EXHIBIT 7

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 1

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS)

STUART G. GROSS (#251019) 

sgross@grosskleinlaw.com

BENJAMIN H. KLEIN (#313922) 

bklein@grosskleinlaw.com

GROSS & KLEIN LLP 

The Embarcadero 

Pier 9, Suite 100 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

t (415) 671-4628 

f (415) 480-6688 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

SAN FRANCISCO HERRING 

ASSOCIATION; and DAN CLARKE, 

Plaintiffs,

vs.

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY; 

and PG&E CORPORATION 

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 

REVISED CONSENT 

DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN 

FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS 

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 1 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 2

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1

2. DEFINITIONS ..................................................................................................................... 5

3. SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, OTHER MONETARY 

PAYMENTS, FEES AND COSTS ...................................................................................... 7

3.2. Supplemental Environmental Projects – Creosote Removal and Eelgrass 

Restoration ............................................................................................................... 7

3.3. Environmental Mitigation - Herring Permit Retirement Program .......................... 8

3.3.1. Proof of Permanent Permit Reduction ......................................................... 8

3.3.2. Costs of Administration ............................................................................... 9

3.3.3. Contingent Allocation of Funds ................................................................... 9

3.4. Other SFHA Payment ............................................................................................ 10

3.5. Wire Instructions for Grosss & Klein ................................................................... 10

3.6. Fees and Costs ........................................................................................................ 11

3.6.1. Reimbursement of Accrued Fees and Costs .............................................. 11

3.6.2. Compliance Monitoring Funds .................................................................. 11

4. INVESTIGATIVE AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN BY PG&E .............. 13

4.1. Result of Compromise ........................................................................................... 13

4.2. Investigation, Monitoring, and Reporting in the Hundred-Foot (100') Band ........ 13

4.2.1. Soil Borings ................................................................................................ 13

4.2.2. Groundwater Grab Samples ....................................................................... 13

4.2.3. Groundwater Monitoring Wells ................................................................. 13

4.2.4. Groundwater Well Sampling Result Reporting ......................................... 17

4.3. Remediation in the 100' Band ................................................................................ 18

4.3.1. Groundwater Remedy Triggers .................................................................. 18

4.3.2. Development and Proposal of Groundwater Remedial Action or NFA 

Request ................................................................................................................... 18

4.3.3. Implementation of Remedy ........................................................................ 19

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 2 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 3

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) ii

4.3.4. Post-Remediation Monitoring .................................................................... 21

4.3.5. Post-Remediation Reporting Obligations .................................................. 21

4.3.6. No SFHA Right of Appeal ......................................................................... 22

4.4. Offshore Investigation ............................................................................................ 23

4.4.1. Offshore Investigation – Bayward and Lateral Extent ............................... 23

4.4.2. Offshore Investigation-Vertical Extent ...................................................... 24

4.4.3. Offshore Investigation – Boring Locations ................................................ 24

4.5. Offshore Investigation – Sampling Protocol and Methods .................................... 26

4.5.1. Pore Water Sampling Protocol ................................................................... 26

4.5.2. New Boring Sampling Methodology ......................................................... 27

4.6. Offshore Investigation – Sample Analyses ............................................................. 28

4.6.1. PAH Analysis of Pore Water and Bulk Sediment Cores ........................... 28

4.6.2. Supplemental Constituent Analysis of Bulk Sediment Cores .................... 28

4.6.3. Non-Filtration of Pore Water Sample ........................................................ 29

4.6.4. Trigger Straddle ......................................................................................... 29

4.7. Offshore Investigation – Remedy Triggers and Areas ........................................... 29

4.7.1. Offshore Areas Subject To Potential Remedy ........................................... 29

4.7.2. Total Trigger PAHs in Pore Water Remedy Trigger ................................. 29

4.7.3. PWeq Remedy Trigger ............................................................................... 29

4.7.4. MGP Contamination Identified Below Three Feet Below Sediment 

Surface ....................................................................................................... 30

4.8. Offshore Remedy – Selection and Implementation ............................................... 30

4.8.1. PG&E Remedy Proposal ............................................................................ 30

4.8.2. Implementation of RAP ............................................................................. 31

4.9. Offshore – Post Remediation Compliance Monitoring and Reporting .................. 31

4.9.1. All Residue Removed Remedy .................................................................. 31

4.9.2. Engineered Cap Remedy ............................................................................ 33

4.9.3. Other Engineered Solution Remedy .......................................................... 35

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 3 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 4

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) iii

4.9.4. Monitored Natural Recovery (MNR) Remedy .......................................... 37

4.9.5. All Offshore Remedy Scenarios ................................................................ 39

4.10. West Harbor ........................................................................................................... 39

4.10.1. No Right of Appeal to Panel ...................................................................... 40

4.11. Force Majeure ........................................................................................................ 40

4.11.2. Best Efforts to Gain Access, Permits, Consents and Approvals ................ 40

5. APPEALS TO PANEL ...................................................................................................... 41

5.1. Formation of Panel ................................................................................................. 42

5.2. No Ex Parte Communication ................................................................................. 43

5.3. Appeal Process ....................................................................................................... 43

5.3.1. Timing of Appeal ....................................................................................... 43

5.3.2. Notice of Appeal ........................................................................................ 43

5.3.3. Submittal of Digital Record ....................................................................... 43

5.3.4. Briefing ...................................................................................................... 44

5.3.5. Extension of Deadlines .............................................................................. 44

5.3.6. Additional Document Submittals ............................................................... 45

5.3.7. De Novo Review ........................................................................................ 45

5.3.8. Scope of Panel Role ................................................................................... 46

5.3.9. Written Determination by Panel ................................................................ 46

5.3.10. PG&E Work During Appeal ...................................................................... 46

5.3.11. Post-Appeal Actions .................................................................................. 47

5.3.12. PG&E Right of Appeal .............................................................................. 47

5.3.13. Transmittal Definitions .............................................................................. 47

5.3.14. Exclusive Remedy ...................................................................................... 48

5.3.15. Fees and Costs on Appeal .......................................................................... 48

6. DISPUTE RESOLUTION ................................................................................................. 48

7. SUBMISSION OF CONSENT DECREE TO U.S. EPA/DOJ .......................................... 49

8. DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT ........................................................................................ 49

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 4 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 5

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) iv

9. BINDING EFFECT, CLAIMS COVERED AND RELEASED ....................................... 49

9.1. SFHA's Releases and Waivers ............................................................................... 49

9.4. PG&E's Release and Waiver .................................................................................. 51

10. NOTICES ........................................................................................................................... 52

11. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS .................................................................................. 53

11.1. Integration. ............................................................................................................. 53

11.2. Governing Law ...................................................................................................... 53

11.3. Effective Date ........................................................................................................ 53

11.4. Retention of Jurisdiction. ....................................................................................... 53

11.5. Modification ........................................................................................................... 53

11.6. Construction ........................................................................................................... 53

11.7. Term of Consent Decree ........................................................................................ 54

11.8. Severability ............................................................................................................ 54

11.9. Assignment ............................................................................................................. 54

11.10. Authority to Sign .................................................................................................... 54

11.11. Counterparts/Signatures ......................................................................................... 54

11.12.Attorney's Fees For Enforcement or Modification of Consent Decree ................. 54

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 5 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 6

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 1 

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. The Parties. This Consent Decree—inclusive of the Exhibits hereto, which are all 

incorporated herein by reference —is entered into by and between plaintiff San Francisco Herring 

Association ("SFHA"), on the one hand, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company and PG&E 

Corporation (collectively, "PG&E"), on the other hand. SFHA and PG&E collectively are 

referred to herein as the "Parties" and each of them as a "Party."

1.2. SFHA is a California non-profit, unincorporated association whose membership at

the time this lawsuit was filed was comprised of those members listed on SFHA’s "Certificate of 

Interested Entities or Persons," filed in this action on September 30, 2014 [Dkt. No. 5], and 

currently is made up of San Francisco Bay commercial herring fishermen. SFHA was formed to 

protect the San Francisco herring fishery, including without limitation the health and maintenance 

of the herring stock on which the fishery depends, and to advocate, on behalf of its members, 

activities related to herring fishing, including protection of the San Francisco Bay herring stock. 

1.3. PG&E Corporation is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the 

State of California, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Pacific Gas 

and Electric Company is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of 

California, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California, and is a subsidiary of 

PG&E Corporation. 

1.4. SFHA's co-plaintiff in this action, Daniel Clarke ("Clarke"), is not a party to this 

Consent Decree and is not bound by its terms. 

1.5. General Allegations. SFHA alleges that PG&E formerly owned and operated 

three manufactured gas plants ("MGPs") in the present-day Marina and Fisherman's Wharf 

neighborhoods of San Francisco, the North Beach MGP, the Fillmore MGP, and the Beach 

Street MGP (the "Former MGPs") which manufactured gas used for lighting, heating, and 

cooking purposes in the late nineteenth century and early 20th century. 

1.6. The "Former North Beach MGP Site" is approximately 9.5 acres in size and is 

located within the area bounded by Bay Street to the south, Webster Street to the west, 

Buchanan Street and Laguna Street to the east, and the San Francisco Marina and North Point 

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 6 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 7

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 2 

Street to the north. The site is comprised of those parcels lying within the area designated by 

the City and County of San Francisco Office of the Assessor-Recorder as Block Numbers 0459, 

0460A, 0445A, 0463B, and 0900. The Former North Beach MGP Site is depicted on "Exhibit 

1".

1.7. The "Former Fillmore MGP Site" is approximately 9.1 acres in size. It is 

comprised of those parcels lying within the area designated by the City and County of San 

Francisco Office of the Assessor-Recorder as Block Nos. 0462A, 0463A, 0466A, 0467A, and 

0468A. The Former Fillmore MGP Site is depicted on "Exhibit 2".

1.8. The "Former Beach Street MGP Site" is approximately 0.3 acres in size and is 

bordered by Beach Street on the south, Mason Street on the west, and Powell Street on the east, 

and Jefferson Street (also called Lincoln Highway) on the north. It is identified as San Francisco 

Assessor’s Parcel Number 0014-001. The Former Beach Street MGP Site is depicted on 

"Exhibit 3".

1.9. The Former North Beach MGP Site, the Former Fillmore MGP Site, and the 

Former Beach Street MGP Site are sometimes collectively referred to herein as the "Former 

MGP Sites." The term "Former MGP Sites" does not include within its meaning any site other 

than the Former North Beach MGP Site, the Former Fillmore MGP Site, and the Former Beach 

Street MGP Site. The term Former MGPs does not include within its meaning any facility other 

than the North Beach MGP, the Fillmore MGP, and the Beach Street MGP. 

1.10. Notice of Intent to Sue/Complaint. On or about April 29, 2014, SFHA and

Clarke served PG&E and state and federal regulatory enforcement agencies with a document 

entitled "Notice of Intent to Sue Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA") 

and the Clean Water Act ("CWA") (the "Notice"). The Notice alleged that the former MGP 

operations by PG&E violated RCRA, specifically, 42 U.S.C. § 6972(A)(1)(B), because PG&E's 

placement of MGP residues at and in the vicinity of the Former MGP Sites allegedly caused 

contamination of the soil, groundwater and surface water, which SFHA and Clarke alleged may 

present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health and/or the environment. In addition, 

the Notice alleged violations of the CWA (33 U.S.C. §§ 1311, 1342 and 1365) by PG&E for the 

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 7 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 8

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 3 

alleged discharge of MGP residues from the Former MGP Sites into the San Francisco Bay 

without a permit. SFHA and Clarke indicated their intention to file a citizen suit under RCRA 

and the CWA with regard to these alleged violations. 

1.11. PG&E has denied and continues to deny these and all other material allegations 

made by SFHA and Clarke in the Notice. No federal or state agency has commenced or is 

diligently prosecuting a civil or criminal action in any court relating to the violations alleged in 

the Notice. Nor has any state or federal agency ever informed PG&E that a permit is required 

under RCRA or the CWA for any of the Former MGP Sites or for any MGP-related residues. 

1.12. On September 30, 2014, SFHA and Clarke filed a complaint against PG&E 

asserting the RCRA and CWA claims described in the Notice, and also for public nuisance, 

private nuisance (Clarke), trespass (Clarke), negligence, strict liability, and declaratory relief 

(SFHA).

1.13. Following the denial of PG&E's motion to dismiss the complaint, SFHA and

Clarke filed a first amended complaint on March 9, 2015, asserting the same causes of action as 

alleged in the complaint (the "First Amended Complaint" or "FAC"). PG&E filed an answer to 

the First Amended Complaint on March 30, 2015, in which it denied all material allegations of 

the First Amended Complaint and asserted numerous affirmative defenses. 

1.14. Mediated Investigation Agreement. On October 1, 2015, SFHA, Clarke, and 

PG&E entered into a Mediated Investigation Agreement ("MIA") for the purpose of determining 

the nature and extent of MGP residue in the "Investigation Area," as defined in the MIA. The 

MIA was subsequently amended six times by the parties to it through five addenda and 

statements on the record. The MIA, as amended and inclusive of its addenda, is referred to 

herein as the "MIA". The MIA expired by its terms on December 1, 2017, and is of no further 

force or effect. 

1.15. MIA Investigations. PG&E worked jointly with SFHA and Clarke under the 

MIA to develop and implement work plans for soil and groundwater investigations on and 

around the Former MGP Sites under the oversight of the Regional Water Quality Control Board 

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 8 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 9

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 4 

– San Francisco Region ("Regional Board") and the State of California Department of Toxic 

Substances Control ("DTSC").

1.16. Additional PG&E Investigations and Remediations. PG&E has also conducted 

and is conducting other soil, soil gas, groundwater, and offshore sediment investigations and 

certain remedial activities on or around the Former MGP Sites, and in and along San Francisco 

Bay, including those areas adjacent to the Former North Beach MGP Site and the Former Beach 

Street MGP Site, pursuant to Voluntary Cleanup Agreements ("VCAs") entered into with DTSC 

for each of the Former MGP Sites, and pursuant to investigative orders concerning offshore 

sediment issued by the Regional Board to PG&E and the City and County of San Francisco 

("CCSF") in 2017.

1.17. Jurisdiction and Venue. For purposes of this Consent Decree only, the Parties 

stipulate that this Court has jurisdiction over PG&E as to the allegations contained in the First 

Amended Complaint, that venue is proper in the Northern District of California, and that this 

Court has jurisdiction to approve, enter, and enforce this Consent Decree as a full and final 

binding resolution of all claims that were or could have been asserted by SFHA in the Notice 

and the First Amended Complaint based on the facts or conduct alleged therein. 

1.18. No Admissions. SFHA and PG&E enter into this Consent Decree as a negotiated 

resolution of disputed claims. PG&E denies all material allegations contained in the Notice and 

the First Amended Complaint. SFHA denies the adequacy and merit of any defense raised by 

PG&E to such material allegations. This Consent Decree and any payments made or actions 

taken pursuant to this Consent Decree do not constitute, nor shall they be construed as, an 

adjudication, or an admission by PG&E, of any fact, finding, issue of law, conclusion of law, or 

violation of law, or of any liability, wrongdoing, responsibility, or tortious or illegal conduct 

whatsoever, such being specifically disputed and denied by PG&E. Except as expressly 

provided in this Consent Decree, nothing in this Consent Decree shall prejudice, waive or impair 

any right, remedy, argument or defense the Parties may have in any administrative or judicial 

proceeding, except all Parties waive any rights of appeal with respect to this Consent Decree and 

as otherwise set forth herein. This Consent Decree, its terms and provisions, as well as any 

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 9 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 10

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 5 

discussions or other communications relating to this Consent Decree, past, present, or future, 

shall not be offered or received in evidence in any action or proceeding, whether legal, equitable 

or administrative, or utilized in any other manner whatsoever, as an admission or concession of 

liability, wrongdoing, responsibility or tortious or illegal conduct on the part of PG&E.

1.19. This Consent Decree reflects a full, fair and reasonable resolution of SFHA's

claims against PG&E raised in this lawsuit and the matters addressed by this Consent Decree. 

2. DEFINITIONS. In addition to definitions defined within the body of this Consent Decree, 

the following definitions apply. 

2.1. Approved RAP. The term "Approved RAP" shall mean a remedial action plan 

("RAP") that has been: (a) approved by the Regional Board or the State Water Resources 

Control Board (the "State Water Board," collectively with the Regional Board, the "Board"); (b) 

approved by any other regulatory agency with jurisdiction; and (c) upheld by the Panel after an 

appeal, if any, by SFHA under Section 5.

2.2. Chemical Performance Standard. The term "Chemical Performance Standard" 

shall mean 15 μg/L Total Trigger PAHs in pore water.

2.3. Chemical Performance Standard Testing. The term "Chemical Performance 

Standard Testing" shall mean the sampling of pore water and analyzing it to determine whether 

the Chemical Performance Standard has been exceeded, in accordance with "Exhibit 12" and 

Section 4.5.

2.4. Compliance Wells. The term "Compliance Wells" shall have the meaning given 

in Section 4.2.3.1.

2.5. Effective Date. The term "Effective Date" shall have the meaning given in 

Section 11.3.

2.6. "Final" as to Board Approvals and Determinations. The term "final," when 

referring to Regional Board or State Water Board approvals or determinations, shall have the 

meaning given in Section 4.3.5.1.

2.7. First Amended Complaint or FAC. The term "First Amended Complaint" or 

"FAC" shall have the meaning given in Section 1.13.

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 10 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 11

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 6 

2.8. GW PAHs. The term "GW PAHs" shall mean the PAHs that are included in the

forty (40) chemical semivolatile suite currently utilized in PG&E's groundwater program in San 

Francisco.

