I V!1?1 1 ! !V !YT TZT T...Andy Cramer, CH2M Hill Warren Jung, Sacramento Suburban Water District...

I 1 ! !V !YT TZT T T r, r I

I

I V!1?1 IVIUULLLLAIN AFE1

I (H. ¶7 CAILTFOIRINIA 1II

I

I

A An TT (1 'flfl S rr,TX TT' fl T' ri flfl FI KLUUKL)1I COVER SHEET 1

I Al? 1cs1\Tiinn1nar.1 1k -I- II%i 1'LLIIILJ%ii

I

McClellan AR # of 36

7571

7571

MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTION

FROM: AFRPA Western Region Execution Center3411 Olson StreetMcClellan CA 95652-1003

SUBJECT: Restoration Advisory Board Meeting Minutes, 20 March 2012

Attached please find the final minutes from the 20 March 2012 McClellan RestorationAdvisory Board (RAB) meeting held at the North Highlands Recreation Center as approved bythe RAB members at the June 2012 meeting.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact Ms. Mary Hall, at (916) 643-1250,extension 232.

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCEAIR FORCE REAL PROPERTY AGENCY

JUN 2 6 2012

STEVEN K. MAYER, P.E.BRAC Environmental Coordinator

Attachments:Final Meeting Minutes, 20 March 2012

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR FORCE REAL PROPERTY AGENCY

MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTION

FROM: AFRPA w ·estern Region Execution Center 3411 Olson Street McClellan CA 95652-1003

JUN 2 6 2012

SUBJECT: Restoration Advisory Board Meeting Minutes, 20 March 2012

1. Attached please find the final minutes from the 20 March 2012 McClellan Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) meeting held at the North Highlands Recreation Center as approved by the RAB members at the June 2012 meeting.

2. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Ms. Mary Hall, at (916) 643-1250, extension 232.

~X~ STEVEN K. MAYER, P.E. BRAC Environmental Coordinator

Attachments : Final Meeting Minutes, 20 March 2012


DISTRIBUTION LISTFinal 20 March 2012 McClellan Restoration Advisory Board Meeting Minutes

Marilyn Erbes, Senior Field Representative, Congressman Dan LundgrenTrent Sunahara, Field Representative, Congresswoman [)oris Matsui

Charnjit Bhullar, US EPASi Chern, US EPAViola Cooper, US EPABob Fitzgerald. US EPABarbara Macu, US EPAJohn Harris, DTSCRadhika Majhail, DTSCStephen Pay. DTSCMarcus Simpson, DTSCMark Clardy, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control BoardJames Taylor, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board

Phil Mook, AFRPASteve Mayer. AFRPALinda Geissinger, AFRPAPaul Bernheisel, AFCEEJoe Ebert, AFCEE

McClellan Admin Record

Brian Sytsma, Air Force contractorMary Hall, Air Force contractor

Andy Cramer, CH2M 11111Warren Jung. Sacramento Suburban Water [)istrictMike Malone, TetraTechWarren Myhre, communityTodd Robinson. Sacramento Suburban Water District

Electronic Copies Hard Copy

Robert Blanchard, RAB Gary Collier, RABDana Booth, RAB Carolyn Gardner, RABWilliam Clements, RAB Tina Suarez-Murias, RABPaul Green, Jr., RAB Frederick Gayle, communityAlan Flersh, RAB Frank Miller, communityGlen Jorgensen. RAB Dave Jones, communityRandy Orzalli. RAI3Paul Plummer, RAB

DISTRIBUTION LIST Final20 March 2012 McClellan Restoration Advisory Board Meeting Minutes

Electronic Copies

Robert Blanchard, RAB Dana Booth, RAB William Clements, RAB Paul Green, Jr. , RAB Alan Hersh, RAB Glen Jorgensen, RAB Randy Orzalli , RAB Paul Plummer, RAB

Hard Copy

Gary Collier, .RAB Carolyn Gardner, RAB Tina Suarez-Murias, RAB Frederick Gayle, community Frank Miller, community Dave Jones, community

Marilyn Erbes, Senior Field Representative, Congressman Dan Lundgren Trent Sunahara, Field Representative, Congresswoman Doris Matsui

Charnjit Bhullar, US EPA SJ Chern, US EPA Viola Cooper, US EPA Bob Fitzgerald, US EPA Barbara Maco, US EPA John Harris, DTSC Radhika Majhail, DTSC Stephen Pay, DTSC Marcus Simpson, DTSC Mark Clardy, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Contro l Board James Taylor, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board

Phil Mook, AFRPA Steve Mayer, AFRPA Linda Geissinger, AFRPA Paul Bernheisel , AFCEE Joe Ebert, AFCEE

McClellan Admin Record

Brian Sytsma, Air Force contractor Mary Hall , Air Force contractor

Andy Cramer, CH2M Hill Warren Jung, Sacramento Suburban Water District Mike Malone, TetraTech Warren Myhre, community Todd Robinson, Sacramento Suburban Water District


McClellan Air Force Base (AFB)Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Meeting Minutes FINAL

20 March 2012 -- McClellan, California

Time: 6:30 PMPlace: North Highlands Recreation CenterNorth Highlands, California

RAB Member Attendees

NAME AFFILIATION

ROBERT BLANCHARD RIO LINDA COMMUNITY

DANA BOOTH SACRAMENTO COUNTY, LOCAL REUSE AUTHORITY

CHARNJIT BHULLAR U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)

GARY COLLIER WEST SIDE OF BASE, PARKER HOMES

GLENN JORGENSEN NORTH HIGHLANDS; COMMUNITY CO-CHAIR

STEVE MAYER AIR FORCE REAL PROPERTY AGENCY; CO-CHAIR

TINA SUAREZ-MURIAS ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY

RANDY ORZALLI EDUCATIONAL COMMUNITY

STEPHEN PAY CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL (DTSC)

JAMES TAYLOR CENTRAL VALLEY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

Welcome, Introductions and Agenda

Mr. Bill Davis welcomed everyone to the meeting and introduced himself as the meetingfacilitator. Attendees signed the sign-in sheet (Auachment 1), and picked up available handouts.Mr. Davis went over the agenda (Attachment 2) and the general format of the meeting, includinghow to be recognized as a speaker during the meeting and when to ask questions.

Mr. Davis invited the RAB members to introduce themselves and the stakeholder groups theyrepresent. He invited members of the audience to introduce themselves and state if they have aninterest in a particular issue.

December Minutes

Mr. Davis asked if there were any comments or changes to the December 2011 meeting minutes.There being no comments or changes, the minutes are considered approved.

McClellan Air Force Base (AFB) Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Meeting Minutes FINAL

20 March 2012 ··McClellan, California

Time: 6:30PM Place: North Highlands Recreation Center North Highlands, California

RAB Member Attendees NAME

ROBERT BLANCHARD

DANA BOOTH

CHARNJIT BHULLAR

GARY COLLIER

GLENN JORGENSEN

STEVE MAYER

TINA SUAREZ-MURIAS

RANDY ORZALLI

AFFILIATION

RIO LINDA COMMUNITY

SACRAMENTO COUNTY, LOCAL REUSE AUTHORITY

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)

WEST SIDE OF BASE, PARKER HOMES

NORTH HIGHLANDS; COMMUNITY CO-CHAIR

AIR FORCE REAL PROPERTY AGENCY; CO-CHAIR

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY

EDUCATIONAL COMMUNITY

STEPHEN PAY CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL (DTSC)

JAMES TAYLOR CENTRAL VALLEY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

I. Welcome, Introductions and Agenda Mr. Bill Davis welcomed everyone to the meeting and introduced himself as the meeting facilitator. Attendees signed the sign-in sheet (Attachment 1), and picked up available handouts. Mr. Davis went over the agenda (Attachment 2) and the general format of the meeting, including how to be recognized as a speaker during the meeting and when to ask questions.

Mr. Davis invited the RAB members to introduce themselves and the stakeholder groups they represent. He invited members ofthe audience to introduce themselves and state ifthey have an interest in a particular issue.

II. December Minutes Mr. Davis asked if there were any comments or changes to the December 2011 meeting minutes. There being no comments or changes, the minutes are considered approved .


Community Co-chair Update

Mr. Jorgensen welcomed everyone to the meeting and apologized for missing the last meetingdue to a schedule conflict. He noted that two public comment periods recently ended and addedthat anyone with questions about public comment periods is always welcome to contact theMcClellan community relations office and talk with Mary Hall, Brian Sytsma or LindaGeissinger. Community relations contact information is on the bottom of all public notices.

Air Force Cleanup Update

Field Review

Mr. Mayer discussed the Key Documents (Attachment 3). Only information and comments notpresented in the attachment are recorded in these minutes. Mr. Mayer referred the RAB to theField Review (Attachment 4) documents in the packet and invited them to review it on their own.

RAB discussion

Mr. Jorgensen asked if there would be more specific information available about the mitigationfor cleanup impacts to vernal pools in the ecological sites. He said the information he has seenso far has not had any specifics of what the mitigation would be. Mr. Meyer said the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Game serve in anadvisory capacity regarding cleanup activities around sensitive habitats. In this case, the AirForce asked the USFWS for a consultation to determine what mitigations might be required.Currently, in the Record of Decision (ROD), the Air Force is proposing that little mitigation isrequired. During development of the work plan, there likely will be site visits and discussions ofspecific cleanup actions and their proximity to vernal pools. Measures might need to be put inplace at that stage to protect the vernal pools. Details will have to be worked out at the work planstage.

Mr. Jorgensen noted that the Feasibility Study identified one or more vernal poois that would beeliminated. Mr. Meyer said that at site CS 007, vernal pools are above the landfill and will haveto be removed for that cleanup, so there will be some mitigation required for that. The AF willwork out the specifics, including offsets for the mitigation, in the work plan stage. In most cases,the Air Force will fund in perpetuity the set aside and preservation of vernal pools in the WestNature Area (WNA). The WNA will be set up as a nature conservancy and will need long-termfunding. Mitigation costs would go towards that.

Mr. Jorgensen asked if those details would be laid out in a publicly available document and Mr.Meyer said yes it would.

Ms. Suarez-Murias asked if there is an established ratio for protection. Mr. Meyer said hebelieves it is a 3:1 offset. If you take out 1/3 ofan acre of vernal pools, the mitigation would beto preserve I acre. She asked if the mitigation has to be on site? Mr. Meyer said it can be off site,but the Air Force has a vested interested in preserving the WNA, so it is the first choice. If theAir Force didn't have the WNA, then it would have to look at purchasing credits at offsitelocations for the mitigation.

MCCLELLAN AFB RAB MEETING PAGE 2 OF 8 20 MARCH 2012

Ill. Community Co-chair Update Mr. Jorgensen welcomed everyone to the meeting and apologized for missing the last meeting due to a schedule conflict. He noted that two public comment periods recently ended and added that anyone with questions about public comment periods is always welcome to contact the McClellan community relations office and talk with Mary Hall, Brian Sytsma or Linda Geissinger. Community relations contact information is on the bottom of all public notices.

IV. Air Force Cleanup Update Field Review

Mr. Mayer discussed the Key Documents (Attachment 3). Only information and comments not presented in the attachment are recorded in these minutes. Mr. Mayer referred the RAB to the Field Review (Attachment 4) documents in the packet and invited them to review it on their own.

