Loading...
2024-09-10 Pt. Vicente Soil Contamination, Public Meeting Transcript - J09CA055804_05.08_0002_a1200C PERM J09CA055804_05.08_0002_a ·1· · · · · · · · · · · ·APPEARANCES ·2 ·3· U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS: ·4· Harry Hendler, Program Manager ·5· Jim Hug, Ordnance and Explosive Safety Specialist ·6· Matthew Masten, Environmental Engineer ·7· Mark Jones, Toxicologist ·8· Daniel Huff, Project Manager ·9· Steven Baack, Public Affairs Specialist 10 11· BSX (BERING SEA ECCOTECH, INC.): 12· Patti De La O, Program Manager 13· Aliah Guerrero 14 15· DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL: 16· Eileen Mananian, Supervisor 17· Ashley Alestra, Public Participation Specialist 18 19· INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE: 20· Brian Haig, Vice-Chairperson 21 22· CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES: 23· Emily Rodin, Recreation Program Supervisor 24 25 ·1· · · · · UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ·2· · ·PUBLIC MEETING REGARDING PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE ·3· · · ·POINT VICENTE MIL RES FC SITES/PT. VICENTE ·4· · · · · · · · · ·SOIL CONTAMINATION ·5· · · · · · · · · TRANSCRIPT OF MEETING ·6· · · · · · · · · · · · ·HELD ON ·7· · · · · · · ·TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2024 ·8· · · · · · · · · · · · 6:08 P.M. ·9 10· · · · · · MR. HUFF:· Good evening and thank you for 11· coming.· I am Daniel Huff with the Army Corps of 12· Engineers.· I'm the Project Manager for the Point 13· Vicente Soil Contamination Project, and this is the 14· public meeting for the proposed plan for the 15· project. 16· · · · · · Just a couple items before we get into our 17· presentation.· Number one, we do have a court 18· reporter here to document the public meeting.· So if 19· you do have any questions, just make sure you 20· clearly state your name and organization.· That's -- 21· following the meeting, in the future, the transcript 22· from the meeting can be made available. 23· · · · · · We are going to have a short presentation 24· slideshow to go over the history and the current 25· status of the project and the details of the ·1· proposed plan.· We also have a series of posters in ·2· the back of the room that, essentially, summarize ·3· the same information, but we realize that sometimes ·4· the presentation style may not be the best way to ·5· have a conversation.· So if you do have any ·6· questions, feel free to hang out after the ·7· presentation and we can go and take a look at the ·8· posters and look at the information in that format ·9· and have conversation, ask questions, make any 10· comments that you would like to. 11· · · · · · I'd like to introduce the team that we 12· have here today.· We have our contractor.· It's BSX, 13· LLC, Aliah Guerrero, and then Patti De La O.· She's 14· the Project Manager.· With Corps of Engineers, we 15· have Harry Hendler.· He is the Los Angeles District 16· Corps of Engineer Program Manager for FUDS.· We have 17· Jim Hug.· He's our OESS, or Ordnance Explosive 18· Safety Specialist.· Next to him in the back is Matt 19· Masten.· He's the section chief for the technical, 20· environmental, support section.· And then we have 21· Mark Jones toward the back.· He is our risk 22· assessor, definitely a key part of our team for this 23· project.· We also have Stephen Baack.· He's with 24· Public Affairs with Corps of Engineers. 25· · · ·And then we have a few attendees here.· We have ·1· California DTSC.· Would you like to introduce ·2· yourselves? ·3· · · · · · MS. ALESTRA:· Hi.· My name is Ashley, and ·4· I am Public Participation with Department of Toxic ·5· Substances Control.· Thank you for having me. ·6· · · · · · MR. HUFF:· Thank you. ·7· · · · · · MS. MANANIAN:· And I am Eileen Mananian. ·8· I am part of the site mitigation restoration ·9· program.· I am the supervisor.· My project manager 10· was unable attend so here I am. 11· · · · · · MR. HUFF:· Okay.· And we have one 12· participant from the public.· Would you mind 13· introducing yourself, sir? 14· · · · · · MR. HAIG:· Brian Haig.· I'm a member of 15· the city of Rancho Palos Verdes Infrastructure 16· Management Advisory Committee advising the city on 17· facilities. 18· · · · · · MR. HUFF:· Great.· Thank you for coming. 19· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· Emily Rodin. 20· · · · · · MR. HUFF:· Oh, I'm sorry. 21· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· She just walked in. 22· · · · · · MR. HUFF:· Oh, yep. 23· · · · · · MS. RODIN:· Oh, sorry. 24· · · · · · MR. HUFF:· Didn't see you walk in. 25· · · · · · MS. RODIN:· I'm Emily Rodin.· I am -- ·1· · · · · · MR. HUFF:· Yeah. Emily -- ·2· · · · · · MS. RODIN:· -- with the city.