HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-12-13 - AGENDA REPORTS - PH PORTA BELLA SPECIFIC PLAN (2)AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval
item to be prese
ch Henderson
PUBLIC HEARING
DATE; December 13, 1994
SUBJECT: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE PORTA BELLA
SPECIFIC PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AS WELL AS
THE THREE APPEALS FILED CONCERNING THE DECISION ON
JUNE 21, 1994, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ADOPT A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION; TO CERTIFY THE
FEIR AND ADDENDUM SCH 92-041041; TO ADOPT A MITIGATION
MONITORING PROGRAM; TO APPROVE VESTING TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP 51599 AND OAK TREE PERMIT 91-033; AND TO
RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE SPECIFIC
PLAN 91-001 AND CONSIDER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 93-003.
DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BACKGROUND
On November 22, 1994 the Council held the fifth continued public hearing on this project in
which they received a matrix summary of the traffic improvement conditions on the project.
At that hearing, following a discussion with the City Attorney, the Council directed staff to
make public the confidential City Attorney letters discussed in the November 8,1994 hearing.
The Council and public also asked additional questions which are answered in this report.
On November 28, 1994, the City received a copy of the Consent Order prepared by the
California Environmental Protection Agency --Department of Toxic Substances Control (CA
EPA--DTSC). According to CA EPA--DTSC, they are requiring an investigation of the entire
site to identify any potential contaminated areas. This process alone could take up to a year.
All phases, from site investigation to clean-up and certification will be overseen by CA EPA--
DTSC. CA EPA--DTSC is required to hold public meetings prior to beginning remediation
efforts and a public comment period is required to allow the public to address remediation
issues. This CA EPA--DTSC process is unrelated to the City's consideration of the Porta
Bella proposal.
A copy of the Consent Order, which is about 75 pages in length, is in the Council's reading
file and at the Community Development counter for the public's review.
Continued To: 1--91-9,6- Agenda Item:_,,.._
ANALYSIS
At the November 22, 1994 hearing Mayor Pederson and Councilmember Boyer again raised
questions concerning the external roadway network and the impacts to businesses that would
occur through proposed off-site improvements. The applicant is continuing his efforts to work
with businesses and property owners in the Springbrook area to reach more consensus as
desired by the Council. He is also working to find a Santa Clarita Parkway alignment to
minimize impacts to AES Placerita and other existing uses.
In response to Mayor Pederson's questions, staff has spoken with representatives from the
Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) about the possibility of an at -grade
crossing at Magic Mountain Parkway and San Fernando Road. They reiterated the
information that they gave in the EIR concerning their at -grade crossing policies. If a new
at -grade crossing is proposed, then they require at least one existing at -grade crossing be
closed. The SCRRA favors grade separated crossings of the railroad because they are safer
than those at -grade. New at -grade crossings in Santa Clarita are unlikely to be approved
because rail service in this area is active and is anticipated to expand in the future.
Councilmember Boyer also asked whether the EIR mentions specific soil mitigation that will
be required should soil contaminants be found, The EIR does provide mitigation for this
event through requirements that all contaminants be provided for properly. (See EIR page
6-219, Risk of Upset/Health Hazards Condition #1)
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED PROJECT
Phasing
The project includes phasing of development to occur as phases of the site receive
clearance from Cal -EPA. The Council has given direction to modify this condition to
require site clearance of the entire site prior to development.
North-South Roads
■ Santa Clarita Parkway- Roadway construction conditioned by the Planning
Commission complements the CTAC proposal. In Phase 1 Santa Clarita Parkway will
be an internally serving, two lane roadway providing access to Soledad Canyon Road.
In Phase 2, the roadway will be expanded to four lanes and connect Soledad Canyon
Road to Via Princessa. Ultimately, Santa Clarita Parkway will be a six lane arterial
extending off-site from Bouquet Canyon Road in the north to the Placerita Canyon
Road/Sierra Highway Junction in the south.
■ Main Street and "D" Street- Connect Soledad Canyon Road and Magic Mountain/Via
Princessa and serve the same purpose as the Bermite Connector shown on the
General Plan. Main Street will have four lanes and "D" Street two lanes. Both of
these roadways are on-site, serve internal traffic demands, and will be constructed
during Phase 1.
East-West Roads
Magic Mountian Parkway/Via Princessa- Both of these roadways are on the General
Plan and will require construction of grade separated crossings at San Fernando Road
to satisfy SCRRA requirements.. Construction of this roadway as recommended for
approval by the Commission includes a bridge over Oakdale Canyon. The Council has
considered a fill slope and berming to replace this bridge.
Phase 1 Improvements- Magic Mountain Parkway would be extended from San
Fernando Road with four lanes to Rio Vista where it would then become two lanes.
These two lanes would continue as Magic/Princessa through to the existing terminus
of Via Princessa at Rainbow Glen.
Phase 2 Improvements- Magic/Princessa would be expanded to a four lane roadway
between Valencia Blvd. and Rainbow Glen.
Phase 3 Improvements- MagioTrincessa would be a six lane roadway between
Valencia Boulevard and Rainbow Glen. The portion of Via Princessa from Magic
Mountain Parkway to Wiley Canyon would be improved as a six lane arterial per the
existing General Plan. This would include construction of the Wiley Canyon bridge.
EIR and Addendum Certification
■ The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Porta Bella project is
complete and ready for certification per the Planning Commission's recommendation.
1. Receive staff report, reopen the continued public hearing, instruct the audience that
testimony shall be limited to new information, receive public testimony, close the
public hearing;
2. Direct staff to finalize responses to the appeals as previously noted;
3. Give preliminary approval of the project as recommended by the Planning
Commission; and,
4. Direct staff to return with appropriate resolutions for certification of the Final EIR
and Addendum and for approval of the project as recommended by the Planning
Commission.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION
1. Invite the Planning Commission to appoint a committee of two members to appear at
the next City Council meeting to review the Planning Commission's thinking on the
major issues.
ATTACHMENTS
Letters from the public received after November 22, 1994.
READING FILE
Whittaker Bermite Corporation Consent Order from DTSC.
Current\pb ccr06.1hi.
Solo ones Sr"Les
20923 Placenta Canyon Road
Newhall, California 91321
(805) 254-3835
November 15, 1994
Santa Clanta City Council
23920 W. Valencia Blvd., 9300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Dear Council Members:
I am writing in regard to the council meeting of November 8, 1994 concerning the Porta Bella
development. It seems that all of the attention was put on the Springboard Street (Magic
MountainNia Princessa) extension serving Porta Bella. There was no mention of the 80' tall
6 -lane bridge which is planned for Placenta Canyon.
Mr. Martin of AES spoke of the many millions of dollars it would take just for AES to alter
their facilities if this road, were to go in. I do not think that, as Mr. Martin spoke, more that five
residents knew he was talking about Placenta Canyon. I only heard about this by chance as
AES is my neighbor, No one in the Canyon, including the President of the Homeowner's
Association in Placenta Canyon, has been contacted by Porta Bella about the Placenta Canyon
ramp. If this plan goes in, as per the map I have seen, I will be put out of business and out of
my home,
Porta Bella may be a good thing and the developers have a right to develop their land, but not
at the expense of other people's rights. It seems to me that Porta Bella's attitude is that those
who pay the most taxes are the ones who count and the rest will be condemned and taken.
Before Placenta Canyon is considered with a 6 -lane monster, lets look at some alternative
routes. Tying into Sierra Hwy. looks like a good alternative and we would not have to spend
^f:!:�gf dollars to alter the operation of AES.
I want to go on record opposing Porta Bella as it pertains to Placenta Canyon.
Sincerely,
Bober
cc:Rob Martin, AES
199
Ben Curtis, President, Placenta Canyon Homeown
COPIES TJ C , CO..-. A,
-' CITY i, ?, C: CLERK
NOV 2 9 lyy
a
'ANN M. N^^
STATE OF CAUEORNIA - CAUFORNN ENVIRONMENTAL
DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL
1011 N. GRANDVIEW AVENUE
GLENDALE. CA 91201
18181551-2800
November 21, 1994
Mr. Gordon Louttit
Vice President
Whittaker Corporation.
10880 Wilshire Boulevard, SuitM 800
Los Angeles, Ck 9002/6
A;uv 2 8 i
c+reg wwrfv tTVtL0FMnft
cvvW"MITA
Dear Mr. Louttit:
WHITTAKER BERNITE CORPORATION, BERNITE DIVISION CONSENT ORDER
Enclosed, please find a copy of the signed Consent Order.
Within ninety (90) days from the effective date of this Consent
Order, Whittaker Corporation must prepare and submit to the
Department for review and approval a Prior Site Investigation
Report and a detailed Remedial Investigation Workplan. The
scoping meeting has been tentatively scheduled for the week of
December 5, 1994. The Department will contact you for the
definite date.
If you have any questions, please contact Carla Slepak at
(818) 551-2959 or Penny Nakashima at (818) 551-2881.
sincerely,
Hamid Saebfar, Chief
Site Mitigation Branch
Regions 3 and 4
Attachment
cc: Mr. Glen Abdun Nur
Whittaker Corporation, Bermite Division
22116 West Soledad Canyon Road
Saugus6j California 91350
Ms. Barbara J. Mickelson
Acton Mickelson van Dam, Inc.
4511 Golden Foothill Parkway, Suite 1
E1 Dorado Hills, California 95762
Mr. Richard M. Ross
McDonough, Holland & Allen
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 950
Sacramento, California 95814
Mr. Gordon Louttit
November 21, 1994
Page 2
cc: Ms. Nancy Long
Staff Attorney
California Environmental Protection Agency
Department of -Toxic Substances Control
Office of Legal Counsel
400 P Street
Sacramento, California 95814
Mr. Kevin Michel
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300
Santa Clarita, California 91355
1
2
3'
4I
5j
6i
7
I
81
I
9
I
10
11
121
i
13
1411
15
6
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
COURTPAPER
STATZ O/C LI/ORNIA
STO- 113 iAeV. 8-121
mJM
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL
In the Matter of:
WHITTAKER CORPORATION, BERMITE
DIVISION
22116 W. Soledad Canyon Rd.
Santa Clarita, California
Responsible Party
Whittaker Corporation
a Delaware Corporation
doing business in California
Respondent.
Docket HSA - 94/95-012
CONSENT ORDER
Health and Safety Code
Sections 25355.5(a)(1)(C),
58009 and 58010
1
2
3
4
5
6
r
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
251
26
27
COURT PAPER
STATS O. C.TU IOt Ml4
STO. 113 IN[V. !•931
M 3.)69
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
i
1.1.
Parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
1.2.
Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
1.3.
Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
1.4.
Exhibits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
1.5.
Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
1.6.
Obiectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
II.
FINDINGS OF FACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
2.1.
Liability of Responsible Parties (RPs) . . . . .
3
2.2.
Physical Description of Site . . . . . . . . . .
3
2.3.
Site History. . . . . . . . . . .
4
2.4.
Substances Found at the Site . . . . . . . . . .
7
2.5.
Health Effects . . . . . . . . . .
8
2.6.
Routes of Exposure . .. . . . . .
10
2.7.
Public Health and/or Environmental Risk . . . . .
11
III.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
IV.
DETERMINATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
V.
CONSENT ORDER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
5.1.
Work to be Performed by Respondent . . . . . .
13
5.2.
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
(RI/FS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
5.3.
Baseline Risk Assessment.
17
5.4.
Public Health Evaluation of Remedial'Alternatives
17
5.5.
Remedial Action Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
5.6.
Deed Restrictions . . . .. . .
18
5.7.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEOA) . .
18
5.8.
Remedial Design
18
5.9.
Implementation of Final Remedial Action Plan
18
5.10.
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) . . . . . . . . .
18
5.11.
Other Response Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19
5.12.
Public Participation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . .
19
5.13.
Document Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20
5.14.
Technical Memorandum .. . .
20
5.15.
Changes During Implementation of the Final Rap .
21
5.16.
Five Year Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
5.17.
Stop Work Order . .22
5.18.
Emergency/N
Response Action/Notification
22
5.19.
Discontinuation of Remedial Technology
23
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14j
15
16
17
I
191
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
COURT PAPZR
.TAT[ OF CALI IORM�A
SM 113 (REV.0-721
% WN
VI. GENERAL PROVISIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 23
6.1.
Additional Response Actions . . . . . . . . . .
. 23
6.2.
Proiect Coordinator . . . . . . . . . . ,
23
6.3.
_Proiect Engineer/Geologist . . . . . . .
. 24
6.4.
Communication and Coordination Plan . . . . . .
. 24
6.5.
Monthly Summary Reports . . . . . . . . . . .
. 25
6.6.
Daily Reports . . . . . .•. .
. 26
6.7.
Oualitv Control/Quality Assurance (OC/OA) . . .
. 26
6.8.
submittals . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26
6.9.
Communications. . .
. 27
6.10.
Department Review and Approval. . . . . . . . .
. 27
6.11.
Compliance with Applicable Laws . . . . . . . .
. 28
6.12.
Respondent's Liabilities . . . . . . . . . . .
. 28
6.13.
Site Access. ,
, 29
6.14.
Sampling. Data and•Document Availability
. 30
6.15.
Record Retention . . . . . . . . . . .
. 31
6.16.
Government Liabilities . . . . . . .
. 31
6.17.
Additional Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 31
6.18.
Extension Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 32
6.19.
Extension Approvals . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 32
6.20.
Dispute Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 35
6.21.
Cost Recovery_ , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, 35
6.22.
Severability* , .
37
6.23.
Incorporation ofPlans Schedules and Reports
37
6.24.
Modifications . . . , , . . .
37
6.25.
Time Periods/Effective Date . . . . . . . . . .
. 38
6.26.
Termination and Satisfaction . . . . . . . . .
. 38
6.27.
Parties Bound . . . . . . . .
. 38
6.28.
Joint and Several Liability . . . . . . . .
. 38
6.29.
Subsecruent Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 39
6.30.
Contractors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 39
VII. PENALTIES AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES FOR NONCOMPLIANCE . .
. 40
ii
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
91
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23.
24
25
i
26
271
COURT PAPER
ST.n 9T Cw JroEwu
STO 113 �REv 0-92
M 3.789
I. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Parties. This Consent Order is entered into by the
Department of Toxic Substances Control ("Department") and the
Whittaker Corporation ("Respondent").
