-------
, t
.
City of Burbank Public Library
110 North Glenoaks Boulevard'
Burbank, California
91502
(818) 953-9737
'Contact:
Heleri Wapg,
City of Gl~da1~:PublicLibrary
- .
.~ 222 East ~ Street.
Glenda1ei '0:
91205
. .~
./'
(818), . 956~2027
. "..
... .~'..
. .
contact: LOis Brown'.
II.
BACKGROUND
The following ;g~ves a brief back~ound. of the Burbank OU
'.,
~ ' ". -'.
site and a short S1~~ry of the remedy selected in tbeROD.
Fur-
. -"".,.
ther background irii.6~~tiQn can be found in the June' 30,. 1989 ROD
and in the Burbank.'01J AdJninistrati veRecord.
.'
1.
site.Backaround and DescriDtion
. . :.~,. "." . . .'
-.' ..;..,.. - I ... -.~_.... -- .. --"......,... ~ .
In Jun~ 1986, EPA. evaluated the threat posed by a number of
well. fields within: the San Fernando and Verdugo GroundWater
. Basins, and deSignated them as National ~iorities List (NPL)
~zardous subs..:ance s~~es.
Industrial chemicals had been
'd~tected 1n.:.groundwater from. these areas.
Although four sites in
,. . . - ~
:t:he.basin were listed on the NPL,.EPA. an,d DWP are managing the'
bivestigation 'of the four sites and the adjacent area as a single
project consistent with CERCLA Section 104 (d) (4).
Figure 1 shows
the original location of the SFV Areas 1, through 4 sites and the
SFV study area currently being investigated by EPA.
3
-------
r~
SANTA MONICA
MOUNTAINS"
FIGURE 1
SAN FERNANDO VALLEY STUDY AREA. INCLUDING
THE FOUR NATIONAL PRIORITY LIST (NPL) SITES
APRIL. 1990
!
.... . .... -.
~.
MJU .. ""
. ,
-------
The San F~ando Valley Groundwater Basin (SFVGB) .hCiS his-
torically been, and continues to be, an important source of .
drinking' water for 'the Los Angeles metropolitan area, including
the unincorporated area of La Cresenta ,', and the cities of Bur-'
bank, Glendale, and San Fernando.
The groundwater basin provides
these communities with enough water to serve approximately
600,000 residents.
~
Groundwater from theSFVGB is'used for residential, commer-
'. >0- . . . . ,. ...-'- . - v' ~." -.¥. , .
cial, and industria~.:purposes, ,and :isespe~ia1:lyimportant during
years of drought~' The groundwater 'that has become contaminated
is difficu.1t:,.-to replace. The current water ,supply from . su%:face
water may not alWaY~ be available in 'the future beCaUSe of peri-
Odic drought conditions 'and.: state and federal water rights
>
" ,
issues.
.", . ,-
,H. .
. -.
. ,~e Burbank;J)U was "developed to addr~s the areal extent of
qroundwater c:ont~ination that is presently generally located' in
1'0:"
the ;.area of the B~bank Well ,Field and incl~din9 any ar~s to
which the, gro~dwater cont~ination migrates.3 The Site is pi!rt
of the SFV Areal, (North Hollywood) NPL site and includes an area
J
beyond thatoriqina:ily :Ciesignated as SFV Area 1.
Figure 2,' shows
the area where EPA is curreritly focusing its efforts relative to
..
~----------~-------
3. The Burbimk ou is the second OU ad~ess:ing contamination at
the SFV Area 1 NPL site. In September 1987, EPA'signed the North
Hollywood OU ROD for the construction of an extraction and aera-
tion facility to pump and treat contaminated groundwater in the
North Hollywood area within the SFV Area 1 NPL site. The plant
became operational in March 1989. In September 1989, EPA re-
quested DWP to begin work on the Glendale OU RIg making it the
third OU in the SFVB. EPA intends to sign a ROD for the Glendale
OU in 1991.
4
~
"
m,__,,,,,"'-'--...-..._...__m._.._....--.-.-.-.--..--.-_..._.~-----_.__.._.-
-------
LEGEND
P$D-12
. Burbank Supply Well
iii Burbank Operable U~itStud'( Area
)( ~on Well
w .
1
"
,I
o
I
1000
I
ScALE .
2000 FEET
I
FIGURE 2 BURBANK OPERABLE UNIT STUDY AREA, LOCATION OF BURBANK
SUPPLY WELLS, AND POSSIBLE LOCATIONS OF EXTRACTION WELLS
AND TREATMENT FACILITY .
;Jl
'...-
-------
the Burbank Operable Unit and. possible lc:>cations. ~~r~action
we1lsand the treatment system. (as further outlined in 'the Ad-
.;. . ~ .
ministrativeRecordl.
The City of Bur~' s produ.c:tion wells have :~en . shut down
because the "wa~ they produce" contained trichloroe,thylene (TCE~
andperchloroethylene. '(PCE) incQncentratio%U? exceed~g ..state .and
federal JDaX'imum 'conp1ft:1'1"\ant.leve1s (~CLs). . ConsequentJ,y, the
City of Burbarik ,now purchases :100 percent of its water,- which .is
imported supply, ':from the 'M~tr~pol-itan Wa1;er Distr~~ of Southern
california (MWDJ.;
2. 'Selected :Remedv
The Bu.rba1ik OU.ROD selected extraction of .conta?n~~ted
groundwater, "treatment by stripping., and use of the. treated water
asCi public :water :supp1y by ~th~..City of B.urbank." The remedy was
estimated' to cost $69 Million over 20 years.
. The.ROD.,st.ated:that the remedy would be. ~e extraction and
treatment 'of 12,000 gpm of -ground.water, and that EPA would issue
another ROD "if additional extraction capacity were necessary.
(See ROD, pp.. 19,' 21, and 28.)
At -the time, 12.,000 qp~ ~s.
determined.:to be. the . extraetion rate necessary hydraul.ical.1y to
contain groundwater with concentrations of 100 parts per billion
(ppb)4 of TCE and 5 ppb'of PCE;or greater.
(See ROD, pp. 2 and
19. )
The extraction wells were to be located optimally to con":'
trol plume migration while initiating aquifer- restoration in the.
localized .Burbank OU" area.
--------------------
4. It is assumed for the purposes of the Burbank OU ROD and ESD
that micrograms/liter = parts per billion.
5
"""--'---"-'--"'m'_'''.'...m'''~__''-",,,, .......--..,-.-.
