RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION CONFERENCE
March 26-28,1996
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
-------
1996 RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION CONFERENCE
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
AGENDA
Tuesday. March 26
8:00 - 9:00 Registration
9:00 - 9:05 Logistics/Conference Structure
9:05 - 9:20 Opening Remarks (Laura Yoshii, EPA Region 9)
9:20 - 10:15 National Perspective-Subpart S, HWIR (Guy Tomassoni, EPA Headquarters)
10:15-10:30 Region 9 Corrective Action Universe (Larry Bowerman, EPA Region 9)
10:30-10:45 Break
10:45-11:15 State Perspectives (Calif: Watson Gin, Cal-EPA/DTSC)
11:15-11:45 Community Involvement (Denny Larson, Communities for a Better Environment)
11:45- 1:00 LUNCH
1:00 - 1:30 Ecological Toxicity Overview (Clarence Callahan, EPA Region 9)
1:30 - 1:45 Human Health Toxicity Overview (Patrick Wilson EPA Region 9)
1:45 - 2:10 Preliminary Remediation Goals (Dan Stralka, EPA Region 9)
2:10 - 2:30 Cal/TOX and PRGs in California (Jeffrey Wong.Cal-EPA/DTSC)
2:30 - 2:45 Permit Writers Perspective on Cal/TOX (Sarah Picker, Cal-EPA/DTSC)
2:45 - 3:15 Risk/Exposure Assessment Case Study (Ravi Arulanantham, Cal-EPA/RWQCB)
3:15 - 3:30 Break
3:30 - 4:30 RCRA Containment Methods (Jeffrey Dunn and Harold Tuchfeld, Geosyntec Consultants)
4:30 - 5:00 Corrective Action Case Study: Metals Contamination at Square D Company
(Mohinder Sandhu, Karen Baker, Cal-EPA/DTSC; Gladys Thomas, Square D)
5:00 - 5:30 Open Discussion with EPA HQ (Guy Tomassoni, EPA Headquarters)
Wednesday. March 27
8:30 - 10:00 Vadose Zone Contaminant Transport (Ron Sims, Utah State University)
10:00-10:30 Waste Burial in Arid Regions (Brian Andraski, US Geological Survey)
10:30-10:45 Break
10:45-11:15 Accelerated Site Characterization (Richard McJunkin, Cal-EPA/DTSC)
11:15-11:45 Water Isotopes as Tracers (Brian Smith, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory )
11:45-12:15 Soil VOC Methanol Preservation (Kurt Zeppetello, AZ Dept. of Env. Quality)
12:15- 1:30 LUNCH
1:30 - 2:00 Bacterial Dechlorination of TCE & PCE (Ned Black. EPA Region 9)
2:00 - 2:45 Leaking Underground Fuel Tank (LUFT) Remediation (David Rice, LLNL)
2:45 - 3:00 Break
3:00 - 3:30 Technical Impracticability w/Case St. (Matt Hagemann, EPA Region 9)
3:30 - 4:00 Containment Zones (Steve Morse, Cal-EPA/RWQCB)
4:00 - 4:30 IT-Vine Hill Case Study (Valerie Heusinkveld.Cal-EPA/DTSC; Jane Zevely, IT Vine Hill)
4:30 - 4:45 Closing Remarks (Michael Feeley, EPA Region 9)
4:45-5:15 Open Mike
-------
Thursday. March 28 (Regulators Only)
8:30 - 9:00 Importance of Field Oversight (Brian Lewis, Cal-EPA/DTSC)
9:00 -10:00 Laboratory Data Interpretion (Kathy Baylor, Ray Saracino, EPA Region 9)
10:00-10:15 Break
10:15 -12:00 State-Specific Issues (Paula Bisson, EPA Region 9)
12:00 Conference Ends
-------
Dl NINC OUT
D-ClK-flT-CSS-CN
ITflUflH
1 BRASS ELEPHANT
GROSVENOR HOTEL
38O SOUTH AIRPORT BLVD.
873-32OO
L: S5.0O-S8.OO
D: SIO.oo-SI 5.OO
2 BURGER KING
972 EL CAMINO REAL
583-7O92
L,D: S2.OO-S5.OO
3 CAFE ON THE PARK
RAMADA INN
245 SOUTH AIRPORT BLVD.
589-7200
L: S5.OO-S7.OO
D: S1O.OO-S1 8.0O
4 CITY CAFE
HOLIDAY INN
275 SOUTH AIRPORT BLVD.
873-3550
L: S5.OO-S7.OO
D: S8.0O-S1 2.OO
5 HUNGRY HUNTER
180 SOUTH AIRPORT BLVD.
873-5131
L: S5.00-S8.00
D: S 1 2.OO-S1 6.OO
6 JO ANN'S CAFE
1131 EL CAMINO REAL
872-2810
L: S6.0O-S9.OO
7 LYON'S RESTAURANT
10 AIRPORT BLVD.
871-5885
L: S6.OO-S8.OO
D: S8.00-S1 2.00
g ST. MAMES BAR & GRILL
CROWN STERLING
250 GATEWAY BLVD.
589-34OO
L: S8.OO-S1 2.OO
D: $13.00-518.00
9 D & M LIQUOR & DELI
21 1 SPRUCE AVE.
583-4121
L,D: S3.OO-S6.OO
10 DARBY DANS
GOURMET SANDWICH
733 AIRPORT BLVD.
876-0122
L,D: S4.00-S7.00
11 LA TAPATIA
41 1 GRAND AVE.
589-5881
L,D: S4.0O-S8.OO
12 LIBERTY DELI-MART
812 LINDEN AVE.
583-7892
L,D: S3.OO-S6.OO
13
LITTLE LUCCA DELI
724 EL CAMINO REAL
589-8916
L,D: S4.OO-7.OO
14
16 BERTOLUCCI'S RESTAURANT
421 CYPRESS AVE.
588-1625
L: S8.00-S 12.00
D: S15.OO-S2O.OO
17 BUON GUSTO RESTAURANT
224 GRAND AVE.
742-9777
L: S8.OO-S 12.OO
D: S12.OO-S18.OO
18 CAPRI RESTAURANT
1129 EL CAMINO REAL
588-6078
D: S8.OO-S 12.0O
19 Dl NAPOLI PIZZA/PASTA
608 LINDEN AVE.
873-5252
L: S5.OO-S9.OO
D: S8.00-S 12.00
20 PASTA MOON EAST, INC.
425 MARINA BLVD.
876-7O90
L: S8.OO-S1 2.OO
D: S12.OO-S18.OO
BASQUE CULTURAL CENTER
599 RAILROAD AVE.
583-8O91
L: S8.OO-S 12.00
D: S12.OO-S18.OO
m-EXK-flN
15 EL CHARRO
257 GRAND AVE.
873-1 993
L,D: S4.OO-S8.OO
-------
San Bruno Mountain
County Park
NOTE:Restaurant locations
are approximate
San Francisco Bay
-------
RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION CONFERENCE
March 26 - 28,1996
South San Francisco, CA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
iron IX
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
INTRODUCTION »
SPEAKER'S NOTES
Day 1 Topic/Speaker
EPA Headquarters Issues, Guy Tomassoni 1
Reg. 9 Corrective Action Universe, Larry Bowerman 2
Fundamentals of Ecological Risk Assessment, Clarence Callahan 3
Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs), Dan Stralka 4
Cal/TOX and PRGs, Jeff Wong 5
Risk-Based Soil Cleanup Goals, Ravi Arulanantham 6
RCRA Containment Methods, Jeffrey Dunn and Harold Tuchfeld 7
Corrective Action Case Study, M. Sandhu, K. Baker, G. Thomas 8
Day 2 Topic/Speaker
Vadose Zone Contaminant Transport, Ronald Sims 9
Waste Burial in Arid Regions, Brian Andraski 10
Accelerated Site Characterization, Richard McJunkm 1 1
Use of Stable Isotopes in Groundwater Monitoring, Brian Smith 12
Soil VOC Methanol Preservation, Kurt Zeppetello \ 3
Bacterial Degradation of Chlorinated Solvents, Ned Black 14
Leaking Underground Fuel Tank (LUFT) Remediation, David Rice 15
Technical Impracticability, Man Hagemann 16
Containment Zones, Steve Morse 17
Day 3 Topic/Speaker
Importance of Field Oversight for Groundwater Sampling, Brian Lewis 18
APPENDICES
A. Speaker Biographies
B. Attendee List
-------
INTRODUCTION
Welcome to the EPA Region 9 1996 RCRA Corrective Action Conference. We believe
the conference is an excellent forum for people working on corrective action from all over the
region to meet each other and share their ideas and experiences. Thank you for attending.
Corrective action is a very large and important program throughout EPA Region 9. In
general, corrective action is the process of investigating and cleaning-up chemical releases
from hazardous waste management facilities. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), as amended, provides EPA with the legal authority to require corrective action at
hazardous waste management facilities. The corrective action process involves many
disciplines, including, hydrogeology, toxicology, ecology, treatment processes and many
others. The speakers at the conference will discuss many of these interesting areas along with
a number of case studies.
The primary purpose of this document is to provide participants at the conference with a
compilation of speakers notes. Not all of the speakers have provided material for inclusion
into this compilation. For easier reference, the notes are listed in the same sequence as the
presentations on the conference agenda.
DISCLAIMER
The presenters' notes or outlines in this document have been supplied by the speakers and
have not been peer reviewed by EPA. Views expressed either in the notes or in the
presentations are strictly those of the individual speakers and do not necessarily represent
Federal, State or local policy. EPA is not responsible for any errors in the notes or
presentations. Moreover, mention of trade names, commercial products, or publications does
not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This conference was planned and organized by the following individuals from U.S. EPA
Region 9-
Planning Committee
Kathenne Baylor (Co-Chair)
Ron Leach (Co-Chair)
Mary Blevins
Susan Chiu
Tom Kelly
Steve Lmder
Elaine Ngo
Carmen Santos
Ray Saracino
Vicky Semones*
Carl Warren
Nahid Zoueshtiagh
Management
Laura Yoshii
Michael Feeley
Larry Bowerman
Paula Bisson
Contractor **
Suzanne Kraft
Neil Munro
* Office of Community Relations
** PRC Environmental Management, Inc.
-------
1
-------
EPA HEADQUARTERS ISSUES
presented at
REGION IX
CORRECTIVE ACTION CONFERENCE
by
Guy Tomassoni
USEPA, Office of Solid Waste
703/308-8622
-------
EPA ISSUES
to
Subpart S Initiative
HWIR-Contaminated Media Rule
Post-Closure Rule
Legislative Activities
Miscellaneous
Summary
-------
Subpart S Initiative
u
Five primary objectives
1 . Create a consistent, holistic approach to cleanup at
RCRA facilities
2. Establish protective, practical cleanup expectations
3. Shift more of the responsibilities for achieving
cleanup goals to the regulated community
4. Focus on opportunities to streamline and reduce
costs
5. Increase opportunities for meaningful public / ** \
involvement throughout corrective action
-------
Subpart S Initiative (cont.)
Issue Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(ANPR), developed through EPA/State Workgroup
ANPR has three purposes:
- Open a dialogue on program development and
improvement (i.e., introduces strategy for initiative
and seeks broad-based comments to help identify
and develop program improvements)
- To provide context for comments, includes a
general status report on program and how it has
evolved since 1990 proposal
Emphasizes areas of current flexibility
-------
Subpart S Initiative (cont.)
Some of the key messages conveyed in ANPR
- No one approach to cleanup is appropriate for all
corrective action facilities
Focus on results rather than a prescribed
mechanistic cleanup process
- Focus resources first on controlling unacceptable
exposures and stabilizing continuing releases
- Corrective action obligations should be addressed
using the most appropriate tool for any given
facility, including RCRA orders or permits, *
state cleanup orders, and voluntary programs \
-------
Subpart S Initiative (cont.)
Summarizes key elements of 1990 proposal, recent
policy developments, and areas of flexibility, including:
Principle of parity between RCRA and Superfund
Role of voluntary cleanup
Cleanup of non-SWMU releases
Use of data quality objective (DQO) concept
Use of innovative site characterization techniques
Role of human health and ecologic risk assessment
Formal corrective measures study not always needed
Role of action levels
Natural attenuation
Technical impracticability
Media cleanup standards and points of compliance
Recognizing non-residential land use assumptions
Stabilization initiative and relat. to interim measures
Use of presumptive, remedies
Phasing corrective action
-------
Subpart S Initiative (cont.)
AN PR requests comment on:
General implementation of CA program
Scope and form of final corrective action regulations
Elements of 1990 proposal needing additional notice/comment
Self-implementing corrective action, including third-party oversight
Land use assumptions and institutional controls
Point of compliance issues
Measuring and enforcing performance standards
Focusing less on SWMU
State authorization and role of EPA in authorized states
Life of corrective action permits
Affect of property transfer on CA requirements (selling of SWMU)
Financial assurance
Expanding opportunities for public involvement
Voluntary cleanup
Applicability of ASTM RBCA approach / \
Life of corrective action permits
-------
Subpart S Initiative (cont.)
CO
Next Steps
Publish ANPR in federal register and place on Internet;
90 day comment period
Assess comments and develop strategy for developing
guidance and re-proposing/finalizing corrective action
regulations
- Target, strategy by fall 1996
~ Target, re-proposal/final rule by fall 1997
HQ contact Guy Tomassoni 703/308-8622 or
Hugh Davis 703/308-8633
-------
HWIR-Contaminated Media Rule
to
Official title "Requirements for the Management of
Hazardous Contaminated Media" - commonly referred to as
the "Hazardous Waste Identification Rule for Contaminated
Media or (HWIR-media)"
Rule would establish a "bright line"
Contaminated media above bright line would remain
subject to Subtitle C
Below bright line, EPA and authorized states would have
authority to exempt media from Subtitle C
Rule will modify RCRA requirements (e.g., LDRs,
MTRs, and permitting) for contaminated media
•*i
-------
HWIR-Contaminated Media Rule (cont.)
• HWIR-media does not set cleanup standards
Rule addresses contaminated media generated by cleanup;
Subpart S addresses when, how and to what extent
cleanup should be conducted.
• Would withdraw Corrective Action Management Unit
(CAMU) regulations
CAMUs approved prior to final HWIR-media rule (which
would officially withdraw CAMU - expected June 1997)
would be "grandfathered"
• Proposal expected March/April 1996; HQcontact:
Carolyn Hoskinson 703/308-8626^
-------
Post-Closure Rule
Proposed November 1994
1. Remove the Post-Closure (PC) Permit Requirement
Would remove requirement to obtain permit for post-
closure period and allow EPA/authorized State to use
other authorities to address PC provisions
2. Remove closure requirements at regulated units for
facilities that require corrective action
Would allow EPA discretion to address those units
through the corrective action process
HQ contact: Barbara Foster 703/308-7057
-------
Legislative Reform
Reform negotiations for both RCRA and Superfund continue
RCRA "Rifleshots" may clarify requirements for managing
contaminated media
Superfund Re-authorization
EPA has committed to substantive consistency between
RCRA and Superfund cleanups
Superfund legislative reforms may affect RCRA
requirements for remedy selection, how clean is clean
^ **
-------
Miscellaneous Issues (cont.)
RCRA/CERCLA Integration Guidance; plan to issue memo in
April '96 addressing:
1 . coordination among EPA RCRA, EPA CERCLA and
state cleanup programs;
2. concept of parity between RCRA corrective action and
CERCLA and state programs; and
3. coordination of closure of regulated units with other
cleanup activities.
HQ contact: Hugh Davis 703/308-8622
\
-------
Miscellaneous Issues (cont.)
Use of Area of Contamination (AOC) concept during RCRA
cleanups; plan to issue guidance memorandum in very near
future.
Memo conveys that under certain conditions, hazardous
wastes may be moved within broad areas of
contamination without triggering RCRA LDRs and MTRs
Memo also describes distinctions between final CAMU
regulations and the AOC approach
Not the same issue as area of concern under RCRA CA
HQ contact: Hugh Davis
-------
Miscellaneous Issues (cont.)
"Environmental Indicators" as a new approach for measuring
results rather than process
Currently, two indicators: Human Exposures Controlled and
Ground Water Releases Controlled
Guidance on these indicators is available in the RCRIS Data
Element Dictionary under codes CA725 and CA750
Interested in feedback on successes/problems
Goal of FY '97 for evaluating all facilities currently being
addressed by corrective action
HQ contact: Sue Parker 703/308-8653
Ul
-------
Summary
0>
EPA and States have made considerable progress
Improvements are still necessary
Goal is to improve speed, efficiency, protectiveness and
responsiveness, and to focus program more clearly on
environmental results
Communication of our experiences is paramount
-------
2
-------
The Corrective Action
Universe for EPA
Region 9
By Larry Bowerman, Chief
Corrective Action Section
(415)744-2051
RCRA Corrective Action
Program Goals
• Focus resources at high priority facilities.
• Complete assessments at all TSDFs by the end
ofFY96.
• Emphasize the stabilization initiative.
• Enhance State capabilities through effective
work-sharing arrangements.
• Tailor oversight of corrective action activities
based on facility specific conditions.
Corrective Action Topics
to be Covered
• Program goals and authorities.
• Universes (facilities subject to corrective action).
• Environmental Priorities Initiative (EPI).
• Stabilization Initiative.
• Corrective Action Pipeline.
RCRA Corrective Action
Authorities
• 3004(u) - Continuing releases at permitted
facilities (including Solid Waste Management
Units, or SWMUs)
• 3004(v) - Corrective Action Beyond Facility
Boundary
• 3008(h) - Interim Status Corrective Action Orders
• 7003- Imminent Hazard
-------
Corrective Action
Workload Universe (Tier 1)
' 376 facilities in Region 9.
> Active and closing TSDFs.
TSDFs closed with waste in place.
Facilities referred to Superfund.
< Abandonned facilities.
' Delay of closure facilities.
Environmental Priorities
Initiative (EPI) Goals
• Assess and rank all TSDFs by end of FY1996.
• Address the worst release problems first.
• Ensure all high priority facilities are being
addressed.
Other Facilities Subject to
Corrective Action (Tier 2)
• About 300 additional facilities in Region 9.
• Clean closed facilities.
• 90 day converters.
• Illegal Units.
• Permit by Rule.
EPI Activities in Region 9
• 96% of TSDFs have been assessed and ranked
as of 9/30/95; the remaining 13 facilities will be
assessed in FY1996.
• About two thirds of the 'Tier 2" facilities have also
been ranked; we are exploring whether we have
the resources to rank the remaining 100 facilities.
• In general all known high and medium priority
facilities are being addressed by EPA and/or
states.
• We are currently reviewing high priority sites to
ensure appropriate follow-up is occurring.
• vye are continuing our efforts to ensure that this
information is accurately reflected in RCRIS.
-------
RCRA Corrective Action
NCAPS ASSESSMENT
California Workload Universe = 310
September 30,1995
High 31 o%
(96)
^m^^^m
Medium 2.10*
(Tfl
Unassessed 32%
(10]
Stabilization Initiative
Goals
• Control or abate threats to human health and/or
the environment from releases at RCRA facilities.
• Prevent or minimize the further spread of
contamination while long-term remedies are
pursued.
• Work with authorized states to ensure
implementation of the Stabilization Initiative.
• Develop an accurate tracking system for
stabilization activities.
RCRA Corrective Action
NCAPS ASSESSMENT
HANG Universe = 66
September 30,1995
Medium 288%
(19)
Unassessed «s%
(3)
Stabilization Activities in
Region 9
• 96% of TSDFs have been evaluated as of
9/30/95; the remaining 15 facilities will be
evaluated in FY1996.
• Where further investigation is needed, we will
ensure that the investigation is conducted by the
facility, state and/or EPA.
• Where stabilization is found to be necessary and
appropriate, we will ensure that stabilization is
actually implemented by the facility, state and/or
EPA.
• We are continuing our efforts lo ensure that this
information is accurately reflected in RCRIS.
-------
Stabilization Initiative -
Lessons Learned
• We should devote more time and effort to the
Stabilization Initiative.
• Of 62 facilities requiring stabilization:
- 58 (93%) have stabilization imposed
- 46 (74%) have implemented measures
• Need to follow-up on the 60 facilities where
further investigation is needed.
• Consider evaluating the approx. 300 Tier 2
facilities; many may not require an evaluation.
RCRA Corrective Action
STABILIZATION EVALUATIONS
September 30,1995
7
Arizona
Workload Univ. - 35
Guam
Workload Univ -4
4
Hawaii
Workload Unrv - 13
Nevada
Workload Univ • 12
• Not evaluated • Stab required D Stab not req
O Not feasible D Inveslig needed • None needed
RCRA Corrective Action
Stabilization Evaluations
September 30,1995
Slab not required 109
Inveslig needed
Stab required
Not evaluated 12
Not Feasible 2
None needed M
lo«f Prior Of CERCLA l«ad
California
Workload Univ. = 310
Corrective Action Pipeline
Status and Issues
• The pipeline graphics are based on RCRIS data.
• The pipeline consists of activities from the RCRA
Facility Assessment (RFA) to Corrective
Measures Implementation (CMI).
• Are all high priority facilities being adequately
addressed?
-Yes, in fact, with only a few exceptions, all
known high and medium priority facilities are
being addressed by EPA, DTSC, RWQCBs or
local agencies.
-The Analogous Project provides a way for
EPA and DTSC to become familiar with
other agency's clean-up activities at TSDFs
and to record them in RCRIS.
-------
RCRA Analogous Project
' Goal: recognize work at sites deferred to
non-RCRA agencies.
Accomplishments:
Better understanding and management of RCRA
universe; we reviewed a total of 86 SMP and
RWQCB sites.
RCRIS data greatly expanded.
Tangible measure of SMP and RWQCB
contributions.
Duplication of effort minimized.
Facility deferral effective.
California High Priority Sites
C A100 CA190 CAJOO CA25O C*300 CA35O C A«00 CASOO CASW
I Pipeline Status as of FY 95
Corrective Action Pipeline
Status and Issues (cont.)
The universe is not static; rankings can change
based on new information, clean-ups or
stabilization actions.
Are we appropriately disinvesting in low/medium
priority and/or stabilized facilities to focus more
attention on unstabilized and other high priority
faciltities?
Are facilities moving through the "pipeline" fast
enough? Can combine RFI/CMS Workplans and
Reports to increase efficiency.
' Are states adequately implementing corrective
action?
' Is EPA adequately guiding, assisting and training
states to implement the corrective action
program?
California Medium Priority Sites
-------
HANG States High Priority Sites
P
CA100 C*1W C«00 C«» CAMO CA3» CA*» C«5OJ CA550
• Pipotrw SI« M 01 n -95
Sourca RCPIS CAtFOtA Rtfxyt
rp
CD
HANG States Medium Priority
Sites
CAJOD CA2W CJOOO CA39O CA400 CA9OO CASIO
-------
3
-------
DRAFT
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9
Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance
for Superfund Sites
Clarence A. Callahan and B. Douglas Steele (H-9-3)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
ABSTRACT
Ecological Risk Assessment at Superfund sites is an iterative process with
phases that builds a database with the integration of information at each step.
This document provides guidance that is integral to the Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study activities as part of the overall Superfund process. The
guidance includes checkpoints for deciding the adequacy and interpretation of
data gathered for interpreting potential ecological exposure, ecological impact
and risk characterization. All available data are summarized in the site Scoping
Phase (Phase 1) for use in a Preliminary Impact Assessment (Phase 2); relevant
site-specific data are gathered, integrated and interpreted in the Confirmatory
Phase (Phase 3) and the Risk Characterization Phase (Phase 4); and finally,
focused and comprehensive data are collected in the Remedial Guidance Phase
(Phase 5) to direct the remedial action. This guidance material is adapted from
Agency material from the Superfund program and publications in the open
literature. Issues include the description of assessment and measurement
endpoints, background or reference data, identification of chemicals of concern,
site receptors, site conceptual models, detection limits, and approaches for the
impact assessment of contaminants. This guidance material stresses the
interaction of all participants throughout the process of ecological risk
assessment at Superfund sites.
Key Words: Superfund, Ecological, Risk, Assessment, Remediation
DRAFT
3-1
-------
FUNDAMENTALS OF
ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
u
rb
Clarence A. Callahan, PhD
BTAG Coordinator
USEPA Region 9
San Francisco, California 94105
Phone 415/744-2314
FAX 415/744-1916
CA Callahan USEPA. Region 9
-------
- Preliminary Assessment
- Site Inspection
- NPL Listing
Ecological Assessment in the RI/FS Process
Site
Characterization
(RI)
PROBLEM
FORMULATION
Review ecological data
collected from site inspection
and other studies
Review sampling data
collection plans
Formulate preliminary
remediation goals
Determine level of effort
for baseline ecological
risk assessment
Establishment of
Remedial Action
Objectives
'(FS)
Development & Detailed
Screening of Analysis of
Alternatives Alternatives
(FS) (FS)
Refine remedial goals
based on
risk assessment
and ARARs
- Remedy Selection
- Record of Decision
- Remedial Design
- Remedial Action
Conduct Risk
Evaluation of
remedial
alternatives
f
Ecological
Monitoring
CONDUCT BASELINE ECOLOGICAL
ASSESSMENT
- Exposure Assessment
- Ecological Effects Assessment
- Field Verification/Remedial Guidance
- Risk Characterization
T
CA Cllllhin USEPA Rein*. 9
-------
PHASED APPROACH FOR ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
w
PHASE I, SCOPING
I. Data Quality Objectives
•Develop assessment goals
-Set confidence limits
-Establish data acceptiblility criteria
2. Data Identification and Collection
-PA/SI Informatioin
-Site Reconnaissance Survey
-Others
3. Conceptual Site Ecological Model
-ID potential stressors of concern
-ID potential ecological receptors
-ID potential exposure pathways
PHASE II ACTIVITIES
1. Phase II Workplan
2. Toxicity data bases searched
3. Literature searched
4. Preliminary Assessment e.g.,
Gradient analysis or Screening I.e., H.Q.
i.e., H.Q.
i
DECISION*
POINT
PHASE HI ACTIVITIES
Phase HI Workplan for Confirmation of
Preliminary Assessment
•Scope of Work for Phase III
-Data Quality Objectives
-Seasonal Site Observations
HAVE DQOs
BEEN MET
PHASE HI
REPORT
DECISION
POINT*
SCOPING REPORT
1. Identification of potential risks
2. Identification of data gaps
3. Establish Endpoints
-Assessment Endpoings
-Measurement Endpoints
4. Site Conceptual Model Defined
'Regulatory/Resource
Agency Involvement
In this decision.
PHASE V ACTIVITIES
I. Work Plan Developed
•Scope of Work Defined
•Level of Effort
-Recommended Approaches
2. Results and Conclusions
3. Post ROD Monitoring
Recommendations
PHASE IV
RISK CHARACTERIZATION;
ARE THERE SIGNIFICANT
ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS?*
YES
Mitigation and/or
Remediation
CJtCilUI»IISEM.I«*_*
-------
Ecological Risk Assessment
Fundamentals
Potential
Receptors
Chemicals of
Concern
lexicological, Biological
or Ecological
Impact
CA Callahan USEPA, Rcjtion 9
@
3-5
-------
Ecological Risk Assessment
Fundamentals
Chemicals of
Concern
Potential
Receptors
lexicological, Biological
or Ecological
Impact
Concentrations
high enough, but
potential receptors
are lacking
C.A Callahan USEPA. Union V
3-6
-------
Ecological Risk Assessment
Fundamentals
Chemicals of Concern and receptors are
present, but concentrations are not high
enough for biological or ecological impact
Potential
Receptors
Chemicals of
Concern
lexicological, Biological
or Ecological
Impact
CA Callohjn USEPA, Rerun V
3-7
-------
Ecological Risk Assessment
Fundamentals
Potential
Receptors
Chemicals of
Concern
Toxicological, Biological
or Ecological
Impact ^ Potential
receptors impacted by
something other than
chemicals of concern
e.g., habitat
C.A Callahan USEPA. Region 9
3-8
-------
Ecological Risk Assessment
Fundamentals
Potential
Receptors
Chemicals of
Concern
All conditions met,
toxicological, biological
or ecological
impact observed
CA Callahon USEPA. Region V
3-9
-------
Ecological Risk Assessment
Fundamentals
Chemicals of Concern and receptors are
present, but concentrations are not high
enough for biological or ecological impact
Potential
Receptors
Chemicals
Concern
Concentrations are
high enough, but
potential receptors
are lacking
lexicological, Biological
or Ecological
Imriact / Potential
receptors impacted by
something other than
chemicals of concern
e.g., habitat
C.A Callahan USCPA. Rcfion »
All conditions met,
toxicological, biological
or ecological
impact observed
3-10
-------
PHASED APPROACH FOR ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
PHASE I, SCOPING
1. Data Quality Objectives
-Develop assessment goals
-Set confidence limits
-Establish data acccplihlility criteria
2. Data Identification and Collection
-PA/SI Informal iitin
-Site Reconnaissance Survey
-Others
3. Conceptual Site Ecological Model
-ID potential stressors of concern
-ID potential ecological receptors
-ID potential exposure pathways
PHASE II ACTIVITIES
I. Phase II Workplan
2. Toxicily data bases searched
3. Literature searched
4. Preliminary Assessment e.g.,
Gradient analysis or Screening i.e., H.Q.
i.e., H.Q.
i
DECISION*
POINT
«
PHASE III ACTIVITIES
Phase III Workplan for Confirmation of
Preliminary Assessment
•Scope of Work for Phase III
-Data Quality Objectivies
-Seasonal Site Observations
HAVE DQOs
BEEN MET
PHASE III
REPORT
DECISION
POINT*
SCOPING REPORT
1. Identification of potential risks
2. Identification of data gaps
3. Establish Endpoinls
-Assessment Endpoings
•Measurement Endpoinls
4. Site Conceptual Model Denned
* Regulatory /Resource
Agency Involvement
in this decision.
PHASE V ACTIVITIES
1. Work Plan Developed
-Scope of Work Defined
-Level of Effort
-Recommended Approaches
2. Results and Conclusions
3. Post ROD Monitoring
Recommendations
PHASE IV
RISK CHARACTERIZATION;
ARE THERE SIGNIFICANT
ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS?*
YES
Mitigation and/or
Remediation
-------
TOXICITY QUOTIENT
METHOD'
TQ =
c
v-' end-point
Where:
TQ = Toxicity Quotient
EPCs = Exposure Point Concentration
Qd*-. = Concentration associated with a
particular biological effect based on the
Effects Assessment for indigenous or closely
related species.
Requirements:
-EPCs are the measured concentrations on the site;
"Qaid-pon* is based on the potential receptors for the site being assessed. It is not advisible to
substitue species nor to extrapolate to other species or genera without exposure response
relationships for the surrogate and the particular chemical of concern.
Interpretation:
-Interpretation of the TQ is the goal of this assessment and comparisons of the potential
effects are compared to the TQ for concentrations obtained in the reference area(s).
Menrie and Cura, 1991
3-12
-------
BIOASSAY STRATEGY FOR MEASUREING
TOXICOLOGICAL OR BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS
Greatest Response at
Highest Concentration
Reference Site Response
Observable
Effects
CA billion USEFA.Rqaf
Reference Low Medium High
CONTAMINANT CONCENTRA-
-------
Cochato River
122 . /-/
. N -/fir
/ > • / *^*tM
Toxicity Ranking
7 Day Test Data
4 Most Toxic
o 3 Moderately Toxic o
2 Least Toxic
1 Nontoxic
D Damaged
-------
IX vm C°cnato River
fClay Cap J
TOXICITY RANKING
7 DAY TEST DATA
Overland
Runoff
No-Name
Brook
-------
ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
GUIDANCE FOR SUPERFUND:
PROCESS FOR DESIGNING AND CONDUCTING
ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENTS
DRAFT
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Response Team
Edison, NJ
ry?AFT
" September 26, 1994
Review Draft
3-16
-------
California
75 HAWTHORNE ST.. H-93
SAN FRANCISCO. CA 941O5
(415)744-2314
FAX (415) 744-1916
Department of loxic Substances Control
GUIDANCE FOR ECOLOGICAL RISK
ASSESSMENT AT HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
AND PERMITTED FACILITIES
PART B: SCOPING ASSESSMENT
State of California
California Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Office of Scientific Affairs
Human and Ecological Risk Section
SEPTEMBER, 1994
THIS GUIDANCE IS FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ONLY
3-17
-------
Development of Ecological Exit
Criteria for the Hazardous Waste
Identification Project
Review Draft
April 1994
Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
Contract No. 68-D2-0065
3-18
Prepared by
/RT»
Research Triangle Institute
Project 5810-43
-------
xvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Off ice of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication 9345.0-051 '
December 1991 '
ECO Update
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Hazardous Site Evaluation Division (OS-230)
Intermittent Bulletin
Volume 1. Number 2
Ecological Assessment of Superfund Sites:
An Overview
This document is the second issue of the ECO Update
series of Intermittent Bulletins, published by the Toxics
Integration Branch, Hazardous Site Evaluation Division.
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Practical
experience with the process of ecological assessment at
Superfund sites has pointed to the need for information and
guidance concerning both the scientific and management
aspects of ecological assessment. The ECO Update series is
intended to fill this need.
Ecological Assessment cfSuperfundSites:An Overview
is an updated framework for ecological assessment in the
Superfund program. As such, it offers a description of
ecological assessment components and a discussion of how
they fit into the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
Study (RI/FS) process. Ecological assessment in the re-
moval process will be xMrp-wf-d in a future ECO Update.
The ECO Update Series
ECO Updates are a series of Intermittent Bulletins intended
to facilitate ecological assessment of Superfund sites. Each Bulle-
tin focuses on one aspect of ecological studies or ecological
assessment in the remedial process. Individual Bulletins may
discuss either technical methods or the management of ecological
assessments.
Limiting eachBuQetintoaspecific topic allows flexibility for
the user to select only those Bulletins that are applicable to the site
in question or the user's needs. For example, some sites do not
require toxirity tests, so investigators would not need to consult
Bulletins specific to testing. A user who needs only general
information on Natural Resource Trustees can refer to a specific
Bulletin on that topic and not have to look through a larger
document containing other, less relevant information.
The Bulletin series is written for both general and technical
audiences, which includes EPA site managers and staff, contrac-
tors. State personnel, and anyone else involved in the performance,
supervision, or evaluation of ecological assessments in Superfund.
Ecological assessment involves considerable professional
judgment. The ECO Updates assume that readers will confer
with qualified scientists for site-specific advice. These Bulletins
are not step-by-step guides on how to accomplish an assessment.
The series supplements the advisory process involving Regional
Biological Technical Assistance Croups (BTAGs). EPA staff
should consult their BTAG coordinator for more detailed infor-
mation on ecological assessment in their Region.
IN THIS BULLETIN
Background 2
What is an Ecological Assessment? _..2
Ecological Assessment In the Rl/FS Process 6
ECO Update u a Bulletin series on ecological assessment of Superfund sites. These Bulletins serve as supplements to Risk Assessment Guidance
trSuferfiuut.Volume II: Environmental Evaluation Manual (EPA/540-1-89/001). The mformation presented is intended as guidance to EPA tnd
her government employees. It does not constitute nilemaking by die Agency, and may not be relied on to create a substantive or procedural right
Alorceaole by any outer person. The Government may take action that is at variance with these Bulletins.
3-19
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
SoDd Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication 9345.0-051
May 1992
ECO Update
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Hazardous Site Evaluation Division (OS-230)
Intermittent Bulletin
Volume 1. Number 4
Developing A Work Scope For
Ecological Assessments
This Bulletin is intended for Remedial Project
Managers (RPMs), to help them plan and manage
ecological assessments of sites as part of the Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) process.1
As used here, the generic term work scope describes
the process of specifying the work to be done for the
ecological assessment, as part of the overall RI Work
Plan. The term encompasses project scoping, devel-
opment and approval of the Work Plan, and prepara-
tion of the Statement of Work (SOW) for contractors
(at Fund-lead sites).
The outcome of a successfully executed work
scope should be an ecological assessment that in-
cludes four essential components: problem formula-
tion, exposure assessment, ecological effects assess-
ment, and riskcharacterization.' A work scope should
also provide for close oversight of individual tasks.
This will ensure that the assessment accomplishes its
objectives within reasonable budget and schedule
limitations.
Need for Clarity, Specificity, and
Completeness
SOWs and Work Flans should clearly state the
studies needed at each phase of the assessment In addi-
tion, they should include other parameters concerning an
assessment, such as sample collection, data analysis, and
reports. Specifically, SOWs and Work Plans should de-
scribe:
• Which studies should be conducted;
• Why they should be conducted;
• When and where they should be conducted;
• What data should be collected;
• How samples should be collected, handled, and ana
lyzed;
• How data should be evaluated; and '
• What reports should be produced.
IN THIS BULLETIN
The Role Of The Biological Technical Assistance
Group 2
Points To Consider In Developing A Work Scope _2
Elements Of An Ecological Assessment Work Scope ....4
Ensuring Contractor Capability To Do Work 7
Review Of Interim And Final Products 8
Sample Work Scope —9
Conctu sion..~.............—......'.—»~ ...................9
Appendix 11
1 Although the primary focus of this document is on the RI/FS
process. On-Scene Coordinators may find much of the informa-
tion useful in evaluating rites during the removal process.
VoL l,No. 2).
ECO Update is a Bulletin series on ecological assessment of Superhand sites. These Bulletins serve as supplements to Risk Assess-
ment Guidance for Superfund, Volume H: Environmental Evaluation Manual (EPA/540-1-89/001). The information presented is
intended as guidance to EPA and other government employees. It does not constitute rulemaVing by the Agency, and may not be
relied on to create a substantive or procedural right enforceable by any other person. The Government may take action that is at
variance with these Bulletins.