1.2. Site. This Consent Order applies to the Whittaker
Corporation, Bermite Division, a former manufacturing facility
("Site") located on approximately 996 acres in the County of Los
Angeles, California. The Site is at 22116 West Soledad Canyon
Road, Santa Clarita (formerly known as Saugus), California. A
map generally depicting the Site is attached as Exhibit 1. For
purposes of this Consent Order, the "Site" shall refer to the
aerial extent of known or suspected contamination including but,
not limited to the aforesaid Whittaker Corporation, Bermite
Division.
1.3. Jurisdiction. Section 25355. 5 (a) (1) (C) of the Health
and Safety Code ("H&SC") authorizes the Department to enter into
an enforceable agreement with a potentially responsible party for
the site which, among other things, requires the party to
determine the nature and extent of the release and adequately
characterize the site, prepare a remedial action plan and complete
the necessary removal or remedial actions, as required in the
approved remedial action plan (RAP).
Sections 58009 and 58010 of the Health and Safety Code
authorize the Department to commence and maintain all proper and
necessary actions and proceedings to protect and preserve the
public health and to abate public nuisances related to matters
within its jurisdiction.
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15!
16
17
18!
191
20
211
22
23
24 j
251
26
27
COURTPAPER
STO
6TOR G I 9.7
ti] IRtB�)
Y. 21 i
M 9x189
1.4. Exhibits. All exhibits attached to this Consent Order
are incorporated herein by this reference.
1.5. Purpose. The purpose of this Consent Order is to
ensure that any release or threatened release of a hazardous
substance to the air, soil, surface water and ground water at or
from the Site is thoroughly investigated and that appropriate
removal/remedial actions are taken. The purpose of this Consent
Order is also to obtain reimbursement from Respondent for the
Department's response costs, including oversight costs.
1.6. Objectives. The objectives of the Parties in entering
into this Consent Order are:
(a) to protect public health and welfare and the environment
at and from the Site by:
(1) continuing previously initiated response activities
conducted under the approved closure plan (soil gas extraction in
the 317 area);
(2) performing post closure activities to prevent
release or migration of hazardous substances from RCRA unit 317;
(3) completing a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study for the Site;
(4) completing a baseline risk assessment and a Public
Health Evaluation of Remedial Alternatives (PHERA);
(5) complying with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) requirements;
(6) preparing a RAP;
(7) preparing a Remedial Design for the RAP and
implementation;
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
181
191
201
21
22
2.3
241
25
26
27 I
COURT PAPER
*TAT[ 01G,., ..
5rp. 113 IREV 5- '747,
% N7)
(8) performing remedial activities to insure that
hazardous substances remaining at the Site do not pose a threat to
human health or the environment;
(9) performing routine site maintenance activities;
(10,) performing public participation support activities;
(11) implementing other response actions as necessary;
(12) complying with all ARARs, both Federal and State,
in each of these actions; and
(b) to provide a mechanism for resolution of certain cost
recovery claims.
Work agreed upon under this Consent Order is further defined
in Section 5.1 Work to be Performed By Respondent and the
Statement of Work attached as Appendix A.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
2.1. Liability of Responsible Parties (RPsj. Respondent is
a person doing business in the State of California. The term
"person" is defined in Health & Safety Code Section 25118.
2.1.1. The Facility has been in operation since 1934.
Respondent has owned the facility since 1967. From 1967 to 1987,
Respondent operated the Site as an explosives manufacturing
facility. Respondent is the only present owner or operator of the
Facility. Respondent is named herein as a Responsible Party.
2.2. physical Description of Site.
2.2.1. The Site consists of approximately 996 acres. The
Site extends to Soledad Canyon Road to the north, extends to an
industrial park to the west. Residential housing is located to
3
0
1
2
3i
4
5
6
7
8
9
I
10
11
12
13
141
151
I
16
17
18
19
201
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
COURT PAPER
6TIIT[ OI CA LI/O11 M IA
STD. 113 IREV. 6•TII
� Um
the south and southwest portions of the site. An approximately
ten acre portion of the northern border of the site along Soledad
Canyon Road has been converted into a commuter rail station.
2.2.2. The Site contained approximately 350 buildings
scattered throughout the Site, which were used for manufacturing,
storage and testing of explosives, and for administrative
purposes.
2.3. Site History.
2.3.1. From 1934 until 1987, the Site was used to
manufacture explosives. Respondent operated the Site from 1967
until ceasing operations in 1987. A list of previous owners,
provided by the Respondent, is included as Exhibit 2. According
to Respondent's May 3, 1994 report titled "Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act Facility Investigation Work Plan", previous
owners manufactured a variety of explosives including: dynamite,
bombs, flares, fireworks and oil field explosives. The exact
location within the Site where the previous owners manufactured
these explosives is unknown. The major types of explosives
manufactured by the Respondent included igniters, gas generators, I'I
Jato rockets, flares, practice bombs, Sidewinders and spin
rockets. In addition to the manufacturing of explosives, the
explosives were tested and off specification items were burned on
site.
Materials, or mixtures of materials, which would have
potentially been used in these activities include, but are not j
limited to: lead azide, red phosphorus, barium, zinc, copper,
4
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
251
261
27
COURT PAPER
ST.TEOF C L.F*P.4
STO. 113 J.EV; 9.731
85 P70
chrome and chlorinated solvents such as tetrachloroethylene (PERC)
and trichloroethylene (TCE).
2.3.2 Hazardous Waste Management Units
2.3.2.1 In November 1980, Respondent filed a Part A permit
application with U.S. EPA and the Department's predecessor agency,
the Toxic Substances Control Program of the California Department
of Health Services. The Facility received interim status under)
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA") and they
California Hazardous Waste Control Law ("HWCL") to operate
fourteen hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal units
then in existence.
2.3.2.2 From August 15, 1983 to November 30, 1983,
Respondent filed three letters with the Department describing
closure activities of the interim status hazardous waste
management units which had been completed without an approved
closure plan. Respondent submitted a revised closure plan on May
6, 1987, in response to requests from the Department and a consent
agreement with the U.S. EPA. A modified version of the closure
plan was approved by U.S. EPA and the Department on September 30,
1987, but modified again by the agencies on December 27, 1987,
based on additional information provided by the Facility.
2.3.2.3 The closure plan has been implemented for all of
the hazardous waste management units. Thirteen of the fourteen
units were certified closed by the Department. Respondent intends
to complete closure of the one remaining hazardous waste
management unit, a former surface impoundment which currently
contains trichloroethylene contaminated soil. The approved
1
2
3
4
5
6I
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 1
141
151
I
161
17
18
191
20I
211
22
23
24
25
26
27
COURT PAPER
ST.T. 01 GLIIOI1M lw
STD. 113 1REV. E 131
R5 NM
closure plan is hereby incorporated by reference into this Consent
Order. The Department has the authority to require Respondent to
submit a post -closure permit application if necessary to prevent
release or migration of hazardous waste or hazardous constituents
from the unit if any waste is remaining at the end of the closure
period. Pending certification of closure and post -closure of this
remaining unit, Respondent will remain under interim status. The
groundwater and soil vapor monitoring in effect under the interim
status requirements, will be implemented under this Consent Order.
Respondent may submit revisions to the existing soil vapor
extraction and monitoring program in the Remedial Investigation
Workplan required in section 5.2.2 of this Consent Order.
2.3.3. Solid Waste Management Units
2.3.3.1 In 1987, a RCRA Facility Assessment ("RFA") report
prepared by AT Kearney and dated September 18, 1987 was submitted
to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("U.S. EPA"). The
purpose of the RFA was to identify Solid Waste Management Units
("SWMUs") at the Site. In November 1987 and August 1988 reports
to the U.S. EPA, Respondent described additional units, some of
which are considered SWMUs. In October 1988, Respondent submitted
a report to the Department listing most of the SWMUs identified in
the previous reports identified above and additional units which
had not been included in the previous reports to the Department or
the U.S. EPA.
2.3.3.2 In 1992, the Department executed a search warrant
which uncovered paperwork identifying additional potential SWMU's
11
I
2
3
4
5
0
7
8
9
10
11.
12
13
14
15,
16
171
18 I
I
191
201
i
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
COURT PAPER
STRTL 0' GLIIORMI•
STD 113 1<EV, STSI
M N/N
at the Site, some of which were not included in either the 1987 or
1988 reports submitted by the Respondent.
2.3.3.3 All of the units mentioned in paragraphs 2.3.3.1 and
2.3.3.2 above which are considered SWMU's by the Department are
listed in Exhibit 3 of this Consent Order.
2.3.3.4 For the purposes of this Consent Order, Respondent
agrees that all locations as identified in Exhibit 3. are
potential SWMU's and subject to investigation during the RI/FS
portion (section 5.2) of this Consent Order.
2.3.4 In October 1992, the Whittaker Corporation submitted
a Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) to the Department for
a 10.3 acre parcel of the Site containing four SWMU's. The PEA
was conducted for the City of Santa Clarita to determine if a
commuter rail station could be developed on the property. The PEA
stated that the Site did not pose a threat to human health and the
environment, and recommended a no further action determination.
Based on the information provided, the Department concurred with
the PEA recommendation that no further action was necessary. The
Department also stipulated that if Site conditions differed from
those presented in the PEA, then further characterization/
remediation would be required. The information contained in the
PEA will be included in the Prior Site Investigation Report and, RI
Work Plan as required in paragraph 5.2 of this Consent Order.
2.4. Substances Found at the Site.
2.4.1 In 1993, the Department conducted a sampling
investigation in selected portions of the property. Soil samples
were taken from trenches excavated in the Burn Valley portion of
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11,
12
13�
141
I
151
16
171
181
19
i
20�
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
COURT PAPER
ST.Tg 0/ C Ll "..1A
STD. IIJ iREV DTII
85 ].189 �
the facility and near the former Lead Azide RCRA unit. In one
sample from the Burn Valley, 92,000 mg/kg of tetrachloroethylene
(PERC) was detected. Another sample from the Burn Valley
contained 290 mg/kg of lead. Other samples collected from the
Burn Valley contained copper with concentrations as high as 36,000
mg/kg, chromium as high as 550 mg/kg, and barium at 1300 mg/kg.
In the Lead Azide area, one sample contained thirty two percent
phosphorus and 190 mg/kg copper. 2.4.2 Trichloroethylene (TCE)
is present in the soil beneath a former RCRA surface impoundment
and drum rinsing area. In an area described as Area 317 in the
approved Closure Plan, Respondent is currently implementing a soil
vapor extraction program to remove the TCE contamination from the
soil.
2.4.3. On May 9, 1994, the Department inspected an area
outside the Whittaker Bermite property and discovered debris which
may have originated from the site. Debris, some of which was
scattered on the ground surface and some of which was partially
buried in a stream bed, included the following: an approximately
5 gallon sized empty container with the words "Black Powder"
imprinted on the lid; 55 gallon drums; empty powder casings;
components of arming devices; solidified resin and other
miscellaneous debris. The debris may have originated on-site and
may have been washed off-site during rain storms.
2.5. Health Effects. Some of the substances found at the
Site are carcinogenic or toxic. The Risk Assessment will
determine if the concentrations of the substances found at the
Site pose a risk to human health and the environment.
8
I
2
3
4
5
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18j
191
20
211
22
23
24
25
26
27
COUNT PAPER
STAT -
O/ GLI /O I.n 11
STO. 113 IREV. STL
M P20
2.5.1. Trichloroethylene (TCE) is classified as a probable
human carcinogen by the U.S. EPA (Group B), based on tumorigenic
affects in animal studies. It is an eye irritant and can cause
reproductive defects and tumorigenic affects, chloracne, and liver
damage. Acute, chronic exposure to TCE has been linked to an
increase in irreparable damage to the liver and other organs.
Exposure can occur through ingestion, respiration, and adsorption
through the skin.
2.5.2. Tetrachloroethylene (PERC) is a suspected human
carcinogen, and a skin and eye irritant. Exposure to PERC can
cause damage to the central nervous system and the liver.
Exposure can occur through ingestion, respiration, and adsorption
through the skin.
2.5.3. Copper is toxic to humans. High levels may sometimes'
cause death. Chronic exposure to copper dusts and fumes affect
the upper respiratory system, causes eye and dermal irritation and
increases the risk to Wilson's disease. Exposure to copper
affects the central nervous system, causes kidney and liver damage,
and anemia.
2.5.4. Chromium is classified as a probable human carcinogen
by the U.S. EPA (Group B), based on its induction of liver and
lung tumors in laboratory animals. Workers exposed to hexavalent
chromium are susceptible to damage to the central nervous system
and deep lung structures. The acute affects are irritation to the
skin, respiratory passages, and gastrointestinal (GI) tract.
Chromium poisoning can occur from ingestion, resulting in death.
E
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
191
201
21
22
23
24
251
26
27
COURT PAPER
ST.T9o1 uwe.xu
66 AM
2,5.5. Barium is toxic to humans and affects the central
nervous system. Exposure can cause respiratory failure and upon
ingestion, can cause death.
2.5.6. Lead is listed as a "Chemical Known to the State to
Cause Cancer", based on laboratory studies showing a significant
increase in renal tumors in rodents. Of primary concern is
delayed neurobehavioral development in children exposed to
excessive levels of lead.
2.5.7. Lead has a number of toxic effects, including
inhibition of the synthesis of hemoglobin. It adversely affects
the central and peripheral nervous systems, blood forming tissues,
kidneys and GI tract.
2.5.8. Lead is a bioaccumulative substance. Increasing
amounts build up in the body to a point where symptoms and
disability occur. Lead is a developmental, female and male
reproductive toxin.
2.5.9. Zinc is toxic to humans and causes dermatitis and
ulcerations of exposed skin. Inhalation affects the upper
respiratory tract. Zinc causes gastrointestinal effects when
ingested.
