SFUNO RECORDS CTR 2128543 ^ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY \ £, « REGION IX ^*^/ 75 Hawthorne Street ° San Francisco, CA 94105 MEMORANDUM JUM 2 7 2007 SUBJECT: Request for a Time-Critical Removal Action Ceiling Increase at Impressions Polishing and Plating Corp., City of Orange, Orange County, California. FROM: Craig Benson, On-Scene Coordinator Emergency Response Section (SFD-9-2) TO: Daniel Meer, Chief Response, Planning & Assessment Branch (SFD-9) THROUGH: Steve Calanog, Acting Emergency Response Section (SFD-9-2) I. PURPOSE The purpose of this memorandum is to request and document approval of a ceiling increase to continue the ongoing removal action at the Impressions Polishing and Plating Corp. Site (The"Site"), at 1223 North Batavia Street in the City of Orange, Orange County, California (92867). The United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") initiated a federal removal action on April 30, 2007, to mitigate an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health and welfare and the environment from hazardous substances at the Site, in accordance with Section 104(a)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. § 9604(a)(1), and Section 300.415 of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan ("NCP"), 40 CFR § 300.415. EPA determined the appropriateness of the action in an Action Memorandum, dated April 25, 2007, which is included as Attachment 1. The additional funding requested in this memorandum is necessary to cover adjustments to the/Emergency and Rapid Response Services ("ERRS") contractor costs for labor apd'lransportation and disposal of Site wastes that were not anticipated at the time 'of the initial response decision. SITE CONDITIONS AND BACKGROUND Site Status: Non-NPL Category of Removal: Time-Critical
Transcript
SFUNO RECORDS CTR
2128543
^ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY\ £, « REGION IX
^* / 75 Hawthorne Street° San Francisco, CA 94105
MEMORANDUM JUM 2 7 2007
SUBJECT: Request for a Time-Critical Removal Action Ceiling Increase atImpressions Polishing and Plating Corp., City of Orange, OrangeCounty, California.
TO: Daniel Meer, ChiefResponse, Planning & Assessment Branch (SFD-9)
THROUGH: Steve Calanog, ActingEmergency Response Section (SFD-9-2)
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this memorandum is to request and document approval of aceiling increase to continue the ongoing removal action at the Impressions Polishingand Plating Corp. Site (The "Site"), at 1223 North Batavia Street in the City ofOrange, Orange County, California (92867). The United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency ("EPA") initiated a federal removal action on April 30, 2007, tomitigate an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health and welfareand the environment from hazardous substances at the Site, in accordance withSection 104(a)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensationand Liability Act ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. § 9604(a)(1), and Section 300.415 of theNational Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan ("NCP"), 40CFR § 300.415. EPA determined the appropriateness of the action in an ActionMemorandum, dated April 25, 2007, which is included as Attachment 1. Theadditional funding requested in this memorandum is necessary to cover adjustmentsto the/Emergency and Rapid Response Services ("ERRS") contractor costs for laborapd'lransportation and disposal of Site wastes that were not anticipated at the time'of the initial response decision.
SITE CONDITIONS AND BACKGROUND
Site Status: Non-NPLCategory of Removal: Time-Critical
CERCLIS ID: CAN000908500SITE ID: QG
The Site generally is an abandoned metals plating facility. For additionalinformation regarding the Site, please refer to the initial action memorandum,Attachment 1. As stated therein, full disclosure of the nature and volume ofhazardous substances at the Site could not be provided until after the start of theremoval activities conducted under the necessary health and safety programelements. The list below summarizes respective waste streams with variancesbetween the nature and volume of hazardous substances documented in the April25, 2007 Action Memorandum and what has been subsequently encountered. Thetotal time now estimated to conduct the response action elements and abate theendangerment from hazardous substances has exceeded the initial six weekestimate. It is now estimated that an additional four weeks will be needed tocomplete the response action. A complete list of wastes identified through June 22,2007 will be included in the administrative record for this Site.
Bulk and non-bulk containersThe inventory in the initial Action Memorandum listed about 100 accessible vats,waste totes, tanks, drums and other containers. The completed inventory lists thirty-seven containers, eighty-three drums, one supersack, twelve tanks, forty-seven vatsand nine waste totes (total 189). In addition twelve lab-packs representing dozensof smaller (less than five gallon) containers were prepared and shipped off-Site.Bulk and non-bulk containers (ranging from thirty - 4,000 gallon capacity) frequentlycontained both solid and liquids phases that were managed separately.
Liquid waste stream volumeOver 22,000 gallons of caustic, acidic, cyanine-bearing or metal bearing wasteswere estimated during the original removal Site evaluation. Over 33,000 gallons ofliquid wastes, in numerous waste stream categories, have been removed from theSite.
Sludge and debrisApproximately 140 cubic yards of contaminated sludge was estimated to exist in thesecondary containment areas of the plating and wastewater treatment areas basedon an observation of about an eight inch accumulation beneath the wood flooringwalkway. After dismantling of the raised wooden boardwalk, the sludge was foundto range between twelve - thirty-six inches in depth, resulting in about 275 cubicyards after solidification.
Approximately 300 additional cubic yards of RCRA debris comprised ofcontaminated boardwalk material, pipes, vats/containers, polishing room dust anddebris have been removed from the Site. Over 17,000 pounds of solid hazardouswaste representing drummed vat sludges/solids and lab-packs have also beenremoved.
