Site Mitigation 101

CUPA Conference February 4, 2015

Wednesday 8-9:45 AM

New (and not so new) corrective action agency employees

IndustryConsultants (Potential) Responsible Parties

Students

Target Audience

Charles Ice, PG, San Mateo County Environmental Health LOP, voluntary cleanup program,

Corrective Action UPA, and well permitting, also biotoxin sampling and groundwater sustainability

Jerry Wickham, PG, Alameda County Environmental Health LOP, voluntary cleanup program

Speakers

Regulatory authority Cleanup Process

Opening a case Typical field activities and documentation Financing Enforcement options Closing a case

Whether to Open or Close a Case Examples

Meeting Outline

Corrective Action Programs

Local Agencies/Districts

Voluntary Programsall other

contaminantsHealth and Safety Code

Section 101480

9 Regional Water Quality Control Boards

Petroleum releases from USTs onlyCode of Regulations, Title 23, Chapter

16, Article 11, Section 2720 defines Responsible Party (RP) as: Tank owner and operator (or last known operator) Business owner and operator Property owner at time of contaminant discovery

Can be named secondary RP if another RP will remain as primary and potential secondary RP had no direct involvement in discharge

Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST)

Health & Safety Code 25296 – word for word language for Remedial Action Completion Certificate (i.e. closure letter), appeals process for closure request denial

Health & Safety Code 25299 – the UST Cleanup Fund, currently authorized until 2026 and a fee of 2 cents per gallon

Health and Safety Code Sections

Local Oversight Program started as pilot program by Resolution 88-23 Counties contracted directly with SWRCB Appeals process, RWQCB concurrence

Health & Safety Code 25297 – authorizes the SWRCB to implement the LOP, Responsible Party to identify and notify affected property owners, and requires reimbursement for reasonable cost

Local Oversight Program

CUPAs had to be certified in 1996 Local Implementing Agencies (LIAs)

AB1701 (2012) required certification to be an LOP, no more LIAs (or quasi-LIAs)

Certification requirements Professional Geologist (PG) or Engineer

(PE), requirements for minimum education and training for all staff

Agency Certification

2009-42 Immediately review all cases for closure and

post impediments for closure by 6/30/10 2009-81

Use decisional framework outlined in resolution 92-49 and previous closure orders

2012-16 Low Threat UST Petroleum Closure Policy (LTCP)

Improvement Resolutions

2012-62 Plan for Implementation of LTCP and Additional Program Improvements Review all sites against LTCP by 8/16/13,

create Path to Closure Plan by 1/1/14 SWRCB review of all closure denials 60-day TAT work plans and closure requests Emphasis on high threat cases Pushing for well destruction and waste

removal of pending closure cases

Improvement Resolutions

RWQCBs have 3,050 open, 13,308 closed Another 209 listed as Open - Inactive

17 local agencies with 1,767 open, 19,044 closed cases Another 4 listed as Open - Inactive

LUST Case numbers

RWQCBs Water Code Sections 13267, 13304, and 13365

Local agencies Health & Safety Code Section 101480, SB1248 (1996)

Responsible Party [can be anyone] that requests the local officer [county or city health officer or county environmental health director] to supervise remedial action at a site

Must enter into a Remedial Action Agreement specifying assessment, remediation, and cleanup goals

Voluntary Cleanup Program

Letter certifies completion of activities Charge RP a fee to recover reasonable

costs; no enforcement option Local agency sites

Must first notify DTSC and RWQCB of site Either party at any time may ask DTSC or

RWQCB to take over through agency referral or RP applies for Site Designation or Brownfield MOA processes

Voluntary Cleanup Program

RWQCBs have 3,050 open cases, 5,911 closed, 1,565 Listed as Open - Inactive

32 local agencies with 586 VCP open sites, 3,494 closed cases, 61 sites listed as Open - Inactive 14 agencies >4 sites each, total of 567

sites

Voluntary Cleanup Program

Mandated by statue in 1997 Regulations for designation (i.e. application) developed in 2006 Allows Health & Safety Code Chapter 6.5 Section 25187, 25200.3, 25200.10, 25407.14 orders at facilities subject to oversight by CUPA

