interagency coordinating committee (icc) mtg minutes, 11 ...'tom gibson melinda thun jeff...

TOM BRADLEYMayor

0000173

CommissionJACK W. LEENEY, PresidentRICK J. CARUSO. I'/ir PreailemANGEL M. FCHEVARRIACAROL WHEELERWALTER A. ZEl.MANJUDITH K. DAVISON. Sn-reiarr

PAUL II. LANE. General Manager ami Chief EngineerNORMAN E. NICHOLS. Atmianl Ventral Manager - PinterDUANE L. (iEORCiESON. AwiMunt General Manager - WaterNORMAN J. POWERS. Chief Financial Q/Jiier

January 13 f. 19.86 . ....

SFUND RECORDS CTR

88134293

TO COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

Minutes - Interagency Coordinating Committee (ICC)Groundwater Quality Management Plan

San Fernando Valley Basin

The minutes for the Interagency Coordinating Committeemeeting held on November 19, 1985, are enclosed for your informationand review.

The agenda for the next ICC meeting on January 21, 1986,Room 1571 located in the LADWP General Office Building, is attached.

Sincerely,

LAURENT McREYNOLDSAssistant Chief Engineer - Water

Enclosures

111 North Hopt- Street, Los Anfielos. California Q Mailing address: Hox 111, Ix>s Angeles 90051Telephone: (213) 481-4211 Cable address: DKWATOLA

III

III

IV

V

VI

VII

000017.3INTERAGENCY COORDINATING COMMITTEE

For Implementation of theGroundwater Quality Management Plan

San Fernando Valley Basin

AGENDA

Date: January 21, 1986Time: ~ ~ - ~ r 9:30 a.m.Place: ~:-"--Los Angeles Department of Water and Power

111 North Hope Street, Room 1571 r

Los Anglees, CA 90012 '

Introductions

Approval of Minutes

Progress Report of Subcommittee Activities

A. Public Education Program

B. Regulation of Private DisposalSystems

C. Regulation of Storage Tanks, Sumps,and Pipelines

D. Small-Quantity Generator HazardousWaste Disposal Program

E. Regulation of Landfills, Ground-water Monitoring Program

F. Aquifer Management and GroundwaterTreatment Program

Superfund Status - SFV BasinCommunity Relations PlanStatus of Citizen's Advisory Committee

EPA proposed VOC regulations

New Business

Next Meeting Date March 25, 1986

Time 9:30 a.m.

Room 1571

Miriam Gensemer

Robert Van Ark

William Lebeck

M. Gensemer

Mel Blevins

Laurent McReynolds

Patti Cleary

Laurent McReynolds

OS1

000017-3

INTERAGENCY COORDINATING COMMITTEEGROUNDWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN

SAN FERNANDO VALLEY BASIN(GWQMP-SFVB)

MEETING MINUTESNovember 19, 1985

The Interagency Coordinating Committee (ICC) held itsregular meeting at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, November 19, 1985, inRoom 1571 of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP)General Office Building. Mr. Dale Kile of the City of Burbank wasacting Chairman. The meeting agenda and attendance list areattached (Attachments 1 and 2).

II. Approval of Minutes

The minutes for the last meeting were reviewed and approvedas written.

III. Public. Education Program.- M...Gense'mer (SGAG)

A. M. Gensemer was unable to attend the meeting. In herabsence, W. Zeisl (LADWP) reported that progress iscontinuing on the Groundwater Quality brochure forhouseholds and small businesses. The brochure is atthe layout phase for final production.

W. Zeisl has formatted this brochure so that it may bedistributed by each of the various city departments,Chambers of Commerce, and elected officials. Plansfor distribution may include some media coverage toannounce the availability of the brochure and theprogress of work coordinated by the ICC to date. Itwas agreed that all committee members would receive thebrochure before the general distribution.

The first printing will consist of about 50 thousandcopies. A black and white makeup of the brochure waspassed around and comments were encouraged.

B. Regulation of Private Sewage Disposal Systems -R. Van Ark(Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering)

The new L.A. City ordinance requires the phasing out ofPSDS's used by industrial, commercial and multipleresidential users in the E st San Fernando Valley.

When the city clerk completes the computer data entry,the City will then be able to match owners names toproperty addresses which will make filing notices ofcompliance easier to serve.

The new ordinance allows the Department of Building andSafety to reject a building permit if a sewer hookup isnot-available. But the Building Department can alsogrant a temporary permit for a holding tank until thesewer hookup is available.

C. Regulation of Underground Storage Tanks - A. Wobig (LAFD)

There is a procedural concern for the proper disposalof underground storage tanks which once removed fromthe ground becomes a hazardous waste with all itsassociated problems. The Fire Department is discussingthis development with the County Department of HealthServices.

Currently, when a tank is removed from the ground, a visualinspection is done to note the extent of .leakage.

D. Small Quantity Generator Hazardous Waste DisposalProgram - M. Gensemer (SCAG)

Marianne Yamaguchi reported that this subcommittee was: disbanded after-the1 program, plan was formulated. • . •Implementation now rests with the Bureau of. Sanitation.

A.B. 49 will allow pilot franchising of hazardous wastecollection points. If this bill doesn't pass, then theplan cannot be implemented.

The plan is getting exposure. Many cities are lookingtowards Los Angeles for leadership.

E. Regulation of Landfills, Groundwater Monitoring Program -M. Blevins (LADWP)

The RWQCB requested information on spreading operationsand their effect on the Sheldon Arleta Landfill.

For A.B. 1803, all testing and submittals have beencompleted, and we are now awaiting State response.

MWD requested PCE/TCE and TDS data for a report it ispreparing on the SFVB.

Lockheed, Centralab and Rocketdyne are preparingmonitoring reports for submittal to the RWQCB on theirunderground storage tanks.

D. Humphreys (LA Bur/San) presented three amended factsheets on the Bureau of Sanitation activities. The factsheets were distributed to committee members (Attachment 3)

0000173

F. Aquifer; Management and Groundwater Treatment Program -M. Blevins'and B. Straub

I . :

The LADWP is installing 13 well packers in the NorthHollywood area to seal the upper aquifer from the loweraquifer'*, This will allow some wells currently out ofservice;to.be put back into service. This proposal isnow being put out to bid. M. Blevins is drafting adocument to ammend Judge Foster's ruling on pumpingprivileges for private companies.

!• . 4

t

IV. Superfund - B. Straub, P. Cleary

On November 14, the DWP submitted a $2.8 million finalapplication for the Remedial Investigation and Fast Track.

EPA may set up a reimbursement program for DWP's funding.Judith -Ayres, Region 9 contractor, said EPA funds aren'tavailable yet. DWP will proceed with the hope of matchingFederal funds. The Board has appropriated an initial$300,000 expenditure to start the study.

DWP will post "green sheet" in the Los Angeles Times askingfor proposal bids. The add will run for a 40 day period.All prior proposals concerning this program are null andvoid.

The Community Relations Plan will be finalized and submitted forapproval at the next ICC meeting.

Aeration Tower

The official name for this facility is "The North Hollywood/Burbank Aeration Facility." Eight wells are to be used intreating the area; the mechanical and electrical designrequirements are still being developed.

DWP has received approval from the Department of Building andSafety for the Lankershim siting. Maximum emissions submittedfor AQMD permit approval are 16 Ib/day TCE and 2.4 Ib/day PCE.

Per Senate Bill 1640 (Robbins) notices dated October 29 weresent to all residents within 330 feet of the propertyinforming them of the project and reminding them that theycan request a hearing from the AQMD on the permittingprocess. We have received three inquiries thus far.

DWP advertised its November 26th Public Workshop on theNorth Hollywood/Burbank Aeration Facility in the Los AngelesTimes, Burbank Leader, and the Valley News. It will be at6501 Fair Ave., North Hollywood (Attachment 4).

