CHAPTER 4: IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (continued)GROUNDWATER PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENTPer Regional Water Board Resolution No. 89-39, which is incorporated by reference into this plan, almost all the region's groundwaters are considered to be existing or potential sources of drinking water. With limited resources, the Regional Board must concentrate its groundwater protection and management efforts on the most important groundwater basins. DWR has identified 31 individual groundwater basins in the San Francisco Bay Region that serve, or could serve, as sources of high quality drinking water. Increased demands on these groundwater resources have become evident in the rapidly developing Bay Area. Years of drought and a decade of discoveries of groundwater pollution have resulted in impacts or impairment to portions of these basins. Some municipal, domestic, industrial, and agricultural supply wells have been taken out of service due to the presence of pollution. Some of the basins have also been affected by over-pumping, resulting in land subsidence and saltwater intrusion. Such pressures on groundwater resources require that comprehensive environmental planning and management practices be developed and implemented for each individual basin by all concerned and affected parties. The Regional Board will foster this concept with the following groundwater protection and management goals for the San Francisco Bay region. GROUNDWATER PROGRAM GOALS
APPLICATION OF WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVESWater quality objectives apply to all groundwaters, rather than at a wellhead or at a point of consumption. The maintenance of the existing high quality of groundwater (i.e., "background") is the primary objective, which defines the lowest concentration limit that the Regional Board requires for groundwater protection. The Regional Board also has narrative and numeric water quality objectives for bacteria, chemical constituents, radioactivity, and taste and odor (see Chapter 3). These objectives define the upper concentration limit that the Regional Board considers protective of beneficial uses. The lower and upper concentration limits define the range that the Regional Board considers for clean-up levels of polluted groundwater. Establishment of cleanup levels are discussed below under "Cleanup of Polluted Sites." Numerical limits that implement all applicable water quality objectives, including Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs), are only acceptable as the upper end of a concentration range to protect the beneficial uses of municipal and domestic drinking water sources. Such numerical limits are appropriate only at the upper end as some are set after technical feasibility and treatment costs are considered, leave no margin for future spills, and do not account for the combined risks that exist when many chemicals are present. Ideally, the Regional Board would establish numerical groundwater objectives for all constituents. However, the Regional Board is limited in its ability and resources to independently establish numerical objectives for groundwater. To evaluate compliance with water quality objectives, the Regional Board will cosider all relevant and scientifically valid evidence, including relevant and scientifically valid numerical criteria and guidelines developed and/or published by other ageencies and organizations (e.g., State Water Board, U.S. EPA, California Department of Health Services, Cal/EPA's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Cal/EPA's Department of Toxic Substances Control, etc.) to provide the numerical criteria for Regional Board consideration as groundwater objectives. To assist dischargers and other interested parties, the Central Valley Regional Water Board's staff has compiled many numerical water quality criteria from other appropriate agencies and organizations in its staff report, "A Compilation of Water Quality Goals." This staff report is updated regularly to reflect changes in these numerical criteria. In practice, the Regional Board uses water quality objectives for groundwater somewhat differently from those for surface water. For groundwater, the Regional Board's emphasis is the regulation of sites where objectives are not being met, clean-up is required and/or under way, and no further waste discharges will be allowed in the future. In contrast, surface water discharges regulated by the Regional Board are usually for ongoing discharges regulated to meet water quality objectives in receiving waters. In the typical situation, the Regional Board must identify and establish site- and basin-specific groundwater beneficial uses and standards for the cleanup of groundwater polluted by the numerous and extensive spills and leaks of toxic chemicals (e.g., organic solvents, fuels, metals, etc.). Very few waste discharges to land are allowed by the Regional Board and those that are permitted (e.g., landfills, industrial waste disposal, above-ground soil treatment, etc.) are closely regulated under the requirements of existing laws and regulations in order to maintain and protect groundwater quality objectives. An additional category of discharges to land is the numerous individual domestic waste disposal systems (e.g., septic systems) that are permitted and regulated by the counties. The Regional Board waives regulation based upon the fact that the counties' regulation of the systems complies with applicable Regional Board requirements. Groundwater objectives for individual basins may be developed in the future. As the Regional Board completes projects that provide more detailed delineation of beneficial uses within basins, revised objectives may be developed for portions of groundwater basins that have unique protection needs. One such project is described below under "Groundwater Protection Programs.” REGULATION OF POTENTIAL POLLUTION SOURCESSHALLOW DRAINAGE WELLSINTRODUCTIONThe California Water Code, Section 13710, defines the term "well" or "water well" to mean any artificial excavation constructed by any method for the purpose of extracting water from or injecting water into the underground. The definition does not include (a) oil, gas, and geothermal wells, or (b) construction dewatering wells and hillside stabilization dewatering wells. Therefore, all shallow drainage wells (also known as dry wells, infiltration basins, and shallow injection wells) used for the purpose of disposing of stormwater or surface runoff are covered under this definition. The purpose of this Basin Plan section is to clarify the Regional Board's position in regard to the construction, usage, and regulatory permitting aspects of shallow drainage wells. BACKGROUNDIn 1951, the Regional Board adopted Resolution No. 81, "Statement of Policy on Sewer and Drainage Wells", which is incorporated by reference into this plan. This resolution states that the Regional Board disapproves of the construction and use of wells for disposal of effluent from septic tanks and surface runoff from streets and highways except where such wells discharge into a formation that at no time will contain groundwater fit for domestic, agricultural, or industrial use. At the same time, the Regional Board recognized that these wells already existed in the region and that immediate abandonment may be impractical. Therefore no new installations were to be permitted, more satisfactory drainage methods were to be substituted for existing installations at the earliest practicable date, and the Regional Board was to consider the matter of prescribing requirements for the discharge in granting any exceptions to the prohibition. After review of Regional Board files, it does not appear as if any exceptions to the resolution were officially granted. An “Explanation of Policy” was adopted with the resolution. The reasons for concern over the continuation of such practices can be summarized as follows:
