A description of the Site is provided in Section 2.2, Site Description. Photographs taken during the site reconnaissance are presented in Appendix B.
SITE RECONNAISSANCE METHODOLOGY
Farallon completed a walk around the entire perimeter of the Site and viewed interior operations.
There were no deviations from ASTM E1527-13 or -21 during the Phase I ESA, with the exception of additional environmental services requested by Prologis.
Limiting conditions encountered during this Phase I ESA were the presence of active and decommissioned equipment and vehicles on exterior portions of the Site that prevented Farallon from observing the entire ground surface of the Site, and the presence of equipment in the Site buildings that prevented Farallon from observing entire interior floor surfaces. Based on information obtained from the Site representative, historical records, previous reports, and data obtained during the subsurface investigation conducted in March 2022, these limiting conditions are not expected to alter the conclusions of this report.
SITE RECONNAISSANCE OBSERVATIONS
Weather conditions at the time of the reconnaissance were overcast, with a temperature of approximately 70 degrees Fahrenheit. No weather-related Site-access restrictions were encountered during the reconnaissance. Operations at the Site at the time of the reconnaissance were observed to be consistent with operations as described in Section 2.3, Site Operations.
Interior Observations
Farallon’s observations of the interior of the Site buildings during the site reconnaissance are documented in the table below. Comments pertaining to notable interior observations follow in Section 8.2.2. Photographs taken during the site reconnaissance are provided in Appendix B.
INTERIOR OBSERVATIONS YES NO
Odor X
Heating/Cooling System X
Drain(s) and/or Sump(s) X
Staining and/or Corrosion X
Storage Tank(s), Vent Pipe(s), Fuel Port(s), and/or Fill Pipe(s) X 1882
8-2 P:\1071 Prologis\1071080 2021 SoCal Due Diligence II\002 5355 E Airport Dr\Deliverables\2022 Ph I & II ESA\2022.03.31_5355 E. Airport Dr_Phase I and II ESA_Farallon.docx Your Challenges. Our Priority. | farallonconsulting.com
INTERIOR OBSERVATIONS YES NO
Clarifier(s) X
Discharge Area X
Drum(s) and/or Other Container(s) X
Pool(s) of Liquid X
Automobile Lift(s) X
Monitoring Well(s) X
Hazardous Material(s) and/or Petroleum Product(s) X
Hazardous Waste X
Other X
Interior Observation Comments
Heating/Cooling System
The Site buildings are primarily unconditioned. Electrical window air-conditioning units were observed in select office/administrative areas.
A natural-gas-powered boiler unit is present within the grain mill, and provides steam for the steam jackets. The grain mill is also equipped with a fan-cooled cooling area. No other heating systems were observed in the buildings.
Hazardous Material(s) and/or Petroleum Product(s)
Hazardous substances stored within the Building A warehouse on the Eastern Parcel included small quantities of oils and automotive fluids. The materials were observed to be stored on pallets, with no staining or other evidence of a significant release.
Hazardous substances stored within Building B on the Eastern Parcel included two 55-gallon used oil drums; two 25-gallon grease carts; and a parts washer attached to a 55-gallon drum of Shellsol D43, a petroleum hydrocarbon-based mineral spirit. The materials were observed to be stored on pallets, with no staining or other evidence of a significant release.
Hazardous substances within a fire cabinet in the Western Parcel office trailer included two 5- gallon gasoline canisters. Additional materials stored outside of the fire cabinet included ten 5- gallon pails containing truck lubricants, gear oil, and hydraulic oil; one 25-gallon grease cart; and one 5-gallon pail containing grease. The materials were observed to be stored on pallets, with no staining or other evidence of a significant release.
1883
8-3 P:\1071 Prologis\1071080 2021 SoCal Due Diligence II\002 5355 E Airport Dr\Deliverables\2022 Ph I & II ESA\2022.03.31_5355 E. Airport Dr_Phase I and II ESA_Farallon.docx Your Challenges. Our Priority. | farallonconsulting.com Hazardous Waste
Hazardous wastes stored within the Building A warehouse on the Eastern Parcel included four 55- gallon drums of waste oil, five 25-gallon drums of waste oil, and approximately 20 five-gallon waste oil pails. The materials were observed to be stored on pallets, with no staining or other evidence of a significant release.
Other
The maintenance area inside the truck repair shop (Building B) included a subsurface service pit for vehicle repairs; this pit was not observed during the Site visit due to the presence of stored equipment, but reported by the Site contact to be 4 feet wide by 25 to 30 feet long and between 4 and 5 feet deep.
Exterior Observations
Farallon’s observations of the exterior of the Site during the site reconnaissance are documented in the table below. Comments pertaining to notable exterior observations follow in Section 8.2.4.
Photographs taken during the site reconnaissance are provided in Appendix B.
EXTERIOR OBSERVATIONS YES NO
Odor X
Staining and/or Corrosion X
Storage Tank(s), Vent Pipe(s), and/or Fuel Port(s) X
Drum(s) and/or Other Container(s) X
Pool(s) of Liquid X
Hazardous Material(s) and/or Petroleum Product(s) X
Hazardous Waste X
Pit(s), Pond(s), and/or Lagoon(s) X
Stressed Vegetation X
Solid (Nonhazardous) Waste—Evidence of Dumping X
Wastewater X
Domestic Water X
Water Well(s) X
Septic/Sewer System X
Stormwater X
Transformer(s) X
1884
8-4 P:\1071 Prologis\1071080 2021 SoCal Due Diligence II\002 5355 E Airport Dr\Deliverables\2022 Ph I & II ESA\2022.03.31_5355 E. Airport Dr_Phase I and II ESA_Farallon.docx Your Challenges. Our Priority. | farallonconsulting.com
EXTERIOR OBSERVATIONS YES NO
Significant Amount of Fill Material X
Other X
Exterior Observation Comments
Staining and/or Corrosion
Farallon observed incidental petroleum staining on several areas of the Site, generally near petroleum product storage areas. No drains, sumps, clarifiers, or other potential subsurface conduits were observed in these areas. The staining is considered de minimis and does not constitute a recognized environmental condition.
Storage Tank(s), Vent Pipe(s), and/or Fuel Port(s)
Four ASTs were present on the Site:
• Two 250-gallon, reportedly double-walled diesel ASTs within secondary containment.
These ASTs are located on the northeastern exterior border of Building A and are used for fueling tractors and forklift equipment. One of the ASTs is used by Verhoeven, and the other by Scoular.
• One 220-gallon, reportedly double-walled hydraulic oil AST located on the northeastern exterior border of Building A. This AST is used to provide new hydraulic oil for equipment operation and maintenance.
• One 499-gallon, single-walled propane AST located east of Building C.
The ASTs were observed to be in good condition with de minimis staining to nearby concrete pads, and no evidence of a significant release.
Domestic Water
Domestic water is supplied to the Site buildings by the City of Ontario.
Septic/Sewer System
Sanitary sewage generated at the Site discharges to three or four on-Site septic systems, two or three of which are located on the Eastern Parcel and one of which is located on the Western Parcel.
The estimated locations of the septic tanks and leach fields on the Eastern Parcel are identified on Figure 2. Property personnel on the Western Parcel were unaware of the location of the septic systems.
Because on-Site septic systems appear to be used for domestic sewer, with limited hazardous material use in the proximity that could be introduced to the septic systems as a release pathway, the presence of the septic systems at Building E, Building A, and on the Western Parcel is considered a de minimis condition for the Site. Because the septic system east of Building B is 1885
8-5 P:\1071 Prologis\1071080 2021 SoCal Due Diligence II\002 5355 E Airport Dr\Deliverables\2022 Ph I & II ESA\2022.03.31_5355 E. Airport Dr_Phase I and II ESA_Farallon.docx Your Challenges. Our Priority. | farallonconsulting.com connected to a building that has been subject to the use and release of chlorinated solvents, this septic system is considered a recognized environmental condition in connection with the Site.
Stormwater
Stormwater is removed from the Site via direct permeation through gravel-paved surfaces, and via concrete swale and paved surfaces to Airport Boulevard.
Transformer(s)
Three pad-mounted transformers were observed on the Site on the Western Parcel. No staining or leakage was observed in the vicinity of the transformers. Based on the good condition of the equipment, the transformers are not expected to represent a significant environmental concern.
An underground grain conveyance system is located within the grain mill area. Details of the underground system, including how grain is moved or whether hydraulic systems are present, was not provided to Farallon.
The presence of transformers, with no evidence or report of leaking, and underground grain conveyance systems are considered de minimis conditions for the Site. In the event that the conveyance systems are hydraulic and determined to have leaked, this conclusion should be reevaluated.
Other
The Eastern Parcel is equipped with a vehicle wash-down area with sump north of Building B, which is asphalt-paved and bermed, and was previously used for truck washing. Property personnel report that truck exteriors were washed in this area on an infrequent basis, and no undercarriage/chassis or engine washing was conducted on the Site. The wash area is equipped with a lined sump connected to an approximately 10,000-gallon AST via underground piping. The AST was empty at the time of the Site visit. Personnel report that the water tank has not been used in at least 11 years. Given the nature of use and that wash water was routed to an AST with no discharge, the vehicle wash-down area is considered a de minimis condition for the Site.
Rail spurs are present along the northern property boundary. Based on available mapping, it cannot be confirmed whether the rail spurs are located on the Site or to the north, which is a data gap for this report. Because of the nature of the conveyance of the rail spurs (for moving grain), the presence of rail spurs within or along the northern property boundary is considered a de minimis condition for the Site. If the spurs are determined to be on the Site, this conclusion should be reevaluated, as creosote and oils in rail spurs can lead to surficial releases to soil. 1886
9-1 P:\1071 Prologis\1071080 2021 SoCal Due Diligence II\002 5355 E Airport Dr\Deliverables\2022 Ph I & II ESA\2022.03.31_5355 E. Airport Dr_Phase I and II ESA_Farallon.docx Your Challenges. Our Priority. | farallonconsulting.com
9.0 ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
At the request of Prologis, Farallon conducted environmental services in addition to those specified in ASTM E1527-13 and -21. These services are considered non-scope items, and are not required to satisfy ASTM E1527-13 and -21.
WETLANDS
Wetlands are defined jointly by EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater for a duration and frequency sufficient to support and under normal circumstances do support a prevalence of vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.” According to the EDR Report, wetlands are not present on the Site.
ASBESTOS
In June 1978, EPA initiated a ban on the use of asbestos-containing material in spray application products such as structural fireproofing and acoustic ceilings, pipe lagging, joint compounds, and spackles. Based on the construction date of the Site buildings of approximately 1973, asbestoscontaining materials may be present at the Site.
LEAD-BASED PAINT
In 1978, EPA initiated a ban on the manufacture and use of lead-based paints. Based on the construction date of the Site buildings of approximately 1973, lead-based paint may be present at the Site.
WATER SUPPLY/LEAD IN DRINKING WATER
Based on the Site buildings’ construction date of approximately 1973, it is possible that lead solder was used during construction of plumbing fixtures.
RADON
Radon is a colorless, tasteless, radioactive gas with an EPA-specified action level of 4.0 picocuries per liter of air. Radon gas has a short half-life of 3.8 days. The health risk potential of radon is associated with its rate of accumulation within confined areas, particularly those near or in the ground such as basements, where vapors can readily transfer from the ground to indoor air through foundation cracks or other pathways.
According to the EDR Report, the Site is in EPA Radon Zone 2, with predicted average indoor screening levels of between 2.0 and 4.0 picocuries per liter. The EPA zone designation reflects the average short-term radon measurement that can be expected to be measured in a building without implementation of radon-control methods. Based on the EPA designation, radon is unlikely to pose an environmental concern to Site occupants.
1887
9-2 P:\1071 Prologis\1071080 2021 SoCal Due Diligence II\002 5355 E Airport Dr\Deliverables\2022 Ph I & II ESA\2022.03.31_5355 E. Airport Dr_Phase I and II ESA_Farallon.docx Your Challenges. Our Priority. | farallonconsulting.com
WATER INTRUSION
Farallon inspected visually accessible building materials for evidence of water damage during the site reconnaissance. No visible evidence of water-damaged building materials was observed.
Farallon did not detect high-humidity areas in the buildings that would suggest moisture concerns. 1888
10-1 P:\1071 Prologis\1071080 2021 SoCal Due Diligence II\002 5355 E Airport Dr\Deliverables\2022 Ph I & II ESA\2022.03.31_5355 E. Airport Dr_Phase I and II ESA_Farallon.docx Your Challenges. Our Priority. | farallonconsulting.com
10.0 PHASE II ESA
In March 2022, Farallon conducted soil and soil vapor sampling at the Site to assess former UST areas and septic systems, and the new building footprint for the potential for vapor intrusion issues.
The scope of work for the Phase II ESA portion of this assessment included the advancement of 12 borings and installation of 10 temporary soil vapor probe locations with single- or multi-depth nested vapor points for the collection of soil and soil vapor samples.
The general scope of work was proposed and authorized in the letter regarding Proposal for Subsurface Investigation, 5355 East Airport Drive, Ontario, California dated February 14, 2022, from Kathy Lehnus and Scott Allin of Farallon to Julia Smith of Prologis.
Sample locations are provided on Figures 2 and 3, with limited analytical data presented on Figure
3. Sampling rationale and analytical data from the sampling are included in Tables 1 through 5.
PERMITTING
No permitting was required for this work.
HEALTH AND SAFETY
Prior to conducting field investigation activities, a health and safety plan compliant with the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 and 8 CCR 3203 was prepared.
Additionally, in accordance with Farallon health and safety policy, personal protection equipment precautions related to COVID-19 were implemented for field personnel during field activities.
Prior to commencement of drilling activities, Farallon marked the proposed boring locations at the Site and contacted Dig Alert for public utility notice. Farallon also engaged a private utility location service to screen the proposed boring locations for utilities that may be encountered during advancement with hand tools and direct-push drilling.
GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY
Farallon oversaw the completion of a geophysical survey at several areas at the Site to attempt to locate former UST areas and reported septic tank areas. No underground structures were found in the survey areas, with the exception of two connected septic tanks northeast of Building B: one north of the building and one east of the building. A vapor point was advanced at the northern septic tank (SVP-10). The septic system east of the building was not accessible (in fenced area). It could not be determined whether the two septic tanks were connected.
BORING LOCATIONS AND SAMPLING RATIONALE
Borings SB-1 and SVP-1 were advanced in the vicinity of the two former 12,000-gallon petroleum USTs on the northern portion of the Site to confirm conditions at the former USTs and assess soil vapor beneath the proposed building footprint. Borings SVP-2, SVP-3, and SVP-4 were advanced 1889
10-2 P:\1071 Prologis\1071080 2021 SoCal Due Diligence II\002 5355 E Airport Dr\Deliverables\2022 Ph I & II ESA\2022.03.31_5355 E. Airport Dr_Phase I and II ESA_Farallon.docx Your Challenges. Our Priority. | farallonconsulting.com on the central portion of the Site to assess soil vapor beneath the proposed building footprint.
Borings SB-2 and SVP-5 were advanced in the vicinity of the former 12,000-gallon petroleum USTs on the central-eastern portion of the Site to confirm conditions at the former UST and assess soil vapor beneath the proposed building footprint. Boring SVP-6 was advanced at the vehicle wash-down area with sump to assess this area and the soil vapor beneath the proposed building footprint. Borings SVP-7, SVP-8, and SVP-9 were advanced west of Building B, and sub-slab points SS-1 and SS-2 were advanced beneath Building B to assess former PCE impacts encountered in soil vapor in these areas. Boring SVP-10 was advanced to the northwest of Building B to assess the likely location of the septic system associated with the building. Boring locations and rationale are presented in Table 1.
BORING ADVANCEMENT AND SOIL SAMPLING
For health and safety reasons, the borings were advanced using a hand auger to a depth of 5 feet bgs and subsequently completed to target (or attainable) depths with a direct-push drill rig.
Concrete and asphalt coverings were cored prior to advancing the borings. Soil encountered during the investigation was described as silty fine to medium sand to a total explored depth of 10 feet bgs, with an apparent coarse sand and gravel layer at 10 feet bgs (and as shallow as 5 feet bgs on the eastern portion of the Site at boring SB-2). Groundwater was not encountered during drilling.
The soils were visually inspected and screened by a Farallon Scientist using a photoionization detector and were described and logged using the United Soil Classification System (Modified).
No elevated photoionization detector readings or visual or olfactory evidence of a release were documented during the sampling activities.
Select soil samples were submitted under standard chain-of-custody protocols to Jones Environmental, Inc. of Santa Fe Springs, California for analysis of VOCs by EPA Method 8260 and TPH as gasoline (TPH-g) by EPA Method 8015M using EPA Method 5035 for preservation.
In addition, select soil samples were analyzed for the presence of TPH as diesel (TPH-d) and TPH as oil (TPH-o) by EPA Method 8015M, and for California Administration Manual metals by EPA Method 6010B. The full soil sampling schedule is provided in Table 1.
SOIL VAPOR PROBE CONSTRUCTION AND SAMPLING
A total of 14 soil temporary soil vapor probes were installed in 10 soil vapor borings at locations SVP-1 through SVP-10. In general, soil vapor probes were installed at a depth of 4 feet bgs throughout the proposed building footprint, with some deeper probes installed at depths of 8 and 10 feet bgs to assess targeted deeper potential source areas. Soil vapor probe final installation depths are provided in Table 1.
On March 11, 2022, soil gas probe installation was performed in accordance with the Advisory:
Active Soil Gas Investigations dated July 2015, prepared by the California Environmental Protection Agency (Soil Gas Advisory). The probes consisted of an Airstone microporous vapor implant (or equivalent) connected to 0.25-inch-outside-diameter Nylaflow tubing, finished at the surface with temporary plugs. The annulus around the vapor implant was backfilled with 1890
10-3 P:\1071 Prologis\1071080 2021 SoCal Due Diligence II\002 5355 E Airport Dr\Deliverables\2022 Ph I & II ESA\2022.03.31_5355 E. Airport Dr_Phase I and II ESA_Farallon.docx Your Challenges. Our Priority. | farallonconsulting.com approximately 0.5 foot of screen-washed No. 3 sand, followed by 6 inches of hydrated granular bentonite to create a seal from the top of the sand to near surface.
The soil gas probes were allowed to equilibrate for 1 week prior to sample collection. Farallon contracted with Jones Environmental Inc. of Santa Fe Springs, California to perform soil gas sampling and analyze samples with its on-Site mobile laboratory. Prior to sample collection, a shut-in test was conducted in accordance with Section 4.2.1 of the Soil Gas Advisory; purging was conducted in accordance with Section 4.2.3 of the Soil Gas Advisory.
The soil vapor samples were collected into glass syringes at a rate of no more than 200 milliliters per minute. A mixture of n-pentane, n-hexane, and n-heptane was used as tracer compounds, which was applied to rags and set at each sample fitting during sample collection; the tracer compounds were not detected in the sub-slab soil vapor samples.
SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLING RESULTS
Soil analytical results are summarized below with a comparison with the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Maximum Soil Screening Levels for properties with groundwater at a depth greater than 150 feet bgs (for TPH in soil), and with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) CA-Modified Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) and EPA RSLs (in the event that DTSC CA-Modified RSLs are not available) for industrial soil (for metals in soil).
Soil sampling results are summarized as follows:
• No TPH or VOCs were detected exceeding laboratory detection limits in the soil samples collected from the Site.
• Low concentrations of naturally occurring metals including barium, cadmium, cobalt, chromium, copper, nickel, lead, vanadium, and zinc were detected in two soil samples submitted for analysis (location SVP-6 from depths of 4 and 8 feet bgs). These concentrations were considerably less than screening levels.
Soil analytical results are tabulated in Tables 2 through 4. Soil analytical reports are attached in Appendix G.
SUMMARY OF SOIL VAPOR SAMPLING RESULTS
Soil vapor analytical results from the Phase II ESA are summarized below. These results were compared with DTSC calculated SGSLs using CA-Modified RSLs or EPA RSLs for indoor air with an attenuation factor of 0.03 or 0.001 for commercial/industrial settings, with an attenuation factor of 0.05 used for sub-slab soil vapor samples.
• PCE was detected in several of the soil vapor samples collected from the Site, as indicated below:
o PCE was detected in sub-slab soil vapor at concentrations of 220 and 170 μg/m3 ,
exceeding calculated screening levels.
1891
10-4 P:\1071 Prologis\1071080 2021 SoCal Due Diligence II\002 5355 E Airport Dr\Deliverables\2022 Ph I & II ESA\2022.03.31_5355 E. Airport Dr_Phase I and II ESA_Farallon.docx Your Challenges. Our Priority. | farallonconsulting.com o PCE was detected at concentrations ranging between 24 and 247 μg/m3 in soil gas samples collected from the soil vapor borings west and northwest of Building B (SVP-5, SVP-7, SVP-8, and SVP-9). The concentrations of PCE in soil vapor samples exceeded the calculated screening level using the 0.03 attenuation factor (but were less than the less conservative attenuation factor) in three of the four samples at the targeted 4-foot investigation zone.
o PCE was detected in shallow soil vapor in central and eastern portions of the planned building slab area at concentrations less than calculated screening levels. o The soil vapor sample collected from a depth of 10 feet bgs at SVP-1 at the two former 12,000-gallon diesel USTs at the grain mill area contained PCE at a concentration of 157 μg/m3, exceeding the calculated screening level using the 0.03 attenuation factor (but less than the less conservative attenuation factor). Shallow soil vapor from this area contained PCE at considerably less concentrations than the calculated screening level using the 0.03 attenuation factor. • A trace concentration of dichlorodifluromethane was detected exceeding laboratory reporting limits in soil vapor sample SVP-10-8; however, this concentration (60 µg/m3) did not exceed the Industrial SGSL and was not found in other samples. • Low concentrations of toluene were detected at concentrations exceeding laboratory reporting limits in the soil vapor samples collected at the Site; however, none of these concentrations exceeded the Industrial SGSL for toluene (as high as 1,300,000 µg/m3). The maximum toluene concentration was reported as 106 µg/m3. • No other VOCs were detected at concentrations exceeding laboratory reporting limits.
The results for the soil gas samples are considered valid because the tracer compounds were not detected in the samples.
Based on the sampling results, PCE has been documented in soil vapor in the vicinity of Building B at concentrations exceeding screening levels, and PCE is also present in central and eastern portions of the Site in shallow zones at concentrations less than calculated screening levels.
Soil vapor analytical results are summarized in Table 5. Soil vapor analytical reports are attached in Appendix G.
WASTE HANDLING DISPOSAL
Soil cuttings and decontamination water were accumulated into one 55-gallon drum. The drum was sampled and is currently being profiled for disposal. Waste disposal information can be forwarded when available.
1892
11-1 P:\1071 Prologis\1071080 2021 SoCal Due Diligence II\002 5355 E Airport Dr\Deliverables\2022 Ph I & II ESA\2022.03.31_5355 E. Airport Dr_Phase I and II ESA_Farallon.docx Your Challenges. Our Priority. | farallonconsulting.com
11.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Farallon conducted a Phase I/II ESA for 5355 East Airport Drive in Ontario, California in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM E1527-13 and -21. Any exceptions to or deletions from this practice are described in Section 1.5, Deviations.
The Phase I ESA indicated that the Site consists of two parcels totaling 14.2 acres: Assessor Parcel No. 0238-052-20 (Eastern Parcel), and Assessor Parcel No. 0238-052-29 (Western Parcel). The Site is occupied by George Verhoeven Grain Inc. (dba Verhoeven Grain Inc.) and The Scoular Company, grain processing companies. Operations consist of the processing of raw grain, which is received by truck or by rail from the rail line north of the Site. The exact location of the rail line and associated spurs with respect to the northern Site boundary could not be confirmed in available files. Former petroleum USTs in two areas, former and active septic systems, and a vehicle maintenance garage (Building B) were found in association with the Site during the Phase I ESA portion of this assessment.
According to the Partner 2016 Phase II Report, 26 borings were advanced at depths between 1 and 25 feet bgs for the collection of soil and/or soil gas samples. Analytical results of soil gas samples indicated detections of VOCs including tetrachloroethene, trichloroethene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes. The concentrations of these detectable results were less than the residential and commercial/industrial calculated SGSLs at the time of the report beneath and west of Building B.
However, the concentrations of PCE detected in five of the six soil gas samples contained PCE exceeding current commercial/industrial calculated SGSLs; these samples were collected from beneath and west of building B. Additionally, in comparison with the “low level” ethylbenzene SGSL, the ethylbenzene concentration in one soil vapor sample from this area exceeded the calculated soil gas commercial/industrial screening level of 163 µg/m3.
In March 2022, Farallon conducted soil and soil vapor sampling at the Site to assess former UST areas and septic systems, and the new building footprint for the potential for vapor intrusion issues.
No underground structures were found in the survey, with the exception of the two septic tanks northeast of Building B. The scope of work for the Phase II ESA portion of this assessment included the advancement of 12 soil borings and installation of 10 temporary soil vapor probe locations with single- or multi-depth nested vapor points and two sub-slab soil vapor sampling points for the collection of soil and/or soil vapor samples. The Phase II ESA portion of this assessment was conducted on March 4 and 11, 2022.
No TPH or VOCs were detected exceeding laboratory detection limits in the soil samples collected from the Site. Low concentrations of naturally occurring metals including barium, cadmium, cobalt, chromium, copper, nickel, lead, vanadium, and zinc were detected in two soil samples submitted for analysis; these concentrations were considerably less than screening levels.
Based on sub-slab soil vapor data, soil vapor beneath the slab at Building B contains PCE exceeding calculated screening levels. PCE is present west of Building B at concentrations exceeding current calculated industrial screening levels using the 0.03 attenuation factor, but less than screening levels using the less conservative attenuation factors. PCE was also detected in 1893
11-2 P:\1071 Prologis\1071080 2021 SoCal Due Diligence II\002 5355 E Airport Dr\Deliverables\2022 Ph I & II ESA\2022.03.31_5355 E. Airport Dr_Phase I and II ESA_Farallon.docx Your Challenges. Our Priority. | farallonconsulting.com shallow soil vapor in the central and eastern portions of the Site at concentrations less than calculated screening levels in the shallow zones assessed. One concentration of PCE was detected exceeding calculated screening levels in the deeper sample collected from the vicinity of the two former 12,000-gallon USTs north of the grail mill area; the shallow soil vapor collected from this boring did not contain PCE exceeding calculated screening levels. The extent of PCE in soil vapor was not fully characterized.
Based on review of the Site history, including subsurface investigation reports, interviews with persons knowledgeable about the Site, reconnaissance of the Site, review of regulatory agency lists, and the completion of subsurface investigation at the Site, this Phase I/II ESA identified the following recognized environmental condition in connection with the Site:
• PCE impacts potentially associated with the use and storage of hazardous materials at Building B could contribute to vapor intrusion conditions on the Site.
In addition, Farallon identified the following historical recognized environmental conditions in association with the Site:
• Previous environmental reports note that one or more USTs were historically located west of Building B. Farallon was not able to find information regarding the UST in regulatory files, but did find some information regarding three to four diesel and unleaded gasoline USTs ranging in capacity from 4,000 to 10,000 gallons at unspecified locations at the Site preceding the presence of the three known 12,000-gallon USTs (noted in the grain mill area and southeast of Building C). In 2016, Partner conducted a subsurface investigation in this area and did not identify evidence of a petroleum release. • In 2002, Tank Specialists of California removed a 12,000-gallon diesel steel UST and fuel dispenser mapped southeast of Building C. According to the letter regarding Soil Sampling Following the Removal of an Underground Storage Tank – Coast Grain Co., 5355 E.
Airport Drive, Ontario, California dated December 18, 2002, from Advanced GeoEnvironmental, Inc., three confirmatory soil samples were collected beneath the bottom of the UST after removal, and soil samples were collected from stockpiles. The soil samples were analyzed for TPH as diesel; benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes; and methyl tertiary-butyl ether. Minor petroleum impacts were noted in stockpiled soil (800 milligrams per kilogram of TPH as diesel), which was reportedly used as backfill for the excavation. No constituents of concern were detected in the confirmatory soil samples collected from beneath the UST. Advanced GeoEnvironmental, Inc. recommended that SBCFD Hazardous Materials Division issue closure of the UST; and the letter regarding Removal of One Underground Storage Tank at Coast Grain Inc., Located at 5355 E. Airport Drive, Ontario, California dated January 8, 2002, from SBCFD was issued indicating that further investigation was not warranted.
• Based on sampling conducted as part of this Phase I/II ESA, no release was found in connection with the two 12,000-gallon “fuel storage” USTs historically located at the grain mill, which were removed from the Site in 1998. A No Further Action determination issued by SBCFD indicated that residual impacts were present, although “below that which is 1894
11-3 P:\1071 Prologis\1071080 2021 SoCal Due Diligence II\002 5355 E Airport Dr\Deliverables\2022 Ph I & II ESA\2022.03.31_5355 E. Airport Dr_Phase I and II ESA_Farallon.docx Your Challenges. Our Priority. | farallonconsulting.com generally considered a problem.” PCE was detected in a shallow soil vapor sample collected from this area at a concentration less than calculated screening levels.
The vehicle wash-down area located north of Building B was used for washing trucks (including molasses transportation trucks) and is no longer used. According to Site personnel, only truck exteriors were washed (not engines). Given the nature of use and that wash water was routed to an AST, with no discharge, the vehicle wash-down area is considered a de minimis condition for the Site. No release was found in the vicinity of the septic tanks located east of Building B, which provides a disposal pathway for a building that is known to have used chlorinated solvents and vehicular fluids.
Because two or three potential on-Site septic systems on the Western Parcel, located north of Building A and southeast of Building E, appear to be used for domestic sewer, with limited hazardous material use in the proximity that could be introduced to the septic systems as a release pathway, the presence of those septic systems is considered a de minimis condition for the Site.
Additionally, the presence of petroleum ASTs with secondary containment and/or no evidence of leaking, rail spurs within or along the northern property boundary, transformers with no evidence of leaking, and underground grain conveyance systems are considered de minimis conditions for the Site. Further, based on the location and nature of use (boiler blow-down), the former brine pond located in the vicinity of the northern property line is also considered a de minimis condition for the Site.
At the request of Prologis, Farallon has included additional opinions and recommendations for the Site beyond those specified in ASTM E1527-13 and -21 for de minimis and recognized environmental conditions.
Based on the findings from this Phase I/II ESA, Farallon recommends preparation of a Media Management Plan for use during Site redevelopment to address any unexpected impacts to soil associated with historical activities at the Site, and to address any issues related to the former brine pond, underground grain conveyance systems, septic systems, and former USTs at the Site.
Additionally, because PCE has been documented in soil vapor in the vicinity of Building B at concentrations exceeding calculated screening levels, and PCE was detected at concentrations in shallow soil vapor less than the calculated RSLs in other soil gas samples collected at the Site, the potential for vapor intrusion issues into the planned new Site building should be addressed.
Additional investigation and characterization are recommended to delineate and design mitigation measures for PCE in soil vapor that may impact indoor air in the future building. 1895
12-1 P:\1071 Prologis\1071080 2021 SoCal Due Diligence II\002 5355 E Airport Dr\Deliverables\2022 Ph I & II ESA\2022.03.31_5355 E. Airport Dr_Phase I and II ESA_Farallon.docx Your Challenges. Our Priority. | farallonconsulting.com
12.0 REFERENCES
Advanced GeoEnvironmental, Inc. 2002. Letter Regarding Soil Sampling Following the Removal of an Underground Storage Tank – Coast Grain Co., 5355 E. Airport Drive, Ontario, California. From Robert D. Loeffler, Project Geologist. To Dave Hopper of Tank Specialists of California. December 18.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2020. Human Health Risk Assessment Note Number 3. April.
——— 2021. EnviroStor Database Search. <https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/>. (December).
California State Water Resources Control Board. 2022. GeoTracker Database Search. <http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov>. (January 26, 2022.) City of Ontario. 2021. Electronic Record Request. <https://www.ontario.ca/page/how-makefreedom-information-request>. (December 23, 2021.) Environmental Data Resources, Inc. 2021. Certified Sanborn Map Report. 5355 East Airport Drive, Ontario, California 91761. December 9.
———. 2021. The EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package. 5355 East Airport Drive, Ontario, California 91761. December 9.
———. 2021. EDR Historical Topo Map Report with QuadMatch. 5355 East Airport Drive, Ontario, California 91761. December 9.
———. 2021. The EDR Radius Map Report with GeoCheck. 5355 East Airport Drive, Ontario, California 91761. December 9.
———. 2021. EDR Summary Radius Map Report. 5355 East Airport Drive, Ontario, California 91761. December 9.
———. 2021. The EDR-City Directory Abstract. 5355 East Airport Drive, Ontario, California 91761. December 10.
Farallon Consulting, L.L.C. 2021. Letter Regarding Proposal for Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Media Management Plan. From Kathy Lehnus and Scott Allin. To Julia Smith of Prologis. December 10.
———. 2021. Phase I ESA User Questionnaire. Completed by Prologis. December 15. 1896
12-2 P:\1071 Prologis\1071080 2021 SoCal Due Diligence II\002 5355 E Airport Dr\Deliverables\2022 Ph I & II ESA\2022.03.31_5355 E. Airport Dr_Phase I and II ESA_Farallon.docx Your Challenges. Our Priority. | farallonconsulting.com ———. 2021. Interview Regarding Permits for Aboveground and Underground Storage Tanks, Notices of Violations, and Hazardous Spills Between a Representative of Farallon and a Representative of the San Bernardino County Fire Department. December 16. ———. 2021. Interview Regarding Permits for Aboveground and Underground Storage Tanks, Notices of Violations, and Hazardous Spills Between a Representative of Farallon and a Representative of the City of Ontario. December 23.