0000173V. New Business

The-status of Citizen's Advisory Committee for SuperfundGroup should be added to future agendas.

VI. Next Meeting

The next meeting of the ICC is on January 21, 1986, Room 1571,at 9:30 a.m. in the General Office Building of the Los AngelesDepartment of Water and Power.

ATTACHMENT 1

INTERAGENCY COORDINATING COMMITTEEFor Implementation of the

Groundwater Quality Management PlanSan Fernando Valley Basin

AGENDA

pate: November 19, 1985Time: 9:30 a.m.Place: Los Angeles Department of Water and Power

111 North Hope Street, Room 15?1Los Angeles, CA 90012

I Introductions

II Approval of minutes

III Progress Report of Subcommittee Activities

A. Public Education Program Miriam Gensemer

B. .Regulation of Private D.isposal. Systems.. Robert Van Ark

C. Regulation of Storage Tanks, Sumps,and Pipelines

D. Small-Quantity Generator HazardousWaste Disposal Program

E. Regulation of Landfills, Ground-water Monitoring Program,

F. Aquifer Management and GroundwaterTreatment Program

IV Superfund Status - SFV Basin

V New Business

VI Next Meeting Date January 21, 1985

~Time

Room

William Lebeck

M. Gensemer

Mel Blevins

Laurent McReynolds

Patti Cleary

9:30 a.m.

0000173

ATTACHMENT 2

ICC MEETING ATTENDANCENovember 19, 1985

NAME

Patti Cleary

John Ivascyn

Dale Kile

Al Wobig

Jim Goodrich

Robert J. Van Ark

Dick Humphreys

Carole Kawamoto

Pete Rogalsky

'Tom Gibson

Melinda Thun

Jeff Dobrowolski

Stanton Lewis

Bill Straub

Walter Zeisl

Sandra Tanaka

Gene Coufal

Lisa Watanabe

Marianne Yamaguchi

John W. Schumann

Mel Blevins

James Acevedo

John MacDougall

Joe Enzmann

AFFILIATION

EPA, Region IX

MWDSC

City of Burbank

LA Fire Dept.

Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.

LA City Bureau of Engineering

LA City Bureau of Sanitation

L.A. RWQCB

LADWP-Aqueduct .Division. . . . . . . . . .

- LADWP-Water Quality Division

LADWP-Water Quality Division

LADWP Water Quality Division

LADWP-Water Quality Division

LADWP-Water Design Division

LADWP Public Affairs Division

LADWP-Public Affairs Division

LADWP-Aqueduct Division

LADWP-Aqueduct Division

SCAG

LADWP-Environmental Affairs

ULARA Watermaster/LADWP

Assemblyman Richard Katz's Office

City of Burbank

LADWP-WEDD-Planning

ATTACHMENT 3

SANITATION

FACT SHEET

000017.3NOV 19 1985

PROJECT/PROGRAM: City Sponsored Small Quantity Hazardous WasteGenerator Collection Program.CD 1 CF 85-0911

LEAD PERSON/PHONE NO.: Reva Fabrikant 213-485-5347

DESCRIPTION OF EFFORT: A City sponsored small quantity hazardous wastegenerator collection program in the North Hollywoodarea. The City will contract with a licensedhazardous waste hauler to perform the service.

ESTIMATED COST: $250,000, annual program cost.

FUNDING SOURCES: Fee for services rendered.(Possibly some city subsidy)

SCHEDULED IMPLEMENTATION MILESTONES:

Preparation of draft RFP for waste collection bySeptember, 1985. Related contracts by January, 1987.Start of program by July, 1987. (See note below)

CURRENT STATUS: Awaiting passage of AB 49, a bill that would allowthe City to pilot a franchise hazardous wastecollection program. Note: Bill did not pass duringcurrent session — will be held over to 1986.

ANTICIPATED PROBLEM AREAS: None at this time.

RMA/RBH 105 copy/ab

..1

0000173SANITATION

FACT SHEET

PROJECT/PROGRAM: Water Quality Monitoring at City LandfillsCD: All districts. CF 83-1742

LEAD PERSON/PHONE NO.: Richard B. Humphreys 213 485-5347

DESCRIPTION OF EFFORT: Water quality monitoring at City owned/operatedsanitary landfills. (Monitoring at Sheldon-Arletalandfill is under the direction of DWP; related totheir Tujunga Spreading Grounds).

ESTIMATED COST: Unknown — final program will be determined byCRWQCB, L.A. Region.

FUNDING SOURCES: General Funds


Bureau's program proposal was submitted to L.A.Region, CRWQCB, in May, 1985. Completion of wellconstruction by March, 1986; start of MonitoringProgram by July, 1986; completion of FeasibilityStudy on additional monitoring requirements byJanuary, 1987.

CURRENT STATUS: Bids to construct three wells and redevelop one wellbeing held pending approval by CRWQCB.Wells located at: Branford- one existing

Toyon - one proposedLopez - two proposed

ANTICIPATED PROBLEM AREAS:None at this time.

RMA/RBH 105a/ab

00001.73SANITATION

FACT SHEET

PROJECT/PROGRAM: Household Hazardous Waste Collection ProgramCD: All CF 85-0911

LEAD PERSON/PHONE NO. Reva Fabrikant 213-485-5347

DESCRIPTION OF EFFORT: Train City refuse collectors to collecthousehold hazardous waste from a pilot area inthe Harbor District.

ESTIMATED COST: $637,000.

FUNDING SOURCES: General Funds.Environmental Trust Fund (ETF), with EPAapproval.


Program approved by Public Works CommitteeOctober 15, 1985. Responses to RFP dueNovember 27, 1985. Program implementationby March, 1986.

CURRENT STATUS: ETF funding approved by EPA on August 8, 1985.In the process of securing permits.Awaiting Council approval.Awaiting responses to RFP.


RMA/RBH 105f/ab

\

ATTACHMENT.k

-'i • • 'VC. ' • • ' • ' : >

"f *'• .-V .

• *

COMMUNITY MEETING" . ' • ' / ' NOTICE .

." The public is invited to attend a community meeting to.discuss_ the' construction of the proposed North Hollywood-Burbank aera-

tion facility by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.The construction of the proposed facility is part of the programto remove contaminants in the San Fernando Valley GroundwaterBasin.

November 26, 19857:30 p.m. '

» . . * - . - I * . - . •

- . ' • • • • • " • ' " ' • . ; ' Auditorium • . . . .Fair Avenue School

"\ 6501 Fair AvenueNorth Hollywood . .

. During the meeting, DWP representatives and other governmen-.tal officials will be available to answer questions and receive publiccomments. •

Free parking is available.o.

This meeting is neither sponsored by rior is it in any way con-nected with the Los Angeles Unified School District.

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER DUALITY CONTROL BOARD, LOS ANGELA RGG*ONQ

LOS ANGELES,_CALIFORNIA

January 27, 1986

290th Regular Meeting

ITEM: 8

SUBJECT: REPORT ON "STATUS OF UNDERGROUND TANK INVESTIGATION ANDPRIORITIES

DISCUSSION:

1. INTRODUCTION

In January 1983, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board<RUIQCB), began -development o-f its underground tank (UGT) program. Aworkplan -for addressing the problem o-f leaking underground storagetanks was completed and approved at the November 1983 Board meeting.The. UGT program _'.was i n i t i a t e d shortly therea-fter by selectingcompanies in ' the "•- San Fernando Valley whose tanks had a highprobability -for leakage.

Since this time Board sta-f-f has investigated a total o-f 324underground tank-related cases. O-f these 324 cases, 266 are activew h i l e 58 cases have been closed either because a leak was not detectedor because a satisfactory cleanup has been completed. The UndergroundTank Section has increased -from three to eight staff members with anaverage of twelve -.leaking underground tank cases being added eachmonth to the caseload.