RAB discussion

Mr. Jorgensen asked if there would be more specific information available about the mitigation for cleanup impacts to vernal pools in the ecological sites. He said the information he has seen so far has not had any specifics of what the mitigation would be. Mr. Meyer said the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Game serve in an advisory capacity regarding cleanup activities around sensitive habitats. In this case, the Air Force asked the USFWS for a consultation to determine what mitigations might be required. Currently, in the Record of Decision (ROD), the Air Force is proposing that little mitigation is required. During development of the work plan, there likely will be site visits and discussions of specific cleanup actions and their proximity to vernal pools. Measures might need to be put in place at that stage to protect the vernal pools. Details will have to be worked out at the work plan stage.

Mr. Jorgensen noted that the Feasibility Study identified one or more vernal pools that would be eliminated. Mr. Meyer said that at site CS 007, vernal pools are above the landfill and will have to be removed for that cleanup, so there will be some mitigation required for that. The AF will work out the specifics, including offsets for the mitigation, in the work plan stage. In most cases, the Air Force will fund in perpetuity the set aside and preservation of vernal pools in the West Nature Area (WNA). The WNA will be set up as a nature conservancy and will need long-term funding. Mitigation costs would go towards that.

Mr. Jorgensen asked if those details would be laid out in a publicly available document and Mr. Meyer said yes it would.

Ms. Suarez-Murias asked if there is an established ratio for protection. Mr. Meyer said he believes it is a 3:1 offset. Ifyou take out 1/3 of an acre ofvernal pools, the mitigation would be to preserve 1 acre. She asked if the mitigation has to be on site? Mr. Meyer said it can be off site, but the Air Force has a vested interested in preserving the WNA, so it is the first choice. If the Air Force didn ' t have the WNA, then it would have to look at purchasing credits at offsite locations for the mitigation.

MCCLELLAN AFB RAB MEETING PAGE2 OF8 20 MARCH 2012


Ms. Suarez-Murias noted that the WNA has vernal poois and sensitive habitats, and asked if itwouldn't already be protected? Mr. Meyer explained that it isn't necessarily protected, and thatis why it will be set aside as a nature conservancy. Funding is needed for the long-term care andmaintenance of it. The Air Force mitigation credits would go into an endowment that wouldprovide for that long-term care and maintenance.

Ms. Suarez-Murias asked where the Beaver Pond is. Mr. Meyer pointed it out on the map,indicating it is part of Don Julio Creek and is fed, in part, by discharge from the GWTP. Sheasked if it was natural? Mr. Meyer said he wasn't sure if the Air Force created it or if it was inthere before the Air Force acquired the property. She asked if the Air Force is maintaining it as adetention area. Mr. Meyer said yes. He noted that it gets quite a bit of waterfowl activity.

Mr. Collier said he had understood that all mitigation would be kept on base. He asked if anywould be off base. Mr. Meyer said the plan is to keep it on the base.

Mr. Booth asked if any of the Follow-on Strategic Site non-time-critical removal action(NTCRA) sites would need a biological opinion? Mr. Meyer said he needs to double check onthat. For the most part they are all industrial sites, but there could potentially be some impacts onthe west side of the base. It comes down to very site specific details that will have to be lookedat.

Questions from the public

There were not questions from the audience.

V. Local Reuse Authority Activities

Mr. Booth updated on the status of the gateway projects and referred to two figures (Attachments5 and 6). Only information and comments not presented in the attachment are recorded in theseminutes. He noted the goal is to complete the pathway from the east to the west side of the basealong Dudley Blvd.

Mr. Booth said Mr. Hersh and elected officials from the county are in Washington D.C. trying tosecure funding for the continuation of the Dudley Blvd. project and other projects.

RAB discussion

Mr. Meyer asked how the change in the redevelopment agencies has impacted McClellanprojects. Mr. Booth said the gateway projects were funded with federal grants leveraged withlocal dollars from McClellan Business Park and Sacrament Housing and Redevelopment Agency(SHRA). Now that SHRA doesn't exist anymore. other alternatives are being explored. TheDudley Blvd. improvements scheduled for this summer are already funded and will moveforward. The question is how to get the matching dollars for the future sections.

Mr. Collier asked how the loss of the redevelopment agency would affect the residents in hisarea, Parker Homes, which has a memorandum of understanding (MOU) in place forredevelopment. Mr. Booth said commissions are being formed to appropriately dissolve theredevelopment agencies. Part of their jobs will be to go through legal agreements encumberedby the redevelopment agencies and make sure they are handled appropriately. Regarding the


Ms. Suarez-Murias noted that the WNA has vernal pools and sensitive habitats, and asked if it wouldn't already be protected? Mr. Meyer explained that it isn't necessarily protected, and that is why it will be set aside as a nature conservancy. Funding is needed for the long-term care and maintenance of it. The Air Force mitigation credits would go into an endowment that would provide for that long-term care and maintenance.

Ms. Suarez-Murias asked where the Beaver Pond is. Mr. Meyer pointed it out on the map, indicating it is part of Don Julio Creek and is fed, in part, by discharge from the GWTP. She asked if it was natural? Mr. Meyer said he wasn't sure if the Air Force created it or if it was in there before the Air Force acquired the property. She asked if the Air Force is maintaining it as a detention area. Mr. Meyer said yes. He noted that it gets quite a bit of waterfowl activity.

Mr. Collier said he had understood that all mitigation would be kept on base. He asked if any would be off base. Mr. Meyer said the plan is to keep it on the base.

Mr. Booth asked if any of the Follow-on Strategic Site non-time-critical removal action (NTCRA) sites would need a biological opinion? Mr. Meyer said he needs to double check on that. For the most part they are all industrial sites, but there could potentially be some impacts on the west side of the base. It comes down to very site specific details that will have to be looked at.


There were not questions from the audience.

V. Local Reuse Authority Activities Mr. Booth updated on the status ofthe gateway projects and referred to two figures (Attachments 5 and 6). Only information and comments not presented in the attachment are recorded in these minutes. He noted the goal is to complete the pathway from the east to the west side of the base along Dudley Blvd.

Mr. Booth said Mr. Hersh and elected officials from the county are in Washington D.C. trying to secure funding for the continuation of the Dudley Blvd. project and other projects.

RAB discussion

Mr. Meyer asked how the change in the redevelopment agencies has impacted McClellan projects. Mr. Booth said the gateway projects were funded with federal grants leveraged with local dollars from McClellan Business Park and Sacrament Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA). Now that SHRA doesn ' t exist anymore, other alternatives are being explored. The Dudley Blvd. improvements scheduled for this summer are already funded and will move forward. The question is how to get the matching dollars for the future sections.

Mr. Collier asked how the loss of the redevelopment agency would affect the residents in his area, Parker Homes, which has a memorandum of understanding (MOU) in place for redevelopment. Mr. Booth said commissions are being formed to appropriately dissolve the redevelopment agencies. Part of their jobs will be to go through legal agreements encumbered by the redevelopment agencies and make sure they are handled appropriately. Regarding the

MCCLELlAN AFB RAB MEETING PAGE3 OF 8 20 MARCH 2012


MOU, Mr. Booth said that is something the commission would have to investigate if it didinvolve the SHRA.

Mr. Collier asked what he and his community can do to protect their interests? He said he wantsCongresswoman Doris Matsui to know that he and his community are concerned. He asked ifMr. Booth could talk with him more later. Mr. Booth agreed.


There were no clarification questions from the public.

Privatized Cleanup Update

Mr. Rhullar gave a presentation on the status of the Privatized Cleanup projects (Attachment 7).Only information and comments not presented in the attachment are recorded in these minutes.

Mr. Bhullar informed the RAB that Yvonne Fong, who has been one of the EPA remedialprogram managers for many years, has moved to different projects within the EPA and would nolonger be working on McClellan. She asked that he tell the RAB that she enjoyed working withthe RAB and will miss working with them in the future. He said Mr. S.J. Chern will be the newEPA remedial program manager.

RAB discussion

Mr. Collier noted that he will miss having Ms. Fong involved in the McClellan cleanup. He saidshe has been very good for the community and very open about the cleanup process.

Ms. Suarez-Murias asked if specific cleanup sites are shown on the FOSET #2 map in thepresentation. Mr. Booth replied that he supplied that map to EPA and it does not have thespecific cleanup sites. It has buildings, parcels, parcel names, transfer status and otherinformation. Mr. Meyer noted it is a real estate map.

Ms. Hall referred her to the poster that shows the FOSET #2 project with the InstallationRestoration Program sites overlaid in red. Mr. Meyer noted that while all those sites are IRPsites, some are no further action sites, so they do not all need cleanup actions. The coloring isnot indicative of where the sites are in the process.



Regulatory Update

Mr. Pay noted that Mr. Frank Lopez, the DTSC remedial project manager for privatized cleanup,will be retiring in May. Mr. Pay will notify the RAB when a replacement has been named.

Mr. Taylor said that Ms. Conny Mitterhoffer, CVRWQCB project manager for the Davis GlobalTransmitter site, has moved to the State Water Board and Mr. Mark Clardy has been named thenew project manager for the Davis site.


MOU, Mr. Booth said that is something the commission would have to investigate if it did involve the SHRA.

Mr. Collier asked what he and his community can do to protect their interests? He said he wants Congresswoman Doris Matsui to know that he and his community are concerned. He asked if Mr. Booth could talk with him more later. Mr. Booth agreed.



VI. Privatized Cleanup Update Mr. Bhullar gave a presentation on the status of the Privatized Cleanup projects (Attachment 7). Only information and comments not presented in the attachment are recorded in these minutes.

Mr. Bhullar informed the RAB that Yvonne Pong, who has been one ofthe EPA remedial program managers for many years, has moved to different projects within the EPA and would no longer be working on McClellan. She asked that he tell the RAB that she enjoyed working with the RAB and will miss working with them in the future. He said Mr. S.J. Chern will be the new EPA remedial program manager.

RAB discussion

Mr. Collier noted that he will miss having Ms. Fong involved in the McClellan cleanup. He said she has been very good for the community and very open about the cleanup process.

Ms. Suarez-Murias asked if specific cleanup sites are shown on the FOSET #2 map in the presentation. Mr. Booth replied that he supplied that map to EPA and it does not have the specific cleanup sites. Jt has buildings, parcels, parcel names, transfer status and other information. Mr. Meyer noted it is a real estate map.

Ms. Hall referred her to the poster that shows the FOSET #2 project with the Installation Restoration Program sites overlaid in red. Mr. Meyer noted that while all those sites are IRP sites, some are no further action sites, so they do not all need cleanup actions. The coloring is not indicative of where the sites are in the process.



VII. Regulatory Update Mr. Pay noted that Mr. Frank Lopez, the DTSC remedial project manager for privatized cleanup, will be retiring in May. Mr. Pay will notify the RAB when a replacement has been named.

Mr. Taylor said that Ms. Conny Mitterhoffer, CVR WQCB project manager for the Davis Global Transmitter site, has moved to the State Water Board and Mr. Mark Clardy has been named the new project manager for the Davis site.



VIII. McClellan Non-time-critical Removal Action

Mr. Mayer gave a presentation on the Non-time-critical Removal Action projects at McClellan(Attachment 8). Only information and comments not presented in the attachment are recorded inthese minutes.

RAB discussion

Ms. Suarez-Murias asked if there was contamination in the sewer line from Building 252 to thetreatment plant. Mr. Meyer said the project does include cleanup along the sewer alignment. Ms.Suarez-Murias asked if there were incinerators on the base and if they had all been tested. Mr.Meyers said there were several on base and they had all been tested and investigated.