-------
The treatmenttecbnology selected by the Burbank OU ROD was
either air stripping with Vapor phase-Granulated Activated carbon,
(GAC) adsorption technologies or steam stripping 'withair~s-
sion controls~ --Air stripping with vapor phase GACadsorpti:on
technologies 'was to be used unless steam stripping, was shown, to .
meetthetr.eatment ~staridardsof ,a:irstripping -with"vapor' ;phaSf? '
GAC. 'The ";.ROn' also stated "that, EPA 'coUld',;decide':;to ~use:~the )two,
tecl:moleqies' 'toqether ' if -sucn. Use ~wouldJliaXimize ,effici~cy.'
. ,.
.' -ifihe ROD ':statedthattbe. ;:treated~,;water 'must'meet,;a-ll, existi;1g
federal and state KCLs and state Action Levels (SALs) :', including
those for Volatile organic Compounds (VOCS).
It~a~Q,;~:ta1;~d ,"that
the water';would':)licitve . 'to ;meet 'aXl ~diinkin:g'watersta:ndards, ,:in-
CiiudfnciSany 'which might. require further treatment, such .as'
ch1.ora11di1atiori-" for'dis'infection pur.poses, or reverse osmosis or
ion exchange for nitrate:.
.;"
'l'betreatea water
-------
'.
III:.. SUMMARy OF SiGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES'. -,
.
'This' ESD clarifies, ce.rt:itin:points set forth in EPA's, J~e,
30, 1989 'Burbank OU,ROD and; to the, extent that the ESD ;d~~fers' '
from-the ROD, the'ESDsupersedesthe ,ROD; .. TheESD provides for
the foi1owing clianges to the ,ROD :
1.
The ROD stated that the .;treated 'water must :meet all
drinking water. '~ards ~ ,including those standards set : for.
nitrate. 'TIle ,ROD also stated . that , additional:,:treatment,might be
necessary for 'iU.tratei-f it exceeds the, MCL ,(ROD, .p.,29,) <.
on new information about nitrate concentrations in the' -
Based,
groundwater 'U> b(;",extraC'ted,for "theBUt'baIik: OQ', a.~dit.icoll~l:',
/
measures will be required to meet the MCL for =nitrate" .~any
water" served- as' dririking water .0" 'After analyzing various:' ':options,
EPA" bas decided' to'-- reqUire 'nitrate treatment by blending..water "
conbinirig nitrate) in excess ,of 'the' XCL with:'water which .does .,not
contain nltrate:"'iri'excess of theMCL, for any water to beserv:ed
to the public,' so that ,the nitrate MCL wi11 be met in such water
supply.
2:" "The RoD Stated that the treated water' is ,to be, del-ivere,d
to the 'City of 'Burbank 'for tise as a public water.:supply..
This ,c' -
ESD clarifies that if the City does not accept any or a1l of the
treated water, any remaining portion of water shall be reinjected
into the aquifer.
3.
This ESD clarifies that the remedy may be designed, con-
structed, and operated in phases, in order to base technical
decisions on the best available information.
7
. ...-.......'R... '_fi._.~__._......-.-.._.m_...__.._-
-------
. .
4. '!'his ESD clarifies th~~~e ~em~dy :~ele~~ .in ,,~~ ROD
waseXtraction:and':treatmentof;12 ;'O,OOgpm~f~o.~d~:t?erfor
twent.Y:year-s; references to :extraction:to contain gr~undwater
'. ' .~ '. '. '."' '; .. -'._.~ . ~-", ".,,-. "",..-.. -,.".
with"concentrations~of 10,0 :..:ppb -'or 'gr~tfa~ :of :,.-CE .;,and ,.5.,' .ppb/or ',' '.
.' .. -"" .." -'-,."-- . A,"-"-' :_-' ~ ,,-,".:-/ ,
greater of PCE were for purposes,-of :estimatiQn, .~ot a:~~~~ent...:
of remediii1 >actionse1.ection, ',under ,the ,J~QD;; .,
..,,,,-"'1" >
."~, . ,
5;>~'«f'o.th~.':extent 'that:any ':grounqwater"f~:~~¥1i.~~~.¥ :,.~,.
of' the::-remedy,., ARARs:..for/this -:reipject,i()n ".of ..~e:.~~~~ ' < :c,
, .
groundWateri'8.rE! identi,fiea-in 'hhil?~D. 4lso:r'::~, ~~~ tc);::a. :~r;~~
vious1.y identified ,.' ARAR is explained. ,
IV.
EXPIJANAfJ.'iEON<. AND9EfJ.'AILED DESCRIPTION OF, CHAN{;ES/~ -
:CLAR!f:FICAfJ.'IONS
" ,
"
-", . .nter ,../the'RQJ;> Was :,signed;-~A received and reviewed n~w d~ta
whiCti'mcJtuded...'mf()rmatie>n;from;:t$e'Lockheed Aeronautical ~st~
:corporati'bri, : (LASC): 'Phas~.rv';;Cl1J.$:ter:~ we:t1s.and the Remedial, :In"es",:,
tiqatie>n;;;,:vertica1:Pr9file -'BoripgslShallow Me>nite>rinq wells.
Reports> ,'and ntechnica:l .1I1Em\oranda we;-e recei vedandl e>r generated as
a result of this new !nfe>rmatie>n in preparation for this ES9,. ,
.j':; .
,The'>newand the ,exi:stinqtechnical . information upon which. EPA
re];ied in4Dakinq'::the':siqnificant ,ch.aD:qes.des~ibe,. dinthisES9"
, .,. ;' ~~", : ~ 'f.
can be found in the",Administrative Record.
8
-------
'.
1..
- .
Treatment of Nitrate
a. Backaround
-,
currently available information indicates that the
. . . .
groundwater containing VOCs above theMCLs is for the most part
found in the upper 200 feet of the aquifer beneath the Burbank -OU
. . . .
, . .
area, not in the upper 500 feet as assumed in the Burbank OuFS
report.5 Koreoyer, the information a150 indi~tes that sha1iow
groundwater contains nitrate concentrations above the MCL.
. .
. .
. - - ~ y
When the OUFS report was prepared, 'EPA ~lieved that the
: . - .. .
. . ." . . - -. .
'groundwater to be extracted and treated for VOcs wou1.d' meet' all
. .
, .
drinking water standards for constituents other than the voes :
. .
, ..
without f~er treatment (beyond the VOC treatment).
The Bur-
bank OU ROD stated that the treated groundwater must meet all
.. . . .
