HomeMy WebLinkAboutC-3059(A) - Consulting Services Agreement (for Development Agreement No. 8), Amendment No. 2-3Q\
ll)
O AMENDMENT NO.3 TO CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT
V
.OThis Amendment to Consulting Services Agreement, entered into this
(6 -- day o , 1997, by and between the City of Newport Beach,
a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City" and Environmental
Services Consortium, Inc., (formerly Environmental Management Services)
hereinafter referred to as "Consultant," is made with reference to the following:
A. City and Consultant previously entered into that certain Consultant
Agreement, dated September 27, 1994, ("Consultant Agreement")
which engaged Consultant to perform services in connection with
the preparation of an environmental impact report for the
Ford/Loral development project.
B. City and Consultant executed an Amendment to Consulting
Services Agreement on May 8, 1995 which provided for additional
environmental services relating to the monitoring of closure,
demolition, and remediation activities at the Ford/Loral site; and
C. The City requires additional environmental services as described in
Consultant's proposal dated November 17, 1996, which is attached
hereto as Exhibit 1.
NOW THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the
undersigned parties as follows:
The Consultant Agreement shall be amended to include the
services described in Exhibit 1. The terms and conditions of
service provided in these Exhibits shall be in addition to the terms
and conditions contained in the Consultant Agreement except to
the extent that any terms and conditions contained in Exhibit 1
conflict with the Consultant Agreement, the original Consultant
Agreement shall prevail.
2. Consultant agrees to provide all documentation necessary to
comply with insurance requirements contained in the Consultant
Agreement, so that the services provided in Exhibit 1 shall be
covered as required in the Consultant Agreement.
Amendment No. 3 to Consulting Services Agreement
Environmental Services Consortium, Inc.
Page 1
WHEREAS the parties to this Agreement have caused this Amendment to be
executed on the day and year first written above.
CONSULTANT
Lyne Hethring Principal
Environmental Services Co s rtium, Inc.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
A Municipal Corporation
Sharon Z. Wood
Assistant City Manager
Appr ed as to Form:
---
xo),
Robin Clauson
Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK ( J
Attachment: Exhibit 1
F:\USERS\PLN\SHARED\FORD\CONTRACT\LYNE-H\CON-AMD3.DOC
Amendment No. 3 to Consulting Services Agreement
Environmental Services Consortium, Inc.
Page 2
i
EXHIBIT 2`
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CONSORTIUM, INC. WBE
�' 1':+rt c+f the Envircinn+c•nt.+l �l:uu+l;cmcnl tic+viccti
Group <►f C'c>mlruiicti
310.9846" _-�
_.,. .-_ ,- : _._ ._ __. 3'.0.93.1•=_'_.
• r.
9030' anvlroser ' _ _
17 November 1996
ESCI96-CNB-HRA-02
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA. 92659-1768
Attention: Ms. Patty Temple
Planning Director
SUBJECT: TECHNICAL REVIEW OF RISK ASSESSMENTS FOR THE MAIN AREA
AND ATC AREA OF THE FORMER FORD AERONUTRONIC FACILITY
LOCATED IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
Dear Ms. Temple:
In response to a joint request from the City of Newport Beach and Ford Motor Land Corporation
(FMLC), this document presents the scope of work and estimated budget developed by
Environmental Services Consortium, Inc. (ESCI - formerly Environmental Management Services
[EMS]) to provide a technical review of risk assessments that have been conducted for the main
area and the ATC area at the former Ford Aeronutronic facility (site) located in the city of
Newport Beach. It is our understanding that this scope of work will be conducted in general
accordance with Amendment No. 2 (dated 8 May 1995) to the existing "Consultant Agreement"
between the City of Newport Beach (CNB) and ESCI.