Scrubber and baghouse systemAn assessment of the condition and waste volumes associated with the roofmounted wet scrubber and baghouse ducting and baghouse could only beaccomplished after removal mobilization and the acquisition of the necessaryboomlift and crane. Approximately ten - twenty cubic yards of waste material isassociated with these systems.
Contaminated soilThe volume of shallow subsurface contaminated soil underlying the facility, if any,will be determined after completion of the final subsurface sampling plan. Thisproposed ceiling increase would include a nominal amount of labor, transportationand disposal costs of such contaminated soils, if necessary.
III. THREATS TO' PUBLIC HEALTH OR WELFARE OR THE ENVIRONMENT,AND STATUTORY AND REGULATORY AUTHORITIES
Conditions at the Site represent a release, and potential threat of release, ofCERCLA hazardous substances that threaten the public health or welfare, or theenvironment, based on the factors set forth in the National Oil and HazardousSubstances Pollution Contingency Plan ("NCR"), 40 C.F.R. § 300.415(b)(2). See theattached April 25, 2007 Action Memorandum for a discussion of these factors.
IV. ENDANGERMENT DETERMINATION
In the April 25, 2007 Action Memorandum, EPA determined that an actual or,threatened release of hazardous substances created an imminent and substantialendangerment to public health, or welfare, or the environment.
V. PROPOSED ACTIONS AND ESTIMATED COSTS
A. Proposed Actions
The April 25, 2007 Action Memorandum states the response actions that EPAdetermined to conduct to remove hazardous substances from the Site. Thismemorandum requests additional funding for the same response action to addressthe additional volume of hazardous substances at the Site.
B. Estimated Costs
Regional Removal Allowance Costs
Current Ceiling* Proposed Increase Proposed Ceiling
Cleanup Contractor $480,000 $225,000 $705,000
USCG PST $12,000 $5,000 $17,000
Extramural Costs Not Funded from the Regional Allowance
* As determined in April 25, 2007 Action Memorandum.
The ceiling increase request is necessary to complete the transportation anddisposal of approximately 275 cubic yards of containerized or stockpiledcontaminated plating sludge, about fifty cubic yards of additional RCRA debris, andup to 2,000 gallons of contaminated rinse waters. Final off-sitefacility selection for the 275 cubic yards of plating sludge is pending. A draftmemorandum from ERRS (Attachment 2) summarizes cost and technical issuesconcerning this waste stream.
Approximately $25,000 of the ceiling increase is associated with the cost ofadditional ERRS labor and equipment needed for final waste handling and remainingdecontamination and $25,000 would be earmarked as a contingency for shallowsubsurface excavation and contaminated soil disposal. USCG PST and STARTremoval support ceiling increases correspond to the additional time necessary tosupport project completion.
VI. EXPECTED CHANGE IN THE SITUATION SHOULD ACTION BE DELAYEDOR NOT TAKEN
If the ceiling increase is not granted, the removal of the remaining liquid andsolid hazardous substance waste streams cannot be completed. Additionally, grosslevel contamination inside the building will remain. Accordingly, the threatdetermined in the April 25, 2007 Action Memorandum will be unabated.
VII. OUTSTANDING POLICY ISSUES
There are no outstanding policy issues with the Site identified at this time.
VIII. ENFORCEMENT
Please see the April 25, 2007, Action Memorandum (Attachment 1) for adiscussion regarding PRPs and enforcement. In addition to the extramural costsestimated for the proposed action, a cost recovery enforcement action also mayrecover the following intramural costs:
Intramural Costs1
Current Ceiling* Proposed Increase Proposed Ceiling
U.S. EPA Direct Costs $ 25,000.00 $ 20,000 $ 45,000
U.S. EPA Indirect Costs $ 236,870.00 $ 96,205 $ 333,075.00(36.58%)
TOTAL Intramural Costs $ 261,870.00 $ 116,205 $ 378,075
* As determined in April 25, 2007 Action Memorandum.
The total EPA extramural and intramural costs for this removal action, basedon full-cost accounting practices that will be eligible for cost recovery, are estimatedto be $ 1,267,475. Of this, an estimated spending of $ 722,000.00 comes from theRegional removal allowance.
IX. RECOMMENDATION
This decision document would commit additional funding to complete theresponse determined necessary in the April 25, 2007 Action Memorandum for theImpressions Polishing and Plating Corp., Site. The Administrative Record for theSite includes information supporting this decision. If you approve of this action,please indicate your decision by signing below.
Approved:Daniel Meer, Chief DateResponse, Planning and Assessment Branch
Index to Additions to the Administrative Record
Attachments
1. April 25, 2007, Action Memorandum2. Memorandum from EQM to Craig Benson, USEPA, dated June 19, 2007
1 Direct costs include direct extramural costs and direct intramural costs. Indirect costs arecalculated based on an estimated indirect cost rate expressed as a percentage of site-specific directcosts, consistent with the full cost accounting methodology effective October 2, 2000. Theseestimates do not include pre-judgment interest, do not take into account other enforcement costs,including Department of Justice costs, and may be adjusted during the course of a removal action.The estimates are for illustrative purposes only and their use is not intended to create any rights forresponsible parties. Neither the lack of a total cost estimate nor deviation of actual costs from thisestimate will affect the United States' right to cost recovery.
cc: Sherry Fielding, USEPA, OEM, HQDonald R. Plain, Chief, Emergency Response and Special Projects, CaliforniaDepartment of Toxic Substances ControlAnn Rushton, Deputy Attorney General, State of California
The purpose of this Action Memorandum is to obtain approval to spend up to$671,400 in direct costs to mitigate threats to human health and the environmentposed by uncontrolled hazardous substances (cyanide, chromium, copper, nickel,zinc, oxidizers, acids, and caustic liquids and solids) in bulk and non-bulk containers,sludge's, and building materials associated with the unmanaged metal plating andpolishing facility known as Impressions Polishing and Plating Corp. (the "Site"). TheSite is located at 1223 North Batavia Street in the City of Orange, Orange County,California (92867). The proposed removal of hazardous substances would be takenpursuant to Section 104(a)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S C § 9604(a)(1), and Section300.415 of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan("NCR"), 40 C.F.R. § 300.415.
