of california hexavalent chromium in groundwater summit · 2016-04-28 · handbook, thanks to...

1

Volume 10, No. 1 Spring 2001GROUNDWATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

O F C A L I F O R N I A

INSIDE

The Groundwater Resources Association

of California is dedicated to resource

management that protects and improves

groundwater through education and

technical leadership.

President’s Message 2

Committees Reviewed at GRA Retreat 3

Chemist’s Corner 8

Clean Water Act 9

A Review of the Technical Committee 10

CCGO Makes Great Progress 16

Continued on page 4

Hexavalent Chromium inGroundwater Summit

BY MARTIN STEINPRESS AND FRIENDS

well received by GRA members and otherwater agency, regulatory, consultants, andenvironmental professionals. Manyattendees appreciated that GRA hadbrought science and common sense to thehexavalent chromium issue, which hasbecome a front-page news issue in Southern

California since the film Erin Brockovichpremiered. The meeting defined the currentknowledge of the problem using the SanFernando Valley as a case study. GRAbrought together leading national and stateexperts to present on all facets of the issue,including senior staff from USEPA, DTSC,OEHHA, DHS, water agencies, and

The First in GRA’s GroundwaterContaminant Series is a Success.

GRA’s full-day symposium onJanuary 25th in Glendale, whichfocused on the rapidly developing

problem of how to addresslow levels of hexavalentchromium in groundwater,was well attended andprovided a comprehensiveoverview of thiscontroversial drinking waterissue. The symposium was

Continued on page 24

GRA Announces Its Second Symposiumin “The Groundwater Contaminant Series”

GRA and the Santa Clara ValleyWater District’s LeakingUnderground Storage Tank

Oversight Program (LUSTOP) will behosting the second symposium in The Serieson Groundwater Contaminants titled“Characterization and Remediation ofRecalcitrant and Emerging Contaminants.”The Symposium will be at the District’sSpecial Projects Building on WinfieldAvenue in San Jose on June 14th and 15th.The Northern California Fuel OxygenatesCommittee is also sponsoring the event.

The conference will include the followingsessions: (1) Bioremediation of MtBE; (2)Solvent Stabilizers and EmergingContaminants: Occurrence, Behavior, andTreatment of 1,4-dioxane and othercompounds; (3) Innovative In-Situ

“People want to know, ‘Is it [water] safe?’...even if youtell us it is safe, we won’t believe you. Only if you drinkthe water for 10 years, then we’d believe you when yousay it is safe.”

Joe Gonzalez, Attorney,Masery & Vititee

2

President’s MessageB Y T I M P A R K E R

HYDROVISIONS is the official publicationof the Groundwater Resources Association ofCalifornia (GRA). GRA’s mailing address is P.O.Box 1446, Sacramento, CA 95812. Anyquestions or comments concerning thecontents of this publication should be directedto the newsletter editor. The editor may alsobe reached by email.

[email protected] DIRECTOR

Kathy SnelsonGroundwater Resources Association

(916) 446-3626 - e-mail: [email protected]

DIRECTORSVicki Kretsinger-GrabertLuhdorff and Scalmanini

(530) 661-0109

Paul DoreyVista Irrigation District


Tony WardMontgomery Watson


Brian LewisCal/EPA, Dept. of Toxic Substances Control(916) 323-3632 - e-mail: [email protected]

David AbbottTodd Engineers


Susan Garcia(562) 435-4055

e-mail: [email protected]

Jim JacobsFast-Tek

(510) 232-2728 - e-mail:[email protected]

Jim CarterEMAX Labs

(310) 618-8889e-mail: [email protected]

Scott SlaterHatch and Parent(805) 882-1420

email: [email protected]

Tim ParkerCalifornia Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG)


Martin Steinpress(925) 975-3476

email: [email protected]

EXECUTIVE OFFICERSPresident, Tim Parker

California Division of Mines and Geology(916) 322-6968 - e-mail: [email protected]

Vice President, Tony WardMontgomery Watson


Treasurer, David Von AspernWallace - Kuhl & Associates

(916) [email protected]

Secretary, Jim CarterEMAX Labs


Editor Floyd FloodNewsletter e-mail: [email protected]

Welcoming in 2001, I am verypleased to report that GRA’s tenthyear is shaping up to be our best

year yet. This is thanks to the efforts of allour volunteers at the Statewide and Branchlevel, our Executive Director and Webmaster,and all our supporters. I cannot thank youenough on behalf of our Board, ourMembership, and myself.

The results of the Board of Director electionsare in: please welcome Martin Steinpress ofMontgomery Watson, Walnut Creek as a newGRA Director; incumbents Paul Dorey andDavid Abbott were each re-elected to anotherthree year term.

Our January 2001 Retreat and BoardMeeting was held at the Marconi ConferenceCenter in Marshall (Tomales Bay) California.I am delighted to say all our Board Membersmade this unique offsite element of our annualplanning session possible through theirfinancial support of the activity. Carl Hauge,an esteemed California groundwater expert,longtime GRA member, supporter, and friendfacilitated GRA at our retreat. Through theretreat, we were able to once again evaluateGRA as an organization, who we are,consider our membership makeup, focus ourenergies, plan our program this year andprepare for the next several years. One ofthe annual elements we are planning to do isa member survey- look for a survey to comeyour way soon and please take the fewminutes it takes to respond and send it backto us so that GRA may better serve andrepresent you, the membership.

Our committees continue to be the backboneof our work and accomplishments. We arealways looking for additional help on ourcommittees - please look at the article on GRAcommittees in this issue of HydroVisions tosee if there is a place for you on one of ourcommittees.

We have two new workshops in 2001, thefirst two of our Groundwater ContaminantsSymposium series:

Hexavalent Chromium Summit in GlendaleJanuary 25th, which at the time of thiswriting, is shaping up to be a great successthanks to the support of many of ourcorporate members - our heartfelt thanks goout to you; and

Recalcitrant Contaminants, joint two-daysession with the Santa Clara Valley WaterDistrict, in mid-June.

We are also planning to do the EnvironmentalStatistics Seminar in the summer 2001, andthe Groundwater Modeling Course in the fall2001.

Our annual meeting will be in November 1st& 2nd in Sacramento and will be conductedjointly with the Biennial GroundwaterConference, sponsored by CaliforniaDepartment of Water Resources, State WaterResources Board, University of CaliforniaCenters for Water and Wildland Resources,and Water Education Foundation. We are inthe process of planning some special annualmeeting anniversary activities to mark ourtenth year.

We are working on the revision to theCalifornia Groundwater Managementhandbook, thanks to contributions frommany sources. Our largest contributor,Schlumberger/West Bay Instruments, hasagreed to fund up to $40,000 for the revision.GRA is planning to complete the effort in thesummer, and have copies of the documentavailable at the annual meeting in November2001.

The By Laws Amendment passed last month,which will allow GRA to expand our Boardof Directors from 11 to a maximum of fifteen.This gives GRA the opportunity to expandits programs and diversity further through theaddition of one to four Directors.

Finally, I hope that 2001 finds you in goodspirits in this time of change, with the partingof President Clinton and entrance of PresidentBush and his new Cabinet, the energy andwater issues we now have, this indeedpromises to be a year of challenge.

Best Regards, Tim.

3

Committees Reviewed at Board RetreatMembership Committee:

Paul Dorey, Chair, David Von Aspern,Kevin Blatt, Kathy Snelson

Expand our membership. Current projectsinclude analyzing what groups do werepresent and what groups are under-represented, coordinating with thebranches, continuing our membershipdrive, creating promotional wear, andestablishing three contacts with Universityof California Davis, California StateUniversity Sacramento, and University ofthe Pacific. The following tasks will beundertaken:1. Demographic review & report to Board

on:a. Who are we?b. Who are underrepresented?

2. Establish ‘real’ contacts with Branches’member coordinatorsa. What are we doing for them?b. What do we need to do for them?

3 Exploration of a ‘Membership Drive’a. Establish a goal of growthb. Suggest some plans to Branch Officersand the Board of Directors

STUDENT MEMBERSHIP1. Establish at least 3 collegiate bases

a. UOPb. UCDc. CSUS

2. Student needs:a) Currentb) Futurec) Scholarships

Education Committee:

Susan Garcia, Chair, Vicki KretsingerGrabert, Scott Slater, and Jim Carter

Strengthen educational programs withWater Education Foundation and theAmerican Groundwater Trust. Currentprojects include supporting GroundwaterAwareness Month in May andGroundwater Week in November

Seminar Committee:

Jim Carter, Chair, Brian Lewis, VickiKretsinger Grabert, Tim Parker, andBarbara Heinsch

Mission: Establish GRA as a leader intracking information on “newcontaminants” that effect our GroundwaterResources, and conduct workshops andsymposia to distribute that information

Goals: (1) Conduct three Symposia in 2001as part of the Series of GroundwaterContaminates

(2) Conduct two Training Seminars in 2001(3) Establish a minimum financial goal of$5k net for each Symposium, and evaluatebudget of the Training Seminars

HydroVisions Committee:

Floyd Flood, Chair, Brian Lewis, DavidAbbott, and David Von Aspern

Create a newsletter that is timely andinformative. Current projects includecreating four newsletter during the year,building advertising revenue, and keepingcontent timely and technical.

By-laws Committee:

Tony Ward and Scott Slater

Ensure the organization is following by-laws and keeping them current. Currentprojects include following-up on the recentchange of by-laws vote and reviewing by-laws and making recommendations forApril meeting.

Legislative/Regulatory Committee:

Michael Fife, Co-Chair, Scott Slater Co-Chair, Tony Ward, Jim Jacobs, Tim Parker

The purpose of the Legislative Committeewill be to monitor pending legislativeproposals and regulations in California thatmay be of interest to the GRA membership.The Legislative Committee will track newlegislation and present the GRAmembership with a summary and shortanalysis of each piece of relevant legislation.The Committee will then seek input fromthe GRA membership and, based upon thisinput, consider developing positions on thelegislation for presentation to decision-makers and the general public. For more

Continued on page 7

At January 14th Board retreat, thefollowing committees werereviewed and discussed. Some of

these committees are continuingcommittees while others are newcommittees. If you would like to beinvolved in any of these committees, pleasecontact the chair or any members. As avolunteer organization, your help andknowledge are needed to keep ourorganization growing.

