Submitted by
G. Fred Lee, PhD, DEE
G. Fred Lee & Associates
El Macero, CA 95618
September 9, 1996
On August 9, 1996 the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) adopted Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for the University of California at Davis Campus "west" landfill's leachate-polluted groundwater discharge to Putah Creek. Prior to that time, the petitioner (Dr. G. Fred Lee) had submitted several sets of written comments on the technical deficiencies in the CVRWQCB staff's proposed WDRs for this proposed discharge. A copy of the comments submitted subsequent to submission of a previous Petition devoted to Order No. 95-187 on this issue dated July 21, 1995 is appended to this Petition.
Order No. 96-227 adopted by the CVRWQCB on August 9, 1996 regulating the University of California, Davis proposed discharge does not protect water quality and the designated beneficial uses of Putah Creek.
Requested Action
It is requested that the State Board conduct a technical review of the adequacy of Order No. 96-227 to protect the designated beneficial uses of Putah Creek from constituents in the VOC-stripped leachate-polluted groundwaters arising from the discharge of UC Davis "west" landfill leachate-polluted groundwaters to Putah Creek.
The petitioner, throughout his over 36-year professional career in the water quality evaluation and management field, has worked toward developing technically valid, cost-effective approaches for protecting water quality-designated uses of waters from NPDES permitted discharges and unpermitted discharges/runoff. Order No. 96-227 does not utilize the current state of water quality-related information on the potential impact of landfill leachate-polluted groundwaters on aquatic life and public health. Specifically, this Order does not:
Putah Creek is a highly unique waterbody in the Davis, California region. It is an important recreational asset to the people of this region and its designated beneficial uses, including preservation and enhancement of fish, wildlife and other aquatic resources, municipal domestic and agricultural water supply, water contact and non-contact recreation, aesthetic enjoyment and groundwater recharge, should be fully protected. It is the petitioner's desire to ensure to a high degree of certainty that the designated beneficial uses of Putah Creek are protected from pollution by inadequately developed and unreliable approaches that were recommended by the CVRWQCB staff and adopted by that Board on August 9, 1996 in Order No. 96-277 in establishing Waste Discharge Requirements for UCD's "west" landfill's leachate-polluted groundwaters discharged to Putah Creek.
Specific Actions Requested
It is proposed that the State Board remand Order No. 96-227 back to the Regional Board for reconsideration. The specific points of concern in the Order and the recommended changes are presented below.
In order to understand the deficiencies in the August 9, 1996 Order No. 96-227, it is necessary to review some aspects of a previously submitted Petition dated July 21, 1995 on Order No. 95-187 on these same issues. That Order was limited to a one-year period during which UCD did not activate the Order through direct discharge to Putah Creek. The State Board did not formally review that Order since it expired before review was undertaken by the Board. With few exceptions, which are noted herein, the deficiencies in the August 9, 1996 Order No. 96-227 were also present in the June 23, 1995 Order No. 95-187.
Chromium Discharge Limits
Page 3, Item 12, states,
"This permit limits the discharge to 0.05 mg/l for total chromium, 0.015 mg/l (dissolved) for chromium VI as daily maximum and 0.010 mg/l (dissolved) for chromium VI as a four-day average."
These requirements are set forth on page 4 under "B. Effluent Limitations."
It is recommended that the total chromium daily maximum discharge limit be established at 0.015 mg/L, and that the four-day average total chromium concentration limit in the discharge be established at 0.010 mg/L.
It is also recommended that the maximum concentration of total chromium in Putah Creek waters near the point of discharge be established at 0.01 mg/L.
The justification for this recommended approach is that in May 1995 the US EPA established a chromium VI four-day average water quality criterion not to exceed 0.010 mg/L more than once in three years, and a one-hour average criterion not to exceed 0.015 mg/L chromium VI more than once in three years.
The Board staff (Mr. McHenry) in his testimony to the Board on June 23, 1995 and in staff written comments provided to the Board that were not made available to the petitioner until the morning of June 23, 1995, incorrectly informed the Board that the proposed WDRs for chromium would be protective, even though over the petitioner's objections, they did not contain a chronic criterion limit for chromium VI. In addition to discussing this issue prior to the June 23, 1995 hearing, the petitioner also discussed this matter in the petitioner's July 21, 1995 Petition to the State Board on the inadequacies of the June 23, 1995 Order No. 95-187. During the past year, the Board staff and Board have recognized the error that they made in not incorporating a chronic chromium VI criterion in the June 23, 1995 Order No. 95-187.
The incorporation of the US EPA's chronic criterion for chromium and changing the June 23, 1995 Order's acute criterion (chromium VI discharge limit) from 0.016 mg/L to 0.015 mg/L chromium VI eliminates the need to incorporate in this Petition on the deficiencies of the August 9, 1996 Order, a requested revision of the chromium VI discharge limits and Putah Creek water quality concentrations.
The August 9, 1996 Order still contains the same error that was made by the staff and Board in the June 23, 1995 Order of allowing total chromium to be discharged at up to 0.05 mg/L in the form of chromium III, which is the drinking water MCL for chromium. As the petitioner discussed in his comments to the Board prior to its adoption of the June 23, 1995 Order, in my petition of July 21, 1995 to the State Board on the deficiencies in this Order and in the written comments submitted to the Board prior to August 9, 1996 on the deficiencies in the August 9, 1996 proposed Order as well as testimony that was presented to the Board on August 9, 1996, allowing a total chromium discharge of 0.050 mg/L in the form of chromium III could readily result in chromium VI concentrations in Putah Creek in excess of 0.010 mg/L, i.e. the four-day average chronic criterion limit.
As it has been pointed out to the Board on numerous occasions by the petitioner, it was my (Dr. Lee's) graduate students and I in work that we did at the University of Wisconsin in the 1960s who first established that chromium III converts to chromium VI in surface waters similar to Putah Creek. In fact, our work on this topic was done on waters in a Madison, Wisconsin creek similar to Putah Creek. Subsequently, several investigators have found that chromium III does convert to chromium VI in surface waters that contain dissolved oxygen. This conversion is predicted based on chemical thermodynamics and, in fact, has been found to occur in several situations. Additional information on this conversion is provided in the written materials that have been provided to the Central Valley Regional Quality Control Board prior to and then subsequent to the August 9, 1996 hearing. Copies of these are appended to this Petition or have previously been submitted to the WRCB as attachments to Order No. 95-187.
The Board staff claimed in correspondence by Mr. Pinkos dated February 22, 1996 that, "Staff has not seen evidence of the conversion of chromium to chromium VI as you have suggested." They did not provide any supporting documentation for this statement. Since Mr. McHenry and the staff in their written comments have on several occasions made highly inaccurate, distorted claims on water quality issues pertinent to University of California, Davis wastewater discharges, I specifically asked in my May 19, 1996 letter to the Board that the staff provide the Board and the public with the technical basis for their above quoted statement that chromium III does not convert to chromium VI in Putah Creek waters. Mr. Pinkos in his August 5, 1996 letter admitted that they did not have adequate/reliable data to make such a statement. This was yet another of the increasing list of examples of where the staff have deliberately distorted information in an attempt to cover up an inappropriately developed position on the chromium and other water quality issues pertinent to the University of California, Davis waste discharges.
At the August 9, 1996 hearing, Chairman Longley injected his personal views on chromium chemistry where he claimed that I had my views and he had his and he was correct. On August 18, 1996 I sent the Board an additional discussion of chromium chemistry issues which reiterated the issues I had discussed previously--that under the conditions that exist in Putah Creek, chromium III discharged at 0.050 mg/L has the potential to convert to chromium VI in excess of 0.010 mg/L and thereby could cause toxicity to aquatic life in the Creek.
I also pointed out that Mr. McHenry's statement at the August 9, 1996 hearing about how Mr. Phil Woods of US EPA Region 9 had informed him that chromium III would not convert to chromium VI under these conditions represented a significant distortion of the facts. As I discussed in my August 18, 1996 letter after discussing this matter with Mr. Woods, Mr. Phil Woods did not discuss this issue with Mr. McHenry or any other Regional Board staff or Board member; he left a telephone message with Mr. Yeadon indicating that it was his conclusion that chromium III and chromium VI are interconvertable, dependent on environmental conditions. This is exactly the same point that I have been discussing with the Regional Board in my correspondence over the past 15 months.
In response to my August 18, 1996 letter on these issues, the Regional Board scheduled a hearing on September 20, 1996 to discuss technical issues associated with chromium. Hopefully, at that time the issue of the conversion of chromium III to chromium VI in Putah Creek waters will be resolved. However, since this Petition has to be filed by September 9, 1996 to meet the statutory deadline, the Petition must contain a request of the State Board to review the chromium III to chromium VI conversion issue in the event that the Regional Board does not revise its discharge limits for chromium III to those recommended in this Petition associated with Order No. 96-227 adopted on August 9, 1996.
As I stated in my August 18, 1996 letter to the Board, the University of California, Davis L. Vanderhoef administration could find that the cheapest way to implement Order No. 96-227 is to add a reducing agent to the VOC air-stripped leachate-polluted groundwaters in order to convert the chromium VI in these groundwaters to chromium III. From the information available, such an approach would comply with the conditions set forth in Order No. 96-227. It could, however, readily lead to chromium toxicity in Putah Creek which would not be detected by the highly inadequate monitoring program in Order No. 96-227.
It is important to point out the unique character of Putah Creek in that it is an ephemeral, effluent-dependent stream that carries full aquatic life protection as a designated use. While for most waterbodies and for some times in Putah Creek, the dilution associated with the discharge in the receiving waters would prevent a chromium problem from occurring associated with a 0.050 mg/L chromium III discharge because of its conversion to chromium VI, for Putah Creek there are times when there is little or no dilution water available. Therefore, special provisions have to be taken to protect the designated beneficial uses of this waterbody that properly consider the aquatic chemistry of chromium in Putah Creek waters.
It should be noted that there are other sources of chromium for Putah Creek which may require further restrictions of the UCD "west" landfill leachate-polluted groundwaters discharged to Putah Creek. The Petitioner recommends, in accord with standard practice, that the chromium concentrations in Putah Creek be determined to assess whether this discharge of chromium is going to cause further exceedances of the water quality criteria for chromium for aquatic life. The Petitioner has examined data collected in the 1990s on Putah Creek downstream of the proposed discharge and found that, at times, the total chromium in the Creek at that location exceeded the chronic criterion values for chromium. This chromium is due, in part, to discharges of chromium that are occurring from the UCD campus wastewater treatment plant.
It is because of the background chromium that can occur in Putah Creek waters that are near or above the US EPA's chronic water quality criterion of 0.010 mg/L that UCD may have to limit the total chromium discharged from its leachate-polluted groundwaters to less than 0.010 mg/L so that the total chromium in that part of Putah Creek which is influenced by UCD wastewater discharges/runoff is less than 0.010 mg/L.
Mr. McHenry indicated in his oral testimony at the August 9, 1996 hearing that the staff had incorporated into the revised Draft Order a Putah Creek monitoring requirement for chromium VI. The revised Draft Order was not available for public review, nor did Mr. McHenry specifically state what the revisions were in his oral testimony. Subsequently, I received a copy of the Order that was adopted by the Board on August 9, 1996 and found that the staff had incorporated a single monitoring point (R-2) which was located 100 feet downstream of the point of discharge for the UCD "west" landfill leachate-polluted groundwaters to Putah Creek. As I commented in my August 18, 1996 letter to the Board, a single monitoring point of this type is obviously not adequate to reliably detect the slow conversion of chromium III to chromium VI that could occur in Putah Creek.
While it would be possible for the University of California, Davis to undertake a large-scale, intensive monitoring program to determine whether there are conditions that occur in Putah Creek where chromium III discharged above 0.010 mg/L would be converted to chromium VI in excess of 0.010 mg/L, this would require a far more comprehensive monitoring program than the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board typically requires for wastewater discharges. I have recommended a far more reliable approach of simply limiting the total concentration of chromium (chromium III + chromium VI) to 0.010 mg/L in the discharge and in Putah Creek waters. This approach eliminates any need for a highly sophisticated monitoring program for chromium conversion and, if implemented properly, will provide a high degree of protection of Putah Creek aquatic life from chromium toxicity.
The adoption of this approach will not place undue burden on UCD since, from the information available, UCD is going to have to treat/remove chromium from its "west" landfill leachate-polluted groundwaters before discharge to Putah Creek unless the regulatory agencies at the Regional Board level and the State Board fail to take appropriate action on this Petition. The suggested approach of limiting the total chromium, rather than allowing the conversion of chromium VI to chromium III and its discharge in that form as could occur under the current Order, represents a true waste treatment (pollution prevention) approach, rather than a subterfuge which allows compliance with the Order but does not protect the environment.
Acute and Chronic Toxicity Monitoring
Pages 1 and 2 of the "Monitoring and Reporting Program No. 96-227" under "Effluent Monitoring" as well as pages 4 and 5 of Order 95-187 under "Effluent Limitations," state:
"Survival of aquatic organisms in 96-hour acute bioassays of undiluted waste shall be no less than:"
"Minimum for any one bioassay - - - - - - - - - 70%
Median for any three or more consecutive bioassays - - - 90%
"Order No. 96-227 also requires two chronic toxicity tests on 100% effluent for percent survival per year. Neither the June 23, 1995 Order nor the August 9, 1996 Order require acute and/or chronic toxicity testing of Putah Creek waters.
Contrary to the statements made by Mr. McHenry and the staff in connection with the adoption of Order No. 95-187 on June 23, 1995, acute toxicity testing is not adequate in this situation to protect aquatic life from chronic toxicity. It is well-known that chronic toxicity occurs often at a factor of 10 to 100 below the concentrations of constituents that cause acute toxicity. Therefore, a wastewater effluent which meets acute toxicity testing requirements can readily, in a Putah Creek discharge situation, be chronically toxic to aquatic life in the receiving waters.
In evaluating these impacts, it is important to consider that a combination of the effluent and receiving waters could lead to toxic conditions that would not be detected by measuring effluent toxicity alone or Putah Creek water toxicity alone. Also, there are special flow conditions, such as extreme Putah Creek low flow and during the period of the first major rising hydrograph, when scour of substances from the sediments which could include chromium III that has accumulated there due to its strong sorption tendencies would be suspended in the water column and lead to toxic conditions in the Creek.
The University of California, Davis has a long history of mismanagement of its campus liquid and solid wastes. At this time, UCD has four campus landfills, all of which are polluting groundwaters with hazardous chemicals. The University of California, Davis has yet to implement a technically valid stormwater runoff monitoring program in accord with its NPDES permit. One of the campus landfills located at the eastern edge of the LEHR site (Landfill No. 3) which has received campus chemical wastes and LEHR site radioactive wastes has a wide stormwater drainage channel cut through the top of it by UCD with wastes exposed to surface stormwater runoff from UCD property. Every moderate to intense stormwater runoff event washes the wastes that are exposed in this channel and carries components of the wastes into Putah Creek. The University of California, Davis was not required and did not monitor stormwater runoff from this source until this past February when the Davis South Campus Superfund Oversight Committee (DSCSOC) forced the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration to conduct a sampling of the runoff waters. Unfortunately, the sampling and analysis of the samples was done incorrectly due to UCD's failure to establish a technically valid monitoring program for hazardous chemicals.
Thus far, even though DSCSOC and the Petitioner have specifically requested that the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board take action in this matter, the staff and Board have refused to do so under the guise that this issue is part of the LEHR site national Superfund investigation and remediation program. While it is part of this program, the stormwater runoff through the channel cut in the top of this landfill is regulated by the CVRWQCB stormwater permit, the administration of this permit is considered outside the LEHR site Superfund investigation and remediation procedures. This issue is mentioned in connection with this Petition since this is another of the unregulated, uncontrolled UCD discharges of hazardous constituents that could, either alone or in combination with "west" landfill leachate-polluted groundwaters, cause significant water quality problems in Putah Creek. The only way that this issue can be adequately addressed is to require that Putah Creek be adequately and reliably monitored for cumulative impacts of hazardous chemicals arising from UCD's wastewater discharges and stormwater runoff.
