CITY OF SIMI VALLEY
MEMORANDUM
May
5, 2025
TO: Cit
y Council
FR
OM: Department of Public Works
SUBJ
ECT: AWARD OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT TO REDITIUS
FOUNDATION DBA EQUOLOGIC, TO SEEK STATE REIMBURSEMENT
OF COSTS INCURRED DURING GROUNDWATER CLEANUP FROM
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK LEAK
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council a ward a professional services contract for consulting services with Reditius Foundation DBA EquoLogic (EquoLogic), (page 4), in a form approved by the City Attorney, to seek reimbursement of costs incurred during Underground Storage Tank (UST) cleanup at the City of Simi Valley Public Services Center (PSC) fuel station.
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
In December 1992, at the PSC fuel station, approximately 50 gallons of regular unleaded gasoline was released from the vent line of UST No. 1 during hydrostatic testing of the system. As described in the attached UST Narrativ e Work Description (Attachment B, page 24), the City retained Fugro West, Inc. and Tetra Tech to assess potential soil and groundwater contamination from the leaking vent line. The groundwater monitoring results showed an estimated 131,000 square feet of soil contamination and approximately 4,415,000 gallons of contaminated groundwater. Tetra Tech utilized Fenton’s Reagent, a chemical solution to oxidize organic com pounds to remediate the fuel-contaminated groundwater. At the time, Fenton’s Reagent was a relatively new and expensiv e remediation technique in the early 1990s . Still, it showed promising effectivenes s in groundwater remediation, and its use was time- critical due to the close proximity of the contamination to the A rroyo Simi.
Monitoring results indic ated this technique was successful, and on July 31, 2009, a Case Closure Summary Report was prepared and submitted to the Ventura County Environmental Health Department (VCEHD). On February 10, 2010, VCEHD granted Remedial Action Completion Certification (Attachment A, page 19) to the City, due to the site no longer posing a signific ant threat to human health or the environment.
On April 21, 2017, City staff submitted to the State UST Cleanup Fund a reimbursement request for all costs associated with this cleanup case, totaling $1,416,784.69. The State Fund denied this submittal in May 2017 due to formatting of the invoice spreadsheet and a perceived lack of detail in the invoices . The resubmittal of this claim was denied again on August 16, 2017, due to insufficient detail on the invoicing and a determination by the State Fund that the costs were “unreasonable.” EC2501.SR.MG
AGENDA ITEM NO.
Consent (2)
EC2501.SR.MG
FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES
I
n August 2024, Ms. Susan Garner of EquoLogic contacted the City regarding this denied claim. Staff met with Ms. Garner on October 7, 2024, to discuss the appeal process and anticipated outcomes. Ms. Garner outlined her success in appeals for other Cities and Counties and is confident that the City will recover at least a partial sum of the total cleanup cost. Ms. Garner is a Professional Geologist and Certified Engineering Geologist with extensive UST remediation and reimbursement experience, and has worked with State Fund staff on previous appeals . Ms. Garner led the lobbying effort of the State Legislature to prevent the cancellation of the UST Cleanup Reimbursement Fund.
S
taff prepared a contract for EquoLogic's services, and it was determined that the contract is beneficial for fund recovery and reasonable, as payment will be based on a percentage of any recovered funds. Based on EquoLogic's previous work accomplishments, staff believes that EquoLogic possesses the necessary qualifications and experience for this reimbursement effort.
Fundi
ng is not required since this is a reimbursement of costs already incurred. The maximum potential award amount is $1,416,784.69, with a maximum of 30% paid to the consultant. It is anticipated that the appeal process will begin in May 2025, and completion of the project and subsequent payment, or a partial payment from the fund, is anticipated by the end of May 2026.
W
hile there is no certainty regarding whether the City will recover any of its costs for this matter, EquoLogic is taking all risk, as its compensation is based entirely upon whether the City receives any reimbursement from the state of California. Specifically, the City must recover at least $10,000 in reimbursement before EquoLogic receives any remuneration. Once that threshold is met, EquoLogic’s contingency fee is 30% of any recovery, or up to $425,035.41, if the City is awarded the full amount of $1,41 6,784.69.
Should the City recover less than $10,000, EquoLogic will not receive any payment.
T
he following alternatives are available to the City Council:
1. Awar
d the attached professional services contract for reimbursement consulting services with EquoLogic, in a form approved by the City Attorney, to appeal on the City’s behalf the denied claim for reimbursement from the State of California for costs incurred during UST cleanup at the PSC fuel station;
2. D
o not award the contract at this time and provide direction to staff.
S
taff recommends Alternative No. 1.
SUGGESTED CITY COUNCIL MOTION
I
move to award a professional services contract to EquoLogic to appeal, on the City’s behalf, the denied claim for reimbursement from the State of California for costs incurred during UST groundwater cleanup at the PSC fuel station. 2 EC2501.SR.MG
SUMMARY
In Augus
t 2024, EquoLogic contacted the Public Works Department regarding the City’s denied UST cleanup reimbursement claim. On October 14, 2024, EquoLogic submitted the service contract to City Staff. City staff determined that the contract is reasonable in light of the condition that any fees due to Equo Logic will only be paid should they be successful with their appeal. Therefore, it is recommended that the City Council award a contract to EquoLogic.
_________
___________________________
Ronald K. Fuchiwaki
Public Works Director
Prepar
ed by: Wes Yates, Environmental Compliance Program Coordinator INDEX Page
Contr
act…………………………………………………………….4
Attachment A - Remedial Action Completion Certificate……19 Attachment B - UST Narrative Work Description…………….24
3
AGREEMENT NO. 3250105
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY AND
REDITIUS FOUNDATION DBA EQUOLOGIC
FOR UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK REIMBURSEMENTEX
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this 5th day of May 2025, by and between the CITY OF SIMI VALLEY, a municipal corporation and general law city (“CITY”) and REDITIUS FOUNDATION DBA EQUOLOGIC, a California Corporation (“CONSULTANT”).
1. CONSIDERATION.
A. As partial consideration, CONSULTANT agrees to perform the work listed in the SCOPE OF SERVICES, below;
B. As additional consideration, CONSULTANT and CITY agree to abide by the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement;
C. As additional consideration, CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT a fee of 30% of all fees more than $10,000 received as a result of discovery and audit work performed by CONSULTANT’s services. CITY may modify this amount as set forth below. Unless otherwise specified by written amendment to this Agreement, CITY will pay this sum as specified in the attached Exhibit “A,” which is incorporated by reference.
2. SCOPE OF SERVICES.
A. CONSULTANT will perform services listed in the attached Exhibit “A,” which is incorporated by reference.
B. CONSULTANT will, in a professional manner, furnish all of the labor, technical, administrative, professional and other personnel, all supplies and materials, equipment, printing, vehicles, transportation, office space and facilities, and all tests, testing and analyses, calculation, and all other means whatsoever, except as herein otherwise expressly specified to be furnished by CITY, necessary or proper to perform and complete the work and provide the professional services required of CONSULTANT by this Agreement.
3. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. While performing this Agreement, CONSULTANT will use the appropriate generally accepted professional standards of practice existing at the time of performance utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services. CITY will continuously monitor CONSULTANT’s services. CITY will notify CONSULTANT of any deficiencies and CONSULTANT will have 15 days after such notification to cure any 4 City of Simi Valley
Agreement No. 3250105
Reditius Foundation DBA EquoLogic
EC2501.CON.MG
shortcomings to CITY’s satisfaction. Costs associated with curing the deficiencies will be borne by CONSULTANT.
4. PAYMENTS. For CITY to pay CONSULTANT as specified by this Agreement, CITY must receive more than $10,000 from the State of California. Payments will be due to CONSULTANT 30 days after CITY’s receipt of such sums.
5. NON-APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS. Payments due and payable to CONSULTANT for current services are within the current budget and within an available, unexhausted and unencumbered appropriation of the CITY. In the event the CITY has not appropriated sufficient funds for payment of CONSULTANT services beyond the current fiscal year, this Agreement will cover only those costs incurred up to the conclusion of the current fiscal year.