-------
4
-------
The Use of US EPA Region 9
Preliminary Remediation Goals in Site Evaluation
Daniel Stralka.PhD
Regional Toxicologist
The Use of Preliminary Remediation Goals for Site Evaluation
A. What are PRGs?
a. Generic chemical-specific concentrations of concern.
b. Human health endpoints.
c. Select pathways.
d. Combined pathways for each media.
B. The Site Conceptual Model
a. How have you defined the site?
b. What is the extent of your data?
c. Have you characterized the site?
d. Is your data consistent with your model?
C. Evaluate the use of Generic vs. Site-specific PRGs
a. Are there other pathways not evaluated
in the generic PRGs?
b. Are the assumptions used in the generic PRGs
relevant for the site?
c. How refined a risk assessment is required?
D. Exposure Point Concentration Term
a. Does the data characterize the site?
b. How was the data collected, composite or individual?
c. Maximum hit screening vs. statistical methods,
point of compliance?
E. Examples
F. Advantages and Disadvantages
a. Standardize equations and default assumptions.
b. Most common human exposure pathways.
c. Flexible framework.
d. Must have a conceptual site model.
e. Not walk away numbers.
G. How do you access the table?
California Regional Water Board's BBS 510-286-0404
file name- PRG2ND.ZIP
via internet "gofer.epe.gov" menu selection
"EPA Offices and Regions: Region 9; Superfund Program"
4-1
-------
Highlight 1: Key Attributes of the
PRG Framework
• Standardized equations and default
concentrations (PRGs) are presented to
address most common human exposure
pathways.
ro
Conceptual site model for each site is
used to determine the applicability of
generic PRGs and identify data gaps.
Framework is flexible and allows both
generic and site-specific inputs into the
s andardized equatio 5.
-------
Pathways Addressed by
Region IX PRGs
1. Ingestion of Soil
2. Dermal Contact with Soil
3. Inhalation of Volatiles and Fugitive
Dust
4. Migration of Contaminants to an
Underlying Potable Aquifer
Soil PRG (mg/kg) = Target "Safe" Dose
Add Exposures 1+2 + 3
-------
Pathways Addressed by Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs)
Direct
Ingestlon of
Groundwater
and Soil
Dermal
Absorption
.Inhalation
Blowing Dustt
and Vblatilizatlo
Groundwater
Not Addressed:
• Ecological effects
• Indoor exposure to volatiles
from soil and water
• Consumption of fish,
beef, or dairy
• Land uses other than
residential/industrial
PRQS.EP8
4/JM
-------
Decisions to Move from Generic
to Site-Specific PRGs Consider:
» Do pathways at the site match up with
pathways used to derive generic PRGs?
• Are the assumptions used in the PRGs
t appropriate, relative to site conditions?
• Are site-specific goals established from
collecting additional data likely to be
less costly to achieve?
-------
PRELIMINARY RISK GOALS MAV
CHANGE WHEN CONSIDERING
ADDITIONAL FACTORS
Exposure Factors
- cumulative effect of
multiple chemicals
- exposures from
additional pathways
- potential impacts on
environmental
receptors
- cross-media
impacts of remedial
alternatives
Uncertainty
Factors
- reliability of
alternatives
- weight of scientific
evidence concerning
exposures and
health effects
Technical Factors
- detection/quantification
limits
- ability, to monitor and
control movement of
contaminants
-background levels of
contaminants
4-6
-------
CuNCCAMOMDdmCCMEFrCCISOFIlHUMlDei lit us,
US«C IMUJUU Ct*J*
ttSOXHtlM MG tfiuSIRMt n)C«[USEPAnM|
IHAIIXS
U.ftftt.1 OMflvri
VOCi
OLMOI 0V 1 1.1 TfCUMM-MM
OLMOI n *«•**
OLMOI pv Sir MA*
OLMOI ov TMMW
OLMOI H TltTMiilllMM
•vou
OLMOI OB I • D*m»llig|pli.MMl
OLMOI OB 4 M*Mftrl>>li.MMl
OiMOl OB MMkVMMM
OtMOiOB AMMMM
OLMOI oa .wu-xufAMfif •&«.•
OLMOl Oft 6«ftM»»Pn**»
OLMI ce n»ni -TI / >•• -¥IM..»..I
OLMOI OB Boy-iTl" if *-•*•»«
OLMOI 05 • riimrnyMfiiiiii
OLMOI OB C.M.M..
OLMOI oft Civ)!***
CLUOI C6 Ot-n-Ociff 4*Miu.M.i
CLMOI OB OipkWiJoifcfiykMvaiT.iM
OLMOI OB PHI i>i •*•*.
rti ion roii n
OLMOI OB rL..ul...
OLMOI OB ffc—«
OLMOiM uitnmu. J l-caiTfim
OLMOIOB toff***
OLMOI OB PtviViifiMov*BiwMi
OLMOI oa nn— •
OLMOI OB .*>«.»•
IJHiH
•VMOl 0 AjMmMf
k,MQ)0 AlMM
•VIMU • BifMB
•VlMl 0 JB*r|M*j«
•.Moat <:•«.»• -a
•kMOl 1 CcMI
1M01 1 C^pot
O.MOII LMd
KUOJI IMi^tfMH
LM01 1 T*min
•.HOI • S0«l
""*" >M^_
LMUI JK
OLMOI IP AlKlM 1111
• M MflfM •*»• •• «•«« •» «"*• •*••
" •! f I_J_I IMII...I
HI
10
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
11
II
ir
ii
11
I
1 1
ii
i
I
I
2
II
1
It
1
1
1
10
41
11
41
41
II
!•
!•
II
II
• I
II
||
II
1
12
II
II
1
•M
m Mi
4»o>
IMBM4*
11
II
11
II
11
II
III
III
III
III
III
lit
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
111
111
III
III
III
• 11
41
41
41
41
«•
4t
4t
41
4f
41
41
41
41
21
t
4§
41
41
II
•fJCftf 1
4fM ***«
"=•
11
11
40
1
1
11
|
1
1
1
II
11
11
11
1*
1
11
1
1
1
2
II
1
14
1
1
1
14
II
II
II
IM
II
It
100
14
100
IM
101
10
II
• I
II
|4
14
100
II
•nfiimifcnn k
mouiti •
MMrfrwn
I<"B»0>
IOE 01
IIC 01
1 OCOI
•IOC 01
IOC 01
IOC 01
toE 01
IOE 01
I IE 01
1 IE 02
1 IE 01
HE 01
1 IE 01
1 IE 01
HE, 00
4»E M
4 1C 01
HE, oo
HC 01
111 01
1 IE 01
HC II
4 1C 01
HE. oo
1 1C 01
i ie,oi
i iCoi
oicot
ft IttOO
HE.M
I IE. II
IOE.II
1 ItiOl
ItE.OO
i ie.oi
nc.oj
HE. 01
0 IE.OI
11E.01
1 IC.01
• 1C 01
111,01
1 1C, 00
lit. 00
llEiOO
4 It.OJ
HE 01
••«»»>•*•
CttaifK
ME.OO
I 1C 01
t 1C 01
I l( 01
OlEtM
111.01
4 1C 01
i iC ai
4IE,»
1 IE .00
_ a
aie-oi
1 4EOI
1 «E.O>
HC.U
HE 01
I c.t»« PHC
M«« PHG .
^:,c
HE 10
HC 01
lit It
• IE II
IIC II
HE M
1 1C 01
• 1C 01
1 1C 04
lit II
HEM
1 AE 07
ItC 01
1 1C Ot
Hi 01
HC M
1 4l Ml
It 04
M4 m*CM|
uiomn
H.M
m,OwHM
«•
• 00
0 II
tto
0 14
001
010
0 01
1 II
1 11
000
HO
0 01
1101
til
010
1 10
1 11
100 Oil
„.«.
uife n.
MM 5*4
"isrr
HEtOl
lit. 01
IOC, 01
HE. 01
HE, 01
HE. 01
HE. 01
HE. 01
IOE. 01
llt.M
1 IE. 04
HE. 01
I IE. 01
HE. 01
1 IE. 01
HE. 01
1 IE.OI
I IE.OI
1 lE.OJ
HE.M
IOE, 01
1 !£••!
ME. 04
HE, 01
lit, 01
HE .01
HE. 01
HE. 01
HE.M
I IE.OI
40E.U
HI it]
1 IE.OI
11,01
IE .01
IE.OI
IE. 00
It. 01
HC.OI
If* tt~n*M |
cCi,,
OtEll
1 IE M
• IE It
1 ICM
tic o»
aic oi
HC 01
• IE 0<
1 IE 01
111 01
HC 04
1 It 01
1 1C 01
HE 01
1 It Hi
HI ••
1 1C 01
1 IE M
HE 01
HE 01
HC 01
4 9t 01
ME. 00
HE. 00
HE. 00
HE 01
IOC 11
11CII
1 41 01
lit 01
ME. 01
1 1C. 01
HE 01
1 It 01
1 IE 01
HE 11
1 II 41
1 IE 41
lilt 01
liE.ul
•» clu»«
J5EPA lnl|
:«nf«i«iM
K
DM
OM
OM
1 M
000
• M
OM
OM
000
000
OM
OM
OM
000
0 00
OM
OM
OM
001
000
• M
• 01
110
1 11
1 II
• 01
• 01
1 11
OM
• II
IMI
IMO
0 11
0 41
0 01
0 01
I JO
1 II
001
• V fff
Mtta "M •)•
CmMC Con
|ngHD (UM.ll (
1 1C, 01 1 1C 10
HE. 00 HEM
HE 01 1 1C M
HE.M HI 07
HC.OI HEM
• 11.01 1 1C 10
1 •CiU 4 1C M
HCOl ItCM
1 IE.M 1 1C tl
lOCfOl 1 01 II
I IE, 00 IIC 01
1 lEffftl 4 OC M
IOC. 00 HE 01
1 IE. 00 1 4l M
1 IE.M 1 11 M
1 II, U 1 1C 01
1C HI
,„,.„.„...-*.„«
MdM4HM
P««««UO* II
;««ro.OM.
IM
III
HI
• II
• U
• M
I II
III
1 11
OM
III
0 11
II 01
lit
• M
1 II
IMM
.M (UUP*
•S.T
HC.OI
HE.M
aiCttt
HC.OI
I1C.01
HCtM
HE ,11
IlitM
HC.OI
ItC.OI
HE.M
HCtM
llt.M
OlCtM
HE.M
ItCtM
I4C.U
i oc,44
HCtM
IOE ,04
1 4itM
HCtM
loEiU
lOEtOl
llt.M
HC.U
HCrtl
HE.M
IIC .04
lMi«a
• ICiU
IlltU
HE.M
• It ill
• tttM
HCtM
IIC.M
llt.M
IMH
HMH4
llfc«I
HE II
aiEM
HE II
HC-II
• •EM
lIElt
• •CM
HIM
1 1C 01
IMM
lit M
I1CM
HCM
HC M
HCM
IIC-M
III 01
IIC 01
tlCOt
4 1C 01
4*1 -M
40C01
• 1C 11
HE II
• 1CM
tie M
IU-M
HCM
HC 0*
aic.M
• 1C II
HIM
HE 11
HC M
HI 04
14(11
IOCU
III -M
OIC.M
.nlnmn
• M
• M
• M
• M
• M
• M
IM
• M
• M
• M
OM
• M
• M
OM
0 M
OM
OM
OM
Oil
• M
• M
• II
1 I*
lit
1 II
• •1
• M
• II
• M
• 11
ma
It II
• M
• 11
OM
0 01
001
Oil
001
IMM
-------
T.W.t-IM
CANCER AND KONCANCCR EfFCCTt DEHRMiNCD BV Tilt USEPA REGIONIX RESIDENTIAL AND INDIBTUAL fRGt (UCFA 1HQ
USING RMECHCMICALCOtlCENTfUTIONS
AAktyfecd Drltfltd
U«b*l QKmul
MiUL
ILM01 0 Alwuun
ILMO) 0 fjaaaaj
ILMO) 0 Ai*»c
ILM01 0 Bunn
ItMOJ 0 Bti)lk>n
ILM03 0 C«dn»«m
ILM01 0 Cknnuun
ILM03 0 C«bU
ILM014 Copj»t
ILM01 0 L»d(c)
ILM4JO Muslim
ILMOJO Mrfrurld)
ILMOlt NKM
ILMW 0 SJ.n
ILM0J 0 Vuhhn
IUI030 Znt
KU>
OLPMOJOP Ajui(»Pytiiii
ULMOI OH StiuXtyflwo'trilfoiM
ULMOI Ob fkucftiFlMCVilfeDl
OLMOI OB CtlUMii
OLMDI OB Qirjtmi
OLMOI Ott Di-n &M)tp)ilkifau
OLMOI OB D>l«nuhn«
OLMOI OB Otnftrlphitabn
OLMOI Ob fluninifcm
OLMOI OB nuoccM
OLMOI OB h>4m>-ul
|Q
Ht
It
11
7J
11
<]
«
;
91
a
t
:
:i
u
I
>,
r
i
i
i
i
f I .t Fr^u.
i Suipfci pfhli
H
14 10
7t 4S
It M
7t 7(
It 11
71 1
1 74 10
7« N
H t!
74 K
74 10
1 76 1
1 74 K
t 7t }
1 74 M
1 7t *
7* 1
7t •
14 11
) M 1
M
it
111
111
III
111
II)
III
111
111
111
111
IM
111
111
111
111
It)
111
RUE
tncy CwicntvbM
ctuo. Cm^ft)
1 1 IC*04
1 tE» 01
lOEfOI
1 TEtOl
«7E-OI
lOEtOO
0 1 OEtO]
1 lEtOI
UEtOI
IIEtOl
0 1 IftOl
1 1 JE-OI
1 1 |C»Q1
1 1 4E»00
1 Oi»H
1 lEiOl
KE«I
TSE-01
1 1 4C-OI
1 1 OE-OI
19E-OI
IJOE-O)
lOE-ai
10E4I
1 4E-OI
ISE-01
l)£-«l
I4E-01
1 11-01
191-01
14C-01
ilE-01
»>£-«}
1IE-OI
IIE-OI
1IE-OJ
*OE-01
IIE-OI
Cum PRO
[«t/V|}
IIE-OI
t ik.« PRO
77E<04
1 IE*OI
17Eai
item
40Et07
3IE.OJ
1 1E-OI
1 JE'Ol
JtfOJ
1 4E»OI
]1E»04
ME. 00
1 'E'Ol
JOE. 01
1 N
Maul
QuoncuCb)
UE.OO
1 OE-OI
91EOI
DE-0)
I4E01
13E-0]
37E-OJ
ItE-OJ
47EOI
JCE'M
• ti-m
JOE 03
17EOJ
HE 01
17E01
IK 01
I4E04
HEOi
I IE 01
IIE-OI
1JE-01
1 IE'93
HEOt
>l£-0l
III 04
IOE01
7 IE 4]
JtEOjy
17C M
lOt-CH
tiE'Oa
?ncmU|t
CHDltMIM
H
litl
tot
I4K
001
00)
Oil
«04
07!
<71
4764
«07
117.
oot
IM
001
»7»
«00
to*
000
ooa
too
IM
ooa
a oo
opo
ooa/
000
000
001
OQQ
10000
InfemlM
Cucci PRO CMMT rmmu|t Noacwwn f Ul
b&iAii) Pi-i^«i Codkibvboft &k^til
N
IIETOt
«IEt«
KEtOO UE-Oi H4I 1IEOJ
IIIE«I 0(1
IIE'OI |]E« oo>
»»tai Hi-it o«t
ItEKl 71E-IO 001
IIEtM
17£«01
ISE'M
17E>04
1}E>M
itEtot tiE4t an
• iE»ai
IIE^W tiE-oi tu ioe>M
lJtE>OI
IE-01 100 00
<^
4IE-4J
3JE-M
14E41
I4E-M
11E-01
14C-U
ME-04
11C44
IIE-OI
1 IE-01
1IE-M
1IE4I
1 t£*M
IJEOJ
1
0>l Fn mnccfi kutrl tamtn liudi ibt cgMinnLM bj u. mfttvii Mucnctr PUG ml iw U* »ua< t* a<4upti rbmcibfUSEPA l» 1)
(0 Tl.. mteUHl f>«C . Ju !• lr>41> b—J on Ihi Dpld,! biCtMOC UoM f«oh (USEPA ml)
(0) T>irliafa*>n»n
-------
5
-------
Jeffrey JA
wong, ph.d.
DTSC/CalEPA
916-327-2500
PROBLEM SET: MANAGEMENT
OF HAZARDOUS WASTE?
Ul
1. Has there beeh'h9rm?<1sih
-------
Jeffrey J.I
wong, ph.d.
DTSC/CalEPA
916-327-2500
Risk Assessment:
Simple Conceptual Components
Source Assessment
Risk
Characterization
Gaieulate
Movement
Exposure
Hazard D
-------
Jeffrey j.(
wong, ph.d,
DTSC/CalEPA
916-327-2500
01
What does risk assessment
do for me?
-------
Jeffrey j. I
wong, ph.d.
DTSC/CalEPA
916-327-2500
RISK-BASED
SOLUTIONS
Risk
Unacceptable
FORWARD RISK
CALCULATION
Limit
CCEPJTABO
Exposure
Pathways
AIR SOILWATER FOOD
AIR SOIL WATER FOOD
AIR SOIL WATER FOOD
Managed
mitigated exposure
Above the Limit II
smaller source
Below theJJmit
**^= jlip^ • «
-------
cn
I
cn
Jeffrey j.(
wong, ph.d.
DTSC/CalEPA
916-327-2500
A Simple World
To Ground Water
Sediment
5
-------
Jeffrey J.I
wong, ph.d.
DTSC/C«1EPA
916-327-2500
cn
en
MATHEMATICS:
Basic Exposure Model
f?'
ce term)
-------
Jeffrey j.l
wong, ph.d.
DTSC/CalEPA
916-327-2500
Biological/ Toxicological
Uncertainty
RISK
en
^ 1 x 106
PROJECIllEPDejSE
Toxicity Assessment
• Toxicity data
• Animal extrapolation -
Do rats = man?
• Dose-response
• Extrapolation model -
Right model?
*^ - '-.•',•:..'''.• f
• Conservative assumptions -
Right assumptions?
DOSE
At risk Not at risk
7
•
-------
Jeffrey j. I
wong, ph.d,
DTSC/CalEPA
916-327-2500
Parameter Uncertainty
DOSE =
^V* *'•*•
-------
Jeffrey j. (
wong, ph.d.
DTSC/CalEPA
916-327-2500
Simple Exposure Scenario
Inhalation
Direct Soil Contact and Ingestion
Ingestion of Water
tn
I
-------
Jeffrey J.I
wong, ph.d.
DTSC/CalEPA
916-327-2500
REAL WORLD COMPLEXITY
fr-:-..r,..:^.
KA /h O D Lil C ID' I /aS\/M
)•)',! rr^•sali5J-i-i.il
BREAST MILK
-------
Jeffrey j. I
wong, ph.d.
DTSC/CalEPA
916-327-2500
Which Fate & Transport Model?
MODEL #2
MODEL #1 I MODEL #3
MEDIA
CONCENTRATION
(mg / mA3 air)
DISTANCE (meters from source)
11
-------
Jeffrey j. (
wong, ph.d.
DTSC/CalEPA
916-327-2500
Exposure Data:
Breathing Rate
Monte Carlo Analysis
Parameter X1
Environmental
Data: Rainfall
Parameter X2
Sampling Data:
Soil Concentration!
Parameter X3
Fate&
Transport
ModeM
Y1=f1(X1,X2,X3)
PROBABILITY
RISK
Output Y1
12
-------
Jeffrey jA
wong, ph.d.
DTSC/CalEPA
916-327-2500
RISK-BASED
SOLUTIONS
Risk
Unacceptable-*
FORWARD RISK
CALCULATION
en
*'•" /'$ V" v
*<,,-. •M-.Vi-.-f"iiSs', siJ. .^rf
Acceptabe,^
u- r * * J Bl?
Exposure
• + {T*Wt*vm.m
Above the Limit
Below the Limit
Limit
-------
This Page Intentionally Blank
-------
6
-------
RISK-BASED APPROACH TO DERIVE SOIL CLEANUP GOALS PROTECTIVE OF
HEALTH AND WATER QUALITY - A Case Study
by Ravi Arulanantham, Ph.D.', Kenneth E. Eichstaedt, P.E.b, and Eddy P. So, P.E.C
Abstract
Soil and groundwater pollution often pose a threat, to varying extent, to either human
health or water quality or both. Cleanup of this pollution is a lengthy process and requires
significant economic resources, and the elimination of all risks at an impacted site is not often
possible. Considerable time, effort, and resources spent for cleanup may not always be justified
technically and economically in light of the uncertainty and inconsistency encountered by the
responsible parties during their cleanup process. This paper provides a methodology to derive
site-specific cleanup goals which are protective of public health and water quality. The suggested
approach also provides (i) predictability to the overall decision-making process; (ii) the
opportunity for responsible parties to participate in the decision-making process during the
establishment of soil cleanup goals; and (iii) consistency while ensuring flexibility in the
remediation and management of pollution problems.
The methodology consists of: (1) completion of site characterization; (2) initial risk-based
screening of contaminants; (3) derivation of health and/or ecological risk-based cleanup goals;
(4) derivation of groundwater quality-based cleanup goals; (5) site cleanup goals and site
remediation; and (6) risk management decisions. The approach was recently used at a site in
Newark. California. The pollutants of concern in soil were petroleum hydrocarbons as weathered
diesel, oil and grease, lead, and copper. The lead agency for this site was the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality control Board with assistance on human health issues provided by the
Alameda County Health Agency. The approach is technically defensible and can be a valuable
tool to provide cost-effective solutions in the complex decision making process of site cleanup.
a Staff lexicologist, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
b Project Engineer, URS Consultants, Inc., San Francisco
c Associate Water Resources Control Engineer, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality
Control Board
6-1
-------
This Page Intentionally Blank
-------
Risk/Exposure Assessment Case Study
March 26,1996
1996 RCRA Corrective Action Conference
Ravi Arulanantham, Ph.D. Ken Elchstaedt, P.E. Eddy So, P.E.
California Regional URS Consultants, Inc. California Regional
Water Quality Control Board San Francisco, CA Water Quality Control Board
San Francisco Bay Region San Francisco Bay Region
RISK EXPOSURE/ASSESSMENT CASE STUDY
ISSUES
Soil and groundwater contamination can cause varying degrees
of threat to either human health/environment and/or water
quality.
Soil and groundwater cleanup can be a very lengthly process
requiring significant economic resources.
Eliminating all risks at a contaminated site is often not
possible, even after cleanup.
Different agencies with different responsibilities are
involved during the overall reclamation process.
CalltenUt ftWOCB
URS Consultants, toe.
-------
RISK EXPOSURE/ASSESSMENT CASE STUDY
OBJECTIVES
1. To derive cleanup or remediation goals that are
protective of both land use issues and water quality
issues based on site-specific conditions and risk.
2. To ensure that the cost of overall remediation efforts
is truly'relevant to the protection of human health and
safety and other natural resources.
California RWQCB
URS Consultants, toe.
RISK EXPOSURE/ASSESSMENT CASE STUDY
SITE SETTING
Former foundry on 10 acres of a 37-acre parcel
Located in East Bay (San Francisco Bay) / Alameda County
Consisted of 2.5-acre (106,450 sq. ft.) building with
associated furnaces, extrusion form press, pickling baths,
and bag house
Manufactured brass and bronze metal products from
1957 to 1986
California RWQCB
URS Conaultnot, toe.
-------
RISK EXPOSURE/ASSESSMENT CASE STUDY
SITE HISTORY
Premanufacturing (pre-1957): Cultivation of hay
Manufacturing (1957 • 1986): Processed raw brass and bronze
ingots into housing fixtures (plumbing, hardware, etc.). Facility
consisted of extrusion form press, furnaces, bag house, coil
pickling vats, acid storage tanks, caustic storage tanks, solvent
(TCE), and dlesel fuel.
Postmanufacturing (post-1986): Land fallow. RWQCB/Alameda
County and owner agree to Site Cleanup Order in 1991.
Rl completed in 1992. Soil remediation completed In 1993.
Groundwater remediation began in 1994.
Catlfemlt PWQCB
RISK EXPOSURE/ASSESSMENT CASE STUDY
LAND USE
Adjacent land use: South • City Park
East - Residential Housing
North - Industrial Facility
West - Railway line and
San Francisco Bay
(approximately 1 mile away)
Zoned In municipal master plan as commercial/Industrial
Current residential use and city park within 500 feet of site
Calltomit ffWOCB
URS Consultant*, Inc.
-------
RISK EXPOSURE/ASSESSMENT CASE STUDY
INDUSTRIAL SITE
PROPERTY LINE
FORMER
FOUNDRY
^-PROPERTY
FORMER
FOUNDRY
| BUILOINO
UJ
o
55
UJ
cc
CITY PARK
100 200
SCALE IN FEET
RISK EXPOSURE/ASSESSMENT CASE STUDY
HAYWARD
HILLS
CMtomlt PWQCB
URS Consultant* Inc.
QROUNDWATER
MOVEMENT
SCALE
-------
RISK EXPOSURE/ASSESSMENT CASE STUDY
REGIONAL GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION
;.a. ••••<••• ••qi.t-g. t.-a <-aoo It.
II
IIIII II Illll »»ir.«. itltl .1 lilHir.U.
l«pt. •( Will? itiHM». lilltlli 14-!
California RWQCB
URS Consultants, me.
RISK EXPOSURE/ASSESSMENT CASE STUDY
SENSITIVE WATER BODIES
San Francisco Bay (» 1 mile away)
Mowry Slough (» 1/2 mile away)
Shallow Aquifer (10 to 30 feet bgs)
Newark Aquifer (potential drinking water aquifer);
- 50-feet below ground surface
• Municipal drinking water well within 1/2-mile east of site
California HWQCB
Inc.
-------
RISK EXPOSURE/ASSESSMENT CASE STUDY
DISTRIBUTION OF CONTAMINANTS
SOIL
Metals:
Lead
Copper
Hydrocarbons:
TPH/diesel
Oil & Grease
0 to 2ft
0 to 2ft
Maximum*
Concentration
2,950
11,000
Average*
Concentration
900
1,500
OtolOftbgs 6,200
OtoSftbgs 22,000
GROUNDWATER (Shallow aquifer < 10 ft bgs)
Total VOCS (Primarily TCE, TCA, DCE, and DCAs) 7
TPH/dlesel 6
1,000
1,700
<2
<0.5
California RWOCB
URS CoMuttana, toe.
* (ppm)
RISK EXPOSURE/ASSESSMENT CASE STUDY
[
L
Soil-
Excavation
ffl
n
S[_c-
•
•
•
••
I W-<™
- 1 1 IT*»I
s!
•••!••••
FORMER '"
POUNDRY •—
"••..BUILDING i
• i
• i
• i
i
..-•*
~\
_i
Groundwater
Plume
California HWOCB
UHS Corauiuntt, lite.
-------
RISK EXPOSURE/ASSESSMENT CASE STUDY
PUBLIC HEALTH RISKS
Dominant Exposure scenario:
Future on-site - Residential use
Current off-site • Nearby park provides potential
child exposure
Exposure routes: ingestion, dermal, and inhalation
The risk associated with drinking shallow G.W. was not evaluated
California HWOCB
UBS Consultants, Inc.
RISK EXPOSURE/ASSESSMENT CASE STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS
Environmental risk posed by potential leaching of soil
contaminants to groundwater
Environmental risk evaluated by modified TCLP test to
assess teachability
Comparison of leaching extract to the following criteria:
Suggested No Adverse Response Levels (Secondary MCLs)
LUFT Field Manual
State of Washington Model Toxics Control Act Cleanup Regulations
RWQCB's Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Toxic
Pollutant Accumulation guidelines
California RWOCB
1/ftS Consultants, Inc.
-------
RISK EXPOSURE/ASSESSMENT CASE STUDY
HYPOTHETICAL CLEANUP STRATEGY
>•<• ND/Background/Order
1 ' —
£
~
A
m
2.5ppm
f
C T2
V
— i
s
• •
•
25ppm
~ T2T
^
~
• -
250ppm
~ sn+
"%. «*
-^L (*'*KyCrttl
Site Concentration
5000 ppm
RISK EXPOSURE/ASSESSMENT CASE STUDY
Corrective Action Strategies
Ctlltomlf HWQCB
UftS Consultant*, Inc.
Universal Standards
RBCA
-------
RISK EXPOSURE/ASSESSMENT CASE STUDY
PUBLIC HEALTH PROTECTIVE CLEANUP GOALS
0 Followed U.S. EPA 1990 UBK model for lead.
0 Followed U.S. EPA RAGS for Cu and TPH-D.
0 Standard dose equations using deterministic exposure
parameters for on-site/off-slte exposure.
0 Reverse calculations of allowable soil concentrations for Cu
and TPH-D using the following exposure parameters:
Ingestion rate 200 mg/day Adherence of soil to skin - 1 45 mg/cm
Fraction Ingested from contaminated soil - 1 Fraction of Cu adsorbed through the
Exposure frequency - 265 days/year skin - 0.05
Exposure duration - 6 years Paniculate emissions factor -
Body weight - 15 kg 4 63x 10fl cu. meters/kg
Skin surface area available for soil Inhalation rate - 15 cu. meters/day
contact • 9.500 sq. cm
Target risk level was a HI . 1
Clf/femM RWQCB
UHS Consu/CMitt, toe.
RISK EXPOSURE/ASSESSMENT CASE STUDY
RESULTS
Calculate health-risk-based soil cleanup goals protective of
children:
Pb: 225 mg/kg of soil
Cu: 860 mg/kg of soil
TPH General Children
Ing. 2190 mg/kg 625 mg/kg
Derm. 180 mg/kg 80 mg/kg
California RWQCB
-------
RISK EXPOSURE/ASSESSMENT CASE STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP GOALS
Contaminants leaching from soil to groundwater
Used modified TCLP test to assess leachability
Comparison of leacnate to the following criteria:
MCLs for copper and lead
Secondary MCLs for TPH-Dlesel and TOG
California ftWOCB
URS Consultants, toe.
RISK EXPOSURE/ASSESSMENT CASE STUDY
RESULTS
Lead 100 mg/kg
Copper >1600 mg/kg
TPHasdlesel > 130 mg/kg
TOG > 100 mg/kg
California HWQCB
UPS Consultants, me.
-------
RISK EXPOSURE/ASSESSMENT CASE STUDY
SITE WIDE RISK BASED CLEANUP GOALS
COG
SOIL
Lead
Copper
TPHasDtoart
TOO
OROUNOWATER
TCE
TCA
OCE
OCA
Maximum Sit*
(mg/kg)
2.950
11.000
0.200
22.000
(mg/L)
a.8
0.5
1.3
0.8
Calculated
mg/kg of Soil
258
860
80
100
•
.
.
•
Leachablllty-
Quality Goal
mo/kg of Soil
100
>860
>80
»100
•
'
.
•
Cleanup Goal
o—i-— .— j
mg/kg of Soil
100
860
80
100
AttSfnpttnQ MCLs*
Futuro vnflytoo
risk-based
cleanup criteria.
Catltomtt HWOCB
MS Consvlt*na, toe.
RISK EXPOSURE/ASSESSMENT CASE STUDY
CORRECTIVE ACTION IMPLEMENTATION
Soil
Lead \
Copper '
TPH/TOC
700 cy
7.900 cy
TOTAL
8,600 cy
Groundwater
5-well extraction/treatment system operating
Tentative MCL/health-risk-based cleanup goals
California PWOCB
UPS Consu/tantt, /he.
-------
RISK EXPOSURE/ASSESSMENT CASE STUDY
RISK MANAGEMENT ISSUES
0 Agency letter confirming all health risks are mitigated for
residential soil
0 Site cleanup order for G.W. remediation
0 Deed notification for G.W. treatment system
access/operations
0 Contingency plan for future plume migration
0 All records placed In the local city archives available for
easy public access
0 At time of building houses, an additional RA for G.W.
volatilization to Indoor air
California HWQCB
UPS Consultants, toe.
RISK EXPOSURE/ASSESSMENT CASE STUDY
'Working Smart Vs. Working Hard*
Risk-Based Cleanup Approach $860,000 Time: 3 months
Cleanup to Background $1,600,000 Time: 12 months
California HWQCB
URS Conaultutta. Inc.
-------
RISK-BASED MANAGEMENT APPROACH TO CLEANUP OF CONTAMINATED SOIL
Authors: Mr. Ravi Arulanantham, Ph.D.
Staff Toxicologist
"Mr. Arulanantham is the Staff Toxicologist for the Alameda County. Currently,
he is serving as the Staff Toxicologist for the Regional Water Quality Control
Board on an Inter Agency assignment. He is also an ASTM sanctioned National
Trainer for the ASTM RBCA standard."
California Environmental Protection Agency
Regional Water Quality Control Board
San Francisco Bay Region
2101 Webster Street, Ste. 500
Oakland, CA 94612
DL: 510/286-1331 Fax: 510/286-0928
Mr. Kenneth E. Eichstaedt, P.E.
Project Civil Engineer
"Mr. Eichstaedt has worked extensively in the hazardous/toxic materials field
over the past 12 years performing remedial investigations, feasibility studies,
remedial action plans, and construction management of hazardous waste cleanup
projects. He is currently the Site Manager for two Superfund projects and a
private site in which he has successfully used the cleanup strategy presented in
this abstract for the cleanup of petroleum hydrocarbon contamination."
URS Consultants, Inc.
100 California St., Ste. 500
San Francisco, CA 94111
DL: 415/774-2767 Fax: 415/398-1904
Mr. Eddy P. So, M.Sc., P.E.
Associate Water Resources Control Engineer
"Mr. So has over 15 years of experience in sanitary engineering and the
hazardous/toxic waste field. He is a P.E. in both civil and mechanical
engineering. Currently, he is the Area Engineer overseeing soil and groundwater
investigation and cleanup for the southern Alameda County."
California Environmental Protection Agency
Regional Water Quality Control Board
San Francisco Bay Region
2101 Webster Street, Ste. 500
Oakland, CA 94612
DL: 510/286-4366 Fax: 510/286-1380
-------
7
-------
DESIGN OF ON-SITE WASTE CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS
FOR RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION
by
R. Jeffrey Dunn and Harold A. Tuchfeld
GeoSyntec Consultants
1600 Riviera Avenue, Suite 420
Walnut Creek, California 945%
Phone (510)943-3034 Fax: (510)943-2366
On-site waste containment systems have attracted increased interest among regulators and
the private sector for potential management of on-site contaminant sources at sites regulated
under RCRA, CERCLA, and state regulations This interest has been heightened by the potential
of on-site containment systems to be both environmentally protective and cost effective at certain
sites, and by greater use of risk-based decisions for corrective action (especially for areas where
there will be future industrial or open space use)
This presentation focuses on the design and construction of on-site systems for buried or
excavated waste for use in RCRA interim stabilization measures and RCRA final corrective
measures Methods discussed include 1) in-situ containment of buried waste, such as capping and
subsurface barriers (including slurry walls), and 2) development of new on-site containment cells
for excavated solid and hazardous waste or impacted soil The goal of the presentation is to
provide private sector environmental managers and regulatory oversight managers with
information that can be useful for deciding on the appropriateness of such on-site containment
strategies for particular situations, and for the logistical planning, scheduling, cost estimating, and
implementation of on-site containment methods
An overview is provided of the various stages of a typical on-site containment project,
including the regulatory approval process, design, procurement, construction, operation, and
closure Information is provided on the design of single-liner and double-liner systems, leachate
collection systems, leak detection systems, final cover systems, and subsurface barriers Leachate
management is also discussed In addition, the use of innovative materials and designs that have
the potential for increased performance and cost savings are described The reliability and
longevity of modern engineered hazardous waste containment systems are also briefly discussed
j VmarketVepa doc
7-1
-------
This Page Intentionally Blank
-------
OVERVIEW OF GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
GeoSyntec Consultants (GeoSyntec) is a geoenviromnental consulting and engineering design firm with 250
personnel in seven offices in the United States (including Walnut Creek and Huntington Beach California offices
within EPA Region 9) and one office in France. GeoSyntec's technical staff includes engineers and scientists
with specialties in a broad array of technical disciplines. The firm has an active process in the areas of RCRA
corrective actions; RCRA TSD facility and closure design; CERCLA remedial investigations, feasibility studies.
remedial design, and removal orders; landfill design and closure; subsurface fate and transport modeling for nsk
assessment and remedial design; investigation and remediation at agricultural chemical and manufacturing
facilities, seismic design and evaluation of earth structures, geotechnical engineering, and construction
management and construction quality assurance (CQA).
The firm is recognized nationally as the technological leader in the design, construction, and closure of hazardous and
solid waste landfills, including application of subsurface barriers. GeoSyntec has completed over 500 landfill-related
projects for private and public sector clients GeoSyntec has also provided assistance to the EPA and state agencies
throughout the country (including the California Integrated Waste Management Board and California Regional Water
Quality Control Boards) in research, technical guidance document preparation, and training regarding landfill design
and closure
GeoSyntec has worked with the EPA in the evaluation of the performance of liner systems used at hazardous waste land
disposal facilities, and on the development of technical regulator}1 guidelines for the design and construction of double
liners and leak detection systems at these facilities GeoSyntec recently performed research for the U S Navj on the use
of subsurface barriers for containment source control at unlined Naw landfills
7-2
-------
This Page Intentionally Blank
-------
Outline of Presentation
• Functions of Systems
• Regulatory Drivers
• Factors Favoring Systems
• Components of Typical Systems
• Detailed Design
• Construction Quality Control/Assurance
• Contractor Procurement
• Typical Costs
• Opportunities/Cost Savings
• Case Studies
Functions of On-Site Disposal
and In-Situ Containment Systems
• Provide for safe, environmentally protective on-site disposal and in-
situ containment of wastes
• On-Sitc Disposal - Landfills
- Industrial wastes (ash, sludge, manufacturing waste)
- Hazardous wastes
- Contaminated soils and sludges
- Contaminated building debris
- Construction/demolition debris
• In-Situ Containment - Source Control
- Former disposal pits
- Subgrade building debris
- Contaminated soils and sludges
- Marsh Sediment
Functions of On-Site Disposal
and In-Situ Containment Systems (cont.)