———. 2022. Interview Regarding the Site Between a Representative of Farallon and Randy Verhoeven and Steve Schennum, Representatives of the Site. January 13. ———. 2022. Letter Regarding Proposal for Subsurface Investigation, 5355 East Airport Drive, Ontario, California. From Kathy Lehnus and Scott Allin. To Julia Smith of Prologis.
February 14.
Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. 2016. Phase II Subsurface Investigation Report, 5355 East Airport Drive, Ontario, California 91761. Prepared for Prologis. August 16. ———. 2016. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, The Scoular Company, 5355 East Airport Drive, Ontario, California 91761. Prepared for Prologis. August 18.
Prologis, Inc. 2011. Master Services Agreement. Between Farallon and Prologis. August 4.
RGA Office of Architectural Design. 2021. Preliminary Site Plan – Scheme 01, 5355 E. Airport Drive, City of Ontario. November 16.
San Bernardino County Assessor’s Office. 2021. Search Property Information for Assessor Parcel Nos. 0238-052-20 and 0238-052-29.
<http://www.sbcounty.gov/assessor/pims/(S(srgaqmjgoouk5mz1th1dmdxg))/recaptcha.as px>. (December 9, 2021.)
San Bernardino County Fire Department. 1998. Letter Regarding Removal of Two Underground Storage Tanks at 5355 Airport, Ontario. From Susan Williams, Hazardous Materials Field Services. To Elmer J. Wood, Inc. September 4.
———. 2002. Letter Regarding Removal of One Underground Storage Tank at Coast Grain Inc., Located at 5355 E. Airport Drive, Ontario, California. From Catherine B. Richards, Environmental Health Specialist II. To Coast Grain Inc., Attention John Stellingworth.
January 8.
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. 1999. Letter Regarding Approval of Closure Report for the Brine Disposal Pond, Coast Grain Company, Ontario, California. From Ann E. Sturdivant, Associate Engineering Geologist. To Barry Koca of Coast Grain Company, Citrus Division. September 24.
1897
12-3 P:\1071 Prologis\1071080 2021 SoCal Due Diligence II\002 5355 E Airport Dr\Deliverables\2022 Ph I & II ESA\2022.03.31_5355 E. Airport Dr_Phase I and II ESA_Farallon.docx Your Challenges. Our Priority. | farallonconsulting.com South Coast Air Pollution Control District (SCAPCD) Facility Information Detail (FIND). 2022.
Online Records Search. <https://xappprod.aqmd.gov/find>. January 26. 1898
13-1 P:\1071 Prologis\1071080 2021 SoCal Due Diligence II\002 5355 E Airport Dr\Deliverables\2022 Ph I & II ESA\2022.03.31_5355 E. Airport Dr_Phase I and II ESA_Farallon.docx Your Challenges. Our Priority. | farallonconsulting.com
13.0 LIMITATIONS
GENERAL LIMITATIONS
The conclusions contained in this report/assessment are based on professional opinions with regard to the subject matter. These opinions have been arrived at in accordance with currently accepted hydrogeologic and engineering standards and practices applicable to this location. The conclusions contained herein are subject to the following inherent limitations:
• Accuracy of Information. Farallon obtained, reviewed, and evaluated certain information used in this report/assessment from sources that were believed to be reliable. Farallon’s conclusions, opinions, and recommendations are based in part on such information.
Farallon’s services did not include verification of its accuracy or authenticity. Should the information upon which Farallon relied prove to be inaccurate or unreliable, Farallon reserves the right to amend or revise its conclusions, opinions, and/or recommendations. • Reconnaissance and/or Characterization. Farallon performed a reconnaissance and/or characterization of the Site that is the subject of this report/assessment to document current conditions. Farallon focused on areas deemed more likely to exhibit hazardous materials conditions. Contamination may exist in other areas of the Site that were not investigated or were inaccessible. Site activities beyond Farallon’s control could change at any time after the completion of this report/assessment.
For the foregoing reasons, Farallon cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that the Site is free of hazardous or potentially hazardous substances or conditions, or that latent or undiscovered conditions will not become evident in the future. Farallon’s observations, findings, and opinions can be considered valid only as of the date of the report.
This report/assessment has been prepared in accordance with the contract for services between Farallon and Prologis, Inc. and currently accepted industry standards. No other warranties, representations, or certifications are made.
LIMITATION ON RELIANCE BY THIRD PARTIES
Reliance by third parties is prohibited. This report/assessment has been prepared for the exclusive use of Prologis, Inc. to address the unique needs of Prologis, Inc. at the Site at a specific point in time.
This is not a general grant of reliance. No one other than Prologis, Inc. may rely on this report unless Farallon agrees in advance to such reliance in writing. Any unauthorized use, interpretation, or reliance on this report/assessment is at the sole risk of that party, and Farallon will have no liability for such unauthorized use, interpretation, or reliance. 1899
P:\1071 Prologis\1071080 2021 SoCal Due Diligence II\002 5355 E Airport Dr\Deliverables\2022 Ph I & II ESA\2022.03.31_5355 E. Airport Dr_Phase I and II ESA_Farallon.docx
FIGURES
PHASE I/PHASE II
ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT
5355 East Airport Drive
Ontario, California
Farallon PN: 1071-080 (Task 2)
1900
Checked By: HH Disc Reference:
FARALLON PN: 1071-080-002
³ SITE VICINITY MAP
5355 EAST AIRPORT DRIVE
ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
Washington
Issaquah | Bellingham | Seattle
Oregon
Portland | Baker City
California
CONSULTING Oakland | Irvine
Your Challenges. Our Priority. | farallonconsulting.com Farallon
Drawn By: sgaynier Date: 12/23/2021
Q:\Projects\1071 Prologis\080 2021 SoCal Due Diligence II\002 Airport Dr\Mapfiles\Ph1\Figure-01_SiteVicinity.mxd FIGURE 1
REFERENCE: 7.5 MINUTE USGS QUADRANGLE GUASTI, CALIFORNIA, DATED 2013 0 2,000
SCALE IN FEET
!(
ONTARIO
SITE LOCATION
1901
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar,
GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,
CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,
IGN, and the GIS User Community
"/
"/
"/
")T
!(
!(
")T
")T
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
P
P
P P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P P
PP
P
P
P
P
P
P
PP P
P
P
P
P
P !
!
(
(
"
" "
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
" "
"
"
"
"
"
R
R R
R R
R
R
R
R
R
SV-24
SV-22
SV-26
B9
SV-23
SV-25 B1
SV-19
B3
SV-13 B2
SV-21 B8
B7 SVP-9
B4 B5
SV-17
SV-20
SVP-8
B6
SS-2
SV-16
SVP-2 SVP-3
SVP-5
SVP-7
SV-14
SS-1
SB-2 SVP-10
SV-15
B10
B11 SV-18
SVP-4 SVP-6
SB-1
SVP-1
B12
EAST AIRPORT DRIVE
G
OFFICE
TRAILER
G
BUILDING E;
GRAIN STORAGE
G
POSSIBLE
SEPTIC TANK
LOCATION
G
BUILDING A;
OFFICES/WAREHOUSE
G
TWO 250-GALLON DIESEL ASTs
AND 220-GALLON HYDRAULIC OIL AST
WESTERN PARCEL EASTERN PARCEL
G
BUILDING D;
GRAIN STORAGE
VERIZON
INDUSTRIAL BUILDING
5351 EAST AIRPORT DRIVE
G
POSSIBLE SEPTIC TANK
LOCATION AS FOUND
WITH GPR IN 2016
PRAXAIR, INC
5735 EAST AIRPORT DRIVE
G
BUILDING B;
MAINTENANCE/
VEHICLE REPAIR SHOP
G
FORMER UST AREA
G
OBSERVED SEPTIC
TANK LOCATION
GRAIN
STORAGE
GRAIN MILL
AREA
G
FORMER 12,000-GALLON
DIESEL UST (REMOVED)
G
BUILDING C;
WAREHOUSE
G
499-GALLON
PROPANE AST
G
VEHICLE WASH DOWN
AREA WITH SUMP
G
10,000-GALLON
WASH WATER AST
G
TWO FORMER
12,000-GALLON USTs
(REMOVED) G
FORMER
BRINE POND
(ESTIMATED)
RAIL LINE
³ CONSULTING
Checked By: KL Disc Reference:
FIGURE 2
SITE PLAN AND SAMPLING LOCATIONS
5355 EAST AIRPORT DRIVE
ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
Your Challenges. Our Priority. | farallonconsulting.com Farallon
0 100
SCALE IN FEET
Washington
Issaquah | Bellingham | Seattle
Oregon
Portland | Baker City
California
Oakland | Irvine
Drawn By: jjones Date: 3/24/2022
Q:\Projects\1071 Prologis\080 2021 SoCal Due Diligence II\002 Airport Dr\Mapfiles\Ph1\Figure-02_SitePlan_SampleLocs.mxd FARALLON PN: 1071-080-002
LEGEND
R"" SOIL VAPOR PROBE (FARALLON, 2022)
!( GRAB SAMPLE (FARALLON, 2022)
!P BORING (FARALLON, 2022)
!P BORING (PARTNER, 2016)
"/ HAZARDOUS MATERIALS STORAGE AREA
!( SEPTIC TANK
")T TRANSFORMER
FORMER SITE FEATURE
OBSERVED TANK LOCATION
GROUND-PENETRATING RADAR SCAN AREA
PROPOSED BUILDING FOOTPRINT
SITE BOUNDARY
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY PARCEL BOUNDARY
NOTES:
1. ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.
2. FIGURES WERE PRODUCED IN COLOR.
GRAYSCALE COPIES MAY NOT REPRODUCE
ALL ORIGINAL INFORMATION.
GPR SURVEY AREA - 2022 (NO UST FOUND)
GPR = GROUND-PENETRATING RADAR
UST = UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK
AST = ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANK
1902
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar,
GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,
CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,
IGN, and the GIS User Community
"/
"/
"/
")T
")T
")T
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
P
P
P P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P P
PP
P
P
P
P
P
P
PP P
P
P
P
P
P !
!
(
(
"
" "
" "
"
"
"
"
"
R
R R
R R
R
R
R
R
R
G
EAST AIRPORT DRIVE
G
OFFICE
TRAILER
G
BUILDING E;
GRAIN STORAGE
G
POSSIBLE
SEPTIC TANK
LOCATION
G
BUILDING A;
OFFICES/WAREHOUSE
G
TWO 250-GALLON DIESEL ASTs
AND 220-GALLON HYDRAULIC OIL AST
WESTERN PARCEL EASTERN PARCEL
G
BUILDING D;
GRAIN STORAGE
VERIZON
INDUSTRIAL BUILDING
5351 EAST AIRPORT DRIVE
G
POSSIBLE SEPTIC TANK
LOCATION AS FOUND
WITH GPR IN 2016
PRAXAIR, INC
5735 EAST AIRPORT DRIVE
G
BUILDING B;
MAINTENANCE/
VEHICLE REPAIR SHOP
G
FORMER UST AREA
G
OBSERVED SEPTIC
TANK LOCATION
GRAIN
STORAGE
GRAIN MILL
AREA
G
FORMER 12,000-GALLON
DIESEL UST (REMOVED)
G
BUILDING C;
WAREHOUSE
G
499-GALLON
PROPANE AST
G
VEHICLE WASH DOWN
AREA WITH SUMP
G
10,000-GALLON
WASH WATER AST
G
TWO FORMER
12,000-GALLON USTs
(REMOVED) G
FORMER
BRINE POND
(ESTIMATED)
RAIL LINE
SV-24
SV-26
SV-22
SV-19
SVP-9
4.0'|24
SV-25 B9
SV-23
B1
B2
SV-21 B8 B7
SVP-8
4.0'|232
B4
B3
SV-13 SV-17
SV-20
SVP-5
4.0'|70
10.0'|234
SVP-7
4.0'|247
B5
B6 SV-16
SS-2
0.5'|194
SVP-2
4.0'|27
SVP-3
4.0'|<20 SV-14 SS-1
0.5'|220
SB-2
SV-15
SVP-10
4.0'|31
8.0'|63
B10
B11 SV-18
SVP-1
4.0'|31
10.0'|157 SVP-4
4.0'|62
SVP-6
4.0'|97
8.0'|34
SB-1
B12
³ CONSULTING
Checked By: KL Disc Reference:
FIGURE 3
PCE IN SOIL VAPOR
5355 EAST AIRPORT DRIVE
ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
Your Challenges. Our Priority. | farallonconsulting.com Farallon
0 100
SCALE IN FEET
Washington
Issaquah | Bellingham | Seattle
Oregon
Portland | Baker City
California
Oakland | Irvine
Drawn By: jjones Date: 3/24/2022
Q:\Projects\1071 Prologis\080 2021 SoCal Due Diligence II\002 Airport Dr\Mapfiles\Ph1\Figure-03_PCE_SV.mxd FARALLON PN: 1071-080-002
LEGEND
R" SOIL VAPOR PROBE (FARALLON, 2022)
!( GRAB SAMPLE (FARALLON, 2022)
!P BORING (FARALLON, 2022)
!P BORING (PARTNER, 2016)
"/
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS STORAGE AREA
")T TRANSFORMER
FORMER SITE FEATURE
PROPOSED BUILDING FOOTPRINT
OBSERVED TANK LOCATION
GROUND-PENETRATING RADAR SCAN AREA
SITE BOUNDARY
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY PARCEL BOUNDARY
NOTES:
1. ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.
2. FIGURES WERE PRODUCED IN COLOR.
GRAYSCALE COPIES MAY NOT REPRODUCE
ALL ORIGINAL INFORMATION.
NOTES:
SAMPLE DEPTH AND ANALYTICAL RESULTS AS:
DEPTH IN FEET BELOW GROUND SURFACE | PCE
SOIL GAS ANALYTICAL RESULTS IN MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER.
BOLD =
< =
PCE =
DENOTES CONCENTRATIONS THAT EXCEED THE COMMERCIAL
SUBSLAB/SOIL GAS VAPOR INTRUSION ENVIRONMENTAL
SCREENING LEVEL.
DENOTES ANALYTE NOT DETECTED AT OR EXCEEDING THE
LISTED REPORTING LIMIT.
TETRACHLOROETHENE
GPR SURVEY AREA - 2022 (NO UST FOUND)
GPR = GROUND-PENETRATING RADAR
UST = UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK
AST = ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANK
1903
P:\1071 Prologis\1071080 2021 SoCal Due Diligence II\002 5355 E Airport Dr\Deliverables\2022 Ph I & II ESA\2022.03.31_5355 E. Airport Dr_Phase I and II ESA_Farallon.docx TABLES
PHASE I/PHASE II
ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT
5355 East Airport Drive
Ontario, California
Farallon PN: 1071-080 (Task 2)
1904
Table 1
Sampling Rationale
5355 East Airport Road
Ontario, California
Farallon PN: 1071-080-002
Sample ID Location Rationale Matrix
Sampled
Boring Depth
(feet bgs)
Sample Depth and Analysis
(feet bgs)
SB-1 Soil 10 feet VOCs, TPH
Soil 10 feet VOCs, TPH
Soil Vapor 4 feet VOCs, TPH-g
10 feet VOCs, TPH-g
Soil 4 feet VOCs, TPH-g
Soil Vapor 4 feet VOCs, TPH-g
Soil 4 feet VOCs, TPH-g
Soil Vapor 4 feet VOCs, TPH-g
Soil 4 feet VOCs, TPH-g
Soil Vapor 4 feet VOCs, TPH-g
SB-2 Soil 10 10 feet VOCs, TPH
Soil 10 feet VOCs, TPH
Soil Vapor 4 feet VOCs, TPH-g
10 feet VOCs, TPH-g
Soil 4 feet VOCs, TPH, Metals
8 feet VOCs, TPH, Metals
Soil Vapor 4 feet VOCs, TPH-g
8 feet VOCs, TPH-g
Soil 4 feet VOCs, TPH
Soil Vapor 4 feet VOCs, TPH-g
Soil 4 feet VOCs, TPH
Soil Vapor 4 feet VOCs, TPH-g
Soil 4 feet VOCs, TPH
Soil Vapor 4 feet VOCs, TPH-g
Soil 8 feet VOCs, TPH
Soil Vapor 4 feet VOCs, TPH-g
8 feet VOCs, TPH-g
SS-1 Former PCE impacts Soil Vapor SS 0.5 foot VOCs, TPH-g SS-2 Former PCE impacts Soil Vapor SS 0.5 foot VOCs, TPH-g NOTES: VOCs = volatile organic compounds
SS = subslab bgs = below ground surface
TPH = total petroleum hydrocarbons PCE = tetrachloroethene TPH-g = total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline
UST = underground storage tank
Assess current subslab conditions
under Building B and to assess the
potential for soil vapor under the
future building
SVP-10 Building B Septic
System
Assess the Building B Septic
System
SVP-8 Former PCE impacts Assess the potential for soil vapor under the future building
8 Former 12,000-gallon
diesel UST east of
Building C
To assess the former UST and
assess the potential for soil vapor
under the future building
SVP-9 Former PCE impacts Assess the potential for soil vapor under the future building 4
10 SVP-7 Former PCE impacts Assess the potential for soil vapor under the future building
SVP-6 Vehicle wash-down area
with sump
To assess the vehicle wash-down
area with sump and assess the
potential for soil vapor under the
future building
8 4
4 SVP-1
Former 12,000-gallon
petroleum USTs (two)*
To assess former USTs and assess
the potential for soil vapor under
the future building
10 SVP-5
4 4
SVP-2 4
SVP-4
SVP-3 Assess the potential for soil vapor
under the future building
Planned New Building
Footprint
P:\1071 Prologis\1071080 2021 SoCal Due Diligence II\002 5355 E Airport Dr\Working Folder\Tables\1071-080_5355EAirportDr_Tables_2022-03-22_rev1 1 of 1 1905
Table 2
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds in Soil
5355 East Airport Road
Ontario, California
Farallon PN: 1071-080-002 Tetrachloroethene Benzene
TolueneEthylbenzeneTotal XylenesOther VOCs
SB-1 SB-1-10' 10.0 3/4/2022 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 3.0 ND SB-2 SB-1-10' 10.0 3/4/2022 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 3.0 ND SVP-1 SVP-1-10' 10.0 3/4/2022 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 3.0 ND SVP-2 SVP-2-4' 4.0 3/4/2022 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 3.0 ND SVP-3 SVP-3-4' 4.0 3/4/2022 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 3.0 ND SVP-4 SVP-4-4' 4.0 3/4/2022 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 3.0 ND SVP-5 SVP-5-10' 10.0 3/4/2022 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 3.0 ND SVP-6-4' 4.0 3/4/2022 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 3.0 ND
SVP-6-8' 8.0 3/4/2022 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 3.0 ND
SVP-7 SVP-7-4' 4.0 3/4/2022 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 3.0 ND SVP-8 SVP-8-4' 4.0 3/4/2022 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 3.0 ND SVP-9 SVP-9-4' 4.0 3/4/2022 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 3.0 ND SVP-10 SVP-10-8' 8.0 3/4/2022 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 3.0 ND 2,700 1,400 5.3E+06 25,000 2.5E+06 NA
NOTES:
NA = not applicable
ND = not detected above the laboratory reporting limit
< denotes analyte not detected at or exceeding the reporting limit listed. NE = not established 1 Depth in feet below ground surface. RSL = Regional Screening Level VOCs = volatile organic compounds 2
Analyzed by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 8260B. Only detected VOCs shown in table; see lab report for full list of analytes. 3 June 2020 Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Regional Screening Levels (RSLs). If DTSC RSLs do not exist, April 2020 EPA RSLs were used and noted in blue text.
Results in bold and highlighted yellow denote concentrations exceeding applicable RSLs for the current property use (industrial/commercial).
Analytical Results (micrograms per kilogram)2
Commercial/Industrial Soil RSL3
Sample
Location
Sample
Identification
Sample
Depth
(feet)1 Sample Date
SVP-6
P:\1071 Prologis\1071080 2021 SoCal Due Diligence II\002 5355 E Airport Dr\Working Folder\Tables\1071‐080_5355EAirportDr_Tables_2022‐03‐22_rev1 1 of 1
1906
Table 3
Summary of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil
5355 East Airport Road
Ontario, California
Farallon PN: 1071-080-002
TPH-g
(C4 - C12)
TPH-d
(C13 - C22)
TPH-o
(C23 - C40)
SB-1 SB-1-10' 10.0 3/4/2022 < 0.20 < 10.0 < 10.0
SB-2 SB-1-10' 10.0 3/4/2022 < 0.20 < 10.0 < 10.0
SVP-1 SVP-1-10' 10.0 3/4/2022 < 0.20 < 10.0 < 10.0
SVP-2 SVP-2-4' 4.0 3/4/2022 < 0.20 --- ---
SVP-3 SVP-3-4' 4.0 3/4/2022 < 0.20 --- ---
SVP-4 SVP-4-4' 4.0 3/4/2022 < 0.20 --- ---
SVP-5 SVP-5-10' 10.0 3/4/2022 < 0.20 < 10.0 < 10.0
SVP-6-4' 4.0 3/4/2022 < 0.20 < 10.0 < 10.0
SVP-6-8' 8.0 3/4/2022 < 0.20 < 10.0 < 10.0
SVP-7 SVP-7-4' 4.0 3/4/2022 < 0.20 < 10.0 < 10.0
SVP-8 SVP-8-4' 4.0 3/4/2022 < 0.20 < 10.0 < 10.0
SVP-9 SVP-9-4' 4.0 3/4/2022 < 0.20 < 10.0 < 10.0
SVP-10 SVP-10-8' 8.0 3/4/2022 < 0.20 < 10.0 < 10.0
100 100 1,000
500 1,000 10,000
1,000 10,000 50,000
NOTES:
C = carbon range (number of carbons)
MSSL = maximum soil screening level
< denotes analyte not detected at or exceeding the reporting limit listed. TPH-d = total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel --- denotes sample not analyzed. TPH-g = total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline 1 Depth in feet below ground surface. TPH-o = total petroleum hydrocarbons as oil 2 Analyzed by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 8015M.
MSSL (20-150 feet Above Groundwater)3
MSSL ( > 150 feet Above Groundwater)3
Results in bold and highlighted yellow denote concentrations exceeding applicable RSLs for the current property use (industrial/commercial).
3 Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board April 27, 2004 MSSLs for groundwater at depths of less than 20 feet, 20 to 150 feet, and greater than 150 feet below ground surface.
Sample
Location
Sample
Identification
Sample
Depth
(feet)1 Sample Date
Analytical Results (milligrams per kilogram)2
MSSL ( < 20 feet Above Groundwater)3
SVP-6
Table 4
Summary of Metals in Soil
5355 East Airport Road
Ontario, California
Farallon PN: 1071-080-002
Barium Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Copper Lead Nickel Vanadium Zinc Other
Metals
SVP-6-4' 4.0 3/4/2022 61.2 0.9 8.2 5.2 5.9 1.1 5.2 24.6 26.5 ND SVP-6-8' 8.0 3/4/2022 59.6 0.9 8.5 5.2 6.0 1.2 5.2 23.1 27.0 ND 15,000 2,100 NE 23 3,100 80 15,000 390 23,000 Various
220,000 9,300 NE 350 47,000 320 64,000 1,000 350,000 Various NOTES:Results in bold and highlighted yellow denote concentrations exceeding applicable RSLs for the current property use (industrial/commercial).< denotes analyte not detected at or exceeding the reporting limit listed.--- denotes sample not analyzed. 1Depth in feet below ground surface.2California Administrative Manual (CAM) Priority Pollutant List (PPL) 17 metals analyzed by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 6010B by 3050B; mercury analyzed by EPA Method 7471A. 3June 2020 Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Regional Screening Levels (RSLs). If DTSC RSLs do not exist, May 2020 EPA RSLs were used and noted in blue text.
Residential Soil RSL3Industrial Soil RSL3
Sample
Location
Sample
Identification
Sample
Depth
(feet) 1 Sample Date
SVP-6
Analytical Results (milligrams per kilogram)2
P:\1071 Prologis\1071080 2021 SoCal Due Diligence II\002 5355 E Airport Dr\Working Folder\Tables\1071‐080_5355EAirportDr_Tables_2022‐03‐22_rev1 1 of 1
1908
Table 5
Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds in Soil Vapor
5355 East Airport Road
Ontario, California
Farallon PN: 1071-080-002
PCE
Dichloro
difluoromethane Toluene TPH-gOther
VOCs
SS-1 SS-1 0.5 3/11/2022 --- 220 < 40 < 20 < 5,000 ND
SS-2 SS-2 0.5 3/11/2022 --- 194 < 40 < 20 < 5,000 ND
0.05 40 8800 26000 50000 Varies
SVP-1-4' 4.0 3/11/2022 --- 31 < 40 21 < 5,000 ND
SVP-1-10' 10.0 3/11/2022 --- 157 < 40 21 < 5,000 ND
SVP-2 SVP-2-4' 4.0 3/11/2022 --- 27 < 40 34 < 5,000 ND
SVP-3-4' 4.0 3/11/2022 --- < 20 < 40 78 < 5,000 ND
SVP-3-4'REP 4.0 3/11/2022 --- < 20 < 40 45 < 5,000 ND
SVP-4-4' 4.0 3/11/2022 --- 62 < 40 80 < 5,000 ND
SVP-4-4'REP 4.0 3/11/2022 --- 57 < 40 46 < 5,000 ND
SVP-5-4' 4.0 3/11/2022 --- 70 < 40 83 < 5,000 ND
SVP-5-10' 10.0 3/11/2022 --- 234 < 40 < 20 < 5,000 ND
SVP-6-4' 4.0 3/11/2022 --- 97 < 40 106 < 5,000 ND
SVP-6-8' 8.0 3/11/2022 --- 34 < 40 65 < 5,000 ND
SVP-7 SVP-7-4' 4.0 3/11/2022 --- 247 < 40 91 < 5,000 ND SVP-8 SVP-8-4' 4.0 3/11/2022 --- 232 < 40 89 < 5,000 ND SVP-9 SVP-9-4' 4.0 3/11/2022 --- 24 < 40 87 < 5,000 ND
SVP-10-4' 4.0 3/11/2022 --- 31 < 40 60 < 5,000 ND
SVP-10-8' 8.0 3/11/2022 --- 63 60 47 < 5,000 ND
0.001 2000 440000 1,300,000 2,600,000 Varies
0.03 67 14667 43,333 86,667 Varies
NOTES:
ND = not detected at or above the laboratory reporting limit PCE = Tetrachloroethylene
AF = Attenuation Factor
< denotes analyte not detected at or exceeding the reporting limit listed. --- denotes not applicable
1 Depth in feet below ground surface.
Analytical Results (micrograms per cubic meter)2
Sample
Location
Sample
Identification
Sample
Depth
(feet)1
Sample
Date AF
2 Analyzed by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 8260B. Only detected VOCs shown in table; see lab report for full list of analytes. 3 Calculated soil gas screening levels (SGSLs) were derived by dividing the April 2020 Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or June 2021 EPA Regional Screening Levels (shown in blue) for VOCs, and January 2019 SFBWQCB Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for TPH-g for indoor air by the noted attenuation factor.
Industrial SGSL For Sub-Slab3
Industrial SGSL For Soil Vapor3
SVP-3
SVP-1
Sub-slab Samples
Soil Vapor Samples
Results in bold denote concentrations detected above the laboratory reporting limit.
Results in bold and highlighted yellow denote concentrations exceeding applicable RSLs for the current property use (industrial/commercial).
Calculated SGSL with 2015 Attenuation Factor
(Industrial)
3 SVP-10
SVP-6
SVP-5
SVP-4
P:\1071 Prologis\1071080 2021 SoCal Due Diligence II\002 5355 E Airport Dr\Working Folder\Tables\1071‐080_5355EAirportDr_Tables_2022‐03‐22_rev1 1 of 1 1909
P:\1071 Prologis\1071080 2021 SoCal Due Diligence II\002 5355 E Airport Dr\Deliverables\2022 Ph I & II ESA\2022.03.31_5355 E. Airport Dr_Phase I and II ESA_Farallon.docx
APPENDIX A
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
PHASE I/PHASE II
ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT
5355 East Airport Drive
Ontario, California
Farallon PN: 1071-080 (Task 2)
1910
Washington
Issaquah | Bellingham | Seattle
Oregon
Portland | Baker City
California
Oakland | Irvine
Your Challenges. Our Priority. | farallonconsulting.com
BRANT ROTNEM
Staff Geologist
BA Environmental Policy
13 years' experience
Brant Rotnem is an Environmental Professional with over 13 years of experience in the environmental consulting industry. Professional experience includes project management, site inspection in support of environmental due diligence, and preparation of over 1,000 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Reports. Brant also has prepared Transaction Screen Analyses, Limited Environmental Site Assessments, database reviews, peer reviews, and additional due diligence scopes.
KATHY LEHNUS, L.E.P., P.G.
Senior Geologist
BSc Environmental Science
MSc Applied Geology
24 years' experience
Kathy Lehnus has 24 years of experience in the environmental consulting industry. Her professional experience includes conducting Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments, managing investigation and remediation projects led by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control and California Regional Water Quality Control Boards, investigating environmental impacts on investment portfolios, and providing oversight for soil and groundwater assessments. Kathy’s key skills include preparation of investigation and remediation work plans, regulatory navigation, and project quality and process improvement, including developing new policies and updating standard operating procedures.
SCOTT ALLIN, R.E.P.A.
Principal Environmental Scientist
BS Physical Science (Hydrology)
30 years' experience
Scott Allin has 30 years of project and program management experience in the evaluation and reporting of environmental liability associated with the sale or Brownfield redevelopment of impaired properties. He has supported the needs of developers and others in the acquisition of Cost Cap and Finite Risk environmental insurance to manage long-term environmental risks. He has provided clients with value-added due diligence services for single properties and large multimillion-dollar mixed-use portfolios, both nationally and internationally. Scott has provided guidance for evaluating environmental risks during complex mergers and acquisitions; and management services for implementation of remedial actions, asbestos abatement, environmental audit programs, and environmentally sensitive property improvements. 1911
P:\1071 Prologis\1071080 2021 SoCal Due Diligence II\002 5355 E Airport Dr\Deliverables\2022 Ph I & II ESA\2022.03.31_5355 E. Airport Dr_Phase I and II ESA_Farallon.docx
APPENDIX B
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
PHASE I/PHASE II
ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT
5355 East Airport Drive
Ontario, California
Farallon PN: 1071-080 (Task 2)
1912
Washington
Issaquah | Bellingham | Seattle
Oregon
Portland | Baker City
California
Oakland | Irvine
1 Your Challenges. Our Priority. | farallonconsulting.com
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
5355 East Airport Drive
Ontario, California
Farallon PN: 1071-080 (Task 2)
Photograph 1: Verhoeven grain mill.
Photograph 2: Wash water storage tank by truck-washing area.
Photograph 3: Bermed truck-washing area by Building B.
Photograph 4: Sump in truck-washing area.
Photograph 5: Diesel fueling area by Building A.
Photograph 6: Former underground storage tank area by Building B.
Photograph 7: Former underground storage tank area by Verhoeven Building C.
Photograph 8: Former underground storage tank area north of grain mill.
Photograph 9: Hydraulic augers at Scoular grain storage silos.
Photograph 10: Scoular grain storage silos.
Photograph 11: Septic tank location by Building A.
Photograph 12: Rail transloading area.
Photograph 13: Railway offloading area.
Photograph 14: Scoular hazardous materials storage area.
Photograph 15: Verhoeven equipment service area in Building A.
Photograph 16: Hazardous materials storage in Verhoeven equipment service area in Building A.
Photograph 17: Automotive service area in Verhoeven Building B.
Photograph 18: Parts washing equipment in Building B.
Photograph 19: Waste oil storage in Building B.
1913
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS (continued)
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
5355 East Airport Drive
Ontario, California
2 Your Challenges. Our Priority. | farallonconsulting.com Photograph 1: Verhoeven grain mill.
Photograph 2: Wash water storage tank by truck-washing area. 1914
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS (continued)
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
5355 East Airport Drive
Ontario, California
3 Your Challenges. Our Priority. | farallonconsulting.com Photograph 3: Bermed truck-washing area by Building B.
Photograph 4: Sump in truck-washing area.
1915
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS (continued)
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
5355 East Airport Drive
Ontario, California
4 Your Challenges. Our Priority. | farallonconsulting.com Photograph 5: Diesel fueling area by Building A.
Photograph 6: Former underground storage tank area by Building B. 1916
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS (continued)
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
5355 East Airport Drive
Ontario, California
5 Your Challenges. Our Priority. | farallonconsulting.com Photograph 7: Former underground storage tank area by Verhoeven Building C.
Photograph 8: Former underground storage tank area north of grain mill. 1917
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS (continued)
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
5355 East Airport Drive
Ontario, California
6 Your Challenges. Our Priority. | farallonconsulting.com Photograph 9: Hydraulic augers at Scoular grain storage silos.
Photograph 10: Scoular grain storage silos.
1918
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS (continued)
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
5355 East Airport Drive
Ontario, California
7 Your Challenges. Our Priority. | farallonconsulting.com Photograph 11: Septic tank location by Building A.
Photograph 12: Rail transloading area.