2.9. Hundred-Foot Band. The term "Hundred-Foot Band" ("100' Band") means the 

area extending inland for one hundred (100) feet from the mean high tide line of San Francisco 

Bay.

2.10. Mediated Investigation Agreement or MIA. The term "Mediated Investigation 

Agreement" or "MIA" shall have the meaning given in Section 1.14.

2.11. NAPL. The term "NAPL" shall mean non-aqueous phase liquid hydrocarbons.

2.12. Notice. The term "Notice" shall have the meaning given in Section 1.10.

2.13. Panel. The term "Panel" shall have the meaning given in Section 5.

2.14. Sediment/Pore Water PAHs. The term "Sediment/Pore Water PAHs" shall have 

the meaning given in Section 4.6.1, as identified in "Exhibit 14".

2.15. Supporting Documents. The term "Supporting Documents" shall have the 

meaning given in Section 5.3.4.1.

2.16. Term. The term "Term" shall have the meaning given in Section 11.7.

2.17. Total Trigger PAHs. The term "Total Trigger PAHs" shall mean the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency ("U.S. EPA") list of 34 alkyl and parent polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbon ("PAH") compounds on U.S. EPA's PAH-34 list, as shown on "Exhibit 4".

2.18. Upset Event. The term "Upset Event" shall mean any of the following: (a) a 

publicly-reported storm exceeding the design storm (i.e., greater than a 100-year storm); (b) a 

seismic event with a magnitude greater than 5.0 within 50 kilometers (km) of the location of the 

respective remedy site, greater than 6.0 within 100 km of the location of the respective remedy 

site, or greater than 7.0 within 500 km of the location of the respective remedy site; or (c) 

publicly-reported sand boils occurring within the Marina or Fisherman's Wharf neighborhoods, 

as shown on the map attached hereto as "Exhibit 15".

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 11 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 12

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 7 

3. SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, OTHER MONETARY 

PAYMENTS, FEES AND COSTS

3.1. PG&E shall make the following payments as part of the consideration in 

exchange for the full and final compromise of all claims by SFHA against PG&E for alleged 

violations of the CWA and RCRA, and for SFHA's claims under California state statutory and 

common laws for damages and injunctive relief, as set forth in the Notice and FAC, and in 

consideration for the releases and covenants not to sue as set forth below: 

3.2. Supplemental Environmental Projects – Creosote Removal and Eelgrass 

Restoration. Within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date of this Consent Decree, PG&E shall

make the following payments for the following supplemental environmental projects ("SEPs"),

which are intended for the purpose of restoring and enhancing the quality of the waters and 

subtidal ecosystem in San Francisco Bay, which will serve to enhance the San Francisco Bay 

herring fishery:

3.2.1. PG&E shall pay a total of One Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars 

($1.2 million) to the State of California Coastal Conservancy (the "Conservancy"), a state 

agency whose stated purpose is to preserve, protect, and restore the resources of the California 

coast, ocean, and the San Francisco Bay Area, with instructions to allocate those funds for the 

Terminal Four Wharf Creosote Removal Project of the San Francisco Bay Creosote Removal 

and Pacific Herring Habitat Restoration Project. Said payment shall be made by check payable 

to the California State Coastal Conservancy, 1515 Clay Street, 10th Floor, Oakland, CA, 94612, 

with notice to SFHA.

3.2.2. PG&E shall pay a total of One Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars 

($1.2 million) to the Estuary & Ocean Science Center (the "Center") with instructions to allocate 

those funds for work to be conducted on eelgrass restoration projects in the San Francisco Bay 

as follows: (a) Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($600,000) for a project to determine the best 

path forward to restoring eelgrass "crop circles" in Richardson Bay, Sausalito, California, which 

will involve both assessment of restoration potential and active planting of eel grass in the area; 

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 12 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 13

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 8 

and (b) Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($600,000) for a two-part study to determine sources of 

eelgrass transplant material and to investigate the utilization of grazer species that enhance 

eelgrass growth in San Francisco Bay. Said payment shall be made by check payable to Estuary

& Ocean Science Center, 3150 Paradise Drive, Tiburon, CA, 94920, with notice to SFHA. At

the time of making its payment, PG&E shall notify the Center that the Center is to provide 

PG&E and SFHA with annual progress reports on the status of the respective projects, for each 

of the three years during which the projects are to be implemented with these SEP funds.

3.3. Environmental Mitigation - Herring Permit Retirement Program. Subject to 

Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.3, PG&E shall pay according to the instructions below the total sum of 

One Million Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1.8 Million) for the sole and exclusive purpose 

of providing compensation for the permanent retirement of existing commercial herring gill net 

permits issued by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife ("Herring Permits") in order to 

benefit the restoration and improvement of the herring fishery in California (the "Permit 

Retirement Payment"). PG&E and SFHA agree to cause the permanent retirement of a minimum 

of forty (40) Herring Permits, with a goal of permanently retiring eighty (80) such permits, 

within four (4) years of the Effective Date of this Consent Decree (the "Herring Permit 

Retirement Program" or "HPRP"). SFHA further agrees that it shall provide to PG&E 

confirmation and evidence of its progress in permanently retiring the Herring Permits on an 

annual basis.

3.3.1. Proof of Permanent Permit Reduction. PG&E's payment under Section 3.3 

shall not be due and payable unless and until PG&E receives from SFHA either of the following, 

either of which shall constitute "Proof of Permanent Permit Reduction": (a) written confirmation 

from the Department of Fish and Wildlife that the number of available Herring Permits will be 

permanently reduced by the number of Herring Permits to be retired in accordance with Section 

3.3 together with evidence of at least forty (40) contracts between SFHA and individual Herring 

Permit holders (the "HPRP Contract") under which the Herring Permit holder agrees, in 

consideration for the payment received under the HPRP and conditioned upon his or her receipt 

of such payment, that he or she shall not renew his or her retired Herring Permit or apply at any 

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 13 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 14

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 9 

time in the future for a replacement for his or her retired Herring Permit, and includes language 

that the Herring Permit holder waives and releases PG&E from claims, demands, damages, and 

liabilities in the same manner and to the same extent as the release and waiver agreed to by 

SFHA in Section 9 (except without reference to the MIA) (the "HPRP Contract Release"); or (b) 

alternative legally sufficient proof demonstrating that the total number of Herring Permits 

available has been reduced by at least forty (40) from the number of Herring Permits outstanding 

as of the Effective Date and that at least forty (40) participating Herring Permit holders have 

entered into an HPRP Contract including the HPRP Contract Release. For purposes of this 

Section 3.3.1, "alternative legally sufficient proof" shall include, without limitation, an adopted 

regulation permanently reducing the total number of available Herring Permits together with 

evidence of the HPRP Contracts, including the HPRP Contract Release. PG&E shall only be 

referenced in the HPRP Contract in the HPRP Contract Release. SFHA shall be obligated to 

enforce the HPRP Contracts, with the exception of the HPRP Contract Release, which PG&E 

shall be entitled to enforce as an express third party beneficiary of the HPRP Contract. 

3.3.1.1. Within ninety (90) days following PG&E’s receipt of the Proof 

of Permanent Permit Reduction, PG&E shall make the Permit Retirement Payment in 

accordance with the wire instructions in Section 3.5; provided, however, that in the event the 

ninety-day period expires less than sixty (60) days before the end of any calendar year, then 

PG&E shall not make the Permit Retirement Payment in said calendar year and the due date for 

said payment shall instead automatically be extended to January 30th of the following calendar 

year and shall be paid by PG&E in January of said year. 

3.3.2. Costs of HPRP Compliance. SFHA shall be solely responsible for the 

costs of ensuring compliance with the HPRP, which shall be paid for from the Permit 

Retirement Payment. Such compliance costs must be reasonable and may not exceed Sixty 

Thousand Dollars ($60,000). 

3.3.3. Contingent Allocation of Funds. In the event SFHA believes it will be 

unable to or otherwise fails to provide PG&E with the required Proof of Permanent Permit 

Reduction within four (4) years of the Effective Date, then SFHA shall notify PG&E within 

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 14 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 15

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 10

thirty (30) days of its knowledge of its inability to satisfy its obligations under Section 3.3. 

Within ninety (90) days following PG&E’s receipt of the foregoing notice, and in lieu of the 

payment otherwise required under Section 3.3, PG&E shall make payment of Nine Hundred 

Thousand Dollars ($900,000) ("Reduced Permit Retirement Payment") in accordance with the 

wire instructions in Section 3.5; provided, however, that in the event the ninety-day period 

expires less than sixty (60) days before the end of any calendar year, then PG&E shall not make 

the Reduced Permit Retirement Payment in said calendar year and the due date for said payment 

shall instead automatically be extended to January 30th of the following calendar year and shall 

be paid by PG&E in January of said year. 

3.4. Other SFHA Payment. Within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date of this 

Consent Decree, PG&E shall pay the sum of Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000) (the 

"Other SFHA Payment") to SFHA in accordance with the wire instructions in Section 3.5 to 

resolve SFHA’s state-law claims; provided, however, that in the event the ninety-day period 

expires less than fifteen (15) days before the end of any calendar year, then PG&E shall not 

make the Other SFHA Payment in said calendar year and the due date for said payment shall 

instead automatically be extended to January 30th of the following calendar year and shall be 

paid by PG&E to SFHA in January of said year. PG&E shall have no responsibility or liability 

for the ultimate transmittal to or distribution or allocation of the funds PG&E has paid to SFHA, 

which responsibility shall be solely borne by SFHA. 

3.5. Wire Instructions for Gross & Klein: The following, in combination with the 

complete account number which shall be provided by SFHA to PG&E, constitute the wire 

instructions for Gross & Klein. 

 Account Name: Gross & Klein LLP

 Last Four Digits of Account Number: x3474 

 Bank: Citibank, 245 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94111 

 Domestic Routing Number: 321171184 

 International Swift Code: CITIUS33 

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 15 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 16

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 11

3.6. Fees and Costs.

3.6.1. Reimbursement of Accrued Fees and Costs. PG&E shall reimburse SFHA 

its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, including expert consultant costs, incurred from and after 

December 1, 2017, through the execution of this Consent Decree for the court-supervised and 

out-of-court settlement negotiations and related work, leading up to and including preparation of 

this Consent Decree, which would be compensable under the standard established by § 505 of 

the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(d), and applicable case law interpreting that standard. 

SFHA shall provide to PG&E the invoices for which reimbursement is sought. SFHA and its 

counsel, by approving this Consent Decree as to its form, each agree and acknowledge that such 

payment shall constitute full and final payment of all attorneys' fees, expert/consultant fees, and 

costs for services rendered by Gross & Klein, EnviroAssets, and all other attorneys and 

consultants, during said timeframe, and neither SFHA nor its counsel or consultants shall be 

entitled to seek any additional fees or costs from PG&E relating to said work. In the event that 

an agreement is reached as to some or all of the reasonable fees and costs to be reimbursed to 

SFHA under this Section 3.6.1, PG&E shall make such payment within sixty (60) days of the 

date of that agreement, using wire instructions in Section 3.5. In the event the Parties are unable 

to reach agreement as to some or all of the fees and costs for which SFHA seeks to be 

reimbursed under this Section 3.6.1, then SFHA may submit the matter to the Court for 

resolution upon a properly noticed motion. 

3.6.2. Compliance Monitoring Funds. Within ninety (90) days of the Effective 

Date of this Consent Decree, PG&E shall pay the total sum of Four Hundred Thousand Dollars 

($400,000), using wire instructions in Section 3.6.2.3, into the SF Herring Monitoring Qualified 

Settlement Fund (the "QSF"), established by or on behalf of SFHA, as the full and final payment 

of attorneys' fees and costs, including expert costs, associated with SFHA's monitoring of 

PG&E's compliance with this Consent Decree from the Effective Date through the termination 

of this Consent Decree under Section 11.7. SFHA warrants and represents to PG&E that the 

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 16 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 17

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 12

QSF is a duly constructed and authorized IRC Section 468B Qualified Settlement Fund, as 

defined by Internal Revenue Code Section 468-B and the associated Treasury Reg. 1-468B-1 of 

the Internal Revenue Code and is qualified to receive this settlement payment. 

3.6.2.1. SFHA shall defend and indemnify PG&E, and hold PG&E 

harmless, with respect to any claims, demands, causes of action, rights, suits, obligations, debts, 

liabilities, damages, penalties, taxes, charges, losses, costs, expenses, attorneys’ fees, expert 

fees, of any nature whatsoever, relating to or arising from the formation, administration, or 

existence of the QSF or the payment by PG&E into the QSF. Notwithstanding Section 11.7, 

SFHA's obligations under this Section 3.6.2.1 shall survive the termination of this Consent 

Decree.

3.6.2.2. Except as specifically provided under Section 3.6 and subject 

to Section 5.3.15.2, neither SFHA nor its counsel or consultants are entitled to, nor shall they, 

seek any additional funds from PG&E for any Compliance Monitoring for work performed by 

PG&E under this Consent Decree. "Compliance Monitoring," as used in this Section 3.6.2 and in 

Section 5.3.15.2 shall include, without limitation, review and analysis of (a) technical data; (b) 

monitoring reports; (c) Remedial Action Completion Reports ("RACRs"); (d) remedial action 

plans ("RAPs") and related Regional Board responses; (e) requests for "no further action" 

determinations and related Regional Board responses; and (f) review of Notices of Force 

Majeure, as described Section 4.11.3.

3.6.2.3. Wire Instructions for QSF: The following, in combination with 

the complete account number which shall be provided by SFHA to PG&E, constitute the wire 

instructions for the QSF. 

 Account Name: EPTC Custodial Trust Settlement Trust 

Contribution Account

 Account Number: x8544 

 Bank: Union First Market Bank 

 Domestic Routing Number: 051403164 

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 17 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 18

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 13

 Further Credit Instructions: EPTC FBO – SF Herring Monitoring 

Qualified Settlement Fund 

4. INVESTIGATIVE AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN BY PG&E 

4.1. Result of Compromise. The actions to be taken by PG&E under this Consent 

Decree are solely the result of a compromise of this dispute. Consequently, none of the 

agreements reached herein, or activities contemplated to be undertaken by PG&E pursuant to 

this Consent Decree, are intended to, nor shall they, have any precedential effect, including, 

without limitation, with respect to any other soil, soil gas, groundwater, surface water, or 

sediment investigations and/or remedial actions being undertaken or to be undertaken by or on 

behalf of PG&E in San Francisco Bay or elsewhere.

4.2. Investigation, Monitoring, and Reporting in the Hundred-Foot (100') Band. 

PG&E shall undertake the work as set forth in this Section 4.2 within the 100' Band. 

4.2.1. Soil Borings. Based upon understandings reached in negotiating this 

Consent Decree, PG&E already has taken soil borings in the area from Pier 35 to Jones Street, 

identified as "UB-01" through "UB-09" on Exhibit 5. Said locations formed the basis for the 

locations for the groundwater grab sampling to be conducted by PG&E under Section 4.2.2.

4.2.2. Groundwater Grab Samples. A "groundwater grab" is a single 

groundwater sample representative of a specific location and depth at a given point in time. 

PG&E shall complete four additional groundwater grabs at the locations shown on Exhibit 5

and with sample depth intervals specified in "Exhibit 17".

4.2.3. Groundwater Monitoring Wells. PG&E shall undertake the following 

groundwater sampling in designated existing wells and new groundwater monitoring wells to be 

installed pursuant to this Consent Decree:

4.2.3.1. Groundwater Monitoring Well Locations. PG&E shall 

undertake groundwater sampling in the groundwater monitoring wells that are located, or will be 

located, in the locations within the 100' Band, which are identified and described on the maps 

attached hereto as "Exhibit 6" and "Exhibit 7" and the table attached hereto as Exhibit 17 (each

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 18 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 19

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 14

well, individually referenced as a "Compliance Well" and, if referencing more than one, 

"Compliance Wells") and which shall be constructed per Sections 4.2.3.2 and 4.2.3.3 and 

located as close to the Bay as technically feasible.

4.2.3.1.1. In the event sediment pore water sampling in the 

agreed-upon location(s) adjacent to Fort Mason shown on "Exhibit 8" show(s) Total Trigger 

PAHs consistent with MGP residue that exceed 15 μg/L in pore water, then and only then PG&E

shall advance one or more exploratory soil borings in the upland area adjacent to the offshore 

sampling point(s) with such exceedance. The depth of the boring(s) will extend down to the 

elevation corresponding with the offshore exceedance or deeper. Soil samples will be analyzed 

for constituents specified in Section 4.2.3.4. Grab groundwater samples will be collected 

adjacent to each boring with sample depth intervals selected in accordance with the protocol 

described in Section 4.2.3.2 and 4.2.3.3. If soil samples indicate the presence of MGP residue in 

one or more soil samples in the upland area at Fort Mason, and grab groundwater samples 

exceed 105 μg/L of the Total Trigger PAHs at the adjacent grab groundwater location, PG&E 

shall install a groundwater monitoring well at the location of the grab groundwater sample(s) 

with such exceedance in accordance with the 100' Band monitoring well protocol described in 

Sections 4.2.3.2 and 4.2.3.3. 

4.2.3.1.2. In the event that grab groundwater samples exceed 

105 μg/L of the Total Trigger PAHs at any of the grab groundwater locations identified on 

"Exhibit 5", then, and only then, PG&E shall install groundwater monitoring wells at the 

location of the grab groundwater sample(s) with such exceedance in accordance with the 100' 

Band monitoring well protocol described in Sections 4.2.3.2 and 4.2.3.3.