2.6. Routes of Exposure. Based on the environmental fate
of the substances found at the Site, human exposure should be
evaluated for each of the following routes: the direct ingestion
of contaminated water and/or soil, dermal exposure (direct skin
contact), and onsite and offsite inhalation of volatile and/or
particulate phase chemicals that have been released and dispersed.
t
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15'
161
171
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
COURTPAPER
SLITS .1411....4
$TO. ", (REV. S-721
R5 Ww
Most of the identified potential contaminants have low solubility
and preference for sorption onto particulates. These contaminated
particulates may be released to the air during soil excavation and
grading at the Site, and subsequently transported by the wind to
receptors. The direct ingestion of contaminated soil is a
potentially significant route of exposure, as children may ingest
contaminated dirt by mouthing objects, although adults are less
likely to be exposed by this route. Most metals are poorly
absorbed through intact skin, and dermal absorption is probably
not a significant route of exposure relative to other potential
routes.
2.7. Public Health and/or Environmental Risk. If approved
by the Santa Clarita City Council, the property is slated for
mixed use commercial and residential housing development. The
development, as currently planned, will require extensive grading
of the present topography which could, uncover previously buried
substances.
2.7.1. The nearest residential areas are currently located
less than a quarter mile south of the Site.
2.7.2. The Burn Valley is a dry stream bed which originates
on the Site and extends off the property'. An existing embankment
may prevent substances originating from the East Fork Landfill,
which is located above the Burn Valley, and substances buried at
the floor or canyon walls of the Burn Valley from being
transported outside the boundaries of the facility during heavy
rainstorms. However, the embankment may not have existed during
the entire time the site was operational. Therefore, this area
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15,
161
171
181
19i
201
I
21 I
22 1
23
24
25
26
27
I
I
COURT PAPER
.T.T. o."111".0
STo. 113 ...v..�72
M W69
must be investigated during the RI/FS because rainfall runoff may
have transported substances beyond the existing embankment and off
the property. People living in surrounding residential areas
could potentially come in contact with the substances deposited in
stream beds outside the facility property.
2.7.3. The groundwater underlying the Site is a potential
source of drinking water thus, migration of chemicals such as TCE
and PERC to the groundwater creates a potential hazard of exposure
to humans from these substances through drinking water.
Currently, groundwater monitoring activities are being performed
as a requirement of the Closure Plan for the one remaining
hazardous waste management unit. Quarterly sampling events will
continue until the Department determines that threat of migration
of the contaminants to the groundwater does not exist.
III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
3.1. The Respondent is a "responsible party" or "liable
person," as defined by Health and Safety Code sections 25319,
25323.5 and 25385.1(8).
3.2. Each of the substances listed in paragraphs 2.4.1 and
2.4.2 is a "hazardous substance," as defined by Health and Safety
Code section 25316, and has been found at the Site.
3.3. The presence of hazardous substances at the Site,
and/or the past, present, and potential migration of hazardous
substances at or from the Site constitutes an actual or threatened
"release", as defined by Health and Safety Code section 25320.
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
171
LN
191
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
i
27
COURT PAPER
STAT[ OF ULIF*..1.
STO. II] I.EV,. 611�
85 3.789
IV. DETERMINATIONS
4.1 The actual and/or threatened release of hazardous
substances at the Site requires Respondent to take necessary
corrective action to remove the threat of a release, or to
determine the nature and extent of the release and adequately
characterize the site, prepare a remedial action plan, and
complete the necessary removal or remedial actions, as required in
the approved remedial action plan.
4.2. The Department hereby determines that the actions
required by this Consent Order are necessary to protect the public
health, welfare and the environment.
V. CONSENT ORDER
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law
and Determinations, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AND ORDERED THAT
Respondent comply with the following provisions, including but not
limited to all appendices, exhibits, and attachments to this
Consent Order, all documents incorporated by reference into this
Consent Order, and all schedules and deadlines contained in this
Consent Order, attached to this Consent Order, or incorporated by
reference into this Consent Order. The Respondent shall conduct
the following response activities in the manner specified herein
and in accordance with the following schedule specified by the
Department as follows:
5.1 Work to be Performed by Respondent. All work performed
under this Consent Order shall be consistent with and based on the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
111
12
13
14
15
16
171
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
COURTPAPER
STATE o1 CA LI Ie11N1A
STD, I I3 1 REV. 0.721
M AM
Act of 1980 (CERCLA) (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), as amended, the
National Contingency Plan (40 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR)
Part 300), as amended, the Health and Safety Code (H&SC) section
25300 et seq., as amended, state laws and regulations, as amended
and other current and applicable U.S. EPA and Department guidance
and standards.
All work under this Consent Order is subject to approval by
the Department. Respondent shall submit the required work, as
defined in this Consent Order. Respondent shall submit a schedule
for performance of the required work and submit Deliverables in
accordance with such schedule. Once the Deliverables are
approved, they shall be incorporated into, and, where applicable,
enforceable under this Order.
The Work to be performed at the Site under this Consent Order
shall include but not be limited to: Completion of Interim
Remedial Measures, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(RI/FS), preparation of a Remedial Action Plan (RAP), including
preparation of necessary California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) documents, and implementation of the remedial action
approved in the RAP.
5.1.1. Removal Actions. Respondent shall undertake removal
actions if, during the course of the RI or FS, the Department
determines that they are necessary to mitigate the release of
hazardous substances at or emanating from the Site. The
Department may require Respondent to submit a removal action
workplan, including an implementation schedule, and may establish
a schedule for submittal of or implementation of the workplan.
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
111
12
13
14
15,
161
171
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2611
271
COURTPAPER
STAT[ 01 G111Ullxq
STD 113 I.C' 4121
M N7w
Either the Department or Respondent may identify the need for
removal actions.
5.1.2. If Respondent is unable to initiate any of the
removal actions within the scheduled times specified in the
removal action workplan, Respondent shall request an extension and
obtain approval from the Department pursuant to paragraphs 6.18
and 6.19 of this Consent Order.
5.2. Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
(RI/FS). An overall Site investigation and remediation strategy
shall be developed by the Respondent in conjunction with the
Department, as specified in the Statement of Work (SOW), (Appendix
A). Current knowledge of Site contamination sources, exposure
pathways, and receptors shall be used in developing this strategy.
The purpose of the RI/FS is to assess Site conditions and to
evaluate alternatives to the extent necessary to select a remedy
appropriate for the Site.
The RI/FS shall be prepared consistent with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's and the Department's guidance,
including at a minimum the U. S. EPA's "Guidance for Conducting
Remedial Investigations and Feasibility studies under CERCLA,"
October 1988 and "Data Quality Objectives for Remedial Response
Activities", March 1987. The following RI/FS components shall be
performed as detailed in the SOW attached as Appendix A:
(a) Prior Site Investigation Report and RI Workplan -Within
ninety (90) days from the effective date of this Consent Order,
the Respondent shall prepare and submit to the Department for
review and approval a Prior Site Investigation Report and a
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
131
141
15!
161
I
17
18
191
20
21
22
23
241
251
i
26
I
27
COURTPAPER
STATE OI Gl1Io11Y 1.
ST.. 119 $REV,. 6�73'
8 M70
detailed RI Workplan. The RI Workplan will identify activities
necessary to provide additional data necessary to adequately
characterize the Site for purposes of defining risks to public
health and the environment and developing and evaluation of
effective remedial alternatives. The RI Workplan shall include an
implementation schedule which covers all the activities necessary
to conduct a complete RI of the Site.
(b) Remedial Investigation (RI) Report -Within forty-five
(45) days of completion of the RI field work, the Respondent shall
prepare and submit the RI Report to the Department for review and
approval in accordance with the approved RI/FS workplan schedule
and as described in the SOW attached as Appendix A.
(c) FS Workplan -Within 30 days from submittal of the RI
Report, Respondent shall prepare and submit to the Department for
review and approval an FS Workplan and implementation schedule
which covers all the activities necessary to conduct a complete FS
of the Site.
(d) FS Report -The FS Report shall be prepared and submitted
to the Department for review and approval in accordance with the
approved FS workplan and as described in the SOW attached as
Appendix A, no later than 60 days from approval of the RI Report.
5.2.1. RI/FS Workplan Implementation. 1Zespondent shall
implement the approved RI/FS Workplan.
5.2.2. RI/FS Workplan Revisions. If Respondent proposes to
modify any methods or initiates new activities for which no Field
Sampling Plan, Health and Safety Plan, Quality Assurance Project
Plan or other necessary procedures/plans have been established,
16
1
2
3
4'.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
261
27
COURTPAPER
STAT[ 0'
Cw LI TOR XIw
IT. 113 Vx .7111
M 3x)69
the Respondent shall prepare an addendum to the approved plan(s)
for Department review and approval prior to modifying the method
or initiating new activities.
5.3. Baseline Risk Assessment. Within 30 days of submittal
of the RI Report, Respondent shall submit a Baseline Risk
Assessment Report which addresses human health and the
environment, and includes an ecological assessment. The report
shall be prepared consistent with U.S. EPA and Department guidance
and regulations, including as a minimum: Risk Assessment Guidance
for Superfund, Volume 1; Human Health Evaluation Manual, December
1989; Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual, April 1988; and Risk
Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume 2, Environmental
Evaluation Manual, March 1989. The SOW, attached as Appendix A,
discusses the requirements for the Baseline Risk Assessment
Workplan and Report.
5.4 Public Health Evaluation of Remedial Alternatives
Workplan (PHERA). The Respondent shall prepare a PHERA with
respect to potential exposure of hazardous substances during and
subsequent to all remedial alternatives considered in the FS
Report. The SOW, attached as Appendix A, discusses the
methodologies to be used for development of the PHERA Workplan and
Report.
5.5. Remedial Action Plan (RAP). No later than thirty (30)
days after Department approval of the FS Report, the Respondent
shall prepare and submit to the Department a draft RAP. The draft
RAP shall be consistent with the NCP and Health and Safety Code
section 25356.1, et seq. The draft RAP public review process may
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11�
12
13
14
15
161
17 I.
18 I
I
19 it
20
21
22
23
24
25
261
27
COURT PAPER
ST.,... GIiro ImiA
STD 113 cv. SIL
M NII
be combined with that of any other documents required by CEQA.
The draft RAP shall be based on and summarize the approved RI/FS
Report and clearly set forth all of the items listed in the Sow
attached as Appendix A.
5.6. Deed Restrictions. If the approved remedy in the final
RAP requires deed restrictions, Respondent shall sign and record
deed restrictions approved by the Department within 90 days of the
Department's approval of the final RAP.
5.7. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) The
Department must comply with CEQA insofar as activities required by
this order are projects requiring CEQA compliance. The SOW,
attached as Appendix A, discusses in further detail the
requirements of CEQA.
5.8. Remedial Design. Within sixty (60) days after
Department approval of the final RAP, Respondent shall submit to
the Department for review and approval a Remedial Design Workplan
describing in detail the technical and operational plans for
implementation of the final RAP. The Workplan shall include the
elements, as outlined in the SOW attached as Appendix A.
5.9 Implementation of Final Remedial Action Plan Upon
Department approval of the Remedial Design (RD), Respondent shall
implement the final RAP as approved. Within thirty (30) days of
completion of field activities, Respondent shall submit an
Implementation Report documenting the implementation of the Final
RAP and RD.
5.10. Operation and Maintenance (OM . Respondent shall
comply with all operation and maintenance requirements in
18
1
2
3
4
5'
61
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20'
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
COURTPAPER
Sur.., Cw ......A
STD. 113 �.C, ..121
% WN
accordance with the final RAP and approved RD. O&M Agreements,
which include financial assurance, must be entered into with the
Department prior to certification of the Site.
5.11. Other Response Actions. The Respondent and the
Department shall develop and possibly modify Site priorities
throughout the course of the investigations. If necessary for the
protection of public health and the environment, the Department
shall require additional response actions not specified in the
Consent Order to be performed as removal actions.
Within thirty (30) days of receipt of a notice from the
Department that additional response actions are necessary (or such
longer time as may be specified by the Department), Respondent
shall submit for approval by the Department a plan or plans for
the implementation of the Additional Response Actions, including;
but not limited to a Health and Safety Plan and a Sampling and
Analysis Plan (Quality Assurance Project Plan and a Field Sampling
Plan). The plan shall comply with the Site's Community
Contingency Plan. Upon approval of the plan(s) by the Department,
Respondent shall implement the plan(s) for additional response
actions in accordance with the provisions and schedules contained
therein.
5.12. Public Participation Plan (Communitm Relations). The
Respondent shall work cooperatively with the Department in
ensuring that the affected public and community are involved in
the Department's decision-making process. Any such public
participation activities shall be conducted in accordance with
Health and Safety Code section 25356.1(e), the Department's Public
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
151
16
171
18
191
20!
21
22
23
I
24
25
26
27
i
COURT PAPER
'To. 113 REY, 0
.12r
% 1769
Participation Policy and Guidance Manual, and with the
Department's review and approval.
The Department, in coordination with the Respondent, shall
assess the community and develop a'Public Participation Plan (PPP)
which describes how, under the Consent Order, the public and
adjoining community will be kept informed of activities conducted
at the Site and how the Respondent will be responding to inquiries
from concerned citizens. The PPP must be approved by the
Department before any activities at the site are performed.
5.13. Document Revisions. If Respondent modifies any
methods or initiates new activities, including activities for
which no Sampling and Analysis Plan (Field Sampling Plan and
Quality Assurance Project Plan), Health and Safety Plan or other
necessary procedures/plans have been established, the Respondent
shall prepare an addendum to the appropriate approved plan(s) or
documents for Department review and approval prior to .modifying
the method or initiating new activities.
5.14. Technical Memorandum. The Technical Memorandum is the
mechanism for requesting modification of plans, designs, and
schedules during field work. Technical memoranda are not required
for non -material field changes that have been approved by the
Department. In the event that the Respondent determines that
modification of an approved plan, design, or schedule is
necessary, Respondent shall submit a written request for the
modification to the Department Project Manager which includes, but
is not limited to, the following information:
(a) general description of and purpose for the modification;
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
91I
10
11
12
13
14
15
161
171
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
COURT PAPER
9T..T[ oI G"... ...
STI.. III ..'V 9.)21
M 31169
(b) justification, including any calculations, for the
modification;
(c) actions to be taken to implement the modification,
including any actions related to subsidiary documents, milestone
events, or activities affected by the modification; and
(d) recommendations.