Executive Committee:

Tim Parker, Chair, Vicki KretsingerGrabert, Brian Lewis, Tony Ward, andKathy Snelson

The Executive Committee researches issuesand makes recommendations to the Boardof Directors.

Current projects include reviewing Retreatoutcome - Synthesis/ providing directionand Updating the Boards’ Handbook.

Annual Meeting Committee:

Vicki Kretsinger Grabert, Chair, TimParker, David Abbot, Jim Carter, SusanGarcia, and Kathy Snelson

Promote Annual meeting and suggestspeakers. Build exhibitor contact list.Current projects include working withBiennial Conference planning Committeeon technical program of interest to GRAand the ground-water industry, developingtopics that provide a prelude to futureseminars/workshops/activities, andincreasing promotional aspects for AnnualMeeting (broaden awareness of event)

Finance Committee:

David Von Aspern, Chair, Brian Lewis, andDavid Abbott

Advance planning for budget, tracking, andbudget history. Current projects includecreating a pie chart of where ourmembership dues cover and drafting abudget in August for approval at NovemberBoard meeting.

4

Hexavalent Chromium inGroundwater SummitContinued from page 1

Continued on page 5

prominent law firms.

The symposium consisted of four sessionsthat focused on hexavalent chromium’sGeochemical Characteristics andDistribution; Risk/Toxicology and Testing;S o c i a l ,Political, andLegal Issues;and RegulatoryApproach andRemediation.There was also a lunchtime presentation onthe hexavalent chromium issue in drinkingwater by representatives of the Cities ofBurbank and Glendale. A completedescription of the individual speaker’spresentations (as well as additionalinformation and links) is provided onGRA’s web page (www.grac.org), whichwill also provide updates on this and otherbreaking groundwater issues.

The first session on geochemicalcharacteristics and distribution provided asolid foundation for the day, withsummaries of chromium’s geochemicalcharacteristics by Douglas Kent with theUS Geological Survey, Menlo Park, andCarl Palmer with the Idaho NationalEngineering and Environmental laboratory(INEEL), Idaho Falls. Under naturalconditions, total chromium is presentprimarily as chromium (III), or trivalentchromium, which tends to form insoluble

hydrous oxides at neutral to alkaline pHvalues. Chromium (VI), or hexavalentchromium, is generally not known to bethe predominant natural form of totalchromium in groundwater, with someexceptions. Hexavalent chromium behaviorat contaminated sites is complex. DixonOriola of the Los Angeles Regional WaterQuality Control Board provided anoverview of hexavalent chromiumcontamination in the San Fernando Valley,where the Board has recently launched acomprehensive investigation concentrating

on hexavalent chromium sources associatedwith industrial activities between the 1940’sand 1980’s.

The second session focused on risk,toxicology, and testing for hexavalentchromium.

Dr. Bruce Macler, a toxicologist withUSEPA, Region 9 opened the session withthe USEPA’s risk management approachthat established Maximum Contaminant

Level (MCL) set bythe USEPA fortotal chromium of100 ug/l. USEPAr e c o g n i z e sh e x a v a l e n tchromium as a

known human carcinogen by inhalation,but not by oral ingestion. In contrast, Dr.Robert Howd of Cal/EPA’s Office ofEnvironmental Health Hazard Assessment(OEHHA) explained that OEHHAconsiders hexavalent chromium an oralcarcinogen based on cancer evidence via theoral route and has developed a PublicHealth Goal (PHG) of 2.5 ug/l for totalchromium. Dr. David Spath, CaliforniaDepartment of Health Services, thendescribed DHS’s current reevaluationof the existing MCL for totalchromium and consideration of a newMCL for hexavalent chromiumtriggered by the new PHG. DHS mustconsider the feasibility of settingMCLs as close to the PHG as feasible whilealso reviewing the technical and economicalfeasibility for water purveyors to achievesuch MCLs. In January 2001, an emergencyregulation was released that requiresvulnerable water systems to monitor forhexavalent chromium so that DHS candevelop a database on chromium’sdistribution. Dr. Bart Simmons withDepartment of Toxic Substances Control’sHazardous Materials Laboratory

discussed the analytical methods used forhexavalent chromium analysis of soil andgroundwater. Some of the keyconsiderations with regard to DOHS’specified method for analysis of hexavalentchromium in drinking water (EPA 218.6)is the detection limit for reporting (1 ug/l),the short holding time (24 hours), and thelow number of laboratories certified inCalifornia for the analysis.

A tale of two cities was provided by thetwo lunchtime speakers, Don Froelich, City

of Glendale, and Fred Lantz, BurbankWater and Power. Both speakershighlighted the political and technicalcommunication challenges of thehexavalent chromium controversy, whichhas produced a high number of concernedcalls from citizens about the quality of watersince the chromium issue has appeared innumerous press articles. The cost to treat tothe hexavalent chromium public health goal(PHG) would be in the millions of dollarrange. A common challenge the cities arefaced with on all levels is how to communicatethe technical issues related to hexavalentchromium, such as the difference betweenthe total chromium PHG of OEHHA, themaximum contaminant limit goal andmaximum contaminant limit of US EPA, thedifferent MCLs of California, and how thetotal chromium values relate to hexavalentchromium.

The third session focused on the social,political and legal issues associated withhexavalent chromium in groundwater, andfeatured presentations from threeprominent environmental attorneys and aspeaker from the California League ofConservation Voters (CLCV). Dr. Joe Lyou

of the CLCV opened the session byproviding the perspective of the citizen andenvironmental groups, and described thepublic’s general unwillingness to tolerateany level of industrial contamination intheir water supply, irrespective of the “safe”levels mandated by Federal or Stategovernment. He stressed that hexavalentchromium was just the latest symptom ofa bigger problem: the failure to recognizecontamination problems and take actionuntil after the damage has been done. Thesecond speaker was Joe Gonzalez, anenvironmental attorney with Masry andVititoe, the plaintiff law firm featured inthe movie “Erin Brockovich” on theHinkley case. Mr. Gonzalez gave animpassioned plea to polluters, regulatorsand the impacted parties to resolve theseissues without involving lawyers andexpressed disappointment that theregulatory system had not been able to

“People should never be exposed to a chemical [intheir water] unless they know about it.”


“If the chemical does not belong in thewater, then don’t have it in there.”


“Let real science work out these issues and notwork it out in a fit of hysteria.”

Steven L. Hoch, Attorney,Hatch and Parent

5

protect the State’swater resourcesf r o mcontaminat ion.Steve Hoch withHatch and Parent(and former leadcounsel for PG&Ein the Hinkleycase) rejected some of the precedingopinions, noting that in many instancescontingency law firms do not take on casesto “save the planet” but rather to win bigfinancial judgments. He also focused onthe position of public and private waterutilities caught in the middle between thepolluter and the public. The final presenterwas Tom Meador with the law firm ofWeston, Benshoof, Rochefort, Rubalcavaand MacCuish. He presented the view ofthe “accidental discharger” and indicatedthat most large corporations will takeaction to address their contaminationproblems; however, they must be held to areasonable standard. He also highlightedthat many of the sources of hexavalentchromium are small “mom and pop”plating operations that do not have thefinancial resources to clean-up large,regional contamination problems and hesuggested that a State fund might be neededto implement these clean-ups.

The final session on regulatory approachand remediation expanded on the problemsdescribed by the lunch-time speakers, and

addressed consequences of the concernsresulting from the very low PHGsdeveloped by OEHHA. Mel Blevins, theCourt-appointed Upper Los Angeles RiverArea (ULARA) Watermaster since 1979,has been asked repeatedly to give updatesto the Los Angeles City Council on thechromium issue, including past historical

discharges to surface drainage areas. Mr.Blevins has also been asked to participatein the request from cities looking to obtaincompensation for dealing with chromium-

related impacts towater distribution,including the cityof Glendale, whichis currentlychoosing not touse large amountsof water thatcurrently meetshealth standards.Dr. Kimiko Klein

with the Human and Ecological RiskDivision (HERD) of Cal/EPA DTSC thenpresented the current implementation ofPHGs for contaminated soils. DTSC isfaced with selecting clean up levels for soilbased on (1) direct cancer toxicity values,and (2) potential impact from soil togroundwater. Dr. Klein also mentioned thecurrent debate on whether the PHG shouldbe considered an Applicable, Relevant orAppropriate Requirement (ARAR) infeasibility studies. Dr. Carl Palmer ofINEEL summarized six current remediationtechniques for sites contaminated withhexavalent chromium: “pump and treat”,electrokinetics (electromigration), reduction,b i o r e m e d i a t i o n(microbes), permeablereactive barriers(PRBs), and naturalattenuation. Thesetechnologies have thepotential forp r o m i s i n gapplications, with theu n d e r l y i n grequirement for ad e t a i l e dunderstanding of the complex geochemicalconditions of a contaminated site.

GRA wishes to thank our cooperatingagencies: the International Association ofHydrogeologists (IAH), CaliforniaGroundwater Association (CGA), AmericanGroundwater Trust (AGWT), WaterEducation Foundation (WEF), NationalGround Water Association (NGWA),Professional Environmental MarketingAssociation (PEMA), and Association ofCalifornia Groundwater Agencies (ACWA).We also wish to thank our co-sponsors BestSulfur Products, Calscience EnvironmentalLaboratories, Inc., CH2M HILL, Earth

Hexavalent Chromium inGroundwater SummitContinued from page 4

Tech, Hatch & Parent, MontgomeryWatson, and Pat-Chem Laboratories. GRAalso thanks the speakers, break and lunchsponsors, and the GRA organizing committeeled by Jim Carter. The CrVI issue is evolvingrapidly, and GRA plans an updatesymposium within a year.