Generators, Conditional Authorization, Conditional Exemption, and Permit by Rule (except TTUs) Less versus more complex sites for Tier 1 and 2 designations

Corrective Action UPA

Phase 1 Assessment Checklist (DTSC Form 1151 required be filled out by 1/1/97 identified many corrective action sites ) or 1 year after CA or PBR notification

Generators that can not obtain clean closure during facility closure and property or business transfers identify a majority of corrective action UPA sites

Delegation to UPAs only applies to Health & Safety Code Chapters 6.5

Corrective Action UPA Regulations

Los Angeles County, Ventura County, San Mateo County, Sacramento County, San Diego County, and Merced County currently designated

Orange County has appliedOnly 3 sites officially so far

Implementation

Cleanup process

Opening a case Funding Conceptual site model Site investigation Remedy selection Groundwater monitoring GeoTracker Public participation Enforcement options Case closure

LOP/UST Cleanup Process

UST Cleanup Fund for eligible sites Responsible party funds Less Common

Emergency, Abandoned, and Recalcitrant (EAR) Account

Orphan Site Cleanup Fund School District Account

LOPs operate under contract to State Water Resources Control Board

Funding

Definitions and various forms Description of sources, distribution,

pathways, and receptors.ProcessWhen is site investigation

adequate?

Conceptual Site Model

Example of CSM Pictorial

Example of CSM Flow Diagram

Worker

Resident

Recreational

Definitions and various forms Description of sources, distribution,

pathways, and receptors.ProcessWhen is site investigation

adequate?

Conceptual Site Model

Various approaches Fixed scope of work Flexible or expedited

Methods and technologiesWork plans and reporting

Site Investigation

When are groundwater monitoring wells installed?

What information do we get?How long do we monitor?

Groundwater Monitoring

Interim remedial actionsPilot testsCorrective action plans

Public participation Green and Environmentally

Responsible Cleanups

Remedy Selection

Opening a case Funding Conceptual site model Site investigation Remedy selection Groundwater monitoring GeoTracker Public participation Enforcement options Case closure

LOP/UST Cleanup Process

Make sure site is claimed and keep it up to date

Site history and case status Document and EDF submittals Low Threat Closure Policy checklist Path to closure plan Regulatory actions (activities) Post closure site management requirements Getting information out of GeoTracker

GeoTracker

Level of effort based on site Threshold level for all sites Adjust level of effort as needed

Categories Rural/urban

Activities “Public Participation at Cleanup Sites, Final

Draft,” April 2005, State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Boards

Public Participation

Progressively increase enforcement Meetings Notice of Violation District Attorney Regional Water Quality Control Boards State Water Resources Control Board

Enforcement Options

Opening a case Funding Conceptual site model Site investigation Remedy selection Groundwater monitoring GeoTracker Public participation Enforcement options Case closure

Voluntary Cleanup Program Process

Full and meaningful public involvement (CEQA) Site screening (Preliminary Endangerment Assessment) Site investigation (using DTSC guidance documents) Selection of remedy and cleanup levels Adequate resources & oversight Written documentation of corrective action

activities Enforcement of corrective action completeness Financial assurance Land use controls

Corrective Action Process

Most common ways of site discovery Tank removal and upgrade sampling or

release detected by UST monitoring equipment

Voluntary Phase 2 work requested by banks for property transactions, data voluntarily submitted or as required by drilling permit

CUPA facility closure sampling Public complaints, usually nuisance based

Opening a Case

Request any additional info anyone has to help determine if site should be opened and who might be responsible parties (RPs)

Identify RPs (assessor’s records and CUPA files for LUST) or potential RPs (current and perspective property owner and current or most recent facility in CUPA files for VCP), send them initial letter

Open site in Geotracker and have meeting with RPs or potential RPs to discuss why, what, and how, and request initial work plan

Steps for Opening A Case

Concentrations versus screening levels (ESLs by SFRWQCB or LARWQCB, RLs by USEPA Region 9)

Location of contamination in relation to sensitive receptors (current and imminent land use involved)