1919
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS (continued)
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
5355 East Airport Drive
Ontario, California
8 Your Challenges. Our Priority. | farallonconsulting.com Photograph 13: Railway offloading area.
Photograph 14: Scoular hazardous materials storage area. 1920
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS (continued)
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
5355 East Airport Drive
Ontario, California
9 Your Challenges. Our Priority. | farallonconsulting.com Photograph 15: Verhoeven equipment service area in Building A.
Photograph 16: Hazardous materials storage in Verhoeven equipment service area in Building A. 1921
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS (continued)
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
5355 East Airport Drive
Ontario, California
10 Your Challenges. Our Priority. | farallonconsulting.com Photograph 17: Automotive service area in Verhoeven Building B.
Photograph 18: Parts washing equipment in Building B.
1922
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS (continued)
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
5355 East Airport Drive
Ontario, California
11 Your Challenges. Our Priority. | farallonconsulting.com Photograph 19: Waste oil storage in Building B.
1923
P:\1071 Prologis\1071080 2021 SoCal Due Diligence II\002 5355 E Airport Dr\Deliverables\2022 Ph I & II ESA\2022.03.31_5355 E. Airport Dr_Phase I and II ESA_Farallon.docx
APPENDIX C
USER QUESTIONNAIRE
PHASE I/PHASE II
ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT
5355 East Airport Drive
Ontario, California
Farallon PN: 1071-080 (Task 2)
1924
P:\1071 Prologis\1071080 2021 SoCal Due Diligence II\002 5355 E Airport Dr\Deliverables\2022 Ph I ESA\Apx C - User Questionnaire_Ontario1.docx 1 of 6
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
USER QUESTIONNAIRE
To qualify for one of the Landowner Liability Protections (LLPs) offered by the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2001, the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) Report user must provide the following information (if available) to the environmental professional (Farallon Consulting, L.L.C.). Failure to provide this information could result in the determination that “all appropriate inquiry” has not been completed.
Date: December 15, 2021
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION
Client Name: Prologis Client Telephone: 415-394-9000
Client Address: Pier 1, Bay 1, San Francisco, CA 94111
Asset #: Project/Site Name:
Project Street Address: 5355 East Airport Drive
City: Ontario County: California State: CA Zip:
Why is this Phase I ESA required?
Property Transaction:
Sale Purchase Exchange Other
Comments:
Needed for entitlements associated with redevelopment
PROPERTY USE & SPECIFICATIONS
Single-Family Residential Vacant or Undeveloped Land
Multi-Family Residential #Units: Agricultural (Specify type):
Commercial Office Industrial (Specify type): Grain processing Commercial Retail Other (Specify type): Military Base
Provide a general Site description:See provided Phase I/II Legal description/plat plan/boundary survey available? Yes No Already provided Current Property Status: Vacant Occupied Improved Unimproved Total Property Size: 14.2 acres Original Construction Date: 1973 Total # of Buildings: Multiple Was Construction Phased? Yes No Unknown Total Sq. Ft. of Buildings: Multiple Date(s) of Renovation(s)/Phases:
Does Site have an undeveloped area equal to 1 acre or more? Yes No Are any bodies of water on or immediately adjacent to the Site? Yes No If Yes, describe:
Comments:
Potable water source at Site? On-Site well Utility (Specify provider) NA Wastewater discharge at Site? Septic Tank/Drainfield Sanitary Sewer Other (Specify):
Building plans available at the Site? Yes No Unknown Already provided 1925
P:\1071 Prologis\1071080 2021 SoCal Due Diligence II\002 5355 E Airport Dr\Deliverables\2022 Ph I ESA\Apx C - User Questionnaire_Ontario1.docx 2 of 6 OWNERS
Current Owner(s): Prologis Entity
Previous Owner(s):
OCCUPANTS/TENANTS
Current Occupant(s)/Tenant(s) and operations: Verhoeven Grain Company and Scoular Company Previous Occupant(s)/Tenant(s) and operations: Farmland PREVIOUS PROPERTY USES
Describe previous use(s) of the Site: Farmland
PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
Has any previous environmental investigation been conducted at Site? Yes No Unknown If Yes, note type and describe: Phase I ESA Asbestos Lead Paint Lead in Water Radon Wetlands Indoor Air UST/AST Other (Specify type below) Comments:
see Phase I and II provided
ON-SITE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Are you aware of any of the following environmental conditions at the Site, either current or former? Environmental Condition/Issue Response Comment if Yes Response Aboveground Storage Tank Yes No see phase I
Underground Storage Tank Yes No removed
Hazardous/Toxic Substance Yes No see phase I
Stored Chemical Yes No see phase I
Chemical Spill/Release Yes No NA
Dump Area/Landfill Yes No NA
Waste Treatment System Yes No NA
Wastewater Discharge Yes No NA
Air Stack/Vent/Odor Yes No NA
Indoor Air Quality Complaint Yes No NA
1926
P:\1071 Prologis\1071080 2021 SoCal Due Diligence II\002 5355 E Airport Dr\Deliverables\2022 Ph I ESA\Apx C - User Questionnaire_Ontario1.docx 3 of 6 Floor Drain/Sump Yes No see phase I
Pit, Pond, Lagoon Yes No NA
Stained Soil/Vegetation Impact Yes No NA
Other specialized knowledge of an environmental condition or issue at the Site? NA
ADDITIONAL ON-SITE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Are you aware of any of the following environmental conditions on the Site, either current or former? Environmental Condition/Issue Response Comment if Yes Response Pesticide/Herbicide Use Yes No NA
Polychlorinated Biphenyls Yes No NA
Electrical Transformer Yes No NA
Hydraulic Lift Yes No NA
Elevator Yes No NA
Drycleaner Business Yes No NA
Asbestos Yes No NA
Lead Paint Yes No NA
Lead Piping/Lead in Water Yes No NA
Elevated Radon Level Yes No NA
Fluorescent Light Fixture Yes No NA
Wetland, Flooding Yes No NA
Unique Wildlife Species Yes No NA
Archeological Resource Yes No NA
Historic/National Landmark Yes No NA
Oil/Gas Well Yes No NA
Water Well Yes No NA
Environmental Cleanup Yes No NA
Environmental Permit Yes No NA
OFF-SITE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
On adjoining property, are there any: Gasoline Stations? Yes No Drycleaners? Yes No Are you aware of any other environmental conditions or concerns on adjacent or nearby properties? Yes No
Comments
I am not aware of any other environmental conditions or concerns on adjacent or nearby properties. 1927
P:\1071 Prologis\1071080 2021 SoCal Due Diligence II\002 5355 E Airport Dr\Deliverables\2022 Ph I ESA\Apx C - User Questionnaire_Ontario1.docx 4 of 6 (1) Environmental cleanup liens that have been filed or recorded against the Site (Part 312.25 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations [40 CFR 312.25]) Are you aware of any environmental cleanup liens against the Site that have been filed or recorded under federal, tribal, state, or local law?
I am not aware of any environmental cleanup liens against the Site. (2) Activity and land use limitations that are in place at the Site or that have been filed or recorded in a registry (40 CFR 312.26)
Are you aware of any activity and land use limitation (such as engineering controls, land use restrictions, or institutional controls) that are in place at the Site and/or have been filed or recorded in a registry under federal, tribal, state, or local law?
I am not aware of any activity and land use limitation. (3) Specialized knowledge or experience of the person seeking to qualify for the LLP (40 CFR 312.28)
As the user of the Phase I ESA Report, do you have any specialized knowledge or experience related to the Site or nearby properties? For example, are you involved in the same line of business as the current or former occupant(s) of the Site or an adjoining property so that you would have specialized knowledge of the chemicals and processes used by this type of business? No, I have no specialized knowledge of the Site.
1928
P:\1071 Prologis\1071080 2021 SoCal Due Diligence II\002 5355 E Airport Dr\Deliverables\2022 Ph I ESA\Apx C - User Questionnaire_Ontario1.docx 5 of 6 (4) Relationship of the purchase price to the fair market value of the Site if it were not contaminated (40 CFR 312.29)
Does the purchase price being paid for this Site reasonably reflect the fair market value of the Site? If you conclude that there is a difference between the purchase price and the fair market value, have you considered whether the lower purchase price is because contamination is known or believed to be present at the Site?
I have no knowledge of the purchase price being discounted for environmental conditions (5) Commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information about the property (40 CFR 312.30) Are you aware of commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information about the Site that would help Farallon Consulting, L.L.C. to identify conditions indicative of a chemical or other release or threatened release? For example, as user of the Phase I ESA Report:
Do you know the past use(s) of the Site? (If yes, please specify.) No.
Do you know of a specific chemical(s) present at the Site, or present at one time? (If yes, please specify.) No.
Do you know of a chemical and/or other spill(s) or release(s) that have taken place at the Site? (If yes, please specify.) No.
Do you know of any environmental cleanup(s) that have taken place at the Site? (If yes, please specify.) No.
(6) The degree of obviousness of the presence or likely presence of contamination at the Site, and the ability to detect the contamination by appropriate investigation (40 CFR 312.31) As the user of the Phase I ESA Report, based on your knowledge and experience related to the Site, is there any obvious indicator(s) that point to the presence or likely presence of contamination at the Site? (If yes, please specify.)
No.
Identify all parties who will rely on the Phase I ESA Report, including:
Name of Business: Prologis
Name of Contact: Julia Smith
Address: Pier 1, Bay 1, San Francisco, CA
Telephone Number: 415-733-9411
E-mail Address: [email protected]
1929
P:\1071 Prologis\1071080 2021 SoCal Due Diligence II\002 5355 E Airport Dr\Deliverables\2022 Ph I ESA\Apx C - User Questionnaire_Ontario1.docx 6 of 6 Has any party that will rely on the Phase I ESA Report required services beyond the standard ASTM E1527-05? (For example, an asbestos, lead-based paint, lead in drinking water, or wetlands investigation) (If yes, please specify.) Visual or desk top survey for lead-based paint, lead in drinking water, wetlands, radon gas, and water intrusion. Provide recommendations for further assessment as warranted
Who is the Site contact, and how can the contact be reached? Name of Business: See previously provided contact information Name of Contact:
Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address: See previously provided contact information Are there any special terms and conditions that must be agreed upon by Farallon Consulting, L.L.C.? (If yes, please specify.)
No
1930
P:\1071 Prologis\1071080 2021 SoCal Due Diligence II\002 5355 E Airport Dr\Deliverables\2022 Ph I & II ESA\2022.03.31_5355 E. Airport Dr_Phase I and II ESA_Farallon.docx
APPENDIX D
HISTORICAL DOCUMENTATION
PHASE I/PHASE II
ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT
5355 East Airport Drive
Ontario, California
Farallon PN: 1071-080 (Task 2)
1931
The EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package
5355 East Airport Drive 5355 East Airport Drive Ontario, CA 91761 Inquiry Number: December 09, 20216782886.8 6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor
Shelton, CT 06484
Toll Free: 800.352.0050
www.edrnet.com
1932
2016 1"=500' Flight Year: 2016 USDA/NAIP
2012 1"=500' Flight Year: 2012 USDA/NAIP
2009 1"=500' Flight Year: 2009 USDA/NAIP
2005 1"=500' Flight Year: 2005 USDA/NAIP
2002 1"=500' Acquisition Date: January 01, 2002 USGS/DOQQ 1994 1"=500' Acquisition Date: June 01, 1994 USGS/DOQQ
1990 1"=500' Flight Date: August 29, 1990 USDA
1985 1"=500' Flight Date: July 28, 1985 USDA
1975 1"=500' Flight Date: August 01, 1975 USGS
1966 1"=500' Flight Date: April 16, 1966 USGS
1959 1"=500' Flight Date: October 15, 1959 USDA
1953 1"=500' Flight Date: February 02, 1953 USDA
1948 1"=500' Flight Date: July 10, 1948 USGS
1938 1"=500' Flight Date: May 27, 1938 USDA
EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package 12/09/21 5355 East Airport Drive Site Name: Client Name: Farallon Consulting, LLC 5355 East Airport Drive 4380 South Macadam Avenue, Suite 500 Ontario, CA 91761 Portland, OR 97239 EDR Inquiry # 6782886.8 Contact: Amanda Garcia Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) Aerial Photo Decade Package is a screening tool designed to assist environmental professionals in evaluating potential liability on a target property resulting from past activities. EDR’s professional researchers provide digitally reproduced historical aerial photographs, and when available, provide one photo per decade. Search Results: Year Scale Details Source
When delivered electronically by EDR, the aerial photo images included with this report are for ONE TIME USE ONLY. Further reproduction of these aerial photo images is prohibited without permission from EDR. For more information contact your EDR Account Executive.
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY
DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE,
WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any property.
Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice. Copyright 2021 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners. 6782886 - 8 page 2 1933
6782886.8 2016 = 500'
1934
6782886.8 2012 = 500'
1935
6782886.8 2009 = 500'
1936
6782886.8 2005 = 500'
1937
6782886.8 2002 = 500'
1938
6782886.8 1994 = 500'
1939
6782886.8 1990 = 500'
1940
6782886.8 1985 = 500'
1941
6782886.8 1975 = 500'
1942
6782886.8 1966 = 500'
1943
6782886.8 1959 = 500'
1944
6782886.8 1953 = 500'
1945
6782886.8 1948 = 500'
1946
6782886.8 1938 = 500'
1947
5355 East Airport Drive
5355 East Airport Drive
Ontario, CA 91761
Inquiry Number: 6782886.5
December 10, 2021
The EDR-City Directory Abstract
6 Armstrong Road
Shelton, CT 06484
800.352.0050
Environmental Data Resources Inc www.edrnet.com
1948
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
Executive Summary
Findings
City Directory Images
Thank you for your business.
Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050
with any questions or comments.
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING
OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC.
BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER
CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction orforecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2020 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates.
All other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners. 1949
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION
Environmental Data Resources, Inc.’s (EDR) City Directory Abstract is a screening tool designed to assist environmental professionals in evaluating potential liability on a target property resulting from past activities.
EDR’s City Directory Abstract includes a search and abstract of available city directory data. For each address, the directory lists the name of the corresponding occupant at five year intervals.
Business directories including city, cross reference and telephone directories were reviewed, if available, at approximately five year intervals for the years spanning 1922 through 2017. This report compiles information gathered in this review by geocoding the latitude and longitude of properties identified and gathering information about properties within 660 feet of the target property.
A summary of the information obtained is provided in the text of this report.
RECORD SOURCES
EDR's Digital Archive combines historical directory listings from sources such as Cole Information and Dun & Bradstreet. These standard sources of property information complement and enhance each other to provide a more comprehensive report.
EDR is licensed to reproduce certain City Directory works by the copyright holders of those works. The purchaser of this EDR City Directory Report may include it in report(s) delivered to a customer. Reproduction of City Directories without permission of the publisher or licensed vendor may be a violation of copyright.
RESEARCH SUMMARY
The following research sources were consulted in the preparation of this report. An "X" indicates where information was identified in the source and provided in this report.
Year Source TP Adjoining Text Abstract Source Image
2017 Cole Information Services X - X -
Cole Information Services X X X -
2014 Cole Information Services X - X -
Cole Information Services X X X -
2009 Cole Information Services X X X -
2008 Haines Company, Inc. - X X -
Haines Company, Inc. X X X -
2004 Cole Information Services X X X -
2003 Haines & Co Publishers - X X -
Haines & Co Publishers X X X -
6782886- 5 Page 1
1950
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Year Source TP Adjoining Text Abstract Source Image
2002 Cole Information Services - - - -
1999 Cole Information Services X - X -
Cole Information Services X X X -
1996 GTE - - - -
1995 GTE Directories - - X -
GTE Directories X - X -
1994 Cole Information Services - - - -
Cole Information Services - X X -
1991 GTE California Incorporated - - - -
1990 GTE - X X -
GTE X X X -
1985 GTE - X X -
GTE X X X -
1981 General Telephone Company of
California
- - - -
1980 GTE General Telephone Company of
California
- X X -
1975 Pacific Telephone Co - - - -
1970 General Telephone Company of
California
- - - -
1965 GTE - - - -
1964 Luskey Brothers & Co - - - -
1961 Luskey Brothers& Co Publishers - - - -
1960 Luskey Brothers & Co Publishers - - - -
1956 General Telephone Company Publishers - - - -
1955 Luskey Brothers Co Publishers - - - -
1951 Los Angeles Directory Co Publishers - - - -
1950 The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Co - - - -
1949 San Bernardino Directory Co. Publishers - - - -
1946 Los Angeles Directory Company
Publishers
- - - -
1945 Southern Califronia Telephone Company - - - -
1942 San Bernardino Directory Co Publisher - - - -
1941 Associated Telephone Company Limited - - - -
1940 Los Angeles Directory Co. - - - -
1938 Los Angeles Directory Co. - - - -
1936 San Bernardino Directory Co Publisher - - - -
1934 Los Angeles Directory Co. - - - -
1931 Los Angeles Directory Co. - - - -
1930 San Bernardino Directory Co Publisher - - - -
6782886- 5 Page 2
1951
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Year Source TP Adjoining Text Abstract Source Image
1926 Los Angeles Directory Co. - - - -
1923 Los Angeles Directory Company - - - -
1922 R.L. Polk & Co Publishers - - - -
6782886- 5 Page 3
1952
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SELECTED ADDRESSES
The following addresses were selected by the client, for EDR to research. An "X" indicates where information was identified.
Address Type Findings
5351 E. Airport Drive Client Entered X
5200 E. Airport Drive Client Entered X
5705 E. Airport Drive Client Entered X
5600 E. Airport Drive Client Entered X
5200 Shea Center Drive Client Entered X
5300 Shea Center Drive Client Entered X
5400 Shea Center Drive Client Entered X
5355 East A Street Client Entered X
5355 Slover Avenue Client Entered
1953
FINDINGS
TARGET PROPERTY INFORMATION
ADDRESS
5355 East Airport Drive
Ontario, CA 91761
FINDINGS DETAIL
Target Property research detail.
AIRPORT DR
5355 AIRPORT DR
Year Uses Source
1999 COAST GRAIN COMPANY BAG FEED SALES Cole Information Services COAST GRAIN COMPANY CITRUS DIVISION Cole Information Services
AIRPORT DR E
5355 AIRPORT DR E
Year Uses Source
2003 COAST GRAIN CO MAIN OFC Haines & Co Publishers
E AIRPORT DR
5355 E AIRPORT DR
Year Uses Source
2017 THE SCOULAR COMPANY Cole Information Services
VERHOEVEN GEO GRAIN INC Cole Information Services
2014 THE SCOULAR COMPANY Cole Information Services
VERHOEVEN GEO GRAIN INC Cole Information Services
2009 J D HEISKELL & CO Cole Information Services
THE SCOULAR CO Cole Information Services
TXI RIVERSIDE CEMENT Cole Information Services
2008 J B HEISKELL & COMPANY Haines Company, Inc.
SCOULAR COMPANY THE Haines Company, Inc.
2004 SCOULAR CO Cole Information Services
1995 COAST GRAIN CO GTE Directories
6782886- 5 Page 2
1954
Year Uses Source
FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
1990 COAST GRAIN CO GTE
No Charge Ask Opr For GTE
1985 CHINO GRAIN 8 MLNG INC GTE
E AIRPRT DR
5355 E AIRPRT DR
Year Uses Source
1999 COAST GRAIN COMPANY Cole Information Services
East A Street
5355 East A Street
Year Uses Source
2008 J B HEISKELL & COMPANY Haines Company, Inc.
SCOULAR COMPANY THE Haines Company, Inc.
2003 COAST GRAIN CO MAIN OFC Haines & Co Publishers
1995 COAST GRAIN CO GTE Directories
1990 COAST GRAIN CO GTE
No Charge Ask Opr For GTE
1985 CHINO GRAIN 8 MLNG INC GTE
Slover Avenue
5355 Slover Avenue
Year Uses Source
6782886- 5 Page 3
1955
FINDINGS
ADJOINING PROPERTY DETAIL
The following Adjoining Property addresses were researched for this report. Detailed findings are provided for each address.
AIRPORT DR
5600 AIRPORT DR
Year Uses Source
1999 KMART DISTRIBUTION Cole Information Services
1994 KMART DISTRIBUTION Cole Information Services
E AIRPORT DR
5200 E AIRPORT DR
Year Uses Source
2017 NEW BREED Cole Information Services
NEW BREED LEASING CORP Cole Information Services
2014 NEW BREED LEASING CORP Cole Information Services
OCCUPANT UNKNOWN Cole Information Services
NEW BREED Cole Information Services
2009 BREED NEW Cole Information Services
2004 ESTYLE INC Cole Information Services
NEW BREED LOGISTICS & REPAIR Cole Information Services
BREED NEW Cole Information Services
1999 BREED NEW Cole Information Services
5351 E AIRPORT DR
Year Uses Source
2009 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP Cole Information Services
VERIZON WIRELESS Cole Information Services
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP Cole Information Services
VERIZON WIRELESS Cole Information Services
2008 OLSEN H C CONSTRUCTION Haines Company, Inc.
2004 VERIZON WIRELESS Cole Information Services
VERIZON WIRELESS Cole Information Services
6782886- 5 Page 4
1956
Year Uses Source
FINDINGS
5600 E AIRPORT DR
Year Uses Source
2017 KMART Cole Information Services
2014 KMART DISTRIBUTION Cole Information Services
2004 KMART DISTRIBUTION CTR Cole Information Services
5705 E AIRPORT DR
Year Uses Source
2017 JACK B KELLEY INC Cole Information Services
2014 JACK B KELLEY INC Cole Information Services
2009 JACK B KELLEY Cole Information Services
USF BESTWAY CORP Cole Information Services
E. Airport Drive
5200 E. Airport Drive
Year Uses Source
2008 NEW BREED Haines Company, Inc.
NEW BREED LEASING CORP Haines Company, Inc.
2003 NEW BREED Haines & Co Publishers
NEW BREED LEASING CORP Haines & Co Publishers
5351 E. Airport Drive
Year Uses Source
2008 OLSEN H C CONSTRUCTION Haines Company, Inc.
5600 E. Airport Drive
Year Uses Source
2008 KMART DISTRIBUTION Haines Company, Inc.
2003 KMART DISTRIBUTION Haines & Co Publishers
1985 K MART DISTRIBUTION GTE
1980 + K MART CORP GTE General Telephone Company of
California
t M H E CONTRACTING GTE General Telephone Company of
California
6782886- 5 Page 5
1957
Year Uses Source
FINDINGS
5705 E. Airport Drive
Year Uses Source
2008 JACK B KELLEY INC Haines Company, Inc.
2003 REF CHEM Haines & Co Publishers
1990 LINDE DIV UNION CARBIDE CORP GTE
Service Center GTE
UNION CARBIDE CORP GTE
Service Center GTE
1985 UNION CARBIDE CORP GTE
SHEA CENTER DR
5200 SHEA CENTER DR
Year Uses Source
2017 RESTORATION HARDWARE Cole Information Services
CAL X TRANS INC Cole Information Services
COOPER LIGHTING INC Cole Information Services
2014 AEOLUS DOWN INC Cole Information Services
COOPER LIGHTING INC Cole Information Services
2009 COOPER LIGHTING INC Cole Information Services
2004 GULF SOUTH MED SUPPLY Cole Information Services
COOPER LIGHTING Cole Information Services
5300 SHEA CENTER DR
Year Uses Source
2017 EMSER TILE LLC Cole Information Services
2014 EMSER TILE LLC FAX LINE Cole Information Services
EMSER TILE LLC Cole Information Services
2009 EMSER TILE LLC Cole Information Services
UPS WORLDWIDE LOGISTICS INC Cole Information Services
2004 ALDWORTH Cole Information Services
5400 SHEA CENTER DR
Year Uses Source
2017 AMERIWOOD INDUSTRIES Cole Information Services
2014 AMERIWOOD INDUSTRIES Cole Information Services
6782886- 5 Page 6
1958
Year Uses Source
FINDINGS
Year Uses Source
2009 DOREL JUVENILE GROUP Cole Information Services
Shea Center Drive
5200 Shea Center Drive
Year Uses Source
2008 COOPER LIGHTING INC Haines Company, Inc.
5300 Shea Center Drive
Year Uses Source
2008 EMSER TILE LLC Haines Company, Inc.
EMSER TILE LLC Haines Company, Inc.
5400 Shea Center Drive
Year Uses Source
2008 DOREL JUVENILE GROUP Haines Company, Inc.
6782886- 5 Page 7
1959
FINDINGS
ADJOINING PROPERTY: ADDRESSES NOT IDENTIFIED IN RESEARCH SOURCE The following Adjoining Property addresses were researched for this report, and the addresses were not identified in research source.
Address Researched Address Not Identified in Research Source 5200 E AIRPORT DR 2008, 2003, 2002, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1991, 1990, 1985, 1981, 1980, 1975, 1970, 1965, 1964, 1961, 1960, 1956, 1955, 1951, 1950, 1949, 1946, 1945, 1942, 1941, 1940, 1938, 1936, 1934, 1931, 1930, 1926, 1923, 1922
5200 E. Airport Drive 2017, 2014, 2009, 2004, 2002, 1999, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1991, 1990, 1985, 1981, 1980, 1975, 1970, 1965, 1964, 1961, 1960, 1956, 1955, 1951, 1950, 1949, 1946, 1945, 1942, 1941, 1940, 1938, 1936, 1934, 1931, 1930, 1926, 1923, 1922 5200 SHEA CENTER DR 2008, 2003, 2002, 1999, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1991, 1990, 1985, 1981, 1980, 1975, 1970, 1965, 1964, 1961, 1960, 1956, 1955, 1951, 1950, 1949, 1946, 1945, 1942, 1941, 1940, 1938, 1936, 1934, 1931, 1930, 1926, 1923, 1922 5200 Shea Center Drive 2017, 2014, 2009, 2004, 2003, 2002, 1999, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1991, 1990, 1985, 1981, 1980, 1975, 1970, 1965, 1964, 1961, 1960, 1956, 1955, 1951, 1950, 1949, 1946, 1945, 1942, 1941, 1940, 1938, 1936, 1934, 1931, 1930, 1926, 1923, 1922 5300 SHEA CENTER DR 2008, 2003, 2002, 1999, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1991, 1990, 1985, 1981, 1980, 1975, 1970, 1965, 1964, 1961, 1960, 1956, 1955, 1951, 1950, 1949, 1946, 1945, 1942, 1941, 1940, 1938, 1936, 1934, 1931, 1930, 1926, 1923, 1922 5300 Shea Center Drive 2017, 2014, 2009, 2004, 2003, 2002, 1999, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1991, 1990, 1985, 1981, 1980, 1975, 1970, 1965, 1964, 1961, 1960, 1956, 1955, 1951, 1950, 1949, 1946, 1945, 1942, 1941, 1940, 1938, 1936, 1934, 1931, 1930, 1926, 1923, 1922 5351 E AIRPORT DR 2017, 2014, 2008, 2003, 2002, 1999, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1991, 1990, 1985, 1981, 1980, 1975, 1970, 1965, 1964, 1961, 1960, 1956, 1955, 1951, 1950, 1949, 1946, 1945, 1942, 1941, 1940, 1938, 1936, 1934, 1931, 1930, 1926, 1923, 1922 5351 E AIRPORT DR 2017, 2014, 2009, 2004, 2003, 2002, 1999, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1991, 1990, 1985, 1981, 1980, 1975, 1970, 1965, 1964, 1961, 1960, 1956, 1955, 1951, 1950, 1949, 1946, 1945, 1942, 1941, 1940, 1938, 1936, 1934, 1931, 1930, 1926, 1923, 1922 5351 E AIRPORT DR 2017, 2014, 2008, 2003, 2002, 1999, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1991, 1990, 1985, 1981, 1980, 1975, 1970, 1965, 1964, 1961, 1960, 1956, 1955, 1951, 1950, 1949, 1946, 1945, 1942, 1941, 1940, 1938, 1936, 1934, 1931, 1930, 1926, 1923, 1922 5351 E. Airport Drive 2017, 2014, 2009, 2004, 2003, 2002, 1999, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1991, 1990, 1985, 1981, 1980, 1975, 1970, 1965, 1964, 1961, 1960, 1956, 1955, 1951, 1950, 1949, 1946, 1945, 1942, 1941, 1940, 1938, 1936, 1934, 1931, 1930, 1926, 1923, 1922 5400 SHEA CENTER DR 2008, 2004, 2003, 2002, 1999, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1991, 1990, 1985, 1981, 1980, 1975, 1970, 1965, 1964, 1961, 1960, 1956, 1955, 1951, 1950, 1949, 1946, 1945, 1942, 1941, 1940, 1938, 1936, 1934, 1931, 1930, 1926, 1923, 1922 5400 Shea Center Drive 2017, 2014, 2009, 2004, 2003, 2002, 1999, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1991, 1990, 1985, 1981, 1980, 1975, 1970, 1965, 1964, 1961, 1960, 1956, 1955, 1951, 1950, 1949, 1946, 1945, 1942, 1941, 1940, 1938, 1936, 1934, 1931, 1930, 1926, 1923, 1922 5600 AIRPORT DR 2017, 2014, 2009, 2008, 2004, 2003, 2002, 1996, 1995, 1991, 1990, 1985, 1981, 1980, 1975, 1970, 1965, 1964, 1961, 1960, 1956, 1955, 1951, 1950, 1949, 1946, 1945, 1942, 1941, 1940, 1938, 1936, 1934, 1931, 1930, 1926, 1923, 1922 5600 E AIRPORT DR 2009, 2008, 2003, 2002, 1999, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1991, 1990, 1985, 1981, 1980, 1975, 1970, 1965, 1964, 1961, 1960, 1956, 1955, 1951, 1950, 1949, 1946, 1945, 1942, 1941, 1940, 1938, 1936, 1934, 1931, 1930, 1926, 1923, 1922 1960
FINDINGS
Address Researched Address Not Identified in Research Source 5600 E. Airport Drive 2017, 2014, 2009, 2004, 2002, 1999, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1991, 1990, 1981, 1975, 1970, 1965, 1964, 1961, 1960, 1956, 1955, 1951, 1950, 1949, 1946, 1945, 1942, 1941, 1940, 1938, 1936, 1934, 1931, 1930, 1926, 1923, 1922 5705 E AIRPORT DR 2008, 2004, 2003, 2002, 1999, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1991, 1990, 1985, 1981, 1980, 1975, 1970, 1965, 1964, 1961, 1960, 1956, 1955, 1951, 1950, 1949, 1946, 1945, 1942, 1941, 1940, 1938, 1936, 1934, 1931, 1930, 1926, 1923, 1922 5705 E. Airport Drive 2017, 2014, 2009, 2004, 2002, 1999, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1991, 1981, 1980, 1975, 1970, 1965, 1964, 1961, 1960, 1956, 1955, 1951, 1950, 1949, 1946, 1945, 1942, 1941, 1940, 1938, 1936, 1934, 1931, 1930, 1926, 1923, 1922 1961
TARGET PROPERTY: ADDRESS NOT IDENTIFIED IN RESEARCH SOURCE The following Target Property addresses were researched for this report, and the addresses were not identified in the research source.
Address Researched Address Not Identified in Research Source 5355 East Airport Drive 2002, 1996, 1994, 1991, 1981, 1980, 1975, 1970, 1965, 1964, 1961, 1960, 1956, 1955, 1951, 1950, 1949, 1946, 1945, 1942, 1941, 1940, 1938, 1936, 1934, 1931, 1930, 1926, 1923, 1922
1962
EDR Historical Topo Map Report
Inquiry Number:
6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor
Shelton, CT 06484
Toll Free: 800.352.0050
www.edrnet.com
with QuadMatch™
5355 East Airport Drive 5355 East Airport Drive Ontario, CA 91761 December 09, 20216782886.4 1963
EDR Historical Topo Map Report
EDR Inquiry #
Search Results:
P.O.#
Project:
Maps Provided:
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.
- page
Coordinates:
Latitude:
Longitude:
UTM Zone:
UTM X Meters:
UTM Y Meters:
Elevation:
Contact:
Site Name: Client Name:
2018
2015
2012
1981
1976
1973
1966
1954
1953
1944
1941
1903
1900
1897
12/09/21 5355 East Airport Drive Farallon Consulting, LLC 5355 East Airport Drive 4380 South Macadam Avenue, Suite 500 Ontario, CA 91761 Portland, OR 97239 6782886.4 Amanda Garcia EDR Topographic Map Library has been searched by EDR and maps covering the target property location as provided by Farallon Consulting, LLC were identified for the years listed below. EDR’s Historical Topo Map Report is designed to assist professionals in evaluating potential liability on a target property resulting from past activities. EDRs Historical Topo Map Report includes a search of a collection of public and private color historical topographic maps, dating back to the late 1800s.
1071-080-002 34.063461 34° 3' 48" North 1071-080-002 -117.533485 -117° 32' 1" West Zone 11 North 450770.22 3769320.82 983.00' above sea level This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY
DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE,
WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any property.
Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2021 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission. 6782886 4 2 1964
page
Topo Sheet Key
This EDR Topo Map Report is based upon the following USGS topographic map sheets. -
2018 Source Sheets
2018
Guasti
7.5-minute, 24000
2015 Source Sheets
2015
Guasti
7.5-minute, 24000
2012 Source Sheets
2012
Guasti
7.5-minute, 24000
1981 Source Sheets
1981
Guasti
7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1978
6782886 4 3
1965
page
Topo Sheet Key
This EDR Topo Map Report is based upon the following USGS topographic map sheets. -
1976 Source Sheets
1976
ONTARIO
15-minute, 50000
1973 Source Sheets
1973
Guasti
7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1973
1966 Source Sheets
1966
Guasti
7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1966
1954 Source Sheets
1954
Ontario
15-minute, 62500
Aerial Photo Revised 1952
6782886 4 4
1966
page
Topo Sheet Key
This EDR Topo Map Report is based upon the following USGS topographic map sheets. -
1953 Source Sheets
1953
Guasti
7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1952
1944 Source Sheets
1944
CUCAMONGA
15-minute, 50000
1941 Source Sheets
1941
GUASTI VICINITY
7.5-minute, 31680
1903 Source Sheets
1903
Cucamonga
15-minute, 62500
6782886 4 5
1967
page
Topo Sheet Key
This EDR Topo Map Report is based upon the following USGS topographic map sheets. -
1900 Source Sheets
1900
Cucamonga
15-minute, 62500
1897 Source Sheets
1897
Cucamonga
15-minute, 62500
6782886 4 6
1968
Historical Topo Map
page
SITE NAME:
ADDRESS:
CLIENT:
This report includes information from the
following map sheet(s).
-
W E
SW S SE
NW N NE
2018 0 Miles 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 5355 East Airport Drive 5355 East Airport Drive Ontario, CA 91761 Farallon Consulting, LLC TP, Guasti, 2018, 7.5-minute
6782886 4 7
1969
Historical Topo Map
page
SITE NAME:
ADDRESS:
CLIENT:
This report includes information from the
following map sheet(s).
-
W E
SW S SE
NW N NE
2015 0 Miles 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 5355 East Airport Drive 5355 East Airport Drive Ontario, CA 91761 Farallon Consulting, LLC TP, Guasti, 2015, 7.5-minute
6782886 4 8
1970
Historical Topo Map
page
SITE NAME:
ADDRESS:
CLIENT:
This report includes information from the
following map sheet(s).
-
W E
SW S SE
NW N NE
2012 0 Miles 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 5355 East Airport Drive 5355 East Airport Drive Ontario, CA 91761 Farallon Consulting, LLC TP, Guasti, 2012, 7.5-minute
6782886 4 9
1971
Historical Topo Map
page
SITE NAME:
ADDRESS:
CLIENT:
This report includes information from the
following map sheet(s).
-
W E
SW S SE
NW N NE
1981 0 Miles 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 5355 East Airport Drive 5355 East Airport Drive Ontario, CA 91761 Farallon Consulting, LLC TP, Guasti, 1981, 7.5-minute
6782886 4 10
1972
Historical Topo Map
page
SITE NAME:
ADDRESS:
CLIENT:
This report includes information from the
following map sheet(s).
-
W E
SW S SE
NW N NE
1976 0 Miles 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 5355 East Airport Drive 5355 East Airport Drive Ontario, CA 91761 Farallon Consulting, LLC TP, ONTARIO, 1976, 15-minute
6782886 4 11
1973
Historical Topo Map
page
SITE NAME:
ADDRESS:
CLIENT:
This report includes information from the
following map sheet(s).
-
W E
SW S SE
NW N NE
1973 0 Miles 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 5355 East Airport Drive 5355 East Airport Drive Ontario, CA 91761 Farallon Consulting, LLC TP, Guasti, 1973, 7.5-minute
6782886 4 12
1974
Historical Topo Map
page
SITE NAME:
ADDRESS:
CLIENT:
This report includes information from the
following map sheet(s).
-
W E
SW S SE
NW N NE
1966 0 Miles 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 5355 East Airport Drive 5355 East Airport Drive Ontario, CA 91761 Farallon Consulting, LLC TP, Guasti, 1966, 7.5-minute
6782886 4 13
1975
Historical Topo Map
page
SITE NAME:
ADDRESS:
CLIENT:
This report includes information from the
following map sheet(s).
-
W E
SW S SE
NW N NE
1954 0 Miles 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 5355 East Airport Drive 5355 East Airport Drive Ontario, CA 91761 Farallon Consulting, LLC TP, Ontario, 1954, 15-minute
6782886 4 14
1976
Historical Topo Map
page
SITE NAME:
ADDRESS:
CLIENT:
This report includes information from the
following map sheet(s).
-
W E
SW S SE
NW N NE
1953 0 Miles 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 5355 East Airport Drive 5355 East Airport Drive Ontario, CA 91761 Farallon Consulting, LLC TP, Guasti, 1953, 7.5-minute
6782886 4 15
1977
Historical Topo Map
page
SITE NAME:
ADDRESS:
CLIENT:
This report includes information from the
following map sheet(s).
-
W E
SW S SE
NW N NE
1944 0 Miles 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 5355 East Airport Drive 5355 East Airport Drive Ontario, CA 91761 Farallon Consulting, LLC TP, CUCAMONGA, 1944, 15-minute
6782886 4 16
1978
Historical Topo Map
page
SITE NAME:
ADDRESS:
CLIENT:
This report includes information from the
following map sheet(s).
-
W E
SW S SE
NW N NE
1941 0 Miles 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 5355 East Airport Drive 5355 East Airport Drive Ontario, CA 91761 Farallon Consulting, LLC TP, GUASTI VICINITY, 1941, 7.5-minute
6782886 4 17
1979
Historical Topo Map
page
SITE NAME:
ADDRESS:
CLIENT:
This report includes information from the
following map sheet(s).
-
W E
SW S SE
NW N NE
1903 0 Miles 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 5355 East Airport Drive 5355 East Airport Drive Ontario, CA 91761 Farallon Consulting, LLC TP, Cucamonga, 1903, 15-minute
6782886 4 18
1980
Historical Topo Map
page
SITE NAME:
ADDRESS:
CLIENT:
This report includes information from the
following map sheet(s).
-
W E
SW S SE
NW N NE
1900 0 Miles 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 5355 East Airport Drive 5355 East Airport Drive Ontario, CA 91761 Farallon Consulting, LLC TP, Cucamonga, 1900, 15-minute
6782886 4 19
1981
Historical Topo Map
page
SITE NAME:
ADDRESS:
CLIENT:
This report includes information from the
following map sheet(s).
-
W E
SW S SE
NW N NE
1897 0 Miles 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 5355 East Airport Drive 5355 East Airport Drive Ontario, CA 91761 Farallon Consulting, LLC TP, Cucamonga, 1897, 15-minute
6782886 4 20
1982
Certified Sanborn® Map Report
Inquiry Number:
6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor
Shelton, CT 06484
Toll Free: 800.352.0050
www.edrnet.com
5355 East Airport Drive 5355 East Airport Drive Ontario, CA 91761 December 09, 20216782886.3 1983
Certified Sanborn® Map Report
Certified Sanborn Results:
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.
- page
The Sanborn Library includes more than 1.2 million
fire insurance maps from Sanborn, Bromley, Perris &
Browne, Hopkins, Barlow and others which track
historical property usage in approximately 12,000
American cities and towns. Collections searched:
Library of Congress
University Publications of America
EDR Private Collection
The Sanborn Library LLC Since 1866™
Limited Permission To Make Copies
Sanborn® Library search results
EDR Inquiry # Contact:
Site Name: Client Name:
Certification #
PO #
Project
12/09/21 5355 East Airport Drive 5355 East Airport Drive Farallon Consulting, LLC 4380 South Macadam Avenue, Suite 500 Ontario, CA 917616782886.3 Portland, OR 97239 Amanda Garcia The Sanborn Library has been searched by EDR and maps covering the target property location as provided by Farallon Consulting, LLC were identified for the years listed below. The Sanborn Library is the largest, most complete collection of fire insurance maps. The collection includes maps from Sanborn, Bromley, Perris & Browne, Hopkins, Barlow, and others. Only Environmental Data Resources Inc. (EDR) is authorized to grant rights for commercial reproduction of maps by the Sanborn Library LLC, the copyright holder for the collection. Results can be authenticated by visiting www.edrnet.com/sanborn.
The Sanborn Library is continually enhanced with newly identified map archives. This report accesses all maps in the collection as of the day this report was generated. 6351-4FE0-BBFD 1071-080-002 UNMAPPED PROPERTY 1071-080-002 This report certifies that the complete holdings of the Sanborn Library, LLC collection have been searched based on client supplied target property information, and fire insurance maps covering the target property were not found.
Certification #: 6351-4FE0-BBFD
Farallon Consulting, LLC (the client) is permitted to make up to FIVE photocopies of this Sanborn Map transmittal and each fire insurance map accompanying this report solely for the limited use of its customer. No one other than the client is authorized to make copies. Upon request made directly to an EDR Account Executive, the client may be permitted to make a limited number of additional photocopies. This permission is conditioned upon compliance by the client, its customer and their agents with EDR's copyright policy; a copy of which is available upon request.
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY
DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE,
WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any property.
Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2021 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission. 6782886 3 2 1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL
SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT
The Scoular Company
5355 East Airport Drive
Ontario, California 91761
Report Date: August 18, 2016
Partner Project No. 16-163550.1
Prepared for:
Prologis
Pier 1, Bay 1
San Francisco, CA 94111
2027
2154 Torrance Blvd., Suite 200, Torrance, CA 90501 ◊ Phone 800-419-4923 ◊ Fax 866-928-7418 August 18, 2016
Janet Frentzel
Prologis
Pier 1, Bay 1
San Francisco, CA 94111
Subject: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
The Scoular Company
5355 East Airport Drive
Ontario, California 91761
Partner Project No. 16-163550.1
Dear Ms. Frentzel:
Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. (Partner) is pleased to provide the results of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) report of the abovementioned address (the “subject property”). This assessment was performed in general conformance with the scope and limitations as detailed in the ASTM Practice E1527-13 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process.
This assessment included a site reconnaissance as well as research and interviews with representatives of the public, property ownership, site manager, and regulatory agencies. An assessment was made, conclusions stated, and recommendations outlined.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide environmental services to you. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we can assist you in any other matter, please contact me at (818) 337-1203.
Sincerely,
Misty Vazquez Ponce
Principal
2028
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 16-163550.1
August 18, 2016
Page i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. (Partner) has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) in general accordance with the scope of work and limitations of ASTM Standard Practice E1527-13, the Environmental Protection Agency Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) (40 CFR Part 312) and as set forth by the Master Services Agreement between Prologis and Partner dated April 18, 2013 for the property located at 5355 East Airport Drive in the City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California (the “subject property”). The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment is designed to provide Prologis with an assessment concerning environmental conditions (limited to those issues identified in the report) as they exist at the subject property.
Property Description
The subject property is located on the north side of East Airport Drive, approximately 2,700 feet west of the intersection of Etiwanda Avenue and Airport Drive, and southeast of the Interstates 10 and 15 Interchange. The subject property is located within a mixed commercial and industrial area of the City of Ontario in San Bernardino County. Please refer to the table below for further description of the subject property:
Subject Property Data
Address: 5355 East Airport Drive, Ontario, California
Historical Address: Before development Airport Drive was known as “Slover Avenue” Property Use: Commercial/Industrial
Land Acreage (Ac): 14.2 Ac
Number of Buildings: 5
Number of Floors: 1
Gross Building Area (SF): 17,000 square foot (SF) (Office/Warehouse); 7,000 SF (Truck Repair Shop); 1,600 SF (Warehouse);
3,600 SF (Grain Storage-East); and 9,000 (Grain Storage-West)* Net Rentable Area (SF): See above
Date of Construction: Between 1965 and 1973
Assessor’s Parcel
Numbers (APNs):
0238-052-020 (Parcel A); 0238-052-022 (Parcel B); 0238-052-029 (Parcel C)
Type of Construction: Office/Warehouse- Wood-Framed (Offices & Maintenance Area) Truck Repair Shop - Concrete Block (Maintenance Building) Warehouse - Concrete Block (Warehouse)
Grain Storage-East - Wood-Framed Corrugated Metal (Retail Grain Distribution)
Grain Storage-West - Wood-Framed Corrugated Metal (Wholesale Grain Distribution)
Current Tenants: The Scoular Company, with a sub-lease on the subject property to Verhoeven Grain Company
Site Assessment Performed By: Janet Tentler of Partner
Site Assessment Conducted On: June 29, 2016
*Square footage was estimated from Google Earth
2029
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 16-163550.1
August 18, 2016
Page ii
The subject property is a grain processing facility that has been in operation since at least 1973. Onsite operations consist of loading and unloading of multiple types of grain from trucks or the adjacent railyard and storing, milling, and processing for bulk and retail sale. Grain from the adjacent rail yard is off-loaded from the southern-most adjacent railroad spur and transported in an underground grain screw conveyor system to the centrally-located grain mill for processing, or to the grain silos for storage. The raw materials are steamed, rolled, and flattened into finish products. In addition to the current structures, the subject property is also improved with bulk storage silos, a vehicle wash-down area, and associated sheds.
Maintenance areas are located within the Office/Warehouse and Truck Repair Shop buildings. One service pit was observed within the Truck Repair Shop building, in the maintenance area.
According to available historical sources, the subject property was formerly undeveloped as early as 1938; developed as agricultural land between 1938 and circa 1970; and developed with the current structures circa 1973. Previous owners have included Robertson Farm’s Company (1946-1956) and Southern Pacific Grain Company (1956-1976), although aerial photographs indicate that no buildings/operations were present/conducted on the site until circa 1973. Since building construction, the following occupants have been located at the subject property: United Dairyman’s Association (1976-1978), Chino Grain Company (1978-1985); Coast Grain Company (1985-2003); J.B. Heiskell & Co. (2008); The Scoular Company (2006- Present); and Verhoeven Grain Company (2008-Present).
The immediately surrounding properties consist of commercial warehouses to the north across the railroad tracks (Emser Tile Company at 5300 Shea Center Drive and Dorel Juvenile Group at 5400 Shea Center Drive); Kmart Distribution Center (5600 East Airport Drive) to the south across Airport Drive; Praxair (5735 East Airport Drive) to the east; and a commercial building to the west (5351 East Airport Drive).
According to a nearby investigation report (on GeoTracker), a well located approximately 4 miles to the east of the subject property contained groundwater at approximately 300 feet below ground surface (bgs). Based on topography is anticipated to flow toward the south.
Findings
A recognized environmental condition (REC) refers to the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: due to release to the environment; under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. The following was identified during the course of this assessment:
Based on information provided in the Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) regulatory database report, five former petroleum underground storage tanks (USTs) were located at the subject property since 1988; however, there are inconsistencies on the number and status of the USTs found in other documentation. Partner was able to identify removal/closure records for three of the USTS. Regulatory closure letters address the removal of the three 12,000-gallon diesel USTs (discussed as HRECs below). Separately, at least one UST was suspected to be adjacent to west of the Truck Repair Building. Partner observed evidence of concrete cuts for a possible fuel dispenser in this area. Records for the fifth possible UST were not clear. Based on 2030
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 16-163550.1
August 18, 2016
Page iii
the lack of information regarding the status of at least two former suspect USTs at this facility, the former USTs are considered a REC.
The subject property is currently equipped with two 250-gallon aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) containing diesel fuel. The original installation date is unknown. Diesel fuel is used to maintain the yard equipment, such as the front-end loaders, forklifts, and the bobcats. Minor to moderate staining was observed on the asphalt surface immediately surrounding the ASTs. The asphalt appeared to be in fair to poor condition with cracks observed in the area of the staining. Based on the lack of information regarding the age and installation dates of these ASTs at this facility and site observations, the ASTs are considered a REC.
Maintenance areas and storage of automotive-related fluids such as motor oil, waste motor oil, and antifreeze was observed in the two central buildings (Office/Warehouse and Truck Repair Shop). Petroleum staining was observed on the concrete floor within these buildings and the condition of the concrete floor was pitted in some areas. In addition, minor staining was observed adjacent to a parts washer. Based on the long-term use of these buildings for maintenance, the usage of petroleum products and hazardous materials and evidence of staining, the historical operations in these areas are considered a REC. A former vehicle wash-down area was observed north of the Truck Repair Shop. Partner observed a sump and pump in this area, however, were reportedly no longer in use. According to the site contact, when the vehicle wash-down area was in use, water would collect into the associated sump and “wastewater was pumped into a tank and then stored in 55-gallon drums for off-site disposal.” Previous reports indicated a violation was issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), which included truck wash water flowing into the parking lot.
According to an inspection report from the RWQCB based on an inspection conducted on August 16, 2001, it was noted that housekeeping at the subject property was poor and that boiler blowdown water was being used for dust control. In April 2001, the RWQCB received an anonymous compliant stating that employees at the subject property were routinely pouring used oil into a drain located outside of the Truck Repair Shop. The RWQCB re-inspected the subject property and was told that water from the truck wash down area discharges through a filter and is pumped from a sump into a 2,810-gallon AST. Employees at the subject property stated that the tank had never been emptied. The subject property was cited with several violations at the time including:
truck wash water flowing into the parking lot; storm water exceedances (December 2001); and condensate from the boiler room at the mill discharging onto the ground. Based on the use of this area as a truck wash and reported violations for past housekeeping practices, the historical operations in this area are considered a REC.
A controlled recognized environmental condition (CREC) refers to a REC resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority, with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls.
2031
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 16-163550.1
August 18, 2016
Page iv
Partner did not identify controlled recognized environmental conditions during the course of this assessment.
A historical recognized environmental condition (HREC) refers to a past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that has occurred in connection with the property and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or meeting unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjecting the property to any required controls. The following was identified during the course of this assessment:
Two 12,000 gallon USTs identified as containing diesel were removed from the subject property in July 1989; available file information maps these USTs north of the mill building. In a letter dated September 4, 1998 by the San Bernardino County Fire Department, Hazardous Materials Division (SBCFD), a report prepared by Babcock & Sons, Inc. and dated July 25, 1989 was reviewed by the SBCFD. The letter indicated the “contamination remaining in the excavation is below that which is generally considered a problem and further investigation is not warranted at this time.” Based on the reported sampling conducted subsequent issuance of a No Further Action (NFA) letter by SBCFD, the two former 12,000 gallon USTs removed in 1989 are considered an HREC. One 12,000 gallon diesel fuel UST and associated dispenser was removed from the area north of the main office/warehouse building in December 2002. Confirmation sampling was conducted beneath the UST and the stockpiled soil which was re-used for backfill of the excavation. Residual petroleum impacts were identified in the stockpiled soil. The SBCFD issued an NFA letter on January 8, 2003 for the removal of the UST and associated dispenser. Based on the removal and subsequent issue of the NFA, the former 12,000 gallon diesel UST located north of the main office building (east of the ”former vegetable oil processing center”) is considered an HREC.
An environmental issue refers to environmental concerns identified by Partner, which do not qualify as RECs; however, warrant further discussion. The following was identified during the course of this assessment:
The site contact indicated sanitary discharges from the restrooms in the office/warehouse and truck repair shop buildings are directed to on-site septic systems. The site contact was not aware of where the septic systems were located and Partner did not observe any evidence of the septic system during the site visit. Previous reports identified two potential areas of the septic systems on a site figure; however, the prior reports also indicated the location of the septic systems were unknown. No service sinks or floor drains, other than those located in the restrooms, were observed on the subject property. Septic systems are typically of environmental concern due to the potential discharge of petroleum products or hazardous substances; however, since there were no floor drains or evidence of discharges to the septic systems other than for domestic use, the septic system(s) do not appear to be a significant environmental concern. The grain processing mill has been in operation since circa 1973. The processing equipment within the mill and underground conveyor systems require lubrication oil; however, no leaking or 2032
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 16-163550.1
August 18, 2016
Page v
other indications of a release were observed during the site reconnaissance. Based on site observations, the equipment use does not appear to be a significant environmental concern. The area north of the subject property includes several railroad lines, including rail road spurs which extend onto the subject property. Railroad lines may be of environmental concern due to the use of pesticides, herbicides and oils used for the maintenance of the rail lines, regulated railroad bedding material (slag, gravel, etc.) or chemicals leaching from treated railroad crossties.
Based on the commercial nature of the subject property, the presence of the rail lines do not appear to be a significant environmental concern.
Due to the age of the subject property buildings, there is a potential that asbestos-containing material (ACM) is present. Overall, suspect ACMs were observed in good condition and do not pose a health and safety concern to the occupants of the subject property at this time.
Conclusions, Opinions and Recommendations
Partner has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E1527-13 of 5355 East Airport Drive in the City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California (the “subject property”). Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 1.5 of this report.
This assessment has revealed evidence of recognized environmental conditions and/or environmental issues in connection with the subject property. Based on the conclusions of this assessment, Partner recommends the following:
A limited subsurface investigation should be conducted in order to determine the presence or absence of soil and/or groundwater contamination due to the historical use of the subject property.
An Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Program should be implemented in order to safely manage the suspect ACMs located at the subject property. 2033
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 16-163550.1
August 18, 2016
Page vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Scope of Work ................................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Limitations .......................................................................................................................................................................... 2
1.4 User Reliance ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2
1.5 Limiting Conditions ......................................................................................................................................................... 3
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Site Location and Legal Description ......................................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Current Property Use ...................................................................................................................................................... 4
2.3 Current Use of Adjacent Properties .......................................................................................................................... 4
2.4 Physical Setting Sources ................................................................................................................................................ 5
2.4.1 Topography .............................................................................................................................................................. 5
2.4.2 Hydrology ................................................................................................................................................................. 5
2.4.3 Geology/Soils .......................................................................................................................................................... 6
2.4.4 Flood Zone Information ...................................................................................................................................... 6
3.0 HISTORICAL INFORMATION............................................................................................................... 7
3.1 Aerial Photograph Review ............................................................................................................................................ 7
3.2 Fire Insurance Maps ........................................................................................................................................................ 8
3.3 City Directories .................................................................................................................................................................. 9
3.4 Historical Topographic Maps ...................................................................................................................................... 9
4.0 REGULATORY RECORDS REVIEW .....................................................................................................11
4.1 Regulatory Agencies .................................................................................................................................................... 11
4.1.1 State Department ............................................................................................................................................... 11
4.1.2 County Department of Public Health, Division of Environmental Health Services ................... 11
4.1.3 County Fire Department................................................................................................................................... 12
4.1.4 City Fire Department ......................................................................................................................................... 13
4.1.5 Air Pollution Control Agency .......................................................................................................................... 14
4.1.6 Department of Toxic Substances Control ................................................................................................. 14
4.1.7 Building Department ......................................................................................................................................... 14
4.1.8 Planning Department ........................................................................................................................................ 15
4.1.9 Oil & Gas Exploration ........................................................................................................................................ 15
4.1.10 Assessor’s Office.................................................................................................................................................. 15
4.2 Mapped Database Records Search ........................................................................................................................ 15
4.2.1 Regulatory Database Summary ..................................................................................................................... 16
4.2.2 Subject Property Listings ................................................................................................................................. 17
4.2.3 Adjacent Property Listings .............................................................................................................................. 17
4.2.4 Sites of Concern Listings .................................................................................................................................. 18
4.2.5 Orphan Listings .................................................................................................................................................... 18
5.0 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION AND INTERVIEWS ....................................................................19
5.1 Interviews ......................................................................................................................................................................... 20
5.1.1 Interview with Owner ........................................................................................................................................ 20
5.1.2 Interview with Report User .............................................................................................................................. 20 2034
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 16-163550.1
August 18, 2016
Page vii
5.1.3 Interview with Key Site Manager .................................................................................................................. 20
5.1.4 Interviews with Past Owners, Operators and Occupants .................................................................... 20
5.1.5 Interview with Others ........................................................................................................................................ 20
5.2 User Provided Information ........................................................................................................................................ 20
5.2.1 Title Records, Environmental Liens, and AULs ......................................................................................... 20
5.2.2 Specialized Knowledge ..................................................................................................................................... 20
5.2.3 Actual Knowledge of the User ....................................................................................................................... 21
5.2.4 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues ....................................................................................... 21
5.2.5 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information .......................................................... 21
5.2.6 Previous Reports and Other Provided Documentation ....................................................................... 21
6.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE ....................................................................................................................23
6.1 General Site Characteristics....................................................................................................................................... 23
6.2 Potential Environmental Hazards............................................................................................................................ 25
6.3 Non-ASTM Services...................................................................................................................................................... 27
6.3.1 Asbestos-Containing Materials (ACMs) ..................................................................................................... 27
6.3.2 Lead-Based Paint (LBP) ..................................................................................................................................... 28
6.3.3 Radon ...................................................................................................................................................................... 28
6.3.4 Lead in Drinking Water ..................................................................................................................................... 29
6.3.5 Mold ......................................................................................................................................................................... 29
6.4 Adjacent Property Reconnaissance ........................................................................................................................ 29
7.0 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................30
8.0 SIGNATURES OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS ................................................................. 34
9.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................35 Figures
Figure 1 Site Location Map
Figure 2 Site Plan
Figure 3 Topographic Map
Appendices
Appendix A Site Photographs
Appendix B Historical/Regulatory Documentation
Appendix C Regulatory Database Report
Appendix D Qualifications
2035
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 16-163550.1
August 18, 2016
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. (Partner) has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) in general conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Standard Practice E1527-13 and the Environmental Protection Agency Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) (40 CFR Part 312) and as set forth by the Master Services Agreement between Prologis and Partner dated April 18, 2013 for the property located at 5355 East Airport Drive in the City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California (the “subject property”). Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this scope of work are described in the report.
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this ESA is to identify existing or potential Recognized Environmental Conditions (as defined by ASTM Standard E1527-13) affecting the subject property that: 1) constitute or result in a material violation or a potential material violation of any applicable environmental law; 2) impose any material constraints on the operation of the subject property or require a material change in the use thereof; 3) require clean-up, remedial action or other response with respect to Hazardous Substances or Petroleum Products on or affecting the subject property under any applicable environmental law; 4) may affect the value of the subject property; and 5) may require specific actions to be performed with regard to such conditions and circumstances. The information contained in the ESA Report will be used by Client to: 1) evaluate its legal and financial liabilities for transactions related to foreclosure, purchase, sale, loan origination, loan workout or seller financing; 2) evaluate the subject property’s overall development potential, the associated market value and the impact of applicable laws that restrict financial and other types of assistance for the future development of the subject property; and/or 3) determine whether specific actions are required to be performed prior to the foreclosure, purchase, sale, loan origination, loan workout or seller financing of the subject property.
This ESA was performed to permit the User to satisfy one of the requirements to qualify for the innocent landowner, contiguous property owner, or bona fide prospective purchaser limitations on scope of Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) (42 U.S.C. §9601) liability (hereinafter, the “landowner liability protections,” or “LLPs”). ASTM Standard E1527-13 constitutes “all appropriate inquiry into the previous ownership and uses of the property consistent with good commercial or customary practice” as defined at 42 U.S.C. §9601(35)(B).
1.2 Scope of Work
The scope of work for this ESA is in general accordance with the requirements of ASTM Standard E1527-
13. This assessment included: 1) a property and adjacent site reconnaissance; 2) interviews with key personnel; 3) a review of historical sources; 4) a review of regulatory agency records; and 5) a review of a regulatory database report provided by a third-party vendor. Partner contacted local agencies, such as environmental health departments, fire departments, and building departments in order to determine any current and/or former hazardous substances usage, storage, and/or releases of hazardous substances on the subject property. Additionally, Partner researched information on the presence of activity and use limitations (AULs) at these agencies. As defined by ASTM E1527-13, AULs are the legal or physical 2036
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 16-163550.1
August 18, 2016
restrictions or limitations on the use of, or access to, a site or facility: 1) to reduce or eliminate potential exposure to hazardous substances or petroleum products in the soil or groundwater on the subject property; or 2) to prevent activities that could interfere with the effectiveness of a response action, in order to ensure maintenance of a condition of no significant risk to public health or the environment.
These legal or physical restrictions, which may include institutional and/or engineering controls (IC/ECs), are intended to prevent adverse impacts to individuals or populations that may be exposed to hazardous substances and petroleum products in the soil or groundwater on the property.
If requested by Client, this report may also include the identification, discussion of, and/or limited sampling of asbestos-containing materials (ACMs), lead-based paint (LBP), mold, and/or radon.
1.3 Limitations
Partner warrants that the findings and conclusions contained herein were accomplished in accordance with the methodologies set forth in the Scope of Work. These methodologies are described as representing good commercial and customary practice for conducting an ESA of a property for the purpose of identifying recognized environmental conditions. There is a possibility that even with the proper application of these methodologies there may exist on the subject property conditions that could not be identified within the scope of the assessment or which were not reasonably identifiable from the available information. Partner believes that the information obtained from the record review and the interviews concerning the subject property is reliable. However, Partner cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that the information provided by these other sources is accurate or complete. The conclusions and findings set forth in this report are strictly limited in time and scope to the date of the evaluations.
The conclusions presented in the report are based solely on the services described therein, and not on scientific tasks or procedures beyond the scope of agreed-upon services or the time and budgeting restraints imposed by the Client. No other warranties are implied or expressed.
Some of the information provided in this report is based upon personal interviews, and research of available documents, records, and maps held by the appropriate government and private agencies. This report is subject to the limitations of historical documentation, availability, and accuracy of pertinent records, and the personal recollections of those persons contacted.
This practice does not address requirements of any state or local laws or of any federal laws other than the all appropriate inquiry provisions of the LLPs. Further, this report does not intend to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with the subject property.
Environmental concerns, which are beyond the scope of a Phase I ESA as defined by ASTM include the following: ACMs, LBP, radon, and lead in drinking water. These issues may affect environmental risk at the subject property and may warrant discussion and/or assessment; however, are considered non-scope issues. If specifically requested by the Client, these non-scope issues are discussed in Section 6.3.
1.4 User Reliance
Prologis engaged Partner to perform this assessment in accordance with an agreement governing the nature, scope, and purpose of the work as well as other matters critical to the engagement. All reports, 2037
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 16-163550.1
August 18, 2016
both verbal and written, are for the sole use and benefit of Prologis. Either verbally or in writing, third parties may come into possession of this report or all or part of the information generated as a result of this work. In the absence of a written agreement with Partner granting such rights, no third parties shall have rights of recourse or recovery whatsoever under any course of action against Partner, its officers, employees, vendors, successors or assigns. Any such unauthorized user shall be responsible to protect, indemnify and hold Partner, Client and their respective officers, employees, vendors, successors and assigns harmless from any and all claims, damages, losses, liabilities, expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) and costs attributable to such Use. Unauthorized use of this report shall constitute acceptance of and commitment to these responsibilities, which shall be irrevocable and shall apply regardless of the cause of action or legal theory pled or asserted. Additional legal penalties may apply.
This report has been completed under specific Terms and Conditions relating to scope, relying parties, limitations of liability, indemnification, dispute resolution, and other factors relevant to any reliance on this report. Any parties relying on this report do so having accepted the Terms and Conditions for which this report was completed.
1.5 Limiting Conditions
The findings and conclusions contain all of the limitations inherent in these methodologies that are referred to in ASTM E1527-13.
Specific limitations and exceptions to this ESA are more specifically set forth below:
Interviews with past or current owners, operators, and occupants were not reasonably ascertainable and thus constitute a data gap. Based on information obtained from other historical sources (as discussed in Section 3.0), this data gap is not expected to alter the findings of this assessment.
2038
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 16-163550.1
August 18, 2016
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1 Site Location and Legal Description
The subject property at 5355 East Airport Drive in Ontario, California is located on the north side of Airport Drive, west of the intersection of Etiwanda Avenue and Airport Drive, and southeast of the Interstates 10 and 15 Interchange. The subject property is located within a mixed commercial and industrial area of the City of Ontario in San Bernardino County. According to the San Bernardino County Assessor, the subject property is legally described as San Bernardino County APNs 0238-052- 020/022/029, a portion of Lot 3, Block 20, Tract 2244, and ownership is currently vested in The Scoular Company since 2006.
Please refer to Figure 1: Site Location Map, Figure 2: Site Plan, Figure 3: Topographic Map, and Appendix A: Site Photographs for the location and site characteristics of the subject property.
2.2 Current Property Use
The subject property is currently occupied by The Scoular Company with a sub-lease on the property to Verhoeven Grain Company for commercial/industrial use. The subject property is used as a grainhandling facility that has been in operation since at least 1973. Onsite operations consist of loading and unloading of multiple types of grain from trucks or the adjacent railyard and storing, milling, and processing for bulk and retail sale. Grain from the adjacent rail yard is off-loaded from the southern-most adjacent railroad spur and transported in an underground grain screw conveyor system to the centrallylocated grain mill for processing, or to the grain silos for storage. The raw materials are steamed, rolled, and flattened into finish products. In addition to the current structures, the subject property is also improved with bulk storage silos, a vehicle wash-down area, and associated sheds. Maintenance areas are located within the Office/Warehouse and Truck Repair Shop buildings. One service pit was observed within the Truck Repair Shop building, in the maintenance area.
The subject property has landscaping on the southern boundary, along Airport Drive.
The subject property is designated for commercial/industrial development by the City of Ontario.
The subject property was identified as a Facility & Manifest Data (HazNet), Underground Storage Tank (UST), Emissions Inventory Data (EMI), Facility Index System (FINDS), Enforcement and Compliance History Information (ECHO), Statewide Environmental and Evaluation Planning System, Underground Storage Tank (SWEEPS UST), National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), Waste Discharge System (WDS), and San Bernardino County Permit site in the regulatory database report, as further discussed in Section 4.2.
