correspondence for the Site , B: Additional Regulatory Information C: Additional Site Information FIGURES 1: Site Vicinity Map 2: Approximate Excavation Area TABLES 1: Summary of Area to be Excavated and Capped , IV j B-6 City of Huntington Beach- Former Firing Range HC Project No. 6914 Remedia/Action Plan October 14,2002 1.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Huntington Beach ("City") retained the services of Hart Crowser, Inc. (Hart Crowser) to ' prepare a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for remediation of heavy-metal impacts to a former gun range site located within Huntington Central Park, in the City of Huntington Beach, California. Hart Crowser has based its RAP on data presented in Hart Crowser's approved Final Remedial Investigation Report(RI), submitted to Orange County Health Care Agency(OCHCA) on April 23, 2001. This RAP will outline treatment/disposal alternatives for impacted soil and wood post fencing based on the nature, level, and extent of environmental impacts due to the use of the Site as a gun range, as outlined in the RI. The RAP includes the recommended remedial option. Procedures for characterizing soils considered for off-site disposal as well as for mitigating landfill gas (LFG) issues have been provided as general guidelines. The purpose of producing this RAP, and gaining its ultimate approval by the Lead Oversight Agency P P g g g (LOA), OCHCA, is to provide the City with a viable clean-up plan for environmental hazards identified during the RI. Following approval by OCHCA, the City intends to implement the RAP and ultimately include the subject parcel as part of Huntington Central Park. 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 2.1 Site Location ' The Site is approximately 4.91 acres in size and is presently owned by the City. The property is designated as Open Space-Park in the City's General Plan and is part of the Master Plan of Recreation Uses for Central Park. ' The Site has a physical street address of 18191 Gothard Street, in Huntington Beach, California (Figure 1). The Site is situated to the southwest of the intersection between Talbert Avenue and ' Gothard Street, immediately north of Sully Miller Lake. Regional access to the Site is provided by Interstate 405 (1-405) and Pacific Coast Highway(Highway 1), located approximately 3 miles north and 2 miles south, respectively. Site ingress/egress is provided by a paved 100-yard driveway that allows vehicles access to both the Site and Hansen Recycling Center immediately northeast of the property (Figure 1). 2.2 Site Histor y The Site was originally part of Huntington Beach Landfill (Landfill), which was owned and operated by the County of Orange (County). The Landfill was divided into two distinct areas, 33.2-acres of 1 ' B-7 City of Huntington Beach-Former Firing Range HC Project No. 6914 ' A!Remedial Action Plan October 14, 2002 mixed municipal refuse and 18.3 acres of construction demolition material. The Site was reportedly part of the mixed municipal refuse portion of the Landfill. , According to Kleinfelder, Inc. (1990), the County operated the Landfill as a burning dump from September 1947 through September 1956. After that date, the Landfill operated as a cut and cover operation. Kleinfelder reports that County records indicate that about 1.1 million cubic yards of refuse were deposited into the Landfill before its closure in 1962. , When the Landfill closed, the County deeded the property to the City for public park and recreation purposes. The Huntington Beach Police Officers Association (HBPOA) constructed the current gun ' range improvements with a public and private training facility and operated the facility under a 20- year lease from the City. In 1988, the long-term lease expired, and the gun range lease was continued on a year-to-year basis. ' In the early 1990s, it became evident that the range needed rebuilding. Unstable soil conditions caused by the decomposing landfill materials were impacting the facility, and the public side of the facility was closed and partially demolished because of'structural stability concerns. In 1993, the City began discussions with the HBPOA regarding rebuilding the Site. In 1997, the City terminated ' the lease due to safety concerns, and the gun range was closed. Existing improvements on the Site include several buildings, wood posts that serve as fencing, rubber tires used as target backing, and asphalt areas. 2.3 Physical Description 2.3.1 Property Improvements Several wooden, cinder block, and metal structures associated with gun range uses are present on , the Site. Wood post fencing approximately 20-feet tall and constructed of telephone-pole-type timbers surround the Site to the north, east, and west. In addition,wood post fencing divides the ' northern gun range (main firing range)from a former gun range to the south (pistol range). Wood post fencing also divides a former sniper and Special Forces training area along the western portion of the property from the remainder of the Site. Asphalt paving is present along the entry driveway , and the staging area for the main gun range. In addition, two rows of metal and wooden targets are present in an east-west configuration across the floor of the main firing range. 2.3.2 Geologic Setting&Topography The Site is generally located on a coastal plain known as the Los Angeles Basin on the northern ' margin of a landform regionally known as the Huntington Beach Mesa. The Los Angeles Basin is divided into four blocks that contain both uplifted and depressed areas. The active Newport- ' 2 B-8 ' City of Huntington Beach -Former Firing Range HC Project No. 6914 RemedialAction Plan October 14, 2002 Inglewood Fault Zone (NIFZ) divides the seaward portion of the Basin from the Los Angeles Coastal Plain. The Site is located approximately 1'/4-miles north of the NIFZ. Prior to the commencement of landfill operations (Pre-1950), aerial photographs and US Geological iSurvey (USGS) topographic maps indicate that a roughly 35-foot deep drainage canyon, eroded into the Lakewood Formation, traversed the Site from the northwest-to the south, into the existing Sully Miller Lake area. Since that time, it is estimated that more than one million tons of earth and debris materials, including trash, waste, and refuse fill have been placed beneath and immediately surrounding the Site. According to the Huntington Central Park Master Plan of Recreation Uses, 1 Draft Environmental Impact Report(CH2MHILL, 1999), various investigations have.estimated that the refuse thickness is about 35-feet. The majority of the Site has been covered with loose to medium dense silty sands ranging from less than 4 to 25 feet in thickness. These sands were most likely placed without controlled compaction and are therefore settling and shifting. According to the USGS topographic map for Seal Beach (1982), the Site is located at an approximate elevation of 50 feet above mean sea level (MSL). Surface topography in the vicinity of the Site slopes gently to the south-southwest in the general direction of the Pacific Ocean, 2-miles to 1 the southwest. On-site topography is variable with subsidence of fill sands throughout. 3.0 SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION FINDINGS Hart Crowser completed its field-sampling program for the Remedial Investigation (RI) in March ' 2001. Soil samples were collected from the soil berms along the northern boundary of the property, from the floor of the main firing range, from the floor of the former pistol range, and from a berm spoils pile on the southwest corner of the property. In addition,wood samples were ' collected from the wood post fencing throughout the property. ' Concentrations of lead were found in the soils throughout the berm of the main firing range. In general, elevated total lead concentrations appeared to be randomly scattered with soil locations and depths across the floors of both firing ranges. No direct relationship between total and soluble ' lead concentrations was found to exist based on sampling data. It was determined that this pattern may be due to the variable soil types associated with imported fill materials, and soil relocations known to have occurred throughout the property. Hart Crowser did not observe evidence of a consistent soil depth at which lead concentrations diminished. This may be due to uneven and irregular screening by the HBPOA and the fact that landfill materials were encountered at unexpectedly shallow levels, most likely due to lack of a cover cap. Laboratory results indicate that ' wood post fencing at the Site was treated with coal tar, not creosote as was originally believed. Appendix C contains site layout, sampling locations and analytical results from prior investigations. 3 B-9 City of Huntington Beach-Former Firing Range HC Project No. 6914 , MW Remedial Action Plan October 14, 2002 4.0 SUMMARY OF RI CONDUCTED FOR ON-SITE WOOD POST FENCING Laboratory results indicated that wood post fencing at the Site was treated with coal tar, a common by-product of manufactured gas plants (also referred to as coal-gasification). In Hart Crowser's discussion of laboratory results, reference was made to a March 11, 1998 Santa Ana Regional , Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) letter directed to OCHCA which specified that"wood products treated with PCP (pentachlorophenol), creosote, arsenic, copper and chromium shall be disposed of at permitted, lined Class III landfills in the region. Wood products treated with creosote may also be disposed of at permitted, unlined Class III landfills." By strict interpretation of the RWQCB's letter, the wood post fencing at the property does not ' qualify for Class III landfill disposal. Hart Crowser requested and received verbal clarification from the RWQCB that coal-tar preserved wood products may be chipped and disposed of under a cap on the site if concurrence is obtained from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)for the chipping process and concurrence from OCHCA for on-site disposal beneath the cap. Appendix C contains site layout, sampling locations and analytical results from prior ' investigations. 5.0 SUMMARY OF CONFIRMATION SAMPLING Hart Crowser completed confirmation sampling in November 2001. Confirmation sampling was conducted as an array of four samples surrounding each location where United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)-Preliminary Remedial Goals (PRG),Total Threshold Limit 1 Concentration (TTLC), Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC) or Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) exceedences were noted during the remedial investigation. Out of eight sample locations, seven locations indicated total initial lead concentrations greater than ' or equal to 1000 mg/kg. Confirmation samples at four of these locations confirmed the presence of ' greater than or equal to 1000 mg/kg of lead. STLC numbers were below 1 mg/I for all submitted samples. 6.0 REGULATORY AGENCY CONSIDERATIONS Lead found in soil at the firing ranges is in the form of particulates/dust, small fragments, and nearly ' intact bullets and pellets. Depending on the soil type and pH, varying amounts of lead can be transported off-site. At any given time, the contamination profile at a firing range can include highly ' contaminated soil in the backdrop or berm, more diffuse contamination across the entire extent of the range leading to the berm, and then some minimally impacted subsurface areas (see Appendix B). ' 1 4 B-l0 ' City of Huntington Beach-former firing Range HC Project No. 6914 mRff Remedial Action Plan October 14, 2002 Children living near the firing ranges can be potentially exposed to.lead through dust. Federal standards are based on exposures that present a risk for a child's brain to be measurably harmed. Currently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention use a benchmark safety level of 100 ' micrograms of lead per liter of a child's blood as an indicator for children at risk of the harmful effects of lead. ' Hart Crowser conducted a review of regulatory agency criteria for lead concentrations in soil by contacting/researching the following agencies: 1 ■ Orange County Health Care Agency -■ Department of Toxic Substances Control, California ■ Regional Water Quality Control Board-Santa Ana ■ California Department of Health Services, Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch ■ Orange County Heath Care Agency, Environmental Department ■ Orange County Heath Care Agency, Hazardous Waste Specialists (City of Huntington Beach) ■ Environmental Protection Agency ■ The California Code of Regulation,Title 22 ' Orange County Heath Care Agency OCHCA 9 tY 9 Y( ) ' On March 12, 2002, Hart Crowser contacted the Orange County Heath Care Agency(OCHCA), Mr. Luis Lodrigueza, to collect information regarding the Interim Guidance for Evaluating Lead Concentrations in Soil. Based on discussions with Mr. Lodrigueza,the criteria OCHCA uses in evaluating soil lead concentrations are the USEPA Region 9 Industrial Preliminary Remediation Goal (USEPA-PRG) for lead (750 mg/kg), the California Title 22 TTLC (1,000.mg/kg) and STLC (5 mg/L) ' for this Site. ' Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)'s Interim Guidance for Evaluating Lead Based Paint ' at proposed school sites is based on new laws (Assembly Bill 387, Assembly Bill 162, and Assembly Bill 2644). For the initial screening of lead concentrations at a proposed school site, the highest ' concentration of lead should be compared to a screening value of 255 mg/kg derived from the DTSC Lead model spreadsheet, (Version 7). The model input concentration for air is based on regional and statewide air concentrations of lead, and water is based on an action level of 15 ' micrograms per liter (see Appendix B). 1 5 ' B-11 City of Huntington Beach- Former Firing Range HC Project No. 6914MW ' Remedial Action Plan October 14, 2002 Regional Water Quality Control Board -Santa Ana (RWQCB) On March 14, 2002, Hart Crowser contacted the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board g Q tY (RWQCB) in order to get information regarding Santa Ana's Interim Guidance for Evaluating Lead ' Concentrations in Soil. Based on discussions with RWQCB- Santa Ana, the criteria RWQCB uses in evaluating soil lead concentrations is 5-50 mg/kg depending on groundwater depth, groundwater flow direction and type of soil at a particular site. ' California Department of Health Services, Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch (CDHS) ' On March 14, 2002, Hart Crowser contacted the California Department of Health Services, ' Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch (CDHS), Mr.Will Hale, to collect information regarding an Interim Guidance for Evaluating Lead Concentrations in Soil. Based on discussions with CDHS, the criteria CDHS uses in evaluating soil lead concentrations for areas where a child ' playing outdoors is at risk of lead poisoning, is 400 mg/kg. Through incidental contact with soil from outdoor play, children ingest tiny amounts of soil through what the EPA calls children's normal hand-to-mouth activity. CDHS may also use a soil lead concentration criteria of 1,000 mg/kg for non-child play areas. Orange County Heath Care Agency - Environmental Department(OCHCA-ED) ' On March 11, 2002, Hart Crowser contacted Orange County Heath Care Agency- Environmental Department(OCHCA-ED), Mr.Jeff Lane, in order to get information regarding an Interim Guidance for Evaluating Lead Concentrations Soil. Based on discussions with OCHCA-ED, the criteria OCHCA- ED uses in evaluating the concentrations of lead in soil for areas where a child , playing outdoors is at risk of lead poisoning, is 400 mg/kg. Through incidental contact with soil from outdoor play, children ingest tiny amounts of soil through what the EPA calls children's normal hand-to-mouth activity. OCHCA- ED may also use a soil lead concentration criterion of 1,000 , mg/kg for non-child play areas. Orange County Heath Care Agency - Hazardous Waste Specialists (OCHCA-HW) ' On March 12, 2002, Hart Crowser contacted Orange County Heath Care Agency- Hazardous , Waste Specialists for the City of Huntington Beach (OCHCA- HW), Mr.Jeff Nofal, in order to get information regarding an Interim Guidance for Evaluating Lead Concentrations in Soil. Based on discussion with Mr. Nofal, the criteria OCHCA- HW uses in evaluating the concentrations of lead in ' soil for areas where a child playing outdoors is at risk of lead poisoning, is 400 mg/kg. OCHCA- HW may also use a soil lead concentration criterion of 1,000 mg/kg for non-child play areas. ' 6 B-l2 ' ' City of Huntington Beach-Former firing Range HC Project No. 6914 Remedial Action Plan October 14, 2002 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) New rules finalized by the EPA in January 2001 require industries across the country to report even small amounts of lead pollution to a public database maintained by the government called the ' Toxics Releases Inventory(TRI). However, in spite of scientific agreement on lead toxicity, and the need to reduce it, commercial firing ranges are exempt from the EPA's new lead reporting ' requirements. In California, the state law specifically exempts shooting ranges from civil liability or criminal prosecution for noise pollution. The state DTSC has authority over shooting ranges only if they are abandoned and classified as toxic dump sites (see Appendix B). ' According to EPA Toxic Substances Control Act(TSCA) Section 403 Standard - January 2001, the criteria for lead concentrations in soil, which are considered to be hazardous, is greater than 400 ' mg/kg in bare soil in children's play areas, and an average of 1,200 mg/kg for bare soil in the rest of the yard. ' According to G. Fred Lee &Associates (see Appendix B), if the lead concentration is below 1,000 mg/kg and the concentrations of leachable lead determined by the California extraction procedure, or the US EPA TCLP, is less than 5 mg/kg, the soil is classified as "non-hazardous" in California and it may be disposed of in a municipal solid waste landfill. The soil is classified as a "hazardous waste" in California if the lead concentration is above 1,000 mg/kg. If classified as a "hazardous waste", it ' would have to be taken to a Resource Conservation Recover Act(RCRA) "hazardous waste" landfill. The US EPA RCRA regulations that govern wastes containing lead are directed to the disposal of the waste in a municipal landfill.The regulations are designed to protect ground water supplies from ' pollution by landfill leachate.The US EPA regulations specify a maximum concentration of lead that may be leached under specified conditions before the waste is classified as a hazardous waste.The US EPA TCLP for designation of a lead-containing waste as a hazardous waste is based on a ' leachable lead concentration of 5 mg/I (5,000 pg/1). Leachable lead values at or above this level cause a waste to be classified as a hazardous waste. ' In accordance with RCRA land disposal restrictions, soil which is hazardous due to the lead toxicity characteristic (exceeds 5 mg/L when subjected to TCLP analysis) cannot be placed in an ordinary solid waste landfill.The soil will not require pre-treatment before disposal, but must be placed in a hazardous waste landfill. Costs associated with hazardous waste disposal can. exceed ordinary landfill costs by ten to 100 times.Therefore, removing as many lead fragments as possible for recycling in an effort to reduce the overall lead content of the soil should be evaluated to determine whether the cost of disposal can be reduced (see Appendix 6). 7 ' B-13 City of Huntington Beach - Former Firing Range HC Project No. 6914 ' MW Remedial Action Plan October 14, 2002 The California Code of Federal Regulation,Title 22 The California Code of Federal Regulations,Title 22, has established TTLCs used to designate a material as a hazardous waste for disposal evaluation. If the total concentration exceeds the TTLC (Lead - 1,000 mg/kg), then the soil may be designated as a hazardous waste when considering ' landfill disposal. In order to evaluate leaching potential of a constituent, the California Waste Extraction Test(WET) may be run to evaluate the STLC (Lead - 5 mg/L). If the TTLC or STLC are ' exceeded then the disposal material may be classified as a hazardous waste and require Class I landfill disposal or remediation if removed from the site. If the material exceeds the TTLC or STLC then the TCLP analyses may be used to determine if the material is a RCRA or non RCRA waste. , Although native material or in situ soil is not considered wastes, the levels detected can be compared to the TTLC values for general evaluation. 7.0 IDENTIFICATION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES In this section applicable remedial alternatives are evaluated. Hart Crowser has assumed that the , selected remedial alternative would be implemented after removing the wood post fencing. , Excavated lead-impacted soil can be treated and disposed of by different methods. Remedial options considered for this study were selected based on the following criteria: ■ The technologies for the remediation method are proven, viable, and cost-effective; ■ The remedial option is acceptable to the regulatory agencies; ' ■ The remedial option is cost-effective on a per unit volume basis; and ■ The remedial option will not create a noise or dust nuisance to the neighboring properties. n ' re asfollows: , The alternatives co sidered a ■ No Action; , ■ Limited Excavation of the Bermed Area and "Hot Spots", and Limited Asphalt Capping; and ■ Limited Excavation of the Bermed Area and "Hot Spots,"and Complete Asphalt Capping. ' 7.1 Alternative 1 -No Action o-ac The "n tion" alternative leaves the Site in its current condition with no remedial treatment actions, no affected soil removals, or capping. As a result, the existing ground cover throughout the , Site would degrade with time and would result in exposures to contaminated soils, both berms and ground surfaces, continued surface water infiltration, and potential landfill gas migration. There are no specific remedial technologies or process options included under this "no-action" category. , Rather, this response action serves as a baseline against which the effectiveness of other remedial technology action alternatives can be measured. Under this alternative, no funds would be 8 B-14 , City of Huntington Beach -Former Firing.Range HC Project No. 6914 Remedial Action Plan October 14, 2002 expended to reduce or remove the mobility, toxicity, or volume of contaminated soil materials at the Site.. Because there is no remedial action conducted with this alternative, no personnel or equipment are required. There would be no construction or operational/maintenance costs. Also, the Site would have little or no beneficial land usages due to potential contact with lead-impacted ' soils. ' 7.2 Alternative,2 - Limited Excavation of the Bermed Area.and "Hot Spots,' and Limited Asphalt Capping ' This option entails the excavation of the bermed area and "Hot Spots"which present lead concentrations higher than 750 mg/kg. Based on the RI and the confirmation sampling approximately 5,499 tons of lead-impacted soil (greater than 750 mg/kg) is estimated to be present on-site. Based on a safety factor of 25%, excavation of approximately 7,333 tons of soil is estimated.The limited asphalt capping area will only cover the limited excavation area (bermed area ' and "hot spot'area) of approximately 24,000 square feet. (2,668 square yards). The summary of the asphalt capping procedure is presented in the Asphalt Alternatives Capping section. The proposed areas of excavation and a summary of the area to be excavated are shown on Figure 2 and Table 1, respectively. 7.3 Alternative 3 - Limited Excavation of the Bermed Area and "Hot Spots," and Complete Asphalt Capping This option entails the excavation of the bermed area and "Hot Spots" which present lead concentrations higher than 750 mg/kg. Based on the RI and the confirmation sampling approximately 5,499 tons of lead-impacted soil (greater than 750 mg/kg) is estimated to be present on-site. Based on a safety factor of 25%, excavation of approximately 7,333 tons of soil is estimated.The complete asphalt capping area will cover the entire area of the Site, which is approximately 114,000 square feet(12,670 square yards). A summary of the asphalt capping procedure is presented in the Asphalt Alternatives Capping section. The proposed areas of excavation and a summary of the area to be excavated are shown on Figure 2 and Table 1, respectively: 8.0 LEAD-IMPACTED SOILS TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES Excavated lead-impacted soils can be treated and disposed of b different methods.The possible p P Y options are: ■ Option 1: Off-Site Disposal (California Hazardous) ■ Option 2: (in-Site Screening, Partial Reuse and Off-Site Disposal (California Hazardous) ' 0 Option 3: On-Site Screening, Partial Reuse and Off-Site Disposal (RCRA Hazardous) ■ Option 4: Off-Site Recycle and Landfill 9 B-15 City of Huntington Beach-former Firing Range HC Project No. 6914 ' Remedia/Action Plan October 14,2002 ■ Option 5: On=Site Treatment, Partial Reuse and Off-Site Disposal (California Hazardous) ■ Option 6: On-Site Treatment, Partial Reuse and Off-Site Disposal(RCRA Hazardous) Option 1.Off-Site Disposal(California Hazardous) This option is based on excavation of soil impacted with elevated lead concentrations. The material would be loaded into licensed trucks for off-site shipment to a licensed.landfill for proper disposal. This option assumes soil is classified as a California Hazardous Waste, and that no soil is classified as a RCRA Hazardous Waste. l andcompaction of im ort lean material is based on utilizing a ,Backfil imported c e n engineered fill material suitable for construction purposes. Fill material would be placed and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum dry density in accordance with American Society of Testing Materials ' (ASTM) D1557 standard. Grading is based on the.movement of no more than six inches of material over the proposed ' grading area, a4is intended to promote positive drainage. Additional cut and fill requirements (based on approved grading plans) would be considered out of scope. ' Option 2.•On Site Screenin& Partial Reuse&Off-Site Disposal(California Hazardous) This option is based on excavation of soil impacted with elevated lead concentrations. Excavated ' p P soil would be placed in interim stockpiles for screening in an effort to separate larger lead , fragments. The screening operation would separate soil by<3/4-inch size classification, resulting in separate stockpiles (material <3/4 inch and >3/4 inch size classification). It is assumed that approximately 80 percent of material would pass through the 3/4-inch screen deck. Therefore, 20 percent of the total material would be considered oversized material containing a higher concentration of lead fragments. The fragments will be sent to a recycling facility for reuse.The finer-grained materials(<3/4 inch) would be reused as backfill material. ' Hart Crowser has assumed that based on additional sampling, approximately 50% of the finer-grain ' material, under this option would be loaded into licensed trucks for off-site shipment to a licensed landfill as a California Hazardous Waste for proper disposal. This option assumes no soil is classified as a RCRA Hazardous Waste. The remaining 50% of the finer-grain material will be reused for , backfilling. The backfill and compaction procedures will be similar to those that are described in Option 1. ' Grading will be similar to that described in Option 1. 10 B-16 ' City of Huntington Beach -Former Firing Range HC Project No. 6914 Am Remedial Action Plan October 14, 2002 Option 3:On Site Screening, Partial Reuse&Off-Site Disposal(RCRA Hazardous) ' This option is based on excavation of soil impacted with elevated lead concentrations. Excavated P P soil would be placed in an interim stockpile for screening in an effort to separate larger lead fragments. The screening operation will be similar to that described in Option 2. The oversized lead fragments will be sent to a recycling facility. ' Hart Crowser has again assumed that 50%of the finer-grain material will be reused at the Site, as backfill and the remaining material under this option would be loaded into licensed trucks for off- site shipment to a licensed landfill as a RCRA hazardous waste for proper disposal. The backfill and compaction procedures will be similar to those that are described in Option 1. Grading will be similar to that described in Option 1. Option 4:Off-Site Recycle&Landfill This option is based on excavation of soil impacted with elevated lead concentrations. The material ' would be loaded into licensed trucks for off-site shipment to a licensed landfill for proper disposal. This option assumes soil is not classified as.a California Hazardous Waste and no soil is classified as a RCRA Hazardous Waste. The backfill and compaction procedures will be similar to those that are described in Option 1. Grading will be similar to that described in Option 1. ' Option S.•On Site Treatmen4 Partial Reuse&Off-Site Disposal(California Hazardous) Prior to executing this option, a bench scale treatability test would be conducted to determine an ' appropriate mix design for the specified treatment process. Two to three mix designs would be evaluated to determine the necessary reductions in soluble lead compounds to below regulatory ' thresholds (<5.0 mgfl, STLC). A treatability report would.be prepared, describing the methods used to achieve favorable treatment results, and providing supporting data for submittal to.the regulatory agency(s). ' The screening operation will be similar to that described in Option 2. The oversized material (estimated 20%of total) will be sent to a disposal facility as California Hazardous Waste and the remaining will be treated on-site and used as backfill after treatment. A Waste Discharge Requirement(WDR) will need to be obtained from the RWQCB for reuse of treated soil as on-site fill material, and a deed restriction may need to be recorded with the City. In addition, a bench scale treatability test will likely be required to establish an effective mix design for 11 B-17 City of Huntington Beach-Former Firing Range HC Project No. 6914 , ®m Remedial Action Plan October 14, 2002 the treatment process. The results of the treatability test can be used to supplement(and facilitate) the WDR process. Bench scale treatability costs have been included in the corresponding options. The backfill and compaction procedures will be similar to those that are described in Option 1. Grading will be similar to that described in Option 1. ' Option 6.On Site Treatwen4 Partial Reuse&Off-Site Disposal(RCRA Hazardous) , Prior to executing this option, a bench scale treatability test would be conducted to determine an appropriate mix design for the specified treatment process. Two to three mix designs would be ' evaluated to determine the necessary reductions in soluble lead compounds to below regulatory thresholds (<5.0 mg/l, STLC). A treatability report would be prepared describing the methods used to achieve favorable treatment results, and providing supporting data for submittal to the regulatory ' agency(s). The screening operation.will be similar to that described in Option 2. Hart Crowser has assumed ' that the oversized material (20% of total)will be sent to a disposal facility and the remaining will be treated on-site and used as backfill after treatment. , The 20 percent fraction of screened material would be considered oversized material containing a higher concentration of lead fragments and be loaded into licensed trucks for off-site shipment to a licensed landfill as a RCRA hazardous waste for proper disposal. A Waste Discharge Requirement(WDR) must be obtained from the local Regional Water Quality , Control Board (RWQCB - Santa Ana) for reuse of treated soil as on-site fill material, and a deed restriction will need to be recorded with the City. In addition, a bench scale treatability test will likely be required to establish an effective mix design for the treatment process. The results of the treatability test can be used to supplement(and facilitate) the WDR process. Bench scale treatability costs have been included in the corresponding options. The backfill and compaction procedures will be similar to those that are described in Option 1. Grading will be similar to that described in Option 1. , 9.0 ASPHALT CAPPING ALTERNATIVES ' There are 2 options to capping the area with asphalt after removal of lead impacted soil: ' ■ Limited Asphalt Capping(refer to Table for square feet) ■ Complete Asphalt Capping(refer to Table for square feet) ' 12 B-l8 , City of Huntington Beach-Former Firing Range HC Project No. 6914 AM Remedia/Action Plan October 14, 2002 Preparation of capping areas would be performed by grading the footprint of the proposed resurfacing areas. Grading is based on the movement of no more than six inches of material over the proposed grading areas, and is intended to promote positive drainage. ' Once a rough grade is achieved, the subgrade would be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM 131577 standards to allow for placement of the ' subbase material. Prior to installing the subbase material, a geofabric would be placed over the graded area. Geofabric would be overlapped to ensure complete coverage of the area. ' A 6-inch course of subbase material (crushed miscellaneous base)would be placed and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM 131557 standards. While achieving a 90 or 95 percent degree of compaction may be inhibited by unconsolidated fill beneath the proposed capping areas, the final subbase will comply with applicable regulations. ' A 4-inch thick layer of asphalt would be spread over the proposed capping area with a paving machine, and rolled with a smooth drum roller to provide a well bonded, uniform surface. A slurry ' seal would be applied over the asphalt area after a 48 to 72-hour cure time. 10.0 WOOD POST FENCING REMOVAL Hart Crowser assumes that the wood post fencing will be removed prior to remediation of lead- impacted soil. Based on the attached figures, the amount of wood post fencing is approximately 2,241 cubic yards, which has been separated into 622 cubic yards of lead-impacted wood and 1,619 cubic yards of non lead-impacted wood. Removal of wood post fencing would be accomplished by utilizing an excavator with a hydraulic shear. The shear would assist in the dismantling and processing of the wood material to facilitate ' loading. Wood posts would be cut into manageable pieces for maximum loading of trucks. Hart Crowser has assumed that approximately 81 loads of wood, classified as nonhazardous waste, ' would be transported to a licensed landfill for proper disposal, and approximately 32 loads of wood, classified as California Hazardous Waste,would be transported to a licensed landfill for proper ' disposal. Grading is based on the movement of no more than six inches of material over the proposed grading area, and is intended to promote positive drainage. Additional cut and fill requirements (based on approved grading plans) would be considered out of scope. 1 13 B-l9 City of Huntington Beach -Former Firing Range HC Project No. 6914 ' ®�Remedial Action Plan October 14, 2002 11.0 LANDFILL GAS An active landfill gas extraction system has been designed for the Sports Center Complex including , 34 vertical gas extraction wells and a 10 horsepower gas extraction blower facility with activated carbon canister scrubbers. The permits for construction and operation of the landfill gas control ' system are currently being processed through the SCAQMD. If necessary, this landfill gas extraction system,can be modified and expanded to handle the migration of gases from the Site. ' 12.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ' ■ Hart Crowser completed a site investigation and confirmatory sampling at the former gun range site.The soil is impacted by lead and the sample results are shown on the attached Figure 2. As ' part of this investigation, Hart Crowser identified "hot spots" that show the presence of elevated concentrations of lead in soil. ■ Regulatory agencies were contacted regarding allowable concentrations of lead that can be left ' at the Site.The allowable concentrations will be set based on the proposed end usage of the property. The City understands that OCHCA will set a clean up standard of 750 mg/kg for ' materials to be left in place. ■ As shown on Figure 2 and in Table 1, approximately 7,333 tons of soil will need to be excavated , to achieve 750 mg/kg clean-up level. ■ Excavated soil can be remediated by several options depending on the laboratory results.TTLC, ' STLC and'TCLP analyses will be needed from the excavated stockpiles. Based on those results, the soil can be disposed of off-site or can be treated at the site. ' ■ If the soil lead concentration exceeds 1000 mg/kg and STLC exceeds 5 mg/I then the material will be classified as a California Hazardous Waste. In addition, if TCLP exceeds 5 mg/l, the ' material will be classified as RCRA Hazardous Waste. ■ Significant variation in the lead concentrations is likely, because the presence of different sized , lead fragments at different locations, and limitations of the soil collection and sampling procedures. The disposal options and costs can change significantly depending on these sample results at the site and at the disposal facility. , ■ The simplest and the easiest option will be to excavate lead-impacted soil and dispose of it off- site. It may be possible to treat the soil at the Site depending on the results of a bench scale feasibility study. If feasible, on-site treatment will be the most economical option for the Site. 14 B-20 ' ' City of Huntington Beach -Former Firing Range HC Project No. 6914 Remedial Action Plan October 14, 2002 ■ The Limited asphalt capping option 750 mg/kg clean-up level will result in evening an area of approximately 24,000 square feet. Annual cap inspection, and maintenance and repair costs will be incurred under the capping options. ■ Wood posts, approximately 20 feet tall, need to be dismantled and removed from the property and transported off-site for disposal. Out of approximately 2,241 cubic yards of wood post ' fencing, nearly 622 cubic yards of lead-impacted wood may have to be removed as a California hazardous waste and disposed of at an approved facility. ' ■ Every effort will be made not to penetrate the landfill materials during excavation. With the current lack of complete information regarding the location and depth of fill materials, care will be taken to protect the landfill materials under the Site. Additional agency approvals may be needed if the excavation extends into the landfill. 13.0 RECOMMENDED REMEDIAL OPTION ' The characteristics that were considered and evaluated in the selection of the presented alternatives and recommended.remedial option for the former firing range included the following: ' 1. Effectiveness for ultimate land usages and minimizing contaminant exposures ' 2. Feasibility/availability of technologies and handling/disposal methods 3. Durability and compatibility for installed system with planned land usages ' 4. Annual Maintenance ' Hart Crowser's recommended remedial option would involve the following Tasks to be completed in the chronological sequence presented: ' ■ Wood posts, approximately 20 feet tall, will be dismantled and removed from the property and transported off-site for disposal. ■ Lead impacted soils in the firing range berm and spoils pile would be excavated to ground level and physically separated (screened) on-site for profiling under USEPA SW-846 criteria. Soils ' passing profiling criteria would be spread over the firing/pistol range areas. Those soils not satisfying profiling criteria would be treated at the Site depending on the results of a bench scale study and the treated material will be transported off-site for disposal as non-hazardous wastes. ' Oversized material will be sent to a disposal facility as California Hazardous Waste as described in Option 5 of this report. 15 ' B-2l City of Huntington Beach - Former Firing Range HC Project No. 6914 , MW Remedial Action Plan October 74, 2oo2 ■ The excavated area will be capped by asphalt.. 1 14.0 LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of City of Huntington Beach and RBF consulting as it pertains to the property located at 18191 Gothard Street, Huntington Beach, California. , The results contained in this report are based upon the information acquired during the various ' investigations. It is possible that variations at the property could exist beyond or between points explored during the course of the investigation. Also, changes in conditions found could occur at some time in the future due to possible contaminant migration, variations in rainfall, temperature, and/or other factors not apparent at the time of the various field activities. The services performed by Hart Crowser have been conducted in a manner consistent with the ' level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of our profession currently practicing under similar conditions in California. Hart Crowser's findings and conclusions must not be considered as scientific certainties but rather as a professional opinion concerning the significance of the data t gathered during the course of the site assessment. No other warranty is expressed or implied. 16 B-22 1 r r 1 r r TABLES r r r r r r r r r . r r r Hart Cromer r 6914 October 14,2002 B-23 Table 1 Former Firing Range Property, Huntington Beach,CA Summary of Area to be Excavated and Capped for Alternatives 2 and 3 Limited Excavation of the Bermed Area and"Hot Spots," (Soil Lead>750 mg/kg) Alternative 2: Limited Capping Alternative 3:Complete Capping Area Maximum Depth of Approximate Tons Approximate Maximum Depth of Approximate Tons Approximate Excavation of Excavation Capping Area Excavation of Excavation Capping Area Area 1: Firing Range Berm 8 feet 4,000 tons 9,000 sq.ft. 8 feet 4,000 tons (� 1,000 sq.yd.) Area 2: Former Berm Spoil Pile 5 feet 2,083 tons 7,500 sq.ft. 5 feet 2,083 tons (�834 sq.yd.) 114,000 sq.ft. 2,250 sq.ft. (� 12,670 sq.yd.) Area 3: Main Firing Range 3 feet 375 tons (� 25 sq.yd.) 3 feet 375 tons Area 4: Pistol Range 3 feet 875 tons 5,250 sq.ft. 3 feet 875 tons (—584 sq.yd.) Total 7,333 tons 7,333 tons24,000 sq.ft. 1]4,000 sq.ft. . (�2,668 sq.yd.) (� 12,670 sq.yd.) N A 1�� -Lead Level per Total Threshold Limit Concentration(TTLC) -The Allowable Soil Lead Concentrations per OCHCA 750 mg/kg(Alternative 2 & 3) -mg/kg: milligram per kilogram -sq.ft. : square foot -sq.yd. : square yard HART CROWSER, INC. 09/13/2002 r r r� �r rr r� ri � � i■r �r rr r r �r rl� � r rr 1 FIGURES 1 Hart Cromer 6914 October 14,2002 B-25 if z oc F R vimw Ich -.T Cj & jn c4olu m- ON VE V* Sch Par' ` (W 6 .4 'Wet 'Tan 911 Al mc r Its Ar A I 02 1-- gl�i IL F lvoo z ooO Fz b 16 Frei. MT BASE MAP FROM U.S.G.S. 7.5'SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) SEAL BEACH QUADRANGLE, CALIFORNIA, 1965, PHOTOREVISED 1982 N FORMER FIRING RANGE, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA SITE VICINITY MAP HC PROJECT NO.:6914 DATE:SEPTEMBER 13,2002 FIGURE I B-26 I 0,7ti_230 210— - >� B195_15 B195 a5 B195_75 B195_105 SB6 1R0— Ell. _ � -ebi _27 Are <4 B165_15 B165_45 B165_75 0165_105 -B' 45000.0 ' SBS_ - - i 1•`+0- ]sE R B135_15. 6135_45 135_75 B135_105 Pb B >St 38f -B 020.0 120 - -dlu djtj ebt _ 6105_15 B105_45 !OS 75 B105_105 -f0' 3500.0 ! _290 — - O -3' 61i00.0 B 210 B90_230 90_260 890_290 I O B75_15 B75_45 75_75 B75_105 B, t5T O 'a M 60 -8 1800.) - 12 ° Area - - 5 1 B45_45 B45 75 B45_105 a e e es.00 a No-Nz s.4p SBI +� —_ _0_32 83 340 B3 3 30CS e eo -e' 1e200oD:°o uoo B15_15 5 4 B15_75 B15_fo5 O° No-N= -1, 14000.0 NA -lo' 3100.o NA 1 ��/' 0_32 , 3 0 BI 360 B10_ 0- ° Ar a 3 B(- 323 I(�O)_340 B )_360 B 718L Ph m O fa 2' =10 _ _ -30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 to Of N CO -f• t` 0 C7 CD C+ I N N C� � C7 to - a Io xo ao w eo ' a Sample Grid Coordinates 30URQC DATE SCALES. Sample Grid Square YetmPointe 01/24i01 In MO"SPWe City of Huntington Beach /E! M0D6ED CAD FXES Former FiringRan V B+S_ts Borehole Location HS 09/13/02 Fi9+Ae2•�9 e g N and Coordinates' DRAWN TECHNICAL APPROVAL DATE 1I/.�R/4IZOtIIS Log FencingJAW a/09/01 RSL 09/13/02 Approximate Excavation Area ME A /11/Ol Pnax a daft Report JAM Trees DRAFTING CHECIC PROJECT APPROVAL 4/09/01 RSL 09/13/02 REV DATE DESCI+IPT+ON APPROVAL MME 0 . REN90NS AND APPROVALS p Vegetation CNIEF DRAFTSMAN CLIENT APPROVAL DRAWING NUMBER REM140N AND APPROVALS JAW 04/09/01 6914-Figure 2 A B-27 1 1 1 r " APPENDIX A 1 - REGULATORY AGENCY CORRESPONSDENCE FOR THE SITE 1 r 1 r r r 1 r "r 1 r - _r Hart Crowser 6914 October 14,2002 B-28 No=el (iun tange Page 1 of 2 Napasirl Sachjapinan ' From: Ravi Umaye Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 8:44 AM To: Napasiri Sachjapinan ' Subject: FW: City of Huntington Beach - Former Gun Range For our files. ' Ravi ----Original Message--- Prom: Loddgueza, Luis[malito:LLodr!gUeza@hca.co.'Orange.ca.us] Sent: Monday, April 08,2002 7:44 AM To: Ravi Umaye ' Subject: RE: City of Huntington Beach -Former Gun Range Ravi, Except for the fact that this Agency gets concurrence only from the Regional Board regarding remedial action plan approval and case closure(not DTSC),everything else looks right. ----Original Message— t From: Ravi Umaye[mailto:Ravi.Umaye@hartcrowser.com] Sent:Tuesday,April 02, 200212:15 PM ' To: liodrigueza@hca.co.orange.ca.us Cc: dpw@jmbm.com; BROERENM@SURFC[TY-HB.ORG Subject:City of Huntington Beach-Former Gun Range Louis, It was good to talk to you regarding the City of Huntington Beach's former gun range site.We discussed the following items: • OCHCA is the lead agency for the site..OCHCA,however,gets direction and concurrence from DTSC and RWQCB before approving remedial action or site closure. • In order to keep these"agencies appraised,OCHCA sent a.copy of the Remedial Action Agreement(with City of Huntington Beach)Notification letter to DTSC and RWQCB on January 5,2001.,- —. :. :. _. • The DTSC contact person was Greg Holmes in their Cypress office(714)484-5461. • OCHCA discussed 750 mg/kg as the allowable limit for lead that can be left in soil in their prior meeting with the City of Huntington Beach:However,approximately 250 to 300 mg/kg of lead in soil may apply from the.other agencies unless a variance is obtained. . City of Huntington Beach:may deal directly with DTSC regarding issuance of a possible variance. ' • OCHCA has no objection if the City of Huntington Beach decides to deal with DTSC directly. • There is not much information available-regarding the landfill. If it gets exposed, Solid ' Waste Group at OCHCA and the RWQCB will get involved. Additional remedial action such as capping and monitoring may be-required by DTSC and or the RWQCB. I would very much appreciate if you confirm our phone conversation via e-mail and provide us any additional information that will assist us in.preparing a remedial action plan for this site. Thanks. B-29 5/13/2002 rage 1 of l ' Ravi Limaye Senior Associate Engineer Hart Crowser ' One World Trade Center, Long Beach, Ca Office:(562)495-6360 Cell: (562)221-2271 Fax: 562 495-6361 ' ` B-30 = - 5/13/2002 . oa z aama a.�asea�e u� uP'�Ptge a 11a nu wA :QUALM. -CONTROL —SAMAXAMOM ..C4 el L, D fA11dSWE"GSp FAX.PMM-60: . . march 1 I•»� M5. Patncia HenshaW : . Orange County Health_Care Agency -OivW6rt of EnvWninental:Health 2t109..East E&4erAvenue::__:.:_: Santa Ana, CA 9270-54770 _ . REQUEST FOR REGIONAL 5OARWS DISPOS,�k1. CRITERIA ON TREATED WOOD PR60UICTS_., . Dear enshaw; - This li in.qcn*i isppto your request.seeking the R`glortal Board's disposal .feria oti treated wood prodis such as power poles and cross arms. : Based ors past copies of cocrespcndence(in 1989 and ISSSy on subject from ttie State�tepartrictent of Topic Substances tDTSC).Mood pioducts treated v+ h : l per, chronpium have bier pentachlQropheno (PCP),:c'teosaEe,arsenic, coRpe , -granted haiacdocts waste disposal. rarlartces-fiam�TS!Z Ther+efb, th i" tnea�ed.vuoad products.am.acceptabte for disposal at lined Class HE non- -- -- hazardous waste landfills in:our re ravided that-the foaowirt conditions are goon, P 9 :Wood ptodll[cts treated with PCP;cxeosotd,:6r3Srir,coPPer,,and.chromrcim Shill be dispasad of at permitxed, Gned Class III landfills in the region.: WbY d.- products treated cTeosoW-tray also.be dispcs�ct at periMted;-unlined Class tt! landfills: Re Iona! Board staff g :shad be:ro�taded for deposal .iec�ctine cts: Z -Treated imdduiiiste dlsposed of at landfli la shalt be.ticiried 6yahe:dhd bf the. - vuorldng day.tn areas separate from those used by the generat.public: -3i'Scavenging ah burning of treatedwKocd casts at landfills ate•proiv'bbd. B-31 ' aaumcra.� cav me �e��,es1r•7ni8 tYi"AJl9�'6—�IaL7 Ms.Patricia H6Mhaw - -, March 11, 1998 . Ctaee qqUoty Heap date. For wood productstrested with presentadves that.contdn other chemical compounds.-please obtain rete cant thepnicat and physical data abdut theise. compounds,•conmA DISC for roast®.clasalf on,•and contart.us.f approval. Final approval fior'din pcsal:of these treated woad.Omdud remains.the: :re�ail'dy of a landffoPqratae•: ' ... . If yoct have arty questions negar+ding this letter;please-contact me of(909)792 •3295. _ _ - Land Dispasat-Section• . .'. cc: RivgMfde County Waste Resources.lklanagement District -Robert Nelson. . Orange tottnty Integrated Waste RAanagement Department=Vicki V1ril§on. San Berhard'no.County VVaste System Division-'Paul Glass Riverside County.Department of Environmental Health,'LEA`-Steven .- - � • `.•. _ •` .. : . San Bematadno County Departinen of Envhnmentar Health Services, LEAS;.JAmess Tr-y�to JPL1?lfrf WOW.doc 1 .. '• - - i. B-32 JULIETTE A.POUT-SON,.RN,MN cr INTERIM DIRECTOR _COUNTY OF:® GE MIItE SPURGEON ® HEALTH:CARE AGENCY C? REGULATORYDEPUTY AGENCY E R STEVEN WONG,REHS,MPH INTERIM DIRECTOR •• : .. REGULATORY HEALTH SERVICES Nvi ERONMENrAt.H�-rH _. ENVIRONMENTAL*HEALTH .too .MAILING ADDRESS. �. 9 EAST EDINGER AVENUE . ... :SANTA ANA;CA 927054720 .. TELEPHONE (714)6674=6 1 .FAX: (714)972-0749 E-MAIL, emi onhealth®hea.mamnge caAW. 7arn�ary 5' 2001 IBY Director of Community Services Z 0 o l City of•Idumington Beach: '2000 Main Street: By Beach,CA 92648.... Subject: Itegnest for Remedial Action Supervision Re:, Huntington Central Park-Foimer Firing Range Site 18191 Gothard Stied` Huntington Beach,.CA 92648 OCHCA-Case#01IC4 Dear Mr.Hagan: Orange County.Health Care Agency, Environmental Health has,received the request submitted by you or your authorized representative that it-provide remedial:action supervision at the above referenced site.as provided'in the•Califarnia,Health atLd Safety Code: (H&SC),•Division.101, Chapter 4, Article 5, Section . . 101480.(b). `This.Agency agrees to provide remedial oversight under.the agreement conditions specified.on -� page 2 ofthe submitted"Request for Remedial.Action Sw. upervision"... Where a preliminary.site assessment has not already been submitted;please sabmif a site assessment work Ii�! plan for.review-and-cQ'n' CM eace by HCA staff'prior.to inipleanentati-n __1fiis review will help ensure the• planned site assessment:work includes.r equired infmmation.:-The site assessment:work plan should.be'.. 1 designed to accomplish the identification of the lateral and vertical extent of soil contamination and the concentration of contaminants.:The plan should include: . 1 ' A site.history that:will serve.as rationale for the selection of the locations of soil samples -. and soil borings and laboratory methods:. The ro Deed number and locations of soil`sam les and sort:bo and s 2:. P.. P :... P ? amPling ... .. . .. . . .. .. .. gY The proposed laboratory analysis and method. completion of site asses'smeiit,a report that outlines the findings'of the n trte`assessment and presents'a :..proposed remedial action plan should be submitted HCA stafffor=evie�v and concurrence: A health and s lau wi1L be d where site remedial.activities-may pose a.'direat to.public.health:: After the Y P. . remedi l action plan. has;been fully.Amplemented, emediation'completion,will'be determined:by site sampling overseen by HCA staff _ 10 tithe sa' comp.. letion of site assessment and necessary soil remediati. this Agency will_issue a 1 p tisfactory letter of completion. Where the.-site assessment reveals a possible threat to groundwater resources,your:site B-33 1 Ran Hagan January 5,2001 Page 2 will be referred to the appropriate Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB) for review. When the RWQCB requires coil-remedial.action you will be requested to.submit remedial action plans to .both Agencies for review and concurrence: . All squired permits mast be obtained.prior to beginning exploratory Borings and construction of wells: All borings and abandoned wells must be properly sealed: .Wells should be secured.to prevent unauthorized.. access:; For..fin ther information regarding required:well permits':and.well' abaadorime , :call: (714) . 667-3750. D#fling-procedures,.well design and:construction must be accomplished in a manner:that prevents.the spread.-of coakamination. Design and procedures should be developed::by a registered. -. professional (R-Gy.C.E.G.,.R.C.E:,:C.IiG.,"or.equivalent) with expertise_ iu subsurface investigations. Reports that include logs of.soil borings oi-any.findings.�or conclusions relating to':subsurface information must.be signed by a properly registered professional(R:G.,C.E.G.;.CIiG.,or equivalent).. If ally material removed from the site is a Iisi7A lour vraste;'seud photocopies of tlie'ruanifests;signed by tile' receiving facility, used to..vansport the material as verification'of its proper.trausportation and:disposal or - treatment.:Camtaminated soiij not meeting 1liiii dour waste criteria,should.not be removed off site to other than a Class I Hazardous waste 4aadfll or permitted'hazardous waste treatment facility without verification by this Agency and approval of the appropriate Regional Water Quality Control Board. : Be advised that.an owner of nonresidential Teal Property who knows, or liar reasonable cause to believe, that any releaseof a hazardous substance has come to be located on or beneath that real property shall,prior to sale, lease, or rental of the real properly, give written notice of that condition to each buyer,.lessee, or renter ofthe real property(H&SC,Division 20;Chapter 6.8, Section 25359.7jay. .Also any lessee or renter ' - of real property who knows or has reasonable cause to believe-that any release of a hazardous substance has come or will come to be located on or beneath that real property shall,following its discovery,give.written :notice of that condition to the owner of the real property or the lessor(H&SC 25359.7[bl). If you have:any questions regatding this matter,please contact the undersigned at(714)667-3717 : Sincerely; Luis A8U : Hazardous Waste Specialist Hazardous i�terials Management Section Environmental Health Division" -cc: Kauiron SaremL Santa Ana Regional:Wa*-Quality.Control.Board. Mauricio Escobar;HaitCrowser;'Inc: IC:HCP.EiringRaage%versightllaLdoc 1 4 B-34 a rr ® JULIETTE A..POUiSON,RN,MN ' - COUNTY Off.-® _ GE INTERIM DIRECTOR -MRMSPURGEON ® DEPUTY AGENCY.DIRE=R HEALTH. CARE AGENCY' REGULATORYHEALTHSERVICES STEVEN Fo��� REGIJUTORY.HEALTH SERVICES INTERIM r�aa"1O-roR .' ENV►RONMENTAL HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL.HEALTH :. MA9JNf3ADDRESS I. .2009 EAST EDINGER AVENUE i" SANTA ANA,CA 827054720 TELEPHONE(714)667.Wo FAX:(714)872-0749 - HWA2:envuatheaJ6r�hce cv orar era t�s February 1-5 .2001 _ Ron Hagan ' ... . ••�. ' . : • . : _ • . Director of Community Services CrtY of ;. . i onBeacli . Hu�ngt. 2000 Main Street .". . : .. .::` Huntington B - CA 92648 • Subject:: Sampling and,Analysis Plan'.:. P - e Site . Re: Huntington Central ark Fonner.F>nng Rang -18191 Gothard Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 _ I OCHCA Case#01IC4 Dear Mr,Hagan: Please.be.advised that this Agency has reviewed the.subject plan submitted by your consultant, Hart Crowser;and found it acceptable for implementation. - . If y.ou have atry.questions regarding this matter,Please feel free to.contact me at(714)667-37 17. . •Sincerely; . : _ .. • . _ - •.. •. . . . _ : .Hazardous Waste Specialist ' HazardouskAateiials Section.. . . Environmental Health Div>sion ' cc:.. Kamro; Sarerni, Santa Ana Regional water Quality.Control Board: MauuYcio Escobar;Hait Croovser,Incorporated _ Mhrp.SAPi��doc B-35 u�atb ces Cor try[D I i 7- 00ill.,:11 . �.:� •.I• •• � �c�; �s�ifiiiivi(i'F.�lowr�►,�'Dirsctar.t •�•�•.-. . .��•. :� str� t,4"`4F1aor;RA.8ox'S08 �- ! ,,,"vViratton H' Hidcox ':.=.i l� I n s{CaE mta 8 812-O Ofi -?G k to 's Y,_ � aL 4 pA i,gGova �ietn- Secr�taty t , :7 t 'i m�Tia'.Erririron'�p j,�j fdmi mental' P ` ger;cy MEM4RA'NDUt C 0 S K,ii AA Mi Jahi�ce Abraham.Branch Chaof - rr�' FROM:,. lush(4 W-Moskal:Wif i_- PiarintngaEmiirmsiisentatNieiysis`Section # 3n`; ,II F :� i. .. = •��rti"•ih I lei ta. ''ed •t tY_ o Mrat12fr�dt ".'$ �: • d.'. .sa. : ?"' Ir''AdSi.s AL MD OF LJtO AGENCY EMiIRDApi'AI.DOCLAUENTS FOR-- - - r Reiaedlattotz bf the Fottrser;GrmAbode,wlthin Hit !►Btnti Central Pali=�0'(03fo81:;��,'?'1i : ,;., ' z.A i' The:pepat bent t iecslved a(tij Nofics of ftlaL�,,pa�atioiiiioittl� .,pr{a�jec 1 d ab�ave.�As a poteniiat Respcx►sible Agin ibe DePar�rtent •• �q 1• j1p ' > 1u µle ec#as r8lataStaha2ardOt75•��rr�}pr-,..,,1,.jj�:a gasp�}5�r,�3��1�.y}ch L' Mth N etlt�IttByBd ttiake Wllll tlolt�"T_.�•-�:.z C'�J Nr+M+�atlYiiil CYYrt4R111YlUWJ1tl1lN.YIB n ..�✓ xaw� +• n E h• Fili bt 1 .. D jur cUai:`Please have yourstat�-'l)eoAcU tev� &Ifi$at ached doaatseM pnar b e snd of tf ie comment period;. 2)cmiWele thn hgprapriate Hale 6ated.in the bag balovr�and 3)rafuiii uaa(sheet2nd'a eopy of any respaase leftst from your•. :. ... . Planning&Env m6mental Analysis Sian(PEAS) -Dab Cormnent Period Began:• 03113120a1. 4CEOATr6cldtig`Caetcr�r 4QQ ix - r--3 ter° F..Q'80X8a6' sl3 . ,�•R ; a,: � k r a heirin 7. BRlSAu810it :Afl,.ri CaG tua;958i2-0806 _ Crntatrettis Due to.0PR::,-C t� `�" 41131Z0 }' :`Fax 17H8 '' "a, Q 01 tic,i I ..., Yyw•et v+�ti .t •+a4I--�•i111�,' ..?:. +�'',;i��•:�.�.cer'ft�tf��itir+�lk 7 r �1i�3"w.,i- .. r. eR Mi'} .1.v9{. t f'bnitYWti.�..�.i't!p{_i•>bi'.0 �.A�.L'49 +ai41s•, •3b .f :.M .� •'•"+ y+ ;7..., b :: ,� :; w;GOMMF.N'I'S have teem aced ':�stlx �� zs= . r ►;; I. W..; 3t �°: r< eta:_.__�. _ c= . sent to t5e tread Aae aiid�O C�oiieiiiot's 015 m'of Pisitno �'Ite arct!(BPRj liea--;; S 'le'Cleaici 408T61h,nut Sac�aii�itd;Cafdorrua95@14.ai' � �,/ '''AtdD: ' �Fc.7'{j'�f�, t;,k b E. ': f S b '^:P+��{�.T {.,�k.l' ta•�,I j ryb_ y.�p �"�'{���FP�''�•P.fw" y {per+ ,!�'^i7•�'{"'l'' jD, t,., 4 a"X«.�":}j:•':•�':1.lr„a� .�.:, �'�'M• a , �F,,. I f ��"'I"� •F� , i S�� F..NY EC- �J S,SP•4d,1. Y.• +'iwr'"'� copy td PEAS lies MeetspCn�ddecl ft.O Altadied FAX'•(9f tr32¢178'8p)^or. •t,�k.l• !6 + '•1 S-,•i� ,•.,J�if :{++ ••"r ./ r{> , de AreaXe4uork i7La1.►,a 1 aeata 1 Pon •,'.;Ri I i. N,•1 j°+ ,irCl t r .w,r' Y tll.� '«d Y,j` * ��r:? jtiro •• y��,.�. •�:. rmwm t��a, RGLIG7WYt!`i7GHa�0-• .sin i •1u,.9•/:y . �j�pp��p •m addiessed•:•OR - ., ;AN D i IR��t"""".�„:,q,. ',o,L, R✓'<:Ca d•:,, iy- j '�, ^r I -,,., G,• •r•. - , O' does Who Mp'�in`ihe rsCs areas ojrea�j�" �r ra 1�.� L �"��' ,,'�•: ��`' • ���:; •Iproject' .-1_ Depathr�e.. .. . • . . �tr 5 r. II L- A I b( L:.�Y t .i:.:7 � f.6 a't %:t. i. fir, t•;"� r":i^.C:." "„•.'•.'�"L �„ � ' {• — :I•�. .1... I If.. r �:�d'"{�:.:' '�.:.,.r:,c• :,,¢... ... '��.T�,3::.::w. C i..:' aw1E.�..`xr2�. '.:::�•.• •''.�•`.•i'.-�'',w" -' �:' L: A copy the Motice:Of Coln soon, Fora{dowment t 1 included)°far,,, rojed as been�rst to the Perlttlttlag Brattctt. era6oit."t for nand' • mtisid _iheirktfaiitsa�C - t 1 AA Y•Y'.•h... '9 h t •••'fir .,�. •5•: .r=. ki ,�a•.•IIppII '� �'•.� 1..3.ra. �# atii: tiS �'6:�'.1''•{ i. +^+a:y' j¢{.',�" ."1) •at S s`"'��t.y a•f°'•:.:` l ',1• r�. F.s te�l. 11 �I�•'t� � .r:. AL,{. r..fT,:•n J+n�. �••.' S�l Y�a.P•� .�s'•y . ::: �+ edrafe •no o�ufce,and-forwaidihe: . l�J �= ; IVo#a: t #he�a docu 64to acre den nadrna fed fo yo[�plpass onmk ly .�. Y' ' {},1t( II! .1 {.. ry f I. rd 1111119. •i ' ';; �,,,,�� s•.:. _+. 5• is, . °doq?nIBI1 SWho, ., Ii3�J1'fi0f iBtJt@Wi3lld 81iiiWA �!.! :i i1 :.� Y .��; Pa + ;' , ��"`Ifi'f A� `"I a �,l :,: rid tfv�aa .};�':r'FI ,"a+*=:�T ,;.:•;Cx a,.* �rj. in "a rD �I II f�:rk, +�'1(���.:u" : ;, `�'� stattce W��{�;{�Uils} IF( .if F�ti trays a�f ? .P 'conteot,KenTipb�s;OEW;4 xrackiitg Ceritea • L. .'1+•r. +�n ,IW 'lll '^i •C•i.�ty.tl,.»•;evu. ,� �,. L.� j+"..� mm'Wfa 4i6'4.ri+t�EL.,�rF"0 _ .. s rrt ,; Gat(9'Ifi)322'526arCALiVET49�5266? 4, *�� iin` �l l�`- 'I I? ..�,I' .III .f•t.,lt•{',u`{tl�NI IIP II(ji!''.I b.SI: }�i� .Tr"1;"9Y to 'i;`kq '"'1 .f aw�:ir.i.n�. +{•��"e:?"C a�'�`� Cin C;" - 1�3 ,il jt :. a ;. �I `' t j L, GCC B 36� 4u 1, �l °F� Tt"4 nx d bStanc�s ®ntl-O! Department of Toxic Su . , Edwin .F..Low Director 6796 Corporate Avenue ��nston.H:t-Gckoz :CYPress, California 90830 Gray Davis :Agency Secretary:... -Govemcr. :aftmla Environmental,-. Protection Agency. = April 9, 2001 �.. Ms.-Mary Beth Broeren Senior Planner City of Huntington:Beach. 2000 Main Street - Huntngton Beach, California 9264a' t NOTICE OF.PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL. IMPACT REPORT FOR , THE REMEDIATION OF THE'FORMER GUN RANGE WITHIN HUNTINGTON BEACH CENTRAL.PARK:(SCH#2001631067) wear Ms. Broemn: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) heis received your Notice of Preparation.(NOP) of 2' draft EnVironmentaf Impact Report(EIR)for the'above- mentioned Project . Based on the review of the document. DTSC s comments are as follows; I.-) : ..The draft EIR needs to-ideaY'and deteniiine whether.current or hi ada uses at . . the Projoct site have.resulted in: any_release of hazardous wastes<substances at 7 - P --- _ _- the roject area:.—:..'. . . - - .2). :..The draftElk needs to identify any known or potentially:contaminated site within the proposed. Projticfiarea. For all identified sites;the draft EIR needs to* :.:.. evaluate whether.conditions at.tlie.'site.pose a threat to human health:ar the - nvironment. : . _ ...3) -The:d-aft EIR should identifythe`mechariism to initiate any..required investigation and/or remp iatic n for any site'that may require:remediation; and which . .. government agency w0I provide:appropriate regulatory oversight. `. d. 4) ::`; ::.The NOP:ihdigate_that the remediation�af 6 site would require the removal of - - structures; asphalt.and on-sit6tbrdaminants: ` During_MS.bullding dei7lolitlons,, investigate the presence of lead.paints;and asbestos_containing materials:.` '(ACMS)in-the currently exlst1hd building structures..:'If the presence of lead'of. ACMs'Is•�suspected; proper precautions should be-#akeri during any future The energy chsUenge lacbrg(� hnda Ls real Every Calllo &n needs to take imnredlate actlM to ieduee anew coiisurnattori."-�For a/ut of simple grays you can reduce demand and cut yairers3r}7Y casts.see ovr IAlab-site at w�iaw dlsc.ca8ov. , B-37 - Ms. Nl ry.Beth Broeren Aprit 9, 2001 Page 2 demolition activities. :Addifionally,ifie contaminants should.6e.remediated in. ' compliance with the California envimnmental regulations 5) It during construction of the project;soil contamination is suspected,:construction f in the area should stop"and appropriate Health and Safety procedures should-be implemented. if it is determined that contaminated soil exists, the draft-E1R �"'. should identify how any iequ�red;i w6stigation andlor remediation will be conducted; and u�bich.government agency wi11.provide appropriate regulatory :oversight., ---. --. - -. ---- ' ..6) Additional comments from DTSC.s Geology and.Corrective Action.Branch are enclosed for your infonriation. 1 DTSC rovides guidance for the Preliminary Endangerment Assessment(PEA) preparation and'cleanup oversight through the.Voluntary Cleanup Program`(VCP): For ' additional information.on the VCP orto mestldiscuss this.matter further,.please contact Mr: Johnson P. Abraham, Proi6et Wenger at(714) 484-5476. ' Sincere ,.: Haissam Y.. Salioum. P.E -- Unit Chief-'. . . ' :$outhemCalifomia Cleanup Operations Branch: -- Cypress Office. Enclosure S:Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse .. `.P Sacramento; Califemia.95892=3044 - Mr:�Guentiier.:UN.:Mosket,:Chief.._ Planning and Environrriental Analysis Section =:Department of Toxic Substances Control ' p.o:.Bou cos ..Sacramento;Califomia 9581-2,0806-. Deperbment of Toxic Substances Control -EdMn F.L6wr'y: p►rei or 5796 Corpora ts' anus.. := Cypress.CalifomIa.90630 V'pistori H. Hick=. . :. Gray Danis .A&ncy4cretacy .. :Govemo� �alEfotnia Environmental Protection Agency _ :IULEMO.R.AND.UM. - - To:. : Jatinson Abraham .Hazardous Substances Scientist Site M"` P P on.Cieanu p O .erafi ranch FROM: Chris A::Guerre; CHG S for Hazardous Sub noes irieerin Geoi isi , ... 9 9 og . : : . Geological Services..Unit. = Ap . SUBJECT: , INITIAL STUDY, REMED[ATION.OF THE FORMER GUN RANGE , HUNTINGTON-BEACH CENTRAL PARK I hays:reviewed the.Initial Study;dated March:_14; 2001, and have prepared the .. `followin .cornmerrts.arid'r uest tfiif th-� be addressed in the Draft Enviroruriental 9 p4 sY. : .. . • Impact- oct EIR and dung :remedial efforts at.the'"ect site. The.Depatment of Tcod Su6tances.`Control s(DTSCs) mission is to protect human -=-- health and the:env�onmerrt..,lMhile DISC may not have swutb '.aut pdty_oyer.this_ particular site,the.following comments have been prepared."so that they may be addressed in-the Draft.EIR and im rove ite-overall q uat' :. Note ;The site-does not seers to be located In a park as stated In the dacumerrt. Exhibit '. 3-(Ae W Photograph),shows it adjacerntto vacant land.;.-S611 ' Miller lake and a.recycling facrTfy:_For clarity; rt is.suggested the site be described-as residing in a:propo. park area at undeveloped.- - . B-39 Johnson Abraham Apol.9,.2001 Page 2 Envirdnm®ntal Factors Potertaliy Aso$®d Page 4 Tile follovuing factors might also need to be considered: . Land::Use/Planning: Depending on the nature and extent of contamination detected at the site, Land Use'could be affected by the risk posed by the coat imination.as well as:-the.physiGal'presence of remedial systems used to remove or contain.contamination: Adverse effec#s from known or potential ' `contamination on adjacent properties (recydine facii'dy.`transfer station. landfilh ' fa w out pesticides and refuse).should also beaconsidered as part of this assessment.: Page 7:states; 'Existing situ:c' Maftfulation w i I be reduced to.- ' acceptable levels by project imp lementation:' This state ment should-not be Made un less-the.site has already.been completely.characterized fcr potential . contamination;,appropriately evaluated for associated risks, and the feasibility of- ' rem ediation and.associated costs have been biroughly studied.: ltis not clear if the.Apn15, 2000 Soils Report(not revievued).Is comprehensive and covered the urea. MinerallA ricultural Resources:As the.site is located near-adtive and former. g aH welts and-former.agric ulturafland (mushroom farm?);it may be'prudent to ' comment on how development will affect this resource. G®ology and SSoils Page:10 drscusses:ftte old landfill beneath the site and mentions that,a detailed soils analysis wM be conducted, but the:scopp'of the=work.is not summarized: WhUe geotectinica! information w have to be obfiained,.Qnviconmental.samples are:also ' necessa In a' didort.to environmental soli matrix sam lin ; soil - asM r..sam p Gn N . .. P 9. 9 . . : .Po . .. P 3 - - : un11 bed requlred.todetermine.i'{landfill br other gases pose-e-toxic or.supiosivs.ristc. :- . -. - : . : - ' Permanent or semi-permanent vapor probes should.be installed to monitor for landfill ::•.and:other gases.over.time.:,D'ue to technical reasons, one time soli gas.sampling stiouid not be conducted: : Appropriate environmental sampling can be only accomplished:with good histancal research including utt7mation of historical.aerial photographs. :The.potential for coritaminafion:frorn site.8c .M s-as Well*as4djacent operations hould be researched acid docurnented. .For insNance�was muslir+oorti farrrung`actuallycoctducted adjacent to file site and did.it produce tivastesincluding the-use.of pesticidesmerbiddes:`The potential for ons'rte oil wells'andlor-operations (i:e.; oit�sumps}should be irwestigatad as their...pi'esence in this:portion of Huntington Beach-:is-common:. Will this site-have contaminatloh.as found nearby-on.the-northwest comer.of Ellis Avenue.and Galdenw-est Street(What.ls the:source of that conta"rnlnation?)? A:contingency plan B-40 Johnson Abraharrj Apnj 5;.2001 Pagd 3 - should be developed if art unexpected oil �orwater}vuell is idant'i ied during te*coursa of invesfigation and deuelopmerit.so.it can be properly.decommissioned. While the . - Division of Gil and Gas wilt[have protocol for deixsri�missioning oil wells, their . ..: regulations require further 6nvironmeirtal assessment by other governmental agencies.: . - hydrology;ana ��tar Qvallt�r . - •. - . � . . .: .- _ - :. . Page 1; item f, indicates less 6an`,*, ficont impact for degrading water quality. :The' p9tgntIaI.fbr site developmentto exacerbate migiation.:of contaminahts to.groundwater and edjacent Sully MiAer Lake-(aseumed ta6ls groundwater fad)-sha6id be eValuated.' .