Draft Cleanup and and abatement order No. R3-2005-0014 issued to Olin Corporation and Standard Fusee, Incorporation

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD CENTRAL COAST
REGION
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

CENTRAL COAST REGION

895 Aerovista Place, Suite 101

San Luis Obispo, California 93401- 7906

DRAFT CLEANUP AND ABATEMENT ORDER NO. R3-2005-0014

Issued to

Olin Corporation and Standard Fusee, Incorporated

425 Tennant Avenue, Morgan Hill

Santa Clara County

The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region (Regional

Board) finds:

1. Olin Corporation and Standard Fusee, Incorporated (Dischargers), discharged or

permitted the discharge of potassium perchlorate to waters of the state from a

manufacturing facility located at 425 Tennant Avenue, Morgan Hill (Site), as shown

on Figure 1. The Site is located approximately 30 miles southeast of San Jose and

0.5 miles west of Highway 101 in the City of Morgan Hill. The Site is in Santa Clara

Valley, and is surrounded primarily by commercial property. Rural Residential,

Agricultural and Urban land uses exist beyond and downgradient of the Site.

1. The Site is owned by Olin Corporation and consists of a 13-acre parcel located in

southern Morgan Hill. The property is zoned light industrial with Assessor Parcel

Number 817-029-028. Olin Corporation manufactured signal flares at the Site for

about 32 years from 1956 to 1988. Standard Fusee Corporation leased the Site and

manufactured signal flares for approximately seven years, from 1988 to 1995.

Potassium perchlorate was used by the Dischargers to manufacture flares from 1956

to 1995. The Dischargers stored and used potassium perchlorate, strontium nitrate,

chlorate, and other chemicals at the Site as an ingredient of highway safety flares.

Perchlorate contamination is suspected to originate from the Dischargers?use of: an

unlined evaporation pond to dispose of wastes from the cleaning of the ignition

material mixing bowls; on-site burning of cardboard flare coatings; and accidental

spills.

1. Olin Corporation was the sole property owner from at least 1956 to the present, and

had knowledge of the activities that resulted in the discharge and the legal ability to

control the property and prevent the discharge. Both Olin Corporation and Standard

Fusee, Incorporated, conducted activities that caused waste to be discharged or

deposited where it discharged into waters of the state and where it has created and

threatens to create a condition of pollution or nuisance. If additional information is

submitted that indicates other parties caused or permitted any perchlorate containing

waste to be discharged into waters of the state in a manner that contributed to the

perchlorate plume that resulted from the Dischargers?activities at the Site, the

Draft CAO No. R3-2005-0014 2 February 4, 2005

DRAFT

Regional Board will consider adding them to this Cleanup and Abatement Order

(Order). The results of investigations, described in Findings 25 & 28 below, have

confirmed the presence of chemicals used by the Dischargers in onsite soil and

underlying groundwater.

1. This Order applies to the entire Site and to all known and unknown areas beyond the

Site that have been impacted by Site activities. Perchlorate from the Site is known to

occur in underlying soil and groundwater, and downgradient groundwater. Wells

that have tested positive for perchlorate pollution are shown on attached Figure 2.

The results shown on Figure 2 represent the most current result for each well south of

the Site. Perchlorate has been detected in wells northeast of the Site. The

Dischargers and others are currently investigating perchlorate in this area to

determine if the detected perchlorate originates from the Site.

1. The discharge of perchlorate described in this Order creates, or threatens to create, a

condition of pollution or nuisance because, among other reasons, it has interfered

with the use of hundreds of private domestic wells and has interfered with the use of

water supplies for municipal and domestic beneficial uses. Perchlorate is a hazardous

substance. The perchlorate detected at the Site is a waste as defined in California

Water Code Section 13050(d). The Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin

(Basin Plan), does not contain numeric water quality objectives for perchlorate in

groundwater. The Basin Plan includes the following narrative objective: ?herever

the existing quality of water is better than the quality of water established herein as

objectives, such existing quality shall be maintained unless otherwise provided by the

provisions of the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) Resolution No.

68-16, ?tatement of Policy with Respect to Maintaining High Quality of Waters in

California,?including any revisions thereto.?(Basin Plan, Chapter 3, Section II.A.)

The perchlorate plume described in this Order degraded high quality waters of the

state in violation of this objective.

1. The current cleanup standard for perchlorate, as required by State Board Resolution

No. 92-49, is background or the best water quality that is reasonable if background

levels of water quality cannot be restored. Cleanup must consider all demands being

made and to be made on impacted waters and the total values involved, beneficial and

detrimental, economic and social, tangible and intangible. The current Notification

Level and Public Health Goal for perchlorate is 6 parts per billion (ppb). The State

Department of Health Services issued a draft Maximum Contaminant Level of 6 ppb.

1. Section 13304 of the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter Cologne)

provides that: ?ny person who?has caused or permitted, causes or permits, or

threatens to cause or permit any waste to be discharged or deposited where it is, or

probably will be, discharged into the waters of the state and creates, or threatens to

create, a condition of pollution or nuisance, shall upon order of the regional board,

clean up the waste or abate the effects of the waste,?

Draft CAO No. R3-2005-0014 3 February 4, 2005

DRAFT

1. The Regional Board has been performing regulatory oversight of soil and

groundwater investigation and cleanup at the Site since February 2001. The Site has

been regulated previously by Regional Board orders including: Water Code Section

13267 investigation orders, a Cleanup and Abatement Order, and three Waivers of

Waste Discharge Requirements, as described below. This Order does not rescind,

supercede, or amend any previous action issued by the Regional Board, unless

specifically stated in the Ordering Paragraphs (i.e., the paragraphs following ?T IS

HEREBY ORDERED? below.

1. The Regional Board has directed onsite and offsite investigations via Water Code

Section 13267 Orders (13267 Orders). These 13267 Orders require investigation of

onsite and offsite impacts to soil and groundwater, and impose monitoring and

reporting programs. Monitoring and Reporting Programs No. 01-161 (revised) and

R3-2003-0168 have also been issued to the Dischargers using Water Code Section

13267 authority.