• Disposal and containment systems are intended to protect the quality
of human health and the environment by preventing contaminant
migration across all major pathways, including
- Ground water
- Surface water
- Air
• This goal is achieved through the use of engineered s> stems
- Liquid and gas barrier layers
- Liquid and gas collection systems
Factors Favoring On-Site Disposal
and In-Situ Containment
• Source area contains wastes not amenable to treatment
- Mercury containing plastic clay soils
- PCBs containing co-contaminants (dioxins or lead)
- Contaminated sludges containing MSW and C/D debris
• Source area contains RCRA hazardous waste
- Remediation wastes become hazardous once removed from a CERCLA
Operable Unit or RCRA CAMU
- Off-site treatment and disposal cost for RCRA hazardous waste will
tv pically be very high
Nnlc Off-site Ireilmcnt and disposal coili for RCR A hazardous waste coiuiiling of toil, mixed iludge.
and debris mil depend on whether an LDR trealabilil) variance can be obtained under 40 CFR 5
268 44(i) USr.l'A is often predisposed lo provide variances for these materials 39 CFR 47986
stales, "It has been the Agenct'» experience thai contaminated soils are significantly different in their
liealahililv characteristics from the wastes that have hecn evaluated in establishing the BOA I"
standards, and thus, uill generally qiialifv for a Irealahililv variance under 40 l.TK 268 44(a)" .
-------
Factors Favoring On-Site Disposal
and In-Situ Containment (cont.)
Source area contains nonhazardous waste requiring significant
prctreatment prior to off-site disposal
- Dewatering/filler press/drying beds
- Ex-situ solidification
- Unique material handling issues (debris, Ihixotropic material, tarry waste)
Source area has waste identified by USEPA as being amenable to in-
situ containment or not treatable with current technology
- SACM Presumptive Remedies - m-situ containment for waste containing
MSW and CDW
- USEPA Technical Guidance - limitations on treatment technologies
Factors Favoring On-Site Disposal
and In-Situ Containment (cont.)
• Source area contains waste that is difficult or dangerous to excavate
- Source extends to significant depth
- Source is in a high water table zone with loose, permeable soil
- Source consists or sludges, muds, debris, etc , that are difficult to excavate
- Source contains volatile components that create health and safety or air
quality concerns if excavated
- Source contains dangerous waste such as air-reactive material
(phosphorus)
- Short-term risks associated with excavation and transport exceed long-
term management risk (requires nsk assessment and demonstration)
Note On-Site disposal and in-situ containment do not result in a reduction in
loxicitv or volume of waste
Factors Favoring On-Site Disposal
and In-Situ Containment (cont.)
• An analysis of the proposed remedy /corrective action demonstrates
acceptable nsk to human health and environment
- Source performance modeling (ground water, surface water, air)
- Risk assessment (human health, ecology)
- Assessment of remedy reliability and permanence
Note Achievable performance levels are as follows
(I1 On-site disposal facilities can obtain leachate collection efficiencies
of
— 95 to 99 9% (RCRA Subtitle D landfill)
— 99 to 99 99% (RCRA Subtitle C landfilM
(2) In-silu containment svstems can Ivpicallv achieve reductions in
source migration rates of 90 to 99%
Factors Favoring On-Site Disposal
and In-Situ Containment (cont.)
(ROM Construction Cost)
Institutional Controls
On-Site Disposal
In-Situ Containment
Off-Site Disposal (Nonhazardous)
- Without pretreatment
- With pretreatment
Off-Site Disposal (Subtitle C or TSCA)
- Pretreatment and disposal
- BDA1 treatment and disposal
$lto$5/yd'
$20 to $40/yd3
$10 to $250 /yd'
$15 to $50/yd'
$25 to $100/yd5
$150 to $200/yd3
$250 to $1,000/yd'
Note On-site disposal or in-situ containment options may have significant
O&M cost and long-term risk management implications Passive in-situ
containment options will tvpicallv be less costlv than on-sile disposal
options
-------
On-Site Disposal (Landfill)
System Components
Liner System
* Final Cover System
* Liquid/Gas Removal System
DISPOSAL FACILITY LEACHATE GENERATION
40OO
£ 3000
2500
Uf
£ 2000
0 '500
g inoo
a 50)
0
JUL 88
JA
PENNSYLVANIA LANDFILL
inn,.i.i.—.......
JUl B9
89
<\N
JUL-90
JUL-91
JUl 92
JAN-90
JUl 93
JAN-91 JAN-92 JAN-93 JAN-94
DATE
10
On-Site Disposal System Components:
Liner System
* Combination of one or more drainage layers and low-pernieabilitv
barrier layers (i.e., liners)
• Liners impede migration of liquid and gas out of the landfill
* Drainage layers control the build-up of hydraulic head on underlying
liners and convey liquids to sumps
LINER SYSTEM
(RCRA SUBTITLE D)
* A 3 1 E
h <03m i
u.o rn
IEACHATE
COUECIION SYSTEM
COMPOSITE
11
12
-------
LINER SYSTEM
(RCRA SUBTITLE C)
h < 0.3 m,
h <03 m ,
09m
I -i
, IEACHAIE
| COUECIION SYSTEM
GEOMEMBRANE
! TOP LINER
LEAKAGE DETECTIVE
SYSTEM
COMPOSIIE
BOTTOM LINER
13
On-Site Disposal System Components:
Final Cover System
• Combination or one or more drainage layers and low-permeability
barrier layers (i.e., caps)
* Caps prevent water infiltration into, and gas migration from, on-site
disposal area
• Drainage layer above cap controls hydraulic head on cap and
minimizes downslope seepage forces in the cover soil
• Grass and topsoil layer is usually the topmost layer; function is to limit
erosion and promote surface-water runofT
14
FINAL COVER SYSTEM
(RCRA SUBTITLE D)
FINAL COVER SYSTEM
(RCRA SUBTITLE C|
0 15m /
0.45m
W***^lti??***^
i^*waiffl
I EROSION LAYER
COMPOSITE CAP
06m
0.3m
0.6m
VEGETATION/
SOILTOf LAYf»
WASTE
16
-------
On-Site Disposal System Components:
Liquid/Gas Removal Systems
* Liquid removal systems are used to remove collected Icachatc from
landfills: leachate is discharged to a storage tank (Tor subsequent
transport to an off-site treatment facility', near-site sewer line hookup,
or on-site treatment facility')
* Gas extraction systems are used to remove gas from landfills; gas is
either vented to atmosphere (usually with prctrcatment), flared, or
incinerated
17
LIQUID REMOVAL SYSTEM
assar
18
On-Site Disposal/ln-Situ Containment
Liquid Management Options
Hard pipe to existing sanitary' sewer line
- Only occasionally acceptable to local sewer authority
Not an option for CERCLA/RCRA facilities
Hard pipe to existing on-site wastewater treatment plant
Requires existing facility
- Often requires facility upgrades
- Often capacity constrained
Construct new on-site leachate treatment plant
- Cost range $500,000 to $2,000,000
Truck to industrial wastewater treatment plant
- Costs vary widely
- Regional industrial facility - $0.05 to $0 25/gallon
- RCRATSDF-$I 00/pallon
GAS RECOVERY SYSTEM
19
HDPEPI
b
COVf* FOUNDATION LAY»
lOHIADtl
CLAY IAOFIU
uNioNnt PIUG
Hon ixntAcnoH rm
COAUM AGGKCATE
souo
20
-------
In-Situ Containment System Components
• Final Cover Systems
Vertical Barriers
Ground-Water Interceptor Trenches or Extraction Wells
In-Situ Solidification/Stabilization
21
IN-SITU CONTAINMENT SYSTEM COMPONENTS
GHOUNO VtfUtR
t RIHAt IKW
COVfHSVSltM
SKHf ATE VWttR
CUNIHUt WICM
22
CO
In-Situ Containment System Components:
Final Cover System
• Combinalion of one or more drainage layers and low-permeability
barrier layers (i.e., caps)
• Cap prevents u atcr infiltration into surface or subsurface contaminant
source area
* Drainage layer above cap controls hydraulic head on cap and
minimizes downslope seepage forces in the cover soil
• Grass and (opsoil layer is usually the topmost layer: function is to limit
erosion and promote surface-water runoff
In-Situ Containment System Components:
Vertical Barrier
Low-permeability physical structure installed vertically into the
ground to provide a barrier to:
Upgradient flow of ground water toward a subsurface source area or
contaminant plane
- Downgradient migration of contaminated ground water from a surface or
subsurface source urea
Vertical barriers may be constructed of natural or synthetic materials
and used alone or in combination with other in-situ containment
components
23
24
-------
In-Situ Containment System Components:
Vertical Barrier (cont.)
Vertical barriers limit transport of ground water and/or specific
chemical contaminants beyond a designated boundary due to:
- Hydraulic gradient (advection)
- Chemical gradient (diffusion)
- Density gradient (density-driven migration)
Barriers may be designed to provide:
- Upgradient control
- Downgradient control
- Complete containment
Barriers may be designed to be:
- Fully penetrating
- Partially penetrating
25
FULLY-PENETRATING
VERTICAL BARRIER
PARTAULY-PENETRATINO
VERTICAL BARRIER
I I
26
UPGRADIENT VERTICAL BARRIER
DOWNGRADIENT VERTICAL BARRIER
Summary of Key Vertical Barrier Attributes
* Soil-Bentonite Cutoff Wall
Least expensive, reliable, versatile
Provides low to moderate permeability barrier
• Potential issues related to air emissions and contaminated soil disposal
Requires horizontal ground and significant ROW
Potential negative ground stability impacts
* Polymeric Membrane Wall
Moderate cost
• Essentially impermeable
- Same limitations of soil-bentonite wall
27
28
-------
Summary of Key Vertical Barrier Attributes
(cont.)
• Vibrating Beam Wall
- Low to moderate cost and permeability
- Cannot penetrate stiff soils and bedrock
- Produces thin wall with potential for defects
- Does not require soil excavation, little ROW needed
• Sheetpile Wall
- Moderate to high cost
- Very low permeability with special seals
- Can withstand hard driving
- Does not require soil excavation, little ROW needed
- Can improve foundation shear strength
Note: Older barrier rypei include cemenl-benlonile ilurry wills, deep soil mixing, jel grouting, >nd
"enhanced" barrier lyilemi. 29
Summary of Soil-Bentonite
Slurry Cutoff Wall Characteristics
CrNarto
Effecllvcaett
Reliability
n.r.blllty
Rtkml CkMvctarMki
Low hyoraalic oond.cbvuy (typically ID4la 10 'cm/.) Mo
inherent aooaeictunie capacity "nil AicUw aarUy oontrotlod Aii.pri*g conlractinii to
hindk ncnild m.tmil uU mil b«ckfill Opoil tmck toi^lk In lin.™ drp* fM«n4
io* •qwpntMl mdily •vmiUM*
F»»lroamml.t iMp.clf
pied
EicOTted material may be contaminated Soil djatarkaaca may rattan VOCl.
| Worker, mmt kandle potentially cottantiittled eicanled meleriaj Vary me.iy comtraclion .it.
i Reduced tenth rabihty pnoi to backfill Imported bicUII Mil may be nepirad
SS Mlllf* voitinl .
-------
Summary of Vibrating Beam
Cutoff Wall Characteristics
CiMtrti
EfltcltomtM
R.IUfclllrr
D"W"*
Implement ability
CnvtrvH mental Impacti
C»nrtrwi1k>n RrUlrd Impart*
Cert
Kttrv ••! r ha r art r. IHItt
Low hydraulic conductivity (typically 10* to 10* em's) Use of specially designed backfill
materials possible Wall thickness not controllable Not recommended for penetration of
medium to stiff clays, glacial tills, or bedrock
Extensive experience and good results reported Tor tetpage cutoff, but applicability for hazardous
waste containment not conclusive Defects in wall and key to aqiddude not easy to detect
Construction quality assurance difficult
Could be very sensitive lo hydraulic fracturing Small wall thickness makes ibility to withstand
detrimental contaminant effects suspect NAPLsmiy quickly degrade thin wall section
Easy lo construct in loose granular toils Cannot bt constructed in firm «rtils or where cobbles or
boulders are prevalent Requires minimal space lo construct Applicable in restricted access
situations in areas with sloping terrain
Lowest environmental impact because no contaminated soil is removed
Low potential for worker exposure
t7 lot! 5 per vertical square Toot of wall
33
VIBRATING BEAM WALL
t-
f_
fl
n
DMtCTKW Of NStAlLAIKM
VHPRC.F «!€•!»
SLURRY OMMMf
VIBRATING BEAM WALL
DttECTONOF M3TM.LATWN
..m...
34
Summary of Geomembrane
Cutoff Wall Characteristics
Summary of Mixed Soil
Cutoff Wall Characteristics
Crtttrta
CffecilvcHtii
Rrllabllll)
DarahltNy
Implrnmlflbllliy
T.m\ Iran m e*ial l« pads
CoMilrucllaa-Rclaltd ImpBcIt
Rckvinl * 'h.r •( If r In!* i
Entirmely low hydraulic conductivity (iboot 10 '' cm')) \ rrv thin will ihicknm NcftligiMc
attenuatioa capacity a* complied to culotTwalli with *mlf Adaptable to only a limited range of
hydrogfolofic letting*
Newer technology with limited performance hulory Harner continuity ti obtained with jointa.
and key into underlying a^uicloda Conitruction quality aaturance of matenala 11 excellent
Construction quality umrance of inilallabon 11 difTicull
HDPE h«i tKcellenl durability charactcnXici Hue to thmnoi. durantlitx it a concern in Ihe
prM«ncrofNAPL« Componte (HOPE and ml henlnmle) »alli are p->pnMe
Haa been matalled in looat graimlar icila lo moderate depths uung pile dnvmg frame Can be
initdlcd ia •lurry trvnch lo gr«il«t depthi Applicable lo ilopiRg terrain Initalled ai conbnunui
• ktet Tor very ihatlow depth* ChemiCll compmihilrn l*»ting between iralanl and contaminant
required before nae
Dependent on mttallihon method
Dependent on installation method
I $8 to J25 p« verlicaJ vquare fool of wall, not inchidmn off tile dupntal nf any contaminated coil
CriUria
Cffeclheattt
RellabNIly
l)-r.bfltly
iMplcmeaUblllly
f,m\ Iron mental Impacts
CaMilrvctleii-Relalfd Impact!
Coil
R.kvaat Cbaractariatfca
Moderate hydraalic eoadwrtivity (typically 10 ' to 10 ' ctn/i) Wall (hicknaap aomawhat
controllaMa AdaptaMa to meat hydrogcologic eatiina;* axe«pl bo«ld«t ion*
Baaed on familiw coRatnetiMi techniqav, almoagh r*q«ir«a apactal aogcra. Litda available
pnformaiic* data Defada in wall not awy to detect- CoMtrvctjoii quality aaemrvca difficvlt
Qvanbbe* of betilomtetM tUrry limited Durability dependent on alvny and aoil type
Relatively clean ptoceM Soil mixed in ntu Doea aot create open excavation Require* clear
overhead ipacc Applicable in rcttncted acceai •ihiBtaom and in wew with •loping terrain
Small volume of cuceet malarial may be contaminated
Low potential for worker expoanre
5" lo SI 5 per vertical iqaare Toot of wall To«i could eacaJatc if off vile diapotal of contaminated
•oil if required
35
36
-------
Summary of Sheet Pile
Cutoff Wall Characteristics
• £":!!!.*
! Eirtrthtntii
i — ..............
,.......«.........-•«».
Dmbintj
:
: Enlrrauntil Inpirti
' Craftrarlbn-RriMid Im
RrkTMrt ChmctrtMIn
WilhKilRljanliindioodkeyMiqiicluk.nrylDwtnilkhrikiuIiccondiKlivilydlwil 10 lo
10* cart) Adipublc lo muiy hydiogeolofic leranp except tort md bouldeii
Hopeifommicehulory BuneiconlmulytuindwithKilcdjnnl•"<_!»££.!VJ£!•*
Veiy h|h fa moil camunininli Joint mitenil mint be coraMkred in presence oTNAPLi
Very tunhtt contraction technology Applicable ID jlopinj lemm Chemicil cotnpmhiliiy
tnlmt between teilinl ind conumintnti icquied before me
UBte emiiuninentil icnptrt
Lowpotenbil Tot worker expowc
IJ5 to ISO pel vertrcil Hpiire fort
37
Enhanced Vertical Barriers
Organically-modified clays (organoclays) — bentonite cation
substitution by organic molecules that reduce the hydrophilic nature of
the bentonite and improve the ability of the benlonite to absorb
specific organic molecules
- Quaternary amines
- Tetramethylamonium
- Surfactant cations
Activated carbon — granular activated carbon (2 percent by weight)
is added to the soil-bentonite mixture to enhance the potential to retard
specific organic molecules
Flyash — fly ash is added to the soil-bentonite mixture
Funnel and Gate — combination of vertical barrier and permeable
treatment wall 39
In-Situ Containment System Components:
Ground-Water Interceptor Trenches or Extraction Wells
• Subsurface interceptors (sand or gravel Tilled trenches or pumping
wells) for the control and/or collection of.
- Contaminated ground water migrating from a surface or subsurface source
area
- Upgrodient ground water flowing toward a subsurface source area or
contaminant plume
4 Extraction wells for the lowering of ground-water wells within an area
cutoff from surrounding ground water b\ a vertical barrier
• For in-situ containment applications, these components are typically
used in conjunction with final cover systems and/or vertical barriers
In-Situ Containment System Components:
In-Situ Solidification/Stabilization
Mixing, blending, or injection of physical/chemical additives to:
- Reduce contaminant mobility or solubility
- Improve the handling, physical, and hydraulic characteristics of a waste
- Decrease the exposed surface area across which transfer or loss of
contaminants may occur
Solidification refers to the process in which materials are added to a
waste to produce a solid
Stabilization refers to converting a waste to a more chemically stable
form
40
-------
In-Situ Solidification/Stabilization
Construction Techniques
Backhoe with shovels (< 15 ft)
Widely available equipment
- Solidifying agent (cement, flyash placed dry or in grout/slurry form) must
be applied separately
- Typically used when only handling/strength improvements needed
Backhoe with rotary tiller (< 15 ft)
— Specialty equipment
Hydraulic system injects grout/slurry at tiller
- Better mixing/blending than with shovel
41
In-Situ Solidification/Stabilization
Construction Techniques (cont.)
* Crane with single flight auger (< 20 ft)
Widely available, conventional auger
- Specialty auger has built-in hydraulic or pneumatic system
- Auger can work under a removal hood
- Large diameter auger (5 to 10 ft)
Crane with multiple flight augers (< 50 ft)
- Specialty equipment
- Hydraulic or pneumatic system injects grout/slurry
- Smaller diameter augers (2 to 3 ft)
42
In-Situ Solidification/Stabilization
Construction Techniques (cont.)
Jet grouting (>50 ft)
• Greater depths possible
F:ffcctiveness dependent on soil type
• Good for solidifying isolated zones
- Verification difficult
Note: All systems except backhoe and shovel require reagent delivery
systems such as a grout plant or air compressor system.
SSM MIXING PATTERN
43
-------
DEEP SOIL MIXING (DSM)
Jrd
A B C D
riltl
A B C D
2nd
DSM
AUGERS
l I l I
IN-SITU
SOLIDIFICATION / STABILIZATION
45
IN SITU
SOLIDIFICATION / STABILIZATION
IN-SITU
SOLIDIFICATION / STABILIZATION
-------
8
-------
Q A SUCCESSFUL REMEDIATION OF METALS
CONTAMINATED SOIL:
A CASE STUDY
Theodore R. Johnson, III
Karen T. Baker
Mohinder S. Sandhu
Facility Permitting Branch
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Q SUCCESSFUL REMEDIATION PROJECT OVERVIEW
• Effective Coordination Among Remediation Team
• Established Fee for Service Agreement between DTSC and
Square D Company
• Streamlined the Corrective Action Process
• Reduced Costs
• Protect Human Health and the Environment
Q BACKGROUND
• Site Location: Square D Company Beaumont, California
• Description of Site
• Geology
• Land Use
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
• Remediate Square D Company Site in order to:
• Protect Human Health and the Environment
• Return Land Quickly to Beneficial Use
• Reduce Costs to Save Time and Money
REMEDIATION TEAM
• Members Consist of Square D Company, DTSC and the Public
• Coordinate Work Schedule
• Agree Upon Site Cleanup Goals
• Provide Real Time Oversight
• Streamline Report Approval Process
8-1
-------
6
10
PROJECT SCHEDULE
4/94: Fee for Service Agreement
5-7/94: RFI Phase I Completed
8-9/94: RFI Phase I I/CMS Approval
9/94-1/95:lnitial Risk Assessment
9/94-3/96: Public Participation
1/95-3/96: CMI Completed
3/96: Corrective Action Terminated
Q CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN
• Antimony
• Arsenic
• Barium
• Beryllium
• Cadmium
• Total Chromium
Q CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN
• Hexavalent Chromium
• Copper
• Lead
• Mercury
• Zinc
Q HEALTH RISK-BASED CLEANUP LEVELS
D RCRA FACILITY ASSESSMENT
• 39 Solid Waste Management Units:
• 1 Area of Concern (Main Plant Building)
• 9 Regulated Units in Post Closure Permit:
• Surface Impoundments
8-2
-------
11
12
13
14
15
Q RCRA FACILITY INVESTIGATIONS (RFI)
B RFIs Performed in 1990,1992,1993,1994 and 1995
• Identified 16 Areas of Concern
• Parcels 1 and 2
• Collected Baseline Data to Set Health Risk Based Cleanup
Goals
• Established Areas Require Corrective Measures
Q CORRECTIVE MEASURES STUDY
• Established Efficient Remedial Method
• Reduced Costs and Labor
• Streamlined Process
• Combined RFI Phase II with Corrective Measures Study
Q CORRECTIVE MEASURES STUDY
• Record Deed Restriction
• Parcel 1 only
• Prepare Fact Sheet on Remediation
3 PUBLIC PARTICD7ATION ACTIVITIES
• Prepared CEQA Initial Study and Negative Declaration
• Sent Out Public Notice for Corrective Measures Study
• Prepared Response to Public Comments
D CORRECTIVE MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION
• Remedial Design Implemented 1/95
• Used XRF to Screen Soil Samples
• Verify Attainment of Cleanup Goals by Conventional Sampling
and Analysis
• Stored Remediation Wastes on Parcel 1
• Stabilized Soil On-Site, If Necessary
• Land Disposal of Wastes
• Backfill and Cap Excavations
8-3
-------
16
17
Q CONCLUSIONS
• SQUARE D COMPANY SITE WAS SUCCESSFULLY
REMEDIATED TO CLEANUP CONTAMINATED SOIL
• Effective Team Coordination
• Streamlined Corrective Action Process and Resport Approval
• Established Site Cleanup Goals Early
• Reduced Costs and Labor
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE
PROJECTS
• Established Site Cleanup Goals Early
• Use Appropriate Method for Onsite Screening
• Establish Team for More Efficient Coordination
• Combine Remediation Steps, If Feasible
8-4
-------
RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION:
A CASE STUDY
A SUCCESSFUL REMEDIATION OF METALS CONTAMINATED SOIL AT
SQUARE D COMPANY, BEAUMONT, CALIFORNIA
By Theodore R Johnson m, Karen Baker and Mohinder Sandhu
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Presented at the U. S. EPA Region 9 RCRA Collective Action Conference
March 26-28, 1996
Executive Summary
The Square D Company ceased manufacturing operations at their Beaumont,
California facility in 1989. Several phases of site characterization were undertaken to
delineate the horizontal and vertical extent of heavy metals contamination at the
facility. The facility elected to enter into the Fee For Service (FFS) program offered
by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) as a means of expediting
remediation of the facility. Collaborative efforts were utilized to address issues
dealing with scheduling, cleanup goals, regulatory requirements, field oversight, and
site characterization. The success of this corrective action project hinged on the
facility and DTSC acting as a team, working to achieve a mutual goal of returning the
Square D Company's property to beneficial use in a timely and cost effective manner
while protecting human health and the environment. This team approach accelerated
the environmental cleanup process and resulted in an economically feasible and
environmentally responsible remediation.
1.0 Corrective Action Program Objectives
One of the key objectives of California's corrective action program is to
accelerate environmental restoration by utilizing a streamlined and proactive team
approach. The intent of the program is to identify releases or potential releases of
hazardous waste or constituents requiring investigation. Once the release has been
identified, the corrective action program provides guidance to evaluate the nature and
extent of releases and identify, develop, and implement appropriate corrective
measures to remediate the identified releases.
-------
2.0 Introduction
2.1 Site Background
Square D Company, formerly Yates Industries, Inc., is located approximately
70 miles east of the City of Los Angeles, in Beaumont, California (Figure 1). The
site consists of three contiguous parcels (designated as Parcels 1, 2 and 3) collectively
comprising 42.6 acres. The facility is underlain by alluvial deposits composed of
interbedded sands, clayey sands, silts, clayey .silts and clays. The uppermost aquifer
below the facility is at depths ranging from 160 to 223 feet below ground surface.
The facility operations involved manufactured copper foil sheets for the printed
circuit board industry. The facility began operations in 1970 and ceased copper foil
production in 1989 due to economic infeasibility.
Before entering into the FFS program, Square D Company conducted four site
investigations on Parcels 1 and 2 between 1990 and 1994. The facility entered into
the FFS program in April 1994. Corrective measures implementation began in January
1995 and concluded in March 1996.
2.2 Parcel 1
Parcel 1 occupies nine acres and includes the former manufacturing and
operational areas of the facility (Figure 2). The manufacturing process involved
dissolving recycled and scrap copper metal in sulfuric acid and depositing the copper
in thin sheets on drums in electroplating baths. The resulting copper sheets were used
by the electronics industry for printed circuit board production.
Wastes generated by this process included spent solvents and plating solutions,
waste machine oil, contaminated rinse waters, filters, and sludges containing heavy
metals (antimony, arsenic, banum, cadmium, chromium, hexavalent chromium, copper,
lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc). Various waste treatment operations were utilized
including reverse osmosis, filtration, chemical precipitation, and evaporation process
(surface impoundments) to concentrate liquid waste sludge and reclaim rinse water and
metals. Early operations at the facility included on-site direct land application of
process wastes.
Currently, there is one regulated unit on Parcel 1, designated as the North Post
Closure Area (NPCA) (Figure 2). The NPCA was previously the site of the
evaporation ponds (surface impoundments) and an area used for direct land disposal of
wastes. The NPCA was certified as closed with waste in place in May 1988. The
facility completed the Post Closure Permit Application in June 1995. DTSC is
currently drafting the post closure permit.
-------
23 Parcel 2
Parcel 2 is an undeveloped 6.67-acre parcel east of Pennsylvania Avenue
(Figure 2). No manufacturing activities occurred on Parcel 2, however the area was
used for the storage of scrap copper and equipment. Surface impoundment sludges
were found on Parcel 2 during site investigations conducted between 1992 and 1995.
Additionally, during the period 1937 to 1947, disposal of refuse occurred in the
Beaumont Channel, a dry wash bisecting the southern border of Parcel 2.
2.4 Parcel 3
Parcel 3 is an undeveloped 27-acre open area adjacent to the facility located
south of East 3rd Street (Figure 2). No known industrial activities have occurred on
Parcel 3. This area was not a part of the proposed corrective measures; however, the
site was utilized as a borrow site for the export of fill soil for Parcels 1 and 2 and is
one of the areas where the background soil samples were collected.
3.0 Corrective Action Process
3.1 Historical Site Investigation
The U.S. EPA conducted a RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA) of Parcel 1 in
1987 The RFA identified 39 Solid Waste Management Units (SWMUs) and one Area
of Concern (AOC). Subsequent site investigations conducted by the facility identified
releases of wastes (generated by the facility) on Parcels 1 and 2. DTSC's review of
the soil analytical data collected in the early investigations (1990 to 1994) indicated
that lateral and vertical extent of contamination was not well delineated and several
constituents of concern (COC), that are key health risk drivers, were not included in
the investigations.
Based on the RFA results and subsequent site investigations, the 39 SWMUs
and one AOC were screened down to 16 AOCs (15 on Parcel 1 and all of Parcel 2).
A RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) Phase I was conducted in order to determine the
extent of soils contamination at Parcel 1 and Parcel 2. Based on the findings of the
RFI Phase I, an additional soil investigation (RFI Phase II) and a health risk
assessment were conducted to delineate the extent of the contamination present and
assess the potential threat to human health and the environment. Site investigations
revealed that the AOCs were contaminated with arsenic, antimony, copper, chromium,
hexavalent chromium, lead, and zinc above background levels. On Parcel 2 and in the
Beaumont Channel, site investigations conducted from 1992 to 1995 identified metals,
including arsenic, cadmium, copper, chromium, lead and zinc at concentrations above
background levels.
Page 3
-------
The Phase I and Phase El RFIs resulted in implementation of corrective
measures for 15 AOCs on and adjacent to Parcel 1 and portions of Parcel 2.
3.2 Cleanup Goals
The facility initially proposed to clean up the site to background levels for
metals. Upon further study, the cost of cleanup to background levels was found to be
excessive. Therefore, the facility subsequently proposed health risk-based cleanup
goals derived from the California Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA)
guidance document. The PEA makes conservative assumptions for calculating the
health risk-based cleanup levels. During the implementation of the health risk-based
cleanup levels, it was determined that achieving these cleanup goals was also
infeasible in that certain soil background concentrations (arsenic, beryllium, thallium
and vanadium) were higher than the health risk-based cleanup goals. Thus, a
combination of the two approaches of health risk-based and background levels was
used to establish the cleanup goals for soil remediation.
In the last six months of the remediation, a site specific/constituent specific
health based risk assessment was conducted to provide alternate cleanup goals for
certain constituents (antimony, arsenic and hexavalent chromium) because the initial
cleanup goals for these constituents were too conservative and, therefore, economically
infeasible. The site specific/constituent specific cleanup levels provided the facility a
means of completing the remediation in a cost effective and environmentally
responsible manner.
Cleanup levels for Parcel 1 were established in consideration of the future land
use to be industrial. A risk management goal of 1 X 10"6 for a typical industrial
exposure scenario was used to set the cleanup levels for this parcel. However, for
Parcel 2, an unrestricted land use scenario was used, thus assuming a residential use
and a risk management goal of 1 X 10"6 was used to set the cleanup levels.
3.3 Proposed Corrective Measures
The corrective measure selected for Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 was excavation and
off-site disposal of impacted soil. Impacted soil was defined as soil with contaminant
concentrations in excess of the health risk-based cleanup levels or contaminant levels
that exceed naturally occurring background concentrations. Excavated soil from the
remediation was stockpiled on Parcel 1, profiled for RCRA metals, stabilized on-site
as required to meet Land Disposal Restrictions, and transported by rail to a permitted
non-RCRA landfill in Utah. The cost savings for disposal to the Utah landfill versus
disposal at the closest landfill in California was over $7 million.
Page 4
-------
3.4 Public Participation Activities
Interviews were held with community group leaders, legislative officials and
local regulatory agencies to gather the community's concerns for the proposed project.
In December 1994 and January 199S, DTSC issued public notices of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents, the Corrective Measures Study and
associated remedy selection. Comments received during the public comment period
resulted in three additional off-site AOCs. After reviewing the soil sample analyses,
one of the three additional AOCs required excavation.
Ten residential well owners responded during the public comment period with
concerns regarding the effects of the facility's past practices on the groundwater
pumped from their wells. DTSC met with the residential well owners and discussed
the area hydrogeology. The residential wells are located hydraulically upgradient in
relation to the facility and the water levels measured in the residential wells are
approximately ISO feet vertically higher than the water levels measured at the facility.
However, the facility, in a gesture of goodwill towards the community, tested all the
residential wells. The results of the groundwater sampling analyses showed that the
constituents present in the groundwater were at or below the levels which are
considered background for the facility.
3.5 Corrective Measures Implementation
Remediation work began at the facility in January 1995. Soil samples were
collected for on-site metals screening by a portable X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF)
instrument when excavated areas reached proposed depths. If the XRF analysis
indicated residual soil contamination, additional excavation was performed If the
XRF analysis indicated that the soil concentrations of the COC were equal to or less
than the cleanup goals, conventional confirmatory soil samples were collected. If
confirmation sample analyses indicated residual soil contamination above the cleanup
goals, the contaminated area was excavated until the cleanup goals were attained
Approximately 10 percent of the samples collected were duplicated for quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC) purposes All confirmation and QA/QC samples
were sent to an off-site laboratory certified by the Environmental Laboratory
Accreditation Program.
Page 5
-------
4.0 General Issues Related to the Conective Action Process
4.1 Chronology of the site investigations:
4.1.1 Prior to DTSC oversight
1987 U.S. EPA conducted a RCRA Facility Assessment
1990 Facility conducted Site Characterization on Parcel 1
1992 Facility conducted Site Characterization on Parcel 2
1993 Facility conducted Additional Site Characterization and
Pilot Study on Parcel 2
1993 to 1994 DTSC reviewed previous site characterizations
1994 Facility conducted RFI Phase I (Parcels 1 and 2)
1994 DTSC compiled an additional list of AOCs and COC list
4.1.2 Under DTSC oversight
1994 Facility entered into FFS program, giving the corrective action
project a priority status.
1994 to 199S RFI Phase I Report (Parcels 1 and 2) and RFI Phase II (Parcels
1 and 2)
In April 1994, the facility proceeded with the RFI Phase I. However,
the RFI Phase I Report on Parcel 1 did not include the additional AOCs and a
complete list of COCs because the facility's investigation was completed prior
to the compilation of DTSC's lists. The COC list was of particular concern to
DTSC because the soil analyses to date excluded COC which were the mam
risk drivers for the health risk assessment, such as arsenic and hexavalent
chromium. To investigate the additional AOCs and collect soil samples with
the complete COC list, a RFI Phase n was initiated.
4.2 Combining corrective action steps
In lieu of requiring the facility to complete a separate RFI Phase II for
Parcels 1 and 2, DTSC suggested that the facility combine the RFI Phase II
workplan with the Corrective Measures Study submittal and initiate the
additional characterization concurrently with the corrective measures
implementation. In effect, any additional areas requiring removal of soil could
be combined with the existing areas scheduled for soil removal, thus
eliminating duplication of cost for equipment and mobilization.
Consolidation of these tasks reduced preparation and review time of workplans
and reports resulting in a savings of over eight months of overall schedule
time.
Page 6
-------
43 Additional characterization versus excavation
To avoid additional costs during the investigative stage of corrective
action, the facility and DTSC concurred that characterization in the known
contaminated areas was sufficient to initiate excavation, with the understanding
that additional characterization, outside planned excavation areas on Parcel 1
and Parcel 2, would be undertaken concurrently.
Approximately ten (10) times the amount of soil was removed from
Parcels 1 and 2 than originally estimated.
4.4 Project coordination and oversight
The facility and DTSC engaged in a series of meetings to discuss the
protocol, processes, procedures and scheduling for the project. The agreement
reached between DTSC and the facility ensured that workplans and reports
were submitted and reviewed in a timely manner and that the concerns of all
panics involved were addressed. This resulted in a savings of over six (6)
months of overall schedule time.
The FFS process required scheduling and budgeting for the various
phases of corrective action. The facility requested ihe corrective action process
be accelerated to accommodate a schedule regarding a real estate transaction
involving Parcel 1. DTSC assigned a project manager as the point of contact
through whom all correspondence and transactions would be processed. The
project manager was also responsible for the day-to-day oversight of field
operations and accountable for project costs. This ensured efficient
communication between the facility and DTSC; it also expedited decisions
regarding excavations, stockpile management, regulatory requirements, and soil
screening and confirmation sampling strategies.
Additionally, the presence of the DTSC project manager on-site
facilitated rapid response to the community's concerns and created open
communications between the community, DTSC and the facility.
4.5 Regulatory issues
4.5.1 Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs)
The Corrective Action Implementation Workplans for Parcels 1 and 2
stated that the stockpiles would be placed on visqueen sheeting to prevent
contamination of the underlying subgrade. The use of visqueen was not
practicable because it was easily damaged by extensive heavy equipment traffic
during stockpiling; and, therefore, was not used.
Page 7
-------
Heavy equipment used for stockpiling operations breached the asphalt/base
layer adjacent to and below .the stockpiles.
The loading of soil onto rail cars could not be accomplished from Parcel
2 as approved by DTSC in the CMI Workplan due to railroad regulation
restrictions. Excavated soil from Parcel 2 was transported to Parcel 1 and
placed in stockpiles in the parking area adjacent to and behind the Main Plant
Building (Figure 2).
The placement of contaminated soil from Parcel 2 to Parcel 1 resulted
in violation of the LDR regulations. To mitigate the spread of contamination
from Parcel 2 to Parcel 1, in the areas where stockpiles were placed, DTSC
requested that the asphalt, base material and underlying soil be excavated after
removal of stockpiles and confirmation soil samples collected. DTSC
determined that to stop the transfer of soil from Parcel 2 to Parcel 1 would
result in costly delays in the remediation as well as create an impracticable
situation for the disposal of soil off-site by train. DTSC requested the facility
to remove the soil as soon as possible and to adhere to mitigating measures
(visqueen-covered stockpiles and a covered route from Parcel 2 to Parcel 1) to
prevent a release of contaminated soil excavated from Parcel 2.