2. UNDERGROUND TANK CASE LIST .

Attached is a l i s t i n g of the 324 underground tank related cases Boardstaff has investigated since the inception of the UGT program. Thecase list, which is current to January 1, 1986, w i l l be updated everythree months.

The magnitude of the environmental problem posed by leakingunderground storage tanks has been further defined through theclassification of UGT cases by location, type of chemicals releasedand the natural resources impacted. Based on these findings, apriority l i s t of UGT cases has been assembled and a plan for furtheraction established.

31

00001732.1 Geographic Distribution of Underground Tank Cases -

Underground -tank- cases -are distributed among -four generalgeographic/hxdrologic areas:

1. Ventura Countx <VEN> - Aqui-fers in the coastal p l a i n region of thecountx are confined bx extensive clay layers. Most of the groundwater found in the Conejo Valley is stored in the fracturedbasalt of the middle Miocene Conejo volcanics.

2. San Fernando Val1ey-CSFV) •- Ground water from this area typicallysupplies about 15 percent <S5,000 acre feet) of Los Angeles'water, nearly al1 of San Fernando's and about half of LaCrescenta's requirements. Conditions in the eastern portion of theSan Fernando Valley are characterized by high soil permeabilityand ground water production. Ground water in the eastern SFV isgenerally unconfined with the depth to ground water rangino from50 to 200 feet. ' -

The western portion of the SFV consists of f i ner .,. sediments andclays that e x i h i b i t low permeability and low water yields. Groundwater in the western portion of SFV is general 1 y". 'conf i ned or

. .. partially confined. ' '.•-".' . . ' . ' - ' ~:" • ' - ' " •. : .

3. San Gabriel Valley (SGV) - The principal water-bearing formationsof the San Gabriel Valley are unconsolidated and semiconsolidateda l l u v i a l sediments. The depth to the water table in thisunconfined ground water basin ranges from 40 to 180 feet.

4. Los Angeles Coastal Plain <LACP) - A number of distinct aquiferunits make up this important portion of the Region. The aquifers,which are generally confined, .are separated from one another bylayers of clays and si 1ty clays. : Ground water along oceanfrontareas has been subjected to salt water .intrusion .and hydraulicbarriers are maintained by the Los Angeles County Flood ControlDistrict. • . .-'•'' '•" . '

The breakdown of cases by area is:

Area No. of Cases

Los Angeles Coastal Plain 184

San Fernando Valley 101

San Gabriel Valley 21

Ventura County 18

Total 324

00001732.2 Type o-f Chemicals Leaked -

Chemical leaks have been, cl ass i'-f i ed into three txpes:

1. Fuel - . Gasoline, -diesel, jet -fuels

2. Solvent - Halogenated- compounds, ' petroleum distillate -derived solvent- mixtures (e.g., TCE, Freon 113,Stoddard solvent)

3. Other - . . Chemical leaks . o-f all other txpe compounds (e.g.,acetone, methyl... ethxl ketone, waste o i l , metal's)

The breakdown o-f cases by chemical txpe is:

Type of Chemical ' ' No. o-f Cases

Fuel . - . : . • ' • • -160 . -

Solvent '_ '• . '.-' s : -• - - 46 . T^ „ ' . ' . _ ' ' " "

Both Fuel and Solvent ' "'. ' ' • 5

Other " - • * ' • • • • : . ' ' " •'-" • • • • • • . 1 5

Total . . 226

There are cases .where the leak detection program disclosed nocontamination. ; These cases have been closed by the Regional Boardsta-f-f. In addition, the leak status in some cases remains undeterminedeither because .the .Leak Detection Program has not been i n i t i a t e d orbecause it has not been completed. . .

The breakdown o-f closed cases and cases where the leak status remainsundetermined are listed below: .

- ' No. o-f Cases

Closed Cases (no contamination detected) 29

Undetermined Cases 69

Total 98

321

2.3 Nature of Contamination -

Cases where" con tami nat i on has been detected are cl ass i f i etwo types:

1. Ground Uater - Contamination of the ground water has occurredat the site.

2. Soil - Contamination*.at the site is known to be l i m i t e d at thepresent time .to the soil.

The breakdown of•ground water cases and soil contamination casesare listed below:~r •::'-•

No. of Cases

Ground Water . ." 87

Soil . . _ ..- . . : • • _ • ..-.:!..';-•-U-.'-;,>.. .139 . : • - ; . . . .. .

Total ' ., .' .:;.••?• ;"' .":"•.'.". " "•";•;" ;"-;;>V 226 . ." ,'.

3. DISCUSSION - •" "•• '.

A number of cases were referred by local agencies that have adoptedtheir own underground tank ordinances. With the exception of VenturaCounty Health Department, the County of Los Angeles and the six c i t i e s(Los Angeles, " Santa Monica, Torrance, Long Beach, Vernon and SanBuenaventura) which have established .underground tank programs in thisregion lack adequate staff to effectively,, implement .their UGTprograms. . •-. -% • ••"iV'--: - . . . . • • '•''•.!.•-;"••"•••/'-.•;•-'.":\••":"."'•.':-. ; •'•'-'-! ' ..'V'.-"V

These local agencies "have relied heavily on the Regional '-Board toreview companies' leak detection plans, -oversee tank removals andsupervise cleanup of leaks in v o l v i n g only soil contamination. With anestimated 40,000 underground tanks in Los Angeles county alone, theRegional Board is not able to continue to provide such a .level oftechnical assistance.

In order to shift much of this work to the responsible agencies,Regional Board staffs goal is to develop a protocol whereby localagencies can adequately handle fuel tank leaks • and other minorchemical leaks with minimum Board overview. The first step inachieving this goal has been accomplished through the Memorandum, ofUnderstanding <MOU) established between RWQCB and the Ventura CountyHealth Department. The MOU, which outlines the administration of theUnderground Tank Program, was approved by the Ventura County Board ofSupervisors on November 26, 1985.

3 nr££

0000173The MOU is the subject o-f agenda item No.7 on this month's agenda.Board staff.pi an to use the RWQCB/Ventura Countx Health Department MOU

-•as -a g u i d e l i n e to develop similar documents wi t h the other localagencies. The first Ventura County Annual Underground'Tank ProgramReport is attached.

With the creation of the Board's UGT-section, UGT staff inherited anumber of cases-from the -RWQCB"s-Enforcement "Section. The EnforcementSection had -been previously charged with the responsibility ofinvestigating fuel~ and chemi cal.. tank . leaks. These cases, severaldating back:to 1982,- were reviewed to determine if further action wasrequired. . . - . . . - . .

In addition to.those cases referred by local agencies and inheritedfrom the Enforcement section, Regional Board UGT staff has launchedarea investigations in three portions of Los Angeles County.

San Fernando Valley ..-' J . '• . . . ' . . . * • • - - r . ' i • , • • • ' . - r ' ' • ' . ' ' . ' " . ' '

--•••• I' ' ~* .J- ' . . . * • . . : . . . ' ' • . . • » . . " . • ' " .

!The first iinvestigation coincided with the start of RWQCB's undergoundtank program "in 1983. '• Regi onal Board UGT staff mandated that 88 firms.1 ocated .7 pr imar i 1 y • i n". the San Fernando Valley i n i t i a t e leak .detectionprograms. "• These • compan i es were selected from 3,000 answeredquestionaires on 'the basis of having "high risk" tanks (i.e., cementor metal tanks storing solvents, 5 years old or older).

To date, leak detection programs have been completed at 46 of the 88facilities. .Of those -.46," contamination has been found at 24 of thesi tes .-(52X) .' The .compan i es are currently in the assessment phase ofthe program which "involves defining the lateral and vertical extent ofsoil and ground water contamination. •

San Gabriel Valley'•'.*"'' • ""-• :->',-.'--•'".'- ... . . .