6. ADDITIONAL WORK.
A. CITY’s City Manager (“Manager”) may determine, at the Manager’s sole discretion, that CONSULTANT must perform additional work (“Additional Work”) to complete the Scope of Work. If Additional Work is needed, the Manager will give written authorization to CONSULTANT to perform such Additional Work.
B. If CONSULTANT believes Additional Work is needed to complete the Scope of Work, CONSULTANT will provide the Manager with written notification that contains a specific description of the proposed Additional Work, reasons for such Additional Work, and a detailed proposal regarding cost.
7. FAMILIARITY WITH WORK.
A. By executing this Agreement, CONSULTANT agrees that it has:
i. Carefully investigated and considered the scope of services to be performed;
ii. Carefully considered how the services should be performed; and
iii. Understands the facilities, difficulties, and restrictions attending performance of the services under this Agreement.
B. If services involve work upon any site, CONSULTANT agrees that CONSULTANT has or will investigate the site and is or will be fully acquainted with the conditions there existing, before commencing the services hereunder. Should CONSULTANT discover any latent or unknown 5 City of Simi Valley
Agreement No. 3250105
Reditius Foundation DBA EquoLogic
EC2501.CON.MG
conditions that may materially affect the performance of the services, CONSULTANT will immediately inform CITY of such fact and will not proceed except at CONSULTANT’s own risk until written instructions are received from CITY.
8. TERM. The term of this Agreement will be from May 5, 2025 to May 4, 2026. Unless otherwise determined by written amendment between the parties, this Agreement will terminate in the following instances:
A. Completion of the work specified in Exhibit “A”;
B. Termination as stated in Section 16.
9. TIME FOR PERFORMANCE.
A. CONSULTANT will not perform any work under this Agreement until:
i. CONSULTANT furnishes proof of insurance as required under Section 23 of this Agreement; and
ii. CITY gives CONSULTANT a written notice to proceed.
B. Should CONSULTANT begin work on any phase in advance of receiving written authorization to proceed, any such professional services are at CONSULTANT’s own risk.
10. TIME EXTENSIONS . Should CONSULTANT be delayed by causes beyond CONSULTANT’s control, CITY may grant a time extension for the completion of the contracted services. If delay occurs, CONSULTANT must notify the Manager within forty- eight hours (48 hours), in writing, of the cause and the extent of the delay and how such delay interferes with the Agreement’s schedule. The Manager will extend the completion time, when appropriate, for the completion of the contracted services.
11. CONSISTENCY. In interpreting this Agreement and resolving any ambiguities, the main body of this Agreement takes precedence over the attached Exhibits; this Agreement supersedes any conflicting provisions. Any inconsistency between the Exhibits will be resolved in the order in which the Exhibits appear below:
A. Exhibit A: Proposal For Service
12. CHANGES. CITY may order changes in the services within the general scope of this Agreement, consisting of additions, deletions, or other revisions, and the contract sum and the contract time will be adjusted accordingly. All such changes must be authorized in writing, executed by CONSULTANT and CITY. The cost or credit to CITY resulting 6 City of Simi Valley
Agreement No. 3250105
Reditius Foundation DBA EquoLogic
EC2501.CON.MG
from changes in the services will be determined in accordance with written agreement between the parties.
13. TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER. CONSULTANT will provide CITY with a Taxpayer Identification Number.
14. PERMITS AND LICENSES . CONSULTANT, at its sole expense, will obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement, all necessary permits, licenses, and certificates that may be required in connection with the performance of services under this Agreement.
15. WAIVER. CITY’s review or acceptance of, or payment for, work product prepared by CONSULTANT under this Agreement will not be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights CITY may have under this Agreement or of any cause of action arising from CONSULTANT’s performance. A waiver by CITY of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained in this Agreement will not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition contained in this Agreement, whether of the same or different character.
16. TERMINATION.
A. Except as otherwise provided, CITY may terminate this Agreement at any time with or without cause.
B. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement at any time with CITY’s mutual consent. Notice will be in writing at least thirty (30) days before the effective termination date.
C. Upon receiving a termination notice, CONSULTANT will immediately cease performance under this Agreement unless otherwise provided in the termination notice. Except as otherwise provided in the termination notice, any additional work performed by CONSULTANT after receiving a termination notice will be performed at CONSULTANT'’ own cost; CITY will not be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT for such work.
D. Should termination occur, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, reports and other materials prepared by CONSULTANT will, at CITY’s option, become CITY’s property, and CONSULTANT will receive just and equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily completed up to the effective date of notice of termination, not to exceed the total costs under Section 1(C).
E. Should the Agreement be terminated pursuant to this Section, CITY may procure on its own terms services similar to those terminated. 7 City of Simi Valley
Agreement No. 3250105
Reditius Foundation DBA EquoLogic
EC2501.CON.MG
F. By executing this document, CONSULTANT waives any and all claims for damages that might otherwise arise from CITY’s termination under this Section.
17. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS; EXCEPTIONS; WARRANTY. Except as otherwise provided below, all documents, data, studies, drawings, maps, models, photographs and reports prepared by CONSULTANT (collectively, “Documents”) under this Agreement are CITY’s property. CONSULTANT may retain copies of such Documents as desired but will deliver all original materials to CITY upon CITY’s written notice. CITY agrees that use of CONSULTANT’s completed work product, for purposes other than identified in this Agreement, or use of incomplete work product, is at CITY’s own risk. CONSULTANT warrants that all Documents it drafts and completes pursuant to this Agreement constitutes original work. Specifically, CONSULTANT understands and agrees that use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools including, without limitation, ChatGPT, Microsoft’s Bing Chat, Google’s Bard, and Meta’s LLaMA (Large Language Model Meta AI), in the performance of this Agreement does not constitute an original work, i.e., submitting Documents generated by such AI tools to CITY and representing it as CONSULTANT’s original work constitutes a material breach of this Agreement, constitutes a false claim, and may also violate applicable intellectual property right laws including, without limitation, United States Copyright Law. Accordingly, and notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement as to ownership, CITY specifically rejects ownership of such Documents. CONSULTANT is required to indemnify and defend CITY to the fullest extent allowed by applicable law should it violate this Section.
18. PUBLICATION OF DOCUMENTS. Except as necessary for performance of service under this Agreement, no copies, sketches, or graphs of materials, including graphic art work, prepared pursuant to this Agreement, will be released by CONSULTANT to any other person or public CITY without CITY’s prior written approval. All press releases, including graphic display information to be published in newspapers or magazines, will be approved and distributed solely by CITY, unless otherwise provided by written agreement between the parties.
19. INDEMNIFICATION.
A. CONSULTANT agrees to the following:
i. Indemnification for Professional Services. CONSULTANT will save harmless and indemnify and at CITY’s request reimburse defense costs for CITY and all its officers, volunteers, employees and representatives from and against any and all suits, actions, or claims, of any character whatever, brought for, or on account of, any injuries or damages sustained by any person or property resulting or arising from any negligent or wrongful act, error or omission by 8 City of Simi Valley
Agreement No. 3250105
Reditius Foundation DBA EquoLogic
EC2501.CON.MG
CONSULTANT or any of CONSULTANT’s officers, agents,
employees, or representatives, in the performance of this Agreement, except for such loss or damage arising from CITY’s sole negligence or willful misconduct.
ii. Indemnification for other Damages. CONSULTANT indemnifies and holds CITY harmless from and against any claim, action, damages, costs (including, without limitation, attorney’s fees), injuries, or liability, arising out of this Agreement, or its performance, except for such loss or damage arising from CITY’s sole negligence or willful misconduct. Should CITY be named in any suit, or should any claim be brought against it by suit or otherwise, whether the same be groundless or not, arising out of this Agreement, or its performance, CONSULTANT will defend CITY (at CITY’s request and with counsel satisfactory to CITY) and will indemnify CITY for any judgment rendered against it or any sums paid out in settlement or otherwise.
B. For purposes of this section “CITY” includes CITY’s officers, officials, employees, agents, representatives, and certified volunteers.
