The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMITIGATION 1992 STATE OF CALIFORNIA . ---. .. - CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD- CENTRAL VALLEY REGION SAN JOAQUIN WATERSHED BRANCH OFFICE: 3614 EAST ASHLAN AVENUE . FRESNO. CA 93726 PHONE: (209) 445·5116 FAX: (209) 445-5910 2 June 1992 Mr. Ralph E. Huey Hazardous Materials Coordinator City of Bakersfield Fire Department 2101 H Street Bakersfield, CA 93301 INSPECTION OF BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK, KERN COUNTY ,IIN - i.gp.:;; Enclosed is a copy of a report covering an inspection of the the subject facility conducted on 15 May 1992 by Les Obata of our staff. The report indicates that closure of the former impoundment subject to the Toxic Pits Cleanup Act (TPCA) has been completed and the City has fulfilled all TPCA requirements. In addition, the report indicates that the City is proceeding to work on other problem areas at the Airpark where remedial measures are needed to alleviate potential adverse impacts on ground water quality. We appreciate the cooperation provided by the City staff during the closure of the TPCA impoundment. In regards to the City's other remediation projects at the Airpark, we request that a progress report be submitted to us on 15 August 1992 for those areas. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please telephone Les Obata at (209) 488-4390. /' ¡-. F. SCOTT NEVINS Senior Engineer LSO:lsolcjs Enclosure cc: Mr. Tom Kovac, DTSC, Fresno ,A1r. Steve McCa 11 ey , Kern County Department of Env i ronmenta 1 Hea 1 th, \ Bakersfie ld Mr. S.D. Johnson, Chief-City of Bakerfield Fire Department, Bakersfield CENTRAL V A~EGIONAL WATER QUAUTtCONTROL BOARD 1 June 1992 DISCHARGER: City of Bakersfield Airpark LOCATION & COUNTY: Bakersfield, Kern County CONTACT(S): INSPECTION DATE: INSPECTED BY: ACCOMPANIED BY: Mr. Ralph Huey, Hazardous Materials Coordinator 15 May 1992 Lester S. Obata Mr. Ralph Huey INTRODUCTION On 15 May 1992, I conducted a Toxic Pits Cleanup Act (TPCA) post-closure inspection of a former impoundment at the Bakersfield Airpark. In addition, I inspected three other problems areas at the Airpark where remedial work is necessary to mitigate potential adverse impacts on ground water. The City has initiated work at one of the areas and plans to implement work at the other two areas during the upcoming fiscal year. My observations from the inspection are summarized in the following section. 1. TPCA POST-CLOSURE INSPECTION Observations and Comments The City recently completed closure of a former impoundment that was subject to regulations under TPCA. The impoundment was used in the past for the disposal of waste oil generated from automotive and aircraft maintenance operations. The disposal operation resulted in hazardous concentrations of lead and cadmium accumulating in the impoundment. The City has "clean closed" the impoundment by excavating all soils affected with contaminants above hazardous and designated levels. After the excavation was completed, confirmation samples were taken to verify that clean closure was accomplished. The excavated area was subsequently backfilled to original grade with clean imported soil. A closure report for the project has been submitted and reviewed. During my inspection, I observed that the excavated area was backfilled to original grade and the boundaries of the former impoundment could no longer be identified. There were no signs of any oily waste or discolored soils visible on the surface. I did not observe any potential water quality problems associated with the closure project that was completed by the City. Summary/Conclusions for TPCA Inspection The closure project completed by the City fulfills the TPCA requirements. The removal of all contaminants above hazardous and designated levels is satisfactory to mitigate the potential threat to ground water. No further inspections of this particular location should be required. e - INSPECTION OF BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK, KERN COUNTY -2- 1 June 1992 2. INSPECTION OF OTHER PROBLEM AREAS AT THE AIRPARK Observations and Comments A summary of my observations and comments regarding each of the three other problem areas, is provided below: (1) Area east of Garriott Crop Dusters The area has pesticide contaminants in surface soils to a maximum depth of 10 feet. The depth to ground water beneath the site is about 175 feet. There are no contaminants above hazardous or designated levels at the site. The project includes surface grading work to obtain proper drainage and the placement of asphalt concrete pavement over the area. The project area encompasses about an acre of land located between the airstrip and Garriott Crop Dusters. According to information received from Mr. Huey, the work should be completed by the end of this year. (2) Existing rinse pad area and underground tank Remedial work has not yet been initiated at this location. The City proposes to close the rinse pad and initiate a site contamination investigation after a new replacement facility is constructed. The underground tank has been reported to be of concrete construction and similar to a septic tank used in domestic sewage systems. Currently, only wastewater from washing the exterior of airplanes is discharged to the tank. However, the City staff is uncertain as to the characteristics of discharges that occurred before the City purchased the Airpark. Mr. Huey told me that a request for approval for construction of the new rinse pad will be presented to the City Council during July 1992. Following approval by the City Council, the construction project should be completed in about six months (1 February 1993). A site contamination investigation will be initiated for the existing rinse pad and underground tank at that time. (3) New surface water drainage pond Remedial work has not yet been initiated at this location. During a preliminary assessment conducted in 1989, concentrations of oil and grease up to 170 mg/kg were observed in pond soils. To follow up on the problem observed during the preliminary assessment, the City plans to do additional work at this location which includes the characterization of waste contaminants in the underlying soils. . ---" _.. ~.. .. e . INSPECTION OF BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK, KERN COUNTY -3- 1 June 1992 Mr. Huey told me that a request for approval to conduct the additional work will be presented to the City Council during July 1992. Summary/Conclusions for Inspection of Other Problem Areas * The City has initiated work for the area between the airstrip and Garriott Crop Dusters. The surface area will be sloped to provide drainage and subsequently paved with asphaltic concrete. The project should be completed by the end of this year. Remed i a 1 work has not yet begun in the area of the ex i st i ng rinse pad and underground tank. The City plans to construct a new replacement rinse pad before the existing facility is shut down and an investigation initiated. All proposed work must first be approved by the City Council. According to Mr. Huey, approval is anticipated during July 1992, and work on the new rinse pad should begin shortly thereafter. * * Remedial work has not yet begun for the new drainage pond. The work proposed for the pond must first be approved by the City Council. According to Mr. Huey, approval is anticipated during July 1992, and a study to characterize the waste contaminants in pond soils should follow shortly thereafter. We should request that a progress report be submitted during August 1992 for the City's remediation projects at the Airpark which are intended to mitigate potential water quality concerns. * OFFICE NO: SF _FACILITIES INSPECTION REPO" INSPECTOR: LSO SWRCB 001 (REV, 5-91) PCA System Task No. 1_1_1_1 5D150100N04 WDS NUMBER BAKERSFIELD. CITY OF NAME OF AGENCY OR PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR DISCHARGE BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK NAME OF FACILITY NPDES NUMBER 2101 -H- STREET AGENCY STREET 2010 SOUTH UNION AVENUE FACILITY STREET 92 01 B1 BAKERSFIELD .CA 93301 BAKERSFIELD .CA 93309 (YV) (MM) (TYPE) SCHEDULED INSPECTION DATA AGENCY CITY AND STATE FACILITY CITY AND STATE -- ~ .~ ·2 (VYMMDD) ACTUAL INSPECTION DATE AGENCY CONTACT PERSON ,1'"'\ ROBRET OLISAGERS ONS/TE FACILITY CONTACT PERSON RALPH HUEY 80S I 326 - 3979 805 / 832 - 9100 ...2... N AGENCY PHONE NO, Inspection agency (State = S, State / EPA Joint = J) Is this a type "A1" or "B1" Compliance Inspection of an NPDES facility as required by the section 106 grant workplan? (Y/N) If so, send a copy of this report to EPA F~ClLlTY PHONE NO, INSPECTION TYPE (Check One) A1 B1 J.... 02 03 04 05 06 X "A" type compliance -- Comprehensive inspection in which samples are taken. (EPA Type S) "B" type compliance -- A routine nonsampling inspection. (EPA type C) Noncompliance fOllow-up -- Inspection made to venfy correction of a previously identified violation. Enforcement follow-up -- Inspection made to verify that conditions of an enforcement action are being met. Complaint .- Inspection made in response to a complaint. Pre-requirement -- Inspection made to gather info. relative to preparing, modifying, or rescinding requirements. Miscellaneous .- Any inspection type not mentioned above. If this is an EP A inspection not mentioned above, please note type. T PCA P 05 t - c 1 05 U re (e.g. --biomonitoring, performance audit, diagnostic, etc.) (Type) -1L Were VIOLATIONS noted during this inspection? ('.!::esl~ol£,ending Sample Results) -IL Was this a Quality Assurance-Based Inspection? (Y/N) -IL Were bioassay samples taken? (N = No) If YES, then S = Static or F = Flowthrough. INSPECTION SUMMARY (REQUIRED) (100 character limit) See attached memorandum. ----- ---------------------------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------------ INSPECTOR'S DATA: INITIALS ISO ;.J d Á . .L-" SIGNATU~ ¿;::'~ ." . ~~ DAre:-:~ ~__ /F.9¿ For Internal Use: Reviewed by: (1) (2) (3) Reg. WDS Coordinator WDS Data Entry Date:_ _ _ Regional Board File Number: e MEMORANDUM(e CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUAU1Y CONTROL BOARD · CENTRAL VALLEY REGION 3614 East AshJan Avenue Phone: (209) 445-5116 Fresno. CA 93726 ATSS Phone: 8-421·5116 TO: F. Scott Nevins Senior Engineer FROM: Lester S. Obata Sanitary Engineering Associate DATE: 17 March 1992 SIGNATURE:t7f}A a ~ SUBJECT: REVIEW OF CLOSURE REPORT FOR THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK, KERN COUNTY Introduction I have reviewed the subject report which was prepared by Aqua Geosciences, Inc., for the closure of an impoundment at the Bakersfield Airpark. Closure of the impour.dment was conducted to comply with the requirements of the Toxic Pits Cleanup Act (TPCA) and of Cleanup and Abatement (C&A) Order No. 91-713. BackQround Information The impoundment at the Airpark subject to TPCA has also been referred to as the waste oil drainage ditch. In the past, the impoundment was used by local aircraft and automotive maintenance shops for the disposal of oily waste. The disposal operation resulted in the underlying soils becoming impacted with contaminants including total petroleum hydrocarbons (oil and grease) and heavy metals. Lëad and cadmium were found to be above hazardous levels in underlying soils and the impoundment was determined to be subject to requirements under TPCA._ Discussion Of Closure Method Implemented By The City The report indicates that closure of the impoundment was performed by excavating the soils affected by the oily wastes and heavy metals to a depth of 10 feet. Approximately 290 cubic yards of soils below hazardous levels and 10 cubic yards of soils above hazardous levels were excavated from the impoundment. The report describes that all affected soil found to be above hazardous levels was pìaceà in a 20 cubic yarå roïì off bin anà subsequentiy transporteå to Gibson Oil anà Refining Company (Gibson) in Bakersfield, California. Mr. Ralph Huey of the City of Bakersfield, informed me that Gibson has a IIHazardous Waste Acceptance Permit II (CAD 980883177), which permits the company to accept the oil related hazardous waste. I discussed the status of Gibson's permit with Mr. Farshad Vakili of the Department of Toxic Substances Control in Sacramento, and he verified that the company has a permit to accept the type of hazardous waste that was excavated from the Airpark impoundment. All of the remaining affected soil determined to be below hazardous levels has been stockpiled on City property and will be recycled into road mix material. The following table illustrates (1) the maximum concentrations of contaminants that are representative of the stockpiled soil; (2) the State Health Department's Primary Maximum Contaminant Level (MCl); and (3) the designated level determined for each constituent. --------- -----+- -- .'+~'---~~ I Reviewed by: ~ I!Q!1v! v.P V1í r7t'l "-- ~~....::.-. .~ .~- - _.-- e e City of Bakersfield Airpark Kern County -2- 17 March 1992 Maximum Level Primary MCL Designated Level* Constituent Reported maIko uall mall Lead 190 50 500 Cadmium 39 10 100 Oil & Grease 3200 * Designated level was determined by using the following: depth to ground water is greater than 100· ¡ soil attenuation factor of 100¡ leachability factor of 100 for inorganics. As shown above, the heavy metal concentrations in the stockpiled nonhazardous soils are less than the designated leveis. Therefore, the interim stockpiling of the nonhazardous soils should not pose a threat to ground water quality. The low mobility characteristic of the contaminants in this material has been verified by the fact that the maximum depth of contaminants found at in the impoundment during previous site assessments was about 10 feet. The report further describes that upon completion of excavation, 13 confirmation samples were collected from locations within the impoundment to verify the effectiveness of the excavation project. The samples were analyzed for the major contaminants of concern which include lead, cadmium, and oil and grease. The results of the confirmation samples indicate that all soils with contaminants above the designated levels have been excavated and removed. The report also indicates that the excavated area has been backfilled with clean soil and compacted to the original grade. The project was reported to have been completed on 17 January 1992. Conclusion The City has completed closure of the TPCA impoundment by excavating and removing all soils with contaminants above the hazardous levels as well as the soils above the designated levels. With the closure of the impoundment, the City has fulfilled all requirements of TPCA and the tasks specified in C&A Order No. 91-713. Consideration should therefore be given towards initiating the appropriate action to rescind the C&A Order. LSO:lso/fmc CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD- CENTRAL VALLEY REGION SAN JOAQUIN WATERSHED BRANCH OFFICE: 36'4 EAST ASHlAN AVENUE FRESNO, CA 93726 PHONE ,209) 445·5116 FAX, ¡209} 445·5910 06 S-,TE 0;=, ':;ALlFORNIÀ . . "" ." .'''' .....-'r ~ {j' ~S9': f{<- 24 October 1991 _..~~:-.. ~\~~~\fì \!~\ \ ," 1 . ~-;. , .',' .-~ " . .;. . , :V '..... ø ,?.--..---- Mr. Ralph E. Huey Hazardous Materials Coordinator City of Bakersfield Fire Department 2101 H Street Bakersfield, CA 93301 ......... -...--.~-~.- . ,-"~'" _A_.~~,...·4't-.(· ,_.-T' REVIEW/ÛF-ADDENDUM TO THl:'~YDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT REPORT (HAR) FOR THE IMPOUNDMENT AT T~ BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK, KERN COUNTY ~.. We have reviewed the subject report that was prepared for the City by Aqua Geosciences, Inc. A copy of our memorandum summarizing our comments is enclosed. Our review indicates that the information developed from the additional site characterization work recently completed by the City is sufficient to define the vertical extent of contaminants underlying the impoundment. The information presented in the report also appears to be sufficient to support the conclusion that discharges to the impoundment have not impacted ground water underlying the Airpark. Therefore I the report fulfills the requirement for completion of the HAR and also .satisfies Task No. 1 of Cleanup and Abatement (C&A) Order No. 91-713. It is our understanding that the City plans to "clean close" the impoundment by excavating all contaminated,soil and that closure work will be initiated following the City's receipt of this letter. All work necessary to close the impoundment is to be completed by 1 January 1992 as prescribed in the C&A Order, and a closure report is to be submitted to us by that date. If you have any questions regarding this matter I please telephone Les Obata at (209) 488-4390. ~ t, F. SCOTT NEVINS Senior Engineer LSO: 1 so/fmc Enclosure ~ ~lr. Tom Kovac, Department of Toxic Substances Control, Clovis ~Mr. Steve McCalley, Kern County Department of Environmental Health, Bakersfield Mr. Philip Goalwin, Aqua Geosciences, Inc., Bakersfield . e'·' ... ... "" · I '" ... .., U ... e" CAUFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD:, CENTRAL V~"EGION . .J". . . '..,{"",.:..."& '·'.¥iIt~~"'·-'.~··~ 3614 East AsbIan Avenue , . . - .: . - Phoaè:. (2D9f44s-S116 . Fresno, CA 93'7'2fJ' , ATSS PhoDc: 8-421-5116 TO: F. Scott Nevins Senior Engineer FROM: Lester S. Obata Sanitary Engineering Associate DATE: 24 October 1991 SIGNATUR~~ ~~ SUBJECT: REVIEW OF ADDENDUM TO THE HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT REPORT (HAR) FOR THE IMPOUNDMENT AT THE BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK, KERN COUNTY INTRODUCTION During July 1990, the City of Bakersfield submitted a HAR for the impoundment òt the Airpark that is subject to the Toxic Pits Cleanup Act (TPCA). The impoundment was previously known as the old waste oil drainage ditch and was used in the past for the disposal of oily waste from aircraft and automobile maintenance activities. The HAR contained much of the information that is required under Section 25208.8 of TPCA. However I following our review it was concluded that more work was needed in order to determine the vertical extent of contamination and whether the disposal operation had impacted ground water. On 29 April 1991, the Board issued Cleanup and Abatement (C&A) Order No. 91-713 to the City which required that a completed HAR be submitted by 1 October 1991. The City subsequently retained the services of Aqua Geosciences, Inc., to perform the additional site characterization work which was needed to complete the HAR. The additional work was completed during September 1991, and a report covering that phase of work has been submitted by the City. A review of the addendum report has been completed and it has been determined from the information presented that sufficient work has been performed by the City to define the vertical extent of soil contamination. The information in the report is also sufficient to conclude that the disposal operation has not impacted ground water underlying the Airpark. Therefore, the City has completed enough work to fulfill the HAR requirements and satisfy Task No. 1 of the C&A Order. My evaluation of the additional work performed by the City to complete the HAR work and comply with the C&A Order is summarized in the following section. STAFF REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL SITE CHARACTERIZATION WORK COMPLETED 1. Purpose The additional site characterization work was conducted to: A. Define the vertical extent of contaminants in soils beneath the impoundment. B. Determine if ground water has been impacted from discharges to the impoundment. The depth to ground water beneath the Airpark is about 170 feet. L~øv;ø~Orl ~V· I~!?~ \II~ J BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK KERN COUNTY . -2- . . .,~,."J.. ~; ",)'{~rä;i,~:',. 24 October'. 1991 . ,,;-:,~~):,¥~~"'~-~~?\~'f!~~' ~..{'ft. . ,,'\;~'%~':;:.tt" .-.. 2. Additional work Derformed at the site Three soil borings were completed within the impoundment to determine the vertical extent of contamination. The borings were completed to depths of 20 feet. Soil samples were collected at intervals of 10, IS, and 20 feet, and analyzed for selected constituents that were identified during previous investigations (lead, cadmium, total chromium, hexavalent chromium, and oil and grease). A background soil sample was also collected for comparison purposes from an unaffected area about 100 feet southeast of the impoundment. 3. Analytical results of soil samplinQ The analytical results of the soil samples collected from the three borings indicate that the vertical extent of contaminants beneath the impoundment is not deeper than 10 to 15 feet. The analytical results of the soil boring samples and of the background sample are presented in the report on Table 1. 4. Conclusion developed from additional site characterization work The information developed from the additional site characterization work completed leads to the conclusion presented in the report by Aqua Geosciences, Inc., which states, IIIt is our conclusion that ground water has not been impacted due to past discharges that have occurred within the drainage ditchll. The report was prepared under the direction of Mr. Philip Goalwin, who is a registered geologist with Aqua Geosciences, Inc. The conclusion is supported by the following facts presented in the report regarding site conditions: Ä. The analytical results from the additional soil boring samples collected show that the vertical extent of contaminants underlying the impoundment do not extend below depths of 10 to 15 feet. B. The depth to ground water beneath the Airpark is about 170 feet. With the vertical extent of soil contamination being 15 feet, a separation of approximately 155 feet exists between the base of contaminants and the top of ground water. LSO:lso/fmc CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD CENTRAL VALLEY REGION 3614 East Ashlan Avenue Fresno, CA 93726 1 ~:~5;:;H C!6CC392 ( ( I , t'1C:¡J r:t;;~·:;··JD' 0"_" _~ : f\a-"_;: Kern County Environmental Health Services Department 2700 "M" Street, Suite 300 Bakersfield, CA 93301 '.\ " e 1 :JèiL (J,:" ¡~,:.':)¡'¡'i: ! \-:-::;' ~'~'" (, ~ ¡ ~ Î .,! ,.¿ .'. .:;; ....-ri. ... !.)..í.t .'.¡I,¡, "t..d h.H ~.\V:':\!') .*..:J..'I'..+.í.'I'..'I'......~ r - ~: ',' ». r ,~J "r"l,Ul (,1"", """., 1,1", ,11"111,11"1,"11111,1"11,1,,,111'111 ,J,II (. . ~__~_ - ____...._ -_ - --._'0'-- .__...~____~... _~+.~___ --- ~ - - --.---. ----~- -- ,-~- --. --- -.- p~7A3 __..._L;L __~~..~~...#-#__¥~X£:,_~._ __..,., , _ _... ...._.....___. . ,~......t(.z.C--~~--~,¿J~.~-..,.,--.- , h-t,~ "~ _.. ._.' ___, .._ ._.__..______..______.___ _,.,.. op;Ay.., ~~~~.~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ \ ~~~~/~~~ ,£~~~~~~~~ ~~ú'L'C ~~..£~ ~ ~ ~ ;;/--£ ~. ~ ~~4~v-c/~ ~~~ o 1/~3 11f) ~ ~/ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ø/ tY~ ~ tI;tc ~ O/~¡9.3 Cd4t!/ ~ o¿¿ J f~ ,/ê4JQc·.6 (Þo7) Y'Y5- 5//(,. 7* ~/ ~ ~ ~ ~?¿/ CJ'Z~Uf.U c4~~ ~~d&. c:/ #~ ~ ;/lß ~~ " ß SA-c/A~ ~ .Ä7J ~ ~¿,d~ o/;¡Ø ~~~ a/~~ 4f ~, ~,~~~ /~d ~~Af~?'- ~ ~~;/~~~-~.~¿ "'7/WtJÞ/?~-~,.. ...--..".,.-....-..-',' , . - - - -- - -~_.. .---- . - .----- ._-- --- ._+.~. --. .-_.~ --.. . -._.-.~ -- - ._~--" .._. ~-_.- --.'- --.-._-.- . _ _ < _¥ ._._ _ .. ___..___. .. __ _ _H_ _ ___,__ _ _ __ . - . . . .._.~ _. -' -. - - - ~ -...--.-- . -.. - - - -- . ..-. -- . . . UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM INSPECTION REPORT AGENCY: KERN COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT INSPECTOR: TERRY GRAY AND LYDIA V. VON SYDOW fACILITY INFORMATION FACILITY NAME: BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK PAI?E:JT COt'IP."'NY: ADDRESS: 2000 SO. C\ION AVE. SITY: BAKERSFIELD STATE: CA ZIP: 93307 CONTACT NAME: LARRY JA~ESON POSITION: DESCRIPTIO:-; OF I·JASTI:: STREA~J: EFFLL'E\'T FRmJ \'.'ASHI\G'..XC \!AI\TE~~A:$E ,.:¡ F .\1 RCR.AFT 1) Ese R I I>'f I 0 ~~ () -F ,', l~~E D I S (:'I-I.~ E (~~ .[\JECTIO\ \,~LL: DRYí,'ELlJS, .:;TCR~IÍ\'.;TER SL'\jP. :JE':SC['H PIIGN OF ,\.CTI\"J:T\ TH-\T \L-\ Y E:m.'..NGER ::;r:O!:i':D '" -'--lEU ?ELATED TO INJECTION WELLS OR TANKS 'e.~. PO~DS. SPILLS;; . . T 7 ....~ ,_',It._ .i J \51?EC"TI ()~.; I ~FOR.~'f.~ II íJt\ I\:3PECIIO:; D.-HE: Í\ 1 .' '1 .: / f"\ ...\ ~J ..L / .1 ..:... í ::1":) \C~BER OF WELLS: 3 .~\·EL:'" 'r'{FE -\ t~TC] SER\;IC}~ : INDCSTRIAL WASTE: ,;--T""".---. ~ l:' ~':J \ \~ h, I C t~:~ T t- r~j1"1. ~~ ,., ("'--:"-'. '/'1!,.'") 1 ¡'. . ST$Rt-I ¡,ATER: ;)THER: SL'dTS CF ;,ELLS ~~c~r I ~:E; :: -\BA:\DC\ED: l:~DER CO~STRUCTIO~: L ()-rEE;;~ : I\.J~CT.\TE ;:;A!,jPLED: YES \" I () L~-\_-·r I C~~ FCn;~'JD: ·YE S FOLLOK-UP \EEDED: YES RCRA FACILITY: ~O cmf~1ENTS : " - ~, , . e e r- "IAGRAN SIll:. U ^ N \)0~AShS U:rC itl ArA -to/' {),1/¿J~-ter sep / ¿'Ne f. 18; c-ðAJ.struc,.'ted ,$'t""r..... ¡;Jr~" .N~e..J r UIc. .#3 Gg Pð~J;ble o. U¡:c.-i:J2 J.JrAIN IL £~ s r- ~:J.,~-t C-r~ e e PAGE 3 G. CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (MEASURE) TOTAL DEPTH: 30'-35' DIA!v1ETER: CAS I:\'G H. .-\RE THE INJECTIm~ WELLS REGULATED BY\ 3T-\TE OR LOC~L PROGRA:'1: HívQCB I . PER¿lIT: \0 J. HOW \RE SPILLS OR ACCIDE~TS HA~DLED: ABSORBENT ~. HOW ARE THE FLOORS CLEANED: SWEPT L. WHERE DOES THE Fl()(jR/LI)T DR..~\.I:'~~~GE h~...\TER t:;¡,): L()T ~)F¿,..'i.L~-:.\;.¡::: DISCHARGES TO THE STREET " . C,-\R h',\SH :<0 HOW IS THE EFFLCENT DISPOSED: CLEA\ERS t'SED: , . HOí\ >1ANY ,èd,,'ros ,-\RE SER\'ICED CO:iIL Y: D l) C l~~~~~-,; ~r ~_T_~,~~_ }t E _C~ [ ;.SI \L-".F' \~;F F.-\CILITY -,-, .\S-c;L'ILT DL-\GR.'\~¡S. ;'='I.L:'!BI,\";' FT.-\:\S '.'. nF:: I L LE"PS LO(~S .. :-i(j~~1'TC;RI>~(j \·';t~LL D_~~r.~:" ". ::!~C)~\- ~)r_~CIR:\~l ;~)F t='K,C;Cr::.sSES, ~,\-~'\:.)'¡r:: (;E\~EE,.-\T·~C;>~, +\~\fj ;-jT::;PC):.~ \] c;. ,,'L~\-IFI-=~)1~S F(JP h~_-\STE DI:3F'OS.-\L >L~¡. 'rT~~ B. I. ~ L S .~\ FET"Y D.-\ +r..\ S I-I E I:~T S . e PAGE ,~ E. PRODCCTS OR SERVICES OFFERED: AIRFIELD ,- BRIEF DESCRIPTIO~ OF ANY PROCESS, ~AINTENA~CE THAT PRODUCES WASTE: ~L-\r'JT.UNENCE OF AIRCRAFT OPERATION, ,iR CI...E.c\;Ü:':G ..'..'\D :]. ì.JH.-'\T CHENIC:\LS _-'\RE STORED 0:\ SITE: FUEL, CIL::;. :;;:JL\';::XT::;. í\'ASTE OIL. ,. CO THEY HAVE ~ATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEETS: YES . . DESCRIBE THE WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICES: O:SPOSAL ~ RECYCLIW:; T " . SOU'E>:T ¡UTLER: S,\FETY ¡\:LEEN \.~Ef{..IFIC,';TIC)N F~._ECEIl')TS: \-ES f-¡C)\': OFTEN: ( ::; 0 DAYS ~\ . \\- ,;\S TE H_,\l~LER.: l·\J\~\O~ç~ \~ER,IFIC'¿~\TIC)~~ ~EC~EIP~rS: :\() HOW OFTEN: lNKNOWN \:3I'~ FC)R. SITr~ >L-\PS (JF [7),CILIT'~,-- _\~,~D ~S-f3L-ILTS~ ~~)LL·\fB~~~·~,:~~ PLANS FOR THE DISPOSAL SYSTE~: ':- T r .I>J5-PECLTI-IE_. t_\CILI1-"t{ a2NERAL SITE CONDITIONS HOlSEKEEPING: FAIR EASE OF ENTRY: GOOD COOPERATIO~: GOOD srrW.OL'\'DI\G LA~m ¡__SE: :::O>f~ŒRCL\L/I~<DCSTEL\L " . l~El\ER_-\L .:\I)PE.-\R..:\:<CE elF THE h-EL L ( S .:: : DR,ì-~\~ELLS: TO STOR\1í>':\TER St":IP. l) I :) Fi,) ::; ..\. L B. ~CSCEPTIBILITY TO SPILLS: YES :~'. CLASS \. h'ELY. ( S ); THREE s'r~:.\'TL~S: ::.1 ~\CTI\~E, =2 I~<..\C-TI\-E~ =3 L7~·<'DEF\!. !,'~··C:>:;:;·TR1-:.~··r,-:IC)\ YEARS OF CPER,HIC.\!: =16: =2 30 YRS, =:3 0 \PS. 0. OIL/WATER SEPARATOR, OR GREASE TRAP CSED: =1 oc -~ \O\E, =3 OIL/WATER SEPARATOR. '-- . ARE THE WELLS PUMPED OUT: \0 HOW OFTE~: WHO PUNPS THE WELLS; t. DC THE WELLS EVER GET PLUGGED UP: \0 e e" UIC SHALLOW INJECTION WELL CHECKLIST 01/93 PAGE 1 FACILITY NAME: BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK DATE OF INSPECTION: 01/11/93 TIME: 2: 00 INSPECTOR(S): TERRY GRAY & LYDIA VON SYDOW ADDITIONAL PARTICIPANTS: I. GENERAL INFORMATION F. II. A. B. C. A. INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND ALL OTHERS (SHOW CREDENTIALS) B. EXPLAIN WHY YOU ARE THERE. C. (LEGAL INFO) OWNERS NAME: CITY OF BAKERSFIELD ADDRESS: 1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE CITY: BAKERSFIELD STATE: CA PHONE NUMBER: (805) 326-3724 ZIP: 93301 D. OPERATOR'S NAME: CITY OF BAKERSFIELD ADDRESS: 2000 SO. UNION AVENUE CITY: BAKERSFIELD STATE: CA ZIP: 93307 APN: PHONE NUMBER: (805) 832-9100 (SWAP BUSINESS CARDS, ALSO ASK FOR BUSINESS LICENSE) E. PARENT COMPANY: ADDRESS: CITY: ARE THEY ARE THEY STATE: ZIP: A SUBSIDIARY OF A CORPORATION: NO INCORPORATED IN THE STATE: CONTACT PERSON: LARRY JAMESON PHONE NUMBER: (805) 326-3724 INTERVIEW THE OPERATOR/NATURE OF BUSINESS HOW LONG IN BUSINESS: 100 YEARS ARE THEY A MEMBER OF AN ASSOCIATION: YES ARE THEY AWARE LOCATION/OWNERSHIP: SUPPLY WELL OF ANY WATER D. SITE HISTORY YEARS OF OCCUPATION: 8 YEARS PREVIOUS OWNERS: UNKNOWN PREVIOUS OPERATORS: UNKNOWN PREVIOUS USES OF FACILITY: AIRPORT e e WOBK OBDD WG SBBET Date: 0//11 /93 Tracking , #: f ~Y/7 APN:_-_-_-_-_ Work Order #: WO Category: WO Type: Reimb. : Y RP Code: EM053t;;;...? Hazmats fH~/ ,- WORK ORDER NAME: HAZ¡ tJA-,~r~,. .ðA/ct'rJ/';~/cI Æ/,;?7Ar¿ RESPONSIBLE PARTY (RP) NAME: c..;-t¡l/ CJI /;lfk~í.s.f;e I.l. RP CONTACT: L.Ffr/"~ ,7Án7~.S' ðN / RP ADDRESS: ¿I~~ ~~~~~ RP CITY: ¡;5t1-)ðICSh//j STATE: C-H ZIP: 9:?3¿:J/ + . ~- RP PHONE NOS.: (___> <---> INSPECTOR: G-rpy .,t- t/o~ +~ vJ EXT. PROGRAM: (ßHHP-£i1f"orcemen~ HMMP-Permi tting DESCRIPTION: LOCATION: ~(')() So. t/.AJílJ» FACILITY NAME: '£>.I1-!c'/!',5 ¡;~// A'~ø~/~ REPORTING PERSON: PHONE NO. COMMENTS: e UIC PAPERWORK CHECKLIST e 1. SHALLOW INJECTION WELL CHECKLIST and UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM 2. COMPLAINT FORM 3. TRACKING NUMBER 4 . PROPERTY RECORD and APN MAP 5. WORK ORDER LOG SHEET ( 1 per RP) 6. PROP 65 REPORT (if needed) ,.., LOG ONTO COMPUTER I. 8. NOTIFICATION LETTER (DRAFT) 9. NOTIFICATION LETTER (FINAL) [ ~ disk [ vt:- file , [vJ RWQCB [ ~ file [vl/ file [ ] file [ ~ accounting [ ~ file [ ] Janet [ ] file [ ] [v( [ ] owner [ ] file [ ] RWQCB [ ] cc's e e UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM INSPECTION REPORT AGENCY: KERN COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT INSPECTOR: TERRY GRAY AND LYDIA V. VON SYDOW FACILITY INFORMATION FACILITY NAME: BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK PARENT COHPANY: ADDRESS: 2000 SO. UNION AVE. CITY: BAKERSFIELD CONTACT NAME: LARRY JAHESON DESCRIPTION OF WASTE STREAM: OF AIRCRAFT STATE: CA POSITION: EFFLUENT FROM WASHING AND MAINTENANCE ZIP: 9330ì DESCRIPTION OF INJECTION WELL: 2 DRYWELLS, ONE DISCHARGE TO STORMWATER SUHP. ...... DESCRIPTION OF .-'\.CTIVITY THAT ~lAY ENDANGER GROUND KATER BUT NOT RELATED TO INJECTION WELLS OR TANKS (e.g. PONDS, SPILLS): INSPECTION INFORMATION INSPECTION DATE: 01/11/93 NUMBER OF WELLS: 3 WELL TYPE AUTO SERVICE: INDUSTRIAL WASTE: YES AGRICULTURAL WASTE: STORH ~'¡ATER: OTHER: STATUS OF WELLS ACTIVE: 2 ABANDONED: UNDER CONSTRUCTION: 1 OTHER: INJECTATE SAHPLED: YES VIOLATION FOUND: YES FOLLOW-UP NEEDED: YES RCRA FACILITY: NO COHHENTS: e - SITE DIAGRAH ^ N 1i I' :¡ 1--.:---7 P t>.sJ i b I (! ~ U~C.2rri2 D Is +.s F/lJh 1" C-rr, e e PAGE 3 G. CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (MEASURE) TOTAL DEPTH: 30'-35' DIAMETER: CASING H. ARE THE INJECTION WELLS REGULATED BY A STATE OR LOCAL PROGRAM: RWQCB I. PERMIT: NO J. HOW ARE SPILLS OR ACCIDENTS HANDLED: ABSORBENT K. HOW ARE THE FLOORS CLEANED: SWEPT L. WHERE DOES THE FLOOR/LOT DRAINAGE WATER GO: LOT DRAINAGE DISCHARGES TO THE STREET ~. CAR WASH: \0 HOW IS THE EFFLUENT DISPOSED: CLEANERS LSED: N. HOW MANY AUTOS ARE SERVICED DAILY: DOCUMENTS TO REQUEST 1. MAP OF FACILITY 2. AS-BUILT DIAGRAMS, PLUMBING PLANS 3. DRILLERS LOGS ~. ~ONITORIXG WELL DATA J. FLOW DIAGRAM OF PROCESSES, WASTE GENERATION, AND DISPOSAL 6. MANIFESTS FOR WASTE DISPOSAL I. MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEETS III. e - PAGE 2 E. PRODUCTS OR SERVICES OFFERED: AIRFIELD F. BRIEF DESCRIPTIO~ OF ANY PROCESS, OPERATION, OR MAINTENANCE THAT PRODUCES WASTE: CLEANING AND MAINTAINENCE OF AIRCRAFT G. WHAT CHEMICALS ARE STORED ON SITE: FUEL, OILS, SOLVENTS, WASTE OIL. H. DO THEY HAVE ~ATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEETS: YES I. DESCRIBE THE WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICES: DISPOSAL & RECYCLDIG J. SOLVENT HAULER: SAFETY KLEEN VERIFICATION RECEIPTS: YES HO~ OFTEN: < 90 DAYS T' 1\ . WASTE HAULER: LNKNO~N VERIFICATION RECEIPTS: NO HOW OFTEN: UNKNOWN 1. ASK FOR SITE ~1APS OF FACILITY ..\ND AS-BUILTS, PLUMBIi-JG PLANS FOR THE DISPOSAL SYSTEM: INSPECT THE FACILITY GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS HOUSEKEEPING: FAIR EASE OF E~TRY: GOOD COOPERATION: GOOD SURROUNDING LAND USE: COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL .-\, GENERAL APPE..\RANCE OF THE h'ELLf S): 2 DRYWELLS, 1 DISPOSAL TO STORMWATER SUMP. B. SUSCEPTIBILITY TO SPILLS: YES C. CLASS V WELL(S): THREE STATUS: #1 ACTIVE, #2 INACTIVE, =3 UNDER CONSTRUCTION YEARS OF OPERATIO~: #1 & #2 30 YRS, =3 0 YRS. D. OIL/WATER SEPARATOR, OR GREASE TRAP USED: =1 & =2 NONE, #3 OIL/WATER SEPARATOR. E. ARE THE WELLS PUMPED OUT: NO HOW OFTEN: WHO PUMPS THE WELLS: F. DO THE WELLS EVER GET PLUGGED UP: NO e e UIC SHALLOW IXJECTION WELL CHECKLIST 01/93 PAGE 1 FACILITY NAME: BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK DATE OF INSPECTION: 01/11/92 TINE: 2: 00 INSPECTOR(S): TERRY GRAY & LYDIA VON SYDOW ADDITIONAL PARTICIPANTS: I. GENERAL INFORMATION F. II. , 1-\. B. C. D. A. INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND ALL OTHERS (SHOW CREDENTIALS) B. EXPLAIN WHY YOU ARE THERE. ro ,~ . (LEGAL INFO) OWNERS ~AME: CITY OF BAKERSFIELD ADDRESS: 1501 TRUXTU~ AVENUE CITY: BAKERSFIELD STATE: CA PHONE :\UHBER: (805) 326-3724 ZIP: 93301 D. OPERATOR'S NAME: CITY OF BAKERSFIELD ADDRESS: 2000 SO. UNION AVENUE CITY: BAKERSFIELD STATE: CA ZIP: 93307 APN: PHONE NUMBER: (80S) 832-9100 (SWAP BUSINESS CARDS, ALSO ASK FOR BUSINESS LICENSE) E. PARENT Cm1PANY: ADDRESS: CITY: ARE THEY A SUBSIDIARY ARE THEY INCORPORATED STATE: ZIP: OF A CORPORATION: ~O IN THE STATE: CONTACT PERSON: LARRY JAMESO:\ PHONE NUMBER: (80S) 326-3724 INTERVIEW THE OPERATOR/NATURE OF BCSI:\ESS HOW LONG IN BUSINESS: 100 YEARS ARE THEY A MEMBER OF AN ASSOCIATION: YES ARE THEY AWARE LOCATION/OWNERSHIP: OF ANY ~.; A T ER SUPPLY WELL SITE HISTORY YEARS OF OCCUPATION: 8 YEARS PREVIOUS OWNERS: UNKNOWN PREVIOUS OPERATORS: UNKNOWN PREVIOUS USES OF FACILITY: AIRPORT I ! i I i i \ i \ \ ....--..---....-- -b (/:/9 : {&-.'~~ c. e e . .-......~ ~.,~j~...~~:~~:; ..:,I~-:·~j.~~;~¡;~ ~' T.,· c:- L~5~ lVO -~ ._.~ ,/---::-, .-" . ,.' /' -- I ~...----- I / Y\//.Y' í ~__ -~ ~ ' ~) ~- .'--- ,"'¿:- .;-;r~ 7' il \v\p'f r --...--.--. . .. -..- -... .- L1 /IV )&11\/ .J ' ß¿) rJ C.L3 ~4.-r/¡'- C_ _~. ) ;(;.. (//I~~ ~ 1'(/ -----., l!!t¿__ ( I @ {:hJ ----~ ---. ---------- -. .---..... '-. - tf'-ll? .;.~~~ KERN COU,. ENVIRONMENTAL HEA(TH SERVICEtfEPARTMENT Date ..L2.-::_~1.:::.2?:. Time, ...................... Me; ,cz 5¿J /38 / -- SERVICE AND CÒMPì...AINT FORM o Service Rp.Quest 0 Comp'alnt CT NO.________.____.._..__ Assigned to:._~.___¿/.fi.!.ZL<...'/-________...___.......__...._....__._._.___............_...._.. "!? - ,,¿I ?~ --. . 2 '.' " I_ocat Ion ___~.L~lE,l_t;..¿_~:.I..I£LJ:l...__.tG!./...t:.2____....I..í:9.-,¿ZJ::::.._,...___..._____._... Çlty ___.._.._.,__.___..__......__._,......__....._____...__._..__..__..__........_.__.._. Direct ions .__._.__t:-i.~.d.~____ð:...0."i:::..._._..__.____________..___....___j.__._._.________________.___.________.._...___..__.__.._..._....._____....__.....____.__________..._.._.__.___.._ Heportlng Person ,--A~ 1:2.M.:_____......__.___.._..._____________..________ Address _...._._____.....______._.__________.__._._________......_____._.____.__.____. Phone .._..____.__._..........__.._. Property Owner __________.___________._.______.__._______________.__.___ Address _________.____.__._.______...__.________._.______.__.__.__.____._.______ Phone _________.___._._...___.__._. Reason for ReQUest_..__.E..¡Z.:5"d_~_____¿~~.LL:_~.:£.___._..#-------....,..-Ú./.-C::_._.__.m_~~.C.____ZO::¿:~-----------......:..- r¿,-f-]_~__~:Z__=__J::â:¿.2£:......___....___¿____...._~Æ5._._...2..:?!::t...¿;Z____....¿?;?~~..L:.z=____¿.::r......__¿~__......____._.. ._.::>,t:...:5.L~_____.._._._____________________..______._..__________._.__..._.____._____.___._____________.._....__________.__.____---.._________._______...._.______.._________________.______________..._......_.___.._... Information b--? . - Taken by ~/ ¥~,~. RESULTS OF .' _ ,,', .' /'..- I N VEST I GA TI ON m.__;~:/~____::.~~:::;,~:::....2C.._~:~___._:~(:::¡¿_,__.:~,~.2;:1-:;:~______.'_;.:~~___(¿¿_C~.__..;.::._:~:?:;;__~:~>,._.~_.U_~,___:,:~::___.:,,:i:::L.__.__._____________..___.__.. ..-----.-.-'"':,=:;~~~~.--..--,-'::.~"-'-;=,~..:---...2;~~¿:.-.!.--~------------.----------.-..---------------------.------.------...----.-----...---.---.------------..-----..----.----.---...-----------...-.---..- ~-.._----.-----------_.._---_....-....-..._---_..._...._-------------..---..----....------..--------.-....-------..--...-----_..-.._-----------_..-----........_---------...__._--_...._--~...-~-_._---------_...._-----_..._-----..--_.._-------_..........--------..--............ .-----.- ..----.. ~.-.._-------------_.._----_.._-_._------_._--------------..------.....-----..------------...--.---------------------..--.----------------...-.---------------------------------------------..--..--------------------------------.....---..---- Complainant notified of results .------.-----------------..-----..--- Investigated by --:".. _. ". ~. ~ ..... .-~~... ---'. -~ - ,..-'\. -:. '/ Date () í¡////"";: / / '~,., ','-;, ____.._.__________4____...__....______.______._..______...___..___..____.._..___.._______..______.....____..______..__...._.... .____.._____..___~______.._______.._..6_____.._.._ Environmental Health 58041132029 (Rev.9/Q9) -"- .. - ----~ ----.-.-- --- ---.--. -~- ._" ----~- ---- _n__._~_ .____ ___ ._....__. .__ .._____. .._____________ u .__.___ __ _ _ n .___ ----- . . UI o 0. N CD Þ ~ ", ;:0 (J) ~ fTI r o :Þ ::u ""0 :Þ ;:0 ,.. ~ · i · I < · : · . · . · , ~ - ! lOr I t . e\ e ';7~~/c? I , 1-· " 3,ð' ~S4' , ORtY ~ ,·'rd¿'¿ I I I I I I I I I I I I 1,/ I I I I I I I I I I /rZ //"t/?- (>¿~ ÆJ C .¡- Þ /- ~~¡{T l III-æ 00 .. 0.. 0 '."4 ttIIlW~ IEC,' T ,OS IttlE I I I I I I I I I ~I'" T to .. , 1. 1;.. _ RðAr> I I I I I ".'/4 .f II. ~ SEC. '7 no. IIf.1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I f I I e :'e ,I . I, i _ .If'",' of. AIIII'II' tUl:AIIIIN ------- .. 1- ~PN'" ,"U I 4 IW\t~IUD ~ \--. roM [~5f 1'\0 AI'U1I1\K U~ ttw, ,,(OUJ) J ~ ~ -:il^UII& t\\lI' .. .......,~ ~. ~~~f¡t~- ~.1 '~=E-.- =EÊJ T tU·Pll'fi.. UMjtiilï- ~- - - - - - - . tH·'''' "'1<- ~ fõññiêiïõ' , 1 "'\ . H~~III ," I N t~ I. ., r . . .fd' ~ , ~ ·rtlYi ..\ " -¡;;;';,. ..." .~.~ "::::.:::=::"¡n:JÌ .\ '~ - _f, I fI'lI 2 I I"'~J " ( ~W~_~ ~ 1· 1\"" I'",I\r \ f . ~ .G~"n.... ::.Lv - Þ,Ot1IH ClflC. '1 :\ .. ~ .e- I'M, ^rmlt _ 1 ' . ",.~., \ .!\ ",I"',l _ ~v"''' ~ .",1 Arl\Oll '\ I ~.:~~I?II Ii' ,_ "1) \ t~.~~ ~ I · 1 "I þ, r, 'utA I'" '. I '."'1 \ \ ' \inlv-I..l 'J 'ì ....... ..I~~·I' ,..., "'14,," "~ \ I4n~~ r ~.~In' ~~ \ . . -J!'o!'''' ('"'L _ -- ~,-- _ 'I .,i'~\ \\ I 1 ~ ( ~~\ .~\ t I - U' 'I. ~ \ I ¡--I~'~-dJ~'~'~ - ~,~~~-- I. -- \~ _< ' \~~~~:,-~~J ~~ 11-- 5(....lf. 1'/ 1001 , I' mMAII~t NIIO I "...1 /00 " I Ju' '''tlf J 'r r>i.ÄÑ t. -Rb. ~. BA~2RSFIELD MASTER PLAN J " 'I eR ~.I PARK UPDATE _----I \ I WATT Ii .1 I ~ LJI\ 1\ 1\ \- I , \ I \ I I \ L_____"" ~ ~ -I I I I PLANZ I ~---l I I I I ~~ " I::: I G. ~ I I I T30S, R28E EAST WHITE \ ~ 1\ 1\ --- \ \ I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ~zw -> ~< ~ 8 ~ û § ~ LEGEND PROJECT SITE NEW RUNWAY ALIGNMENT I o 500 I I SCALE IN FEET ROAD \ \ I , \ I \ , \ \ \ \ I \ , \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I " \ \ I \ \ \ \ \ I \ , J..\ \ \ \ I I I \ I \ \ \ \ ; \ \ \ \ \ 1 I I U \ \ \____-,1 II \ \ \\ \\ ~ ~ \ \ \ w \ :;¡ I ~ \ ~ z o en o < ~ I BROOK ST. I I I I !/7 I \ I \ L------ ..J e e BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK EXPANSION Y~STER PLAN UPDATE Supplemen~al Dra=t Environmental Impact Report SeE ~87062208 Lis~ of agencies contacted and sent copy of Draft SEIR: City of Bakersfield Airpark Attorney Ci~y Council (each member)/Mayor City Manager City Clerk (media file) Community Development Community Services Economic Development Fire Department Planning Commissioners - (each member) Planning Department Police Department Public Works Department County of Kern Agriculture Commissioner Air Pollution Control District Airports Community Development Office of Emergency Services Fire Health - Environmental Health Kern Council of Governmen~s (COG) LAFCO Library - Beale and Law Planning & Development Services Public Works State of California State Clearinghouse (12) Air Resources Board Caltrans - District 6 Caltrans - Division of Aeronautics Department of Conservation Fish and Game - Nokes Office of Eistoric Preservation Native American Heritage Commission Public Utilities Commission Regional Wa~er Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region e ie Bakers!ielà Airpark Expansion Page 2 Feåeral Department of Agriculture, Bakersfielà Feåeral Aviation Aåministration Meaàows Field Los Angeles - Noh Environmental Protection Agency District #.9, San Prancisco - Manzanilla Department of Interior Fish and wildlife Service - Kobetich Other Aaencies/Groups Golàen Empire Transit (GET) Bakersfielà City Schools - John Rodriquez Bakersfielà Airpark Aåvisory - each member Priendship House The People's Missionary Baptist Church Private Person!GrouD sent notices with information reaardinq availabilitv of DSEIR for Dublic review. " Kern County Superintendent of Schools Sierra Club - Kern-Kaweah Chapter Nature Conservancy, Tejon Subchapter American Indian Counsel of Central Calif. Kern Historical Society Historic Preservation Commissio.n Kern Audubon Socie~y property owners wi~hin 300 feet of project site (list on file in Planning Depar~ment) p/bae - ·e IERN COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OIIISION MEETING/CONfERENCE IEC010 DATE t{\ ~1 SUBJECT ~~j ~IJ.ÀfL T J ME FILE CALL~ECEIVED BY 'J) W ~~:~~ I tie) My V lLch-Y I~Q{'~ PARTY REPRESENTED Wct.-l-tý W^-~_t) ~. J TEL E PH 0 N E" f ~ \ ,-,J 5 .3-'5 DI5CU5S10N: (l-tß {l tfzw: to c/ ~~ ":> (- ,". .j - .'). ..) d- -r") T£?dfAIPJk; e '~JP5 ~ ~ ~3/ c: ð'Y"o/C~ W¿¡J;;¡ ~0Ù\~/> /'¡L'- tu~·~ ~¿A if" d.tt/'ð ß= t:væ, ~' (\ l- . ",./,( oÇ¡ ~\ e ( 3 ,,:)(; ~ 3 q 1/ \.- wJß ©w~ \) ç ," U /ê..)¡ n r~ (~2 <;1 V\Q.J ~. '. ~'-- 1M. '\ r: ' i. ' ,. ' '?!!. -.f~ fI""WNDI1Þµ ~ JfôD tt ""~J ~ ~ * }.ub w'Pl ¡.J-d c-{cL ~ 0: ~ j;j A á-1;}.. J. f ,.:Jc,ý - '-.J *~~~ )I: w~~ ~ f: ~~ * v~ ~u 1fl'M/~ LVOC.:s) ;t~~~ ~S2Ehjh5 e-/ tb..tI0L~ ¡It,. JCta......r "C eLf.. i C -1..