ARARs identified in the ROD, inc1uding those for extracted
- - '". . .
groundwater to :be served as drinking water (i.e. the drinking
. .
-
water standards), and that additional treatment might be neces-
. .'-
sary for contaminants such as nitrate if they were found to'
..,". .
-.... . ...
With this,ESD, EPA exPlicitly
exceed the MCL (see ROD, p.29).
defines the additional measures required for disposal of Voc-
treated :eff1uent containing nitrate concentration .1evels a.bQve..
the'MCL.
-----------------
5. It shou1.d be noted that conditions can change. For example,
fluctuations 'in groundwater levels can impact the amount of VOC
contamination that is either released or not released from the
unsaturated zone. Moreover, con~mit'1ation can migrate both ver-
tically and horizontally into other areas. These factors. will be
considered during the design phase(s).
9
......__.__........~._.....'~'--'-"""
.."'..-....".---........-......-...". ......-.-..---........-.....-----.--
-------
The "Nitrate Reduction for the Burbank Op~able 'Unit Techni-'
. .'. ."".. .'" . ~. .~:, '_.:....~' . .
cal Memorandum" describes four different optionsEPA analyzed to
. .
- _. ~ . -
address th:~..d~posal of VO.C-treat~d ~ffluent .con~ining .~itrate
. . . . .
. -.
in that memorandum, the neces-
, .
. ., ~ . . - "', _. . y . .
concentrations that exceed MCLs.
.-. .'
, .
, . - - " '
s~. ~pital anti operation~ and.main~en~c::e(O& M) re~ement~'".
as well as ,the, relative .a~~tages anddisa~~:-ages of each of
, - "" <-,,'...
those four options are presented. 6 J
.,",
b.
Options
- >...,'-~
- .<..."-,..",,
, ~< ,<..~ " "
M
toihile. CERCLA ~ction1.17(c)and 40 C.F.R. S 300.435(C) (2) (i)
. -',...
" '
. .' .J ":-- ,~.,'"
mer~:lY: r~i3:e. an explanat~o:n. or "the significant differences and
. '. ..~. .. ~ .' v. . '" . .-
the rea,sons. for these differenceS, this ESD sets out in detail
~ .' ,.." ,""'" ,:. . .."''''~ . . .",~ "-':. " ,.~.-' .,. .. . ..~;..,
fo~ op~ions for ,!isp()s~l'?f vOC-t!:eatedeffluent, and ~A~S
anal'Y.s~s. of th~e : ~!. ~o~ op~ions are a~, follows:
1., ' ~action of q1;()~~~~er from selected aquifer zones
- "'.. '" y' .<>-. '.
" .
benea~ .:the B~bank OUarea. By . preferentially pumping from dif-
. ',., ,,' ",' .
. .
'. -. «
fe,rent aquif~' .zones, the extracted water would be blended in or-
".- .
der to lower nitrate concentration levels to below the MCL before
.. .
..
VOC treatment by stripping, and use by the City of Burbank.
, '
Figurec3~7
See
----...-----------,-.-....-
'6. :TheLOs.AngeIes Department .of water :a.nd Power 'pr$pared,?eCit '
EPA's request, the "Nitrate Reduction For the Burbank Operable
Unit" Technical Memorandum. EPA relied upon the Administ%:~.'~ive.
Record, including this Technical 'Memorandum, for the development
of the four options outlined in the ESD. The Technical Memoran-
dum optionS 1, 2, 3, 4 generally correspond to the ESD options 1,
3, 4, 2, respectively. The four opti.ons analyzed in this ESD are
set forth in the next section.
7. :In the aquifer zones where the nitrate 'concentrations appear
to be lower, VOC concentrations also appear to be lower'. since
some water would be extracted from the zones with lower nitrate
concentrations in order to blend .this water with the water from
the' zones with higher nitrate concentrations, the total volume of
groundwater extracted under Option 1 would be lower in both
nitrate and VOC concentrations.
10
-------
Qp~lon 1., "
t z~
..'
"
. VQC:
1" ,
: treatment
Extr~ct~on Well,S
, ,
Extracted water
~~e's Nitrate'
MOL, but 18
above VOC
, MCLa
groundwater
v = ground water table
"
, ,
. ~ater'supply,
'back-up'
, connection
, ,
~ ~.
.' .
"
, City of Burbank
:'
Water meets all
McLs Including'
,VOC (;Ind Nitrate
MCls ..
, ,
ItvlMd 812'100. \ltn.'""\iMMIdt,,,,,,, cb
'0 '
"
I'Ij
....
lQ
~
(t)
w
-------
2.
Extraction of groundwater from the most VOC-contaminated
zone, VOCtreatment by stripping, and:
(a) nitrate reduction by
ble.n~g water containing nitrate in excess of the HCL wi,t.4. water
~'-'.+if~"-' .-. d-.v ,.....,'",...0." ,,"'V'~,-..,.,. '".'- A.,. "- _.
'" "h' ~._, ''''-,'''''''~':'''''V' .-
which does not contain nitrate in excess of the HCL8 and use by,
the city of Burbank; and/or (b) reinjection of the water into an.
area with similar nitrate concentrations."9iIO" See Figure 4.
3.
Extraction, f;)~.,groundwater from ,'th~ most VOC-contaminated
zone, VOC treatment 1;>y"stripping, nitra'tetreatment by ion
. ~ . . .
- '
exchange,11 and use i~:ftb.eCityofBur~. See Figure 5.
4.
, ,
~ . . -.
Extraction of-~oundwater 'frc:m t!1~ most VOC-contaminated
zone, VOC treatment: b:y'sti:-ipp~g,and 'reinjection of the Water
into an area with similar nitrate concentrations.
,S@~'Fi9ure 6.
'/
.'
The oPtion fordisposalofVOC-treated effl\?-entcontaining
nitrate concentrations above the HCL that EPA is' choosing; in. this
ESD is., Option 2.
The total blended water supply to be served as
a pub1ic drinking water supply will meet the nitrate HCL.
The
following analysis explains why this option is preferred over the
others.
.......- -. -_.....--_..._.....-....~.
, ,
,S.The california ~pa,rt.1aent;.G€ Health SerN'ices has determined
::.~thatsuch' blending is;:~a~~p~able form of treatment for
, nitrate. See MemorandUm fromtiisa ,"Greene to Administrative
Record, dated' a:uly 2, 1990. '
, '
9. The water ~ be.,:r::ein;jected will mee;t all primary drinking
, water standards Qther than that for nitrate.
