Site Background Clause Samples
The Site Background clause defines the relevant information and context about the physical location where work or services will be performed under the contract. It typically outlines details such as the site's current condition, any known hazards, existing structures, or access limitations that may affect the project. By providing this background, the clause ensures that all parties have a shared understanding of the site's characteristics, helping to prevent misunderstandings and allocate responsibility for site-related risks.
Site Background. 2. Auburn Oak Builders, Inc. was, at all relevant times, the owner and developer of the Oakcrest Estates construction project (Project). The Project involved construction activities on and around certain lands in the area of Ventura County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 032-0-221-265, 032-0-222-105, and 032-0-221-275, commonly known as ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, and ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (Site).
3. On September 2, 2009, the California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) adopted Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ (as amended by Order Nos. 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ), National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (General Permit). The General Permit regulates storm water discharges to waters of the United States from construction sites that disturb one or more acres of land surface or that are part of a larger common plan of development or sale of one or more acres of disturbed land surface.
4. On January 30, 2019, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇. principal and Chief Executive Officer of Auburn Oak Builders, Inc. and the designated Legally Responsible Person (LRP), submitted a Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with General Permit requirements to the State Water Board’s Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS) and was issued Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) 4 56C383177 upon permit enrollment.
5. General Permit section V.A.2. requires the implementation of best management practices (BMPs), using best available technology economically achievable (BAT) and best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT) to reduce pollution from storm water runoff from construction sites. The General Permit prohibits all discharges except for storm water and non-storm water discharges specifically authorized by the General Permit or another NPDES permit. (General Permit, III.B.)
6. Runoff from the Site flows to Skyline Drain and ultimately to the area between San Antonio Creek and Camino Cielo Road, which is part of Ventura River, Reach 4. The pollutants in the runoff from the Site have the potential to impact the beneficial uses of Ventura River, Reach 4.
7. The beneficial uses of Ventura River Reach 4 (San Antonio Creek to Camino Cielo Road) include body and non-body contact recreation; municipal and domestic supply; industrial service supply; industrial proces...
Site Background. 2. o Exeter Alessandro Land, LLC is an indirect affiliate of Exeter Property Group,o LLC. The Dischargers' construction project (Project) involved the development ofo the Alessandro Commerce Center located southwest of the intersection ofo Alessandro Boulevard and Brown Street, in Riverside, California (Site).o
Site Background. Libby is a community in northwestern Montana located 7 miles southwest of a vermiculite mine that operated from the 1920s until 1990. The mine began limited operations in the 1920s and was operated on a larger scale by the ▇.▇. ▇▇▇▇▇ Company from approximately 1963 to 1990. Studies revealed that the vermiculite from the mine contains amphibole-type asbestos, referred to as Libby amphibole (LA). Epidemiological studies revealed that workers at the mine had an increased risk of developing asbestos-related lung disease (McDonald et al. 1986, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 1987, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 1987, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 2007). Additionally, radiographic abnormalities were observed in 17.8 percent of the general population of ▇▇▇▇▇ including former workers, family members of workers, and individuals with no specific pathway of exposure (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 2003). Although the mine has ceased operations, historic or continuing releases of LA from mine-related materials could be serving as a source of on-going exposure and risk to current and future residents and workers in the area. The Site was listed on the National Priorities List (NPL) in October 2002.
Site Background. 3
1.2.1 Site Location and Description 3
1.2.2 Site History 4 1.2.3 Geologic Conditions 5
Site Background. 2.1 Site Description The Forest Park Property at NW Yeon/Hwy 30 (Site) is an undeveloped area on the west side of the 4400 block of NW St. Helens Road, at the intersection of ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and NW Yeon Avenues (Figure 1). The Site consists of three separate parcels (Tax Lots 100, 200 and 300) and totals approximately 3.9 acres (Figure 2). The lower portion of the Site is flat and then steeply slopes uphill. A gravel and dirt access road to Forest Park (Fire Lane 1) enters the Site at the southeastern corner and bisects Tax Lots 100 and 200 before exiting the Site on the western boundary. Vehicle use of the gravel road is restricted to City of Portland staff access; public motorized access to the Site was closed with the installation of eco‐block barriers along NW St. Helens. There is a perennial stream that enters the Site on the western boundary and flows north to a ditch on the adjacent property that discharges to the municipal stormwater conveyance system connected to Outfall 19 (OF 19). Surface flows from Forest Park seasonally enter and move across the Site, generally from west to east. The majority of stormwater infiltrates on Site. Tax Lot 200 includes a catch basin inlet that captures some of the surface water flowing from the hillside and conveys it to OF 19 via a piped connection to a municipal stormwater manhole (Figure 2). Native and invasive vegetation dominate the Site, and during periods of heavy saturation stormwater seasonally ponds at the bottom of the Site. The Site currently is vacant open space; there are no structures on the Site and it is not used to store or produce materials. There are no impervious surfaces at the Site. The future use of the property is for a trailhead for Forest Park that will include at a minimum a parking lot, access road and improved trails. Stormwater management features will be incorporated into redevelopment plans in accordance with City Code, and DEQ review and approval.
2.2 Site Ownership and Operating History PP&R acquired the Site in two phases. In May of 2005 PPR obtained Tax Lot 100 (2.3 acres), which was owned by Portland General Electric (PGE), under Prospective Purchaser Agreement DEQ No. 05‐01 with DEQ. In October of 2014 under Order of Consent DEQ No. 14‐02, PP&R acquired Tax Lots 200 and 300 (1.6 acres) which were owned by ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Portland Properties, LLC. At the time of these acquisitions, neither property included structures or other impervious surfaces. PGE used the property for an access rout...