5.15. Changes During Implementation of the Final RAP.
Respondent and Department shall develop and possibly modify Site
priorities throughout the course of the investigations. If
necessary for the protection of public health and the environment,
the Department shall require additional response actions not
specified in the Consent Order to be performed as removal actions
or separate operable units.
During the implementation of the final RAP and RD, the
Department may specify such additions, modifications, and
revisions to the RD as deemed necessary to protect public health
and safety
or the environment or
to implement
the RAP.
5.16.
Five -Year Review.
Pursuant to
section 121(c) of
CERCLA as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act (SARA) of 1986, Respondent shall submit a remedial action
review workplan within thirty (30) days before the end of the
five-year period following approval of the finhl RAP. within
thirty (30) days of the Department's approval of the workplan,
Respondent shall implement the workplan and shall submit a
comprehensive report of the results of the remedial action review.
The report shall describe the results of all sample analyses,
tests and other data generated or received by the Respondent.
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
211
22
23
24
25
26
27
COURTPAPER I
STATt O/CBLI.00NI.
STD 113 1NEV. G_
-TL
BS ]x169
5.17. Stop Work Order. In the event that the Department
determines that any activity (whether or not pursued in compliance
with this Consent Order) may pose an imminent or substantial
endangerment to the health or safety of people on the Site or in
the surrounding area, or to the environment, the Department may
order Respondent to stop further implementation of this Consent
Order for such period of time needed to abate the endangerment.
In the event that the Department determines that any site
activities (whether or not pursued in compliance with this Consent
Order) are proceeding without Department authorization, the
Department may order Respondent to stop further implementation of
this Consent Order or activity for such period of time needed to
obtain Department authorization, if such authorization is
appropriate. Any deadline in this Consent Order directly affected
by a Stop Work Order, under this section, shall be extended for
the term of the Stop Work Order.
5.18. Emeraencv Response Action/Notification In the event
of any action or occurrence (such as a fire, earthquake,
explosion, or human exposure to hazardous substances caused by the
release or threatened release of a hazardous substance) during the
course of this Consent Order, Respondent shall immediately take
all appropriate action to prevent, abate, or minimize such
emergency, release, or immediate threat of release and shall
immediately notify the Department Project Manager. Respondent
shall take such action in consultation with the Department Project
Manager and in accordance with all applicable provisions of this
Consent Order. Within seven (7) days of the onset of such an
22
1
2
3
4
5
A
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
161
171
1811
19
20
21
event, Respondent shall furnish a report to the Department, signed
by the Respondent's Project Coordinator, setting forth the events
which occurred and the measures taken in the response thereto. In
the event that Respondent fails to take appropriate response and
the Departmegt takes the action instead, Respondent shall be
liable to the Department for all costs of the response action.
Nothing in this section shall be deemed to limit any other
notification requirement to which the Respondent may be subject.
5..19. Discontinuation of Remedial Technology. Any remedial
technology employed in implementation of the final RAP shall be
left in place and operated by Respondent until and except to the
extent that the Department authorizes Respondent in writing to
discontinue, move or modify some or all of the remedial technology
because Respondent has met the criteria specified in the final 'RAP
for its discontinuance, or because the modifications would better
achieve the goals of the final RAP.
VI. GENERAL PROVISIONS
6.1. Additional Response Actions Respondent acknowledges
that the State may seek to require Respondent to perform certain
response actions in addition to those embodied in this Consent
2211 Order.
23
241
i
251
26
27
COURT PAPER
SY.T..1C 1u10.xu
STU n3 a""
n 30759
6.2. Project Coordinator. Within fifteen (15) days of the
effective date of this Consent Order, Respondent shall submit, in
writing, to the Department the name, address, and telephone number
of a Project Coordinator. The Project Coordinator, who will act
on behalf of the Respondent, will receive all notices, comments,
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17!
approvals, and other communications from the Department. If at
any time the Respondent proposes to use a different Project
Coordinator, the Respondent shall notify the Department in writing
of the change. The Respondent shall obtain approval from the
Department before the new Project Coordinator performs any work
under this Consent Order.
6.3. Proiect Engineer/Geologist. The work performed
pursuant to this Consent Order shall be under the direction and
supervision of a qualified professional engineer or a registered
geologist in the State of California, with expertise in hazardous
substance site cleanup. Within fifteen (15) days of the effective
date of this Consent Order, Respondent shall submit: a)`he nine
and address of the project engineer or geologist chosen by the
Respondent; and
b) in order to demonstrate expertise in hazardous substance
cleanup, the resume of the engineer or geologist, and the
statement of qualifications of the consulting firm responsible for
1811 the work.
19
20
21
22
231
24
25
26
27
COURT PAPER
STAT[
STD. 1113
CREW REv, 8
.7II
M AM
6.3.1. Respondent shall promptly notify the Department in
writing of any change in the identity of the Project
Engineer/Geologist.
6.4. Communication and Coordination Plan (CCP). Within
thirty (30) days of the effective date of this Consent Order, the
Respondent shall submit to the Department for approval a CCP that
specifies the requirements and procedures by which the Respondent
will communicate and coordinate with the Department in carrying
out the requirements of the Consent Order.
24
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
V
a
14
151
16
171
181
19
20
21
22
231
24
251
26
27
COURT PAPER
STAT{ 01 C.IIFORMI♦
STO 113 I REV _ 0.711
BS 3i]69 �
6.4.1. The CCP shall include at a minimum the following:
6.4.1.1. Communication Strategy. The Respondent shall
specify how the Department Project Manager and Respondent will
communicate and disseminate information relative to this Consent
Order. The name, title, address and telephone number of the
primary contact person for the Respondent shall be included in the
communication strategy.
6.4.2. A duly authorized representative of Respondent shall
sign the CCP prior to submission of the CCP to the Department.
Failure of Respondent to sign the CCP will constitute a violation
of this Consent Order by Respondent.
6.4.3. The Respondent shall submit all proposed changes or
amendments to the CCP to the Department for approval.
6.4.4. The CCP as approved by the Department shall be
incorporated into and enforceable under this Consent Order.
6.5. Monthly Summary Reports. Within thirty (30) days of
the effective date of this Consent Order, and on a monthly basis
thereafter, Respondent shall submit a Monthly Summary Report of
its activities under the provisions of this Consent Order. The
report shall be received by the Department by the fifteenth (15th)
day of each month and shall describe:
6.5.1. Specific actions taken by or on behalf of Respondent
during the previous calendar month;
6.5.2 Deviations from the original Workplans and reasons
thereof;
6.5.3 Recommendations for additional work;
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
10
11
121
13
14
151
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 it
26 it
27 II
COURT PAPER
STAT. e. O .......
sro. 113 �.EY. 6.131
M �,0
6.5.4. Actions expected to be undertaken during the current
calendar month;
6.5.5. All planned activities for the next month;
6.5.6. Any requirements under this Consent Order that were
not completed.;
6.5.7. Any problems or anticipated problems in complying
with this Consent Order, and the actions planned to be taken to
resolve such problems; and
6.5.8. All results of sample analyses, tests, and other data
generated under this Consent Order during the previous calendar
month, and any significant findings from these data.
6.6 Daily Reports. Whenever field work occurs under this
Consent Order, the Respondent shall contact the Department's
Project Manager or designated Department contact on a daily basis
with a status report on the progress of the Work and any issues or
obstacles encountered. This contact shall be either through a
phone call or daily FAX. The Department Project Manager shall
determine the method of contact on an event by event basis.
6.7. Ouality Control/Quality Assurance (OC/OA). All
sampling and analysis conducted by Respondent under this Consent
Order shall be performed in accordance with QC/QA procedures
submitted by Respondent and approved by the Department pursuant to
this Consent Order.
6.8. Submittals. All submittals and notifications from
Respondent required by this Consent Order shall be sent
simultaneously to:
26
2
101
111
12
13
14
151
161
171
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
271
COURTPAPER
ST.T. or a ''047u
STO. 113 ILEv. 0-13.
M N7f9
Mr. Hamid Saebfar, Chief
Site Mitigation Branch, Region 3
Attn: Whittaker Project Manager
Department of Toxic Substances Control
1011 Grandview Avenue
Glendale, California 91201
Mr. Robert P. Ghirelli, Executive Officer
Regional Water Quality Control Board
101`Centre Plaza Drive
Monterey Park, California 91754
Mr. Jose Ochoa
Los Angeles County Fire Department
Hazardous Materials Program
58025 Rickenbacker Road
Commerce, California 90040
U.S. EPA Region IX
HazardousWaste Management Division
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, California 94105-3901
6..9. Communications. All approvals and decisions made by
the Department regarding submittals and notifications will be
communicated to Respondent in writing by the Site Mitigation
Branch Chief, Department of Toxic Substances Control, or his/her
designee. No informal advice, guidance, suggestions or comments
by the Department regarding reports, plans, specifications,
schedules or any other writings by Respondent shall be construed
to relieve Respondent of the obligation to obtain such formal
approvals as may be required.
6.10. Department Review and Approval.
6.10.1. If the Department determines that any report, plan,
schedule or other document submitted for approval pursuant to this
Consent Order fails to comply with this Consent Order or fails to
protect public health or safety or the environment, the Department
may:
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
111
12
131
14
15
16
17
18
19,
201
21
22 I
23
24
25
26 1
27 1
COURT PAPER
f T..T. OIG1110....
STo ", I.EYx 8-72l
66 W69
(a) Modify the document as deemed necessary and approve the
document as modified; or
(b) Return comments to Respondent with recommended changes
and a date by which Respondent must submit to the Department a
revised document 'incorporating the recommended changes.
6.10.2. Any modifications, comments or other directive
issued pursuant to paragraph 6.10.1, above, are incorporated into
this Consent Order. Any noncompliance with these modifications or
directives shall be deemed a failure or refusal to comply with
this Consent Order.
6.11. Compliance with Aonlicable Laws. Respondent shall
carry out this Consent Order in compliance with all applicable
state, local, and federal requirements including, but not limited
to, requirements to obtain permits and to assure worker safety.
6.12. Respondent's Liabilities. Nothing in this Consent
Order shall constitute or be construed as a satisfaction or
release from liability for any conditions or claims arising as a
result of past, current or future operations of Respondent.
Nothing in this Consent Order is intended or shall be construed to
limit the rights of any of the parties with respect to claims
arising out of or relating to the deposit or disposal at any other
location of substances removed from the Site. Nothing in this
Consent Order is intended or shall be construed to limit or
preclude the Department from taking any action authorized by law
to protect public health 'or safety or the environment and
recovering the cost thereof. Notwithstanding compliance with the
terms of this Consent Order, Respondent may be required to take
28
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19j
2011
211
22
231
24
25
26
27
COURT PAPER
STAT{ OF ULIR011M IA
STD. 113 )RFV, 0.731
% J7%
further actions as are necessary to protect public health and the
environment.
6.13. Site Access.
6.13.1. Access to the Site and laboratories, used for
analyses of samples under this Consent Order, shall be provided at
all reasonable times to employees, contractors, and consultants of
the Department. Nothing in this section is intended or shall be
construed to limit in any way the right of entry or inspection
that the Department or any other agency may otherwise have by
operation of any law. The Department and its authorized
representatives, or the authorized representatives of Respondent
who requires access to comply with this Consent Order, shall have
the authority to enter and move freely about all property at the
Site at all reasonable times for purposes including, but not
limited to: inspecting records, operating logs, sampling and
analytic data, and contracts relating to this Site; reviewing the
progress, of Respondent in carrying out the terms of this Consent
Order; conducting such tests as the Department may deem necessary;
and verifying the data submitted to the Department by Respondent.
6.13.2. To the extent that the Site or any other property to
which access is required for the implementation of this Consent
Order is owned or controlled by persons other -than Respondent,
Respondent shall use best efforts to secure from such persons
access for Respondent, as well as for the Department, its
representatives, and contractors, as necessary to effectuate this
Consent Order. To the extent that any portion of the Site is
controlled by tenants of Respondent, Respondent shall use best
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
20
111
12
131
i
141,
15
16
17�
18
i
19i
20
21
22 1
23
24
I
25 i
26 i
27
COURT PAPER
ST.TE o. GLI.O..I..
STD. 113 iAEV a-721
96 WM
efforts to secure from such tenants, access for Respondent, as
well as for the Department, its representatives, and contractors,
as necessary to effectuate this Consent Order. For purposes of
this paragraph, "best efforts" includes the payment of reasonable
sums of money in consideration of access. If any access required
to complete the Work is not obtained within forty-five (45) days
of the effective date of this Consent Order, or within forty-five
(45) days of the date the Department notifies the Respondent in
writing that additional access beyond that previously secured is
necessary, Respondent shall promptly notify the Department, and
shall include in that notification a summary of the steps
Respondent has taken to attempt to obtain access. The Department
may, as it deems appropriate, assist Respondent in obtaining
access. Respondent shall reimburse the Department, in accordance
with the procedures in paragraph 6.21.3, Future Response Costs,
for all costs incurred by the Department in obtaining access,
including, but not limited to, attorneys fees and the amount of
just compensation.
6.14. Sampling. Data and Document Availability. Respondent
shall permit the Department and its authorized representatives to
inspect and copy all sampling, testing, monitoring or other data
generated by Respondent or on Respondent's behalf in any way
pertaining to work undertaken pursuant to this Consent Order.
Respondent shall submit all such data upon the request of the
Department. Copies shall be provided within seven (7) days of
receipt of the Department's written request. Respondent shall
inform the Department at least seven (7) days in advance of all
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
121
13 1
14
15
16
17
18
19.
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
COURTPAPER
STATX or CALIIOANIA
5T. "3 '.EV S -)E,
% WN
field sampling under this Consent Order, and shall allow the
Department and its authorized representatives to take duplicates
of any samples collected by Respondent pursuant to this Consent
Order. Respondent shall maintain a central repository
of the data, -reports, and other documents prepared pursuant to
this Consent Order.
6.15. Record Retention. All such data, reports and other
documents shall be preserved by Respondent for a minimum of ten
(10) years after the conclusion of all activities under this
Consent Order. If the Department requests that some or all of
these documents be preserved for a longer period of time,
Respondent shall either comply with that request or deliver the
documents to the Department, or permit the Department to copy the
documents prior to destruction. Respondent shall notify the
Department in writing, at least six (6) months prior to destroying
any documents prepared pursuant to this Consent Order.
