esm223_04_Other_Reading_Calif Water Plan v2_ch_11_only

esm223_04_Other_Reading_Calif Water Plan v2_ch_11_only -...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–7. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 4
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 6
Background image of page 7
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: California Water Plan Update 2005 Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation aper Groundwater remediation involves extracting contaminated groundwatertrom the aquiter, treating it, and discharging it to a water course or using it For some purpose. It is also possible to inject the treated water back into the aquiter. Contaminated groundwater can result trom a multitude ot sources, both naturally occurring and anthropogenic. Examples ot naturally occurring contaminants include heavy metals, high total dissolved solids, and high salinity trom specitic geologic tormations or conditions. Groundwater can also be contaminated trom anthropogenic sources with organic constituents, inorganic constituents, and radioactive constituents trom many point and non-point sources. These anthropogenic sources include industrial sites, mining operations, leaking tanks and pipelines, landtills, impoundments, dairies, agricultural and storm runott, and septic systems. In the process at groundwater remediation, the groundwater Flows through the aquiter toward the extraction wells where it is removed For treatment. It recharge ot the aquiter continues, this tlow provides a tlushing action that may eventually remove most ot the contaminants From the aquiter. This is also called the "pump and treat” method ot remediation. Pump and treat methods transter the contaminant to either the atmosphere or a Filter material. It a volatile material is transterred trom the groundwater to the atmosphere, permits must be obtained From the appropriate air pollution control district or agency tor the amount to be transterred. It a Filtration medium is used, such as granular activated carbon [GAC), the GAC must be disposed at as a hazardous waste. It the GAC is regenerated, the waste From that process must be disposed at as a hazardous waste. It the contaminant is radioactive, such as uranium, then residuals may need to be disposed at as radioactive waste. Aquiter remediation is usually accomplished by treating the groundwater while it is still in the aquiter, using in situ methods involving physical or chemical treatment, biological treatment, or electrokinetics. Another term used tor either groundwater or aquiter remediation processes is groundwater restoration. Whatever the treatment method (see Table i i-i 1, it must be suited to the chemical (see Table i i-2] that has contaminated the aquiter. Light, non-aque- ous phase liquids (LNAPLs), such as hydrocarbons, tloat on the surtace ot the groundwater. Dense, non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs), such as trichloroethylene (TCE) have a specitic gravity Chapter It Groundwater Remediation/Aquiter Remediation greater than water and sink to the bottom ot the aquiter. Other contaminants, such as methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), may be miscible in water and are in solution in the groundwater. Even with LNAPLs and DNAPLs, some ot the contaminant dissolves within the groundwater in the aquiter. Intormation For this entire narrative was provided by Calitornia Department ot Health Services, Division ot Drinking Water and Environmental Management; and by Calitornia State Water Resources Control Board, Division ot Clean Water Programs. Groundwater Remediation in California Most remediation in Calitornia involves groundwater remedia- tion; very little aquiter remediation takes place. There are about 1 8,500 sites in the state where active cleanup ot contaminants is ongoing. Regulatory oversight ot these cleanups is by Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Boards), the Depart- ment ot Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or local agencies. About 1 5,000 ot these sites have had a petroleum release tram a leaking underground storage tank (UST) system. A petroleum release is usually detected by analyzing tor total petroleum hydrocarbons [TPH) and the more soluble constituents in tuel (benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene, commonly called BTEX). In addition to these, MTBE can betound at Former leak- ing UST sites. Groundwater cleanup at petroleum sites almost always tocuses on reduction at BTEX and MTBE because most other components at petroleum are slightly soluble in water and do not migrate tar From the original source ot the leak. ii 'i California Water Plan Update 2005 Table 11-] Types of treatment