U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Catalyst for Improving the Environment 

Hotline Report 

 Results of 

Hotline Complaint Review 

for California Superfund Site 

 Report No. 09-P-0131 

 March 31, 2009 
Report Contributors:	 Jee Kim

 Dave Goodman 

 Carolyn Copper 

Abbreviations 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

CTS CTS Corporation 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

MNA Monitored Natural Attenuation 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

PRP Potentially Responsible Party 

ROD Record of Decision 

RWQCB California Regional Water Quality Control Board 

Cover photo: New housing development built on the former CTS Printex Superfund Site, 

Mountain View, California. (EPA OIG photo) 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 09-P-0131 

March 31, 2009 Office of Inspector General 

At a Glance
 

Catalyst for Improving the Environment 

Why We Did This Review 

The Office of Inspector General 

(OIG) received a Hotline 

complaint that alleged 

mismanagement and abuse of 

authority regarding the U.S. 

Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Region 9’s 

management of specific activities 

at the CTS Printex Superfund 

Site in Mountain View, 

California. 

Background 

The site is currently on the 

Superfund National Priorities 

List. It was added to the list in 

1990 to address groundwater 

contamination that resulted from 

years of circuit board 

manufacturing operations at the 

site. The Hotline allegations the 

OIG reviewed are that: (1) EPA 

Region 9 inappropriately charged 

the responsible parties for 

oversight costs associated with a 

housing development that is 

currently being built on the site; 

and (2) Region 9 has 

inappropriately expanded the 

definition of the site, which has 

complicated the responsible 

parties’ clean-up of the site. 

For further information, contact 

our Office of Congressional, 

Public Affairs and Management 

at (202) 566-2391. 

To view the full report, click on the 

following link: 

www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/ 

20090331-09-P-0131.pdf 

Results of Hotline Complaint Review 

for California Superfund Site 

What We Found 

We substantiated that Region 9 inappropriately charged oversight costs to the 

CTS Printex Site responsible parties for greening activities and other activities. 

Region 9 charged the responsible parties for costs associated with staff time 

spent reviewing a housing developer’s use of “green building practices.” 

Region 9 also charged the site account for its time spent responding to and 

preparing for our review. These activities are outside the intended scope of the 

cost recovery agreement between Region 9 and the CTS Printex Site 

responsible parties and also do not meet a criterion a Region 9 manager said 

was used in determining appropriate oversight costs. 

We could not substantiate claims that Region 9 expanded the definition of the 

CTS Printex Site beyond that described in EPA’s 1991 clean-up decision 

document (the ROD). In addition, we could not substantiate claims that other 

clean-up agreements were reached or implemented, such as use of a “Multiple 

Sources Strategy.” 

We also found that Region 9 has not taken appropriate steps to timely amend 

the 1991 ROD despite significant remedy and land use changes at the site. 

New human health risks have been identified (vapor intrusion) that were not 

addressed in the 1991 ROD. Following appropriate procedures is critically 

important given that private residences have been built on top of the CTS 

Printex Site.

 What We Recommend 

We recommend that Region 9 identify and withdraw all past charges that are 

inconsistent with the meaning of “oversight costs.” The Region should develop 

and implement procedures to ensure that staff consistently and appropriately 

charge oversight costs. We also recommend that the Region amend the 1991 

Site ROD, develop a cost recovery strategy, and review Agency policies and 

procedures to properly and timely recover the government's costs from 

appropriate parties for the ROD amendment work. Region 9 agreed to assume 

the work to complete the ROD amendment and has agreed to withdraw 

inappropriate oversight charges. The Region’s corrective actions to address 

future cost recovery issues and review other oversight charges are undecided 

and should be addressed in its final response to this report. 
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

March 31, 2009 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT:	 Results of Hotline Complaint Review for California Superfund Site 

 Report No. 09-P-0131 

FROM:	 Wade T. Najjum

 Assistant Inspector General 

 Office of Program Evaluation 

TO: Laura Yoshii 

 Acting Region 9 Administrator 

This is our Hotline report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General 

(OIG) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This report contains findings that 

describe the problems that OIG has identified and corrective actions that OIG recommends. The 

OIG responded to EPA Region 9’s draft report comments by making changes to the report, 

providing responses to Region 9 as appropriate, and conducting an exit conference to discuss 

OIG responses. This report represents the opinion of the OIG and does not necessarily represent 

the final EPA position. Final determinations on matters in this report will be made by EPA 

managers in accordance with established resolution procedures. 

The estimated cost of this report – calculated by multiplying the project’s staff days by the 

applicable daily full cost billing rates in effect at the time – is $128,038. 

Action Required 

In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, you are required to provide a written response to this 

report within 90 calendar days. You should include a corrective action plan for agreed upon 

actions, including milestone dates. We have no objections to the further release of this report to 

the public. This report will be available at http://www.epa.gov/oig. 

If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact Carolyn Copper, 

Director for Program Evaluation, Hazardous Waste Issues, at (202) 566-0829 or 

copper.carolyn@epa.gov; or Jee Kim, Project Manager, at (202) 566-2912 or kim.jee@epa.gov. 
Results of Hotline Complaint Review 09-P-0131 

for California Superfund Site 

Table of Contents 

Purpose........................................................................................................................ 1 

Background ................................................................................................................. 1 

Scope and Methodology............................................................................................. 2 

Results of Review ....................................................................................................... 2 

Region 9 Inappropriately Charged Oversight Costs to Responsible Parties........ 2 

Site Clean-up Remedy and Land Use Significantly Changed, 

But Key Requirements Were Not Followed................................................. 3 

Site Definition in the 1991 ROD Has Not Been Modified by Region 9 ................. 4 

Conclusions................................................................................................................. 5 

Recommendations...................................................................................................... 5 

EPA Region 9 Responses and OIG Evaluation ........................................................ 6 

Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits.............................. 7 

Appendices 

A Region 9 Comments on Draft Report and OIG Evaluation ............................. 8 

B Distribution ......................................................................................................... 20 
09-P-0131 

Purpose 

On March 13, 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Inspector 

General (OIG) received an allegation against EPA Region 9, complaining of continued 

mismanagement and abuse of authority, as it relates to the CTS Printex Superfund Site in 

Mountain View, California. Based on information provided in the complaint, we addressed the 

following objectives: 

•	 Determine whether oversight costs accrued in meetings with the current developer of the 

site are validly billed to CTS under the Record of Decision (ROD) of 1991 and the 

consent decree of 1994. 