On April 16 and 19, 2007, the United States Environmental Protection Agency("EPA") conducted joint inspections with state, county and city officials to assess thethreats posed at the Site. The actions proposed in this document will complete a time-critical removal of the threat posed by hazardous substances remaining at the Site.These time-critical actions include the off-Site transfer and disposal of containerizedhazardous wastes and hazardous substances and the continuing identification of andremoval of contaminated sludge's, soils, building materials and debris that pose threatsto the public and environment. Specific threats are described below.
II. SITE CONDITIONS AND BACKGROUND
Site Status: Non-NPLCategory of Removal: Time-CriticalCERCLIS ID: CAN000908500SITE ID: QG
A. Site Description
1. Physical location
The Site is located at 1223 N. Batavia Street in the City of Orange, OrangeCounty, California. The surrounding area is comprised of light industrial/commercialuse, with residential neighborhoods within 1/2 mile. The nearest major waterway, theSanta Ana River, is approximately 1.25 miles to the west. The coordinates of theSite are N33° 48' 27.95", W 117° 51' 42.31".
2. Site characteristics
The Site is located in an active commercial/industrial area with smallcommercial and manufacturing facilities located adjacent to the Site at the north,south, east, and across Batavia Street to the west. The Site is located on anapproximate 32,000 square foot lot with one 14,400 square foot building. Thebuilding is divided into separate office areas, a polishing and buffing room and awastewater treatment and plating area. Figure 1 depicts the wastewater treatmentand plating area. There is a large asphalt paved back lot that houses a covereddrum storage area and storage shed (east side of parcel). The entire site issurrounded by a fence that is bordered by various businesses to the north, southand east.
Impressions Polishing and Plating (Impressions) conducted zinc, nickel,copper, and chrome electroplating and metal polishing operations for automobileand motorcycle parts, primarily aluminum alloy wheels. According to the businessoperator, Alex Granero, the business has been operating as Impressions since late2004 when it was purchased from the property owner (Philip Delgado), whooperated the plating business from approximately 1985 to 2004 as Plate Corp.
Alex Granero was employed as the Wastewater Treatment Operator andPlant Manager under Plate Corp. Alex Granero (Impressions Secretary andOperator), his brother Humberto Granero (Impressions Vice-President) and hisfather Salvador Gomez (Impressions President) purchased the business from PhilipDelgado through a bankruptcy bulk sale. According to Alex Granero, the facilityceased operating in March 2007.
3. Removal site evaluation
The Site was referred to EPA by the Orange County Environmental HealthDepartment ("OCEH"). On April 16, 2007, OSC Craig Benson participated in awalk-through inspection and removal Site assessment with the CaliforniaDepartment of Toxics Substances Control ("DTSC") Emergency Response Unitrepresentative George Baker, OCEH Hazardous Waste Specialists Kevin Baitx andIsaac Mendel, City of Orange Fire Department ("OFD") Hazardous MaterialsSpecialist Brad Goodrich, OFD Deputy Fire Marshal Ian MacDonald, and City ofOrange Building Division ("OBD") Building Inspector Supervisor Gregg Treloar. Alsopresent were EPA Civil Investigator John Jaros, personnel from the SuperfundTechnical Assessment and Response Team contractor, Alex and HumbertoGranero, and Salvador Gomez. OSC Benson received a verbal license for accessto the Site from Alex Granero.
During the assessment, EPA observed a large quantity of liquid and solidhazardous waste streams that included: caustic, acidic, cyanide bearing and metalbearing plating process solutions in unsecured plating vats; containers marked toinclude hazardous wastes; metal polishing and buffing dust; and wastewatertreatment unit process wastes. Accumulated chemical waste was evidentthroughout the plating area and covered the containment flooring, woodenwalkways, and vats. EPA observed severe etching of the secondary containmentcement and etching and corrosion of structural steel and building materials.
EPA observed approximately eight inches of plating sludge accumulatedbeneath the wood flooring of the plating area. Numerous containers, drums, 270-300gallon totes, and one-cubic-yard sacks marked to contain hazardous wastes werepresent inside the building, the shed and back lot area. Alex Granero indicated thathe had recently consolidated and marked many of these containers but was unableto finance the removal of the wastes.
The building, chemical storage areas and plating lines were found inextremely poor condition. The building has no heat detection fire alarm system orfire sprinklers in violation of the Orange Municipal Code and the California FireCode. The OBD has determined that the building needs structural roof repairs andelectrical repairs and previously issued a notice of correction for repair/replacementof roof sheeting, joists and hangers, corrosion proofing, and abatement of electricalviolations. At the main entrance to the building is posted a sign reading, "Danger-DoNot Enter, Unsafe Conditions."
