RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS I.

Diamond Shamrock Chemicals Company); Ogden Food Products (including OgdenCorporation); Olin Corporation; Olocco Agricultural Services; ORC Technologies Inc. (f/k/aOptical Radiation Corporation); Osbourne United; OSCA Inc.; Oxnard Pest Control Association;PAC Foundry; Pacific Coast Drum Company, Pacific Refining; Pacific Tube Company, PalomarCommunity College District; Parker Hannifin Corp.; Pasadena Area Community College;Pennzoil-Quaker State Company (including PennzEnergy Exploration and Production, L.L.C.);Pentrate Metal Processing, Inc.; Petrolite Corporation; Pilot Chemical; Pioneer North AmericaInc. (including Pioneer Video Manufacturing Inc. and Disco Vision Associates); Plastic MaterialsInc.; Pool California Energy Services; Pool Energy Services; Port of San Diego; Poway UnifiedSchool District; PQ Corp.; PRC-DeSoto International Inc.; Prime Alloy Steel Castings; PrimexTechnologies Inc.; Printronix; Products Engineering Corp.; Prudential General Real Estate;Prudential Lighting Corporation; Public Storage Inc.; Ralston Purina Company; Rancho SantiagoCommunity College District; Revlon Inc.; Rheem Manufacturing Co.; Riverside Cement Co.;Riverside Community Hopsital; Riverside Superintendent of Schools; Riverside Unified SchoolDistrict; Rogers Corporation; RR Donnelley & Sons; Sacramento County Sanitation District 1;Sacramento Municipal Utilities District; Sage Energy Company; San Bernardino CommunityCollege District; San Diego Community College District; Sandia National Laboratory; San DiegoMetropolitan Transit Development Board; San Francisco Community College; San JoaquinRefining; San Jose Evergreen Community College District; San Luis Obispo County CommunityCollege District; Santa Barbara Community College District; Santa Clara County Transit; SantaMonica Community College District; Sanyo E & E Corp.; Schmid Insulation Contractors, Inc.;Scripps Clinic and Research Foundation; Sears, Roebuck & Co.; Sequa Corporation;Shasta-Tehama-Trinity Community College District; Siebe Inc.; Sierracin Corp.; Sigma CircuitsInc.; Sigma Plating Co., Inc.; Signetics Corp.; Siliconix, hie.; Smith International; SonomaCounty Community College District; Sony Technology; Soule Steel—Arnon Liquidating Agency;South Orange Community College District; Spectra-Physics Lasers, Inc.; SRI hlternational; ST &I; Standex International Corp.; Stanford University; State Center Community College District;Steelcase, Inc.; Stepan Company; STI Properties hie. c/o Hemisphere Corporation; St. MarysMedical Center; Sunnyvale School District; Superior Industries hlternational Inc.; Supra Alloyshie.; Taormina Industries; Technicolor Film Service; Ted Levine Drum Co.; Tesoro PetroleumCompanies; Texas Instruments; The Archdiocese of Los Angeles; The Bekins Company; TheInterlake Corporation; The Marmon Corporation; The Mead Corporation; The Okonite Co.; The "Valspar Corp.; Three Bond hlternational Inc.; Time Warner Inc.; Torrance Unified SchoolDistrict; Transtechnology Corp.; Treasure Chest Advertising; Tree Island Industries Ltd.; Tricast,Inc.; Tri Valley Growers; Tucson Electric Power Co.; TWA Airlines; Tyco Printed CircuitGroup; Union Bank of California; Union Carbide; United Air Lines; United States SalesCorporation; University of Southern California; US Army; US Borax; US Border Patrol; USBureau of Indian Affairs; US Bureau of Land Management; US Bureau of Reclamation; USCustoms Service; US Department of Agriculture; US Department of Defense; US Department ofEnergy; US Department of Health and Human Services; US Department of Immigration andNaturalization Services; US Department of Transportation/FAA; US Drug EnforcementAdministration; US Federal Bureau of Investigation; US Fish and Wildlife Service; US GeneralServices Administration; US Geological Survey; US Marshall Service; US Mint; US ParkService; US Small Business Administration; Ventura County Community College District;Responsiveness Summary5EPA Region DC AOC No. 99-02(a)COM 135661