-1 ..f ?d ~ I rt -yv--L-- d J cndé~[ ,"J -¡4, f~ecr !) cf c ¿£D )11L ð J to-v /, '-1--ú-J<- ... '(J j1Cérd -r -:IF;2 {' dl 2- 'l!: !"ffm-al. t/ cui¡ :2- 17 i~ ~o " (' +-- .- ..-. - .-- -- -~------~_. - - ~ ¡if' ....,. ~ ~...: - ~-- / /,' /-) ·7~. 1.) 7';::(\ '..~ 1i;þß· .-.--- ~ø 81'..,. i A it \.~ \"~{ ,.pd' e ¡e UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 215 Fremont Street San Francisco. Ca. 94105 ~ -' ~.~ ~~ .i l·f:;~~ . '" . Robert Olislagers Bakersfield Airpark 515 Truxton Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Sir: As you are no doubt aware, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in disagreement with the Federal Aviation Agency's Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Bakersfield Airpark expansion project. Despite major EPA con- cerns regarding project impacts, expressed in comments (August 1988) on the Bakersfield Airpark Final Environmental Impact Report Supplement (FE IRS), the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) reconfirmed last December that it intended to issue an FONSI on this project. EPA feels that potential impacts, including degradation of air quality, cumulative growth-inducing effects, and impediments to hazardous waste cleanup onsite, merit review in an environment impact statement. To help clarify positions on this project and discuss pos- sible solutions to the areas of disagreement, EPA is proposing an interagency meeting, scheduled for Thursday, June 15, at the Region 9 EPA building, 215 Fremont street, San Francisco. The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. and will be held in the Regional Administrator's strategy Room on the fifth floor. Your atten- dance is very important. EPA is especially concerned that strategies be developed to deal with the severe air quality problems of Kern County. The County Air Pollution Control District has failed to develop a mandatory implementation plan to meet federal air quality stan- dards, and as a result EPA is under notice of intent to sue to develop and enforce a "federal implementation plan" for the County. As matters stand, the emissions which the Airpark FEIRS projects for the proposed expansion would significantly exacer- bate violations of'state and federal air quality standards. .;¢' ...~, ; A \ \~.} ~4(~' e - UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 215 Fremont Street San Francisco. Ca. 94105 Z 1 Mff( 19E9 Howard S. Yoshioka Supervisor, Planning section Western - Pacific Region Federal Aviation Administration P.o. Box 92007 Worldway Postal Center Los Angeles, CA 90009 t . f~'v ¡.^'.. ~1 t;; ~'ih{ .:;j~~ Dear Sir: As you are no doubt aware, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in disagreement with the Federal Aviation Agency's Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Bakersfield Airpark expansion project. Despite major EPA con- cerns regarding project impacts, expressed in comments (August 1988) on the Bakersfield Airpark Final Environmental Impact Report Supplement (FEIRS), the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) reconfirmed last December that it intended to issue an FONSI on this project. EPA feels that potential impacts, including degradation of air quality, cumulative growth-inducing effects, and impediments to hazardous waste cleanup onsite, merit review in an environment impact statement. To help clarify positions on this project and discuss pos- sible solutions to the areas of disagreement, EPA is proposing an interagency meeting, scheduled for Thursday, June 15, at the Region 9 EPA building, 215 Fremont Street, San Francisco. The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. and will be held in the Regional Administrator's Strategy Room on the fifth floor. Your atten- dance is very important. EPA is especially concerned that strategies be developed to deal with the severe air quality problems of Kern County. The County Air Pollution Control District has failed to develop a mandatory implementation plan to meet federal air quality stan- dards, and as a result EPA is under notice of intent to sue to develop and enforce a "federal implementation plan" for the County. As matters stand, the emissions which the Airpark FEIRS projects for the proposed expansion would significantly exacer- bate violations of state and federal air quality standards. ~....'. ; ... '\ I.~ ~4( =:i :. (e UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 215 Fremont Street San Francisco. Ca. 94105 1 1 JUL 1989 Howard S. Yoshioka Supervisor, Planning Section Western - Pacific Region Federal Aviation Administration P.o. Box 92007 Worldway Postal Center Los Angeles, CA 90009 Dear Sir: To help clarify the issues and concerns with the Bakersfield Airpark Expansion projec~an interagency meeting (EPA, FAA, CA. Air Resources Board, CA. Regional Water Quality Control Board, City of Bakersfield) was scheduled for June 15 (EPA letter 24 May 1989). At the request of the City of Bakersfield, this meeting has been rescheduled for Thursday, July 20, at the Hyatt Interna- tional Hotel at Oakland International Airport. The meeting will begin at 9 AM. in the Richmond Room. Refreshments will be avail- able starting at 8:30 AM. Your attendance is very important. Thank you for your cooperation with this schedule change. As stated in our 24 May 1989 letter, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in disagreement with the Federal Avia- tion Agency's Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Bakersfield Airpark expansion project. Despite major EPA con- cerns regarding project impacts, expressed in comments (August 1988) on the Bakersfield Airpark Final Environmental Impact Report Supplement (FE IRS), the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) reconfirmed last December that they have issued a FONSI for this project. EPA feels that potential impacts, including degradation of air quality, cumulative growth-inducing effects, and impedi- ments to hazardous waste cleanup onsite, merit review in an en- vironment impact statement. EPA is especially concerned that strategies be developed to deal with the severe air quality problems of Kern County. The County Air Pollution Control District has failed to develop a mandatory implementation plan to meet federal air quality stan- dards, and as a result EPA is under notice of intent to sue to develop and enforce a "federal implementation plan" for the County. As matters stand, the emissions which the Airpark FEIRS projects for the proposed expansion would significantly exacer- bate violations of state and federal air quality standards. ie (e At the meeting on July 20 EPA would like to discuss the fol- lowing topics: The responses of FAA and the City of Bakersfield to EPAfs comments on the FEIRS. status of the Air Resources Board air quality cer- tification pursuant to the Airport and Airway Develop- ment Act of 1970 (49 U.S.C.A. App. section 2208(b) (7) (A». A State air quality certification is required prior to receiving federal funding. status of the Bakersfield Airpark and Garriott Crop Dusting hazardous waste investigations and cleanup. Please notify Laura Fujii, 415-974-0767 (FTS 454-0767), Of- fice of Federal Activities, Region 9 EPA, of your attendance by July 17. The meeting and discussion will be productive only if all major parties are represented, so your presence will be very much appreciated. Sincerely, Jacqueline Wyland, Chief Office of Federal Activities cc: FAA, Western Pacific Regional Director, Jerold M. Chavkin Kern County community Development Program Dept., Guy Greenlee Kern County Health Dept., Richard Casagrande city of Bakersfield, Robert Olislagers Paul LaCourreye, T-4-7 Mark Brucker, A-2-1 :. 1.e ~ lit,. \S' "".., ~ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 215 Fremont Street San Francisco. Ca. 94105 1 1 JUL 1989 Bob Fletcher, Manager Industrial Projects section California Air Resources Board 1102 Q Street P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812 Dear Sir: To help clarify the issues and concerns with the Bakersfield Airpark Expansion project an interagency meeting (EPA, FAA, CA. Air Resources Board, CA. Regional Water Quality Control Board, City of Bakersfield) was scheduled for June 15 (EPA letter 24 May 1989). At the request of the city of Bakersfield, this meeting has been rescheduled for Thursday, July 20, at the Hyatt Interna- tional Hotel at Oakland International Airport. The meeting will begin at 9 AM. in the Richmond Room. Refreshments will be avail- able starting at 8:30 AM. Your attendance is very important. Thank you for your cooperation with this schedule change. As stated in our 24 May 1989 letter, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in disagreement with the Federal Avia- tion Agency's Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Bakersfield Airpark expansion project. Despite major EPA con- cerns regarding project impacts, expressed in comments (August 1988) on the Bakersfield Airpark Final Environmental Impact Report Supplement (FEIRS), the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) , reconfirmed last December that they have issued a FONSI for this project. EPA feels that potential impacts, including degradation of air quality, cumulative growth-inducing effects, and impedi- ments to hazardous waste cleanup onsite, merit review in an en- vironment impact statement. EPA is especially concerned that strategies be developed to deal with the severe air quality problems of Kern County. The County Air Pollution Control District has failed to develop a mandatory implementation plan to meet federal air quality stan- dards, and as a result EPA is under notice of intent to sue to develop and enforce a "federal implementation plan" for the County. As matters stand, the emissions which the Airpark FEIRS projects for the proposed expansion would significantly exacer- bate violations of state and federal air quality standards. ". . Ie (e At the meeting on July 20 EPA would like to discuss the fol- lowing topics: The responses of FAA and the City of Bakersfield to EPA's comments on the FEIRS. status of the Air Resources Board air quality cer- tification pursuant to the Airport and Airway Develop- ment Act of 1970 (49 U.S.C.A. App. section 2208(b) (7) (A». A State air quality certification is required prior to receiving federal funding. status of the Bakersfield Airpark and Garriott Crop Dusting hazardous waste investigations and cleanup. Please notify Laura Fujii, 415-974-0767 (FTS 454-0767), Of- fice of Federal Activities, Region 9 EPA, of your attendance by July 17. The meeting and discussion will be productive only if all major parties are represented, so your presence will be very much appreciated. Sincerely, Jacqueline Wyland, Chief Office of Federal Activities cc: FAA, Western Pacific Regional Director, Jerold M. Chavkin Kern County Community Development Program Dept., Guy Greenlee Kern County Health Dept., Richard Casagrande City of Bakersfield, Robert Olislagers Paul LaCourreye, T-4-7 Mark Brucker, A~2-l ~,. {-' :t>..., ::;" e Ie UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 215 Fremont Street San FrancilCO, Ca. 94105 1 1 JUL 1989 F. Scott Nivens, Senior Engineer California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central valley Region 3614 East Ashlan Avenue Fresno, CA 93726 Dear Sir: To help clarify the issues and concerns with the Bakersfield Airpark Expansion project, an interagency meeting (EPA, FAA, CA. Air Resources Board, CA. Regional Water Quality Control Board, City of Bakersfield) was scheduled for June 15 (EPA letter 24 May 1989). At the request of the City of Bakersfield, this meeting has been rescheduled for Thursday, July 20, at the Hyatt Interna- tional Hotel at Oakland International Airport. The meeting will begin at 9 AM. in the Richmond Room. Refreshments will be avail- able starting at 8:30 AM. Your attendance is very important. Thank you for your cooperation with this schedule change. As stated in our 24 May 1989 letter, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in disagreement with the Federal Avia- tion Agency's Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Bakersfield Airpark expansion project. Despite major EPA con- cerns regarding project impacts, expressed in comments (August 1988) on the Bakersfield Airpark Final Environmental Impact Report Supplement (FE IRS) , the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) reconfirmed last December that they have issued a FONSI for this project. EPA feels that potential impacts, including degradation of air quality, cumulative growth-inducing effects, and impedi- ments to hazardous waste cleanup onsite, merit review in an en- vironment impact statement. EPA is especially concerned that strategies be developed to deal with the severe air quality problems of Kern County. The County Air Pollution Control District has failed to develop a mandatory implementation plan to meet federal air quality stan- dards, and as a result EPA is under notice of intent to sue to develop and enforce a "federal implementation plan" for the County. As matters stand, the emissions which the Airpark FEIRS projects for the proposed expansion would significantly exacer- bate violations of state and federal air quality standards. 1._ Ie At the meeting on July 20 EPA would like to discuss the fol- lowing topics: The responses of FAA and the city of Bakersfield to EPA's comments on the FEIRS. status of the Air Resources Board air quality cer- tification pursuant to the Airport and Airway Develop- ment Act of 1970 (49 U.S.C.A. App. section 2208(b) (7) (A». A State air quality certification is required prior to receiving federal funding. status of the Bakersfield Airpark and Garriott Crop Dusting hazardous waste investigations and cleanup. Please notify Laura Fujii, 415-974-0767 (FTS 454-0767), Of- fice of Federal Activities, Region 9 EPA, of your attendance by July 17. The meeting and discussion will be productive only if all major parties are represented, so your presence will be very much appreciated. Sincerely, Jacqueline wyland, Chief Office of Federal Activities cc: FAA, Western Pacific Regional Director, Jerold M. Chavkin Kern County Community Development Program Dept., Guy Greenlee Kern County Health Dept., Richard casagrande City of Bakersfield, Robert Olislagers Paul LaCourreye, T-4-7 Mark Brucker, A-2-l e ,e '~ >' GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN. Governor í¡/¿ ATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD- Mr. Ralph E. Huey Hazardous Materials Coordinator City of Bakersfield 2101 H Street Bakersfield, CA 93301 WORKPLAN FOR ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT OF PESTICIDE CONTAMINATED SOIL AT THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK 26 September 1989 We have reviewed the subject workplan that was prepared for the City by Thorne Environmental, Inc., (TEI). The workplan outlines further studies to be completed to define the lateral and vertical extent of contamination between the crop dusting facility and the Airpark runway. We have no objections to the workplan as proposed by TEl as long as sufficient work is completed to define the extent of contamination in the study area. It is our understanding that a draft report of findings should be completed for the project by 12 October 1989 and will include a section on remedial options. We request that a copy of the report be transmitted to us following completion of this phase of work. In regards to other problem areas that are being investigated at the Airpark, you informed us that the City is currently preparing IIRequest For Proposals II (RFP's), for the former waste oil drain ditch identified as a Toxic Pit (Project B), and the new sump area (Project D). The rinse pad area (Project C) is to be completed later with a grant to be funded in the 1990-91 fiscal year by DOT/Aeronautics. Prior to 15 October 1989, please submit a time schedule for completing the work required at the areas described above as Project B and Project D. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Les Obata at (209) 488-4390. f F. SCOTT NEVINS Senior Engineer .. LSO:cjs cc: Department of Health Services, TSCD, Fresno Kern County Health Department, Bakersfield Mr. E.W. Schulz, Kern County Public Works I Bakersfield Mr. Robert Olislagers, Bakersfield Airport, Bakersfield Ms. Jacqueline Wyland, EPÆ, San Francisco --Ie e··.. ;{~'AN'G'N_ , STATE OF CALIFORNIA , CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD- CENTRAL VALLEY REGION SAN JOAQUIN WATERSHED BRANCH OFFICE: 3614 EAST ASH LAN AVENUE FRESNO. CALIFORNIA 93726 PHONE: 12091445·5116 ~ MAR 26 1990 RfCflVfD Q. - -..- --.., ", . ,. ---./ "I 22 March 1990 Mr. Ralph Huey, Hazardous Material Coordinator city of Bakersfield Fire Department 2101 H street Bakersfield, CA 93301 INSPECTION OF BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK Enclosed for your information is a copy of a report covering a recent inspection of the subject facility. The inspection was conducted to evaluate the current status of the problem areas that have previously been identified at the Airpark and to satisfy the annual inspection requirements as prescribed by Section 25208.7 of the Toxic pits Cleanup Act. The inspection report concludes that further work is required in the three problem areas which have been described in previous investigations as Tasks A, C, and E. We request that you review the report and by 1 May 1990, provide us with \.¡ork plans and compliance time schedules for completing the additional work ~equired for each of the three areas. We are currently finalizing the Cleanup and Abatement (C&A) Order that was given to you in draft form during the inspection on 23 February 1990. You expressed some concern to Mr. Obata with meeting the compliance date of 1 May 1990 prescribed under Task A. , (1), of the compliance schedule. We propose to recommend that the compliance date be changed from 1 May 1990 to 15 May 1990 in the final C&A Order to be issued to the City. A copy of the draft C&A Order is enclosed for your review. If you have any questions this matter, please contact Les Obata of this office at (209) 488-4390. ~ F. SCOTT NEVINS Senior Engineer LSO: Iso Enclosure cc: Department of Health services, TSCD, Fresno Kern County Department of Environmental Health, Bakersfield '\ e INSPECTI<?N REPORT ,e" -'..... "_,',n CAUFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUAUTY CONTROL BOARD - CENTRAL VALLEY REGION WDS NUMBER: 5D150100N04 Form Printed -> 03/15/90 DISCHARGER: FACILITY NAME: STAFF: LSO BAKERSFIELD. CITY OF 2101 -H- STREET BAKERSFIELD ,CA 93301 BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK 2010 SOUTH UNION AVENUE BAKERSFIELD ,CA 93309 CONTACT: RALPH HUEY PHONE: 8053263979 CONTACT: ROBRET OLISAGERS PHONE: 8058329100 ORDERS : ORDER NUMBER DATE ADOPTED TYPE LAST INSPECTIONS: DATE TYPE VIOLATION? 900223 B1 N INSPECTION TYPE: [ ] 1. "A" TYPE CCI1PLIANCE (SAMPLING) [X] 2. "B" TYPE CCI1PLIANCE (NO SAMPLING) [ ] 3. NON-CCI1PLIANCE FOLLOW-UP [ ] 4. ENFORCEMENT FOLLOW-UP [ ] 5. CCI1PLAINT [ ] 6. PRE-REQUIREMENT [ ] 7. MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM CœPONENT TASK NUMBER: Ill~ILI INSPECTION DATE: 1~IQJLI1.I.f..IJ..1 Y Y M H D D INSPECTOR'S INITIALS ILI5...ID-1 CONTACT: Ra 1 ph Huev INSPECTION SUMMARY (100 character limit): Discharge to surface impoundment has been terminated. Impoundment backfi lled with intent to sati s fy "cease discharge II. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: City plans to submit HAR and clean close the impoundment in accordance with compliance time schedule in C & A Order to be issued by R. B. See attached Report for additional comments. WDR REVIEW: N/A tDNITORING PROGRAM REVIEW: N/A Was there a VIOLATION discovered during this inspection? YES [] NO [] PENDING SAMPLE RESULTS [ NOT APPLICABLE EX ] Reviewed By: (If yes, you MUST attach a completed violation input form.) INSPECTOR SIGNAIURE . DArzdf~ tI~ ~hW" /IJ I~ ,{ ~'t:i ~ DATA ENTRY DATE: 3/5" /<10 ,e ---. -'-",,-.-~ . ".- - --~- :e ._~...... ,w__....-_ ___ __~ .__ -2- Attachment My inspection of the Airpark was conducted with the following City representatives: Ralph Huey Robert Olislager Hazardous Material Coordinator Airport Manager The purpose of my inspection was to determine the current status of a surface impoundment at the Airpark that is subj ect to requirements under the Toxic pits Cleanup Act (TPCA). The surface impoundment was formerly a drainage collection ditch that was modified and used as a disposal sump for waste oil. The impoundment has been identified in previous investigations conducted by the city as "Task B - Drainage Ditch". In addition, three other areas where soil contamination has been identified in previous investigations and further work is required were also examined during my inspection. The locations of all areas inspected are shown on the location map attached to this memorandum. The other areas inspected in addition to the surface impoundment are described below: 1. Area east of crop dusting facility (identified in previous investigations as Task A). 2. Rinse pad area (identified in previous investigations as Task C). 3. New surface water drainage sump (identified in previous investigations as Task E) . FINDINGS The findings from my inspection of the problem areas at the Airpark which have been identified in previous investigations as Tasks A, B, C, and E, are described in the following section. Task A - Area East Of Crop Dusting Facility This is the area located east of the Garriott Crop Dusting (GCD) facility. The GCD facility also has a surface impoundment that is subject to the requirements of the TPCA and the discharger has initiated studies to investigate soil and ground water contamination problems at the site. ,_..'...' .,e Ie -3- Surface soils have been found to be contaminated with low levels of pesticides on the city property. Investigations have been completed recently to determine the lateral and vertical extent of the surface contamination. Mr. Huey stated that the city is currently reviewing various alternatives to remediate the problem area that has pesticide contaminated soils. I found the area to be dry and did not observe any liquid waste ponded over the area. The area with contaminated soils is adj acent to the runway and is within a fenced area where the public is precluded. Runoff from adjacent parcels no longer flow onto this area. I did not observe any obvious problems or activity in the area that could aggravate the existing problem. Task B - Surface Impoundment Subiect To The Toxic Pits Cleanup Act (TPCA) I found that the surface impoundment had been backfilled with soil and it was difficult to identify the boundaries of the impoundment that was formerly used for the disposal of waste oil. Waste oil currently generated at the Airpark is stored in an above ground container and transported to a recycling facility. According to information contained in the Regional Board's case file, the impoundment was still in operation after 1 January 1985. It is not known exactly when the impoundment was backfilled, however our records indicate that the impoundment was still open in August 1986. Hazardous waste was left in place and was covered with soil when the impoundment was backfilled. Since the impoundment was still in operation after 1 January 1985, and it contained hazardous waste with free liquids, it is clear that the impoundment is subj ect to the TPCA. We initially informed the city on 3 July 1989, that the impoundment is subject to requirements under the TPCA and requested that a workplan for a Hydrogeological Assessment Report (HAR) be submitted. As of the date of this inspection, the city has not yet submitted the HAR workplan. A draft copy of a proposed Cleanup and Abatement (C&A) Order for this surface impoundment was given to Mr. Huey for the city staff to review. Task C - Rinse Pad Area The rinse pad area is located in the northeast area of the Airpark and adjacent to the K.L.A. Aviation Service hanger. The rinse pad is still in operation and is used only for washing and rinsing off engines and the exterior of aircraft during maintenance activities. (e (e ~~- _._.~.~ .....-.-..- - .. , . -4- Washing and rinsing of aerial crop dusters was discontinued when the City acquired the Airpark in 1985. Wastewater generated at the rinse pad drains into a large underground concrete storage tank reported to be similar to a ~eptic tank. The size of the tank and the date it was installed 1S not known. Mr. Huey indicated that the wastewater in the tank is pumped out as required by a contract liquid waste hauler. The preliminary site characterization study completed during 1989 for the rinse pad area found surface soils around the rinse pad to be contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons. No samples were collected beneath the storage tank or associated piping. Since the wastewater is stored in a concrete tank, it should be anticipated that some leakage has occurred and further investigations are warranted. The City plans to construct a new rinse pad and wastewater disposal facility after July 1990 when funds become available through a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) grant. After the new facility is constructed, the city plans to remove the existing rinse pad, piping and holding tank, and conduct a full site contamination assessment of the area. The discharge to the underground storage tank has not been sampled by the city and the waste characteristics of the rinse water is not known. The rinsing of aircraft engines raises some concern that petroleum related contaminants could be present in the discharge. r informed Mr. Huey that the City needs to sample and characterize the discharge to insure that the interim operations of the rinse pad does not cause additional contamination problems at the Airpark. Task E - New Surface Water Drainaqe Sump The new drainage sump is located in the northwest area of the Airpark. The drainage' sump was constructed by the City during 1986 to collect rain water runoff from the north area of the Airpark and from Union Avenue and prevent sheet flow across the Airpark. During the preliminary site characterization study completed by the City in 1989, samples were collected from soil borings drilled in the bottom of the new sump. The analyses for the bottom samples reported concentrations of oil and grease from non-detectable to 170 mg/kg. Because of this finding, the city plans to conduct further studies to determine the lateral and vertical extent of contamination in soils beneath the drainage sump. I did not observe any wastewater ponded in the drainage sump during my inspection. There were no unusual conditions or problems found with the current operation of the drainage sump. (e ··-(e -".}. . - -"'-"-~."-""-"'~~'---""~-' -5- CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions were developed following my inspection of the problem areas at the Airpark. Task A - Area East Of Crop Dustinq Facility The city is currently reviewing various alternatives to remediate the surface soils that have been found to be contaminated with pesticides. The area was dry and no wastewater was found to be ponded over the contaminated soils. The Ci ty should be requested to submi t a time schedule wi th proposed dates for the selection of an specific alternative and implementation of remedial measures to correct the soil contamination problem. Task B - Surface Impoundment Subiect To The TPCA The disposal of waste oil into the impoundment has been terminated and the impoundment has been backfilled with soil. Although the impoundment has been backfilled, the facility case file indicates that the impoundment was in operation after 1 January 1985. Therefore it is sUbject to the requirements under the TPCA. The proposed C&A Order contains a time schedule to require compliance with the TPCA. Task C - Rinse Pad Area The existing rinse pad is still in operation. Wastewater generated at the rinse pad is discharged to an underground concrete storage tank. There is no wastewater associated with crop dusting activities being discharged at the rinse pad. The city plans to continue using the existing rinse pad/storage tank until a new facility is constructed. Construction of a new facility is not planned until after July 1990 when FAA grant funds become available. Following construction of the new facility, the City plans to remove the existing rinse pad, piping, and holding tank and conduct a detailed site contamination assessment. During the interim period, the City should characterize the wastewater being discharged to the storage tank to determine whether modifications are needed for the existing operation. This matter was discussed with Mr. Huey during the inspection. Ie I (e . ".- -~--' -6- Task E - New Surface Water Drainaqe Sump The City plans to conduct further investigations of soils beneath the new sump to determine the lateral and vertical extent of oil and grease contamination previously found in the sump. The city should be requested to submit a time schedule with proposed dates for completion of the contamination assessment. Attachment LSO:lso Ie (.e ATTACHMENT NO: 1 .J ._,-...,.~ r' ~J T~. -r- ~ H I I ~ . '.. f . ~ÞrIA1'W ICAU .11 PUT I. ! z i ! ! ::;) % ~ ØIOfI DU8TItI8 HOUn I TASK E J - ::;) z .. ~ ~ . 9 2 "r fAIT P\NIZ IIOo\Ø ., SITE PLAN BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK 2000 SOUTH UNION AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA LEGEND TASK A - Area East of Crop Oustinq Facility TASK B - Orainaqe Ditch TASK C - Rinse Pad Area, Including Piping and Tank TASK E - New Surface Water Orainage Sump STATE 0' .~ALIFORNIA e :e GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor 3443 ROUTIER ROAD, SUITE A SACRAMENTO, CA 95827·3098 A-- ~"O!~" .'.'~ --~~...:~::.." .-,<~K..k: l'~" ~ 'w i \.<to - ,',¡! '~"C?uAL~Co"'/ 11 May 1990 CERTIFIED MAIL P 813 886 022 Mr. Ralph E. Huey Hazardous Materials Coordinator City of Bakersfield 2101 H Street Bakersfield, CA 93301 CLEANUP AND ABATEMENT ORDER, CITY OF BAKERSFIELD (BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK), KERN COUNTY Our 3 July 1989 letter informed you of the requirements of the Toxic Pits Cleanup Act of 1984 (TPCA). Among these TPCA requirements is the need to submit a Hydrogeological Assessment Report (HAR). Although the City has known of this requirement since July 1989, to date no work plan for completing the HAR has been submitted for our review. Although the impoundment is no longer in use and it has been backfilled, we have concerns regard i ng the long-term threat to water qua 1 i ty that ex i sts by the presence of hazardous wastes at the site. We are therefore taking appropriate enforcement action to achieve corrective action on this matter. The enclosed Cleanup and Abatement Order directs the City to submit by 1 July 1990, a work plan and time schedule to complete a HAR and to cease the discharge. In addition, the Order requires that a plan and time schedule be submitted by 1 August 1990 to complete closure of the impoundment. If you have any questions regarding this matter I please telephone Les Obata in Fresno at (209) 488-4390. r ,,/'\!\ Uù~~!~u)lJ WILLIAM H. CROOKS Executive Officer Enclosure cc: Regional Board Members Ms. Frances McChesney, Counsel, State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento Mr. Jesse Diaz, Division of Water Quality, State Water Resources Control Board I Sacramento Mr. Jim Parsons I TPCA Program Manager I State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento Mr. Tom Kovac, Department of Health Services, Fresno Mr. Steve McCalley, Kern County Health Department, Bakersfield ../' ---.-// ;e Ie CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD CENTRAL VALLEY REGION CLEANUP AND ABATEMENT ORDER NO. 90-709 FOR CITY OF BAKERSFIELD (BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK) KERN COUNTY The California Regional Water Quality Control Board I Central Valley Region, (hereafter Board) finds that: 1. The City of Bakersfield (hereafter Discharger) owns and operates the Bakersfield Airpark which is in the southeast part of the City at 2010 South Union Avenue. The Airpark is in the SW 1/4 of Section 8, T30S, R28E, MDB&M. 2. The 100-acre Airpark was originally developed in 1945 and used by the Israeli Air Force as a pilot training facility. The Airpark was later operated as a private airport which provided ground support for small aircraft and crop dusters. 3. The Discharger purchased the Airpark in July 1985 with plans to redevelop the facility as a public airport with supporting public services. 4. During operations which continued after 1 January 1985, waste oil from aircraft and automotive maintenance repair activities was discharged into a surface impoundment. 5. The surface impoundment is an earthen artificial excavation formerly used as a drainage ditch. A portion of the ditch was modified to hold an accumulation of liquids for disposal. 6. The disposal of waste oil into the surface impoundment was terminated and the impoundment was backfilled with soil sometime after the Airpark was purchased by the City. ' 7. A limited site characterization study of the Airpark was completed by the Discharger during March 1989. The investigation revealed that soils in the surface impoundment were contaminated with heavy metals I oil and grease, and total petroleum hydrocarbons. 8. The contaminated soils in the surface impoundment contained the following heavy metals that are above hazardous levels: Constituent Concentration Hazardous Levels* Lead Cadmium up to 4,100 mg/kg up to 690 mg/kg *From Title 22, CCR, Sec. 66699(b) 1,000 mg/kg 100 mg/kg e - CLEANUP AND ABATEMENT ORDER NO. 90-709 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD (BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK) KERN COUNTY -3- the impoundment and the lateral and vertical extent has not been determined. Hazardous waste has been discharged and deposited in an unlined impoundment and created conditions which threaten to cause pollution of the underlying ground water. 17. Surface impoundments discharging 1 iquid hazardous wastes or hazardous wastes containing free liquids after 1 Januar~,a5 are regulated by the Toxic Pits Cleanup Act of 1984 (TPCA), Section 25208, et seq., Health and Safety Code (H&SC). The TPCA requ ires the Di scharger to submit a Hydrogeological Assessment Report (HAR) pursuant to Section 25208.7 and 25208.8, and fees pursuant to Section 25208.3. 18. Surface impoundment or impoundment means a waste management unit which is a natural topographic depression, artificial excavation, or diked area formed primarily of earthen materials, which is designed to hold an accumulation of liquid hazardous wastes or hazardous wastes containing free liquids, including evaporation ponds and percolation ponds [H&SC, Section 25208.2(x)]. 19. The discharge of liquid hazardous wastes or hazardous wastes containing free liquids to surface impoundments within one-half mile upgradient of a potential source of drinking water after 30 June 1988 is prohibited (H&SC, Section 25208.4). Discharge is defined to include placement, disposal or storage of hazardous wastes in a surface impoundment [H&SC, Section 25208. 2( f)]. 20. The legislature has found that discharges of liquid hazardous wastes or hazardous wastes containing free liquids pose a serious threat to the quality of waters of the State. Hazardous waste has been discharged into a former drainage ditch which was closed at both ends to form a surface impoundment. 21. When the Board determines that a surface impoundment is polluting, or threatens to pollute, the waters of the State, or that hazardous waste constituents are migrating from the surface impoundment into the vadose zone or the waters of the State, in concentrations which pollute the vadose zone, or pollute, or threaten to pollute, the waters of the State, the Board sha 11 order the surface impoundment to close (H&SC, Section 25208.6) . 22. "Close the impoundment" means the permanent termination of all hazardous waste discharge operations at a waste management unit and any operations necessary to prepare that waste management unit for post-closure maintenance which are conducted pursuant to the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. Sec.690l, et seq.) and the regulations adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board and the It CLEANUP AND ABATEMENT ORDER NO. 90-709 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD (BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK) KERN COUNTY It -5- of a California registered civil engineer or engineering geologist. All plans and time schedules are subject to review and approval by the Executive Officer. Submitted time schedules become part of this Order once approved or revised by the Executive Officer. Task A. Hydrogeological Assessment Report (HAR), and cease discharge. (1) Submit a work plan and time schedule to complete a HAR and to cease the discharge. The HAR work plan must address all tasks necessary to complete a HAR as required by Section 25208.8 of the H&SC. (2) Submit a completed HAR and cease discharge. B. Closure of surface impoundment. (1) Submit a plan and time schedule to complete closure of the surface impoundment. (2) Close the surface impoundment. Date for Submittal of Completed Work 1 July 1990 In accordance with the approved time schedule. 1 August 1990 In accordance with the approved time scheduie. W~¿,~ WILLIAM H. CROOKS, Executive Officer DATED: 11 May 1990 LSO:cjs .¡. STATE OF CALIFORNIA :,e e GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor 1 October 1990 ,^_1234$'~ rø:" e>~~ :~ ~ r9~" '. ~ nCT 1990 (.~ ~1 RECEIVED ' \~~ '":>,. \'':"c' ,'. "'-':<:>., .....' '<·~!:.:2~? ~::~~: ::',': .~:.- "'tQ.<.Ao_, I.~: J~f ~~ ,?i ..... cI -'.'" ')",... .. ~. '. CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD- CENTRAL VALLEY REGION SAN JOAQUIN WATERSHED BRANCH OFFICE: 3614 EAST ASHlAN AVENUE FRESNO. CA 93726 PHONE: (209) 445-5116 Mr. Ralph E. Huey Hazardous Materials Coordinator City of Bakersfield Fire Department 2101 H Street Bakersfield, CA 93301 REVIEW OF WORK PLAN AND TIME SCHEDULES FOR CORRECTING EXISTING PROBLEMS AT THE BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK We have reviewed the subject workplan/time schedules which you submitted in response to our 22 March 1990 request for this information. Enclosed is a copy of our memorandum summarizing our evaluation. The memorandum concludes that additional information is needed from the City to address specific issues. Therefore, we request that you review our memorandum and by 1 November 1990, provide us with the appropriate information to address the identified water quality issues. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Les Obata of this office at (209) 488-4390. ç F. SCOTT NEVINS Senior Engineer Enclosure cc: Department of Health Services, Toxics Substances Control Division, Fresno " Integrated Waste Management Board, Sacramento ~Kern County Department of Environmental Health, Bakersfield I,e Memorandum Ie CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD-CENTRAL VALLEY REGION 3614 E. Ashlan SAN JOAQUIN WATERSHED BRANCH Telephone: (209) 445-5116 Fresno. CA 93726-6905 State Lease Line: 421-5116 TO: F. Scott Nevins Senior Engineer FROM: Lester S. Obata Sanitary Engr. Associate DATE: 1 October 1990 SIGNATUR~L~ SUBJECT: REVIEW Of WORK PLAN/TIME SCHEDULES TO CORRECT PROBLEMS AT THE CITY Of BAKERSfIELD AIRPARK The City recently submitted a work plan with time schedules to correct existing problems for three separate areas at the Airpark. The work plan and time schedules apply to the following areas which are shown on the attached location map. Project A. Area east of crop dusting facility with pesticide contamination. Project C. Rinse pad area, including piping and underground storage tank. Project D. New surface water drainage sump (previously identified as Task E). I have reviewed the work plan/time schedules which outlines the work to be performed at the Airpark. The following section includes a summary of the existing problem identified for each area, and the City's corrective action plan and implementation time schedules as described in the work plan. An evaluation of the work plan for each area of concern is also included. Project A. Area East of Crop Dustinq Facilitv. Existinq Problem Previous investigations conducted in this area during 1986 and 1989 have found surface soils to be contaminated with pesticides below hazardous levels. A contamination assessment was completed by the City during September 1989 to determine the lateral and vertical extent of contamination. An area of approximately one acre located between the airstrip and the crop dusting facility has pesticide contamination down to depths of about 10 feet. The pesticides of concern include Dactha1, 4,4'-DDT, Endosulfan I, Methoxychlor, and Merphos. All pesticide compounds that were found at the site are below hazardous levels. The depth to ground water beneath the site is about 175 feet. With the bottom of the contaminated soils found at 10 feet, the vertical separation between the contaminated soil and ground water is 165 feet. There are no surface water courses in the vicinity of the Airpark that could be impacted from site drainage. City's Corrective Action Plan The Ci t y:þröþòses' . to':leave¡thecontami nàtedsol F"i If:p 1 a~ and-cõnstrüct>a?-CaW1over the area to keep liquids off the area and prevent migration of contaminants. The cap I Rev;e\.