1. On July 7, 2004, the Regional Board issued Cleanup and Abatement Order No. R3-

2004-0101 (Order R3-2004-0101). Order R3-2004-0101 directs the Dischargers to

supply uninterrupted replacement water to well owners with perchloratecontaminated

wells and requires submittal of a replacement water plan for wells

ranging from 4 to 10 ppb and implementation of water replacement plans for wells

with concentrations above 10 ppb. The Dischargers are currently supplying interim

replacement water to impacted offsite private well owners and completing plans and

agreements to provide a long-term alternative water supply. The Dischargers have

installed three ion exchange perchlorate removal systems on multiple user water

supply wells in the San Martin community.

1. The Regional Board has enrolled the Dischargers in or issued the Dischargers three

Waivers of Waste Discharge Requirements for the discharge of treated groundwater

to land, the treatment of onsite soil, and the discharge of pump test groundwater to

land. On December 8, 2003, the Regional Board enrolled Olin in General Waiver of

Waste Discharge Requirements Resolution No. R3-2002-0115 (General Waiver) for

discharge of treated groundwater to the Butterfield Retention Basin. The General

Waiver allows and requires Olin to extract onsite groundwater and discharge it to the

City of Morgan Hill? Butterfield Retention Pond. The Regional Board issued a

Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements Resolution No. R3-2004-0119 for onsite

soil treatment on July 9, 2004. The soil treatment waiver requires the Dischargers to

treat onsite soils to a level of 50 ppb, a level at which the Dischargers estimated

groundwater would not be impacted above 4 ppb. A description of the treatment

process is located in the Regional Board files. On December 6, 2004, the Regional

Board enrolled the Dischargers in Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements Order

No. R3-2002-0115 for pump test water. The pump test groundwater discharge waiver

allows the Dischargers to discharge limited quantities of groundwater to land. The

Dischargers are conducting pump tests to determine well pump hydraulic

characteristics for the design of wellhead perchlorate ion exchange treatment systems.

The Dischargers also manage storm water runoff pursuant to State Board Order No.

Draft CAO No. R3-2005-0014 4 February 4, 2005

DRAFT

99-08 DWQ, NPDES General Permit No. CAS000002 for Discharge of Storm Water

Runoff Associated with Construction Activity.

1. Hydrogeology

The Site is located in the Llagas Subbasin of the Gilroy-Hollister Groundwater Basin

in South Santa Clara County1 (MACTEC, 2004)2. The Llagas Subbasin is a

northwest to southeast trending alluvial-filled structural depression that is, in part, the

southern extension of the north bounding Coyote Valley Groundwater Subbasin. The

Llagas Subbasin is bounded on the west by the Santa Cruz Mountains/Gabilan Range

and on the east by the Diablo Range, and merges to the south with the Gilroy-

Hollister Groundwater Subbasin. The Tertiary- to Mesozoic-age bedrock forming

these mountain ranges is relatively impermeable and limits the extent of groundwater

movement to the east and west and at depth. The regional and local aquifer systems

are comprised of alluvial deposits over valley basin bedrock and include Pliocene to

Holocene age continental deposits of unconsolidated to semi-consolidated gravel,

sand, silt, and clay. These sedimentary deposits include older and younger alluvium

from meandering stream systems, alluvial fans, flood plains, and lacustrine (lake

bottom) and deltaic deposits from the ancestral Lake San Benito and Lake San Juan

and the underlying Santa Clara Formation.

1. Based on the descriptions in the Department of Water Resources Bulletin 118 (DWR

118), the water-bearing deposits are predominantly older alluvium with an undefined

amount of underlying Santa Clara Formation. The younger alluvium is typically

located south of the City of Gilroy. The alluvial fan deposits are cited as occurring

along the margins of the subbasin. Thicknesses of the alluvial deposits above

bedrock in the central part of the subbasin are cited as at least 450 feet. The

depositional history and paleodrainage system of the Llagas Subbasin was mostly

comprised of meandering stream channels that drained to the south-southeast and

interchannel areas between active stream systems. The older alluvium stream channel

deposits are described as Pliocene to Holocene age alluvial deposits of

unconsolidated to semi-consolidated gravel, sand, silt, and clay. When present, the

streams drained into the ancestral Lake San Benito in the Holocene period at least

5,000 years ago, and, more recently, into the ancestral Lake San Juan. The lacustrine

deposits of the ancestral Lake San Benito and Lake San Juan are described as

Holocene age clay and silt units that form a series of fairly continuous confining beds.

The ancestral Lake San Benito deposits extend as far north as Middle Avenue and the

ancestral Lake San Juan deposits extend as far north as Gilman Road and Dunlap

Avenue. Lacustrine deltaic deposits are present where the meandering streams met

1 The geologic and hydrogeologic features of the South Santa Clara Valley, which include the Llagas

Subbasin, are described in Evaluation of Ground Water Resources, South San Francisco Bay, Volume IV,

South Santa Clara County Area, Department of Water Resources Bulletin 118-1, May 1981 (DWR 118,

1981). In addition, the Site geologic/hydrogeologic features originate from the investigations conducted by

Olin.

2 MACTEC Engineering and Consulting (MACTEC), 2004. First Quarter 2004, Groundwater Monitoring

Report, Monitoring and Reporting Program No. 2001-161, Olin/Standard Fusee Site, 425 Tennant Avenue,

Morgan Hill, California. January 31, 2004.

Draft CAO No. R3-2005-0014 5 February 4, 2005

DRAFT

the ancestral lakes. The lacustrine clays appear to be fairly continuous and form a

series of confining beds south of Middle Avenue. North of Middle Avenue, the water

bearing deposits have been characterized as unconfined and form a water table

aquifer. Additional investigation and characterization of offsite hydrogeologic

conditions are required in Ordering Paragraphs A, B, and C.

1. The Llagas Subbasin? northern boundary consists of a groundwater divide that is

believed to coincide with the Coyote Creek alluvial fan topographic high as it

emerges from the eastern foothills. The groundwater divide? approximate location is

shown on the attached Figure 33. The general regional direction of groundwater

movement from the divide is toward the southeast, although the gradient near the Site

appears relatively flat as shown on Figure 3. In addition to southeastern flow, Figure

3 isocontours indicate a potential for groundwater flow to the north from the Site.

The Dischargers are currently evaluating the possibility of a current or former

northeast flow. Depth to water in the Llagas Subbasin is variable and typically ranges

from 15 to 30 feet below ground surface (bgs) depending upon the season. Ordering

Paragraphs A, B, and C require additional offsite hydrogeologic investigation and

characterization to establish offsite groundwater flow patterns and characteristics.