, '
;.. ,v_-
, 10. Altfarnative 2, 'pYextracting 12,(JOO gpm of groundwater and .
blending it wi~some~unknown amount;'of surface water may produce T'
a total,:water supply that is greater than the City of Burbank can
use. see page 27, below, fora discussion of this issue.
11. See Administrative Record for a discussion of other nitrate
removal treatments that were screened out during the preliminary
analysis for this ESD. "
11
-------
QI?tlon 2
"
Extraction Wells
groundwater
. '
~ ';
:.VOC
treatment
.,:'
; .' I
Extracted water
Is above Nitrate
and VOC MCLs .
Higher VOC
Concentrations.
than Optlon1
.. ,- ..,
. "
Water supply
(low In Nitrate)
~
Nitrate City of
Treatment ~
or. . Burbank
. (Blending)
. .
..,
Water meets all
-I
, MCLs tn~'udlng
- vec and, Nitrate
MCL!
, .
. Water
.' reinjected
'Into Basin
Wate~ meets
VOC MCLs;
but Is above
Nitrate MOL.
.,
IT;!
..,.
\Q
s::
t'1
ro
.c:..
,mild 8121180. \llI\.ltmVMMidt.~ cb
I
. '
-------
Q,ptlon 3
Extraction )Nells
groundwater
) Extracted water
> ~,. A .. .". ~
: IS,above'VOe
and Nitrate,' .
MOLs
Higher voe
oonoentratlons
than Option 1
v = ground water table
, " i ~ .' "; {? ,-:--~
'}, '~~_. >:
""./
. ,Nitrate
Treatment
(Ion E>CC;hange), '
water
meets
Nitrate
" MOL
Water meets
VOC MOLs,
and: Is ,abov,e
Nitrate 'Me~
','. ".,' ,('
Blending
Facility
. ;'
"Water meets aU':, , ,
MOLs Inoludlngd~;',:' ;';
VOC and NI~ratf;'~:, ,;! '
MCL~f;
~. -:
f! )-.
,.
, .
, .
.~.£.I Ai!itjQlI.\t~IiI.~.d.,Mt..1 d~
,
; ~ . t '
ttj
i
(!)
V1
.. t . ."'.
-------
Qptlon.4
Extraction Well,s,
groundwater
Extract~d water
above Nitrate
and VQC MCLs
. Hlgt1er'VOC
conce~tratlons
th~n Option 1
\l = ground water table
"
.VQC .
treatment
Water trleets VOC
: MCLs. above
.; Nltrat~ :MCL
:\ "
,water Reinjected
. . Into Basin
ttVlMd 8121100 . ".II.Jttn\OYrheId..1!M' ~,.
, '
.
8.
'toIj ,
~.
(\)
0'\
-------
c.
Analvsis of Options for Addressinq Nitrate
The four options presented above were compared with each
,~ther ~~Qn.the n~! criteria l:iste~ and explained in the Na-
, . '. ~ '"' I.-c"""'" .'.,-" '~"'.'. --" ""-"'._"" "". ~-~~'..';'.;Y'<-"'-._""""""~""'i""""'.r"-P '.""'.
tional Contingency Plan, 40 C.F.R. S 300.430{e) (9) (iii). T.he
nine criteria and theresuits of the comparison of the options
are presented in this sUbSection.
T.he nine criteria are as fol-
};ows:
,:"".- .~.
(1) compliance with~pplicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements . (~) ,
"0
'-. .,
(2) overall protection of human- health and the
environment,
(3) short-term effectiveness in protecting human
health and the environment,
(4) long-term effectiveness and Permanence in
protect.ing 'human health and the environment,
(5) reduction of toxicity, mObility, and volume
of contaminants,
(6) technical and administrative feasibility
of implementa~ion, .-
. "
(7) capital anq ~~rati~nand maintenance costs,
".
(8) state accep~ce, and
. .
(9) community acceptance;
", All four options meet the following criteria equally well:
(1) compliance with ARARs,
(2) overall protection of human health and the environment,
and
(3) short-term effectiveness in protecting human health and
1.2
-------
..
the environment.
Comriliance with ARARs
The main purPose' of th'isinterim remedial aCtion' is to -eon-
troi the sprea1i' 6f 'theVOC 'plume in'the-aquifer.12 This' is being
done by the pumping of wells 'to .tnhibit the spread of the plume;-
follOwed by the treatment of exb:actedgroundWater in a'12, 000
- .
gpni'treatment plant to remove 'the VOCs.
Beciius~ pumping and
treating for the VOCs 'requires 1:h21t '~1:here be: a diSpesa:'lopt3.on
, .
for the voc-treated effluent~ -and ~caUse the: zones of'the.the:,
aquj:fer containing the VOCS also coritain nitrate' concentrations
. - . .
in eXceSs of'the HCL, the four options' under considerati'on'were "
., .
developed~for disposalof'voc~treated'effluent.
There are'
. . ~ ,"
several sets of requirementS that' must be considered in analyzing
these options .
, '
-. '
---...---------
12., The ROD recognized that chemical-sPecific ARARs for the
groundwater itse1f would be met in the final remedy for this
site. (See ROD" ,page 23.) ,Since the, remedial action adopted
pursuant to the ROD and this ESD is an interim action, these
chemi~1~specifJc,,~ for, the. groundwat~cont~mil'lant plUJJ;le do
not apply to the 'activities' undertaken 'pursuant to thisESD~'In
explaining ,the :r:.equirements . of ~e National contingency Plan
("NcptI), the preamble to the NCP states: .
Several.,commenters also sta~~ that chemical-
'specffic ARARS u.sed as remediation :'goa1s, . "suCh
as HCLs as.AR,ARs for ground water remediation,
cannot be attained dur1.hg imPlementation'.' EPA.
wants to clarify tl1at. it recqgni~es ~at ARARs
that are used to determine final r~ediation
levels apply only at the completion of the ac-
. tion. '
See 55 Fed. Reg. 8754 (March 8, 1990). Therefore, chemical-
SPecific requirements to be met in the aquifer at the end of the
final remedy are not ARARs for this interim action and therefore
are not relevant to choosing among the options available.
13
-------
..
First, any water to be reinjected ons,ite must ~eet all
action-specific ARARs for reinjection.
The action~~~cif~c ~
. . .".,'~ -''''.- - "" - . . ," -- . .
forreinj~ction are "identifi~d below ~,in,~~~~ion -~.o~:"this Sec-
tion.'