4.2.3.1.3. Notwithstanding the foregoing, installation of the 

groundwater monitoring wells in the locations provided for in this Section 4.2.3 is subject to 

PG&E's ability to gain access from the property owner, with use of best efforts, for such 

installations. In the event such access is not granted, the groundwater monitoring well(s) will be 

installed at the nearest accessible location. Except as expressly provided for in this Section 4.2.3, 

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 19 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 20

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 15

no other additional groundwater monitoring wells are required to be installed or sampled by 

PG&E within the 100' Band under this Consent Decree.

4.2.3.2. Screening Depths/Intervals. PG&E shall construct each 

groundwater monitoring well or well cluster with the following screened intervals: (a) the first 

encountered groundwater; (b) beneath the first encountered fine-grained interval that is ten (10) 

inches or greater in thickness and below the interval screened to target first encountered 

groundwater, with a maximum targeted well depth between twenty-five (25) feet and thirty (30) 

feet below ground surface ("bgs"); provided, however, in the event no such fine-grained interval 

is encountered shallower than forty (40) feet bgs, a ten (10) foot screen shall be placed from 

thirty (30) feet to forty (40) feet bgs, unless a continuous fine grained interval consistent with 

native Bay Mud (i.e. not post-development sediments) is encountered more shallowly than forty 

(40) feet bgs that extends to forty (40) feet bgs, in which case a five-foot screened interval shall 

be installed immediately above said interval which shall complete the monitoring well; (c) at 

any other depths adjacent to identified NAPL, downgradient of NAPL near shore, or, if there is 

no room downgradient of NAPL, then within the NAPL. Other than as indicated above, screen 

intervals will be five (5) feet in length, unless a different length is needed to achieve any of the 

above criteria.

4.2.3.3. Well configuration. Wells will not be configured or maintained 

in a way that omits the collection of NAPL and/or MGP tar-impacted intervals.

4.2.3.4. Constituents To Be Sampled. PG&E shall sample and analyze 

groundwater in wells within the 100' Band, as shown on Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 7, for GW PAHs 

and total extractable petroleum hydrocarbons ("TEPH"), but no other constituents. 

Notwithstanding the foregoing, neither Total GW PAHs nor TEPH, alone or in combination, 

shall be used as the trigger for any groundwater remedy. Instead, only the Total Trigger PAHs 

shall be used to determine whether a groundwater remedy is triggered under this Consent 

Decree.

4.2.3.5. Calculation of Total Trigger PAHs. Total Trigger PAHs shall 

be calculated using the concentrations as shown in validated laboratory analytical results, or 

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 20 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 21

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 16

laboratory-provided results where data validation is not conducted (the "Laboratory Results") 

and in accordance with the following:

4.2.3.5.1. Laboratory Non-Detects. In the event Laboratory 

Results report non-detections ("ND") for any of the Total Trigger PAHs, Total Trigger PAHs 

shall be calculated by substituting one-half the reporting limit for each individual Total Trigger 

PAH concentration reported as non-detect at the laboratory reporting limit.

4.2.3.5.2. "J" Qualified Positive Detections. Where "J" 

qualified positive detections are provided in the Laboratory Results, those "J" qualified results 

will be considered positive detections for the purpose of calculating Total Trigger PAHs. "'J' 

qualified positive detections," as used in this Section 4.2.3.5.2, means that the particular PAH 

concentration is reported as an estimate.

4.2.3.5.3. Neat Analysis. Samples utilized for Total PAH 

Trigger evaluation shall be submitted for undiluted (or "Neat") analysis. In the unlikely situation 

where the laboratory is unable to provide undiluted reporting limits or "RLs" (i.e., no Neat 

sample), and the RLs cause the trigger exceedance, the well will be resampled as soon as 

reasonably achievable at a similar tidal stage, submitted for undiluted (Neat) analysis, and those 

results will replace the original results for evaluating whether the remediation trigger has been 

exceeded. In this circumstance, concurrent with its transmittal of the quarterly groundwater 

monitoring report that includes such sampling event, as set forth in Section 4.2.4, PG&E will 

provide to SFHA the correspondence from the laboratory explaining why the undiluted sample 

results cannot be provided.

4.2.3.5.4. Trigger Straddle. Where the concentrations of 

primary and duplicate samples straddle a trigger level and field duplicate relative percent 

difference ("RPD") goals are met (with goals defined as within 25% for Total Trigger PAHs 

rather than individual chemicals), the arithmetic mean concentration of Total Trigger PAHs of 

the two (2) samples shall be determined for trigger evaluation under Section 4.3.1. Where 

duplicate goals fail, the affected well shall be resampled as soon as reasonably achievable at a 

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 21 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 22

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 17

similar tidal stage that the failed duplicates were collected and the resampled results will be used 

for trigger evaluation under Section 4.3.1.

4.2.3.6. Sampling Frequency. PG&E shall take a single sample per

Compliance Well each quarter, such that in a given year the full tidal cycle is represented. This 

will be accomplished by sampling each Compliance Well within a four-quartile range of high to 

low tide. This sampling shall be conducted by PG&E according to the following schedules 

applicable to the Pre-Remediation Phase, the Remediation Phase, and the Post-Remediation 

Phase, respectively and as applicable:

4.2.3.6.1. Pre-Remediation Phase. At the initiation of the 

investigation following entry of this Consent Decree (the "Pre-Remediation Phase"), PG&E 

shall sample Compliance Wells quarterly for eight quarters. If, following the first eight (8) 

quarters of groundwater monitoring in a Compliance Well during the Pre-Remediation phase 

there is no exceedance of the remediation trigger set forth in Section 4.3.1, then no further 

monitoring of such Compliance Well(s) is required and PG&E shall be entitled to seek a no 

further action ("No Further Action" or "NFA") determination from the Regional Board, and/or 

any other governmental agency with jurisdiction, and shall be entitled to close and 

decommission any Compliance Wells that are the subject of an approved NFA. 

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Section 5, SFHA shall have no right of appeal to the 

Panel from the approval of a request for an NFA in this limited circumstance. 

4.2.3.6.2. Remediation Phase. The schedule for sampling 

during the period of remediation (the "Remediation Phase") is described in Section 4.3.3. 

4.2.3.6.3. Attainment/Post-Remediation Phase. The schedule 

for sampling during the period after a remediation is complete (the "Post-Remediation Phase") is 

described in Section 4.3.4. 

4.2.4. Groundwater Well Sampling Result Reporting. For the Term of this 

Consent Decree, PG&E shall provide to SFHA, concurrently with PG&E's submittal to the 

Regional Board: (a) a copy of each groundwater monitoring report for Compliance Wells in the 

100' Band; and (b) copies of any RACR(s) addressing a Compliance Well. 

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 22 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 23

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 18

4.2.4.1. A RACR shall include. (a) a description of the approved

remedial action; (b) a description of the remedial activities; and (c) a recommendation for further 

action, which shall include a recommendation for at least eight (8) quarters of monitoring. 

4.3. Remediation in the 100' Band 

4.3.1. Groundwater Remedy Triggers. Subject to Section 4.3.2, PG&E shall be 

required to evaluate and submit to the Regional Board for approval a RAP to address 

groundwater conditions identified in the sampling of the Compliance Wells under Section 4.2.3 

only in the following circumstances: (a) where statistically, at the conclusion of eight 

consecutive quarters of groundwater monitoring following entry of this Consent Decree, 

applying a 95% UCL of the Total Trigger PAHs data collected over those eight consecutive 

quarters determined in accordance with the U.S. EPA RCRA Unified Guidance (2009) statistical 

analysis, the data for the groundwater Compliance Well show an exceedance of 105 μg/L Total 

Trigger PAHs, with each Compliance Well to be separately evaluated; (b) if, after the first 

quarter of groundwater monitoring following entry of this Consent Decree, data show an 

exceedance of 2500 μg/L Total Trigger PAHs in a Compliance Well and such exceedance is 

confirmed through follow-up sampling in the same Compliance Well(s) in which such 

exceedance occurred as soon thereafter as reasonably practicable; or (c) if, after the first quarter 

of groundwater monitoring following entry of this Consent Decree, data show an exceedance of 

500 μg/L Total Trigger PAHs but less than 2500 μg/L Total Trigger PAHs in a Compliance 

Well, then PG&E shall undertake monthly groundwater monitoring sampling at such 

Compliance Well(s), and if seven (7) consecutive monthly samples thereafter in such 

Compliance Well(s) show(s) Total Trigger PAHs above 105 μg/L, applying a 95% UCL 

determined in accordance with the U.S. EPA RCRA Unified Guidance (2009) statistical 

analysis.

4.3.2. Development and Proposal of Groundwater Remedial Action or NFA 

Request. In the event one or more of the triggering circumstances described in Section 4.3.1 

occurs, PG&E shall either develop and propose a RAP to address the identified contamination 

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 23 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 24

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 19

for the approval of the Regional Board and consideration by other regulatory agencies with 

jurisdiction or request an NFA determination from the Regional Board. PG&E shall be entitled 

to evaluate, develop and prepare the RAP and determine the remedy to be proposed in the RAP 

in the exercise of its sole and absolute discretion. SFHA shall not be entitled or permitted to 

participate in the development or preparation of such RAP(s), except that SFHA may participate 

in any public comment process as allowed by the Regional Board and exercise its right to appeal 

certain RAP approvals pursuant to Section 5. If the remedy proposed in the RAP explicitly 

includes the technically reasonable removal of any Compliance Well, the remedy must also 

explicitly address replacement monitoring. 

4.3.2.1. SFHA Right of Appeal. SFHA shall have a right to appeal to 

the Panel, in accordance with Section 5, any approval or grant by the Regional Board or the 

State Water Board of: (a) a "Monitoring Only" remedy (as defined in Section 4.3.3.1); (b) an 

MNR remedy (as defined in Section 4.8.1), or (c) a request for an NFA determination (except as 

set forth in Section 4.2.3.6.1).

4.3.3. Implementation of Remedy. Following approval of a proposed RAP by 

the Regional Board or the State Water Board, as well as approval by any other regulatory agency 

with jurisdiction and resolution of any appeal by SFHA, PG&E shall implement the Approved 

RAP.

4.3.3.1. Monitoring and Reporting During Implementation of a Non-

"Monitoring Only" Remedy within the 100’ Band. In the event that a particular remedy 

explicitly includes the technically reasonable removal of any Compliance Well, the remedy must 

explicitly address replacement monitoring. At the initiation of a "Non-Monitoring Only" 

remedy, i.e., a remedy that calls for any actions beyond only further monitoring, then PG&E 

shall continue quarterly monitoring from the same Compliance Wells that triggered the remedy 

and those immediately adjacent, beginning at the initiation of the remedy and continuing until 

the remedy is complete. PG&E shall prepare and provide to the Regional Board and SFHA 

quarterly monitoring reports containing the results of the monitoring called for in the Approved 

RAP. PG&E shall submit an annual groundwater monitoring report to the Regional Board, to be 

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 24 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 25

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 20

sent concurrently to SFHA, which contains the results of such monitoring. Such annual 

groundwater monitoring report shall include a request for approval of either further Monitoring 

Only, a transition to Post-Remediation Monitoring (as described in Section 4.3.4), or another 

remedy. If an additional Monitoring Only Remedy is approved, subject to SFHA's rights of 

appeal under Section 5, PG&E shall undertake the monitoring according to the schedule 

approved by the Regional Board and submit the annual groundwater monitoring reports to the 

Regional Board and concurrently to SFHA. Except for in-situ chemical or biological 

remediation, remedy "Completion" for other remedial actions shall be at the time the last 

demobilization of contractors associated with the remedy approved in the RAP is undertaken (by 

way of example and not limitation, e.g., the completion of excavation and backfilling, or, in the 

context of a containment remedy, the completion of construction of the containment remedy). 

For in-situ chemical or biological treatment remedies, "Completion" is defined as the time that 

in-situ conditions are no longer conducive to the in-situ remediation technique selected for the 

remediation, or when remedial action objectives have been met and a request for transition to 

Post-Remediation Monitoring is approved by the Regional Board. 

4.3.3.2. Monitoring and Reporting During Implementation of a 

"Monitoring Only Remedy." In the event an Approved RAP consists solely of monitoring

("Monitoring Only Remedy"), PG&E shall implement the monitoring as called for under the 

Approved RAP. PG&E shall submit an annual groundwater monitoring report to the Regional 

Board, to be sent concurrently to SFHA, which contains the results of such monitoring. Such 

annual groundwater monitoring report shall include a request for approval of either further 

Monitoring Only, an NFA determination, or another remedy. If an additional Monitoring Only 

Remedy is approved, subject to SFHA's rights of appeal under Section 5, PG&E shall undertake 

the monitoring according to the schedule approved by the Regional Board and submit the annual 

groundwater monitoring reports to the Regional Board and concurrently to SFHA.

4.3.3.3. SFHA's Right of Appeal. SFHA shall have a right to appeal, 

pursuant to Section 5, an approval by the Regional Board of a request by PG&E for approval of 

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 25 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 26

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 21

a Monitoring Only Remedy or NFA determination pursuant to this Section 4.3.3, but only as to 

those wells that are covered by such approval. 

4.3.4. Post-Remediation Monitoring. Unless the Approved RAP consists solely 

of no less than eight (8) quarters of groundwater monitoring, following the Completion of the 

non-Monitoring Only remedial action under Section 4.3.3.1, PG&E shall undertake eight (8) 

quarters of groundwater monitoring in the respective Compliance Wells identified in Section 

4.3.3.1 in accordance with the protocol described in Sections 4.2.3.2 through 4.2.3.5 ("PostRemediation Monitoring"). In the event the Approved RAP consists solely of at least eight (8) 

quarters of groundwater monitoring, then no further groundwater monitoring shall automatically 

be required upon the completion of such monitoring under Section 4.3.3.2. 

4.3.5. Post-Remediation Reporting Obligations. PG&E shall report the results of 

its Post-Remediation Monitoring in an annual report to be submitted to the Regional Board with 

a concurrent copy to SFHA.

4.3.5.1. Timing of Annual Reports. PG&E shall issue such annual 

reports promptly after the eight (8) quarters of Post-Remediation Monitoring required under 

Section 4.3.4 are satisfied for the respective Compliance Wells, and then every year thereafter 

for the Term of this Consent Decree until an NFA determination is approved by the Regional 

Board or State Water Board for the respective Compliance Wells and becomes "final." For 

purposes of this Consent Decree, a Regional Board or State Water Board determination or 

approval is "final" if the determination or approval is not appealed to the Panel under Section 5, 

or, if the determination or approval is appealed, the appeal does not result in the Panel's rejection 

of the Board approval or determination pursuant to the process set forth in Section 5. 

4.3.5.2. Required Alternative Proposals In Annual Reports. In the 

annual reports, PG&E shall propose one of the following three options to the Regional Board:

(a) additional remedial action; (b) further Monitoring Only; or (c) a request for an NFA 

determination.

4.3.5.2.1. SFHA's Right of Appeal. SFHA shall have a right 

to appeal to the Panel, in accordance with Section 5, any approval or grant by the Regional 

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 26 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 27

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 22

Board or the State Water Board of a request made by PG&E for approval of a Monitoring Only 

Remedy or a request for an NFA determination pursuant to Section 4.3.5.2, but only as to such 

Compliance Wells that are covered by such approval or determination.

4.3.5.3. Non-MGP Residue. In the event PG&E concludes during the

groundwater sampling and analyses undertaken pursuant to Section 4.3 that identified PAH 

contamination in a sampled Compliance Well is not consistent with MGP residue, then PG&E 

shall request approval of an NFA determination from the Regional Board as to such well. 

4.3.5.3.1. SFHA's Right to Appeal. SFHA shall have a right 

to appeal to the Panel, in accordance with Section 5, any approval by the Regional Board or the 

State Water Board of an NFA determination pursuant to Section 4.3.5.3. 

4.3.6. No SFHA Right of Appeal. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary 

herein, SFHA shall have no right of appeal to the Panel in regards to the 100' Band in the 

following other circumstances: 

4.3.6.1. where, other than in association with a request for Monitoring 

Only included in an annual report the Regional Board approves a proposal for continued 

monitoring contained in a quarterly monitoring report; 

4.3.6.2. where the Regional Board approves a proposal for continued 

monitoring contained in an annual report issued during the first eight (8) quarters of monitoring 

during the Pre-Remediation Phase pursuant to Section 4.2.3.6.1;

4.3.6.3. where the Regional Board approves a request for an NFA 

determination following the first eight (8) quarters of monitoring during the Pre-Remediation 

pursuant to 4.2.3.6.1 when there has been no exceedance under Section 4.3.1 at the groundwater 

monitoring wells that are the subject of the NFA;

4.3.6.4. where the Regional Board approves a proposal for continued 

monitoring in a groundwater monitoring report issued during the first eight (8) quarters of 

monitoring following the completion of a non-Monitoring Only remedy under Section 4.3.3; and 

4.3.6.5. where the sole basis for appeal of a Monitoring Only remedy 

or NFA determination would be that PAH concentrations in groundwater monitoring wells 

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 27 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 28

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 23

either upgradient of or within a containment remedy, if sampled, continue to exceed the remedy 

trigger. Containment remedies are designed to contain, and not to remove or reduce, 

groundwater with PAH concentrations exceeding the groundwater remedy trigger. Whether a 

containment remedy is effective shall be based upon other factors, including without limitation, 

water levels, evidence indicating there is no communication of groundwater with the Bay in the 

subject area, and any sentry wells installed as a part of the containment remedy, as justified in 

the Board approved remedy plan. 

4.4. Offshore Investigation. PG&E shall undertake the work as set forth in this 

Section 4.4 within the offshore area defined in Section 4.4.1. 

