This document provides an overview of site mitigation and cleanup programs presented at a CUPA conference. It discusses the target audience and speakers, and outlines the meeting topics including regulatory authority, the cleanup process from opening to closing a case, funding options, and enforcement. It also provides background on leaking underground storage tank (LUST) programs, local oversight programs, agency certification requirements, and voluntary cleanup programs. Statistics are presented on open and closed LUST and voluntary cleanup cases. The conceptual site model and typical cleanup process are described.

1. Site Mitigation 101
CUPA Conference
February 4, 2015
Wednesday 8-9:45 AM

2. ∗ New (and not so new) corrective action
agency employees
∗ Industry
∗ Consultants
∗ (Potential) Responsible Parties
∗ Students
Target Audience

3. ∗ Charles Ice, PG, San Mateo County
Environmental Health
∗ LOP, voluntary cleanup program, Corrective
Action UPA, and well permitting, also
biotoxin sampling and groundwater
sustainability
∗ Jerry Wickham, PG, Alameda County
Environmental Health
∗ LOP, voluntary cleanup program
Speakers

4. ∗ Regulatory authority
∗ Cleanup Process
∗ Opening a case
∗ Typical field activities and documentation
∗ Financing
∗ Enforcement options
∗ Closing a case
∗ Whether to Open or Close a Case Examples
Meeting Outline

5. Corrective Action Programs
Local Agencies/Districts
Voluntary Programs
all other
contaminants
Health and Safety
Code Section 101480
9 Regional Water
Quality Control
Boards

6. ∗ Petroleum releases from USTs only
∗ Code of Regulations, Title 23, Chapter 16,
Article 11, Section 2720 defines Responsible
Party (RP) as:
∗ Tank owner and operator (or last known operator)
∗ Business owner and operator
∗ Property owner at time of contaminant discovery
∗ Can be named secondary RP if another RP will
remain as primary and potential secondary RP had no
direct involvement in discharge
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
(LUST)

7. ∗ Health & Safety Code 25296 – word for
word language for Remedial Action
Completion Certificate (i.e. closure
letter), appeals process for closure
request denial
∗ Health & Safety Code 25299 – the UST
Cleanup Fund, currently authorized until
2026 and a fee of 2 cents per gallon
Health and Safety Code Sections

8. ∗ Local Oversight Program started as pilot
program by Resolution 88-23
∗ Counties contracted directly with SWRCB
∗ Appeals process, RWQCB concurrence
∗ Health & Safety Code 25297 – authorizes
the SWRCB to implement the LOP,
Responsible Party to identify and notify
affected property owners, and requires
reimbursement for reasonable cost
Local Oversight Program

9. ∗ CUPAs had to be certified in 1996
∗ Local Implementing Agencies (LIAs)
∗ AB1701 (2012) required certification to be an
LOP, no more LIAs (or quasi-LIAs)
∗ Certification requirements
∗ Professional Geologist (PG) or Engineer (PE),
requirements for minimum education and
training for all staff
Agency Certification

10. ∗ 2009-42
∗ Immediately review all cases for closure and
post impediments for closure by 6/30/10
∗ 2009-81
∗ Use decisional framework outlined in
resolution 92-49 and previous closure orders
∗ 2012-16 Low Threat UST Petroleum Closure
Policy (LTCP)
Improvement Resolutions

11. ∗ 2012-62 Plan for Implementation of LTCP
and Additional Program Improvements
∗ Review all sites against LTCP by 8/16/13, create
Path to Closure Plan by 1/1/14
∗ SWRCB review of all closure denials
∗ 60-day TAT work plans and closure requests
∗ Emphasis on high threat cases
∗ Pushing for well destruction and waste removal
of pending closure cases
Improvement Resolutions

12. ∗ RWQCBs have 3,050 open, 13,308 closed
∗ Another 209 listed as Open - Inactive
∗ 17 local agencies with 1,767 open, 19,044
closed cases
∗ Another 4 listed as Open - Inactive
LUST Case numbers