Verdugo Hill Golf Course; Vesper Corp.; Virco Manufacturing Corp.; VWR Corporation;WAISCO (Marwais Steel Co.); Walt Disney Co.; Walt Disney Pictures & Television;Watkins-Johnson Co.; Weber Metals Inc.; West Valley-Mission Community College District;Western Fuel Oil Company; Western Tube & Conduit Corp.; Westminster Ceramics, Inc.;Wheaton USA hie.; Xerox Corporation; Yosemite Community College District; and ZeroCorporation.H.COMMENTS AND EPA RESPONSESComments are grouped into four categories and organized alphabetically within eachcategory. The categories include: Owners/Operators; Large Waste Generators; De MinimisParties; and Individual Members of the Public.A.Comments from Owner(s)/Operator(s)1.The Hunter Entitiesa.Written CommentsEPA received written comments dated April 11, 2000 from the law firm of Nossaman,Guthner, Knox & Elliott, LLP, which represents Casmalia Resources, Hunter Resources and theEstate of Kenneth H. Hunter, Jr. (collectively, the Hunter Entities).HE#1: With respect to Section IV (Statement of Facts) of proposed EPA Region DC AOC No.99-02(a), the Hunter Entities state that the proposed de minimis settlement at Paragraph 10 of theAOC contains a typographical error (4,453 billion pounds).EPA Response: EPA has corrected the typographical error in the final version of the proposedAOC regarding the approximate number of pounds of documented liquid and solid wastes thatwere accepted at the Site during its period of operation. The correct figure is 4.453 billionpounds.«HE#2: With respect to Section IV (Statement of Facts) of proposed EPA Region DC AOC No.99-02(a), the Hunter Entities state that the Facility failed to obtain a final RCRA Part B permitbecause of "inconsistent and changing governmental directions combined with political pressure,not because of any deficiencies in the Site's operations."EPA Response: EPA disagrees with the Hunter Entities' comment. The Hunter Entities failed toobtain a RCRA Part B permit because they did not submit a permit application that met thenecessary minimum legal and technical requirements. The Hunter Entities submitted their firstPart B permit application to EPA in 1983. However, this permit application had multipledeficiencies as reflected in numerous notices of deficiencies issued by EPA. These deficienciesincluded: 1) failing to provide an acceptable run-on and run-off management system; 2)proposing that liquids be diverted to existing surface impoundments beyond the November 1988Responsiveness Summary6EPA Region DC AOC No. 99-02(a)COM 135662

RCRA statutory deadline, which would result in a violation of the statute by placing waste inunlined surface impoundments past the deadline; 3) failing to submit an acceptable proposal formanaging leachate generated from the operation of the Pesticides/Solvents Landfill; 4) failing tocharacterize the extent of on-site and off-site groundwater contamination; 5) failing to adequatelycharacterize the groundwater flow direction for the Site; 6) failing to submit an acceptablecompliance monitoring and corrective action program; 7) failing to provide adequate plans andreports describing the corrective actions to be taken and a description of how the groundwatermonitoring program will demonstrate the adequacy of corrective actions; 8) failing todemonstrate that existing landfills are designed, constructed, maintained, and operated tominimize the possibility of a fire, explosion, or an unplanned sudden or non-sudden release ofhazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents to air, soil, or surface water which couldthreaten human health or the environment; 9) failing to comply with the financial assurancerequirements for closure and post-closure; and 10) failing to comply with liability requirements.Other deficiencies in this initial RCRA Part B permit application are described in the followingEPA documents which are contained in EPA's RCRA Record Center in San Francisco,California:i)ii)iii)iv)v)EPA's May 10, 1984, "Warning Letter/Notice of Deficiency" addressed to CasmaliaResources, Inc.;EPA's March 7,1986, "Warning Letter/Notice of Deficiency" addressed to CasmaliaResources;EPA's October 30,1987, "Notice of Deficiency" addressed to Casmalia Resources, Inc.;EPA's December 31,1987, "RCRA Part B Application Notice of Deficiency" addressedto Casmalia Resources; andEPA's January 12, 1988, "RCRA Part B Application Notice of Deficiency" addressed toCasmalia Resources.On July 15, 1988, EPA formally notified the Hunter Entities of its intent to deny the Facility'sRCRA Part B permit application as it related to the Pesticides/Solvents Landfill, the HeavyMetals/Sludges Landfill, the Caustics/Cyanides Landfill and the Acids Landfill. All of the Site'sother waste disposal units had been ordered closed previously by the California Regional Water:Quality Control Board and the County of Santa Barbara.The Hunter Entities initiated a second RCRA Part B permit application process in thelatter part of 1988 for the proposed modernization of the Facility. Additional deficiencies in thislater permit application are outlined in the following EPA documents which are contained inEPA's RCRA Record Center in San Francisco, California:i)ii)EPA's February 8, 1991, "Request for Additional Information and Revision of theCasmalia Resources Part B Permit Application" addressed to Casmalia Resources; andEPA's September 9, 1991, "Comments on Draft Closure Plans and Related Documents"addressed to Casmalia Resources.On September 13, 1991, the California Environmental Protection Agency issued its intent toResponsiveness Summary7EPA Region DC AOC No. 99-02(a)COM 135663