; A : simi 1 ar •. investigati on is being con ducted in six cities in -the SanGabriel Valley (Azusa, Baldwin Park, Duarte, El Monte, Irwindale andSouth El Monte). Regional Board UGT staff, working in conjunction withthe Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, has directed 31firms with "high risk" tanks to perform leak detection programs. Thesefirms were selected from an inventory of 550 f a c i l i t i e s in the sixcities. A workshop was held on November 22, 1985 to assist thecompanies in complying with the requirements of the underground tankprogram. ""'. . .

Attached is a summary prepared by the Los Angeles County Department ofPublic .Works de t a i l i n g the progess of the San Gabriel Valleyinvestigation. Included in the summary is the status of 75 additionalsites that have removed underground tanks under the supervision of theDepartment of Public Works.

323

SAN GABRIEL VALLEYLEAK DETECTION PROGRAM SUMMARY STATUS

.P, /»J

1) SAN GABRIEL- VALLEY BASIN: .CLOSURE OF UNDERGROUND STORAGE• TANKS PREVIOUSLY STORING HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

A. Number of . sites where tanks were removed 75

B. Number of tanks -removedfrom -above sites 269

C. Contents of tanks:- . .

Petroleum Hydrocarbons (fuels, waste oil) .266. • Other (chemicals) . 3

D. Number of site assessments required due to• •-• inspections conducted when tanks were "removed .

• or because of required borings that detected••• . .- contamination '-. •• ' • -'-•.-'.--' . '.-. •' 23

' • /. E. Number. .of site "assessments completed :•-... • •- :-. . 1*1

F. Number of site assessments in 'progress . 9

G. Number of cases referred to CRWQCB* . . • 0

' . * All of the above assessments involve soil contaminationonly, typically due to overfilling from previous•operations. •. . . ." • . ;.''

»• '.'• • "- ••. .. /••''••;• •*•••'. ":•.'•. • ." '''•".' " •••• • . • •

•-vVv-' ':•/'{•• ;^•":•':/i•^;•:^':-•B^^i^"'^'v•'^^:-"'?^ •*•"•..'[ ' ••.'• 2) X-SAN GABRIEL"' .'VALLEY. LEAK DETECTION PROGRAM STATUS (31 SITES)

'A. Number of LDP's Filed* .'.'• - ' ' 7

••••'• B. Number of sites filing for full closure . 11

C. Number of sites filing for partial closure(a LDP is required for remaining tanks) • 4

D. "Number of sites exempt (no hazardous materials) 2

E. Number of owners committed to the submittal of aLDP (filing of LDP due within 30 days) 8

F. Number of non-responders •» 7

G. Number of LDP's approved* ' t 6

*These LDP's include sites where tanks are to be removedfrom service. \ . "u

32

Uest Honx-oo- 0000173

In April 1985,-Regional Board UGT staff requested that 12 fa c i l i t e s inthe West Hoi 1 ywood area i n i t i a t e ileak detection programs to determinethe source of gasoline discovered in the ground water near SantaMonica Boulevard and Huntley Drive. All o-f these firms have completedtheir leak-detection programs. The primary responsible partx -for thegasoline contamination has been identified as Sunlin Incorporated dbaSanta Palm Car-Wash.- .-..._

An inter-agency committee, consisting of local and state agencies,has been formed to address the ground water contamination problem inWest Hollywood. -On -November.25,. 1985, the inter-agency committeeapproved a comprehensive site assessment plan that incorporates 56monitoring wells installed by f a c i l i t i e s located in the affected area.The purpose of this action is to monitor and abate the migration ofthe contaminant plume in the v i c i n i t y . • "

Monitoring well.s, .a dewatering system, and a recovery trench have beeninstalled "and1 used to capture free product and dissolved gasoline inthe .'; ground ..water.'. /.As";of December 1985, approximately 1.3" m i l l i o ngallons of contaminated ground water and 1-,200 gallons of. free producth-av'e -"; been ex tracted and removed'to a permitted recycler. "Santa PalmCar Wash is now proposing to treat the ground water for "disposal tothe storm drain. An NPDES permit for this cleanup is included as item4 . 6 o f this agenda. " • • ' • . .

4..PRIORITY RANKING . ' .

The .UGT staff is deve1 oping a numerical ranking system, which w i l levaluate the 'susceptibi1ity of a site to ground water contamination.The ranking system w i l l l i s t cases by contamination severity and thepotential <e.g., . proximity to -aquifers, municipal water .wells,residential areas) for" contaminants to cause adverse health "effectsand ground water impairment. The numerical ranking procedures areexpected to be finalized in July 1986.

In the interim, underground tank cases have been divided into tworanks:

1. Priority I Cases -

Cases with known ground water contamination.

2. Priority II Cases -

Cases in which contamination is 1imted to the soil.

O.=l

. • 0000173•

Of the 324 cases UGT staff has investigated, 87 are known to bePriority I cases and 13?-to be Priority 11 cases (see attached).

The status of these UGT cases is documented below:

Status o-f Priority.Underground Tank Cases -

Status -1-1—:-. - Number o-f Cases . . . .

Site Assessment Not I n i t i a t e d . .../.; . . 106

Site Assessment in-Progress - ••• 36

Site Assessment Completed - 22

Cleanup in Progress . 17 .

Cleanup Completed . • .- 16

' .. Cleanup Completed/Case Closed • . /•'•••'' • .; - - 2? '••.,''

Total ' : •' '. ! .•':'. .„ j;': ""• •'..•.'"„.'••-• : "-••"-,;• ',-•' '•• -. 226 ..• • • •' • .•

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOt-ttlENDATI ON - . -

Sta-f-f Effort on Priority Cases - -. ... ,

In order to ensure that the l i m i t e d resources of the RUQCB areu t i l i z e d in the most efficient manner, ; UGT .staff intend to .-implement

• , the following plan of act i on f or handl i ng UGT. cases ::--.v.: •• ;

• '.'.'"-: 1. Continue lead oversi ght ' respons ibi i i ty for si te 'assessment andcleanup of Priority.'I (ground water.contamination) cases;

2. Clear the backlog of existing Priority II (soil contamination)cases; .

3. Develop MOUs to shift to local agencies lead responsibility forhandling the majority of future Priority II cases involving fueltank and minor chemical leaks.

6. ADVICE OF STAFF ACTION

If no Board member objects, staff w i l l implement the recommended planof action for handling UGT cases.

SO*C

/ /<(

INTERAGENCY COORDINATING COMMITTEEfor the

GROUNDWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANSAN FERNANDO VALLEY BASIN

I I >—•/U«'

ATTENDANCE LIST

NAME AFFILIATION AND ADDRESS TELEPHONE

l-f;'

nw.

R'S

MT112

C< rvLA

<

S-la-kL

UX

.i^iry

W-8/V/

(2/3)

(2/3) ^g/-^/

ATTENDANCE LIST

NAME AFFILIATION AND ADDRESS TELEPHONE

&i 1 .'< f Sffw'i'/tirs&l , <£/ A o f t •

o /), . , //.

- . ' • - ^ . - . r - J t. A.

-2-

EPA Superfund

San Fernando Valley Groundwater Basin

Community Relations Plan Activities

Prior to signing of Cooperative Agreement:

o Consolidation and simplification of graphicso Preparation of fact sheeto Preparation of exhibito Preparation of speaker slide programo Coordinate setting up information repositorieso Compile mailing list

When Cooperative Agreement is signed:

o News release announcing signing of Cooperative Agreemento Press conference (?)