•	 Determine whether EPA has validly “expanded” the site definition to include releases 

from other sites that have compromised the responsible parties’ ability to achieve 

clean-up goals. 

Background 

The CTS Printex Superfund Site was used to manufacture printed circuit boards between 1966 

and 1985. Operations at the site resulted in groundwater contamination from volatile organic 

compounds, both inside and outside the site property boundary. Also, high levels of copper and 

lead were found in soil on the site. In 1985, initial response actions to address contaminated soil 

and groundwater were conducted by the former site operator and responsible party – CTS 

Corporation (CTS). The former owner of the CTS Printex property – ADN/Nearon Enterprises – 

is also a responsible party. 

In 1990, EPA listed the CTS Printex Site on the National Priorities List. The California Regional 

Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) was designated as the lead oversight Agency at the time 

the site was listed. RWQCB remained the lead agency until the site was transferred back to 

Region 9 in 2006. 

The 1991 clean-up decision (the ROD) was to operate an existing groundwater extraction system 

to clean up impacted groundwater to drinking water standards. In 1994, Region 9 and the 

responsible parties entered into a consent decree that generally characterized the clean-up and 

oversight costs for which the responsible parties were accountable. The clean-up decision was 

to continue groundwater extraction until the Maximum Contaminant Levels for designated 

contaminants at the site were met. As of January 2009, the Maximum Contaminant Levels had 

not been met at the site. 

Plymouth Colony LLC purchased the CTS Printex property in 2006. Later that year, 

Regis Homes, a housing developer, began redeveloping the property for residential 

purposes. As of December 2008, construction of all residential units was approximately 

30 percent complete. In preparing the site for residential use, Regis Homes removed 

some material from the site and incorporated vapor intrusion mitigation systems in the 

construction of the new homes. 

1
 
09-P-0131 

Scope and Methodology 

We conducted our work from October 2008 to March 2009 in accordance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform our 

review to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a 

reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our objectives. An assessment of 

management or internal controls was not germane to this review and was not conducted. 

To accomplish our objectives, we: 

•	 reviewed and analyzed site documents provided by the complainant, Region 9, and 

RWQCB; 

•	 conducted interviews with relevant Region 9 and RWQCB staff; 

•	 conducted a site visit at the CTS Printex Site and interviewed a consultant for the 

residential developer of the site; 

•	 reviewed and analyzed site development documents provided by Regis Homes 

representatives/consultants; 

•	 reviewed and analyzed EPA policy documents on relevant issue areas provided by EPA’s 

Office of Superfund Remediation and Enforcement; 

•	 reviewed and analyzed appropriate sections of the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the National Contingency 

Plan; and 

•	 reviewed and analyzed relevant site administrative documents (i.e., ROD, consent decree, 

Clean-up and Abatement Orders, Five-Year Reviews, and billing statements) provided by 

Region 9 and available in Region 9’s Superfund Document Management System. 

The documentation we received did not allow us to quantify or to determine all potentially 

inappropriate charges. 

Results of Review 

Region 9 Inappropriately Charged Oversight Costs to Responsible Parties 

EPA Region 9 inappropriately charged the responsible parties for activities that are inconsistent 

with the meaning of “oversight costs” as defined in the 1994 consent decree and a criterion the 

Region said it used. The Region’s oversight of “greening” efforts of the site developer is 

unrelated to decisions or activities to ensure that the site remedy remains protective. In addition, 

the Region’s time spent preparing for and responding to OIG requests associated with this review 

are unrelated to decisions or activities to ensure that the site remedy remains protective. 

A Region 9 site attorney informed us that all of the Region’s oversight charges at the site were 

related to activities to ensure that the remedy remains protective of human health and the 

environment. However, some of the Region’s oversight charges were unrelated to ensuring that 

2
 
09-P-0131 

the site remedy remains protective of human health and the environment. A former site project 

manager requested and received from the site developer information on “green building 

practices” that were to be incorporated into construction of the new homes. This information is 

unrelated to ensuring that the site remedy is protective to human health and the environment. 

The project manager’s request was not conducted in response to an Agency or regional request 

or a work assignment. The project manager stated that she did not share the information she 

gathered with other staff in Region 9 or EPA Headquarters. The project manager stated that she 

charged her time associated with this request to the responsible parties. During our review, we 

discovered that the Region had also been charging the site account for its time spent preparing 

for and responding to this OIG review. In addition, we learned that, in response to a complaint 

by a responsible party, Region 9 waived staff attorney charges related to work done by the 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry at the site between January 1, 2004, and 

December 31, 2005. These activities are unrelated to decisions or activities to ensure that the site 

remedy remains protective and are administrative responsibilities. 

At our request, the Region reviewed the “green building practices” and charges for time relating 

to OIG’s review and retroactively agreed to remove the charges. The billing documents 

provided by Region 9 did not allow the OIG to identify all potentially inappropriate charges. 

Site Clean-up Remedy and Land Use Significantly Changed, 

But Key Requirements Were Not Followed 

The site remedy – groundwater extraction – had begun in 1987 but ceased in 1996 in 

favor of monitored natural attenuation. The extraction system was terminated based on 

CTS’ and RWQCB’s joint determination that the level of contaminants in the 

groundwater plume had reached consistently low levels. In 2006, land use had changed 

at the site from commercial/industrial to residential. The 2005 Five-Year Review 

identified vapor intrusion as a risk associated with residential use, and vapor intrusion 

mitigation systems were incorporated into construction of the new residences. However, 

as of December 2008, no ROD amendment has been drafted or executed by Region 9. 

