&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
September 2009
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Support Document for the
Revised National Priorities List
Final Rule - B.F. Goodrich
(Guam
Trust Territories
American Samoa
Northern Mariana Islands
VI
-------
Support Document for the
Revised National Priorities List
Final Rule
B.F. Goodrich
September 2009
Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ill
Introduction iv
Background of the NPL iv
Development of the NPL v
Hazard Ranking System v
Other Mechanisms for Listing vi
Organization of this Document vii
Glossary vii
1.0 List of Commenters and Correspondence 1
2.0 Site Description 3
3.0 Summary of Comments 5
3.1 Request for Extension 6
3.2 Support for Listing 11
3.2.1 General Support for Listing 11
3.2.2 Support for Listing with Caveat 12
3.2.3 Further Investigation 12
3.3 Site Name 13
3.4 Site Location/Extent of Site 14
3.5 Liability 18
3.6 Effects of Listing 18
3.7 Use of TCE at the Site 19
3.7.1 B.F. Goodrich Use of TCE 19
3.7.2 Department of Defense Use of TCE 29
3.7.3 West Coast Loading Company Use of TCE 30
3.7.4 Pyrotronics Corporation and Pyro Spectaculars (PSI) Use of TCE 34
3.8 Perchlorate Contamination 35
3.9 Source Characterization 37
3.9.1 Association of TCE with Source 1 37
3.9.2 Unallocated Source - Source 2 44
3.9.3 Other Possible On-site Sources - Not Associated with Goodrich Operations 47
3.10 Likelihood of Release - Observed Release by Chemical Analysis - Attribution 49
3.10.1 Likelihood of Release Factor Value 49
3.10.1.1 Likelihood of Release to the Aquifer 49
3.10.1.2 TCE Availability to Migrate from Site Sources 53
3.10.1.3 Soil Gas Data to Justify TCE at Source 1 54
3.10.1.4 McLaughlin Pit as Source of TCE Release 54
3.10.1.5 Other Source of TCE Release 55
3.10.1.6 Timeliness of Comment on the Cause of the Release 55
3.10.2 Attribution of Contamination in Level I Target Wells to the Site 55
3.10.2.1 FontanaF49AWell 55
3.10.2.2 DoD is Likely Source of Contamination in WVWD-22 and Rialto-2 Wells 58
3.10.3 Plume Site 59
3.77 Targets 61
3.11.1 Actually Contaminated Targets 61
3.11.1.1 Meaning of Actually Contaminated Wells 61
3.11.1.2 Eligibility of Rialto-2 - Closed Well 63
3.11.1.3 Eligibility of WVWD-22-Closed Well 66
3.11.1.4 Eligibility of Fontana 49A 69
3.11.2 Nearest Well 70
3.11.3 Potentially Contaminated Targets 70
3.11.3.1 Identification of Eligible Target Wells and Target Populations Subject to Potential
Contamination 70
3.11.3.2 Eligibility of WVWD-23A, WVWD-24, WVWD-54, Fontana 13A, Fontana13B, and
Fontana 15A- Upgradient or Crossgradient Wells 72
3.11.3.3 Eligibility of Rialto-3 - Remediation for Other Contamination 74
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document
September 2009
3.11.3.4 Eligibility of WVWD-54 75
3.11.3.4.1 Standby Well 76
3.11.3.4.2 Well Screen Depth 76
3.11.3.5 Eligibility of WVWD-11 - Closed Well 78
3.72 Waste Characteristics Category Value 79
3.12.1 Toxicity/Mobility 79
3.12.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity 79
3.73 Adequacy of the Public Docket 80
3.13.1 MRS Site Score Components 80
3.13.2 Accuracy of Statements Regarding PSI 81
3.13.3 TCE and Perchlorate Concentrations in Wells M-2 and F-32 82
3.13.4 Location of Well Fontana 49A 83
3.13.5 Interpretation of MRS Documentation Record 83
3.74 Late Comments Received August and September 2009 84
4.0 Conclusion 91
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
Mr. Ahmad R. Ansari, PE, Director of Public Works/City Engineer, City of
Rialto, California. Letter to Wayne Praskins, EPA, Rialto Well #2
Decommissioning in Response to TCE Occurrence. February 3, 2009. 1 page.
Mr. Jeffrey A. Taylor, U.S. Attorney and Ms. Beverly M. Russell, Assistant U.S.
Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, District of Columbia. Letter to Michael K.
Murphy of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Re: Goodrich Corp., et al., v. United
States Environmental Protection Agency, Civil Action No. 08-1625 (JOB)
(D.D.C.). March 18, 2009. 1 page.
Mr. Jeffrey A.Taylor, U.S. Attorney and Ms. Beverly M. Russell, Assistant U.S.
Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, District of Columbia. Letter to Jeffrey D.
Dintzer and Michael K. Murphy,of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher,LLP, Re: Goodrich
Corp., et al., v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Civil Action No.
08-1625 (JDB)(D.D.C). April 14, 2009. 3 pages.
Mr. Jeffrey A.Taylor, U.S. Attorney and Ms. Beverly M. Russell, Assistant U.S.
Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, District of Columbia. Letter to Jeffrey D.
Dintzer and Michael K. Murphy of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Re: Goodrich
Corp., et al., v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Civil Action No.
08-1625 (JOB) (D.D.C.). April 30, 2009. 2 pages.
Ronal Polzein Deposition pages 394 and 615-622. 3 pages.
11
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
Executive Summary
Section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires that the EPA prepare a list of national
priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants throughout the United States. An original National Priorities List (NPL) was promulgated
on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658). CERCLA requires that EPA update the list at least annually.
This document provides responses to public comments received on the B.F. Goodrich site, proposed on
September 3, 2008 (73 FR 51393). This site is being added to the NPL based on an evaluation under
EPA's Hazard Ranking System (HRS) in a final rule published in the Federal Register in September 2009
in
-------
Introduction
This document explains the rationale for adding the B.F. Goodrich site in Rialto, California, to the
National Priorities List (NPL) of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites and also provides the responses to
public comments received on this site. The EPA proposed this site on September 3, 2008 (73 FR 51393).
This site is being added to the NPL based on an evaluation under the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) in a
final rule published in the Federal Register in September 2009.
Background of the NPL
In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. Sections 9601 et seq. in response to the dangers of uncontrolled hazardous waste
sites. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986, by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act (SARA), Public Law No. 99-499, stat, 1613 et seq. To implement CERCLA, EPA promulgated the
revised National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300, on
July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA Section 105 and Executive Order 12316 (46 FR
42237, August 20, 1981). The NCP, further revised by EPA on September 16, 1985 (50 FR 37624) and
November 20, 1985 (50 FR 47912), sets forth guidelines and procedures needed to respond under
CERCLA to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. On
March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666), EPA further revised the NCP in response to SARA.
Section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires that the NCP include
criteria for determining priorities among releases or threatened releases throughout the
United States for the purpose of taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable, take
into account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking removal
action.
Removal action involves cleanup or other actions that are taken in response to emergency conditions or
on a short-term or temporary basis (CERCLA Section 101). Remedial action is generally long-term in
nature and involves response actions that are consistent with a permanent remedy for a release (CERCLA
Section 101). Criteria for placing sites on the NPL, which makes them eligible for remedial actions
financed by the Trust Fund established under CERCLA, were included in the HRS. EPA promulgated the
HRS as Appendix A of the NCP (47 FR 31219, July 16, 1982). On December 14, 1990 (56 FR 51532),
EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS in response to SARA, and established the effective date for the
HRS revisions as March 15, 1991.
Section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, as amended, requires that the statutory criteria provided by the HRS be
used to prepare a list of national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States. The list, which is Appendix B of
the NCP, is the NPL.
An original NPL of 406 sites was promulgated on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658). At that time, an
HRS score of 28.5 was established as the cutoff for listing because it yielded an initial NPL of at least 400
sites, as suggested by CERCLA. The NPL has been expanded several times since then, most recently on
September 3, 2008 (73 FR 51368). The Agency also has published a number of proposed rulemakings to
add sites to the NPL. The most recent proposal was on September 3, 2008 (73 FR 51393).
IV
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
Development of the NPL
The primary purpose of the NPL is stated in the legislative history of CERCLA (Report of the Committee
on Environment and Public Works, Senate Report No. 96-848, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 60 [1980]).
The priority list serves primarily informational purposes, identifying for the States and
the public those facilities and sites or other releases which appear to warrant remedial
actions. Inclusion of a facility or site on the list does not in itself reflect a judgment of the
activities of its owner or operator, it does not require those persons to undertake any
action, nor does it assign liability to any person. Subsequent government actions will be
necessary in order to do so, and these actions will be attended by all appropriate
procedural safeguards.
The NPL, therefore, is primarily an informational and management tool. The identification of a site for
the NPL is intended primarily to guide EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to
assess the nature and extent of the human health and environmental risks associated with the site and to
determine what CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be appropriate. The NPL also serves
to notify the public of sites EPA believes warrant further investigation. Finally, listing a site may, to the
extent potentially responsible parties are identifiable at the time of listing, serve as notice to such parties
that the Agency may initiate CERCLA-financed remedial action.
CERCLA Section 105(a)(8)(B) directs EPA to list priority sites among the known releases or threatened
release of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants, and Section 105(a)(8)(A) directs EPA to
consider certain enumerated and other appropriate factors in doing so. Thus, as a matter of policy, EPA
has the discretion not to use CERCLA to respond to certain types of releases. Where other authorities
exist, placing sites on the NPL for possible remedial action under CERCLA may not be appropriate.
Therefore, EPA has chosen not to place certain types of sites on the NPL even though CERCLA does not
exclude such action. If, however, the Agency later determines that sites not listed as a matter of policy
are not being properly responded to, the Agency may consider placing them on the NPL.
Hazard Ranking System
The HRS is the principle mechanism EPA uses to place uncontrolled waste sites on the NPL. It is a
numerically based screening system that uses information from initial, limited investigations ~ the
preliminary assessment and site inspection ~ to assess the relative potential of sites to pose a threat to
human health or the environment. HRS scores, however, do not determine the sequence in which EPA
funds remedial response actions, because the information collected to develop HRS scores is not
sufficient in itself to determine either the extent of contamination or the appropriate response for a
particular site. Moreover, the sites with the highest scores do not necessarily come to the Agency's
attention first, so that addressing sites strictly on the basis of ranking would in some cases require
stopping work at sites where it was already underway. Thus, EPA relies on further, more detailed studies
in the remedial investigation/feasibility study that typically follows listing.
The HRS uses a structured value analysis approach to scoring sites. This approach assigns numerical
values to factors that relate to or indicate risk, based on conditions at the site. The factors are grouped
into three categories. Each category has a maximum value. The categories are:
• likelihood that a site has released or has the potential to release hazardous substances into the
environment;
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
• characteristics of the waste (toxicity and waste quantity); and
• people or sensitive environments (targets) affected by the release.
Under the HRS, four pathways can be scored for one or more threats as identified below:
• Ground Water Migration (Sgw)
- drinking water
• Surface Water Migration (Ssw)
The following threats are evaluated for two separate migration components, overland/flood
migration and ground water to surface water.
- drinking water
- human food chain
- sensitive environments
• Soil Exposure (Ss)
- resident population
- nearby population
- sensitive environments
• Air Migration (Sa)
- population
- sensitive environments
After scores are calculated for one or more pathways according to prescribed guidelines, they are
combined using the following root-mean-square equation to determine the overall site score (S), which
ranges from 0 to 100:
4
If all pathway scores are low, the HRS score is low. However, the HRS score can be relatively high even
if only one pathway score is high. This is an important requirement for HRS scoring because some
extremely dangerous sites pose threats through only one pathway. For example, buried leaking drums of
hazardous substances can contaminate drinking water wells, but ~ if the drums are buried deep enough
and the substances not very volatile ~ not surface water or air.
Other Mechanisms for Listing
There are two mechanisms other than the HRS by which sites can be placed on the NPL. The first of
these mechanisms, authorized by the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2), allows each State and Territory to
designate one site as its highest priority regardless of score. The last mechanism, authorized by the NCP
at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(3), allows listing a site if it meets the following three requirements:
• Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service
has issued a health advisory that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release;
• EPA determines the site poses a significant threat to public health; and
VI
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document
September 2009
• EPA anticipates it will be more cost-effective to use its remedial authority than to use its
emergency removal authority to respond to the site.
Organization of this Document
The following section contains EPA responses to site-specific public comments received on the proposal
of the B.F. Goodrich site on September 3, 2008 (73 FR 51393). The site discussion begins with a list of
commenters, followed by a site description, a summary of comments, and Agency responses to each
comment. A concluding statement indicates the effect of the comments on the HRS score for the site.
Glossary
The following acronyms and abbreviations are used throughout the text:
Agency U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
bgs Below ground surface
CD Compact disk
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980, 42 U.S.C. Sections 9601 et seq., also known as Superfund
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CLP EPA Contract Laboratory Program
DoD U.S. Department of Defense
DPRA Development, Planning, Research & Analysis
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FOIA Freedom of Information Act
FR Federal Register
FS Feasibility study
HRS Hazard Ranking System, Appendix A of the NCP
HRS score Overall site score calculated using the Hazard Ranking System; ranges from 0 to
100
M G D Million gallons of water per day
MVSL Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill
|JQ/kg Microgram per kilogram
NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, 40 C.F.R.
Part 300
NPL National Priorities List, Appendix B of the NCP
OGC EPA Office of General Counsel
PRP Potentially responsible party
PSI Pyro Spectaculars, Inc.
VII
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
QC Quality control
RCP Rialto Concrete Products
Rl Remedial investigation
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SI Site investigation
TCA Trichloroethane
TCE Trichloroethene; trichloroethylene
TDL Target distance limit
WCLC West Coast Loading Company
Vlll
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document
September 2009
1.0 List of Commenters and Correspondence
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0574-0004
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0574-0005
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0574-0006
Correspondence from Linda S. Adams, Secretary for
Environmental Protection, California Environmental Protection
Agency, received September 3, 2008.
Correspondence from Peter Duchesneau, Manatt, Phelps &
Phillips, LLP, on behalf of Goodrich Corporation, dated
September 22, 2008.
Correspondence from Victoria van Roden, Chief, Site
Assessment and Remedy Decision Branch, Office of Superfund
Remediation and Technology Innovation, EPA to Peter
Duchesneau, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, dated October 22,
2008.
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0574-0007
Declaration of Dawn Richmond, Regional National Priorities
List (NPL) Coordinator, EPA Region 9, received October 27,
2008.
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0574-0008
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0574-0009
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0574-0010
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0574-0011
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0574-0012
Comment and exhibits submitted by Peter H. Wulfman, Division
Manager, Solid Waste Management, County of San Bernardino,
received November 5, 2008.
Comment exhibits submitted by Peter H. Wulfman, Division
Manager, Solid Waste Management, County of San Bernardino,
received November 5, 2008.
Comment exhibits submitted by Peter H. Wulfman, Division
Manager, Solid Waste Management, County of San Bernardino,
received November 5, 2008.
Comment exhibits submitted by Peter H. Wulfman, Division
Manager, Solid Waste Management, County of San Bernardino,
received November 5, 2008.
Comment submitted by Benjamin Wood, received October 31,
2008.
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0574-0013
Comment submitted by Jennaya Dunlap, received November 1,
2008.
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0574-0014
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0574-0015
Comment exhibits submitted by Peter H. Wulfman, Division
Manager, Solid Waste Management, County of San Bernardino,
received November 3, 2008.
Comment submitted by Peter Duchesneau, Manatt, Phelps &
Phillips, LLP, on behalf of Goodrich Corporation, received
Novembers, 2008.
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document
September 2009
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0574-0016
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0574-0017
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0574-0018
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0574-0019
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0574-0020
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0574-0021
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0574-0022
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0574-0023
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0574-0025
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0574-0026
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0574-0027
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0574-0028
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0574-0029
Comment submitted by Wilmer Amina Carter (D-Rialto),
California State Assembly Member, 62nd District, received
October 30, 2008.
Comment submitted by Kelly J. Chastain, Mayor, City of
Colton, received October 28, 2008.
Comment and exhibits submitted by Brian L. Zagon, Attorney,
Resolution Law Group, P.C., on behalf of Pyro Spectacular, Inc.,
received October 28, 2008.
Late Comment submitted by Robert D. Wyatt, Attorney, Allen
Matkins Leek Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP, on behalf of
Emhart Industries, Inc., received November 25, 2008.
Comment attachment submitted by Gene Tanaka, Best Best &
Krieger LLP, on behalf of Kelly J. Chastain, Mayor, City of
Colton, received October 28, 2008.
Late Comment attachment submitted by Peter Duchesneau,
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, on behalf of Goodrich
Corporation, received November 10, 2008.
Late Comment submitted by Henry S. Weinstock, Nossaman
LLP, on behalf of Fontana Water Company, prepared by E. John
List of Flow Science Incorporated, received November 25, 2008.
Late Comment submitted by Dana P. Palmer, Manatt, Phelps &
Phillips, LLP, on behalf of Goodrich Corporation, dated April
16, 2009.
Late Comment submitted by Neven Kresic, MATEC
Engineering and Consulting, Inc., on behalf of Goodrich
Corporation, dated August 14, 2009.
Late Comment submitted by Jeffrey D. Dintzer, Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, on behalf of Goodrich Corporation, dated August
12, 2009.
Late Comment submitted by Brian L. Zagon, Hunsucker
Goodstein & Nelson PC, on behalf of Pyro Spectaculars, Inc.,
dated September 8, 2009.
Late Comment submitted by Michael C. Kavanaugh, Malcolm
Pirnie, Inc., on behalf of Goodrich Corporation, dated August 11,
2009.
Late Comment submitted by Jeffrey D. Dintzer, Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, on behalf of Goodrich Corporation, dated August
26, 2009.
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
2.0 Site Description
The B.F. Goodrich site consists of two sources and releases of TCE contamination and other hazardous
substances, and areas to which the contamination from site sources has migrated, including the locations
of the contaminated target wells. The B.F. Goodrich site sources are located on a 160-acre area formerly
owned by the Goodrich Corporation (hereinafter, Goodrich) in the City of Rialto, California, about 60
miles east of Los Angeles. This site is scored based on trichloroethene (TCE) contamination of the
ground water migration pathway.
Prior to Goodrich ownership, the property was owned from 1941 to 1950 by the U.S. Army, which used
the area for storage and transport of ordnance and explosives. From 1950 to 1957 the property was
owned by West Coast Loading Company (WCLC). WCLC manufactured illuminating mortar shells,
photo flash cartridges, pistols, and parachute flares. Goodrich then owned the property from 1957 to
1966, and used the location for the manufacture of solid rocket propellant and atmospheric sounding
rockets, and research and development for various U.S. Army and Air Force programs. While the facility
was operated by Goodrich, a disposal pit/burn pit in the area was used to burn waste materials from
manufacturing and development operations, including excess propellant from the mixers, excess oxidizer,
trimmings from the final castings, propellant wastes from R&D activities, and rags used for cleaning with
solvents. Used TCE was also poured into the disposal pit/burn pit for disposal. The disposal pit/burn pit
was used one to four times a week; occasionally, waste materials would sit in the disposal pit/burn pit for
a day or two before being ignited.
Goodrich sold the property in 1966 to fireworks manufacturer Clipper Pyrotechnic Corporation, who
subsequently merged into Pyrotronics Corporation. Pyrotronics also burned waste products in the
Goodrich disposal pit/burn pit until directed to cease in the 1970s. Pyrotronics then built and used a
separate concrete disposal pit dubbed the "swimming pool." The "swimming pool" was used for waste
disposal by both Pyrotronics and Pyro Spectaculars, Inc. (another fireworks company located on the 160-
acre area). When a portion of the 160-acre area was purchased from Pyrotronics by a predecessor of
Rialto Concrete Products (RCP), the concrete disposal pit was removed by burning the remaining
contents and filling the pit with soil. This feature is now referred to as the "McLaughlin Pit."
Since 1966 when Goodrich sold its property, defense contractors and fireworks and pyrotechnic
companies have continuously operated on various portions of the property. These entities include, but are
not limited to, Ensign-Bickford Company, Ordnance Associates, Clipper Fireworks, United Fireworks,
Pyrotronics Corporation (including Red Devil Fireworks and Apollo Manufacturing), California
Fireworks Display Co., Pyro Spectaculars, Inc., and American Promotional Events (APE).
The Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill (MVSL) borders the southwest corner of the B.F. Goodrich site. The
MVSL is the cause of a perchlorate and VOC ground water plume separate from that associated with the
B.F. Goodrich site. (The B.F. Goodrich and MVSL plumes are referred to as the "eastern" and "western"
plumes, respectively, within the HRS documentation record.)
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
Investigations
Goodrich conducted remedial investigation (RI) activities at the site from May 2004 through January
2005. Activities included sampling of soil gas at 61 selected on-site locations. A total of 14 borings were
advanced and 28 soil gas samples were collected at the suspected area of the former disposal pit/burn pit
to total depths of 12 feet below ground surface (bgs). Soil gas samples were collected at 6 feet bgs and at
the total depth of each boring. Activities also included drilling of 4 wellbores to a maximum depth of 650
feet bgs at one upgradient location (monitoring well PW-1) and three downgradient/crossgradient
locations (monitoring wells PW-2, PW-3, and PW-4), and installation and sampling of 18 temporary
wells.
Goodrich conducted additional RI activities in 2006 to further explore the hydrogeologic conditions in the
vicinity and downgradient of the site, and to evaluate the areal and vertical extent of potential constituents
of concern in ground water. Five multi-screen ground water monitoring wells were installed (PW-5
through PW-9) extending more than 3 miles downgradient (i.e., southeast) of the site.
In 2008, EPA conducted a sampling event to evaluate the nature of ground water contamination in the
vicinity of the site. Monitoring and production wells were sampled on, upgradient of, and downgradient
of the site.
Sources
For HRS scoring purposes, the site includes two sources of TCE contamination. Source 1 is identified as
the Goodrich disposal pit/burn pit. The disposal pit/burn pit was located near the southwest corner of the
Goodrich facility and was not covered or lined. TCE was detected in soil gas samples at the disposal
pit/burn pit, and in monitoring wells immediately downgradient from the disposal pit/burn pit.
Source 2 includes all unidentified sources of TCE at the site other than the disposal pit/burn pit (Source
1), that resulted in the release of TCE at the B.F. Goodrich site. Source 2 reflects that TCE was detected
in monitoring wells on the site located upgradient and/or crossgradient of Source 1.
Observed Release / Attribution
An observed release of TCE from the sources described above to ground water was established based on
chemical analysis of samples from monitoring and production wells. Background wells include
monitoring well PW-1 and production well West Valley Water District Well 24 (WVWD-24), both
upgradient of the site. Contaminated wells at proposal include monitoring wells (PW-2, PW-3, PW-4,
CMW-2, and CMW-5) and production wells (Rialto-1, Rialto-2, Rialto-6, WVWD-22, and Fontana 49A);
contaminated wells are on or downgradient of the site.
Targets
TCE attributable in part to the B.F. Goodrich site was detected in two1 municipal drinking water wells
downgradient of the site. These wells are identified as Rialto #2 operated by the City of Rialto and
WVWD-22 operated by the West Valley Water District. Wells Rialto #2 and WVWD-22 have been
taken out of service due to the presence of TCE and other hazardous substances. The Level I Population
Targets for the HRS scoring of this site include people previously served by these wells. Potential
Population Targets include an estimate of people served at the time of proposal by providers including the
1 EPA also identified well F-49A as a target well at proposal, but as explained later, EPA has removed this well at
promulgation.
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
City of Rialto, the West Valley Water District, and the Fontana Water Company. These wells include
WVWD-23A, WVWD-24, Fontana 13A, and Fontana 13B within 1 to 2 miles of the site; Rialto #3,
WVWD-33, WVWD-54, and Fontana 15A within 2 to 3 miles of the site; and Rialto #5 within 3 to 42
miles of the site.
3.0 Summary of Comments
Peter Duchesneau, Counsel, of Manatt, Phelps and Phillips, on behalf of Goodrich commented that "EPA
must withdraw its proposal" as "the factual foundation for scoring the site under the Hazard Ranking
System ('HRS') is inaccurate and unsubstantiated." Goodrich claimed that EPA's proposed listing "is
based on an HRS score that is unsupported, arbitrary and capricious." Goodrich claimed that "[g]iven that
EPA has not attributed the contamination to a source, it should not score the site or consider scoring the
site as a groundwater plume site." Goodrich also commented that EPA places negotiations with the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (Regional Board), in jeopardy. The
negotiations, between the Regional Board and Goodrich, along with other potentially responsible parties
(PRPs), concern cleanup of perchlorate and TCE contamination in the Rialto-Colton Ground Water Basin.
Goodrich commented that EPA should support these negotiations and withdraw its listing of the site.
Goodrich averred that there is "no evidence that Goodrich disposed of TCE on the Site," or even used
TCE at the Rialto location, and that "EPA... ignores other potential sources" of TCE historically present at
the 160-acre parcel.
Separately, Goodrich requested an extension of the public comment period to allow time to receive and
evaluate materials it had requested through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. The request
involved ground water modeling information that Goodrich claimed would be relevant to the HRS
scoring. EPA denied the request for extension, stating that all materials relevant to the listing were
included in the public docket at the time of proposal, and that no model, other than the HRS, was used in
any way during the preparation of the HRS documentation record for the site.
Goodrich submitted additional comments dated April 16, 2009, requesting that the comment period
remain open until 60 days after all information in response to Goodrich's FOIA request was received. In
that supplemental comment, Goodrich stated that EPA's response to its FOIA request remained
incomplete despite a Court Order and EPA Headquarters granting Goodrich an administrative appeal; and
that EPA's response to Fontana Water Company regarding Fontana Wells 49A, 13A and 13B was
contrary to the HRS scoring in the proposed listing of this site.
Brian Zagon, Counsel, of Resolution Law Group, on behalf of Pyro Spectaculars, Inc. (PSI) commented
that "EPA's HRS scoring ignores other sources of TCE," and specifically mentioned the U.S. Department
of Defense as one such source. PSI asserted that, since EPA states perchlorate is not part of the HRS
scoring, any references to perchlorate, including "PSI's alleged perchlorate disposal practices, are not
relevant... and should not be included in the HRS documentation." PSI also stated that it "never handled
TCE at the 160-Acres."
Linda S. Adams, California Secretary for Environmental Protection, responded on behalf of Governor
Arnold Schwarzenegger. Ms. Adams wrote that, "The State of California supports the proposed listing of
this site on the NPL with one caveat." This caveat is that, if the negotiations between the Regional Board
and the private parties mentioned above were to "achieve a comprehensive and permanent solution" to the
ground water problem, the State may request that EPA suspend the listing process.
2 EPA also identified well WVWD-11 as a target well at proposal, but as explained later, EPA has removed this well
at promulgation.
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
State Assembly Member Ms. Wilmer Amina Carter wrote in support of the site listing on behalf of her
constituents. Ms. Carter also indicated she was aware of the State's support for the listing, with the
caveat described above.
Peter H. Wulfman, Division Manager, Solid Waste Management, Department of Public Works, submitted
comments on behalf of the County of San Bernardino. Mr. Wulfman submitted comments regarding
actually and potentially impacted ground water targets. In particular, he commented that there was "strong
evidence that well F-49A is not currently impacted by the Site," and requested that "EPA consider
removing well F-49A as a target well with observed impacts." Mr. Wulfman also provided data on the
characterization of the western vs. eastern plumes.
Mr. Benjamin Wood of Upland, California, and Ms. Jennaya Dunlap (address not provided), private
citizens, wrote in support of the listing of the B.F. Goodrich site.
Kelly J. Chastain, Mayor, City of Colton, wrote to express the City's support for the listing, and enclosed
a Site Inspection Report completed by the City's consultant, Development, Planning, Research &
Analysis (DPRA), for EPA's use.
E. John List, Ph. D., of Flow Science, Inc., on behalf of the Fontana Water Company, commented in
response to the "false assertions in comments submitted to EPA by San Bernardino County" regarding
Fontana's well F-49A. Specifically, Dr. List stated that the well has been found to contain perchlorate
contamination and is on the ground water flow path from the B.F. Goodrich site.
Robert D. Wyatt, Counsel, of Allen, Matkins, Leek, Gamble, Mallory & Natsis, Attorneys at Law,
commented on behalf of Emhart Industries, Inc. (Emhart), in response to Goodrich's comments,
"[b]ecause Goodrich omitted a number of material facts from and misstated others" in its comments.
Emhart asserts that Goodrich misrepresented and omitted information regarding EPA's investigation of
WCLC and information regarding Goodrich's own use and release of TCE. Emhart also requested the
delay of listing until after the first quarter of 2009 to allow continuation of the ongoing settlement
discussions concerning the plume remediation in the Rialto-Colton Basin.
Goodrich submitted additional comments dated August 11, 2009, August 12, 2009, August 14, 2009, and
August 26, 2009, stating that for the reasons set forth in its comments, it is requesting EPA to withdraw
the listing of the B.F. Goodrich site on the NPL.
Pyro Spectaculars, Inc., submitted additional comments dated September, 8, 2009, writing that "Goodrich
mistakenly states that 'PSI currently operates a fireworks manufacturing facility in the northern portion of
the Site.'"
In this support document, EPA responds to comments submitted on the September 2008 proposed listing
of the B.F. Goodrich site. After consideration of these items, the HRS site score remains unchanged, and
EPA is appropriately placing the site on the NPL.
3.1 Request for Extension
Comment: In a letter received on September 23, 2008, Peter Duchesneau, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips,
LLP, on behalf of Goodrich requested an extension of the comment period for the B.F. Goodrich site,
citing an unresolved FOIA request to obtain ground water models and related documents. In a November
3, 2008, letter Goodrich reiterated its request that EPA not close its comment period until its FOIA
request has been resolved.
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
Goodrich alleges that "EPA is withholding evidence that exculpates Goodrich." Goodrich commented
that "EPA has admitted developing vadose migration and ground water models," and it has refused to
produce them pursuant to FOIA requests by Goodrich. Goodrich stated that "[it] believes that EPA's
failure to disclose and apparently take into account these models in the HRS scoring, constitutes an abuse
of discretion by EPA." Goodrich stated that EPA "ignores the 'inconvenient' truth" that its own models
show that the Goodrich burn pit could not have been the source of TCE ground water contamination.
Goodrich commented that it has initiated a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia, and that the Court's expedited resolution will not be known until after November 3, 2008.
Goodrich cited the Court as saying that "[it] will issue its decision as soon as possible with the
expectation that EPA will not promulgate a final rule regarding its NPL listing of the Rialto site before the
Court issues that decision." EPA provided a declaration from Ms. Dawn Richmond, the EPA Regional
NPL Coordinator who is responsible for the preparation of the B.F. Goodrich site documentation record
used to propose the site to the NPL on September 3, 2008, stating that only the HRS model and no other
models (i.e., no ground water models) were used for the purpose of proposing the site to the NPL.
Ms. Victoria van Roden, Chief of EPA's Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch, responded on
October 22, 2008, denying the request and stating that all of the information that was used to make EPA's
decision to propose NPL site listing is included in the public docket.
In supplemental comments dated April 16, 2009, Goodrich stated that EPA's response to its FOIA request
remained incomplete despite a Court Order and EPA Headquarters granting Goodrich an administrative
appeal. Goodrich made the following statements regarding its FOIA request on the proposed listing:
• On September 12, 2008, Goodrich submitted a FOIA request regarding information relevant to
the proposal.
• On October 9, 2008, EPA Region 9 partially denied the request.
• On January 16, 2009, the U.S. District Court forthe District of Columbia granted Goodrich's
motion for summary judgment to compel the disclosure of EPA's vadose zone model.
• On March 17, 2009, EPA Office of General Counsel (OGC) granted Goodrich's appeal of Region
9's denial and also indicated that it had come to its attention that EPA may have additional
responsive records that were not included in its response.
In supplemental comments dated April 16, 2009, Goodrich stated that:
On March 18, 2009, the Department of Justice produced a CD purporting to include the
vadose zone model. Upon review, the CD contained incomplete files forthe model,
including lacking model simulations and a narrative of the input parameters. Despite
requests by Goodrich for EPA to produce such information, EPA has yet to comply with
the Court order.
In a letter dated March 31, 2009, to EPA Region 9, Goodrich stated that EPA's explanation denying its
request was that:
'the model exists as a set of electronic files, which include the publicly-available model
code, confidential site-specific input files developed by EPA, confidential output files
[i.e., simulation runs], and a confidential spreadsheet created to serve as a groundwater
mixing model. You can obtain the model code, known as VS2D, as a finite difference
code available from the U.S. Geological Service, and is described in the U.S.G.S. Water-
Resources Investigations Report 99-4130.' [Emphasis and insertions in the original.]
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
Goodrich stated that it has successfully appealed this denial and requested that EPA supply EPA's output
files, model simulations, and the narrative to explain the input parameters utilized by the model that
existed on the date that EPA disclosed the model to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board
as set forth in the Court's January 16, 2009, Order.
In an Exhibit E3 to its April 16, 2009, supplemental comments, Goodrich also stated that EPA has refused
to provide all responsive records that it previously agreed to produce. Goodrich stated that the President's
January 21, 2009, memorandum concerning the FOIA mandates that all agencies should act in a fair and
transparent manner and that this was also echoed by the EPA Administrator on January 23, 2009.
Goodrich stated that the FOIA and cited authorities provide a "compelling reason for EPA to act in good
faith and move quickly to fully respond to Goodrich's outstanding requests" which it characterized as
including attachments to E-mails withheld without explanation, a demand for responses to FOIA Request
No. 09-RIN-00028-07, other records not provided, and the complete text of documents inappropriately
withheld as confidential. Goodrich alleged that through EPA's "untimely and incomplete response" to
the referenced FOIA requests, EPA has prejudiced its interests.
In its April 16, 2009, supplemental comments, Goodrich renewed its request that the comment period
remain open for at least 60 days after all information in response to Goodrich's FOIA requests is received
from EPA.
Response: EPA Headquarters denied the request for an extension of the comment period; however, late
comments by Goodrich and other parties have been addressed in this support document. The information
used to support the proposed listing of the B.F. Goodrich site is included in the public docket. The
ground water models B.F. Goodrich is referring to were not used to evaluate an observed release from this
site nor in any other part of the HRS evaluation. This information was indicated to Goodrich in an
October 22, 2008, letter signed by Ms. Victoria van Roden, Chief, Site Assessment and Remedy
Decisions Branch, Office of Superfund Remediation & Technology Innovation, USEPA. Also stated in a
September 25, 2008, declaration by Dawn Richmond, Regional NPL Coordinator, USEPA (included in
the public record), EPA did not rely on any models other than the HRS in the preparation of the HRS
documentation record for purposes of proposing the site to the NPL. Therefore, although EPA has
responded to Goodrich's FOIA requests as discussed in more detail below, whether or not EPA has done
so has no effect on whether Goodrich was able to effectively comment upon the HRS scoring package
that underlies the proposed listing of the BF Goodrich site on the NPL.
EPA notes that the HRS does not consider questions of liability when scoring a site and, as stated in the
preamble to the proposed listing (73 FR 51394), listing on the NPL does not assign liability to any party
or to the owner of any specific property. Instead, liability for necessary responses is established at a
different point of the Superfund cleanup process.
EPA has developed or is developing two computer models related to the site. Neither of the two models
demonstrates that either source at the site could not have released TCE to ground water. The vadose zone
model has been released to the public and has been added to the Region 9 site file. The ground water
model, however, has not been released to the public.
3 Exhibit E of Goodrich's April 16, 2009, supplemental comments: A letter dated January 29, 2008 from Dana P.
Palmer on behalf of Goodrich Corporation to Ivry Johnson, FOIA Officer OPA-3, U.S. EPA Region 9, Subject:
Follow-up Response to Freedom of Information Act Request Nos. 09-RIN-00642-08, 09-RIN-00028-07, 09-RIN-
00120-09.
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
In 2006, EPA and its contractor developed the first model, the "vadose zone model," a computerized
model simulating the downward movement of perchlorate (not TCE, the substance used to derive the site
score) dissolved in water as water moves vertically through the vadose zone (i.e., the subsurface area
lying between the surface of the earth and the water table) to the water table (i.e., the depth at which the
soil is saturated with water). The model simulates the migration of a spill or other discharge of
perchlorate into the vadose zone occurring at the B.F. Goodrich site over a 51-year period between 1955
and 1957. The model simulates the concentration of perchlorate at different depths in the vadose zone as a
function of time and depth, and the rate at which perchlorate moves through the vadose zone to the
ground water as a function of time. The model also simulates the perchlorate concentration at the ground
water table resulting from perchlorate moving from the vadose zone into the ground water at the water
table. The only transport mechanism simulated in the model is the movement of a substance (in this case,
perchlorate) in a dissolved state along with the movement of water through the vadose zone.
The vadose zone model was not used to simulate the vertical movement of TCE from the site surface
through the vadose zone and into the ground water aquifers below the site. A simulation of TCE transport
using the vadose zone model would not address all of the probable modes of migration of TCE, which
include at least one mechanism not applicable to perchlorate migration, nor show that TCE from the B.F.
Goodrich site could not reach ground water at the site. Volatile substances, including TCE, could exist in
the vadose zone as a free product, dissolved in water, and as a vapor, and could migrate in any of these
states, whereas perchlorate, not being volatile, would only migrate in the dissolved state. Specifically, the
vadose zone model is not capable of simulating migration of TCE or other volatile compounds when they
are in the vapor state. To fully simulate transport of TCE or other volatile compounds through the vadose
zone, a model would need to include transport mechanisms such as vapor diffusion that are relevant to the
transport of volatile chemicals through the vadose zone. The vadose zone model run by EPA does not
account for this mechanism. Instead, as stated above, the model was designed to measure the downward
migration of substances dissolved in water, which is relevant for purposes of evaluating perchlorate
movement but does not account for the volatile properties of TCE.
Second, in the circumstances that were simulated, a release of approximately one pound per day of
perchlorate between 1955 and 1957 and infiltration of rainwater as the only source of recharge water, the
model shows that perchlorate may have migrated through the vadose zone to the underlying ground water.