6.16. Government Liabilities. The State of California shall
not be liable for any injuries or damages to persons or property
resulting from acts or omissions by Respondent, or related parties
specified in paragraph 6.27, Parties Bound, in carrying out
activities pursuant to this Consent Order, nor shall the State of
California be held as party to any contract +entered into by
Respondent or its agents in carrying out activities pursuant to
this Consent Order.
6.17. Additional Actions. By issuance of this Consent
Order, the Department does not waive the right to take any further
actions authorized by law.
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
201
211
28 I
I
23
24 j
25 1
26 1
27
COURT PAPER
5TO 113 I MEV. 8n7
$TO. 113 REV. B�T21
mum
6.18. Extension Requests. If Respondent is unable to
perform any activity or submit any document within the time
required under this Consent Order, Respondent may, prior to
expiration of the time, request an extension of the time in
writing. The extension request shall include a justification for
the delay. All such requests shall be in advance of the date on
which the activity or document is due.
6.19. Extension Approvals. If the Department determines
that good cause exists for an extension, it will grant the request
and specify a new schedule in writing. Respondent shall comply
with the new schedule incorporated in this Consent Order.
6.19.1 Force Majeure. "Force majeure," for purposes of this
Consent order, is defined as any event arising from causes beyond
the control of the Respondent or of any entity controlled by
Respondent, including, but not limited to, Respondent's
contractors and subcontractors, that delays or prevents the
performance of any obligation under this Consent Order despite
Respondent's best efforts to fulfill the obligation. The
requirement that the Respondent exercise "best efforts to fulfill
the obligation" includes using best efforts to anticipate any
potential force majeure event and best efforts to address the
I
effects of any potential force majeure event (1) as it is
occurring and (2) following the potential force majeure event,
such that the delay is minimized to the greatest extent possible.
"Force Majeure" does not include financial inability to complete
the work.
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11,
12
13
14
15.
16)
17
M1
191
20
21
22
23 ,
24
25
26
i
271
COURT PAPER
STAT I GLV IA
ST0, I 1J IRE V_ S.••TSS
% WN
6.19.2. If any event occurs or has occurred that may delay
the performance of any obligation under this Consent Order,
whether or not caused by a force majeure event, the Respondent
shall notify orally the Department Project Manager within forty-
eight (48) hours of when Respondent or Respondent's Project
Coordinator first knew or should have known that the event might
cause a delay. Within five (5) days thereafter, Respondent shall
provide in writing to the Department an explanation and
description of the reasons for the delay; the anticipated duration
of the delay; all actions taken or to be taken to prevent or
minimize the delay; a schedule for implementation of any measures
to be taken to prevent or mitigate the delay or the effect of the
delay; the Respondent's rationale for attributing such delay to a
force majeure event if they intend to assert such a claim; and a
statement as to whether, in the opinion of the Respondent, such
event may cause or contribute to an endangerment to public health,
welfare or the environment. The Respondent shall include with any
notice, all available documentation supporting any claim that the
delay was attributable to a force majeure. Failure to comply with
the above requirements shall preclude Respondent from asserting
any claim of force majeure for that event. Respondent shall be
deemed to have notice of any circumstance of whYch Respondent's
contractors or subcontractors had or should have had notice.
6.19.3 If the Department agrees that the delay or
anticipated delay is attributable to a force majeure event, the
time for performance of the obligations under this Consent Order
that are affected by the force majeure event will be extended for
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16,
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
271
COURT PAPER
STATa Of CA4loaaln
STD. 113 ia[v a-71,
,'M9
such time as is necessary to complete those obligations. An
extension of the time for performance of the obligations affected
by the force majeure event shall not, of itself, extend the time
for performance of any other obligation. If the Department does
not agree that the delay or anticipated delay has been or will be
caused by a force majeure event, the Department will notify the
Respondent in writing of this decision. If the Department does
agree that the delay or anticipated delay has been or will be
caused by a force majeure event, the Department will notify the
Respondent in writing of the length of the extension, if any, for
performance of the obligations affected by the force majeure
event.
6.19.4 If the Respondent elects to invoke the dispute
resolution procedures set forth in Section 6.20 (Dispute
Resolution), it shall do so no later that fifteen (15) days after j
receipt of the Department's notice. In any such proceeding,
Respondent shall have the burden of demonstrating by a
preponderance of the evidence that the delay or anticipated delay
has been or will be caused by a force majeure event, that the
duration of the delay or the extension sought was or will be
warranted under the circumstances, that the best efforts were
exercised to avoid and mitigate the effects of the delay, and that
Respondent complied with the requirements of Sections 6.19.1-3
above. If Respondent carries this burden, the delay at issue
shall be deemed not to be a violation by Respondent of the
affected obligation of this Consent order identified to the
Department.
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
111
12
13
14
15
16
17
Hui
191
201'i
21
22
23
24
I
25
26
27
COURT PAPER
STATE
Or GLWO.I .A
5TO. 113 1 REV, l -TL
M NM
6.20. Dispute Resolution
6.20.1 Unless otherwise expressly provided for in this
Consent order, the dispute resolution procedures of this Section
shall be the exclusive mechanism to resolve disputes arising under
or with respect to this Consent Order and the Statement of Work
regardless of whether the Section at issue expressly refers to the
dispute resolution mechanism. The procedures set forth in this
Section shall not apply to (1) actions by the Department to
enforce obligations of the Respondent that have not been disputed
in accordance with this Section; or (2) any further work that the
Department may attempt to require from the Respondent beyond the
Statement of Work.
6.20.2 Informal Dispute Resolution. Any dispute which
arises under or with respect to this Consent Order shall in the
first instance be the subject of informal negotiations between
Respondent and the Department. The period for informal
negotiations shall not exceed twenty (20) days form the time the
dispute arises, unless it is modified by written agreement of
Respondent and the Department. The dispute shall be considered to
have arisen when Respondent sends the Department a written Notice
Of Dispute.
6.21. Cost Recovery. Respondent is liable for all of the
Department's costs incurred in responding to the contamination at
the Site (including costs of overseeing response work performed by
Respondent) and costs to be incurred in the future. The State of
California reserves the right to bring an action against
Respondent under CERCLA, Health and Safety Code Section 25360, or
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
COURT PAPER
STATICOF "LIFO,. 1.
STD, 113 I.Ey. IC.TGI
M 3.189
any other applicable state or federal statute or common law, for
recovery of all response and oversight costs incurred by the State
of California related to this Consent Order and not reimbursed by
Respondent, as well as any other unreimbursed past and future
costs incurred by the State of California in connection with
response activities at the Site.
6.21.1. Past Costs. Within thirty (30) days of the
effective date of this Consent Order, Respondent shall pay to the
Department $9,264.18 to reimburse the Department for its costs
incurred up to June 30, 1994, related to response actions and
oversight of site investigation activities at the Site.
6.21.2 Form of Payment. Payment to the State shall be made
in the form of a certified check or cashier's check made payable ,
to Cashier, Department of Toxic Substances Control", and shall be
forwarded to:
Department of Toxic Substances Control
State of California
Accounting Office
400 P Street, 4th Floor
Sacramento, California 95814
Respondent shall send a transmittal letter with the check
referencing the Whittaker Bermite Site, Project Number 300245.
Respondent shall also send a copy of its check and transmittal
letter to the Department as specified in Section 6.8, Submittals.
6.21.3. Future Response Costs. Respondent shall pay all
costs of the Department's review of activities by Respondent or
Respondent's agents under this Consent Order and/or related to
this Consent Order after June 30, 1994, as such costs are
incurred. Costs of the Department's review of Respondent's
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
111
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
COURT PAPER
STAiE Oi ULIIo11M 1.
$TD. 113 I PE V .6031
activities include all direct and indirect costs. Under all
circumstances, Respondent shall remain liable for all costs
incurred by the Department as specified by Health and Safety Code
section 25360, including interest thereon as provided by law. The
Department shall bill Respondent on a quarterly basis for response
and oversight costs incurred during the previous quarter. The
Department shall provide Respondent with a summary description of
the Department's oversight activities for which it seeks oversight
costs. Respondent shall maintain the right to review and make
copies of documentation supporting the costa claimed by the
Department. Respondent shall remit payment as specified in the
billing within thirty (30) days of the date of the billing.
6.22. Severability. The requirements of this Consent Order
are severable, and Respondent shall comply with each and every
provision hereof, notwithstanding the effectiveness of any other
provision.
6.23. Incorporation of Plans Schedules and Reports. All
plans, schedules, reports, specifications and other documents that
are submitted by Respondent pursuant to this Consent Order are
incorporated in this Consent Order upon the Department's approval
or as modified pursuant to paragraph 6.10, Department Review and
Approval, and shall be implemented by Respondent. Any
noncompliance with the documents incorporated in this Consent
Order, shall be deemed a failure or refusal to comply with this
Consent Order.
6.24. Modifications. This Consent Order may be amended in
writing by mutual agreement of the Department and Respondent.
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
i
15
16�
171
181
191
i
20i'i
21. 1
221
23 1
24
25
26
27
COURTPAPER
STATE OI GIII... 1.
$T0. 113 4REV E-TiI
% N70
Any amendment to this Consent Order shall be effective upon the
date the modification is signed by the Department and shall be
deemed incorporated in this Consent Order.
6.25. Time Periods/Effective Date. Unless otherwise
specified, time periods begin from the effective date of this
Consent Order and "days" means calendar days. The effective date
of this Consent Order is the date the Consent Order is signed by
the Department, as indicated below.
6.26. Termination and Satisfaction. The Respondent's
obligations under this Consent Order, except for the Respondent's
obligation to pay all past and future costs incurred by the
Department in responding to the contamination at the Site pursuant
to paragraphs 5.16, Five -Year Review; 6.21.1. Past Costs; and
6.21.3. Future Response Costs, shall terminate and be deemed
satisfied upon Respondent's receipt of written notice from the
Department that. the Respondent has complied with all the terms of
this Consent Order.
6.27. Parties Bound. This Consent Order applies to and is
binding upon any successor agency of the State of California that
may have responsibility for and jurisdiction over the subject
matter of this Consent Order, and upon Respondent and Respondent's
officers, directors, agents, employees, contractors, consultants,
receivers, trustees,
and assignees, including but not
limited to, individuals, partners, and subsidiary and parent
corporations.
6.28. Joint and Several Liability. Respondent is jointly
and severally responsible for carrying out all activities required
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16'
171
In
191
20
21
22
23
24
25
26I
271
COURT PAPER 1
SlATI o1 ul1 o00M A
Sio. I13 �R[V. LIL
M 3.189
by this Consent Order, except for those activities expressly
required only of another Respondent or group of Respondents.
6.29. Subseouent Ownership. No change in the ownership,
corporate status, or other control of Respondent shall alter any
of the Respondent's responsibilities under this Consent Order.
Respondent shall provide a copy of this Consent Order to any
prospective owners or successors before a controlling interest in
Respondent's assets, property rights, or stock are transferred to
the prospective owner or successor.
6.30. Contractors. Respondent shall provide a copy of this
Consent Order to each contractor, subcontractor, laboratory, or
consultant retained to perform any work under this Consent Order,
within fifteen (15) days of the effective date of this Consent
Order or on the date such services are retained, whichever date
occurs later. Respondent shall also provide a copy of this
Consent Order to each person representing Respondent with respect
to subcontracts entered into hereunder upon performance of the
work in conformity with the terms of this Consent Order. With
regard to the activities undertaken pursuant to this Consent
Order, each contractor and subcontractor shall be deemed to be
related by contract to the Respondent within the meaning of CERCLA
section 107(b)(3), 42 U.S.C. section 9607(b)(3).. Notwithstanding
the terms of any contract, Respondent is responsible for
compliance with this Consent Order and for ensuring that its
contractors, subcontractors and agents comply with this Consent
Order, and perform any work in accordance with this Consent Order.
39
111 VIZ. PENALTIES AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES FOR NONCOMPLIANCE
�i
2ji 7.1. Respondent may be liable for penalties of up to $25,000
3 for each day out of compliance with any term or condition set
i
4I forth in this Consent Order and for punitive damages up to three
5 times the amount of any costs incurred by the Department as a
6i result of Respondent's failure to comply, pursuant to Health and
7II Safety Code sections 25359, 25359.2, 25359.4, and 25367(c).
1
8i
91
;I
101 DATED: / 2�
H id Saebfar, Chief
llil Site Mitigation Branch, Region 3
Department. of Toxic Substances
121 Control
f
131
;I RESPONDENT WHITTAKER CORPORATION
1411
15 DATED:Name
1611 Title GORDON J. LOUTTIT
VICE PRESIDENT
17
1811 cc: Site Mitigation Program
Headquarters, Planning & Policy
Office of Legal Counsel
19 i
I
201
2111
II i
22 111
2311
24
25 !i
26
27 !i
COURT PAPER !
STAT[ 01 ULI/011.1•
STD. 113 TREY. 9.72t
M 32769 40
I
EXHIBIT 1
[Site Location Map]
41
EXHIBIT 2
[List of Previous Owners and Operations Performed at Site
Identified by Respondent in RFI Workplan dated May 3, 1994]
42
Exhibit 2
HISTORY OF FACILITY OWNERSHIP
Parcel #1
1st
Newhall Land & Farming Co.
2
2nd
Los Angeles Home Co.
1st
Newhall Land & Farming Co.
4
F—,939
2nd
Frank Neel
1st
Bank of America
2nd
William G. and Mary Bonelli
1st
Frank M. and Annie I. Neel
1942
2nd
Bermite Powder Co.
1st
Erie P. Halliburton, Inc.
1942
2nd
Bermite Powder Co.
1st
Halifax Explosives Co.
1942
2nd
Neal M. Giannini
1st
Frank M. and Annie I. Neel
1943
2nd
Bermite Powder Co.
1st
Halifax Explosives Co.
1943
2nd
Bermite Powder Co.
1st
Bermite Powder Co.
1967
2nd
Whittaker Corporation
Parcel #2
1st
Newhall Land & Farming Co.
1912
2nd
Los Angeles Home Co.