Therefore, there was no Agency documentation to note the change in the site remedy or 

the significant land use change, and to describe remedial action objectives to ensure that 

the modified remedy remains safe and protects human health and the environment in the 

long-term. In 2005, Region 9 recognized the potential need for a ROD amendment to 

establish new remedial actions to address vapor intrusion, but it did not designate a 

milestone for starting or completing this work. 

Agency guidance stresses the importance of transparency in Superfund site-related decisionmaking and presents methods for categorizing ROD changes and the ways in which changes 

should be documented.1

 Region 9 has not followed Agency guidance in managing the remedy 

change at the CTS Printex site. EPA’s guidance classifies monitored natural attenuation as a 

contingency remedy that, if detailed in the ROD, can be invoked through the issuance of an 

Explanation of Significant Differences document. The guidance further recommends that if a 

contingency remedy or criteria for its selection are not well documented in the ROD, a ROD 

1 Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision 

Documents,” EPA 540-R-98-031, OSWER 9200.1-23P, July 1999. 

3
 
09-P-0131 

amendment may be required to invoke the contingency remedy at a later time. The 1991 ROD 

neither detailed monitored natural attenuation as a contingency remedy nor provided criteria for 

its selection. 

In the 2005 Five-Year Review, Region 9 concurred with recommendations for a ROD 

amendment. The Five-Year Review stated that: 

If the land use changes from the current commercial/industrial use to residential 

use, a comprehensive indoor air evaluation for residential use and re-evaluation 

of the remedy selected in the ROD should be completed to ensure long-term 

protectiveness. The ROD should be amended as necessary. 

Further, the Five-Year Review discussed vapor intrusion as a specific pathway of concern 

into current and future buildings. The Five-Year Review recommended that since cleanup goals for vapor intrusion were not established in the 1991 ROD, a ROD amendment 

may be needed to establish appropriate clean-up goals and long-term actions to address 

risks from vapor intrusion. 

In response to this report, the Region committed to assume responsibility for the work 

necessary to issue two ROD amendments at the CTS Printex Site. June 30, 2010, is the 

target date for issuing the first ROD amendment. This first amendment will address the 

changed land use, the vapor intrusion risk, and the need for new institutional controls. 

March 30, 2011, is the target date for the second ROD amendment. It will address the 

groundwater remedy. Region 9 also provided interim milestone dates for completing 

activities that lead up to issuing the ROD amendments. 

Site Definition in the 1991 ROD Has Not Been Modified by Region 9 

The site definition described in the 1991 ROD, in accordance with CERCLA, includes areas 

where contaminants have “otherwise come to be located.” In the case of the CTS Printex Site, 

this included the extent of the contaminated groundwater plume. This groundwater plume 

extends beyond the CTS Printex property boundary. Areas beyond that boundary were alleged 

by the complainant to be “off-site” and not included in the original site definition. However, in 

the 1991 ROD site definition, Region 9 appropriately included areas beyond the CTS Printex 

property boundary based on the extent of groundwater contamination. 

According to CERCLA Section 101(9)(B), a site (or "facility") includes not only the building or 

structure but also any site or area where a hazardous substance has "otherwise come to be 

located." The 1991 ROD states that the contaminated groundwater plume spread beyond the 

physical boundaries of the CTS Printex property. As a result, the site was defined to include the 

extent of the contaminated plume. 

In addition to the 1991 ROD, the RWQCB documented its clean-up decision in a 1991 Clean-up 

and Abatement Order. The order indicates, but does not definitely conclude, that other parties 

could be the source of some of the contamination in the Printex groundwater plume. Since that 

time, it has not been conclusively determined that, as alleged, there are multiple sources for the 

4
 
09-P-0131 

contaminants in the Printex groundwater plume. We found no substantiating evidence that the 

RWQCB or Region 9 made agreements to apply a “Multiple Sources Strategy” to the clean-up of 

the site. Region 9 disclosed in the 2005 Five-Year Review that there may be other sources of 

contamination in the Printex groundwater plume. The Region stated that these sources should be 

investigated and they were to conduct oversight for the assessment of potential sources in the 

vicinity of monitoring well 17. This activity was scheduled to be completed in 2007-2008. In 

November 2008, Region 9 staff said that there was no ongoing activity to determine if there were 

other sources in the Printex groundwater plume, but that additional testing at monitoring well 17 

would occur in December 2008 or January 2009. 

Conclusions 

We substantiated that Region 9 inappropriately charged oversight costs to the CTS Printex Site 

responsible parties for greening activities and other activities that are inconsistent with the 

meaning of “oversight costs” as defined in the 1994 consent decree. The criterion that the 

Region stated it uses in determining appropriate oversight costs to bill the responsible parties is 

not consistently used. Agency guidance stresses that Regions should “give careful consideration 

to the associated costs being charged to PRPs” and should engage in “good working 

relationships” with responsible parties. The examples of inappropriate oversight charging by 

Region 9 staff, indicates weak controls over oversight charging. The Region should ensure that 

all staff that charge time to the Site do so consistently and appropriately, base charges on criteria 

in cost recovery agreements, and adhere to Agency guidance on oversight and billing of 

responsible parties. 

We cannot substantiate claims that Region 9 has expanded the definition of the CTS Printex Site 

beyond that described in the 1991 ROD or that other agreements regarding the clean-up approach 

were made, such as use of a “Multiple Sources Strategy.” 

In the course of our review, we found that Region 9 has not taken appropriate steps to timely 

amend the 1991 ROD despite significant remedy and land use changes at the CTS Printex Site. 