Approximately 17 model simulations were completed, assuming a range of values for key parameters
whose values were uncertain (e.g., water recharge rate, vertical hydraulic conductivity, longitudinal
dispersivity). As described in a report prepared by EPA's contractor, CH2M Hill, in November 2006, in
all cases the simulations indicated that contamination moved deep into the vadose zone. In some
simulations, the perchlorate reached ground water within the 51-year simulation period. Other
simulations indicated that the perchlorate would take longer than the 51-year simulation period to reach
the ground water. As stated in the report, "...releases between 1955 and 1957 of the type simulated could
have resulted in perchlorate contamination in groundwater beneath the site by 2005." The report further
notes that even a limited amount of water discharged along with the perchlorate, or in the years after the
perchlorate was released, would greatly speed the movement of perchlorate to the ground water table.
Discharge of as little as one gallon of water per day over a 100-square foot area (the assumed size of the
source for modeling purposes) would double the effective water recharge rate from 5 inches per year to
more than 10 inches per year, resulting in perchlorate reaching the ground water much sooner.
On March 18, 2009, in response to a January 16, 2009, order by the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia, in the litigation cited in Goodrich's comment, EPA provided the vadose zone model to
Goodrich. As the Department of Justice wrote to Goodrich in letters dated April 14, 2009, and April 30,
2009, the assertions made by Goodrich in its supplemental comments dated April 16, 2009 (i.e., that EPA
had not provided the complete vadose zone model and had not complied fully with the Court order) are
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
without merit. (See Attachment B to this support document which consists of letters dated March 18,
2009, April 14, 2009, and April 30, 2009, from the Department of Justice to Goodrich attorneys.)
In 2007, EPA and its contractor began development of the second model, a computer model simulating
the movement of ground water at the site (the "ground water flow model"), as part of its efforts to
evaluate cleanup options for a portion of the site. The ground water flow model does not simulate the
vertical movement of any hazardous substance from a source to the aquifers. Therefore, the ground water
flow model does not address whether sources at the site may have released substances to the aquifers; it
only simulates the migration of a substance once it reaches the ground water table. EPA expects to make
the ground water flow model available to the public when it issues a proposed cleanup plan for a portion
of the B.F. Goodrich site.
Neither the vadose zone model nor the ground water flow model was used in the HRS scoring of the site.
First, the vadose zone model was not used to associate substances with the sources or to show whether a
release from the sources at the site reached the aquifers under the site. As explained in section 3.9.1 of
this support document, EPA used the sworn testimony of four former employees that Goodrich used TCE
or other volatile chlorinated solvents and discharged solvents to an unlined pit, as support for its
conclusion that TCE was properly associated with the disposal pit/burn pit source (Source 1). EPA also
used sampling data. The second source was evaluated as an "unallocated source." EPA had before it
evidence that solvents, including TCE, were used in operations at the site, other than the disposal pit/burn
pit source, but the precise location of those activities has not yet been identified (see page 17 of the HRS
documentation record at proposal and section 3.9.2 of this support document).
Second, the ground water flow model was also not used in the HRS scoring of the B.F. Goodrich site, and
specifically not to predict the transport of releases through ground water to drinking water wells. Instead,
EPA relied upon References 5, 6, 13, 69, 70, and 71 of the HRS documentation record at proposal to
describe the regional and site geology to estimate the extent that releases could potentially migrate from
the site. Reference 6 (pp. 53-54) and Reference 69 (pp. 14-17) were used to project ground water flow
direction, in that they state that ground water flow within subzones B and C of the Rialto-Colton Basin
Middle Unit is from the northwest to the southeast (see pages 21 and 22 of the HRS documentation record
at proposal). Reference 6 is a Draft Remedial Investigation Report dated October 21,2006, prepared for
Goodrich by its consultant, GeoSyntec Consultants. Reference 69 is an excerpt of Numerical Simulation
of Ground-Water Flow and Assessment of the Effects of Artificial Recharge in the Rialto-Colton Basin,
San Bernardino County, California, U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 00-
4243, dated 2001, and was prepared by L.R Woolfenden and K.M. Koczot, of the U.S.G.S.
Regarding the additional materials that Goodrich requested on October 9, 2008, as part of its FOIA
request, in a letter dated March 17, 2009 (and included as Exhibit C4 of Goodrich's April 16, 2009,
supplemental comments), EPA responded to Goodrich's FOIA appeal. EPA informed Goodrich that
although its appeal was not filed in a timely manner, EPA was granting its appeal and remanded B.F.
Goodrich's FOIA request to Region 9 and EPA Headquarters pursuant to 40 CFR §2.104(k) for additional
processing to ensure that all non-exempt records or reasonably segregable portions of records were
released, and that Exemption 5 was properly claimed, consistent with the principles expressed in the
President's January 21, 2009, memorandum on the FOIA. Kevin Miller, Assistant General Counsel,
General Law Office, EPA, notified Goodrich that:
4 Exhibit C of Goodrich Corporation April 16, 2009, supplemental comments: A letter dated March 17, 2009, from
Kevin Miller, Assistant General Counsel, General Law Office, US EPA, to Dana Palmer, on behalf of Goodrich
Corporation, Re: 09-RIN-00642-08(HQ-APP-00061-09).
10
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
In addition, while reviewing this matter, it has come to my attention that EPA
headquarters may have additional responsive records that were not included within
Region 9's response. I am further remanding your FOIA request to EPA headquarters to
ensure that any additional responsive records are processed.
EPA notified Goodrich that its March 17, 2009, letter constituted EPA's final determination on its appeal
and that in accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B), Goodrich then had the right to seek judicial review
of this determination.
On April 14, 2009, EPA forwarded to Goodrich the additional documents responsive to FOIA request 09-
RIN-00642-08(HQ-APP-00061-09). These documents included: documents numbered S00001 - S00501,
which contained attachments to emails previously produced to Goodrich, and documents numbered
W00001 - WOO 121, as part of the remand, to Goodrich FOIA request to Region 9 for additional
processing and review. (See Exhibit D5 of Goodrich April 16, 2009, supplemental comments).
EPA has fulfilled its obligation of responding to Goodrich's FOIA request and has provided all material
pertinent to the NPL listing decision for the B.F. Goodrich site. If Goodrich has continued complaints
about EPA's response to its FOIA requests, it may pursue available remedies through that process.
Comments on EPA's proposed NPL listing of the BF Goodrich site are not the proper venue for resolving
any remaining dispute in this regard.
3.2 Support for Listing
A number of individuals and entities commented providing support for the NPL listing of the B.F.
Goodrich site. These comments are summarized and responded to in the sections that follow. Section
3.2.1 addresses general support for the listing; section 3.2.2 addresses support for the listing with caveat.
3.2.1 General Support for Listing
Comment: Several individuals expressed support for placement of the site on the NPL. Mayor Kelly J.
Chastain of the City of Colton also wrote in support of listing, and included a letter from Colton's
consultant, DPRA. Mayor Chastain wrote that "[i]f not treated, [the plume originating from the area in
Rialto] will significantly contaminate Colton's water supply for many decades, and even if treated, it will
still require several decades to address." Mayor Chastain and DPRA both cited to a DPRA Site Inspection
Report, Perchlorate, Trichloroethylene and Other Hazardous Substances Within the Rialto-Colton
Groundwater Basin County of San Bernardino, California (DPRA, April, 2008), dated April 22, 2008
(referred to as the DPRA Report) and requested that the DPRA report be included in the record for the
site. (DPRA also referred to this as a Preliminary Assessment report.)
Mr. Benjamin Wood and Ms. Jennaya Dunlap, Rialto area residents, submitted letters expressing their
support for listing.
Response: The Agency has added the B.F. Goodrich site to the NPL. Listing makes a site eligible for
remedial action funding under CERCLA, and EPA is examining the site to determine what response, if
any, is appropriate. Actual funding may not necessarily be undertaken in the precise order of HRS scores,
however, and upon more detailed investigation may not be necessary at all in some cases. EPA will
5 Exhibit D of Goodrich Corporation April 16, 2009, supplemental comments: A letter dated April 14, 2009,
delivered by Federal Express, from Keith Takata, Director, Superfund Division. U.S. EPA, to Dana Palmer on
behalf of Goodrich Corporation, Re: Freedom of Information Act Request 09-RIN-00642-08 (HQ-APP-00061-09).
11
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
determine the need for using Superfund monies for remedial activities on a site-by-site basis, taking into
account the NPL ranking, State priorities, further site investigation, other response alternatives, and other
factors as appropriate. EPA thanks Mayor Chastain for submission of the information from the City of
Colton's consultant. The DPRA Site Inspection (Preliminary Assessment report) will be added to the
Regional site file. EPA will consider this information in determining the appropriate response at the site.
3.2.2 Support for Listing with Caveat
Comment: Linda S. Adams, the California Environmental Protection Agency's Secretary for
Environmental Protection submitted a letter dated May 2, 2008, in support of listing on behalf of
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Ms. Adams indicated that the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (Regional Board) has been the lead State agency for this site
and has an extensive legal history with the potentially responsible parties. Ms. Adams stated: "The
Regional Board is currently in settlement negotiations with Goodrich Corporation (formerly B.F.
Goodrich, Inc.), Pyro Spectaculars, Inc., and the Emhart Entities (Emhart Industries, Inc., Kwikset
Corporation, Kwikset Locks, Inc., and Black & Decker, Inc.)." Ms. Adams' letter states that the State of
California supports the listing of the site on the NPL with one caveat, specifically that in the event that a
tentative settlement is reached that would ensure an NPL-caliber cleanup of the site, the State may request
that the EPA suspend its NPL listing process. Ms. Adams also requested that, "[i]f a satisfactory
settlement does not occur in the near future, and the site does reach final listing on the NPL," the
Regional Board and other affected State agencies be consulted as investigative activity is pursued and
remediation strategies are implemented.
Ms. Wilmer Amina Carter, a California State Assembly Member, representing the 62nd district, submitted
a letter in support of listing, recommending that EPA place the site on the NPL. Ms. Carter commented on
the State of California's support for listing of the site with one caveat, by saying that "[i]t is [her]
understanding that the State's caveat is that should an agreement be reached between potential responsible
parties and the Regional Board, the State will hold the right to ask U.S. EPA to suspend the process of
listing the site on the NPL," and that she concurs with the recommendation of the State.
Response: The Agency has added the B.F. Goodrich site to the NPL. EPA has consulted with the State
before making a decision to list the site on the NPL. That the State is negotiating with a PRP is correct;
however, as of September 2009, the settlement discussions mentioned in the comment have been ongoing
for more than 18 months and have not yielded any agreement. The listing process does not encumber or
preclude PRPs from entering into agreements with EPA or other parties. EPA received no
communication from the State indicating any change in the State's support for the placement of this site
on the NPL. EPA will continue to coordinate with the State and other parties during remediation
selection. See also section 3.6 of this support document.
3.2.3 Furth er In vestigation
Comment: Emhart claims that, despite an EPA March 13, 2008, General Notice Letter to Goodrich
requesting remedial investigation, Goodrich has refused to undertake any further investigation of the areas
where Goodrich used and handled perchlorate and TCE at the B.F. Goodrich site. Emhart states that,
"groundwater monitoring wells placed immediately down gradient of the Goodrich burn pit and mixer
building have repeatedly reported significant concentrations of both perchlorate and TCE," and that this
indicates investigation of the disposal pit/burn pit and mixer buildings is warranted. Emhart also suggests
that the southwest disposal pits be further investigated as well.
12
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
Response: The information contained in the HRS documentation record at proposal is sufficient to justify
the HRS score for the site as above 28.50, and EPA has added the B.F. Goodrich site to the NPL. While
EPA would have liked to have more complete information prior to listing, further information was not
necessary to make the listing decision. The NPL serves primarily informational purposes, identifying for
the States and the public those sites or other releases that appear to warrant remedial action. Although
Goodrich has not undertaken further actions necessary to fully evaluate contamination associated with the
B.F. Goodrich site, the HRS does not require scoring all possible threats or evaluating all sources. As
discussed in section 3.10 of this support document, sufficient source information is available to document
a release of hazardous substances attributable to the B. F. Goodrich site.
As the Agency proceeds with its remedy selection process at the B.F. Goodrich site, including the
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study, it will more fully characterize and evaluate the TCE
release, as well as other constituents of concern that may pose a risk to human health and the
environment. Alternatives for fully addressing the risk posed by this site will be developed through the
remedy selection process and are not limited by the HRS process. Finally, EPA notes that the
remediation strategies considered at later stages of the Superfund process have no effect on the HRS site
score or the listing decision.
3.3 Site Name
Comment: Goodrich objected to naming the site B.F. Goodrich. Goodrich commented that "EPA's
proposed naming of the site as the 'B.F. Goodrich site' violates its own guidelines." Goodrich stated that,
"[p]ursuant to EPA's own policy, a 'site name is merely used to help identify the geographic location of
the contamination and is not meant to constitute any determination of liability at the site.' 73 Fed. Reg.
51395." It added that, "[njaming a site after a single PRP who briefly occupied the site over forty years
ago does nothing to help identify the location of the site. Moreover, the Site has never been referred to or
known as the 'B.F. Goodrich Site.' Clearly, EPA is improperly prejudging the liability of Goodrich by
naming the Site the 'B.F. Goodrich Site.'"
Goodrich stated that EPA's guidelines in Appendix F of the Regional Quality Control Guidance for NPL
Candidate Sites (EPA, December, 1991) provide that if there are more than three PRPs, as it states is the
case here, a geographic name be assigned, or if the site is commonly known by another name, that name
can be used. Goodrich stated that the site has commonly been referred to as the ' 160-Acre Parcel' and has
never been referred to or known as the B.F. Goodrich site. Goodrich stated that since 2002, the site has
been referred to as the "160-Acre Parcel" in proceedings with the Regional Board, the State Water
Resources Control Board, Los Angeles Superior Court, and U.S. District Court, Central District of
California. It added that recently, EPA referred to the site as the '160-Acre Parcel' in testimony by
Kathleen Salyer, U.S. EPA, before the California State Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic
Materials Committee.
Response: Neither CERCLA, the NCP, nor EPA guidance establishes a required procedure for assigning
a site name to a proposed listing, and EPA believes it is reasonable to have named the site B.F. Goodrich.
Since the primary purpose of an NPL listing is to inform the public that EPA has determined that the site
warrants further investigation, EPA attempts to select the name that most clearly informs the public as to
where the site is, what appears to be the primary source(s) of the problems at the site, and/or considers
assigning a geographic name. EPA also attempts to select names that do not offend local sensitivities (see
OSWER Directive 9345.1-08, Regional Quality Control Guidance for NPL Candidate Sites, 12/26/91).
For this site, EPA considered but did not choose a geographic name, in part in response to concerns
expressed by local officials about the possible stigma of a Superfund site in their community. Instead,
EPA chose to name the site after the B.F. Goodrich Company, which operated at the site from about 1957
13
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
to 1962 and, as a former owner, would be expected to have some degree of name-association to the
public.
EPA considers that the B. F. Goodrich site's present name reflects the general location of and at least one
historic source of the TCE release at the site. The highest levels of TCE ground water contamination
measured at the site have been at a monitoring well approximately 700 feet downgradient of a disposal pit
used by the former B.F. Goodrich Company, and elevated levels of ground water contamination were
found just over 100 feet downgradient of this pit.
EPA also emphasizes that the name of the site does not in any way restrict the evaluation of the site, its
sources, its releases, or extent of contamination to only the practices of the former B.F. Goodrich
Company. The HRS documentation record at proposal reflects the fact that other possible sources of TCE
at the site exist, as discussed on pages 11 through 13. Further discussion on other possible sources of
TCE is also provided in section 3.9.3 of this support document. As the Federal Register in which the
B.F. Goodrich site was proposed to the NPL (73 FR 51395, Section F) states, "the precise nature and
extent of the site are typically not known at the time of listing." EPA also expects to explore any and all
areas of TCE contamination associated with the site during post-listing investigation activities.
Regarding Goodrich's comment that EPA is "prejudging the liability of Goodrich by naming the Site the
'B.F. Goodrich Site,'" the naming of the site does not reflect a judgment of the activities of any owner or
operator of a site. It does not require those persons to undertake any action, nor does it assign liability to
any person (or entity). Further information on this topic is found in section 3.5 below.
3.4 Site Location/Extent of Site
Comments: Goodrich states that "EPA has defined the 'Site Location' to be 'equivalent to the recorded
location of soil gas sample SG-BP-13.' HRS Documentation Record, p. 1." Goodrich commented that
"EPA, however, lacks any evidence to support its attribution of TCE in the groundwater to the 'Site
Location' or to any alleged former Goodrich operations on the 160-acre parcel." Goodrich added that
"EPA neglects to account for significant evidence of other potential sources of TCE by others on and off
the 160-acre parcel." Goodrich asserted that,
EPA's failure to offer substantial evidence that a release of TCE at the Site Location from
Source 1 contributed to groundwater contamination and its failure to adequately explain
the scientific basis for its conclusion that the Site Location was the source of groundwater
contamination is arbitrary and capricious. See National Gypsum Company v. U.S. EPA,
968 F.2d 40, 43-44 (D.C. Cir. 1992). EPA is not entitled to base its listing decision on
such inference and unsupported assumptions. Id.
Goodrich further asserted that,
EPA must either revise its HRS score based upon new source attribution evidence or re-
score the matter as a 'contaminated groundwater plume,' if it cannot attribute the source
of TCE. 40 C.F.R. pt. 300, App. A, §3.1.1 ('Some portion of significant increase must be
attributable to the site to establish the observed release, except: when the source itself
consists of a ground water plume with no identified source, no separate attribution is
required.'); Evaluating Ground Water Plumes Under the Hazard Ranking System Fact
Sheet, U.S. EPA, September 1998.
14
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
Response: It appears that Goodrich has misinterpreted the B.F. Goodrich site to consist of only
contamination from sources resulting from Goodrich Corporation operations. It appears that Goodrich
has also misinterpreted the latitude/longitude coordinate location on page 1 of the HRS Documentation
Record to mean that the coordinate location is the location of the entire site. These issues are responded
to in the following three subsections, Delineation of the Site, Attribution to the Site, and Meaning of
Coordinate Location.
Delineation of Site
The HRS documentation record at proposal does not represent a final determination on the boundaries of
the site, and EPA correctly delineated the site in the HRS documentation record as consisting of two
sources and the releases of hazardous substances therefrom.
HRS Section 1.1, Definitions, defines the site as:
Area(s) where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed, or placed, or
has otherwise come to be located. Such areas may include multiple sources and may
include the area between sources.
The Federal Register in which the site was proposed to the NPL (73 FR 51395, Section F) states, "the
precise nature and extent of the site are typically not known at the time of listing .... [and] the listing
process itself is not intended to define or reflect the boundaries of... facilities or releases "
The footnote on page 1 of the HRS documentation record at proposal states that:
[generally, HRS scoring and the subsequent listing of a release merely represent the
initial determination that a certain area may need to be addressed under CERCLA. . . the
preliminary description of facility boundaries at the time of scoring will be refined as
more information is developed as to where the contamination has come to be located.
The extent of the site is described on page 11 of the HRS documentation record at proposal as follows:
"The B.F. Goodrich site includes two sources and releases of trichloroethene (TCE) and other hazardous
substances and associated ground water contamination, which poses a hazard to people. . . " The scored
sources are identified as follows. Source 1, Goodrich Burn Pit, is described in the HRS documentation
record at proposal as "a burn pit located on the 160-acre Goodrich parcel. . . located near the southeast
corner of the Goodrich facility . . . The suspected location of the former burn pit is shown on Reference 5,
page 85 (Area C), on Reference 7, page 40, and on Reference 49." (See page 14 of the HRS
documentation at proposal.) Source 2 is described in the HRS documentation record at proposal as an
"unallocated source" consisting of "all Goodrich operations on the 160-acre Goodrich parcel, other than
the burn pit included as Source 1, that used or may have used TCE." (See page 17 of the HRS
documentation record at proposal.)
EPA's reference in the description of Source 2 to "all Goodrich operations on the 160-acre parcel," was
intended to refer to all the operations at the "B.F. Goodrich" site regardless of the operator, and thus was
not intended to be limited to just those operations associated with Goodrich Corporation. Instead, as
discussed later in this document, other operations may include the Department of Defense (DoD), West
Coast Loading Corporation (WCLC), and others' operations (see sections 3.7, 3.7.1 - 3.7.4, and 3.9.2 of
this support document.)
To avoid any future misunderstanding that the site is limited to releases from Goodrich Corporation
operations, EPA has revised the HRS documentation record at promulgation to make it clearer that the
15
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
site is not limited to those releases. Specifically, wherever the HRS documentation record at proposal
mentioned the "Goodrich operations on the 160-acre parcel," the revised HRS documentation record at
promulgation refers to the "operations on the B.F. Goodrich site."
Attribution to the Site
In the HRS documentation record at proposal, as required by the HRS, EPA correctly attributed some
portion of the observed release of TCE to the site. As explained above, the site consists of two sources
and releases therefrom. One of these sources, Source 2, is not limited to Goodrich Corporation operations.
HRS Section 3.1.1, Observed release, states, in part, that to establish an observed release by chemical
analysis:
Some portion of the significant increase must be attributable to the site to establish an
observed release, except when the source itself consists of a ground water plume with no
identified source, no separate attribution is required.
It is sufficient to attribute some part of the release to a site being evaluated by showing that hazardous
substances can be associated with one or more sources at the site, and that a release (or releases) from this
site, and not any other possible site, has caused a significant increase in contaminant concentrations in
ground water.
The HRS documentation record at proposal on pages 36 and 37 discusses the attribution of TCE to the
site. Page 36 presents substantial information and multiple references to support the association of TCE
use at the site and TCE disposal in the unlined burn pit, Source 1. Page 37 presents sampling information
showing that TCE is also coming from Source 2 at the site, again supporting the conclusion that some
portion of the significant increase is attributable to the site.
This discussion also covers operations at the site that may have used TCE, which include but are not
limited to, those specifically associated with Goodrich Corporation. The HRS documentation record on
page 37 states that:
TCE has been detected in ground water immediately downgradient of the burn pit
(Source 1), in monitoring wells CMW-01 and CMW-02 (Ref 5, pp. 87-90, 98, 171-177;
Ref 6, pp. 26, 78, 80, 85, 87, 118; Ref. 7, pp. 11-12, 25, 42-43; Ref. 11, pp. 6, 9, 13, 17;
Ref. 15; Ref. 17, pp. 14, 39-57, 159-197, 215-244). In addition, TCE has been detected
in monitoring wells on the 160-acre Goodrich parcel that are not located downgradient of
Source 1. Specifically, TCE has been detected in monitoring wells CMW-03, CMW-04,
and CMW-05, which are located either upgradient or crossgradient of Source 1. TCE has
never been detected in monitoring well PW-1, which is located northwest and upgradient
of the 160-acre Goodrich parcel (Ref. 5, pp. 87-90, 98, 171-177; Ref. 6, pp. 85, 87, 118;
Ref. 7, pp. 11-12, 25, 42-43; Ref, 10, pp. 5, 7, 15; Ref. 11, pp. 6, 9, 13, 17; Ref. 15; Ref.
16, pp. 14, 52-130; Ref. 17, pp. 14, 39-57, 159-197, 215-244). Therefore, this indicates a
source of TCE within the burn pit, as well as a separate unallocated source within the
160-acre Goodrich parcel.
As explained in section 3.9.2 of this support document, the unallocated source discussed above includes
all of the sources of TCE at the "B.F. Goodrich site" that could have resulted from the various operations
at the site, which are not limited to just those associated with Goodrich Corporation.
16
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
The attribution discussion on page 37 of the HRS documentation record at proposal also accounts for "off
site" sources and indicated that releases, if any, from these sources are separate from this site and
therefore are unlikely to be causing the significant increase in TCE concentrations in ground water
downgradient from the two site sources. Page 37 of the HRS documentation record at proposal states
that:
A source of TCE to ground water has been identified at the neighboring MVSL facility,
located southwest of the 160-acre parcel (Ref 6, pp. 17, 19-20, 27; Ref 13, pp. 11-12,
39, 43-44, 109-110). However, TCE-impacted wells on and immediately downgradient
of the 160-acre Goodrich parcel are not located downgradient of the MVSL (Ref. 6, pp.
85-87). Therefore, the TCE plume from the MVSL appears to be distinct from the TCE
plume from the 160-acre parcel (Ref. 6, pp. 33, 85-87; Ref. 13, pp. 43-44, 109-110).
(The MVSL facility is the only known facility directly downgradient or downgradient and crossgradient
to the site suspected of releasing TCE to ground water.)
It should also be noted that the background samples used to establish the significant increase at the site
were from wells upgradient to the site (see pages 26, 28, 31, and 32 of the HRS documentation record at
proposal). The TCE concentrations in these background wells were consistently below detection.
Therefore, EPA considered this information to be sufficient to establish that no offsite upgradient sources
were contributing to the significant increase in TCE concentrations in the ground water below or
downgradient of the site. If there were other sources of TCE upgradient of these background wells, there
should have been detectable TCE concentrations in those wells.
In summary, the information associating TCE with the site sources, coupled with the evidence of no other
off-site sources causing the significant increase, is sufficient to demonstrate that "some portion" of the
release can be attributed "to the site".
Meaning of Coordinate Location
The site consists of the sources and releases therefrom as discussed above. However, it appears that
Goodrich has understood the latitude/longitude coordinate given in the HRS documentation record at
proposal to mean that the latitude/longitude coordinate location is the location of the entire site.
The sentence immediately following sentence cited by the commenter was intended to clarify. It states,
"This coordinate was selected because it is the sampling location with the highest concentration of
TCE..." [Emphasis added.] The footnote on the same page (page 1) of the HRS documentation record at
proposal provides additional explanation of both the coordinates and the definition and extent of a site, as
follows:
The street address, coordinates, and contaminant locations presented in this HRS
documentation record identify the general area in which the site is located. They represent
one or more locations EPA considers to be part of the site based on the screening
information EPA used to evaluate the site for NPL listing. EPA lists national priorities
among the known "releases or threatened releases" of hazardous substances; thus, the focus
is on the release, not precisely delineated boundaries. A site is defined as where a
hazardous substance has been "deposited, stored, placed, or otherwise come to be located."
Generally, HRS scoring and the subsequent listing of a release merely represent the initial
determination that a certain area may need to be addressed under CERCLA. Accordingly,
EPA contemplates that the preliminary description of facility boundaries at the time of
scoring will be refined as more information is developed as to where the contamination has
come to be located. (Emphasis added.)
17
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
The foregoing paragraph is consistent with the Federal Register notice in which the B.F. Goodrich site
was proposed to the NPL (73 FR 51395, Section F), which states, "the precise nature and extent of the
site are typically not known at the time of listing .... [and] the listing process itself is not intended to
define or reflect the boundaries of... facilities or releases... ." As the footnote on page 1 of the HRS
documentation record at proposal points out, the definition of the site is only preliminary in nature and is
expected to be refined; this refining step generally comes during the RI/FS stage. Although some RI
activities have been conducted to date at the facility, until the post-listing site investigation process has
been completed and a remedial action (if any) selected, EPA can neither completely estimate the extent of
contamination at the site, nor describe the ultimate dimensions of the site. Even during a remedial action,
EPA may find that the contamination has spread further than (or is in additional locations to) that
previously estimated, and the site definition may be correspondingly expanded.
3.5 Liability
Comment: On November 25, 2008, Emhart noted that EPA alleged in Unilateral Administrative Order
(UAO) 2003-11 that Emhart may be legally responsible under corporate successor liability for historical
operations of WCLC. Emhart stated that it had initially declined to undertake any work as ordered in
UAO 2003-11 because "(a) it was not liable for the historical operations of WCLC as its corporate
successor; (b) to the best of its knowledge WCLC had not caused a release or discharge of perchlorate or
TCE at the B.F. Goodrich Site; and (c) perchlorate was not a hazardous substance under CERCLA."
Emhart also noted that Emhart had advised EPA that on March 12, 2002, it had been dissolved as a
corporation and its assets distributed to Black & Decker, Inc.
Response: The act of placing a site on the NPL does not establish or reflect a decision on whether any
party may be liable for response costs, nor is liability considered when evaluating a site under the HRS.
Moreover, the HRS scoring for the site does not identify that Emhart or WCLC are specifically liable for
releases of perchlorate or TCE. The NPL serves primarily as an informational and management tool. The
identification of a site for the NPL is intended primarily to guide EPA in determining which sites warrant
further investigation to assess the nature and extent of the human health and environmental risks
associated with the site, and to determine what CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be
appropriate. Identification of a site for the NPL does not reflect a judgment on the activities of the
owner(s) or operator(s) of a site. It does not require those persons to undertake any action, nor does it
assign any liability to any person. Other government actions have been taken or will be necessary in
order to do so, and these actions will be attended by all appropriate procedural safeguards. This position,
stated in the legislative history of CERCLA, has been explained in the Federal Register (48 FR 40759,
September 8, 1983, and 53 FR 23988, June 24, 1988).
The status of perchlorate as a hazardous substance under CERCLA is not relevant to the decision at hand.
Perchlorate does not form the basis for, nor was it used in the HRS scoring for this site. While
perchlorate is not presently a listed hazardous substance under CERCLA, depending on the facts, it may
be a characteristic hazardous waste under RCRA and therefore a hazardous substance under CERCLA.
Further discussion on this subject is provided in section 3.8 of this support document.
3.6 Effects of Listing
Comment: Goodrich commented that "[g]iven that the proposed listing is premised solely upon
trichloroethylene ('TCE'), should EPA list the Site, it will only inhibit efforts to resolve the perchlorate
contamination in the Rialto-area." Goodrich also commented that despite the fact that Goodrich, along
with several other PRPs, has been in negotiations with the California Regional Water Quality Control
18
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
Board, Santa Ana Region (Regional Board) for the cleanup of both perchlorate and TCE in the Rialto-
Colton Groundwater Basin, EPA is proposing the site for listing on the NPL. Goodrich commented that
"[i]f EPA proceeds with the NPL listing, these settlement negotiations are in severe jeopardy and cleanup
of the perchlorate and TCE contamination will be delayed for years, if not decades." Goodrich comments
that "the citizens of Rialto and Colton may never see a cleanup of the perchlorate contamination."
Goodrich commented that EPA should withdraw its proposal of the site for NPL listing and instead
support the negotiated resolution being worked out by the State of California. The State itself commented
that, in the event the ongoing settlement negotiations "result in a settlement that will achieve a
comprehensive and permanent solution to" the problem, it may request "U.S. EPA suspend the process of
listing the site on the NPL."
Emhart commented that it "does join in Goodrich's request that the EPA's decision on the proposed
listing of the B.F. Goodrich Site be postponed until after the first quarter of 2009 to allow all parties to
continue their settlement discussions."
Response: As stated elsewhere, the HRS score for the B.F Goodrich site is based upon releases of TCE
and the threat these releases pose to human health and the environment. EPA sees no reason to delay
listing to allow negotiations regarding remediation to be completed. EPA does not agree that proceeding
with the listing process will "inhibit efforts to resolve the perchlorate contamination in the Rialto area."
PRPs may affect remedy selection, as can any other member of the public, through the public comment
process. If a PRP wishes to expedite cleanup efforts, it may undertake the RI/FS and/or remedial
design/remedial action stages under EPA supervision and pursuant to appropriate agreements with
governmental authorities (under enforcement authorities of CERCLA or those of other statutes). The
listing process does not encumber or preclude PRPs from entering into these agreements. The EPA has
entered into many such agreements before and after a site's promulgation to the NPL, and such an
alternative is available to the commenters.
Regarding any perchlorate releases and the need for remediation of such releases, this listing is not based
upon releases of perchlorate, and therefore any discussion of perchlorate releases is not relevant to the
decision at hand. Moreover, that the HRS score is based on TCE contamination does not prevent action
to remedy other constituents of concern at the site (see discussion in section 3.8 of this support
document).
3.7 Use of TCE at the Site
Goodrich claimed in its comments that TCE was never used at its facility in Rialto. Goodrich named in
its comments several alternative entities as possible sources of TCE contamination at the site, including
Department of Defense operations, WCLC operations, and Pyrotronics operations. Emhart stated that
Goodrich is incorrect in its assertions. PSI commented that it never used TCE at the site. These
comments are detailed below in sections 3.7.1 through 3.7.4 of this support document.
5.7.7 B.F. Goodrich Use of TCE
Goodrich asserted that it never used TCE at the site. It commented that "EPA has not cited to any reliable
evidence, either documentary or testimonial, to support its assertion that Goodrich used or disposed of
TCE at its Rialto facility." It explained that EPA relied upon the deposition of Mr. Dwight Wever to
establish that Goodrich used TCE, but that after careful reflection, Mr. Wever testified that he cannot
recall what type of solvent was used at the Goodrich facility in Rialto. Goodrich stated that Mr. Wever
also timely corrected certain sections in his certified transcripts to indicate that he does not recall whether
TCE or trichloroethane (TCA) was used at the Goodrich Rialto facility. Goodrich also affirmed,
19
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
"[i]ndeed, numerous former Goodrich employees affirmatively testified that TCE was not used in any
part of Goodrich's operations in Rialto. See Goodrich's State Board Brief Section III." [Emphasis in
original]. Goodrich stated that among its former employees whose depositions support the claim that
Goodrich did not use TCE are: Haggard, Garee, Morris, Shook, Holtzclaw, Willis, Hernandez, and Bland.
Goodrich listed the following testimony references and excerpts to support this assertion:
• Haggard Dep., 54:10-23 "('Q. Do you recall there ever being an instance where you used a
chemical called trichloroethylene to clean the mixers? A. Not to my knowledge.')";
• Garee Dep., 122:6-123:18;
• Morris Dep., 39:3-25 "('Q. Are you familiar with a solvent called trichloroethylene? A. Yes.
Used that in the Air Force. Q. Did you ever use trichloroethylene at the Goodrich facility? A.
No.')";
• Shook Dep., 29:2-19;
• Holtzclaw Dec. 9 "('I recall that acetone was used at the Rialto facility to clean the carriages
where propellant was cured. I do not recall any other solvent being used at the facility. I do not
recall ever seeing Trichloroethylene or hearing of any employees using Trichloroethylene at the
facility.')";
• Willis Dec. 13 "('During the entire length of my employment at Goodrich, I never used and I did
not see other employee[s] use trichloroethylene at Goodrich's Rialto facility.')";
• Hernandez Dec. 3 "('To my knowledge, only MEK and acetone were stored at Goodrich. I do not
recall the solvent trichloroethylene ever being stored at Goodrich.')";
• Bland Dec. 10.
Goodrich made the following comments regarding its operation at the Goodrich Rialto facility (B.F.
Goodrich facility):
• Goodrich made an unsuccessful attempt to enter the 'Space Race.'
• Goodrich was hoping to parlay its knowledge of binders used in the manufacturing of rubber, for
such items as tires, to help it move into the solid rocket propellant business.
• Goodrich started a small research and development team in Brecksville, Ohio to study solid
rocket propellant. Goodrich decided to open a facility in Rialto with hopes of obtaining
production contracts from the U. S. Department of Defense.
• Goodrich transferred 10 employees from Brecksville, Ohio to Rialto, California to begin setting
up the new research and development facility.
• In 1959 Goodrich obtained a contract with the US government for actual production of rocket
motors.
• The only production motors loaded in Rialto were the Loki motor, also referred to as the HASP
(High altitude sounding projectile) and the Sidewinder missile.
• Goodrich operated for 5 years before closing.
• Goodrich stated that it ran a safe operation and "followed standard industry practices at that time,
and then-existing government regulations on the use, handling, and disposal of chemicals used to
make solid rocket motor propellant."
• "All of Goodrich's waste solid propellant was disposed of by burning in a single burn pit." "The
burning of propellant waste is a highly efficient means to dispose of this waste."
• "During Goodrich's entire short-lived tenure in Rialto, all scrap propellant, excess oxidizer, and
spent solvents were promptly collected, placed in combustible containers, and taken to the burn
pit for disposal."
• "Former Goodrich employees have repeatedly testified under oath that propellant and other
chemicals (including oxidizer and solvent) were never left lying on the bare ground at the facility,
20
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
were never buried at the site, and were never disposed of in a pond, ditch, leach field, or landfill
at the facility."
Goodrich summarized that, "Because Goodrich promptly burned all combustible industrial waste, the
available evidence leads to the conclusion that Goodrich's short-lived operation did not contaminate, and
does not threaten to contaminate, the groundwater at the 160-acre parcel or the Rialto-Colton Basin."
Response: The HRS documentation record has appropriately identified the use of TCE in B.F. Goodrich
operations, and its presence at the B.F. Goodrich site based on the following:
• Employees' testimony continues to support use of TCE with Goodrich operations.
• The unallocated source (Source 2) includes sources of TCE whose specific locations are not
identified, including operations other than B.F. Goodrich.
Employee Testimony on Use of TCE
The HRS documentation record at proposal cited the depositions of Mr. Wever, Mr. Graham, Mr. Polzien,
and Mr. Sachara to support the association of TCE with Goodrich operations and the characterization of
Source 1. The testimonies of Mr. Graham, Mr. Polzien, and Mr. Sachara were not revised or corrected
from their testimonies included in the HRS documentation record at proposal (see References 57 through
62 of the HRS documentation record at proposal). A review of these Goodrich employees' depositions is
included in section 3.9.1 of this support document and continues to function as documentation of the use
of solvents, including TCE, by Goodrich, and TCE association with Source 1 at the site. (See section
3.9.1 of this support document). Goodrich has not provided evidence that refutes the testimonies of all of
its former employees. See specific testimony excerpts below.
Wever Deposition
A review of Mr. Dwight Wever's corrected deposition submitted by Goodrich in support of its comments
affirms that either TCE or TCA is associated with Goodrich operations. Mr. Wever was the Assistant
Production Manager and Safety Engineer at Goodrich during its tenure at its Rialto facility. In the matter
ofdtyofRialto, et al. v. United States Department of Defense, et al Deposition of Dwight Wever, the
following statements were included in Mr. Wever's corrected deposition transcripts, taken November 9
and December 7, 2004, and signed by Mr. Wever on February 11, 20056 (the passages in italics and
inside brackets are Mr. Wever's corrections to his deposition):
Wever corrected deposition at page 58. lines 2 to 25:
Q. Do you know what type of solvent it was?
A. I don't remember, I'm sorry.
Q. For the Sidewinder and the Locis that had the Goodrich formula that you witnessed, was there a
cleaning process that used a solvent?
A. Yes.
Q. And was that used to clean out the mixer?
A. Yes.
Q. And the transfer units?
A. Yes.
Q. And what solvent was that?
6 Mr. Dwight's Wever's corrected deposition was included on DVD 4 (Goodrich State Board Submission, Exhibits
Part 2: 20242-20279) submitted by Goodrich in support of its comments. This corrected deposition is labeled as
Exhibit 20279.