¡ed by~<r~'Ap r!1, ( I \ A f> . e e CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK -2- is also intended to mitigate surface conditions that could lead to public health/public exposure problems. The proposed cap consists of a 6 inch base of compacted native soil, 12 inches of select fill material, 6 inches of aggregate base rock, and 2 inches of asphalt concrete. The City has indicated that the area to be capped wi 11 be compacted to 100% relative compaction to provide stability, since the area will also be designed to serve a secondary role as an aircraft storage or parking area. The City has indicated that if the proposed plan is acceptable to the Regional Board, the project could be implemented by June 1991. Rea';ona 1- Board Staff Eva luat ion of the City's Proposal Sections 2580 thru 2584 of Chapter 15 prescribes closure requirements for landfills, surface impoundments, waste piles, and land treatment facilities. The contaminated soils which exist at this site resulted from spillage and leakage of pesticides during past operations and were not caused from the operation of a landfill, surface impoundment, or waste pile. If a closure category were to be selected for this site, it appears that the closest category would be the category for closure of a land treatment unit. In a land treatment unit, some degree of degradation would be expected to occur. The results of soil analyses performed during 1989 compared to soil analyses performed during 1986, indicate that degradation of the pesticides in the soils is occurring at this site. Section 2584 of Chapter 15 describes the requirements for closure and post closure of a land treatment facility. Generally, Section 2584 requires that the site be proper 1y managed to maximize degradat ion, transformation, or innnobil i zat ion of wastes, and the site be maintained to prevent runoff or migration of waste constituents. The section does not specify that capping of the site is required to satisfy closure. The City proposes to immobilize the waste and prevent runoff or migration of waste constituents by constructing a cap over the contaminated soils. Genera11y, the site will be capped to restrict liquids from percolating through the soils and will be managed in a manner similar to the operation of a pesticide applicator facility operating under Regional Board guidelines for pesticide applicators. Resolution No. 90-034 which was adopted by the Regional Board, allows for a conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements at pesticide applicator facilities which operate in . conformance with the guidelines. It appears that the proposed cap should be adequate for the protectiòrf~ô~gr,º"md,watec.- at this site for the following reasons: 1. There are no hazardous levels of contaminants at the site. 2. There will be no contaminants left in soils below the depth of 10 feet. - e CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK -3- 3. A comparison of soil analyses performed during 1986 with recent soil analyses performed during 1989 indicate that degradation of the pesticide contaminants is occurring at this site. 4. The depth to ground water beneath the site is 175 feet. There appears to be adequate vertical separation provided between the bottom of contaminated soils and ground water. 5. The climate in the area is associated with arid conditions I therefore the generation of 1eachates from rainfall should be minimal. The mean annual prec i p Hat i on in the Bakersf i e 1 d area is about 6 inches and the mean annua 1 evaporation rate is about 108 inches. The City's proposed remedial measure appears to be adequate for the protection of ground water. However, prior to implementation, it will be necessary for the City to submit additional information covering the following items: 1. Grading and drainage for the cap. a. Slope design. b. Drainage containment features. 2. Post closure maintenance. a. Plans for continued monitoring of the unsaturated zone. b. Plans for inspection and maintenance of the cap to maintain it's integrety.. Project C. Rinse Pad Area Includinq Pipinq and Underqround Storaqe Tank~ Existinq Problem Oil and grease concentrations up to 560 mg/kg have been found in soils to a depth of 9 feet adjacent to the rinse pad and underground tank. Wastewater from washing the exterior of aircraft only· is currently discharged to the tank, however the City staff is not certain as to the waste characteristics of past discharges at this location. There are no pesticide applicators currently using the rinse pad. The underground tank is concrete and is similiar to a septic tank used in a domestic sewage system. liquids in the tank are pumped and removed by a licensed liquid WãS:te haulefon a as need basis. Past reports indicate that there may have been a discharge from the tank to an adjacent leaching trench. There is also some abandoned piping reported in the area that may have been associated with past disposal operations. City's Corrective Action Plan The City is aware that the rinse pad facil ity needs to be upgraded and a complete contamination assessment needs to be performed at this location. The City plans to e e CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK -4- construct new facilities with funds to be provided by a DOT/Aeronautics grant. The City has estimated the construction date to be about June 1991. The existing rinse pad/storage tank will be taken out of operation following the construction of the new facility. The City has indicated that a full site contamination assessment will be performed at that time. During the interim period, the City plans to monitor the discharge by collecting samples periodically for laboratory analyses to ensure that the operation does not cause new problems or compound existing problems and create adverse impacts on ground water. The City collected samples of the discharge during July 1990 and had laboratory analyses for petroleum hydrocarbons and selected pesticides performed. ReQional Board Staff Evaluation of the City's Proposal The general plan proposed and time schedule for implementation submitted by the City appears to be acceptable at this time. However, after the City receives it's funding for construction from the DOT/Aeronautics grant, the City will be required to submit detailed plans to us for the new faci1ty. A detailed work plan outlining the site contamination assessment and time schedule for implementation will also be required at that time. The monitoring program for the existing rinse pad discharge needs to be modified. Currently, aTX&E are being analyzed by EPA Method 8020 with detection limits at 100 ug/1. These compounds should be analyzed using EPA Method 602 with lower detection limits so that this information can be utilized to evaluate potential impacts on ground water. Samples should also be collected and analyzed at least once a month and the results transmitted to us for review. Depending upon the results, modifications mayor may not be required for the existing operation. Project D. New Surface Water DrainaQe Sump Existina Problem Soil samples collected from within the surface impoundment during the limited site characterization study revealed oil and grease contamination with concentrations up to 170 mg/kg. The source of the oil and grease contamination is unknown. In addition, the lateral and vertical extent of contamination is not known and needs to be investigated. City's Corrective Action Plan The City has retained the services of Dames and Moore Engineers to conduct a full site contamination of the new surface impoundment. The City anticipates work to begin on the investigation near the end of September 1990, and a draft report to be completed about December 1990. e ,e CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK -5- Reqional Board Staff Evaluation of the City's Proposal The City's proposal to conduct a full site contamination assessment appears to be acceptable at this time. However, a work plan should be submitted to us for review prior to the implementation of any work associated with the site assessment. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The following summary and conclusions have been developed following my review of the City's proposed corrective measures for the problem areas at the Airpark. Project A. Area east of crop dustinq facility. The City's proposal to construct a cap over the contaminated area appears to be an acceptable plan and is generally consistent with closure requirements for a land treatment facility as prescribed in Section 2584 of Chapter 15. The proposed implementation date of June 1991 also appears, to be acceptable. However, as previously indicated in our evaluation, the City should submit additional information for this proposal prior to implementation. Project C. Rinse Pad Area. The City's proposal to conduct a full site contamination assessment in the rinse pad area following the construction of new facilities (about June 1991) appears to be acceptable. However, as previously indicated in our evaluation, the City should submit detailed plans for the new facility and a detailed work plan/time schedule for conducting the contamination assessment. This information is to be submitted to the Regional Board following the City's receipt of construction funding from a DOT/Aeronautics grant. In addition, the interim monitoring program for the existing rinse pad discharge should be modified as indicated in our evaluation. Project D. New Surface Water Drainaqe Sump The City's proposal to conduct a full site contamination assessment appears to be acceptable. However, a work plan should be submitted to the Regional Board for review prior to the implementation of this project. LSO:cjs ------- . . - e LOCATION MAP CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK \ , ,. '.. ~ "!"¿": \ I '~~, ,.... \ ~~\ \. [.~:, ~~ . -~11:- ·:"~_-_,:,::..,r..",·,, -.-- r-.- ...._i~- -----" _ICI ..... , c. -, ,.,... ~U ...-.. J ,,' :'!.1:':.'::1 ~ ~. I ""-.'. ~..~~ Qo. I.:. . - ~ I "...... "...C;.. ~ "'t'I,r., I "~~:1~ 1 .·:'U".... ~~ ,;r~~,7:! ' -,,;,. 1 " \I~jf~ . ;,..... ~ '\ r-- . ~ 1'\1111 " '\ II ,~~. "..c"'" . \\~\ .. I - -- \i\ \ ~ I ~I '", % _, c., -:\ ~ --=:-- _. '<:'- '!. I ~:":.. L____¡ -- ---... .. II ---. -. -------- _. _ _ _ .. _._ a.. . PROJECT C aM,.., AI' '1'._4. "10 .....,....... (HO" a ~ rc.G ......œ. " I"'"'' '. ,........ H·' PRD.J~CT A I ~ ¡ I ~ ; "'~ ~I - - -~\ I k;~;;::' :~EAST OF CROP ~ DUSTING FACILITY ---- ROADWAY AIRfI(LO/APRON PAII(U(Nf IlIftlOllIC R(SIRlCIION lM , [lice .1I1I·(~' "ROPER 1 T l'l( N l' /~ (' '\ \ '\ '\ \ 9.. '\ \ ......, \ ",..'to·- ,,:,...'\.. , \ ~~" '\ \ '\ \ '\ \ .) \ \ " V LEGEr~O" PROJECT C. PROJECT D. R~NSE PAD A~EA NEW SURFACE WATER DP~INAGE SUMP ,....C"'~.:-4 ~ IHlle fURt -.- ~ .. . .. .. P.... 1(_' . tUI ---- MERCY HOSPITAL JANe n/~ .' ~fftl4"~' ,~ .J -, <.-I ¡a .n., . ,b'. Al~ß··~ ., ~~!£~;, /7:~ (/laz Ha;/.s fl(}~~/Ñ) Department of Hu.llb St.rvic,tS Slate o( ~i(ornia..Hul(b and Wc.lfare A&c.ncy PESTICIDE ILLNESS REPORT fATJENT: Name: ROGE R C OL BE RT AddrtM: 1209 Margalo St. PboDe No.: ( 80» 7 5 8 - 3 8 91 Age: 5 1 Sex M F City: Was c 0 932 80 County: K ern Social Security Number: 545 - 48- 4485 INJUR~ BAKERSFIELD AIR PARK AI Address: ;, t h Un' City. B a k e r s fie I d County: K ern Was injury: ( J f ~t Home t ~~ At Work--agriculture f( a 3 At Work--nonagriculture ( J 4 Other exposure: If at work: a) Employer's name and address: . J.L. DINIO CONSTRUCTION Rosedale Hwy Bakersfield, b) Manager or Supervisor: Date of exposure: 9/ 90 Tune of exposure.: thru 10/2/90 Is tbere reason to believe others were exposed? ~ ~ 1 No I J 2 Yes Date of illness: E a c h Date of de.3th: working day I I fA TIENTS DESCRIPTION OF EXPOSURE: Activity at time of exposure: ( )1 Applying pesticides ( ) 2 Manufacturing pesticides () 3 Mixing pe.5ticides I J" Entering pesticide arus ( ] 5 Disposing of pesticides or thdr wntainel'$ ( J 6 Eating contaminated food þ:j70thc.r e.xposure (expWn): Operating Heavy equipment- moving dirt -- Name of pcsticide(s): un k now n lngrcdient(s) of pesticide(s): PJÙnary route of exposure.: I ] 10ral rx }2 Dermal I ] 3 Eye ( xl .c Inhalatioa I) S UnlnOWD I'HYS/CIAN'SDESCRlfflONOFEXI'OSURE: '__u_ .--- ---- -----,'---___... Date tint sua: 10 I 2J 90 rune first seen: 6: 10 pm Major a.i¡ns. symp(oms, adverse re.1woaa: __ Headache, Loss of appetite, Loss of 15 pounds in 2 weeks Ski n bur n i n g, s tom a' c h c ram p s, d i are a h a Hospitalize.d? I )1 No Ix 12 Y t$ If yes, hospitaJ name: MER C Y H 0 S PIT A L Hospital phooe: ( 805) £merge DC)' room ooJy7 ( ) 1 No (>12 Yea Pb)'$icU.D'S office ooJy7 IX) 1 No I J 2 Yea Pb)'$icüa (name and address): Dr. Larwood and Dr. Jung Dia¡nostic $hJdies ordered? ( ) 1 No Ix) 2 Yea ~œ&: Currently Toxic Exposure Briel description of incident Cd' female. indicate if pregnant): OPERATING HEAVY EQUIPMENT MOVING DIRT IN A RESTRICTED,AREA. City. B A K E R S F I EL 0 MercY Hospi ta 1 If yes. wlûch studies? T 8 C - As t r a - C h 0 1 i n Est rat E Chest Xray - Panel B - Urine AGENCY COMPLETING FORM: NamelAgcDC)'JQ>unry. Candi Letcher Kern County Envi r'6nmerii.:a 1 Heëi 1 th Pcsticldc iDness reportin¡ is required by the California Health and Safety Code (See bad or this rOnD, Part 1 aød Part 2). Please c:omplete as much wormatÎoa as possible and submit form promptly. -..- ~...__ '-' 4.~ e e ~~~." , -.. ~v./'-- ~. STATE OF CALIFORNIA \ P.ETE WILSON, Governor SAN JOAQUIN WATERSHED BRANCH OFFICE: 3614 EAST ASH LAN AVENUE FRESNO, CA 93726 PHONE: (209) 445·5116 FAX: (209) 445,5910 # CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD- CENTRAL VALLEY REGION 17 April 1991 . ..': "-:, -",-:::-:--. , i .:;¡1 r:-'7 1 4PR ---: ,~?'.. / Ii ; I /I is ,,' 1,/ u 0'. '//'i L ". .------________ /1)') -..,.~'___ -----..! 1..:/ I Coordinator --------.J Fire Department Mr. Ralph E. Huey Hazardous Materials City of Bakersfield 2101 H Street Bakersfield, CA 93301 REVIEW OF WORKPLAN TO CONDUCT ADDITIONAL WORK AT THE CITY ! BAKERSFIELD AI~ KERN COUNTY ~- We have reviewed the City·s workplan which outlines additional work to be conducted for purposes of completing the Hydrogeologic Assessment Report (HAR) and closing the impoundment at the Airpark that is subject to the Toxic Pits Cleanup Act (TPCA). Enclosed is a copy of our memorandum summarizing our comments. We have no objections to the concept described in the work plan which appears to be intended to achieve "clean closure" of the impoundment. However, as indicated in the memorandum, more specific information must be submitted for our review and comments prior to implementation of this phase of the investigation. Please provide us with a work plan which contains this information prior to 11 May 1991. If you have any questions or would like to meet with us to discuss this matter I please contact Les Obata at (209) 488-4390. ( F. SCOTT NEVINS Senior Engineer LSO:lso/cjs Enclosure cc: Department of Health Services, Toxics Services Control Department, Fresno Kern County Department of Environmental Health, Bakersfield D.S. Needham, City of Bakersfield Fire Chief, Bakersfield e Memorandum (e CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD-CENTRAL VALLEY REGION 3614 E. Ashlan SAN JOAQUIN WATERSHED BRANCH Telephone: (209) 445-5116 Fresno. CA 93726-6905 State Lease Line: 421-5116 TO: F. Scott Nevins Senior Engineer FROM: Lester S. Obata Sanitary Engineering Assoc. DATE: 16 Apri 1 1991 SIGNATUR~£~ d ð6æ1~; SUBJECT: REVIEW Of WORKPLAN TO CONDUCT ADDITIONAL WORK AT THE BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK, KERN COUNTY BackQround Information On 3 July 1990, the City submitted a Hydrogeological Assessment Report (HAR) for an impoundment at the Airpark that is subject to the Toxic Pits Cleanup Act (TPCA). The HAR indicated that waste oil from aircraft and automotive maintenance activities had been discharged to an impoundment previously identified as the waste oil drainage ditch. It had also been reported that some of the the oily sludge was excavated from the impoundment after the City acquired the property in 1985 and the impoundment was backfilled to grade with native soil. The HAR also indicated that soil samples were collected from borings drilled to depths of 20 feet and analyzed for the following constituents: Heavy Metals Oil and Grease BTX&E TPH Volatile Priority Pollutants PCB's Organochlorine Pesticides Organophosphorus Pesticides The contaminants found in the boring samples were generally confined to heavy metals I oil and grease, and TPH. Lead and cadmium were at hazardous levels in soils down to about 10 feet. The vertical extent of the oil and grease, and TPH contamination was about 20 feet. The levels of heavy metals appears to decrease with depth (below 10 feet), however the lower limit of affected soils was not determined. Measurements of nearby wells indicate the depth to ground water beneath the site to be about 170 feet. The City has recently submitted a workplan to conduct additional work in an to attempt to complete the HAR requirements and to close the impoundment at the Airpark. The workplan has been reviewed and staff comments have been developed for the additional work proposed by the City. Additional Work Proposed To Complete The HAR The City's workplan indicates that additional soil samples will be collected to determine the background level of metals in soils in an unaffected area. These I Reviewed bY:~"/~/ 1],-1.1 \/II. I e e BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK, KERN COUNTY -2- 16 April 1991 results will then be used for comparison with soil samples from beneath the impoundment in order to define the lower limit of contaminants in the soil profile. Reqiona1 Board Staff Comments The City's conceptual approach for defining the vertical extent of contamination in soils beneath the impoundment appears appropriate. A more detailed work plan for the additional soil testing should be prepared by the project engineer and submitted for our review before proceeding with this work. Upon receipt of the results of this phase of the investigation, a judgement can be made on whether or not add it i ona 1 work such as ground water mon itor i ng wi 11 be necessary to determine if the relatively immobile contaminants of lead and cadmium have migrated through the 170 feet of soil to affect ground water quality. Additional Work Proposed For Closure Of The Impoundment The City's workplan indicates that the impoundment will be "clean closed" by excavating all contaminated soil and subsequently backfilling the impoundment with clean native soil. The City plans to treat the excavated soils that are above hazardous 1eve 1s by bioremediat ion and fixation methods on-s ite. The workp 1an indicates that a qualified engineering firm will be retained to complete the on-site treatment program. Reqiona1 Board Staff Comments The City·s concept of excavating all contaminated soil to "clean close" the impoundment appears to be a satisfactory plan. The excavation of all contaminated soil would remove the potential source of contamination. Additional information on achieving this concept will be needed for our evaluation prior to implementation of the work. The proposal to treat hazardous waste on-site will need to be coordinated with the Department of Health Services Toxic Substance Control Division (DHS-TSCD). The treatment of hazardous waste on-site may also require that a permit or an exemption be issued by DHS-TSCD. This process may extend the time schedule for completion of the remediation project. CONCLUSIONS 1. The additional soil sampling at the surface impoundment will provide insight into the depth of contaminants in the soil profile. A decision on the need for ground water monitoring can be made following this phase of the investigation. Additional specifics on the soil sampling should be provided to us prior to implementation of the work. e e BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK, KERN COUNTY -3- 16 April 1991 2. The concept for closure appears appropriate. Additional specific information on achieving the concept should be provided to us prior to implementation of the closure work. LSO:cjs:4/16/91 " ST ATE OF CALIFORNIA e ie ~/-~ ~t_', PETE WILSON. GOYe,nor CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD- CENTRAL VALLEY REGION SAN JOAQUIN WATERSHED BRANCH OFFICE: 3614 EAST ASH LAN AVENUE FRESNO. CA 93726 PHONE: (209) 445-5116 FAX: (209) 445·5910 23 May 1991 Mr. Ralph E. Huey Hazardous Materials Coordinator City of Bakersfield Fire Department 2101 H Street /-'.--~ Bakersfield, CA 93301" INSPECTION O~:R::IELO AIRPARK. X RN COUNTY Enclosed is aC -a r;p;-;:~ering an inspection of the subject facility conducted on 12 April 1991 by Les Obata of our staff. The inspection was conducted to fulfill the Toxic Pits Cleanup Act annual inspection requirement. Thank you for the cooperation provided during the inspection. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please telephone Les Obata at (209) 488-4390. ( F. SCOTT NEVINS Senior Engineer LSO:lso/fmc Enclosures cc: Mr. Tom Kovac, Department of Health Services, Toxic Substances Control ~ Division, Fresno ~Mr. Steve McCalley, Kern County Department of Environmental Health, Bakersfield Mr. 0.$. Needham, City of Bakersfield Fire Department, Bakersfield e Memorandum(e CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD-CENTRAL VALLEY REGION 3614 E. Ashlan SAN JOAQUIN WATERSHED BRANCH Telephone: (209) 445-5116 Fresno. CA 93726-6905 State Lease line: 421-5116 TO: f. SCOTT NEVINS Senior Engineer FROM: LESTER S. OBATA Sanitary Engineering Associate DATE: 23 May 1991 SUBJECT: INSPECTION Of CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK, KERN COUNTY SIGNATURE~~ d ð" , On 12 April 1991, I conducted an inspection of the Airpark to fulfill the Toxic Pits Cleanup Act (TPCA) annual inspection requirement. My inspection was conducted with Mr. Ralph Huey, Hazardous Materials Coordinator for the City of Bakersfield Fire Department. The Airpark is not regulated by Waste Discharge Requirements, however Cleanup and Abatement (C&A) Order No. 90-709 was issued to the City on 11 May 1990 to achieve compliance with TPCA requirements. The C&A Order required the City to (1) cease the discharge I (2) submit a completed Hydrogeological Assessment Report (HAR), and (3) close the impoundment. As of this date, the City has not submitted a completed HAR and has not closed the impoundment. The surface impoundment at the Airpark subject to TPCA has previously been identified as the old waste oil drainage ditch. In the past, operators of automotive and aircraft repair shops discharged waste oil into the unlined impoundment and caused underlying soils to become impacted with contaminants including total petroleum hydrocarbons and heavy metals. Lead and cadmium have been found at concentrations above hazardous levels in the impoundment. After the City purchased the Airpark in 1985, some of the waste sludge was removed and the impoundment was backfilled to grade. Subsequent site contamination investigations were conducted by the City during 1989 and 1990 which concluded that hazardous levels of lead and cadmium still remained in the impoundment. The City was therefore informed that the impoundment was subject to TPCA. During my inspection, I observed the soils around the impoundment to be dry. There were no signs of any liquids being discharged or ponded on the ground surface. The condition of soils around the impoundment.appeared dry and similar to conditions observed during my previous inspection of 23 February 1990. The City recently submitted a HAR for the Airpark project. The HAR has been reviewed and found to be incomplete. It is incomplete because there has not been enough work completed to determine whether the discharge has impacted ground water. The City is aware that more work is needed at the Airpark to complete the TPCA requirements and has submitted a workp1an to conduct further studies and to close the impoundment. All work on the HAR is to be completed by 1 October 1991 and the impoundment is to be closed by 1 January 1992. I Reviewed bY:~;,/ I~,J ", I lAP ,e !e CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK KERN COUNTY -2- 23 May 1991 Conclusion It appears that the City has done a substantial amount of work for this project in attempting to comply with TPCA requirements. However, to fulfill all of the requirements under TPCA, the City still needs to submit a completed HAR and close the impoundment. An Order amending Cleanup and Abatement Order No. 90-709 was recently issued to the City. The amended Order contains tasks requiring the City to submit a completed HAR by 1 October 1991 and to close the impoundment by 1 January 1992. The City staff has reviewed the Order and informed us that the TPCA requirements can be completed in accordance with the time schedule that is prescribed in the new Order. LSO:lso/fmc e e TPCA COMPLIANCE INSPECTION REPORT Type of inspection: Annual inspection ~ Cease discharge Closure * If this was a cease discharge inspection, did the material being tested pass the paint filter test? N/A yes / no * If this was a voluntary closure, has the facility successfully met closure? If this was a closure inspection of a leaking surface impoundment, has the facility successfully met closure? yes / no yes / no * Post-closure If this was a post-closure inspection, is the maintenance, cover, monitoring or other post-closure care effective? Exemption renewal ___, I Other * yes / no * If this was an exemption renewal inspection, was the Regional Board able to make all of the findings necessary for exemption renewal? yes / no * If the purpose of the inspection was not one of the above, briefly describe. City of Bakersfield Airpark Discharger: Bakersfield, Kern County Location and county: I Mr. Ralph Huey, Haz Mat Coordinator Contact(s): Inspection date: 12 April 1991 L.S. Obata Inspected by: Accompanied by: Mr. Ralph Huey INSPECTOR: SF LSD . eF ACILmES L"SPECTIO.s REPoi e : . ~ ~ OFFtCE NO: SWRa 001 (REV. 1·91) PCA System Tastt No.1 501 11m nnNn4 WDS NUMBER r.ity of R~kp.rsfield NAME OF AGENCY OR PARTY RESPONSiBlE FOR DISCHARGE NPOES NUMBER Bakersfield Airpark N......E OF FACIlITY ~ 11 06 (YY) (MM) (TYPE) SCHEOUlEO INSPECTION OAT A Robert m i" 1.:1 CJP r ~ FACILITY COÑ1ACT PERSON ...9.l- -.0..4- ...12... (YYMM 00) ACTUAl INSPECTION OATE Rn5 R32-g100 F ACJll1Y Pt-<C*OE NO, Airport Manaqer TITl£ -S.- JL Inspection agency (State - S, State I EPA Joint'" J) Is this a type "A 1" or "B1 ~ Compharœ InSpec'jon of ö NPDES facility as required by the section 106 6' è1nt ,. ,~plan? (YIN) If so, send a copy of this report to EP A I:\srECTIO~ TYPE (Check One) A1 B1 02 03 04 05 06 -X- "A· type compliance.. Comprehensive IfIspection in wha:!1 samples are taken, (EPA Type S) ·B~ type compliance .- A routine nonsa."npling inspeçtl()l"c (EPA type C) Noncompliance follow-up .- Inspection rr.ade to verify CO-ec'.íon of a previously idenltfied violation. Enforcement follow-up.. Inspection made to verrly that c::æ;lions of an enforcement action are being met Complaint.. Inspection made in resperse 10 a complamt Pre-requirement.. Inspection made to gather info. rela~ \0 preparing. modifying, or rescinding requirements. Miscellaneous.. Any inspection type not mentJOned abcM!. If \his is an :PA ,nspection not mentioned above. please note type. (e.g.--:.omonitoring. performance audit. diagnostic. etc.) TPCA - Annual IT ype -N- Were VIOLATIONS noted during \his inspection? (!:e~o.~~ing Sample Results) jL Was \his a Quality Assurance·Based Il'\SpectJon? (YIN) ~ Were bioassay samples taken? (N c No) If YES, \her S "' Static or F .. Flowthrough. I~SPECTIO~ St:~l~IARY (REQUIRED) (100 character limit) --See. at td.Ç hme o.t "_ ---- ----- ------ ------ --- -------- ----- ------ --- -------- ------------ INmAlS I SO "GN^,"~ þ! t%d <'I "L Y \ L (2)-1Lf OATE ~~/9 / INSPECTOR'S DATA: For Inter'1a1 Use: Reviewed by: (1) ~ (3) Reg. WDS Coordinator WDS Data Entry Date:_ _ _ ,e (e PETE WILSON. Governor ST ATE OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD- CENTRAL VALLEY REGION SAN JOAQUIN WATERSHED BRANCH OFFICE: 3614 EAST ASH LAN AVENUE FRESNO, CA 93726 PHONE: (209) 445,5116 FAX: (209) 445-5910 30 Apr i1 1991 CERTIFIED MAIL P 908 531 909 ~\~\ \\\' Mr. Ralph E. Huey Hazardous Materials Coordinator City of Bakersfield Fire Department 2101 H Street Bakersfield, CA 93301 /------- CITY OF BAKERSFIELD ~~ 11 May 1990, Cleanup and Abatement Order No. 90-709 was issued to the City of Bakersfield (Bakersfield Airpark) to assure completion of tasks necessary to comply with the Toxic Pits Cleanup Act of 1984 (TPCA) and to achieve corrective action for problems caused by past discharges of waste oil to a surface impoundment. The enclosed Order Amending Cleanup and Abatement Order No. 90-709 includes a revised time schedule for completion of the remaining tasks. regarding this matter, please telephone Les Obata at If you have any questions (209) 488,43 (N.S. +v- WI LLIAM H. Executiv Enclosure cc+Enc: Regional Board Members Department of Health Services, Toxic Substances Control Division, Fresno Ms. Karen O'Haire, State Water Resources Control Board, Office of Chief Counsel, Sacramento Mr. James Giannopoulos, State Water Resources Control Board, TPCA Manager, Sacramento Mr. Archie Matthews I State Water Resource Control Board, Division Water Quality, Sacramento Mr. D.S. Needham, Fire Chief, City of Bakersfield Fire Department, Bakersfield ".....,...·Mr. Steve McCalley, Kern County Department of Environmental Health, Bakersfield ,e ie CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD CENTRAL VALLEY REGION CLEANUP AND ABATEMENT ORDER NO. 91-713 AMENDING CLEANUP AND ABATEMENT ORDER NO. 90-709 FOR CITY OF BAKERSFIELD (BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK) KERN COUNTY The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region, (hereafter Board) finds that: 1. The Executive Officer of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region, (hereafter Board) issued Cleanup and Abatement Order No. 90~709, dated 11 May 1990, (hereafter Order) to the City of Bakersfield (Bakersfield Airpark) (hereafter Discharger). 2. Order No. 90-709 prescribed tasks to be completed by the Discharger to bring the facility into compliance with the Toxic Pits Cleanup Act of 1984 (TPCA). Specifically, the Order required the Discharger to submit plans and time schedules to complete a Hydrogeological Assessment Report (HAR), cease the discharge, and close the surface impoundment. 3. The Discharger satisfied the cease discharge requirement during February 1990. The Discharger has not yet completed the HAR or closed the surface impoundment as required by Cleanup and Abatement Order No. 90-709. 4. The Discharger has submitted revised plans and time schedules for completing theHAR and for closure of the surface impoundment. Cleanup and Abatement Order No. 90-709 is amended by this Order to reflect the revised time schedules for completing the work necessary to comply with TPCA. 5. This Order amends Cleanup and Abatement Order No. 90-709 and incorporates all Findings in that Order. 6. Order No. 90-709 is in full force and effect, except as modified by this Order. 7. Issuance of this Order is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, Section 21000, et seq.) in accordance with Section 15321(a)(2), Title 14, California Code of Regulations. 8. Any person affected adversely by this action of the Board may petition the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) to review this action. The petition must be received by the State Board within 30 days of the date on which the Board took action. Copies of the law and regulations applicable to filing petitions will be provided on request. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 13267 and 13304 of the California Water Code and Section 25208, et seq., of the California Health and Safety Code, e !,e CLEANUP AND ABATEMENT ORDER NO. 91-713 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD (BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK) KERN COUNTY -2- Cleanup and Abatement Order No. 90-709 is hereby amended by this Order and the City of Bakersfield shall: 1. Complete the Hydrogeological Assessment Report and submit a copy of the completed report to the Regional Board by 1 October 1991. 2. Complete closure of the surface impoundment and submit a closure report to the Regional Board by 1 January 1992. WLIl.@J WILLIAM H. CROOKS I Executive Officer DATED:29 April 1991 e .~ ~'~ , It," . .......... ') ~It J ~ ;:'-1' ('-: II.. .........., 'f;' ,...,.... J ..we . ..........", ,,'i . 't ,,". , '" ~,' ~:: ·7, .......... '~ -~.....). :-- ~ ,-,," I.f' .:..:' l~jl(. ~: ¡"Wl ':J .Jo... ¡;~:Ql.,\( . ~~ 'I HI' ,-< ~ I.~' . ",¡ .' ......-...'-.......- / .. \ " .-.... ,-,/ , ----....-' . .---- -- - - ------- ~ ~O ~V~~ ~O 0 ~¡& t? tò'~ ~f<) ;~~..)" "(~ I~Jo;;, ~ t;;'~ ~~.:j$C7) ~ 8 ::,,"( ~ J ~;).. 'oJ ;;; 0' ~f:~t/J t;;' ~ ...,¡..;;~! ::i::::>V$....<.: Jo(j~ oJ..J § oJ..JÆ; .c., !f .<::)flJ "y -:Ç'flJ~ oJ..J ::r :'J ^y ~ó? 11 ~flJ ~flJ~ð' ~~ oJ..J ::r~.. §~"y O::rflJ ü .c., ""'Y ~:; Å.¡.ç- l.r) .c., ~;:~ ""y .Q:)11 .......... '$ ....::. ""$ ',' ""$ "". ""$ -...::: "". ~. 2 ~~. -.....:: ~ ::: ~:.. ? ",,": :::$ / ! / -.--.---- --- ------ srATE OF (;AlIFORNIA . e f~ ~- .ør:5i~ ,/ : PETE WILSO ,Governor 27 September 1991 CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD- CENTRAL VALLEY REGION SAN JOAQUIN WATERSHED BRANCH OFFICE: 3614 EAST ASHlAN AVENUE FRESNO. CA 93726 PHONE: (209) 445·5116 FAX: (209) 445·5910 Mr. Ralph E. Huey Hazardous Materials Coordinator City of Bakersfield Fire Department 2101 H Street Bakersfield, CA 93301 PROPOSED CAP FOR PESTICIDE CONTAMINATED AREA AT T E BAKERSFIELD AIRPAR , KERN COUNTY We have reviewed the information that you submitted in response to our comments transmitted to the City on 23 May 1991. It appears that the information received addresses our concerns regarding the grading and drainage issues, therefore we have no objections to the City proceeding forward with the project. Please provide us with a time schedule for completion of the project after the construction contract is awarded by the City. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please telephone Les Obata at (209) 488-4390. LL)~ ¡:¿~ ~J;, ~~ F. SCOTT NEVINS ~. T'" Senior Engineer lSO:lso/cjs cc: Kern County Department of Environmental Health, Bakersfield .......~ CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD CENTRAL VALLEY REGION 3614 East Ashlan Avenue Fresno. CA 93726 Kern County Health Department 1415 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 e f \ ~, :;i:;"~;':j),1 '~'. ~..-: ..".:..-,.,.'#. _--<;-:::::;; u.s P('>1~:;'Ln"" /..v....Ý..;~ s -\.:¿Y ~i O· 0 'L~ 0 ~ ..;:<:.. / I> ~ l1li . . .... ~...., ~ .. -;; ;It". """"'e II I ! " I, "I L II " " , ,11.\ ¡ . !II , \. ! I ! \ " I,ll! 11,1 ~ e e INSPECTION OF BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK, KERN COUNTY -2- 1 June 1992 2. INSPECTION OF OTHER PROBLEM AREAS AT THE AIRPARK Observations and Comments A summary of my observations and comments regarding each of the three other problem areas is provided below: (1) Area east of Garriott Crop Dusters The area has pesticide contaminants in surface soils to a maximum depth of 10 feet. The depth to ground water beneath the site is about 175 feet. There are no contaminants above hazardous or designated levels at the site. The project includes surface grading work to obtain proper drainage and the placement of asphalt concrete pavement over the area. The project area encompasses about an acre of land located between the airstrip and Garriott Crop Dusters. According to information received from Mr. Huey, the work should be completed by the end of this year. ~2) Existing rinse pad area and underground ta~k I Remedial work has not yet been initiated at this location. I The City proposes to close the rinse pad and initiate a site contamination investigation after a new replacement facility is constructed. The underground tank has been reported to be of concrete construction and similar to a septic tank used in domestic sewage systems. Currently, only wastewater from washing the exterior of airplanes is discharged to the tank. However, the City staff is uncertain as to the characteristics of discharges that occurred before the City purchased the Airpark. Mr. Huey told me that a request for approval for construction of the new rinse pad will be presented to the City Council during July 1992. Following approval by the City Council I Uhe construction project should be completed in about six months (1 February 1993). A site contamination investigation will be initiated for the existing rinse pad and underground tank at that time. (3) New surface water drainage pond Remedial work has not yet been initiated at this location. During a preliminary assessment conducted in 1989, concentrations of oil and grease up to 170 mg/kg were observed in pond soils. To follow up on the problem observed during the preliminary assessment, the City plans to do additional work at this location which includes the characterization of waste contaminants in the underlying soils. STATE OF CALIFORNIA - e CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD- CENTRAL VALLEY REGION ; '---'~-'~~'-:-~-:~---:-:-.~~ " -- . 01 !~? !:\\I .., '... -~ ---:=:- j i i!: OII99'ì SAN JOAOUIN WATERSHED BRANCH OFFICE: 3614 EAST ASHLAN AVENUE FRESNO. CA 93726 PHONE: i209) 445·5116 FAX: (2091445·5910 -. ---., - -- -~-_._..- Mr. Ralph E. Huey Hazardous Materials Coordinator City Of Bakersfield Fire Department 2101 H Street Bakersfield, CA 93301 PROPOSED CAP FOR PESTICIDE CONTAMINATED AREA AT TH COUNTY 23 May 1991 --....~ We have reviewed the additional information submitted by the City regarding grading and drainage, and post closure maintenance plans for the subject project. Enclosed is a copy of our memorandum summarizing our comments. Our review indicates that the City's proposed post closure maintenance program is satisfactory to address the water quality issues. However I the memorandum indicates that additional information is needed for the proposed slope design to insure that the grading and drainage for this project is adequate to prevent ponding conditions. We request that you review our memorandum and submit the additional information needed for the grading and drainage plan to us by 8 July 1991. Final plans containing engineering drawings and a schematic drawing which shows the collection and disposal of drainge water should be submitted for our review prior to the initiation of any grading work at the site. If you have any questions regarding this matter I please contact Les Obata at (209) 488-4390. (~ F. SCOTT NEVINS Senior Engineer LSO:lso/fmc Enclosure cc: Department of Health Services, Toxic Substances Control Division I Fresno " Integrated Waste Management Board I Sacramento VKern County Department of Environmental Health, Bakersfield Mr. D.S. Needham, Fire Chief, City of Bakersfield Fire Department, Bakersfield e Memorandum e CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD -CENTRAL VALLEY REGION 3614 E. Ashlan SAN JOAQUIN WATERSHED BRANCH Telephone: (209) 445-5116 Fresno. CA 93726-6905 State Lease Line: 421 -5116 TO: F.S. Nevins Senior Engineer FROM: Lester S. Obata Sanitary Engineering Associate DATE: 23 May 1991 SIGNATUR~~ bÎ. ~tt SUBJECT: CORRECTIVE MEASURES PROPOSED FOR AREA WITH PESTICIDE CONTAMINATED SOILS AT THE BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK, KERN COUNTY Backqround Information On 7 August 1990, the City submitted a workplan for constructing a cap over an area at the Airpark that has surface soils impacted with pesticide residue. Previous investigations conducted by the City have concluded that there are no contaminants at hazardous levels at the site and the vertical extent of the pesticide residue has been determined to be about 10 feet below ground surface. The depth to ground water beneath the site is about 175 feet. Following our review of the workplan, we informed the City that the conceptual plan to construct an asphalt concrete cap over the impacted soils appears to be adequate for the protect ion of ground water. However, we requested that additional information regarding grading and drainage, and post closure maintenance for the cap be submitted before any work is initiated at the site. The City recently submitted additional information to attempt to address our concerns. The City's response is summarized in the following sections and is followed by our comments. 1. Gradinq And Drainaqe For The Cap The information submitted by the City states that the grading wi 11 provide approximately 1/4 inch fall over the capped area to centrally located storm drains. Reqional Board Staff Comments The information concerning slope design should be described in terms of "percent slope" rather than "inch fall" over the capped area. The information submitted by the City is unclear as to the percent slope that is planned for the capped area. It is difficult to determine whether or not the proposed 1/4 inch fall is adequate to provide proper drainage and to prevent ponding. The slope design for the area to be capped should be similar to that required for closed landfills. The requirement for slope design for closed landfills is prescribed in Title 23, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 2581(b)(l), Chapter 15. This section indicates that slopes of at least three percent are normally required for closed landfills to prevent ponding problems. I Reviewed by~~dl1?2-~h( I J I e e BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK KERN COUNTY -2- 23 May 1991 The slope design for this project should be revised to reflect that guidance and to insure that proper drainage will be provided to prevent ponding. A final grading/drainage plan with engineering drawings should be submitted to us for review prior to the initiation of any work at the site. 2. Post Closure Maintenance The City has indicated that a post closure maintenance program will be implemented for this project. The Airpark staff will conduct periodic inspections of the cap and provide maintenance/repairs on the cap as required in the future. The City has also indicated that a soil monitoring program will be implemented to monitor the degradation of contaminants over time at the site. Two separate locations will be selected for the soil monitoring program. The soils will be sampled/analyzed during the initial construction phase and every two years thereafter. The City will transmi t the resu 1 ts deve loped from the so il monitoring program to the Regional Board. Reqional Board Staff Comments The post closure maintenance program proposed by the City appears to be adequate to address the water quality concerns at this site. The soil monitoring proposed should provide us with information regarding the degradation of contaminants in the soil and the effectiveness of the cap. LSQ:lso/fmc STATE OF CALIFORNIA e e ,öÞ/~ ~TE WllSO~, Governor CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD- CENTRAL VALLEY REGION SAN JOAQUIN WATERSHED BRANCH OFFICE: 3614 EAST ASH LAN AVENUE FRESNO. CA 93726 PHONE: (209) 445·5116 FAX: (209) 445·5910 '- 8 April 1992 CERTIFIED MAIL P 044 443 346 -. I Mr. Ralph E. Huey Hazardous Materials Coordinator City of Bakersfield Fire Department 2101 H Street Bakersfield, CA 93301 ~- ',I. / , --'-'-------=-:------...... RESCINDING CLEANìJP'---~NIt ABATEMENT ORDER NO. 91-713. THE CITY/OF BAKERSFIELD' ,~IRPARK, KERN COU~ ~~ -----//' ~~-'- .