---The.s;gnificant irrigation:of a park above alandfill car! have deleterious 'effects to . groundwater if mitigative measures are not enacted: :-_ Several monitoring wills must be installed into grouridi er to determine if it has - already been impacted byformer.site-uses,especially,the landfill.. Additional anafyticai -data'couid also be easily obtained from m Sully Miller Lake td determire if it has*been impacted by the site: Air Quality - Sits specific data.regarding the.presence or absence of landfill gases:should be summarized and references cited. t.hope this information is-helpful for those involved. .(�uestians regarding this memo -should be directed to.Chris Guerre at(7.14)484-5422 or6inaR.at*cgzjierrp@dts�cm.gov.- B-4j _ . THOMIAS B. MATHEWS FLOWER S C' SANTA ANA. GAUFOWL ea & D��1®pr Siery De ne. 14AIUNG At DRW: . Afl.floX 4044 . SAtr-CA A".Ch 41704048 A -22 April:16,2001 ,. •�~ , Mary Beth Broeien,Senior Planner City ofHuntingtoa Beech 1 p , 200 :. _. .x n Bead,•CA 92 1 C : NOP:far the Reined ation of tt�Former G n a within Hi in on Ceri�al Park SU3BTE In ' Dear Ms.Bziiw e . The above refereueed item is a Notice.of Preparation(NOF)of a Draft Er viror=cntal Impact ' Report(DEM)for the City of Huntington Beach.- The proposed project involves to remediation of the 4.91-acre former gun range site,located Wtithin.Huntington Central Park 1 Ttie County.of Orange. as reviewed the NOP and afters the following comments regarding waste trlat3agement:. _ Potential fof Cyas Misigt on : 1. Property located to the east-ofthe•pm*w:d develaprnent is the fQacaer.Goihard Street Refuse Disposat Statiom ne CouaEy of Oran operated 11 acres of this�3 acre s-it as a _ landfill froni 1947 to:1962. The:Co�mty monitors the°groundwater quality and reports to _ Although it ceased accepting Mraste in 1962sud is novv closed,this landfill must he mclti t ed$Md.==ged for zz�y years following closure.'becausz burled refuse ' continues.to decoiapos. Therefore,the City and the developer should be advised that the. :proposed project site maybe•vuliierable'to landfill gas(LFG)migisUton fmm the nearby. - .. closedaazzdfill.:- •. •. . •. . :. • : - . LFG r�* t a sg�ficant andi6or 'doade.a• nd . ly . eoataizis tram of tbxic:,cctapounds.and carcinogens. If LFG•accumulates;is a buildias, ' Hnd matharie is in Tha mnse of 59ti to 15%0 by volume;au explccinn_eaQi occur: Above - 150/C combustion canoccur.fr6ia a spssk.'It is recbtntnetided that the 1City.coarditiate this :application-with the Orange County,Solid Waste Loeal.Enfo eemeat Agency. Arts:Patti.- ' Henftw of tbat office may be reached"at(714)667:20I4.' B-42 Construction and Demolition Waite. 1'h. City of Huntington Beech is responsible:for meeting the Assembly Bill 939 (AB 939) mandate of•50°!o disposal reduction by the:start-of 2000, and•for preparing AB 939. solid waste plai' i &documents. =These`daeuments.include-tlie Source Reduction.and . •R�ycling•Biement (SRRE� the Hoinchold Haaardous.Wmte rl=ent (HHWE), and the hIan-Disposal F 1ity Element(NDPE). Construction- add.demolition gcaerated waste '(G&P)'•is, heavy,inert material. This Malmiat creates-sisnificatat problems•when-disposed of in.'landfills;•=-rice C&.D.debris daes:is_ot decompose,: takes Lip:valuable hmdfll capacity. Additionally, since C&D_ - _debris is heavy when compared with paper and piasticor is more difficult for the County and clues to reduce the.toauage of disposed waste: For this ieason; C&D �vasu: debris -has b=n specifically.targeted by the State of California.far'diversion from The-waste -stream..Projects-which:will generate'C&D•Waste'Aculd emphasize decnnshuctson acid -diycrzi planning,.father than-demolition. Deconsumction is the planned, org=ized • ' 4smarttlbid :of:the 'prior .construction project,. which shows inaxunuz i" use -of the del nsGructed matciials for recycling in other construction projects_and sends a:mirdmum of the deu6 isu uction material to landf '. : We racomniend,tlrat this project.address a waste reduction.plan for the C&D.waste gauoiated fr6m-.this 'project' Thin plan�shauld be 'coordinated ti=ith-_the recycling coordinator for the City of Huntington Beach to help ensure-AB 939 regturements are properly addressed. HaMrdous Waste : 3'. �?a&17 ofthe-subjectNOP indicates that the'subjectprojectwill require rerhoval of sai15 -� conmaninmed wiih lead.As au informational mras-Luc,it should be noted that no landfills in Mange Country ale pemnitted to accept hazazdaus,jwte The Orange County Health 'Care Agency os the Regional Water Quality Control.Board may be`able to inform you of the closest dispose]site which would acc epi 6e hazxidous wastes:whi-'h this proj ect znay --=------ ' generate. .. • Additifli al Comuie=. : 4: : Page.i Own theEro.Sail• si6n/Unstable soil paragraph::Change the date"1960"to 1962. • The Gothard Street Refuse Disposal.Stationvas closed in 1962. HYDROLOGY AND WAT£IZ QUALITY sectioa;paragraph c:-The Cottaty'._.s Integrated Waste Management D xcqursts rcyiew of the proposed. --- of the'project ect site to ensure that it �s of the former ' .' • grading prrsj daes not•iznpa+ct.ctrainag - _ . =G16ihard Street-Nsposal Station or access to existing gmusrdw�tex moiiiuning wells. .- Pa ge .14.-in tli Hazards paragraph: The-poiei ti.al impact on thF foiiiter Gathard Snect Disposal Stilian by the. widening of Gothasd.Street-aad the proyision of idewalks" should be e�ralvateci:' : : 2 B-43 7. Page 14--in the Ems access paragraph: ,.FUIM.acce'ssibility through:County .. property.is not.discuswul..This may.require coordingtion between the City ofHund4,ton. . . 'Beach and the County of Oiange to agree upon a penatment rightrof:entry access through County property for.the - , .:. : _. g. a 17 n the haiardous na�euals Remesliation may uire evaluation and . - y req . landfill gas emission nionitoring.1beimpnct of contaminated.soll and of landfill gas choidd be-iddressed in the DMR-.: 9.. pMe 17=-- The EmMeac5►mWnsse paragapb: See•c6rnment9 to Page 14.(EtaeW6::: . I • - - .access)paragraph - .• . • . .. .. . •. 10.. - Pig&20-ari the Vazezl'9V vaterJAdditional Fsi:iliiies paragraph:.'The pot=ial landfill g8s migration impact on the Waw/Wamwater line and-storm drain is not 11. Page ZZ--in the Discussion paragraph See comments for page 10.Change xhe dale 1969"to l962. Thank you for the.oppornmity to iespond tc the NOR:Pleas send one camplol-sat.of the DEIR to me at the above address when they become available. if you lave any questions,please contact me or feel free to call Charlatte Harryman directly. Charlotte may be.readied at -(714)934-2522. Y Very truly yours, . ..-B Manager Bnvirontrieatal and Project Sersnces CH : 3 B-44 JULI CE&POULSON RN,Mra , Ty '. H TH .0 •AGENCY rarerc 1J0..ATORY HEALTH SMUCES � : . rurizuurrr+ • ONMM .Hl.`PHVALMAMM . . ...... .. . +4 o (7,qWa ,. Aprfl Mary BG h SanPh== city c#'Hu gm�n$eerh' ..L.i/YYM-• - - . morn$each,CA 92M3 suwd;r� Notice of a`of Draft aa+oi1ftal.Impad tor mediation a Farmer�Rao wWii a 2 a ftu Central Puk Dcar Reis.Brag . The Orange County.Solid -W Local.rzft=MeM Agency (LEN.spprecates the oppommIty to ' assist the Cty of Hts�630on..Bti6 in preparaaoa of the Draft Ecwat»d h=act F.gport(EIR)for - .>g of the fn�mer gust targe. The former gin 'property-wed is your Nye of motion (ATOP) is the dosed ^ .lsadfiA.ideatifsed as HuatiagtnA BeschLasidfilL The Cizyrproposer. �used'sats the former sun range sine and devel0 the subject site as:as:.opeci:spac�lpark. :This:open sparelpark anll include parlci , aims„tzstrooms,ark caanc�ion arms:- : ' the f Wowing=mms n=t;6 a - I, Patezrtial fio�people to be esad to lewd.: 2 IF-,iudgh gaa aranni1151 cm within smirnu 3 Cmouiid I aettleii.W bdoai stru roes sited ov+eri IaodfilL MIt1s" :QL�8.4lm for lead*.."— �eii 660 inc ddm .we :89 'arld `1*0 e, site cleamip 1nChift rEII10Va) of 111iatCd.Siii1S..` �itl eS �T-RaegbanB 1ACItli1CS P1aCCilleat 6 . . " .: •... ... : fix mdatianm inbrane bamers'aad wive sie:ahlalioa systes�s ll •iti •laridfi sites .•The• `to•• .�must•° 'RIi'� `d� -eat on. . . Y,EA,-pi;ior .canstoi .appravc• progt�d.. .evelOpm ... .. ��. - order to'eas�a tl apprppna#e le+iel of MUM r cvicw A mizigaYioa has been p�rFarrr+c:d: B-45 April 25, 2001 Pam f "hawam qc s- Bing t ie.� pr�c in'i� t� t� �bjex ice of _ -- - _�on'pI c�Il I��e at�71�F)657-2423:• � • .- - . :: . wig - . - - • - _ Fairiaaai,v;'It�T�S iS4gmw*sous Waste Speddist.• __. _.... . _ -Shlid�THarp I.�1 Eiiforit�Age�y - F.miit Hii h n l c�'' Gl�a Yung'fatifnrnia�ni Taste 'ant Board Dhde Lass, Aaa R�gionsl Weser{� i�rot Board David Jom!s,,South Coast Air l—L- B-46 a - s JULMTTE A.POULSON,RK!►AAI DIRGriDR •_ COUNTYOF®HUGE 0 OEPMAmacy D1RG^TQR M HEALTH CARE AGENCY`.. .. �ULATOF�Y.F�.J1LTil�roR STEVEN K.*HG Post-ir Fax Note :;. . :7671 once ° 'dN .S _AO-DJ �M DIRECTOR. 9�V>T30NMEIVTIU.HEALTif... . �.� From V MNLINGADDA�. `1ti7 411 Ste► olYC �9 EAST®iNGQ�AVQJ(IE ,. •. . - .• ... . SANTAANA,CA92705,g72Q i . .. . : : _. .. ..: . Phone Phone 4 _ Fax m FAX lviay 10,2001 d c,�r• yd- �� ,. Daectic�of c: ►Services .City..ofnBea�h -2000)&W street. HaBeach, CA 92648 Subjecd~• F"zIIal Remedial InvestigatieaRow Dated April 23;2001. Rs: won Cenral Park--Former.Firi=IWa r�Site: .19191-Gothard sheet Mmtn' 'Beacb,C_4 92648. .. OCHCA Case#OIIC4 • DearMr.Hawn::. _ .- - ,.. Please be'advised:that this Agency has repiewed the subject report submitted by your consulta� Hart Crdwser, and concurs-with the 5ndtngs that:ttte nature and extent of cva on bas been defined--= ' (subject to the mplemeutatioa of additional character zatioioutlined.in Hain Crowsees letter dated May 4,. 2001. P _ _ -. •This � � _ecxs a ActionPlaa-to be submitted for.. -Remedial �- reirievv and ap -- Proval If you}lave any questions regarding tbis matter;Please feel free to zne az C114�`667-37I7, Luis Lodiigu Haiardovs Waste:S Haaidous rareirials Mrtiptlon S«:tiom - -. Ens►�neatalHealtliDrns>ton . cc:. Acui.Sttudvant,Sainte Aiia.Rsgional Waiec.Quality Co itirol Board: .� . Ntimicio Escobg Hart Crovvsec; _ ZC: doe ..... •�� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' 2000 Main Street P . 0 . 13ox 190 California 92648 ' Robert F. Beardsley, P.E. Department of Public Works Director (714)536-5431 June 8.200) ' Ghosson Androos Bryan A.Stirrat&Associates ' 1360 Valley Vista Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Dear Mrs gpd�aoAW Re: HUNnNGrON CENTRAL PARK(HCP)SPoan Compex, CC-1121 LANDFILL GAs CotLECTioN SYSTEM/CLOSED GUN RANGE SITE This will serve to confirm our recent telephone conversation regarding the proposed landfill gas system.for the HCP Sports Complex and its capabilities to address landfill gas generation. As I explained, the former Huntington Beach Police Officers' Association Bing Range, which lies directly adjacent to the sports complex project, is in the process of both a voluntary lead clean up and environmental entitlement for various reuse alternatives. ' Understanding the principals of landfill gas generation and migration, landfill gas does not recognize imaginary parcel lines and will travel in the direction of the path of least resistance. The HCP Sports Complex project landfill gas collection system will induce a lower pressure area within ' the heart of the landfill so that gas emanating from the outer limits of the landfill prism, including that area of the former Huntington Beach Police Officers' Association Firing Range. should migraie in the direction of the lower pressure gradient and be collected accordingly. It is the City's understanding that the proposed HCP Sports_Complex landfill gas collection system designed pursuant to the Basis of Design Report prepared by Bryan A. Stirrat & Associates will accommodate. with reasonable certainty. this migration and could be expanded accordingly to enhance the collection characteristics as necessary. It is our intention to state this in a remedial action plan currently being developed on behalf of the City for the farmer Huntington Beach Police Officers' Association Firing Range. Sincere) , . gl .Stack, P.E. eputy City Engineer DSS:cf c: Jim Engle. Deputy Director.Community Services Mary Beth Broeren,Senior Planner HCP Project File 1 j ' B-48 O tCanamcdon Conomu=sjk=121tCones0Lcttm.WAS Itr.LGC A" APPENDIX B ADDITIONAL REGULATORY INFORMATION Hart Cromer , 6914 October 14,2002 B-49 ' APPENDIX B • A Leman, B. EPA's Regulation on Lead Waste Treatment and Handling [online report]. The PP g g Society for Protective Coatings Online. http-//www.sspc.org/site/regnews/EPAWASTERULE.htmi • Barclays California Code of Regulations Title 22 Article 11, 1996, Environmental Health Standards-Hazardous Waste. Barclays Califomia Code of Regulations,July 5. • California Department of Toxic Substances Control and California Environmental Protection Agency, 2001, Interim Guidance for Evaluating Lead-Based Paint and Asbestos-Containing Materials At Proposed School Sites. Department of Toxic Substances Control, Glendale, CA,July 23. • Environmental Working Group,2001,Firing Ranges Among Worst Lead Polluters in California&U.S.-Serious Health Risks to Shooters, Children &The Environment-Many California Shooting Facilities Receive Public Funds [online'report]. Environmental Working Group, May 1. http://www.ewg-org/pub/home/reports/poisonouspasfime/capr.htmi Environmental Working Group, 2001,Study Documents How Shooting Ranges Poison Children; One of the Nation's Top Lead Polluters [online report]. Environmental Working Group, May 1. http://www.ewg.Org/pub/home/reports/poisonouspasfime • EnviroSense, 1995, PRO-ACT Factsheet on Lead Contamination.In Soil at Small Arms Firing Ranges [online report]. PRO-ACT,July 27. http://es.epa.gov/program/p2dept/defense/airforce/2818.htmi • Forensic Analytical, 2001 Lead Regulatory Levels online document]. Forensic Analytical, Yb g ry [online ] Y� Hayward and Rancho Dominguez,CA,January. G. Fred Lee &Associates and Robert Bein,William Frost and Associates,l998. Proposed Soil Lead Management Criteria as Part of Caltrans Highway Construction and Maintenance [onlin e*report]. G. Fred Lee &Associates, El Macero, CA and Robert Bein,William Frost and. Associates, Irvine, CA,June 5. • Houlihan J.and Wiles R.,Lead Pollution at Outdoor Firing Ranges[online report]. Environmental Working.Group,Washington, D.C. 1, B-50 • Lee G: and Jones-Lee A., 1992, Importance of Considering Soil-Lead in Property.Site Assessments [online report]. G. Fred Lee &Associates, El Macero, CA, August. http://www.gfredlee.com/lead.htm • National Park Service, 19.99, Firing Range Waste Management[online report]. National Park Service,Washington, D.C.,_March 3. • Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,2001, Residential Lead Hazard Standards-TSCA Section 403 [online report]. United States Environmental Protection Agency,June 6. http-//wvvw.epa.gov/lea.d/"leadhaz.htm • PROACT-FACTSHEET;1998, Lead Contamination in Soils at Military Small Arms Firing Ranges [online report]. PROACT,,Brooks AFB;TX,June. • I t Picture of Police Protection online report]. Regu a ory [ http://vwvw.legan.org/html/Igo/PBLCSF rY-02.html • line EPA issues final rule for dangerous levels of lead online report]. SSPC On g [ p ]. The Society for Protective Coatings Online. http://wwwsspc.org/site/regnews/finaltifeX.html • The Occupational Lead Poisoning Prevention Program, California Department of Health Services, 1997. Cal/OSHA Construction Safety Orders, Lead Section 1532.1,Title 8 California Code of Regulations[online report]. • Title 17 California Code of Regulations, Division 1 Chapter 8 Accreditation Certification And Work Practices For Lead-Based Paint And Lead Hazards [online report],January 8, 1999., United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1994. Revised Interim Soil Lead Guidance for CERCLA Sites and.RCRA Corrective Action Facilities [online report]. United States .Environmental Protection Agency,Washington, D.C. B-5l r ifie 22 Environmental Health Standards-Hazardous Waste §66261.24 -------------- EPA Chemical SILO . 77'LC. Ha„ardora Abmacu Regulatory � �. . Wet_WeTglu. Waste Service Level Substance° mg/1. uig/74 . . Number Contaminant Number Mgt[ M and/or mercury compounds 0.2 - 20 D004 Arsenic 7440-38-2 5.0 Mol�and/or molybdenum compounds 350 3,500° ` DO05 Barium 7440-39-3 '100.0 Nickel and/or nickel compounds 20 2,000 DOW Benzene 71�32 _' 0.5 Selenium and/or selenium compounds 1.0 100 I)006 Cadmium 7440-43-9' 1.0 Silver and/or silver compounds 5 D019 Carbon tetrachloride 56-234 OS T m and/ thallium compounds" 7.0 700 DMO Chlordane ' 57 74 9 -0.03 Vanadium and/or vanadium compounds. 24 2AOO D021 Chlorobenzene 109-90-7 100.0 Zinc and/or zinc compounds.. 250 5,OW DM2 'Chloroform .67-66-3 6.0 DW7. Chromium 7440-47 3. 5.0 aSILC and TLC values are calculated on the concentrations of the elements. O'r3 D o-Cresol 95-48 7 .200.01 not the compounds D024 m-Cresol 108-39-4 200.01 e���of asbestos and elemental metals,the specified concentration rin- .DO25 p-Cresol 106-44-5 200A " . D026 Cresol. • ' 200.Ot its apply Daly if due substances are in a friable;powdered or finely divided state. D016 2.4-D 94-75-7 1Q0.. Asbestos includes chrysotile,amosite.crocidolite.ttemoUte,anthophyllia.and . D027 4.4-Dichlorobenzene 10646-7.: .75 actinoUte. D028' 1.2-Dichloroethmne 107-06-2 O.S. cExcbding barium sulfate. D029 1.1-Dichloroethylene 75 35-4 0.7 DMO 2A-Dinitrotoluene 121-14-2. 0.13` dif die soluble chromium.as determined by the TCLP set forth.in Appendix 1 M12 Endrin 72 2M 0.02 . of chapter 18 of this division.is less than 5 m.A and the soluble chromium.as D031 Heptachlor(and its epoxide). -76•44-8 . 0.008 determined by die procedures set for@n in Appendix II of chapter•11.equals or ex- D032 Hexachlorobenzene- 118-74-1 0.13 coeds 560 mg/1 and the waste is not otherwise identified as a RCRA'hazardous D033: _.. Hexadrlorobutadiene 87-68-3... ._..:._. OS... DM Hexachloroethane 67 72-1 3.0 waste Pumuanr to section 66261.100.they the waste is a non-1tCRA hazardous =I Lead, 7439-92-1 5.0 waste.. D013 . Lindane 58-89-9 0.4. °Excluding molybdenum disulfide D009 Mercury 7439-97-6 0.2 (B).Table HE-List of Organic Persistent and Bioaccumulative Toxic D014 Methoxychlor 72-43-5 10.0 Substances and Their Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration(STLC) D035 Meth ethyl ketone 78-93-3 200.0 D036 Ni tt obenzene 9&gs-3 2.0 and Total Threshold Limit Concentration(MC)Values: D037 Pentachlorophenol 87-96-5 100.0� D038 Pyridine 110-86-1 5.02 STLC 77LC Do10 selenium '7782-49-2 1.0 wet weight' DOII solver 7440-22-4 5.0 Substance mgtt mgntg D1139 Tettachlorcethylene 127-18-4 0.7 Dols Toxaphene 8001 3S-2. OS Aidrin 0.14 1.4 D040 Trichloroethyleae 79-01-6 OS Chlordane 0.25 2.5 D041 2.4,547Hchlorophenol 95-954 400.0 DDT.DDE,DDD 0.1 .1.0 D042 2,4.6-Ttich1ompheaol 884)6-2 2.0 2,4-Dichloropheooxyacetic acid 10 100 D017 2.4.5-TP(Silvex) 93-72-1 1.0 Dieldrin 0.8 8.0 D043 Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 0.2 Dioxin(2,3,7,8-TCDD) 0.001 0.01 Endrin 0.M 0.2 : Heptachlor 0.47 4.7 t If o-.m-and p-Cresol concentrations cannot be differentiated,the total cre- KePone 2.1 21 sol(DO26)concentration is used.The regulatory level of total cresol is 200 mg/l. Lead compounds,organic. - 13 2 QuanUtatiem limit is greater Than the calculated regulatory level The quanti_ LiadaneM4 4.0 . tation wit therefore becomes the regulatory level. STLC TTLC (2)it contains a substance listed in subsections(a)(2XA)or(a)(2)(B) War Weight of this section at a concentration in milligrams per liter of waste extract. Substance_ mg/t nig/kg as determined using the Waste Extraction Test(WEI)described in Ap- . Methoxychlor 10 100 - peadixIIof this chapter,whichequalsorexceedsitslistedsolubled=sh- Maez IF 21 old limit concentration or at a.concentration in milligrams per kilogram Pentach inat nol 1.7 17 Polyehloriasted bnpheay]s(PCBs). 5.0 50. . . in the waste which equals or exceeds its listed total thieshold limit con- Teczzaapp ene 0-5 5 centratioa;" Trictdoroe1hylene 204 " 2.040 (A)Table II-List of Inc 'c Persistent and Bioaccumulative Toxic 2.45-'htchl°rophe°°xypropionic acid • . 1.0 10. Substances and Tbeir Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration: (STLC)and Total Threshold Limit Concentration Values. (3)it has on acute oral LDso less th an 5,000 milligrams per kilogram; (4)it has an acute dermal LDm less than 4,300 milligrams per kilo= S7LC 77LC gram; Wet-Weight it has an acute inhalation LC less than 10,000 r million Substane2•b mg/t mglkg (�. so 1? ]?e as a gas or vapor, : Antimony and/or antimony compotmds 15 500 (6)it has an acute aquatic 96-hats LCso less than 500 milligrams per Arsenic and/or arsenic compounds 5.0 5W .-:liter when measured in soft water(totalhardness 40 to 48 milligrams per Asbestos 1.0 liter of calcium carbonate;)with fathead minnows(P E teaks prome- ( Pat) las),rainbow trout(Sabno arrdnen or olden shiners(Notemi onus Barham and/or barium compounds(excluding g � g 8 l -barite) 100 10,000� crysokucasj according to plocedtires descnbed1n Part 800 of the"Stan- Bery1]'irmt and/or beryllium compounds 0.75 75 daid Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater(16th Edi= Cadmium and/or cadmium compounds LO . �100. q�m�.(Vn compounds 5.J 500. lion),",American Public Health Association, 1985 and"Static Acute Chromium and/or chromium(IM compounds •$d 2.500 BioassayProeedures for Hazardous Waste Samples,"California Depart- Cobalt and/or cobalt compounds. 80 8,000 mentofFish and Game,WatexPollutionControlLaboratory.revisedNo- Copper and/or copper compounds 25 2,500. vember 1988(incorporated b reference,see section 6s6260.11),or b Fluoride salts 180... .' 18,000 ?Po Y Y Lead and/or lead compounds 5.0 1,000 other test methods or nest fish approved by the Department,using lest B-52 R�Star 9G No.27:7-5-96 §f,6^61.yp BARCLAYS CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS 'Title 22.' samples prepared or meeting the conditions for testing as prescribed in Calculated oral or dermal LDsa 100 subdivisions(c)and(d)of Appendix Il.of this chapter..and solubilized.' suspended,dispersed or emulsified by the cited procedures or by other :Ax n % methods approved by the Department; : E. (7)it contains any of the following substances at a single or combined z-1 ?A. concentration equal to or exceeding 0.001 percent.by weight., (A)2-Acetylaminofluorene(2-AAF): whom%kis the weight percentof each component iathe wastemix>ure (B)Acrylonitrile: . and TAX is thei acute oral or dermal LDjo or the acute oral LDLO of each. 4-Aminodiphenyl;- component. (D)Benzidine and its salts: Nor&.Authority cited:Section 25141 and 25159.Health and Safety Code;See.-, (E)bis(Chloiamethyl)ether(BCMEr tion 59012.Governors Reorganization Plan Number 1 of 1991.Reference sec. (F)Methyl chloromethyl ether, tioas 25117,25120.2.25141.25159 and 25159.5;Health and Safety Code and 40 _ (G)12-Dibromo-3-chloropropaae(DBCP) CFR.Section 261.24. ' (H)331-Dichlorobenzidme and its salts.(DCB): HtsiottY . I.New seciion-filed S-24-91;effective 7-1-�91'(Register 91.No.22). . m 4-DimethylaminoazobeaZene(DA$): 2,Amendment of table II filed 1 31-94:operative 1 31-94(Register 94:No.5l. '. (J)Ethyleneimine(EL)z.. 3.Editorial correction of equation(Register 95,No.36): ! (K)alpha-Naphthylamine(I-NA). 11-)beta-NaPhlhYlamiae(2-NA): AdcleA. .l.lSts of RCRA Haaa►rdouS Wastes (Nn 4-Nitwbiphenyl(4-NBP): (M N-Milmsodimethylamine(DMNr .. (0)beta-Propiolactone(BPL)... 66261.3�: General. (P)Vinyl chloride(VCM); (8)A waste is a RCRA hazardous waste if it is listed in this article. (8)it has been shown through experience or testing to pose a hazard less ithasbeea excludedfrom this list ptrrsuamto 40CFR sections260.20 tobumanbealth or euvireumentbecause of its carcinogenicity,acute tox- and 260.22 or is categorized as a noa-RCRA hazardous waste icity,chronic toxicity,bioaccumu]ative properties or persistence in the to section 66261.101.Wastes shall only be listed in this article if they environment. listed in 40 CFR Part 261 Subpart D: (b)Awastecontainingoneormorematerialswhichexhibitthecharac- (b)IheDepartmentwill indicate theUSEPAAdmmistmtoesbasisfor teristicof toxicity because the materials have the property speediag�eclassesortypesofwasteslistedinthisarti � clebyemployingo subsection(ax5)of this section may be classified as nonhazardous ptu- or more of the following Hazard Codes: suaat to section 66260.200 if the waste does not exhibit anyother charac- I Corrosiabkve Waste c) t�eristic of this article and is not listed in article 4 of this chapter and its R��Waste head space vapor contains no such toxic materials in concentrations ex Acute Hazardous waste ] 'Toxic Waste ceedmg their respective acute inhalationLCm or their LC�.The head (T) space vapor of a waste shallbe prepared,and two milliliters of it shallbe Appendix VII of this chapter identifies the canstituert which caused sampled using a five milliliter gas-tight syringe:according to Method the USEPA Administrator to list the waste as a Toxic Waste(n as' 5020 in"Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,PhysicaUGbemicd chided in-sections 6626131 and 66261.32 Methods," SW-846, '2ad. edition, U . Environmental.Protection '(c)Each RCRA hazardous waste listed is this article is assigned - Agency,1982(incorporated by reference,see section 66260.11).The EPA Hazardous Waste Number which precedes the name of the waste. quantity is milligrams of each material,which exhibits the characteristic This number shall be used in complying with the notification re - oftoxicitybecauseithasthepropertyspecifiediasubsection(aX5)ofthis .mentsofHealthandSafetyCodesectioa25153.6andcertaatrecordk section,inthesamplatgsyringeshallbedetenninedbyeomparisoatoliq- .argandreportingrequirementsunderchapters12 through 15,18,an uid standard solutions according to the appropriate gas chro®atographic. of this divisi0n.:•:- Trocedures in Method 9010,8015,8020,8030 or 8240 in"Test Methods No IL Auffianty cited:Sections 2t>8,25141 and 25159,Healih and Safety. _ forEvahratiagSo Waste,Physical/Chemical Methods,"SW-M,3rd Refer==Sections25117,25120.2,25141.'25159and25159S,'Hedthamd edition,U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,1986(incorporated by _ty Code and 40 CM Section 26130. . reference,see section 66260.11)..The concentration of each material in H=RY the bead space vapor shall be calculated using the following equation: 1.New section filed 544-91;effective 7-1-91(Register 91,No.22j. �.� OA 29.8nd 1 .§66261.41. Hazardous Wastes from Non-Speclflo CA $unites.. . Iv1W mmole . 2z1076143 ' (a)7he following wastes are listedbazardous waste sfromnon- - where C(m pasts per million)is the concentration of material A in head :is sources unless they are excluded pursuant to 40 CFR'sections 26 space vapor,Q,(m milligrams)is the quantity of material Ain sampling ..and 26022: : syringe and MW(m milligrams per miMmole)is the molecular weight EpA Hazardous.. H and of material A Where an acute inbalatiou LCso is not avat'lable,an LCm wam No. Hazardous Waste Co measured for another time(t)may be converted to an eight-hour value : Kith the following equation: F001.... the following spent balogenated solvents used in Eight-hour LCm-(V8)x(It-hour LC5D). degreasing: Tetrachloroethylene :trichloroethy-'m (c)Awastecaataiaiagoneormorematerials which exhibttthecharac lane,methylene chloride, 1.1.1-trichloroethaae, teristic of toxicybasemaerishv either ofth properties carbon tetrachloride,a chlorinated fluorvcar cified in subsection(ax3)or(a)(4)of this section maybe classified as boas:all spent solvent mixtures/blends used is de-. nonhazardous pursuantto section66260200 if the waste doesnot exhr'bit greasing containing,before use,a total of ten per any other characteristic of this article and is not listed is article 4 of this cent or more(by volume)of one or more of t he abovehalogmated solvents or those solvents listed chapter and the calculated oral LDso of the waste mixture is greater.than. in RM F004,andF005;and still bottoms from the 5.0WmMIgiams per kilogram and the calculated dermal LD_,is greater recovery of these spent solvents and'spenE solvent than 4,300 milligrams per kilogram.by the following equation: mixtures. B-53 �&ERW Office.of.Pollution Prevention s,, stales and Tonics - �rarrr:E�rtat Rratection - . Residential Lead'Hazard Standards '.", TSCA Section 403 As part of EPA's ongoing efforts to protect children from lead poisoning;the Agency announces,new. - standards to identify dangerous levels of lead in paint;dust and soil.These new.nadonal_standards are more protective than previous EPA guidance and will;for the first time,provide"home owners,school and playground administrators,chiidcare providers and others with standards to protect chiidren.from hazards posed by lead,including children in federally-owned housing. ----------Under these new standards,federal agencies,induding Housing and Urban Development,"as well as state,' local and tribal dovemments will have new uniform benchmarks on which to bass remedial actions taken to safeguard children and the public from the dangers of lead..These standards will also apply to other Federal lead provisions,such as EPNs real estate disclosure requirements presently In place for people selling or' renting a home or apartment.These hazard standards will also serve as general guidance for other EPA programs engaged in toxic waste cleanups.In addition,these standards will provide landlords,parents,and childcare providers with specific levels on,which to make informed decisions_regarding lead found In their homes,yards,or play areas. Health problems from exposure to lead can Include profound developmental and neurological impairment in children.Lead poisoning has been linked to mental retardation,poor academic performance and juvenile delinquency.Nearly one million children in America today have dangerously elevated levels of lead In their blood..Because-of the potential dangers,any exposure to deteriorated lead-based paint presents a hazard. Under the new standards,lead is considered a hazard if there are greater than:40 micrograms of lead In. dust per square foot on floors;250 micrograms of lead in dust per square foot on interior window sills and 400 parts per mtlllon(ppm)of lead in bare soil in childrerfe play areas or 1200 ppm average for bare soil in the rest of the yard: . Identifying lead hazards through these standards will allow inspectors.and risk assessors to assist property owners In deciding how to address problems which may include lead paint abatement,covering or removing soil or.professional cleaning of lead dust. This action appears in the January 5.2001 Federal Register. ont the National Lead Information Center(NLIC)to receive a general information packet,order other.. documents,or to speak with an information specialist. Final Rules and Policy in Effect • 40 CFR Part 745,.Lead;.identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead; Final Rule(1/5/2001) .. PDF format . Authorization Status of States and Tribes. PDE format .. Interpretive Guidance for the Federal Program;TSCA Sections 4021403. HTML format Economic Analysis of Toxic Substances Control Act Section 403: Hazard . . Standards PDF format Risk Analysis to Support Standards for Lead In Paint,Dust,and.Soil,June 1998 B-54 httn://wz-w_ena_L-ov/lead/leadh=.htm C1/%2!_- z smack ds Page 2 of 2 (EPA 747-R 97-006)HTML format o Risk Analysis to Support Standards for Lead in Paint,Dust,and Soil.Supplemental Report,December.2000(EPA 74779-00-0041 HIM format o .Response to Comments PDF format Fact Sheet Identifying Lead hazards in Residential Properties(April ' . .20 ppF format Proposed Rules and Other Notices: 40 CFR Part 745,Lead;Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead;Proposed Rule(6/3/98)PDF 4 format You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader( E"p )to view a number of files on this site. Click here for more information about Adobe Acrobat.. :. Links to non-EPA Web sites are.included for the convenience of the user and because of their relevance to EPA and/or the Office of Pollution Prevention.and To)ics. These links are NOT maintained-by EPA,and we cannot be responsible for either their Information_ content or their maintenance. Lead Home OPPT Home 1.EPA Home I Search` Comments Last Revision:June 6,2001. € URU httpJlwww.epa.govAead/leadhaz.htm . .. . ... . .. B-55 http://www.epa.gov/lead/leadhaz.htm 01/2=/ �ea�Contamination In Soil at Small Arms Firing Ranges Page 1 of 3 � �1 �.�.�- :. PRO-'ACT Factsheet on L-ead. C®nta ation In Small Arms Firin� Ranges This document was provided by PRO-ACT.Contact information is provided at the'end of each document. Introduction Outdoor small arms firing ranges for weapons training are essential to the mission of many U.S.Air Force(USAF). facilities.Their use,however,often produces an undesirable environmental condition-lead contaminated soil.This -: becomes a problem when the range requires remediation and the soil becomes a hazardous waste.The need for remediation can result either.fiom maintenance activities or closure of a range. ' - Remediation of Firing es Under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA)regulations,lead is a characteristic hazardous waste.Thus the remediation of lead contaminated soil at a firing range,either for maintenance or site closure,does not significantly differ from any other soil remediation project.EPA Region VM recently developed draft guidelines for remediation of rifle and/or pistol ranges.These guidelines have not yet been sanctioned by EPA Headquarters,but they do provide a good guide to small ams range soil remediation.One note-prior to.beginning,you should consult both your Regional EPA j and your State environmental agency to determine if there are local specific guidelines which you must follow. The EPA Region VM guidelines stipulate the following procedures for remediation of a small arms firing range: Prior to beginning remediation,submit a sampling and analysis plan(SAP),a health and safety plan(HSP)and a waste . analysis plan(WAP)to EPA for approval.After approval remediate using the following steps: . I. Sift munitions fragments from the impacted soil.These fragments can be recycled offsetting part of the remediation cost.The lead fragments also meet EPA's hazardous waste exemption for recyclable materials(40- CFR 261.6)and are exempt from most hazardous waste reporting and management requirements'(40 CFR 266, Subparts C through E : . 2. After sifting is complete,sample and analyze the impacted soft in accordance with the SAP and the WAP to determine if the leachable lead level in the soil is at or above the EPA level of 5 mg/L or a lower level set by the State.If it is,the soil is a hazardous waste; . 3. If all samples reveal lead concentrations below Federal or State levels,the soil is not a hazardous waste and can be reused onsite,disposed of as nonhazardous waste or returned to.its original location for.reuse. - If anportion f the' acted soil is as hazardous waste determine in accordance with the SAP and the WAP,the three- dimensional o impacted , , . dimensional extent of the contamination.One method of doing this,which reduces the total quantity of hazardous waste, is to investigate the soil in layers(1-2 inches for the.firing'line;6-12 inches for the backstop)and analyze each layer for lead contamination.Those layers_above the regulatory limit are hazardous waste,the others are:not.The increased analytical costs will be offset by the.reduction in hazardous waste. . . Treat or dispose of the hazardous waste.Several options are presented below: y 1. Treatment/DisposalOptions a. Ship to Treatment,Storage or Disposal Facility:If the soil:from the firing'range is a hazardous waste,it can:be shipped to a treatment,storage or disposal facility.In accordance with RCRA land disposal B-56 httPJ/es-epa.aov/program/p2dePt/defense/airforce/2818.htm1 :?i.cic_;-5i cZ ead Contamination In Soil at Small Arms Firing Ranges Page 2 of 3 restrictions,soil which is a characteristic hazardous waste due to lead contamination must be placed in a, hazardous waste landfill.Therefore,sifting fragments.for recycling can reduce the cost of disposal by. allowing burial in a solid waste landfill,providing leachable lead does not exceed 5 mg/1: , b. . Onsite Stabilization and Solidification:.Stabilization and solidification involves adding ingredients to fill -in porous spaces in the soil and coat the soil grains-This technology appears to effectiyely.immobilize contaminants in the soil,resulting in a dense,secure material.Several techniques for stabilizing and solidifying contaminated soils exist,-each of which should be evaluated with respect to pertinent. environmental factors in the area.One of the most common is cement stabilization.If these processes are . performed onsite,the regulations of the state.where the site is located may require a RCRA permit Once "stabilized,the mixture should be analyzed to insure it is still not a hazardous.waste.If it isn't,it can be either granulated and reused or placed in a solid waste landfill: c. Soil Washing:A new soil washing process,developed by COGNIS of Santa Rosa,California,his successfully reduced soil lead concentrations at a U.S:Army(USA)S erfind site to background. (The USA had previously burned scrap ammunition and powder and buried shell casings at the site, ' =: j resulting in soil lead concentrations as high as 86,000 ppm.)Alter sifting the soiland dividing itinto gravel,sand and munitions-particles,COGNIS tecImicians wash the soil in,an aqueous acid solution to.- . remove the lead.While the process is speedy and cost effective,it is proprietary to COGNIS and the spent _-: -- -acid solution recces treatment and disposal as a hazardous waste. -: 2. Contamination Prevention Techniques:The best method to prevent lead contamination of soil at filing ranges is use technologies which eliminate the problem.One of these is munitions traps which capture spent munitions and " prevent their contact with the soil.Another is the use of lead-free ammunition: a: Upward Deflecting Backstop:An upward deflecting backstop is an angled metal impact plate that reduces the velocity of munitions.The impact plate deflects munitions particles upward into a swirl chamber.The munitions particles then fall into a tray at the base of the trap and are collected.While upward deflecting backstops are the most commonly used munitions traps at firing ranges,the backstop fragments munitions and produces airborne lead dust,which may contaminate adjacent soil areas. r. (PRO-ACr has been informed that Seymour Johnson AFB has installed an upward deflecting backstop at . .t its firing range-Contact Mr.Tim Brechem at(919)736-6690 for more details. b. Rubber Munitions Trap:A rubber munitions trap consists of multiple rubber ships hung from a frame and . oriented edgewise to the line of fire.The rubber strips absorb the energy of the imparting munitions leaving the projectile intact and eliminating airborne lead dust,The munitions then fall to the bottom of the"trap for collection.The ribber strips require periodic replacement,the frequency depending on the of activity at the firing range. c. Granulated Munitions Trap:A granulated munitions trap consists of a steel box with a rubber front The box contains recycled granulated rubber material,which absorbs the.impact of munitions passing through . J the rubber front and keeps,munitions intact:Periodic patching of the rubber front is required. d.. Water Munitions Trap:A water munitions trap consists of a funnel leading to'a deceleration chamber containing a small amount of water.Munitions enter the deceleration chamber,deflect downward into the water and rotate:around until their energy is spent.As they spin,the munitions automatically wet the _ i. chamber;reducing the.liikelihood of fragmentation and airborne lead dust The munitions then drop into a collection tray at the bottom of the trap for easy removal" e. Lead-free Ammunition:The U.S:Anny Research;Development and Engineering Center is working on ammunition that is lead and toxin free.Currently they are evaluating a lead-free primer and lead alternatives.including bismuth,molybdenum,tungsten,steel/hon and copper.Stock.listed lead-free training ammunition(reduced range).is.currently available-in 5.56.miillimeter ball and 50 caliber ball and . tracer sizes. One Note of Caution. B-57 http://es.epa.gov/program/p2depttdefenselairforce/2818.html 0 V23!2 ;-"I'heet on Lean Contamination In Soil at Small Arms Firing Ranges Page 3.of 3 The Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act(EPCRA)requires reporting of hazardous substance ` releases which leave the base.Lead dust transported by the wind is considered a release under EPCRA.A release is reportable when more than one pound of lead particles smaller than 0:004 inches in diameter.are released beyond the . boundaries of the facility. . For.More,Wormation - Contact PRO-ACT at DSN 24074214 or(800)233-4356 for additional infokmation on lead contamination at firing ranges or for information regarding remediation and new technologies. . Return to top of this document. Returne Air Force index ffiRe=-fo Enviro$en$e Home e Last Updated.July 27,1995 - ' B-58 h",//Pc onv/nrnoram/n9APnt/rif fi.-.. /`;,Fnmv/7R1 R 1,+—I E N V I R. O 'N M E N T' A L W O R. K I N. G G R O U P Lead P®Iludon :at Outddo'r Firing Ranges t lane Houlihan, Research Director Richard Wiles, Senior.Vice President Outdoor firing ranges can.be highly contaminated with lead Lead is the most prevalent contaminant at Superfund sites across the country (EPA 2001a).' The.highly toxic . metal triggers more Superfund.cleanups than any other industrial chemical or waste product in the environment. Lead is considered the number one.environmental threat to children's health by the federal government, and at very low levels is linked to subtle developmental'delays and reduced I.Q. in children.(EPA 2001b,_2001c). Recognition of the toxicity of lead is broad and nonpartisan. On April 17, 2001,the Bush Administration took its' { first.action against lead polluters. in an announcement that the Bush$nvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) , would uphold a Clinton Administration rule requiring all businesses releasing 100 pounds of lead a year(or greater) to-report this pollution to-the government. The announcement came despite objections raised by affected industries. Lead contamination has now emerged in another context: firing ranges: The military has been involved in -massive lead cleanup efforts for years,at an estimated 700 military firing ranges across the country. In-this report,we present the first estimates of lead pollution at commercial and private firing ranges.- Our analysis - . shows that.shooting ranges are likely to be one the biggest sources of lead pollution in the country (Figure 1). Assuming a very modest level of activity at the nation's 1,813 firing ranges-just 15 customers shooting.50 rounds t a day-firing ranges would put nearly nine million pounds'of lead into the environment per year. This is more �. lead pollution than is.produced by any other'industry except metals mining and manufacturing, and waste recovery operations. While most of this lead will likely remain on the site,the nations firing ranges represent a major potential source of lead in water and wildlife, and a.potential liability to nearby property.owners who may find themselves living next to a hazardous waste site or who might be victims of lead drifting onto their. property- Figure 1. .Outdoor ruing ranges prat more lead unto the environment than nearly any EsdMM;poWb,e mMe:4.1- other major industrial sector in the U.S.,yet they remain almost entirely unregulated. 2os million pounds of lead per 13. yea 'N 8. - C. O L ..7 cc 6 d '.5 . . . y _ n 4 4J o 0 . 3 CL o, 2 v y J O , Chemical and 'Stone,'clay, and Electric util'tties Electrical Outdoor firing .chemical product `..glass:..,:.• equipment .. ranges manufacturing. manufacturing : manufacturing . (estimated)' : Notex: . 1J Thisf1gcve represents die top five/eadp0/1ut17g 1770tMes/n the country after metals mining andmanufactwing and.waste I yoperddons ZJ/nduso-ia/erriiss/vmare TaxlcsRe%ase/nvenfiryrep b/e.emisslansfiv7999of/eadandlead compounds._ 3JAssumes 15peop/e firing 50rounds per aayat 1,813ranges nat/onrvide. EsrfiMtedpassib/e range.of/ead �. po//utionproducedat 1,813ranges• minimum value shown represents 70peop/e rring20rou.. per day for each range, r maximum value shown represents.loopeop/e filing 50rounds per day for each range. '. Sow w U.S EnvitwmenfalP70M.Won Agency. , I 1 71 8 C O N N E C T I C U T' AVENUE N . W . S U'I'T E 6 0 0 W A S H I N G T'O N • D . C 2019 TEL . ( 202 ) 667 . 6982. - FAX ( 202 ) 232 - 2592 B-59 Firing ranges are exempt from pollution control laces Iri spite of widespread scientific and political-agreement'on lead toxicity and the need to reduce it,commercial fining ranges are exempt from the EPA's new lead reporting requirements..and.virtually every major pollution control law in the United States. A number of loopholes allow unlimited lead contamination at outdoor. es.'Iri ite of le precedents P firing� sP i;�P nts to the contrary.(VPC 2001),EPA continues its policy allowing firing ranges near water bodies*to operate'without . the pollution discharge pennits'that are required under the Clean Water Act for.all other.lead-polluting industries.. These-ranges present a significant_water.polludon threat, according to industry sources (NASR 2000)..Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,most industries are under strict requirements to dispose of lead waste- safely, typically in hazardous waste landfills: shooting ranges are exempt because the act of firing bullets into the soil has not been interpreted by EPA as"discarding' lead. The milftarys response to-contamination at its ranges illustrates the potential magnitude'of the problem.:The' ' armed forces are involved in masstve.lead cleanup efforts at an estimated 700 military firing ranges across the .. country. Private firing ranges enjoy immunity from the environmental laws'that drive these cleanups,-.despite the".- fact that their operation can result in contamination levels many times what triggers major remediation efforts at. ' industrial and military sites. At very modest levels of activity it is quite possible that every firing range in the U.S. Is contaminated with lead at levels that would trigger Superfund cleanups (Figure 2):The threat lead poses to the surrounding environment and communities is not known,but could be substantial. If totally dissolved into the. environment: • A single shot from a 30-30 Winchester containing 8.1 grams of lead could contaminate about 370 cubic feet of soil to Superfund site contamination levels (the equivalent of about 56 bathtubs filled with Superfund site dirt). • The lead in just one. bullet from a 22-caliber rifle (2.6 grams) could .Figure Even at modest levels of a l ' a single firing a can contaminate one days 2' !$. 9-ran 9 worth of drinking become contaminated with tens of thousands of pounds of lead. water for the entire 120000 population of Salt Lake City with'a level of m . lead deemed unsafe by the EPA. (One bullet 100000 weighing 2.6 grams a My dissolved in: v ' 80000 51,000 gallons of water results in a lead concentration of 15 e� parts per billion, the c 60000o� legal limit for.drinking' of water.) o 40000a� a5 The amount of lead 00, used.in bullet production over a d ' '20000 20 rounds ' period of four ears P Y Would be enough to } U contaminate the entire =` State of Rhode Island 0 50 100 150.: 200 at Superfund levels, to Custo a.depth of one foot Friars per day at a firing range source.• Environments/Working GrOaP- B-60 1 What.is a safe level.of lead exposure? There is no amount of lead.exposure•known to be completely safe fora child. -Federal safety standards are .. , based.on exposures that present a risk for:a"chad's brain to be measurably harmed. Currently, the Centers for. Disease Control and Prevention uses a benchmark-'safety level.of 100 micrograms of lead per liter of a child's blood as an indicator for children at risk for the harmful effects of lead: . The federal government considers that a child playing outdoors is at risk for lead poisoning if concentrations of. lead.in the soil°where the child is playing are higher than 400 parts per.million (400 ppm)...Through incidental: contact with soil from.outdoor play, children ingest tiny amounts of soil.through.what the EPA calls childrerfs normal'hand-to-mouth* activity. In other words.children play in the dirt, get dirt on their hands, and then put their hands and fingers in their mouths, or.eat food:without washing their:harids. When industrial pollution impacts . P - residential areas-for instance, when soil is contaminated with . levels of lead that could put Fgure 3. In just 2 years.a typical firing range earl bave lead contaroi- children at risk for lead poisoning nation eq,"ent to a 5-acM Superfand site. -various environmental laws in this country. including the. 1 O , Superfund law, require cleanup 9 actions to make the area safe for children. In contrast most firing m -a . . 8 ranges fall outside the purview.of Q- environmental statutes. Lead 5 0 7 levels can build up to any amount E m at most privately owned outdoor c E 6 firing ranges and neighboring fo 5 properties,with absolutely no = ° `4 requirements for soil testing or remediation until that Property is o 3 sold.. Generally it is only after rivers,streams, or public water. 0 M 2- supplies have become . contaminated that citizen lawsuits 1 can force•cleanup actions. 0 . . Z years 5 years* 10 years 20-years Years•of firing range operation at and average rate of 750 rounds per day Sow= Environmental Working Group., Table 1! N totally dissolved in the water supply,the lead contained in.a single bullet could contaminate the amount of water consumed dailyby hundreds of thousands of people. Lead contained In a•: One bullet can contaminate the Equivalent to the single shell or bullet amount of water consumed daily amount of water. (grams) by this many people.., consumed daily in... 12-gauge shotgun shell 28.0. 1.866,667 Houston. 45 automatic pistol match ammunition 12.0 799,200 San Francisco 308 Winchester round 9.7 648.000 Baltimore 30-36 Winchester round 8.1 540.000 Seattle 9 mm Luger handgun bullet 7.5 496,800 Denver 22 caliber rifle bullet 2.6 172,800 . Salt tyke City . Source.• Environmental Working Group. Contamination level was taken as 75 ppb, Me action level under the Federal Safe Drinking WaterAct B-61 ' Outdoor firing ranges can be contaminated with tremendous amounts of lead that can contaminate water supplies and put children at risk Consider a firing range that has just 15 visitors each day, each of whom fires about 50 rounds or bullets. ' Assuming an average lead content representative of the commori types of ammunition used,in just two years . the entire top foot of soil over an area of five acres could be contaminated to Superfund levels.•This firing range operating over a period of 20.years would contain about 9.6 times the amount of lead that-could trigger. a Supei-fund.cleanup (Figure 3). Ranges operating at a higher volume of activity on the same space could. easily contaminate the ground to a level where remediatiomwould require the soil to be treated as hazardous- . waste before it was placed in a double-lined hazardous waste landfill. . The lead found in-soil at firing ranges will be in the form of various amounts of dust;small fragments, and nearly intact bullets and pellets. The bullets and pellets will dissolve with time as,rain leaches through the soil. Depending on soil type and pH,varying amounts of lead can move off the site,potentially contaminating water supplies. At airy given time;the contamination profile at a firing range can include - highly contaminated soil in the backstop ' p or berm,'more Aiffuse-contamination across the entire extent of soil 1_' '7 . leading to*the backstop,and then some area under the.ground in which rainwater has leached lead into the . groundwater to form a.plume of contamination.- Lead will migrate more quickly in sandy.soil,`with a higher potential to contaminate water supplies. The lead contained in'even a single bullet can contaminate the amount of water consumed daily by hundreds of thousands of people.(Table 1). ' Children living near Bring ranges can be exposed to lead through dust that blows off the range to contaminate the air and soil nearby:. Families living near firing ranges could be drinking water from their private well that is contaminated with lead that has leached from the range soil. Public.water supplies can be contaminated. In the long-term, each firing range in the U.S. almost certainly represents a piece of land so highly contaminated that it would require a massive cleanup effort to be safe for wildlife or arty industrial or residential use. Figure 4. A representative outdoor firing range pollutes. at 48 tines the ltwel that triggers_strict reporting Outdoor firing ranges a exempt from. ret;tulren for industrial polluters. re new lead pollution reporting rules 5,000 5 4, 00 New rules finalized by EPA mJanuary 2001, and-supported.by the Bush- o Administration,require•indusfri 4,000 across the country'to report even small_ a 3,500 amounts of lead pollution to a public _ database maintained by the 3 3,000 government called the toxics release o Inventory M. Facilities that a 2,500 discharge just 100 pounds of lead each a��i 2,000 year to.the environment are subject to _ c "these'new,stria reporting .1,500 requirements- 1,000 Private firing ranges are exempt from 500 i the new reporting requirements,. regardless of how much lead they.put 0 in the environment. And the amounts Reporting threshold for Estimated yearly lead appear to be substantial. A small firing lead pollution by 'pollution at a . Industrial polluters representative outdoor range can emit.100 pounds of lead to firing range-no reporting. . the environment (the minimum to requirements trigger reporting for the regulated B-62 Source.. Environmental Working Group. OEM industries) in a matter of days. For example, a range that has 15 customers each day,-each of whom shoots 50. rounds or bullets,:would create 100 pounds of lead pollution.in 7.5 days, or 4,800-pounds"of lead contamination in a year (Figure 4) Despite'their`signiflcant lead pollution,outdoor.firing ranges are exempt from the reporting requirements of. EPA's"new rules, These ranges are-not required to report their pollution,they are not required to get a permit to pollute, and they are not required to:clean up the pollution that they cause (unless in parties bring legal , action). This broad exemption from environmental statutes is producing.thousands"of highly contaminated toxic waste sites at firing ranges across the country. Recotimendadon§ Private firing ranges are a potentially huge and completely unregulated source of lead pollution in the environment. In order to more fully understand the exact nature of this problem and devise solutions to address it,we recommend that the U.S.EPA,in coordination with state environmental-agencies,immediately begin a' study of the problem of lead contamination at commercial and private shooting ranges. .As a part of that study . the U.S.EPA should commission a study of lead levels in the blood of range employees and their children,-­ frequfrequent -- ent users of the facilities and their children, as well as children living near these facilities.. [Vlethodol• Estimates of lead pollution presented:in this report are based on the following assumptions:. • Soil at firing ranges: Representative unit weight of soil into which bullets are fired—.110 pounds per cubic foot • Weight of ammunition: taken as representative weight from the range of weights of commonly-used ammunition (Ramage 2000): 12-gauge shotgun shell-28 grams 22 caliber rifle bullet-40 grains (2.6 grams) 9 mrn Luger handgun bullet- 115 grains (7.5 grams) . 45 automatic pistol match ammunition:- 185 grains (12.0 grams) 30-30 Winchester round= 125 grains (8.1 grams) :308 Winchester.round=.150 9.7 For ?�purposes of calculations of'total Pollution, an average bullet:wei t. 123.grains.(8.0 grams) was assumed. This ' represents the mean of the 5 lightest types of ammunition shown above (shotgun sheds were not included). • .Calculations of contamination relative to Superfund levels: For purposes of discussing the possible extent of contamination at firing ranges relative to that at Superfund sites,.lead concentrations were calculated assuming the lead to be concentrated in the upper foot of soil at a range. - • Total number of commercial firing ranges:. Calculations of national pollution amounts from firing ranges': assume 1,813 operating firing ranges...This is the number of outdoor ranges registered on the National . Shooting Sports Foundation web site;but this list is not comprehensive. 'Catogories of ranges included.in the estimated total,'as listed on www.nssf org, are: handgun outdoors, rifle outdoors,skeet shooting, sporting clays;trap shooting, and cowboy action shooting: • Average amount of water consumed by an individual: Taken as the average population wide.consumption in the U.S.,one liter (0.29 gallons) per day, from water consumption data presented in EPA 1999. B-63 ivac_I s--Li rizring Ranges in Califomia Page 1 of 2 ' - ENV IR.ONM11,41AL ' WORKING GR-OgJ.r74 DOME . : .. - I A CA EWG CA Home FOR RELEASE AT 7:30 A-M.PDT,Tuesday,May 1'2001 . ' EWG CA Top Issues: Methyl Bromide CONTACTS:Bill Walker, Environmental Working Group: (51.0)444- Children's Health 0973 ' .Pesticides Naomi Seligman,Violence Policy Center.`(202),822-8200.x105 Other EING Sites: FIRING RANGES,AMONG WORST LEAD. • EWG Home POLLUTERS IN CALIFORNIA&U.S. -SERIOUS •.Chemical industry HEALTH RISKS.TO SHOOTERS,_CHILDREN &THE Archives. ENVIRONMENT • Dirty Money Tracker • FoodNews.org Many California Shooting Facliitles Recelve Public Funds . BanDursban.org ' OAKLAND, Calif.--Guns can be. Poisonous Pastime' CA Archive hazardous to your health.even if you don't )).EWG Press Release get shot with one,according to'a new ' study of the harm to people and the y EtivG Cartomia Press Release. Contact EWG CA environment from lead pollution at y Lead at Outdoor Firma Rana shooting ranges in California and About EWG CA nationwide. D violence Poliav Center y Poisonous Pastime--Executive Search EWG: SMmmIY "Poisonous Pastime"by the Violence y pOI�,S Pastime Policy Center and Environmental'Working Group documents how shooting ranges are poisoning children and polluting the environment with lead,yet remain.almost entirely unregulated-exempt even from the Bush Administration's new lead e pollution reporting rules.Despite the environmental threat and the health costs,cities,counties.school districts,state universities and parks districts throughoutCalifomia maintain shooting ranges,at . .least in part with tax dollars. EWG Supports:. o Our stolen Future The report,available Tuesday at www.ewg.org or www.vpc.o' *:Earth Day Network wams that parents who don't know.they're bringing home lead from Coming clean the shooting range are putting their own children at risk for lead ' poisoning,Which can cause severe learning disabilities and other •PBS'.Trade secrets serious health problems.There also is a growing body of.evidence that lead poisoning may be a contributing cause of violent criminal behavior in some people "There is no question that the toxic levels of lead at shooting ranges . are endangering America's children and families,"said Tom Diaz of VPC, principal.author of the report. .The study found that outdoor firing ranges put more lead into the environment than almost any other.major industrial sector in the U.S. .. According to EWG.and VPC.in just three years a typical firing range can become as contaminated with lead as.a five-acre Superfund site;-a nd the amount of waste lead contained in a single .45-caliber bullet is enough to contaminate the daily-drinking water supply of a city the size of San Francisco to a level deemed unsafe by the U.S. http://www.ewg.org/pub/home/reports/poisonouspasrimelcaprhtml 0122!_ _ ica L Outdoor Firing Ranges Page 2 of 2 Poisonous Pastim6 hinds that the shooting range industry downplays the seriousness of.its problems,hides.them from the general public,and allows thousands of unregulated shooting sites to continue.to operate without strict oversight. It is based largely on the records of internal industry meetings.and gun industry:..' Publications.The report includes recommendations at both.local and federal levels.. . , .. .. . Environmental Working Group . 1718 Connecticut Ave.,N.W.,Suite 600• Wasltington,DC 20009• • . . jnfioC�i�ewa.oro . . . . B-65 httn-//www,-wv nra/nub/home/rennrrch-^icnnrnimactime/ p� /� /�p ®`'f^C National Park Service . ' �•�• 1 ATI PARK SERVICE 1 CE Hazardous Waste Management&PiAudon Prevention Team : NATIONAL PARK DC 20240, 565-1240 FIRING-RANGE WASTE MANAGEMENT ' MONWIMN - ra:ommended to track proper transport and �Ca,.- ... .:...- Prof Washes generated from the discharg HANDLINGISTOM09'4. e of fire : .;�.•__............ ..... ., d�P�:. :. '. am at indoor and outdoor ranges including spent bullets and shot,cartidges;dust,soil, Handling this waste material may require special SPECIAL TOPICS ' surface water runoff,or other contaminated precautions such as personal protective equipment environmental media,and waste gun cleaning (PPE)and s>sW Procedures to prevent injury. . -Operstion/Maintenance and Monitoring:his materials. Always.remember to consult with your park or recommended that parks operate firing ranges'. . .regional Safety Officer for additional iafazmation conformance with safe management practices APPLICABLE STANDARDS proper handling. designed to prevent the release of lead into the euvircomeot. This meatus Federal:Firing range wastes are regulated under waste Collection:Spent projectiles should be .Maintenance of an impact berm to minimize the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ply collected from traps and recovered erosion,build ricochet,and accidental Ingestion (RCItA)and 40 Code of Federal Regulations (e•&+sifted)from outdoor range impact areas'The of projectila by wildlife,. CFR 260-266. The assessment and fiegaency of collection is dependent upon the level • Can surface water ( ) cleanup of dutding Proms . .._ . . .. Outdoor Bing ranges is regulated under RCRA and of range activity. flows of indoor.ranges should• to evaluate potential off-site contamination and ' the Comprehensive Environmental Response, be vacuumed regularly to coped any firearm preveaticn or mitigation measures. : Compeaudm and Lbbility Act(CEPiCI.A). 40 discharge related dust that may accumulate.late. An .Provision of hand washing and clothing change. CFR 178 provides a gtt000sed rule for closed and. industrial vaorur n equipped with a HEPA filter fiucilities to help reduce potential lead exposure should be used. Y g range transferred military ranges. This rule can provide sad envaoaazeatal contamination b firm ' guidance four closed and tansf n-ed NPS firing' users. ranges. Workers conducting lead collection activities must . At Woor ranges;operation of a firing range be properly trained in lead abatement hazards and ventilation system with air pollution control States Stater rules for management of fang range proms,use Proper Persons,Proms equipment to maintain rundown air quality and ' may ay be more stringent than Federal equipment,and conduct air monitoring in emissions. •.requirements. The regulations for your state must accordance with OSHA requirements. be reviewed to assess your park's compliance Recordkeephsg:The park is responsible for status and requirements. Container Management:Firing range wastes staining all files associated with the should be segregated to facilitate rcclamation or motion transport and disposal of firing ' Other.Additional Federal and state standards recycling. Containers used to accumulate spent range wastes. U to •conies and to be recycled or Pia operation and may apply to the envhmmmeatal,health,and safety Prof cartridges l maintenance plans and health and safety plants and management of firing ranges at your park. Parks reclaimed should have covers and be labeled to maintenance records should also be maintained. should rely upon the procedures ontiaued in the identify contents and iumwded disposition(Le.. NPS Hazardous Waste Management Handbook,as Spent Bullets to be Redaimed). Dust vacuumed Closure,Site Assessment,and Remediation:A well as applicable NPS safety guidance and fiom indoor ranges and spent HEPA fihes are . C'ERCI.A based closure process should be regaitQumts. hazardous wastes and mast be handled and stored` implemented when a firing range is deactivated. in accordance with RCRAregulatious. Used gun '''.WASTE CHARACTERjZpTION cleaning solvents,oily and dirty rags should must POLLUTION PREVENTION also be properly handled and stored(see waste _.. . Firing range wastes may be listed hazardous solvent,Used OR and Sorbents and Wipes Utilize nor NPS shooting ranges where possible. wastes far dtaraderistically hazardous based on'a . EnvirdFacts) •Ubimi a unautbarind and unnecessary use of toxic characteristic leaching procedure UC1 P) NPS ranges: ' test. RECYLINGIDISPOSAL. .Use"green"ammunition(e.g.,Delta •Fit red shot and bullets-characteristically Ammunition by Winchester)and"green"gun hazardous due to lead twdeu • Spent projectiles should be classified as scrap g supplies and methods(e.g.,biodeaniag 'ty. . . :clewing metal and reclaimed(otherwise they are be • Contaminated media(soil,surface water runoff solutions). and indoor range dust)-potentially subject to classification and disposal as a : hazardous waste): FE CEO characteristic hazard due to lead and arsenic tom ,. •Metal cartridges should be recycled via the e Hazardous Waste Characterization •Waste gun cleaning materials(solvents,oils, supplier our maaufaetuter. Hazardous Waste Generator Status rags)-potentially baziu ons.due to ignitability 'Spent gun cleaning solvent and gun oil should be min . Deteration . characteristic and/or lead/asc=twumty;gun oil reclaimed or rw7ded Used OR Management may be classified as used oil under 40 CFR 279. •Used rags should be sent to an industrial laundry . Spent solvent Managemennt. to be cleaned . SOiuents and Wines Nana gonent Discharged ammunition is not a RCRA solid waste. •Lead dust and 14EPA filters most be disposed as while it remains uncollected*in the range. Once a hazardous waste at a RCRtA permitted facility. : mod for disposal,or upon range closure,these materials become solid waste and are subject to Hazardous wastes from firing ranges.must be RCRA.• Metal ammunition waste components Properly manifested and shipped to a permitted ' lah_r►ed ar reevcled by a scrap metal vendor are hazardous waste disposal facility. Manifesting Of' exempt from RC RA C hazardous waste handling wastes to be.re laimed or recycled is also . and disposal requirements. ' B-66 NAM 1. Determine if"green"ammunition and gun cleaning supplies are utilized at the range._.Contact Bill Colsen of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center for further. information[(912)267-2233]or ask your ammunition. supplier. 2.: Determine whether the park addresses firing range waste, management and other procedures to minimize the potential for environmental impact. 3. .Confirm that there is a program for the collection of discharged projectiles and other firing range wastes Including the collection of projectiles from impact berms and bullet traps and the collection of dust from indoor. ranges using HEPA-vacuums. -.. 4. Verify that firing range wastes are properly segregated and accumulated in closed,properly labeled containers. 5. Confirm that proper waste disposal practices are ' conducted Including the recycling or reclamation of spent projectiles and metal casings,cleaning solvents and oil and disposal of hazardous firing range wastes(e.g:,lead , contaminated dust and vacuum HEPA filters)in accordance with RCRA requirements at an authorized facility. , 6. Confirm that an adequate ventilation system with air pollution control equipment is provided for indoor ranges. du maintenance '7. Verify that personnel conducting ma n cectivities a are properly trained In lead abatement procedures,that they wear appropriate personal protective equipment,and that air monitoring is conducted during maintenance activities in accordance with OSHA requirements: 8. Verify that contamination-monitoring programs have been conducted to determine the surface water,groundwater, - and/or soil contamination and that procedures are in place to control or mitigate such contamination. 9. Determine If there is a health and safety plan for the. range and faciliffes(e.g.,hand washing and clothes changing)to minimize exposure by users. 10. Confirm that a formal closure procedure has been Initiated and completed for deactivated ranges in accordance with CERCLA guidelines. 11. Confirm-that records of collection,storage and disposal, . maintenance procedures,environmental monitoring,. range closure and other documents related to range o erations are properly maintained. B-67 ' " i gE.l �k c�. oi�f News Page 2 of 2 ' e soil in yards, 1,200 parts per million (ppm); soil... oil in "play.areas;° 400 PPm; e dust, 40 micrograms per square foot; any "deteriorating paint,"no:value:given. Full text of 40 CM Part 745 Lead; Identification of: Dangerous Levels of Lead,.FnalRule.is available on the EPA Website. EPA ReQs { OSHA Reas { State e s { Other Items of Interest { Penalty Box Return to SSPC Homepa-ge. back to top Q0 SSPC ChUm Home Books sumdards Conferences Cernficatlea Training Nemhersiip Ckaptera ' Conumitte" Ask SSK Sp bmom Liars . B-68 http://www.sspc.org/site/regnews/FiinaltitleX.html 5J l2002- FORENSIC ANALYTICAL' . . HayWard: 800/8274214' Rancho.Don iinguez: 8881813,9417 -LEAD REGULATORY LEVELS. Paint: AIr HUD Guidelines"action levels 50 µ e:._ OSHA PEL B hour TWA 0.5%by weight=5,000 ppm(Atomic Absorption SPectroscopy) . 