The START conducted field chemistry analysis on accessible larger tanksand containers, and confirmed the presence of acidic and corrosive solutions bothinside the building and in the back lot. Alex Granero provided confirmation of thecontent of various plating vats and tanks during a portion of the inspection. Heoutlined the plating process and some of the chemicals including sulfuric acid,sodium cyanide, sodium hydroxide, nickel sulfate, boric acid, and chromic acid. The
START implemented an approved Emergency Response Quality AssuranceSampling Plan and collected seven samples from waste materials including vats(three samples), polishing dust (one sample), tote (one sample), cubic yard sack(one sample), and sludge beneath the plating area boardwalk (one sample). Thesamples were submitted to an approved off-Site laboratory for rush EPA-approvedanalysis of heavy metals, pH, and total and amenable cyanide. Alex Granerodeclined split samples for the EPA sampling event.
EPA's preliminary inventory listing approximate numbers of accessible vats,totes, drums, and other wastes is included as Appendix 1. There are more chemicalcontainers and an undetermined volume of contaminated debris, sludge's, buildingmaterial, soils, concrete, and sump and wastewater treatment system materialsawaiting full inventory and characterization. Based on the apparent characterization,EPA observed incompatible materials stored in close proximity, which creates anadditional risk of chemical reaction resulting in combustion, explosion or toxic vapor.
Site conditions prompted OSC Benson to give a verbal general notice ofCERCLA liability to Alex Granero. Alex Granero, representing himself andHumberto Granero and Salvador Gomez, stated that they did not have the resourcesto conduct any required removal activities. Civil Investigator Jaros was able tocontact Philip Delgado, the property owner, by phone and made arrangements for aSite meeting on April 19, 2007. OFD required Alex Granero to maintain/arrange afire watch at the Site until the commencement of a site removal action.
On April 19, 2007, OSC Craig Benson and Civil Investigator John Jaros meton-Site with Philip Delgado. Mr. Delgado was accompanied by his attorney, MurrayRobertson, a real estate broker, Ryan Peterson and his son, Aaron Delgado. Alsopresent were Alex Granero, DTSC's George Baker, OCEH's Kevin Baitx and IsaacMendel, OFD's Brad Goodrich, and EPA's contractor representatives.
EPA discussed the results of the April 16, 2007 removal assessment withPhilip Delgado and gave a verbal general notice of CERCLA liability. Philip Delgadoand his attorney stated that they may have a possible removal funding sourcethrough a prospective buyer of the Site. Earlier in 2007, Philip Delgado had receiveda cleanup bid and preliminary scope from a cleanup services firm and he appearedto be aware of the cost and effort associated with the time critical action. MurrayRobertson agreed to contact EPA no later than close of business on April 20, 2007to indicate his client's ability to conduct the necessary removal action On April 20,2007, Murray Robertson e-mailed John Jaros stating that financing had not beensecured and the matter was still being worked on.
4. Release or threatened release into the environment of a hazardoussubstance, or pollutant or contaminant
The objective of the April 16, 2007 EPA sampling event was to obtain ananalytical data set meeting EPA Quality System guidelines that is representative of
current Site conditions and that could be used to identify key hazardous substancesof interest for project health and safety needs and future waste profiling purposes. APreliminary Laboratory Results Summary Table is contained in Appendix 2. Fieldtesting and preliminary laboratory analytical data confirmed the presence of largequantities of corrosive solutions, high concentration cyanide solutions and numerousheavy metal contaminated waste streams associated with former electroplating,buffing and industrial wastewater treatment processes.
Analytical and Site data indicate the presence of Resource Conservation andRecovery Act ("RCRA") listed wastes "F007", "F008" and "F009" (associated withelectroplating operations where cyanides are in used in the process), "F006"wastewater treatment sludge waste, wastes exhibiting the RCRA hazardous wastecharacteristic of corrosiveness under 40 C.F.R. § 261.22, and wastes (chromium,lead) exhibiting the RCRA hazardous waste characteristics of toxicity in accordancewith 40 C.F.R. § 261.24 and reactivity under 40 C.F.R. § 261.23. In addition, eachof the seven samples exhibited concentrations of copper, lead, nickel, chromium orzinc in excess of California's Total Threshold Limit Concentrations and SolubleThreshold Limit Concentrations waste standards.
Maximum concentrations recorded were 2,550 mg/kg total cyanide, 57,400mg/kg nickel, 9,600 mg/kg chromium, 56,800 mg/kg copper, 443 mg/kg lead, and4,770 mg/kg zinc. RCRA listed and characteristic wastes and chromium, copper,lead, nickel and zinc are hazardous substances as defined by Section 101(14) ofCERCLA. Other hazardous substances or pollutants and contaminants notdiscovered to date or not specifically identified herein may exist at the Site. Thesesubstances may also pose a threat to human health and the environment.
There are no security guards or personnel working at the Site and thehazardous wastes and substances located in the rear storage yard may beaccessed by climbing over the fence into the rear storage area or through anopening in the chain connecting two sections offence. Due to the absence of on-Site activity, it is likely that any person accessing the storage yard would beundeterred.
The potential for fire, vandalism and continuing deterioration of containers atthe unmanaged Site may result in the combustion, physical exposure orcommingling of incompatible hazardous substances resulting in harm to the publichealth or welfare or the environment. Considering the proximity of nearbybusinesses and public highways, the Site represents a significant threat of releaseaffecting nearby populations by fire and vapor and by direct contact exposure tonearby workers and trespassers.
5. National Priorities List ("NPL") status
The Site is not currently on or proposed for inclusion on the NPL.