Fate and transport pathways initially assessed

Deciding Whether to Open a Case

Case opening Example

Voluntary Phase II work for redevelopment of a former electronics lab from the 1960s reportedly with electroplating

Grab groundwater 20 feet below ground surface in 5 borings but monitoring wells on other sites in the vicinity have 10 feet depth of groundwater

Analyzed soil and groundwater for TPH, SVOCs, and VOCs

Circuitron

Soil Data (ppb)

Groundwater Data (ppb)

Site Map

Max TCE in soil 0.055 mg/kg @ 20 ft bgs @ SB-8

Soil (SFRWQCB) ESL 0.46 mg/kg Max TCE in groundwater 870 ug/L

@ 25 ft bgs @ SB-6Groundwater (SFRWQCB) ESL 1,300

ug/L for vapor intrusion, 5 ug/L drinking water

Summary and Screening Information for Voting

SFRWQCB TCE Vapor Intrusion acute trigger level in fine soil (or deep groundwater) 460 ug/L

Development plans incorporate 2 levels of parking garages (~20 feet deep)

Any possible additional info they could get to stop agency from opening site?

Does This Change Your Vote?

Low Threat UST Closure Policy Resolution 92-49 Relevant State Water Board Orders Closure requests are tracked on GeoTracker Denials of closure reviewed by State Water

Resources Control Board

LOP/UST Case Closure

Eight General Criteria Three Media Specific Criteria

Groundwater – Four prescriptive classes of sites or regulatory agency determination

Vapor – Four scenarios, sit-specific risk assessment or regulatory agency determination

Direct Contact and Outdoor Air Exposure –Table 1, site-specific risk assessment, or regulatory agency determination

Low Threat UST Closure Policy

Provides a framework for the cleanup process. Establishes the basis for determining cleanup levels of waters

of the State and soils that impact waters of the State. Resolution No. 92-49 requires cleanup to occur in a manner

that promotes attainment of either background water quality or that level that is reasonable if background levels of water quality cannot be restored.

Resolution No. 92-49 does not require that the requisite level of water quality be met at the time of case closure; it specifies compliance with cleanup goals and objectives within a reasonable time frame.

Resolution 92-49

Case closure EXAMPLE

Urban site Active retail truck stop Gasoline and diesel Multiple releases from tank pit and piping

Time to Play “Would You Close That Site”

APARTMENTS

RESTAURANT AND PARKING LOTRESTAURANT AND PARKING LOT

RAILROADRAILROAD

Dispensers

BUILDING

TANK PIT

Truck Stop Site Plan

Depth to groundwater 2 to 6 feet bgs Groundwater not used in area of site for water

supply Free product removal until 2006; no free

product currently Overexcavation in tank pit area and scale (2,644

cy) In-situ Remediation but likely not effective

Example LOP/UST Site

APARTMENTS

RESTAURANT AND PARKING LOTRESTAURANT AND PARKING LOT

RAILROADRAILROAD

Dispensers

BUILDING

TANK PIT

TPHg In Groundwater

EW

East-West Cross Section TPHg In Soil

APARTMENTS

RESTAURANT AND PARKING LOTRESTAURANT AND PARKING LOT

RAILROADRAILROAD

Dispensers

BUILDING

TANK PIT

Benzene In Groundwater

500 µg/L

APARTMENTS

RESTAURANT AND PARKING LOTRESTAURANT AND PARKING LOT

RAILROADRAILROAD

Dispensers

BUILDING

TANK PIT

MTBE in Groundwater

500 µg/L

APARTMENTS

RESTAURANT AND PARKING LOTRESTAURANT AND PARKING LOT

RAILROADRAILROAD

Dispensers

BUILDING

TANK PIT

TBA in Groundwater

Within service area of a public water system

Consists only of petroleum Currently no free product Primary release has been stopped Conceptual site model was developed Secondary source removal Soil and groundwater tested for MTBE No nuisance conditions

General LTCP Criteria

Site DataLTCP

Class 1 Criteria (µg/L)

LTCP Class 2 Criteria (µg/L)

LTCPClass 3 Criteria (µg/L)

LTCP Class 4 Criteria (µg/L)

Plume LengthApproximately 200 feet from source to edge of

plume<100 feet <250 feet <250 feet <1,000 feet

Free Product Currently no free product

No free product

No free product

Removed to maximum

extent practicable

No free product

Plume Stable or Decreasing

Appears to be decreasing over long

term but sporadic increases observed.