ESCI will conduct a technical review of the following risk assessment -based evaluations that were
performed by Geraghty & Miller on behalf of FMLC for the former Ford Aeronutronic facility:
- Health Risk Assessment for Main Area Former Aeronutronic Facility Newport Beach,
California (September, 1996)
Health Risk Assessment for ACT Area Former Aeronutronic Facility Newport Beach,
California (September, 1996)
The specific components associated with the ESCI technical evaluation are presented in the scope
of work described in this document.
• Assisting Industry and Government to Achieve Competitive Environmental and Economic Advantage
REVIEW OF RISK ASSESSMENTS FOR MAIN AREA AND ATC AREA
FORMER FORD AERONUTRONIC FACILITY, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
1.0 SCOPE OF WORK
ESCI will conduct technical reviews and prepare written summaries of the reviews for the
following risk assessments performed by Geraghty & Miller for the former Ford Aeronutronic
Facility:
Health Risk Assessment for Main Area Former Ford Aeronutronic Facility, Newport
Beach, California
Health Risk Assessment for ATC Area Former Ford Aeronutronic Facility, Newport
Beach, California
The specific components of each review are described in the tasks defined below.
Task 1 - Review of Site Data, Conceptual Site Model, Media of Concern
In this task, ESCI will review soil and groundwater data used by Geraghty & Miller to develop
exposure point concentrations, and evaluate the conceptual site model for applicability for risk
assessment of each area. Specifically, ESCI will:
- Verify analytical data summaries and sample locations for soil and groundwater data using
original laboratory data;
Verify frequency of detection, range of laboratory quantitation limits, range of detected
concentrations, and arithmetic average (and UCL) concentrations for each chemical of
concern;
Confirm applicability/completeness of conceptual site model based on USEPA and
CalEPA criteria; and
Evaluate identification/evaluation of media of concern based on USEPA and CalEPA
criteria.
Task 2 - Review Toxicity Assessment
Validate the selection of chemicals of concern for each media of concern; and
Confirm appropriate toxicity endpoints and toxicity criteria for each chemical of concern.
HRA REVH;W - FNH OCNB 2 ESCI96-CNB-HRA-02
Task 3 - Vapor Flux Modeling
For both risk assessments, exposure point concentrations in air were derived using vapor flux
models to estimate chemical migration from soil and groundwater to air. The flux rates were
then used to estimate outdoor and indoor air concentrations. This review task will consist of the
following components:
Evaluation of appropriateness of the vapor flux model(s) and input parameters used;
Model reruns to validate vapor flux rates; and
Validation of methodology and calculations used to estimate outdoor and indoor air
concentrations.
Task 4 - Exposure Assessment
In this task, ESCI will evaluate exposure scenarios, selection of receptors, and selection of
pathway -specific exposure factors. ESCI will additionally conduct independent calculations for
receptor -specific doses for each chemical of concern.
Task 5 - Risk Characterization/Report Content and Evaluation Summary
In this task, ESCI will validate the risk estimates by conducting independent calculations for
cancer risks and noncancer hazard indices. ESCI will evaluate the uncertainty analysis, report
organization, content, completeness, and conformance with regulatory guidelines for California
(i.e., USEPA, 1989 and supplements; CalEPA (DTSC), 1992 and supplements). This task will
include written summaries of all components of the technical reviews for each risk assessment.
2.0 BUDGET
Work will be conducted on a time and materials basis according to our 1996 Fee Schedule
(included in the previously referenced "Consultant Agreement") for work conducted in the 1996
calendar year. The estimated budget we have developed to conduct the scope of work described
herein is $16,995.00
3.0 SCHEDULE
We anticipate that the work described herein can be completed by December 31, 1996, pending
approval by the City of Newport Beach and the Ford Motor Land Corporation.
HRA REVIEW - FNQ.0/CNB 3 ESCI96-CNB-HRA-02
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CONSORTIUM, INC.