2.3 Current Use of Adjacent Properties
The subject property is located within a mixed commercial/industrial area of San Bernardino County.
During the vicinity reconnaissance, Partner observed the following land use on properties in the immediate vicinity of the subject property:
2039
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 16-163550.1
August 18, 2016
Immediately Surrounding Properties
North: Railroad tracks beyond which is Emser Tile (5300 Shea Center Drive) and Dorel Juvenile Group (5400 Shea Center Drive)
South: Airport Drive beyond which is the Kmart Distribution Center (5600 East Airport Drive) East: Praxair (5705/5735 East Airport Drive)
West: A commercial business (5351 East Airport Drive)
The adjacent property to the east, Praxair, was identified as an active Aboveground Storage Tank (AST), NPDES, Spills, Leaks, Investigation & Cleanup Cost Recovery (SLIC), UST, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act-Small Quantity Generator (RCRA-SQG), Waste Discharge System (WDS), and San Bernardino County Permit site in the regulatory database report, as further discussed in Section 4.2.
2.4 Physical Setting Sources
2.4.1 Topography
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) Guasti, California Quadrangle 7.5-minute series topographic map was reviewed for this ESA. According to the contour lines on the topographic map, the subject property is located at approximately 980 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The contour lines in the area of the subject property indicate the area is sloping toward the south. The subject property is depicted on the 1981 map as developed with the existing structures.
A copy of the 1981 topographic map is included as Figure 3 of this report.
2.4.2 Hydrology
The direction of groundwater in the vicinity of the subject property is inferred to flow toward the south based on topographic map interpretation. A small unnamed creek is located approximately 0.25 miles and geographically east of the subject property. No settling ponds, lagoons, surface impoundments, wetlands, or natural catch basins were observed at the subject property during this assessment.
According to available information, a public water system operated by the Ontario Municipal Utilities Company serves the subject property vicinity. According to 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, the sources of public water for the City of Ontario is purchased through the Metropolitan Water District and the State of California via the California Aqueduct system. Public drinking water is sourced from surface water bodies. Therefore, groundwater beneath the subject property does not appear to be used for public drinking water. In addition, no irrigation wells or private drinking water wells were observed at the subject property. Therefore, it can be concluded that groundwater beneath the subject property is not used for domestic purposes.
Information specific to the subject property regarding the depth to groundwater and direction of groundwater flow was not available for the subject area. According to a nearby investigation report (on GeoTracker), groundwater was measured in a well located approximately 4 miles to the east of the subject property at approximately 300 feet below ground surface (bgs). 2040
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 16-163550.1
August 18, 2016
2.4.3 Geology/Soils
The subject property is located in the Upper Santa Ana Valley, which is bounded on the north by the San Gabriel Mountains and the Cucamonga fault, to the east by the Colton-Rialto fault, to the west by the Puente Hills and Chino fault, to the southwest by the Chino Hills, and to the south by the Chino fault and Santa Ana River. The subject property is situated approximately eight to nine miles north-northwest of the Santa Ana River. The water-bearing sediment in the vicinity of the subject property consist of quaternary alluvium, comprised of alluvial-fan and fluvial deposits.
Based on information obtained from the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey online database, the subject property is mapped as Tujunga (TuB) Loamy Sand. The Tujunga series consists of very deep, somewhat excessively drained soils that formed in alluvium from granitic sources.
Tujunga soils are on alluvial fans and flood plains, including urban areas. Slopes range from 0 to 5 percent.
2.4.4 Flood Zone Information
Partner performed a review of the Flood Insurance Rate Map, published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. According to Community Panel Number 06071C8636, dated February 18, 2015, the subject property appears to be located outside of the 100- and 500-year flood plain.
A copy of the reviewed flood map is included in Appendix B of this report. 2041
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 16-163550.1
August 18, 2016
3.0 HISTORICAL INFORMATION
Partner obtained historical use information about the subject property from a variety of sources. A chronological listing of the historical data found is summarized in the table below:
Historical Use Information
Period/Date Source Description/Use
1897-1938 Topographic Maps Undeveloped/Native land
1938-1966 Aerial Photographs, Topographic Maps Agricultural land 1973-Present Aerial Photographs, Building Records, City Directories, Interviews, Onsite Observations,
Previous Phase I ESA
Commercial /Industrial
According to available historical sources, the subject property was formerly undeveloped as early as 1938; developed as agricultural land between 1938 and circa 1970; and developed with the current structures circa 1973. Previous owners have included Robertson Farm’s Company (1946-1956) and Southern Pacific Grain Company (1956-1976), although aerial photographs confirm that no operations were on the site until circa 1973. Since building construction the following occupants have been at the subject property:
United Dairyman’s Association (1976-1978), Chino Grain Company (1978-1985); Coast Grain Company (1985-2003); J.B. Heiskell & Co. (2008); The Scoular Company (2006-Present); and Verhoeven Grain Company (2008-Present).
3.1 Aerial Photograph Review
Partner obtained available aerial photographs of the subject property and surrounding area from Environmental Data Resources (EDR) on July 1, 2016. The following observations were noted to be visible on the subject property and adjacent properties during the aerial photograph review:
Date: 1938, 1948, 1953, 1959 Scale: 1”=500’
Subject Property: Agricultural land
North: Railroad tracks visible to the north with agricultural land located beyond South: Airport Drive, also known as Slover Avenue, with agricultural land visible beyond East: Agricultural land
West: Agricultural land
Date: 1966 Scale: 1”=500’
Subject Property: No significant changes visible
North: No significant changes visible
South: No significant changes visible
East: A large commercial property is visible to the east West: No significant changes visible
2042
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 16-163550.1
August 18, 2016
Date: 1975 Scale: 1”=500’
Subject Property: Developed with several buildings and miscellaneous structures. The western portion of the subject property remains agricultural land.
North: No significant changes visible
South: No significant changes visible
East: The commercial property to the east has increased in size West: Developed with a small commercial property several lots to the west Date: 1985 Scale: 1”=500’
Subject Property: The grain storage building is visible on the south-central portion of the subject property.
North: No significant changes visible
South: Several commercial structures are visible
East: The commercial property to the east has continued to increase in size West: A slight increase in commercial development
Date: 1990, 1994 Scale: 1”=500’
Subject Property: No significant changes visible; the western portion of the subject property remains depicted as agricultural land
North: An increase in commercial development
South: An increase in commercial development
East: An increase in commercial development
West: An increase in commercial development
Date: 2005, 2009 Scale: 1”=500’
Subject Property: The subject property appears to be fully developed as observed during the site reconnaissance
North: The properties to the north are fully developed
South: The properties to the south are fully developed
East: The properties to the east are fully developed
West: The properties to the west are fully developed
Date: 2010, 2012 Scale: 1”=500’
Subject Property: No significant changes visible
North: No significant changes visible
South: No significant changes visible
East: No significant changes visible
West: No significant changes visible
Copies of aerial photographs are included in Appendix B of this report.
3.2 Fire Insurance Maps
Sanborn map coverage was not available for the subject property.
A copy of the “No Coverage” letter is attached in Appendix B. 2043
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 16-163550.1
August 18, 2016
3.3 City Directories
Partner reviewed historical city directories obtained from EDR on July 1, 2016 for past names and businesses that were listed for the subject property and adjacent properties. The findings are presented in the following table:
City Directory Search for 5355 East Airport Drive (Subject Property) Year(s) Occupant Listed
1985 Chino Grain
1990-2003 Coast Grain
2008 JB Heiskell & Co, The Scoular Company
2013 Verhoeven Grain Company, The Scoular Company
According to the city directory review, the subject property has been occupied by a grain processing company since at least 1985. Prior to 1973, the subject property was occupied by agricultural land.
Environmental concerns associated with current and previous use are discussed in Section 4.2.
City Directory Search for Adjacent Properties
Year(s) Occupant Listed
2008 HC Olsen Construction (5351 East Airport Drive)
2013 Jack B. Kelley (5705 East Airport Drive)
2008-13 EMSER Tile (5300 Shea Center Drive)
2008 Dorel Juvenile Group (5400 Shea Center Drive)
Based on the city directory review, no environmentally sensitive listings were identified for the adjacent property addresses. However, the address for the neighboring property, Praxair, was not identified in the city directory search as Praxair, only as Jack B. Kelley in 2013.
Copies of reviewed city directories are included in Appendix B of this report.
3.4 Historical Topographic Maps
Partner reviewed historical topographic maps obtained from EDR. The subject property boundary has been added by EDR and was unable to be altered by Partner; the actual property boundary extends several hundred feet to the west. No pits, ponds, lagoons, or areas of obvious fill were observed in the mapping. The following observations were noted to be depicted on the subject property and adjacent properties during the topographic map review:
Date: 1897, 1900, 1903
Subject Property: The subject property is depicted as undeveloped North: Railroad tracks are depicted to the immediate north South: Undeveloped land
East: Undeveloped land
West: Undeveloped land
2044
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 16-163550.1
August 18, 2016
Date: 1953, 1954
Subject Property: No significant changes are depicted
North: Developed with agricultural land; railroad tracks are depicted to the immediate north
South: No significant changes are depicted
East: No significant changes are depicted
West: No significant changes are depicted
Date: 1966
Subject Property: No significant changes are depicted
North: No significant changes are depicted
South: High power electrical lines are depicted to the south East: Commercial structures are depicted to the immediate east West: No significant changes are depicted
Date: 1973
Subject Property: Four industrial-type buildings are depicted on the subject property (as they appear today)
North: No significant changes we are depicted.
South: No significant changes are depicted; the south adjacent street is identified as Slover Avenue
East: No significant changes are depicted
West: Several new commercial structures are depicted to the west Date: 1981
Subject Property: Four industrial-type buildings and several smaller structures are depicted on the subject property
North: No significant changes are depicted
South: No significant changes are depicted
East: An increase in development is depicted to the east and several new structures are depicted in close vicinity of the subject property
West: Interstate 15 is now depicted farther west
Date: 2012
Subject Property: The topographic map provides detail on roadways and waterways; no structures are identified
North, South, East
and West:
The topographic map provides detail on roadways and waterways; no structures are identified
Copies of reviewed topographic maps are included in Appendix B of this report. 2045
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 16-163550.1
August 18, 2016
4.0 REGULATORY RECORDS REVIEW
4.1 Regulatory Agencies
4.1.1 State Department
Regulatory Agency Data
Name of Agency: Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Santa Ana River Basin
Point of Contact: August Lucas
Agency Address: 3737 Main Street, Suite 500, Riverside, California Agency Phone Number: (951) 781-4499
Date of Contact: June 29, 2016
Method of Communication: Faxed Request
Summary of Communication: A review of RWQCB files was performed by Partner on July 11, 2016.
The RWQCB files for the subject property address indicate that a brine blow-down pond was historically utilized north of the subject property within the area of the railroad spurs (which appears to be off site). The boiler brine pond was used reportedly as a water softener drainage basin from the on-site boiler facilities. The Union Pacific Railroad closed the pond to use the area for additional service tracks.
The Closure Report, dated August 11, 1998, stated that Coast Grain would excavate and remove contaminated soils to a depth 12.5 feet at the bottom of the tie and center track in an area 60 feet wide by 160 feet long. Closure of the off-site brine pond was granted to Coast Grain Company with deed restrictions by the RWQCB on September 24, 1999. The closure project included removal and disposal of approximately 7,500 cubic yards of salt-contaminated soil, placement of a 40-mil, high-density polyethylene (HDPE) liner, and backfill of the excavation using select sand and clean soil. No documents were found regarding violations, complaints, or property inspections.
A copy of pertinent documents is included in Appendix B of this report.
4.1.2 County Department of Public Health, Division of Environmental Health Services Regulatory Agency Data
Name of Agency: San Bernardino County, Department of Public Health, Division of Environmental Health Services (SBCEHS)
Point of Contact: Claudia Remos
Agency Address: 351 North Mountain View Avenue, San Bernardino, California Agency Phone Number: (800) 442-2283
Date of Contact: July 26, 2016
Method of Communication: Telephone
Summary of Communication: According to SBCEHS, they no longer keep records for USTs for petroleum products and have released their records to the San Bernardino County Fire Department, Hazardous Materials Division (described below).
2046
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 16-163550.1
August 18, 2016
4.1.3 County Fire Department
Regulatory Agency Data
Name of Agency: San Bernardino County Fire Department, Hazardous Materials Division (SBCFD)
Point of Contact: Maria Molina
Agency Address: 620 South E Street, San Bernardino, California Agency Phone Number: (909) 386-8468
Date of Contact: July 1, 2016
Method of Communication: Faxed Request
Summary of Communication: Partner reviewed SBCFD files on July 19, 2016. Miscellaneous documents were reviewed dated from 1987 to 2003. The documents included a 1987 proposal to install a 12,000-gallon diesel UST provided by Barney’s Incorporated, although further handwritten notes in this file indicated a 13,000-gallon UST was delivered in February 1988 (potentially a misrepresentation of the 12,000-gallon tank), a “holiday” test was conducted in February 1988 with approval to backfill and pressure testing was conducted in March 1988. The documents also included a tank disposal form for the removal of two 12,000-gallon USTs and analytical data from July 1989. Based on these documents, a 12,000- or 13,000-gallon diesel UST was installed at the subject property in 1988 and appears to be related to the two USTs removed and sampled in July 1989 as discussed below.
In a letter dated September 4, 1998 by the SBCFD, a report prepared by Babcock & Sons, Inc. and dated July 25, 1989 was reviewed by the SBCFD. The letter indicated the “contamination remaining in the excavation is below that which is generally considered a problem and further investigation is not warranted at this time.” The attachment to the letter included a permit issued in July 1989 for the removal of two USTs identified as containing fuel.
In January 1988, conditional approval was granted from the SBCEHS division for the installation of four USTs. The USTs were described as single-walled and included two 4,000 gallon diesel, one 10,000 gallon unleaded, and one 10,000 gallon diesel. No evidence was presented in the file that indicated that these tanks were installed.
In 1999, conditional approval was granted by the SBCFD for the modification of UST system to install monitoring and leak detection.
Also included in the documents was an NFA letter issued by the SBCFD for the sampling conducted in March 1999 at the dispenser which was conducted in conjunction with upgrades undertaken in 1998.
Fuel System Closure Documents provided Tank Specialists of California were included in the SBCFD files. A permit was issued in December 2002 for the removal of one 12,000-gallon UST. A letter report prepared by Advanced GeoEnvironmental, Inc. (AGE) for Tank 2047
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 16-163550.1
August 18, 2016
Regulatory Agency Data
Specialists of California and dated December 18, 2002 was included in the documents. The letter indicated a 12,000 gallon diesel UST was removed from the area north of the main office building. A dispenser was noted as 5 feet northwest of the UST. AGE collected three soil samples beneath for former UST cavity and four samples from the stockpiled soil. AGE noted the soils beneath the former fuel dispenser location collapsed into the excavation and were not sampled. The analytical results of the stockpile exhibited concentrations of TPH-d of 230 parts per million (ppm) and 800 ppm and trace concentrations of benzene and methyl tert butyl ether (MTBE). No further detections were reported above the laboratory reporting limits. AGE concluded minor impacts of petroleum were encountered in one of the soil stockpiles. AGE indicated the soil stockpiles were used as backfill for the excavation. The SBCFD granted an NFA for December 2002 removal of this 12,000-gallon UST. The date of the letter is January 8, 2002; however, the body of the report identified the December 5, 2002 sampling event. The attachment to this letter included a typewritten note which indicated the soil stockpile was backfilled into the UST excavation and covered with asphalt. A handwritten initial and date of January 7, 2003 is located beneath the note.
A copy of pertinent documents is included in Appendix B of this report.
4.1.4 City Fire Department
Regulatory Agency Data
Name of Agency: Ontario City Fire Department
Point of Contact: Counter Personnel
Agency Address: 303 East B Street, Ontario, California
Agency Phone Number: (909) 395-2000
Date of Contact: June 29, 2016
Method of Communication: In Person
Summary of Communication: No records for USTs are kept with the City of Ontario Fire Department. The Ontario Fire Department referred Partner to the San Bernardino County Fire Department, Hazardous Materials Division.
2048
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 16-163550.1
August 18, 2016
4.1.5 Air Pollution Control Agency
Regulatory Agency Data
Name of Agency: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Point of Contact: Lisa Ramos
Agency Address: 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California Agency Phone Number: (909) 396-3700
Date of Contact: July 1, 2016
Method of Communication: Online
Summary of Communication: The subject property maintains a permit to operate for a rail receiving hopper, a hopper train receiving station, bucket elevator, grain elevator, overhead load tank, three silos with a 330,000- bushel capacity each, three clean-out screw conveyors, two transfer conveyors, and one baghouse.
A copy of pertinent documents is included in Appendix B of this report.
4.1.6 Department of Toxic Substances Control
Regulatory Agency Data
Name of Agency: California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) – Cypress Point of Contact: Jone Barrio
Agency Address: 5796 Corporate Avenue, Cypress, California Agency Phone Number: (714) 484-5337
Date of Contact: June 28, 2016
Method of Communication: Faxed Request/Email
Summary of Communication: Partner received a no records response from the DTSC dated July 5, 2016.
A copy of pertinent documents is included in Appendix B of this report.
4.1.7 Building Department
Regulatory Agency Data
Name of Agency: Ontario Building Department
Point of Contact: Counter Personnel
Agency Address: 303 East B Street, Ontario, California
Agency Phone Number: (909) 395-2000
Date of Contact: June 29, 2016
Method of Communication: In Person
Summary of Communication: A summary of records was available for review, detailed in the following table.
Building Records Reviewed for 5355 East Airport Drive
Year(s) Owner/Applicant Description
5-1-87 Coast Grain 499-gallon Propane Tank
1-28-93 Coast Grain Grain Transfer Pit
9-13-93 Richard Spaeth Grain Elevator
5-1-97 Coast Grain Three Grain Silos
A copy of pertinent document is included in Appendix B of this report. 2049
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 16-163550.1
August 18, 2016
4.1.8 Planning Department
Regulatory Agency Data
Name of Agency: Ontario Planning Department
Point of Contact: Counter Personnel
Agency Address: 303 East B Street, Ontario, California
Agency Phone Number: (909) 395-2000
Date of Contact: July 8, 2016
Method of Communication: Online
Summary of Communication: Partner review the City of Ontario’s Land Use Plan LU-01. The Land Use Plan indicates that the subject property is zoned as industrial land.
4.1.9 Oil & Gas Exploration
Regulatory Agency Data
Name of Agency: California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) Point of Contact: Internet Search
Agency Address: 5816 Corporate Avenue, Suite 200, Cypress, California Agency Phone Number: (714) 816-6847
Date of Contact: June 28, 2016
Method of Communication: Online
Summary of Communication: According to DOGGR, no oil or gas wells are located on or adjacent to the subject property.
A copy of pertinent documents is included in Appendix B of this report.
4.1.10 Assessor’s Office
Regulatory Agency Data
Name of Agency: San Bernardino County Assessor
Point of Contact: Online Search
Agency Address: 222 West Hospitality Lane, San Bernardino, California Agency Phone Number: (909) 387-8307
Date of Contact: June 28, 2016
Method of Communication: Online
Summary of Communication: According to records reviewed, the subject property is identified by Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 0238-052-020/022/029 and are currently owned by the Scoular Company. No records regarding square footage or building and utility information for the subject property was on file with the San Bernardino County Assessor.
A copy of the current assessor parcel map is included in Appendix B of this report.
4.2 Mapped Database Records Search
Information from standard federal, state, county, and city environmental record sources was provided by EDR. Data from governmental agency lists are updated and integrated into one database, which is updated as these data are released. The information contained in this report was compiled from publicly 2050
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 16-163550.1
August 18, 2016
available sources and the locations of the sites are plotted utilizing a geographic information system, which geocodes the site addresses. The accuracy of the geocoded locations is approximately +/-300 feet.
Using the ASTM definition of migration, Partner considers the migration of hazardous substances or petroleum products in any form onto the subject property during the evaluation of each site listed on the radius report, which includes solid, liquid, and vapor.
4.2.1 Regulatory Database Summary
Radius Report Data
Database Search Radius
(mile)
Subject
Property
Adjacent
Properties
Sites of
Concern
Federal NPL or Delisted NPL Site 1.00 N N N
Federal CERCLIS Site 0.50 N N N
Federal CERCLIS-NFRAP Site 0.50 N N N
Federal RCRA CORRACTS Facility 1.00 N N N
Federal RCRA TSDF Facility 0.50 N N N
Federal RCRA Generators Site (LQG, SQG,
CESQG)
0.25 N Y N
Federal IC/EC Registries 0.50 N N N
Federal ERNS Site Subject Property N N N
State/Tribal Equivalent NPL 1.00 N N N
State/Tribal Equivalent CERCLIS 1.00 N N N
State/Tribal Landfill/Solid Waste Disposal Site 0.50 N N N State/Tribal Leaking Storage Tank Site 0.50 N Y N
State/Tribal Registered Storage Tank Sites
(UST/AST)
0.25 Y Y N
State/Tribal Voluntary Cleanup Sites (VCP) 0.50 N N N
State/Tribal Spills 0.50 N N N
Federal Brownfield Sites 0.50 N N N
State Brownfield Sites 0.50 N N N
EDR MGP Varies N N N
EDR US Hist Auto Station Varies N N N
EDR US Hist Cleaners Varies N N N
WDS Subject Property Y N N
CAFID UST Varies Y Y N
EMI Subject Property Y N N
HazNet Subject Property Y N N
FINDS Subject Property Y N N
ECHO Subject Property Y N N
SWEEPS UST Varies Y Y N
NPDES Subject Property Y N N
San Bernardino County Permit Subject Property Y N N
2051
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 16-163550.1
August 18, 2016
4.2.2 Subject Property Listings
The subject property was identified as a HazNet, UST, EMI, FINDS, ECHO, Statewide Environmental and Evaluation Planning System, Underground Storage Tank (SWEEPS UST), NPDES, WDS, and San Bernardino County Permit site in the regulatory database report, as discussed below:
The subject property, identified as Coast Grain, JB Heiskell, and John Powell at 5355 East Airport Drive, is identified as a small quantity generator (SQG) of hazardous waste as indicated on the HazNet, ECHO, FINDS, NPDES, WDS, and the San Bernardino County Permits listings. The subject property is listed with five underground storage tanks (USTs) as indicated on the UST and SWEEPS UST listing.
The subject property is identified has having emissions requiring a Permit to Operate and registration with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) as indicated by the EMI and FINDS listings.
No listings of reported spills or violations have been reported.
4.2.3 Adjacent Property Listings
Adjacent properties to the north, east, south, and west were reported in numerous databases, as described below:
The property identified as Praxair at 5735 East Airport Drive, is located adjacent to the east of the subject property. This site is identified as a LUST, AST, EMI, Statewide Environmental and Evaluation Planning System, Underground Storage Tank (SWEEPS UST), Historical UST (HIST UST), CA FID UST, Historical Waste Cortese (HIST Cortese), RCRA-SQG, NPDES and San Bernardino County Permit site in the regulatory database report. The LUST database listing indicated a release of diesel fuel was reported in 1987, which reportedly impacted soil only. The site also has registered ASTs as indicated by the AST database listing. The site is a registered UST site as indicated by the SWEEPS UST, Hist UST, and CA FID UST listings. The EMI indicates that it is registered with the SCAQMD. This facility is a hazardous waste generator as indicated by the Hist Cortese, RCRA-SQG NPDES, and the San Bernardino County listings. The LUST details are not reported; however, the site was closed by the lead agency in 1988. Based on the site closure, lack of reported violations, and cross-gradient location of this site, this listing is not expected to represent a significant environmental concern and it is unlikely that a regulatory file review for this site would alter the findings of this assessment.
The property identified as Emser Tile at 5300 Shea Center Drive, is located adjacent to the north of the subject property. This site is on the San Bernardino County Permit listing. Further details are not reported. Based on the database listing, this listing is not expected to represent a significant environmental concern at this time and it is unlikely that a regulatory file review for this site would alter the findings of this assessment.
The property, identified as Verizon at 5351 East Airport Drive, is located adjacent to the west of the subject property. This site is on the AST and San Bernardino County Permit listings. Further 2052
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 16-163550.1
August 18, 2016
details are not reported. Based on the database listing, this listing is not expected to represent a significant environmental concern and it is unlikely that a regulatory file review for this site would alter the findings of this assessment.
The property, identified as Kmart at 5600 East Airport Drive, is located adjacent to the south of the subject property, across East Airport Drive. This site reported a release of diesel fuel in 1992, which reportedly impacted soil only. The details are not reported; however, the site was closed by the lead agency in 1993. Based on the site closure and downgradient location of this site, this listing is not expected to represent a significant environmental concern and it is unlikely that a regulatory file review for this site would alter the findings of this assessment.
Based on the findings, vapor migration is not expected to represent a significant environmental concern at this time.
4.2.4 Sites of Concern Listings
No additional sites of concern were identified in the database report that warrant discussion in this section.
Based on the findings, vapor migration is not expected to represent a significant environmental concern at this time.
4.2.5 Orphan Listings
There are nine unmappable “orphan” listings are identified in the regulatory database report. Based on the limited description given in the EDR report, it does not appear that any of the orphan listings are related to the subject property or immediately nearby properties.
A copy of the regulatory database report is included in Appendix C of this report. 2053
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 16-163550.1
August 18, 2016
5.0 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION AND INTERVIEWS
In order to qualify for one of the Landowner Liability Protections (LLPs) offered by the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2001 (the Brownfields Amendments), the User must conduct the following inquiries required by 40 CFR 312.25, 312.28, 312.29, 312.30, and 312.31. The User should provide the following information to the environmental professional. Failure to provide this information could result in a determination that all appropriate inquiries is not complete. The User is asked to provide information or knowledge of the following:
Review Title and Judicial Records for Environmental Liens and AULs Specialized Knowledge or Experience of the User
Actual Knowledge of the User
Reason for Significantly Lower Purchase Price
Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable information Degree of Obviousness
Reason for Preparation of this Phase I ESA
Fulfillment of these user responsibilities is key to qualification for the identified defenses to CERCLA liability. Partner requested our Client to provide information to satisfy User Responsibilities as identified in Section 6 of the ASTM guidance.
Pursuant to ASTM E1527-13, Partner requested the following site information from Prologis (User of this report).
User Responsibilities
Item Provided By
User
Not Provided
By User
Discussed
Below
Does Not
Apply
Environmental Pre-Survey Questionnaire X
Title Records, Environmental Liens, and AULs X
Specialized Knowledge X
Actual Knowledge X
Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues X
Identification of Key Site Manager Section 5.1.3
Reason for Performing Phase I ESA Section 1.1
Prior Environmental Reports X
Other X
2054
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 16-163550.1
August 18, 2016
5.1 Interviews
5.1.1 Interview with Owner
The owner of the subject property since 2006, identified as The Scoular Company, was not available to be interviewed at the time of the assessment.
5.1.2 Interview with Report User
Please refer to Section 5.2 below for information requested from the Report User. The information requested was not received prior to the issuance of this report. It is understood that the Report User would not have knowledge of the property that would significantly impact our ability to satisfy the objectives of this assessment. The lack of this information is not considered to represent a significant data gap.
5.1.3 Interview with Key Site Manager
Mr. Caskey, facility manager, indicated that he had no information pertaining to any pending, threatened, or past litigation relevant to hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or from the subject property; any pending, threatened, or past administrative proceedings relevant to hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or from the subject property; or any notices from a governmental entity regarding any possible violation of environmental laws or possible liability relating to hazardous substances or petroleum products.
According to Mr. Caskey, the subject property was developed in circa 1973 for commercial/industrial use.
Prior to that, the subject property was developed agriculturally as early as 1938. Mr. Caskey further stated that there are no USTs, clarifiers, oil/water separators, or groundwater monitoring wells on the subject property to the best of his knowledge.
5.1.4 Interviews with Past Owners, Operators and Occupants Interviews with past owners, operators, and occupants were not reasonably ascertainable and thus constitute a data gap.
5.1.5 Interview with Others
As the subject property is not an abandoned property as defined in ASTM 1527-13, interview with others were not performed.
5.2 User Provided Information
5.2.1 Title Records, Environmental Liens, and AULs
Partner received an Environmental Lien and AUL Search report from EDR on June 27, 2016. No record of environmental liens of AUL were identified in the report; the report included a deed from 2003 when The Scoular Company took ownership of the subject property.
5.2.2 Specialized Knowledge
No specialized knowledge of environmental conditions associated with the subject property was provided by the User at the time of the assessment.
2055
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 16-163550.1
August 18, 2016
5.2.3 Actual Knowledge of the User
No actual knowledge of any environmental lien or AULs encumbering the subject property or in connection with the subject property was provided by the User at the time of the assessment.
5.2.4 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues
No knowledge of valuation reductions associated with the subject property was provided by the User at the time of the assessment.
5.2.5 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information The User did not provide information that is commonly known or reasonably ascertainable within the local community about the subject property at the time of the assessment.
5.2.6 Previous Reports and Other Provided Documentation Partner was provided with a Phase I ESA prepared by Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) and dated May 3, 2016.
Terracon did not identify any RECs or CRECs; however, an HREC associated with TPH concentrations in soil remaining in place associated with former USTs was identified. Following is a discussion of the pertinent information contained in the Terracon report.
Terracon conducted two previous Phase I ESAs dated May 5, 2009 and January 19, 2010. In addition, Terracon reviewed a Phase I ESA report prepared by SECOR International Incorporated (SECOR) and dated October 8, 2003. The report prepared by SECOR was not included as an attachment to the Terracon report and all information summarized from the SECOR report was obtained from Terracon’s summary.
SECOR Report Summary
SECOR did not identify any RECs or HRECs; however, several items of environmental concern were identified, which included former USTs, use of petroleum impacted backfill for a tank excavation, septic systems and a history of wastewater and stormwater violations.
Four USTs were removed from the subject property including two 12,000-gallon USTs north of the mill, one 12,000-gallon UST east of the former vegetable oil processing area and one UST of unknown size west of the former truck shop building.
Records reviewed by SECOR at the SBCFD indicated two 12,000-gallon USTs were removed in 1989 and an NFA issued on September 4, 1998. These two USTs were mapped north of the mill. This information confirms what was previously discussed by Partner in Section 4.1.3.
SECOR reported that soil sampling was conducted by another firm in July 2002 in the vicinity of a 12,000- gallon UST located east of the “former vegetable oil processing’” center (estimated by Partner to be the Warehouse building on the northern-central portion of the subject property). Soil analytical results identified concentrations of TPH-d of up to 4,500 parts per million (ppm) at 16 feet bgs. The 12,000- gallon diesel UST was removed in December 2002 and received regulatory closure from the SBCFD on 2056
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 16-163550.1
August 18, 2016
January 8, 2003. This information confirms what was previously discussed by Partner in Section 4.1.3 and referenced as north of the main office building.
According to SECOR, there was no documentation available from the SBCFD that indicated a UST was located west of the Truck Repair Shop. However, at the time of SECOR’s site reconnaissance, SECOR reported to have observed a former fueling island in the vicinity of the fourth suspected UST location.
Grisanti and Associates sampled this area in 2002 and found TPH-d at a concentration of 11 ppm at 15 feet bgs and no detectable TPH-d at 20 bgs.
SECOR reviewed an undated permit applications on file with the SBCFD for two 4,000-gallon diesel USTs; however, information regarding the location, use, or decommissioning of the USTs was not available.
Partner was not able to confirm that these USTs were installed at the subject property.
According to SECOR, a permit dated 1988 to operate five USTs with a hand-written note in the file dated February 25, 1988 indicating that “number of tanks was amended from five to four per signed-off job card.”
Terracon also reported that SECOR did not find information regarding size, construction, or location of drain fields associated with the two on-site septic systems. SECOR concluded a septic system located east of the Truck Repair Shop may have historically received truck wash water.
SECOR also performed a file review at the Santa Ana RWQCB and found that storm water discharge from the subject property exceeded the discharge permit benchmark values in 2001 for the following parameters: pH; total suspended solids; oil and grease; total organic carbon; total Kjeldahl nitrogen; biological oxygen demand; and copper. In 2002, the storm water discharge exceeded the benchmark values to total suspended solids, oil and grease, biological oxygen demand, and zinc. A violation was noted by the RWQCB on August 16, 2001 for the absence of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Storm Water Management Plan.
According to an inspection report from the RWQCB based on an inspection conducted on August 16, 2001, it was noted that housekeeping at the subject property was poor and that boiler blow-down water was being used for dust control. In April 2001, the RWQCB received an anonymous compliant stating that employees at the subject property were routinely pouring used oil into a drain located outside of Truck Repair Shop. The RWQCB re-inspected the subject property and was told that water from the truck wash down area discharges through a filter and is pumped from a sump into a 2,810-gallon AST. Employees at the subject property stated that the tank had never been emptied. The subject property was cited with several violations at the time including: truck wash water flowing into the parking lot; storm water exceedances (December 2001); and condensate from the boiler room at the mill discharging onto the ground.
No further previous reports or other pertinent documentation were provided to Partner for review during the course of this assessment.
2057
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 16-163550.1
August 18, 2016
6.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE
The weather at the time of the site visit was sunny and clear. Refer to Section 1.5 for limitations encountered during the field reconnaissance and Sections 2.1 and 2.2 for subject property operations.