C. It is expressly understood and agreed that the foregoing provisions will survive termination of this Agreement.
D. The requirements as to the types and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by CONSULTANT as required by Section 23, and any approval of said insurance by CITY, are not intended to and will not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by CONSULTANT pursuant to this Agreement, including, without limitation, to the provisions concerning indemnification.
20. ASSIGNABILITY. This Agreement is for CONSULTANT’s professional services.
CONSULTANT’s attempts to assign the benefits or burdens of this Agreement without CITY’s written approval are prohibited and will be null and void.
21. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. CITY and CONSULTANT agree that CONSULTANT will act as an independent contractor and will have control of all work and the manner in which is it performed. CONSULTANT will be free to contract for similar service to be performed for other employers while under contract with CITY.
CONSULTANT is not an agent or employee of CITY and is not entitled to participate in any pension plan, insurance, bonus or similar benefits CITY provides for its employees.
Any provision in this Agreement that may appear to give CITY the right to direct CONSULTANT as to the details of doing the work or to exercise a measure of control over the work means that CONSULTANT will follow the direction of the CITY as to end results of the work only.
9 City of Simi Valley
Agreement No. 3250105
Reditius Foundation DBA EquoLogic
EC2501.CON.MG
22. AUDIT OF RECORDS. CONSULTANT will maintain full and accurate records with respect to all services and matters covered under this Agreement. CITY will have free access at all reasonable times to such records, and the right to examine and audit the same and to make transcript therefrom, and to inspect all program data, documents, proceedings and activities. CONSULTANT will retain such financial and program service records for at least three (3) years after termination or final payment under this Agreement.
23. INSURANCE.
A. Before commencing performance under this Agreement, and at all other times this Agreement is effective, CONSULTANT will procure and maintain the following types of insurance with coverage limits complying, at a minimum, with the limits set forth below:
Type of Insurance Limits
C ommercial general liability: $2,000,000
Professional Liability $1,000,000
Business automobile liability $1,000,000
Workers compensation Statutory requirement
B. Commercial general liability insurance will meet or exceed the requirements of the most recent ISO-CGL Form. The amount of insurance set forth above will be a combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage for the policy coverage. Liability policies will be endorsed to name CITY, its officials, and employees as “additional insureds” under said insurance coverage and to state that such insurance will be deemed “primary” such that any other insurance that may be carried by CITY will be excess thereto. Such endorsement must be reflected on ISO Form No. CG 20 10 11 85 or 88, or equivalent. Such insurance will be on an “occurrence,” not a “claims made,” basis and will not be cancelable or subject to reduction except upon thirty (30) days prior written notice to CITY.
C. Professional liability coverage will be on an “occurrence basis” if such coverage is available, or on a “claims made” basis if not available. When coverage is provided on a “claims made basis,” CONSULTANT will continue to renew the insurance for a period of three (3) years after this Agreement expires or is terminated. Such insurance will have the same coverage and 10 City of Simi Valley
Agreement No. 3250105
Reditius Foundation DBA EquoLogic
EC2501.CON.MG
limits as the policy that was in effect during the term of this Agreement, and will cover CONSULTANT for all claims made by CITY arising out of any errors or omissions of CONSULTANT, or its officers, employees or agents during the time this Agreement was in effect.
D. Automobile coverage will be written on ISO Business Auto Coverage Form CA 00 01 06 92, including symbol 1 (Any Auto).
E. CONSULTANT will furnish to CITY duly authenticated Certificates of Insurance evidencing maintenance of the insurance required under this Agreement and such other evidence of insurance or copies of policies as may be reasonably required by CITY from time to time. Insurance must be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best Company Rating equivalent to at least a Rating of “A:VII.”
F. Should CONSULTANT, for any reason, fail to obtain and maintain the insurance required by this Agreement, CITY may obtain such coverage at CONSULTANT’s expense and deduct the cost of such insurance from payments due to CONSULTANT under this Agreement or ter minate pursuant to Section 16.
G. Self-Insured Retention/Deductibles. All policies required by this Agreement must allow CITY, as additional insured, to satisfy the self -insured retention (“SIR”) and deductible of the policy in lieu of CONSULTANT (as the named insured) should CONSULTANT fail to pay the SIR or deductible requirements. The amount of the SIR or deductible is subject to the approval of the City Attorney and the Risk Manager. CONSULTANT understands and agrees that satisfaction of this requirement is an express condition precedent to the effectiveness of this Agreement. Failure by CONSULTANT as primary insured to pay its SIR or deductible constitutes a material breach of this Agreement. Should CITY pay the SIR or deductible on CITY’s behalf upon the CONSULTANT’S failure or refusal to do so in order to secure defense and indemnification as an additional insured under the policy, CITY may include such amounts as damages in any action against CONSULTANT for breach of this Agreement in addition to any other damages incurred by CITY due to the breach.
24. USE OF SUBCONTRACTORS . CONSULTANT must obtain CITY’s prior written approval to use any consultants while performing any portion of this Agreement. Such approval must approve of the proposed consultant and the terms of compensation.
25. INCIDENTAL TASKS. CONSULTANT will meet with CITY monthly to provide the status on the project, which will include a schedule update and a short narrative 11 City of Simi Valley
Agreement No. 3250105
Reditius Foundation DBA EquoLogic
EC2501.CON.MG
description of progress during the past month for each major task, a description of the work remaining and a description of the work to be done before the next schedule update.
26. NOTICES. All communications to either party by the other party will be deemed made when received by such party at its respective name and address as follows:
If to CONSULTANT:
If to CITY:
Attention: Susan Garner Attention: Ronald K. Fuchiwaki
Reditius Foundation DBA EquoLogic Public Works Director 760 Newhall Dr. #1122 City of Simi Valley
San Jose, CA 95110 2929 Tapo Canyon Road
P.O. Box 59160 Simi Valley, CA 93063
San Jose, CA 95159 Staff Contact: Wanda Moyer
(408) 679-7166
[email protected]
Deputy Public Works Director
Environmental Compliance
(805) 583-6077
[email protected]
Any such written communications by mail will be conclusively deemed to have been received by the addressee upon deposit thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid and properly addressed as noted above. In all other instances, notices will be deemed given at the time of actual delivery. Changes may be made in the names or addresses of persons to whom notices are to be given by giving notice in the manner prescribed in this paragraph.
27. CONFLICT OF INTEREST . CONSULTANT will comply with all conflict of interest laws and regulations including, without limitation, CITY’s conflict of interest regulations.
28. SOLICITATION. CONSULTANT maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than CONSULTANT’s bona fide employee, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, CONSULTANT warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than CONSULTANT’s bona fide employee, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. Should CONSULTANT breach or violate this warranty, CITY may rescind this Agreement without liability.
29. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES . This Agreement and every provision herein is generally for the exclusive benefit of CONSULTANT and CITY and not for the benefit of any other party. There will be no incidental or other beneficiaries of any of CONSULTANT’s or CITY’s obligations under this Agreement.
12 City of Simi Valley
Agreement No. 3250105
Reditius Foundation DBA EquoLogic
EC2501.CON.MG
30. INTERPRETATION. This Agreement was drafted in, and will be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, and exclusive venue for any action involving this agreement will be in Ventura County.
31. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW. CONSULTANT agrees to comply with all federal, state, and local laws applicable to this Agreement.
32. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement, and its Attachments, sets forth the entire understanding of the parties. There are no other understandings, terms or other agreements expressed or implied, oral or written. There is one Attachment to this Agreement. This Agreement will bind and inure to the benefit of the parties to this Agreement and any subsequent successors and assigns.
33. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION. Each Party had the opportunity to independently review this Agreement with legal counsel. Accordingly, this Agreement will be construed simply, as a whole, and in accordance with its fair meaning; it will not be interpreted strictly for or against either Party.
34. SEVERABILITY. If any portion of this Agreement is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, then such portion will be deemed modified to the extent necessary in the opinion of the court to render such portion enforceable and, as so modified, such portion and the balance of this Agreement will continue in full force and effect.
35. AUTHORITY/MODIFICATION. The Parties represent and warrant that all necessary action has been taken by the Parties to authorize the undersigned to execute this Agreement and to engage in the actions described herein. This Agreement may be modified by written amendment. CITY’s M anager, or designee, may execute any such amendment on behalf of CITY.
36. ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES. This Agreement may be executed by the Parties on any number of separate counterparts, and all such counterparts so executed constitute one Agreement binding on all the Parties notwithstanding that all the Parties are not signatories to the same counterpart. In accordance with Government Code §16.5, the Parties agree that this Agreement, Agreements ancillary to this Agreement , and related documents to be entered into in connection with this Agreement will be considered signed when the signature of a party is delivered by electronic transmission. Such electronic signature will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.
37. CAPTIONS. The captions of the paragraphs of this Agreement are for convenience of reference only and will not affect the interpretation of this Agreement.
38. TIME IS OF ESSENCE. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement.
13 City of Simi Valley
Agreement No. 3250105
Reditius Foundation DBA EquoLogic
EC2501.CON.MG
39. FORCE MAJEURE. Should performance of this Agreement be prevented due to fire, flood, explosion, acts of terrorism, war, embargo, government action, civil or military authority, the natural elements, or other similar causes beyond the Parties’ reasonable control, then the Agreement will immediately terminate without obligation of either party to the other.
40. STATEMENT OF EXPERIENCE. By executing this Agreement, CONSULTANT represents that it has demonstrated trustworthiness and possesses the quality, fitness and capacity to perform the Agreement in a manner satisfactory to CITY. CONSULTANT represents that its financial resources, surety and insurance experience, service experience, completion ability, personnel, current workload, experience in dealing with private consultants, and experience in dealing with public agencies all suggest that CONSULTANT is capable of performing the proposed contract and has a demonstrated capacity to deal fairly and effectively with and to satisfy a public CITY.
[SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE]
14 City of Simi Valley
Agreement No. 3250105
Reditius Foundation DBA EquoLogic
EC2501.CON.MG
IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day and year first hereinabove written.
Attest: City of Simi Valley, A Municipal Corporation
By:
Lucy Blanco, City Clerk Dee Dee Cavanaugh, Mayor of the City of Simi Valley, California
Approved as to Form: Reditius Foundation DBA EquoLogic
By:
Algeria R. Ford, City Attorney
Print Name: Susan Garner
Approved as to Content: Title: CEO and President
By:
Samantha C. Argabrite, City Manager
Print Name:
Title:
Johanna Medrano,
Deputy Administrative Services Director/
Budget & Purchasing
Ronald K. Fuchiwaki
Public Works Director
15
EXHIBIT A
(Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund Reimbursement Services) April 5, 2018
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The EquoLogic Group (EquoLogic) offers to provide Underground Storage Tank (UST) Reimbursement services to th e Ci t y o f Si m i Va l l e y ( Client) for the site located at 500 Los Angeles Ave, Simi Valley, CA, as described below:
1. Request and submittal of information to the State of California Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund (Fund) to reopen claim number 17592.
2. Review and assembly of appropriate documents including but not limited to:
accounting and invoice records, regulatory directives, proposals and reports, client files, and previous Fund submittals to determine eligibility of corrective action costs.
3. Preparation and submittal of an appeal of RR1 and RR2 and/or Reimbursement Request (RR3), which will seek reimbursement of corrective action costs at this site (minus the appropriate deductible amount which is anticipated to be $10,000). Site expenses must exceed $10,000 to receive funding.
4. Communication and correspondence with Cleanup Fund staff as required, to obtain reimbursement of eligible costs.
5. Appeal of any unpaid costs following submittals, as appropriate.
COMPENSATION
EquoLogic offers the Scope of Services described above on a Contingency Compensation basis. These terms allow the Client to avoid any expenditure until and unless reimbursement is received directly from the Cleanup Fund. If Client does not receive any reimbursement funding, EquoLogic will waive any and all fees for the services provided. EquoLogic is to be paid a flat fee of 30% of all funds Client receives (including the deductible) from the Cleanup Fund, plus any direct expenses that are authorized by the Client at the time of billing. If partial reimbursement of RR3 is obtained by the Fund, costs determined as ineligible will be appealed to the Fund Manager as deemed appropriate. EquoLogic is to be paid within 30 days of Client’s receipt of reimbursement from the Cleanup Fund.
16
This Agreement is subject to the following General Conditions:
SECTION 1: FEE PAYMENT
1.1 Payment is due within 30 days of Client’s receipt of any Fund reimbursement.
1.2 If payment is not made within the appropriate time frame as described above, the Client will also pay a finance charge thereon of 1.5 percent, or the maximum rate allowed by law, whichever is less, for each month thereafter - or portion thereof - that the amount remains unpaid.
1.3 If Client fails to pay EquoLogic within sixty (90) days after of the appropriate time frame described in Items 1.1 or 1.2, EquoLogic may deem failure to pay a breach of this Agreement, terminate the same, and be relieved of any and all duties under this Agreement. EquoLogic may proceed to collection, as described under Section 6.
SECTION 2: PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Client will provide to EquoLogic information known to Client regarding corrective action and associated costs at this site. Client will provide this information as requested, in digital format, via email or hard digital device. The information may include without limitation, as appropriate to the work, all invoices and accounts payable records, fee records, permits, applications, technical reports, and property records.
2.2 Client will immediately transmit to EquoLogic any updates, revisions, or additions to the Project Information as they become available to Client. EquoLogic is authorized to communicate directly with Cleanup Fund staff on behalf of Client, as needed.
S
ECTION 3: OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS; CONFIDENTIALITY, PATENTS AND
COPYRIGHTS
3.1 EquoLogic will prepare and deliver the Cleanup Fund claim application and reimbursement request to Client as Reports, instruments of the professional services performed.
3.2 With regard to audit and inspection of records, EquoLogic agrees that all materials supplied, and services performed under the Project, facilities used in connection therewith, and records and documentation thereunto appertaining are subject to inspection, test, or audit by duly authorized representatives of Client and the State of California. EquoLogic agrees to maintain all required records relating to the Project for at least three years after Client makes final payment and all other pending matters are closed.
3.3 All Reports, Records, and Project Information disclosed or delivered to EquoLogic, or information that EquoLogic uncovers, acquires, or generates in the course of performing the Work will be treated by EquoLogic as confidential information and will not be disclosed or made available to others (other than the Cleanup Fund) by EquoLogic without prior consent of Client.
The foregoing obligation will not apply to any information that EquoLogic establishes: (a) is already known to EquoLogic at the time of its receipt accessible to the public through no fault of EquoLogic, (b) is disclosed to EquoLogic by a third party on a non-confidential basis, (c) is deemed necessary by EquoLogic to warn of an imminent danger to life or property, or (d) is required to be disclosed pursuant to legal process, subpoena, court order, applicable law, or agency regulation.
17
3.4 Notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary, EquoLogic retains the right of ownership of any patentable or copyrightable concepts arising from its services.
3.5 EquoLogic understands that Client is a public entity that must comply with various public records laws including the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”). Accordingly, all records created by EquoLogic in performance of this Agreement including, without limitation, electronic communications, voicemails, and other “writings” as defined by California law. EquoLogic must preserve all such documents in accordance with the City’s retention schedules and must provide such documents upon Client’s request.
SECTION 4: STANDARD OF CARE
4.1 EquoLogic will perform the Work consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of its profession currently practicing under similar conditions. EquoLogic makes no other warranties with regard to the Work.
4.2 EquoLogic will not be responsible for the interpretation of its data by others.
18 .. .
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY
county of ventura
February 10, 2010
Mr. Ronald Linton
City of Simi Valley
REMEDIAL ACTION COMPLETION CERTIFICATION
Source Control Program Coordinator
500 West Los Angeles Avenue
Simi Valley, CA 93065-1644
Environmental Health Division
Robert Gallagher
Director
File #C92060
SITE NAME/ADDRESS: CITY OF SIMI VALLEY PUBLIC SERVICES CENTER, 500 WEST
LOS ANGELES AVENUE, SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
This letter confirms the completion of a site investigation and remedial action related to the underground storage tank(s) located at the above-described location. Thank you for your cooperation throughout this investigati.on. Your willingness and promptness in responding to our inquiries concerning the underground storage tank and dispenser are greatly appreciated.