deny the second Part B permit application for the planned modernization and continued operationof the Facility. This intent to deny the permit application was based on the Facility's violations ofand non-compliance with state and federal laws and regulations, and the Facility owner(s)/operators)' non-compliance with orders issued by the Department of Toxic Substances Controland the Regional Water Quality Control Board. As outlined in the State of California'sSeptember 13, 1991 permit denial notification letter, specific areas of non-compliance included:1) failing to comply with financial assurance requirements; 2) failing to pump sufficientquantities of leachate from the Solvent Pesticide Well to achieve a steady state; 3) failing topump liquids from the Perimeter Source Control Trench; 4) failing to implement a groundwatermonitoring program as specified by the Regional Water Quality Control Board Waste DischargeRequirement No. 90-53; 5) failing to provide adequate security at the facility entrance; 6) storinghazardous waste in the Casmalia Neutralization System for a period exceeding one year; and 7)failing to perform annual inspection of the storage tanks in the Casmalia Neutralization System.Based upon these deficiencies, the California Environmental Protection Agency's finaldetermination to deny the Hunter Entities' RCRA Part B permit application for the Facility'smodernization and continued operation was made on April 22, 1992.HE#3: With respect to Section 1-4 of proposed EPA Region DC AOC No. 99-02(a), the HunterEntities state: 1) no costs incurred by the United States were caused by a release or threatenedrelease of hazardous substances from the Site; and 2) the AOC incorrectly states that the Sitecontinues to pose an imminent and substantial endangerment even though the Site does not meetthe minimum ranking score necessary for listing on the National Priorities List.EPA Response: EPA disagrees with the Hunter Entities' comments. There is substantial andcompelling evidence of releases and threatened releases at and from the Site and the need for theUnited States to take action to respond to the imminent and substantial endangerment posed tothe human health and the environment.A federal court has rejected similar claims by the Hunter Entities. On May 22, 2000, the CentralDistrict of California issued an Order Granting the Government's Motion for Partial SummaryJudgment against Casmalia Resources and Hunter Resources as the owner and operator,respectively, of the 'Casmalia Landfill.' Defendants had admitted that the Casmalia Landfill is a *facility within the definition of CERCLA and that they are within the classes of persons subjectto CERCLA liability, but claimed that there had been no release "from" the facility; that at thetime EPA took control of the facility, there was no release or threatened release; and that theUnited States therefore was not entitled to recover its costs. The court held that there was ampleevidence of both threatened and actual releases at the Facility and that the time of any release orthreatened release had no legal significance. The court also found that releases had occurred offsite and to groundwater, which is publicly owned and not the Hunter Entities' property. On thecost argument, the court found that the government's burden was minimal and had been satisfiedby a showing that the government had incurred costs at the Facility.With respect to evidence of releases and threatened releases at and from the Site and the need forthe United States to take action to respond to the imminent and substantial endangerment posedResponsiveness Summary8EPA Region DC AOC No. 99-02(a)COM 135664