Pump and treat — groundwater remediation Activated alumina Biological Blending Coagulation/Filtration Granular activated carbon, GAC Ion exchange, IX Lime softening Packed tower aeration (air stripping) Reverse osmosis, RO Ultra-violet photoionization In-situ — aquifer remediation Air spa rging Bio-sparging Bio-venting CosoIvents EIectrokinetics Electron acceptors (nitrate, suItate, terric ions) Electron donors (to degrade chlorinated hydrocarbons) Fluid cycling Hydrotracturing/Pneumatic Fracturing SoiI vapor extraction Surtactant enhancements Thermal enhancements Treatment walls Vitritication Table 11-2 List of ctcantaminrsintsI I ,2-Dibromo-3-chIoropropane, DBCP I ,2-DichIoroethane I ,2,3-TrichIoropropane, I ,2,3-TCP Arsenic, As Carbon tetrachloride, CTC Ethylene dibromide, EDB Methyl tertiary butyl ether, MTBE N-Nitrosodimethylamine, NDMA Nitrate as N03 Nitrate + Nitrite as N Perchlorate, CIOA Tetrachloroethylene, PCE Total petroleum hydrocarbons, TPH e.g, hexane, jet fuels, mineral oiIs, benzene toluene, xernes, naphthalene, FIuorene TrichIoroetherne, TCE Uranium, U I Some may also be called by other names II'2 In general, cleanup For the vast majority ot contaminant sites involves excavation, tree-product removal it applicable, soiI vapor extraction, in situ remediation, or a combination at these remediation methods. Pump and treat methodology tends to be expensive and is not employed when other effec- tive remediation options are available. The discharge trom a pump and treat system may also require a discharge permit issued by a Regional Board. About 800 sites in Calitornia use pump and treat systems. And about a third ot these are at UST sites, where shallow ground- water is typically attected. The treated-Flow volumes are on the order ot I 0-20 gallons per minute. At a small number ot sites the volume treated can be millions ot gallons per day. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as TCE and tetra- chIoroetherne (PCE) (see Table II-I) are being removed From groundwater in Los Angeles, trom the San Gabriel basin. VOCs are also being removed in Santa Clara County. Otten these cleanups are associated with tederaI Supertund projects, tor example, the Glendale Operable Unit (OU), or the Burbank OU. Perchlorate is being removed by ion exchange and biological treatment in Sacramento and San Gabriel basins. In Sacramento and Santa Clara, the treated water is released into a surtace water channel, whereas in San Gabriel, the treated water is pumped into the public water supply distribution system. Besides the groundwater remediation projects mentioned above, there are drinking water treatment projects For VOCs, including TCE, PCE, that are operating in various water systems (see Table I I -3]. The gasoline additive MTBE is being treated in the city of Santa Monica, and in several smaller systems. Arse- nic treatment is occurring in a low water systems to meet the current Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 50 micrograms per liter. In 2006, the new Federal MCL of I O micrograms per liter becomes ettective, and it is predicted that additional water systems will be required to treat to remove arsenic systems. Pesticides, especially I,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) and ethylene dibromide (EDB), are being removed in the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California. Nitrates in groundwater are being blended or treated in most areas ot the state where agriculture has been active, either in the past or today, and wherever there are high concentrations of septic tank treatment and disposal systems. Vqume 2 Resource Management Strategies Cattfornta Water Ptan Update 2005 ' r437 2 .f ‘7’ ‘37:: Table 1 1-3 Locations of groundwater sources of drinking water with selected detected contaminants. Information provided by California Department of Health Services, Division of Drinking Water and Environmental Management Counties Affected (# of sources with detections)1 Examples: Water Systems to Contact for Additional Informa tion Types of Treatment Used Re fated Contaminants lno anic Chemicals Arsenic (current MCL - Kern (1 0), Kings (13), San activated alumina; ion Edgemont Acres MWD; 50 ppb2 Bernardino (7), Sonoma (6), Nevada exchange (IX), reverse Boron CSD; Mt. Weske (5), Sutter (5), Los Angeles (4), osmosis (RO), (others with Estates MWC; City of Mono (4) limitations—see 22 CCR § Signal Hill 64447.2 blendin Arsenic (Federal MCL, Kern (1 15), San Bernardino (70), Los effective 2006 = 10 Angeles (58), San Joaquin (56), ppb)2 Kings (37), Sacramento (37), Sutter (29), Sonoma (24), Riverside (20), Madera (15), Monterey (14), Fresno (13), Nevada (12), Tulare(12), Merced (1 O), Mono (9), Stanislaus (9), Napa (8) Nitrate