Based on information in the above-referenced file and with the provision that the information provided to this agency was accurate and representative of site conditions, this agency finds that the site investigation and corrective action carried out at your underground storage tank site is in compliance with the requirements of the Health and Safety Code (HSC), subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 25296.10 and with corrective action regulations adopted pursuant to HSC, Section 25299.3 and that no further action related to the petroleum release(s) at the site is required.
This notice is issued pursuant to HSC, subdivision (g) of Section 25296.10. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Diane B. Wahl of the LUFT Program at 805/654-5040.
£�.ct- x/nde-4U-v
ROBERT GALLAGH�. DIRECTOR
ENVIRONMENTAL HEAL TH DIVISION
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Attachment: Case Closure Summary
c: Mr. James Steele, Tetra Tech, Inc. (w/ enclosure)
Mr. Joe Deakin, Assistant Director Public Works, City of Simi Valley (w/ enclosure) DC: F:\Admin\TANKS\Luft\02February.10\02-dbw-92060.clo.doc 800 South Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009-1730 (805) 654-2813 FAX (805) 654-2480 Internet Web Site Address: www.ventur a.org/rma/envhealth
ATTACHMENT A
19 Case Closure Summary
Leaking Underground Fuel Storage Tank Program
I. Agency Information Date: 9/23/2009
Agency name: Ventura County Environmental Health Address: 800 South Victoria Avenue City/State/ZIP: Ventura, CA 93009-1730 Phone: 805-654-5040 Responsible staff person: Diane B. Wahl Title: Environmental Health Specialist Ill II. Case Information
Site facility name: City of Simi Valley Public Services Center Site facility address: 500 West Los Angeles Avenue, Simi Valley, California RB LUSTIS Case No: NIA Local Case No: C-92060 I LOP Case No: C92060 URF filing date: 12/11/1992 SWEEPS No:
Responsible Parties Addresses Phone Numbers
City of Simi Valley 500 W. Los Angeles Avenue 805/583-6429 - Mr. Ron Linton Simi Valley, CA 93065-1644
Tank No Size in Gal Contents Closed In-place/Removed Date 1 10,000 Gasoline Removed Nov.1998
2 10,000 Diesel Removed Nov.1998
3 10,000 Diesel Installed/Active in Place Approx. 1998
3 10,000 Gasoline Remains Active in Place Installed prior to 1992
4 1,000 Waste Oil Remains Active in Place Installed prior to 1992
Ill. Release and Site Characterization Information
Cause and type of release: Break in vent lines
Site characterization complete? Yes Date approved by oversight agency: 9/23/2009 Monitoring Wells installed? Yes Number: 16 MWs / 3 leak detection Proper screened interval? Yes Highest GW depth below ground surface: - 26.21 I Lowest depth: -32.04 Flow direction: Southourly (MW-1) (MW-1)
Most sensitive current use: Maintenance Yard for City of Simi Valley Public Works Department Are drinking water wells affected? No / Aquifer name: South Las Posas GW Basin Is surface water affected? No I Nearest/affeGted SW name: Arroyo Simi- adjoining city property Off-site beneficial use impacts (addresses/locations): None Report(s) on file? Yes I Where are reports filed? VCEHDNCEHD Warehouse Location 20 Case Closure Summary Page2
Leaking Underground Fuel Storage Tank Program
(C92060-Continued)
Treatment and Disposal of Affected Material
Material Amount (Include Action (Treatment or Disposal w/Destination) Date units)
Tanks 2 Disposed at Standard Industries, Oxnard, California 11/30/1998 Rinseate 1,500 gal Disposed at DeMenno Kerdoon, Compton, CA 1/13/1999 Soil 116 tons Disposed at American Remedial Technologies, Lynwood, 1/6/1999 CA This portion of this page intentionally left blank.
21 Case Closure Summary
Leaking Underground Fuel Storage Tank Program
Ill. Release and Site Characterization Information
(C92060-Continued)
Maximum Documented Contaminant Concentrations - -Before and After Cleanup Contaminant Soil (mg/kg) Water (ug/L) Contaminant Soil (mg/kg) Water (ug/L) Before After Before After Before After Before After
TPH (Gasoline) 1,700 3.4 3,000 84.1 Benzene 4.3 0.24 1,780 ND TPH (Diesel) 3,800 ND 110 NA Toluene 120 0.07 0.7 ND
TPH (Waste Oil) 39 NA NA NA Ethylbenzene 31 0.10 4.0 ND MTBE/TBA 42/ND 42/ND 5,500/ 82.61 Xylenes 310 0.14 18 ND 5,300 ND MethanoVEthanol ND/ND ND ND/ND NA/ND Total Lead 6.3 NA ND NA Comm ents:
Before Soil = Maximum concentrations reported on site After Soil = Maximum corx:entratioos reported after aO excavation work completed Before GW = Maximum historicaRy reported in MWs After GW = June 2009 ND= not detected above laboratory detection limit NA = Not analyzed.
Summary:
The site is an active maintenance raciJity with active UST fuel dispening system for both gasoline and diesel fuel. The site also maintains a 1,000 gallon capacity waste oil UST. The soa and groundwater hydrocarbon plumes have been adequately characterized. Data indicate soil impacts generally limited to beneath the USTs to the groundwater interface, approximately 30 fbg. Impacted soils were removed to 14 fbg, during subsequent UST removal and replacement activities. The residual hydrocarbon plumes in soil and groundwater were futher treated using ORC injection, Fenton's Reagent lnjecti.on, and oxygen injection. Active treatment in combination with natural attenuation processes have reduced significantly what had been primariy an MTBE phJme that extended about 600 feet from the source area. As of June 2009, groundwater analytical results indicate contaminant concentrations have decined significantly and are predominantly non detect (see concentrations reported above). There are no sensitive supply wells or surface waters which appear threatened by residuaRy impacted groundwater. An EHD HBRA (using software provided by Groundwater Services Inc.) indicates that residual concentrations in soil and groundwater do not represent a human health threat for the exposure pathways modeled. Based on this information, EHD recommerids that all monitoring wels, extraction wells, observation wells, and leak detection wells be property destroyed and the case closed without further corrective action.
IV. Closure
Does completed corrective action protect existing beneficial uses per the Regional Board Basin Plan? No- four wells for June 2009 contained MTBE above the OHS Maximum Contaminant Level of 13 ug/1.
Does completed corrective action protect potential beneficial uses per the Regional Board Basin Plan? No- Same reason as discussed above.
Do cleanup levels exceed Regional Board requirements? No I Identify: Not applicable Rationale for exceeding RB requirements: Not applic able Does corrective action protect public health for current land use? Yes Site management requirements: None - natural attenuation should continue to decrease residual MTBE Should corrective action be reviewed if land use changes? Yes - should new construction be performed in the area of former impacted soil and groundwater.
Monitoring wells Decommissioned: No I Number Decommissioned: 0 I Number Retained: 16 MWs / 3 leak detection
List enforcement actions taken: None List enforcement actions rescinded: None Environmental Health Specialist Ill
Date: 9/23/2009
22 VI. RWQCB Notification
Case Closure Summary
Leaking Underground Fuel Storage Tank Program
Date Submitted to RB Executive Officer: I RB Response:
RWQCB staff Name: I Title:
Additional Comments, Data, Etc.
Page4
(C92060-Continued)
I Date:
This document and the related CASE CLOSURE LETTER shall be retained by the lead agency as part or the official site file. (8/94) 23 Narrative Work Description
• The site is located at 500 West Los Angeles Avenue in the City of Simi Valley, California.
• The site is utilized by the City of Simi Valley as a Public Services Center (PSC) and it is used for city vehicle automotive maintenance and repair. • This site maintains two underground fuel tanks including one 10,000 gallon diesel fuel UST and one 10,000 gallon regular unleaded gasoline UST and one 1,000 gallon waste oil UST.
• Approximately 50 gallons of regular unleaded gasoline were released from the vent line for Tank No. 1 during hydrostatic testing of the UST systems at the Site in December 1992. The City attempted to locate the leak by removing the concrete and fill soil overlying Tank No. 1 and conducting two additional tests of the tank systems during December 1992 and February 1993. The test results indicated the system for Tank No. 1 was not tight, and the leak was probably located in the portion of the vent lines between the tanks and where the vent lines surface.