13. ∗ RWQCBs Water Code Sections 13267, 13304, and 13365
∗ Local agencies Health & Safety Code Section 101480,
SB1248 (1996)
∗ Responsible Party [can be anyone] that requests the
local officer [county or city health officer or county
environmental health director] to supervise remedial
action at a site
∗ Must enter into a Remedial Action Agreement
specifying assessment, remediation, and cleanup goals
Voluntary Cleanup Program

14. ∗ Letter certifies completion of activities
∗ Charge RP a fee to recover reasonable costs; no
enforcement option
∗ Local agency sites
∗ Must first notify DTSC and RWQCB of site
∗ Either party at any time may ask DTSC or RWQCB to
take over through agency referral or RP applies for
Site Designation or Brownfield MOA processes
Voluntary Cleanup Program

15. ∗ RWQCBs have 3,050 open cases, 5,911 closed,
1,565 Listed as Open - Inactive
∗ 32 local agencies with 586 VCP open sites,
3,494 closed cases, 61 sites listed as Open -
Inactive
∗ 14 agencies >4 sites each, total of 567 sites
Voluntary Cleanup Program

16. ∗ Mandated by statue in 1997
∗ Regulations for designation (i.e.
application) developed in 2006
∗ Allows Health & Safety Code Chapter 6.5
Section 25187, 25200.3, 25200.10, 25407.14
orders at facilities subject to oversight by
CUPA
∗ Generators, Conditional Authorization, Conditional
Exemption, and Permit by Rule (except TTUs)
∗ Less versus more complex sites for Tier 1
and 2 designations
Corrective Action UPA

17. ∗ Phase 1 Assessment Checklist (DTSC
Form 1151 required be filled out by 1/1/97
identified many corrective action sites )
or 1 year after CA or PBR notification
∗ Generators that can not obtain clean
closure during facility closure and
property or business transfers identify a
majority of corrective action UPA sites
∗ Delegation to UPAs only applies to
Health & Safety Code Chapters 6.5
Corrective Action UPA Regulations

18. ∗ Los Angeles County, Ventura County,
San Mateo County, Sacramento County,
San Diego County, and Merced County
currently designated
∗ Orange County has applied
∗ Only 3 sites officially so far
Implementation

19. Cleanup process

20. ∗ Opening a case
∗ Funding
∗ Conceptual site model
∗ Site investigation
∗ Remedy selection
∗ Groundwater monitoring
∗ GeoTracker
∗ Public participation
∗ Enforcement options
∗ Case closure
LOP/UST Cleanup Process

21. ∗ UST Cleanup Fund for eligible sites
∗ Responsible party funds
∗ Less Common
∗ Emergency, Abandoned, and Recalcitrant (EAR)
Account
∗ Orphan Site Cleanup Fund
∗ School District Account
∗ LOPs operate under contract to State Water
Resources Control Board
Funding

22. ∗ Definitions and various forms
∗ Description of sources, distribution,
pathways, and receptors.
∗ Process
∗ When is site investigation adequate?
Conceptual Site Model

23. Example of CSM Pictorial

24. Example of CSM Flow Diagram
Worker Resident Recreationa
l

25. ∗ Definitions and various forms
∗ Description of sources, distribution,
pathways, and receptors.
∗ Process
∗ When is site investigation adequate?
Conceptual Site Model

26. ∗ Various approaches
∗ Fixed scope of work
∗ Flexible or expedited
∗ Methods and technologies
∗ Work plans and reporting
Site Investigation

27. ∗ When are groundwater monitoring
wells installed?
∗ What information do we get?
∗ How long do we monitor?
Groundwater Monitoring

28. ∗ Interim remedial actions
∗ Pilot tests
∗ Corrective action plans
∗ Public participation
∗ Green and Environmentally Responsible
Cleanups
Remedy Selection