as N03 IX, RO, blending McFarland MWC, City of Pomona; Southern California Water Company; San Gabriel County Water District; Los Angeles (171), San Bernardino (108), Riverside (79), Kern (64) Monterey (48), Fresno, Orange Nitrate + Nitrite as N Los Angeles (80), San Bernardino (58), Riverside (31), Tulare (17), Ventura (13) CWS-Satinas; City of Fresno; Bakman Water Company; City of Garden Grove; City of Tustin Radioactivity Uranium San Bernardino (46), Kern (38), Stanislaus (28), Riverside (28), Madera (20), Los Angeles (19); Monterey Cal Water, Lakeland; CWS-Salinas IX, RO, lime softening, coagulation/ filtration Volatile Oranic Chemicals Carbon tetrachloride Los Angeles (95) granular activated carbon San Gabriel Valley Water (GAC), packed tower aeration, Company; City of blending3 Monterey Park; La Puente Valley CWD Southern California Water Company; La Puente Valley CWD 1,2-Dichloroethane Los Angeles (90), El Dorado (1 0) City of Santa Monica; Cat-Am WC — Montara; Riverview WD; CWS-V Salinas; Yosemite Spring Park Utility Company Methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) Los Angeles (6), Kern (5), Monterey, San Mateo, Madera Chapter 11 Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation 1 1 ‘ 3 . '7’ ,,—_ California Water Plan Update 2005 ‘7' .- " Table 11-3 continued Contaminant Counties Affected (it of sources Types of Treatment Used Examples: Water Systems with detections)1 to Contact for Additional Information Tetrachtoroethytene Los Angeles (t 52), San Bemardino City of Burbank; San (PCE) (27), Sacramento (8), Kern (6), Gabriel Valley Water Fresno (5), Monterey Company; City of Monterey Part; EPA- Whittier Na t't'OWS OU; City of Whittier; Southern Catifomia Water Company CWD-Salinas; La Puente Valley CWD Trichtoroethytene Los Angeles (t 96), Fresno ()7), City of Burbank; City of (TCE) Riverside ()4), San Bemardino (t 0), Glendale; Cat Water Butte Service Co, Chico; La Puente Valley CWD Pesticides t,2-Dibromo-3- Fresno (t 2) ), San Joaquin (35), blending, GAC City of Fresno; City of chloropropane (DBCP) Tulare (35), San Bernardino (34), Clovis; City of Sanger; Madera CalWater, Visalia; City of Lodi; City of Madera Ethylene dibromide Fresno (t5), Kern (t t ), San Joaquin blending, GAC, packed tower City of Madera (EDB) (5), Madera aeration City of Fresno; Unregulated Contaminants (No MCL) Inorganic chemical Perchlorate (MCL to be Los Angeles (t 34), San Bemardino IX, biological, blending Catifomia Domestic WC; established—see DHS (80), Riverside (6) ), Orange (3) ), La Puente Valley CWD; website for status) Sacramento ()3), Tulare (8), Santa City of Redtands; San Cta ra (7) Gabriel Valley WC- Fontana; City of Riverside; City of Cotton; City of Riatto; So Cal Water Co., So San Gabriel; City of Morgan Hill Semivolatile. Oranic Chemical N-Nitrosodimethytamine Los Angeles (~5) UV photoionization San Gabriel Valley Water (NDMA) Company; City of Industry; La Puente Valle CWD Volatile Organic Chemical/ Pesticide t,2,3-Trichtoropropane Kern (75), Los Angeles (29), Fresno see VOCs above City of Burbank (1,2,3-TCP) (23), Tulare (18), San Bemardino (t 6), Merced ()3); Riverside (7), San Joaquin (7), San Diego (6), San Mateo (5), Stanislaus (5) t The numbers of sources are from the DHS database, including analyses reported 1994-2002 www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwem/chemicats/monitoring/resutts94-O2.htm except for MTBE, perchlorate, and 1,2,3-TCP, which are through 2003 www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwem/chemicats/chemindex.htm. Arsenic data are from 2000-2002 www.dhs.ca. ov/ s/ddwem/chemicats/arsenic/newmct.htm, and the NDMA estimate is from the narrative at www.dhs.ca.gov7 psEddwechhemica s7NDMA7 historyhtm. For "Regulated Contaminants” the number in parenthesis represents detections greater than MCLs. For "Unregulated Contaminants of Interest” the number represents overall detections. In general, counties with only a few detections are not included, unless an example of a water system providing treatment is provided in a particular county. For more information on drinking water treatment technologies, contact the local DHS drinking water office (see the DHS website for office locations), or contact specific water systems that are addressing a contaminant problem. 2Arsenic currently has an MCL of 50 ppb. In 2006, compliance with a new federal MCL of 10 ppb is required. This will increase the number of sources will detections greater than the MCL from a total of about 70 80 to over 600. 