The table below provides the site assessment details:
Site Assessment Data
Site Assessment Performed By: Janet Tentler
Site Assessment Conducted On: June 29, 2016
The table below provides the subject property personnel interviewed during the field reconnaissance:
Site Visit Personnel for 5355 East Airport Drive (Subject Property) Name Title/Role Contact Number Site Walk*
Yes/No
Jeff Caskey, The Scoular Company Facility Manager (909) 390-9566 Yes * Accompanied Partner during the field reconnaissance activities and provided information pertaining to the current operations and maintenance of the subject property.
Onsite operations consist of loading and unloading of multiple types of grain from the adjacent railyard, storing, milling, and processing the grain for bulk and retail sale. Grain is off-loaded from the southernmost railroad spur from the adjacent railyard. Grain is carried from the track in an underground grain screw conveyor system to the mill for processing or to the grain silos for storage. In addition to the current structures, the subject property is also improved with bulk storage silos, a vehicle wash-down area, milling facilities, and two maintenance areas. The maintenance areas are located within the Office/Warehouse and Truck Repair Buildings. One service pit was observed within the Truck Repair Shop, in the maintenance area.
Environmental concerns were identified during the onsite reconnaissance related to former USTs, the storage, use, and generation of hazardous substances as further discussed in Sections 6.1 and 6.2.
6.1 General Site Characteristics
6.1.1 Solid Waste Disposal
Solid waste generated at the subject property is disposed of in commercial dumpsters located within the central portion on the subject property. The City of Ontario removes solid waste from the subject property.
According to property personnel, only household trash is collected in the on-site solid waste dumpsters. No evidence of illegal dumping of solid waste was observed during the Partner site reconnaissance.
6.1.2 Sewage Discharge and Disposal
Sanitary discharges from the subject property are directed to two on-site septic systems, as further discussed in Section 6.1.7.
2058
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 16-163550.1
August 18, 2016
6.1.3 Surface Water Drainage
Storm water is removed from the subject property primarily by sheet flow action across the paved surfaces towards storm water drains in the public right of way. Site storm water from roofs, landscaped areas, and paved areas is directed to on-site concrete swales, which drain to the public right of way.
The subject property does not appear to be a designated wetland area, based on information obtained from the United States Department of Agriculture. No surface impoundments, wetlands, natural catch basins, settling ponds, or lagoons are located on the subject property. No drywells were identified on the subject property.
6.1.4 Source of Heating and Cooling
Heating and cooling systems as well as domestic hot water equipment are fueled by electricity provided by Southern California Edison (SCE). The mechanical system is comprised of a split system with a central unit rooftop-mounted packaged electric HVAC units. Hot water is provided by individual natural gas hot water heaters.
6.1.5 Wells and Cisterns
No aboveground evidence of wells or cisterns was observed during the site reconnaissance. Two underground grain transfer conveyors were noted within the northern portion of the subject property.
The grain is off-loaded from the southern-most track from within the adjacent railyard and is carried from the track in an underground grain screw conveyor system to the mill for processing or to the grain silos for storage. The conveyor is equipped with metal plates that cover the openings during inclement weather conditions.
6.1.6 Wastewater
Domestic wastewater generated at the subject property is disposed by means of two septic systems. One vehicle wash-down area was observed north of the Truck Repair Shop; however, the vehicle wash-down area is no longer utilized. A sump and pump was observed in this area, but were also reported as no longer in use. When the vehicle wash-down area was in use, water would collect in the associated sump and reportedly wastewater was stored in a tank and transferred to 55-gallon drums for off-site disposal.
No hazardous material or waste storage is located within the vicinity of the vehicle wash-down area. No industrial process is currently performed at the subject property.
6.1.7 Septic Systems
According to Mr. Caskey, the restrooms in the Office/Warehouse and Truck Repair Buildings are thought to be connected to one or two septic systems. No evidence of any septic systems was observed during the site reconnaissance. Furthermore, Mr. Caskey did not know the construction or location of the septic system. Based on previous reports (see Section 5.2.6), there may be two septic systems located on the subject property, one west of the Office/Warehouse Building and one east of the Truck Repair Shop.
6.1.8 Additional Site Observations
No additional general site characteristics were observed during the site reconnaissance. 2059
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 16-163550.1
August 18, 2016
6.2 Potential Environmental Hazards
6.2.1 Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products Used or Stored at the Site Partner identified hazardous substances used, stored, and/or generated on the subject property as noted in the following table:
Hazardous Substances and/or Petroleum Products Noted Onsite Substance Container Size Location Nature of Use Disposal Method Antifreeze 10 x 5-gallon
containers
Northeast Corner of
Office/Warehouse
Auto Repair
Activities N/A
Motor Oil 10 x 55-gallon
drums
Maintenance Area,
Truck Repair Shop
Routine
Maintenance N/A
Waste Motor
Oil
10 x 55-gallon
drums
Maintenance Area,
Truck Repair Shop
Routine
Maintenance Asbury Environmental
Grease
10 x 5-gallon
containers
Maintenance Area,
Truck Repair Shop
Routine
Maintenance N/A
Waste
Grease
1 x 55-gallon
drum
Maintenance Area,
Truck Repair Shop
Routine
Maintenance Asbury Environmental
Diesel Fuel 2 x 250-gallon
ASTs
Northeast Corner of
Office/Warehouse
Fueling of yard
vehicles N/A
Parts Washer 1 x 55-gallon
drum
Maintenance Area,
Truck Repair Shop
Routine
Maintenance Asbury Environmental
Hydraulic Oil 1 x 85-gallon
AST
Northeast Corner of
Office/Warehouse
Routine
Maintenance N/A
Propane 1x499-gallon
tank
Near Warehouse
building
To power
forklifts and
pallet jacks
N/A
The majority of the materials appeared to be properly labeled and stored at the time of the assessment.
Several of the containers were observed on secondary containment pallets. The containers observed were generally in good condition with no leaking and minor staining observed on the containers. Based on site observations, the above materials do not expect to be of significant environmental concern for the subject property. See Section 6.2.3 for further discussion of staining.
6.2.2 Aboveground & Underground Hazardous Substance or Petroleum Product Storage Tanks (ASTs/USTs)
Partner observed two 250-gallon aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) for the storage of diesel fuel on the subject property. The ASTs are located on the northeast corner of the main office/warehouse building.
According to Mr. Caskey, the ASTs were installed previous to his arrival in 2012 and are equipped with secondary containment. Mr. Caskey indicated the diesel fuel is used to maintain the yard equipment, such as the front-end loaders, forklifts, and the bobcats. Minor to moderate staining was observed on the asphalt immediately surrounding the ASTs, and cracks in the pavement were observed. 2060
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 16-163550.1
August 18, 2016
Partner also observed numerous larger (10,000-gallon plus) ASTs and silos for the grain milling operations, which reportedly contained grains, water, and food grade oil with molasses. No petroleum products or hazardous substances were stored within these ASTs and silos.
Mr. Caskey thought the USTs were located beneath the canopy adjacent to Truck Repair Shop. Partner observed concrete cuts in this area which appeared to be from a former dispenser island.
6.2.3 Evidence of Releases
Minor to moderate staining was observed on the asphalt immediately surrounding the two 250-gallon ASTs. The asphalt was in poor condition with cracks observed in the area of the staining. Minor to moderate petroleum staining was also observed on the concrete floor in the maintenance areas in the office/warehouse building and truck repair shop. Minor staining was also observed on the concrete floor near the parts washer in the truck repair shop. The concrete floor appeared to be pitted in some of the areas. No drains were observed in these areas. Based on site observations, releases of petroleum products or hazardous materials may have adversely impacted the subject property.
6.2.4 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Older transformers and other electrical equipment could contain PCBs at a level that subjects them to regulation by the U.S. EPA. PCBs in electrical equipment are controlled by United States Environmental Protection Agency regulations 40 CFR, Part 761. Under the regulations, there are three categories into which electrical equipment can be classified: 1) Less than 50 parts per million (ppm) of PCBs – “Non-PCB;” 2) 50 ppm-500 ppm – “PCB-Contaminated;” and, 3) Greater than 500 ppm – “PCB-Containing.” The manufacture, process, or distribution in commerce or use of any PCB in any manner other than in a totally enclosed manner was prohibited after January 1, 1977.
The on-site reconnaissance addressed indoor and outdoor transformers that may contain PCBs. Two padmounted transformers were observed on the subject property. The transformers were labeled indicating no PCB content. No staining or leakage was observed in the vicinity of the transformers. Based on the good condition of the equipment, the transformer is/transformers are not expected to represent a significant environmental concern.
Additionally, no other current potential PCB-containing equipment (interior transformers, oil-filled switches, hoists, lifts, dock levelers, hydraulic elevators, balers, etc.) was observed on the subject property during Partner’s reconnaissance. Mr. Caskey reported that the grain elevators and conveyors are currently pneumatic, although this may not have been the case since its original construction, no records of former equipment were available for review as part of this Phase I ESA.
6.2.5 Strong, Pungent or Noxious Odors
No strong, pungent, or noxious odors were evident during the site reconnaissance.
6.2.6 Pools of Liquid
No pools of liquid were observed on the subject property during the site reconnaissance. 2061
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 16-163550.1
August 18, 2016
6.2.7 Drains, Sumps and Clarifiers
No drains, sumps, or clarifiers, other than those associated with storm water removal, were observed on the subject property during the site reconnaissance.
6.2.8 Pits, Ponds and Lagoons
One pit was observed within Truck Repair Shop, in the maintenance area. The pit was used for the servicing of equipment. No ponds or lagoons were observed on the subject property.
6.2.9 Stressed Vegetation
No stressed vegetation was observed on the subject property.
6.2.10 Additional Potential Environmental Hazards
No additional environmental hazards, including landfill activities or radiological hazards, were observed.
6.3 Non-ASTM Services
6.3.1 Asbestos-Containing Materials (ACMs)
Asbestos is the name given to a number of naturally occurring, fibrous silicate minerals mined for their useful properties such as thermal insulation, chemical and thermal stability, and high tensile strength. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulation 29 CFR 1926.1101 requires certain construction materials to be presumed to contain asbestos, for purposes of this regulation. All thermal system insulation (TSI), surfacing material, and asphalt/vinyl flooring that are present in a building constructed prior to 1981 and have not been appropriately tested are “presumed asbestos-containing material” (PACM).
The subject property buildings were constructed prior to 1973. Partner has conducted a limited, visual evaluation of accessible areas for the presence of suspect ACMs at the subject property. The objective of this visual survey was to note the presence and condition of suspect ACM observed. Please refer to the table below for identified suspect ACMs:
Suspect ACMs
Suspect ACM Location Friable
Yes/No Physical Condition
Drywall Systems Office Area (Office/Warehouse Building) No Good Linoleum Office Area (Office/Warehouse Building) No Good Floor Tile and Carpet
Mastic
Office Area (Office/Warehouse Building) No Good
Baseboard Mastic Office Area (Office/Warehouse Building) No Good Ceiling Tiles Office Area (Office/Warehouse Building) No Good Spray-Applied
Insulation
AST – (food grade oil) Yes Good
Insulated Piping AST – (food grade oil) No Good
The limited visual survey consisted of noting observable materials (materials which were readily accessible and visible during the course of the site reconnaissance) that are commonly known to potentially contain 2062
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 16-163550.1
August 18, 2016
asbestos. This activity was not designed to discover all sources of suspect ACM, PACM, or asbestos at the site; or to comply with any regulations and/or laws relative to planned disturbance of building materials such as renovation or demolition, or any other regulatory purpose. Rather, it is intended to give the User an indication if significant (significant due to quantity, accessibility, or condition) potential sources of ACM or PACM are present at the subject property. Additional sampling, assessment, and evaluation will be warranted for any other use.
Partner was not provided building plans or specifications for review, which may have been useful in determining areas likely to have used ACM.
According to the US EPA, ACM and PACM that is intact and in good condition can, in general, be managed safely in-place under an Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Program until removal is dictated by renovation, demolition, or deteriorating material condition. Prior to any disturbance of the construction materials within this facility, a comprehensive ACM survey is recommended.
6.3.2 Lead-Based Paint (LBP)
Lead is a highly toxic metal that affects virtually every system of the body. LBP is defined as any paint, varnish, stain, or other applied coating that has 1 mg/cm2 (or 5,000 µg/g or 0.5% by weight) or more of lead. Congress passed the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, also known as “Title X,” to protect families from exposure to lead from paint, dust, and soil. Under Section 1017 of Title X, intact LBP on most walls and ceilings is not considered a “hazard,” although the condition of the paint should be monitored and maintained to ensure that it does not become deteriorated. Further, Section 1018 of this law directed the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the US EPA to require the disclosure of known information on LBP and LBP hazards before the sale or lease of most housing built before 1978.
Based on the age of the subject property buildings (pre-1978), there is a potential that LBP is present.
Interior and exterior painted surfaces were observed in good condition and therefore not expected to represent a “hazard,” although the condition of the paint should be monitored and maintained to ensure that it does not become deteriorated.
6.3.3 Radon
Radon is a colorless, odorless, naturally occurring, radioactive, inert, gaseous element formed by radioactive decay of radium (Ra) atoms. The US EPA has prepared a map to assist National, State, and local organizations to target their resources and to implement radon-resistant building codes. The map divides the country into three Radon Zones, according to the table below:
EPA Radon Zones
EPA Zones Average Predicted Radon Levels Potential
Zone 1 Exceed 4.0 pCi/L Highest
Zone 2 Between 2.0 and 4.0 pCi/L Moderate
Zone 3 Less than 2.0 pCi/L Low
2063
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 16-163550.1
August 18, 2016
Radon sampling was not conducted as part of this assessment. Review of the U.S. EPA Map of Radon Zones places the subject property in Zone 2. Based upon the radon zone classification, radon is not considered to be a significant environmental concern.
6.3.4 Lead in Drinking Water
According to available information, a public water system operated by the Ontario Municipal Utilities Company serves the subject property vicinity. According to the City of Ontario and the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, water supplied to the subject property is in compliance with all State and Federal regulations pertaining to drinking water standards, including lead and copper. Water sampling was not conducted to verify water quality.
6.3.5 Mold
Molds are microscopic organisms found virtually everywhere, indoors and outdoors. Mold will grow and multiply under the right conditions, needing only sufficient moisture (e.g., in the form of very high humidity, condensation, or water from a leaking pipe, etc.) and organic material (e.g., ceiling tile, drywall, paper, or natural fiber carpet padding).
Partner observed accessible, interior areas for the subject property buildings for significant evidence of mold growth with the exceptions detailed in Section 1.5 of this report; however, this ESA should not be used as a mold survey or inspection. Additionally, this limited assessment was not designed to assess all areas of potential mold growth that may be affected by mold growth on the subject property. Rather, it is intended to give the client an indication as to whether or not conspicuous (based on observed areas) mold growth is present at the subject property. This evaluation did not include a review of pipe chases, mechanical systems, or areas behind enclosed walls and ceilings.
No obvious indications of water damage or mold growth were observed during Partner’s visual assessment of the buildings.
6.4 Adjacent Property Reconnaissance
The adjacent property reconnaissance consisted of observing the adjacent properties from the subject property premises.
6.4.1 Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products Used or Stored at the Site The neighboring property to the east, Praxair, was observed to store petroleum products at their location.
No obvious signs of spills or leaking containers was observed during the time of the site reconnaissance.
6.4.2 ASTs/USTs for Hazardous Substances or Petroleum Products The neighboring property to the east, Praxair, was observed to contain multiple ASTs at their location. No obvious signs of spills or leaking containers was observed during the time of the site reconnaissance.
6.4.3 Evidence of Releases
No evidence of releases was observed during the time of the site reconnaissance. 2064
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 16-163550.1
August 18, 2016
7.0 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Findings
A recognized environmental condition (REC) refers to the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: due to release to the environment; under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. The following was identified during the course of this assessment:
Based on information provided in the EDR regulatory database report, five former petroleum USTs were located at the subject property since 1988; however, there are inconsistencies on the number and status of the USTs found in other documentation. Partner was able to identify removal/closure records for three of the USTS. Regulatory closure letters address the removal of the three 12,000-gallon diesel USTs (discussed as HRECs below). Separately, at least one UST was suspected to be adjacent to west of the Truck Repair Building. Partner observed evidence of concrete cuts for a possible fuel dispenser in this area. Records for the fifth possible UST were not clear. Based on the lack of information regarding the status of at least two former suspect USTs at this facility, the former USTs are considered a REC. The subject property is currently equipped with two 250-gallon ASTs containing diesel fuel. The original installation date is unknown. Diesel fuel is used to maintain the yard equipment, such as the front-end loaders, forklifts, and the bobcats. Minor to moderate staining was observed on the asphalt surface immediately surrounding the ASTs. The asphalt appeared to be in fair to poor condition with cracks observed in the area of the staining. Based on the lack of information regarding the age and installation dates of these ASTs at this facility and site observations, the ASTs are considered a REC.
Maintenance areas and storage of automotive-related fluids such as motor oil, waste motor oil, and antifreeze was observed in the two central buildings (Office/Warehouse and Truck Repair Shop). Petroleum staining was observed on the concrete floor within these buildings and the condition of the concrete floor was pitted in some areas. In addition, minor staining was observed adjacent to a parts washer. Based on the long-term use of these buildings for maintenance, the usage of petroleum products and hazardous materials and evidence of staining, the historical operations in these areas are considered a REC. A former vehicle wash-down area was observed north of the Truck Repair Shop. Partner observed a sump and pump in this area, however, were reportedly no longer in use. According to the site contact, when the vehicle wash-down area was in use, water would collect into the associated sump and “wastewater was pumped into a tank and then stored in 55-gallon drums for off-site disposal.” Previous reports indicated a violation was issued by the RWQCB, which included truck wash water flowing into the parking lot.
According to an inspection report from the RWQCB based on an inspection conducted on August 16, 2001, it was noted that housekeeping at the subject property was poor and that boiler blow2065 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 16-163550.1
August 18, 2016
down water was being used for dust control. In April 2001, the RWQCB received an anonymous compliant stating that employees at the subject property were routinely pouring used oil into a drain located outside of the Truck Repair Shop. The RWQCB re-inspected the subject property and was told that water from the truck wash down area discharges through a filter and is pumped from a sump into a 2,810-gallon AST. Employees at the subject property stated that the tank had never been emptied. The subject property was cited with several violations at the time including:
truck wash water flowing into the parking lot; storm water exceedances (December 2001); and condensate from the boiler room at the mill discharging onto the ground. Based on the use of this area as a truck wash and reported violations for past housekeeping practices, the historical operations in this area are considered a REC.
A controlled recognized environmental condition (CREC) refers to a REC resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority, with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls.
Partner did not identify controlled recognized environmental conditions during the course of this assessment.
A historical recognized environmental condition (HREC) refers to a past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that has occurred in connection with the property and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or meeting unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjecting the property to any required controls. The following was identified during the course of this assessment:
Two 12,000 gallon USTs identified as containing diesel were removed from the subject property in July 1989; available file information maps these USTs north of the mill building. In a letter dated September 4, 1998 by the SBCFD, a report prepared by Babcock & Sons, Inc. and dated July 25, 1989 was reviewed by the SBCFD. The letter indicated the “contamination remaining in the excavation is below that which is generally considered a problem and further investigation is not warranted at this time.” Based on the reported sampling conducted subsequent issuance of a No Further Action (NFA) letter by SBCFD, the two former 12,000 gallon USTs removed in 1989 are considered an HREC.
One 12,000 gallon diesel fuel UST and associated dispenser was removed from the area north of the main office/warehouse building in December 2002. Confirmation sampling was conducted beneath the UST and the stockpiled soil which was re-used for backfill of the excavation. Residual petroleum impacts were identified in the stockpiled soil. The SBCFD issued an NFA letter on January 8, 2003 for the removal of the UST and associated dispenser. Based on the removal and subsequent issue of the NFA, the former 12,000 gallon diesel UST located north of the main office building (east of the ”former vegetable oil processing center”) is considered an HREC. 2066
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 16-163550.1
August 18, 2016
An environmental issue refers to environmental concerns identified by Partner, which do not qualify as RECs; however, warrant further discussion. The following was identified during the course of this assessment:
The site contact indicated sanitary discharges from the restrooms in the office/warehouse and truck repair shop buildings are directed to on-site septic systems. The site contact was not aware of where the septic systems were located and Partner did not observe any evidence of the septic system during the site visit. Previous reports identified two potential areas of the septic systems on a site figure; however, the prior reports also indicated the location of the septic systems were unknown. No service sinks or floor drains, other than those located in the restrooms, were observed on the subject property. Septic systems are typically of environmental concern due to the potential discharge of petroleum products or hazardous substances; however, since there were no floor drains or evidence of discharges to the septic systems other than for domestic use, the septic system(s) do not appear to be a significant environmental concern. The grain processing mill has been in operation since circa 1973. The processing equipment within the mill and underground conveyor systems require lubrication oil; however, no leaking or other indications of a release were observed during the site reconnaissance. Based on site observations, the equipment use does not appear to be a significant environmental concern. The area north of the subject property includes several railroad lines, including rail road spurs which extend onto the subject property. Railroad lines may be of environmental concern due to the use of pesticides, herbicides and oils used for the maintenance of the rail lines, regulated railroad bedding material (slag, gravel, etc.) or chemicals leaching from treated railroad crossties.
Based on the commercial nature of the subject property, the presence of the rail lines do not appear to be a significant environmental concern.
Due to the age of the subject property buildings, there is a potential that asbestos-containing material (ACM) is present. Overall, suspect ACMs were observed in good condition and do not pose a health and safety concern to the occupants of the subject property at this time.
Conclusions, Opinions and Recommendations
Partner has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E1527-13 of 5355 East Airport Drive in the City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California (the “subject property”). Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 1.5 of this report.
This assessment has revealed evidence of recognized environmental conditions and/or environmental issues in connection with the subject property. Based on the conclusions of this assessment, Partner recommends the following:
A limited subsurface investigation should be conducted in order to determine the presence or absence of soil and/or groundwater contamination due to the historical use of the subject property.
2067
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 16-163550.1
August 18, 2016
An Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Program should be implemented in order to safely manage the suspect ACMs located at the subject property. 2068
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 16-163550.1
August 18, 2016
8.0 SIGNATURES OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS
Partner has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the property located at 5355 East Airport Drive in the City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California in general conformance with the scope and limitations of the protocol and the limitations stated earlier in this report. Exceptions to or deletions from this protocol are discussed earlier in this report.
By signing below, Partner declares that, to the best of our professional knowledge and belief, we meet the definition of Environmental Professional as defined in §312.10 of 40 CFR §312. Partner has the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the subject property. Partner has developed and performed the all appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312.
Prepared By:
Janet Tentler
Environmental Professional
Reviewed By:
Kathy Lehnus
Project Manager
2069
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 16-163550.1
August 18, 2016
9.0 REFERENCES
Reference Documents
American Society for Testing and Materials, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process, ASTM Designation: E1527-13 Environmental Data Resources (EDR), Radius Map Report with GeoCheck, June 2016.
Environmental Data Resources (EDR), The EDR City Directory Abstract, June 2016.
Environmental Data Resources (EDR), The EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package, June 2016.
Environmental Data Resources (EDR), The EDR Historical Topographic Map Report, June 2016.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance Administration, National Flood Insurance Program, Flood Insurance Map, accessed via internet, June 2016.
Kleinfelder, Comprehensive Case Closure Report, September 28, 2007.
Terracon Consultants, Inc., Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, May 3, 2016.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, accessed via internet, June 2016.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey, accessed via the internet, June 2016.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Map of Radon Zones (Document EPA-402-R-93-071), accessed via the internet, June 2016.
United States Geological Survey, accessed via the Internet, June 2016.
United States Geological Survey Topographic Map 1995, 7.5-minute series, accessed via internet, June 2016.
2070
FIGURES
1 SITE LOCATION MAP
2 SITE PLAN
3 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
2071
FIGURE
1:SITE LOCATION MAP
Project No. 16-163550.1 KEY: Subject Site 2072
FIGURE 2: SITE PLAN
Project No.16-163550.1 KEY: Subject Site GROUNDWATER
FLOW
Grain Storage
Grain Mill
Former UST(s)
location under canopy Haz Waste Storage
Grain Storage
Grain Storage 2x250-gallon diesel ASTs
Building E
Building A
Building C
Building B
Building D
Transformers (2)
Vehicle Wash-Down Area
Haz Waste Storage
2073
FIGURE
3:TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
Project No.16-163550.1
USGS 7.5 Minute Guasti, California Quadrangle Created: 1981 2074
APPENDIX A: SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
2075
APPENDIX A: SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Project No. 16-163550.1
1. View of Main Building (Building A) 2. View of Warehouse Building (Building C)
3. View of Main Building (Building A) 4. View of Milling Area
5. View of Storage Silos 6. View of Grain Receiving Transfer Conveyor 2076
APPENDIX A: SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Project No. 16-163550.1
7. View of Grain Receiving Transfer Conveyor 8. View of Storage Silos
9. View of Grain Storage (Building E) 10. View of Grain Storage (Building D)
11. View of Propane near Warehouse Building (Building C) 12. View of Diesel ASTs and Hydraulic Oil AST near Main Building (Building A)
2077
APPENDIX A: SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Project No. 16-163550.1
13. View of Trash Dumpsters 14. View of Former Vehicle Wash-Down Area
15. View of Interior of Main Building (Building A)
Maintenance Area
16. View of Interior of Main Building (Building A) Maintenance Area
17. View of Interior of Main Building (Building A)
Maintenance Area
18. View of reported Former UST area near Maintenance
Building (Building B)
2078
APPENDIX A: SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Project No. 16-163550.1
19. View of Service Pit within Building B 20. View of Waste Oil Storage within Building B
21. View of Maintenance Area within Building B 22. View of Interior Parking/Garage area within Main building (Building A)
23. View of 1 of 2 SCE Pad-Mounted Transformer labeled with No PCBs
24. View of 2 of 2 SCE Pad-Mounted Transformer labeled with No PCBs
2079
APPENDIX B: HISTORICAL/REGULATORY DOCUMENTATION
2080
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Scoular Grain Facility
5355 East Airport Drive
Ontario, San Bernardino County, California
May 3, 2016
Terracon Project No. 60167098
Prepared for:
The Scoular Company
Omaha, Nebraska
Prepared by:
Terracon Consultants, Inc.
Irvine, California
2081
2082
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... i Findings ............................................................................................................................................. i Significant Data Gap ........................................................................................................................iv Opinions and Conclusions ...............................................................................................................iv
1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Site Description ................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Scope of Services ............................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Standard of Care ................................................................................................................. 1
1.4 Additional Scope Limitations, ASTM Deviations and Data Gaps ....................................... 2
1.5 Reliance .............................................................................................................................. 3
1.6 Client Provided Information ................................................................................................. 3
2.0 PHYSICAL SETTING ...................................................................................................................... 4
3.0 HISTORICAL USE INFORMATION ................................................................................................ 5
3.1 Historical Topographic Maps, Aerial Photographs, Sanborn Maps .................................... 5
3.2 Site Ownership .................................................................................................................... 6
3.3 Historical City Directories .................................................................................................... 6
3.4 Title Search ......................................................................................................................... 7
3.5 Environmental Liens and Activity and Use Limitations ....................................................... 7
3.6 Interview Regarding Current and Historical Site Uses ........................................................ 7
3.7 Prior Report Review ............................................................................................................ 8
4.0 RECORDS REVIEW...................................................................................................................... 10
4.1 Federal and State/Tribal Databases ................................................................................. 10
4.2 Local Agency Inquiries ...................................................................................................... 16
5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE............................................................................................................ 22
5.1 General Site Information ................................................................................................... 22
5.2 Overview of Current Site Occupants................................................................................. 23
5.3 Overview of Current Site Operations ................................................................................ 23
5.4 Site Observations .............................................................................................................. 23
6.0 ADJOINING PROPERTY RECONNAISSANCE........................................................................... 27
7.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES.............................................................................................................. 28
8.0 DECLARATION ............................................................................................................................. 29
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Exhibit 1 - Topographic Map, Exhibit 2 - Site Diagram APPENDIX B Site Photographs
APPENDIX C Historical Documentation and User Questionnaire APPENDIX D Environmental Database Information
APPENDIX E Credentials
APPENDIX F Description of Terms and Acronyms
2083
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Scoular Grain Facility ■ Ontario, California
May 3, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. 60167098
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was performed in accordance with Terracon Proposal No. P60167098 dated February 23, 2016 and our Master Services Agreement date November 12, 2009, and was conducted consistent with the procedures included in ASTM E1527- 13, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. The ESA was conducted under the supervision or responsible charge of Islam (Sami) R. Noaman, Environmental Professional. Melanie J. Seydel, E.I.T. performed the site reconnaissance on March 24, 2016.
Findings
A summary of findings is provided below. It should be recognized that details were not included or fully developed in this section, and the report must be read in its entirety for a comprehensive understanding of the items contained herein.
Site Description and Use
The site is located at 5355 East Airport Drive in the City of Ontario, San Bernardino, California and consists of an approximately 13.37-acre tract of land developed with grain storage and feed mill buildings along with an office/warehouse, several storage sheds, office trailers and a truck shop building. Other site improvements include paved driveway and parking lots along with limited landscaping. At the time of the site reconnaissance, the site was occupied by The Scoular Company and George Verhoeven Grain Inc., which leases the east portion of the site.
The site operates primarily as a grain processing facility. Raw material, including corn and barley, are delivered to the site by truck or rail. The raw material is weighed and unloaded into the storage silos. The raw material is steamed, rolled, and flattened into the finished product and stored on site until delivery.
Historical Information
Based on review of available historical information, the site consisted of undeveloped and/or agricultural land from at least the early-1900s through the 1970s when the site was developed with existing mill facility. By the early-2000s, additional improvements to the site were made with large storage silos on the western portion of the site and a storage building on the southeastern corner of the site. The site remained relatively unchanged from early-2000s through the present.
Based on review of a previous Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the site by SECOR and dated October 8, 2003, it was concluded that evidence of recognized environmental condition (RECs) or historical RECs was not identified for the site, and no further investigation was recommended. However, SECOR identified several conditions of environmental concern including: on-site underground storage tanks (USTs), use of petroleum impacted back-fill in an 2084
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Scoular Grain Facility ■ Ontario, California
May 3, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. 60167098
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable ii
on-site tank pit following a UST removal, on-site septic systems, and the long history of wastewater and stormwater violations for the site. However, further inquiry/research into these concerns led SECOR to conclude that these concerns were not indicative of RECs. Additionally, Terracon completed two Phase I ESA reports on May 5, 2009 and January 19, 2010. Terracon ESA reports did not identify RECs associated with the site and no recommendations were provided.
The surrounding adjacent properties consisted of undeveloped and/or agricultural land with railroad tracks to the adjacent north of the site from at least the early-1900s through the 1960s when the property to the adjacent east was developed with the existing industrial facility. By the early-1990s, the property to the adjacent south was developed with an industrial building. By the early-2000s, the properties to the adjacent west and north of the site were developed with industrial buildings and remain relatively unchanged through the present.
Records Review
Selected federal and state environmental regulatory databases as well as responses from state and local regulatory agencies were reviewed. JD Heiskell Holdings LLC / Coast Grain Inc. / John Powell, located onsite, are listed in the regulatory database as a CA FID UST, EMI, WDS, FINDS, ECHO, HAZNET, UST, SWEEPS UST, NPDES, and San Bernardino County Permit facility.
Based on a review of the HAZNET listings, the site generated hazardous waste categorized as tank bottom waste, other organic solids, waste oil and mixed oil, unspecified organic liquid mixture, unspecified aqueous solution, and asbestos containing material from 2002 through 2010.
Based on a review of the EMI listing, the site was permitted for emissions with the South Coast Air Quality Management District from 1990 to 2009. Based on a review of the NPDES and WDS listing, the site is listed as an active permitted facility for industrial stormwater and continuous, or seasonal, waste water discharge that is under Waste Discharge Requirements. The site is listed as an NPDES / WDS facility that is considered a minor threat to water quality and either has a passive water treatment system or no treatment system as per the Regional Water Quality Control Board. No other pertinent information was provided in the NPDES and CA WDS database listings.
No violations or reported releases are listed for the site. Based on site observations, the absence of violations or reported releases, and waste streams identified at the site, RECs for the site were not identified. Based on a review of the San Bern. Co. Permits listing, the site is currently permitted as a small quantity generator, hazardous material handler, and aboveground petroleum storage 1,320-10,000 gallon capacity facility. Inactive permits for the site were identified as hazardous material handler and waste generator with 0-10 employees, UST ownership/operating permit, and aboveground petroleum storage (SPCC).
Based on a review of the SWEEPS UST listing, the site is listed with five underground storage tanks (USTs) of unknown size and content in 1988. Information regarding the status of the USTs was not identified in the databases searched by EDR. Based on records reviewed by Terracon at the San Bernardino County Fire Department (SBCFD) and information obtained from the San Bernardino County Environmental Health (refer to Section 4.2), four USTs were permitted to operate at the site in 1985 when Chino Grain and Milling occupied the site. Information regarding 2085
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Scoular Grain Facility ■ Ontario, California
May 3, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. 60167098
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable iii
USTs at the site prior to 1985 was not available at the aforementioned agencies. Two of the four USTs present at the site in 1985 were identified in the records as one 12,000-gallon unleaded gasoline UST and one 12,000-gallon diesel UST. Information regarding the installation/removal or regulatory status of the other two USTs at the site in 1985 was not available in the records reviewed by Terracon. An additional 12,000-gallon UST was reportedly installed in 1988 and this UST was removed from the site in 2002. Records and regulatory closure documents pertaining to the three 12,000-gallon USTs were identified during Terracon records review (further discussed in Sections 3.7 and 4.2).