1. Llagas Subbasin groundwater flow direction has been the subject of several

investigations conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the California

Department of Water Resources (DWR), and the Santa Clara Valley Water District

(Water District). The USGS first investigated the Llagas Subbasin hydrogeology in

1917, and concluded that groundwater flow was generally south-southeast, parallel to

the Santa Clara Valley? central axis. Water District groundwater contour maps and

DWR investigations reflect findings similar to the USGS investigation.

1. Llagas Subbasin vertical and horizontal groundwater hydraulic gradients are not

currently well defined, but are believed to increase during spring months as a result of

recharge. Local groundwater gradients near municipal and agricultural production

wells vary in response to production activities. Local gradients also change in

response to the increase in groundwater extraction during dry summer months.

1. Llagas Subbasin Stratigraphy

Olin Corporation has evaluated Llagas Subbasin offsite stratigraphy and

hydrogeology. The evaluation was based on lithologic logs and well construction

details from over 500 available well logs, the distribution of perchlorate from the

analytical results of sampling, and information from the Water District, water supply

companies, well and pump maintenance companies, and private well owners.

Subsurface stratigraphy is hypothesized to be composed of alternating permeable

sand/gravel units and low permeability clay/silt units of variable thicknesses. The

units split and merge but can be traced for considerable distances. The permeable

sand/gravel units correspond with the alluvial deposits described above in the DWR

3 Water District, 1999

Draft CAO No. R3-2005-0014 6 February 4, 2005

DRAFT

118 evaluation. The Dischargers?current hydrogeologic conceptual model

hypothesizes that some clay units can also be traced for considerable distances.

1. The Dischargers?current hydrogeologic conceptual model hypothesizes that an

intermediate aquifer zone sequence present beneath the Site can be continuously

traced to near the Pacheco Pass Highway. The Pacheco Pass Highway is located

approximately 9.5 miles South of the Site. The Dischargers?current hydrogeologic

conceptual model hypothesizes that the stratigraphy and downgradient distribution of

perchlorate demonstrate that the intermediate aquifer zone sequence is where

perchlorate is located. The top of the intermediate aquifer zone sequence is

approximately 80 feet below ground surface (bgs) beneath the Site and gradually

deepens to 145 feet bgs at the Pacheco Pass Highway. The bottom of the intermediate

aquifer zone sequence is considered to be 220 feet bgs beneath the Site because the

lower intermediate aquifer zone sequence unit merges with the nearby upper

intermediate aquifer zone sequence unit. The base of the intermediate aquifer zone

sequence is approximately 200 feet bgs at Middle Avenue, and gradually deepens to

268 feet bgs at Rucker Avenue and approximately 325 feet bgs at Pacheco Pass

Highway. There is sufficient uncertainty about localized Llagas Subbasin

Stratigraphy to warrant additional focused investigation. Ordering Paragraphs A, B,

and C require additional focused Llagas Subbasin hydrogeologic investigation and

characterization to establish offsite stratigraphy.

1. Apparently continuous clay silt aquitard units, both above and below the intermediate

aquifer zone sequence, bound the intermediate aquifer zone sequence near the Site.

The Dischargers?current hydrogeologic conceptual model hypothesizes that the clay

silt aquitards tend to limit perchlorate within the permeable units within the

intermediate aquifer zone. The clay silt aquitard that immediately underlies the

intermediate aquifer zone sequence appears to correspond to one of the continuous

lacustrine clays described in DWR 118 and would limit downward vertical

perchlorate movement. However, offsite vertical gradients are not known and the

Dischargers have not performed an investigation to determine direction or magnitude.

The permeable sand/gravel units gradually become shallower and thin toward the

edges of the subbasin as the units drape upward on the flanks of the Santa Cruz

Mountains to the west and the Diablo Range to the east. The east and west margins

of the subbasin are increasingly comprised of clay and silt because of alluvial

deposition.

1. Llagas Subbasin Hydrogeology

Aquifer hydraulic conductivities are estimated to range from approximately 100

gallons per day per square foot (gpd/ft2) near the basin margins to over 700 gpd/ft2

near the basin? axial center, particularly to the south. The Dischargers?current

hydrogeologic conceptual model hypothesizes that the increase in sands and gravels

along the central axis of the valley also serves to limit the perchlorate to the more

central portion of the subbasin because groundwater preferentially moves through

high permeability materials found near the axial center of the subbasin. The

Dischargers?current hydrogeologic conceptual model will be updated as a result of

Draft CAO No. R3-2005-0014 7 February 4, 2005

DRAFT

investigations required by Ordering Paragraphs A through D. Sufficient uncertainty

exists about localized soil permeabilities and groundwater movement to warrant

additional focused investigation.

1. Underlying Site Stratigraphy

Beneath the Site, the aquifer system is comprised of heterogeneous layers of clay, silt,

sand, and gravel, deposited on a bedrock surface more than 440 feet bgs. The

Dischargers have characterized the Site subsurface into shallow (A), intermediate (B),

and deep (C) aquifer zones based on data collected during well installation activities.

Shallow A zone aquifer groundwater is predominately unconfined; however, local

areas may be semi-confined by minor layers of silt and clay sediment within the

aquifer, especially at greater depths within the shallow aquifer zone. Groundwater

below the A zone aquifer is confined by fine-grained silts and clays that define the

intermediate (B) and deep (C) aquifer zones aquitard units. The Dischargers have

further defined these units into sub aquifers corresponding to the A1, A2 A3; B1, B2,

B3; and C1, C2, C3.

1. Underlying Site Hydrogeology

Aquifer tests for the A zone yielded transmissivity test values ranging from 8,400 to

12,000 ft2 per day (ft2/day) and transmissivity values for the B1 zone range from 140

to 170 ft2/day. The corresponding A zone bulk average hydraulic conductivity was

approximately 400 ft/day based on a 22 foot saturated thickness4. The corresponding

B1 zone bulk average hydraulic conductivity, based on well EW-B1-001 25 foot

screen length, was approximately 6 ft/day. Aquifer hydraulic properties have not

been determined for the Deeper B2 and B3 and C1 through three sub aquifers. The

Dischargers?current Site hydrogeologic conceptual model hypothesizes that the

predominant direction of groundwater flow in each of the aquifer zones beneath the

Site is toward the southeast, with localized and transient variability. The aquifer zone

depth intervals are summarized below:

Aquifer Zone Depth Interval (feet bgs)

Shallow or A 0 to 55

Intermediate or B 68 to 220

Deep or C Greater than 243

1. Site vertical gradients are significant and imply a strong potential for downward flow

within the intermediate and deep aquifer zones. Upward vertical gradients have also

been observed at the Site, but to a lesser extent.