Chronic Toxicity Testing
A review of the "Monitoring and Reporting Chronic Toxicity Requirements," as set forth on page 1 of the "Monitoring and Reporting Program No. 96-227," shows that, for "Effluent Monitoring," chronic toxicity testing is to be conducted "twice annually" for "% survival."
On page 2 of the "Monitoring and Reporting Program Requirements," the chronic toxicity testing procedures are set forth in footnote 4:
"Chronic toxicity testing as specified in EPA 600/4-91-002 shall use Pimephales promelas, Ceriodaphnia dubia, and Selenastrum capricornutum as the test species. The test shall be conducted in 100% effluent without dilution since the receiving stream is considered ephemeral."
Beginning on the bottom of page 2 are the "Receiving Water Monitoring" requirements. The constituents that are to be monitored are set forth at the top of page 3. Chronic toxic testing is not required on the receiving waters for this waste discharge.
The Board adopted the staff's recommended approach of only requiring two chronic toxicity tests per year of the effluent before discharge to Putah Creek. There is no requirement for receiving water toxicity testing, neither acute nor chronic. The petitioner discussed in detail, in the comments submitted to the Regional Board well in advance of the June 23, 1995 hearing, the importance, in this case, of testing for chronic toxicity in the receiving waters. While the staff (Mr. McHenry) claimed, in testimony before the Board, that the acute and chronic toxicity testing of the effluent as required in the Order are protective, to anyone who understands the elements of aquatic chemistry, aquatic toxicology and water quality that are pertinent to protection of fish and aquatic life, it is obvious that such assertions are technically invalid.
As discussed by the petitioner in his written comments submitted to the Board, effluent testing for toxicity is not reliable for assessing receiving water toxicity. Constituents in the effluent which are non-toxic at the time of discharge can convert to toxic forms in the receiving waters. As discussed by the petitioner in the previously submitted written comments and herein, chromium III, which is non-toxic in the discharge, and which according to the Order can be discharged at up to 0.05 mg/L, will convert to chromium VI in the receiving waters, which is a limit that is toxic to some aquatic organisms. Testing of the effluent for toxicity does not address this problem. While in many situations, this conversion is of limited importance because there is appreciable dilution in the receiving waters which renders the toxicants diluted below toxic levels, in Putah Creek, since there will be times when there is little or no dilution of this discharge, this mechanism of detoxification does not necessarily occur. It is, therefore, essential that any toxicity testing that is designed to protect aquatic life from toxicants in a waste discharge include detailed receiving water chronic toxicity testing.
This "Effluent Monitoring" and the "Receiving Water Monitoring" should be changed to require no chronic toxicity in 100% effluent and at selected representative locations on undiluted Putah Creek water using chronic toxicity testing as specified in EPA 600/4-91-002 using Pimephales promelas, Ceriodaphnia dubia and Selenastrum capricornutum as test species. This testing of Putah Creek waters should be required to be conducted at quarterly intervals, especially during the late summer, early fall low Putah Creek flow conditions and during the time of a rising hydrograph for the first major runoff event of the wet period each year.
This Order should be changed so that the effluent is tested monthly for chronic toxicity using the three species indicated in the Order. Further, not only should percent survival be used, but, also, no chronic toxicity that affects reproduction, causes abnormality in growth, etc., should be allowed.
The chronic toxicity tests that are specified can provide far more information about impacts than just death of organisms ("% survival"). If, after a couple of years of monthly testing of the effluent, it is found that there is no chronic toxicity, then the testing can be reduced to quarterly; however, because of the fact that constituents in a groundwater plume move at different rates, there could readily be significant plumes of toxicants derived from the landfill which have not yet reached an extraction well to a sufficient extent to cause aquatic life toxicity. It is for this reason that the chronic toxicity testing of the effluent must be continued ad infinitum on a quarterly basis. If, at any time, chronic toxicity is found, then the frequency of testing must again become monthly.
Bioaccumulation
The petitioner has repeatedly recommended to the CVRWQCB that UCD be required to monitor fish and other aquatic life in Putah Creek for bioaccumulatable chemicals that would cause these organisms to be considered a health hazard for those who use them as food. Neither the June 23, 1995 Order nor the August 9, 1996 Order accepted the petitioner's recommendations for requiring that UCD monitor Putah Creek organisms for excessive bioaccumulation of hazardous chemicals. Because bioaccumulation of hazardous chemicals is one of the most important causes of water quality deterioration, it is essential that any waterbody receiving complex wastewater effluents from municipal, industrial and landfill leachate sources be considered an important source of hazardous chemicals that could bioaccumulate to excessive concentrations in the aquatic biota in the receiving waters.
As discussed in the materials that are part of the administrative record for this Petition, it has become clear that the Regional Water Quality Control Board staff and management associated with the University of California, Davis wastewater discharge orders do not understand the basic principles of aquatic life toxicity and bioaccumulation. Mr. Pinkos in his August 5, 1996 response to my May 19, 1996 letter stated that bioaccumulation studies would be done if excessive toxicity was found in the UCD leachate-polluted groundwaters that were being discharged to Putah Creek.
As I discussed in my August 8, 1996 response, such an approach is exactly backwards from what should be followed. A review of water quality criteria for chemical constituents that tend to bioaccumulate shows that for mercury, selenium, chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides, PCBs, dioxin, etc. the concentrations in water that bioaccumulate to excessive levels in fish tissue are often one to several orders of magnitude less than the concentrations that are toxic to fish. Unfortunately, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board in their August 9, 1996 hearing ignored my written and verbal testimony on this issue and accepted the technically invalid approach recommended by the staff of not requiring UCD to monitor fish and other aquatic life for excessive bioaccumulation associated with the University of California, Davis' wastewater discharges and stormwater runoff.
The Putah Creek situation would be one that is particularly vulnerable to excessive bioaccumulation because of the low flow conditions that occur and the intensive use of this stream as a fisheries resource. It is, therefore, important that UCD, as the principal waste discharger to Putah Creek in the Davis region, be required to monitor for excessive bioaccumulation for any one of its wastewater discharges, such as the "west" landfill leachate-polluted groundwaters, in order to determine whether this discharge contributes excessive concentrations of constituents that lead to health hazards to those who use Putah Creek fish as food as well as the cumulative impacts of all of UCD's wastewater discharges and stormwater runoff. As with toxicity, it may be that an individual discharge may not cause excessive bioaccumulation; however, the cumulative effects of the discharges could lead to excessive concentrations in fish tissue.
It is important to note that even if the chromium issues are resolved at subsequent hearings, the chronic toxicity monitoring issue and bioaccumulation monitoring issue will still require the filing of this Petition since there could readily be other constituents in the "west" landfill leachate-polluted groundwaters besides chromium that could lead to excessive bioaccumulation and/or chronic toxicity to aquatic life.
Receiving Water Limitations
Pages 5 and 6, under "Receiving Water Limitations" in both the 95-187 and 96-227 Orders present a set of 14 requirements where, for the majority, there is no required monitoring by UCD of the receiving waters for these limitations.
The petitioner, in commenting on the draft WDRs, pointed out that receiving water limitations have little or no meaning unless the dischargers are required to monitor receiving waters for compliance with the limitations. The petitioner specifically pointed out potential problems with several of these limitations that could result from the discharge of the UCD "west" landfill leachate-polluted groundwaters to Putah Creek where the only treatment provided to these wastewaters is air-stripping of some of the VOCs as was originally proposed by UCD and the CVRWQCB staff and accepted by the Board at their June 23, 1995 hearing. There can readily be significant numbers of chemical constituents in this wastewater that could be in violation of the receiving water limitations set forth on pages 5 and 6. Specific limitations of concern are the following:
"10. Taste or odor-producing substances to impart undesirable tastes or odors to fish flesh or other edible products of aquatic origin or to cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses."
"12. Aquatic communities and populations, including vertebrate, invertebrate, and plant species, to be degraded."
"13. Toxic pollutants to be present in the water column, sediments, or biota in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses; that produce detrimental response in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life; or that bioaccumulate in aquatic resources at levels which are harmful to human health."
As discussed by the petitioner in his several sets of comments to the Regional Board provided well in advance of the June 23, 1995 hearing where the WDRs for Order No. 95-187 were adopted by the Board, municipal landfill leachate contains a wide variety of unregulated chemicals that could readily be detrimental to Putah Creek water quality. In the case of the UCD landfill, its leachate has the characteristics of municipal landfill leachate, in which most of the organics present are not characterized with respect to either their specific chemical components or with respect to their potential impact on Putah Creek water quality for such issues as: chronic toxicity; bioaccumulation of chemicals that would be adverse to those people who use fish and other aquatic life in Putah Creek as food as well as to wildlife that use Putah Creek aquatic life as food; and tastes and odors in the fish and aquatic life used as food. In addition to the characteristics of municipal landfill leachate, the pollution of the groundwaters at the UCD "west" landfill is occurring by a variety of exotic unregulated chemicals associated with UCD research which could readily contribute to significant water quality use impairments in Putah Creek in several of the areas of receiving water limitations.
While the staff claims, in an attempt to rebut the petitioner's suggestions, that there is little likelihood of problems from this discharge causing exceedances of receiving water limitations, the staff has no technical basis to make such a claim and, in fact, based on the many years of experience that the petitioner has in work on evaluating the impact of municipal landfill leachate on water quality, the staff's claims are not expected to be valid.
UCD should be required to ensure that the receiving water limitations imposed in the WDRs are, in fact, fulfilled through monitoring of the receiving waters to specifically address the receiving water limitation issues covered in the Order. Without this monitoring, the receiving water limitations are simply verbiage that have no real meaning. The Order should be amended to include specific, adequate testing of the receiving waters for each of the limitations cited on pages 5 and 6.
The staff's and Board's approach to addressing receiving water limitations is to place the burden of proof for adverse impacts on the public and the environment. As discussed in previous correspondence, this approach is opposite of what should be followed. In a situation such as UCD's discharges to Putah Creek where there is limited dilution and assimulative capacity for regulated as well as unregulated waste components, the discharger (the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration) should be required to demonstrate with a high degree of certainty before discharge and then through a comprehensive monitoring program while the discharge is occurring the impacts of this discharge, individually as well as cumulatively, on the designated beneficial uses of Putah Creek. This approach places the burden of proof on the discharger, not the public and the environment. Those in the Davis area and other who are concerned about the resources of Putah Creek should be entitled to this level of protection. Putah Creek should no longer be the University of California, Davis sewer in which campus wastewater and stormwater runoff are allowed to be discharged without adequate treatment.
Receiving Water Monitoring Locations
This Order, on page 2, specifies sampling points for receiving water monitoring as 50 feet upstream and 100 feet downstream from the point of discharge for those parameters (DO, pH, turbidity, temperature, electrical conductivity, radionuclides, total chromium and chromium VI) for which receiving water analyses are to be made. One sampling station at 50 feet upstream and 100 feet downstream is not adequate to detect water quality problems for some of the required parameters, such as DO, and certainly will not be adequate to carry out the chronic toxicity monitoring that should be undertaken to evaluate whether UCD's wastewater discharge is adversely affecting the beneficial uses of Putah Creek. For some parameters, such as DO, the adverse impacts will not be manifested until some distance (travel time) downstream. To arbitrarily select 100 feet as a sampling point shows a lack of understanding of the elementary principles of water pollution control, since Putah Creek water could test non-toxic at that point, yet have constituents in it, such as BOD, which downstream are highly adverse to the beneficial uses of the stream.
Rather than arbitrarily selecting a single station downstream for monitoring, a series of downstream stations must be selected for monitoring of those parameters that could, through transformations, exert their influence at some distance downstream of the discharge. The distances downstream that should be monitored will be a function of flow. UCD should be required to conduct the studies necessary to develop a reliable monitoring program that will consider the potential for chromium III in the discharge's conversion to chromium VI, etc. This monitoring program should be made available to the public for their review prior to acceptance by the Board and/or its staff.
Characterization of Pollution Potential of Wastewaters
One of the issues discussed by the petitioner in his written submittals to the CVRWQCB that is of great concern is the inappropriate approach recommended by the staff and adopted by the Board for evaluating the degree of treatment necessary of the UCD "west" landfill leachate-polluted groundwater before discharge to Putah Creek. The staff has recommended a highly inadequate approach for characterization of the potential pollutional tendencies of this leachate-polluted groundwater when discharged to Putah Creek. By focusing only on a few regulated chemicals/parameters, the staff has chosen to ignore the vast arena of unregulated chemicals, including regulated chemical transformation products, that could be present in the leachate-polluted groundwater.
Ordinarily, in a polluted groundwater site cleanup program, those responsible for developing the cleanup approach are required to conduct the necessary studies to demonstrate that the approach will, in fact, protect receiving waters. The Board staff, and now the Board, has adopted an approach which arbitrarily and capriciously assumes that air-stripping of the leachate-polluted groundwater is all that is needed to protect aquatic life from chronic toxicity, bioaccumulatable chemicals, the accumulation of odorous materials within the tissues, etc. As discussed by the petitioner, this approach falls far short of common sense and prudent scientific and engineering principles for evaluating the appropriateness of a testing program before discharging a new wastewater to a waterbody where, at times, the wastewater will be the dominant and, in some cases, the only flow in the waterbody.
While the staff asserts that the toxicity testing will protect the waterbody, it is obvious that when the chronic toxicity testing schedule is examined, as well as the locations of the chronic toxicity testing, i.e. only the effluent, that this approach will not be protective. With respect to the chronic toxicity testing of the effluent, as it stands now the staff and Board are allowing UCD to run a six-to-nine-month experiment where this leachate-polluted groundwater can be discharged to Putah Creek before the first chronic toxicity test is conducted of the effluent discharged to the Creek. The petitioner recommended that UCD be required to adopt the commonly accepted and practiced approach of extracting groundwaters and blending them, as will be expected to occur when the pump-and-treat operation becomes operational. This water, then, should be tested for chronic toxicity. All of this should be done before a new pipeline is built to discharge this wastewater to Putah Creek. As it stands now, where discharge is allowed to occur without proper pre-evaluation and characterization of the effluent through fish kills or eventual measurements of chronic toxicity on the effluent, substantial damage could be done to Putah Creek.
UCD could find that it will not be able to discharge the air-stripped leachate-polluted groundwaters to Putah Creek without installation of a major treatment works. It may be necessary to recharge the VOC-stripped leachate-polluted groundwaters to the aquifer as a method of disposal and/or to use these polluted groundwaters to irrigate crops on UCD lands. Certainly, if the polluted groundwaters are not suitable for irrigation of crops, they are not suitable for discharge to Putah Creek. There are waters, however, that would not be suitable for discharge to Putah Creek that could be used for irrigation and/or recharge to the aquifer where there is no issue of aquatic life toxicity associated with managing the effluent.
As part of revising this Order, UCD should be required to develop a credible testing program of the polluted groundwaters of the type that will be pumped and air-stripped before any discharge to Putah Creek occurs. While in 1995 the Regional Board became concerned about delaying the start-up of the groundwater cleanup program during the proper characterization of the potential pollutional impacts of the air-stripped polluted groundwaters before discharge, the facts are that the additional spread of the groundwater pollution during this period of testing will be insignificant. For that matter, UCD, if it is so confident about the lack of pollutional characteristics of the discharge, could today use this polluted groundwater to irrigate crops on its own lands which overlie the area where pollution is occurring. UCD has substantial agricultural lands in that region that could be used for polluted groundwater disposal as a part of a reclaimed water project. There is no justification for not properly evaluating the potential pollutional impacts of the UCD "west" landfill leachate-polluted groundwater on Putah Creek before any discharge to the Creek occurs. This is not only good engineering practice, it is the common-sense approach.
TDS (Total Dissolved Solids) Limitations
Page 7, under "Provisions" item 3, states:
"The Discharger shall use the best practicable cost-effective control technique currently available to limit total dissolved solids to no more than 500 mg/l."