29. ∗ Opening a case
∗ Funding
∗ Conceptual site model
∗ Site investigation
∗ Remedy selection
∗ Groundwater monitoring
∗ GeoTracker
∗ Public participation
∗ Enforcement options
∗ Case closure
LOP/UST Cleanup Process

30. ∗ Make sure site is claimed and keep it up to date
∗ Site history and case status
∗ Document and EDF submittals
∗ Low Threat Closure Policy checklist
∗ Path to closure plan
∗ Regulatory actions (activities)
∗ Post closure site management requirements
∗ Getting information out of GeoTracker
GeoTracker

31. ∗ Level of effort based on site
∗ Threshold level for all sites
∗ Adjust level of effort as needed
∗ Categories
∗ Rural/urban
∗ Activities
∗ “Public Participation at Cleanup Sites, Final Draft,” April
2005, State Water Resources Control Board and
Regional Boards
Public Participation

32. ∗ Progressively increase enforcement
∗ Meetings
∗ Notice of Violation
∗ District Attorney
∗ Regional Water Quality Control Boards
∗ State Water Resources Control Board
Enforcement Options

33. ∗ Opening a case
∗ Funding
∗ Conceptual site model
∗ Site investigation
∗ Remedy selection
∗ Groundwater monitoring
∗ GeoTracker
∗ Public participation
∗ Enforcement options
∗ Case closure
Voluntary Cleanup Program Process

34. ∗ Full and meaningful public involvement (CEQA)
∗ Site screening (Preliminary Endangerment Assessment)
∗ Site investigation (using DTSC guidance documents)
∗ Selection of remedy and cleanup levels
∗ Adequate resources & oversight
∗ Written documentation of corrective action
activities
∗ Enforcement of corrective action completeness
∗ Financial assurance
∗ Land use controls
Corrective Action Process

35. ∗ Most common ways of site discovery
∗ Tank removal and upgrade sampling or release
detected by UST monitoring equipment
∗ Voluntary Phase 2 work requested by banks for
property transactions, data voluntarily submitted
or as required by drilling permit
∗ CUPA facility closure sampling
∗ Public complaints, usually nuisance based
Opening a Case

36. ∗ Request any additional info anyone has to help
determine if site should be opened and who might be
responsible parties (RPs)
∗ Identify RPs (assessor’s records and CUPA files for
LUST) or potential RPs (current and perspective
property owner and current or most recent facility in
CUPA files for VCP), send them initial letter
∗ Open site in Geotracker and have meeting with RPs or
potential RPs to discuss why, what, and how, and
request initial work plan
Steps for Opening A Case

37. ∗ Concentrations versus screening levels
(ESLs by SFRWQCB or LARWQCB, RLs by
USEPA Region 9)
∗ Location of contamination in relation to
sensitive receptors (current and
imminent land use involved)
∗ Fate and transport pathways initially
assessed
Deciding Whether to Open a Case

38. Case opening Example

39. ∗ Voluntary Phase II work for redevelopment of
a former electronics lab from the 1960s
reportedly with electroplating
∗ Grab groundwater 20 feet below ground
surface in 5 borings but monitoring wells on
other sites in the vicinity have 10 feet depth of
groundwater
∗ Analyzed soil and groundwater for TPH,
SVOCs, and VOCs
Circuitron

40. Soil Data (ppb)

41. Groundwater Data (ppb)

42. Site Map

43. ∗ Max TCE in soil 0.055 mg/kg @ 20 ft bgs
@ SB-8
∗ Soil (SFRWQCB) ESL 0.46 mg/kg
∗ Max TCE in groundwater 870 ug/L @ 25
ft bgs @ SB-6
∗ Groundwater (SFRWQCB) ESL 1,300
ug/L for vapor intrusion, 5 ug/L drinking
water
Summary and Screening Information
for Voting

44. ∗ SFRWQCB TCE Vapor Intrusion acute
trigger level in fine soil (or deep
groundwater) 460 ug/L
∗ Development plans incorporate 2 levels
of parking garages (~20 feet deep)
∗ Any possible additional info they could
get to stop agency from opening site?
Does This Change Your Vote?