Regarding CS-b she asked if there would be acceptance criteria for soils going into theconsolidation unit. Mr. Meyer said yes there would be and certain contaminants or highconcentrations of certain contaminants would be shipped offsite for disposal.

Mr. Jorgensen asked if sites CS 067, 043, and 052 are in the West Nature Area (WNA). Mr.Meyer said they are not. Patrol Road is the western boundary of the WNA and those sites are alleast of Patrol Road, in an industrial area near the CS-10 tent and the fire training area. He noted,however, that even in that area, they have to evaluate the site for the presence of vernal pools.

Mr. Collier asked ask how the Air Force is differentiating what is going on with contaminants inthe creeks outside of the base. He said it is known from worm studies that stuff from the AirForce made it off the base. He also asked when Building 252 will be demolished and if he canwatch it. Mr. Meyer said the Air Force will send out an email when the demolition is scheduledso that folks who are interested can watch.

Regarding the off base creeks, Mr. Meyer said the Air Force analyzed sediments in the creeksand did not find any contaminants above background levels in the transitional areas of the creeksthat would indicate that contaminants had moved further downstream. The areas andcontaminants the Air Force is cleaning from the creeks are closer to the source areas

Mr. Collier asked if previous results are being disregarded. Mr. Meyer said they took sedimentsfrom the creeks and crayfish samples from the creeks and did not find anything above naturallyoccurring levels.

Mr. Jorgensen asked if radium could have gotten into the groundwater, Mr. Meyers said thatwas studied and there was no evidence of any radium above background levels. Mr. Taylor saidradium strongly adheres to soil particles and is relatively immobile in the environment.

Ms. Suarez-Murias asked if the land would be deed restricted for future use. Mr. Meyer said notif the cleanup achieves unrestricted release, which is the goal. He noted that there is a lot ofinterest in developing, AOC 314, and once the cleanup is complete and the Final Status SurveyReport confirms that the cleanup goals have been met, it will be released for unrestricted use.There will not be any institutional controls required.

Mr. Pay confirmed that the consolidation unit at CS-b would not be released for unrestricteduse.


VIII. McClellan Non-time-critical Removal Action Mr. Mayer gave a presentation on the Non-time-critical Removal Action projects at McClellan (Attachment 8). Only information and comments not presented in the attachment are recorded in these minutes.

RAB discussion

Ms. Suarez-Murias asked if there was contamination in the sewer line from Building 252 to the treatment plant. Mr. Meyer said the project does include cleanup along the sewer alignment. Ms. Suarez-Murias asked if there were incinerators on the base and if they had all been tested. Mr. Meyers said there were several on base and they had all been tested and investigated.

Regarding CS-1 0 she asked if there would be acceptance criteria for soils going into the consolidation unit. Mr. Meyer said yes there would be and certain contaminants or high concentrations of certain contaminants would be shipped offsite for disposal.

Mr. Jorgensen asked if sites CS 067, 043, and 052 are in the West Nature Area (WNA). Mr. Meyer said they are not. Patrol Road is the western boundary of the WNA and those sites are all east of Patrol Road, in an industrial area near the CS-1 0 tent and the fire training area. He noted, however, that even in that area, they have to evaluate the site for the presence of vernal pools.

Mr. Collier asked ask how the Air Force is differentiating what is going on with contaminants in the creeks outside of the base. He said it is known from worm studies that stuff from the Air Force made it off the base. He also asked when Building 252 will be demolished and if he can watch it. Mr. Meyer said the Air Force will send out an email when the demolition is scheduled so that folks who are interested can watch.

Regarding the off base creeks, Mr. Meyer said the Air Force analyzed sediments in the creeks and did not find any contaminants above background levels in the transitional areas of the creeks that would indicate that contaminants had moved further downstream. The areas and contaminants the Air Force is cleaning from the creeks are closer to the source areas

Mr. Collier asked if previous results are being disregarded. Mr. Meyer said they took sediments from the creeks and crayfish samples from the creeks and did not find anything above naturally occurring levels.

Mr. Jorgensen asked if radium could have gotten into the groundwater. Mr. Meyers said that was studied and there was no evidence of any radium above background levels. Mr. Taylor said radium strongly adheres to soil particles and is relatively immobile in the environment.

Ms. Suarez-Murias asked if the land would be deed restricted for future use. Mr. Meyer said not if the cleanup achieves unrestricted release, which is the goal. He noted that there is a lot of interest in developing, AOC 314, and once the cleanup is complete and the Final Status Survey Report confirms that the cleanup goals have been met, it will be released for unrestricted use. There will not be any institutional controls required.

Mr. Pay confirmed that the consolidation unit at CS-1 0 would not be released for unrestricted use.



Mr. Blanchard asked what are the redevelopment plans for the AOC 314 area? Mr. Meyer saidMcClellan Park is interested in this site because it is one of the last large developable spaces onthe base. Some ideas they've discussed include warehousing, rail, storage or possibly intermodaluse. Mr. Booth said a lot of ideas have been speculated, but haven't yet figured out what thereuse will be.

Mr. Collier asked if CS 10 will be expanded. Mr. Meyer said yes, it will be expanded a four- tofive-fold increase in size to accommodate the soils that will be brought in over a three- to five-year period.

Mr. Jorgensen asked what would be done with the contaminated soil in there now duringconstruction. Mr. Meyer said it could be handled in a couple ways. Construction could start inthe open area within the current pit, or there are other ways to address it. Mr. Meyer said the AirForce contract allows the contractor to have flexibility in how they construct the facility.

Mr. Jorgensen said he is concerned about having one end of the facility open and maintainingsecurity from environmental effects. Mr. Taylor said the part of the project design includes astormwater pollution prevention plan that addresses much of those concerns. Mr. Jorgensenasked if the RAB would have an opportunity to see those plans, and Mr. Taylor and Mr. Mayerboth said yes.

Questions from the PublicThere were no questions from the public.

IX. Public Comment

Mr. Frederick Gayle: Who is the individual living in zip code 95660? I'm referring to theindividual that is representing my community, I've lived there since 1968.

Mr. Jorgensen said he represents that zip code and has lived there since 1967, so they are in goodshape. Mr. Gayle said not necessarily because he would prefer to see more diversity on thecommittee. Mr. Jorgensen invited Mr. Gayle to stay after the meeting and share his contactinformation. Mr. Gayle said his statement was for the record and that his contact information ison the comment card.

Mr. Frederick Gayle: Are these meetings governed by the Brown Act?

Mr. Meyer said he did not believe that they are. The Air Force provides public notice of themeetings, but the meetings do not fall under the Brown Act. Mr. Blanchard said the Brown Actis a requirement when the people are actually sworn in and have an official title other than aboard member. Mr. Booth added that the RAB is strictly an advisory board and as such nothinghappening at the RAB has any statute of law behind it.

Mr. Gayle asked if that meant that the wisdom the RAB member offers is of no interest. Mr.Booth said the Air Force has established the advisory boards to hear what is being said at themeetings and they do take it to heart. It is a time for the Air Force and the regulators to hearconcerns from the public and share points of interest most applicable to the public, but thatdoesn't mean that the Air Force has to follow through on every idea thrown out there.

MCCLELLAN AFE RAB MEETING PAGE 6 OF 8 20 MARCH 2012

Mr. Blanchard asked what are the redevelopment plans for the AOC 314 area? Mr. Meyer said McClellan Park is interested in this site because it is one ofthe last large developable spaces on the base. Some ideas they've discussed include warehousing, rail, storage or possibly intermodal use. Mr. Booth said a lot of ideas have been speculated, but haven't yet figured out what the reuse will be.

Mr. Collier asked if CS 10 will be expanded. Mr. Meyer said yes, it will be expanded a four- to five-fold increase in size to accommodate the soils that will be brought in over a three- to fiveyear period.

Mr. Jorgensen asked what would be done with the contaminated soil in there now during construction. Mr. Meyer said it could be handled in a couple ways. Construction could start in the open area within the current pit, or there are other ways to address it. Mr. Meyer said the Air Force contract allows the contractor to have flexibility in how they construct the facility.

Mr. Jorgensen said he is concerned about having one end of the facility open and maintaining security from environmental effects. Mr. Taylor said the part of the project design includes a stormwater pollution prevention plan that addresses much of those concerns. Mr. Jorgensen asked if the RAB would have an opportunity to see those plans, and Mr. Taylor and Mr. Mayer both said yes.

Questions from the Public There were no questions from the public.

IX. Public Comment Mr. Frederick Gayle: Who is the individual living in zip code 95660? I'm referring to the individual that is representing my community; I've lived there since 1968.

Mr. Jorgensen said he represents that zip code and has lived there since 1967, so they are in good shape. Mr. Gayle said not necessarily because he would prefer to see more diversity on the committee. Mr. Jorgensen invited Mr. Gayle to stay after the meeting and share his contact information. Mr. Gayle said his statement was for the record and that his contact information is on the comment card.

Mr. Frederick Gayle: Are these meetings governed by the Brown Act?

Mr. Meyer said he did not believe that they are. The Air Force provides public notice of the meetings, but the meetings do not fall under the Brown Act. Mr. Blanchard said the Brown Act is a requirement when the people are actually sworn in and have an official title other than a board member. Mr. Booth added that the RAB is strictly an advisory board and as such nothing happening at the RAB has any statute of law behind it.

Mr. Gayle asked if that meant that the wisdom the RAB member offers is of no interest. Mr. Booth said the Air Force has established the advisory boards to hear what is being said at the meetings and they do take it to heart. It is a time for the Air Force and the regulators to hear concerns from the public and share points of interest most applicable to the public, but that doesn't mean that the Air Force has to follow through on every idea thrown out there.

MCCLELLAN AFB RAB MEETING PAGES OF8 20 MARCH 2012


Mr. Gayle said it seemed disingenuous for the Air Force and Federal government to invite thesepeople to share their expertise and time if the government is going to have such a cavalierattitude about it.

Mr. Booth said Mr. Gayle is assuming the glass half empty.

Mr. Collier said he hasn't seen that he isn't listened to. In addition, all the RAB members havetheir contact information available if members of the community would like to contact them withtheir concerns.

MR. Frank Miller: After evaluating building 252 over a period of about 30 years, and aftermillions of dollars spent in that building and on that in situ piping, now it seems a bitdisingenuious to suddenly say that there is a bit of residual contaminant under a slab in thebuilding that has probably been sequesteredfor decades and now you want to have the taxpayerripped off because the developer has lobbied you and pandered to you and pressured you intopulling the building down. That seems a bit disingenuous. Keep in mind that over the decades ofuse of that building, no individual was ever harmed, there is no evidence that anyone was everharmed from that building. Having said this, I am not against demolishing building 252,however the developer should pay all the cost of that. All the cost of repositioning piping andthe precursor stages and the aftermath stages. This cost should be paid entirely by the developerwho has gotten that building for nothing.

The next point that I want to make is I have a question to all the community RAB members, WhatMcClellan environmental technical reports have you read and evaluated. The answer is none.Now the honorable thing to do, well let me back up for a moment, how can you protect thetaxpayer because you have never read, because you cannot, you don 't have the qualjlcations orbackground to read and understand and evaluate or critique a technical report. Now I anticipatethat there will be a baseless retort coming. I anticipate that. Now the honorable thing to dowould be to resign and come out here in the audience and sit down and take a seat out herebecause you have no qualifications to be sitting there as consultants or advisors. It's absurd andridiculous. And lastly, what would Donald Trump say? Donald Trump would have two words.Two words: You 'rejired.