---_/ A recent revltew of our records for the subject site indicates that the City has completed a Hydrogeologic Assessment Report, ceased discharge, and closed the surface impoundment in conformance with the Toxic Pits Cleanup Act of 1984 and Cleanup and Abatement Order No. 91-713. Therefore, we conclude that Cleanup and Abatement Order No. 91-713 is no longer appropriate. --~ -- " I Based on this information, Cleanup and Abatement Order No. 91-713, issued 29 April 1991, is hereby rescinded. WILLIAM H. CROOKS Executive Officer ~;4/.~~_ by: LOREN J. HARLOW Principal Engineer LSO:lso/cjs cc: Ms. Karen O'Haire, Office of Chief Counsel, State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento Mr. James Giannopou los, TPCA Program Manager, State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento /Mr. Steve McCalley, Kern County Department of Environmental Health I Bakersfield Mr. S.D. Johnson, Chief-City of Bakersfield Fire Department, Bakersfield $TATE OF CALlFO>lNIA . . CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD- CENTRAL VALLEY REGION SAN JOAQUIN WATERSHED BRANCH OFFICE: 3614 EAST ASHlAN AVENUE FRESNO. CA 93726 PHONE: (209) 445-5116 FAX: (209) 445-5910 17 March 1992 Mr. Ralph E. Huey Hazardous Materials Coordinator City of Bakersfield 2101 "H" Street Bakersfield, CA 93301 CLOSURE OF IMPOUNDMENT AT THE BAKERSfIELD AIRPARK, KERN COUNTY We have reviewed the closure report prepared by Aqua Geosciences, Inc., for the Toxic Pits Cleanup Act (TPCA) impoundment at the Airpark. A copy of our memorandum summarizing our comments is enclosed. The report indicates that the City has satisfactorily closed the impoundment and therefore has now satisfied all of the requ irements of TPCA and Cleanup and Abatement (C&A) Order No. 91-713. Therefore, we plan to recommend that the C&A Order be rescinded. We appreciate the cooperation that was provided by the City staff on this matter. We look forward to working with you in the future in resolving the other water quality related problems,'at the Acirpark. If you have any questions regarding this matter I please telephone Les Obata at (209) 488-4390. ç .. F. scûn NEVINS Senior Engineer LSO:lso/fmc Enclosure cc: Mr. Tom Kovac, Department of Toxic Substance Control, Clovis -........ Mr. F arshad Vak i1 i, 'Department of Toxic Substance Control, Sacramento ~Mr. Steve McCalley, Kern County Department of Environmental Health, Bakersfield Mr. S.D. Johnson, Chief-City of Bakersfield Fire Department, Bakersfield :. e " " , ,(' . . ... h " _.' " ., -' 0')'.0: _ " ~"-. '. -2- Federal response to emergency incidents is authorized under Sections 311 and 504 of the Clean Water Act, and Section 7003 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Response actions are coordinated through the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contlngency Plan (40 CFR 300). Requested industry information may not be withheld from EPA on the grounds that it is considered to be confidential or proprietary. EPA can protect information deemed to be privileged or confidential, trade secrets, and commercial or financial information (40 C.F.R. §§2.203, 2.204). Accordingly, please indicate any information which you consider to be privlleged or confidential so that the Agency may take appropriate protective measures. The regulations at 40 C.F.R. §2.211 preclude EPA employees from wrongfully using or disclosing any business information which was obtained during the performance of the employee's official duties. In addition, EPA employees must take all appropriate action to safeguard confidential business information from improper disclosure. EPA employees who violate these requirements are subject to dismissal, suspension or fines. Criminal action may be taken against EPA employees who willfully disclose business information. A contractor with EPA who obtains business information during execution of an EPA contract can disclose information only as allowed in the contract. EPA regulations on confidentiality of business information in 40 CFR Part 2 Subpart B require that the Contractor agree to the Clause entitled "Treatment of Confidential Business Information" before any confldential business information may be furnished to the Contractor. Violation of these requirements by a contractor may be grounds for suspending the contract or contractor employee. Height: 6'0" Weight: 150 lbs Color of Eyes: Hazel Color of Hair: Blonde . .J Date of Birth' ~/ /60 (2 Signature ~ \ ~ v Expiration D e Oc 0 er 31, 1987 1° ;:.:~~ Director Toxics and Waste Management Division b "' "' .. ... 0 .. :; .- '" ... « - u ... Ó .. u :.ì "' ::: u .. z ... « .. E E 0 z .. E ...I "" « <: ... "' e ...I > ~. .S; W ... <: en .. w en :.ì w .. f-o -5 => ~ :5 ,5; ~ "' ... f-o' :!! .. .!!! C c: t:j I a:: en f-o >-'"' 5 ~ê (/J iii c:¡ o « <: - '?; .g => '"' 0 .. 0 ... J: E .\ ... 0 ¡!! C :.ì Pi .E -i'\~D 8r04't.s-, e- iA'tt "'S'" \ ~ \'"1-,~( ",.cØ-"'/ e- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 215 Fremont Street San Francisco. Ca. 94105 LETTER OF INTRODUCTION This is to certify that Douglas D. Russell of Ecology and Environment, Inc., whose signature, photograph, and physical description appear below, is a duly authorized consultant for the Environmental Protection Agency. It is requested that, upon presentation of this letter, he be allowed to: a. enter any facility maintained by any person where hazardous wastes are generated, stored, treated, disposed of or transported; b. collect samples from your facility of any hazardous wastes and samples of any containers; c. have access to and to copy all records relating to such wastes; d. determine compliance with any effluent limitation or other limitation, prohibition or effluent standard, pretreatment standard, standard of performance, levels of performance, sanitary landflll criteria, standards applicable to waste generators, transporters, and owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities, or other standards, any permit, compllance order, or court order issued pursuant to the Resource Conservation Recovery Act; e. talk to employees concerning waste management practlces; f. determlne compliance with Section 311 of the Clean Water Act. The statutory basis for these inspections is contained ln Section 104 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Li~bility Act of 1980; Section 3007 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; Section 114 of the Clean Air Act; Section 9 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act; Section 3 of the Toxic Substances Control Act; and Section 308 of the Clean Water Act. In addition, it is requested that he be al lowed access to the scene of emergency incidents to: a. monitor cleanup/mitigation operations and assess potential impacts of the incident on public health and the environment; b. collect and analyze samples, and assess damages to natural resources and the environment. e ,e ~~ BAIŒRSFIELD ,\IRP,'\RK :1EETI~;G :.JOTES FEBRUARY 22. 1988 PRESENT: DALE E. HONERMAN. DOHS-FRESNO DON DIEBERT. DOHS-FRESNO MARK BOSWELL. DOHS-FRESNO KEN PULSKAMP. CITY OF BAKERSFIELD DENNIS NEEDHAM. CITY OF BAKERSFIELD MIKE KELLY. CITY OF BAKERSFIELD KEVIN BRODIE. RWQCB-FRESNO RALPH HUEY. CITY OF BAKERSFIELD THE OPENING COMMENTS WERE MADE BY CHIEF D. NEEDHAM. HE STATED THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING. TO EVALUATE THE :.JEXT STEP IN THE AIRPARK EVALUATION AND TO GET SOME AGREEME:.JT ON THAT STEP SO THAT WE COULD BEGIN. WE THEN REVIEWED THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND AGREED THAT NO REPLY AT THIS TIME WAS IN OUR BEST INTEREST. RALPH HUEY SPELLED Ol'T THE ARES TO BE TESTED IN THE SITE CHARACTERIZATION STUDY. 1) OLD SU~IP AREA 2) PROPERTY ADJACENT TO GARRIOTTS FACILITY AKD THE SUBJECT OF THE INITIAL IT REPORT 3) OIL DRAINAGE DITCH "SeD.JECT OF rHE ~wv ['RO~l THE SOBS" 4) SITE OF THE CUBAN CROP DUSTERS OPERATION WE AGREED TO TAKE THE SAMPLES AT THE CUBAN SITE DOW~ TO 2 FT. WITH ANALYSIS EVERY 6 INCHES. THE GENERAL CONSENSUS ~'¡AS THAT THE TESTDrG AREAS .-\ND PROTOCOL OUTLINED FOR THE OTHER AREAS WOULD BE GOOD. DON DIEBERT BROUGHT UP QUESTION OF LOW SPOT ON THE PROPERTY, A NATURAL SUMP AREA OR AREA WHERE RUN OFF WOULD ACCUMULATE. e e ~Œ AGREED TO DETEmlINE HHERE THIS ARE.\. ~vCULD BE .\1\0 ..',LSO TO TEST THAT AREA, TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED AS E.;ST SIDE OF THE RUNWAY. DON ALSO QUESTIONED ARE THERE ANY SEPTIC SYSTEMS OR HOLDING TANKS ON THE PROPERTY. WE INFORMED HIM OF THE KLS WASH PAD TANK. DON INQUIRED ABOUT AGE OF TANK, CONSTRUCTION .\fW SO ()N. THIS IS AN AREA WE WILL ALSO HAVE TO LOOK INTO - AGE - DESIGN - STRUCTURE AND POSS IBLE SOIL SAMPLING IF \oJARRANTED. MARK BOSWELL STATED THAT HIS DEPARTMENT ONLY INTEREST WAS THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION AREAS AND HE COULD NOT BE OF MUCH HELP WITH REGARD TO EVALUATIONS OR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE SITE CHARACTERIZATION STUDY. DON DIEBERT CLAIMED THAT THE CURRENT WORK LOAD AT DOHS WAS PUSHING PROJECTS MUCH FURTHER BACK. THAT WE MAY HAVE TO PUSH THE DEPARTMENT HEAD (TONY LANDIS) TO GET ANY WORK COMPLETED ON OUR PROPOSAL. KEVIN BRODl!!: STATED THAT HE AND HIS DEPARTMENT RWQCB COULD BE HELPFUL IN SITE EVALUATION APPROVAL AND WOULD WORK CLOSELY WITH DOHS. (IT APPEARED CLEAR THAT WE WOULD BE BETTER OFF WORKING THRU RWQC) 4 COPIES OF THE PLAN REQUESTED 2 - DON DIEBERT, DOHS 1 - MARK BOSWELL, DOHS 1 - KEVIN BRODIE, RWQCB e . MARK BOSWELL CAUTIONED US WHEN WE DO PICK THE CONSULTING KEVIN BRODIE FIRM TO COMPLETE THE SITE EVALVATION. BE SURE THAT THEY SUPPLY ALL QA AND QC DOCU~ENTATION (CHAIN OF CUSTODY ETC.) AND THAT ALL TESTING IS DONE BY QUALIFIED AND APPROVED LABORATORIES. ADDED THAT WE SHOULD ALSO MAKE SURE THAT COMPLETE (BY SAMPLE) ANALYSIS ARE SUBMITTED NOT JtJST SUMMARIES! AND TIIAT CO~1PLETE DETAILS OF TESTING PROTOCOLS BE MAINTAINED. DON DIEBERT ALSO SUGGESTED THAT AN EVALUATION OF ANY PREVIOUS DISASTER SITES AT THE AIRPARK BE UNDERTAKEN TO DETERMINE IF ANY ADDITIONAL SITES NEED TO BE TESTED. KEVIN BRODIE DID STATE THAT ADDITIONAL GEOLOGICAL INFORMATION WOULD BE NECESSARY ALSO (GROUND WATER LEVEL ETC) BUT THAT THIS MAY BE OBTAINABLE FROM THE GARRIOTT H.A.R. REPORT. KEVIN ALSO VOICED CONCERN OVER THE OLD SU~P AND QUESTIONED IF THEIR IS ANY OTHER SOURCE OF WATER TO THAT SUMP. WE SHOULD EVALUATE FURTHER THE DRAINAGE THAT DOES CONNECT TO THE OLD SUMP. KEVIN BRODIE ALSO SUGGESTED THAT IN THE FUTURE THE CITY CONSIDER LIMITING ITS LIABILITY BY POSSIBLE ADDING SECONDARY HOLDING TANKS IN ANY WASTE e e STREAM BEFORE DISCHARGE INTO A DRAI~AGE SUMP. THIS WILL BE CONSIDERATION FOR THE FINAL AIRPARK PLA~. ~ND ~OT BE PART OF THE CURRENT SITE EVALUATION. DON DIEBERT STATED WE SHOULD ALSO INVESTIGATE TO SEE IF ANY OFF SITE DRAINAGE SUMPS EXIST THAT PRHIARIL Y HANDLE AIRPARK DR/I.I~IAGE. SUGGESTED WE MAY WANT TO EVALUATE THOSE AREAS ALSO. i'L\R5: B()S~·iTU,L CLOSED rr1'T~ ..nL :·11~!l T I ~'J G ~.¡ T 'III A R.E~;"~~ST ?Cl: .~~ UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF THE DOHS "NOTICE OF VIOLATION" INCLUDING OUR INTENT FOR THE REMAINING QUESTIONS WITH A TIME FRAME AND SCOPE OF ACTIVITIES. AI; / ZALCO .ABORA TORIES. IN~ Analytical & Consulting Services Tami Keller 158 E. White Lane Bakersfield, CA 93307 Laboratory No: Date Received: Date Reported: 13865 2-2-88 2-12-88 Attention: Tami Keller !~,,1 {WtwJ Sample: Water Sample Description: Sampled at The Above Address by Melvin Keller on 2-2-88 at 11: 15am ugm/l EDB DBCP <.05 <.05 Title 22 Insecticides Lindane Endrin Methoxychlor Toxaphene <0.4 <0.01 <10 <0.5 Title 22 Herbicides 2,4-D Silex 2,4,5-T <10 <1 <1 ugm/l = micrograms per liter (ppb) JE/dg Doc. 11372 //7 -6é /f~ .~ / Jim Etherton, // Laboratory Director 4308 Armour Avenue Bakersfield. California 83308 [805] 385-0538 e e CITY of BAKERSFIELD "WE CARE" F!RE DEPARTMENT D S, NEEDHAM FIRE CHIEF 2101 H STREET BAKERSFILED, 93301 326-3911 :1arch 13, 1~H8 Amy Green Kern County Health Dept. 1700 Flm,¡er St. Bakersfield, CA 93305 Dear ~lr. Green: Attached please find a rough draft of the "Request for Proposal" for the Bakersfield Airpark site contamination study. Please review this proposal and return it to Ralph E. Huev with any comments or sUEgestions. We ~ould appreciate your reply by March 25, 1988. Thank you. Sincerely, /¡ . ¡C ~A I~ //u~~ ¡¿c/( .I ¡ i ' RaI ph E. Huey vi Hazardous Materials Coordinator REH/ed ~e e ~arch 11. 1988 Dear Engineering Consulting Firm: The City of Bakersfield will consider written proposals for a site characterization study conforming to requirements of Department of Health Services, Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Kern County Health Department of contamination at the Bakersfield Airpark. I. The scope of the project ~s a follows: A) To extend the current data, available from two preliminary reconnaissance investigation of pesticide contamination at the Airpark. to determine the areal and vertical extent of contaminated soil. This portion of the study to be directed toward property directly East of Garriott Crop Dusting Co. as well as I the old surface water sump located South East of the Garriott facility. (See Area A on Exhibit 1) B) Determine the areal and vertical extent of hydrocarbon and metallic contamination at the drainage ditch previously used as waste oil sump at the Airpark. This drainage ditch runs North and South and is located East of Union Avenue and West of the runway. e .e (See Area B of Exhibit 1) C) An evaluation for possible contamination associated with a currently active rinse pad at the Airpark and the refuse water container associated with that rinse pad. If contamination is found to exist, a full areal and vertical evaluation of the extent of the contamination shall be undertaken as a supplemental investigation. (See Area C Exhibit 1) D) An evaluation of a hanger area previously used for crop dusting to determine if pesticide contamination does exist. This evaluation will look at three specific areas in and adjacent to the old hanger area. If contamination is found to exist a full areal and vertical study of the extent of the contamination shall be undertaken as a supplemental investigation. (See Area D of Exhibit 1) E) An evaluation of the new sume area at the Airpark to determine if contamination does exist. If contamination is found to exist a full evaluation of the extent of the contamination shall be undertaken as a supplemental investigation. (See Area E of Exhibit 1) F) An evaluation of the natural drain and collection areas, off of the runway, to determine if contamination exists. If contamination is found to ~xist a full areal and vertical study of the extent of the contamination shall be undertaken as a supplemental investigation. e e II. General The proposal shall include the technical qualifications and certifications of your company, as ~ell as, the people who will be conducting the tests. Include the company's background and history with respect to similar site evaluation studies, and document your proposed methods for accomplishing the services requested. All laboratory testing shall be accomplished by qualified and approved laboratories and shall conform to the requirements of the Department of Health Services, Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Kern County Health Department. The final report shall include all analysis, fully documented with complete details of testing protocols, as well as, all applicable QA and QC procedures and chain of custody documentation. The successful engineering firm selected í,ill be required to comply with the City's insurance requirements (included as Exhibit 2). All firms í,ishing to submit a proposal must attend the tour and site inspection scheduled for (date to be determined). The tour will begin at 2 p.m. in the parking lot on the North side of the restaurant at the Bakersfield Airpark, 2010 South Union Avenue, Bakersfield, CA. Copies of the original reconnaissance investigations, as well as, a site drainage pattern map, will be distributed at the time of the site inspection. e e The final proposal with detailed estimates, as well as, a pricing structure for any supplemental investigations required, should be submitted to Darlene Wisham, Purchasing Department, 1501 Truxtun Avenue. Bakersfield. CA 93301, before 5 p.m. Friday, April 15, 1988. If you have any questions concerning the scope of the project, please contact Ralph E. Huey at (805) 326-3724. Sincerely Yours, Ralph E. Huey Hazardous Materials Coordinator REH:em Attachments tl'" 1700 I' r Street Bakersfield. I alif. nia 9330~198 Telephol (8 S1861-3621 ee I\criN COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTM~". AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT C!i6: ~# LEON M HEBERTSON, M.D. Director of Public Health Air Pollution Control Officer . \t~ f3j"R "\t~k ~ cY0'-', c;tr March 3, 1988 "fO Bill Shoenhair Purchasing Division Chief General Services nOM : Larry Public SUB3ECT: Zalco This water sample was taken in error to Zalco Laboratory by the sampler. This water well is part of the ongoing investigation into the Bakersfield Airpark Contamination Incident. The Hazardous Waste Management Program Supervisor directed the property owner to take a sample to Salco Laboratories, for a repeat water test. Due to a miscommunication I the property owner understood the test to be taken to Zalco Laboratories, and delivered the water sample to the incorrect laboratory, where the acquired tests were performed. The cost of the tests are in line with usual and customary charges according to Hazardous Waste Management Program personnel. Hazardous Waste Management Program directed to make every effort in the future the name of the laboratory given the involved. personnel have been to better communicate similarity in names Please authorize a purchase order for this laboratory testing, as a legitimate charge. LD:rd cc: Vernon Reichard Director of Environmental Health Services ¡OJ & @ & UìJ MAR 03DI. 'If¡ ß! @ kERN CO UN '988 TY HEALTH DEPT ., -....-- . I' N' V O· 1 C~ E6~. "::~.\' /. " ' ", " \ , , J it.., . , '~ \'.1 ';~'"Ir'-'- L'" . ~ \. .'-'~'¡ ... f'"",.'" / .... "~'.",; / ......:::...~ ZALCO LABOR~TORIES. INC. 'Analytical & Consulting Services '4309 Armour Avenue Bakersfield. California 9330B [895J 395-<J539 .~~~~ú,;, B ATTN: Environmental Health Division M L Kern County Health Department L ' D 1700 Flower Street D TO Bakersfield, CA 93305 TO Tami S. Keller 158 E. White Lane Bakersfield, CA "/A A fS" ':'?1.2-.....~'~:, ' 93307 1 1 Ag & Domestic Water Title 22 Pestisides, EDB, DBCP Lab# 13865 ATTN: Ann Boyle Invoice Total------------------> . , . ~ \ . , .~. ;'. I. ~ " .. 200.00 200. t)O ---------- ~200. 00 "' -- " '-. .'...:....'::. ,r' ~ T: '. ,- MEMORANDUM MARCH 14, 1988 TO: INTERESTED PERSONS - See A~tached FROM: JACK HARDISTY, PLANNING DIRECTO SUBJECT: DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTA IMPACT REPORT, BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE SCW'#87062208. Enclosed is a copy of the DSEIR for the above-referenced project This Supplemental EIR has been prepared to satisfy the substantive and proce- dural requirements of both the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended. In accordance with the CEQA and NEPA, please review and provide comments on the adequacy of the DSEIR ln your area(s) of expertise, discussing possible impacts on the environment, how adverse impacts could be mitigated and project alternatives. This DSEIR supplements the Bakersfield Airpark Expansion EIR certified in 1980 and updated in 1983 by the City of Bakersfield (SCH #80030515). Please send your response by April 29, 1988 to Jennie Eng, City of Bakersfield Planning Department, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301. We will need the name of a contact person in your agency. The schedule* for public review of the DSEIR is as follows: March 16 1988 - Start 45-day review period: April 21, 1988 - Planning Commission public hearing on adequacy of document. April 29, 1988 - End 45-day review. * Subject to change. Please contact Jennie Eng, Assistant Planner, at 326-3733 if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation. JE:pjt Enclosure m/mip íÆ m¡ç;æawœ ill) MAR 1 6 1988 KERN COUNTY HEALTH OEPT ~ 1 e' :e CITY of BAKERSFIELD RRE DEPARTMENT D. S. NEEDHAM FIRE CHIEF 2101 H STREET BAKERSRELD. 93301 326-3911 April 24, 1987 Mr. Val Siebal Supervising Hazardous Material Specialist Toxics Division DOHS 4250 Power Inn Road Sacramento, CA 95829 Dear Mr. Siebal: Thank you for your letter addressed to Mr. Richard J. Oberholzer dated March 30, 1987. This letter is prepared pursuant to your letter of March 30, 1987 and in response to the letter of March 3, 1987 from Mr. Kit Davis of your Department. " As you are aware, the "Notice of':.Yiolatt9n._..and Schedule for Compliance" are directed to the removal of some .oil impregnated soil at the City's airport facility. It was subse- quently found by your Department that the soil remaining in the area where the oil impregnated soil was removed had unacceptable levels of lead and cadmuim.) The oil impregnated soil was removed because a sump was constructed in an attempt to mitigate what we had considered to be an even greater contamination problem from that which your Department noted in the oil. While we do not desire to minimize the potential harm that can occur from any contaminants, we con- tinue to be appa¡led by the apparent lack of action by your Department against Garriott Crop Dusting. It appears that only the City is actively pursuing the protection of our residents and - our property. Because of the City's active role in attempting to accomplish more than an exchange of paperwork, the Department appears to have shifted a substantial portion of its efforts from the issue of the Garriott pesticide, fungicide, and herbicide con- tamination, to a small ditch that contained waste oil with concen- trations of lead and cadmium. Mean~hile, Garriott continues to adjoin City property with, not a small ditch, but a sump loaded with toxic contaminants. As of this date, no State enforcing agency has filed any legal action to force Garriott into a clean- up or compliance program. On the other hand, the City has modi- fied drainage through the Garriott property, required Garriott to ._-"-:: ~ ~,",.",,;: ~~ ~ff >::j' « ,~ - Ie Mr. Val Siebal . Department of Health Services April 24, 1987 Page 2 berm their property, closed an existing drainage sump, conducted $50,000 worth of studies and installed a new drainage sump. Finally, the City has filed a lawsuit in the Kern County Superior Court to force Garriott to cease contamination of City property and to clean up any existing contamination. Already, the legal representative of the City have met with Garriott's attorney and have begun to commence a plan for the identification and clean-up of Garriott caused contamination. All parties to the lawsuit 'have been served. The City's legal office has advised that they are diligently pursuing clean-up and that ultimate resolution most probably will result from a court ordered plan of clean-up and protection of City owned property. The City Attorney believed that, the Department of Health Services 'was not reacting to the problem on the Garriott property but was more interested in pressing matters with the City. For that reason, he felt it necessary to seek the jurisdiction of the court over the present and potential damage to City property. It is the Cit Atto ne 's Dosition that he will require court oval for all measures taken in mitiqation of the awsuit. c, In regards to removal of soil at the Bakersfield Airpark, _:~~_,please ,be advised that on October 13, 14, 15, and 16, the City's earth moving contractor dug a water retention sump at the Airpark to ~atch rain water runoff from Union Avenue. On one of these days, he, or one of his employees, was requested by a City staff member to clean up a portion of the ditch that was full of trash and debris. In addition to the trash and debris, approximately 5 to 6 yards of oil impregnated soil was also taken to a local land- fill. In a telephone conversation on April 22, 1987, Mr. Bill Gilliam, owner of Gilliam and Sons, stated that his driver took the material to the Bakersfield Landfill on China Grade Loop, not the Arvin Landfill as his representative had previously indicated. I assure you there was no intent on the part of any City employee or the èontractor to violate any regulation, especially those relating to hazardous materials. If you have additional questions, you are welcome to contact me. In the future, we hope that we can count on your assis- tance to pursue a timely resolution to the serious contamination on the property adjoining the City's airport. DSN/mea 4 L.SIÉBAL cc: Kit Davis-DaBS, Fresno ~ - ennis S. Need Fire Chief .;:,~\1£O ST-4~" i A ~ \œf ~( ~;I e ,e FilE , Original Copies UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 215 Fremont Street San Francisco. Ca. 94105 2 4 APR 1987 William J. Mungary County of Kern Community Development Program Department 1415 18th Street, Second Floor Bakersfield, California 93301 , ", I' I, -J 1.' r.:::n ! 1_ " ; . '-. ) <! i ' II,~,\L-J ;'p-~ ~ ! 198;"-- \ I ¡ \ tj ; 1, ,JU f_"_ c.o.p.b. Dear Mr. Mungary: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has completed a preliminary review of the data package submitted by your office on November 5, 1986 and February 23, 1987. These data were submitted to satisfy our concerns about the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (ErS) for the Cas a Lorna Specific Plan and Enterprise Zone application. We appreciate the opportunity to review the revised and updated information. However, based on this information, we continue to have significant concerns about the proposed project's impacts to air quality and the extent of soil contamination in the project area. Several examples of our concerns follow. A. AIR QUALITY CONCERNS 1. Revised emissions projections: EPA is unable to rely on these estimates because of the lack of supporting data. There were explanations of assumptions used to generate the emission estimates, but not the basis of the assump- tions. Estimating emissions for the year 2000 is not adequate to assess the overall emission increases and impacts over the life of the project. Incremental (i.e., year to year) emission estimates of project growth and impacts were not provided. In addition, emission estimates must be consistent with the projections (per pollutant) contained in the Nonattainment Plan (NAP). Modeling Ear the potential ozone (03) and carbon monoxide (CO) impacts may not be warranted only if the correct emission factors and estimates were used in the projections. In addition, there is no analysis on how the New Source Review rule will affect source emissions growth and impacts. EPA still considers the revised emission estimates for CO, hydrocarbons (HC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) to be significant, especially given Kern County's nonattainment status. The discussion under response #3 appears to have been taken from the revised 1986 Kern County NAP and offers no realistic analysis of the project's air quality impacts. HC emissions are estimated at 4.5 tons/day or - ,6 ,./W -2- approximately a 3 percent increase over 1987 levels (142 tons/day) in central Kern County. NOx project emissions are estimated at approximately 11 tons/day or an 8 percent increase over 1987 levels (also 142 tons/day). The emission figures for CO are also of concern. Revised estimates are 46 tons/day. When compared to 1987 levels of 287 tons/day, this represents approximately a 16 percent increase in emissions. Although Kern County has requested reclassification from nonattainment to attainment for CO, the County has not demonstrated that reclassification is warranted or appropriate. 2. Conformity: Revision of emission estimates does not eliminate the need to demonstrate conformity with the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The Clean Air Act prohibits proceeding with the project unless conformance with the SIP is "assured" [42 USC 7S06(c)]. The DEIS needs to either demonstrate that it does conform to the SIP or that it will provide enforceable commitments to mitigate all increases in emissions. Project proponents should evaluate the project using the attached list of conformity criteria. 3. Mitigation: In view of the fact that (1) the project will very likely exacerbate a serious air quality problem and (2) Kern County has not demonstrated that it can or will attain the O~ and CO standards in the foreseeable future, it is essentIal that the EIS contain a mitigation plan with specific commitments to offset adverse project impacts. B. HAZARDOUS WASTE CONCERNS 1. We are still concerned with proposed project's overall development plans and their relationship to p~ocesses established under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and its recent amendments. First, it is essential that the City of Bakersfield provide more information on the extent of contamination at the Bakersfield Airpark. It appears that City-sponsored reconnaissance surveys were limited to an area immediately adjacent to the Garriott Cropdusting Company property. Past and present activities (e.g., other cropdusting and aircraft maintenance operations) indicate a strong possibility of more extensive contami- nation throughout City property. It is our understanding that the Department of Health Services recently issued a Notice of Violation to the City for the transport of soils taken from the "new" sump site. State soil samples taken from the site showed very high levels of lead. e e -3- This action demonstrates the need for complete studies of the area and for proper planning and coordination with regulatory agencies. The City should develop a remedial plan, consistent with applicable State and Federal regulations and policies, that will thoroughly characterize the area and determine the extent and depth of contamination. This plan should be reviewed and approved by appropriate regulatory agencies. 2. Because of the City's interest in developing the airpark and surrounding area, it is essential to document how the City will ensure complete remediation at all sites before further development can take place. Although the B.C. Chemical and Garriott sites are not now under City jurisdiction, the City should outline measures that will be implemented if these parties cannot carry out or complete their remedial plans because of unexpected legal or financial problems. In summary, €PA believes these issues have not been adequately resolved. Therefore, we continue to believe that a revised DEIS should be prepared to address our concerns and allow for public review. As we stated in our Qrevious comment letter, this proposal could be a candidate for referral to the Council on Environmental Quality if these issues are not adequately resolved prior to the Final EIS. We look forward to meeting with County and City staff to discuss these issues in more detail. We will contact your office to con~irm a meeting time and place. If you have any questions, please call Enrique Manzanilla, Federal Activities Branch, at (415) 974-0943. I &-incerely, ( , " , '- '..,\ j/ I I I i I ,I ".' \, .,,' ~ ~ r i· Charles W. Murray, Assistant Regional Admi~istrator for Policy and Managemènt cc: Ceferino Ahuero, HUD--Los Angeles Robert Bloom, FAA--Los Angeles Paul Shillcock, City of Bakersfield Economic Development Department Gail Battles, Central Valley RWQCB Don Diebert, Department of Health Services, Toxic Substances Control Division--Fresno Donna Lott, Air Resources Board Citron Toy, Kern County APCD Mark Gibb, Kern Council of Governments e Ie Conformity Procedures For Federal Activities The main purpose of the SIP is to attain and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). In order to accomplish this requirement, the following criteria are to be used in determining conformity of plans, programs and projects with the SIP: 1. The facility or the activity complies with the procedural and substantive provisions (e.g., emission limitations and operating requirements) of the SIP for the review and permitting of new or expanding stationary sources. 2. The population projections used in the supporting data for the facility or activity are consistent with the population projections used in the SIP. 3. The major stationary source, mobile source, and area wide emissions growth rates that are provideò in the supporting data for the facility or activity are consistent with the emissions growth rates used in the SIP. 4. The increased direct and indirect emissions resulting from the facility or activity do not conflict with the emissions reduction requirements of the SIP necessary to demonstrate reasonable further progress toward attainment of all NAAQS by required deadlines. 5. The increased direct and indirect emissions resulting from the facility or activity do not exceed any PSD increment or conflict with Class I area visibility protection. 6. The increased direct and indirect emissions resulting from the facility or activity do not contribute to the violation of any NAAQS. 7. The facility or activity is consistent with the transpor- tation control measures that are provided for in the SIP. 8. The facility or activity complies with all other special provisions and requirements of the SIP. It is the affirmative responsibilty of all Federal agencies to insure that their own plans, programs and projects meet these criteria. The most important concept is that new projects or modified facilities cannot generate new violations of the standards or exacerbate existing violations, or delay attainment. For projects requiring EIS's or that may have significant environmental impacts, a technical analysis consistent with the nature of the pollutant examined will be required in order to determine final conformity with the SIP. '~!~~~f;Pè':::::,~~);;:} ~~" - , ". ",::, ~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA '... ," , , ,~, ::~~t?:~jf~~!;t~; 'if\~'f!{{. i\2;'~"\I\1\\1:2;¡'(~~'~'¡'i??':1J'j:þ:;.,,,,, GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN. GOllflrnor (- éAUFORNIA REGIONAL WATER aUAUTY CONTROL BOARD- CENTRAL VALLEY REGION ~.. - -,,; ·L.~ . ' SAN JOAQUIN WATERSHED BRANCH OFFICE: 3614 EAST ASHLAN AVENUE FRESNO. CALIFORNIA 93726 PHONE: (2091445-5116 14 May 1987 Mr. Dennis Needham Fire Chief 2101 H Street Bakersfield, CA 93301 ASSESSMENT BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK, KERN COUNTY We reviewed the document sent in response to our letters of 5 November and 25 November 1986. Enclosed is a copy of our comments. Please note from the comments that several areas of the Airpark need additional work to determine whether water quality has been affected. Prior to 30 June 1987, please submit a work plan for the investigation of the areas of the Airpark outlined in the comments. Should you hav€any questions regarding this matter, please telephone Gail Battles at (209) 445-5093. ( -F. $,:01 T I-lEVINS Senior Engineer GEB:bro Enclosure cc: Mr. Enrique Manzanilla, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency~ San Francisco Mr. Rod Oswalt~ Toxic Substances Control Division, Department of Health Services, Sacramento Mr. Donn Diebert, Toxic Substances Control Division, Department of Health 'S~Y.'vic~s, Fresno '~MírJ~Vè¡rn~:Rèfchãrd;~Kern County Health Department. Bakersfield Ms. Mary Stenm. Deputy City Manager, City of Bakersfield ,eAllemorandum ¡e CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD-CENTRAL VAllEY REGION 3614 E. Ashlan SAN JOAQUIN WATERSffED BRANCH Telephone: (209) 445-5116 Fresno. CA 93726-6905 State Lease Line: 421-5116 TO: F. Scott Nevi ns Senior Engineer FROM: Gail E. Battles Staff Engineer DATE: 12 May 1987 SIGNATURE: GOl~-] f.~oftfu SUBJECT:-BAKERSFIELD AIRPORT, KERN COUNTY I reviewed the document prepared by the City of Bakersfield and IT Corporation sent with the cover letter dated 30 December 1986. The package included: (1) a response to our letter of 5 November 1986, (2) a response to our letter of 25 November 1986, (3) an airport drainage plan, (4) a copy of an incident report, and (5) a report prepared by IT Corporation on soil, sludge, and water analyses at Bakersfield Airpark. The purpose of the analyses provided in the IT report was to investigate the drainage sump and provide data on the vertical extent of contamination in the area previously investigated in July 1986. To assess the drainage sump, IT collected nine soi 1 samples, three sludge samples" and- two water samples from the sump. Three sampling locations were selected around the sump; three discrete samp~es (A, B, and C) were collected at 6 inches in depth at each location. The "A" sample was collected at 7 feet above the water level, "B" and "C" atl0 ,feet and 13 feet, respectively,- higher up the bank. Half of each sample from each separate location, "A, B! and C" were composited prior to analysis, the other half· was archived in frozen storage. To address the veri tca 1, ~xtentof contamination in the areas sampled in the July 1986 assess- ment, IT ana lyzed archived samples collected as part of the July 1986 investigation, these samples had been halved and composited prior to analysis. In this investigation, the samples from five sampling sites were analyzed discretely. All samples were analyzed for organochlorine and organophosphorous pesticides and PCBs. The results of the sump analyses showed pestic,ide residues present which threaten ground water quality but are below TTLC and STLC hazardous waste levels. The five sampling sites selected for vertical analyses from the July investigations were sample locations (SL) 2, 3, 8, 10, and 11. Chemicals were detected at each location. The most common chemicals found were Oacthal, Endosulfan I and II, Treflan, Chlordane, Botran, and DEF. Most contaminants were confined to the upper 6 inches of soil at SL 2, 3, and 8. Dacthal was found at 12 to 18 inches at SL 3, and 18 to 24 inches at SL 8. Both SL 10 and 11 had relatively high levels (in some cases increasing levels) of several pesticides at the deepest level analyzed (18 to 24 inches). ,5UMMARY,ANO RECOMMENDATIONS After rev,iewing the information and data provided, the following determinations were made: k'l11 ... À.lM ç IJI)I~ '7 c c e (e BAKERSFIELD AIRPORT, KERN COUNTY -2- 12 May 1987 1. Disposal Areas Investigated, but More Work is Needed: The results of the investigation indicate the rain water sump, SL 10'and SL 11, will require additional work. The sump contained Chlordane 10,000 times greater than the drinking water standard. Also PCBs were'present in the sump at 0.14 ppm, the IIRecorrmended Contaminant Levelll set by EPA for PCBs in drinking water is 'zero. Oactha 1 ,was a 1so found in the sump at 200 ug/l, the drinki ngwater level set by EPA for Dacthal is 0.008 ug/l~ The 2-foot deep sample from SL 11 showed increasing levels of Oachtal, Treflan, and OfF. The 2-foot deep sample from SL 10 showed levels of Oachtal, Endosulfan II, Treflan, Chlordane, Botran, and OfF. The areal and vertical extent of contamination in these areas must be determined and the threat to water quality determined. 2. Disposal Areas Investigated and No More Work is Needed: The results of the investigation indicates that SL 2 and SL 3 do not need additional assess- ment. The 2-foot samples did not show contamination. This indicates the contamination is confined to the upper 6-18 inches of soil. These areas will require cleanup to eliminate the the possibility of surficialcontami- nants from degrading 9round or surface water quality. 3. ~osal At'eas Partially Investigated and More Wurkis Neede~: Composited -samples from SLs 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 showed contamination from several pesticides in the June 1986 analysis. These areas were not addressed in the October 1986 analysis. A determination of-the vertical extent of contami- nation in these areas must be made. 4. Disposa'-A~eas_Not Investigated and Work is Needed: Th::: reports indicate certain areas of the Air~,ark which could be posing a threat to water quality and wh~ch were not included fn the invest~gation: a. The \,¡as',C-(l' ; dis~"'::al trench. b. The septic tank receiving waste from the KLS Aviation wash pad. c. The·area used by the Cuban crop dusters. These areas were named in the letters describing the history of waste disposal at the Airpark. These areas may be·posing a significant threat to ground water quality. The soils in these areas should be analyzed for the areal and vertical extent of contamination. CONCLUSION The City of Bakersfield should be asked to provide us with a work plan to address the needed work outlined above. GEB:bro 1700 Flower Street Bakersfield, California 93305 Telephone (805) 861-3636 _ ,_ KERN COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT HEALTH OFFICER Leon M Hebertson, M.D. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Vernon S. Reichard August 4, 1987 City of Bakersfield Engineering/Planning Department Attention: Jennie 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 SUBJECT: Bakersfield Airpark Master Plan Update Comments Dear Jennie: We are pleased to respond to your request for comments on the proposed plan by Bakersfield City. This Master Plan Update should address new businesses at the Airport that generate, store, or recycle hazardous materials to conform to all sections of the Health and Safety Codes or County ordinances; namely, the Bakersfield City's AB 2185 Business Plan Program, and the County's Underground Tank Program, and the general provisions of the Health and Safety Code relating to hazardous waste generators. The Master Plan should also be aware of known contamination from prior businesses I such as Garriot Cropdusters, and address any continuing site characterizations ordered oy the State Department of Health Services. If areas that are to be cleared or graded ar~ in locations suspected of being contaminated, they should first be characterized and sampled to determine threats to downwind receptors or workers in the area. Again, thank you for allowing us to comment. Sincerely, ¡' . Î\ ¿' ¿' /1 J .; ), '.'/ I' ¡;. j /~ 'II///f -/ j 1:¡),(J.J;'tr).?/ (- Vernon S. Reichard~ Dir~cto~ !nvironmental Health Di7isl~~ VSrt: 'JHW: jg ::¡S-í~~C~ ar=FICES e t {)'::"-/' A --- .. GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN. Governor STATE OF CALIFORNIA-HEALTH AND WELFARE AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL DIVISION NORTHERN CALIFORNIA SECTION FRESNO DISTRICT OFFICE 5545 EAST SHIELDS A VENUE FRESNO. CA 93727 / f '..