After Cooperative Agreement is signed:

Citizens' Participation Groupo Ado News release

Community Meetingo Meeting arrangementso News releaseo Ado Program

ST/Public Affairs1/9/85epa activities

EPA Superfund

San Fernando Valley Groundwater Basin

Possible Topics for Fact Sheets

o First fact sheet — general introductionTo be published at the beginning ofthe remedial investigation

o Detailed description of the groundwater basin,how contamination occurred over decades,importance of SFBGB as a water resource

o UpdatesField studiesWell drilling program

o Cleanup alternativesAerationGranular-activated carbon

o Relative risks

o Findings of remedial investigation

ST1/18/86epa fact sheet outline

EPA SuperfundSan Fernando Valley Groundwater Basin

Brochure Outline

I. Introduction

II. Site location

III. Background information on siteA. Importance of SFVGB water supply to Los Angeles,

Glendale, Burbank, San Fernando and La CrescentaB. Recent detection of contaminants when technology became

availableC. Contamination problemD. Contamination causeE. DWP, EPA and SCAG study - Groundwater Management Plan

1. Recommendations2. Formation and existence of ICC3. Progress made on recommendations

F. Reason for additional studies during RI

IV. Cooperative agreement on RIA. Work Plan summaryB. Time schedule for activities

V. Feasibility Study

VI. Fast-track study of the N. Hollywood site

VII. Community Relations Plan summaryA. Information repositoriesB. Community meetingsC. Fact sheetsD. Period briefingsE. Updates provided to community newslettersF. Public Participation Committee

VIII.Relative Risk

IX. Glossary

X. Coupon for mailing list

ST/Public Affairs1/16/85epa fact sheet outline

Graphics forEPA Superfund Community Relations

Subject/Description

LOCATION MAPS

General San Fernando Valley mapin relation to Los Angeles

Superfund site locations showingfour sites

Map indicating city boundaries inSan Fernando Valley Basin

Map indicating N. Hollywood fast-track area

Contaminated well locationsand contaminant plumes

GROUNDWATER BASIN

Generic stylized groundwaterbasin artwork

Cross-section of groundwaterbasin and how contaminationoccurred

Cross-section of undergroundaquifer with clay layer andwater wells

Format

B/W slick

Color slide

B/W slick

Color slide

B/W slick

Color slide

B/W slick

Color slide

B/W slick

Color slide

B/W slick

Color slide

B/W slick

Color slideB/W slick

Use

Brochure and fact sheets

Community meetings and speakerslide programs

Brochure and fact sheet artwork,press kits


Brochure and fact sheet artwork




Brochure and fact sheet, presskit

Title slides in speaker slideprograms

Cover of brochure, fact sheets;background on newspaper ads


Brochure and fact sheet, presskits

Slide programsBrochure and fact sheet

-2-

Subject/Description

CLEANUP METHODS

AerationAeration process schematic

Rendering of aeration tower

N. Hollywood-Burbank aerationfacility location map

Rendering of N. Hollywood-Burbankaeration facility

Granular Activated CarbonSchematic of GAC process

Format Use

Color slide

B/W slick

Color slide

B/W slick

Color slide

B/W slick

Color slide

B/W slick

Color slide

B/W slick

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION AND FEASIBILITY STUDY

List of elements and activitiesof remedial investigation

List of elements and activitiesof feasibility study

Color slide

Color slide













-3-

Subject/Description

Time line schedule of activitiesduring remedial investigation

MISCELLANEOUS

Chart comparing risks of differenteveryday items

Format

Color slide

B/W slick

Color slide

B/W slick

Use


Brochure and fact sheet artwork,press kit

Community meetins and speakerslide programs


PHOTO SLIDES

Soil gas survey activitiesWell drillingWater quality analysis

SamplingMonitoringLaboratory equipment

Computer modelingExisting aeration facilities

ST/Public Affairs1/18/85epa graphics

"000173Proposed National Drinking Water Regulations '" •*and Maximum Contaminant Levels

Comments byRick Caruso

Vice PresidentBoard of Water and Power Commissioners

January 13, 1986Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, D.C.

Good morning. I am Rick Caruso, Vice President of the

Los Angeles Board of Water and Power Commissioners. I appreciate

this opportunity to present our views on the revised regulations

for Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOCs) published in the Federal

Register on November 13, 1985.

The proposed standards will have a major impact on the

water supply in Los Angeles and Southern California. We are

concerned that the levels proposed for these MCLs are unjustifiably

low. They not only do not give serious consideration to economic

feasibility - their promulgation actually may result in greater

public risk from drinking water rather than greater public

protection.

Apparently, the EPA feels that their legislative mandate

under the SDWA does not require them to give serious consideration

to benefits. We disagree. MCLs must be set as close to the RMCLs

as is technically and economically feasible - and economic feasi-

bility is arbitrary unless it is related to the magnitude of the

benefit derived.

-2-

We are also concerned because both methods of treating

water to remove volatile-organics proposed by the EPA will be much

more costly^rin the'Los Angeles.area than in the rest of the country.

This is because .Southern-California has extensive problems of air

pollution and. disposing.of. hazardous wastes.

The following comments on the impact of the proposed

regulations on the water supply of the City of Los Angeles, I

believe, will give substance to these introductory remarks.

Impact on City of Los Angeles

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power serves

a population of over three million. We have almost completed

construction of a $140 million facility to filter 80 percent of

the water'supply to the city. This facility, which will be one

of the most advanced, state-of-the-art facilities, is being con-

structed to comply with turbidity standards set by the EPA in 1975.

Los Angeles obtains 15 percent of its water supply from

a large groundwater basin which has TCE contamination. The City

has enough well capacity and stored water in this basin to supply

over a million people during a drought of several years' duration.

Over half the wells from this basin have TCE levels exceeding 5 ppb.

_3_ W00173

This supply--is extremely important not only to Los Angeles but

also to the rest. of.-.Southern.California because of water shortages

that will exist in: Southern California when the next drought of

more than one yearJ-s -duration occurs.

Since Southern California has lost more than one-half of

its water supply from the Colorado River and this loss cannot be

made up from other imported sources, the Southern California area

must rely heavily upon groundwater supplies to carry it through

drought years. The two groundwater basins in Southern California

with the greatest well capacity (San Gabriel Basin and San Fernando

Valley Basin) both show considerable TCE and lesser PCE contamina-

tion.

Southern California also has extensive problems of air

pollution and disposing of hazardous wastes. Both methods of

treating water to remove volatile organics proposed by the EPA will

be much more costly in the Los Angeles area than in the rest of

the country because of these problems. Although several aeration

towers have been constructed in the Southern California area,

considerable political and public concern has been expressed over

air emissions. The attached article from a major Los Angeles

newspaper and the "news bulletin" from a local Senator illustrates

the public and media perception of aeration facilities. It seems

certain that widespread use of this technology in the Southern

-4-

California area"wi-11- encounter enough political/public objections

that the emissions will have to"be filtered through granular

activated carbon ~(GAC)~to- capture the contaminants. Removing the

extremely minute .concentrations of volatile organic contaminants

from the exhaust-of-aeration towers, is an untested technology

which/ as EPA has pointed out, will double the cost of treatment.

The same air quality concerns also will make it costly to build

regeneration facilities for GAG. Currently, the closest facilities

to California to regenerate GAC from small water filtration appli-t

cations are in Texas.

Disposal of spent GAC is also a problem in Southern

California because all local hazardous waste landfills have been

closed. Two, which are still operating but under severe regulatory

pressure and public opposition, are over 100 miles from Los Angeles.

If these are closed or cannot accept spent GAC, the transport

distance to dispose of spent GAC will be increased to 200 to 300

miles.

VOC Regulations May Force Utilities to Switch to Higher Risk

In most years (years of adequate runoff).,.Los Angeles

and most other utilities in Southern California utilizing ground-

water can switch and purchase surface water from the California

Aqueduct. Although this surface water complies with all the EPA's

-5- 0000173

current and•proposed-MCLs, it has a significantly higher theore-

tical risk of-cancer because of higher levels of THMs. Our local

groundwater has a much lower theoretical' total risk because risks

from THMs at-the" current MCL are 400 times higher than risks from

TCE at the proposed-MCL. Even if the'TCE levels were 10 times

the proposed MCL of 5 ppb our local groundwater would still have a

lower risk than alternative surface supplies. Figure 1 shows

graphically a comparison of the theoretical risks from the three

main sources of water available to Los Angeles.