The next symposium in GRA’sGroundwater Contaminant Series willfocus on the Characterization andRemediation of Recalcitrant and Emerging

Contaminants (including MtBE and solventstabilizers such as 1,4-dioxane), and willbe cosponsored by the Santa Clara ValleyWater District and Northern CaliforniaMTBE & Fuel Oxygenates Committee.This symposium will be held at the SantaClara Valley Water District campus on June14 and 15, 2001. Future symposia in theseries are planned for arsenic andperchlorate. Visit GRA’s web page(www.grac.org) for updates and to offersuggestions or help.

In reference to property underlain withcontaminated groundwater, “Real estateproperty does not devalue. It is the lawsuitswhich allege that property values have beendevalued when the real estate gets devalued.”

Tom Meador, Attorney, Weston,Benshoof, Rubalcava & MacCuish

“If there really is a problem with hexavalentchromium at low levels, then why haven’t we setup a fund like we did with petroleum?”

Tom Meador, Attorney, Weston,Benshoof, Rubalcava & MacCuish

“Public Health Goals [for hexavalentchromium]...really thought it was flawed.”

Mel Blevins, Upper Los AngelesRiver Area Watermaster

With respect to industries responses toenvironmental cleanups, “....reactive ratherthan proactive, ...reactive system does notwork, need to be more proactive.”

Dr. Joseph K. Lyou,Director of Programs, California League of

Conservation Voters Education Fund, Communities fora Better Environment, Legal Issues for

Citizen and Environmental Groups

6

GRA sincerely thanks its Program Co-sponsors, Co-operators, Exhibitors, Lunch

Co-sponsor, Reception Sponsor and Refreshment Co-sponsors for their generous

support of the GRA Symposium “Hexavalent Chromium in Groundwater”.

Program Co-SponsorsBest Sulfur ProductsCalscience Environmental Laboratories,Inc.CH2M HILLEarth TechHatch and ParentMontgomery WatsonPat-Chem Laboratories

Co-OperatorsInternational Association ofHydrogeologists (IAH)Water Education Foundation (WEF)

California Groundwater Association(CGA)

National Ground Water Association(NGWA)

American Ground Water Trust (AGWT)

The Professional EnvironmentalMarketing Association (PEMA)

Association of California Water Agencies(ACWA)

ExhibitorsArcadis Geraghty & MillerBest Sulfur ProductsCalscience Environmental Laboratories,Inc.CH2M HILLDIONEXEarth TechEMAX Laboratories, Inc.FOSS EnvironmentalKOMEXIn-Situ Inc.Montgomery WatsonPat-Chem LaboratoriesWest Coast Analytical Service, Inc.

Lunch Co-SponsorWest Coast Analytical Service, Inc.

Reception SponsorHatch and Parent

Refreshment Co-SponsorsMcGuire Environmental Consultants

Foss Environmental

KOMEX

2001 DIRECTORELECTION RESULTS

Abbott and Dorey Re-elected;Steinpress starts as new Director

The election for 2001 Directors hasbeen officially completed.Incumbents David Abbott and Paul

Dorey retained their Board seats, andMartin Steinpress was newly elected. TheBoard is looking forward to an active andsuccessful year with its current slate ofDirectors, and welcomes Mr. Steinpress tothe Board.

GRA greatly appreciates the time and effortthe membership took to vote and returntheir ballots.

BY-LAW AMENDMENT PASSAGE ALLOWSINCREASE IN NUMBER OF BOARD SEATS

The GRA membership overwhelminglyapproved the proposed By-law amendment toallow the Board of Directors to expand toa maximum of 15 Directors. Havingadditional Board seats will provide anopportunity for more members andindustry representatives to provideleadership in carrying out the Association’smission and objectives.

GRA greatly appreciates the time and effortthe membership took to vote and returntheir ballots by the initial (and extended)deadlines.

7

information contact Michael Fife at (805)882-1453 or [email protected].

Technical Advisory Committee:

Jim Jacobs, Chair, Martin Steinpress, TerryForeman, and Paul Parmentier

The technical advisory committee wasformed to evaluate new technical challengesas they arise. Last year, the focus wasMTBE, and the committee developed awhite paper regarding MTBE, which waspublished in HydroVisions and thecompleted paper will reside on the GRAweb site. This year, Chromium 6+ will beevaluated, as will other technical issues asthey relate to protecting groundwaterresources. Other topics include solventstabilizers and other recalcitrantcompounds.

Awards Committee:

Tony Ward, Chair, Scott Slater, and BrianLewis

Work with Branch Officers to havemembers recognized for their contributionsto GRA or to California’s Groundwater.Current project include having nomineesat the August Board meeting for “KevinNeese Memorial Award” and “LifetimeAchievement Award.”

Electronic Communications Committee:

The committee members include MartinSteinpress (Chair), Paul Dorey, VickiKretsinger Grabert, Kevin Blatt, and KathySnelson.

A new committee has been formed topromote and implement improvedelectronic communication in GRA. Thecommittee will build on the already greatGRA web page that Kevin Blatt hasdeveloped. If you haven’t yet visited it,please do so (www.grac.org). TheElectronic Communication Committee’sgoals are to:

* Maintain and continue to improve GRA’sWeb Page for members and the public

* Develop an electronic newsletter toprovide members with brief timely updateson new legislation, regulations, committeeactions, meeting announcements, etc.

* Enhance the Web Page to supportmember, board, branch, and committeecollaboration (such as discussion forumsand work areas)

Affiliates Committee:

Vicki Kretsinger Grabert, Chair, TonyWard, David Abbott, and Gene Luhdorff

Work with other organizations to supportgroundwater issues within California.Current projects include developing criteriafor affiliation, cooperating with othercommittees to develop strategic alliances,and coordinating activities with alliedorganizations.

enviro-techpick up

Committees ReviewedContinued from page 3

8

Chemist’s CornerChemist’s Cornerconcentration. EPA 8270, on the otherhand, normally only detects compoundswhich can be extracted bydichloromethane (methylene chloride)under the specified conditions,chromatographed, and detected by amass spectrometer.

Of particular interest are hydrophiliccompounds, that is, water-lovingcompounds. If they have a strongpreference for water over air, they maynot be purgable. A low Henry’s Lawcoefficient, the ratio of a compound’svapor pressure to its water solubility,indicates compounds which may not bepurgable. Similarly, if a compound isalso more soluble in water thandichloromethane, it may not bedetectable by normal 8270 extractionand analysis. Needless to say,hydrophilic compounds, particularlythose resistant to biodegradation, are ofconcern for groundwater contamination.In large part, the usual analyticaltechniques do not measure the

Ironically, the compounds most likelyto contaminate groundwater are notlikely to be detected by the usual testmethods. Conventional organic testmethods are: “VOCs,” Volatile OrganicCompounds (e.g., EPA 8260), andSVOCs - Semi-volatile OrganicCompounds (e.g., EPA 8270). Whenused together, the two methods wouldappear to be comprehensive in scope.However, the methods are actuallyquite limited in the number ofcompounds which can be detected andeven more limited in the number ofcompounds which can be quantitatedusing the normal techniques. Asnormally practiced, EPA 8260 measurespurgable organics, that is, compoundswhich can be purged from water,trapped on a solid sorbent, thermallydesorbed, chromatographed, anddetected by a mass spectrometer.Several other techniques are includedin 8260, such as direct injection of awater sample and cryogenic

Hydrophilics AnonymousBY BART SIMMONS

compounds with the highest potential forgroundwater contamination.

As an example, the major organiccontaminant at the Stringfellow Site inRiverside County was not detected byeither 8260 or 8270. The compound, firstidentified by the EPA NationalEnvironmental Investigations CenterLaboratory in Denver, was p-chlorobenzene sulfonic acid (p-CBSA),which is non-purgable and not extractableby dichloromethane in 8270. p-CBSA isa by-product of DDT manufacture, andhas also been found at other sites whichreceived DDT wastewater.

Another source of hydrophilic compoundsis solvent stabilizers. These compoundsare present in industrial solventformulations to scavenge free radicals, actas antioxidants, or react with acids. TomMohr of the Santa Clara Valley WaterDistrict ([email protected]) hasaccumulated the following list of solventstabilizers.

Of these stabilizers, identified groundwatercontaminants include 1,4-Dioxane andTetrahydrofuran (THF). (1,4 - Dioxaneshould not be confused with the unrelated


Solvent: 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Trichloroethylene

Stabilizers: 1,4 - Dioxane 1, 4 - Dioxane

1,3 -Dioxalane Acetone

Nitromethane Butylene Oxide

1,2 - Butylene Oxide Propylene Oxide

sec- Butanol Tetrahydrofuran

Epichlorohydrin

Triethylamine

Diisopropylamine

Pyridine

Pyrrole

Alkyl Pyrroles

2-Methylphenyl cresol

9

Navigating the New Clean Water Act:Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers

and Federal Regulation of Groundwater PollutionBY JUSTIN J. LUCKEHATCH AND PARENT


INTRODUCTION

Recently, the United StatesSupreme Court decided a casethat will have wide-ranging

impact on federal environmentalregulation. In Solid Waste Agency ofNorthern Cook County v. United StatesArmy Corps of Engineers, no. 99-1178(January 9, 2000), the Court sought toanswer two questions: (1) can thelanguage of Clean Water Act /˚404 (a),regulating filling in of wetlands, extendto isolated ponds in an abandoned stripmine? And (2) If so, is that exercise ofauthority within the scope of thecommerce power? In its decision, theCourt not only curtailed the ArmyCorps of Engineers’ jurisdiction, itcharted a new, limited, and ultimatelyunclear course for future actions underthe Clean Water Act.

BACKGROUND

Solid Waste Agency of Northern CookCounty (SWANCC), a consortium ofChicago-area cities, bought a 533-acresand and gravel mine, abandoned since1960, to use as a disposal site for baled,non-hazardous solid waste. The sitehad largely returned to nature, withforest covering the mining scars and thetrenches turned to seasonal andpermanent ponds. SWANCC obtainedstate and local approval, and alsosought a permit from the Army Corpsof Engineers (Corps), to fill in some ofthe ponds on the site - an actionostensibly within the Corps’jurisdiction under section 404(a) of theClean Water Act (CWA).