Stable or decreasing

Stable or decreasing

Stable or decreasing

for minimum of 5 Years

Stable or decreasing

Distance to Nearest Water Supply Well >1,000 feet >250 feet >1,000

feet >1,000 feet >1,000 feet

Distance to Nearest Surface Water and Direction

2,000 feet downgradient >250 feet >1,000

feet >1,000 feet >1,000 feet

Property Owner Willing to Accept a Land Use Restriction?

Yes Not applicable

Not applicable Yes Not

applicable

Groundwater-Specific Criteria

Site DataLTCP Class

2 Criteria (µg/L)

LTCPClass 3

Criteria (µg/L)

LTCP Class 4 Criteria (µg/L)

Plume LengthApproximately 200 feet from source to edge of

plume<250 feet <250 feet <1,000 feet

Free Product Currently no free product No free product

Removed to maximum

extent practicable

No free product

Plume Stable or DecreasingAppears to be decreasing

over long term but sporadic increases

observed

Stable or decreasing

Stable or decreasing

for minimum of 5 Years

Stable or decreasing

Distance to Nearest Water Supply Well >1,000 feet >1,000 feet >1,000 feet >1,000 feet

Distance to Nearest Surface Water and Direction

2,000 feet downgradient >1,000 feet >1,000 feet >1,000 feet

Property Owner Willing to Accept a Land Use Restriction?

Yes Not applicable Yes Not

applicable

Groundwater-Specific Criteria

ConstituentHistoric Site Maximum

(µg/L)

Current SiteMaximum

(µg/L)

LTCP Class 2 Criteria (µg/L)

LTCP Class 3 Criteria (µg/L)

LTCP Class 4 Criteria (µg/L)

Benzene 77,000 740 3,000 No criteria 1,000

MTBE 920,000 530 1,000 No criteria 1,000

TBA 310,000 35,000 No criteria No criteria No criteria

Groundwater Concentrations

Not required for active service stations No threat to nearby sites

Vapor-Specific Criteria

Constituent

Residential Commercial/Industrial Utility Worker

0 to 5 feet bgs

(mg/kg)

Volatilization to outdoor air (5 to 10 feet bgs)

mg/kg

0 to 5 feet bgs

(mg/kg)

Volatilization to outdoor air (5 to

10 feet bgs) mg/kg

0 to 10 feet bgs(mg/kg)

Site Maximum Benzene 3.5 200 3.5 200 200

LTCP Criteria Benzene ≤1.9 ≤2.8 ≤8.2 ≤12 ≤14

Site Maximum Ethylbenzene 9.4 160 9.4 160 160

LTCP Criteria Ethylbenzene ≤21 ≤32 ≤89 ≤134 ≤314

Site Maximum Naphthalene ---- ---- ---- ---- ----

LTCP Criteria Naphthalene ≤9.7 ≤9.7 ≤45 ≤45 ≤219

Direct Contact and Volatilization to Outdoor Air

Maximum site concentrations less than Table 1 concentrations

Maximum concentrations less than levels from site-specific risk assessment

As a result of controlling exposure through use of mitigation measures or institutional or engineering controls, regulatory agency determines that petroleum constituents in soil will have no significant risk of adversely affecting human health

Three Ways to Meet Direct Contact and Volatilization to Outdoor Air

Criteria

Does it meet general criteria? Does it meet scenarios 2, 3, and 4 of

groundwater criteria? Exempt from vapor criteria Could site meet direct contact criteria

with land use controls?

Summary of LTCP Criteria for Voting

What about variations in groundwater concentrations?

What about TBA in groundwater at concentrations up to 35,000 µg/L?

TPH mass remaining (estimated 17,600 pounds) Shallow soil contamination with concentrations

that exceed LTCP Table 1 and no naphthalene data

Do Any of These Conditions Change Your

Vote?

QUESTIONS/DISCUSSION