21
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
A. TCE. [Either TCE or TCA. I don't remember which. (See my testimony on second day of
deposition).]
Q. That's trichloroethylene?
A. That's correct [or trichloroethane].
Q. Now, can you describe for us how trichloroethylene was used to clean - let's start with a mixer
for a moment.
A. After the propellant was transferred to the transfer vessel and taken away, the remaining
propellant in the mixer, we took the beryllium spatulas and tried to scrape down the sides and [to]
remove as much of the propellant as we could from the sides as well as from the blades and that
propellant went into a combustible container.
Wever corrected deposition at page 59. lines 1 to 21:
Q. A box or something?
A. A box or ~ wooden box or cardboard box or whatever.
Then we would take some TCE and charge it to the mixer and essentially slosh it around with
the mixer blades to try to get most of the stuff at least off the bottom of the mixer and off the
blades.
And then we used TCE [or TCA] with rags to wipe down the rest of the mixer to get the rest
of the propellant.
Q. I'm sorry, were you finished?
A. Yes.
Q. Would the TCE that was used in the mixer and sloshed around, was that transferred back into a
container?
A. Yes, it was transferred back into a 55-gallon drum-type container.
Q. And with respect to the rags, what was done with those?
A. Went in the same container.
Q. The box container or the 55-gallon drum?
A. Fifty-five gallon drum.
Wever corrected deposition at page 70. lines 4 to 25:
Q. And what ~ did you have to give the casings back to the government?
A. Yes, we did.
Q. So how did you get the propellant that was cracked but still in the casing out?
A. We designed and built a cutting tool and stand that essentially augered the cured propellant out of
the case, leaving some very thin amount still adhered to the liner that's between the propellant and
the case, and then used solvent to get the rest of it out, TCE [or TCA].
Q. TCE, and then what happened to the spent solvent and the propellant now that it had been taken
out of the casings?
A. Burn pit.
Q. In the same procedure that you described?
A. Yes.
Q. When the facility closed, you were there, is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And did Goodrich clean up the facility and remove all of the chemicals that were at the facility?
A. Yes.
Mr. Wever's corrected deposition affirms that TCE or TCA was used as part of Goodrich operations at
the site. Although Mr. Wever corrected his deposition, he did not recant his statements in the deposition
22
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
affirming his knowledge of use of TCE or TCA as a cleaning solvent at the site and that spent solvents
and rags were disposed of in the disposal pit/burn pit.
The HRS documentation record at proposal cited Mr. Wever's uncorrected deposition and the depositions
of Mr. Graham, Mr. Polzien, and Mr. Sachara to support the association of TCE with Goodrich operations
and the characterization of Source 1 at the B.F. Goodrich site. EPA notes that Mr. Wever's corrected
deposition has been included in the Regional site file for the B.F. Goodrich site.
Graham Deposition
Graham deposition (Reference 61 of the HRS documentation record at proposal) at deposition page 70.
lines 1-20:
Q. Okay.
Now, after they would scrape out the propellant from the mixers, once they were done, would
they use some type of solvent to actually clean the mixer out?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
Do you know what type of solvent they used?
A. Trichloroethylene.
Q. Is that sometimes referred to as TCE?
A. Yes.
Q. And can you describe for me how they would clean these small mixers with the TCE?
A. Don't recall.
Q. You just remember that they used that chemical to do it?
A. I believe it was with rags, but I don't recall.
Q. Do you know what happened with the rags?
A. Again, the ice cream containers for the burn pit.
Graham deposition at deposition page 71. line 25 and deposition page 72. lines 1 -25:
Q. Did you ever handle or use trichloroethylene when you were at the plant?
A. Yes.
Q. In what capacity did you do that?
A. I probably had some polyurethane or something or something on my hands and needed to remove
it, or gloves or whatever.
Q. And so you would clean it with the trichloroethylene?
A. I'm sure.
Q. And what was done with the spent trichloroethylene, or if you - - Okay. Let's say you're putting
it on gloves. What would you do with the gloves?
A. Into the ice cream container.
Q. So spent trichloroethylene that was used to wipe off materials was put in the containers?
A. Correct.
Q. The same container that went to the burn pit?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And was it your understanding that it was the procedure that anything that became contaminated
with trichloroethylene was to be put into these containers?
A. Don't recall.
Q. But that was your practice?
A. Yes.
23
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
Mr. Graham's testimony continues to associate TCE with Goodrich operations and confirm TCE disposal
in the burn pit.
Polzien Deposition
Polzien deposition (Reference 57 of the HRS documentation record at proposal) at deposition page 123.
line 4 to page 124. line 6:
Q. (BY MR. WYATT) Okay. Do you recall - strike that.
Was scrap propellant among the waste that was sent to the burn pit for disposal?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know whether solvents were disposed of in the burn pit?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you personally observe solvents being disposed of in the burn pit?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know the type of solvent that was disposed of in the burn pit?
A. The immediate thing that comes to mind is that whenever solvent was talked about, it was trich,
trichloroethylene; but I also recall MEK being mentioned. I think MEK was used for cleaning
metal parts on assembly.
Q. Okay. Do you know how trichloroethylene was used - strike that.
Do you know for what purpose trichloroethylene was used at the Goodrich facility?
A. It's not something I observed, but I was told and explained - overheard from Mr. Kase, who I
was housed with, that the method of cleaning a mixer or any other equipment was - containing
propellant was to use trichloroethylene, like pour it in a mixer, swish it around, empty it.
Polzien deposition at deposition page 125. lines 2-23:
Q. Okay. Do you recall with what frequency waste materials were brought to the burn pit?
A. That would depend on the production schedule, primarily - -
Q. Yes.
A. - - on the production schedule and the phase of production that they were in. Production at
Goodrich followed a - - an assembly line. The crews followed the work.
So , at one point there would be mixer cleaning; and you would receive a lot of slurry. At the end
of production, a lot of trimmings and cuttings. So, it varied. Smaller amounts of production
would be anything.
Q. Okay.
A. But everything flammable had to be disposed of.
Q. In the burn pit?
A. In the burn pit.
Q. Okay.
A. That included refuse from flammable burn - - waste cans - -
Polzien deposition at deposition page 618. lines 2-19 (see Attachment C to this support document which
consists of pages 394 and 615-622 of Mr. Ronald Polzien's deposition):
Q. Okay. When you went to the warehouse and you saw the solvent drums ~ in your prior
testimony you referred to it as tri. Do you recall that?
A. I ~ everybody calls ~ calls it trich.
Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not they were referring to trichlorethylene or trichlorethane?
A. Whenever I've heard it used, they were referring to a solvent used for cleaning. That's all I know.
Q. Okay. Well, let's assume for the moment okay ~ and I will represent to you - - that
trichlorethane is a solvent used for cleaning.
24
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
A. Okay.
Q. Okay? Now, with that understanding ~
A. Uh-huh.
Q. -do you know whether or not what you saw in that warehouse was tichlorethane or
trichlorethylene ?
A. I wouldn't ~ no, I wouldn't know.
Polzien deposition at deposition page 619. lines 1-25 (see Attachment C to this support document):
Q. Right, that's what it's referred to often. When you were answering questions about solvent
usage at the facility, all right, you were answering questions about what you had observed in the
warehouse; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And - -
A. Oh, distributed throughout the - -
Q. The - -
A.. --the buildings.
Q. Right. You saw those drums in other places?
A. Drums.
Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not the cleaning solvent that they used in the mixers and the other
places where they had this solvent was trichlorethane or trichlorethylene?
A. I don't.
Q. The mixers, you understood, were cleaned; and a slurry was prepared as a result of that?
A. A by-product is what I would call it.
Q. Okay. That slurry contained a propellant material in it, didn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And it contained some type of solvent?
A. Yes.
Polzien deposition at deposition page 620. lines 1-5 (see Attachment C to this support document):
Q. Do you know whether the solvent that made part of the slurry was trichloroethylene or
trichloroethane?
A. In light of what you just told me and my ignorance between the two, I - - don't know.
Mr. Polzien's testimony continues to associate TCE or TCA with Goodrich operations and confirm TCE
or TCA disposal in the burn pit.
Sachara Deposition
Sachara deposition (Reference 60 of the HRS documentation record at proposal) at deposition page 377.
lines 1-25 to page 378. lines 1-21:
Q. Do you know if a chemical called trichloroethylene is a chlorinated hydrocarbon?
A. Yes
Q. Do you know if TCE was used by Goodrich?
A. I — I don't recall if the ~ TCE was used for two different solvents.
Q. You recall two different solvents used.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall the names ~
A. Not ~
Q. Sorry.
25
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
A. I don't know whether ~ I don't recall which one Goodrich used.
Q. What are the names of two chlorinated hydrocarbons that you think Goodrich might have used?
MR. DINTZER: Objection. Calls for speculation.
BY MR. MROZ:
Q. Go ahead.
A. Trichlor ~ trichloroethylene and trichlorethane.
Q. So TCE and TCA; is that what you're saying? Are those two chemicals also known as TCE and
TCA?
A. I don't recall.
Q. You don't recall.
Do you recall the use ~ sorry.
Do you recall how Goodrich used these chlorinated hydrocarbons?
MR. DINTZER: Foundation.
THE WITNESS: They were used for cleaning.
BY MR. MROZ:
Q. Do you recall what they were used to clean?
A. Propellant mixers.
Q. Propellant mixers.
A. Maybe other things, I don't recall.
Q. Okay. When you say mixers, would that be all the mixers at Goodrich?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Do you know if a chlorinated hydrocarbon was used to clean the 25 gallon mixers at Goodrich?
A. I wasn't there for the cleaning of production mixers, so I can't ~ I can't recall or I don't know what
was used.
Q. So you don't know what was used.
A. No.
Sachara deposition at deposition pages 381 line 10 to page 382 line 4:
Q. Okay. You stated that a chlorinated hydrocarbon was used to clean the mixer; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Or just mixers in general. Do you know what happened to the slurry from the mixer cleaning?
Do you know where that slurry went?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Do you recall how that slurry was disposed?
A. No, I don't.
Q. I believe you stated on the last time around that the slurry was disposed of in the burn pit. Do
you remember your testimony?
A. Yes, okay. All right.
Q. Is that still your testimony today?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Do you know how often the mixers were cleaned at Goodrich?
A. No, I don't recall.
Mr. Sachara's testimony continues to associate TCE with Goodrich operations.
Other Depositions
EPA's review of the depositions of the other former Goodrich employees cited in Goodrich's comments
[Jimmie Haggard, Cecile Garee, Kenneth Morris, Kenneth Holtzclaw, Mack Willis, Lino Hernandez,
Gerald Bland, and Carl Shook] indicates that Goodrich's comments mischaracterize the testimony of
these former employees. The testimonies of these former employees indicate that they may have used
26
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
TCE, did not personally recall using TCE, did not recall seeing the storage or use of TCE, or are narrow
in scope; their testimonies did not indicate that TCE or TCA were not or could not have been used at the
former B.F. Goodrich facility.
A summary of the testimony of each of these former Goodrich employees is listed below. The
depositions of these employees were provided by Goodrich on DVD 3 as an attachment to Goodrich's
comments.
• Jimmie Haggard - Regarding questions on cleaning of the mixer, he stated, "It was cleaned with
non-spark tool." "You would get rags, put a chemical on it and start wiping it down." (Page 52 of
Jimmie Haggard deposition). Upon further questioning on the cleaning to get propellant out after
the scraping was done, Mr. Haggard replied: "Took these rags. You had gloves on. Took these
rags and got in there and cleaned it all out with the solvents." (Page 54 of Jimmie Haggard
deposition). When asked specific questions on the solvents used, Mr. Haggard remembered a
solvent he referred to as Cyclohex, and indicated he is not knowledgeable about TCE or TCA.
Mr. Haggard also stated that acetone was used as a finishing solvent in cleaning the mixer to
allow it to dry fast. He also did not know what was in Cyclohex. (See Jimmie Haggard's
deposition at pages 52-54, 213, 216, and 219).
• Cecile Garee - Mr. Garee's testimony regarding his knowledge of the cleaning of small test
motors indicated he did not do the actual cleaning, but may have witnessed it. He stated a solvent
of some kind was used. He also stated there were spent solvent which was contained in 50-gallon
drums. When questioned further about the cleaning process and trichloroethylene, he could not
recall. (See Cecile Garee's deposition at pages 27, 28). However, he indicated that containers of
scrap propellant or scrap oxidizer, was carried to the burn pit for burning. (See Cecile Garee's
deposition at pages 80, 81) Mr. Garee also stated that he momentarily observed the cleaning of
motors outside using solvents, but that he could not recall what type of solvents were used by
Goodrich. (See Cecile Garee's deposition at pages 122, 123, and 124).
• Kenneth Morris - Mr. Morris's testimony indicates that he was not familiar with the various
operations conducted by Goodrich at its facility. He indicated that he did not use or see anyone
using trichloroethylene. (See Kenneth Morris's deposition at pages 38, 39, 43, and 44).
• Kenneth Holtzclaw - A deposition of Mr. Holtzclaw was not included as an attachment to
Goodrich's comments. According to Mr. Holtzclaw's declarations, he did not recall the use of
TCE or any solvents other than acetone at the facility. His declaration indicated that his duties
involved routine laboratory analysis and testing. He also declared that he does not recall ever
seeing trichloroethylene or hearing of any employees using trichloroethylene at the facility. (See
Kenneth Holtzclaw's declaration signed March 7, 2007, by Mr. Holtzclaw and included as an
attachment on DVD 3 of Goodrich's comments).
• Mack Willis - Mr. Willis's testimony indicated that more than one type of cleaning procedure
was used to clean the mixer. He indicated that at one time the mixer was cleaned with rock salt
and acetone and this slurry was dumped in a container and taken to a pit for burning (page 28 and
29 of Willis deposition). When questioned if other solvents other than acetone were used at the
Goodrich facility, he replied a chemical called Delchem 904 was used. He also recalled that
seeing TCE at the facility but did not recall seeing TCE being used (see Mack Willis's deposition
at pages 61 and 62). Mr. Willis stated that Delchem 904 seems to be the only thing that would
remove the liner from the Sidewinders after they had been test fired (see Mack Willis's
deposition at pages 63 and 64). He stated that although he did not know the active ingredients in
27
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
Delchem 904; he knows it contained trichloroethylene because he was told that it did (see Mack
Willis's deposition at page 89). Mr. Willis also testified that he observed a drum of TCE at the
Goodrich facility. When questioned on its location and placement in the facility, he stated that it
was in the machine shop and was placed on a slanted rack and that the drum had a spout;
however, he had not personally seen it being used. (See Mack Willis's deposition at pages 28,
61, 62, 63, 64, 89, 91, 92, 109-111, 373).
• Lino Hernandez - Mr. Hernandez's testimony indicates that he does not recall the names of any
other solvents other than MEK and acetone. He was not familiar with operations involving the
mixing of propellants in the mixer building and other areas of operations at the Goodrich facility.
(See Lino Hernandez's deposition at pages 98, 102, 103).
• Gerald Bland - Mr. Bland indicated in his declaration that he worked for Goodrich, Grand
Central Rocket and WCLC and that his memory of the operations runs together. Regarding his
employment at Goodrich, he declared that a solvent called "904" was used to dissolve the
remainder of propellant material inside the motor casings that were being salvaged. Mr. Bland
also declared that he never saw anyone use trichloroethylene in this process. Regarding cleaning
of the mixers, he declared that he personally never participated in the cleaning of any mixers at
the Goodrich facility. (See Gerald Eland's declaration signed April 13, 2007, by Mr. Bland and
included as an attachment on DVD 3 of Goodrich's comments):
Mr. Eland's testimony in his deposition indicated that trichloroethylene was used to clean the
mixer at Goodrich (see Gerald Eland's deposition at pages 232-234). He also indicated that a
chemical referred to as 904 was used to clean the Loki motors. (See Gerald Eland's deposition at
page 232). He stated that he may have personally used trichloroethylene to wash parts, wipe
down mandrells, or clean out a container that had some of the viscous liquid. (See Gerald
Eland's deposition at page 232-234). In other parts of his testimony he does not recall
specifically that trichloroethylene was used at Goodrich. (See Gerald Eland's deposition at pages
549, 550, 572, 573, 574).
• Carl Shook - Mr. Shock's testimony indicated that acetone was used to clean ash generated
during combustion of the propellant. He indicated that no other solvents were used in the
laboratory. He testified rags were used with the acetone to clean the ash, but that he did not know
what happened to the spent acetone and the rags that were placed in containers for disposal. (See
Carl Shock's deposition at pages 22, 24, 28, 29, 30.) EPA notes that although Mr. Shook testified
that he did not see trichloroethylene or used trichloroethylene at the Goodrich facility, Mr.
Shock's testimony was limited to his knowledge of solvent use in the laboratory where he
worked. (See Carl Shock's deposition at page 29.)
In summary, the testimonies of former Goodrich employees, Graham, Wever, Polzien, and Sachara
continue to support the association of TCE with Source 1 and B.F. Goodrich operations at the site. The
testimonies cited by Goodrich do not contradict or refute that evidence, and in some cases support that
conclusion. EPA finds this evidence sufficient to associate TCE with Source 1. See section 3.9 of this
support document for the HRS requirements for associating a hazardous substance with a source.
The unallocated source (Source 2)
TCE is also properly associated with the site on a separate basis from any use or disposal of TCE by B.F.
Goodrich described above. This is because TCE has been properly associated with Source 2, the
unallocated source. The site description on pages 11 through 13 discusses the inclusion of Source 2
within the site. Page 11 of the HRS documentation record at proposal states,
28
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
The B.F. Goodrich site includes two sources and releases of trichloroethene (TCE) and
other hazardous substances and associated ground water contamination which poses a
hazard to people. . . . The site sources include burn pits used for disposal of waste and TCE
(Source 1) and historical operations that resulted in additional TCE releases and the source
of the release has not been identified (Source 2). Therefore, the source of the release has
been scored as an unallocated source (Source 2).
Page 17 of the HRS documentation record at promulgation states that Source 2 includes all operations at
the B.F. Goodrich site, other than the burn pit included as Source 1, that used or may have used TCE.
Specifically, TCE has been detected in monitoring wells CMW-03, CMW-04, and CMW-05, which are
located either upgradient and/or crossgradient of Source 1. This indicates a source or sources of TCE
within the 160-acre parcel in addition to Source 1.
The unallocated source at the B.F. Goodrich site includes sources of TCE and releases of TCE for which a
specific location(s) has not been documented. This may include additional sources associated with
Goodrich operations, as well as sources associated with non-Goodrich operations at the site. See section
3.9.2 of this support document for further discussion on the establishment of an unallocated source.
3.7.2 Department of Defense Use of TCE
Comment: Goodrich and PSI commented that World War II era operations by the U. S. Department of
Defense (DoD) are a likely source of TCE on the site. Goodrich stated that the U.S. military used the area
for staging of railcars and the storage of munitions, fuses, and explosives prior to their being shipped to
the Pacific Theater. Goodrich added that "[i]t is highly likely that the Army's extensive transport and
munitions operations on the RASP [Rialto Ammunition Storage Point] resulted in the release of TCE,"
specifically given that "[i]t is well known that railcar maintenance and repair activities involved the use
and disposal of solvents, such as TCE, and are frequently associated with soil and groundwater
contamination." Goodrich stated that use of TCE by the Department of Defense was widespread in the
1940s. Goodrich cited to several exhibits it submitted in support of its comments. PSI commented that
EPA's attribution analysis ignores at least one significant potential source of TCE, and identifies the
DoD, by stating that they have used an estimated 203,000,000 pounds of TCE in degreasing operations
during World War II.
According to PSI, two of the wells scored as actual targets in the HRS evaluation (i.e., WVWD-22 and
Rialto-2) are located downgradient of the DoD facility, and a third well (i.e., Fontana 49A) is located
downgradient of the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill (MVSL).
Response: There may be other sources and releases of TCE at the site. As EPA's investigation proceeds,
EPA will seek to more comprehensively evaluate the release that was scored only preliminarily in
accordance with the HRS, including identification of other sources. However, even if additional sources
of TCE contamination are discovered at later stages of the Superfund process, the site score would not
change. The ground water migration pathway was assigned the maximum value, 100, so if additional
sources were identified and a source hazardous waste quantity estimated for each, the waste quantity
factor value could only increase, but the overall ground water pathway score cannot be increased and the
resulting site score of 50.00 would remain the same.
To the extent that the commenters may be addressing the potential liability of the DoD for cleanup at the
site, as stated in section 3.5 above, the act of placing a site on the NPL does not establish or reflect a
29
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
decision on whether any party may be liable for response costs, nor is liability considered when
evaluating a site under the HRS.
The attribution of the release from the site sources to the target wells is discussed in sections 3.10 and
3.11 of this support document. The fact that there may be additional sources of TCE that are part of this
site does not affect the attribution of some portion of the TCE release to the site.
3.7.3 West Coast Loading Company Use of TCE
Comment: Goodrich named WCLC, a subsidiary of Kwikset Locks, Inc., as a possible source of the TCE
and perchlorate contamination at the site, and included statements from former employees testifying
under oath that WCLC's operations involved the use of TCE. Goodrich stated: "Former employees have
testified under oath that WCLC operations involved the use of TCE, but amazingly EPA has failed to
address WCLC as a potential TCE source." It added that employees' statements include confirmation that
"waste TCE and other spent solvents were disposed of by WCLC [by] dumping directly onto the bare
ground" and that several explosions occurred at the WCLC during its operation.
Goodrich asserted that testimonies of former WCLC employees confirmed that barrels of TCE were
placed on cradles throughout the Rialto facility and the spigots on these barrels would leak onto bare
ground. Goodrich asserted that aerial photographs taken while WCLC operated show the ground is
stained from draining waste perchlorate and solvents onto the bare ground and other dumping processes.
It added that WCLC did not dispose of explosive waste in its incinerators; there is evidence that WCLC
buried and dumped waste on the 160-acre parcel; WCLC maintained a landfill on the property, and
towards the end of WCLC operations in Rialto, a burn pit located southwest of the facility was used to
dispose of scrap material and reject fuses and cartridges. Goodrich cited depositions and exhibits
submitted in support of its comments. Goodrich concluded that, "[a]s demonstrated by the HRS
Documentation Record, EPA has entirely failed to consider WCLC's operations as a potential source of
TCE and cannot ignore it as demonstrated above."
Emhart stated that Goodrich is incorrect in its assertion that WCLC's operations involved the use of TCE.
Emhart claimed that "the 'testimony' of the former WCLC employees referenced by Goodrich . . .
regarding WCLC's alleged use of TCE has not been accurately described or summarized by Goodrich."
Emhart stated "that testimony consists mostly of leading questions (suggesting the answer) repeatedly
asked by Goodrich's counsel of the now very elderly former WCLC employees, all of whom were
represented by counsel paid for by Goodrich, even though Goodrich's interests were and remain directly
adverse to WCLC's interests."
Emhart commented that to the best of its knowledge, WCLC had not caused a release or discharge of
TCE at the B.F. Goodrich site. It stated this was among the reasons it initially declined to undertake any
work as ordered in a Unilateral Administrative Order, UAO 2003-11.
Emhart made the following claims regarding individual WCLC employee testimonies:
• The statement obtained from Frank Gardner by Goodrich counsel alleging use of a degreaser
containing TCE in a WCLC maintenance building is contradicted by "a 1954 independent
appraisal of that building which contained an exhaustive list of all machinery and equipment in it,
which did not identify or list a 'degreaser,' let alone the presence of any TCE."
• John Allegranza's testimony "reveals that he did not personally use TCE, did not remember if it
was used at all, and then remembers that he thought he saw others using it."
30
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
• For most of Ray Davis's deposition "he did not remember using or seeing TCE, then near the
end, after repeatedly being asked the question, he testified that maybe it had been used."
• Marshall Anglim's testimony regarding solvent use was confined to acetone, and did not mention
TCE.
• Willard Clark worked at WCLC for one month in December 1952. Mr. Clark "recalled that
someone told him that TCE was used to clean buildings and that water was mixed with the TCE
during that cleaning process."
• Donald Ransom's testimony "yields only that he does not remember one way or the other
whether WCLC used TCE."
• Frederick Ratliff worked at WCLC for four months. Mr. Ratliff s deposition, including the
completion of his cross-examination, "was terminated abruptly by Goodrich's counsel when it
came to light that he had fabricated testimony regarding alleged waste disposal practices by
WCLC."
Emhart claimed Goodrich is incorrect in its assertion that EPA has failed to address WCLC as a potential
source. Emhart noted that EPA issued Unilateral Administrative Order 2003-11 to Goodrich and Emhart
directing both to undertake a remedial investigation of the B.F. Goodrich site. Emhart stated that Environ
International, an environmental consulting firm it retained, submitted an RI Report in 2007. According to
Emhart, this report details investigation of "a total of 48 study areas (28 of which related to known or
suspected WCLC use areas), involving the collection and analysis of over 700 samples from a variety of
environmental media and the installation of five groundwater monitoring wells in conjunction with
another potentially responsible party, Pyro Spectaculars, Inc." Emhart stated that the report concluded,
"no TCE was detected in any WCLC Study Area," that "no perchlorate was detected, except for limited
amounts found in the shallow soil (less than 25 feet bgs) in three confined areas in WCLC Study Areas
11, 18, and 37," and that the limited perchlorate found in the shallow soil in those WCLC study areas
"was bounded vertically and laterally by soil samples which reported no detection of perchlorate."
Emhart asserted that "Emhart instructed Environ to include in its investigation every location where
witness testimony, regardless of its credibility, suggested that perchlorate or TCE might have been used
and/or released." Emhart added that Region 9 and the Santa Ana Regional Board participated in the
selection of sampling locations to investigate all potential points of release. Emhart claimed that "the
Regional Board has confirmed under oath that during Environ's RIs, the cooperation of Emhart's
consultant Environ during the field investigation was outstanding," and that Environ looked for
perchlorate and TCE in every location it was asked to investigate. Emhart stated that, after review of the
data, the Santa Ana Regional Board did not assert that WCLC caused a release of TCE at the B.F.
Goodrich site, and that the Regional Board staff admitted under oath that they have no evidence that
WCLC operations released perchlorate to ground water in the Rialto/Colton Groundwater Basin. Emhart
concluded that "EPA has addressed fully WCLC as a potential TCE source."
Emhart stated that nearly all of WCLC's historical business and manufacturing records from the 1950s
were preserved. Emhart added that these records have been reviewed by Goodrich, EPA, the Santa Ana
Regional Board, the cities of Rialto and Colton, Emhart, and other potentially responsible parties, and that
"none of the more than 400,000 pages of WCLC's business and manufacturing records suggest that
WCLC ever used TCE or a degreaser at the B.F. Goodrich Site."
31
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
Emhart claimed that these historical/manufacturing records disclose that "WCLC loaded and assembled
only three pyrotechnic devices over a 13 month period which contained a photoflash mix that contained
perchlorate." Emhart also asserted the records reveal that those three devices "involved a dry photoflash
mixture, not a 'wet' process as Goodrich erroneously asserted."
Response: There may be other releases of TCE at the site, and as indicated in the HRS documentation
record at proposal and clarified in the HRS documentation record at promulgation, these possible sources
of TCE at the B.F. Goodrich site are separate from Source 1 at the site and are included as part of Source
2.
As the Agency proceeds with its remedy selection process at this site, including the Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study, it will more fully characterize and evaluate the source(s) of TCE
release(s) to ground water, as well as more comprehensively evaluate the release that was scored in
accordance with the HRS, including identification of other sources. However, even if additional sources
of TCE contamination are discovered at later stages of the Superfund process, the site score would not
change. The ground water migration pathway was assigned the maximum value, 100, so if additional
sources were identified and a source hazardous waste quantity estimated for each, the waste quantity
factor value would increase, but the overall ground water pathway score of 100 cannot be increased and
correspondingly, the resulting site score of 50.00 would remain the same.
To the extent that the commenters are addressing the potential liability of WCLC for cleanup at the site,
as stated in section 3.5 of this support document, the act of placing a site on the NPL does not establish or
reflect a decision on whether any party may be liable for response costs, nor is liability considered when
evaluating a site under the HRS.
In any case, a review of former WCLC employees' depositions indicates that solvents including TCE
were used in WCLC operations. None of this evidence, however, contradicts the attribution of some
portion of the significant increase of TCE to the site, as described in HRS Section 3.1.1, Observed release
(see section 3.10 of this support document). The depositions of Gardner, Allegranza, Davis, Anglim,
Clark, Ransom, and Ratliff included as exhibits in DVD 1 of Goodrich's comments include the following:
• Gardner Deposition: Mr. Gardner testified that solvents were used at WCLC and when asked if
trichloroethylene was used, he replied yes. However, Mr. Gardner could not recall how or where
spent solvents were disposed of. Mr. Gardner testified that he saw TCE at the WCLC machine
shop (Gardner deposition at pages 580 to 589). He also stated that he saw TCE being used there
in a vapor degreaser used to clean parts. (Gardner deposition at pages 422 to 425; DVD 1, Exhibit
9 of Goodrich's comments).
• Allegranza Deposition: Mr. Allegranza affirmed that solvents were used to clean the shells.
When asked, "And do you recall which types of solvents were used to clean the shell?" Mr.
Allegranza replied, "I specifically on my end of the line used mostly MEK. But the other parts of
the line used acetone and the TCE." (Allegranza deposition at page 39, lines 15 to 17). He also
affirmed that TCE was used at WCLC and that 55 gallon drums of solvents were placed on some
sort of a cradle outside the back door. He stated that staff would use cans labeled MEK, TCE or
acetone to obtain solvents from the 55-gallon drums which had spigots on them. He could not
recall where or how the solvents and rags were disposed of. (Allegranza deposition at pages 39,
40, 44, 47, and 48; DVD 1, Exhibit 15 of Goodrich comments).
• Davis Deposition: Mr. Davis affirmed that employees would mop the floor to get residue
material off the floor and that the mop water bucket would be taken outside and poured on the
ground around the building. He affirmed that wastes were disposed of in a trench. Mr. Davis also
32
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
affirmed that solvents were used at WCLC and TCE was in drums. He affirmed that the drums
were on cradles and that spigots were placed in them and the spigots sometimes dripped after they
were shut off. (Davis deposition at pages 212, 263, 264, 1178, 1179; DVD 1 Exhibit 6 of
Goodrich comments).
• Anglim Deposition: Mr. Anglim testified that he did not recall of other liquid solvents other than
acetone which was placed in drums stacked on racks. He affirmed that there was spillage of
acetone by overflow or splash off from the jug used to take the acetone from the drums to the
mixing room. He also testified that it would spill onto the ground from the spigot when filling the
containers. (Anglim deposition at pages 26, 27, 28, 30, 41, 42, 43; DVD 1 Exhibit 14 of
Goodrich comments).
• Clark Deposition: Mr. Clark testified that 55-gallon barrels of trichloroethylene were at the
facility. He affirmed that they were stacked two or three high but that when they were being
used, they would be placed on a cradle. He also testified that things were placed in a trench and
burned, but that he saw only smoke and had not seen the actual lighting of the fire. (Clark
deposition at pages 26, 27, 28, 29, 36; DVD 1, Exhibit 16 of Goodrich comments).
• Ransom Deposition: Mr. Ransom affirmed that he does not recall the use of TCE or other
solvents at WCLC. He also did not recall seeing large drums of solvent or how solvents were
disposed of. (Ransom deposition at pages 156, 157; DVD 1, Exhibit 3 of Goodrich comments).
• Ratliff Deposition: Mr. Ratliff testified that rags soaked in TCE were used to clean a mixer. He
affirmed that a 55-gallon drum of TCE was kept on a cradle and that they would draw out
whatever they needed. He testified that he sometimes took his rags outside and wrung them on
the ground. He testified that a plain solvent and TCE were in 55-gallon drums in the mixer
building and that TCE was more effective at cleaning than the plain solvent. Mr. Ratliff testified
that the floor was hosed down and the water was washed out the back door. Mr. Ratliff testified
that a coffee can was placed under the spigot of the 55-gallon drum to catch any dripping TCE
and that when the coffee can was filled, he would throw it out the back door. Mr. Ratliff also
stated that drums were crushed and buried using a Caterpillar. (Ratliff deposition at pages 30, 31,
34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 44, 168, 169, 170, 256; DVD 1, Exhibit 13 of Goodrich comments).
In addition, EPA addressed WCLC in the other possible sources section of the HRS documentation record
at proposal. The HRS documentation record at proposal on page 20 describes WCLC's operations on the
property, under the heading "Description of Other Possible Sources." It states,
WCLC operated on the property from 1950 to 1957 manufacturing illuminating mortar
shells, photo flash cartridges, pistols, and parachute flares (Ref 28, pp. 17, 35; Ref 29, p.
9; Ref. 37, pp. 6-7; Ref. 39, pp. 5, 8; Ref. 45, pp. 4-18). In addition, WCLC dried
thousands of pounds of ammonium perchlorate to specified moisture contents for Grand
Central Rocket, Co. in Redlands, California (Ref. 29, pp. 11-24; Ref. 45, pp. 4-5).
Perchlorate salts were used and stored on the property as part of these operations (Ref.
45, pp. 4-18). During the plant's operating history, at least one fatality and some serious
injuries occurred (Ref. 28, p. 35; Ref. 37, p. 7; Ref. 39, p. 8; Ref. 45, pp. 3-4; Ref. 55, p.
76).
Therefore, Goodrich is incorrect that EPA "failed to address WCLC as a potential source" in developing
the HRS evaluation for the site.
33
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
3.7.4 Pyrotronics Corporation andPyro Spectaculars (PSI) Use ofTCE
Goodrich also identified Pyrotronics Corporation and/or its predecessors as possible sources of
contamination in that they operated a "major fireworks manufacturing, storage, disposal, and distribution
facility at the 160-acre parcel for at least 20 years," where they "routinely purchased, stored, and handled
huge quantities of raw chemicals, including perchlorate." Goodrich cited the deposition of Hescox and
other former Pyrotronics employees included as an exhibit to its comments. It added that there were
frequent fires and explosions, indicative of sloppy and careless practices, which resulted in "spreading
fireworks debris containing perchlorate and other chemicals across large areas of the 160-acre parcel."
Goodrich stated that Pyrotronics is a separate and distinct company from the entity called Pyro
Spectaculars referred to in the HRS documentation record.
Goodrich stated, that Pyrotronics "disposed of, spilled, and released huge quantities of waste directly
onto the ground in multiple locations, consisting of, among other things, disposal pits, burn pits, and a
'swimming pool' (i.e., the 'McLaughlin Pit') that overflowed and leaked." Goodrich stated that
Pyrotronics used solvents in the regular course of business to clean parts in the machine shop on-site. It
cited to the depositions of Mr. Ralph Apel and Ms. Louise Shilling in support of this statement. Goodrich
stated that EPA ignores Pyrotronics as a potential source of TCE despite it having the longest history of
operations, the only documented release to the ground water, and the only detections of TCE in deep soil
on the 160-acre parcel.
Goodrich claimed that despite soil sample results from the McLaughlin Pit area showing the presence of
TCE, EPA did not score the McLaughlin Pit as a source of contamination. Goodrich asserted that "[t]his
TCE could not have come from Goodrich, as it is undisputed that Goodrich never used the McLaughlin
Pit"; Goodrich continued that the McLaughlin Pit was constructed by Pyrotronics in 1971, "after the time
of Goodrich." Goodrich asserted that the only location where TCE has been detected in deep soil on the
160-acre parcel is at the Me Laughlin Pit. Goodrich commented that, "EPA surprisingly fails to address
soil sample results from the McLaughlin Pit area showing TCE concentrations at 8.7 ppb between 200
and 300 feet and 4.5 ppb between 400 and 440 feet," which are both "deeper and higher in concentration
than the shallow, trace soil vapor sample relied upon by EPA in its attempt to attribute Source 1 to
Goodrich." Goodrich cited Tables Al and A2 of Reference 7 of the HRS documentation record at
proposal in support of its comment. Goodrich also claims that "CW-02, cited by EPA as being
downgradient of Goodrich's burn pit, Source 1, is actually closer to and immediately downgradient of the
McLaughlin Pit," and therefore the McLaughlin Pit, and ultimately Pyrotronics, should be named as a
potential source of TCE contamination.
PSI commented that it should not be named in the HRS documentation record because it is not a source or
potential source of TCE. PSI cited deposition testimonies of James Souza, PSI president; Kamron
Saremi, a Water Resource Control Engineer with the California Regional Water Quality Board, Santa Ana
Region who spent 11 years investigating the contamination at the site; and Robert Holub, also a Water
Resource Control Engineer with the California Regional Water Quality Board, Santa Ana Region.
Response: There may be other releases of TCE and other hazardous substances (including pollutants and
contaminants) at the site other than those used in the HRS evaluation of the site. However, even if
additional sources of TCE contamination are documented or discovered at later stages of the Superfund
process, the site score would not change. The ground water migration pathway was assigned the
maximum value, 100, so even if additional sources were identified and a source hazardous waste quantity
estimated for each, the waste quantity factor value would increase, but the overall ground water pathway
score cannot be increased and the resulting site score of 50.00 would remain the same.
34
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
The HRS documentation record discusses the operations of Pyrotronics and others at the site (see pages
11-13 and 20 of the HRS documentation record at proposal). Goodrich's comments that Pyrotronics
disposed wastes in the McLaughlin Pit and used solvents to clean parts in the machine shop onsite is
based on the testimony of Mr. Ralph Apel and Ms. Louise Shilling, former employees of Pyrotronics.
After reviewing their testimony, EPA cannot find any statements by Mr. Apel or Ms. Schilling that
Pyrotronics used TCE but does find that Mr. Apel recalled seeing workers use solvents to clean parts in
the machine shop. Ms. Schillings stated that she "think the mechanic would have solvents because he
worked on cars." (Apel testimony, pages 274-275; Schilling testimony, pp. 59-60).
Regarding the use of solvents and association of solvent use with PSI, the testimony of Mr. James Souza
indicated that acetone was used but, to the best of his knowledge, PSI did not use TCE (see Exhibit P, an
excerpt of James Souza's deposition at page 460-461, of PSI comments). Regarding comments made by
Mr. Kamron Saremi, he associated PSI with perchlorate but did not associate PSI with TCE (see Exhibit
Q, an excerpt of Kamron Saremi's deposition at page 595-596, of PSI comments). Similarly, Mr. Holub
testified that he was not aware of evidence that PSI used TCE. Regardless of these statements, EPA
identified an unallocated source of TCE at the B.F. Goodrich site, Source 2.