~ " June 4, 1987 Mr. Dennis S. Needham, Fire Chief City of Bakersfield Fire Department 2101 "H" street Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Mr. Needham: BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK Thank you for your letter dated April 24, 1987. with reference to your letter, Mr. Siebal asked that I respond. The information and concerns you presented address what the Department of Health services (DHS) views as two (2) separate issues. Your letter states definite concerns and lists actions the City of Bakersfield (City) has initiated relative to Garriott Crop Dusting. It should be clearly noted, however, that the Report of Violation and Schedule for Compliance (ROV), issued March 3, 1987, dealt with a hazardous waste issue separate from the Garriott issue. Your information presented in the letter relative to the above ROV partially satisfies the information and mitigating measures specified in the Schedule for Correction (Part III of the ROV) . The ROV provided sixty (60) days from receipt of this Report to submit the information listed in Item #2(a) of the Schedule for Correction. Given the date of your receipt of the ROV (March 5, 1987), you had until May 4, 1987, to submit this information. Please be advised that the information supplied to date does not include the specific location of the hazardous waste at the disposal site. Previous correspondence/information indicated that the transporter of the hazardous waste could identify the location of the waste at the disposal site. Additionally, your letter did not identify the earth moving contractor who performed the removal of the hazardous waste. Your letter contains no attached documentation confirming or identifying those entities who either authorized or performed the various work activities. Therefore, on or before June 9, 1987 (the 90-day due date for submittal of the site assessment, Item #C in the Schedule for correction), submit, along with the site assessment, all the information specified above. ~ The last two paragraphs of your letter show a deep concern and recognition for the management of hazardous substances (both e e -2- materials and wastes). Your (City) actions and remarks pertaining to Garriott Crop Dusting are understandable. However, the Department must address hazardous waste situations whenever and wherever they occur. Your concerns presented in your April 24, 1987 letter have been submitted to our site mitigation unit for their review. As you are aware, the Garriott Crop dusting site is listed in the site expenditure plan with preliminary investigation beginning February, 1988. Thank you for the information, you have submitted. Knowing the City's concern, I feel hopeful that this matter can be brought to a timely resolution. Kit Davis, Senior Hazardous Materials Specialist Fresno District Office RO:% ~~ Mr. Richard Casagrande, Kern County Environmental Health, Bakersfield Mr. Donn Diebert, Department of Health Services, Fresno Ms. Gail Battles, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Fresno c : ro 1 0 . j h '. --- -.... .-..,--~-- --._-. -----_. ~ e ~.>[E. OF. . CAL.I FORNI. A~:~ " ,.'~'I,·,,: .,:. ( " . ICE MEMO. ",' ;. ',.... . '.100 (~ËV. 11.711) ~. ~ . e(" .. ". . -. ,." '.. _'" {..r.-':. ~, _" ,'/l;LJ' ,"". ',. - ' " , " - , , Cø~"rlA~' ,','.: ".; , " " "ROOM NUMBER ¡tJ '(J~ I PHONE NUMBER ,SUBJECT: .ð A ~ ///J A.-.~ __ A ~..~ ~,.~ fVL~ a-A~~ r--r:4 ~ ~ ;;i" ~~ ~. ~ ~~ . · =H- r;;; _ Ah. - ~~;,- ,>;,,' .'i ii;" F' . ) ¡.~ ".- .-' ,.,:,... ~ '.~ \µ DEC 1 1 ì986 "Y' ,. (-¡t:.J'\1o i ii Ui: \ , cOúNrJ ';::,,?,>. , .>;. .[i t. , +-~~~~~.--~.;_. e e INCIDENT REPORT Date: 3/25/87 On wednesday March 25, 1987, at approximately 8:00 a.m., I was notified of a chemical spill having occurred at Bakersfield Airpark, 2000 South Union Avenue. The spill apparently occurred on Tuesday March 24, 1987, late p.m. Upon inspection, I found an area south of the runway thre~hold at Runway 13 which had a green-blue color to it. The main area appeared to be approximately 30 feet in diameter with a trail leading from the initial spill site to the Garriott Crop Dusting property. I proceeded to Garriott Garriott Crop Dusters. March 24, 1987 and that notified. and spoke with Dick Garriott, owner of Dick He indicated that a spill had occurred on the manufacturer of the chemical had been The chemical was identified as kocide, a copper-hydroxide based fungi- cide, primarily used as a blyth control for potatoes. Mr. Garriott indicated that he was awaiting clean-up instructions from the manufac- turer. At 8:15 a.m., I called Chief Dennis Needham, of the fire department and notified him of the spill. He recommended that I call the County Health Department. At 8:20 a.m., I spoke with Mr. John Harris, of the Health Department and requested instructions. Mr. Harris indicated that nothing should be done until the Agricultural Commissioner had been contacted, as well as, State Health Services Authorities. At approximately 9:30 a.m., Mr. Harris indicated that the Agriculture Cornrnisioner would contact Garriott with instructions to clean the chemical spill. At this time no one was able to determine whether the spill was hazardous or not. A follow-up with D. Garriott at approximately 3:30 pm indicated that no further action had been taken by any authority, manufacturer, or otherwise. March 26, 1987 I was contacted by Mr. Harris, of the County Health Department at approximately 8:30 a.m. He indicated that inspectors from the State Health Department, Fresno office, had arrived and would investigate the site. J I , Serving the southern San Joaquin Valley since 1866 f . Copyri¡tIt 19871he Bakersfield CaIIomIan Saturday I March 14, 1987 I· I _HE olIN' SNIDER Is the drwnmer for The :Press. 'riday's Bakersfield After Dark colwnn incor- ectly listed. the name of the musical group lember In the Weekend section. EEN·AGERS younger than 18 are required to aye a work permit' from their· high, school rfi~ for a youth job-a-thon April 11. Erroneous Ifonnation was listed in Friday's Metro section. JPEOIAL SERIES ~alifornian examines ~ffect of irrigation law EDERALLY SUBSIDIZED irrigation water is played a crucial role in the development of em County's productive, diversifed agricultur· l industry. Now, the federal government is I8king major changes in. the law ,governing ater use that could have far-reaching conse- lences. FannerS say the proposed rules could ,ree them to brenk up existing family famúng >erations. Starting Sunda)', The Californian will publish l'roubled Waters," a two-day series that exam- les the law's effects on the farmers and Airpark toxic-waste violations alleged By TOM MAURER Californian staff writer State health authorities have charged the city with violating six hazardous-substance laws by illegally dig- ging up contaminated soil at the Bakersfield Airpark and . dumping it at the county landfill in Arvin. The state's action, dated March 3, accuses the city of digging up soil contaminated with "hazardous and extremely hazardous levels" of cadmium and lead without proper authorization or pefßÚts. All six violations center on illegal transportation of hazardous materials without proper state and federal approval. State officials said lead levels found in the soil were nine times lúgher than the hazard benchmark for that substance. They said the city should have taken the contaminated soil to a hazardous-waste site instead of the Arvin dump. City officials admit they ordered their contractor - Gilliam & Sons, wlúch also operates the Arvin dump - in October to dig a new sump site because the existing dump is contaminated' with toxic pesticide residues. The contractor removed 5 cubic yards from an area that included a drainage ditch, where airpark, pilots and business owners lústorically discarded crankcase oil from engines and planes. However, city officials said, they didn't believe oil waste was a hazardous substance, even though it nonnally contains metal shavings. "Nobody even knew that area was contaminated," Turn to AŒPARK I A2 A $200,000 out., between Kern COl deputy sheriff who about the controver a narcotics suspect. The settlement Urner, 39, to be sheriff as a corree and for him to beco~ deputy s~'~'-" as passes a ~ pr ogical examma ion. "This is the be 13th I've ever had, after the deal was Superior Court Jud Davis. The settlement perior Court jury issue that had been March 30. Sheriff John SIr. efeating the incur riday that he is esolved. "It's somethirlf eparbnent for the . o get on with the mith said. During ·...ìat' as critics. .':UI f the Umer case. Mter meeting p nd their attorneys, ounty officials to of ot take 8 position Jury acquits 'boss' 6 men , , in Mafia trial BL 'bf ad W trat< STAT~ OF CALIFORNIA-HEALTH AND WELFARE A ey í_ GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL DIVISION NORTHERN CALIFORNIA SECTION FRESNO DISTRICT OFFICE 5545 EAST SHIELDS AVENUE FRESNO. CA 93727 CERTIFIED NO. P 020 866 170 March 3, 1987 Manager Bakersfield Airpark 2000 South Union Avenue Bakersfield, California 93307 Dear Sir: NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND SCHEDULE FOR COMPLIANCE On November 5, 1986, the Department of Health Services (DHS) conducted sampling of Bakersfield Airpark, located at 2000 South Union Avenue, Bakersfield, California, 93307. As a result of that sampling and subsequent investigations, violations of hazardous waste statutes and regulations were identified. Specific violation(s) and required corrective action are listed below. Failure to correct the identified violation(s) within the schedule provided will result in DHS citing you for continuing/additional violations. . I. Schedule of violations 1. section 25189.5(a), Health & Safety Code The disposal of any hazardous or extremely hazardous waste I or the causing thereof, is prohibited when the disposal is at a facility which does not have a permit from the department issued pursuant to the provisions of this chapter I or at any point which is not authorized according to the provisions of this chapter. Samples were taken by the Department indicating that hazardous and extremely hazardous levels (as defined or listed in Sections 66699 and 66723, Title 22, California Administrative Code, respectively) of wastes have been released at the above mentioned facility. This unauthorized release of hazardous/extremely hazardot2s· Tl1as..t'~~..occurred at a non-permitted facility. Further, said wastes were removed ana transported from the above-mentioned facility and disposed of at another unpermitted facility. 2. section 66471, Title 22, California Administrative Code The generator shall make the required hazardous waste determination<s). There is no demonstrable evidence showing the generator made, or even attempted to make any analyses or other determinations of said wastes. . .... - ,~. --.... ',' . .'~. ... ".:'- ,'...,'..,' ::'.:- . .~·.:.;";:-r..<r.~:···::~":"· ::;::"-'::~;~j~~~'7~: ·:r~:~-?:T,~~::,:?>;~1~;~:··':_:~~-:·::'·· e Ie -2- 3. section 66472(a), Title 22, California Administrative Code The generator shall apply for and receive an EPA identification number. No such application was made. 4. section 66472(d), Title 22, California Administrative Code The generator shall not treat, store, or dispose of, transport or offer for transportation hazardous waste without having received an ,EPA identification number. The generator transported and disposed of hazardous/extremely hazardous waste without possessing an EPA identification number. 5. section 66480(a), Title 22, California Administrative Code The generator who transports, or offers for transportation, hazardous waste shall prepare a manifest before transporting the waste off site. The waste was transported off site without the use or preparation of a Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest. 6. section 66570, Title 22, California Administrative Code (a) No extremely hazardous waste shall be handled or disposed of in California except pursuant to an Extremely Hazardous ~aste disposal Permit issued by the Department. (b) No person shall dispose of waste that may reasonably be considered to be an extremely hazardous waste without first obtaining an Extremely Hazardous ~aste Disposal Permit from the Department. (d) No person shall deviate from methods approved by the Department for handling or disposal of an extremely hazardous waste without the written permission of the Department. The generator did not obtain or attempt to obtain an Extremely Hazardous Waste Disposal Permit prior to handling and disposal of the extremely hazardous waste. II. Schedule for Correction 1. You are hereby ordered to actions described above. cease and desist include, following: cease and desist from any and all The actions you are ordered to but are not limited to the A. Immediately cease any unauthorized release of hazardous wastes. B. Immediately cease any and all actions leading to the aforementioned conditions and/or violations. U "'.._ ._._. .-___,.,.".." ....:...... <'-"--~-:''''''';-'~'~~~7:.~~\-~''' .. -.,:,,:, "_".'<;". ~""'.~.: .; <' . .~.- "~...-..-. ". ,.... f:"· . '. -3- 2. The clean up and abatement shall include but not be limited to the following: A. The generator shall perform a full and detailed investigation of the transportation and disposal of the hazardous/extremely hazardous waste off-site, within 60 days of receipt of this letter. This shall include: 1. Prepare a complete chronology of the events pertaining to said transportation and disposal of all hazardous/extremely hazardous waste off-site. 2. Provide the Department with all documents concerning said activities (i.e. invoices, memos, bills of lading, disposal site logs, cancelled checks per any and all services rendered and/or commodities bought in the course of said activities, etc.). 3. Provide the Department with all names, titles and addresses of individuals and/or entities that were in any way connected with said activities. The degree of involvement of each individual/entity shall be specifically and clearly noted. 4. Identify the quantity and location of said wastes at the disposal site to which they were taken. B. Upon location of the hazardous/extremely hazardous wastes transported off-site, said wastes shall be removed and taken to a facility permitted by the Department to accept said wastes. All statutes and regulations governing the removal, transportation and ultimate disposition of said wastes shall be strictly adhered to. C. Prepare an assessment of all on-site (i.e. Bakersfield Airpark facility) contamination by a certified geologist or registered engineer within 90 days of receipt of this Notice. The Department will schedule a re-inspection of your facility to verify compliance. The issuance of this Notice of violation and Schedule for Compliance does not preclude DHS from taking administrative, civil, or criminal action as a result of the violations noted herein. . ..... .' .·.·.r'· . ..... ~ :,", . '"-: ...".. .-. --. e \. rt-,. 'f,i) .,;, ~F: -4- ::~ '" f: ,:. ,;? .~. Kit Davis, Senior Hazardous Materials Specialist Fresno District Office ~\/. I í , , If you have any questions regarding this Notice, please contact Rod Oswalt at (209) 445-5938. KD/fs-v cc: Mr. Richard Ross, Office of Enforcement, DHS Mr~ Richard Casagrande, Kern County Environmental Health Ms. Gail Battles, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board "...... .........". .... '-..~::~ ,::.\..;-; -''r·..-:,·'·,.,;.··ê..· e . ~.~...,\ , , !,e, L , -. -~'. ... ·<)'~t \.Jl.... . FILE NO: ,\ li'\ ; ~. . '. ~_"1 OFFICE MEMORANDUM * KERN COUNTY TO: FROM: Richard Casagrande Environmental Health Services Pierre Riv~~sistant Planner TELEPHONE: Community Development Program Department DATE: May 5, 1987 861-2041 SUBJECT: Casa Loma Specific Plan and Final Enterprise Zone Application Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Comments Received from Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Attached please find a copy of EPA's response to our response to their original comments (copies of which have been forwarded to you previously). It is the intent of EPA to hold a meeting with County and City staff concerning the draft EIS document's inadequacy. Please review the letter and related material. I will be contacting you next week to set up a meeting to discuss our options. Please call if you have questions or need further information. PR:mcr Attachment ..' "\ e e STATE OF CALIFORNIA-HEALTH AND WELFARE AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN. Gow:rnor DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL DIVISION NORTHERN CALI FORNI A SECTION 4250 POWER INN ROAD SACRAMENTO, CA 95826 (916) 739-3145 ~.. , .-.,.. .." ~... ,..; . November 12, 1986 Vernon S. Reichard, Director Environmental Health Division 1700 Flower street Bakersfield, Ca. 93305 RE: VARIANCE FOR ASBESTOS DISPOSAL AT THE ARVIN CLASS III LANDFILL Dear Mr. Reichard: This letter is a follow-up of my telephone conversation with John Harris of your office on November 4, 1986, concerning a variance for asbestos disposal. The Department of Health Services Toxic Substance Control Division, 'Northern Califor- nia Section I Permitting Unit has reveiwed your application for a variance to allow for the disposal of asbestos waste in the Arvin Class III landfill. While it appears that a variance under the provisions of 22 CAC 66310 will apply to your proposed disposal plan, as outlined in your letter dated August, 14, 1986, we must first have a specific writ- ten authorization from the Regional Water Qaulity Board al~ lowing for such disposal. We should then be able to issue a variance within 30 days after receipt of such authorization. Enclosed for you reference is a fact sheet outlining the Department of Health Services guidelines for the handling, transport and disposal of asbestos waste. These guidelines should be supplimented with the EPA Document "Asbestos Waste Management Guidance" I (EPA/530-SW-85-007) I which you refer- enced in you letter applying for a variance. If you have any questions concerning this variance please contact me at (916) 739-2834. ð~~ Bill Ross Waste Management Engineer enclosure BR/llm cc: John Harris ! e e : . .~.-~~~: ;.:~:.~ FACT SHEET ASBESTOS illU~DLING Al~D DISPOSAL DECEM!rER, 19B5 (Re.viS" rl tj.J. 9/8~ ) ...... The Department of Health Services has classified friable waste which contains more than one percent (1.0%) by weight asbestos as hazardous waste. Exposure to asbestos has been causally associated with adverse human health effects, such as asbestosis, mesotheliomas of pleura and peritoneum, and carcinomas of the lung. The primary exposure route to asbestos is =rom inhalation of dust particles. Due to the carcinogenic potential of asbestos fibers, the highest possible level of dust control is desirable. The following guidelines have been established for friable waste containing more than one percent by weight of asbestos: RANDLD~G Þ..ND TRANSPORT Asbestos ¡.¡aste must be handled and transported J.n one 0: the follm.,'ing ways: a) In sealed non-returnable containers (e.g., double plastic bags cartons, drums or cans) from which fibers cannot escaDe. Wastes within the container should be wetted to prevent blowing of fibers in case the container is broken; or b) :n closed vehicles (e.g., covered drop boxes or canvas-covered t:::-uc};: boxes) if wastes are too bulky to enclose in seal ed containers and provided the wastes are wetted to prevent blo\l,'ing dust. T'Z<.BELS caution labels are required on containers or drop boxes and shall be in conspicuous legible lettering which spells out the following or equivalent warning: CAUTION contains Asbestos ?ibers Avoid Creating Dust Breathing Asbestos Dust May Cause Serious Bodily Harm The Department of Transpo~ation does not require placarding on t=anspo~ vehicles. DISPOSAL Waste'contaÍIÜng asbestos may be disposed of at Class I or Class, :~',:, . II sites. Asbes-=.os. ~;.:waste. may·:,,:·.:q9~ be,' disp-0Øed of '_'a·-='..'.~·,·a><·Class "·,:II.I"·":»-: ," .,. ."'::,,facility'unless;~~;;the.i.Department</; .ê-nd . the . Regional Water 'Quality '~'Control Board have issued a specific variance allo~ing for such disDosal. The non-returnable con~ainers must not be opened, broken, or ruptured during disposal. Advance arrangements must be >.;:;:::.~.·..I~.·.;i"'..'· - e p~ (Ale CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES HAZARDOUS' MATERIALS LABORATORY SECTION HMLiI .~. :I. 7."1. . TO ..' 'HML 1t;.C..~ ':7. S.Q . . .. LABORATORY REPORT FOR TOTAL METAL ANALYSIS COLLECTOR'S NAME: ROD' OSWALT COLLECTOR'S SAMPLE NO. : RO-1 SAMPLE LOCATION': BAKERSFIELD -AIRPARK- ,'" ACTIVITY : ENFORCEi'íE:H., BAKERSFIELD' ·'·--·-·'·'·'DATE RECEIVED --: 11-5-86.. ANALYTICAL SAMPLES ARE DIGESTED ~ITHCONCENTRATED-NITRrC ACrD'OVE~-A-HOT PROCEDURE: PLATE. THE DIGESTED SAM?LESARE FILTERED AND-ì1ADETD-l0o-'t1L- WITH5ï. NITR!CACID -IN DISTrLLED--DEIOiHZED'WATER;--METALANALYSIS OF THE DIGEST IS BY ICPAES. RESULTS ARE REPORTED'~S UG¡GRAM~ HML NW1BER ¡, Cììì Cììa "'C77S C780 COLLECT SAt-1P'f : RO 1 -" ::to z '--RO 3 RO 4 SAMPLE TYPE saIL SOIL SOIL S')IL AG-SILVER' ~ . .- . 0.72 1.8S 0.43 2.28 AS-ARSENIC < 0.70 '.' < 0.70 15.3 < 0.35 SA-BAR! Uì1 '. .~. 86.3 208 78.4 121 8E-BERYLLIUì1 0.30 0.28 0.17 0.43 CD-CADj1 ruN 3.81 606.'· 8.97 1. 94 CO-COSALT' 5.83 7.01 4.19 7.01 CR-CHRot1 ruM '~~'~-1 ì . a 167 18.7 19.2 CU-COP?ER 37.4 414 22.0 15.1 MO-MOLYBDENUM 0.95 62.8 5.52 0.09 NI-NICKEL 20.6 58.0 14.7 20.2 FB-LEAD 95.6 93301 264 15.7 S8-ANTH1ONY 6.63 8.12 0.86 2.24 SE-SELENIUi1 < . ... 1.56 < 0.61 < 0.61 .. . .:. TL-THALLIUM < 3.7 H < 3.7 < 1.3 < 1. 87 V -VANADIUM 26.6 34.5 34.5 35.0 ZN-Z:NC 67.8 710 208 69.0 " 5.41 G .13 3.84 7.13 . NOTE: < = BELOW DETECTION Lr~!T OF INSTRUHENT <***)=NOT DETERMINED BY 1C? ~~~-__~~_.k~__ .. "NA' "~T'~ S"j¡'!~T""'- . HI' L. I., ., .. ~n UriC. J2.L2-J.86· DATE æ~-~I1----- /2/ér/?C xr~AD S. rSKANDER, SUPERVISOR DATE ,...# ~ ... .~. . . . .":: ~ .... e e .'.' ,. ..... -2- made with ~he site operator to assure that the waste' is covered quickly with 6 inches of non-hazardous solid \o,raste. The public must areas ",rhere uncovered asbestos is present. must ensure that compacting equipment does not with asbestos dusts. asbestos containing compacted soil or be prohibited f::-om Landfill opera~ors become contaminated MÞ.NIFEST Any asbestos waste which is transported to a disposal site must be accompanied by a properly completed Uniform Hazardous ì'Jaste Manifest. The disposal site operator shall, on a monthly basis, send a copy of each manifest used or received to: Department of Health Services Toxic Substances Control Division 714 P Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Attn: Manifest processina unit ~~~ ::~::. State law and regulations require hazardous waste generato:::-s to pay the Departmen".: of Health Services the base rate fee of two dollars and eighty-one cents ($2.81) per ton or a minimum of 52.81 per load, whichever is greater, for disposal of asbestos waste. The collected fees should be sent IDonthly to: State Board of Equalization Excise Tax Unity P.O. Box 647 Sacramento, CA 95803 For additional information waste' write 0:::- call the nearest you. on the requirements for disposal of asbestos Toxic Substanoes Cont:::-ol Division Office DepartIDent of Heë..l th Se::""\"ices Toxic Substanoes Control Division Northern California section 4250 Power Inn Road Sacramento, CA 95826 (916) 739-3145 Department of Healtb Services Toxic Substances Control Division Southern California section 107 S. Broadway, Room 7011 Los Angeles, CA 90012 (213) 620-2380 DepartJ:nentof Health Se::",,\rices Toxic substances Control Division North Coast California Section 5850 Shellmound l2neryvill' e.¡. ·'·CAé:;:~4.6 0 8 ,'. \'~i::ii¡};,;' .. (415)0:'540";;2043' .:::,... - ,.' ·.·Y·.~· . ",', ~:~~ ... .~: .,."..: , ' . ", ... ': .....~. . .,. . , ' (f1). CalifOe.1 Depar:tment of Hea'lth Service Hazardous Materials Laboratory Hj\1L # ~ ::¡ 1- '7 c16'o' to LABORATORY REPORT Date Received Co 11 ector I s Name Røt:/ 05.hJ¿ f: by Laboratory 1/ -/2 - 8~ . Sampling Location Rc('¡¿~ý".5¡::-j~l!d /J.¡"P4...k. Collector1s Sample # A'ð'¡ ß~;"<> .~. Ch1Á'.n,.,I}~ ß4k~~<;~'" Q3]07- p~ '-I Analytical Procedures Used: -¡¡:;,_ ~(l, I'lL. ~'--<. ~.L;,J (.viii. r..n.t· f¡Nc~,> Ò.W'A /-{ot pL:t-. tk- ('1!1..,J;) Sa.-¡1 ~d ~/i/L~,.J ~ /h¿"rb Ä:, ucln-J (-,.1; -fJ, {" 'I. 1-1 f'.k?:J ~ dv. t; lj, j d~_, ~~:J w~::tM... Hrll. 1" C 7:¡ f? IA.'...", nL... b.; ¡::j. A f~4- P b . J;.c P rl!.~II1A-r u./t..u... 0 ~_ . Reference: HHLI-t ~ rlu&~, to ANALYSIS RESULTS: HJ1L -IF Co 1/e.c-to(J5 s H r'5 #= Þ;/} pb· c:¡-:¡g !t-oJ, I D,4 2.- 0,0 p,t£ 1,.141 ßb 1~/2/Rb. date Si~Sp~rVi Chemist Analysts' Signatures: ~l. t2>r · 2. ·iI~ /c 4/Y , /,(/4/ff date date- Ca 1 i forni a Department of Health Servi ces - Hazardous t'1ater; a 1 s Laborato¡-y - .:. 004 SU,~ 01 r.i¡;,ùp' -t-in,\lth .no 'l;~lfarð AQ6ncy e a , HAZAR,_ JS MATERIAlS;?AMP' E ANAL YS¡S HEQ~í . r fi'il 'PAlonfr lL:'iJ. ' (f.X¡:,¡",¡if1) .J:~:tr.: ,~J-.-dij'~(t '" - . r;;.,--;::) _p,J'Li.c. ~£':''Q?--- . '. ~ ~'^~T I: r.1~.L-'?J~r,:ÇT!.ºN ___ ..s;. :::::'-ß~'rÖ-;:~~ ¡¡-- --- --Date sam-;ledJ/: ~- 81:: Tlme/f!30~ HO:S Activity: ~ Enforcement 0 ,A,S? rJ H.W. Property 0 Super 0 Other d RCRA TP Code CI:JI:I:CD RlJg{or.: 0 SCERS-SAC 0 NCS-SAC );:( NCS-FRESNO 0 SCS-LA 0 NCCS-SEAK LOCATION OF SAMPLING: EPA 10 NO. LLLLLlID I I I , Nam" rc~ù Ç/~/J HrfDO,'<""k TeI.No/!R.o5)'73/-53Ib . Address -121..-:00 S".J/.1LJÕf1 /:¡'/e_ 'Í3ßke'{"<'<)ç¡(:.id· 9330'7 Number Street City , Zip DeP.1rt!nont or Hedth Servlcas {'...... --,. 7 '7 HML No \.-' , ' ' _.,/: To (7 ~TJ HM L No. (lab Only) Coliector's Sample No. Type Of Sample* FIELD INFORMATION C -. -"7 -., 'f? ...r-¡ 1 _ _1 I I ~ I 1 C 111- ~D-eL (sri Rn oJ - ~ö 2() 4 6 - { .~ -5n.J :'S n/ J So¡J Su.'("~ œ, C,"'rn --<r3;-fe_·--:I5;,,;./ il~ ~ t.,:Çç::. ('"In? 1-""" 0s.¡~ d;fr /~ I ' ~ S().'('"~ce.. CQfY'Q<:Y;~h, - ne\-+ ~IJJ:lÛo.v-k rp~...}-ç;1'"£JiJe. r ,- I '.J.. I (. - \ ~(.e, C.O·MDos'lle. -r,c.>".'t -In e(;,I'Ir.r..~md \ U..J(I<:;t, (('('eeV I I ~S:,y'~<:e.. COf"J1íX'10.ift2 - õJ Aò:OC!-rk Pence¡;i1e.. C:OY"'her ¡ I Analysis Reques~ed: \tQ~IJ<.? -- t1.e.fo..!s -- CÁ}c'r¡'f\afed t6..sfic¡)r::.S-- O{~F,'(',op>t,cs;;J:O('C:,{5 r) ·.·1 .n - I........ .., , ' r.--: ,,¡ I ' ;-"'-ê'::",-~!C¡-"?'"",-- ....~.C·('hO'ì-r;,1-t-,êJ I )2y¡I-¡r:í..ie"'.. -- I .")' DJ e'''\o''·;';' ,¿-fi..S7~·c;dà..-s -- ¡--ìíIOr;.·1 G¡r(n5~~ -. - É:~1-~~(!.c.-l~-bIË (Prjtt:"', rC ~ Chain of Custody: ~-"'r72- d) I! O-hf/ 1 "\.£o<~ \ :,n.Mr~ (, / ïirqna:uro 2 ,1;!1i?J¿¡1tféU~, 3 %~ trç)~ \L()a,~~ J I c,rJ /I ;; '''J,~/ -Iy /, //<0>(/ tv l:1cluslvo °r~s/l~ ' Li~__ Inclusive ~l II "1 .- ----- Ii I r..:; .J- Title ] m" ~ ß H s:. ~Î Title Signature I nc!uslvo Oates 4 SIgnature TItle Inclusive Dates 5 Slgnaturo Title Inclusive Dates Special Rel]1arks (e.g., duplicate sample given to company. etc.) PART II: LABORATORY SECTION Received By Sample Allocation: U HML 0 SC8L \!Ü~ . ,,-·n Analysis Reqüired I c; I '---X ~ / ~~.~ .J , ~('.x') ~u Title ~\~-C B-. o LBL 0 Other -Q D~ ~~~~ .., (' ./ 0 . E? ~~ ~ ~~c:S¿~ ~~ ) ~ ~"-A 0 ~=:sL ~~ . .' Date Date \.HL -~b \t; -'"= ) ~ ·tndicate whether sample is ~Iudgc, soil. etc. Orig.~lab. Dup.-File Trip.-Inspector , . -. Ca l.rni a Department of Health Sen.....-:s ..azardous Materials Laboratory. HML # C '7"17 to c.. 7P LABORATORY REPORT (f'~~~ Date Received ~ ñ by Laboratory I (/~.\). \ 1.- ¡IMÞ Collectorls Sample # R 0 I to ~ ~ Analytical Procedures Used: frí~ G'j-tYt\~ Reference: Ii)/{ L-' ANALYSIS RESULTS: HfvtL :#- ¿'Ù II ~t:hy ô/~ rú/ ~ {r[Af~ B Ii 1" r /.t. -It -~J- ('771 {(D í 014 A /ò' I ~{\~ V' \S¿~~ }./ ¿71~ ~OR. [9 '/ò ~\ V\/'fÞ (. 7'7 q fGD2 {" 0 ~! C: c 7~o f{ò4 . ,4 è! ___3,_: V k. L- )( G "7ß~ AA F tlDÖ.2 ~}" 7 c to l,~~ck':J '). Analy~rsl Signatures: 1. /ltJIM11'V/V-lJII1í\~Ì1 ( I \ t~ ..j \- / 1~ --1J ~ ~ I ~ 8ì date Signatµre of Supervising Chemist $I-t-Jþ_.'!./.s: ùkç¡Þ~'-A J¡J¿/ A~[ date date California Department of Health Services - Hazardous Materials Laboratory CJ4 ~ . - California Department of Health Services Hazardous Materials Laboratory HML I; ~ 777 to .LABORATORY REPORT Chlorinated Pesticides VJ ~~~ J- C. Î ŸD Collector's Name Date Received Rod Ogtða..1f- by Laboratory JlJ¡'2/'YÓ Collector's Sample I; Rei ""ß{] j.¿e y.s ß ie..J r1 It i Y OQ.. y;¿" J / 2('Jn () ~. 11 ^ 11 ()II) A ve.. , to Sampling Location Rn4 Rn Jle.:y.s¿/eJ d q 330 7. Analytical Procedure Extraction with organic solvents; , capillary gas chromatograghy with electron capture detection. ' Reference; HML methods (Refer to AOAC 14th Ed. 29.013) units: ug/g ug/ml : HML /I c.,77 C.77S--' G779 c. I ŸO Detect. l.imi ts Collector's Sample I; 1?ol 'RD2 Ro3 R04 h.fI) ß Delta-BHC - - - .... A. j a BHC - .r"!Î b-BHC .- - - - () . i Lindane - - - - ·(")7 PCNB - - - - .ÄJt Heptachlor - - - - .tl7 Aldrin .- - - - .{)7 Heptachlor epoxide - - - - .n7 a-Chlordane - - - - ,n7 op DDE - - - 1\. ; Thiodan I i - - - - .nï '(-Chlordane - - - - .07 Ipp' DDE - .- ,f) 1 Dieldrin - .OC¡ - - ,AI op DDD - - - - f\. ,. Endrin - - - - "', ; Perthane - - - I,D Thiodan II - - - - . !'I 7 IpP' DDD - .26 - - f).'}, op DDT - - - (').2 pp4 DDT - 151 - - f). ? Methoxychlor - - - n.s 1"edion - - - (). ¡ - : Mi rex - - - .- .()~ Toxaphene Note: (-) =Not detected (blank) = Not determined N ¿¿.t0c/Vvt D hoC) + Signature of Supervising Chemist 11/2S"/¥ð ·1-!Df/Ja,..-1 J ð¿;;:;-/-Ð (Date) /I h (,. / f/t. , (Date) .Analyst's Signature :::at1fornlc;-Health and Welfare Agency ,_" _ :: ~"', HAZ~OUS MATERIALS SAMP~E ANALYSIS R~:ST ",.,ORITY£..G.µ. I' j. '~ \~~ ' (Explain) "Pofen1",c...1 I (eel ...... ~ /-~ , publIc. expoS"l.<Y"e , ' v~< PART I: FIELD'SECTION 5 . 'R (")d 05u1~ H- Date Sampler! 1/- ~- 86 D!:artrnent ct Health Services HJ.1LNo C ì7 7 , To (l~ù Region: 0 SCERS-SAC o ASP 0 H'.W. Property 0 Su¡:.:r ¡jOther o NCS-SAC . ~ NCS-FRESNO CJ SCS~LA o RCRA Til'i,<; /930 TP Code [I 'I I Hours Il Collector. ActivitY: ~ Enfo~cement LOCATION OF SAMPLING: NamE> rso..ker.s ç¡ë../J !J''[Do.'("""K Address Gl-CX;O SO VV1/Óh Ave. Number S:reet o NCCS-BERK EPA I D NO, I I I I ~ I I I I I I I Tel. No (?o5~;?3/-53 /b 2ake'tsÇ¡è/d 93::07' City ZIp HML No. Collector's Type Of (Lab Only) Sample No. Sample+ (, III .Kclt 50-;1 C11~ 1<n :l' ,So// , (77~ Rn3 50/ / (-1 <6ò ,- , t.¡ c:: ,¡ 'r<, (\ \ , / ,>0 t ) FIELD INFORMATION SuÆG..ce. Corn :;Jo-site... - :L.rvVe'('"/oF= do{G..I'n a"e d;f,J '5 r ; -..J , C I UTroC~ ú..·'r.."cx.~ife. -nexT +6 H,"-roc.-< ~D€d; , erx.eIJñE. , - I ' . ,,' ~ C' f_ 'J- -l-./ '-J? i \ .....~,fT(,-ic.e.. COY'l1pos/le,-ne.x¡ '(0 CClT'\creTe.;::Q \~Sh IJ.((?O..) I ' S..;-r~c.~ corr¡oo5ife - C) j),',(,",Dork ·ç:e:-,cè.!t;..,f?. C.O'1'lìe\' I I \io~/J.,/S -- Mefo./s -- CA1~t()o.tE.d ~s.ilc.¡Jes--O("Q();·()c:;.hcsPf·Oí(X'i5 C" I r;-)....J... '-'I ' 0/·1 ' Iìlo'(ODI\ê.nDX4 re$ÚC7Cfe.~ --_II C'.¡-:-d ¡ -..J Analysis Requested: '0-s-fiCt'dES-- Cû.,ba'(Ycde ?es:'fÙ.ícks (' ..-" ...L .J- b I r"'\. - \-rre.ú.Se -- ~:.:I'rctC.lQ. e_ L/'r:]o.hfC.s Chain of Custody: 1 ~ 1drf,)~r¿¡,- ;:.~ ¡S)9nature 2' I &ìI [.;1'0171 f/J.·U /,j ,.......~ /IJ .$Ig atu'Í I, " ' t 1/') '~. , ~. ~ :.[ \~ ~l OçJ"~~ 3. ~......x..........'- .. Signature Title . / i "'~,5:/9(jt, ///;:;"'<;'//& / ,/ I Inclusive ùa'lt~J;' . \ -> ' II /;~ /P¿' ':t :/::2.1 (:; {j J) I /1) ~ b IncJuslve Oatèf ¡ I IncJuslve Oates IIí1S -r .-- l \!tle . 'R\'1ÎJ ,...) (:> <7 . Title 4. Signature TItle InclusIve ·::.ëtes 5 Signature Title Inclusive ::.ëte:s Special Remarks (e.g.. cuplic:ate sa",:" given to company. etc.) PART \I: LABORATORY SECTION '~~ "'- ~. . ,'ì ...:--......--'..... .. "'---> .. "." . . . \"-- ( \ <:\:::".iV^- "-- \ o SCBL çQ.._-~ ~ÇL ~·c~ --;: - ~'- . \ ~ , Sj;-.S:.L ~.;,--,-Q../ .' ~ "- : i t ~...., \ 1--\ ¿ ;'x../{ - -1~'" Received By Sample Allocation: \ 0" .--". '\ Title ;, '-- ----.. Date o LB L , 0 'a.her Date D'"V ',\),..,_:i ~ . ~';'-.c> ,Co-~\ ,..-', ~_,,~ , u .-\ _. ,. ____ >-"~ '-..'-.C:_^-.1..... '-'::;:', "-.; ',_ '_" --;J , :...- '\, - r=-; ü.·"'<.-.......-...c.-....;=:.-'I.(¿..., ~~ o HML \\D~,~ Analy.sj~ Requíred, --i--" '" - - _ \'" '._/~~-~. ,; ~ !" "-"..-" ~ ~- ,~~ - , . "Indicate whether sample is sludge; soil, etc. Orig.-Lab. Dup.-File Trip.-Inspector DHS 8002 (1/86) - califor~.· Department of Heë:J.l th Services a Haz ~us Haterial~ Laboratorv '~' . LABORATORY REPORT - ~~\:"\,. J Carbamates HML # (. )) ì CìJ-o to , '. Collector's Sample # (( rill. (jJ~ f2- c ( ~o<-t- to Sampling Location 12- 0 J.. OS W~J-+ /!, c, Þ-- ~ j'-Jl-t 14; ¡- p.?< l-- , t..oc~ ,((¡";òl" AtV.£. Date Received ) by Laboratory ColJ..ecto);,'s Nù.me Analytical Procedure: Solid samples' are extracted ,Üth CH"JCN and aqueous' samples extracted with dichloromethane. . Carbarnates are determined by HPLC usi.rÌg.fluorescence detector. 'IML .!1 ( ììì (77& c. ìì 7 petectiorJ IT (2-D ~ . h -1' Limit/, Collector's Sample .!1 t'2- 0 '. P-o L i Units I 't1 ì·ethomyl ' (Lannate) ""- -- - o. I ' . - Oioxac2.rb ~ - - , , . . Al¿icarb -- ... '. - - I . ',' ¡ Baygon (Propoxur) - - - f - , Carbo£uran - - - I ; Carbaryl (Sevin) - - - , .U'lesurol) , - - -- I. Methiocarb PrOf:leca:cb - - - ' . - .' . J Buffencarb - - ! , 1 . . I I I . I I - - I , I . I i " r I \ ! , ~. Note: (-) Not detected (blank) = Not determined Analyst's Signature S úÅ,~~S-/ (,5-~ ci~ S~g~ature of Supervising Chemist U )).0 lib <!.-hI¿J~1 J D/c.t ~-(D (Da t e) J/h~h<: I(D3 t~) Sampling Location Californii"' Department of lIe¿llth SCJ:"vic.cs Haz~us Materials Laboratory ~' LABORATORY REPORT Carbamates (:2.'<:) d '. 0 ~ {,J c-+-t (hh.- l·þvS f:- J~' 4, y {) M/k... Collector I s Sample t:=, j' ")...~ô~ s lJ~,Î)" Æ'VÁ.. HML it "- / I I to , c 71' tJ Coll-ecto~ t S Name Date Received . by Laboratory I( /1 {/f{- " # 'p.- Q . ( .. (Q v '{... tö Analytical Procedure: Solid samples are extracted with CH~CN and aqueous samples extracted- .,.,~.th· dichloromethan.e. . Ca~bamates ar,e determi:1ed by HPLC using. fluorescence detector. 1ML l! Cì ¡ \) _þe~e~tioJ r. p-o<1 .. .., L~m~t/ ' . Colleçtor's Sample .;J. Units .. 11 I \ - 1'1etho¡;¡yl (Lannate) , -. b,S - Oioxacarb - I , I . , >"ldicarb - - t , 6a;~on (Propoxur) - I I - Carbofuran 1 . I car ba=y 1 (Sevir:.) - I lMethi::;carb .(Mesurol) , - I ¡ I - lJ ¡Promeca.:cb - . ku~fe"carb - I ( .' i I ! I ! i - . ¡ ¡ I i ! 4 I - . I I I . I I i / I I ì . I ¡ J . I I. f-'- 5; ! lå Note: (- ) Not detected (blank) = Not determined Analyst's Signature ~t~C,b._ Jh...ð S~gnature of Supervising Chemist (11 ð/~' 4vJ¿:'~'/ --1', û IcA;~'-Ä (Date) II ¡{.~ Ai. (Date) - S:::'t8 of ~alltornla-Health and Welfare Agency _ a _ HAZA'~US MATERIALS SAMP7E ANALYSIS REf..ST PRIORI' ~ (Explam ", if '." . ~ .. ~ Date Sampled 1/- ~- 86 o H.W. Property 0 Super 0 Other 0 RCRA )( NCS-FRESNO 0 SCS-LA 0 NCCS-BERK EPA 10 NO. I I I ! I I I I I I I Tel. No (?os)?3/-53/b 13lJ.k €-r..5 ç¡è.ld 933éJ7 City Zip Region: 0 SCERS-SAC o NCS-SAC LOCATION OF SAMPLING: Namp 13a..ke-r,s Ç,èJJ /l/'("'DOt'<""k , Address /1.COO SO' 7Ávuõ'f) AV€~ Number H M L No. (Lab Only) Collector's Sample No. Type Of Sample* ~ 1?oi C Il~ 1'.j{();J. --CI15- Rn.3 D1L r;:< () 1./ " Soil ,Sni¡ 50:1 ~o¡ J Department of Health Services HMl No Cì7l .' To (1 ~() Time /~!30 TP Code LJ . II I Hours J Street FIELD INFORMATION S I" "..). ..j.. r f - --I ¡ (.c:r"t1:1c.€... CQm::>-:r"", :e_- -:Lr.."v",df'",' ~r- Q("Q.()('je d: c.h , , Su'("'¡;c(>_ c.or"lOo5ifr:> - nex+ to ,Q1<-P>Cl.-rk prope<-5 ~J;'e :--~~ce, c.cw",~os.ì-lë. -nf>-xT 1-0 r.anr..refe. cad (~f" c¡'("e£\) I Sn'...~ce.. CO(Y'Jnrx3ife.- õJ A,"-re>a-rk ¡::-e\1('R-Í1¡.,e.. COrt'lP,(" I I Chain of Custody: 2 3 Signature 4 Signature 5 SIgnature Special Remarks J/¡ý) S :£ Title _ /1¡Í~j¡t, Indusl~ Dit~J /; ) ~ ~ In<:lusi~~ =r ~Ie ~ß H ~ ~Î Title I nelusj~ Dates Title Ineiusive Dates Title I nelusive Dates (e.g.. duplicate sample given to company. etc.) PART II: LABORATORY SECTION -~U R¡!ceived By Sample AII0C3tion: 0 HML 0 SCBl Analysis Reqüired ~ O-k <; ) .59. -Q ~/ - - . ~ :; - ~~~ Title ~\J.I,.C ~ o LBL 0 Other {'i~ ~ n_~ :: "~~ " ' ~~) ~~ ~A o~ ~~ Date Date ~4L-~ \, "Indicate whether sample is sludge, soil, etc. Orig.-Lab. Trip.-Inspector OtiS 8002 (1136) Dup.-File , . . . -_ r: ~1oU -c.: =-- -c..: C:::J c;;: J~ ::;c:: ~c WW :.:: :> gl§ z ... :.> ~CD o .- '. .. . . - o ... - Site 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. e CHEMICALS ABOVE RSCL'S e LOCATION # ~ 6. Dactha 1 Dactha 1 PCB Dacthal Dacthal Ch lordane Dactha 1 Chlordane Dactha 1 Chlordane Oacthal 10. DOT Chlordane Dactha 1 Chlord?ne Dactha 1 E. Parathion 11. /' .. ./' 1- / + .,./ / - ~ - ~ -- -- 11L5., ~:: _ - --~- ",,- ~ ././/?-"'~"'-7~"'_; ././ " ././ I I ./ ././ 110 ./ ./ ~." ~ 66 9,61. r I I) 7~ A' I I 8,6 . '+ , I I: +/' ,=' I J ./ l:if J V ...1 2.6 /f~1 I~I , ~ I I I;' ._.._._.-,/ J I I;;:, 4L 5.6 I~I ~ ,~I ~ 1...1 III ~ VI I;;, ~ I~I c::: 1:1 ~ 1°1 I . I 12. (Water) Dacthal 7. \ \ --c 2 ñ} 8. Heptachlor Chlordane Dactha 1 9. DOT Chlordane Dactha 1 3.6 TAXIWAY ~ I JI LEGEND FIGURE .1 D\VG NOT TO SCALE BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK .. . 19!!.Æ IT CORPORA TII~N , All ':OPVRIí,HTS R!;C;:E:lV£!:, W tNTtimJ..TJON'AL y TECHNOLOGY CORPORJ..TJOlt .:,,, r,c, :-c.. "'"~ I It,,, V'A_.n,,: e Contaminant Highest Level Found (Sample Site) ppm. Heptachlor Endosulfan DOT + Chlordane PCB Methoxychlor Oactha 1 Ba 1 an/Trefl an Botran Chlorpyrifos OEF Oimethoate Ethion Parathion 1 DOHS 0.3 18 4 58 0.2 60 720 60 7 1 0.8 0.4 15 120 ( 8) ( 10) ( 10) ( 9) ( 2) ( 11) ( 11) ( 11) ( 10) ( 7. 8) (7) (7) ( 6) ( 11) e TABLE 1 ADWL ppb RSCL mg/kg Source of ADWL (1) DOHS EPA-NAEL DOHS DOHS EPA-RMCL NAS EPA-NAEL NAS OOHS DOHS DOHS ... California Department of Health Services, "Acceptable Level in Drinking Water", 1977-86. 0.02 74 0.02 74 EPA-NAEL - U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, "No Adverse Effect Levell', 1986. 0.055 o 700 0.008 700 NA NA NA 140 35 30.0 0.055 o 700 0.008 700 140 35 30.0 EPA-RMCL - U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, '"Recommended Contaminant Level", 1985-86 NAS - National Academy of Sciences, "Suggested No Adverse Response Level II , 1977-85. f I . -.-' -.. ~ -....- ,.~ ........,.- '-"'"'..I..._-",..'f"~"._.'~_""""""_'_"'_"""'-'-"'-'-.-::::C-I:~._.,..._.:.;;._..-;--':;_'·l"'._":n~~~..";:"~~';':'~~.~:;;>-·· ·-:--.~~2--~~.~.¡;~..;~~::'=.t:·:~ ~~:::.~: e - DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK EXPANSION SCH 30030515 PREPARED BY: THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD FIRE AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT AUGUST 1980 FOR INFORMATION} CONTACT: DENNIS PISILA} PRINCIPAL PLANNER CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PLANNING DEPARTMENT ,1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD} CALIFORNIA 93301 (305) 861-2777 I e - SUMMARY The City of Bakersfield and/or the County of Kern are studying the feasibility of expanding the Bakersfield Airpark for the tripling of present general avia- tion activity. The project may be funded up to 90 percent by a Federal Aviation Administration grant. The project has the potential to increase adverse noise exposure to existing and future residents, to increase interaction with Meadows Field aircraft transition and holding patterns, to place Pacific Gas & Electric Company's major transmission towers within the 34:1 instrument approach path and it will require the closure of a portion of Planz Road, a major collector street. In response to the sensitivity of noise impacts on future areas designated for residential development, a proposed Land Use Plan has been prepared recommending , ' amendments decreasing residential designations and increasing industrial and per- manent Open Space. A secondary benefit is viewed in designating additional in- dustrial land in order to provide further site availability for activities related to the Airpark which are needed to provide employment opportunity to the Southeast Bakersfield economy. If the proposed Land Use Element changes are adopted and implemented along with the project, there will be considerable additional impacts upon the area around the facility. Increased development, including residential subdivisions, will produce additional traffic, service needs (water supply, storm drainage) and energy demands; however, the present Land Use Element (if imple- mented) would produce the same general effects requiring good planning, capital improvements and the employment of mitigation measures as suggested. There are, however, two major unique features arising from the proposed Land Use Plan. The first is that the project, in providing a catalyst for industrial development and employment opportunity, will fit into the proposed plan frame- work thereby promoting the needed growth and development to a presently stagnated Southeast Bakersfield economy. The second difference in the two plans is that the proposal requires less people services (school capacity, park sites and law enforcement, in particular) because of the conversion from residential to industrial and open space use. The reduced services cited are important since funding is normally provided through local property taxes. - The following table provides more specific descriptions, impacts and suggested mitigation for each resource identified as potentially affected by the Airpark Expansion (project) and the proposed Land Use Plan. Resource/Setting (a) Natural Environment TOPOgraphf £ssentia1 y f1at and featureless for for·both Project and Plan Soil s Grðngeville~Hesperia Soil Association' moderate allowable soil pressure; severe limitation to untreated steel pipe. Climate arid. mediterranean Air Qualit~ Non~attainment area (Clear Air Act Amendments. 1977) Hydrolog~ ' Surface lrrigation to agricultural lands 1n Plan Area; acquifer depth 200~300 feet (Project Plan); quality acceptable. low storage capability. - -- _..--.~--- ,- .._~--_._.- .---', ~UHMAR\'ør ·PROJ£CTANDPLAN £NI,'!RDNMENT'o.!- SETTING. IMPACTS AND fotITIGATlON I1EASURES BY RESOURCE Significant Environmental Impacts None Project Site: Runway, airside and ancillary industrial uses, including necessary utilities. Plan Área: Heavy industrial, commercial and/or office. .., f None, except for slight temperature increases during day and lowering at night¡ some decrease in fog due to urbanization None as direct result of project¡ impact of Plan activities uncertain Quality impact minimal - See also Public Services (Water Supply) ...._-_.._.__.._-~~----_...~.~--~._._.......- --'-.-,'-- .._--------.~._-_..__.----~_.--.. -,.-~._---._---_. --..-.--..-.------ '---'--"'" _.. -. ..