1. Residents, agricultural operations, businesses and cities surrounding and

downgradient of the Site rely solely on groundwater for domestic, agricultural and

industrial supply purposes. The known perchlorate plume area extends for

4 GeoSyntec. 2003. 90% Design Report For On-Site Containment and Treatment of Perchlorate in

Groundwater, Olin-Standard Fusee Site, Morgan Hill, California. October 23, 2003.

Draft CAO No. R3-2005-0014 8 February 4, 2005

DRAFT

approximately ten miles downgradient. Approximately 800 wells have had

perchlorate detections offsite. Approximately 98% of those wells test below 10 ppb.

1. On and Offsite Investigations and Remedial Measures

The Dischargers caused or permitted perchlorate-containing wastes to be discharged

to the soil at the Site and to groundwater underlying, downgradient to the south, and

possibly to the north of the Site. Due to the naturally permeable and transmissive

nature of underlying and downgradient hydrogeology, perchlorate-containing wastes

have impacted onsite soil and on and offsite groundwater. Perchlorate was first

detected at 21 and 55 ppb in underlying Site groundwater samples, in August 2000,

during a due diligence investigation by a potential buyer. In response, the

Dischargers installed three shallow monitoring wells (MW-1, MW-2, and MW-3) to

verify the perchlorate detections. These wells were installed to approximately 35 feet

below ground surface. Perchlorate was detected at 17 ppb in MW-1, 37 ppb in MW-

2, and was not detected above 4 ppb in MW-3. Onsite, perchlorate has been detected

in aquifers A, B and C, with the highest concentrations in the lower A and upper B1

zones. Concentrations in the A zone range from non detect (ND) to 770 ppb, B zone

concentrations range from ND to 390 ppb, and C zone concentrations range from ND

to 10 ppb.

1. The Dischargers believe that the offsite perchlorate plume exists mainly in the middle

B zone aquifer and extends approximately ten miles to just past Highway 152 east of

the City of Gilroy. However, the Dischargers?characterization of groundwater

contamination to date has relied on existing supply wells and the lateral and vertical

extent of the plume remains incomplete. The Dischargers proposed and the Regional

Board approved the use of 45 existing supply wells to continue to characterize and

monitor the perchlorate plume? lateral and vertical extent on August 7, 2003. The

Regional Board required, in a February 24, 2004 letter, the Dischargers to submit a

technical justification for the proposed offsite-monitoring program. The February

24th letter, which constituted a Section 13267 Order, required the Dischargers to

provide technical justification for utilizing offsite private supply wells for monitoring.

The Dischargers submitted the technical report, but subsequently withdrew the

proposed monitoring network in order to develop a revised Llagas Subbasin

Monitoring Plan. A revised Llagas Subbasin Monitoring Plan is required to be

submitted per Ordering Paragraph A.

1. Measurable perchlorate concentrations in the ten-mile offsite groundwater plume

range from a maximum of 100 ppb to a minimum of 2 ppb. The Dischargers have not

installed downgradient-monitoring wells, but have relied upon perchlorate

concentration data from existing private supply wells. It is unknown if any of the

offsite private supply wells provide representative samples of perchlorate

concentrations. Supply wells typically have screen lengths much longer than wells

designed for monitoring. Longer screen and filter pack lengths and or intervals may

tend to understate the maximum concentrations in groundwater. Uncertainties about

well construction warrant a thorough evaluation of the offsite monitoring system.

Ordering paragraphs A, through D require additional evaluation of wells proposed for

Draft CAO No. R3-2005-0014 9 February 4, 2005

DRAFT

inclusion in the monitoring system and installation of monitoring wells to establish an

appropriate monitoring well network.

1. Other Investigations

Perchlorate has been detected in some of the City of Morgan Hill? supply wells to

the northeast of the Site. In response, the Regional Board ordered the Dischargers to

investigate perchlorate northeast of the Site. On September 10, 2004, the Dischargers

submitted the Groundwater Flow Assessment Report and subsequently submitted a

Groundwater Flow Assessment White Paper and additional information requested by

Regional Board staff. The Groundwater Flow Assessment Report concluded that

northeast perchlorate impacted groundwater did not originate from the Site. Regional

Board staff concluded that the groundwater model and the other data presented were

inadequate to predict local groundwater flow or to understand current or historic flow

conditions. Therefore, the Regional Board directed the Dischargers to proceed with

phase II of the Groundwater Flow Assessment Work Plan and install northeasterlylocated

piezometers to collect additional sub aquifer data. In addition, the Regional

Board directed the Dischargers to sample domestic supply wells in that northeast

study area for perchlorate, and to submit a forensic investigation work plan (13267

Order dated December 8, 2004). The Dischargers continue to investigate whether

these detections are related to the Site perchlorate discharge.

1. Onsite Cleanup

The Dischargers have implemented soil and groundwater cleanup beneath the Site.

On August 3, 2004, the Executive Officer approved a combination of in situ and ex

situ anaerobic bioremediation to treat perchlorate-contaminated soil. On November

18, 2003, Regional Board staff approved the installation and operation of the Onsite

Groundwater Containment and Perchlorate Removal System (System). The System?

purpose is to provide hydraulic containment and removal of perchlorate through

onsite groundwater extraction and treatment. The System began operation on

February 23, 2004. By April 7, 2004, System startup was completed and has been

operated continuously since that time.

1. Offsite Cleanup

The Dischargers have not yet proposed an offsite cleanup plan. This Order requires

the Dischargers to propose an offsite cleanup level and evaluate offsite cleanup

alternatives including basin characterization, monitoring, short and long-term plume

migration and cleanup alternatives.