In addition, regarding the possibility that substances other than TCE may have been released at the site by
other operators, EPA notes that liability is not assigned by listing a site on the NPL. Further, that a
hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant is not used in the scoring of a site does not mean that the
release of that substance or any sources associated with the release are eliminated from consideration at
later stages of the Superfund process.
EPA agrees that Pyrotronics and Pyro Spectaculars, Inc. are distinct companies. However, this has no
impact on the HRS site score.
3.8 Perchlorate Contamination
Comment: Goodrich asserted that listing of the site on the NPL solely based on TCE is an "obvious
attempt to circumvent EPA's own decision not to regulate perchlorate." According to Goodrich, "[t]he
problem with this end run around its own decision-making is that TCE is not a major contaminant of
concern in Rialto-Colton Basin warranting NPL listing." According to Goodrich, "[e]ven representatives
of Rialto concede that perchlorate, not TCE, is their contaminant of concern."
Goodrich claimed that "WCLC loaded hundreds of thousands of munitions containing potassium
perchlorate," mainly photoflash cartridges and ground burst simulators. Goodrich asserted that the
photoflash mixing and cartridge loading emitted large amounts of perchlorate "covering the floors, walls,
and machinery at the WCLC site." Goodrich further asserted that "WCLC's operations were 'wet'" and
that this involved cleaning the floors walls and machinery at least four times per shift with a water-based
solution which was subsequently disposed on bare ground outside the building.
Goodrich commented that, "Pyrotronics routinely purchased, stored, and handled huge quantities of raw
chemicals, including perchlorate, at the Rialto facility." Goodrich commented that Pyrotronics used
perchlorate as a key ingredient in the fireworks manufacturing. Goodrich described multiple fires and
explosions that occurred at the Pyrotronics site, and stated that "[t]he frequency of [the] fires and
explosions is indicative of sloppy and careless practices, and resulted in the spreading of fireworks debris
containing perchlorate and other chemicals across large areas of the 160-acre parcel." Goodrich described
Pyrotronics' disposal practices, and its use of the "Fireworks Burn Pit," located on the south-southwest
portion of the 160-acre parcel, and that of the McLaughlin Pit, a pond that was used to dissolve and
deactivate powder chemicals following regulations restricting open burning in the early 1970s. Goodrich
claimed that the McLaughlin Pit was continuously flooded with water to ensure that the waste material
35
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
would not ignite automatically, and that it was uncovered for a substantial period of its operations and
likely until 1986, or not long before its closure in 1987.
Goodrich claimed that "[t]he McLaughlin Pit is undoubtedly a major source of contamination in the
Rialto-Colton Basin as tens of thousands of gallons of unregulated wastes were dumped into the surface
impoundment for over a decade," and that "it is the only confirmed source of perchlorate groundwater
contamination on the 160-acre parcel." Goodrich claims that the highest concentrations of perchlorate in
2006 were found in the soil samples near the McLaughlin Pit and in monitoring wells immediately
downgradient of the pit.
According to Goodrich, "EPA's proposed listing entirely fails to address perchlorate and unfairly
misleads the public, particularly the citizens of Rialto and Colton into believing that it does," and states
that Mr. Kevin Mayer, the EPA's regional perchlorate manager and a Superfund project manager
indicated that "[tjreatment systems the EPA uses in Rialto should remove all perchlorate from the water. .
. but the agency won't have to clean water contaminated at lower levels than the state standard, 6 ppb."
Goodrich claimed that "if EPA decides to formally list the Site on NPL, it cannot focus its cleanup efforts
on perchlorate because under its own regulations, perchlorate is not a hazardous substance," and that "any
cleanup plan devised for TCE will not address the perchlorate contamination, as the treatment technology
for the two chemicals is very different and the wells impacted by the chemicals are not the same."
Goodrich commented that "[it] objects to all references and purported evidence cited by EPA as to
Goodrich's use, handling and disposal of perchlorate." Goodrich states that, "[g]iven that the HRS score
is not based upon perchlorate and that the proposed listing is not relevant for imposing liability, in [its
comments] Goodrich does not specifically respond and address each of the particular errors with EPA's
assertions."
PSI commented that references to perchlorate are not relevant to the HRS scoring and should not be
included in the HRS documentation record. It added that the HRS documentation record states that TCE
is the only contaminant considered by EPA in scoring the site. PSI considered that EPA's references to
perchlorate and historic perchlorate operations at the site are improper because they do not meet the
requirements of the Code of Federal Regulations. PSI stated that EPA did not analyze the potential
exposure pathways and migration pathways of perchlorate at the 160-acre area. It added that EPA's
discussion of PSI's alleged use of perchlorate and disposal practices is not properly included in the HRS
documentation record. It commented that these statements are inaccurate and are not supported by the
record.
Emhart commented that to the best of its knowledge WCLC had not caused a release or discharge of
perchlorate at the B.F. Goodrich Site, and perchlorate was not a hazardous substance under CERCLA.
Emhart stated this was among the reasons it initially declined to undertake any work as ordered in UAO
2003-11.
Response: Perchlorate has not been evaluated as part of the HRS scoring of the B.F. Goodrich site. The
B.F Goodrich site is scored based on a release of TCE to ground water and the threat it poses to human
health. The presence of perchlorate in or absence of perchlorate from the HRS evaluation does not alter
the listing decision. This information is conveyed on page 20 of the HRS documentation record at
proposal, which states that there are historical releases of perchlorate from other possible operations, but
that this is not being scored in the HRS documentation record as it would not significantly affect the
listing decision. EPA notes that while it did not score perchlorate in the HRS evaluation, the release
listed on the NPL includes perchlorate contamination in the aquifer at the site. As stated by EPA in the
HRS documentation record at proposal, the B.F. Goodrich site includes two sources and releases of TCE
and other hazardous substances and associated ground water contamination [emphasis added], which
36
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
pose a hazard to people. EPA notes that under the HRS, a "site" includes areas where a hazardous
substance has come to be located, and a "hazardous substance" is defined to include "CERCLA hazardous
substances, pollutants, and contaminants as defined in CERCLA sections 101(14) and 101(33), except
where otherwise specifically noted in the HRS." The HRS documentation record at proposal clearly and
transparently indicated to the public that perchlorate is present at this site; there is nothing in the HRS that
prevents EPA from discussing in the HRS documentation record chemicals other than those used to score
the site.
This response also applies to Goodrich's comment that listing the site solely on TCE is an "obvious
attempt to circumvent EPA's own decision not to regulate perchlorate." The HRS scoring was based on
the release of TCE, and on that basis alone the site scores the maximum value for the ground water
migration pathway (100). The regulatory status of perchlorate under the Safe Drinking Water Act, which
is currently under review, does not affect the HRS scoring of the TCE release.
EPA notes that the HRS scoring based on the TCE release does not prevent EPA from responding to
releases of other hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants present at the site. Section 104 of
CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9604, which authorizes EPA response actions, specifically authorizes such actions
"relating to such hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant at any time[.]" As the Agency proceeds
with its remedy selection process at this site, including the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study,
it will more fully characterize and evaluate the TCE release, as well as other constituents of concern that
may pose a risk to human health and the environment. Alternatives for fully addressing the risk posed by
this site will be developed through the remedy selection process and are not limited by the HRS process.
Finally, EPA notes that the remediation strategies considered at later stages of the Superfund process have
no effect on the HRS site score or the listing decision.
3.9 Source Characterization
Goodrich contested the association of TCE with Source 1 and consequently with the site. Goodrich
asserted that EPA's attribution to Source 2 as the "Other TCE Sources from Historical Goodrich
Operations" is baseless. Emhart claimed Goodrich's statement that there is no evidence Goodrich used or
disposed of TCE on the 160-acre parcel is incorrect. Goodrich and other commenters asserted that EPA
has ignored other potential sources of TCE on the site. EPA addresses Goodrich's and others' specific
comments in sections 3.9.1 - 3.9.3 of this support document.
3.9.1 Association of TCE with Source 1
Comment: Goodrich stated that, contrary to EPA's allegations in the HRS documentation record, there is
no credible evidence that Goodrich used or disposed of TCE at its Rialto facility, i.e. the B.F. Goodrich
site. In addition to its claims that it never used TCE in general, discussed in section 3.7.1, BF Goodrich
Use of TCE, above, Goodrich contested the association of TCE with Source 1 for several reasons, and
consequently with the site, and cited depositions in support of this challenge. Goodrich claimed that:
• EPA failed to explain how shallow soil vapor data from only three samples where TCE was
present at trace levels in the area of the disposal pit/burn pit used by Goodrich demonstrate the
migration of TCE to the ground water located at a depth of over 400 feet below the ground
surface (bgs).
• Two of the three soil vapor samples that EPA relied on to associate TCE with the source and
attribute TCE to Goodrich operations collected at 6 feet bgs (i.e., SG-BP-09 and SG-BP-10) did
not have TCE concentrations above the detection limit, and were qualified with a "J". Goodrich
37
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
added that EPA does not provide any basis for justifying its reliance upon the J qualified data.
Goodrich cited to an EPA fact sheet. It added that a third soil vapor sample collected at 6 feet bgs
(i.e., SG-BP-13), had TCE concentrations detected at just above the detection limit. Goodrich
cited Table 1 of Reference 5 of the HRS documentation record at proposal in support of its claims
about the analytical data.
• None of the other 10 soil vapor samples collected at 6 feet bgs and analyzed for TCE had detected
TCE concentrations. Goodrich cited Table 1 of Reference 5 of the HRS documentation record at
proposal in support of its claims about the analytical data.
• None of the 13 samples (which include 3 samples collected at the locations of the 3 soil vapor
samples that EPA relied upon) collected at 12 feet bgs had detected TCE concentrations above
the detection limit. Goodrich cited Table 1 of Reference 5 of the HRS documentation record at
proposal in support of its claims about the analytical data.
• "[N]umerous former Goodrich employees affirmatively testified that TCE was not used in any
part of Goodrich's operations in Rialto." [Emphasis in original] Goodrich submitted "supporting
exhibits, declarations, and deposition transcripts ... on DVDs."
Emhart alleged that, to the contrary, "Goodrich omitted a number of material facts from and misstated
others in its November 3, 2008 Comment Letter. . . ." Emhart claimed Goodrich's statement that there is
no evidence Goodrich used or disposed of TCE on the 160-acre parcel is incorrect.
• Emhart claimed that Dwight Wever, Goodrich's former assistant production manager, testified on
November 9, 2004, that "Goodrich regularly used TCE to clean out its solid rocket fuel mixers
which was then disposed of by pouring it out of 55-gallon drums" into a disposal pit/burn pit
where other wastes were placed including waste ammonium perchlorate generated by Goodrich.
• Emhart asserted that Mr. Wever added changes to his testimony on February 5, 2005, in which he
"also improperly attempted to change the questions he was asked. . . " Emhart also noted that
while Mr. Wever's modifications to his testimony contained qualifiers such as TCE "or TCA,"
the testimony still supported Goodrich's use of TCE at the site.
Emhart stated that, "Mr. Wever testified that Goodrich's propellant and solvent waste disposal practices at
the B.F. Goodrich Site were modeled after those he observed in 1959 at the Aerojet Superfund Site,
Rancho Cordova, California, and the former Grand Central Rocket (now Lockheed) Redlands, California
site, both of which now have extensive perchlorate and TCE soil and groundwater contamination."
Response: The association of a hazardous substance, TCE, with Source 1, the disposal pit/burn pit, at the
B.F. Goodrich site is appropriate and consistent with the HRS. As discussed in the subsections below,
Goodrich's comments on this subject do not alter this conclusion. EPA has carefully reviewed the
submitted comments and additional information, and provides its response in two sections (Court
Depositions as a Basis for Associating TCE with Source 1, and Use of Analytical Results to Characterize
Source 1), as shown below.
Court Depositions as a Basis for Associating TCE with Source 1
HRS Section 2.2.2, Identify hazardous substances associated with a source, instructs to "consider those
hazardous substances documented in a source (for example, by sampling, labels, manifests, oral or written
statements) to be associated with that source when evaluating each pathway." [Emphasis added.]
38
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
EPA associated TCE with Source 1 in part based on information contained in court depositions. At least
four former B.F. Goodrich employees testified under oath that Goodrich used the solvents TCE and/or
TCA, and disposed of used solvents in the burn pit (i.e., Source 1) during the period that Goodrich
operated at the site from the late 1950s to early 1960s.
The HRS documentation record at proposal states on page 14 that:
Former Goodrich employees have indicated the disposal of solvents, including TCE, in
the burn pit (Ref 53, pp. 55, 83, 119; Ref 54, p. 35; Ref 55, pp. 59, 61-63, 71, 117, 119-
120, 177, 186; Ref. 56, pp. 60, 68, 70-71, 87-88, 145, 161-163; Ref. 57, pp. 107, 121,
123-124, 147, 150-151; Ref. 58, pp. 103-105, 129; Ref. 59, p. 46; Ref. 60, p. 36; Ref. 61,
pp. 70, 71; Ref. 62, pp. 19-20, 116-117). Rags used for cleaning with solvents were
disposed in the burn pit (Ref. 55, pp. 61-63, 119-120; Ref. 56, pp. 87, 145; Ref. 61, p.
71). In addition, used TCE was poured into the burn pit for disposal (Ref. 55, pp. 119-
120, 186; Ref. 56, pp. 68-70, 87, 145; Ref. 57, p. 121; Ref. 58, pp. 103-105). The burn
pit was not covered or lined (Ref. 57, p. 132; Ref. 58, p. 111).
The following are summaries of the testimony cited above.
• One former Goodrich employee, John Graham, testified that TCE was used to clean the
equipment used to mix rocket propellant, his hands, and/or his gloves (Graham deposition, pp.
69-70, 192-193, 289-290). Mr. Graham was a chemist and project engineer at Goodrich's Rialto
facility from about 1958 to 1963. (John Graham's testimony was one of the testimonies cited in
support of the statement on page 14 of the HRS documentation record that former Goodrich
employees have indicated disposal of TCE in the disposal pit/burn pit; see References 61, pp. 70
and 71, and 62, pp. 19-20, 116-117 of the HRS documentation record as proposed, and section
3.7.1 of this support document.)
• A second former Goodrich employee, Dwight Wever, initially testified that TCE was used to
clean propellant from the rocket fuel mixing and transfer equipment (Wever deposition pp. 57-59)
and from about 20 to 30 Sidewinder rocket motor casings salvaged from some faulty rocket
motors (Wever deposition pp. 69-70). Mr. Wever also indicted that spent solvent, TCE or TCA,
was taken to the burn pit (Wever deposition p. 70). He recalled TCE being delivered to
Goodrich's Rialto facility in 55-gallon drums, and indicated in his testimony that Goodrich
"probably" used more than five drums and maybe more than ten drums. (Wever deposition pp.
116-118). Later, when cross examined in his second day of testimony, Mr. Wever stated that
Goodrich may have used TCE or TCA (Wever deposition pp. 231, 261, 280-281, 356). Mr.
Wever was the Assistant Production Manager, Safety Engineer, and Sidewinder missile program
manager at Goodrich's Rialto facility from about 1957 to 1963. His corrected and final
deposition is cited in section 3.7.1 of this support document. (Dwight Wever's testimony was one
of the testimonies cited in support of the statement on page 14 of the HRS documentation record
that former Goodrich employees have indicated disposal of TCE in the disposal pit/burn pit; see
References 55, pp. 58-59, 61-63, 71, 117, 119-120, 177, 186, and 56, pp. 60, 68-71, 87-88, 145,
161-163 of the HRS documentation record at proposal. See also Exhibit 2079 of Goodrich's
comments and section 3.7.1 of this support document.)
• A third former Goodrich employee, Ronald Polzien, recalled the use of trichloroethylene
(Reference 57, pp. 123, 124, 125). He initially testified that TCE was disposed of at Goodrich's
disposal pit/burn pit (Polzien deposition p. 123). When cross examined, he later testified that he
did not know the difference between TCE and TCA (Polzien deposition pp. 619-620). Mr.
39
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
Polzien was a test engineer and design engineer at Goodrich's Rialto facility from about 1960 to
1962. (Ronald Polzien's testimony was one of the testimonies cited in support of the statement on
page 14 of the HRS documentation record that former Goodrich employees have indicated
disposal of TCE in the disposal pit/burn pit; see References 57, pp. 107, 121, 123-124, 147, 150-
151; and 58, pp. 103-105, 129 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, and section 3.7.1 of
this support document.)
• A fourth former Goodrich employee, Eugene Sachara, testified that a chlorinated solvent was
used to clean the rocket fuel mixing equipment (Reference 59, p. 46 [Sachara deposition p. 45], of
the HRS documentation record at proposal). He recalled that trichloroethylene and
trichloroethane were two chlorinated solvents that Goodrich might have used (Reference 60, pp.
35-36 of the HRS documentation record at proposal [Sachara deposition pp. 377-378]). Mr.
Sachara was the research and development supervisor at Goodrich's Rialto facility from about
1957 to 1964. (Eugene Sachara's testimony was one of the testimonies cited in support of the
statement on page 14 of the HRS documentation record that former Goodrich employees have
indicated disposal of TCE in the disposal pit/burn pit; see References 59, pp. 46, 67, 69 [Sachara
deposition pages 45, 66, 68]; and 60, pp. 36, 39, 40 [Sachara deposition pages 378, 381, 382] of
the HRS documentation record at proposal and section 3.7.1 of this support document.)
These employees also testified that Goodrich generated waste solvent or materials contaminated with
solvent during its operations and that the waste was disposed in an on-site pit, Source 1 at the B.F.
Goodrich site (Wever deposition pp. 27-28, 57-65, 118, 176, 180-181, 280-281, 358; Polzien deposition
pp. 121-123, 270-271; Graham deposition p. 72).
Regarding Goodrich's comments that "numerous former Goodrich employees affirmatively testified that
TCE was not used in any part of Goodrich's operations in Rialto," Goodrich cites declarations or
deposition testimony from eight former B.F. Goodrich employees: Jimmie Haggard, Cecil Garee,
Kenneth Morris, Carl Shook, Kenneth Holtzclaw, Mack Willis, Lino Hernandez, and Gerald Bland.
However, Goodrich mischaracterizes the testimony of these former employees. A review of the
testimony indicates that these employees testified that they did not personally recall using TCE, or recall
seeing the storage or use of TCE, not that TCE or TCA was not or could not have been used at the former
B.F. Goodrich facility. In fact, the testimony cited by Goodrich is consistent with the testimony by
Graham, Wever, Polzien, and Sachara, who testified that TCE and/or TCA was used in two specific
operations by Goodrich (cleaning of mixing equipment and salvage of Sidewinder casings), not facility-
wide.
Further, descriptions of the Goodrich operations at its Rialto facility support that TCE was a component
of its operations. References included in the HRS documentation record at proposal support that during
Goodrich solid rocket motor manufacturing operations, solvents, including TCE, were used to clean
vessels, including the mixers, and casings (Ref 53, pp. 55, 83, 119; Ref 54, p. 35; Ref 55, pp. 59, 117,
177; Ref. 56, pp. 60, 68, 87-88; Ref. 57, pp. 107, 123-124; Ref. 58, pp. 103, 129; Ref. 59, p. 46; Ref. 60,
p. 36; Ref. 61, pp. 70, 71; Ref. 62, pp. 19-20, 116-117). Waste materials generated from manufacturing
and development operations, including excess propellant from the mixers, excess oxidizer, trimmings
from the final castings, and propellant wastes from R&D activities, were deposited and burned in an on-
site burn pit (Ref. 55, pp. 28-30, 177, 182, 192; Ref. 59, pp. 63-64; Ref. 61, p. 51). In addition, the rags
used for cleaning with solvents, and liquid waste solvents, including TCE, were also disposed in the burn
pit (Ref. 55, pp. 61-63, 119-120, 177, 186; Ref. 56, pp. 70-71, 87-88, 145; Ref. 57, pp. 121, 123; Ref. 58,
pp. 104-105). Former Goodrich employees have indicated the disposal of solvents, including TCE, in the
burn pit (Ref. 53, pp. 55, 83, 119; Ref. 54, p. 35; Ref. 55, pp. 59, 61-63, 71, 117, 119-120, 177, 186; Ref.
56, pp. 60, 68, 70-71, 87-88, 145, 161-163; Ref. 57, pp. 107, 121, 123-124, 147, 150-151; Ref. 58, pp.
103-105, 129; Ref. 59, p. 46; Ref. 60, p. 36; Ref. 61, pp. 70, 71; Ref. 62, pp. 19-20, 116-117).
40
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
Of the depositions cited to associate TCE with Source 1 and included as references in the HRS
documentation record at proposal, only Mr. Wever's corrected statements and Mr. Polzien's statement
were different from those indicated in the HRS documentation record at proposal. Nonetheless, Mr.
Wever's corrections and Mr. Polzien's clarification indicate that chlorinated solvents, TCE or TCA, were
used to clean equipment used as part of Goodrich's operations and that spent solvent, TCE or TCA, was
disposed of in the burn pit (i.e., Source 1). The other cited depositions included in the HRS
documentation record at proposal continue to support that solvents, including TCE, were used as a cleaner
during Goodrich's solid rocket motor manufacturing operations and were disposed of in the burn pit,
Source 1 at the B.F. Goodrich site. Of the additional depositions that were provided by Goodrich during
its comment on the listing, testimonies from other Goodrich employees did not state that solvents
including TCE were absolutely not used, but rather, these employees did not recall. Accordingly, EPA
does not view Goodrich's cited evidence as calling into question its original association of TCE with
Source 1.
Use of Analytical Results to Characterize Source 1
Goodrich is incorrect that two of the three soil vapor samples collected at 6 feet bgs (i.e, SG-BP-09 and
SG-BP-10) that EPA relied upon to associate TCE with the source, did not have TCE concentrations
above the detection limit. EPA also disagrees with Goodrich's assertion that since analytical results for
TCE in these samples were qualified with "J," EPA should have adjusted them according to the EPA fact
sheet on adjusting qualified data. EPA used analytical results from soil gas samples collected from the
suspected location of the former disposal pit/burn pit for the characterization of Source 1. As discussed
above, for associating a substance with a source, HRS Section 2.2.2, Identify hazardous substances
associated with a source, states:
For each of the migration pathways, consider those hazardous substances documented in
a source (for example, by sampling, labels, manifests, oral or written statements) to be
associated with that source when evaluating each pathway.
The HRS Section 1.1, Definitions, defines "source" in part as:
[a]ny area where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed, or placed,
plus those soils that have become contaminated from migration of a hazardous substance.
Thus, for the migration pathways, to associate a hazardous substance with a source, the substance must be
documented to be in an area where it was deposited, stored, disposed, or placed, or to be soil
contaminated through hazardous substance migration.
For sources that are not composed of contaminated soil, any substance that can be documented to be
present in the waste material in the source can be associated with that source. When samples taken are of
waste materials, background sampling is unnecessary, since the presence of the wastes is evidence that
the hazardous substances have been deposited, stored, disposed, or placed in the source.
Therefore, EPA's data quality objective for associating a substance with a source (other than
contaminated soil) based on analytical samples is that the analytical data document the substance to be
present in a sample at a concentration at or above the detection limit. Hence, the analytical data need only
be qualitatively accurate.
41
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
HRS Section 1.1, Definitions, defines detection limit as follows:
Lowest amount that can be distinguished from the normal random "noise" of an
analytical instrument or method. For HRS purposes, the detection limit used is the
method detection limit (MDL) or, for real-time field instruments, the detection limit of
the instrument as used in the field.
Hence, the detection limit is the point at which the substance can be accurately identified as present in a
sample. Therefore, the concentration of a substance above the detection limit in a sample is qualitative
evidence that the substance is present in the sample.
Regarding the EPA fact sheet cited by Goodrich titled, Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed
Release and Observed Contamination, EPA, November 1996 (available online at
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/fact/docoroc.pdf], this fact sheet explains EPA's guidance
on the use of qualified data to establish observed releases, not to associate substances with sources. These
are conceptually distinct under the HRS regulation. See, for example, HRS sections 2.2.2, Identify
hazardous substances associated with a source, and 2.3, Likelihood of Release. According to the
paragraph introducing the fact sheet:
This fact sheet discusses the use of the US. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) data and other sources of data qualified with a "J",
"U", or "UJ" qualified or flag. This guidance provides a management decision tool for
the optional use of qualified data to document all observed release and observed
contamination by chemical analysis under EPA's Hazard Ranking System (HRS). The
analyte and sample matrix (i.e., soil or water) specific adjustment factors given in this
fact sheet allow biased CLP and non-CLP data to be adjusted to meet the HRS criteria
documenting an observed release and observed contamination with data that are of
known and documented quality. This fact sheet does not address using qualified data for
identifying hazardous substances in a source." [Emphasis added.]
The HRS documentation record at proposal on page 14 discusses analytical results used to support
association of TCE with Source 1, stating:
To fulfill the requirements of the EPA pursuant to its Unilateral Administrative Order
2003-11, Goodrich conducted RI activities at the 160-acre Goodrich parcel from May
2004 through January 2005. Activities included sampling of soil gas at 61 selected on-
site locations (Ref. 5, p. 15). A total of 14 borings were advanced and 28 soil gas
samples were collected, at the suspected area of the former burn pit to total depths of 12
feet below ground surface (bgs). Soil gas samples were collected at 6 feet bgs, and at the
total depth of each boring (Ref. 5, pp. 8, 16, 33-34, 63). Soil gas samples, duplicate
samples, and ambient air samples were collected and directly handed, under standard
chain-of-custody documentation, to an on-site mobile laboratory, Centrum Analytical of
Riverside, California, for Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) analysis by EPA Method
5030/8260B (Ref. 5, p. 35). TCE was detected at 3 locations within the former burn pit
at a maximum concentration of 1.7 micrograms per liter (ug/L) in sample SG-BP-13
(Ref. 5, pp. 16, 62; Ref. 7, p. 40). Soil gas sampling locations are shown on Reference 5,
page 85, and Reference 7, page 40.
The table below summarizes the analytical results for soil vapor samples showing association of TCE
with Source 1.
42
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document
September 2009
SG-BP-09
SG-BP-10
SG-BP-13
Sample Depth
(feet below
ground surface)
6
12
6
12
6
12
TCE
concentration
(HS/L)
0.2J
ND(l.O)
0.5J
ND(l.O)
1.7
0.3
References
Reference
5, Table 1
(page 121)
The notes to the table on page 126 of Reference 5 of the HRS documentation record as proposed define
"J" and "ND" as follows:
"J" indicates estimated concentration below the Laboratory Project Reporting Limit and
above the Method Detection Limit (MDL)
ND = Not detected above the indicated Laboratory Project Reporting Limit
In addition to the detection of TCE in soil vapor samples at the location of the former Goodrich disposal
pit/burn pit (Source 1), TCE was detected in ground water samples from monitoring wells downgradient
of the disposal pit/burn pit, but not in ground water samples from an upgradient monitoring well.
Specifically, the HRS documentation record at proposal on page 14 states:
TCE has been detected in ground water immediately downgradient of the burn pit.
Specifically, TCE has been detected in monitoring wells CMW-01 and CMW-02. TCE
has never been detected in monitoring well PW-1, which is located northwest and
upgradient of the burn pit (Ref. 5, pp. 87-90, 98, 171-177; Ref 6, pp. 85, 87, 118; Ref. 7,
pp. 11-12, 25, 42-43; Ref. 11, pp. 6, 9, 13, 17; Ref. 15; Ref. 17, pp. 14, 39-57, 159-197,
215-244).
As discussed above, under the HRS, to associate hazardous substances with a site source, the analytical
data must show the substance to be present in a sample at a concentration at or above the detection limit.
Therefore, the analytical data need only be qualitatively accurate.
As presented in the HRS documentation record at proposal, the three soil vapor samples that EPA relied
upon to associate TCE with the source were collected at 6 feet bgs (i.e., SG-BP-09, SG-BP-10, and SG-
BP-13) and had TCE concentrations above the MDL. TCE concentrations in samples SG-BP-09 and SG-
BP-10 were qualified with a "J" to indicate that these concentrations are above the MDL but below the
Laboratory Project Reporting Limit. The TCE concentration found in SG-BP-13 was above the
Laboratory Project Reporting Limit defined above, and therefore, by definition, also above the MDL.
Therefore, consistent with the HRS, EPA's detection of TCE in these three soil vapor samples was
sufficient to show that TCE was present/detected in a sample from the source, and to associate TCE with
the source. Indeed, any one of these sample results, since they are all greater than the MDL, would have
satisfied for this purpose.
Regarding Goodrich's objection that EPA did not adjust "J" qualified data for bias in accordance with the
EPA fact sheet on using qualified data, there is no need to do so. The "J" qualifier associated with the soil
vapor data in question was not used to indicate that quality control criteria associated with the analysis
43
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
were not met. Instead, the qualifier simply identifies the detected amount as being above the MDL but
below the Laboratory Project Reporting Limit, as explained above. Furthermore the fact sheet is non-
binding guidance only, and even if it were binding, it additionally states that it "does not address using
qualified data for identifying hazardous substances in a source," and thus would still not apply to this
situation.
Regarding Goodrich's claim that EPA failed to explain how the shallow soil gas sample data (mentioned
above) demonstrated the migration of TCE to ground water at a depth of over 400 feet bgs, particularly
since none of the 13 samples (which include 3 samples collected at the locations of the 3 soil vapor
samples that EPA relied upon) collected at 12 feet bgs had detected TCE concentrations above the MDL,
EPA has concluded that TCE has been "documented ... in source" 1, and therefore, properly associated
with it, based upon the samples taken at 6 feet bgs. Additional sampling at multiple depths is not required
under HRS Section 2.2.2, and the fact that none of the samples at 12 feet bgs were above the MDL does
not change EPA's conclusion. EPA expects that the soil vapor results represent only the residual
remainder of historic releases, and EPA expects to undertake additional sampling as its investigation
continues, in order to better characterize the release.
Furthermore, even if the site were evaluated as a ground water plume with no documented source, the
hazardous waste quantity would remain 100 as assigned at proposal. That is, at proposal the Source 1 and
Source 2 waste quantities were evaluated as unknown but greater than zero, but because there are target
wells subject to Level I concentrations, a ground water pathway hazardous waste quantity of 100 was
assigned according to the directions of HRS Section 2.4.2.2. This same value would still be assigned at
promulgation even if the site were evaluated as a ground water plume because there are target wells
subject to Level I TCE concentrations. Hence, as a ground water plume site with no identified source, the
site score would remain unchanged and the site would still qualify for the NPL. See section 3.10.3 of this
support document for further explanation of this situation.
3.9.2 Unallocated Source — Source 2
Comment: Goodrich claimed that "EPA's attribution to Source 2 as 'Other TCE Sources from Historical
Goodrich Operations' is baseless and irrelevant for the HRS score," and therefore should be ignored.
Goodrich added that EPA conceded that Source 1 could not explain the detection of TCE in ground water
under most of the 160-acre parcel but that EPA ascribed Source 2 to former Goodrich operations without
the support of any data or other evidence. Goodrich contended that there is no evidence that Goodrich
used TCE as a solvent during its operations on the 160-acre parcel and that evidence demonstrates that
Goodrich only disposed of waste from its operations by burning it in a single location, the Burn Pit, but
there is documented evidence of TCE use and disposal by others. Goodrich claims that "EPA concedes
that there is inadequate evidence of disposal or release of TCE by Goodrich in other alleged areas."
Goodrich comments that since EPA and the Regional Board have failed to detect any TCE in the alleged
areas of former Goodrich operations, there is no basis to support attribution to Goodrich.
Response: EPA associated TCE with Source 2 at the B.F. Goodrich site. EPA refers to this source as an
"Unallocated source." The phrase "unallocated source" is found in HRS Section 2.4.2, Hazardous waste
quantity, but was used in a more general sense in the HRS documentation record at proposal to describe
Source 2, which consists of sources of TCE contamination other than Source 1, but the original locus of
those sources cannot be documented given the data currently available.
The phrase "unallocated source" is not a defined term in HRS Section 1.1, Definitions. However,
is defined in that section as:
44
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
Any area where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed, or placed,
plus those soils that have become contaminated from migration of a hazardous substance.
Sources do not include those volumes of air, ground water, surface water, or surface
water sediments that have become contaminated by migration, except: in the case of
either a ground water plume with no identified source or contaminated surface water
sediments with no identified source, the plume or contaminated sediments may be
considered a source.
HRS Section 2.4.2, Hazardous waste quantity, however, uses the phrase "unallocated source." It states in
relevant part:
In evaluating the hazardous waste quantity factor for the three migration pathways,
allocate hazardous substances and hazardous wastestreams to specific sources in the
manner specified in section 2.2.2, except: consider hazardous substances and hazardous
wastestreams that cannot be allocated to any specific source to constitute a separate
"unallocated source" for purposes of evaluating only this factor for the three migration
pathways. Do not, however, include a hazardous substance or hazardous wastestream in
the unallocated source for a migration pathway if there is definitive information
indicating that the substance or wastestream could only have been placed in sources with
a containment factor value of 0 for that migration pathway.
HRS Section 2.2.2, Identify hazardous substances associated with a source, does not use the phrase
"unallocated source." This section states:
In some instances, a hazardous substance can be documented as being present at a site
(for example, by labels, manifests, oral or written statements), but the specific source(s)
containing that hazardous substance cannot be documented. For the three migration
pathways, in those instances when the specific source(s) cannot be documented for a
hazardous substance, consider the hazardous substance to be present in each source at the
site, except sources for which definitive information indicates that the hazardous
substance was not or could not be present.
Source 2 was described in the HRS documentation record at proposal to explain EPA's identification of
an unidentified source at this site, to identify what hazardous substances are associated with the source,
and to assign the source a source waste quantity. As quoted below, the evidence supporting TCE
contamination associated with Source 2, and not Source 1, is TCE contamination in monitoring wells
CMW-03 (at concentrations ranging from 3.2 to 9.7 ppb [(ig/L] (Reference 7, pages 25, 42-43); CMW-04
(at concentrations ranging from 1 to 40 ppb [(ig/L] [Reference 7, pages 42-43]); and CMW-05 (at
concentrations ranging from 11 to 170 (ig/L [Reference 7, pages 42-43; Reference 10, page 7; Reference
15]). These wells are located upgradient and/or crossgradient of Source 1. Therefore, the TCE
contamination in these wells shows that there are one or more other source(s) of TCE separate from
Source 1.
The HRS documentation record at proposal on page 17 states the following concerning Source 2:
This source includes all Goodrich operations on the 160-acre Goodrich parcel, other than
the burn pit included as Source 1 that used or may have used TCE. TCE has been
detected in monitoring wells on the 160-acre Goodrich parcel that are not located
downgradient of Source 1 (see Section 3.1.1, Observed Release). Specifically, TCE has
been detected in monitoring wells CMW-03, CMW-04, and CMW-05, which are located
either upgradient or crossgradient of Source 1. (The suspected location of the former burn
45
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
pit is shown on Reference 5, page 85 (Area C), on Reference 7, page 40, and on
Reference 49.) TCE has never been detected in monitoring well PW-1, which is located
northwest and upgradient of the 160-acre Goodrich parcel (Ref. 5, pp. 87-90, 98, 171-
177; Ref. 6, pp. 85, 87, 118; Ref. 7, pp. 11-12, 25, 40, 42-43; Ref, 10, pp. 5, 7, 15; Ref.
11, pp. 6, 9, 13, 17; Ref. 15; Ref. 16, pp. 14, 52-130; Ref. 17, pp. 14, 39-57, 159-197,
215-244). Therefore, this indicates a source or sources of TCE within the 160-acre parcel
in addition to Source 1.
This description clearly documents Source 2 in accordance with HRS Sections 1.1, 2.2.2, and 2.4.2. First,
Source 2 meets the definition of a "source" as a(n) "area[s] where a hazardous substance has been
deposited, stored, disposed, or placed" even though the specific locus of the area(s) cannot be discerned
using currently available data. (EPA notes that, because EPA was able to document the existence of
Source 1, the exception contained in the definition for "a ground water plume with no identified source"
does not apply. At the same time, see section 3.10.3 of this support document, which discusses that the
site would still score above 28.50, and EPA's listing decision would be unchanged, if EPA dropped the
identification of both Source 1 and Source 2 and treated this site as a ground water plume site, as
suggested by Goodrich in its comments.)
Second, with respect to associating hazardous substances with Source 2 in accordance with HRS Section
2.2.2, from the above description it is evident that the specific source(s) of the TCE contamination other
than Source 1 "cannot be documented" because EPA does not have information on the specific location of
Source 2. Therefore, the TCE was properly considered "to be present in each source at the site"
(including Source 2) since there is no definitive information that TCE is not in a particular location at this
time.
Third, in accordance with HRS Section 2.4.2, Source 2 "constitute[d] a separate 'unallocated source' for
purposes of evaluating only this factor" because the TCE upgradient and crossgradient of Source 1 could
not be allocated to any specific source based on the available information, and instead the waste quantity
associated with it was allocated to Source 2. On this point, EPA notes that the reference in HRS Section
2.4.2 to the unallocated source "for purposes of evaluating only this factor" does not preclude EPA from
treating Source 2 as described above under HRS Sections 1.1 and 2.2.2, or referring to it as an
"unallocated source." EPA notes that TCE is "associated" with each source as described under HRS
Section 2.2.2. So this reference serves to remind the scorer to avoid "double-counting" these wastes by
assuming them to be in each source as directed in Section 2.2.2, but instead, to calculate waste quantity
for the "unallocated source" only once.
Thus, the HRS documentation record at proposal on page 17 also states that:
In accordance with HRS Section 2.2.2, TCE can be documented as being present at the
site but the specific source(s) containing TCE cannot be documented (Ref. 1, p. 59,
Section 2.2.2). Therefore, in accordance with HRS Section 2.4.2, this constitutes a
separate "unallocated source" (Ref. 1, p. 61, Section 2.4.2).
Regarding Goodrich's claim that "EPA concedes that there is inadequate evidence of disposal or release
of TCE by Goodrich in other alleged areas," and that, based on the lack of TCE detection in alleged areas
of former Goodrich operation, there is no basis to support attribution to Goodrich, first, EPA agrees that
the specific location(s) of disposal or release of TCE upgradient and crossgradient of Source 1 has not
been identified to date, and second, simply because sampling to date has not revealed specific sources of
TCE other than Source 1, does not mean all potential historical sources of contamination on the property
have been identified.