30 µgun°: OSHA°action Lever B hour TWA' 1.0 mgicm=OCRF) Soils. Dust EPA 75CA Section 403 Standard—January 2001 EPA TSCA Section 403 Standard-January 2001 > 400 ppm Hazardous in play areas Z 40 µg/fF : Floors. >1,200 ppm.' . Bare soil yard wide average 2 250.µ N Window sills California 77do 17`Lead contaminated soil- Califomis Title 17.'Lead contaminated dust" 2 400—1000 ppm • Hazardous in bare soil in areas k 50 µgfft= Interior floor surfaces ' where children play. Z 250 µg/ft: . Interior horizontal window surfaces >1,000 ppm Hazardous In all other areas' Z 800 µ9fIF. Exterior floor and exterior horizontal window'surfaces Water 15 ppb:US EPA"Action Lever. Waste Total Threshold Limit Concentration.(TTLC),lead only:1000 mg/kg Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration(STLC),lead only:5.0 mgfL Toiddty Characteristic Leaching Procedure(TCLP),lead only.5.0 mglL LEAD SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS Matrix. Collection Analytical Method Paint Collect 1 tablespoon of paint. Scrape down to(but EPA S'W846-3050A(preparation) excluding)matrix material. Store in ridged wall container. EPA 7000 series(AA/GFAA analysis). EPA SW846-6010(ICP analysis) Air Collect Pomona[samples at 1-4 liters per minute on NIOSH 7082(AA—flame,lead only) MCI,37mm,0.8µm pore size cassettes,.dosed face: NIOSH 7105(AA—graphite furnace,collect a maximum Submit blanks. of 1600 liters,lead only) NIOSH 7300(ICP muttl-element analysis)': Collect area samples at 10 liters per minute on MCI, OSHA ID-121 : 37mm.O.Bµm pore size cassettes,dosed face. Submit blanks. Soil Collect 1-cup soil In pre-cleaned dry container EPA SW846-30WA(preparation) EPA 7000:series(AA/GFAA analysis) EPA SW846-5010(ICP analysis) Water Collect 250ml in pre-cleaned HDPE bottle with HNO3 EPA 600MM.9(GFAA,lead only,potable) as preservative to pH<2A. Draw as a 1 L first draw EPA SW846 601013050A(non-potable) . Wipes Collect 1 square foot area with approved wipe. Insert. '. NIOSH.7082(AA,lead only) -one.wipe into dean.tubs. Submit field blank :. HUD Appendix 142(modified) .. OSHA 1D-121. NIOSH 7300(ICP,muttl-element analysis) Waste Collect representative sample(50 grams)of waste GWE7 stream(s). SW846 1311,6010,7420 Please note I of these levels may vary due to local definitions and regulations. Please contact your local health department or lead hazard control program for local definitions and the.most current local regulations. This information was complied January 2001. ' B-69 DepartMent of.Taxic Substance Control Edwin F.L6Wry, Director: .. ., :. 1 Q14 N: GrandvievN Avenue ' Glendale -California 9120j ►ulstnn K. Hldcox :. :. Gray.Davts- �ncy Secretary. Governor lfomia F.Wmnmentel . �tection Agewcy 1ht6fin Guidance fo •.. _ Ev; g' Lead BAsed PWindand . si tos�Co taming Atedals . . At Proposed.Schdof.Sites Califomia-Noartment of Toxic Substances.Control Califb.mid Env_ ironmental:Protection Agency. ' July 23 200'! Y . - 1.0 INTRODUCTION r New laws affecting school construction were..recentty enacted (Assembly Bill 387, Senate Bel .162,•and--Assembly Bill 2W). .These tatutes'require the California : .. Department of Tozie Substances Control (DISC)to assume•responWbility for evaluating ' environmental assessments for proposed school s,#es that.vol.receive state funding for acquisition andlor new construction:•.The role of DTSC.is to erisure thaf.selected properties do notcontain.hazardous materials or that-these properties have:been ' appropriately t emediated.for the protection of the.children's health, public health,'and _the environment In order for DTS.0 to eXpedidou*meet these.statutory requirements, . this guidance has been' developed to address specific.issues and to provide an assessment forproperties.Where lead-based paint andlor asbestos-containing materials . (ACM) are the only potential contaminants Properties.with other suspected. contamination:must-be*evaluated under the standard Preliminary Endangerment . Assessment(PEA)`process. lip { asa-read-sa� - .. - •• . : -. .-- - .7-23.01 = Printed on Recycled Paper B-70 This docuen®nt:is reted.as an intea�iin guidance and.gill be subje to •shoo one 'ear followiri the release date: : .�.. mview and .. y. .: 9. 2.0 NOOSE This guidance was prepared for proposed:school sites revious . or cesentl P. IY... P . . y oa upied-by-structures where the only,suspected contamination is lead or.ACM. Older: .' structures may contain.hazard6us.-construction materials such as lead-baser paint or .ACM' including ceiling tt�es,floortiles.:insulation;:sheet roct�, thermal.system insulation; _. acoustical plaster,:and•noof shingles.:)Asbestos is a term used for several types.cf fibrous.minerals. Exposures to.these.substances may cause lung disease and cancer: can.impair the nervous system; effecting healing,vision;`and muscle control;and it is toxic to kidneys, blood;_and heart. .Exposuie to children can cause irreversible teaming.deficits, mental;retardation; and delayed neurological and physical development: This guidance is irrtended to supplement the Phasd I Assessment.and the DTSC Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual (PEA,Cal EPA 1.994,revised ' I999). In no way is.this guidance meanito diminish the need to take authoritative samples at additional site locations comrnonlj -associated with-on-site andoff-slte'. hazardous substance releases. such as chemical stooge sheds,vehicle maintenance areas-I garages, and septic-tanks; nor.neplace the PEA Guidance.Manual. The use of , this documerrt:is limited to the;�nvestigaticn of 6 niaminationf-derived from-lead-based paints and ACM that ma ntial be resent.on ro es ttiat.are Hein "cor►sider�ed.. .Y P IY P P . Pam. 9 for school coristivctiori.This guidance does not finiit.investigations at sites.with'a'history of other hazardous material uses or industrial land.use', and it does not apply to sites with naturally occumng asbestos_ :_ 3& UMITED FURTHER ACTIOWiknER 06r,properfes where the only.potential from of contammafion idenfrfied in a DTSC approved Phase l assessment are from Iead-based paint and/or ACM;DTSC WI provide California Department of Education(CDE)with a letter stating that the only: : : potential concenis.with�the�property.am Iead and/or ACM:-.This letter may conclude hat limited:further action is warranted and-the estir afed timefrarrie tot completions of that* . action. . d b For leaased paint,'.a PEA will be submitted to.DTSC before final DTSC.: : .approval. 1f remediation of-thesi t is,required, a removal:action workptan will.be submitted to DTSC. R-71 4:0- ASBESTOS CONTAINING.MATERIALS ACM : Sites vvithresidential,andlor-commeroaltructures.constructedbefore:i976:may• contain ACM: Due to the demand for:ne;W schools;..many.former residential and/or:.'.-."..:.: ' -- . commercial areas are being considered for proposed`school sites.=•Current:. " ' redevelopment trends largely involve.the demoi'�tion:of.these structures,:although,an:: some cases;.structures are renovated'a�d•'incorporated Jnto the design and construction of the new school: The mitigation:and management of.ACM is currently regulated by several federal. state and.local agencies: .(See Append'a.A for a summary of relevant statotoiy_and' r: regulatory requirements):: if mitigation•and management activities are peiforMed In .accordance writth..the established statutes-and'iegutatioris;health`and safety, cems .. should be:'addressed..*: ' I asbestos iniork must comply.with California Oc�pational Safety and Health•Administration (CalOSHA) regu{at{ons..air district andlor Callfomia Air Resources Board (AFZ$)regulations; as well'as any other local ordinances.'.If ACM is identified at a proposed school site;the school district shall either mitigate,or manage ' ACM in:place.pursuant to the established federal; state and local regulations'and . protocols. If structures containing ACM are to lie demolished;•removal of ACM must meet.all pertinent regulations: .. . The presence or potential presence of ACM should be identified irl the Phase I assessment .The districts then assume all responsibility for.complying with statutes and I. regulations:regarding ACM: School districts maybe required to produce-any _ documentation or cerrtfication required under releirantstiit tee and regulafions;•if ues .dns.arise concernin the handling of ACM. School district-must be corn liant With. all relevant hazardous waste statutes'a nd:reeg4ztion&.: If a school district intends to utilize a structure containing ACM and:manage the ' ACM in place, they should proceed in a manner consistent with all applicable federal, . state'and local regulations for the management of ACM: :School.districts electing to manage. rather than'remove'ACM.shall assume all liability and responsibility for r -mans in the sites" ursuant to all Opp licabie federal state and local ulations: -managing p ., '. ro .. , 5-0* LEAD-BASED PAINT Residential and/or commerc.W'structutes constructed before 1.978 may contain ' lead-based paint on internal and external surfaces:-.Redevelopment of.these properties for schools generally involves.the.demolition of these structures although; in some cases structures.are.re6ovated and incorporated into.the design:and.construction of-. ' " . 7 2341 'new schools. If lead-based paint is idenfified 1i i-the Phase-I Rssessrrient, school:districfis,: shall either.mfi ate or:mana a �n place pursuant to the established federal;-state and g 9. local-regulations and protocols::Upon:corinpletian of all rriifigation andlor management :. ..: `activities, a-description of these'.ai"Uss-should be included in the-PEA.or.PEA Addendum;along with.6611. ampling data: : . The mitigation and management bf lead-based paint is currently regulated•bY several federal;.state and local:agencies:. (See Apperidk'A for a surpmary pf relevant ' statutory and regulatory requirements), tf•mi6gation and management"activities'are . erCormed in accordance with.the established.protocols; health and safe :concems P tY. . : : . should be addressed,witri tfie exception•of the potentials presence of-residua[lead _ .._. :.. corttamination.tii:soil: .it rs.DTSCs intention:not to duplicate lead safetyregulations:or other r lato t y:a• envy oversight responsibHides:,..- DTSCs r WIS to corrfirrn that.no: ry. .9. residua[-lead.soil-contamination remains that iiiay pose a:threat to human health and the emrircnment. In the Phase,I Assessment, a survey of lwildings for Wad as paint should be reported. The survey should indude the age of.the' structure, and a:-visual inspection for evidence of sloughing of paint chips along high activity ai�as such as door frames; windows; stairs,walls;.and drainage ditches. Chemical analysis of dust and paint chip samples may be incuded. as well as XRF-data from the painted surfaces, tSee.Sec�tiion- 5.4 for discussion pf analyses); Documentation of the Lead survey should be consistent with-e)fisting fedoa[,'state and local• regulations for the management.and.-mltigation of. - lead-based paint-Any histotical soil data should be sub ri tted in the Phase t . •- :` Assessment � : - - - - - - --- : .. .- - .. . - . .: ' a structure`is to be renovated and incorporated.in.the design and.consfivcEion of a new:scFicol, lead-based paint impacted.surfaces should either.tie.removed.or , _ . managed in place, pursuantto-foolpm ,,*sUte"and iocal-regulatioris and; if applicable; =- -approved by the appropriate n gulatory agertaes School districts electing•-to manage . in.place, rather than the remove the lead-used paint; assume,all.liabilifjr.and responsibil'rty:for mariagingthe.buildings:pursuant to all.applicable federal,.state and [ocai:.ngulations: . DTSC may.provide a limited further action /alter to ODE.-after the Phase t or PEA . identification of lead-based pant on buildings (see Section 3.0), bTSC final.approval will.not be issued untfl aftersoil'data have been-evaluated and any necessary mitigation, and/or remediatioh has.been:completed: :Lead concentrations in•the soil will be evaluated using'the DTSC Lead Spread Model (Version 7)and the protocols outlined in '. B-73 the PEA Guidance Manual;to deterinirie:if fiirtlier action is necessary(see:Sectton 6 0) Further action:may include further investigation:andlor a response action:;. ,.. . ' If lead-based aint ls'Identified in aatruc ure based on.laboratory enalyses'or N .... XRF (see.Secfion 5.4), or,its preseTice a suspected,used on tfie.:age of the siiuciure school-districts should.praceed .with'oils of the soil.sampling-options descn`bed below.in ' Sections 5.1 and 5.2:'.If a district submits arc fable XRF data'in the Phase I-from eP building surfaces demonstrating that lead-based paint isnot present on,any part;of the: .building, soil sampling wiq not be required.,A'no action letter!-Will 6e issued as tfie_part. of the Phase I analysis, tf rio'other sources of.contarinination have Wen idae'06 d: The.folloM i sod sampling atrate .ies.have beep.developed to'assist school districts-in-characterizing rthe sties.: Subm'ftW:;A a u►orkplan ji optional:and In general should not-.be necessary if one-io`of the WOstrategies.is.foil... -=.W(jrkpwns are::` recommeded-for sites with deviations from these sfrategies,or v&h.other potentlat corrtafnination.` 5:1 Soii Sari y wet; Prey®motitiori or Renovation of Burldiiias If lead-based paint has been identified.in the Phase I.Assessmer it surface soil '.-�. should be characterized surrouriding*structures where.lead-based paint is known or, suspected to- present These'soit samples should-be collected from exposed soil areas around the dripl'ine.of the stnictctres and near doors or windows prior to"....... : dernol'ttion ofthe.budings to:determine whetherthere lies tieeh a release of .lead to the.: sod.=The intent-of the soil sampling is to.confumil whether his bn*cal weathering : contributed to the'release' of lead into the environment Sampling frequency will.vary depending on the slze oftthd-site,`.type and number.: of structures.and conditions found.-The assessrrment of residential and odnunerdal properties vinll require the collection of samples.. tf the land ties been uniformly residential or commercial without otheridentified contamination in the Phase.1 - Assessment, a focused sampling scheme; outlined in Table 1 should be used +o assess potential lead impacts on soil,'.The following table outlifies the minimal.sampling ' approach_for sampling edher pre-demolition properties or properties with.bu7dings scheduled for renovafion. asb4e7-23-0 3d-6.1.dOC. B-74 7 Table 1=. '..':. F ®queucy ter.PreDenliiOr. ReSugt -Soil-Stp W.otOited Su dig an ro ::. Structure . 11 in"tmurn sampling frequency Single family home. Four discrete samples-per home uadraptex residences Six discrete sam les er buildtn Duplexltriplexlq P P g. artriient buildin or commercial t�Ainimurh Aidfsamples per buildin or ' AP o .-. P . g . .. structure : :: one sample.•p 00 sq:teat of building - " - surface area,whipheiVer is.greater` Mixed residential land use Consult with DTSC SurFade soil samples{0 to 6 inches,inclusive) shouid..be collected from around the`perirneter of the structure, adjacent to areas with the highest,l.'ikelihood of lead deposits(under windows; doors,porches,:fences and stairs,`dralnage'areas�. :If concrete or asphalt borders the' structure, samples should be collected from the nearest unpaved.areas, including unpaved drainage areas where the run off from the paved- `='' areas may collect. The collection of samples from underneath existing paved areas may not be.required depending upon ttie h'�story.of the propedy..lf paverrterrt has been _ . removed;soil samprng in these areas should.be conducted:Soil samples should be,- collected before removal of the tiuildings,.prio�to any grading acti os;:removal of- foundafions:or stabs, or moveritent of soils on the s'lte. Subsequent grading-acivifies, _ may:affect.the abilityto_collect representative samptes, and impacted areas may be: spread, tnaeasing the-lateral extent-of coritarrmination: If lead contamination is-identified in the soft surrounding the building,additional : step out borings-may be required on the property fo determine lateral extent of ,. contamination:-*Initlal.analyses_need.only be.piftrined on•surface sat samples.DTSC. may require additional sampling depending on the initial sod sampl'utg iesults. The DTSC project manager should be consulted to determine whether the collection of subsurface samples is.necessary. The:soil data`should ba presented in a PEA,`as described in Section 6.0,-and•• - either.compared�to the screening watue.derived from DTSC Lead.•Spread model ersron:7)-orevaluated-usin -the:model: If DTSC.determinesthatsoil-remediationis N, s warcarrted;'a removal or remedialbequrA4 ed.: 7-23--01 B-75 5.2 Soil Sampling: Post Demohfion and D®brts Removal School.dlstricts may elect.to"prooeed.with controlled demolition of structures on properties:where the presence or suspected.presence of.lead-based paint:on buildngs -has been identified iri,a.Phase' {Assessments prior to'obtaining soil samples..The` ' demolition ofthe buildings and the.subsequent removal of the debris Arid associated soil may becompleted.before soil sampling:"Soll sampling should be conducted before fhe site is graded for constriction purposes. 'Surface soil samples(0-6"� should be :collected in the.disturbed: potential source area"around.:each former structure . if the .footprint of the budding is s411.discemabie;the soil samples should.be taken from around the footprint. if the.building footprint is not discernable,the soli samples`should be taken randomly for the disturbed area, A minimum.a four samples should be collected per buiid'mg.. In addition-two:�surFace soil samples.should.also be:collected;attha — -nearest extent of soil that has not been disturbed during the removal bf the�buiiding debris..This option will be"applied to.all structures {mown or suspected to have.lead- based paint;.and%ill.inciude all surrounding soil, irrespecbve of.Aether paving was or is present ..Table.2 outlines the appropriate soil sampling frequency: This strategy may also"be applied.to prop ,rtUes.where buildings and structures have.already been demolished and:removed prior to the Phase t.Assessment in instances where demolition has occurred, foundatlohe removed'and soil graded or disturbed, more extensive"soli.sampling.may be required. This may include both surface and subsurface sampling and.a:grid of samplin67locations across the site.. - . DTSC should:be.consulted for development of a worWan prior to-conducting soil sampring in these instances. All sampling results should be reported in a PEA. . . - .. . -Table 2 - Suggested Soil Sampling Frequency for Past-Demoiltimn and Debris Remo I Structure MiniMum-tampling fre uen" Sin Ole family home Four discrete samples per home iDu lexltri lex/ uadra lex Six discrete samples Per buildin Apartment . .AP . building _ ..or commercial Minimum samples per budding or one sample per 4000 sq.feet of.building surface area,wtiichever is 9r r Additional sampling areas: undisturbed .... I Minimum of.two samples per building and Srird areas --"- u 7.2341 -. B-76" if.lead contamination is.identified in the soil,additional step out borings may be required on the.property to detemune.lateral extent of m contamafion :lnrhai analyses. �... need.only:be performed on'sucface soil_samples::DTSC may require additional'sarnpling dspending.onthe iri7tW'.soil sampling resuits::.The DTSCprojecfmanager.should be u •of.subsurface sam les Js`necessa ` , . consutted-to.determ�ne whether the co ec�on p ry. :Soa sanipiirig data w7t tie:submitted in a PEA;as descn'tied in Section fi.0. -This data should be iompared with-the lead level discussed in Section b.1.:This option call , only:be used when lead based paint is the onlyidentfied concern on a property: 5.3 - Ahalvtical (Methods-for Lead : -Table 3 Analytical 1Vlettiods.for'.Lead ' Lead On-site analysis -Method 6200 (CRC' Lead-Laboratory Analyses EPA Methods'601OB,.6020, 7420. 7421 a for lead.on �ai d surface'. and soil ma e , On-srte field analyses a p me . y b conducted • using:fietd.portable.X-Ray-.Fluorescence(XRF) instrumeirtatlon: ifXRF..is#o be _ employed in a site investigation; refer to the DISC Sfaiidard Opei-afing,ProcedUre SOP for Metals DeterWnation in Soil by Nlon.702)CRF.:The following restrictions ' should also be'considered if the XRF is being usw for site assessments. a- Readin6s must not be taken'-di: . - off the soil.' AU sod sam Ales must be prepared.by screening:(or.-sieving)to remove:extraneous objects::The screen `. mesh should approach 25 mesh if the-soil t6tirie will allow L.The samples must be homogenized and pleced.into a sample cup or plasfic bag`suitable.to the insfivment. b) The instrument must be calibrated per manufacturer's instructions for.soil samples acid a standard soil sample containing lead concentration near the** _. screening.level of 255 ader milli rams of de kilo m of soil. m 9 . :- P. : . ra 9. .: l 99) should be . measured and documerited: =: 4- - W c hen.XRF indicates all sam les are below 200 m. _ . . � . P . .. 91k9:.the highest reading - sample uld b shoe analyzed'by standard.bborathry:analysis.(see Table 21:: When u• . 7 Z341 1 B-77 = one or more XRF results exceed-200 mglkg:then-20% of the•samples (buff not -- lesstiian 2)_•should be-analyzed by.standard laboratory.analysis iriciudingIhe -: sample with the highest XRl=reading. •.::.' : ' l _ -5 4 Quality Quality control -(QC) procedureis p' ebffied in SW-846 should.be fo.Ilowed.,•A matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate on.one•soil sample per hatch of samples should:tie' performed_to demonstrate that the targeted•contaminants c an•be recovered frnm the. Sol 'Mvestigated.TThe data should be definitive in order for risk`and analytical.dtfficultiies to be properly evaluated.The laboratory'data package'shotrld include a-turnmary:of the .giri*control saniple'results: blanks,mabvc'spiWmatrix spike duplicate,surrogate_.• recaveries,.laboratoiy cbntrof sampies, etc.;as specified:by the method. The laboratory should provide•a narrative stating whether the.QC W6a .-Met'and i"rsting any:_ f discrepancies: The data should be pual'rfied in accordance frith the National Functional -Guidelines {EPA 540R 94-012-and -013) or most recent EPA guidance (EPA t:A/G-8� . be released): = r` 6.q PRELIMINARY ENDANGERMENT ASSESSMENT- ! .. fiat Interpretation of Lead Data For the initial screening for iead.conce* htrations on a proposed.school site, the highest detected toncentrafiQn of lead should be compared to the screening value of 255(rriglkg_or ppm)derived from the DTSC Lead Spread 7 wofthe'et.-This screening g value,which corresponds to the 99�' percentile, was determined assuming exposures to chr�drer and based on a threshold blood lead concentration of 10 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood (uWdl),which is in accordance•with.Centers for-Disease Confroi CDC . The model input for air is based on regional and statewide air concentrations of r . lead, and.water is based an action.level:of 16 ugli::The homegrown produce pathway is not considered a potential exposure•pathway for the school sites: .This screening value f _ is applicable for the development of former residential or uncontaminated commercial. properties into schools where lead,from lead-based paint, is the o0y potential contaminanton the iiroperty. -For properties with values of lead above 255 rn , the :concentrations should be evaluated•using the most current version'of DTSC Lead -: . Spread•and presented in the PEA,' 'screening:numb®r is dercved tiased'on particularconsider"ons_ for :. proposedmnd wdstirig schoot'proper4es'and is not necessarily relevant or . :appropriate for other Voes of site screening applications.This'screening vatue-is —� 2sb4=d-&1.doc 7-23-01 B-78 subject to change and.revision wtien"the:DTSC lead Spread Model is.updated or.other information is`made available.:This value is reserited as.a scree indicator prose . ng Y . acid should-not be construed as.a required remedial goai. .ff so�:remediation for lead is required;the property and remedial:goa!vulU be:.evaluated and approved by.DTSC .Tl o DTSC Lea d.S read.Model is.avaable on'.the infiemet atiiuvwii.dtsc:ca: ov. 6.2 PEA Document ,A PEA`must be*completed-and.submitted to DISC for approve:th format and merit shalt follow the PEA Guidance Manuai;,induding:amendments,vvith:the :aforementioned analyses and documentation incorporated into the :report:: Anj� additional.actions,such.as-addrtionef-site . or soil removal action,which -Have.been.identified in'fihe PEA,"must fdlto*DTSC procedures. Ttie.•PEA may include the Phase 1 assessment for the background and historical. portion of the document, along with.the jusfification for.selection of sampling locations, a map of theaocations, and the resutts'of the soil san�ples..:.The quality of the data:should be'documented to give assurance•thatthe data is valid and appropriate for use:` .in: addition it should include-all lead_abatenierif certlfication inforination. lead data will.'be ' evaluated for potential.health risks by comparison to the screening value in Section 6.9, k' or if above this.valde, by.use of the Lead Spread Model.(l/ersicn 7): B-79 APPENDIX A tatutes and Re ulati®ns .. f®r Asbestos C®ntaining etereals.MCM} and L®ad-l8ased PAM The following are summanes.of pertinent reguiabons.and statutes,.' .: concerning ACM:and lead=based paint mifigation*The list is'not-necessarily inclusive of all federal,state, or iocal requirements. ASBESTOS rFederal.Reguiatlons Asbestos St9ndard1or the Construction Industry: 29 CFR Part 1926.19 01. Asbestos Standard. 29 CFR Part 1910.1001.. Res irat6ry Protection.Standard. 29 CFR Part 1910.134. ' California Regulations' .. ' .. CaUOSHA Asbestos.Standard. ride 8, California Code of Regulations,Article 4. . . Section 1529: CaUOSHA Asbestos Standard: Trde'B, Califomia.Code of Regulations;Article. 110. Section 5208.: CaUOSHA. Trtie-8, Callfomla Code'of Regulations,Article 2.5, Section.341.6 et seq. CaVOSHA lnjury and illness Prevention Program Standard:-Tree 8,Sections 1509 and,3203. -. Owner Requirements. Business'and-Professional-Cade, Division 3. Chapter 9,. Article 1;1;Section.7180 et seq. _ ' Hazardous Substance Remeva( Criteria. Health.and Safety.Code Section :.25914.1.3. Asbestos No Act.' Health and Saf.. � Code Section:25915 of.se Real Estate Disclosure. Health and Safety Code Section 25359.7 . . . . wb-tad-Appen&A.doc 071M/014:27 PM B-80 Building:Ovuners Responsibiffies:. Califomta Labor Code Section fib01.9. Cal'rfomia:Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Eiiforcamant Act �1986 (Proposition. Building Demolition. Heatth'and Safety Code•Section�19827AIP.: i LEAD-BASED PAINT Lead-Safe Schools Protection Act of.1992.� California:Education Code..Sections 32240-32234:•'* .Accreditation, Celfificatiok and Work' cis 16t Lead=Based Paint.and Lead - - Hazards.':Titre 17, Califomia.Code:of Regulatioc s, Section 35001, et seq:;...'== IL CaUOSHA Lead in Construction Standard: T'rtie 8;.Cat`rfomia Code of Regulations, Seo n*:15M1. .. . : :. ' Federal Lead Contaminabon Control'Acl of i 988.- Tdle.42, United States Code. Sectib ' 300j-21: . s CAVOSHA Injury and Illness Prevention Program Standard. Title 8, California . . Code.of Regulations, Sections•1509 and 3203: •, Cal/OSHA Hazard Communication Standard::T" le 8;:Califomia Code of.. Regulations,-Section 5194: Federal.To)ic Control Act. SCA of 1976.Trde:15 •United States Code, Section 2fi07 et seq. For.aiftffonal Inform" tion..or text of taws and regu/aifons go to: : .www.chiidi sad:com = www.dir-.ca.com. www.eoa:aovAead :. asb•1esd-Appenft A.&c •, 07&V614-."PM B-81 ivu;=ih�1 aa�c� V��ater Quality lanagernent Page 2 of 41 : health and water_.quality, and areas that are .likely.Ao have �- elevated concentrations of lead in soil focusin on hove g these issues relate to-site.assessments for*property transfer. It also. rovides .guidance on approaches that.should be considered in evaluating .the public:health"and water quality. significance of soil lead levels as part of'prope : site 9 rty assessments: .INTRODUCTION The key issue driving site assessment associated with the . . transfer of property is.the potential for properties' having' been contaminated by chemicals that-could be hazardous to public.health or the environment, or detrimental .to groundwater quality. Recent advances in the :understanding of the public health significance of lead for children .have increased the attention 9 .iven'to soil-lead residues in properly conducted_ -property site assessments. 'It has been. found that soils in many urban areas contain lead in concentrations.that'are being judged by some regulatory agencies,to represent significant threats. to the :health of children-who play in the soils. Soil-lead residues are also _ becoming a focus of regulatory programs for .non-point: source runoff to surface waters as contributing. to exce 'dances of water uali q ty standards. Lenders are becoming concerned about-the. potential costs-of re mediating lead=contaminated soils since the costs can significantly diminish the value of the. property.: Representatives of the Bank of America, for example, have labeled soil-lead residues "the due diligence issue .for the �. 1990's" (Forslund and Henry' :1991). : This paper reviews the significance of soil-lead residues in affecting public health, and surface and groundwater quality as it relates to property transfer site assessments. . B=82 http./fwww.gfredlee.com/lead.htm 3/11/2 0 2 and Water Quality Management Page 3 of 41 PUBLIC HEALTH SIGNIFICANCE OF LEAD The:US Department of Health and Human Services Public rvice S DHHS ublished a "T Health Se (U ) p "Toxicological. Profile .for.Lead," that describes modes:and:potential:impacts-of e exposure to lead US DHHS" 1991 . people's.. P ( . ) ..Lead has been. -known to be hazardous:to people_ for thousands of years;. some have conjectured-that lead olsonin from win . . . ] . P 9C a .. i ; contaminated by. lead from wine containers) contributed to - the fall of the Roman Empire. Lead. poisoning in adults_'due to workplace exposure has been recognized -for many years - as have the:hazards of toxici 'ty.:of.lead �n paint,:to children: It'has.not been..until recent years, however, th it-the' :particular potential significance of lead in soil to. the health �. of'children has become better understood and acknowledged. The US Public Health,Service (US PHS) Centers for. Disease Control stated (CDC, 1991)1 Lead polsoning.remains the most common and societally devastaing environmental diseases.of young children," They pointed out that:the neurobehavior effects of lead can be permanent and that blood-lead concentrations of 10-g/dL: deliter (100milliers) nyoung children(micrograms per may result in lowered intelligence and other.:developmental consequences. The CDC (1991) described its current understanding of.the general significance of ranges of blood-lead concentrations in children as follows: Significance of �.ead Levels in Chldren's ��ood , - (CDC11991) .: httpo//www.gfredlee.com/lead.htm B-s3 3/11 200 1 / e ill acid Water Quality Management Page 5 of 41 that harm occurs in some children associated with blood- h lifornia D artrrient of lead levels below 10 g/dL. The Ca ep Health Services (DHS) has established 5 g/dL.as an acce table blood-lead level for children. In a. major stud P . 7. . . Y being conducted. at this time, OHS has.found that'670/o`of: C the 544 children studied in Oakland CA had blood-lead . . . levels 10 g/dL,• .32%0 of the 109 children studied in Los An etes CA and 14% of the 382 children.studied in 9 , Sacramento, CA had blood-lead levels 10:d/dL (DHSS 1991). Those study o ulations:were not designed.to -be PP "representative of the cities overall, but rather of populations most.likely receiving elevated.-lead exposure Similar results are being found*for chlldren:in other urban: areas in the US-and in other countries. Rachel s Hazardous Waste News cited US Department of Health and Human Services statistics as showing that 88% of American children 5 years old or younger have blood-lead levels of 10 g/dL (RHWN, 1990). Such findings are causing widespread concern among public health officials, and considerable attention is being given to this issue in the popu ar press (e.g., Newsweek, Waldman, 1991;. The Washington Post, Young, 1990). The national concern -.about this. problem prompted the development of..a national organization (Alliance to .End Childhood Lead Poisoning), .headquartered in Washington, D.C. specifically focused on .issues of lead .and. children's health. TheAliance has published layperson-oriented public information booklets (AECLP, 1987). It also organized. "The First Comprehensive National Conference'on Preventing. Childhood :Lead: Poisoning" in October .1991 and published . proceedings of that'conference (AECLP; 1991). Other public- �� interest.groups are also focusing attention on the environmental lead-issue (e.g.,..Environmental Research Foundation `(RHWN, 1990, 1991, 1992); US Consumer 8-84 http://www.gfredlee.com/lead.htm 3/112002 _ _ II� y�pry 4 L u LL-�h�l� !tl� Water Quality Management Page b of 41. Product Safety Commission (US CPSC, .1989, 1990); .Citizen's. Clearinghouse for.:Hazardous Wastes (Lester, 1992); National. Environment Journal (Anonymou§, 1992a)). In the summer of 1991, the US EPA specified the.maximum contaminant level goal for lead.in'drinking water to;be �. zero : :and a proposed..national.primary:drinking water_ . standard maximum contaminant level ( ) for lea MCL d of . 0.005 mg Pb/L" (US EPA, '1991b,c). for the protection of children's health;' . MCL represents a '10-fold reduction in the MCL:-for lead. The establishment of.the new MCL and: the-associated. monitoring for compliance with that standard I causin wides- read concern among-water- utilities Free 9 P 9 ( Y. 1992). This concern arises from the fact that drinking water standards are.applicable.to water as drawn from the consumer's tap, and that one source of lead in drinking water is household plumbing including lead-containing solder (Murrell, 1991). While.-the focus of much of the public health concern about lead .is children, there is. also concern about the exposure of adults to lead. Allison.(1992) reported in the Harvard Health. Letter, „Lead is stored in the bones and may be released by osteoporosis or events such,as pregnancy or A dat%on, and . that lead freed'from bone can target red blood cells, the central nervous system, the kidneys, and a fetus. The significance of lead.has become recognized as . extremely important in children's :health and welfare. It also ! appears. quite..possible that what.are ,considered .today to be . -f "acceptable" levels of lead in children's blood will be found in the future to have adverse-impacts as well. SOIL-LEAD RESIDUES AS A SOURCE OF LEAD IN PEOPLE , . http://www.gfredlee.com/lead.htm Bss 3/11/2-001 c ilis and Water Quality Management Page 9 of 41 helps explain the variable .blood-lead levels in.individuals exposed to the sari e.soil-lead concentrations..- While Davis.eta/. (1992) discussed the solubilizabon of.lead in the digestive.system,Chaney -et ak (1988)*noted that:part. of the lead that is dissolved in the stomach adsorbs onto solid fractions of the ingested. material. residues­(e:g., food, soil further.-on in the di estive stem -in the small. inte • . ) . . 9 . system- . , store. This sorption alters the bioavailability of the lead for absorption. into.the bloodstream. The "Lead in Soil Task Force' of the Society for Environmental Geochemistry and Health'(SEGH) has been worlds for a number'' fears to establish . Wdelines for 9 . Y.. . 9 lead residues.in soil for the protection of children's=health. SEGH has published a number of monographs containing collections of papers devoted�to various aspects of this topic (Davies and Wixson, 1988; SEGH, 1991). Davies and Wixson (1986, 1988), Wixson (1988, 1989, 1991), and Wixson and . Davies (1991) have been.particularly active in developing information pertinent to guidelines.for soil-lead residues. Wixson and Davies (1991) pointed out that.to propose-a sin.9 le=value.0 upper concentration limit,or uideline for lead pP 9 .that would protect young children was unrealistic owing to uncertainties.about What constitutes a ..safe blood-'lead level;.the variability of exposure to myriad forms/sources of lead in.various soils and dusts, and the differences in bioavailability-among forms of lead in, soil. They offered a mathematical representation (model) for-deriving a target soil/dust.lead "guideline" shown in Figure.1 that . sv: incorporates. a number of these factors: However; one of the major factors in the model is the relationship between the . soil-lead concentration and the blood-lead level of the exposed population, represented by "." That is a relationship -- that must be defined on a highly site-specific basis because of the many factors noted above and identified by Wi on B-86 httDa//www.afredlee.com/lead.htm 3/11/2002 Hs and Water Quality Management Page 10 of 41 and Davies"known 'to influence. it and that.are not.sufficiently well-understood to be quantified. Thus while the model. presented by Wixson and Davies_.(1991) .is. an important step in defining the parameters that need to. be considered, the reliability of the guidelines generated by it depends on. the reliability of*the values selected for the variables..included in it.. At-this time, insufficient information is available-to enable this model to be widely.used. A SEGH conference:will be held in early•August 1992 devoted:to lead :and other chemical contaminants in soils (SEGH, 1992);:the proceedings of that.conference should provide additional -: information on -the current state of;knowledge.:on:the public %! health implications of lead residues-in soils. The US EPA (1991a) has developed a strategy for reducing lead exposures for the protection of public health. The strategy recognizes the potential significance of lead residues in urban soil and also that comparatively little is known about its actual public health significance. Studies are P 9 reportedly under-way in Boston, Baltimore, and Cincinnati to develop needed information. APPROACHES TO REGULATION OF SOIL-LEAD- RESIDUES The California Code of Regulations .(CCR, :1990).indicated that background.soil-lead in-the.western:US is•'about 18 mg/kg (dry wt.) (AII soil-lead concentrations reported in .this are on a dry-weight:basis. According-paper : ) g to Longest (1991), Currently, the US EPA recommends.a soil.cleanup-level of 500 - 1000 ppm.[mg Pb/kg soil] total lead for:Superfund sites which are characterized as residenda/property. .The object/ve of the Super fund guidance is to develop a c%anup level for lead in soil which would reduce children's blood lead levels to below 10 g/dL at that specific Superfund§ite. " htt www° fredlee-com lead.htm 8�87 ,C)2 A i�c"ifis and Water Quality Management Page 11 of 41 On the .other hand, California Department.of.Health Services.. (DHS) has established that.for. residential areas, the . concentration of lead. in'soils can be no greater than 174. mg- Pbft' (1)HS, 1989; Sedman 1989; Reynolds et al.;'..1990; . ..Hadley,Hadle and Sedman, 1990).- The.DHS value was estimated_ , . . based .on the assumption that children consume�100 mg soil/day, to be a level that would notecause the blood-lead level of exposed children'to be greater..than 5 : dL: Soil-lead limits-for (West) Germany and the'European Economic. Community (EEC). have been reported to be 100,mg .Pb/kg . soil, and for the United IGngdom,.450,mg 'Pb/kg soil.'Those values are more in .line with the California DHS. limitation than those of the US EPA. The California DHS has determined.that a "safe" soil-lead level for adult exposure is 3700 mg Pb/kg soil..The difference between the "safe".exposure levels for adults and children reflects the comparatively greater absorption of lead through theAntestinal tract of children. The difference in absorption appears to be related to'differences in the pP . metabolism of calcium; children absorb a greater percentage Of their dietary calcium and lead than.do adults .(Weis and: LaVelle,'1991). Even though the California DHS established 3700 -mg.Pb/kg as a "safe" level for adult exposure, it. requires that soil-lead residues at state superfund sites be clean-up.to '950 mg Pb%kg soil for commercial. and industrial (i.e. non-residential) reuse of the property. DHS- also . requires that areas containing soil-lead >174 mg Pb/kg be covered with a low=lead .soil veneer: '1 to 2-ft thick and that a deed/use restriction be placed on the property to preclude use of the property for residential development or other purposes that would bring children in contact with.the soil. The 950 mg Pb/kg limitation was:instituted not because of ` -' intrinsic hazards but because of the DHS's arbitrary. B-88 http.//www.gfredlee.com/lead.htm .�/11/2Q� f-h"ibis and Water Quality Management gage 1z of ql ■ designation of materials containing greater. than 1000. mg Pb/kg as "hazardous. waste" (CCR, 1990). . Having.dual soil-lead .standards for*state.superfund site clean-up in California (i.e:, 174 mg/kg for residential areas: and 950 mg/kg for commercial/industrial areas).is leading. to problems in re mediation and redevelopment of:-superfund .sites: As.discussed by .Lee and ]ones (1991b,c), responsible parties for superfund sites may make decisions to only remediate those parts of the--site that contain greater than . m Pb k to-meet the. 950 m k level (rather `.950 g / g,. - _g/ g ( er than to 174 mg/kg) in order to.save-:clean=up costs. (Typical.costs to - to remediate i. ., remove soils thatcontain 950 mg Pb/kg "- C� e achieve the 174 mg/kg residential standard are:on the order of $500,000/acnEA of soil .removed.) However, with the considerable pressure for inner city superfund sites to be redeveloped for residential purposes, e.g., for low-income housing, the dual standard can lead to. situations in which areas .meeting residential standards for lead are adjacent to : and .not isolated from -areas containing lead concentrations as high as 950 mg/kg. Since.deed restrictions associated with the commercial/industrial.clean-up.levels are implemented by municipalities, and since the lead that is present in the-soils will represent-a potential source of.lead exposure for as' long as it remains there (i.e., forever), there is considerable.concern.about.the degree.of protection of the:health and welfare of children in such areas that can in . fact.be.achieved with this approach:(Lee: and, ]ones, 4 1991b,c). Figure 2 illustrates this situation. Figure 1. Lead in Soil Guidelines Target Soil/DustLead Guideline Model , (Wixson-and Davies,-.1991) CONCENTRATIONS OF LEAD. IN URBAN RESIDENTIAL SOILS B-89 httpo//www.gfredlee.com/lead.htm 3/i l/ 001 - � 6 End Water Quality Management Page 13 of 41 1 There have been numerous studies to'defne.the concentrations of"lead. in urban. residential soils. Mielke and his co-workers have conducted studies on the soil-lead concentrations in several. Minnesota.cities, Baltimore,. and New'Orleans (Mielke,. 1984, 1991; Reagan and Mielke, 1991; Mielke et al., 983, .1904, 1985- 1988, 1991).:other r investigators (see Davies and Wixson =19881 A ,._1988; Stokes, -1988; Simms, 1988; SEGH, 1991; Jayne,..1992) .have reported. that many urban-soils in residential areas. .-frequently. contain lead residues greater than 200 mg PO/Kg- So me-such soils-'have been found to contain lead in .excess of 1000 mg Pb/kg. The California DHS (1591) reported that the median household .soil-lead level associated with the.358 residences. in its Oakland CA*stud area was 880 m Pb/kg;/ the ran e Y 9 9 in concentration measured was 50 to B8,000 'mg Pb/kg: For the 343 household areas studied in Los Angeles, the median household soil-lead. level was 190 mg Pb/kg .with a range of 30 to 2000 mg Pb/kg: For the 232 household areas -studied in Sacramento, the. median .household soil-lead level was 230 mg" Pb/kg with. a range of 26 to'2700.mg Pb/kg. It'.is clear from the numerous studies that have been conducted that lead commonly occurs in .urban residential soils in concentrations above those that are considered detrimental to children's health, especially if the California'DHS value.of 174 mg Pb/kg is used as .a guideline for. the assessment. This finding, coupled with its potential public health significance for children, makes the evaluation of soil-lead residues.one of-the most important.aspects of a.property site assessment for potentially hazardous chemicals. ORIGIN OF URBAN SOIL-LEAD.. RESIDUES The.principal sources of lead residues in urban residential ' B-90 http:/fwww.gfredlee.com/lead.htM 311112. -n and Water Quality Management Page 14 of 41. 1 soils are lead.-based paint chips, alkyl-lead used as.-an' anti-, - knock agent- in. gasoline;.and .in some areas, industrial emissions. DHS (1991) reported-that -house paint containing lead is them common _cause of childhood lead-poisoning. DHS (1991) stated; . 'As lead paint deteriorates, chalks, or is.removed during . home remodeling; lead.ehters house dust and soil, which may then' be-ingested-during normal hand p. mouth ac uity. Ingestion of small amounts'of. dust contaminated... with lead paint can result in adverse health effects. Ingestion of only a few.thumbnail'size chips of leadp-aint can cause severe: lead . .. po1soning, DHS (1991 :re ooted that some of'the household paint chips it-has sampled have been found to contain more than 300,000 mg Pb/kg. This demonstrates that lead-based paint is an extremely potent source of lead. Lead that becomes `} associated with soils remains there indefinitely, although as noted below,, soll erosion associated 'With stormwater. runoff' can.result in some:transport-of lead from,properties: t j While lead-based-paint has been recognized as a potentially significant source of lead in: urban soils, increasing recognition is being given to alkyl-lead-derived lead .residues as an. important.source. In..the 1960's and.ear1�. 1970's numerous studies Were conducted on.the fate,°dispersion, and ersistence of. lead from al l-lead used in gasoline. . p kY gasoline. . ,(e.g.,-Cannon 'and .Bowles" 1962;' US PHS, '1965; Atkins and 'Kruger, 19688 Singer and-Hanson, 1969; Dairies .eta/. 1970;-Lagerwerl=f and Specht, 1970; Motto et al. 1970; Page and Ganje, 1970; Page et a1. 1971),Jn the. 1950's and 1960's, a. gallon of:gasoline contained about 2 'g of lead; some. gasoline..formulations contained more than 4 g Pb/gal. During the me of intensive use of alkyl-lead in gasoline, significant concentrations of lead were found in. the aim Lead B-91 http://www.gfredlee.com/lead.htm 3 11120�: yr PG and Water Quality Management Page 15 of 41 1 was emitted as a particulate aerosol from the automobile exhaust, .it was found that-the concentrations of lead in -air decreased _exponentially with -distance from the roaday; with. most of the lead being deposited in the-soil within e few hundred meters of the roadway.. Concentrations of dead hi frequently found to exceed _ in..sods near_ ,highways were- q .. y - - . several hundred mg Pb/kg. Some of the lead emitted from ' autos was carried for Ion distances in the.0 upper. PP . atmosphere. The pioneering work of Patterson and his co-workers. on . environmental pollution by lead-showed that atmospheric lead derived from alkyl-lead sources was accumulating in the :Greenland snow pack and in-the.dee ocean sediments (Patterson, 1965; Murozumi et al., 1965). In the early. 1960's Patterson repeatedly tried to gain attention.for the fact that lead was accumulating in human tissue in much higher amounts than had .been occurring prior to -- widespread use of lead. .He reported that the concentrations of lead in humans in the 1960's was ab_ot u 100 times what it was projected to have been before the-industrial.revolution (Patterson, 1965). From the studies conducted on .this topic, - anti knock agent in it is clear that the use.of alkyl lead as an age._t . gasoline has contributed to the excessive levels of lead in soils of urban areas. While through re ulatory action the use of alkyl-lea 9 d as an anti-knock agent in .gasoline has ,been greatly reduced, eliminated in some areas, andmill be eliminated in all areas of the US in the near future, .its use has left appreciable lead i residues in surf ce soils near highways especially in urban areas;: these residues still represent a threat to children's health. This issue has riot been, and is- not now being, adequately addressed by.regulatory agencies. Some urban soils contain greater concentrations of lead.than dead- _ contaminated soils at Superfund sites that require B-92 httpa//www.gfredlee.com/lead.htm 3 11 201OU ,!'i d�hs and Water Qu lity Management . Page 17 of 41 of leaddical forrras that could not be distinguished by-chemical anal procedures, and recommended that �a 96-hr , : analytical P . aquatic life bioassays:be used to establish critical concentrations. of lead on a site-specific basis. The US EPA (1976) reported that the concentration of soluble lead that caused 50% mortality`of the. test organisms in 96 hours (96... hr LC50) was-typically on the order of several mg Pb/L to several hundred mg Pb/L. .The agency .recommended .that an -application factor:of 0.01 be used to convert:the acute lethal. concentration.of-soluble lead (96-hr LC50):determined_ in-an aquatic-organism bioassay for-a-particular water.to a "chronic exposure safe concentration" for that water. In revised criteria, the US EPA (19.85, 1987) recommended` that for soft water (hardness of 50 mg/L CaCO3) the maximum allowable 4-day average total lead concentration; i not to be exceeded .more than once in 3 yr, was 1.3 g Pb/L. For hard waters (hardness of. 200 mg/L CaCO3), the value r was 7.7 mg Pb/L. These are the criteria values that are being used by the. US EPA today and that have been adopted by many states.as water quality standards. 4..i .. According to the US EPA (197. 6), Kopp and Kroner (1967) reported that the mean .concentration -of total lead in 1500 samples.of stream waters-from across the US-was 23 g Pb/L.-Those measurements were made at a_ time when.there g was extensive use of lead as�an anti=knock compound in . �. gasoline. It is likely, therefore that since this use has decreased significantly in recent.years, concentrations of lead in .stream waters would also have decreased .from those repo b � Ko and Kroner. Peterson 1973 P Y Pp ( . ) reported on lead concentrations in,the water and sediments of a number of Wisconsin' lakes in the.mid-1960's. He.found that typically - the total lead concentrations in the I ke'waters were less than 1 to 2 'g Pb/L. The concentrations of. lead in surface sediments of those lakes were often on the order of 180 .mg B-93 http://www.gfredlee.com/lead.htm 3/11/20C end ��vFater Quality Management Page 18 of 41. i . Pb/kg, with the sediments some urban lakes (such.as Lake Monona :in Madison .contaiinin lead �in: excess.of:400. mg Pb/kg. Some of:the.street runoff in Madison contained more than 2000 Pb/L total lead'..As discussed. by' Lee and 9 ]ones (1991e), Pitt.and. Field (1990) reported that the median concentration of total lead in. urban stormwater runoff from across the US was 150 g Pb/L. Hodgkins-(1992) reported that'93%0.of the urban runoff samples recently collected from the City. of Sacramento, .CA had lead concentrations in excess-of the. California water quality objective (standard) for-lead (numerically equal to the US EPA criteria):; Lee and ]]ones (1991d). cited the results' of a USGS 1982 study on the American River that runs through the city,of Sacramento; the USGS data showed that the lead concentrations in the American River above the city routinely exceeded the US EPA criteria for lead. The lead concentration in the river almost doubled after it passed through. the city. There were no known wastewater inputs to that part of the river to cause the doubling of concentration; the increa Y sed.concentration of lead was caused b non-. point-sources, With...the reduction in the -use of`alkyl-lead in gasoline,, soil-lead from historical use .of alkyl-lead additives* and from other sources is becoming the dominant source of lead in stormwater runoff from urban and'commercial properties, and a potentially dominant source from industrial �= properties. It is evident, therefore, that the concentrations of lead in urban runoff and inreceiving waters across the US exceed. . the US EPA numeric criteria..:The.high concentrations in urban stormwater runoff:reflect'the high levels of-lead.in the , environment of urban areas, part of. which .is.derived from soil-lead residues. While:until recently:regulatory agencies have not addressed non-point-sources of heavy.metals such -. as urban and rural stormwater runoff, the US EPA s current B-94 http://www.gfredlee.com/lead.htm 3111/200.2 m_ -yd ils and Water Quality Management Page 20 of 41 . are being implemented cause state standards based on those criteria to si nificantl ' 'overestimate the water uali 9. Y - q ty. impacts of stormwater-associated contaminants. Concentrations of contaminants in stormwater runoff can greatly exceed the numeric water quality standardswithout. adverse impacts on beneficial uses of waters receiving the runoff. Further- information on this topic'ls provided by Lee and ]ones (1991f). It has been the.experience of the authors that'soil-lead residues, in'.stormwater runoff`would rarely.be expected to adversely affect the beneficial uses of the surface waters into which-the stormwaters enter. It is _ hoped that the US'EPA and/or the states will develop stormwater quality criteria to properly.assess the real impacts that soil-lead residues-could have on designated . beneficial uses of receiving waters.. If that is done, the actual water quality significance of soil-lead:residues would be put into proper perspective. If such criteria 'are not developed, meeting the unnecessarily and overly protective water quality criteria-and standards in receiving water could control the soil=lead residue management/remediation. For . , i now; those conducting property site assessments should alert their clients to the possibility that soil-lead residues that may be resent inpropertyrunoff ma soon-have to be Y P. . . Y . . f viewed in terms of.their role in causing exceedances of state water quality standards 1n .receiving waters. POTENTIAL LIABILITIES ASSOCIATED WITH REMEDIATION OF SOIL-LEAD At ahis time the only economica!ly.viable,method_ of rdniediabon. of lead-contaminated soils is.the removal of the soil..The soil removed is typically.taken to a landfill for = burial. If.the soil is classified as a "non-hazardous" waste (e.g., in California, if the lead concentration is below 1000 B-95 http://v4ww.gfredlee.com/lead.htm �� �� �swirpd-11s and Water quality Management Page 21 of 41. 1 . mg Pb%kg and the concentrations of feed leached in the California extraction procedureor the US EPA TCLP:are aess f, 5�'mg Pb/L):it may be.disposed.of in a. municipal solid.waste ndfill at a cost of about .$20:to: $50Jtori. ;If the soil is classified as a -'hazardous-waste" (e.g., in California,.if thee: lead .concentraon is above '1000:mg�P. g :.tt would have :. to be taken to'. RCRA "hazardous waste" landfll For "hazardous waste -designated soils .removed from SacramentorcC ., this would .cost.about.-$300/ton of..soi( removed. There.is:controversy about the appropriateness of depositing lead-coma Wing soils in municipal landfills::. :. Recently the governor of.�Louisiana file suit against the US EPA in _order to prevent the transport of:30,000 to.-4o,000 yd3 of lead-containing.,soils from Texas for deposition in a Louisiana. municipal. solid waste landfill '(Anohymous;. 1992b). While.the soil in question passed the US EPA TCLP limit of 5 mg Pb/L,.the state'of Louisiana justifiably feels that the lead could .pollute, undwater Iri.the.vicinity'of-the landfill. Industna! Economics, Inc. 1991 prepared( . ). p.. p. _.ed a report on potential human exposure from lead-in:municipal solid:waste for the Lead"Ind utWes-Association in-.Which it was claimed that lead .in municipal solid waste landfills does not : represent a.threat to:groundwater quality. However,.:a criltical review, of the information. presented in the report shows that-that conclusion is:not reliable ,or:supported by .the technical information cited as .providing the basis for that conclusion. The Industrial Economics, Inc.: (1991) .report signifcantly ;underestimated-.the typical'.concentrations ,of lead in munici` al landfill leachate: while the US-EPA 1988 p: ( ) was cited as a source of information.on .lead concentrations in municipal. landfill leachate a.critical review of that report and other information on the characteristics of landfill'.' B-96 httn--//vuww.afrp-rilpp-cnm/lp-ad.htm 3/1 /200 41s and Water Quality Management Page 22 of 41 1 leachate (e.g., Lee and ]ones,. 1991a) shows that the concentrations are frequently.much higher than those. i reported by Industrial Economics; Inc. and typically are on: the order of 0.5. mg. Pb/L. Therefore the concentrations of. i -lead in-leachate from many.municipal'landfills are at least a factor of 10 above the US EPA drinking water standard of.50 g Pb/L, and a factor,of. 100 .above the proposed- MCL of 5.9' Pb/L. While lead tends to sorb and/or precipitate .in- many soils and therefore tends to have..relativeI low mobility in groundwater systems, .therefare.some systems such as non calcareous quartz.sands. in which 'lead would'be expected to be highly:mobile. Thus lead in municipal. landfill leachate can be a significant threat to groundwater quality. Some commercial firms are- manipulating their lead-paint removal products (such as paint=stripping tape) by addition ` of sodium hydroxide or other chemicals in'order to add sufficient alkalinity so t 9hat the lead paint removed_ by the P = product will "pass" the TCLP test. "Passing" that test makes , the material eligible for..disposal in a municipal solid waste landfill rather than in a "hazardous waste"..landfill. While the. hydroxide helps. the material pass the TCLP test,. it would be 4 neutralized by.the large amount of acidity typical of f municipal .landfill leachate. Thus, the product would have . little or. no ability to.reduce the hazard of the.lead to groundwater. As discussed by Lee and ]ones (1991a) the US EPA's TCLP is not reliable for the classification.of the hazards of contaminants such as lead in soils or wastes. Materials that. "pass" that test can readily cause highly significant C;A _ groundwater pollution problems. Increasing concern is being expressed about the liability of . J responsible parties for materials placed in municipal solid ' waste landfills. As discussed by Lee and ]ones (1991g, 1992b) so-called "modern" lined, dry-tomb landfills of the type being developed today will not prevent groundwater B-97 http:Hwww,gfredlee.com/lead.htm q /2 r ' F-f..C.tlt.ls and Water Quality Management Page 23 of 41 pollution by landfill' leachate. At best such systems only postpone the occurrence of pollution. In the past, unless. the landfill-became a federal or state superfund site.,..little attention was given to pollution of groundwater.by municipal landfill leachate. However, .this situation is changing. For example, the Minnesota Pollution Control agency has indicated that those Who have placed-large amounts of lead containing materials in municipal`solid waste -landfills could ' have to remove the materials from the landfill., On. behalf of the US EPA,. Franklin Associates;.Ltd. (1989) reviewed the amounts of lead disposed of in municipal solid wastes. They concluded that-in 1986 approximately 214000 tons of lead.were disposed of.in municipal.landfills in the U.S. The principal source of that lead.was lead-acid batteries that contributed about 65% of the total lead. Consumer electronics accounted for. approximately 27%. of the lead discarded in municipal solid waste in 1986. The Franklin t Associates,, Ltd. (1989) review did not consider the amount of lead added to municipal solid waste landfills in. soils such as from street-sweepings. The significance of soil-lead residues .as a source of the approximately 0.5 mg Pb/L in municipal landfill leachate is unknown at thistime. While the pollution of groundwaters by leachate from non- superfund municipal 'landflls. (classical sanitary"landflls).is. receiving limited attention at this time, there is growing recognition that essentially all municipal solid waste'landfills are, polluting'groundwater with landfill.. leachate. Ultimately a large national' program similar in.many respects.to the superfund program will have.to be undertaken to.stop the continued pollution of groundwater by landfill'. leachate and to attempt to clean up the groundwater already polluted. a When that occurs;-those who have contributed waste to a landfill will become responsible parties to share the costs of -groundwater quality clean-up and protection. Lead wi fte �. B-98 . htte://www.afredlee.com/lead.htm 3/"11!2-.002 L. E ca his and Water Quality Management Page 24 of 41 one of the elements of concern in groundwater pollution near landfills. Those.sites from which lead in leachate is migrating through the groundwater system will likely be examined to determine whether.large amounts of lead- ' containing materials including soils-were deposited in the landfill. Those who deposited lead-containing soils and'other lead-bearing material in large amounts into those landfills E will likely be required to pay a significant part of the site. remediation costs. This is analogous to what is done today at.superfund sites. It will be important for those who advise on lead-soil clean- I up procedures to critically examine the characteristics of the municipal landfills potentially available for materials disposal ; to determine whether there is a significant potential for that landfill to pollute groundwater that could be used for , domestic purposes at any time in the future. All landfills of the type being developed today will eventually fail to , prevent leachate transport from the landfill to area strata. Landfills that are properly sited in areas not hydraulically connected to groundwater of importance to the public could 9 P . be acceptable for disposal of lead containing materials. Lee and ]ones (1991h) provided guidance on approaches that should be used to evaluate whether an existing or proposed . landfill has a high potential to represent"a significant threat to groundwater quality. From the perspective of management of soil-lead, consideration should be given. in. a landfill evaluation to whether the geological strata of the aquifer system connected with the landfill would permit lead r transport to adjacent properties that could be detrimental .to domestic water supply use of the groundwater. It is therefore concluded that the disposal of lead-containing ' soils in municipal solid waste landfills carries with it a .s_ potential for long-term liability for harm to public health and environmental quality and for financial responsibility for B-99 http://www.gfredlee.com/lead.htm 3/11 20021 _;r 1 and Water Quality Management Page 25 of 41 eventual site remediation. These liabilities should be �- considered in any site rem`ediation follow'up to a site assessment. CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions .can be drawn from this review r regarding the concerns about soil-lead residues in property transfer site assessments. As greater understanding is developed about.the Significance of lead -in children, the:blood-lead levels considered""safe"' continue to be lowered. This has caused regulators and public interest groups to focus attention on r the sources of lead that cause elevated blood-lead levels. It is likely that as additional information is gathered on the. public health significance of lead to children and adults that '- what are now considered to be acceptable blood-lead levels will be lowered further. Soil-lead residues es eciall in urban residential areas P Y ■ -represent a potentially significant threat to the public health ■ and welfare .of children. ' The California Department of Health Services has adopted 174 mg Pb/kg as on accepted "safe soil-lead. residue for residential soils. Judging by that standard,. soils in many. urban residential, commercial/industrial, and some rural areas have what would be considered to be excessive amounts of lead. The costs to remediate (remove) lead-contaminated soils can be sufficiently great to cause-significant decrease in property values. r Property site assessments should include an evaluation of B. 00 httpO.//www.gfredlee.com/lead.htm. 3/11/200 an 1 and Water Quality Management Page 26 ®f 41 concentrations of soil-lead residues and their.potential �. significance. �. * * *The US EPA's waterquality criteria 'and standards equivalent to .them .for lead are.sufficiently low, and the concentrations of lead in most urban stormwaters , sufficiently high, that the numeric standards are- frequently exceeded in waters receiving .stormwater runoff.-. The US EPA's and state regulatory agencies'. recent.efforts.to ._ control exceedances of water.'quality-standards' caused by , non-point-sources will call attention to soil-lead residues-as a source of lead in stormwater runoff. ' -,.. ' Site assessments for.industrial/commercial and .residential r properties should include an evaluation of whether.soil-lead residues could cause exceedance of.water quality standards , in receiving waters. . It is possible that the development of stormwater quality criteria and standards that more properly account for the - availability of soil-lead residues in -water and sediments_will , provide a better perspective on the actual water quality.' significance of soil-lead residues. * * The remediation of soil-lead residues typically involves removal of the soil and its deposition in a landfill. In many instances.the procedures used to fudge the hazards 1 that lead-containing materials such as soils represent to (such as. the �.public health.and the environment e US EPA s TCLP test) are unreliable. Soil-lead residues that have been judged satisfactory by those approaches, for deposition in. municipal landfills can at some locations.represent.significant threats to'groundwater quality. 1 httpo//www.gfredlee.com/lead.htm s-Iol 3.1 112u0] c IS. and Water Quality Management . Page 27 of 41 1 The disposal of.lead-contaminated soil in municipal landfills of"the type being developed today carries with it the potential for ong=term liability for, harm to public health and environmental quality and for .financial responsibility for eventual site remediation: Site-specific evaluation of potential sites for disposal of lead- 'contaminated soils should be made to determine whether the lead.could contribute significantly..to the groundwater. .. pollution potential of the landfill leachate: Lending institutions should require that property transfer site assessments should reliably determine the potential significance.of soil-lead residues as they may affect future use of the property.and its value: Further.research needs to be done to more reliably ' determine the bloavailability of lead to humans and aquatic life in order to develop more reliable site-specific criteria/standards for judging the public health and water quality significance of soil-lead residues. REFERENCES AECLP Alliance to. End 'Childhood Lead- Poisoning),:. ( .9),:"What Everyone Should Know about Lead_ Poisoning," Booklet 15.. pp., AECLP, Washington, D.C. (1987). AECLP (Alliance.to End.Childhood Lead Poisoning), ,n. ,� T First Preventing Childhood Lead Poisonin g,.. he i st Comprehensive National Conference' Final Report, AECLP, . Washington' ashin ton' D.C. (1991). Allison M. "Lead Poisonin9 - Not Just for l(ids Harvard Health Letter 17(7):6-8, May (1992). B-102 ' htt o www. fredlee.com I m 2002 p // g J ead.ht �J11/ _�.A.Z €ks and Water Quality Management Page 28 of 41 Anonymous, "Sludge Compost 'Binds' Lead in Contaminated ' Soil;" Biocycle (1991). Anonymous, Lead in the Environment, The National Environmental Journal, p. 18, January/February (1992a). Anonymous- "Government Officials Battle to Keep Dallas.Soil Out of Magnolia," Contaminated.Soil Report 1(3):.1,6, April (1992b). Atkins, P., and Kruger, P., "The Natural Removal of Lead Pollutants from a Suburban Atmosphere," Technical Report No. 98, .Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 220 pp. August (1968).. , Bolger, P, Carrington, C., Capar, S.,-and Adams, M., "Reductions in -Dietary P Lead Ex osure in the United States." ' , ICI: Proc. Symposium on Bioavailability and'Dietary Exposure of Lead, SEGH Monograph, Chemical Speciation and Bioavailability 3(3/4):31-36, December (1991), Cannon, H., and Bowles, J., "Contamination.of Vegetation by a Tetraethyl Lead," Science 137:765-766 (1962). . CCR (California Code of Regulations), Title 22,. Division 4 - Environmental. Health ' Cha ter 30 - Minimum'Standards r ' Management of Hazardous and Extremely Hazardous . ., Wastes, Article 11 - Criteria for Identification of Hazardous and Extremely Hazardous Wastes, 66693-667.47 April (1990). CDC (Centers.for Disease:Control), "Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young Children,". Statement by the Centers for Disease Control; Atlanta, 5�pp. October (1991). ti Chaney, R., and Mielke, H., "Standards for Soil Lead E B-103 http://www.gfredlee.com/lead.htm 3J11/20ruj adrlls and �fvater duality Management Page 29 of 41 Limitations in the United States," IN: :Proc.-XX Annual Conference on.Trace:Substances in Environmental.ro, ental. Health, 1 University of Missouri, Columbia,; pp 357-377 (1956). Chaney, -R.,.Sterrett, S.; and Mielke;.H., ."The Potential for Heavy Metal.Exposure from Urban Gardens and Soils;' IN: Preen, X (ed),-Proc._Symposium Heavy. Metals in. Urban : Gardens,. Univ. Dist...Columbia Extension Service, Washington, D.C. pp. 37-84,(1984). Chaney, R:, Mielke, H.,:and. Sterrett, :S., "Speciafion, Mobility and Bioavailability of Soil Lead," IN: Davies, B., and Wixson; B. (eds), Lead in Soil: Issues and Guidelines, 'Environmental Geochemistry and Health Monograph Series 4, Supplement. to Volume 9 of Environmental Geocher ist and Health; Science Reviews Limited, Northwood, U.K. pp. 105-129 (1988). .. 