1. The following reports detail the presence of perchlorate in soil and/or groundwater at,

and beyond, the Site:

¥ Environmental Engineering Consultant? Perchlorate Investigation dated

December 7, 2000

¥ Environmental Engineering Consultant? Perchlorate Investigation dated

March 21, 2001

Draft CAO No. R3-2005-0014 10 February 4, 2005

DRAFT

¥ Law Engineering and Environmental Service? Soil and Groundwater

Investigation Report for the Olin/Standard Fusee Property dated May 16,

2002

¥ MACTEC Engineering Consultant? Phase 3 Soil and Groundwater

Investigation Report dated December 2, 2002

¥ MACTEC Engineering Consultant? Phase 3 Soil and Groundwater

Investigation and Remedial Action Conceptual Design Report dated June 30,

2003

¥ GeoSyntec Consultants 90% Design Report For Onsite Containment and

Treatment of Perchlorate in Groundwater, October 24, 2003

¥ GeoSyntec Consultant? Soil Remediation Feasibility Study dated November

21, 2003

¥ GeoSyntec Consultants Remedial Action Work Plan & 90% Design Report

For Soil Remediation, April 8, 2004

¥ MACTEC Engineering and Consulting? Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring

Reports dated October 30, 2003, January 30, 2004, April 30, 2004, July 30,

2004, and October 30, 2004

Reports not specifically included above, but that have been submitted to the Regional

Board by the Dischargers and others, are located in the Regional Board file.

1. Basis for Groundwater Cleanup Standard

State Board Resolution No. 68-16 (Resolution No. 68-16), ?tatement of Policy with

Respect to Maintaining High Quality of Waters in California,?applies to this

discharge. Resolution No. 68-16 requires:

a. Whenever the existing quality of water is better than the quality established in

policies as of the date on which such policies become effective, such existing high

quality will be maintained until it has been demonstrated to the State that any

change will be consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the State, will

not unreasonably affect present and anticipated beneficial use of such water and

will not result in water quality less than that prescribed in the policies.

b. Any activity which produces or may produce a waste or increased volume or

concentration of waste and which discharges or proposes to discharge to existing

high quality waters will be required to meet waste discharge requirements which

will result in the best practicable treatment or control of the discharge necessary

to assure that (a) a pollution or nuisance will not occur and (b) the highest water

quality consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the State will be

maintained.

1. The groundwater impacted by the perchlorate plume is ?igh quality water?for

purposes of Resolution No. 68-16.

1. State Board Resolution No. 92-49 requires Dischargers to ?lean up and abate the

effects of discharges in a manner that promotes attainment of either background water

quality, or the best water quality which is reasonable if background levels of water

quality cannot be restored, considering all demands being made and to be made on

Draft CAO No. R3-2005-0014 11 February 4, 2005

DRAFT

those waters and the total values involved, beneficial and detrimental, economic and

social, tangible and intangible.?(Id., Section III.G.) Cleanup levels less stringent

than background must comply with Section 20400, Title 27, California Code of

Regulations (formerly Section 2550.4, Title 23, California Code of Regulations). The

Dischargers have not yet analyzed whether background can be restored or what is the

best water quality that is reasonable. This Order requires the Dischargers to determine

background perchlorate levels (see Ordering Paragraph A and D) and provides a

process for the Dischargers to propose an appropriate cleanup level. Should the

Dischargers submit information that indicates background water quality cannot be

restored, Regional Board staff will review that information to ensure consistency with

Resolution No. 68-16 and No. 92-49, and with Section 20400, Title 27, California

Code of Regulations or Section 2550.4, Title 23, California Code of Regulations.

1. Beneficial Uses

The Basin Plan incorporates statewide plans and policies by reference and contains a

strategy for protecting beneficial uses of State Waters. This Order implements the

water quality objectives and other requirements stated in that Plan. Pursuant to

Chapter 2 of the Basin Plan, present and potential beneficial uses of groundwater

underlying the Site, and in the area of the perchlorate plume, include:

a. Domestic and municipal water supply.

b. Agricultural water supply

c. Industrial water supply.

1. Groundwater throughout the affected area and Llagas groundwater subbasin is

actively used as a source for domestic, municipal, agricultural and industrial supply

waters. Section 13050(l) of the California Water Code defines ?ollution?as an

alteration of the water quality to a degree that unreasonably affects either beneficial

uses or facilities that serve these beneficial uses. Section 13050(1)(2) provides that

?ollution may include contamination.?Section 13050(k) defines ?ontamination?as

?n impairment of the quality of the waters of the state by waste to a degree which

creates a hazard to the public health through poisoning or through the spread of

disease.?Section 13050(m) defines ?uisance?as ?nything which meets all of the

following requirements: (1) Is injurious to health, or is indecent or offensive to the

senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the

comfortable enjoyment of life or property. (2) Affects at the same time an entire

community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons … (3) Occurs

during, or as a result of, the treatment or disposal of wastes.?The perchlorate plume

has interfered with the municipal and domestic use by thousands of people of the

affected groundwater, who use both private and public supply wells and occurred

during, or as a result of, the disposal of perchlorate-containing waste. The plume

constitutes both pollution and nuisance.

1. Notification

The Regional Board has notified the Dischargers and all interested agencies and

persons of its intent pursuant to California Water Code Section 13304 to prescribe

this Cleanup and Abatement Order to the Dischargers. The Regional Board has made

Draft CAO No. R3-2005-0014 12 February 4, 2005

DRAFT Section 13267(b)(1) of the California Water Code provides that:

every reasonable attempt to notify these individuals and has provided them with an

opportunity to submit their written views and recommendations.

1. California Environmental Quality Act

This enforcement action is being taken for the protection of the environment and as

such is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act

(Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.) in accordance with Sections 15307

and 15308, Chapter 3, Title 14, California Code of Regulations. The issuance of this

Order is also an enforcement action taken by a regulatory agency and is exempt from

the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code,

Section 21000, et seq.), pursuant to Section 15321(a)(2), Title 14, CCR.

1. Cost Recovery

Pursuant to Section 13304 of the California Water Code, the Regional Board is

entitled to, and may seek, reimbursement for all reasonable costs actually incurred by

the Regional Board to investigate unauthorized discharges of wastes or to oversee

cleanup of such waste, abatement of the effect thereof, or other remedial action

pursuant to this Order.

1. Reporting

?n conducting an investigation specified in subdivision (a), the regional board

may require that any person who has discharged, discharges, or is suspected of

having discharged or discharging, or who proposes to discharge waste within

its region, or any citizen or domiciliary, or political agency or entity of this

state who has discharged, discharges, or is suspected of having discharged or

discharging, or who proposes to discharge, waste outside of its region that

could affect the quality of waters within its region shall furnish, under penalty

of perjury, technical or monitoring program reports which the regional board

requires. The burden, including costs, of these reports shall bear a reasonable

relationship to the need for the report and the benefits to be obtained from the

reports. In requiring those reports, the regional board shall provide the person

with a written explanation with regard to the need for the reports, and shall

identify the evidence that supports requiring that person to provide the

reports.?