45. ∗ Low Threat UST Closure Policy
∗ Resolution 92-49
∗ Relevant State Water Board Orders
∗ Closure requests are tracked on GeoTracker
∗ Denials of closure reviewed by State Water Resources
Control Board
LOP/UST Case Closure

46. ∗ Eight General Criteria
∗ Three Media Specific Criteria
∗ Groundwater – Four prescriptive classes of sites or
regulatory agency determination
∗ Vapor – Four scenarios, sit-specific risk assessment or
regulatory agency determination
∗ Direct Contact and Outdoor Air Exposure –Table 1, site-
specific risk assessment, or regulatory agency
determination
Low Threat UST Closure Policy

47. ∗ Provides a framework for the cleanup process.
∗ Establishes the basis for determining cleanup levels of waters of
the State and soils that impact waters of the State.
∗ Resolution No. 92-49 requires cleanup to occur in a manner that
promotes attainment of either background water quality or that
level that is reasonable if background levels of water quality
cannot be restored.
∗ Resolution No. 92-49 does not require that the requisite level of
water quality be met at the time of case closure; it specifies
compliance with cleanup goals and objectives within a
reasonable time frame.
Resolution 92-49

48. Case closure EXAMPLE

49. ∗ Urban site
∗ Active retail truck stop
∗ Gasoline and diesel
∗ Multiple releases from tank pit and piping
Time to Play “Would You Close That
Site”

50. A
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
S
RESTAURANT AND PARKING LOTRESTAURANT AND PARKING LOT
RAILROADRAILROAD
Dispensers
BUILDING
TANK
PIT
Truck Stop Site Plan

51. ∗ Depth to groundwater 2 to 6 feet bgs
∗ Groundwater not used in area of site for water supply
∗ Free product removal until 2006; no free product
currently
∗ Overexcavation in tank pit area and scale (2,644 cy)
∗ In-situ Remediation but likely not effective
Example LOP/UST Site

52. A
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
S
RESTAURANT AND PARKING LOTRESTAURANT AND PARKING LOT
RAILROADRAILROAD
Dispensers
BUILDING
TANK
PIT
TPHg In Groundwater
EW

53. East-West Cross Section TPHg In Soil

54. A
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
S
RESTAURANT AND PARKING LOTRESTAURANT AND PARKING LOT
RAILROADRAILROAD
Dispensers
BUILDING
TANK
PIT
Benzene In Groundwater
500 µg/L

55. A
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
S
RESTAURANT AND PARKING LOTRESTAURANT AND PARKING LOT
RAILROADRAILROAD
Dispensers
BUILDING
TANK
PIT
MTBE in Groundwater
500 µg/L

56. A
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
S
RESTAURANT AND PARKING LOTRESTAURANT AND PARKING LOT
RAILROADRAILROAD
Dispensers
BUILDING
TANK
PIT
TBA in Groundwater

57. ∗ Within service area of a public water system
∗ Consists only of petroleum
∗ Currently no free product
∗ Primary release has been stopped
∗ Conceptual site model was developed
∗ Secondary source removal
∗ Soil and groundwater tested for MTBE
∗ No nuisance conditions
General LTCP Criteria

58. Site Data
LTCP
Class 1
Criteria
(µg/L)
LTCP
Class 2
Criteria
(µg/L)
LTCP
Class 3
Criteria
(µg/L)
LTCP
Class 4
Criteria
(µg/L)
Plume Length
Approximately 200 feet
from source to edge of
plume
<100 feet <250 feet <250 feet <1,000 feet
Free Product Currently no free
product
No free
product
No free
product
Removed to
maximum
extent
practicable
No free
product
Plume Stable or
Decreasing
Appears to be
decreasing over long
term but sporadic
increases observed.
Stable or
decreasing
Stable or
decreasing
Stable or
decreasing
for minimum
of 5 Years
Stable or
decreasing
Distance to Nearest
Water Supply Well >1,000 feet >250 feet >1,000
feet >1,000 feet >1,000 feet
Distance to Nearest
Surface Water and
Direction
2,000 feet
downgradient >250 feet >1,000
feet >1,000 feet >1,000 feet
Property Owner Willing
to Accept a Land Use
Restriction?
Yes Not
applicable
Not
applicable Yes Not
applicable
Groundwater-Specific Criteria

