Responsiveness Summary
Deletion of Surface Soil from National Priorities List
Pacific Coast Pipe Lines Superfund Site

March 2018

Introduction
A Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion for the Pacific Coast Pipe Lines Superfund Site was published in the Federal Register on December 26, 2017 (82 FR 60943-60946). The publication of this notice was intended to inform the public that EPA planned to delete the surface soil portion of the site from the National Priorities List (NPL), and provide a 30-day public comment period on the proposed deletion. The closing date for comments on the Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion was January 25, 2018. Eight written comments were received: five supporting EPA’s decision, two opposing, and one that was not related to the proposed partial deletion. These comments are available in the Information Repositories. All public comments were considered in EPA’s final decision to delete the Site from the NPL.

Responsiveness Summary
The Responsiveness Summary has been prepared to provide responses to comments submitted to EPA during the 30-day public comment period regarding the Notice of Intent to Delete (82 FR 60943-60946) the Pacific Coast Pipe Lines (PCPL) Superfund Site. The original comments are summarized below and available at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0011, with the support materials under document type “Public Submissions”, and at the information repositories at the following addresses:
Superfund Records Center, 75 Hawthorne Street Room 3110, San Francisco, California, Hours: 8:00 AM – 4:00 PM; (415) 947-8717.
Site Repository: Fillmore Library, 502 2nd Street, Fillmore, California. Call (805) 5243355 for hours of operation.
Summary of Adverse Comments:
· The soil portion of the site should be kept on the National Priorities List (list of Superfund sites) (two commenters).
· Concerns raised by the commenters include: contaminated soil remains on the property; contaminated soil was disposed on-site in consolidation areas; EPA needs to let the public know where the consolidation areas are and where benzene is in the groundwater; residents could be exposed to contaminated soil in the future because of a natural disaster.

EPA’s Response:
The remedial action objectives and associated cleanup levels established in the Record of Decision Amendment (2011) are intended to protect human health and 2 the environment. Confirmation sampling indicates that all contaminants of concern in the PCPL Site’s soil are below the cleanup levels specified in the ROD Amendment. Although the surface soil still contains low levels of lead and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons at concentrations that EPA does not consider safe for residential use, the surface soil has been cleaned up to a level that allows for commercial and recreational use of the former refinery, which are the permissible future land uses (see further discussion below). Soil containing higher concentrations of contamination were excavated from across the PCPL Site and deposited at a minimum depth of ten feet below ground surface in two on-site consolidation areas that are under multi-layer engineered caps, designed to prevent leaching of contaminants into groundwater. At these depths, the more highly contaminated soil that was found at the PCPL Site is secure and poses no threat to human health or the environment.
· The Final Soil Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan establishes an inspection, monitoring, and maintenance program and a schedule of activities.
· There are land use covenants to ensure that cap integrity will be maintained and that future use of the property is restricted to commercial and recreational uses.
EPA, DTSC, and Texaco, Inc. developed a land use covenant to restrict the use of the Site. This covenant was recorded at the Ventura County Recorder's Office on August 19, 2016, and “runs with the land,” meaning the restrictions are binding on current and subsequent property owners.
· Because the site is not available for unlimited use or unrestricted exposure, EPA will review the effectiveness of the soil cleanup at the PCPL Site every five years to determine whether the cleanup remains protective of human health and the environment.
· The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) establishes criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In consultation with California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control, EPA has determined that the criterion for delisting the PCPL Site has been met: the responsible party, Texaco, Inc., has implemented all appropriate response actions for surface soil set forth in the 2011 ROD Amendment (which selected the remedy for contaminated soils at the PCPL Site), and no further response action for soil is necessary.
· Deleting the surface soil portion of the PCPL Site from the NPL does not prohibit EPA from taking actions, as appropriate, to protect human health and the environment, including during natural disasters. Nor does it release responsible parties from legal liability for response actions at the PCPL Site that are necessary to protect human health and the environment. All releases deleted from the NPL are eligible for further remedial actions if warranted and, in the event there is a significant release from the surface soil portion of the PCPL Site in the future, EPA can restore it to the NPL.
· The locations of the two plumes of benzene in groundwater and the two consolidation areas are shown in the PCPL Soil Remedial Action Report 2016, Figures 2 and 3, respectively. This report was included in the online deletion docket at Regulations.gov and included in the PCPL Site information repositories as a supporting document. It is also available at the EPA website www.epa.gov/superfund/pacificcoastpipeline under Site Documents & Data. The 3 groundwater cleanup continues at the PCPL Site and is not affected by this partial deletion.
. Summary of Supportive Comments:
· Several commenters stated that partial deletion of the soils portion of the PCPL Site could benefit local government and residents by reducing the perceived stigma of a Superfund site designation. The partial deletion could also benefit nearby property values, facilitate recreation activities and access, and provide beneficial reuse opportunities for the community.
· A business leasing the PCPL Site states that reduced liability insurance costs and reduced investor concerns could result from the partial deletion of the PCPL Site.
In addition, one comment received discussed California wildfires and air pollution. It was not considered to be related to the proposed deletion of the PCPL Site.