The petitioner discussed in the written comments submitted to the Board the inappropriateness of this approach. Mr. McHenry and the staff, through written statements and in the oral final summary statement provided at the June 23, 1995 hearing, have provided highly distorted statements on this issue. At that hearing, Mr. McHenry stated:
"First of all, provision number 3 on page 6 of the Waste Discharge Requirements does indeed limit total dissolved solids to the secondary drinking water standards of 500 mg/l, which is actually an unusually tight standard for total dissolved solids in wastewater discharges. If I may, the typical goals...well, the secondary standards are indeed 500 mg/l."
However, reading the actual provision, "Provision 3," adopted in the Order and quoted above, shows that Mr. McHenry's statement is not reliable, since there is considerable latitude that can be used to determine what is "best practicable economically effective control" of TDS.
When the petitioner suggested that the Orange County Water District has found that reverse osmosis (RO) treatment of reclaimed domestic wastewaters is cost-effective control of TDS, the staff responded that they disagreed with the use of RO. As in many of the staff's comments on the petitioner's comments, the staff chose to make blanket unsupported statements without the back-up to allow peer review of the technical validity of the staff's position.
"Provision 3" on page 7 should be reworded so that the Basin Plan objective of protecting groundwater from increased TDS is required for this discharge. It is important to note that since Putah Creek is a groundwater-recharged stream, any TDS that is discharged to it will become part of the TDS that recharges the aquifer during the times of low flow in the Creek.
"Provision 3" should state:
"The Discharger shall control the total dissolved solids in the discharge to no more than 500 mg/l."
Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
Page 3, item 17 states:
"The University, as lead agency has certified a final environmental impact report (EIR) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.), and the State CEQA Guidelines. The Board has reviewed the EIR and concurs there are no significant impacts on water quality."
It is important to note that this FEIR covers far more than just the discharge of landfill leachate-polluted groundwaters to Putah Creek. There are many aspects of this proposed landfill expansion which, based on the experience of the petitioner, cannot be expected to conform to the overall groundwater protection requirements of Chapter 15 of protecting groundwaters from impaired use from landfill leachate for as long as the wastes in the landfill represent a threat. The UCD proposed design for this proposed landfill expansion will, at best, only postpone when groundwater pollution occurs; it cannot be prevented with this proposed design. This issue was not discussed in the FEIR that was developed by the UCD staff and self-certified by the UCD administration on July 6, 1995.
Adequacy of the CVRWQCB's Review Process
Page 4, item 19, states:
"The Board, in a public meeting, heard and considered all comments pertaining to the discharge."
That statement does not properly describe how the Board conducted review of this matter on June 23, 1995 as well as on August 9, 1996. The facts are that the Board allowed Mr. McHenry to make a series of unreliable comments to the Board about issues pertinent to these WDRs before closing the hearing to public comment. The public, and, specifically, the petitioner, was not allowed the opportunity to show that Mr. McHenry was providing unreliable information to the Board on the protection of Putah Creek water quality.
Inadequacies of Order to Conform to Legal Requirements
This Order fails to conform to the objective of the Clean Water Act
"...to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation's waters."
It also fails to conform to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act Policy 13000, paragraphs 1 and 2, which require
"...that the quality of all waters of the state shall be protected for use and enjoyment by the people of the state."
Further, paragraph 2 of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act states that
"...the waters of the state shall be regulated to obtain the highest water quality, which is reasonable, considering all demands being made and to be made on those waters and the total values involved, beneficial and detrimental, economic and social, tangible and intangible."
This Order also fails to reliably support the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board's Basin Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River basins adopted on December 9, 1994 and in subsequent amendments, which states on page III-8.00, under "Water Quality Objectives, Toxicity" that
"All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. Compliance with this objective will be determined by analyses of indicator organisms, species diversity, population density, growth anomalies, and biotoxicity tests of appropriate duration or other methods as specified by the Regional Water Board."
As discussed herein, this Order does not conform to either Clean Water Act, Porter-Cologne Act or the Regional Board's Basin Plan requirements of protection of Putah Creek waters from impairment that could readily occur due to the initiation of a new discharge to Putah Creek arising from the University of California Davis' discharge of "west" landfill leachate-polluted groundwaters to Putah Creek.
Interested Parties
The CVRWQCB has indicated through its mailing of the "Notice" of the "Adopted New Waste Discharge Requirements" as set forth in Order 96-227 of August 9, 1996 (dated July 1, 1996), that the following agencies and/or individuals are interested in this Order:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco
Also on this list should have been:
Ms. Jeannie-Marie Olmo-Resendiz, Davis
Addresses for these agencies and individuals are available from the CVRWQCB.
In addition, there are many property owners along or near Putah Creek who have an interest in Putah Creek water quality. Some of these individuals include those listed below.
This list was provided by Julie Roth.
The following individuals have attended CVRWQCB meetings on Putah Creek Water Quality:
Mark Bonnetti
26945 County Road 97D
Davis, CA 95616
Mr. Bonnetti also represents
Grace Valley Christian Center
27173 Road 98
Davis, CA 95616
Jeannie Olmo Resendiz
Route 2 Box 2775
Davis, CA 95616
Also represents
Dan Olmo and
Dr. and Mrs. Harold Olmo
Richard Winger
Dos Pinos Ranch
37884 Russell Boulevard
Davis, CA 95616
Leon Wegge
26320 County Road 98
Davis, CA 95616
Mary Ann Miller
Route 2 Box 2877
Davis, CA 95616
Julie Roth
Route 2 Box 2879
Davis, CA 95616
Chairman
South Davis Campus Superfund Oversight Committee
Dr. Robert Speirs,br8717 State Highway 16
Brooks, CA 95606
Wes, Kay & Dan Wooden
512 E Street,brDavis, CA 95616
W. Wooden represents
West Plainfield Citizens
John Hamel
955 Hillview Drive
Dixon, CA 95620
Chris Horsley
30000 The Horseshoe
Winters, CA
President of Putah Creek Landowners Association
Mary (Hamel) & Clyde Rust
950 Chiles Road
Davis, CA 95616
Also represents Irene Hamel
Molly Webster
26880 Cassidy Lane
Davis, CA 95616
Owen Hamel
7910 Hamel Lane
Davis, CA 95616
George Crum
19 Priscilla Court
Winters, CA 95694
La Vonne Le Maitre
23090 Myrtle Lane
Woodland, CA 95695
Represents T. S. Glide Estate
The following individuals have concerns and interest in Putah Creek:
Albert Martinelli
5241 Del Rio Road
Sacramento, CA 95822
E. S. Bertagnolli
P.O. Box 3
Clayton, CA 94517
Dan Leith
Harrison Trust
Harrison Family
Central Valley Real Estate
5262 N. Blackstone Avenue
Fresno, CA 93710
Carol and Ed Beoshanz
25635 County Road 96
Davis, CA 95616
Harry Narducci
County Road 96
Davis, CA 95616
Eric Lavenier
Yosemite Avenue
Davis, CA 95616
Ann Luscutoff
P.O. Box 2101
El Macero, CA 95618
Michelle Christison
111 Eunice Drive
Woodland, Ca 95695
Elizabeth Dankworth
Rt 2 Box 2879
Davis, CA 95616
Kate Reisig
5213 Arrons Way
Sacramento, CA 95842
Secretary SDCSOC
John Nishi
Route 1 Box 1010
Davis, CA 95616
Bruce Maeda
2441 Buckleberry Lane
Davis, CA 95616
Co-director West Davis Community Assn.
Laura Williams
Harrison Trust
Shriners Cripple Children
P.O. Box 31356
Tampa, FL 33631
Jack Pflugrath
37750 Russell Boulevard
Davis, CA 95616
Dr. Jim and Renie Kennedy
38392 Larue Way
Davis, CA 95616
John Roth III
924 Purdue Drive
Woodland, CA 95695
Further, there are many unknown individuals who frequently recreate in, on or near Putah Creek. In the past year and a half the petitioner has frequently observed individuals fishing, wading, canoeing and kayaking in or on Putah Creek in the area near where Putah Creek crosses the Old Davis Road. It is at this point that the University of California, Davis wastewater treatment plant discharges to the Creek.
Hearing
The petitioner requests that, if necessary, a hearing be held to discuss these issues. While the petitioner believes that adequate evidence has been presented to enable the State Board to act on this matter in affirmation of the Petition, if the State Board concludes otherwise, then a hearing is requested for full public review of the issues.
Notice of Appeal
A copy of this Petition has been provided to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and Chancellor L Vanderhoef of the University of California, Davis.
A copy of the request that was made by the petitioner to the Regional Board is enclosed.
Overall Conclusions and Recommendations
It is imperative that the State Board and, if necessary, the US EPA remand this Order back to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board for reconsideration of the issues raised. Also, because of the potential damage that could be caused to Putah Creek, it is imperative that UCD be prohibited from discharging to Putah Creek the leachate-polluted groundwaters until proper characterization of the VOC-stripped polluted groundwaters has been conducted. Further, UCD should not be allowed to discharge to Putah Creek the polluted groundwaters until a reliable set of WDRs has been developed for this discharge that will, in fact, protect the designated beneficial uses of Putah Creek.
List of Appendices to Petition
"Petition to the State Water Resources Control Board to Review the Waste Discharge Requirements, Order 95-187, Issued by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board on June 23, 1995 to the University of California at Davis for the UCD Campus Landfill Ground Water Cleanup System," Submitted by G. Fred Lee, July 21, 1995.
Letter to Karl Longley, Chair, on UCD's addendum FEIR that was purported to support discharge of the leachate-polluted groundwaters to the campus wastewater treatment plant influent from G. Fred Lee, dated November 19, 1995.
Letter to Karl Longley, Chair, regarding UCD landfill matters, from G. Fred Lee, dated January 19, 1996.
Letter to Karl Longley, Chair, responding to Mr. Pinkos' February 22, 1996 letter on UCD landfilling matters, from G. Fred Lee, May 19, 1996.
Letter to Karl Longley, Chair, regarding Notice of Tentative Waste Discharge Requirements for UCD campus landfill leachate-polluted groundwaters discharged to Putah Creek, from G. Fred Lee, July 16, 1996.
"Comments on Central Valley Water Quality Control Board Staff Report Concerning the University of California, Davis Class III Landfill Issues Dated July 18, 1996," Submitted by G. Fred Lee dated August 3, 1996.
Letter to Karl Longley, Chair, regarding Mr. Pinkos' August 5, 1996 letter on UCD landfill matters, from G. Fred Lee, dated August 8, 1996.
Letter to Karl Longley, Chair, concerned with Mr. Pinkos' letter of August 5, 1996 devoted to UCD landfill issues, from G. Fred Lee, dated August 18, 1996.
Letter to Karl Longley, Chair, and Board Members concerned with chromium chemistry issues pertinent to UCD's west landfill leachate-polluted groundwaters to Putah Creek, from G. Fred Lee, dated August 18, 1996.
Letter to Karl Longley, Chair, regarding the Notice of Public Hearing on chromium issues, from G. Fred Lee, dated September 4, 1996.
The following appendices were submitted with the July 21, 1995 Petition. These appendices should be incorporated into the administrative record for this Petition. If an additional copy of them is needed, please contact the petitioner.
Letter to Karl Longley, Chair, and Members of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board on the technical problems with the Board's WDRs for UCD landfill leachate-polluted groundwater discharge to Putah Creek and the deficiencies in WDRs for UCD - USDA wastewater monitoring, from G. Fred Lee, dated July 22, 1995.
Letter to Karl Longley, Chair, and Members of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board on the technical deficiencies in Order 95-187, "Waste Discharge Requirements for the University of California Davis Campus Landfill Ground Water Cleanup System," from G. Fred Lee, dated July 21, 1995
Letter to Karl Longley, Chair, CVRWQCB giving notice of petition to have the State Water Resources Control Board review Order 95-187, from G. Fred Lee, dated July 19, 1995.
Letter to William Crooks regarding the CVRWQCB staff's handling of the distribution of its "Notice of the Adopted New Waste Discharge Requirements for University of California Davis Campus Landfill Ground Water Cleanup System, Yolo County," from G. Fred Lee, dated July 5, 1995.
CVRWQCB "Notice of Adopted New Waste Discharge Requirements for University of California Davis Campus Landfill Ground Water Cleanup System, Yolo County," dated June 27, 1995.
Agenda item 5 for the June 23, 1995, meeting of CVRWQCB devoted to "University of California, Davis Campus Landfill, Ground Water Cleanup System, Yolo County - Consideration of NPDES Permit."
"Comments on Response to Comments from G. Fred Lee, 6 May and 6 June, 1995, Tentative Waste Discharge Requirements, NPDES No. 0083712, University of California Davis Campus Landfill, Yolo County," submitted by G. Fred Lee, dated July 1995.
CVRWQCB's "Response to Comments from G. Fred Lee, 6 May and 6 June 1995, Tentative Waste Discharge Requirements," NPDES No. 0083712, University of California Davis Campus Landfill, Yolo County, dated June 15, 1995.
Letter to Karl Longley regarding deficiencies in the CVRWQCB staff's revised proposed WDRs for the UCD landfill leachate-polluted groundwater discharged to Putah Creek dated May 22, 1995, from G. Fred Lee, dated June 6, 1995.
Letter to Karl Longley regarding deficiencies in the CVRWQCB staff's initial proposed WDRs for the UCD landfill leachate-polluted groundwater discharged to Putah Creek dated January 24, 1995, from G. Fred Lee, dated May 6, 1995.
Letter to Karl Longley about CVRWQCB's "Notice of Site Tour and Public Workshop, University of California," Davis Campus, Yolo County scheduled for May 8, 1995, from G. Fred Lee, dated May 2, 1995.
Letter to Karl Longley regarding University of California, Davis waste management issues, from G. Fred Lee, dated March 21, 1995.
Letter to Karl Longley regarding the January 27, 1995, meeting of the CVRWQCB at which a draft wastewater discharge permit for the University of California Davis was discussed, from G. Fred Lee, dated February 6, 1995.
Letter to L. Vanderhoef, Chancellor, University of California, Davis on the significant deficiencies in the Final EIR for the UCD proposed "West" Landfill expansion dated July 22, 1995.
Comments on "Final Environmental Impact Report, UC Davis Landfill Expansion and Permit Revision, submitted by G. Fred Lee, dated July 21, 1995.
Comments on Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report, UC Davis Landfill Expansion and Permit Revision, Volume I, April 1995, submitted by G. Fred Lee, dated May 1995.
Comments on the "Draft Environmental Impact Report, UC Davis Landfill Expansion and Permit Revision," dated August 1994, submitted by G. Fred Lee and Anne Jones-Lee, dated September 1994.
"Groundwater Pollution by Municipal Landfills: Leachate Composition, Detection and Water Quality Significance," authored by Anne Jones-Lee and G. Fred Lee, published in Proceedings of CISA Sardinia '93 IV International Landfill Symposium, Sardinia, Italy, pp. 1093-1103, October (1993).
"Geosynthetic Liner Systems for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills: An Inadequate Technology for Protection of Groundwater Quality?" authored by G. Fred Lee and Anne Jones-Lee published in Waste Management & Research 11(4):354-360 (1993).
Expertise and Experience in Water Quality Standards and NPDES Permits Development and Implementation into NPDES Permitted Discharges
, G. Fred Lee, 1996.List of papers and reports by G. Fred Lee and Anne Jones-Lee on Municipal Solid Waste Landfills and Groundwater Quality Protection Issues, 1996.
Recent Publications of G. Fred Lee and Anne Jones-Lee, 1996.