· Yeah. ·3· · · · · · MR. HUFF:· Emily Rodin, also City of ·4· Rancho Palos Verdes.· And you are the manager here. ·5· · · · · · MS. RODIN:· Supervisor.· Yeah. ·6· · · · · · MR. HUFF:· The supervisor here at the ·7· Interpretive Center.· Thank you.· Thank you for ·8· letting us use your facility. ·9· · · · · · MS. RODIN:· Of course. 10· · · · · · MR. HUFF:· Well, with that, let's go ahead 11· and roll into the presentation.· So this is just our 12· meeting agenda.· We've already done our 13· introduction.· We're going to cover the purpose of 14· what a proposed plan is for and then talk about the 15· CERCLA, Comprehensive Environmental Response, 16· Compensation, and Liability Act, overview of the 17· primary law that we're operating under for this 18· project under the FUDS, or Formerly Used Defense 19· Sites Program. 20· · · · · · We're going to talk about the site history 21· for this particular site project, the 22· characteristics for the site, and the scope and role 23· of the no further action decision which is what 24· we're recommending in the proposed plan based on the 25· findings of our investigations.· We're going to talk ·1· about land use restrictions that apply to this ·2· project and the site, summarize site risks, and ·3· we're going to talk about the assessment of no ·4· further action.· Again, that's what the proposed ·5· plan recommends based on the findings of the ·6· investigation.· And we're going to talk about the ·7· community participation, how that fits into our ·8· process, so stakeholders. ·9· · · · · · So we have the government agencies here, 10· U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.· So we're the lead 11· agency on this project.· And then our regulator, 12· California Department of Toxic Substances Control 13· (DTSC).· And then we have the property owner, City 14· of Rancho Palos Verdes, and, again, our contractor, 15· technical experts, resources. 16· · · · · · So this goes over the purpose of a 17· proposed plan, and one of the big purposes is the 18· facilitation of public involvement in the decision- 19· making process for a project like this, in 20· particular, this site.· It is issued as part of 21· those public participation responsibilities under 22· CERCLA.· I'm not going to say all that again. 23· · · · · · CERCLA provides a science-based approach 24· for site cleanup, so it's a very involved process, 25· if you will.· We'll get into some more diagrams ·1· talking about the process in a later slide.· And the ·2· U.S. Army Corps of Engineers follows the CERCLA ·3· process to fully investigate release of contaminants ·4· and to determine appropriate cleanup decisions based ·5· on associated risks to human health and the ·6· environment. ·7· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· Excuse me, Daniel. ·8· · · · · · Some of you may know CERCLA by another ·9· name, Superfund, the Superfund process.· And it's -- 10· the EPA is the facilitator, I guess, of that, and so 11· the Corp follows the United States Environmental 12· Protection Agency rules and regulations under 13· CERCLA. 14· · · · · · MR. HUFF:· Thank you, Patti. 15· · · · · · Okay.· And this -- I mentioned a minute 16· ago, we have a diagram that lays out this process, 17· so we've broken it down into, you know, four primary 18· categories here:· identification, investigation, 19· response/cleanup, and response complete.· So the 20· identification is -- you know, it really focuses on 21· the history and some initial sampling to determine 22· if there is a problem, some kind of contamination 23· that might present a risk. 24· · · · · · And then the next section here, the 25· investigation, that's where we are now.· We did the ·1· remedial investigation, which is a detailed look at ·2· all the available data, sampling data, and ·3· evaluation of the risk.· And that remedial ·4· investigation report was finalized back in March. ·5· · · · · · So now what we have circled in blue is the ·6· proposed plan, so that's where we look at all the ·7· information presented in the remedial investigation, ·8· and we make a recommendation for proposed path ·9· forward.· And in this case, the proposed path 10· forward is no further action because the remedial 11· investigation determined there was no unacceptable 12· risk. 13· · · · · · And then the second two -- or the final 14· two categories there, the response and cleanup.· In 15· this case, there would be no more cleanup or 16· response needed.· And then we would reach response 17· complete once the -- if no further action decision 18· is documented and approved as the final decision, 19· then we would reach response complete. 