FR 2021-01549

The Department of Justice and the State of California have put forth a proposed Consent Decree aimed at addressing environmental contamination at the Montrose Chemical Corp. Superfund Site in Los Angeles County. This decree involves several corporations, including TFCF America, Inc. and Bayer CropScience Inc., who are responsible for undertaking the cleanup operations. These operations consist mainly of utilizing thermal treatment and soil vapor extraction methods to mitigate contamination. The agreement also mandates these companies to shoulder certain financial liabilities, covering both past and anticipated governmental expenses related to the site.

Significant Issues and Concerns

While the document outlines the financial responsibilities of the implicated companies, it leaves much to be desired in terms of transparency about the specifics of these costs. The decree sets payments of $340,000 towards unreimbursed United States past costs, and $61,798.11 towards California's Department of Toxic Substances Control past costs. However, there is no detailed explanation on what these past costs entail or how the respective amounts were calculated. This lack of clarity might raise questions regarding the adequacy of the compensation or whether it truly mirrors the actual expenses incurred.

Additionally, the decree mentions a land use covenant requirement without providing an explanation. Issues surrounding land use agreements could be complex for the general public to grasp, especially without contextual information on their importance or implications.

The document further specifies the cost of obtaining a paper copy of the Consent Decree, which amounts to $133 for the full version at 25 cents per page. This charge might seem steep to some, especially without insight into why such costs are necessary.

Impact on the Public

For the general population, this decree represents the government's continued efforts in addressing environmental contamination and enforcing corporate accountability. Public health and environmental integrity are directly linked to such cleanup activities, which could potentially mitigate risks associated with pollution and improve the quality of life in surrounding communities.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For the companies involved, this Consent Decree poses a financial and operational responsibility. They must allocate resources to execute prescribed cleanup actions and cover designated government costs. While this creates an immediate expenditure, it also offers a means to resolve certain legal claims, potentially providing closure to an ongoing legal matter.

In contrast, local communities stand to benefit from improved environmental conditions and the assurance of continued governmental oversight. However, these communities must grapple with understanding technical terminology and trust that the negotiated financial compensations are just and properly aligned with incurred expenses.

In summary, while this proposed Consent Decree marks a positive step in environmental remediation efforts, it also highlights areas where additional transparency and clarifications are essential. Access to comprehensive and comprehensible information allows the public to engage more fully with processes that concern them directly.

In this Federal Register notice, several key financial references are made concerning a proposed Consent Decree related to environmental contamination at a site in Los Angeles County. The Consent Decree involves a financial settlement to address past environmental remediation costs and future oversight expenses.

Summary of Financial Obligations

The settling defendants, including TFCF America, Inc., Bayer CropScience Inc., Montrose Chemical Corporation of California, and Stauffer Management Company LLC, have agreed to perform specific remedial actions at the Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid Operable Unit (DNAPL OU). In addition, they are required to make specific financial payments to compensate for previously incurred and future costs:

• $340,000: This amount is to be paid toward the United States' unreimbursed DNAPL OU past costs. The notice specifies this as a payment for costs already incurred, likely related to previous clean-up efforts or investigations. However, the notice does not clarify what these past costs specifically entail, which might lead readers to question the transparency of the use of these funds.

• $61,798.11: This sum is directed towards the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to cover their unrecovered DNAPL OU past costs. Like the payment to the United States, there is no detailed explanation of what these costs include or how they were calculated, which can be a concern for those wishing to understand the fair compensation for expenses incurred.

Cost of Obtaining Documents

Additionally, there are financial details related to obtaining a copy of the Consent Decree for public review:

• $133.00: This is the cost to obtain a full paper copy of the Consent Decree, calculated at 25 cents per page. This might be considered excessive unless there is a clear explanation of why these reproduction costs are necessary at this rate.

• $21.50: This is the price for a paper copy excluding appendices and signature pages. This option might offer a more affordable alternative for those seeking a condensed version of the document.

Observations and Potential Issues

The payment obligations and reproduction costs are clearly outlined, yet some issues emerge from these financial details:

• Lack of Transparency in Costs: Without detailed information on how past costs were calculated or what they encompass, stakeholders may find it challenging to assess the adequacy of the financial arrangements. Transparency about what constitutes the $340,000 and $61,798.11 payments would provide better clarity and justification.

• Reproduction Costs: The specified fees for document copies, such as the $133.00 total, could be perceived as high unless justified by detailed breakdowns of why these are necessary or how they support administrative processes.

Overall, while the financial obligations are clearly stated, greater transparency and explanation could enhance understanding and satisfaction among the public and other stakeholders regarding the financial aspects of the Consent Decree.