Board staff in cooperation with U.S. EPA recently surveyed municipalities and a number of industries to determine the usage of shallow drainage wells in the region. Results indicate that shallow drainage wells have been haphazardly installed throughout the region, use of the wells is prevalent, and construction and usage has gone virtually unregulated. Additionally, shallow drainage wells are still being constructed in new residential and industrial developments. U.S. EPA has investigated numerous cases nationwide in which the use of shallow drainage wells impacted drinking water supplies. Within the San Francisco Bay region, a number of groundwater investigations revealed stormwater drainage wells as possible sources of pollutants. While it was not possible to determine if the pollutants detected in groundwater originated from the identified wells, it was determined that current practices associated with these wells posed a serious threat to groundwater supplies. Shallow drainage wells concentrate runoff and allow for its rapid infiltration to the subsurface. In turn, the buffering capacity of soils for removing pollutants and protecting groundwater supplies is reduced. The threat a shallow drainage well may pose to groundwater is directly related to the quality of the water entering the well as well as its location and design. The location of the well must be taken into consideration. Subsurface conditions, such as the permeability of underlying soils and the depth to groundwater, vary considerably throughout the region. In this regard, design is also important, as deeper wells may penetrate confining or semi-confining clay layers and serve as conduits for pollutants to migrate to lower aquifers. Managing surrounding land uses is one means of controlling the quality of water entering the well. For instance, wells should be labeled and not used in areas where there is a high probability of a highway accident or spill, and not located in certain industrial areas. With proper management, placement, and design, shallow drainage wells can have a positive environmental benefit, as there is a need to allow stormwater to recharge shallow groundwater and to protect surface water from excessive sedimentation and other water quality problems associated with high stormwater discharge flows. The Federal Underground Injection Control Program was established in 1984 with the adoption of the Safe Drinking Water Act. In California, the U. S. EPA is the lead agency in charge of administering the program. Under this program, wells used to dispose of surface water runoff are classified as Class V injection wells. The owner or operator of any existing Class V well is required to submit information on each well, including the nature and type of discharge and operating status. For the San Francisco Bay region, no voluntary reports of the existence of Class V wells were received by U.S. EPA as required under these regulations. There are a number of applicable state regulations pertaining to the construction and use of shallow drainage wells. AB2182 (Ch. 1131, Sec. 4458) of the California Health and Safety Code, passed in 1961, prohibits the use of drainage wells for the disposal of sewer water unless authorized by the Regional Board. The California Water Code (Ch. 10, Secs. 13700 – 13806) defines the terms "well" and "water well" and states that any person who intends to dig, bore, or drill such a well must file a notice of intent with the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) or the designated local enforcement agency. A detailed report of completion must then be filed after construction. If the Regional Board finds that standards of water well construction, maintenance, abandonment, and destruction are needed in any area to protect beneficial uses of groundwater, it shall determine the area to be involved and so report to each affected county and city in the area. Each such affected county shall, within 120 days of receipt of the report, adopt an ordinance establishing standards of water well construction, maintenance, abandonment, and destruction for the designated area. To date, standards and siting criteria for shallow drainage wells are non-existent in this region and subsequently not included in the well-permitting process. The Regional Board is now issuing NPDES permits for stormwater discharges to surface water for certain industrial and construction activities and to the larger municipalities in the region. The permits require the implementation of control measures to reduce pollutant loading, along with water quality monitoring to assure that the waters being discharged will not impact the beneficial uses of receiving waters. The discharge of industrial waste into the sanitary sewer system is now closely regulated under a pretreatment program. Likewise, the discharge of stormwater to the subsurface must also be regulated to assure the protection of groundwater supplies. Standards for shallow drainage well construction, maintenance, abandonment, destruction and siting criteria are needed throughout the region. Land-use decisions, such as stormwater structural controls and well construction permitting, are most often made by local government agencies, including water districts, planning, and building departments. Many of these agencies are not aware of the Regional Board's Resolution No. 81, or the rationale behind it. In summary, the rationale for adopting Resolution No. 81 in 1951 is still very much applicable today. The only practical method of controlling groundwater pollution is prevention, since groundwater pollution is not usually noticed until the damage is done. GOALThe goal of the Shallow Drainage Program is to eliminate the unregulated construction and use of shallow drainage wells in areas where municipal, domestic, agricultural, and industrial groundwater supplies are threatened. This goal is to be attained by a coordinated effort on the part of U.S. EPA, the Regional Board, DWR, and local government agencies to implement a shallow drainage well control program. PROGRAMThe Regional Board prohibits the unauthorized construction and use of shallow drainage wells. The shallow drainage well control program shall consist of two main elements: 1) locating existing wells; and 2) regulating the construction and use of existing and new wells. 1. Locating existing wells U.S. EPA, the Regional Board, and local government agencies will need to work together to identify all existing shallow drainage wells. 