'Daies R. Motto H. and Chilko D. "Atmospheric Lead: Its Relationship to. Traffic Volume and Proximity to Highways;" Environ, Sci.. Technol. 4(4):31.8-322 (1970). Davies, B., "Lead: in Soils: Its Sources and Typical Concentration, IN: Davies; B. and Wixson, B. (eds), Lead in Soil: Issues and Guidelines. Environmental: Geochemistry- and Health Monograph Series 4, Supplement to Volume 9 of Environmental Geochemistry and Health, Science Reviews Limited, Northwood, U.K.- pp., 65-72.(1988): Davies B. and Wixson 6. "Lead in Soil How Clean is Clean?" IN: Proc. XX Annual Conference on Trace Substances in Environmental. Health, University of Missouri, Columbia, pp. 2337241 (1986): Davies, B., and Wixson, B..(eds), Lead in' Soil: Issues and Guidelines. Environmental Geochemistry and Health, Monograph Series 4, Supplement to Volume 9 of - B-104 http://www.gfredlee.com/lead.htm 3/11120C, and Water Quality Management Page 30 of 41 EnVironmentai GeocheM4try.and Health, Science Reviews. �. Limited, Northwood, U.K (1988). Davis,- A.:, Ruby, M., and Bergstrom, P:, "Bioavailability of Arsenic and Lead in Soils from the.Butte, Montana, Mining District," Environ..Sci. &.Technol.: 26(3):461-46B (1992). DHS.(California Department of Health Services), ern randum from DHS Toxic Substances.Control r M o Pro to-B.. Kilgore, Waste Management Engineer Site Mitigation Regarding Southern Pacific Sacramento Station October.l8 9 9 (1-989). DHS (California Department of Health Services), "Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention," Report-of DHS, Berkeley, CA;*8 , pp., June 6 (1991). Eisler, R., Lead Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review," Biological Report 85(1.14), US Dept. Fish and Wildlife Service "Laurel MD 13 ' Interior. 4 PP. (1988). Ernhart, Cr and Scarr, S..."Lead Study Challenge, (Letters), Science 255783, February-14 (1992). B., and Henry E "Lead " The Due Diligence Issue Forslund, , for the 1990 s? IN. Proc. 1991 Environmental Site . Assessments Case Studies and Strategies:.The Conference, National Ground Water Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 597-608 4 (1991). Franklin :Associates, Ltd., "Characterization of.Products Containing Lead and Cadmium in Municipal Solid Waste in the. United States, 1970 to 20.00 ' Final Report Executive, Summary, EPA/530-SW-.89-015C, US EPA Office- of Solid Waste, Washin ton, D.C. Janus 1989 . 9 rY ( ) B-los http://www.gfredlee.com/lead.htm 31.1 drlils and Water Quality .Management Page 31 of 41 Frey,, -M., Meeting the Monitoring Challenges .of-the Lead ■ and Copper Rule,' ]ourn. Am: Water Works Assn.. 84(7):12 ■ (1992). Hadley, P., and Selman, R., "A Health-Based Approach.for Sampling Shallow Soils at .Hazardous Waste Sites..Using the AA L Criterion, Environmental Health Perspectives soil contract . 84:203-207 (1990): Hodgkins, F., "Impact.of. the State..Water:Resources Control r Board's California Inland Surface Waters Plan.on.the County, and City of Sacramento," Presentation .to.the Environmental r Leadership Seminar on Water Quality,, University-Extension, University of California, Davis, May 14 (1992). Houk, V. Assistant Surgeon General and Director National Center for Environmental Health and Injury Control, CDC, Assessing Environmental Risk -- Scientificall Defensible or 9 Y Fantasy?" Presentation to Ame_ rican Chemical Society, San Francisco, CA, April 8 (1992). Industrial Economics, Inc., "Potential Human Exposures from Lead in Municipal Solid Waste,": Report.for Lead Industries Association, Inc.; New York, by Industrial Economics,: Inc., Cambridge, MA,, May 21 (1991). Jayne,, J. Profess r Department of Chemist San Y � o , P t Chemistry .Francisco State University,-San Francisco, Personal Communication to G. Fred Lee (1992). KopP J. and Kroner, R.,.`'Trace Metals in Waters of the , . United States," Federal Water. Pollution Control Administration, US Department of the Interior, Cincinnati, OH (1967). Lagerwerff, J., and Specht, A., "Contamination of Roadside.. B-106 http://r�nn w.gfredlee.com/lead.htm 3/11�20C. � fciis and Water Quality Management Page 32 of 41 Soil and Vegetation with Cadmium,.Nickel, Lead, and Zinc," Environ. Sci.. & Technol. 4(7).583 58 ( 9 0). Lee F. and Jones R. A. "Groundwater:Pollution b e , G. y Municipal Landfills: .Leachate Composition, Detection, and - Water Quality Significance Prot. National Water. Well i Association's Fifth National Outdoor Action Conference, Las. Vegas, NV, PP. 257-271, May-(1991a). Lee, G. F., and Jones,.R. A., "Evaluation :of Adequacy of Site ' Remediation fore Redevelopment: Site Assessment at Remediated; Redeveloped 'Superfund' Sites;' Proc. National Water Well Association's Site Assessments' Conference, Columbus, OH, pp. 823-837, July (1991b). Lee, G. F., and Jones, R. A., "Redevelopment of Remediated Superfund Sites: Problems with Current Approaches in Providing Long-Term Public Health Protection," Proc. American Society of Civil Engineers National Environmental Engineering 1991 Conference,.Reno, NV, July (1991c). Lee, G. F., and Jones, R.. A., Summary of current Water . Quality Issues for the American River, Sacramento, CA: :. ' Implications for Stormwater Runoff Contaminant Control Programs,". Presented at American River Conference, ' Sacramento, CA, June_(199_id). ._ Lee, G. F., and Jones,, R. A-If "Suggested. Approach for . Assessing Water Quality Impacts of Urban Stormwater Drainage," IN:' Symposium Proceedings on Urban Hydrology; American Water Resources Association Technical Publication Series TPS-91-4, AWRA, Bethesda, MD 'pp. ,139-151 .(1991e). 1 Lee, G. F., and Jones, R. A., "Comments on US EPA's November 19, 1991,Proposed Rule for. Compliance with Water Quality Standards Regulations Governing State---- B-1 07 hen.//�.®fredlee_com/lead.htm 3,/���� 1rh and Water Quality Management Page 33 of 41. Development of Numeric Water Quality Standards for Toxic Chemicals..' Submitted by G. Fred Lee & Associated, El Macero, CA, to the. US EPA, Washington, D. C., December (1991f). . .Lee, G::F., and .)ones, .R. A., Landf Ils-and Groundwater- Quality, Guest Editorial, Journ. Ground Water 29:482-466 (1991g). Lee, G. F., and Jones, R. A., "Review of Proposed Landfills:. �Quesdons That Should Be Answered,"-Report of G.:Fred Lee & Associates, EI 'Macero, CA.(1991 h). Lee, G. F., and Jones, R. A. ".Evaluation of the Public Health . and Water Quality Significance of Lead Residues in Soil: The . Q ty 9. .. Need for Better Understanding of Biogeochemistry of Leads" Presented at American.Chemical SocietyNational Meeting, 9 Geochemistry Division, March (1992a). Lee, G. F., and Jones, R. A., "Municipal Solid Waste Management in Lined, 'Dry Tomb' Landfills: A : Technologically Flawed Approach for Protection of Groundwater Quality, Report" of G. Fred Lee & Associates,. El Macero,'CA (1992b). Lester, S., Mislead Science. The Dangers of Lead,.. Everyone's Backyard, Citizen's Clearinghouse for Hazardous Wastes June 1992 Longest, H., Director, Office.of Emergency and Remedial 9 9 . Response,. US EPA, Washington, D.C., Personal Communication to.G.. Fred Lee, September 16 (1991). Mielke; H. Statement.at the.Hearing.before the..Committee on Environment and Public.Works United States Senate, 69th Congress, Second Session on S...2609, Bill to Amend the Clean Air Act with Regard to Mobile Source Emissien B-108 http:// .gfredlee.com/lead.htm 3/11 '"~, Ed ails and Water Quality Management Page 34 of 41 Control, June 22 (1984)0' ■ Mielke, H., "Lead in'Residential Soils: Background and Preliminary Results of New Orleans," 'Water, Air & Soil Pollut. 57-58:111-119 (1991). Mielke, H.,- and Heneghan, J., Selected Chemical and Physical Properties of Soils and Gut Physiological Processes ' That Influence Lead Bioavailability;:IN:- Proc. Symposium on Bioavailability and Dietary Exposure.of Lead, SEGH , Monograph, Chemical Speciation and Bioavailability 3 (3/4):129-134, December (1991). Mielke, H., Anderson, J... Berry, K., Mielke, P., Chaney; R., and Leech, M:, "Lead Concentrations in Inner-City -Soils as a Factor in the Child Lead Problem," Am.'Journ. Public Health 73(12):1366-1369 (1983). 1 Mielke, H., Blake, B., Burroughs, S., and Hassinger; N., , "Urban Lead Levels in. Minneapolis: The Case of the Hmong V Children," Environmental Res.' 34:64-76 (1984). ' Mielke, H., Burroughs, S. Wade, .R., Yarfow,.T., and Mielke, . P., "Urban Lead in Minnesota: Soil Transect Results.-of Four Cities," Journ. Minnesota Academy of Science 50:19-24 (1985.). . Mielke, H., Adams, Reagan, P.,.Mielke, P., "Soil-Dust ' L:.. Lead and Childhood Lead Exposure as a Function of City k Size and Community.Traffic Flow: The Case for Lead ' Abatement in Minnesota," IN:: Davies, B., and Wixson, B. (eds); Lead in Soil: Issues and Guidelines, Environmental l 1 . Geochemistry and Health Monograph Series 4, Supplement to Volume 9 of Environmental Geochemistry and Health, , �. Science Reviews Limited; Northwood, U.K. pp. 253-271 . (1988) B-109 http://www.gfredlee.com/lead.htm r V_�tic_ gills and Water Quallt management Page 35 of 41 Mielke, .H., Adams,.J:, Huff, S., Pepersack, J., Reagan, P., Stoppel, D., . and 'Mi`elke,. P. ., "D ust. Control. as.a' . . .Me. ans of Reducing Inner-City ChildhoodPb Exposure,"" Accepted f or. publication IN: Proc. XXV Annual Conference Trace Substances in. Environmental Health, University. of. Missouri Columbia (199.1). Motto, H., Dairies, R., Chilko, D.; and -Motto, C., "Lead in Soils and Plants: Its Relationship to ,Traffic Volume,and Proximity to Highways;' Environs-Sd., & Technol. 4(3):231 237 (1970). : Murozumi, M:, Chow, T., and Patterson, C., "-Concentrations of Common Lead in ree.G * nl n " •a d Snows,. IN._ Marine . -Geochemistry, Prop. of Symposium, University of RI Occasional Publication No. 3 University 9 of RI Kin ston, pp., 213-215 (1965). Murrell, N., "Impact of Lead and Other Metallic Solders on Water Quality," Project.Summary, EPA/600/S2-90/056, US EPA Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH., �. February Page, X. and Ganje; T., "Accumulations of Lead in Soils for w Regions of'High and Lo Motor Vehicle .Traffic Density. 9 9: . . Environ. Sci. & Technol. 4(2):140.'142 (1970). Page, A., Ganje, T... and Joshi, M., "Lead Quantities in Plants, Soil, and Air.near Some.Major Highways in Southern California," Hilgardia (Journ. of Agricultural.Science, California Agricultural Experiment Station)..41(1) 1-31, July (1971). : Patterson, C., Contaminated and Natural Lead f Environments of Man," Arch.`Environ. Health 11:344-360 (1965). - B-110 http://www.gfredlee.com/lead.htm 31111 00- . -L d'iIIs and eater Q�aloty Management Page 36 of 41 Peterson, J., A Study-of Lead in Lake Sediments; Ph.D. Thesis,.University .of Wisconsin, Madison, Madison, WI, 247 pp. (1973). r Pitt, R., and Field, R:; "Hazardous and Toxic Wastes r Associated with Urban Stormwater*Runoff," IN.: Proc. . Sixteenth Annual RREL .Hazardous_ .Waste Research Symposium, US EPA Office of Research and Development; EPA/600/9-90-037,.pp: 274-289 (1990). :- Reagan, P., and Mielke, H., '-'The MonetizedCosts.of Childhood Pb Exposure: An Estimate for Three 'Minnesota. r Cities," IN: Proc. XXIV Annual Conference Trace Substances in Environmental -Health, University of Missouri Columbia; r Supplement to V61.. 13 (1991) of. Environmental Geochemistry and Health; pp. ,105=118 (1991). . Reynolds, S., Hadley,.P., and Sedman, R., "A Health-Based r Approach for Evaluating Soil at Depth Contaminated by Hazardous Waste: Utilizing `the AAL Criterion," Risk , soil contact . Analysis 10(4):571-574 (1990). RHWN (Rachel s Hazardous Waste News), Lead--Part 1. A Hopeful New Year's Resolution for 'a Nation That 'Has `. Poisoned Its Children,,"- RHWN No. 213 Environmental Research Foundation, Washington, D.C., December_26 Lj (1990). . ` RHWN (Rachel's Hazardous Waste .News), "Lead--Part 2. Learning from a National Scourge," RHWN No. 214, ! Environmental Research Foundation, Washington, D.C., 1 January 3 (1991). �.�. RHWN (Rachel s Hazardous Waste. News), .Forty Years .of Environmental Racism," RHWN No. 294, Environmental 1 Research Foundation, Washington, D.C. July 15 (1992). B-111 http° o fredlee 1./Jwwvv g .corn/lead.htrea .�J-1/_--�04 C. i,-s and eater Quality Management Page. 37 of 41 Selman R., °The Develo' rnent.of;Ap' Tied Action:Levels for p P , .. Soil Contact: A-Scenario. for they Exposure of Humans to_Soil in a Residential Setting," Environmental :.Health .Perspectives. 79:291-313 (1989): SEGH (Society for Environmental Geochemistry:and Health), 1 Proc. Symposium on Bioavailability and Dietary. Ekposure of Lead, .SEGH,Monograph, 185 pp.' Chemical Speciation and ' Bioavailability:3(3/4), December. (1991). - SEGH (Society:for Environmental Geochemistry and Health); 1 International Conference on Lead and Other.-:Trace u sAugustg 1 2 S bstance , ( 99 ) - Simms D.,-"Lead in Soil: The Unanswered Questions," IN: Davies, B., and Wixson, B. (eds), Lead in Soil.:' Issues and Guidelines, Environmental-Geochemistry Geochemistry and Health Monograph Series 4, Supplement to Volume 9.of . . Envftnnental Geochemistry and Health, Science Reviews Limited, Northwood, U.K. pp. 27-47 (1988).. Singer,. M., and Hanson, L.J. Lead�Accumulation in Soils near Highways_in the-Twin Cities Metropolitan Area,'. Soil-Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 33:152-153 1969 Stokes P. "Lead in Soils: Canadian Case Studies and Perspectives," -IN Davies, B., and Wixson B. (eds), Lead in Soil: Issues and Guidelines, Environmental Geochemistry and: Health Monograph.Series 4, Supplement to Volume 9 of 1 Environmental Geochemistry and Health, Science Reviews Limited; Northwood, U.K* pp.7' 25 (1988)6 . US CPSC (US Consumer Product Safety Commission), CPSC . Warns about Hazards of 'Do-It Yourself Removal of Lead- r Based Paint..".Consumer Product Safety Alert,: US Consumer. . 1 ® B-112 Rr q http://V V V tl Y V.gf red lee.com/l ea d.htm .d��i���M L�3r-,dt Fls and Water Quality Management Page 38 of 41 Produce Safety Commission,. Washington, D.C., US .Gov't. Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1. p. February (1989). US.CPSC (US Consumer Product Safety. Commission), "What You Should Know about Lead-Based Paint in Your Home," Consumer Product*Safety-Alert,. US Consumer. Produce Safety Commission, Washington, D.C., US,Gov't- Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 4 pp. September (1.990). . US DHHS (US Department of Health and Human Services-, '- Public Health Service),, "Draft Toxicological Profile for:Lead Prepared by Clement International. Corp for US DHHS Public i Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry., October (1991). - US EPA, "Quality Criteria for Water," EPA/400/9-76-023, US EPA, Washington, D.C., July (1976). US EPA, "Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Lead - 1984," EPA 440 5-84-027 US EPA Office of Water. Re ulati , . _ / g ons.and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division, Washington, D.C., January. .1985 ( ) US EPA, "Quality-Criteria for Water 19861," EPA/44/5-86-001, US.EPA Office of Water. Regulations and Standards, Washington, D.C., May (1987). ' US EPA, "Summary of Data on Municipal Solid Waste. Landfill ' Leachate Characteristics, Draft Background Document, EPA/530-SW-88-038, US EPA Office of Solid Waste, July .(19 ) US EPA, "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume 1, Human Health. Evaluation Manual Part A Interim Final ' Report, EPA/540/1-89-002, US EPA Off ce of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C. (1989).. �.. i B-113 http://www.gfredlee.com/lead.htm 3/1112�1",3 i "riurells and Water Quality Management Page 39 of 41 ■ US EPA, -US EPA Strategy. for Reducing .Lead.Exposures, US EPA, Washington, D.C., 39 pp.,.. February,21 (1991a). US EPA, "Drinking Water Regulations; Maximum Contaminant Level..Goals and National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for- Lead and Copper," Final Rule, 40 CFR Parts 141 and 142, Federal Reoi_s star 56(110).26460-26564 . June 7 (1.991b). US EPA, Drinking Water Regulations, Maximum "Contaminant.Level Goals and National Primary. Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper;' Final .Rule; Correction, 40 CFR Parts 141 and 1'42, Federal Register 56 135 :32113 July 15 1991c . US PHS (US Public Health Service), "Survey of Lead in the Atmosphere of Three. Urban _Communities," Public Health Service Publication No. 999-AP-12, US Gov't. Printing Office, r. Washington, D.C. (1965). `Waldman, S., Lead and Your Kids, Newsweek, -July 15 (1991). Weis, C. and LaVelle, J., ".Characteristics to Consider_ When Choosing an Animal Model for the Study of Lead.' Bioavailability,". I_N:.Proc. Symposium on Bioavallability and Dietary Exposure. of Lead, SEGH Monograph, Chemical Speciation';and Bioavailability 3(3/4):1,13-1119, -December .(1991). Wixson, B., "Lead in Soil: _Issues and Guidelines Conference Summary;" IN: Proc. XXII Annual Conference on Trace Substances.in Environmental Health, University of Missouri, Columbia, pp. 349-35.6 (1988). Wixson, B.A. Status .Report on the Society for Environmental ' B-114 http://www.gfredlee.com/lead.htm 3/111 0rl =4YG I's and Water Quality Management Page 40 of 41 - 1 Geochemistry and Health Task Force.on: Lead-in Soil," IN: Prot. XXIII'Annual Conference on TraceSubstances in-. Environmental Health, University of Missouri,. Columbia, pp.. . 93-99 (1959): Wixson, B., "The SEGH Task Force Approach to the t Assessment of Lead in'Soil," IN: Proc. XXIV Annual Conference on Trace Substances in.Environmental .Health, University,of Missouri, Columbia, Supplement to Vol. 13 (1991) of Environmental Geochemistry. and -Health, pp. 11 20 (1991). Wixson,:B., and Davies, B.' "Lead in Soil Guidelines," Presented at 25th Annual--Conference on Trace Substances in Environmental Health May C 1991 press for ' ) in publication. Young, S., "A National Recipe for Stupidity," Washington Post, Public Health Outposts, April S (1990). Figure 2. Perspectives on Implementation of °Deed Restrictions" 1. Presented at National Ground Water Association t Conference, "Environmental Site Assessments: Case Studies and Strategies.,"Orlando' FL Au gust 1992. ' 7 Y��iY�i Ci��r� as. G. F. and Jones-Lee, A.,, ' inP01taasCe of Cons/dering Soi/-Lead in Properfy bite Assessments,'Presented.at National Grownd water ' i "soi7lation Confemnce, "En1//i1Dnmenta/.bite Assessments: Case Studies abd Strategies,"Orland®, ' AL, 23pp, August(1992), B-IlS httD://www.qfredlee.com/lead.htm 3/1 1-_12 L S"F^•ET: Lead Contamination in Soils at Military Small Arms Firing Ranges Page 1 of 9 :PRO-ACT Home About PRO-ACT I CrossTalk I.'Fact Sheets 1:•Succew Stories I Technical Inquiries I Research Services Search Need more information? Call PRO-ACT DSN 240-4214,(800)233-4356 ' Fact sheets Lead Contamination In Soils at Search nos Military Small Arms Firing Ranges i June.1998=71#17472 Ust Fact Sheets Introduction Environmental Concerns Select Year Revlewbf Applicable•Federai Regulations Remediation Approaches —Select Subject I Pollution Prevention Opportunities . Lead Midration Prevention . Document References IContact Us E-mail Introduction •pro-act{dlbrooks.af.mil United States Air Force(USAF)personnel involved in the design,maintenance, Voice Phone deactivation,and/or clean up of small arms firing ranges must address.many regulatory DSN:240-4214 considerations.This is an important issue for the Air Force due to site closures,changes Toll Free:(800)233-4356 in land use and redevelopment,and questions about the likelihood of lead contamination ' Commercial:(210)536-4214 in soils associated with these ranges.The current regulatory framework established for Federal agencies does not provide definitive guidance on the maintenance or Fax remediation of small arms firing ranges.This fact sheet provides an overview of potential Com FAX(210)212-5432 compliance Issues pertaining to small arms firing ranges,many of which will require site- DSN FAX 240-3688 specific resolution. By Mail. This fact sheet also discusses application of the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) HQ AFCEEIEQ(PRO-ACT) Final Munitions Rule("EPA Munitions Rule"),and introduces the Department of Defense 3207 Sidney Brooks Building 532 (DoD)Proposed Rule("DoD Range Rule")regarding the maintenance,closure,and Brooks AFB,TX 78235-5344 transfer of firing ranges.The information provided will allow the reader to develop an Disctatmers/Notices initial plan of action addressing the environmental and health concerns of involved, regulatory agencies.Finally,the fact sheet summarizes pollution prevention(122) •E!rhmMf and.Seaurtty Nolfce practices that should be considered during the management of small arms firing ranges. •External Links Notice . This Air Force Web page Environmental .Concerns compliant with Section 508• - standards as of 2/12/2001 Small arms firing ranges are essential to weapons training and the mission of the' USAF. .'.However,range use often produces soil contaminated with metals from spent bullets. This contamination can create environmental and occupational health problems during range operation and maintenance,as well as during redesign,reuse,and remediation of the range.However,proper management of ranges should alleviate these problems. Lead Is the primary soil contaminant of concern at these ranges.Antimony,a hardening agent in bullets,and copper and zinc,the primary components in.shell casings and jackets,can also contribute to soil contamination.Bullets are often fragmented and - pulverized upon impact with backstops,berms,or bullet traps looted at the range.The normal operation of a range can produce lead concentrations of several percent(one percent=ten thousand parts per million)in soils located behind and adjacent to targets and impact berms.Elevated levels of lead have also been found In vegetation growing. near Impact berms,Care must be taken to protect human health and the environment from lead's potential harmful effects.Antimony,copper,and zinc should be considered as secondary contaminants of potential concern when developing a list of contaminants targeted for analysis and/or cleanup: Lead Is a naturally occurring,grayish soft metal,found In the Earth's crust.Ht rf`rian B-116 http://www.afcee.brooks.af.mil/pro-act/facViune98a.asp Lead Contamination in Soils at Military Small Arms Firing Ranges. Page 2 of 9 activities such as mining,manufacturing,and the burning of refined fossil fuels have concentrated the amount of lead In certain areas of the environment.Harmful exposures ' to lead can occur from inhalation of lead dust or fumes,and ingestion of lead contaminated food and water.Lead can:accumulate in human,animal,and plant tissue and can:cause chronic health effects.Lead contamination in soils at firing range sites . can be.transported via the following mechanisms: Airborne Particulate Lead.-Very small lead particles can become airborne if wind,foot ' traffic,or maintenance activities disturb.contaminated soil.Airborne particles smaller ' than 10 microns(Sincero,1996)can be inhaled,'and fine particles smaller than 250 microns in diameter�can be incidentally ingested(Duggan,1985)..Soil particles smaller than 100 to 200 microns are likely to be ingested because fine particles adhere to skin while larger particles are easily brushed off.Intake of lead through inhalation is usually ' small(Duggan,1985). Storm-Water Runoff and Erosion-Storm water runoff has the potential to erode and transport contaminated soil and lead particles away from the normal confines of a firing range.Rainfall intensity,ground slope,soil type,and obstructions such as vegetation and fabricated structures will Influence the potential transport of lead away from the. range.Once the contaminated soil is transported beyond the firing range's boundary, addhieorW environmental impact(e.g.,bioaccumulatlon or bioconcentration)and human , ;:- exposure could occur: Dissolved Lead in Groundwater/Surface Water-At a neutral pH,lead is relatively ' Insoluble.As water becomes more.acidic(decreasing pH),lead solubility tends to increase.When storm water(normally slightly acidic)comes in contact with lead contaminated soil,the lead can be dissolved into the water and transported to nearby groundwater or surface water.if sufficient lead is mobilized,environmental receptors can be affected and risk to human health could occur if these sources are used for drinking water.When groundwater is more than 10 feet below ground surface,it is generally not affected by leaching of lead from soil.However,some regulatory agencies consider dissolved concentrations of lead above 15 micrograms per Titer(parts per billion)a potential health concern(Reference:Appendix A:National Primary Drinking Water Standards,Action Level for Lead,1997.). , As with most metals,lead,antimony,copper,and zinc tend to adhere to soil grains and ' organic material and remain"fixed"in shallow soils. i Review of Applicable Federal Regulations Routine maintenance and the environmental assessment/clean-up of ranges are not specifically addressed in any single Federal regulation.However,portions.of different Federal regulations could be applicable In certain situations and should be considered..- The following paragraphs provide an overview of these different Federal regulations and . how they might Apply. . CERCLA Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations(CFR)Part 30Z"Designation,Reportable '.' Quantities,and Notification,"promulgated in response to.requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation,and Liability Act(CERCLA) and the Emergency Planning and Community Right to-Know Act of 1986(EPCRA), designates lead as a hazardous substance and requires the reporting,of releases to the environment To be a"reportable"release under 40 CFR Part 302,the amount of the release must equal or exceed,within a 24-hour period,the"reportable quantity'(RQ)for. the hazardous substance.Per Section 302.6,'Notification Requirements;notification t. must be provided to EPXs National Response Center(800.424-8802)if a release of one pound(RQ)or more.of solid lead particles less than or equal to 100 micrometers(0.004 Inches)In mean diameter occurs.A release of this type would be unlikely at a mllitary small arms firing range. ' Regardless of whether the RQ for lead or other contaminants has been exceeded at a range,the EPA can,.under CERCLA authority,require that lead contaminated soils and groundwater be investigated and reniediated,including any off-site environmental ' contamination originating from the site,if such lead contamination has been mrined to pose an unacceptable potential risk to human health or the environment: B-117 ' http://www.afcee.brooks.afmil/pro-act/fact/june98a.asp r-=�'°• : l,da Contamination in Soils at N i.litary Small Arms Firing Ranges Page 3 of 9 At operational firing ranges,lead-containing bullets are fired and eventually fall to the ground at or near the range.The EPA has determined the act of firing ammunition does not,by itself,generate a solid waste under RCRA because the ammunition.is being used ' for its intended purpose(i:e.,it has not been"discarded"). Under the'Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA),removing lead-containing i bullets or lead-contaminated soil from'a firing range,or abandoning a range containing. . such.material,may be viewed as"discarding,*making the removed materials solid waste subject to RCRA disposal regulations.However,the EPA has deferred to the drafters.of ' the DoD Range Rule(discussed further below)any action on the issue of abandonment or transfer being equivalent to discarding.The DoD Range Rule proposes to address such sites according to a CERCLA-like process,rather than under RCRA authority, where risks posed to human healtli and environmental receptors are evaluated via site ' specific investigations and risk-based remediation goals.This Is currently the way the . EPA Munitions Rule addresses the investigation and cleanup of active and Inactive ranges.The public comment period for the DoD Proposed Rule ended December 1997. The EPA will judge whether the DoCYs Final Range Rule'adequately protects human . ' health and the environment"after Us published. Any RCRA regulated:solid waste destined for land disposal must be pre-evaluated for its potential environmental Impact.(It is important to note that not all ranges or wastes ' coilected/origlnating from ranges are necessarily going to be subject to regulation under RCRA.See below under"EPA Final Munitions Rule"and"DoD Proposed Range Rule" for further'discussion.)RCRA regulated solid wastes are deemed hazardous If they are a -listed waste or exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics such as toxicity, ' ignitability,corrosivity,and reactivity.If a soil sample,when subject to the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure(TCLP),produces a result in excess of the regulatory limit for lead(5 milligrams per liter(parts per million),then the waste_represented by the sample becomes a characteristic hazardous waste due Its leachable lead concentration ' and would be subject to RCRA regulation as a hazardous waste for disposal purposes. As the pH of the lead-containing soil approaches 7(neutral)or higher(aikaline),its potential for leaching lead above 5 ppm during TCLP testing is lowered.in addition to pH,other important variables affecting the potential for leaching lead from soil samples ' during TCLP testing are grain size and whether the lead is in elemental form or. - weathered. Certain sifting and collection activities can be used to recover lead fragments from range soils.Recovered lead fragments destined for recycling are exempt from RCRA `. regulation.However,recovered-material not destined for recycling and soil handled during the recovery process may be subject to regulation as a solid waste or a . —hazardous waste. According to EPA,authority exists under RCRA to compel remediation where an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment(e.g., contamination of a sensitive habitat or a drinking water supply)may have been created i by munitions fragments at a firing range. While cleanup of lead from small arms firing ranges is normally controlled by CERCLA, the decision regarding which regulatory scheme applies is a fact-specific decision.Thus, these decisions,especially if the range is included in a RCRA permit,should always be coordinated with the servicing Judge Advocate's office.Additional guidance may be found in the EPA memorandum addressed to RCRA/CERCLA national policy managers ' "Coordination between RCRA Corrective Action and Closure and CERCLA Site Activities,24 Sep 1996"A copy of this documerrt is-available from PRO-ACT. .�EPA;Final Munitlons Rule ' Section 107 of the Federal Facility Compliance Act(FFCA)of 1992 amended RCRA by adding a new section(3004y)that required the EPA to"identify.when military munitions become hazardous waste for the purposes of RCRA Subtitle C,and to provide for the safe transportation and storage of such wastes"The Military Munitions Rule("EPA Munitions Rule"),published at Federal Register Vol.62,No.29,page 6622,12 February _ 1997,responded.to several key issues raised conceming the application of i_RA to military munitions.The EPA Munitions Rule is codified at 40 CFR Parts 260 through 266, B-ll8 -http://www.afcee.brooks.of mil/pro-ar-t/fadt/june98a..asp F/. '1: ;.,ea•_Containi�ation in Soils at Military Small Arms Firing Ranges Page 4 of 9 and Part 270(Subpart M."Military Munitions"Is in part 266).Important terms under the EPA Munitions Rule include the following: Military munitions means all ammunition products and components produced or used by or for the U.S.Department of Defense(DoD)or the U.S.Armed Services for national defense and security,including military munitions under the control of the DoD;the U.S. ,. Coast Guard,the U.S.Department of Energy(DOE),and National Guard personnel.The term military munitions includes,In part explosives,rockets;bombs;warheads,artillery ammunition,and small arms ammunition.The term does not Include nuclear weapons. Militaryrange means designated land and water areas set aside,managed,and used g g 9 to conduct research on,develop,test,and evaluate military munitions and explosives, ? other ordnance,or weapon systems,or to train military personnel in their use and handling.Ranges include firing lines and positions,maneuver areas,firing lanes;test pads,detonation pads,impact areas,and buffer zones with restricted access and excluslonary areas. Active range means a military range that is currently In service and is being regularly. used for range activities. Inactive range means a military range that is not currently being used,but that Is still ' ` under military control and considered by the military to be a potential range area,and that has not been put to a new use that is Incompatible with range activities. . . .. Under the EPA Munitions Rule,fired military munitions fragments(e.g.,spent bullet fragments,debris,and unexploded ordnance)are not considered RCRA waste(i.e.,a discarded material)when the munitions were used for their Intended purpose,as they would be within the confines of an active or inactive firing range.Under the EPA ' Munitions Rule,the., recovery,collection,and on-range destruction of munitions fragments from an active or Inactive range during range clearance activities is also considered"use for intended purpose."Although on-range collection may not by itself render the fragments RCRA waste,the removal of such materials to an-off--range location or their burial on-range would be"discarding"and result In the generation of a solid waste,and therefore a potential hazardous waste,subject to RCRA disposal regulations.However,lead-containing munitions fragments destined for off-range reclamation/recycling would be exempted from regulation as a hazardous waste under L_ the RCRA scrap metal provision found in 40 CFR Part 261.6(a)(3)(1). Under the EPA Munitions Rule,fired munitions that land off-range,and are not promptly retrieved,have been discarded and would then be regulated as solid wastes under , i RCRX The EPA did not address in the EPA Munitions Rule the issue of whether munitions ' fragments at dosed ranges(under military control)or transferred ranges(no longer under military control)would be RCRA regulated wastes;that is.if the munitions fragments at dosed or transferred ranges would have been'discarded"Instead,the EPA chose to defer the.Issue in order to allow the agency to evaluate the DoD Range Rule,which proposes that such fragments would not be RCRA waste or subject to cleanup under RCRA(see below).Until the DoD Range Rule is finalized,the provisions of CERCLA would normally control the cleanup of ranges.However,because the r` decision regarding which regulatory scheme applies Is fact-specific this decision should be coordinated with the servicing Judge.Advocate's office: DoD Proposed Range Rule "Closed,Transferred,and Transferring Ranges Containing Military Munitions;Proposed ' L Rule,"DoD;Federal Register Vol.62,No.187,26 September 1997("DoD Range Rule' proposes a process for evaluating and selecting appropriate response actions at dosed, transferred,and transferring military ranges. The Rule was proposed in response to the EPA Munitions Rule and addresses the . management of dosed,transferred,and transferring ranges,which were not addressed In the EPA Munitions Rule as discussed above.If finalized,the DoD Range Rule will establish procedures for evaluating and responding to safety,human health,a environmental risks on closed,transferred,and transferring military ranges0 B-119 http://www.afeee.brooks.sfmil/pro-act/fact/june98a.asp 5/; _,:_ 3 ad Contamination in Soils at 2Jlilitary Small Arms Firing Ranges Page 5 of 9 accomplish this,the'DoD Range Rule proposes a five-part Range Response Process. ' This process evaluates appropriate response actions,consistent with CERCLA cleanup provisions,which evaluate actual risks posed by contaminants based on reasonably anticipated future land use.This could mean compliance with significantly different cleanup criteria than might be required under RCRA authority,which would apply if the munitions fragments at closed,transferred,and transferring ranges were designated RCRA solid wastes. Although the DoD Range Rule is a Proposed Rule,it outlines a reasonable approach to address risk-based management of lead contamination at small arms firing ranges. Copies of DoD's"Closed,Transferred,and Transferring Ranges Containing Military Munitions;Proposed Rule"are available from PRO-ACT or may be obtained by visiting the Defense Environmental Network and Information Exchange(DENY)World Wide ' Web'site at httpJ/www.denix osd.mil/deni ublictPolicy/Ranne/mrule.html. Clean Water Act The Water Quality Act of 1987 created specific provisions for the control of surface water pollution caused-by storm water runoff.Runoff from firing ranges can contain elevated levels of dissolved lead and other heavy metals,as well as particulate metal and sediments.Therefore,a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) permit may be required If the EPA or.State determines stomiwater discharge from a range contributes to a violation of a water quality standard or is a significant contributor . of pollutants to the waters of the U.S. Summary. . . There are many existing and potential regulatory issues that must be considered when . operating,maintaining,closing,cleaning up,or transferring a small arms firing range. Prior coordination with representatives of the following organizations is recommended: • Bioenvironmerital Engineering,to assess the potential occupational health risks associated with lead exposure and to obtain recommendations on the necessary protective equipment and training for maintenance workers or clean- up crews. . �. • Environmental Management,to assess the regulatory requirements associated with the potential generation and disposal of solid and/or hazardous waste.This is recommended even 9 the.material(s)to be removed are destined for recycling. • Judge Advocate,to assess Federal,State,and local regulatory requirements to ensure all operations are in compliance. After coordinating with the above Installation personnel,coordination with the Regional . EPA;the Regional Environmental Office(REO),and State environmental governing agencies Is also recommended.Many aspects of small arms range maintenance and clean-up are subject to local Interpretation and site-specific application.Active interaction and coordination by AF personnel with local agencies will ensure efficiency and compliance. In the end,the determination of appropriate response actions at a range will result from: 11)a site-specific evaluation that characterizes the lateral and vertical extent of contamination and the potential for contaminant movement,2)the planned future land use at the site,3)an analysis of exposure pathways/potential receptors,and 4) appropriate risk characterization. Remediation Approaches The remediation of lead contaminated soils at firing ranges,eitheras part of i maintenance or site closure activities,does not differ significantly from any other soil remediation project.However,development of remediation goals will depend upon whether the proposed action is maintenance at an active firing range or remediation supporting a potential change of land use..Firing range remediation activities involve worker protection,soil characterization/remediation,and waste treatment and disposal. ' B-120 http://www.afcee-brooks.af.mil/pro-act/fact/june9 8 a.asp 5/^/Z Lead Contamination in Soils at Military Small Arms Firing Ranges Page 6 of 9 Worker Protection . '. Worker protection is based on the potential for inhalation and Ingestion of lead.Since it Is common for lead to be in particulate form in air or soils at a firing range,respiratory protection,protective clothing,and safe-work practices'shouid be specified in a site- specific health and safety plan applicable to workers engaged in environmental Investigation or remediation.The plan should be approved by the installation Bloenvironmental Engineer or an.industrial hygienist Additional training,record keeping; and medical monitoring requirements for workers potentially exposed to particulate lead are'outlined in Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration(OSHA) regulations and standards. Another worker protection concern at small arms firing ranges is unexploded ordnance ' (UXO).The Air Force Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environment,Safety,and Occupational Health has issued a memorandum entitled"Clearance of Unexploded Ordnance at Closing/Realigning Installations"dated 22 March 1996:Although this memorandum offers guidance applicable to dosing/maligning installations,it contains information that may be useful to Air Force personnel involved in the clearance, , " assessment,or dean up of active or inactive ranges.A copy of this document is available from PRO-ACT. Clean-up Goals for Lead In:July of 1994,the EPA issued"Revised Interim Soil Lead Guidance for CERCLA Sites and RCRA Corrective Action Facilities'This memorandum provides"screening levels" to be used as a tool to define a level of lead contamination above which there may be enough concern to warrant further site-specific study.The guidance encourages the risk manager to select,on a site-specific basis,the most appropriate combination of remedial measures,from intervention to abatement,needed to address lead exposure threats.. The memorandum,which Is directed toward protection of children and assumes . residential future land use;sets a screening level In soils of 400 m� - g g/kg,below which no corrective action is recommended,and a screening level in soils of 5,000 mglkg,above which corrective action Is recommended.Concentrations falling between these screening levels could warrant corrective action depending upon the results of site-. specific risk evaluations.Additionally,site-specific risk assessment may lead to a finding of"no further action' Other EPA guidance applicable to evaluating adult non-residential exposures that would be consistent with commercial or industrial land use scenarios include: e "A TRW Report:Review of Methodology for Establishing Risk-Based Soil Remediation Goals for the Commercial Areas of the California Gulch Site,"EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead,October 1995. e "Recommendations of the Technical Review Workgroup for Lead for an Interim Approach to Assessing Risks Associated with Adult Exposures to Lead in Soils APP . 9 � , EPA,Technical Review Workgroup for Lead,Patricia VanLeeuwen and Paul White,Chairpersons,December.1996. Copies of the above documents are available from PRO-ACT. Remediation goals should be developed to be protective of receptors consistent with planned future land use..Examples of receptors and future land use include:range _ workers for continued operation as firing range,adult workers for commercial redevelopment of the site,and._preschooi-age children for residential reuse: :. Disposairrreatment Options for Lead Contaminated Soils Under the EPA Munitions Rule,the issue of when military munitions become subject to regulation under RCRA Is addressed.The DoD Range Rule(not finalized)proposes a risk-based approach to undertaking corrective actions at dosed,transferred,and transferring ranges.The investigation and the removal of military munitions from active or inactive ranges to an off-range location for disposal or their burial on-range would be considered generation of a solid waste,and therefore a potential hazardous waste, subject to RCRA disposal regulations. f _ B-121 h ://www.afeee.bTooks.afmil/ ro-act/facttjune98a.asF /"!? ttp p J ., Lea Contamination in Soils at Military Small Arms Firing Ranges Page 7 of 9 Off-range Disposal.; In accordance with RCRA land disposal restrictions,soil which is hazardous due to the lead toxicity characteristic(exceeds 5 mg/L when subjected tmi TCLP analysis)cannot be placed in an ordinary solid waste landfill.These soils will not require pre-treatment before disposal,but must be placed in a hazardous waste landfill.Costs associated with. hazardous waste disposal can exceed ordinary landfill costs.by ten to 100 times.'. Therefore,removing as many lead fragments as possible for recycling in aneffort to reduce the overall lead content of the soil should be evaluated.to determine whether the cost of disposal can be reduced. Physical Separation These processes use techniques designed to separate particles based on particle size and/or density.Sifting is one method that can significantly reduce the quantity of soil that may require off-site disposal,stabilization;or further treatment by add leaching.To 'determine whether such techniques would satisfactorily remove lead fragments from soil,a pilot study may be warranted to determine the volume of lead that could be' removed and.the lead concentrations and characteristics of the remaining soil.. Stabilhation/Solidification Stabilization and solidification is'another treatment/disposel option for soli contaminated with lead in excess of the hazardous waste threshold.This technology involves adding ingredients to contaminated soils that coat the soil grains and/or fill Inter granular pore . spaces,permanently sealing off the lead contamination from the environment This technology immobilizes contaminants in the soil and results in a solid or granular material.- Several techniques for.stabilizing and solidifying contaminated soils exist;each should be evaluated with respect to site-specific environmental factors.If soil stabilization and solidification processes are performed on-site,the State may require the facility to obtain a RCRA permit for operation of a treatment storage,and disposal(TSD)facility.If the stabilized soil mixture does not exceed the hazardous waste threshold as determined by TCLP testing,it may be possible to dispose of it in an ordinary solid waste landfill. . Depending on the applicable State regulations,the stabilized soil may be considered safe to remain in-place on site,or to be reused,depending on the results of TCLP testing. Soil Washing A soil washing process has been successfully used to reduce lead concentrations in soils to background levels at a U.S.Army Superfund site.The Amry had previously .. burned scrap ammunition,powder and buried shell casings at the site,resulting in total lead concentrations in soil as high as 86,000 parts per million.AAfter sifting the soil and separating the munitions particles from the sand and gravel,the soil was washed in an aqueous acid solution to dissolve and remove the lead from the sand and gravel.. Although the process was speedy and cost effective,-the spent acid.solution required treatment and disposal as a hazardous waste. Other remedial approaches in addition to those discussed above are available and may be appropriate for your particular situation.Additional information on firing range remediation Is available from the following sources: e. Division Secretary,HO AFCEEIERT,DSN 240-4331 Pollution Prevention Opportunities The best pollution prevention techniques employed at firing ranges include minimizing the amount of lead contained in munitions,preventing the bullets from mixing with soils, and minimizing the migration of lead contaminated soil . Lead-free Ammunition' The Department of Defense(DoD)has initiated the Green Bullets program in an effort to eliminate the use of hazardous materials,including heavy metals and organic solvents; in small-caliber ammunition manufacturing processes,as well as in the ammunition Itself.This initiative is led by the U.S.Army's Armament Research,Development;and B-122 http://www.afcee.brooks.afmil/pro-act/fact/june9ga.asp -_- : Lead Contam:nation in.Soils at Military Small Arms Firing Ranges Page 8 of 9 Engineering Center(ARDEC)and encompasses all environmental aspects of small- caliber ammunition;from 5.56 mm through 0.50 caliber.Over 400 million units in this size range are produced each year in the U.S.Elimination of the hazardous materials . that constitute small-caliber ammunition could result In production cost reductions totaling several million dollars per year.Several alternatives to lead in primers and projectile slugs are being evaluated,Including bismuth,molybdenum,tungsten, steelliron,and copper.Other benefits of lead-free.ammunition include: • Elimination of indoor range lead contamination; • Elimination of adverse effects on outdoor ecosystems and reduced costs of any: �. cleanups; • .Reduction of ammunition production costs;and . • Reduction of exposure risks to users and manufacturing personnel. Stock-listed lead-free training ammunition(reduced range)is currently available to the'. military in 5.56 mm and 0.50 caliber ball,and tracer sizes..For-more information about the Green Bullets program,contact Mr.Wade H.Bunting,U.S.Army ARDEC,(973)724 6040,DSN 880-6040. Bullet traps Several types of bullet traps commonly used in indoor firing ranges may be appropriate. for use at outdoor ranges.-Generally,bullet traps are designed to decelerate the bullet and collect the resulting fragments.Some bullet traps are also designed to minimize airborne lead dust created when bullets strike the traps.Many bullet trap manufacturers recommend the use of personal protective equipment(PPE)when servicing bullet traps. The United States Army Environmental Center(USAEC)is currently evaluating the performance and environmental issues associated with bullet traps.USAEC is reluctant ' to recommend use of bullet traps on outdoor ranges until further information can be developed from demonstrations and currently Installed traps.Manufacturer's claims for. complete capture of all fragments and dust are still being evaluated by USAEC.An improperly designed or Improperly Installed bullet trap could actually increase the potential for lead dust creation and migration on outdoor ranges., t Impact Berms Most outdoor firing ranges use soil impact berms behind the target line to stop bullets from leaving the firing range.These berms are usually constructed of mixtures of sand, silt,and clay sobs.The floor of the firing range in the area of the target line may also . consist of similar soils.Bullet fragments may be periodically removed from the range If their buildup In soils poses a risk of ricochet The design and construction of ranges,including the choice of material for Impact i berms,should consider pollution prevention opportunities.Ideally,an impact bean should decelerate fired'projectiles safely with a minimum of fragmentation and generation of lead dust The berm material should also be of a texture,e.g.,clean sand, that maximizes the ability to separate spent fragments when range clearance-activitles i are undertaken. L. Lead Migration Prevention. Methods for prevention of lead migration include,but should not be limited to, Implementing the following concepts where practical and safe: • Prevent slightly acidic rain water and snow melt from coming Into contact with lead contaminated soils. • Construct water flow retarding structures,such as terraces and berms,to reduce . the velocity of runoff water exiting firing range areas.. • Use impoundments,traps,or other structures to catch lead particles in sediments transported away from the shooting area by runoff. • Elevate slightly acidic soils to a more neutral pH In areas where lead M ycome - B-123 - http://www.afcee.brooks.af mil/pm-act/fact/june98a.asp i.eadi CCntami--nation in Soils at Military Small Arms rirrng Ranges Page 9 of 9 in contact with.water by supplementing the soil with high-alkaline materials such . as limestone,gypsum,and dolomite. . • Do-not relocate soils from ranges to other areas of a facilitylinstallation. Each firing range site is unique in terms of background lead levels,climate,soils,and topography.A plan for controlling lead migration trust be designed based upon site . characteristics.Typical plans include designs to control storm water runoff,protect the backstop/berm from rain,and provide.a means for capturing.and reducing the movement of lead fragments. Document References 1. "closed,.Transferred,and Transferring Ranges Containing Military Munitions; Proposed Rule,*Department of Defense,26 September 1997:. 2. "M111tary Munitions Rule:Hazardous Waste Identification and Management; Explosives Emergencies;Manifest Exemption for Transport of Hazardous Waste on Rights- -way on Contiguous Properties;Final Rule,"EPA;FR,Vol.62,No: 29'page 6621,12.February 1997,codified at Title 40 CFR parts 260.through 266, and 270.Subpart M"iftlitary Munitions"Is in part 266. 3. "Designation,Reportable Quantities,and Notification,"Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations,Part 302. 4. "Environmental Effects of Small Arms Ranges,"Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory Teciudcal Note N-1836,October 1991. 5. "Lead and Outdoor Ranges,"Charles W.Sever,Proceedings:National Shooting Range Symposium,17-19 October 1993. 6. "Revised Interim Soil Lead Guidance for CERCLA Sites and RCRA Corrective Action Facilities;EPA,July 1994. 7. "Development of Toxic Free Ammunition;John R.Middleton,Project Engineer, U.S.Amry Armament Research,Development and Engineering Center. 8. "Green Bullets,*Mr.Wade H.Bunting,U.S.Army Tank,Automotive and Armaments Command,Picatinny Arsenal,NJ,Sep-Oct 1997,HTIS Bulletin,Vol. 7,No.5. 9. "Bullet Traps on Outdoor Small Arms Ranges,Mr.Gene L Fabian,U.S.Army Environmental Center,Aberdeen Proving Grounds,MD,Spring 1997.The ' Bridge. 10. "Environmental Engineering:A Design Approach,"Sincero,A.P.and Sincero, G.A..1996. 11. "Childhood Exposure to Lead In Surface Dust and Soil:A Community Health Problem" Duggan,M.J.and inskip,M.J.,1985. B-124 http://www.afcee.brooks.af.mil/pro-act/facVjune98a.asp 5/7/2^'.2 Title 17, California Code of Regulations,Division 1,Chapter 8 Accreditation, Certification and Work Practices for Lead-Based Paint and Lead Hazards R-27-97E Title 17, California Code Of Regulations, Division 1,. Chapter 8 Accreditation,. Certification; And 'Mork: Practices For Lead-i$ased Paint And Lead Hazards (Final Version:Filed January 8, 1999) Article 1. Definitions.. ' §3500L Abatement.: "Abatemene means any set of measures designed to reduce or eliminate lead hazards or lead-based paint for public and residential buildings,but does not include containment or cleaning. . Now.. Authority cited:Sections 100275,105250,end 124160,Health and Safety.Code.Reference:Sections 100275,105250,and 124160, Health and :.;. cry Code. §35002 Accreditation. "Accreditation" means the Department has reviewed -and finds acceptable a training provider's written application for accreditation, and has conducted and finds acceptable, an on-site audit..as specified in _ subsection 35078( e). Note: Authority cited:Sections 100275,10525Q and 124160,Health and Safety Code.Reference:Sections 100275,105250,and'124160, Health and Safety Code. ' §35003.-Accredited Training Provider. "Accredited training provider" means any •individual, corporation, partnership 'or other unincorporated association or public entity to which the Department has granted accreditation or provisional accreditation to offer lead-related construction courses and continuing education instruction. Note: Authority cited:Sections 100275,1059M,and 124160,Health and Safety Code.Reference:Sections 100275,105250,and 124160, Health and Safety Code §35005. Certified Lead Inspector/Assessor. "Certified lead inspector/assessor"means an individual who has received a certificate or an interim certificate from,the Department as a"certified lead inspector/assessor:' Note: Authority dted:Sections 100275,1052SQ and 124160,Health and Safety Code Reference Sections 100275,105250,and 124160, Health and, Safety Code §35006. Certified Lead Project Designer. "Certified lead ro'ect designee means art individual who'has received a certificate or an interim certificate' from the Department as a"certified lead project designer". Note: AAt�^'t_y,ci_ted:Sections 1002n,10525Q and 124160,Health and Safety Code.Reference:Sections 100275,105250,and 124160, Health andl 4 J Co& 4 §35007. Certified Lead.Project Monitor. "Certified lead project monitor": means an individual who has received a certificate or an interim certificate, . from the Department as a"certified lead project monitor". ■ Note: Authority cited Sections 1002n,105250,and 124160,Health and safety Code.Refemn=Sections 100275,105250,and 124160, Health and 1 Safety Code ' 35008. Certified Lead Supervisor. § P "Certified lead supervisor" means an individual who has received a certificate or an interim certificate fro the Department as a"certified lead supervisor." Note: .Authority cited Sections 100275,105250,and 124160,Health and Safety Code.Reference:Sections 100275,105250,and 124160, Health an' Safety Code January, 1999 ••�- Page 1 B-I25 ' Title 17,California Code of Regulations,Division 1, Chapter 8 R-27-97E Accreditation, Certification and Work Practices for lmd-Based Paint and Lead Hazards §35028..Instructor. "Instructor" means an individual who is responsible for providing 30%. or more of training in any course:or continuing education instruction. . Note: Authority cited:Sections 100275,105250,and'124160,Health and Safety Code.Reference cited:Sections 100275,105250,and 124160,Health and Safety Code §35029. Interactive/Partidpatory Teaching Methods. "Interactive%participatory teaching methods" means instruction which consists of active participation of the. students,such as brainstorming,hands-on training, demonstration and practice,.small group problem-solving, . learning games, discussions, ..risk mapping, field visits, walk throtighs, problem posing,. group work assignments,homework review sessions,question-and-answer periods, skits,-or role-playing sessions. Lecture' is not considered an interactive/partidpatoryteacliing method. Note: Authority cited:Sections 100273,10.5250,.and 124160,Health and Safety Code.Reference cited:Sections 100275,105250;and 124160,Health and Safety Code §35030. Interim Certificate. "Interim certificate"means the.doa ntent issued by the Department to an individual who meets requirements for interim certification as descnbed in section 35093. . Note: S�or��ted.Sections 100275,10525Q and 124160,Health and Safety Code.Reference:Sections 100275,105250,and 124160, Health and §35032. Job Tasks. "Job tasks"mean the specific activities performed in the context of work. Note: Authority cited: Sections 100275,105250 and 124160,Health and Safety Code.Reference:Sections 100275,105250, and 124160, Health and Safety Code §35033. Lead-Based Paint. Lead based.paint"means paint or other surface.coatings that contain an.amount of lead equal to, or in excess of one milligram per square centimeter(1.0 mg/cm)or more than half of one percent(0.5%)by weight Note: SnC cite&Sections 100275,105250,and 124160,Health and Safety Code Reference:Sections 100275,105250,and 124160, Health and afety §35034. Lead Certification Examination. "Lead.certification_ .examination" means the statewide examination:offered'by the Department to applicants for certification. Note: Authority cited:Sections 100275,105250,and 124160,Health and Safety Code Reference:Sections 100275,.105250,and 124160, Health and Safety Code• . . 1 .35035 Lead-Contaminated§ Lea Contamuta ed Dust . "Lead-contaminated dust" means dust that contains an amount of lead equal to, or in excess of,, fifty micrograms pper square foot(50 µg/o for interior floor surfaces,two hundred and fifty micrograms per square foot(250 µg/ft�for interior horizontal window surfaces, and eight hundred micrograms per square foot (800 µg/M for exterior floor and exterior horizontal window surfaces. . Note: Authority cited:Sections 105250(a)and(b),124160(b),and 124165,Health and Safety Code.Reference:Sections 105250(a)and(b),124160(b),. and 124165,Health and Safety Code. §35036. Lead-Contaminated Soil. . "Lead-contaminated soil".means bare.soil that contains an amount of lead equal to, or in excess of, four hundred parts per million(400 ppm)in children's play areas and one thousand parts per million(1000 ppm) in all other areas. Note: Authority cited:sections 105250(a)and(b),124160(b),and 124165,Health and safety code Reference Sections 105250(a)and(b),124160(b), and 124165,Health and Safety Code ' Page a January, 1999 B-126 Title 17, California Code of Regulations,Division 1, Chapter 8 Accreditation, Certification and Work Practices for Lead-Based Paint and Lead Hazards R-27-97E §35037. Lead Hazard. "Lead hazard" means deteriorated lead based paint, lead contaminated dust, lead contaminated. soil, disturbing lead based paint or presumed lead based paint.without containment, or any other nuisance which may result in persistent and quantifiable lead exposure. Note: Authority cited:Sections 105250(a)and(b),124160(b),and 174165,Health and Safety Code.Reference:Sections 17920 0),17920.3(C) and(k), 105250(a)and(b),105280(g),124160(b),and 124165,Health and Safety Code;Sections 194L 3479,3480,and 3481,Civil Code;Section 17274(b), Revenue and Taxation Code;and Section 11349(c)and(e),Govematent Code. §35038. Lead Hazard Evaluation. "Lead hazard evaluation." means the on-site investigation;:for compensation, of lead based paint or lead hazards, such as a lead inspection, risk assessment, and clearance inspection,:for public and residential buildings,but does not include activities intended to determine adequacy of containment.or compliance with the.regulatory requirements specified in Title 8, California Code of Regulations; section .1532.1, Title 17, California Code of Regulations, sections 70100 and 70200,.Title 22,"California Code'of Regulations,Division 4.5, Chapters 10, 11, 12, 13,and.18,and California Health and Safety Code,section 25163,subdivision (Q.. Note: Authority cited Sections 105250(a)and(b),and 124160(b),Health and Safety Code.Reference:Sections IM=(a) and(b),.and 124160(b), Health and Safety Code. , §35039. Lead Inspection. "Lead inspection" means a surface by surface investigation to determine the presence of lead based paint as a. described in Chapter 7: Lead-Based Paint Inspection, "Guidelines for'the Evaluation and Control of Lead- Based Paint Hazards in Housing,".U.S.Department of Housing.and Urban Development;1997 Revision. Note: Authority cited:Sections losm(a)and(b),and 124160(b),Health and Safety Code.Reference:Sections 105250(a)and (b),and 124160(b), Health and Safety Code- §35040. Lead-Related Construction Work- "Lead-related construction work" means any construction, alteration, painting, demolition, salvage, renovation, repair, or maintenance of any residential or public budding, including preparation and cleanup, that, by using or disturbing lead-containing material or soil, may result in significant exposure of adults or children to lead. t Note Authority cited Sections 100275,105M,and 124160,Health and Safety Code Reference Sections 100275,10525Q and 124160, Health and " Safety Code. §3504L Photo Identification Number. "Photo identification number"means the number listed on a form of photo identification, such as a passport' or California Department of Motor Vehicles driver's license or identification card, which matches a trained individual with a Course Completion Form. Note: Authority dted:Sections 100275,105250,and 124160,Health and Safety Code.Reference:Sections 100275,105M,and 124160, Health and' Safety Code §35042. Postsecondary Education "Postsecondary education"means education completed at a junior college,college, or university accredited by,� a national or regional accrediting.agency which is recognized by the U.S. Department of Education or a state - agency authorized to approve such institutions. Note:. Authority Sections 100275,105250,and 12410,Health and Safety Code.Reference:sections 100275,105250;and 124160, Health andl ty §35043. Presumed Lead-Based Paint. "Presumed lead based paint" means.paint or surface coating affixed to a component in or on a stricture excluding paint or surface coating affixed to a component in or on a residential dwelling constructed on o' after January 1,1979,or a school constructed on or after January 1,1993. . Note: Authority cited:Sections 105M(a)and(b),124160(b),and 124165,Health and Safety Code.Reference:Sections 105250(a)and(b);124160(bi and 124165,Health and Safety Code,Section 32241(b),Education Code. January, 1999 Page 5 '` B-127 Cal/OSHA CONSTRUCTION SAFETY ORDERS, LEAD . SECTION-1532.1 Title 3 California Code of Regulation's effective November 4 1993• revised 1VMardt 7. 1997 a I�To em Reprinted by the Occupational Lead Poisoning.Prevention Program,. California Department of.Healih Services, April.1997 Sec..1532.1. Lead Lead means metallic lead, all inorganic lead com-' ' (a) Scope. pounds,and organic lead soaps.Excluded from this definition are all other organic lead compounds. This section applies to all construction work where an employee may be occupationally exposed to. NIOSH means the:National Institute for lead.All construction work excluded from coverage Occupational Safety and Health (NI.OSH), U.S. in the general industry standard for lead by section Department of Health and Human Services, 5216(a)(2)is covered by this standard.Construction or designee. work is defined as work for instruction,alteration ernsor means one who is capable of identifying and/or repair,including painting and decorating. . It includes but is not limited to the following: existing and predictable lead hazards in the surroundings or working conditions and who has ,. (1) Demolition or salvage of structures where lead authorization to take prompt corrective measures to or materials containing lead are present; eliminate them- Slug rvisors shall be trained. as required by this section,and.when required.be (2) Removal or encapsulation of materials certified consistent with section (1)(3). containing lead; (c) Permissible exposure limit.. (3) New construction, alteration,repair, or renova- tion of structures,substrates,or portions thereoL (1) The employer shall assure that no employee that contain lead, or materials containing lead; is exposed to lead at concentrations greater than fifty micrograms per cubic meter of air (4) Installation of products containing lead; (50 µg/m3)averaged over an 8-hour period. (5) Lead contamination/emergency cleanup; (2) If an employee is exposed to lead for more than 8 hours in any work day the employees' (6) Transportation,disposal,storage;or containment allowable exposure, as a time weighted average of lead or materials containing lead on the site or (TWA)for that day,shall be reduced according location at which construction activities are to the following formula: - ' performed,and Allowable employee exposure (7) Maintenance operations associated with the con- (in jig m3)=400 divided_by struction.activities described in this subsection. hours worked in the day. (b) Definitions. (3) When respirators are used to limit employee exposure as required under subsection(c)and all Action Ievel means employee exposure,without the requirements of subsections(e)(1)and(f) and of respirators,to an airborne...regard to the use esp . have been met,employee exposure may be concentration'of lead.of 30 micrograms per cubic considered to be at the level provided'by the meter of air(30 µg/m3)calculated as an 8-hour protection.factor of the respirator for those time-weighted average (TWA). periods the respirator is worn Those periods may • . .P �P P Y Chief means the Chief of the Division of be averaged with exposure levels during periods when respirators are not worn to determine the Occupational Safety and Health or designee. employee's daily TWA exposure. B-128 Construction Safety Orders—Lead 1 Gi Police Protection Page 3 of 4 -in floor drains or otherwise released from the facility property,-.are regulated under the NPDES,.pretreatment, -or storm water provisions of the CWA. These provisions require notification of EPA,*the state, or a local treatment plant,.. 'omplying with permit Provisions, and prevention of untreated fluids from reaching surface waters..The storage and disposal of hazardous wastes (e.g., non-empty aerosol cans; discarded, t unused or outdated chemicals;solvent-contaminated rags) are regulated under the hazardous waste provisions of RCRA.The disposal of solid wastes-(e.g., empty containers acka in materials are regulated under the solid waste: rovisions'of . . P 9 9' ). �9 P . RCRA. Air emi.ssions from the various chemicals used in photoprocessing(e.g.,volatile organic compounds or toxics emitted from,film cleaners, solvents) may be regulated . under the CAA. firing Ranges , Most police departments require their police officers to-practice firing accuracy at local indoor or outdoor firing ranges. If conducted at outdoor firing ranges, this activity.may potentially impact the environment by contaminating the.soil (and possibly the groundwater)with lead from the birdshot, bullets, and bullet fragments, and . producing.airborne lead dust ,. EPA's current position Is that the de osition of lead Despite the likely contamination, p p from lead shot, bullets,and bullet fragments at firing ranges is considered to be within the normal and expected use pattern of the manufactured product and the resultant . contamination is not subject to the RCRA regulations.The bullets and bullet fragments ' are not characterized as "hazardous wastes" because they have not been discarded. However, where an imminent and.substantial endangerment to health or the environment may have been created by expended shot or debris, remedial requirements may apply under RCRA. In addition, the.remediation of lead- contaminated soil at a firing range,either for maintenance or site closure, is regulated under the hazardous waste provisions-of RCRA.and/or CERCLA..Underthe reporting provisions of EPCRA, fire ranges must report releases of lead dust transported by the •wind. A release Is reportable when more than one pound of lead parddes'smaller than 0.004 inches in diameter is. released beyond the boundaries of the site/facility.