20· · · · · · I think at this point I'm going to go 21· ahead and turn over -- 22· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· Yeah. 23· · · · · · MR. HUFF:· -- the presentation to you. 24· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· That's for me. 25· · · · · · MR. HUFF:· Thank you. ·1· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· Actually, can you keep it ·2· running for a minute? ·3· · · · · · Normally, this would be the next step in ·4· the process, and we'll talk about this in a minute ·5· in the site history.· They did a remedial action and ·6· a cleanup back in 2002, I believe, in order to ·7· expand this beautiful center.· So that has been ·8· done. ·9· · · · · · And so now -- but to follow the steps in 10· the process, we conducted this remedial 11· investigation to compare the values now for lead 12· contamination that DTSC has set to the values that 13· are at the site to make sure that there is no risk 14· to human health and the environment.· And so we did 15· that, as Daniel said, in March of 2024.· The report 16· was finalized and now this is where we are in the -- 17· step -- another step in the CERCLA process. 18· · · · · · MR. HAIG:· Sorry. 19· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· Yes. 20· · · · · · MR. HAIG:· You said something was done in 21· March 2024. 22· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· '24.· Yes. 23· · · · · · MR. HAIG:· But -- 24· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· You want -- 25· · · · · · MR. HAIG:· -- you didn't review the ·1· samples again; did you? ·2· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· Yes.· We reviewed all the ·3· data that was collected. ·4· · · · · · And this is -- Chelsea, this is Brian ·5· asking the question.· Okay. ·6· · · · · · So yes, we did collect -- we didn't ·7· collect any new samples. ·8· · · · · · MR. HAIG:· Okay. ·9· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· We reviewed all the data 10· from the samples that were collected in the 1999 to 11· 2000 investigation. 12· · · · · · MR. HAIG:· Okay. 13· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· So I'll discuss that when we 14· get there. 15· · · · · · This is just a map showing you the 16· facility.· Here is this beautiful facility.· The red 17· boundary is the PVIC property boundary. 18· · · · · · Site history.· So from '42 to '74, the 19· site was used by the Army for a Known Distance Rifle 20· Range, and it consisted of paper targets mounted on 21· wooden frames that were raised above an earthen 22· backstop.· In '74, the site was deactivated and the 23· Army leased it to the county of Los Angeles. 24· · · · · · And then in '79, the county of Los Angeles 25· became the owner and they leased the site to the ·1· city of Rancho Palos Verdes.· And in '83, the city ·2· developed the site as Point Vicente Park and ·3· constructed this -- the Interpretive Center here, a ·4· smaller version.· And what they did in order to ·5· grade the site and complete the building is they ·6· took that soil from the backstop that had lead and ·7· bullets and graded it to provide the foundation for ·8· the facility. ·9· · · · · · In 1999, when they were expanding the 10· exhibit center, the county discovered lead- 11· contaminated soil, so they conducted an 12· environmental investigation and determined that the 13· source of lead in the soil was from the Known 14· Distance Rifle Range. 15· · · · · · So from 2000 to 2002, the Army Corp 16· conducted a field investigation.· So why did the 17· Army Corp conduct it when the County of Los Angeles 18· was the owner?· Well, one thing I realized as I was 19· reviewing these slides today, we didn't describe the 20· FUDS Program.· That's Formerly Used Defense Site 21· Program. 22· · · · · · And the FUDS Program is administered by 23· the Army Corps and that's for sites that were used 24· by the Department of Defense prior to 1986.· Right? 25· Prior to 1986.· So since this site was used by the ·1· Department of Defense, the Army, prior to 1986, then ·2· the responsibility for the investigation and cleanup ·3· then fell to the Army Corp. ·4· · · · · · So they conducted a soil -- a field ·5· investigation soil sampling and a subsequent soil ·6· removal action.· In 2006, the site was -- the PVIC ·7· was expanded and reopened to the public as this ·8· beautiful facility that we get to be here to ·9· experience. 10· · · · · · So it consists of a museum and exhibit 11· hall, landscaping, trails, parking lots, utilities, 12· public roads, and undeveloped park plan.· Site 13· workers maintain the facility and the grounds. 14· Adult and child recreational visitors use the 15· facility for all kinds of recreational activities. 