Initially, the Corps told SWANCC that nopermit was required because the pondswere isolated and not within the Corps’jurisdiction. Subsequently, based oninformation from a local conservationgroup, the Corps identified more than 121migratory bird species at the site. As aresult, the Corps required SWANCC to filefor a permit under section 404(a). Despitea reduction in the scope of the project andSWANCC’s compliance with state and localregulations, the Corps denied the permit.

SWANCC filed suit in the Illinois DistrictCourt challenging the denial under both theAdministrative Procedure Act (APA), 5United States Code sections 701, et seq.,and on jurisdictional grounds. The districtcourt granted summary judgment to theCorps on the jurisdictional issue, andSWANCC chose to abandon its APA claimand immediately appeal.

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed theDistrict Court’s grant of summary judgmentand held that the Corps’ regulation waswithin the commerce power because, in theaggregate, impacts on migratory birdswould have an impact on commerce. Then,according to the court, since the CWAreaches as far as the commerce clauseallows, this extension of jurisdiction wasconstitutional. SWANCC sought review inthe Supreme Court, which grantedcertiorari.

THE DECISION

The Court, with Justice Rehnquist writingfor the majority,1 held that jurisdictionunder section ˚404 is limited to waters thathave some connection to waters that areactually navigable, and reversed the SeventhCircuit. The Court did not reach thequestion of whether or not it was

permissible for the Corps to regulatein this matter based on the presence ofmigratory birds, instead holding thatthe CWA did not apply to isolatedwetlands. Thus any regulation, themigratory bird rule included, thatapplied to isolated water would beinvalid.

The CWA gives the Corps the powerto regulate all “discharge of dredge orfill material into the navigable waters.”(/˚404(a).) In turn, the CWA defines“navigable waters” as “the waters ofthe United States.” (/˚502(7); 33 U.S.C./˚1362(7).) Currently, the Corps’regulations define “waters of theUnited States” as:

waters such as intrastate lakes,rivers, streams (includingintermittent streams), mudflats,sandflats, wetlands, sloughs,prairie potholes, wet meadows,playa lakes, or natural ponds,the use, degradation ordestruction of which couldaffect interstate or foreigncommerce .˚.˚.˚.

(33 C.F.R. /˚328.3(a)(3) (1999).) Inturn, the controversy at the heart of thiscase centers on the Corps’“clarification” that section ̊ 328.3(a)(3)applies to waters:

a. Which are or would be usedas habitat by birds protected byMigratory Bird Treaties; or b.Which are or would be used ashabitat by other migratory birdswhich cross state lines; or c.Which are or would be used as

10

A Review of the GRA Technical CommitteeBY JIM JACOBS, FAST-TEK ENGINEERING SUPPORT SERVICES

Over the past year, GRA’s technical committee with Paul Parmentier, as Chair and Jim Jacobs as Board Liaison developed a white paper orstatement about MTBE. MTBE is a controversial issue critical to the protection of groundwater resources. The controversy has been in themedia for some time, culminating with the airing of the “60 Minutes” television program early last year. As many Americans had not beenfamiliar with the problem of MTBE until the broadcast last year, the GRA Board of Directors made a statement shortly after the televisionbroadcast stating that MTBE is one of the most serious environmental problems facing the nation’s water supply.

The facts of MTBE were reviewed and some of the concerns were listed. Other committee members include Terry Foreman of CH2Mhill,Michael Burke of Fugro, Dan Detmer of United Water Conservation District, and Jim Steele of Tetra Tech. The statement, which was,published in HydroVisions, Fall 2000 will be added to the GRA web site and used in press releases. Technical issues for the year 2001include a statement about Chromium 6. Other controversial environmental issues will be evaluated. If you are interested in joining thecommittee or have suggestions on topics, please contact Paul Parmentier of IT Corp. at (949) 660-7510 or Jim Jacobs of FAST-TEKEngineering Support Services at (510) 232-2728; ext. 222 or [email protected].


Early Warning System Takes Aim atLeaking Underground Storage Tanks

BY GARY M. KVISTAD, HATCH AND PARENT

For the past five years, the South TahoePublic Utility District has been engaged ina high profile battle over leaking gasolinestorage tanks that have contaminatedgroundwater. South Lake Tahoe grabbednational newspaper headlines when itbecame the first and most affectedcommunities stricken with MTBEcontamination in the nation. Aside fromposing a threat to the legendary pristinewater quality of the area, the contaminationproblem presented real and dramatic healthrisks to the area residents. The District’ssole source of water is underlyinggroundwater supplies.

In South Lake Tahoe, groundwatercontamination has caused the closure ofabout one-third of the District’s 34 wellsand severely limited its ability to supplyclean water to its customers. The very life-blood of the region’s water supply wasbeing threatened. In response to theHerculean challenge of remedy andmanaging the contamination in anuncertain regulatory environment, theDistrict has adopted a unique GroundwaterManagement Plan designed to elevate theinformation base and keep this type ofproblem from ever happening again.

MTBE was promoted by the petroleumindustry as enabling gasoline to burncleaner, which in turn reduces air pollution.However, petroleum, like other chemicalsspills and leaks through leaky pipelines,facilities and human error. When gasoline-containing MTBE is released into thegroundwater, it dissolves and moves withthe groundwater rather than attaching tosoil particles, as do most gasolinecomponents. The result, MTBE istransported along with groundwater anddrawn into wells. MTBE is recognized asa suspected carcinogen and is detectable(taste and odor) at levels as low as 5 partsper billion or less and unfortunately, theDistrict has encountered groundwatercontaining multi-times this amount of MTBE.

MTBE was not suspected to be a healthrisk until after it was detected in wells. Bythen it was too late. MTBE had spreadinto large underground plumescontaminating vast quantities ofgroundwater. In the District’s case, MTBEcontamination was so widespread that one-third of its wells have been contaminatedor were severely threatened if the wellscontinued operating. The Board ofDirectors of the District refused to put thepublic at risk by delivering water to its

customers that contained any detectableMTBE.

The District has been fighting this problemfor four years and spent over $3 Million tokeep its water system in limited operation.This figure does not include the clean-upcost of the contaminated groundwater,which could take decades and tens ofmillions of dollars. Although MTBE is nolonger sold in the Tahoe Basin as a resultof Governor Gray Davis’ Executive Order,the District wants to be pro-active inattempting to better manage is waterresources and minimize risks of furthercontamination.

The District opted to pursue a first-of-its-kind management program, utilizing theauthority granted by that includes an earlywarning system. Under the plan, theDistrict will install or use existingmonitoring wells at underground storagetank sites that are located near wells. Themonitoring wells will be sampled at variousintervals, depending on proximity to thewells, to determine if a tank is leaking. If aleak is detected, the monitoring wellsdouble as interim extraction wells until afull-scale remediation and clean-up plan is

11

EnvirotechSOLINST

habitat for endangered species; or d.Used to irrigate crops sold ininterstate commerce.

(51 Fed. Reg. 41217.) This is the so-called“migratory bird rule.”2

The Court first distinguished its priordecision in United States v. RiversideBayview Homes, Inc., 474 U.S. 121 (1985).In Riverside, the Court approved the Corps’extension of section ˚404(a) jurisdictionover wetlands adjacent to waters navigablein fact. The Court said that the term“navigable” is of “limited import” becauseCongress intended to “regulate at leastsome water that would not be deemed‘navigable’ under the classicalunderstanding of that term.” (Riverside,474 U.S. at 133.) Congress had expresslyacquiesced in this interpretation in 1977amendments to the CWA. According to theCourt, Riverside was based on “thesignificant nexus between the wetlands and‘navigable waters’” that caused the Courtto uphold the regulation. (SWANCC, slip.op. at 5. ) The Riverside Court expressedno opinion on waters that were not“adjacent to bodies of open water.”(Riverside, 474 U.S. at 131 n.8.)

The Corps claimed that the same 1977amendments showed acquiescence in all ofthe Corps’ then existing regulations.However, unlike the same Congress’explicit acquiescence in the wetlandsprovision, the Court noted only twoarguments in favor of acquiescence.

First, a failed bill that would have limitedjurisdiction to waters actually used intransport that the Court held was, withoutspecific guidance, unreliable evidence ofcongressional intent. Second, the Courtheld that a 1977 amendment to section404(g), which expanded jurisdiction overwaters “other than” navigable waters, didnot include by inference the Corps’ thenexisting definition of “waters of the UnitedStates.”

The Court notes that even if the statutewere ambiguous, the doctrine of deferenceto agency interpretations would have togive way to the prudential doctrine thatserious constitutional issues should be

Clean Water ActContinued from page 9


avoided. (Chevron U. S. A., Inc. v. NaturalResources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).) Without a clear statementfrom Congress that regulation of thesewaters was intended, the Court refuses toreach the issue of whether the regulationwould have been constitutional.

ANALYSIS

The result of the case is that the Corps maynot regulate discharge of dredge or fillmaterial into isolated waters solely becausethose waters are used by migratory birds.The Court describes Riverside andSWANCC, respectively, as examples ofacceptable and unacceptable extension ofjurisdiction. The best way to visualize thisdichotomy is to place the two cases on a line,symbolizing the range of CWA jurisdiction:

The region to the left of Riverside containscases that clearly fall under the CWA;specifically cases that involve watersnavigable in fact or waters connectedthereto, and thus also squarely within thecommerce power. The area to the right ofSWANCC contains cases that involve waterwithout any connection to waters navigablein fact. The middle area is where the CWAmight allow for jurisdiction that couldextend outside of the commerce power.

To establish jurisdiction, the Corps mustreturn to Riverside and gradually workoutward: first, establish proximity towaters navigable in fact; second, find someproximate ecological link to the waters, butnot necessarily hydrological. Without theseelements, there does not appear to be a basis

Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Unclear No Jurisdiction Riverside SWANCC

12



bore no relation to the purpose of the CWA.(See /˚ 101 (“[R]estore and maintain thechemical, physical, and biological integrityof the Nation’s waters.”).