Procedures for assuring that the site’s remedial actions provide long-term safety and protection 

were recommended in the site’s 2005 Five-Year Review but have not been implemented. New 

human health risks have been identified (vapor intrusion) that were not addressed in the 1991 

ROD. Following appropriate procedures is critically important given that private residences 

have been built on top of the CTS Printex Site. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Region 9 Administrator: 

1.	 Identify and withdraw all past charges that are inconsistent with the meaning of 

“oversight costs” as defined in the 1994 consent decree. These include, but may not be 

limited to, charges associated with “green building practices” and charges associated with 

Region 9 staff time spent preparing for and responding to OIG reviews. 

5
 
09-P-0131 

2.	 Develop and implement procedures to ensure that all Region 9 staff that charge time to 

the Site consistently and appropriately charge oversight costs based on criteria in cost 

recovery agreements and adhere to Agency guidance on oversight and billing of 

responsible parties. 

3.	 Amend the 1991 ROD for the CTS Printex Site as recommended in the 2005 Five-Year 

Review. 

4.	 Develop a cost recovery strategy and review Agency policies and procedures in order to 

properly and timely recover the government's costs from all appropriate parties associated 

with the ROD amendment work. 

EPA Region 9 Responses and OIG Evaluation 

The OIG reviewed and considered Region 9’s comments and we held a meeting to discuss the 

Region’s comments. We made revisions to the report where appropriate. Region 9’s comments 

and the OIG’s evaluation of those comments are in Appendix A. Region 9 partially agreed with 

Recommendation 1 and agreed with Recommendation 3. Based on our review of the Region’s 

comments on Recommendation 1, we modified the original recommendation. In addition, we 

added Recommendations 2 and 4 based on the Region’s comments and the corrective actions the 

Region proposed to address other recommendations. 

The Region has partially completed corrective actions for Recommendation 1. Region 9 agreed 

to exclude from its oversight bill the time spent on the subject of “green building practices.” The 

Region calculates these costs to be $129.22, for approximately 2 hours of staff time. Region 9 

plans to issue a credit to the responsible parties in the next bill but a definite date was not 

provided. The Region needs to provide a completion date for this action in its 90-day response 

(final response). In addition, on November 13, 2008, the Region agreed to remove all charges to 

the site account for staff time spent preparing and responding to this OIG review. On March 6, 

2009, the OIG received confirmation from Region 9 of the removal of 93.75 hours of such 

charges. The Region needs to provide the dollar value of the 93.75 hours in its final response. 

The status of the Region’s corrective actions for identifying other potentially inappropriate past 

oversight charges is undecided, with resolution efforts in progress. The Region plans to address 

this issue in its final response. 

The Region plans to address Recommendation 2 in its final response. The status of the Region’s 

corrective actions for this recommendation is undecided with resolution efforts in progress. 

The Region agreed with Recommendation 3. After discussion, Region 9 agreed to assume 

responsibility for the work necessary to issue two ROD amendments for the Site. The Region 

provided an acceptable corrective action plan, including estimated milestone completion dates. 

Recommendation 3 is open with agreed-to actions pending. 

The Region plans to address Recommendation 4 in its final response. The status of the Region’s 

corrective actions for this recommendation is undecided, with resolution efforts in progress. 

6
 
09-P-0131 

Status of Recommendations and 

Potential Monetary Benefits 

POTENTIAL MONETARY 

RECOMMENDATIONS BENEFITS (in $000s) 

Rec. 

No. 

Page 

No. Subject Status1 Action Official 

Planned 

Completion 

Date 

Claimed 

Amount 

Agreed To 

Amount 

1 

2 

3 

5 

6 

6 

Identify and withdraw all past charges that are 

inconsistent with the meaning of “oversight costs” 

as defined in the 1994 consent decree. These 

include, but may not be limited to, charges 

associated with “green building practices” and 

charges associated with Region 9 staff time spent 

preparing for and responding to OIG reviews. 

Develop and implement procedures to ensure that 

all Region 9 staff that charge time to the Site 

consistently and appropriately charge oversight 

costs based on criteria in cost recovery 

agreements and adhere to Agency guidance on 

oversight and billing of responsible parties. 

Amend the 1991 ROD for the CTS Printex Site as 

recommended in the 2005 Five-Year Review. 

U 

U 

O 

Region 9 Administrator 

Region 9 Administrator 

Region 9 Administrator 

4 6 Develop a cost recovery strategy and review 

Agency policies and procedures in order to 

properly and timely recover the government's costs 

from all appropriate parties associated with the 

ROD amendment work. 

U Region 9 Administrator 

O = recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending 

C = recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed 

U = recommendation is undecided with resolution efforts in progress 

7
 

1 
09-P-0131 

Appendix A 

Region 9 Comments on Draft Report 

and OIG Evaluation 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 9 

75 Hawthorne Street 

 San Francisco, CA 94105

 February 6, 2009 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Draft Hotline Report: 

Results of Hotline Complaint Review for California Superfund Site 

 Project No. OPE-FY-09-0001 

FROM: Nancy Lindsay 

Acting Assistant Regional Administrator 

Management and Technical Services Division 

TO: Carolyn Copper 

Director of Program Evaluation 

Office of the Inspector General 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft hotline report titled, Results of 

Hotline Complaint Review for California Superfund Site (Project No. OPE-FY09-0001), sent to 

Region 9 for comment on January 21, 2009. The Report concludes with two recommendations: 

the first regarding oversight billing, and the second regarding documentation of the remedy 

change at the CTS Printex Superfund Site. Our general comments are outlined in the text below 

and specific comments can be found in the attached table. 

OIG Recommendation 1: Determine invalid oversight charges previously billed to the 

responsible parties that are unrelated to the CTS Printex Site remedy as described in the 1991 

ROD and referenced in the 1994 cost recovery agreement, and withdraw such charges. 