Risks from Most Groundwaters Containing VOCs are Insignificant

This difference in theoretical risk between surface and

groundwater is not unique to Los Angeles. The vast majority of

VOC contamination has been found in groundwater which, because it

is low in natural organics/ is low in THMs. The EPA groundwater

supply survey made in 1981 showed the average THM level for

groundwater was 10 ppb. This compares with THMs for surface

waters in the range of 40 to 50 ppb. Even with TCE levels at ten

times the proposed allowable level, the risk -fromi.the surface

supplies is three to four times greater than-from-the^contaminated

groundwater.

These regulations will primarily impact small water

utilities whose water supplies, because of low.THMs, are safer

~6~ 0000173than the .vast-majority of-the nation's surface supplies. These

are also the utilities that currently have severe financial

problems and do. not-have-the technical capability to properly

operate sophisticated--water- treatment technology. It is highly

questionable.-.that.-.pborly maintained treatment systems would

actually reduce the risk for utilities that have moderate levels

of VOCs (levels up to ten times the levels proposed in these

regulations).

Acceptable Risks Approach Needed for Drinking Water Standards

The EPA has not dealt with determining an acceptable

risk for potential carcinogens in drinking water, nor have they

given realistic consideration to costs in selecting MCLs. Instead,

the EPA has avoided the issue by setting standards at the lowest

level to which they can be removed using the best available

technology and the lowest level at which they can be reliably

quantified.

This approach is inconsistent with the approach

previously used by the EPA to set standards for the majority of

the potential carcinogens in water (chlorination by-products,

THMs). As I mentioned, the risk from chlorination by-products are

several hundred times higher than the risk levels being proposed

for the VOCs. Unless a consistent approach is utilized in setting\

-7-

standards, hundreds of^millions of dollars will be spent to remove

contaminants .-which pose a minute risk, while risks theoretically

hundreds of-times higher are accepted.

This approach is also inconsistent with the requirements

of the SDWA. The SDWA requires that EPA set MCLs at levels which

are technically and economically feasible, taking costs into con-

sideration. In any thoughtful interpretation; "taking costs into

consideration" does not mean simply determining what the dollar

value of the cost might be - it means also that the value of the

benefits derived must be considered. No cost is justified - •'

however small - if it results in no benefit. The crucial question

in any consideration of cost is whether the cost is justified by

the benefits received. By basing the MCLs on laboratory and

engineering capabilities alone, EPA has skirted this central issue.

Public Notification Problems

Since many small utilities will be financially unable to

install and operate aeration or GAC facilities, establishing MCLs

for these VOCs at these extremely low levels will result in exten-

sive public notification by utilities. This will make the public

extremely vulnerable to being defrauded by salesmen of water

treatment devices and bottled water.

-e- 0000173

TCE Should Not Be-Classified as a Probable Human Carcinogen

The weight of evidence-of the animal studies and the

limited epidemiblogical-studies.available do not support classi-

fication of•TCE as a-probable human carcinogen. I refer you to

the testimony by Dr. Richard Bull presented at today's hearing.

Summary

To sum up, we are concerned that the proposed regulations:

o Are unjustifiably low and may lead to switches to sources

of supply which, if EPA's risk estimates are valid, are

theoretically less safe;

o Will require expenditures that will at best provide negli-

gible improvements in safe drinking water;

o May aggravate perceived air pollution and waste disposal•.

problems; and

o May force needlessly alarming and disruptive public notifi-

cation requirements.

Enclosures1/10/86(rs34)

ApriO. 8, 1985

By TONY KNIGHT— --O«ily New»

Air quality officials have approved constructionof a 45- foot- tall -tower that would spew a mist ofcancer-causing toxins into the air at a San Fernan-do Valley site surrounded by homes and apart-ments.

The North Hollywood site — approved on thebasis of a computer model rather than on-sile test-ing — is ringed by eight apartment buildings and10 houses which are within;the 100-meter Tabout110 yards) standard used by air quality officials indeciding the project was safe.

Officials for the South Coast Air Quality Man-agement District defended their approval of thetower site, saying there is no health danger be-cause the levels of toxic chemicals in the mist arelow. ^

But a stale health official said the computermodel may not have assessed the health risk accu-rately for second-story dwellers, who would becloser to the center of the plume of toxic mistMore than 30 second-story windows are locatedwithin 110 yards of the proposed tower.

Despite air quality approval, Los Angeles De-partment of Water and Power officials said theywill seek to change the location of the tower to anindustrial area.

•. "It's more of a concern of pub-lic acceptance, not a health haz- .ard.". said Laurent McReynolds,DWP's1 senior water quality en-gineer; "A public-acceptanceproblem is not a good place tostart."I The air-stripping tower, whichf ould take up to two years to beoperational at a cost of between5300.000 and $600,000, is seen asa possible solution to the Val-ley's serious groundwater pollu-tion problem. Toxic levels ofcancer-causing trichloroethy-lene (TCE) and perchloroelhy-lene (PCE) have been found in .40 percent of the Valley's waterwells.

• Under the air-slripping-_towerproposal, concentrations of-TCE;and PCE about 300 feet beneath:

•_=^the surface-would.be drawn to a- cluster of wells in the North Hol-

--lywood- area. The- toxic .waterwould be pumped to the top ofthe 45-foot tower and blasted

. with air, stripping the toxins.from the water. The toxins then

. would be released into the at-mosphere through a stack in thelop of the lower.

The lower was originally to bebuilt at the DWP's pump station.11850 Vanowen Street, NorthHollywood.

New plans call for construc-tion aboul a mile north of the Va-nowen Street sile al 11875 VoseSlreeL

"I think we'd be better off allthe way around if we moved it,"said Henry Venegas, DWP's sen-ior planning engineer. He saidIhe decision was made, "recem-Jy, because of concern for Ihenearness of residents, et cetera."

Approval of the air qualilypermit, daled SepL 9. 1984, wasbased on a compuler modelshowing where Ihe toxic chemi-cals would fall to Ihe ground andwhat their strength would be atthai point, said Joe Cassmassi,the AQMD's senior meteorolo-gisL

Cassmassi, who never visitedIhe Vanowen Slreet site beforeit was approved, said no furthertesling was warranled becausethe risk for someone standing atground level 110 yards from thetower is fewer than one addi-lional cancer for every 1 million

•people. Slale heallh officialshave determined this an "ac-ceptable risk," he said.

"We could put a receptor inthe person's window, but I guar-antee you it (the risk) wouldn'tbe any different from groundlevel," Cassmassi saii

However, he conceded•• th,"Ihe impacls at 22 feel (secon

...story level) would probably I-—greater than those at grour. level if you're within lOOmelei

of the source." • _:j.-_r./_Dr. Norman Gravitz, the slal

— heallh department loxicologiand an expert on compuler mo<els. said the model used bAQMD may not be appropriatat a sile ringed by second-slorbedroom windows.

"If there are apartmenls in tr.area, one has to question wh;the impacts are on the aparments," Gravilz said. "How m;ny are air conditioned? Are tl;windows left open.?"

Gravitz described cancer risassessments as a "pencil-and-p;per operation," and said tha"We don't and we never wiknow what Ihe Irue risk is :very/very low exposure levels.

"If you are going wilh aistripping towers, keep them sfar away from populalion as po:sible/'hesaid.