G. Fred Lee and Anne Jones-Lee, Summary of Experience and Activities
, 1996.Summary Resumes
, G. Fred Lee and Anne Jones-Lee, 1996.Supplement/Addendum to Petition of Order No. 96-227
Issued by
the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
on August 9, 1996
to the University of California at Davis
for the UCD Campus Landfill Ground Water Cleanup System
To address the New Information Provided by
The University of California at Davis and the CVRWQCB Staff
at the CVRWQCB September 20, 1996 Hearing
Devoted to Chromium Technical Issues
Submitted by
G. Fred Lee, PhD, DEE
G. Fred Lee & Associates
El Macero, CA 95618
October 17, 1996
This Supplemental/Addendum to the September 9, 1996 Petition on Order No. 96-227 specifically addresses new issues that were raised by the CVRWQCB staff and/or the University of California, Davis through their presentations at the September 20, 1996 chromium technical issues hearing. This Supplement/Addendum is necessary since both the CVRWQCB staff and the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration provided new unreliable information to the CVRWQCB at this hearing on technical issues pertinent to regulating UCD's proposed discharge of west landfill leachate polluted groundwaters with a total chromium content of 50 �g/L and protecting Putah Creek water quality from the potential adverse impacts of this discharge. CVRWQCB staff and UCD introduced for the first time new information that had not been previously made available to the public which they assert demonstrates that my position that Order No. 96-227 is not necessarily protective of Putah Creek water quality in accord with CVRWQCB Basin Plan objectives for the control of toxicity. If the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration and the CVRWQCB staff had followed appropriate, professional ethics and had brought the new material to the public's attention several days in advance of the September 20, 1996 hearing, I would have been able to provide the CVRWQCB with a discussion of the new issues at that hearing with appropriate documentation from the peer-reviewed literature. However, since both the CVRWQCB staff and the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration introduced the new and unreliable materials into the record for review of Order No. 96-227 without providing the public with the opportunity to comment on the technical appropriateness, it is appropriate to allow the incorporation into the record of the attached October 17, 1996 letter to J. Caffrey on these issues as well as this Supplemental/Addendum to the September 9, 1996 Petition.
Testimony of R. Yaedon
At the September 20, 1996 hearing, Mr. Yaedon, Senior Engineer with the CVRWQCB, presented testimony on his views on technical issues pertinent to regulating chromium in the University of California, Davis west landfill leachate polluted groundwater discharge to Putah Creek. As in the past with CVRWQCB staff (Mr. McHenry who works for Mr. Yaedon), the staff have great difficulties presenting the facts and typically distort them in an attempt to support their ill-conceived position. As an example, Mr. Yaedon stated at the September 20, 1996 hearing:
"With regards to chromium conversion, both the petitioner and regional board staff have stated that conversion of chromium from chrome III and the more toxic chrome VI can go in both directions. The petitioner wants to assume the worst-case in that all or a significant portion of the total chrome will convert to chrome VI. Staff believes that it will be dependent on the conditions specific to the environment in Putah Creek and maintains that instream monitoring is the appropriate and reasonable approach to address this issue."
Mr. Yaedon's statement that the petitioner (Dr. G. Fred Lee) wants the CVRWQCB to "assume" that all or a significant part of chrome III will convert to chrome VI is a deliberate distortion of the facts. I have never stated that, and it is obvious to anyone who reviews the issue, that is not the issue of concern. The issue that I have raised is not whether all or substantially all of the Cr III that UCD could discharge under Order No. 96-227 at 50 �g/L could convert to Cr VI to be toxic to aquatic life in Putah Creek. As I have pointed out, Putah Creek at times has substantial background chromium and since the US EPA's water quality criterion for Cr VI is 10 �g/L, only a small part of the 50 �g/L allowed in the discharge has to convert to Cr VI to exceed the US EPA ambient water criterion.
I am pleased the staff finally is beginning to acknowledge what I informed them of over a year ago, that the chemistry of chromium in Putah Creek is dependent on Putah Creek conditions. Further, as has now been documented by several sources, the chemically stable species of chromium in Putah Creek waters is Cr VI. While ordinarily the conversion of Cr III to Cr VI is slow, there are conditions, as I discussed at the September 20, 1996 hearing, which are documented in the literature where this conversion can be rapid, taking place in a few hours to a day or so.
Mr. Yaedon stated:
"With regards to the chromium limits in the permit, the petitioner requests that the effluent limits be set at 10 �g/L for total chrome, assuming that all chrome will convert to chrome VI. Staff recommended the limits at 50 �g/L total chrome based on the drinking water maximum contaminant level. Staff recommended limits of 10 �g/L and 15 �g/L for chromium VI based on the four-day average and the one-hour average US EPA national ambient water quality criteria, respectively. We do not believe that we have the regulatory justification to set more restrictive limits without actual data showing that chromium VI is causing an exceedance in the receiving stream."
It is not clear if this is an off-the-cuff statement that Mr. Yaedon made in an attempt to defend an ill-conceived Order or whether this represents a ruling by the Board's attorney on this issue. It would seem appropriate that the Board's staff would confer with the attorney before the staff makes such statements. As discussed below, when I questioned Mr. Yaedon on this matter following his testimony on whether the Board had the regulatory authority to enforce its Basin Plan requirements for control of toxicity, Mr. Yaedon stated:
"Yes we can, but the total chrome limit was actually based on the drinking water standard, the MCL of 50 parts per billion."
There is no doubt that the CVRWQCB has the authority to limit the chromium discharges to Putah Creek to comply with Basin Plan requirements of no toxicity in the creek waters.
As I discussed in my written and verbal submissions to the Board at the September 20, 1996 hearing, the basic issue I am trying to get this Board to address in regulating waste discharges from the University of California, Davis is compliance with the Basin Plan objectives, i.e. the control of toxicity. Thus far, this Board and its staff refuse to establish reasonable protection of the aquatic life beneficial uses of Putah Creek from the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration's waste management practices.
Mr. Yaedon in his September 20, 1996 testimony continued to distort the information regarding US EPA Region IX's (Phil Wood's) communication prior to the August 9, 1996 hearing. As I indicated in my Petition, following the August 9, 1996 hearing, I contacted Mr. Wood, who informed me that he did not discuss this matter with any CVRWQCB staff member. He also informed me that he left a telephone message for Mr. Yaedon which indicated that Cr III and Cr VI are interconvertable. Further, in my discussions with him, he indicated that Mr. McHenry's statement that he, Mr. Wood, said that Cr III would be the stable form of chromium in Putah Creek is not accurate.
Mr. Yaedon stated at the September 20, 1996 hearing in response to my question,
Lee: "This Board cannot set the limit to protect aquatic life from toxicity where there is a reasonable expectation that some forms of constituents while not toxic in the discharge could be converted to toxic forms in the receiving waters. This Board cannot do that."
Yaedon: "I believe we could, but I don't believe we have any evidence that it is going to convert into something that will actually be toxic to fish and that is why staff is asking that we have instream monitoring to see if there is any change in conversion, because we haven't seen evidence and I don't think anybody can actually state exactly what is going to happen. As far as I know, and I am no expert at chromium, but in reading the literature it is a very complicated issue. I can state that, and I don't think we are going to know until we actually get that."
As noted in my Petition, the State Board staff in an attempt to address the comments I made on the inadequacies of the August 9, 1996 Order, introduced at the last minute a stop gap monitoring for Cr VI in Putah Creek. A review of the record will show that I have been trying for over a year and a half to get proper monitoring of Putah Creek for assessing the individual as well as cumulative impacts of the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration's waste discharges to the Creek. Until August 9, 1996, the staff claimed there was no need for monitoring for potential toxics in Creek water such as chromium. However, as I discussed in my September 20, 1996 presentation (see enclosed) as well as at the hearing, the stop gap, last minute monitoring the staff introduced at the August 9, 1996 hearing is obviously non-credible for detecting the conversion of Cr III to Cr VI. This monitoring program involved only one station 100 feet downstream from the discharge. Such monitoring could represent a travel time of a couple minutes to a few hours to possibly a day or so, dependent on Creek flow. As I discussed, for a reaction that is well known to be slow, a single monitoring point of this type is obviously inadequate. Mr Yaedon indirectly acknowledged this when he stated,
"The Board can maintain the permit as it is or include an additional downstream monitoring point, perhaps upstream from the wastewater treatment plant to coincide with existing monitoring points."
As I pointed out in my testimony on September 20, 1996, the public is making slow but definite progress in getting the Regional Board and its staff to properly address protecting the public's interests from UCD's wastewater discharges to Putah Creek. In a year and a half, the public has, through repeated hearings, gotten the staff to admit there might be a need for two monitoring points to detect the Cr III to Cr VI conversion. Actually, as I have testified, there is need for a series of testing points along Putah Creek to monitor both Cr III and Cr VI as well as aquatic life toxicity to properly detect the potential adverse impacts of chromium that UCD proposes to discharge to the Creek under Order No. 96-227. It is important to note, however, that while the staff is showing a more enlightened approach toward monitoring, the Board, at the September 20, 1996 hearing, rejected the staff's recommendation of adding additional monitoring. At this time Order No. 96-227, as adopted on August 9, 1996, is fundamentally flawed in addressing the Putah Creek monitoring issue.
Mr. Yaedon stated:
"We are unsure of the more stable form
[of chromium] in Putah Creek. Our statements are based on a number of sources, but one in particular was actually sent to us by the US EPA and that document was entitled 'Water Related Environmental Fate of the 129 Priority Pollutants.'"A review of Chapter 10 of the December 1979 US EPA publication, "Water-Related Environmental Fate of 129 Priority Pollutants," which is devoted to chromium, section 10.3.2 "Chemical Speciation" shows that the US EPA considers the work of Schroeder and Lee (1975) as a definitive source of information on Cr III to Cr VI conversions. On page 10-3 Mr. Yaedon's cited source states:
"Schroeder and Lee (1975), in a laboratory study on the transformation of chromium in natural waters, found that Cr(III) and Cr(VI) are readily interconvertible under natural conditions. Their results indicated that Cr(VI) can be reduced by Fe(II), dissolved sulfides, and certain organic compounds with sulfhydryl groups, while Cr(III) can be oxidized by a large excess of Mn02 and at a slower rate by O2 under natural water conditions. Moreover, if aquatic conditions favor Cr(VI), then chromium will accumulate as soluble forms in waters; if, however, Cr(III) is favored, then the accumulation will occur in the sediments."
A review of section 10.3.2 on "Chemical Speciation" shows that the Schroeder and Lee work is featured as a definitive source of information on Cr III - Cr VI conversions. There is no information presented in this section or elsewhere in this publication which in any way changes the information that was developed by Schroeder and Lee.
The reference to Schroeder and Lee (1975) is: Schroeder, D.C. and G. F. Lee. 1975. Potential transformations of chromium in natural waters. Water Air Soil Pollut. 4:355-365. D. Schroeder did this work as a graduate student working under my supervision for a master's degree in water chemistry at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. It appears that not only did the US EPA (1979) consider Schroeder and Lee a definitive source of information on this topic, but also those within the US EPA who recently sent this material to Mr. Yaedon still consider the work that my graduate student and I did in the 1970s a definitive source of information on this topic.
Mr. Yaedon again provided distorted information in his September 20, 1996 testimony regarding the August 5, 1996 and August 8,1996 correspondence. He stated,
"The petitioner's August 8 letter continued discussion on a number of subjects, not all related to the hearing matter, and no new information on chromium was provided in that submittal."
Mr. Yaedon's characterization of my August 8, 1996 letter is more of the distorted information he provided to the Board on September 20, 1996. There were a number of key issues addressed in my letter which were in direct response to distorted information that Mr. Pinkos had provided to the Board in his August 5,1996 letter, which was not made available to me until a couple of days before the August 9, 1996 hearing. It was certainly appropriate for me, on behalf of the public, to provide for the record a discussion of the facts concerning the distorted information Mr. Pinkos had provided in his August 5, 1996 letter.
A review of the record will show that it was Mr. Pinkos in his August 5, 1996 letter that demonstrated as discussed in my August 8, 1996 letter that Board Chairman Longley ruled was inappropriate to be incorporated into the record at the August 9, 1996 hearing that he (Mr. Pinkos), and evidently Mr. Yaedon and Mr. McHenry, who almost certainly worked with Mr. Pinkos in developing his August 5, 1996 letter, do not have sufficient understanding of elementary water quality issues to recognize that the data on UCD's wastewater discharges from its campus wastewater treatment plant that Mr. Pinkos had included in his letter to support the position that UCD's wastewater discharges were non-toxic, in fact, demonstrated that they would be toxic based on the unionized ammonia content. If the CVRWQCB's staff and the administrative officers do not have sufficient understanding of water quality issues to recognize excessive concentrations of ammonia in a wastewater discharge when they use these data to try to show the discharge complies with regulatory requirements, then there is little hope that this staff can develop a credible permit covering wastewater discharges for a more complex constituent such as chromium.
Mr. Yaedon stated, in response to my August 8, 1996 letter,
"...the petitioner's response to our
[comments] should have been more properly submitted through the mail."If Mr. Yaedon had properly reviewed and reported on the facts, he would have found that Mr. Pinkos did not respond to my May 19, 1996 letter until his letter dated August 5, 1996, which I received a couple of days before the August 9, 1996 hearing. Upon receipt of Mr. Pinkos' letter, and finding that it provided large amounts of distorted information on issues which I had previously raised concerning UCD's proposed discharge of west landfill leachate polluted groundwaters to Putah Creek, I spent the next day preparing detailed documentation (my August 8, 1996 letter) of these distortions. While Mr. Yaedon suggested I should have mailed my response, if I had followed his approach, my response would not have been available in time to be included in the administrative record since the mailing would not have reached the Board until August 12, 1996, i.e. three days after the Board considered the matter.
In summary, Mr. Yaedon did not present any new, credible information at the September 20, 1996 hearing that in any way provides justification for the staff's recommendation at the August 9, 1996 hearing as well as the September 20, 1996 hearing that UCD should be allowed to discharge total chromium at concentrations up to 50 �g/L to Putah Creek. If anything, Mr. Yaedon's testimony through bringing out that the US EPA in 1979 and in 1996 considers the Schroeder and Lee work of the early 1970s as a definitive source of information on Cr III - Cr VI conversions has provided strong additional support for the position that discharging Cr III concentrations of up to 50 �g/L could result in sufficient Cr III to Cr VI conversion so that the total Cr VI in Putah Creek would be toxic to aquatic life in violation of the CVRWQCB's Basin Plan objectives for the control of toxicity.
In addition, Mr. Yaedon in his September 20, 1996 hearing testimony further demonstrates his lack of elementary understanding of reliable monitoring of Putah Creek waters to evaluate whether Cr III discharged by UCD as part of its groundwater remediation project for its west landfill could cause aquatic life toxicity in Putah Creek downstream of this discharge. Anyone with even the most elementary knowledge of water quality monitoring would acknowledge that a single station located 100 feet downstream of the discharge would not represent adequate sampling of Putah Creek to detect aquatic life toxicity due to the discharge.
University of California, Davis
Mr. D. Phillips, of the University of California, Davis presented testimony on behalf of UCD, where he initiated his testimony by name-dropping a number of UCD professors to whom he claimed he submitted my comments. He states,
"I don't think I need to elaborate any on the qualifications of these individuals. Dr. Longley knows most of them quite well I think and can attest to their technical expertise. Based on our analysis, our technical experts simply don't believe that the conversion of chrome III to chrome VI is a significant concern for Putah Creek."
While Mr. Phillips attempted to portray the image with the statement that "our experts simply don't believe" that Cr III will not convert to Cr VI in Putah Creek, the facts are, as were brought out in my questioning him, that his so-called name-dropped experts were not asked to review and support the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration's September 13, 1996 letter on this issue. As I pointed out, it is unfortunate that these individuals were not there to testify, since I believe they would have enlightened the Board with their knowledge/expertise on the topic and would likely have provided strong support for my position on a number of the issues I have raised such as the gross inadequacies of the Putah Creek monitoring program contained within Order No. 96-227.
Mr. Phillips attempted to discredit my testimony by claiming that my suggested approach is more restrictive than the US EPA's position on regulating chromium. The US EPA's position, as discussed in my statements and testimony in the past year, is that there is need to protect aquatic life from Cr VI chronic toxicity. The US EPA established a 10 �g/L chronic toxicity criterion. As I testified, the Agency acknowledged, however, that that criterion may not be protective of some key forms of aquatic life. This issue is discussed further below.