The reinjection""must mee~ ~e aStatement 'Jof~Polic;:y ,With "
Respect to Maintaining B;ghOU:~:t~tyof Waj:~s in,~,+if~~ia~a (an
ARAR' fO;r, r~iI)je~i~~,), which :r~es .t:J;l~~:"t:h~:r~in~:~ct~}ia~~
not unrea~o~ly d~Ci~e existing water ~al~ty~.. ,'~_ARAR .;. "'" .;: -' .. .;':": ~,' ,;. '..::' ':~.~~ ';' .:"
tain~g, nitrate concentrations. .similartc>. . ~e ~o~centra~ions in
. ... ¥ "" ~.,' "'.''''''" , ,.",'", . ,'.', ~'~. '-'.: :.. ", 'y ...:;" ,,-
th~,.~t~,.to..~rei~j~~e.qt ,by,~g iI,tto ac~ounr the qua~~t:~
an~'.;,~tij:.y ,9f, .the w3'-~~,' t~. ~" rein?~cted, and. by ens~~g that
the water t;o~~,.reinj~.~~~,":m~ts the primary drinking water stan-
dcq:ds' .fora~];'9~~...'cC)ntaJ!1inants.Options, 2 and 4 each: (a)
result in the removal of VOCS by the treatment plant;' and (b)
provide a means whereby the water to be reinjected would meet. all
ARARs for reinjection.
Secondly, the water to be used as a public water supply off-
,'" ,.....;...-;- .. " " ",'J.:"",
site ~1!1UStalso m~1::: a:ll drizjking water standards, includinq- that'
. . .
. - ,-.' .~~
for lu:trate, asjXp~la.ine~ ~l6w. Options 1, 2 and') each: (a)
resu1,t .in ,the ~fimc5Va:lOf voes by, the treatment p1ant,; and '(b)
. . .
, .
provide a means whereby the MCL for nitrate would be met ii1 the
, '
water to ~,;served .as a ,~~lic w~ter s1lpply, without-having ~e
treatment plantfafflu~t meet th~ ni~at:e MCL. ~us, all MCLs
, ,
,'. .
other than'the'~MtL for nitratewoU1:d'have to -be met ;in the water
to be blended.
After blending, such water would have to meet all
MCLs .
14
-------
Because o,f the need to complywitli the a statement of "Policy
With ResPe'ct to High Quality of Waters ,in California',~ all
primary: drinking -water-standards 'other ,than th~ ,BCL "for,,'nitrate'
must be met intheti:"eatment plant effluent, whether it is to be
used 'for drinking' water, or 'reinjected.. ''!'herefore, a:ll'primary'
drinking water standards 'other ,than the. nitrate MCL are .~ f.or
the treatment plant effluent.
In addition to meeting ARARs, when any water from the treat-
ment plant is' served. offsite, all applicable, requirements . for
ckinkiDg water in existence at the' time" that the' .water is 'served
wii'!:'have' to 'be'::met.
See"55, . ~ed. :Reg.8758 (March 8, 1"990).
since this 'aCtivity would take 'placeoffsite, these requirements
are not ARARs within the,mearilnciof CERCLA Section 121(d)", which'
term refers' .to onsi te" ci6tions. ''!'herefore, these requirements ,as
they' 'apply,:'to:' the>Water to' be .servedoffsi-te as a public water .
SuPpiy; , are' not afrozen'", as of' the date the ESD is adopted, as., -
- "". -.-
are onsite ARARs. ';See' 40' C'.F.R. S 300.430(f) (1) (ii) (B).
Rather,
they change over time as new laws and regulations applicable -to'
drinkinq water :ehanqe. -:-:,See 55 Fed.' Reg. 8758 (March ,8" 19,9:0) .13:
. -p ~ ., "",. ".~'.':-'..: :'~.
. .
~------.;.-----~
13 .If a.. .P1;.imary- c1ri~g.~ater 'stand~d or other. requirement
changed;' EPA'would enstiret:hat the onSite'remedy Coinpliedwith,',40
C.F.R. ,S 300.430(f)(11(i~)(B)(1), which st~tes that
tf[r]eq1iirements that are "promulgated'pr mOdified after ROD signa-
ture must be attained ;(or ~ived) only when determined to be ap-
plicable or rel'eVant and appropriate and necessary to ensw::e that
the remedy ,is protective of human health and the environment. n
'!'hus, . if any requirement changed in the future and EPA determined
that the onsite activities had to comply with that new require-
ment in order to remain protective of human health and the en-
vironment, EPA would ensure that the remedy complied with. the new
requirement.
15
.m n.. -.__.__m____'_.--.-....-..
-------
..
opti.ons ].,:.and 3, and Qptio~2(un1ess the~!ty :dq~. :l:ic '.
water'supply, .and would:res;ult. ~the,a~~'Y:~~~:of,:~~ ~"~'
identified for. the treated eff1uent, and.would,~so resu1t~ ~~
HCL for"nitrate 'being met. ;
<~ ," ',""
'.Option4:, and,~:tion:,2. (if the Cj.1:y ,d~s nOt,;~~pt:at:~ 0t:
the treated water~'; ,invQ1ve"rein3~ct~onpfthe ~eate~:L1i'~te.r ,~to .
.., '-" '.> "-" -, .,,,',. ,
the,aqUifer...'Thewater'fro1I1;th~" trea't3J.1en~ . plii!lt ,would 'm~t:f':fa~l.
". .. . - - ,.. ", ..... ..v,' -*,,-
current:r~ements ,f:or., dri~gwa~~other than tb,~ ~~ate '
HCL~,; Because.. this ;oPtio~ :o:l11yiny-
-------
four 'options 'would provide ,erivironmental protection by institut-
i.rig fnterm remedial - action-to inhibit spreading of the VOC. ,plume
and to remove VOCs 'from the -groUndwater.
Short-Term Effectiveness
For all four options, no adverse short-term impacts would be
eXpected; during 'the constrUction of the- faci'lities'or the
remediation.
D~inkirigwatersupplieS would be provided 'f~om
another water'~supply -( other than treated' groundwater)andlor:
treated ejroWidwiter during the interim per-ioa'betore construction
is completed : (both initially and 'during the phasing in of the
system)' and -duririq:'remediation.
InStJ:tu'tional controls .would as-
sure that-- thedrlnking "water ,would meet drinking water standards .