--' - .,-.. ....... '- -'---'--- Mitigation None Testing, grading and compaction to City approval. Limit or restrict heavy industrial, commercial/office uses unless de- sign and construction mitigation is approved by City/County Ai rpark improvements designed for reflective surfacing and aircircu- 1ation throughout Plan Area . Air Quality Maintenance Plan implementation and APCD permit review and mitigation process on specific projects. Limit in- dustrial uses to M-l zoning. None - - I f I \ , I I- -- Summary of Project and Plan Environmental Setting, Impa~ts and Mit~gation Mp.asures by Resou~cc (continued) Resource/Setting (b) Cultural Environment Pub' it S~rvices a. Fire Protection: City Fire Department provides high level of service (ISO Class 3 rating); adequate fire pro- tection provided to existing deve10p- ,ment by flows of 2500 gallons per minute (20 P.S.Z;) , b. Police Protection: Bakersfield Police Department provides protection for Airpark and adjacent and nearby City areas; Kern County Sheriff's Office protects unincorporated areas. c. Water Supply: Project and most of Plan area served by California Water Service Company. Four wells located in Plan area produce 500-1200 gallons per minute of which 360 gallons per minute is used at Airpark. Balance appears marginal to existing , 1,800 population at peak moments (summer watering). d. Sewer Service: Urban development served by sewer system with treatment at Plant 2. . .. __ _ .. _. _ '____'h.._. . .---. .- ._. ----- .----- ..-..~..__. ".-.---..-- -- - ~- Significant Environmental Impacts Present staffing and response adequate for proposed Project; however, the adequacy of water supply is questionable. Im- pact of proposed Plan would require improved water supply and fire protection systems although not much different from present land Use Plan. Airpark Project will not require additional law enforce- ment: Plan development would require additional staff on basis of population growth. Project water supply adequacy is questionable al- though not a significant impact. Present supply and delivery system inadequate for proposed Plan area development. ----- Present system adequate for ,Project: however. new resi- dential and other plan area development will require new mains. Treatment capacity adequate for Plan growth. - .---...---.-- '- -'-.-.--.... ".'" ".- ......-. . - .~. ".' '. ..",.. ',.-' .. .-. Mitigation 'For, Plan construct new water delivery system including 10 new wells, new mains, fire hydrants I upgraded distri- bution and recover costs from development. None for Project, except most industries provide own security. According to standards, 17 additional officers needed for 5.640 population growth of Plan area (however. present p1an---- would require 31 more officers). New improvements (10 wells, mains. hydrants, etc.) costs could be absorbed by develop- ment; Upgrade existing system. Alternative to 10 wells could' be added storage capacity. None, except for new mains, laterals and connections to be financed by development. -"._~-..,-- -.-,,-""---' -.,- ..__..>~. ..-.- ....---.,........-. Summary of Project and Plan Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures by Resource (continued) Resource/Setting (b) Cultural Environment Aesthetics Site and area is flat; improvements limited at Airpark; inefficient and non-aesthetic development along South Union Avenue. Residential neighbor- hoods deteriorating (housing con- ditions, roads); agriculture and Open Space in south area. Ener1~ Supply and Conservatio~ Paci 1C Gas and Electric provides natural gas and electricity to Project and Plan. Energy consumption currently estimated to be low due to extent of undeveloped area, types of uses and older units. (c) Socioeconomics Population and Housing Approximately 1,800 population and 560 housing units in Plan area (virtually all in County are~ Little growth in 10 years, larger family size, higher (82%) minority population, lower median income (including 63% low/ moderate income families), higher unit vacancy rates, over twice as much unem- ployment and lower educational attain- ment than the Metropolitan population at large. ---'-'-'.' -- .-.- ,-----------....- "--'" Significant Environmental Impacts Generally an improved visual appearance is expected in Proj2ct area although hangars and towers are promi- nent features; loss of rural image in Plan area, in- cluding up to 40 percent of present Open Space by Year 2000. Upgrading expected for existing bus i ;'es ses and poor hous i ng. Not significant, however, energy conservation measwres need to be considered in all future development in State and Nation. Area to south (Rexland Acres) subject to greatest immediate noise impact if Project is approved (740 additional persons subject to 60 dßA +). Total population affected by project ultimately (or 1998) increased by 62 percent. The project will create the need for more housing as more jobs are created. Mitigation None, except for design review of non-single family residential development; relate review to energy conservation, building separation and reflective sur- facing (see Climate). Existing residences subject to rehabilitation and conservation programs. - Thennal wall and ceiling insulation in new development; consider solar energy, energy saving equipment and site and architectural design. Soundproofing, design alterations to existing homes, including work in- cidental to low/moderate income re- habilitation through several subsidy programs; insulate, design new units within 60-65 dß(A) noise tolerances; use proposed Land Use Plan and/or control measures (currently) and aircraft modifications in future; use coordinated, Specific Plan pro- cedure for well planned future neighborhoods. - -.--- "--"---''''---'---~~- ~..__._-~.~..- _.__._._----_.....-~--_.. -----~..-..._-..,-...~---.._,--...-. --._-....~._~._-.....__. '.- ....... ....---.. ......- '-'-'--'.".' Po ~ ~'" .-:'?"- ,- .... ..... .. _.._-- . ._. ··.·0 _ ..._ _~.._ L ,(, e e (~C .- 1'1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN. Governor CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD- CENTRAL VALLEY REGION ......;;:..:..., ~-' OCt~ ."' ....,....- i'~::·O SAN JOAQUIN WATERSHED BRANCH OFFICE: 3614 EAST ASH LAN AVENUE FRESNO. CALIFORNIA 93726 PHONE: (209) 445-5116 " 25 November 1986 Ms. Mary Strenn Deputy City Manager City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 YOUR CONSULTANT'S CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK, KERN COUNTY Our staff reviewed the reconnaissance investigation of pesticide contamination at Bakersfield Airpark submitted by your consultant. Enclosed is a copy of our comments. The comments conclude that pesticide contamination does exist on City property at the Airpark. We request further investigation of past and present activities at the Airpark as noted in our letter of 5 November 1986. The report proposal should also include investigation of any additional problems noted in the enclosed review. We~still expect to receive the proposal by 15 January 1987. If you have any questions, please call Gail Battles at (209) 445-5093. _~f1~#44 SARGEANT J. GREEN Senior Land and Water Use Analyst GEB: djb Enclosure cc: Mr. Donn Diebert, Toxic Substances Control Division, Department of Health Services, Fresno Mr. 'Vern Reichard, Kern County Health Department, Bakersfield ../ I r e Memorandum{e .' ~. CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD-CENTRAL VALLEY REGION 3614 E. Ashlan SAN JOAQUIN WATERSHED BRANCH Telephone: (209) 445-5116 Fresno. CA 93726-6905 State Lease Line: 421-5116 DATE: SARGEANT J. GREEN 1i.!1' .--FROM: Senior Land and (/IV"V ' Water Use An al YS;AúJf , 24 November 1986 SIGNATURE: lc'(Ö;Q C~~ ASSESSMENT REPORT BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK, KERN COUNTY GAIL E. BATTLES Staff Engine~r TO: SUBJECT: I reviewed the contamination assessment of selected areas of the Bakersfield Airpark (BAP). The City of Bakersfield initiated the assessment for their own information to determine if pesticide contamination existed on the Airpark property, and if it posed a threat to public health and the local environment. The assessment was conducted without prior approval of the agencies responsible for reviewing this type of work. The following is a list of pertinent tasks performed and the preliminary results: 1. Twelve soil sampling sites were selected. The sampling sites were east of the Garriott property: along the taxiway and runway, in the drainage channel, the back-filled trench and drainage sump (see figure 1). 2. Using a hand auger, soil core samples were obtained every 6 inches to a depth of 2 feet. One liquid sample was obtained from the drainage sump. 3. Samples were transported under chain-of-custody procedures to ITls Stoner Lab in Santa Clara for analysis. 4. Air'monitoring stations were set up north-east of the Garriott property and south of the drainage sump. 5. The soil samples were composited in the laboratory: half of each sample from a given sampling location were composited and analyzed, the other half was archived. The sampling was conducted July 11 through 15 1986. 6. Soil and water samples were tested for the presence of organochlorine pesticides (OC), organophosphorous pesticides (OP) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB). 7. The methods of analysis for OCls, OP's and PCBls in soil were adapted from U. S. Environmental Protection Agency methods 608 and 622. 8. The filter discs fròm the air monitoring were analyzed for OCIS, Opls and PCBls using analytical methods taken from NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods. 9. Table 1 lists the highest level of each contaminant found, the sample site where the highest level was found, the Acceptable Drinking Water Level (ADWL) and the Recommended Soil Cleanup Level (RSCL) for each contaminant. e e ASSESSMENT REPORT BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK -2- 24 November 1986 10. Figure 1 shows the sampling sites and lists the chemicals found at each site which exceed the RSCL. My comments concerning the results áre as follows: 1. The results show that contamination exists on City property at BAP. 2. Every sampling site has at least one contaminant above RSCL's. The City of Bakersfield should be asked to do the following to thoroughly assess the threat to ground and surface water posed by contaminants. 1. Determine the historical land use at the Airpark to define all potential sources of contamination. 2. Draw an airport drainage plan to show the pathways of potential contaminant flow over the Airpark. 3. Conduct further soils testing to determine the vertical and areal extent of contamination. 4. Sample the sludge in the bottom of the Airport drainage sump. 5. Identify the location of the disposal of the sludges which were removed from the bottom of the sump by maintenance crews. 6. Obtain Board staff approval prior to the implementation of any further site investigation or remedial action. CONCLUSION: .- - The report showed that pesticide contamination of soils and surface water does exist on City property at BAP. The City should be asked to prepare a proposal which addresses the above mentioned points in order to determine the threat to ground and/or surface water posed by past and present disposal practices at BAP. GEB:djb Attachment e e DR AF T ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK EXPANSION SCH 80030515 PREPARED BY: THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD FIRE AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT AUGUST 1980 UPDATED BY: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT/REDEVELOPMENT DIVISION CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MAY 1983 FOR INFORMATION, CONTACT: PAUL SHILLOCK, PRINCIPAL PLAN~ER CITY OF BAKERSFIELD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301 (805) 326-3765 e e EIR Update The City of Bakersfield examined the feasibility of expanding the Bakersfield Airpark and prepared a draft EIR for the plan in August of 1980. This darft was mailed to the required State agencies for review and comment, and many comments were received. Application for financial assistance, and implementation of the project, has been delayed for a variety of reasons, but renewed interest has resulted in an update of the EIR and initiation ,of efforts to progress to implementation. In the reveiw and update of the draft EIR, many areas were reassessed for their impact on the local environment and the possible change in the situation since August, 1980. It was found that there had been substantial changes in several areas of environmental impact. This change may, in some cases, alter pro- posed mitigation efforts. The determination\~s made that the following Resources/Settings had not changed since preparation of the 1980 draft: Topography So il s Climate A'ir' quality Hydrology Geology/Seismology Flora and Fauna Health and Safety Fire Protection Sewer Service storm Drainage Solid Waste Parks/Open space Education Historical/Archeological Sites Aesthetics Energy supply and conservation Population and Housing Social Factors Economic Factors e e The remaining resources or settings were determined to have experienced signi- ficant change since August of 1980 to warrant additional investigation and' analysis. Land Use: Some of the recommended changes in zoning have been made since the preparation of the draft ErR. The changes were made in conformance with the recommendation in the Land Use portion of the Draft ErR. These recommendations, in turn, were based in mitigation proposed in the noise impact review as it relates to land use noise compatibility. The changes made in the zoning classification for specific areas is displayed in Table 17 Update. Transportation and Circulation: 1982 traffic counts show a decrease in vehicular traffic utilizing several major arterials (South Chester Avenue and South Union Avenue) as well as major collectors. The obvious pattern of change in the east/ west circulation system appears to be an increase in vehicular traffic west of Union Ave. and a decrease in traffic east of Union. This me3surable deçreas~ in vphicular traffic is not ex"ected to substantially impact on the conclusion that "the entire Study Area road system will require upgrading... The project and plan are important catalysts for the southeast area and in the evolution toward a full urban community at some point after the year 2000." Map 15 Update displays the major changes in ADT counts for the streets in the Study Area. Noise: The noise factor was examined in two distinct areas. The noise associated with traffic circulation was measured and 1983 results indicate a decrease in noise levels and some minimal change in the noise contours. This decrease is ~2- e e the result of a reduction in traffic volume. The change in contour lines cannot be shown onfue enclosed maps; however, the 1983 measurements are displayed in Appendix A-6 Update and the movement of the contours is evident in the reduction of the Ldn distance to the specific noise contour lines from the nearest lane. The change is also reflected in the projected year 2000 noise levels. The noise associated with aircraft operations is in the process of being updated. This is necessitated by administrative adjustments which result in changes in the breakdown of directional take-offs and a reduction in the noise associated with the crop-dusting operations located at the airpark. The data is currently being collected for the update of the noise contours and will be forwarded to all agencies immediately upon receipt from the consultant. Water: Since the completion of the 1980 Draft ErR, several new wells have been drilled in the Study Area and are now operational. Estimates are now that, at most, one additional well may be necessary to accommodate future demand and the required fire flows. The supply situation is also aided by the fact that the water table is at normal level for the first time in many years. -3- e e TABLE 17 UPDATE The following Land Uses or Zoning Amendments in the Airpark Study Area have been made since August 1980. Area Amendment 3 Approximately 40 acres have been rezoned to light manufacturing and limited commercial. The balance remains low density residential. 4,4a This 38 acre area has been rezoned to light manufacturing. 10 This 61 acre area has been rezoned to a mobile home zone. 11 This 5 acre area has been rezoned to agri cultural. e e MAP 15 UPDATE Vehicular rraff~c Counts, Bakersfield Airpark Vicinity 1980 and 1982 Annual ADT East and West Directional Streets 1980 1982 Casa Lorna E. of Union Avenue 3,500 3,300 Watts Drive W. of Cottonwood Rd. 820 730 Planz Road W. of Cottonwood Rd. 1,500 1,600 White Lane W. of Union Avenue E. of Union Avenue 5,800 1,150 6,100 1,000 Pacheco Road ~~. of Union E. of Union 3,000 2,250 4 .' 1)5 () 1,400 North and South Direction Streets Chester Ave. (south) N. of Union Avenue 4,700 3,500 Union Avenue S. of White Lane S. of Casa Lorna 19,000 17,000 13 , 000 17 ,800 Madi son St. N. of Casa Lorna Dr. 2,950 2,450 Cottonwood Rd. N. of Pacheco Rd. S. of Casa Lorna 1,900 4,000 1,800 6,000 e - APPENDIX A-6 UPDATE 1982 and Year 2000 Estimated Traffic Generated Noise, Bakersfield Airpark Study 1982 Segment (see Map 15) Location Ldn (Distance to Ldn Contour Lines) at 50' 70dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA South Union Avenue Cas a Lorna to White S. of White 70dBA 69.5dBA 50' 130' 120' 300' 278' Cottonwood Road White to Casa Lorna Panama to White 64.5dBA 59.dBA 120' White Lane Union to Cottonwood 59.dBA Casa Lorna Drive Union to Cottonwood 66.5dBA 69' 170' e e APPENDIX A-6 UPDATE (Continued) 1982 and Year 2000 Estimated Traffic Generated Noise, Bakersfield Airpark Study 2000 Segment (see Map 15) Location Ldn (Distance to Ldn Contour Lines) at 50' 70dBA 65dBA 60dBA South Union Avenue White to Casa Lorna S. of White 73dBA 72.5dBA 100' 83' 235' 200' 490' 428' Cottonwood Road White to Casa Lorna 68.5dBA 100' 235' Panama to White 66.dBA 62' 155' White Lane Union to Cottonwood 67.5dBA 83' 200' Cas a Lorna Drive Union to Cottonwood 70.5dBA 56' 143' 320' APPENDIX A-I (UPDATED) SCHEDULE OF ACQl:ISITION AND CAPITAL IMPROVEr~ENTS TOTAL FEDERAL SHARE LOCAL SHARE PROJECT DESCRIPTION COST ADAP (90%) (10% ) -- I PHASE 1: PROPERTY ACQUISITION 1.1" BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK (93 acres) 3,720,000 3,348,000 372 ,000 - Ai rpa rk Land - Capital Improvements currently on Airpark site (FMV) e 3 T-hanger rows 54,200 0 54,200 Industrial Building 81,400 0 81,400 Convention Hanger (Bill Lewis 11:2,500 0 112,500 FBO) Hex-hanger ïO,500 0 70,500 7 mini-covers, 6 Porta hangers 2,700_ 0 2,700 1.2 ADDITIONAL PROPERTY TO BE ACQUIRED 1,890,000 1,701,000 189,000 TOTAL 5,921,300 5,049,000 882,300 II PHASE 2: AIRPARK SITE PREPARATION & CONSTRUCT ION e 2.1 SITE PREPARATION - Clearing and Grubbing 19,700 17,700 2,000 2.2 AIRFIELD CONSTRUCTION - Pa vi n g Runway 768,400 691,600 76,800 Connecting Taxiway 2C5,900 185,300 20,600 - Complete Airfield paving Pa"ra 11 e 1 Tax i way 518,600 466,700 51,900 Taxiway Extension 87 ,600 78,800 8,800 Holding Aprons 25,100 22,600 2,500 AP~ENDIX A-I (UPDATED) (con't) SCHEDULE OF ACQí:ISITION AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TO~AL FEDERAL SHARE COST ADAP (90%) -Lighting Mirl Wind Cone and Segmented Circle Rotati ng Beacon Apron Flood Lighting -Approach Aids VASI-2 -Miscellaneous Runway r'1arking Taxiway Marking Perimeter Fencing Electrical Vault Walls (concrete blocks) 2.3 NON-AIRFIELD PAVING: 1st PARKING APRON -Initiate Parking Apron -Complete 1st Parking Apron 2.4 BUILDING RELOCATION/REMOVAL -3 T-hanger Rows Demolition ~ -Hex-hanger Demolition -Industrial Building Demolition -Miscellaneous Building Demolition 2.5 ACCESS FACILITIES: FIRST PORTION OF VEHICLE PARKING -Vehicle Parking 19S,800 PROJECT DESCRIPTION '. ' LOCAL SHARE (10% ) 10~,200 98,300 1/,100 15,400 2~,500 19,300 3?,300 29,100 38,500 34,600 6,600 5,900 2,100 1,900 124,600 112,100 3~,100 28,900 77,500 69,700 10,900 1,700 2,200 3,200 3,900 700 200 12,500 3,200 7,800 - 3£,800 28,200 96;,000 735,900 69,900 62,900 11 ,600 10,400 11 ,600 10,400 23,300 21,000 8,600 226,100 7,000 1,200 1,200 2,300 -- 176,200 19,600 , -~ APPENDIX A-l:(UPDATED) (can't)· SCHEDULE OF ACQUISITION AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL FEDERAL SHARE LOCAL SHARE PROJECT DESCRIPTION COST ADAP (90%) (10% ) -- 2.6 NON-AIRFIELD PAVING: 2ND PARKING APRON -Second Parking Apron 1,:09,900 1,002,100 307,800 e 2.7 ACCESS FACILITIES: PAVING -Final Portion of Vehicle Parking ?19,700 197,700 22,000 2.8 NON-AIRFIELD PAVING: 3RD PARKING APRON -Initiate Paving 3rd parking apron 1,'::69,900 818,500 251,400 -Complete Paving 3rd parking apron l: 92,200 376,500 115,700 2.9 NON-AIRFIELD PAVING: EXTENDED PARKING APRON -Extended parking apron 517,300 465,600 51,700 TOTAL 7,006,800 5,783,300 1,223,500 3.0 BUILDING REMOVAL/RELOCATION v -Hanger Demolition 14,900 131400 11500 3.1 ACCESS FACILITIES: ROADS . -N-S Access Road Initiation 179,200 161,300 17 ,900 ~N-S Access Road Completion ~18,200 1061400 11 ? 800 3.2 CONTROL TOWER CONSTRUCTION (100% , ADAP FUNDED) 910,60~ 910,600 0 ~ '. .... '. " 1)222,900 1 ,19.1 ,700 31,200 e e /2t¡ cJl(2/l(/:7 GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor STt-TE OF CALIFORNIA ;AN JOAQUIN WATERSH~D BRANCH OFFIC:: 3374 EAST SHIELDS AVENUE, ROOM 18 FRESNO. CALIFORNIA, 93726 PHONE: 12091445,5116 ~ E<C1UV!E ]I» JUN 1 0'S83 CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD- CENTRAL VALLEY REGION 9 June 1983 Kern County Health Dept. . Mr. J. David Kennon City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue bakersfield, C~ 93301 SCH NO. 80030515, BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK EXPANSION, KERN COUNTY we have reviewea the Draft EIR on the subject project and have aevelopea com~er.ts. Attached are copies of our comments. We find ~hat the EIR inadequately addressed hazardous waste disposal from activities at the airpark and that such activities pOSE a threat to ground and surface water quality. I~ such ¿ctivi:ìes cannot be mitigated within the scope of the DëIR, thE fir.2ì ëIR should be rewritten to address the Dotentiê~ tnrE~:S to ground and surface waters from waste clsposai at tr:E airport. If you nave an\ questions, please call Tim Souther at this offi ce. .1:\ ~ .,'·</<.;¡~Î/íf¿~~~ .j/J./{l-f..- /11,,1'-,''-_.- ! ./ I v.... :/'- S,£¡RGEAtiT J. GR::t:r; Senior Lane ânG Water Use Analyst TGS : hmíí: Attachment cc: Mr. Mohinder Sandhu, D~partment of Health Services Mr. Perry Coy, Department of Food and Agriculture (-Mf":"" Vern Rei chard, Kel^n County Health Department Mr. Bob Edwards, Kern County Ag Commissioner Mr. Eric Davis, Kern County Water Agency e - CENTRAL VALLEY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD MEMORArmUM TO: Sargeant J. Green ,~)~<--- 7 June 1983 FROM: Timothy G. Souther SU8JECT: SCH NO. 80030515, BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK EXPANSION, KERN COUNTY I have reviewed the subject Draft Environmental Impact Report and have developed tne following comments: 1. On Page 53, the report indicates the Industrial and Commerical uses that may generate industrial or hazardous waste will probably continue. "The County ~ealth Department will have the full responsibility and strict control over tnE release of hazardous substances ùr industrial wastes ... Therefore the degradation of existing underground water quality due to sewage and surface runoff from industrial areas is not expected." /L. ine most recent information in our files indicates that a cropduster based ç: the airport disposes of rinse water from his aircraft into an earthen citcn. Generally, such wastewaters are considered hazardous wastes. The crOOduster indicated that the system hõd been approved by the Kern County ~Eãìtn Department. .' .. ~~e Regional Board has adopted õ policy relating to the disposal of pesticioE ":nse waters (copy attached). This policy requires containment of oesticiot' ",1ìse wàterS and ultimate disposal at ¿: Class I Disposal Site because ~~controlled discharges of such wastes poses a threat to surface ana around I"ië.:e)" quality'. - :~ it is the intent of this projec: to allow continued disposal of cropduste~ ~lnse waters or other hazardous ana industrial wastes on the airoort. the City should be required to rewrite the EIR addressing the potential threat :: ground and surface waters from such activities. h 7~e waste discharges on this site should probably be requested to aODly ~2r waste discharge requirements, inasmuch as the general public has easy =:cess to this location. S U;·1f·j,;qy : Shouic the City allow continued agricultural and/or industrial discharges on- site. mitigation measures should be prooosed for preventing water quality . degrëGëtion or the EIR should be rewritten.. One potential mitigation measure is that our agency requests "reports of waste discharge" from the dischargers and deveicD appropriate requirements for~our :oa~d'SJconSidera~~, . 174-:/ 4, -'-dî TH· G:-' U HtR, taft Engineer TGS:hr;;;;-: Attacnment e e ~' '.;"~' ,;'k~/""-- , c:;~;-:// ,_/.::~ <__..-:.. :,,~çßß:;;;;$r ~~?:- ~Å~- @ ~~' '=.:~~,~ ~ J j ~~ ~~ ~-~ ffP - f""' ~ ~ CITY OF 1B5A~JEIRSIFil JE IL [J) ECONOMIC/REDEVELOPMENT DIVISION Jl1ne 6, 1983 Bill C. Thiessen Kern County Health Dept. 1700 Flower St. Bakersfield,CA 93305 .;'" , J f "'. , , - .. '. . ._.. ( >.... -" , ,. ._ ...1.. Dear Mr. Thiessen: Reg&rding the draft EIR for the proposed Bakersfield Air- park Expansion Pro ject, a copy of wliich \v8s forwarded to you on May 13, 1983, we wish to clarify one point at this time. Since an objective of the project is to establish an airport district so that a public entity will operate the facility, the Kern County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) is named as a Responsible Agency to the project. The ownership of ~he airpark facility is a major component of the expa~sion si~ce it is~only t~roug~ public ownership that tt-.e "c·....t~ fi'e,1 e-'1 "'td·nce 0··, t1-.-:. d' r"r'-" "ar bo gu""-< ~":>e,-l 1._ _..1 _.. "-- "U _,'.__ '- ~ :.:_ ........ rCl..Lt" \.,; 1.J. _ <.:t..L.C.-lLJ.\.......... '--". Please consj.deT the airport district formation objective and recognize lAFCO as a responsible agency in your considera· tion of the EIR. c: . 1 .. ~ncere,~, .//- í' c....--~ J. David Kennon Economic Development Coordinator JDK:rg 11:'n4 TD' IV"'" .". ^ \/~A.II u: D^VI::DCI::II::I n ,...^I II::I"\DJ\II^ n.,.,n1 . /Qn¡;:\ .,')~ ')7~JI e e ho¡ <; ~-~_ } I . rB5A ~ 1E IR S IF IT 1E IL II]) '~/;~/, ~.;//,=<--::;:- ~¿::;/,<:~' ~~ /~~~::/,:///~' ~~-~ ,..:......../.........--.........0-~· --:-- ~ ~? ~ ? CITY OF ECONOMIC/REDEVELOPMENT DIVISION May 12, 1983 Bill Thiessen Kern County Health Dept. 1700 Flower St. Bakersfield, CA 93305 Attached please find an npclf::Lted copy of the Draft EIR for the proposed Bakersfield Airpark Expansion (SCH# 80030515). The original document was prepared and distributed in August of 1980 as part of the Bakersfield Airpark Land Use Plan DEIR (SCE# 80072349), ar.d recen~lv updated with 1982/83 data. Although CO!'!1IIl'?!1ts from all agencies were received for the original d:raft documen t, we are request ing res:pon~Bs based on present concerns and updated conditions. The required Public Hearing is scheduled ~or June 15,1983 anJ, consequently, a]l comments must be received by that date. The attached dJcument is part of a grant application to the Federal Aviation Administration for funds for airpark realignment and expansion. .. ...^. ....n. ."..... ... A' ,r-... .r- n^""'nl'~I""" "AI ''''''"IU'A """"'n1 lone:\ "'.,Q "'''QA ./:'g. ¿ e e Any questions and comments should be directed to Mr. Shillcock or myself. Since/, ~ ., /JJQ / /.-d-W-,,1:1-1Æ--~ ( /ð. David Kennon /' Economic Development Coordinator .. JDK: rg Enclosures "'!ai 1 ~.~: S::atE: :~!lrinçr.:::tJse. 1400 íe;'1' e. ;:'.:\ 121. Sðcr~-:1ent~. C;' 955jo1·· 9:6/_ 613 NQnc:: CF '?1.£ïIQ~¡ AND S'iV!RCit'l£;fTAt COCt:I1ËiIÏ ïrt:\t¡~ .7At FOR.M $CH ; 80030515 r-- see .'10:1; t;;k"~' ., ... I..¡;:ad :'çet1cy: Bak~ßfi~ld Airpark Expansion City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue 3. CJnt:ac~ ;I~r"...:)n: Paul W. Bakersfield Shillcock , i'~.,)~:. ':ït1e: .. ~ree; Aðar2SS: 3c .:0 :>!1T':": Kern PQO;£C7 LC:~ï!aN: 4. Cou~ty Kern ~t~ ~S3~SSQr's ?arcei No. 3d. ::~. City: 93301 ::e. ;¡hone: 805-326-3765 Bakersfield ::¡¡: ':a, CCr.'rntJniti' 4C~ ~eç, -; Own. 2ònge Sol. pOI' Ur~an. Major" State Highway 204 Rt. .99 Bus ines~b. FOr" ~UI'¿:. Cr-OS$ Streets (Union Ave.) & State Hlghw~58 \eJ,f',. ..E'~' !:C""';;1. . - BaKersfleid 5. 'oIithi:l 2 rÙìes of: 6<\. State H-oIys Rt. ~99 (busineßS )'1';)01':: Airpark ,... 4~ ami 4c are: o;)":ior\a1.) state Rt. 58 iY?~ c~ ~C'J1"::Nï ......:'10 P , ..LDr-aft EI~ ~g ¡Jec ~~1~i~3ted ~g ~~C _s\óÇp¡ar:"~t (¡~ so, ;)rio1' SCH iJ ïYP~ ,~!=' ~C"¡"îC:: (SeJe::t uo :::: :) _General ;>1an ___£l~nt Adoption ___General Plan ~~r.d. _Sped fi e ?1 an _~z:oning _P.U.!J. _SU::Iåivision è'.3P Us~ Per::'lit /Œ?A _:..nv. Asse..!s¡:~r.t _Dnt: ::!S -.;=!ndii'1': :!o Si g. It::Da::~ _Q-:."I'lr: ~I'r>e;'!a"~cn _Ordir.an~ ~¡¡st~,. ~riì _O':.her:._ 6c. Riv~r T'fiI:: OF P=!CJE;':; ,Seiec: u:: :.0 5) .---:~es i centi ð ì; :..In;:s ___Offi~; 5Q.FT. S~Q:ni no/ ---~ommercía1:5Q.~. Induz'tr. a11 -/".!r.ufacturi ng:5Q. Fj.. ~UNOIHG (a~p~cx: :rnp · E,o;;p 1 Oy.ees .1,CT':S_ ~~~-=~r.1P . ,=ed. S Stat~ _ ~mn. Loea1 S P~iva-:~S --~ :~. ~(;D - Dt!'¿r ~ ~ate,./ Se-w!r: ~ïr~n5Po~ation ~~inerd1 Extrac:-:ion:~inera1s: P~l" Gen~ra:ionlTru)smissicn: ---:,ja:'taç.~ : Tor~LS_ _ __OtMr-: TQtJ1 ?r~j~c: Acres ¡:; ":=~":.!S'5!:~~CY~:~f1: (S~lec! .H ';'-3ny ~5 neeoe-::) ---:l,~S!\o!i:'::S~~)' ?21Jr;ç;! '¡i1dlif~ :-\aoit~t _..\g LJl1CS ~G~tì1 Inducing _To;:i::: ;I;¡s'~;:> lii"<lffiC/Cí~lJla:j~n _Fiocèing/Orainð;e ---:l1is:oMca; --:~\?'I<f Land Use '71"'!nè _Soil ::-::s',cn --:~j:- O¡,;a11:y -1i~ Hazard _A,.~~logi~.J1 _C¡"'îiulati',e Irroal:: -StMi": \';:tLiJ1áS L.t<1ter Suop1y _5c;lcols _S:)1id ~.~Ste -X ~cise _(-,eologic/Se1s:::ic ~ca$:31 _S~wer/5<'!Ptic PitESEh'1' l.~'':> U$~ AHD Z.OHIHG predominantly manufacturing land use & zoning p~r~E~r Q~SC?'!PT~~~ Thp expansinn ~nrl re~li~nmpnt nf tbp.exisTjp~ 3irp3Tk~ faci Ii ty to increase general aviat ion a~ivit~7 and assist in the economic development of the area. '. SIG.'rrF!c:...'fi Er-::c:crS. pQ$SrSLE ~trrG;.no~ ,:,'iD ALT::;;,,'IA7T'iE$ í:o::hl'311 ..-------.--.:... ~I/--- ~~/ S1qnatIJre of Lead Ägency ~eo:~~~~æ¿;~(é""~..?ú-r-- :-~:e:.:5·;Z -§:J.ê.'i. OVER iO SUG¡;~5i 5¡~7! ~:V¡Z"..I;:;(S NOiE: C'\~ar1"9nOUSI! ..,iì~ assi'qn. låentification nurn:>!r for new pr:::Jeco:s.' If ð nUr.JOer alrJ!ðdy exists fer t!1! ,i,g;;: {í!.g. fr~~ -.. REVIHIí¡¡G ^GBICIES .·e .~ \W Resources Agency ¡tt~ Ai r Resources ßoard ~',- . Conservation: Oil and Gas Mines and Geology Parks & Recreation Office of Historic Pres. _ Native American Heritage _ Conservation Corps State lands Commission - Fi sh and Gal::e Public Utilities Comm. ,- .~ Energy Comnission , .~.~??d & Agriculture .' :.>': Heal th : Coastal Commission Caltrans District Boati n9 & Haten·:ays Forestry Hater Board: \~ater Ri ghts Hater Qual i ty ____ Regional Board ~ Dept. of Hater Resources Reclamation Board Water Conservation Dam Sa fety So 1,; d ~'!aste , --~. Cont ro 1 ., . Toxi cs Environmental Health , Industri a 1 Re 1 ati ons Cor~'cti ons .. ;... ; .-~ Consumer Affai rs _ Housing & Comm. Dev. General Services Real Estate, Aeronauti cs OTH ER: ,~,¡'"' ~~~~; Colorado River Board CTRPA (Ca lTRPA) TDDA rT~hrlD RP") ¡(\¡ , \ C,.. vL. ¡ f1 EJj' :J,~E::),Vdt·; ::':11 ::f~ v. Comm. FOR SCH USE ONLY ;~-,:~'#" Date Rec'd at SCH Date Revie\'l Starts . ; Date to Agencies Date to SCH SCH Clearance Date NOTES £"~i'~" ~. ,. ~ ..' "-t..,~ .Ir"' .rnl. 93305 ) "1-3636 e _ KEL.. COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMEN\ ;.. H~ÅL:rH ()F"CIR L.ori..H....; M.D. ENVIRONMENT A.L HEAL THDII/ISIO,. OI..RCTO'OF;ENV"'(:Jí....NTAI£'~TH Vernon S. ~~ :.:;::. June 14, 1983 Mr. J. David Kennon City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield~ CA 93301 RE: Draft ErR, Proposed Bakersfield Airpark Expansion Dear Mr. Kennon: We would like to comment on that portion oíthe document that relates to hazardous ,nd industrial waste discharges. Specifically, on page 53 the following statement appears: "Industrial uses recommended in the proposed land use plan are limited to light manufacturing, outdoor equipment storage' pr display;, for warehouse type storage facilities. Other r.ecommendedi'ndustrial use in or adjacent to the Bakersfield Airpark are prfmarily; related to aircraft maintenance, display and sale (including parts and aircraft). Effluent generated from such sources are not expected to require special treatment and can be readily treated with existing sewage treatment facilities." While the statement is true as; written it 'fails to address an ,ex,tating,land 'use' ~at the airpark which currently disposes of a hazardous waste. The facilityiri question, Garriot Crop Dusting, disposes of pesticide rinse water to an unlined earthen sump located on company property. This practice is not in compliance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board's (RWQCB) "Pesticide Rinse Water Policy" (copy attached) nor the State Minimum Standards and Regulations for Management of Hazardous and Extremely Hazardous Wastes promulgated by the State Department of Health Services (DOHS) as we understand them. Bearing the above in mind, the next sentence on page 53: liThe county Health Department will have the ful1tesponstblity'and strict control over the release of hazardous substances or industrial wastes.", is inaccurate. DISTRICT OFFICES e e J_ David Kènnon ,e Two Le 14, 1983 Responsibility for the regulation uf hazardous wastes in Kern County is a shared one between the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Department of Health Setvicei, and the Kern County Health Department. We would suggest that the RWQCB and the DOHS be contacted as to their requirements or intentions towards Garriot Crop Dusting and that their comments/mitigation measures be included in the Final EIR. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this document. Specialist III CB: j p e e 11.o·~·C' '. " ~..,.,:. >'); .. ,Y', '~~ ~~J.~; ,.·~r.·'·· ~- -..... .~ ", .....-y .,. ( ¡ . I' ~ltf.J\ò~" ,.' ",'è~' ~~~t.'\ "'rt·:~;)"¡¡ , . ~:~'*. ~h' ,'Of. '~ !~,~, , '~A· 1Y III, j f ". : .~I' II \ ,~:~(It ." ". ,11'\..: '. :~"'~';' ~'~ ~~'" . {~~~'>':'.ç<?~~,~,Yj1.t~E^LTH:bDEPARTMENTt\· .!' 11 ~rn '~I~ption'JIIC),5rl4Hjh6"'" . ...·1 ..W..·.I\I '.J-;jj¡,,, .r.. . F '-Lq' iQ PFØRN ~ '~:Im~ ~~~',¡' ~! . " f~'¡ ;., Y ,I~~' 'N" . f;·r. \, ' ., ~ 1 ,(',' , ~ . I"~'~' ,. )\ .":~:1:.&:~Ú,';·-;;'\\~'~:r ,.'''r¡:'.,>,1 ,", " :~ ",>~,~'tf, 'i"II\~~~tt :·1.~1 . . ;¿. , ~ , " ".,. i';¡.\: : '~;;11" ~}1k: ; /. '~J:~,~'I~ ~)ý' ':(¡!jl'J:~~1-~~';\rr. ~~;'~~~"'~~~rM:¿~l" ..~.'~~~¿3t . ,~. .'r'!f ï" ',\', ~ ," ',~ "~ h;'" " '·IÞK'Hot' :õ ,' V- ,11 I ~ :it~,.:.I" ,Ik",. r,.. I ....: ,"".'. ~ t "~ÍJ"U,")r'F- ~\'. ~\";"\" !·I\::rfì"T-·..·~t.~ I "'~ '...... .J¡\!:1al.1't TI . ;:[[..... ," .',,", t: '; i ' ,~..t~5;if¡ ,;~~abof ~ ~é'uID\:lt. f~' TCroll.rt!~ ., R..Jd.nt.' ;, Il(i.ln....,:' 1·;~'Olher '1i~.1Iit~~;f ~"'~a'np"~~ -r." amp, ., amp 1::>-" . ....:- _-----:.~. I" f ,Þ ~\;.,;...~}:-'~~. ~ I ~:~~~(P!iD'"RED)O MAKE"TtfE ,FO¡'LOWING CORREC~~O.S:""'" ~" ..:,:},.;,~:; ,~" .. ""if.Ó.I!~OAA~YJ.~ITtf'T~~~HS:¡~W~~~~~?~:~~LoW:\~~J'":!',~;~ \'?\~~~~/~\~ ., . ¡,! .~' '," '·''';'~Jì~¡;~f;~t.'.~1¡Ú IM.;I,H,'",<.~!Jf +/".' \¡'";r, , , '. i) \\~~IU\S"L\I!ii:~'~ "rT:, .~ u:~ ,11.:.. '.', " ,'¡" l.~ . ~ ''t.',.. ~ { '.,'. ¡', ",r;""~i).<', :.J.;.;:,{, ~,- ")';';"':"':'iô;"I:;' :'¡",,-'..,,¡,r':;1 ,), , ' ... '.- I n_~I. ," " ..:J¡..... ,....w......':.. ~}_:"J1 \' .~ ,~.',:r., ';l"'E '.~¡j¡ : "k-Pil' , .' :;f£\JI;' ,~" ,.:.,,> '. \ii~~?!.......,' ....'t~ . t.\¡Jð,f t:\' .. ,. ,¡,í;i'Tt~ . .~~'Jir\l\1'·r\;"~I'j,"¡.~, It , /. "'gr~~j.':;J~ \. '¡-¡', / . rft· ,,\R.*~' ; ~~; ¿b: c;t~~þ\', ~ ~~W I;V!Jldfr'11~ "{r7,;Ü';J,fJ¡f¡¿i~,t¡', ' " 1.,-; ;,'~,':C;;;' \\ "..... .\." .)' d ", I' .' 'iI"" '. "..' -1" ':1,' J, ) M;;'iíti:; I:)\~Y.J' :,. ! <~,~~ ~~ww.~:~ ;rJb;:~\L; b~¡;'f;: :6;;~, ,~' .~]tj Ù;j i'i )b:~'~'!1~t' ~W··-'-~ .."~' , "1.:- ':'. ',:.-,; ..-~ .J,,1·J!:-.Jr/:~ . .', ;.,;~\,(.. ;r.lfÞ)-~\.' J.!J-l~ .;..-;,~ :';:A~.... ,.q :~I.!~:,J<.~-· ,,:. ;~;,st:~!;j:i ,:1( ·tJ:f/¡' ,t .r..:>, J:n. ¡ü~ 'Ú)·,"jO'~~'H..~.: ,~' J.~h': j r, I. }'~"V, r ,'Y. 1~:' :'"'(': l~lA!r ,}: ;y,¡;:'i;ot:,1 , ~ r \ 01 V ":;,~'ik~ i~,ï,i<~j .. , · '~~Iw~;,~:"~ii~Þi~ ~,i,;~~ Þ\~dA:~~>'? ;i,; ~.W ~Jrl~-¥JØ:¡(>:'~;~) :!::!,'L" ,,~;~~a¡J~MZ:tgß~¡~;·0ð¡f.1ii'b~,iÚ·:~~Ä ~;\ì>:,~;}i~l{'I:) Ä )A.¡..~~\'i;,;~l:~::¡\f~ ~YJ¡;:~:,!....~v.íi~ 'ii' ,; 'I ':,... t.:;m,Vt:lj J~'1~~ ~ ..¡:~:?:t" '-:;' '.r\?j';.L ~-~V::illi~ií~~/¡i:i~~'~~::Ú:)H~~I~'~~ ... :7"" :':~j ,. rJ ','::,. ,',",' .., 7 ì '--rc:::.. . ", ,;.~., ,"i' ',~ .. ':' ¡¡"di'f. ' : ;fJ'f; ;;j,\ LL.\ .cJÔ~ll:¡(,,!~G¡r¡~.',,!~~¡~" ~ ',. , I, ~':\~~l1'dt\11to'" ;"\'1; "Pf.;~. ~,...' T ~",...,....- ~"/fj~~{' ~-: ~ . I., .' \I:~\~\~~,"II'::~¡~"!'~":~¡;~~~:)'( l~:ì';I~'~i¡,~~~~~~it)~¡V';' ";2 ::-:,:)"',I,.,j¡!'o·d~(,1' \~~~~~~,:');J -'.. ·r.t"'n..,..¡ ,-.'). ~IJ'l;"~ 't¡'{¡,\í1~:::'r, .'Kh!'."if·L :N€~Ç'::;~X1i~iJ~,P¡!;,:ii'!l. ;i{l~~' . ;;~~, . .'~;. t:r.ìt· ;~v.... ~' r.'~ ,~VVi::;~itfT Rð¡\£')¡ i ::~ Jr;';iU~\:t,~ rii:ij~t¡',_'~,:': '~' ~ Bi¡;,\~~f'1 tbWJfI.ÞJIK).' ()í~¥'1.N.;~~·~{ i(i'~:;.:,::;},'~¡,:j, , ,,; ¡;';~r;r~ !~... ',?;rl'\. '~({¡;'~"í~c:..l~"ti.Y1,¡')\f" rAt:'iY;;{ (;'.'llt !O'f'}t:i\~~~;~1 .'" ',' '.""":'.J¡o\.. ð; ERN.COUN¡:V! ; 'mt:oEPARTMEN&µ~~.i~~:¡~'~·"i*1~";'~¡'l' , '... '" ¡r,.. ~')/'~Ì1!f;t~ J¡,' ',. )~:n'¡:~Jð~':¡' ,'I ..''It! fI~' 1 ,!i~;\,/~~!' ~"t .~\' ry;1 ,f >t" I r....~ ' ~,4V11,ì!¡ > ~t'I;~ :;;r...~./; ~,¡^',~~ ,:-;-:~ ,,~.:\?:f.~:~"~;~~' £ P, . "',a"~ <' .. '':,/}I i ~7., " , . , :,.;ç.;~~ ¡t :'{"~'.¡\\.,,, ,O\VN£R R PROPìø:.'ETOR':""';' '~I.~ ,..,.~~.y;. .SANtTAnrA.N\:'~" ":'l~' .-\", ..1;.)..\.. ""J .. . '1-' t 1.~~~ , Æ'{·}. J .,0$ J ,,1' < ~:i ;v.:'~~>':hl};J:¡~'jll~ ' .', ,.;~ ¡. ,\ ,:, ;~" ~~'~;~ì ',,; ·i·"'/:>~~~;; ~f'~f~~ '};~~'i,~.': \~'" : ';',',';11 ""f':"'CI/'1.,Ÿ..1Jl" .!,it tc U,; ':,,1.,I~.:' ~t;¡...' 'i;I'.!SI:¡~~~~1þ..~~"'¡l' :r' \t.~'. t ' ¡ I /1..",4,1/,:11 ~~~t ~.~ '\,1" !'II', IrfP.1(f'1 í~{~~(~1:t:'~':i'~rf'~1~~~r\' ,"...'. ~", .'1 ~t",:~~''¥f:itl ~~ !r~~l:'~~¡,5L.... "'___. ,~':,f ,:., ~'a1~' .~' \íi~~,:\ .. ,;.;';;r·:,~:\' ~ ';, ,.)., 'I, t'l.,).f.~tÏi.!~;"'Y Y:', ',') '\ ~""''''''''''''''''-'''''~''''''''''",''''''''''' '~'I" .' -. T ~"..~_.,,~,.~-~, ...~ '. .,......"m"'~ ~~ ." NlIIIt,""""''''''~''''''1I'II\ qùau.t&. Cqmp;:j;í'~ :~A,·1~. .1~ "f~ø ;r: ~ ,J.:',:;' ;' " , , Summary of Project and Plan Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures by Resource (continued) Resource/Setting (b) Cultural Environment Aesthetics Site and area is flat; improvements limited at Airpark; inefficient and non-aesthetic development along South Union Avenue. Residential neighbor- hoods deteriorating (housing con- ditions, roads); agriculture and Open Space in south area. ~ne~11 Supply and Conservatio~ ac c Gas and Electric provldes natural gas and electricity to Project and Plan. Energy consumption currently estimated to be low due to extent of undeveloped area, types of uses and older units. (c) Socioeconomics Population and Housing Approximately 1,800 population and 560 housing units in Plan area (virtually all in County arear:- L ittle gro~lth in 10 years, larger family size, higher (82%) minority population, lower median income (including 63% low/ moderate income famil i es). hi gher unit vacancy rates, over twice as much unem- ployment and lower educational attain- ment than the Metropolitan population at large. -~---=-,-'-'.' _.~ ...- ..---------.., Significant E"vi ro"menta 1 Impacts Generally an improved visual appearance is expected in Proj2ct area although hangars and towers are promi- nent features; loss of rural image in Plan area, in- cluding up to 40 percent of present Open Space by Year 2000. Upgrading expected for existing busi~esses and poor housing. Not ~ignificant, however, energy conservation meas~res need to be considered in all future development in State and Nation. Area to south (Rcxland Acres) subject to greatest im~ediate noise impact if Project is approved (740 additional persons subject to 60 dßA +). Total population affected by project ultimately (or 1998) increased by 62 percent. The project will create the need for more housing as more jobs are created. ~. ..--... -__" ,.__"_~_,,,,,_,____~, ..___.....__.__. ___..,_.____.,...__.__. __U~"" ._..._______...,..... _. .--__. __.~.__~_. __"__' _ -. .....,..'"--.. "'.- p¡. ¡f1\ (?'to. ~ " .J', Mitigation None, except for design review of non-single family residential development; relate review to energy conservation, building separation and reflective sur- facing (see Climate). Existing residences subject to rehabilitation and conservation programs. - Thennal wall and ceiling insulation in new development; consider solar energy, energy saving equipment and site and architectural design. Soundproofing, design alterations to existing homes, including work in- cidental to lo\~/moderate income re- habilitation through several subsidy programs; insulate. design new units within 60-65 dß(A} noise tolerances; use proposed Land Use Plan and/or control measures (currently) and aircraft modifications in future; use coordinated, Specific Plan pro- cedure for well planned future neighborhoods. e ..---." .-....~_. --..-. .....-....-....-..... ....;., i I- e Summary of Project and Plan Environmental Setting, Impa~ts and M;t~gat;on M~a$ures by Resource (continued) Resource/Setting (b) Cultural Environment Public S~rvices a. Fire Protection: City Fire Department provides high level of service (ISO Class 3 rating); adequate fire pro- tection provided to existing deve1op- ,ment by flows of 2500 gallons per, minute (20 P.S.Z;) b. Police Protection: Bakersfield Police Department provides protection for Airpark and adjacent and nearby City areas; Kern County Sheriff's Office prot~cts unincorporated areas. c. Water Supply: Project and most of Plan area served by California Water Service Company. Four wells located in Plan area produce 500-1200 gallons per minute of which 360 gallons per minute is used at Airpark. Balance appears marginal to existing , 1,800 population at peak moments (summer watering). d. Sewer Service: Urban development served by sewer system with treatment at Plant 2. . -. -- '_. .' -- ~ -----_.