B. Other Actions to Date
No other actions have been taken to abate the threats posed by theabandonment of hazardous substances at this closed facility. Neither the businessor property owners have taken appropriate actions to address the on-goingviolations of fire and building codes and state hazardous waste control law.
C. State and Local Authorities' Roles
1. State and local actions to date
From July 21, 2005, to the present, OCEH has inspected and citedImpressions on several occasions for numerous violations of the California Code ofRegulations (Title 22) and violations of the California Health and Safety Code.Hazardous waste control and permit-by-rule standards for on-site treatment ofhazardous waste (tiered permitting) violations include tank management standards,container system management and design, generator requirements pertaining tomanifesting, pre-transport requirements, training requirements, recordkeepmg andreporting, and closure planning.
The OBD has determined that the building needs structural roof repairs andelectrical repairs and previously issued a notice of correction for repair/replacementof roof sheeting, joists and hangers, corrosion proofing, and abatement of electricalviolations. OBD identified several plating tanks to have questionable integrity andordered them to be removed from service and disposed or repaired. OBD postedthe main entrance to the building, "Danger-Do Not Enter, Unsafe Conditions."
The OFD has documented violations of the California Fire and BuildingCodes, the Uniform Fire and Building Codes and Orange Municipal Code pertainingto occupancy type, alterations and additions to equipment, processes and thebuilding and lack of a heat detection fire alarm system and/or fire sprinklers.
The Site poses physical dangers to vandals and trespassers as the facility isstructurally unstable and contaminated with heavy metals and other hazardoussubstances which would pose a human health risk if ingested or burned. Continuingnon-compliance issues, the continuing deterioration of the unmanaged facility andthe accumulation of large quantities of unsecured hazardous substances led to theOCEH referral to EPA and delivery of a written Request for Federal Action on April16,2007.
2. Potential for Continued State/Local Response
State and local agencies have asserted that they lack the resources toundertake the required cleanup action at this time. OCEH requested EPA'sassistance with a removal of hazardous substances and provided a written Requestfor Federal Action on April 16, 2007. Nonetheless, EPA may request assistancefrom State and local response agencies for various services including water and
power hook-ups, traffic control, inspection of building integrity, concurrence withcleanup action levels and goals, community relations and other tasks that arenecessary for an efficient, effective, and safe operation. Assistance from the Stateand local agencies likely will be limited to technical support and services rather thandirect financial contribution to the response.
III. THREATS TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR WELFARE OR THE ENVIRONMENT,AND STATUTORY AND REGULATORY AUTHORITIES
Conditions at the Site represent a release, and potential threat of release, ofCERCLA hazardous substances that threaten the public health or welfare, or theenvironment, based on the factors set forth in the National Oil and HazardousSubstances Pollution Contingency Plan ("NCP"), 40 C.F.R. § 300.415(b)(2). Thesefactors include:
1. Actual or potential exposure to nearby populations, animals or the foodchain from hazardous substances or pollutants or contaminants
There is an actual or potential exposure to nearby populations fromhazardous substances at the Site, including the now unmanaged and unsecuredheavy metal (chromium, copper, nickel and zinc) solutions, sludge and debrisThese hazardous substances exist in liquid and solid wastes deposited throughoutthe facility and in Site debris and building materials. There also are large quantitiesof acidic and strong caustic cyanide laden plating solutions and wastes in open anddegraded vats. The proximity of incompatible acidic solutions and cyanide bearingsolutions in severely degraded containers poses a threat of mixing and creating toxichydrogen cyanide gas.
In EPA's experience, closed and abandoned industrial plants are likely toattract trespassers, including children and vagrants. Although the Site is fenced, theouter fence can easily be climbed. The facility remains a human health risk to anyvandals or trespassers, including young children, who might enter the premises. Anyperson entering the building or rear storage yard may be exposed to hazardoussubstances by direct contact with open containers, leaking equipment andcontaminated building material. Nearby populations may be exposed to hazardoussubstances in the event deteriorated drums or containers leak causing incompatiblechemicals to mix and generate toxic gases that may be inhaled or flammable gasesthat may ignite. Direct contact, inhalation or ingestion of the hazardous substancesat the Site poses an acute health threat to these individuals. Threats from somespecific materials at the Site are discussed below.
Cyanide is readily absorbed through the skin, mucous membrane, and byinhalation. Symptoms of cyanide poisoning include anxiety, confusion, vertigo,nausea, convulsions, paralysis, coma, cardiac arrhythmia, and transient respiratorystimulation followed by respiratory failure or death.
Chromium is an eco-toxic heavy metal that is an inhalation, ingestion, anddermal exposure risk. Chromium bioaccumulates and targets the liver, kidneys,reproductive organs, circulatory system, and gastrointestinal system. Acuteexposure to chromium can cause harmful effects to the gastrointestinal system.Chronic exposure can cause harmful effects to the skin, lungs, mucous membranes,and possibly cancer.
Copper is an eco-toxic metal. Breathing high levels of copper can causeirritation of your nose and throat. Ingesting high levels of copper can cause nausea,vomiting, and diarrhea. Very-high doses of copper can cause damage to your liverand kidneys, and can even cause death.
The large quantity of solutions exhibiting the hazardous waste characteristicof corrosiveness presents a direct contact and inhalation threat that could causesever burns of the skins and lung tissue. Corrosive solutions at the Site areattributed to:
Nitric acid is a strong oxidizing agent and corrosive material that can burn theskin, eyes, and respiratory tract on direct contact or inhalation of vapors. It cancause acute pulmonary edema or chronic pulmonary diseases from inhalation.When heated or reacted with water, it produces toxic and corrosive fumes.