1st
Newhall Land & Farming Co.
1924
2nd
Frank Neel
1st
Los Angeles Powder Co.
1934
2nd
J. H. Jeffries
1st
Bank of America
1936
2nd
Halifax Explosives Co.
1st
J. H. Jeffries
1942
2nd
Bermite Powder Co.
Exhibit 2 (continued)
HISTORY OF FACILITY OWNERSHIP
Year
flwn s
Trans erred
1st
Jack L. Arnold
1942
2nd
Bermite Powder Co.
1st
Allen R. Mitchell
1947
2nd
Julius R. Schwartz
1st
Los Angeles Home co.
1949
2nd
Bermite Powder Co.
1949
1st Los Angeles Home Co.
2nd
Domenico and Mary Ghiggia
1st
Domenico and Mary Ghiggia
1949
2nd
Lester Roberts, et al
1st
J. H. Jeffries
1950
2nd
Bermite Powder Co.
1st
Domenico and Mary Ghiggia
1951
2nd
Julius R. Schwartz
1st
Julius R. and Anna R. Schwartz
1951
2nd
Bermite Powder Co.
1st
Domenico and Mary Ghiggia
1955
2nd
Bermite Powder co.
lst
Bermite Powder Co.
1967
2nd
Whittaker Corporation
Parcel U3
1st
Newhall Land & Farming Co.
1912
2nd
Los Angeles Home Co.
1st
Newhall Land & Farming Co.
1924
2nd
Frank Neel
1st
Los Angeles Powder Co.
1934
2nd
J. H. Jeffries
1st
Los Angeles Home Co.
1949
2nd
Bermite Powder Co.
1st
Bermite Powder Co.
1967
2nd
Whittaker Corporation
HISTORY OF ON-SITE MANUFACTURING
Owner
Years `
Representative
Products
L. A, Powder Company
1934-1936
Dynamite
E. P. Halliburton, Inc,
1942
Oil field explosives
Halifax Explosives Company
1936-1942
Fireworks
Bermite Powder Company
1942-1967
PhotoFlash (flares, bombs, explosives)
Whittaker Corporation
1967-Present
Igniters, gas generators, Tato rockets,
flares, practice bombs, Sidewinders,
spin rockets
EXHIBIT 3
[Potential Solid Waste Management Units]
43
EXHIBIT 3
LIST OF POTENTIAL SWMUs
1 Former Building 317, 317 Impoundment, Drum Rinse Area & Ravine
Above 317
2 Area Below Water Tank #2
3 Pond Flat
4
339 Area
5
Reject
Ridge
6
Ravine
Near 342 Area
7
Former
Building 308
8
Former
Building/Magazine 14 Sump
9
Former
Building 110 Sump
10
Old Lead Azide Area
11 Area Near Former Building P-28
12 Pipe Outside :Former Building 195
13 New Lead Azide Area
14 Burn Valley
15 Chemical Recovery Facility
16 Hula Bowl Canyons 1-9
17 East Fork Landfill
18 Area Near Former Building 73 (Garage)
19 Sandblast Residue site
20 Former Building 211
21 Former Building 219, Including Rinse Water Tank
22 Former Building 340/BP-1 Sump
23 Former Industrial Clarifier
24 Former Building 202
25
Former Building
314
26
Hog-Out Area
27
Former Building
373
28
Area Near Former
Buildings 376 & 377 (Shock Gel Area)
29
Former Building
234
30
Former Building
371
31
Area Near Former
Buildings 36 & 42
32
Ravine Below Lower
Magazine Road
33
Area Near Former
Buildings 46, 48, 49, 50 & 60
34
Area Near Former
Building 313
35
Former Building
127 Sump
36
MTV Area
37
The Point
38
Former Building
6
39
Aboveground Fuel
Tank
40
Underground Diesel
Tank
41
Former Building
88 Sump
42
Area Near Former
Building 228
43
Area Near Former
Building 324
44
Area Near Former
Building 334
45
Area Near Former
Building 37
46
Area Near Former
Buildings 59 & 60
47
Area Near Former
Building 74
48
Area Near Former
Building 99
49
Area Near Former
Building 101
50
Area Near Former
Building 217
51
Area Near Former
Building 225
52
Area
Near
Former
Building
226
53
Area
Near
Former
Building
306
54
Area
Near
Former
Building
307
55
Area
Near
Former
Building
327
56
Area
Near
Former
Building
337
57 Test Range
58 Old Flare Production Area
59 Area/Drainfield Near Former Building 223
60 Area Behind Cafeteria
61 Former Building 41/Lower Lab
62 Old Dynamite Building
63 Building 59 Sump
64 Building 347 Tank
65 Flare Tunnel /Flare Test Structure
66 Orofino Canyon
67 Building 33 (Drum Storage)
68 Building 45 Septic System
69 Pacific Soils Borings: B-6
70 B-20
71 B-43
72 B-45,46
73 B-49
74 B-75
75 B-51
76 Abandoned Highway Well
77 Ravine Below Former Building 236
APPENDIX A
WHITTAKER-BERMITE
STATEMENT OF WORK FOR THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY,
BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT, PUBLIC HEALTH EVALUATION, REMEDIAL ACTION
PLAN, REMEDIAL DESIGN, REMEDIAL ACTION, SITE SCREENING, PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION, AND OTHER RESPONSE ACTIONS
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this Statement of Work (SOW) is to set forth the
requirements for the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(RI/FS), Baseline Risk Assessment, Public Health Evaluation,
Remedial Action Plan (RAP), Remedial Design (RD), Remedial Action
(RA), Site Screening, Public Participation, and other response
actions as defined in the Consent Order. This SOW is designed to
provide the framework for implementation of these activities, as
well as other response actions at Whittaker-Bermite (Site) in Santa
Clarita, California. This SOW also sets forth the requirements for
[Site] maintenance and routine monitoring of groundwater, soil gas,
slope stability surveying, etc.
FLOW PATH:
This SOW includes the following tasks and sub -tasks:
TASK 1.0: PROJECT MANAGEMENT
1.1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN
1.2 REPORTING
TASK 2.0: RI/FS
2.1 SITE REMEDIATION STRATEGY MEETING
2.2 RI WORKPLAN
2.3 RI REPORT
2.4 FS WORKPLAN
2.5 FS REPORT
TASK 3.0: BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT
3.1 BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT WORKPLAN
3.2 BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT
3.3 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
TASK 4.0: PUBLIC HEALTH EVALUATION
4.1 PUBLIC HEALTH EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES WORKPLAN
4.2 PUBLIC HEALTH EVALUATION REPORT
TASK 5.0: REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN
5.1 DRAFT RAP
5.2 PUBLIC REVIEW AND RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
5.3 FINAL RAP
TASK 6.0: REMEDIAL DESIGN
6.1 DRAFT REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT
6.2 FINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT
TASK 7.0: REMEDIAL ACTION
7.1 IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
TASK 5.0: CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
TASK 9.0: SITE SCREENING
9.1 GENERAL SITE INFORMATION
9.2 SOURCE AND WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
9.3 GROUNDWATER USE AND CHARACTERISTICS
9.4 SURFACE WATER USE AND CHARACTERISTICS
9.5 SOIL EXPOSURE CHARACTERISTICS
9.6 AIR PATHWAY CHARACTERISTICS
TASK 10.0: SITE MAINTENANCE
10.1 SITE MAINTENANCE ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
10.2 SITE MAINTENANCE WORKPLAN
TASK 11.0: ROUTINE MONITORING
TASK 12.0: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
12.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN (PPP)
12.2 FACT SHEETS
2
TASK BY TASK DESCRIPTION
TASK 1.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT
1.1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Respondent shall submit a Project Management Plan to the
Department within 20 days of the effective date of this Consent
Order. The Project Management Plan shall define relationships and
responsibilities for major tasks and project management items by
Respondent, its contractors, subcontractors, and consultants. The
plan shall include an organization chart with the names and titles
of key personnel and a description of their individual
responsibilities.
1.2 REPORTING
The Respondent shall adhere to the following guidelines during the
life of the project covered by this Consent Order and SOW:
(a) All Deliverables to the Department will be submitted with 4
copies attached.
(b) All workplans and reports will be submitted to the Department
both in hard copy and on computer disk. The computer disks will be
high density disks formatted on DOS version 3.0 or higher and
submitted in Wordperfect version 5.1 or higher.
(c) All sampling and analysis data will be submitted to the
Department both in hard copy and on computer disk. The computer
disks will be high density disks formatted on DOS version 3.2 or
higher and submitted in Excel version 4.0 or higher.
(d) All analytical data will be submitted to the Department prior
and after quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) analysis.
Included in the post QA/QC data submitted will be an analysis of
the data and documentation of any data subject to QA/QC
constraints.
(e) All environmental sampling locations will be surveyed and
reported to the Department in the State Plane Coordinated System
(x,y,z).
(f) Scoping meetings will be held at the Department's request
prior to the initiation of any tasks or activities outlined in this
Consent Order or SOW. These meetings will be scheduled within 3
working days of Department request unless a longer period is agreed
upon by the Department.
(g) Review meetings will be held at the Department's request to
discuss comments on any Deliverable contained within this Consent
Order or SOW. These meetings will be scheduled within 3 working
days of Department request unless a longer period is agreed upon by
the Department.
3
(h) Courtesy copies of all draft finals, finals, addenda, and
Technical Memoranda shall be sent to the City of Santa Clarita.
TASK 2.0: REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY (RI/FS)
Respondent shall conduct an RI/FS for the Site. RI and FS
activities shall be conducted concurrently and iteratively so that
the investigations can be completed expeditiously. The RI/FS may
be performed as a series of focused RI/FSs, if appropriate, based
on site priorities established by the Department. Because of the
unknown nature of the Site and iterative nature of the RI/FS,
additional data requirements and analyses may be identified
throughout the process. The Respondent shall fulfill additional
data and analysis needs identified by the Department; these
additional data and analysis requests will be consistent with the
general scope and objectives of the Consent Order.
The following elements of the RI/FS process shall be preliminarily
defined in the initial Site scoping and refined and modified as
additional information is gathered throughout the RI/FS process
(and those described in Sections 6.1.1 through 6.1.14 of this
Consent Order).
(a) Conceptual Site Model identifying all contamination sources,
exposure pathways, and receptors;
(b) Federal, state, and local remedial action objectives including
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs);
(c) Project phasing, if necessary, including the identification of
removal actions and contamination areas;
(d) General response actions and associated remedial technology
types; and
(e) The need for treatability studies.
The objectives of the RI/FS are to:
(a) Determine the nature and full extent of hazardous substance
contamination of air, soil, surface water and ground water at the
Site and contamination from the Site, including offsite areas which
may be affected by the site such as canyons and .stream beds
originating on or crossing the Site and extending outside the Site
boundaries;
(b) Identify all existing and potential exposure pathways, and
routes through environmental media;
(c) Determine the magnitude and probability of actual or potential
harm to the public health, safety or welfare or the environment
posed by the threatened or actual release of hazardous substances
at or from the Site;
4
(d) Identify and evaluate appropriate response measures to prevent
or minimize future releases and mitigate any releases which have
already occurred; and
(e) Collect and evaluate the information necessary to prepare a
Remedial Action Plan (RAP), in accordance with the requirements of
Health and Safety Code section 25356.1.
In order to achieve the objectives outlined above, the following
sub -tasks shall be performed:
2.1 SITE REMEDIATION STRATEGY MEETING
Respondent, including the Project Coordinator and Project
Engineer/Geologist shall meet with the Department within 10 days
from the effective date of this Consent Order to discuss the Site
Remediation Strategy. The discussion will include Site risks and
priorities; project planning, phasing and scheduling; remedial
action objectives; remedial technologies; data quality objectives;
and the RI/FS Workplan. Results of the discussion will be
incorporated in the SOW.
2.2 RI WORKPLAN
Respondent shall prepare and submit to the Department, for review•
and approval, a detailed RI Workplan and an implementation schedule
which covers all the activities necessary to conduct a complete RI
of the Site and any offsite areas where there is a release or
threatened release of hazardous substances from the Site.
The RI Workplan shall include a detailed description of the tasks
to be performed, information or data needed for each task, and the
deliverables that will be submitted to the Department. Either the
Respondent or the Department may identify the need for additional
work.
Site characterization may be conducted in one or more phases to
focus sampling efforts and increase the efficiency of the
investigation. The following shall be included in the RI Workplan:
2.2.1 Sconina Document. The Scoping Document shall incorporate
program goals, program management principles, and expectations
contained in the National Contingency Plan (NCP). It shall
include:
(a) An analysis and summary of the Site background and the
physical setting. At a minimum, the following information is
required:
(1) A map of the Site, and any aerial photographs and
blueprints showing buildings and structures;
(2) A description of past disposal practices, and if they
exist, aerial photographs of the Site during the period
of its operation and closure;
5
(3) A list of all hazardous substances, materials or wastes
which were disposed, discharged, spilled, treated,
stored, transferred, transported, handled or used at the
Site, and a description of their estimated volumes,
concentrations, and characteristics;
(4) A description of hazardous substance characteristics;
(5) If applicable, a description of all current and past
manufacturing processes which are or were related to each
hazardous substance, material or waste, including
operations that were performed in buildings, structures
and other locations on the Site;
(6) Ownership history, owners of adjacent properties; and
(7) Distances to the closest schools, residences, child care
centers and retirement homes,
(b) An analysis and summary of previous response actions,
including a summary of all existing data including air, soil,
soil gas, surface water, and groundwater data (in an
electronic database format) and the QA/QC procedures which
were followed;
(c) Preliminary identification of possible response actions needed
for the Baseline Risk Assessment including a summary of all
proposed additional sampling needs, including air, soil, soil
gas, surface water, and groundwater data;
(d) Presentation of the Conceptual Site Model;
(e) The scope and objectives of RI/FS activities;
(f) Preliminary identification of possible response actions and
the data needed for the evaluation of alternatives. Removal
actions shall be proposed, if needed, based on the initial
evaluation of threats to public health and the environment.
If remedial actions involving treatment can be identified,
treatability studies shall be conducted during the
characterization phase, unless the Respondent and the
Department agree that such studies are unnecessary; and
(g) If applicable, initial presentation of the Site Remediation
Strategy.