Lyne ington, REA, C�1
Principa Environmental S ' tist
cc: Mr. Thomas E. Culek, Environmental Control Engineer, Ford Motor Land Services
Corporation
File
HRA REVIEW - FNHXJCNB 4 ESCI96-CNWHRA-02
CONDITIONS OF SERVICE
The Conditions of Service presented herein shall be considered an integral part of Amendment
No. 2 (dated 8 May 1995) to the existing "Consultant Agreement" between the City of Newport
Beach (CNB) and ESCI.
Site Conditions
1. The site consists of property located in the City of Newport Beach at the former site of
the Ford Aeronutronic facility.
2. The site is currently being redeveloped for future residential use.
Client -Furnished Services
1. CNB and FMLC will provide access to the site, and to all areas at the site pertinent to the
conduct of the scope of work contained in this document.
2. FMLC and/or Geraghty & Miller will provide required documentation, as necessary,to
complete the scope of work presented herein.
Basis for Estimated Cost and Schedule
1. The estimated budget for conducting the scope of work contained in this proposal includes
all labor and reimbursable costs such as mileage, photocopying, communication and
insurance expenses, and records search fees.
2. All information and records to be reviewed are readily available and will be provided to
ESCI
3. The budget contained herein includes up to 3 hours of telecommunication with
representatives of CNB, FMLC, and ESCI to discuss the results of the scope of work
presented in this document.
4. No scheduling or other unforeseen difficulties in obtaining data will be encountered.
5. Changes in conditions may impact the scope of work and/or modify the budget and
schedule.
HRA REWEW - FMLC/CNB 5 Escr96-crB-E[Rn-02
General
The scope of services is restricted to that which is outlined in this document.
2. Should unanticipated conditions be encountered during the project that could potentially
impact the budget and/or schedule, the client will be notified as soon as practical and
authorization obtained prior to any changes being made.
HRA REVIEW - F ALOCNB 6 ESCI96-CNB-HRA-02
AMENDMENT NO.2 TO CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT
pThis Amendment t Consulting Services Agreement, entered into this
day o 1997, by and between the City of Newport Beach,
a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City" and Environmental
Services Consortium, Inc., (formerly Environmental Management Services)
hereinafter referred to as "Consultant," is made with reference to the following:
A. City and Consultant previously entered into that certain Consultant
Agreement, dated September 27, 1994, ("Consultant Agreement")
which engaged Consultant to perform services in connection with
the preparation of an environmental impact report for the
Ford/Loral development project.
B. City and Consultant executed an Amendment to Consulting
Services Agreement on May 8, 1995 which provided for additional
environmental services relating to the monitoring of closure,
demolition, and remediation activities at the Ford/Loral site; and
C. The City requires additional environmental services as described in
Consultant's proposal dated December 4, 1995 which is attached
hereto as Exhibit 1.
NOW THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the
undersigned parties as follows:
1. The Consultant Agreement shall be amended to include the
services described in Exhibit 1. The terms and conditions of
service provided in these Exhibits shall be in addition to the terms
and conditions contained in the Consultant Agreement except to
the extent that any terms and conditions contained in Exhibit 1
conflict with the Consultant Agreement, the original Consultant
Agreement shall prevail.
2. Consultant agrees to provide all documentation necessary to
comply with insurance requirements contained in the Consultant
Agreement, so that the services provided in Exhibit 1 shall be
covered as required in the Consultant Agreement.
Amendment No. 2 to Consulting Services Agreement
Environmental Services Consortium, Inc.
Page 1
WHEREAS the parties to this Agreement have caused this Amendment to be
executed on the day and year first written above.
CONSULTANT
Lyne Heth6gnsortium,
n, Principal
Environmental Services Inc.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
A Municipal Corporation
• Sharon Z. Wood
Assistant City Manager
Appr ed Form:
Robin Clauson
Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
Attachment: Exhibit 1
F:\USERS\PLN\SHARED\FORD\CONTRACT\LYNE-H\CON-AMD2.DOC
Amendment No. 2 to Consulting Services Agreement
Environmental Services Consortium, Inc.