-. - Significant Environmental Impacts Present staffing and response adequate for proposed Project; however, the adequacy of water supply is questionable. Im- pact of proposed Plan would require improved water supply and fire protection systems although not much different from present land Use Plan. Airpark Project will not require additional law enforce- ment; Plan development would require additional staff on basis of population growth. Project water supply adequacy is questionable al- though not a significant impact. Present supply and delivery system inadequate for proposed Plan area development. ----- Present system adequate for ,Project; however, new resi- dential and other plan area development will require new mains. Treatment capacity adequate for Plan growth. ---'.-.-.-- ----- .-----..----..--.. ".-.--...- -- - -- ..._.- .~---.._,---- ".- --_._-_._.,.._~..-- -......-..- - ..-..-. ...._.......-. .. -- ..-. .-.......-.-.. .----...-.- -.. _. .----... ..". -, ..----... ..-"-" _.- .. Mitigation 'For,P1an construct new water delivery system including 10 new wells I new mains, fire hydrants, upgraded distri- bution and recover costs from development. None for Project, except most industries provide own security. According to standards, 17 additional officers needed for 5,640 population growth of Plan area (however, present plan---- would require 31 more officers). New improvements (10 wells, mains, hydrants I etc.) costs could be absorbed by develop- ment; Upgrade existing system. Alternative to 10 wells could' be added storage capacity. None, except for new mains I laterals and connections to be financed by development. Resource/Setting (a) Natural Environment TOPOgraPhf Essential y flat and featureless for for·both Project and Plan Sol1s Grangeville-Hesperia Soil Association moderate allowable soil pressure; severe limitation to untreated steel pipe. Climate arid. mediterranean Air Quality Non-attainment area (Clear Air Act Amendments I 1977) Hydrolog.y Surface lrrigation to agricultural lands in Plan Area; acquifer depth 200-300 feet (Project Plan); quality acceptable, low storage capability. " ._-~.--.~-_.- ------ --_.-.-.-. ~UHKAR¥'~ ·PROJfCTANC ,PLAN ENV1RONMENTAL SETT!NG, IMPACTS AND IHTlGATION MEASURES BY RESOURCE Significant Environmental Impacts None Project Site: Runway, airside and ancillary industrial uses, including necessary utilities. Plan Area: Heavy industrial, commercial and/or office. r, None, except for slight temperature increases during day and lowering at night; some decrease in fog due to urbanization None as direct result of project; impact of Plan activities uncertain Quality impact minimal - See also Public Services (Water Supply) Mitigation - None Testing, grading and compaction to City approval. Limit or restrict heavy industrial. commercial/office uses unless de- sign and construction mitigation is approved by City/County Airpark improvements designed for reflective surfacing and air,circu- lation throughout Plan Area . Air Quality Maintenance Plan implementation and APCD permit review and mitigation process on specific projects. limft in- dustrial uses to M-l zoning. e None ....._~_.._._--._-~_..~--~.~..._-_.-...---._-..._.....-..._--- ----,-.--_.,_._____~., ..,.....r__........_____. __._...._..."._...... ......-.....-...........- -.-.--.--. h__.__... _._ _ e - .," ." . , SUMMARY The City of Bakersfield and/or the County of Kern are studying the feasibility of expanding the Bakersfield Airpark for the tripling of present general avia- tion activity. The project may be funded up to 90 percent by a Federal Aviation Administration grant. The project has the potential to increase adverse noise exposure to existing and future residents, to increase interaction with Meadows Field aircraft transition and holding patterns, to place Pacific Gas & Electric Company's major transmission towers within the 34:1 instrument approach path and it will require the closure of a portion of Planz Road, a major collector street. ';.'.~ In response to the sensitivity of noise impacts on future areas designated for residential development, a proposed Land Use Plan has been prepared recommending amendments decreasing residential designations and increasing industrial and per- manent Open Space. A secondary benefit is viewed in designating additional in- dustrial land in order to provide further site availability for activities related to the Airpark which are needed to provide employment opportunity to the Southeast Bakersfield economy. If the proposed Land Use Element changes are adopted and implemented along with the project, there will be considerable additional impacts upon the area around the facility. Increased development, including residential subdivisions, will produce additional traffic, service needs (water supply, storm drainage) and energy demands; however, the present Land Use Element (if imple- mented) would produce the same general effects requiring good planning, capital improvements and the employment of mitigation measures as suggested. There are, however, two major unique features arising from the proposed Land Use Plan. The first is that the project, in providing a catalyst for industrial development and employment opportunity, will fit into the proposed plan frame- work thereby promoting the needed growth and development to' a presently stagnated Southeast Bakersfield economy. The second difference in the two plans is that the proposal requires less people services (school capacity, park sites and law enforcement, in particular) because of the conversion from residential to industrial and open space use. The reduced services cited are important since funding is normally provided through local property taxes. - , The following table provides more specific descriptions, impacts and suggested mitigation for each resource identified as potentially affected by the Airpark Expansion (project) and the proposed land Use Plan. , 1700 Flower Street Bakersfield, California 93305 Telephone (805) 861-3636 e\ERN COUNTY HEALTH DEPART~e T HEALTH OFFICER Leon M Hebertson, M.D. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Vernon S. Reichard December 5, 1986 Department of Health Services 4250 Power Inn Road Toxic Substances Control Division Northern California Branch Sacramento, California 95826 Attn: Don Debert RE: BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK WASTE WATER COLLECTION SUMP. Dear Mr. Debert: A complaint inspection was made of the new waste water collection sump at the Bakersfield Airpark by representatives from this department on December 5, 1986, They observed a black viscous oily substance lining the base of the sump near the influent pipeline. The Airpark manager told them that the material was a degreaser used by Grissom1s forklifts next door. An inspection of Grissom1s forklifts revealed a waste stream consisting of water, with some thick black liquid clumps and what appeared to be fuel floating in the water. The waste liquid was observed being rinsed from the back of the building to a grating northeast of the building. Carrie Grissom described the liquid flow as being the waste water generated while steam cleaning his forklifts. He was told to discontinue disposing of his waste water in this manner and was given a cease and desist order. A copy of the order is enclosed. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (805) 861-3636, Sincerely, fkrJ.tl;/!i , Environm~~~l Heal Specialist I Hazardous Materials Management Program AEG:sw Enclosure DISTRICT OFFICES Delano . Lamont . Lake Isabella . Malave . Rldgecrest . Shafter . Taft . . .\~\\): ::., . . ._. ~.'. ":i.. . . .: ;.", . stateot'C:"lfornl"7I-:1Ulthand,welfare,AgenCY:'f>e>'.,,;' .., ' , " " ";:,c. ' ,~.ÅI~RI;YW::]'·';,.:,'.::'/;: ':.:.:::.: H'jt;-,,/.:.~~ MA~~~IALS SA:/L~,ANAL YSIS RE\>:~ T:" (ExPlainl":Pl?:¡q~f/G.J.~:l-réét::~';:.~;;':è~ .', ,~\)V'~: ,'.' @;,..,"': . "'I~ hi ;Ç.' ex r.?~u~'>' ,. ' '\7.,"._ . . '~'Z. ó;·'..\ J " . .. ..p.. _. . _'" ... ~,,'. PART i:':FIELD'SECTIÒN , . ,:'.,.. /; ..:<,.... " .. ',··collect~Z¿¡æ~,:0s'uÆ.·ft ';':':"'.'~:';: '.':' , , D'ateSamplerl //-~- B~,:'" ",' " TimeL~!30 . Hours ActiVi~':)~(!=~i~~~e:~~~~t·,· .., ,O\ÄsP :'::~~)~:.;~.\^J.pro·~¿ijy'O S~~.~; 0 Othe~':(.;.:o-;¡:RCRÀ:..:::.'· TpcodeITllJ I TI . .::t;i~!~~;~~~![:!Wf~:j¡;RESN.Ö. .;;9...S~-LA:]!I~~;~;~3j_I~¿:J _,.. " ....' ',:- Number; ",Street, .". ,City .zIp "HMLNo/ '.:Collector's: , ::- Tÿpe Of .', " (Lab Only) " Sample No. ,',·'Sample* FIELbiNFORMATION ': : ~.~,:>:<:çD1 ":.":: '/'fJotI5G,.fc.G?~:¿,-")~,,~oi;+p-£2'-kf'"T bF;'j$"o.t~r)ac~·difch " (: 11l.:,~~0,j' ·:"'<;.i~;¡SJ.~Ih:.c~:-¿o~l~ih.-'rib/~~:iJ'·;N:.~b'/co~;5 ~hñe. ,.' (77(( ".,<;<1):3 ~n¡i·.:~<\~~ce_· ro~~œ;,iië-"n&i-f()r.ti¥':c.~e.te.:J¿d·(c:x.~h oY'eo.) C~l ~ () ''','''q (). 4 .', S ;-,(j~<~I<"~C.~. c;,Y),~sif~-· i:/Air DGork 'ç.-e·nc'('hi,€.. ·CD'/'1') f''(""' ", ~ j I -.- Department of Health Services HMLNoC 1]7 '.·:.'To (l~a '., ~:¿ ." ...': . . Analysis Requested: \! Tr.s. - - r; 0("( ,¡'!i d (iJ.s.it'ci , --¡::þ<..-ticJ>¡€.s~_:Co. ,bOom c..+€ ?e$.-tYc;rks - - Cj, J ()rn Dhèno),'y :r:::'eú<;e:'-(' ~;""'a.c.-ttiblpQy.qa hie <;' J, v.> . . t ". - ....J \Chain of CústodY.::, , ... .,' .-~1·~;~2~,J)··(;)¿jþ _ /;/ a .:~ <>1SJ9nðtUre cé': .. 2- '~! f/klJ! t,·j!'(]~0..( /,).;.~':< $' '. '~1'J,~SI~raWe\\ \c')r.... '" ::, . , 3 ì\ ........ ,-0..;. _ '\ "~ I.! l t,,,,,; ,-,~...J , . Signature \, - '. ~ /1/115 .- J,. . TItle /ld~; /í/ 1" iCIoc.. !-:7 Inclusive D\t\es¡î.') ~.I ~ -.it., ,~ 'Inclusive Dai1 ,,' - , ì Title. h ~\í~)~ '~(,ì ·Tltle Inclusive Dates 4. .. ".J, . Signature Title I ncluslve Dates 5 Signature ., Title Inclusive Dates Special Remarks (e.g., duplicate sample given to company, etc.) PART II: LABORATORY SECTION \' . ,\ ; --- I' , , \'~ '. . !. ~.f' . ~ ~':; ( ( '~-'.. Received By!·' ' '.~~,-",~- "- ,\ Title \h-.:.. \~ /.. \ Sample Allocation:. 0 HML: OSCBL 0 LBLO Other '" ' Date . :.,./: ,,)'./' "'~'::"'" í\/:, :' '..... ' &- .. C \. ~- )Á~'~IYSi~Re~~'jredu>\10')\\¿'. '~6Q','. ~',:C:.,. DX~.:_.,~'~;~"v-·;£:~ ~..< ·,~O-~~~j--~~~. .L;--::o : t:~-ß .:::'::~:<~';:'~:~' .' "'::'':-'\' -: " -'., .' '¡; , ' .-'4;;", . .~ s::. ':. ", . ' 'é¡,:,::"~~:~\"O,~~-,;:~~ì:*:::',~ :·~-~-;....~2~~';7~~C:' -~.,~. ., ... .,'.s#.;:'~.:,.:;,~,.._.·.:.',.:.:J:~t";,~~rf~_~i"u:;¡;;'.i;¡;r; ):,,)2: - 0~~ ',. .. .,..' <·:A:~~::~~:~~:i;;.tJ,:':· >;{:~;::.,., ·,I::':;:-:,~)ÙÞ9.~i~i<·\';,,:::, " ;.::::::',', .' . ..' r' Date ...., .,' i '..:; ."..... >;}.- .~·I~~,~¥~~et~'~.r~~á~p'I~Y·~ì~.~:~ts?it;~i~:';j~;~~!~Gb~:[;::':(d~~::2Fi'l~ ·,:::,+~·~p.i'¡~s;~~~'\Ø~~:';, :.;:' '......DHS 8002 (1/86) , . .,'," , '~;.:;::..:; ., . ::. . ..-- .,... ".. . ," . '. ,.... e e BAKERSFIELD AIRPARi. -t..- J Novembe)~ 19E\õ 1. A list of the materials and compounds which were disposed of in the cleaned out trench, indicate the number of years the trench was used for disposal. Provide us with information on whether the contaminated soil was tested before it was removed and where the soil was disposed of. 2. Information on the history of waste management at the airpark. Speci- fically, the history of the wash racks; what was rinsed on them and where the rinse water was disposed of. The locations of transient pesticide operators; where they operated and disposed of their waste. j. An airport drainage plan. 4. Information concerning the controls the City currently has on waste disposal at the airpark. CONCLUSION: The City of Bakersfield has allo\'Jed waste disposal on the airpark in the past, has condur.tprl ï~~ited ~leanuD without prior approval, and needs to control future disposal rlrtjviti~~. We should request a technical report from the City of Bakersfield that addresses these issues. " , ( 1-. (. ( é g fi--4 ( ( , , ,- lL _,,\ L_ k) t, i i ~ . -L GAIL E. BATTLES Staff Engi neer GEB:djb · - ----, e : ~ ~ S F' E .:_ ~ j c: ~\ .-. - ...... ,~ -.- t~:" f'\)~< ~ DISCHARGER: BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK 5 November 1986 LOCATION & COUNTY: Bakersfield, Kern County CONTACT( S): Ms. Mary Strenn, Deputy City Manager I NSPECT I ON DATE: 16 October 1986 INSPECTED BY: Gail Battles ACCOMPANIED BY: I~s. Strenn, ~1r. Robert Olislagers, Airport j'~anager, and Mr. Donn Diebert of the Department of Health Services, Toxic Substances Control Division OBSERVATIONS AND COMMENTS: I visited the Bakersfield Airpark (BAP) as part of an investigation to determine past and present operations at the airpark and evaluate the potential for any ongoing threat to water quality. The City of Bakersfield owns the major portion of the airpark, although a few businesses exist at the airpark which are not owned by the City, they are: Garriott Crop Dusting, an auto parts store, a copying service, an x-ray repair service, water ways and an auto maintenance facility. Most of the city-owned land has hangars and aircraft tie-down areas, the other areas accommodate a restaurant, offices for administration, an aircraft maintenance business, an aircraft fabrication business and a helicopter maintenance business. The airport property has two drainage sumps; a sump west of the runway near water ways and a temporary sump recently put in place east of Union Avenue adjacent to the auto maintenance facility. Associated with the aircraft maintenance facilities are two concrete wash pads and a disposal trench. The disposal trench was previously observed by Mr. Donn Diebert and me on 9 September 1986. It was located on a corner behind the helicopter maintenance facility. It had a considerable amount of blackened soil on the sides and bottom. The trench continued southward and eventually emptied into the airport drainage sump. During a meeting on 9 September 1986 with the City of Bakersfield, I discussed my concern about this disposal trench to Il¡s. Mary Strenn. ~1s. Strenn said that the trench was not on cjty pJJlpertþ I requested at that time that she accompany me on an ·ínspectio~BAP. On my 16 October 1986 inspection, I observed that the blackened dirt in the trench had been removed. I was also informed that the trench ~ property. According to Mr. Olislager, Airport Manager, and the-worker WTIO removed the material, the blackened soil was disposed of at the Arvin Dump. This decision was made without consulting any concerned agencies. RECmll"1ENDATION: The City of Bakersfield should provide us with a report that contains sufficient information for us to evaluate any threat to water quality posed by past and present activities at the airpark. The report should include, as a minimum, the following: ~. /.. · " i. "" \. ; .:.... ~:. ',- ' ; .;.. ~ 1 I \.. ...;. .-.J,. ul.. ,..1\..... (""'..,, ~ &4141 c'Abf? e .. :,' r·-· .~.-,,: 1....·:.:\il...:~~ \!.'.I j C\" ~ :-~'i¡ JiL..._~l i......ulu.. : /'. ~..' J:, ,.... C' II r,,; ~..f:-~:: ~~ ;--: ~:: ~: F; /_;.: ,- ¡-~ (; ~ ¡: =-:. :',:i1t.. ~.:..~-; ¡...S!-:L/...¡~... '..'t ;.~"I~ , , "-. ~RE:';Jú, CALlFOh~";I.L ~:7:': PHON::: (2091¿¡45,S¡¡¿:, '. 1 11 5 November 1986 ì \P -.~ ~ ~:.. '.\......¡i'V ;¡ ,VI ,k i: >-'J.., ~. .'-cJ II fÌ ; ;; . ~-.-:' .' \C\: "/ 1J:36 i1s. j'1ary Strenn Decuty City Manager City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 .\~'i\\: .. ~._; I··,~ i.--It=-,., ~.':-! ()EF ;". '" "I '~ , " .~ " INSPECT ION REPORT, BAKERSFI ELD AIR PARK, KERN COUNTY Our staff recently participated in a joint inspection of the Bakersfield Air Park to determine past and present waste disposal practices at the airpark, and to evaluate any threat those practices pose to water quality. Enclosed is a copy of the inspection report. We find that we need more information to enable our staff to thoroughly evaiuate the site. We request that you submit a technical report that includes the information outlined in the staff memorandum that is enclosed. Please submit the report by 15 December 1986. If you have any questions, call Gail Battles at (209) 445-5093. SARGEANT J. GREEN Senior land and Water Use Analyst GEB:djb Enclosures cc: Mr. Donn Dieber~Toxic Substances Control Division, Department of Health Services, Mr. Vern Reichard, Kern County Health Department, Bakersfield bcc: Kl Aviation Enterprises, Bakersfield Garriott Crop Dusting, Bakersfield ,I , .'i ,~ ~, ,,' : ,~ ~i. ~ .~ ~ ~ .~ .~ ~ :'J '1 .~ "! .~ 'I. l ~ .'~ .t ::Æ .-. ,,-~..- - . Sunmary of Project and Plan Environmental Setti, r,.:¡ Impacts and Mitigation r~easures by Resource (continued) Resource/Setting (c) Socioeconomics .} ,I . ,~ ~! ~:'i :~ ;~ ~i I J J AI ,.~ 'i '-1 ,~ ':~ ,,~ a 1 ,~j :~ ~~ '~ I ;~ J ",I H . .~ :1 Social Factors Neighborhood conditions, aside from deteriorating housing, are fairly stable. Economic Factors Airpark and Plan Area employment oriented to transportation. Current Airpark employment is 106, Plan Area is 846 (including project site); Southeast Metropolitan industrial employment has decreased by 351 from 1~75 to 1979, Considerable vacant industrial land in study area (101 acres) and Southeast Metropolitan (593 acres) for added growth. Significant Environmental Impacts Other impacts affecting social climate addressed in other sections (Noise, Land Use, Circulation, Economic Growth, etc.); ,'elocation of one residence for Project. PI'oject is expected to accel era te present i ndustri a 1 land growth rate of 9 acres per year. If concentrated at Project, existing land absorbed in 7 years; in plan Area within 18 years and with proposed plan in 40 years. Actual ful1 development of Project and pro- posed industrial areas will double present industrial employment and should generate secondary/tertiary service jobs to the area (as a benefit). ___._.," _._.._~.._ -._ 0.. __ _...... _"'~~__.._~____._.._._._____,_._ '._'Þ"_'"__' _Mo' ..__,____ ._'_'_____."_#__.. _'..... . ._._...._..._ _,._._._.___ _.~.....__~_._..,_._....____. ._ . - M...·· ._. Mitigation e Relocation of residence in same general ~rea if accepteble to occupants. Provide equal opportunity and on-the-job training and fair housing to enhance local popula- tion and economy, - .. .. .....- --~.._-".. - ..-- .' - -"._-,-'" ...- _. - . e 'e ïab1e of Contents (continued) Chapter II CHAPTER IV Environmental Setting, Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures 5. Public Services b. Police Protection c. Water Supply d. Sewer Service e. Storm Drainage f. So 1 i d Was te g. Other Governmental Services Parks and Open Space Education 6. Historical and Archaelogica1 Sites 7. Aesthetics 8. Energy Supply and Conservation (c) Socioeconomics 1. Population and Housing 2. Social Factors 3. Economic Factors 119 126 128 132 137 141 144 144 150 155 157 159 164 164 172 174 135 CONSEQUENCES OF PROJECT APPROVAL (a) Any Significant Environmental Effects ~~hi ch Cannot be Avoided and Mitigation Measures Proposed to Minimize the Significant Effects 185 (b) Alternatives to the Proposed Action 1S11 (c) The Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Man's Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity 202 (d) Any Significant Environmental Changes ~\Ihi ch Would be Involved in the Proposed Action Should It Be Implemented 205 (e) The Growth-Inducing Impact of the Proposed Action 207 SUMMARY CHAPTER I CHAPTER II .. CHAPTER III e 'e TABLE Of CONTENTS Pages INTRODUCTION Proposed Action and Background Procedures Methodology and Scope of EIR PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 3 4 Location Objectives Project Characteristics 5 11 12 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 17 19 21 21 22 28 32 47 55 64 65 65 80 84 91 91 93 101 101 103 107 Nethodology (a) Natural Environment 1. Topography 2. Soils 3. Cl imate 4. Air Quality S. Hydrology 6. Geology/Seismology 7. Flora and Fauna (b) Cultural Environment 1. Land Use 2. Transportation/Circulation 3 . No i se Mitigation 1) Proposed Land Use Plan 2) Control of Daily Operations 3) Aircraft and/or Component Modification 4) Other Mitigation Summary of Alternative Mitigation Effects 4. Health and Safety e e Table of Contents (continued) APPENDICES Page A-l Schedule of Acquisition and Capital Improvements A-2 Initial Study 211 214 228 A-3 Chemical Analysis of Groundwater in Study Area A-4 Land Use Categories Appropriate to Ambient Noise Levels 232 233 A-5 Airport Noise Limits A-6 1980 and Year 2000 Estimated Traffic Generated Noise 237 B-1 Persons and Organizations Consulted and Corre- spondence Received 239 280 B-2 Published Reference Material C, Draft Noise Analysis (Separate Cover) Map Title e e LI ST OF MAPS Page Location Within State 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Location Within Kern County Location Within Bakersfield with 1980 Air- craft Noise on Existing Runway and 1998 Aircraft Noise on Proposed Runway and Alternative Airport Site Locations Existing Airpark Facility Study Area with Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments 8 9 10 13 23 56 58 61 68 Existing Land Use and Airport Noise 1980 Soils Geomorphic Provinces and Faults Seismology Subsidence Existing City and County Zoning Existing Land Use Plan élnd FCiture f.irpOl't Noise, 1998 69 Proposed Land Use Plan and Future Airport Noi se, 1998 Existing and Proposed Land Use Plans South of the Study Area 71 77 Traffic Generation, Current and Proposed Under Existing and Proposed Land Use Plans 79 85 96 97 Noise Monitoring Locations Alternative B Noise Impac t Alternative C Noise Impact Alternative o Noise Impact Alternative E Noise Impact 98 99 e 'e Li st of Maps (continued r1ap Titl e Page 21 Fire Stations 120 22 Water Service 130 23 Sewers and Drainage 134 24 Schools, Parks, and Public Open Space 147 25 Census Tracts, Bakersfield Area 168 26 Postal Zip Code Boundaries 178 -~'---'""-~' . .... '. -"~--..-.---~-..._------_..,.. '-~' ···~":~.__·M~ ....~.. ..,-..·~-,._:-;:-t'·:~TY~"-·· "'~~.·'f'¡'T'I'("~'T<~.?~1'f~~·~'-~::,:~,:v...;';.·'<"~"'!:~!-~~.::"~~~~7'\"~;;:::r~q'!p,-~~.~;~~~~}~~~'~~~~~'_. :""",. ,~..... ,. e - List of Tables (con't) Table Title Page 19 20 Median Noise Values, Bakersfield Airpark Area Total Population and Housing Units Affected by Current and Future Noise Produced by Bakersfield Airpark Activities 21 Noise Impact Boundaries as Determined Under Several Alternative Conditions or Options, Bakersfield Airpark Expansion 22 Estimated Current and Projected Population and Housing Units Affected by Aircraft Noise Under Several Alternative Conditions or Options Comparison of Benefit and Cost Implications Associated With Several Alternative Miti- gation, Bakersfield Airpark Expansion 23 24 Inventory of Personnel and Equipment of City Fire Stations 5, 6, and 7 25 Fire Protection Improvement Needed According to Proposed Land Use Plan 26 Water Needs Based on Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments 27 Analysis of the Capacity of Bakersfield City Waste- water Treatment Plants 1 and 2 28 Projected Storm Drainage Costs and Other Data, Airpark Study Area 29 30 Runoff Generation for Proposed Development Solid Waste Production Based on Proposed Land Use Plan 31 Parks and Open Space Located in the Vicinity of the Project Area Estimated Park Land Needed for Residential Development Enrollment and Capacity of Affected Schools 32 33 34 Location of Project Affected Schools 84 87 95 100 104 119 123 129 136 138 140 143 145 149 151 152 ( e e List of Tables (con't. ) Tabl e Titl e Page 35 Housing Unit and Student Generation Change, Current land Use Element and Proposed land Use Pl an by Area 153 36 Energy Demand of the Proposed Project 161 37 Population Trends, 1970-1980 165 38 Population and Housing Characteristics for the Metropolitan Area, Southeast Bakersfield and the Airpark Study Area (1977) 166 39 Poverty Households, Unemployment, and Educational Attainment by Percentage, Representative Census Tracts and Kern County, 1975 167 40 Estimated Housing Units Needing Rehabilitation Influenced by Estimated Higher Noise (60 dB(A) +) Generated by Bakersfield Airpark Activities (to 1998) by Various Areas, City and County Jurisdiction, 1974 171 41 tmptoyment Oatd ·{or tne Baker'sfif::'ld Airpark and Airpark Study Area, June 1980 175 42 Industrial Employment Trends, Metropolitan Bakersfield and Southeast Areas, 1971-1979 176 43 Industrial Land Use, Southeast Bakersfield City and County Areas and Zone District, October 1978 179 44 Industrial land Absorption Applying Current Employee/Acre Ratio, Bakersfield Airpark, Study Area and Southeast Bakersfield 182 , , e a,.:. W·' -; . DIAGRAMS AND AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN Figure Table A B C D , Airport Layout Plan Airspace Restrictions Holding Pattern over Bakersfield Airpark Runway 33 Approach Profile Standard Traffic Pattern ,~. ..:.~~. . . ..., ~ o. .., . ...- -' .',,~. . Page . . ~ .: .;: :", ": ", :.,.. , 15 109 110 115 116 <--.:; . '" ",¡ ,_. " ' ..., . " . " .".~'" . -:'.¡' ,) :e :~.. :,,' . ,'-.+ \- . ., -.'. - . ," , .' . ' :.,. .. , ." ï .:.\.'." CHAPTER' .1\' , ' ':.; 'INTRODUCTION' .... .. "'. . ) . ";'~ -.,",'- ') , ."" ,', ,', ..::,~ r' : - "-' ,:., '," . \.'~" ,;.... . ! $ ~ ~. .. . . . . ," . :~"~'~~::~~~.~:;' (a), PROPOSED ACTION AND BACKGROUNO"- ':T':/ "The City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern are exploring the ,feasi- " ,bility of expanding the Bakersfield Airpark, a general aviation, privately ~: ',,:'operat~~, facility located -"'/ithin the City less than three miles South- ,,~'¿;":Southeast of the Bakersfield Central Business District. It is fù~ther ." (. ~", ," __; ...... .~:. -;;~. . ,..;~o-..., ": ..;. - . "', ". . "'''I,;''loéåted nan area gradually emerging from rural to urban land use. ' ., , .' .'. ",-,".- " ., ...; .~. " ; ,. '~: .. . -, ,~ : ,,- '.' õ.·. " ,"-,,'''''' , '. ." . .:' ~:';"" . ". "... " The pr~pösàlis toconstruCf å'new and extended rúnway rotated slightly toá móre North-South orientation in order to accommodate thep~ojected 'growth'''~'~eds of the growingSo~th Bakersfield Community. A Site 'Evalu- ationSt~dyl conclude'd that the present facility expanded would permit more't:hari'a three-fold increase in present (1976) operations ,by 1998. In order to achieve this, it was obvious that a master plan was,~eeded detalling additional land acquisition; the location and extent' of airside and. ancillary commercial and industrial activities; roads and parking; open space, easements and improvements necessary for safety ãnd noise control and to identify any relocation of roads and residential· units. .:~ ~:~ \:~~.;'~.. .~ .~; ~, -- ··"·:7f.,".,.~:' , . ~.; .'" , ; .., ,",- ......... ,,'.,", The Study recommended that a public agency seek to acquire the Bakers- field Airpark and that the Master Plan be used as the basis for an en- vironmental assessment of the project. ' A pre-application for a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Grant (up 'to 90% of project cost) would requir~an accompanYing environmental docu~ent. This Draft Environmental Impact Report2 (DEIR) is intended to be submitted to the City and County for information concurrent with the grant pre-application. \...:.,.~.. . .;., . . ," :,' ..c..·. <1}. lSakersfield AirJark Site Evaluation Study prepared by R. Dixon Speas Associates (June 1978 .for the City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern. ,'.; ~',:. '0' , .::. ~' . " -:.'. ., 2This document has been prepar~daccording to Bake'rsfield City'Res~lu tion 39-78 and pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 as amended. -.'- , , . , ~ 1- - ,. ' ',. . ..... . .{.. ~ - > grant pre-application is approved, this DEIR, ¥'. ,.... combined with public testimony will be submitted as the initial Environ- mental Assessment (EA) required ?n requests for Federal Aid Airport Development Projects by the National Environmental Protection Act of h_." ~ '. 1969 (NEPA). e In the event that the '.. .... ¡ ( , . . '.- ',-" . '" ;. ; ~":.".:: ~ . '" i, .' . . -~ ~- Two other aspects of the project are important to the DEIR and pre~applica- ~ tion review. The first is the development of a Management and Financial Plan3 to. be submitted also for Agency .approval. This is crucial ,in order to determine the total cost of the project, its benefits and costs over .time and the appropriate management and implementation programming. . ..necessary to its success. The ,second aspect is the development of an - amendment to the Bakersfield General Plan Land Use Element. The latter is important to 'provide compatible land uses in the area around t.he airport. The proposed Land Use Plan recommends changes prima~ily from residential to light industrial and open space uses in recognition of airport noise4 and safety concèrns. The proposed changes are feasible - . ., since much of the area near the airport remains undeveloped or in agri- cultural use. Due to the significance of the proposed changes, they are studied in this document as secondary effects of the project as opposed to the primary or direct effects of the project itself (i.e., runway expansion, airside facilities, relocation, etc.). ¢ ; " ~ T~e Ken r:Ol'~t.y Counci 1 of Govp.rnment: (Kerr COG) ooera te<; as th? Ai rr¡ort. Lãnd Use Commission. Currently that agency has not adopted a Land Use Plan for the Bakersfield Airpark. Since the proposed Land Use Plan re- presents changes from both the existing City of Bakersfield and Kern County General Plan Land Use Elements, it will need to be presented to Kern COG for consideration upon adoption by the City and/or County.4 ~' t ... ~._.~-_.- 3Both the Management/Financial Plan and noise impact data based on several alternatives involving various levels of airport noise control pro- grams have been prepared by PRC Speas, Los Angeles. ; ~, . ~ .:'.... 4Section 65361 of the California Government Code limits the amendment of any General P1an Element to three times annually. , :'2- ",". . ~ -. ~ . e 'e . - ~. .--. < ...... ., ,- .. '.' " , , . .. "',Because of the complexities of the entire project involving several , ',:.,',:studies and agencies related to the DEIR, it may be helpful to su~a- '<"~iže',the necessary sequential order of study completion and déci~io'n- 'making: ',I. " _ . . .. . . ~ .", .', (b) PROCEDURES ITEM RESPONSIBLE PARTY DECISION .. . ',..,. 1. Draft EIR completion, including Proposed Land Use Plan 2. Draft EIR circulated to: State Agencies Local Agencies Interested Individuals City Council 3. Airpark Master Plan, including Airpark Layout Plan and Management/ Financial Plan City of Bakersfield Developme~~ Services .. None City of Bakersfield Development Services Consultant None . -..' ..~ _~.h... '..' :,. . "._. ':"4"" , , . ~ ",', ....f ~ <t .'.~' .~, 4. Consideration of FAA Grant Pre-Application with DEIR and Master Plan as back- ground assistance City of Bakersfield Yes , , In the event that the grant application and the Draft EIR are approved, the sequence will continue: 5. Submission of grant pre- City of Bakersfield None application to FAA with DEIR and/or County of Kern . ' 6. Receive State, Local and other City of Bakersfield None comment on DEIR and/or County of Kern 7. Schedule public hearing on DEIR City of Bakersfield Yes (lS-day notice) and/or County of Kern " ' 8. Counc i 1 Board consideration of City of Bakersfield Yes FEIR and/or County of Kern 9. Assuming FEIR approval, sub- City of Bakersfield None mit to FAA and/or County of Kern 10. Determination of FEIR adequacy Federal Aviation Yes as Environmental Assessment Administration (fA); prepare appropriate NEPA document (EIS or FONSI) , .'." ., ' . " ," . -3- ,e','::, - -. " ,.".," , . , - "" ...~'-.' ~: . ~ ~. :::';~';"" . " ' ~ .... ." , ' M''.; -1:'- , . . -.' . '. ·4.~ ...';'_.",", r. j .\ _. . , . ITEM . _"-:"-"f'~ ~ ',- ,\~ ".' '.~ ,-.' .. .'·4...·· 11. Campl etian of EIS or FONSI , Notice of hearing,'circula- .~ .~.. tion of documents and publ ic . hearing , ':.-'-' .... ._, 12.· 'Determination on pre:-appl i-, !,::ca~i on, grant .. " ,., ... ' ,- ,'-r ,". ~~. ... .: ~·'~;l·::>~":::""~·7:<."- ,In the' event that"'FAA approvês the ,.'~equence may continuE: as follows: 13. 'Submit Ge~eral Pl,'á:ri\~nd !U~/ Amendment to publ ichearing , " 14. 'Submit approved Land Use Element , Amendment to Kern COG a s Ai r- port Land Use Commission (ALUC) for study and public hearing ___.~_..;IL-';;:~ (e,,: _4:"':':''';' ·'·~.LJ~;;:~:~··::'-··: .' , ->: ~',' :. - ;.~?~':~.;:;~.~~>~. ': . :'~:.~~'~~~;::;/~~,'.~j~ :~: .'::. ,'" . ~ .",' ...:.. . . <¡;lMi~~C1f:f' .... , ,~. ."f'.-J",' . :" ,~."" '4.' ~: RESPONSIBLE PARTY. . ~".' ..", '._, . ... Federal Aviation Administration : :".Ves , ...,........ . ".' , " '" -'. . Federal Aviation Administration ::Yes . '''', ~ ' ." " '. " ". City of Bakersfield County of Kern; Boárd of Supervisors, Plan-' ning Commissions, and ' City Council 'Yes . -.- Kern COG ,., 'Yes ...'.... ....., M_. .. , ,'.. ., ....0: . , , Assuming the Final Grant Application is approved and construction and other activities .commence, the area within the unincorporated County may support annexation. -"" . -- -, '" ." "','" ',.., r:. .,. J...l....,:: " ,.-, ',I; (". (~) SCOPE OF fIR ["10Cl'~ENT ,.,' '..';:" '., "' This ErR addresses both the primary or direct effects of the Bakersfield . . . . . -.. . . : Ai rpark~xpansi'on')roJect and the secondary effects~ of_~he proposed'Land . . '. ' .':', . . .' . ,. ...- . .:" ..'. '~ .': -. .': ',-:!, , ., ":", Use Pl an for a two"':squa re-mi 1 e area surroundi ng the presentillld y'roposed .: . ~ ;. ., ;." ~!' ", . ". . . . >'" , '~irpark. On the basis of the Initial Study, the EIR will focusþri~arily - . \ "-,'-- . .~ on the noise, land use, safety, circulation and public services 'aspects of the project. '. Ot~er ite~~,will be addressed as required by C_EQA, but where effects of the project are not perceived as significant on those .. , . items the' level of de'tail'wi'll be minimal. It is intended tha~..~his dO,:,ument be suf~icient to address~nY,ini,t.ial environmental analysis requi~ed in future General Plan Land Use"Element Amendment and annexatio-rÏcovered within 'the s'tudyarea. "-, ~ '. '.~ , . .:" ,. , ' '" '. ~ " . <... , " ." -.! ,,' i . ..¡. ¡- -"'.".., .' '..... <~ ..< :-.;-'" ;, ".:'. '·f·· . - . .,.-....., ~ .', ' "',:- ..:';-' -'" ',' :··~:~.·:·~.:·::~;\S~· . .... ," ! ~. -~;"\ ,: . . CHAPTER I I PROJECT DESCRIPTION ~ .:' '. '.'" ..', ... ,. -" " ' Location: The Bakersfield Airpark is located within the City of Bakersfield in the Southeast portion of the urban community. The City of Bakersfield and , , . i~s surrounding metropolitan area are located in the Southern San Joaquin Valley part of Kern County, approximately 100 miles North of the City of Los .. '. A~geles and approximately 290 miles Southeast of the City of San Francisco ..(see Map 1 for regiona.l..l ocation) . - '.;'{:;);;~~> . . '. ::'.'I~~:~f.;>-:~ .. ". . Specifically the project area is located East of South Uni~n Avenue {S~ate Highway 204 and the Business Route for Highway 99) approximately 1.5 miles South of State HighwaY 58 (a Freeway Route) and slightly ovèr two 'miles East of State Freeway Route 99 (see Maps 2 and 3). The present'airportfacil ity '. . - . . . properties are bounded by South Union Avenue on the West, Watts Drive on the . .-...... ' North, and Madison Avenue on the Southeast. The Southeast portion of the single runway begins near the Northwest intersection of Planz Road and Madison Street (see Map 4 for present airpark boundaries and local street location). r In order for the project to be accompl ished, it will be necessary tO"extend tne property a~r()ss Pl an:.! Rùad to l"¡hite :"ane on the South ¡or ?: ~t~¡c."eJse:. , . ,'.- of approximately 59 acres to the present 103 acres for a total of 162 acres. ,The secondary impacts of the project (based on noise and safety concerns) require the identification of a larger study area in the preparation of proposed land uses compatible to the project. The noise and land use analysis applied to the existing conditions around the proposed expansion indicates an , , , appropriate study area consi~ting of two squa~e miles bounded by South Union Avenue on the West, Casa Loma Drive on the North, Cottonwood Road on the East, - . .. .... and Pacheco Road on the South (Map 5). Because of the location of the' pro- . ject in a Southeast corner of the City and the irregular pattern of,incor- porated area in this portion of the urban community, only 38 percent,,?f the two-square-mile land use study area is within the City of Bakersfield. The , . . . ~ " . \. . , envir~nmental 'characteristics of}he'area, including land use and population, are summarized in the initial portion of Chapter 3. .. . , . , ." , , .., , , ' " . , " . , '. d~ . .. .. .' '~~~¿¡='~'H ~ ç , · . ':;:l~_J L_~·_l'(i.S~ @,.. ~' .. ì'( :' ',.~--- -_.~ ¡, If-'J [:.=1 4 :/,/', . '1 Ao ' ~~. ;:-f)'¡'~ / '~'ð.~~ L-___ __ _..:.Y. // I I. - ..--¡ ;--:--.--W------, r.----7 ; 1\ .~'.:::.~!:~J.___.~_ .._~~ ~ J I~ #. ~ \"\- - J .- ._~]¡--- . - // ; UJ:;.>I~~ '- _ LO~E c ,~-~ ~I ,/;" ., ~':.'L-;''''''l ~ ~" ,.. ..., :¡C---l-" '~~ :;~ /fZ D,~' fl ~. ~ :~I '. I I .. ~,/,..:...!.I L-.,;;J - L..;J ~ : \.~ 'J ~ ï \~~I: ~~,> ,... ìJ OJ, IJ A, , 'Ii!!! ~ ':1 "'I'~ - I , _, "'_~~ _,: ~·'l'.. - l~l. '~,T\' __ / ,ç, ~ \ ........-::. / h': . 't-~ w:.' ~ do: , /' )/ . /" '. \" . I r- . - ! \ /" ,. a I : \"1(\ .·f 'v ."'.'. ,t ,_ _~''''\'' : ..It "L" '.,', .to .~ 7 r...y?\, '. :.., ....~\ > ,\ ." J ;'" z· \- \\ ;:' ~>4-0":'/ , ': / I /t'/, ~ \.; - -' --::-:-.;:... \ /£ ¿': ,;J.<.\ : '..-C\~,' ' , /¿ " .... /4'(.../'\ \. _.~) ',<~ ~If . \ ..;.'\ . . /1q.// -C ~: ~,' ~.._._--_- \, '. . ';h'7/J-,,,~(;~.., ~: \.","!. ~/ / ~.I"¡- j r-"-'--~"~'~V"~_ ,.~'/.". ~'~'.1 '. ç~'(' ~ /""'~~~ -~1 \ .\ I "F, , \\ .r. :.. .., -----, . \ rll!~''!._~'-O\~ I""', ~~. I \~i'i :'(¡-Ïf.1\·, \~ -----5ìf1 ~. .. .. .; 0,',' '" ~ --------.. ~_..-..- \ ., .01. ,.--.::-,61' ' :~,~" ::¡<> i~ '.1.0 ~ '71\ .:1" I~I ' - ----~..... ~-V· .-:t-----, ! \ i~, > I ;;', 111030 , - -~ ,.' \01 " , '12J I - _I . . ~ , , ~ .. .. 'O. -.:r. ::-<.., ":":":-::-::','. Off;" .''t.-:~'':·;';.:1 O~:"¡:'. :.:':.\ ~~J"~~~.:...~(-: '. .-:-:,', :-:.., ·,....J..l~~~· ........ . ., ."-:t~"·.1'). :'t~o(:l,;::.:,' , , ""'':;' . .",-,t ",.....' 'I \, .",:\,,::.J'.~....~'" :::..:-::;':::::-:.:: \", - ,..- 'z . "~·C" -. -¡ -. I I '. I I I I I I 2 I I I I ~- I ;;"..( :9 ' ~..~ -.ç '. 'i---r [....~.. ç...... ~,¡.' [".Clt..:;... ' .¡' ...~·D .:oat! 3 . a J I ,I ...,.; ~........ I C. "'->OJ ~ " .... , Uwf-l r ...... L" ; ,. tj ~:..,.. "I" , . .,... I ~. U 'J 1:o.,..,·,:,~c;J ¡ ¡: ¡ ¡] : Þlbìl·"""····:-· ~(!: 0' ::: Yk~)'~": . . ... ... . ...... ............... ---., ! ::;::::.;:::::;:;,::::::::: ' ! j L· .... .. .. .., ~ . ; j I r ........ = It-I 5 OC < 0, iX R·S-O ,.~ 10 -, I I, I I I I I I I 9 I 8 I ....'-:....... I I I I I ¡ I I I , ,. " ~ I .. " f I .' . I I '0 I I I J ä MAP S 0 1200 ° =====I FEET _ _.. STUDY AREA BOUNDARY I , ~ tg--] PROPOSED AMENDMENT ' :: __~_ I BOUNDARY AND NUMBER w '!!, lOa IJ. -;:-;'o-T " ~~.~iIM~8~.~~~ P"c ' fill£RSfI£LD AlR'ARK EXPANSION £ II . STUDY' AREA NUMBERS OF PROPOSED L~~D USE PLAN ',' AMENDMENTS :. ,., (,r-'.... .lO '. ". I L..-J WATTS " " , ..... : <0'0 I Q ~ <> g" o 0 C? .. JJ !II c: z Õ z D o o o PlANZ RD. ~ ~,~~" . ~~.~~ ~.., ~~ .,. -,~ . ~ I I , 111£llf11LI 1&11'.1. UP.ISIOI E.I EXISTING AIRPARK FACILITY . - ".", "'.. ":.;: . JL ~ "" . .. DR. I' ",: ;' BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK .. .... . . . , ' ,',' >.. ""., , ' ,[ r- o :Þ .. ," -. ~ ¡t: .". . '.,..". . . ~ .' . BReOK ! 'MAP'4' o 400 . SOURCE: R. DIXON SPEAS ASSOC., INC. AIRPARK SITE EVALUATION STUDY FEET '.' . - ~ ·ffrt, -~.~~::.~,\... ~:' ': /- ,of 2:~ [ ,"--::.'-'oIt ~" . , .,' "~ I, 'L-._~\~ t,. ,. 'r .'7 \ ,R/~ i1 ,. .~'- -~r~ l " ''9 .::;./ . ~ - j(~JfN t _ . _. . , ..... . M (: '" "',: .... -. , ----- ';--- , ¡~ -!. ; ~- ,--.;...." r· --.......,.,. ,.--~---I- -..- .-' I _.._._~.__._-- -~:- Ie ,e " ; ) . 1'--' , I l, '\ " \. ' ¡' '~..., ,- -~ 9\ - ;.:~:~ ' -'--'--' , - ,. ~ -;;'1.- .1;1~{·:: ,_-4-.. --'-' " , . RIO BRAVO .". . .. , , ; ~ , " ''''''<;'''. {.' I . ~ , \ ' : \ \ \ , , . . .~ ¡ i .._ . _ . , r , --'-~ ., , ,.. ¡ ... .. . ~ . , . :.-. ~-l-' J-;---~-~ . . I , - . I: I ¡ , . . - - t T' . . ~ ;, I ' " , , ' -_. --__ J-L. ' . L . . , ¡- '---:', , - 1"- j r .",. . -.' ",',',-' 1980 GENERAL AVIATION AND AGRICULTURAL OPERATlONS-1980 AIRCRAFT TYPES 60.0 CNEL NOISE CONTOUR FOR THE EXISTING RUNWAY ALIGNMENT ~ 1998 GENERAL AVIATION AND AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS-1980 AIRCRAFT TYPES ,60.0 CNEL NOISE CONTOUR FOR THE PROPOSED RUNWAY ALIGNMENT ",,~LTÈRNATIVE SITES FOR RUNWAY LOCATION . . 1:::'- - ·'.AIEISf'~LD 111'111 UPANSION Ell. LOCATION "WITHIN BAKERSFIFLD Å9 ,MAP 3 , SOURCE: R.DIXON SPEAS ASSOC. INC. AIRPARK SITE EVALUATION STUDY. MILES ., "" -;..'" . ',' ? ""'V -~-~~"'-~---~~2""'7Ul'pn'!!IL"<'i"'·~·'1!"::~~"F~ +-':\1~r.~.¡;~~ ':.J:~1'~lt'I!J~-"~"""''''''-''''_......_~_;,o'';_::mm_,-.TK'''r~'' _ "n ...._.,___-~...- 1 , . ""'. .'.. " ,', . . ,", :1 , ~ , , I L_, ",I~':"" ", 'J .,.. ---, -:... , ". . .. ' ---, . I L-, I ~ I , ' "ì; . ""'- .,.'.';' '.. -~ I I "\.. .~ ",:, , I I -~ ~ r ~~" ItIJ ? :'C,·MAP 2 " , ":, . lïl~Pl.1 . £I'IIISIOII . [.1 LOCATION.:;,WITHIN. KERNCOU~TY' " ;~;q';,:, . "', 10: ,. , MILES , ' r .. , .". ',: , . ' . . h " .' - ~ ' -..., ." , REDDING * ".>-, (" "? .. (" SACRAMENTO * STOCKTON ./ * ,,<0. o *FRESNO '~ 1,- '* 8AKERSFlELD ./ -'1 ",." , . ..:, " ,. ":'. . .'