• Staal, Gardner & Dunne, Inc. (SGD), later known as Fugro West, Inc. (Fugro), was retained by the City to assess potential soil and groundwater contamination released from the leaking vent line. These assessments were conducted under VCEHD review. Assessment activities included a soil vapor survey, exploratory excavations and soil borings, and installation of three groundwater monitoring wells. The results of the assessments were documented in the following reports and submitted to VCEHD:
o Preliminary Site assessment. City of Simi Valley Public Services Center, 500 West Los Angeles Avenue, Simi Valley, California. March 1994 (SGD 1944a).
o Continuing Site Assessment Work Plan. City of Simi Valley Public Services Center, 500 West Los Angeles Avenue, Simi Valley, California.
June 1994 (SGD 1944b).
o Supplemental Site Assessment. City of Simi Valley Public Services Center, 500 West Los Angeles Avenue, Simi Valley, California. VCEHD LUFT File No. C92060. October 1995 (Fugro 1995).
• September 1993 Soil Vapor Survey: During September 1993, SGD conducted a soil vapor survey of a section of the vent lines extending approximately 120 feet northeast of the vent outlet standpipe. These sample point locations were selected under the City's direction to avoid penetrating the vent lines and USTs.
The .results of the survey indicated the fuel release did not occur in the vent lines south of the USTs.
ATTACHMENT B
24 • May 1994 Soil Boring and Sample Collection: Additional assessment of the Site was conducted by SGD on May 10 and 11, 1994 (SGD 1994b). Seven soil borings were drilled to depths of 30 to 35 feet using a hollow stem auger drilling rig for soil monitoring, soil sample collection, and groundwater sample collection.
Potential soil contamination was assessed by collecting soil sampled at 5-foot intervals in each boring, visual logging, and monitoring the drill cuttings and soil samples for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) with a portable photoionization detector (PIO). Toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene were detected at concentrations ranging from just exceeding ARs to one order of magnitude above the ARs. Benzene was detected at a concentration one order magnitude above the AR in the groundwater sample from DH-4. The assessment results indicated that relatively low concentrations of gasoline-related soil and groundwater contamination exist at the Site. The data suggested that the gasoline release migrated vertically to a depth of Approximately 30 feet (the top of the groundwater table) and along the top of the water table to 20 feet west of the release site (SGD 1994b).
• September 1995 Groundwater Monitoring Well Installation: Three groundwater monitoring wells were constructed at the Site during September 1995 (Fugro 1995). Each monitoring well is approximately 50 feet deep. Two soil samples were selected for analysis from each boring and analyzed for BTEX and TPHg by EPA method 8260 modified (fuel fingerprint analysis). Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene were detected in groundwater samples from wells MW-1 and MW-2, respectively, collected during October 1995. • August 1998 Assessment of MTBE Plume: Six direct push borings were drilled downgradient of the UST fuel release site and MTBE source on August 26 and August 27, 1998, to collect soil and groundwater samples (Tetra Tech 1998).
Selected soil and groundwater samples were analyzed for BTEX, TPHg, and MTBE. No analytes were detected in soil samples collected from the vadose zone. MTBE was detected in four of the soil samples collected from below the water table at concentrations ranging from 0.022 milligram per kilogram (mg/kg) to 0.24 mg/kg. On the basis of these data, the downgradient (southern) edge of the MTBE groundwater plume was estimated to be approximately 110 feet south of well MW-3 during August 1998.
• January 1999 Groundwater Monitoring Well Installation: Groundwater monitoring well MW-4 was installed at the Site during January 1999 (Tetra Tech 1999). The well was constructed according the VCEHD guidelines and is located approximately 155 feet south of monitoring well MW-3. Soil samples were collected and logged at the surface and at 5-foot intervals during drilling to a depth of 35 feet bgs. To further assess the extent of MTBE in soil and groundwater, six additional direct push borings B-6 through B-12 were drilled on 25 July 13, 2000 (Tetra Tech 2000). Based ont eh assessment results, it was estimated that soil and groundwater MTBE contamination extended laterally in a generally north-to-south orientation, from approximately 100 to over 450 feet from the assumed release site, potentially as far as the Arroyo Simi. The southern extent of the plume was not defined. The soil contamination in the area south of the assumed fuel release site appeared to be confined to the capillary fringe and water table. Additional assessment of the extent of residual MTBE and other fuel oxygenate soil contamination in the vicinity of the assumed fuel release was recommended.
• December 2000 Fuel Oxygenate Source Area Environmental Assessment:
In response to the VCEHD letter dated August 16, 2000 (VCEHD 2000b), Tetra Tech performed an environmental assessment of the assumed fuel oxygenate source are in the vicinity of the fueling station during November and December 2000 (Tetra Tech 2001a). Soil borings 8-13 through B-16 were drilled near monitoring wells MW-1, MW-2, and MW-3 to assess the soil in the vicinity of the fuel oxygenate source area. Potential fuel soil contamination (including fuel oxygenates) in the vadose zone and underlying water-bearing zone were assessed by soil and groundwater sample collection using a direct push Geoprobe drill rig. No evidence of potential soil contamination was encountered below approximately 39 feet bgs. The extent of the soil contamination plume was estimated from data obtained during the installation of wells MW-1, MW-2, and MW-3 and from data gathered when borings for the fuel oxygenate assessment were drilled during November and December 2000. Soil with fuel oxygenates at concentrations greater than VCEHD ARs was found to be centered on the assumed 1992 fuel release site. The extent of soil contamination at concentrations above the ARs was estimated to be pear shaped, approximately 20 feet wide and 36 feet long, and approximately 10 feet thick (vertically) in the vicinity of boring B-16 (occupying an area of approximately 560 square feet). The soil contamination generally did not appear to extend below the water table. The volume of the fuel oxygenate soil contamination plume with concentrations greater than VCEHD ARs was estimated at approximately 5.120 cubic feet (approximately 190 cubic yards). Sample data from the assessment performed during July 2000 indicated that a thin layer of fuel oxygenate soil contamination could be present neat the top of the shallow aquifer throughout the groundwater plume. Groundwater sample analytical data from the December 2000 assessment indicated that the fuel oxygenate groundwater plume extended downgradient laterally, at least 450 feet from the assumed release site and potentially into the Arroyo Simi, in a north to south-southwest oriented plume. • September 2001 Pilot Groundwater Extraction Pumping Test:Tetra Tech performed a groundwater extraction pilot test at the Site during September 2001 26 in response to requirements by the VCEHD (VCEHD 2001 a). Data from the pilot test formed the basis of a feasibility study and selection of corrective action to control contaminant migration toward the flocculation pond and the arroyo Simi.
The pumping test was performed under regulatory oversight from the VCEHD LUFT Program in accordance with the technical work plan (Tetra Tech 2001b) and the addendum to the work plan (Tetra Tech 2001c) following review and authorization by the VCEHD (VCED 2001 c). The groundwater extraction pilot pumping test included a step drawdown test and a distance drawdown test. At the time of the pumping test, the extent of the groundwater contamination plume was estimated at 131,000 square feet (ft2). Assuming that the groundwater contamination plume is 15 feet thick and the average soil porosity is 30 percent, the plume contains approximately 4,415,000 gallons of contaminated groundwater.
• 2002 Feasibility Study: Tetra Tech performed a pilot groundwater extraction pumping test during September 2001. The pilot pumping test results were presented in the Feasibility Study (Tetra Tech 2002a). Three corrective action scenarios were evaluated in the feasibility study:
o Groundwater extraction, ex situ treatment, and discharge of treated water to the flocculation pond;
o In situ augmented bioremediation treatment using Shell Global Solution's (SGS's) BioRemedy, a proprietary technology that uses specialized biological cultures; and
o In situ oxidation-enhanced bioremediation treatment using Regenesis' Oxygen Release Compound (ORC).
Corrective action scenario 3-using an ORC barrier-was selected. • 2002 Groundwater Monitoring Well Installation: Tetra Tech installed seven additional groundwater monitoring wells at the Site during July 2002. The addition of seven groundwater monitoring wells significantly increased the work required for, and wastewater generated from, quarterly groundwater monitoring.