"There are 'some differences in the options when it ,comes to"
the:following Criteria ';
-, "( 4'r'lonq:"'term 'effectiveness 'and: permanence in
protecting human' health and the environment,
(5) 'reduction'o£' toxicity', mObility, and volume
of 'cOntami~ants,
(6) tec11D.ical and administrative feasibility
, cSt 'hnPiementation,
(7) capital, and operation and maintenance costs,
(8) state 'acceptance," and
(9 ) community acceptance.
Lona-term-Effectiveness and Permanence
All four options would maintain reliable protection of human
health and the environment over time.
However, Options 2, 3, and
4 would be more effective and permanent than Option 1.
17
- -"-"'-""""-","""""__"_.m~'-_""'"
.... ._.._--_._...-~-_......_.._.._.-_.-...-._-_.._.
-------
options 2, 3., cand ..4 would be .more e.ffective incon~o~~ing.
theplume(s) . migration and aquifer res1:or.a,tionthan~WotlldOptio?:
1 because each of the former. would.. remove a.greater mass. of .VOCs
. ... . -." - -.''''-' " -, -': . .-,. .'~..A''''''''. '-~ -...-~- "-,-' - .,,'", -<".'.<.,... -'~ .~~. ..
per volume of waterertracted than would ~e.
-------
Option 3, and 'to' a lesser extent option 1, would also remove
nitrate from the groundwater ,thereby reducing the toxicity ~
mobility and volume of nitrate .in the ,groundwater.;,
Option_4
would result in little 'or no change -.in the-toxicity, mobility and
volume of nitrate, 'but the reinjected water could 'be ,used to
create -a hydraul1cbarrier to inhibit further migration' of VOC-
cont~1nina:ted gr:oundwateror- ,to increase thefl6wof:'contaminated
water to 'the extraction wells.
To the extent that, Option 2, , in
pra-Ctiee,:.involved serving the water to the City of ~Burbanki ,it
" '
would result in a reduction in toxicity, mobi~ity and volume of
. . ~ ,
nitrate similar to'.'t1iatwhiCh 'would occur under option .3'; . to. the
extent that Option 2, in practice,' involved reinjecting the .' ~".
water, it would result in no ,change in the'toxicity, mobility -and
volume of' hitrate, but (as with Option 4), the reinjected water
coitlcibe u:S~d to create'ci---hydraulic barrier to inhibit fU?:ther .
, . '<" - .
migrat.fon of vOC':"contamJ.nated groundwater or to increase the flow
of contaminated water'to' the extraction well'S.,
. .'
imPlement'abili:tv
All four options have extraction and monitoring wells and
VOC treatment by strippfng. 14
..
Option 1 would employ the same treatment as was proposed in
. ' -
the ROD, except for _blending.
Option 1 would reqUire additional
facilities, . including a metered MWD connection, a pipeline ,from.
------------------
, 14. The ROD discusses the implementabili ty of the extraction and
monitoring wells and VOC treatment by stripping.
19
-.....-.-....---..-.....,.--. .
.....__mm.__'._._-'-'-------""-,,,~---
-------
theHWD ,connedtionto the City ,of. Bm:::1?at.*',s. ~~~1e¥ Forebay,:, . and
retrofitting ,:of ,,;theVa'11~Y,Fo17~y,,to 'addb1en~li~q capcsbili~y.,15
Option 1>wou1d providesimp1e and, :re,1iab];e opera1;ion. . ~ "
" .,' ,-. -.-"'- ,..., .- ,.- .~7 ""M-u "".-"" -.'.. ," ,~
~, '...~-' -
Option,3,would'add~an additional treatment facility to the
,.- .." /,' ,.<,.. .....;:...,..:...."..:, ,,'., ~., ~-'~4. ~"""-"_..,,,.._.' ',:'" .:"'.',-'-'" . ...'.:":
treatmentsystem~,chosenin th~ 'RQp:ion ex~g~~,~6, This WQulq
.... .. m~. . ....
be the mostdi£ficu1.t .Qptionto 'implement. ~,,~¥:~~ugh ion~x~~9~
.. "",-~ -,,- ~ '. "'--'''~~''
is .":a ,. ~~ "" ,- -'.. -, " '-;'" '/,- ,.'..... -, -.:....~~ '",",' ~ -~ ',' '..
operation .,and 'main1;enange(O/& H) tlu1n ,~blendinq.. Addi1;ionCil!Yt"
...,. ,', q "'.. '. ,' ,-' . '.' ~ ' ; "< .. ~ ~ ,'" .
ion. exchanqe:jqenera1;~""abr~e.}.I:;()lu1;i()nN'~ .wa.s;t~, ,and it fsdif-:
ficult: to~'either 'r,e~e ,or d~sP()se' of ~!~;:sC?lution.
~~c,>rc:!
additional :space and.pip~ng:wo\?;ld 1?e.;~e~ed ;01:", ,faciJ.-ities t() .
treat.the'~oncentrated,brine,~olu;:!o1'1' ,priC?r to its .;disP9sal.
Ther~;is'not ,en():agh<\spa9~ at th~Y~11~y Forebay station - wher~
the treatment system may belo~ted, aJ1d to which the water ul-
timately::must be.de.liv~ed - for the ,!;tripping treatmerlt syst~,
ion exchange tr@tmen1;: sy~tem,and brine solution waste storage
and treatment system,.
These additipna.l requirements would,~ake
Option 3 more difficult to implement than the other opti~ns.
.'
-----....---------......--
15..Option 1;;,wpuld require '~e additional faci~iti~s. as b,,~p in
case the nitrate concentrations were 'still above theMCL 'after."
the . se1ective,~agtion ofcwoundwa1;~ and VOC 'b:'~atme.n;~
16. Option 3 would also require the City of Burbank's VaJ.ley
Forebay to be retrofitted for blending capacity. After VOC
treatment, part of the groundwater would be treated by :ion ex-
change and part of the groundwater would be fed directly into the
Forebay for blending. It is a common practice with nitrate
removal treatment systems to treat some of the Water and blend it
with another part to reach the desired concentrations. .
20
.......__.__.__...~..._H
-------
Under' 'Option -4, the - only' change' to the' remedy desCribed in
the ROD would be' that 'instead ~of delivering 'the treated water ,.for
use, the'VOc-treated water would -be reinjected into the aquifer.
Under Option 4, nitrate:treatnientwould:'not~be necessary 'because'
nitrate concentrations are similar throughout the Burbank OUarea
(where'-bOth the extracti6nand,cinjection' of the groundwater 'would
oCcur). '~The reinjeCtion wells could be' constructed and ,operated:'
(they are a proven'methOd 'for- injeCtion' of water into an
aquifer) '; , howe~, 'additiona'i "maintenance reqtfirements.wo1.ild be :
. .
eXPected due 'to potentiat clOqg'ing of the 'reinjection wells.