4.5.2 Deed Restriction
Since the facility used industrial health risk-based cleanup levels for
Parcel 1, a deed restriction was required to limit the future site use to
industrial. In addition to a deed restriction, federal and state laws and
regulations require future site owners and occupants to manage any hazardous
materials that may be generated during excavations for modification of the
buildings or the areas surrounding the buildings.
It was acknowledged by both DTSC and the facility during the early
stages of the project that a deed restriction would be required. DTSC presented
the standard deed restriction language (pursuant to DTSC Management Memo
87-14), to which the facility had several objections. The negotiation process
took approximately three (3) months.
5.0 Observations and Recommendations
Open and frequent communication between the facility and DTSC was
paramount in the success of this corrective action project. Creating project schedules
and goals prior to corrective action implementation established clear direction for the
corrective action process. A combination of project management decisions enabled the
facility and DTSC to complete this corrective action in an economically feasible, time
effective and environmentally responsible manner.
Page 8
-------
Some of these project management decisions were:
1. Combining corrective action steps such as RFI Phase II during
excavation. This resulted in a savings of approximately eight months in
overall schedule time.
2. Utilizing meetings, including teleconference calls, to establish a mutual
understanding of concepts, processes and problems.
3. Streamlining report submittal and revision process. Draft reports were
submitted and deficiencies were addressed through meetings and/or
teleconference calls. Final reports incorporated the agreed upon changes
resulting in reduced approval time for submitted reports.
4. Providing frequent real time oversight in the field.
Some lessons that were learned during this project which may provide
additional economic and time savings on future projects are as follows:
1. Establish site specific cleanup goals early in the project. As soon as
chemical compounds have been speciated, a Health Risk Assessment
(HRA) should be completed. Also, a theoretical model of the various
disposal scenarios should be developed. The modeling process coupled
with the HRA can lead to the selection of the most feasible and
economic alternative while detailed site characterization is in progress.
2. If deed restrictions are anticipated, DTSC and the facility should start
negotiating the documents mechanism and language early during the
corrective action process.
3 Acceptable on-site screening of soil can be cost effective and expedite
site restoration.
4 During the initial planning stages, the facility and the applicable
regulating agencies should agree on the corrective measures
implementation designs to mitigate any possible regulatory violations
The ultimate success of this project hinged on the regulated community (Square
D Company) and the regulating agency (DTSC) working together to return the
facility's property to a useful status while protecting human health and the
environment
The duration of the corrective action project was two years (April 1994 to
March 1996) The property will be ready for reuse, in March 1996.
Page 9
-------
FACILITY
^i:£^VJ
1/2
N
Scale in miles
FACILITY LOCATION MAP
SQUARE D COMPANY
1060 EAST 3RD STREET
BEAUMONT, CALIFORNIA
For Square 0 Company
REFERENCE: USGS 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Map, •Beaumont. Calif."
Quadrangle, Photorevised 1988.
DRAFT
Dames & Moore
FIGURE 1
-------
TW BUILDING
j
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
•
i
i
""-•• L
•
OfM^^XJ I
CLOSURE 1
AREA j , —
|T_i__j__
Transtofn
i
1
i
i
1
NORTH 1
BrtOT—T'l <~»OI IDC '
rUbl— GLUoUrlt i
AREA J
1 '
i
j
/ — Power
/ Building
L_J
-,J |
-J ' J BUILDING
1 ~~\ --•..,
~~ ^ — Tank Farm
1
MAIN
PLANT
BUILDIN'3
i
\
K 'n
i 1
East 3rd Street
'azardous
Waste
Building
Explanation:
Post Closure Area
PARCEL 3
(27 Acres)
PARCEL 1
(9 Acres)
A
PARCEL 2
(6.7 Acres)
SITE FACILITY MAP
SQUARE D COMPANY
1060 EAST 3RD STREET
BEAUMONT. CALIFORNIA
For Square 0 Company
-------
This Page Intentionally Blank
-------
9
-------
VADOSE ZONE
CONTAMINANT TRANSPORT
Ronald C. Sims
Environmental Engineering Division
Utah State University
Logan, Utah 84322-4110
(801) 797-2926
sims@lab.cee.usu.edu
MISUNDERSTOOD WORLD OF
UNSATURATED FLOW
STORAGE IN THE VADOSE ZONE
LIQUID FLOW IN THE VADOSE ZONE
CHEMICAL MOBILITY IN THE
VADOSE ZONE
9-1
-------
METHODOLOGY FOR INTEGRATING SITE
CHARACTERIZATION WITH SUBSURFACE REMEDIATION
Characterization
Site
i
Soil
1
1
Uaste 1
1
1
uisirioution
Reaction
Migration/Escape
Exposure
/
\
\
/
\ reaimeni
Technique
Evaluation &
Selection
N
/
Treatment
Measurement
Problem Definition
Treatment (train')
Monitoring
9-2
-------
VADOSE ZONE
Vadosus = shallow
Vadere = walk or wade
Therefore:
slow movement at a shallow depth
"When water moves into relatively
dry, unsaturated sediment, it is only
slightly affected by gravitation."
co rujuct it in the
unsaturated zone depends upon the
amount of water residing at any one
time in that material.
9-3
-------
The Misunderstood World of Unsaturated Flow
by Jay H. Lehr
For decades, farmers made critical errors in the estab-
lishment of drainage systems to maintain proper soil*
moisture levels in the root-zones of their crops. These
errors were the result of misunderstanding flow in the
unsaturated zone, by confusing it with saturated flow.
Results were as radically out of phase as those expe-
rienced when people favorably compared the nature of
surface water flow with ground water flow. In spite of
widespread beliefs, we have fev underground streams
bubbling turbulently along as they do on the surface, and
contrary to accepted physical precepts, highly permeable
conduits will not normally conduct moisture rapidly
through the unsaturated zone.
Perhaps for ground water scientists following in the
erroneous paths of misguided soil physicists and agricul-
tural engineers, the problem has been exacerbated by the
ill-chosen but popular appelation, "vadose zone." True
enough, the Latin roots "Vadosus" meaning shallow and
"vadere- meaning to walk or wade infer slow movement
at a shallow depth. Bui as Latin has fallen out of our
common, intellectual framework, obvious terms '•un-
saturated zone" or even "zone of aeration" would create
less confusion.
We all recognize that ground water flow—when gov-
erned by Darcy's century-old, physical law—allows pre-
cise description. Here, potential energy is efficiently util-
ized in overcoming frictional resistance and creating the
kinetic energy of movement. Surface water flow, on the
other hand, defies accurate prediction because of random
energy loss produced by turbulence. Many of us still do
not clearly understand the equally distinct variations that
make Darcian flow dramatically different from unsatu-
rated flow.
The variations occurring between surface and ground
water flow result from dramatic velocity variations, while
the differences between unsaturated and saturated flow
result from very different variables that conirol permea-
bility. Many of the articles in this issue, and countless
others thai have preceded them, offer ground water
scientists and engineers insight into how we can monitor
flow in the unsaturated or?vadose"zone.aswell as a hint
of what that data may mean in terms of the movement of
4 Spring 1988 CW.MR
contaminants in and through that zone and ultimately to I
the water table below. But as I convene with colleagues I
across this country and abroad, I am amazed at how few
truly understand the basic physics that make this inter-
iatg Tone of fluiq
r801C8l]Vfli|jejCIll
from thg familiar arena of saturated flow. If you arc not
among my misinformed, uninformed or apathetic friends
in our rapidly expanding scientific community, you may
find this editorial sophomoric, simplistic or even insult-
ing. If you suspect that your intellectual acuity on this
subject needs no additional stimulus, by all means skip
ahead to the far more sophisticated contributions th»f
follow. But if I have piqued your curiosity, follow me {
we shrink ourselves to the size of water drops and imagi;
our way through the misunderstood world of unsaturated
flow.
Let us first define our boundaries in accordance with
the oft-forgotten father of ground water hydrology,
Oscar E. Meinzer whose classic 1923 USGS Water
Supply Papers 489 and 404. divided the vadose zone into*
three belts. The uppermost belt "consists of soil and other
materials that lie near enough to the surface 10 discharge;
water into the atmosphere in perceptible Quantities by
the action of plants or bv soil evaporation and convee-
tion." The lowest belt, which we know as the capillary
_£nnaL.is "the belt immediately above the water table that
contains water drawn up from the zone of saturation by
capillary action." Meinzer then defined the primary target
of this monologue as the intermediate belt, which simp[v
"lies between the belt nf
-------
/to
ues
ew
er-
cm
101
ids
lay
jli-
his
dp
ut
as
me
media, may not be necessary for many of our engineering
purposes.
' Movement in the unsaturated zone is primarily a
function of negative forces built up by conditions found
not to be in equilibrium. The negative or suction forces
called capillary f°""" *nA
hesion—the attraction of unlike molecules (i.e.. water to
rock panicles) and cohesion—which is the attraction of
like molecules such as water to water.
The strength ol both cohesion and adhesion in water
i% due chiefly to hydrogen bonding as a result of the
hydrogen and oxygen attachment unsymmetrically sur-
rounded by electrons, so that there is a separation of
k%harj.'e or polar character. If other molecules with non-
hind..%• electrons are present, there is a tendency for
hydr-jjen to increase the symmetry of its surroundings
by approaching a pair of electrons in line with its chemical
bond to oxygen.
When water-moves into relatively dry. unsaturated
rock or sediment, it is only slightly affected by gravitation
«nd will move horizontally as well as downward. Adhe-
sive and cohesive forces are responsible for this movement
against the force of gravity. The pressure in the water is
Uc* than the pressure of the atmosphere, and the water is
si\d to be under tension. As the sediment becomes wetter
and wetter, however, gravity does play a stronger role
pores exists under tension, as is usually the case, such
materials stop or materially retard water flow. Thus.
efforts bv farmer* to drain unsaturated sedim^n.c fry
construction of coarse media drains have had the rgv
.and the volume of potential flow-paths increase thereby
Increasing hsdraulic conducti vity.
Water is held in small pores by large adhesive and
.ihesivc forces as a result of greater surface area of
.•diment per cubic inch of earth material These small
ores are like those in blotting paper used to soak up ink
r paper towels used to soak up whatever liquid you
pilled. Larger pores cannot hold water at tensions that
. exist in smaller pores, so water does not move readily
from fine to coarse material.
As finer material becomes very wet. water will even-
tually move from it to coarser material in contact with it
much as coffee will leak from a soaked paper towel.
Coarse material, layered below fine material in an unsat-
urated zone, will act like a check-valve, holding water
back until the finer material above it becomes very wet,
then allowing the excess flow to pass through.
The unsaturated zone may include ponions that are.
in fact, totally saturated as a result of being perched
above an impermeable segment of rock orclay-like mate-
rial which, in turn, mav overlie an exceptionally drv area
sheltered by the perching matenal.
Although fine sediment hinders downward movement
of water, it does absorb water readily. Perched water
jables are built up over fine materials not because of
water's inability to enter them, but as a result of slow
^transmission through them. The extent to which down-
ward flow is restricted and water storage is altered
depends on the fineness of the pores and the thickness of
the restricting layer.
Porous materials with very large pores in the unsatu-
ted 7one aid in water movement only under conditions
icre there is contact with free water or water under
.•ositive or atmospheric pressure. Where water in these
effect: in fact, creating barriers to flow. Similarly, ground
water scientists who can correctly predict the movement
of contaminant plumes into more highly permeable
members of underlying formations below the water table
are rudely awakened when they attempt to interpolate
similar scenarios in the unsaturated zones. Thus, we see
the topsy-turvy world of this zone of aeration — this zone
where, it seems, that night is day and small pores attract
while large pores repel.
"When water moves into
relatively dry, unsaturated
sediment, it is only slightly
affected by gravitation."
Let us not gloss over too quickly the possibility of
larger pores being in contact with free water or atmo-
spheric pressure. It does happen as a result of almost
microscopic root-borings and fractures that produce,
what we call "finger-flow" instead of the predictable7
wetting from in homogenous, dry sediment. Many con-
taminants introduced at or near ground surface will flow
through fine to narrow vertical paths as a result of their
initial ability to maintain atmospheric pressure in these
relatively open micro-pore channels. Continued flow
along these paths is maintained by cohesive forces that
draw water along the previously wetted channels much
like water flows in rivulets over a pane of glass, never
evenly wetting the entire pane. This phenomenon further
exacerbates the unpredictable passage of contaminants
through the unsaturated zone.
Trapped air can also play a significant role in the
unsaturaied zone. Initially an advancing front of leachate
will be irregular and air will be expelled at various points.
The energy required to force air out of the unsaturaied
zone will slow the rate of infiltration. As a saturating
front advances, pockets of dry sediment will be left to
form barriers to water movement. Continued movement
of leachate. nevertheless, will dissolve some of the air. In
this manner, effects of trapped air may reverse the
response expected when fine sediment is encountered.
Eventually, as all good scientists do, we must try to
quantify movement in the saturated zone which leads us
to attempt the use of equations distantly related to Dar-
cy V In fact, many attempt this exercise by using Darcy's
law recognizing that hydraulic conductivity is a far more
elusive number than it is in the saturated zone. While
conductivity is a virtual constant in the saturated zone
where it is entirely dependent on the fnctional resistance
rendered by a formation's collective surface area and that
same formation's cross-sectional area of void space
through which flow may occur, conductivity is a moving
target in the unsaturated zone where the slightest change
9-5
Spring 19X8 GW.MR
-------
in moisture content alters both the restrictive adhesive
and cohesive fnrrg* nT1f1th" "»'"""» "f nathwnw nncn far
transport.
Hvdraulic conduciivitv in the unsaturated 7one is a
function of both grain si?e and sorting of paniculate
materials just as it is in the saturated rone: additionally, it
depends on ihe amount of water residing aianv one time
in that material. Water in the pores under negative pres-
sure cannot move from small pores to large pores, thus
contaminant movement takes place only through the
continuous films of water that surround the rock pani-
cles. A* the volume of water declines, there is less area left
xp through which water can flow Thus, as water ormflisjujg.
foment declines, so does the hydraulic conductivity in
the umamrated zone.
Theoretically, if one can properly characterize the
physical nature of the structure of the unsaturated zone
and maintain continuous readings of soil moisture (or
soil tension) in a depth profile from neutron logs, porous'
blocks, or suction-lysimeiers. one can use a Darcy equa-
tion to calculate flow. But. obviously, we are dealing with
a dynamic system that changes continuously over time in
a non-linear manner. At the lower end of the moisture
scale, transport is overwhelmed by the capillary force
capabilities to retard flow. In the mid-range of moisture
content, a degree of linear improvement in conductive
properties occur. A< saturation approaches 70 percent of
available pore space, flow begins to be Darcian in nature
and hydraulic conductivity asymptotically approaches
that which we recognize in the saturated zone.
Fora number of reasons. I have avoided delving into
the capillary zone which is the next stop on the way to the
water table. First, it is normally a thin zone, a few inches
over coarse material and a few meters over fine material
Second, it acts both like the unsaturated zone by exhibit'
ing tension and the saturated zone by allowing, movement
in the direction of the local ground water flow gradient, li
is probably a subject for another editorial but. regardless.
its ultimate impact on the timing and direction of con-
taminant transport into our ground water systems is of
considerably less impact than that offered by the inter-
mediate zone of aeration lying above it.
If I have piqued your interest, overwhelmed or con-
fused you. and you are determined to get to the bottom of
this misunderstood subterranean strata, you may be able
to alleviate the misery by viewing an old but excellent
film titled Waitr Movement In So;'/ made in I960 by Dr.
Walter Gardner and the Agronomy and Soils Depart-
ment of Washington State University in Pullman. Wash-
ington. Gardner* film is a classic in educational simplic-
ity, if not mathematical elegance. If you cant find it in
your local university film library, you can find it in
NWWA*.
Let me conclude this monologue with a riddle that
has served me well these past four decades in ground
water science. If the answer un\ obvious, ask any teen-
ager to fill in the blanks.
Flow in the unsaturated
9-6
-------
MODELING
Land Surface
Belt of Soil Water
•Distribution
'WATER
Reaction
Intermediate Beit
2 ,
o
n
e
of
A
e
r
a
t
i
o
n_
Z"
o
n
e
of
S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
9-7
-------
CHEMICAL MASS BALANCE APPROACH FOR CONTAMINATED SOIL
texture
sand
silt
clay
gas
carbon dioxide
oxygen
a 3
Solid Phase contains solid components of soil/waste mixture
(1) organic matter
(2) texture, i.e., sand, silt, and clay components
Fluid Phase contains components that can flow
(1) NAPL - Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (e.g., oil)
(2) gases, generally including carbon dioxide and oxygen
(3) water or leachate
9-8
-------
SOIL MOISTURE EXAMPLE
GIVEN:
60 cc MOIST SOIL
WEIGHT = 1 00 GRAMS (MOIST)
WEIGHT - 85 GRAMS (AIR-DRY)
WEIGHT = 80 GRAMS (OVEN-DRY)
FIND:
m
v
BULK DENSITY (pb)
SOLUTION:
0m= [100 gm-80gm]/80gm= 25%
©v = [100 gm-80gm]/60cc = 33%
pb = 80 gm/60 cc = 1.33 gm/cc
9-9
-------
CO
Field Capacity:
Amount of water held by soil against
gravitational force. (0.3 atm for fine-textured soils,
0.1 atm for coarse-textured soils).
Wilting Point:
Soil moisture at which the ease of release of
«
water to plant roots is just barely too small to
balance the transpiration losses. (15 atm).
Available Water:
Difference in soil water content at field
capacity and wilting point.
pt-| • Soil/Vadose Zone Fundamentals
-------
POROSITY
POROSITY = [1 - BULK DENSITY/PARTICLE DENSITY] X 100
SILT 1
[ GRAVEL 1
1 SAND J
1 C! AY
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
POROSITY %
(REFERENCE: DRAGUN, 1988)
Discussion:
* Clay is more porous than sand, silt, & gravel, therefore can store more
water;
* Clay is more porous than sand, silt, & gravel, therefore can store more
water soluble contaminants;
* Clay represents smallest particle size, therefore offers greatest resistance to
flow of fluids including water, air, NAPL.
* Clay texture has slowest diffusion and greatest sorption of chemicals,
therefore old sites (>50 years) may have high contamination and new sites (< 1
year) may have low contamination in clay.
3-11
-------
20
Feet
15
above
10
water
table
hi
SILT
rl
r2
h2
SAND
r3
h3
SILTY
GRAVEL
r4
h4
SANDY
GRAVEL COAR
GRAVL^
_j rb n6
Fine <-
TEXTURE-
~>
Coarse
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PORE SIZE (r) AND
CAPILLARY RISE (h) IN UNSATURATED SOIL
9-12
-------
DNAPL AS
" RESIDUAL SATURATION
DNAPL CONTAMINATED UNSATURATED ZONE WITH FOUR PHASES:
AIR, SOLID, WATER, AND NAPL RESIDUAL SATURATION IS NAPL
RETAINED BY CAPILLARY FORCES IN THE MEDIA. SOLUBILIZATION OF
RESIDUAL SATURATION CAN OCCUR BY WATER PERCOLATION.
(Reference: Huling and Weaver, 1991)
NON-AQUEOUS PHASE LIQUIDS (NAPLS)
Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (LNAPLS)
Oil
Pentachlorophenol in oil
o Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (DNAPLS^
Creosote
Methylene Chloride
Discussion:
o Can have free phase flow
o Can have residual saturation
o Chemicals within the NAPL can contaminate air, water, and soil
through distribution among compartments in the subsurface
9-13
-------
Photograph of Residual Saturation in the Subsurface
o Another source of contamination
o Chemicals originate from "residual saturation" and distribute in air,
water, and soil phases in unsaturated zone
o Chemicals distribute in water and soil phase in saturated zone
o Chemicals can be transported from "residual saturation" in the
unsaturated zone into the saturated zone by percolating water
Discussion:
o Distribution among phases depends upon "tendency" or "preference"
of each chemical to be in a particular phase(es)
o Knowing something about the "tendency" of each chemical to be
associated with one or more phases provides information that can be
used to formulate the "problem" at the site
o Challenges to bioremediation of residual saturation include toxicity
and "bioavailability" of chemicals within the "resdiual saturation"
POP and PAH concentrations in water fractions from non-poisoned soil in
Time (days) 0 30 60 oO l30 lo 200 285
PCP 7.53 2.63 2.67 2.28 1.38 1.35 0.50 1.13
Naphthalene 6.90 5.17 5.02 4.98 4.59 3.24 2.93 2.82
Acenaphthylene 5.70 5.21 4.90 4.44 4.91 4.68 4.00 4.19
Acenaphthene 2.86 2.34 2.17 2.00 2.05 2.06 1.33 1.42
Fluorene 0.39 0.22 0.20 0.16 0.09 0.02 0.04 0.04
9-14
-------
u
30
20
10
B
B
fl A ft—fr
-SO 0 SO 100 ISO 200 250 300
Time of Incubation in Soil (Days)
O Non-poisoned soil
A Poisoned soil
• ry»niaminat
-------
FLUX
EXAMPLE:
Velocity
AR
EA
Flux = Volume = aal
Time - Area day-ft2
z
j = -Jo
-------
EXAMPLE:
\J -
VELOCITY
V =
V = 0.125 cm/hr
0.23
V = 0.54 cm/hr
9-17
-------
MOBILITY OF CHEMICALS IN SOIL
R = VW/VP
R = 1 + pb Kd/0
R = Water velocity relative to
pollutant velocity (Retardation)
Vw= Velocity of water
Vp = Velocity of pollutant
pb = Soil bulk density
Kd = Soil parition coefficient
= Cone, in soil/cone, in water
= C>>(ug/gm) = m I
Cw(ug/ml) gm
0 = Soil moisture content
R = 1 + ram/cc] rml/gm]
£cc/cc]
= 1 + [ml/cc]and since ml=cc
£cc/cc]
= 1 + rcc/cc]
[cc/cc]
R = UNITLESS
9-18
-------
Discussion:
Useful for characterizing the behavior of a chemical at a site (takes
into account site characteristics (p, 6) and chemical-site
interaction (Kd)
Useful for formulating the problem at a site with regard to
transport
Useful for devising treatment approaches - may be possible to
"manage" the magnitude of R by controlling 6 or Kd
Useful for designing monitoring strategies for specific chemicals -
rank chemicals in terms of tendency to be immobilized at a site
Assume:
Pb
©v
Kd
Then: using
R
Results in:
R
R
R
RETARDATION EXAMPLE
1.4 gm/cc
0.2 cc/cc
2 ml/gm
1 + pb
1 + [1.4] [2]/[0.2]
1 + [2.8]/[0.2]
1 + 14 = 15
Interpretation: The pollutant will move 15 times more slowly
than the water through the soil.
9-19
-------
BIOREMEDIATION
Illustration of "Pac-Bug1
Biodegradation
Discussion:
o Often mis-interpreted for volatilization, leaching, sorption
o Implies many things to many people: a) mineralization to carbon
dioxide and water; b) destruction of toxicity; c) transformation to a
chemical that is not the parent compound
o Can result in the production of "metabolites" or chemicals that
represent "what left" of the parent chemical - these can be more or
less toxic than the parent compound (e.g., trichloroethylene [TCE] to
vinyl chloride [VC])
9-20
-------
Degradation of Contaminant in Soil
o dC/dt = -
o ti/2 = 0.693/k [a first order equation]
o ti/2 = half-life of the chemical
o 0.693 = a constant (natural logarithm of 2)
o k = slope of first order plot of In Concentration versus time
Discussion:
o The first order equation for half-life is commonly used by scientists
and engineers to quantify biodegradation in soil and ground-water
o Many half-life values are in the literature
o Ask what mechanisms the half-life value includes for a chemical,
i.e., does it include volatilization, leaching, abiotic degradation?
9-21
-------
c
o
CO
re
c
S
Q.
O
D.
I
O
•c
60
80
Time (days)
Mineralization of 14C-PCP In non-poisoned soil
microcosms as a function of oxygen concentration.
Error bars represent the least significant difference
4.27. Values plotted are the means for triplicate
reactors.
Average distribution of 14C in non-poisoned microcosms
spiked with 14C-PCP ± standard deviation.
of
Oxygen
Concen
tration
0%
2%
5%
10%
21%
Mineralized
0.51
63. 5±
55.81
54.11
48.41
0.64
0.51
0.15
3.17
0.60
Volatilized
0.111
0.011
0.031
0.051
0.021
0.15
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.01
Soil Soil Bound
Extractable
85.81
15.01
15.31
12.01
17.91
2.82
1.18
2.69
4.76
1.01
3.81
14.51
14.31
16.41
15.31
0.45
0.91
1.43
0.79
0.52
i«C
Recovered
90
93
85
82
81
.21
.01
.31
.61
.61
2.93
1.57
3.05
5.77
1.29
9-22
-------
SOIL-BASED CHARACTERIZATION
Chemical
Properties
Chemical
Class
Chemical
Reactivity
Soil Degradation
Parameters
Specific Gravity
Water Solubility
Molecular Weight
Melting Point
Acid
Base
Polar Neutral
Nonpolar Neutral
Inorganic
Oxidation
Reduction
Hydrolysis
Polymerization
Precipitation
Photodegradation
Half-life, (ti/2)
Rate Constant
Loss of Parent Compound
Mineralization
Intermediates
Biotic/Abiotic
SOIL-BASED CHARACTERIZATION
Volatilization
Parameters
Soil Sorption
Parameters
Soil Contamination
Parameters
AirWater (Kh)
Vapor Pressure
SoihWater (Kd)
Soil Organic Carbon (Koc)
Octanol:Water (Kow)
Concentration in Soil
Soil Horizonation
Depth of Contamination
Physcial Phases (oil.water.air)
9-23
-------
References
Aprill, W. and R.C. Sims. Evaluation of the Use of Prairie Grasses for
Stimulating Poly cyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Treatment in Soil.
Chemosphere, 20(1-2): 253-265, 1990.
Ferro, A., R.C. Sims, and B. Bugbee. Hycrest Crested Wheatgrass
Accelerates the Degradation of Pentachlorophenol in Soil. Journal of
Environmental Quality, 23(2): 272-279, 1994.
Sims, R.C. and J.L. Sims. Chemical Mass Balance Approach to Field
Evaluation of Bioremediation. Environmental Progress, 14(1):F2-F3, 1995.
Symons, B.D., R.C. Sims, and W.J. Grenney. Fate and Transport of Organics in
Soil: Model Predictions and Experimental Results. Journal Water Pollution
Control Federation, 60(9): 1684-1693, 1988.
U.S. EPA. RCRA Corrective Actions - Speaker Slide Copies. Center for
Environmental Research Information (CERI). CERI-91-99, NRMRL,
Cincinnati, OH. Nov., 1991.
U.S. EPA. Sensitive Parameter Evaluation for a Vadose Zone Fate and
Transport Model. EPA/600/2-89/039. NNRMRL, Ada, OK, 1989.
U.S. EPA. Site Characterization for Subsurface Remediation.
EPA/625/4-91/026, NRMRL, Ada, OK. Nov., 1991.
9-24
-------
10
-------
WASTE BURIAL IN ARID ENVIRONMENTS-
APPLICATION OF INFORMATION FROM A FIELD LABORATORY IN THE MOJAVE DESERT
B.J. Andraski
U.S. Geological Survey
333 West Nye Lane, Room 203
Carson City, NV 89706
email: andraski@usgs.gov
Phone: (702)887-7636; FAX (702)887-7629
ABSTRACT
As and sites in the western United States are increasingly sought for disposal of the Nation's hazardous
wastes and as volumes of locally generated municipal and industrial wastes continue to increase, concern
about the potential effect of contaminants on environmental quality in the region is being raised. A
prevalent assumption is that percolation will be negligible at an arid site However, few data have been
available to test assumptions about the natural soil-water flow systems at arid sites, and even less is
known about how the natural processes are altered by construction of a waste facility.
In 1976. the U S Geological Survey began a senes of studies at a site in the Mojave Desert, near Beatty,
Ne\ , to evaluate mechanisms that can affect waste isolation. Precipitation at the site averages 108 mm/yr
and depth to ground water is 110 m. Chloride concentrations in the unsaturated zone beneath an
undisturbed, vegetated area indicate that deep percolation of water was limited to the upper 10 m during
the past 16,000 to 30,000 years. Long-term field monitoring confirms the effectiveness of the natural
soil-plant system in limiting the potential for deep percolation: stratified soils impede deep percolation
and accumulated water is rapidly depleted by vegetation. Under waste-burial conditions, however,
infiltrated uater accumulates and continues to move downward in liquid and vapor form Rates of trench-
cover subsidence are positively correlated with the long-term accumulation of infiltrated water and
erosion rates are inversely related to near-surface rock-fragment content
Continued long-term monitoring at the Mojave Desert site is critical to documenting how mechanisms
controlling waste isolation may change with tune. Because of the complexity of liquid- and vapor-flow
processes, we also need to take the next step and combine existing laboratory and field data with
numerical simulations to quantitatively evaluate the importance of these potential contaminant-release
pathways
10-1
-------
This Page Intentionally Blank
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
U.S. Geological Studies at a Waste Site in the Mojave Desert near Beatty, Nevada
February 1996
REPORTS
Andraski, B J.. 1990. Water movement and trench stability at a tJimiiataH arid burial site for low-level radioactive
waste near Beatty, Nevada: La Grange Park, HI., American Nuclear Society, Nuclear Waste Isolation in the
Unsaturated Zone, Las Vegas, Nev., September 1989. Proceedings, p. 166-173.
Andraski, B.J., 1991, Balloon and core sampling for determining bulk density of alluvial desert soil: Soil Science
Society of America Journal, v. 55. p. 1188-1190.
Andraski, B.J., 1991, Soil-water regime at a low-level radioactive waste site, Amargosa Desert, Nevada:
Characterization of Transport Phenomena in the Vadose Zone, A Workshop Sponsored by Soil Science Society
of America and American Geophysical Union, Tucson, University of Arizona, April 1991, Proceedings, p. 2-3.
Andraski. B J., 1992, Water movement through soil at a low-level radioactive-waste site in the Amargosa Desert: U.S.
Geological Survey Yearbook Fiscal Year 1991. p. 73-75.
Andraski, B.J., in press. Simulated trench studies near Beatty, Nevada-Initial results and implications, in Stevens.
P.R.. and Nicholson, T., eds.. Conference on Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste, Reston, Va., May
1993: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4015.
Andraski, B.J., 1996, Properties and variability of soil and trench fill at an arid waste-burial site: Soil Science Society
of America Journal, v. 60, p. 54-66.
Andraski. B.J.. Fischer, J.M., and Prudic, D.E.. 1991, Beatty, Nevada, in Trask. NJ.. and Stevens, P.R., U.S.
Geological Survey Research in radioactive waste disposal-fiscal years 1986-1990: U.S. Geological Survey
Water-Resources Investigations Report 91-4084, p. 34-40.
Andraski B J.. and Prudic, D.E., in press. Soil, plant, and structural consideration for surface barriers in arid
environments-application of results from studies in the Mojave Desert near Beatty, Nevada: Washington, B.C..
National Academy Press, Barriers for Long-Term Isolation, Denver, Colo., August 1995. Proceedings.
Andraski. B.J.. Prudic, D.E., and Nichols, WJD., 1995, Waste burial in arid environments-Application of information
from a field laboratory in the Mojave Desert, southern Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS-179-95,
4p
Bedinger, M S , 1990, Geohydrologic aspects for siting and design of low-level radioactive-waste disposal: U.S.
Geological Survey Circular 1034,36 p.
Brown. R G, and Nichols. W.D., 1990. Selected meteorological data for an arid climate over bare soil near Beatty,
Nye County, Nevada, November 1977 through May 1980: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 90-195,
48 p
Clebsch, Alfred. Jr., 1968, Geology and hydrology of a proposed site for burial of solid radioactive waste southeast of
Beatty, Nye County, Nevada, in Morton. RJ., Land burial of solid radioactive wastes-Study of commercial
operations and facilities: Atomic Energy Commission. National Technical Information Service, Report
WASH-1143, p. 70-100. Available only from National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Springfield, VA 22161.
Fischer. J M., and Nichols. W.D.. 1986, Beatty, Nevada, in Dinwidde, G.A., and Trask, NJ., eds.. U.S. Geological
Survey research in radioactive waste disposal-Fiscal years 1983.1984, and 1985: U.S. Geological Survey
Water-Resources Investigations Report 87-4009, p. 87-88.
10-2
-------
Fischer, JJM., 1990, Geohydrology of the near-surface onsaturated zone adjacent to the disposal site for low-level
radioactive waste near Beany, Nevada, in Bedinger. MS- and Stevens, P.R., eds.. Safe disposal of
radionudides in low-level radioactive waste repository sites—Low-level radioactive-waste disposal workshop,
U.S. Geological Survey, July 11-16,1987, Big Bear Lake, Calif., Proceedings: U.S. Geological Survey
Circular 1036. p. 57-61.
Fischer, JJM., 1992, Sediment properties and water movement through shallow unsaturatf1 alluvium at an arid site for
disposal of low-level radioactive waste near Beatty. Nye County, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Water-
Resources Investigations Report 92-4032,48 p.
Fouty. Suzanne, 1989, Chloride ma«.fraiaiiM as a method for determining long-term ground-water recharge rates and
geomoxphic surface stability in arid and semi-arid regions-Whiskey Flat and Beany, Nevada: Tucson.
University of Arizona, unpublished M.S. thesis. 130 p.
Gee, B.W.. Wierenga, PJ.. Andraski, B J., Young, MJi.. Payer, MJ., and Rockbold. MI.- 1994, Variations in water
balance and recharge potential at three western desert sites: Soil Science Society of America Journal, v. 58. p.
63-72.
Morgan. D.S.. and Fischer. JJM.. 1984, Unsaturated-zone instrumentation in coarse alluvial deposits of the Amargosa
Desert near Beatty. Nevada in Proceedings of Sixth Annual Participants' Information Meeting-
U.SDepanment of Energy Low-Level Waste Management Program: Available from National Technical
Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce. Springfield, VA 22161, CONF-8409115, p. 617-630.
Nichols, W.D.. 1982. U.S. Geological Survey research in radioactive waste disposal-Fiscal year 1979. in Schneider.
Robert. Roseboom, E.H.. Jr.. Robertson. J.S., and Stevens. PJL, eds, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 847, p.
62-63.
Nichols, WD..1987, Geohydrology of the unsaturated zone at the burial site for low-level radioactive waste near
Beatty, Nye County, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2312,57p.
Prudic, DE., 1994, Estimates of percolation rates and ages of water in unsaturated sediments at two Mpjave Desert
sites, California-Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 944160.19 p.
Prudic, D.E.. in press. Water-vapor movement through unsaturated alluvium in Amargosa Desert near Beatty, Nevada-
-Current understanding and continuing studies in Conference on Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste,
Reston. Va.. May 1993: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4015.
Prudic. DJE., and Dennehy. K.F., 1990, Induced changes in hydrology at low-level and radioactive waste repository
sites, m Bedinger, M.S., and Stevens, P.R., eds., Safe disposal of radionudides in low-level radioactive waste
repository sites-low-level radioactive-waste disposal workshop, US. Geological Survey. July 11-16.1987.
Big Bear Lake, Calif., Proceedings: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1036. p. 2-4.
Prudic, D.E., and Striegl, R.G., 1995, Tritium and radioactive carbon (I4C) analyses of gas collected from unsaturated
sediments next to a low-level radioactive-waste burial site south of Beatty. Nevada. April 1994 and July 1995:
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-471,7 p.
Stnegl. R.G.. Prudic, DJE.. Duval, J.S., Healy, R.W., Landa. E.R., Pollock, D.W., Thorstenson. D.C. and Weeks. E.P..
1996, Factors affecting tritium and 14carbon distributions in the unsaturated zone near the low-level
radioactive-waste burial site south of Bealty, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 96-110,16
P-
Wood. J.L.. and Fischer. J.M., 1991, Selected meteorological data for an arid site near Beatty, Nye County. Nevada.
calendar year 1986: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 91-189,27 p.
Wood. J.L., and Fischer, J.M.. 1992, Selected meteorological data for an arid site near Beatty. Nye County. Nevada,
calendar year 1987: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 92-59.27 p.
Wood, J.L., Hill. K J., and Andraski, B.J.. 1992, Selected meteorological data for an arid site near Beany, Nye County,
Nevada, calendar year 1988: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 92-61, 27 p.
10-3
-------
Wood, JI... and Andraski. B J.. 199Z Selected meteorological data for an arid site near Beany. Nye County. Nevada.
calendar year 1989: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 92-484,27 p.
Wood. JJL, and Andraski. B J., 1995, Selected meteorological data for an arid site near Beany, Nye County. Nevada.
' calendar years 1990 and 1991: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 94-489.
ABSTRACTS
Andraski. B J.. 1989. Physical properties of trench backfill at a simulated burial site for low-level radioactive waste
near Beatty, NV (abs.): 80th Annual Meeting. American Society of Agronomy. Anaheim, Calif.. December
1988, Agronomy Abstracts, v. 80. p. 178.
Andraski, B J.. 1990, Soil-water movement at a simulated burial site for low-level radioactive waste near Beatty.
Nevada-first year results (abs.). in Nevada decision point-Which water course to the future?: Annual
Conference. Nevada Water Resources Association. Las Vegas, Nev., February 1990. Program Information and
Abstracts, unpaginated.
Andraski. B.J.. 1990. Rubber-balloon and drive-core sampling for determining bulk density of an alluvial desert soil
(abs.): Agronomy Abstracts. American Society of Agronomy, 1990 Annual Meetings. San Antonio, Texas.
October 1990. p. 208.
Andraski. B J.. 1991. Vegetation and land-disturbance effects on recharge potential. Amargosa Desert. Nevada (abs.):
Agronomy Abstracts. American Society of Agronomy, 1991 Annual Meetings, Denver. Colo.. October 1991.
p. 212.
