Stake Holders:

Newport –Mesa Unified School DistrictState of California, Orange County Health Care AgencyState of California, EPACosta Mesa Local Community Watch

PROTECTING OUR WATER RESOURCE

Source: ADvTECH, 2008.Permission to use photos given.

PROTECTING OURWATER RESOURCE

PUBH 8165February 2, 2013

Presented by:

Michael ShiangDoctoral Candidate in Public Health

Walden University

Stakeholders:

Owner: Newport-Mesa Unified School District

Agencies State of California, Orange County Health Care

Agency State of California, Environmental Protection

Agency Public Group

Costa Mesa Community Watch

Source: ADvTECH, 2008.

Discussion Overview

□ Off-Site Feasibility Study/Remedial Action Plan

□ Historical Programs Conducted by NMUSD

On-Site Environmental Activities Site Investigation/Monitoring Activities Interim Remedial Actions Removal Action/On-Going Cleanup Programs

Off-Site Environmental Investigation

□ Community Concerns and Open Discussion

FACT SHEET - SYNOPSIS

No Immediate Threat to Human Health or the Environment

No Drinking Water Supply Wells Threatened or Impacted

Detailed Reports – Geotracker Website http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T0605902072

Source: State of CA, Geotracker, 2013.

Site Map

Source: ADvTECH, 2008.Permission to use photos given.

NEWPORT-MESA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTTIME LINE – ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

Source: ADvTECH, 2010

Source: ADvTECH, 2008.Permission to use photos given.

ON-SITE SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM

ON-SITE SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION

Initiated in April 2007 6 VES, 6 Air-Sparge Catalytic/Thermal

Oxidizer Unit 45 scfm, 8-in Hg O&M Conducted by ERI

Vapor Air Stream to Remove Contaminants in Soil

Initial Conc. = >10,000 ppmv TPH

Current Conc. = 200-400 ppmv TPH

Approx. ~ 8,500 lbs TPH Removed

Source: ADvTECH, 2008.Permission to use photos given.

ON-GOING QUARTERLY GROUNDWATER

MONITORING

QUARTERLY GROUNDWATER MONITORING

2001 Started, Quarterly Data from about 2003

18 Wells On-Site 8 Wells Off-Site Range in Depth from 35 –

50 ft-bgs Monitors “First Water” at

about 25 to 35 ft-bgs

Flow to Southwest TPH, BTEX, MTBE

and other Fuel Additives

Full VOC – mid 2007

Source: ADvTECH, 2008.Permission to use photos given.

Source: ADvTECH, 2008.Permission to use photos given.

Source: ADvTECH, 2008.Permission to use photos given.

TPH Concentrations in Groundwater 4th Qtr 2008

Source: ADvTECH, 2008.Permission to use map given.

APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF GROUNDWATER PLUME OVERLAY

Source: ADvTECH, 2008.Permission to use photos given.

Source: ADvTECH, 2008.Permission to use photos given.

OFF-SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY/RAP FOR GROUNDWATER CLEANUP

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Must Meet a Set of Regulatory Requirements Describe situation Propose clean up goal Consider multiple alternatives Discuss pros and cons of each alternative Choose and justify preferred clean up method

CLEAN-UP GOAL

Benzene is primary contaminant of concern, with lowest clean up level of contaminants present in the groundwater

Clean up will focus on benzene, and other contaminants (gasoline, toluene, ethyl benzene, xylenes) will be removed along with the benzene

MCL (maximum contaminant level) for benzene is 1 ug/L. The remedial system will be designed with the MCL as the clean up goal

REGULATORY/PERMITTING AGENCIES

City of Costa Mesa – Sanitation District City of Costa Mesa – Encroachment Permit Orange County Flood Control District Orange County Health Care Agency Orange County Sanitation District South Coast AQMD Santa Ana RWQCB

ALTERNATIVES

No Action Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) Enhanced Biodegradation Chemical Oxidation Air Sparging/Vapor Extraction Groundwater Extraction and Treatment

FACTORS TO CONSIDER

Impact to Neighborhood and School Effectiveness of Clean Up Duration of Project Cost

No Action/MNA/Biodegradation

Allows continuing spread of contaminants Not sufficiently aggressive in treating existing

contamination Not appropriate for this site, at this time

Air Sparging/Vapor Extraction/Chemical Oxidation

PROS Cost Existing Air

Compressor/ Treatment Unit On-Site

CONS Releases Vapor into

Subsurface Multi-phase Remedial

Option Significant # of Wells Greater Impact to

Neighborhood

GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION

PROS Uses some Existing

Monitoring Wells Less Impact to

Neighborhood Less Piping/Trenches Hydraulic Control

CONS Cost Generates Waste Water

for Discharge to Sewer or Recharge

GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION DETAILS

Seven New Extraction Wells Use Existing Monitoring Wells Off-Site Staging Area in School Yard Piping in Street/Parkway and Easement – Across or

Under Flood Control Channel Treatment Equipment can be Staged in Existing On-

Site Compound Wastewater Discharged to Sewer, Recharge or

Storm Drain

AnticipatedOff-SiteGroundwater Plume Capture

Source: ADvTECH, 2008.Permission to use photos given.

GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION

Cone of Depression

Multiple Wells Extraction

Phase-in Approach

Source: Cherry & Freeze, 2004.Permission to use photos given.

PREFERRED METHODGROUNDWATER EXTRACTION SUMMARY

Work Performed in Public Access Areas Does Not Require Wells on Private Property Generally Higher Cost, but much more Protective of

Community Health and the Environment

WHAT’S NEXT?

Plan Approval Finalize All Permits and Agreements Engineering/Bid Process/Funding Field Implementation

Start Extraction – SEPT 2012 Anticipated Extraction through 2018

COMMUNITY CONCERNS

COMMUNITY CONCERNS

How long is it going to take to clean up? Is my water safe to drink? Can I drink water from the school fountain? Do I need to be concerned about growing vegetables in

my back yard? Will children be at-risk playing on the soccer fields? What are the major disruptions to the community? Will there be a lot of noise from the equipment?

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION

REFERENCES

References

ADvTECH Environmental, Inc. (2008). Feasibility Study, NMUSD. Consultants Report.

ADvTECH Environmental, Inc. (2009). Fourth quarter groundwater monitoring report. Consultants Report.

ADvTECH Environmental, Inc. (2010). Remedial Actions for the NMUSD site. Consultants Report.

Cherry, J., & Freeze, D. (2004). Groundwater. MacGraw Hill. Princeton University. (Check on proper citation).

Environmental Protection Agency. (EPA, 2012a). United States Environmental Protection Agency: Laws and regulations, Summary of the toxic substances control act, 15 USC 2601 et seq. (1976). Retrieved on December 26, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/tsca.html.

References (con’t)

Environmental Protection Agency. (EPA, 2012b). United States Environmental Protection Agency: About EPA, Toxic substances law. Retrieved on December 26, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/history/topics/tsca/03.html.

Environmental Protection Agency. (EPA, 2013). United States Environmental Protection Agency: Underground storage tanks: UST program and site remediation. Retrieved on December 26, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/oust/

Moeller, D. W. (2011). Environmental health (4th ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN:978-0674047402.

Rizzo, J. (1998). Underground storage tank management: A pratical guide. Government Institutes. ISBN: 10—86587607X.

Robinson, J., Thompson, P., Conn, D., & Geyer, L. (1993). Issues in underground storage tank management UST closure and financial assurance. CRC Press. ISBN: 10-0873714024.