As an initial matter, the Region disagrees with the characterization of its oversight 

charges as “invalid.” All of the charges EPA has billed to the parties were valid and in 

accordance with the 1994 Consent Decree, with the exception of the charges for time spent 

discussing “green building practices” with the developer. As we have discussed, the two settling 

defendants agreed in the Consent Decree to pay EPA’s “oversight costs.” The definition of 

“oversight costs” includes in relevant part the following activities: “reviewing or developing 

8
 
09-P-0131 

plans, reports and other items in connection with the Site, overseeing remedial design or 

remedial actions undertaken by persons other than EPA at the Site, or implementing, overseeing, 

or enforcing this Consent Decree or other enforcement related costs....” Consent Decree at ¶5. 

All of the costs EPA incurred and billed to the parties since the entry of the Consent Decree fall 

within this definition, with the noted exception. 

Region 9 is therefore willing to exclude from its next oversight bill the time spent on the 

subject of green building practices (approximately two hours or $129.22). The potentially 

responsible parties (PRPs) should remain responsible for all other costs charged to the Site in the 

last three years. 

OIG RESPONSE 1 

Region 9 agreed to exclude from its oversight bill the time spent on the subject of green building 

practices. The Region calculates these costs to be $129.22 for approximately 2 hours of staff 

time. In addition, on November 13, 2008, the Region agreed to remove all charges to the site 

account for staff time spent preparing and responding to this OIG review. 

During a meeting with the Region to discuss its comments, the Region disagreed that oversight 

costs should apply to activities linked to the 1991 ROD requirements and that the definition of 

oversight costs in the 1994 consent decree is broad. Based on our review of the Region’s 

comments, Recommendation 1 was modified, as follows: 

Recommendation 1: Identify and withdraw all past charges that are inconsistent with the 

meaning of “oversight costs” as defined in the 1994 consent decree. These include, but may not 

be limited to charges for “green building practices” discussions and charges associated with 

Region 9 staff time spent preparing for and responding to OIG reviews of these matters. 

On March 6, 2009, the OIG received confirmation that Region 9 removed staff time charged for 

preparing and responding to the OIG review (93.75 hours). The Region needs to provide the 

dollar value of the 93.75 hours in its 90-day response. On March 24, 2009, Region 9 informed 

the OIG that the Region plans to issue a credit to the responsible parties in the next bill for the 

2 hours charged for “green building practices” discussion, but a definite date was not provided. 

The Region needs to provide a completion date for this action in its 90-day response. 

Based on our review of the Region’s comments, the OIG added Recommendation 2 as follows: 

Recommendation 2: Develop and implement procedures to ensure that all Region 9 staff that 

charge time to the Site consistently and appropriately charge oversight costs based on criteria in 

cost recovery agreements and adhere to Agency guidance on oversight and billing of responsible 

parties. 

The Region plans to address Recommendation 2 in its 90-day response. As such, the status of 

the Region’s corrective actions for this recommendation is undecided with resolution efforts in 

progress. 

9
 
09-P-0131 

OIG Recommendation 2: Amend the 1991 ROD for the CTS Printex Site as recommended in the 

2005 Five-Year Review. 

Region 9 is, in fact, planning to amend the 1991 Record of Decision (ROD) and had set a 

target date in CERCLIS for completing the amendment: fourth quarter of the 2010 fiscal year. 

Note, however, that this date was based on a projection that the PRPs would complete a Focused 

Feasibility Study by September 30, 2009; however, the PRPs are not on track to meet that target. 

Region 9 will again articulate the path forward with the PRPs, consistent with the 

recommendation from the 2005 Five-Year Review to reevaluate the effectiveness of the remedy 

and set a new due date for the Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) of second quarter 2010 and for 

the ROD amendment of fourth quarter 2011. 

In October 2006, the party conducting remedial work at the Site, CTS Corporation (CTS), 

submitted a draft Focused Feasibility Study for the CTS Printex Site which suggested there were 

no viable alternatives to the existing remedy, dismissed in-situ technologies as harmful to the 

environment and difficult to implement, and recommended adoption of a “No Further Action” 

decision in place of an amended remedy. Region 9 provided comments to CTS by 

teleconference in January 2007. In March 2007, CTS submitted a revised draft Focused 

Feasibility Report and Technical Impracticability Evaluation which did not address our 

comments and contained the same flaws as the original draft. In addition, the revised document 

stated on page 35 “that with the completion of the revised FFS all response actions under the 

ROD and Board Order have been completed” and requested “that the Site be considered for a TI 

[Technical Impracticability] Waiver and subsequent deletion from the NPL.” EPA disagreed 

with these conclusions and advised CTS that a technical impracticability waiver required further 

investigation and analysis. 

In January 2008, EPA received the 2007 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, which 

suggested that contaminant concentrations were at or near the cleanup goals throughout the Site, 

a substantial decrease from 2006 contaminant concentrations. To confirm these results, Region 9 

requested additional sampling on a more frequent basis. CTS did not respond to this request. In 

March 2008, the developer offered to conduct quarterly sampling but CTS denied the developer 

and its contractor access to the Site monitoring wells. According to the developer, the CTS 

representative stated that, beyond its annual groundwater sampling and reporting activities, CTS 

does not intend to perform additional work at the Site. 

On January 30, 2009, EPA received the 2008 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report 

from CTS Corporation. The Report shows Site cleanup goals have not been met. In fact, 

contaminant concentrations have returned to pre-2007 levels. EPA will therefore require that the 

Site PRPs prepare a revised Focused Feasibility Study, consistent with previous EPA comments. 

The purpose of the revised FFS is to evaluate alternative remediation technologies, including and 

in addition to groundwater extraction and treatment or monitored natural attenuation (MNA). As 

long as groundwater contamination remains above cleanup goals, EPA guidance directs parties 

seeking a TI waiver to evaluate – and likely implement – an alternative technology(ies)2

. 

2 Guidance for Evaluating the Technical Impracticability of Ground-Water Restoration (EPA 540-R-93-080), 

October 1993. 