4.4.1. Offshore Investigation – Bayward and Lateral Extent. PG&E shall 

conduct the bayward and lateral delineation of MGP-related impacts in the following areas: 

4.4.1.1. Bayward Extent. The bayward extent of the offshore 

investigation required under this Section 4.4 shall extend from the mean high tide line and 

continue bayward until the bayward extent of contamination consistent with MGP residue has 

been reached, subject to any physical or safety considerations that would present unreasonable 

risks.

4.4.1.2. Lateral Extent Relative to Shoreline. The lateral extent of the 

offshore investigation required under this Section 4.4 relative to the shoreline shall be as 

follows, unless the lateral extent of contamination consistent with MGP residue relative to the 

shoreline is reached prior to the limits identified below (in which case the lateral extent shall 

terminate at such location):

4.4.1.2.1. Limits in the Marina. From Lyons Street (western 

limit) to Van Ness Avenue (eastern limit). 

4.4.1.2.1.1. West Harbor. Within the West Harbor (as 

defined in Section 4.10), but PG&E shall only be required to conduct passive sampling, in the 

manner and locations described in Section 4.10 and as shown on "Exhibit 16".

4.4.1.2.2. Limits in Pier 39 to Pier 45. From Pier 45 (western 

limit) to Pier 35 (eastern limit). 

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 28 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 29

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 24

4.4.2. Offshore Investigation-Vertical Extent. PG&E shall conduct the vertical 

delineation of MGP-related impacts to practicable limits presented by safety considerations, as

determined by a competent person (as defined by OSHA Regulation, 29 C.F.R. 1926.32(f)) 

performing the work, to sediment depths targeted to twenty-five (25) feet below sediment 

surface (“bss”), and no less than twenty (20) feet bss; provided, however, that if NAPL 

consistent with MGP residue is encountered at the lowest sampling depth in a boring location 

then PG&E shall use TarGOST to continue its vertical delineation until NAPL is no longer 

present.

4.4.3. Offshore Investigation – Boring Locations

4.4.3.1. Marina. Sampling will be conducted at the locations identified 

on the map attached hereto as "Exhibit 9" (the "New Marina OS Locations"). The sampling for 

new Marina OS Locations adjacent to the Marina Green Seawall will be located bayward of the 

seawall apron extending approximately seventy-five (75) feet from the seawall. 

4.4.3.1.1. In the event the bayward extent of contamination 

consistent with MGP residue has not been reached within the boundaries of the New Marina OS 

Locations, further sampling, extending beyond the New Marina OS Locations, will be 

undertaken on an iterative basis until the bayward extent contamination consistent with MGP 

residue is identified, at which time the outer limits of the MGP residue offshore of the Marina 

will be deemed to have been identified and PG&E shall not be required to undertake any 

investigation or sampling further bayward of the Marina. 

4.4.3.1.2. In this iterative process, the first bayward step-outs 

from the New Marina OS Locations would be no more than fifty (50) feet bayward of the first 

row of sampling locations; the next step-out distance would be no more than one hundred (100) 

feet bayward from the first step-out sample locations (one hundred and fifty (150) feet bayward 

from the first row); and any further step-outs would be no more than one hundred and fifty (150) 

feet bayward from the previous step-out locations (three hundred (300) feet bayward from the 

first row, then four hundred and fifty (450) feet, etc.). Any bayward step-outs would be 

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 29 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 30

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 25

staggered, with one sampling location approximately seventy-five (75) feet to the west of the 

triggering location and one sampling location approximately seventy-five (75) feet to the east of 

the triggering location. Any lateral step-outs would be one hundred and fifty (150) feet to east 

and/or west of the prior step-out location as appropriate, subject to the boundary limitations set 

forth in Section 4.4.1. (An illustrative example of the step-out scenarios is depicted in "Exhibit 

10".)

4.4.3.2. Fort Mason. Sampling will be conducted at the locations

identified on the map attached hereto as Exhibit 8.

4.4.3.3. Pier 35 to Pier 45. PG&E previously conducted sediment 

sampling in the offshore area between Pier 35 and Pier 45. In lieu of undertaking additional pore 

water and sediment core sampling in this area, PG&E may instead apply a surrogate predictive 

pore water equivalent ("PWeq") to evaluate whether any remedy is required, to be developed in 

accordance with the protocol set forth in "Exhibit 11". The formula(s) (the "PWeq Formula(s)") 

will then be applied to existing data from bulk sediment sampling in other areas of Pier 35 to 

Pier 45 to generate PWeq values for those locations. Notwithstanding the foregoing, PG&E 

reserves the right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to collect and analyze actual pore water 

samples—in accordance with the protocol described in Exhibit 12—in lieu of applying the 

PWeq. In addition, in all instances where PWeq is applied, PG&E shall have the right to take 

confirmatory pore water samples, in accordance with the protocol described in Exhibit 12. In 

that event, the Laboratory Results from such confirmatory samples would be used to determine 

whether a remedy is required under Section 4.7, and not the PWeq (i.e., actual measurements 

will supersede the PWeq predictive analysis). 

4.4.3.3.1. East Harbor. PG&E already has undertaken 

extensive sampling in the area known as the East Harbor, which is shown on the map attached 

hereto as "Exhibit 13". It is contemplated that the East Harbor area, which is owned and 

operated by CCSF through its Recreation and Parks Department, will be remediated in 

coordination with CCSF's renovation or reconfiguration of the East Harbor marina. Contingent 

upon such remediation occurring, PG&E is not required by this Consent Decree to conduct any 

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 30 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 31

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 26

pre-remediation sampling in East Harbor, but shall undertake post-remedial sampling and 

monitoring, depending upon the nature of the remedy or remedies implemented in the East 

Harbor, in accordance with Section 4.9. In the event the East Harbor is not remediated in 

coordination with CCSF's anticipated renovation or reconfiguration of the East Harbor marina, 

then PG&E shall grid or subdivide the area into five (5) sampling locations, with spacing no less 

than approximately fifty (50) feet and no greater than approximately one hundred fifty (150) 

feet. In the event such minimum approximately fifty (50) foot spacing cannot be achieved, the 

total number of sample locations may be reduced as needed to achieve such minimum spacing, 

except, in all events, a minimum of two (2) samples will be taken. In the event that such 

maximum approximately one hundred and fifty (150) foot spacing would be exceeded if only 

five (5) sampling locations were used, additional sampling locations shall be added as necessary 

so as not to exceed such maximum spacing. From all of the sample locations, PG&E shall 

collect and analyze pore water in accordance with the sampling protocol set forth in Exhibit 12 

and Section 4.5 at three depths—zero to half (0-0.5) a foot bss, one to one and one-half (1-1.5) 

feet bss, and two to three (2-3) feet bss; co-located bulk sediment may also be collected and 

analyzed. Alternatively, PG&E may apply the PWeq, established under Section 4.4.3.3 and 

Exhibit 11 to bulk sediment samples already taken from the East Harbor. 

4.4.3.4. Non-MGP Residue. In the event that PG&E finds PAH 

contamination during the iterative offshore investigation called for by this Section 4.4, but 

determines that the contamination in an offshore area is not consistent with MGP Residue, 

PG&E shall request an NFA Determination from the Regional Board for said area.

4.4.3.4.1. SFHA's Right to Appeal. SFHA shall have a right 

to appeal to the Panel, in accordance with Section 5, any approval by the Regional Board or the 

State Water Board of an NFA determination requested by PG&E pursuant to Section 4.4.3.4. 

4.5. Offshore Investigation – Sampling Protocol and Methods 

4.5.1. Pore Water Sampling Protocol. All pore water samples taken pursuant to 

this Consent Decree shall follow the sampling protocol set forth in Exhibit 12.

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 31 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 32

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 27

4.5.2. New Boring Sampling Methodology.

4.5.2.1. Bulk Sediment Core Samples. For every new boring conducted 

following entry of this Consent Decree, lateral and vertical delineation of MGP-related impacts 

will be delineated by taking continuous bulk sediment cores using a sampling depth penetration 

target of twenty to twenty-five (20 to 25) feet bss, with a best effort to achieve a minimum 

sampling depth of twenty (20) feet bss or as close thereto as possible in the event of refusal, and 

bulk sediment cores shall be sub-sampled: (a) in co-location with any pore water samples taken 

from the first three (3) feet bss; and (b) every two (2) feet thereafter below three (3) foot depth 

bss, biased to field observations of potential MGP impacts and/or lithological contacts. 

4.5.2.1.1. A "best effort" to recover a nominal twenty (20) 

foot sediment core (adjusted for recovery) at a planned or step-out station will be defined as 

attempting up to three borings within a twenty (20) foot radius. Failing to recover a nominal 

twenty (20) foot sediment core, the longest sediment core will be selected for subsampling as 

described herein, unless a shorter sediment core yields observations of potential MGP residualimpacts (NAPL, sheen or odors) that are not observed in the longest core. In such cases, the core 

with the greatest vertical extent of the impacts will be selected. In any case, the planned or stepout station will be relocated approximately fifty (50) feet in the step-out direction (e.g., Exhibit 

10) to attempt to obtain the nominal twenty (20) foot sediment core recovery. Up to three more 

attempts within a twenty (20) foot radius of the relocated station will complete the "best effort" 

to achieve the vertical delineation objective, and the same procedure will be used to determine 

the core selected for sampling. PG&E is not required to attempt any additional borings, beyond 

the six described herein, to achieve the vertical delineation objective for a planned or step-out 

station. In addition, no more than two borings are required to be subsampled for chemical 

analysis as described in Sections 4.5.2.1, 4.6.1, and 4.6.2. Field observations of potential MGP 

impacts in the cores not retained for subsampling will be documented with respect to depth 

interval, adjusted for recovery. 

4.5.2.2. Pore Water Samples. Pore water samples will be taken at three 

depth intervals—zero to half (0-0.5) a foot bss, one to one and half (1-1.5) feet bss, and two to 

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 32 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 33

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 28

three (2-3) feet bss—using an in situ low flow piezometer method as described in Exhibit 12;

PWeq will be applied to sediment depths greater than three (3) feet bss.

4.5.2.3. Deep NAPL. For every new boring conducted following entry 

of this Consent Decree, if NAPL consistent with MGP residue is encountered in a boring 

location and extends to or beyond the terminus of the boring, TarGOST will be employed to 

determine the full vertical extent of such NAPL.

4.5.2.4. Except as required as part of any remediation plan or in 

accordance with the Offshore Investigation in Section 4.4.3 or the PWeq study detailed in 

Exhibit 11 or the post-remedial monitoring obligations described in Section 4.8 and contingent 

upon PG&E's application of PWeq to the results of such previously taken samples, PG&E shall 

not be required to re-sample any offshore locations at which bulk sediment samples already had 

been taken prior to entry of this Consent Decree.

4.6. Offshore Investigation – Sample Analyses 

4.6.1. PAH Analysis of Pore Water and Bulk Sediment Cores. Pore water 

samples and bulk sediment cores will be analyzed for Sediment/Pore Water PAHs. 

"Sediment/Pore Water PAHs" shall mean those PAHs identified on the list of approximately 

eighty (80) constituents being analyzed under PG&E's current sediment sampling program, as 

shown on Exhibit 14. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Sediment/Pore Water PAHs shall not be 

used as the trigger for any remedy or Chemical Performance Standard. Instead, only Total 

Trigger PAHs shall be used for those purposes, in accordance with Section 4.10. The PAHs 

included in "Total Trigger PAHs" for sediment pore water are the thirty-four (34) alkyl and 

parent PAH compounds that are included in U.S. EPA's PAH-34 list (Exhibit 4).

4.6.2. Supplemental Constituent Analysis of Bulk Sediment Cores. The 

following supplemental constituents will be sampled for in bulk sediments, but shall not be a 

trigger for a remedy under this Consent Decree: BTEX, styrene, carbon disulfide, and 

naphthalene using U.S. EPA Method 8260, and TEPH using U.S. EPA Methods 8015/8100 or 

equivalent (collectively, "Supplemental Constituents").

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 33 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 34

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 29

4.6.3. Non-Filtration of Pore Water Sample. PG&E shall not field filter pore 

water samples. Upon its submittal of the samples to the analytical laboratory, PG&E will direct 

that the pore water samples not be filtered, and that the laboratory, instead, flush from pore 

water samples visual particles that have settled in a separatory funnel.

4.6.4. Trigger Straddle. Where the concentrations of primary and duplicate 

samples straddle a trigger level and field duplicate relative percent difference ("RPD") goals are 

met (with goals defined as within 25% for Total Trigger PAHs rather than individual chemicals), 

the arithmetic mean concentration of Total Trigger PAHs of the two (2) samples shall be 

determined for evaluation of whether a remedy has been triggered under Section 4.7. Where 

duplicate goals fail, the higher concentration pore water sample shall be used for evaluation of 

whether a remedy has been triggered under Section 4.7, unless PG&E resamples the affected 

station within sixty (60) days after receipt of the draft laboratory data, in which case the 

resampled results will be used for evaluation of whether a remedy has been triggered under 

Section 4.7.

4.7. Offshore Investigation – Remedy Triggers and Areas 

4.7.1. Offshore Areas Subject To Potential Remedy. The offshore areas that are 

subject to potential remedial action by PG&E pursuant this Section 4.7 include only those 

offshore areas that are co-extensive with the offshore areas of Pier 35 to Pier 45 and the Marina 

that are to be investigated pursuant to Section 4.4. 

4.7.2. Total Trigger PAHs in Pore Water Remedy Trigger. PG&E shall propose 

a remedy in accordance with Section 4.8.1 if Total Trigger PAHs from pore water extracted 

from the first three (3) feet of a sampling location exceed 15 μg/L, as reported in the Laboratory 

Results, in accordance with Section 4.6.

4.7.3. PWeq Remedy Trigger. Subject to PG&E's rights to take confirmatory 

pore water samples under Section 4.7.3.1, if the PWeq is being applied, PG&E shall propose a 

remedy in accordance with Section 4.8.1 if the PWeq of bulk sediment cores from the first three 

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 34 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 35

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 30

(3) feet exceed 15 μg/L using the statistical analysis for PWeq developed in accordance with 

Exhibit 11.

4.7.3.1. Right to Take and Analyze Confirmatory Pore Water Samples. 

Following any application of the PWeq, PG&E shall have the right, but not the obligation, to 

take and analyze confirmatory pore water samples pursuant to the sampling and analytical 

protocols and methodologies described in Sections 4.5 and 4.6 and exhibits referenced therein. If 

such confirmatory samples are taken, the Laboratory Results from such samples would be used 

(i.e., actual measurements would supersede predictive analysis), in determining whether a 

remedy has been triggered for such location(s) in accordance with this Section 4.7.

4.7.4. MGP Contamination Identified Below Three Feet Below Sediment 

Surface. If Total Trigger PAHs consistent with MGP residue and at levels above the PWeq 

developed in accordance with Exhibit 11 are identified at sediment depths below three (3) feet

bss, in a location where a remedy has not been triggered under Section 4.10, then PG&E will

include such area in a sediment management plan to be provided to the owner of such location, 

with copies to all agencies participating in the Dredged Material Management Office 

("DMMO") in the San Francisco Bay area and to SFHA. The sediment management plan shall 

include "Upset Event" bathymetry (as defined herein). PG&E shall include with the sediment 

management plan a transmittal letter that includes a high-level summary of the management plan 

and a map showing covered areas.

4.8. Offshore Remedy – Selection and Implementation.

4.8.1. PG&E Remedy Proposal. In the event a sediment remedy is triggered 

under Section 4.7 for a location or locations subject to the offshore investigation under Section 

4.4, PG&E shall either (1) submit a RAP to the Regional Board for each respective area at which 

a remedy has been triggered that fall(s) into one or a combination of the following four remedy 

categories: (a) removal of all sediment consistent with MGP from the location(s) (the "All

Residue Removed Remedy"); (b) coverage of sediment containing contamination consistent 

with MGP residue by an engineered cap (which includes, without limitation, capping with clean 

sand and/or amended sand, and armoring as warranted) (the "Engineered Cap Remedy"); (c) 

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 35 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 36

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 31

addressing sediment containing contamination consistent with MGP residue using an engineered 

solution other than a cap (the "Other Engineered Solution Remedy"); or (d) monitoring of 

natural processes ("Monitored Natural Recovery Remedy" or "MNR Remedy"); or (2) request a 

No Further Action determination from the Regional Board for an investigated offshore area 

regardless of an exceedance of the remedy trigger. Without prejudice to any right of SFHA to 

appeal an approval of an NFA, monitoring-only, or MNR-remedy based on the consideration 

thereof, PG&E shall have the right, but not the obligation to consider the Surface Weighted 

Average Concentration ("SWAC") of Total Trigger PAHs in a proposed remedial action area in 

the development of a remedy for said area. 

4.8.1.1. Non-MGP Residue. In the event PG&E finds that PAH

contamination in an offshore area subject to investigation under Section 4.4 is not consistent 

with MGP Residue, PG&E shall request an NFA Determination from the Regional Board for 

that area.

4.8.1.2. SFHA's Right to Appeal. SFHA shall have a right to appeal to 

the Panel, in accordance with Section 5, any approval by the Regional Board or the State Water 

Board of an MNR Remedy or NFA determination requested by PG&E pursuant to Section 4.8.1. 

4.8.2. Implementation of RAP. Following the approval of a RAP and the 

resolution of any appeal by SFHA, PG&E shall then implement the RAP, as approved by the 

Regional Board or the State Water Board.

4.9. Offshore – Post Remediation Compliance Monitoring and Reporting

4.9.1. All Residue Removed Remedy. In the event that a RAP providing for an 

All Residue Removed Remedy is approved and implemented by PG&E, PG&E shall perform 

post-remedial compliance testing, which shall be limited to the Chemical Performance Standard 

Testing and bathymetry, within a reasonable time following dredging as follows:

4.9.1.1. Bathymetry Testing. PG&E shall conduct bathymetry testing 

once following the completion of dredging to verify dredge elevations.