Mr. Collier asked if Mr. Miller knew anything about his bachelor's degrees and hydrogeologyexperience and said that he has also received training from the Air Force. Mr. Miller called forhim to bring in his CV and Mr. Collier said he did not need to. Mr. Collier stated that the RABmembers are not required to have technical experience and that is good because we want thecommunity represented by people who can bring the community's concerns to the RAB. Mr.Collier stated that you don't have to have technical expertise to do that and be on the board.

XI. RAB Members' Questions, Advice, Comments, and AnnouncementsMs. Suarez-Murias said that an advantage to her having a technical background is she can playdevil's advocate and ask a dumb when she knows what the answer may be so that it can beexplained. She said everyone on the RAB tries to play that role and is not afraid to ask questionsto help the community understand.


Mr. Gayle said it seemed disingenuous for the Air Force and Federal government to invite these people to share their expertise and time if the government is going to have such a cavalier attitude about it.

Mr. Booth said Mr. Gayle is assuming the glass half empty.

Mr. Collier said he hasn't seen that he isn't listened to. In addition, all the RAB members have their contact information available if members ofthe community would like to contact them with their concerns.

MR. Frank Miller: After evaluating building 252 over a period of about 30 years, and after millions of dollars spent in that building and on that in situ piping, now it seems a bit disingenuious to suddenly say that there is a bit of residual contaminant under a slab in the building that has probably been sequestered for decades and now you want to have the taxpayer ripped off because the developer has lobbied you and pandered to you and pressured you into pulling the building down. That seems a bit disingenuous. Keep in mind that over the decades of use of that building, no individual was ever harmed, there is no evidence that anyone was ever harmed from that building. Having said this, I am not against demolishing building 252, however the developer should pay all the cost of that. All the cost of repositioning piping and the precursor stages and the aftermath stages. This cost should be paid entirely by the developer who has gotten that buildingfor nothing.

The next point that I want to make is I have a question to all the community RAE members, What McClellan environmental technical reports have you read and evaluated. The answer is none. Now the honorable thing to do, well let me back up for a moment, how can you protect the taxpayer because you have never read, because you cannot, you don't have the qualifications or background to read and understand and evaluate or critique a technical report. Now I anticipate that there will be a baseless retort coming. I anticipate that. Now the honorable thing to do would be to resign and come out here in the audience and sit down and take a seat out here because you have no qualifications to be sitting there as consultants or advisors. It's absurd and ridiculous. And lastly, what would Donald Trump say? Donald Trump would have two words. Two words: You're fired.

Mr. Collier asked if Mr. Miller knew anything about his bachelor's degrees and hydrogeology experience and said that he has also received training from the Air Force. Mr. Miller called for him to bring in his CV and Mr. Collier said he did not need to. Mr. Collier stated that the RAB members are not required to have technical experience and that is good because we want the community represented by people who can bring the community's concerns to the RAB. Mr. Collier stated that you don't have to have technical expertise to do that and be on the board.

XI. RAB Members' Questions, Advice, Comments, and Announcements Ms. Suarez-Murias said that an advantage to her having a technical background is she can play devil's advocate and ask a dumb when she knows what the answer may be so that it can be explained. She said everyone on the RAB tries to play that role and is not afraid to ask questions to help the community understand.

MCCLELLAN AFB RAB MEETING PAGE? OFB 20 MARCH 2012


Mr. Blanchard said that when he applied to the RAB, there was there was no requirement for atechnical background, but he came with experience from being on the Rio Linda Water DistrictBoard and Sacramento Groundwater Authority. When he came, he was an information taker,reporting back after each meeting to the water manager. He said he that none of the technicaldata was beyond his comprehension to take back and explain. Mr. Blanchard added that Mr.Miller concerns about Building 252 have come up several times and if there were a problem withthe Air Force doing something they shouldn't be doing with the taxpayer money then it wouldhave been addressed by now.

Mr. Blanchard also noted that 70 years ago today the last B-25s left McClellan to fly to Alamedato be loaded onto the aircraft carrier Hornet for the Tokyo Raid mission under Jimmy Doolittle.The mission included 16 aircraft and 80 crew members. April 12 is the anniversary of the raidand there are only four members of crew left. Mr. Blanchard said he met 22 of the 80 membersof the crew.

Mr. Jorgensen said that his understanding is that by law the Air Force can't transfer propertywith radiological contamination on it. Therefore the sites remain under Air Force control, andthey can't ask McClellan Park to pay for it even if they wanted to.

Mr. Collier said Mr. Hersh has been quite adamant in saying that McClellan Park doesn't wantand won't take the building in the current state, so the Air Force has to clean it up. The countydoesn't want it either.

Mr. Collier added that he has read a lot of documents over his tenure on the RAB. He hasn'talways made comments because if he doesn't see anything objectionable to comment on, thenwhy comment. There's no need to just talk. His job on the RAB is to communicate with otherpeople and to have people communicate with him.

Mr. Meyer announced that the annual McClellan Creek Week Cleanup is scheduled for April 14at 8:30 a.m. to noon and will be followed by a free BBQ at the Air Force offices. He invitedeveryone to come and participate.

He noted that there will be a lot of cleanup going on this summer as projects move beyond theinvestigative stage. The other good news for the summer will be the signing of the FocusedStrategic Sites ROD which will represent a savings of some $200 million over the other cleanupalternatives that were considered.

Mr. Sytsma noted that the RAB Handbook, issued by the Secretary of Defense, explains the roleof the RAB, the makeup of the community members, their roles, and how the RAB is tofunction. He encouraged anyone who had questions about that to take a copy of the Handbookwith them and read it.

The next RAB meeting is scheduled for June 19, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at the North HighlandsRecreation Center. Ms. Hall noted that community co-chair elections will be held at that time.

Mr. Davis adjourned the meeting at 8:30.


Mr. Blanchard said that when he applied to the RAB, there was there was no requirement for a technical background, but he came with experience from being on the Rio Linda Water District Board and Sacramento Groundwater Authority. When he came, he was an information taker, reporting back after each meeting to the water manager. He said he that none of the technical data was beyond his comprehension to take back and explain. Mr. Blanchard added that Mr. Miller concerns about Building 252 have come up several times and if there were a problem with the Air Force doing something they shouldn't be doing with the taxpayer money then it would have been addressed by now.

Mr. Blanchard also noted that 70 years ago today the last B-25s left McClellan to fly to Alameda to be loaded onto the aircraft carrier Hornet for the Tokyo Raid mission under Jimmy Doolittle. The mission included 16 aircraft and 80 crew members. April 12 is the anniversary of the raid and there are only four members of crew left. Mr. Blanchard said he met 22 of the 80 members ofthe crew.

Mr. Jorgensen said that his understanding is that by law the Air Force can ' t transfer property with radiological contamination on it. Therefore the sites remain under Air Force control, and they can't ask McClellan Park to pay for it even if they wanted to.

Mr. Collier said Mr. Hersh has been quite adamant in saying that McClellan Park doesn ' t want and won ' t take the building in the current state, so the Air Force has to clean it up. The county doesn ' t want it either.

Mr. Collier added that he has read a lot of documents over his tenure on the RAB. He hasn't always made comments because if he doesn ' t see anything objectionable to comment on, then why comment. There ' s no need to just talk. His job on the RAB is to communicate with other people and to have people communicate with him.

Mr. Meyer announced that the annual McClellan Creek Week Cleanup is scheduled for Apri I 14 at 8:30a.m. to noon and will be followed by a free BBQ at the Air Force offices. He invited everyone to come and participate.

He noted that there will be a lot of cleanup going on this summer as projects move beyond the investigative stage. The other good news for the summer will be the signing of the Focused Strategic Sites ROD which will represent a savings of some $200 million over the other cleanup alternatives that were considered.

Mr. Sytsma noted that the RAB Handbook, issued by the Secretary of Defense, explains the role of the RAB, the makeup ofthe community members, their roles, and how the RAB is to function. He encouraged anyone who had questions about that to take a copy of the Handbook with them and read it.

The next RAB meeting is scheduled for June 19, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at the North Highlands Recreation Center. Ms. Hall noted that community co-chair elections will be held at that time.

Mr. Davis adjourned the meeting at 8:30.

MCCLELLAN AFB RAB MEETING PAGES OF 8 20 MARCH 2012


Name/Organization

m4i n /ILI_

4

i' T,'2.1/L

C-,

1?L) - e

ilL

2iZ

i2U

McCleUan Restoration Advisory Board MeetingAttachment 1

Add toMailingList?EmaiiAddress

Attachment 1

McClellan Restoration Advisory Board Meeting

Add to

Name/Organization Address Email


7,

V Name/Orqanization

McClellan Restoration Advisory Board Meeting

Address

Add to Mailing

List? Email

-r-

t~S!l

6umew O~PPV

------SS9JPPV

... -·---

--\J0 ~<_, ( ...,,,._,J.'O'TQ ~ 1-_;,.-

I -----..,

~)I '7 ·.f?5J!:G v ··-

a #::t I-./?;;;>/~ -;?Jf)"2¥ I C'

1~/ ~, z?J11VJS~j,

,,


Attachment 2McClellan Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Meeting

North Highlands Recreation CenterTuesday, March 20, 2012, 6:30 - 8:15 pm

AGENDA

TIME TOPIC LEAD

6:30 - 6:35 Welcome & Introductions Bill Davis, Facilitator

6:35 - 6:45 Agenda & Comments on December Minutes Bill Davis, Facilitator

6:45 - 6:50 RAB Co-chair Update Community Co-chairGlenn Jorgensen

6:50 - 7:10 Air Force Cleanup Update Air ForceGoal: Provide an update of current field activities and key documents. Steve MayerProcess: Presentation and Q&A

7:10 - 7:20 Local Redevelopment Authority Activities LRAGoal: Provide an update of Local Redevelopment Authority activities. Dana BoothProcess: Presentation and Q&A

7:20 - 7:30 Privatized Cleanup Status EPAGoal: Update the RAB and community about the privatized cleanup Charnjit Bhullarprojects, and discuss issues as necessaty.Process: Presentation and Q&A

7:30 - 7:35 Regulatory Update Regulatory Agencies

7:35 - 7:50 McClellan Non-time Critical Removal Actions Air ForceGoal: Provide an overview of the non-time critical removal actions Steve Mayerplanned for 2012Process: Presentation and Q&A

7:50 - 8:05 Public CommentGoal: Provide opportunity for members of the public to comment.Process: Public members fill out a comment card indicating their desireto speak. The facilitator will call each person to the microphone.Speakers are asked to limit their comments to 3 minutes, however, moretime may be allowed as necessaty and available.

Next McClellan RAB Meeting: Tuesday, June 19, 6:30 p.m.

Bill Davis, Facilitator

8:05 - 8:15 RAB Members Advice, Comments, & Announcements RA BGoal: Solicit advice from each RAB member for upcoming agendas, andprovide an opportunity for RAB members to express brief commentsand/or make announcements.Process: Around the table for each member to offer agenda suggestions,comments, and announcements; comments will be recorded and will formfuture agendas.