3Some systems are or may be considering use of advance oxidation processes, such as ultraviolet, or ozone for VOC treatment. t t ' 4 Volume 2 Resource Management Strategies California Water Plan Update 2005 Potential Benefits from Remediation of Groundwater The potential benetits ot remediating contaminated groundwater so the water can be used as a pa rt ot the availablewater su pplyare: ' An additional water supply is available that would not be available without remediation ' The cost ot buying an alternative water supply is avoided ' Eventually, through the tlushing action, the aquiter may be cleaned to the point that treatment is no longer required ' Treated groundwater may be blended with other water supplies to increase the total available water supply ' Groundwater From remediation proiects and blended supplies that do not meet drinking water or other high water quality requirements may still be available to meet water needs that do not require such high quality water, thus increasing the overall water supply O Groundwater basins are protected From other threats including additional contamination caused by plume migration, limits to the spatial and temporal Flexibility ot pumping within a basin, and limits to groundwater banking and coniunctive use within the basin. O A supply is maintained that is used throughout the state to meet up to 40 percent of the state’s water demand. Potential Costs The cost ot remediating groundwater includes: ' Cost ot characterizing the groundwater or aquiter, in terms ot all the contaminants present 0 Capital cost ot the system, whether groundwater or aquiter remediation ' Operation and maintenance costs during the lite ot the proiect,‘ remediation may be required tor a long time. Except for responsible parties reimbursed by the Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund (Fund), it is ditticult to estimate the cost ot cleaning contaminated sites. However, the Fund reimburses about $180 million annually to eligible claimants. It is estimated that maior oil companies that have not been reimbursed are expending about $50 million to $100 million annually on their sites. Theretore, costs associated with the cleanup ot all UST sites in Calitornia appear to easily exceed $300 million annually. The cost to clean up an individual UST site typically ranges From $100,000 to $200,000. The cleanup of UST sites that are also contaminated with MTBE is costing significantly more than the average, with reimbursements as high as the Fund limit at $1.5 million per site. Chapter 11 Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation The cost of cleaning up non-UST sites is also highly variable. A site where solvent contamination has reached groundwater may require continuous pump and treat operation tor decades and cost millions of dollars. Based on cost data from the State Water Resources Control Board and the California Department of Health Services, Divi- sion of Drinking Water and Environmental Management, total groundwater remediation costs in California could approach $20 billion over the next 25 years. The estimate is based on currentcosts tor remediation, estimated Future costs For similar remediation, newly discovered contamination, and emerging contaminants. Groundwater remediation also avoids the costs ot losing the aquiter as a water supply. These avoided costs include: 0 Cost ot an alternative water supply 0 Long-term toregone profits and taxes From businesses and activities that decide not locate in the basin because ot water shortages O No opportunity tor development of residential areas because there is no water supply available 0 Contaminant may spread Further, requiring greater and more costly remediation in the tuture. Major Issues Relating to Groundwater Remediation Water Quality Several groundwater quality issues complicate remediation ettorts. The types and the concentration ot the constituents vary from aquiter to aquiter. Contaminated water associated with a hazardous waste Facility, Supertund site, and other sites may contain a variety ot regulated and unregulated contami- nants. Non-point source contamination such as nitrates or elevated levels of boron or salts in agricultural areas can be widespread in the subsurface and can leach into the ground- water trom surtace infiltration or rising groundwater levels. Contaminated water may be poorly characterized, in terms at the contaminants that are present and locating the dimension ot the plume is costly. The sources ot the contamination need to be tound and eliminated (or the amount ot contaminated discharge reduced), so that the groundwater basin can be cleaned. There is always potential tor other contaminants being detected subsequently that could cause the need For additional treatment Facilities. 