4.9.1.2. Chemical Performance Standard Testing.

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 36 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 37

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 32 

4.9.1.2.1. Sample Locations Within Dredge Prism. PG&E

will grid or subdivide the dredge prism into five (5) sampling locations, with spacing no less 

than approximately fifty (50) feet and no greater than approximately one hundred and fifty (150) 

feet. In the event such minimum approximately fifty (50) foot spacing cannot be achieved, the 

total number of sample locations may be reduced as needed to achieve such minimum spacing, 

except, in all events, a minimum of two (2) samples will be taken. In the event that such 

maximum approximately one hundred and fifty (150) foot spacing would be exceeded if only 

five (5) sampling locations were used, additional sampling locations shall be added as necessary 

so as not to exceed such maximum spacing.

4.9.1.2.2. Sample Collection and Analysis Within the Dredge 

Prism. From all of the sample locations described in Section 4.9.1.2.1, PG&E will collect and 

analyze pore water in accordance with the sampling protocol set forth in Exhibit 12 at three 

depths—zero to half (0-0.5) a foot bss, one to one and a half (1-1.5) feet bss, and two to three (2-

3) feet bss; co-located bulk sediment may also be collected and analyzed.

4.9.1.2.3. Sample Locations Along Dredge Perimeter 

Boundary. PG&E will subdivide the perimeter boundary of the dredged area, extending 

approximately fifty (50) feet beyond the dredged area, into a minimum of five (5) sampling 

locations, with spacing no less than approximately fifty (50) feet and no greater than 

approximately one hundred and fifty (150) feet. In the event that such minimum fifty (50) foot 

spacing cannot be achieved, the total number of sample locations may be reduced as needed to 

achieve such spacing, except, in all events, a minimum of two (2) samples will be taken. In the 

event such maximum approximately one hundred and fifty (150) foot spacing would be 

exceeded if only five (5) sampling locations were used, additional sampling locations shall be 

added as necessary so as not to exceed such maximum spacing. 

4.9.1.2.4. Sample Collection and Analysis Along Dredge 

Perimeter. From all of the sample locations described in Section 4.9.1.2.3, PG&E will collect 

and analyze pore water in accordance with the sampling protocol set forth in Exhibit 12 at two 

depths—zero to half (0-0.5) a foot bss and one to one and a half (1-1.5) feet bss—using an in 

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 37 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 38

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 33

situ low flow piezometer method to evaluate potential impacts of dredging residuals settling 

beyond the dredge prism; co-located bulk sediment may also be collected and analyzed.

4.9.1.3. Reporting and Consequence of Testing Results. Following

completion of the testing described Sections 4.9.1.1 and 4.9.1.2—which shall occur only once, 

following completion of dredging—PG&E shall submit a RACR to the Regional Board, with a 

copy to SFHA, which shall include a description of the remedial action, sampling results, and a 

recommendation for further action, monitoring or an NFA determination.

4.9.1.3.1. SFHA's Right to Appeal. SFHA shall have a right 

to appeal to the Panel, in accordance with Section 5, any approval by the Regional Board or the 

State Water Board of a monitoring only or MNR Remedy, or NFA determination recommended 

by PG&E pursuant to Section 4.9.1.3. 

4.9.2. Engineered Cap Remedy. In the event a RAP providing for an Engineered 

Cap Remedy is approved and implemented by PG&E, PG&E shall perform Engineered Cap 

Integrity Testing and Chemical Performance Standard Testing, in the first (1st), second (2nd),

third (3rd), and fifth (5th) years following the completion of construction of the engineered cap as 

follows:

4.9.2.1. Engineered Cap Integrity Testing. Engineered Cap Integrity 

Testing shall consist of performing bathymetry of the cap area, and testing for cap thickness. 

4.9.2.1.1. Bathymetry and Cap Thickness Measurement. 

PG&E will perform bathymetry in the cap area, extending approximately fifty (50) feet outside

the cap geometry, and will include in its work verification of any dredge elevations. 

4.9.2.1.2. Cap Thickness Measurement. PG&E will measure 

supplemental cap thickness in the cap area. PG&E may use settlement plates or direct 

measurement of cap thickness as the depth of sediment above the armor/isolation/reactive 

material layer. Engineered cap designs will typically anticipate accretion of a habitat layer 

approximately six (6) to twelve (12) inches. 

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 38 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 39

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 34

4.9.2.1.3. Upset Event. In the event of an Upset Event, PG&E 

will undertake additional monitoring of cap integrity (bathymetry and any measurement of cap 

thickness) in accordance with Sections 4.9.2.1.1 and 4.9.2.1.2. 

4.9.2.2. Chemical Performance Standard Testing. PG&E shall sample 

pore water within the capped area and the cap's perimeter boundary as follows: 

4.9.2.2.1. Sample Locations In the Cap Area. PG&E will grid 

or subdivide the cap area into five (5) sampling locations, with spacing no less than 

approximately fifty (50) feet and no greater than approximately one hundred fifty (150) feet. In 

the event such minimum approximately fifty (50) foot spacing cannot be achieved, the total 

number of sample locations may be reduced as needed to achieve such minimum spacing, 

except, in all events, a minimum of two (2) samples will be taken. In the event that such 

maximum approximately one hundred and fifty (150) foot spacing would be exceeded if only 

five (5) sampling locations were used, additional sampling locations shall be added as necessary 

so as not to exceed such maximum spacing.

4.9.2.2.2. Collection and Analysis of Pore Water In Cap 

Area. PG&E shall collect and analyze pore water within the zone from the top of the cap 

reactive/isolation/armor layer to approximately six (6) inches above the top of said area, in 

accordance with the protocol set forth in Exhibit 12. PG&E may also collect and analyze colocated bulk sediment cores. 

4.9.2.2.3. Sample Locations Within Cap Perimeter Boundary. 

PG&E shall subdivide a perimeter boundary extending approximately fifty (50) feet beyond the 

capping footprint into a minimum of five (5) sampling locations, with spacing no less than 

approximately fifty (50) feet and no greater than approximately one hundred and fifty (150) feet. 

In the event that such minimum fifty (50) foot spacing cannot be achieved, the total number of 

sample locations may be reduced as needed to achieve such spacing, except, in all events, a 

minimum of two (2) samples will be taken. In the event such maximum approximately one 

hundred and fifty (150) foot spacing would be exceeded if only five (5) sampling locations were 

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 39 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 40

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 35

used, additional sampling locations shall be added as necessary so as not to exceed such 

maximum spacing.

4.9.2.2.4. Collection and Analysis of Pore Water Within the 

Cap Perimeter Boundary. Within the perimeter boundary, PG&E shall collect and analyze pore 

water in accordance with the sampling protocol set forth in Exhibit 12 at three depths in each 

area—zero to half (0-0.5) a foot bss, one to one and half (1-1.5) feet bss, and two to three (2-3) 

feet bss. PG&E may also collect and analyze co-located bulk sediment cores. 

4.9.2.3. Reporting and Consequence of Testing Results. Following

completion of the cap construction, PG&E shall submit a RACR, which shall include a 

description of the remedial action, to the Regional Board with a copy to SFHA. Following each 

sampling event, PG&E shall submit to the Regional Board with a copy to SFHA, a monitoring 

report, which shall include sampling results, and a recommendation for continued monitoring, 

adaptive maintenance, another remedy, or, in the case of sampling that occurs in the fifth (5th)

year after construction of the cap, an NFA determination.

4.9.2.3.1. SFHA's Right to Appeal. SFHA shall have a right 

to appeal to the Panel, in accordance with Section 5, any approval by the Regional Board or the 

State Water Board of a monitoring only or MNR Remedy or NFA determination recommended 

by PG&E pursuant to Section 4.9.2.3. 

4.9.3. Other Engineered Solution Remedy. In the event that a RAP providing for 

an Other Engineered Solution Remedy is approved and implemented by PG&E, PG&E shall 

only be required to perform Chemical Performance Standard Testing and Upset Event testing. 

The frequency of the Chemical Performance Standard Testing will be dependent upon the 

particular engineered solution remedy implemented, but in no event shall such testing be 

performed less than once, nor shall it occur more frequently than after construction and then the 

first (1st), second (2nd), third (3rd), and fifth (5th) years following completion of construction of 

the remedy. 

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 40 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 41

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 36

4.9.3.1. Chemical Performance Standard Testing. PG&E shall sample 

pore water within the area of the Other Engineered Solution Remedy and the remedy area's 

perimeter boundary as follows: 

4.9.3.1.1. Sample Locations Within the Remedy Area. PG&E

will grid or subdivide the remedy area footprint into a minimum of five (5) sampling locations, 

with spacing no less than approximately fifty (50) feet and no greater than approximately one 

hundred fifty (150) feet. In the event such minimum approximately fifty (50) foot spacing 

cannot be achieved, the total number of sample locations may be reduced as needed to achieve 

such minimum spacing, except, in all events, a minimum of two (2) samples will be taken. In the 

event that such maximum approximately one hundred and fifty (150) foot spacing would be 

exceeded if only five (5) sampling locations were used, additional sampling locations shall be 

added as necessary so as not to exceed such maximum spacing. 

4.9.3.1.2. Sample Locations Along Remedy Perimeter 

Boundary. PG&E will subdivide a perimeter boundary of the remedy area, extending a 

maximum of fifty (50) feet beyond the remedial response footprint, into a minimum of five (5) 

sampling locations, with spacing no less than approximately fifty (50) feet and no greater than 

approximately one hundred and fifty (150) feet. In the event that such minimum fifty (50) foot 

spacing cannot be achieved, the total number of sample locations may be reduced as needed to 

achieve such spacing, except, in all events, a minimum of two (2) samples will be taken. In the 

event such maximum approximately one hundred and fifty (150) foot spacing would be 

exceeded if only five (5) sampling locations were used, additional sampling locations shall be 

added as necessary so as not to exceed such maximum spacing.

4.9.3.1.3. Collection and Analysis In All Locations. From all 

of the sample locations described in Sections 4.9.3.1.1 and 4.9.3.1.2, PG&E will collect and 

analyze pore water in accordance with the sampling protocol set forth in Exhibit 12 at three 

depths—zero to half (0-0.5) a foot bss one to one and half (1-1.5) feet bss, and two to three (2-3) 

feet bss; co-located bulk sediment may also be collected and analyzed. 

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 41 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 42

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 37

4.9.3.2. Upset Event. In the event of an Upset Event, PG&E will 

undertake bathymetry testing in the area of the Other Engineered Solution. 

4.9.3.3. Reporting and Consequence of Testing Results. Following

completion of construction of the Other Engineered Solution, PG&E shall submit a RACR, 

which shall contain a description of the remedial activities. Following each sampling event, 

PG&E shall submit to the Regional Board, with a copy to SFHA, a monitoring report, which 

shall include sampling results, and a recommendation for continued monitoring, adaptive 

maintenance, another remedy, or an NFA determination. 

4.9.3.3.1. SFHA's Right to Appeal. SFHA shall have a right 

to appeal to the Panel, in accordance with Section 5, any approval by the Regional Board or the 

State Water Board of a monitoring only or MNR Remedy or NFA determination recommended 

by PG&E pursuant to Section 4.9.3.3. 

4.9.4. Monitored Natural Recovery (MNR) Remedy. In the event that a RAP 

providing for an MNR is approved and implemented by PG&E, PG&E shall perform, within a 

reasonable time following approval of an MNR remedy, and in the first (1st), second (2nd), third 

(3rd), and fifth (5th) years following said approval, Chemical Performance Standard Testing and 

bathymetry as follows: 

4.9.4.1. Chemical Performance Standard Testing. 

4.9.4.1.1. Sample Locations Within the MNR Footprint. 

PG&E will grid or subdivide the MNR footprint into a minimum of five (5) sampling locations, 

with spacing no less than approximately fifty (50) feet and no greater than approximately one 

hundred fifty (150) feet. In the event such minimum approximately fifty (50) foot spacing 

cannot be achieved, the total number of sample locations may be reduced as needed to achieve 

such minimum spacing, except, in all events, a minimum of two (2) samples will be taken. In the 

event that such maximum approximately one hundred and fifty (150) foot spacing would be 

exceeded if only five (5) sampling locations were used, additional sampling locations shall be 

added as necessary so as not to exceed such maximum spacing. 

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 42 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 43

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 38

4.9.4.1.2. Sample Locations Along MNR Perimeter 

Boundary. As part of the year one monitoring event only, PG&E will subdivide a perimeter 

boundary of the MNR footprint, extending approximately fifty (50) feet beyond the remedial 

response footprint, into a minimum of five (5) sampling locations, with spacing no less than 

approximately fifty (50) feet and no greater than approximately one hundred and fifty (150) feet. 

In the event that such minimum fifty (50) foot spacing cannot be achieved, the total number of 

sample locations may be reduced as needed to achieve such spacing, except, in all events, a 

minimum of two (2) samples will be taken. In the event such maximum approximately one 

hundred and fifty (150) foot spacing would be exceeded if only five (5) sampling locations were 

used, additional sampling locations shall be added as necessary so as not to exceed such 

maximum spacing.

4.9.4.1.3. Collection and Analysis In All Locations. From all 

of the sample locations described in Sections 4.9.4.1.1 and 4.9.4.1.2, PG&E will collect and 

analyze pore water in accordance with the sampling protocol set forth in Exhibit 12 at three 

depths—zero to half (0-0.5) a foot bss, one to one and half (1-1.5) feet bss, and two to three (2-

3) feet bss; co-located bulk sediment may also be collected and analyzed. 

4.9.4.2. Bathymetry. PG&E shall conduct bathymetry to document 

sediment elevation trends. 

4.9.4.3. Upset Event. In the event of an Upset Event, PG&E will 

undertake bathymetry testing in the area of the of the MNR footprint. 

4.9.4.4. Reporting and Consequence of Testing Results. PG&E shall 

establish the boundary of the MNR footprint in the RAP and/or a RACR for constructed 

remedies with an MNR component. Following each sampling event, PG&E shall submit to the 

Regional Board, with a copy to SFHA, a monitoring report, which shall include sampling results 

to be compared against the predicted recovery timeframe. The Year Five (5) monitoring report 

will include a recommendation for further monitoring, adaptive maintenance, another remedy, or 

an NFA determination.

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 43 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 44

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 39

4.9.4.4.1. SFHA's Right to Appeal. SFHA shall have a right 

to appeal to the Panel, in accordance with Section 5, any approval by the Regional Board or the 

State Water Board of a monitoring only or MNR Remedy or NFA determination recommended 

by PG&E pursuant to Section 4.9.4.4. 

4.9.5. All Offshore Remedy Scenarios. In performing the post-remediation 

monitoring and sampling under Section 4.9, without prejudice to any right of SFHA to appeal an 

approval of an NFA, monitoring-only, or MNR-remedy based on the consideration thereof, 

PG&E shall have the right, but not the obligation, to recommend continued monitoring, adaptive 

maintenance, another remedy, or an NFA determination under application of a SWAC analysis 

to the Chemical Performance Standard Testing data. In each of the post-remediation monitoring 

scenarios in Section 4.9, there shall be an allowance of an approximately twenty (20) foot radius 

of the original location for resampling (including in the perimeter areas to be sampled) should an 

obstruction be encountered.

4.10. West Harbor. In the area designated as the "West Harbor," which is shown on 

Exhibit 16, PG&E shall deploy small "passive samplers" in accordance with U.S. EPAapproved passive sampling investigation guidance and methodology, as described in U.S. EPA

2017 Laboratory, Field, and Analytical Procedures for Using Passive Sampling in the Evaluation 

of Contaminated Sediments: User's Manual. EPA/600/R-16/357, in the areas previously capped 

as part of CCSF's San Francisco Marina Yacht Harbor West Harbor Renovation Project (Dredge

Areas B2-1 and B2-4), and within a perimeter boundary thereof, in the approximate locations 

shown on Exhibit 16. In the event passive sampling results from a passive sampler within the 

perimeter indicates a pore water concentration of more than 15 μg/L of Total Trigger PAHs, 

then PG&E shall undertake further step-out passive sampling, on an iterative basis, staggered 

and laterally offset in all accessible directions (i.e., west, north, and east) to include the next 

unsampled one to three closest points in an adjacent row or column, as shown on Exhibit 16.

PG&E shall perform such passive sampling pursuant to a work plan to be prepared by PG&E 

and submitted to the Regional Board. PG&E shall place the passive samplers in the West Harbor 

with spacing no less than approximately fifty (50) feet, and no greater than approximately one 

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 44 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 45

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 40

hundred and fifty (150) feet, between the passive samplers. PG&E shall report the results of the 

passive sampling in a report submitted to the Regional Board and shall include a 

recommendation for No Further Action, further Monitoring Only, or a remedy.

4.10.1. No Right of Appeal to Panel. SFHA shall have no right of appeal to the 

Panel under Section 5 from any approvals or determinations pursuant to Section 4.10, and the 

Panel shall have no authority with respect to any proposals, approvals or actions by PG&E or the 

Regional Board concerning the West Harbor, or any request by PG&E for a No Further Action 

determination concerning West Harbor. Other than as expressly set forth in this Section 4.10, 

PG&E shall have no other obligations under this Consent Decree with respect to the West 

Harbor.

