City of Colton v. Am. Promotional Events, Inc.
| Decision Date | 02 July 2013 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. ED CV 09-01864 PSG (SSx) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
| Parties | CITY OF COLTON, a California municipal corporation, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN PROMOTIONAL EVENTS, INC., et al. Defendants. AND CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS |
Assistant Attorney General
Environment and Natural Resources Division
United States Department of Justice
BRADLEY R. O'BRIEN
MICHAEL C. AUGUSTINI
MARK A. RIGAU
Environment and Natural Resources Division
United States Department of Justice
Attorneys for UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
[Consolidated with Case Nos. CV 09-
6630 PSG (SSx), CV 09-06632 PSG
(SSx), CV 09-07501 PSG (SSx), CV 09-
07508 PSG (SSx), CV 10-824 PSG
(SSx) and CV 05-01479 PSG (SSx)]
I. BACKGROUND ............................................................................. 1
II. JURISDICTION ............................................................................. 7
III. PARTIESBOUND ............................................................................. 8
IV. DEFINITIONS ............................................................................. 9
V. GENERAL PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 24
VI. PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK BY SETTLING WORK DEFENDANT ............................................................................. 27
VII. REMEDY REVIEW ............................................................................. 39
VIII. QUALITY AS SURANCE, SAMPLING, AND DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................................. 40
IX. ACCESS ............................................................................. 43
X. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................. 48
XI. EPA APPROVAL OF PLANS, REPORTS, AND OTHER DELIVERABLES ............................................................................. 51
XII. PROJECT COORDINATORS ............................................................................. 53
XIII. PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE ............................................................................. 55
XIV. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLETION OF THE WORK ............................................................................. 66
XV. EMERGENCY RESPONSE ............................................................................. 72
XVI. ESTABLISHMENT OF ACCOUNTS AND PAYMENTS ............................................................................. 73
XVII. INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE ............................................................................. 98
XVIII. FORCE MAJEURE ............................................................................. 101
XIX. DISPUTE RESOLUTION ............................................................................. 104
XX. STIPULATED PENALTIES ............................................................................. 110
XXI. COVENANTS, RELEASES, AND RESERVATIONS OF RIGHTS ............................................................................. 118
XXII. EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT CONTRIBUTION ............................................................................. 146
XXIII. RETENTION OF RECORDS ............................................................................. 150
XXIV. ACCESS TO INFORMATION ............................................................................. 152
XXV. NOTICES AND SUBMISSIONS ............................................................................. 154
XXVI. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION ............................................................................. 157
XXVII. APPENDICES ............................................................................. 158
XXVIII. COMMUNITY RELATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 158
XXIX. MODIFICATION ............................................................................. 159
XXX. LODGING AND OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ................................................................................. 160
XXXI. SIGNATORIES/SERVICE ............................................................................. 160
XXXII. FINAL JUDGMENT ............................................................................. 161
I. BACKGROUND
A. The United States of America ("United States"), on behalf of the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"), filed, on February 4, 2010, a complaint (Case No. CV 10-0824 PSG (SSx)) pursuant to Section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9606, 9607 and Section 7003 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"), 42 U.S.C. § 6973. Goodrich Corporation filed, on September 11, 2009, a complaint (CV 09-06630 PSG (SSx)) under CERCLA and state law. These cases were consolidated by orders filed on January 20, 2010 and June 3, 2010.
B. The United States in its complaint seeks, inter alia: (1) reimbursement of costs incurred for response actions at the Locust Avenue Superfund Site in Rialto, California, together with accrued Interest; and (2) performance of response actions by the defendants at the Locust Avenue Superfund Site consistent with the National Contingency Plan, 40 C.F.R. Part 300 (as amended) ("NCP"). In addition, Goodrich Corporation has asserted claims against the United States pursuant to Sections 106, 107, and 113 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9606, 9607, and 9613. Goodrich Corporation in its complaint seeks reimbursement of costs incurred by it for response actions taken in the RialtoAmmunition Backup Storage Point ("RABSP") and declaratory relief for future response costs. The United States Department of Defense also has asserted CERCLA contribution claims against Goodrich in the action.
C. In accordance with the NCP and Section 121(f)(1)(F) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9621(f)(1)(F), EPA notified the State of California (the "State") on December 9, 2010, of negotiations with potentially responsible parties ("PRPs") regarding the implementation of the remedial design and remedial action for the Locust Avenue Superfund Site, and EPA has provided the State with an opportunity to participate in such negotiations and be a party to this Consent Decree.
D. In accordance with Section 122(j)(1) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9622(j)(1), EPA notified the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game on November 15, 2010, of negotiations with PRPs regarding the release of hazardous substances that may have resulted in injury to the natural resources under federal trusteeship and encouraged the trustees to participate in the negotiation of this Consent Decree.
E. Goodrich Corporation ("Settling Work Defendant"), federal agencies ("Settling Federal Agencies"), and United Technologies Corporation ("UTC") have entered into this Consent Decree and do not admit any liability in the Consolidated Federal Action arising out of the transactions or occurrences allegedin the complaints, nor do they acknowledge that the release or threatened release of hazardous substance(s) at or from the Locust Avenue Superfund Site constitutes an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health or welfare or the environment. Settling Work Defendant and Settling Federal Agencies do not admit any liability arising out of the transactions or occurrences alleged in any claim or counterclaim asserted by any party in the Consolidated Federal Action.
F. The United States' complaint, this Consent Decree, and the history of the Locust Avenue Superfund Site, exist within a larger context of litigation and a larger context of activities in and around the Locust Avenue Superfund Site, as follows:
(1) During and immediately after World War II, certain United States agencies owned a tract known as the RABSP in San Bernardino County, California;
(2) The RABSP sits atop the Rialto-Colton Groundwater Basin ("Rialto Basin");
(3) After World War II, the United States agencies sold the RABSP property off in different parcels, including a 160 acre parcel ("160-Acre Area") bounded by Casa Grande Park Avenue on the north, Locust Avenue on the east, an extension of Alder Avenue on the west, and an extension of Summit Avenue on the south. Settling Work Defendant and other parties to the Consolidated FederalAction owned and/or operated businesses within the area formerly occupied by the RABSP;
(4) The United States on behalf of EPA, asserts that there are two source areas within the area formerly occupied by the RABSP (the "RABSP Area") from which contaminated groundwater is emanating. These two source areas are known as the West Side Area and the 160-Acre Area;
(5) The West Side Area is in the western portion of the former RABSP Area. For purposes of this Consent Decree, it consists of property currently owned by San Bernardino County, otherwise known as the Mid Valley Sanitary Landfill ("County Property"), and the Stonehurst Property, which is located adjacent to the County Property;
(6) The State of California's Water Resources Control Board and its Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board have assumed jurisdiction over, among other things, the cleanup of the County Property and the Stonehurst Property, and San Bernardino County has assumed responsibility for implementing cleanup of releases from the County Property pursuant to a Cleanup and Abatement Order, Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. R8-2003-0013, as amended by R8-2004-0072;
(7) Certain claims in the Consolidated Federal Action are the subject of consent decrees entered in the Central District of California under casenumber ED CV 09-1864 (SSx) (Docket Nos. 772, 1192, and 1258); and
(8) The...
To continue reading
Request your trial