Site Background. The 360-acre Gilt Edge Mine site is located about 6.5 miles east of Lead, South Dakota. The primary mine disturbance area encompasses a former open pit and a cyanide ▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇▇ gold mine, as well as prior mine exploration activities from various companies. In the late 1990s, the most recent mine operator, Brohm Mining Company, abandoned the site and its on-going water treatment responsibilities. Those responsibilities included addressing the acidic heavy- metal-laden water (acid rock drainage) that was and is constantly generated from the exposed highwalls of the three open mine pits and from the millions of cubic yards of acid-generating spent ore and waste rock. EPA divided the site into three areas, also known as operable units (OUs). OU1 addresses surface contamination. OU2 addresses management and treatment of the acid rock drainage that threatens surface water in the area. OU3 addresses the Ruby Gulch Waste Rock Pile. OU1: The long-term remedy, selected in 2008 and modified by an explanation of significant difference in 2014, addresses source materials, including contaminated waste rock fill materials, spent ore, exposed rock surfaces, amended tailings, sludge and underground mine workings. It includes removal of mine waste from source areas and consolidation of this waste into on-site repositories in the Sunday, Dakota Maid and Anchor Hill Pits. The on-site repositories will be capped with a cover to limit infiltration. Areas that previously contained contaminated fill or other source material will be covered with enough topsoil to support vegetation. The remedy also includes institutional controls. Remedial design was completed in September 2014. Construction of the remedy began in 2017 and may take 8 to 10 years to complete. Progress on the construction will be dependent on the availability of federal funding. OU2: An interim remedy, selected in April 2001, included use of an existing acid rock drainage (ARD) collection system at the toe of the Ruby Gulch Waste Rock Dump and the existing water treatment facility to treat ARD. In November 2001, EPA expanded the interim remedy to include collection and treatment of ARD from additional areas and converted the treatment process to a lime, high-density sludge system. This provided a cheaper and more efficient means of treating the water on site. Construction finished in October 2003. Water treatment and water quality monitoring are ongoing. After finishing the OU1 remedy, EPA will complete a remedial i...
Site Background. The site is located along the lower reach of the Willamette River in Portland, Oregon, and extends from approximately river mile 1.9 to 11.
Site Background. 2. The Discharger owns the property at ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇ of Orange (Site). Until 1987, the Site was owned by ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇. When ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ passed away, the Site was transferred to the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Trust where it was held until the Discharger acquired the Site in 2002.
3. Historically, Newport Plating operated a plating shop at the Site between the early 1950s and 1988. ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ leased the Site to Newport Plating. Newport Plating’s operations included brass, cadmium (Cd), copper (Cu), chromium (Cr) or “chrome,” gold (Au), nickel (Ni) and silver (Ag) plating; chrome and paint stripping; and steel passivity. After the plating operations ceased, the subsequent utilization of the building has been general office and business activities.
4. The groundwater flow from the Site is tidally influenced by the body of water in the adjacent the Rhine Channel and generally flows northwest or southeast of the Site during high and low tide, respectively. Groundwater is typically encountered at 4 feet below ground surface (bgs) and fluctuates diurnally with the Rhine Channel. The upper 2.5 feet of soil consists of man-made fill and from 4-5.5 feet bgs consists of highly permeable fine-grained to coarse sand. Due to the characteristics of the groundwater flow at the Site, there is an increased likelihood that groundwater has been, and continues to be, impacted by the ongoing discharge of contaminants from the Site and into the underlying groundwater.
5. Several phases of soil and groundwater investigation at the Site detected “Title 22 metals” (as defined in California Code of Regulations, Title 22), and cyanide. Historic groundwater concentrations of these constituents exceeded the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) and action levels (ALs) for drinking water, as defined by the California Department of Public Health (now the State Water Resources Control Board [State Water Board] Division of Drinking Water [DDW]). Historic soil concentrations at the Site exceed the current residential Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs), as set forth by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board in 2016, for Cd, hexavalent Cr (Cr6+), Cu, Lead (Pb) and cyanide.
6. On March 17, 1987, staff from the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) observed wastewater from Newport Plating’s metal finishing operation, ponded in, and leaking from an outdoor area at the Site due to inadequate secondary containment. Samples of the contaminated ...
Site Background. This section should summarize the available information regarding known or potential sources of contamination which constitute the primary reason for investigating the Site. Most of this information has been developed in previous phases of the investigation. Include in the summary:
(1) Site operation, i.e.: type of activity, years of operation, current and prior land use, surrounding land use, facility ownership/operations, property owners, or other required information;
(2) Historical use of the Site that led to the problem, including any event which may have affected the release of chemicals, e.g., underground tank leak, fire, spills to ground, and infiltration from surface impoundments.
(3) Chronology of Site investigations and remedial activities, including prior assessments and remediation. Reference any previous studies and include the date, title, and name of the preparer and a summary of the findings.
(4) Description of any removal action measures taken to date.
(5) The presentation of the conceptual site models used to scope the site investigation and to identify the receptors potentially at risk, the potential risks associated with each chemical of concern, the potential exposure pathways that are to be considered, and the distances to sensitive populations, nearby drinking water supply ▇▇▇▇▇, and critical wildlife habitats.
(6) Maps that identify the Site in relation to the surrounding area, onsite activity, and proposed areas, including any offsite areas, that may be affected by any proposed remedy.
Site Background. (Compendium Sections 5, 6, and 7) The analysis of the existing Site details must be included in the FSP. This analysis shall include a conceptual site model (“CSM”) that describes the Site and surrounding areas, discusses known and suspected contaminant sources, characterizes the state and transport of contaminants, identifies potential exposure pathways and likely receptors (human and ecological), and includes other information regarding the physical and chemical conditions that may affect contamination at the Site. The FSP shall also include descriptions of specific data gaps and ways in which SRI sampling is designed to fill those gaps.