Page 2
EXHIBIT 1
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES
9582 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 361
Huntington Beach, CA. 92646
4 December 1995
EMS94-CNB-02
Ford Motor Land
Services Corporation
One Parklane Boulevard
Suite 1500 East
Dearborn, MI 48126-2477
Attention: Eric J. Pearson, P.E.
Environmental Control Manager
Phone: 714-642-7062
Fax: 714-642-9101
SUBJECT: TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF RISK ASSESSMENTS CONDUCTED
FOR THE FORMER FORD AERONUTRONIC FACILITY LOCATED IN
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
Dear Mr. Pearson:
In response to a joint request from the City of Newport Beach and Ford Motor Land Corporation
(FMLC), this document presents the scope of work and estimated budget developed by
Environmental Management Services (EMS) to provide a comprehensive technical evaluation of
risk assessments that have been conducted for the former Ford Aeronutronic facility (site) located
in the city of Newport Beach. It is our understanding that this scope of work will be conducted
in general accordance with Amendment No. 2 (dated 8 May 1995) to the existing "Consultant
Agreement" between the City of Newport Beach (CNB) and Environmental Management Services
(EMS).
EMS will conduct a technical review of the following risk assessment -based evaluations that were
conducted by Geraghty & Miller on behalf of FMLC for the former Ford Aeronutronic facility:
Health Risk Assessments for Areas 2A and 213 (Belcourt and Bayridge Areas)
(February, 1994)
SESOIL Modeling for Belcourt and Bayridge Areas (May, 1994)
Risk -Based Remediation Goals (Human health -based and Groundwater -based)
(August, 1995)
The specific components associated with the EMS technical evaluation are presented in the scope
of work outlined below.
SCOPE OF WORK
Task 1.0 Review of Health Risk Assessments for Areas 2A and 213 (Belcourt and
Bayridge Areas)
Task 1.1 Site Data Review
Soil and groundwater data used by Geraghty & Miller to develop exposure point concentrations
for health risk assessments (HRAs) of Area 2A and Area 2B will be compiled and reviewed.
Specific components of this task include:
Verification of data summaries provided in Tables 3-1 (soil data) and 3-2 (groundwater
data) of the HRA reports for the Belcourt and Bayridge areas against raw data summaries
for both risk assessments, and
Verification of frequency of detection, range of laboratory quantitation limits, range of
detected concentrations, and arithmetic average concentrations for each chemical of
concern listed in Tables 3-1 and 3-1 for both the Belcourt and Bayridge HRAs.
Task 1.2 Documents and Literature Review (all items listed in Attachment A to this
document and provided to EMS by Geraghty & Miller)
This task will consist of the following components:
Review of the literature from which values for chemical and physical constants (used in
fate/transport modeling) were selected for use in the HRAs;
Review of the documents/guidance used to establish general methods and specific
exposure parameters used in the HRA;
Review of the documents/literature from which toxicity data were selected for use in the
HRA; and
Review of Daugherty, 1991, from which the fate/transport model evaluating vapor flux
from groundwater to air was derived.
EIIRA REVIEW - FAMC/CNB 2 EMS94-CNB-02
(Please note that this task does not require review time for Jury et al., 1983 or Jury et al., 1984
(Behavior Assessment Model for evaluation of vapor flux from soil) as the EMS reviewer is
familiar with this literature and the Model).
Task 1.3 Vapor Flux Modeling Evaluation
For both HRAs, exposure concentrations in air were derived using vapor flux models to estimate
chemical migration from soil and groundwater to air. The flux rates were then used to estimate
outdoor and indoor air concentrations, based on site-specific assumptions. This task will consist
of the following components:
Evaluation of appropriateness of the specific models and input parameters used;
Model reruns to validate vapor flux rates; and
Validation of methodology and calculations used to estimate outdoor and indoor air
concentrations.