While Mr. Phillips attempted to distort my position on issues, if he would critically review my testimony, he would find that the focus of my testimony was not achieving US EPA criteria but was on the credible implementation of the CVRWQCB's Basin Plan objectives of protecting aquatic life from toxicity. The CVRWQCB has an obligation to the public to implement its Basin Plan objectives with a high degree of certainty so that any NPDES permitted discharge will comply with these objectives in situations such as with a discharge of Cr III at 50 �g/L. Where it is known from the literature that Cr III does convert to Cr VI and that Cr VI is highly toxic to aquatic life, it is mandatory that a highly credible monitoring program be developed to be certain that the Basin Plan objectives are, in fact, met by UCD's waste discharges. It is irresponsible to establish discharge requirements which allow a discharge of a potentially hazardous chemical in hazardous amounts and not require that the discharger properly monitor the receiving waters for the discharge. This is exactly what the CVRWQCB is doing now with Order No. 96-227. Basically, this Board is telling the public they are protecting water quality. However, the public has no reason to believe, and, in fact, has substantial reason to question, the reliability of this statement since this Board does not require adequate monitoring to detect potential problems.
Mr. Phillips states,
"If the University ever does elect to discharge groundwater to Putah Creek, we will monitor the chromium concentrations in our discharge and in Putah Creek as required to ensure that no instream exceedances of the permit will occur."
This is more of the recalcitrant polluter approach that the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration has been following of doing the least possible to just get by current, often inadequate, interpretation of the regulations by the Regional Board staff. Why did Mr. Phillips not state that UCD would establish a credible program to determine whether Cr III converts to Cr VI in Putah Creek waters and thereby cause aquatic life toxicity in Putah Creek? By stating that UCD will only do the monitoring "required" in the permit is more of the type of situation that causes the public to conclude that the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration has no interest in protecting the public's interests in protecting water quality in Putah Creek.
In questioning Mr. Phillips, I asked,
Lee: "With respect to the September 13 letter, were copies of that letter made available to the public?"
Phillips: "We directed our letter to Mr. Crooks at the Board. We did not provide copies to all members of the public, or, in fact, I think we limited our distribution to the Board itself."
Lee: "You don't feel it would be appropriate for the public to have a copy of a letter that introduces new material into these discussions that has not been brought forth previously for the public to review prior to this hearing?"
Phillips: "We leave that to the Board's discretion. Not knowing specifically who might be interested in all of these issues, we provide this information to the Board for their dissemination to the public."
It is preposterous for Mr. Phillips to claim that the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration did not know that I have an interest in this topic. I personally sent L. Vanderhoef a copy of my petition. I also provided him with copies of all correspondence on this matter. Clearly, this is another of the behind-the-scenes activities where there is an attempt to prevent the public from advising the Board of the technically invalid information the Board's staff, UCD, and some Board members, such as Chairman Longley, have been providing to the Board on these issues.
I have repeatedly called for a full, public, independent, expert peer review of these issues. It is clear the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration, W. Crooks, Chairman Longley, and, for that matter, the other members of the Board operate in a controlled information environment where they can manipulate the information that is used to formulate public policy on water quality protection of Putah Creek. It is also clear that UCD and the Board are afraid to have a full, public, independent peer review of these issues. They know, or should know, if they did this, they would find that their position on these issues is incorrect. I am fully prepared, and would welcome, the opportunity to have my views on these issues peer-reviewed by experts in the field. I am highly confident that if such a review would take place, my suggested approaches of requiring that UCD/the Board limit the total chromium in Putah Creek to 10 �g/L, unless it is demonstrated through a credible monitoring program that higher concentrations of chromium can be present in Putah Creek waters without aquatic life toxicity, is appropriate. I am also confident a proper peer review of the issues would find that the CVRWQCB is not implementing its Basin Plan objectives of protecting Putah Creek aquatic life from toxicants discharged by the University of California, Davis in its wastewater discharges and stormwater runoff.
Richard Burau, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Toxicology in Soil Science, testified at the September 20, 1996 hearing on the Cr III to Cr VI conversion issues. His testimony was initiated by his lecturing the Board on basic chemistry issues where he stated,
"In oxygenated water go to the issue of thermodynamic stability, in oxygenated water, without the presence of other oxidizing or reducing substances, chromium VI is the thermodynamically stable species."
Further, he stated,
"Therefore, the first point I want to make is that, with respect to the argument of thermodynamic stability, chromium VI is the stablest species; there is no question about that and is confirmed by a great many theoretical studies."
This is exactly what I have been telling the Board for over a year and a half.
Mr. Burau then lectured the Board on the role of kinetics (rates of reaction) in achieving thermodynamic equilibrium. To illustrate his point, he attempted to discuss the reaction between ferrous iron and oxygen. He states,
"In fact, another reaction that I would bring up is the oxidation of ferrous iron to ferric by oxidation by oxygen, again an abiotic consideration. This, too is a fairly slow reaction, but it is much, much faster than the hydrogen oxidation reaction. In swampy areas and in some of the subsurface waters of this state, we do have water that contains ferrous iron. It is reduced so it's iron in the ferrous state. When this water is brought to the surface, oxygen enters it and almost immediately you will begin to see the precipitation of ferric hydroxide; oxidation of ferrous to ferric. But it doesn't go really rapid. It is one of those cases where if you take a glass of such water, set it on a table, over a period of days you will see visible increase in turbidity from this reaction. So this is a reaction wich instead of taking billions of years will go in a few hours to a few days."
As was brought out in my questioning of R. Burau, I spent one year as a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard University studying the reaction between ferrous iron and oxygen. I asked Dr. Burau if he was familiar with the expression
d Fe(II) = - k(FeII)(O2)(OH-)2
d t
He recognized this is a rate expression for the reaction between ferrous iron and dissolved oxygen. He did not, however, discuss the fact that the rate of this reaction is highly pH dependent where small changes in pH greatly influence the rate. If R. Burau had been familiar with this expression, he would have known that his example of kinetic control of a reaction is exactly the point I have been making with the Board. While Burau characterizes this reaction as "slow," if he had properly investigated this issue, he would have found that at the Putah Creek water pH values this reaction is virtually instantaneous. While the reaction can be slow in a low pH groundwater or swamp water, in the areas of concern, with respect to most environmental conditions of pH values greater than 7.5, this reaction is quite rapid. While a swamp water groundwater could have a pH between 6.0 and 6.5 where the reaction would take hours to a day as Dr. Burau described, in Putah Creek waters with pHs of 8.0 to 9.0, the reaction is over 1,000 times more rapid than the conditions that he chose to describe to the Board. Further, if he had been familiar with the topic he was discussing, he would have known there are a wide variety of chemical constituents in natural waters which significantly accelerate (catalyze) this reaction. Basically, R. Burau provided unreliable information on this reaction to the Board and, in fact, provided information which strongly supports my position that site-specific conditions must be considered in evaluating whether sufficient chromium in UCD's proposed discharge of leachate polluted groundwaters to Putah Creek at a concentration of up 50 �g/L could be converted to Cr VI to cause aquatic life toxicity in the Creek downstream of the discharge.
R. Burau also lectured the Board on Cr III solubility issues. Again, he provided unreliable information to the Board as it relates to Putah Creek. If he had become familiar with Cr III chemistry, and had reliably reported on it to the Board in his testimony, he would have pointed out, as I did in questioning him, that far more Cr III can be present in the water in Putah Creek than would be predicted based on his approach, which only considers chromium precipitation as a hydroxide. When I questioned him on this issue, I brought out that he did not report on the complexation of Cr III with organics. He did admit under questioning, however, that this could be an important reaction that would change the solubility of Cr III in Putah Creek waters.
While R. Burau stated,
"OK. In conclusion, I believe it is a reasonable probability that chromium III transferring to chromium VI will be slow. I further believe that the rate of precipitation as chromium hydroxide will exceed that of the oxidation, and thus I expect the majority of the chromium to go in the direction of precipitation, not oxidation. Thank you."
He relied on the statement by R. Zasoski for the information on Cr III to Cr VI conversion, which as I discussed during the September 20, 1996 hearing and as is summarized below and in the attachment to this Supplemental/Addendum Petition, is based on an unreliable, biased review of the literature that ignores manganese dioxide catalysis/reaction of the Cr III to Cr VI conversion. Further, with respect to his solubility reactions, R. Burau has ignored complexation Cr III with organics that are present in Putah Creek water. Overall, an independent peer review of the credibility of R. Burau's testimony would show that he has provided unreliable testimony to the Board on several key issues that need to be addressed by the Board on determining the appropriateness of allowing the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration to discharge Cr III to Putah Creek at 50 �g/L.
Dr. R. Zasoski cited the work of Saleh et al. (1989) as justification for support for his conclusion that Cr III would not be expected to be converted to Cr VI in Putah Creek waters. One of the authors of the Saleh et al. (1989) article was Dr. Ken Dickson. Dr. Dickson is Director of the Aquatic Toxicology program at the University of North Texas. He is an internationally recognized authority on aquatic toxicology/water quality issues. Dr. Saleh, who co-authored the paper with Dr. Dickson, obtained her Ph.D. degree working under my supervision at the University of Texas at Dallas where I helped establish and then directed for a period of five years the Center for Environmental Studies. Subsequent to the September 20, 1996 hearing, I had an opportunity to discuss with Dr. Dickson his views on regulating chromium with reference to the possibility of Cr III converting to Cr VI leading to aquatic life toxicity. Dr. Dickson informed me that it is his finding that since this conversion does take place in some waters, especially as influenced by manganese, the total chromium should be regulated to prevent toxicity conditions from developing in the receiving waters due to the conversion of Cr III to Cr VI. Therefore, it is inappropriate for R. Zasoski to assert that Cr III would not be converted to Cr VI to lead to toxic conditions in Putah Creek based on the Saleh - Dickson work that he cited as a reference. Dr. Dickson does not support that view. If there is interest, I can provide Dr. Dickson's telephone number so that he may be contacted in order to discuss these issues directly with him.
The UCD L. Vanderhoef administration indicates in its September 13, 1996 letter that Dr. R. Burau and Dr. R. Zasoski are "experts in the field of water chemistry." As I indicated in my statement on this issue, based on the curriculum vitae provided for these individuals by UCD, I concluded that neither of these individuals would be considered experts in the field of water chemistry by the water chemistry profession. As I discussed, they are both soil scientists. Those knowledgeable in the field know there is a significant difference between the education background and qualifications of individuals with expertise in the soil sciences and those with true expertise in water chemistry. Subsequent to the September 20, 1996 hearing, I have been provided with a UCD Contracts and Grants Office autobiographical statements prepared by Zasoski and Burau in the UC Davis Experts File. Neither of these individuals list themselves in the UCD Contracts and Grants Office records as having expertise in water chemistry. They both list "soil sciences" as their area of funding for research. It appears that my characterization of their qualifications and their own, based on UCD Contracts and Grants Office records, are in a good agreement and the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration's September 13, 1996 statement, which indicates that these individuals are "experts in water chemistry," is more of the distorted information that the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration continues to provide to this Board in an attempt to influence its waste discharge requirements. If there is interest, I can provide the WRCB with a copy of the UCD Contracts and Grants Office records pertinent to this matter.
Mr. J. Stagner, UCD dump-tender, presented the closing arguments on behalf of UCD, where he introduced new information in an attempt to discredit my testimony. This information was presented in the form of some redox potential measurements that were made by Dames & Moore of Putah Creek water. While I am not sure if the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration would claim that Mr. Stagner is a world expert on aquatic chemistry, those who have an elementary understanding of this topic know that it is not possible to reliably measure redox potentials in Putah Creek water. While I do not know who within Dames & Moore was responsible for these measurements and whether they claimed that these measurements provide a reliable measure of the thermodynamic characteristics of Putah Creek water at the time of measurement, I do know from my review of Dames & Moore's work associated with UCD waste management activities, that this group had made, and continues to make, significant errors in site investigation and reliably reporting on the information obtained. If there is interest, I can readily document unreliable information that has been provided by Dames & Moore to UCD and the Department of Energy.
The reliable evaluation of the redox conditions that exist in an aquatic system is of considerable interest to water chemists. I have personally done considerable work on this topic as part of my teaching and research on the aqueous environmental chemistry of a variety of chemical constituents in aquatic systems. Further, I am highly familiar with the literature on it. While there are some individuals who are not knowledgeable in the topic area who will stick a noble metal electrode and a reference electrode in a creek water and claim that they can use this to "measure" the redox potential of that water, as Mr. Stagner testified was done by Dames & Moore staff, those knowledgeable in the topic know that such an approach is, at best, naive and highly unreliable. Stumm and Morgan in their classical introductory text, Aquatic Chemistry, Third Edition (1996), which was first published in the early 1970s, discuss on pages 491-498 why the kind of information that Mr. Stagner presented to the Board at the September 20, 1996 hearing demonstrates his complete lack of knowledge of the topic that he discussed, i.e. measurement of redox potentials in aquatic systems. Stumm and Morgan discuss a variety of factors that are well-known to water chemists about why such measurements should not be used to determine the stable pH potential field for Cr III and Cr VI in oxygenated Putah Creek water.
If Mr. Stagner was knowledgeable and had reliably reported on this knowledge on the topic of measuring redox potentials in aquatic systems, he would have reported that while these potentials can be used to provide general indications of the redox state, such as oxidizing or reducing, they are not reliable for measuring the subtle changes of the type Mr. Stagner reported on in his closing statement. Redox measurements of this type are known to those familiar with the topic to represent mixed potentials and do not properly represent true thermodynamic characteristics of the water. A particular redox pair can significantly influence the potential measured, yet have no influence on whether Cr III or Cr VI is a thermodynamically stable species in Putah Creek water.
It should be noted that Dr. Burau spent considerable time during his testimony discussing the pH potential (stability field ) diagram for chromium. Most of his testimony was devoted to an elementary discussion of the nature of this diagram and was appropriate. However, he stated,
"One of the last things that I would like to point out to you is that Mr. Phillips has provided me with some measurements on the water of Putah Creek. These measurements are plotted in this graph as the points or spots on the graph. These were apparently done by a consulting agency or a laboratory. If you notice that they do fall around pH 8, some below, some above, but as you also notice, the Eh is below the value of 0.8, therefore, according to these measurements, chromium III is actually the stable species under those conditions. Chromium III is the stable."
Dr. Burau's statement on the pH potential measurements clearly demonstrates that he is not a qualified aquatic chemist. No qualified aquatic chemist would ever provide that type of information to a regulatory board or, for that matter, anyone else since it is well-known in the aquatic chemistry field to be unreliable for a variety of reasons discussed in elementary aquatic chemistry texts such as the Stumm and Morgan text.
Mr. Stagner commented,
"We have brought several people we feel are experts. They are professors at a renowned institution throughout the country and if not the world, and Dr. Lee has attempted to discredit them. He has dismissed the experts appointed by our Board to oversee the EIR cumulative impacts, so apparently nobody in the world knows anything about this issue except Dr. Lee. The point is that these standards of 10 and 50 were set at state and national levels with lots of discussion. We can bring tons of information to bear as can Dr. Lee and enter into a very lengthy technical discussion about this, but the point is that he is asking you to overturn basic restrictions or requirements that have been set through much more technical discussions than we can proffer here."
The credibility of Mr. Stagner's statement can be judged by the unwillingness of the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration to participate in a full public peer review of issues by knowledgeable experts for which I have been calling for almost two years. As I have repeatedly pointed out, I am willing to have my findings on these issues subjected to a full public peer review by experts. Why will L. Vanderhoef and other members of his administration, Chairman Longley, Executive Officer Crooks, and others not support conducing such a review or participate in it? Why must they conduct behind-the-scenes deals with their hand-picked "experts" which exclude the public from being participants in Putah Creek water quality decisions affecting the public's interests?
