Upload
zaria
View
25
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Groundwater Cleanup Program Progress Summary. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board – April 2002. Overview. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
1
San Francisco Bay Regional WaterQuality Control Board – April 2002
Groundwater Cleanup Program
Progress Summary
2
Overview
1. Background
2. Cleanup Standards and Technologies
3. Fuel UST Program
4. Non-Fuel Program (SLIC)
5. Special Features
6. What is Next?
We have made significant progress in groundwater cleanup since we initiated investigations in early 1980. Our program focuses on
high-risk groundwater resources and significant chemical releases. We have also made good progress on closing lower risk
cases. This summary highlights six areas:
3
Background – Cal/EPA Setting
Air ResourcesBoard
Office of Env. HealthHazard Assessm ent
Integrated W asteM anagem ent Board
Dept. of PesticideRegulation
Dept. of T oxicSubstances Control
Region 1 Region 6
Region 2 Region 7
Region 3 Region 8
Region 4 Region 9
Region 5
State W ater ResourcesControl Board
Cal / EPA
4
Background – Staff Organization
S taf f
S L IC /U S TJohn W olfendenS ection Leader
S taf f
S L IC /U S TA nders Lundgren
S ection Leader
S taf f
S L IC /U S TJohn K aiser
S ection Leader
Toxics C leanup D ivis ionS tephen H ill
C h ief
S taf f
C hap 15 & A G TTerry S ew ard
S ection Leader
S taf f
D O DD enn is M ishekS ection Leader
G roundw ater P rotection /W aste C on tainm en t D iv.
C u rtis S cottC h ief
G roundw ater R esou rcesS tephen M orse
A E O
Loretta B arsam ianE xecu tive O ff icer
5
Background: Budget
Over $4 million per year directed toward groundwater and soil pollution issues
45 Board staff directly involved
Groundwater programs are a major focus of the Board’s program, comprising a third of our annual budget
6
8,558 1,665
Background: Caseload
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Nu
mb
er
of
Sit
es
This is the universe of contamination sites in our region
Fuel UST cases are the most numerous but most are closed or overseen by local agencies
Non-fuel cases involve releases of solvents and other contaminants
Above ground tank (AGT) cases include refineries and terminals
We focus on containment at landfills, versus cleanup at other sites
Federal facilities (DOD/DOE) are few in number but require lots of oversight due to their size and complex environmental problems
7Background: Contaminant Types
Petroleum products - gasoline, diesel, and gasoline oxygenates such as MTBE
Solvents - both chlorinated and non-chlorinated Inorganics - mainly metals such as arsenic,
chromium, and lead Persistent organics - including PCBs and pesticides
The Regional Board oversees cases with a wide variety of contaminant types in soil, groundwater, and sediments
8
Our Cleanup Standards Original goal: cleanup to background Reality check: this is not technically or financially
feasible in most instances, either technically or based on 15 years of cleanup experience
Typical standards (per law, Basin Plan, policy):» Groundwater (drinking water source): MCLs» Groundwater (non-drinking water): risk-based *» Soils : Basin Plan and risk-based *» State Board resolution 92-49 has some additional options
* Set to protect human health and ecological receptors (e.g. avoid impacts in indoor air or nearby creeks)
9
Cleanup: Soil Vapor Extraction
Polluted soil
10
Cleanup: Pump and Treat
Discharge to storm drain or sanitary sewerTreatment unit
Groundwater table
Extraction well
11
Cleanup: Air Sparging
Polluted groundwater
12
Cleanup: Enhanced Bioremediation
Polluted
13
Cleanup: Permeable Barriers
14
Cleanup Costs
Cleanup costs to date exceed $500 million for sites overseen by the Regional Board
Dischargers at 20 “Superfund” sites have spent about $270 million on cleanup
Dischargers at other non-fuel sites in this region have spent an undetermined amount on cleanup activities
The state’s fuel tank cleanup fund has reimbursed about $250 million for cleanup at fuel tank sites in this region
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Supe
rfund
Other N
on-Fue
l
Fuel
UST
Cumulative Costs by Category ($ millions)
?
