The Containment Zone Policy, proposed Amendment of Resolution No. 92-49, Policies and Procedures for Investigation and Cleanup and Abatement of Discharge Under Water Code Section 13304, was the subject of the August 13th GRA Sacramento Branch luncheon meeting. The meeting was jointly sponsored by the Professional Environmental Marketing Association (PEMA). The proposed Containment Zone (CZ) Policy would establish policy and procedures for the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) to establish portions of groundwater bearing units where water quality objectives cannot be reasonably achieved for technical or economic unfeasibility, termed Containment Zones (CZ). The presentation was provided by Christine Bailey, Senior Environmental Specialist with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Clean Water Programs. Margie Youngs, Associate Engineering Geologist also with the SWRCB, assisted Ms. Bailey in a lively question and answer period that followed.

The RWQCBs set the goals for groundwater cleanups to meet water quality objectives of the groundwater basins. The past ten to fifteen years of groundwater restoration effort suggest that the water quality objectives are not generally attainable or economically feasible at California’s polluted sites with current technologies. The RWQCBs went to the SWRCB in December 1994 to initiate a process to provide some statewide consistency in dealing with sites where water quality objectives are determined to be non-attainable (formerly “non-attainment zone”). The proposed CZ Policy is the result of the effort initiated in December 1994. For a CZ to be designated under the proposed policy, the discharger would submit an application to the RWQCB. The application would include the following information: site background; site history; site hydrogeologic characterization; evaluation of all wells in the area with potential to be affected by the CZ; description of discharge, and the nature and extent of pollution; demonstration that achieving water quality objectives is unreasonable; completed and planned source removal actions and pollutant mass reduction; proposed CZ boundaries; evaluation of potential impacts to water quality, human health and environment; statement by the discharger that the site is not located within a critical recharge area; maps, cross sections, and figures that show the location of the CZ and contaminant boundaries and land use restrictions; and a management plan for review and approval. The management plan would address the following: source removal; pollutant mass removal from groundwater; description of engineering controls necessary to minimize further impacts from the pollutant source, and prevent water quality impacts and risks to human health and the environment; mitigation measures, schedule and reporting requirements; detailed monitoring plan; detailed monitoring data evaluation methodology; detailed description of protocols to follow if the data indicates that water quality objectives have been exceeded outside the CZ due the pollution within the CZ; report frequency and content of reports; well maintenance, replacement and decommissioning procedures; protocol for management plan modification; file and database maintenance requirements.

As indicated above, for a CZ to be designated the discharger would be required to develop and implement a management plan to assess, cleanup, abate, manage, monitor, and mitigate significant human health and environmental impacts to the satisfaction of the RWQCB. Dischargers would have to monitor according to the approved management plan. Pollution would have to be contained such that water quality objectives are not exceeded outside the CZ. The CZ size would be limited such that it may not cause substantial decline in overall yield, storage, or transport capacity of a groundwater basin. There would be a ban on CZs in critical recharge areas, and where inconsistent with local groundwater management plans. With limited exceptions, a CZ would only be designated with written agreement of owners of property overlying a CZ.

The application would be reviewed by RWQCB with reimbursement for review, and if approved, the CZ designation would be under a cleanup and abatement order. There is a public participation element of the proposed approval process which includes a notification and comment period, and availability of written materials for public review. Various health and water agencies would be notified of RWQCB consideration of a CZ designation, and would meet as a technical advisory committee at the request of any of the agencies.

Under the proposed policy, once a CZ is designated, the RWQCB would not require any further reduction of pollutants levels (within the CZ). However, the CZ designation would be revoked if the conditions of the management plan are not fully implemented, or water quality objectives are violated beyond the CZ. Subsequent to water quality objectives being met within the CZ, the CZ designation would be rescinded by RWQCB. Technical Impracticability Waivers by the U.S. EPA or the Cal EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control would be deemed equivalent if certain substantive requirements of the CZ policy were met (monitoring, mitigation, public participation).

The final hearing on the proposed policy was the July 3, 1996, SWRCB meeting where the Board stipulated a final comment period to 5:00 pm July 15, 1996. Board staff were to address comments, and prepare the final draft policy for a vote by the Board at the August 15, 1996 SWRCB meeting. If the proposed policy does not pass the Board vote, it could either get shelved indefinitely or go back to the drawing board for re-vamping. If the proposed policy passes the Board vote, the policy would go to the State Office of Administrative Law for a 30 day review, and if approved, on to the office of the Secretary of State for signature (another 30 days).

The Board tabled the vote on the CZ Policy at the August 15th SWRCB meeting. The vote was tabled as a result of the Board receiving additional comments on the proposed CZ Policy in a recent letter from the Chairs of the RWQCB. It is unclear when the Board received the letter, but it was past the final comment period date of July 15, and recently enough that the Board had not yet had time to review the letter. The Board agreed to review the letter and determine if the comments are substantive. If the Board determines the comments are substantive, and agrees to address/incorporate the comments, it seems likely that the public review period will have to be re-opened. This probably means another three to six months in the process. Of course, the Board could elect to ignore the twelfth hour comments from the RWQCBs and vote. It will be interesting to see what happens next!

Tim Parker, CEG, CH, is a Project Manager for Law Engineering and Environmental Services in Sacramento.