Cassmassi said lhal detaileon-site analyses at two other aistripping towers built in 19S2 ithe San Gabriel Valley havshown the same low cancer rislHe said AQMD experience at Hiolher Iwo towers, one in Arcadjand one in Irwindale. convincehim lhal furlher analysis of lhNorth Hollywood sile was uinecessary.

However. Cassmassi sajd thArcadia and Irwindale loweiare not ringed by apartmerbuildings.

One of Ihe towers is shul dowand the olher opcrales infnquenlly, he said. The North Holywood tower would operate 2hours a day.

AQMD figures show that toxilevels in Ihe olher Iwo toweiare aboul half those anticipateat Ihe North Hollywood lower.

• In addition, waler officials saiIhey may have undcreslimatetoxic levels for Ihe Norlh Holljwood project. The maximuiconcentration of TCE in wattgoing into the tower was cstmalcd al 300 parts per billioi

Cancer Risk Level for THMS/TCE From VariousCity of Los Angeles Water Sources t

•* *•* ' ' i ^'"i-i!''!l'S!i, ili;; : •; •''•••' " • { • - . •;;•:•'•:;;!;* ('•. lit .'

Lifetime Cancer Risk per Million People Served .!."

400 r

300 -

200 -

100

Total Risk -320

Total Risk THMS 80TCE 1

Total Risk =-- 81

ooo."*a£

'•*.!CO

0000173

Fact Sheet - Phase I

Summary

o Action promulgates - Recommended Maximum Contaminant Levels(RMCLs) for-8-volatile synthetic organic chemicals (VOCs),proposes MaximunuContaminant Levels (MCLs) with monitoring/reporting/public notification requirements for the 8 VOCsand proposes monitoring/reporting/public notificationrequirements_for 51 unregulated VOCs.

Regulatory Frame Work

o Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA must promulgatePrimary Drinking Water Regulations for contaminants whichmay have "any adverse effect upon the health of persons".

o EPA must first set RMCLs which are nonenforceable healthgoals. RMCLs are set at levels at which no known oranticipated adverse effects on the health of personsoccur.

o EPA then sets MCLs which are the enforceable standards.MCLs are set as close to the RMCLs as "feasible," takingcosts and other factors into consideration.

o If an RMCL is promulgated for a particular contaminant, anMCL must be set.

Basis for RMCLs

o RMCLs are determined using a three-category approach basedon strength of evidence of carcinogenicity. The three-category approach directly follows the proposed EPAGuidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (49 FR 46294).

o The three category approach consists of classifyingchemicals as 1) known or probable human carcinogens, 2)possible human carcinogens (equivocal evidence ofcarcinogenicity) or 3) non-carcinogens.

o RMCLs for known or probable human carcinogens are proposedat zero.

o RMCLs for chemicals with equivocal evidence of carcinogenicityare set based upon Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADIs) with anadditional uncertainty factor or upon a lifetime riskcalculation. :

V.. .

7a

Table 1

Final RMCLs for the VOCs

Compound*

BenzeneVinyl chlorideCarbon tetrachloride1,2-Dichloroethane .Trichloroethylene1,1-Dichloroethylene1,1,1-Trichloroethanep-Dichlorobenzene

RMCL

zerozerozerozerozero0.007 mg/10.20 mg/10.75 mg/1

*The RMCL for tetrachloroethylene was proposed atzero. New toxicological data appear to confirmthat zero is appropriate but the public commentperiod is reopened today for public comment on thenew data.

'W00173

MCLs for the.VOCs:..

o The HCL.E.-. are : proposed as, follows :

Compound

TrichloroethyleneCarbon tetrachlorideVinyl chloride1,2-DichloroethaneBenzene1,1-Dichloroethylene1,1,1-Trichloroethanep-Dichlorobenzene

Proposed HCL (mg/1) «= ppb

0.0050.0050.0010.0050.0050.0070.2000.750

551557

200750

o Comment period is 90 days from publication.

o A public hearing will be held in Washington, D.C. in December, 1985

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph A. Cotruvo, Ph.D.,Director, Criteria and Standards Division, Office of DrinkingWater (WH-550), Environmental Protection Agency, 401 H Street,S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460, telephone (202) 382-7575.

R-1S3

100

Table 14

VOCs Proposed in Monitoring Regulationsfor Unregulated VOCs

WOOI7.3

Chloroform -BromodichlororaethaneChlorodibromoraethane ••--•—: '••'..'-..Broinoform --- . ' - : . - ; . ." . . . .trans-l/2-Dichloroethylene-rH> : > .Chlorobenzene . . . . • •m-Dichlorobenzene - •''••-• -""• • •••' ;

Dichloromethane .cis-1,2-Di'chloroethylene ' • •' ::o-Dichlorobenzene1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ' -FluorotrichloromethaneDichlorodifluoromethane •Dibromomethane1/2-Dibromoethane (EDB)1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP)Toluenep-Xyleneo-Xylenem-Xylene1,1-Dichloroethane1,2-Dichloropropane1,1,2,2-TetrachloroethaneEthylbenzene1,3-DichloropropaneStyrene

ChloromethaneBromomethaneBromochloromethane1,2,3-Trichloropropane1,2,3-Trichlorobenzenen-Propylbenzene

• 1,1,1,2-TetrachloroethaneChloroethane1,1,2-TrichloroethanePentachloroethanebis-2-Chloroisopropyl ethe.rsec-Dichloropropane1,2,4-Trimethylbenzenen-ButylbenzeneNaphthalenehexachlorobutadieneo-Chlorotoluenep-Chlorotoluene1, 3 , 5-Trijnethylbenzenep-Isopropyltoluene1,1-Dichloropropaneiso-Propylbenzenetert-Butylbenzenesec-ButylbenzeneBromobenzene

0000173CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, LOS ANGELES REGION

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

January 21, 1985

290th Regular Meeting

ITEM: 7

SUBJECT:

DISCUSSION:

RECOMMENDATION:

Memorandum of Understanding With Ventura County EnvironmentalHealth Department for Administering the Underground TankRegulations.

The purpose of this memorandum is to coordinate the effortsof the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board)and the Ventura County Environmental Health Department (County)in enforcement of the underground tank storage program require-ments under the California Water Code and the Health and SafetyCode as they relate to discharges or.unauthorized releases ofhazardous materials.

The \fentura County Board of Supervisors approved the menorandunon November 26, 1985. A copy of the MOU, signed by the Directorof the Environmental Health Department, is attached.

The County has established a program for administering theUnderground Tank Regulation for all areas of \fentura Countyexcept the City of San Buenaventura (see below). Under Section25180 of the Health and Safety Code the County has the authorityto enforce the State Hazardous Waste Law. Under the law allspills and leaks of a hazardous substance are considered ashazardous waste discharges. These unauthorized dischargesare regulated under the Barter-Cologne Water Quality Act andby the California Health and Safety Code. In order to minimizeduplication in administering the Underground Tank Program,the Regional Board and the County are entering into this agree-ment.

A similar MCO will be developed with the County of Los Angelesand the six cities within the two counties (Los Angeles, SantaMonica, Torrance, Long Baach, "\fernon and San Buenaventura)which have their own underground tank permitting programs.Our goal is to develop a protocol whereby local agencies inthis region can effectively handle fuel tank leaks and otherminor chemical leaks with minimun Board overview. VenturaCounty (with approximately 4,000 underground tanks) is movingin this direction. •

It is recommended that Board, by motion, approve the MOUand authorize the Executive Officer to sign it.

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCYEnvironmental Health Department

Donald W. KoeppDirector

December 3, 1985

Mr. Robert P. Ghirelli, Executive OfficerRegional Water Quality Control Board107 S. Broadway, Room 4027Los Angeles CA 90012

Dear Mr. Ghirelli:

As you are aware, the Ventura County Board of Supervisors approved,on November 26, 1985, the Memorandum of Understanding between theRegional Water Quality Control Board and • the County of VenturaEnvironmental Health Department.