2. Regulating existing wells and new wells Continued use of existing wells or construction of new wells may be authorized by a local enforcing agency through its well-permitting process. The Regional Board will work with DWR and each city, county, and local water supply and flood control agency on developing standards for adoption by ordinance for the construction, maintenance, abandonment, and destruction of shallow drainage wells Additionally, it must be demonstrated that the use of the well will not result in a discharge that may pose a threat to municipal, domestic, agricultural, and industrial groundwater supplies. If this cannot be adequately demonstrated, the well must be permanently closed. Closure of each well must be done in compliance with U.S. EPA Class V injection well closure guidelines and applicable local agency guidelines or regulations. HAZARDOUS AND NONHAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSALDischarges of solid, semisolid, and liquid wastes to landfills, waste piles, surface impoundments, and land treatment facilities can create sources of pollution affecting the quality of waters of the state. Waste discharges can be assimilated by receiving waters, if the concentration of pollutants in the waste is regulated (i.e., treated wastewater from municipal or industrial facilities). Conversely, discharges of wastes to waste management units require long-term containment or active treatment following the discharge in order to prevent waste or waste constituents from migrating to and impairing the beneficial uses of waters of the state. Pollutants from such discharges may continue to affect water quality long after the discharger has stopped discharging new wastes at a site, either because of continued discharges from the site or because pollutants from the site have accumulated in underlying soils and are migrating to groundwater. Landfills for disposal of municipal or industrial solid waste (solid waste disposal sites) are the major categories of waste management units in the region. But there are also surface impoundments used for storage or evaporative treatment of liquid wastes, waste piles, and land treatment facilities where semi-solid sludge from wastewater treatment facilities and liquid wastes from refinery operations are discharged for biological treatment. The Regional Board issues waste discharge requirements to ensure that these discharges are properly contained to protect the Region's water resources from degradation and to ensure that the dischargers undertake effective monitoring to verify continued compliance with requirements. These discharges, and the waste management units at which the wastes are discharged, are subject to concurrent regulation by other State and local agencies responsible for land-use planning, solid waste management, and hazardous waste management. Local enforcement agencies implement the both state's solid waste management laws and local ordinances governing the siting, design, and operation of solid waste disposal facilities (usually landfills) with the concurrence of the California Integrated Waste Management Board. The Waste Management Board also has direct responsibility for review and approval of plans for closure and post-closure maintenance of solid waste landfills. The Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) issues permits for all hazardous waste management treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (which include incinerators, tanks, and warehouses where hazardous wastes are stored in drums, as well as landfills, waste piles and surface impoundments). The State Water Board, Regional Boards, the Waste Management Board, and DTSC have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to coordinate their respective roles in the concurrent regulation of these discharges. The Regional Board regulates landfills receiving municipal solid wastes and facilities receiving industrial wastes of various types. Figure 4-6 shows the municipal solid waste landfill sites within the region. These sites are closely regulated and monitored, but some water quality problems have been detected and are being addressed. As a result of federal laws in the area of hazardous waste regulation, more effort is being devoted to regulation of the on-site treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. These are discharges that are from entities that generate the waste and where only wastes generated by the entities are disposed. The laws and regulations governing the discharges of both hazardous and non-hazardous solid wastes have been revised and strengthened in the last few years. Implementation of the following programs is described below: California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 23, Chapter 15; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; Toxics Pits Cleanup Act; and Solid Waste Assessment Tests. The Regional Board's policies on two significant areas of regulatory concern with respect to landfills —“ Landfill Expansions” and “Bayfront Landfill Expansion Into Wetlands” — are also included below. CCR TITLE 23, CHAPTER 15The most significant regulation used by the Regional Board in regulating hazardous and non-hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal is CCR Title 23, Division 3, Chapter 15, formerly Subchapter 15. Chapter 15 includes very specific siting, construction, monitoring, and closure requirements for all existing and new waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. Chapter 15 also contains a provision requiring operators to provide assurances of financial responsibility for initiating and completing corrective action for all known or reasonably foreseeable releases from their waste management units. Detailed technical criteria are provided for establishing water quality protection standards, monitoring programs, and corrective action programs for releases from waste management units. Chapter 15 required the review and update of waste discharge requirements for all hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal sites by January 1, 1993, and for all non-hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal sites by July 1, 1994. Chapter 15 defines waste types to include hazardous wastes, designated wastes, non-hazardous solid wastes, and inert waste. Hazardous wastes are defined by DTSC in CCR Title 22. Designated wastes are defined as:
Non-hazardous solid wastes are those normally associated with domestic and commercial activities. Non-hazardous solid wastes and inert wastes can be regulated by the Regional Board if necessary to protect water quality. The Regional Board's regulation of non-hazardous solid waste facilities (Class III) has been on-going since the mid-1970's, and in some instances since to the early 1950's. Many of the small, older facilities have closed, and waste is now being disposed of at large regional non-hazardous solid waste facilities. At non-hazardous solid waste facilities, the Regional Board reviews and revises waste discharge requirements for the active sites to assure consistency with the current regulations. These actions include defining the levels of designated wastes (see below), upgrading groundwater monitoring systems to identify whether water quality objectives are being violated, establishing corrective action programs where standards are violated, and reviewing and overseeing of the development and implementation of facility closure plans. To implement Chapter 15 at non-hazardous solid waste facilities, the Regional Board must define designated wastes. Many wastes which are not hazardous still contain constituents of water quality concern that could become soluble in a non-hazardous solid waste facility and produce leachates and gases that could pose a threat to beneficial uses of state waters. The criteria for determining whether a non-hazardous waste is a designated waste are based on water quality objectives in the vicinity of the site, the containment features of the solid waste facility, and the solubility/mobility of the waste constituents. Therefore, all owners and operators of active non-hazardous municipal solid waste facilities in the San Francisco Bay region who wish to receive wastes other than municipal solid waste or inert wastes must propose waste constituent concentration criteria above which wastes will be considered designated waste and therefore, not suitable for disposal at their site. Such proposals are subject to approval by the Executive Officer when appropriately delegated by the Regional Board. In determining whether a non-hazardous waste is designated waste, the Regional Board will consider all relevant and scientifically valid evidence, including relevant and scientifically valid numerical criteria and guidelines developed and/or published by other sources, such as the Central Valley Regional Board's staff report, "Designated Level Methodology for Waste Classification and Cleanup Level Determination," or an equivalent methodology acceptable to the Executive Officer. RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)The state implements the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act's Subtitle C -- Hazardous Waste Regulations for Treatment, Storage, and Disposal -- through DTSC and the Regional Boards. In August, 1992, U.S. EPA formally delegated RCRA Subtitle C program implementation authority to DTSC. As described above, regulation of hazardous waste discharges is also included in CCR Title 23, Chapter 15. Chapter 15’s monitoring requirements were amended in 1991 to be equivalent to RCRA requirements. These will be implemented through the adoption of waste discharge requirements for hazardous waste sites covered by RCRA. The discharge requirements will then become part of a state RCRA permit issued by DTSC. Federal regulations required by RCRA’s Subtitle D have been adopted for municipal solid waste landfills (40 CFR 257 & 258). These regulations are self-implementing, with portions effective October, 1991; October, 1993; and later. The Waste Management Board is the state lead agency for Subtitle D implementation and has been delegated authority to implement the program by U.S. EPA. TOXIC PITS CLEANUP ACTThe Toxic Pits Cleanup Act of 1984 (TPCA) required that all impoundments containing liquid hazardous wastes or free liquids containing hazardous waste be retrofitted with a liner/leachate collection system or dried out by July 1, 1988, and subsequently closed in accordance with Chapter 15, Title 22, and RCRA regulations. In 1985, there were 26 sites in the region with ponds subject to the act. As of 1994, one site is continuing to operate its facility under the act's exemption requirements. Of the remaining sites, 19 have closed and the remainder have been delayed in closure either by complications in the federal/ DTSC RCRA closure process, or by the Regional Board's decision to delay closure to allow for gradual removal and reuse of materials in the ponds. All these sites are expected to close by 1995. SOLID WASTE ASSESSMENT TESTSSection 13273, added to the Water Code in 1985, requires all owners of both active and inactive landfills to complete a Solid Waste Assessment Test (SWAT) to determine if hazardous wastes have migrated from the landfill. There were 195 sites identified in the region subject to this program. Pursuant to a list adopted by the State Board, 150 site owners statewide per year would complete this evaluation, continuing to the year 2001. All sites eventually will be required to complete a SWAT unless waived or exempted in accordance with the law. Program funding was eliminated in 1991 and restored in 1992 solely for the review of backlogged SWAT documents submitted for sites ranked in the first five ranks. SWAT reports from rank six and above are currently reviewed only for sites under regulation by other Regional Board programs, thus significantly delaying completion of the program. More sites will be reviewed if more program funding becomes available, as is expected. LANDFILL EXPANSIONSThe rate of solid waste generation in the region has increased. As a result, some existing disposal sites are filling up and need to be either closed or expanded, and new sites will need to be created. The Regional Board strongly discourages locating new landfills or expanding existing facilities in sensitive groundwater areas. To minimize the problems associated with the disposal of solid wastes, the Regional Board supports the vigorous implementation of the requirement for a 50 percent reduction in the total quantity of waste disposal by the year 2000 as called for in AB 939. Designated wastes should be precluded from Class III landfills through local checking programs, recycling, and diversion. To reduce the potential for household hazardous wastes entering municipal landfills, the Regional Board supports local programs for public education and for household hazardous waste disposal and recycling. BAYFRONT LANDFILL EXPANSIONS INTO WETLANDSA significant issue that the Regional Board has addressed is the expansion of existing Bayfront landfills into wetland areas. The Regional Board, in a few cases, allowed modest expansions (and undesirable loss of wetlands) to allow local governments time to develop other disposal options. However, these expansions were only approved because there was a demonstrated immediate public need. One expansion permit was appealed to the State Board, which clearly indicated that future such expansions into wetlands would not be given the same approvals and that local governments must complete the necessary planning to avoid this problem. Given the State Board’s position and the wetlands provisions contained elsewhere in this Basin Plan, the Regional Board will not approve further expansions of Bayfront landfills into wetlands. CLEANUP OF POLLUTED SITESThe Regional Board has identified over 5,400 sites with confirmed releases of constituents of concern that have polluted or threaten to pollute groundwater. Sources of pollution at these sites include leaking underground storage tanks and sumps; leaking aboveground tanks; leaking pipelines; surface spills from chemical handling, transfer or storage; poor housekeeping; and illegal disposal. The Regional Board's strategy for managing polluted sites is discussed below under the following five sections:
Several important Regional Board policies are detailed in these five sections. Summaries of pertinent policies are provided below.