Bob Crum

"Musket Muzzle Blast" by Bob Crum.
Enlarge Photo

Exhausted, I am so ready for a three-month vacation in Hawaii. Too much to do when big events happen close together. At such extravaganzas I tend to shoot a ton of photos... as you now know. But unlike film where every push of the shutter button cost money, it costs nothing to delete the crapola. Oops... is crapola a word?

Speaking of words, most emails I receive are technical questions. Occasionally I get taken to the woodshed. Mr. X, who didn't provide his name, wrote a scathing email rebuking me for using the word 'photoing' declaring: “there is no such word in the English language.” Well, there's golf'ing', fish'ing', bowl'ing'... so why not photo'ing'?

Merriam-Webster website reports, in part: “The Merriam-Webster.com dictionary has gotten bigger, this time by over 250 new words and definitions. As always, the expansion of the dictionary mirrors the expansion of the language, and reaches into all the various cubbies and corners of the lexicon.” Mr. X, 'photoing' will be next!

The worst part of his email was saying: “There is no such thing as mermaids. Grow up. I mean REALLY – mermaids??? C'mon man. Anacapa Island eh? Didn't you mean Seals Sea Lions?” I suspect the writer also does not believe in Santa Clause. But about the Photo of the Week, he said: “Nice cannon shot photo.” Thank you, sir!

Cameras! At the Wings over Camarillo air show last year, a Canon camera photographer friend was trying out Sony mirrorless cameras. This year, at the L.A. County air show my friend showed up with 'only' Sonys. Sold all his Canon gear!

His photographic expertise & experience gives credence to his persuasive counsel to seriously consider mirrorless cameras, in particular, Sonys. However, conversion is neither easy or financially palatable. I previously mentioned that you don't just buy a camera, you invest in a system: Camera, lenses & accessories. Accordingly, I have a sizable financial investment in Canon gear & related accessories. Unfortunately, none of it is worth much on the used market. Furthermore, I'm not thrilled with the present lens selection for mirrorless cameras.

Faithful readers know that my main gear, though heavy, is a Canon 7D MarkII and a Tamron 16-300mm lens. It's a great combo for photojournalist's but I'd like to lighten the load. The lens is not available in a Sony E mount or any other brand of mirrorless cameras. If preventable, I'd rather not regress to carrying multiple lenses to cover the same 16-300mm range.

This week's photo of the week, and one other, is again from Moorpark Rotary Club's Civil War reenactment production. These are unique photos because, luck aside, the subject is substantially challenging to capture. Hello burst mode.

At the recent L.A. County air show, aircraft are flying all the time, as expected. Had I shot in burst mode all the time, I'd need a 3TB hard drive to hold all the photos. Muskets fire intermittently so shooting in 'burst' mode is feasible. So I did. The challenge is anticipating exactly when a musket will fire. Missed most times! In these two photos, the photo of the week is photo #5 of 10. The other photo is #8 of 10. I was shooting slow burst... not fast burst which fires off 10 shots per second. Brrrrt... done! At that speed, I would likely miss the capture moment before the camera's buffer filled. Slow burst mode expands the time interval the camera fires. The rest is up to timing... and 'luck'. Be sure to check fillmoregazette.com for color versions of photos.

As always, send your comments, questions or suggestions to bob@fillmoregazette.com

District Attorney Gregory D. Totten announced today that Los Angeles County residents Patrick Abrahamian (DOB 1/6/70), Michelle Abrahamian (DOB 5/27/71), and Taline Indra (DOB 2/29/80) were each sentenced to prison for their theft of a Bell Canyon home. Patrick Abrahamian was sentenced to 11 years 4 months in prison. Michelle Abrahamian and Taline Indra were each sentenced to 7 years 8 months in prison. In February, the defendants were convicted following a one-month jury trial. The case is the result of an investigation conducted by the District Attorney’s Real Estate Fraud Unit.

In 2012, Patrick Abrahamian approached the 65-year-old victim with an offer to help him negotiate a modification of his mortgage. In return, the victim agreed to move out and lease his home to the Abrahamians while Patrick Abrahamian supposedly negotiated a new mortgage for the victim. At the end of the lease term, the Abrahamians refused to vacate the home. After consulting with an attorney, the victim learned that a notarized grant deed had been recorded conveying his home, as a gift, to Abrahamian’s wife, Michelle Abrahamian. At the time of the offenses, Michelle Abrahamian was a licensed real estate agent.

The deed gifting away the victim’s home was fraudulently notarized by defendant Taline Indra, who is Michelle Abrahamian’s sister. Patrick Abrahamian subsequently impersonated the victim in a lawsuit filed by Abrahamian against the victim’s mortgage lender. This impersonation caused additional false documents to be filed in both the Ventura Superior Court and the County Recorder’s Office. Michelle Abrahamian was found in possession of notary acknowledgments that falsely claimed the victim had appeared before defendant Indra to have his signature notarized.

Judge Michael Lief noted that the sophistication and brazenness of the defendants’ fraudulent scheme “shocked the conscience of the court.” In addition to the prison sentence, each defendant was also fined $500,000 and ordered to pay $189,382 in victim restitution.

The Ventura County District Attorney’s Office is the public prosecutor for the county’s 850,000 residents. The office employs approximately 280 employees including attorneys, investigators, victim advocates, and other professional support staff who strive to seek justice, ensure public safety, and protect the rights of crime victims.