` ' . ' Notwithstanding the above; EPA encourages the use of alternative approaches that ranges can take to reduce the possibility of lead_contamination.These include the - installation of devices that can intercept and collect the shot and bullets for recycling, B-129 http://wvwv.Igean.org/html/lgo/PBLCSFTY 02.html =' _• - guiat_-Ion on Lead Waste Treatment and Handling Page 1 of 4 Svc Online omt 531pc co®tat ISK . ao*� Videos EPA Regs ) OSHA Regs I State Reg s I Other Items,of Interest Penalty Box �taa�ard's. . Csrt�t�eti � EPXs Regulation on Lead Waste Treatment and :Handling Training i�e�6sbip by Bernie Appleman, Executive Director of SSPC chapters On May 26, 1998, two final regulations dealing with the treatment and testing of lead containing waste appeared tommitteea in the Federal Register. 0 Part A:Treatment Standards for Lead Containing Waste a 1. New Treatment Standards for Treated Versus Untreated (see Table 1) ' Previously, the requirement for determining if an untreated waste Is hazardous was the same as for a treated waste. This level was 5.0 mg/i.as determined by . TCLP. The untreated waste is known as a TC (toxicity' characteristic) waste. The resent rule changes the criteria for disposal of a . P . 9 P treated waste but not for an untreated.waste. For an untreated waste, the TC level.is `unchanged at 5.0 mg/I. If -untreated waste contains lead at less than 5.0 mg/I per TCLP test it is considered nonhazardous.` However, for waste which is to be treated (e.g., by portland cement) the leachable lead.level (per TCLP) must be less than 0.75 mg/I to be classified as a nonhazardous waste.arrd be eligible for landfilling: Table 1: Summary Table for Treated and Untreated Wastes B-130 http://www.sspc.org/site/regnews/EPAWASTERULE.html r; UNITED STATES *W PA ENVII20NMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EWASHINGTON.D.C. 20460. 9355.4-12 EPA/540/F-941043 PB94-963282 t August 1994 JUL OFixz OF ' SOLID WASTE AND£UWMCY RESPONSE OSWER Directive#9355.4-12. MEMORANDUM a SUBJECT: Revised Interim Soil Lead Gui for CERCIL Sites and RCRA Corrective Action Facilities' ' FROM: Elliott P.Laws Assistant Administrator TO: Regional Administralors I-X , PURPOSE As part of the Superfimd Administrative Improvements Initiative,this interim directive establishes a streamlined approach for determining protective levels for lead in soil at CERCLA sites and RCRA facilities that are subject to corrective action under RCRA section 3004(u)or 3008(h)as follows: It recommends screening levels for lead in soil for residential land use 400(ppm);' 0 It describes how to develop site-specific preliminary remediation goals(PRGs)at CERCLA sites `"- and media cleanup standards(MCSs)at RCRA Corrective Action facilities for residential land use;and, . 0 It describes a plan for sort lead cleanup at CERCLA sites and RCRA Corrective Action Facilities , that have multiple sources of lead. This interim directive replaces all previous directives on soil lead cleanup for CERCLA and RCRA programs(see— the Back ground section,.1989-1991). KEY MESSAGES Screening levels are not cleanup goals. Rather,these screening levels may be used as a tool to.determine which sites or portions of sites do not require further study and to encourage voluntary cleanup..Screening levels . are defined as a level of contamination above which there may be enough concern to warrant site-specific study of ' risks..Levels of contamination above the screening level would NOT automatically require a removal action,nor designate a site as"contaminated." The residential screening level for lead described in this directive has been calculated with the Agency's new Integrated Exposure Uptake Bioldnetic Model(IEUBI)model(Pub.#9285.7-15-2,PB93-963511),using default.parameters. As outlined in the Guidance Manual for the IEUBK Model for Lead in Children(Pub.# The residential screening level is the same concept as the action level proposed in the RCRA Corrective . Action Subpart S rule(July 27,1990,55 Federal.Register 30798). L B-131 1.0 Executive Summary Lead has accumulated in soils adjacent,to. highways above natural.levels due to historic use of lead antilmock.compounds in gasoline, the use of lead:tire weights; lead in paint, and ambient levels of lead in crude oil/gasoline. Federal and state regulatory.agencies have developed criteria and standards designed to protect public health and the environment from the potential ' hazards.associated with elevated concentrations of lead in soil, drinldng water and surface waters. This report presents a review of information related to regulating lead in near highway surface soils relative to the State Water Resources Control Board's proposed restrictions in the draft Caltrans Statewide Storm Water Permit. 1.1 Regulatory Approach The US EPA RCRA reguilations that govern wastes containing lead are directed to the disposal of the waste in a municipal landfill. The regulations are'designed to protect ground water supplies from pollution by landfill landfill leachate. '.The US EPA regulations specify a maximum concentration of lead that may be leached under specified conditions.before the waste is classified as a hazardous waste. The US EPA Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) for designation of a lead containing waste as .a hazardous waste is based on a leachable lead concentration of 5 mg/L(5,000 µg(L). Leachable lead values at or above this level cause.a waste. r to be classified as a hazardous waste'No hazardous waste threshold value is specified by the US EPA for total lead in soil. The US EPA does not have a"drinking water-Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) criterion for lead., but does.designate a drinking water"action".level of 15 µg/L. rConcentrations of lead.in. drinking water above this. amount are considered hazardous. to children's health. The California Department .of Health.Services .(DHS) developed a hazardous waste classification o the deposition of waste in landfills that is more restrictive than the system governing depo o . US EPA requirements. This system was codified in 1984 under Title 22 as the.Waste Extraction Test (WET), and it determines the total leachable concentration of certain constituents such as lead in a waste. The WET Soluble Threshold.Limiting Concentration(STLC)for lead is s 5 mg/L. (5,000 µg/L). The DHS limit for total lead as a hazardous waste is 1,000-mg/kg,known_as the Total.Threshold Limiting Concentration CMC).T The California Environmental Protection Agency'. Department of Toxic Substances Control` .(DTSC) regulates hazardous wastes in California. In'the early. 1990's the regulatory authority for hazardous waste management_ in California was shifted to DTSC. The DTSC is currently revising the .hazardous waste classification..system under the Regulatory Structure:Update (RSU). The proposed'revisions include changing the TTLC and STLC.for lead in waste:soils, which would raise the.TTLC to 6,000 mg/kg and'eliminate the'use of the STLC as a classification approach. : The proposed revisions would also create a new special hazardous waste classification.for lead of 1,000 mg/kg, based on potential impacts to earthworm reproduction. DTSC's proposed approach would.allow the special waste to be placed in a.municipal landfill 2 B-132 11 Public Health Threat Lead may be a public health threat in two ways: 1 through' surface water. Y P F��3' 3's ) � contamination of domestic water supplies above the US EPA "action level,"`and 2) through . accumulation in soils to a level that could cause harm through ingestion by children or absorption by pregnant women,to an unborn child. For the purposes of using near highway'-soils as "clean fill"in highway construction,it is proposed that"clean"soil may be broadly defined as soil with a total lead concentration of 400 mg/kg or less based on US EPA guidance relative to'unrestricted soil-contact by children. It is rare that the lead level in the source water for a domestic water supply is a problem in ' instances when excessive lead has been found at a residential or commercial.use service point.. Dissolved lead at the consumer.level'is primarily derived from lead pipes, lead solder used in connections of copper pipe, and lead in plumbing fixtures or pumps. ' Lead in wastes can be a source of groundwater pollution at significant distances from the source in relatively rare cases. Typically, lead in most,aquifer systems is either precipitated or sorted to the aquifer solids, and, therefore, its transport from a source is normally limited. -The types of situations of particular concern for long distance transport of lead. polluted groundwaters are those associated with cavernous limestone or fractured rock aquifer systems. Lead may also be a threat to children who. ingest soil containing lead, or to unborn i children if sufficient lead is absorbed by the mother to cause elevated blood lead concentrations in the fetus. the US EPA has determined that Superfund site soils containing total lead above about 700 mg/kg to 1,500 mg/kg may be a hazard to unborn children if sufficient quantities are dispersed in a residential area where the lead is carried into a home through tracking or airborne -� . 1 The DTSC has issued variances to Caltrans governing the use of near highway surface soils as construction fill in new or redevelop.. / . aontained highways. Soils containing lead (meeting the current TTLC threshold of 1,000 m may be buried in the fill with a r ( � Pig) Y protective sod cover: This provision is designed to protect public health and the environment to eliminate . signifiicant surface water or dust borne transport of surface sod lead from new or reconstructed highways. Also,the existing DI WET(distilled waxer)leachable lead value of 500 µg/L contained r within the existing variances is designed to protect groundwater quality.. With'respect to storm water runoff water quality impacts, based on recent monitorin g data,runoff from Caltrans highways may exceed US EPA worst case I based water quality criteria for the-protection of aquatic life from lead toxicity. However,reducing highway shoulder surface soil total lead values below 1,575 mg/kg is riot required to protect aqu atic life; since lead in highway storm water runoff is primarily controlled by .constituents derived from the paved surface. ' L . Lead concentrations in storm water runoff have fallen dramatically since the early 1970's when the use of lead as an additive.to gasoline began to be discontinued. However, the lead 3 ... B-133 concentrations in highway storm water runoff have become.relatively constant during the last" 1 decade. ' 13 Summary of Soil Testing Information In the spring of 1998, Caltrans undertook a study to determine the lead content and other characteristics of near highway surface soils. Kinetic Laboratories,Inc.:(KLI,'1998a)took core samples at, 68 locations throughout the state: 'The average total lead concentration of the 68 samples was 131 mg/kg, with the average value for the top 6 inches of soil at 252 mg/kg. This ' data is consistent with the expectation that soils -adjacent' to Highways contain elevated concentrations of lead. Average surface soils in.Califomia.contain about 30 mg/kg of total lead. fThe KLI.data show that about 4% (three cores) exceeded a total lead value.of 1,575 mg/kg. Further,only two cores(as an average over 2 feet of depth)exceeded the US EPA TCLP hazardous wastes threshold of 5 mg/L. About 10 cores or 15% exceeded the DI.WET value of 1 500 µg/L. The KLI data show that high total lead does not correlate with high DI WET dissolved lead. There is also no clear relationship between leached dissolved lead and total hardness or total organic carbon(TOC). ' A study of the variability of total lead and leachable lead in near highway surface soils shows that the coefficient of variation (standard deviation divided by the mean times 100) is typically 60% to 90% for samples taken near each other, or in a typical construction site work ' area covering about 750 feet along an existing highway by 20 feet wide. These results indicate that there is moderate variability in the concentrations of total lead and leachable lead in near highway surface soils. . 1.4 Permit Issues 'ed set of is relative to the of soils containing lead is included A detail requirements handling g . in the.draft Caltrans storm water permit. Several of the SWRCB draft.permit -language requirements are not consistent with the recent data collected by Caltrans and other investigators.. Given the leaching characteristics of near highway surface soils,the US EPA TCLP threshold of 5 mg/L of leachable lead using the DI WET procedure would not be expected to be.attained f The, DI WET testing of Caltrans highway surface soils has been found to leach less than the US EPA allowed 5 m for TCLP extractable lead,which governs the placement of waste containing lead 1� g in a municipal landfill'''The placement of near highway surface soil in a construction.fill typically ' represents less of a threat to.groundwater than marry municipal.solid waste landfills. This is due to the limited areas of groundwater that could be impacted by leaching lead from the highway fill that 'could impact a domestic water. supply, as compared to many municipal landfills. The appropriate DI WET extractable lead threshold value should be established as 5 mg/L. This value 4 ..- B-134 would be.protective of ground water quality at all but those situations where the highway construction fill is underlain by cavernous limestone or fractured rock aquifer systems. Further,a review of a significant number of near highway surface soil investigations shows- that there is no relationship between soil pH and the DI WET leachable lead.'Use of soil pH to a value lower than about'a pH 4.5 is not a valid criterion for restricting the placement of soils containing lead in highway construction fill. "Neither is there technical justification for ' DI WET i criterion of 150 µg/L governing the placement of near highway surface soils in construction fill. The current DISC variance value _of 500 µg/L DI WET leachable' lead is protective of groundwater resources and is conservative compared to the US EPA TCLP criteria for leachable lead from wastes. . The SWRCB should,defer the Caltrans statewide storm water permit conditions to the existing DISC variance for the regulations governing the use of near highway surface soils containing lead in highway construction fill for the interim time period during which DTSC promulgates new hazardous waste management criteria. B-I3S _ _ 1 acid solution is used to leach-the waste. This solution is assumed to be similar to the leaching characteristics of municipal landfill leachate: This leaching procedure, originally called EP Tox test,has become the US EPA's Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)leaching test. If the lead leached.under the conditions of this test*exceeds 5 mg/L, the waste is classified as a hazardous waste, cannot be placed in a municipal landfill, and must be deposited in a hazardous waste landfill. The 5 mg/L maximum leachable lead concentration allowed in the TCLP test is derived . from the former 50 µg/L lead drinking water action level and a 100-fold attenuation/dilution . factor.- It was assumed by the US EPA.that when waste containing lead is placed in a municipal ' landfill; the leachate leaving the landfill would'be attenuated by the'sod base of the landfill and diluted by the groundwater aquifer. The attenuation/dilution factor.of 100 should account for the movement- of lead from the point where the leachate leaves the landfill, and enters the tgroundwater system, until the groundwater containing lead would be consumed as part of a groundwater-based domestic water supply. For most situations,the attenuation/dilution factor of 100 is overprotective. 1 There are limited situations however, where the factor of 100 may not beprotective, . � Y especially situations associated with landfills overlying fractured rock or cavernous limestone aquifer systems. Under these conditions, it is possible that landfill, leachate with lead concentrations of 5 mg/L could pollute a nearby domestic water supply well with lead above the drinking water action level. The US EPA.has not promulgated a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for lead. The drinking water "standard" for lead'has always been based.on an "action level" which, for all ' practical purposes, is implemented the same as 'an MCL. . Several years ago the US EPA. promulgated a new lead drinldng water action level of 15 µg/L. The US EPA,however, did not change the maximum allowable TCLP leachable lead-to 1.5 mg/L, which is the value that would be derived from the 100-fold attenuation/dilution factor.The Agency has maintained the allowable TCLP leachable lead at 5 mg/L. The US EPA is allowing a much larger attenuation factor in classifying a waste containing lead as a hazardous waste than it uses for other constituents regulated by the TCLP. With few exceptions as noted above,this approach is highly protective of groundwater based water supplies, as well as those situations where the groundwater becomes _ part.of a surface water system. Department of Health Services/Depardnent of Tonic-Substances Control. In the early 1980's the Department of Health Services (DHS) developed a California-only hazardous waste classification approach in which citric acid was used in a TCLP-like leaching procedure rather than acetic acid as the leaching solution. The California hazardous waste leaching test was promulgated in 1984 under Title 22 as the Waste Extraction Test(WET).' DHS has continued to ' use the US EPA's hundred-fold attenuation/dilution factor, as the amount of allowable leaching for characterizing waste with respect to its deposition in a municipal landfill versus a hazardous waste landfill. For lead,the Soluble Threshold Limiting_ Concentration(STLC)was established as F 5 mg/L. , 9 ......... .- - B-136 ' Recently, DTSC has proposed to drop the WET procedure in favor of the TCLP test for classifying waste as hazardous waste in California. This DTSC Regulatory Structure Update (RSU) is part of au over two-year effort devoted to revisions of the approach used to classify . hazardous waste. Under this proposal,California will follow the approach of all other states,and _ . only use the TCLP test *to determine whether a waste containing lead or other regulated constituents can be placed in a municipal landfill versus a hazardous-waste landfill..:: The DTSC proposed revised hazardous waste classification is currently under review. DTSC recently issued a call for comments on the scope of an EIR devoted to the revisions.of the hazardous waste classification approach that leads to a California-only hazardous waste stream. , On May 18, 1998,DTSC announced that it is significantly revising the proposed hazardous waste classification approach project and would issue a new call for comments on.the.scope of the EIR - for the revised project. The"scope is expected to.berevised in June 1998: If adopted,the revised ' classification approach .should be in place 'in Febmary. '1999. However, significant and controversial changes in approach are expected. In 1984 DHS adopted a total lead hazardous waste classification of 1000 m as the ' P �g Total Threshold Limiting Concentration(MC). The DTSC, as part of the RSU,has reviewed this value and concluded that it can be raised to 6,000 mg/kg and still be protective. The US EPA has not adopted a total lead content of waste as a basis for determining whether a waste containing lead can be placed in a municipal landfill. The current US EPA requirements are still based on the 5 mg/L concentration for TCLP leachable lead As part of the RSU, DTSC has proposed a revised approach for defining a California hazardous waste. In this"revised approach, "ecological" considerations are incorporated into the originally proposed definition in which a total lead concentration above 700 mg/kg would cause a waste to be classified as a "special" hazardous waste.. DTSC proposes that special hazardous waste can be placed in a municipal landfill provided that the municipal landfill owner obtains a , change in its waste discharge requirements from its Regional Board that allows bazardous waste in a Class III landfill. DTSC has proposed that this special hazardous waste classification would be such that once a special hazardous waste is placed in a municipal landfill, it is no longer classified as a hazardous waste. There is*considerable uncertainty as to whether this approach is workable because of the additional administrative burden associated with obtaining revised waste discharge requirements, l...J and the potential for significant public opposition to allowing a"hazardous"waste to be placed in a municipal landfill. . Many of the.current municipal landfill owners indicated, as part of the ' permitting of the landfill,that no hazardous waste would be deposited in the landfill. It could-be difficult for municipal landfill operators to reverse their previous position as.DTSC has proposed i The net result is that the special hazardous waste may have to be managed as a regular hazardous waste where it is deposited in a hazardous waste landfill,.rather than in.a municipal landfill as proposed by DTSC. The difference in cost is about$300 to$400/y&of waste. The DTSC ro osed 700 m total lead special hazardous waste classification is ' P P �g sP _ based on the potential impact of soil containing lead on earthworm reproduction. Based on limited. 10 ._-- B-137 studies conducted in the Netherlands using synthetic soils with 100 percent toxiclavailablim forms of lead added to these soils, it was found that earthworm reproduction was impaired at lead concentrations above about 500 mg/kg. DTSC initially adjusted the 500 mg/kg to 700 mg/kg. Recently DTSC has adjusted the 700 mg/kg to.1,000 mg/kg as the critical concentration of total . lead in a waste that would cause the waste.to be classified.as a special hazardous waste. rThere is considerable controversy about the appropriateness' of DTSC using the impairment of earthworm reproduction as a basis for establishing a special hazardous waste classification. Further, the appropriateness of using the limited Dutch studies as:the basis for establishing a hazardous waste classification in California is being seriously'questioned. . In addition,numerous studies have shown that lead in soils derived from leaded gasoline-residues is largely.inert, i.e, in a nontoxic, non-available.form under normal environmental conditions. The f' fact that.the Dutch studies used toxiclavailable forms of lead in'the synthetic soil studies could cause these studies to significantly overestimate the toxicity of lead derived from gasoline residues to earthworms, ado The DHS (1984) Statement of Reasons covering the proposed adoption of the provisions . that generated a California-only hazardous waste stream,that led to the 1,000 mg/kg TTLC total lead hazardous..waste classification value, indicates that "the MC level for lead is'20 times lower than the recommended 'highly contaminated' level," based on a -DHS 1979 study. Concern was expressed about the potential impact of lead on children's health. At that time there ' was limited understanding of the relationship between lead concentrations in soils and adverse impacts on children who play on these contaminated soils. As discussed in Section 4,there is considerable new information available today on the threat that lead in soils represents to children's health. The DTSC is proposing that the current 1,000 mgtkg total lead hazardous waste classification be continued despite the shift in purpose from protecting children from exposure to lead to protecting earthworm reproduction. The proposed revised approach for implementing this hazardous waste classification is through the management -of a special hazardous waste in a municipal landfill. In summary,there is a normally conservative, well-established federal procedure (TCLP) for determining whether a waste containing lead may be placed in a municipal versus hazardous waste landfill. However, the California hazardous waste classification approach is in.a state.of considerable uncertainty. There are significant pressures and justifications for DTSC to abandon the development of California-only hazardous waste, including its newly-proposed. special hazardous waste, in favor of using the same approach as other states of classifying waste as hazardous waste based on the federal procedure. The uncertainty as to the future of California's approach for classifying waste as a hazardous waste is of considerable importance to.SWRCB's development of a Caltrans statewide storm water permit which significantly restricts how Caltrans can use soils containing lead as construction fill. 11 B-138 ... . 4.5 Appropriateness.of Continuing Current DTSC Soil Lead Variances Currently Caltrans' management of near highway surface-soils containing-elevated lead T concentrations is governed by existing DTSC variances.. These variances .require the ' determination of the total lead in the soil. If the total lead exceeds the TTLC-hazardous waste classification of 1,000 mg/kg,then the soil is considered a hazardous waste and must be managed as a California hazardous waste except as allowed in the DTSC variances. If the total soil lead ' exceeds 1,000 rn /kg,further testing is required to determine if the soul meets the requirements of j. . the variances. k If the soil contains total lead between 50 and 1,000 mg/kg,the standard WET is used to. . determine the soluble lead. If the soluble lead exceeds the STLC of 5 mg/L, further.testing is t~ required. If the soluble lead is less than 5 mg/L,the soil would be considered non-hazardous and can be used without restrictions. The current DTSC lead variances, contain the.following requirements: . Category 1: I.:i If total lead is less than 1,575 mg/kg and the DI-WET lead is less than 0.5 mg/L (500 µg/L),soil may be reused with the following restrictions: 1. Soil must be placed at least 5 feet above the maximmm height of the water table,and 2. Covered with at least 1 foot of clean soil. DI WET leachable lead is the same as DI water leachable lead-referred to in this report. ' Category 2: If total lead is greater than 1,575 mg/kg but less than 4,150 mg/kg or the DI-WET is greater than 0.5 mg/L(500 µg/L),soul may be reused with the following restrictions: 1: Soul must be placed at least 5 feet above the maximum water table height,and 2. Contaminated soul must be covered with pavement or similar impervious cap. , Category 3. , If soul is hazardous due to lead and exhibits a pH under 5.0,soil shall only be used as fill material under the paved portion of the roadway. The.SWRCB currently proposed soil lead restrictions in the draft statewide permit are largely based on the.existing DTSC Caltrans soil lead variances with some important exceptions. First,the.SWRCB raised the pH restriction from the DTSC 5.0 to 6.0. As discussed herein,from the information available from the KLI (1998)-data and from the literature, it is concluded that there is no technical justification to raise the soil pH restriction from 5.0 to 6.0. In fact, the pH , 21 i . B-139 ' APPENDIX C -ADDITIONAL SITE INFORMATION Hart crowser ' 6914 October 14,2002 B-I40 rSAMPLING PROTOCOL FOR STOCKPILED SOIL ' 1. Stockpiled soil that is designated for disposal to a permitted hazardous waste or ' specified waste facility, or to a treatment/recycling facility, must be sampled and analyzed in accordance with the receiving facility's requirements. These facilities ' may have different requirements than those presented below. Copies of all laboratory data and hazardous waste manifests, or other transportation documents ' generated for the soil treatment or disposal, must be submitted to OCHCA to demonstrate the proper handling and disposal of contaminated soil. 2. Only discrete soil samples will be used to characterize stockpiles to avoid dilution of contaminants. ' 3. All stockpiled soil that is not intended to be transported off site to a permitted , facility, or has.not been previously characterized through in situ sampling, must be sampled in accordance with the protocol outlined below. This protocol provides a uniform approach for demonstrating the contaminant.level within a soil mass. Prior ' approval must be obtained from OCHCA and the RWQCB for off-site transport or reuse on-site of any soil associated with the firing range property, including soil taken from areas outside of the subject property. ' 4. Procedures in EPA Publication SW-846 provide a method for determining the mean , concentration of a given contaminant within a soil mass and the appropriate number of samples necessary to calculate this mean to within a specified confidence level. , Initial sampling should generate a minimum number of samples/analyses as described below. Additional sample analyses may be required to meet the confidence levels given in SW846; therefore, archiving of samples may be ' appropriate. Archived samples must be appropriately preserved and analyzed within the maximum holding time specified in SW-846. The minimum number of , discrete samples initially required is given below: ■ Stockpiles less than 10 cubic yards: a minimum of two (2) samples must be ' collected, one from each half of the stockpile. Select sample points randomly within each half. , ■ Stockpiles from 10-20 cubic yards: a minimum of three (3) samples must be ' collected, one from each third of the stockpile. Select sample points randomly within each third. 1 B•141 ' ■ Stockpiles from 20-100 cubic yards: a minimum of four (4) samples must be ' collected, one from each quarter of the stockpile. Select sample points randomly within each quarter. ■ Stockpiles from 100-500 cubic yards: a minimum of one (1) sample for each 25 cubic yards or portion must be collected (e.g., a 130-cubic yard stockpile would ' require 6 samples). Section the stockpile into 25 cubic yard portions and obtain a minimum of one (1) sample. from each 25 cubic yard portion. Select sample points ' randomly within each 25 cubic yard portion of the stockpile. ' ■ Stockpiles oven 500 cubic yards: contact OCHCA for guidance on the minimum samples necessary. ' 5. Random sampie.points must be selected from locations on a three-dimensional grid. The presence of materials such as boulders, debris, etc., may make strict application of this requirement impractical. In such cases, it is appropriate to obtain the sample as close as possible to the randomly selected point without altering the spirit of the ' random selection process. Metal tubes are preferred, since they will minimize aeration of the samples. Containers should be completely filled, capped, and placed on ice immediately. 6. Stockpiled soil is assumed to have a non-homogeneous distribution of contaminants. ' If a stockpile previously characterized by this protocol is split for any reason (such as to excise a portion expected to be highly.contaminated from a non- or lesser- contaminated portion), the remaining mass must be re-sampled as a new stockpile per the previously described protocol to establish its mean contaminant concentration. Note that it is not necessary to consider each individual stockpile ' separately. At the discretion of the consultant, stockpiles expected to contain similar contaminant conditions can be considered part of the same soil mass for the purpose of SW-846 sampling. 7. Information on stockpiled soil evaluation must be submitted to OCHCA and must ' include the following: ' ■ An estimate of the volume of contaminated soil involved; ■ A description of the contaminant; ' 2 B-142 ■ A description of the sampling methodology and the sample location/selection process; ' ■ A plot plan detailing the stockpile and sample locations; , ■ A copy_ of all sample results, chain of custody documents, and QA/QC supporting data; ' • A one-page summary of the laboratory results for the stockpile sampling; ' ■ Statistical calculations for all stockpiles greater than 20 cubic yards. Note: A Stockpile Statistics Worksheet (Table 1) and Tabulated Values of Students 'Y (Table 2) are provided as an aid in completing these calculations. - r ■ A statement by the City of Huntington Beach or by a registered professional (e.g., RG, RCE, Registered Environmental Health Specialist, or equivalent) certifying the ' level of contamination as determined using the SW-846 statistical process. 8. Data generated by field instrument methodologies such as photo-ionization and ' flame ionization detectors are not acceptable for quantifying contaminant concentrations. , SAMPLING PROTOCOL FOR CONTAINERIZED SOIL ' If the City of Huntington Beach or consultant choose to manage soil by placing it in containers (e.g., storage bins, 55-gallon drums) for security or aesthetic reasons, the characterization of soil placed in storage bins will typically follow the same sampling protocol as described above for stockpiled soil. However, the characterization of soil , placed in drums may require the review of logs and site sampling/analytical data, as well as the collection of soil samples from selected drums. OCHCA should be contacted for ' specific direction conceming the characterization of soil stored in drums. 3 B-143 ' 1 + TABLE 1: STOCKPILE STATISTICS WORKSHEET' A118iytieal Matto& s y ' lift*¢1.jf100 7 2 Gene mnbw ofmirriile va ms A n- 3 ,�=mplb meat: A 4 ' 3 Oak�Oa .:strd mat s w• S t .dega d n dl n-1 416 ' T -JtRr d Ono Otitis nr M. � 8 C'Jbqut�t�alws mrre�oandiary to {$ee dfed � tom. atireadaia:value daMM11 had va4res.an next`petpe) in 111� ' 9 owiaihtl�ftun ra-k omw 0 tQ Obtain ry V*ashoidfar*e AT lily anrtratrdrrlirltaFn. ' iS Csfwta6e = lilt-x •¢ t2 nnkw=rum*wat.s ' In accordance with the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Section 66694, it is recommended that the consultant follow the sampling guidelines set forth in Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,Physical/Chemical Methods, SW-846, Third Edition, US Environmental Protection Agency, 1986. This worksheet is based on information found in Volume II, Part III, Chapter 9 of 'SW-846' and is provided as an aid for stockpile ' characterization. For circumstances requiring data manipulation beyond that indicated on the worksheet, refer to'SW-W.I ' B-144 TABLE 2:TABULATED VALUES OF STUDENTS 't' FOR EVALUATING SOLID WASTES Degrees of Freedoms Tabulated value , df t,20 (n-1) (80%confidence interval) ' 1 3.078 2 1.886 3 1.638 ' 4 1.533 5 1.476 6 1.440 ' 7 1.415 8 1397 9 1393 10 1372 11 1363 12 1356 13 1350 ' 14 1345 15 1341 16 1.337 ' 17 1333 18 1330 19 1.328 ' 20 1325 21 1.323 22 1.321 23 1319 ' 24 1.378 25 1.316 26 1.315 ' 27 1314 28 1313 29 1311 ' 30 1310 40 1303 60 1.296 ' 120 1.289 t Degrees of freedom(df)are equal to the number of samples(n)collected less one. 2Tabulated Y'values are for a two-tailed confidence interval and a probability of 0.20 (80%confidence level). ' The same values are applicable to a one-tailed confidence interval and a probability of 0.10 (90% confidence level). B-145 ' 0 lillllllllllllllllllillll lllllllllllL,Ip !0 io 4 0 so =JIMllllllllllllllllll lllll -l-t lllllllllllllllllll 111 SCALE Do FEET ill lllilllllllllllIII till llllllllallll lllllllllllllllllll l 111 llllllllllllll llllllllllllll �ll lllllllllllllllllll � l � ' 111 llllllllllllll lllllllllllllllllll - lllllllllllllllllll l � 111 llllllllllllll llllllllllllll 111 lllllllllllllllllll 111 111 llllllllllllll llllllllllllll ll lllllllllllllllllll lIl till llllllllllllll lllllllllllll �Plll lllllllllllllllllll l� l till llllllllllllll HIIIIIIllllllHlll lllllllllllllllllll l l ' lilt llllllllllllll llllllllll m m it 0 lllllllllllllllllll 1 1 lllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllll ill lllllllllllllllllll 11 Ill l ll lllll 111 111111111 Mill lilt 11 1 till llllllllllllll llllllllllllll ll I M l l i1. 1111 l 111 till llllllllllllll°Illllllllllllll 11 l l l llll ll I I I 111 llllllllllillllllllllllllllll� lll - - till llllllllllllll°lilllllllllllll 11111 111 lllllllllilllllolllilllllllllll �- ' 111 llllllllllllWIIIIIIIIII I I I-TR I I I l 0 ' rrTTrT AIIIIIIII111 lll �t.,1� lllllllllllllllllll.11lllllllllll llllll lllllll a 111 �l'� lllllllllllllllllllljlllllllllll llllll llllll o 11kllllll lllllllllllllillilll . 11lllllllll lllllll lllll a _ l i llill -------------- i 1� ' sOURCE DATE SCALES MewPomte 01/24/01 In Moft Space City of Huntington Beach AM © Proposed Area of Copping CAD F Firing e AM� Former g Range g ' DRAWN TECNNCK APPROVAL DATE MA. KfOZOWSY\B /2g/Ol iTNAL RAP tWL log Fencing JAW 04/09/01 wrM 06/29/0t Proposed Area of Capping A /tT/oI PMx R Drott Report JAW Trees DRAFTING CHECK PROJECT APPROVAL REV DATE DESCRIPTION APPROVAL MHE 06/29/01 MIFN OB/29/Ot REVISIONS AND APPROVALS Vegetation CHIEF DRAFTSMAN CLIENT APPROVAL ORANMC NUMBER REN40!� -_ JAW w/o9/oi 6914—FigureAB B-146 1 ° 0 () 0 1110 1 1 , \\ , . ♦ 6CAId IN rEEr Lj I IUD \ , ♦ ` \ '` ' D i 1 'N.''' ♦ q N. ``♦ ° o—1 1 ' ♦ ,`♦\ 1 ' ♦ N. i ' ♦x N. N. N. 1 1 - 1 1 SOURCE DATE SCALES MetroPolnte 01/24/01 In Mode+Spwv City of Huntington Beach A Sol Excavation Areas CAD FILES Former Firing Range V Fgwez.e.y 1 _ DRAMM TECHNICAL APPROVAL DATE 6 /29/0+FINAL R MUTT"O WS RAP Log Fencing JAM 04/09/01 V" 06/29/01 Areas of Soil Excavation �r�e A /11/01 PN�I Droll Report JAM Trees DRAFTING CHECK PROJECT APPROVAL REV DATE DESCR+Pl1pN APPROVAL MNE 06/29/01 rs'M 06/29/01 REVISIONS AND APPROVALS p vegetation CHEF DRAFTSMAN CLIENT APPROVAL p1AMMf:NUMBER REMS101 JAM os/o9/o1 6914—Figure 3 0 1 B-147 i i 0 2.10 ' u , zo 30 40 so sc ,DI FEET 210— _ X l8( 0 BI9T35_151 11195_45 B195_75� B195_105 --E 13i� SB6 180 151 _ f� BC B165_15 B165_45 B165_75 B165_105 <f S ISO te. - 1;l L@ B135_15 B135_45 135 75 B135_105 I B4... 1 �[ ls� )s. 120 ----.._._.. ---- -- - - - - — - �] ---8 :210 11113_ 11I13_26 B11529C _ . R B105_15 13105_45 105_75 B105_105 I o L Lx I . 90- B 210 - B90_260 _ _- o B7_15 B7 545 0 7_75 B7 5105 O� ' a CC] ,o o CM B45_15 B45_45 B45_75 B45_105 K l 0 )E 30 _ B30_32 31130340 B30 36 30_377 J/r BIS-5 B154 5 B1�5 B1 5105 I I 1 tq Bt0-32 B10 3 0 BID 360 BIOS 77 0 0 o B(-10 3223 -10)340 B 1 1_360 Btu- 7 a ' -30 O O O O O O O O O O O G O O O C7 C7 cD N O - Q) C12 N N C". N 1 ' -30 Sample Grid Coordinates ❑ 9011RCE DATE SCALES Sample Grid Square 1(elropolnte 01/24/01 In Yodel Space City of Huntington Beach A eis_+s Borehole Location CAD MES Former Firing Range III Coordinates �iqur2'de9 g ' Log Fencing DRAWN TECHNICAL APPROVAL DATE Y? aOM/�IaI� JAW 04/09/0, wu 04/10/01 Sampling ��✓Y i A /TT/01 HMaw a Draft Reowl I.HAW 1�. Trees DRAFTING O CHECK 04/09/01 �iE T APPROVALoz/o9/ot Locations REv DATE DESCRRTHON APPROVAL DRAWING NUWBER REVISION NS AND --- Vegetation JAW DRAFTSMAN CLIENT APPROVAL REVHSHOrrS AND APPROVALS .lAw 04/09/01 6914-Figure 2 A B-148 I Arm FINAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT FORMER GUN RANGE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 1 FOR-CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA i CERTIFICATION tThis Report was.prepared by the staff of Hart Crowser, Inc., under the supervision of the Geologist and/or Engineer whose signature and license appears hereon. The services performed by Hart Crowser have. been conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of our profession currently practicing under similar conditions in California. No other warranty is expressed or implied. 10 IWILLIAM F. MCCLENNEY, R.G. #44 p Project Number: 6914.00 �\5c��F M 6 pC, Report : Final Remedial Investigation Report * NO. 4430 Former Gun Range Huntington Beach California Issued: April 23, 2001 lF F CA1.�F� B-149 City ofHuntington Beach -former Firing Range Hart Crowser Project No. 6914 F1na1Remed1a11nvestig,?&on Report Apr-12.3,2001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Huntington Beach ("City") retained the services of Hart Crowser, Inc. (Hart Crowser) to conduct a remedial investigation (RI) intended to delineate heavy-metal impacts to a former gun range site located within Huntington Central Park, in the City of Huntington Beach, California (subject property). The property was originally part of ' Huntington Beach Landfill (Landfill), which was owned and operated by the County of Orange ("County"). ' The subject property is approximately 4.91 acres in size and is presently owned by the City of Huntington Beach. The site is designated as'Open Space-Park in the City's General Plan and is part of the Master Plan of Recreation Uses for Central Park. The property has a physical street address of 18191 Gothard Street, in Huntington Beach, California. The , property is situated to the southwest of the intersection between Talbert Avenue and Gothard Street, to the immediate north of Sully Miller Lake. r Hart Crowser based its field sampling plan on information provided by the City and Mr. 1 Richard Wright with the City's Police Officers Association. Hart Crowser understands that: 1. Two firing ranges operated on the property, the main (and existing) range and a former pistol range to the immediate south of the existing range; 2. Soil berms for both the main firing range and the former pistol range were "mined" twice a year for approximately 25 years. This involved physical removal of the soil berms for the separation of bullets and bullet fragments. This soil was deposited in a roughly 50-foot by 50-foot area on the southwestern portion of the subject property; 3. Fill soil was routinely imported and moved to replace soil berms and to compensate for subsidence of soils throughout the property; and 4. Initial visual inspection led Hart Crowser to suspect that the wood post fencing at the subject property might have been treated with creosote as a wood preservative. B-150 ' i fH 8n - er firm Ran e . -Hart Crowser Project No. 6914 �� Cty o un gton Beach Form g g � final Remediallnvestigation Report April23, 2001 Hart Crowser completed its field sampling plan in two mobilizations; the first during March 12, 13, and 14, 2001; and the second during March 20 and 21, 2001. During the first mobilization, Hart Crowser� collected samples from the soil berms along the northern Iboundary of the property and from the floor of the main firing range. In addition, wood samples were collected from the wood post fencing throughout the property. During the second mobilization, soil samples were collected.from the floor of the former pistol range and the berm spoils pile on the southwest corner of the property. Hart Crowser submitted, through proper Chain-of-custody procedures, 29 soil samples collected from the berm area, 65 soil samples collected from the main firing range, 40 samples from the former pistol range, 72 samples from the former berm spoils pile, and 9 duplicate samples from various locations for laboratory analysis. American Analytics in Chatsworth, California analyzed 143 discreet soil samples and 9 composite soil samples (from the 72 berm spoils pile area) for total extractable copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), and lead (Pb) by EPA Methods 7210, 7950, and 7420, respectively. Upon receipt of laboratory results, Hart Crowser selected 17 samples for STLC analysis by CAL WET, and 7 soil samples for analysis of Title 22 metals (CAM) by EPA Method 6000/7000. In addition, Hart Crowser submitted 9 wood samples for analysis of creosols by EPA Method 8270. The following list presents our findings and conclusions. • As the subject property overlies a former landfill, Hart Crowser drove one (1) boring to 12-feet below ground surface in an attempt to "tag" the upper surface of the Landfill cap. In addition, eight (8) borings were driven to 6-feet bgs as part of the original field sampling plan. This procedure was intended to establish a control depth beneath which soil assessment activities would not be conducted. Based on conditions observed at these nine (9) locations and throughout the subject property, Hart Crowser saw no evidence of a Landfill cap. • The highest concentrations of lead were found in the soils throughout the berm of 1 the main firing range. In general, elevated total lead concentrations appeared to be randomly scattered with soil locations and depths. Hart Crowser did not observe evidence of a consistent.depth at which lead concentrations diminished. 8-151 e7 City ofHuntington Beach-former firing Range Hart Crowser Project No. 6914 ' Final Remed1aijnves&g.?&on Report Aprii23,2001 • Seventeen (17) samples were selected for CAL WET analysis in an attempt to establish a relationship between total and leachable lead concentrations. Eleven ` (11) of these samples were found to be above the California Title 22 STLC of 5.0 mg/L. No direct relationship between total and soluble lead concentrations was , found to exist based on the sample data. This is likely due to the variable soil types associated'with imported fill materials, and soil relocations known to have occurred throughout the subject property. o Reported total lead concentrations in samples collected from the former berm spoils pile area indicate that lead concentrations are relatively low in comparison with samples collected from the soil berms, main firing range, and former pistol range. Historically the spoils pile area was used to sift and recover lead fragments and bullets from berms at both firing ranges. This would appear to indicate the efficacy of sifting in reducing lead concentrations for such soil materials. • Laboratory results indicate that wood post fencing at the subject property was treated with coal-tar, a common by-product of manufactured gas plants, not creosote as was originally believed. In 1998 letter from the Santa Ana Regional. Water Quality Control Board (SA-RWQCB) to the Orange County Health Care t Agency, it was specified that "Wood products treated with . PCP (pent achlorophenol), creosote, arsenic, copper and chromium shall be disposed of at permitted, lined Class III landfills in the region. Wood products treated with creosote may also be disposed of at permitted, unlined Class III landfills." By strict interpretation of this letter, the wood post fencing at the subject property does not qualify for Class III disposal. A clarification will need to be requested from the SA-RWQCB for coal-tar preserved wood products. This Final Remedial Investigation Report (RI) has identified the nature, level, and extent of environmental impacts due to the use of the subject property as a gun range. Hart Crowser will utilize the data gathered during this RI in the preparation of a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for the environmental cleanup of the subject property. B-I52 !� Gty of Huntington Beach-former Firing Range Hart Crowser Project No. 6914 final Remediallnvestigation Report Apri123, 2007 Prior to drafting the RAP, Hart Crowser will look to OCHCA to concur with the RI's assessment findings that on-site chemicals of concern (CoQ have been completely delineated. The RAP will utilize data presented in this RI to design and implement a soil remediation program. This program will include treatment/disposal alternatives with estimated costs and schedules of implementation, as well as remedial schematic layouts. iv B-153 A City ofHuntington Beach-Former Firing Range Hart Crowser Project No. 6914 I Fina19emedia//nvestigation Report _ _ _April23, 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Site History&Contaminants................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Remedial Investigation Objectives.....................................................................................................................2 2.0 SITE CONDITIONS.................................»....................................................................................................2 2.1 Location &Description..........................................................................................................................................2 2.2 Property Improvements.........................................................................................................................................3 2.3 Geologic Setting&Topography..........................................................................................................................3 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION....................»..............................................................................4 3.1 American Environmental Services, Inc. - 1998 Preliminary Investigation................................................4 3.2 Hart Crowser Sampling&Analysis Plan............................................................................................................5 4.0 REGULATORY CRITERIA................................»...........................................................................................5 4.1 Total Threshold Limit Concentration (TTLC)&Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration(STLC)...........5 4.2 Toxic Characteristic Leachability Test(TCLP)..................................................................................................6 4.3 Wood Preservatives...............................................................................................................................................6 5.0 FIELD SAMPLING PLAN.....................................»........................................................................................7 5.1 Health& Safety Plan..............................................................................................................................................8 5.2 Grid Pattern Coordinates......................................................................................................................................8 5.3 Field Activities...... .................................................................................................................................................8 5.3.1 Landfill Cap Penetration.............................................................................................................................9 5.3.2 Collection of Subsurface Soil Samples..................................................................................................10 5.3.2.1 Soil Firing Berms....................................................................................................................................10 5.3.2.2 Main Firing Range............................................... 5.3.2.3 Former Pistol Range.............................................................................................................................11 5.3.2.4 Berm Spoils Pile.....................................................................................................................................12 5.3.3 Soil Sampling Protocols............................................................................................................................12 5.3.4 Wood Post Sampling.................................................................................................................................12 5.3.5 QA/QC Duplicate Samples.....................................................................................................................13 5.3.6 Chain-Of-Custody Procedures.................................................................................................................13 5.3.7 Equipment Decontamination Procedures............................................................................................14 5.3.8 Management Of Investigation Derived Waste (IDW).......................................................................14 6.0 LABORATORY RESULTS............................................................................................................................15 6.1 Main Firing Range................................................................................................................................................15 6.1.1 Firing Range Berms....................................................................................................................................15 6.1.2 Floor Area....................................................................................................................................................16 6.2 Former Pistol Range.............................................................................................................................................17 6.3 Former Berms Spoils Pile....................................................................................................................................18 6.4 Wood Post Fencing..............................................................................................................................................18 . 6.5 QA/QC Duplicate Samples................................................................................................................................19 6.6 Copper and Zinc Analyses.................................................................................................................................19 B-154 r City ofHt117A17ff1b/7 beach Former Filing Range Hart Cro wser Project Mo. 6.914 F1na1ReMed1a11171/e5&ffa&017 Report Aplil23,2001 6.7 Title 22 (CAM) Metals..................................................................................................................... 19 7.0 DISCUSSION &ANALYSIS OF DATA.......................................................................................................20 8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY..........................................................................................................................................21 9.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS..............................................................................................................................22 Tables 1 -Total Lead, Copper, Zinc Concentrations is Soil (TTLC) 2 - Semi Volatile Organic Compounds(Semi-VOCs) in Wood-Post Fencing 3 -Title 22 Metals (CAM)in Samples with Highest Lead Concentrations Appendices A- Laboratory Data Figures 1 - Site Vicinity Map 2 - Sampling Locations 3 - Main Firing Range Boring Locations and Analytical Results 4 - Pistol Range Boring Locations and Analytical Results 5 - Composite Sample Locations and Analytical Results 6 -Wood Sample Locations and Analytical Results 7 - Main Firing Range TTLC Analytical Results 8 - Pistol Range TTLC Analytical Results vi BqsS City ofHuntington Beach-Former Firing Range Hart Crowser Project No. 6914 Fina/RemediaiInvestigation Report Ap1ii23,2001 1.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Huntington Beach ("City") retained the services of Hart Crowser, Inc. (Hart Crowser) to conduct a Remedial Investigation (RI) intended to assess and delineate heavy- , metal impacts to a former gun range site located within Huntington Central Park, in the City of Huntington Beach, California. Hart Crowser completed this investigation in accordance with procedures and protocols that were outlined in the approved (February 13, 2001) Sampling & Analysis Plan (SAP), submitted to Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) on January 29, 2001. 1.1 Site History&Contaminants The subject property was originally part of Huntington Beach Landfill (Landfill), which was owned and operated by the County of Orange ("County"). The Landfill was divided into two distinct areas, 33.2-acres of mixed municipal refuse and 18.3-acres of construction demolition material. The subject property was reportedly part of the mixed municipal �. refuse portion of the Landfill. According to Kleinfelder, Inc. (1990), the County operated the Landfill as a burning dump from September 1947 through September 1956. After that date, the Landfill operated as a cut and cover operation. Kleinfelder reports that County records indicate that about 1.1 million cubic yards of refuse were deposited into the Landfill before its closure in 1962. When the Landfill closed, the County deeded the property to the City for public park and recreation purposes. The Huntington Beach Police Officers Association constructed the current gun range improvements with a public and private training facility and operated the facility under a 20-year lease from the City. In 1988, the long=term lease expired, and the gun range lease was continued on a year-to-year basis. In the early 1990s, it became evident that the range needed rebuilding. Unstable soil conditions caused by the decomposing landfill materials were impacting the facility, and the public side of the facility was closed and demolished due to structural stability concerns. In 1993, the City began discussions with the Police Officers Association 1 '8-156 ArN City ofHunt/ngton Beach-Former firing Range Hart Crowser Project No. 6914 —,- -- --- . fina/Remedia//nvesdgadon Report - .. ---- -- -- - ....._Agri/13, Z0 01 — -- regarding rebuilding the site. In 1997, the City terminated the lease due to safety concerns, and the gun range was closed. Existing improvements on the subject property include several buildings, wood posts that serve as fencing, rubber tires used as target backing, and asphalt areas. i1.2 iPemedia//nvestigation Objectives The two main objectives of the RI, as stated in Hart Crowser's approved SAP, were to: 1. Identify the nature, level, and extent of environmental impacts due to the use of the site as a gun range, and 2. Utilize characterization data gathered during the RI in.the future preparation of a RAP for the environmental cleanupof the subjectproperty. 1 1 This Final Remedial Investigation Report will satisfy both objectives by presenting assessment data that shows the levels anyl extent of heavy-metal impacts to the former gun range property. Prior to drafting the RAP, Hart Crowser will look to OCHCA to concur with the RI's final assessment findings that on-site chemicals of concern (CoC) have been completely delineated. The RAP will utilize data presented in this RI to design a soil remediation program. This program will include treatment/disposal alternatives with estimated costs and schedules of implementation, as well as schematic layouts. r2.0 SITE CONDITIONS 2.1 Location&Description The subject property is approximately 4.91 acres and is presently owned by the City. The site is designated as Open Space-Park in the City's General Plan and is part of the Master Plan of Recreation Uses for Central Park. 2 B-157 mriff City ofHu17A17g1bn Beach-Former Firing Range Hart Crowser Project No. 6914 Fina/Remedia//nvestigation Report Apri/23, 2001 The subject property has a physical street address of 18191 Gothard Street, in Huntington Beach, California (Figure 1). The subject property is situated to the southwest of the intersection between Talbert Avenue and Gothard Street, immediately north of Sully Miller Lake. Regional access to the subject property is provided by Interstate 405 (1-405) and Pacific Coast Highway (Highway 1), located approximately 3-miles north and 2-miles south, respectively. Site ingress/egress is provided by a paved 100-yard driveway that allows vehicles access to both the subject property and Hansen Recycling Center to the immediate northeast of the property. 2.2 Property 1nvprove1ne1its Several wooden, cinder block, and metal structures associated with gun range uses are present on the subject property. Wood post fencing approximately 20-feet tall and constructed of telephone-pole-type timbers surround the property to the north, east, and ' west. In addition, wood post fencing divides the northern gun range (main firing range) from a former gun range to the south (pistol range). Wood post fencing also divides a former sniper and special forces training area along the western portion of the property from the remainder of the subject property. Asphalt paving is present along the entry driveway and the staging area for the main gun range. In addition, two rows of metal and wooden targets are present in an east-west configuration across the floor of the main firing range. ' 2.3 Geologic Setting& Topography The subject property is generally located on a coastal plain known as the Los Angeles Basin on the northern margin of a landform regionally known as the Huntington Beach Mesa. The Los Angeles Basin is divided into four blocks that contain both uplifted and depressed areas. The active Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone (NIFZ) divides the seaward portion of the Basin from the Los Angeles Coastal Plain. The subject property is located approximately 1'/4-miles north of the NIFZ. Prior to the commencement of Landfill operations (Pre-1950),. aerial photographs and US Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps indicate that a roughly 35-foot deep drainage 3 B-158 City of Huntington Beach-Former Firing Range Hart Crowser Project Na 6914 AN FinaiRetnedialInvestigation Report Apri123, 2001 canyon eroded into the Lakewood Formation traversed the subject property from the northwest to the south into the existingSully Miller Lake area. Since that time it is Y , estimated that more than.one million tons of earth and debris materials, including trash, waste, and refuse fill have been placed beneath and immediate surrounding the subject property. According to the Huntington Central Park Master Plan of Recreation Uses, Draft ' Environmental Impact Report (CH2MHILL, 1999), various investigations have estimated the refuse thickness is about 35-feet. The majority of the subject property has been covered with loose to medium dense silty sands ranging from less than 4 to 25 feet in thickness. These. sands were most likely placed without controlled compaction and are therefore settling and shifting. According to the USGS topographic map for Seal Beach (1982), the subject property is located at an approximate elevation of 50 feet above mean sea level (MSL). Surface. topography in the vicinity of the subject property slopes gently to the south-southwest in the general direction of the Pacific Ocean, 2-miles to the southwest. On-site topography is variable with subsidence of fill.sands throughout. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION 3.1 American Environinenta/Services, /nc - 1998 Pre/iminary/nvestigafion In November 1998, the City contracted with American Environmental Services, Inc. (AES) to perform a preliminary environmental investigation of the subject property. During their . investigation, AES collected a total of 16 soil samples from the existing range berms, and identified lead as a CoC on the subject property. Areas other than the berms were not sampled by AES, nor was soil analyzed for the presence of other heavy metals typically associated with small arms munitions (i.e. copper and zinc). In addition, AES did not analyze impacted wood posts or fencing to assess potential heavy-metals impacts and creosote content. AES collected 14 soil samples from the existing berms, one sample for background assessment, and one additional sample from the floor of the firing range. All samples were 1 analyzed for Total Threshold Limit Concentrations TTLC of lead but were not tested for Y ( ) Soluble Threshold Limit Concentrations (STLC). AES collected four soil samples from 1-foot, 4 B-159 MrW City ofHuntington Beach-Former Firing Ranffe Hart Crowser Project No. 6914 Final Remedial in vestiga8on Report April23, 1001 2-feet and 3-feet below ground surface (bgs), and two soil samples from 4-feet bgs. The analytical results were divided by depth of samples and averaged in an attempt to provide a more representative level of soil concentrations below the surface. The average concentrations of total lead by depth, as derived from the AES investigation, , was 26,750 mg/kg for the 1-foot samples; 12,274 mg/kg for the 2-foot samples; 762 mg/kg for the 3-foot samples; and 810 mg/kg for the 4-foot samples. Since total lead concentrations in 10 of the 16 soil samples collected were considerably above the California Title 22 TTLC threshold of 1,000 mg/kg, AES did not perform STLC analysis on any of the collected samples. 3.2 Hart Crowser Sampling&Ana/ysis Plan r Prior to initiating the investigative fieldwork, Hart Crowser prepared a Sampling & Analysis M Plan (SAP) to describe field activities that would be undertaken as part of the RI relative to the development of a RAP for the subject property. The SAP focused on investigation and , characterization of heavy-metal impacted soils and wood post fencing at the subject property. The SAP described in detail the type, location, quantity, and rationale for all anticipated samples and measurements performed during RI activities. The SAP also addressed Hart Crowser's procedure for locating the depth to the underlying landfill cap so the investigative work would not disturb the anticipated in-place capping materials. i The SAP was submitted to Mr. Luis Lodrigueza with the OCHCA on January 29, 2001. Mr. Lodrigueza reviewed the SAP and issued a letter of acknowledgement on February 13, 2001 informing the City that OCHCA found the SAP "acceptable for implementation". 4.0 REGULATORY CRITERIA 4.1 Total Threshold Limit Concentration (TTLC) & Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration(STLC) California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 22 provides for identification and disposal , options for hazardous wastes. Under Title 22, two criteria are applied with respect to concentrations of lead. The first criteria is referred to as the Total Threshold Limit , 5 B-160 Gly ofHunGngton Beach-former firng Range Hart Crowser Project No. 6914 Final Remediallnvestigation Report Apri123, 2001 Concentration (TTLC) and is defined as 1,000 mg/kg for lead. Wastes (solids) having lead concentrations above the TTLC are by definition considered hazardous under CCR Title 22. The second criteria is referred to as the Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC). The STLC regulates the amount of a hazardous substance that can be present in a dilute solution of citric acid repeatedly passed through the waste in a procedure defined as the Waste Extraction Test (WET). The WET is intended to simulate conditions found in landfills ' where decaying vegetation produces weak acidic solutions that can leach metals and carry them to groundwater. The STLC criteria for lead is 5.0 mg/L. If the WET leachate from a sample is analyzed to contain higher than 5.0 mg/L, by definition under CC Title.22, it is considered hazardous and must be disposed of in a Class 1 landfill or be treated to reduce its WET results to below 5.0 mg/L for other disposal options. 4.2 Toxic Characteristic Leachability Test(TCLP) ' Under the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40, the USEPA has established the Toxic Characteristic Leachability Test (TCLP) for determination and/or classification of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) wastes. The Federal TCLP test differs from the ' California STLC test in several respects, however the primary difference is that the TCLP test does not use Citric acid as the leach solution and therefore it does not tend to leach metals as vigorously as the STLC test. ' 4.3 Wood Preservatives The March 11, 1998 Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SA-RWQCB) response to the Orange County Health Care Agency request for criteria on disposal of ' wood products specifies that "Wood products treated with PCP (pentachlorophenol), creosote, arsenic, copper and chromium shall be disposed of at permitted, lined Class III landfills in the region. Wood products treated with creosote may also be disposed of at ' permitted, unlined Class III landfills 1 6 B-161 Ci ofHtiunn ton Beach-former firm Range Hart Crowser Project No. 6974 A �' g g g l finaiReinediaiinvestigation Report Apri/23, 2001 5.0 FIELD SAMPLING PLAN Prior to initiating. the investigative fieldwork, Hart Crowser developed a comprehensive field-sampling plan for the main firing range, soil berms, and wood post fencing only, as these were originally the only recognized areas with potential gun range impacts. However, Hart Crowser met with Mr. Richard Wright, President of the Police Officer's ' Association, at the subject property during investigative field activities on March 13, 2001 to gain information regarding former activities at the subject property. Mr. Wright was ' involved in the daily operations of the former Huntington Beach gun range for 25 years. Significant findings discovered during this interview included the following. • Mr. Wright stated that an additional firing range (a public pistol range) was formerly present to the immediate south of the existing firing range. According to Mr. Wright, this range was formerly enclosed in wood post fencing, similar to the remainder of the subject property. However, the eastern and western wood post fencing, as well as a metal backstop, soil berm, and water ballast were removed for disposal when that portion of the range closed. , • Mr. Wright stated that the soil berms for both the pistol range and main firing range , were "mined" twice a year for approximately 25 years. This involved physical removal of the soil berms for the separation of bullets, bullet fragments and shell casings. Mr. Wright said that this procedure was done manually with the use of a sieve at the subject property's southwest corner. Soil was reportedly discarded into , a ravine that borders the subject property to the west. Mr. Wright estimated that the thickness of discarded soils that accumulated through the years was approximately 10-feet, in roughly a 50-foot by 50-foot area. • Mr. Wright stated that fill soil was routinely imported onto the subject property to ' replace soil berms and to compensate for subsidence of soils throughout the property. Reportedly, subsidence in the northeast portion of the subject property , was regularly mitigated by importing and placing of fill sand. 7 'B-162 tN City of Huntington Beach-former Firing Range Hart Crowser Project No. 6914 ' Fina/Remedia//nvestigation Report Apr6123, 2001 • Mr. Wright stated that his experience with heavy construction equipment on the subject property moving and placing soil, indicates that refuse can be found only a couple of feet bgs. Based on the aforementioned findings, Hart Crowser amended its original field-sampling . plan to address two new areas within the subject property; the former pistol range; and the berm spoils pile. 5.1 Health car Safety Plan r A site-specific Health and Safety Plan (HSP) was prepared.prior to initiation of the field rinvestigative work. The HSP identified personal protective equipment (PPE), safety procedures, decontamination procedures,. lead on-site personnel with their contact telephone numbers, and a hospital route map. The HSP was presented to all on-site Hart Crowser personnel and subcontractors during a tailgate safety meeting conducted at the ' subject property prior to initiation of fieldwork the morning of March 12, 2001. 