TIME

6:30-6:35

6:35-6:45

6:45-6:50

6:50-7:10

7:10-7:20

7:20-7:30

7:30-7:35

7:35-7:50

7:50-8:05

8:05-8:15

Attachment 2 McClellan Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Meeting

North Highlands Recreation Center Tuesday, March 20, 2012, 6:30-8:15 pm

AGENDA

TOPIC

Welcome & Introductions

Agenda & Comments on December Minutes

RAB Co-chair Update

Air Force Cleanup Update Goal: Provide an update of current field activities and key documents. Process: Presentation and Q&A

Local Redevelopment Authority Activities Goal: Provide an update of Local Redevelopment Authority activities. Process: Presentation and Q&A

Privatized Cleanup Status Goal: Update the RAB and community about the privatized cleanup projects, and discuss issues as necessary. Process: Presentation and Q&A

Regulatory Update

McClellan Non-time Critical Removal Actions Goal: Provide an overview of the non-time critical removal actions planned for 2012 Process: Presentation and Q&A

Public Comment Goal: Provide opportunity for members of the public to comment. Process: Public members fill out a comment card indicating their desire to speak. The facilitator will call each person to the microphone. Speakers are asked to limit their comments to 3 minutes, however, more time may be allowed as necessary and available.

RAB Members Advice, Comments, & Announcements Goal: Solicit advice from each RAB member for upcoming agendas, and provide an opportunity for RAB members to express brief comments and/or make announcements. Process: Around the table for each member to offer agenda suggestions, comments, and announcements; comments will be recorded and will form future agendas.

LEAD



Community Co-chair Glenn Jorgensen

Air Force Steve Mayer

LRA Dana Booth

EPA Charnjit Bhullar

Regulatory Agencies

Air Force Steve Mayer


RAB

Next McClellan RAB Meeting: Tuesday, June 19, 6:30p.m.


MEETING GUIDELINES

Ground RulesBe progress oriented

Participate

Speakoneata time

Be concise

Use "I" statements when expressing opinions

Express concerns and interests (not positions)

Focus on issues not personalities

Focus on what CAN be changed (not on what can not be changed)

Listen to understand (not to formulate your response for the win!)

Draw on each others' experiences

Discuss history only as it contributes to progress

Facilitator AssumptionsWe are dealing with complex issues and no one person has all the answers

Open discussions ensure informed decision making

Managed conflict is good and stimulates creativity and innovation

All the members of the group can contribute something to the process

Everyone is doing the best they can with the knowledge they have now

Blame is unproductive and dis-empowering

MEETING GUIDELINES

Ground Rules ~ Be progress oriented

~ Participate

~ Speak one at a time

>- Be concise

~ Use "I" statements when expressing opinions

~ Express concerns and interests (not positions)

~ Focus on issues not personalities

~ Focus on what CAN be changed (not on what can not be changed)

~ Listen to understand (not to formulate your response for the win!)

~ Draw on each others' experiences

~ Discuss history only as it contributes to progress

Facilitator Assumptions ~ We are dealing with complex issues and no one person has all the answers

~ Open discussions ensure informed decision making

~ Managed conflict is good and stimulates creativity and innovation

~ All the members of the group can contribute something to the process

~ Everyone is doing the best they can with the knowledge they have now

~ Blame is unproductive and dis-empowering


Attachment 3Current Key Documents and Events of Interest to the RAB

20 March 2012 RAB Meeting

Document Document Description Status FOSET

AOC 314 andPRL S-030A (FOSET#1) Action Memo

Documents the removal action the AirForce will take for two delayed transfersites with radium. This is taking place asa non-time-critical removal action tofacilitate property transfer and takes theplace of a ROD in the CERCLA process.

Final issued February 2012.Draft work plan in agencyreview. Field work to bedone in summer 2012.

FOSET#1

2 Small Volume Sitesand (FOSET #2)Action Memo

Defines removal action plan and takesthe place of ROD. Pulling the 6 SmallVolume Sites with radium forward fornon-time-critical removal action to movemore efficiently through propertytransfer.

Final issued early March2012. Most field work to bedone in 2012. Dudley sitework was completed in fall2011 to facilitate countyroadway improvementproject.

FOSET#2

3 FOSET #2 (Findingof Suitability for EarlyTransfer)

Documents the environmentalrestrictions in support of an early transferof property. Includes 120 sites (primarilyfrom Small Volume Sites ROD, Building252, and some Follow-on StrategicSites).

Air Force signature expectedin early April. Governor'ssignature to follow bySeptember 2012.

FOSET#2

4 Follow-On StrategicSites RemedialInvestigationCharacterizationSummary/FeasibilityStudy

Details investigation results andevaluates cleanup alternatives foradditional landfill and soil sites (108sites).

Preliminary final issued mid-March 2012. Agencycomments due mid-April.

FOSET#3

5 Focused StrategicSites ROD

Documents cleanup decision for 11 sites,including fire training area, small armsfiring range, and large landfills

Air Force signed February 3,2012. EPA and Statesignatures expected by endof March. Performance-basedcontract for remedial designand remedial action expectedto be awarded in mid-May.

FOSET#3

6 Ecological SitesRecord of Decision(ROD)

Documents cleanup decision forEcological Sites

DTSC requested informaldispute resolutionproceedings to resolve adisagreement over creekcleanup and removal oftailings piles in WNA. Firstmeeting set for March 22.

FOSET#3

7 Skeet Range Recordof Decision

Documents cleanup decision for SkeetRange.

Completed and signed. Fieldwork completed February2012.

FOSET#3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Attachment 3

Current Key Documents and Events of Interest to the RAB 20 March 2012 RAB Meeting

Document Document Description Status

AOC 314 and Documents the removal action the Air Final issued February 2012. PRL S-030A (FOSET Force will take for two delayed transfer Draft work plan in agency #1) Action Memo sites with radium. This is taking place as review . . Field work to be

a non-time-critical removal action to done in summer 2012. facilitate property transfer and takes the place of a ROD in the CERCLA process.

Small Volume Sites Defines removal action plan and takes Final issued early March and (FOSET #2) the place of ROD. Pulling the 6 Small 2012. Most field work to be Action Memo Volume Sites with radium forward for done in 2012. Dudley site

non-time-critical removal action to move work was completed in fall more efficiently through property 2011 to facilitate county transfer. roadway improvement

project.

FOSET #2 (Finding Documents the environmental Air Force signature expected of Suitability for Early restrictions in support of an early transfer in early April. Governor's Transfer) of property. Includes 120 sites (primarily signature to follow by

from Small Volume Sites ROD, Building September 2012. 252, and some Follow-on Strategic Sites).

Follow-On Strategic Details investigation results and Preliminary final issued mid-Sites Remedial evaluates cleanup alternatives for March 2012. Agency Investigation additional landfill and soil sites (1 08 comments due mid-April. Characterization sites). Summary/Feasibility Study

Focused Strategic Documents cleanup decision for 11 sites, Air Force signed February 3, Sites ROD including fire training area, small arms 2012. EPA and State

firing range, and large landfills signatures expected by end of March. Performance-based contract for remedial design and remedial action expected to be awarded in mid-May.

Ecological Sites Documents cleanup decision for DTSC requested informal Record of Decision Ecological Sites dispute resolution (ROD) proceedings to resolve a

disagreement over creek cleanup and removal of tailings piles in WNA. First meeting set for March 22.

Skeet Range Record Documents cleanup decision for Skeet Completed and signed. Field of Decision Range. work completed February

2012. - -----

FOSET

FOSET #1

FOSET #2

FOSET #2

FOSET #3

FOSET #3

FOSET #3

FOSET #3


8 Follow-on Strategic Characterizes 19 sites with radiological Performanced-based contract FOSETSites (FOSET #3) contamination. Establishes remedial for this project issued in #3Engineering action objectives (RAO5) for cleanup. December 2011. Draft issuedEvaluation! Cost Analyzes, compares, and recommends late January 2012. AgencyAnalysis (EE/CA) alternatives to achieve the RAOs. Takes

the place of the ES and PP in thecomments due late March.

CERCLA process. Air Force pullingremoval action ahead of FOSET processto facilitate property transfer.

9 Follow-on Strategic Presents Air Force's preferred cleanup Draft due late April 2012. FOSETSites Proposed Plan alternatives for additional landfill and soil

sites (79 sites).#3

8 Follow-on Strategic Characterizes 19 sites with radiological Performanced-based contract FOSET Sites (FOSET #3) contamination. Establishes remedial for this project issued in #3 Engineering action objectives (RAOs) for cleanup. December 2011 . Draft issued Evaluation/ Cost Analyzes, compares, and recommends late January 2012. Agency Analysis (EE/CA) alternatives to achieve the RAOs. Takes comments due late March.

the place of the FS and PP in the CERCLA process. Air Force pulling removal action ahead of FOSET process to facilitate property transfer.

9 Follow-on Strategic Presents Air Force's preferred cleanup Draft due late April 2012. FOSET Sites Proposed Plan alternatives for additional landfill and soil #3

sites (79 sites) .


Attachment 4BRAC Cleanup Team and Stakeholders Meeting

19 January 2012FIELD REVIEW:Groundwater Program Activitiesa) McClellan Ground Water Treatment System (GWTS)

The GWTS is operating at approximately 1450 gpm with the following 9 extraction wells(EW) shut down because VOC concentrations are less than the MCLs:

OU A: EW-435 (A/B groundwater monitoring zone), EW-336 (A/B)OU B: EW-307 (C), EW-443 (A)OU C: EW-137 (B), EW-446 (A), EW-456 (A/B)OU D: EW-86 (A/B)OUH: EW-454(AB)The above wells are being monitored for rebound.

New OU D extraction well and OU A monitoring wells (PZ-834, 835, and 836) wereinstalled in December and early January. Anticipate wells will be fully operational by end ofJanuary 2012. Flow to Beaver Pond was turned off 1 December, Beaver Pond water levelcurrently at 3.2ft. The CERCLA treatment system is operational. The ion exchange system isoperating normally.Ground Water Monitoring Program (GWMP). The 1Q12 groundwater sampling eventbegan 3 January 2012 and will be completed by 20 January.Davis GWTS - Davis GWTS is shut down. Collected the Fall 2011 semiannual groundwatersamples (Semiannual and Treatability Study monitoring). No field activities were completedduring the reporting period..

Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) Program ActivitiesSoil Vapor Extraction (SVE) Systems(9 of 14 SVE systems are operating, removing vapors from 10 of 19 SVE sites). Systemuptime is calculated from 15 December 201] through 12 January 2012.4Q11 SVE sampling event is complete.

IC 1 SVE is operating normally. (100% uptime)IC 7 SVE is operating normally. (100% uptime)IC 19/21 Flameless Thermal Oxidizer (FTO) is operating normally, treating vapors fromIC 19 only. (100% uptime)IC 19/21 VGAC is not operating. System was shut down for a rebound study (IC 21) on21 April 2008.IC 23 SVE site was closed by the Final SVS RICS-FS STOP Evaluation in June 2011.SVE system/vapor well decommissioning was completed in December 2011.IC 25/29/30/31/32 SVE is operating normally (IC 31 only) (100% uptime). The systemwas restarted on 8 June after a rebound study and STOP analysis that began on iiJanuary 2008, extracting only from new SVE well EW-492 (screened 8-40 ft. bgs,installed February 2011). IC 25, 29, 30, and 32 SVE sites closed by Final SVS STOPEvaluation. SVE system/vapor well decommissioning was completed in December 2011.IC 34/35/37 FTO system is operating normally (100% uptime). IC 34/35/37 VGAC is notoperating. The system was shut down for a rebound study on 27 May 2008.IC 42 SVE is not operating; the system was shut down for a rebound study on 11 July2007.OIJ Cl/PRL 66B FTO system is operating normally, treating vapors from OU CI only.(100% uptime)

NOTE: Italicized text represent update changes BCT & RPM Field Activities Update 19 January 2012Margin or Underlined text represent corrective chanMes

I of2

Attachment 4

BRAC Cleanup Team and Stakeholders Meeting 19 January 2012

FIELD REVIEW: Groundwater Program Activities a) McClellan Ground Water Treatment System (GWTS)

The GWTS is operating at approximately 1450 gpm with the following 9 extraction wells (EW) shut down because VOC concentrations are less than the MCLs:

• OU A: EW-435 (A/B groundwater monitoring zone), EW-336 (A/B) • OU B: EW-307 (C), EW-443 (A) • OU C: EW-137 (B), EW-446 (A), EW-456 (A/B) • OUD: EW-86 (A/B) • OU H: EW-454 (AB) • The above wells are being monitored for rebound.