Tetra Tech installed dedicated QED Micropurge pump sampling systems in the eleven groundwater monitoring wells at the Site to reduce the groundwater sampling work effort and investigation-derived wastewater (IDW) generation. • 2002 Corrective Action: A corrective action plan (CAP) to perform a field pilot test using Regenesis's ORC in a barrier was developed based on the Feasibility Study results (Tetra Tech 2002b). The VCEHD approved the project CAP in a letter dated July 22, 2002 (VCEHD 2002). The Corrective Action Summary Report describes the methods and procedures followed by Tetra Tech to implement complete corrective actions at the Site (Tetra Tech 2003). Corrective actions for groundwater remediation suing Ore at the Site were implemented in September-October 2002, and the final ORC injection borings were completed 27 on January 17, 2003 (Tetra Tech 2003). ORC was applied under the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region (RWQCB) Order No.
R4-2002-0030 (2002a). In addition to BTEX, THPd, and fuel oxygenates analyses, additional analyses were performed on groundwater samples collected from the four monitoring wells adjacent to the ORC barrier to evaluate the effect of the ORC barrier on aquifer conditions, groundwater parameter changes across the barrier indicative of aerobic degradation, and the barrier's effectiveness in reducing downgradient contaminant migration. These additional analyses, along with physical parameters measured in the field (DO, ORP, pH, conductivity, temperature, turbidity, and ferrous iron [Fe II]) provided initial data on background groundwater conditions prior to ORC injection. The baseline data are being compared to data from groundwater samples collected after ORC application to evaluate its effect on Site groundwater conditions. The ORC barrier was constructed downgradient of the fuel release site within the groundwater contamination plume by injecting ORC beneath the water table in an array of borings during the fall of 2002. The ORC barrier was approximately 300 feet long, spanning across the public services yard and the eastern portion of the public work water treatment facility yard. The ORC barrier was designed to enhance natural biological degradation of the groundwater as the contamination plume flowed through the barrier.
• Based on review of the pilot study results, the ORC barrier was marginally successful in containing the fuel oxygenate groundwater plume. Because of the marginal success of the ORC-based remedial approach, Tetra Tech recommended a second pilot study to compare the effectiveness of ORC and two other remedial technologies. The City and Tetra Tech proposed to perform a pilot study in conjunction with Western Research Institute (WRI). WRI has partnered with Tetra Tech and the City to conduct focused research and development of remediation alternatives for groundwater contamination at the Site. • 2004 Feasibility Study/Corrective Action Work Plan: A feasibility study/corrective action plan (FS/CAP) was prepared by Tetra Tech on behalf of the City during 2004 to evaluate new alternatives to using Regenesis' ORC to treat the fuel oxygenate groundwater plume at the Site (tetra Tech 2004b). The document included a feasibility study and corrective action plan to remediate fuel oxygenate soil contamination in the vadose zone and shallow groundwater beneath the 1992 fuel release site (source area), and a pilot study work plan to evaluate three corrective action alternative for containing and treating fuel oxygenate groundwater contamination at the Site. The soil remediation FS/CAP (Tetra Tech 2004b) was prepared in general accordance with the Leaking Underground Fuel Tank (LUFT) Guidance Manual (VCEHD 2001 b). The FS included descriptions of three proposed remedial action methods, and an 28 evaluation of their costs effectiveness, time requirements, potential risk to the public and environment, permitting, and effectiveness. The most appropriate remedial alternative for soil contamination at the Site was selected based on Tetra Tech's review of these parameters, The report also described the proposed corrective action tasks to install vapor extraction testing and monitoring wells, and to perform a soil vapor extraction pilot test. The FS/CAP also included a Pilot Study work plan prepared by WRI for evaluation of groundwater remediation alternative. The Pilot Study included conducting a laboratory bench-scale feasibility study and field pilot test to evaluate using Regenesis' ORC, Fenton's Reagent, and mechanical in situ oxygen injection into groundwater to remediate fuel oxygenate groundwater contamination at the site. In a letter dated august 18, 2004, the VCEHD presented their comments on the FS/CAP and approved the proposed Pilot Study to evaluate using Regenesis' ORC, Fenton's Reagent, and mechanical in situ oxygen injection into groundwater to remediate fuel oxygenate groundwater contamination at the site (VCEHD 2004b). The proposed soil vapor extraction pilot testing was not approved. The VCEHD required additional data or assessment of potential soil contamination in the vicinity of the former fuel release site.
• September 2004 Monitoring Well MW-12 Installation: On September 9 and 10, 20014, monitoring well MW-12 was installed approximately 140 feet east of MW-4 in accordance with the well installation work plan (Tetra Tech 2004a) to provide data on the contamination plume's eastern extent between wells MW-2 and MW-5 (Tetra Tech 2004c). Results of groundwater sampling and analysis in September 2004 indicated that the contamination plume did not extend as far east as well MW-12. No evidence for soil groundwater contamination was identified in soil samples collected from the borings for MW-12 and MW-13 (tetra Tech 2004c).
• December 2004 Additional Assessment in the Source Area: Soil borings B-17 through B-24 were drilled in a grid extending approximately from 35 feet to 120 feet downgradient (south) of the fuel release location to assess the lateral and vertical extent of MTBE in soil and groundwater neat the fuel release source area. The assessment data indicated the lateral extent of residual fuel soil contamination above the groundwater table appeared to be limited to an area below and immediately south of underground fuel storage tanks. Residual soil contamination was detected at boring B-20 at 30 feet bgs within the capillary fringe immediately above the groundwater table. No other soil contamination was detected above the groundwater table in any of the soil samples collected. The relatively low concentration of MTBE at boring B-21, and no detected contamination in groundwater from boring B-22 and from monitoring wells MW- 12 and MW-5, define the eastern edge of the contamination plume. 29 • WRI Bench-Scale Pilot Results
• Test Method: Western Research Institute performed a bench-scale pilot study evaluating using ORC, in situ oxygen injection, and ChemOx for remediation of the fuel oxygenate groundwater plume at the Site (WRI 2005). All three technologies were tested side by side in a controlled laboratory system.
Microcosms were established using soil and groundwater samples collected from the Site to evaluate each of the three candidate technologies. • WRI Conclusions: Based on the data obtained to date, WRI presented the following conclusions in their report:
o In the source zone (new MW-4) where elevated MTBE concentrations are present, Fenton's Reagent appears to be the preferred and most effective technology. Instantaneous destruction of MTBE is expected using this technology.
o Fenton's Reagent will create an aerobic environment, but only for the short term, therefore, either oxygen sparging or ORC should be implemented following Fenton's Reagent to maintain adequate DO levels in groundwater.
o Both oxygen sparging and ORC appear to be effective when MTBE concentrations are near or below concentrations detected in MW-8 (219- 309 µg/1).
o The calculations in oxygen injection system operation (inVentures Technology in situ submerged oxygen curtain [iSOC] or Matrix oxygen injection system [OIS] or ORC dosages should consider the unknown reducing potential in the groundwater and sediments. In addition, local geological characterization should be included in the field design and implementation of these technologies.