Andraski. B.J.. 1994. Disturbance effects on soil properties and water balance at a low-level radioactive waste site.
Amargosa Desert Nevada [abs. soil properties and water balance at a low-level radioactive waste site,
Amargosa Desert, Nevada [abs.]: 86th Annual Meeting. American Society of Agronomy. Seattle, November
1994, Agronomy Abstracts, v. 86, p. 227.
Beutner. M.L.. and Andraski. BJ.. 1989. Comparison of standard and simplified hydrometer methods for textural
analysis of a desen soil near Beatty, Nevada (abs.): 81st Annual Meeting. American Society of Agronomy, Las
Vegas, Nev., October 1989. Program of Agronomy Abstracts, v. 81. p. 184.
Fischer, J.M., 1985, Preliminary evaluation of a method for installing thermocouple psychrometers and determination
of psychrometer calibration changes near Beatty. Nevada: Morgan, D.S.,and Fischer, J.M.. 1984, Unsaturated
zone instrumentation in coarse alluvial deposits of the Amargosa Desen near Beany, Nevada (abs): Second
National Symposium and Exposition on Ground-Water Instrumentation, Las Vegas. Nev.. April 1984,
Conference Program.
Morgan. D.C.. and Fischer. J.M., 1984. Unsaturated zone instrumentation in coarse alluvial deposits of the Amargosa
Desen near Beatty, Nevada (abs.): Second National Symposium and Exposition on Ground-Water
Instrumentation, Las Vegas. Nev., April 1984, Conference Program.
Prudic, D.E.. 1994, Effects of temperature at the arid disposal site for low-level radioactive wastes near Beatty, Nevada
[abs.]: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, v. 26. no. 7. p. 143.
Prudic, D.E.. and Striegl, R.G., 1994. Water and carbon-dioxide movement through unsaturated alluvium near an and
disposal site for low-level radioactive waste, Beatty, Nevada [abs.]: Eos, American Geophysical Union
Transactions, v. 75, no. 16. p. 161.
Trask, NJ.. Prudic, D.E., and Stevens, P.R.. 1994, Hydrologic research programs of the U.S. Geological Survey
relevant to low-level radioactive waste disposal [abs.]: Eos. America Geophysical Union Transactions, v. 75,
no 16. p. 160.
10-4
-------
This Page Intentionally Blank
-------
Waste Burial in Arid Environments—
plication of Information From a Field
joratory in the Mojave Desert, Southern Nevada
u
G
U.S. Department of the Interior—U.S. Geological Survey
Accumulation and management of waste is a pressing
problem facing the United States today. Improper disposal of
hazardous wastes poses a threat to public health and environ-
mental quality. As arid sites increasingly are being sought for
disposal of the Nation's radioactive and other hazardous wastes,
concern about the potential effect of contaminants on water re-
sources in the arid western United States is being raised. In
addition, volumes of locally generated municipal and industrial
wastes are increasing because of rapid population growth and
industrialization of the region.
The suitability of a waste-burial site or landfill is a function
of the hydrologic processes that control the near-surface water
balance. Precipitation that infiltrates into the surface of a burial
trench and does not return to the atmosphere by evapotrans-
piration from the soil and plants can percolate downward and
come in contact with buried waste. Water that contacts the
waste can enhance the release of contaminants for subsequent
transport by liquid water, water vapor, or other gases.
prevalent assumption is that little or no precipitation will
^.wi'colate to buried wastes at an arid site. Thick unsaturated
zones, which are common to arid regions, also are thought to
slow water movement and minimize the risk of waste migration
to the underlying water table. On the basis of these assump-
tions, reliance is commonly placed on the natural system to
isolate contaminants at waste-burial sites in the arid West.
Few data have been available to test the validity of assump-
tions about the natural soil-water flow systems at arid sites, and
even less is known about how the construction of a waste-burial
facility alters the natural environment of the site. The lack of
data is the result of (1) technical complexity of hydraulic char-
acterization of the dry, stony soils and (2) insufficient field
DEATH
VALLEY
NEVADA
WASTE
BURIAL
Vs SITE
NsLv r
i^C
I
UTAH
"J
MOJAVE
DESERT
ARIZONA
Figure 1. Location of waste-burial site. Death
Valley, and Mojave Desert of southwestern United
States.
Figure 2. Undisturbed, vegetated area near waste-burial site,
October 1991 (A); low-level radioactive waste burial trench (8); and
nonvegetated surface of backfilled waste-burial trench with identifying
monument, June 1988 (C).
studies that account for the extreme temporal and spatial
variations in precipitation, vegetation, and soils in arid regions.
In 1976, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) began a long-
term study at a waste-burial site in the Mojave Desert near
Beatty, Nov., to collect the necessary data and evaluate un-
tested assumptions. This fact sheet summarizes the findings of
investigations at the site and discusses how this information is
important to issues of waste burial in an arid environment.
-------
Mojave Desert Waste-Burial Site
The waste-burial silc. 30 miles east of Death Valley National
Park, is in one of the most arid parts of the United Stales
(fig. I). Precipitation in the area averages about 4 inches per
year. The water table is about 360 feet below land surface.
Vegetation in the area is sparse (fig. 2/4). Burial trenches at the
site have been used for disposal of low-level radioactive waste
(1962-92) and hazardous-chemical waste (1970-present).
Burial-trench construction includes excavation of native soil,
emplacement of waste, and backfilling with previously stock-
piled soil (fig. 2,6). The surfaces of completed burial trenches
and perimeter areas are kept free of vegetation (fig. 1C).
Regulations governing burial of low-level radioactive waste do
not require that trenches be lined with impervious materials.
Prior to 1988, linings were not required for chemical-waste
trenches. As a result, only the most recent chemical-waste
trench at the site is lined.
Field Laboratory Established
Recognizing the need for long-term data collection, the
USGS established a study area adjacent to the waste-burial site
through agreements with the Bureau of Land Management and
the State of Nevada. This 40-acre area serves as a field labora-
tory for long-term data collection and the study of hydrologic
processes under natural-site and waste-burial conditions.
Lessons Learned to Date
Early (1962) evaluation of the general hydrologic conditions
at and near the waste-burial site suggested that low average
annual precipitation and high average annual evapotranspira-
tion would prevent water from percolating downward more
than 1 or 2 feel below land surface. This assumption, however,
did not consider the extreme annual and seasonal variations in
a desert climate. During 1985-92, annual precipitation mea-
sured at the USGS study site ranged from 0.55 to 6.51 inches
and monthly precipitation ranged from 0 to 2.34 inches.
Monthly average temperature ranged from 38 to 92 degrees
Fahrenheit. Most of the precipitation falls during the cool
TOTAL ANNUAL PRECIPITATION, IN INCHES
297 5.37 4,11 0.55 1.28 4.08
1985
1986
1988 1989
YEAH
1990
1 '¥>','
winter months when evaporative demands are low (fig. 3).
Initial water-balance modeling by the USGS demonstrated (
that, under particular climate and soil-moisture conditions, tV
potential for deep percolation does exist, in spite of high
annual e\apor;tlive demands (Nichols, 19X7).
l-ielcl investigations to define the rates and directions of
water movement through the deep unsaturated zone beneath an
undisturbed, vegetated area began in the early 1980's and con-
tinue today. A study of chloride concentrations in the unsatur-
ated zone indicates that deep percolation of water was limited
to the upper 30 feet during the past 16,000 to 33,000 years
(Prudic, 1994a). To monitor present-day flow processes, an
instrument shaft was installed that allows access for operation
of electronic devices to a depth of 45 feet (fig. 4; Fischer,
1992). Additional instrumentation has been installed to study
flow processes throughout the unsaturated zone (Prudic, in
press). Meteorological data are collected by an automated
weather station (Wood and Andraski, 1995).
Water movement in the unsaturated zone is complex.
Several variables—water content, water potential, humidity,
and temperature—must be monitored to define rates and
Figure 3. Annual and monthly total precipitation and monthly average
temperature measured at U.S. Geological Survey field laboratory
during 1985-92.
Figure 4. Installation of vertical shaft used for soil-moisture
monitoring in upper 45 feet of unsaturated zone beneath
undisturbed, vegetated area. Photograph by David S.
Morgan. U.S. Geological Survey, August 1983.
-------
dircclions of water movement. Winer content indicates how
h water is held in the soil. Water potential indicates how
iy the water is held by the soil matrix. Water moves
unough soil in liquid and vapor form, and the Iwo forms can
move simultaneously as a consequence of water-potential,
humidity, and temperature gradients in the soil.
Ongoing investigations at the undisturbed, vegetated site
indicate that the natural soil-plant-water system effectively
limits the potential for deep percolation. During more than
5 years of monitoring, downward percolation was limited
to the upper 3 feet of soil (Fischer, 1992; Andraski, 1994).
Between the depths of 40 and 160 feel, water movement, as
liquid and as vapor, is consistently upward. Preliminary evi-
dence indicates that upward flow of water vapor through the
thick unsaturated zone may potentially serve as a contaminant-
release pathway (Prudic, 1994b; Prudic and Striegl, 1994).
Little is known about how, or to what degree, features of
the natural system may be altered by installation of a disposal
facility. Investigations to determine the effects of disturbance
on soil properties and the long-term soil-water balance began
in 1987. Two nonvegetated test trenches and an area of bare
soil are monitored (fig. 5; Andraski, 1990). The effects of
disturbance are evaluated in terms of observed differences
between data collected at the undisturbed, vegetated site and
data collected at the disturbed sites.
show that this lower limit is not adequate for nonirrigated,
desert soils and plants, nor is it appropriate for the extremely
dry backfill material produced by trench construction. Thus.
characterization of hydraulic properties at the site has been
extended u> include data measured over a soil-moisture range
that is representative of seldom-studied arid conditions
(Andraski. in press).
Backfilling with very dry material will, at least initially,
increase the importance of vapor flow as a potential transport
mechanism in the trench fill (Andraski, in press). These initial
dry conditions can change substantially, however, in response
to subsequent precipitation and a lack of vegetation. On an
annual basis, no water accumulates in the vegetated soil
because water is removed by the plants (fig. 6). In contrast,
even under conditions of extreme aridity, water accumulates in
the nonvegetated soil and test trenches. Water that has accumu-
lated at the three disturbed sites is continuing to percolate
downward (Andraski, 1994). Thus, the construction of waste-
burial trenches and removal of native vegetation markedly alters
the natural site environment and may increase the potential for
release of contaminants.(Gee and others, 1994). Surprisingly.
such changes typically are not considered in the evaluation of a
proposed waste site and may not be considered in management
of existing sites.
Well-informed Decisions Needed
^curate characterization of hydraulic properties is critical
.Iculations of water movement through soil. Characteriza-
tion data normally are measured to a minimum water-potential
value referred to as the permanent wilting point for crops.
Below this value, water is held so tightly by the soil matrix that
a crop plant cannot extract the water and will wilt and die. Data
collected by the USGS at the Mojave Desert site, however,
Regulations governing the licensing of solid-waste landfills
and hazardous-waste sites require an assessment of the potential
for deep percolation of water through buried waste before
disposal operations can begin. Numerical models commonly
are relied on for this assessment. For a proposed low-level
radioactive waste site, 1 year of preoperational monitoring of
site conditions also is required. Thus, data used in numerical
UNDISTURBED SOIL;
VEGETATION REMOVED
NONVEGETATED
TEST TRENCH 2
(drums randomly placed)
15 FEET
EXPLANATION
(JJJ) Drum filled with soil
(simulated waste)
Subsidence plate and rod
X Surface subsidence/
erosion pin
Neutron access tube lor
monitoring soil-water
content
Thermocouple psychrometer
lor monitoring soil-water
potential and temperature
60
- 40
O 30
< 20
3
z
uj
O 10
H) 0
HM Undisturbed, vegetated soil
•• Undisturbed soil, vegetation removed
HH Nonvegetated tesl trench 1
I I Nonvegetated tesl trench 2
Nov 21, 1988 Sept 21, 1989 Sepl. 18, 1990 Dec. 18, 1991 Sept 24, 1992
_ jre 5. Schematic diagram of instrumentation used to determine
effects of vegetation removal and trench construction on water
movement through unsaturated zone. Subsidence and erosion are
monitored to determine changes in structural integrity of test trenches.
In second test trench (not shown), soil-filled drums are stacked in
orderly fashion.
Figure 6. Cumulative changes in quantity of water being held in
uppermost 4 feet at four monitoring sites: undisturbed, vegetated soil:
undisturbed soil where native vegetation was removed; and two
nonvegetated test trenches. Values are based on measurements
during first 5 years following vegetation removal and trench
construction at disturbed study site in October 1987.
-------
analysis ol a proposed wastc-bunal MIC may he based solely on
hydraulic mlormation available in the litcialuic. or the data may
include some sitc-.spccillc inlbrm.ilion. which typically is limn-
ed lo naliual conditions and a shoii period ol time This ap-
proach is of pailicu'iai concern for waste sites in arid regions
because, compared with the amount of infoimadon available
for more humid sites, (he amount ol hydrauhc-pioperty data
and long-term Held data for arid sites is negligible. In addition,
although significant advances have been made in the develop-
ment of soil-water flow models, the lack of long-term field data
has resulted in these models remaining largely untested as to
how well they lepresent flow systems at and sites.
Long-Term Benchmark Information
Ongoing work by the USGS at the Mojave Desert field
laboratory continues to provide long-term, quantitative "bench-
mark" information about the hydraulic characteristics, water
movement, and the potential for release of contaminants
through the unsaturated zone in an and environment. Monitor-
ing methods developed and tested at the Mojave Desert site
have helped others in their study and evaluation of waste-
isolation processes at the Nevada Test Site, and at proposed
waste sites in Texas and California The U S. Nuclear Regula-
tory Commission and Pacific Northwest Laboratory have cho-
sen the Mojave Desert waste site for use m numerical modeling
of infiltration because it is representative of burial operations in
an arid environment. Data collected at the USGS field labora-
tory are being provided for this effort The National Academy of
Sciences also has used information from the site in the evalua-
tion of issues related to waste disposal m an and environment.
Because of the potentially harmful effect of improper waste
disposal on water resources in the and West, comprehensive
laboratory and field studies are critical to identifying likely
contaminant-release pathways and the potential for waste
migration at arid sites However, the quandary for those charged
with assessment of the suitability of potential disposal sites is
that site characterization and evaluation must be accomplished
in a relatively short period of time—only I to 2 years.
Data collection at the Mojave Desert field laboratory
provides the needed long-term benchmark against which short-
term data from proposed arid sites can be compared. The data
base and monitoring facilities developed at the field laboratory
also provide an excellent foundation upon which to build col-
laborative effoits with universities and local, State, and other
Federal agencies to further the study and understanding of
hydrologic processes in an arid environment.
—BJ Andraski. David E Piudic, and William D. Nichols
References Cited
Andiaski, B J . 1990, Water movement and trench stability at a
simulated arid burial site for low-level radioactive waste near
Beatty, Nevada LaGrangc Paik. Ill . American Nuclear
Society, Nuclear Waste Isolation in the Unsaturated Zone,
Las Vegas. Ncv . September 1989. Proceedings, p 166-173
1994. Disturbance cllccts on soil properties and water
balance at a low-level uidioaclivc waste site. Amargosa
Descit, Nevada |abs | American Society of Agronomy,
Agionomy Abstiacls, v 86. p 227
in picss. Propcitics and variability of soil and liench fill ill
an and waste-bin i.il site' Soil Science Society of Amenta
Journal
Fischei, J.M . 1992, Sediment properties and water movement
through shallow unsaturated alluvium at an and site for
disposal of low-level radioactive waste near Bealty, Nyc
County, Nevada U.S Geological Survey Water-Resources
Investigations Report 92-4032, 48 p
Gee, G W, Wiercnga, Pi , Andraski., B.J., Young, M H . Payer.
M J., and Rockhold, M.L , 1994, Variations in water balance
and recharge potential at three western desert sites Soil
Science Society of America Journal, v. 58, no 1, p 63-72
Nichols, W D , 1987, Geohydrology of the unsaturated zone at
Ihe burial site for low-level radioactive waste near Beatty,
Nye County, Nevada U S Geological Survey Water-Supply
Paper 2312, 57 p.
Prudic, D.E , 1994a, Estimates of percolation rates and ages of
water in unsaturated sediments at two Mojave Deseil sites,
California-Nevada U S Geological Survey Water-Resources
Investigations Report 94-4160, 19 p.
1994b, Effects of temperature on water movement at the
arid disposal site for low-level radioactive wastes near Beatty
Nevada [abs.]: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with
Programs, v. 26, no. 7, p. 391
m press, Water-vapor movement through unsaturated
alluvium m Amargosa Desert near Beatty, Nevada—Cunent
understanding and continuing studies, in Stevens, P.R , and
Nicholson, T., eds., Conference on Disposal of Low-Level
Radioactive Waste, Reston, Va., May 1993: U.S. Geological
Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4015
Prudic, D E , and Stnegl, R.G , 1994, Water and carbon dioxide
movement through unsaturated alluvium near an arid disposal
site for low-level radioactive waste, Beatty, Nevada [abs ]
Eos, American Geophysical Union Transactions, v 75.
no 16, p 161.
Wood, J.L., and Andraski. B J., 1995, Selected meteorological
data for an arid site near Beatty, Nye County, Nevada.
calendar years 1990 and 1991 US. Geological Survey Open-
File Report 94-489, 49 p
For more information about the Mojave Desert
studies, contact:
Brian J Andiaski
U S. Geological Survey
333 W Nye Lane
Cai son City, NV 89706
(702)887-7600,ext 7636
andraski@usgs.gov
August 1995
Fact Sheet FS-179-95
-------
11
-------
ACCELERATED SITE CHARACTERIZATION
(A CASE STUDY)
by
Richard McJunkin, CEG, Chief
Geologic Services Unit, Site Mitigation Program
Department of Toxic Substances Control
10151 Croydon Way - Suite 1
Sacramento, CA 95827-2106
916-255-3672
FAX: 916-255-3697
and
RCRA Corrective Action Conference
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
March 26-28, 1996
11-1
-------
This Page Intentionally Blank
-------
ABSTRACT
The "iterative" process being used to characterize volatile contaminants at many
hazardous waste release sites is taking years to complete and is very costly for both
industry and government A change from using this commonly applied process is
needed. Investigations should address the entire extent of contamination using
"rapid field characterization" and the least number of phases as possible; usually,
no more than two or three phases of field investigation should be necessary. This
approach should utilize an on-site laboratory to collect real-time data from soil gas,
soil, or ground water samples. Rapid field characterization provides for collecting
accurate and precise contaminant data that define pathways. If collected early
during projects, these data should reduce the overall site cleanup time by ninety
percent and overall site cleanup costs by one-half. Rapid field characterization
techniques should be used by both RCRA Corrective Action and Site Mitigation
CERCLA investigations.
11-2
-------
This Page Intentionally Blank
-------
&
s?>
\ jfap*
\ / J
X
'"'<£\
'' V
\^
<^\
*\
r^^
^ \
•IS-1 \
\x
X
,' \
fPCWD-5 »De5-3
*D23-4 \ ^25.5
\
D35-7
ff25-10 »D25-£ r
*
*PS-90
*D19-3
\ *EU9-2
\
V
•DE3-3 •D33-1
-
DBl-4 .OH-, ^ ^
D87-5*
\ x
\ x
\ x
» X
" \
v\
D8-4
Seal* ID Feel
BUW S=^=
1000 0 1000 2000
METCA1J1 4 EDDY
11-3
-------
D19-3 *D19-' * \
*D27-4 X"C
Sc»l« in Fitt
W 5C
000 0 1000 2000
MCTCALF fe CODY
11-4
-------
AUTOMATIC '
LAUNDRY AND
OJtYOTAMNO
COUPUENT
-------
T
s—yu»*A\v
•M
:-n
»fr»l
1^^W»^^^
•»77 V°
**^L/->" L—'
V
U'U
"»» « 'V1
tt-JT
lf-»
^"^» "g
-------
•SET*
•" / / /X •>/' A~JJ» N "- .
^/x/xT'"'
, ' ^r* : \ -
\ . «X <• •/. 1i V
m
:f \
•/• \
r- v
^•'^B \
i *n.
tiuma. at.
m.
m.
m.
•nut* in.
ucm m.
-------
X
:ICHTER
/ x
t
I
1 !
/ x,/ / / /x \ >
,/ ,x / / / -v Ny
/ x / / / \ /
/ / X/ x. / <
/
/N
\, /
X / '">
xy / N
/ \ /x x
/ / / X
vmn uumu.
**•
SiUC.
^ 1^1
/
h >/ Xt,
f >
/
\.
/A --\ w
; / x .// ,\M*.-«/••/
A / /\ / W^
^^\
w*«"^''
••'" x ///A / vv- '-•• % / •' \
r/^V^^\C^\ i
•*..***•%'/\:* \ "pih j
/>jp ,/ ^/Vf^ /w \ i
^ \ v^f>"x\ \ \ \
\ •• •* / _•'*.. ^ m m At
I
NATION
W«n in which •(•vetien of vot«r
turfoc* wot m*otur*d. Upper
• number n »«l d«»>o notion, lower
i* 4h« •(•votron of 1h«
• v-ir
A MV-2120
NOTEi
11-8
ing *•! toeotion
•Mtfi to
•nvntt* to *C
-------
/// x / ,:>x
N/ ••• \/ V
™9*~» / N//1T-
tXPUNATIQN OF WELL SYMBOLS
• "-'• A-zone monitoring wall
0 •-'• B-zone monitoring wtll
^ C-2A A-zone extraction well
$• t^'l • B-zon« txtroction wtll
OF IffSSTS
A-zone TCE
A-zon« chromium
B-zon* -
TCE or chromium which wos not detected
ot or above the minimum detection level
is plotted os a value of 107'
-------
- - y ?
. / /., •>-!• / *^ •
/-:N>^ / X
•-•
._.J L. I
-------
-A i 71
\ .' .,£«. . *
/
x
X X OX..X
v
-v •••—
X X / X. /' /
X// / ,x / ,"-
*
•-.'
./•
4t
./
sr^
^Aar' /JSP
i ~T'~\
'., •' • •
..—i L.
1UDTUL ATI
m.
\
ua*i *n.
i
an.
i during Uoy 1BB4
is well «
11-11
-xon«
NOTCS:
t-t»
fciftr
•n VM *MoifiM« Ccn
, »w Th*. 22. Orttoml*
Cat* V
(MCL) •<
-------
TO 250
TO 250
-------
TO 298
-------
jROUNDWATER SITE
, California
BORING NO. B-tBa
65 Feet Southwest of B»dp. 9 on Calcol Property
SHEET 10 OF 13
222-
226-
226-
230-
232-
234-
236-
238-
240-
242-
244-
t « 4 « 4 «
««*•««
v.v.v,
v.v.v,
I * * * 4 •
44*444
1. WHe^ri brown
«r. •**. I'
.y/.sv
* « « 4 * »
V.V.V.i
•AV.V.
i 4 4 4 4 «
,v«v.v
* 4 * 4 4 4
« 4 41 4 4) «
*4 « 4 # * *
• 4*444
4 4«4«*
* 4 • • 4 4
4 0 4 * 4 4
< 44*44
•44444
(SP). fiottiv (.-wd. gr. Mn«.r. «r.
3J6-r;. -/ cron-oeoang W
tovef -rren 2945 10
•AT MMte t »4-IL
'WW.
• •».•»«
to Ml CMtant • MA-4L.
4 « 4 « 4 I
I 4 4 4 4 4 4
I # 4* « » «
44*4*4
4*4444
44444*
4 * 4 « • *
• 4 4 4 * I
11-14
-------
r
GROUNDWATER SITE
California
BORING NO. B-IBa
kOMI* LOCATION
65 Feet Southwest of Bldg. 8 on . Property
SHEET 9 OF 13
187-
203-
?05-
209-
211-
213-
215-
217-
218-
w-sn
Protect No.
91017 B6
DESCRIPTION
I
KMiftCS
•»••*•
••**•«
******
**»••«
»**»**
***** 4
-**«**
- • 4 • 4 4
T* « 4 * I
•4*444
4 4 * * * •
•**«**
**«»«.«
ft&T UK* t 200-H.
.v.v.v
• « »• • I
v.v.v,
* «« •• *
«4«4 «4
'*.*•«*
« * • • « t
* • * * * *
««*«•*
r 4 • 4 • *
• * * 4 • •
******
«**«*•
«•**•<
•«•**•
* • * * * 4
******
•**••*
****••
t * * * * *
*•*••*
******
*•*••«
I #•#•»*
•»*••*
*»*••*
• • * # * 4
*•»*•*
***** 4
******
***** 4
»**»*•
» » • • 4 I
* * • 4 t I
******
* * * 4 « 4
* * * 4 * 4
• * * 4 • •
• * * * * *
* #* 4 » I
4 * * * * 4
• * * * * I
* * * 4 4 *
, * * * 4 • •
! 4 » » 4 * 4
* * 4 * 4 •
V.V.V,
VAVA
* * * • * 4
4 • 4 4 • t
44*444
• * * 4 4 I
t * 4 *4 4
*•*••<
• ••441
* 4 * * * •
* * * * * 4
• # »* * 4
******
***** 4
******
******
* * * * * 4
* * * 4 » 4
11*}-*. IN*
ill to
* 210-rt.
•n t0ett« BIT
t«o-
-------
GROUNOWATER SITE
. California
BORING NO. B-163
LOCATION
65 Feet Southwest of Bldg. 9 on
Property
SHEET 6 OF 13
172-
174-
176-
176-
180-
162-
164-
186-
188-
ISO-
192-
194-
•AT
M
Protect Mo.
91017 B6
DESCRIPTION
ICMAMCS
in t« nas-n.
•**••*
•**••«
- - - * • t
•AT we* t ne-tL
IK.
•*•«*«
••***•
***•••
:*»#.
**••<_
•*•••*
• * * * • 4
»•**••
••**••
•»••*•
S1LTY
•oms/ttMrtr*
MM Ml. ftw
******
•«***«
t * • * • •
••*•••
•*«•••
••****
••«*•«
•••»•t
«**••*
•#*•»#
*x*>:
IK.
»*»*#•
i •* • •
, •*• • •
• • • *
»» * •
i • * »*
*» * *
*» * * i
* * *«'
* * »* i
•AT tM»fc t M-tt.
11-16
FlBurtNa
-------
GROUNDWATER SITE
-.'0 California
BORING NO. B-1Ba
UtC LOCATION
5b Feet Southwest of Bldo. 9 on
Property
SHEET 7 OF 13
01*
M7-
MS-
61-
1S3-
157-
159-
161-
163-
165-
167-
9-
DESCRIPTION
*•***•
* * • » • 4
••*»*«
••**••
••*•*•
• • • • * •
•****•
•*•*•«
*»*•»•
I •*•••*
I *•*••«
•»•••*
•«*»*«
• • * * • •
*•***«
******
•****•
***•*»
•»***«
******
******
*•*•••
»•*•*•
••*••*
, *»*»•<
(sri:»*«fr«M»-»i
A «r.
'•*•*#• *
•***•*
i ******
•••*•»
****•«
******
»•**»«
•••*•*
#»**»!
•**••*
•****«
***••*
*•***<
******
•AT MM* t ea-n.
tiM-n.
md
*•»*«•
••*•••
••**•*
•***»*
• * * * * 4
»***•*
«**••*
•*•*•»
• •*»»!
t * • * « *
• *»*•«
******
*•»••<
• **»**
• • » » • 4
»•**•»
*•«•««
••*«•»
* * * * * 4
*•*•*•
•I017B6
- 11-17
-------
M
n
INCORPORATED
ELECTRIC MELL LOG
oo
COMPANY
MELL
LOCATION/FIELD
COUNTV
STATE
SECTION
DEPTH DRILLER
LOG BOTTOM
LOG TOP
CASING DRILLER
CASING TVFE
CASING THICKNESSI
CONPANV
•-it*
PALM A MERMDOM -
CALIFORNIA
•O/ift/93
JM
OTHER SERVICES I
INV 00U0
MUD e«MD
TOWNSHIP
I -
i.M
PERMANENT DATUM I C.L,
ELEV. PERN. DATUMI -
LOG HEASURED TltOMI Q.L.
DRL MEASURED rROMt G.L.
I -
ELEVATIONS
RD I -
DF I -
GL I -
LOGGING UNIT
FIELD OrriCE
RECORDED DV
BOREHOLE FLUID
RM
RM TEMPERATURE
MATRIX DELTA T
FLUID DELTA T
•IT SIZE
MAGNETIC DECL.
MATRIX DENSITY
FLUID DENSITY
NEUTRON MATRIX
REMARKS
DRILLED BY: ALL TERRAIN DRILLING - PLEASANT HILL. CA
CONSULTANT: CA
ALL »CHVICCS PROVIDED SU»JCC~ -Q OTAMPftUD TCKHS AMD CONDITIONS
SAN JOSE
C. NERUN
CLAV-CEL
FILE
TYPE
LOG
PLOT
I
I
I
*
THRESH:
PROCESSED
9041A
9
A e
1000
-------
CO
0
10
30
SO
60
7(1
-------
130
140
ISO
1CO
110
190
20'
-------
r
210
220
2X1
240
250
260
270
•S
I
c
,«/
-------
This Page Intentionally Blank
-------
12
-------
IMENTAL TECHlJBlOGY FACT SHEET
Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
I Cyclotron Rd. • Berkeley. CA 94720
stable Isotope Methods
_.j Hydrogeologic Modeling and
Monitoring of Contaminated Sites
A method for assessing the sources and movement of
waters and pollution by measuring stable isotopic data
A methodology for
^developing rational
nitoring and
remediation strategies
Statement of Problem
Analysis of the oxygen isotope(,l8O/16O) and
hydrogen isotope (D/H) ratios of waters is a popular
tool in hydrogeologic assessment. Applications of the
technique, however, have been limited to studies of
uncontaminated watersheds at much larger scales than
are required for meaningful environmental character-
ization. Moreover, because environmental site
characterization activities typically incorporate only
those analytical methods required under environmen-
tal law, characterization efforts at contaminated sites
normally lack stable isotopic
••^^^••^•••M data.
Stable isotopic techniques
enable a comprehensive
understanding of the
hydrogeology at scales appropri-
ate for the rational development
of monitoring and remediation
strategies. Isotopic data provide a baseline for the
assessment of water and pollutant sources and move-
ments, and for the implementation of strategies for
environmental protection, determination of ecological
impacts, and assessments of environmental risk.
Laboratory Capabilities
Our work has focused on determining the spatial
and temporal isotopic variations of water at Berkeley
Lab and other DOE sites. For example, we are analyz-
Fault
ing the components (biotic and abiotic) of the water
cycle within Berkeley Lab's Strawberry Canyon area to
establish flow rates and directions. The isotopic
contrasts between rainfall, groundwater, and municipal
water at Berkeley Lab have been used to develop mass
balance equations to calculate stream flow, and to
demonstrate that groundwater is a major component
of runoff and stream flow—even in the rainy season.
Groundwater isotopic data also have helped
identify areas of contrasting infiltration velocities (and
thus differing risks for contamination) and areas where
municipal water leaks have occurred. Vadose zone
isotopic data highlight the importance of fog water
inputs, processes such as plant water uptake and
transpiration, and organic matter decomposition in
determining water budgets and water isotopic charac-
teristics in the unsaturated zone.
We also use isotopic ratios in plant biomass and
plant fluids to investigate variations in plant water
sources in space and time. This information will help
in planning vegetation cover for regulating water
infiltration and transpiration rates, for immobilizing
pollutants, and for minimizing exposures to humans
and organisms in the food chain.
Precipitation
Stream
inflow
Contact
Leticia B. Menchaca
E-mail: iDmenchaca»lbl.gov
Telephone: 510/486-5923
Fax: 510/486-4 7 76
Mail Stop: 758-101
Water
table
Stream outflow
Hydrogeologic modeling requires oxygen isotopes.
12-1
-------
This Page Intentionally Blank
-------
13
-------
SOIL VOC METHANOL PRESERVATION
Kurt Zeppetello
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
KJZ6EV.STATE.AZ.US
(602)-207-4410
(602)-207-4236 (fax)
Abstract
This paper presents different field sampling techniques that
the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) recommends
emphasizing the methanol preservation method. This procedure is
used when samples will not be extracted at the mobile or fixed
laboratory within 2 hours. Using pre-weighed vials (40 or 60 ml
vials) , add 15 gms of soil to the 40 ml vial or 25 gms of soil to
60 ml vial. After adding the sample to the vial, quickly add a
pre-measured amount of methanol to the vial and close it. Other
methods for adding methanol may be acceptable. This method is the
most recorjnended method for when samples cannot be extracted by a
laborator/ withir 2 hours. Results from case studies performed in
Arizona indicate that VOC concentrations may be significantly under
reported using conventional sampling techniques.
Introduction
Volatile organic compounds VOCs, halogenated and aromatic, are
widely used throughout society and as such are commonly the most
prevalent contaminants at remediation sites. Since site assessment
decisions and remedial actions are based on sampling results for
these compounds, it is essential that accurate data is collected.
Frequently, laboratory results show no detectable volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) in soil samples collected from sites that have
significant ground water contamination (Koroghlanian et al., 1995).
This indicates that there may be a problem with the conventional
soil collection procedure of containerizing the sample in a Teflon
capped glass jar or sealing it in a brass sleeve, refrigerating it
at 4° C, and then transporting it to a laboratory.
Although there other explanations for not detecting VOCs in
soils where the ground water is contaminated, such as collecting a
soil sample which composed of a non-sorbing material like sand or
not collecting the sample in the correct zone, field research from
the last six years has suggested that the procedures associated
with conventional soil collection may lead to substantial errors
when sampling for VOCs. Preliminary studies on the problems with
conventional soil sampling has been conducted by Siegrist and
Jensen (1990), Jackson et al. (1991), Lewis et al. (1991), King
(1993), and Hewitt (1993). The ADEQ has been involved with
alterative VOC sampling since discovering soil vapor results were
more indicative of VOC contamination than soil results (Heywood et
al., 1992).
13-1
-------
Conventional methods for soil sampling are subject to errors
which can under report VOC concentrations by as much as 100%
(Koroghlanian et al., 1995). These errors result from:
volatilization of VOCs during removal from the soil profile and
transfer of the soil from the sampling device to the sample
container; volatilization of VOCs from the sample container during
pre-analytical holding; and volatization of VOCs during the
subsampling by the laboratory prior to analysis (Siegrist, 1992).
Of these, sample transfer is the most crucial step in collection
process (Koroghlanian et al., 1995).
AOEQ Recommendations
In August 1995, the Draft ADEQ Quality Assurance Project Plan
(QAPP) was submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The QAPP contains ADEQ's recommended methods for VOC sample
collection, handling, and storage. The methods are modifications
of those described EPA document by Lewis et al. (1991), American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM, 1991), and other
publications.
1. Collect samples in brass, stainless Steel, Teflon or acetate
sleeves:
a. Submit to a mobile lab or a fixed lab for extraction
within 2 hours. Completely filled sleeves should
immediately sealed by: 1) covering ends with a Teflon
patch; 2) covering the Teflon patch with foil; 3)
covering patches with tight fitting plastic caps; and 4)
sealing the caps by wrapping custody seals or a non-
contaminating tape around the sleeve, overlapping the
lower edge of the cap.
or immediately upon collection;
b. Use a sub-coring device to obtain and transfer samples
to a vial. The sample can then be processed in four ways
(in order of preference): 1) immerse sample in methanol;
2) use a sub-coring sampler that can be demonstrated to
prevent loss of VOCs for an adequate period of time to
get to a laboratory (for example EnCore samplers or
equivalent proven to hold VOCs for 48 hours) ; 3) use
specially designed purge-and-trap adaptor cap for direct
connection to a laboratory equipment; or 4) other proven
methods approved by the appropriate AOEQ program.
2. For soils collected from split-spoon (or similar devices)
used without liners, or any drilling method which produces a
soil core, samples should be obtained by either pushing a
sleeve into the core immediately after the core is brought to
13-2
-------
the surface, or sub-coring and processing the sample using one
of the four methods listed above.
3. Collect soil vapor samples when the cobble and gravel
content of soils result in low, or no sample recovery by any
of the above methods.
After sample collection the sample should be immediately labeled,
placed in a cooler on ice. "Blue ice" should not be used unless
required for shipping purposes. Field measurements and the
lithologic description should be conducted with the remainder of
the recovered sample. Figure 1 shows a diagrammatic sketch of the
procedure.
Methanol Preservation
The methanol-immersion procedure calls for the transfer of the
sample into a glass jar containing a known volume of laboratory
grade methanol (ideally, 1:1, weight-to-volume ratio of soil to
methanol). Currently, ADEQ uses the methanol-immersion procedure
described in the 1995 draft Environmental Laboratory Advisory
Committee (ELAC) technical guidance document. The ELAC appointed
a technical sub-committee made up of representatives from Arizona
laboratories to develop a suggested guidance document for the
procedure.
Highlights from suggested soil sampling guidance for methanol field
preservation is as follows;
• Soil samples should be collected in either a 40 ml vial or a
60 ml vial. Ideally, 15 gms of soil are needed for the 40 ml
vial and 25 gms of soil are needed for the 60 ml vial.
• If the amount soil added to the vial is less than 10 or more
than 20 gms for the 40 ml vial, or less than 20 or more than
35 gms for the 60 ml vial, then the samples may not be
analyzed by the laboratory.
Weight Estimation in tbe Field
60 ml vial:
a. Measure a volume of soil equivalent to 15 - 20 mis with
a soil syringe, non-coring type sampler, or other sampling
method that is appropriate.
b. Add 15 - 20 mis of liquid (equivalent to soil) in a test
vial and put a mark on a vial. Fill the sample vials to
approximately the same level.