New OU D extraction well and OU A monitoring wells (PZ-834, 835, and 836) were installed in December and early January. Anticipate wells will be fully operational by end of January 2012. Flow to Beaver Pond was turned off 1 December, Beaver Pond water level currently at 3.2ft. The CERCLA treatment system is operational. The ion exchange system is operating normally.

b) Ground Water Monitoring Program (GWMP). The 1 Q12 groundwater sampling event began 3 January 2012 and will be completed by 20 January.

c) Davis GWTS- Davis GWTS is shut down. Collected the Fall2011 semiannual groundwater samples (Semiannual and Treatability Study monitoring). No field activities were completed during the reporting period ..

Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) Program Activities d) Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) Systems

(9 of 14 SVE systems are operating, removing vapors from 10 of 19 SVE sites). System uptime is calculated from 15 December 2011 through 12 January 2012. 4Qll SVE sampling event is complete. 1) JC I SVE is operating normally. (1 00% uptime) 2) IC 7 SVE is operating normally. (1 00% uptime) 3) IC 19/21 Flameless Thermal Oxidizer (FTO) is operating normally, treating vapors from

lC 19 only. (1 00% uptime) 4) IC 19/21 VGAC is not operating. System was shut down for a rebound study (IC 21) on

21 April 2008. 5) IC 23 SVE site was closed by the Final SVS RlCS-FS STOP Evaluation in June 2011.

SVE system/vapor well decommissioning was completed in December 2011. 6) lC 25/29/30/31/32 SVE is operating normally (JC 31 only) (1 00% uptime). The system

was restarted on 8 June after a rebound study and STOP analysis that began on 11 January 2008, extracting only from new SVE well EW -492 (screened 8-40 ft. bgs, installed February 2011). IC 25, 29, 30, and 32 SVE sites closed by Final SVS STOP Evaluation. SVE system/vapor well decommissioning was completed in December 2011.

7) IC 34/35/37 FTO system is operating normally (100% uptime). IC 34/35/37 VGAC is not operating. The system was shut down for a rebound study on 27 May 2008.

8) IC 42 SVE is not operating; the system was shut down for a rebound study on 11 July 2007.

9) OU CI /PRL 66B FTO system is operating normally, treating vapors from OU C1 only. (I 00% uptime)

NOTE: Italicized text represent update changes BCT & RPM Field Activities Update 19 January 2012 Margin or Underlined text represent corrective changes

I of2


10) OU Cl /PRL 66B VGAC is not operating. The system was shut down for a rebound study(PRL 66B) on 17 July 2008.

11)OU D VGAC is operating normally. (100% uptime)12)OU D Thermal Oxidizer is operating normally. (100% uptime)13) B243 (PRL S-0 I 5 and PRL S-008)/PRLS-039 SVE is operating normally, treating vapors

from PRL S-008 only. (100% uptime)Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricants (POL) Cleanup Activitiese) POL Program:

PRL S-40, Biovent System - Operating normally. The draft 3QCYI I is in Draft formand is under review.The Basewide Fuels Investigation - The Bldg 4 system is operating normally in areverse biovent configuration. The Bldg. 1036 system has suffered a blower fan failurebut will be promptly repaired. The 3QCY I I has been issued in Draft form and is underreview.Bldg 347 Investigation - The First Phase of the Field work was done 26 Sep - 1 Oct.Draft Investigation Report document to be issued week of]6 January.Bldg 251 UST - The UST (north side) was removed on 17 November 2011. Stained soilwas removed and samples collected. Further removal of contaminated soil continued on21 December 2011. The contractor removed as much contaminated soil as was practicalin consideration of the utility lines which could not be disturbed. The Air Force iswaiting for TPHD samples to determine whether further action is required.

Radiation Program Activitiesf) Radiation Program.

I) CS-b - Site inspections are being conducted weekly.SVS and B252 NTCRA - The Dudley Blvd removal action was completed on 14November. The site has been backfi lIed and re-paved.FOSET #3 NTCRA - FSFs are being preparedfor additional delineation sampling atseveral of the sites. The FSPs will be subm itted for review next week. It is anticipated thatthe sampling will occur in February.

Soil Remediation, Investigation and Management Activitiesg) OU D Cap O&M. The 3Ql 1 Cap Inspection report was issued 8 November. A site

inspection was conducted on 9 December. Findings will be summary in the 4QCY II andAnnual Cap Inspection Report. The contractor flushed out the drainage channel along PatrolRoad in December 2011. In this /lrst quarter CY]2, the inspections will take place monthlydue to the possibility of seasonal inclement weather.

h) Industrial Waste Collection System: IWL Abandonment and Decommissioning field workand site restoration anticipated to be finalized by mid-January.

i) Skeet Range Site Investigation - Remedial Action construction is ongoing. Confirmationsampling results submitted for Areas A andD, and both areas backfilled with exception ofdiesel spill location in Area A. Area B confirmation results submitted and approval tobackfill is pending. All non-hazardous soil has been transported to disposal facility. Step outexcavations and confirmation sampling continuing in Areas C, E, and G. RCRA soil mixedwith 5% water to stabilize lead. Confirmation sample results pending.

Wetlands/Habitats Management Maintenance and Miscellaneous Activitiesj) Ecological Sites Proposed Plan - The draft final ROD was submitted 5 January 2012.

NOTE: italicized text represent update changes BCT & RPM Field Activities Update 19 January 2012Margin or Underlined text represent corrective chances

2 of 2

I 0) OU C I /PRL 66B VGAC is not operating. The system was shut down for a rebound study (PRL 66B) on 17 July 2008.

11) OU D VGAC is operating normally. (100% uptime) 12) OU D Thermal Oxidizer is operating normally. (1 00% uptime) 13) B243 (PRL S-0 15 and PRL S-008)/PRLS-039 SVE is operating normally, treating vapors

from PRL S-008 only. (100% uptime) Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricants (POL) Cleanup Activities e) POL Program:

I) PRL S-40, Biovent System- Operating normally. The draft 3QCY 11 is in Draft form and is under review.

2) The Basewide Fuels Investigation -The Bldg 4 system is operating normally in a reverse biovent configuration. The Bldg. 1036 system has suffered a blower fan failure but will be promptly repaired. The 3QCY 11 has been issued in Draft form and is under revtew.

3) Bldg 347 Investigation- The First Phase of the Field work was done 26 Sep- 1 Oct. Draft Investigation Report document to be issued week of 16 January.

4) Bldg 251 UST- The UST (north side) was removed on 17 November 2011. Stained soil was removed and samples collected. Further removal of contaminated soil continued on 21 December 2011. The contractor removed as much contaminated soil as was practical in consideration of the utility lines which could not be disturbed. The Air Force is waitingfor TPHD samples to determine whether further action is required.

Radiation Program Activities f) Radiation Program.

I) CS-1 0- Site inspections are being conducted weekly. 2) SVS and B252 NTCRA- The Dudley Blvd removal action was completed on 14

November. The site has been backfilled and re-paved. 3) FOSET #3 NTCRA- FSPs are being prepared for additional delineation sampling at

several of the sites. The FSPs will be submitted for review next week. It is anticipated that the sampling will occur in February.

Soil Remediation, Investigation and Management Activities g) OU D Cap O&M. The 3Q 11 Cap Inspection report was issued 8 November. A site

inspection was conducted on 9 December. Findings will be summary in the 4QCY I I and Annual Cap Inspection Report. The contractor flushed out the drainage channel along Patrol Road in December 2011. In thisfirst quarter CY12, the inspections will take place monthly due to the possibility of seasonal inclement weather.

h) Industrial Waste Collection System: IWL Abandonment and Decommissioning field work and site restoration anticipated to be finalized by mid-January.

i) Skeet Range Site Investigation -Remedial Action construction is ongoing. Confirmation sampling results submitted for Areas A and D, and both areas backfilled with exception of diesel spill location in Area A. Area B confirmation results submitted and approval to baclifill is pending. All non-hazardous soil has been transported to disposal facility. Step out excavations and confirmation sampling continuing in Areas C, E, and G. RCRA soil mixed with 5% water to stabilize lead. Confirmation sample results pending.

Wetlands/Habitats Management Maintenance and Miscellaneous Activities j) Ecological Sites Proposed Plan- The draft final ROD was submitted 5 January 2012.

NOTE: Italicized text represent update changes BCT & RPM Field Activities Update 19 January 2012 Margin or Underlined text represent corrective changes

2 of2


BRAC Cleanup Team and Stakeholders Meeting16 February 2012

FIELD REVIEW:Groundwater Program Activitiesa) McClellan Ground Water Treatment System (GWTS)

The GWTS is operating at approximately 1450 gpm with the following extraction wells (EW)shut down because VOC concentrations are less than the MCLs:

OU A: EW-336 (A/B groundwater monitoring zone)OU B EW-443 (A)QU C: EW-137 (B), EW-446 (A), EW-456 (A/B)

The above wells are being monitored for rebound.New OU D extraction well and OU A central monitoring wells (PZ-834, 835, and 836) wereinstalled in December and early January. OU A central wells were sampled as part of 1Q12event. EW-497 is being plumbed and tested, and is expected to be operational in lateFebruary. Flow to Beaver Pond was turned off 1 December with the Beaver Pond waterlevel currently at 3.2ft. The CERCLA treatment system is operational. The ion exchangesystem is operating normally.Ground Water Monitoring Program (GWMP). The 1Q12 groundwater sampling eventbegan 3 January 2012 and was completed 27 January.Davis GWTS - Davis GWTS is shut down. Submitted the Draft Semi-annual GroundwaterMonitoring Report, Fall 2011 to AFR OA for review (includes Site wide and TreatabilityStudy monitoring). No field activities were completed during the reporting period.

Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) Program ActivitiesSoil Vapor Extraction (SVE) Systems(10 of 14 SVE systems are operating, removing vapors from 10 of 14 SVE sites). Systemuptime is calculated from 12 January 2012 through 10 February.1Q12 SVE sampling is complete.

IC I SVE is operating normally. (100% uptime)IC 7 SVE is operating normally. (100% uptime)IC 19/2 1 Flameless Thermal Oxidizer (FTO) is operating normally, treating vapors fromIC 19 only. (100% uptime)IC 19/21 VGAC is not operating. System was shut down for a rebound study (IC 21) on21 April 2008.IC 23 SVE site was closed by the Final SVS RICS-FS STOP Evaluation in June 2011.SVE system/vapor well decommissioning was completed in December 2011.IC 31 SVE is operating normally (IC 31 only) (100% uptime). The system was restartedon 8 June 2011 after a rebound study and STOP analysis that began on 11 January 2008,extracting only from new SVE well EW-492 (screened 8-40 ft. bgs, installed February2011).IC 34/35/37 FTO system is operating normally (100% uptime), extracting from IC 37wells only.IC 34/35/37 VGAC was restarted 2 February 2012 and is operating normally, extractingfor IC 34 and IC 35 wells.IC 42 SVE is not operating; the system was shut down for a rebound study on 11 July2007.

l0)OU Cl/PRL 66B FTO system is operating normally, treating vapors from OU CI only.(100% uptime)

11) OU C1/PRL 66B VGAC is not operating. The system was shut down for a rebound study(PRL 66B) on 17 July 2008.