46
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
Regarding Goodrich's assertion EPA ascribed Source 2 to former Goodrich operations without the
support of any data or other evidence, and that there is documented evidence of TCE use and disposal by
others, Source 2, an "unallocated source," consists of other sources of TCE on the 160-acre area, other
than the disposal pit/burn pit included as Source 1, that used or may have used TCE (see page 17 of the
HRS documentation record at proposal). "All Goodrich operations on the 160-acre parcel," refers to all
of the operations at the "B.F. Goodrich site," which are not limited to just those associated with the
Goodrich Corporation, but, as discussed in this document, may include DoD, WCLC, and others (see
section 3.7 and subsections of this support document).
As also discussed in section 3.4 of this support document, to avoid any future misunderstanding, EPA has
revised the HRS documentation record to make it clearer that the site is not limited to just releases from
Goodrich Corporation sources. Specifically, the "Goodrich operations on the 160-acre parcel" phrase in
the HRS documentation record at proposal has been replaced in the HRS documentation record at
promulgation with "operations on the B.F. Goodrich site," which are not limited to just sources which
resulted from the Goodrich Corporation use and disposal of TCE at the site. See section 3.4 of this
support document for further discussion on site location and extent of the site.
Regarding the Goodrich comment, "EPA's attribution to Source 2 as 'Other TCE Sources from Historical
Goodrich Operations' is baseless and irrelevant for the HRS score," under the HRS, the release scored is
attributed to the site, not to the operations of a particular company operating on the site. Attributing a
portion of a release to a site is relevant to the HRS score because attribution of a release to a site is
necessary to assign a likelihood of release score to the site (see, for example, HRS Section 3.1.1,
Observed Release). The basis for supporting attribution of TCE to the B.F. Goodrich site is discussed in
further detail in sections 3.7 and 3.10 of this support document. And as discussed above, the association
of TCE with Source 2 is based on evidence that there is another source(s) upgradient and crossgradient of
Source 1. This source(s) is not limited to sources of TCE that resulted from Goodrich use and disposal of
TCE at the site.
3.9.3 Other Possible On-site Sources — Not Associated with Goodrich Operations
Comment: Goodrich claimed that EPA unfairly "ignores other potential sources" of TCE from over ten
different entities including DoD, governmental contractors, and fireworks companies. Goodrich alleged
that other operators on the 160-acre parcel did not have good safety records, citing numerous fires and
explosions. Goodrich stated that it had an excellent safety record and followed standard industry
practices and government regulations on the use, handling, and disposal of chemicals.
Goodrich and PSI commented that World War II era operations by DoD are a likely source of TCE on the
site. Goodrich stated that the U.S. military used the area for staging of railcars and the storage of
munitions, fuses, and explosives prior to their being shipped to the Pacific Theater. PSI commented that
EPA's attribution analysis ignores at least one significant potential source of TCE, and identifies the
DoD, by stating that they have used an estimated 203,000,000 pounds of TCE in degreasing operations
during World War II.
Goodrich also named WCLC, a subsidiary of Kwikset Locks, Inc., as a possible source of the TCE and
perchlorate contamination at the site, and included statements from former employees testifying under
oath that WCLC's operations involved the use of TCE.
Emhart stated that Goodrich is incorrect in its assertion that WCLC's operations involved the use of TCE.
Emhart claimed that "the 'testimony' of the former WCLC employees referenced by Goodrich . . .
regarding WCLC's alleged use of TCE has not been accurately described or summarized by Goodrich."
Emhart stated "that testimony consists mostly of leading questions (suggesting the answer) repeatedly
47
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
asked by Goodrich's counsel of the now very elderly former WCLC employees, all of whom were
represented by counsel paid for by Goodrich, even though Goodrich's interests were and remain directly
adverse to WCLC's interests."
Goodrich also identified Pyrotronics Corporation and/or its predecessors as possible sources of
contamination. It stated that Pyrotronics operated a "major fireworks manufacturing, storage, disposal,
and distribution facility at the 160-acre parcel for at least 20 years," where they "routinely purchased,
stored, and handled huge quantities of raw chemicals, including perchlorate," during which time it
"disposed of, spilled, and released huge quantities of waste directly onto the ground in multiple locations,
consisting of, among other things, disposal pits, burn pits, and a 'swimming pool' (i.e., the 'McLaughlin
Pit')." Goodrich claimed that "[t]he McLaughlin Pit is undoubtedly a major source of contamination in
the Rialto-Colton Basin as tens of thousands of gallons of unregulated wastes were dumped into the
surface impoundment for over a decade," and that "it is the only confirmed source of perchlorate
groundwater contamination on the 160-acre parcel." Goodrich claims that the highest concentrations of
perchlorate in 2006 were found in the soil samples near the McLaughlin Pit and in monitoring wells
immediately downgradient of the pit. Goodrich claimed that despite soil sample results from the
McLaughlin Pit area showing the presence of TCE, EPA did not score the McLaughlin Pit as a source of
contamination. Goodrich commented that "soil sample results from the McLaughlin Pit area show TCE
concentrations at 8.7 ppb between 200 and 300 feet and 4.5 ppb between 400 and 440 feet, which are both
deeper and higher in concentration than the shallow, trace soil vapor sample relied upon by EPA in its
attempt to attribute Source 1 to Goodrich." Goodrich also claims that "CMW-02, cited by EPA as being
downgradient of Goodrich's burn pit, Source 1, is actually closer to and immediately downgradient of the
McLaughlin Pit," and therefore the McLaughlin Pit, and ultimately Pyrotronics, should be named as a
potential source of TCE contamination.
Mr. Peter H. Wulfman, County of San Bernardino Solid Waste Management division manager (the
County of San Bernardino) commented that there are multiple source areas in the basin and EPA has
elected to list only one source area in the basin. The County of San Bernardino commented that EPA's
not listing the potential source areas on the western side of the basin "recognizes that it is appropriate to
treat the Site separately from the alleged source areas on the western side of the basin." The County of
San Bernardino states that it agrees with the decision not to list these other sources that are already being
remediated.
Response: As explained in section 3.4 of this support document in discussing the extent of the site, the
various alternative facilities discussed by the various commenters are all considered other possible TCE
sources either on or in the general vicinity of the B.F. Goodrich site. All but the MVSL source are
considered to be possible sources for later inclusion in the B.F. Goodrich site. At this time, based on
information available at the time of proposal, the TCE releases from the MVSL are considered to be
contained in a separate plume.
The discussion in the "Other Possible Sources Section" of the HRS documentation record at promulgation
has been clarified to explain this situation. However, EPA notes that discussing these possible sources in
the HRS documentation record does not identify that EPA considers that they all have contributed to the
release of TCE from the site or that releases from them have reached ground water and contaminated
drinking water supplies. Their inclusion in this section of the HRS documentation record at promulgation
only identifies that EPA will further investigate these sources during the Remedial Investigation for the
site and, if possible, determine if releases from these possible sources pose a sufficient risk that
remediation is warranted.
To the extent that Goodrich's comments regarding the McLaughlin Pit may be concerned with attributing
the release to the site, see section 3.10.1.4 of this support document.
48
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
3.10 Likelihood of Release - Observed Release by Chemical Analysis -
Attribution
Goodrich, Emhart, and PSI submitted comments on the attribution of the release of TCE to the site.
Goodrich stated that EPA lacks any reliable evidence to support its attribution of TCE in the ground water
at the site location. Goodrich commented that "EPA must either revise its HRS score based upon new
source attribution evidence or re-score the matter as a 'contaminated groundwater plume,' if it cannot
attribute the source of TCE." Emhart stated that it was inappropriate for Goodrich to debate the causes of
the release of the contaminants of concern during the process of placement of a site on the NPL. PSI
commented that EPA's attribution analysis ignores at least one significant potential source of TCE, and
identifies the DoD as a source of TCE.
A detailed summary of these comments with EPA responses is in sections 3.10.1 - 3.10.3 and their
subsections of this support document.
3.10.1 Likelihood of Release Factor Value
3.10.1.1 Likelihood of Release to the Aquifer
Comment: Goodrich claimed that the value assigned to the Likelihood of Release to an Aquifer category
is flawed, and that EPA "cannot utilize the Maximum Value of 550 for scoring a value for 'Likelihood of
Release to an Aquifer.'" Goodrich asserted that "EPA has failed to demonstrate that a release of TCE
from any alleged Goodrich source has migrated to the aquifer," which, according to Goodrich, is required
per HRS Section 3.1.1, Observed release, to establish an observed release. Goodrich claimed that since
"EPA has failed to demonstrate attribution to the Site Location or otherwise to Goodrich," it has not
established an observed release and may not use the maximum value of 550 for observed release under
the HRS. Goodrich claimed that "[g]iven that EPA has not attributed the contamination to a source, it
should not score the site or consider scoring the site as a groundwater plume." Goodrich requested that
EPA withdraw its proposal to list the site on the NPL.
Goodrich also asserted that it never used TCE in its operations at the site, which in turn means TCE could
not be associated with any Goodrich source. Goodrich commented that while it does not believe that there
is sufficient evidence to score the site with the soil vapor detections, if EPA were to proceed to score the
site based upon these only, the score would at best be based on a value for potential to release (or 390
instead of 550).
Response: The identification of an observed release of TCE by chemical analysis, including the
attribution of the release of TCE to the site, was documented in the HRS documentation record at
proposal. As shown below, the release has been attributed at least in part to the site, therefore, EPA will
not withdraw the listing and EPA's assigned score of 550 for an observed release was appropriate.
Goodrich's use of TCE is discussed in section 3.7.1 of this support document. Further, the association of
TCE with Source 1 was based upon both soil vapor sampling, and on deposition testimony. (See section
3.9.1 of this support document).
The HRS identifies the requirements for establishing an observed release in HRS Section 2.3, Likelihood
of release. For the ground water pathway, additional directions for evaluating an observed release are
49
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
provided in HRS Sections 3.1, Likelihood of release, and 3.1.1, Observed release. HRS Section 3.1.1
directs the scorer to:
Establish an observed release to an aquifer by demonstrating that the site has released a hazardous
substance to the aquifer.
HRS Section 3.1.1 continues that an observed release to an aquifer can be based on either "direct
observation" or "chemical analysis" and provides directions for each. Specific directions for identifying
an observed release by chemical analysis, are presented in HRS Section 3.1.1:
Chemical analysis—an analysis of ground water samples from the aquifer indicates that the
concentration of hazardous substance(s) has increased significantly above the background
concentration for the site (see section 2.3). Some portion of the significant increase must be
attributable to the site to establish the observed release . . . .If an observed release can be
established for the aquifer, assign the aquifer an observed release factor value of 550 ....
Thus, there are two parts to establishing an observed release by chemical analysis, first, establishing a
significant increase in contaminant concentrations, and second, by attributing at least part of the increase
to the site. EPA notes that, as stated above, HRS Section 2.3 contains the requirements for establishing a
significant increase in hazardous substance concentrations and that Goodrich did not challenge the
identification of a significant increase.7
Regarding attribution, the HRS documentation record established that some portion of the release was
attributable to the site, first, by showing that TCE is associated with source(s) at the site, and second, by
showing that the significant increase in that substance was not due to off-site sources.
TCE was associated with site sources.
Sources 1 and 2 were documented to contain TCE as discussed on pages 14, 15, 17, and 18 of the HRS
documentation record at proposal and in sections 3.7 and 3.9 of this support document. A disposal
pit/burn pit, evaluated as Source 1, was used to dispose of waste and spent solvents. TCE was associated
with this source via the testimonies of Goodrich employees and soil gas samples collected at the
suspected location of TCE contamination. This evaluation was consistent with HRS Section 2.2.2. TCE
was also associated with Source 2, an unallocated source at the site which consists of other sources of
TCE releases where the specific location(s) of disposal or release have not been identified to date. This is
discussed in section 3.9.2 above. The evaluation of Source 2 in the HRS documentation record at
proposal includes using ground water monitoring wells at the site that are either upgradient and/or
crossgradient of Source 1. Because data from these wells show the presence of TCE, the data thereby
demonstrate the release of TCE from a source other than Source 1. This evaluation was consistent with
HRS Sections 2.2.2 and 2.4.2. As explained above, the site is not limited to just B.F. Goodrich
operations. (See sections 3.9.1 and 3.9.2 of this support document for a detailed discussion of the
characterization of Sources 1 and 2 at the site.) For these reasons, TCE was found to be associated with
site sources.
7 The TCE concentrations in the observed release wells listed in the HRS documentation record met the HRS
observed release criteria established in Table 2-3, Observed Release Criteria for Chemical Analysis, in HRS Section
2.3, Likelihood of Release. (See pages 26-35 of the HRS documentation record at proposal).
50
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
Consideration of Off-Site Sources.
The background levels established using background wells PW-1 and WVWD-24 screened out
contribution of TCE from any possible sites upgradient of the B.F. Goodrich site. These wells are
upgradient of Sources 1 and 2, and no other possible sources of TCE were identified upgradient of the site
sources.
Well PW-1 was used as a background monitoring well to evaluate a release to monitoring wells PW-2,
PW-3, PW-4, CMW2A, CMW2B, CMW2C, CMW5A, CMW5B, and CMW5C (see pages 26 -30 of the
HRS documentation record at proposal and Figures 4 and 5 of Reference 6 of the HRS documentation
record at proposal). No other sources of TCE were identified upgradient of the site sources. Page 21 of
the HRS documentation record at proposal states that, "[g]round water flow in the basin has been
consistently from the northwest to the southeast during [the 70-year period for which data are available]
and generally follows the same trend for all three water-bearing zones (Ref 69, pp. 14-17)." Well PW-1
is approximately 1500 feet northwest of well CMW-2 (see Figures 2 through 5 of Reference 6, and
Figures 1 and A-9 of Reference 7 of the HRS documentation record at proposal). PW-1 is located
upgradient of site sources considering that ground water flow at the site is toward the southeast.
As stated in the HRS documentation record at proposal, PW-1 is an appropriate background location for
the above-named wells because all wells are screened in Subzone B of the Middle Water-Bearing Zone,
with similar screen lengths. In addition, based on measurements from these wells, ground water flow in
Subzone B is consistently toward the southeast (see pages 26 and 28 of the HRS documentation record at
proposal). TCE was not detected at or above the MDL of 0.26 (ig/L in background well PW-1 in
November 2007, nor was it detected at or above the contract required quantitation limit (CRQL) of 0.5
(ig/L in January 2008 (see pages 26 and 28 of the HRS documentation record at proposal). Goodrich has
continued to conduct periodic sampling of ground water monitoring wells PW-1 through PW-9, and since
installation, TCE has remained below the detection limit in background well PW-1. (See Page 26 of the
HRS documentation record at proposal.)
TCE contamination in ground water samples was identified in monitoring wells PW-2, CMW2A,
CMW2B, CMW2C, CMW5A, CMW5B, and CMW5C which are located at the site on the former
Goodrich property (see Figure 2 of Reference 6 and Figure A-9 of Reference 7 of the HRS documentation
record at proposal). TCE contamination was also identified in monitoring wells PW-3 and PW-4, which
are located just off the southeastern boundary of the former Goodrich property (Figure 2 of Reference 6
and Figure A-9 of Reference 7 of the HRS documentation record at proposal). TCE was detected in
monitoring wells PW-2, PW-3, and PW-4 at concentrations of 24 (ig/L, 160 (ig/L, and 13 (ig/L,
respectively, in November and December 2007 (see page 27 of the HRS documentation record at
proposal). In January 2008, the highest concentrations of TCE were in monitoring wells PW-3 and
CMW5A at 92 (ig/L and 170 (ig/L, respectively, and both are above the CRQL for TCE (pages 29-30 of
the HRS documentation record at proposal). These TCE concentrations document a significant increase
in TCE above background levels.
EPA also used production Well WVWD-24 as a background well to evaluate a release to production wells
Rialto-1, Rialto-2, Rialto-6, and WVWD-22, which were scored as target wells (see pages 31 and 33 of
the HRS documentation record at proposal). (The HRS documentation record at proposal also evaluated
an observed release to the Fontana F49A well; however, as discussed in section 3.10.2.1 of this support
document, Fontana F49A will not be considered as part of the site scoring at promulgation.) WVWD-24
is located approximately 1.33 miles northwest of Source 1 at the site and approximately 2.5 miles
northwest of Rialto-1 well (see Reference 49 of the HRS documentation record at proposal). The HRS
documentation record at proposal states that WVWD-24 is an appropriate background location for Rialto-
1, Rialto-2, Rialto-6, and WVWD-22 because all are screened in the interconnected middle water-bearing
51
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
zone. Ground water flow in the middle zone is consistently toward the southeast. Well WVWD-24 is
located northwest and upgradient of the site and wells Rialto-1, Rialto-2, WVWD-22, and Rialto-6 are
located southeast and downgradient of the site (see pages 31 and 32 of the HRS documentation record at
proposal). TCE was not detected during routine sampling (from 1984 through 2005) as part of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (see page 32 of the HRS documentation record at proposal). TCE also was not
detected at or above the CRQL of 0.5 (ig/L in a January 2008 sampling event.
In a January 2008 sampling event, TCE concentrations in Rialto-1, Rialto-2, and WVWD-22 were 0.83
(ig/L, 4.2 (ig/L, and 19 (ig/L, respectively (see page 31 of the HRS documentation record at proposal).
TCE was detected in Rialto-1 in 2003 to 2007 at concentrations ranging from 0.7 - 1.2 (ig/L; in Rialto-2
in 1994 to 2006 at concentrations ranging from 1.3 - 6.7 (ig/L; in Rialto-6 in 2001 to 2006 at
concentrations ranging from 1.0 - 2.5 (ig/L; and in WVWD-22 in 1989 to 2004 at concentrations ranging
from 1.1 - 54.7 (ig/L (see pages 33 - 35 of the HRS documentation record at proposal).
The HRS documentation record at proposal summarizes the attribution of TCE to the B.F. Goodrich site
on pages 36 and 37. It states that an observed release of TCE to ground water beneath the site is
established based on sampling of monitoring wells located directly upgradient and downgradient of the
site. In 1957, Goodrich purchased the 160-acre area from WCLC, to relocate its Army Ordnance
Research Project from Brecksville, Ohio. Using the existing structures with minor modifications,
Goodrich began manufacturing solid rocket propellant and production of rocket motors, while also
continuing research and development for various U.S. Army and Air Force programs. Initial Goodrich
projects at the site included solid rocket propellant research and development for Edwards Air Force
Base. Later work included contracts with the Naval Ordnance Test Station in China Lake, including work
on the Loki and Sidewinder Missiles. During Goodrich solid rocket motor manufacturing operations,
solvents, including TCE, were used to clean every vessel, including the mixers, and casings. Waste
materials from manufacturing and development operations, including excess propellant from the mixers,
excess oxidizer, trimmings from the final castings, and propellant wastes from research and development
activities were disposed in an on-site pit (Source 1). Former Goodrich employees have indicated the use
and disposal of solvents, including TCE, in the disposal pit/burn pit (see page 36 of the HRS
documentation record at proposal). TCE has been detected in ground water immediately downgradient of
the disposal pit/burn pit (Source 1). In addition, TCE has been detected in monitoring wells on the site
that are not located downgradient of Source 1. Specifically, TCE has been detected in monitoring wells
CMW-03, CMW-04, and CMW-05, which are located either upgradient and/or crossgradient of Source 1.
TCE has never been detected in monitoring well PW-1, which is located northwest and upgradient of the
site. Therefore, this indicates a source of TCE within the disposal pit/burn pit, as well as a separate
unallocated source within the site (see page 37 of the HRS documentation record at proposal).
In summary, the analytical data from monitoring wells located within the B.F. Goodrich site documents a
significant increase of TCE near and downgradient of site Sources 1 and 2. TCE was used in operations
at the site and is associated with site sources. The TCE plume, referred to as the "eastern plume,"
originates at the B.F. Goodrich site and continues in a southeast trend. Ground water flow direction at the
site is toward the southeast (see pages 13, 21, 25 and 26; Figures 2-5 and 9-10 of Reference 6; Figures 1
and A-9 of Reference 7; and Figure 2-2 of Reference 9 of the HRS documentation record at proposal).
The target wells evaluated in the HRS documentation record are all downgradient (southeast) of the B.F.
Goodrich site (see Figure 2 of Reference 6 and Reference 49 of the HRS documentation record at
proposal). The HRS only requires that some portion of the significant increase in contaminant levels in
the aquifer must be attributable to the site. TCE was documented to be associated with site sources and
TCE was also shown to be attributable to the site by a significant increase in TCE concentrations
downgradient of site sources. Upgradient sources were accounted for by the location of the background
samples. Based on this analytical data documenting an observed release to the aquifer, a likelihood of
52
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
release factor value of 550 was assigned to the site (see pages 36-37 of the HRS documentation record at
proposal).
Finally, EPA notes that, even assuming for the sake of argument that the releases were not properly
attributed as Goodrich suggests in its comments, the site would score as a ground water plume without a
source, as discussed in detail in section 3.10.3 of this support document.
3.10.1.2 TCE Availability to Migrate from Site Sources
Comment: Goodrich commented that "EPA has presented no evidence establishing that discharges from
Goodrich's operations ever reached groundwater or threaten to reach groundwater" and similarly stated
that because it "promptly burned all combustible industrial waste, the available evidence leads to the
conclusion that Goodrich's . . . operations did not contaminate, and does not threaten to contaminate, the
groundwater . . . ." Goodrich claims that "EPA's failure to offer substantial evidence that a release of TCE
at the Site Location from Source 1 contributed to groundwater contamination and its failure to adequately
explain the scientific basis for its conclusion that the Site Location was the source of groundwater
contamination is arbitrary and capricious. See National Gypsum Company v. U.S. EPA, 968 F.2d 40, 43-
44 (D.C. Cir. 1992)."
Response: The HRS does not require a continuous trail of contamination between the site sources and the
ground water to attribute a release to the site. This is beyond the scope of a screening tool. Instead, it is
generally considered sufficient if a substance is found in a source that is not fully physically contained to
prevent migration from the source to the ground water, that the same substance be found in the aquifer
from which release wells draw, and that no off-site source could be causing the significant increase in the
contaminant levels. For this site, EPA has documented that both site sources associated with TCE are
inadequately contained to prevent migration from them, TCE contamination has reached ground water
and no other sources of TCE upgradient of the site, or between the site and the release wells containing
TCE, are known. Therefore, it has been shown that the TCE contamination came from the site.
According to HRS Section 2.2.3, Identify hazardous substances available to a pathway, for the ground
water pathway, the scorer should consider the following hazardous substances available to migrate from
sources at the site:
Hazardous substances that meet the criteria for an observed release (see section 2.3) to
ground water.
All hazardous substances associated with a source with a ground water containment
factor value greater than 0 (see section 3.1.2.1).
HRS Section 3.1.2.1, Containment, directs the scorer, when certain minimum waste quantity values are
not met (as was the case here), to assign the highest applicable containment factor value from HRS Table
3-2 to each source at the site. This results in a factor value between 0 and 10 being assigned. Under
Table 3-2, the scorer must consider whether there is "[e]vidence of hazardous substance migration,"
and/or whether there are various containment features present, to assign a factor value. One of the factors
listed in Table 3-2 for "All Sources" (with certain exceptions not relevant here) is "[n]o liner[,]" which
results in an assigned value of 10. Source 1 was assigned a value of 10 in the HRS documentation record
at proposal (see page 15 of the HRS documentation record at proposal) because there was evidence of
hazardous substance migration from this source and it did not have a liner. Source 2 was assigned a value
of 10 in the HRS documentation record at proposal because there was evidence of migration from this
source (see page 18 of the HRS documentation record at proposal). Hence, both of these sources were
assigned containment factor values greater than zero, making the hazardous substances associated with
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
them and the sources eligible for evaluation in the site scoring. (See also section 3.10.1.1 of this support
document.)
3.10.1.3 Soil Gas Data to Justify TCE at Source 1
Comment: Goodrich claimed that EPA failed to explain how shallow soil vapor data from only three
samples where TCE was present at trace levels in the area of the disposal pit/burn pit used by Goodrich
and how the lack of TCE detected at depths beneath those soil vapor samples demonstrate the migration
of TCE to the ground water located at a depth of over 400 feet below the ground surface (bgs). Goodrich
added that EPA failed to justify its reliance upon the shallow soil vapor data to demonstrate the source of
TCE ground water contamination at Source 1, since none of the numerous soil samples collected under a
work plan approved by EPA in the vicinity of the source showed detected TCE concentrations from the
surface down through over 400 feet to ground water.
Response: The soil gas data is sufficient to associate TCE with Source 1. The soil gas samples were
collected from the suspected location of Source 1 (see page 14 of the HRS documentation record at
proposal and sections 3.7 and 3.9 of this support document). This meets the requirement in HRS Section
2.2.2 that a substance can be associated with a source based on sampling. That other samples in the
vicinity of Source 1 did not contain TCE does not alter this finding. In fact, it supports the conclusion
that TCE is in the samples due to Source 1, in that if there were other sources of TCE in the vicinity of
Source 1, one would expect to find TCE in the soil gas in the vicinity of Source 1 and not just in samples
from Source 1.
This sampling information and the information that TCE was disposed of in Source 1 based on
depositions are each sufficient to associate TCE with Source 1.
3.10.1.4 McLaughlin Pit as Source of TCE Release
Comment: Goodrich questioned EPA's consideration of ground water data from samples collected either
upgradient or crossgradient of Source 1 (i.e., CMW-03, CMW-04, and CMW-05) when attributing the
contamination to Source 1. Goodrich also claims that, "CW-02, cited by EPA as being downgradient of
Goodrich's burn pit, Source 1, is actually closer to and immediately downgradient of the McLaughlin
Pit," and therefore the McLaughlin Pit, and ultimately Pyrotronics, should be named as a potential source
of TCE contamination.
Response: TCE was appropriately attributed to a release from the B.F. Goodrich site. Under Section 2.3
of the HRS, at least some portion of the release must be attributable to the site, not to individual sources.
Similarly, HRS Section 3.1.1, Observed release, specifically directs that some portion of the significant
increase must be attributed to the site. The background samples used to establish the significant increase
at the site were from wells upgradient to the site (see pages 26, 28, 31, and 33 of the HRS documentation
record at proposal). The TCE concentrations in these background wells were consistently below
detection. Therefore, EPA concluded that no offsite upgradient sources were contributing to the
significant increase in TCE concentrations in the ground water below or downgradient of the site, and
thus some portion of the significant increase must be attributable to the B.F. Goodrich site.
Further, the site includes Source 2, an unallocated source, and this source is not restricted to just Goodrich
operations, but rather, includes all sources and releases of TCE to ground water at the B.F. Goodrich site
(see sections 3.4, 3.7, and 3.9 of this support document). The Me Laughlin Pit may ultimately be found to
be another source of contamination among others presently associated with the unallocated source.
54
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
The HRS documentation record at proposal does not identify whether or not the McLaughlin Pit can be
associated with TCE or that the significant increase in TCE concentration can be attributed in part to this
pit. A more complete investigation into the sources of TCE will be performed during the RI for the site, a
separate stage of the Superfund process. If information is developed that links TCE contamination with
the McLaughlin Pit, appropriate actions will be taken.
3.10.1.5 Other Source of TCE Release
Comment: PSI commented that PSI never handled TCE at the site, and therefore, its current and historic
operations are not relevant to the HRS scoring and should be removed from the HRS documentation
record. PSI commented that EPA concludes that the Burn Pit and the unallocated source within the 160-
acre area are sources of TCE. PSI commented that EPA's attribution analysis ignores at least one
significant potential source of TCE, and identifies the DoD as a source of TCE. PSI asserted that EPA's
scoring does not consider other sources of TCE that are downgradient of the 160-acre area.
Response: TCE was appropriately attributed to a release from the B.F. Goodrich site. HRS Section 3.1.1,
Observed release, specifically directs that the observed release must be attributable to the site. As
discussed in section 3.4 of this support document, the site is not restricted to just Goodrich operations, but
rather, includes all sources and releases of TCE to ground water at the B.F. Goodrich site (see sections
3.4, 3.7, and 3.9 of this support document). Upon further study, sources related to PSI's operations may
be discovered, and if information is developed that links TCE with sources resulting from PSI operations,
appropriate actions will be taken. PSI's operations may also be one of the possible locations of TCE
sources evaluated as Source 2, the unallocated source (see section 3.9.2 of this support document).
The HRS evaluation does not identify whether or not PSI released TCE. There is nothing in the HRS that
precludes EPA from discussing activities in the HRS documentation record that are not used in the HRS
scoring of the site. In any case, a more complete investigation into the sources of TCE will be performed
during the RI for the site, a separate stage of the Superfund process.
3.10.1.6 Timeliness of Comment on the Cause of the Release
Comment: Emhart stated that it was inappropriate for Goodrich to debate the causes of the release of the
contaminants of concern during the process of placement of a site on the NPL.
Response: To the extent that Goodrich's comments address the attribution of the releases to the site, EPA
considers that Goodrich's comments are relevant to the listing, although, as explained elsewhere, those
comments have not led EPA to change the HRS score for the site. To the extent that Goodrich's
comments address potential liability at the site, they are not relevant to the listing decision, as liability is
not considered in HRS scoring. This is also explained in the preamble to today's final rule. The HRS
documentation record has evaluated an observed release of TCE to ground water attributable to the B.F.
Goodrich site. The site has scored sufficiently for placement on the NPL. As Goodrich questioned the
attribution of the release to the site, EPA responds to its comment as part of the listing process.
3.10.2 Attribution of Contamination in Level I Target Wells to the Site
3.10.2.1 Fontana F49A Well
Comment: Goodrich questioned the eligibility of Well Fontana 49A as a Level I target well. It asserted
that the TCE contamination in this well did not come from the B. F. Goodrich site (i.e., that the
contamination in the well could not in part be attributed to the site). Goodrich asserted that this well is
contaminated by the MVSL. Goodrich stated that "EPA policy provides that areas lying between samples
55
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
should not be considered a part of the plume where 'available information indicates contamination
should not be inferred between these points? Groundwater Plumes, EPA Fact Sheet, Sept. 1998.
(Emphasis added)." Goodrich stated that references in the HRS documentation record demonstrate that
TCE in the vicinity of Fontana 49A is from theMVSL. It cited to Reference 13 of the HRS documentation
record at proposal to support its claim. Goodrich added that other assessments prepared for the County of
San Bernardino show that releases from the 160-acre area would not migrate toward Fontana-49A. It
cited to Exhibits 30, 31, and 32 of its comments in support of its assertion. Goodrich added that the HRS
documentation record contains analytical data from Fontana 49A that show detection of PCE (at higher
concentrations than TCE), which is the primary contaminant of concern at the MVSL. Goodrich also
commented that the HRS documentation record is incorrect in stating that this well is located southeast
and downgradient of the 160-acre parcel. It affirmed that this well is located two miles crossgradient to
the south of the site. Goodrich also commented that this well is subject to a Regional Board Cleanup and
Abatement Order (CAO) and is being used as an extraction well for a VOC cleanup project. Goodrich
cited to Exhibits 28 and 29 of its comments in support of its assertions.
Goodrich stated that EPA's response to Fontana Water Company regarding Fontana Well 49A is contrary
to its HRS scoring for the B.F. Goodrich site. Goodrich stated that EPA stated in a March 27, 2009, letter
to a consultant for the Fontana Water Company that there was no evidence that contamination in Fontana
49A was from the 160-acre area. Goodrich cited to Exhibit F, a letter dated March 27, 2009, from Wayne
Praskins, U.S. EPA Region 9, to E. John List, Flow Science, which is included as an exhibit to
Goodrich's comments dated April 16, 2009.
The County of San Bernardino also questioned the eligibility of Well Fontana 49A as a Level I target
well. It commented that the TCE contamination in this well did not come from the B.F. Goodrich site.
The County of San Bernardino stated that Well F-49A is being treated by the County under an order from
the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. The County of San Bernardino stated that
the administrative record and other documents show well F-49A is located outside the area impacted by
the site and is located more than a mile to the west of the plume emanating from the site. First, it stated
that Reference 9 of the HRS documentation record contains a plume map representing EPA's current
understanding of the areal extent of the plume emanating from the site. It then stated that when one places
well F-49A on this map, well F-49A is more than a mile to the west of the plume emanating from the site
(see Exhibit H of the County of San Bernardino's comments). Second, it commented that EPA's sampling
strategy for defining the nature and extent of the contamination emanating from the site chose sampling
locations based on their proximity to the 'interpreted extent of contamination downgradient of the 160-
acre Goodrich parcel.' The County of San Bernardino then stated that well F-49A is not within EPA's
cluster of tested wells, but rather is located more than a mile to the west of the cluster of wells that
represents the interpreted extent of contamination from the site. Third, it stated that the HRS
documentation record acknowledges that the 'TCE plume from MVSL appears to be distinct from the
TCE plume from the 160-acre parcel.' It added that well F-49A has not been historically or currently
impacted by the site despite trace levels of TCE in select historic samples. The County of San Bernardino
also pointed out that recent TCE levels in this well are only at trace levels or non-detect.
The County of San Bernardino also stated that, "[m]odeling conducted by the County which forms the
basis of reports and remedial plans reviewed and approved by the RWQCB also confirms that the two
perchlorate plumes are separate." The County stated that it has spent more than $14 million in response
costs to contain the distal end of the western perchlorate plume. It added that "since 1998 [it] has been
involved in remedial actions to address a separate VOC contamination plume emanating from or near
Unit 1 of the MVSL, which is located to the west of the western perchlorate plume." The County of San
Bernardino also stated that it recognized that ground water flow could change such that wells like F-49A
could be impacted by the B.F. Goodrich site in the future, but that the HRS package should be based on
current conditions.
56
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
PSI commented that Fontana 49A is located downgradient of the MVSL and the repeated detection of
PCE in Fontana F-49A is consistent with known releases from the MVSL.
Mr. E. John List, on behalf of the Fontana Water Company, stated that the following comments respond
to false assertions in comments submitted to EPA by the San Bernardino County at the end of the
comment period on the B.F. Goodrich site:
• Fontana Water Company stated that the County of San Bernardino is incorrect in its assertion that
perchlorate is not found in well F-49A. It submitted Attachment 1 to its comments in which it
shows perchlorate concentrations as high as 1.5 (ig/L in Well F-49A.
• Fontana Water Company stated that the County of San Bernardino is incorrect in its assertion that
Well F-49A is not located in the ground water flow path from the site. It added that this is
contradicted by ground water contour data contained in numerous USGS and other studies
submitted to EPA on October 6, 2008. It included Attachment 2 to its comments, a figure it
reproduced from a GeoSyntec report (Reference 6 of the HRS documentation record at proposal)
and added that this contour shows ground water flows to the south and shows Well F-49A in the
ground water flow path from the site. Fontana Water Company stated that the County of San
Bernardino omitted this figure in its attachment to its comments. It contended that the figure
included by the County of San Bernardino shows ground water flow direction in the upper aquifer
which flows to the southeast. Fontana Water Company explained that limited chlorine and
oxygen isotope data show that a production well located immediately south of the Goodrich site
and the county landfill and adjacent to new sampling wells had a high fraction of synthetic
perchlorate.
• Fontana Water Company stated that the assertion by the County of San Bernardino that if Well F-
49A were impacted by the site, perchlorate rather than TCE would be the contaminant identified
first, is erroneous. The Fontana Water Company asserted that, "[e]ven if there were no
perchlorate in Well F-49A (and there is) this statement presumes that the TCE and perchlorate
were released simultaneously from the same source location, for which there is no basis."
• Fontana Water Company stated that the VOC plume contains no perchlorate at reportable levels,
which is refuted by the County's own Exhibit I (Figure 2-3).
• Fontana Water Company stated that technical discussion of impacted wells F-13A and F-13B,
which are in the flow path or are impacted by the site, is omitted.
• Fontana Water Company stated: "There is the presumption that the shallow monitoring wells that
the County installed completely describe the position of the perchlorate plume, when in fact the
(only) three deep monitoring wells (PW-9, CPW-16 and CPW-17) show there is a deep plume
that is not seen by the shallow monitoring wells; but this is not referenced by the County. The
origin and extent of this deep plume of perchlorate remains undefined."
• Fontana Water Company stated that ". . .the conclusion by the County that it is inappropriate to
classify Well F49A as a target well from the site is specious." [149]
Response: The scoring of Fontana Well F-49A as an observed release well and the population
apportioned to the well as Level I targets have been removed from the HRS site evaluation at
57
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
promulgation. EPA will continue to study the site to attempt to make a determination of the source(s) of
contamination in the Fontana 49A well.
Removing Fontana F-49A well from the HRS evaluation of the B. F. Goodrich site does not affect the
ground water pathway score, and the overall HRS site score remains unchanged. The 4,398 target
population associated with the Fontana well 49A was assigned, at proposal, a Level I targets assigned
value of 43,980 according to the directions of HRS Section 3.3.2.2 (see pages 43 and 44 of the HRS
documentation record at proposal). Removing the Level I targets value associated with the Fontana F-
49A well results in a reduction of the target population assigned value associated with Level I
concentration at promulgation from 104,600 to 60,620. The resulting total target population assigned
value is revised from 105,198 to 61,218 (see pages 3 and 44 of the HRS documentation record at proposal
and at promulgation; the total targets assigned value includes the Level I concentration population
assigned value as well as a nearest well assigned value [50] and the potential population assigned value
[548]).
The other components of the HRS score, likelihood of release and waste characteristics values assigned
remain as assigned at proposal, 550 and 32, respectively, because there are multiple other observed
releases identified (see HRS Sections 2.3 and 3.1.1, and section 3.10.1.1 of this support document) and
the source evaluations are not affected by this action. The calculated ground water pathway score with
the reduction in the target population assigned value is revised at promulgation as follows: (550 x 32 x
61,218) /82500 = 13,059.84, well above the maximum value of 100 that can be assigned for the ground
water pathway (see page 3 of the HRS documentation record at proposal and at promulgation). Hence,
because the ground water pathway score of 100 remains the same as assigned at proposal, the B.F.
Goodrich site score remains 50.00 at promulgation even with Fontana well F49A removed from the HRS
evaluation of the site.
EPA notes that Fontana 49A well could have been evaluated as subject to potential contamination
because it is within the 4-mile TDL for this site. See HRS Section 3.0.1.1, Ground water target distance
limit. This is the case regardless of ground water flow direction. The HRS does not directly consider
ground water flow direction in evaluating targets, but does so indirectly by distance weighting the
population served by potentially contaminated wells. However, even considering the well as potentially
contaminated would only increase the target population but not the overall ground water pathway score,
which is currently at the maximum score of 100.