In accordance with your request, enclosed are five copies of the MOUwhich I have signed. As soon as you receive approval from yourBoard, would you please send us an originally signed copy for ourrecords.

Thank you very much for your cooperation in this matter. We willlook forward to a mutually beneficial arrangement under thisMemorandum of Understanding.

Yours very truly,

Donald W. Koepp, DirectorEnvironmental Health Department

dwk/erfEnc. (5)

800 South Victoria Avenue. Ventura. CA 93009 (805) 654-2813

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDINGbetween

VENTURA COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEAUTH DEPARTMENTand

LOS ANGELES REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

I. Purpose and Scope. This agreement is entered into between the los

Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (hereinafter referred to

as RWQCB) and the Ventura County Environmental Health Department

(hereinafter referred to as "County") to ensure a high level of

cooperation and coordination in the enforcement of the State and local

underground hazardous materials storage tanks program requirements.

The purpose of this agreement is to provide a specific set of

operating guidelines designed to ensure that the limited resources of

the RWQCB and County are utilized in the most effective manner.

The RWQCB has primary responsibility for ensuring water resources in

Ventura County are protected from degradation. However, both parties

recognize the authority of the County pursuant to section 25180,

25283, 25285, and 25286 of the Health & Safety Code, in enforcing

state standards and regulations.• t

' . i

This agreement is valid in all areas of Ventura County except within

the City of San Buenaventura.

II. Procedural Agreements.

1. The County has the exclusive authority for the issuance of permits

to operate underground hazardous materials storage tank facilities

pursuant to Section 25283 of the Health & Safety Code. The County

has the primary responsibility for inspection and enforcement

activities relating to compliance with these permits.

-1-

2. The County has the authority to require owners of underground

hazardous materials storage tank facilities to -install, operate,

and maintain a leak detection system to detect unauthorized

releases at their facilities.

3. Where the County so chooses, it will exercise supervision over

cleanup of unauthorized releases at underground hazardous material

storage tank facilities. At all times the Regional Board will

retain primary jurisdiction where contamination is found in

groundwater or where the potential to contaminate groundwater

exists. The County will promptly notify the Regional Board of all

unauthorized releases that have contaminated or have the potential

to contaminate groundwater.

4. The County will use the protocols contained in State Water

Resources Control Board Resolution No. 85-26 (Interim Guidance

for Hazardous Substance Site Cleanup) as guidelines for cleanup of

unauthorized releases. If a subsequent guidance document is

adopted, it shall apply upon its effective date.

5. The County will submit semi-annual reports to the Regional Board.

These reports will summarize all unauthorized releases and their

respective cleanup status.

-2-

0000173

6. The parties to this agreement further agree to make every effort

to keep each other fully informed of problems, issues/ and

progress regarding hazardous waste enforcement.

APPROVED BY:

RDBEKT P. GHIRELLI, D.Env.Executive Officer

Date

'Donald W/Koepp, Director \/Environmental Health DepartmentCounty of Ventura

Date

-3-

SANITATION

FACT SHEET

--PROJECT/PROGRAM: City Sponsored Small Quantity Hazardous WasteGenerator Collection Program.CD 1 CF 85-0911


DESCRIPTION OF EFFORT: A City sponsored small quantity hazardous wastegenerator collection program in the North Hollywoodarea. The City will contract with a licensedhazardous waste hauler to perform the service.

ESTIMATED COST: $250,000, annual program cost.

FUNDING SOURCES: Fee for services rendered.(Possibly some city subsidy)


Preparation of draft RFP for hazardous wastecollection completed. Program is on hold (See notebelow).

CURRENT STATUS: AB 49, a bill which would allow City to proceed inthis program, is being amended and will no longeraddress the needs of the City's program.


RMA/RBH 105 copy/ab

SANITATION

FACT SHEET0000173

PROJECT/PROGRAM: Water Quality Monitoring at City LandfillsCD: All districts. CF 83-1742

-.LEAD PERSON/PHONE NO.: Richard B. Humphreys 213 485-5347

DESCRIPTION OF EFFORT: Water quality monitoring at City owned/operatedsanitary landfills. (Monitoring at Sheldon-Arletalandfill is under the direction of DWP; related totheir Tujunga Spreading Grounds).

ESTIMATED COST: Unknown — final program vill be determined byCRWQCB, L.A. Region.

FUNDING SOURCES: General Funds


Bureau's program proposal vas submitted to L.A.Region, CRWQCB, in May, 1985. Completion of wellconstruction by March, 1986; start of MonitoringProgram by July, 1986; completion of FeasibilityStudy on additional monitoring requirements byJanuary, 1987. On or before January 1, 1987, asolid waste water quality assessment test report isto be submitted to said Board for the Sheldon-Arletalandfill (AB 3525, Chapter 1532, 1984).

CURRENT STATUS: Bids to construct three wells and redevelop one wellbeing held pending approval by CRWQCB.Wells located at: Branford- one existing

Toyon - one proposedLopez - two proposed

ANTICIPATED PROBLEM AREAS:None at this time.

RMA/RBH 105a/ab

0000173SANITATION

FACT SHEET

.-PROJECT/PROGRAM: Household Hazardous Waste Collection ProgramCD: All CF 85-0911


DESCRIPTION OF EFFORT: Train City refuse collectors to collecthousehold hazardous waste from a pilot area inthe Harbor District.

ESTIMATED COST: $637,000.

FUNDING SOURCES: General Funds.Environmental Trust Fund (ETF), EPAapproval on August, 1985.


Program implementation by March, 1986.Interviewing bidders on January 7 and 8, 1986.

CURRENT STATUS:

ANTICIPATED PROBLEM AREAS:

In the process of securing permits, etc.Awaiting Council approval.Developing a method of manifesting wastes.Developing a computer data base and relatedsystem.

Need to receive a variance or change in currentregulations regarding manifesting of wastes.

RMA/RBH 105f/ab

0000173

PROJECT/PROGRAM:

LEAD PERSON/PHONE NO.:

DESCRIPTION OF EFFORT:

ESTIMATED COST:

FUNDING SOURCES:

SCHEDULED IMPLEMENTATIONMILESTONES:

SANITATION

FACT SHEET

Abandonment of Private Sewage Disposal System (PSDS) andconnection to Public Sever.

Public P. Aliwalas (213) 485-5347

On September 17, 1985, City Ordinance No. 160388 wasapproved amending the Los Angeles Municipal Code torequire the phasing-out of Private Sewage DisposalSystems - PSDS - employed by industrial, commercial, andmultiple residences in the San Fernando Valley. Thepurpose of this ordinance is to protect and preserve thewater quality of the groundwater basins locatedgenerally in the San Fernando Valley and certainadjacent areas. The continued use of PSDS is declaredto be a threat to the quality of the groundwater and tothe public health. Therefore, the City is providing asystematic method of requiring both the connection topublic sewers and permanent abandonment of PSDS.

Unknown

General Funds. Fees for services rendered.

CURRENT STATUS:

ANTICIPATED PROBLEMAREAS:

The Director of the Bureau of Sanitation is responsiblefor implementing the provisions of the ordinance. Thiswill be done in the following sequence. (1) identifyPSDS used by industrial, commercial, and multipleresidences ( 5 or more units), in the affected area, (2)issue "Notice to Connect to the Public Sewer and toAbandon PSDS", (3) issue "Reminder Notice" and "FinalNotice" if needed, (4) issue "Notice of Violation" iffull compliance is not achieved, In a timely manner, (5)institute enforcement action against violators byreferral to the City Attorney, Department of Water andPower, or the Superintendent of the Building.

(1) Undertake Survey of properties using Private SewageDisposal Systems (PSDS).

None at this time.

interagency coordinating committee (icc) mtg minutes, 11 ...'tom gibson melinda thun jeff...

Documents