10
 
09-P-0131 

If the FFS demonstrates that no technology can meet the cleanup goals in a reasonable 

amount of time, EPA may determine that achievement of those goals – based on the federallymandated maximum contaminant levels for drinking water sources – is technically impracticable 

at the Site and issue a TI waiver of those requirements. In that case, Region 9 would document 

its waiver through a ROD amendment. Procedurally, a ROD amendment must be preceded by a 

Proposed Plan, issued for public comment; the amended remedy would then depend on input 

from the public and state regulatory agencies, as well as the data gathered between now and then. 

The ROD amendment would likely include the following elements: 

- Discussion of the new remedy, if one is selected; 

- Selection of Institutional Controls to prevent human exposure to contaminated 

groundwater and to mitigate potential risks of vapor intrusion;
 

- Remedial Action Objectives that address the new residential use of the property; 

- Additional remedial action(s) involving in-situ treatment technology; and 

- A Technical Impracticability (TI) waiver, if appropriate. 

If the ROD amendment includes a TI waiver, Region 9 could begin the delisting process by 

preparing a site completion report and then a Final Close Out Report (FCOR). 

OIG RESPONSE 2 

Region 9 agrees that a ROD amendment is necessary and plans to amend the ROD after the 

PRPs conduct a revised Focused Feasibility Study. The Region stated that the fourth quarter of 

2011 is the estimated milestone completion date for the ROD amendment. The Region provided 

information explaining why this milestone date has been selected; it stated that earlier milestones 

were missed and described delays due to lack of PRP cooperation and responsiveness. OIG 

believes the ROD amendment schedule needs to be accelerated rather than delayed further. We 

have revised our recommendation to reflect this and the need for improved management from the 

Region on this matter. 

During a meeting with the Region to discuss its comments, the Region committed to take over 

responsibility for the work necessary to issue two planned ROD amendments at the CTS Printex 

Site. OIG revised and renumbered Recommendation 2 as follows: 

Recommendation 3: Amend the 1991 ROD for the CTS Printex Site as recommended in the 

2005 Five-Year Review. 

The Region provided estimated milestone completion dates for Recommendation 3. June 30, 

2010, is the target date for issuing the first ROD amendment. This first amendment will address 

the changed land use, the potential vapor intrusion risk, and the need for new institutional 

controls. March 30, 2011, is the target date for the second ROD amendment, and it will address 

the groundwater remedy. At our request, Region 9 also provided interim milestone dates for 

completing activities that lead up to issuing the ROD amendments. These dates may be subject 

to change. Prior to the June 30, 2010, amendment, the Region plans to issue a feasibility study 

11
 
09-P-0131 

on December 15, 2009, and a proposed plan on January 10, 2010. Prior to the March 30, 2011, 

amendment, the Region plans to issue a feasibility study on September 1, 2010, and a proposed 

plan on October 30, 2010. These proposed actions meet the intent of the OIG’s 

recommendation. Recommendation 3 is open with agreed-to actions pending. 

Based on the Region’s commitment to assume responsibility for the ROD amendment work, the 

OIG added Recommendation 4 as follows: 

Recommendation 4: Review Agency policies and procedures in order to properly and timely 

recover the government's costs from all appropriate parties associated with the ROD amendment 

work. 

The Region plans to address Recommendation 4 in its 90-day response. As such, the status of 

the Region’s corrective actions for this recommendation is undecided with resolution efforts in 

progress. 

Please feel free to contact me at (415) 972-3840 or Rich Hennecke, Regional Audit 

Follow-up Coordinator, at (415) 972-3760. 

Attachment 

12
 
09-P-0131 

Attachment 

Table 1 Specific Comments 

Number Report Statement/ 

Finding 

Report 

Reference 

Region 9 Comment OIG Response 

1 Region 9 has not taken 

appropriate steps to 

evaluate the need for a 

ROD amendment, or to 

amend the 1991 ROD 

despite significant 

remedy and land use 

changes at the site. 

New human health 

risks have been 

identified (vapor 

intrusion) that were not 

addressed in the 1991 

ROD. 

At a Glance, 

Para. 3, page 1 

Region 9 has taken 

appropriate steps to 

evaluate the need for a 

ROD amendment, and 

has outlined for the 

PRPs a plan to move 

forward on the Site. 

This plan is consistent 

with recommendations 

from the 2005 Five Year 

Review and current site 

conditions. To date, the 

PRPs have asserted that 

additional work at the 

Site is not needed. EPA 

disagrees and will 

require the PRPs to 

conduct a revised FFS, 

as the next step toward a 

ROD amendment. If 

necessary, EPA will 

take enforcement 

actions to move the Site 

toward Site completion. 

Although the Region 

has not completed a 

ROD amendment for the 

Site, we have taken 

actions to protect human 

See OIG Response 2. 

As stated in the 

Region’s response, a 

ROD amendment is 

required to ensure that 

necessary controls to 

prevent human 

exposure to 

contaminated 

groundwater and to 

address vapor 

intrusion risks are in 

place. A ROD 

amendment has not 

been completed, 

although residents 

moved into the 

housing units atop the 

Superfund site and 

more are scheduled to 

move in during the 

coming months. 

Region 9 has not 

followed the 

requirements needed 

to ensure that the site 

is safe for humans and 

the environment. 

health and the 

environment, while also 

allowing for beneficial 

reuse of the site. We 

have worked with 

developers to take 

precautionary mitigation 

measures as appropriate 

to minimize potential 

risks for future 

residents. 

13
 
09-P-0131 

Number Report Statement/ 

Finding 

Report 

Reference 

Region 9 Comment OIG Response 

2 In 1994, Region 9 and 

the responsible parties 

entered into a consent 

decree that generally 

characterized the cleanup and oversight costs 

for which CTS was 

responsible. 

Background, 

Para. 3, page 2 

The consent decree did 

not distinguish between 

the PRPs’ 

responsibilities. For 

clarification, “CTS was 

responsible” should be 

replaced with “CTS and 

ADN were responsible.” 

Agree. The sentence 

has been modified, as 

follows: 

“In 1994, Region 9 

and the responsible 

parties entered into a 

consent decree that 

generally 

characterized the 

clean-up and oversight 

costs for which the 

responsible parties 

were accountable.” 