NOTE. Italicized text represent update changes BCT & RPM Field Activities Update 16 February 2012Margin or Underlined text represent corrective chanses

1 of2

BRAC Cleanup Team and Stakeholders Meeting 16 February 2012

FIELD REVIEW: Groundwater Program Activities a) McClellan Ground Water Treatment System (GWTS)

The GWTS is operating at approximately 1450 gpm with the following extraction wells (EW) shut down because VOC concentrations are less than the MCLs:

• OU A: EW-336 (AlB groundwater monitoring zone) • OU B EW-443 (A) • QU C: EW-137 (B), EW-446 (A), EW-456 (A/B)

The above wells are being monitored for rebound. New OU D extraction well and OU A central monitoring wells (PZ-834, 835 , and 836) were installed in December and early January. OU A central wells were sampled as part of I QI2 event. EW-497 is being plumbed and tested, and is expected to be operational in late February. Flow to Beaver Pond was turned off 1 December with the Beaver Pond water level currently at 3.2ft. The CERCLA treatment system is operational. The ion exchange system is operating normally.

b) Ground Water Monitoring Program (GWMP). The 1Q12 groundwater sampling event began 3 January 2012 and was completed 27 January.

c) Davis GWTS- Davis GWTS is shut down. Submitted the Draft Semi-annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Fall 20II to AFROAfor review (includes Site wide and Treatability Study monitoring). No field activities were completed during the reporting period.

Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) Program Activities d) Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) Systems

(1 0 of 14 SVE systems are operating, removing vapors from 10 of 14 SVE sites). System uptime is calculated from 12 January 2012 through I 0 February. 1Q12 SVE sampling is complete. 1) IC I SVE is operating normally. (100% uptime) 2) IC 7 SVE is operating normally. (1 00% uptime) 3) IC 19/21 Flame less Thermal Oxidizer (FTO) is operating normally, treating vapors from

IC 19 only. (100% uptime) 4) IC 1 9/21 VGAC is not operating. System was shut down for a rebound study (IC 21) on

21 April 2008. 5) JC 23 SVE site was closed by the Final SVS RICS-FS STOP Evaluation in June 2011.

SVE system/vapor well decommissioning was completed in December 2011 . 6) IC 3I SVE is operating normally (IC 31 only) (I 00% uptime). The system was restarted

on 8 June 20II after a rebound study and STOP analysis that began on 11 January 2008, extracting only from new SVE well EW-492 (screened 8-40 ft . bgs, installed February 2011 ).

7) IC 34/35/37 FTO system is operating normally (100% uptime), extracting from IC 37 wells only.

8) IC 34/35/37 VGAC was restarted 2 February 20I2 and is operating normally, extracting for IC 34 and IC 35 wells.

9) IC 42 SVE is not operating; the system was shut down for a rebound study on 11 July 2007.

10) OU Cl/PRL 66B FTO system is operating normally, treating vapors from OU C1 only. ( 1 00% uptime)

11) OU C 1/PRL 66B VGAC is not operating. The system was shut down for a rebound study (PRL 66B) on 17 July 2008.

NOTE: Italicized text represent update changes BCT & RPM Field Activities Update 16 February 2012 Margin or Underlined text represent corrective changes

I of2


12) OU D VGAC is operating normally. (100% uptime)13)OU D Thermal Oxidizer is operating normally. (100% uptime)14) B243 (PRL S-UI 5 and PRL S-008)/PRLS-039 SVE is operating normally, treating vapors

from PRL S-008 only. (100% uptime)Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricants (POL) Cleanup Activitiese) POL Program:

PRL S-40, Biovent System - Operating normally. The draft 3QCYJJ is in Draft formand is under review.The Basewide Fuels Investigation - The Bldg 4 system is operating normally in areverse biovent configuration. The Bldg. 1036 system blower fan was repaired and isback in service. The 3QCYJJ has been issued in Drafi form and is under review.Bldg 347 Investigation - The First Phase of the Field work was done 26 Sep -! Oct.Draft Investigation Report document has been issued and is now waiting for Regulatorcomments.Bldg 251 UST - The UST (north side) was removed on 17 November 2011. Stained soilwas removed and samples collected. Further removal of contaminated soil continued on21 December 201!. The contractor removed as much contaminated soil as was practicalin consideration of the utility lines which could not be disturbed. The Air Force willissue a tank removal report. It is believed at this time that no further action is required.

Radiation Program Activities1) Radiation Program.

CS-lU - Site inspections are being conducted weekly.SVS and B252 NTCRA - The Dudley Blvd removal action was completed on 14November. The site has been backfilled and re-paved.FOSET #3 NTCRA - FSPs are being prepared for additional delineation sampling atseveral of the sites to better understand the excavation volumes. The FSPs will besubmitted for information this week. It is anticipated that the sampling will occur inFebruary and into the first week of March.

Soil Remediation, Investigation and Management ActivitiesOU D Cap O&M. The first monthly inspection of the First Quarter was conducted on 26Jan 2012. The second monthly inspection will be conducted on Feb 16th, The final monthlyinspection report is slated for March 8th, eight days before the current period ofperformanceon the O&M contract expires. The 4QCYIJ andAnnual Cap Inspection Report has beenissued. The contractor flushed out the drainage channel along Patrol Road in December2011Industrial Waste Collection System: IWL Abandonment and Decommissioning field workand site restoration has been completed.Skeet Range Site Investigation - Remedial Action construction is ongoing. The AFcontractor completed removal of the soil within the stained area and the results came backbelow industrial levels, Confirmation sampling results submitted and approved for Areas G,F and C. Sampling results for additional clean soil from Clean Soil Stockpile submitted andapproved. Majority of backfill work completed and anticipate field work completion by theend of February.

Wetlands/Habitats Management Maintenance and Miscellaneous ActivitiesEcological Sites Proposed Plan - Agency comments on drafiflnal ROD were received by 7February 2012. DTSC submitted a letter of informal dispute.

NOTE.' Italicized text represent update changes BCT& RPM Field Activities Update 16 February 2012Margin or Underlined text represent corrective changes

2 of 2

12)0U D YGAC is operating normally. (100% uptime) 13) OU D Thermal Oxidizer is operating normally. (I 00% uptime) 14) B243 (PRL S-015 and PRL S-008)/PRLS-039 SVE is operating normally, treating vapors

from PRL S-008 only. (100% uptime) Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricants (POL) Cleanup Activities e) POL Program:

1) PRL S-40, Biovent System- Operating normally. The draft 3QCYJJ is in Draft form and is under review.

2) The Basewide Fuels Investigation -The Bldg 4 system is operating normally in a reverse biovent configuration. The Bldg. 1036 system blower fan was repaired and is back in service. The 3QCYJJ has been issued in Draft form and is under review.

3) Bldg 347 Investigation- The First Phase of the Field work was done 26 Sep- I Oct. Draft Investigation Report document has been issued and is now waiting for Regulator comments.

4) Bldg 251 UST- The UST (north side) was removed on 17 November 2011. Stained soil was removed and samples collected. Further removal of contaminated soil continued on 21 December 2011. The contractor removed as much contaminated soil as was practical in consideration ofthe utility lines which could not be disturbed. The Air Force will issue a tank removal report. It is believed at this time that no further action is required.

Radiation Program Activities f) Radiation Program.

I) CS-10- Site inspections are being conducted weekly. 2) SVS and B252 NTCRA -The Dudley Blvd removal action was completed on 14

November. The site has been backfilled and re-paved. 3) FOSET #3 NTCRA- FSPs are being prepared for additional delineation sampling at

several of the sites to better understand the excavation volumes. The FSPs will be submitted for information this week. It is anticipated that the sampling will occur in February and into the first week of March.

Soil Remediation, Investigation and Management Activities g) OU D Cap O&M. The first monthly inspection of the First Quarter was conducted on 26

Jan 2012. The second monthly inspection will be conducted on Feb 16th. The final monthly inspection report is slated for March 8th' eight days before the current period of performance on the O&M contract expires. The 4QCYJJ and Annual Cap Inspection Report has been issued. The contractor flushed out the drainage channel along Patrol Road in December 2011.

h) Industrial Waste Collection System: IWL Abandonment and Decommissioning field work and site restoration has been completed.

i) Skeet Range Site Investigation- Remedial Action construction is ongoing. The AF contractor completed removal of the soil within the stained area and the results came back below industria/levels. Confirmation sampling results submitted and approved for Areas G, E and C. Sampling results for additional clean soil from Clean Soil Stockpile submitted and approved. Majority of baclifill work completed and anticipate field work completion by the end of February.

Wetlands/Habitats Management Maintenance and Miscellaneous Activities j) Ecological Sites Proposed Plan- Agency comments on draft final ROD were received by 7

February 2012. DTSC submitted a letter of informal dispute.

NOTE: Italicized text represent update changes BCT & RPM Field Activities Update 16 February 2012 Margin or Underlined text represent corrective changes

2 of2


Attachment 5

STATUS

COM PLETE

DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION IN 2012

BAKER-WILUAMS ENGINEERING GROUP

fl)3l43t-f. lI 4430- SObgL.

McCLELLAN BUSINESS PARKGATEWAY INFRASTRUCTURE ROAD PROJECTS

SCALE: 1=2000'

JOB #: 10-12-055

DATE: JAN., 2012

CURRENTLY SEEKING OEA/EDA FUNDING

FUTURE PHASE-SEEKING FUNDING

MCCLELLAN BUSINESSPARK

SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

000N

J-a0In

'McCIeIIan Park

COMPLETE

Attachment 5

McCLELLAN BUSINESS PARK GATEWAY INFRASTRUCTURE ROAD PROJECTS

CURRENTLY SEEKING OEA/EDA FUNDING

DESIGN/CONSTRUcriON IN 2012

D • FUTURE PHASE-SEEKING FUNDING

McCLELLAN BUSINESS PARK

SACRAMENTO COUNTY , CALIFORNIA

'8~

0 0 0 N II

'-'McClellan


Attachment 6Gateway 5 - Before Construction PicturesApril 2011 (East on Dudley) June 2011 (West on Dudley)

Gateway 5 - After Construction PicturesOctober 2011 (East on Dudley) October 2011 (West on Dudley)

Attachment 6 Gateway 5 - Before Construction Pictures

ril2011

Gateway 5 - After Construction Pictures October 2011 (East on DudleYL_ _ October 2011 (West on Dudley)


Attachment 7

McClellanPrivatization

Update

Initial Parcel #2 (FOSET #1)AOCG-2 AOCH-12TPH and PAHs PCBs and mercury2,061 cubic yards 360 cubic yards

excavation and disposal with ICs remedy selected by Air Forcesite has been excavated and backflhledsite restoration is completeEPA and the State are currently reviewing the completion report

1

Attachment 7

McClellan Privatization

Update

March 20, 2012

Initial Parcel #2 (FOSET #1) AOC G-2 AOC H-12 TPH and PAHs 2,061 cubic yards

PCBs and mercury 360 cubic yards

• excavation and disposal with ICs remedy selected by Air Force • site has been excavated and backfilled • site restoration is complete • EPA and the State are currently reviewing the completion report

1


Initial Parcel #3EPA Record of Decision

* 49 industrial sites

Stringent Cleanup levels

32 sites: Excavation,Engineering & InstitutionalControls

Coordinating review of MBPDMEA building permit

Group 4 Sites (FOSET #1)Where are we now?

Coniprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liabity Act

16 sites primarilylocated in the easternportion of the base

EPA and the Stateapproved theConceptual Site Modeland Summary ofExisting Data Report onFebruary 16, 2012

McClellan BusinessPark is now working onan updated RI/FS

2

Initial Parcel #3 EPA Record of Decision

• 49 industrial sites

• Stringent Cleanup levels

32 sites: Excavation, Engineering & Institutional Controls

Coordinating review of M DMEA building permit

Group 4 Sites (FOSET #1) Where are we now?

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and L1ab~ity Act

~ ...... ,~>;:;•, ........... ,_.. . ... ,........._ .. '':~.------·~·":·.~; '~

. .. . ~EPA !(.·; __ -~~·,.':·~-::..:, .. :')J.::: • .' .. :, ,,_.:_~ ·:·:,1~,;

16 sites primarily located in the eastern portion of the base

• EPA and the State approved the Conceptual Site Model and Summary of Existing Data Report on February 16, 2012

• McClellan Business Park is now working on an updated RI/FS

2


discussions for the next propertytransfer are continuing

includes 528 acres

environmental insuranceissues have been resolved

anticipate signature by theGovernor in August 2012

FOSET #2

Contact InformationBarbara MacoU.S. EPA Region 9 Project Manager

75 Hawthorne Street, SFD-8-1

San Francisco, CA 94105

Phone: (415) 972-3794

Email: maco.barbara©epa.gov

Viola CooperU.S. EPA Region 9 Community Involvement Coordinator



Phone: (415) 972-3243Toll free: (800) 231-3075 wwwepagov/region09/McCIeIIanAFBFax: (415) 947-3528

Email: cooper.viola©epa.gov

Site Overview Webpage

6

3

FOSET #2

• discussions for the next property transfer are continuing

includes 528 acres

• environmental insurance issues have been resolved

• anticipate signature by the Governor in August 2012

-------. - .. ~ ·------------·- -·------·-----... --- ... -·----- .. ·---··-

Contact Information Barbara Maco U.S. EPA Region 9 Project Manager



Phone: (415) 972-3794

Email: [email protected]

Viola Cooper U.S. EPA Region 9 Community Involvement Coordinator



Phone: (415) 972-3243

Toll free: (800) 231-3075

Fax: {415) 947-3528

Site Overview Webpage www.epa.gov I region09/ McCiellanAFB


6

3


Frank LopezHazardous Substances Scientist

Department of Toxic Substances Control

8800 Cal Center Drive

Sacramento, CA 95826

Phone: (916) 255-6449

Email: flopez2©dtsc.ca.gov

State AgencyContact Information

James TaylorEngineering Geologist

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board

11020 Sun Center Drive #200Sacramento, CA 95670

Phone: (916) 464-4669


4

State Agency Contact Information

Frank Lopez Hazardous Substances Scientist Department of Toxic Substances Control 8800 Cal Center Drive Sacramento, CA 95826 Phone: (916) 255-6449 Email: [email protected]

James Taylor Engineering Geologist Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 11020 Sun Center Drive #200 Sacramento, CA 95670 Phone: (916) 464-4669 Email: [email protected]

4


Attachment 8

McClellan Non-time-criticalRemoval Actions

March 20, 2012

Air Force Real Property AgencySteve Mayer

Base Environmental Coordinator

1

Topics ,w.

r What is a Non-time-critical removal action(NTCRA)?

o CERCLA Process for NTCRA

0 McClellan NTCRA sites

o Cleanup Schedules

Attachment 8

McClellan Non-time-critical Removal Actions

Air Force Real Property Agency Steve Mayer

Base Environmental Coordinator

March 20, 2012

Topics

o What is a Non-time-critical removal action (NTCRA)?

o CERCLA Process for NTCRA

o McClellan NTCRA sites

o Cleanup Schedules

1


What is a NTCRA?E A removal action at a site with a priority risk in

which the lead agency has determined that aremoval action is appropriate.

o Allowed under Comprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation, and Liability Act(CERCLA)o Moves sites more quickly through processo Provides substantial, prioritized risk reduction in

shorter time frame

CERCLA Process and NTCRA

2

What is a NTCRA?

o A removal action at a site with a priority risk in which the lead agency has determined that a removal action is appropriate.

o Allowed under Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) o Moves sites more quickly through process o Provides substantial, prioritized risk reduction in

shorter time-frame

~ ~ CERCLA Process and NTCRA -,!. •

·..... NOI'OSID IIMIOW "-AN OUIGN {ID) -·- c_,...

•

2


NTCRA ProcessEngineering Estimate/Cost Analysisn Analysis of alternatives

o Effectiveness0 Implementabilityo Cost

o Preferred alternativeo 30-day public comment period

o Action Memorandumo Removal Action Work Plano Removal Actiono Removal Action Completion Report

McClellan NTCRAs

o Small sites with radium contaminationo Likely sources include:

o Spills from drummed wasteo Ash disposal from burned wasteo Sanitary sewer line leakso Sanitary sewer effluent discharge

o Removal action objective (RAO): To reduce radiumconcentrations to unrestricted use levels.o Confirmed through Final Status Survey Report

o Removal of radium facilitates property transferunder early transfer with privatized cleanup model

3

NTCRA Process o Engineering Estimate/Cost Analysis

o Analysis of alternatives o Effectiveness o Implementability o Cost

o Preferred alternative o 30-day public comment period

o Action Memorandum o Removal Action Work Plan o Removal Action o Removal Action Completion Report

McClellan NTCRAs

o Small sites with radium contamination o Likely sources include:

o Spills from drummed waste o Ash disposal from burned waste o Sanitary sewer line leaks o Sanitary sewer effluent discharge

o Removal action objective (RAO): To reduce radium concentrations to unrestricted use levels. o Confirmed through Final Status Survey Report

o Removal of radium facilitates property transfer under early transfer with privatized cleanup model

3


McClellan NTCRAsFOSET #1E Transferred August 2010

FOSET#2n Transfer fall 2012

FOSET#3Transfer late 2013

r

A

ii

FOSET #1 NTCRAo AOC 314

Former ammunition anddrummed waste storagesite

o PRL S-030ADrummed waste storageassociated with formerpaint stripping process inBldg. 658

0Tn

4

McClellan NTCRAs 0FOSET#l

o Transferred August 201 0

FOSET#2 o Transfer fall2012

0 FOSET#3 o Transfer late 2013

FOSET #1 NTCRA o AOC 314

o Former ammunition and drummed waste storage site

o PRL S-030A o Drummed waste storage

associated with former paint stripping process in Bldg. 658

:.1 . ., ·-

·- -==· ... ___ ,,._

4


FOSET #1 NTCRAo Alternatives considered in

EE/CA:0 No actiono Cappingo Excavation and offsite

disposalD Excavation volume = E

L

FOSET #2 NTCRAo SA 109 - Magpie Creek east

of runwayo CS B-005 - Former disposal

trencheso CS 040/PRL S-006 - Former

wastewater treatment facilityo WR 288 (Dudley Blvd)o Bldg. 252 - former

luminescent dial painting andmanometer repair facility andassociated sanitary sewer line

III

CS S

B009 2525-.

L

CS 040

5

Approximately 1,900 cubicyards

o Public Comment Periodr

September 2 - October 1, 2011o No comments received

N

A0 500 3000

P.41

FOSET #1 NTCRA o Alternatives considered in

EE/CA: o No action o Capping o Excavation and offsite

disposal o Excavation volume =

Approximately 1,900 cubic yards

o Public Comment Period September 2 - October 1, 2011 o No comments received

FOSET #2 NTCRA o SA 1 09 - Magpie Creek east

of runway o CS B-005 - Former disposal

trenches o CS 040/PRL S-006- Former

wastewater treatment facility o WR 288 (Dudley Blvd) o Bldg. 252 -former

luminescent dial painting and manometer repair facility and associated sanitary sewer line

... oo

........ 252 -""""""

~

N

A ·--==' soo--·3-ocr"'

5


FOSET #2 NTCRAsCleanup to unrestricted landuseExcavation volume =Approx. 21,000 cubic yards

:i Alternatives for other chemicalsof concern (Sites B252, CS B-005, and SA 109)n Excavation and disposal for

restricted land useExcavation and disposalfor unrestricted land use

Public comment periodAugust 11- September 10, 2011

No comments received

Odd.g 252S2n

L

I

FOSET #3 NTCRAs

Sites include:n Airfield and taxiways

disposal pitsBurn areas

n Old Magpie CreekChannel

D storage areasdrainage areas andstorage ponds

_p

A0 '500 3

6

cs oCs

psi s-7'N

A1000 3000Fi

FOSET #2 NTCRAs o Cleanup to unrestricted land

use o Excavation volume =

Approx. 21 ,000 cubic yards o Alternatives for other chemicals

of concern (Sites B252, CS B-005, and SA 1 09) o Excavation and disposal for

restricted land use o Excavation and disposal

for unrestricted land use o Public comment period

August 11- September 10, 2011 o No comments received

FOSET #3 NTCRAs

o Sites include: o Airfield and taxiways o disposal pits o Burn areas o Old Magpie Creek

Channel o storage areas o drainage areas and

storage ponds

"''""

......., ,., -cs .....

'

N

A ---=='=·soo•-•3iii.~ .. ,

J,. ....,_..._ AOC_,

J ,.._

... , .... • ......

...........

•

.t

U5Q) )_lXI) ·-

6


FOSET #3 NTCRAs S

L

A

CS 10 Consolidation Unit

14

7

o Alternatives consideredo Excavation and onsite

stockpiling for onsitedisposal at CS 10

J - eC.a-consolidation unit

o Excavation and offsitedisposal C.-'5-

o Excavation volume =Approx 13,000 cubic yards

o Public comment periodscheduled for spring 2012

Pt-

FOSET #3 NTCRAs

o Alternatives considered o Excavation and onsite

stockpiling for onsite disposal at CS 10 consolidation unit

o Excavation and offsite disposal

o Excavation volume = Approx 13,000 cubic yards

o Public comment period scheduled for spring 2012

__ j --

r J --• • ,.L-<41P'e .... ....

_ .... -

•

CS 10 Consolidation Unit

1_~ 3.CX:Il ·-

14

7


8

NTCRA schedulesi Dudley site field work completed November 2011

120 cubic yards of soil and asphalt removed

i Bldg252demolitionApril2Ol2Soil removal action in summer 2012

All other sites scheduled for summer 2012

i CS 10 consolidation unit to be ready to receivesoils by April 2013

15

Questions... 'Si

and

Answers / Discussion

16

NTCRA schedules

o Dudley site field work completed November 2011 o 120 cubic yards of soil and asphalt removed

o Bldg 252 demolitionApril2012

Soil removal action in summer 2012

o All other sites scheduled for summer 2012

o CS 10 consolidation unit to be ready to receive soils by April 2013

Questions ...

and

Answers I Discussion

15

16

8


FINAL PAGE

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

FINAL PAGE


I V!1?1 1 ! !V !YT TZT T...Andy Cramer, CH2M Hill Warren Jung, Sacramento Suburban Water District...

Documents

Transcript of I V!1?1 1 ! !V !YT TZT T...Andy Cramer, CH2M Hill Warren Jung, Sacramento Suburban Water District...