As described in this Order, existing data and information about the Site

indicates that waste has been discharged or is discharging from the facilities

described above, which facilities are owned or operated, or formerly owned or

operated by the Dischargers named in this Order. This Order requires

monitoring, work plans and reports pursuant to Water Code Section 13267.

This finding is made in compliance with Section 13267. The work plans and

monitoring required by this Order are necessary to design and implement a

cleanup plan for the perchlorate-impacted groundwater and to determine

compliance with this Order.

Draft CAO No. R3-2005-0014 13 February 4, 2005

DRAFT

1. State Board Review

Any person affected by this Regional Board action may petition the State Board to

review the action in accordance with Section 13320 of the California Water Code and

Title 23, California Code of Regulations, Section 2050. The State Board, Office of

Chief Counsel, must receive the petition within 30 days of the date of this Order.

Copies of the law and regulations applicable to filing petitions will be provided upon

request.

1. Regional Board Review

Any person affected by this Regional Board action may request the Regional Board to

review this action. The hearing would be conducted by the Regional Board at a public

meeting or by the Executive Officer, as determined by the Executive Officer after

consultation with the Dischargers and (if not the Dischargers) the person(s)

requesting review. A request for Regional Board review does not extend the 30-day

period for filing a petition with the State Board, but the State Board may hold the

petition in abeyance at the request or with the agreement of the petitioner. (See Title

23, California Code of Regulations, Section 2050.5(d). A Regional Board hearing

request must be submitted in writing to Staff Counsel Lori T. Okun by facsimile to

(916) 341-5199 within 30 days of the date of this Order. Failure to request Regional

Board review may prevent a petitioner from submitting new evidence in support of a

State Board petition.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 13267 and 13304 of the California

Water Code that the Dischargers shall cleanup and abate the effects of the perchlorate

discharge from the Site as follows:

The following Ordering Paragraphs do not currently apply to areas (aquifer zones) to

the north or northeast of the Site (Northeast Groundwater Flow Study Area; see

Finding 28). The Regional Board or Executive Officer will revise this Order or issue

a separate order requiring the Dischargers to clean up and or abate and or further

investigate perchlorate in aquifer zones serving the City of Morgan Hill? wells and

other wells to the north or northeast of the Site, if the Regional Board or Executive

Officer concludes that the Dischargers caused or permitted the discharge of waste, or

threaten to cause or permit the discharge of waste, that has impacted or threatens

those aquifer zones.

A. LLAGAS SUBBASIN MONITORING PLAN Due Date: 30 days after CAO issuance

Submit a monitoring plan acceptable to the Executive Officer that proposes to

completely delineate and monitor the lateral and vertical extent of perchlorate in

downgradient aquifer zones. The Llagas Subbasin Monitoring Plan shall be

designed so that the following objectives are addressed:

1. Delineation of the lateral and vertical extent of perchlorate pollution in all

identifiable aquifer zones.

1. Determination of plume migration status (shrinking, expanding, no change).

2. Provide accurate aquifer zone specific perchlorate concentration data.

Draft CAO No. R3-2005-0014 14 February 4, 2005

DRAFT

¥

¥

¥

¥

¥

1. Provide data to advance and improve the offsite Hydrogeologic conceptual

model.

The monitoring plan shall include locations of proposed and or newly installed offsite

monitoring wells and a work plan and schedule for installation. If the Dischargers

propose to use supply wells as part of the offsite monitoring system, the Dischargers

shall demonstrate, to the Executive Officer? satisfaction, that those supply wells will be

effective at providing groundwater quality data comparable to properly constructed and

sited monitoring wells or piezometers. The Dischargers may submit data from supply

wells that are not properly constructed in order to supplement data from properly

constructed and sized monitoring wells, but the Regional Board will only consider the

supplemental data to the extent it provides valuable information. The Llagas Subbasin

Monitoring Plan shall include the following elements in addition to addressing the

aforementioned objectives:

1. Recommendations for locations of new and existing offsite monitoring wells to

determine the lateral and vertical extent of perchlorate pollution and act as sentry

wells for the City of Gilroy and other water users.

1. Recommendations for and identification of water supply wells that are proposed

for inclusion in the Llagas Subbasin Monitoring Plan and or act as sentry wells

for the City of Gilroy and or other un-impacted water users. If the Dischargers

choose to include water supply wells, those wells shall be shown to be

equivalent to properly sited and constructed monitoring wells. Supply wells

proposed for monitoring shall be shown to be equivalent to conventional

monitoring wells. The Dischargers shall use the following criteria or propose

alternative criteria, acceptable to the Executive Officer, to evaluate water supply

wells:

Analysis of lithologic logs and well construction data.

Sampling and analysis for geochemical parameters.

Flow metering, packers to isolate zones, video logging, and chemical

techniques for field-testing.

Comparison of supply well attributes and characteristics to properly sited

and constructed monitoring wells.

Long-term well access.

1. Recommendations for a regional and local aquifer specific groundwater

elevation-monitoring network to determine groundwater flow patterns.

1. Recommendations for a sampling and analysis plan that establishes standard

sampling procedures.

1. Recommendations for a statistical method to determine if perchlorate

concentrations are increasing, decreasing or static. The statistical method shall

be applied to all monitoring wells.

After reviewing the Llagas Subbasin Monitoring Plan, the Executive Officer may issue a

Revised Monitoring and Reporting Program.

Draft CAO No. R3-2005-0014 15 February 4, 2005

DRAFT

B. MONITORING WELL INSTALLATION AND CHARACTERIZATION WORK PLAN

Due Date: June 3, 2005

The Monitoring Well Installation and Characterization Work Plan shall detail the

Dischargers?plans to install offsite-monitoring wells in the Llagas Subbasin and to

investigate existing supply wells for suitability as long-term monitoring wells. The

work plan shall include the following:

1. Final locations of the proposed monitoring wells.

2. Typical well construction detail.

3. Drilling Method.

4. Target monitoring zones.

5. A schedule for implementing necessary monitoring well installations.

6. Determination of aquifer zone specific hydrogeologic parameters necessary for

the development of the conceptual Llagas Subbasin hydrogeologic model.