5.2 Grid Pattern Coordinates In order to establish control points by which to label sampling locations, Hart Crowser placed grid coordinates over the subject property. Grid coordinates were placed at 30-foot intervals and originated at arbitrary point 0,0 at the northwest corner of the property ' (Figure 2). 5.3 field Activities rHart Crowser completed the field sampling plan in two mobilizations; the first during March 12, 13, and 1.4, 2001; and the second during March 20 and.21, 2001. During the ' first mobilization, Hart Crowser collected samples from the soil berms along the northern boundary of the subject property and from the floor of the main firing range. In addition, wood samples were collected from the post fencing throughout the subject property. During the second mobilization, soil samples were collected from the floor of the former pistol range and the berm spoils pile on the southwest corner of the subject property. 8 B-I63 City ofHuntington Beach-former firing Range Hart Crows e Project No 6914 finaiRemediaiinvestigation Report Aprii23,2007 Subsurface invasive soil penetrations on the main firing range, the former pistol range, and the berm spoils piles were advanced utilizing a direct-push sampling drill rig. A core barrel sampler was used to collect soil samples from desired depths. Soil borings placed in the soil berms were manually driven with the use of a 4-inch hand-auger. All samples were transferred into laboratory supplied four-ounce glass jars upon reaching the surface. 5.3.1 Landfill Cap Penetration ' As the subject property overlies a former landfill, Hart Crowser drove boring B-15,45 to 12- feet below ground surface in an attempt to "tag" the upper surface of the Landfill cap. This procedure was intended to establish a. control depth beneath which soil assessment activities would not be conducted. In boring 13=15,45 Hart Crowser saw no evidence of a landfill cap. , The top four feet of the boring's soil column consisted of intermixed dirty silty sand with rock fragments throughout to '/a-inch diameter. Soil was slightly moist and soft with little ' plasticity. The soil column from 4 to 12-feet bgs consisted of dense silty sand with intermixed rock fragments. However, at approximately 5 to 6-feet bgs, soil was stained and , exhibited a heavy-end hydrocarbon odor. In addition, large wood and rock fragments.were found throughout the soil matrix. Low recovery of sampled soils (-50%) was encountered in the barrel sampler below 8-feet bgs due to obstruction from these wood and rock fragments. Hart Crowser's approved SAP called for sampling at all boring locations to 6-feet bgs. Initially, this objective was carried out at nine locations on the northwest corner of the i subject property (B-15,15, B-15,45, B-15,75, B-15,105, B-45,15, B-45,45, B-75,15, B-75,45, and B-75,75). However, at all nine locations, discolored soil with distinct heavy-end , hydrocarbon odors.was observed below 3-feet bgs in association with Landfill materials. In borings B-45,15, B-45,45, B-75,45, and B-75,75, wood, plastic, glass, and brick were ' generally recovered below-2 to 3-feet bgs. Based on these observations, the SAP, and Health & Safety Plan, Hart Crowser eliminated the 6-foot samples for the remainder of the investigative field-sampling program in order to stay above Landfill material. 9 'B-164 Arm City ofHuntington Beach -Former Firing Range Hart Crowser Project No. 6914 ' Fina/Remedia//nvestigation Report April 23, 2001 ' 5.3.2 Collection of Subsurface Soil Samples Hart Crowser collected a total of 215 discreet soil samples-from 65 boring locations and 9 wood samples from wood post fencing locations during the fieldwork at the subject property (Figures .2 through 8). Detailed discussion of sampling procedures and environmental conditions encountered is presented below. ' 5.3.2.1 Soil Firing Berms The soil berms present at the northern end of the firing range contained the majority of the bullet and shot-cast lead. During investigative fieldwork, it was noted that the entire length of the berm was impregnated with whole bullets and bullet fragments down to approximately 2-feet bgs. The northeast corner of the soil berm was not investigated since the wood post fencing above that area was leaning significantly and appeared not to be structurally sound. Hart Crowser estimates that the soils in this area would most likely exhibit the same CoCs as the total area due to the same firing range uses. Hart Crowser advanced six hand-auger borings (SB1 through SB6) on the soil berms, ' with soil samples collected at 2-foot intervals beginning at 2-feet bgs (Figure 3). The intended depth of all soil berm borings was 10-feet bgs. This target depth was reached in all borings but one (SB-3), where refusal was encountered at 8-feet bgs. A total of 29 samples were collected from the six sampling locations. Soils encountered during this part of the investigative work consisted of fine silty sands with small rock fragments. Soil was typically loose and slightly moist in the top 4 feet. Discoloration and heavy-end hydrocarbon odor, along with wood and plastic matter were encountered below 8-feet bgs possibly indicating Landfill material. Refusal was encountered at 9-feet bgs in boring S133 and no recovery of a 10-foot sample could be made at that location. 5.3.2.2 Main Firing Range The flat range area between the shooting positions and the berms was assessed with ' the installation of 28 push-probe driven soil borings (Figure 3). As was discussed in ' 10 B-I65 City of Huntington Beach-former Firing Range Hart Crowser Project No. 6974 Fina/Remedial/nvest ff,?&0n Report April2.3,2001 Section 4.3.1, one of these borings (B-15,45) was driven to 12-feet bgs and 8 were driven to 6-feet bgs. The remaining 19 borings were driven to 3-feet bgs. With the ' exception of boring B-15,45, soil samples were collected within the top six inches and, thereafter, in 3-foot intervals to the terminus of the borings. ' Soils encountered in the northwest and central portions of the main firing range consisted of silty sand with intermixed rock fragments to '/a-inch diameter. Soil was slightly moist and soft with little plasticity. Discolored soil with distinct heavy-end , hydrocarbon odor was generally observed below 3-feet bgs. In borings B-45,15, B- 45,45, B-75,45, and B-75,75, wood, plastic, glass, and brick were recovered below 2 to 3-feet bgs. A pungent, rotten-egg odor was encountered in boring B-135,105 at 2.5 feet bgs. Soils encountered in the northeast portion of the property were generally yellow coarse sandy silt to 1 to 2-feet bgs. Below this level, the soil was saturated due to surface depressions in the local topography and recent rains. Discoloration and strong heavy- end hydrocarbon odor was encountered in boring B-165,15. Metal and wood debris , were encountered at 2.5 feet bgs in borings B-195,45 and B-195,75. n , 5.3.2.3 Former Pistol R a �e The flat range area between the shooting positions and the former berm, metal barrier, ' and water ballast was assessed with the installation of 20 push-probe driven soil borings , (Figure 4). All borings were driven to 3-feet bgs, with the collection of samples from the top 6-inches and 3-feet bgs. A total of 40 soil samples were collected during this portion of the investigation. Soils encountered in the pistol range consisted of silty sands with intermixed small rock 1 fragments. Soil was generally stiffer beneath 2-feet bgs and contained small brick, wood and rock fragments. However, landfill refuse debris was not encountered at any of the boring locations nor was hydrocarbon odor or staining. 11 ,B-166 City of Huntington Beach-Former Firing Range Hart Crowser Project No. 6914 FinaiRemedia/investigation Report Apri/23,2001 -- —------ -- - - - - -- -- - -- —----— ------ .—...----.-._...- 5.3.2.4 Berm Spoils Pile Based on information learned during our interview of Mr. Richard Wright (Section 4.0), Hart Crowser placed 12 borings to a depth of 12-feet bgs in the southwest portion of the subject property (Figure 5), with soil samples collected in 2-foot increments. As the in-place soil materials have been intermixed and screened, and essentially homogenized through the various handling events up to their present emplacement, Hart Crowser ' combined the 2 and 4-foot bgs soil samples from each north-south row of borings to produce one representative sample. The identical protocol was completed for the 6- and 8-foot samples and the 10- and 12-foot samples. Therefore, a total of 3 composite samples for each row of borings, or 9 composite samples for the entire berm spoil piles, were collected. Soils encountered in the top 4 to 5 feet bgs in borings B-30,323, B-30,340, B-30,360, and B-30,377 were soft, unconsolidated fill sands with abundant intermixed asphalt debris. Generally, soils above 5-feet bgs were soft unconsolidated sands with little or Ino compaction. Below 5-feet bgs, soils encountered were stiff dark gray sandy silts. Asphalt fragments were found in boring B-30,377 at 10-feet bgs. No landfill refuse debris was encountered. 5.3.3 Soil Sampling Protocols ' Hart Crowser collected all soil samples in 4-ounce glass jars using new stainless-steel spoons. Samples were properly sealed, labeled, and placed on ice for transportation to a State certified analytical laboratory. Strict chain-of-custody documentation was followed ' once samples were relinquished to laboratory personnel. i5.3.4 Wood Post Samoling ' Hart Crowser collected nine individual wood samples with the aid of a chainsaw from wood post fencing throughout the subject property (Figure 6). Sampling locations were 1 chosen at random. However, Hart Crowser purposely avoided wood post fencing that appeared to be impacted with bullet fragments. ' 12 . B-167 City ofHuntington Beach-Former Firing Range Hart Crowser Project No. 6914 FinaiRemedia/investigation Report Apr#2.3,2001 Wood samples were collected in large cores, bagged, and submitted for laboratory analysis , of creosols. 5.3.5 QA/QC Duplicate Samples ' Hart Crowser collected duplicate samples from nine discreet locations throughout the , subject property, four from 6-inches bgs and five from 3' bgs. These were included in the field-sampling plan to provide a comparison by which the precision and accuracy of the , reported concentrations could be compared. 5.3.6 Chain-Of-Custody Procedures After collection, samples were maintained in Hart Crowser's custody until formally transferred to the laboratory representative. For purposes of this work, custody was defined as follows: • In plain view of Hart Crowser field representatives; ' • Inside a cooler which was in plain view of Hart Crowser field representatives; or • Inside any locked space such as a cooler, locker, car, truck, or storage room to ' which field representatives had the only immediately available key(s). Chain-of-custody records were maintained for all samples recovered and were signed by the sampler and others who took custody of the samples. , A designated sample custodian from the laboratory accepted custody of shipped samples and verified that the chain of custody forms matched the samples received. Each batch of samples was given a laboratory number and each sample was assigned a unique sequential identification number. The custodian was responsible for seeing that all samples were i transferred to the proper analyst or stored in an appropriate secured area. 13 ,B-168 City of Huntington Beach -Former Firing Range Hart Crowser Project No. 6974 FinaiRemediaiinves&gation Report Aprii23, 2007 ' 5.3.7 Equipment Decontamination Procedures All re-usable drilling and sampling equipment was cleaned prior to use to reduce the ipotential for .cross contamination. Drill sections and other down-hole implements used during drilling were cleaned prior to use at each boring location. Between each sample collection, the sampler was. disassembled, cleaned, . and decontaminated. Cleaning and decontamination procedures consisted of washing the sampling equipment with a solution of water and a detergent, followed by two water rinses ' and air-drying. 5.3.8 Management Of Investigation Derived Waste (IDW) The drill cuttings and decontamination wastes were contained as outlined below. DMI Cuttings The drill cuttings generated from borings were placed in 17H DOT certified 55-gallon drums and left on-site pending analytical characterization. ' Decontamination Waste Water Generated wastewater from cleaning the augers and down-hole implements was placed in 17H DOT certified 55-gallon drums and ' left on-site pending analytical characterization. ' Persona/ Protective EQuivinent. Personal protective equipment (PPE), such as Tyvek suits, gloves, or miscellaneous fieldwork related waste articles, was placed in 17H DOT certified 55-gallon drums. All IDW wastes left on-site as described above will be scheduled for off-site disposal during remediation activities. An assessment will be made as to whether these wastes will be classified as hazardous (Class 1), California designated (Class II), or non-hazardous (Class III) ' wastes. Boreholes were backfilled with bentonite chips. Where applicable, the surface was capped with concrete or asphalt to match the existing grade. 14 B-169 Beach-former Firin R n Hart Crowser Project No. 6974 �.� City ofHunhngton, g age / FinaiRemediaiinvestigation Report Aprii23, 2001 6.0 LABORATORY RESULTS Hart Crowser submitted, through proper Chain-of-custody procedures, 29 soil samples collected from the firing range berm area, 65 soil samples collected from the main firing range, 40 samples from the former pistol range, 72 samples from the former berm spoils pile, and 9 duplicate samples from various locations for laboratory analysis. American Analytics in Chatsworth, California analyzed 143 discreet soil samples and 9 composite soil samples (See Section 5.3.2.4) for total extractable copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), and lead (Pb) by , EPA Methods 7210, 7950, and 7420, respectively. Upon receipt of laboratory results, Hart Crowser selected 17 samples for STLC analysis by CAL WET, and 7 soil samples for analysis ' of Title 22 metals (CAM) by EPA Method 6000/7000. In addition, Hart Crowser submitted 9 wood samples for analysis of creosols by EPA Method 8270. 6.1 Main Firing Range 6.1.1 Firing Range Berms , Assessment of the berms in the main firing range was accomplished through. the advancement of 6 borings; five to 10-feet bgs and one to 8-feet bgs. A total of 29 soil samples were collected during this portion of the RI. All 29 samples analyzed had detectable concentrations of total lead. These , concentrations ranged from a low of 3.5 mg/kg (S132-10') to a high of 45,000 mg/kg (SB6-8') total lead. Six of the 29 samples exceeded the Title 22 TTLC of 1,000 mg/kg and are by definition considered California regulated wastes. Hart Crowser submitted samples S135-6', S134-8', S133-2', and S131-6' for Title 22 leachable lead analysis. All four samples were found to exceed the Title 22 STLC of 5.0 mg/L and ' are by definition considered California regulated wastes. 15 'B-170 r Arm City of Huntington Beach-former Firing Range Hart Crowser Project No. 6914 FinaiRemediallnves6gation Report Apri113,1001 1 The analytical results indicate that the berms associated with the main firing range have. concentrations of total and soluble lead that are considered California regulated wastes under Title 22. No discernible pattern as to depth or nature of lead impacted soils was noted in the analytical results. 1 6.1.2 Floor Area r The level of environmental impact that may be present in the soils underlying the floor ' of the main firing range was assessed with the placement of 28 borings and the collection of sixty-five (65) soil samples. Of these samples, fourteen (14) were reported to have total lead concentrations below the method reporting limit of 3 mg/kg. The maximum lead concentration detected from the floor of the main firing range was 3,100 ' mg/kg in the 6-inch bgs sample collected from boring number B-15,45. ' Of the fifty-one (51) soil samples with detectable total lead concentrations, twenty-six (26) were found in the upper 6-inches of the soil column (only two samples from this rdepth were below the method reporting limit), seventeen .(17) were found in the samples collected from 3-feet bgs, and eight (8) out of the nine (9) samples collected rfrom the 6-foot bgs level had detectable concentrations of lead (these were most likely within the Landfill mass). 1 ' Only two (2) of the sixty-five (65) soil samples collected from the floor of the main firing range exceeded the Title 22 TTLC of 1,000 mg/kg (B-15,45-6" and B-45,15-6"). These are by definition considered California regulated wastes. ' Hart Crowser submitted ten (10) samples for Title 22 leachable lead analysis by the CAL WET method. Five. of the 10 samples analyzed were reported to have soluble lead ' concentrations that exceed the Title 22 STLC of 5.0 mg/L. These are by definition considered California regulated wastes. 16 B-171 -,. City ofHuntington Beach-Foimer Firing R.Wge Hart 0-owser Project No. 6914 FinaiRemedwlinvestigation Report Apri/23, 2001 , No recognizable areal pattern is discernible as to the distribution of detectable lead , concentrations in the 65 soil samples collected from the floor of the main firing range. Analytical results suggest that Title 22 TTLC and STLC concentrations for total and leachable lead, respectively, are randomly exceeded throughout the floor of the main firing range. , 6.2 Former PiWo/Range , The level of environmental impact that may be present in the soils underlying the former ' pistol range was assessed with the placement of 20 borings and the collection of forty (40) soil samples; twenty (20) samples from 6-inches bgs and twenty (20) samples from 3-feet , bgs. Of these samples, three (3) were reported to have total lead concentrations below the method reporting limit of 3 mg/kg. The maximum lead concentration detected from the , floor of the former pistol range was 5,900 mg/kg in the 3-foot bgs sample collected from boring number B-115,290. ' Of the thirty-seven (37) soil samples with detectable total lead concentrations, twenty (20) were found in the upper 6-inches of the soil column (all samples from this depth had detectable total lead concentrations) and seventeen (17) were found in the samples collected from 3-feet bgs. , Five (5) of the forty (40) soil samples collected from the floor of the former pistol range ' exceeded the Title 22 TTLC of 1,000 mg/kg (B-90,260-6", B-90,290-6", B-115,290-3 , 13- 175,230-6", and B-175,290-6"). These are by definition considered California regulated ' wastes. 1 Hart Crowser submitted four (4) samples for Title 22 leachable lead analysis. Three (3) of the four (4) samples analyzed were reported to have soluble lead concentrations that , exceed the Title 22 STLC of 5.0 mg/L. These are by definition considered California regulated wastes. 17 'B-172 r AM City of Huntington Beach-Former firing Range Hart Crowser Project No. 6914 Final Remedial investigation Report Apri/23,2001 No recognizable areal pattern is .discernible as to the distribution of detectable lead concentrations in the 40 soil samples collected from the floor of the former pistol range. Analytical results suggest that Title 22 TTLC and STLC concentrations for total and leachable lead, respectively, are randomly exceeded throughout the floor.of the main firing range. 1 6.3 Former Berms Spoils Piie r Hart Crowser collected a total of seventy-two (72) discreet soil samples from twelve (12) ' individual borings at the location of the former berms spoils pile. These samples were combined into nine (9) composite samples for laboratory analyses. r Laboratory results of the nine (9) composite samples suggest that soils collected between 6' and 8-feet bgs (C2, C5, and C8) hold the highest average concentrations for total lead (average concentration of 55.3 mg/kg). In addition, laboratory results suggest that soils ' collected along north-south coordinate line -10 (C7, C8, C9) have a higher average concentration of total lead in comparison to soils collected along north-south coordinates +10 and +30. All composite samples were well below the TTLC threshold of 1,000 mg/kg and ranged from 3.4 mg/kg (C6) to 65 mg/kg (C8). ' 6.4 Wood Post fencing ' Hart Crowser collected nine (9) wood post fencing samples from various locations throughout the subject property. Initial visual inspection.led Hart Crowser to suspect that the wood post fencing at the subject property might have been treated with creosote as a wood preservative. However, laboratory analyses failed to identify cresols (primary ' phenolics m-, o- and p-cresol) but did find polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) at relatively high concentrations. The highest concentration found was Phenanthrene at 19,000 mg/kg in wood sample. (W-5) collected from the northeast fence of the subject ' property. 1 18 B-173 MW City ofHuntington Beach-farmer Firing Range Hart Crowser Project No. 6914 Fina/Remed.711nvest1gation Report Apri/23, 2001 ' A partial list of PAHs identified at their maximum detected concentrations were Acenaphthene (6,700 mg/kg in W-5), Anthracene (5,300 mg/kg in W-5), Benzo(a)anthracene (1,600 mg/kg in W-4), Benzo(b)fluoroanthene (480 mg/kg in W-4), , Benzo(k)fluoroanthene (560 mg/kg in W-3), Chrysene (1,400 mg/kg in W-4), Fluoroanthene (6,800 mg/kg in W-4), Fluorene (5,100 mg/kg in W-5), Napthalene (7,000 mg/kg in W-1) ' and Pyrene (5,200 mg/kg in W-4). A complete list of chemicals identified in the nine (9) wood post fencing samples is available in Appendix A. 6.5 QA/QCDup/icate Samples Of the nine duplicate samples collected, four had significantly different lead concentrations. Soil sample B-45,45-3' had a lead concentration of 5.6 mg/kg and a duplicate ' concentration of 72 mg/kg. Soil sample 13-45;75-6" had a lead concentration of 270 mg/kg and a duplicate concentration of 19 mg/kg. Soil sample B-105,15-6" had a lead concentration of, 130 mg/kg and a duplicate concentration of 3 mg/kg. Soil sample 13- 145,230-6" had a lead concentration of 620 mg/kg and a duplicate concentration of 300 , mg/kg. The variance in lead concentrations found in the four duplicate soil samples may be due to lead fragments that are scattered throughout the property and mixed in the soil matrix. 6.6 CopperandZincAna/yses All samples collected throughout the subject property were also analyzed for copper and zinc concentrations, heavy-metals commonly found at elevated concentrations in , association with gun range uses. None of the samples were reported to be above their respective TTLC concentrations of 2,500 mg/kg (copper) and 5,000 mg/kg (zinc). 6.7 Title 22(CAM)Meta/s ' In anticipation of soil profiling for future remediation activities, Hart Crowser selected the ' seven samples with the highest lead concentrations and analyzed them for Title 22 (CAM) Metals (Figures 7 and 8). Elevated levels of Antimony were detected in samples S136-8' ' 19 B-174 r City ofHanAngton Beach-former Firing gange Hart Crowser Project No. 6914 Finaigemedia/lnvestig,?&on Report Apr6123, 2001 (1,200 mg/kg) and SB1-2' (4,600 mg/kg). Sample SB1-2' also had elevated levels of Arsenic (1,100 mg/kg). Both samples were associated with the highest lead concentrations found on the subject property (firing range berm area). r7.0 DISCUSSION & ANALYSIS OF DATA The highest concentrations of lead were found in the soils throughout the berm of the main firing range. In general, elevated total lead concentrations appeared to be randomly scattered with soil locations and depths. Hart Crowser did not observe evidence of a ' consistent soil depth at which lead concentrations diminished. This may be due to the fact that Landfill materials were encountered at unexpectedly shallow levels, most likely due to lack of a cover cap. rOf the seventeen (17) samples selected for CAL WET analysis, eleven (11) samples were found to be above the California Title 22 STLC of 5.0 mg/L. Selection of samples for CAL ' WET analyses was done after receipt of total lead concentration results. Samples above 1,000 mg/kg (the TTLC threshold) were eliminated on the basis that they would be ' considered California regulated wastes under California Title 22. Therefore, samples below 1,000 mg/kg for lead were selected for screening in an effort to assess any correlation between total and soluble lead concentrations for final disposal screening. No direct relationship between total and soluble lead concentrations was found to exist rbased on the sample data. Samples with as low as 52 mg/kg (B-105,75) total lead were noted to exceed the STLC (6.7 mg/L), while samples B-75,15 at 6-inches bgs (170 mg/kg rtotal lead with 1.8 mg/L soluble lead) and B-75,105 at 6-inches bgs (170 mg/kg total lead with 2.0 mg/L soluble lead) were below the STLC. This is probably due to the variable soil types associated with imported fill materials, and soil relocations known to have occurred throughout the subject property. The reported total lead concentrations in samples collected from the former berms oils P p P pile area indicate that lead values are relatively low in comparison with samples collected r from the soil berms, main firing range, and former pistol range. None of the nine composite samples had total lead concentrations that exceeded TTLC threshold. As stated 1 20 B-175 r !� City ofHuntington Beach-Former Firing Range Hart Crowser Project No. 6914 Final Remedial investigation Report Ap1ii23,2001 ' in Section 5.0, the spoils piles in this area were sifted to recover lead fragments and bullets , prior to final disposal. This would appear to indicate the efficacy of sifting in reducing lead concentrations for such soil materials. ' Laboratory results indicate that wood post fencing at the subject property was treated with coal-tar, a common by-product of manufactured gas plants (also referred to as coal- r gasification). By strict interpretation of the SA-RWQCB's criteria (Section 4.3), the wood post fencing at the subject property does not qualify for Class III landfill disposal. A ' clarification will need to be requested from the SA-RWQCB for coal-tar preserved wood products by reference to item number 3 of the March 11, 1998 correspondence. , This Final Remedial Investigation Report (RI) has identified the nature, level, and extent of environmental impacts due to the use of the subject property as a gun range. Hart Crowser will utilize the data gathered during this RI in the preparation of a Remedial Action r Plan (RAP) for the environmental cleanup of the subject property. Prior to drafting the RAP, Hart Crowser will look to OCHCA to concur with the RI's , assessment findings that on-site chemicals of concern (CoC) have been completely- delineated. The RAP will utilize data presented in this RI to design and implement a soil , remediation program. This program will include treatment/disposal alternatives -with estimated costs and schedules of implementation, as well as remedial schematic layouts. ' 8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY , Americlean Environmental Services, Inc., November 30, 1998. Preliminary Assessment of ' the Former Police Department Firing Range. Prepared for City of Huntington Beach, by Americlean Environmental Services, Inc., Newport Beach, California. CH2MHILL, November 1998 (Minor 'Revisions 5/20/99). Addendum to the Report ' Entitled, Central Park Master Environmental Impact Report, Geology Conditions, Huntington Beach, California, dated April 24, 1998. Prepared for NUVIS Landscape ' Architects, by CH2MHILL, Santa Ana, California. 1 21 'B-176 1 WE City ofHuntington Beach-Former Firing Range Hart Crowser Project No. 6914 Fina/Remedia//nvestigation Report Apr6123, 2001 ' CH2MHILL, February 26, 1999. Draft Master Environmental Impact Report. Prepared for City of Huntington Beach, by CH2MHILL, Santa Ana, California. ' Geoscience Analytical Inc., April 5, 2000. Central Park Sports Complex. Prepared for Nuvis Landscape Architecture and Planning, by GeoScience Analytical Inc., Simi Valley, California. . Kleinfelder, Inc., May 2, 1990. Draft Development Alternatives for Huntington Beach Landfill California. Prepared for City of Huntington Beach, by Kleinfelder, Inc., City of ' Industry, California. 1 Lass, D., March 11, 1998. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region, Riverside, California. Letter to P. Henshaw, Orange County Health Care Agency. 9.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS This report presents a summary of work completed by Hart Crowser, Inc. The completed ' work includes observations and descriptions of site conditions. Where appropriate, it includes analytical results for samples taken during the course of the work. The number and location of samples were chosen to provide the required information, but it cannot be assumed that they are representative of areas not sampled. All conclusions and recommendations are based on these analyses, observations, and the governing ' regulations. Conclusions beyond those stated and reported herein should not be inferred from this document. These services were performed in accordance with generally accepted practices in the environmental engineering field, which existed at the time and location of the work. ' F:\DATA\J085\6900s\6914 HB Firing Range Rem Workplan\Remedial Investigation Report\Final RI Report 4-2301.DOC ' 22 B-177 a H y ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FIRING RANGE ' TABLE 1 :Total Lead, Copper,Zinc Concentrations in Soil (TTLC) Total Copper Total Zinc Total Lead Soluble Lead Sample Identification Date EPA 7210 EPA 7950 EPA 7420 Title 22 WET Sampled TTLC TTLC TTLC STLC (mg/Kg) (mg/Kg) (mg/Kg) (mg/L) ' B-15,15-6" 3/12/01• 25 74 73 NA B-15,15-3' 3/12/01 16 51 7.9 NA ' B-15,15-6' 3/12/01 17 42 60 NA B-15,45-6" 3/12/01 47 60 3100 NA B-15,45-3' 3/12/01 17 54 8.7 NA B-15,45-6' 3/12/01 18 61 3.3 NA ' B-15,75-6" 3/12/01 24 68 38 NA B-15,75-3' 3/12/01 18 58 9.8 NA ' B-15,75-6' 3/12/01 13 51 <3. NA . B-15,105-6" 3/12/01 18 49 150 760 B-15,105-3' 3/12/01 17 69 7.4 NA B-15,105-6' 3/12/01 18 60 12 NA ' B-45,15-6" 3/12/01 98 85 1600 NA B-45,15-3' 3/12/01 50 85 91 NA ' B-45,15-6' 3/12/01 60 240 38 NA B-45,45-6" 3/12/01 21 66 32 NA 6-45,45-3' 3/12/01 10 35 5.6 NA B-45,45-6' 3/12/01 180 190 61 NA B-45,75-6" 3/12/01 21 69 270 NA B-45,75-3' 3/12/01 18 64 <3 NA B-451105-6" 3/12/01 19 77 210 6.3 B-45,105-3' 3/12/01 19 60 10 NA, B-75,15-6" 3/12/01 180 350 400 14 B-75,15-3' 3/12/01 16 72 11 NA B-75,15-6' 3/12/01 27 67 11 NA. B-75,45-6" 3/12/01 _ 27 70 25 NA B-75,45-3' 3/12/01 68. 96 16 NA B-75,45-6 3/12/01 640 240 170 1.8. B-75,75-6" 3/12/01 61 64 82 2.4 ' B-75,75-3' 3/12/01 70 67 16 NA Threshold for California Hazardous Waste 0 ?5,000 Notes: 1. mg/Kg=milligrams per kilogram ' 2. mg/L= milligrams per liter 3. NA=Not Analyzed 4.TTLC =Total Threshold Limit Concentration ' 5.Title 22 WET=California Code of Regulations,Title 22 Waste Extraction Test 6. STLC =Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration ' F/Data/Jobs/6914/Remedial 1 OF 5 Investigation Report/Tables/Table 1.As B-179 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' FIRING RANGE TABLE 1 : Total Lead, Copper,Zinc Concentrations in Soil(TTLC) , Total Copper Total Zinc Total Lead Soluble Lead Sample Identification Date EPA 7210 EPA 7950 EPA 7420 Title 22 WET ' Sampled TTLC TTLC TTLC STLC (mg/Kg) (mg/Kg) (mg/Kg) (mg/L) 13-75,75-6' 3/12/01 32 170 56 NA ' B-75,105-6" 3/12/01 20 70 170 2 B-75,105-3' 3/12/01 14 44 <3 NA B-90,210-6" 3/20/01 20 78 1800 NA ' B-90,210-3' 3/20/01 16 56 12 NA B-90,230-6" 3/20/01 20 68 2300 NA B-90,230-3' 3/20/01 11 48 21 NA ' B-90,260-6" 3/20/01 22 66 160 NA B-90,260-3' 3/20/01 19 69 5.1 NA B-90,290-6" 3/20/01 22 65 190 NA ' B-90,290-3' 3/20/01 21 62 <3 NA B-105,15-6" 3/12/01 33 70 130 2.6 B-105,15-3' 3/12/01 8.8 28 <3 NA ' B-105,45-6" 3/12/01 21 56 260 NA B-105,45-3' 3/12/01 10 29 <3 NA B-105,75-6" 3/12/01 27 67 52 6.7 ' B-105,75-3' 3/12/01 15 52 <3 NA B-105,105-6" 3/12/01 21 67 <3 NA B-105,105-3' 3/12/01 13 46 <3 NA ' B-115,210-6" 3/20/01 20 81 84 NA B-115,210-3' 3/20/01 10 50 11 NA B-115,230-6" 3/20/01 18 70 260 NA ' B-115,230-3' 3/20/01 15 60 5900 NA B-115,260-6" 3/20/01 11 44 68 NA B-115,260-3' 3/20/01 13 53 27 NA ' B-115,290-6" 3/20/01 16 63 360 NA B-115,290-3' 3/20/01 47 180 12 NA t B-135,15-6" 3/13/01 24 66 340 110 B-135,15-3' 3/13/01 16 51 <3 NA 13-135,45-6" 3/13/01 16 60 <3 NA Threshold for California Hazardous Waste 112,5005,000 2: 1,000 ? ' Notes: ' 1. mg/Kg =milligrams per kilogram 2. mg/L=milligrams per liter 3. NA=Not Analyzed ' 4.TTLC =Total Threshold Limit Concentration 5.Title 22 WET=California Code of Regulations, Title-22 Waste Extraction Test ' 6. STLC =Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration F/Data/Jobs/6914/Remedial 2 OF 5 Investigation Report/Tables/Table 1.xls ' B-180 ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FIRING RANGE TABLE 1 : Total Lead,Copper,Zinc Concentrations in Soil(TTLC) Total Copper Total Zinc Total Lead Soluble Lead Sample Identification Date EPA 7210 EPA 7950 EPA 7420 Title 22 WET Sampled TTLC TTLC TTLC STLC (mg/Kg) (mg/Kg) (mg/Kg) (mg/L) ' B-135,45-3' 3/13/01 14 42- <3 NA B-135,75-6" 3/13/01 19 76 71 3.5 ' B-135,75-3' 3/13/01 15 50 <3 NA B-135,105-6" 3/13/01 18 66 34 NA B-135,105-3' 3/13/01 9.8 38 4.8 NA B-145,210-6" 3/20/01 14 65 39 NA ' B-1451210-3' 3/20/01 16 72 12 NA B-145,230-6" 3/20/01 16 50 620 NA B-145,230-3' 3/20/01 17 65 780 NA ' B-145;260-6" 3/20/01 14 44 74 NA B-145,260-3'. 3/20/01 18 63 63 NA B-145,290-6" 3/20/01 12 50 3200 NA ' B-145,290-3' . 3/20/01 38 89 12 30 13-165,15-6 3/13/01 15 56 8.4 NA B-165,15-3'. 3/13/01 13 40 <3 NA ' B-165,45-6" 3/13/01 15 63 12 NA B-165,45-3' 3/13/01 22 69 100 NA ' B-165,75-6" 3/13/01 11 39 54 NA B-165,75-3' 3/13/01 9.8 37 14 NA B-165,105-6" 3/13/01 21 64 26 NA B-165,105-3' 3/13/01 15 54 5.4 NA B-175,210-6" 3/20/01 14 67 74 NA B-175,210-3' 3/20/01 19 71 63 NA B-175,230-6" 3/20/01 18 58 3200 NA B-175,230-3' 3/20/01 15 59 12 NA B-175,260-6" 3/20/01 11 43 240 20 ' B-175,260-3' 3/20/01 15 58 440 8 B-175,290-6" 3/20/01 19 64 1300 NA B-175,290-3' 1 3/20/01 16 63 45 0.39 ' 13-195,15-6" 1 3/13/01 16 100 15 NA Threshold for California Hazardous Waste 2:2,500 2 5,000 2 ' Notes: 1. mg/kg=milligrams per kilogram ' 2. mg/L=milligrams per liter 3. NA=Not Analyzed 4.TTLC =Total Threshold Limit Concentration ' 5.Title 22 WET=California Code of Regulations,Title,22 Waste Extraction Test 6. STLC=Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration F/Data/Jobs/6914/Remedial ' 30175 Investigation Report/Tables/Table 1.x1s B-181 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FIRING RANGE ' TABLE 1 :Total Lead,Copper,Zinc Concentrations in Soil (TTLC) ' Total Copper Total Zinc Total Lead Soluble Lead Sample Identification Date EPA 7210 EPA 7950 EPA 7420 Title 22 WET ' Sampled TTLC TTLC TTLC STLC (mg/Kg) (mg/Kg) (mg/Kg) (mg/L) B-195,15-3' 3113/01 11 34 <3 NA ' B-195,45-6" 3/13/01 12 58 35 NA B-195,45-3' 3/13/01 17 56 100 NA B-195,75-6" 3/13/01 12 38 32 NA , B-195,75-3' 3/13/01 9.4 32 3.9 NA B-195,105-6" 3/13/01 27 70 33 NA B-195,105-3' 3/13/01 8.2 28 3.8 NA ' B-205,210-6" 3/20/01 7.2 46 18 NA B-205,210-3' 3/20/01 33 81 6 NA B-205,230-6" 3/20/01 21 53 99 NA ' B-205,230-3' 3/20/01 24 64 5.2 NA B-205,260-6" 3/20/01 17 61 91 NA B-205,260-3' 3/20/01 36 260 120 NA , B-205,290-6" 3/20/01 16 62 20 NA B-205,290-3' 3/20/01 11 42 <3 NA B10,C4-2+4 3/21/01 15 52 8.6 NA , B 10,C5-6+8 3/21/01 17 54 48 NA B10,C6-10-i-12 3/21/01 16 51 3.4 NA B30,C 1-2+4 3/21/01 29 71 17 NA ' B30,C2-6+8 3/21/01 20 58 53 NA B30,C3-10+12 3/21/01 18 55 5.4 NA B 10 ,C7-2+4 3/21/01 15 54 32 NA ' B 10 ,C8-6+8 3/21/01 18 63 65 NA B 10 ,C9-10+12 3/21/01 15 52 33 NA SB1-2' 3/12/01 890 59 40000 NA ' SB1-4' 3/12/01 38 57 1200 NA SB1-6' 3/12/01 24 66 800 240 SB1-8' 3/12/01 42 59 14000 NA ' SB 1-10' 1 3/12/01 61 1 53 3100 NA S132-2' 1 3/12/01 55 62 870 NA Threshold for California Hazardous Waste ? , ?5,000 ? ? ' Notes: ' 1. mg/Kg =milligrams per kilogram 2. mg/L=milligrams per liter 3. NA=Not Analyzed , 4. TTLC=Total Threshold Limit Concentration 5. Title 22 WET=California Code of Regulations,Title 22 Waste Extraction Test 6. STLC=Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration ' F/Data/Jobs/6914/Remedial 4 OF 5 Investigation Repoffrables/Table 1.x1s ' B-182 r , CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FIRING RANGE TABLE 1 : Total Lead, Copper,Zinc Concentrations in Soil(TTLC) Total Copper Total Zinc Total Lead Soluble Lead ' Sample Identification Date EPA 7210 EPA 7950 EPA 7420 Title 22 WET Sampled TTLC TTLC TTLC STLC (mg/Kg) (mg/Kg) (mg/Kg) (mg/L) ' S62-4' 3/12/01 46 67 490 NA - S62-6' 3/12/01 17 51 50 NA S62-8' 3/12/01 17 55 59 NA ' S132-10' 3/12/01 6.8 26 3.5 NA S133-2' 3/12/01 29 63 320 16 S63-4' 3/12/01 36 59 160 NA ' S133-6' 3/12/01 17 58 12 NA S133-8' 3/12/01 17 36 130 NA S64-2' 3/13/01 21 59 130 NA SB4-4'- 3/13/01 21 68 30 NA S64-6' 3/13/01 19 66 11 NA SB4-8' 3/13/01 26 51 420 28 ' S134-10' 3/13/01 70 57 3500 NA S135-2' 3/13/01 20 66 72 NA S65-4' 3/13/01 28 62 360. NA ' SB5-6' 3/13/01 30 66 600 63 SB5-8' ". 3/13/01 36 51 920 NA S135-10' 3/13/01 18 57 66 NA . S136-2' 3/13/01 26 52 450 NA S136-4' 3/13/01 18 68 41 NA_ S136-6' 3/13/01 14 51 42 NA SB6-8' 3/13/01 1900 55 45000 NA S136-10' 3/13/01 34 29 130 NA ' B-15,105-31) 3/21/01 17 51 9.8 NA B-45,45-313 3/12101 19 72 72 NA 13-45,75-61) 3/21/01 22 58 19 NA ' 13-105,15-61) 3/21/01 24 71 3 NA B-115,260-3D 3/21/01 13 53 5.8 NA 13-145,230-613 3/21/01 15 43 300 NA . 13-165,105-313 3/21/01 4.4 22 <3 NA ' 13-205,210-613 3/21/01 12 72 9.7 NA 13-205,290-313 3/21/01 13 44 <3 NA Threshold for California Hazardous Waste Notes: 1. mg/Kg=milligrams per kilogram ' 2. mg/L=milligrams per liter 3. NA=Not Analyzed 4.TTLC =Total Threshold Limit Concentration ' 5. Title 22 WET=California Code of Regulations, Title 22 Waste Extraction Test 6. STLC=Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration F/Data/Jobs/6914/Remedial ' 5 OF 5 Investigation Reportlrableslrable 1.x1s B-183 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FIRING RANGE TABLE 2 : Semi Volatile Organic Compounds (Semi-VOCs) in Wood-Post Fencing Semi Volatile Organic Compounds ' COMPOUNDS EPA METHOD 8270 (mg/Kg) W-1 W-2 I W-3 I W-4 F W-5 I W-6 I W-7 W-8 W-9 ' Acena hthene 1800 320 4400 980 6700 1900 1500 1000 300 Acena hth lene <25_ <25 73 <25 130 46 <25 <25 <25 ' Aniline <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 Anthracene 1300 220 5000 3400 5300 2900 1200 750 540 Azobenzene <25 35 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 ' Benzidine <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 Benzo a anthracene 580 100 1100 1600 1100 420 570 320 340 Benzo a rene 170 <25 <25 410 340 <25 160 75 120 ' Benzo b fluoranthene 190 32 330 480 240 72 170 100 230 Benzo(g,h,i)peryiene <25 <25 55 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 ' Benzo k fluoranthene 250 37 560 510 340 100 230 85 130 Benzoic acid <250 <250 <250 <250 <250 <250 <250 <250 <250 Benz I Alcohol <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 ' Bis 2-chloroethox methane <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 Bis 2-chloroeth I ether <25 1 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 3is 2-chloroiso ro 1 ether <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 ' Bis 2-eth the I hthalate <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 -Bromo hen I phenyl ether <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 Butyl benzyl phthalate <125 <125 <125 <125 <125 <125 <125 <125 <125 -Chloro-3-meth I henol <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 4-Chloroaniline <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 ' 2-Chlorona hthalene 28 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 2-Chloro henol <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 ' 4-Chloro hen I phenyl ether <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 Chrysene 650 130 1200 1400 900 260 790 260 380 Di-n-butyl phthalate <500 <500 <500 <500 <500 <500 <500 <500 <500 , Di-n-oc I phthalate <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 Dibenzofuran 1600 330 2900 950 4100 1500 1300 <25 300 , 1,2-Dichlorobenzene <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 1,3-Dichlorobenzene <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 1,4-Dichlorobenzene <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 ' 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 2,4-Dichloro henol <25 <25 <2LJ <25 .<25 1 <25 <25 <25 <25 ' Jote 1. mg/Kg = milligrams per kilogram ' F/Data/Jobs/6914/Remedial 1 OF 2 Investigation Report/Tables/Table 2.x1s ' B-184 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 1 FIRING RANGE TABLE 2 : Semi Volatile Organic Compounds(Semi-VOCs) in Wood-Post Fencing ' Semi Volatile Organic Compounds COMPOUNDS EPA METHOD 8270 (mg/Kg) W-1 W-2 W-3 W-4 W-5 I W-6 W-7 W-8 W-9 Dieth I hthalate <200 <200 <200 <200 <200 <200 <200 <200 <200 2,4-Dimeth I henol 70 <25 74 <25 35 120 150 <25 65 Dimeth I hthalate <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 2,4-Dinitro henol <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 2,4-Dinitrotoluene <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 2,6-Dinitrotoluene <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 Fluoranthene 3400 600 5400 6800 4900 1800 2100 1700 2000 Fluorene 1700 300 3700 1200 5100 1600 1400 810 290 Hexachlorobenzene <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 Hexachlorobutadiene . <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 Hexachloroc clo entadiene <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 Hexachloroethane <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 lndeno 1,2,3-cd rene <100 <100 100 170 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 lso horone <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 2-Meth I-4,6-dinitro henol <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 ' <50 <50 <50 2-Meth Ina hthalene 2100 350 1500 <25 3000 1800 1500 900 150 2-Meth I henol <50 <50 <50 <50 54 95 80 <50 <50 4-Meth I henol <50 <50 160 <50 130 210 250 <50 85 N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 N-Nitrosodimeth lamine <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 N-Nitrosodi hen lamine <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 Naphthalene 7000 500 2500 39 5200 3300 3100 740 470 2-Nitroaniline <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 3-Nitroaniline <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 4-Nitroaniline <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 ' Nitrobenzene <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 2-Nitro phenol <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 4-Nitro phenol <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 Pentachloro henol 1900 370 83 <25 <25 <25 1400 330 <25 Phenanthrene 7400 1400 15000 12000 19000 6600 7000 4000 2100 Phenol <25 <25 110 <25 150 230 170 <25 31 P rene 2200 400 3900 5200 3800 1100 1400 1100 1100 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 2,4,5-Trichloro henol <50 <50 <50 <50 . <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 2,4,6-Trichloro henol <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 Note 1. mg/Kg=milligrams per kilogram I F/Data/Jobs/6914/Remedial ' 2 OF 2 Investigation Report/Tables/Table 2.xls B-185 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FIRING RANGE TABLE 3 :Title 22 Metals (CAM) in Samples with Highest Lead Concentrations CAM METALS COMPOUNDS EPA METHOD 6000/7000 (mg/Kg) SB6-8' SB1-2' B-15,45-6" B-45,15-6" B-75,15-6" B-115,290-3' B-175,230-6" Antimony 1200 4600 42 <10 <10 <10 <10 Arsenic 11 1100 4.5 7.1 5.3 3 5.8 Barium 110 <10 95 110 100 98 350 Beryllium <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1.3 Cadmium <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Chromium 14 <3 17 21 45 18 20 Cobalt 3.8 <3 3.7 5.3 4.6 5.8 6.5 Copper 110 87 47 22 56 20 18 Lead 27000 41000 2100 150 290 160 240 Mercury <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.062 <0.05 Molybdenum <5 7 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 Nickel 6 <3 4.7 12 13 9 12 Selenium <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 Silver 1.8 7.4 1 1.5 1.4 1.2 7.4 Thallium <5 5.1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 Vanadium 23 <10 21 34 28 42 40 ' inc 45 9.7 56 76 260 90 310 Note 1. mg/Kg =milligrams per kilogram F/Data/Jobs/6914/Remedial 1 Investigation Report/Tableslfable 3.xis ' B-186 1 APPENDIX A LABORATORY DATA 1 ' B-187 AMERICAN LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS , .NALYTICS Page 1 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.:A43816 Project No.: 6914 Date Received: 03/14/01 Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 1 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method:Total Metals Date Sampled: 03/12/01 03/12/01 03/12/01 03/12/01 Date Analyzed: 03/19/01 03/19/01 03/19/01 03/19/01 AA ID No.: 118115 118116 118117 118119 Client ID No.: B-105,75-6- B-75,105-3' B-105,105-6- B-105,105-3' MRL Compounds: Copper 27 14 21 13 3 _. Lead 52 <3 <3 <3 3 Zinc 67 44 67 46 3 George Hava s Laboratory Qfrector B-188 , American Analytics • 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 0 A 0 % n n 0 9 n C 0 AMERICAN LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS .NALYTICS Page 2 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.: A43816 Project No.: 6914 Date Received: 03/14/01 Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method:Total Metals 1 Date Sampled: 03/12/01 03/12/01 03/12/01 03/12/01 Date Analyzed: 03/19/01 03/19/01 03/19/01 03/19/01 AA ID No:: 118120 118121 118122 118123 Client ID No.: B-105,75-3' B-105,45-61- B-105,45-3' B-105,15-6- MRL Compounds: Copper 15 21 10 33 . 3 Lead <3 260 <3 130 3 Zinc 52 56 29 70 3 l ,r r r r r r George Hava Laboratory Virector B-189 American Analytics • 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 Tcl • /A -1 A \ OOA _ r, RA7 . . Lnv• / AA Q \ OOQ _ 77X� Q AMERICAN ' LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS ,NALYTICS Page 3 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA ProjJect No.: A43816 Project No.: 6914 Date Received: 03/14/01 Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method:Total Metals Date Sampled: 03/12/01 03/13/01 03/13/01 03/13/01 Date Analyzed: 03/19/01 03/19/01 03/19/01 03/19/01 ' AA ID No.: 118124 118125 118126 118127 Client ID No.: B-105,15-3' B-135,75-6- B-135,75-3' B-135,105-6- MRL Compounds: Copper 8.8 19 15 18 3 Lead <3 71 <3 34 3 Zinc 28 76 50 66 3 r George Hav 1 Laboratory irector B-190 American Analytics • 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 Tcl • / A4 A \ OOA _ rS A 7 . r I A 4 A \ OOA - 77AA AMERICAN LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS .NALYTICS Page 4 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.:A43816 Project No.: 6914 Date Received: 03/14/01 Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method:Total Metals Date Sampled: 03/13/01 03/13/01 03/13/01 03/13/01 Date Analyzed: 03/19/01 03/19/01 03/19/01 03/19/01 AA ID No.: 118128 118129 118130 118131 Client ID No.: B-135,105-3' B-135,15-6- B-135,15-3' B-195,15-6- MRL Compounds: Copper 9.8 24 16 16 3- Lead 4.8 340 <3 15 3 Zinc 38 66 51 100 3 1 . George HavaII196 Laboratory D' ector ' B-191 American Analytics 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 TnI - fA 4 ANO0A _ FSA 7 . • Fnv• ( A 4 A \ OOA _ 7 ) r, A AMERICAN Na�nlcs LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS Page 5 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.: A43816 Project No.: 6914 Date Received: 03/14/01 Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method:Total Metals Date Sampled: 03/13/01 03/13/01 03/13/01 03/13/01 Date Analyzed: 03/19/01 03/19/01 03/19/01 03/19/01 AA ID No.: 118132 118133 118134 118135 Client ID No.: B-195,15-3' B-165,15-6° B-165,15-3' B-165,45-6° MRL Compounds: Copper 11 15 13 15 3 Lead <3 8.4 <3 12 3 Zinc 34 56 40 63 3 O� George Haval s Laboratory. rector B-192 ' American Analytics • 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 TPI • lA4Al00A . S A . • FnY- lA4Al00A _ 775A ' AMERICAN LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS ,NALYTICS Page 6 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.:A43816 Project No.: 6914 Date Received: 03/14/01 i Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method:Total Metals 1 Date Sampled: 03/13/01 03/13/01 03/13/01 03/13/01 Date Analyzed: 03/19/01 03/1.9/01 03/19/01 03/19/01 AA ID No.: 118136 118137 118138 118139 Client ID No.: B-165,45-3' B-135,45-6° B-135,45-3' B-195,105-6" MRL ComRounds: Copper 22 16 14 27 3 Lead 100 <3 <3 33 3 Zinc 69 60 42 70 3 1 . George Havali Laboratory D' ector B-193 American Analytics • 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth,_ California 91311 Tel : (818 ) 998 - 5547 • e Fox: ( 818 ) 998 - 7258 AMERICAN ' NALYTIC 5 LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS ' Page 7 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.: A43816 Project No.: 6914 Date Received: 03/14/01 Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method:Total Metals Date Sampled: 03/13/01 03/13/01 03/13/01 03/13/01 Date Analyzed: 03/19/01 03/19/01 03/19/01 03/19/01 AA ID No.: 118140 118141 118142 118143 Client ID No.: SB4-2' SB4-4' SB4-6' S84-8' MRL Compounds" Copper 21 21 19 26 3 Lead 130 30 11 420 3 Zinc 59 68 66 51 3 , 1 George Havallpfi L ' Laboratory D" ector B-194 American Analytics • 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 9 13 11 ' Tel : ( 818 ) 998 - 5547 • Fax: ( 818 ) 998 - 7258 AMERICAN NALYTICS LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS � Page 8 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.: A43816 Project No.:.6914 Date Received: 03/14/01 Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method: Total Metals 1 Date Sampled: 03 13 01 03 13 01 03 13/01 03 13 01 Date Analyzed: 03/19/01 03/19/01 03/19/01 63/19/01 AA ID No.: 118144 118145 118146 118147 Client ID No.: S134-10' SB5.2' SB5-4' SB5-6' MRL Compounds: Copper 70 20 28 30 3 Lead 3500 72 360 .600 3 Zinc 57 66 62 66 3 George Haval' s Laboratory ector B-I95 American Analytics • 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 Te1: (818 ) 998 - 5547 Fax: (818 ) 998 - 7258 AMERICAN ' LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS .NALYTICS Page 9 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.:A43816 Project No.: 6914 Date Received: 03/14/01 Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 ' Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method:Total Metals Date Sampled: 03/13/01 03/13/01 03/13/01 03/13/01 Date Analyzed: 03/19/01 03/19/01 03/19/01 03/19/01 AA ID No.: 118148 118149 118150 118151 , Client ID No.: S135-8' S65-10' SB6-2' SB6-4' MRL Compounds: Copper 36 18 26 18 3 , Lead 920 66 450 41 3 Zinc 51 57 52 68 3 ' a i i I George Hav�#hs Laboratory)Director B-196 American Analytics • 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 Tel : (818 ) 998 - 5547 • Fax: ( 81 8 ) 998 - 7258 ' AMERICAN ' Ics NALYT LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS Page 10 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.:A43816 Project No.: 6914 Date Received: 03/14/01 Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method:Total Metals . Date Sampled: 03/13/01 03/13/01 03/13/01 03/13/01 Date Analyzed: 03/19/01 03/19/01 03/19/01 03/19/01 ' AA ID No.: 118152 118153 118154 118155 Client ID No.: B-195,105-3' B-165,105-6° B-165,105-3' B-165,75-6- MRL Compounds: ' Copper 8.2 21 15 11 3 Lead 3.8 26 5.4 54 3 Zinc 28 64 54 39 3 George Havali s Laboratory Vector ' B-197 American Analytics m 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 Tel: (818 ) 998 - 5547 • e Fax: ( 818 ) 998 - 7258 AMERICAN i { i LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS , .NALYTICS I Page 11 , Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.: A43816 i Project No.:.6914 Date Received: 03/14/01 Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method:Total Metals Date Sampled: 03/13/01 03/13/01 03/13/01 03/13/01 Date Analyzed: 03/19/01 03/19/01 03/19/01 03/19/01 AA ID No.: 118156 118157 118158 118159 , Client ID No.: B-165,75-3' B-195,75-6" B-195,75-3' B-195,45-6- MRL Compounds: Copper 9.8 12 9.4 12 3 Lead 14 32 3.9 35 3 Zinc 37 38 32 58 3 , I ! i i i I George HavqflUi Laboratory irector B-198 American Analytics • 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 Te1 : (818 ) 998 - 5547 • • Fax: ( 818 ) 998 - 7258 i ' AMERICAN LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS .NALYTICS Page 12 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.: A43816 ' Project No.: 6914 Date Received: 03/14/01 Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 Sample Matrix:Soil- Units: mg/Kg Method:Total Metals Date Sampled: 03/13/01 03/13/01 03/13/01 03/13/01 ' Date Analyzed: 03/19/01 03/19/01 03/19/01 03/19/01 AA ID No.: 118160 118161 118162 118163 Client ID No.: B-195,45-3' SB6-6' SB6-8' SB6-10' MRL Compounds: Copper 17 14 1900 34 3 ' Lead 100 42 45000 130 3 Zinc 56 51 55 29 3 1 ' George Haval' . Laboratory Frector B-199 American Analytics 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 Tel: (818 ) 998 - 5547 9 0 Fax: ( 818 ) 998 - 7258 AMERICAN ' i 4;& LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS M NALYTICS ' Page 13 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.:A43816 Project No.: 6914 Date Received: 03/14/01 Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 ' Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method:Total Metals I Date Sampled: 03/12/01 03/12/01 03/12/01 03/12/01 Date Analyzed: 03/16/01 03/16/01 03/16/01 03/16/01 AA ID No.: 118164 118165 118166 118167 Client ID No.: SB1-2' SB1-4' SB1-6' SB1-8' MRL Compounds: Copper 890 38 24 42 3 1 Lead 40000 1200 800 14000 3 Zinc 59 57 66 59 3 , i I i i I i i i i i I 1 i i George Haval s ' Laboratory rector B-200 American Analytics • 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 Tel : (818 ) 998 - 5547 • • Fax: ( 81.8 ) 998 - 7258 ' AMERICAN LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS .NALYTICS Page 14 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.:A43816 Project No.: 6914 Date Received: 03/14/01 Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method:Total Metals Date Sampled: 03/12/01 03/12/01 03/12/01 03/12/01 Date Analyzed: 03/16/01 03/16/01 03/16/01 03/16/01 ' AA ID No.: 118168 .118169 118170 118171 Client ID No.: SB1-10' B-15,15-6- B-15,15-3' B-15,15-6' MRL Compounds: ' Copper 61 25 16 17 3 Lead 3100 73 7.9 60 3 Zinc 53 74 51 42 3 1 a ' George Havapfii Laboratory (rector B-201 American -Analytics 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 Tel : (818 ) 998 - 5547 • • Fax: (818 ) 998 - 7258 i AMERICAN ' LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS NALYTICS Page 15 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.: A43816 Project No.: 6914 Date Received: 03/14/01 Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 , Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method:Total Metals Date Sampled: 03/12/01 03/12/01 03/12/01 03/12/01 Date Analyzed: 03/16/01 03/16/01 03/16/01 03/16/01 i AA ID No.: 118172 118173 118174 118175 , Client ID No.: B-15,45-6° B-15,45-3' B-15,45-6' B-15,75-6° MRL Compounds: Copper 47 17 18 24 3 , Lead 3100 8.7 3.3 38 3 Zinc 60 54 61 68 3 , i 'I I i 1 George Ha VI ' s , Laboratory rector B-202 American Analytics 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 , Tel: (618 ) 998 - 5547 • • Fax: ( 818 ) 998 - 7258 I 1 AMERICAN 1 LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS NALYTICS Page 16 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.: A43816 Project No.: 6914 Date Received:.03/14/01 Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported:.04/03/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method:Total Metals 1 Date Sampled: 03/12/01 03/12/01 03/12/01 03/12/01 Date Analyzed: 03/16/01 03/16/01 03/16/01 03/16/01 AA ID No.: 118176 118177 118178 118179 Client ID No.: B-15,75-3'. B-15,75-6' B-15,105-6-- B-15,105-3' MRL Compounds: ' Copper 18 13 18 17 3 Lead 9.8 <3 150 7.4 3 ' Zinc 58 51 49 69 3 i 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' George HavVirector Laboratory B-203 American Analytics 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 Tel: (818 ) 998 - 5547 9 • Fax: ( 818 ) 998 - 7258 i AMERICAN 1 i i LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS NALYTICS Page 17 � 1 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.: A43816 Project No.: 6914 Date Received: 03/14/01 Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 ' Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method:Total Metals i Date Sampled: 03/12/01 03/12/01 03/12/01 03/12/01 Date Analyzed: 03/16/01 03/16/01 03/16/01 03/16/01 AA ID No.: 118180 118181 118102 118183 1 Client ID No.: B-15,105-6' B-45,15-6° B-45,15-3' B-45,15-6' MRL b Compounds: Copper 18 98 50 60 3 1 Lead 12 1600 91 38 3 Zinc 60 85 85 240 3 , i 1 1 i 1 1 George Havapfis , Laboratory Director 8-204 American Analytics 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 1 Tc? I- fAIANOOR - R.RA7 . • Fnx• 1A4A100A - 79SA 171 LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS ' Page 18 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.: A43816 Project No.: 6914 Date Received: 03/14/01 Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/,03/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method:Total Metals Date Sampled: . 03/12/01 03/12/01 03/12/01 03/12/01 Date Analyzed: 03/16/01 03/16/01 03/16/01 03/16/01 ' AA ID No.: 118184 118185 118186 118187 Client ID No.: B-75,15-6- B-75,15-3' B-75,15-6' B 75,45-6- MRL Compounds: ' Copper 180 16 27 27 3 ' Lead 400 .11 11 25 3 Zinc 350 72 67 70 3 George Haval' Laboratory ector B-205 American Analytics 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 Tel : (818 ) 998 - 5547 • • Fax: (818 ) 998 - 7258 i AMERICAN ' LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS r NALYTICS Page 19 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.: A43816 r Project No.: 6914 Date Received: 03/14/01 Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 r Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method: Total Metals Date Sampled: 03/12/01 03/12/01 03/12/01 03/12/01 Date Analyzed: 03/16/01 03/16/01 03/16/01 03/16/01 AA ID No.: 118188 118189 118190 118191 ' Client ID No.: B-45,45-6" B-45,45-3' B-45,45-3B B-45,45-6' MRL Compounds: Copper 21 10 19 180 3 r Lead 32 5.6 72 61 3 Zinc 66 35 72 190 3 r 1 1 1 r I r �I r 1 � 1 I I r George Hav Laboratory ire or B-206 American Analytics • 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 Tel : (818 ) 998 - 5547 • • Fox: ( 818 ) 998 - 7258 ' AMERICAN LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS NALYTICS ' Page 20 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.:A43816 Project No.:.6914 Date Received: 03/14/01 Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method:Total Metals 1 Date Sampled: 03/12/01 03/12/01 03/12/01 03/12/01 Date Analyzed: 03/16/01 03/16/01 03/16/01 03/16/01 ' AA ID No.: 118192 118193 118194 118195 Client ID No.: B-45,75-6° B-75,75-6' B-75,75-3' B-75,75-6° MRL Compounds: Copper 21 32 70 61 3 Lead 270 56 16 82 3 ' Zinc 69 170 67 64 3 ' George Haval Laboratory ector ' B-207 American Analytics 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 Te1 : (848 ) 998 - 5547 • • Fax: ( 818 ) 998 - 7258 AMERICAN ' 4Al.YTICS LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS ' Page 21 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.:A43816 1 Project No.: 6914 Date Received: 03/14/01 Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 1 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method:Total Metals ' Date Sampled: 03/12/01 03/12/01 03/12I01 03/12/01 Date Analyzed: 03/16/01 03/16/01 03/16/01 03/16/01 AA ID No.: 118196 118197 118198 118199 , Client ID No.: B-45,75-3' B-45,105-6- B-45;105-3' B-75,105-6- MRL Compounds: Copper 18 19 19 20 3 1 Lead <3 210 10 170 3 Zinc 64 77 60 70 3 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 a ' 1 1 George Hava as ' Laboratory Wirector B-208 American Analytics 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 1 Tel : (818 ) 998 - 5547 • • Fax: (818 ) 998 - 7258 1 AMERICAN NALYTICS LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS ' Page 22 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.: A43816 Project No.: 6914 Date Received: 03/14/01 Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method:Total Metals 1 Date Sampled: 03/12/01 03/12/01 03/12/01 03/12/01 Date Analyzed: 03/16/01 03/16/01 03/16/01 03/16/01 1 AA ID No.: 118200 118201 118202 118203 Client ID No.: B-75,45-6' B-75,45-3' SB2-2' SB2-4' MRL Compounds: 1 Copper 640 68 55 46 3 Lead 170 16 870 490 3 ' Zinc 240 96 62 67 3 1 • 1 i 1 1 1 i i ' George Hava Laboratory rector B-209 ' American Analytics a 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 Tel : f8181998 - 5547 e e Fax: f81 81998 - 7258 AMERICAN ' NALYTICS LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS ' Page 23 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.: A43816 , Project No.:.6914 Date Received: 03/14/01 Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 , Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method:Total Metals Date Sampled: 03/12/01 03/12/01 03/12/01 03/12/01 Date Analyzed: 03/19/01 03/19/01 03/19/01 03/19/01 AA ID No.: 118204 118205 118206 118207 , Client ID No.: SB2-6' SB2-8' SB2-10' SB3-2' MRL Compounds: Copper 17 17 . 6.8 29 3 r Lead 50 59 3.5 320 3 Zinc 51 55 26 63 3 ' i i 1 i i 1� i I I i t George Havafai Laboratory irector B-2I0 American Analytics • 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 i Tel: (818 ) 998 - 5547 • • Fox: ( 818 ) 998 - 7258 AMERICAN ' LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS .NALYTICS ' Page 24 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.: A43816 Project No.: 6914 Date Received: 03/14/01 ' Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method:Total Metals Date Sampled: 03/12/01 03/12/01 03/12/91 Date Analyzed: 03/16/01 03/19/01 03/19/01 ' AA ID No.: 118208 118209 118210 Client ID No.: SB3-4' SB3-6' SB3-8' MRL Compounds: ' Copper 36 17 17 3 Lead 160 12 130 3 ' Zinc 59 58 36 3 ' MRL: Method Reporting Limit ' George Haval s Laboratory Tector B-211 American Analytics 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 TPI - (R1R199A - ARA7 • • FnY- ( R4R199R - 79 .rA AMERICAN \NALYTICS LABORATORY QA/QC REPORT ' Page 1 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. Project No.: 6914 ' Project Name: HB Firing Range AA Project No.:A43816 Method: Total Metals Date Analyzed: 03/16/01 Sample ID: Laboratory Control Standard Date Reported: 04/03/01 ' Concentration: 50 mg/Kg Recovered Recovery Acceptable ' Compounds Amount (mg/Kg) (%) Range ('/6) Copper 45.7 91 50-150 ' Lead 49.8 100 50-150 Zinc 46.4 93 50-150 i j 'I I i i i i I George Hav . s , Laborato irector B-212 American Analytics • 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 , TPI - (AIRIQQR - F,5d7 • • Pei Y' ( A1ANQQA - 7 '7 .iA I ' AMERICAN nNa�YTlcs LABORATORY QA/QC REPORT Page 1 ' Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. Project No.: 6914 Project Name: HB Firing Range AA Project No.: A43816 Method:Total Metals Date Analyzed: 03/16/01 Sample ID: Laboratory Control Standard Date Reported: 04/03/01 Concentration: 50 mg/Kg Recovered Recovery Acceptable Compounds Amount (mg/Kg) (0/6) Range (%) ' Copper 44.4 89 50-150 Lead 47.8 96 50-150 Zinc 48.5 97 50-150 1 r George Hav as Laboratory irector B-213 ' American Analytics 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 Tel : (818 ) 998.- 5547 • o Fax : ( 818 ) 998 - 7258 i AMERICAN ' nNA1 Yrlcs LABORATORY QA/QC REPORT ' Page 1 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. Project No.: 6914 ' l Project Name: HB Firing Range AA Project No.: A43816 Method:Total Metals Date Analyzed: 03/19/01 Sample ID: Laboratory Control Standard Date Reported: 04/03/01 i Concentration: 50 mg/Kg ' i I Recovered Recovery Acceptable , Compounds Amount (mg/Kg) N Range(0/,) I Copper 46.9 94 50- 150 Lead 50.6 101 50- 150 ' Zinc 51.0 102 50- 150 I 1 I I i ,I I r George Hav !a ' { Laborato !rector B_214 i American Analytics • 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 Tel: (898 ) 998 - 5547 • • Fox: ( 818 ) 998 - 7258 ' AMERICAN ' ANA�nics LABORATORY QA/QC REPORT Page 1 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. Project No.: 6914 Project Name: HB Firing Range AA Project No.: A43816 Method:Total Metals Date Analyzed: 03/19/01 Sample ID: Laboratory Control Standard Date Reported: 04/03/01 Concentration: 50 mg/Kg ' Recovered Recovery Acceptable Compounds Amount (mg/Kg) (%) Range (%) Copper 45.0 90 50- 150 ' Lead 47.5 95 50-150 Zinc 48.4 97 50-150 ' George Hav i Laborato ,rector 8-215 ' American Analytics • 9765 _Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 Te1 : (818 ) 998 - 5547 • • Fax: ( 818 ) 998 - 7258 AMERICAN 1 %NALrrlcs LABORATORY QA/QC REPORT ' Page 1 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. Project No.: 6914 Project Name: HB Firing Range AA Project No.: A43816 1 Method:Total Metals Date Analyzed: 03/19/01 Sample ID: Laboratory Control Standard Date Reported: 04/03/01 Concentration: 50 mg/Kg 1 Recovered Recovery Acceptable 1 Compounds Amount (mg/Kg) (0/0 Range (%) Copper 47.0 94 50-150 Lead 50.8 102 50-150 1 Zinc 46.8 94 50-150 ell . 1 i i 1 I i i 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 George Hav 1 Laboratory !rector B-216 American Analytics • 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 Tel : ( 818 ) 998 - 5547 • Fax: ( 818 ) 998 - 7258 AMERICAN . NALYTICS LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS Page 1 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.: A43816 Project No.: 6914 Date Received: 03/14/01 Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method: CAM Metals r Date Sampled. 03/13/01 03/12/01 03/12/01 03/12/01 Date Analyzed: 03/27/01 03/27/01 03/23/01 03/27/01 AA ID No.: 118162 118164 118172 118181 Client ID No.: SB678' SB1-2' B-15,45-6" B-45,15-60 MRL Compounds: Antimony 1200 4600 42 <10 10 Arsenic 11 1100 4.5 7.1 0.5 ' Barium 110 <10 95 110 10 Beryllium <1 <1 <1 <1 1 Cadmium <1 <1 <1 <1 1 Chromium 14 <3 17 21 3 Cobalt 3.8 <3 3.7 5.3 3 Copper 110 87 47 22 3 Lead ' 27000 41000 2100 150 3 Mercury <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.05 Molybdenum <5 7.0 <5 <5 5 Nickel 6.0 <3 4.7 12 3 Selenium <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 Silver 1.8 7.4 1.0 1.5 1 Thallium <5 5.1 <5 <5 5 Vanadium 23 <10 21 34 10 Zinc 45 9.7 56 76 3 George Hava Laboratory rector 8-217 American Analytics • 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 Te1: (818 ) 99A - 5547 • • Fnx: ( 818 ) 99R - 795R AMERICAN LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS ' NALYTICS Page 2 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.:A43816 Project No.: 6914 Date Received: 03/14/01 Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method: CAM Metals I, r Date Sampled: 03/12/01 Date Analyzed: 03/27/01 AA ID No.: 118184 Client ID No.: B-75,15-8- MRL Compounds: Antimony <10 10 Arsenic 5.3 0.5 Barium 100 10 Beryllium <1 1 Cadmium <1 1 Chromium 45 3 Cobalt 4.6 3 Copper 56 3 Lead 290 3 i Mercury <0.05 0.05 Molybdenum <5 5 Nickel 13 3 Selenium <0.5 0.5 Silver 1.4 1 Thallium <5 5 Vanadium 28 10 Zinc 260 3 i MRL: Method Reporting Limit i I George Haval' Laboratory rector B-218 American Analytics • 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 T c 1• / 0 A A % 0 0 0 . F r A 7 . C .. v / G A a % 0 0 a 7 7 S a I AMERICAN �NawTlcs LABORATORY QA/QC REPORT Page 1 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA ID No.: 118162 Project Name: HB Firing Range Project No.: 6914 Method: CAM Metals AA Project No.:A43816 Sample ID: Matrix Spike Date Analyzed: 03/27/01 Concentration: 50 mg/Kg Date Reported: 04/03/01 Spike Dup. Spike/Dup. Result Recovery Result Recovery RPD Accept.Rec. Compounds (mg/Kg) N (mg/Kg) (0/-) (°/6) Range (%) Antimony 44.0 88 49.0 98 11 20- 120 Arsenic 44.2 88 46.8 94 7 50- 150 Barium 49.0 98 14.0 28 111 50- 150 Beryllium 45.4 91 44.1 88 3 50- 150 Cadmium 43.8 88 52.8 106 19 50- 150 Chromium 49.9 100 46.1 92 8 50- 150 Cobalt 47.7 95 47.1 94 1 50- 150 Copper 67.0 134 50.0 100 29 50- 150 Lead 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 50- 150 Mercury 54.9 110 55.4 111 1 50- 150 Molybdenum 50.6 101 52.5 105 4 50- 150 Nickel 40.5 81 48.5 97 18 50- 150 Selenium 46.4 93 45.6 91 2 50- 150 Silver 47.9 96 48.5 97 1 50- 150 Thallium 49.9 100 50.2 100 0 50- 150 Vanadium 49.0 98 38.1 76 25 50- 150 Zinc 50.1 100 51.9 104 4 50- 150 a George Hav I s LAborato ire for B-219 American Analytics 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 Tel: (818 )998 - 5547 • • Fox: (818 ) 998 - 7258 i AMERICAN i I LABORATORY QA/OC REPORT NALYTICS Page 1 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. Project No.: 6914 Project Name: HB Firing Range AA Project No.: A43816 Method: CAM Metals Date Analyzed: 03/27/01 Sample ID: Laboratory Control Standard Date Reported: 04/03/01 i Concentration: 50 mg/Kg r Recovered Recovery Acceptable Compounds Amount (mg/Kg) (0/6) Range (%) i Antimony 47.9 96 75-125 Arsenic 49.8 100 75- 125 Barium 47.9 96 75- 125 Beryllium 46.6 93 75- 125 Cadmium 52.1 104 75- 125 Chromium 49.2 98 75- 125 ' Cobalt 49.9 100 75- 125 Copper 45.3 91 75- 125 Lead 46.3 93 75- 125 Mercury 51.4 103 75- 125 Molybdenum 50.0 100 75- 125 Nickel 51.4 103 75- 125 Selenium 58.2 116 75- 125 i Silver 44.6 89 75- 125 Thallium 49.0 98 75- 125 Vanadium 45.6 91 75- 125 Zinc 49.4 99 75-125 I i I George Hay i Laborato Irector 8-220 American Analytics • 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 Tel: (818 ) 998 - 5547 • Fax: (818 ) 998 - 7258 AMERICAN NALYTICS LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS Page 1 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.:A43816 Project No.: 6914 Date.Received: 03/14/01 Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 Sample Matrix: Soil, Units: mg/L Method: STLC Lead Date Date Date AA I.D. No. Client I.D. No. Sampled Extracted Analyzed Results MRL 118115 B-105,75-6- 03/12/01 04/01/01 04/03/01 6.7 0.1 118123 B-105,15-60 03/12/01 04/01/01 04/03/01 2.6 0.1 ?