The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2000-11-29 - AGENDA REPORTS - PORTA BELLA CLEAN-UP DEV PROJ (2)CITY OF BANTA CLARITA INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Darcy and City Councilmembers FROM: George Caravalho, City Manager DATE: November 29, 2000 SUBJECT: PORTA BELLA CLEAN-UP, RESTORATION & DEVELOPMENT PROJECT Receive presentation and discuss. On October 3, 2000, the City Council received a three -party presentation from City staff, DTSC representatives, and Santa Clarita, LLC, the owners of the Porta Bella site. The purpose of the October 3 study session was to provide an overview of the clean-up, restoration, and development process for the 988 -acre Porta Bella site. This presentation was the first in a series of project updates to the City Council to take place the duration of the Porta Bella clean-up and development process. At the October 3, 2000 meeting, Council directed staff to schedule additional study sessions to discuss specific topics in greater depth. These topics include the groundwater clean-up process, liability issues, project financing, infrastructure development, and the components of phased remediation and redevelopment. Tonight's presentation will focus on two issues: (1) Groundwater: existing groundwater conditions, clean-up objectives, technical investigation plans and clean-up technologies; and (2) Liability: City liability issues associated with the development of the Porta Bella site. Additional study sessions will be scheduled in early 2001 to explore remaining issues of concern. FISCAL IMPACT No fiscal impact is anticipated at this time. GAC:LMH:lep s: \ pbs \ council \ prtablss I doc Agenda- Iter: ❑ Overview of groundwater invests ion o Overview of the DTSC-approved inve: (Technical Memos) ❑ Next steps ❑ Possible treatment technologies ral Process up objectives 1 plans a Gen ocess — Where Are We? ,mpacrs - wnar, where, now mucn Plannln IsAlterni • DTSC and City Meetings • DTSC and CLWA Meetings • DTSC, CLWA, and RWQCB Meeting -Comprehensive Work Plan Development Technical Memos Memos (a portion of the Investigation program) • Future steps to be defined based on Investigation results up Rm up — Where Are We? azo ❑ Aquifer system principally alluvium and Saugus Objectives o What is the nature of impact? D Wide range of compounds will be assess nd Compounds of Potential Concern (COPCs) will be date C) Where is it now? D Approximate distribution of COPCs • Laterally and vertically within the Saugus formation • Laterally In the alluvium Broad cterization Objectives o How did it get where it did? Characterization of groundwater flow p (on- and off-site potential sources) v Where is it going? D Direction of groundwater flow v How fast is it moving and in how much water? Aquifer parameters and gradients Status o undwater Investigation (Technl Memos) 1) Reconnaissance groundwater s ling Operable Unit (OU) 2 and OU3 2) Areas 11/67/75 monitoring and reconnais 1� sampling 3) NLF-155 Investigation 4) Storm water runoff sampling TECHNICAL ME • ■ Principal Objective: > Evaluate the Potential PathwaYs between mil in r'.•w9. �`�'Si t'y �'{�� .A�bp�Y' ��. r } x`G '4 il..@! YTS' �1p�u��'��y'�f9•'+' wells containing YIY i4X"•�••5� perchlorateto � 1�� IVT`y4 the west TECHNICAL MEMO 2 Areas /75 Monitoring ❑ Principal Objectives: > Monitor existing wells: V ah • Evaluate temporal variations In water '•...` levels and water quality • Determine baseline oondifion groundwater ^'•�•• quality at existing groundwater monitor4: wells at Areas 11, 87, and 75 > Sample alluvium reconnaissance 'as. points: ... • Evaluate the potentlal for a pathway to groundwater in the alluvium downgradient of time areas 1 �: Y �` t'1 M� �h� -.il. �'{y r w'A r..m. f'� 4 � 1 -1L POTENTIAL PERCHLORATE WATER TREATMENT �„ CHNOLOGIES TECHNICAL MEMOS 1 to 4 Current an coming Activities 1 to 3 Complete access agreements to IS locations 1) Operable Unit 2 and 3 Groundwater Reconnais > Duration: • Alluvium reconnaissance two weeks Saugus reconnaissance tour to six weeks ;:. ..