16· And then ecological receptors, bugs and bunnies -- 17· · · · · · Yes, Mark? 18· · · · · · MR. MASTEN:· Are you sure that's a 19· California scrub jay? 20· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· Yes.· It's not a western 21· scrub jay.· It's a California scrub jay. 22· · · · · · MR. MASTEN:· I'll shut up. 23· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· So bugs and bunnies, as my 24· dad used to say, ecological receptors use habitat in 25· the park area, with more limited use in the ·1· developed areas. ·2· · · · · · So as we discussed -- as Daniel discussed, ·3· this is a proposed no further action decision.· This ·4· project, Formerly Used Defense Site Project, this is ·5· the project number, it's part of a property, a ·6· larger property called the Point Vicente MIL RES FC ·7· Sites.· That's the actual name of the property, ·8· which stands for Military Reservation Fire Control ·9· Sites.· And they are FUDS property.· This is -- this 10· particular project is the only active project in 11· those sites. 12· · · · · · In September 2002, the Army Corps 13· conducted the removal action.· The removal action 14· included some preliminary sampling to define the 15· extent of soil containing lead in concentrations 16· that exceeded 250 milligrams per kilogram.· That was 17· the cleanup level at the time.· Then they did 18· excavation and confirmation sampling and then they 19· conducted post-excavation confirmation sampling to 20· ensure that all of the contamination above 250 21· milligrams per kilogram had been removed. 22· · · · · · So continuing with 2002, the principal 23· area of excavation and sampling included two areas 24· of concern, A and B, a Storm Drain A and a Storm 25· Drain B, and we'll take a look at this on the next ·1· slide.· They removed approximately 1200 bank cubic ·2· yards of soil with lead concentrations below -- oh, ·3· I'm sorry -- approximately 1200 bank cubic yards of ·4· soil with lead concentrations below the action level ·5· of 250 milligrams per kilogram. ·6· · · · · · Those were reused from Area B to backfill ·7· the concentrations.· And then the remaining soil ·8· needed to establish the finish grade was brought in ·9· from offsite.· It was tested to ensure there were no 10· significant levels of contaminants, and they brought 11· in 4200 yards of soil imported to the site, and then 12· Area B was capped with a one-foot layer of imported 13· soil -- clay. 14· · · · · · Okay.· Can you enlarge that for me? 15· · · · · · THE REPORTER:· Yes. 16· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· That ought to do it. 17· · · · · · Can you guys see that?· Okay. 18· · · · · · So this dotted black line, these are the 19· storm drains.· The purple line is that soil cap that 20· they brought in to cap the site.· Area A of concern, 21· this is where the highest levels of contamination 22· were.· They excavated all of that soil, anything 23· above 250 milligrams per kilogram.· The Storm Drain 24· Area A excavation is this here in blue, and the 25· Storm Drain excavation is this here in the light ·1· blue.· That's Area B. ·2· · · · · · The FUDS property boundary comes here. ·3· It's off the page here.· That shows you there the ·4· southern southwestern most extent.· So after they ·5· did all this excavation, this is where they put -- ·6· this is all of Area B.· That's where they put the ·7· one-foot soil cap. ·8· · · · · · I'm going to stop here now and ask -- ·9· · · · · · Brian, do you have any questions? 10· · · · · · MR. HAIG:· So was sampling done throughout 11· the site? 12· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· Yes. 13· · · · · · MR. HAIG:· But the area of concern, were 14· those only two areas? 15· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· These areas here were above 16· the action level of 250.· So were these blue areas 17· above the action level.· So all of that soil was 18· excavated.· Then they collected soil samples from 19· the bottom and the sidewalls to ensure that 20· everything had been removed, all contamination above 21· that action level had been removed.· Then they used 22· -- 23· · · · · · If you want to go back. 24· · · · · · THE REPORTER:· Back a slide? 25· · · · · · From -- they did -- they sampled all ·1· throughout here, this being Area B.· They sampled ·2· all throughout there to determine what the ·3· concentrations were, and they used that clean soil, ·4· anything below 250 milligrams per kilogram, to ·5· backfill these excavations.· Then they brought in ·6· 4200 cubic yards of soil for the cap to cap ·7· everything off. ·8· · · · · · MR. HAIG:· The 250, is that -- who decides ·9· that level? 10· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· That was a California 11· Department of Toxic Substances Control level, a 12· state level. 13· · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:· At the time. 14· · · · · · MR. HAIG:· That level -- is that the level 15· that it was -- 16· · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:· At that time. 17· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· At that time.· Back in -- 18· · · · · · MR. HAIG:· What is it now? 19· · · · · · MS. MANANIAN:· The residential level is 20· 80. 21· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· Yeah.· This is -- was a -- 22· · · · · · MR. HAIG:· Commercial -- 23· · · · · · MS. MANANIAN:· Commercial zone. 24· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· Commercial -- 25· · · · · · MR. HAIG:· Sorry? ·1· · · · · · MS. MANANIAN:· Commercial levels are 500 ·2· milligrams per kilogram, but residential is 80. ·3· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· So at that time they were ·4· being very conservative since this is not ·5· residential property.· They were using a level ·6· that's below the commercial value. ·7· · · · · · MR. HAIG:· But it's changed since. ·8· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· It has changed since then. ·9· · · · · · MR. HAIG:· Okay. 10· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· So as part of the remedial 11· investigation, we look at the land use restrictions, 12· and we -- to help us -- well, we looked at land use 13· to help us determine how to do a risk assessment. 14· So in this case, the land is restricted.· It will 15· remain the same as recreational use based on a 16· covenant to restrict the use of property that was 17· developed between the city of Rancho Palos Verdes 18· and the Department of Toxic Substances. 19· · · · · · So it restricts the following activities: 20· future construction or demolition of existing 21· improvements that may disturb the cap or soils 22· underneath the cap, activities that may disturb 23· soils beneath the cap like excavation, trenching, et 24· cetera, without review and approval by DTSC.· So if 25· the city intends to dig a giant trench through the ·1· middle of earth, anything below one foot, they have ·2· to get -- for anything that disturbs the cap, they ·3· have to get DTSC approval. ·4· · · · · · Activities that alter the concrete and ·5· asphalt that naturally serve as caps, so anything ·6· that's here, part of the -- part of this beautiful ·7· facility, and that's other than any routine, ·8· noninvasive maintenance.· That also needs written ·9· approval by DTSC.· And any activities disturbing the 10· cap that may harm persons or property from exposure 11· to potentially contaminated soil.· So that was 12· developed in 2006, prior to this remedial 13· investigation was conducted. 14· · · · · · In 2024, we completed the remedial 15· investigation.· It was completed to characterize 16· current site conditions and determine the nature and 17· extent of lead contamination following the 2002 18· Removal Action.· So we looked at all of the data 19· that had been collected to date.· We did a human 20· health and baseline ecological risk assessment based 21· on the current and future land use using DTSC 22· screening levels for lead, which at this moment I am 23· blank.· What is the current level?· It's LeadSpread 24· 9.· It's a model. 25· · · · · · MS. MANANIAN:· The ecological -- ·1· · · · · · MR. MASTEN:· What's the question? ·2· · · · · · MS. MANANIAN:· What was the question? ·3· Yeah. ·4· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· Aren't you guys listening? ·5· · · · · · MS. MANANIAN:· I was, but -- ·6· · · · · · MR. MASTEN:· I'm telling you. ·7· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· Well, there isn't a specific ·8· level for -- cleanup level like 250.· It's based on ·9· the LeadSpread model. 10· · · · · · MR. MASTEN:· Which is based on a change in 11· blood lead level of -- 12· · · · · · MS. MANANIAN:· Yeah. 13· · · · · · MR. MASTEN:· -- one microgram per 14· deciliter. 15· · · · · · MS. MANANIAN:· Right. 16· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· Did you hear that, Brian? 17· · · · · · MR. HAIG:· Yeah.· What's it mean? 18· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· What's it mean, Mark? 19· · · · · · MR. MASTEN:· It means we don't want blood 20· lead level in a person to increase by one microgram 21· per deciliter, which is how measure lead in blood. 22· So it's basically -- it's not a level of one, but 23· the change -- making sure that we don't increase it 24· by one, if that makes sense. 25· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· That's a -- ·1· · · · · · MS. MANANIAN:· It ends up being like a ·2· risk evaluation based on the data that we have to ·3· make sure that the levels are such that don't ·4· contribute to additional lead exposure that would ·5· then make it, you know, so that your blood lead ·6· level would -- ·7· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· Increase by -- ·8· · · · · · MS. MANANIAN:· -- increase by -- ·9· · · · · · MR. MASTEN:· Yeah.· And that -- 10· · · · · · MS. MANANIAN:· -- that value. 11· · · · · · MR. MASTEN:· Yeah.· And the effect is a 12· decrease in IQ. 13· · · · · · MS. MANANIAN:· Yeah.· So it's -- it's -- 14· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· So an increase in your blood 15· lead level will result in a decrease in your IQ. 16· That may explain something.· Either that or age. 17· · · · · · MR. HAIG:· Better stop coming here. 18· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· Okay.· Go ahead, Aliah. 19· · · · · · So the results of that very extensive risk 20· assessment -- and that is not my area.· We have a 21· risk assessor for that, and she ran the data and 22· it's very, very complicated and extremely thorough. 23· · · · · · MR. MASTEN:· Smart person. 24· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· And no inaccessible -- 25· unacceptable risk to human receptors was determined ·1· from estimated exposure to lead.· It was not ·2· identified.· Same thing with the baseline ecological ·3· risk assessment.· So there was no unacceptable risk ·4· to ecological receptors identified from exposure to ·5· lead in the soil.· And they looked at things, ·6· earthworms, birds who eat earthworms.· Very ·7· detailed. ·8· · · · · · So based on the conclusions of that ·9· investigation, it was determined that surface and 10· subsurface soil at the site do not present a 11· potential threat to public health, welfare, and/or 12· the environment under the current and reasonably 13· anticipated future land use, which again is 14· restricted to recreation under that 2006 Land Use 15· Covenant. 16· · · · · · And therefore, as part of the CERCLA 17· process for Formerly Used Defense Sites, the Army 18· Corps is proposing a no further action decision.· So 19· because additional response actions are not 20· necessary at the site and lead concentrations in the 21· soil are within acceptable risk levels, the 22· alternative outline in the proposed plan is no 23· further action. 24· · · · · · It's the Army Corp's determination that no 25· further action is necessary to protect public health ·1· or welfare or the environment from actual or ·2· threatened releases of hazardous substances into the ·3· environment.· So we don't just make this in a ·4· vacuum.· The support agency, which is the California ·5· Department of Toxics, and community acceptance, are ·6· factored into that final determination of no further ·7· -- the no further action decision. ·8· · · · · · And so this proposed plan, which we have a ·9· copy in the back and it's also available on the 10· City's website, it serves as the invitation for 11· community input.· So if you need additional 12· information on the no further action decision for 13· the site, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes does have 14· a copy of the proposed plan, an electronic copy.· It 15· also can be found at the Army Corp's website. 16· · · · · · And we encourage and request formal 17· comments on the plan which can be submitted during 18· this public comment period which started 31 August 19· and ends on 02 October.· If we receive comments 20· outside of the public comment period, they're 21· considered informal and may not receive a response. 22· · · · · · All formal comments will be considered 23· before the final decision is made and all comments 24· and responses are documented in the responsiveness 25· summary which is part of the formal administrative ·1· record for the site and will be published in the ·2· record of decision, which is the final step in the ·3· CERCLA process for this site if, indeed, we go no ·4· further action, and that is the final official ·5· document that says this is what we have decided ·6· under CERCLA, no further action. ·7· · · · · · Copies of the responsiveness summary will ·8· be mailed to anyone who submits a formal comment. ·9· We have public comment forms in the back of the 10· room, and you can submit them during the public 11· comment period.· This is what they look like.· If 12· you know anybody at the City that would like to 13· provide comments, we would love to get them. 14· · · · · · MR. HAIG:· Are you expecting the City to 15· comment? 16· I mean -- 17· · · · · · MR. HUFF:· We have no specific expectation 18· for comment from any organization or individual.· As 19· we've said, we encourage input if there are any 20· questions or concerns, because that's part of this 21· process, and take that into consideration. 