Sulfuric acid is a corrosive material that can burn the skin, eyes, andrespiratory tract on direct contact or inhalation of vapors. It can cause acutepulmonary edema or chronic pulmonary diseases from inhalation. When heated orreacted with water, it produces toxic and corrosive fumes.
Sodium hydroxide is a strong alkaline material (pH levels greater than 7.0).Sodium hydroxide is corrosive and has an irritating effect on all body tissue, causingburns and deep ulcerations. Inhalation can cause damage to the upper respiratorytissue and lung tissue, with effects ranging from mucous membrane irritation tosevere pneumonitis.
Other hazardous substances or pollutants and contaminants not discoveredto date or not specifically identified herein may exist at the Site. These substancesmay also pose a threat to human health and the environment.
2. Actual or potential contamination of drinking water supplies
No specific contamination of a drinking water supply has been identified todate.
3. Hazardous substances or pollutants or contaminants in drums, barrels,tanks, or other bulk storage containers, that may pose a threat ofrelease.
A preliminary inventory of containers (Appendix 1) includes over 100 varioussized drums, containers, tanks, clarifiers and vats containing over 22,000 gallons ofcaustic, acidic, cyanide-bearing or metal-bearing wastes. Nearly all the vats were invery poor condition. EPA observed leaking and degraded containers, unmarkedcontainers and an undetermined quantity of hazardous buffing and grinding dustdispersed throughout the polishing room. Plating bath residues and wastewatertreatment sludges were found spilled outside of their containment andsecondary containment for the wastewater treatment system contained debris andstanding liquid.
There are more chemical containers and an undetermined volume ofcontaminated debris, sludge's, building material, soils, concrete, and wastewatertreatment system materials awaiting full inventory and characterization. Fulldisclosure of the character and volume of hazardous wastes will only be possibleduring subsequent removal activities conducted under the necessary health andsafety program elements
4. High levels of hazardous substances or pollutants or contaminants insoils largely at or near the surface, that may migrate
Contamination of the soils underlying the plating process lines, chemicalstorage area and wastewater treatment area and exposed soils in the unpavedportion of the back lot will be investigated. In a past OCEH inspection, liquid andsludge were observed in a concrete secondary containment basin in which severeetching of the concrete was also evident. The same inspection noted a release offilter cake solids into the environment. The elevated floor of the plating room iswood planks, which has high potential for penetration by hazardous liquids.
A goal of this proposed response action is to further delineate and removecontaminated shallow soils from potential source areas.
5. Weather conditions that may cause hazardous substances or pollutantsor contaminants to migrate or be released
Exterior waste containment areas are exposed to rainfall and the building roofis deteriorated in areas in a manner that could allow rainfall to enter the facilitydirectly over the plating line and wastewater treatment and chemical waste storageareas. Surface water runoff contaminated with cyanide and heavy metals couldmigrate off-Site, which could pose a human health risk to neighboring communities.Further, weathering of contaminated structural material and waste containmentareas by wind, sun and rain can cause the deterioration of remaining materials andresult in a release of heavy metals and cyanide located within those materials.
6. Threat of fire or explosion
The building has no heat detection fire alarm system or fire sprinklers. Thedocumented presence of oxidizing materials, exposed electrical wiring, unknownconditions and vandalism could affect fire safety or result in a release if thechemicals mixed and reacted. The mixing of strongly acidic and caustic materialscould generate sufficient heat to ignite surrounding combustible materials. If a fireengulfed the building, shed or waste storage areas, it could release highly toxicchemical vapors into the neighborhood.
OFD has expressed a concern of arson or accidental fire specifically for thisSite. A large fire at this facility could expose nearby populations living downwind totoxic smoke and particulates. The use of large volumes of firefighting water wouldlikely produce contaminated runoff that could flow into the sewers and storm drainsystem causing a discharge of pollutants and contaminants into surface waters.
7. Availability of other appropriate federal or state response mechanismsto respond to the release
No other appropriate federal, local or state public funding source has beenidentified. EPA is informed that the proposed action exceeds the financial capabilityof the California State Emergency Reserve Account and local responsemechanisms.
IV. ENDANGERMENT DETERMINATION
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this Site, if notaddressed by implementing the response action selected in this ActionMemorandum, may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to publichealth, or welfare, or the environment.
V. PROPOSED ACTIONS AND ESTIMATED COSTS
A. Proposed Actions
1. Proposed action description
EPA proposes to inventory, characterize, segregate, bulk, re-containerize,and remove for disposal all abandoned hazardous substances and contaminatedmaterials left in drums, containers, tanks, and secondary containment structures atthe Site. All wastes will be characterized using EPA-approved methodologies anddelivered to commercial hazardous waste management facilities that are compliantwith EPA's CERCLA Off-Site Disposal Policies.
10
EPA further proposes to evaluate contaminated soils, asphalt, concrete andstructures associated with the former electroplating and polishing and buffingoperations and remove for disposal, as necessary, all exposed materials posing animminent threat of endangerment. The U.S. EPA will not investigate or respond todeep soil or groundwater contamination at the Site.
All activities will be performed in conformance with prescribed health andsafety procedures. Sampling and analysis activities will conform to EPA approvedmethodologies and mandatory specifications for quality assurance and qualitycontrol.
2. Contribution to remedial performance
EPA does not anticipate a long term remedial action at this Site. Thisremoval action should remove all immediate threats posed by uncontrolledhazardous substances at the Site.