3.10.2.2 DoD is Likely Source of Contamination in WVWD-22 and Rialto-2 Wells
Comment: According to PSI, two of the wells scored as targets in the HRS evaluation (i.e., WVWD-22
and Rialto-2) are located downgradient of the DoD facility which is the likely source of TCE detected in
these wells. PSI stated that EPA's HRS scoring does not consider other sources of TCE that are
downgradient of the 160-acres.
Response: The HRS documentation record has been revised at promulgation to include more descriptive
text on the unallocated source to clarify that any TCE releases from the DoD operations are considered
part of this site. Therefore, whether the contamination in these two wells is from DoD or other operations
(since all are included in the unallocated source) at the site is irrelevant. HRS Section 3.1.1, Observed
release, states that, ". . . \s\ome portion of the significant increase must be attributable to the site to
establish an observed release" [Emphasis added.] The HRS only requires attribution to the site, not to
individual sources at the site; attribution to the site is discussed in section 3.10.1.1 of this support
document. Thus, this comment has no impact on the HRS site score.
58
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
3.10.3 Plume Site
Comment: Goodrich comments that "EPA must either revise its HRS score based upon new source
attribution evidence or re-score the matter as a 'contaminated ground-water plume,' if it cannot attribute
the source of TCE." Goodrich stated that given that EPA has not attributed the contamination to a source,
it should not score the site or consider scoring the site as a ground water plume site.
Goodrich commented that EPA's "own models show that the Goodrich burn pit could not have been the
source of TCE groundwater contamination." Goodrich added that EPA's guidance clearly states that if no
known source can be identified for the contaminated ground water, then it must propose the site as a
ground water plume site.
Response: EPA disagrees that the B.F. Goodrich site should be evaluated as a contaminated ground water
plume site. The HRS allows for the evaluation of a ground water plume as a source when no sources of
the contamination are identified. HRS Section 1.1, Definitions, defines a source as:
Any area where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed, or placed,
plus those soils that have become contaminated from migration of a hazardous
substance. Sources do not include those volumes of air, ground water, surface water,
or surface water sediments that have become contaminated by migration, except: in
the case of either a ground water plume with no identified source or contaminated
surface water sediments with no identified source, the plume or contaminated
sediments may be considered a source. (Emphasis added.)
Therefore, ground water that has become contaminated through migration from a known source is not
itself considered a source. The HRS documentation record has identified the disposal pit/burn pit and the
unallocated source as sources of TCE at the B.F. Goodrich site (see sections 3.9 and 3.10 of this support
document), and TCE releases have been attributed to this site. Therefore, scoring the B.F. Goodrich site
as a contaminated ground water plume with no identified source is not appropriate or consistent with the
HRS.
EPA also notes that page 2 of the cited guidance, the EPA Quick Reference Fact Sheet, Evaluating
Ground Water Plumes Under the Hazard Ranking System (EPA 540/F-95/034, (September 1998)), is
consistent with this:
Once ground water contamination is documented, an attempt should generally be
made to identify a source in the area which has contributed to the plume. If hazardous
substances contained in the plume can be attributed to a specific source in the vicinity,
the actual plume is not considered the source. In this case, the identified source of the
plume is evaluated as the source and the plume is considered an observed release
attributable to that source.
Further, even if EPA were to take Goodrich's suggestion and score the site as a contaminated ground
water plume site, the overall site score would remain the same. Under this scenario, EPA's decision to
list the site on the NPL would be unchanged. The Likelihood of Release, the Waste Characteristics, and
the Targets components of the site score would still produce a score that would allow the ground water
migration pathway to be assigned the maximum value for that pathway (100), resulting in the same site
score (50.00) assigned at proposal. The Likelihood of Release score would remain the same, as the
significant increase in TCE concentrations from the background wells PW-1 and WVWD-24 to the
release wells PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, CMW-2, and CMW-5, and Rialto-1, Rialto-2, Rialto-6, and WVWD-
59
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
22 as documented on pp. 26-30 and 31-35 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, would still be
present. Attribution to the site is not required if the site is a plume. (See HRS Section 3.1.1, Observed
release, which states: "Chemical analysis . . . Some portion of the significant increase must be attributable
to the site to establish the observed release, except: when the source itself consists of a ground water
plume with no identified source, no separate attribution is required."). Thus, the Likelihood of Release
factor value would remain 550.
Regarding Waste Characteristics, TCE would still be associated with the site as it is the component of the
contamination in the plume, so toxicity and mobility values would remain the same. Waste quantity
would be assigned a value of 100, which is the waste quantity value assigned at proposal, since the HRS
provides for a minimum waste quantity of 100 if any target is considered actually contaminated (see HRS
Section 2.4.2.2). The Waste Characteristics assigned value would remain as proposed, 32. Finally, the
Targets score would remain sufficient to support a ground water pathway score of 100 since the same
wells, except for well WVWD-54 and Fontana F-49A, would be considered eligible for consideration (see
HRS Section 3.0.1.1, Ground water target distance limit, for determining TDLs from plume sites which
states, "[f]or sites that consist solely of a contaminated ground water plume with no identified source,
begin measuring the 4-mile target distance limit at the center of the area of observed ground water
contamination.") While the center of the plume will be moved further south of the site causing the TDL
to shift in that direction, the actually contaminated targets would remain the same because the HRS
allows for any well with an observed release from a site source to lie within the target distance limit of the
site, regardless of the well's distance from the sources at the site (see HRS Section 3.0.1.1). Hence, the
impact of determining the center of the contaminated ground water plume from which the 4-mile TDL
would be drawn would only affect the determination of the potentially contaminated targets, one of which
(WVWD-54) would then be outside the 4-mile TDL. (See Reference 49 of the HRS documentation record
at proposal.)
Removing Fontana 49A from the HRS evaluation of the site (and not including it in the potential target
scoring, for which it would be eligible) and removing WVWD-54 from the HRS evaluation do not affect
the ground water pathway score, and the overall HRS site score remains unchanged. EPA notes that with
only the target population associated with well WVWD-22 and not considering the target wells that
would still be eligible to score as subject to actual or potential contamination, the targets assigned value
would be sufficient to support the maximum ground water migration pathway score (100). The
elimination of all target wells except WVWD-22 would result in a Targets assigned value of 17,090. That
is, the Level I targets, 1,704, assigned to WVWD-22 would be multiplied by 10 to yield a product of
17,040s. The nearest9 well assigned value of 50 would remain the same as assigned at proposal because
this well is subject to Level I contamination. The sum of these values yields 17,090 [(1704 x 10) + 50 =
17,090]. A ground water pathway score can be calculated as follows: (550 x 32 x 17,090)782,500 =
3645.866, which is well above the maximum of 100 which can be assigned to the pathway (see pages 3,
44, and 45 of the HRS documentation record at proposal).
Hence, evaluating the site as a contaminated ground water plume would not negate the listing decision.
Moreover, because this is the case, none of the comments received on the appropriateness of Source 1 and
Source 2 and discussed earlier in this document have any effect on the HRS score, and therefore, the
listing decision for the site.
Per HRS section 3.3.2.2, Level I concentrations, the scorer is to sum the number of people served by drinking
water from points of withdrawal subject to Level I concentrations, then multiply this sum by 10, and assign the
product as the value of the Level I concentration target population.
9 Per HRS section 3.3.1, Nearest well, if one or more drinking water wells is subject to Level I concentrations,
assign a value of 50.
60
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
3.11 Targets
Goodrich asserted that "[t]he assumptions EPA relies upon in defining the 'Targets' used in the HRS
scoring are unsupported and simply false." Goodrich commented that EPA's target value was incorrect
and that "[a] revised target value must exclude the three Level 1 wells (Rialto-2, WVWD-22, and
[Fontana 49A]) and eight of the Potentially Contaminated wells (WVWD-11, 23A, 24, and 54; Fontana
13A, 13B, and 15, and Rialto-3)," resulting in a revised score of 629, rather than the 105,198 claimed by
EPA.
EPA addresses Goodrich's and other commenters' specific comments regarding actually contaminated
targets, nearest well, and potentially contaminated targets in sections 3.11.1 through 3.11.3 of this support
document, which follow.
3.11.1 Actually Contaminated Targets
The County of San Bernardino commented on the implications of designating wells as actually
contaminated targets. Goodrich challenged the eligibility of wells Rialto-2 and WVWD-22 as actually
contaminated targets, and both Goodrich and the County of San Bernardino challenged the use of well
Fontana 49A as an actually contaminated target. EPA responds to these and related comments in
subsections 3.11.1.1 through 3.11.1.4.
3.11.1.1 Meaning of Actually Contaminated Wells
Comment: The County of San Bernardino commented that "[i]n light of the limited purpose of the HRS
assessment, and the uniform process for assessing risk mandated by EPA's own rules, EPA's
identification of a particular well within the TDL as a target does not indicate that the well has been
affected by the source proposed for listing; rather, the HRS is a screening tool, meant to assist the Agency
in prioritizing actual or potential threats posed to human health and the environment by hazardous waste
sites in order to determine whether to include a site on the NPL" (55 FR 51532).
The County of San Bernardino stated that EPA did not make a determination that wells Rialto-2,
WVWD-22, and Fontana 49A (evaluated as actually contaminated targets) were in fact impacted by the
site, since the analysis is only a screening level analysis, citing 55 FR 51532, 51553.
The County of San Bernardino requested that EPA at least clarify that inclusion of Fontana 49A as a
target well in the HRS package does not represent EPA's determination or opinion that the releases from
the site have actually contaminated this particular well, but rather this inclusion is "merely the result of
the HRS listing regulations which provide for the identification as targets all wells within the aquifer
located within four miles of the Site that contain chemicals detected at the Site." The County of San
Bernardino commented that inclusion of Fontana 49A as a target well with observed impacts could be
misinterpreted by third parties that EPA has determined that the Site is impacting well Fontana 49A, and
requested that EPA clarify the documentation record.
Response: Fontana Well 49A has been removed from the HRS scoring of the site, and the HRS
documentation record at promulgation has been revised accordingly. A determination of the source(s) of
contamination in the Fontana 49A well has not been made. Section 3.10.2.1 of this support document
provides further details on the removal of this well from the scoring.
EPA disagrees with the County of San Bernardino's assertion that EPA's evaluation of actually
contaminated target populations for the B.F. Goodrich site does not represent "EPA's determination or
61
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
opinion that the releases from the site have actually contaminated" Rialto-2 and WVWD-22. Although
the HRS is a screening tool, for the population using a well as a drinking water supply (the target
population) to be considered subject to either Level I or Level II contamination (i.e., actual
contamination), the HRS requires that observed release criteria be met at the point of withdrawal. These
criteria include a criterion that at least some of the significant increase in contaminant levels in the
actually contaminated wells be attributable to the site.
HRS Section 3.3.2.1, Level of contamination, instructs the scorer to:
Evaluate the population served by water from a point of withdrawal based on the level of
contamination for that point of withdrawal. Use the applicable factor: Level I
concentrations, Level II concentrations, or potential contamination.
This section also states:
[I]f one or more samples meet the criteria for an observed release from the point of
withdrawal, determine which factor (Level I or Level II concentrations) applies to that
point of withdrawal . . .
At this site, showing an observed release also means showing that at least part of the significant increase
in hazardous substances at the point of withdrawal be attributable to the site as is the case with wells
Rialto-2 and WVWD-22. The HRS identifies the criteria for establishing an observed release to ground
waterinHRS Section 3.1.1, Likelihood of release. This section establishes two ways to document an
observed release, either by direct observation or by chemical analysis. At this site, only observed releases
by chemical analysis were established at target well locations. HRS Section 3.1.1 states that an observed
release by chemical analysis is established when:
[A]n analysis of ground water samples from the aquifer indicates that the concentration
of hazardous substance(s) has increased significantly above the background concentration
for the site (see Section 2.3). Some portion of the significant increase must be
attributable to the site to establish an observed release^} (Emphasis added)
Pages 27-35 of the HRS documentation record at promulgation document multiple observed releases of
TCE to ground water. Observed releases of TCE to ground water were established based on increased
concentrations of TCE in ground water monitoring wells drawing from directly downgradient of the
documented TCE sources at the site and in samples from production wells (Rialto-2 and WVWD-22)
located south to southeast (downgradient) from the site at concentrations significantly greater than in
similar well samples upgradient (northwest) of the B.F. Goodrich site. The significant increase in TCE
concentrations in Rialto-2 and WVWD-22 wells was also attributed at least in part to the site (see pages
21-23 of the HRS documentation record at promulgation for a discussion of aquifer boundaries, and pages
36-37 of the HRS documentation record at promulgation for a discussion of attribution). That the target
population drinking water from production wells was identified as subject to Level I (actual
contamination) concentrations is documented on pages 31-35 and 40-42 of the HRS documentation
record at promulgation.
Therefore, the evaluation of the target populations apportioned to wells Rialto-2 and WVWD-22 as Level
I does represent EPA's determination that the contamination in these wells is at least in part attributed to
releases from the site, as required by the HRS.
62
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
3.11.1.2 Eligibility of Rialto-2 - Closed Well
Comment: Goodrich challenged the use of Rialto-2 as an eligible target well. Goodrich commented that
EPA wrongly asserts that Rialto-2 (a "Level 1 Target Well") was shut down due to TCE contamination.
Goodrich claimed that Rialto-2 was actually shut down due to perchlorate contamination and cited the
following in support of its claim that the well was not closed due to chlorinated solvent contamination:
• Goodrich asserted that "representatives of the City of Rialto have verified under oath on multiple
occasions that this well was shut down due to perchlorate contamination;" Goodrich noted that
Mr. Peter Fox "testified in deposition that Rialto-2 was taken out of service as a result of
perchlorate, pursuant to a request by the California Department of Health."
• A May 20, 2003 letter from the California Department of Health Services stating that "[Rialto-2]
has been offline since February 2001 and physically disconnected from the system because its
perchlorate concentrations exceed ten times of its action level."
• Confirmation from other representatives from the City of Rialto (Mr. William T. Hunt) that
"[c]hlorinated solvent contamination, while widespread (and detected in [Rialto-2]) has not yet
caused the closure of Rialto wells or required wellhead treatment."
• EPA's Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection Report GWK (August 16, 2004) and its attached
summary (Reference 4 of the HRS documentation record at proposal) confirming that Rialto-2
was closed due to perchlorate.
• Goodrich commented that at the time the well was shut down, the levels of TCE detected were
not above the maximum contaminant level (MCL), and that "EPA fails to address this
discrepancy."
Goodrich concluded that because Rialto-2 was not shut down due to TCE contamination, EPA cannot
consider it as a well subject to Level I contamination.
Response: EPA correctly identified Rialto-2 as a target well and correctly identified the target population
served by Rialto-2 in the HRS evaluation of the site. The assertion that Rialto-2 was shut down to TCE
contamination is correct, and therefore the evaluation of the population using this well as a drinking water
supply as subject to Level I concentrations is consistent with the HRS. After proposal of the B.F.
Goodrich site, EPA asked the City of Rialto, the owner of the well, to clarify the reasons why the well
was shut down. The information provided by the City of Rialto (Attachment A) confirmed that the well
was shut down due to both TCE and perchlorate contamination.
One of the implementation questions EPA faced when promulgating the revised HRS was how to
consider in the HRS scoring of a site actions taken in response to contamination. As part of that
discussion, EPA stated in Section Q of the preamble to the final HRS (55 FR 51568, December 14, 1990)
its policy that:
HRS scoring will not consider the effects of responses that do not reduce waste quantities
such as providing alternate drinking water supplies to populations with drinking water
supplies contaminated by the site. In such cases, EPA believes that the initial targets
factor should be used to reflect the adverse impacts caused by contamination of drinking
water supplies; otherwise, a contaminated aquifer could be artificially shielded from
further remediation.
63
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
The closing of Rialto-2 is a similar situation: it represents a response to protect possibly impacted
individuals, but it does nothing to remedy the underlying cause of the contamination. Accordingly, here
too, if the well were not considered because of the closure, it would be artificially shielding the site from
scoring. Page 43 of the HRS documentation record at proposal identifies this policy and explains that:
Drinking water well Rialto-2, located between 1 and 2 miles southeast of Source 1, was
taken out of service in November 1997 due to the presence of TCE, and other hazardous
substances (Ref 49; Ref 75, p. 11; Ref. 82).
Reference 82 of the HRS documentation record at proposal contains email correspondence from Peter
Fox of the City of Rialto stating:
I do recall we shut down Rialto Well # 2 for both TCE concerns and Perchlorate. I do re-
call that TCE were showing up at the same time as perchlorate and a little before the
required sampling for perchlorate.
Page 43 of the HRS documentation record also identifies 1997 as the last full year the well was in service.
An estimate of the population using the well as a water supply at that time was used as the target
population for the well because it was the population associated with the well at the time of closure. This
estimate is consistent with HRS Section 3.3.2, Population, which states "[i]n evaluating the population
factor, include those persons served by drinking water wells within the target distance limit specified in
section 3.0.1.1.... In determining the population served by a well, if the water from the well is blended
with other water . . . ., apportion the total population regularly served by the blended system to the well
based on the well's relative contribution to the total blended system "
EPA requested clarification from the City of Rialto regarding the reasons for the closure of Rialto-2. In a
letter dated February 3, 2009 (added as Appendix A to this support document), Ahmad R. Ansari, the
Director of Public Works and City Engineer for the City of Rialto, wrote that the presence of TCE and
perchlorate in Rialto-2 were both factors in the City of Rialto's decision to formally decommission (and
physically disconnect) the well. Based on Mr. Ansari's letter, water quality data included in Section 3.3,
Targets, of the HRS documentation record at proposal and other water quality data obtained from the
California Department of Public Health (CDPH), the water quality and operational history of Rialto-2 is
as follows:
• The well was operated more or less continuously from 1962 until it was taken out of regular
service in October 1997. However, the well remained physically capable of delivering water to
the distribution system until mid-2001 (letter from Ahmad R. Ansari; pages 2 and 11 of
Reference 75 of the HRS documentation record at proposal);
• At the time the well was taken out of regular service in October 1997, perchlorate had been
detected in the well (see Reference 75, page 11, and Reference 82 of the HRS documentation
record at proposal), and TCE had been measured at 1.8 (ig/L in June 1996 (as tabulated on page
40 of the HRS documentation record at proposal) when last analyzed prior to the well's being
taken out of regular service (and previously at 1.3 (ig/L on 6/8/94; 1.3 (ig/L on 9/22/94; 1.7 (ig/L
on 12/12/95, as tabulated on page 40 of the HRS documentation record at proposal). Since 1994,
TCE concentrations in this well were significantly above the lowest HRS benchmark for TCE
(cancer risk screening concentration of 0.21 (ig/L) used to establish Level I targets (see pages 40,
43, and 44 of the HRS documentation record at proposal);
64
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
• When TCE was next analyzed for, in June 1998, it was measured at 6.2 (ig/L, exceeding the State
and Federal MCL (page 40 of the HRS documentation record at proposal); and
• On June 11, 2001, after a prolonged period of TCE occurrence above the MCL, the well was
decommissioned and formally placed into inactive status. Decommissioning included physical
disconnection of the well from the Rialto system and notification to the California Department of
Public Health (letter from Ahmad R. Ansari).
Mr. Ansari's letter confirms EPA's assertion that Rialto-2 was taken out of service due to the presence of
TCE as well as the presence of perchlorate. However, while the HRS documentation record at proposal
stated that Rialto-2 was taken out of service in November 1997, Mr. Ansari's letter states that the well
was taken out of service in October 1997, and it remained physically capable of delivering water to the
distribution system until June 11, 2001, when it was officially decommissioned. This discrepancy does
not affect the scoring of the target population associated with this well10.
EPA notes that this same reasoning applies regardless of whether there may have been more than one
reason for closing the well, more than one contaminant in the well, or even if Goodrich's comment is
correct, and perchlorate was the sole reason for closing the well, as long as the well was contaminated by
the site. Goodrich's comments do not contradict the identification that at least one of the reasons for
closing Rialto-2 as a drinking water supply well was the TCE contamination in it.
That the level of TCE contamination was below the MCL when Rialto-2 was taken out of service in 1997
does not alter the finding that the well was contaminated by the site, and that TCE contamination above
the MCL led to its decommissioning in 2001.
Further, even if Rialto-2 were not considered as part of the site scoring, the ground water pathway and
resulting overall site score would not change. The elimination of Rialto-2 from the Level I targets
population would only impact the number of Level I targets included in the HRS evaluation of the site
since multiple observed wells in addition to the Rialto -2 and Fontana F49A are identified in the HRS
documentation record at proposal. (As previously explained in section 3.10.2.1 of this support document,
Fontana 49A has also been eliminated from the scoring of this site.) Nor would the Waste
Characteristics score change as removing targets does not impact the waste quantity of the site sources or
the toxicity and mobility factor values assigned to TCE. It would only result in the elimination of Level I
targets population of 8,756, the population assigned to this well and Well Fontana 49A (4358 and 4398,
respectively). The elimination of these two wells would reduce the sum of the Level I population from
10,460 to 1,704 [10,460 - (4,358 + 4,398) = 1,704]. The resulting/revised Level I assigned population
value of 17,040 [1,704 x 10 = 17,040]" and potential contamination population at proposal (548) would
be sufficient to achieve a pathway score of 100 when combined with the other components of the site
score. Moreover, this calculation does not even consider that Rialto-2 and Fontana 49A could have been
evaluated as subject to potential contamination because they are within the 4-mile TDL for this site. That
is, the likelihood of release assigned value (550), waste characteristics assigned value (32), and a revised
10 EPA has revised the HRS documentation record at promulgation to clarify the discrepancy between Mr. Ansari
and the HRS documentation record regarding the month in 1997 that Rialto-2 was taken out of service. This
revision does not affect the target population associated with this well because either month in 1997 would still be
assigned a population based on data for 1997 (see Reference 72 of the HRS documentation record at proposal).
11 Per HRS section 3.3.2.2, Level I concentrations, the scorer is to sum the number of people served by drinking
water from points of withdrawal subject to Level I concentrations, then multiply this sum by 10, and assign the
product as the value of the Level I concentration target population.
65
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
targets population assigned factor value of 17, 638 (17,040 + 548 + 5012) would be sufficient to obtain the
maximum pathway score of 100.00 (see pages 3, 38, 39, 43, 44, and 45 of the HRS documentation record
at proposal and at promulgation).
3.11.1.3 Eligibility of WVWD-22 - Closed Well
Comment: Goodrich challenged the use of Well WVWD-22 as an eligible target well. Goodrich
commented that EPA "wrongly asserts" that WVWD-22 (a "Level 1" target well) was closed due to TCE
contamination. Goodrich claimed that WVWD-22 was actually taken out of service due to age
(mechanical problems) and perchlorate contamination. Goodrich cited the following in support of its
claim that WVWD-22 was taken out of service due to age or perchlorate:
• An email from Mr. Thomas J. Crowley, Assistant General Manager of the West Valley Water
District (WVWD), the owner of WVWD-22, stating that WVWD-22 was only used during peak
usage times and that it was actually closed due to the construction/operation quality of the well,
and the well producing sand along with water, and that "[tjhere was some concern of the [volatile
organic contaminants (VOCs)] at the time," citing Reference 73 of the HRS documentation
record at proposal.
• Statements made also by Mr. Crowley before the California State Assembly Environmental
Safety and Toxic Materials Committee affirming that WVWD-22 was an old agricultural well
used for a limited duration and taken offline due to Perchlorate.
• A letter from Mr. Bruce E. Cash of the Fontana Water Company (page 19 of Reference 73 of the
HRS documentation record) stating that it had only planned to use WVWD-22 (owned by
WVWD) "for an emergency and the temporary delivery of water and that TCE did not cause
[Fontana Water Company] to end its use of the well."
• EPA's Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection Report GWK (August 16, 2004) and its attached
summary (pages 16 and 40 of Reference 4 of the HRS documentation record at proposal)
indicating that WVWD-22 was closed due to perchlorate.
• Records from the California Department of Health Services and others showing that "WVWD-22
was considered a standby well after 1991, although never used, and confirming that the well was
later converted to a monitoring well due to perchlorate."
• During the time the well was used by the Fontana Water Co., the levels of TCE detected were not
above the MCL.
Goodrich concluded that because WVWD-22 was not shut down due to TCE contamination, EPA cannot
consider it as a Level 1 target well.
Response: EPA correctly identified WVWD-22 as a target well, and included the target population
served by it in the HRS evaluation of the site. While this well was taken out of service as a drinking
water supply well (i.e., a closed well) for multiple reasons, one of these reasons was because of TCE
contamination.
12 Per HRS section 3.3.1, Nearest well, if one or more drinking water wells is subject to Level I concentrations,
assign a value of 50.
66
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
The history and rationale for the closure of this well has been reexamined in light of Goodrich's
comments, and provided below is a detailed operational and water quality history of the WVWD-22,
compiled from Reference 73, Reference 79, and section 3.3, Targets, of the HRS documentation record at
proposal.
One of the implementation questions EPA faced when promulgating the revised HRS was how to
consider, in the HRS scoring of a site, actions taken in response to contamination. As part of that
discussion, EPA stated in Section Q of the preamble to the final HRS (55 FR 51568, December 14, 1990)
its policy that:
HRS scoring will not consider the effects of responses that do not reduce waste quantities
such as providing drinking water supplies to populations with drinking water supplies
contaminated by the site. In such cases, EPA believes that the initial targets factor should
be used to reflect the adverse impacts caused by contamination of drinking water
supplies: otherwise, a contaminated aquifer could be artificially shielded from further
remediation.
HRS Section 3.3.2, Population, directs when evaluating the population factor, to include "those persons
served by drinking water wells within the target distance limit specified in section 3.0.1.1. . . .Include
residents, students, and workers who regularly use the water." Page 43 of the HRS documentation record
at proposal identifies this direction and explains that:
Drinking water well WVWD-22, located between 1 and 2 miles southeast of Source 1,
was taken out of service in January 1991 due to presence of TCE (Ref.73, pp. 2, 4; Ref
49; Ref. 79). During the summer months of 1989 and 1990, Fontana Water Company
used WVWD-22 for peaking purposes and tied it to their distribution system (Ref.73, pp.
2, 4; Ref. 74, p. 1).
Page 43 also identifies 1990 as the last full year the well was in service, and an estimate of the population
using the well as a water supply at that time was used as the target population for the well.
EPA's reexamination of the history of well WVWD-22 is as follows:
• WVWD-22 was originally constructed in 1929 as an agricultural well (Ref. 73, p.2);
• WVWD took over the well in the late 1960s and had it permitted and added as a source of
drinking water supply for distribution to WVWD's customers (Ref. 73, p.2);
• The well produced sand along with the water and was used mostly in the summer months when
water demands were high (Ref. 73, p.2);
• Production records from the 1980s report the production of 204 acre-feet in 1981, 69 acre-feet in
1982, 3 acre-feet in 1985, 26 acre-feet in 1987, and 77 acre-feet in 1988 (Ref. 73, p.4);
• In a sample collected on 1/17/89, TCE was 9.7 (ig/L, exceeding the MCL of 5 (ig/L and
significantly above the lowest HRS benchmark for TCE (cancer risk screening concentration of
0.21 (ig/L) used to establish Level I targets (HRS documentation record at proposal, pp. 41, 43,
44);
67
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
• In 1989 and 1990, WVWD provided water from WVWD-22 to Fontana Water Company, a
neighboring water company (Ref. 73, p.4). Fontana Water Company blended water from this
WVWD-22 with cleaner water to meet all state and federal drinking water standards (Ref. 73, p.
19);
• WVWD did not use water from WVWD-22 after 1990 due to the presence of TCE and sand
production. Thomas Crowley, P.E., Assistant General Manager of the West Valley Water
District, confirmed that "Well-22 [WVWD-22] was shut down in 1990 due to the presence of
TCE and mechanical problems (sand production)." (Ref. 79, pp.1, 2);
• Perchlorate was discovered at WVWD-22 in about 1997 (Ref. 79, pp. 1, 2);
• In the late 1990s, the well was sealed off to prevent cross contamination between aquifers (Ref.
73, p.2); and
• Today, the well continues to function as a monitoring well (Ref. 73, p.2).
EPA considers that HRS scoring of the B.F. Goodrich site should not consider the effects of responses
that do not reduce waste quantity such as providing alternative drinking water supplies to populations
with drinking water supplies contaminated by the site, as this artificially shields the site from attaining a
score that reflects its true relative risk. This includes the termination of the use of wells (i.e., closed
wells) contaminated by the site. It is not relevant that there may have been more than one reason for
closing the well or more than one contaminant in the well, as long as the well was contaminated by the
site. Goodrich's comments do not contradict the identification that at least one of the reasons for closing
well WVWD-22, as explained below, as a drinking water supply well was the TCE contamination in it.
Instead, as detailed below, Goodrich cites a variety of statements that are either consistent with the
statements cited in References 73 and 79 in the HRS documentation record at proposal, selectively
quoted, or were not intended to be full or specific explanations of why the well was shut down.
• Crowley Statements - According to Mr. Crowley, WVWD-22 was closed for multiple reasons. As
stated on page 2 of Reference 79 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, WVWD-22 "was shut
down in 1990 due to the presence of TCE and mechanical problems (sand production)." This
statement was a follow up to an earlier, less specific statement, made on July 24, 2008, in which Mr.
Crowley, stated that "[a]fter 1990 the District did not use [WVWD-22] due to mechanical and water
quality reasons" (see page 2 of HRS Reference 73 of the HRS documentation record at proposal).
Regarding statements made by Mr. Crowley in front of the California State Assembly Environmental
Safety and Toxic Materials Committee with EPA in attendance, Mr. Crowley was not asked why the
well was originally shut down in 1990, but was asked about 1997 when it was converted to a
monitoring well. The actual questions and answers are as follows:
Question: "...Well 22.. .You started testing in 1997..."
Answer (Mr. Crowley): "Correct."
Question: "... for perchlorate and you detected perchlorate above ..."
Answer (Mr. Crowley): "Yes, we did. I think at the time we detected it above it was about 300 and
some parts per billion. As a matter of fact we took it offline and then turned it into a monitoring well
(http://rialto.granicus.com/mediaplaver.php7view id=2&clipid=44 beginning at 1 hour 51 minutes
37 seconds).
68
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
Therefore, these statements do not contradict that the well was closed due to TCE contamination as
well as for other reasons.
• Fontana Water Company Statements - Regarding statements from Fontana Water Company
indicating that it did not stop the use of the well because of TCE contamination, EPA did not claim
that Fontana Water Company ceased using WVWD-22 as a result of TCE. Rather, EPA relied on
information provided from WVWD, the owner of the well (see Reference 79 of the HRS
documentation record at proposal), who made the decision to shut down the well because of the
presence of TCE and mechanical problems (sand production).
• Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection, GWKReport Statements - As for EPA's Preliminary
Assessment/Site Inspection Report, GWK, (August 16, 2004) and its attached summary (pages 16 and
40 of Reference 4 of the HRS documentation record at proposal) indicating that WVWD-22 was
closed due to perchlorate, the statements in this reference provide only one of the reasons for the well
closure, and are not a complete operational or water quality history for the well. These statements do
not contradict those contained in Reference 73 and 79 of the HRS documentation record at proposal,
as outlined above.
• Other Statements - The records from California Department of Health Services and others show that
WVWD-22 was considered a standby well after 1991, although never used, and confirm that the well
was later converted to a monitoring well due to Perchlorate contamination. These assertions do not
alter the finding that this well was taken out of service in part because of TCE contamination.
• Contamination Levels - That the level of TCE contamination was below MCLs when the well was
used by the Fontana Water Company does not alter the finding that the well was contaminated by the
site.
In conclusion, well WVWD-22 was contaminated by TCE from the site at the time the well was taken out
of service, and this contamination was at least one of the reasons for this action. None of Goodrich's
comments or information presented by other commenters demonstrates this conclusion to be in error. To
not include population using the well at that time in the HRS evaluation would be artificially shielding
from remediation the aquifer from which this well drew ground water. Therefore, EPA properly
evaluated well WVWD-22 as an eligible target well and included the population subject to that
contamination at the time the well was taken out of service in the HRS evaluation of the site.
EPA notes, however, that the statement on page 43 of the HRS documentation record at proposal did not
include all the reasons that well WVWD-22 was closed and may be misleading. EPA has revised this
statement in the HRS documentation record at promulgation.
3.11.1.4 Eligibility of Fontana 49 A
Comment: In questioning the attribution of TCE to the site, Goodrich and the County of San Bernardino
questioned the eligibility of Well Fontana 49A as Level I target well and the assigned target population of
this well. First, both commenters asserted that the TCE contamination in this well did not come from the
B. F. Goodrich site (i.e., that the contamination in the well could not in part be attributed to the site).
Second, the County of San Bernardino pointed out that recent TCE levels in this well are only at trace
levels or non-detect.
Response: Well Fontana 49A has been removed from the HRS scoring of the site, and the HRS
documentation record at promulgation has been revised accordingly. A determination of the source(s) of
contamination in the Fontana 49A well has not been made. Section 3.10.2.1 of this support document
69
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
provides further details on the removal of this well from the scoring. It is significant to note that the
ground water pathway score of 100, as assigned at proposal, remains the same, and the site score is still
50.00 at promulgation even with Fontana Well 49A removed from the HRS evaluation of the B.F.
Goodrich site.
3.11.2 Nearest Well
Comment: Goodrich commented that EPA's assigned value of 50 to the nearest well factor is based on
WVWD-22, and since WVWD-22 is not a proper target (given the rationale discussed in section 3.11.1.3
of this support document), the assigned factor value is incorrect and should be revised. Goodrich stated
that the nearest well factor values should be based upon WVWD-33, which is between 2 to 3 miles away,
and therefore per HRS Table 3-11, Nearest Well Factor Values, the factor value should be 3.
Response: EPA was correct in the use of WVWD-22 as a target well subject to Level I contamination in
the assignment of the Nearest Well factor value of 50.
HRS Section 3.3.1, Nearest Well, states:
In evaluating the nearest well factor, include both the drinking water wells drawing from
the aquifer being evaluated and those drawing from overlying aquifers as specified in
section 3.0 . Include standby wells in evaluating this factor only if they are used for
drinking water supply at least once every year. . . .If one or more drinking water wells is
subject to Level I concentrations, assign a value of 50. . .
Page 43 of the HRS documentation record at proposal identifies WVWD-22 as a well subject to Level I
concentrations and assigns a nearest well factor value of 50.
As explained in section 3.11.1.3 of this support document, WVWD-22 is an eligible target well consistent
with the HRS and is subject to Level I contamination. Therefore, EPA's assigned value of 50 to the
nearest well factor value is also correct, consistent with the above-stated HRS requirements. Further,
even if well WVWD-22 was determined to be a standby well, the score would not change. It would still
qualify for a nearest well value of 50 because Level I concentrations of TCE was documented in this well.
The Level I population would remain the same because the HRS documentation record at proposal
accounted for the target population subject to Level I concentrations at the time the well was being used
as a source of drinking water by the Fontana Water Company in 1989 and 1990. (See HRS sections 3.3.1,
3.3.2, and 3.3.2.2; Reference 73, pages 2-5, of the HRS documentation record at proposal; and pages 41-
43 of the HRS documentation record at proposal).
3.11.3 Potentially Contaminated Targets
Goodrich questioned the appropriateness of and the County of San Bernardino requested clarification on
EPA's designation of several potentially contaminated target wells. EPA responds to specific
components of these comments in sections 3.11.3.1 through 3.11.3.5 of this support document, which
follow.
3.11.3.1 Identification of Eligible Target Wells and Target Populations Subj ect to Potential
Contamination
Comment: The County of San Bernardino requested that EPA clarify that inclusion of wells Rialto #3,
Fontana 13A, and Fontana 13B as potentially impacted target wells in the HRS package does not
70
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
represent EPA's determination that "these wells are impacted by [activities at] the Site or that in the
future, such wells will necessarily be impacted by [activities at] the Site," but rather, pursuant to EPA
regulation, wells were identified as target wells because they are "located in the same aquifer as the Site
and are within a distance of four miles from the Site."
Response: EPA correctly followed the HRS in identifying eligible target wells and assigning the
appropriate levels of contamination to the target populations served by them.
In identifying eligible target wells, EPA followed HRS Section 3.0.1.1, Ground water target distance
limit, which states:
The target distance limit defines the maximum distance from the sources at the site over
which targets are evaluated. Use a target distance limit of 4 miles for the ground water
migration pathway, except when aquifer discontinuities apply[.]
HRS Section 3.0.1.2.2, Aquifer discontinuities, instructs the scorer to:
Evaluate whether aquifer discontinuities occur within the 4-mile target distance limit. An
aquifer discontinuity occurs for scoring purposes only when a geologic, topographic, or
other structure or feature entirely transects an aquifer within the 4-mile target distance
limit, thereby creating a continuous boundary to ground water flow within this limit.
In establishing the TDL for the evaluation of potentially contaminated targets, EPA established that the
aquifers being evaluated (the Middle and Lower Water-Bearing Zones) are in hydraulic connection with
each other as required by the HRS, and had no geologic, topographic, or other structures or features that
entirely transect the aquifer and thus constitute an aquifer discontinuity within the 4-miile TDL (see pages
21-23 of the HRS documentation record at proposal).
After eligible wells were identified as targets, EPA then determined the level of contamination of the
population served by the eligible target wells as subject to Level I or Level II contaminant concentrations,
or potential contamination, as directed by the HRS. Target populations subject to Level I concentrations
are described in section 3.11.1.1 of this support document. HRS Section 3.3.2.1, Level of contamination,
directs:
Evaluate the population served by water from a point of withdrawal based on the level of
contamination for that point of withdrawal. Use the applicable factor: Level I
concentrations, Level II concentrations, or potential contamination. If no samples meet
the criteria for an observed release for a point of withdrawal and there is no observed
release by direct observation for that point of withdrawal, evaluate that point of
withdrawal using the potential contamination factor in section 3.3.2.4.
HRS Section 3.3.2.4, Potential contamination, continues:
Determine the number of people served by drinking water from points of withdrawal
subject to potential contamination. Do not include those people already counted under
the Level I and Level II concentrations factors.
Therefore, in accordance with the HRS, target populations that are not subject to Level I or Level II
concentrations for the pathway but are served by eligible target wells located within the established TDL
for the site, are considered potentially contaminated.