40 ml vial:
a. Same as for the 60 ml vial except measure between 7-11 mis
of soil.
13-3
-------
b. Same as for the 60 ml vial except measure between 7-11 mis
of liquid.
Both:
c. Measure the soils at the site using a pocket scale to train
the eye and estimate the amount of soil to add.
Addition of Methanol
a. Using pre-measured vials (20 mis) provided by the
laboratory, quickly open the soil vial and pour the methanol
in the sample vial immediately and close it.
b. Using a syringe, transfer methanol from a pre-measured septa
vial provided by the laboratory to the sample vial. To avoid
cross contamination, a clean syringe will be needed for each
new vial.
c. Using a Teflon re-pipetor that attaches to a bottle of
methanol and delivers 20 mis, quickly open the soil vial and
depress the pump to deliver the methanol.
Methanol preservation must be performed within 2 hours of sample
collection. Samples should be returned to an iced cooler
immediately after preservation . A reference mark should be placed
on the vial showing the top of the methanol to indicate that no
methanol has leaked. Sample labels should be placed on ziploc bags
and not sample vials.
Loss of Methanol Due to Evaporation
Concern has been expressed that the high temperatures common
to Arizona may cause significant methanol losses during the time
the jar is opened to add the soil sample. Significant losses of
methanol would tend to over-estimate the amount of VOC in the
sample. In order to explore the magnitude of the loss, ADEQ
performed an experiment using wide and narrow mouth jars containing
methanol at approximately 4°C and room temperature. The jars were
opened and placed in the shade and periodically weighed. The air
temperature ranged from 107 - 109°F during the experiment, the
humidity ranged from 23 - 25% and a light wind was present most of
the time.
The results of the experiment (figure 2) indicate that
methanol losses are not significant during the time reasonably
needed to add a soil sample to the jar (Koroghlanian et al., 1995).
Sample Preparation at tbe Laboratory
1. The sample vials must be pre-weighed by the laboratory
(label vials before weighing) . A separate vial containing
13-4
-------
either 10 or 20 mis of methanol is included for each sample at
least one extra for the methanol blank.
2. After samples are received by the laboratory, the vials are
weighed to determine the weight of soil added.
3. Add more methanol to the vials in order to maintain a 1:1
ratio of grams of soil to milliliters of methanol.
4. Laboratories should extract the VOCs from soils by
sonication in a bath, vortex mixing, shaking, or other
approved method.
case Studies
1. Table 1: Field methanol preservation vs. conventional
sampling methods.
2. Table 2 and 3: Field methanol preservation vs. sealed metal
sampler.
Conclusions
Several laboratory and field investigations have documenting
voc losses inherent with conventional soil sampling methods since
1990. Alternative methods to conventional VOC sample collection
methods have been incorporated into the 1995 ADEQ QAPP. The method
described in the QAPP represents a combination of EPA and ASTM
publications along with current articles from scientific journals.
Preparation is necessary prior to sampling. If samples are
not going to be extracted at a fixed or mobile laboratory within 2
hours, then conventional field VOC sampling is no longer
recommended in Arizona. The methanol preservation method
represents ADEQ's most recommended alternative for VOC sampling
when a mobile lab is not used. Additional case studies are needed
in order to add to the validity of this method and refine the
technique.
13-5
-------
FIGURES
Soil Gas
Methanol
Mobile Ub
Sleeves
Split Spoons and Coring Devices
Sealed Subcoring Purge and Trap
Samplers
Fixed Lab
Adapter Cap
Figure 1: ADEQ's Recommended VOC Soil Collection
and Handling Methods
(from Koroghlanian et al., 1995)
6-
•=•5-
-24 H
1-
JvTypt and
Pro-experiment Storag* Temperature
— wkj» mouth, room tampwzturv
+• narrow mouth, room t*mp«catura
j* narrow mouth. 4*C
wtd« mouth. 4-c
0 2 4 • • 101214iaH2D22a42eaa032943e4«515S«1«7iriM«1iaO
Time (minutes)
Figure 2: Methanol Weight Loss Over Time
(from Koroghlanian et al., 1995)
13-6
-------
TABLES
Table 1
1,000
200
<50
<100
B
<2,500
1,300
13,000
NC
<100
75
48
270
<50
<100
<2.500
23
310
<50
<100
68
0.21
<50
<50
<100
Field Blank
NC
NC
<50
NC
NC
NC = No sample collected
PCE Results for a Soil Investigation at a Dry Clear in Phoenix
(Modified from Koroghlanian et al., 1995}
Table 2
NC = No sample collected
PCE Results for a Soil Investigation at a Dry Cleaner
in Flagstaff (Modified from Koroghlanian etal., 1995)
Table 3
BH-10
360
60
PCE Results for a Soil Investigation at an AFB in Phoenix
13-7
-------
References
American Society of Testing and Materials. 1991. Standard
Practice for Sampling Waste and Soils for Volatile Organics (ASTM
D 4547). In 1992 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Volume 11.04: 108-
11.
Arizona Environmental Laboratory Advisory Committee. 1995. Draft
Suggested soil sampling guidance for methanol field preservation.
Hewitt, A.D. 1993. Review of current and Potential Future
Sampling Practices for Volatile Organic Compounds in Soil. In
Proceedings, National Symposium on Measuring and Interpreting VOCs
in Soils: State of the Art and Research Needs. Las Vegas, Nevada,
12-14 January.
Heywood J., Bellot M., Fulton M., and Koroghlanian G. 1992. Use of
Soil Gas in the CERCLA Site Assessment Program at Selected Sites in
Arizona. In Arizona Water 2000 - Proceedings of the Commission on
the Environment and Arizona Hydrological Society. Sedona, Arizona.
10-11 September.
Jackson J., Thomey N., and Dietlein L.F. 1991. Degradation of
Hydrocarbons in Soil Samples Analyzed within Accepted Analytical
Holding Times. In Proceedings, Fifth National Outdoor Action
Conference on Aquifer Restoration, Groundwater Monitoring, and
Geophysical Methods. Ground Water Management, no. 5: 567-576. Las
Vegas, Nevada, 13-16 May. Dublin, Ohio: National Water Well
Association.
King P.H. 1993. Evaluation of Sample Holding Times and
Preservation Methods for Gasoline in Fine-Grained Sand. In
Proceedings, National Symposium on Measuring and Interpreting VOCs
in Soils: State of the Art and Research Needs. Las Vegas, Nevada,
12-14 January.
Koroghlanian G. , Fatherly N.D., Padilla M., and Ruddiman W. 1995.
ADEQ's Recommended Methods to Determine Volatile Organic Compound
Content of Soils: An Update. Proceedings in the Arizona
Hydrological Society Eighth Annual Symposium. Tucson, Arizona, 14-
15 September.
Lewis T.E., Crockett A.B., Siegrist R.L., and Zarrabi K. 1991.
Soil Sampling for Volatile Organic Compounds. EPA/590/4-91/001.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, Technology Innovation Office.
Siegrist R.L. and Jennsen P.D. 1990. Evaluation of Sampling
Method Effects on Volatile Organic Compound Measurements in
Contaminated Soils. Environmental Science and Technology 24, no.
9: 1387-1392.
13-8
-------
14
-------
Bacterial Degradation of Chlorinated Solvents
Ned Black, Ph.D.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Hazardous Waste Management Division
I. Background information
a. PCE and TCE degradation products: TCA, the DCEs, VC,
ethene, ethane, organic acids
b. In situ vs ex situ activity
c. Intrinsic vs amended remediation
oJ^r
II. Microbiology
a. In general
b. Cometabolism
c. Aerobic vs anaerobic growth
III. Aerobic bacterial dechlorination of chlorinated solvents
a. Expected rates and degradation products
b. Methods to augment intrinsic activity
IV. Anaerobic bacterial dechlorination of chlorinated solvents
a. Potential rates and degradation products
b. Methods to augment intrinsic activity
V.
Conclusions
14-1
-------
A summary of mechanisms of bacterial degradation of TCE and PCE.
(With an emphasis on work done in the Dept. of Civil Engineering
at Stanford University.)
Natural attenuation of chlorinated solvents (e.g., PCE, TCE and
carbon tetrachloride) by microbial action can take place both
aerobically and anaerobically. The bacteria which are capable of
dechlorination can be found in all habitats, including deep
aquifers. However, the conditions necessary to allow the
bacteria to degrade chlorinated solvents at a particular site may
not exist.
Aerobic mechanisms
The aerobic (oxygen-utilizing) mechanisms involve single enzymes
(and so single bacterial strains) for the entire dechlorination.
TCE is completely dechlorinated via cometabolism by oxygenase
enzymes intended to act on such growth substrates as ammonia,
propane, isoprene, toluene, phenol, and methane. Due to the
specific enzymatic mechanism, vinyl chloride does not accumulate
and is actively dechlorinated by these organisms. Fully
chlorinated compounds, such as PCE and carbon tetrachloride are
NOT dechlorinated by these enzymes. Thus, in a field situation,
PCE will not be biodegraded when oxygen is present.
Most of the early lab and field work concentrated on
methanotrophic transformation of TCE. (Methanotrophs are
bacteria which eat methane.) Unfortunately, methanotrophs
produce two different forms of methane oxygenase. When copper is
present, asxis the case in almost all groundwater environments,
the methane'oxygenase with the lower capacity to transform TCE is
produced. Groundwater field experiments conducted at the Moffett
Field Station by Stanford University showed only 20-30% TCE
removal. In addition, methanotrophs require large amounts of
oxygen to grow or degrade chlorinated compounds.
Many researchers have also studied cometabolism by oxidase
enzymes for aromatic compounds (e.g., toluene and phenol) both in
the lab and at groundwater field sites. Again, TCE and other
partially chlorinated solvents are transformed, but PCE is not.
Vinyl chloride does not accumulate. The organisms are able to
grow and cometabolize TCE using less oxygen than methanotrophs,
so TCE removal is higher. Stanford University researchers have
induced TCE transformation at the Moffett Field Station by
injecting phenol into the groundwater.
For methanotrophs, trans-DCE is dechlorinated faster than cis-
DCE, and 1,1'-DCE is toxic. For the bacteria which consume
aromatics, cis-DCE is dechlorinated more readily than trans-DCE.
Most of the aerobic mechanisms in groundwater require addition of
some substrates (nutrients) , so they should be described as in
situ bioremediation, not natural attenuation.
14-2
-------
TCE, PCE and carbon tetrachloride are dechlorinated by anaerobic
cometabolism (where no oxygen is present). This is also referred
to as reductive dechlorination. Largely because anaerobes are
harder to culture, there is less detail known about the mechanism
for this activity. It is likely that consortia (i.e., two or
more bacterial strains working together) are responsible for this
activity. Vinyl chloride is produced and does accumulate in some
lab and field experiments. However, in many field situations,
transformation to ethene, ethane, and methane is complete. This
activity occurs with no human intervention, and so can be
described as natural attenuation or intrinsic remediation. The
process can be promoted by addition of substrates such as
benzoate or sulfate.
In unamended groundwater, reductive dechlorination will only
occur where oxygen has been depleted and where there is
sufficient organic matter to support a microbial community.
Thus, aerobic aquifers with low organic carbon, typical of the
arid southwest, do not support natural attenuation by this
mechanism. Reductive dechlorination is commonly observed in
aquifers with higher natural levels of organic carbon, such as
those in eastern North America, and at sites in the West where
contaminant mixtures provide readily degradable organic matter to
support the microbial community and lead to oxygen depletion.
This is occurring in the groundwater at the Aerojet Propulsion
plant in Rancho Cordova, CA.
Reductive dechlorination of TCE and PCE is observed under
fermentative, sulfate-reducing and methanogenic conditions;
carbon tetrachloride reduction has been observed under
denitrifying conditions.
There is laboratory evidence that cis-DCE is toxic to some
anaerobes at concentrations above 10 mg/L.
Some useful references for the above and further information:
Hinchee, R.E., A. Leeson, L. Semprini, and S.K. Ong. 1994.
Bioremediation of Chlorinated and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon
Compounds. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. 525 pp.
Hopkins, G.D., L. Semprini, and P.L. McCarty. 1993. Microcosm
and In Situ Field Studies of Trichloroethylene by Phenol-
Utilizing Microorganisms. Applied and Environmental Microbiology
59:2277-2285. (Also released as EPA600/J-93/295 . )
Weaver, J.W., J.T. Wilson, D.H. Kampbell, and M.E. Randolph.
1995. Natural bioattenuation of trichloroethene at the St.
Joseph, Michigan, Superfund site. US EPA. EPA/600/SV-95/001.
14-3
-------
t)Cf:
II,
This Page Intentionally Blank
-------
15
-------
in in AH mil.'
l..i\vicii(.r I ivciiniiir N.ilinii.il l.:iliin.iliii \p
llmtri sil) iif (..ilidimi.i
l.ivri mine.Cnlifiiinn 94SSI
UC LUFT Team
Recommendations To Improve the
Cleanup Process for California's
Leaking Underground Fuel Tanks
(LUFTs)
Authon
David W. Rice
Drendon P. Dnnher*
Stephen J. Cullcn"
LorneC. Everell"
William E. Kaslenberg*"
Randolph D. Grose""
Miguel A. Marino""
Principal Investigator/Contract Manager
David W. Rice, LLNL
Risk Analysis/Decision-Makina Approaches:
William Kastenberg, Ph.D., UC Berkeley
Brendan Dooher, UC Los Angeles
Vadose Transport:
Lome Everett, Ph.D., UC Santa Barbara
Stephen Cullen, Ph.D., UC Santa Barbara
Saturated Transport:
Miguel Marino, Ph.D., UC Davis
Randolph Grose, UC Davis
Submitted to Ihc California Stale Water Resources Control Hoard and the
Senate Dill 1764 Leaking Underground Fuel Tank Advisory Committee
October 16,1995
•••Univcrulr "f talifdrma. lln krli >
••••Uni«tr
-------
Background
California Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) are regulated through a
framework of laws, regulations, and state, regional, and local policies
The California Water Code is the law from which regulations and
policies are derived
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) resolutions are
policies used to implement the Water Code
SWRCB resolutions are prepared through a public hearing process
and consideration of the current state of knowledge and experience
Hypothetical Cost vs Cleanup Curves
Base Case
• Total pumping time:
50 years uncertainty
• Stop pumping reduction
at 5 ppb
Q.
Engineered
proceises
u
8
. \ . . • • -jX^- V cumulal
Years from start o< project
Alternative Approach
•Total pumping time:
17 years Uncertainty Engineered
reduction processes
• Stop pumping ,—•—v —•
at 200 ppb
Natural
processes
— ConumlMnt
uncertainty
Cumulative com
Annual ens) (•1001
Years from st.vl ol |iro|ci:t
o
O
15-2
-------
01
CtMf •cwrliiHon phut EnglMic td prac«u» phiu
1B
4 « a
V«v • tram dirt el proltcl
CtiwicttrliMtofl pht**^ Englnftrtd preMiMt ptaw
—* *^ Natwri procNMiphMt
1b
4 » •
Vitrtlromitiilalpro|Kl
12
ngui* i. Hypolhrte* eon vtfwi etoinup CUT.M lor ITP»C- tUFT cnt
• p««e«i« PumpiiidluWttmtaillon-llhiloiilclttnopllimoHSytar
ippb
Ovtr •ic*MHdn el trnnt wd ttl>Mihmnl ol plum*
Montag Wrtntle MortiMdlillofi l» dim gioond .ittt le ippb
Revised LUFT Decision-Making Approach
Broad, consistent decision-making approach that
can be adopted at State level, but still retain
element of local control
• Overcome inconsistencies of old LUFT implementation
• Facilitates water management planning
- local beneficial use determination
• Streamlines the clean-up process
• Considers cost/risk benefit as a component in the
decision-making process
• Addresses issue of highest beneficial uses (Water quality
standards goals) versus risk-based prioritization
-------
Revised LUFT Decision-Making Approach
Relies on continuous access and utilization of data
for decision-making
• Provides increased regional/area hydrogeologic
representativeness
- Regional/area specific target screening levels established
• Decision-making approach is evergreen
- Action levels periodically re-evaluated
- Knowledge of one site transferred to another
Conclusions
Drinking water impacts from leaking underground fuel tank (LUFT)
fue1 hydrocarbons (FHCs) have been low in California
The cost of cleaning up LUFT FHCs is often inappropriate when
compared to the magnitude of the impact on California's groundwater
resources
LUFT groundwater cleanup requirements are derived from policies
that are inconsistent with the current state of knowledge and
experience
Current understanding of passive bioremediation processes in the
subsurface environment is not reflected in the present LUFT cleanup
process
15-4
-------
Conclusions
• A risk-based corrective action (RBCA) framework would provide a
common decision-making process to systematically address LUFT
cleanup
• Modifications would be necessary for the American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) RBCA framework to be used in
California
• After removal of a FHC source, there are few LUFT cleanup situations
where pump and treat should be attempted
LUFT Recommendations
Once the fuel leak (tank and contaminated soil) source is removed:
• Utilize passive bioremediation as a remediation alternative whenever
possible
- Minimize actively engineered LUFT remediation processes
- Once passive bioremediation is demonstrated and unless there is
a compelling reason otherwise, close cases after source removal
to the point of residual FHC saturation
- In general, do not use the UST Cleanup Fund to implement pump
and treat remediation unless its effectiveness can be
demonstrated
- Support passive bioremediation with a monitoring program
15-5
-------
Recommendations -— Risk Management Process [@
Immediately modify and implement the ASTM RBCA framework to
allow streamlined closure criteria that:
- Encompass a majority of LUFT cases;
- Facilitate and encourage the use of natural bioremediation;
- Position low-risk LUFT sites for rapid closure if risk-based
groundwater cleanup goals are allowed.
Recommendations — Process Validation
Identity a series of LUFT demonstration sites to:
- Test recommended sampling and monitoring procedures and
technologies to use natural bioremediation
- Confirm cost effectiveness of the ASTM RBCA process
- Act as training grounds for the implementation of a modified
ASTM RBCA process
- Facilitate the implementation of a revised LUFT decision-making
process
15-6
-------
16
-------
Practicalities of the
Technical
Impracticability
Guidance
What is Tl? (cont.)
' establishment of "alternate remedial
strategies"
-exposure control
• deed restrictions on supply well
construction
- source control
- aqueous phase remediation
What is Tl?
waiver of ARARs in a specific area
because of
-DNAPL
- hydrogeologic complexity
-cost
- ineffectiveness of selected remedy
How is Tl determined?
' the Tl Guidance
-finalized in Sept. 1993
- clarifies how, when, and where to waive
ARARs for reasons of Tl
-establishes alternate remedial objectives
-------
Who determines Tl?
• Tl team makes recommendation to DD
- RPM, HQ, ORC, hydro(s) make up ad-hoc
team
- state involvement encouraged
• Rich Freitas is point of contact in
Superfund (744-2315)
• Steve Linder is point of contact in RCRA
(744-2036)
• Peter Feldman is point of contact in HQ
(703) 603-8768
Requirements for a Tl evaluation
• identification of ARARs to be waived
• identification of zone (area and depth) in
which ARARs are to be waived
• thorough site characterization
• conceptual model
• evaluation of restoration potential
- analysis of why efforts have not achieved
ARARs
-timeframes
- applicability of other technologies
-cost
When can EPA consider Tl?
• petitions may be submitted for review
- at the time of the ROD
- post-ROD
Recent impetus for Tl
' July 31,1995 memo from AA Laws
- "OSWER expects Tl waivers will be
generally appropriate for DNAPL sites"
i October 1995 Superfund Administrative
Reforms
- suggests update of remedies at sites where
we now know DNAPL to exist
• "current policy is to isolate and contain
DNAPL, removing the source only to the
degree practicable"
-------
The rush for Tl
• What rush?
- one petition submitted so far under 9/93
guidance
o>
u
-------
This Page Intentionally Blank
-------
17
-------
Groundwater Containment Zones - "A Regulatory Policy and Process in Development..
for US EPA 9's 1996 Corrective Action Conference - March 27,1996
Containment Zones
"A Regulatory Policy and
Process in Development..."
Pnttntatton to
US EPA Region 9's
1996 Corrective Action Conference
by
Stava Mont
San Francisco Bay Ragional Wittr Quality Control Board
March 27,1996
Introduction
Topics to be covered
• Background
• CZ rationale
• Comparison with US EPA's Policies
• SWRCB's new proposed requirements
• Experiences implementing
*Case Studies
* Possible uses
• Challenges and Opportunities
What is a Containment Zone (CZ)?
Containment
Monitoring Well(s)
Stephen Morse
2/29(96
/o
17-1
-------
Groundwater Containment Zones - "A Regulatory Policy md Process in Development..
tor US EPA 9's 1996 Corrective Action Conference - March 27,1996
Why Containment Zones?
• 20,000 LUFT sites in California for cleanup
6,000 LUFT in San Francisco Bay Area for cleanup
1,000 solvent site cleanups in San Francisco Bay Area
• "Lessons Learned" from fifteen years experience cleanup of
ground water contamination:
Solvents:
cleanup to background or even MCLs Is often technically
Impracticable or economically Infeaslble
Fuels:
fuel hydrocarbon leaks have had limited Impacts and risk to
human health, the environment, or groundwater resources
and can be regulated less stringently
• National - "Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup", NRC (June
1994) and EPA studies
• Some sites inherently pose limited risk to health, environment,
and water quality (present and future)
• Reality check
Why Containment Zones (cont .)?
Rela
asaF
••»<»»<«»*ipjr
Honogtwow,
«n0»U)«r:
HOWXMM,
mVtatUyn
• tut*******
tl>«*«l»j«f..
Httoregcnwui
MMlUpMtemH.
fndundftn*
live Ease of Cleaning Up of Contaminated Aquifers
unction of Contaminant Chemistry and Hydrogeology
CoWarnlMrrt Cr*mH4#,;»<,>,;
Moew
Dn«v»d
(Oigndn/
vartun)
1*
1
2
2
3
MoW>
Dusdvri
1-2
1-2
2
2
3
Srcnjy
SertMd,
(dKTKM
vdtiizo)
2
2
3
3
3
Stow
SOMd,
DnKhwl
2-3
2-3
3
3
3
SWTO
FMM
INAP1
2-3
2-3
3
3
4
,'>,;„••••
s«nt>
nun
ONAPL
3
3
4
4
4
- RtUDVI twt W CtMHUp. wnv« 1 1» ••••H Wit* OWN ODaJL
prom: Almillvti for eraumWMrCIMfW. MIC. J«1«M 5
Why Containment Zones (cont.)?
concentration
Stephen Mone
179/96
*cthra«em»d»ttDo«tes
\
ground water cleanup goal
17-2
-------
Groundwater Containment Zones - "A Regulatory Policy and Process in Development...
for US EPA 9's 1996 Corrective Action Conference - March 27,1996
Why Containment Zones (cont.)?
"Lessons Learned" - Fuel Leaks
& Lawrence Livermore recommendations
•> Different characteristics than VOC, especially
chlorinated
- Light NAPL (LNAPL - fuels) vs.
Dense NAPL (VOC chlorinated)
- Can biodegrade readily and easily
- Limited plume length
» Remediation Costs vs. Value Gained
» Limited historical impacts
Why Containment Zones (cont.)?
• Regulatory Reform — Desired Changes and Purpose
*• A regulatory strategy for the reasonable protection of
beneficial uses
•Would
- Provide stronger consideration of costs
- Recognize technical limits
- Recognize probable nsks
• Would Not
- Let water be further contaminated
- Let those responsible escape
» State and Regional Water Boards
•Non-Attainment Area (now Containment Zone)
- Higher risk sites - solvents, metals, etc
•Low-risk fuel leak sites - bioremedistion
- State law & regulations will change
Comparison with US EPA's Policies
US EPA's "Technical Impracticability" Policy
»• Similarities:
• Recognizes difficulties of ground water cleanups
• Must be protective of human hearth and
environment
- Data requirements similar — site characterization
*• Differences:
- Covers all ground water pollution
- Allows establishment of CZ prior to full
implementation of remedy
- Use of "mitigation''
- Management of nsk following establishment
EPA recommending implementation of nsk-based
cleanups for LUFTs
EPA considering intrinsic bioremediation for cleanup
Stephen Mone
209/96
17-3
-------
Groundwater Containment Zones - "A Regulatory Policy and Process In Development.... *
for US EPA 9's 1996 Corrective Action Conference - March 27,1996
Highlights of Proposed Containment Zone
Amendments to SWRCB Res 92-49
(from SWRCB'* September 14.1995. prepOMd amendments)
• Renamed Non-Atttirmerrt Zone to Conttinmerrt Zone (CZ)
• Draft Program Environmental Functional Equivalent Document
• Recognized non-attainment as remediation strategy. If...
» Determined that objectives cannot "reasonably be achieved*
» Considering what is technologically or economically feasible.
accounting for
- reasonable period
- environmental characteristics of the hydrogeologic unit
- degree of residual risk
» Technological feasibility
- Assesmg available technologies effective in similar
hydrogeologic conditions
» Economic feasibility
- Objective balancing of the incremental benefit of attaining
further reductions in concentrations and mass vs
incremental costs
10
Highlights of Proposed Containment Zone
Amendments to SWRCB Res 92-49 (cont.)
inm SMCVl 1IHIMH u IMS f*«M •MMUHI)
• Source removed (containment/storage vessels, floating free
product etc)
• Plan submitted
a Agree to do work
b Residual risk management plan
• Includes land use controls
c Mitigation Plan -- must provide reasonable mitigation measures
for any significant adverse environmental impacts in the CZ.
eg
» Alternative water supplies and/or costs
» Regional groundwater monitoring programs
> Contributing groundwater basin cleanup or management
programs
- Off-site, another person. SEP. SWRCB's CAA
- Financing off-site adequate with improvement to water
quality
11
Highlights of Proposed Containment Zone
Amendments to SWRCB Res 92-49 (cont.)
(from SWRCB s September 14 1995 proposed amendments)
a Defined three types of Containment Zones
» Sites with an approved cleanup program
- fully implemented, groundwater asymptotic
- generally VOC solvents, etc
»"Low risk sites"
- stable plume
- classes of sites possible
- generally fuels, areas
» Difficult sites
- strong sorpton, DNAPLs, complex geology
» Must be limited in extent
» Not cause a substantial decline in overall yield of basin
• "No further acton" when implemented
Stephen Mone
2/29/96
17-4
-------
Groundwater Containment Zones - 'A Regulatory Policy and Process in Development..
for US EPA 9's 1996 Corrective Action Conference - March 27,1996
Highlights of Proposed Containment Zone
Amendments to SWRCB Res 92-49 (cont.)
(from SWRCB's September 14.1995. proposed amendments)
> Water quality objectives are attained and
maintained at and beyond the containment
monitoring points
»Containment Zone's Containment Points
» Close as possible
» CZ no larger than necessary
• Must not adversely affect human or other biological
receptors
13
Highlights of Proposed Containment Zone
Amendments to SWRCB Res 92-49 (cont.)
(from SWRCB's September 14. 1995. proposed amendments)
> Comply with local ground water management
plan (AB 3030)
i CZ not permitted in some areas
> Critical recharge areas
> Local agencies may implement
»• Petroleum products only
i Utilize a TAC before designation
14
Highlights of Proposed Containment Zone
Amendments to SWRCB Res 92-49 (cont.)
(from SWRCB's September 14 1995 proposed amendments)
• SWRCB/RWQCB Review Committee
••will review for consistency first 2 years and
prepare specific guidance as necessary
• Must be designated by Cleanup Abatement Order
(i.e. SCR)
*• RWQCB — not Executive Officer
» CEQA and public participation issues to be
addressed
- SWRCB's Program environmental document
- Minimum requires RWQCB agenda notice
- LUFT program (RWQCB coordination?)
15
Stephen Morse
2/29/96
17-5
-------
Groundwater Containment Zone* - 'A Regulatory Policy mnd Process in Development.
for US EPA 9'« 1996 Corrective Action Conference - March 27, 1996
Case Study #1 - Higher Risk Site
• Site is 30 acres; formerly used lor manufacture of computer disk
drives: pollution in soils and ground waters on-srte
• Predominant VOCs in shallow ground water are TCE. Freon-113,
1,2-DCE. and vinyl chloride; some pollutton in deeper ground
waters
• Classified as 'potantiar drinking water by SWRCB Res B8-63
• Ground water extraction and treatment system installed in August
1986; operated continuously to early 1994:
» 84 million gallons water; 152 pounds VOCs; asymptotic
e SF Bay RWQCB adopted CZ December 1993
» Ground water extraction no longer efficient; could be improved,
but not cost-effective and still would not meet MCLs on-sita
> Ground water above MCL must be contained en-site
» Residual risk management and contingency plan to be
implemented
Case Study #1 - Cumulative Pounds of VOCs Removed
160-
140-
120-
Cumulativeioo-
VOCs
removed 80-
60-
40-
20-
3/86
a/s?
12/88
5/9C
B/91 1*3
time
.
[~
"T
8«4
Case Study #1 - Contaminant Isocontours of TCE and 1,2-DCE
Shallow ground w«w concentrators - lite 1803
O
background well
Stephen Morse
2/29/96
11
17-6
-------
Groundwater Containment Zones - 'A Regulatory Policy »nd Process in Development..
for US EPA 9's 1996 Corrective Action Conference - March 27,1996
Case Study #2 - "Low
(cleanup at a former gasoline i
o
K
£
m
Risk" CZ Site
er vice station}
HW.1t 0
K
foiiard" welrv
O^-iii^
o
1 CZ contalnnient w
•^^rf^sjsSs.
mSSn
O MW.17& 11
• II
former
underground
storage tanks
jmi:-d Q__«»,::. M
BWlft O
Old Yellow Brick Road
approximate direction
of ground water now
««,.,< O
19
Appl i cation of CZ to Larger, Complex Sites
MW = Monitoring Well RMZ = Remediation Management Zone 20
Application of CZ to Commingled Plumes
MW = Monitonng Well
STephen
2/29/86
17-7
-------
Groundwater Containment Zones - 'A Regulatory Policy and Process in Development..
tor US EPA 9's 1996 Corrective Action Conference - March 27,1996
"Ideal" CZ Sites
Residual risks are acceptable and low
Contaminant concentration at asymptote levels and/or
dose to State water quality objectives
Fine-grained soils
Benign biodegradaton taking place
Pollutant plume contained on-srte
Non-potable water uses under the site
"Instrtutonals" remain stable and constant
» Few owners/operators involved
» Continuity of operator, regulator, contact poison, lab
» "Standard" deed restrictions
Industrial and/or commercial land uses on-srte and
adjacent
Disadvantages of CZ?
1 "Closure" mechanism is not yet formulated for CZ
2 Establishment of a CZ will require some nsk
assessment
3 Lack of technical training for nsk evaluation at
RWQCBs and LOPs may create reluctance of
approval
4 It may create cumbersome management
requirements at "clean" sites where CZ should not
even be deemed necessary
s Potential for misapplication in situations where
water quality does not warrant consideration
21
6.
Advantages of CZ?
De-emphasizes 'closure' at sites where closure is impractical
Allows long-term monitoring only vs aggressive technological
application
Allows long-term, predictable cost-planning for approved site
management plan
Could be ideal for operational facilities where plumes are stable
and source cannot be removed
Would be recognized remedial alternative within SWRCB
Resolution 92-49 and therefore is not subject to further
enforcement action
Use of nsk assessment process provides increased insight and
understanding of the problem and optimizes protection of health.
environment, and water quality
Assumes that the beneficial use as potable water is not immediate
and therefore allows time to remediate the pollution
M
Stephen Morte
2/28/96
17-8
-------
Groundwater Containment Zones - "A Regulatory Policy and Process in Development..,
for US EPA 9's 1996 Corrective Action Conference - March 27, 1996
Opportunities to Improve Implementation of CZ
1. Simplify and streamline all procedures for low-nsk
sites to match threat
2. Consider cleanups on the basis of "risk-management"
alone, eg low-nsk fuel sites
3. CZ leading to "closure" must be developed
4. Integration into upcoming SB1764 process /
'regulations
5. "Reasonable", etc to be defined through examples
and case studies and education
6. Real estate and financial institutions must be satisfied
7. UST Cleanup Fund decision-making should be
integrated into CZ
6. Partial CZ. e g off-site vs on-stte CZ
9. Commingled plumes using an "area" approach
10. Guidance for project mitigation requirements
26
Summary
Containment Zones could provide for:
» Recognition of the technical and financial
infeasibility to reasonably achieve ground
water quality objectives;
» Rational management of site cleanups;
»• Protection and conservation of significant
amounts of ground water
»• Protection of public health and the
environment;
* Potentially the most "cost-effective" to the
public and private sector.
26
SF Bay RWQCB Comments & Recommendations on
SWRCB's Proposed 92-49 Amendments (Containment Zone)
• Compliments pursuing Containment Zone amendments and
Program Functional Equivalent Document (FED)
• Requested SWRCB consider following changes
» Amend finding to commit to change to reflect fuel leak
cleanups as special category (ref LLNL report)
- Consider use of nsk management for fuel cleanups
» Revise to not unnecessary restnct RWQCBs
- CAOs by RWQCBs only
- "One size fits all" administrative requirements
» Clarify intent and use of certain sections (and FED)
- Which local agency to implement
- tank removal practicality
- Use of FED
- Significant adverse impacts
• Mitigation
e Adopt and move on 27
Stephen Moree
2/29/96
17-9
-------
Groundwater Containment Zones - "A Regulatory Policy and Process In Development..,
for US EPA 9's 1996 Corrective Action Conference - March 27,1996
Summary of SWRCB Bublic Heanng Novembers. 1995 on
SWRCB's Proposed 52-49 Amendments (Containment Zone)
• Over 4 hours testimony, 20* parlies testified
» Most supported concept of Containment Zone (-IB)
Primarily industrial but included SCWVD. San Jose. Emeryville
- Typically wanted even more (earlier daemons, closure, etc)
- Supportive but concerns ebeut
•fuel cleanups (admin, timing. LLNL report, etc)
•mitigation requirements (especially off-site)
•administrative requirements (especially fuel)
•'•stigma' upon reel estate
• Opposition to Containment Zones
- Planning and Conservation League. MetvVater. TAG. UC Davis
Law Clinic. Save Santa Monica Bay
•Aquifer Abandonment Policy
•Loss of finite resources
•Inadequate CEOA documentation
e SWRCB seemed supportive
» Record Open to December 1.1995
• Written comments impacts unknown
• Future of Policy Uncertain but Fuels????'
Amendment of SWRCB Res 92-49 to Include CZ
Attnnil
SWRCB
I B»n
Rim
OllCtl
•IMM
•2.49
91-49
•mdmi
nMM0
P»d
SWRCB
N«r««g
SWRCB
wvttiiee
1 SWRCB
Momon
OAL
ACBfOVII
9^49
12/S4
•
1M
vtt
•
u
3IU
m
•
WM
m
ImiM
•aiiMi
MMdM
MS
•Mm
• • IWI
mi pn
T/SS
MMto
•t
nnri
ew
ED
aw
14M
prep
•ma
law
1011
•no
IMS
e»
PI*
nmg
IVSS
1«
dOM
wid
IM
XM
MS
OOAY
W7
t
CZ -Conclusions
• CZ could break the logjam on some site
cleanups and management decisions
»CZ can only be considered now by
RWQCBs one-by-one as appropriate
• Further consideration at SWRCB being
given through Res 92-49 amendments
• "Still in development...."
Stephen Morse
2/29/86
10
17-10
-------
Groundwater Containment Zones - "A Regulatory Policy and Process in Development...."
for US EPA 9's 1996 Corrective Action Conference - March 27.1996
BBS / Internet
Supnen Moise
2/29/96
17-11
-------
This Page Intentionally Blank
-------
18
-------
THE IMPORTANCE OF FIELD OVERSIGHT FOR GROUNDWATER SAMPLING
Brian Lewis (HQ-24)
Department of Toxic Substances Control
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento, CA 95812-0806
(916) 323-3632
(916) 323-3700 Fax
E-Mail: BLEWIS@HW1.CAHWNET.GOV
ABSTRACT:
Groundwater sampling, including collection, handling, preservation, and
transportation, is carried out by a wide variety of personnel. Some samplers have
little training, whereas other samplers may have had extensive training. A few
Owner/Operators and environmental companies offer internal training to ensure
competency as well as consistency. This presentation provides an overview of
some of the common errors observed in the field. DTSC has found th^t with
oversight and coaching of the sampling done for Owner/Operators, sampling
collection methods have improved over time. However, more work (e.g., training,
detailed sampling and analysis plans, etc.) is needed to insure that representative
samples are obtained. Additionally, DTSC encourages Owner/Operators,
consultants, and regulators to routinely audit samplers.
18-0
-------
This Page Intentionally Blank
-------
Guidelines for the Preparation of Water Quality
Sampling and Analysis Plans (WQSAPs)
The Department of Toxic Substances Control's (Department's) Permitting and
Enforcement Geological Services Unit (PEGSU) has developed guidelines for use in
the review of WQSAPs by Department staff. As the Department implements Senate
Bill 1082 (Calderon), these guidelines may change to incorporate comments from the
State Water Resources Control Board and/or the Regional Water Quality Control
Boards. PEGSU may also revise these guidelines to incorporate concepts and
guidelines from the Department's Regulatory Structure Update (RSU).
The WQSAP is the document that completely describes the water quality
monitoring program for a regulated unit at a RCRA facility. It identifies the regulated
unit, describe pertinent details about the construction of the unit and the historical
use of the property, and describe waste management activities at the unit. The
WQSAP describes the hydrogeology of the area and contain specifications for the
water quality monitoring systems (ground water, surface water and unsaturated zone)
in use at the facility. The WQSAP describes any contamination that has been
identified and state whether the regulated unit will be in detection, evaluation or
corrective action monitoring.