� • Saugus well Installation, sampling (2 events), hydraulic testing above 2) Areas 11/67/75 Monitoring and Alluvium Reconnaissance > Duration: .. • Existing monitor well monitoring (2 llbly events) Alluvium reconnaissance one week 3) NLF-155 Depth Specific Sampling > Duration one week 4) Surface Water Sampling > Duration, on -Ong during major rain events POTENTIAL PERCHLORATE WATER TREATMENT �„ CHNOLOGIES Potential Perc to Treatment Technologies ❑ Biological Reduction ❑ Ion Exchange ❑ Reverse Osmosis ❑ Activated Carbon LI Capacitative Deionization -fl Electrodialysis ❑ Chemical Oxidation ❑ Chemical Reduction ❑ Electrochemical Reduction ❑ Photocatalytic Reduction ❑ Chemical Precipitation ❑ Catalyzed Chemical Reduction Criteria ❑ Use of treated water (reinjection, potable, Industrial, agricultural) ❑ Agency approval (RWQCB, DHS and DTSC) ❑ Water characteristics (flow rate & chemistry) 13 Process reliability w:F.l ,Ou Pr 'ng Technologies for Perchlo Treatment ❑ Ion Exchange (IX) D Fixed Bed System D Calgon ISEP/ISEP+ ❑ Fluidized Bed Reactor (FBR) ❑ Reverse Osmosis (RO) Ion Exchange U Fixed bed vessel Feed 100% (ex. I10 gallons per minute) gallons per minute) CCC [SEP system Feed 100% (ex 1.000 gallons \\� per minute) ,� A2%oa Treated g8% (ex. 080 gallonsper minute) Io change ❑ LaPuente Valley County Water District, LePuente CA ❑ 2,500 gallons per minute a .. ,.. ❑ 200 ugA Perchlorate° > NDMA t- > 1,4 dioxane d o Eventual drinking water system use o Start-up January 2000 U Currently permit status Ion txcnange o ADVANTAGES ➢ Tentative DHS approval fo table use ➢ Can handle varying inlet conce tions and maintain consistent effluent quality ➢Several systems already installed ➢Has been proven effective in full-scale applications ➢ Small footprint ➢ Operational flexibility (on/off) v DISADVANTAGES D Pressure limited (ISEP) ➢ Perchlorate destruction module is stili experimental Waste disposal issues on fixed bed and ISEP (brine/spent resin) Fluidiz ed o Aerojet Facility, Rancho Cordova, CA a 4,000 gallons per minute 0 800 ugA perchlorate E3 Infiltration basin/reinjection system discharge E3 Start-up May 1998 o Currently not permitted for potable use Bioreactor Flui ' d Bed Reactor o Advantage D Has been proven effective in full-scale ap tions for perchlorate 0 Disadvantages D Not DHS approved for drinking water applications D Large footprint ➢ Larger potential for process upsets ➢ Less operational flexibility (ontoff) D Waste disposal to POTW (biomass) ➢ May require NPDES for acclimation period at start-up Ree a Osmosis Osmosis ❑ Advantages D proven technology for reducing common Ions undwater D Operational flexibility (on/off) No chemical requirements except for scale control ❑ Disadvantages Will need to be used with other technologies for treatment of ➢ Not DHS approved for perchlorate treatment in drinking water ➢ Waste disposal (20% of influent) 03Small scale system JPL ■ 10 .. • ."`"""` "! 1 r b{� Cir wfi" Tr <•'� J r5' ssyry - � "•"rx i 1Ll u�'T?tea'- �� h ,j 800 ugA perchlorate 17 -VY U'Sewer discharge ■ w y 1 qw A % ■ Currently not permitted for potable use , J H k Osmosis ❑ Advantages D proven technology for reducing common Ions undwater D Operational flexibility (on/off) No chemical requirements except for scale control ❑ Disadvantages Will need to be used with other technologies for treatment of ➢ Not DHS approved for perchlorate treatment in drinking water ➢ Waste disposal (20% of influent)