Mr. Stagner's statement represents a desperate attempt by him to regain some credibility with the UCD administration for his informing the public that the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration's proposed construction of a new "west" campus landfill would eventually pollute groundwaters and that the L. Vanderhoef economic analysis justifying the construction of this new landfill was fundamentally flawed since it did not include the long-term costs of the inevitable groundwater pollution that would occur as a result of constructing this landfill.
With respect to the so-called "experts" review issue that he has raised, this is the blue ribbon panel issue where the public in the spring of 1995 called for a full, public, independent, peer review of cumulative impacts of UCD's wastewater discharges and stormwater runoff on Putah Creek water quality. The UCD L. Vanderhoef administration rejected that approach. Instead, according to a UCD L. Vanderhoef administration member, a behind-the-scenes deal was cut between the UCD administration and Board Chairman Longley which enabled UCD to hire hand-picked consultants without public review to address the public's concerns. As it turned out, neither of the consultants they hired have the expertise needed to address the issues of concern. Further, the public will obviously not accept a blue ribbon panel picked by the Board Chairman, who has shown an obvious bias against the public's interests, and UCD to act on behalf of the public's interests. The public has substantial justification for rejecting such an approach based on Board Chairman Longley's approach for addressing issues and the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration's recalcitrant polluter approach, where they deliberately manage information in an attempt to control the public's review of issues.
Mr. Crooks, in his closing arguments by the staff, stated,
"I feel that the permit that you adopted last month was based on good science. You did the right thing. It is protective and the monitoring program is protective."
Mr. Crooks went on to state in response to a question asked by a Board member,
"I would like to ask the executive officer, what is his reaction to Dr. Lee's judgement of using the daphnids or Ceriodaphnia as an additional set.
"I don't concur.
"Yeah, but on what basis, sir?
"On the basis that it is not necessary and on the basis that the permit that you have adopted is protective and it is based upon the creek and the size of the discharge and we are not doing to anybody else, including the County of Sacramento. We do use it in our chronic testing periodically to look at stream safety and toxic conditions. We do it on a limited basis. I take that back. We do have a limited amount of chronic toxicity testing by our very large dischargers. The County of Sacramento does, in fact, do at times that test. It is expensive, it is time consuming, and in our judgement, it is not at all required in a situation like this and I disagree, I feel that it is very precedent setting."
Basically, Mr. Crooks is saying that the people concerned with Putah Creek water quality are not entitled to the same protection as those who are interested in Sacramento River quality. Mr. Crooks needs to review his region's Basin Plan. This Basin Plan does not allow this Board the option of deciding which water bodies in the basin are to be protected from aquatic life toxicity. According to the Basin Plan toxicity objective, toxics are to be controlled in all waters in the region, not just those he and the Board decide are important to someone. If Mr. Crooks would become familiar with the topic area, he would find that quite possibly UCD's wastewater discharges could do far more damage to Putah Creek's designated beneficial uses than Sacramento County's wastewater discharges to the Sacramento River.
Basically, Mr. Crooks is operating with a 1960s level of water quality protection. It was not until his statement at the September 20, 1996 meeting that it was clear he does not understand and/or support the control of toxics. He basically is a BOD, suspended solids executive officer who is resisting adopting a 1990s level of understanding of aquatic chemistry, aquatic toxicology, and water quality management. Mr. Crooks, in his 1960s level approach, is highly concerned that adopting a 1990s level would be "precedent setting" for the Central Valley and possibly the state. It is time the CVRWQCB start to issue waste discharge permits that reflect a 1990s level of understanding of toxics impacts and their control. If Mr. Crooks does not start to adopt a more enlightened approach toward control of all toxics in the region, then it is time for the public to call for an executive officer who will support the CVRWQCB's Basin Plan requirements.
In a discussion following the testimony, Mr. Schnabel asked some questions of the staff concerning water quality standards issues. It was clear from the responses by the staff, that the staff do not understand these issues. Mr. Crooks in response to a question raised by Mr. Schnabel stated,
"Drinking water standards for chrome III, but for chrome VI we took the water quality standard that is currently on the book and of course, Dr. Lee does not agree that those standards are correct, but he doesn't agree that a lot of things are correct."
This is another cheap shot by Mr. Crooks to attempt to discredit me by providing unreliable information to the Board. First of all, I was a member of the US EPA peer review panel that established the current US EPA water quality criteria development approach. I was also a member of a US EPA panel that recommended several of the current criteria. I am highly familiar with, and contrary to the cheap shot statement made by Mr. Crooks, I am strongly supportive of the approach used by the US EPA in developing water quality criteria. I have repeatedly pointed out this situation in my previous statements to the Board. Those knowledgeable in the topic area know that meeting US EPA water quality criteria for potentially toxic chemicals such as Cr VI does not mean that there will be no aquatic life toxicity in the receiving waters due to Cr VI. In fact, the US EPA in developing the criteria acknowledged that the US EPA water quality criteria are not protecting all aquatic life from toxicity. They acknowledge there will be some small percentage of certain organisms killed or adversely impacted by waters that meet the current criteria.
The basic issue, however, that has to be properly addressed by the CVRWQCB which is the issue I raised, is that this Board adopted Basin Plan objectives that require the control of all toxicity. Therefore, this Board cannot adopt the approach of stating that since we meet the criteria, we are protecting aquatic life from toxicity and fulfill their mandated requirements of implementing their Basin Plan objectives of protecting aquatic life from toxicity. These objectives are explicit in requiring,
"...waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentration that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life."
They apply to all waters within the Central Valley Region that have a aquatic life designated beneficial use, such as Putah Creek, independent of the value that Mr. Crooks or the Board members may place on them. This means that the Basin Plan objectives which Mr. Crooks and the Board are choosing to largely ignore in developing and implementing waste discharge requirements for the University of California, Davis require the protection of all aquatic life, not just those that would be protected by US EPA criteria.
As I discussed during my September 20, 1996 presentation, the highly distorted information that the University of California, Davis presented in their September 13, 1996 letter to Wm. Crooks which neither L. Vanderhoef, members of his administration, Mr. Crooks, or Chairman Longley chose to make available to the public, caused me to review the US EPA criterion document for chromium. I have provided in the enclosed write-up a summary of key issues which arose from this review, including the fact that certain key important daphnids are adversely impacted by Cr VI at less than 2 �g/L. I pointed out that this has highly significant implication on the adequacy of only meeting the 10 �g/L Cr VI US EPA criterion. While that approach would be acceptable to the US EPA, it is not adequate to achieve the Basin Plan objectives since the waters that meet the US EPA criterion of 10 �g/L could still be toxic to certain forms of aquatic life. Subsequent to the hearing, I have become aware of an Environment Canada 1995 review (Priority Substances List - Assessment Reports, Chromium and its Compounds, PSL-39) in which it is indicated that the safe concentration of Cr VI for certain key daphnids is around 0.5 �g/L. This conclusion is a follow-up to the US EPA's 1984 Chromium Ambient Water Quality Criteria document where it was reported that the US EPA Duluth Laboratory had found that Cr VI was toxic to Daphnia magna at less than 2 �g/L. This work was done by Dr. Donald Mount, former Director of that laboratory. In order to protect aquatic life in Putah Creek from chronic toxicity, the University of California, Davis may have to reduce chromium in the discharge to keep the Cr VI in Putah Creek at less than 1 �g/L in order to achieve the Basin Plan objectives. The finding that Cr VI is toxic to some forms of aquatic life at less than 1 �g/L places even greater emphasis on the need for using Ceriodaphnia chronic toxicity testing of Putah Creek waters as part of ensuring the Basin Plan objectives are, in fact, met.
The 1960s mentality that exists now within the Board's staff and the Board of assuming the Basin Plan objectives will be met if BOD and suspended solids are removed to some permitted discharge limit, as was done about a year ago by the CVRWQCB staff in judging whether UCD's discharge of "west" landfill leachate polluted groundwaters could be discharged to the campus wastewater treatment plant, should be immediately terminated. This Board urgently needs leadership in addressing these issues.
Summary
It can be concluded that neither the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board staff (Mr. Yaedon and Mr. Crooks) nor the University of California, Davis staff (Mr. Phillips and Mr. Stagner) and UCD soil science faculty (R. Burau and R. Zasoski) have provided any new information in connection with the September 20, 1996 hearing that in any way supports the position that my Petition to the WRCB on the highly significant technical deficiencies in the CVRWQCB Order No. 96-227 is inappropriate. In fact, as a result of this hearing and the inappropriate approaches followed and unreliable information presented by Yaedon, Crooks, Phillips, Stagner and Burau, there is considerable additional justification for the WRCB to support my September 9, 1996 Petition on the technical deficiencies in Order No. 96-227. The basic issue that the WRCB must address is whether this Order provides a reasonable degree of protection of aquatic life in Putah Creek from potential Cr VI toxicity which could occur at less than 1 �g/L and thereby be in accord with the CVRWQCB's Basin Plan objective of controlling aquatic life toxicity in the Central Valley Region.
As long as the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration refuses to voluntarily implement a meaningful, highly reliable aquatic life toxicity monitoring program for Putah Creek waters that would ensure that the Basin Plan toxicity objective is, in fact, being met and as long as the CVRWQCB refuses to require that the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration implement a reliable aquatic life toxicity monitoring program for Putah Creek waters that would ensure that the Basin Plan toxicity objective is, in fact, being met, then the total concentration of chromium in Putah Creek waters should be limited to less than 10 �g/L Cr VI. In fact, it may be necessary, because of the new information that has become available as the result of the September 20, 1996 hearing on the toxicity of Cr VI to certain forms of aquatic life, to require that the total concentration of Cr VI in Putah Creek water be less than 1 �g/L. Because of this information, it is now mandatory that a comprehensive Ceriodaphnia chronic toxicity testing program be conducted of Putah Creek waters as part of this Order.
The WRCB should require that the CVRWQCB properly and reliably implement its Basin Plan toxicity water quality objective. This implementation will require that all dischargers of potentially toxic constituents, including the University of California, Davis, conduct chronic toxicity testing of the ambient waters that could be impacted by the discharge in order to fulfill the Basin Plan requirements.
All other deficiencies, such as inadequate regulation of TDS, failure to reliably monitor for hazardous bioaccumulatable chemicals, etc., discussed in my September 9,1996 Petition are still applicable and should be addressed by the WRCB.
Interested Parties
The interested parties in connection with the September 20, 1996 hearing remain the same as those listed in my September 9, 1996 Petition, with the addition of William Jennings, DeltaKeeper.
Hearing
The petitioner requests that, if necessary, a hearing be held to discuss these issues. While the petitioner believes that adequate evidence has been presented in the original Petition as well as in this supplement/addendum to that Petition to enable the State Board to act on this matter in affirmation of the Petition, if the State Board concludes otherwise, then a hearing is requested for full public review of the issues.
Notice of Appeal
A copy of this supplement/addendum to the September 9, 1996 Petition has been provided to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and Chancellor L. Vanderhoef of the University of California, Davis.
A copy of the request that was made by the petitioner to the Regional Board to prepare a supplemental administrative record covering the September 20, 1996 hearing is enclosed.
List of Appendices to Supplement/Addendum Petition
Letter to Karl Longley, Chair, regarding CVRWQCB summary agenda for the September 20, 1996 Board hearing, from G. Fred Lee, dated September 13, 1996.
"Technical Deficiencies in the CVRWQCB Order No. 96-227 Discharge of the UCD "West" Landfill Leachate-Polluted Groundwaters to Putah Creek Presented at CVRWQCB September 20, 1996 Hearing," by Dr. G. Fred Lee.
Letter to John Caffrey, Chairman, regarding supplemental/addendum to the September 9, 1996 petition arising from the September 20, 1996 CVRWQCB chromium technical issues hearing, from G. Fred Lee, dated October 17, 1996.
Technical Deficiencies in the CVRWQCB Order No. 96-227
Discharge of the UCD "West" Landfill Leachate-Polluted
Groundwaters to Putah Creek
Presented to CVRWQCB
September 20, 1996 Hearing
Dr. G. Fred Lee, DEE
Assessing the Hazard of a Chemical to Impact Water Quality
The hazard that a chemical represents to the water quality-beneficial uses of a waterbody is dependent on the aqueous environmental chemistry of the chemical and its toxicology/impacts.
Aquatic Chemistry is the chemical thermodynamics and kinetics (reactions/processes and rates) of the chemical reactions that determine the chemical forms of the chemical of interest. It also includes transport and mixing processes.
Aquatic toxicology is the description of the impact of contaminants or condition on aquatic life of focus. It is related to the chemicals of focus by a concentration of available chemical forms--adverse impact relationships for the particular chemical on a particular type of organism. The adverse impact is highly dependent on the nature and duration of exposure of the organism, and the concentration availability of the chemicals to which the organisms are exposed.
Aquatic chemistry and toxicology information can and should be used to develop a hazard/risk assessment for all discharges of wastewaters and stormwater runoff from UCD in order to protect the designated beneficial uses of Putah Creek from the individual discharges, as well as from their cumulative impacts.
Assessing the Hazard of Chromium in Putah Creek
The water quality hazard/risk associated with UCD's discharge of "west" landfill leachate-polluted groundwaters to Putah Creek depends on the aqueous environmental chemistry of chromium and other constituents in the "treated" groundwaters that are discharged to Putah Creek, and the toxicology/impact of the chromium and other constituents in the discharges and the characteristics of Putah Creek.
Aquatic Chemistry of Chromium
Oxidation States
CrIII("trivalent"), CrVI ("hexavalent")
The thermodynamically stable species of chromium depend on redox conditions of the environment in which the chromium is located.
Under oxic (oxygen present) conditions, CrVI is the stable species.
Under anoxic (no oxygen present) conditions, CrIII is the stable species.,brStudies on the kinetics (rates of reaction) of CrIII - CrVI conversions show that the two forms of chromium are interconvertable. The rate of this conversion under ambient conditions is normally "slow"-can be catalyzed.
Must evaluate at appropriate concentrations of chromium.
Impact of Fe and Mn chemistry important.
CrIII discharged to Putah Creek will convert to CrVI in Putah Creek water
Will this conversion result in violation of Basin Plan objectives?
Putah Creek "waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life."
CrIII tends to sorb on particulates; CrVI is usually highly mobile.
Affects availability and transport
CrIII complexation with DOC impacts sorption and availability.
Aquatic
US EPA water quality criterion for CrVI of 10 �g/L protects most forms of aquatic life under chronic exposure conditions.
This criterion is implemented as a four-day average that is not to be exceeded for more than once in three years.
Does not protect all aquatic organisms from CrVI toxicity.
Daphnids impacted at less than 2 �g/L CrVI.
Must evaluate whether, under worst-case or near-worst-case conditions in Putah Creek, CrVI could be present at 10 �g/L for more than four days more than once in three years - i.e., would exceed water quality objective and Basin Plan requirements to protect aquatic life from chronic toxicity.
Must also conduct chronic toxicity testing with Ceriodaphnia at various locations in Putah Creek waters to determine if criterion is protective to zooplankton.
CrIII (which is much less toxic than CrVI) is normally regulated based on a drinking water MCL of 50 �g/L.
Water Quality Issues
Use Worst-Case Assumptions When Inadequate Site-Specific Information Not Available
A basic premise of the US EPA's national water pollution control program is that worst-case assumption should be used in evaluating the hazard of a chemical, in order to protect aquatic life and other designated beneficial uses when site-specific information is not available.
Burden of Proof
Should be on the discharger to demonstrate high levels of protection-not the public and the environment.
Site-Specific Evaluation and Regulation
The evaluation of the hazard/risk of a chemical requires a site-specific investigation of its aquatic chemistry and toxicology/impacts in the waterbody of concern.
Unique Characteristics of Putah Creek
Putah Creek has somewhat unique characteristics in that, at times, it is a UCD- effluent-dominated stream; under some conditions, the only flow in the Creek in the vicinity of Davis is UCD wastewater effluent.
Designated Beneficial Uses
Putah Creek's classified designated beneficial uses include domestic and agricultural water supply, water contact and non-contact recreation, aesthetic enjoyment, navigation, groundwater recharge, fresh water replenishment, and preservation and enhancement of fish, wildlife and other aquatic resources.