Essentially, the majority limits the CWAbased on a common law definition of theword “navigable,” ignoring the stateddefinition that excludes all reference to theterm. This, Justice Stevens notes, iscontrary to prior cases where the Court hadrefused to be guided by a common lawdefinition when the statute itself providedthe operative definition. (SWANCC,Stevens, J., dissenting, slip. op. at 11, citingBabbit v. Sweet Home Chapter,Communities for a Greater Ore., 515 U.S.687, 697-98 n.10 (1995).)

IMPACT ON CWA JURISDICTIONOVER GROUNDWATER

The Court’s decision is facially limited tosection ˚404(a). However, the term“navigable water” in that section is thesame term used to define the scope ofjurisdiction for the EPA in section ˚301(“Discharge of any pollutant by any personshall be unlawful”) and section ˚502(12)(a “discharge” is the “addition of anypollutant to navigable waters from anypoint source”). Based on SWANCC, theEPA’s jurisdiction will also be limited towaters that are in some way linked towaters navigable in fact.

Thus the Court’s answer to the long-standing question of whether the EPA couldregulate isolated groundwater would be anemphatic no. SWANCC seems to mark theend of attempts to regulate waters that arenot intimately bound up with a navigablewater source such as a river or lake. Thus,isolated groundwater would clearly falloutside of CWA jurisdiction.

While isolated groundwater is not covered,SWANCC may have paradoxically answeredanother question about CWA jurisdictionover groundwater. There is some questionas to whether the CWA applies to anygroundwater, even if it is hydrologically linkedto a major navigable in fact river or lake.Some people claim that the CWA wasintended to apply only to surface water.Whatever the merits of that argument, themajority may have given to environmentalregulation an unintended windfall.

The Court’s case lives or dies based on the“navigable water” language used in theCWA. The Court, in drawing a line

between Riverside and SWANCC, givesgreat weight to the connection between thewetlands in Riverside and a lake navigablein fact, and the absence of this fact inSWANCC. Turning again to the CWAjurisdiction chart:

According to the Court, as long as the factsmimic Riverside (e.g., proximity to orhydrologic connection with a waternavigable in fact), jurisdiction will beestablished. As long as waters navigable

in fact are impacted, the CWA will havejurisdiction. This must mean that a case tothe left of Riverside would be within thecommerce power because the regulation inRiverside was within the commerce power.

Consider, for example, a pesticidemanufacturer, say XXX Corporation,situated on land overlying an aquifer thatflows into a nearby river, which is navigablein fact. XXX Corp. allows pollutants toleak into the groundwater, where they thenflow into the river. Before SWANCC, thisact would have been a questionable exerciseof jurisdiction, because it would have beenunclear whether the groundwater intowhich XXX Corp. was discharging apollutant qualified as “navigable water.”However, because of the Court’s heavyreliance on the link to waters navigable infact, that once questionable regulation hasnow become certain. Since the groundwateris directly linked to and impacts waternavigable in fact, the very bellwether of theCWA, XXX Corp.’s discharge should besubject to CWA regulation.

The hydrologic connection to navigable infact waters may be a stronger element afterSWANCC, but the other component reliedupon in Riverside - proximity - remainsunclear. The area in the chart marked“jurisdiction unclear,” where CWAregulation is on uncertain constitutionalgrounds, could be entered by potentialregulation of polluted groundwater,admittedly hydrologically linked to anavigable river, but more distant than thewetland was in Riverside. While the courtin Riverside relied on the wetland’s

for section ˚404(a) jurisdiction. Thus, amud puddle on a farmer’s land upon whicha bird happened to alight would not, forthat reason alone, be subject to Corpsjurisdiction, falling to the right ofSWANCC.

The majority relies heavily on the terms“navigable” in “navigable waters.” AsJustice Stevens points out in his dissent, theCWA was never intended to regulatenavigability; that is, to protect the abilityof ships to pass through water ways. Whilethe phrase “navigable water,” and theconcomitant belief that federal regulationwas limited to such narrow confines, arosein 19th Century and early 20th Centurystatutes regulating navigability, there is noevidence that Congress intended to followthis trend in the CWA.

The Court argues, however, that an earlyCorps interpretation of the CWA thatexpressly referred to protection ofnavigability as the sole reason forregulation should be viewed as the “real”expression of congressional intent.According to Court, the fact that the Corpsfailed to counteract this determinationshows that it was correct at the outset. TheCourt also argues that the Corps is tryingto write “navigability” out of the CWA.

According to Justice Stevens, both of thesecontentions are misleading. By the timeCongress amended the Federal WaterPollution Control Act in 1972 (whichbecame the CWA), the focus had shiftedfrom navigability to protection of waterquality. The Corps initially believed thatits jurisdiction was the same as it had beenunder the prior Rivers and Harbors Act of1899, which was intended to regulatenavigability. The Corps’ initialinterpretation was roundly criticized byfederal courts, Congress and the EPA,resulting in a new regulation that remainssubstantially unchanged.

Justice Stevens also notes that the word“navigable” does not appear in thedefinition of “navigable waters.” Congress,and not the Corps, appears to have writtenthe word out of the statute. The initialreference to “navigable waters” was athrowback to the original legislation, and

Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Riverside

13


proximity to the affected river, the court inSWANCC seemed to limit the strength ofthat element. Thus, it seems likely that thenext test case to come before the court willbe groundwater, relatively distant from anavigable river, but neverthelessmaintaining some hydrologic link.

The end result for those who own, use or

otherwise are involved with groundwateris twofold. On the one hand, pollution ofisolated groundwater clearly falls outsideCWA jurisdiction. Thus, if a water provideris faced with contamination in wells in acontained aquifer, the CWA, will provideno recourse. On the other hand, since mostgroundwater can be shown to bear somelink to waters navigable in fact, there is littlethat a polluter could do, faced with thestrong language of SWANCC, to thwart aCWA enforcement action or an EPArequirement for, and subsequent denial of,a permit.

IMPACT ON ENVIRONMENTALREGULATION

SWANCC will have less of an impactenvironmental laws other than the CWASince the court in SWANCC avoids theCommerce Clause, and limits the decisionto the text of the CWA, the impact on otherregulations is limited. The hook that thecourt hangs its hat on is the “navigable”limitation. Were it not for this language,the court implies that the regulation wouldprobably have been valid. In that case, thecourt likely would have reached thecommerce issue, and would have had toreconcile Riverside with the present case onthose terms.

Justice Stevens argues in his dissent that theactivity being regulated is the discharge offill material into waters used by migratorybirds. The economic activity takes placeon several levels. First, discharge of fillmaterial is almost always economic activity,unlike gender motivated crimes orpossession of firearms in school zones. (SeeUnited States v. Morrison, 529 U. S. 598

(2000); United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S.549 (1995).) Just as section ˚404(a) isfacially limited to “navigable waters,” sotoo is it limited to the “discharge of dredgeor fill material.” Thus, without thisunderlying act - discharge of fill into water- there would be no basis for jurisdiction.

The economic rationale, however, does notstop there. The regulation in SWANCCconcerns a classic case of an interstateexternality. Regulation of migratory birdsdirectly impacts an activity that affectscommerce. The benefit from the fill isalmost entirely local, while the harm isdistributed across the country. This is acase of diffuse harm weighed against aconcentrated local benefit. Predictably, theconcentrated benefit prevails. In contrast,the impact leads to fewer birds across thenation and thus fewer people to takeadvantage of bird-related activities.

CONCLUSION

SWANCC is a precedent that will limitfuture expansion of CWA jurisdiction, andcalls into question any CWA regulation thatis not intimately linked to navigable water.

_________________

1 He was joined by Justices O’Connor,Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas. JusticeStevens filed a dissent, joined by JusticesSouter, Ginsburg and Breyer.

2 Since the “rule” appeared only as aclarification in the federal register, it wasnever formally promulgated as aregulation.

SOLINSTIt’s as easy....pick up

The question for future legislation is:Where in between Riverside and SWANCCis the appropriate limit? How close andconnected does the regulated water haveto be to water navigable in fact? By limitingthe decision to section 404(a) and oneregulatory interpretation of that section,however, the court minimized the harm tofederal environmental regulation. In theend, this case might very well be known asthe Court’s inadvertent gift to those whodepend on a clean supply of groundwater.

Unclear No Jurisdiction SWANCC

14

Alfred Andrade Campbell Geo, Inc. CC

Marc Ashcroft Fast-Tek Engineering Support Services SFB

Eileen Baliff Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. SC

David Bean Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. SAC

Charlie BlumensteinCH2M Hill SC

Michael Bower Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. SC

Les Chau Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. SFB

Tony Choi Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. SFB

Aubrey Cool Cambria Environmental Technology, Inc. SFB

Steve Cusenza City of Pleasanton SFB

David Danks Conor Pacific SFB

Rebecca Dell Sheehan California Farm Bureau Federation SAC

Paul Dinkmeyer IT Corporation SC

Leslie Driver Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. SC

Tracy Drouin Wallace-Kuhl & Associates, Inc. SAC

Penny Fottrell Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. SFB

Corey Fulton ENSR International SAC

Marie Graham City of Davis Public Works SAC

Bruce Graves Best Sulfur Products SAC

Lisa Hall Montgomery Watson SC

Calvin Hardcastle Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. SC

Roy Hardison Best Sulfur Products SAC

Steven Hoch Hatch & Parent SC

Don Holbrook Best Sulfur Products SAC

Ann Holbrow Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. SFB

Kim Holland Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. SC

Jim Honniball Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. SFB

Jackie House ENSR International SAC

Jim Ingle Alameda County Water District SFB

Margaret Irish Hatch & Parent CC

Glenn Jaffe Montgomery Watson SC

Barbara Jakub Cambria Environmental Technology, Inc. SFB

Jacquelyn Jones Cambria Environmental Technology, Inc. SFB

Kasey Jones Apex Envirotech, Inc. SAC

Allen Just Gannett Fleming, Inc. SC

Mike Koza Sacramento County Waste

Management & Recycling SAC

New members who have joined GRAbetween 11/1/00 and 1/3/01

Welcome!implemented. Consequently, the plan enables theDistrict to quickly detect leaks, provide earlywarning, and require the operator/owner toimmediately start clean-up of the contaminationrather than waiting for the plume to grow unabated.