PROGRAM AREASSites with identified pollution problems are managed through five program areas: (1) Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program (>5,000 sites); (2) Spills, Leaks, Investigation and Cleanup (SLIC) Program (>400 sites); (3) Department of Defense/Department of Energy Program (15 sites); (4) U.S. EPA Superfund Program (30 sites); and (5) Above-ground Petroleum Storage Tank Program (approximately 200 sites). UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PROGRAMImplementation of the Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program is unique, as the Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapters 6.7 and 6.75, gives local agencies the authority to oversee investigation and cleanup of UST leak sites. The Corrective Action regulations (CCR, Title 23, Chapter 16, Article 11) use the term "regulatory agency" in recognition of the fact that local agencies have the option to oversee site investigation and cleanup, in addition to their statutory mandate to oversee leak reporting and tank closure. Local agencies now have independent authority under UST laws to require investigations and cleanup. The Regional Board still retains its Water Code authority to approve case closure. However, the Regional Board has authorized a few local agencies to close fuel leak cases where groundwater has not been polluted, and future groundwater impacts are not expected. Some local agencies also provide oversight for underground fuel storage tank cases under a Local Oversight Program (LOP) contract with the State Water Board. Most oversight charges are billed to responsible parties. Additionally, a few other local agencies have funded their own (non-LOP) oversight programs and have developed guidance documents based upon State and Regional Board guidance. Table 4-18 provides a brief summary of these agency's programs. Pertinent reference documents related to releases from underground storage tanks are described below.
SPILLS, LEAKS, INVESTIGATION, AND CLEAN-UP PROGRAM (SLIC)Sites that are managed within the SLIC program include sites with pollution from recent or historical surface spills, subsurface releases (e.g., pipelines, sumps, etc.), complaint investigations, and all other unauthorized discharges that pollute or threaten to pollute surface or groundwater. There is some overlap with the UST program as many SLIC cases also have leaking underground tanks. Alternatively, some cases that involve both leaking solvent tanks and other pollution sources may end up in the UST program. Many historical spill cases were identified by the Regional Board in the 1980s. New spills are identified through discharger reports, complaints to the Regional Board's field investigation team, the Regional Board's own surveillance, proposed property transfer reports, and local agency reports. Initial response to spill incidents is generally handled by the Regional Board's Field Investigation Team. The case is then screened, with notices sent as appropriate under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65). Subsequent to the "control" of the spill, the case is transferred to SLIC program staff. High-priority cases are assigned for follow up by the SLIC program as staffing permits. Investigation, remediation, and cleanup at SLIC sites proceeds under procedures outlined in State Water Board Resolution No. 92-49, discussed in the “Requirements for Site Investigation and Remediation” section below. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PROGRAMThe goal of this program is the clean-up of pollution at federal military sites (Department of Defense – DoD) and federal energy agency sites (Department of Energy – DoE). Investigation and cleanup at these sites must meet the requirements of the U.S. EPA "Superfund" hazardous waste clean-up program. This involves completion of the formal Preliminary Assessment, Site Investigation, Remedial Investigation, and Feasibility Study, all leading to a Record of Decision on an acceptable Remedial Action Plan. The State has signed agreements with the Department of Defense (Defense-State Memorandum of Agreement) and Department of Energy (Agreement in Principle) establishing procedures under which site investigation and cleanup will proceed, decisions will be made, and disputes resolved. Regional and State Water Board staff oversight costs are fully or partially reimbursed by various cost recovery mechanisms. At DoE sites, reimbursement is currently limited to tasks related to review of monitoring data and monitoring system adequacy to characterize sites and determine effectiveness of remedial actions. The potential exists to increase the scope of eligible reimbursement activities in the future. The DoD program includes closing bases that are subsequently to be made available, to the extent possible, for sale or lease to private or public parties. There is considerable state and federal interest in moving parcels into economically productive uses, in part to offset the negative economic impact of base closures on the local community. Special care will be required to assure that such transfers are done in a manner consistent with protection of water quality, public health, and the environment. U.S. EPA SUPERFUND PROGRAMIn April, 1988, the State and Regional Boards received a U.S. EPA grant for coordinating and enforcing groundwater cleanup at federal Superfund sites in the South Bay. The grant is known as the "South Bay Multi-Site Cooperative Agreement" (MSCA). The primary goals of MSCA are:
At most of the 30 MSCA sites, the toxics threats and risks are either under short-term control (awaiting long-term solutions), or the responsible parties have constructed and/or implemented long-term remediation projects. At the remaining sites, the Regional Board is requiring completion of Remedial Investigation/Feasibility studies and proposed Remedial Action Plans (RAPs). After public review and comments on these studies and plans, the Regional Board will adopt the RAPs in individual Site Clean-up Orders. When U.S. EPA approves of the Regional Board's actions, it will administratively adopt a Record of Decision. ABOVEGROUND PETROLEUM STORAGE ACTThe state's Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act was enacted in 1989 and amended in 1991. The act became effective on January 1, 1990. The purpose of this act is to protect the public and the environment from the serious threat of spillage of millions of gallons of petroleum-derived chemicals stored in thousands of aboveground storage tanks. The act requires that the Regional Board inspect aboveground petroleum storage tanks used for crude oil and its fractions for their compliance with the federally required Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan. In the event that a release occurs that threatens surface or groundwater, the act allows the State to recover reasonable costs incurred in the oversight and regulation of the cleanup. “Storage Statements" are required from the facilities describing the location, nature, and size of their tanks. Filing fees are required, which are intended to fund inspections, training, and research. There are approximately 225 facilities within the region that have filed their storage statements. REQUIREMENTS FOR SITE INVESTIGATION AND REMEDIATIONThe State Board adopted Resolution No. 92-49, "Policies and Procedures for Investigation, Cleanup and Abatement of Discharges Under Water Code Section 13304." This resolution contains the policies and procedures that all Regional Boards shall follow to oversee and regulate investigations and cleanup and abatement activities resulting from all types of discharge or threat of discharge subject to Section 13304 of the Water Code. Therefore, the five program areas listed above (i.e., UST, SLIC, DoD/DoE, Superfund, and Aboveground Storage) now follow the same policies and procedures outlined in Resolution No. 92-49 for determining:
State Water Board Resolution No. 92-49 outlines the five basic elements of a site investigation. Any or all elements of an investigation may proceed concurrently, rather than sequentially, in order to expedite cleanup and abatement of a discharge, provided that the overall cleanup goals and abatement are not compromised. State Water Board Resolution No. 92-49 investigation components are as follows:
State Water Board Resolution No. 92-49 requires that the Regional Board ensure that the discharger is aware of and considers minimum cleanup and abatement methods. The minimum methods that the discharger should be aware of and consider, to the extent that they may be applicable to the discharge or threat thereof, are:
PROGRESS OF THE REGIONAL BOARD'S PROGRAMThe Regional Water Board has over 12 years of experience in the cleanup of polluted sites. The following findings are drawn from this regulatory experience.
