In Copyright Since September 11,
2000This web site is in no manner affiliated with any Kaiser entity and the for profit Permanente
Link for Translation of the Kaiser Papers
PATHFINDER(search)
| ABOUT US |
CONTACT
| WHY
THE KAISERPAPERS
|
RESEARCH GUIDES BY SUBJECT | A READER'S GUIDE |
RESEARCH GUIDES BY SUBJECT | A READER'S GUIDE |
downey.kaiserpapers.info
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation (Foster Wheeler Environmental) performed an Environmental Baseline Survey (EBS) of Parcel I (subject parcel) located at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Industrial Plant in Downey, California (Figures 1 and 2) The EBS documents, to the extent feasible, recognized environmental conditions
associated with Parcel I. The EBS is based on practically reviewable and reasonably ascertainable information collected by Foster Wheeler Environmental. This information included several reports and documents from NASA and Rockwell International (Rockwell) files, agency record reviews, interviews with knowledgeable individuals, interpretation of
historical aerial photographs and maps, and visual site inspections(VSIs). Field inspections for the EBS were performed, between June and August 1996. Based on our initial analysis of the data, NASA requested Boeing Aerospace (formerly Rockwell) to conduct a preliminary soil and groundwater assessment during February and March 1997 to evaluate those areas identified as being potentially impacted. Field investigations were conducted by Earth Tech, Inc. (Earth Tech 1997) for Boeing Aerospace (Boeing). Data gathered during 1996 field inspection and the 1997 field investigations is used to categorize the subject parcel. In addition, closure of underground storage tanks (USTs) in 1998 and 1999 are addressed in the EBS. NASA will use this information to certify the property and report it as excess property to the General Service
Administration (GSA) for subsequent real property disposal.
Section 1.0 of the report defines the purpose of the EBS and applicable regulatory requirements and guidelines for the study. Methodology used to perform this EBS is described in Section 2.0. Findings for Parcel I (Sections 3.0 and 4.0), Limited Soil and Groundwater Assessment (Section 5.0), Parcel Evaluation (Section 6.0), and Recommendations (Section 7.0) are summarized below.
Based on the data reviewed, the NASA IndustrialPlant Downey (subject facility) consisted originally of open fields and orchards that were partially developed in 1929 by private industry for a small aircraft manufacturing facility and airport. Subsequent to 1929, the subject facility was operated by a variety of private entities, until the early 1950s, when the United States Air Force (USAF) acquired a portion of the property. The subject facility has been a government -owned and contractor-operated (GOCO) facility since the 1950s. NASA acquired the facility around 1959. Figures 2 and 3 show the current layout of Parcel I with respect to the subject facility. Section 3.0 presents a historical overview and findings for Parcel I. A historical chronology of activities at the subject facility is provided in Appendix A. Appendix B provides
interpretations of historical aerial photographs and maps reviewed.
Parcel 1 covers approximately 55.6 acres and is located on the northwestern three-fourths of the subject facility (Figure 2). About 40 percent of the parcel is paved with asphalt or concrete and minor planter/grass units associated with landscaping. The remainder of Parcel 1 contains buildings and canopies (Table 1), USTs, pressure vessels, aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) (Table 2), and current and former sumps/clarifiers (Table 3). Figure 3 shows the location of tanks, sumps and clarifiers. Chemical processing tanks are listed in Table 4, An inventory of chemicals present on Parcel 1 during our VSI is listed in Table 5. VSI notes and photographs are provided in Appendix C. Figure 4 shows the location of photographs taken during the VSI. Figure 5 shows utility and piping layout for subsurface features at the NASA Downey Facility. Table 6 lists spills and releases that have been recorded for the parcel. Property categorization factors and the rationale for selection are identified in Table 7. This table also presents our recommendations. Table 8 provides a summary of air emission sources for Parcel 1. Structures and buildings in Parcel 1 had accommodated manufacturing, support, and office-type operations. Based on the information reviewed, it appears that·historical operations that have occurred on Parcel 1 have a low-to-moderate potential to impact Parcel. 1 (Table 7) except specifically identified localized contaminated sites.
Adjacent properties potentially impact the subject parcel through spills, leaks, and discharges that are carried via storm water flow onto, or groundwater flow beneath the subject parcel. According to Rockwell's Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the NASA Downey facility, storm water samples are collected from designated drainage areas after the first major rain event annually. The samples are submitted for chemical analyses and data is reported to the RWQCB. Conversations with personnel at Rockwell's Environmental Safety & Industrial Hygiene (ES&IH) department indicate that storm water runoff samples for the subject facility are in compliance with California state requirements. Nine off-site properties were identified as being within proximity of possibly impacting Parcel 1. Table 9 provides a Site Distribution
Summary for properties adjacent to parcel 1. Appendix E provides the government site listings for areas within one mile of Parcel 1.