Public makes intensive use of the aquatic resources of Putah Creek. Putah Creek is a highly important waterbody in the Davis region.
Minimum Wastewater Treatment Not Adequate to Protect Putah Creek
The protection of Putah Creek's designated beneficial uses will likely require far more treatment of wastewater discharges and better management of stormwater runoff than may be appropriate for similar discharges/runoff to other waterbodies that have dilution flow available.
Low-Flow Conditions
Because of Putah Creek low-flow conditions, ambient water quality standards are applied to wastewater effluents to establish discharge limits of regulated chemicals to Putah Creek.
Implementation must consider upstream concentrations of regulated constituents.
According to UCD data, in November 1995 the concentrations of chromium in Putah Creek upstream of the University were near the allowed concentration of 10 �g/L.Inadequate Regulation of UCD Wastewater Discharges and Stormwater Runoff
Thus far, the CVRWQCB has not been regulating UCD wastewater discharges to Putah Creek in a manner that provides high degrees of protection of the designated beneficial uses of this waterbody.
Cumulative Impacts
The CVRWQCB has not been requiring that UCD properly evaluate the individual, as well as cumulative, impacts of the University's wastewater discharges and stormwater runoff on the beneficial uses of Putah Creek.
Inadequate/Out-of-Date Science in Order No. 96-227
CVRWQCB's Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. 96-227 adopted on August 9, 1996 does not adequately or reliably reflect the current understanding of the aquatic chemistry and toxicology of chromium that UCD could discharge to Putah Creek as part of disposal of its "west" landfill leachate-polluted groundwaters to Putah Creek.
CrIII Conversion to
CrVIAllowing 50 �g/L of total chromium (in the CrIII form) in this discharge could result, under some conditions through oxidation of CrIII to CrVI, in CrVI being present in Putah Creek at concentrations that would be adverse to aquatic life-related beneficial uses of the Creek.
Inadequate Monitoring
Highly deficient monitoring of Putah Creek water quality by UCD is permitted in the August 9, 1996 Order - one station 100 feet downstream
One station 100 feet downstream sampled every two weeks is inadequate to:
Determine the mixed concentrations of "west" landfill leachate-polluted groundwaters with Putah Creek water;
Detect conversion of CrIII to CrVI.
Significant water quality impacts due to chromium and other constituents in the "west" landfill leachate-polluted groundwaters discharged to Putah Creek under this Order could occur without being detected by this monitoring program.
Comprehensive monitoring program required to detect potential water quality impacts of UCD "west" landfill leachate-polluted groundwater.
Must consider aquatic chemistry (reactions and transport) in sampling program development.
Needed Improvements in Order No. 96-227
The UCD L. Vanderhoef Administration Should Voluntarily Amend Order No. 96-227 to Correct Key Technical Deficiencies by:
Establishing a maximum total chromium discharge limit for the leachate-polluted groundwaters so that Putah Creek waters in the vicinity of UCD and downstream will have a total chromium equal to or less than 10 �g/L.
Chronic toxicity testing of Putah Creek water should be done quarterly at locations, including upstream of UCD's influence, and at several locations downstream that could be influenced by UCD's wastewater discharges and stormwater runoff, including near the "west" landfill leachate-polluted groundwater and the UCD campus wastewater treatment plant, in order to determine if UCD's wastewater discharges and/or stormwater runoff are causing aquatic life toxicity that is adverse to the beneficial uses of Putah Creek.
The monitoring of wastewater discharge waters and stormwater runoff for chronic aquatic life toxicity is not adequate to detect the chronic aquatic life toxicity in Putah Creek waters. This is because combinations of chemicals in the discharges and in the Creek waters can lead to toxic conditions that are not detected by monitoring the discharge only. If toxic conditions are found, then UCD should be required to try to determine the cause of the toxicity and its origin.
Particular attention should be given in the chronic toxicity testing of Putah Creek to low-flow and near-low-flow conditions as well as to elevated flow conditions during stormwater runoff events to Putah Creek .
Needed Improvements in Order No. 96-227
The measurement of chronic toxicity in Putah Creek during stormwater runoff events and during Putah Creek elevated flows should be designed to assess the potential for stormwater runoff-derived constituents, either alone or in combination with other constituents present in the Creek, including those scoured from the Creek bed, to cause toxicity to aquatic life in the Creek and in downstream waters.
This is required in the Basin Plan.
The toxicity "objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. Compliance with this objective will be determined by analyses of indicator organisms, species diversity, population density, growth anomalies, and biotoxicity tests of appropriate duration or other methods as specified by the Regional Water Board."
Twice a year (late spring and late fall) samples of fish should be taken at several locations in Putah Creek to determine if the fish tissue contains excessive concentrations of hazardous chemicals that could be detrimental to people who eat the fish. If excessive concentrations of hazardous chemicals, such as mercury, chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides, PCB's, and/or dioxins are found in fish tissue, then studies should be conducted by UCD to determine the source(s) of the hazardous chemicals that are bioaccumulating to excessive amounts.
If the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration does not promptly voluntarily agree to amend Order No. 96-227 to cover the above listed elements, then the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board should adopt an amended Order that incorporates the above requirements.
Additional Information
Previously, correspondence submitted to the CVRWQCB on this matter has discussed the technical basis for issues covered in the recommended revised Order. If there are questions about the appropriateness and technical validity of this approach, please contact Dr. G. Fred Lee.
Comments On UCD September 13, 1996 Letter to W. Crooks
Regarding September 20, 1996 Hearing
Page 1, first paragraph, attempts to claim that all of the individuals listed support UCD's September 13, 1996 statements on these issues.
Such a conclusion would likely be highly unreliable. At least some of those listed should understand some of the deficiencies in the Order I have raised.
What was presented to them for review? Have they reviewed the extensive discussions of the issues I have provided to the Board?
Item 1) "Our technical experts believe that conversion of Chromium III to Chromium VI in Putah Creek is not a significant concern."
UCD claims that Drs. Zasoski ( listed on his resume as "Associate Professor of Soil Science and Associate Soil Scientist and Nutritionist." His September 3, 1996 letter lists him as "Professor Soil Science and Plant Nutrition.") and Burau ("Professor emeritus of Soil Science and Environmental Toxicology") are "experts in the field of water chemistry."
Both UCD "experts"are soil chemists. Based on the resumes provided they would not be considered experts in water chemistry based on:
I know from having developed and directed the Water Chemistry Program and the University of Wisconsin, Madison for 13 years, where I worked with and hired soil chemists on my faculty, that highly competent soil chemists are not necessarily qualified water or aquatic chemists, any more than an ag engineer is a qualified environmental engineer.
UCD has misrepresented the credentials of its soil scientists as so-called water chemistry "experts."
Comments on Zasoski's Memo of September 3, 1996
Devoted to Chromium Conversion in Putah Creek Waters
to J. Stagner of UCD Solid Waste
Dr. Zasoski sent a memo dated September 3, 1996 to UCD-Stagner indicating that he had reviewed the information available that is pertinent to the conversion of chromium III to chromium VI in Putah Creek waters and was providing comments and analysis. I received a copy of that memo yesterday, September 19, 1996, and wish to provide the following comments on it.
Limited Review
In his first paragraph he stated that he had reviewed my August 18, 1996 letter to K. Longley. Evidently, UCD did not provide Dr. Zasoski with the extensive correspondence and back-up information pertinent to this issue, of which my August 18, 1996 letter was a summary. Dr. Zasoski should have been provided with the complete file for review.
Chromium (VI) Stable Species
In his second paragraph, Dr. Zasoski confirmed what I have been informing the Board and its staff of for over a year and a half, namely that under the conditions that exist in Putah Creek waters, chromium VI is the thermodynamically stable species. Therefore, discharging chromium III at up to 50 �g/L, as Order No. 96-227 allows, could result in toxic levels of chromium VI in Putah Creek from conversion of chromium III.
Chromium (III) to Chromium (VI) Conversion
In his third paragraph, Dr. Zasoski summarized some of the literature pertinent to addressing this issue. He admitted in his last paragraph, however, that his comments were in fact "based on a brief review of the literature." It is unfortunate that he was not given or did not take more time with his literature review for in some of the same journals that he cited, he would have found the work of Masscheleyn et al. (1992) who investigated chromium redox conditions under conditions that are similar to those that will occur in Putah Creek.
Dr. Zasoski stated in his fourth paragraph, "Because the rate of oxidation is slow or non-existent in most situations, it is unlikely that a significant portion of the Cr(III) in effluent will be oxidized to Cr(VI)." If he had reviewed Masscheleyn's et al. paper, he would have found,
"During the first 24 h of equilibration, oxidation of Cr(III) to Cr(VI) occurred and increased Cr solubility. The oxidation of Cr(III) occurred rapidly and was most evident in the 10 ppm Cr(III) experiment (Figure 4B). Within 24 h, up to 12 and 57% of the added Cr(III) was oxidized in the 1 and 10 ppm experiment, respectively. After 1 day, the Cr(III) oxidation rate was exceeded by the Cr(VI) removal (diffusion) rate, and net Cr levels declined."
"Although detection of Cr(VI) produced during the experiments with Cr(III) demonstrates Cr(III) oxidation to be important in the floodwater, some questions remain on what caused Cr(III) to be oxidized. We postulate a manganese and iron oxide rich film or layer floating on the floodwater surface to be solely responsible for Cr(III) to Cr(VI) oxidation in our experiments."
Dr. Zasoski cited the review by Bartlett (1991) on chromium chemistry and quoted, "The barriers to Cr(III) oxidation in soils and waters are kinetic ones. Most of the Cr(III) species in chromium polluted soils and waters are insoluble and immobile." A proper discussion of this issue would have included a statement by Bartlett in his abstract of the paper cited, "If soluble Cr(III) is added to an 'average' soil, a portion of it will become immediately oxidized by manganese oxides to Cr(VI)."
This is the same kind of situation that Masscheleyn et al. reported in which fairly rapid oxidation of chromium (III) occurs under certain conditions. Without site-specific investigations in Putah Creek over an extensive period of time, it is not possible to reliably conclude that there are not substances in Putah Creek water or surface sediments that would convert chromium(III) that UCD proposes to discharge up to 50 �g/L, to chromium(VI) at potentially toxic concentrations of a few �g/L.
Toxicity of Chromium (VI)
Further, if Dr. Zasoski had reviewed the US EPA "Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Chromium -1984" he would have found in the "Introduction" the following statement.
"Significant quantities of chromium(III) or chromium(VI) or both exist in various bodies of water, and either can be converted to the other under appropriate natural conditions (Callahan, et al. 1979; Jan and Young, 1978; Smillie, et al. 1981)."
Further, if he had examined and reported on the discussion of toxicity of chromium to aquatic life, published on page 11 of the Agency's "Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Chromium - 1984," he would have found the following statement regarding chromium chronic toxicity,
"Six chronic values are available for five species of daphnids and they range from less than 2.5 to 40 �g/L (Table 2). The results of Trabalka and Gehrs (1977) support those of Mount (1982)."
Photochemistry of Chromium
Dr. Zasoski stated in his fourth paragraph, "It is also possible that some Cr(VI) will be reduced to Cr(III) by chemical means or photochemical processes (Kaczynski and Kleber (sic), 1993)." Again, a proper, comprehensive review of this topic would have revealed that the photoreduction issue that he raised is almost certainly of little or no importance in Putah Creek because of the high particulate content and limited light penetration. In fact, in the paper that Zasoski cited, (Kaczynski and Kleber (sic) ), 1993) it was stated, "The photogeneration of trivalent chromium may alternatively require some minimum light intensity which was not available on June 16, 1992."
A comprehensive review of this topic would also have shown that a year earlier, Kieber and Heiz (1992) reported in a study of the influence of photolysis on chromium chemistry in the Back River in Maryland it was found that while chromium (III) was produced from chromium (VI) during daylight hours, there was oxidation of chromium (III) to chromium (VI) at night. They speculated, "Possibly, manganese oxyhydroxides are responsible for restoring Cr(VI) during the dark hours in Back River."
It is important to put the issue of the photoreduction of Cr(VI) in proper perspective. While there appears to be some reduction occurring in some waterbodies during daylight hours, there is also oxidation of Cr(III) occurring, likely at all times. Further, the photoreduction component of this conversion would likely be insignificant in Putah Creek under the conditions of concern for Cr(VI) toxicity to aquatic life since under those conditions there would be little light penetration into the creek waters.
Chemistry of Chromium In Sea Water
Dr. Zasoski introduced in his discussion the chemistry of chromium in seawater and cited one of the many papers dealing with this topic. A more comprehensive, appropriate review of this topic is found in the book by Sadiq, Toxic Metal Chemistry in Marine Environments (1992). Chapter 6, "Chromium in the Marine Environment" presents an extensive discussion of chromium chemistry in the marine environment and concludes that chromium(III) is oxidized to chromium(VI) under some conditions and that the presence of MnOOH can serve as a catalyst. While Zasoski cited Nakayama et al. (1981) in support of his position that chromium (III) is not likely converted to chromium (VI) in Putah Creek Waters, in that article by Nakayama et al. (1981) is a discussion about the potential impact of manganese catalysis on this conversion is provided.
Furthermore, Sadiq (1992) stated, "From the foregoing it is concluded that
1. Manganese oxide catalyzes the oxidation of Cr(III) to Cr(VI) in seawater. Oxidation of Cr(III) may be hindered in a system where particulates of Mn oxide are limited. A limited supply of Mn oxide particulates may explain the presence of Cr(III) in surface seawaters.
Unreliable Conclusions
It can be concluded that Dr. Zasoski's statement at the end of his review, "However, because an occasional water sample has shown an ability to convert some Cr(III) to Cr(VI), we can not unequivocally state that it would not happen. The probability would appear to be remote." does not reflect a reliable review of the topic. In fact, a proper review of the literature and proper consideration of the conditions in Putah Creek relative to those that have been discussed in the literature, would lead one to the opposite conclusion, i.e., as I have been discussing over the past year and a half , that there is a possibility that the thermodynamically stable species of chromium, namely chromium(VI), being formed in Putah Creek waters from a UCD chromium(III) discharge of up to 50 �g/L could cause toxicity to aquatic life.
Further, now, based on a review of the literature, the 10 �g/L ambient water quality standard can no longer be considered a satisfactory discharge limit to comply with the CVRWQCB's Basin Plan requirements of no chronic aquatic life toxicity in the Regional Board's surface waters that have been classified for aquatic life-related beneficial uses. The fact that under some conditions Daphnia are being harmed at less than 2 �g/L by chromium(VI) points to the extreme importance of doing chronic toxicity testing with Ceriodaphnia to protect zooplankton from such chromium(VI) toxicity.
References
Callahan, M.A., et al., "Water-Related Environmental Fate of 129 Priority Pollutants. Vol. I," EPA-440/4-79-029a. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia. (1979).
EPA, "Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Chromium - 1984," EPA 440/5-84-029, Office of Water, US EPA, Washington, D.C. January (1985).
Jan, T. and Young, D.R., "Chromium Speciation in Municipal Wastewaters and Seawater." Jour. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 50:2327 (1978).
Masscheleyn, P.H., Pardue, J.H., DeLaune, R.D. and Patrick, Jr., W.H., "Chromium Redox Chemistry in a Lower Mississippi Valley Bottomland Hardwood Wetland," Environ. Sci. Technol. 26(6):1217-1226 (1992).
Mount, D.I. Memorandum to Charles E. Stephan. U.S. EPA, Duluth, Minnesota. June 7. (1982)
Sadiq, Muhammad, Toxic Metal Chemistry in Marine Environments, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, NY (1992).
Smillie, R.H., et al., "Reduction of Chromium(VI) by bacterially Produced Hydrogen Sulfide in a Marine Environment," Water Res. 15:1351 (1981)
Trabalka, J.R. and Gehrs, C.W., "An Observation on the Toxicity of Hexavalent Chromium to Daphnia magna," Toxicol. Letters 1:131 (1977).