1. Identification of existing supply wells proposed for long term monitoring.

2. Proposed methodologies to determine suitability for long term monitoring of

proposed supply wells.

The Monitoring Well Installation and Characterization Work Plan shall include a

proposed schedule for all proposed tasks. Following Executive Officer approval, the

schedule shall become a part of this Order. The Dischargers shall perform all work in

accordance with the approved schedule.

C. IMPLEMENTATION OF MONITORING WELL INSTALLATION AND

CHARACTERIZATION WORK PLAN

Dischargers shall implement the Monitoring Well Installation and Characterization

Work Plan within 30 days of the Executive Officer? concurrence with the Work

Plan. The tasks and due dates in the schedule for implementation of the Work Plan

shall, after approval by the Executive Officer, become enforceable terms of this

Order. Within thirty days of completion of field activities, Dischargers shall submit a

Monitoring Well Installation and Characterization Report.

D. LLAGAS SUBBASIN CHARACTERIZATION REPORT Due Date: March 30, 2006

and January 31st Yearly Thereafter.

The Llagas Subbasin Characterization Report will describe the Dischargers?efforts to

fully characterize the vertical and lateral extent of perchlorate offsite.

Characterization will be an ongoing process. The initial report will report and

evaluate the efforts, data, and results from Ordering Paragraphs A through C. The

Report shall include the following elements:

1. Evaluation of background perchlorate concentrations for the Llagas Subbasin

(i.e., whether any naturally-occurring perchlorate is present) and whether there

are other anthropogenic sources of perchlorate.

1. A refined conceptual model of hydrogeologic conditions, groundwater flow

patterns, and perchlorate distribution.

1. Description of activities undertaken to characterize the offsite plume.

Draft CAO No. R3-2005-0014 16 February 4, 2005

DRAFT

1. Presentation and analysis of Llagas Subbasin and aquifer specific data

including maps and figures showing perchlorate isoconcentration and

groundwater elevation contours for each aquifer zone.

1. Aquifer specific information for remedial feasibility study development.

2. Results of the statistical evaluation to determine perchlorate concentration

trends in each aquifer zone.

1. Proposed changes to the Monitoring and Reporting Program based on the

updated Llagas Subbasin Hydrogeologic conceptual model.

1. An evaluation of other newly installed wells in the Llagas Subbasin (e.g.,

Water District wells, Gilroy test borings, etc.)

Future reports due on January 31st yearly will evaluate additional hydrogeologic and

perchlorate data collected, the monitoring systems performance in the past year, and

will evaluate and make recommendations based on the revised hydrogeologic

conceptual model.

E. PLUME MIGRATION CONTROL ASSESSMENT REPORT Due Date: March 3, 2006

The Dischargers shall evaluate the need for plume migration control to stop and or

contain the migration of perchlorate that has originated from the Site and to restore

groundwater beneficial uses. To complete this work, the Dischargers shall develop a

Plume Migration Control Assessment Report, acceptable to the Executive Officer,

that evaluates whether plume cutoff and remediation is necessary. The assessment

report should consider hydrogeologic information and analyses related to

groundwater elevations, aquifer parameter data, field investigation, modeling, and or

other pertinent data. The Dischargers may not rely on any groundwater modeling

unless they provide the Regional Board with a legal copy of the modeling software,

electronic input data files, assumptions used, model calibration information and all

other data or information used in the model upon request. Any claims by the

Dischargers of trade secret shall be subject to California Water Code section

13267(b)(2). If the Dischargers determine or the Executive Officer concludes that

plume migration control is required, then the Dischargers shall submit a Plume

Migration Control Feasibility Study, as outline below.

F. PLUME MIGRATION CONTROL FEASIBILITY STUDY

If Plume cutoff is deemed necessary in Ordering Paragraph E above, a Plume

Migration Control Feasibility Study shall be submitted no later than 60 days

following Executive Officer concurrence. At a minimum, the following elements

shall be evaluated:

1. Alternatives for plume migration control to prevent perchlorate migration

toward the City of Gilroy or other aquifer zones that are not impacted by

perchlorate.

1. The Plume Migration Control Feasibility Study shall include a time estimate

for establishing plume migration control for each alternative. The Plume

Migration Control Feasibility Study shall include a time schedule for

implementation of each alternative and shall select one or more alternatives as

the preferred alternative(s).

Draft CAO No. R3-2005-0014 17 February 4, 2005

DRAFT

1. An evaluation to determine potential adverse impacts to existing surface or

groundwater beneficial uses that may be caused by the proposed migration

control strategy.

1. A Plume Cutoff and Remediation Work Plan shall be submitted 60 days after

approval by the Executive Officer.

G. PLUME MIGRATION CONTROL WORK PLAN

Due Date: 60 days after approval of Plume Migration Control Feasibility Study.

Within 60 days after the Executive Officer concurs with the Plume Migration Control

Feasibility Study, the Dischargers shall prepare a Plume Migration Control Work

Plan that includes design and implementation plans for interim plume migration

control alternative(s) selected in the Plume Migration Control Feasibility Study. The

Plume Migration Control Work Plan shall be subject to concurrence by the Executive

Officer, shall detail the Dischargers?plans and shall incorporate the time schedule(s)

for implementation from the Feasibility Study.

H. IMPLEMENTATION OF PLUME MIGRATION CONTROL WORK PLAN

Dischargers shall implement the Plume Migration Control Work Plan within 30 days

of the Executive Officer? concurrence with the work plan, or if earlier, 120 days after

submitting the Plume Migration Control Work Plan. The tasks and due dates in the

schedule for implementation of the selected cutoff and remediation alternative(s)

(including the monitoring schedule) shall, after approval by the Executive Officer,

become enforceable terms of this Order. Within 30 days of completion of field

activities, Dischargers shall submit an Implementation Report documenting the

implementation of the cutoff and remedial alternatives.

I. LLAGAS SUBBASIN CLEANUP LEVEL REPORT Due Date: January 31, 2006

The Dischargers shall submit a report that proposes a perchlorate cleanup level for the

Llagas Groundwater Subbasin. The proposed cleanup level shall be developed in

conformance with State Board Resolution No. 92-49. The report shall contain a basis

for the proposed cleanup level.

