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