Based on a review of Phase I ESA report completed by SECOR on October 8, 2003 (discussed in Section 3.7), three 12,000-gallon diesel USTs, north of the mill building and east of the former vegetable oil processing area, were removed from the site in 1989 and in 2002, and regulatory closure was identified for the three 12,000-gallon USTs. Additionally, a fourth UST of unknown size, reportedly located west of the truck stop, was removed in 1986. Soil sampling was reportedly conducted at the location of a former UST, and concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons below the applicable screening levels were identified at 15 feet below grade surface (bgs), and TPH concentrations were not detected above laboratory method detection limits at 20 feet bgs.
Residual impact of soils in the vicinity of the three USTs and reported location of former UST west of the truck repair shop were reported below Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Maximum Screening Levels for LUST sites where groundwater is at a depth of greater than 150 feet. Based on information reviewed by Terracon at the SBCFD and the 2003 SECOR ESA report documenting a subsurface investigation conducted by Grisanti and Associates at the site and regional depth of groundwater in the site vicinity, it is our opinion that the residual TPH concentrations remaining at the site appear to represent an HREC. The absence of information regarding the installation/removal or regulatory status of the two unknown USTs at the site in 1985 represents a data gap; however, based on the reported Grisanti & Associates subsurface investigation (SECOR 2003) at the historical suspect location of former UST(s) and anticipated depth to groundwater in the site vicinity, this data gap does not appear to represent a REC to the site.
Site Reconnaissance
Based on site reconnaissance, two air compressors, a rail car unloading system, above-ground storage tanks ranging in quantities of 250-gallons and 2,500-gallons, drums and containers ranging in quantities of 5-gallons and 275-gallons, two pad-mounted transformers, and three solid waste disposal dumpsters were observed. Indications of RECs were not identified.
Adjoining Properties
Railroad tracks abut the site to the north followed by an industrial building. The property to the adjacent east of the site consists of Praxair. Airport Drive abuts the site to the south followed by K-Mart Distribution Center. The property to the adjacent west of the site consists of Verizon Wireless. RECs were not observed with the adjoining properties. 2086
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Scoular Grain Facility ■ Ontario, California
May 3, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. 60167098
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable iv
Significant Data Gap
Significant data gaps were not identified in connection with the site.
Opinions and Conclusions
We have performed a Phase I ESA consistent with the procedures included in ASTM Practice E 1527-13 at 5355 East Airport Drive, Ontario, San Bernardino County, California, the site.
Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) or Controlled RECs (CREC) were not identified in connection with the site. However, Historical REC associated with TPH concentrations in soil remaining in place associated with former USTs was identified. 2087
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Site Description
Site Name Scoular Grain Facility
Site Location/Address
5355 East Airport Drive, Ontario, San Bernardino County, California.
San Bernardino County Assessor Parcel Number 0238052200000 & 0238052290000.
Land Area Approximately 13.37-acre
Site Improvements
The site is improved with grain storage and feed mill buildings along with an office/warehouse, several storage sheds, office trailers and a truck shop building. Other site improvements include paved driveway and parking lots along with limited landscaping.
The site location is depicted on Exhibit 1 of Appendix A, which was reproduced from a portion of the USGS 7.5-minute series topographic map. A Site Diagram of the site and adjoining properties is included as Exhibit 2 of Appendix A. Acronyms and terms used in this report are described in Appendix F.
1.2 Scope of Services
This Phase I ESA was performed in accordance with Terracon Proposal No. P60167098 dated February 23, 2016 and Master Services Agreement dated November 12, 2009, and was conducted consistent with the procedures included in ASTM E1527-13, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. The purpose of this ESA was to assist the client in developing information to identify RECs in connection with the site as reflected by the scope of this report. This purpose was undertaken through userprovided information, a regulatory database review, historical and physical records review, interviews, including local government inquiries, as applicable, and a visual noninvasive reconnaissance of the site and adjoining properties. Limitations, ASTM deviations, and significant data gaps (if identified) are noted in the applicable sections of the report. ASTM E1527-13 contains a new definition of "migrate/migration," which refers to “the movement of hazardous substances or petroleum products in any form, including, for example, solid and liquid at the surface or subsurface, and vapor in the subsurface.” By including this explicit reference to migration in ASTM E1527-13, the standard clarifies that the potential for vapor migration should be addressed as part of a Phase I ESA and was considered by Terracon in evaluation of RECs associated with the site.
1.3 Standard of Care
This ESA was performed in accordance with generally accepted practices of this profession, undertaken in similar studies at the same time and in the same geographical area. We have 2088
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Scoular Grain Facility ■ Ontario, California
May 3, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. 60167098
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 2
endeavored to meet this standard of care, but may be limited by conditions encountered during performance, a client-driven scope of work, or inability to review information not received by the report date. Where appropriate, these limitations are discussed in the text of the report, and an evaluation of their significance with respect to our findings has been conducted.
Phase I ESAs, such as the one performed at this site, are of limited scope, are noninvasive, and cannot eliminate the potential that hazardous, toxic, or petroleum substances are present or have been released at the site beyond what is identified by the limited scope of this ESA. In conducting the limited scope of services described herein, certain sources of information and public records were not reviewed. It should be recognized that environmental concerns may be documented in public records that were not reviewed. No ESA can wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for RECs in connection with a property. Performance of this practice is intended to reduce, but not eliminate, uncertainty regarding the potential for RECs. No warranties, express or implied, are intended or made. The limitations herein must be considered when the user of this report formulates opinions as to risks associated with the site or otherwise uses the report for any other purpose. These risks may be further evaluated – but not eliminated – through additional research or assessment. We will, upon request, advise you of additional research or assessment options that may be available and associated costs.
1.4 Additional Scope Limitations, ASTM Deviations and Data Gaps Based upon the agreed-on scope of services, this ESA did not include subsurface or other invasive assessments, vapor intrusion assessments or indoor air quality assessments (i.e. evaluation of the presence of vapors within a building structure), business environmental risk evaluations, or other services not particularly identified and discussed herein. Credentials of the company (Statement of Qualifications) have not been included in this report but are available upon request. Pertinent documents are referred to in the text of this report, and a separate reference section has not been included. Reasonable attempts were made to obtain information within the scope and time constraints set forth by the client; however, in some instances, information requested is not, or was not, received by the issuance date of the report. Information obtained for this ESA was received from several sources that we believe to be reliable; nonetheless, the authenticity or reliability of these sources cannot and is not warranted hereunder.
An evaluation of the significance of limitations and missing information with respect to our findings has been conducted, and where appropriate, significant data gaps are identified and discussed in the text of the report. However, it should be recognized that an evaluation of significant data gaps is based on the information available at the time of report issuance, and an evaluation of information received after the report issuance date may result in an alteration of our conclusions, recommendations, or opinions. We have no obligation to provide information obtained or discovered by us after the issuance date of the report, or to perform any additional services, regardless of whether the information would affect any conclusions, recommendations, or opinions in the report. This disclaimer specifically applies to any information that has not been provided by the client.
2089
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Scoular Grain Facility ■ Ontario, California
May 3, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. 60167098
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 3
This report represents our service to you as of the report date and constitutes our final document; its text may not be altered after final issuance. Findings in this report are based upon the site’s current utilization, information derived from the most recent reconnaissance and from other activities described herein; such information is subject to change. Certain indicators of the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products may have been latent, inaccessible, unobservable, or not present during the most recent reconnaissance and may subsequently become observable (such as after site renovation or development). Further, these services are not to be construed as legal interpretation or advice.
1.5 Reliance
This ESA report is prepared for the exclusive use and reliance of The Scoular Company. Use or reliance by any other party is prohibited without the written authorization of The Scoular Company and Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon).
Reliance on the ESA by the client and all authorized parties will be subject to the terms, conditions and limitations stated in the proposal, ESA report, and Terracon’s Master Services Agreement.
The limitation of liability defined in the Master Services Agreement is the aggregate limit of Terracon’s liability to the client and all relying parties.
Continued viability of this report is subject to ASTM E1527-13 Sections 4.6 and 4.8. If the ESA will be used by a different user (third party) than the user for whom the ESA was originally prepared, the third party must also satisfy the user’s responsibilities in Section 6 of ASTM E1527-
13. 1.6 Client Provided Information
Prior to the site visit, Mr. Tom DiGiorgio, client’s representative, was asked to provide the following user questionnaire information as described in ASTM E1527-13 Section 6.
Client Questionnaire Responses
Client Questionnaire Item
Client Did Not
Respond
Client’s
Response
Yes No
Specialized Knowledge or Experience that is material to a REC in connection with the site.
X
Actual Knowledge of Environmental Liens or Activity Use Limitations (AULs) that may encumber the site.
X
Actual Knowledge of a Lower Purchase Price because
contamination is known or believed to be present at the site.
X
Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information that is material to a REC in connection with the site.
X
2090
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Scoular Grain Facility ■ Ontario, California
May 3, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. 60167098
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 4
Client Questionnaire Item
Client Did Not
Respond
Client’s
Response
Yes No
Obvious Indicators of Contamination at the site. X
Terracon’s consideration of the client provided information did not identify RECs. A copy of the questionnaire is included in Appendix C.
2.0 PHYSICAL SETTING
Physical Setting
Physical Setting Information Source
Topography (Refer to Appendix A for an excerpt of the Topographic Map) Site Elevation Approximately 980 feet (NGVD)
USGS Topographic Map, Guasti,
California Quadrangle, 1981
Surface Runoff/
Topographic Gradient
Generally towards the south.
Closest Surface Water Unnamed creek, approximately 1,480 feet to the east of the site.
Soil Characteristics
Soil Type Delhi
USDA Web Soil Survey
Description websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/
Somewhat excessively drained sands
with negligible to slow runoff and rapid
permeability.
Geology/Hydrogeology
Formation Quaternary Deposits
Geological Map of California,
Description Dated 2010
Alluvium, lake, playa, and terrace
deposits; unconsolidated and semiconsolidated.
Estimated Depth to First
Occurrence of
Groundwater
Approximately 250 feet bgs at the site.
SECOR, “Final Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment,
Scoular Grain Company, 5355
East Airport Drive, Ontario, CA
91761” dated October 8, 2003.
*Hydrogeologic Gradient Not known - may be inferred to be parallel to topographic gradient (primarily to the south).
* The groundwater flow direction and the depth to shallow, unconfined groundwater, if present, would likely vary depending upon seasonal variations in rainfall and other hydrogeological features. Without the benefit of on-site groundwater monitoring wells surveyed to a datum, groundwater depth and flow direction beneath the site cannot be directly ascertained. 2091
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Scoular Grain Facility ■ Ontario, California
May 3, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. 60167098
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 5
3.0 HISTORICAL USE INFORMATION
Terracon reviewed the following historical sources to develop a history of the previous uses of the site and surrounding area, in order to help identify past uses for RECs. Copies of selected historical documents are included in Appendix C.
3.1 Historical Topographic Maps, Aerial Photographs, Sanborn Maps Readily available historical USGS topographic maps, selected historical aerial photographs (at approximately 10 to 15 year intervals) and historical fire insurance maps produced by the Sanborn Map Company were reviewed to evaluate land development and obtain information concerning the history of development on and near the site. Reviewed historical topographic maps, aerial photographs and Sanborn Maps are summarized below.
Historical fire insurance maps produced by the Sanborn Map Company were requested from EDR to evaluate past uses and relevant characteristics of the site and surrounding properties. Based upon inquiries to the above-listed Sanborn provider, Sanborn maps were not available for the site. Topographic map:
o Southern California Sheet 1, 1901 (1:250,000)
o Cucamonga, California, 1903 (1:62,500)
o Guasti Vicinity, California, 1941 (1:31,680)
o Ontario, California, 1954 (1:62,500)
o Guasti, California, 1966, photorevised 1973 and 1981 (1:24,000) Aerial photograph:
o Laval, 1938, 1”=555’
o Pacific Air, 1953, 1”=555’
o Cartwright, 1968, 1”=555’
o Teledyne, 1977, 1”=666’
o USGS, 1990, 1994, 2002, 1”=666’
o EDR, 2005, 1”=485’
o Bing, 2014, 1”-500’
Historical Topographic Maps and Aerial Photographs
Direction Description
Site
Undeveloped land (1901-1903); agricultural land (1938-1968); developed with existing main office building, mill, storage sheds located in the center and eastern boundary of the site, smaller building north of the office building and agricultural land along the western boundary of the site with a railroad spur (1977-1994); an addition of large storage silos on the western portion of the site and a storage building on the southeastern corner of the site (2002-2014). 2092
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Scoular Grain Facility ■ Ontario, California
May 3, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. 60167098
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 6
Direction Description
North
Railroad tracks followed by undeveloped land (1901-1903); railroad tracks followed by agricultural land (1938-1977); railroad tracks followed by apparent vacant land (1990-1994); railroad tracks followed by large industrial-type buildings (2002-2014).
East Undeveloped land (1901-1903); agricultural land (1938-1953); industrial facility consisting of several above-ground tanks and buildings (1968-2014).
South
Undeveloped land (1901-1903); agricultural land (1938); a paved road followed by agricultural land (1953-1977); a paved road followed by a small building and a parking lot for a large industrial-type building (1990); aforementioned industrial-type building expanded to the west (1994-2014).
West
Undeveloped land (1901-1903); agricultural land (1938-1968); agricultural land followed by a railroad spur and industrial-type facility (1977); agricultural land followed by a large office-type building and railroad spur (1990-1994); existing industrial-type buildings (2002-2014).
3.2 Site Ownership
Based on a review of the title commitment provided by Texas Environmental Research, the current site owner is Scoular Company.
3.3 Historical City Directories
The Haines Criss-Cross, SBC Pacific Bell, GTE, Lusky Brothers, San Bernardino Directory Co., Los Angles Directory Company, Southern California Telephone Company, Associated Telephone Company Limited, and R.L. Polk & Co. city directories used in this study were made available through EDR (selected years reviewed: 1980-2003) and were reviewed at approximate five year intervals, if readily available. Street listings not available prior to 1985. The current street address for the site was identified as 5355 East Airport Drive.
Historical City Directories
Direction Description
Site
5355 East Airport Drive – No listing (1980); Chino Grain 8 Mlng Inc (1985), Coast Grain Co. (1990-2003); JB Heiskell & Company, The Scoular Company (2008); The Scoular Company, Verhoeven Geo Grain Inc. (2013).
North 5300 Shea Center Drive – No listing (1980-2003); Emser Tile LLC (2008-2013).
East 5735 East Airport Drive – No listing (1980-2008); Praxair Inc. (2013).
South
5600 East Airport Drive - TMHE Contracting, K-Mart Corp (1980); K-Mart Distribution (1985- 2013).
West 5351 East Airport Drive – No listing (1980-2003); Olsen HC Construction (2008).
The above underlined facilities and/or addresses were identified in the regulatory database report and are further discussed in Section 4.1.
2093
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Scoular Grain Facility ■ Ontario, California
May 3, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. 60167098
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 7
3.4 Title Search
County Deed Records were reviewed by Texas Environmental Research of Rockwall, California to obtain a chain-of-title for the site. Ownership records were reviewed back to 1936. The title information is included in Appendix C.
Based on a review of the title provider’s research, the current site owner is Scoular Company (2003-present). In addition, previous owners identified included Coast Grain Feed Company (1985-2003); Chino Grain and Milling Incorporated (1978-1985); United Dairymans Association (1976-1978); Southern Pacific Grain Company (1956-1976); Robertson Farms Company (1946- 1956); and various private individuals.
3.5 Environmental Liens and Activity and Use Limitations At the direction of the client, performance of a review of these records was included as part of the scope of services by engaging Texas Environmental Research of Rockwall, Texas. Based on a review of the title provider’s research, environmental lien or AULs records were not identified.
3.6 Interview Regarding Current and Historical Site Uses The following individual was interviewed regarding the current and historical use of the site.
Interviewee
Interviewer Interviewee/Phone # Title Date/Time
Ms. Melanie J.
Seydel
Mr. Jeff Caskey /
909-390-9566
Manager March 24, 2016 / 8:00 AM
Terracon interviewed Mr. Jeff Caskey with The Scoular Company at the time of the site reconnaissance. Mr. Caskey indicated he has been associated with the site for approximately four years. According to Mr. Caskey, The Scoular Company owns the entire site and leases the eastern portion of the site to George Verhoeven Grain, Inc., which utilizes the onsite equipment and infrastructure for livestock feed manufacturing operations. Mr. Caskey indicated the site buildings are connected to septic tanks which are utilized for sanitary purposes. Mr. Caskey indicated that he is aware of presence of historical USTs at the site; however, he does not have knowledge of details pertaining to installation, removal or status of former USTs. Mr. Caskey was not aware of any water wells or petroleum pipelines associated with the site. Additionally, Mr.
Caskey was not aware of any environmental concerns associated with the site or in the site vicinity. In addition, Mr. Caskey was not aware of any pending, threatened or past environmental litigation, proceedings or notices of possible violations of environmental laws or liability or potential environmental concerns in connection with the site.
2094
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Scoular Grain Facility ■ Ontario, California
May 3, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. 60167098
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 8
3.7 Prior Report Review
Terracon requested the client provide any previous environmental reports they are aware of for the site. Previous reports were provided by the client to Terracon for review. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
5355 East Airport Drive, Ontario, San Bernardino County, California Dated: October 8, 2003
Prepared by: SECOR International Incorporated
For: GE Business Asset Funding
Based on a review of the Phase I ESA report, prepared by SECOR International Incorporated in October 2003, SECOR concluded that evidence of RECs or historical RECs was not identified for the site, and no further investigation was recommended. However, SECOR did identify several conditions of environmental concern including: underground storage tanks (USTs) at the site, use of petroleum impacted back-fill in a tank pit for a UST removal, on-site septic systems and the long history of wastewater and stormwater violations for the site.
According to SECOR’s report four USTs were removed from the site including two 12,000-gallon USTs north of the mill, one 12,000-gallon UST east of the former vegetable oil processing area and one UST of unknown size west of the former truck shop building.
SECOR performed a file review at the San Bernardino County Fire Department (SBCFD) and found records that indicate the two 12,000-gallon USTs were removed in 1989 and soil sampling was conducted. A letter was issued on September 4, 1998 by the SBCFD which indicated “contamination remaining in the excavation is below that which is generally considered a problem and further investigation is not warranted”. The records did not indicate where the two USTs were located; however, they may be the two USTs formerly located north of the mill. According to SECOR, Grisanti and Associates sampled the possible location of these 2 USTs (north of the mill) and did not identify detectable levels of the constituents of concern.
According to SECOR, soil sampling was conducted in July 2002 by Grisanti and Associates in the vicinity of a 12,000-gallon diesel UST located east of the former vegetable oil processing area.
The soil sampling analytical results indicated that total petroleum hydrocarbons in the diesel range (TPH-d) concentrations of up to 4,500 parts per million (ppm) at 16 feet bgs were identified, and TPH-d was not reported above laboratory method detection limit at 20 feet bgs. The UST was removed in December 2002 and received regulatory closure from the SBCFD on January 8, 2003.
The SBCFD files reviewed also included a letter from Tank Specialists of California which indicated that contaminated soil was used as backfill for the tank excavation and soil samples were not received until after the SBCFD issued the closure letter. The analytical results of stockpile used for backfill indicated that two areas of the sampled soil stockpiles contained concentrations of TPH-d at 230 ppm and 800 ppm. Tank Specialists of California requested closure of the site based on the impacted soil consisted of less than 50 tons of approximately 175 2095
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Scoular Grain Facility ■ Ontario, California
May 3, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. 60167098
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 9
tons of backfill material, contaminations levels were below 1,000 ppm, the excavated area was paved over, and groundwater is greater than 300 feet bgs. The letter from Tank Specialists of California was dated January 9, 2003, a day after the SBCFD had granted closure for the tank.
According to SECOR, there was no documentation available in the SBCFD file that indicated a UST was located west of the former truck shop building; however, at the time of site reconnaissance, SECOR observed what appeared to have been a former fueling island in the vicinity of the suspected UST location. Grisanti and Associates sampled this area in 2002 and found TPH-d at a concentration of 11 ppm at 15 feet bgs and no detectable TPH-d at 20 feet bgs.
SECOR also found undated permit applications on file with SBCFD for two 4,000-gallon diesel USTs; however, information regarding the location, use or decommissioning of the USTs was not available. According to SECOR, a permit dated 1988 to operate five USTs with a hand note in the file dated February 25, 1988 indicated that “number of tanks was amended from five to four per signed-off job card”.
SECOR did not find information regarding size, construction or location of drain fields associated with the two on-site septic systems. They also concluded that the septic system located east of the former truck shop may have historically received truck wash-water. The Grisanti & Associates report was not provided to Terracon for review.
Based on a file reviewed with the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), SECOR found that storm water discharge from the site exceeded the discharge permit benchmark values in 2001 for the following parameters: pH, total suspended solids, oil and grease, total organic carbon, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, biological oxygen demand and copper. In 2002, the storm water discharge exceeded the benchmark values for total suspended solids, oil and grease, biological oxygen demand and zinc. A violation was noted by the RWQCB on August 16, 2001 for the absence of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Storm Water Management Plan. According to an inspection report from the RWQCB based on an inspection conducted on August 16, 2001, it was noted that housekeeping at the site was poor and that boiler blow-down water was being used for dust control. In April 2002, the RWQCB received an anonymous complaint stating that employees at the site were routinely pouring used oil into a drain located outside the truck shop. The RWQCB re-inspected the site and was told that water from the truck wash area was washed into a filter and wash water was pumped from a sump into a 2,810-gallon AST. Employees at the site stated that the tank had never been emptied. The site was cited with several violations at that time including: truck wash water flowing into the parking lot, storm water exceedances in December 2001 and condensate from the boiler room at the mill discharging onto the ground.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Project Number 60097753 5355 East Airport Drive, Ontario, San Bernardino County, California Dated: May 5, 2009
2096
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Scoular Grain Facility ■ Ontario, California
May 3, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. 60167098
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 10
Prepared by: Terracon
For: The Scoular Company
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update, Project Number 60107702 5355 East Airport Drive, Ontario, San Bernardino County, California Dated: January 19, 2010
Prepared by: Terracon
For: The Scoular Company
The Terracon Phase I ESA (PN: 60097753), dated May 5, 2009, and Phase I ESA Update (PN:
60107702), dated January 19, 2010, reported the site was improved with grain storage and feed mill buildings along with an office/warehouse, several storage sheds, office trailers, a truck shop building, paved driveway, parking lots, and limited landscaping. The site was reportedly occupied by The Scoular Company and subleased by J.D. Heiskell & Co., which has utilized the onsite equipment and infrastructure for livestock feed manufacturing operations since 2002. Based on a review of the findings of Terracon’s ESA, RECs were not identified and recommendations were not provided.
4.0 RECORDS REVIEW
Regulatory database information was provided by EDR, a contract information services company.
The purpose of the records review was to identify RECs in connection with the site. Information in this section is subject to the accuracy of the data provided by the information services company and the date at which the information is updated, and the scope herein did not include confirmation of facilities listed as "unmappable" by regulatory databases.
In some of the following subsections, the words up-gradient, cross-gradient and down-gradient refer to the topographic gradient in relation to the site. As stated previously, the groundwater flow direction and the depth to shallow groundwater, if present, would likely vary depending upon seasonal variations in rainfall and the depth to the soil/bedrock interface. Without the benefit of on-site groundwater monitoring wells surveyed to a datum, groundwater depth and flow direction beneath the site cannot be directly ascertained.
4.1 Federal and State/Tribal Databases
Listed below are the facility listings identified on federal and state/tribal databases within the ASTM-required search distances from the approximate site boundaries. Database definition, descriptions, and the database search report are included in Appendix D. 2097
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Scoular Grain Facility ■ Ontario, California
May 3, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. 60167098
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 11
Federal Databases
Database Description Radius
(miles)
Listings
CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, & Liability Information System 0.5 0
CERCLIS /
NFRAP CERCLIS / No Further Remedial Action Planned 0.5 0 ERNS Emergency Response Notification System Site 0
IC / EC Institutional Control/Engineering Control Site 0 NPL National Priorities List 1.0 0
NPL (Delisted) National Priorities Delisted List 0.5 0
RCRA
CORRACTS/ TSD RCRA Corrective Action Activity 1.0 0
RCRA Generators Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Site and adjoining 1
RCRA NonCORRACTS/ TSD RCRA Non-Corrective Action Activity 0.5 2 State/Tribal Databases
Database Description Radius
(miles)
Listings
CA FID UST Facility Index Database Underground Storage Tank 0.25 6 CALSITES CalSites Database 1.0 0
CALSITES (AWP) Active Annual Workplan Sites 1.0 0
CDL Clandestine Drug Labs Site 0
DRYCLEANERS Dry Cleaners lists 0.25 0
EDR Hist Auto EDR Exclusive Historical Automobile Station listings 0.25 0 EDR Hist Cleaners EDR Exclusive Historical Dry Cleaners listings 0.25 0
ENVIROSTOR
The Department of Toxic Substances Control’s
(DTSC’s) Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse
Program’s (SMBRP’s) EnviroStor database identifies
sites that have known contamination or sites for which
there may be reasons to investigate further.
1.0 3
HAZNET Facility and Manifest Database Site 3
HIST CORTESE Hazardous Waste & Substance Site List 0.5 3 HIST UST Historical Underground Storage Tank 0.25 5
HWP EnviroStor Permitted Facilities Listing 1.0 2
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tanks 0.5 3
SLIC Spills, Leaks, Investigation and Cleanup list 0.5 2 SWEEPS UST Statewide Environmental Evaluation Planning System Underground Storage Tank 0.25 8
SWF/LF Solid Waste Facilities/Landfills 0.5 0
2098
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Scoular Grain Facility ■ Ontario, California
May 3, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. 60167098
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 12
Database Description Radius
(miles)
Listings
UST Underground Storage Tank Facilities Site and
adjoining 1
VCP Voluntary Cleanup Program 0.5 0
In addition to the above ASTM-required listings, Terracon reviewed other federal, state, local, and proprietary databases provided by the database firm. A list of the additional reviewed databases is included in the regulatory database report included in Appendix D.
The following table summarizes the site-specific information provided by the database and/or gathered by this office for identified facilities. Facilities are listed in order of proximity to the site.
Additional discussion for selected facilities follows the summary table.
Listed Facilities
Facility Name And
Location
Estimated Distance /
Direction/Gradient Database Listings Is a REC, CREC, or HREC to the Site JD Heiskell Holdings
LLC
5355 East Airport Drive
Site
CA FID UST, EMI,
WDS, FINDS, ECHO,
HAZNET
Coast Grain Inc. No, discussed below.
EMI, UST, SWEEPS
UST, NPDES, San
Bern. Co. Permit, WDS,
HAZNET
John Powell HAZNET
Verizon Wireless-Inland
MTSO
5351 East Airport Drive
Adjacent / West /
Cross-gradient
AST, San Bern. Co.
Permit No, discussed below.
Union Carbide Corp.
Linde Div
5705 & 5705 East
Airport Drive Adjacent / East /
Cross-gradient
SWEEPS UST, SLIC,
LUST, HIST UST, CA
FID UST, EMI, HIST
CORTESE
No, discussed below.
Praxair, Inc.
RCRA-SQG, LUST,
NPDES, San Bern. Co.
Permit, UST, AST, EMI
Jack B Kelley Ontario
Terminal
NPDES, San. Ber. Co.
Permit, WDS
Ontario Distribution
Center
5600 East Airport Drive
120 feet / South /
Down-gradient
SWEEPS UST, HIST
UST, CA FID UST, EMI,
NPDES, San Bern. Co.
Permit, WDS
No, based on depth of
groundwater (great
2099
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Scoular Grain Facility ■ Ontario, California
May 3, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. 60167098
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 13
Facility Name And
Location
Estimated Distance /
Direction/Gradient Database Listings Is a REC, CREC, or HREC to the Site K-Mart, Ontario
Distribution Center
LUST, SWEEPS UST,
HIST UST, HIST
CORTESE, AST
than 200 feet bgs) and
topographic gradient.
XPO Logistics Supply
Chain
5200 East Airport Drive
120 feet / South /
Down-gradient San Bern. Co. Permit
No, based on depth of
groundwater (great
than 200 feet bgs) and
topographic gradient.
Ameriwood Industries
5400 Shea Center
Drive
160 feet / North/ Upgradient San Bern. Co. Permit No, discussed below.
Emser Tile
5300 Shea Center
Drive
160 feet / North/ Upgradient San Bern. Co. Permit No, discussed below.
Cooper Lighting
5200 Shea Center
Drive Suite A
230 feet / Northwest /
Up- to cross-gradient San Bern. Co. Permit
No, based on a review
of the listing and depth
of groundwater (great
than 200 feet bgs).
Gulf South Medical
Supply
5200 Shea Center
Drive Suite B
230 feet / Northwest /
Up- to cross-gradient San Bern. Co. Permit
No, based on a review
of the listing and depth
of groundwater (great
than 200 feet bgs).
Five Brothers Inc.
5235 East Airport Drive
330 feet / West /
Cross-gradient
CA FID UST, SWEEPS
UST
No, based on distance
and topographic
gradient.
Koppers – Ontario
5101 East Airport Drive 470 feet / West /
Cross-gradient
RESPONSE,
ENVIROSTOR, DEED,
San Bern. CO. Permit,
CA BOND EXP. PLAN,
SWEEPS UST, HIST
UST, CA FID UST
No, based on distance
and topographic
gradient.
Koopers Company Inc.
12200 Airport Drive
ENVIROSTOR, HWP,
CORRACTS, RCRATSDF, RCRA-SQG
Chem Lab Products
Inc.
5160 East Airport Drive
490 feet / Westsouthwest / Down- to
cross-gradient
HIST UST, NPDES,
CHMIRS, San Bern. Co.
Permit, SWEEPS UST,
WDS, CORRACTS,
RCRA-TSDF, RCRASQG, SSTS
No, based on distance
and topographic
gradient.
Bio-Lab Inc. CHMIRS, HWP
2100
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Scoular Grain Facility ■ Ontario, California
May 3, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. 60167098
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 14
JD Heiskell Holdings LLC / Coast Grain Inc. / John Powell (5355 East Airport Drive) Selected federal and state environmental regulatory databases as well as responses from state and local regulatory agencies were reviewed. JD Heiskell Holdings LLC / Coast Grain Inc. / John Powell, located onsite, are listed in the regulatory database as a CA FID UST, EMI, WDS, FINDS, ECHO, HAZNET, UST, SWEEPS UST, NPDES, and San Bernardino County Permit facility.
Based on a review of the HAZNET listings, the site generated hazardous waste categorized as tank bottom waste, other organic solids, waste oil and mixed oil, unspecified organic liquid mixture, unspecified aqueous solution, and asbestos containing material from 2002 through 2010.
Based on a review of the EMI listing, the site was permitted for emissions with the South Coast Air Quality Management District from 1990 to 2009. Based on a review of the NPDES and WDS listing, the site is listed as an active permitted facility for industrial stormwater and continuous, or seasonal, waste water discharge that is under Waste Discharge Requirements. The site is listed as an NPDES / WDS facility that is considered a minor threat to water quality and either has a passive water treatment system or no treatment system as per the Regional Water Quality Control Board. No other pertinent information was provided in the NPDES and CA WDS database listings.
No violations or reported releases are listed for the site. Based on site observations, the absence of violations or reported releases, and waste streams identified at the site, RECs for the site were not identified. Based on a review of the San Bern. Co. Permits listing, the site is currently permitted as a small quantity generator, hazardous material handler, and aboveground petroleum storage 1,320-10,000 gallon capacity facility. Inactive permits for the site were identified as hazardous material handler and waste generator with 0-10 employees, UST ownership/operating permit, and aboveground petroleum storage (SPCC).
Based on a review of the SWEEPS UST listing, the site is listed with five underground storage tanks (USTs) of unknown size and contents were listed in 1988. Information regarding the status of the USTs was not available in the databases searched by EDR. Based on records reviewed by Terracon at the San Bernardino County Fire Department (SBCFD) and information obtained from the San Bernardino County Environmental Health (refer to Section 4.2), four USTs were permitted to operate at the site in 1985 when Chino Grain and Milling occupied the site. Information regarding USTs at the site prior to 1985 was not available at the aforementioned agencies. Two of the four USTs present at the site in 1985 were identified in the records as one 12,000-gallon unleaded gasoline UST and one 12,000-gallon diesel UST. Information regarding the installation/removal or regulatory status of the other two USTs at the site in 1985 was not available in the records reviewed by Terracon. An additional 12,000-gallon UST was reportedly installed in 1988 and this UST was removed from the site in 2002. Records and regulatory closure documents pertaining to the three 12,000-gallon USTs were identified during Terracon records review (further discussed in Sections 3.7 and 4.2).