� 118125 B-135,75-6- 03/13/01 04/01/01 04/03/01 3.5 0.1 118129 B-135,15-6- 03/13/01 04/01/01 04/03/01 110 0.1 118143 SB4-8' 03/13/01 04/01/01 04/03/01 28 0.1 118147 S65-6' 03/13/01 04/01/01 04/03/01 63 0.1 118166 SB1-6' 03/12/01 04/01/01 04/03/01 240 0.1 118178 B-15,105-6- 03/12/01 04/01/01 04/03/01 760 0.1 118184 B-75,15-6- 03/12/01 04/01/01 04/03/01 14 0.1 118195 B-75,75-6- 03/12/01 04/01/01 04/03/01 2.4 0.1 118197 B-45,105-6- 03/12/01 04/01/01 04/03/01 6.3 0.1 1 8199 B-75,105-6- 03/12/01 04/01/01 04/03/01 2.0 0.1 118200 B-75,45-6' 03/12/01 04/01/01 04/03/01 1.8 0.1 118207 SB3-2' 03/12/01 04/01/01 04/03/01 16 0.1 MRL: Method Reporting Limit i ,. George Hava Laboratory 91rector B-221 American Analytics • 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 7e1 : (848 )99R - 5547 . • Fnx: ( 81R ) 99R -.7958 AMERICAN LABORATORY QA/QC REPORT VALYTICS Page 1 i Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA ID No.: 118115 j Project Name: HB Firing Range Project No.: 6914 j Method: STLC Lead AA Project No.:A43816 Sample ID: Matrix Spike Date Analyzed: 04/03/01 Concentration:.1 mg/L Date Reported: 04/03/01 Spike Dup. Spike/Dup. Result Recovery Result Recovery RPD Accept.Rec. Compounds (mg/L) (•/) (mg/L) (04) (%) Range (%) Lead 1.2 120 1.2 120 0 50- 150 . i i i I George HavAbs Laboratory ire or B-222 American Analytics 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 Tel: ( 818 ) 998 - 5547 • • Fax: (818 ) 998 - 7258 .AMERICAN NAI.YTICs LABORATORY OA/QC REPORT Page 1 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. Project No.: 6914 Project Name: HB Firing Range AA Project No.: A43816 Method: STLC Lead Date Analyzed:-04/03/01 Sample ID: Laboratory Control Standard Date Reported: 04/03/01 Concentration: 1 mg/L ' Recovered Recovery Acceptable Compounds Amount (mg/L) (%) Range (°/6) Lead 0.908 91 75- 125 1 j George Hav Laboratory irect r B-223 ' American Analytics • 9765 .Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 Tel: ( 818 ) 998 - 5547 • • Fox: ( 818 ) 998 - 7258 AMERICAN NA�vTIcs LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS �. Page 1 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.: A43816 Project No.: 6914 Date Received: 03/14/01 Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method: EPA 8270 i Date Sampled: p 03/12/01 03/12/01 03/12/01 03/12/01 , Date Analyzed: 03/22/01 03/23/01 03/23/01 03/23/01 Date Extracted: 03/20/01 03/20/01 03/21/01 03/20/01 , AA ID No.: 118212 118213 118214 118215 Client ID No.: W-1 W-2 W-3 W-4 MRL Compounds: Acenaphthene 1800 '320 4400 980 0.1 _ Acenaphthylene <25 <25 73 <25 0.1 Aniline <50 <50 <50 <50 0.2 Anthracene 1300 220 5000 3400 0.1 Azobenzene <25 35 <25 <25 0.1 Benzidine <100 <100 <100 <100 0.4 Benzo(a)anthracene 580 100 1100 1600 0.1 Benzo(a)pyrene 170 <25 <25 410 0.1 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 190 32 330 480 0.1 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene <25 <25 55 <25 0.1 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 250 37 560 510 0.1 Benzoic acid <250 <250 <250 <250 1 Benzyl Alcohol <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate <50 <50 <50 <50 0.2 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 Butyl benzyl phthalate <125 <125 <125 <125 0.5 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol <50 <50 <50 <50 0.2 4-Chloroaniline <100 <100 <100 <100 0.4 2-Chloronaphthalene 28 <25 .<25 <25 0.1 2-Chlorophenol <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 Chrysene 650 130 1200 1400 0.1 George Havali Laboratory D ector B-224 American Analytics . 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 TcaI- (A IANO0A _ FRA7 . • Fnv• ( A 4 ANO0A _ 77FA AMERICAN NAurrlcs LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS Page 2 ' Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.: A43816 Project No.: 6914 Date Received: 03/14/01 Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method: EPA 8270 y Date Sampled: 03/12/01 03/12/01 03/12/01 03/12/01 Date Analyzed: 03/22/01 03/23/01 03/23/01 03/23/01 Date Extracted: 03/20/01 03/20/01 03/21/01 03/20/01- 1 AA ID No.: 118212 118213 118214 118215 Client ID No.: W-1 W-2 W-3 W-4 MRL Compounds: Di-n-butyl phthalate <500 <500 <500 <500 2 Di-n-octyl phthalate <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 Dibenzofuran 1600 330 2900 950 0.1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 1,4-Dichlorobenzene <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine <100 <100 <100 <100 0.4 2,4-Dichlorophenol <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 Diethylphthalate <200 <200 <200 <200 0.8 2,4-Dimethylphenol 70 <25 74 <25 0.1. Dimethylphthalate <50 <50 <50 <50 0.2 2,4-Dinitrophenol <100 <100 <100 <100 0.4 2,4-Dinitrotoluene <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 2,6-Dinitrotoluene <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 Fluoranthene 3400 600 5400 6800 0.1 Fluorene 1700 300 3700 1200 0.1 Hexachlorobenzene <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 Hexachlorobutadiene <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 Hexachloroethane <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene <100 <100 .100 170 0.4 Isophorone <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol <50 <50 <50 <50 0.2 2-Methyinaphthalene 2100 350 1500 <25 0.1 George Haval Laboratory rector B-225 American Analytics • 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 T a I IAIANO0A - FFA7 . . Fri v• lRIANQOA - 7 A i AMERICAN I LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS NALYTICS Page 3 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.: A43816 Project No.: 6914 Date Received: 03/14/01 Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method: EPA 8270 i Date Sampled: r 03/12/01 03/12/01 03/12/01 03/12/01 , Date Analyzed: 03/22/01 03/23/01 03/23/01 03/23/01 Date Extracted: 03/20/01 03/20/01 03/21/01 03/20/01 AA ID No.: 118212 118213 118214 118215 Client ID No.: W-1 W-2 W-3 W-4 MRL Compounds: 2-Methylphenol <50 <50 <50 <50 0.2 4-Methylphenol <50 <50 . 160 <50 0.2 N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 N-Nitrosodimethylamine <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 Naphthalene 7000 500 2500 39 0.1 2-Nitroaniline <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 3-Nitroaniline <100 <100 <100 <100 0.4 �= 4-Nitroaniline <50 <50 <50 <50 0.2 Nitrobenzene <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 2-Nitrophenol <50 <50 <50 <50 0.2 4-Nitrophenol <50 <50 <50 <50 0.2 Pentachlorophenol 1900 370 83 <25 0.1 Phenanthrene 7400 1400 15000 12000 0.1 . i Phenol <25 <25 110 <25 0.1 Pyrene 2200 400 3900 5200 0.1 i 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol <50 <50 <50 <50 0.2 � 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol <50 <50 <50 <50 0.2 George Hava s Laboratory Vrector g_226 American Analytics • 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 T n I• / A A A 0 0 A _ r r A 7 . L n v- / A 4 A % 0 0 A _ 7 7 r, 12 AMERICAN LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS NALYnCS Page 4 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.: A43816 Project No.:-6914 Date Received: 03/14/01 Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method: EPA 8270 Date Sampled: 03/12/01 03[12/01 03/12/01 03/12/01 Date Analyzed: 03/23/01 03/23/01 03/23/01 03/23/01 Date Extracted: 03/20/01 03/20/01 03/20/01 03/20/01 AA ID No.: 118216 118217 118218 118219 Client ID No.: W-5 W-6 W-7 W-8 MRL Compounds: - Acenaphthene 6700 1900 1500 1000 0.1 Acenaphthylene 130 46 <25 <25 0.1 Aniline <50 <50 <50 <50 0.2 Anthracene 5300 2900 1200 750 0.1 Azobenzene <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 Benzidine: <100 <100 <100 <100 0.4 Benzo(a)anthracene 1100 420 570 320 0.1 Benzo(a)pyrene 340 <25 160 75 0.1 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 240 72 170 100 0.1 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 340 100 230 85 0.1 Benzoic acid <250 <250 <250 <250 1 Benzyl Alcohol <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane <25 <25 <25 <25' -0.1 Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate <50 <50 <50 <50 0.2 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 Butyl benzyl phthalate <125 <125 <125 <125 0.5 4-Chloro-3-methylphenoi <50 <50 <50 <50 0.2 4-Chloroaniline <100 <100 <100 <100 0.4 2-Chloronaphthalene <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 2-Chlorophenol <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 George HavaI' s Laboratory rector ' 8-227 American Analytics 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 Tol• /A 4ANO0A _ FFA7 . • Fnv - / A 4 AN00A - 77r, A AMERICAN NALYTICS LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS Page 5 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.:A43816 Project No.: 6914 Date Received:03/14/01 Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported:04/03/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method: EPA 8270 Date Sampled: 03/12/01 03/12/01 03/12/01 03/12/01 Date Analyzed: 03/23/01 03/23/01 03/23/01 03/23/01 Date Extracted: 03/20/01 03/20/01 03/20/01 03/20/01 AA ID No.: 118216 118217 118218 118219 Client ID No.: W-5 W-6 W-7 W-8 MRL Compounds: Chrysene 900 260 790 260 0.1 Di-n-butyl phthalate <500 <500 <500 <500 2 Di-n-octyl phthalate <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 Dibenzofuran 4100 1500 1300 <25 0.1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 1,4-Dichlorobenzene <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine <100 <100 <100 <100 0.4 2,4-Dichlorophenol <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 Diethylphthalate <200 <200 <200 <200 0.8 2,4-Dimethylphenol 35 120 150 <25 0.1 Dimethylphthalate <50 <50 <50 <50 0.2 i 2,4-Dinitrophenol <100 <100 <100 <100 0.4 2,4-Dinitrotoluene <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 2,6-Dinitrotoluene <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 Fluoranthene 4900 1800 2100 1700 0.1 { Fluorene 5100 1600 1400 810 0.1 Hexachlorobenzene <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 Hexachlorobutadiene <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 Hexachloroethane <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene <100 <100 <100 <100 0.4 Isophorone <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol <50 <50 <50 <50 0.2 ' / . George Hav las Laboratory Irector B-228 American Analytics • 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 . .. .. .. .. .. r _ r i 0 • 0 n n n *7 n c n AMERICAN NA LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS Page' 6 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.:A43816 Project No.: 6914 Date Received: 03/14/01 Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method: EPA 8270 ' Date Sampled: 03/12/01 03/12/01 03/12/01 03/12/01 Date Analyzed: 03/23/01 03/23/01 03/23/01 03/23/01 Date Extracted: 03/20/01 03/20/01 03/20/01 03/20/01 AA ID No.: 118216 118217 118218 1.18219 Client ID No.: W-5 W-6 W-7 W-8 MRL Compounds: 2-Methylnaphthalene 3000 1800 1500 900 0.1 2-Methylphenol 54 95 80 <50 0.2 I4-Methylphenol 130 210 250 <50 0.2 N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 N-Nitrosodimethylamine <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 Naphthalene 5200 3300 3100 740 0.1 ' 2-Nitroaniline <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 3-Nitroaniline <100 <100 <100 -<100 0.4 4-Nitroaniline <50 <50 <50 <50 0.2 Nitrobenzene <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 2-Nitrophenol <50 <50 <50 <50 0.2 4-Nitrophenol <50 <50 <50 <50 0.2 Pentachlorophenol <25 <25 1400 330 0.1 Phenanthrene 19000 6600 7000 4000 0.1 Phenol 150 230 170 <25 0.1 Pyrene 3800 1100 1400 1100 0.1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene <25 <25 <25 <25 0.1 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol <50 <50 <50 <50 0.2 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol <50 <50 <50 <50 0.2 George Havafas Laboratory Alrector 8-229 American Analytics • 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 Te1: (818 ) 998 - 5547 • 0 Fax: ( 81'8 ) 998 - 7258 AMERICAN ' { LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS r `,NALYTICS Page 7 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.: A43816 Project No.: 6914 Date Received: 03/14/01 Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method: EPA 8270 I Date Sampled: 03/12/01 r Date Analyzed: 03/23/01 Date Extracted: 03/20/01 AA ID No.: 118220 Client ID No.: W-9 MRL Compounds: Acenaphthene 300 0.1 r Acenaphthylene <25 0.1 Aniline <50 0.2 r Anthracene 540 0.1 Azobenzene <25 0.1 Benzidine <100 0.4 Benzo(a)anthracene 340 0.1 )PY a Benzo( rene 120 0.1 r Benzo(b)fluoranthene 230 0.1 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene <25 0.1 , Benzo(k)fluoranthene 130 0.1 Benzoic acid <250 1 Benzyl Alcohol <25 0.1 Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane <25 0.1 Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether <25 0.1 Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether <25 0.1 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate <50 0.2 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether <25 0.1 Butyl benzyl phthalate <125 0.5 r4-Chloro-3-methyiphenol <50 0.2 l 4-Chloroaniline <100 0.4 2-Chloronaphthalene <25 0.1 2-Chlorophenol <25 0.1 , 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether <25 0.1 r George Ha;Irector Laboratory B-230 American Analyfics • 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 r Tal• lA4AN90R A • • FnY lR1A \ OQR . 7 � 5A AMERICAN NALYTICS LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS Page 8 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.: A43816 Project No.: 6914 Date Received:03/14/01 Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method: EPA 8270 Date Sampled: 03/12/01 Date Analyzed: 03/23/01 Date Extracted: 03/20/01 AA ID No.: 118220 Client ID No.: W-9 MRL ' Compounds: Chrysene 380 0.1 Di-n-butyl phthalate <500 2 Di-n-octyl phthalate <25 0.1 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene <25 0.1 Dibenzofuran 300 0.1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene <25 0.1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene <25 0.1 ,. 1,4-Dichlorobenzene <25 0.1 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine <100 0.4 ' 2,4-Dichlorophenol <25 0.1 Diethylphthalate <200 0.8 2,4-Dimethylphenol 65 0.1 Dimethylphthalate <50 0.2 2,4-Dinitrophenol <100 0.4 2,4-Dinitrotoluene <25 0.1 2,6-Dinitrotoluene <25 0.1 Fluoranthene 2000 0.1 Fluorene 290 0.1 Hexachlorobenzene <25 . 0.1 Hexachlorobutadiene <25 0.1 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene <25. 0.1 Hexachloroethane <25 0.1 lndeno(1,2,3-ccl)pyrene <100 0.4 lsophorone <25 0.1 2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol <50 0.2 George Haval' Laboratory ecto B-231 ' American Analytics • 9765 Eton Avenue., Chatsworth, California 94311 Tin I - (A4A ) 00A - J; .r, d7 0 • FnY- ( R4AN00A - 7 ') Sa AMERICAN NA�vrtcs LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS Page 9 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.:A43816 Project No.: 6914 Date Received: 03/14/01 Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method: EPA 8270 Date Sampled: 03/12/01 Date Analyzed: 03/23/01 Date Extracted: 03/20/01 AA ID No.: 118220 Client ID No.: W-9 MRL j Compounds: l 2-Methylnaphthalene 150 0.1 2-Methylphenol <50 0.2 4-Methylphenol 85 0.2 r N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine <25 0.1 N-Nitrosodimethylamine <25 0.1 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine <25 0.1 Naphthalene 470 0.1 2-Nitroaniline <25 0.1 , 3-Nitroaniline <100 0.4 4-Nitroaniline <50 0.2 ' Nitrobenzene <25 0.1 2-Nitrophenol <50 0.2 4-Nitrophenol <50 0.2 Pentachlorophenol <25 0.1 Phenanthrene 2100 0.1 Phenol 31 0.1 Pyrene 1100 0.1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene <25 0.1 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol <50 0.2 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol <50 0.2 i MRL: Method Reporting Limit 1 /r George Havalfai Laboratory Orector B-232 American Analytics 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 T c l • / R 4 A \ O 0 A A 7 . e n v• / A 4 AN 00 A _ 7 7R A AMERICAN NA�rrlcs LABORATORY QA/OC REPORT Page 1 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA ID No.: 118213 Project Name: HB Firing Range Project No.: 6914 Method: EPA 8270 AA Project No.:A43816 Sample ID: Matrix Spike Date Analyzed: 03/23/01 Concentration: 50 ug/Kg Date Reported: 04/03/01 Spike Dup. Spike/Dup. Result Recovery Result Recovery RPD Accept.Rec. Compounds (ug/Kg) N (ug/Kg) N (0/-) Range (%) ' Acenaphthene 37.0 74 38.0 76 3- 47-145 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 46.3 93 47.5 95 2 22-147 I2-Chlorophenol 40.5 81 42.5 85 5 23-134 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 42.4 85 38.7 77 10 20- 124 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 39.5 79 39.7 79 0 39- 139 N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine 51.7 103 53.8 108 5 5-230 4-Nitrophenol 43.9 88 40.6 81 8 5- 132 Pentachlorophenol 42.6 85 38.6 77 10 14- 176 Phenol 48.7 97 45.3 91 6 5-112 Pyrene 42.5 85 42.9 86 1 257115 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 38.0 76 36.5 73 4 44-142 ' George Hav Laboratory hector B-233 American Analytics 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 7A1 • /A 4 A l0OA - r, r. A 7 a 0 rnv• fA 4 A \ OOA - 77SA i AMERICAN ' I � LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS NALYTICS i Page 1 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.:A43817 Project No.: 6914 Date Received: 03/22/01 Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method:Total Metals Date Sampled: 03/20/01 03/20/01 03/20/01 03/20/01 Date Analyzed: 03/29/01 03/29/01 03/29/01 03/29/01 AA ID No.: 118539 118540 118541 118542 Client ID No.: B-90,210-6- B-90,210-3' B-90,230-6- B-90,230-3' MRL Compounds: Copper 20 16 20 11 3 , Lead 94 <3 370 17 3 Zinc 78 56 68 48 3 , I; I i I 11 i i George Havali s Laboratory D' ector � B-234 i American Analytics 9765 Eton Ave.nue, Chatsworth, California 91311 , Tot - f A 4 AIOOA . F6A 7 • PmY• fA 4 A 100R . 77r. A AMERICAN LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS NALYTICS Page 2 1 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.:A43817 Project No.: 6914 Date Received: 03/22/01 Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method: Total Metals Date Sampled: 03/20/01 03/20/01 03/20/01 03/20/01 Date Analyzed: 03/29/01 03/29/01 03/29/01 03/29/01 ' AA ID No.: 118543 . 118544 118545 118546 Client ID No.: B-90,260-6- B-90,260-3' B-90,290-6- B-90,290-3' MRL Compounds: Copper 22 19 22 21 3 Lead 1800 12 2300 21 3 Zinc 66 69 65 62 3 1 ' George Havall9l ' Laboratory Di ctor . B-235 ' American Analytics 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 Tcl • /A 4 A \ OOA _ 1; AA 7 . • Fnv• / A 4 A \ OOA _ 79RA AMERICAN ' ;ff LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS ' tNALYTICS Page 3 , Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.:A43817 Project No.:.6914 Date Received: 03/22/01 Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method: Total Metals Date Sampled: 03/20/01 03/20/01 03/20/01 03/20/01 , Date Analyzed: 03/29/01 03/29/01 03/29/01 03/29/01 , AA ID No.: 118547 118548 118549 118550 Client ID No.: B-115,210-6- B-115,210-3' B-115,230-6- B-115,230-3' MRL Compounds: Copper 20 10 18 15 3 ' Lead 160 5.1 190 <3 3 Zinc 81 50 70 60 3 ' George Havalfa , Laboratory Dir ctor B-236 American Analytics 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 ToI - fA 4 ANO0A _ Fr, A7 • • Fnv fRI A100A _ 77r, A AMERICAN ,NALYTICs LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS Page 4 ' Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.: A43817 Project No.: 6914 Date Received: 03/22/01 Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method:Total Metals Date Sampled: 03/20/01 03/20/01 03/20/01 03/20/01 Date Analyzed: 03/20/01 03/29/01 03/29/01 03/29/01 ' AA ID No.: 118551 118552 118553 118554 Client ID No.: B-115,260-6- B-115,260-3' B-115,290-6- B-115,290-3' MRL Compounds: Copper 11 13 16 .47 3 Lead 84 11 260 5900 3 Zinc 44 53 63 180 3 i 1 1 1 1 . 1 ' George Haval' Laboratory Dilfector B-237 American Analytics e 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 Tel : (818 ) 998 - .5S47 . 9 FnX: ( 818199R - 795A AMERICAN LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS NALYTICS Page S , Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.: A43817 Project No.: 6914 Date Received: 03/22/01 Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method:Total Metals Date Sampled: 03/20/01 03/20/01 03/20/01 03/20/01 r Date Analyzed: 03/29/01 03/29/01 03/21/01 03/29/01 AA ID No.: 118555 118556 118557 118558 , Client ID No.: B-145,210-6- B-145,210-3' B-145,230-6-- B-145,230-3' MRL Compounds: Copper 14 16 16 17 3 Lead 68 27 360 12 3 Zinc 65 72 50 65 3 1 1 r 1 r George Havali , Laboratory D ector B-238 American Analytics 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 Tel : ( 818 ) 998 - 5547 . • Fox: ( 818 ) 998 - 7258 1AMERICAN.NALYTICS LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS ' Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.:,A43817 Page 6, Project No.: 6914 Date Received: 03/22/01 ' Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method:Total Metals Date Sampled: 03 20 01 03 20 01 03 20 01 03 20 01 Date Analyzed: 03/29/01 03/29/01 03/29/01 03/29/01 AA ID No.: 118559 118560 118561 . 118562 Client ID No.: B-145,260-6- B-145,260-3' B-145,290-6- B-145,290-3' MRL Compounds: ' Copper 14 18 12 38 3 Lead 39 12 620 780 3 ' Zinc 44 63 50 89 3 ' George Havalia Laboratory Dlr ctor B-239 American Analytics • 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, Co.l.ifornia 91311 Tel : (818 ) 998 - 5547 • o Fax: ( 818 ) 998 - 7258 AMERICAN NaLYrlcs LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS Page 7 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.: A43817 Project No.: 6914 Date Received: 03/22/01 Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 ' Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method: Total Metals Date Sampled: 03/20/01 03/20/01 03/20/01 03/20/01 Date Analyzed: 03/29/01 03/29/01 03/29/01 03/29/01 AA ID No.: 118563 118564 118565 118566 Client ID No.: B-175,210-6° B-175,210-3' B-175,230-6-- B-175,230-3' MRL ComRounds: Copper 14 19 18 15 3 ' Lead 74 63 3200 12 3 Zinc 67 71 58 59 3 George Haval' Laboratory ector B-240 American Analytics 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 Tal • ( AIAl00A - RAA7 • • Fr1Y- ( A4A ) 00A - 775A AMERICAN . LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS NALYTICS Page 8 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.: A43817 Project No.: 6914 Date Received: 03/22/01 ' Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method:Total Metals Date Sampled: 03/20/01 03/20/01 03/20/01 03/20/01 Date Analyzed: 03/29/01 03/29/01 03/29/01 03/29/01 ' AA ID No.: 118567 118568 118569 118570 Client ID No.: B-175,260-6- B-175,260-3' B-175,290-61- B-175,290-3' MRL Compounds: ' Copper 11 15 19 16 3 Lead 240 440 1300 45 3 Zinc 43 58 64 63 3 i 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 ' George Haval Laboratory 13,6ector B-241 American Analytics 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 Tel' (818 ) 998 - 5547 • • Fax: ( 818 ) 998 - 7258 AMERICAN ' \NALYTICS LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS Page 9 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.:A43817 Project No.: 6914 Date Received: 03/22/01 Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 ' Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method:Total Metals ' Date Sampled: 03/20/01 03/20/01 03/20/01 03/20/01 i Date Analyzed: 03/29/01 03/29/01 03/29/01 03/29/01 AA ID No.: 118571 118572 118573 118574 ' Client ID No.: B-205,210-6" B-205,210-3' B-205,230-6- B-205,230-3' MRL Compounds: Copper 7.2 33 21 24 3 , Lead 18 6.0 99 5.2 3 Zinc 46 81 53 64 3 i i 1 i i George Havali7or 1 Laboratory Dlr B-242 American Analytics 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth. California 91311 , Tel : (818 ) 998 - 5547 9 u Fax: ( 818 ) 998 - 7258 AMERICAN NaLYrlcs LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS Page 10 1 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.: A43817 Project No.: 6914 Date Received: 03/22/01 ' Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method: Total Metals Date Sampled: 03/20/01 03/20/01 03/20/01 03/20/01 Date Analyzed: 03/29/01 03/29/01 03/29/01 03/29/01 AA ID No.: 118575 118576 118577 118578 Client ID No.: B-205,260-6- B-205,260-3' B-205,290-6- B-205,290-3' MRL Compounds: ' Copper 17 36.. 16 11 3 Lead 91 120 20 <3 3 ' Zinc 61 260 62 42 3 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' George Havali Laboratory D'rector B-243 1 American Analytics 9765 Eton Avenue,. Chatsworth, California.9.1311 Tel : ( 818 ) 998 - 5547 • 9 Fax: ( 818 ) 998 - 7258 AMERICAN ' LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS ' 1NALYTICS Page 11 ' Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.: A43817 Project No.: 6914 Date Received: 03/22/01 Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method:Total Metals Date Sampled: 03/21/01 03/21/01 03/21/01 03/21/01 , Date Analyzed: 03/30/01 03/30/01 03/30/01 03/30/01 AA ID No.: 118579 118580 118581 118582 ' Client ID No.: B-115,260-31) B-145,230.613 B-205,210-61) B-205,290.3D MRL Compounds: Copper 13 15 12 13 3 , Lead 5.8 300 9.7 <3 3 Zinc 53 43 72 44 3 ' George Hav7e6ctor ' Laboratory B-244 American Analytics 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 Te1: (818 ) 998 - 5547 • • Fax: ( 818 ) 998 - 7258 AMERICAN %NALYTICs LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS ' Page 12 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.: A43817 Project No.:.6914 Date Received: 03/22/01 Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method:Total Metals 1 Date Sampled; 03/21/01 03/21/01 03/21/01 03/21/01 Date Analyzed: 03/30/01 03/30/01 03/30/01 03/30/01 r AA ID No.: 118583 118584 118585 118586 Client ID No.: B-15,105-313 B-45,75-61) B-105,15-61) B-165,105-313 MRL Compounds: ' Copper 17 22 24 4.4 3 Lead 9.8 19 3.0 <3 3 rZinc 51 58 71 22 3 1 r 1 1 1 1 r r r l: rGeorge Havali Laboratory D' ector B-245 rAmerican Analytics 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 TPI 1A1A1G9A - 55d7 • • Fox: ( 818 ) 998 - 72519 AMERICAN ,NALYTICs LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS , Page 13 ' Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.:A43817 Project No.: 6914 Date Received: 03/22/01 Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 ' Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method: Total Metals Date Sampled: 03/21/01 03/21/01 03/21/01 03/21/01 Date Analyzed: 03/30/01 03/29/01 03/30/01 03/30/01 AA ID No.: 118587 118588 118589 118590 , Client ID No.: B30,C1-2+4 B30,C2-6+8 B30,C3-10+12 B10,C4-2+4 MRL Compounds: Copper 29 20 18 15 3 ' Lead 17 53 5.4 8.6 3 Zinc 71 5$ 55 52 3 ' George Havali , Laboratory Di ctor B-246 American Anaiytics • 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 Tel : ( 818 ) 998 - 5547 • • Fax: (818 ) 998 - 7258 ' AMERICAN �NA�nlcs LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS Page 14 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.: A43817 Project No.: 6914 Date Received: 03/22/01 ' Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method: Total Metals Date Sampled: 03/21/01 03/21/01 03/21/01 03/21/01 Date Analyzed: 03/30/01 03/30/01 03/30/01 03/30/01 AA ID No.: 118591 118592 118593 118594 Client ID No.: B10,C5-6+8 B10,C6-10+12 B-10,C7-2+4 B-10,C8-6+8 MRL Compounds: ' Copper 17 16 15 18 3 Lead 48 3.4 32 65 3 Zinc. 54 51 54 63 3 Ol• George Havali Laboratory D ector B-247 American Analytics • 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 Tel : (818 ) 998 - 5547 • • Fax: ( 818 ) 998 - 7258 7 AMERICAN ' ANALYTICS LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS ' Page 15 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.: A43817 ' Project No.: 6914 Date Received: 03/22/01 Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 ' Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method: Total Metals Date Sampled: 03/21/01 , Date Analyzed: 03/30/01 AA ID No.: 118595 Client ID No.: B-10,C9-10+12 MRL Compounds: Copper 15 3 , Lead 33 3 Zinc 52 3 ' MRL: Method Reporting Limit , 1 George Havali , Laboratory DI ctor B-248 American Analytics • 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 ' Tel : ( 818 ) 998 - 5547 • • Fax: ( 81 8 ) 998 - 7258 AMERICAN \NALMCS LABORATORY QA/QC REPORT Page 1 ' Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA ID No.: 118539 Project Name: HB Firing Range Project No.: 6914 Method:Total Metals AA Project No.: A43817 Sample ID: Matrix Spike Date Analyzed: 03/29/01 Concentration: 50 mg/Kg Date Reported: 04/03/01 Spike Dup. Spike/Dup. Result Recovery Result Recovery RPD Accept.Rec. Compounds (mg/Kg) (0/6) (mg/Kg) (•/0) (0/-) Range (%) ' Copper 47 93 47 94 1 50- 150 Lead 40 80 39 78 3 50- 150 ' Zinc 48 96 49 98 2 50- 150 R l- George Haval' s Laboratory Xrector B-249 American Analytics 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 Tel : ( 818 ) 998 - 5547 • • Fax : ( 818 ) 998 - 7258 AMERICAN LABORATORY QA/QC REPORT . \NALYTICS Page 1 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA ID No.: 118559 ' Project Name: HB Firing Range Project No.: 6914 Method:Total Metals AA Project No.:A43817 Sample ID: Matrix Spike Date Analyzed: 03/29/01 ' Concentration: 50 mg/Kg Date Reported: 04/03/01 Spike Dup. Spike/Dup. ' Result Recovery Result Recovery RPD Accept.Rec. Compounds (mg/Kg) N (mg/Kg) (0/-) N Range (%) Copper 47.2 94 48.0 96 2 50-150 ' Lead 42.9 86 43.8 88 2 50-150 Zinc 38.8 78 38.9 78 0 50-150 ' r George Havat s , Laboratory ctor 8-250 American Analytics • 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 Tel : ( 818 ) 998 - 5547 Fax: ( 818 ) 998 - 7258 ' AMERICAN ' �NA�Yrlcs LABORATORY QA/QC REPORT Page 1 ' Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. Project No.: 6914 Project Name: HB Firing Range AA Project No.: A43817 Method:Total Metals Date Analyzed: 03/29/01 Sample ID: Laboratory Control Standard Date Reported: 04/03/01 Concentration: 50 mg/Kg Recovered Recovery Acceptable Compounds Amount (mg/Kg) N Range (%) Copper 46.8 94 50-150 Lead 48.6 97 50- 150 Zinc 49.2 98 50- 150 1 , l - ' George Ha is Laborato Director B-251 American Analytics 9765 Eton .Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 Tel: (818 ) 998 - 5547 • 9 Fax: ( 818 ) 9-98 - 7258 AMERICAN , LABORATORY QA/QC REPORT %NALYTICS ' Page 1 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA ID No.: 118579 ' Project Name: HB Firing Range Project No.: 6914 Method: Total Metals AA Project No.:A43817 Sample ID: Matrix Spike Date Analyzed: 03/30/01 Concentration: 50 mg/Kg Date Reported: 04/03/01 Spike Dup. Spike/Dup. ' Result Recovery Result Recovery RPD Accept.Rec. Compounds (mg/Kg) N (mg/Kg) N N Range ('/6) Copper 46 92 48 96 4 50- 150 ' Lead 45 90 46 93 3 50- 150 Zinc 0 0 0 0 0 50-150 ' V17Z: George Hav as:/ ' Laboratory Irer B-252 American Analytics - 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 Tel : ( 818 ) 998 - 5547 - - Fax: ( 818 ) 998 - 7258 ' AMERICAN �Na�nlcs LABORATORY QA/OC REPORT Page 1 ' Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. Project No.: 6914 Project Name: HB Firing Range AA Project No.: A43817 Method:Total Metals Date Analyzed: 03/30/01 Sample ID: Laboratory Control Standard Date Reported: 04/03/01 ' Concentration: 50 mg/Kg Recovered Recovery Acceptable Compounds Amount" (mg/Kg) (ON Range (%) ' Copper 46.6 93 50- 150 Lead 48.0 96 50- 150 Zinc 46.7 93 50-150 l� George Ha lias Laborato9f Director B-253 ' American. Analytics a 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 Tel : ( 81.8 ) 998 - 5547 • • Fox: ( 818 ) 998 - 7258 AN AMERIC , %NALYTICS LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS ' Page 1 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.: A43817 , Project No.: 6914 Date Received: 03/22/01 Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/03/01 ' Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/L Method: STLC Lead Date Date Date AA I.D. No. Client I.D. No. Sampled Extracted Analyzed Results MRL 118562 B-145,290-3' 03/20/01 04/01/01 04/03/01 30 0.1 ' 118567 B-175,260-6- 03/20/01 04/01/01 04/03/01 20 0.1 118568 B-175,260-3' 03/20/01 04/01/01 04/03/01 8.0 0.1 , 118570 B-175,290-3' 03/20/01 04/01/01 04/03/01 0.39 0.1 MRL: Method Reporting Limit ' 1 George Havajtas ' Laboratory (rector B-254 American Analytics • 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 Tel : ( 818 ) 998 - 5547 • • Fax: ( 818 ) 998 - 7258 ' AMERICAN 1NALYTICS LABORATORY OA/OC REPORT Page 1 ' Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA ID No.: 118115 Project Name: HB Firing Range Project No.: 6914 Method: STLC Lead AA Project No.: A43817 ' Sample ID: Matrix Spike Date Analyzed: 04/03/01 Concentration: 1 mg/L Date Reported: 04/03/01 Spike Dup. Spike/Dup. Result Recovery Result Recovery RPD Accept.Rec. Compounds (mg/L) (•,6) (mg/L) (•.6) N Range (%) ' Lead . 1.2 120 1.2 120 0 50- 150 1 ' ' George Hal as Laboratoryect r B-255 ' American Analytics 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 Tel : ( 818 ) 998 - 5547 • • Fax: ( 818 ) 998 - 7258 AMERICAN ' \NALYTICS LABORATORY QA/QC REPORT ' Page 1 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. Project No.: 6914 ' Project Name: HB Firing Range AA Project No.:A43817 Method: STLC Lead Date Analyzed: 04/03/01 Sample ID: Laboratory Control Standard Date Reported: 04/03/01 ' Concentration: 1 mg/L Recovered Recovery Acceptable ' Compounds Amount (mg/L) N Range (%) Lead 0.908 91 75- 125 ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 George Havrrerc-1tor Laboratory B-256 American Analytics • 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 ' Tel : ( 818 )998 - 5547 • Fax: ( 818 ) 998 - 7258 AMERICAN ' NALYTICS LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS Page 1 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA Project No.: A43817 Project No.:.6914 Date Received: 03/22/01 ' Project Name: HB Firing Range Date Reported: 04/04/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method: CAM Metals Date Sampled: 03/20/01 03/20/01 Date Analyzed: 04/02/01 04/02/01 ' AA ID No.: 118554 118565 Client ID No.: B-115,290-3' B-175,230-6- MRL Compounds: Antimony <10 <10 10 Arsenic 3.0 5.8 0.5 Barium 98 350 10 Beryllium <1 1.3 1 Cadmium <1 <1 1 Chromium 18 20 3 Cobalt 5.8 6.5 3 ' Copper 20 18 3 Lead 160 240 3 Mercury 0.062 <0.05 0.05 Molybdenum <5 <5 5 Nickel 9.0 12 3 Selenium <0.5 <0.5 0.5 Silver 1.2 7.4 1 Thallium <5 <5 5 Vanadium 42 40 10 Zinc 90 310 3 MRL: Method Reporting Limit e ' George Havalla Laboratory Di r for B-257 Arn.erican Analytics a 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 Te1 : (818 ) 998 - 5547 e • Fax: ( 818 ) 998 - 7258 AMERICAN LABORATORY QA/QC REPORT ' NALYTICS Page 1 Client: Hart Crowser, Inc. AA ID No.: 118554 Project Name: HB Firing Range Project No.: 6914 Method: CAM Metals AA Project No.:A43817 Sample ID: Matra Spike Date Analyzed: 04/02/01 , Concentration: 50 mg/Kg Date Reported: 04/04/01 Spike Dup. Spike/Dup. Result Recovery Result Recovery RPD Accept.Rec. Compounds (mg/Kg) N (mg/Kg) N (°.6) Range (%) Antimony 33.4 67 31.6 63 6 20- 120 ' Arsenic 48.3 97 47.3 95 2 50-150 Barium 51.0 102 42.0 84 19 50- 150 Beryllium 45.7 91 49.5 99 8 50-150 Cadmium 37.1 74 40.5 81 9 50- 150 Chromium 46.3 93 49.7 99 6 50-150 Cobalt 44.1 88 46.6 93 6 50- 150 Copper 54.4 109 54.8 110 1 50- 150 Lead 40.0 80 40.0 80 0 50- 150 Mercury 48.2 96 51.9 104 8 50- 150 Molybdenum 43.1 86 44.8 90 5 50- 150 , Nickel 42.9 86 45.0 90 5 50- 150 Selenium 44.9 90 46.2 92 2 50-150 Silver 48.7 97 49.1 98 1 50- 150 Thallium 47.0 94 46.4 93 1 50-150 Vanadium 42.3 85 49.1 98 14 50-150 Zinc 30.0 60 30.0 60 0 50-150 George Hava ' Laboratory rector 8-258 American Analytics • 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 Tel : (818 ) 998 - 5547 • • Fax: ( 818 ) 998 - 7258 1 : AMERICAN AMERICAN ANALYTICS CHhtN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD m 9765 ETON AVE., CHATSWORTH, CA 91311 DATE; 3//310/ ANALYTICS Tel:818-998-5547 FAX:818-998-7258 PAGE-' OF. AA CUM Phone Sampler's SGZ• WC-- 4540 Name Project Manager tee.• t P.O. No. Sampler's Si nature Project Name A� /.✓LKh �� Project No. �6�� Project Manager's f�J ure ANALYSIS REQUI (Test Name) Job Name and Special Test Requirements/Comments Address ,v i.e.,- Turnaround Time, Client's A.A. Detection Limits, I.D. I.D.# D°f° T�11° T ' r':/ Data Package.....) �° Contaklere l% ;s j3•l� -6" Il� / 3�1>:/oc :j '" �oiL cr_ �c� L®• 1, o _ 11,6 -O� K B G1Z _ arlA'-6`' j ill •.w t_k)17 flI'V' (2133 :`f) K Cli e ' Ye• ,,ey 13.11) Mrclea4a.) 3' L uo K, DC -6" j2T �► i X X 6° ( 0 J '•3' I 3d S is it 19131 9Atr[PLS nmemIT!To BB FILLED IN By RRCE vmo LAB RekgAhed by Date Time R y Samples Intact Yes w No 3�1b Sampies Properly Cooled Yes No ReIrq*hed by Date Time Recebed by: Samples Accepted Yes No li Not Whr. RekwAilehed by Date Time Received by: AA Project No. RekxpAshed by. Date Time Received by: DISTRIBUTIOPt WNW - Laboratory, Canary - Laboratory; Pink - Account Executive, Gold - Ctient ®MERICAN AMERICAN ANALYTICS CH ftIN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD 9765 ETON AVE., CHATSWORTH, CA 91311 DATE: ANALYTICS G� Tel:818-998-5547 FAX:818-998-7258 PAGE OF AA Gent t.J�wS �K� . Phon 6Z 4 �c7 Namme SapW s /7 Q H✓L Project Mana er P.O. No. Sampler's Signature Project Name I/_ � � Project No. Project Manager's 1e+''�f?!PJL14%,A1 fjG0C*- A W1 w!,r 4WA 15 Signature ANALYSIS REQU D (Test Name) Job Name Special Test and Requirements/Comments Address � i.e.,- Turnaround Time, // Detection Limits, Client's A.A. Deta Ttms Sample Number f� Data Package.....) I.D. I.D.# Type Container* .s 0zdz .0tV N p 11F1 37 9 dS-4 U813T rA;l MCC U :c0 524 -b` L 3 I :B -b' a. D` SAHPLE n4TBOAPPY-T0 BE FILLED IN BY RBCBIVING LAB R by. Date Time Rec b Samples intact Yee No ` Samples Property Cooled Yee No Ran0stwed by. Date Time Received by: Samples Accepted Yes No Rein4lehed by Date Time Received by: fl Not Why: - ILAA Protect No. 2�/ Rei;x*hed by Date r— Received by: q - / ato _. nau ab _ y, A t E I., r Mr rr r� rr r� ■r � rr rr r� rr r r� �■r rr r r ®MERICAN AMERICAN ANALYTICS CHea.iN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD 9765 ETON AVE., CHATSWORTH, CA 91311 DATE: 3 0/ aNA�vTlcs Tel:818-998-5547 FAX:818-998-7258 PAGE OF AA-Client Phone_ Sampler's 5f-Ac --TA "C. SCZ•q7T--G36U. Name Project Manager //'� P.O. No. Sampler's V/.t.c.;�rM M - L. Signature Project Name Project No. Project Managers 1 o4-n C44L4V 65/4 Signature ANALYSIS REQU1##6&pst Name) Job Name Special Test and 7✓Mn n�h tt a�f ti^ Requirements/Comments Address (+ i.e., - Turnaround Time, \, Detection Limits, Clerics A.A. sample fUnber V Data Package.. ...) I.D. I.D.# Date Time Type of Containers 51s:%r I I o U.327 rt^ l cC - s /:3o 1 #.c-- e"2 1 -165 o3- X s oS-3' S Y K3: X Xly 16S S 6 Z o S-r :33 X X 1TWI X x 6. sm"LE IA1TB(w"-To BE t UA" M UT 1==VMG LAB Refnq k ad by: Date Time R by: Samples Intact Yee117 &1�, G 3%! Samples Properly Coded Yea No Reilqulelad by Date. Time Rec ed by Samplsa Accepted Yes No M Not YWhr. RokgLdelad by. Date Time Received by: AA Project No. Re&gAshed by: Date Tone Received by: DISTRBUTIOM White - Laboratory, Canary - Laboratory, Pink - Account Executive, Gold - Client AMERICAN AMERICAN ANALYTICS CH&&IN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD DATE: 9765 ETON AVE., CHATSWORTH, CA 91311 ANALYTICS Tel:818-998-5547 FAX:818-998-7258 PAGE OF AA Clert Phone Sampler's f 562. 6D Name 6 Project Manager P.O. No. Sampler's Signature Project Name Project No. Project Managers ,e% q¢ Signature ANALYSIS REQUIRED(Test Name) Job Name Special Test and Ik^441 rya W Requirements/Comments Address i.e.,- Turnaround Time, Detection Limits, Client's A.A. Sample ref Data Package.....) I.D. I.DA Date Time Type ofconta�a o� l� 3r ,6/ 2:� - N O� N SAMPLE IDi'I'Sr FLrrY-TO 8!FILLSD IN 8! VING LAN Relied by Date Time R 9amplea intact Yss No Senplaa PropeAy Coaled Yes Refnpllahed by.- Date R—Ow by Samples Accepted Yea NO Rekquslted by Date Tyne Received by: N Not Why: AA Project No. Refnqulohed by Date Time Received by: R - ato n ab y. _ A t E Iva, - A�MERICAN AMERICAN ANALYTICS CHA%AN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD 9765 ETON AVE., CHATSWORTH, CA 91311 DATE: 6 ANALYTiCB Tel:818-998-5547 FAX:818-998-7258 PAGE_�—OF.--'�-- AA Client ^ Phone C ( Samp Ws 011 w"w {l1, Sb2� �1)� b�� Name C5C0 �1� Project Manager M C I P.O. No. Sampler's I C Signature Project Name < Project No. Cl r ( Project Manager's 1A 1 Signature 1 5 h c ANALYSIS R.EQU st Name) Job Name Special Test and Requirements/Comments Address EJv i.e.,- Turnaround Time, Detection Limits, Client s AA. Sample Number ,� Y Data Package.....) I.D. I.D.# Date Tins Tye Containers t S 1 -2' /hf/p Y Z 12 v/ X L6 XK C-Gie. O-INr - oo� -X— I K iv - 6 J X w _ 1u`10 x /5':6' �50 . qs-6„ IF tl�o X 3 I1 oS Illo I I TS- X -I s -6' 7 9A3[I LX INTROR17Y-TO B$FILL111D IN BY RECEIVING LAB RM by. � Date Time by 1 , Samples Intact yea No Samples Property Cooled yes f No Relnqulslmd by. Date Time ReceNod by: Samples Accepted yes No Reftwished by: Date Time Eftw"AOlvadN Not Why.AA Project NO. '1 RekgAshod by Date Tune DISTRIBUTIOM White - Laboratory, Canary - Laboratory, Pink - Account Executive, Gold - Client AMERICAN 0, ® AMERICAN ANALYTIC5 CHtitN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD 9765 ETON AVE., CHATSWORTH, CA 91311 DATE: ANa�rT�ca Tei:818-998-5547 FAX:818-998-7258 PAGE 2 OF AA Gent �Y PhoneC r�_ 6b Sampler's "J "J Name Project Manager P.O. No. Sampler's Signature Project Name Project No. • Project Manager's ` l rr I to d l`T Signature ANALYSIS REQUIltEWTest Name) Job Name h &C-4. ' Special Test and Requirements!Comments Address ti i.e.,- Turnaround Time, Detection Limits, Client's A.A. Sample Number U Data Package.. .. .) I.D. I.D4 Date Thee Type cono hers '1 •/5 - Ili g`4 IZ, c 1 050 L— p� - t�Pc,E� PWr_c_"Zr,2 3 -�+ fl�� j32,� 13 y ` I 3 Zs' -�" I lV + -Y q5- ' a - -6 X X jXq X 11t' q X BAMPLE IP1rWRITY•T0 BE FILLED IN BY RWRIVINO LAB Retnquiehed br Date Thee eiv by Samples Intact Yes-No Samples Property Cooled Yes No Fl*gMw l by Date Tho Received by. Samples Accepted yes No ReingWthsd by: Date Time Received by: If Not Why AA Project NO. RaingAahed by. Date Thro Received by: qVFW - L. ato. ear ab.... . Y. L—AAWt E Iva. ,... .. pMERICAN ® AMERICAN ANALYTICS CHt&iN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD 9765 ETON AVE., CHATSWORTH, CA 91311 DATE v ar+atrrics Tel:818-998-5547 FAX:818-998-7258 PAGE OF AA Clilent ��. Phone 561 5—6"S6U Na Sampler's cO �V- Project Manager P.O. No. b Sampler's I I G Signature Project Name ' (� L h Project No.��C Project Manager's ll t 'LAy1 Signature CAANALYSIS REQUIRED(Test Name) Job Name Special Test Address Q,J Requirements/Comments Le., - Turnaround Time, V Detection Limits, client's A.A. Date Ttms sample s 1v Data Package.....) I.D.ti Type of Containers -3' 3 Z of 1 3S 1qy 194s Z - 1- X 6 , ( Lay X.. X �s Z - /o' x x - Z' LO )' X X ' IG� 55 X x ` S o L MA31PLZ ENT] 3 ITZ•TO BB FILLBD IN BY 1twMVING LAB Reklqulelied by: / Date Tyne R y Samplsa Intact y„ v 3 i n Sanples Property Cooled Yes No Rekigulshed by: Date Time Received by. Samples Accepted Yea No If Not Why: RekquWwd by. Date Time Received by: AA Project No. Q��_ !� Reksgulened by. Date Time Received by: DISTRMUTIOPt Whlte�-(`Laboratory, Canary - Laboratory, Pink - Account Executive, Cold - Client ®MERICAN AMERICAN ANALYTIC S CHh1N-OF-CUSTODY RECORD 9765 ETON AVE., CHATSWORTH, CA 91311 DATE: 3�lz.�oi ANA4YTICa Tel:818-998-5547 FAX:818-998-7258 PAGE 4 OF AA Client Phone Sampier'a At,4- W5641 JTI-vc . $6Z• eT6-.c36o Name u� Project Manager P.O. No. Sampler's lti rqw► /�` iv,�n Si nature - - _..- Protect Name Q n�k4 � Project No. Project 69� Signature anager's ANALYSIS REQUIRED (Test Name) Job Name Special Test and Requirements/Comments Address �'r't c�'J fi i.e., - Turnaround Time, Detection Limits, Cnern•s A.A. sample Nmber Data Package.....) I.D. I.D.# Date Tine Type �o�a - i 1$2►Z 2)o t71�b •l,�w �- 1`� L P n�c�s low w-Z I 2-13 �� � •, Iv-3 z y tV-S 1 I 00 N / a W-b W- LL) w- VZ 0 I^l-q I LLo v SyspLZ XWrMRrM-" gE FILLED M BY IttllMVMG I.AH ReirnAihed by / Date Time R sampba Intact Yee No , 1 v ` nkvu—sat; samplas Property Coded Yes Rek glletad by Date Tyne Received by: sartlplea Accepted Yes 14No Ref l iehsd by Date Tyne Recafved by: It Not Whir. AA Project No. Ret w#Mted by Date Tyne Received by 1 lg - l_ for nar abo , P111111111111111 Ac Ex e, r� rr r ar rr rr rr r rr r rir r[ rr rr rr rr rr rr r . OWN AN AMERICAN. ANALYTICS CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD / 9765 ETON AVE., CHATSWORTH, CA 91311 DATE: S!ZO/off ANALrrICe (818) 998-5547 (818) 998-5548 1-SOO-533-TEST 1-800-533-8378 FAX (818) 998-7258 PAGE OF AA Clent �+" Phone Sampler's L.�isa.. gf, ,SGZ.1tgs'.63r± Name Project Manager P.O. No. Sampler's w► Si lure Project Name ' / Project No. Project Manager's Signature ANALYSIS AEQUTAED Job Hams Detection and , Iv�' Wnits Address Teat Test Requirements � r - Il�l Clent's gam" Naroer Name tD,r ID. Dsta Tho Type of r Containers V �o .�° vg- U77-f 401c, I " /yrs t 1 x D x SAUpLz IIil7'titeRrff-TO Hs 1IIJJM IN BT ANC=;Vt111O LAD t. // ed by /� } t>� Maot yes �, No r Z la, _ �. i , _..:. Sentplee Rop.dy Cooled yes No p�d t� Tins od by Sork,49a Accepted yes NO i;i-,. 3 {1',+_ 5U(� M Not Why: ReawtlstMd by: Date Time Received by. RebatAA Project No. Q-/ � � ace Tim Received by: D18TRBUTI01,t White - Laboratory. Canary - Laboratory. Pink - Account Executive. (3oid - Cuent AMERICAN _ AMERICAN ANALYTICS CH.&IN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD ._ it9765 ETON AVE., CHATSWORTH, CA 91311 DATE 3 2v �N��rnce (818) 998-5547 (618) 998-5548 1-800-533-TEST 1-800-533-8378 FAX (818) 998-7258 PAGE Z OF AA Client M'one$1Z Wf- 6760 'Namert �,s /7 - Project Manager P.O. No. Sampler's ��r c,ft4 c Signature Project Name Project No. Project Manager's Gq/ Signature n1vALYSYS REQUIRED Job Name Oetectlon and / ��� Address LJmits Test Requirements Test A.A.Alt sa,� Nunber Name V IDADate TFne Type of (� containers 7 S Z9- S 1 3`' j - s �e 1 �9 bo-3' 3' o-6" l tqwO 9 1 00 -6' I llp5 -3' r - it �5'�7 ors 11f(5a 1315 t 6 r5NO 7 SAMi ti MTMAPPT-TO ffi rn&= IN BT RBG3lpffMG LAB Rall+MAW"d by Date Time brr =7 8an+ptee"act YN 9arrpMa V►aperb ceded Yse No Apffwphitwd�)f) .I % to 1 R- ed by v SenpMe Accepted Yes No ! `- ) �, Date Tko Recal.—by r Not why. r—AA Project No. RdngA lmd by Date Time ReceMed by .WWrTFqjWftp,k - rat an La ry, - t ivo, - Nor—I �r r rr rr rr rr rr r� rr rr r r� r rr rr rr �r r r AMERICAN _ AMERICAN ANALYTICS CH&&IN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD 9765 ETON AVE., CHATSWORTH, CA 91311 DATE 3flvlo� ANALmcs (818) 998-5547 (818) 998-5548 1-800-533-TEST 1-800-533-8378 FAX (818) 998-7258 PAGE OF AA Clent r- , Phone Sampler's �Mc. JGZ. S. 63�c7 Name - t] Project Manager P.O. No. Sampler's Si tune Project Name Project No. q�/ Project Manager's y,q //( Signature ANALYSIS AEQUIRED Job Name Detection and �H-PM 9 L n*8 Address - Awn • � Teat Requirements Test Name AA lD oats Tyne Type mo� Typs OcIstatners 7 L'7 Win' s 6 1152 t -a- , 7 -3 t S" 76 1 77 IS-UT Alb- Ss>r< MB nvrsoam-TO as =t.i sn nor sY o IAAERoknMed br. Date TM. w bryf G SwM" pr"wV Cooled Yes NoR.Kq�i�by �� -"� %31L alv btrBanpNe Accepted Yes NoV by Date Time Rseslved by H Not Why.. AA Project No. A4-38 ) 7 R by Date Time Deceived by _ DISTRBUT10ft White - Laboratory, Canary - Laboratory, Pink - Account Executive, Gold - Client 31 AMERICAN AMERICAN ANALYTICS CHhtN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD l/ 9765 ETON AVE., CHATSWORTH, CA 91311 DATE ANAIYTIt:e (818) 998-5547 (818) 998-5548 1-BOG-533-TEST 1-800-533-8378 FAX (818) 998-7258 PAGE OF FA7C ,I Phone Sampler s h4Kr " T/"c. 5�2. 4 �3C b Name nagef P.O. No. SamplersU.t P4 C a4..aw Si ture roject ame Project No. Project Manager's N'/� -.4 U/9/ Signature ANALYSIS REQUIRED Job IN Detection and limits Address _1 Teat Requirements TeatAJL V Me to.t• Date Tfine lMmber Name of Type containers O-Z9 Z aA/b/ L t 1-3 193 S&KpI.= nnrmRr"-" Bs FILL= IN BY RUCRIVING LAB Re ntMoad by.. ` / Date Thna Re�elv}d by: eaapbe intact Yee No,,' swrol" propel y cooled Yes /; /'j �� tA Q Tyne Ree�hred aerepbs Aocapted Yes No _ ReNgl/ehed by: Dab Thee ReeNved by M Not Whir AA Project NO. 3 Q! 7peagaeo Date TM RecNved by: R _ at Uatn&Ml-oab�ry. -- AJJWt EJWivGJW - AIMERICAN - -. AMERICAN ANALYTICS CH mlN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD � DATE: 3I2/ Ol 9765 ETON AVE., CHATSWORTH, CA 91311 "N"irrlce (818) 998-5547 (818) 998-5548 1-NO-533-TEST 1-800-533-8378 FAX (818) 998-7258 PAGE OF FA7C% PhoneSampler's SGZ 'E 667 Name ager P.O. No. Sampleis mi rhm Si ttie e Project No. Project Manager's yt.► 4� Signature ANALYSIS REQUIRED Job Name Detection and LJmfts Address Test Requtrements Test AA Clent's Nu 6w Name Date Tina Type of Contakws •�7 3V- i O Z 640 ;-Sf' �:.. t3-30 J U 7, 12 C37 cmuo mp i 4/7o s -4` C.t. lV t -z.t tE t 6 Cv ttiA WZX I+7H'1'=RffY-TO ttl= rn =D IN HZ RZORYMO,LAB by Date Tlma l!"Ip 1d by*l 7, BeapNe htact yes •�� ZL c l ! San%** Ffopway Cooled Yes No R by f _ � t � J ec ed by. SempMs Accepted Yes No r:— RelttaONled by to Tuns Received by. M Not Why Project No. /4 , I �'] Re6tq"—d W. cab Tt Q ms Rec*4"by::!L 3 DISTRBUTICIM White - Laboratory, Canary -`Laboratory, Pink - Account Executive. Gold - Mont AMERICAN AMERICAN ANALYTICS CH. IN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD ;ff 9765 ETON AVE., CHATSWORTH, CA 91311 DATE: ANALrilCti (818) 998-5547 (818) 998-5548 1-800-533-TEST 1-800-533-8378 FAX (818) 998-7258 PAGE OF� FA �C --��—• Phone Samplers5WZ. ygS• 636J Name se P.O. No. SamplersSi ture e Project No. Project Managers 6 Signature ANALYSIS REQUIRED Job Name Detection and Umits Address Test Requirements Test AA LD s LD t a Data Tt71e Mao Na f Ham Type Contalners Z - � 0-t3 DQ O Pose ikM 56Mv N4 3n 0�310 — O�- t" •rz' �dZS _io, a�55 12 •�. -►o -L' a rz v- ' v- i i- L �v -i �1(PI.1 IIUY'ZtxiR1T!•TO Hz Mi.= EN HT a LAB by Date Tyne swro"tntaet Yea ==NO 807901e111 Property C 0w Yes No c_ by �) i,l t Mme R b 06 awrViss Accepted Yes No --�t �' l �- tj,'L S RnqM dshed by to TkM Reedwed by: M Not VNy. AA Project No. Rushed by Date Time Recaked by wwatomana'Lablry. _- AlWt E�n.e.M - AMERICAN AMERICAN ANALYTICS CHftIN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD / • DATE: 9765 ETON AVE., CHATSWORTH, CA 91311 ANALYTICe (818) 998-5547 (818) 998-5548 1-800-533-TEST 1-800-533-8378 FAX (818) 998-7258 PAGE 3. OF_.� AA Cleat i^ Phonq �O Naamrt e�•s ,l !7 .. Project Manager P.O. No. Sampler's tu,t.c r c Signature Project Name Protect No. Project Managers Signature ANALYSIS REQUIRED Job Name Detection and Whits Address Test Test Requirements AA. Ctisnt•s Sanpk Nn,es, Name 10.0 tD. Data Time Type of Containers 9 b 3 0 t o 1o�as •c 1 v -Z' W o 41!9 cam a �3• d 3�v- � �,lo 3e0- a c7 e' ��r S v • IZ' ! to 0 SANWIM MT=RrM-To Hs Fu tm EN BY ANMVMNG LAD Rdo+4_+shed by ate TkM ea by SanpNe intact Yes No 1 /�/f` Zt l3:0D , -- _�.JL Swrpbs Property Cooled res No b/.� ( y. l y Swrow Aocepted Yes No % ti t M NO VVW. by ate Time Received by AA,Project No. O-I RWk%*h W by. Date Time Recalled Ralled by 61STR93UTIOM White - Laboratory, Canary - Laboratory. Pink - Account Executive, (bolo - Client 7 AMERICAN AMERICAN ANALYTICS CHt&IN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD iff 9765 ETON AVE., CHATSWORTH, CA 91311 DATE: ANALrrIGa (818) 998-5547 (818) 998-5548 1-BOG-633-TEST 1-800-633-8378 FAX (818) 998-7268 PACE OF_ FA �CA"e st?�t2 Phone -76 7r-63co Nam Samp ,s ����c-�-•3AA nager , ,/ P.O. No. SamplersNr lti�t�r Sf tureme ® N Gem Project No. ��/ Project Manager's H T Signature ANALYSIS REQUIRED Job Name Detection and Umfta Address Teat Requirements Test ssnpki Name a CL t s Date T1t� moo Type Contakws v , o '` cdaA 1 CA 10 360.L01 10/ 40 G,) if - Ant12- a-b. td MOT _0 r/j fd Y (-10 3 ti' Zco "lam Gv - 2ci- .0 •yip .L, o 30 + J0q0 3 t c7 SF� a.l�T at-to5 • ' j&M 7LZ n11TMIUTT-To ffi tII.i.SD IN 8! RMOZ[VIIaa LAB Rekq ishod btr. G Date Thns by sanow intact yes Tkm 4 SWrOl" PrOpMlr Cooled Yes No 9enptee Aocepted Yes No RakqMW by is lime Received W. N Not Why: M Project No. 1 °w] RAW by Dst• Tkns Received by: R - rat La ry it five - AAMERICAN AMERICAN ANALYTICS CK.&iN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD 9765 ETON AVE., CHATSWORTH, CA 91311 DATA: ANALYTitB (818) 998-5547 (818) 99.8-5548 1-800-633-TEST 1-800-633-8378 FAX (818) 998-7268 PAGE OF F�C�UnLt Phone Samplers I SGZ• �s 63� Name ager P.O. No. Sampler's Si tune e Project Project Managers h at (9 Signature ANALYSIS REQUIRED Job Name Detection and Umita Address Test Test Regtdrements AA client's sample Name LD.A LD. Dots Tine Type of Contaiiers -k� •6' P i -tu v _ o � EX Iwo ADM. A ,9A P i-1_, lo' iC, V EAlWLs =T>lx W"_T0 BB lUZM tag By 0 LAH "b1r. Date Ttme ed br.: r of 8aspse Ydact yes No, SampUs prcimV C cbd Yes 44 0 ' •t.1 i 11 I Tk" eiv by 8enpes Accepted yes Noa O If Not Wiry Rokxg wd by Date Tins Received br. AA Project No. 7 pe n&W by. Date Time Received br. rASTFWUTK) t Wtdtq - Laboratory. Canary - Laboratory, Pink - Account Executive. Gold - Client rh N ��/ � .Em z z --w UJ OC&AVV-- ........ .......b 0 L 17— Rancho Vmw wr11 JiCJIa_.l1b p lafar w s h 7tcou w V I coosis vi rm i r Lark rade, w ta Ft" DR wo Par' _30 a T­ *Wat T 4— 'Tan T- as .ON z Of lie Ph- Rr 1 � r T UIT ]Ki 1; 41- 7 T_ 9 ,A "oi' �."� .� fm d'gy-c-"��' �. �°t -r, � oM Ct; oPrf-Io• Ii �•'o �_ o I -� 1.�. b 0 X� v 36 .6, 0 )KI, 44 1 i P.0 lie 4- 02 a 1/2 1 MLE ' FFFi 0 Mo. 1mOm BASE MAP FROM U.S.G.S.7.5' SERIES(TOPOGRAPHIC) SEAL BEACH QUADRANGLE,CALIFORNIA, 1%5,PHOTOREVISED 1982 FORMER FIRING RANGE,HUNnNGTON BEACH,CA MEMV PURTCAMM SITE VICINITY M" HC PROJECT NO.:6914 DATE:APRD,2001 FIGURE I B-277 0 ! 240 G. ' I i BJ72 Or■�f 210— — k B195k15 B1955 45 H1175 BI95�105 sB6 171 a �C lld- �C i Bt6k1S B16A45 BI 2165A 105 CM i — 150 i M115 B1355 45 135�75 B13�IC15 B4 i 120- p- _ I U M Bloc IS M05 45 os 75 B1os�los o �i� x x e zlo90 ego z6o 1 aCL 1175X15 B75045 0 75X75 E75ilOs 0 97 10- - ' )a( 0 9� B45�45 B45�75 B45X105 B45X15 I' 30- B30� H30�340 B30 30)377 1315 15 B15 45 815-75 H15 105 1 ! R l8( 11100 11101 0 B10 360 B10�377 0 0 0 I Bc-lo 32�3 c-1o�34o B � 6D ec�3 - 7 0 ' -30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 C'] L7 cD co V1 m N N N C) C] L7 L7 I - -b Sample did Coordinates SOUR= DATE SCALES Sample Grid Square Metropet to 01/24/01 In Model Sve- City of Huntington Beach A s1L1s Borehole Location C/ FILES o Former Firing Range Is and Coordinates ORAtiI TEOROaIL APPROVAL DALE HARTCROWSM Log Fencing JAW 04/00/01 VFll 04/10/01. SamPUng A /11/01 Phew 11 Draft Report .NH Trees DRAFITNG CHEM 04/09/01 tIFY APPROVAL 02/08/01 110cat ons REV I DATE DE90RP1TQ1 APPROVAL �r MINE 1DRAMINP NUMBER REN901 RENISONS AM APPW-01 S O Vegetation CHIEJAW ORMIS1UN 04/011/O1 CLIENT APPROVAL 8�278 6914- gum 2 A F i i ' Main Firing Range 240 0 10 20 30 40 s0 - '..: -4' 60.0 18.0 41.0 -6' 51.0 14.0 42.0 .......... ........_._.... ...:... ... 9CAId IN►Q.T -6' 55.0 1900.045000.0 O -10' 29.0 34.0 130.0 10- Araenie . gg�eSt�e�rtum 110 9 B19 B195 15 B195 45 B1 75 5 105 Cadmlium <I jk Chromfvm 14 - Cobalt 3.8 LJ _ Co r 1f0 S Nerclv7 <zMOO 1 RO o� pp1eppseed ' Nickel <6 u Selenlvm <0.5 B16k15 816j745 B16j775 B165k105 Silver Thallium <5<5 ' Vanadium 23 ID . Zinc 45 150 SBS � B135 15 B135 45 135 75 B13518C 105 ' H4� lac }N( >aC � a 1.'_0 a� 57 380 1200.0 NA Eft 9105 45 05 75 Enoss 105 -37 72.0 16.0 11.0 NA -6' 6800 240 800.0 240.0 J -6' 67.0 27.0 11.0 NA' 59 42-01400B53 610310000 NNA-10 0 O _ pp_ jg(Metal ArsedeAntimony 5.3 Ar9emC1 � � ra� ' w.,i, �p B7s 7s7s B7s �� )R <� OBe� Cromiom 45 j O Cobalt 4.6 Cobalt c3 Copt�pe�Q ao 56 0 60 0 �a 290 Mercury o= <0.05 )8( O 0..� Mercury coos U o176dennel <s olyb,i;m n c9 B45 15 845 45 B45 75 B4s 105 Nickel .5 Selenium <0.5 110 Selenium <O.4 ===jt U Silver 1.4 Silver 7 4 Thallium <5 Thallium 5.1 Vanadium 26 Vanadium <10 Zinc 28 ' tine 9.1 30- B1 15 i15_45 B1 5 B1 OS q. ' _ all 5450- -6 240.0 80.0 38.0 -3' 54.0 17.0 8.7 -6' 61.0 18.0 3.3 _ - ArWe% 7.1 ' - - geBarium 1<1 °Q1 t.s -30 Cedmlum ArxWe Barium 95 Chromium 21 22 M.Olum <1 O O rn Cob 5.3 l wm 17 i - pyer 05 Cobalt 3.7 Copper ISO ' Copper 2147 N Nickel <O.12 lead olybdenum <5 Nerew7 <O 00 Nickel 12 Selenium <0.5 o Nfekd <5 ThelifumSI r <5 Selenium <0.5 Vevadlu c 7 . Silver 1 Zino 76 ' Thallium Vanadium 21 21 Zinc 56 Sample Grid Coordinates lb�v b. b'a�-ti-b elk tar dt4taaea ❑ a tip ,ab u.a 1.feel 1e ILa-A and a..M 1-p"0wly..1 a1bib., SOURCE DATE SCALES no r pd.&0-0. Sample Grid Square nn n.a TOW ewlab.a.y..t by EPA Nrtbod e00411) . NelroPolvte 01/24/01 In Mode1 spore .City of Huntington Beach C4a+olraUroa-Pvtad m adlllg, r Ps a0ri0am(W/hl SW bb tAraabald Dadl-a atnUmr(SW Per btl CAD nas 111s_15 Borehole Location , analMW by CAL VW. Former Firing Range ' 1A and Coordinates 1 coo -u- P. I.mow-Ps at-(-am '9"e7 do t it total lad aaaeaalnUaaa 0-ts tban 1000 a+a/aa to SM. DRAWN TECHNICAL APPROVAL DATE Log Fencing site Ban-I-Uear mats Lb-5.0 ma/L d Rai JAW 04/09/01 WM 04/10/01 Main Firing Range HARTOWOWA A /11/01 P1.0se I pro" Repel JAW o DRAFTING CHECK PR"CT APPROVAL Boring Locations end Trees A Ara NHE Oa/09/01 YIFM 02/08/01 REV DATE DESCRIP7)ON APPROVAL s1.r Vegetation :� CHU DRAnswAN CLIENT APPROVAL 8�279 Analytical Results DRAWING NUMBER aEnsoN ' REVISIONS AND APPROVALS JAW 04/09/01 5914-Figure 7 A i O /0 rm 90 40 so 9CAIX 1N FELT 1kai _ Pistol Range -s' 59.0 15.0 12,0 240 Antun i Arxnle 5.8 9errlltum 165,601 Barlum 350 - 0 1.9 eo. . CChTomi� 20 210 bdu_ c evl le le( )e( AY �� - - i 240 I i` !! Antimon s < M enum c0 Arsenle � um 9<G Nickel 5 Bell Seletu <0 miu:m .' ci i Silver 7.5 i r Chromlum liti Thaill < 180 ebI copepaeur s.e v.e.as a s10 1!� i i ! copper 18 r�leerAv 0.os: j r ol>-bdenum <S i ! Nickel L ! ! selenium <0.; - Silver 1:: i 1 + Thallium <ti ' 150 ' vanadium 42 kI Else 9C I I ' it l i � i,l i r i 120elUbllkdJL i miikefA i r I 1 � r 90 210 B90 260 I i •' 'I r i 60 i 1- N; N N N C) i 1 1 r 1 I ' w Sample Grid Coordinates to rammple tie� a-X ..pr�� SOURCE DATE SCALES 1 a p Ner b Ise wl ses�. f.eT.,�r, a' Isno all seon0 pm 0-0. Sample Grid Square 1%,W wsteb aslrr'i7 VA N.laed 61100/t■aa walrorointe 01/24/01 M 14ed41 Spa, 'City of Huntington Beach �t ow--t elwaa.eP- to w Mao®(-9/w '°." 1°"cu.in."`°°�I""m'�'"`)°"''ed C"°��� i Former Firing Range tns_+s Borehole Location se.m. ss saJrs+■by e4L var- n and Coordinates o�.. c-.sd.NMm r-r-tad is walwanw ve Bur(-w i - aysans is Tetel Mad Log Fencing ememlratteas osetr lace t000 q/ta m IM4. DRAWN TECHNICAL APPROVAL DATE o.� to enc emesI-II-w owr lam so m■^d IMa. .uw 04/09/01 wit 04/10/01; r.emr A /0+1/O Plgse■DrDraftJA Report w a Pistol Range I( TrTreesae; DRAFT=CHECK PROXCT APPROVAL Boring Locations and REV I DATE I DESCRIPTION APPROVAL NNE 04/09/01 Tw'N 02/09/ot' Vegetation r+ p CHIEF CHAFTSM µ CLIENT AAPPROVALi Analytical Results oRAwNc NUMBERRETAsoN - JAW 04/09/01 j ..._ 5914-F'que !! A R£v1soNS AND APPROVALS B-280 0 10 20 30 40 50 SCALE IN FEET :Imposl a amp es . s Death Zn C11 Pb C1 2-4 71.00 29.00 17.00 C2 6-8' 58.00 20.00 53.00 ' 60 — _ _ _ C3 10-12' .55.00 0 ZZ 18.00 5.40 B30323 B30340 B30_ 60 30377 a am es B10_323 B10_340 B10_ 60 B10_377 Deco mpD th Cu C4 2-4 .0 .6 6-8' S4.00 115-100 C5 7.00 8.DO 4 C6 10-12' 51.00 16.00 3.40 0 - — (-10)_32 B(-10)_340 B -10 _360 B(-10)_ �,* -30' Composite emppes Descr Depth Cu Pb -4' 0 6-8 63.00 18.00 65.00 5p 10-12' 52.00 1 .00 33.00 C-) n c") Cl) I ' �^ Sample did Coordinates man. .. 9011RCE DATE SCALES j Sample did Square to-,r W-0 EGA, a� YelroPolete Ot/24/o, M tdddel sP«+ ! City of .Huntington Beach !- Impart•ample—det..d by••5.Abg dhm•A ample CAD FILES 1ns_,e Borehole Location Ing-rant...aal ma,.m.m.to a d"Ah ar 1g-r..t bd"aa®d.el m.(gasl Former Firing Range ' Ir and Coordinates at 4 lamua a •a ••mg a wwrwy ntb- an""�•ttae rqure5.daq we.wo.l amq..e®a'•4.wa.g'a a-so&—10't Ir am DRAWN IECNNICAL APPROVAL DAtE �7�Y[!V[V II.7CI1 Log Fencing -11-4"tram.n rear bwb,g 1.a.tla •lag—h ar th.a aaaeda.b tma JAM 04/09/01 Wrbl 04/10/011 A /„/o,Pbo•e g DraftRepart JAW • —bb d mta emp•..M—.pla Composite Sample Locations Trees a.mp,.MAW Id-Urm aaa Wdkata dbk. I.fat to U...A DRAFIINO CMECtc PROJECT APPROVAL 1 and Analytical.Results Rrry DATE DEsarmnoN APPROVAL -d••eta�••P•att-y.a mtdbw,1�L 0-0. IORE Da/o9/ot WFbI D?/08/01. O Vegetation a�tatta.r�m mmw—P-kudvm(md/W- CHIEF DRArTSMAN CLIENT APPROVAL RE'ASRONS AND APPROVALS DRAWING tI11118ER IRWE�,SN JAM o4/o9/ot , p,fOl 69/4-Figure 5 cenapp eae Mthneene 1100 Ben elenlhreeene 1100 Benu(D[luorenthene 240 Bento k nuorenthene 340 Chr�tens Flue 900ranLhane 4900 ' Fluoreve 6100 o w to 3o sn so Naphthalene 5200 Phenanlhrene 19000 WALE IN Utz► ' ne 3800 i I ` 210-- ID Geneppnd ene me/R MNracene 3900 Beztnoz( a anthrecene 180D 1 PO — B�ennto(k�u�rantD�ene SO ne etRe Chr=: 14W M cane 2900 (\/i i flaoranthene saw ' Benso(a)enthracene 420 nuarene 12M Benso(DMnoranlhene 72 � Nephlhelene 39 Bentoik ars there � Pbenenthrene 12000 I i e 5200 rrv7aeennee FlooreaUene 1800 " nuorene 1800 V-4 1 i Naphthalene 3300 1r'0- O--t - . Phenanlhretx GOO L� j 120- - - 1 enepp me Mlhracene 50DO 0 Bea a=nth acene it00 Ben-( aorantheae 330 Ben 580 aor��ehhaNteme 2W a nuoranlheve 54�00 ' - - -- ►Ivorene 90 Naphthal 25Wene O V-3 Phenenthreoe 1 3900 5M e 31R00 O p---� L O � PP - 0 Via '. rane 100 GO- mnntheo 32 zq 37 O mk e u e �chrr��tteenna 130 flaoranlbene 800 ...._.. ._ Naphthalene 00 V-� -2 V-9 Phenenthrene 1 400 30- V-1 i! t I - 1 - ! ttnepphthene Anlbracene 540 Ben a mlhraeene 340 Bento(D uoranlhene 130 V-B k aer�nrrt�7Dsxeenone 80 -30 Flvma�rtthrn: 200M i ' o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 loot en: 470 p Naphthalene 470 Pbenanlbreoa 2100 C') CI) ,a WN-. N N N C�7 Cam^. a 1100 I 1 ' Caneyy the 1 coneyp ene enep me 959, Mlhreeene 1200 Mthncene 1300 MWreeeve 750 { Bent s��nntltracene 570 Bent a))anthracene 580 lleD a))anthraceoe 320 Benzo(ob(]Auoravlhene 170 Beato(ob()(luorealhene IBO Benso(b(laormlhene 100 BeDzo(k)<Ivmanlhene 230 BeDto(k)nnorentkeee 250 Bentotk uorenlbene as CChprry�taeene 790 CCAbrryrtteene BSO C�pprr��ete�De 260 ►luamuthena 2100 Flvorenlbene 3400 Flnotnnlhene 1700 nuarene 14DO Flvorene 1700 Fluortne 810 Naphthalene 3100 Naphthalene 7000 Naphthalene 740 ' Pbenmthrelte 7000 phenenLbrene 7400 Phenmthrene 4000 I e I400 a 2200 a 1100 I -MI Sample Grid Coordinates DaV ea 90URCE DATE SCALES Sample Grid Square a Aal�lvraa= I5270 NeboPofnte of 24/01 a Model SOOCe tleato(D vorentnene ,70 / City of Huntington Beach /N Bea k As Capnrtb.. , CAD itLEs Former Firin Range eu_U Borehole Location �lnaranlhe a 2100 Fqu�.daa g b ■ and Coordinates nnoxae 1400 ' 14aphthaleDe 3100 DRAWN TECHNICAL APPROVAL DATE 4 r . Log Fencing Phenaathnne 7000 JAW 04/09/01 WF11 04/10/0t A /„/01 Pbex 0 den RepeA JAW 1400 Hood Sample Locations Trees Bees—PI-.en e.a 4N ate tee-4 el.`beta ew.tadtitdeel aee+e.er. DRAFT=CHECK PROJECT APPROVAL and Analytical Results h4 en REV DATE DESCTePTION APPROVAL 41t- e eaeyee4 ra eemt.ale,0e-pate eaaepsm4e by ZPA N.U,"etay. NNE 04/09/0, Will 02/08/ot rl�, Vegetation � C—t'wut. a en rW. d wa/k& CHIEF DRAFTSMAN CLIENT APPROVAL DRATANG NUMBER REv15gN 1 REwStONS AND APPROVALS 4✓rRd- yL cc aa��e�e,�& 970 Apq°At A Ier a. JAW 04/09/01 p psi 6914-Figure 6 A ' _. _..._...-'---- --- - B-2HZ .�-- -- - 16.0 K 3' 34:0 11.0 <d "1954*benth 7.n D.,,u 0105 4.0 -3, 54.0 15.0 5.4 IWS--75 - _0155-75 3 6- 39.0 11 Main Firing Range . 9 9:80 14:0 240 IH65-4 0 10 20 w 40 50 =AIIIIIIIIII! -3* 69.0 22.0 100.0 SCALE IN rIM? 0 8135-15 Pb S`nP 110 - tw. _x 4010 11.1110 3 u 44.0 340.0 .0 -3* 51.0 16.0 <3 NA _ B19K B19K B195 11195-195' -3' SB 0135-7 -6- 76.0 .19 "�6V5 _75, _W 50.0 15 6V5 15 45 VkS 5 105 cE] 4' 68,0 IS:.O 4E0 0 -9* 510 14.0 42.0 55' 45000 1 1_11� I Dellb --I IS: - ap 0 SBS ID _3* 36'0 -0 7u,u .90 I _v 28.0 8.8 <3 IiA B135 11135 813k, 105- -4: 1 Dezdh 7n -21 Fb -1 -6 6,6:00 3,0:00 S,W:,OD ;B4 21 ul 30 <30 -8: 51.0 36. 920-0 _-----_L13 596-00 :00 -10 57. ..8.S 0.0 NA 75 S54 CIS Pb 21 30 B105 15 45 BIOS 105 15.0 <3 NA 4* 88.0 2110 130 NA 6: 60.0 19.0 11:0. NA a 51.0 28.0 420.0 25.0 0 0 -10' 57.0 70.0 3500� NA 1 - CIO I I 0 - ID CM Ile 171 75 105 4 59.0 36.0 360.0 B7 )e5 B75_ -. - W A -6 580 170 1, SM2 -3, 44.0 NA 38:0 17*0 130.00 NA1111 1 B75-75 SB2 60- Dq1b 70 le _6 114"0 -2 62.0 55.0 070 -0 : 67.0 70.0 16.0 NA 67�0 410 4" 0 _3 -4 0 :0 :00 -6 170.0 32.0 56.0 NA _6* 51 1 50.0 -_ B4.5 15 B45 45 9JB45 7 B45< -8: 550 17.0 59.0 -10 26'.0 -6.8 .- 3.5 30- -3- 9&o 68:0 NA 40595 9f -6 240.0 640.0 1 -a: 4 570 38 a: 05:0 24:3 WON 240'A0 I i i B1515 45 B151• VIM. B75-15 590 42.0140000 NA 4P CA mm -10' 53:0 61.0 3100:0 NA SIX -0 4OW 11SUM 4IM-0 14,U :3. 72.0 16.0 11.0 NA BID 6* 67.0 27.0 11.0 NA 7 D.Ah 1 0 67..-3: 51. 0 .9 -06 471,00 10 60.0 5-45 DvQ ZnBI W.0 -3: 54` a.? -06 61 00 3.3 ' - o 0 CD to 0 CV 0n. to AP -3: 58.0 19.0 9.8 .0 --us 101.00 13- <3 1315-105 B45-j _45 75 MUM DUM 21 68.0 0 V.9 Zia u 7.0 7.4 NA -3' 85.0 3: 35 10:0 <3 10:0 NA .01 0 1 Deldh All .0 I0U.0 - 0 I's 6' 240.0 61.0 1. 1.0 _3 to.77'nd ['74 190'.0 too.. ' ❑`0 Sample Grid Coordinates SOURCE DATE SCALES 60.0 Sample Grid Square at I" , k.9 vetrupatute 01/24/01 b, Sp� City' of Huntington Beach MW _ Former Firing Range -,Am b. 16.911fle.111W IMA-t-dld�to I.A to th.ftd CAD FILES 1"5_15 Borehole Location Md Muth.'-p-m-ey. l.,bilaw,- - 0_0. rqL-3_d-g X and Coordinates 7" Mb wlywl by WA Udbd WW/VM 00--mbahm r.P>1.d W Pr lkllw m(=a/w. DRAIAN TECHNICAL APPROVAL OAlt Log Fencing Sdable tl odls HmK a b-um (MUI P­Ind-nalpw by CAL w" JAW 04/09/01 VIFU 04/10/011 Main Firing Range 114RTOW*SM 000-ut-U�rptd In-MW-pw Ift-(w". A 04/11/011 Ph�I DrollReparl JAW Trees TOW I"d.00,..Uwu° V-d-tam low ws in Sri DRAF'nHG 04EOC PR0XCF AlIPIRDYAL Boris Locations and REVWE I DESCRIPTION Al. unc w..tw u-so W1 to bd. WIE 04/09/01 1 varil02/08 1 g Analytical Results DRAWING NUMBER NEW" REVISIONS AND APPROVALS Vegetation CHIEF DRAFTWAN CLIENT APPROVAL JAW 4-Fg 04/09/01 B-283 691 ure 3 A e 1e mso .d so 9CAU IN rE r ' -3' 63.0 16 A 45.0 0.3 -37 81.0 33.0 8.0 -3' 58.0 Wo "o-O 8.0 _ _ _ - Pistol Range -3• 1. -3' 50.0 15.0 12.0 Zoo 240 1 1CIA Pb WIM -3' 260.0 38:0 120.0 -3' 71.0 I9.0 83.0 r 210 tau �nr15*C:bl bwke'll z 150�f i 120 �f(! 15115 IZ"U two_ A -3• 89.0 38.0 780.0 30.0 - _ B 210 __ 260 - _ 90- 1. 1. -37 50.0 10.0 5.1 r -3' 63A Mo 12.0 23 El t\ - . -3' 80.0 15..0 <3 .. ......... ............. i� -- �--�� -3' 85.0 17.0 12.0 15 -3' 53:0 13.0 11.0 0� O O o c. -3' 72:0 16.0 �.7O N; 01 N Cl) C) -3• 180.0 47.0 5900:0 210 Qa -3' S8:0 16.0 <3 -3' 18:0 11:0 17:0 [;-3- 89:0 19:0 12:0 -3' 62:0 2I:0 21:0 `o Sample Grid Coordinates Fo 9DURCy OATS scKts Sample Grid - 01 2A t tAoeet soe<e City of Huntington Beach A L� P mare _7' 69.0 `60ADMO Yetrapainte / J0 lrmpr b-tM I&e;Vft.tlm teete r..a1M..e.t.I"t.16....t CAD FILES Former Firing Range AM61s_Ts Borehole Location "a Mdk,-p.alwy. 0 arrt-y po&A 0-0. rgmee.dep ■ and Coordinates r.t.l Md.%wabue t7 IBA■dbed e00DlM= ameeet-ul -p.rt.d I. m.ngft per 10.Cem(me/Ad. DRAWN TECICAL OR APPROVAL DATE Log Fencing comer thn b.1d tm n e..end-U-ronQ Pe red.n.tr..e by CAL MU. JAW 04/09/01 WFM 04/10/01 pistol Range Boring Locations A /11/Ot Pho.e a Droll RepoA ,tAw " COOe�^�'d I.�Pa't�(ak"- .7� Trees va+b W'0-%bM to yam t.FaL DRAVTM'ta otEoc PROJECT APPROVAL and Analytical Results ! REV DATE DESCTR e.PTtDN APPROVAL MIX .--bMkm 0-tr te aD meAL I-teed. MNE 04/09/01 "IM 02/08-1 REVt90N$A11p APPROVALS O Vegetation mu DRArrwAN CLIENT APPROVAL DRAteNc NUMBER REVtsQt JAW Od/09/01 p-2 4 69T1-i"gare A A Arw SOIL INVESTIGATION — WOOD POSTS/FENCING CHARACTERIZATION ASSESSMENTS — 1 SAMPLING & ANALYSIS PLAN FORMER GUN RANGE ' Huntington Central Park Huntington Beach, California 92648 Mauricio H.Escobar,REA Date Project Geologist Farb al ' William F.McClenney, RG Date Senior Associate Geologist NO. 4430 r F�F CAO�� ' B-285 A SOIL INVESTIGATION -� WOOD POSTS/FENCING CHARACTERIZATION , ASSESSMENTS— 1 SAMPLING & ANALYSIS PLAN .r, 1 FORMER GUN RANGE Huntington Central Park ' Huntington Beach, California 92648 Maaricio H.Escobar,REA Date ' Project Geologist Q William F.McClenney,RE<RG Date ' Senior Associate Geologist EAED GEO�o ' NO. 4430 rFOF CAS% , B-286 ' /Mff City of Huntington Beach—Former Firing Range Hart Crowser Project No. 6914 ' Sampling&Analysis Plan January 29, 2001 ' TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.........................:...................»