Case Background. (6) At all relevant times, McWane was a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware and conducted business in the State of California as AB&I Foundry, a foundry and supporting facilities or operations located at 0000 Xxx Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx xx Xxxxxxx, Xxxxxxxxxx 00000 (hereinafter referred as to “AB&I Foundry”).
(7) CARB and BAAQMD allege that XxXxxx’x operation of the AB&I Foundry created a public nuisance – beginning in at least 2012, and continuing until the foundry’s closure in October 2022. CARB and BAAQMD allege that during that time, AB&I Foundry’s operations generated emissions, including odors, that were emitted into the surrounding Oakland community causing injury, detriment, nuisance, and annoyance to a considerable proportion of that community, and endangering the comfort, repose, and health of the same. CARB and BAAQMD allege that the emissions, including odors, from AB&I Foundry created a public nuisance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 41700 every day that the foundry was in operation.
(8) Based on community odor complaints and other supporting evidence, BAAQMD issued Notices of Violation (NOV) for creating a public nuisance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 41700 and BAAQMD Regulation 1-301 to AB&I Foundry on November 14, 2019, June 30, 2020, and June 21, 2021. On February 13, 2020, after CARB independently received, investigated, and confirmed a number of community odor complaints, CARB issued an NOV to AB&I Foundry for creating a public nuisance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 41700.
(9) On May 19, 2022, BAAQMD referred its NOV Nos. A55865 (issued November 14, 2019), 55866 (issued June 30, 2020), and 58844 (issued June 21, 2021) to CARB for civil enforcement.
(10) This Agreement resolves all claims and all claims that could have been brought by CARB or BAAQMD against XxXxxx arising out of the operation of AB&I Foundry regarding emissions of air contaminants, including odors, and/or alleged permit violations, including but not limited to claims based on the violations alleged in BAAQMD NOV Nos. A55865 (dated November 14, 2019), 55866 (dated June 30, 2020), and 58844 (dated June 21, 2021), and the CARB NOV dated February 13, 2020, bearing Case Identification Number I00285.
(11) Neither this Agreement nor any of the related negotiations or proceedings is or shall be construed as or deemed to be evidence of any admission of any kind with respect to the matters or claims alleged. XxXxxx disputes and d...
Case Background. The original psychiatric hospital opened up in 1828 as the state’s primary care-giving facility for the mentally ill (VA DBHDS, n.
d.). The hospital’s first director was a strong believer in “moral medicine,” which emphasized that even the most severely ill patients could be rehabilitated through a comfortable and peaceful environment. The first campus featured beautiful neo-classical architecture and an abundance of green spaces. Towards the end of the 19th century, the facility started to become overcrowded and more forceful techniques of patient control were used. Straitjackets, isolation, frontal lobotomies, and even sterilization were practiced by hospital staff well until the 1970’s. By 1950, a new site was opened adjacent to the current hospital’s site and the old campus was vacant by the 1970’s. The original site was used as a medium security men’s prison and then abandoned. The original site’s downtown location is ideal for developers, and there are already plans to redevelop and restore the campus into condominiums. The hospital also has a history of working with higher education institutions. Since 1978, the University of Virginia has associated itself with the hospital by offering joint faculty appointments and training experiences for students. The idea for a new hospital was first brought up in 2005 in a discussion between the city and the state (Xxxxxx, 2009). This state was particularly interested in building a new hospital since the current, 24 building campus was aging and becoming inefficient to operate. The campus was built to handle a peak population of 3,300 in 1963, but by 2005 patient enrollment had dropped to around 245. New models of care-giving that centered on the individual patient were harder to implement on a sprawling campus that was built to 20th century care-giving standards. In 2008, the general assembly agreed to contribute $110 million towards the construction of a new mental hospital. The state also made a deal with the town where the town contributes $15 million and the deed to 66 acres of open land next to the current hospital site. In exchange, the hospital agreed to give the town the old hospital’s 250 acre site, which was prime commercial real estate, after construction of the new facility was completed. Unlike the previous two sites that offered a campus-like atmosphere with multiple buildings, this new facility is contained within one building. The new hospital departed from the old model of care- giving by plac...
Case Background. The homeowners approached the builder about building a 2,500ft2 house on the side of a mountain just outside of Blacksburg. The builder brought on the architect, with whom they have worked with since 2007. The architect was contracted separately from the builder by the owner. The three stakeholders met on the two lots purchased by the client to discuss placement of the house. The design phase lasted around six to eight months, which is typical for residential projects. During this stage, the client worked directly with the architect, who forwarded information onto the builder to address any constructability concerns with the design. A structural engineer helped with the house’s foundation and framing. At one point, the architect brought on an interior architect to work with the client on interior finishes. Construction lasted for over a year with the architect making occasional site visits as needed. The builders were responsible for hiring subs and the 10-15 trade contractors. At the time of this report, the house is mostly complete with subs focusing on finishing the landscaping.
Case Background. Corporate Entity. At all relevant times, Tutor Perini Corporation and O & G Industries, Inc., a Joint Venture, and Frontier Xxxxxx Constructors Inc. and Tutor Perini Corporation, a Joint Venture, each conducted, and still conduct, business in the State of California, and collectively have a large fleet under the Off-Road Regulation. Each of them are jointly and severally responsible for each of the terms of this Settlement Agreement.