^ n. ,",' , ',.',. ., , . "1,'"' IAI£ISFIELD AII'I.I UPANSION £ II LOCATION WITHIN STATE ',' .,,-.:. . ~ ,'''' SOURCE: R. DIXON SPEAS ASSOC.,INC. AIRPARK SITE EVALUATION STUDY '.,' e e Objectives: The purpose of the project is to provide a general aviation facility appropriate to a projected increased demand in the South Bakersfield area. The Site Evaluation Study recommended that a master plan be prepared for the Airpark and that a public agency acquire and expand the facility. A Preliminary Financial Plan,l as part of the Study, indicated that the Airpark "could very likely result in a 2 percent rate of return after 20 years and a 7 percent rate of return after 30 years", assuming that Federal and State monies are available for the capital improvements. While the preliminary study addressed only the fiscal implications of the airpark facility itself, , it may be of some value to consider the secondary economic benefits of the project with respect to improving both airport-related and non-airport-related industrial and commercial development in South Bakersfield. Such a consideration must remain in general terms since an economic impact focus is not within the scope of this Draft EIR. ' However, the Land Use Plan analysis will include study of some of the crucial elements of industrial land use growth (traffic, circulation, noise, air quality and public services) providing information on its impacts and, therefore, desirability as an investment input to the community. We recognize the importance of the type of public investment and its timing if it is to have a catalytic effect in providing the kind of private development consistent with City and County policy. lIhe Bakersfield Airpark Master Plan Study, completed by R. Dixon Speas in July 1980, reaffirms the initial analysis that the project is financially feasible. The Study concludes that the revenue base is sufficient to cover Airpark debt service and Airpark related administrative expenses. Local in- vestments (approximately 16% or $1,405,000 of the projected ten-year project cost of $8,905,000), not including investments recommended to be funded by the private sector, are recommended to be financed by equity investments and long-term notes issued to an airport enterprise fund. -11- e í..e ..... , The present facility provides a base for 100 to 120 aircraft. It isestimated2 that the present faci 1 i ty wi 11 not permit a safe increase over 25 percent of' present operations. Therefore, at the present rate of active general aviation aircraft registration in Kern County3 the maximum number of based aircraft will be reached within 8 to 10 years. The consultant study assumed that the expansion of the Bakersfield Airpark would attract approximately 10 percent~ of the general aviation demand now served at Meadows Field - the primary air- port for Kern County - located in Oi1dale North of Bakersfield (see Map 3). This component would be a major factor4 in doubling the forecast demand (1978) at the ai rpark. ~. ". '. The consultant proposed the base shift on desirabi1 ity attributed to con- venience (access) as determined from a Department of Transportation survey and the locational analysis of owners registration address. Project Characteristics: The proposal is to rotate the existing. runway from a 12/30 a1ignment5 to a 15/33 orientation. This would enable the run- way to be' extended v/itl10ut consi derabl e removal of present homes, roads, utilities and other improvements in an existing subdivision within the un- incorporated County (see Map 6, Existing Land Use) to the Southeast. ~._.._.__._-- --- _.-._._~---,--~--_..- 2t1r. Bill Lewis, owner of Aircraft Services, an existing Fixed Base Operator (FBO) at the Bakersfield Airpark. 3Site Evaluation Study, Exhibit 4-4, 1970-1976 active Kern County air-· craft registration increased from 562 to 669 or approximately a 3 percent annua 1 growth. 4Analysis of Postal Zip Code locations of aircraft owners provided by the consultant study, shows that approximately 156 owners reside South of California Avenue which was selected as a logical service area boundary in terms of access to either airport. Applying the 3 percent growth rate to 1980 would indicate a potential demand for 55 based aircraft currently at Bakersfield Airpark. 5Based on compass headings, an 18/36 alignment would represent a perfect North-South magnetic orientation. '., ..' .; 't", . -~ -. -.-------.- .'-~- "- . '.-' ..- ...-.-..------- ÆQ\;?itJ ---"', \Jo ~ol> / .\.65 . "~o ~-:''-'"'' ·-u "~J "" ooa. ii;S:~.'.:.'Ì~ ,. \\\\\ ~~ '" --: ., -~..t l__"....:. I'.~~(... o' /, ¡ " ~. ~.;. ~ ~ ". ~\.~ ~ " '.. .~~......,. lï- ) // .""t:t. ~.l-: \\ ~~',\ " " " i t. Il~, U--- ~ ~ _.~ "f' . ~~~ ~)ft. ,~\\\\~ ,~ ~' , . Is::::.:, -J ~- .;~ // ~ ~ I ~: ~.. -¿.:.s ~ ' .. .1LP.,'!-.: t_11 /:/. \ 1-1:(04 ,-"'" "" . ¡ , .. - - . -. . - // . ~ ~ ~:'-. ~ . . .I[~- I ~ /.'\" ¡. '" ¡ -,," ,""'" 'T''¡-'';y ,,~~ ~ , ,>,!",--;'" ,; If. ("nil. · '" Ii ,0 ~~"',,'\::~~ ¡ ~ ~~ . I t~¡ ~ ';. ~'it'~ ~~~~ P1 ~L: '. ~t~, ~ ~ ~ ,; I:;:::::::::::~:;:~:~:::;:;;:::::, ['I , ',- t'" ~. /:... ~i.:J ~ I'll V 1 ';; ':-",' ,,:.........) :::;;:::::::::::;:;:;:::::::::::::::::;::::/, r . !.. \. /"'~I' ~ -'.. ~ r,; ~ ~ '\. '\ ~r ":~:~:~:~:~:I ~:~.:...:~~.. ~'~':~~~:<:::~;:~ ~ , _l.fI iiï . ¥,' - ...... i! ._ '7 tJ '- "- ,," ~ ........... r...'.............'....,...,'...'....,.....,.,... , " . J .. oJ " Q . ,... ~ ........... \::..............,.,. .....,'.~. , 3\.---~(/-" 1>< ~"~~).~ ~0-." ¡,:.;.;.;.:.:.:.;.:~ [::;p;,;.:.:.;.;.:,:.;.:.;.;.:,:::=:.:=:.:, -'; ~ ).'10 :~: ./~: .~, . ><, ~L "........ ~ ::::;:::::::::;::::j ~"·r"""""",··'··",·"",·",:;, , . -C:,·" }~:~\ ' ; \, , <5 ~, "" -, '1 . t3Ü)t¡ ::..~:;.::;:.;.,;::..;',;::.~;.,;.,;..:..;.,;:~;: : ~...~~~: " , D ! ' .. \ ' 'g,'N''''' , ~ '1~/i ..,;~ 1 \ -----..~\~ ?' ,.., . .' ',-" ~ ì !' .,,'~.;.,;' ~ "F. I C" ~ ~ ~ ,,\ , ./ TIll' ,..' "' CI 'B ~.. ~ . '-'~ ~ ... . r.---- .. ~ ¡. ~ .. '~" , ; _8...·. ~" \Iii jG;-Q..,"'~~.,:J.....", ~. .J'f'c,\.).. ~ ~.~ ~" " ,,,...................., ~ ("::r.. ~.~ C.z.D D<G~¡[ll~ ,¡.~..~. ~.. " 'l 1 ~", ~'~ .~, " ~. ~;;?:~:?~ ) ¡ _ '.J.. . _ . .~~ ~~. ~ ~~ '- , '"\ '" ì1l1'- . '- 'Ii. '- li·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·. ;. ~ , -----, , . , « _ ~ T I ~ ,t.' ;x) , '. "'~ ~ '\" ,~" ~'\ \ ,,,- "- >l;';;:;:;:::::;:;::::;: t ì ~' 11.' '¡¡ ~., ~~. "u ~ \î' ' ,.... ¡.', .,,,-,, ~ ::--."'\. ~ '';:::::::::::;/:, [1:j RIAL ¡~) .:"" ~ .~~. '- ::;::',>' r:;:;:,· :;:;:;:;: ;:;::.;~ ;:::::~ :::::::::: ':::::~~ !:.:. ~ l· . ~f::::::::::m COMMERCIAL ~> .. S .". '. -1' , ' ~'I~~¡¡IiI¡I~ ¡;¡I~· r' ¡ ..~ ~::;~::::::::: ; ~ .:-.. I w., ' .' - .....~ .....~ t~ii :.....~ ¡~ i~ .,"' :> ¡ .2. ::::::::::::::;::::;.' . ,. .' - ; \ ì.1 I.'. C ITV' f, ,......:. ::: :~. î~,,:: x:'::: L.1 ;;;:~~: .:'.:::::: 8;...... ' ¡ ~~ SMALL MINI- RANCH : f ..~ .~ · ~f'.Nrv"'-- ~~/' '.... /' \ -: ~,' ! ~117771 LARGE MINI-RANCH .; ::~:~~:::;::,: ..~\-~' "~ t'~' (\ ::=:.= ; JI¡¿¿:¿j :::;::,::,::;, J, /' A .., /oil, ',/,/. ,~-:--:: :Jlt:....1AGRICULTURE I~~~~;~~¡~~~~~¡~f" ",.~ .:~. // Y.J·,< r//ç~ j'D : {.;:.::::::> ~~~-== ---t- -·~·_-=--=~-:"'·~~I .- \U GRAZING ::.:. "'y~-_._,-_...::::--'~----- ~ . v- ._ \ ~-=-. - - - - ----.~ - -- ~ .J-Z. ,'\'" .' \,' , (,.:...- ....: - -.....~. . - -:.. -~ -: -~. -. -:-. ~~:- .::::. :..'~\\·'3: SCHOOL 1":1 ,4" -- - ---- ---- '\ \ \ \..' . - .-.... - - --- -- - - - - - - --.- \... ..,--- ¡-......-- -- - - - -- -'" .:,~,n' ". - -. - -- C-- --- - - -" - -. ...;::ït \' '~''1?"7~: PARK "-,Sol) .....- -- ': - - ~.- - .....- -,~ ~"'::'.~1It..r --......... ---..-- .....-40 - -~,--:: -- --......... -~ . ~ .,:'.';.:;:.::.:.::'.';:.;'._;'.':.: = _. _ _ _ ~ß..-o;:_ _ _ L6 V ACAN T -=- -:::. .::::::- ~¿.....I = :....:-...= =-- :C1 < d P.G, SE. TOWER LINES " .~f:W~ ~ =- ~.::.:-.:: ~_ ..=¥ =-::::: ª" '" ~ 60 CNEL VALUE I .í " ::-'~=-ëliv~ == ~.~ ~':-:--:~o:;:-.:·:..:: !, /~ . .. 'tl ",":,. I C:OUNfy '-~- j ~. .~ .' ;"" .' ,A·..,[ , BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK EXPAHSIOK E' R --- NOISE CONTOUR E'xiSTING LAND USE AND AIRPORT NOISE 1980 À ~ , . MAP 6 1200 CC C'T e . ; -. "., -',' The present 3,200' x 30' runway could then be expanded to 3,900' x 751 (see Page 15 , Airpark Layout Plan). The runway expansion would require the closure of 900 feet of Planz Road which would necessitate connections from the termi- nated portion of Planz Road, West of the new runway, South to White Lane and a Madison Avenue Extension South to White Lane in order to mitigate disrupted circulation patterns to the residences East of Madison Avenue. The $4.6 million project also includes taxi, holding and parking facilities, lighting, building removal, relocation/demolition, runway marking, perimeter fencing and sound wall construction, property and easement acquisition and site preparation. The Master Plan proposes a shift of FBG sites and Tee Hangars to the North- east portìon of the site (approximately 50 acres) near the intersection of Watts Drive and Madison Avenue from present location closer to South Union Avenue. Two or three aviation-oriented industrial sites (25 acres) .are indicated depending on the reservation of one as a possible terminal site. Commercial development is proposed for approximately 6-8 acres within present airpark properties along South Union Avenue. The project is proposed to be developed in a phasing basis including a control tower that may need to be considered for construction after 1990. The basic airside system improvements will be covered in the $4.43 million grant appli- cation. Necessary landside system improvements (parking spaces, terminal, hangars, etc.) are projected on a phased basis (see Appendix A-l); however, some FBO facilities would be developed by private industry upon demand. -14- pre R. Dixon 1Ipea.. A.eool.t:.. ~ Checked j Drc':m Date BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK AIRPORT MASTER PLAN I AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN I , /1f /' '\ . ,,'" / +: ..... " 'ð'l-':/ \ // // ! /~:~../ I G~ ! IFR CALM 0-4 MPH 53.7'\0 5-10 ,",PH 43.3'\0 10-15 MPH 8.0'\0 1.8'\0 OVER 15 MPH 1.2'\0 0.7'\0 CEiliNG < 1000 AND/OR VISIBiliTY < 3 MilES 8.g'\O ANNUAL O~URANCE. SOURCE: NATIONAL WEATHER SEAV'CE. MEADOWS F'ëlD JAN. Ig84 - Ig73 I. 2CO !5 ,,, 4j)O ¡¿j¡ :> c' :2: ,,' 0:' :tl ... '" I II ./ --_.-..-..J/ ~-' ~!i j:- 00 L, n AREA-1JIII.! CJI "L .".. LJ" , _ . . . . ---- --- I L fB ~ ~) N '" .. -J 0. I I I wSw w ALL WEATHER WIND ROSE All WEATHER 30.1'\0 58.7'\0 IFR r"()()R(".v~ :::, ";i"ST.U!t)Aj \ ' ENE~. u....H~e811! I ":'-"~.'~ ~ \, ¡ ~ ¡ ~'- >.~ /<:". \ I Ì'"".3E --------' I \f "'''' NE/ \ \ I ~ j. , / " 'I~' / \ ,--" .... ~ ' ;., \ 1\ ØJ ,^'-.., :<" I ^ /. \ : /', /, \ ' "'./' \ sse -¡ ->i ~' \'0'.°.) I /'( \ \ \ G ""NO i I ---- ./" .~,.i \j·~l /~.s X \ ~ \ \ \ -------¡---------+- /. ::)--1-<." ~ ' \ L \, "',,'''''''' 'i' .,~ ~. I ¡ 3 \ \ ~ ~. i 3.6.~ .Á.... ,..--¡---~ ! ___~ I r~ y ',----, \:/' \"I! ~ ~ ---- ',.5 /, , / \ \.!.2......., I ____ : \ ", / . /~.a \ 1.1 \./ ....,/ _____ " '. .. /<: 1 >----- 3.5 \. -r<:... ! "NW\\ // -'</, ì~<' "'"" /..... . J-....~ 'y \~ \ \/s~ '¡;¡::"/ ,.;/ ~ _/ WNW _ WSW W WIND ROSE $ i :0 \ ~/ ""h".( 7-j "'I LOCA.LlZER ... <II ) ~I GI " )[ ì! !i 'i 1!OISE/!!lAST Ii aUFFER VlAlL~ 'I ~ ! , ¡ I I /~./ -- I I It' I e (e The proposed Land Use Plan, prepared in response to the planning of future land uses consistent with the noise and safety implications of the project, envisions a rather dramatic change from a residential environment to an industrial one. The proposed plan indicates a doubling of the present 273 acres designated for industrial purposes ~lus an additional 148 acres of open space at the expense of a reduction in 427 acres planned for residential use (see Table 16). While the proposed plan is treated as the secondary impact of the project and costs will be estimated for necessary road, water, sewer and other public facilities and services, it must be also recognized that the present land use plan would also require considerable public investment in order for a residential environment to be established. Since residential development generally is not cost effective in terms of revenue production (basically property taxes), the proposed land use plan, with the probable assignment of infrastructure expenditure to industrial land development, may be cost effective to local government. There is also the additional benefit of providing employment opportunity to the existing Southeast area of the Bakersfield community -- an area traditionally high in unemployment and low and moderate income families. -16- ,e (e Until recently3 there appeared to be no particular problem imposed by the Airpark on the development of the surrounding community as indicated by the noise impact data contained in the Noise Element (1975) of the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. The consultant, however, has provided up- dated noise information on the basis of current and projected (to 1998) air- craft operations which must be considered in land use planning around the facility. The earlier Noise Element information did not account for the emphasis required for early morning departures in agricultural based opera- tions. Therefore, since an error existed in previous noise climate infor- mation it can be assumed that the land use plan is suspect because State law and City Planning Policy require internal consistency among the State mandated General Plan Elements. It should be emphasized that the Land Use Plan was consistent with other elements prior to the provision of updated Doise data. A review of the recent noise information indicates that present aircraft operations may affect 167 homes and an estimated 525 persons.4 The increased Airpark activities imposed by the project to 1998 within the study area will increase only sl ightly the number of present homes (181) and population (570). However, if the present Land Use Element is not amended to recognize noise tolerant activities, as required by the Noise Element, the potential popu- lation adversely affected i'iould increase to 8,755 or 3,350 homes. -.--.......-----.-. 3A developer received City Planning Commission approval of a subdivision consisting of 134 lots on 58 acres located Northwest of the Airpark on the basis of existing Noise Element information on March 5, 1980. The item was appealed to City Council by the Airpark owner concerned over possible noise complaints generated from future residents which may affect expansion plans. During the appeal period to April 2 at the Council, independent noise monitor- ing by the County Health Department indicated the possibility of higher noise effects produced by several aircraft types, including those engaging in agri- cultural crop dusting. R. Dixon Speas confirmed the higher noise levels attributing much of the change to activities occurring during night time hours, facts not recognized in the earlier data (see Appendices B-1 and C). 4Applying the 5.9 percent vacancy rate for Census Tracts 25 and 31.03 in the 1974 Special Census and the 3.34 population per household for the area. For a more detailed evaluation of noise effects related to existing and pro- posed population, see the Noise Impact Section, Page 84. -18- e e , CHAPTER III ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The project improvement is proposed within an area of mixed land use. The area affected by the project is generally within a two-sQuare-mile segment bounded by South Union Avenue on the West, Casa Lorna Drive on the North, Cottonwood Road on the East, and Pacheco Road on the South. General commer- cial and industrial uses and the airpark occupy most of the area within the City portion of the area while the County area contains residential and agricultural uses (see Map 5). The area has not experienced the rapid growth characteristic of some other parts of the urban community such as the Southwest, Rosedale, and the North- east. Commercial and industrial development is generally confined to South Union Avenue for exposure and accessibility to the higher traffic volumes including trucking service. The residential development, taking both the form of small lot subdivision and larger rural lets, has occurred almost entirely within County jurisdiction under rural development standards in- cluding individual septic tanks. According to a Special Kern County Census in 1977, the study area population (portions of Census Tracts 25 and 31.03) was 1,757 residing in 526 housing units. Currently it is estimatedl that 560 units are located in the area indicating a 2.1 percent annual growth rate compared to 3.4 percent for the Metropolitan Area. Many of the homes within the small lot subdivision are deteriorating2 and occupied by low and moderate income families. The percentage of minority population is estimated at 77 percent compared to a 25 percent minority population for the entire Bakersfield Metropolitan Area. 'Land use information supplied by the Kern County Planning Department was augmented by a recent (1978) aerial photograph and current field inter- pretation. 2A housing condition survey was performed in 1975 by the Kern County Health Department. For more information see Population and Housing, Page -17- ,e Ie In summary, the planning decisions recognlZlng the conversion of the study area to urban use were made in past years; however, the area growth and development has stagnated as a result of several overlapping or interconnected forces: 1. The limitations available to County and Special District agencies in providing urban services to urban population densities due in part of the economic conditions and the lack of investment opportunity to the area. 2. The presence of the airpark itself and the psycho- logical problems imposed by the physical con- straints to expansion upon its owner and operators and the reluctance, until recently, of developers to proceed without updated plans. 3. The difficulty developers may have in financing low and moderate income housing and a reluctance to impose higher cost housing into an area where the demand may not be evident. These factors are symptomatic of the gap separating plans and planning -- the latter defined as the implementation of plans into programs and projects. While development interest concentrated in other areas, the Southeast part of the urban community was overlooked. However, because of the importance of the air- port to South Bakersfield and the proximity of this area tQ the growing downtown shopping and office complexes of Bakersfield,5 it appears that increased interest and development pressure will occur within the study area. Plans need to be prepared that recognize both the opportunities and limitations to particular urban activities. Methodology: This Chapter is viewed as the "heartll of this document. It must identify all known impacts upon the physical and cultural resources of the area and suggest mitigation measures that would soften any difficult aspects of the project if it were to be implemented. The procedure is to identify the environ- mental setting, project impacts and appropriate mitigation, if possible, con- sistent with those issues raised in the Initial Study (see Appendix A-2). Each item may be classified as a component of either the, (a) Natural Environment, (b) Cultural Environment, or (c) Socioeconomics. 5The Bakersfield City Council approved the proposed redevelopment of approximately 43 acres in the downtown area for a Regional Shopping Center featured with five major department stores (December 5, 1979). e e In some areas, such as Air Quality, the distinction between natural conditions and cultural amendment are not as obvious. And it is also obvious that Socio- economics is a product of our cultural environment; however, the Socioeconomics Section provides an exposition of the residents as opposed to the products created by the population residing, working, playing or passing through the area as identified in the Cultural Environment Section. The project effects which are likely to be identified are those which may be inferred from similar development elsewhere, or the predictable relationship of certain standards to either human or facility tolerances. This document is not intended to address the potential economic benefits or costs of the project, the study Land Use Plan area or the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. -20- ,e Ie (a) NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 1 . TOPOGRAPHY Setting: The elevation of the existing airpark facilities is between 373 feet and 380 feet. Elevation for the two-square-mile study area is from 365 feet to 390 feet above sea level. Slope in the area is less than one-half of one percent -- falling gently away to the South. Slight interruptions to this relatively flat topography occur at a sump on the West side of the existing runway. The sump is West of the intersection of Brook Street and Madison Avenue, and along the Central Branch of the Kern Island Canal that runs in a Southeasterly direction in the Southern portion of the study area.' Impacts: The proposed airpark boundary will include elevations from 371 to 380 feet. Relatively little slope in the study area will re- quire minimal land displacement for preparation of build~ng and run- way sites. Additional grading for sump sites may be required as development occurs. Mitigation~ None lU. S. Geological Survey and the California State Department of Water Resources, Topographic Map, Lamont Quadrangle, 1954, photo revised in 1968 and 1973. e ·e (a) NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 2. SOILS Setting: A recent field survey indicates that no farmland exists within the Bakersfield Airpark and its environs extending 2000 feet from the Air- park property. However, land in farming occurs in the area South of White Lane, and East of the Central Branch Kern Island Canal, and the area East of Cottonwood Road (see existing Land Use Map, Page 13), within the City Municipal Farm area. Alfalfa is the predominant crop. There are two soil associations existing in the general area of the Bakersfield Airpark.l Their characteristics and limitations àre dis- cussed below (see Soil Map 7). 1) Grangeville - Hesperia Association A Gw-Hl Saline-Alkali. Grangeville makes up about 65 percent and Hesperia about 30 percent of the association. Inclusion of coarse textured Cajon soils comprise about 5 percent. This association consists of moderately well to well drained moderately coarse textured soils developed in granitic alluvium. Some accumulation of sodium salts has taken place to make these soils saline - alkali. Vegetation consists of salt tolerant grasses and shrubs and other annual grasses. Mean annual precipitation varies from 5 to 7 inches; mean annual air temperature is 68oF, and the frost-free season is 290 to 300 days. These soils are used for cropland and pastureland. Limited acreage has been used for urban development. Cotton and alfalfa are the principal crops. Limitation for allowable soil pressure for foundations is moderate The limitation for untreated steel pipe is high and with a moderate limitation for septic tank filter fields. Other soil characteristics are presented in the following table (Table 1). 1The General Soil Map for Kern County (1967) is intended only for general- ized soils information. Soil variations could occur within any association. J¡ .- rr~ ---" r- ! ~'~'''':'~~'~:::' GROUP I :'~lk:'c,.:,..,-:-:-: . .~)1.<~?~::; Hespe"o- Hanford ] I'............ ... ......... . I'·····',·,'····,'·········· .............. ; ,...,'.'......,...,......., I J . ........ .... C·2·0 j. .. C-2 -0 ..1',...4 = J ,.; n . ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ] GROUP 1 -AREAS DOMINATED BY NEARLY LEVEL, COARSE TO MODERATELY FINE I TEXTURED ALLUVIAL. SOILS. Wit / d__/: R·3· 0 . . , ~t"~CO ~..2.(.t~ .. II rr-' "0"0 å MAP - 7 0 , 1200 . r FEET OAIEISffll.1 AlI,11i1 EXPANSION E I It SOl LS '---~SOIL ASSOCIATION BOUNDARY SOURCE' GENERAL SOILS MAP OF KERN COUNTY., V.S.OA.. S. C. S. Table 1 BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK AREA SOIL CHARACTERISTICS I " Þ I Natural Subsoil Erosion Effective 1 Inherent Soil Type Runoff A.W.e. Drainage Permi si bil ity Haza rd Depth (in.) (i n. ) Fertil ity Grangeville moderately moderately medium slight 6011 + 7.5"-8" moderate - Hesperia we II to rapid Association somewhat excessive Hesperia - we 11 to moderately medium s 1 i 9 ht 60" + 7.5"-8" moderate Hanford somewhat rapid Association excessive SOURCE: General Soil 1\1ap of Keriì County U.S.D.A. Soil Conservat~on Service, September 1967 lTotal available water holding capacity within effective soil depth. e e e '-,. -'_.,-~-.....- - '.;;:.:.~,~:.::":;=-:';'~:"~~~:; .~~:~::-:"':'_._._.::-,:~_..,.L.~~_'_'." . . 2) Hesperia-Hanford Association - (HL - Hd) Hesperia soils make up 70 percent and Hanford soils about 20 percent of the association. The association contains approximately 10 percent Cajon and Traver soils in about equal proportions. This association consists of well drained moderately coarse textured soils developed in granitic alluvium quite similar to the Grangeville-Hesperic Association. These soils are used mostly for cotton and alfalfa with some stone fruits and vineyards. There are no soil problems when this soil association is used for agriculture with good management practices. Some urban development has occurred in this association and much more can be expected. Limitations for soil pressure are moderate. Limitations for shrink - swell behavior and for untreated steel pipe are low. Limi- tations for septic tank filter fields are slight. Other soil characteristics are presented in Table above. Ooth seil associations Imder today's definition may not be considered as prime agriculture land.2 Soil erosion in the area does not seem to be a problem. Impacts: The environmental impact on farmland due to the expansion of the Bakersfield Airpark and realignment of its runway may be reviewed from two perspectives -- land within the proposed project boundaries and land in the immediate area of the project: 2See correspondance received from U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, April 11, 1980 -- Appendix B-1. e 'e (a) land within proposed airport boundaries. NO,land within the proposed airport boundaries will be used for dgriculture purposes. The ex- pansion of the airport would require the acqui- sition of an additional 59 acres presently used for pasture or vacant. As indicated previously the soil types existing (see Soil Map) .within the boundaries would probably not be considered prime agriculture land. The amount of land involved in acquisition is insignificant. The present lack of interest in developing the vacant parcel or pasture land for agriculture use is another factor limiting the impact of the proposed project on farmland. (b) Land in the immediate area of the proposed air- port. The only farmland existing in the immediate area of the proposed project would be the area South of White lane, and East of the Central Branch Kern Island Canal. The area is zoned for agriculture 's~ in :he Ccu~ty ~~~ i~ ~o:atec ~u~t South of the proposed runway across White Lane. It is antici- pated this area would remain in the County and utilized for cropland for some years before urban development occurs in the area or creates a demand for airport compatible land uses in the area.3 3This area is indicated as Urban Expansion on the Kern County General Plan Land Use Element and low Density Residential (2 - 5 housing ¡¡nits per gross acre) on the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General Plan land Use Element. -26- e e With good management practices soils in this area could be turned into prime agriculture land. Presently, the area is planted with alfalfa. The proposed airpark expansion would not have any significant environmental impact on this farmland. The loss of farmland would normally occur when there is a demand of land for urban purposes. The allowable soil pressure for foundations within both soil ca1ssifications is "moderate" (1000-2000 pounds per square foot) and the corrosivity rating for untreated steel pipes in the Grangevil1e-Hesperia Association (nearly 100% of project and 41% of Plan area) is "high". If site specific soil tests show either a sandy clay loam or silty clay loam structure the allow- able soil pressure is reduced to less than 1000 pounds per square foot (or a "severe" rating). Mitigation Measures: At the present time no mitigation is required' with respect to project effects on farmland. The reasons are: (1) The area is now in agriculture use and zoned for agriculture use. (2) It is under County jurisdiction. (3) It is outside the proposed airpark boundaries. The possibility of further expansion or land acquisition for the airpark in the future is minimal. (4) Existing soils, as indicated by Soil Conserva- tion Service ongoing studies, may not be con- sidered as prime agriculture land. (5) The environmental impact of the proposed pro- ject on agricultural land is minimal (see impacts) . It is recommended that untreated steel pipe not be used in the project site and for other urban development within the Grangeville-Hesperia Soil Association. Site specific soil tests are necessary to determine the allowable soil pressure for foundation construction, particularly within the Grange- vil1e-Hesperia Soil Association. -27- e ·e (a) NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 3. CLIMATE Setting: The climate of the site area is characteristic of the Southern San Joaquin Valley. The summer climate is hot and dry, while winters are cooler with little rain but some humidity. The average monthly temperature in Bakersfield ranges from 47.4oF in January to 84.30F in July. The annual mean temperature measured at Meadows Field is 65°F. Frosts occasionally occur during the winter months. Precipitation averages six to seven inches annually. The majority of the precipitation occurs during the six months from November to April. Snow rarely falls in the Bakersfield area. Like all of the San Joaquin Valley, the Bakersfield area is subject to characteristic seasonal air flows. During the summer, air currents from the Pacific Ocean enter the Valley through the San Francisco Bay and are forced South into the Valley. These air movements are primarily to the Southeast at velocities of six to ten miles per hour. During the winter, cold air flowing off the surrounding mountains results in currents toward the ~orthwest with velocities ranging from tive to nine mi)es per hour. These characteristic air flows result in extensive horizontal mixing of air masses in the valley. However, vertical despersion is constrained by temperature inversions occurring throughout the year. Inversion conditions, by preventing vertical mixing of air flows, provide a trap for pollutants in lower air masses. In December and January, the valley normally experiences heavy ground or "Tule" fog because moist air is trapped in the Valley by high pressure systems. The "Tule" fog can halt flight operations at the Airpark. The fog season starts in October and extends through April although the dense fog, with visibilities less than one-quarter mile, occurs primarily in December and January. -?R- e . Table 2 presents the percentage of time with fog, precipitation, or low visibility conditions as measured at Meadows Field. The annual percentage frequencies òf wind direction and speed at Bakersfield is presented in Table 3. As indicated in the Table, the prevailing wind is from the Northwest while average speeds for all wind directions is 5.8 miles per hour; calms occur approximately 33 percent of the time. Impact: There will be no measurable impact on regional or area-wide climate as a result of the proposed project. However, the micro-climate of the project area will be affected by urban development. For example, the replacement of grassland and irrigated farmland, with paved areas and structures, will slightly raise local temperatures near the ground during daytime and lower it at night. Urbanization (as a secondary impact) which may be induced by the airpark expansion would further this situation. Mitigation: There would be no perceivable modification in the wind patterns and fog situation during winter as characteristic of the Southern San Joaquin Valley. However, local fog conditions will be predictably less in the project area when the area and its surrounding agricultural land is urbanized compared to existing land in irrigated farming. In order to reduce the impact of high temperature at or near the ground level during summer, heat absorbant surface such as runways, taxiways, aprons, parking lots, roofs, etc., should be designed with natural and lighter colors. This will reflect, more than absorb heat from the sunlight. Consideration should also be given to the orientation, bulk and height of structures whose design and layout will facilitate air flow and circulation near ground levels. Considerable energy savings both in cooling and heating can be achieved. Creating breezeways with careful location and orientation of structures with prevailing wind directions will grealty improve the local climate. Other micro-climate control devices such as windows, sunshades, skylights, roof overhangs, etc., could be adopted where permitted under design review to improve both indoor and outdoor climate and affect energy savings. -29- I Vo.I ... TABLE 3 Annual Percentage Frequencies of Wind Direction and Speed Bakepsfield, California (1956-1960) Hourly Observations of Wind Speed (In Miles Per Hour) Direction 0-3 4-7 8-12 1 3- 18 19- 24 25- 31 32-38 39-46 47 Total Average Over Speed N .1 2.2 2.7 1.0 .1 + 6.2 9.1 NNE · 1 1.3 1.0 .2 + 2.6 7.8 NE · 1 2.3 .6 + + + 3.0 6.3 ENE .2 3.9 1.3 + + 5.4 6.5 E .2 3.0 .7 . 1 + 4.0 6.2 ESE .2 2.0 .5 .1 . 1 . 1 2.9 7.5 SE .2 1.4 .4 .2 .1 + + 2.3 7.4 SSE · 1 .6 .2 .1 + + + 1.1 8.0 S · 1 .8 .2 + + 1.1 6.2 SSW · 1 .6 .1 + + .8 5.9 SW .1 1.3 .4 + + 1.9 6.5 WSW .1 1.3 .8 . 1 + + 2.3 7. 1 ., W · 1 1.8 1.5 .3 + + 3.7 7.9 WNW .2 2.6 4.2 2.4 .2 + + 9.6 10.1 NW .2 3.0 5.6 3.3 .3 + + 12.3 10.4 NNW · 1 2. 1 3.7 2. 1 .3 . 1 + 8.3 10.4 Calm 32.6 32.6 TOTAL 34.7 30.0 23.7 10. 1 1.1 .3 ,+ 100 5.8 e e e e ~ (a) NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 4. AIR QUALITY Setting: The Bakersfield Airpark is within the jurisdiction of the Kern County portion of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin and the Kern County Air Pollution Control District (APCD). According to the Clean Air Act Amend- ments of 1977, Kern County is not attaining National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Also, the Kern County portion of the San Joaquin Valley Air basin was one of the areas designated as a nonattainment area for oxidant and carbon monoxide standards. Subsequently, a plan entitled Air Quality Maintenance Plan/Nonattainment Area Plan (AQMP/NAP) for Kern County was prepared in September 1978 to demonstrate the tactics which may help to achieve the national standards by 1982. Unlike other nonattain- ment areas in California, Ke¡n County's 1975 emissions inventory shows that stationary sources, mainly the oil industry, released about 91 percent of the total reactive hydrocarbon emissions \o'/ith mobile sources accounting for the remainder (stationary sources: 307.7 tons/day, mobile sources = 28.9 tons/day). Without additional controls for mobile sources beyond those already required by law, the projections of reactive hydrocarbon emissions from these sources show a 47 percent reduction from 1975 to 1982 (28.9 tons/day to 15.3 tons/day). By 1987, the level will drop to only 10.6 tons/day.1 In order to attain National Ambient Air Quality Standards by 1982, emission controls are emphasizing the control of stationary sources including the reactive hydrocarbons from all sources to 164.2 tons/day. Emissions from all mobile sources would only repre- sent 9 percent of the total emissions projected for 1982. Therefore, it appears that the pollutants generated from the operation and expansion of Bakersfield Airpark and its aircraft-generated pollutants, as a direct effect of the project, would have minimal impact to the air quality of the Kern County portion of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. Secondary projects impacts would mostly be the air pollution generated from project- related automobiles and emissions from industrial and/or commercial uses permitted in the area. ( 'AQMP/NAP - The Air Quality Nonattainment Area Plan for Kern County portion of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, September 19, 1978. Prepared for Kern County Council of Governments by Grunwald, Crawford & Associates. Ch. 1 and 2 ( -32- e Ie Impacts: The following discussion relates to both the direct air quality impacts of the proposed Airpark Expansion and the indirect air quality aspects of growth which may be induced by the project. The latter will be addressed as secondary impacts and will be more difficult to quantify because of the broad range of characteristics possible for compatible land uses (industrial and commercial). It can be generalized that the direct impacts are associated with the proposed project and the secondary impacts are associated with the proposed Land Use Plan. a. Direct Impacts: The direct impact of the proposed project on air quality was determined using a IIBox Model II tech- nique. The Box Model method of air quality computation uses the emissions generated in a unit landing and take- off operation as the basic parameter for estimate. This is called an LTD cycle. The dimensions of a selected box are associated with aircraft type. The length of the box is a typical distance between the locations where the air- craft descends to 1,100 meters (3,609 feet) above the run- way on approach, and reaches 1,100 meters again on . departure. The width of the box is arbitrary, though 1,600 meters (5,249 feet) is suggested here. Box di- mensions for the aircraft types using Bakersfield Air- park are shown in Table 4 below. TABLE 4 Air Quality Box Model Data Closed Box Model Dimensions Type LTO Cyclea (meters) Aircraft Mins. Length Width Depth Vol. Cubic Meters General Aviation 14.5 22,500 1,600 1 , 1 00 39,400 x 106 Turboprop General Aviation 1,600 1,100 6 Piston 17.9 27,600 48,600 x 10 a landing and takeoff cycle. -33- e (e TABLE 7 Typical Time in Mode for Landing Takeoff Cycle At Metropolitan Airport Time in Mode, Minutes Aircraft Taxi-Idle Takeoff Climbout Approach Taxi General Avia- 19.00 0.50 2.50 4.50 1.00 tion Turboprop General Avia- 1 2 . 00 0.30 4.98 6.00 4.00 tion Piston Based upon information in Tables 4 and 7 and an earlier study.2 Peak hour operations used in this analysis are presented below: , TABLE 8 Peak Hour Operations Forecast G/A 1976 1983 1993 1998 Aircraft LTO LTO LTO LTO 2-E.ngine 0 2 3 4 1- Eng i ne 8 21 28 33 Turboprop 0 1 2 3 Total emissions resulting in a peak hour, an average day, or from annual operations may be estimated in terms of the forecast number of LTO cycles for each condition. For a correct case analysis, total emissions in a peak hour con- centration are used and presented in Table 9. Evaluation Stud , R. Dixon Speas Associates, Inc. -35- e e T AS L E 9 Total Emission in a Peak Hour (ug/m3) Concentrations Pollutant 1976 1983 1993 1998 Carbon Monoxide 0.800 2.800 3.900 4.800 Hydrocarbons 0.032 O. 1230 O. 1830 0.235 Nitrogen Dioxide 0.004 0.0393 0.0672 0.1001 Sulfur Dioxide 0.0008 0.0065 0.0114 0.0161 Particulates 0.0016 O. 01 00 o . 01 68 0.0232 Calculations shown in Table 9 are based upon information presented in Tables 6 and 8 As indicated, the total emissions in a peak hour concentration at Bakersfield Air- park are ",¡e11 below the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (ARB Fact Sheet 38, 6/30/78). No further analysis is required for the daily or yearly operations in terms of the direct impact of the project. Expèn~ion s+ the Bèker~field Airpark is predirte~ to cr~at.e a 10 percent shift of Meadows Field General Aviation activity to the Bakersfield Airpark. Therefore, the air quality as- pects of such a shift may be beneficial since it would move the point of emission (primarily takeoff and landing and fuel loading) from Meadows Field where prevailing winds could disperse it over the Bakersfield urban area to the Southeast edge of the urban area where it would become dispersed over agricultural and open space lands. -36- ,e Ie A survey conducted by the Department of Transportation re- vealed that the most influential factor that would affect an aircraft owner1s decision as to where the aircraft should be (stored) based is the accessibility of the airport.3 Approximately 60 percent of all owners responding to the survey specified convenience as the criteria upon which they choose an airport. A questionaire survey conducted at Bakersfield Airpark suggested that a large percentage of the owners who base their aircraft at the Airpark do so because of convenience. Therefore, it is expected that a large percentage of owners who base their aircraft at Meadows Field would relocate their aircraft to the Airpark when the facility is expanded and improved to accommodate more based aircraft because of improved accessibility. Con- sequently, the proposed project would reduce emissions of pollutants from airport-related automobile travels (both at the Meadows Field and Airpark) because of less mileage travelled by aircraft owners to get to their aircraft. As pointed out earlier, and also in the opinion of the Ke.rn County APCD, pollutions from mobile sources would have a very minor effect to the air quality of Kern County as compared to stationary sources. It was also the conclusion of the task force of the Laíld Use Committee that 1artd use tactics would not result in significant reduction in air contaminant levels or at least the levels necessary to effect compliance with ambient air quality standards by 1982.4 Tables 10 and 11 present an estimate of total project related automobile exhaust emissions (on next 2 pages). 3Bakersfie1d Airpark Site Evaluation Study by R. Dixon Speas Associates, Inc., June 1978, PP 4-15 to 4-18. 4See correspondence from Kern County APCD dated April 14, 1980, Appendix B-1. -37- · - TABLE 10 Emission Factors (gmjmi) for Automobil es 1 Vehic1e2 T ru c k 1980 1990 1980 1990 Particulate 1.3 1.3 0.54 0.25 Sulfur Oxides 2.8 2.8 0.13 0.13 Carbon Monoxide 28.7 28.7 5.60 2.80 Hydrocarbons 4.6 4.6 0.81 0.27 Nitrogen Oxides 20.9 18.1 1. 70 0.24 Aldehydes 0.3 0.3 - - Organic Acids 0.3 0.3 - - SOURCE: Appendix D - Projected Emission Factors for Highway Vehicles and 3.1.2 Light-Duty, Gasoline Powered Vehicles (Automobile) Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors AP-42 EPA 1976 1 Emission Factors for Heavy-Duty Diesel-Powered Vehicles, Truck 2 Exhaust Emission Factors for Light-Duty Gasoline- Powered Vehicles California -38- I W \.0 I TABLE 11 Estimated Total Project-Related Automobile Exhaust Emissions (ref. Land Use maps) Existing Land4usel Land Use Element2 Proposed land Use3 Pollutants (ton/day) Designation4 Designation4 (ton/day) ( ton/ day) 1980 19905 1980 1990 1980 1990 Particulate 0.0176 0.0081 0.1523 0.0705 0.1801 0.1172 Sulfur Oxides 0.0042 0.0042 0.0367 0.0367 0.1639 0.1639 Carbon ~1onoxi de 0.1821 O. 0911 1 . 5800 0.7899 2.6050 1 . 9982 Hydro Carbons 0.0263 0.0088 0.2285 0.0762 0.3986 0.9295 Nitrogen Oxides 0.0553 0.0078 0.4796 0.0677 1.2459 0.9295 Aldehydes - - - - 0.0145 0.0145 Organi c Ad ds - - - - 0.0145 0.0145 . 1 4 Ton/day = Short Ton (2000 lb per day Estimated or projected with conditions: 1) 8 miles per trip 2) No truck traffic 3) Using 1980 or 1990 Emission Factors This scenario represents con- tamination of 1980 traffic volume; emission reductions are due to more stringent engine emission controls. .' 5 2 Estimated or projected with conditions: 1) 8 miles per trip 2) No truck traffic 3) Area build-out 4) Using 1980 or 1990 Emission Factors 3 Estimated or projected with conditions: 1) 8 miles per trip 2) 30 percent of trip to industrial area would be truck traffic 3) Area build-out 4) Using 1980 or 1990 Emission Factors