59. Site Data
LTCP Class
2 Criteria
(µg/L)
LTCP
Class 3
Criteria (µg/L)
LTCP
Class 4
Criteria
(µg/L)
Plume Length
Approximately 200 feet
from source to edge of
plume
<250 feet <250 feet <1,000 feet
Free Product Currently no free product No free
product
Removed to
maximum
extent
practicable
No free
product
Plume Stable or Decreasing
Appears to be decreasing
over long term but
sporadic increases
observed
Stable or
decreasing
Stable or
decreasing
for minimum
of 5 Years
Stable or
decreasing
Distance to Nearest Water
Supply Well >1,000 feet >1,000 feet >1,000 feet >1,000 feet
Distance to Nearest
Surface Water and
Direction
2,000 feet downgradient >1,000 feet >1,000 feet >1,000 feet
Property Owner Willing to
Accept a Land Use
Restriction?
Yes Not
applicable Yes Not
applicable
Groundwater-Specific Criteria

60. Constituent
Historic Site
Maximum
(µg/L)
Current Site
Maximum
(µg/L)
LTCP
Class 2
Criteria
(µg/L)
LTCP
Class 3
Criteria
(µg/L)
LTCP
Class 4
Criteria
(µg/L)
Benzene 77,000 740 3,000 No criteria 1,000
MTBE 920,000 530 1,000 No criteria 1,000
TBA 310,000 35,000 No criteria No criteria No criteria
Groundwater Concentrations

61. ∗ Not required for active service stations
∗ No threat to nearby sites
Vapor-Specific Criteria

62. Constituent
Residential Commercial/Industrial Utility Worker
0 to 5 feet
bgs
(mg/kg)
Volatilization
to outdoor
air (5 to 10
feet bgs)
mg/kg
0 to 5 feet
bgs
(mg/kg)
Volatilization to
outdoor air (5 to
10 feet bgs)
mg/kg
0 to 10 feet bgs
(mg/kg)
Site
Maximum
Benzene 3.5 200 3.5 200 200
LTCP
Criteria
Benzene ≤1.9 ≤2.8 ≤8.2 ≤12 ≤14
Site
Maximum
Ethylbenzene 9.4 160 9.4 160 160
LTCP
Criteria
Ethylbenzene ≤21 ≤32 ≤89 ≤134 ≤314
Site
Maximum
Naphthalene ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
LTCP
Criteria
Naphthalene ≤9.7 ≤9.7 ≤45 ≤45 ≤219
Direct Contact and Volatilization to
Outdoor Air

63. ∗ Maximum site concentrations less than Table 1
concentrations
∗ Maximum concentrations less than levels from
site-specific risk assessment
∗ As a result of controlling exposure through use of
mitigation measures or institutional or
engineering controls, regulatory agency
determines that petroleum constituents in soil
will have no significant risk of adversely affecting
human health
Three Ways to Meet Direct Contact and
Volatilization to Outdoor Air Criteria

64. ∗ Does it meet general criteria?
∗ Does it meet scenarios 2, 3, and 4 of
groundwater criteria?
∗ Exempt from vapor criteria
∗ Could site meet direct contact criteria with
land use controls?
Summary of LTCP Criteria for
Voting

65. ∗ What about variations in groundwater
concentrations?
∗ What about TBA in groundwater at
concentrations up to 35,000 µg/L?
∗ TPH mass remaining (estimated 17,600 pounds)
∗ Shallow soil contamination with concentrations
that exceed LTCP Table 1 and no naphthalene
data
Do Any of These Conditions
Change Your Vote?

66. QUESTIONS/DISCUSSION