SETTING CLEAN-UP LEVELSThe Regional Board approves soil and groundwater clean-up levels for polluted sites. State Water Resolution No. 92-49 requires conformance with the provisions of State Board Resolution No. 68-16 and applicable provisions of CCR Title 23, Chapter 15. State Board Resolution No. 92-49 directs the Regional Board to ensure that dischargers are required to cleanup and abate the effect of discharges. This cleanup and abatement shall be done in a manner that promotes attainment of either background water quality, or the best water quality that is reasonable if background levels of water quality cannot be restored, considering all demands being made and to be made on those waters and the total values involved: beneficial and detrimental, economic and social, tangible and intangible. In approving any alternative clean-up levels less stringent than background, apply Section 2550.4 of Chapter 15, or, for cleanup and abatement associated with underground storage tanks, apply Section 2725 of Chapter 16, while considering the factors in Section 2550.4 of Chapter 15. Any such alternative clean-up levels shall:
GROUNDWATER CLEAN-UP LEVELSThe overall clean-up level established for a waterbody is based upon the most sensitive beneficial use identified. In all cases, the Regional Board first considers high quality or naturally occurring "background" concentration objectives as the clean-up levels for polluted groundwater and the factors listed above under "Setting Cleanup Levels." For groundwaters with a beneficial use of municipal and domestic supply, cleanup levels are set no higher than:
The Regional Board determines excess cancer risks and the Hazard Index following the U.S. EPA procedures (U.S. EPA's Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I, Parts A dated August 1989, B dated December 1991, and C dated December 1991, which are incorporated by reference into this plan. The Regional Board may modify the U.S. EPA's approach outlined in these publications based on Cal/EPA's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment guidelines or more current site- or pollutant-specific information. Groundwater clean-up levels are approved on a case-by-case basis by the Regional Board. The Executive Officer or a local agency may approve clean-up levels as appropriately established by the Regional Board. Proposed final clean-up levels are based on a discharger-developed feasibility study of clean-up alternatives that compares effectiveness, cost, time to achieve clean-up standards, and a risk assessment to determine impacts on beneficial uses, human health, and the environment. Clean-up levels must also take into account the mobility, toxicity, and volume of pollutants. Feasibility studies of cleanup alternatives may include the guidance provided by Subpart E of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (40 CFR 300); Section 25356.1(c) of the California Health and Safety Code; U.S. EPA's Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; the State Board's Resolutions Nos. 68-16 and 92-49; and the Regional Board Resolution No. 88-160. SOIL CLEAN-UP LEVELSSoil pollution can present a health risk and a threat to water quality. The Regional Board sets soil clean-up levels for the unsaturated zone based upon threat to water quality. Guidance from the U.S. EPA, Department of Toxics Substances Control, and Cal/EPA's Office of Health Hazard Assessment is also considered on health risks. In addition, if it is unreasonable to cleanup soils to background concentration levels, the Regional Board may:
In order for a discharger to make site-specific recommendations for soil clean-up levels above background, the fate and transport of leachate can be modeled by the discharger using site-specific factors and appropriate models. Assumptions for minimal leachate dilution, as proposed by the discharger, may be considered by the Regional Board if deemed reasonable. Clean-up levels are approved by the Regional Board. The Executive Officer or a local agency may approve clean-up levels as established by the Regional Board. Due to the tremendous number of sites with soil pollution, the Regional Board has considered developing "generic" cleanup levels for common soil pollutants. However, given the extreme variability of hydrogeologic conditions in the Region, the Regional Board is presently unable to recommend levels that would be protective of groundwater at every site. One exception to this are cleanup standards for volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) and semi-volatile organic chemicals. Several Regional Board orders, adopted primarily for Superfund sites, include clean-up standards of 1 mg/kg (ppm) for total VOCs and 10 ppm for total semi-volatiles (as defined by EPA Methods 8240 and 8270, respectively, of the U.S. EPA Testing Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, SW-846, 1986, which is incorporated by reference to this plan). These standards apply to unsaturated soils only and are based on the modeling results at a Superfund site in the Region and the professional judgement of Regional Board staff. As these are cleanup standards for total VOCs and total semi-VOCs, levels for individual constituents at polluted sites commonly are significantly lower than 1 ppm and 10 ppm, respectively. In particular, some constituents of concern have water quality standards less than 5 ppb (e.g., benzene, vinyl chloride, ethylene dibromide). Individual clean-up levels well below the 1 ppm VOC and 10 ppm semi-volatile standards may be established for these constituents. At this time the Regional Board finds that these are appropriate clean-up levels for total VOCs and total semi-VOCs in the unsaturated zone at sites where groundwater is being monitored and where cleanup to background is unreasonable. At sites where it is determined that the 1 ppm clean-up total VOC and 10 ppm total semi-VOC may be inappropriate, the Executive Officer may modify these cleanup levels to whatever level is considered adequately protective of water quality, human health, and the environment. A common misconception is that the Regional Board has developed "generic" clean-up levels