3 Due to limitations in 

the way Region 9 bills 

its oversight costs, we 

were unable to quantify 

inappropriate charges. 

Scope and 

Methodology, 

page 3 

Region 9 billed its 

oversight costs in 

accordance with OCFO 

(Office of Chief 

Financial Officer) 

Resource Management 

Directive 2550 Part D, 

Chapter 12 (07/25/1988 

and currently being 

updated) and Superfund 

Cost Recovery 

Documentation 

OIG has been unable 

to independently 

verify the Region’s 

assertion. The 

sentence has been 

modified, as follows: 

“The documentation 

we received did not 

allow us to quantify 

inappropriate 

charges.” 

Procedures Manual 

(1994). 

4 EPA Region 9 

inappropriately charged 

the responsible parties 

for oversight that was 

related to “greening” 

efforts and other 

activities that do not 

pertain to the 1991 

ROD 

Results of 

Review, 

Para.1, page 3 

Region 9 staff billed a 

limited amount of time 

– approximately 2 hours 

– discussing green 

building practices with 

the developer. Region 9 

will subtract this time, 

approximately $129.22, 

from its bill. 

We could not identify 

any charges for “other 

activities” that had been 

inappropriately charged. 

Region 9 suggests that 

“Other activities” refer 

to any and all Region 9 

oversight of remedial 

actions that do not 

pertain specifically to 

ensuring that the site 

remedy is protective. 

The Region also 

agreed to remove site 

account charges 

associated with its 

time preparing for and 

responding to this 

review. 

this language be 

removed from the 

report. 

See OIG Response 1. 

14
 
09-P-0131 

Number Report Statement/ 

Finding 

Report 

Reference 

Region 9 Comment OIG Response 

5 In addition, land use 

had changed at the site 

from 

commercial/industrial 

to residential. 

Results of 

Review, Para. 

2, page 4 

The land use remained 

commercial/industrial 

until 2006. Replacing 

“In addition” with “In 

2006” would create a 

clearer chronology. 

Agree. The change 

has been made to the 

report. 

6 Vapor intrusion was 

identified as a risk 

associated with 

residential use, and 

vapor intrusion 

mitigation systems 

were incorporated into 

construction of the new 

residences. 

Results of 

Review, 

Para.1, page 4 

The following would be 

a more accurate 

description of the 

chronology: “In 2005, 

EPA (in the Five Year 

Review) and the 

prospective developer 

(in its Phase I/II 

Environmental Site 

Assessment), identified 

vapor intrusion as a 

potential risk associated 

with residential use. In 

response to this 

potential risk – and in 

OIG generally agrees. 

We have modified the 

sentence as follows: 

“In 2005, during the 

Five-Year Review, 

Region 9 identified 

vapor intrusion as a 

risk associated with 

residential use, and 

vapor intrusion 

mitigation systems 

were incorporated into 

construction of the 

new residences.” 

accordance with EPA’s 

“reasonable steps” letter 

(dated June 27, 2006) – 

the developer 

incorporated vapor 

intrusion mitigation 

systems into 

construction of the new 

residences.” Region 9 

believes this 

precautionary mitigation 

measure was 

appropriate to minimize 

potential risks for future 

residents. 

7 The Region does not 

currently have specific 

milestone dates for 

starting or completing a 

ROD amendment. 

Results of 

Review, 

Para.2, page 4 

In 2006, the Region 

presented to the PRPs 

its plan for a path 

forward for future 

actions at the Site. As 

part of that effort, the 

Region established in 

CERCLIS a milestone 

date for completing a 

CTS Printex ROD 

During our field work, 

the Region did not 

inform the OIG of its 

planned milestone 

completion date for the 

ROD amendment, 

although the OIG 

asked for a date. 

However, the OIG will 

modify the report to 

15
 
09-P-0131 

Number Report Statement/ 

Finding 

Report 

Reference 

Region 9 Comment OIG Response 

amendment: September reflect the date on 

30, 2010. The Region which the Region has 

will set a new date, now informed us. 

September 30, 2011, 

based on completion of 

a revised FFS by the 

PRPs. Please refer to 

the enclosed letter for 

discussion of this 

timeline. 

8 Region 9 has not Results of Region 9 has complied Disagree. 

followed Agency 

guidance in managing 

the remedy change at 

the CTS Printex site. 

Review, 

Para.2, page 4 

with, and will continue 

to comply with, Agency 

guidance with respect to 

modifying the remedy. 

A site remedy 

modification occurred 

in 1996 when 

RWQCB terminated 

When the Site became 

EPA-lead in 2006, the 

Region presented its 

plan for proceeding 

toward a ROD 

amendment to both the 

PRPs and the State. 

There was not sufficient 

information to support a 

change in remedy to 

MNA. In the absence of 

such evidence, the 

Region had the PRPs 

prepare an FFS that 

evaluated alternative 

technologies (in-situ 

treatments), MNA, and 

continued groundwater 

extraction and 

treatment. Although the 

PRPs have submitted 

two version of an FFS, 

they did not provide 

adequate data and 

analysis for EPA to 

prepare a ROD 

amendment. The 

current planned 

schedule is to require 

the PRPs to conduct a 

revised FFS by second 

quarter 2010. EPA 

the groundwater 

extraction system in 

favor of MNA. 

Agency guidance 

classifies MNA as a 

contingency remedy 

that, if not well 

documented in the 

ROD, may require an 

amendment to the 

ROD to invoke at a 

later time. The 1991 

ROD neither detailed 

MNA as a contingency 

remedy nor provided 

criteria for its 

selection. Region 9 

did not amend the 

ROD in 1996 or in 

subsequent years to 

document this 

significant 

modification in site 

remedy (as 

recommended by 

Agency guidance). 

