1. Stake Holders: Newport –Mesa Unified School District State of California, Orange County Health Care Agency State of California, EPA Costa Mesa Local Community Watch PROTECTING OUR WATER RESOURCE Source: ADvTECH, 2008. Permission to use photos given.

2. PROTECTING OUR WATER RESOURCE PUBH 8165 February 2, 2013 Presented by: Michael Shiang Doctoral Candidate in Public Health Walden University

3. Stakeholders: Owner:  Newport-Mesa Unified School District Agencies  State of California, Orange County Health Care Agency  State of California, Environmental Protection Agency Public Group  Costa Mesa Community Watch Source: ADvTECH, 2008.

4. Discussion Overview □ Off-Site Feasibility Study/Remedial Action Plan □ Historical Programs Conducted by NMUSD  On-Site Environmental Activities  Site Investigation/Monitoring Activities  Interim Remedial Actions  Removal Action/On-Going Cleanup Programs  Off-Site Environmental Investigation □ Community Concerns and Open Discussion

5. FACT SHEET - SYNOPSIS No Immediate Threat to Human Health or the Environment No Drinking Water Supply Wells Threatened or Impacted Detailed Reports – Geotracker Website http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report. asp?global_id=T0605902072 http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report. asp?global_id=T0605902072 Source: State of CA, Geotracker, 2013.

6. Site Map Source: ADvTECH, 2008. Permission to use photos given.

7. NEWPORT-MESA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT TIME LINE – ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS Source: ADvTECH, 2010

8. Source: ADvTECH, 2008. Permission to use photos given. ON-SITE SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM

9. ON-SITE SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION Initiated in April 2007 6 VES, 6 Air-Sparge Catalytic/Thermal Oxidizer Unit 45 scfm, 8-in Hg O&M Conducted by ERI Vapor Air Stream to Remove Contaminants in Soil Initial Conc. = >10,000 ppmv TPH Current Conc. = 200-400 ppmv TPH Approx. ~ 8,500 lbs TPH Removed

10. Source: ADvTECH, 2008. Permission to use photos given. ON-GOING QUARTERLY GROUNDWATER MONITORING

11. QUARTERLY GROUNDWATER MONITORING 2001 Started, Quarterly Data from about 2003 18 Wells On-Site 8 Wells Off-Site Range in Depth from 35 – 50 ft-bgs Monitors “First Water” at about 25 to 35 ft-bgs Flow to Southwest TPH, BTEX, MTBE and other Fuel Additives Full VOC – mid 2007

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

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

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

15. TPH Concentrations in Groundwater 4 th Qtr 2008 Source: ADvTECH, 2008. Permission to use map given.

16. APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF GROUNDWATER PLUME OVERLAY Source: ADvTECH, 2008. Permission to use photos given.

17. Source: ADvTECH, 2008. Permission to use photos given. OFF-SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY/RAP FOR GROUNDWATER CLEANUP

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

19. CLEAN-UP GOAL Benzene is primary contaminant of concern, with lowest clean up level of contaminants present in the groundwater Clean up will focus on benzene, and other contaminants (gasoline, toluene, ethyl benzene, xylenes) will be removed along with the benzene MCL (maximum contaminant level) for benzene is 1 ug/L. The remedial system will be designed with the MCL as the clean up goal

20. REGULATORY/PERMITTING AGENCIES City of Costa Mesa – Sanitation District City of Costa Mesa – Encroachment Permit Orange County Flood Control District Orange County Health Care Agency Orange County Sanitation District South Coast AQMD Santa Ana RWQCB

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

22. FACTORS TO CONSIDER Impact to Neighborhood and School Effectiveness of Clean Up Duration of Project Cost

23. No Action/MNA/Biodegradation Allows continuing spread of contaminants Not sufficiently aggressive in treating existing contamination Not appropriate for this site, at this time

24. Air Sparging/Vapor Extraction/Chemical Oxidation PROS Cost Existing Air Compressor/ Treatment Unit On- Site CONS Releases Vapor into Subsurface Multi-phase Remedial Option Significant # of Wells Greater Impact to Neighborhood

25. GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION PROS Uses some Existing Monitoring Wells Less Impact to Neighborhood Less Piping/Trenches Hydraulic Control CONS Cost Generates Waste Water for Discharge to Sewer or Recharge

26. GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION DETAILS Seven New Extraction Wells Use Existing Monitoring Wells Off-Site Staging Area in School Yard Piping in Street/Parkway and Easement – Across or Under Flood Control Channel Treatment Equipment can be Staged in Existing On- Site Compound Wastewater Discharged to Sewer, Recharge or Storm Drain

27. Anticipated Off-Site Groundwater Plume Capture Source: ADvTECH, 2008. Permission to use photos given.

28. GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION Cone of Depression Multiple Wells Extraction Phase-in Approach Source: Cherry & Freeze, 2004. Permission to use photos given.

29. PREFERRED METHOD GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION SUMMARY Work Performed in Public Access Areas Does Not Require Wells on Private Property Generally Higher Cost, but much more Protective of Community Health and the Environment

30. WHAT’S NEXT? Plan Approval Finalize All Permits and Agreements Engineering/Bid Process/Funding Field Implementation Start Extraction – SEPT 2012 Anticipated Extraction through 2018

31. COMMUNITY CONCERNS

32. How long is it going to take to clean up? Is my water safe to drink? Can I drink water from the school fountain? Do I need to be concerned about growing vegetables in my back yard? Will children be at-risk playing on the soccer fields? What are the major disruptions to the community? Will there be a lot of noise from the equipment?

33. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION REFERENCES

34. References ADvTECH Environmental, Inc. (2008). Feasibility Study, NMUSD. Consultants Report. ADvTECH Environmental, Inc. (2009). Fourth quarter groundwater monitoring report. Consultants Report. ADvTECH Environmental, Inc. (2010). Remedial Actions for the NMUSD site. Consultants Report. Cherry, J., & Freeze, D. (2004). Groundwater. MacGraw Hill. Princeton University. (Check on proper citation). Environmental Protection Agency. (EPA, 2012a). United States Environmental Protection Agency: Laws and regulations, Summary of the toxic substances control act, 15 USC 2601 et seq. (1976). Retrieved on December 26, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/tsca.html.http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/tsca.html

35. References (con’t) Environmental Protection Agency. (EPA, 2012b). United States Environmental Protection Agency: About EPA, Toxic substances law. Retrieved on December 26, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/history/topics/tsca/03.html. http://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/history/topics/tsca/03.html Environmental Protection Agency. (EPA, 2013). United States Environmental Protection Agency: Underground storage tanks: UST program and site remediation. Retrieved on December 26, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/oust/http://www.epa.gov/oust/ Moeller, D. W. (2011). Environmental health (4 th ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN:978-0674047402. Rizzo, J. (1998). Underground storage tank management: A pratical guide. Government Institutes. ISBN: 10—86587607X. Robinson, J., Thompson, P., Conn, D., & Geyer, L. (1993). Issues in underground storage tank management UST closure and financial assurance. CRC Press. ISBN: 10-0873714024.