Groundwater in the San Gabriel Valley and the Area 3 Superfund Site

1. Groundwater in the San Gabriel Valley and the Area 3 Superfund Site Presented by the San Gabriel Valley Oversight Group April 10, 2010

2. Who we are The San Gabriel Valley Oversight Group is a non-profit, public benefit 501(c)(3) corporation. We are an independent group of local residents with a concern for our environment Contact:Eric Sunada, Executive Directorwww.sgvog.orgeric.sunada@sgvog.org(626) 589-0440

3. Who we are not • We are NOT affiliated with any local water producer/agency, City, State, Federal government, or corporation. • We are not experts in hydrology or toxicology, but we hire consultants to help us interpret data and assess health risks of contaminants • We go to great lengths to ensure there are no conflicts of interest that could skew our oversight duties • The technical consultant we used to help review contamination data, The Cadmus Group, is based in Watertown MA.

4. Funding for our work None of us at the SGVOG gets paid for what we do. We serve on a volunteer basis. The cost of technical consultants has been partly funded through the use of U.S. EPA Technical Assistance Grant funds. The contents herein do not necessarily reflect the policies, actions, or positions of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The San Gabriel Valley Oversight Group does not speak for nor represent the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

5. Purpose As a fellow resident, the purpose is to share what we have learned and to help the rest of the community become active stakeholders in our water supply Provide background information and definitions of terminology to help residents understand our local water contamination issues It is our strong belief that an informed public is the key to building a stronger, healthier, and more prosperous community

6. Today’s Presentation Groundwater Basics Terminology commonly used by the U.S. EPA and other regulatory agencies Water contaminants found in our area The San Gabriel Valley Area 3 Superfund Site (formerly known as the Alhambra Operable Unit Superfund Site) Findings of our independent review

7. Groundwater • Think of it as a large, natural, underground reservoir • Water which is allowed to percolate down into the groundwater basin is naturally filtered • We are fortunate to have a very large groundwater basin

8. Structure of our Basin • Our groundwater basin is not a series of underground lakes and rivers • It’s essentially porous Earth consisting of alluvia, bedrock, and stone

9. Groundwater Terminology alluvia – sediment bedrock – solid rock that borders the alluvia aquifer – alluvia and bedrock in a geologic formation which is permeable and can store and transport water; often used interchangeably with the term “groundwater basin”

10. Groundwater Storage Capacity Storage capacity of the main San Gabriel groundwater basin: 3,500,000,000,000 gallons of water! That’s like having 85 Lake Perris size reservoirs Source: State of California http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/groundwater/bulletin_118/basindescriptions/4-13.pdf

11. Trivia • Question: How many fresh water lakes in California are NOT man-made reservoirs? • Answer: 3 (with one not entirely in California)! • Clear Lake • Lake Tahoe • Eagle Lake Source: State of California http://www.water.ca.gov

12. Recharging our Groundwater Basin -The Preferred Method: Natural Water Cycle

13. Getting water into the ground isn’t as easy as it used to be As land gets developed and covered with concrete and asphalt, water is no longer able to percolate into the ground During times of rain, water is diverted to storm drains and sent down river to the ocean

14. San Vicente and Fairfax, Los Angeles c.1922

15. San Vicente and Fairfax, Los Angeles c.1922

16. Storm run-off plume, Southern California Coast

17. Today, we rely heavily on man-made recharging techniques Partial dam of rivers to allow percolation Spreading Grounds Injection Wells

18. Spreading Grounds • We do not get enough natural replenishment of our groundwater basin, i.e., we withdraw more water than is naturally deposited • So we end up buying water from either the State Water Project (Northern California) or from the Colorado River • We then pump the water onto open surface areas so that it can percolate down into the basin • These open areas are called spreading grounds

19. Local Spreading Grounds Source: Raymond Basin Management Board, 2006.

20. So how does all this relate to us? • Our portion of the groundwater basin is referred to as the Alhambra Pumping Hole • Alhambra gets about 80% of its water from the Alhambra Pumping Hole.* • This water requires treatment prior to sending it to residents • The remaining 20% is imported • More expensive to import water! * As of 2006, the last set of data that I had access to

21. Trivia • How far does water have to travel to get to us via the State Water Project? • About 575 miles and pumped nearly ¾ of a mile high

22. Problems with the Alhambra Pumping Hole • The local geology makes it difficult to re-charge our area • Water does not flow satisfactorily into our area from other parts of the basin • We have no local spreading grounds which directly recharge the Alhambra Pumping Hole • Direct Injection via ASR wells is not feasible