The plan provides a mechanism for the District toactively protect and limit damage to its groundwatersupplies and give the gasoline tank operator/owneran opportunity to clean-up the contamination earlyand save millions of dollars that would otherwisebe spent to clean-up large plumes. A win-win foreveryone. The plan was adopted in cooperation withand the support of the Regional Water QualityControl Board, Lahontan Region, and the Countyof El Dorado.

Former GRA Board member, the late Kevin J. Neese,spawned the Groundwater Management Plan idea.The District’s staff and Board of Directors havechampioned the effort through its ultimate adoption. Gary M. KvistadHatch and Parent 1-805-963-7000 [email protected].

EARLY WARNING SYSTEMContinued from page 10


Bart Simmons is Chief of the Department of ToxicSubstances Control’s Hazardous MaterialsLaboratory. Bart can be reached [email protected].

“Dioxin,” 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo p-dioxin).1,4-Dioxane, as well as t-Butyl alcohol (TBA), shareproperties with the notorious MTBE; namely, theyall have high water solubility and low Henry’s Lawcoefficients.

EPA Methods 8260 and 8270 can be modified tomeasure some hydrophilic compounds, including1,4-Dioxane. 8270 can be modified to include a 24hour extraction; 8260 can be used, but the laboratorymust know it is a target compound, and it mustdemonstrate in initial and continuing demonstrationof proficiency.

High Performance Liquid Chromatography - MassSpectroscopy (LC-MS) combines the separationpower of LC with the identification power of MS.However, because of the huge range of polarorganics, LC-MS is much more limited in scope thanGC-MS. Polar organics will continue to posechallenges for identification of potential and existinggroundwater contamination.

Chemist’s CornerContinued from page 8

15

Gary Kramer Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. SAC

Ron Liebert California Farm Bureau Federation SAC

Brad Loewen Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. SAC

David Lunn Zone 7 Water Agency SFB

Carol Mahoney Zone 7 Water Agency SFB

Chin Man Mok Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. SFB

Christian Marsh Washburn, Briscoe & Mccarthy SFB

Russell McGlothlin Hatch & Parent CC

Glenn McPherson Saracino-Kirby, Inc. SAC

Dale Myers Zone 7 Water Agency SFB

Mike Ng ZymaX Envirotechnology, Inc. CC

Adam Norris Montgomery Watson SC

Charlie O’Neill Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. SFB

Susan Panttaja Harding ESE SFB

Duane Paul Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. SC

Bill Pipes Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. SAC

Jeff Pyle Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. SAC

Ramkishore Rao LFR Levine Fricke SFB

Phil Ross Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. SAC

Todd Royer Holland Horizon International OS

Robert Ruscitto IT Corporation SC

Mike Sgourakis Apex Envirotech, Inc. SAC

Mark Smolley Conor Pacific SFB

Kathy Snelson Groundwater Resources Association SAC

Marty Spongberg Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. SAC

Christy Swindling LFR Levine Fricke SFB

Grace Tang LFR Levine Fricke SFB

Rick Thompson City of Davis Public Works SAC

Carolyn Trokey Hatch & Parent - Los Angeles Office SC

Thomas Vandenberg Hatch & Parent CC

Tom Vercoutere Conor Pacific SFB

Peter Weiler LFR Levine Fricke SFB

Jennifer Wiley Montgomery Watson SC

Donald Winglewich Precision Sampling, Inc. SFB

Howard Young Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. SFB

New members continued from page 14

Welcome!

Michael SchlehuberJoins Cadiz WaterResources Team

Santa Monica, CA – Cadiz Inc. (Nasdaq: CLCI)is pleased to announce Michael Schlehuber hasjoined the firm as a vice president, specializing

in strategic planning and water resource development.

Formerly, Mr. Schlehuber served as a senior vicepresident at Vidler Water Company, Inc., a privatesector water company focused on the developmentand transfer of water rights and the establishmentof groundwater banking or storage programs. In thiscapacity, he was charged with identifying anddeveloping water assets throughout the westernUnited States, including California, Arizona, Nevadaand Colorado. Focusing on a variety of public/privatepartnerships, Mr. Schlehuber successfully completedtransactions with the Semitropic Water Storage District,Kern Water Bank and U.S Bureau of Reclamation.

“Michael is a solid addition to the Cadiz team,bringing a sound understanding of environmentaland permitting issues,” said Fiona Hutton, vicepresident of corporate communications for CadizInc. “In addition to advancing the development ofthe company’s current water-related assets, he willalso focus on seeking future market opportunitiesin California and elsewhere.”

Previously, Mr. Schlehuber was employed byCalifornia-based Spelman & Company,underwriting local government bonds for a varietyof infrastructure projects including water and sewer,flood control and transportation. In addition, Mr.Schlehuber served as a hydrogeologist for GeoconEnvironmental, a private environmental consultingfirm, and as a groundwater analyst for one of southernCalifornia’s largest municipal water districts.

Mr. Schlehuber completed a bachelor’s degree inGeology at the University of Notre Dame and amasterís degree in Geological Sciences at theUniversity of California/Riverside. In addition, hereceived a master’s in business administration fromDuke University’s Fuqua School of Business.Founded in 1983, Cadiz Inc., is a publicly held waterresource management and agricultural firm. Withits subsidiary, Sun World International, Inc., Cadizis one of the largest vertically integrated agriculturalcompanies in California. The Company ownssignificant landholdings with substantial waterresources throughout California. Further informationon the Company can be obtained by visiting its corporateweb site at www.cadizinc.com .

18

The California Council of GeoscienceOrganizations (CCGO) recentlyconducted a Board of Directors

Meeting on Saturday, November 4, 2000.The meeting was held at Exponent FailureAnalysis Associates office in Oakland,California. CCGO President BetsyMathieson (AEG-San Francisco) ran themeeting. Other attendees included JimJacobs (AIPG), Anne Cavazos (PresidentElect, AWG-NC), Randy Kirby (PresidentElect, NCGS), Chris Sexton (AEG-SC), SueJagoda (CESTA) and David Bernal (CCGOnew Executive Director). Selected highlightsfrom the meeting are listed below:

2001 OFFICERS NOMINATED: Duringthe meeting, officers for 2001 werenominated: President- Jim Jacobs (AIPG), VP-Chris Sexton (Southern California AEG),Secretary- Sue Jagoda (CESTA), Treasurer-Anne Cavazos (AWG-Northern California)and Past President, Betsy Mathieson (AEG-San Francisco). An e-mail confirmation votebefore end of year will occur.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT:David Bernal set the CCGO priorities onthree areas: increase income, focus on newbusiness members and search for grant andfund raising to support project specificactivities. The Executive Director suggesteddeveloping CCGO resources by providingopportunities for student internships,retirees, or volunteers to increase memberinvolvement.

The Executive Director suggests makingassignments to identify bills of potentialconcern, participate in CCGO booths attrade shows, and maintain the CCGO webpage. CCGO had a successful booth at theSeptember, 2000 National AEG-GRAconvention meeting in San Jose, California.Discussion on fundraising was made forproject specific activities, internships, solicitdonations of air miles for travel, andlegislative analysis of particular legislation.

FREE MEMBERSHIP SERVICES: CCGOhas agreed on free services to be offered to

CCGO Makes Great Progress duringBoard of Directors’ Meeting in November.

business and organizational members,including employment job postings andbusiness and organizational profiles. Abusiness member “Help Wanted Section”is important in a time of short labor supply.Many of the CCGO business members havehiring needs this coming year. A job postingform is in the process of being developedand will be on the CCGO web site shortly.Business members will be able to have freejob postings. Business or organizationalmembers should send their web siteaddresses to [email protected] for a freelink from the CCGO member page to theirweb site.

WORKPLAN COMMITTE: A committeewas established to develop a workplan for2001. The committee consists of JimJacobs, Chris Sexton, and David Bernal.These members will review CCGO’sStrategic Plan and will coordinate thedevelopment of a 2001 Work Plan.

PUBLIC OUTREACH COMMITTEEREPORT: CCGO Executive Director DavidBernal will speak at the Central CoastGeological Society (CCGS) MonthlyMeeting on November 14, 2000 regardingthe importance of CCGO and the value ofCCGO membership. Sue Jagoda is lookingfor volunteers from the organizationalmembers to help judge earth scienceexhibits at statewide science fairs. Memberorganizations are encouraged to providecontributions for the science fair prizes toboth students and teachers. AdvancedPlacement Geology courses are beingevaluated.

LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES

David Bernal met with Judy Woolen, theAEG lobbyist in Sacramento and AEG latelast year to review legislative issues for2001. Early this year David will summarizethe legislative process to the Board. Forthe year 2001, the main focus will be onthe Geologists and Geophysicists Act,which has not been updated since 1969.

The updated legislation will bring the actinto a more current standards and policies.CCGO will be following this legislationcarefully. In addition, as the bills areproposed in January through February,2001, CCGO will continue to monitorlegislation that may affect geologists.

CODE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE UPDATE

Betsy Mathieson would like to hear fromCCGO members interested in carrying onthe group’s work on building codemonitoring and development

2001 CCGO CALENDAR:

The CCGO Board announced the 2001Calendar: February 3 the CCGO meetingwill be in Southern California. Jan Woernerwill host at Cal State San Bernardino andwill meet fly-in attendees at Ontarioairport. The Second Annual SacramentoDrive-in will occur on March 1, 2001. Atthis event, CCGO hopes to schedulemeetings with legislators, the StateGeologist and others at the CaliforniaDivision of Mines and Geology, as well asthe Executive Director of the Board for theState Board of Registration for Geologistsand Geophysicists (BRGG). On May 5,2001, CCGO will meet in Oakland for thequarterly board meeting. On August 4,2001, the CCGO board will meet inSacramento. On October 27, 2001, theCCGO board will meet in Oakland andhold new elections for officers for 2002.

QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS: For moreinformation about CCGO, please contactJim Jacobs, CCGO Vice President, Tel: 510-232-2728; ext. 222 or [email protected] he is representing AIPG for theCCGO, he is also a Director on the Boardof GRA.

19

S.F. BranchHighlights

BY J.C. ISHAM

Sacramento BranchHighlights

BY DAVE ZUBERSECRETARY

B R A N C H A C T I V I T I E S

Our January 2001 meeting was held inOakland. This was our annual regulatoryreview meeting, which was presented byStephen Hill. Mr. Hill is the San FranciscoBay RWQCB’s Toxics Cleanup DivisionChief. With over 120 attendees GRAwould like to thank Mr. Hill for makinghis presentation one of most highlyattended meeting that our branch has given.

In December 2000, we held our meeting inSan Jose. We were fortunate to have TomMohr, one of our founding members, fromthe Santa Clara Valley Water District as ourspeaker. Tom gave an excellentpresentation on the use of stable isotopesfor groundwater investigations. Manythanks to Mark Wheeler, our South BayCoordinator for arranging this pre-holidaymeeting!

In December, we held our annual holidayjoint meeting and raffle give-away with theSacramento Chapter of AEG. The meetingwas well attended with generous gifts frommember companies. Our presenter was Dr.Figuers, the Principal Geologic Engineer ofNorfleet Consultants in Livermore,California, where his firm performsgroundwater resources studies, landslidehazards studies, seismic hazard analyses,and forensic investigations. Mr. Figuers talkfocused on historical proposals to dam theCarquinez Strait and how the politics ofthe delta and the various special interestparties have battled many times over thedestiny and character of this uniquegeomorphic location, known as the “DeltaGateway.” As fresh water rights inCalifornia become increasingly contentiousand valuable to the many water use camps,the colorful picture painted by Dr. Figuersdemonstrated how technical prowess is notalways the key to success in watermanagement issues.

In January, the Sacramento Branch beganthe new year with a bang with duelpresentations from Bruce Macler, aDrinking Water Toxicologist for the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency andAlexis Melia, a Sanitary Engineer with theCalifornia Department of Health Services.Mr. Macler provides advice on drinkingwater public health issues and serves onEPA’s drinking water regulatoryworkgroups. He also serves as EPA’sNational Expert for microbial riskassessment. Ms. Melea develops drinkingwater quality regulations and overseesadoption and implementation for the DHS.Mr. Macler and Ms. Melia reviewed theSafe Drinking Water Act and how itprescribes a regulatory process for drinkingwater protection and control. They wenton to describe how Federal regulations andsubsequent California law and regulationsdetail the compliance standards to befollowed by all public water suppliers.

Mr. Macler and Ms. Melia presented on anumber of new federal and state drinkingwater regulations have been recentlypromulgated or are nearing completion. Forthe Federal side, MCLs for radon andseveral radionuclides have been finalizedwith a new limit for uranium, a new MCLfor arsenic is on the way, and criteria toprotect groundwater systems frommicrobial contamination are in finaladministrative review. In addition, newregulations for surface water systemdisinfection and disinfection byproducts arein preparation. USEPA is also consideringwhether to regulate a dozen morewaterborne contaminants. At the statelevel, the California Department of HealthServices must implement the federaldrinking water regulations. Recentregulations include: UCMR, primary MCLfor MTBE, recycling, recharge, MCLrevisions, lead/copper rule revisions,consumer confidence report, operatorcertification, secondary MCL revisions, andpublic notification revisions.

In December, our branch also electedofficers to take us through 2001. Wewelcome new president Richard Shatz ofLaw/Crandall, and new Vice PresidentKelly Tilford, of Duke Engineering.Continuing as Branch and StatewideTreasurer will be David Von Aspern, ofWallace-Kuhl & Associates, and oursecretary will be Dave Zuber of Brown andCaldwell. We will have two members-at-large who continue to provide valuableassistance: Steve Phillips, of US GeologicalServices and Pat Dunn, of JacobsonHelgoth Consultants. The entireSacramento Branch would also like toextend another heartfelt thanks to our out-going president, Barbara Heinsch, for heroutstanding service and hard work over thepast years - Thanks Barbara!

Our upcoming events include our Februarymeeting when we will receive a CalFedupdate from Mr. Mark Cowin. Mr. Cowinis the Assistant Director for the CALFEDBay-Delta Program, and manages theorganization’s Water ManagementPlanning Branch. In March ourpresentation topic will be trihalomethanes,and in April we will have a talk and fieldtrip on the Iron Mountain Mine.

20

Southern CaliforniaBranch Highlights

BY PAUL PARMENTIER

Central CoastBranch Highlights

BY TERRY FOREMANPRESIDENT


I hope everyone enjoyed their holidays asmuch as I did and that your New Year isoff to a good start. The Central CoastBranch has had a great set of programssince our last report and we have a greatline-up for 2001. We are also holdingelections for officers for 2001 at ourFebruary meeting (we took January off dueto the holiday). It looks like most of theofficers will return for another term basedon the nominations to date, except forMichael Burke of Fugro, who has decidedto retire as Branch Secretary and letsomeone else have some fun. Many kudosto Michael for a job well done and hiscontributions to the success of Branch!

Speakers since our last report have includedScott Slater, Dr. Lowell Preston, and RobertAlmy.

Scott Slater, Partner in the law firm ofHatch and Parent, and our GRA BoardRepresentative, gave us a primer ongroundwater rights and a summary of theMojave Decision handed down by theCalifornia Supreme Court. It seems thisDecision may have clarified some issues,but it may also have raised as manyquestions as it has answered. We will wantto continue to follow the Mojavegroundwater adjudication as it unfolds inthe coming months and years. We will haveScott come back to explain the evolutionof the Mojave adjudication and what itpotentially means to other groundwaterbasins in the State.

Dr. Lowell Preston, Manager of WaterResources for Ventura County and FoxCanyon Groundwater ManagementAgency Coordinator made a presentationentitled: Water Resources in VenturaCounty - What’s Next? Dr. Preston gavean overview of groundwater in VenturaCounty, status of selected basins, andongoing projects to improve the quantityand quality of water resources in theCounty.

Robert Almy, Manager, Santa BarbaraCounty Water Agency gave a presentationentitled: Water Supply Overview, SantaBarbara County, California. The SantaBarbara County Water Agency hascompleted a study of water demand andsupply for the County through ultimatebuild out. It seems that with the recent(1998) importation of State Water Projectwater and conjunctive use of surface waterand groundwater basins in the County thatthe County is in pretty good shape. Hoorayfor the groundwater basins! Rob also saysstay tuned to the adjudication under wayin the Santa Maria groundwater basin, inthe northern part of the County.

We have a number of good speakers linedup so far for 2001, including the following:Mel Blevins, Upper Los Angeles River AreaWatermaster, will talk about the hexavalentchromium problem in groundwater in theSan Fernando Valley. Craig Cooper,Regional Project Manager for Region IXof the US Environmental ProtectionAgency, will talk about the CasmaliaLandfill Superfund Site. Ken Ortega, WaterDepartment Manager, City of Oxnard willpresent the City’s proposed GroundwaterRecovery Enhancement and Treatment(GREAT) Program. And finally, Dr. JordanClark, Professor at the University ofCalifornia-Santa Barbara, will talk aboutthe use of tracers in groundwaterinvestigations.

In November the Southern CaliforniaBranch elected the officials for the year2001. The Branch team maintained mostprevious assignments, with the exceptionof the vice president position. Kirby Brillhas assumed a new position with theMojave Water Agency which will require alot of his time.

He will be replaced by Tony Maggio.

The Southern Branch members arecurrently actively preparing for the January25th Chromium VI seminar, and becauseof this schedule, the bimonthly meetingswill be re-scheduled for 2001 to “evenmonths”, starting in February. In April, weare planning an update to our annualregulatory panel, and our summer meetingwill again consist of a late afternoon fieldtrip. The following is a summary of ourNovember meeting.

Application of Forensic Techniques forContaminant Age Dating and SourceIdentification-Presentation by RobertMorrison, November 2000

A multitude of forensic techniques areavailable for age dating and sourceidentification, including aerial photographyinterpretation, corrosion models, thecommercial availability of a chemical,chemical associations with discrete types ofequipment, chemical profiling, degradationmodels and contaminant transport models.The success of these techniques inenvironmental litigation and theirapplicability to a particular situation is rarelydiscussed in the literature. When thesetechniques are introduced as scientificevidence, their governing assumptions and theadequacy of the underlying data arerigorously scrutinized and often, successfullychallenged. In the context of environmentallitigation, the results from each techniqueshould be coupled with other groups ofevidence but not configured so as tojeopardize other lines of evidence, in the eventthat contradictory information becomes


The next HYDROVISIONS due date for articles

is April 7, 2001. We WELCOME your ARTICLES

and PHOTOS. Articles may be emailed to

[email protected]

21


available. The results of the forensictechniques should be able to withstandintense scientific scrutiny relative to thepurpose for which the data was collected.Technical arguments and associated evidenceshould be built as individual “pillars”, not asinter-dependent “dominoes”.

Multiple techniques were presented byRobert Morrison, illustrated by spectaculargraphics that reflect the level ofsophistication required in these litigations.

Aerial photography is still a basic tool thatneeds to be thoroughly researched and isoften used in combined 3-D graphics, suchas multiple-angle “aerial” viewing, andsuperposition of data.

Corrosion models (e.g. “how long wouldthis tank last in the ground before it wouldrust and leak?”) are occasionally used, butare often easily challenged.

Chemical fingerprinting includes alkyl lead/EDB ratios, dyes (which are known todegrade and adsorb, and therefore are oflimited validity), paraffins and otherpetroleum compound ratios (used forexample to distinguish crude oil spills suchas the Exxon Valdez from natural oil seeps),and sulfur analyses for diesel.