Task 1.4 Risk Assessment Evaluation
The risk assessment evaluation will consist of the following:
- Evaluate HRAs for Area 2A and Area 2B for organization, content, completeness, and
conformance with regulatory guidelines for California (i.e., USEPA, 1989; CalEPA,
1992);
Evaluate the selection of chemicals of concern;
- Confirm toxicity criteria used for cancer and noncancer risk characterizations;
Recalculate dose estimates, cancer risks, and noncancer hazard indices; and
Provide a qualitative evaluation of uncertainties.
Task 1.5 Summary Report Preparation
EMS will prepare a written synopsis of all tasks conducted that will include all recalculations,
model reruns and spreadsheets. The summary report will also include a qualitative evaluation
of uncertainties, and will provide information regarding updated values for toxicity criteria or
specific exposure parameters. USEPA has recently released an updated edition of the Exposure
Factors Handbook (USEPA, 1995) that provides more accurate exposure parameters for use in
risk assessments, many of which are less conservative than previously published values.
HRA REVIEW - FMLC/CNB 3 EMS94-CNB-02
Task 2.0 Evaluation of SESOIL Modeling for Belcourt and Bayridge Areas
Task 2.1 Model Review
Interpretation of site-specific data, literature review, and professional judgement are sources for
selection of model input parameters. When statistically -based ranges are not used to characterize
critical model parameters, it is essential that the single numerical values used are conservative (to
accommodate uncertainty and variability) yet reasonably representative (to avoid gross
overestimation of chemical migration). All model input parameters will be reviewed to confirm
that appropriate and defensible values were used to estimate the potential for chemical migration
to groundwater. Additionally, a sensitivity analysis will be conducted to identify the most
"sensitive" model input parameters (i.e., those that influence model output most significantly).
The SESOIL Model will be rerun for trichloroethylene (TCE), the chemical of concern identified
by Geraghty & Miller, and model output will be compared to the original SESOIL model results.
Task 2.2 Written Summary of SESOIL Model Reruns
Affirmation of choice of chemical of concern, model input parameters, model rerun results, and
results of the sensitivity analysis will be presented in a written summary of SESOIL model
reruns.
Task 3.0 Review of Risk-based Remediation Goals
The risk-based remediation goals presented in Geraghty & Miller's August 1995 report (Residual
Soil Evaluation Report Former Ford Aeronutronic Facility, Newport Beach, California [Geraghty
& Miller, 1995]) will be subjected to a technical review in a manner similar to the reviews
presented in Tasks 1.0 and 2.0.
Task 3.1 Review of Selection of Chemicals of Concern
Criteria for the selection of chemicals of concern (delineated in Cal EPA, 1992 and USEPA,
1989) are not equivalent for human -health and groundwater impact risk evaluations. The
chemicals of concern identified for purposes of establishing remediation goals for the site
(Geraghty & Miller, 1995) will be reviewed to ensure that (1) selection was in accordance with
regulatory guidelines for risk assessment and (2) consideration was given to both sets of relevant
criteria (i.e., human health risk and groundwater impact).
Task 3.2 Evaluation of Human -Health -Based Remediation Goals
HRA REVIEW - FMLC/CNB 4 EMS94-CNB-02
Human health -based remediation goals are identified by (1) evaluating an acceptable risk,
exposure conditions, and appropriate toxicity criteria and (2) solving for a chemical concentration
(e.g., in soil) that would not result in an unacceptable risk. Geraghty & Miller did not develop
site-specific remediation goals but rather applied USEPA Region IX Preliminary Remediation
Goals (PRGs) as human health -based remediation goals. EMS will evaluate the application of
PRGs as final remediation goals for the site in this task and will confirm that PRGs identified by
Geraghty & Miller are current (an update of the PRGs was recently released). EMS will also
include in this task some preliminary calculations to provide a comparison of the generic Region
IX PRGs with site-specific remediation goals for human health.