4.11. Force Majeure.

4.11.1. PG&E shall not be considered to be in default in the performance of any 

of its obligations under this Consent Decree when performance becomes impossible due to 

circumstances beyond PG&E's control, including, without limitation, Force Majeure, which 

includes, but is not limited to, an act of God, act of war, act of terrorism, fire, explosion, 

extraordinary weather event, natural catastrophe, restraint by court order or public authority, or 

other cause beyond PG&E's reasonable control (collectively, "Force Majeure"). Delay in 

compliance with a specific obligation under this Consent Decree due to a Force Majeure event 

as defined in this Section shall not excuse or delay compliance with any other obligations 

required under this Consent Decree.

4.11.2. Best Efforts to Gain Access, Permits, Consents and Approvals. With

respect to all activities contemplated or required to be undertaken by PG&E pursuant to Section 

4, it is understood and agreed that PG&E shall use best efforts to obtain all required access, 

permits, consents and approvals from the CCSF and its respective departments and from any 

other property owners, if and as needed, and from the governmental agencies with jurisdiction 

over such work. Such best efforts shall require that PG&E make all reasonable and practicable 

efforts to satisfy all reasonable contingencies or conditions required to gain all necessary access, 

permits, consents and approvals, but such best efforts shall not require that PG&E accept 

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 45 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 46

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 41

unreasonable or impracticable terms or conditions in order to obtain such access, permits, 

consents or approvals. If, after using best efforts, PG&E is unable to obtain required access, 

permits, consents or approvals to perform an obligation under Section 4, such event shall 

constitute a Force Majeure.

4.11.3. In the event PG&E claims that compliance with an obligation it has under 

this Consent Decree was or is impossible due to a Force Majeure, it shall notify SFHA in writing 

within thirty (30) days of when PG&E first knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence 

under the circumstances should have known, of the event or circumstance that caused or would 

cause a failure to comply with such obligation (the "Notice of Force Majeure"). The Notice of 

Force Majeure shall identify the specific obligations under the Consent Decree that are or have 

been affected by the Force Majeure, the specific nature of the Force Majeure; the anticipated 

length of time the delay may persist, and/or whether performance has been rendered impossible 

by the Force Majeure; the measures taken or to be taken by to prevent or minimize delay or 

impossibility of performance of the affected obligations and any proposed modifications to those 

obligation(s) under the Consent Decree. PG&E may request a meet and confer, pursuant to the 

dispute resolution process in Section 6, to reach agreement as to a stipulation to be submitted to 

the Court for an order modifying this Consent Decree. In the event the Parties do not to reach 

agreement following the dispute resolution process, PG&E may move the Court for a 

modification of the Consent Decree based upon the Force Majeure and shall have the burden of 

establishing the Force Majeure. During the pendency of such a motion to modify the Consent 

Decree, PG&E shall not be deemed to be in default, breach or violation of this Consent Decree. 

Subject to the immediately preceding sentence, in the absence of a stipulation or order 

modifying the Consent Decree, PG&E shall be obligated to comply with all terms of this 

Consent Decree, notwithstanding any claim by it of a Force Majeure. 

4.12. Except as required under Section 4, PG&E is not required by this Consent Decree 

to undertake any additional investigation, remediation, monitoring or reporting. 

5. APPEALS TO PANEL. SFHA shall have the following rights of appeal of certain 

Regional Board and State Water Board (either, the "Board") approvals to a panel to be formed 

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 46 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 47

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 42

pursuant to this Section 5 under the appeal process set forth herein. The Panel's sole role shall be 

to hear appeals in accordance with the procedures set forth herein. The Panel shall serve no other 

purpose and have no authority other than as expressly provided for in this Section 5.

5.1. Formation of Panel. The Panel shall be comprised of three individuals 

(collectively "Panelists"): one Panelist to be designated by SFHA; one Panelist to be designated 

by PG&E; and a third Panelist to be jointly chosen by SFHA's designee and PG&E’s designee. 

If SFHA's designee and PG&E's designee cannot agree on the choice for the third Panelist, the 

competing choices of the Parties' designees for the third Panelist will be submitted by the Parties 

to the Court (the then-presiding judge in this matter) for resolution. In the event a Party's 

Panelist designate is no longer willing or able to serve during the term of this Consent Decree, 

the Party that appointed such Panelist shall have the right to choose a replacement Panelist. In 

the event the third Panelist selected hereunder is no longer willing or able to serve as a Panelist 

during the term of this Consent Decree, the other two Panelists will jointly select his or her 

replacement. The three selected Panelists shall, together, comprise the "Panel." 

5.1.1. Any person who has been or is employed by Haley & Aldrich or 

EnviroAssets, Inc. is disqualified for service on the Panel. Otherwise, SFHA and PG&E shall 

not be restricted in the selection of their respective Panelist designees; provided, however, that 

prior to his/her selection as a potential Panelist, each candidate shall acknowledge and agree that 

said candidate/Panelist will not be permitted to, and shall not, himself or herself undertake any 

work for any Party or for counsel to any Party during the Term of the Consent Decree. 

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the firm with which the Panelist is affiliated, if any, may 

perform work for a Party or for a law firm that is counsel to a Party on matters that are unrelated 

to the matters that are the subject of this Consent Decree, but only so long as the total volume of 

work performed for such Party or such law firm does not exceed ten percent (10%) of that firm's 

annual revenue in any given year. In the event a Panelist's firm performs any work for a Party or 

for a law firm that is counsel to a Party, then the Panelist's firm shall ensure that an "ethical 

wall" is created to assure there is no exchange of any information, data, documents or other 

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 47 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 48

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 43

communications between the Panelist and anyone else in his/her firm regarding the subject 

matter of this Consent Decree.

5.1.2. Upon its formation, the Panel shall be provided with a copy of this 

Consent Decree and their attention shall be drawn to these procedures and to other agreed-upon 

requirements relating to appeals as set forth herein.

5.2. No Ex Parte Communication. During the Term of this Consent Decree, the 

Parties shall not communicate on an ex parte basis with any Panelist concerning any matters that 

are relevant to the subject matters of this Consent Decree (including, without limitation, any 

matters relating to the nature, scope, results or status of work to be performed under this Consent 

Decree).

5.3. Appeal Process. The following appeal process shall govern all appeals to the 

Panel permitted under this Consent Decree:

5.3.1. Timing of Appeal. Subject to the prohibitions in Sections 4.2.3.6.1, 4.3.6, 

and 4.10.1, within thirty (30) days following written notification from PG&E to SFHA of the 

decision of the Board (which must attach a copy of such Board decision) (a) approving a 

"monitoring only" remedy; (b) approving a MNR remedy proposal; or (c) approving a request 

for NFA determination, SFHA shall have the right to appeal the approval through submission of 

a written "Notice of Appeal" to the Panel and to PG&E. SFHA has no right of appeal of any 

other Board approvals. Any Notice of Appeal submitted by SFHA to the Panel or to PG&E more 

than thirty (30) days following PG&E's notification to SFHA of the Board's action shall be 

deemed void and of no force or effect and the Panel shall take no action in response to such 

Notice of Appeal.

5.3.2. Notice of Appeal. SFHA's Notice of Appeal shall include, at a minimum, 

the following information: the specific action of the Board that the Panel is requested to review 

and a copy of the order or resolution of the Board that is being challenged.

5.3.3. Submittal of Digital Record. Upon receipt from SFHA of a Notice of 

Appeal, PG&E shall have twenty-one (21) days within which to submit, by email to the Panel 

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 48 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 49

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 44

and copied to SFHA, a list with digital links to all documents uploaded to Geotracker from and 

after and in connection with the approval that is being challenged by the Notice of Appeal.

5.3.4. Briefing. Submittals to the Panel by the Parties are to be made as follows:

5.3.4.1. SFHA's Submission. No later than thirty (30) days after receipt 

of the digital record provided for in Section 5.3.3, SFHA may submit to the Panel for its review 

and consideration, and simultaneously to PG&E, a brief of no more than fifteen (15) pages, 

along with any Supporting Documents. "Supporting Documents," as used in this Section 5, shall 

mean and be limited to relevant technical data or analyses, and scientific/technical reports or 

publications but shall not include any additional documentation (letters, briefs, declarations) 

generated by the parties or any third party to support or oppose the appeal to the Panel. Any 

brief or Supporting Documents submitted by SFHA after said thirty (30) day deadline shall not 

be considered by the Panel. Absent a request from the Panel or a grant of permission from the 

Panel, as provided for in Section 5.3.6, and subject to Section 5.3.6.3, SFHA shall not submit 

any other documentation to the Panel.

5.3.4.2. PG&E's Submission. No later than thirty (30) days after

receipt of SFHA's submittal under Section 5.3.4.1, PG&E may submit to the Panel for its review 

and consideration, and simultaneously to SFHA, a brief of no more than fifteen (15) pages, 

along with any Supporting Documents. Any brief or Supporting Documents submitted by PG&E 

after said thirty (30) day deadline shall not be considered by the Panel. Absent a request from 

the Panel as provided for in Section 5.3.6, and subject to Section 5.3.6.3, PG&E shall not submit 

any other documentation to the Panel.

5.3.5. Extension of Deadlines. The deadlines set in Section 5 may be modified 

by a mutually agreed-upon stipulation between the Parties, without action by the Panel; 

provided, however, a copy of any such stipulation shall be submitted to the Panel. The deadlines 

set in this Section 5 may otherwise only be extended by the Panel for good cause, for a period 

not to exceed ninety (90) days, upon written request of no more three than three (3) pages 

simultaneously sent to the other Party. The other Party may oppose the request through 

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 49 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 50

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 45

submission to the Panel of an opposition of no more than three (3) pages, within seven (7) days 

of that Party's receipt of the request for an extension.

5.3.6. Additional Document Submittals.

5.3.6.1. Further Briefing Requested by Panelists. Further briefing 

and/or any additional existing data or information may be requested from either or both Parties 

by joint written request of at least two Panelists who believe such data or information is

necessary to the determination of the subject appeal. In the event a Party is unwilling or unable 

to comply with the Panel's request, the Party shall so state in writing to the Panel and include a 

brief statement, of no more three (3) pages, of the Party's reason for not providing the requested 

data or information. In the event a Party refuses to provide requested documents or information, 

it shall not be required to provide any log of existing and known documents that are withheld or 

the basis for the withholding.

5.3.6.2. Further Sampling/Data Analysis Requested by Panelists. In 

addition, the Panel, by joint request of at least two Panelists, may request, but not order, that 

PG&E undertake limited additional sampling or data analysis to assist the Panel's evaluation of 

the subject appeal. Regardless of whether a request for additional sampling is refused, the 

Panelists, and each of them, are prohibited from independently conducting such additional 

sampling but not additional analyses of existing data.

5.3.6.3. Party Requests for Permission to Submit Additional 

Documentation. Absent a request from the Panel pursuant to this Section 5, neither Party may 

submit to the Panel any additional briefing or other documentation; provided, however, in the 

event there are relevant data that have been generated or first made available since the Party's 

previous submission to the Panel on the appeal at issue, a Party may request permission from the 

Panel, through a brief of no more than three (3) pages, to submit such additional Supporting 

Documents. The other Party may oppose such a request, through a brief of no more than three 

(3) pages submitted to the Panel within seven (7) days of receipt of such request.

5.3.7. De Novo Review. The Panel shall undertake a De Novo review of the 

documentation and information provided to the Panel in accordance with this Section 5. "De

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 50 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 51

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 46

Novo," as used herein, shall mean using their own judgment, in accordance with applicable laws 

and standards, as though reviewed for the first time. Neither SFHA nor PG&E shall bear any 

burden of proof on appeal to the Panel. The Board's approval of a Monitoring Only Remedy or 

MNR remedy proposal or NFA determination that is the subject of the appeal shall not be 

entitled to any presumption of correctness or incorrectness, but rather shall be considered in light 

of the facts, technical data and information, applicable law and the terms of the Consent Decree.

5.3.8. Scope of Panel Role. Subject to certain restrictions on appeals to the Panel 

as specifically provided in Section 4, the sole determination within the Panel's purview shall be 

whether to accept or reject the Board's approval of the Monitoring Only Remedy, MNR remedy, 

or NFA determination that is the subject of the appeal, as provided for under this Consent 

Decree. Such determination shall be made in accordance with the decision of a majority of the 

Panel members. The Panel shall make no decision unless there is a quorum of three Panelists on 

the Panel to hear and decide the appeal. The fact that an applicable performance standard under 

Section 4 is not achieved in the post-remedy compliance monitoring phase does not mandate the 

Panel's rejection of the Board's approval of a Monitoring Only or MNR remedy, or a request for 

an NFA determination. If the Panel rejects the challenged Board approval, it may suggest, but it 

cannot require, any additional or alternative remedy.

5.3.9. Written Determination by Panel. The Panel shall be required to take 

reasonable steps to diligently and expeditiously review the documents and information 

submitted to the Panel, and to promptly issue a written determination to accept or reject the 

Board's approval of the Monitoring Only or MNR remedy proposal or request for NFA 

determination. The Panel shall issue a written determination, including the basis for its decision, 

and simultaneously send it to SFHA and to PG&E. Such Panel determination shall be deemed to 

be final and binding upon the Parties.

5.3.10. PG&E Work During Appeal. During the pendency of any Panel appeal, 

PG&E shall be entitled to act in accordance with the Board's determination unless and until 

overturned by the Panel. PG&E shall not, however, perform any physical work in the area that is 

the subject of the approval or determination from which an appeal is taken that would 

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 51 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 52

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 47

substantially and materially interfere with the achievement of an alternative action in the event 

the Board's determination is overturned (such as permanently closing or destroying any 

groundwater monitoring or extraction wells).

5.3.11. Post-Appeal Actions. In the event the Panel rejects the Board's approval at 

issue in the appeal, then no later than ninety (90) days from the Panel's decision, PG&E shall 

notify SFHA and the Regional Board in writing of the remedy or remedies PG&E intends to 

evaluate for the area that was the subject of the Panel's decision. PG&E will be required to 

propose a different action to the Regional Board from the Monitoring Only or MNR remedy or 

NFA determination that was rejected. In the event that PG&E's chosen remedy following a Panel 

decision rejecting the subject Board approval is a Monitoring Only or MNR proposal, PG&E 

shall submit such proposal to the Regional Board no later than six (6) months from the date of 

the Panel's decision. In the event PG&E's chosen remedy is other than a Monitoring Only or 

MNR proposal, PG&E shall submit to the Regional Board a RAP for such area no later than 

twelve (12) months from the date of the Panel's decision.

5.3.12. PG&E Right of Appeal. Notwithstanding any other terms herein, PG&E

shall have the right, in accordance with applicable state laws and regulations, to appeal to the 

State Water Board any rejection by the Regional Board of a proposed Monitoring Only or MNR 

remedy, or a request for an NFA determination. In the event PG&E initiates such an appeal to 

the State Water Board, and the term of this Consent Decree expires while that appeal by PG&E 

is pending, SFHA's right to appeal any subsequent approval of a proposed Monitoring Only or 

MNR remedy, or a request for an NFA determination by the State Water Board relating to 

PG&E's appeal shall be preserved, along with the associated rights and obligations of the 

Parties.

5.3.13. Transmittal Definitions. As used in the foregoing sections regarding 

transmittals to be made in the Panel appeal process, "sent" or "send" means transmittal via email 

to the addresses provided by a particular Party. "Receipt" or "received," as used herein, shall 

mean the date on which the transmittal was sent to the Party in question, subject to confirmation 

of delivery.

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 52 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 53

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 48

5.3.14. Exclusive Remedy. An appeal to the Panel shall be SFHA's sole and 

exclusive recourse to challenge the Board's approval of a Monitoring Only or MNR remedy 

proposal, or a request for NFA determination. SFHA expressly waives any right of 

administrative or judicial appeal under the state Water Code and related regulations with respect 

to such approvals. In addition, SFHA shall have no right of appeal to the Panel, and expressly 

waives and agrees not to pursue any right of administrative or judicial appeal, with respect to 

any other remedies approved by the Regional Board. 

5.3.15. Fees and Costs on Appeal.

5.3.15.1. Panelist Fees. The reasonable fees for the services of each of 

the Panelists shall be paid by PG&E, subject to PG&E's timely receipt and review of invoices to 

be submitted by each of the Panelists to PG&E and to SFHA on a monthly basis. Such invoices 

shall include a description of work performed each date for which fees are sought, but shall not 

include information that would reveal the thought process(es) of a Panelist.

5.3.15.2. Attorney's/Expert's Fees. In the event SFHA prevails in an 

appeal to the Panel (i.e., the Panel rejects the decision of the Board at issue in the appeal), then 

SFHA shall be entitled to reimbursement of its reasonable attorneys' and expert fees incurred 

from and after submission by SFHA of a Notice of Appeal and solely in connection with such 

appeal and not for Compliance Monitoring. In the event there is a dispute as to the amount of the 

attorneys' or expert fees to be reimbursed, SFHA may make a motion to the Court to resolve 

such dispute.

6. DISPUTE RESOLUTION. If a dispute under this Consent Decree arises, other than an 

appeal to the Panel under Section 5, either Party can request a meet and confer within ten (10) 

business days of receiving written notification from the other Party of a request for a meeting to 

resolve the dispute. The notice shall set forth the nature of the dispute. The meet and confer 

under this Section 6 shall be limited to one four-hour meeting unless otherwise agreed by the 

Parties. In the event the meet and confer process has successfully resolved the dispute, then 

within sixty (60) days following its receipt of invoices, PG&E shall reimburse SFHA's 

reasonable attorney's and expert's fees incurred for participation in the meet and confer meeting, 

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 53 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 54

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 49

using the wire instructions in Section 3.5, provided, however, the total of the fees to be 

reimbursed for each such meet and confer shall be capped at Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000). If 

the Parties fail to meet and confer or if the meet and confer does not resolve the issue, then the 

Parties shall each be entitled to bring a motion before the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of California, for the limited purpose of enforcing or modifying the terms of 

this Consent Decree, and will be entitled to seek attorney's fees and costs under Section 11.12. 