An example of an emerging area of forensicanalysis is the use of isotope ratios to (1)distinguish between different contaminantsources and/or (2) to demonstrate that

biodegradation is occurring. Researchindicates that for chlorinated solvents, largeand reproducible carbon isotope frae in theratio of heavy to light isotopes becausedifferences in mass between isotopes resultin slight differences in the activationenergies during reactions. An advantageof isotopic analysis versus concentrationdata is that changes in concentration fromphysical processes such as dilution andsorption are frequently difficult to quantifyand can complicate data interpretation.

A common area of inquiry is the applicationof isotopes to distinguish betweenmanufacturers of chlorinated solvents,especially for discrimination betweensources in a co-mingled groundwaterplume. Isotopes used for this purpose are13C and 37Cl. An example of theapplication of this technique is theidentification of multiple sources of TCE.

Potential challenges to the use of isotopicinterpretations for source identification

include the identification of a qualifiedlaboratory capable of performing preciseGC-IRMS measurements and identifying aqualified expert witness. Datainterpretation may also be biased due tothe potential for isotopic fractionation inthe environment. Researchers have studiedthe effects of isotopic fractionation due tovolatilization on the isotopic compositionof phase separate and dissolved TCE atdifferent concentrations. The review ofstable carbon isotope concentrationsindicates that volatilization and dissolutionof the TCE did not result in isotopicfractionation but that fractionationoccurred due to abiotic dechlorination.Other researchers have measured somefractionation that occurred during solventvolatilization. Field data from a PCE spillimpacted by biodegradation indicates thata small carbon isotope fraction appears tooccur during the transformation of PCE to

waterloo

Continued on Page 23

President Tim Parker, left, and Branch President,Paul Parmentier, right, present Robert Ruscittoan award for his contributions to the SouthernCalifornia Branch Activities.

22

B R A N C H C O N T A C T S

San Francisco Bay Branche-mail: [email protected]

President: Linda SpencerSan Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality

Control Board(510) 622-2420

[email protected]

Vice-President: Gary FooteGeomatrix Consultants


Secretary: J.C. IshamThe IT Group


Treasurer: David AbbottTodd Engineers(510) 595-2120

[email protected]

Membership: Bill MolnarHydro-Environment

(510) 521-2684 [email protected]

Technical Chair: Jim UlrickUlrick & Associates

(510) 848-3721 [email protected]

South Bay Coordinator:Mark Wheeler

Crawford Consulting(408) 287-9934

[email protected]

Past President: Clifton DavenportWaterstone Environmental


Central Coast Branche-mail: [email protected]

President: Terry ForemanCH2MHill

(805) 371-7817, x [email protected]

Vice President:Stephanie Osler Hastings

Hatch and Parent(805) 963-7000, x 415

[email protected]

Secretary: Michael BurkeFurgo West, Inc.(805) 650-7000

[email protected]: Jennifer Harting

Tetra Tech, Inc.(805) 681-3100, x 415

[email protected]

Southern California Branche-mail: [email protected]

President: Paul ParmentierIT Corp

(949) 660-7510

Vice President: Tont Maggio(562) 857-1684

[email protected]

Treasurer: Robert RuscittoIT Corp

(949) 660-7510

Secretary: Carmen GuzmanARCADIS Geraghty & Miller


Member At Large: Steve ZiganEnvironmental Resolutions

(949) 457-8952

Sacramento Branche-mail: [email protected]

President: Richard ShatzLAW Engineering & Enviromental Services


Vice President: Kelly TilfordDuke Engineering(916) 561-4598

[email protected]

Secretary: Dave ZuberBrown & Caldwell


Treasurer: David Von AspernWallace•Kuhl & Associates, Inc.


Member At Large: Steve PhillipsUSGS


Member At Large: Pat DunnJacobson Helgoth Consultants


South San Joaquin Valley Branche-mail: [email protected]

Gary CorbellWelenco, Inc.

(805) 834-8100

The Department of Toxic SubstancesControl is offering continuous filingfor the following exams (the title in

parenthesis is the civil serviceclassification):

• Geologist/hydrogeologist/engineeringgeologist (Hazardous SubstancesEngineering Geologists [HSEG])

• Engineer (Hazardous SubstancesEngineer [HSE])

• Environmental Scientist (HazardousSubstances Scientist [HSS])

The HSEG exam may be offered in Aprilor May, but you need to apply now. Formore information and an application, visitDTSC's web page at www.dtsc.ca.gov. Ifyou would like to know more contact BrianLewis (916)323-3632 or via email:[email protected].

Department of ToxicsSubstances Control Exams

23

Voluntary Contributions for Fiscal Year 2000

Thank You!Founder $1000+

DrawingBoard Studios, Inc.

Patron $500-$999(Reserved for your company’s name)

Corporate Sponsor $250-$499

Montgomery Watson

Tim Parker

Charter Sponsor $100-$249David Abbott

James Carter ~ EMAX Laboratories, Inc.

Susan Garcia

Hatch & ParentJim Jacobs ~ Fast-Tek Engineering Support Services

Vicki Kretsinger-Grabert

Brian Lewis

Eugene Luhdorff, Jr.

Roscoe Moss Manufacturing Company

Vista Irrigation District

Wallace-Kuhl and Associates, Inc.

Sponsor $25-$99

Charles Almestad

Anderson Consulting

Group

Apex Envirotech, Inc.

David Bardsley

Paul Bertucci

Will Betchart

Joseph Birman

Mr. Francis Borcalli

Cambria Environmental

Technology, Inc.

Campbell Geo, Inc.

Daniel Carlson

CH2M Hill

City of Pleasanton

City of Turlock

Conor Pacific

Thomas Cooper

Pam Cosby

Richard Cramer

Thomas Crowley

Delta Wetlands Properties

Kenn Ehman

Fast-Tek Engineering Support

Services

Mr. Fran Forkas

S. Thomas Freeman

Geomatrix Consultants, Inc.

Mike Gereghty

Jack Hardin

David Harnish

Carl Hauge

Barry Hecht

Daniel Johnson

Nancy Katyl

Krieger & Stewart Inc.

Yvonne Meeks

Peter Mesard

Chris Metzger

MFG, Inc.

Steven Michelson, R.G.

Kevin Neese Memorial Fund ~

Hatch & Parent

Northgate Environmental

Management

Carey Peabody

Iris Priestaf

Todd Royer

Saracino-Kirby, Inc.

Rita Schmidt-Sudman

Darryl Snow

Eric Strahan

Robert Strahan

Gordon Thrupp

Washburn, Briscoe & McCarthy

Ernest Weber

Gary Yoshiba

ZymaX Envirotechnology, Inc.

Supporter $5-$24

Steven Walker

Southern California BranchContinued from page 21

TCE and cis-1, 2 DCE. The impact ofbiodegradation on the isotopic compositionof the chlorinated solvent must be assessedwhen evaluating isotopic data so thatinterpretations regarding potential sourcesand age dating are not misinterpreted.

In the area of fate and transport modeling,Robert emphasized the areas of wideuncertainties with estimating migrationrates. The most important estimatedparameter, hydraulic conductivity, is criticalin all interpretation, and Robert showedspectacular photo of worm holesillustrating the wide variations in soilcharacteristics that would quickly castpotential doubt on groundwater models.Transport models sensitivity is clearlydependent on estimates of hydraulicconductivity, total organic carbon, andcontaminant degradation rates.

Robert Morrison’s convincing presentationclarified for all GRA attendees the level ofpreparation needed to support groundwaterlitigation cases.

24

Presorted

First Class Mail

U.S. Postage Paid

Sacramento, CA

Permit No. 1277

Dates & Details2001 BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ MEETING DATE AND OTHER KEY DATES

ALL MEMBERS WELCOME

P. O . B O X 1 4 4 6 , S A C R A M E N T O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 5 8 1 2

GROUNDWATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATIONO F C A L I F O R N I A

Please confirm that your

address is correct.

If you see an error you

may now update your

information electronically

on our web page

www.grac.org.

Thank you for

your help.

Board Meeting, April 7, 2001Montgomery-Watson, Pasadena, April 7, 2001

Symposium June 14-15, 2001Santa Clara Valley Water District, San Jose

Board Meeting, August 11, 2001FAST-TEK, Point Richmond

Board Meeting, November 3, 2001Wallace-Kuhl, Sacramento

Seminars Spring or Summer 2001Environmental Statistics,Location to be determined

Fall 2001Groundwater Modeling, Location to be determined

Annual Meeting November 1 & 2 2001Joint with Biennial Groundwater Conference, Sacramento.

GRA OffersLapel Pins

If you would like to buy a lapel

pin, attend your nearest branch

meeting or order a pin now. Pins

cost $7.00 at a branch meeting or

$8.00 thru the mail. Send your

checks to: GRA, P.O. Box 1446,

Sacramento, CA 95812.

Treatment Technology Case Studies in theSan Francisco Bay Area; (4)Hydrostratigraphy and Site Characterization;and (5) a round table policy discussion onthe health risk of contaminants and theestablishment of drinking water standards byUS EPA and Cal EPA.

Recently 1,4-dioxane has become an issueat several sites in California. 1,4-dioxaneis used in 1,1,1-TCA as a solvent stabilizer,so most TCA plumes will also have a 1,4-dioxane plume. Until now, this compoundhas gone undetected because it is at low

levels, but testing methods are now in placeto see the 1,4-dioxane that is present at thesesites. In addition to being considerably moremobile than its host solvent, this compoundis not amenable to carbon adsorption or airstripping. Dioxane is a probable humancarcinogen with a drinking water action levelof 3 micro grams/litre.

Tom Mohr, Associate EngineeringGeologist in the Underground Storage TankProgram and a past branch president ofGRA, is coordinating the event and he canbe reached at 408-265-2607 ext. 2626. Forinformation on sponsoring the event orexhibiting, please contact Jim Carter GRASeminar Chair at 310-618-8889.

GRA Announces SymposiumContinued from page 1

of california hexavalent chromium in groundwater summit · 2016-04-28 · handbook, thanks to...

Documents