In 2006, Region 9 

missed another 

opportunity to amend 

the ROD when the 

land use at the site 

changed from 

16
 
09-P-0131 

Number Report Statement/ 

Finding 

Report 

Reference 

Region 9 Comment OIG Response 

would follow with a commercial/industrial 

ROD amendment by to residential. As part 

fourth quarter 2011. of the land use change, 

Further, in the interim, 

EPA worked with the 

PRPs and the developer 

to allow for productive 

and protective reuse of 

the Site. 

the 2005 Five-Year 

Review report 

recommended that 

Region 9 amend the 

ROD to address 

modifications to the 

remedy per the land 

use change. 

Region 9 has not 

complied with Agency 

guidance, which 

stresses the importance 

of transparency in 

Superfund site-related 

decision making. 

See also OIG 

Response 2 

9 However, as of 

December 2008, 

Region 9 had not 

initiated or executed a 

ROD amendment. In 

response to an OIG 

request in December 

2008, Region 9 

identified a number of 

actions they plan to 

take before initiating a 

ROD amendment. 

However, the Region 

did not provide a 

Results of 

Review, 

Para.5, page 5 

On January 30, 2009, 

EPA received the 2008 

Annual Groundwater 

Monitoring Report from 

CTS Corporation. The 

Report shows Site 

cleanup goals have not 

been met. In fact, 

contaminant 

concentrations have 

returned to pre-2007 

levels. EPA will 

therefore require that the 

Site PRPs complete a 

During our field work, 

the Region did not 

inform the OIG of its 

planned milestone 

completion date for the 

ROD amendment, 

although the OIG 

asked for a date. 

However, the OIG will 

modify the report to 

reflect the date on 

which the Region has 

now informed us. 

specific or estimated 

milestone when a ROD 

amendment would be 

started and completed. 

revised Focused 

Feasibility Study, 

consistent with previous 

EPA comments. 

EPA will then issue for 

public comment a 

Proposed Plan to amend 

the remedy. The ROD 

amendment planned 

completion date is 

fourth quarter 2011. 

See also OIG 

Response 2. 

17
 
09-P-0131 

Number Report Statement/ 

Finding 

Report 

Reference 

Region 9 Comment OIG Response 

10 ...Region 9 has not 

taken appropriate steps 

to evaluate the need for 

a ROD amendment, or 

amend the 1991 ROD 

despite significant 

remedy and land use 

changes at the CTS 

Printex Site. 

Conclusions, 

Para.2, page 6 

Region 9 has taken 

appropriate steps to 

evaluate the need for a 

ROD amendment, and 

has outlined for the 

PRPs a plan to move 

forward on the site. 

This plan is consistent 

with recommendation 

from the 2005 Five Year 

Review and current site 

conditions. To date, the 

PRPs have asserted that 

additional work at the 

Site is not needed. EPA 

disagrees and will 

require the PRPs to 

conduct a further FFS, 

as the next step toward a 

ROD amendment. If 

necessary, EPA will 

take enforcement 

actions to move the Site 

toward Site completion. 

See OIG Response 2 

and response to 

Comment 1. 

As stated in the 

Region’s response, a 

ROD amendment is 

required to ensure that 

necessary controls to 

prevent human 

exposure to 

contaminated 

groundwater and to 

address vapor 

intrusion risks are in 

place. A ROD 

amendment has not 

been completed, 

although residents 

moved into the 

housing units atop the 

Superfund site and 

more are scheduled to 

move in during the 

coming months. 

11 Procedures for assuring 

that the site’s remedial 

actions provide longterm safety and 

protection were 

recommended in the 

site’s 2005 Five-Year 

Review but have not 

been implemented. 

Conclusions, 

Para.2, page 6 

Although the Region 

has not completed a 

ROD amendment for the 

site, we have taken 

actions to protect human 

health and the 

environment, while also 

allowing for beneficial 

reuse of the site. 

Region 9 worked with 

the interested parties to 

conduct a Human 

Health Risk Assessment 

(HHRA), where a 

potential human health 

risk (vapor intrusion) 

was identified and 

consequently addressed 

(implementation of subslab vapor barriers and 

OIG concurs that the 

site developer has 

completed a Human 

Health Risk 

Assessment. We also 

stated in our report 

that the site developer 

has put a vapor 

intrusion mitigation 

system in place. These 

actions appear to be 

minimally necessary 

and reasonable steps 

that should have been 

taken. The 

developer’s work on 

the site does not waive 

requirements for the 

Region to complete a 

ROD amendment. 

sub-slab passive 

depressurization system) 

See also OIG 

Response 2. 

18
 
09-P-0131 

Number Report Statement/ 

Finding 

Report 

Reference 

Region 9 Comment OIG Response 

which allowed the 

redevelopment to occur 

in a timely and safe 

manner with out holding 

it up for the full RODA 

process. 

12 New human health 

risks have been 

identified (vapor 

intrusion) that were not 

addressed in the 1991 

ROD. 

Conclusions, 

Para.2, page 6 

The sentence should 

read as follows: “New 

potential human health 

risks have been 

identified (vapor 

intrusion) that were not 

addressed in the 1991 

ROD. 

Although the Region 

has not completed a 

ROD amendment for the 

Site, we have taken 

actions to protect human 

health and the 

environment, while also 

The Human Health 

Risk Assessment 

conducted at the site 

states that the risk 

assessment for vapor 

intrusion falls within 

the EPA 

Trichloroethylene 

toxicity criteria. 

Therefore, it is 

misleading to state that 

vapor intrusion is a 

potential rather than an 

actual human health 

risk. 

allowing for beneficial 

reuse of the site. We 

have worked with 

developers to take 

precautionary mitigation 

measures as appropriate 

to minimize potential 

risks for future 

residents. 

19
 
09-P-0131 

Appendix B 

Distribution 

Office of the Administrator 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9 

Agency Follow-up Official (the CFO) 

Agency Follow-up Coordinator 

Acting General Counsel 

Acting Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations 

Acting Associate Administrator for Public Affairs 

Audit Follow-up Coordinator, Region 9 

Acting Inspector General 

20