7. SUBMISSION OF CONSENT DECREE TO U.S. EPA/DOJ. Within three (3) 

business days of receiving all of the Parties' signatures to this Consent Decree, SFHA shall 

submit this Consent Decree to the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") and the U.S. EPA for

agency review consistent with 40 C.F.R. §135.5. The agency review period expires forty-five 

(45) calendar days after receipt by the DOJ, evidenced by correspondence from DOJ 

establishing the review period. In the event DOJ or U.S. EPA comments negatively on the 

provisions of this Consent Decree, the Parties agree to meet and confer to attempt to resolve the 

issues raised by DOJ or U.S. EPA, as applicable.

8. DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT. Within ten (10) calendar days following the 

expiration of the forty-five (45) day agency review period, the Parties shall submit a stipulation 

and proposed order to the Court to (a) request the approval and entry of this Consent Decree and 

(b) request dismissal of SFHA's claims (but not Clarke's claims) in this action in their entirety 

with prejudice. Such dismissal shall not affect the rights and obligations of the Parties under this 

Consent Decree, nor shall it affect the power of the Court to enforce this Consent Decree.

9. BINDING EFFECT, CLAIMS COVERED AND RELEASED 

9.1. SFHA's Releases and Waivers. This Consent Decree is a full, final, and binding 

resolution between SFHA, acting on behalf of itself, and its present and future members, 

officers, directors, and each of their respective agents, representatives, heirs, beneficiaries, 

executors, administrators, attorneys, insurers, successors and assigns, on the one hand ("SFHA

Releasors"), and PG&E and its past, present and future agents, representatives, employees, 

officers, directors, affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, partners, predecessors in interest, related 

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 54 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 55

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 50

entities, attorneys, insurers, successors and assigns ("Defendant Releasees"), on the other hand, 

of all claims that were asserted by the SFHA against PG&E in the Notice and the First Amended 

Complaint, including, without limitation, claims under RCRA, the CWA, and state statutory and 

common laws.

9.2. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, SFHA Releasors, and each of 

them, hereby release, waive and forever discharge Defendant Releasees from any and all manner 

of actions, causes of action, claims, demands, rights, suits, obligations, debts, contracts, 

agreements, promises, liabilities, damages, charges, losses, costs, expenses, attorneys' fees and 

expert fees, of any nature whatsoever, known or unknown, in law or equity, fixed or contingent, 

now or in the future, arising from or relating to the MIA, PG&E's alleged ownership and 

operation of any portion of the Former MGPs or Former MGP Sites, and any alleged release of 

hazardous substances, any alleged handling, storage, treatment, transportation or disposal of 

solid or hazardous wastes, any alleged discharge of pollutants, or the alleged presence of 

hazardous substances, hazardous or solid wastes, pollutants or contaminants at, under or 

emanating from Former MGP Sites or Former MGPs. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this 

release and waiver shall not include, and shall have no effect upon, any claim by SFHA that 

PG&E breached this Consent Decree, any action by SFHA to enforce this Consent Decree, any 

claim by SFHA arising out of an MGP other than the Former MGPs, or any claim by SFHA 

arising out of an MGP site other than the Former MGP Sites (collectively, "SFHA's Excepted 

Claims").

9.2.1.1. SFHA Releasors (except for SFHA's attorneys), and each of 

them, shall not institute, participate or assist (for example, by providing financial assistance, 

personnel time, advice or support), directly or indirectly, in any suits, claims or actions against 

any Defendant Releasees with regard to the claims released and waived under this Section 9, 

unless such action is to enforce this Consent Decree. By execution of its approval as to the form 

of this Consent Decree, Gross & Klein agree that neither Gross & Klein, Stuart G. Gross, 

Benjamin H. Klein, nor any firm with which they are affiliated, nor any attorney working at said 

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 55 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 56

of 99
Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 56 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 57

of 99
Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 57 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 58

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 53

P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120-7442 (by mail) 

email: Elizabeth.Collier@pge.com 

 Any Party may, from time to time, specify in writing to the other Parties a change of 

address or addressee to which all notices and other communications shall be sent. 

11. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 

11.1. Integration. Except for any agreements that may be entered into in writing by 

and between the Parties concurrently with this Consent Decree, this Consent Decree contains the 

sole and entire agreement between the Parties and any and all prior negotiations and 

understandings related hereto shall be deemed to have been merged into this Consent Decree. 

11.2. Governing Law. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Consent Decree, 

the terms of this Consent Decree shall be governed by, and interpreted and enforced in 

accordance with, the laws of the State of California.

11.3. Effective Date. This Consent Decree shall not be effective until it is approved

and entered by the Court, in which case it shall be effective as of the date it is entered 

("Effective Date"). If the Court disapproves or otherwise declines to approve and enter this 

Consent Decree, the Parties shall meet and confer as to whether to modify the terms of this 

Consent Decree to address the Court's concerns. If the Parties do not agree, in principle, on a 

modified consent decree within thirty (30) days after the Court enters its order disapproving this 

Consent Decree, then this Consent Decree shall automatically be null and void, and this action 

shall proceed on its normal course.

11.4. Retention of Jurisdiction. This Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter 

for the Term of this Consent Decree to implement, modify, and enforce this Consent Decree.

11.5. Modification. This Consent Decree may not be modified or amended except by 

further written stipulation of the Parties and approval of the Court, or by further order of the 

Court.

11.6. Construction. The language in all parts of this Consent Decree, unless otherwise 

stated, shall be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning. The captions, paragraph 

headings, and Table of Contents used in this Consent Decree are for reference only and shall not 

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 58 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 59

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 54

affect the construction of this Consent Decree. The Parties have negotiated this Consent Decree 

and agree that it shall not be construed against the Party preparing it, but shall be deemed to 

have been jointly prepared by the Parties, and any uncertainty and ambiguity shall not be 

interpreted against any one Party.

11.7. Term of Consent Decree. This Consent Decree shall continue in effect for a 

term of ten (10) years from the Effective Date ("Term"), at which time the Consent Decree, and 

all obligations under it, shall automatically terminate. 

11.8. Severability. If any one or more of the provisions of this Consent Decree shall 

for any reason be held invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, that invalidity, illegality 

or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision herein, and this Consent Decree shall be 

construed as if the invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision had never been included, provided, 

however, in no event shall any Party be deprived a material consideration by operation of this 

provision.

11.9. Assignment. All of the rights, duties, and obligations contained in this Consent 

Decree shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon each of the Parties and their respective 

successors and assigns.

11.10. Authority to Sign. The undersigned representatives for the SFHA and for PG&E 

each represent and warrant that he/she has read, understood and agreed to all of the terms and 

conditions of this Consent Decree and is authorized by the Party that he/she represents to enter 

into and execute this Consent Decree on its behalf.

11.11. Counterparts/Signatures. This Consent Decree may be executed in one or more 

counterparts which, taken together, shall be deemed to constitute one and the same document. 

The Parties' signatures to this Consent Decree transmitted by facsimile or electronic mail

transmission shall be deemed binding.

11.12. Attorney's Fees For Enforcement or Modification of Consent Decree. In the 

event any action is taken by any Party to enforce or modify this Consent Decree (which does not 

include any appeal to the Panel under Section 5), reasonable attorney’s fees and costs (including 

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 59 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 60

of 99
Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 60 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 61

of 99
GROSS & KLEIN LLP

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] REVISED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION 

AND DEFENDANTS; Case No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) 56

APPROVED AND SO ORDERED.

Dated:____________________________ By:___________________________________ 

 The Honorable William H. Orrick 

 United States District Court Judge 

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 61 of 98

September 27, 2018

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 62

of 99


Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 62 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 63

of 99
JEFFERSON ST

LAGUNA ST

CERVANTES BLVD

FILLMORE ST

FRANCISCO ST

RETIRO WAY

BAY ST

WEBSTER ST

OCTAVIA ST

BUCHANAN ST

BEACH ST

MARINA GREEN DR

MARINA BLVD

NORTH POINT ST

NOTES1. ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.2. AERIAL IMAGERY SOURCE: CITY AND COUNTY OF SF, 2014

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG&E)FORMER NORTH BEACH MANUFACTURED GAS PLANT SITESAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAFORMER NORTH BEACH MGP SITE

EXHIBIT 1

LEGEND

APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF HISTORICALMANUFACTURED GAS PLANT (MGP)

0 200 400

SCALE IN FEET

SCALE: AS SHOWNJULY 2018

(;(&87,219(56,21 -&216(17'(&5((

SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOC,ATION, et al., Y. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al. (N.D. Cal. Case No. 3:14-cv-04393-WHO-&6) Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 63 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 64

of 99


Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 64 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 65

of 99
 

1. ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.2. AERIAL IMAGERY SOURCE: CITY AND COUNTY OF SF, 2014

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG&E)FORMER FILLMORE MANUFACTURED GAS PLANT SITESAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAFORMER FILLMORE MGP SITE

EXHIBIT 2 SCALE: AS SHOWN JULY 2018

APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF HISTORICALMANUFACTURED GAS PLANT (MGP)

0 200 400

SCALE IN FEET

(;(&87,219(56,21 -&216(17'(&5((

6$1)5$1&,6&2+(55,1*$662&,$7,21HWDOY3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&203$1<HWDO1'&DO&DVH1RFY:+2-&6 Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 65 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 66

of 99


Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 66 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 67

of 99
PIER 43 1/2

THE EMBARCADERO

JEFFERSON ST

TAYLOR ST

PIER 45

BEACH ST

PIER 41

NORTH POINT ST

MASON ST

POWELL ST

STOCKTON ST

PIER 39

NOTES1. ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.2. AERIAL IMAGERY SOURCE: CITY AND COUNTY OF SF, 2014

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG&E)FORMER BEACH STREET MANUFACTURED GAS PLANT SITESAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAFORMER BEACH STREET MGP SITE

EXHIBIT 3 SCALE: AS SHOWN JULY 2018

LEGEND

HISTORICAL MANUFACTURED GAS PLANT (MGP) SITEBOUNDARY

0 150 300

SCALE IN FEET

(;(&87,219(56,21 -&216(17'(&5((

6$1)5$1&,6&2+(55,1*$662&,$7,21HWDOY3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&203$1<HWDO1'&DO&DVH1RFY:+2-&6

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 67 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 68

of 99


Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 68 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 69

of 99
(;(&87,219(56,21&216(17'(&5((

6$1)5$1&,6&2+(55,1*$662&,$7,21HWDOY3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&203$1<HWDO

1'&DO&DVH1RFY:+2-&6

* For C# PAHs CAS is not available.

(;+,%,7/LVWRI(3$3$+IRU$QDO\WLFDO0HDVXUHPHQWWR4XDQWLI\37RWDO7ULJJHU3$+V ́

3$+ &$6
 0ROHFXODU:HLJKWJPRO

Naphthalene 91203 128.17

C1-Naphthalenes - 142.20

Acenaphthylene 208968 152.2

Acenaphthene 83329 154.21

C2-Naphthalenes - 156.23

Fluorene 86737 166.22

C3-Naphthalenes - 170.25

Anthracene 120127 178.12

Phenanthrene 85018 178.23

C1-Fluorenes - 180.25

C4-Naphthalenes - 184.28

C1-Phenanthrene/anthracenes - 192.26

C2-Fluorenes - 194.27

Pyrene 129000 202.26

Fluoranthene 206440 202.26

C2-Phenanthrene/anthracenes - 206.29

C3-Fluorenes - 208.30

C1-Pyrene/fluoranthenes - 216.29

C3-Phenanthrene/anthracenes - 220.32

Benz(a)anthracene 56553 228.29

Chrysene 218019 228.29

C4-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes - 234.23

C1-Benzanthracene/chrysenes - 242.32

Benzo(a)pyrene 50328 252.31

Perylene 198550 252.31

Benzo(e)pyrene 192972 252.32

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205992 252.32

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207089 252.32

C2-Benzanthracene/chrysenes - 256.23

Benzo(ghi)perylene 191242 276.23

C3-Benzanthracene/chrysenes - 270.36

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 193395 276.23

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 53703 278.35

C4-Benzanthracene/chrysenes - 284.38

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 69 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 70

of 99


Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 70 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 71

of 99
@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

É

?

É

?

É

?

É

?

SAN FRANCISCO 

BAY

BEACH ST

POWELL ST

JEFFERSON ST

MASON ST

THE EMBARCADERO

STOCKTON ST

BAY ST

GRANT AVE

TAYLOR ST

JONES ST

UB-13

UB-14 UB-12 UB-15 UB-01 UB-02 UB-03

UB-04

UB-05

UB-06

UB-07

UB-08

UB-09

UB-11

1. AERIAL IMAGERY SOURCE: CITY AND COUNTY OF SF, 2014 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG&E)

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAPIER 35 TO JONES ST. SOIL BORING/GRAB GROUNDWATER SAMPLING MAP

EXHIBIT 5 JULY 2018

@ UPLAND BORING 

É

? PROPOSED GRAB GROUNDWATER SAMPLING LOCATION 

PIER 39PIER 39 HARBOR FORMER BEACH STREET MANUFACTURED GAS PLANT (MGP) 

0 220 440

SCALE IN FEET

(;(&87,219(56,21 -&216(17'(&5((

6$1)5$1&,6&2+(55,1*$662&,$7,21HWDOY3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&203$1<HWDO1'&DO&DVH1RFY:+2-&6 Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 71 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 72

of 99


Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 72 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 73

of 99
(;(&87,219(56,21 -&216(17'(&5((

6$1)5$1&,6&2+(55,1*$662&,$7,21HWDOY3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&203$1<HWDO1'&DO&DVH1RFY:+2-&6

#

!

? #

!

?

#

!

?

#

!

?

#

!

? #

!

?

#

!

? #

!

?

#

!

?

#

!

? #

!

?

#

!

? #

!

?

#

!

?

É!?

É!

?

É!?

É!?

É!

?

É!

?

É!?

É!?

É!

?

É!

?

É!?

SAN FRANCISCO BAY

WEST

HARBOR

EAST

HARBOR

MW13A/B

MW14A/B

MW15A/B

MW16A/B

MW17

MW21A/B

MW18

MW19

MW20

MW-02A

MW-02C

MW-06A

MW-06C

MW-08A

MW-08BR

MW-09A

MW-09B

CMT05A

CMT05B

CMT05C

MW-06B

MW-02B

 

 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG&E)SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA100' BAND GROUNDWATERMONITORING WELL MAP -BAKER ST. TO LAGUNA ST.

EXHIBIT 6 JULY 2018

#

!

? MONITORING WELL 

É!

? AGREED UPON LOCATION OF NEW MONITORING WELL 

APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF HISTORICAL MANUFACTURED GAS PLANT (MGP) 

0 400 800

SCALE IN FEET

1. FINAL WELL LOCATIONS MAY BE ADJUSTED TOACCOUNT FOR SUBSURFACE UTILITIES AND/ORANY OTHER ACCESS CONSTRAINTS.2. AERIAL IMAGERY SOURCE: CITY AND COUNTYOF SF, 2014

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 73 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 74

of 99


Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 74 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 75

of 99
#

!? #

!? #

!

?

É!

?

É!

?

SAN FRANCISCO 

BAY

BEACH ST

POWELL ST

JEFFERSON ST

MASON ST

THE EMBARCADERO

STOCKTON ST

BAY ST

GRANT AVE

TAYLOR ST

JONES ST

MW01 MW02 MW03

1. AERIAL IMAGERY SOURCE: CITY AND COUNTY OF SF, 2014 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG&E)

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA100' BAND GROUNDWATERMONITORING WELL MAP -JONES ST. TO PIER 39

EXHIBIT 7 JULY 2018

#

!

? MONITORING WELL

É!