to human health and the environment, in 1991, Donn Zuroski, the On-Scene Coordinator forEPA who oversaw the Agency's emergency site stabilization actions from 1992-1996, inspectedthe Site. Mr. Zuroski testified in his deposition in the ongoing CERCLA cost recovery litigationinvolving the Hunter Entities, styled United States v. Kenneth H. Hunter. Jr. et al. Civ No. 979449 RAP (RZx) (C.D. Cal.) (Hunter Litigation), that he observed that hazardous waste wasseeping from landfills, waste was exposed, the Site was in "substantial disrepair," and that the"potential for waste to migrate offsite was great." He also described that exposed waste was onthe faces of the landfills and that erosion had exposed buried waste. Mr. Zuroski described"drums sticking out of the ground" and plastic liners from trucks that had dumped waste at theSite. He further described that "[t]he potential for off-site migration is great when you have soilsthat may be contaminated that are not anchored down," that there were "seeps at the bases of thelandfills," and the ponds were full of liquids. He testified about the great potential for hydraulicproblems in the subsurface and that there was subsurface migration of hazardous waste liquids.After completing this inspection, Mr. Zuroski concluded that site stabilization was needed"soon."Mr. Zuroski re-entered the Site in the spring of 1992. He testified that the Hunter Entitieshad essentially abandoned the Site, the Site was "out of hydraulic control," there was exposedwaste, drums were "sticking out of the ground," the ponds were near capacity, it "was certain thatyou had subsurface problems," subsurface leachate was coming out of the bases of the landfills,dikes were in danger of failing, and that "immediate stabilization" was needed, hi its July 21,1992 Action Memorandum, EPA determined that the Site was uncontrolled and that siteconditions constituted an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health and theenvironment, hi response to this threatening condition, in August 1992, EPA's emergency teambegan stabilizing the Site, focusing on the contaminated liquids, liquid waste and the surfaceextraction of hazardous waste to "keep the site from getting hydraulically out of control," "tokeep it from going artesian," and "to keep the liquids from migrating out of control."Sampling conducted during the ongoing site clean-up and closure has documentedadditional releases of hazardous substances that have extended into the groundwater and outsidethe perimeter of the Site. More specifically, these data show, in part, the following hazardoussubstances have migrated off-site: terra hydrofuran, chloroform, naphthalene, phenaphthalene, "methylene chloride, toluene, isopropyl benzene, dichloroethelene, di-n-butyl phthalate, dacamba,tetrachloroethene, trichloroethene, diethylphthalate, ethyl benzene, zxylenes, bis (2 ethylehexyl)pthalate, 2 fluoro 6 nitrophenol, aniline, butylcarbetol, phenol, cis 1-bromo 2-chlorocyclohexane, dichloroprop, and trichloroifluormethane.The Hunter Entities also recognized that there have been releases of hazardous substancesrelated to the Site, including releases to the groundwater. A 1988 Hydrogeologic SummaryReport prepared for Casmalia Resources and submitted to EPA (the "Casmalia ResourcesHydrogeologic Report") admits that there were on-site and off-site releases of hazardoussubstances into the environment. More specifically, a section of Casmalia Resources'Hydrogeologic Report, entitled "Sources and Concentrations of On-Site GroundwaterConstituents in Groundwater Exceeding Estimated Threshold Background Values,"Responsiveness Summary9EPA Region DC AOC No. 99-02(a)COM 135605

acknowledges the following: the Pesticides/Solvents Landfill is believed to be a major source for detectable volatileorganic compounds and elevated Total Organic Carbon (TOC) and Total OrganicHalogens (TOX) concentrations in groundwater; the Pesticides/Solvents Landfill also appears to be a source of nickel valuesexceeding the estimated threshold background level in groundwater; the Shallow Disposal Well/Burial Cells Unit is believed to be a major source forthe volatile organic constituents TOC, TOX, nickel, and nitrate above estimatedthreshold background value in groundwater; and other identifiable sources of observed concentrations of indicator parametersexceeding estimated threshold background values include the Metals Landfilland Sludges 2.Another section of the Casmalia Resources Hydrogeologic Report, entitled "GroundwaterConstituents Exceeding Estimated Threshold Background Values in Off-Site Areas," describesthe following: indicator parameters were measured at concentrations exceeding estimated thresholdbackground values in groundwater samples from a number of off-site wells andpiezometers; groundwater in two downgradient off-site areas h

2038331 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS Proposed Administrative Order on Consent for De Minimis Contributors Casmalia Disposal Site, Santa Barbara County, CA