..........................................................................I 1.1 Site History&Contaminants.....................................:...............................................:...............................1 1.2 Summary of Existing Data.......................................................................................:.................................2 2.0 SAP SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES..».............»........»......»...............»......».......».......»».».........»»...»»......2 3.0 FIELD ACTIVITIES»....»»..:................»...:.......... ......................»....»....»•................---......................—.:;»..3 3.1 Matrices. ..... ... .3 3.2 Subsurface Soils.........................................................................................................................................3 3.3 Wood Fencing..... .....................................................................................................................................4 3.4 Invasive Penetrations With Push-Probe Drill Rig......................................................................................5 3.5 Borehole Logging......................................................................................................................................6 3.6 Equipment Decontamination Procedures..........:........................................................................................6 ' 3.7 Management Of Investigation Derived Waste(IDW)..............................................:.................................6 4.0 SAMPLE HANDLING AND LABORATORY ANALYSES.......».»..........................................»...........7 ' 4.1 Sample Handling...............................................................................................•----....................................7 4.2 Chain-Of-Custody Procedures...................................................................................................................8 4.3 Laboratory Analyses..........................:.......................................................................................................8 ' Figures - 1—Site Vicinity Map ' 2—Proposed Sampling Location Appendix A—1998 Preliminary Assessment I I ' B-287 MPW City of Huntington Beach—Former Firing Range Hart Crowser Project No. 6914 an Sampling&Analysis Plan January 29, 2001 ' 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' The City of Huntington Beach ("The City") has retained the services of Hart Crowser, Inc. (Hart ' Crowser) to prepare a remedial action plan(RAP) for cleanup of a former gun range site located within Huntington Central Park,in the City of Huntington Beach,California. ' In producing this document, Hart Crowser will evaluate potential environmental concerns through further subsurface assessment, and produce a document that provides remedial ' alternatives and presents a viable cleanup plan. The City has requested remedial action supervision from the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA). Hart Crowser will work ' with OCHCA throughout this project in order to obtain RAP certification upon completion of all work. ' 1.1 Site History& Contaminants ' The former gun range site("site")is approximately 4.91 acres in size and is owned by the City of ' Huntington Beach. The site is designated as Open Space-Park in the City's General Plan and is part of the Master Plan of Recreation Uses for Central Park. The site was originally part of a landfill owned by the County of Orange. When the landfill closed in the 1960's, the County , deeded the property to the City for public park and recreation purposes. The Huntington Beach Police Officers Association constructed the current gun range improvements and operated the ' facility under a 20-year lease from the City. In 1988 the original lease expired, and the gun range lease was continued on a year-to-year basis. Originally,the improvements included both a public and private training facility. In the early 1990s, it became evident that the range needed rebuilding. Unstable soil caused by decomposing landfill was impacting the facility, and the , public side of the facility was closed and demolished due to structural concerns. In 1993 the City began discussions with the Police Officers Association regarding rebuilding the site. In 1997 the City terminated the lease due to safety concerns, and the gun range has been closed since that ' time. Existing improvements on the site included several buildings, creosote telephone poles, which serve as fencing,rubber tires used as target backing, and asphalt areas. , In November 1998, American Environmental Services, Inc. (AES) performed an environmental investigation that identified lead as a chemical of concern (CoQ on the site. A total of 16 soiI samples were collected from the range berms, which were the recipients of most of the shot-cast ' lead. Areas of the site other than the berms were not sampled by AES, nor was soil analyzed for 1 B-288 ' t/ City of Huntington Beach—Former Firing Range Hart Crowser Project No. 6914 Sampling&Analysis Plan January 29, 2001 ' the presence of other heavy-metals typically associated with small arms munitions (i.e. copper and zinc). In addition, AES did not analyze impacted wood posts or fencing to assess potential ' heavy-metals impacts and creosote content. Please refer to Appendix A, 1998 Preliminary Assessment, for a complete copy of the AES report. 1.2 Summary . Data of Existin g AES collected 14 soil samples from.the range, one sample for background assessment, and one sample from the floor of the firing range. All samples were analyzed for total threshold limit concentrations (TTLCs), but were not tested for their soluble threshold limit concentrations (STLCs). AES collected four soil samples from 1-foot, 2-feet and Meet below ground surface (bgs), and two soil samples from 4-feet bgs. The results were divided by depth of samples and averaged to give a more representative concentration of soil conditions below grade. AES presented a discussion under Summary of Findings that presented rationale for not analyzing impacted soils for STLC concentrations and presented the laboratory results. The AES discussion stated that "the Federal EPA TTLC for determining hazardous concentrations of lead in soil is 500 parts per million (ppm)....[and] the STLC is 50 ppm." Those figures are both ' incorrect. The correct values for Federal TTLC and STLC thresholds are 1,000 mg/kg (ppm), and 5 mg/L, respectively. In addition, AES reported the average concentration of the four 1-foot ' samples as 28,000 ppm; the 2-foot samples as 12,274 ppm; the 3-foot samples as 767 ppm; and the 4-foot samples as 810 ppm. Hart Crowser found the reported average concentrations for the ' 1-foot and 3-foot values to be incorrect. According to the analytical results, the correct average concentrations were 26,750 mg/kg and 762 mg/kg, respectively. Due to the fact that the lead ' concentrations in 10 of the 16 soil samples collected were considerably above the Federal TTLC threshold,AES did not perform STLC analysis. ' 2.0 SAP SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES ' Hart Crowser has prepared this Sampling &Analysis Plan (SAP) to describe field activities that will be undertaken as part of the assessment investigation relative to the development of a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for the subject site. The SAP will focus on investigation and characterization of heavy-metal impacted soils and wood posts/fencing at the subject site. The ' SAP will herein describe the type, location, quantity, and rationale for all samples to be collected and measurements to be made during characterization activities. As the site is overlying a former 2 B-289 AM City of Huntington Beach—Former Firing Range Hart Crowser Project No. 6914 Sampling&Analysis Plan January 29, 2001 landfill, the SAP will also address the procedures for locating the depth to the underlying landfill ' cap so the investigative work will not disturb the in-place capping materials. The two main objectives of this project are to: • Identify the nature and extent of environmental impacts due to the use of the site as a gun ' range, and 4; • Prepare a remedial work plan for the cleanup of this site,which is consistent with Local, i State, and Federal environmental requirements. 3.0 FIELD ACTIVITIES 3.1 Matrices , Fieldwork for this project will consist of sampling two media for assessment of environmental impact from specific hazardous materials. Specific matrices to be sampled are: • Subsurface soils to a depth of 10 feet bgs, and • Wood fencing and posts impregnated with creosote. , 3.2 Subsurface Soils , Characterization of heavy-metal soil impacts from former firing range activities will be , accomplished via push-probe sampler or similar subsurface invasive penetration system (i.e. hand-auger). In this way, no soil cuttings will be generated that would require off-site disposal. As the subject property overlies a former closed landfill, the initial penetration is intended to t "tag" the upper surface of the landfill cap so as to provide a control depth beneath which assessment activities will not be conducted. This first boring will also be used to collect soil ' samples and have an intended target depth of 8 to 10-feet below ground surface(bgs). total of six borings will be advanced through the berms one boring per 45 linear feet). These 'A g � ( gP ) borings will be driven to 10 feet bgs, with soil samples collected at 2-foot intervals beginning at ' 2-feet bgs. This part of the remedial investigation is intended to assess the presence or absence 3 B-290 ' MW City of Huntington Beach—Former Firing Range Hart Crowser Project No. 6914 ' Sampling&Analysis Plan _ _ January 29, 2001 ' of other common firing range metals in the berms, as well as delineate the depth to which soil has been impacted within the berms. ' The flat range area between the shooting positions and the berms has not been adequately g gP q Y assessed for heavy-metal impacts. This area will be gridded into twenty-four(24) individual 30- . foot by 30-foot boxes, with one boring placed per grid. It is anticipated that the area of investigation will be covered with approximately 24 soil sample location boxes. All 24 borings will be driven to 6-feet bgs, with soil samples collected at the surface, 3-feet bgs and 6-feet bgs. This approach is intended to delineate the vertical and lateral extent of heavy metal impacts in soils in front and to the sides of the firing berms. Soil samples will be collected in 4-ounce glass jars using new.stainless steel spoons. Samples ' will be properly sealed, labeled, and placed on ice for transportation to a State certified analytical laboratory. Strict chain-of-custody documentation will be followed once samples are relinquished to laboratory personnel. The estimated laboratory turn-around-time for sample ' results will be seven to ten working days. ' 3.3 Wood Fencing The firing range contains significant quantities of wood fencing used as range control media. The section of this fencing that lies behind the target berm area is anticipated to contain ' significant heavy metal impacts from ricochets,missed shots and broadcast fragments. All of the wood appears to have been autoclaved with a creosote based preservative. Therefore, two impacts to this media require assessment so as to better determine disposal options and costs. Assessment of heavy-metals impact is proposed to be accomplished by visual means. ' Inspections will be made of wood fencing to identify visual impacts from bullets and bullet fragments.- All identified locations will be circled with hi-visibility paint. Individual sections of ' timbers identified as containing, or potentially containing heavy metal impacts will then easily partitioned for separate disposal. ' Hart Crowser will submit nine wood samples collected from timbers not identified as impacted P P with heavy-metals for laboratory determination of creosote content. These samples will be ' 4 B-291 f� City of Huntington Beach—Former Firing Range Hart Crowser Project No. 6914 Sampling&Analysis Plan _ January 29, 2001 , collected in 4-ounce glass jars and will be analyzed for creosote levels by EPA Method 8270. It ' is proposed these samples will be collected with the aid of a chain-saw. 3.4 Invasive Penetrations With Push Probe Drill Rig Subsurface invasive penetrations will be advanced utilizing a direct-push sampling g drill rig. A ' core barrel sampler with acetate sleeves will be used to collect soil samples from desired depths. ' These samples will be transferred to laboratory supplied four ounce stainless steel glass jars upon reaching the surface. The sampler is generally attached to the lower end of a special rod assembly, and then advanced with a combination of hydraulic pressure and hydraulic "hammering" to the desired depth where ' the sampler is "tripped" mechanically to open the distal end of the sampler. Once opened, depth advancement is continued allowing the internal sampling tubes to be filled with a discrete soil ' sample at the desired depth. After sampling has been completed, the rods and sampler assembly are withdrawn hydraulically from the hole, the sampler de-attached, opened and the samples ' removed. At each sample interval the sampler will be brought to the surface and opened. The following ' tasks will be performed: • Removal of the bottom sample ring and sealing of both ends with Teflon7m film and tight-fitting plastic caps, , • Labeling of the sleeve, • Storage of the samples in a cooled ice chest for submittal to a laboratory for chemical ' analyses,and • Classification of the soil. ' 5 B-292 ' ' /N City of Huntington Beach—Former Firing Range Hart Crowser Project No. 6914 Sampling&Analysis Plan January 29, 2001 ' 3.5 Borehole Logging ' A lithologic log of soils encountered during drilling activities will be prepared under supervision of a State of California Registered Geologist or Professional Civil Engineer. Borings will be logged in accordance with visual procedures as provided for the Unified Soils Classification System (USCS) in the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) standards ASTM D- ' 2488-84,dated 1989. 3.6 Equipment Decontamination Procedures All re-usable drilling and sampling equipment will be cleaned prior to use to reduce the potential ' for cross contamination. Drill sections and other down-hole implements used during drilling will be cleaned prior to use at each boring location. Between each sample collection, the sampler will be.disassembled, cleaned, and decontaminated. ' Cleaning and decontamination procedures consist of washing the sampling equipment with a solution of distilled water and a detergent, followed by two distilled water rinses and air_drying. ' 3.7 Management Of Investigation Derived Waste(ID 99 ' The drill cuttings and decontamination wastes will be contained as outlined below. Drill Cuttings. The drill cuttings generated from borings will be placed in 17H DOT certified 55-gallon drums. Pending soil analysis from each boring, the soil may be transported to a State of California Certified waste recycler under a non-hazardous waste manifest for recycling and proper disposal,or transported under hazardous waste manifest by a licensed hauler for proper disposal. Certificates of waste destruction and recycling will be obtained ' Decontamination Waste Water. Generated wastewater from cleaning the augers and down-hole implements will be placed in 17H DOT certified 55-gallon drums and left on- site pending analytical characterization. ' Personal Protective Equ)7meng. Personal protective equipment (PPE), such as Tyvek suits, gloves, or miscellaneous fieldwork related waste articles, will be placed in 17H ' .6 B-293 S/ City of Huntington Beach—Former Firing Range Hart Crowser Project No. 6914 Sampling&Analysis Plan _January 29, 2001 ' DOT certified 55-gallon drums. These wastes will be scheduled for disposal with other ' wastes that are determined to be either hazardous (Class I) or designated (Class II) wastes. If wastes, including excavated wastes, are deemed as Class III wastes, IDW ' wastes will be scheduled for disposal to a Class III facility. be maintained o the 1 cuttings and wastewater. ' A drum log will m tam for drill g Boreholes will be backfilled with volclay grout or bentonite chips. Where applicable, the surface ' will be capped with concrete or asphalt to match the existing grade. ' 4.0 SAMPLE HANDLING AND LABORATORY ANALYSES 4.1 Sample Handling Outlined in this section are the sample handling, packaging and shipping procedures for the collected soil samples. These procedures are to be followed to yield samples representative of ' field conditions. Pre-cleaned sample containers will be used for sample collection. A sample label will be filled out for each sample container. The sample label will contain the following information: • Project number; w; • Project name; ' • Sample location; • Date of sample collection; • Time of sample collection; and • Sampler's initials. ' The samples will be placed in re-sealable plastic bags and properly packed in ice chests , containing ice. 7 B-294 ' r f� City of Huntington Beach—Former Firing Range Hart Crowser Project No. 6914 r ' Sampling&Analysis Plan January 29, 2001 ' 4.2 Chain-Of-Custody Procedures ' After collection, samples will be maintained in Hart Crowser's custody until formally transferred to the laboratory representative. For purposes of this work, custody will be defined as follows: ' • In w of Crowser field representatives; plain vie Hart Cro • Inside a cooler which is in plain view of Hart Crowser field representative; or • Inside any locked space such as a cooler, locker, car,truck, or storage room to which the field representative has the only immediately available key(s). 1 Chain-of-custody records will be maintained for all samples recovered. The sampler and others rwho take custody of the samples will sign the record. Custody seals will be used when samples are shipped via courier service. r A designated sample custodian from the laboratory will accept custody of shipped samples and ' verify that the chain of custody form matches the samples received. Each batch of samples will be given a laboratory number and each sample will be assigned a unique sequential identification r number. The custodian will be responsible for seeing that all samples will be transferred to the proper analyst or stored in an appropriate secure area. Laboratory personnel will be responsible for the care and custody of samples from the time they are received until the sample is exhausted or returned. ' 4.3 Laboratory Analyses Hart Crowser will submit, through proper Chain-of-custody procedures, 30 soil samples collected from the berm area and 72 soil samples collected from the flat range area for laboratory r analysis. All 102 soil samples will be analyzed for total extractable copper(Cu), zinc (Zn), and lead (Pb) by EPA Method 6010. In addition, the two soil samples with the highest total lead concentrations collected from the berm area and the four soil samples with the highest total lead ' concentrations collected from the flat range area will be analyzed for the Title 22 metals by EPA Method 6010. This will be intended to confirm the presence or absence of elevated levels of rother heavy-metals in the soil and provide the complete metals assessment needed for final off- site disposal. r 1 8 B-295 r t� City of Huntington Beach—Former Firing Range Hart Crowser Project No. 6914 Sampling&Analysis Plan January 29, 2001 r All reported heavy metal concentrations that exceed the soluble threshold limit concentration ' (STLC) by a factor of 10 but that are below the total threshold limit concentration (TTLC) will be analyzed by CAL WET TEST for solubility of metals. The following table presents the ' TTLC and STLC acceptable levels for copper, lead, and zinc. Tno" aa�c TltiC STLC: r Compound ( =. a ) Copper 2,500 25 r Lead 1,000 5 Zinc 5,000 250 ' 1 r r i 1 _ r 1 - 1 i . r 9 B-296 r a N C/] ti p.� W �''a .. .,OO.ZiFoSS .. �" � [�� .." 1��29[L11�wst� :d w..:lm n'� qt war a_.tn� �; 1 i -•-1•>�al I u�rc�wnr,-•IZ -*•&-,�: i:'•"3} •Iv r I w< ��-c..I .,,� �cu��� .�s�'e' 1la�S� 4:�u .._a�}fJaI�V'��9` ___ TII �_ I��_`'J6"O�11t_ca,l � � �Y t�-0,.n y ry!f• S S� Z'T• '�"3 utl1��?,3 na/ E3k i�l � �'t �ft[_-v It rt eG---- -j �, 1�as{• �?� �°�LYIC��1�� w'�al ��wa�� i"� A�.$,...t.��(x��' d tr t/.ia��\r E'�. � ,� f. I � r 1 F tit � i 1I _ 1 �I� { � rr4 L.j I'n f� I t tl7T Tx` �� �•�'Y1� I ? I� 1� 4' 1 i �i� y � _j` ��z a�:� 'tk..._��� �-t.� �.C1 _..r.:1�m�'�I I t•-' ' 1 r ,I ..^ I •I \�>g�?� ��� Cl� 11 a ,� I� t7 ., I�M..�. �� p, r it Si��v`� e�iEra .� / ;� _� • �I - .I I n �i iF- _.1-_.- \ t� v I:•Z ir-IS I C 4 I � ,tS"� �;71„��t 1 - � F.�_(.,i'1L�// � l.�s", �iAN � - 1 e I (� �I��'yC��{�[ �� IL �r .����Ilc f '1 '�d.��,�` `�'�:'(Vdt�1��� ;.I c Itr''-� !� �� r`�Il• C 1 "J • r `I ilt� 'rY`�! 4 �c. C �j If/ e �! � 'Frrc x?� Fcl- i 511�c YI„[Li F I,�rr:c4�t�.. �'91 "i' _�I� I t t �, `rs3 ` ,,;y,f j} i � . ,c.j �� •� t� �-t I .w�✓q, - 1�f �. g JI ',51r�j',��i Y ��I�''I�fi���jtEe`��., I���` \� `'��I'I�,-t@`',t-�l�, •r (tir�Ik3 • ��I. .�y, ,.I ��lIi(�19 Il���zl ��;r,�it�� ��.�,�L '31.`11�I�i5'��y�rt'I�'S��,f:' - II.• _T ,�[�7`` .. tiZltll'�71 _ IIY�,�i ��7 t' I� Lei.(] J\I�����e: `I„r �1�� _.:f;t;r ����!����i� • • _ ��-. ��..���.�••_��,.�.�-- - ; 1 .tl�i�. lr ' I ''" � i � iRl (` � _—"qIf 5 , 11 Mly�'Llpi W : '�e>aLci:�.•:.. ".�j - '��I.�(.l♦i �I �� 1 � A♦�X 1 ,�I, if i�"II�t_• �i'�JS 1��{"fir//��JI•Y—, j� •I ��� :• `I � . I_ __I1�- I' a'41�II!IIIJAirtIJ;IpyI� �`� .h.,�I t 'I �31 jJl 1 I 'rr f`' trt ° `ap��. I -_�_(r ST-��-I`• ' �(I;.+,}w tsy it `�_• .."'fi -`, '.:+:'i;r1 �!� � �{. �k I • _ sr�T•�_ _ _ `...✓ S 1CCCa T� ••l!.�/II .I rI Iq''"t/in I���'�4 i1"ilrr( � I I.,IL 'Y I y c h a�y�..�' N �� �i• � ll�l I (1 �t � r yL,I � wt u i a). Gi r'tlli J, t f� L jif!tr kl r 1!IG I•• S I �J! I .i�- t r' .tl-t I -/ 5 I tLR'.Bi N�i�1~�P r1�1 tiIN 1. .�.r ' It dtf I� '' I j / I ��. I •I/ I) �. _ 41 �Y� �• �. p� 'r'5 r N • JII I r I �� 1 e; n � =�' r • •ij� Is4n��r�E141� -�x�Ir i �.! ''� -7i41 I� .�'1' ,iI � t.11: ;._.;� I �..' - - I `` $I�u�li h tnkl III i I I kleJf' v,,kl } - •,_� W'A'' t, '� - \. �� t ' • 1 r � �I. � `t�+'=� 1 L'. �I::�I -I.-� I T I t �, ;�, � I �'"'"iQ� L�' V� � �• r ,:u I'ItlNI+ I _ -L. I,: ( L�_§i i 4 .J�il R.1:; 1 L �1 ! _�k -. ,�\ a •�'-• O�RI�� �'.';�� /�.-. ! �•t •ff E I � - a q 'I x..,i>l N.�,rew. .tF �:'t I f ! I II-a F �'t .f� •ems'- L � � I _ �I �1 ����i ��t-5 •.�, i• � �h ��_!4u e 1�' is.�c .:;:� v 71 , t � , L ,r! _,.:�,:,—� .. L /1 / ••_y� ;... • -ir � 'r;l�'�'�A��k y�ryr 4 1 "II 1 � ia�.-.11 1 1. II �.I f ",'�`•t��t�`-s+c94Y� ".F':dJ+�+r ( _.T —`j I-I 11 (4_fl L�'-:4t�� 11`s Lr l.y L 3 f I r I c t. •n t ti.l ;I � \ 'fL �,.� a•�~/ ��. � _ n �L•' I 'i'w l I 1�17I 1 't I l: IJ II 1 I I.;f1 �� ��• 11� {. �i � �'; S m r _7 a. t 6 r -Ir-1�LsJRr T`I� 7 I f 4I rS I � �1 III I i,..-, y `��S.i�_ ,,�.. }����-'•�'� v. � I 'd ,t"4�,1.1E. t �,i I ` r { �I t 1 1�' .l� _.:�, fit: �s r� 'i '� %t _ I • ��Itf .� �tt If�f�7� I�'I!LY�Il Iltuaal l�l) a I 1 r' I � ' _ Ilrl.(I!�� �•• �I�IY� � � T.-T•Ty y'R�l � i fr 1� ' - ' �,,��; _•!_��� tllu,i a_ tI 'I 'rI ,I °y. 'ctI �I �/.il� �����`y1I��.�°�, ?' • i -prl t 17eJ I 7 I. ,I � t r' t r/h j. • ,�°>•,;I� i I(Pik.It�v ��];I+�' c I. C �1�1 tJ:-+( G �'�Cn I� � 1� 1 I�; �,7t t. � t�• �"'� ���� i �t `Y � • • I4� ��f�Ik��lr: h� L �sl 141 � II L I 1 y II r r�d r7lil (� ��>.�r_�_' �i: ,V�I•� \�`� 1 i-"'� P17 4C.�L LYL, I (it 4 I � Itn 1 t I1 �, � 1 311 t /�� ( ><�� / 1l v�18 j � �r�. _ • IP� �I`JIi [F pal dl I II I +Ik II t'Ilii I I - - / nn,a•.r,( - S 41 �I a.LLal ITI- I r 4S Ir. I I i � I I •. I�IC�IIL4;� i ' Ilit 1 �I�fril 11�51I .� 1 ��,ll��j- �/� l ,l-_;,!I Itu'Ir��z _7,. � 1 /� �.ria''.L Y• �.. i831IVdi X oX o oX ' o X CD X 0 20 40 60 60 100 ^,X co X :. ....- v.. o� - _ _ _ u X �n r\X SCALE E IN FEET - n I17 _ O X o X = 0 - 0Lr) 0 0 0, -- �X C Ln i = rll� 0 - 0 XD `r' �X A 0 tn �: - X _ -- u --- u' i s -- oo ,D - --- - - �X �X r/�;X - a W - _ Ld X 0 i O�X A 01i 1 CD _ o �Jc �X -,D' �I __ _ Lf) X o -X _ o = o0 0 0 = -- - - - = • .00 0 u, oil, Xco ot ^X i L 0 CD co 0 1 ._ _ _ _ co X cv o � L rX ... . 1 sol,Rce DATE Sle Grid Square CALES Space . Sam .. P MetmPointe O7/24/O7 in Model Spa A F1 CAD FILESCity of Huntington Beach .. AM 1 SAP dwg p Proposed Sampling LOCotIOn DRAWN TECHNICALAL APPROVAL PPROVAL DATE Former Firing Range HAM"ORSM wFM 02/08/01 WFM 02/08/01'. aroposed Sampling A 02/08/01 DRAFT WORKPLAN WFM DRAFTING CHECK PROJECT APPROVAL REV DATE DESCRIPTION APPROVAL MHE 02/08/01 WFM 02/08/01'. Locations .._.......... _ :::` .:CHIEF DRAFTSMAN CLIENT APPROVAL RAWINC NUMBERI NSI REVISIONS AND APPROVALS 02/08/01 ........... . ..... .... ... .. ... _ .... . ..... 6914—SAP-011 •RE A ON WF� B-299 p....:..:.. APPENDIX A 1998 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ■ 1 B•300 Americlean Environmental Services, Inc ' 884 West 16th Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 November 30, 1998 Mr. Ron Hagen Director of Community Services City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street , Huntington Beach, California 92648 RE: Preliminary Assessment of the Former Police Department Firing Range , Dear Mr. Hagen: Per our approved October contract agreement, Americlean Environmental Services, Inc. (Americlean) has completed a preliminary assessment of the former Police Department firing range. The intent of the assessment is to characterize the range mound soil and the potential impact from lead bullets and fragments. This letter report includes the performed scope of work, field observations, sampling methodology, soil.characterization, analytical results; and recommendations for future work. Site photographs are also included in the attachments. SCOPE OF WORK In order to accomplish this goal, Americlean representatively sampled the approximately 550 cubic yards of range mound soil, utilizing following scope of work: 1) Using a hand auger, bore into mound soil at surface to 4-foot depths to obtain 14 soil samples. Borings were performed at approximate 20-foot intervals across the 250-foot wide, approximately 6-foot deep mound. Disturbed samples were placed in 50 milliliter glass jars and transported under chain-of-custody to Del Mar Analytical, a state-certified hazardous material testing laboratory. Two additional samples were obtained to determine "background" levels: one sample from the range mound surface and one sample from between the mound and the firing area. 2) Analyze for total and soluble lead(as necessary)per the requirements of California Title 22 for hazardous material characterization; Del Mar Analytical analyzed EPA all samples per EPA Method 6010. B-301 ' Mr. Ron Hagen November 30, 1998 Page 2 of 6 3) Provide cross-sectional diagram of site sampling locations and identified lead concentrations; 4) Provide a written summary report with sections on sampling and analytical techniques, results of laboratory analyses, summary of findings, recommendations on remediation techniques, and associated costs. . ' FIELD OBSERVATIONS Sampling was.perfonned on during the week of November 6, 1998 by Mr. Tim Nelsen, Americlean Compliance Director. The range site is comprised of three partitioned areas separated by cinderblock and wood borders. As evidenced by the overgrown weeds, the range apparently has not been used for some time. Based.upon the site layout, it appears that range shooting occurred from a designated distance, across a short flat expanse, and into replaceable targets mounted on frames. Frames were mounted onto steel structures at the base of the range dirt mounds,which served as a receiver for bullets passing through targets. The range dirt mounds are surrounded on three sides by tall wood posts, arranged vertically. The mound comprised of sand and dirt is slanted at a 45 de Male and is elevated P degree g approximately 6-8 feet from ground level. Minor ravines are apparent, but erosion does not appear prominent at the mound surface. A slight scattering of lead bullets are apparent at the mound surface; no other surface anomalies were identified. Soil is comprised of sand and sandy silt. (A basic soil classification is included below.) SAMPLING METHODOLOGY Americlean sampling utilized a 3-inch diameter stainless steel sharpened, hollow stem- auger head and extension poles. Sampling locations were somewhat random in span but attempted to characterize various depths of possible impacted lead soil. Much of the mound surface is overgrown with vegetation. Sampling locations and depths were identified with a tape measure. Displaced surface soil from augering was moved away and/or emptied from subject holes to maximize the quality of the sample. The auger head and pole were dry-wiped between sample locations.to minimize cross-contamination. As discussed above, the range mound can be divided into three separate areas. For the purposes of this report,the three areas are identified at FRl, FR2, and FR3. Sampling began at the far left portion of the firing range, FRl,then progressed to FR2, centrally located, and FR3,to the right, as looking in a northerly direction. FR1 is approximately 45 feet wide; FR2 is approximately 87 feet wide; and FR3 is approximately 138 feet wide. B-302 Mr. Ron Hagen ' November 30, 1998 Page 3 of 6 ' All sections are 6-8 feet in height with a slope of approximately 45 degrees to the foot of the mounds. Sample nomenclature includes range mound number, sample sequence, and depth. For example,FR1-1-3 describes firing range mound number 1, sample sequence and location number 1, and a depth of 3 feet. FR34-S was obtained from a flat, surface section at the base of FR3. Sampling locations are identified on Figure 1-Sampling Location Map. SOIL CHARACTERIZATION , Soil samples have been characterized as following: FR1-1-3 Silt, dark, moist FR1-2-2 Sand and silt, moderate, slightly moist j FR1-3-1 Sand, light, dry FR2-1-3 Silt, dark moist FR2-2-1 Silty sand, light, dry FR2-3-2 Silty sand, moderate, dry FR2-3-2A Sandy silt, dark black, very moist FR2.-4-4 Silty sand, moderate, dry FR2-5-1 Sand, light, dry ' FR2-5-3 Sand and silt, moderate, slightly moist FR3-1-4 Sand and silt, dark, moist FR3-2-3 Fine sand, light, slightly moist FR3-3-1 Sand, light, dry FR3-3-2 Sand, light, dry FR34-S Sand, light, dry FR3-Field-S Sand, light, dry ANALYTICAL RESULTS ' The analytical results of sampling are as follows: ! Sample ID# Sample ple Results(mg/kg or parts per million) FR1-1-3 440 FRl-2-2 6,100 FR1-3-1 45,000 r B-303 , ' Mr. Ron Hagen November 30, 1998 Page 4 of 6 Sample ID# Sample Results(mg/kg or parts per million) FR2-1-3 19 FR2-2-1 30,000 FR2-3-2 6,900 FR2-3-2A 96 FR2-44 220 - FR2-5-1 16,000 FR2-5-3 2,200 FR3-1-4 1,400 FR3-2-3 390 FR3-3-1 16,000 FR3-3-2 36,000 FR3-4-S 5,000 FR3-Field-S 34 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Americlean offers the following summary of findings regarding the characterization of the firing range mounds: 1) The Federal EPA total threshold Whit concentration (TTLC) for determining hazardous concentrations of lead in soil is 500 parts per million (ppm). The soluble threshold limitation concentration is 50 ppm. A rule of thumb strategy for analytical testing to determine hazard material is to perform TTLC testing first; should the TTLC concentration be 10 times higher than the STLC, then the STLC analysis is also performed. Because the lead concentrations are excessively higher than the TTLC, STLC was not performed. Eleven of the 16 samples exceed the 500 ppm TTLC. 2) The concentrations of total lead are highest at the shallower sampling locations and generally tend to decrease in concentration with depth. The TTLC averages by depth are presented below: Depth 1-foot 2-foot 3-foot 4-foot TTLC 45,000 6,100 440 220 (ppm) 35,000 6,900 19 1,400 16,000 96 2,220 16,000 36,000 390 Average 28,000 12,274 767 810 B-304 Mr. Ron Hagen November 23, 1998 Page 5 of 6 3) The sample background TTLC concentration was 34 ppm. The surface soil TTLC , concentration was 5,000 ppm. 4) All soil above the four-foot depth, at each of the three range mounds should be considered hazardous material/waste. Range mounds should immediately be covered with plastic visqueen to prevent further wind- and/or waterborne migration of lead contaminants. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Americlean offers the following summary of recommendations for proper handling and characterization of the firing range mounds: 1) A site remediation work plan should be created to describe proposed activities to remove, or abate lead contamination. The work plan and a copy of this site assessment should be forwarded to Orange County Environmental Health prior to further site assessment or remedial work. (Americlean to verify sequence of proper reporting after discussions with the City of Huntington Beach.) 2)- - The recommended Americlean work plan would include excavation of impacted soil to a depth of at least 5-feet; soil to be place into DOT-approved storage bins. Such material would be profiled, properly manifested, and transported (in covered bins)to a permitted treatment, storage, disposal facility(TSDF). Verification sampling to occur beneath the five- foot level to verify TTLC and STLC levels r below hazardous waste concentrations. Additional excavation to be determined by Orange County, and as determined by the results of verification sampling. 3) The work plan may require additional borings and subsequent sampling around the periphery of the soil mounds to verify the absence or presence of migrating lead. The work plan may also require a feasibility study to verify the most cost-effective and technically sound methods of mound lead clean-up. At this point, Americlean would not recommend any method of onsite treatment. The most effective ' abatement method would be to simply excavate and remove offsite. 4) Prior to any additional site remedial work,the wood posts surrounding the firing range should be removed. The vertical posts would pose a threat to workers and/or equipment should undermining of base and mound soil occur. r B-305 Mr. Ron Hagen November 30, 1998 Page 6 of 6 Americlean is pleased to have assisted the City of Huntington Beach in characterizing the ' lead soil concentrations in firing range mounds. We look forward to further discussing this project with you. Should you have any additional questions or comments, please contact me direct at (949) 574-8611. Sincerely, Ammiclean Environmental Services, Inc alliet Chief Operating Officer enclosures: Summary of Analytical Results. Figure 1- Sampling Location Map Site Photographs r - r - r B-306 2l' in Ave.,Irvine,CA92606 (949)261-1022 FAX(949)261.1� 1014 E.Cooley. ,Suite A,Colton,CA 92324 (909)370-4667 FAX(909)370-1 IKJDel Mar Analytical 16525 Sherman Way,Suite C-11,Van Nuys,CA 91406 (818)779-1844 FAX(818)779 9484 Chesapeake Dr.,Suite 805,San Diego,CA 92123 (619)505-9596 FAX(619)505-9 2465 W.12th St.,Suite 1,Tempe,AZ 85281 (602)968.8272 FAX(602)968.1 :................... ................................................................... � ....>:.::....;......:.>:.:.> >:>;:.;::z::<:;:;::::;:>:;::::::>:::::::;:i::::;:::::;:::;;::;::;::::;::>::::;::::::::`::: :::> s:.;::;;: i>:;:::;c:s::>::::;:::<::':::::;;ii;:::::::::;::::;;:::;::is:;::::i::;i::;<:::i € Americlean Client Project ID: Americlean Sampled: Nov... 1998 >`884 W. 16Th Street Received: Nov 9, 199 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Sample Descript: Soil Extracted: Nov 17, 199 ....Attention: Mike Balliet First Sample#: HKO1628 Analyzed: Nov 17, 1998: QC Batch: HK17MElS Reported: Nov 18, 1998 :.......................................................; > ::::LEAD: EPA 6010 ::::< <::<:><:::::>....................,............................. ............................................. .......................... ) Laboratory Sample Reporting Sample Number Description Limit Result mg/Kg mg/Kg (Ppm) (PPm) HKO1628 FR1-1-3 2.0 440 HKO1629 FR1.-2-2 200 6,100 HKO1630 FR1-3-1 2,000 45,000 HKO1631 FR2-1-3 2.0 19 HKO1632 FR2-2-1 200 30,000 HKO1633 FR2-3-2 20 6,900 HK01634 FR2-3-2A 2.0 96 HKO1635 FR2-4-4 2.0 220 HKO1636 FR2-5-1 200 16,000 HKO1637 FR2-5-3 20 2,200 Anal tes reported as N.D.were not resent at or above the reporting limit. Y P P P 9 DEL MAR ANALYTICAL(ELAP#1197) Fred Haley Project Manager Results pertain only to samples tested in the laboratory, This report shall not be reproduced,except in full,without written permission from Del Mar Analytical. B-307 HK01628.AMC <1 of 3> 2E on Ave..Irvine,CA 92606 (949)261-1022 FAX(949)261-1228 1014 E.Cooley Suite A,Colton,CA 92324 (909)370-4667 FAX(909)370-1046 Del Mar Analytical 16,525 Sherman Way.Suite C-11,Van Nuys,CA 91406 (818)779-1844 FAX(818)779-1843 9484 Chesapeake Dr.,Suite 805.San Diego.CA 92123 (619)505-9596 FAX(619)505-9689 2465 W.12th St.,Suite 1,Tempe,AZ 85281 (602)968-8272 FAX(602)968-1338 .... ....... ...Amenc can Client Project ID. Am ic can Sampled: 998 884 W. 16Th Street Received: Nov 3, 1998 >'Newport Beach CA 92663 Sample Descript: Soil Extracted: Nov 17, 1998 Attention: Mike Balliet First Sample#: HKO1638 Analyzed: Nov 17, 1998 QC Batch: HK17MElS Reported: Nov 18, 1998>` LEAD EPA 6:01<0::::.............................. ) Laboratory Sample Reporting Sample Number Description Limit Result mg/Kg mg/Kg (PPm) (PPm) H KO 1638 FR3-1-4 20 1,400 HKO1639 FR3-2-3 20 390 HKO1640 FR3-3-1 200 16,000 HKO1641 FR3-3-2 200 36,000 HKO1642 FR3-4-S 20 5,000 HKO1643 FR3-Field S 2.0 34 Analytes reported as N.D.were not present at or above the reporting limit. DEL MAR ANALYTICAL(ELAP#1197) Fred Haley Project Manager Results pertain only to samples tested in fhe laboratory. This report shall not be 1 reproduced,except in full,without written permission from Del Mar Analytical. B-308 HK01628.AMC <2 of 3> 2r on Ave.,Irvine,CA 92606 (949)261-1022 FAX(949)261- 1014 E.Cooley_ Suite A.Colton,CA 92324 (909)370-4667 FAX(909)370 1046 Del Mar Analytical 16,525 Sherman Way,Suite C-11,Van Nuys,CA 91406 (818)779-1844 FAX(818)779-1843 9484 Chesapeake Dr.,Suite 805.San Diego,CA 92123 (619)505-9596 FAX(619)505-- 2465 W.12th St.,Suite 1,Tempe,AZ 85281 (602)968-8272 FAX(602)968• Americlean Extracted: Nov 17, 1998 Th 88 4 W. 16 Street Analyzed:zed: No v 17 19 9 Newport Beach, CA 92663 thadalY Reported: Nov 18, 199 Attention: Mike Balliet QC Batch: HK17ME:1;S>:<:::::<:........... ................ LEAD (EPA 6010) Laboratory Sample Description Reporting Limit Result mg/Kg mg/Kg (ppm) (ppm) Method Blank 2.0 N.D. r r r 1 r 1 r r r Analytes reported as N.D.were not present at or above the reporting limit. DEL MAR ANALYTICAL (ELAP#1197) Fred Haley Project Manager Results pertain only to samples tested in the laboratory. This report shall not be reproduced,except in full,without written permission from Del Mar Analytical. B-309 HK01628.AMC <3 of 3> , ' 2 ton Ave..Irvine.CA 92606 (949)261.1022 FAX(949)261-122 Del //��^^ /^� /^� 1014 E.Cooley_.,Suite A,Colton.CA 92324 (909)370-4667 FAX(909)370-104 D V I 1 V �ll�A�I..II�ICI�I 16525 Sherman Way,Suite C-11,Van Nuys.CA 91406 (618)779-1844 FAX(818)779-784 ' JJ 9484 Chesapeake Dr Suite 805 San Diego,CA 92123 (619)505.9596 FAX(619)505,96E 2465 W.12th St Suite 1,Tempe,AZ 85281 (602)968.8272 FAX(602)968.13: �aMS/M$D DATA REPORTS M; METHOD: METALS Instrument: ICP ' Date Matrix: Soil Analyzed: 11/17/98 Sample: HKO1630 Batch: HK17MElS MEAN Acceptance Analyte R1 Sp MS MSD PR1 PR2 RPD PR Limits ' mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg % % % % RPD MPR Lead 44650 50 14475 10150 0% 0% 35% 0% 11 20 1 80-120 Due to high levels of analyte in the sample,the MS/MSD calculation does not provide useful spike recovery information. See LCS for batch validation. 1 . r Definition of Terms. R1. . . . . Result of Sample Analysis Sp. . . . . . . . . . ..: . . . . . . .Spike Concentration Added to Sample . ' MS. . . . . . . ... . . . . .. . . Matrix Spike Result MSD. . Matrix Spike Duplicate Result PR1. .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . Percent Recovery of MS; ((MS-R1)/SP)X 100 ' PR2. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . Percent Recovery of MSD; ((MSD-R1)/SP)X 100 RPD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Relative Percent Difference; ((MS-MSD)/(MS+MSD)/2)X 100 Acceptance Limits. . . . . Statistically determined on an annual basis. DEL MAR ANALYTICAL B-310 2 ton Ave.,Irvine,CA 92606 (949)261-1022 FAX(949)261-r 101 a E.Cooley_.,Suite A,Colton,CA 92324 (909)370-4667 FAX(909)370-104, 16525 Sherman Way.Suite C-11,Van Nuys,CA 91406 (818)779-1844 FAX(616)779-184 Del Mar Analytical 9484 Chesapeake Dr.,Suite 805.San Diego,CA 92123 (619)505-9596 FAX(619)505-a 2465 W.12th St.,Suite 1,Tempe,AZ 85281 (602)968-8272 FAX(602)968. LCS DATA'REPORT " d R y �i 1 METHOD: METALS Instrument: ICP Date: 11/17/98 Batch: HK17ME1S Acceptance ' St R1 PR Limits Analyte mg/Kg mg/Kg % % ' Lead 50 45.2 90% 80-120 r r . r . r . r Definition of Terms: St. . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . Concentration of standard added to blank. 1 R1 . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . Standard Result PR. . . . . . . . . . . .... . . Percent Recovery of R1; (R1 /St)X 100 Acceptance Limits. . . . Statistically determined on an annual basis. DEL MAR ANALYTICAL 1 B-3Il = = M Mom r M M m m =k � Del MarAnalytical ° 1852A11at Ave..Irvine.CA 9711E 17141261.1022 FAR(11E1261-1228 101E E.Cooley Dr..Sw1e A.C04M.CA 9737E 19091570-4667 FAX(9091 SM 10E6 1652S Sherman Way.SuLte C.11.Van Nuyf.CA 91E06 18181779-18EE FANIGISITMI645 2E65 W.12th St..Suhe t.lempe.AZ 8S281 16021969 8272 FA){1601190 I SSB CHAIN OF CUSTODY FORM Client ame/Address• l Project/PO Number: •/ l Z(,�3 .y Analysis Required b NYeAw l f ► C-L CK S2,64$ Project Manager/Phone Number: Sampler: M11C:- • cr �M N sew Sample Sample Container #of Sampling Preservatives ll Description Matrix Type Cont DalefTime 0.1 v Special Instructions Ito v N tL 2-3— Z t Ct !-L 61A-�oC�✓ �Ie— S'—3 l to r(t3 - 2- ` 3 L( t� 1� 3 '3'Z ( UZ ° Relin uis d y: Date/Time:+ d by: Date/Ti e: Turnaround Time: (check) �/3� 's", M 330 same day 72 hours h Date/Time: R e' by: Date/T ne: 24 hours 5 days V 1 48 hours normal Re ed Date[Time: Received in Lab by: Date/Time: Sample Integr'ty: (Check) c � J / intact ✓ on Ice t/ Del MarAnalytical . C 28S2A110n Aw.VAne.CA92114 17141261-1022 FAX17 1 41 261-112 8 1014 E.Coolq Or..Smote A.Cullen.CA 92514 19091 310 4651 FA a 19091 310.1046 16SIS SAe.man Way.Sulle C 11.Van Nuys.CA 91406 18161 119-1044 FAX 1816)119 1843 3465 W.12111 St..Sulle 1.Tempe.AZ 85781 (6021 968 8 212 FAX 16031968 1535 CHAIN OF CUSTODY FORM Clie t Name/Add ess: ProjecUPO Number: + rn�tr l Qr7.,y� Analysis Required Project Mana er/Phone Number: Sampler: Sample Sample Container #of Sampling Preservatives QQ Description Matrix Type Cont Date/Time Special Instructions All,VV, w w Relinquished Date/Time: Dat /Tit T by: Turnaround Time: (check) e 3 ; +N'� 0 same day 72 hours li�ed By: Date/Time: e( y: D T1me:/ 24 hours 5 days eyrS^S� 48 hours normal R ' ui B Date Rime: Received' Lab by: Date/Time: Sample Inte ity: (Check) i r 0ft FR1 FR2 FR3 FR1-1-3 FR2-4-4 FRi-3-1 FR2-1-3 FR2-2-1 FR3-1-4 - FR3-3-1 &2 • FR1-2-2 FR2-3-2&2A 0 FR3-2-3 • •FR3-4-S FR2-5-1 &3 w 4 FIRING RANGE CROSS-SECTION 6' E 27' - N- f LEGEND Ameridean Environmental SCALE (FEET) SOIL BORING LOCATION AND HUNTINGTON BEACH FIRING RANGE *FR1-3:1 SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION SAMPLE LOCATION MAP 0 10 20 30 Firing Range Section-Sample No.-Sample Depth (ft) FIGURE 1 r mow. ... ---":rc i,' .'�".:_!d! _:iya't`:.'?►�..r:.�.c� �..- .. e-rurv:- .+t_ or Imo'`_.. ._• _�:' �tom► I Nr t �Photo 1: Head-on view of FRI with wooden posts in background W ■ .1, ..!i 1' r� I a , t 1 `:�„�_:.�r.''r;;e 7`.'s,� d.:..,,y :i.• S�^. y - . .�. r .r � I �d ( t � ' , 1j' J, ; ;�,f 1 �act S�,J- t. t} - ram,, ;''•' , f. d ,� I�I�A�iI t` ��yl i �'�r �( f' tir♦ 7 � r• r:4.i F t- � �r �-� - r i �,J�` �' , 'It4 � y((O ! l�f. r./{ 5 t �r�_� fI ' 'Itrr S..`- ;. r •i1'l ,�. . ,�` 1 ter,. ..rtG r�{ ,' � -F'. r` x ^��Ff'�, 11�� I( ` Y/ ':."r• 1 r �r �!`r ��f' / �.� �� ffl /t L t wl r[ r�l• �.� ti N t c/� �), A.. �•.';� Jl'• 1 '_� (I_ '` x.y`�jt�'�T�• ',� � k �.3'}�'-'F 1, //, `' t, 1?'I ; �1 Olt �Y J/ '� ��l�l� wf.t.�• �` t �� 1.,� r � )) / l i r j •��, �{. �„I��. ill ig /�, .� /! f r rot �.rt � �' �•+• ym ~ •� � ��•.�. ,.!'fit-4:a''r. r/ ,� ,. r i .. �: i �+�.,� r ' ,}fit � ,,��:°j- �• % 1 1='� , - -i.;:�Lr r cl..a• - C� Fi �.�f��/p. /�/ t i4` E7��� :1 • iai • �i -r �. r ti J. ^ .f r.t4''+y /(r. .[ furl ,�� � j�l��r-. . '�! ,) L!!i y:f :4, I�� I c ` I I 't � N'�.f P Rt2Ih.. "iI-� ,n • Z W a a Q Page: 2 URBEMIS 2001 For Windows 6.2.2 File Name. C. \Program Files\URBEMIS 2001 For Windows\Projects2k\Gun Range 1 Project Name: Gun Range Alternative B Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) DETAIL REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) iCONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Source ROG NOx CO PM10 SO2 Demolition - - - 0.54 - ' Site Grading 6.47 93.14 - 34.01 13.10 Const. Worker Trips 2.33 3.30 6.26 0.63 Stationary Equip 0.34 0.27 - 0.02 0.00 ' Mobile Equip. - Gas 0.00 0.00 = 0.00 0.00 . Mobile Equip. - Diesel 3.16 30.72 2.64 2.40 Architectural Coatings 0.00 Asphalt Offgassing 0.14 - - - - ' TOTALS(lbs/day,unmitigated) 12.44 127.44 6.26 37.84 15.51 1 ' C-1 Page: 3 URBEMIS 2001 For Windows 6.2.2 File Name: C:\Program Files\URBEMIS 2001 For Windows\Projects2k\Gun Range Project Name: Gun Range Alternative B Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) DETAIL REPORT ' (Tons/Year) CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Source ROG NOx CO PM10 S02 Demolition - - - 0.00 - Site Grading 0.81 11.64 - 4.25 1.64 Const. Worker Trips 0.29 0.41 0.78 0.08 - Stationary Equip 0.04 0.03 - 0.00 0.00 Mobile Equip. - Gas 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 Mobile Equip. - Diesel 0.40 3.84 - 0.33 0.30 ' Architectural Coatings 0.00 - - - - Asphalt Offgassing 0.00 - - - - TOTALS (tpy, unmitigated) 1.54 15.93 0.78 4.66 1.94 C-2 ' age: 1 URBEMIS 2001 For Windows 6.2.2 file Name: C:\Program Files\URBEMIS 2001 For Windows\Projects 2k\Gun Range 2 Project Name: Gun Range Alternative C F roject Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) DETAIL REPORT (Pounds/Day - Winter) CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Source ROG NOx CO PM10 SO2 Demolition - - - 0.54 ' Site Grading 6.47 93.14 - 34.01 13.10 Const. Worker Trips 3.09 4.38 8.30 0.84 - Stationary Equip 0.34 0.27 0.02 0.00 Mobile Equip. - Gas 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 Mobile Equip. - Diesel 3.68 37.68 _ 3.04 2.94 Architectural Coatings 0.00 Asphalt Offgassing 0.14 - - - - TOTALS(lbs/day,unmitigated) 13.73 135.47 8.30 38.44 16.04 1 r ' C-3 Page: 2 r URBEMIS 2001 For Windows 6.2.2 File Name: C: \Program Files\URBEMIS 2001 For Windows\Projects2k\Gun Range Project Name: Gun Range Alternative C Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) DETAIL REPORT ' (Pounds/Day - Summer) i CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ' Source ROG NOx CO PM10 SO2 Demolition - - - 0.54 - Site Grading 6.47 93.14 - 34.01 13.10 ' Const. Worker Trips 3.09 '4.38 8.30 0.84 - _ Stationary Equip 0.34 0.27 - 0.02 0.00 Mobile Equip. - Gas 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 Mobile Equip. - Diesel 3.68 37.68 - 3.04 2.94 Architectural Coatings 0.00 - - - - Asphalt Offgassing 0.14 - - - TOTALS(lbs/day,unmitigated) 13.73 135.47 8.30 36.44 16.04 1 . i r i 1 1 1 i 1 1 C-4 , ,Page: 3 URBEMIS 2001 For Windows 6.2.2 'File Name: C:\Program Files\URBEMIS 2001 For Windows\Projects2k\Gun Range 2 Project Name: Gun Range Alternative C 'Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) DETAIL REPORT (Tons/Year) 'CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Source ROG NOx CO PM10 SO2 Demolition - - - 0.00 - Site Grading 0.81 11.64 - 4.25 1.64 Const. Worker Trips 0.39 0.55 1.04 0.10 Stationary Equip 0.04 0.03 - 0.00 0.00 Mobile Equip. - Gas 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 Mobile Equip. - Diesel 0.46 4.71 - 0.36 0.37 Architectural Coatings 0.00 - - - - Asphalt Offgassing 0.00 - - - - ' TOTALS (tpy, unmitigated) 1.70 16.93 1.04 4.74 2.01 1 C-5 Page: 2 URBEMIS 7G For Windows 5.1.0 File Name: C: \Program Files\URBEMIS 7G For Windows\Projects\Huntington Gun 1a Project Name: Huntington Beach Gun Range Construction Air Quality 10-100972 Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) ' SUMMARY REPORT (Pounds/Day - Winter) r AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ' ROG NOx CO PM10 SOX TOTALS(lbs/day,unmitigated) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO PM10 TOTALS (ppd, unmitigated) 1.56 1.75 13.91 0.78 TOTALS (ppd, mitigated) 1.40 1.57 12.46 0.70 1 C-6 ' Page: 1 URBEMIS 7G For Windows 5.1.0 file Name: C:\Program Files\URBEMIS 7G For Windows\Projects\Huntington Gun Re Project Name: Huntington Beach Gun Range Construction Air Quality 10-100972 �roject Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) SUMMARY REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) RREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO PM10 SOX 'TOTALS(lbs/day,unmitigated) 0.10 0.01 0.69 0.00 0.00 PERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO PM10 TOTALS (ppd, unmitigated) 1.01 1.50 8.55 0.78 TOTALS (ppd, mitigated) 0.90 1.34 7.66 0.70 1 . 1 . r Page: 3 URBEMIS 7G For Windows 5.1.0 File Name• C: \Program Files\URBEMIS 7G For Windows\Projects\Huntington Gun Project Name: Huntington Beach Gun Range Construction Air Quality 10-100972 Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) ' SUMMARY REPORT (Tons/Year) AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO PM10 SOX TOTALS (tpy, unmitigated) 0.01 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 , OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES , ROG NOx CO PM10 TOTALS (tpy, unmitigated) 0.22 0.29 1.89 0.14 TOTALS (tpy, mitigated) 0.20 0.26 1.69 0.13 r C-8 ' i Z W a a Q r ■■� Hr mK w;:X-n 1 lots ;-to r+ - • � ""^� - - - - - TI M E WARN LR ' G O m W U v I C .l T I O v 5 ' FAX COVER SHEET NLNi BE OF PAGES: (INCLD COVER) DATE: _ J� _ TO: Q�An( �N I r�iM5 TDAE: _ FROZE: �i�r� A14ANEA SUB1ECT: f� &*1 Jsc-s 1 iIF YOU 00 NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES OF T'rilS MESSAGE PRASE CALL. ' CONS-mLlCTICN MIKE PURSELL 903-8309 81LL JANKOWSK 1903-8336 DAVE OOLNEY 903-8347 CHRIS DCNNELY 903-8307 JIM SCOTT 903-8241 MCI NGUYEN 903-8338 I ESUE SAN T IA 903-8340 MANDO PICON 903-8339 GENE:'�AL FAX 903-8260 D-1 CABLE SERVICE QUESTIONNAIRE ' Please respond to the following questions on your agency/company letterhead and provide ' maps to illustrate facility locations. 1. What is the present service area and/or locations of your facilities? Are any of these , facilities within the proposed project boundaries as shown on the attached Site Vicinity map? Ex rSriA)f' FACr�ir�LS f.�GAT6D oiu ?,�L86lt.T AV6 To �Tifl6 i✓oar�r iaN� GarN/lhb AAJ6 o0 -TN6 6k5l - 100 FAC(L(T(65 WITK-10IJ C ANG/4/Ltes 2. What is the present capacity and/or nature of your facilities? (Please provide any available information necessary to evaluate existing conditions in the project area and potential impacts). JJ0 1A.PAct. Guru. SbILvIcZ- 1PAOC --f oN�Y rF co�A�►�T ,s P�•vc6D F'��, 0CAX eATT "c.Ar/QN Tv_ Pm locr s/7-b . 3. Please provide estimated cable consumption factors on the basis of the information , provided? 4. Do you anticipate any project related impacts to your facilities in the service area? If so, ' please list/summarize additions or modifications. 5. Do you anticipate any short-term construction related impacts to the service area, such as the possible disruption of services? 6. Do you require or recommend any mitigation measures for any project impacts noted ' above? A16 7. Is there any other relevant information regarding potential impacts of the project? /Vo 1 D-2 HF'h�-b�-GI�F�l 1J+C' nun i 1 ivu i un Drzm�,n CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' 2000 Main Street P . O . Box 190 Huntington Beach , CA ' 92648 ' F A X COVER SHEET DATE: April 5, 2001 TO: RBF Consulting FAX: 949-837-4122 ATTN: Alan Ashimine FROM: Todd Broussard PHONE: 714-536-5247 Associate Civil Engineer FAX: 714-374-1573 RE: Former Gun Range Cleanup — CC1137 1 Number of pages including cover sheet: 1 1 Message rIn regards to your letter dated April 2, 2001, due to the nature of the referenced project, no impacts are expected relevant to domestic water, reclaimed water, storm water drainage, or sewer services. Should you have any further questions in this regard, please do not hesitate to contact me directly. Thank you G:\CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS (CCS)1CC1137\CORRES%FAXES%F010405 RBF.DOC 1 D-3 TOTAL P.01 (1Nht-11—�F�F�1 15;02 NUN I 1 NU 1 U14 L i Dnn1n 1 J� & Library Services Department ea Estabrished 1909—Providing access to Education, Information curd Cultural Enrichment , City of Huntington Beach lion Hayden Director of Library Services ' April 9,2001 ' Alan Ashimine Environmental Analyst Subject: Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park Dear Mr. Ashimine: The following information is in answer to your questionnaire: 1 1. What is the present service area and/or locations of the Library facility that would serve the project site:? Huntington Beach Central Library and Cultural Center located at 7111 Talbert Avenue. ' 2. What is the present capacity of your facility? (Please provide any available information necessary to evaluate existing conditions in the project area and potential impacts). Present capacity is ample to address any impacts. 3. What is the projected demand for the project based upon the information provided? Minimal 4. Do you anticipate any project related impacts to your facility? Specifically,will the proposed project impact service or require new or modified facilities? If so,please ' list/summarize additions or modifications. The project may impact Library, theater and children's programs. ' 5. Do you require or recommend any mitigation measures for any project impacts noted in items 3,4, or 5? ' See#6 Methane Mitigation o-roN Bum PUBLIC LIBRARY S Y S T E M HUDrrW ' Central Library and Cultural Center 7111 Talbert Ave. HB 92648 (714) 842-4481 Fax (714) 375-5180 Branches: Banning 375-5005 • Graham 375-5006 • Main St. 375-5071 • Oak View 375-5068 ' D-4 HI"'K-11—�bVJ 1 1'•YJG nui v t nu ui u�n...i �a u. . - 1 ' 6. Is there any other relevant information regarding potential significant impacts of the project? Current Library site has ']passive"methane mitigation. Any construction or activity on proposed site must not create any additional methane or environmental problems at the Library site. Very truly yours. A r ' Ron Hayd Library Services Manager 1 1 ' D-S TOTAL P.02 HF'k—lb-c4�4�1 1�►•r1G nuiv 1 livu i UIN 1JLP9t.l I I u _ _-- -_-- _-- • CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH � 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 ' P.O. BOX 70 POLICE DEPARTMENT Tel: (714) 960-8811 RONALD E. LOWENBERG Chief of Police April 10, 2001 Mr. Alan Ashimine Environmental Analyst RBF Consulting Dear Mr. Ashimine: The following are responses to your questionnaire: ' 1. The police facility is located at 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach ' (corner of Main and Yorktown, map attached). 2. The police facility serves the entire population of 200,000 over the 27 square miles. ' 3. The department currently has 234 sworn police officers, 150 civilian employees and 65 black-and-white patrol units. 4. The response time to a location is approximately 5 minutes or less from any part of the city. 5. The answer to question #5 is "no." 6. None that I am aware of. ' 7. Same. 8. No. Sincerely, RONALD E. LOWENBERG Chief of Police e4. 0. jv-,� . I J.W. ARNOLD, Captain Special Operations Division Commander ' REL:JWA DRUG USE Is D-6 ' MH11vauw d I D L5, DISPOSAL. CO., INC. P.O. BOX 1026 • HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92647-1026 • PH: (714) 847-3581 FAX: (714) 841-4660 April'11,2001 ' Alan Ashimine Environmental Analyst FAX: 949 937-4122 ' Re: Former Gun Range Within Huntington Central Park ' Dear Mr. Ashimine Enclosed please find Rainbow Disposal's response to your letter dated April 2, 2001 in which you requested information for an EIR regarding potential impacts of Solid Waste Disposal Services for the above referenced project_ ' If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at(714) 847-3581,Ext. 245. ' Sincerely Sandra Jacobs Recycling Coordinator/Executive Admin ' 2105SJJ:JM Enclosure ' PAINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER A D-7 nrm-ie--cunt 11•JG .n,i.u�w RAINBOW DISPOSAL'S SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ' QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE 1 1. Which landfills are presently used in disposal of solid waste from the project area vicinity? Does the landfill(s) have sufficient permitted ' capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? A. Frank R. Bowerman and Brea 01inda Landfills 'B. Yes 2. What is the estimated solid waste.generation based upon information provided? Insufficient data to calculate generation. 3. Will solid waste pick-up be available for the project? Yes, as long as access is guaranteed. 4. Do you anticipate any impacts of the project with respect to solid waste ' service? No S. Do you have any required or recommended mitigation measures for any ' significant impacts? No 6. Is there any other relevant information regarding significant projects impacts? No 7. What federal, state, and local statutes and regulations would the proposed ' project be required to comply with? Yes,the City of Huntington Beach Ordinances for waste removal. ' PRINTED ON RFrvri ED PAPER A D-8 of Trustees: HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION - RECEIVED Board aBonne Castey t� a �* Sallie HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT APR 16 2001 Matthew Harper * Susan Henry Z " 10251 Yorktown Avenue • Huntington Beach, CaliforniaRBF CONSULTING Michael Simons �. oN s 92646-2999 (714)964-3339 FAX(714)963-7684 Susan J.Roper,Ed.D.,Superintendent of Schools ' April 11 , 2001 SCHOOL FACILITIES ' QUESTIONNAIRE ' Please respond to the following questions,on your agency/company letterhead and provide maps to illustrate facility locations. ' 1. Please indicate the name and location of schools which are available to serve the project site. Ocean View High School ' 17071 Gothard Street Huntington Beach, CA 92647 2. What is the current enrollment of each school in the vicinity of the project, and what is ' the distance of the school from the project site? Enrollment: Fall 2000 1 ,569 ' Distance: 1 .4 miles 3. What are the student generation rates for the proposed project? Will new facilities be ' required? The District does not have a student generation rate for open space. The impact of this project would be 'negligible. 4. In consideration of A.B. 2926, are there any assessment fees or other required or recommended mitigation measures for the project? ' The District charges a commercial fee of $0. 1287 per square foot for non-residential development. ' 5. is there any other relevant information regarding significant project impacts? ' No 6. Do you anticipate that project implementation would result in the need for physical additions to your agency (i.e., construction of new school facilities) No ' Respondent -- / P 1 . ft i Cl a Reid Koch, Ph. Assistant Superintendent, Business Services The mission of the HBUMD is to educate all students in response to our diverse community expectations by ensuring relevant and focused educational programs that develop responsible,productive and creative ' individuals with a capacity for leadership. D-9 Huntington Beach Union High School District High school attendance areas 1 1 Garden Grove Blvd. a Ga�•n Grades 9-12: N Trask 22 o I<I I . 1 1 1. Huntington Beach H.S. Westminster Blvd. co W STMI STE 1905 Main St., H.B.92648-2705 Nary a R - > 'Ic (714)536-2514 a 'd t Hazard N ' z U.S.Naval Weapons Station ` : A 2. Westminster H.S. Bolas 14325 Goldenwest St..Wm.92683-4999 MA INA McFadden (714)893-1381 ie E © Eding r 0 3. Marina N.S. a m 15871 Springdale, H.B.92649-1797 n Nell An (714)893-6571 a W ; 0 .m. 3 Wa ner 4. Fountain Valley H.S. 17816 Bushard, F.V.92708-4598 s+rwroaao^- ° Slater 'S t (714)962-3301 PONSorUNS OCEAN VIEW m Talbert 5. Edison H.S.and m FOUNTAIN VALL Special Abilities Cluster \\ a ails 21400 Magnolia, H.B.92646-6343 HUNTINGTON m (714)962-1356 BEACH Mw"d 6. ' Ocean View H.S. O ; r nnown s 17071 Gothard,H.B.92647-5486 d e ' z r (714)848-0656 �iJ., �oC, Adams °o ' oy �c J Indianapolis m CO 7. Valley Vista H.S.(Continuation) O 9600 Dolphin Ave., F.V.92708-4603 c'�o EDISON 1 (714)964-7766 �'� ' Atlanta MamUton S. Coast High School(Alternative)/Adult School 16666 Tunstall Lane,H.B. 92647-4418 (714)842-4779(Coast H.S.) (714)847-2873(Adult School) 9. District Office 10251 Yorktown Ave.,H.B.92646-2926 ' (714)964-3339;Guidance: Ext.4261 Feeder Districts, Grades K-8: • Fountain Valley Elementary, 17210 Oak Suet, Fountain Valley,CA 92708 (114)843-3200 ' • Huntington Beach City Elementary, 20451 Crainner Lane, Huntington Beach,CA 92646 (714)964-8888 • Ocean View Elementary, 17200 Pinehurst lane. Huntington Beach,CA 92647 (714)847-2551 ' • Westminster Elementary, 14121 Cedarwood Avenue,Westminster,CA 92683 (714)894-7311 (Rev.7/99) D-10 , : ¢ RECEIVED .,7'n SOUTHERN CALIFORNlA E D I S O N APR IS 2001 An EDISON INTERNATIONAL'"Company RgF CONSULTING ' April 16, 2001 ' RBF Consulting 14725 Alton Pkwy Irvine, Ca 92618-2027 ' Attn: Alan Ashimine Subject: Former Gun Range within Huntington Central Park Dear Mr. Ashimine: We have been requested to advise you that the Southern California Edison Company stands ready to install electrical distribution facilities within the subdivision known as Huntington Central Park in Huntington Beach, in the County of Orange, State of California, in accordance with the then applicable tariff schedules which are the ' effective rates and rules of the Southern California Edison Company on file with and approved by the California Public Utilities Commission and subject to the receipt of such permits or other authorizations from public agencies as may be required for such 1 installation. Also, rules hereinafter referred to in this letter include such changes, modifications, and amendments, which the Public Utilities Commission may from time to time direct in the exercise of its jurisdiction. Should a shortage of energy and/or generating capacity ever occur, the Utility would apportion its available supply of electricity among its customers as set forth in Rule No. 14, Shortage of Supply and Interruption of Delivery. When requested by the developer, underground facilities within the tract or parcel require advances under provisions set forth in Rule No. 15. Requirements for . ' advances from the developer for underground lines to reach the subdivision are set forth in Rule No. 15. An underground service lateral from the installed underground distribution system within the development to individual parcels will be in accordance ' with Rule No. 16. Should an individual applicant require service to his parcel prior to the installation of an underground distribution system to and within the development, as may be installed at the expense of a developer, or within a development for which the developer has undertaken no obligation for the installation of an underground distribution system, an advance will be required from the individual as set for in Rule No. 15. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (714) 895-0221. ' S' cerely, ri owles Design Service Representative Southern California Edison (714) 895-0221 ' 7333 Bolsa Ave. D-11 Westminster,CA 92683 04/23/01 09:39 The Gas A sem Garden Grave District ' FAX COVER SHEET GARDEN GROVE 1 BASS ORANGE COAST REGION ■ ■ DATE To A e-A ro ; _ C FAX g i- PHONE FROM_ FAX -820 - a PHONE 2iy -3 2 9- .�y.:?� r 1 , cc. sepvf!(- - 4 '<�j •)A t*rz COMNffiNTS D-12 04/23/01 09:39 +714 837 4122 APR 23 '01 08:12 TO-17148982173 FRM-RBF PLANNING T-211 P.04/04 F-450 ' GAS SERVICE QUESTIONNAIRE rPlease respond the following /lea pond to e questions on your agency company letterhead and provide maps to i llu6trate facility Imations. r 1. What is the present service area and/or locations of your facilities? Are any of these facilities within the proposed project boundaries as shown on the attached Site Vicinity map? 60---1 &-ve C_rpr h2.A wJ o^J �D to e:�10 c/ar� 1 2. What is the present capacity and/or nature of your facilities? (Please provide any available information necessary to evaluate existing conditions in the project area and potential impacts). r 3. Please provide estimated gas consumption factors on the basis of the information provided? 4. Do you anticipate any project related impacts to your facilities in the service area? If so, please list/summarize additions or modifications. 1 ' S. Do you anticipate any short-term construction related impacts to tiw service area, such as the possible disruption of services? 6. Do you require or recommend any mlt%ation measures for any project impact noted ' above? /V o r 7. Is there an other relevant information regarding potential impacts of the project? Y �d g P r r r D-13 04-25-01 05:14PM FROM-OF—ALTON REGEFUUN taaaarcnara i—cou r.uiiu& r FACSIMILE MES8AGE TO FOLLOW , TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES paTVrIME 2-5' ,(Includes Cover Shm) 5 k v SP NAME( mi. Last) FAA NO- T ,A� A 1412 3w) 3 ' O TELEPHONE NO. MAIL.CODE q 44 355--57/0 1 COMPANY NAME.AREA frOC,ATiON OR D P MENT ' O TELEPHONE NO. MAIL CODE M �l`f 37 5-io"7! cotes E.AREA.MMT-10N OR 11 IT Message Response-Urgent( ) For RevioM ) Please Comment( ) Please Reply( ) , REMARKS: D-14 ' 04-Z5-Ol W14rM MM-Kbr-ALIUK KtuniUK regtlaitoolo I-wu I .uc/VL ' APR 85 *01 10:51 TO.17148425253 NOM-MV PLANNING 1•:ni r.uaru4 r,ma TELEPHONE SERVICE ' QUFSTIONNAIRE ' Please respond to the following questions an your asencV/company letterheaJ and provide maps to Illustrate facility locations. 1. Please indicate the location of telephone lines within the immediate project vicinity. Mt hM 1't'P l-f- Sy SMM h N 6,07wkm ST FR PhRCOIL... ME (- ' qP'*k Ir1 L_ l- oN Tt�69-r ls5' N/o ?k oN 01x: n S Ma of PRo P 2. Do You anticipate any impacts of the project on telephone facilities or srrviees? If 50, please list/summarize additions or modifications. Will telephone servic;be available ' for the project !Jo impAcr /YFS l'ot SV4 Av al L- W, 0. &MRD 3. Do you have any required or recommended mlaption measures for significant impacts? ' /fib ' 4. Is dwr--ejjany other relevant information relpirding potential impacts of the projeal ND SJ PKA-CA- r � or" Gam ' d-, 1 1 D-15 ien-u tiy: hbk;bU AUMIN 0mrivll.caal - — HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT ' 20451 Craimer Lane. Huntington Beach.Celltomia 92646 (714)964-8888 PIP BOARD OF TRUSTEED Biiaii L.Rechsteiner ' President April 26,2001 firian Cariand (_:beak .niroirley rarey , Munoul Alan Ashimine RoWit Mann.Ed D Environmental Analyst Monlboi RFB Consulting , Catherine McGough 14725 Alton Parkway Member Leine,Ca 9261.8 ADIAMMi RAUM , Duane Distiriv,Er+13 Reference: Former Gun Range S iiperintenrtw Jerry Buchanan Car Mr. Ashlmine: ' Ah9iatant Superintendent Administrative Services The District responds to yaw questionnaire as follows.- Kathy Kessler ' Assistant nel S irvice a 1. The project is outside the District boundary and no schools would serve the {�f:rSnnflP.l.r1P.rViCP.S Lynn E3npsrt,Ed.D. project. The closest school would be Huntington Seacliff School, which is on Dinxior the corner of Garfield and Saddleback. ' runiculum and instruction Jam coruritl 2. Huntington Seacliff has 579 students K-5 and is one mile from the project. Director Adminisil'Al-ve 5e:rvicae+, 3. The site as proposed would generate no students for the Huntington Beach City ' School District. 4. The site as proposed would require no mitigation ' 5. Park and Recreation space is desperately needed in the City. 6. The District would require no physical addition ' Since ' �r eery Buchanan Assistant Superintendent , D-16 ' Ocean View School D * tr ' itoQOU17200 Pinehurst Lane District Superintendent Board of Trustees Huntington Beach James R.Ta►water. Ed.D. Carol Kanode, President California 92647-5569 Pam Ogdon, Clerk 714JO47-2551 Barbara Boskovich, Member ' Fax:714/847-1430 Tracy Pellman, Member -in Ouesl of Web:www.ovsd.org Pam Walker, Member Excellence" C�V� t Lk SCHOOL FACILITIES rr QUESTIONNAIRE Please respond to the following questions on your agency/company letterhead and provide maps to illustrate facility locations. 1. Please indicate the name and location of schools which are available to serve the project rsite. •\\o 4Cq- v. eso.. U .Asz ' 2. What is the current enrollment of each school in the vicinity of the project, and what is the distance of the school from the project site? b r V) o, ���a�. . ,�.��. �� \Q ' 3. What are the student generation rates for the proposed project? Will new facilities be required? r V4 4. In consideration of A.H. 2926, are there any assessment fees or other required or recommended mitigation measures for the projectt S. Is there any other relevant information regarding significant project impacts? 6. Do you anticipate that project Implementation would result in the need for physical additions to your agency (i.e„ construction of new school facilities) 1 1 r D-17