? PROPOSED MONITORING WELL

PIER 39PIER 39 HARBORFORMER BEACH STREET MANUFACTUREDGAS PLANT (MGP)

0 220 440

SCALE IN FEET

(;(&87,219(56,21 -&216(17'(&5((

6$1)5$1&,6&2+(55,1*$662&,$7,21HWDOY3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&203$1<HWDO1'&DO&DVH1RFY:+2-&6 Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 75 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 76

of 99


Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 76 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 77

of 99
OEH-53

OEH-52

OEH-51

OEH-50

OEH-48

OEH-47

OEH-49

OEH-46

OEH-45

OEH-44

1. ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.2. AERIAL IMAGERY SOURCE: CITY AND COUNTY OF SF, 2014 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG&E)

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAFORT MASON OFFSHORE SEDIMENTSAMPLING LOCATION MAP

EXHIBIT 8 SCALE: AS SHOWN JULY 2018

SEDIMENT STATION

0 100 200

SCALE IN FEET

(;(&87,219(56,21 -&216(17'(&5((

6$1)5$1&,6&2+(55,1*$662&,$7,21HWDOY3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&203$1<HWDO1'&DO&DVH1RFY:+2-&6 Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 77 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 78

of 99


Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 78 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 79

of 99
SAN FRANCISCO

BAY

OEH-64

OEH-66

OEH-67

OEH-68

OEH-65

OEH-69

OEH-70

OEH-61

OEH-62

OEH-59

OEH-60

OEH-58

OEH-57

OEH-56

OEH-55

OEH-53

OEH-52

OEH-54

OEH-63

OEH-71

FILLMORE ST

MARINA BLVD

MARINA GREEN DR

1. ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.2. AERIAL IMAGERY SOURCE: CITY AND COUNTY OF SF, 2014 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG&E)

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIANEW MARINA OFFSHORE SEDIMENTSAMPLING LOCATION MAP

EXHIBIT 9 SCALE: AS SHOWN JULY 2018

SEDIMENT STATION

0 150 300

SCALE IN FEET

(;(&87,219(56,21 -&216(17'(&5((

6$1)5$1&,6&2+(55,1*$662&,$7,21HWDOY3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&203$1<HWDO1'&DO&DVH1RFY:+2-&6 Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 79 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 80

of 99
	

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 80 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 81

of 99
SAN FRANCISCO

BAY

OEH-64

OEH-66

OEH-67

OEH-68

OEH-65

OEH-69

OEH-70

OEH-61

OEH-62

OEH-59

OEH-60

OEH-58

OEH-57

OEH-56

OEH-55

OEH-53

OEH-52

OEH-54

OEH-63

OEH-71

FILLMORE ST

MARINA BLVD

MARINA GREEN DR

1. ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.2. AERIAL IMAGERY SOURCE: CITY AND COUNTY OF SF, 2014 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG&E)

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE OF NEWMARINA OFFSHORE SEDIMENTSTEP-OUT SAMPLING SCENARIO

EXHIBIT 10 SCALE: AS SHOWN JULY 2018

PLANNED SEDIMENT STATIONPOTENTIAL STEP-OUT SEDIMENT STATION

0 150 300

SCALE IN FEET

(;(&87,219(56,21 -&216(17'(&5((

6$1)5$1&,6&2+(55,1*$662&,$7,21HWDOY3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&203$1<HWDO1'&DO&DVH1RFY:+2-&6 Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 81 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 82

of 99


Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 82 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 83

of 99
EXECUTION VERSIONͲCONSENT DECREE

SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION, et al., v. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al. (N.D. Cal. Case

No. 3:14ͲcvͲ04393ͲWHO (JCS))

1

Exhibit 11 –Basis for Developing a Conservative Proxy for PWeq

This Exhibit describes how bulk sediment PAH data will be used to predict Total PAH (sum of the EPAͲ34

PAHs) concentrations in pore water, to determine if the Chemical Performance Standard of 15 μg/L

Total PAH has been exceeded.If a statistically acceptable correlation (R2 > 0.8) between bulk sediment

characteristics and pore water EPA PAHͲ34 concentrations cannot be demonstrated, the conservative

method outlined below (conservative proxy) will be used to estimate total EPA PAHͲ34 concentrations in

sediment pore water using total PAH concentrations in bulk sediment.

Data collected by PG&E during 2017 as part of the Outside East Harbor Shallow Sediment Investigation

will be included in the evaluation together with additional samples collected from the Pier 39 to 45

sediment investigation as described below.

Pier 39 to 45 sediment Sampling Locations. Twenty (20) stations out of an existing 95 surface sediment

sampling stations where bulk sediment sampling has already occurred will be sampled for pore water and

coͲlocated bulk sediment.The sampling stations are not geographically equally distributed but instead

include stations in areas with anticipated bulk sediment concentrations distributed throughout the range

of total Regional Monitoring Program (RMP) PAHͲ25 concentrations in current surface sediments.The

following summarizes the number of stations sampled within various surface sediment total PAHͲ25

concentration ranges, based on the previous sediment sampling:

x 1 station < 4.5 mg/kg [4.5 mg/kg = SF Bay Ambient for “muddy” sediment]

x 1 station between 4.5 and 10 mg/kg

x 3 stations between 10 and 30 mg/kg

x 4 stations between 30 and 44.8 mg/kg [44.8 mg/kg = ERM, screening level above which adverse

effects to invertebrates are considered likely]

x 5 stations between 44.8 and 100 mg/kg

x 6 stations > 100 mg/kg

Outside East Harbor Shallow Sediment Investigation. Below is an example plot of the 20 pairs of

outside East Harbor data and on a logͲlog scale, without discarding any data pairs as potential outliers,

which demonstrates that there is a somewhat strong relationship between bulk sediment PAH

concentrations and pore water PAH concentrations. This relationship is modeled below with a simple

2ndͲorder polynomial to fit the curvature in the signal (how sediment concentrations change as a

function of pore water concentrations). The plot below shows a scatter plot between pore water and

bulk sediment PAH concentrations on the logͲlog scale. The R2 value for this particular model is 0.71

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 83 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 84

of 99
EXECUTION VERSIONͲCONSENT DECREE

SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION, et al., v. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al. (N.D. Cal. Case

No. 3:14ͲcvͲ04393ͲWHO (JCS))

2

This limited data set does not result in a correlation R2 > 0.8 but suggests that a larger data set might

produce a higher coefficient of determination.Therefore, additional samples will be collected and used

to determine if a statistically acceptable correlation exists.

Dataset for Developing a Conservative Proxy for PWeq.The dataset to be evaluated will include

twenty (20) sedimentͲpore water sample pairs from twenty (20) stations collected in the Outside East

Harbor Shallow Sediment Investigation. The dataset will also include sixty (60) additional sample pairs

collected from twenty (20) stations at Pier 39 to 45 (3Ͳsamples at three depth intervals, 0Ͳ0.5’, 1Ͳ1.5’ and

2Ͳ3’, from 20 locations).SedimentͲpore water sample pairs will be excluded from evaluation for any of

the following reasons: 1) presence of NAPL in bulk sediment; and 2) filtered pore water (from the

Outside East Harbor filtration comparison).

 

Ɣ

Ɣ

Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ

Ɣ

Ɣ Ɣ

Ɣ

Ɣ

Ɣ

Ɣ

Ɣ

Ɣ Ɣ

Ɣ Ɣ

Ɣ

Ɣ

exp( −2 )

exp( 0 )

exp( 2 )

exp( 4 )

exp( 6 )

exp( 8 )

exp( 10 )

exp( 12 )

exp( 8 ) exp( 10 ) exp( 12 ) exp( 14 ) exp( 16 )

Sediment concentration (log−ug/kg)

Pore Water Concentration (log

−ug/kg)

Pore Water vs. Sediment Concentrations, log−log

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 84 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 85

of 99
EXECUTION VERSIONͲCONSENT DECREE

SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION, et al., v. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al. (N.D. Cal. Case

No. 3:14ͲcvͲ04393ͲWHO (JCS))

3

The following process will be used to determine a relationship between bulk sediment concentrations

and pore water, and provides a conservative estimator should it be necessary:

1. Use statistical computing software to find a best fit model for 1st and 2nd order polynomials

(i.e., linear or quadratic) on a logͲlog scale with Ordinary Least Squares or Maximum Likelihood

algorithms on all paired bulk and pore water data without outlier removal.

2. Calculate the R2 model for the regression models and select the regression model with the

highest R2 coefficientͲofͲdetermination.

3. If the highest R2 value for the regression models is at least 0.8, select the regression model with

the highest R2 value as sufficient for estimating PWeq.

4. If the highest R2 value for the regression line models is below 0.8, then:

a. Apply 95% confidence intervals on the best linear fit, exclude data points beyond the

95% confidence intervals, and reͲcalculate the R2 model for the regression lines with the

outliers excluded.

b. If the highest R2 value for the regression models, excluding 95% confidence interval

outliers, is at least 0.8, select the regression model with the highest R2 value as sufficient

for estimating PWeq.

5. If the highest R2 value for the regression models is still below 0.8, then:

a. Identify the bulk concentration that equates to a pore water concentration of Total

Trigger PAHs of 15 μg/L for each regression model.

b. Limit the dataset of bulk sediment concentrations to values two orders of magnitude

less than and greater than the bulk concentration that equates to a pore water

concentration of Total Trigger PAHs of 15 μg/L for each regression model, then perform

steps 1 through 3 on the Trimmed Dataset.

c. If the highest R2 value for any of the regression models is at least 0.75, select the

regression model with the highest R2 value as sufficient for estimating PWeq.

d. If the highest R2 value determined with the regression models for the Trimmed Dataset

resulting from 5.b. ("Trimmed Dataset") is below 0.75, then:

i. Select the nonlinear regression model from 5.b with the highest R2 value

determined for the trimmed dataset, then:

ii. Calculate projected pore water Total Trigger PAHs ("Projected Pore Water") for

all bulk sediment samples in the Trimmed Dataset with the highest R2 value

trimmed regression equation;

iii. Calculate a direct Conversion Factor (“CF”) using the following equation: CF =

Projected Pore Water concentration divided by the bulk sediment

concentration; and

iv. Select the 95th percentile of the CF dataset to calculate the PWeq conservative

proxy that may be used to estimate Total Trigger PAHs in pore water for bulk

sediment with PAH concentrations.

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 85 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 86

of 99
	

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 86 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 87

of 99
yhd/KEsZ^/KEͲKE^EdZ

^E&ZE/^K,ZZ/E'^^K/d/KE͕ĞƚĂů͕͘ǀ͘W/&/'^E>dZ/KDWEz͕ĞƚĂů͘

;E͘͘Ăů͘ĂƐĞEŽ͘ϯ͗ϭκͲĐǀͲϬκϯεϯͲt,K;:^ͿͿ

1

EXHIBIT 12

Pore Water Sampling Protocol

This Exhibit describes a sediment pore water sampling and analysis protocol to be implemented as part

of new offshore sediment investigations and related sediment monitoring performed under the terms of

a consent decree

Pore Water Sampling and Analysis. At each pore waterstation, pore water samples will be collected from

three depth intervals: 0 to 0.5, 1.0 to 1.5, and 2.0 to 3.0 feet below mudline.At each station, three pore

water samples (one from each depth interval) will be collected simultaneously using an array of screened

piezometers inserted into sediment through a metal plate with a minimum size of 18” square fitted with

diaphragms to stabilize the sediment surface before penetration of the three piezometers.  Three

dedicated screen assemblies (screen sizeͲ0.03Ͳinch screen) will be fabricated for each station.The only

componentsthat are reͲused are the metal plate, the weights, and the retrieval wires.The device includes

three 1Ͳinch diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipes which extend into the sediment, each with a 6Ͳinch

or 12Ͳinch long slotted screen at the specified depth interval.The sampling screens will be isolated from

the overlying surface water by an impermeable seal.The three sets of Teflon tubing will be connected to

three separate peristaltic pumps on the sampling vessel.LowͲflow sampling techniques will be used to

gently purge the volume of water in the tubing prior to sample collection.

To minimize the chance of vertical pore water migration, all three sample intervals will be sampled

simultaneously using low pumping rates to encourage horizontal flow.For each screened interval, after

purging a single tubing volume, a small aliquot of pore water will be collected, and field parameters

measured (temperature,salinity, dissolved oxygen, oxidationͲreduction potential).A single 1ͲLitersample

will then be collected from each screened interval for analysis of PAHs and total organic carbon (TOC).

When there is adequate sample volume, field parameters will be measured (temperature, salinity,

dissolved oxygen, oxidationͲreduction potential). An ambient sample of San Francisco Bay water will be

collected from immediately above the sedimentsurface and measured for field parameters(temperature,

salinity, dissolved oxygen, oxidationͲreduction potential). Samples will be retained on ice under chainͲofͲ

custody until shipped to the analytical laboratory. Porewater samples will not be filtered; rather, the

laboratory will flush from porewater samples visual particles that have settled in the separatory funnel.

Sediment Sampling and Analysis. After collection of the pore water samples, coͲlocated sediment

samples (0.0 to 0.5, 1.0 to 1.5, and 2.0 to 3.0 feet below mudline) will be collected from a short core,

nominally 4 feet in length, advanced by pushing or gravity. The samples will be homogenized for aliquoting

sediment into jars for PAH and TOC analysis.Sufficient remaining bulk sediment will be collected into zipͲ

lock bags for grain size analysis.

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 87 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 88

of 99
	

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 88 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 89

of 99
#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

EAST

HARBOR

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG&E)SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAEAST HARBOR PRIOR SAMPLINGLOCATIONS MAP

EXHIBIT 13 JULY 2018

# SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATION

APPROXIMATE LIMITS OFHISTORICAL MANUFACTURED GASPLANT (MGP)

0 120 240

SCALE IN FEET

1. AERIAL IMAGERY SOURCE: CITY ANDCOUNTY OF SF, 2014

(;(&87,219(56,21 -&216(17'(&5((

6$1)5$1&,6&2+(55,1*$662&,$7,21HWDOY3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&203$1<HWDO1'&DO&DVH1RFY:+2-&6 Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 89 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 90

of 99
	

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 90 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 91

of 99
(;(&87,219(56,21&216(17'(&5((

6$1)5$1&,6&2+(55,1*$662&,$7,21HWDOY3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&203$1<HWDO

1'&DO&DVH1RFY:+2-&6

(;+,%,7

/LVWRI6HGLPHQW3RUH:DWHU3$+V

Naphthalene*

C1-Naphthalenes

C2-Naphthalenes

C3-Naphthalenes

C4-Naphthalenes

2-Methylnaphthalene* 

1-Methylnaphthalene* 

2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene* 

2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene* 

Acenaphthylene* 

Acenaphthene*

Biphenyl* 

Dibenzofuran

Carbazole 

Fluorene*

C1-Fluorenes

C2-Fluorenes

C3-Fluorenes

Benzothiophene 

C1-Benzo(b)thiophenes 

C2-Benzo(b)thiophenes 

C3-Benzo(b)thiophenes 

C4-Benzo(b)thiophenes 

Naphthobenzothiophene 

C1-Naphthobenzothiophenes 

C2-Naphthobenzothiophenes 

C3-Naphthobenzothiophenes 

C4-Naphthobenzothiophenes 

Dibenzothiophene* 

C1-Dibenzothiophenes 

C2-Dibenzothiophenes 

C3-Dibenzothiophenes 

C4-Dibenzothiophenes 

1-Methyldibenzothiophene (1MDT) 

2/3-Methyldibenzothiophene (2MDT) 

4-Methyldibenzothiophene (4MDT) 

Anthracene* 

Phenanthrene*

C1-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes 

C2-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes 

C3-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes 

C4-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes 

1-Methylphenanthrene (1MP)* 

2-Methylphenanthrene (2MP) 

3-Methylphenanthrene (3MP) 

9/4-Methylphenanthrene (9MP) 

2-Methylanthracene (2MA) 

1-Methyl-7-isopropylphenanthrene (Retene) 

Fluoranthene* 

Pyrene* 

C1-Fluoranthenes/Pyrenes 

C2-Fluoranthenes/Pyrenes 

C3-Fluoranthenes/Pyrenes 

C4-Fluoranthenes/Pyrenes 

1-Methylpyrene 

2-Methylpyrene 

4-Methylpyrene 

Benzo(b)fluorene 

Benzo(c)fluorene

Benzo(a)anthracene 

Chrysene/Triphenylene* 

C1-Chrysenes 

C2-Chrysenes 

C3-Chrysenes 

C4-Chrysenes 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene* 

Benzo(j)+(k)fluoranthene** 

Benzo(a)fluoranthene

Benzo(e)Pyrene* 

Benzo(a)Pyrene* 

Perylene* 

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene* 

Dibenz(a,h)+(a,c)anthracene*

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene* 

Bicyclic Aliphatic Hydrocabons 

Cis/Trans-Decalin 

C1-Decalins 

C2-Decalins 

C3-Decalins 

C4-Decalins 

* Indicates constituents included in Regional Monitoring Program (RMP) PAH-25 list. PAHs

(μg/kg dry wt), related heterocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and bicyclic aliphatic hydrocarbons - 

EPA Method 8270D-SIM (Modified) Note: dry wt for sediment, wet wt for tissues, ng/L for 

elutriates. 

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 91 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 92

of 99
	

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 92 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 93

of 99
FISHERMAN'S

WHARF

MARINA

DISTRICT

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG&E)SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA"UPSET EVENT" GEOGRAPHICALBOUNDARY MAP

EXHIBIT 15 SCALE: AS SHOWN JULY 2018

0 1,000 2,000

SCALE IN FEET

(;(&87,219(56,21 -&216(17'(&5((

6$1)5$1&,6&2+(55,1*$662&,$7,21HWDOY3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&203$1<HWDO1'&DO&DVH1RFY:+2-&6

BASE MAP SOURCE: ESRI

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 93 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 94

of 99
	

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 94 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 95

of 99
@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@ @ @

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

DREDGE AREA B2-1

DREDGE AREA B2-4

WEST

HARBOR

SAN FRANCISCO

BAY

RICO W

PS-07

PS-05 PS-06 PS-04 PS-03 PS-02 PS-01

PS-08

PS-09

PS-10

PS-11

PS-12 PS-13 PS-14 PS-15 PS-16 PS-17

PS-20 PS-21 PS-22 PS-23

PS-24

PS-19

PS-18

DIVISADERO ST

CASA WAY

CERVANTES BLVD

AVILA ST

BRODERICK ST

BAKER ST

SCOTT ST

MARINA BLVD

YACHT RD

MARINA GREEN DR

NOTES1. ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.2. AERIAL IMAGERY SOURCE: CITY AND COUNTY OF SF, 2014

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG&E)SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAWEST HARBOR SAMPLINGAND POTENTIAL STEP-OUT LOCATION MAP

EXHIBIT 16 SCALE: AS SHOWN JULY 2018

LEGEND

@ PASSIVE SAMPLE STATION

POTENTIAL STEP-OUT STATIONDREDGE AREAPERIMETER BOUNDARY 0 150 300

SCALE IN FEET

EXECUTION VERSION -&216(17'(&5((

6$1)5$1&,6&2+(55,1*$662&,$7,21HWDOY3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&203$1<HWDO1'&DO&DVH1RFY:+2-&6 Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 95 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 96

of 99
	

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 96 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 97

of 99
Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 97 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 98

of 99
Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 176 Filed 09/27/18 Page 98 of 98

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-8 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 99

of 99