Moreover, "the reinjection wells would need to be carefully 10- :
catedPto 'assiirethat' the'injection' of water would not further
camplieatethe groundwater cont'aminatioh.
crherefore, Option 4. '
woUld be a:' 'more alffi'eultoption to imPlement than option 1..
'~', oPtiorf 2 'wob:1(f~lso a:aaa:adltional facilities to the, system.
cho~~- ~ 'theRO'D 'for' bienaittc;j' arid reinj&Ction. Option 2 :would;
. - ,. . . .
require tHe' samefacifities for biendinq as would Option 1.
th~ore, 'Option i woUld reqatre the reinjection facilities
Ftir-
presented cibove 'to.£6ption 4', eXcept 'that Option 2 may' not re-
quire as great a reinjection capacity as Option 4;
therefore,
option 2 would be' moredifficu:lt to implement than option 1, leSs
difficult ,to ~lement ~~,:Op~ion 3, and poss~bly less di~ficult
to' !mplementthci1}' ,Option: 4 '(de~dinq. on the ne~essa:ry reinjec~
tion capacity)~
Costs
The following discussion compares the additional costs of
the options above the estimate given in the June 1989 ROD.17
21
-------
.
OptiQn-. 1.'. is :--the l~ast exp~si..ve :~f .' ~e.ofour options.
The
additional capital cos~. f()r this opt~on ,is.est~ted..to ,be .$ .2.,2.
Xii-lion.." .Theadditional.annual,O ..&M.costs are. estimated ,to be
.. - ._..~.... . ...:... -,' .'~ " . . ,....'..,~. :- -';v._~ \: ,r, .'.'.~'
$':20,0,00., 'The !total..additional cost .for .20: y~s isest~t~d,;~o
be :$2.A Mi11ion.
. '
.,..,.. .. .-
" Option ..4 ."is more ~~,i ve ,..~an 9P1;io~..~,. but, .!es~:..~~,~ye
than Option,3 '~d. potentially ,less ~:r:m9re.~~~"fe ~~ Op~i~~.
2. The additional'c:apital co.s~::\is ~tim'!-ted .at,.,~~.8 ~+).~o~.
",
The additiona3;. annua1"O&M,costs.. are estimated at, $. 20,000. .' The
, ... .;",.~,. '.' ..~ ~..-. -.. ',c.",' ....:, ...~;;." ",-> v' ;;.-._'~ >.~ . .:~ . ,,<.-.- :" ~ "~.:';"-' "!- ", ::..::{.>~:~:,
total :add-itional cost .for20,~yecsrS. ~~estimated.to be. ~ . 7~ 0 ~f+::-_.
lion. :
. ., ~.
...... ,. -r.." ¥,":'; '.
. "
'.... ., ~¥ "-. ~ . '.. , .
.'
-:,;Opti,:o.p .2 ',' is~)no~ee?'Pensj,v~.~Cln. ()ption 1. and poten1:~~ll~...
. -
more :.,or ,1,~s '~nsAve than .Option .4.,., but. lessexperu;i ve than Op-
-. . . , .' -- . "-,-" '..... y'"",-. '".¥#'. . . :;; ,,"
tion ,3. " 11,;h.e..addj,tiC?I1aJ ~.c:ap.i;tal.. cqst...is ,estimated~obe $ .8.5
, .~.. ,,... -'J' ;,~-''''''" ,",,:, ~- -. . . . . . -, .,'-
Mi1~i~n.:~:8 ' "The.~~~1,.~o~ w}-l~. ,dep~d.. on the. required reinjec-
,- ,4-~ ~. ,'+,--.~""./-~.,,- < .w"... ". ,'... -,~:.
tion,~pac;i1;y. Th~.,~~~;.w:ouJ:d :~, a.pprc:>~imately..$ 9.1. Million.,.if
all the tr:~~ted groun4~t:~: ~weJ7"e reinjected, ~d th~ }:)l,endin,g
. . : ' ~ . -, . . ~--'''~" ,; .' ':",-.. ,-
facilities; were added!.forbacP1P(~q\1i.valent.to th~p~sts .o~o!?::-
tion .:1.-plus. -Option 4) .-If, notreateq groundwater were reip.:~-7c::ted
~ ~.-.~.' :., >':, ~'.J.,
~ ~:. '. '
,'". ',. . -... .
-----------------
17. Cost estimates ,are pr~sent worth v~:tues with a %1.0, interest
rate. .
'1.~;:. Thi~ ~rt est~te assumes that 'ori~;;'half of' the groUndwater '.
(60.00. gp:m), wou:td be:u~ed for.. a. ,p~lic wa1:~,supp~yanq, one-half
of ~egroundwater (6000 cjpm) would be rei.11jected.:' '!'he cost,' es-
timate includes all of the facilities for Option 1. plus option 4,
min~ five of the ten reinjection wells (6000 gpm capacity) in
Option 4. Five of the ten reinjection wells would not be needed
if only 6000 gpm of groundwater were reinjected instead of 12,000
gpm.
22
-------
than the cost would' be approximately $2.2 Mi'llion-(the . same. as
the cost for Option 1)~
The additionaJ. arinual 0& M.costs are
eStimated to be s1:ightly less than '$40 1000..19 . The totaladdi-
tional cost is estimated at '$ 8.8 Mi1lionover -a .tWenty year .
period. 20
oPtion 3 is the most expensive option. The 'additional capi":'"
tal cost is est,imated'to -be $ 9.2 Mil1ioIi;' 'The . additional annual
o & M costs are estimated .to be $1:8. Mill'ion~
~etotal.,addi- .'
tional cost for 2'0 years -is estimated .to be $24.6 oHil1.ion.-
State AccePtance'
The Ciilifornia Recjiona'lwater QUality Control Board, LOs An-
gelesRegion (RWQCB-LA) 'Supports the use of the -treated water as
drinkiJig water, provided that all requirements for the serving' o"f
public drinking water are met , and prefers the optionstha~
provide' the water from the treatme]:lt plant as a public water.~>' .
supply either' by blending with surface water to reduce nitrates
or by ~eating for nitrates through ion exchange.
See June .8,'.
. ,.
1.990 Letter from Hank H. Yacoub, RWQCB-LA, to Alisa Greene, EPA.,
in the Administrative Record.