2.2.2 Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP). The SAP shall include the
following two components:
(a) Field Sampling Plan (FSP). The Field Sampling Plan shall
include:
(1) Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) to be used for development
of the sampling strategies and objectives, including a
0
brief description of data deficiencies and how the FSP
will address these deficiencies;
(2) Sample locations and rationale, including a map showing
these locations, and proposed sampling frequency;
(3) Chemicals that samples will be analyzed for and method of
analysis;
(4) Sample designation or numbering system;
(5) Detailed specification of sampling equipment, sampling
and decontamination procedures, and rationale for
equipment use;
(6) Description of the information that will be included in
the field log;
(7) Sample handling and analysis, including .preservation
methods, chain of. custody, shipping requirements and
holding times; and
(8) Management plan for wastes generated.
(b) Quality Assurance Project Plan (OAPP1. Required sampling
activities shall be conducted in accordance with a QAPP which
shall be submitted to the Department and shall include:
(1) Project description;
(2) Project organization and responsibilities with respect to
sampling and analysis;
(3) Quality assurance objectives for measurement including
accuracy, precision, and method detection limits. In
selecting analytical methods, Respondent shall consider
obtaining detection limits at or below potential ARARs,
such as Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLS);
(4) Field QA/QC with detailed description of equipment,
sampling procedures and equipment decontamination;
(5) Sample custody procedures and documentation;
(6) Field and laboratory calibration procedures;
(7) Analytical procedures;
(8) Laboratory to be used certified pursuant to Health and
Safety Code section 25198;
(9) Specific routine procedures used to assess data
(precision, accuracy and completeness) and corrective
actions;
7
(10) Reporting procedure for measurement of system performance
and data quality;
(11) Data management, data reduction, validation and
reporting. Information shall be accessible to
downloading into the Department's system; and
(12) Internal quality control.
2.2.3 Health and Safety Plan. A Site-specific Health and Safety
Plan shall be prepared in accordance with federal (29 CFR 1910.120)
and state (Title 8 CCR section 5192) regulations and shall describe
the following:
(a) Field activities including work tasks, objectives, and
personnel requirements and a description of hazardous
substances on the Site;
(b) Respondent's key personnel and responsibilities;
(c) Potential hazards to workers including chemical hazards,
biological hazards, physical hazards, confined spaces and
climatic conditions;
(d) potential risks arising from the work being performed and
the mitigation measures for workers, the community, and
the environment;
(e) Exposure monitoring plan;
(f) Personal protective equipment and engineering controls;
(g) Site controls including work zones and security measures;
(h) Decontamination procedures;
(i) General safe work practices;
(j) Sanitation facilities;
(k) Standard operating procedures;
(1) Emergency response plan for workers addressing potential
hazardous material releases;
(m) Training requirements;
(n) Medical surveillance program;
(o) Record keeping.
(p) General Site location with map;
(q) Hospital location map; and
E
(r) Lines of project management and health and safety
authority.
2.2.4 Community Contingency Plan (CPP). A CCP shall be
prepared to provide procedures to protect the health and safety of
the community surrounding the Site during Site related field
activities, and include the consideration of relocation. The CCP
shall be strictly enforced during all field activities. The CCP
shall be designed for use by the Department, and its contractors,
other regulatory agencies and their respective contractors, and the
Respondent and their contractors. The CCP shall, at a minimum,
include the following:
(a) Purpose;
(b) Site description and history;
(c) Conditions requiring response/monitoring requirements;
(d) Types of responses;
(e) Summary of Responsibilities for the following:
(1) Site Safety Officer;
(2) Police;
(3) Fire Department;
(4) Other identified city agencies;
(5) Department of Toxic Substances Control;
(6) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment;
(7) Los Angeles County Public/Environmental Health Agencies;
(8) South Coast Air Quality Management District;
(9) Regional Water Quality Control Board;
(10) State Office of Emergency Services; and
(11) Respondent.
(f) Response procedures;
(g) Media inquiries;
(h) Critical contact phone list; and
(i) General area map, Site location map, and hospital location
map.
Q
2.2.5. Other Activities. A description of any other significant
activities which are appropriate to complete the RI/FS shall be
included.
2.3 RI REPORT
The purpose of the RI Report is to summarize the data collected
necessary to adequately characterize the Site for the purposes of
defining risks to public health and the environment and developing
and evaluating effective remedial alternatives. The Respondent
shall identify the sources of contamination and define the nature,
extent, and volume of the contamination. Using this information,
the contaminant fate and transport shall be evaluated. The RI
Report shall contain the following:
(a) Introduction. An overview of the report, Site background
information, the nature and extent of the problem(s), and a RI
summary shall be included.
(b) Study Area Investigation. A description of the field
activities conducted as part of the Site characterization,
including physical and chemical monitoring. The study area
investigation section will include discussion of the surface
features, human population survey, and any investigations
concerning contaminant source, meteorology, surface water (and
sediment), geology, soil and vadose zone, groundwater, and
ecology.
(c) Site Physical Characteristics. Data on the physical
characteristics of the Site and surrounding area collected
during the field investigations described in the study area
investigation section will be summarized and evaluated to the
extent necessary to define potential transport pathways and
receptor populations and to provide sufficient engineering
data for development and screening of remedial action
alternatives.
(d) Sources of Contamination. Contamination sources (including
heavily contaminated media) shall be defined. The data shall
include the source locations, type of containment, waste
characteristics, and Site features related to contaminant
migration and human exposure.
(e) Nature and Extent of Contamination. Contaminants shall be
identified and the horizontal and vertical extent of
contamination shall be defined in soil, soil gas, groundwater,
surface water, sediment, air, and biota.
(f) Contaminant Fate and Transport. Spatial and temporal trends
and the fate and transport of contamination shall be
evaluated. If they are applicable estimation of contaminant
persistence and migration in the study area environment and
physical, chemical, and/or biological factors of importance
for the media of interest will be described.
10
(g) Summary and Conclusions.
2.4 FS WORKPLAN
Within 30 days from submittal of the RI Report, Respondent shall
prepare and submit to the Department for review and approval a
detailed FS Workplan and implementation schedule which covers all
the activities necessary to conduct a complete FS of the Site and
any offsite areas where there is a release or threatened release of
hazardous substances from the Site. The FS Workplan shall include
for any alternative which includes excavation, the consideration of
relocation. Temporary relocation may be necessary based on results
of the risk assessment, field observations, sampling results,
and/or health and safety reasons. The FS Workplan shall consider
remedial options using institutional controls (such as land use
restrictions) to ensure land use scenarios other than that
residential land use, (e.g., restoration to open space).
The FS Workplan shall include the following:
(a) Background information;
(b) Identification of alternatives;
(c) Remedial action objectives;
(d) Conceptual descriptions of each alternative and its
components;
(e) Schedule and cost; and
(f) Treatability studies.
At the request of the Department, the Respondent shall submit an
interim document which identifies and evaluates potentially
suitable remedial technologies and recommendations for treatability
studies. Treatability testing will be performed by the Respondent
to develop data for the detailed remedial alternatives.
Treatability testing is required to demonstrate the
implementability and effectiveness of technologies, unless the
Respondent can show the Department that similar data or
documentation or information exists. The required Deliverables
are: a Workplan, A SAP, and a Treatability Evaluation Report. To
the extent practicable, treatability studies will be proposed and
implemented during the latter part of Site characterization.
2.5 Feasibility Study Report. The FS Report shall be prepared and
submitted by the Respondent to the Department for review and
approval, no later than sixty (60) days from approval
of the RI Report. The FS Report shall summarize the results of the
FS including the following:
11
(a) Purpose;
(b) Background information (summarized from the RI Report)
describing the Site and its history, nature and extent of
release, contaminant fate and transport, and Baseline Risk
Assessment;
(c) Documentation of all treatability studies conducted;
(d) Development of medium specific or operable unit specific
remedial action objectives, including ARARs;
(e) Identification and screening of general response actions,
remedial technologies, and process options on a medium and/or
operable unit specific basis;
(f) Evaluation of alternatives based on the criteria contained in
the NCP and Health and Safety Code Section 25356.1 including:
(1) The Threshold Criteria of overall protection of human
health and the environment and compliance with all ARARs.
(2) The Primary Balancing Criteria of long-term effectiveness
and permanence; reduction of toxicity, mobility, or
volume through treatment; short-term effectiveness;
implementability based on technical and administrative
feasibility and cost.
(3) The modifying criteria of State and local agency
acceptance and community acceptance.
TASK 3.0 BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT
The Respondent shall submit a Baseline Risk Assessment with respect
to exposure of hazardous substances found at the Site. The
Baseline Risk Assessment shall be prepared consistent with U.S. EPA
and Department guidance and regulations, including as a minimum:
Data Quality Objectives for Remedial Response Activities,
EPA/540/G-87/004 (USEPA 1987);
RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI1 Guidance, EPA/530/SW-89-031,
(USEPA 1989);
Air/Superfund National Technical Guidance Series,. Volume III -
Estimation of Air Emissions During Cleanup Activities on superfund
Sites, EPA/450/1-89/003 (USEPA 1989);
Guidance for Data Useability in Risk Assessment, EPA/540/G-90/008,
(USEPA 1990);
Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance. Standard
Default Exposure Factors, USEPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER) Directive 9285.6-03, March 25, 1991 (USEPA 1991);
12
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume Z Human Health
Evaluation Manual. (Part A), EPA/540/1-89/002;
Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Calculating the Concentration Term,
May 1992, OSWER Publication 9285.7-081 (USEPA 1992);
Supplemental Guidance for Human Health Multimedia Risk Assessments
of Hazardous Waste Sites and Permitted Facilities, OSA, July 1992
(DTSC 1992); and
Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual, January 1994
(DTSC 1994).
3.1 BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT (BASELINE HRA) WORKPLAN
The Baseline HRA Workplan shall set forth the methodologies to be
used, analyze the sufficiency of the data currently available, and
provide an investigation plan for obtaining additional data, if
necessary. A schedule shall be included which provides specific
time frames and dates for completion of each activity and report
included in the Baseline HRA Workplan.
3.1.1 Conceptual Model. The Baseline HRA Workplan should
include the conceptual model of the Site, including a diagram
to aid the lay reader. The conceptual model should describe
the Site as a single entity, and include all known waste
management units, including The Burn Valley, as well as all
other areas in which hazardous substances are known or
suspected to be deposited. The model should, at a minimum,
consist of the following components:
(a) All contaminant sources;
(b) All potential contaminant migration pathways;
(c) All potential human and environmental receptors, current
and future; and
(d) All contaminants of concern.
3.1.2 OA/OC. All chemicals detected during site sampling
activities should be addressed in the site assessment. All
site sampling data should be critically evaluated using those
procedures outlined in Guidance for Data Useability in Risk
Assessment, EPA/540/G-90/008, USEPA, 1990.
3.1.3 Data Organization. The Baseline HRA Workplan should
state that the data will be organized according to those
relevant environmental units which may serve as current or
future media of exposure (e.g., soil) or serve as reservoirs
for contamination of other media (e.g., soil gas) as
identified in the Conceptual Model. The data should be
assembled ,into an electronic database, which allows retrieval
of data points and identification of data source, all
qualifiers, contaminated medium, and temporal and spatial
13
characteristics. This database should be constructed so that
it may be manipulated in order to identify all data associated
with both those waste management units identified in the
Conceptual Model as well as all specific residences
potentially impacted by site contaminants.
3.1.4 Selection of Compounds of Concern. If a subset of
those chemicals identified during site sampling activities is
selected for quantitative risk assessment, those procedures
for selection outlined in current Department guidance (DTSC
1992) should be utilized. The Baseline HRA Workplan should
state that the quantitative results used in chemical
selection, all statistical methodologies employed, and the
list of chemicals selected for quantitative risk assessment
for each medium of exposure should be submitted for Department
review and approval prior to the submission of the risk
assessment report.
3.1.5 Methodologies. Calculation of the concentration term
to be used in risk assessment should be conducted for all
media of exposure using accepted environmental methodologies
for estimation of the mean and standard deviation of
environmental data sets. Certain methodologies presented in
Gilbert, R.O., Statistical Methods for Environmental Pollution
Monitoring, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New 'York, New York (1987)
are approved by USEPA and Department. These are presented in
the document Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Calculating the
Concentration Term, May 1992, OSWER Publication 9285.7-081.
3.2 BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT (BASELINE HRA) REPORT
The Baseline HRA Report shall be prepared in accordance with the
Baseline HRA Workplan and shall include the following components:
3.2.1 Site Description. The site description shall include
a history of the activities at the site, the conceptual
diagram of all historic waste management units and all other
areas in which hazardous substances are known to be located.
The conceptual model shall describe contaminants which might
reasonably be expected to be associated with the described
waste management units, their possible migration and transport
pathways, and the biological receptors that may be impacted.
3.2.2 Environmental Sampling Data. The environmental
sampling data from all media confirming or denying the
existence of possible contaminants from historic waste
management units shall be assembled into an electronic data
base which allows retrieval of data points and identification
of data source, all qualifiers, contaminated medium, and
temporal and spatial characteristics.
3.2.3 Environmental Evaluation. An ecological assessment
consisting of:
14
(a) Identification of sensitive environments, potential
receptors, and rare, threatened, or endangered species
and their habitats; and
(b) As appropriate, ecological investigations to assess the
actual or potential effects on the environment and/or
develop remediation criteria.
3.2.4 Exposure Assessment. The environmental sampling data
associated with various migration and transport pathways to
biological receptors shall be organized into activity
scenarios, which may then be assembled into patterns
incorporating several activities and exposures estimated. If
exposure point concentrations are needed at points different
from locations where environmental sampling occurred, models
that are anticipated to be used should be submitted in
electronic data format as well as in the text of the report.
3.2.5 Toxicity Assessment. The Baseline HRA Report shall
contain an evaluation of the potential adverse health or
environmental effects associated with individual and multiple
chemical exposures, including immunotoxicity, reproductive,
and developmental defects, the relationship between magnitude
of exposures and adverse effects, and related uncertainties
such as the weight of evidence for a chemical's potential
carcinogenicity in humans.