23. Main San GabrielGroundwater Basin

24. Groundwater Contamination

25. Background VOCs or Volatile Organic Compounds: carbon-containing chemicals that were often used in industrial solvents; health risks include kidney, liver damage, compromised immune system, cancer. LARWQCB: the State agency that works to investigate water contamination. Area 3: Previously known as the Alhambra Operable Unit, it is the name given to the area in the west San Gabriel Valley where groundwater contaminant levels exceed national drinking water standards. Four such areas exist in the San Gabriel Valley. Superfund: also known as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), it authorizes the EPA to clean up contamination caused by chemical spills or hazardous waste sites that could or do pose threats to the environment. Amendments in 1986 authorize citizens to sue violators and establish “community right-to-know” programs. By being listed as a Superfund site (same as being placed on what is called a National Priority List or NPL), we become eligible for federal funding for cleanup efforts. Monitoring well: wells drilled at varying depths by the EPA with the specific purpose of obtaining samples for groundwater contaminant measurements. See following slides for locations of the eight such wells in Area 3. Remedial Investigation: the phase of the EPA’s clean-up process that involves data gathering and health assessments. There’s a long way to go before any clean-up actually begins under this program.

26. Area 3 Superfund Site Ref. USEPA Community Involvement Plan

27. Some more terminology MCL or maximum contaminant level: The maximum permissible level of a contaminant that can be delivered to you as drinking water. MCL’s can vary between Federal and States. COPC or contaminant of potential concern: This is the EPA’s terminology to designate those contaminants which have found in sufficiently high concentrations to pose a health or environmental risk. μg/L or microgram per liter: This is a unit to describe the amount of contaminant found in a liter of water. A microgram is one-millionth of a gram (or about 0.000000035 ounces). By weight, this is equivalent to 1 part per billion or 1 PPB. mg/L or milligram per liter: A milligram is one-thousandth of a gram (or about 0.000035 ounces). By weight, this is equivalent to 1 part per million or 1 PPM.

28. Trivia Question: How much water is needed to dilute a tablespoon of contaminant to reduce its concentration to 1 PPB? Answer: About as much water as is contained in an Olympic-size swimming pool

29. Is my tap water safe to drink? • Yes • Our tap water is regularly tested to meet federal and state health standards • If a well is producing contaminated water, that water is treated by specialized equipment to make it potable (i.e., bring contaminant levels below the MCL standard)

30. So if it’s safe to drink, why should I be concerned about Area 3? • We need to clean up the contamination because: • groundwater is limited due to the closing of the most contaminated wells • it is expensive to treat contaminated water • water imported from other sources, such as the Colorado River, costs more and may not be enough

31. So if it’s safe to drink, why should I be concerned about Area 3? State and federal standards for water quality are based on many factors, not all health-related. Cost-benefit analyses are also considered in setting MCLs. What is deemed safe today may not be in the future even if current detected levels do not change. Ongoing health studies continue to reassess the toxicology of many contaminants.

32. So if it’s safe to drink, why should I be concerned about Area 3? MCLs can differ from state to state. Take the contaminant Perchlorate, which is often found in rocket fuel and dry cleaning fluids and has been found harmful to pregnant women and causes abnormalities of the thyroid gland

33. So if it’s safe to drink, why should I be concerned about Area 3? • Hypothetical situation: there is a contaminant which is present in our groundwater system, but not currently above today’s MCL. Sometime in the future this contaminant ends up violating the MCL, either because the concentration of contamination grew or because the MCL was reduced. • in the case of Perchlorate, this can take a $10M treatment plant used for VOCs and turn it into a $40M plant.

34. Findings from our independent review of the Remedial Investigation Report The following slides summarize the SGVOG’s findings of our review of the Remedial Investigation Report published by the USEPA. The review was conducted by our technical consultant, The Cadmus Group.

35. Map of San Gabriel Valley Area 3 Site showing plumes of groundwater contamination

36. The 7 Key Contaminants Found in the Area 3 Superfund Site = Found in wells which produce drinking water. Water is treated before delivery to the public to ensure it is below MCLs

37. Trichloroethene (TCE) Source: The Cadmus Group (technical advisor for the SGVOG) • A volatile organic compound (VOC) which is contained in solvents • In high doses or in small doses over long periods of time, it may cause* • liver and kidney damage • fetal development problems • cancer

38. Tetrachloroethene (PCE) Source: The Cadmus Group (technical advisor for the SGVOG) • A volatile organic compound (VOC) which is contained in solvents and dry cleaning chemicals • In high doses or in small doses over long periods of time, it may cause* • liver and kidney damage • compromised immune system • cancer