The Regional Water Quality Control
Board' aqrees"'that
-------
reinjected into the .~g:uifer . (opt:ions2 ~ ~5i 4) inc~mplianc~'Wi~.,.
the:"Statement of Pol ;icy WithRe~p'e,ct .to Ka~nta~~~ H~gh~i3.li1;.Y
of waters. in California.". SeeJ~e2.0" 1~_9.~~,' ~~;:~ f~~:c ~~~;..
P. Ghirelli, ,RWQ~-~.,. tc;>,;~isa 'Gre~~, :~~,.ip ~e.~~stra~
tive Record.
Although the California Department of Health SerY~-:."
.' '$," ~. ~/O._,
ices (CADBS) ~9xic;SUbs:;a~cescontrol,:..Pi:vJ:~i~ll.did. not. ~tate any
preferences ..or :'~ejections .of .'anY of: thep~tio~i'.,. :~t .ciidhave:~o~~,
ments ',about :re~njec1;-ionof, the;wat~~
-------
; .
"flexibility on serving treated water for community use. n
See
. .
. . -. .
Comment by Glendale Public service Department in the Administra-
,
tive Record.
~. '"'.
d.
Decision Reaardina Nitrate
Based on the foregoing analysis of the four options, EPA has
decided to choose Option 2, which consists of extraction of
. . .
. . . . . .'
groun~t~ from ~! a~ifer zones containing ~e ~ghest VOC
. .
. .
.. ..
conc~tratio~~ ~O~ treatm~t. bys~~p~~g, and then: (a)
ni~~ r~duc1:ion by blend~g ~d use as a public. water supply by
~e . City ~f ~bank; and/or (b) r~~jection of the treated
.. ,.."
gro~dwater ,(without blend~g).
Option 2 is the preferred al-
ternative for several reasons:
(1.) it will result in a greater
" .
~edu~ionof th.e. toxicity, m()bility and volume of VOC con-
~ina~ts- in the as{1lifer than would Option 1. (The reduction of
~; .'", . . ~.
voc contamination in the aquifer is one of the two purposes of
this. interim. remedial action, as specified in the ROD.); (2) Op-
o -. ," .'."".,'
tion 2 wi,ll result in greater long-term effectiveness and per-
'. ,
manence, . in pro1?e~ing human health and the environment than would
Option 1;
" ..~. "
(3) .tion 2 has the potential to result in a greater
. -. .
. .
reduction of nitrate in the groundwater than either Options lor
4; (4) Option 2 does not require additional space and avoids the
additional operation and maintenance requirements resulting from
a more complicated treatment system (such as ion exchange),
thereby making :implementation of Option 2 more technically and
administratively feasible than the implementation of Option 3;
(5) Option 2 is less expenSive than Option 3, and may 'be less or
more expensive to the cost of Option 4 (depending on how much
25
......._....-.~...".'~'.. ..
......._n_m....n_m_......_....---
---_..-_....-.-...-.--n.._-
-------
. .
.
water is reinjected), while providing adequate protection of
. '
public health and the environment; and (6)' option 2 also has the
. .
. .
potential to provide a public water supply to the city of BUr-
bank, (the other purpose for this interim action, as stated in
the R~D).
. .
If for any reason the City does not accept the water, then
. '. .
", " .
EPA prfafers Optio~ 4 ov~r eith~ Option' 1. or Option 3 ~ '''This' is
implicit in EPA's selection of Opti()n 2, which'alloirs any '~ter
. - - . . .
not accepted by th~' City tc> be reii1j~cfed. BPA prefers Opti()n"4f
. .. .
.,. . .¥. =" '. ",,-, < .., .
over Options 2 and 3 even if all of the water must be reinjected.
. . .
EPA prefers Option 4 over OptionS 1;0 and 321. because: (1.) '1.1: w:ill
. . .
. -'...
result in greater reductio~ of volume, toxicity and mobility of'
. .
. ~ _. " ..
. .'. .'.
vOCs than would Option 1.; (2) Option 4 would result in greater
. -
. .
long-term ~effectiveness and permanence iD. protecting human health
. ,,,"~ . . ""~
'. ,~ . ~ . ~ .
and th~ environment than would Option 1.; (3) Option 4 would no't
. .
."~ .
... .,.., .
require additional space and avoids the additional maintenance
. . . .
. '
requirements resulting from a more complicated' treatment system
, ".." A'
'.' .
(such a~ ion exchange), thereby making implementation of Option 4
. , .
more technically and administratively feasible than the ~plemen-
. "',
- - N ~ ...'
tation of option 3; and (4) Option 4 would be leSs expensi ve'than
,,;.. . . <,. '. ~ .. ,
Option 3, while providing adequate protection of 'public health
and the environment.
"
-----------------~--
21.. In other words, these are the reasons that EPA prefers Option
2 even if all of the water must be reinjected.
26
-------
2.
Use andlorRein;ection
The June 1.989 ROD ,stated that the .treated water would be,
delivered to the city of Burbank ~for ,use.
Because this ESD
provides .for ni1;z:ate treatment :by blending ,with ~ adq.itional
source of water ,~e ,to.tal ,tr~ated water, supply may ~ greater-
thanthatwhi~ :~e 'City .of Burbank can -~cc~pt~
currently, ~~
city cannot ~ccept :more.,than 1.2,0000 :qpm, ,due ~ capac~~ :c~~-: '.
straints. ,Of~o~se, over the 20 year .c1eanup period, th~- amo~t
., . ¥.' . -.,," ~ ." ¥" , -, ,~. -", . ~'. : '
of wate%",the ;Ci~ 'CC?u1d.acc~ ~y ch~qe. A1s?',~1,1, the ;fut:~e" .
there cou1d be other reasons why the city of Burbcmk-Wc>.u..1d. n~t .
accept;some:orC1.11 'of ':the .wa;er.
This ESD dea1s with this con-
tingency",byx:ecC?9"!1i;ing, in9P~iop 2, :t.h~~ the amount. 9f. wat.er
the City c;ar} ,ac.c~pt :~yvaryover. tim~.
Because the treatment. of
. , . '". . ~
VOC con~,ati!?~ in:;~e,gr()undwa,ter 4~pen~s on having a. dis-
charge-opt.ion.for:'~eVOc-'t:reated wate:r, EPA is includ.ing in this
ESD the --abi1i:tzy to; re~nject any ,or a1l of the gro~dW?iter',~a~ .~~.
not'accep1:ed 'a~ 4r-inking:~ter0by the city.
,The Burbank Om'S R~p()rt, ,discusses, in detail, reinje~~o~.-
with partial