71
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
Consistent with the HRS, EPA's scoring of wells Rialto #3, Fontana 13A, and Fontana 13B, among
others, as potentially contaminated wells in the HRS evaluation, represents EPA's determination that
releases from the site are potentially contaminating these wells or could potentially contaminate them in
the future. Section 3.3.2.4 of the HRS documentation record at proposal describes the target populations
considered potentially contaminated and identifies the potentially contaminated target wells used in
calculation of the potential contamination factor value. The locations of the target wells within the TDL
are shown in Reference 49, Well Locations and Distance Rings with Respect to Source 1, of the HRS
documentation record at proposal.
Therefore, EPA correctly identified eligible target wells for the B.F. Goodrich site and correctly
calculated target populations potentially contaminated by releases from the site.
3.11.3.2 Eligibility of WVWD-23A, WVWD-24, WVWD-54, Fontana 13A, FontanalSB, and
Fontana ISA - Upgradient or Crossgradient Wells
Comment: Goodrich commented that "most of the target wells cited by EPA as 'potentially contaminated
wells' are indisputably situated miles upgradient of the Site or miles cross-gradient of the Site and are not
at any risk of contamination by the Site." Goodrich stated specifically that "[s]even out often wells
considered by EPA as potential contamination targets are either significantly upgradient or crossgradient
and subject to the remedial activities associated with the MVSL [landfill] and are not at risk of
contamination from the 160-acre parcel."
Goodrich stated that EPA "provides no explanation as to its basis for considering these wells as potential
contamination targets" and went on to say that the "HRS Documentation Record and EPA's own
conclusions clearly demonstrate that the wells are not potential contamination targets." Goodrich
commented that while the HRS permits EPA to consider potentially upgradient wells for ranking a site, it
does not require EPA to "blindly consider wells as potentially contaminated targets where there is
information showing that the wells are not at risk of contamination from the site."
Goodrich identified wells WVWD-23A, WVWD-24, WVWD-54, and Fontana 15A as being significantly
upgradient of the 160-acre parcel, and stated that these wells should be eliminated as targets. Goodrich
explained that the HRS documentation record indicated that ground water flow in the basin has been
consistently from the northwest to the southeast, yet EPA does not address why it contends that wells
WVWD-23A, WVWD-24, WVWD-54, and Fontana 15A are subject to potential contamination.
Goodrich identified wells Fontana 13A and Fontana 13B as being crossgradient of the site, and
immediately adjacent and downgradient of the MVSL and therefore the releases from the site would not
impact these wells. Goodrich commented that "[assessments prepared for the County of San Bernardino
with regard to [Fontana 13A] and 13B show that releases from the 160-acre parcel would not migrate
toward the wells." Goodrich stated that EPA's response to Fontana Water Company regarding Fontana
Wells 13A and 13B is contrary to its HRS scoring for the B.F. Goodrich site. Goodrich stated that EPA
stated in a March 27, 2009, letter to a consultant for the Fontana Water Company that there was no
evidence that contamination in Fontana 13A and 13B was from the 160-acre area. It cited to Exhibit F, a
letter dated March 27, 2009, from Wayne Praskins, U.S. EPA, to E. John List, Flow Science, which is
included as an exhibit to Goodrich's comments dated April 16, 2009.
Goodrich commented that "some of these [potentially contaminated] wells are located in an area that is
downgradient of the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill ("MVSL"), which is the subject of extensive
investigations and remediation by the County of San Bernardino under the oversight of the Regional
Board."
72
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
Fontana Water Company stated that the San Bernardino County's comments did not include any technical
discussion of the impacted Fontana 13A and 13B wells "being on the flow paths or impacted by the site,"
even though these wells are impacted or at least threatened by contamination from the Goodrich site and
the MVSL in that they are located southwest of the MVSL; also Fontana 13A has a high fraction of
synthetic perchlorate.
Response: The scoring of upgradient and crossgradient wells within the delineated TDL as potential
targets is consistent with the HRS. EPA correctly identified wells WVWD-23A, -24, and -54, and
Fontana-13A, -13B, and -15A as potentially contaminated targets in accordance with the HRS.
The HRS does not contain a requirement to consider ground water flow direction when determining target
eligibility. In responding to public comments on the proposed (original) HRS on July 16, 1982 (47 FR
31190), EPA explained that it is generally not practicable to determine the population actually exposed or
threatened by using ground water flow information. In many instances, the information is not available,
and in others the flow direction varies overtime. Even where there is extensive knowledge of
geohydrology, its interpretation is nearly always subject to dispute.
EPA reconsidered this issue when revising the HRS. As discussed in the preamble to the final HRS (55
FR 51553, December 14, 1990), the HRS does not specifically take into account such level of detail as
ground water flow gradient to determine targets, as EPA concluded that "it was not feasible to adopt a
tiered approach in the targets factors for evaluating ground water flow direction." EPA also pointed out
in the same page in the preamble to the HRS that "[although the [HRS] does not consider ground water
flow direction directly in evaluating targets, it does consider flow direction indirectly in the method used
to evaluate target populations." The HRS does this by weighting target populations based on actual and
potential contamination at drinking water wells.
If wells have not been contaminated by the site, as would be typical of upgradient wells, the wells are
considered potentially rather than actually contaminated, and the population drawing from those wells is
distance weighted (55 FR 51603). Conversely, if wells have been contaminated, a likelihood for
downgradient wells, the wells are considered actually contaminated and given higher weight in scoring
(see section 3.11.1.1 of this support document for discussion of actual contamination).
HRS Section 3.3.1.4, Potential contamination, states:
Determine the number of people served by drinking water from points of withdrawal
subject to potential contamination. Do not include those people already counted under
the Level I and Level II concentrations factors.
Assign distance-weighted population values from Table 3-12 [Distance-Weighted
Population Values for Potential Contamination Factor for Ground Water Migration
Pathway] to this population[.]
Therefore, as is the case with wells WVWD-23A, -24, and -54, and Fontana-13A, -13B, and -15A, if
wells have not been contaminated by the site, as would be typical of upgradient or crossgradient wells, the
wells are considered potentially rather than actually contaminated, and the population drawing from those
wells is distance weighted.
That target wells are being remediated for impacts from the MVSL does not impact the assignment of
target eligibility. (This issue is addressed as it pertains specifically to well Rialto-3 in section 3.11.3.3 of
this support document.)
73
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
Hence, the determination of wells WVWD-23A, -24, and -54, and Fontana-13A, -13B, and -15A as
potentially contaminated targets is consistent with the HRS.
3.11.3.3 Eligibility of Rialto-3 -Remediation for Other Contamination
Comment: Goodrich identified Rialto-3 as a well under remediation for perchlorate and TCE
contamination by the County of San Bernardino due to releases from the MVSL [landfill] area, and
therefore not potentially contaminated by the 160-acre parcel. Goodrich added that EPA indicates in the
HRS documentation record that the TCE plumes from the MVSL and the 160-acre area are distinct.
Goodrich stated that the remediation of Rialto-3 is being performed in response to a cleanup and
abatement order by the Regional Board, that the remediation system has been approved by the Regional
Board and the California Department of Public Health, and that EPA had reviewed and commented on the
proposed remedial action.
Response: EPA correctly relied on Rialto-3 as a potentially contaminated target well in calculating the
potential contamination factor value. Rialto-3 serves populations within the 4-mile TDL of the site
sources. Rialto 3 is being remediated by the county, however, the well remains open and is serving
populations who are potentially exposed to contamination from the site sources (see pages 5-6 of
Reference 21, Email communication to Christina Marquis: Rialto-Colton: response from the City of
Rialto, of the HRS documentation record at proposal).
Although remediation is being conducted at the Rialto-3 well due to contamination from the MVSL area,
and based on current information the plumes appear to be distinct, Rialto-3 is still properly considered
under the terms of the HRS. The Rialto-3 well lies within the TDL for the BF Goodrich site and there is
no aquifer discontinuity between the Rialto-3 well and the site sources; therefore, the well is eligible
according to HRS Section 3.0.1.1, Ground water target distance limit, which states:
The target distance limit defines the maximum distance from the sources at the site over
which targets are evaluated. Use a target distance limit of 4 miles for the ground water
migration pathway, except when aquifer discontinuities apply.
HRS Section 3.0.1.2, Aquifer boundaries, instructs the scorer to:
Combine multiple aquifers into a single hydrologic unit for scoring purposes if aquifer
interconnections can be established for these aquifers. In contrast, restrict aquifer
boundaries if aquifer discontinuities can be established.
HRS Section 3.0.1.2.2, Aquifer discontinuities, instructs the scorer to:
Evaluate whether aquifer discontinuities occur within the 4-mile target distance limit. An
aquifer discontinuity occurs for scoring purposes only when a geologic, topographic, or
other structure or feature entirely transects an aquifer within the 4-mile target distance
limit, thereby creating a continuous boundary to ground water flow within this limit.
In establishing the TDL for the evaluation of potentially contaminated targets, EPA established that the
aquifers being evaluated (Middle and Lower Water-Bearing Zones) are in hydraulic connection with each
other as required by the HRS and had no geologic, topographic, or other structures or features that
entirely transect the aquifer and thus constitute an aquifer discontinuity within the 4-mile TDL (see pages
21-23 of the HRS documentation record at proposal).
74
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
Therefore, Rialto-3 is properly identified as a potentially contaminated target. See also section 3.11.3.2
above, for further discussion of ground water flow and scoring of potentially contaminated targets. See
also section 3.11.3.4.2 for a discussion of aquifer boundaries.
3.11.3.4 Eligibility of WVWD-54
Goodrich claims that well WVWD-54 has the status of a standby well, and further, that EPA fails to
address the issue of its unknown screen depth, and whether the aquifer is continuous between this well
and the 160-acre parcel. EPA responds to these issues in sections 3.11.3.4.1 and 3.11.3.4.2 of this support
document, which follow.
3.11.3.4.1 Standby Well
Comment: Goodrich commented that "EPA fails to address that WVWD-54 has been inactive."
According to Goodrich, WVWD's Urban Water Management Plan (2006) shows this well as "off/standby
in need of equipment."
Response: The evaluation of well WVWD-54 as a potentially contaminated well is consistent with HRS
requirements. HRS Section 3.3.2, Population, describes a standby well as follows:
When a standby well is maintained on a regular basis so that water can be withdrawn,
include it in evaluating the population factor.
Reference 20, Email Communication to Christina Marquis, FW: EPA Request for Information - WVWD
(dated March 26, 2008), of the HRS documentation record at proposal, on page 3 documents that
WVWD-54 was an active well at the time of the HRS evaluation. The report cited by Goodrich, West
Valley Water District Urban Management Plan (January 2006), does state that this well needs additional
equipment for operation. However, Reference 20 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, a more
recent reference, confirms this well as being active.
In this case, well WVWD-54 was documented to be active at the time of the HRS evaluation and
therefore, EPA correctly considered it in calculating the potential contamination factor value for this site.
EPA notes that the requirement in HRS Section 3.3.2 is that standby wells that are maintained so that
water can be withdrawn can be included in evaluating the population factor. Hence, even if this well was
inactive for a period of time, it is still eligible as a target well.
Additionally, EPA notes that even if WVWD-54 were not considered in the scoring of the B.F. Goodrich
site, the overall site score would remain unchanged. Considering only the target population associated
with well WVWD-22 and not considering the target wells that would still be eligible to score as subject to
actual or potential contamination, the targets assigned value would be sufficient to support a ground water
migration pathway score of 100 (see section 3.10.3 of this support document). Alternatively, considering
only the wells evaluated as potentially contaminated, except for well WVWD-11, listed on page 45 of the
HRS documentation record at proposal, the ground water pathway score for the B.F. Goodrich site would
remain sufficient for NPL qualification. That is, a minimal HRS site score can be calculated as follows:
• Likelihood of release of 550 can be assigned because there are multiple other observed releases
identified (see HRS Sections 2.3 and 3.1.1, and section 3.10.1.1 of this support document).
• Waste characteristic of 18 can be assigned because TCE has atoxicity /mobility of 10,000 when
combined with a minimum pathway hazardous waste quantity of 10 yields a product of 1 x 105
which, when applied in HRS Table 2-7 yields a waste characteristic value of 18. (A minimum
75
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
pathway hazardous waste quantity of 10 can be assigned because wells are subject to potential
contamination. See HRS section 2.4.2.2.).
• A nearest well value of 5 can be assigned because the nearest well is within the 1- to 2-mile TDL
category. (See HRS Table 3-11 and Reference 49 of the HRS documentation record at proposal.)
• A minimum potential target population of 548 can be assigned, as documented at proposal, even
with the removal of potentially contaminated well WVWD-11 at promulgation.
• Ground water pathway score: (550 x 18 x [5 + 548])/82500 = 66.36 (see HRS Table 3-1).
• Overall site score: 33.18 which is still above the NPL cutoff of 28.50 (See HRS section 2.1.1).
3.11.3.4.2 Well Screen Depth
Comment: Goodrich stated that EPA provided that the aquifer screen for WVWD-54 is "unknown," and
did not address its basis for concluding that the aquifer is continuous between WVWD-54 and the 160-
acre parcel.
Response: Well WVWD-54 is correctly identified as being an eligible target well. It draws water from
the aquifer being evaluated, the combined middle and lower water-bearing zones in the Rialto-Colton
basin below the site. In addition, EPA demonstrated in the HRS documentation record that this aquifer is
continuous between all target wells, including WVWD-54, and the site sources.
HRS Section 3.0, Ground Water Migration Pathway, directs the scorer to:
Calculate a separate ground water migration pathway score for each aquifer, ... In doing
so, include both the targets using water from that aquifer and the targets using water from
all overlying aquifers through which the hazardous substances would migrate to reach the
aquifer being evaluated. Assign the highest ground water migration pathway score that
results from any aquifer as the ground water migration pathway score for the site.
HRS Section 3.0.1.1, Ground water target distance limit, directs what distance the targets must be to
sources at the site to be considered eligible targets. As directed in HRS Section 3.0.1.1:
The target distance limit defines the maximum distance from the sources at the site over
which targets are evaluated. Use a target distance limit of 4 miles for the ground water
migration pathway, except when aquifer discontinuities apply.
HRS Section 3.0.1.2.2, Aquifer discontinuities contains instructions on identifying aquifer discontinuities.
It states:
An aquifer discontinuity occurs for scoring purposes only when a geologic, topographic,
or other structure or feature entirely transects an aquifer within the 4-mile target distance
limit, thereby creating a continuous boundary to ground water flow within this limit.
HRS Section 3.0.1.2, Aquifer boundaries, addresses how to determine if there are aquifer
boundaries that limit the TDL for a site. It states:
Combine multiple aquifers into a single hydrologic unit for scoring purposes if aquifer
interconnections can be established for these aquifers. In contrast, restrict aquifer
boundaries if aquifer discontinuities can be established.
76
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
HRS Section 3.3.2, Population, directs the scorer to:
For the aquifer being evaluated, count those persons served by wells in that aquifer and
those persons served by wells in overlying aquifers as specified in section 3.0.
Therefore, all water supply wells within the aquifer being evaluated and within the TDL for a site are
eligible targets.
As described on pages 21-23 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, two or three aquifers underlie
the B.F. Goodrich site, from which ground water is drawn via wells for use as a water supply. The HRS
documentation record states on page 21:
Water-bearing zones in the Rialto-Colton Basin are broadly divided into Upper, Middle,
and Lower water-bearing units based on generalized responses in geophysical logs
conducted in production wells (Ref 70). Water-bearing units also include the Recent
river channel deposits (Ref. 69, p. 5). Water-bearing units are described as unconfmed to
partly confined, and in hydraulic connection with each other. Deposits underlying the
lower water-bearing unit are consolidated and form the base of the water-bearing system
(Ref. 69, p. 5).
Page 23 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, under the heading Aquifer Interconnection,
presents EPA's rationale for considering the middle and the lower water-bearing zones as interconnected
and thus treated as a single hydrologic unit. It explains that the presence of contaminants at multiple
depths in ground water beneath the 160-acre parcel but not upgradient of it, indicates that contaminants
have freely migrated from the site sources to at least the middle water-bearing zone. It also points out the
USGS considers all the water-bearing zones to be in hydraulic communication, based on analysis of
lithology from drill cuttings and geophysical logs. Therefore, all the water-bearing zones function as a
single hydrologic unit, a fact not disputed by Goodrich.
There are also no known aquifer discontinuities completely transecting the aquifer system within the 4-
mile TDL. Page 21 of the HRS documentation record at proposal describes the horizontal extent of the
Rialto-Colton basin, stating:
The B.F. Goodrich site is situated in the Rialto-Colton Basin, which is a sub-basin of the
San Bernardino Valley Basin, located in the Peninsular Ranges Geographic Province,
near the junction with the Transverse Ranges Geographic Province (Ref. 13, p. 16; Ref.
69, p. 3). The Rialto-Colton Basin is a 30-square-mile, fault-bounded basin in the upper
Santa Ana River drainage area. The basin is bound to the northeast by the San Jacinto
Fault, to the Southwest by the Rialto-Colton fault, the northwest by the San Gabriel
Mountains, and the southeast by the Badlands geologic uplift (Ref. 69, pp. 2-4).
Since above-mentioned faults bound the aquifer system, but the aquifer system itself is continuous, there
are no geologic, topographic, or other structures or features that entirely transect the combined aquifers
and thus constitute an aquifer discontinuity. All water supply wells within the entire 4-mile TDL and
screened within the Rialto-Colton basin are considered eligible targets. Goodrich presented no
information to the contrary.
The location of well WVWD-54 as within the TDL for the site is documented on page 45 of the HRS
documentation record at proposal. The well is identified as within the 2-3 mile TDL category and its
location is shown on Reference 49 of the HRS documentation record at proposal. Goodrich presented no
information to the contrary.
77
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
Contrary to Goodrich's assertion, EPA did establish that well WVWD-54 was screened in the aquifers
being evaluated for this site. While the screened depth of well WVWD-54 was not documented, EPA
established that well WVWD-54 was drawing water from the combined aquifers being evaluated for this
site, which is sufficient to meet the above-stated HRS requirement in HRS Section 3.3.2. Page 22 of the
HRS documentation record at proposal identifies that:
City of Rialto, City of Fontana, and WVWD production wells located within the Rialto-
Colton Basin are generally screened within Subzone C of the Middle Water-Bearing
Zone, with some extending into the Lower Zone in some areas (Ref 71).
Given that the combined aquifer being evaluated includes both the middle and lower water-bearing layers,
well WVWD-54 is drawing water from the aquifer being evaluated. Again, Goodrich presented no
information to the contrary.
Therefore, although no screen depth for this well was presented, EPA documented that well WVWD-54 is
drawing water from the aquifer being evaluated and that the well is within the TDL for the site. Goodrich
presented no information to the contrary. Therefore, this well and its associated population targets were
correctly included in the HRS scoring of this site.
3.11.3.5 Eligibility of WVWD-11 - Closed Well
Comment: Goodrich claimed that well WVWD-11 was used only intermittently since the early 1970s and
was taken offline in 1999 as a result of nitrate contamination exceeding the MCL. Goodrich commented
that "[w]hile WVWD claims that the well is now active with treatment for perchlorate, which has never
exceeded the MCL (as opposed to nitrate), neither WVWD nor EPA have provided any records to
substantiate that the well has indeed started to be operated." Goodrich concluded that "EPA must confirm
that WVWD-11 is active and serving water before relying upon it as a potential contamination target."
Response: Well WVWD-11 was incorrectly identified as active, and it has been removed from the HRS
documentation record at promulgation as a potentially contaminated target.
HRS Section 3.3.2, Population, states:
In evaluating the population factor, include those persons served by drinking water wells
within the target distance limit specified in section 3.0.1.1.
HRS Section 3.3.2.4, Potential contamination, continues, "[determine the number of people served by
drinking water from points of withdrawal subject to potential contamination."
In preparing a response to Goodrich's comment regarding the status of well WVWD-11, EPA confirmed
with WVWD, the owner of well WVWD-11, that the well was shut down in late 1990s. However, the
WVWD-11 well owner indicated that it expects to resume use of the well in 2009, but that it was not in a
condition to be used to withdraw water at the time of the HRS evaluation. At proposal, Reference 20 of
the HRS documentation record at proposal, titled Email Communication to Christina Marquis, FW: EPA
Request for Information - WVWD, incorrectly documented this well was an active well at the time of the
HRS evaluation.
EPA notes that the HRS documentation record at promulgation has been revised to remove the target
population associated with well WVWD-11. Even with this correction, the overall potential targets value
of 548 assigned at proposal remains the same at promulgation, and the site score is not affected. As noted
78
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
on page 45 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, the well WVDV-11 is in the 3- to 4-mile
distance category, and its estimated population of 2,991 is combined with the estimated population of the
Rialto-5 well (also in the 3- to 4-mile distance category) to obtain a total population of 7,397 for the 3- to
4-mile distance category. At proposal, the population of 7,397 for the 3- to 4- mile distance category was
assigned a distance weighted population value of 417 in the non-karst aquifer section of HRS Table 3-12.
The removal of well WVWD-11 from the HRS evaluation reduces the estimated population for the 3- to
4-mile distance category to 4,406 (7397 - 2,991 = 4,406). In HRS Table 3-12, a non-karst aquifer
population of 4,406 in the 3- to 4- mile distance category is assigned a distance-weighted population of
417, which is the same value assigned for that category in the HRS documentation record at proposal.
Combined with the other distance-weighted population values at proposal, which also remained
unchanged, the resulting potential contamination factor remains unchanged. Thus, even with the removal
of WVWD-11 from the HRS evaluation of the B.F. Goodrich site, there is no impact on any HRS
assigned value and the site score remains as at proposal. (See page 45 of the HRS documentation record
at proposal and at promulgation.)
3.12 Waste Characteristics Category Value
Goodrich commented that "EPA incorrectly scores the 'Waste Characteristics' under the HRS as 32."
Goodrich claims that EPA wrongly assumes an "observed release," and also a Level I exposure, and that
the score should actually be 6 per HRS Table 2.7.
The Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value is comprised of two factor values: Toxicity/mobility
and Hazardous Waste Quantity. The sections which follow present details of Goodrich's comments on
these two factor values and EPA's responses to each.
3.12.1 Toxicity/Mobility
Comment: Goodrich does not dispute the assignment of a toxicity value of 10,000 for TCE; however, it
presents a detailed table in which it asserts that the appropriate mobility value should be 0.01, based on
water solubility and distribution coefficient.
Response: A mobility value of 1 was correctly assigned in the HRS documentation record at proposal.
HRS Section 3.2.1.2 states: "For any hazardous substance that meets the criteria for an observed release
by chemical analysis to one or more aquifers underlying the sources at the site, regardless of the aquifer
being evaluated, assign a mobility factor value of 1." The HRS goes on to state that only if the hazardous
substance does not meet the criteria for an observed release by chemical analysis should the scorer assign
a mobility factor value based on solubility and distribution coefficient. An observed release was
established in section 3.1.1 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, using PW-1 as the background
well and multiple corresponding monitoring wells as the release wells. The assignment of a mobility
value of 1 is required under the terms of the HRS. Further support for the appropriateness of the observed
release to ground water was provided in section 3.10 of this response document. On this basis, the
toxicity/mobility value at promulgation remains 10,000.
3.12.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity
Comment: In a detailed table in its comments mentioned above, Goodrich maintains that the correct
hazardous waste quantity value for the site is 10, which, along with Goodrich's toxicity/mobility value,
would yield a waste characteristics factor value of 6.
79
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
Response: A hazardous waste quantity value of 100 was correctly assigned based on the presence of
Level I targets. As stated in HRS Section 2.4.2.2:
For a migration pathway, if the hazardous constituent quantity is adequately determined . . .
for all sources . . . assign the value from Table 2-6 as the hazardous waste quantity factor
value for the pathway. If the hazardous constituent quantity is not adequately determined
for one or more sources . . . assign a factor value as follows:
• If any target for that migration pathway is subject to Level I or Level II
concentrations . . ., assign either the value from Table 2-6, or a value of 100,
whichever is greater, as the hazardous waste quantity factor value for that pathway.
At this site, the hazardous constituent value was not adequately determined. Instead, a minimal waste
quantity value (<0) was assigned to both Source 1 and Source 2 (see page 20 of the HRS documentation
record at proposal). In sections 3.1.1 and 3.3 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, EPA clearly
demonstrated the presence of Level I targets using WVWD-24 as the background well and three water
supply wells containing TCE at levels above the health-based benchmark as the actually contaminated
targets. Applying a minimal waste quantity value to Table 2-6 results in an assigned value of 1.
Therefore, under the instructions above, the HRS thus requires assigning a hazardous waste quantity value
of 100. Further support for the scoring of these Level I targets has been provided in section 3.11.1 of this
support document.
The pathway hazardous waste quantity assigned factor value remains 100 and the waste characteristics
value remains 32 at promulgation. (See also section 3.12.1 of this support document, which addresses
Goodrich's toxicity/mobility comments.)
3.13 Adequacy of the Public Docket
3.13.1 HRS Site Score Components
Comment: Goodrich stated that "EPA's haphazard proposal to list the Site on the NPL based solely on
TCE contains numerous errors and omissions of facts, data, and other relevant information. These
significant errors and omissions lead to an unsupportable HRS Site score of 50. When one takes into
account the complete factual record, the resulting score falls well below the requisite 28.50 for NPL
consideration." Goodrich presented the revised score as being 0.94, based on consideration of "Likelihood
of Release," "Waste Characteristics," and "Targets," changes discussed earlier.
Response: Each element of contested information has been reviewed and all of the commenter's specific
technical comments on the HRS scoring of the site have been responded to, as follows. Goodrich's
comments concerning Likelihood of Release changes were responded to in section 3.10 of this support
document, EPA's responses concerning Goodrich's comments on Waste Characteristics were presented in
section 3.12 of this support document, and Goodrich's comments concerning Targets were responded to
in section 3.11 of this support document. As a result of EPA's review of the comments and provided
information, the site score remains unchanged.
The following table mirrors the structure of Goodrich's comment, providing the summary of the scores
achieved in the responses to the comment, along with locations of the details of the individual responses.
80
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document
September 2009
HRS Site Score
Likelihood of Release
Waste Characteristics
Targets
Nearest Well
Aquifer Score
Ground Water Migration Pathway Score
HRS Site Score
550
32
61,218
50
100.00
100.00
50.00
HRS documentation record section 3.1;
support document section 3.10.1
HRS documentation record section 3.2;
support document section 3.12
HRS documentation record section 3.3;
support document section 3.11
HRS documentation record section 3.3.1;
support document section 3.11.2
HRS documentation record page 3
HRS documentation record page 3
HRS documentation record page 2
3.13.2 Accuracy of Statements Regarding PSI
Comment: PSI commented that "EPA's statements about PSI are inaccurate and unsupported by EPA's
record." PSI identified the following statement as being inaccurate and/or unsupported in the HRS
documentation record: "As of January 1984, Pyro Spectaculars was disposing of up to 20 aerial shells per
month in a pond owned by Pyrotronics. Ingredients of the shells included potassium perchlorate. (HRS,
p. 13)" PSI commented that the primary reference that EPA relied upon in support of this statement is an
unauthenticated document allegedly dated January 17, 1984 and allegedly from William Lehman of PSI
to Ralph Apel at Pyrotronics ('the unauthenticated document') that was produced by American
Promotional Events, Inc. (HRS Reference 27, p. 46). PSI stated that this unauthenticated document is not
from PSI files and cited a sworn deposition of William Lehman, the purported writer of the
unauthenticated document as saying that he did not write the letter.
PSI also cited depositions of Pyrotronics' employees that testified that they never saw PSI put anything in
the McLaughlin Pit, and that of James Souza, PSI president, stating that PSI used the McLaughlin Pit to
soften the aerial shells, but disposed of them elsewhere and not in the McLaughlin Pit. In addition, PSI
commented that documents obtained from the Regional Board indicate that the McLaughlin Pit was not
used after 1983. PSI questioned EPA's statement that PSI disposed of up to 20 aerial shells per month in
the McLaughlin Pit. PSI stated that even assuming the unauthenticated document was authentic, the
document states that, 'The amount would vary from zero per month up to about 15 or 20 per month at
peak season (July-August).' PSI added that according to Mr. Lehman, who allegedly wrote the
unauthenticated document, there were 'a small number of aerial shells, approximately 15 to 20 per year
[that] could not be reworked and were burned in a burn pit by PSI.'
Response: EPA notes that the two statements cited by PSI as being in the HRS documentation record
were not used in any part of the scoring. As a preliminary matter, EPA notes that whether the document
is "authenticated" or a "business record" under rules of judicial procedure has no bearing on its usefulness
for the HRS scoring for the site. The HRS does not require that a document be authenticated, nor that an
exception to the hearsay rule apply, for it to be considered as part of the HRS scoring. This and another
document referred to below were within file material obtained by the State of California under a formal
request for information. Since this information was requested and obtained under state authority, there is
reasonable basis to believe the information is credible. EPA routinely uses information collected by
81
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
States in its HRS evaluations. On this basis, no modifications to the HRS documentation record relating
to this issue were made. Further, both the information provided in the original reference (Reference 27)
and the additional information provided by PSI, concerned perchlorate-bearing materials and did not
contain any references to TCE. As such, none of the information is related to the actual HRS scoring of
the site and no changes were made to the HRS scoring at promulgation.
Nevertheless, the contested information and the additional historical information provided by PSI have
been carefully reviewed. Also, the January 17, 1984 document cited in the HRS documentation record at
proposal (Reference 27, p. 46) has been revisited, and a second letter immediately following (Reference
27, p. 47) the so-called "unauthenticated document" has been identified, which appears to lay the
groundwork for the document and tends to confirm its accuracy. This second letter, dated 13 days prior to
the document in question, is from Ralph Apel, General Manager of Red Devil Fireworks (division of
Pyrotronics) to Bob Souza of PSI, and requested the very information that is provided in the
"unauthenticated document." This second letter referred clearly to PSI using the pond for disposal of
wastes, stating, "Since Pyro Spectaculars also uses the "pond" for disposal of shells and powders, I would
like a letter from you describing the types of chemicals that could be disposed of in our pond, and the
approximate quantity (Ibs.) of waste per month put in the pond by Pyro Spectaculars." Hence, the
summary of these statements in the HRS documentation record is consistent with the information
conveyed on pages 46 and 47 of Reference 27 of the HRS documentation record at proposal.
Regarding PSFs comment that the McLaughlin Pit was not used after 1983, the dates of operation of the
Me Laughlin Pit are not relevant to the HRS score.
3.13.3 TCE and Perchlorate Concentrations in Wells M-2 and F-32
Comment: The County of San Bernardino commented that Figures 2-2 and 2-3 in Reference 9 of the
HRS documentation record at proposal contained incorrect TCE and Perchlorate contamination
concentration values for wells M-2 and F-32. The County stated that the values presented for well M-2
were in error and were not representative of the conditions in that well which is always either non-detect
or at most trace values. The County added that the values reported for well F-32 appear to be minimum
detection limits for the lab and not detected values. It cited to Exhibits I13, D14 and J15 of its comments in
support of its statements.
13 Exhibit I cited by the County contains excerpted pages (pages 21 and 23) of Reference 9 of the HRS
documentation record at proposal. Page 21 is Figure 2-2, Intermediate Aquifer TCE and Perchlorate Contamination
and Proposed Monitoring Locations, which shows proposed monitoring locations and the TCE and perchlorate
concentrations at those locations. Figure 2-2 of Reference 9 of the HRS documentation record at proposal showed
well F-32 has perchlorate at 0.3 jig/L and TCE at 0.18 jig/L. Page 23 of Reference 9 of the HRS documentation
record at proposal is Figure 2-3, Regional Aquifer TCE and Perchlorate Contamination and proposed Monitoring
Locations, which shows proposed monitoring locations and the TCE and perchlorate concentration at those
locations.
14 Exhibit D of County of San Bernardino comments is an excerpt of County of San Bernardino Water Quality
Monitoring Report Third Quarter Santa Ana Region - Mid Valley Landfill (2008). Table 7-30 in Exhibit D lists
historical summary monitoring well data for well F-32.
15 Exhibit J of County of San Bernardino comments is an excerpt ofRialto GWTS Perchlorate and VOC
Remediation San Bernardino County, California, Ground Water Monitoring Report, Second Quarter (Spring) 2008.
Table 14 in Exhibit J lists historical summary data for monitoring well M-2 Zone 2.
82
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
Response: The TCE and perchlorate concentrations listed for wells M-2 and F-32 in Figures 2-2 and 2-3
in Reference 916 of the HRS documentation record at proposal were not used as part of the HRS scoring.
Thus, any inaccuracies related to them do not affect the HRS site score, and these comments have no
effect on the listing decision. Nevertheless, EPA sought to examine the cited figures for wells M-2 and F-
32 for accuracy and has confirmed that an error was made in the preparation of the figures and that the
perchlorate and TCE values should have been reported as not detected (ND). This error has no impact on
the listing. Wells F-32 and M-2 in Figures 2-2 and 2-3 of Reference 9 of the HRS documentation record
at proposal were not used as part of the HRS scoring.
3.13.4 Location of Well Fontana 49A
Comment: The County of San Bernardino commented that "EPA should correct the record with respect
to the relative location of [Fontana 49A], as the well is not downgradient of the Site. The County of San
Bernardino stated that "[t]he HRS listing package states that [Fontana 49A] is located to the southeast of
and downgradient of the Site. . . [however] these statements are not supported by the record and should be
corrected." According to the County of San Bernardino, "[a]s shown in EPA Reference 49, [Fontana 49A]
is not to the southeast of the Site; rather, the well is approximately 2 miles due south of the Site. Given
the distance between the Site and [Fontana 49A], and the historic southeasterly flow of groundwater,
particles of contamination released from the Site would clearly not have traveled to well [Fontana 49A]
under current (and past) groundwater flow paths. . . .Thus, [Fontana 49A] is not downgradient of the
Site." The County of San Bernardino identified the following statements as not being supported by cited
references:
• "TCE has been detected in drinking water wells located downgradient of the Site" (HRS
documentation record, p. 13) since the cited references show TCE results for Fontana 49A among
others, but the reference cited in support of the location of well Fontana 49A (i.e., Ref 49) gives
the location of the well as south from the site, which does not support the statement that the well
is downgradient of the site when the ground water flow direction is southeasterly.
• "F-49A is located southeast and downgradient from the Site" (HRS documentation record, p. 33)
since the references cited (Refs. 5, pp. 87-90; 6, p. 85) show the groundwater flow as being to the
southeast, and not to the south where Fontana 49A is located.
• "F-49A is located southeast of Source 1 on the Site" (HRS documentation record, p. 43) since the
reference cited in support of the location of Fontana 49A relative to Source 1 (Ref. 49) shows
Fontana 49A as being south, and not southeast, of the Site.
Response: Well Fontana 49A has been removed from the HRS scoring of the B.F. Goodrich site. A
determination of the source(s) of contamination to Fontana 49A has not been made. See section 3.10.2.1
of this support document.
3.13.5 Interpretation of HRS Documentation Record
Comment: The County of San Bernardino commented that it supports a comprehensive solution to the
ground water contamination in the Rialto Colton Basin, however, it is concerned that certain aspects of
16 Reference 9 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, titled Quality Assurance Project Plan, Rialto-Colton
Groundwater Basin Groundwater Characterization Sampling (prepared for U.S. EPA Region IX by CH2MHill,
January 2008).
83
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
the HRS listing could be misinterpreted or misused by third parties to argue that the plumes should not be
treated separately. It requested clarification that, "EPA has not made a determination that wells located to
the South and West of the Eastern Plume, such as Fontana wells 13A, 13B and 49A and Rialto Well 3,
have already been contaminated by the Site or that in the future, such wells will necessarily be impacted
by the Site." The County requested that EPA clarify that the identification of these wells as potentially
impacted target wells does not mean those wells are impacted by the site, but rather that they are located
in the same aquifer as the site and are within a distance of four miles from the site.
Response: The HRS documentation record is provided to explain to the public the proposed HRS
evaluation of the site and to identify those parts of the site used in the HRS evaluation process sufficiently
to allow the public to review and reproduce the HRS scoring. It is not a description of the final site
dimensions or a final evaluation of the threat posed by the site. As discussed in section 3.4 of this support
document, until the post-listing site investigation process has been completed and a remedial action (if
any) selected, EPA can neither completely estimate the extent of contamination at the site, nor describe
the ultimate dimensions of the site. Even during a remedial action, EPA may find that the contamination
has spread further than previously estimated, and the site boundaries may be correspondingly revised.
The evaluation of potentially contaminated target wells is discussed in section 3.11.3 of this support
document.
Comment: The City of Colton wrote to express the City's support for the listing, and enclosed a Site
Inspection Report completed by the City's consultant, DPRA, for EPA's use. The City of Colton and
DPRA requested that DPRA's Site Inspection Report, Perchlorate, Trichloroethylene and Other
Hazardous Substances Within the Rialto Colton Groundwater Basin County of San Bernardino,
California (DPRA, April, 2008) (referred to as the DPRA Report) be added to the record for the site. It
explained that although EPA's evaluation gave the ground water pathway at the site the maximum
pathway score, "EPA did not include the evaluation contained in the DPRA report which concludes that a
perchlorate plume appears beyond the areas considered by EPA to reach the City of Colton."
Response: The reference list contained in the HRS documentation record and the references provided as
part of the HRS documentation package consist only of the references used in preparing the HRS
evaluation of the site. The DPRA report suggested by the City of Colton was not used to revise the HRS
evaluation, and so EPA has not revised the reference list in the HRS documentation record. However, the
DPRA report was provided to EPA by the City of Colton in its comments, and so is part of the docket for
the B.F. Goodrich site at promulgation. EPA may consider information contained in this document
during future stages of the Superfund process.
3.14 Late Comments Received August and September 2009
EPA proposed the B.F. Goodrich site for listing on the NPL on September 3, 2008 (73 FR 51393). The
public comment period on the proposed rule closed on November 3, 2008. In the preamble to the
proposed rule, EPA stated its policy on late comments:
Generally, EPA will not respond to late comments. EPA can only guarantee that it will
consider those comments postmarked by the close of the formal comment period. EPA
has a policy of generally not delaying a final listing decision solely to accommodate
consideration of late comments. (73 FR 51397)
On August 12, 2009, as EPA was in process of finalizing its response to all of these comments in
preparation for the final listing decision, Goodrich Corporation submitted over 346 pages of additional
comments ("August 12 comments"). These comments were submitted more than 9 months after the close
84
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
of the comment period, and primarily restate issues which were raised in Goodrich's earlier comments.