11'5 California Water Plan Update 2005 Water Quantity Lack ot knowledge about the geometry and characteristics ot the aquiter complicates groundwater remediation. Without this intormation it is not possible to develop a water budget For the remediation. Costs ot Treatment Cost questions can impede groundwater remediation. Who will pay, who are the responsible parties, and what is the appropriate share For each responsible party? Groundwater treatment is expensive and it can take years or decades to remediate contaminated groundwater sites. Delays in imple- menting groundwater remediation while the contaminants spread can signiticantly increase the cost and time required For cleanup. This is especially true it long-term litigation is involved to determine responsible parties. Recommendations to Help Groundwater Remediation The tollowing recommendations tor State action can help protect groundwater quality and remediate when neces- sary to maintain Calitornia’s water resources: T . Provide additional tunding where appropriate to help local agencies and governments implement remediation projects where no Financially solvent responsible parties exist. 2. Identity the responsible parties, so that they can provide tunding to build treatment tacilities and operate and maintain them. 3. Provide technical assistance tor remediation proiects, particularly where no Financially solvent responsible parties exist. 4. The State (SWRCB, RWQCBs, DTSC, DWR) should compile intormation on currently operating remediation proiects, including: 0 Contaminantls) involved 0 Amount at contaminantls) in the aquiter that must be removed, which will require many more monitoring wells 0 Type ot treatment ° Expected length ot operation ot the treatment proiect, which is directly dependent on the data collected 0 Capital cost ot the proiect ii'é 0 Annual operating and maintenance cost, including costs at waste disposal 0 Amount ot groundwater treated per unit time 0 Seasonality ot volume treated (the amount may vary seasonally depending on usage) ° Number at Wells extracting groundwater ° Number ot connections served 0 Measures that could have prevented the contamination 5. Provide local governments and local agencies with State assistance to implement source water protection measures based on the source water assessments thatwere completed as at 2003 to protect recharge areas trom contamination to prevent tuture contamination. 6. Provide State assistance to local agencies to prevent contamination ot recharge areas. 7. The State should develop techniques to inventory, model and evaluate teasible actions to improve the long-term availability ot groundwater and the long-term quality ot groundwater as a vital component ot Calitornia’s water resources For beneticial uses. 8. Local government and local agencies should limit potentially contaminating activities in areas where recharge takes place and work together to develop a sus- tainable good quality long-term water supply tor beneticial uses. Selected References Belitz, Kenneth; Dubrovsky, Neil M.,‘ Burow, Karen; Jurgens, Bryant; and Johnson, Tyler, 2003, Framework tor a Ground-Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Program tor Calitornia, US. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4166 at the Following URL: water.usgs.gov(pubsfwrigwri0341ooz Calitornia Department ot Health Services, Drinking Water: Chemical Contaminants in Drinking Water, available at the Following URL: www.dhs.cagovz psfiddwem g chemicalsg chemindex.htm Calitornia Department ot Health Services, Drinking Water: Overview ot Monitoring Results 1994-2002, and an Indication ot Dominant Contaminants, available at the Following URL: www.dhs.ca .govz ps1 ddwemz chemicalsfimonitoringzresults94-02.htm Volume 2 Resource Management Strategies California Water Plan Update 2005 Calitornia Department ot Health Services, Drinking Water Source Assessment and Protection Program (DWSAP), available at www.dhs.ca. ov s ddwem dWsa DWSAPindex.htm Calitornia State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Clean Water Programs at WWW.$WFCD.CCI .gOVg gt] mag Focazio, Michael J.,‘ Reilly, Thomas E.; Rupert, Michael G.,‘ Helsel, Dennis R., 2002, Assessing Ground-Water Vulnerability to Contamination: Providing Scientifically Detensible Information For Decision Makers, US. Geological Survey Circular 1 224. Freeze, R. Allan; Cherry, John A., 1979, Groundwater, Prentice Hall, 604 p. Information about chemicals: www.cdc. ov niosh n n .html Chapter 11 Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation ii'7 ...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 08/06/2008 for the course ESM 235 taught by Professor Dunne during the Winter '08 term at UCSB.

Page1 / 7

esm223_04_Other_Reading_Calif Water Plan v2_ch_11_only -...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 7. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online