Case Background. The football stadium is located on the campus of a large public university in northern Virginia. The university has a strong athletic program with the last few seasons of football bringing over 20,000 fans to the stadium, which is well over the stadium’s capacity of 15,000. Other special events such as homecoming, family weekend games, and graduation are held at the stadium and extra temporary seating is typically required. The university determined to expand the stadium as part of the overall campus master plan. The original stadium was constructed in 1975 with seating capacity for 5,200 fans (JMU, n.d.). The new stadium served as home for the football, track and field, lacrosse, and field hockey programs, as well has having indoor racquetball courts, classrooms, space for the ROTC program and offices for varsity athletic teams and media relations. The stadium received its first expansion in 1981 when a second set of stands were built, increasing the overall capacity of the stadium to 12,500. The stadium received a new scoreboard with video replay capability in 2004. The $62 million stadium expansion project began in December 2009 with the removal of the old concrete bleachers on the west side of the stadium and construction of new double-deck steel stands with a new press box, hospitality suites, club-level seating, and additional stands enclosing the north end of the field. The new stands would allow the stadium to accommodate 24,877 fans. This project was funded through ticket sales (including pre-orders) and a state bond package that voters passed in 2002. Construction on the west stands was completed in August 2011. The opening game for that season had a sellout crowd of 25,102 fans in attendance (ESPN, 2011). ESPN. (2011, September 10). Central Connecticut State versus Xxxxx Xxxxxxx. Retrieved from xxxx://xxxxxx.xxxx.xx.xxx/ncf/boxscore?gameId=312530256 on 1 August 2014. JMU. (n.d.). The Hillside Gang. Retrieved from xxxx://xxx.xxx.xxx/centennialcelebration/hillside.shtml on 1 August 2014.
Case Background. The concept for a new tollway was developed approximately sixty years ago. While the tollway made it to the design phase and land was acquired for the right of way, it was never constructed (Xxxxxx, 2003). It remained on the master plan until the 1990’s when the design was re-evaluated to address environmental concerns about the proposed highway. Proponents for the highway claimed that it would improve regional traffic flow and alleviate congestion on local roads. It would also increase national security by allowing an evacuation route should Washington need to be evacuated. Opponents to the project claim that the new highway would disrupt local traffic patterns, disturb communities, and have detrimental effects on the surrounding environment (EDF, 2005). The ICC finally became a reality when the state governor xxxxxxxxx his campaign promise by conducting a formal groundbreaking in October 2006 (Xxxxxx, 2003) with construction officially beginning on November 13, 2007.
d.). The contract for Contract B was awarded on July 22, 2008 to the design-build team for $559.7 million, which was 22% higher than anticipated (Xxxxxx, 2008). The contract award was protested by another design-build team that was not awarded the bid, despite having a lower bid price by $670,000. There was concern that this would delay the start of construction for Contract B, but this protest was rejected by the state procurement officer. Environmental sensitivity was an emphasis for this project since Contract B traverses some of the area’s most sensitive environments. Contract B has several innovative features designed to sustain the area’s plant and wildlife. A special environmental crew was present during the construction to ensure that disruption to the ecosystem was kept at a minimum (Xxxxxx, n.d.). During construction, 8 foot high fences were erected along the jobsite to keep out deer. These fences have smaller openings towards the bottom to keep out smaller animals. Box turtles in the path of the highway alignment were located by a team of trained retriever dogs and safely relocated. Over 200 box turtles were relocated over the course of the project. Over 1000 trees were also removed with roots intact to be placed along a future stream stabilization project. Culverts were designed to allow fish to swim through and fish in the work zone were safely relocated using electroshock methods. Environmental Defense Fund. (2005, March 16). Proposed Highway Would Hurt Air, Congestion. Retriev...
Case Background. This project was the renovation of an existing manufacturing facility to be used as a data warehouse. The renovation required the demolition of on part of the facility, as well as the removal of existing material from the rest of the facility. The facility was designed to hold three large rooms of servers, and the associated electrical infrastructure required for these servers and their battery backups. This infrastructure included a gas fire suppression system in the server rooms, as using water around the electrical equipment was a last resort. Constructing this system required the placement of dozens of tanks to hold the gas on the lower level, and the piping required to distribute the gas (separate from the water-base system). The renovation was performed to meet LEED Silver requirements, and the demolition was a major component of this certification.
Case Background. Corporate Entity. At all relevant times, Amika was organized under the laws of North Carolina as a limited liability company and conducted business in California.
Case Background. Corporate Entity. At all relevant times, Green Planet 21, Inc. was organized under the laws of the State of California as a corporation and conducted business in the State of California.
Case Background. The project featured in this case study was the addition of a hot oil economizer to an existing chemical plant. An economizer (figure 1) preheats combustion air and can also warm up oil to be used in other processes. An economizer was installed twenty years earlier for one of the plant's two hot oil units. The plant decided to install a second economizer on the other hot oil unit in order to reduce dependency on the primary unit. The project budget was $1.2 million to purchase, install, and tie in the new economizer to the existing plant structure.