The WQSAP should also include the following
• the constituents of concern (CoCs) and monitoring parameters and
documentation to support the lists,
• the sampling frequency and the number and kinds of samples to be collected
during each sampling event,
• documentation (hydrographs) indicating the seasonal maximum and minimum
water levels expected (by month),
• a discussion of the need to monitor for wellhead gases and immiscible layers,
• the rationale for deciding if samples for metals will be filtered or not. The
decision must include a consideration of the purpose of sampling (i.e.,
detection monitoring, evaluation of a release or risk assessment),
• information used to establish background values for all CoCs and all
monitoring parameters, and provides a detailed description of the statistical
methods to be used to evaluate analytical data,
18-1
-------
• the Quality Assurance Project Program (QAPP) or reference to the QAPP. The
QAPP describes the data quality objectives (in terms of accuracy and
precision), acceptance criteria for analytical data, and the format for reporting
the results of the Quality Assurance /Quality Control (QA/QC) program. (Note:
Proposed detection limits must be low enough to fulfill the data needs of the
monitoring program),
• the statement that actual laboratory values between the detection limit (DL)
and the practical quantitation limit (PQL) will be reported (and maintained in
the data base) with the numerical value determined by the laboratory and a
flag to indicate that these values are below the PQL. In such cases the value
of the PQL must also be reported and maintained in the data base. The
practice of artificially censoring data that is reported below the calculated PQL
can lead to the use of less powerful statistical methods. It is important to
preserve the actual uncensored values for all concentrations above the DL for
possible use in future statistical analysis, and
• a detailed description of the content and submittal dates for periodic reports
(including the submittal of quarterly determinations of groundwater flow rate
and direction). The name, address, and telephone number of the person at
DTSC to whom reports and notifications of significant findings are to be
addressed and the name, address and telephone number of the facility
representative to contact for questions regarding the report should also be
included.
The following items may also be needed in WQSAPs.
• For a detection monitoring program, a specification of the maximum amount
of time needed after each monitoring episode to perform statistical analysis and
make a determination of whether of not there is statistically significant
evidence of a release from the regulated units.
• A description of well redevelopment and routine well maintenance. For
permitted facilities, it is wise to include a section on well decommissioning
and replacement so that those procedures can be implemented without a
permit modification.
• To evaluate the accuracy of the analytical data, provisions for initially and
periodically characterizing the major cations and anions and testing the results
by determining the charge balances. This could probably be most easily
18-2
-------
performed during the initial sampling to establish background values for CoCs
and during the periodic testing of CoCs in downgradient wells.
For a detection monitoring program, a statement that DISC will be notified by
certified mail within 7 days of determining statistically significant evidence of
a release for any monitoring parameter or CoC at any monitoring point (Section
66264.98(j)). The WQSAPshould describe the exact procedures for performing
verification sampling, specify the maximum amount of time before the results
of the verification sampling are reported to DISC and state that, if the
significant evidence of a release is confirmed, the facility will comply with the
requirements of Section 66264.98(k) Title 22 California Code of Regulations
(CCR) for responding to significant evidence of a release (e.g., immediately
collect samples for Appendix IX constituents and for all CoCs, etc.).
Finally, the WQSAP should contain detailed information describing the
physical process of sampling. This portion of the WQSAP is generally written as a
stand-alone document that is appropriate for use by field personnel and is usually
referred to as the sampling and analysis plan (SAP). Attached is a checklist of items
to be included in a SAP. Also included are two checklists indicating what the
Department reviewers look for in quarterly monitoring reports and annual reports
generated after the sampling takes place.
18-3
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan Checklist
This sampling and analysis plan (SAP) checklist was developed to address
the physical process of obtaining field information, measurements, and water
quality samples. The SAP should be written as an enforceable document.
Deviations from the procedures described in the current SAP for a facility are
subject to enforcement by the Department. It should be written to unambiguously
describe exactly what steps will be taken to ensure that representative samples are
collected. The SAP must contain sufficient detail for a sampler with limited
experience to understand and follow and to ensure that sampling will be
conducted in the same manner by different samplers. The following items should
be included in the SAP.
1) A copy of the document each member of the field team signs stating
that he/she has read and understands the current version of the SAP.
A signed copy of this document should be submitted to the
Department with the report of analytical results.
2) A description of the equipment to be used and procedures to be
followed for the measurement of the depth to water. The SAP should
specifically state that water levels will be measured in all wells and
piezometers at least quarterly for the calculation of ground water flow
rate and direction, that all water levels will be measured in the
shortest possible time, and that water levels in all wells will be
measured before any well is purged.
3) A statement that water levels for the calculation of ground water flow
rate and direction will be measured during times of expected seasonal
maximum and minimum water levels.
4) A statement that the depth to water will be measured with reference
to a marked point that has been surveyed by a licensed surveyor.
The water level probe should be capable of obtaining reliable
measurements to +/- 0.01 foot. The SAP should specify the method
for decontamination of the water level probe between use at each
well.
5) The order in which wells will be visited for water level monitoring,
sampling, and maintenance. The rationale for the order in terms of
minimizing the possibility of cross-contaminating the wells and/or
samples should be presented.
18-4
-------
6) Calibration procedures, frequency, and recordkeeping for water level
probes.
7) Procedures, frequency, and recordkeeping for measuring the depth of
the well casing.
8) Calibration procedures, frequency, and recordkeeping for the well
depth sounding instrument.
9) Copies of sample field data sheets.
10) A statement that well-head conditions (condition of well casing, well
lock, markings, standing water at surface) and any suggested
maintenance will be recorded in the field notes. The SAP should
describe procedures for performing necessary well maintenance in a
timely manner.
11) Equipment"and procedures for testing wellhead gases and for testing
the water surface for immiscible layers (if required per the WQSAP).
12) Procedure for calculation of well casing volumes. Where references
are made to total well depth, it should be clear that the total well
depth is the well depth as measured from the permanent mark on the
well casing. (Total well depth is also commonly recorded as depth
below ground surface.)
13) The maximum purge rate for each well. Whenever possible, purge
rates should not exceed recharge rates. (Note: For wells completed at
the water table, maximum purge rates may be a function of the water
level in the well. The objective is to avoid purging a well to dryness
whenever possible.)
14) A statement that, unless wells are purged to dryness, a minimum of
three casing volumes will be removed during well purging.
15) A statement that, unless wells are purged to dryness, wells will be
purged until field parameters stabilize. DTSC currently believes that
stability of field parameters is the best indication that the water being
sampled is representative of the ground water in the aquifer. All
measurements of field parameters are to be recorded in the field log.
18-5
-------
The final, stable value for each field parameter must be recorded and
graphed through time for each well.
16) For wells purged to dryness, procedures for removing as much water
as possible from the well, monitoring recharge, collecting samples as
soon as the well has recharged sufficiently, and documenting the
sampling events. For wells that are bailed, the SAP must state that a
well will only be considered to have been purged until "dry" if less
than 10% of the original volume of water remains in the well after
purging. (Note: The objective is to minimize the amount of water
that remains in the well after the well has been purged "dry", because
that water is expected to mix with the recharging water so that the
sample will be a combination of "stagnant" and "fresh" groundwater.
It is important to optimize the percentage of "fresh" water.) The SAP
must specify the frequency for measuring recharge and the criteria for
initiating sampling. Sampling must proceed as soon as possible after
the recharge criteria have been satisfied. Samples for volatile
organics must be collected no more than two hours after purging.
17) For wells not purged to dryness, a statement that sampling will be
conducted as soon as possible after purging is completed. The SAP
should specify, based on measured recharge rates, the approximate
time period after purging that sampling will occur; or, the SAP
should describe the procedures for measuring and recording water
levels after purging and before sampling and specify the criteria for
recharge.
18) A description of equipment and procedures for measuring field
indicator parameters during purging. The SAP should specify the
criteria for determining that field parameters have stabilized before
sampling (e.g., pH +/- .1 pH unit, temperature +/- 1 degree Celsius,
conductivity +/- 10%, turbidity +/- 10%) and must state the
minimum purge volume between tests to determine if field
parameters have stabilized (e.g., one-half casing volume). The SAP
should specifically state that turbidity will be measured with a
turbidity meter. Visual estimates are not sufficient.
19) Calibration procedures, frequency and recordkeeping for all meters
used during sampling. The SAP should state that the expiration dates
of standard solutions used for calibration will be recorded in the field
log. Any deviations noted during the day (e.g. meter drift) should
18-6
-------
also be recorded. If meter drift requires an adjustment to any final
values for field parameters, the results should be flagged in the data-
base.
20) Procedures for recording flow rates and volumes of water purged and
for disposing of purged water. Field notes should include the
appearance of the purged water including its color and odor.
21) A description of the equipment and procedures for collecting
samples. Sampling equipment should be constructed of inert
materials. Dedicated equipment should be used whenever possible.
If equipment must be used at more than one well, the SAP should
describe in detail the procedures to decontaminate the equipment
and procedures for the collection of equipment blanks.
22) A statement that clean, powderless, surgical gloves (or another
approved type of glove) shall be worn by sampling personnel and
shall be changed often.
23) A description of the sample containers (size and materials) for each
type of analysis.
24) A description of the labeling of the sample containers.
25) A description of the preservation techniques necessary for each type
of sample.
26) Procedures for determining the amount of preservative necessary to
achieve the required chemical stability (e.g., amount of acid
necessary to ensure pH<2 for metals analysis).
27) Procedures for checking and documenting the results of preservation
(e.g., checking whether metals samples have been acidified to a pH
of less than 2 and that temperatures are maintained at 4 degrees
Celsius during shipping and storage). The SAP must state that
problems will be reported to the Department. (We have had some
trouble with laboratories documenting problems but not reporting
them.)
28) A description of the equipment and procedures for taking each type
of sample. Sampling procedures should be designed to minimize
18-7
-------
disturbance of the sample that could result in changes in water
chemistry.
29) If filtering is required, a description of the equipment (including filter
size) and procedures for filtering samples. The use of in-line filters is
preferred. If in-line filtration is not possible, filtering should be done
as quickly as possible (immediately) using positive pressure filtering
equipment. The SAP should specify the discard volume (the volume
of groundwater to be used to flush the filter before sampling) for the
type of filter to be used. If manufacturer's guidelines are not
available, the SAP should specify that two times the capacity of the
filtering device will be passed through the filter and discarded before
samples are collected.
30) A statement that bottles that have been prepared with preservatives
will not be overfilled.
31) A description of the equipment and procedures for storing samples for
transport.
32) Forms and procedures for sample transport and chain of custody
control. The SAP should specify the procedures to be followed to
assure that strict custody of samples is maintained during sample
collection, storage and transport (i.e., samples are not left unattended
or samples are secured in storage areas with limited access). Sample
copies of chain-of-custody and sample analysis request forms should
be included.
33) A description of equipment, procedures, and recordkeeping for
decontamination of all sampling equipment and protective gear.
Equipment shall not be used if visual signs, such as discoloration
indicate that decontamination was insufficient.
34) The analytical method to be performed for each sample.
35) A copy of a document each member of the field team signs following
each sampling event, detailing any deviations from the SAP that were
necessitated by field conditions (e.g, equipment failure, wells that
could not be sampled, etc.) and stating that, with the exceptions
noted above, all field measurements and samples were collected in
accordance with the procedures described in the SAP. A signed copy
18-8
-------
of this document must be submitted with the report of analytical
results.
18-9
-------
Checklist for Quarterly Monitoring Reports
Within 60 (or 90) days following each quarterly sampling event, the facility
is required to submit a quarterly monitoring report to the Department. The
following items apply to each quarterly monitoring report:
• The report should be presented in a professional report format with a table
of contents and numbered pages.
• Since the quarterly monitoring report must contain interpretations of
hydrogeologic and geochemical data, each report should be signed by a
Geologist, registered in the state of California who takes responsibility for
the technical content of the report. This is required by California state law -
Business and Professions Code, Geologists and Geophysicists Act. Reports
should indicate the license number of the geologist.
• Each report should reference the current sampling and analysis plan (SAP)
and state that, with only the exceptions listed in the report, all sampling and
analysis was conducted in accordance with the current plan.
• Each report should contain a detailed description of any deviations from the
current SAP, an explanation of the conditions that necessitated those
deviations and a description of any corrective measures being taken to
avoid future deviations from the SAP.
• When appropriate, each report should describe recent changes to the
monitoring program that are allowed by the conditions of the current SAP.
(For example, minor changes in sampling or analytical equipment or
protocol, addition of new or replacement wells to the monitoring system,
and the use of updated concentration limits.)
• Each report should contain a summary of the sampling event that identifies
the type of monitoring program for each regulated unit (detection,
evaluation, and/or corrective action) and describe significant findings.
• Each report should contain a narrative report summarizing and interpreting
the results of the monitoring event, including, but not limited to:
18-10
-------
* Analysis of water level data and potentiometric maps, including a
determination of groundwater flow rate and direction in each
hydrologic zone monitored at the facility;
* A report on the results of quality assurance / quality control (QA/QQ
sampling and analysis. The report must state whether or not data
quality objectives of accuracy, precision and completeness have been
met. If objectives were not met (e.g., target detection limits were
exceeded), this section must discuss corrective measures (e.g.,
resampling) that are being taken by the facility and/or the laboratory.
* Summary of the results of statistical analyses on water chemistry data;
* Interpretation of soil moisture data; and
* Summary of the results of facility maintenance inspections of the
monitored units and their monitoring systems.
Each report should contain a current set of potentiometric maps for the
facility.
Each report should include summary tables of current water level data,
analytical data, and the results of the statistical analysis.
Each report should contain supporting documentation related to the
sampling event, including, but not limited to: copies of field logs and
activity sheets; depth to water data; well head data; immiscible layer data;
field parameter results; purge volume data; on-scene observations; chain-of
custody forms; and laboratory data sheets (analytical reports). Internal
laboratory calibration and QA/QC data need not be submitted to the
Department, but should be available at the facility or laboratory if needed.
Each report should contain an evaluation of the effectiveness of the leachate
monitoring and control facilities and of the run-off/run-on control facilities.
For active units, each report should describe the quantity and types of waste
discharged and the locations in the facility where waste has been placed
since the submittal of the last such report.
Each report should include a section that tracks outstanding issues and/or
follow-up work that needs to be performed (e.g., verification sampling of
18-11
-------
apparently significant evidence of a release, repair or replacement of wells
or equipment). Any item included in this section must be addressed in
every subsequent quarterly report until the outstanding issue is resolved.
Note: The documentation requirements for quarterly monitoring reports are not a
substitute for the notification requirements in section 66264.98 (j)(1) and
66264.98(1). As required by those sections, anytime the facility determines that
there is statistically significant evidence of a release from the regulated unit, the
facility must notify the Department by certified mail within seven days of making
that determination.
18-12
-------
Checklist for Annual Monitoring Reports
By March 1 of each year (unless the facility permit states otherwise), the
facility must submit an annual report that covers the activities of the previous year.
The annual report may be combined with the quarterly report for the fourth
quarter provided it is submitted within 90 days of the fourth quarter sampling
event and all items required for each report are included in the annual report.
The following items apply to each annual monitoring report:
• The report should be presented in a professional report format including a
table of contents and numbered pages.
• Since the annual monitoring report must contain interpretations of
hydrogeologic and geochemical data, each report should be signed by a
Geologist, registered in the state of California who takes responsibility for
the technical content of the report. This is required by California state law -
Business and Professions Code, Geologists and Geophysicists Act. Reports
should indicate the license number of the geologist.
• Each report should contain an executive summary of previous year's
sampling events that identifies the type of monitoring program for each
regulated unit (detection, evaluation, and/or corrective action) and describe
significant findings.
• Each report should contain a narrative report summarizing and interpreting
the results of the water quality monitoring program to date, including, but
not limited to:
* An analysis of water level data and potentiometric maps. Water level
data, including hydrographs and potentiometric maps, must be
evaluated to determine if the water quality monitoring system is in
compliance with the requirements of Section 66264.97(b)(1) (i.e., the
system satisfies the data needs for the current monitoring program:
detection, evaluation or corrective action.) If the system is not
adequate, the report must specify the steps that will be taken by the
facility to achieve compliance with those requirements.
* Interpretation of the results of statistical analysis on water chemistry
data; and
18-13
-------
* Interpretation of soil moisture data.
Unless otherwise stated in the permit or sampling and analysis plan, each
report should contain comprehensive summary tables of all historical
analytical data related to water quality monitoring (groundwater, surface
water, and soil-pore liquid) at each regulated unit.
Each report should contain time series plots of water level, laboratory
analytical data, and the final, stable value of field parameters. Unless
otherwise stated in the permit or WQSAP, graphs should be presented in
the following format:
* Every monitoring parameter or CoC should be shown on a separate
graph with the data from as many wells as can be legibly displayed.
As much historic data as possible should be included on each graph
so that long-term and/or recurring trends can be distinguished.
* When a concentration is reported as below the detection limit (DL), it
should be displayed on the graph in such a way that the reviewer
can clearly tell that the analyte was not detected. The value of the
DL must be evident. If the DL has remained constant, it is sufficient
to simply state what that limit is and to plot the data at a constant
value (i.e., the value of the DL). If the DL has varied through time
the facility should devise a way to depict that information on the
graph.
* When a concentration is reported below the reporting limit (or
practical quantitation limit [PQL]), but above the DL (such data is
frequently referred to as "censored" or "trace" data) it should be
displayed on the graph at the estimated concentration reported by the
laboratory, but in such a way that the reviewer can clearly tell that
the concentration was estimated to be below the reporting limit (or
PQL). The values of the reporting limit (or PQL) and the DL should
be evident. Methods in use by other facilities include: substituting
the letters TR (trace) for the well symbol on the graph, altering the
well symbol in some standard way (e.g circling the well symbol,
using alternate colors), and plotting detection limits on overlays.
* The spread of the y axis should be selected to best display the
variability of the data and must be no more than three times the
range of the data.
18-14
-------
When plotting concentration data for multiple wells, it is expected
that much of the data will overplot for values near the mean of the
data set. This still provides useful information and should not be a
problem as long as the graphs are submitted at an appropriate scale
and well symbols are clearly legible in areas where the concentration
deviates from normal.
If more than one graph is needed for each parameter then:
a) to facilitate comparison between upgradient and downgradient
data, each graph shall show data from the background
monitoring points (Note: This can also be accomplished by
printing graphs on transparencies and overlaying the graphs.);
b) downgradient wells shall be grouped by location or by other
significant characteristics; and
c) all graphs for a parameter shall be at the same scale.
18-15
-------
This Page Intentionally Blank
-------
SPEAKER
BIOGRAPHIES
X
Q
Z
111
Q.
Q.
-------
SPEAKER BIOGRAPHIES
1996 EPA REGION 9 CORRECTIVE ACTION CONFERENCE
BRIAN J. ANDRASKI
U.S. Geological Survey
Brian Andraski, Research Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey, has 10 years of experience
in the study of soil physical and hydrological problems related to waste disposal in arid
environments. His present work emphasizes the evaluation of soil-plant-water interactions
and the testing and evaluation of methods for characterizing and monitoring water movement
in desert soils. Previous work, done as a Senior Research Specialist at the University of
Wisconsin Soil Sciences Department, included studies to characterize water movement in a
coal fly-ash landfill.
KAREN T. BAKER
California EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control
Karen T. Baker has been with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control
(DTSC) for eight years. She received a M.S. in Geological Sciences from the University of
California, Riverside in 1985. She is a California Registered Geologist, Certified
Hydrogeologist and Certified Engineering Geologist. She is currently the supervisor of the
Geological Support Unit. The unit provides geological consultation to both the RCRA and
CERCLA Programs within DTSC.
NED BLACK
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9
Ned Black, Ph.D., has been with the United States Environmental Protection Agency as a
Superfund Project Manager and Ecologist for two years. Prior to that, he worked as a post-
doctoral fellow and acting assistant professor in the Department of Civil Engineering at
Stanford University, where he studied bacterial degradation of PAH's and chlorinated
solvents. Dr. Black has a doctorate in Engineering Sciences from Harvard University. His
doctoral research dealt with aquatic microbiaJ ecology and metal geochemistry.
-------
R. JEFFREY DUNN
GeoSyntec Consultants
R. Jeffrey Dunn, Ph.D., P.E., G.E., Manager of GeoSyntec's Walnut Creek Office, has more
than 19 years experience in the permitting, design, construction, operations, and closure of
municipal, industrial, and hazardous waste landfills. Dr. Dunn is a licensed Geotechnical
Engineer and has a wide variety of experience in many different projects and is nationally
recognized for his expertise in design and construction of geosynthetic and clay liners and
covers. He has worked on projects for both;private and public sector clients. Specific
projects Dr. Dunn has managed include the closure design for the City of Fresno CERCLA
Landfill, 1SRT NPL remediation in Woburn, Massachusetts, as well as the expansion designs
and construction quality assurance for the Sonoma. Vasco Road, and Keller Canyon sanitary
landfills. He has worked with a number of clients and regulatory agencies in the development
stages of state and local regulations and guidelines for closure and post-closure landuse at
landfills. Recently he managed a two year state-of-the-art study of "Performance Criteria for
Landfill Covers" for the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB).
MATTHEW HAGEMANN
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9
Matthew Hagemann has been with the U.S. EPA for seven years. He has worked as a
hydrogeologist in the RCRA, Safe Drinking Water and Superfund Programs. Matthew earned
a B.A. in geology from Humboldt State and an M.S. from Cal State L.A. In the twelve years
he has practiced geology, Matthew has worked for a consulting firm, the U.S. Forest Service,
and has taught at the secondary, community college and university levels. Currently, he
teaches part-time at San Francisco State University.
VALERIE HEUSINKVELD
California EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control
Valerie Heusinkveld has been with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control,
Berkeley Regional Office, for seven years. She has a Bachelor's degree in chemistry from
UC San Diego and a Master of Public Policy degree from UC Berkeley. Before coming to
DTSC, she worked as a research chemist in industry.
-------
THEODORE R. JOHNSON
California EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control
Theodore R. Johnson HI has over fifteen years experience as a geologist. He received a
B.S. in Geological Sciences from the University of Southern California in 1981. He is a
California Registered Geologist. He has been working for the last three years for the
Department of Toxic Substances Control in the Hazardous Waste Management Program. His
current projects include soil and groundwater characterization and remediation of
contaminated sites. He specializes in environmental and engineering geology and project
management, exploration and high resolution geophysics.
DENNY A. LARSON
Communities for a Better Environment
Denny Larson has over 15 years experience with community organizing and outreach
activities. He has a Bachelor of Science in Communications from the University of Texas at
Austin.
Mr. Larson has worked closely with communities located near oil refinery and chemical
plants to address concerns regarding chemical spills and air pollution problems. In the Bay
Area, he helped found the West County Toxics Coalition in Richmond, California, and helped
negotiate Good Neighbor Agreements with Shell, Chevron, Tosco, Pacific and Unocal
refineries in Contra Costa County. The Good Neighbor Agreements reduced millions of
pounds of toxic pollution, improved air monitoring, and gave neighbors inspection and
oversight rights.
In 1994, Mr. Larson began a national effort to link oil refinery neighbors, workers and
shareholders together to achieve "cleaner and safer refining." In recognition of Larson's
work, U.S. EPA Administrator Carol Browner named Larson to a Federal panel charged with
reinventing regulator) approaches to the oil industry.
BRIAN LEWIS
California EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control
Brian Lewis, CEG, CHG, Chief of Permitting and Enforcement Geological Services Unit,
California Department of Toxic Substances Control, has more than 16 years experience in the
groundwater field, including 11 years with hazardous waste. For two years, he was on loan
to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Headquarters, as a member of the National
Groundwater Task Force. This task force evaluated compliance with the Resource
Conservation Recovery Act, Subpart F requirements at sixty facilities nationwide. Within
California, he established a state task force based on the federal model. Currently he is a
member of the Regulatory Structure Update (RSU) team that is focused on implementing the
corrective action program in California.
-------
RICHARD McJUNKIN
California EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control
Richard Mcjunkin, RG, CEG, supervises the Geologic Services Unit in the Site Mitigation
Program of the Department of Toxic Substances Control. He has a B.S. and M.S. in geology
and is a Registered Geologist and Certified Engineering Geologist with over 10 years
experience in characterizing and remediating hazardous waste release sites. He also teaches
ground water classes as a part-time faculty member for the Environmental Hazard
Management Program of U.C. Davis Extension.
SARAH PICKER
California EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control
Sarah Picker, P.E., senior hazardous substances engineer with the California Department of
Toxic Substances Control has more than 10 years of technical expertise in hazardous waste
management. She has a Bachelor of Science degree from California State University, Chico.
She has worked extensively in the area of sanitary and landfill design, landfill closure and
post-closure plan regulatory review and approval, implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act and hazardous waste incineration.
DAVID W. RICE, JR.
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
David Rice is an expert on the fate and transport of contaminants in subsurface soils, ground
water, and the marine environment. He is presently the lead scientist and Project Director in
a team of University of California collaborators assisting the State of California in re-evalu-
ating the leaking underground fuel tank cleanup decision-making process.
Mr. Rice is an expert in the fate and transport of energy-related contaminants in marine and
terrestrial ecosystems. He has participated in the management of the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory (LLNL) Superfund sites. His current research focus is on the
technologies and information management systems to support time-critical environmental
restoration decisions involving cost/benefit analysis and multiple stakeholders.
Mr. Rice has authored/co-authored over 50 publications.
-------
MOfflNDER S. SANDHU
California EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control
Mohinder S. Sandhu, P.E., has over sixteen years experience in the hazardous waste
management field. He received his M.S. in Civil Engineering form the University of
California, Berkeley in 1977. He is a registered Professional Civil Engineer. He is currently
Chief of the Facility Permitting Branch of the California Department of Toxic Substances
Control Region 4 Office in Long Beach, California. His responsibilities include a wide
spectrum of technical and managerial assignments in the permitting, surveillance and
enforcement and site mitigation programs.
RONALD C. SIMS
Utah State University
Ronald C. Sims, Ph.D., Professor and Head of the Division of Environmental Engineering at
Utah State University, has more than 20 years of technical experience in vadose zone
characterization, treatment, and monitoring. Dr. Sims has a Ph.D/in Biological and
Agricultural Engineering from North Carolina State University. He has worked for the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Mobay Chemical Corporation, SC, and Research
Triangle Institute, NC, and was a visiting engineer at the U.S. EPA NRMRL, Robert S. Ken-
Laboratory, Ada, Oklahoma, 1989-1990.
BRIAN M. SMITH
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Brian M. Smith, Ph.D., has been using stable isotopes to understand natural processes for
nearly 20 years, first as an exploration research geochemist for Unocal Corporation and more
recently as a Staff Scientist and Environment, Health and Safety Specialist at the Lawrence
Berkeley Laboratory. Dr. Smith has a Ph.D. in geology from Brown University, where he
studied the geochemical consequences of interactions between waters and rocks in high
temperature geothermal systems. Dr. Smith's current interests are to stimulate the use of
stable isotopes in low temperature hydrogeologic systems, where they can be particularly
useful in site characterization and monitoring programs and environmental management
efforts.
-------
DANIEL STRALKA
UJS. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9
Dan received his Ph.D. in biochemistry at the University of Texas at Houston in 1984 and
then served on active duty with the Army Medical Research and Development Command for
6 years. He has been with the Superfund Technical Support Section in Region 9 since 1991
as a Regional lexicologist. He has worked on review and oversight of Federal facilities and
closing bases throughout the region.
HAROLD A. TUCHFELD
GeoSyntec Consultants
Harold A. Tuchfeld, R.E.A., is a project manager, geochemist, and health risk assessor with
over 18 years environmental consulting experience. His project management and regulatory
experience spans a wide range of projects, including site contamination evaluations and
remediation, risk assessment, hazardous waste management facility permitting, operational
hazardous waste regulation compliance studies at industrial plants, facility
closure, litigation support, and agency negotiation and liaison. Mr. Tuchfeld has an extensive
working knowledge of RCRA, particularly in the area of Part B permitting, compliance.
closure, and in the application of corrective action to RCRA facilities. He holds an M.S. in
Environmental Health Sciences from University of Michigan at Ann Arbor and B.S. in Earth
and Space Sciences from the State University of New York at Stoney
Brook.
PATRICK WILSON
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9
Patrick Wilson, Ph.D., M.P.H., is a Regional Toxicologist assigned to the Corrective Action
Section of the Hazardous Waste Management Division at the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Region DC office in San Francisco. California. Dr. Wilson has a Ph.D. in
Environmental Toxicology with a minor in Pathology from the UCLA School of Medicine.
His Ph.D. research was conducted in the laboratory of Dr. John Froines, and focused on the
molecular pharmacokinetics and biblogical monitoring of chemical carcinogens (aromatic nitro
and amine compounds and toluene diisocyanate) found in the industrial and occupational
environment.
-------
JEFFREY J. WONG
California EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control
Jeffrey J. Wong, Ph.D., is currently responsible for the development of the scientific basis
and rationale for risk assessment, risk management and risk reduction strategies within the
California Environmental Protection Agency's Department of Toxic Substances Control. He
has more than 14 years of experience in (1) the assessment of public health and
environmental effects associated with chemical exposures, (2) the development and
formulation of risk management and reduction strategies and (3) analysis of policy
implications of risk control options. Dr. Wong has a Ph.D. in Pharmacology and Toxicology
and a Masters of Science degree in Food Science and Technology from the University of
California, Davis.
Upon nomination by the US National Academy of Sciences, President William J. Clinton
appointed Dr. Wong to the United States Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. The US
NWTRB is an independent establishment within the executive branch, which evaluates the
scientific and technical validity of US Department of Energy activities in the spent fuel and
high-level waste management program and reports it findings, conclusions, and
recommendations to the Congress and the Secretary of Energy.
KURT ZEPPETELLO
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Kurt Zeppetello, R.G., hydrologist for the Hazardous Waste Section of the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality, has over four years of experience collecting soil and
ground water samples. Kurt holds a M.S. degree in geology from Arizona State University
and a B.S. degree in geochemistry from the State University of New York at Oswego. He
worked in the private sector as a staff geologist for two years before joining the state.
JANE ZEVELY
IT Corporation
Jane Zevely is the Manager of Permitting for IT Corporation's Vine Hill Complex. A
Certified Hazardous Materials Manager and Registered Environmental Assessor with more
than 12 years experience, Ms. Zevely's professional background is in community and
regulatory agencies relations; permitting, operating, remediating, and closing commercial
hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities; spill response; hazardous waste
transportation; and reduction in use of polychlorinated biphenyls in electrical utility systems.
Ms. Zevely has a bachelors degree in chemistry and a masters degree in environmental
engineering both from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo.
-------
CONFERENCE
REGISTRATION
LIST
CO
X
Q
Z
UJ
Q.
Q.
-------
1996 EPA Region 9
RCRA Corrective Action Conference
March 26-28, 1996
Page 1
Gerard Abrams
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 1
10151 Croydon Way, Suite 3
Sacramento CA 95827
Ph.(916)255-3600
Fax (916)255-3595
Waqar Ahmad
Cai EPA / DTSC Region 2
700 Heinz Ave
Berkeley CA 94710
Ph.(510)540-3932
Fax. (510)540-3937
ahmad@lanminds com
Sheila Alfonso
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 2
700 Heinz Ave.
Berkeley CA 94710
Ph (510)540-3968
Fax (510)540-3937
Nancy Alvarez
University of Nevada. Reno
1481 Clovis Ct.
Reno NV 89523
Ph (702)746-9450
Fax
Fernando Amador
Cal EPA / OTSC Region 4
245 W Broadway Ste 425
Long Beach CA 90802
Ph. (310) 590-4894
Fax:(310)590-4870
Glenn Anderson
Texaco
10 Universal Cily Plaza
Universal City CA 91608
Ph (818)505-2680
Fax. (818) 505-4600
Brian Andraski
USGS
333 W NyeLn #203
Carson City NV 89706
Ph (702)887-7636
Fax (702) 887-7629
andrasKi@usgs gov
Ravi Arulanantfiam
Cat EPA / RWOCB Region 2
2101 Webster St. Ste. 500
Oakland CA 94612
Ph (510)286-1331
Fax:(510)286-1380
Waller Bahm
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 2
700 Heinz Ave
Berkeley CA 94710
Ph (510) 540-3957
Fax (510) 540-3939
Karen Baker
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 4
245 W Broadway Ste 425
Long Beach CA 90802
Ph (310)590-4944
Fax (310)590-5511
Samuel Bandrapalli
Cal EPA / RWQCB Region 2
2101 Webster SI Ste. 500
Oakland CA 94612
Ph (510)286-1035
Fax:(510)286-1380
Douglas Bauhsta
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 4
245 W Broadway Ste 425
Long Beach CA 90802
Ph.(310)590-4893
Fax (310) 590-4870
Kalhy Baylor
US EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street fH-3-1)
San Francisco CA 94105
Ph (415) 744-2028
Fax (415)744-1044
baylor katherme@epamail epa gov
Sallv Bilodeau
EMCON
3300 N San Fernando Blvd
Burbank CA 91504
Ph (818)841-1160
Fax (818) 846-9280
sbilodeau@emconmc com
Shernl! Beard
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 4
245 W Broadway. Sle 425
Long Beach CA 90802
Ph (310)590-5528
Fax. (310)590-5511
Paula Bisson
US EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne St H-3-2
San Francisco CA 94105
Ph.(415)744-2064
Fax (415)744-1044
Martene Bennett
BMP Melbourne Laboratory
Box 264 Clayton Sth
Victoria 3169
AUSTRALIA
Ph 61395454757
Fax 61 3 9561 6709
Bennett.lvlarleneML@bhp.aa com
Ned Black
US EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street, (H-6-4)
San Francisco CA 94105
Ph (415)744-2253
Fax (415) 744-1797
John Blasco
Harding Lawson Associates
PO Box 6107
Novato CA 94948-
Ph (415)884-3125
Fax (415) 884-3300
|blasco@harding com
Mary Blevins
US EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street (H-3-2)
San Francisco CA 94105
Ph (415)744-2069
Fax (415)744-1044
blevms mary@epamail epa gov
Phil Blum
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 2
700 Heinz Ave
Berkeley CA 94710
Ph (510) 540-3965
Fax (510) 540-3937
-------
1996 EPA Region 9
RCRA Corrective Action Conference
March 26-28, 1996
Page 2
Marilyn Blume
Harding Lawson Associates
105 Digital Drive
NovatO CA 94949
Ph: (415) 884-3124
Fax (415)864-3300
Timothy Bodkin
Radian International
PO Box 962
Montara CA 94037
Ph (415)728-1345
Fax
Max Boone
Tosco Refining Company
Avon Refinery
Martinez CA 94553
Ph -.(510)370-3361
Fax:(510)372-3179
Larry Bowerman
US EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street (H-3-1)
San Francisco CA 94105
Ph-(415) 744-2051
Fax. (415) 744-1044
Glenn Brown
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 2
700 Heinz Ave
Berkeley CA 94710
Ph-(510)540-3961
Fax (510)540-3937
Justin Bradley
United Defense LP
1125ColemanAve.
San Jose CA "95103
Ph (408)389-0874
Fax (408) 289-0877
Justin_bradley@fmc.com
Pratap Bulsara
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 4
245 W. Broadway Ste. 425
Long Beach CA 90802
Ph (310)590-4952
Fax-(310)590-4870
James Breitlow
Envt. Management & Compliance Services
607 Ventura St
Richmond CA 94805
Ph: (510)232-5828
Fax:(510)232-5828
Richard Burzinski
Rust Environment & Infrastructure
695 River Oaks Pkwy
San Jose CA 95124
Ph : (408) 232-2800
Fax:(408)232-2801
Clarence Callahan
US EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street (H-9-3)
San Francisco CA 94105
Ph (415)744-2314
Fax (415)744-1797
Peter Chen
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 3
1011 N GrandviewAve
Glendale CA 91202
Ph (818)551-2906
Fax (818)551-2901
Rebecca Chou
Cal EPA / RWQCB
101 Centre Plaza Dr
Monterey Park CA
Ph: (213) 266-7607
Fax (213) 266-7600
91754
Henry Chiu
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 2
700 Heinz Ave
Berkeley CA 94710
Ph (510)540-3960
Fax (510)540-3937
Susan Chiu
US EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne St H-3
San Francisco CA 94105
Ph (415)744-2060
Fax. (415) 744-1044
Wei Wei Chiu
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 2
700 Heinz Ave
Berkeley CA 94710
Ph.(510)540-3975
Fax (510) 540-3937
Sal Cinello
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 2
700 Heinz Ave
Berkeley CA 94710
Ph (510)540-3972
Fax (510)540-3937
Gary Colbert
Allwaste. Inc
12475 Llagas Ave
San Martin CA
Ph (408)268-1196
Fax (408) 683-0485
95046
Susan Corbaley
SAIC
20 California Street #400
San Francisco CA 94111
Ph-(415) 399-0140
Fax. (415) 399-0299
Rose Coughlm
Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc
10 Universal City Plaza
Universal City CA 91608
Ph (818)505-2719
Fax (818)505-3820
coughra@texaco com
Peter Day
Phillips Petroleum Co
6551 S Revere Pkwy 0155
Engtewood CO 80111
Ph (303)784-3909
Fax (303) 784-3940
pcday@bvemx ppco com
Mike Cruz
Guam EPA
P 0 Box 22439-GMF
Barngada GU 96921
Ph (671)472-8863
Fax (671)472-9402
Frank Dellechaie
Cal EPA / Haz Waste Mngmt Program
PO Box 806
Sacramento CA 95812
Ph (916)324-9931
Fax (916) 322-1005
William Cutler
FMC Corporation
1735 Market Street
Philadelphia PA
Ph.(215)299-6206
Fax'(215) 299-6947
19103
Jeff Denison
Nevada Depl of Environmental Protection
333 W Nye Ln
Carson City NV 89710
Ph (702)687-4670
Fax (702) 885-0868
-------
1996 EPA Region 9
RCRA Corrective Action Conference
March 26-28, 1996
PageS
Arnil Dharmapal
Roy F Weston. Inc
14724 Ventura Blvd. Ste 1000
Sherman Oaks CA 91403
Ph: (818) 971-4912
Fax. (818) 971-4901
Martina Diaz
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 4
245 W. Broadway Ste. 425
Long Beach CA 90802
Ph (310)590-5559
Fax (310) 590-4870
Enc Dielhelm
IT Corporation
4585 Pacheco Blvd
Martinez CA
Ph-(510) 372-9100
Fax (510)372-5220
94553
RlCO Duazo
Cal EPA / RWOCB Region 2
2101 Webster St. Ste 500
Oakland CA 94612
Ph: (510)286-0837
Fax:(510)286-3981
Michael Dunbavan
BMP Hawaii Inc
P.O. Box 3379
Honolulu HI
Ph (808)547-3341
Fax. (808) 547-3807
-96842
Jeff Dunn
GeoSyntec Consultants
1600 Riviera Ave. Suite 420
Walnut Creek CA 94596
Ph : (510) 943-3034
Fax (510)943-2366
Ken Eichstaedt
URS Consultants
100 California St. Ste 500
San Francisco CA 94111 -4529
Ph: (415) 774-2767
Fax:(415)398-1904
Joe Eidelberg
US EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne St (P-3-2)
San Francisco CA 94105
Ph: (415) 744-1536
Fax.