22· · · · · · MR. HAIG:· But that would be the only -- 23· they would only provide copies.· They don't have to 24· sign off on anything. 25· · · · · · MR. HUFF:· Right. ·1· · · · · · MR. HAIG:· Okay. ·2· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· That's correct. ·3· · · · · · And then the final slide to invite you to ·4· contact Daniel, the Project Manager for this, with ·5· any questions or comments, and his name is in the ·6· proposed plan.· It's also -- his contact information ·7· is also on the comment form.· So I open it up to any ·8· questions or comments. ·9· · · · · · MR. HAIG:· Do you know if the backstop 10· soil -- is that -- was all of it used to grade the 11· site? 12· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· That's my understanding. I 13· don't know that for a fact.· But yes, my 14· understanding was it was all used to grade the site. 15· · · · · · And Aliah, if you could go back to that 16· map. 17· · · · · · MS. GUERRERO:· Yes. 18· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· I may actually send you all 19· the way back to the first map. 20· · · · · · MS. GUERRERO:· The first one. 21· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· Okay.· All of this area here 22· was also sampled.· That's considered background so 23· they used that to compare.· They did a very thorough 24· sampling.· It was a very robust sampling program. 25· · · · · · MR. HUFF:· I would like to mention that if ·1· you really want to get into more details of this, ·2· the website that's on the later slide, is that also ·3· on the public comment form, Patti?· I don't recall. ·4· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· I'm pretty sure it is. ·5· · · · · · MR. DUFF:· Okay.· There are other ·6· documents on there.· We are at the proposed plan, ·7· but you can also download a copy of the remedial ·8· investigation, and it includes a wealth of ·9· information beyond the level of detail included in 10· the proposed plan. 11· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· It is not on the public 12· comment form.· If you go -- 13· · · · · · MR. HAIG:· No.· It's there. 14· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· Oh.· There it is.· There it 15· is.· I was looking for blue type.· Yep.· There it 16· is. 17· · · · · · MR. HAIG:· What do you -- do you have an 18· estimate of when the record of decision might be 19· made after -- 20· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· It has to go through a 21· lengthy review process and then is signed by the 22· colonel. 23· · · · · · MR. HUFF:· It would be well into next 24· year. 25· · · · · · MR. HAIG:· Okay. ·1· · · · · · MR. HUFF:· It's too early to predict a ·2· precise date, but it will take months. ·3· · · · · · MR. HAIG:· Okay.· Thank you for your time. ·4· I don't have any more questions. ·5· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· Well, thank you. ·6· · · · · · MR. HAIG:· Okay. ·7· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· Thank you for coming, Brian. ·8· · · · · · MR. HUFF:· Yes.· We appreciate you -- ·9· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· Thank you very much. 10· · · · · · MR. HUFF:· -- coming out. 11· · · · · · MR. HAIG:· Yeah. 12· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· We appreciate it. 13· · · · · · MR. HAIG:· Audience of one. 14· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· Do you want to take some 15· time to look at the posters or -- 16· · · · · · MR. HAIG:· No.· It was very informative. 17· Thank you.· Appreciate all the efforts, efforts to 18· clean up the place. 19· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· We appreciate you coming. 20· · · · · · MR. HAIG:· Okay.· Thank you, everybody. 21· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· You're welcome.· Thank you. 22· · · · · · MR. HUFF:· Thank you.· Have a good 23· evening. 24· · · · · · MS. DE LA O:· Enjoy the debate. 25· · · · · · (WHEREUPON, the Public Meeting concluded.) ·1· · · · · · · · · · · ·CERTIFICATE ·2 ·3· · · ·I, Chelsea Wilhelm, do hereby certify that I ·4· reported all proceedings adduced in the foregoing ·5· matter and that the foregoing transcript pages ·6· constitutes a full, true and accurate record of said ·7· proceedings to the best of my ability. ·8 ·9· · · ·I further certify that I am neither related to 10· counsel or any party to the proceedings nor have any 11· interest in the outcome of the proceedings. 12 13· · · ·IN WITNESS HEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 14· this 24th day of September, 2024. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23· · · · · · · · · · · Chelsea Wilhelm 24 25 a"µ .....••... ·· -.• -I_ .