3.2.6 Risk Characterization. The Baseline HRA Report shall
characterize the potential risks for each of the activities
and patterns described in the Exposure Assessment associated
with individual and multiple chemical exposures. The Baseline
HRA Report shall also characterize the potential risks to
ecological receptors.
3.2.7 Summary. The summary shall summarize the information
presented in the preceding sections, and discuss uncertainties
in the analysis.
3.3 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
The Respondent shall submit an Ecological Risk Assessment which
will predict the potential adverse impact, and when necessary,
measure existing adverse effects of chemicals on the biota on or
near the Site, and to determine levels of those_ chemicals in the
environment that would not be expected to adversely affect the
biota. The Ecological Risk Assessment shall be prepared consistent
with U.S. EPA and Department guidance and regulations.
3.3.1 Ecological Risk Assessment Workplan. The Ecological
Risk Assessment Workplan will set forth the methodologies to
be used, and provide an investigation plan for obtaining data.
A schedule shall be included which provides specific time
frames and dates for completion of each activity and report
included in the Ecological Risk Assessment. The Ecological
Risk Assessment is performed in a phased approach with
15
progression to the next phase dependent in part on the results
of the preceding phase.
The Ecological Risk Assessment Workplan shall include the
following:
(a) Scoping Assessment. The first phase provides the
information necessary for the conceptual site model,
identification of contaminants and receptors of concern,
potential exposure pathways, and the need for further
work;
(b) Phase I: Predictive Ecological Risk Assessment. In the
second phase, toxicity criteria are obtained or developed
for receptors and contaminants of concern, exposure is
assessed, and risk to aquatic and terrestrial biota is
estimated;
(c) Phase II: Validation Study. The third phase refines and
validates parameters used to estimate the risk to exposed
biota by sampling and analysis, or validates the
conclusions of the predictive assessment by site-specific
laboratory and/or field testing. In this phase,
preliminary remediation goals can be developed using the
results of the predictive assessment; and
(d) Phase III: Impact Assessment. The fourth phase is
performed to assess the severity and extent of population
and community effects by conducting field testing and/or
more extensive laboratory testing. The results may
become the basis for refinement of remedial goals.
3.3.2 Ecological Risk Assessment Report. The Ecological
Risk Assessment Report shall be submitted after the completion
of each phase of the Ecological Assessment described in 3.3.1.
The objective of the reports is to describe the approach,
calculation and documentation of the scientifically based
estimation of adverse effect(s) upon wildlife and wildlife
habitats from present and/or future exposures to chemical or
physical stressors and from activities associated with removal
of chemical contamination.
TASK 4.0 PUBLIC HEALTH EVALUATION
4.1 PUBLIC HEALTH EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES (PHERA) WORKPLAN
The PHERA Workplan shall set forth the methodologies to be used,
analyze the sufficiency of the data currently available, and
provide an investigation plan for obtaining additional data, if
necessary. A schedule shall be included which provides specific
time frames and dates for completion of each activity and report
included in the PHERA Workplan.
The PHERA Workplan should state that the methodologies to be used
in the public health evaluation of alternatives, should follow
those set forth in the following documents:
16
"Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume 1 - Human Health
Evaluation Manual (Part C, Risk Evaluation of Remedial
Alternatives)", Interim, December 1991;
"Air/Superfund National Technical Guidance Study Series, Emission
Factors for Superfund Remediation Technologies", EPA -450/1-91-001;
"Models for Estimating Air Emission Rates from Superfund Remedial
Actions", EPA -451/R-93-001;
"Development of Sample Procedures for Evaluating the Air Impacts of
Soil Excavation Associated with Superfund Remedial Actions", EPA -
450/4 --90-014; and
"Guidance on Applying the Data Quality Objectives Process for
Ambient Air Monitoring Around Superfund Sites (Stage III)", EPA -
450/4 -.90-005.
4.2 PUBLIC HEALTH EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES (PHERA) REPORT
4.2.1 Introduction. The Introduction shall include the
objectives and the organization of the PHERA Report.
4.2.2 Site Background. The site background shall include the
following: Site description, operational history, waste
description, demographics and land use, regional geology,
summary of chemical contamination data, characterization of
the chemicals of potential concern, toxicity of the chemicals
of potential concern, and the fate and transport of chemicals
of potential concern.
4.2.3 Remedial Alternative Summary and Exposure Pathway
Analysis. (For each remedial alternative in the FS.)
4.2.4 Exposure Assessment Estimation of 'Exposure Point
Concentrations. The exposure assessment estimation of
exposure point concentrations shall include an overview,
emission estimates, air dispersion modeling, exposure point
concentrations, and an estimation of secondary exposure point
concentrations.
4.2.5 Lxposure Assessment - Calculation of Chronic Daily
Intakes. The exposure assessment calculation of chronic daily
intakes shall utilize all assumptions and default parameters
found in the Baseline Risk Assessment and include an overview
of chronic daily intake calculations, estimation of intake
factors, and estimation of chronic daily intakes.
4.2.6 Risk Characterization. The PHERA Report shall
characterize the potential risks for each of the activities
and patterns described in the Exposure Assessment associated
with individual and multiple chemical exposures. The PHERA
Report shall also characterize the potential risks to
17
ecological receptors and shall include relative risk
characterizations for the chemicals of concern.
4.2.7 Uncertainties. The evaluation of uncertainties shall
include those uncertainties associated with the physical Site
characterization, selection of chemicals of potential concern,
toxicity values,and an exposure assessment.
4.2.8 Conclusions.
TASK 5.0 RAP
The RAP shall be based on and summarize the approved RI and FS
Reports, and shall clearly set forth all of the items listed below:
5.1 DRAFT RAP
The draft RAP shall include the following items:
(a) Background information describing the Site, its history,
current conditions, nature and extent of release, previous
studies and any interim remedial measures implemented.
(b) Summary of RI findings with regard to geology, hydrogeology,
air, and ecology.
(c) Health and safety risks posed by the conditions at the Site
including toxicological characteristics of Site contaminants,
and quantitative risk characterization.
(d) The effect of contamination or pollution levels upon present,
future, and probable beneficial uses of contaminated,
polluted, or threatened resources.
(e) The effect of alternative remedial action measures on the
reasonable availability of groundwater resources for present,
future, and probable beneficial uses.
(f) Summary of FS findings, including RA goals and alternatives
and evaluation criteria.
(g) The potential environmental impacts of alternative remedial
action measures, including, but not limited to, land disposal
of the untreated hazardous substances as opposed to treatment
of the hazardous substances to remove or reduce its volume,
toxicity, or mobility prior to disposal.
(h) The recommended alternatives for action, including statement
of reasons setting forth the basis for the removal and
remedial action selection. The statement shall include an
evaluation of each proposed alternative submitted and evaluate
the consistency of the removal and remedial actions proposed
by the plan with the federal regulations and factors specified
18
in subdivision (d) of Health and Safety Code Section 25356.1.
The statement shall also include a proposed Nonbinding
Preliminary Allocation of Responsibility (NBAR) for
Respondent.
(i) A schedule for implementation of all proposed remedial
actions.
(j) Cost-effectiveness of alternative remedial action measures.
Land disposal shall not be deemed the most cost-effective
measure merely on the basis of lower short-term cost.
(k) The potential environmental impacts of alternative remedial
action measures, including, but not limited to, land disposal
of the untreated hazardous substances as opposed to treatment
of the hazardous substances to remove or reduce its volume,
toxicity, or mobility prior to disposal.
5.2 PUBLIC REVIEW AND RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
In conjunction with the Department, Respondent shall implement the
public review process specified in Health and Safety Code section
25356.1(e)(1), et seq. Within fifteen (15) days of closure of the
public comment period, Respondent shall submit a written
Responsiveness Summary of all written and oral comments presented
and received during the public comment period.
5.3 FINAL RAP
Following the Department's review and finalization of the
Responsiveness Summary, the Department will specify any changes to
be made in the RAP. The Respondent shall modify the document in
accordance with the Department's specifications and submit a final
RAP within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the Department's
comments.
TASK 6.0 RD
The RD shall describe, in detail, the technical and operational
plans for implementation of the final RAP which includes the
following elements, as applicable.
6.1 DRAFT DESIGN REPORT
(a) Design drawings, specifications and calculations;
(b) General design concept and criteria of facilities to be
constructed;
(c) Description of existing facilities and identification of any
that will be altered, destroyed, or abandoned during
construction;
(d) Description of off-site facilities required or affected;
(e) Analysis/discussion of performance standards, and how they
have been incorporated into the design; and
(f) Design parameters dictated by the performance standards and
ARARs.
6.2 FINAL DESIGN REPORT
The Final Design Report represents the 100% design, and shall
include the basic information described for the Draft Design Report
in addition to the following:
6.2.1 Facilities Construction Plan. The Facilities
Construction Plan shall include the design criteria, process
unit and pipe sizing calculations, process diagrams, and final
plans and specifications for facilities to be constructed.
For groundwater extraction systems: aquifer test results,
capture zone calculations, specifications for extraction and
performance monitoring wells, and a plan to demonstrate that
capture is achieved.
6.2.2 Equipment Description. Description of equipment used
to excavate, handle, and transport contaminated material.
6.2.3 Field Sampling and Laboratory Analysis. A field
sampling and laboratory analysis plan addressing sampling
during implementation and to confirm achievement of the
performance objectives of the RAP.
6.2.4 Transportation Plan. A transportation plan identifying
routes of travel and final destination of wastes generated and
disposed.
6.2.5 Updated Health and Safety Plan. An updated health and
safety plan addressing the implementation activities.
6.2.6 Permits and Agreements. Identification of any
necessary permits and agreements.
6.2.7 Operation and Maintenance Plan. An operation and
maintenance plan including any required monitoring.
6.2.8 Schedule. A detailed schedule for implementation of
the remedial action consistent with the schedule contained in
the approved RAP including procurement, mobilization,
construction phasing, sampling, facility startup, and testing.
TASK 7.0 RA
7.1 IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
Respondent shall submit an Implementation Report documenting the
implementation of the final RAP and RD. The Implementation Report
20
shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(a) Overall description of the work undertaken, including
objectives, period of operation, and performance standards;
(b) Description of construction and all associated facilities,
appurtenances and piping;
(c) As -built plans and specifications;
(d) QA/QC records;
(e) Summary of any modifications implemented by Technical
Memoranda; and
(f) Demonstration that all obligations under this SOW and Consent
Order have been satisfactorily completed or achieved by
Respondent in accordance with the Consent Order.
TASK 8.0 CEQA
The Respondent shall submit an Initial Study, associated checklist,
and discussion of mitigation methods (if any) as required by CEQA,
concurrent with submittal of the draft RAP specified in Section
5.5, or when notified by the Department that an activity required
by this order requires CEQA compliance. Based on the results of
the Initial Study, the Department will determine if a Negative
Declaration or Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") should be
prepared. If the Department believes that an EIR is necessary, it
may contact the Respondent prior to the submittal of the draft RAP
to identify the necessary tasks and schedule the preparation and
finalization of the EIR.
TASK 9.0 SITE SCREENING
TASK 10.0 SITE MAINTENANCE
Respondent shall submit an evaluation of site maintenance needs at
the Site while the RI/FS through RA phases of the project are being
conducted. The analysis will evaluate at a minimum, the following
site maintenance items, and make recommendations regarding methods
and frequency (weekly, monthly, yearly, etc.):
(a) Site grading;
(b) Trash removal;
(C) Erosion control;
(d) Ponding control;
(e) Electrical repair,
(f) Lighting repair;
21
(g) Structure repair or removal;
(h) Water system repair (potable and non -potable);
(i) Road repair;
(j) Access improvement;
(k) Site mowing/fire control breaks; and
(1) Fence repair.
At no time will hazardous waste, generated during these phases of
the project, remain on-site for longer than forty five (45) days.
10.2 SITE MAINTENANCE WORKPLAN
Respondent shall submit a Workplan that documents the approach
required to undertake the recommended site maintenance activities
identified in sub -task 10.1. The Workplan will include a detailed
schedule, a detailed cost estimate, and a Health and Safety Plan
(HSP).
TASK 11.0 ROUTINE MONITORING
Respondent shall submit plans that detail sampling and preservation
methods, monitoring locations, chain of custody procedures, and
analytical and reporting methods for monitoring each of the
following media:
(a) Groundwater;
(b) Surface water; and
(c) Soil/landfill gas.
Each sampling plan should also include a detailed schedule, a
detailed cost estimate, QAPP and HSP.
Respondent shall dispose of any water, soils and residuals
generated during the monitoring activities in compliance with
federal, state, and/or local requirements. Respondent shall be
responsible for all data collection and technical evaluation, as
specified under this SOW, using methods approved by the Department
(after seeking review and comment by the RWQCB and/or CIWMB).
TASK 12.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Respondent shall work cooperatively with the Department in ensuring
that the affected public and community are involved in the
Department's decision-making process. Respondent shall provide for
public participation support activities. Public participation
support activities shall include, but not be limited to the
following:
22
(a) Assist the Department in the development and distribution of
fact sheets and newsletters concerning the Work performed by
Respondent under this Consent Order.
(b) Assist the Department in the presentation of, and participate
in, technical presentations concerning the Work performed by
Respondent under this Consent Order.
(c) Assist the Department in providing individual notice to
residents in the vicinity of where Work will be performed by
Respondent under this Consent Order.
(d) Provide extra copies for the public of draft final and final
Deliverables and at Department request, other documents
produced in compliance with this Consent Order.
Any such public participation activities shall be conducted in
accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 25356.1(e), the
Department's Public Participation Policy and Guidance Manual, and
with the Department's review and approval.
12.1 Public Participation Plan (PPP)
Respondent, in coordination with the Department, shall assess the
community and update the PPP. The PPP describes how, under the
Consent Order, the public and adjoining community will be kept
informed of activities conducted at the Site and how the Respondent
will respond to inquiries from concerned citizens. Respondent
shall abide by the PPP that is finalized by the Department.
12.2 FACT SHEETS
Respondent shall develop and submit fact sheets to the Department
for review and approval when key milestones are projected and/or
completed or when specifically requested by the Department. The
Respondent shall be responsible for distribution of fact sheets
using the approved community mailing list.
23