J. LLAGAS SUBBASIN CLEANUP FEASIBILITY STUDY Due Date: June 30, 2006

The Dischargers shall prepare a Llagas Subbasin Cleanup Feasibility Study

acceptable to the Executive Officer that addresses Llagas Subbasin cleanup

alternatives. The report shall provide an analysis of alternatives for long-term, basinwide

groundwater cleanup to remediate perchlorate-impacted groundwater that has

originated from the Site. The report shall address and or comply with the following

elements:

1. The feasibility, effectiveness, and relative cost of cleanup alternatives in

compliance with Resolution No. 92-49.

1. Consideration of present and potential beneficial uses at the Site, and offsite

affected areas, including domestic and municipal water supply, agricultural

water supply, and industrial water supply as defined by Chapter 2 of the Basin

Plan.

Draft CAO No. R3-2005-0014 18 February 4, 2005

DRAFT 2. An updated time schedule for implementation.

1. A proposed schedule for implementation of each cleanup alternative shall be

included in the alternatives analysis.

1. An estimate of the time it will take to reach the cleanup goal, considering all

relevant factors such as remedial baseline or the Dischargers?proposed and

Regional Board approved site-specific cleanup goal.

1. Include a cost estimate for each remedial alternative.

2. Selection of a remedial alternative(s).

3. An evaluation of alternatives for plume core remediation.

4. A proposed schedule to prepare a Llagas Subbasin Cleanup Work Plan

K. LLAGAS SUBBASIN CLEANUP WORK PLAN

Following the Executive Officer? concurrence with the Llagas Subbasin Cleanup

Feasibility Study, the Dischargers shall prepare a Llagas Subbasin Cleanup Plan

acceptable to the Executive Officer that details implementation plans for the selected

alternative(s). The Dischargers shall submit the Llagas Subbasin Cleanup Work Plan

by the due established by the Executive Officer upon concurrence with the Llagas

Subbasin Cleanup Feasibility Study in Ordering Paragraph J. The Llagas Subbasin

Cleanup Work Plan shall, at a minimum, include the following elements:

1. A detailed implementation plans for the selected remedial alternative.

2. A reasonable time estimate for the restoration of beneficial uses.

3. An adequate monitoring strategy and schedule to determine the lateral and

vertical effectiveness of the selected cleanup alternative. Compliance

monitoring wells shall be identified and or installed to ensure groundwater

complies with clean up goals throughout the affected area. The monitoring

schedule shall require progress reports on the implementation of the selected

remedial alternative.

1. Other information deemed appropriate by the Dischargers, or specified by the

Executive Officer in the concurrence with the Llagas Subbasin Cleanup

Feasibility Study.

L. IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFSITE CLEANUP WORK PLAN

Dischargers shall implement the Llagas Subbasin Cleanup Work Plan within 30 days

of the Executive Officer? concurrence with the Workplan, or if earlier, 120 days after

submitting the Workplan. The tasks and due dates in the schedule for implementation

of the selected cleanup alternative (including the monitoring schedule) shall, after

approval by the Executive Officer, become enforceable terms of this Order. Within

thirty days of completion of field activities, the Dischargers shall submit an

Implementation Report documenting implementation of the remedial alternatives.

The Discharger shall install any necessary wells in accordance with the approved

schedule. The monitoring schedule shall require progress reports on the

implementation of the selected remedial alternative.

Draft CAO No. R3-2005-0014 19 February 4, 2005

DRAFT

M. EVALUATION OF NEW HEALTH CRITERIA

The Dischargers may submit a technical report acceptable to the Executive Officer that

contains an evaluation of whether or how the final cleanup plan and or cleanup standards

would be affected, if the health goals or maximum contaminant levels (listed in Finding

Paragraph 6) change as a result of promulgation of revised drinking water standards,

maximum contaminant levels, notification levels, agricultural water quality goals, or

other health based criteria. This technical report may be required by the Executive

Officer in response to the aforementioned changes in standards or levels.

N. EVALUATION OF NEW TECHNICAL INFORMATION

The Dischargers may submit a technical report acceptable to the Executive Officer

evaluating new technical and economic information that indicates that cleanup standards

or cleanup technologies in some areas may be considered for revision. The technical

report shall not be required unless the Executive Officer determines that such new

information indicates a reasonable possibility that the Order may need to be changed.

O. AMENDMENT OF DUE DATES

If the Dischargers are unable to perform any activity or submit any document in

compliance with the schedules in this Order, or in compliance with any work

schedule submitted pursuant to this Order and approved by the Executive Officer, the

Dischargers may request, in writing, an extension of the time specified. The

extension request shall include justification for the delay. The request may be granted

by the Executive Officer after consideration of the merits of the justification.

P. OVERSIGHT COSTS

The Dischargers shall be liable, pursuant to California Water Code Section 13304, to

the Regional Board for all reasonable costs incurred by the Regional Board to

investigate unauthorized discharges of waste, or to oversee cleanup of such waste,

abatement of the effects thereof, or other remedial action, pursuant to this Order. The

Dischargers shall reimburse the Regional Board for all reasonable costs associated

with investigation or oversight of the cleanup of this facility. Failure to pay any

invoice for the Regional Board? investigation or oversight costs within the time

stated in the invoice (or within thirty days after the date of invoice, if the invoice does

not set forth a due date) shall be considered a violation of this Order.

All technical and monitoring plans and reports required in conjunction with this Order are

required pursuant to Section 13267 of the California Water Code and shall include a

statement by the Dischargers, or an authorized representative of the Dischargers,

certifying (under penalty of perjury in conformance with the laws of the State of

California) that the work plan and/or report is true, complete, and accurate.

Hydrogeological and or technical reports and or plans shall be prepared or directly

supervised by, and signed and stamped by a California Professional Geologist, Certified

Engineering Geologist, or Civil Engineer.

This Order in no way limits the authority of this Regional Board to institute additional

enforcement actions or to require additional investigation and cleanup at the Site

Draft CAO No. R3-2005-0014 20 February 4, 2005

consistent with California Water Code. This Order may be revised by the Executive

Officer or the Regional Board as additional information becomes available.

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDER MAY

SUBJECT YOU TO FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTION, INCLUDING BUT NOT

LIMITED TO, ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL LIABILITY UNDER SECTIONS 13268

AND 13350 OF THE CALIFORNIA WATER CODE AND REFERRAL TO THE

DISTRICT ATTORNEY OR ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

AND CIVIL OR CRIMINAL LIABILITY.

?4@k