The long-term cleanup plan for the Site:
Final reporting of this removal action will be provided to the DTSC and OCEHfor consideration in any further activities under state or county programs.
Threats that will require attention prior to the start of a long-term cleanup:
There is no EPA long-term cleanup planned for this Site. The immediatethreats that have been identified in this memorandum will be addressed by theproposed removal action.
The extent to which the removal will ensure that threats are adequatelyabated:
The removal of abandoned and above ground hazardous substances isexpected to abate the immediate threats from the Site.
Consistency with the long-term remedy:
Removal activities undertaken in this action can be considered andincorporated into state and county facility closure proceedings.
Post Removal Site Control
EPA will evaluate, with DTSC and OCEH, the need for post-removal Sitecontrol, consistent with the provisions of Section 300.415(k) of the NCP. Theelimination of all threats, however, is expected to eliminate or minimize the need forpost-removal Site control.
11
3. Description of alternative technologies
Alternative technologies were not considered for the proposed responseaction.
4. Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs)
Section 300.4150) of the NCR provides that removal actions must attainARARs to the extent practicable, considering the exigencies of the situation.
Section 300.5 of the NCR defines applicable requirements as cleanupstandards, standards of control, and other substantive environmental protectionrequirements, criteria or limitations promulgated under Federal environmental orState environmental or facility siting laws that specifically address a hazardoussubstance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location or other circumstancesat a CERCLA site.
Section 300.5 of the NCR defines relevant and appropriate requirements ascleanup standards, standards of control and other substantive requirements, criteria,or limitations promulgated under Federal environmental or State environmental orfacility siting laws that, while not "applicable" to a hazardous substance, pollutant, orcontaminant, remedial action, location, or other circumstances at a CERCLA site,address problems or situations sufficiently similar to those encountered at theCERCLA site and are well-suited to the particular Site.
Because CERCLA on-site response actions do not require permitting, onlysubstantive requirements are considered as possible ARARs. Administrativerequirements such as approval of, or consultation with, administrative bodies,issuance of permits, documentation, reporting, recordkeeping, and enforcement arenot ARARs for the CERCLA response actions confined to the Site.
The following ARARs have been identified for the proposed response actionAll can be attained.
Federal ARARs: Potential Federal ARARs are the RCRA Land DisposalRestrictions, 40 C.F.R. § 268.40 Subpart D; the CERCLA Off-Site DisposalRestrictions, and the U.S. Department of Transportation Hazardous MaterialsRegulations, 49 C.F.R. Part 171, 172 and 173.
State ARARs: Potential state ARARs are Characteristics of Hazardous Wasteimplemented through the California Health and Safety Code, Title 22, § 66261 20,§ 66261.21, § 66261.22, § 66261.23, § 66261.24.
12
5. Project schedule
Emergency removal activities are scheduled to begin during the week of April30, 2007. Removal activities will require approximately six weeks to complete.
B. Estimated Costs
Regional Removal Allowance Costs
Cleanup Contractor $ 480,000.00
USCGPST $ 12,000.00
Extramural Costs Not Funded from the Regional Allowance
VI. EXPECTED CHANGE IN THE SITUATION SHOULD ACTION BE DELAYEDOR NOT TAKEN
Given the Site conditions, the nature of the hazardous substancesdocumented on-Site and the potential exposure pathways to nearby populationsdescribed in Sections III and IV above, actual or threatened releases of hazardoussubstances from the Site, if not addressed by implementing the response actionsselected in this Action Memorandum, will continue to present an imminent andsubstantial endangerment to public health or welfare, or the environment.
VII. OUTSTANDING POLICY ISSUES
There are no outstanding policy issues with the Site identified at this time.
VIM. ENFORCEMENT
Please see the attached Confidential Enforcement Addendum for adiscussion regarding PRPs and enforcement. In addition to the extramural costsestimated for the proposed action, a cost recovery enforcement action also mayrecover the following intramural costs:
13
Intramural Costs1
U.S. EPA Direct Costs $ 25,000.00
U.S. EPA Indirect Costs(35.28% of Spending $646,400.00+ $25,000) $ 236.870.00
TOTAL Intramural Costs $ 261,870.00
The total EPA extramural and intramural costs for this removal action, based on full-cost accounting practices that will be eligible for cost recovery, are estimated to be$ 908,270.00. Of this, an estimated spending of $ 492,000.00 comes from theRegional removal allowance.
IX. RECOMMENDATION
This decision document represents an appropriate removal action for theImpressions Polishing and Plating Corp., Site, at 1223 North Batavia Street in theCity of Orange, Orange County, California as developed in accordance withCERCLA and not inconsistent with the NCP. This decision is based on theAdministrative Record for the Site.
Because conditions at the Site meet the NCP criteria for a time-criticalremoval, I recommend that you concur on the determination of imminent andsubstantial endangerment and the removal action proposed in this ActionMemorandum. The total removal action project ceiling if approved will be$ 646,400.00, of which an estimated $ 492,000.00 comes from the Regional removalallowance. If you approve of this action, please indicate your decision by signingbelow.