Task 3.3 Review of Groundwater -Based Remediation Goals
Model input parameters will be reviewed to confirm that model input parameters used to estimate
the potential for chemical migration to groundwater are appropriate and consistent with previous
SESOIL modeling: A sensitivity analysis will be conducted to identify the most "sensitive"
model input parameters (i.e., those that influence model output most significantly).
The SESOIL Model will be rerun for the chemicals of concern identified by Geraghty & Miller
(17 organic constituents), and model output will be compared to the original SESOIL model
results.
Task 3.4 Written Summga of the Evaluation of Risk -Based Remediation Goals
Affirmation of SESOIL model input parameters, model rerun results, and results of the sensitivity
analysis will be presented in a written summary of SESOIL model reruns. Soil cleanup levels
proposed for this site, based on groundwater impact, will be confirmed as maximum soil
concentrations that may be left in place without potential for impact to groundwater underlying
the site. This analysis includes confirmation of the SESOIL-based soil concentrations for organic
constituents and an evaluation of the approach employed to set soil remediation goals for metals.
Substantiation of final risk-based remediation goals for site soils for all chemicals of concern will
be provided.
Task 4.0 Monte Carlo Analysis
EMS will conduct a Monte Carlo analysis to quantitate the level of conservatism in: (1) baseline
risks to human health (Areas 2A and B) and groundwater, and, (2) the risk-based remediation
goals. It is customary to conduct Monte Carlo analysis on the driving chemicals and pathways
only. Therefore, the budget to perform a Monte Carlo Analysis will be provided upon
completion of Tasks 1 - 3.
HRA REVIEW - FMLC/CNB 5 EMS94-CNB-02
BUDGET
Work will be conducted on a time and materials basis according to our 1995 Fee Schedule
(included in the previously referenced "Consultant Agreement") for work conducted in the 1995
calendar year. The estimated budget we have developed to conduct the scope of work described
herein is $18,800.00.
0wa X1111 1m
We anticipate that the work described herein can be completed within 3 to 4 weeks of approval
by the City of Newport Beach and the Ford Motor Land Corporation.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact the undersigned at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES
Lyne Hethrington, REA, CHMM
Principal - Sr. Environmental Scientist
cc: Mr. John Douglas, City of Newport Beach Planning Department
HRA REVIEW - FMILC/CNB 6 EMS94-CNB-02
CONDITIONS OF SERVICE
Site Conditions
The site consists of property located in the City of Newport Beach at the former site of
the Ford Aeronutronic facility.
2. The site is currently being redeveloped for future residential use.
Client -Furnished Services
1. CNB and FMLC will provide access to the site, and to all areas at the site pertinent to the
conduct of the scope of work contained in this document.
2. FMLC and/or Geraghty & Miller will provide items listed in Attachment A to this
document and any other required documentation, as necessary,to complete the scope of
work presented herein.
Basis for Estimated Cost and Schedule
The estimated budget for conducting the scope of work contained in this proposal includes
all labor and reimbursable costs such as mileage, photocopying, communication and
insurance expenses, and records search fees.
2. All information and records to be reviewed are readily available and will be provided to
EMS.
3. The budget contained herein includes 1 meeting of up to 3 hours with representatives of
CNB, FMLC, and EMS to discuss the results of the scope of work presented in this
document.
4. No scheduling or other unforeseen difficulties in obtaining data will be encountered.
5. Changes in conditions may impact the scope of work and/or modify the budget and
schedule.
6. Costs associated with the conduct of a Monte Carlo analysis are dependent upon the
completion of Tasks 1 - 3, and will therefore be provided to CNB and FMLC at that time
for consideration.
>ERa REVIEW - FMLC/CNB 7 EMS94-CNB-02
General
1. The scope of services is restricted to that which is outlined in this document.
2. Should unanticipated conditions be encountered during the project that could potentially
impact the budget and/or schedule, the client will be notified as soon as practical and
authorization obtained prior to any changes being made.
HRA REVIEW - FMLC/CNB 8 EMS94-CNB-02