for petroleum hydrocarbons (gasoline, gasoline byproducts, and diesel). One source of the misconception is a misreading of Recommendations for Preliminary Evaluation and Investigation of Underground Tank Sites, written by the staff of the North Coast, Central Valley, and San Francisco Bay Regional Boards. This document is commonly referred to as the Tri-Regional Guidelines. The Guidelines use 100 ppm Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons in soil as one screening tool for prioritization. The 100 ppm level is not a "generic" clean-up level. NON-ATTAINMENT OF GROUNDWATER CLEAN-UP LEVELSThe Regional Board has been developing policy, through the basin planning process, to address various situations when groundwater clean-up levels cannot be attained. After consideration of the Regional Board's proposed Basin Plan Amendment (Regional Water Board Resolution 94-101) to address non-attainment, the State Board adopted Resolution 94-117. Resolution 94-117 directs the State Water Board Executive Director to develop a statewide policy on groundwater and soil cleanup. In response to this, the State Board staff plans to amend State Board Resolution 92-49 to address non-attainment of groundwater cleanup levels. When Resolution 92-49 is formally approved, the Regional Board will implement the new sections on non-attainment. FUTURE REGULATORY MANAGEMENT STRATEGIESThe following findings are drawn from the Regional Board's current regulatory experience:
As a result of these findings regarding regulatory management strategy, the Regional Board will also review its overall approach to managing site cleanups. Table 4-19 lists options that the Regional Board plans to consider. Additional input regarding these and other options will be sought from all interested and affected parties during the Triennial Review of the Basin Plan. GROUNDWATER PROTECTION PROGRAMSThe intimate ties between the land, surface water, groundwater, the Estuary, and human activity must be acknowledged in order to promote wise, balanced, and sustainable use of water resources. In this regard, the Regional Board will encourage planning and management by supplying tools and information that will provide an integrated environmental management approach to problem solving. It also must be recognized that groundwater quality and quantity are inextricably linked. Because an informed and involved citizenry is crucial to realizing groundwater protection, policies and plans should encourage and promote research, education, and public involvement as an integral part of any protection program. Local water, fire, planning and health departments are actively involved with their own groundwater protection programs. These programs include: salt water intrusion and land subsidence control, wellhead protection, groundwater recharge area preservation, hazardous materials storage and management ordinances, Local Oversight Programs and non-Local Oversight Programs for cleanup of leaking underground fuel tanks, potential conduit well destruction, and well permitting and inspection. For some agencies, maintaining funding for protection programs is an ongoing challenge. Through three specific projects, the Regional Board is evaluating the groundwater protection needs in specific basins, and thus will provide additional support for local agency efforts. These projects are described below. GROUNDWATER RESOURCE STUDYA basin-wide approach for implementing and prioritizing groundwater cleanup was recommended in a series of reports titled "San Francisco Bay Region Groundwater Resource Study" (1987). The reports were a cooperative effort by the Regional Board and the University of California at Berkeley, School of Public Health, and Department of Landscape Architecture. The ten volume series covered eight high priority groundwater basins: Niles Cone, Livermore and Sunol Valley, Ygnacio/Pittsburg/Clayton/San Ramon Basins, Suisun/Fairfield Basin, Napa Valley, Sonoma Valley, and San Mateo Basin. Information regarding well location, construction, areal geology, permeability, and depth to groundwater; land use characteristics; and location of pollution sources was compiled into a relational data base. A methodology was developed that weighs site sensitivity and pollution severity factors. Maps from the project illustrate the regional sensitivity of the above-groundwater basins to groundwater pollution. Several of the policy options listed in Table 4-19 under "Streamline Existing Program" could be addressed by using the results of this planning program. In particular, the Regional Board will investigate the use of existing data and maps produced by the program, as well as other geographic information system-generated maps, as site screening tools to rank polluted sites and to assist in site-specific review of cleanup levels. INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROJECTIn 1987, the U.S. EPA completed the Integrated Environmental Management Plan (IEMP). This innovative study conducted in Santa Clara County sought to improve public health and environmental protection by integrating approaches for hazardous material management for land, air, and water. The IEMP's Drinking Water Subcommittee developed recommendations to address the question “How clean is clean?” The committee wrote, "....because contamination and clean-up impacts vary significantly in different sites and different hydrogeologic zones, the Regional Board should continue to develop and standardize a process for clean-up decision making, rather than establish across-the-board clean-up levels." This recommendation ties in with the policy options listed on Table 4-19 under "Streamline Existing Programs." STATE WATER BOARD GROUNDWATER PROTECTION PLANNING CONTRACTAt the Regional Board's request, the State Board is funding a contract with the University of California at Berkeley for development of a regional groundwater protection plan. The project focuses on the most-used, high resource-value basins: Santa Clara Valley, Niles Cone, Livermore Valley, San Mateo Plain, and Half Moon Bay Terrace (Table 2-8). The vulnerability to pollution of each of the basins will be determined from the