Keith Elliot
Cal EPA / RWQCB
101 Centre Plaza Dr
Monterey Park CA 91754
Ph- (213) 266-7614
Fax. (213) 266-6787
Nancy Emerson
Unocal
376 S Valencia Ave
Brea CA 92621
Ph (714)577-2952
Fax (714) 577-2960
certnle@uoccent unocal com
Mary Esper
Dames & Moore
221 Mam Street. Ste. 600
San Francisco CA 94105
Ph.(415)243-3852
Fax (415)882-9261
Kenneth J Enckson P.E.
US EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street (H-9-3)
San Francisco sCA 94105
Ph: (415) 744-2324
Fax-(415) 744-1797
Brad Esslmger
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
500 12th Street, Ste 100
Oakland CA 94607-4014
Ph : (510) 874-3284
Fax:(510)874-3268
Elena Espada
Rust Environment & Infrastructure
695 River Oaks Pkwy
San Jose CA 95134
Ph (408)232-2828
Fax (408) 232-2801
Maria Fabella
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 3
1011 N GrandviewAve
Glendale CA 91201
Ph-(818) 551-2918
Fax. (818) 551-2901
Ade Fagorala
Cal EPA / RWQCB Region 2
2101 Webster St Ste 500
Oakland CA 94612
Ph (510)286-0602
Fax (510) 286-1380
- Michael Feeley
US EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street (H-3)
San Francisco CA 94105
Ph: (415) 744-2138
Fax (415)744-1044
Naomi Feger
SAIC
20 California Street #400
San Francisco CA 94111
Ph (415)399-0140
Fax (415)399-0299
Craig Fletcher
PG&E
245 Market St # 1219
San Francisco CA 94105
Ph (415)972-5894
Fax (415)973-7668
Jamshid Ghazansh
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 3
1011 N Grandview Ave
Glendale CA 91201
Ph (818)551-2871
Fax (818)551-2901
Stephen Fok
PG&E
245 Market St # 1217
San Francisco CA 94105
Ph (415)973-4735
Fax (415)973-7668
Mike Gill
US EPA Region 9. H-9-2
75 Hawthorne Street. H-9-2
San Francisco CA 94105
Ph (415)744-2385
Fax (415)744-1916
Richard Gailley
PACNAV-Facihties Engineering
Bldg 258 Makalapa
Pearl Harbor HI 96860
Ph-(808) 471-0507
Fax (808)474-4519
rgaitley@eldpac navfac navy mil
Watson Gin
Cal EPA / DTSC Headquarters
PO Box 806
Sacramento CA 95812-0806
Ph
Fax- (916) 322-1005
-------
1996 EPA Region 9
RCRA Corrective Action Conference
March 26-28. 1996
Page 4
Susan Glao'sione
Cal EPA / RWQCB Region 2
2101 Webster SI. Ste 500
Oakland CA 94612
Ph • (510) 2B6-0840
Fax:(510)286-3986
Ricardo Gonzalez
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 4
245 W Broadway Ste. 425
Long Beach CA 90802
Ph (310)590-4877
Fax (310) 590-4870
Karen Goldberg
US EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street. RC-3
San Francisco CA 94105
Ph-(415) 744-1382
Fax-(415) 744-1041
goldberg.karen@epamail epa.gov
Matt Hagemann
US EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street (H-9-3)
San Francisco CA -94105
Ph-(415) 744-2325
Fax (415) 744-1797
Frank Gonzales
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 4
245 W Broadway Ste 425
Long Beach CA 90802
Ph (310)590-4950
Fax (310)590-5511
Dixie Hambnck
Ogden Environmental
630 N FlorenceSt
BurbanK CA 91505
Ph (818)842-0373
Fax. (818) 842-4345
Mark Haney
Environmental Science and Engineering 5
Five Overlook Drive
Amherst NH 03031
Ph (603)672-2511
Fax. (603) 673-1620
James Hanson
US EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street (H-9-1)
San Francisco CA 94105
Ph-(415) 744-2237
Fax (415)744-1797
Peggy Harns
Cal EPA / DTSC
400 P Street
Sacramento CA
Ph (916)324-7663
Fax-(916) 322-1005
96812-0806
Tony Hashemian
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 1
10151 Croydon Way, Suite 3
Sacramento CA 95827
Ph (916)255-3587
Fax (916)255-3595
UlyHerskovits
US EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street. H-3-2
San Francisco CA 94105
Ph.(415)744-2062
Fax. (415) 744-1044
Valerie Heusinkveld
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 2
700 Heinz Ave
Berkeley CA 94710
Ph (510)540-3941
Fax (510)540-3937
Helen Hillman
NOAA Hazmat
75 Hawthorne Street. H-9-3
San Francisco CA 94105
Ph (415)744-2273
Fax (415)744-3126
helen_hillman@hazmat noaa.gov
Anthony Hoover
U S Naval Activities. N534
PSC 455. Box 152
FPOAP 96540-1000
Ph (671)339-7052
Fax (671)339-4363
Dave Hodges
US EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street. H-9-2
San Francisco CA 94105
Ph.(415)744-2391
Fax (415)744-1917
M David Hung
Cal EPA / RWOCB
101 Centre Plaza Dr.
Monterey Park CA 91754
Ph-(213) 266-7611
Fax (213) 266-6787
Sean Hogan
US EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street. H-6-4
San Francisco CA 94105
Ph (415)744-2334
Fax (415) 744-1916
hogan sean@epamail epa gov
Maied Ibrahim
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 4
245 W Broadway Ste 425
Long Beach CA 90802
Pn (310) 590-4926
Fax (310) 590-4932
J Mark Inglis
SECOR International
1 Solano Way
Martinez CA 94553
Ph (510)370-3240
Fax (510) 372-3179
Jeff Inglis
US EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street, H-8-i
San Francisco CA 94105
Ph-(415) 744-2348
Fax (415)744-1917
Michel Iskarous
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 3
1011 N Grandview Ave
Glendale CA 91201
Ph (818)551-2857
Fax (818)551-2841
Elizabeth Jacobson
Desert Research Institute
PO Box 60220
Reno NV 89506
Ph (702)673-7373
Fax (702) 673-7397
britt@maxey dn edu
Iraj Javandel
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
B50E. 1 Cyclotron Rd
Berkeley CA 94720
Ph (510)486-6106
Fax. (510)486-5686
Theodore Johnson III
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 4
245 W Broadway Sle 425
Long Beach CA 90802
Ph (310)590-4967
Fax (310) 590-4870
-------
1996 EPA Region 9
RCRA Corrective Action Conference
March 26-28, 1996
Page 5
Jay Jones
Ogden Environmental
5510 Morehouse Drive
San Diegp CA 92121
Pr»-(619) 458-9044
Fax- (619) 458-0943
JJoneslV@aol com
Lester Kaufman
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 2
700 Heinz Ave
Berkeley' CA 94710
Ph (510) 540-3974
Fax (510) 540-3937
Mark Klaiman
US EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne St, RC-3-1
San Francisco CA 94105
Ph (415)744-1374
Fax (415) 744-1040
klaiman mark@epamail epa.gov
Jose Kou
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 3
1011 N GrandviewAve
Glendale CA 91201
Ph (818)881-2816
Fax (818) 551-2901
Vicky Lang
US EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street (RC-3-2)
San Francisco CA 94105
Ph (415)744-1331
Fax (415)744-1040
Paul Kalaiwaa
Hawaii Dept of Health
9l9AlaMoana8lvb «212
Honolulu HI 96714-
Ph (80S) 586-4237
Fax-(808) 586-7509
Tom Kelly
US EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne St (H-3-1)
San Francisco CA -94105
Ph: (415) 744-2070
Fax:(415)744-1044
kelly.thomas 9 epamail.epa.gov
William Knight
Rust Environmental & Infrastructure
695 River Oaks Pkwy
San Jose CA 95134
Ph . (408) 232-2822
Fax (408) 232-2801
Steve Krival
Cal EPA / DTSC Region Z
700 Heinz Ave
Berkeley VCA 94710
Ph-(510)540-3959
Fax (510) 540-3937
sknval@aol.com
Denny Larson
Communities for a Better Environment
500 Howard St. Ste 506
San Francisco CA 94105
Ph (415)243-8373
Fax (415)243-8960
Mitch Kaplan
US EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street. H-3-2
San Francisco CA 94105
Ph-(415) 744-2063
Fax-(415) 744-1044
Mike Kenning
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 2
700 Heinz Ave
Berkeley CA 94710
Ph-(510)540-3759
Fax. (510) 540-3819
Calden Koehn
Cal EPA /DTSC
1515 Tollhouse Rd
Clovis CA 93611
Ph: (209) 297-3937
Fax:(209)297-3904
ckoehn@hwl cahwnet.gov
Iryna Kwasny
Heller. Ehrman
333 Bush St
San Francisco CA 94104
Ph.(415)772-6726
Fax. (415) 772-62 66
Ed Leach
Kleinfelder, Inc.
7133 Koll Center Pkwy. Suite 100
Pleasant Hill CA 94566
Ph.(510)687-4863
Fax (510)687-3065
Ron Leach
US EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street (H-3-1)
San Francisco CA 94105
Ph (415)744-2031
Fax (415)744-1044
Kathenne Leibel
Cal EPA / OTSC Region 4
245 W Broadway. Ste 425
Long Beach CA 90802
Ph (310)590-4895
Fax (310) 590-4870
Gary Locke
IT Corporation
4585 Pacheco Blvd
Martinez CA 94553-2233
Ph (510)372-9100
Fax (510) 372-5220
C Chow Lee
C Chow Lee & Associates
5100-1B Clayton Rd. Box 285
Concord CA 94521
Ph (510)827-4958
Fax (510) 689-6249
lrek)ees@aol com
Brian Lewis
Cal EPA / DTSC HQ
PO Box 806
Sacramento CA 95812-0806
Ph- (916) 323-3632
Fax (916) 327-2509
btewis@hwl cahwnet gov
Helen Lucas
Rust Environment & Infrastructure
695 River Oaks Pkwy
San Jose CA 95134
Ph («8) 232-2814
Fax (408) 232-2801
helen_lucas@ccmail rustei com
Daisy Lee
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 2
700 Heinz Ave.
Berkeley CA 94710
Ph.(510)540-3933
Fax. (510) 540-3937
Steve Under
US EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street (H-3-1)
San Francisco CA 94105
Ph (415)744-2036
Fax- (415) 744-1044
Mike Mahoney
US EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street (P-3-2)
San Francisco CA 94105
Ph (415)744-1495
Fax
-------
1996 EPA Region 9
RCRA Corrective Action Conference
March 26-28, 1996
Page 6
Michelle Mason
Rust Environment & Infrastructure
695 River Oaks Pkwy
San Jose CA 95112
Ph: (408) 232-2800
Fax:(408)232-2801
michelle_mason@ccmail.rustei com
Julie Menack
Groundwater Technology
5319 Miles Ave
Oakland CA 94618
Ph (510)547-2520
Fax:
Tony Morales
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 2
700 Heinz Ave
Berkeley CA 94710
Ph (510)540-3958
Fax:(510)540-3937
Richard McJunkin
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 1
10151 Croydon Way, Suite 3
Sacramento CA 95827
Ph (916)255-3672
Fax (916) 255-3697
Martha Mernam
Cal EPA / DTSC
P.O Box 806
Sacramento CA 45812-0806
Ph 1(916)323-3636
Fax (916) 323-3700
mmemam® hw1 .cahwnet.gov
Steve Morse
Cal EPA / RWQCB Region 2
2101 Webster St. Ste. 500
Oakland CA 94612
Ph (510)286-0304
Fax:(510)286-1380
Pablo McLoud
Levine-Fncke. Inc
220 S King SI. #1290
Honolulu HI 96813
Ph (808)522-0321
Fax-(808) 522-0366
Mana Morales
U.C Berkeley
300 A&F Building
Berkeley CA 94720
Ph.(510)642-0557
Fax-(510) 642-9442
Moujan Mostaghimi
Cal EPA / OTSC Region 2
700 Heinz Ave
Berkeley CA 94710
Ph . (510) 540-3942
Fax (510)540-3937
Nicole Moutoux
US EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street, H-3-2
San Francisco CA 94105
Ph : (415) 744-2034
Fax:(415)744-1044
moutoux nicole@epamail epa gov
Shn Nandan
ESE Inc
4090 Nelson Ave
Concord CA 94520
Ph (510)685-4053
Fax-(510) 685-5323
Roshy Mozafar
Cal EPA / RWQCB Region 2
2101 Webster St Ste. 500
Oakland CA 94612
Ph (510)286-1041
Fax (510) 286-1380
Gary Murchison
Cal EPA / DTSC
400 P Street
Sacramento CA
Ph (916)322-0807
Fax (916)324-3107
murch@ix netcom.com
95814
Devender Narala Julio Narvaez
Nevada Dept of Environmental Protection Cal EPA / DTSC Region 3
555 E Washington Ave, # 4300 1011 N. Grandview Ave
Las Vegas NV 89101 Glendale CA 91201
Ph (702)486-2872 Ph (818)551-2923
Fax- (702) 486-2863 Fax. (818) 551-2901
Kati Neidig
Turner / Maclane
3511 La Mesa Drive
Hayward CA
Ph-(510) 881-8811
Fax (510)881-8802
94542
Craig O'Rourke
Geraghty & Miller, Inc
1 Technology Drive, Suite F-213
In/me CA 92718
Ph (714)753-0444
Fax (714)753-0945
Elaine Ngo
US EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street (H-3-1)
San Francisco CA 94105
Ph'(415) 744-2044
Fax (415)744-1044
ngo eiaine@epamail epa gov
Emmanuel Okereke
Cal EPA / RWQCB Region 2
2101 Webster St Ste. 500
Oakland CA 94612
Ph (510)286-3975
Fax (510)286-1380
Mehdi Noban
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 3
1011 N Grandview Ave
Glendale CA 91201
Ph (818)551-2924
Fax (818)551-2901
Ronald Okuda
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 4
245 W Broadway Sie 425
Long Beach CA 90802
Ph (310)590-4885
Fax (310)590-4901
Kola Olatunbosun
Cal EPA / RWOCB Region 7
73-720 Fred Waring Or
Palm Desert CA 92260
Ph (619)776-8930
Fax (619)341-6820
Don Osterhold
United Technologies
P O Box 49028
San Jose CA 95161
Ph (408) 776-5930
Fax (408) 776-4895
Nancy Oslron
Cal EPA / DTSC
PO Box 806
Sacramento CA
Ph (916)322-3385
Fax (916)322-1005
95812-0806
-------
1996 EPA Region 9
RCRA Corrective Action Conference
March 26-28, 1996
Page?
Cherry Padilla
Cal EPA / DISC Region 2
700 Heinz Ave
Berkeley CA 94710
Ph: (510) 540-3967
Fax (510)540-3937
hwl cpadilla@hwl cahwnetgov
Susan Peterson
Rust Environment & Infrastructure
695 River Oaks Pkwy
San Jose- CA 95134
Ph (408)232-2800
Fax (408) 232-2801
susan_pelerson@ccmail.rustei.com
Wayne Praskins
US EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne St. H-6-5
San Francisco CA 94105
Ph (415)744-2256
Fax (415)744-1797
praskins wayne@epamail.epa gov
Ram Ramanujam
Cal EPA / DISC
301 Capitol Mall
Sacramento CA 95814
Ph (916)323-3637
Fax (916)323-3647
Pat Payne
Cal EPA / OTSC Region 2
700 Heinz Ave.
Berkeley CA 94710
Ph: (510) 540-3872
Fax:(510)540-3891
Michael Pfister
CalEPA/DTSC
1515 Tollhouse Rd.
Clovis CA -93611
Ph • (209) 297-3934
Fax-(209) 297-3904
Bill Pratt
United Technologies Corp
P.O. Box 49028
San Jose CA 95161
Ph: (408) 776-4951
Fax:(408)776-4895
Michelle Rembaum
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 2
700 Heinz Ave
Berkeley CA 94710
Ph: (510) 540-3760
Fax:(510)540-3819
Mark Peterson
US EPA Region 9 (P-3-2)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco CA 94105
Ph.(415)744-1499
Fax
Sarah Picker
Cal EPA / OTSC Region 2
700 Heinz Ave
Berkeley CA 94710
Ph: (510) 540-3973
Fax. (510) 540-3937
hwl .spicker@hw! .cahwnet gov
Susan Prentice
Morrison and Foerster
345 California Street
San Francisco CA 94104
Ph: (415) 677-6101
Fax (415)677-7522
David Rice
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
PO Box 808. L-627
Uivermore CA 94551
Ph (510)423-5059
Fax
Tony Roberson
U S Navy Public Works Center
PSC 455. Box 195
FPO AP 96540-2937
Ph (671)339-4100
Fax (671)333-2035
John Robertson
Cal EPA / RWQCB Region 2
2101 Webster St Ste. 500
Oakland CA 94612
Ph-(510) 286-0851
Fax. (510)286-3986
Dante Rodriguez
US EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne St. H-7-1
San Francisco CA 94105
Ph (415)744-2239
Fax (415)744-1797
Robert Romero
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 4
245 W Broadway. Ste 425
Long Beach CA 90802
Ph (310)590-4890
Fax (310)590-4870
Kalhy San Miguel
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 4
245 W Broadway. Ste 425
Long Beach CA 90802
Ph (310)590-4900
Fax (310) 590-4870
William Rowe
Cal EPA / DTSC
400 P Street. P.O Box 806
Sacramento CA 95812-0806
Ph-(916) 323-3624
Fax (916)323-3700
wrowe@hwl.cahwnet gov
Yvonne Sanchez
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 3
1011 N GrandviewAve
Glendale CA 91201
Ph (818)551-2870
Fax (818) 551-2901
Roseanne Sakamoto
US EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street (P-3-2)
San Francisco CA 94105
Ph (415)744-1535
Fax (415) 744-1604
Mohmder Sandhu
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 4
245 W Broadway Ste 425
Long Beach CA 90802
Ph (310)590-4852
Fax (310)590-4870
Carmen Santos-Prior
US EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street (H-3-1)
San Francisco CA 94105
Ph (415)744-2037
Fax (415)744-1044
Ray Saracmo
US EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street (H-3-1)
San Francisco CA 94105
Ph.(415)744-2040
Fax (415)744-1044
saracino ray@epamail epa gov
Vicky Semones
US EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street (H-1-1)
San Francisco CA 94105
Ph (415)744-2184
Fax (415)744-1797
-------
1996 EPA Region 9
RCRA Corrective Action Conference
March 26-28, 1996
Page 8
Robert Senga
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 4
245 W Broadway Ste. 425
Long Beach CA 90802
Ph- (310) 590-4882
Fax. (310) 590-4870
Wendi Snafu-
US EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street (H-3-2)
San Francisco CA 94105
Ph (415)744-2059
Fax (415)744-1044
shafir.wendi@epamail.epa.gov
Don Shaulis
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 1
10151 Croydon Way. Suite 3
Sacramento CA 95827
Ph (916)255-3592
Fax. (916) 255-3595
Julie Small
Rust Environment & Infrastructure
695 River Oaks Pkwy
San Jose CA 95134
Ph (408)232-2856
Fax (408) 232-2801
Whit Smith
Rust Environment & Infrastructure
695 River Oaks Pkwy
San Jose CA 95134
Ph (408) 232-2824
Fax (408) 232-2801
Kathy Sedan
US EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street H-7-2
San Francisco CA 94105
Ph (415)744-2254
Fax:(415)744-1797
Chao Shan
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
ESO. Lawrence Berkeley Lab
Berkeley CA -94720
Ph.(510)486-5718
Fax (510) 486-5686
c.shan 9 lbl.gov
Zuyi Shen
Dames & Moore
1050 Queen St, Ste 204
Honolulu HI 96814
Ph (808)593-1116
Fax (808) 593-1198
hon@dames.com
Barbara Smith
US EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street (H-9-2)
San Francisco CA 94105
Ph (415)744-2366
Fax (415) 744-1917
Brian M. Smith
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
1 Cyclotron Rd (26-109)
Berkeley CA 94720
Ph (510)486-6508
Fax (510) 486-4193
Kevin Shaddy
Cal EPA / DTSC
1515 Tollhouse Rd
Clows CA 93611
Ph: (209) 297-3929
Fax:(209)297-3904
kshaddy@hwl cahwnet gov
Tony Shan
BHP Hawaii Inc
91-325KomohanaSt.
Kapolei HI 96707
Ph : (808) 547-3804
Fax: (808) 547-3068
Ron Sims
Utah State University
Civil & Engineering Dept
Logan UT 84322-4110
Ph: (801) 797-2926
Fax:(801)752-7513
Cindy Smith
Phillips Petroleum Co
5th and Keeler
Bartlesville OK 74004
Ph (918)661-0185
Fax (918)661-5664
clsmith@bvemx ppco com
Stan Smucker
US EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street (H-9-3)
San Francisco CA 94105
Ph (415)744-2311
Fax. (415) 744-1797
Charles Snyder
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 1
10151 Croydon Way. Suite 3
Sacramento CA 95827
Ph (916)255-3581
Fax (916)255-3595
Dan Stralka
US EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street (H-9-3)
San Francisco CA 94105
Ph (415)744-2310
Fax (415)744-1797
Conchita Taitano
Guam EPA
PO Box22439-GMF
Barngada GU 96921
Ph (671)472-8863
Fax (671)472-9402
Susan Solarz
Cal EPA / DTSC HO.
PO Box 806
Sacramento CA 95812-0806
Ph (916)324-1799
Fax (916)327-4495
James Strandberg
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
500 12th Street, Ste. 100
Oakland CA 94607-4014
Ph (510)874-3041
Fax (510)874-3268
|fstranO@wcc com
Harry Takach
James Stettler
Cal EPA / DTSC FPB
700 Heinz Ave
Berkeley CA 94710
Ph : (510) 540-3936
Fax:(510)540-3937
jstettler@hw1 cahwnet gov
Greg Sweel
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 4
245 W. Broadway Ste 425
Long Beach CA 90802
Ph (310) 590-5504
Fax (310)590-5511
John Tang
Environmental Science and Engineering 1 United Defense LP
5440 N Cumberland Ave #111
Chicago IL 60656
Ph (312)693-6030
Fax (312) 693-6039
ll25Coleman Ave
San Jose CA
Ph (408)289-2903
Fax (408) 289-0877
|ohn_lang@lmc com
95103
-------
1996 EPA Region 9
RCRA Corrective Action Conference
March 26-28. 1996
Page 9
David Tao
Cal EPA / DISC Region 2
700 Heinz Ave
Berkeley CA 94710
Ph (510)540-3934
Fax (510)540-3937
Guy Tomassom
US EPA Headquarters
401 M Street SW/5303W
Washington DC 20460-
Ph (703)308-8622
Fax
Hal Tuchfeld
Geosyntec Consultants
1600 Riviera Ave Ste. 420
Walnut Creek CA 94596
Ph.(510)943-3034
Fax (510)943-2366
Randy Ueshiro
Rockwell International
6633 Canoga Ave MS 5514
Canoga Park CA 91303
Ph (818)586-6015
Fax. (818) 586-5889
Farshad Vakili
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 1
10151 Croydon Way. Suite 3
Sacramento CA -95827
Ph.(916)255-3612
Fax (916)255-3595
Eduardo Vallesteros
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 4
245 W Broadway. Ste 350
Long Beach CA 90806
Ph (310)590-4876
Fax (310)590-4870
Sue Vedantham
Laidlaw Environmental Services
1040 Commercial St. Suite 109
San Jose CA 95112
Ph (408)451-5012
Fax. (408) 453-6045
Patricia Wagner
Chevron USA
575 Market St. Room 2778
San Francisco CA 94105-3901
Ph (415)894-0929
Fax (415)894-3037
Ed Vigil
Phibro-Tech, Inc.
8851 Dice Road
Santa Fe CA 90670
Springs
Ph-(310)698-8036
Fax. (310) 698-1921
Douglas Waltermire
IT Corporation
4585 Pacheco Blvd
Martinez CA 94553
Ph (510)372-9100
Fax (510)372-5239
Brian Waggle
Hargis & Associates
1400 E Southern Ave. Ste 600
Tempe AZ 85282
Ph (602)345-0888
Fax (602) 780-0508
Peter wan
United Defense LP
1125 Coleman Ave
San Jose CA T5103
Ph • (408) 289-4285
Fax (408) 289-0877
Anthony Ward
Geraghty & Miller, Inc
100 N Barranca Ave Ste 500
WestCovma CA 91791
Ph (818)332-8010
Fax (818)331-1224
Carl Warren
US EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street (H-3-2)
San Francisco CA 94105
Ph (415)744-2067
Fax (415)744-1044
Adela Weinstem
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 4
245 W Broadway. Ste 425
Long Beach CA 90B02
Ph (310)590-5556
Fax (310)590-4870
Phil Whitmore
Arizona Dept ot Environmental Quality
3033 N Central Ave
Phoenix AZ 85012
Ph (602)207-4423
Fax (602) 207-4236
Allen Wmans
Cal EPA / DTSC Headquarters
PO Box 806
Sacramento CA 95812-0806
Ph (916)323-3646
Fax (916)323-3700
Jeff Wong
Cal EPA / DTSC OSA
10151 Croydon Way
Sacramento CA 94827
Ph
Fax
Rick Wilson
Camp Dresser & McKee
18881 Von Kofman, Ste 650
Irvine CA 92715
Ph-(714) 752-5452
Fax (714)752-1307
wilsonrg@cdm com
Charlie Wittman
Rust Environment & Infrastructure
695 River Oaks Pkwy
San Jose CA 95134
Ph (408)232-2800
Fax (408) 232-2801
charhe_wittman ©ccmail rustei com
David Wright
Cal EPA / DTSC - OMF
10151 Croydon Way
Sacramento CA 95827-2106
Ph (916)255-3664
Fax (916) 255-3697
Patrick Wilson
US EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street. H 3-1
San Francisco CA 94105
Ph (415)744-2038
Fax (415) 744-1044
Alfred Wong
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 2
700 Hemz Ave
Berkeley CA 94710
Ph (510)540-3946
Fax (510) 540-3937
Emad Yemut
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 4
245 W Broadway Ste 425
Long Beach CA 90802
Ph (310)590-4915
Fax (310)590-4932
-------
1996 EPA Region 9
RCRA Corrective Action Conference
March 26-28. 1996
Page 10
Chia Rtn Yen
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 4
245 W Broadway Ste 425
Long Beach CA 90802
Ph : (310) 590-5557
Fax (310) 590-4870
Damta Yocum
US EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street (RC-3-2)
San Francisco CA 94105
Ph-(415) 744-1347
Fax
Yoshn
US EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street (H-W-1)
San Francisco CA 94105
Ph: (415) 744-1730
Fax. (415) 744-1797
Margie Youngs
Cal EPA / DTSC
4740 Robertson Ave
Carmichael CA 95608
Ph (916)323-3634
Fax (916)323-3647
Abdul Yusufzai
Cal EPA / RWQCB Region 2
2101 Webster St. Ste. 500
Oakland CA -94612
Ph-(510)286-0377
Fax. (510)286-1380
Zahra Zahiraleslamzadeh
United Defense LP
1125 Coleman Ave.
San Jose CA 95103
Ph.(408)289-3141
Fax- (408) 289-0877
Michael Zamudio
Cal EPA / DTSC
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento CA 95812
Ph • (916) 323-3634
Fax. (916) 323-3392
Jane Zevely
IT Corporation
4585 Pacheco Blvd
Martinez CA 94553
Ph (510)372-4427
Fax (510)372-5220
Alfredo Zanoria
Cal EPA/DTSC Region 4
245 W. Broadway Ste 425
Long Beach CA 90802
Ph (310)590-5538
Fax. (310) 590-5511
Nahid Zouestiagh
US EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street. H-3-2
San Francisco CA 94105
Ph: (415) 744-2052
Fax. (415) 744-1044
Kurt Zeppetello
Arizona Dept. of Env Quality
3033 N. Central Avenue
Phoenix AZ 85012
Ph: (602)207-4410
Fax: (602) 207-4236
kjz@ev.state.az.us
-------
1996 Corrective Action Conference
Speakers
Name
Organization
Brian Andraski
Ravi Arulanantham
Karen Baker
Kathy Baylor
Paula Bisson
Ned Black
Larry Bowerman
Clarence Callahan
Jeff Dunn
Michael Feeley
Watson Gin
Matt Hagemann
James Hanson
Valerie Heusinkveld
Theodore Johnson II
Denny Larson
Ron Leach
Brian Lewis
Richard McJunkin
Steve Morse
Sarah Picker
David Rice
Mohinder Sandhu
Ray Saracino
Ron Sims
Brian M. Smith
Stan Smucker
Dan Stralka
Guy Tomassoni
Hal Tuchfeld
Patrick Wilson
Jeff Wong
Laura Yoshu
Kurt Zeppetello
Jane Zevely
USGS
Cal EPA / RWQCB Region 2
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 4
US EPA Region 9
US EPA Region 9
US EPA Region 9
US EPA Region 9
US EPA Region 9
GeoSyntec Consultants
US EPA Region 9
Cal EPA / DTSC Headquarters
US EPA Region 9
US EPA Region 9
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 2
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 4
Communities for a Better Environment
US EPA Region 9
Cal EPA/DTSC HQ
Cal EPA/DTSC Region 1
Cal EPA / RWQCB Region 2
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 2
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 4
US EPA Region 9
Utah State University
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
US EPA Region 9
US EPA Region 9
US EPA Headquarters
Geosyntec Consultants
US EPA Region 9
Cal EPA/DTSC OSA
US EPA Region 9
Anzona Dept. of Env. Quality
IT Corporation
-------
1996 Corrective Action Conference
Regulatory Attendees
Name
Phil Whitmore
Peggy Harris
Calden Koehn
Martha Merriam
Gary Murchison
Nancy Ostron
Michael Pfister
Ram Ramanujam
William Rowe
Kevin Shaddy
Margie Youngs
Michael Zamudio
David Wright
James Stettler
Susan Solarz
Allen Winans
Gerard Abrams
Tony Hashemian
Don Shaulis
Charles Snyder
Farshad Vakili
Waqar Ahmad
Sheila Alfonso
Walter Bahm
Phil Blum
Glenn Brown
Henry Chiu
Wei Wei Chiu
Sal Ciriello
Lester Kaufman
Mike Kenning
Steve Krival
Daisy Lee
Tony Morales
Moujan Mostaghimi
Cherry Padilla
Pat Payne
Michelle Rembaum
David Tao
Alfred Wong
Peter Chen
Maria Fabella
Jamshid Ghazansh
Michel Iskarous
Jose Kou
Julio Narvaez
Mehdi Noban
Yvonne Sanchez
Fernando Amador
Douglas Bautista
Shernll Beard
Pratap Bulsara
Martina Diaz
Frank Gonzales
Ricardo Gonzalez
Majed Ibrahim
Katherme Leibel
Ronald Okuda
Robert Romero
Organization
Arizona Dept. of Environmental Quality
Cal EPA / DTSC
Cat EPA / DTSC
Cal EPA / DTSC
Cal EPA / DTSC
Cal EPA / DTSC
Cal EPA / DTSC
Cal EPA / DTSC
Cal EPA /DTSC
Cal EPA / DTSC
Cal EPA /DTSC
Cal EPA / DTSC
Cal EPA/ DTSC - OMF
Cal EPA / DTSC FPB
Cal EPA/ DTSC HQ
Cal EPA / DTSC Headquarters
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 1
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 1
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 1
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 1
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 1
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 2
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 2
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 2
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 2
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 2
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 2
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 2
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 2
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 2
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 2
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 2
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 2
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 2
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 2
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 2
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 2
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 2
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 2
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 2
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 3
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 3
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 3
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 3
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 3
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 3
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 3
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 3
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 4
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 4
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 4
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 4
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 4
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 4
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 4
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 4
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 4
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 4
Cal EPA / DTSC Region 4
-------
1996 Corrective Action Conference
Regulatory Attendees
Name
Organization
Kathy San Miguel
Robert Senga
Greg Sweel
Eduardo Vallesteros
Adela Weinstein
Emad Yemut
Chia Rm Yen
Alfredo Zanona
Frank Dellechaie
Rebecca Chou
Keith Elliot
M. David Hung
Samuel Bandrapalli
Rico Duazo
Ade Fagorala
Susan Gladstone
Roshy Mozafar
Emmanuel Okereke
John Robertson
Abdul Yusufzai
Kola Olatunbosun
Mike Cruz
Conchita Taitano
Paul Kalaiwaa
Helen Hillman
Jeff Denison
Devender Narala
Mary Blevins
Susan Chiu
Joe Eidelberg
Kenneth J. Erickson P.E.
Karen Goldberg
Lily Herskovits
Dave Hodges
Sean Hogan
Jeff Inglis
Mitch Kaplan
Tom Kelly
Mark Klaiman
Vicky Lang
Steve Lmder
Mike Mahoney
Micole Moutoux
Elaine Ngo
Wayne Praskms
Dante Rodriguez
Roseanne Sakamoto
Carmen Santos-Prior
Vicky Semones
-------
1996 Corrective Action Conference
Facility / Industry Attendees
Name
Organization
Gary Colbert
Michael Dunbavan
Tony Shan
Marlene Bennett
C. Chow Lee
Rick Wilson
Patricia Wagner
Mary Esper
Zuyi Shen
Elizabeth Jacobson
Sally Bilodeau
Shri Nandan
Harry Takach
Mark Haney
James Breitlow
William Cutler
Craig O'Rourke
Anthony Ward
Julie Menack
John Blasco
Marilyn Blume
Brian Waggle
Iryna Kwasny
Eric Diethelm
Gary Locke
Douglas Waltermire
Ed Leach
Sue Vedantham
I raj Javandel
Chao Shan
Pablo McLoud
Susan Prentice
Dixie Hambnck
Jay Jones
Richard Gaitley
Craig Fletcher
Stephen Fok
Ed Vigil
Peter Day
Cindy Smith
Timothy Bodkin
Randy Ueshiro
Amil Dharmapal
Richard Burzmski
Elena Espada
Helen Lucas
Michelle Mason
Susan Peterson
Julie Small
Whit Smith
Charlie Wittman
William Knight
Susan Corbaley
Naomi Feger
J Mark Inglis
Glenn Anderson
Allwaste. Inc.
BMP Hawaii Inc.
BHP Hawaii Inc.
BHP Melbourne Laboratory
C. Chow Lee & Associates
Camp Dresser & McKee
Chevron USA
Dames & Moore
Dames & Moore
Desert Research Institute
EMCON
ESE Inc.
Environmental Science and Engineering 1
Environmental Science and Engineering 5
Envt. Management & Compliance Services
FMC Corporation
Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
Groundwater Technology
Harding Lawson Associates
Harding Lawson Associates
Hargis & Associates
Heller, Ehrman
IT Corporation
IT Corporation
IT Corporation
Klemfelder, Inc.
Laidlaw Environmental Services
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Levme-Fncke, Inc.
Morrison and Foerster
Ogden Environmental
Ogden Environmental
PACNAV-Facihties Engineering
PG&E
PG&E
Phibro-Tech, Inc.
Phillips Petroleum Co.
Phillips Petroleum Co.
Radian International
Rockwell International
Roy F. Weston, Inc
Rust Environment & Infrastructure
Rust Environment & Infrastructure
Rust Environment & Infrastructure
Rust Environment & Infrastructure
Rust Environment & Infrastructure
Rust Environment & Infrastructure
Rust Environment & Infrastructure
Rust Environment & Infrastructure
Rust Environmental & Infrastructure
SAIC
SAIC
SECOR International
Texaco
-------
1996 Corrective Action Conference
Facility / Industry Attendees
Name
Organization
Rose Coughlm
Max Boone
Kati Neidig
Mana Morales
Anthony Hoover
Tony Roberson
Ken Eichstaedt
Justin Bradley
John Tang
Peter Wan
Zahra Zahiraleslamzadeh
Don Osterhold
Bill Pratt
Nancy Emerson
Brad Esslinger
James Strandbera
Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc.
Tosco Refining Company
Turner /Maclane
U.C. Berkeley
U.S. Naval Activities, N534
U.S. Navy Public Works Center
URS Consultants
United Defense LP
United Defense LP
United Defense LP
United Defense LP
United Technologies
United Technologies Corp.
Unocal
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
------- |