Limited Soil and Groundwater Assessment Carried out during February-March 1997 consisted of evaluating chemical analysis of limited soil and groundwater samples taken from a total of 35 soil borings on Parcels I and II. Rationale for locating these soil borings is provided in Table 10. Appendix F provides table summaries of chemical analyses for samples with analytes detected and includes a figure showing the location of the soil borings.
Low concentrations of VOCs were detected in shallow soil samples collected across Parcel I. High levels ofPCE were observed in SB-11, near Building 244. These low VOC concentrations were attributed to cross contamination between soil samples during laboratory analysis quality control procedures. Table 11 identifies these suspect analyses. VOCs were detected in soil samples collected just above groundwater.
Hydropunch groundwater samples were collected from four soil borings (SB-19, SB-20, SB-24, and SB-35. Low concentrations of methylene chloride (20 to 28 ug/kg), acetone (51 to 68 ugflcg), and TCE(17 to 95 ug/kg) were detected in soil samples collected at these borings (Table 12). The three samples that had detectable TCE concentrations were collected at depths near the water table at 40 to 45 ft. bgs. VOCs were detected in the hydropunch groundwater samples.
TCE was identified in groundwater samples ~om upgradient boring SE-35 at 240 ugfliter, and downgradient borings SE-19 at 250 udl, SE-20 at 150 ug/l SE-24 at 48 ug/l SE-25 at 320 ugfl, and SE-34 at 29 ug/l (Table 13). Groundwater beneath the area is presumed to flow in a southerly direction. Soil and groundwater data from Parcels 1 and Il suggest that an upgradient, off-site source may be contributing to VOCs beneath the NASA Downey facility.
As part of the property disposal process, an EBS is prepared to classify a parcel. into one of seven categories. These seven categories have been placed into two groups: Uncontaminated Properties (Group 1) and All Other Properties (Group 2). The seven categories are defined below:
Group 1 - Uncontaminated Properties
Category 1: Real Property on which no hazardous substances or petroleum products (or their derivatives, including aviation fuel and motor oil) have been stored for one year or more, known to have been released, or disposed of on the property.
Group 2 - All Other Properties
| Category 2: | Properties where only storage of hazardous substances or petroleum products has occurred, but no release, disposal or migration from adjacent properties has occurred. |
| Category 3: | Properties where storage, release, disposal, and/or migration of hazardous substances or petroleum products has occurred, but at concentrations that do not require a removal or remedial action. |
| Category 4: | Properties where storage, release, disposal and/or migration of hazardous substances or petroleum products have occurred, and all remedial actions necessary to protect human health and the environment have been taken. |
| Category 5. | Properties where storage, release, disposal and/or migration of hazardous substances or petroleum products has occurred, and removal and/or remedial actions are under way, but all required remedial actions have not yet been taken. |
| Category 6: | Properties where storage, release, disposal and/or migration of hazardous substances or petroleum products has occurred, but required response actions have not been implemented. |
| Category 7: | Properties that are unevaluated orrequire additional evaluation. |
The above-listed categories do not account for third-party contributions, i.e., the migration of hazardous substances or petroleum hydrocarbons from off-site properties that are not associated with the NASA Downey facility. Properties for this EBS have been categorized based on activities that are not a direct result from off-site operations.
Properties in the first four categories would be suitable for transfer by deed. In addition, property transfer may occur if the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 120(h)(3)(B) covenant requirements are met for remedial actions. These requirements (CERCLA Section 120(h)(3)(A)(ii) and Section 120(h)(3)(C)) indicate property transfer could be made if the construction and installation of an approved remedial design has been completed, and if the remidy has been demonstrated tb the (USEPA) Administrator to operate properly and successfully. The carrying out of long-term pumping and treating, or operation and maintenance, after the remedy has been demonstrated to the Administrator to be operating properly and successfully, would not preclude the transfer of the property·
Properties in categories 5, 6 and 7 are considered unsuitable for transfer until all necessary remedial actions have been taken or ifCRCLA Section 120h)(3)(B) requirements are adequately addressed
Based on the information provided for Parcel 1, we have categorized a majority of buildings and areas in Parcel 1 as Group 2, Category 3 or better suitable for transfer. However, we have identified several areas and buildings as currently undergoing investigations to identify potential contamination and possible remediation, ifnecessary. These include Building 1, Zones 4, 5, and 7 near clarifier, degreaser, and sump locations generally the chem mill area (Table 7), and specific areas/ features in Buildings 25, 41, 61, 244, 277, and 287. These areas are categorized as Group 2- Category 7 and may be transferred if all necessary remedial actions have been taken or if CRCLA Section 120(h)(3)(B) requirements are adequately addressed. Table 7 lists for each building and associated areas in Parcel 1 their potential impact to Parcel 1.
Our groundwater assessment, based on recent investigations (Earth Tech, 1997) suggests that the groundwater beneath the Parcels 1 have been impacted by VOCs. We understand that the presence of this impacted groundwater may not prevent the transfer of the subject property. We recommend that additional soil and groundwater investigations be performed to assess the source of VOCs, their distribution and the direction of groundwater flow.