Stake Holders:
Newport –Mesa Unified School DistrictState of California, Orange County Health Care AgencyState of California, EPACosta Mesa Local Community Watch
PROTECTING OUR WATER RESOURCE
Source: ADvTECH, 2008.Permission to use photos given.
PROTECTING OURWATER RESOURCE
PUBH 8165February 2, 2013
Presented by:
Michael ShiangDoctoral Candidate in Public Health
Walden University
Stakeholders:
Owner: Newport-Mesa Unified School District
Agencies State of California, Orange County Health Care
Agency State of California, Environmental Protection
Agency Public Group
Costa Mesa Community Watch
Source: ADvTECH, 2008.
Discussion Overview
□ Off-Site Feasibility Study/Remedial Action Plan
□ Historical Programs Conducted by NMUSD
On-Site Environmental Activities Site Investigation/Monitoring Activities Interim Remedial Actions Removal Action/On-Going Cleanup Programs
Off-Site Environmental Investigation
□ Community Concerns and Open Discussion
FACT SHEET - SYNOPSIS
No Immediate Threat to Human Health or the Environment
No Drinking Water Supply Wells Threatened or Impacted
Detailed Reports – Geotracker Website http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T0605902072
Source: State of CA, Geotracker, 2013.
Site Map
Source: ADvTECH, 2008.Permission to use photos given.
NEWPORT-MESA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTTIME LINE – ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS
Source: ADvTECH, 2010
Source: ADvTECH, 2008.Permission to use photos given.
ON-SITE SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM
ON-SITE SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION
Initiated in April 2007 6 VES, 6 Air-Sparge Catalytic/Thermal
Oxidizer Unit 45 scfm, 8-in Hg O&M Conducted by ERI
Vapor Air Stream to Remove Contaminants in Soil
Initial Conc. = >10,000 ppmv TPH
Current Conc. = 200-400 ppmv TPH
Approx. ~ 8,500 lbs TPH Removed
Source: ADvTECH, 2008.Permission to use photos given.
ON-GOING QUARTERLY GROUNDWATER
MONITORING
QUARTERLY GROUNDWATER MONITORING
2001 Started, Quarterly Data from about 2003
18 Wells On-Site 8 Wells Off-Site Range in Depth from 35 –
50 ft-bgs Monitors “First Water” at
about 25 to 35 ft-bgs
Flow to Southwest TPH, BTEX, MTBE
and other Fuel Additives
Full VOC – mid 2007
Source: ADvTECH, 2008.Permission to use photos given.
Source: ADvTECH, 2008.Permission to use photos given.
Source: ADvTECH, 2008.Permission to use photos given.
TPH Concentrations in Groundwater 4th Qtr 2008
Source: ADvTECH, 2008.Permission to use map given.
APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF GROUNDWATER PLUME OVERLAY
Source: ADvTECH, 2008.Permission to use photos given.
Source: ADvTECH, 2008.Permission to use photos given.
OFF-SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY/RAP FOR GROUNDWATER CLEANUP
FEASIBILITY STUDY
Must Meet a Set of Regulatory Requirements Describe situation Propose clean up goal Consider multiple alternatives Discuss pros and cons of each alternative Choose and justify preferred clean up method
CLEAN-UP GOAL
Benzene is primary contaminant of concern, with lowest clean up level of contaminants present in the groundwater
Clean up will focus on benzene, and other contaminants (gasoline, toluene, ethyl benzene, xylenes) will be removed along with the benzene
MCL (maximum contaminant level) for benzene is 1 ug/L. The remedial system will be designed with the MCL as the clean up goal
REGULATORY/PERMITTING AGENCIES
City of Costa Mesa – Sanitation District City of Costa Mesa – Encroachment Permit Orange County Flood Control District Orange County Health Care Agency Orange County Sanitation District South Coast AQMD Santa Ana RWQCB
ALTERNATIVES
No Action Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) Enhanced Biodegradation Chemical Oxidation Air Sparging/Vapor Extraction Groundwater Extraction and Treatment
FACTORS TO CONSIDER
Impact to Neighborhood and School Effectiveness of Clean Up Duration of Project Cost
No Action/MNA/Biodegradation
Allows continuing spread of contaminants Not sufficiently aggressive in treating existing
contamination Not appropriate for this site, at this time
Air Sparging/Vapor Extraction/Chemical Oxidation
PROS Cost Existing Air
Compressor/ Treatment Unit On-Site
CONS Releases Vapor into
Subsurface Multi-phase Remedial
Option Significant # of Wells Greater Impact to
Neighborhood
GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION
PROS Uses some Existing
Monitoring Wells Less Impact to
Neighborhood Less Piping/Trenches Hydraulic Control
CONS Cost Generates Waste Water
for Discharge to Sewer or Recharge
GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION DETAILS
Seven New Extraction Wells Use Existing Monitoring Wells Off-Site Staging Area in School Yard Piping in Street/Parkway and Easement – Across or
Under Flood Control Channel Treatment Equipment can be Staged in Existing On-
Site Compound Wastewater Discharged to Sewer, Recharge or
Storm Drain
AnticipatedOff-SiteGroundwater Plume Capture
Source: ADvTECH, 2008.Permission to use photos given.
GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION
Cone of Depression
Multiple Wells Extraction
Phase-in Approach
Source: Cherry & Freeze, 2004.Permission to use photos given.
PREFERRED METHODGROUNDWATER EXTRACTION SUMMARY
Work Performed in Public Access Areas Does Not Require Wells on Private Property Generally Higher Cost, but much more Protective of
Community Health and the Environment
WHAT’S NEXT?
Plan Approval Finalize All Permits and Agreements Engineering/Bid Process/Funding Field Implementation
Start Extraction – SEPT 2012 Anticipated Extraction through 2018
COMMUNITY CONCERNS
COMMUNITY CONCERNS
How long is it going to take to clean up? Is my water safe to drink? Can I drink water from the school fountain? Do I need to be concerned about growing vegetables in
my back yard? Will children be at-risk playing on the soccer fields? What are the major disruptions to the community? Will there be a lot of noise from the equipment?
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION
REFERENCES
References
ADvTECH Environmental, Inc. (2008). Feasibility Study, NMUSD. Consultants Report.
ADvTECH Environmental, Inc. (2009). Fourth quarter groundwater monitoring report. Consultants Report.
ADvTECH Environmental, Inc. (2010). Remedial Actions for the NMUSD site. Consultants Report.
Cherry, J., & Freeze, D. (2004). Groundwater. MacGraw Hill. Princeton University. (Check on proper citation).
Environmental Protection Agency. (EPA, 2012a). United States Environmental Protection Agency: Laws and regulations, Summary of the toxic substances control act, 15 USC 2601 et seq. (1976). Retrieved on December 26, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/tsca.html.
References (con’t)
Environmental Protection Agency. (EPA, 2012b). United States Environmental Protection Agency: About EPA, Toxic substances law. Retrieved on December 26, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/history/topics/tsca/03.html.
Environmental Protection Agency. (EPA, 2013). United States Environmental Protection Agency: Underground storage tanks: UST program and site remediation. Retrieved on December 26, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/oust/
Moeller, D. W. (2011). Environmental health (4th ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN:978-0674047402.
Rizzo, J. (1998). Underground storage tank management: A pratical guide. Government Institutes. ISBN: 10—86587607X.
Robinson, J., Thompson, P., Conn, D., & Geyer, L. (1993). Issues in underground storage tank management UST closure and financial assurance. CRC Press. ISBN: 10-0873714024.