Approved:Daniel Meer, Chief Date
Response, Planning and Assessment Branch
' Direct costs include direct extramural costs and direct intramural costs Indirect costs arecalculated based on an estimated indirect cost rate expressed as a percentage of site-specific directcosts, consistent with the full cost accounting methodology effective October 2, 2000 Theseestimates do not include pre-judgment interest, do not take into account other enforcement costs,including Department of Justice costs, and may be adjusted during the course of a removal actionThe estimates are for illustrative purposes only and their use is not intended to create any rights forresponsible parties. Neither the lack of a total cost estimate nor deviation of actual costs from thisestimate will affect the United States' right to cost recovery.
cc: Sherry Fielding, USEPA, OEM, HQDonald R. Plain, Chief, Emergency Response and Special Projects, CaliforniaDepartment of Toxic Substances ControlAnn Rushton, Deputy Attorney General, State of California
• County of Orange Health Care Agency, Environmental Health, ImpressionsPolishing and Plating Corp., Project Chronology, submitted to EPA on April 4,2007
• County of Orange Health Care Agency, Environmental Health, ImpressionsPolishing and Plating Corp., Inspections Reports (Hazardous Waste Generator),August 24, 2006 and April 16, 2007
• County of Orange Health Care Agency, Environmental Health, ImpressionsPolishing and Plating Corp., Inspections Reports (Permit By Rule), August 24,2006 and April 16,2007
• County of Orange Health Care Agency, Environmental Health, ImpressionsPolishing and Plating Corp., Notice of Violation, January 4, 2007
• City of Orange Fire Prevention Bureau, Inspection Notice to Alex Granero,December 12, 2006
• City of Orange Fire Prevention Bureau, Inspection Notice to Phil Delgado,February 20, 2007
• Preliminary Container Inventory, April 19, 2007
• START Preliminary Laboratory Results Summary Table, April 19, 2007
"Note- table represents only a partial inventory of the largest, accessible, containers on-site at the time of the removal assessment A completeinventory may be developed during the removal
*»\ '*•-'*;&•*tr-- .y%v•r>*v « "ss« in, •>> %\-* 4
'dark greerf-dried sludge
'••"•'t'V'.xSfrom cubici'* • •' . i.•yard sack
92 5 J27.5129<10
1.28 J96005.42 J56800
443<50
57400<10<10<10<10
1490<1<1
804
<• TTLC-:{mg/kg).S(m3/L)',
^ 't r
'Vi :' ''.st^:>' -*1 -.^^*! U £ , . -,
* i "^
A -i ' "; •500500
10,00075100
2,5008,0002,5001,0003,5002,000100500700
2,4005,000N/AN/AN/A
, STLC
. (mg/L)f ^ *
'f +
V. +.* +\+ *
* "j
^> i t
155
100075
15 (560)
!_ 8°
255
35020157
24250N/AN/AN/A
rTCLP:.: (BIB/UK
y ' ',Js'f f 'V
, * --1
' '.''- V' t,-i r t
N/A5
100N/A
15
N/AN/A5
N/AN/A15
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/A Not Applicable, J estimated results between detection limit and reporting limit
TTLC Total Threshold Limit Concentration, STLC Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
mg/kg milligram per kilogram
mg/L milligram per liter
^Sample IMP-35, IMP-V-9, and IMP-V-50 are aqueous liquid and 100% filterable Therefore, total metal values in mg/kg are comparable to TCLP and STLC (mg/L) values
Index to Additions to the Administrative Record
• Impressions Polishing Waste Tracking Log, updated as of June 22, 2007• Impressions Polishing and Plating Sludge Disposal Information, June 19, 2007
Attachment 2Memorandum from EQM to Craig Benson, USEPA, dated June 19, 2007
MEMORANDUM
TO: Craig Benson, USEPA
FROM: Peter Lawrence, EQM
DATE: June 19, 2007
Subject: Impressions Polishing and Plating Sludge Disposal Information
On June 19, 2007, based on a telephone conversation with Jim Hubbard at U.S. Ecology, thefollowing information was discussed regarding the sludge material discovered in thesecondary containment area at the Impressions Polishing and Plating facility during thisremoval action. A treatment recipe was approved today for the acceptance of the material;however, the issues surrounding this recipe were challenging for this site and thus, causeddelays in the transportation and disposal of this material.
The cyanide concentrations for the material (as high as 1600 ppm) adversely interacted withthe elevated nickel concentrations (approximately 40,000 ppm) while determining atreatment process. This means that the cyanide had to be treated first with a bleach solutionand then the elevated metals (specifically, nickel) could be addressed for leachability. Nickelis not a RCRA metal but is one of the underlying hazardous constituents (UHC) that eachfacility must adhere to regarding their permit standards and requirements. A UHC refers toany constituent reasonably expected to be present in the waste at the point of generationabove the concentration(s) specific universal treatment standard.
The primary reason for the delay in the profile approval through the treatment recipe is that atype of concentrated chelating agent was used by Impressions Polishing and Plating while inoperation. A chelating agent (typically an organic diamine) is used to keep heavy metalssoluble while electroplating operations are occurring. This chelating agent is presentthroughout the sludge material on-site and would not bind normally during the fixationanalyses at the disposal facility. Several attempts at a functional recipe were made(approximately 18 recipes) for this material before the final approvals could be made. Thisspecific recipe for the material on-site caused a price increase from $64.00/cubic yard to$600.00/cubic yard due to the increase in matenals needed to fixate the metals and reduce thecyanide.
![Document name [ Action for ID of Business Associates ...€¦ · 1 / 6 Page-[ Action for ID of Business Associates (Clients/Suppliers), and Service Shops, etc. ] 1. Applications Related](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/601a78634c04bb31253d02f8/document-name-action-for-id-of-business-associates-1-6-page-action-for.jpg)