These late comments include a letter with 39 attachments from Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, attorneys
for Goodrich. The 39th attachment contains a CD ROM containing approximately 5394 pages of
documents. In addition, Goodrich enclosed an August 11, 2009, report from Michael C. Kavanaugh of
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. ("Malcolm Pirnie letter"). The letter from Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher also referenced
a forthcoming (and subsequently received by EPA) August 14, 2009, report from MACTEC Engineering
and Consulting, Inc. ("MACTEC letter").
In brief, Goodrich's August 12 comments argue in part that EPA should withdraw the proposed listing,
based on some (1) information received after the close of the comment period in response to various
FOIA requests it had made to EPA; and (2) new data that were collected after the close of the comment
period for this listing, and as part of the ongoing investigation of the site. The August 12 comments do
not affect the HRS score and generally repeat earlier comments.
Subsequently, EPA received a letter from Goodrich on August 26, which contained over 77 pages of
additional submissions ("August 26 letter"). Then EPA received a letter from Brian Zargon of Hunsucker
Goodstein & Nelson PC, on behalf of Pyro Spectaculars, Inc., dated September 8, 2009 ("September 8
comments") responding to Goodrich's August 26 letter. Neither the August 26 letter nor the September 8
comments affects the HRS score for the site.
Given the disputed circumstances, EPA has decided to respond to the late comments.
Although Goodrich claims some of its comments affect the HRS score and demonstrate why EPA should
not finalize the proposed listing, upon closer review it is clear that Goodrich's primary concern is its
potential liability for cleanup costs at the site. See pages 1 ("EPA's primary motive in proposing to list the
Site on the NPL is ... part of a strategy intended to force Goodrich to settle its alleged liability . . . ."), 4
("the model has clearly shown that the alleged releases by Goodrich would not have impacted
groundwater"), and 8-9 ("EPA is Improperly Attempting to Brand Goodrich As The Party Most
Responsible") of the August 12 comments. (Emphasis Goodrich's.) However, the question of potential
liability for ultimate cleanup at the site is not a factor in, nor relevant to, the NPL listing decision. As
stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, "[t]he NPL is only of limited significance ... as it does not
assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property." (73 FR 51394, September 2008).
EPA makes a similar point in section 3.5 of this support document.
The decision to list the site on the NPL is based upon the site's HRS score. EPA has reviewed these late
comments and has concluded that the new comments and data contained in the August 12 comments, the
Malcolm Pirnie letter, the MACTEC letter, the August 26 letter, and the September 8 comments do not
affect the HRS score for the site.
Given the similarity of most of these new comments to comments made previously, EPA's responses to
these new comments will not repeat the lengthier responses developed for previous comments. Also,
since many of the comments restate issues previously raised, this portion of the support document refers
back to earlier sections of the support document.
A section-by-section discussion of comments received in August and September 2009 follows.
3.14.1 Comment: In Section I of its August 12 comments, Goodrich claims that EPA must consider the
new comments "given its repeated violation of the Freedom of Information Act."
Response: EPA disagrees with Goodrich's characterization of EPA's responses to Goodrich's FOIA
requests. EPA's responses to Goodrich's earlier FOIA requests, and specifically the litigation Goodrich
85
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
Corp. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 08-1625 (JDB), are discussed in section 3.1 of this
support document. The documents that Goodrich received pursuant to its numerous FOIA requests and
submitted as part of its August 12 comments are not relevant to the NPL listing decision, as discussed
below. EPA has fully considered these comments and determined that they do not affect the HRS score or
the decision to list the site on the NPL.
3.14.2 Comment: In Section II of its August 12 comments (and in the MACTEC letter), Goodrich
critiques EPA's 2006 vadose zone modeling effort and again claims that the vadose zone model,
including its inputs and outputs "exonerates Goodrich."
Response: EPA looked at the data and information submitted by Goodrich to determine if it would affect
the HRS score or the listing decision and EPA determined that it does not.
As explained in section 3.1 of this support document, EPA did not rely on the vadose zone model in
scoring the site. Instead, EPA used the model as one tool to determine whether perchlorate spilled or
dumped at the surface in the 1950s could have moved downward to the ground water.
The HRS provides that "[f]or each of the three migration pathways: consider those hazardous substances
documented in a source (for example, by sampling, labels, manifests, oral or written statements) to be
associated with that source when evaluating each pathway." See HRS Section 2.2.2, Identify hazardous
substances associated with a source. The HRS provides further in Section 3.1.1, Observed release, that
when establishing an observed release by chemical analysis at a site for the ground water migration
pathway, "[s]ome portion of the significant increase must be attributable to the site to establish the
observed release . . . ." Thus, for the model to be potentially relevant to the listing process, the model
would need to provide information that prevents the association of TCE with Source 1, or prevents
attribution of the TCE release to the site. However, none of the model simulations carried out by EPA or
MACTEC prevent the association of TCE to Source 1 or attribution to the site. For more information on
this point, see section 3.1 of this support document responding to earlier comments about the model and
section 3.10 of this support document. The model does not support the conclusion that releases by
Goodrich would not have impacted ground water. As explained below, Goodrich's claim appears to be
based on inappropriate use of the model, and unrealistic modeling input assumptions (e.g., discarding
plausible recharge values). The HRS score for the NPL listing is based on TCE, not perchlorate. EPA has
not used, and does not believe it is appropriate to use, the results of the 2006 modeling effort to make
conclusions about the movement of TCE (rather than perchlorate) or precise conclusions about the length
of time it would take a contaminant to travel from the surface to the ground water, as Goodrich has done.
Section 3.1 of this support document provides a discussion of the differences between the movement of
TCE and perchlorate, and the reasons that EPA did not use the model to simulate the movement of TCE.
Appropriate uses of the model are described in the conclusions section of EPA's 2006 modeling report
(attached to Goodrich's comments), which states that releases between 1955 and 1957 could have resulted
in perchlorate contamination in ground water beneath the site by 2005.
Goodrich claims that TCE detected by EPA in 13 soil vapor samples as part of the remedial investigation
for the site in 2009 is likely a result of TCE volatilization from the contaminated ground water and
upward movement into the vadose zone or from a lateral source that has not been identified. However,
Goodrich has not provided any scientific analysis of the movement of TCE vapors in the subsurface to
support this claim. Moreover, this claim is not supported by other site data. TCE was detected in soil
vapor only within the suspected footprint of the former Goodrich disposal pit/burn pit (Source 1) and was
not detected at any of the other 61 locations sampled by Goodrich's consultant at the site in May and June
2004 (Reference 5), or in an investigation by another PRP in 2006 that included analysis of 162 soil vapor
samples (Reference 7). If TCE were moving from the ground water into the shallow soil and soil vapor,
86
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
TCE would be detected in other parts of the site, not just within the footprint of the former Goodrich
disposal pit/burn pit.
In addition, any interpretation of the contaminant concentrations measured in the 13 soil vapor samples
should consider the preliminary nature of the results. As EPA noted when it distributed these data to
Goodrich and others on August 4, 2009, the results have not yet been fully validated and are likely to be
further qualified when further validated.
The Malcolm Pirnie letter argues that the new data further support Goodrich's assertion that the Goodrich
facility is not a source of ground water contamination by opining that a general increase in TCE vapor
concentrations with depth indicates that the contamination is not coming from the vadose zone above the
samples. In other words, Goodrich argues that if the soil gas contamination were coming from a surface
spill or discharge, the contamination would be greater closer to the surface. This is an improper inference
to make, however. This inference cannot be drawn based on the available information because it ignores
the exchange of shallow soil vapor with the atmosphere, which can be expected to reduce contaminant
concentrations in shallow soil vapor. This is particularly relevant at the site, where the soil vapor samples
were collected more than 40 years after the chemicals were believed to have been spilled or dumped, and
thus this effect may be substantial.
Goodrich also provides comments on whether the TCE detected in 13 soil vapor samples represents a
continuing threat to ground water or poses a risk to human health via an air migration pathway. Those
questions are not relevant to NPL listing. With respect to the continuing threat to ground water, the HRS
does not require that contamination be ongoing to establish a site score. HRS Section 3.1.1, Observed
Release, provides in relevant part: "[establish an observed release to an aquifer by demonstrating that the
site has released a hazardous substance to the aquifer . . . ." Thus, a one-time release is sufficient to
establish an observed release in the ground water migration pathway. EPA's establishment of an
observed release at the site is discussed on pages 25 to 37 of the HRS documentation record, and in 3.10.1
of this support document.
With respect to whether the TCE poses a continued risk to human health via an air migration pathway,
this issue is not relevant to the HRS site score because EPA did not score the air migration pathway in
support of the listing decision. This is documented on the HRS documentation record cover sheet and on
page 1 of the HRS documentation record. EPA will continue to study the site to more fully characterize
the releases and determine what further response actions are appropriate.
Thus, after considering this data and Goodrich's assertions about these data, EPA has determined that it
does not affect the HRS score for the site.
3.14.3 Comment: In Section III of its August 12 comments, Goodrich claims that EPA has engaged in a
pattern of arbitrary and capricious conduct.
Response: The documents cited as evidence for these allegations do not go to (or impact) the HRS score
as explained below. The documents referred to generally reflect Agency deliberations regarding the
handling of the site that do not affect the HRS score. EPA's administrative record for the action fully
supports the HRS score and the decision to list the site on the NPL.
3.14.4 Comment: EPA improperly issued a Section 106 order to Goodrich.
Response: While EPA believes the issuance of the Section 106 order to Goodrich was appropriate, this
allegation is irrelevant to an NPL listing decision. The HRS does not take into consideration
administrative orders, liability for cleanup, or whether there is an imminent and substantial endangerment.
87
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
Goodrich has already litigated the constitutionality of EPA's UAO process, and their arguments were
recently rejected by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. City of Rialto v. West Coast Loading Corp., 2009
U.S. App. LEXIS 18208, No. 08-55474 (9th Cir., Aug. 14, 2009). Finally, the e-mail/draft talking points
Goodrich cites only discusses the need for a drinking water replacement order. It did not represent EPA's
view on the broader issue of whether any release or threatened release from the site presented an
"imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health or welfare or the environment."
3.14.5 Comment: Citing correspondence and email relating to EPA's relationship with federal, state, and
local government officials, Goodrich alleges EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously.
Response: EPA disagrees with this allegation and it is irrelevant to the listing decision. Elected officials
at the state, local and national levels have requested to be updated on a regular basis concerning EPA
activities at the site. There is nothing improper in EPA providing information to such officials and other
members of the public. Furthermore, EPA has a policy of seeking state input and concurrence on NPL
listing decisions. The State supports EPA adding the site to the NPL (see section 3.2 of this support
document).
With respect to Goodrich's comments regarding perchlorate, EPA has addressed the issue of perchlorate
contamination present at the site in section 3.8 of this support document. As EPA notes in that section, the
HRS score was not based upon perchlorate, and the presence or absence of perchlorate in the HRS
evaluation does not alter the listing decision, although the HRS documentation record at proposal does
clearly and transparently indicate to the public that perchlorate is present at the site. The documents
Goodrich cites as evidence that EPA "use[d] TCE as a backdoor means to address the Perchlorate," again,
do not go to the issue of whether the listing decision is appropriately supported by the HRS for TCE.
Internal emails cited by the commenter simply reflect internal deliberations regarding scoring approaches.
The HRS does not require that all possible contaminants, pathways or sources be scored in an evaluation.
3.14.6 Comment: Citing internal EPA documents, Goodrich alleges that EPA used its authority to
impact the state settlement process.
EPA disagrees with the allegation in this comment and it is irrelevant to the listing decision. The actual or
potential liability of any party is not considered under the HRS, and the NPL listing process does not
establish liability. See section 3.5 of this support document. EPA proposed the B.F. Goodrich site to the
NPL because it poses a serious threat to human health and the environment that warrants a federal
Superfund response. Initially, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) was
addressing the site pursuant to its State authorities. EPA increased its role at the B.F. Goodrich site after
the RWQCB requested EPA's assistance. Although it is not required by CERCLA, EPA, as a matter of
policy, generally requests the concurrence of the Governor before proposing a site to the NPL. As noted
in section 3.0 of this support document, Linda S. Adams, California Secretary for Environmental
Protection responded on behalf of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to EPA's inquiry about California's
position on listing. Ms. Adams wrote that, "The State of California supports the proposed listing of this
site on the NPL with one caveat." This caveat is that, if the negotiations between the Regional Board and
the private parties mentioned above were to "achieve a comprehensive and permanent solution" to the
ground water problem, the State may request that EPA suspend the listing process. EPA has not received
any letter from the State withdrawing this concurrence.
3.14.7 Comment: Goodrich commented that EPA staff ignored the record and worked in concert with
the City of Rialto to justify the proposed listing.
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
Response: Goodrich presents no basis for these unsubstantiated claims and they are not accurate. The
record for the listing decision provides substantial evidence to support EPA's conclusions, and the scoring
of the site is consistent with the HRS regulation.
Goodrich makes this claim in the introduction to its August 12 comments and in Section V.A. 1 .a., where
Goodrich asserts that EPA and the City of Rialto "conspired" to falsify the record in effort "to score it."
Contrary to this assertion, and as a result of Goodrich's earlier comments, EPA verified the reasons for
the closure of Rialto-2 with the City of Rialto. Those inquiries resulted in a letter from the Director of
Public Works and City Engineer for the City of Rialto, who confirmed that the presence of TCE and
perchlorate in Rialto-2 were both factors in the City of Rialto's decision to formally decommission (and
physically disconnect) that well. Moreover, even if Rialto-2 were not considered as part of the site
scoring, the ground water pathway and resulting overall site score would not change. See section
3.11.1.2, Eligibility of Rialto-2 - Closed Well, of this support document for a detailed response on this
issue.
3.14.8 Comment: Goodrich claimed that through this listing decision, EPA is improperly attempting to
brand Goodrich as the party most responsible.
Response: This comment is irrelevant to the listing decision. Neither liability nor proportionate share is
considered under the HRS, and the listing process does not establish liability. See section 3.5 of this
support document. Goodrich's objection to the naming of the site is addressed in section 3.3 of this
support document. EPA does not attribute contamination to parties, but to a site under HRS Section
3.1.1, Observed Release. EPA has clarified the HRS documentation record at promulgation to make it
clearer that the site is not limited to releases from Goodrich Corporation operations. EPA "associates"
hazardous substances with sources under 2.2.2. See section 3.9 and its subsections of this support
document. EPA explains in sections 3.4 and 3.9.2 of this support document that Source 2 is not limited to
Goodrich Corporation operations.
Finally, the e-mails that Goodrich cites in its August 12 comments do not support its thesis. The first two
merely recite that the site name has changed. They do not show that EPA improperly changed the site
name. That an EPA employee referred to the site without using the formal site name also does not show
an improper motive. Exhibit 27 refers to state court litigation in which EPA was not involved, and is
unrelated to any discussion of the site name.
3.14.9 Comment: In Section IV of its August 12 comments, Goodrich claims that the geographic scope
of the listing is politically motivated and improper.
Response: EPA has defined the site to include two sources and releases of TCE and other hazardous
substances and associated ground water contamination, which pose a hazard to people. EPA will more
fully evaluate the scope of the releases (including other possible sources of the contamination) at the site
in later stages of the Superfund process (see sections 3.4 and 3.9.3 of this support document). Goodrich's
objection to the naming of the site is addressed in section 3.3 of this support document.
3.14.10 Comment: In Section V of its August 12 comments, Goodrich claims that "new information
confirms EPA's fact and HRS score are incorrect." Specifically, Goodrich claims that well Rialto-2 was
not taken out of service due to TCE, and that there is no flow path connecting well Fontana 49-A to
sources onsite, reducing the Level 1 targets. Additionally, Goodrich states there is no flow path
connecting wells Fontana 13A and 13B to sources onsite and that well WVWD-11 is not operating, thus
reducing potential contamination targets.
89
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
Response: The claims made in Part A of the comment are the same as others submitted in previous
comments submitted by Goodrich. EPA responds to these claims in sections 3.11.1.2, 3.11.1.4, 3.11.3.2,
and 3.11.3.5 of this support document.
3.14.11 Comment: Section V.B. of its August 12 comments and the Malcolm Pirnie comment review
data from 13 soil vapor samples collected by USEPA on May 26, 2009, with the conclusion that the
former Goodrich burn pit area is not a source of the TCE detected in ground water.
Response: EPA properly associated TCE with Sources 1 and 2 as discussed in sections 3.9 and 3.10 and
their subsections of this support document. The new information provided in Part B was generated as
part of EPA's remedial investigation to help define the nature and extent of contamination at the site and,
in EPA's opinion, provides further evidence that the Goodrich disposal pit/burn pit (Source 1) is a source
of ground water contamination at the site. Goodrich and others were provided these data from EPA in a
routine EPA distribution of data from the remedial investigation at the site to interested parties. Soil gas
data collected prior to EPA's proposed listing that is contained in the HRS documentation record is
sufficient to associate TCE with Source 1. These previous soil gas samples were collected from the
suspected location of Source 1 (see page 14 of the HRS documentation record and sections 3.7 and 3.9 of
this support document). This meets the requirement in HRS Section 2.2.2 that a substance can be
associated with a source based on sampling. (Also, as discussed in section 3.9.1 of this support
document, EPA associated TCE with Source 1 in part based upon information contained in court
depositions.) The data at the time of the proposal supports the HRS score.
EPA properly associated TCE to Sources 1 and 2 as discussed in section 3.9 and its subsections of this
support document. Moreover, as discussed in section 3.10.3 of this support document, the site would
score above the 28.5 threshold even without consideration of either Source 1 or Source 2, and would have
a score greater than 28.5 as a ground water plume.
3.14.12 Comment: Goodrich submitted an August 26 letter to EPA, which contained over 77 pages of
additional late comments and data ("August 26 letter"). These data were collected by Pyro Spectaculars,
Inc., one of the potentially responsible parties ("PRPs") performing work at the site.
Response: These data are part of the ongoing remedial investigation at the site. EPA has reviewed these
data. The data are consistent with earlier data from the same wells, and do not change the HRS site score.
3.14.13 Comment: Brian L. Zagon of Hunsucker Goodstein & Nelson PC, on behalf of Pyro
Spectaculars, Inc., submitted comments dated September, 8, 2009 ("September 8 comments"), which
claimed that "Goodrich mistakenly stated that 'PSI currently operates a fireworks manufacturing facility
on the northern portion of the Site.'"
Response: As noted in several sections of this support document, the HRS score does not determine or
depend upon any findings of liability. This comment is irrelevant to the decision to place this site on the
NPL. Neither liability nor responsibility is considered under the HRS, and the listing process does not
establish liability as explained in section 3.5 of this support document.
90
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document September 2009
4.0 Conclusion
The original HRS score for this site was 50.00. Based on the above responses to public comments, the
score remains unchanged. The final scores for the B.F. Goodrich site are:
Ground Water: 100.00
Surface Water: NS
Soil Exposure: NS
Air Pathway: NS
HRS Score: 50.00
91
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document - Attachment A
ATTACHMENT A
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document - Attachment A
California
Februarys, 2009
Mr. Wayne Praskin
Project Manager
USEPA Superfund Program
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA, 94105
Subject: Riaito Well # 2 Decommissioning In Response to TCE Occurrence
Dear Mr. Praskin:
The history of decommissioning of Rialto's Well #2 followed a two-step process. First,
the well was taken out of regular service in October of 1997 due to high perchlorate
concentrations. Later the well was formally decommissioned in response to an increasing
occurrence of trichoethylene (TCE) in the well to levels above the EPA's five parts per
billion (ppb) Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL).
TCE was initially detected in the well in 1994 at levels below the MCL. Four years later,
in 1998, the steadily increasing TCE concentrations exceeded the 5 ppb MCL. At that
time, the well was not in service but remained physically capable of delivering water to
the distribution system. On June 11, 2001, after a prolonged period of TCE occurrence
above the MCL without an observed decline, the well was decommissioned and formally
placed into inactive status. Decommissioning at that time included physical
disconnection of the well from the Riaito system and notification to the California
Department of Public Health of its status.
Please feel free to contact Peter Fox, Water Superintendent at (909) 421-7244 if you have
any questions regarding this letter.
Sincerely
Ahmad R. Ansari, PE.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
CC: Henry T. Garcia, City Administrator
Jimmy Gutierrez, City Attorney
Scott Summers, Special Council
150 South Palm Avenue, Riaito. California 92376
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document - Attachment B
ATTACHMENT B
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document - Attachment B
U.S. Department of Justice
Jeffrey A. Taylor
United States Attorney
District of Columbia
Judiciary Center
555 Fourth St., N. W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
March 18, 2009
By Courier
Michael K. Murphy
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036-5306
Re: Goodrich Corp., et al., v. United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Civil Action No. 08-1625(JDB)(D.D.C.)
Dear Mr. Murphy:
Pursuant to the Court's January 16, 2009 Order in the above-referenced matter requiring
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") to release "the vadose zone model, as it
existed when EPA disclosed aspects of the model and its results to the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board in 2006," please find the enclosed model, provision of which complies
with and is consistent with the Court's Order.
Very Truly Yours,
JEFFREY A. TAYLOR
United States Attorney
By: /s/ Beverly M. Russell
BEVERLY M. RUSSELL
Assistant United States Attorney
Enclosure
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document - Attachment B
U.S. Department of Justice
Jeffrey A. Taylor
United States Attorney
District of Columbia
Judiciary Center
555 Fourth St., N. W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
April 14, 2009
By Electronic Mail
Jeffrey D. Dintzer
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90071-3197
idintzer@gibsondunn.com
Michael K. Murphy
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036-5306
mmurphy@gibsondunn.com
Re: Goodrich Corp., et al., v. United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Civil Action No. 08-1625(JDB)(D.D.C.)
Dear Messrs. Dintzer and Murphy:
This is a follow-up to your letters dated March 31, 2009, and April 9 and 10, 2009, as
well as your e-mail dated April 13, 2009, inquiring as to whether the Environmental Protection
Agency's ("EPA") March 2009 production of the vadose zone model was complete. As stated in
my April 9 and 13, 2009 e-mail correspondence to you, the EPA believed that its production
presented on a compact disk ("CD") was complete, but nevertheless promised to follow-up with
its contractor to ensure that all files were produced. The agency's approach to your concern was
such an obvious reaction and so straightforward that the strident tone of your communication on
the matter was unwarranted.
In any event, the EPA has followed up with its contractor, and now confirms that its
production, sent from my office to Mr. Murphy via courier on or around March 18, 2009, was
complete. Specifically, the production fully complied with the Court's January 16, 2009 Order in
the above-referenced matter requiring the EPA to release "the vadose zone model, as it existed
when EPA disclosed aspects of the model and its results to the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board in 2006." Further, as to the issues raised in your April 13, 2009 e-mail to
me, the production did indeed include the output files and the groundwater mixing model.
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document - Attachment B
Although the EPA is certainly under no obligation to do so to satisfy its obligations under the
Freedom of Information Act, it has voluntarily provided the following background information to
facilitate your understanding of its March 2009 production.
As was noted in the transmittal accompanying the CD, the EPA completed seventeen
model simulations, and provided files associated with each of 17 simulations in a separate
sub folder in the test_c folder. These files are the vadose zone modeling files. Each of the 17
simulations describes the movement of perchlorate from the ground surface downward through
the vadose zone under a different set of conditions. Accordingly, your assertion that the EPA did
not produce these files is incorrect. For your information, the 17 sub folders are named:
rechl_kz01
rechl_kzl
rechl_kz5
rech05_kz01
rech05_kzl
rech5_kz01
rech5_kzl
rech05_kz5
rech5_kz5
rech5_kz5_poro
rech5_kz5_rmc
rech5_kz5_vg
rech25_kz01
rech25_kzl
rech25_kz5
sim_R
sim_s
In each subfolder, there are:
- two or more input files (named *.dat and *.vs2)
- multiple output files (named *.out)
- input/output summary file (*.fil)
Also in the test_c folder are two Microsoft excel files that make up the groundwater
mixing model which, again, you incorrectly alleged was not produced. The files are named:
concjiew and DRD1826. The groundwater mixing model was developed to evaluate the impacts
of contaminated water percolating through the vadose zone on the groundwater.
In the VS2D folder are the VS2D executable, documentation, and installation files. The
filenames are: vs2di, vs2di_l_2_examples, and vs2di_l_2_setup.
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document - Attachment B
Please let me know directly if you did not receive any of these files. The EPA is certainly
willing to provide a replacement CD if any of the above-noted files were inadvertently not copied
on the CD provided to you. However, given the unarguably antagonistic tone of your
correspondence on the matter, including repeated threats of further litigation, please
communicate with me directly as to any concerns you may still have regarding the production of
the groundwater mixing model. I ask that you not communicate with any EPA employee on this
issue - including by "carbon copying" on correspondence - until this matter is resolved.
Very Truly Yours,
JEFFREY A. TAYLOR
United States Attorney
By: /s/ Beverly M. Russell
BEVERLY M. RUSSELL
Assistant United States Attorney
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document - Attachment B
U.S. Department of Justice
Jeffrey A. Taylor
United States Attorney
District of Columbia
Judiciary Center
555 Fourth St., N. W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
April 30, 2009
By Electronic Mail
Jeffrey D. Dintzer
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90071-3197
idintzer@gibsondunn.com
Michael K. Murphy
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036-5306
mmurphy@gibsondunn.com
Re: Goodrich Corp., et al., v. United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Civil Action No. 08-1625(JDB)(D.D.C.)
Dear Messrs. Dintzer and Murphy:
In your April 24, 2009 letter, you acknowledge that EPA produced output files for each of
the 17 scenarios modeled, but you indicate that you believe that EPA failed to produce a
simulation file possessing the extension *.sim (the "sim" file), which you characterize as "the
most important output file" created by the VS2D program.
The EPA has asked its contractor, which developed and ran the modeling simulations on
EPA's behalf, if the additional files you seek exist. Our understanding, based on discussions
with the contractor, is that a sim file is automatically generated by the model whenever a
simulation is run, but that the files were not saved after the modeling work was completed in
2006 nor used in the presentation made on July 12, 2006 to staff of the Regional Water Quality
Control Board. We understand that the sim files were not saved in part because the sim files are
very large and because they can easily be re-created by VS2D using the input files (which EPA
previously provided to you). The EPA has asked its contractor to search their corporate backup
files from July 12, 2006 to confirm that the sim files no longer exists. The backup files are not
readily accessible, but the contractor expects to complete its search by May 8, 2009.
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document - Attachment B
You also acknowledge that EPA produced the "groundwater mixing model" in the form
of two Excel spreadsheets, but assert that "the input data for the groundwater mixing portion of
the VS2D model is missing" and that the two Excel files already produced "cannot be a
[complete] groundwater mixing model used to predict groundwater impacts..." The EPA has
discussed these assertions with its contractor and confirmed that the groundwater mixing portion
of the VS2D model was not used and therefore no additional files exist responsive to your
December 19, 2007 FOIA request or the January 16, 2009 Court Order.
We are considering your request for additional narrative explanation of the modeling
work.
Very Truly Yours,
JEFFREY A. TAYLOR
United States Attorney
By: /s/ Beverly M. Russell
BEVERLY M. RUSSELL
Assistant United States Attorney
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document - Attachment C
ATTACHMENT C
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document - Attachment C
Page 394
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE BRANCH
CITY OP RIALTO, a California } Case Ho, ED CV 00079
municipal corporation; and ) VAP (SGLx)
RIALTO UTILITY AUTHORITY, a }
Joint Powers Authority )
organized and existing under }
the laws of the state of )
California, }
5
Plaintiffs, }
)
vs. )
)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF )
DEFENSE, et al., )
}
Defendants, )
VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OP RONALD B. POLZIEN
VOLUME 3
Taken on behalf of the Defendants Emhart industries,
Inc., Black & Decker {U.S.) Inc., Kwikset Corporation,
and Kwikset Locks, Inc., at Goodsill Anderson Quinn &
Stifel, 1800 Alii Place, 1100 Alakea Street, Honolulu,
Hawaii, commencing at 9:14 a.m. on Thursday, April 7,
2005, pursuant to Notice.
BEFORE: SHARON L. ROSS, CSR No. 432
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
65289ce8-f5af-4e9(J.bae2-ae46a547022«
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document - Attachment C
Page 615
1 Q. Okay. I understand. So, on occasion you had 15:24
2 a chance to walk down into the warehouse and go inside 15:24
3 there? 15:24
4 A. Yeah, probably every week or so. 15:24
5 Q, Okay. And what types of materials were you 15:24
6 picking up there? 15:24
7 A. Materials 1 had ordered, like machine parts, 15:24
8 some fancy little transducers and devices that I thought 15:24
9 we needed. 15:24
10 Q, So, technical equipment? 15:24
11 A. Technical equipment. 15:25
12 Q. Did you ever go down to the warehouse and 15:25
13 come away with chemicals? 15:25
14 A. J might have — might have carried something 15:25
15 that — photographic fixer or processor, whatever they 15:25
16 use in the oscillograph, 15:25
17 Q. Other than photographic-- 15:25
18 A. No. 15:25
19 Q. — developing materials, did you ever walk 15:25
20 away from that warehouse with any chemicals? 15:25
21 A. No. 15:25
22 Q. Did you ever order and have someone bring to 15:25
2 3 you, other than photographic developing materials, 15:25
24 chemicals from that warehouse? 15:25
25 A. Not that I recall 15:25
Page 617
1 drums and that you would know what that looked like, 15:27
2 okay? But we've got to be real careful about--and be 15:27
3 specific. 15:27
4 Let me ask you a precursor question. Are you 15:27
5 familiar with a chemical called trichlorethane? 15:27
6 A. No, 15:27
7 Q. Okay. So, in all the years you worked at 15:27
8 Lockheed Propulsion and Ford Aerospace, you never saw a 15:27
9 chemical called trichlorethane? 15:27
10 A. If I did, I don't recall. 15:27
11 Q. Okay. Do you know what trichlorethane is? 15:27
12 A. It sounds like it's a gas, but f'm not sure. 15:27
13 Q. Okay. 15:27
14 MR. VANVLBAR: Jeffrey, just for clarity, 15:27
15 becausethat is known by it's isomer 1-1-1, youmight 15:27
16 want to-- 15:27
17 Q. (BY MR. DINTZER) Okay. Well, have you ever 15:27
18 heard — okay. Let me — he makes a very good point. 15:27
19 Have you ever heard of a chemical called 15:27
20 1-1-1 TCA? 15:28
21 A. No. 15:28
22 Q. Okay. Have you ever heard of a chemical 15:28
23 called TCA? • 15:28
24 A. Perhaps. I'm not sure. 15:28
25 Q. Do you know that to be a solvent? 15:28
Page 616
1 Q. Okay. Now, the warehouse was a relatively 15:25
2 large building as they go on that particular site; is 15:25
3 that right? 15:25
4 A. Yes. 15:25
5 Q. And it had in it kind of sections where 15:25
6 different materials were held; is that right? 15:25
7 A, That's right. 15:26
8 Q, Okay. Technical supplies would be kept in 15:26
9 one area, and chemicals would be kept in a separate 15:26
10 area; is that right? 15:26
11 A, I would say so. 15:26
12 Q, Okay. Now, do you recall ever seeing the 15:26
13 delivery or storage of ammonium perchlorate in the 15:26
14 warehouse? 15:26 .
15 A. No, , 15:26
16 Q. Now, there's been some discussion about 15:26
17 solvents; and 1 want to ask you some questions about 15:26
18 that for a moment. When you went to the warehouse, did 15:26
19 you ever see any type of container that had a label on 15:26
2 0 it that said the words "trichlorethylene"? 15:26
21 A, I'm certain 1 did. 15:26
22 Q. Okay. Now, here's what 1 want to ask you. 15:26
2 3 You say that you — you're certain you saw -- 15:27
24 A, 1 know that I saw solvent drums. 15:27
25 Q, Okay. And 1 appreciate that you saw solvent 15:27
Page 618
1 A. No. 15:28
2 Q. Okay. When you went to the warehouse and you 15:28
3 saw the solvent drums — in your prior testimony you 15:28
4 referred to it as tri. Do you recall that? 15:28
5 A. I — everybody calls — calls it trich. 15:28
6 Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not they were 15:28
7 referring to trichlorethylene or trichlorethane? 15:28
8 A. Whenever Tve heard it used, they were 15:28
9 referring to a solvent used for cleaning. That's all I 15:28
10 know. " 15:28
11 Q, Okay, Well, let's assume for the moment, 15:28
12 okay — and I will represent to you — that 15:28
13 trichlorelbarte is a solvent used for cleaning, 15:28
14 A. Okay. 15:28
15 Q. Okay? Now, with that understanding - 15:28
16 A. Uh-huh. 15:28
17 Q, — do you know whether or not what you saw in 15:29
18 that warehouse was trichlorethane or trichlorethylene? 15:29
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A. 1 wouldn't -- no, I wouldn't know. 15:29
Q. We've had a lot of testimony about - 15:29
questions about TCB. 15:29
A, Okay. 15:29
Q, TCB is referred to typically as 15:29
trichlorethylene. It has other names, too. 15:29
A. That's what IVe heard. 15:29
57 (Pages 615 to 618)
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
65289ce8.f5af-4e90.ba62-ae4Ba547022e
-------
B.F. Goodrich NPL Listing Support Document - Attachment C
Page 619
1 Q. Right, that's what it's referred to often. 15:29
2 ' When you were answering questions about 15:29
3 solvent usage at the facility, all right, you were 15:29
4 _ answering questions about what you had observed in the 15:29
5 warehouse; is that right? . 15:29
6 A. Yes. 15:29
7 Q. And-- 15:29
8 A. Oh, distributed throughout the-- 15:29
9 Q. The- 15:29
10 A. --thebuildings. 15:29
11 Q. Right You saw those drums in other places? 15:29
12 A. Drums. 15:29
13 Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not the 15:29
14 cleaning solvent that they used in the mixers and the 15:29
15 other places where they had this sol vent was 15:30
16 irichlorethaneortrtchlorethylene? 15:30
17 A. I don't. 15:30
IS Q. The mixers, you understood, were cleaned; and 15:30
19 a slurry was prepared as a result of that? 15:30
20 A.. A by-product is what I would call it. 15:30
21 Q. Okay. That slurry contained a propellant 15:30
22 material in it, didn't it? 15:30
23 A. Yes. 15:30
24 Q, Okay. And it contained some type of solvent? 15:30
25 A. Yes. 15:30
Page 621
1 A. I don't recall. 15:32
2 Q. Did you ever see at any time the actual 15:32
3 mixing of ammonium perchlorate in any portion of the 15:32
4 Rialto facility? 15:32
5 MS.MUNGER: Objection, asked and answered 15:32
6 multiple limes. We've been through whether it's been 15:32
7 seen mixing, grinding, all of those stages. We've been 15:32
8 through all of that. 15:33
9 MR. DINTZER: I don't think this question - 15:33
10 I don't think this question has been asked. 15:33
11 JUDGE GUY: I didn't think so either. 15:33
12 Perhaps ft has. 15:33
13 Have you answered the question before, sir? 15:33
14 THE WITNESS: May I hear it again? 15:33
15 MR.DINTZER: Sure, of course. 1553
16 Q. (BYMR.DINTZER) Did you ever see at any 15:33
17 tiine the actual mixing of ammonium perchlorate in any 15:33
18 portion of the Rialto facility? 15:33
19 MS.MUNGER: Same objection, 15:33
20 JUDGE GUY: You may answer. 15:33
21 A. No, I never saw a mixer--a mixer charged 15:33
22 with arnrnonium perchlorate. 15:33
23 Q. (BYMR.DINTZER) Lef stake a look at what 15:33
24 was marked as Exhibit 300 and-it's that one there. 15:33
25 Is it 303? 15:33
Page 620
1 Q. Do you know whether the solvent that made 15:30
2 part of the slurry was trichlorethylene or 15:30
3 trichlorethane? 15:30
4 A. In light of what you just told me and my 15:30
5 ignorance between the two, I — I don't know. 15:33
6 Q. The slurry that had the propellant material 15:31
7 in it, that slurry had to be handled with great care, I 15:31
9 take it; is that true? 15:31
9 A. Yes. 15:31
10 Q. Because one of the important properties of 15:31
11 that slurry was propellant, and we know from your 15:31
12 testimony that propellant has to be handled with great 15:31
13 care; is that right? 15:31
14 A. Yes. 15:31
15 Q. And so, that slurry was potentially ignitable 15:31
16 and explosive? 15:31
17— A. That was my — my -• yes. 15:31
18 Q. And was it your experience at the Goodrich 15:3J
19 facility, because of the strict safety regulations that 15:31
20 you talked about earlier, that that slurry was handled 15:31
21 with care because of the propellant aspect of it? 15:31
22 A. Yes. 15:32
23 Q. Did you ever see a drum of any sort, 15:32
24 container, of ammonium perchlorate ever delivered to any 15:32
25 building at She Rialto facility? 15:32
Page 622
1 MS.MUNGER: 303. 15:33
2 Q. (BYMR.DINTZER) 303. This is the letter 15:33
3 that Ms. Nottoli sent to you with the attachments. 15:33
4 Actually, you know what? My bad. I need 15:34
5 that folder right there. I'm sorry. Here it is. Okay. 15:34
6 I apologize. Let's start over. 15:34
7 Let me mark as Exhibit 305 to your deposition 15:34
8 a document that was previously marked in your deposition 15:34
9 of- with the EPA as Exhibit 15. It's a one-page 15:34
10 document. I believe it's part of a collection of other 15:34
11 documents. It bears the Bates numbers GR-EPA 94. 15:34
12 And, Counsel, you're all familiar with this; 15:34
13 but 111 send you copies. 15:34
14 (Discussion off the record.) 15:34
15 MR. WYATT: Thank you. 15:34
16 (Pokien Exhibit No. 305 marked.) 15:35'
17 MR.VANVLEAR: It's already marked, it's in 15:35
18 the record. 15:35
19 MR. DINTZER: I don't think so. 15:35
20 MR.CARR1GAN: No, it's a different one. 15:35
21 MR. WYATT: This is the EPA-this it the 15:35
22 EPAdepo. 15:35
23 MR. D1NTZER: It is already marked as an 15:35
2 4 exhibit in this case, okay? I can see that; but it's 15:35
25 not marked in this depo, 1 don't think. 15:35
58 (Pages 619 to 622}
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
65289c«8-f5af"4eao-ba62-ae46a54?022e
------- |