39. 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (1,2,3-TCP) Source: The Cadmus Group (technical advisor for the SGVOG) • A volatile organic compound (VOC) which is contained in pesticides, solvents, and sealants • In high doses or in small doses over long periods of time, it may cause* • liver and kidney damage • compromised immune system • blood damage

40. Nitrate Source: The Cadmus Group (technical advisor for the SGVOG) • A chemical which is contained in fertilizers. Because of the agricultural history of our area, nitrate contamination is widespread throughout the valley and is exempt from Superfund cleanup funds • In high doses or in small doses over long periods of time, it may cause* • blue baby syndrome • hemorrhaging of the spleen

41. Assessment of the EPA’s test methods We asked our consultant: “are the test methods used to collect and evaluate samples consistent with the latest state-of-the-art techniques? Please assess the accuracy and error bars associated with the data.” In general, they said the test methods are “well-established, sensitive, and routinely used”

42. Assessment of the EPA’s test methods • In terms of accuracy and error bars associated with the tests, our consultant said • “With respect to errors, one measure of variability is the reproducibility from duplicate samples taken in the field. The tables below show a few examples of results from field duplicates for four of the key COPCs sampled at EPA monitoring wells. These . . . show the values for the duplicates and the RPD (relative percent difference) between the two”

43. Assessment of the EPA’s health risk assessment • We asked our consultant “Please explain the method by which the health risk assessment is made. Are the conclusions drawn consistent with industry-standard practices and accepted principles?” • “This systematic analysis was reviewed by Cadmus and found to be very thorough including presentation of all available data, and explanation of the process used for hazard identification of chemicals, calculations of exposure assessment, and selection of the most conservative human health criteria to assess risk.” • “The basic approach for the risk assessment was to use the most conservative available site data and human health criteria (i.e., representing the worst-case scenario) and the most conservative contaminant occurrence data (i.e., highest concentrations of contaminants monitored at the site).”

44. Assessment of plume migration • We asked our consultant “Could you please comment on the lack of migration data? Do we truly lack the data to make an assessment of plume migration?” • EPA appears aware of these data limitations, and has prepared the RI, Cadmus believes, as well as would be expected with the data available, and in spite of uncertainty in many areas. Summarized below is the information on plumes and contaminant migration in the RI. • Of five areas where groundwater occurs at Area 3, the most severe contamination is in the southwest and northeast. Representations of the spatial relationships between surfaces structures, groundwater, contaminants, and hydrogeological features at Area 3 are found throughout the RI. See Figure ES-2 in the RI for a simplified conceptual hydrogeology drawing. However, contaminant plumes have not been delineated in Area 3 because the transport mechanism (downward flow as compared to spreading horizontally) is not well-defined, and this significant data limitation produces uncertainty in the RI EPA reported it hopes to improve (Section 8).

45. Summary of our Assessment The EPA has been diligent and thorough in their investigation given limitations due to working across multiple agencies (State, County, City, water providers) Our consultant did not find any discrepancies when comparing their interpretation of the data and health assessments Data gaps still exist, but the EPA is aware and will be working to fill them

46. Path Forward • We should continue to monitor the cleanup process and MCLs • Stay proactive and express our concerns to our local legislators • We are interested in identifying the responsible parties • The EPA is still in the process of identifying those who may be liable • If you ask, they will share with you a list of parties it believes may be liable and to whom they have sent notices

47. Business who have been served notices, as reported in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune -- “EPA to discuss extent of water contamination under Alhambra, San Gabriel, Rosemead Superfund site,” San Gabriel Valley Tribune, April 9, 2010

48. Attend the EPA’s Area 3 meetings to show your concern and support of the cleanup process • EPA will host two public information sessions: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 5:00-7:30 pm (presentation 6:30-7:00 pm) Alhambra Civic Center Library 101 S. First St. Alhambra, CA 91801 Saturday, April 17, 2010 2:00-4:30pm (presentation 3:30-4:00 pm) Rosemead Library 8800 Valley Blvd. Rosemead, CA 91770

49. Contact Information • EPA Contacts: Svetlana Zenkin, Community Involvement Coordinator (415) 972-3085 Zenkin.Svetlana@epa.gov Lisa Hanusiak, Remedial Project manager (415) 972-3152 Hanusiak.Lisa@epa.gov

50. Acknowledgments We would like to thank you for taking the time to attend today’s meeting. Strong community support is key to the cleanup process. We would also like to thank the U.S. EPA for being open and willing to share their data with us and giving us the opportunity to review draft reports. We also appreciate them taking the time to answer all our questions over the years.