U.S. EPA's DRASTIC Index Method (U.S. EPA Project No. 600/2-87-035, April 1987) on a computer-based geographic information system. An important component of the project will be the evaluation of present land and water use conditions, as well as those planned for 2005 and a long-term buildout (e.g., 2025). Working closely with local agencies, comprehensive protection plans will be recommended that can mitigate or minimize future resource impacts. These plans may include revised water quality objectives for basins or subbasins that have differing protection needs. Developing basin-specific objectives is one policy option listed on Table 4-19 under "Streamline Existing Program." A final regional groundwater protection plan will be incorporated into the Basin Plan at a future date. EMERGING PROGRAM AREASThere are several aspects of protecting beneficial uses associated with aquatic systems that have emerged as critical issues in recent years. This section presents a prospective view of two emerging program areas that have increasingly become the focus of Regional Board activity. Each involves both an integration of approaches used in current Regional Board programs as well as innovative solutions. WETLAND PLANNINGPILOT REGULATORY PROGRAMThe California Wetlands Conservation Policy (Governor’s Executive Order W-59-93) included a regional strategy for wetlands planning and regulatory streamlining in the San Francisco Bay Area. This strategy calls for the incorporation of wetlands and restoration inventory information into a "broader, participatory wetlands planning effort" and directs the Regional Board to undertake a demonstration program to determine the feasibility of the state assuming Section 404 permitting authority from the Federal Government. The Regional Board has undertaken a regulatory pilot project that will achieve the stated objective. The pilot project will allow the Regional Board to determine the most effective way to enhance the state's role in permitting efficiency of dredge and fill activities, while strengthening wetlands management and protection. The scope of the pilot project includes improvement of enforcement, inspection, and monitoring of CWA 404 permit conditions and laws; facilitation and coordination of public and permit reviewing agency interactions; application of a watershed management approach to CWA 404/401 permit review and enforcement activities; and Regional Board processing of dredging and wetland fill permits. The pilot project will thus provide a basis for evaluating the effectiveness of uniting Section 404 permitting and Section 401 certification activities within one state agency that uses a watershed management approach. The evaluation of the results of the pilot project will be used to develop a long-term regulatory strategy that will enhance permitting efficiency and promote attainment of wetlands conservation goals as outlined in the State of California Wetlands Conservation Policy. A final report will present conclusions and recommendations, including: (a) assessment of the utility and feasibility of applying a watershed perspective to Section 404/401 decisions; (b) state consideration of Section 404 assumptions; and (c) development of a streamlined permit process. The final report will be completed in October 1996. SEDIMENTSediments in the larger San Francisco Bay Estuary system are both sources and sinks of pollutants. Under the Bay Protection and Toxic Cleanup Program, The Regional Board is conducting a detailed assessment of (a) the levels of pollutants in sediment throughout the Bay, and (b) the risks and benefits of cleaning or otherwise managing existing hot spots. Pollutant transport associated with sediments is also the subject of numerous studies, many of which are supported by the Regional Board. The dynamics of sediment movement, uptake of pollutants through the benthic food chain, and measurement of pollutant levels on suspended material are examples of such studies. Finally, the environmental effects associated with the disposal or reuse of Estuary sediments have been extensively investigated within the context of the Regional Board's dredging management program. As part of this effort, the Regional Board has supported detailed research on developing sediment toxicity tests and sediment quality objectives. The Regional Board will develop a comprehensive Sediment Management Strategy that integrates information and concerns regarding pollutants in sediment. FIGURESFigure 4-1: Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) Figure 4-2: Industrial Dischargers Figure 4-3: Urban Areas in San Francisco Bay Basin Figure 4-4: Dredged Material Disposal Sites Figure 4-5: Inactive Mine Sites Figure 4-6: Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Sites in the Region TABLESTable 4-1: Discharge Prohibitions Table 4-1A: Monitoring Stations for Copper and Nickel in Lower South San Francisco Bay Table 4-2: Effluent Limitations for Conventional Pollutants Table 4-3: Effluent Limitations for Selected Toxic Pollutants Discharged to Surface Waters (table deleted by January 2004 amendment) Table 4-4: Acute Toxicity Effluent Limits Table 4-5: Critical Life Stage Toxicity Test Species and Protocols Table 4-6: Conditions that Require Monthly Monitoring of Toxicity Levels Table 4-7: Background Concentrations Used in Calculating Deep Water Effluent Limitations (table deleted by January 2004 amendment) Table 4-8: Controlling Wet-weather Overflows Table 4-9: Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) Table 4-10: Major Industrial Dischargers Table 4-11: Status of Urban Runoff Control Programs Table 4-12: Potential Consequences and Impacts of Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal Table 4-15: Dredged Material Volume Targets Table 4-16: Inactive Mine Sites Table 4-17: Existing and Potential Beneficial Uses of Wetlands Table 4-18: Summary of Local Agency Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program Table 4-19: Options for Future Management Strategies at Groundwater Cleanup Sites |
||
| <<< Previous - Ch.4: Surface Water Nonpoint Source Control | Next - Ch 5: Plans and Policies >>> |
- Home
- Share:
Search