• 2005 Field Pilot Test: The field pilot test was performed by Tetra Tech and WRI in response to requirements by the VCEHD in their letters dated June 2, 2004 (VCEHD 2004a), and September 8, 2004 (VCEHD 2004b). The remedial methods applied in this field pilot test were based on results presented in the Bench Scale Feasibility Study of MTBE Remediation in Groundwater Samples Collected from the City of Simi Valley, California study prepared by WRI (WRI 2005), site geology, and data obtained through previous environmental assessments and groundwater monitoring. All work was performed under a state registered professional geologist and regulatory oversight from the VCEHD and in accordance with the VCEHD Leaking Underground Fuel Tank (LUFT) Guidance Manual (VCEHD 2001b). Tetra Tech prepared a Field Pilot Test Work Plan dated June 24, 2005, based on review of data obtained from the bench scale feasibility study and source area soil and groundwater conditions from data generated during previous environmental assessments (Tetra Tech 2005b). The 30 field pilot test was performed from August through September 2005 (Tetra Tech 2005c). The field pilot test included:
o Injecting Fenton's Reagent to remediate fuel oxygenate contamination in groundwater in the aquifer beneath the 1992 fuel release site (source area);
o Injecting Fenton's Reagent to remediate fuel oxygenate contamination in groundwater in the aquifer in the area identified as the core of the contamination plume (near monitoring well MW-4); and
o Installing nine oxygen injection wells adjacent to a portion of the former ORC barrier to create an oxygen curtain barrier using the Matrix Environmental (Matrix) Ols to contain and treat fuel oxygenate contamination in groundwater downgradient from the core of the contamination plume and prevent its off-site migration. • Injection of Fenton's Reagent: Methy; tert-butyl ether and TPHg contamination within the water-bearing zone underlying the source area and plume core were treated by injecting Fenton's Reagent using a modified direct push technology Geoprobe drill rig and truck-mounted pumping equipment. Fenton's Reagent was prepared to the desired concentration and injected using a dedicated remediation delivery system capable of providing specified low pressures as well as desired volumes based on subsurface lithology and manufacturers recommendations.
Analysis for additional VOCs, currently required by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), at LUFT Sites, was required to determine if the Site was impacted by other fuel and oil-related contaminants.
• 2006 RWQCB Waste Discharge Requirements: on September 28, 2006, the RWQCB terminated their coverage of the Site, including the requirement for additional analyses, and reassigned full coverage to VCEHD (RWQCB 2006). • In-Situ Submerged Matrix Oxygen Curtain: The oxygen curtain biobarrier was constructed to intercept groundwater contaminants and prevent migration in order to protect downgradient receptors from Site contaminants. The biobarrier was created via the injection and diffusion of oxygen into groundwater (Tetra Tech 2005c). Monthly monitoring of groundwater in each of the 9 injection wells began when the Ols was emplaced on September 9, 20015, and continued until the OIS was shut down in July 2009. One a month the wells were pumped with a peristaltic pump and groundwater physical parameters, including DO, were measured with a YSI meter and recorded.
• 2008 Monitored Natural Attenuation and Microbial Fuel Cell Field Pilot Study: In a letter dated February 21, 2008, the VCEHD required a work plan to be submitted for evaluating monitored natural attenuation (MNA) as the final remediation process at the Site (VCEHD 2008b). Following receipt of VCEHD approval to implement the field pilot study for MFC technology at the Site, the 31 City of Simi Valley decided against implementation of the field pilot study. The decision was based on the following factors:
o Based on review of the Second Quarter 2008 Groundwater Monitoring Report, City of Simi Valley Public Setvices Center, 500 West Los Angeles Avenue, Simi Valley, California (Tetra Tech 2008b), it was clear that the fuel oxygen concentrations in groundwater at the Site were declining at an adequate rate on their own, indicating that complete the site remediation program using MNA alone would be sufficient.
o The residual fuel oxygenate groundwater plume continued to be adequately contained by the OIS barrier, mitigating potential off-site plume migration.
• MNA Evaluation 2009: Tetra Tech commenced implementation of an MNA monitoring work plan (Tetra Tech 2008c) in September 2008. The monitoring program objectives were to:
o Demonstrate that natural attenuation is occurring according to expectations;
o Detect changes in environmental conditions (e.g., hydrogeologic, geochemical, microbiological, or other changes) that may reduce the efficacy of any of the natural attenuation processes;
o Identify any potentially toxic and/or mobile transformation products; o Verify that the plume(s) is/are shrinking;
o Verify that no unacceptable impact to downgradient receptors exists; o Detect new releases of contaminants to the environment that could impact the effectiveness of the MNA remedy; and
o Verify attainment of remediation objectives.
• Tetra Tech implemented the following MNA monitoring program bi-annually from September 2008 to March 2009:
o Sample wells MW-1 and MW-12 (Background Area); MW-2, MW-6, MW-8, and MW-10 (Intermediate Plume Zone); MW-4, DW-1, 0-1 (Plume Core Zone); and MW-3 and MW-9 (Plume Fringe Zone).
o Analyze the groundwater samples for ferrous iron (Fe2+), sulfate (SO4-2), dissolved methane (CH4), nitrate (NO3-), manganese (Mn2+ ), and
dissolved organic carbon in addition to the chemical and physical parameters currently monitored.
• Tetra Tech submitted an evaluation of the MNA monitoring program effectiveness as reported in the First Quarter 2009 Groundwater Monitoring Report City of Simi Valley, Public Setvices Center Fueling Station, 500 West Los Angeles Avenue, Simi Valley, California, dated June 18, 2009 (Tetra Tech 2009a). After review of Tetra Tech's MNA evaluation, the VCEHD requested that operation and regular monitoring of the OIS be discontinued and groundwater 32 monitoring be reduced to limited monitoring locations for second and fourth quarters only (VCEHD 2009). As requested by VCEHD, the second quarter groundwater sampling and final remediation progress reports was submitted July 31, 2009 (Tetra Tech 2009b), and the Case Closure Summary Report was due August 21, 2009 (VCEHD 2009).
• A Closure Summary Report dated August 21, 2009, and prepared by Tetra Tech as required by the Ventura County Environmental Health Division (VCEHD) Leaking Underground Fuel Tank (LUFT) Program, in preparation for case closure.
• The Closure Report summarizes the work performed to date to complete the assessment and the cleanup at the site and it indicates that after extensive environmental investigations, remediation and groundwater monitoring have been conducted since the initial fuel release in 1992. Since these environmental mitigation efforts have been effective over time, the VCEHD has determined the site is eligible for case closure.
• A case closure summary report prepared by the leaking underground fuel storage tank program of the VCEHD, dated September 23,2009, indicates that there are no sensitive supply wells or surface water which appear threatened by residually impacted ground water. An EHD Health-Based Risk Assessment (HBRA), using software provided by Groundwater Services, Inc., indicates that residual concentrations in soil and groundwater do not represent a human health threat for the exposure pathways modeled. Based on this information, EHD recommends that the case be closed without further corrective action. • Correspondence from the County of Ventura, EHD, dated September 30, 2009, indicates a LUFT case closure recommendation based on the review of the available data for this case. VCEHD staff concludes that the residual contamination in soil and groundwater associated with this site does not pose a significant threat to human health, beneficial or potentially beneficial groundwater, or the environment. Therefore, EHD recommends case closure. • A letter from the VCEHD dated November 10, 2009, indicates that the EHD staff determined that this case is eligible for low-risk regulatory case closure. As a final condition for case closure, the EHD required that all site groundwater monitoring wells and remediation wells must be properly destroyed, and the removal of all remaining system components.
• Further correspondence dated November 24, 2009, indicates that EHD staff prepared this letter as a follow-up to EHD letter dated November 10, 2009 requiring well destruction and system decommissioning as a final condition for case closure. Based on the narrow diameter and shallow burial depth of these lines, EHD determined that pressure grouting and capping the conveyance lines is not required.
33 • Tetra Tech prepared a Well Abandonment Work Plan dated December 3, 2009, in response to the VCEHD letter, dated November 10, 2009. In this letter, the VCEHD granted conditional low-risk regulatory case closure for the City of Simi Valley, Public Services Center Fueling Station. The VCEHD waived the requirements for pressure grouting and capping all in place of conveyance lines in their letter dated November 24, 2009.
• In a letter dated February 10, 2010, the VCEHD granted Remedial Action Completion Certification to the City of Simi Valley. This letter confirms the completion of a site investigation and remedial action related to the underground storage tank(s) located at the City of Simi Valley Public Service Center Fueling Site. The VCEHD agency finds that the site investigation and corrective action carried out at this underground storage tank facility is in compliance with the requirements of the Health and Safety Code (HSC), subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 25296.10 and with corrective action regulations adopted pursuant to HSC, Section 25299.3 and that no further action related to the petroleum release(s) at the site is required. This notice was issued pursuant to HSC, subdivision (g) of Section 25296.10. Effectively issuing a successful case closure for this fuel underground tank release and all subsequent and associated environmental site assessment and groundwater monitoring and remediation investigations conducted at this site.
34