15Fuel UST Program: Remediation
About 65% of the roughly 9,000 fuel UST sites have completed source control
About 7% of the sites have active groundwater cleanup in progress Less than 1% have other engineering controls including capping and containment barriers
Source: Geotracker database (includes open and closed cases)
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
Sourcecontrol
Pump &treat
Othercontrols
Remedial Actions at Fuel UST Sites
16
Cumulative Case Closures
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
93-94
94-95
95-96
96-97
97-98
98-99
99-00
00-01
Fiscal Year
Fuel UST Program: Case Closures
2782
6105
Current Case Status
Together with local agencies we are steadily closing cases; about 70% are now closed Source: LUSTIS and Geotracker databases
Open
Closed
17
Fuel UST Program: MTBE MTBE is a widely-used fuel oxygenate
» Major use began in early 1990s» Phase-out planned for 12/02 but delayed until 1/04
MTBE poses a threat to groundwater» About 91% of open groundwater cases have tested for MTBE » Of these cases, 89% have detected MTBE» Three municipal supply and several private wells impacted
We have taken pro-active steps to address threat» Budgeted additional resources for MTBE oversight and policy
development» Used GIS extensively to identify high-priority MTBE release sites» Required rapid investigation and remediation at those sites» Initiated pilot program to require groundwater monitoring at key
operating service stations which may have unreported releases
18Fuel UST Program: MTBE (con.)
About 500 high-priority MTBE sites in region» 133 class A and 290 class B sites» Most overseen by local agencies» Many sites in Santa Clara Valley
Significant threat from operating stations» Pilot study in Santa Clara Valley
found new releases at 70% of upgraded USTs
» Need for periodic groundwater monitoring at high-threat operating stations, to augment leak detection
Key:
Blue – supply well
Red – class A MTBE site
Yellow – class B MTBE site
19Non-Fuel Program: Remediation
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Remedial Actions at SLIC Sites
About 60% of the roughly 700 non-fuel sites we oversee have undertaken source control measures, such as soil excavation, soil vapor extraction, and free product removal (includes active plus closed cases)
About 28% have conducted active groundwater cleanup, such as “pump and treat”, sparging, enhanced biodegradation, and innovative methods
A relatively few sites have implemented other remedial actions, including monitored natural attenuation (MNA), engineering controls (such as capping and containment barriers), and institutional controls (such as deed restrictions and construction health & safety plans)
Source: SMS database and RB staff survey
Source control
Inst. ControlsMNA
Eng. Controls
Groundwater cleanup
20Non-Fuel Program:Case Closures
About 25% of the roughly 1,600 non-fuel cases we oversee are closed
Non-fuel cases are generally harder to close than fuel UST cases for several reasons:
Non-fuel pollutants are harder to clean up
No state fund to reimburse dischargers for cleanup costs
More limited staff resources to oversee non-fuel sites
418 Closed
1,247 Open
21Non-Fuel Program:Superfund Remediation
The Regional Board is lead on 21 Federal Superfund sites under agreement with USEPA
These sites pose the highest risk to currently used groundwater resources in Silicon Valley
Final remedial programs are ongoing at all 21 sites
Cleanup activities at these sites has removed over 670,000 pounds of pollutants, primarily VOCs
We estimate that this amount would double if mass-removal data for all non-fuel sites were included
22Non-Fuel Program:Superfund Land Use
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Same Use ChangedUse
Vacant
At nearly all the Superfund sites we oversee, site investigation and cleanup have proceeded without significantly impacting site use or redevelopment
We suspect that results are similar for other non-fuel sites we oversee
Pe
rce
nta
ge
of S
ites
23Non-Fuel Program:Enforceable Board Orders
Site Cleanup Requirements adopted by Board
(cumulative)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Fiscal Year
Sites with significant threats to human health and the environment have “Site Cleanup Requirements” Other lower threat sites are under staff “letter orders”
Site Cleanup Requirements are enforceable orders adopted by the Regional Board in a public meeting