Based on a review of Phase I ESA report completed by SECOR on October 8, 2003 (discussed in Section 3.7), three 12,000-gallon diesel USTs, north of the mill building and east of the former vegetable oil processing area, were removed from the site in 1989 and in 2002, and regulatory closure was identified for the three 12,000-gallon USTs. Additionally, a fourth UST of unknown size reportedly located west of the truck stop was removed in 1986. Soil sampling was reportedly 2101
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Scoular Grain Facility ■ Ontario, California
May 3, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. 60167098
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 15
conducted at the location of a former UST, and concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons below the applicable screening levels were identified at 15 feet below grade surface (bgs), and TPH concentrations were not detected above laboratory detection method at 20 feet bgs. Residual impact of soils in the vicinity of the three USTs and reported location of former UST west of the truck repair shop were reported below Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Maximum Screening Levels for LUST sites where groundwater is at a depth of greater than 150 feet. Based on information reviewed by Terracon at the SBCFD and the 2003 SECOR ESA report documenting a subsurface investigation conducted by Grisanti and Associates at the site and regional depth of groundwater in the site vicinity, it is our opinion that the residual TPH concentrations remaining at the site appear to represent an HREC. The absence of information regarding the installation/removal or regulatory status of the two unknown USTs at the site in 1985 is a data gap; however, based on the reported Grisanti & Associates subsurface investigation (SECOR 2003) at historical suspect location of former UST(s) and anticipated depth to groundwater in the site vicinity, this data gap does not appear to represent a REC to the site.
Verizon Wireless – Inland MTSO (5351 East Airport Drive) The Verizon Wireless – Inland MTSO, located to the adjacent west and topographically crossgradient relative to the site, is listed in the regulatory database as an Aboveground Storage Tank (AST) and San Bern. Co. Permit facility. Based on a review of the listings, this facility is currently permitted as an aboveground petroleum storage 1,320-10,000 gallon capacity facility and handler of hazardous material. The facility operates a 10,444-gallon AST. No violations or reported releases were noted. Based on the absence of reported releases or violations above ground storage, and anticipated depth to groundwater in the site vicinity, the Verizon Wireless – Inland MTSO listing does not constitute an REC to the site.
Union Carbide Corp. Linde Div / Praxair, Inc. / Jack B Kelley Ontario Terminal (5705 & 5705 East Airport Drive)
Union Carbide Corp. Linde Div / Praxair, Inc. / Jack B Kelley Ontario Terminal, located to the adjacent east and topographically cross-gradient relative to the site, is listed in the regulatory database as a SWEEPS UST, SLIC, LUST, HIST UST, CA FID UST, EMI, HIST CORTESE, RCRA-SQG, NPDES, San Bern. Co. Permit, UST, AST, and WDS facility. Based on a review of the San Bern. Co. Permits listing, the facility is currently permitted as an aboveground petroleum storage 1,320-10,000 gallon capacity facility, risk management permit, UST ownership/operator, small quantity generator, and hazardous materials handler. Based on a review of the RCRA-SQG and HAZNET listings, waste generated at the facility is identified as chromium, ignitable waste, liquids with, reactive waste, corrosive waste, non-halogenated solvents, halogenated organic compounds, and aqueous solution with organic residues. Based on a review of the HIST UST listing, this facility is listed with 18 USTs ranging in size from 200 to 12,000 gallons containing product (diesel fuel) or waste oil, installed between 1957 and 1980. Based on a review of the LUST and SLIC listings, this facility is listed with a solvent release to soil on April 23, 1987. The case was closed by the San Bernardino County Lead Oversight Program on September 7, 1988.
Based on the environmental media affected (soil only) and regulatory closure status of the 2102
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Scoular Grain Facility ■ Ontario, California
May 3, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. 60167098
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 16
LUST/SLIC case, the depth to groundwater at the site (greater than 200 feet bgs), and topographic gradient relative to the site, listings for this facility do not constitute a REC to the site.
Ameriwood Industries (5400 Shea Center Drive)
Ameriwood Industries, located approximately 160 feet to the north and topographically upgradient relative to the site, is listed in the regulatory database as a San Bern. Co. Permit facility.
Based on a review of the listing, this facility is currently permitted as a small quantity generator and hazardous material handler. Based on the absence of reported releases or violations, this facility does not constitute a REC to the site.
Emser Tile (5300 Shea Center Drive)
Emser Tile, located approximately 160 feet to the north and topographically up-gradient relative to the site, is listed in the regulatory database as a San Bern. Co. Permit facility. Based on a review of the listing, this facility is currently permitted as a hazardous material handler. Based on the absence of reported releases or violations, this facility does not constitute a REC to the site.
The remaining facilities listed in the database report do not appear to represent RECs to the site at this time based upon regulatory status, apparent topographic gradient, and/or distance from the site.
Unmapped facilities are those that do not contain sufficient address or location information to evaluate the facility listing locations relative to the site. The report listed 11 facilities in the unmapped section. Determining the location of unmapped facilities is beyond the scope of this assessment; however, none of these facilities were identified as the site or adjacent properties.
These facilities are listed in the database report in Appendix D.
4.2 Local Agency Inquiries
Agency Contacted/
Contact Method Response
San Bernardino County Fire
Department – Hazardous Materials
Division /
By fax 909-386-8460
On April 26, 2016, Terracon reviewed records at the agency pertaining to the site. Based on the records reviewed, Coast Grain Inc. was permitted as hazardous waste generator,
hazardous material handler, and underground storage tank operator from 1986 through 2002. The Scoular Company was permitted as a hazardous material handler in 2010. George Verhoeven Grain Inc. is currently permitted as a hazardous materials handler, small quantity generator, and aboveground petroleum storage 1,320-10,000 gallon capacity facility. The records pertaining to the historical USTs on the site are further discussed below.
San Bernardino County Department
of Public Health – Division of
Environmental Health /
On April 22, 2016, Terracon received a response from the agency indicating records were not found for the site. The agency further indicated they retain records for seven years. Any records the 2103
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Scoular Grain Facility ■ Ontario, California
May 3, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. 60167098
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 17
Agency Contacted/
Contact Method Response
By fax 909-387-4323 agency may have had pertaining to the historical USTs at the site are no longer available.
Department of Toxic Substances
Control /
By e-mail [email protected]
On March 24, 2016, Terracon received a response from the agency indicating Coast Grain In., John Powell, and JD Heiskell Holdings LCC are listed as past permitted generators of hazardous waste at the site. These generators were further discussed in Section 4.1.
Ontario City Clerk /
By email
[email protected]
On March 29, 2016, Terracon received building permits for the site from the agency. Based on a review of the records, the mill portion of the site had undergone periodic improvements between the late-1980s and late-1990s. Based on a review of the records provided, RECs were not identified.
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality
Control Board /
By e-mail
[email protected]
On March 24, 2016, Terracon conducted a file review for the site.
The following pertinent environmental records were reviewed:
A letter issued by the SARWQCB for the Approval of a
Preliminary Work Plan for Investigation of the Boiler
Brine Disposal Pond located at Coast Grain Company
5355 E. Airport Drive, Ontario, California, dated July 8, 1997.
A letter issued by the SARWQCB for Additional Soil
Characterization Adjacent to the Boiler Brine Disposal
Pond located at Coast Grain Company 5355 E. Airport
Drive, Ontario, California, dated October 9, 1997.
An Environmental Soils Investigation Report for Boiler Brine Water Pond at the Coast Grain Company at 5355
E. Airport Drive, Ontario, California, completed by RMA Group, dated November 3, 1997;
A letter issued by the SARWQCB for Approval of Cover
Design for the Boiler Brine Disposal Pond and
Improvements to the Sump Area located at Coast Grain
Company 5355 E. Airport Drive, Ontario, California,
dated March 17, 1998.
A General Earthwork & Grading Specifications work plan for the boiler brine pond project completed by RMA
group, dated March 10, 1998.
Various letters of report addendums and laboratory data from Coast Grain Company, Union Pacific Railroad
2104
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Scoular Grain Facility ■ Ontario, California
May 3, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. 60167098
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 18
Agency Contacted/
Contact Method Response
Company and RMA Group, dated from August 1998 to
August 1999, in reference to soil and laboratory reports and project closure proposals related to the soils
investigation report completed by RMA Group in
November 1997.
A letter issued by the SARWQCB for Approval of Closure Report for the Boiler Brine Disposal Pond and
Improvements to the Sump Area located at Coast Grain
Company 5355 E. Airport Drive, Ontario, California,
dated September 24, 1999.
A summary of the records reviewed is included below.
South Coast Air Quality
Management District / On-line
Facility INformation Detail (FIND)
database
Terracon conducted an online search of the agency’s database for site listings. Based on the search results, Chino Grain & Milling Inc., Coast Grain Company, George Verhoever Grain, Inc., JD Heiskell Holdings LLC, The Dairyfeers Group, Coast Grain, and Unicorn, LLC were identified permitted facilities located at the site. The Scoular Co. is currently permitted to operate a corn receiving, storage, and load out system and George Verhoeven Grain, Inc. is currently permitted to operate boilers, load-out station, rolling mill system, barley rolling system, grain rail/truck receiving and storage system, animal feed pelletizing system, corn rolling system, and air pollution control systems (bag houses and cyclone separators). Based on a review of the records provided, RECs were not identified.
San Bernardino County Fire Department – Hazardous Materials Division Below is a table summarizing the records reviewed pertaining to the historical USTs on the site:
Type Date Detail
Application for Permit to Operate
UST
Not listed One 10,000-gallon unleaded
gasoline UST (1 North), one
10,000-gallon diesel UST (2
South, and two 4,000-gallon
diesel USTs (3 East and 4 West)
were identified on an application
for Coast Grain Milling. Further
information regarding the USTs
is not reported.
Hazardous Waste Generator
Permit Application/Renewal
August 19, 1985 Chino Grain and Milling reported
operating four USTs at the site.
2105
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Scoular Grain Facility ■ Ontario, California
May 3, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. 60167098
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 19
Type Date Detail
Hazardous Waste & Toxic
Control Section APBS Data Input
Fact Sheet
March 18, 1986 Chino Grain and Milling is
permitted to operate four USTs at
the site.
Renewal Application for Health
Permit Inspection and Health
Services
May 12, 1986 Coast Grain Milling is identified
as the new operator of the site
and 4 USTs.
Hazardous Waste Generator
Permit Application/Renewal
May 19, 1987 Coast Grain Company reported
two USTs at the site.
Underground Tank Installation
Application
January 7, 1988 Coast Grain applied to install one
12,000-gallon diesel UST at the
site.
Job Card – Construction of
Underground Storage Facility
February 16, 1988 One 12,000-gallon diesel UST
was installed at the site.
Environmental Health Services
Department Permit –
Underground Storage Tanks
June 30, 1988 (expiration) Coast Grain Milling was
permitted to operate four USTs at
the site.
Underground Storage Tank
Program Tank Permit Application
Information
June 16, 1989 Coast Grain Company reported
the site operated three USTs and
applied for removal of one
12,000-gallon unleaded gasoline
UST and one 12,000-gallon
diesel UST.
Job Card – Abandonment of
Underground Storage Facility
July 19, 1989 Two 12,000-gallon UST were
removed from the site and soil
samples were collected beneath
the tank holds.
Renewal Application for Health
Permit Inspection and Health
Services
August 2, 1989 Coast Grain Inc. reported one
UST at the site.
Letter from Coast Grain
Company to the County of San
Bernardino Department of
Environmental Services
Department of Underground
Storage Tanks
August 24, 1989 Coast Grain Company indicated
two USTs were removed from
the site in July 1989 and one
diesel UST remains at the site.
Environmental Health Services
Department Permit –
Underground Storage Tanks
August 31, 1989 (expiration) Coast Grain Inc. was permitted to operate five USTs at the site.
Environmental Health Services
Department Permit –
Underground Storage Tanks
August 31, 1990 – August 31,
2002 (expiration)
Coast Grain Inc. was permitted to
operate one UST at the site.
2106
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Scoular Grain Facility ■ Ontario, California
May 3, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. 60167098
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 20
Type Date Detail
Letter from Coast Grain
Company to San Bernardino
County Fire Department -
Hazardous Materials Division
September 4, 1998 Coast Grain Company indicated
application for the removal of two
4,000-gallon USTs were found at
the site. Terracon could not find
copies of the referenced
applications in the files reviewed.
Letter from San Bernardino
County Fire Department -
Hazardous Materials Division,
Subject: Removal of Two
Underground Storage Tanks at
5355 Airport, Ontario
September 4, 1998 The department reviewed the
analytical results from the soil
sampling conducted after the
tank removal in July 1989. The
results indicated contamination
remained in the excavated area;
however, the concentrations
were below the threshold of
concern. The department
indicated further investigation
was not warranted.
Notice of Violation December 15, 1998 Based on observation made during an inspections, the fire
department found the site didn’t
have containment for the UST
dispenser.
Underground Storage Tank
Facility – Upgrade Compliance
Certificate
December 18, 1998 The site received the upgrade
compliance certificate for the one
UST.
Enviro-Chem, Inc. Laboratory
Report
March 8, 1999 During the upgrades to the
dispenser, a soil sample was
collected approximately 3.5 feet
beneath the UST dispenser. 530
mg/kg total petroleum
hydrocarbons – diesel range
(TPH-d), 0.080 mg/kg toluene,
0.066 mg/kg ethylbenzene, and
0.416 mg/kg total xylenes were
the reported concentrations in
the samples collected.
Letter from San Bernardino
County Fire Department -
Hazardous Materials Division,
Subject: Dispenser Sampling in
Conjunction with 1998 Upgrades
at 5355 Airport, Ontario
March 29, 1999 The department reviewed the
analytical data for the March
1999 sampling event and
concluded the extent of
contamination indicated no
further investigation was
warranted.
2107
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Scoular Grain Facility ■ Ontario, California
May 3, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. 60167098
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 21
Type Date Detail
Underground Storage Tank
Inspection Report
September 26, 2001 The department noted a violation
for failing to properly monitor
UST system. Installation of leak
detectors and lengthening of
monitoring probes for the UST
system was required.
Underground Storage Tank
Inspection Report
November 20, 2001 The department noted a
mechanical leak detector was
installed and tested at the site.
Violations were not identified.
Underground Storage Tank
Removal Inspection Form
December 5, 2002 One 12,000-gallon diesel UST
was removed from the site. Soil
samples were collected beneath
the tank hold and from the stock
piled soil.
Soil Sampling Following the
Removal of an Underground
Storage Tank – Coast Grain
Company; prepared by
Advanced GeoEnvironmental,
Inc. (AGE)
December 18, 2002 Based on the analytical results
for the December 5, 2002 soil
sampling event, concentrations
of TPH-d (230 mg/kg and 800
mg/kg), benzene (0.035 mg/kg),
and MTBE (0.018 mg/kg) were
reported for samples collected
from the stock piled soil. AGE
indicated the stock piled soil was
used as backfill. AGE
recommended closure of the site
based on concentrations
detected and depth of ground
water (approximately 305 feet
bgs).
Letter from San Bernardino
County Fire Department -
Hazardous Materials Division,
Subject: Removal of One
Underground Storage Tank at
Coast Grain Inc.
January 8, 2003 The department reviewed the
analytical data for the December
2002 sampling event and
concluded no further
investigation was warranted.
The above-listed records are further discussed in Section 4.1.
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
Based on a review of the above referenced historical documents at the SARWQCB, a former boiler brine disposal pond (brine pond) that was previously located north of the boiler room on site was used for disposal of boiler blow-down water until 1997. The SARWQCB’s primary objective for water quality protection on the site was to prevent infiltration of rain through the salt2108 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Scoular Grain Facility ■ Ontario, California
May 3, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. 60167098
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 22
contaminated soil and into the groundwater beneath the former pond. During the subsequent limited subsurface soil investigation of the brine pond area, completed by RMA Group in October 1997, several exploratory soil borings were advanced to maximum depth of approximately 40 feet below the surface. Soil samples were collected at various depths in each boring and each sample was analyzed for pH and electrical conductivity (Ec). RMA Group’s subsurface investigation indicated that soils in and adjacent to the former brine pond contained elevated levels of salinity and conductivity to a depth range of approximate 10 to 15 feet below grade. Laboratory analytical data for the previous investigation indicated that soils in and in the vicinity of the former brine pond contained 0.26 to 13.0 micromhos per centimeter (mmhos/cm) for conductivity and 6.6 to 7.8 for pH. According to the previous investigation report, the top 2 feet of soil within the pond contained the highest levels of Ec and that high conductivity in the soil represented a “severe potential for corrosivity toward metal pipes placed in direct contact with the soil.” According to the previous RMA Group report, the elevated levels of Ec in soil exceeded the acceptable SARWQCB limit of
2.0 mmhos/cm and required remediation.
In early 1998, the SARWQCB approved a remediation plan to excavate and remove soil with high concentrations of salt from the brine pond area. The soil remediation plan commenced in August 1998, and approximately 7,500 cubic yards of brine salt-contaminated soil were excavated from the former brine pond excavation area (reported to be 60’ x 160’ in area). Prior to being backfilled and compacted with a layer of native sand followed by uncontaminated fill soil, the excavation was lined with 40-mil high density polyethylene (HDPE) plastic sheeting. Salt contaminated soils removed from the excavation were then disposed of at an approved landfill. On September 24, 1999, the SARWQCB issued an approval letter for the remediation project closure report and considered the former brine pond closure project complete. Based on the above information and the regulatory agency case-closed status, the former brine pond remediation is not considered a REC to the site at this time. A copy of the SARWQCB closure letter and a letter from the Union Pacific Railroad Company for the former brine disposal pond project is included in Appendix C.
5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE
5.1 General Site Information
Information contained in this section is based on a visual reconnaissance conducted while walking through the site and the accessible interior areas of structures, if any, located on the site. Exhibit 2 in Appendix A is a Site Diagram of the site. Photo documentation of the site at the time of the visual reconnaissance is provided in Appendix B. Credentials of the individuals planning and conducting the site visit are included in Appendix E.
2109
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Scoular Grain Facility ■ Ontario, California
May 3, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. 60167098
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 23
General Site Information
Site Reconnaissance
Field Personnel Melanie J. Seydel
Reconnaissance Date March 24, 2016
Weather Conditions Sunny, 65º F
Site Contact/Title Mr. Jeff Caskey / Manager
Building Description
Building
Identification
Building
Use
Approx.
Construction
Date
Number
of
Stories
Approx.
Size (ft²)
Office / warehouse Office / storage 1970s 1 19,700
Truck repair shop Truck maintenance /
storage 1970s 1 6,600
Site Utilities
Electricity Southern California Edison
Drinking Water City of Ontario
Wastewater Septic tanks
Natural Gas Southern California Gas Company
5.2 Overview of Current Site Occupants
The site is located at 5355 East Airport Drive in the City of Ontario, San Bernardino, California and consist of an approximately 13.37-acre tract of land developed with grain storage and feed mill buildings along with an office/warehouse, several storage sheds, office trailers and a truck shop building. The site also has paved driveway and parking lots along with limited landscaping.
At the time of the site reconnaissance, the site was occupied by The Scoular Company and George Verhoeven Grain Inc., which leases the east portion of the site.
5.3 Overview of Current Site Operations
The site operates primarily as a grain processing facility. Raw material, including corm and barley, are delivered to the site by truck or rail. The raw material is weighed and unloaded into the storage silos. The raw material is steamed, rolled, and flattened into the finished product and stored on site until delivery.
5.4 Site Observations
The following table summarizes site observations and interviews. Affirmative responses (designated by an “X”) are discussed in more detail following the table. 2110
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Scoular Grain Facility ■ Ontario, California
May 3, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. 60167098
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 24
Site Characteristics
Category Item or Feature Observed or
Identified
Site Operations,
Processes, and
Equipment
Emergency generators
Elevators
Air compressors X
Hydraulic lifts
Dry cleaning
Photo processing
Ventilation hoods and/or incinerators
Waste treatment systems and/or water treatment systems
Heating and/or cooling systems
Paint booths
Sub-grade mechanic pits
Wash-down areas or carwashes
Vehicle repair or maintenance
Pesticide/herbicide production or storage
Printing operations
Metal finishing (e.g., electroplating, chrome plating,
galvanizing, etc.)
Salvage operations
Oil, gas or mineral production
Other processes or equipment X
Aboveground
Chemical or Waste
Storage
Aboveground storage tanks X
Drums, barrels and/or containers 5 gallons X
MSDS or SDS
Underground
Chemical or Waste
Storage, Drainage
or Collection
Systems
Underground storage tanks or ancillary UST equipment
Sumps, cisterns, French drains, catch basins and/or dry wells X Grease traps
Septic tanks and/or leach fields
Oil/water separators, clarifiers, sand traps, triple traps, interceptors
Pipeline markers
Interior floor drains
Electrical
Transformers/
PCBs
Transformers and/or capacitors
Other equipment
2111
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Scoular Grain Facility ■ Ontario, California
May 3, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. 60167098
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 25
Category Item or Feature Observed or
Identified
Releases or
Potential Releases
Stressed vegetation
Stained soil
Stained pavement or similar surface X
Leachate and/or waste seeps
Trash, debris and/or other waste materials X
Dumping or disposal areas
Construction/demolition debris and/or dumped fill dirt
Surface water discoloration, odor, sheen, and/or free floating product
Strong, pungent or noxious odors
Exterior pipe discharges and/or other effluent discharges Other Notable Site
Features
Surface water bodies
Quarries or pits
Wastewater lagoons
Wells
Site Operations, Processes, and Equipment
Air compressors
During the site reconnaissance, one air compressor was observed in the northern vicinity of the large storage silos on the western portion of the site and one air compressor was observed in the warehouse on the southeastern portion of the site. No evidence of surficial staining or releases was observed on the concrete flooring surrounding the units, and no indication of a release associated with the units was observed at the time of the site reconnaissance. Based on the absence of an observed release, the air compressor do not represent a REC to the site.
Other processes or equipment
A rail car unloading system was observed at the north end of the site. The system consists of a hydraulic powered, rail mounted “screw driver” that unscrews hatches located on the underbelly of the rail cars. Once the hatches open, the contents of the rail car discharge into auger conveyance system located beneath the railroad tracks. The augers continually rotate and carry the rail car contents south towards the mill and silos.
Aboveground Chemical or Waste Storage
Aboveground storage tanks
During the site reconnaissance, the following containers were observed:
2112
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Scoular Grain Facility ■ Ontario, California
May 3, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. 60167098
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 26
Approximate
Quantity
Approximate
Capacity
Contents Location
1 1,000 Sump discharge Exterior; truck wash area
1 2,000 Water Exterior; truck wash area
1 500 Diesel Exterior; east of office/warehouse building 2 250 Hydraulic oil Exterior; east of office/warehouse building 1 250 Empty Interior; warehouse
1 500 Propane Exterior; north of office building
1 2,500 Water Exterior; north of the boiler
6 varies Molasses and fats Exterior; south of mill
The above-listed ASTs were observed stored on concrete floor and/or on secondary containment.
Staining was observed on and near the ASTs located on the eastern exterior portion of the office/warehouse building and appeared to be di minimus in nature. Staining or evidence of a release was not observed on the remainder of ASTs or on the concrete in the vicinity of the ASTs.
Based on site observations, the above-listed ASTs do not constitute a REC.
Drums, barrels, and/or containers 5 gallons
During the site reconnaissance, the following containers were observed:
Approximate
Quantity
Approximate
Capacity
Contents Location
6 30 Lubricant Mill
4 275 Flake-aide Mill
1 275 unknown Truck wash area
3 55 Used oil Truck repair shop
1 55 Hydraulic oil Truck repair shop
1 275 Diesel Exhaust Fluid Truck repair shop
6 55 Empty Truck repair shop
4 55 Motor oil Truck repair shop
9 5 Transmission fluid Truck repair shop
1 30 Parts washer Truck repair shop
2 55 Motor oil Warehouse
10 5 Motor oil Warehouse
15 5 Hydraulic oil Warehouse
2 55 Used oil Warehouse
The above-listed drums and containers were observed on stored concrete floor and/or on secondary containment. Staining or evidence of a release was not observed on the drums and 2113
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Scoular Grain Facility ■ Ontario, California
May 3, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. 60167098
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 27
containers or on the concrete in the vicinity of drums and containers. The used oil is disposed of through Asbury Environmental. Based on site observations, the above-listed drums and containers do not constitute a REC.
Underground Chemical or Waste Storage, Drainage, or Collection Systems Sumps, cisterns, catch basins, and/or dry wells
A sump was observed north of the truck shop building at the time of the site reconnaissance.
According to Mr. Caskey, the sump collects water from the truck wash area. The collected water is then pumped into the wash water AST located directly east of the pump which is emptied as needed. The sump does not constitute a REC.
Electrical Transformers/PCBs
Pad or pole mounted transformers and/or capacitors
During the site reconnaissance, two pad-mounted transformers, owned and serviced by SCE, was observed: one located north of the large storage silos in the western portion of the site, and one west of the molasses and fat storage area. Based on site observations, both transformers have “No PCB” stickers.
SCE maintains responsibility for the transformers, and if the transformers were “PCB contaminated”, the utility company is not required to replace the transformer fluids until a release is identified. However, no evidence of current or prior release was observed in the vicinity of the electrical equipment during the site reconnaissance. Based on the absence of an observed release, environmental concerns associated with the transformers were not identified for the site at this time.
Releases or Potential Releases
Trash, debris and/or other waste materials
Three solid waste disposal dumpsters, serviced by City of Ontario, were observed on the central portion and southern portion of the site. Staining, noxious odors or hazardous waste disposal was not observed in the vicinity of the on-site dumpsters.
6.0 ADJOINING PROPERTY RECONNAISSANCE
Visual observations of adjoining properties (from site boundaries) are summarized below.
Adjoining Properties
Direction Description
North Railroad tracks abut the site to the north followed by an industrial building.
East The property to the adjacent east of the site consist of Praxair. 2114
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Scoular Grain Facility ■ Ontario, California
May 3, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. 60167098
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 28
Direction Description
South Airport Drive abuts the site to the south followed by K-Mart Distribution Center.
West The property to the adjacent west of the site consist of Verizon Wireless.
RECs were not observed with the adjoining properties.
7.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Per the agreed scope of services specified in the proposal, additional services (e.g. asbestos sampling, lead-based paint sampling, wetlands evaluation, lead in drinking water testing, radon testing, vapor encroachment screening, etc.) were not conducted. 2115
2116
APPENDIX A
EXHIBIT 1 – TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
EXHIBIT 2 – SITE DIAGRAM
2117
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
SCOULAR GRAIN FACILITY
5355 EAST AIRPORT DRIVE
ONTARIO, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORIA 91761
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP IMAGE COURTESY OF THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY QUADRANGLES INCLUDE: GUASTI, CA (1/1/1981).
2817 McGAW AVENUE
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614-5835
60167098
Project Manager:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
Approved by:
MJS
IRN
IRN
1”=2,000’
N/A
APR 2016
Project No.
Scale:
File Name:
Date:
1 EXHIBIT MJS
2118
2ΤΘΛΓΕς/ΠΙΤ
#ΡΡΤΘΞΓΦ∃[
%ϑΓΕΜΓΦ∃[
&ΤΧΨΠ∃[
2ΤΘΛΓΕς0Θ5ΕΧΝΓ
&ΧςΓ
Consulting Engineers and Scientists
/Ε)#9#8∋07∋ +48+0∋%#.+(140+#
2∗
(#:
/5
,,&
/5
%#2
#55∗190
SITE DIAGRAM
5%17.#4)4#+0(#%+.+6; ∋#56#+42146&4+8∋ 106#4+15#0∃∋40#4&+01%1706;%#.+(140+#
∋:∗+∃+6
T
DH
AC
AST
T
T
DD
H
AC AST AST
AST
AST
D
AC
5735
K-MART DISTRIBUTION CENTER
(5600)
2119
APPENDIX B
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
2120
Scoular Grain Facility
Project No. 60167098
Photo Date: March 24, 2016
Photo #1 View of the mill located on the central
portion of the site.
Photo #2 View of the large storage silos located
on the western portion of the site.
Photo #3 View of the office/warehouse building
located on the southeastern portion of
the site.
Photo #4 View of the truck repair shop building
located on the eastern portion of the
site.
Photo #5 View of the storage shed located on
the eastern portion of the site.
Photo #6 View of the storage shed located on
the central portion of the site.
2121
Scoular Grain Facility
Project No. 60167098
Photo Date: March 24, 2016
Photo #7 View of the office trailer located on the
southern portion of the site.
Photo #8 Typical interior view of the office.
Photo #9 Typical interior view of the warehouse. Photo #10 Typical interior view of the truck repair shop.
Photo #11 Typical interior view of the boiler area. Photo #12 Typical view of the grain storage area. 2122
Scoular Grain Facility
Project No. 60167098
Photo Date: March 24, 2016
Photo #13 View of the air compressor located in
the warehouse.
Photo #14 View of the drum and container
storage located in the warehouse.
Photo #15 View of three ASTs located on the
exterior eastern side of the
office/warehouse building.
Photo #16 View of the drum storage area located
in the truck repair shop.
Photo #17 View of the 275-gallon tote of diesel
exhaust fluid located in the truck repair
shop.
Photo #18 View of the sump and waste water
storage for the former truck wash-down
area.
2123
Scoular Grain Facility
Project No. 60167098
Photo Date: March 24, 2016
Photo #19 View of the propane AST located to the
east of the mill.
Photo #20 View of the 275-gallon totes of FlakeAide.
Photo #21 View of the pad-mounted transformer. Photo #22 View of the solid waste disposal dumpsters.
Photo #23 View of the ASTs containing molasses
and fats.
Photo #24 View of the 30-gallon drums of
lubricant located in the mill.
2124
Scoular Grain Facility
Project No. 60167098
Photo Date: March 24, 2016
Photo #25 View of the railroad tracks located to
the adjacent north of the site.
Photo #26 View of Praxair located to the adjacent
east of the site.
Photo #27 View of Airport Drive and the K-Mart
Distribution Center located to the
adjacent south of the site.
Photo #28 View of Verizon Wireless located to the
adjacent west of the site.
Photo #29 Photo #30
2125
APPENDIX C
HISTORICAL DOCUMENTATION AND USER QUESTIONNAIRE
2126
2127
2128
2129
2130
2131
2132
2133
APPENDIX D
ENVIRONMENTAL DATABASE INFORMATION
2134
APPENDIX D: QUALIFICATIONS
2135
Engineers who understand your business
PHASE II SUBSURFACE
INVESTIGATION REPORT
5355 East Airport Drive
Ontario, California 91761
August 16, 2016
Partner Project Number: 16-163550.2
Prepared for:
Prologis
Pier 1, Bay 1
San Francisco, California 94111
2136
800-419-4923 www.PARTNEResi.com
August 16, 2016
Ms. Janet Frentzel
Prologis
Pier 1, Bay 1
San Francisco, California 94111
Subject: Phase II Subsurface Investigation Report
5355 East Airport Drive
Ontario, California 91761
Partner Project Number: 16-163550.2
Dear Ms. Frentzel:
Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. (Partner) is pleased to provide the results of the assessment performed on the above-referenced property. The following report describes the field activities, methods, and findings of the Phase II Subsurface Investigation conducted at the above-referenced property.
This assessment was performed utilizing methods and procedures consistent with good commercial or customary practices designed to conform to acceptable industry standards. The independent conclusions represent Partner’s best professional judgment based upon existing conditions and the information and data available to us during the course of this assignment.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these services. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we can assist you in any other matter, please contact Misty Vazquez Ponce at (310) 615-4500.
Sincerely,
Partner Engineering and Science, Inc.
Brian Godbois Samantha J. Fujita, PG
Staff Scientist Regional Manager – Subsurface Investigation Misty Vazquez Ponce, PE
Principal
2137
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Limitations........................................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 User Reliance ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Site Background ........................................................................................................................ 3
2.1 Site Description ................................................................................................................................................................. 3
2.2 Site History.......................................................................................................................................................................... 3
2.3 Geology and Hydrogeology ........................................................................................................................................ 4
3.0 Field Activities............................................................................................................................ 5
3.1 Preparatory Activities...................................................................................................................................................... 5
3.1.1 Utility Clearance ........................................................................................................................................................... 5
3.1.2 Health and Safety Plan .............................................................................................................................................. 5
3.2 Geophysical Survey ......................................................................................................................................................... 5
3.3 Drilling Equipment ........................................................................................................................................................... 6
3.4 Boring Locations ............................................................................................................................................................... 6
3.5 Boring Depths .................................................................................................................................................................... 6
3.6 Soil Sampling ..................................................................................................................................................................... 7
3.7 Initial Soil Gas Sampling ................................................................................................................................................ 7
3.8 Soil Gas Samples Collected by Optimal .................................................................................................................. 8
3.9 Post-Sampling Activities................................................................................................................................................ 9
4.0 Laboratory Analysis ................................................................................................................. 10
4.1 Laboratory Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 10
4.2 Laboratory Analytical Results ................................................................................................................................... 10
4.2.1 Soil Sample Analytical Results ............................................................................................................................ 10
4.2.2 Soil Gas Sample Analytical Results .................................................................................................................... 10
5.0 Discussion and Conclusions ................................................................................................... 11
5.1 Regulatory Agency Guidance ................................................................................................................................... 11
5.2 Discussion ........................................................................................................................................................................ 11
5.3 Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 11
ATTACHMENTS
Tables 1. Summary of Investigation Scope
2. Soil Sample TPH-cc Laboratory Results
3. Soil Sample VOCs Laboratory Results
4. Soil Gas Sample VOCs Laboratory Results
Figures 1. Site Plan
2. Topographic Map
3. Sample Location Map
Appendices A. Boring Logs
B. Laboratory Analytical Reports
2138
Phase II Subsurface Investigation Report
Project No. 16-163550.2
August 16, 2016