Site Cleanup Requirements establish a site-specific program for investigation and remediation
Virtually all Site Cleanup Requirements set drinking water standards as the cleanup goal for groundwater
24Non-Fuel Program:Cost Recovery
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
92-93
93-94
94-95
95-96
96-97
97-98
98-99
99-00
00-01
Num
ber
of Sites
Enro
lled
Closed Active
Our goal is for all non-fuel dischargers to reimburse staff for our oversight costs
Since the early 1990s, we have steadily increased in the number of non-fuel sites enrolled in our cost recovery program
This funding mechanism facilitates focused oversight of cases
Currently, about 77% of active non-fuel cases are on cost recovery
25Special Features: Resource Focus
The Department of Water Resources identifies 32 groundwater basins in the Region Areas of significant municipal use (Santa Clara Valley and Niles Cone) receive high priority from staff for cleanup plans Staff have also worked on basin protection efforts in Napa Valley, Westside Basin, and Livermore Valley groundwater basins Regionwide, there have been limited impacts to municipal water supply wells
Groundwater Basins
Groundwater Protection and Focused Cleanup Plans
Groundwater Protection
Beneficial Use Study
Santa ClaraValley
Niles Cone
LivermoreValley
Napa Valley
WestsideBasin
26Special Features: Enforcement
While most dischargers voluntarily comply with cleanup requirements, a few have refused or been slow to complete necessary work
The Board has taken formal enforcement against 33 “cleanup” dischargers since the mid 1980s, imposing administrative civil liability of about $2 million
Some of this liability has been suspended following completion of required tasks or supplemental environmental projects
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Fiscal Year
ACL Imposed ($ Million Cumulative)
27Special Features:
EncouragingInnovative Technologies
• Hydrogen peroxide, potassium permanganate, or other oxidizing solutions are injected into into the contaminated groundwater to destroy volatile organic compounds • Effective in source areas, less effective for diffuse contaminant plumes• Treats groundwater without the need to pump it to the surface and discharge it
• Oxygen or nutrients are injected into the contaminated groundwater to promote biological treatment
• In-situ method that’s most effective in source areas
• Proven for fuel cleanups and becoming more prevalent for solvent cleanups
Permeable Barriers
Rapid Oxidation
• Passive, in-situ technology using a catalyst (e.g. iron) to convert solvents to non-toxic components (e.g. chloride)• Greatly reduces long-term operation and maintenance costs over active pump and treat systems
Enhanced Bio-Remediation
28Special Features:Regulatory Innovations
• We have focused on several areas – Emeryville, East Palo Alto, Oakland, and SF• Region-wide efforts include negotiating 10 “prospective purchaser” agreements and issuing more than 200 “comfort” letters to buyers and neighboring properties• Our efforts have led to cleanup and redevelopment of more than 50 “brownfields” sites, including Mission Bay, Eastshore Park, and the former Pacific Refining site
• Use risk assessment to determine threat to human health and water quality
• Developed risk-based screening levels (RBSLs) to speed up regulatory process
• Use mix of cleanup and risk management to address contamination
• “Containment zones” at three sites
Risk Management
“Brownfields” Cleanup and Redevelopment
• Require deed restrictions at sites with significant contamination (40 so far)• Maintain site cleanup requirements at sites where complex risk management needed (e.g. cap maintenance)• Working with cities and counties to establish local permitting as a primary enforcement tool
Risk-Based Cleanups
29
• Natural attenuation has been documented at fuel UST sites
• We see evidence of natural attenuation at some non-fuel sites but this still requires site-by-site documentation and follow-up monitoring
What Is Next?
• We will complete comprehensive evaluations of groundwater beneficial uses to ensure protection of groundwater resources and to facilitate development of reasonable groundwater cleanup standards
• We will continue to apply risk-based
decision making on a site-specific basis • We will make more use of long-term risk management measures on a site-specific basis
Risk-Based Decision Making
Monitored Natural Attenuation
Basin Planning