Continuation of Discussion of UCD's
September 13, 1996 letter to W. Crooks
Item 2) "Dr. Lee's recommendation for a total chromium limitation of 10 �g/l would appear to represent a significant departure from existing USEPA National Water Quality Criteria and Water Quality Control Plans adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board."
The discussion of the Chromium III water quality criteria is largely extraneous to the issues being considered by the Board.
I did not claim that Chromium III would be toxic to aquatic life. My concern is that Chromium III under some conditions can convert to Chromium VI in Putah Creek waters.
The September 13, 1996 letter states, "Therefore, the University concurs with Board staff that the existing NPDES permit limitations for chromium VI and total chromium are sufficiently protective of both public health and aquatic life."
This statement is based on a superficial, inadequate, unreliable evaluation of the potential for conversion of chromium III that can be discharged under Order No. 96-227 at 50 �g/L that, when converted to chromium VI, can be toxic to aquatic life at about 10 �g/L.
The soil chemists' beliefs that chromium III will not convert to chromium VI and cause toxicity in Putah Creek is not based on a proper evaluation of the issues.
"Item 3) The NPDES permit adopted by the Board in August 1996 thoroughly addresses the potential, however slight, for chromium conversion by requiring in-stream monitoring of total chromium and chromium VI concentrations in Putah Creek.
The Order adopted by the Board includes an aggressive approach to address the complicated issue of chromium conversion: the University will collect water samples from Putah Creek to ensure that the discharge does not lead to an in-stream exceedance of total chromium or chromium VI limitations. This monitoring requirement effectively supplants all technical theories regarding chromium III to chromium VI conversion. Routine monitoring of chromium concentrations in Putah Creek is a conclusive means of addressing the issue of chromium conversion."
This is another misleading presentation of technical information to the Board. A grab sample taken every two weeks from Putah Creek 100 feet downstream of the point of waste discharge would generate data that will be far from adequate in providing "a conclusive means of addressing the issue of chromium conversion." Such sampling will not likely even describe the mixture of the discharge waters with Putah Creek waters at that point due to a lack of mixing.
The travel times between the point of discharge and the sampling point 100 feet downstream can vary from a few tens seconds, to minutes, a couple of hours or a day or so, depending on stream discharge. In most cases of potential concern, the travel time between the point of discharge and the sampling point is too short to examine the conversion of chromium (III ) to chromium (VI).
Contrary to the statements made by UCD, the monitoring program required in Order No. 96-227 is largely cosmetic and provides little protection of Putah Creek aquatic life from adverse impacts of chromium III and other constituents in UCD's "west" landfill leachate-polluted groundwater discharged to Putah Creek on the designated beneficial uses of Putah Creek.
Summary
UCD stated in its September 13,1996 letter that Drs. Tchobanoglous and Zasoski were also interested in testifying at the September 20, 1996 hearing but could not do so because of previous commitments. UCD is implying that these individuals would have provided credible testimony on the details of the chromium chemistry issues that would have shown that my ("the public's") position on this issue is technically invalid.
First, the public was not contacted about whether September 20, 1996 was a suitable date for participation in this hearing.
Second, both Drs. Zasoski and Tchobanoglous could have submitted written statements of their testimony that could have been provided to the public with sufficient lead time prior to the September 20, 1996 hearing to enable the public to critically review the technical merits of their testimony.
It is unfortunate that they did not testify since likely that under questioning it would have been brought out that UCD's September 13, 1996 letter stating these issues did not reliably present the information necessary to discredit my previous detailed discussions of these issues that have been submitted to the Board.
The final statement of the Summary stated, "Furthermore, as we [UCD] have repeatedly demonstrated, we will continue to take all reasonable actions necessary to protect our water resources."
In my previous correspondence, I suggested that the UCD-L.Vanderhoef administration voluntarily amend Order No. 96-227 to address the highly significant technical deficiencies in that Order. Rather than showing leadership in the water pollution control field, this administration has chosen, through the September 13, 1996 letter to continue its recalcitrant polluter approach of doing the least necessary to get by current inadequate implementation of the Board's Basin Plan requirements.
Appropriateness of Board's Review Process
I have made repeated requests for a full public peer review of the Putah Creek water quality issues.
I have provided the Board with detailed discussion of issues and repeatedly invited Board and/or Board staff questions.
Further, in connection with the September 20, 1996 hearing, I provided the Board, in advance of the deadline, with an outline of the key topics that I plan to cover. I also sent copies of my materials to all Board members, W. Crooks, and L. Vanderhoef. I specifically requested in my letter of September 13, 1996 responding to the staff's "Report" for the September 20, 1996 hearing that all materials that the staff, UCD and others developed for that hearing be provided to the public for its review prior to the September 20, 1996 hearing. Nevertheless, official channels did not provide a copy of the September 13, 1996 letter from J. McNeal to W. Crooks, which specifically attempted to discredit the technical validity of the issues I have raised by introducing new materials into the deliberations, to me or to other members of the public prior to the hearing.
This failure to provide this material for review and comments prior to the hearing indicates that UCD must be reluctant to have its technical position properly peer reviewed prior to the hearing as I had requested. Mr. Crooks, the Board staff and the L. Vanderhoef administration have apparently deliberately, through handling of the September 13, 1996 letter from J. McNeal to Mr. Crooks, tried to deprive the public of the opportunity to participate appropriately in the September 20, 1996 hearing. Because of this situation, the Board needs to take action to cause the staff to represent the public's interest in connection with regulating UCD's waste discharges to Putah Creek.
October, 1996
John Caffrey, Chairman
State Water Res Control Board
P0 Box 100
Sacramento, CA 95812-0100
Supplement to Petition A-1042
Dear Chairman Caffrey:
I wish to provide the Board with recently acquired supplemental information which demonstrates that chromium III should not be allowed to be discharged to Putah Creek because of the now demonstrated potential for chromium III to be scoured from the greater Yolo Bypass sediments in a form that is bioaccumulatable by downstream aquatic life. Putah Creek is a tributary of the Yolo Bypass.
In September 1996 I submitted a Petition to the State Water Resources Control Board on the significant technical deficiencies in the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board's (CVRWQCB) Order No. 96-227 governing the University of California, Davis discharge of chromium to Putah Creek at a total chromium concentration of up to 50 �g/L. In my September Petition, I presented an overview summary of the information available as to why total chromium discharges should be limited to no more than 10 �g/L in the receiving waters for the discharge considering upstream sources, i.e. the current US EPA water quality criterion for chromium VI, unless the discharger convincingly demonstrates that discharges above that level can occur without significant potential adverse impacts on the beneficial uses of the receiving waters. Of particular concern was the aquatic life toxicity of chromium VI.
Subsequently, CVRWQCB Chairman Longley, in an attempt to try to provide the University of California, Davis L. Vanderhoef administration with an opportunity to get into the record materials that would support the Board's position that chromium can be discharged safely at 50 �g/L to Putah Creek, conducted a so-called "technical" hearing on chromium issues. Former Chairman Longley's efforts to try to get into the record on my appeal of Order No. 96-227 information that would counter my Petition on the technical deficiencies in this Order backfired since the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration addressed the issues I raised in such a superficial manner as to make it blatantly obvious that UCD's and the Board's approach under this Order which allowed UCD to discharge up to 50 �g/L total chromium would not be protective of public health and the environment. In connection with that hearing, the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration had two of its soil scientists who the administration claimed were water chemists, but obviously were not based on their qualifications and areas of experience and expertise, present a so-called literature review which was specifically designed to support the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration by only discussing the readily available literature that was purported to support the position that chromium III would not convert to chromium VI which would lead to aquatic life toxicity under conditions where chromium III is discharged to the creek at 50 �g/L and the creek could have a total chromium of 50 �g/L because of this discharge. Following the CVRWQCB's October "technical" hearing in which the CVRWQCB Board and staff attempted to introduce UCD's information into the record without providing the public with an opportunity to review and comment on it, I submitted a Supplement to my original Petition discussing the highly inaccurate, biased and unreliable information presented by UCD at the October hearing devoted to chromium issues which demonstrated that a proper review of the readily available literature, including publications in the same journal but at a different time of the year which was cited by UCD's soil scientists, showed that there was substantial reason to believe that under some conditions, especially in the presence of manganese, chromium III is readily converted to chromium VI and this conversion can take place a high rate.
Further, at that time I pointed out that in 1984 the US EPA had discussed in its chromium criterion document that chromium VI has been found to be toxic to key forms of aquatic life, such as zooplankton, at less than 2 �g/L. The US EPA could not use that information in establishing the chromium criterion that was developed in its "Gold Book" because there was no definitive concentration at which chromium VI was found to be toxic. All that was known was that the toxic limit was less than 2 �g/L. As I pointed out in my Supplemental Petition, subsequent work published in 1995 by Environment Canada that reviewed chromium toxicity issues recommended that the chromium VI criterion values should be 0.5 �g/L, i.e a factor of 50 less than the current US EPA water quality criterion of 10 �g/L. I also discussed that the since the CVRWQCB's Basin Plan requires that there be no toxicity in receiving waters associated with any permitted discharge, the issue was now one of whether chromium III discharged to Putah Creek by the University of California, Davis, either alone or in combination with existing chromium already in the stream, caused chromium VI to be present in Putah Creek at concentrations above about 0.5 �g/L which are, under some conditions, toxic to aquatic life.
In my discussion of the issues in the Supplemental Petition, I expressed concern about the potential for chromium III, which tends through sorption reactions and the settling of particulates, to accumulate in sediments to be resuspended into the water column under elevated flow conditions that could lead to problems downstream of the resuspension point due to chromium toxicity. As discussed, the focus of concern was the possibility that chromium III which attached to solids in sediments in Putah Creek could be resuspended in the presence of manganese and oxygen in the water column leading to the oxidation of chromium III to chromium VI at concentrations above 0.5 �g/L, i.e. potentially toxic levels, based on the 1995 Environment Canada review.
The purpose of my contacting the Board on this matter at this time is to provide the Board with additional information that points to the fact that my concern about resuspension of sediment associated chromium III into the water column and its potential biological impacts has now been supported by work that has been done in the San Francisco Bay region.
The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, together with the point and non-point source dischargers, developed a Regional Monitoring Program (RMP) that is providing substantial amounts of high-quality data on the characteristics of San Francisco Bay waters, sediments and aquatic life. On February 13, 1997, the RMP held its annual five-year review of the work that has been done in this program. A number of presentations were made on various aspects of the RMP work which included a presentation by Andy Gunther, Vice-President of Applied Marine Sciences, devoted to bivalve bioaccumulation. Mr. Gunther reviewed the information that has been collected in the Musselwatch program in San Francisco Bay which showed that in 1993 at the end of the seven-year drought, the chromium concentrations in the water and mussel tissue in San Francisco Bay increased dramatically. This increase is attributed to the possibility of chromium III from natural as well as anthropogenic (wastewater) discharges to the Sacramento River system and, in particular, the Yolo Bypass that have accumulated as chromium III in sediments during the drought low-flow period being resuspended into the water column and carried into San Francisco Bay which increased the Bay concentrations of chromium in the water column and, most importantly, the concentrations of chromium in mussel tissue.
The fact that the chromium in mussels increased significantly is of concern since this means that the resuspended chromium that occurred with the high flows is at least, in part, in a bioavailable form that can be bioaccumulated by mussels and incorporated into their tissue. This situation is indicative of a potential problem that could be occurring in Putah Creek where UCD's discharge of total chromium of 50 �g/L coupled with the elevated concentrations of natural and other chromium upstream of UCD's discharges could lead to appreciable accumulation of chromium III in Putah Creek sediments during low-flow conditions. This sediment-associated chromium III would, as I discussed in my original and Supplemental Petitions, be scoured under increased stream flow and suspended in the water column. Under these conditions, the chromium III would be in an oxic environment where there is the potential for the chromium III to be oxidized to chromium VI and thereby at concentrations of about 0.5 �g/L be toxic to aquatic life.
At the February 13, 1997 RMP annual meeting K. Abu-Saba a PhD Candidate at the University of California, Santa Cruz presented a poster session paper in which he demonstrated through his studies that chromium III oxidation to chromium VI does occur in aquatic systems. This further confirms the work that my graduate student (Schroeder) and I did many years ago on this topic. In discussions with Mr. Abu-Saba, he confirmed what I had previously reported to the Board last September and October, that the aqueous environmental chemistry of chromium is not well understood. However, it is inappropriate to assume, without detailed site-specific investigation under various climatic and hydrologic conditions, that chromium III discharged at up to 50 mg/L would not convert to chromium IV in the Putah Creek environment at concentrations greater than 1 mg/L which are toxic to aquatic life.
As I discussed, the superficial-cosmetic monitoring program of a single sampling station a short travel time downstream of the point of discharge specified by the CVRWQCB in Order 96-227 would obviously not be reliable for detection of the conversion of chromium III to chromium VI in sufficient concentrations to be toxic to aquatic life. This conversion could readily occur downstream of that monitoring station and would, therefore, not be detected by the Order specified monitoring program.
The resuspension of sediment accumulated chromium III did and does occur based on the recently reported work for the San Francisco Bay chromium situation, where the increased chromium (likely chromium III) associated with higher flows could lead to bioaccumulation of chromium in fresh water clams and other organisms that are present in Putah Creek. Putah Creek is being used as a source of freshwater clams that, through transplant, are being used to monitor bioaccumulation of hazardous chemicals in the San Francisco Bay system. The clams in Putah Creek have been found to have a wide variety of bioaccumulatable chemicals within their tissue which require extensive depravation before they can be used as part of the RMP to monitor bioaccumulation in the freshwater parts of the San Francisco Bay system.
The important issue from a regulatory perspective is that in accord with the basic principles of public health and environmental protection, the burden of proof for protection of the environment should be on the discharger (the University of California, Davis L. Vanderhoef administration) to demonstrate in a convincing manner that its proposed chromium discharges are safe and protective. The public and/or wildlife should not have to die in large numbers before the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board will take action to protect public health and the environment from the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration's mismanagement of its campus wastes associated with its excessive discharges of hazardous and deleterious chemicals to Putah Creek without adequate, reliable monitoring of creek conditions as is now permitted under Order No.96-227. The Board's approach for monitoring, where significant damage has to occur before action can possibly be taken, is contrary to the requirements set forth in Porter-Cologne which require that the threat of pollution be considered equivalent to pollution and where action must be taken to protect from such pollution. The situation that exists where the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board issues an Order (96-227) that allows UCD to discharge chromium up to 50 �g/L with an obviously fundamentally flawed monitoring program of the impacts of this chromium on public health and the environment should not be allowed. The public and the wildlife in or associated with Putah Creek are entitled to significantly greater protection than is provided by Order No. 96-227. Any discharge of chromium to Putah Creek by the University of California, Davis above about 1 �g/L should be accompanied by a comprehensive detailed monitoring program of downstream waters to ensure that the chromium discharged by UCD which adds to the natural and other chromium burden that Putah Creek has due to upstream sources does not increase the magnitude of the adverse effects of chromium downstream in Putah Creek, the Yolo Bypass and, for that matter, San Francisco Bay.
Part of this monitoring program must include, as I recommended in my Petition and Supplemental Petition, examination of Putah Creek and monitoring Putah Creek under rising hydrograph conditions to see if chromium III which accumulates in sediments increases in concentrations in the water column during the elevated flows and especially the early parts of the elevated flows. If increasing elevated concentrations of chromium are found in the water associated with the increase in flow, then UCD and other dischargers must be required to monitor downstream aquatic life, including the freshwater clams, for an increased bioaccumulation of chromium.
In summary, the new information that has been provided as part of the San Francisco Bay Regional Monitoring Program which demonstrates that chromium III, which accumulates in the Yolo Bypass and other upstream sediments during low-flow conditions, becomes available for bioaccumulation in mussels and other aquatic life during high-flow conditions when the chromium present in the sediments is resuspended in the water column, provides additional justification for limiting the total chromium that UCD can discharge to Putah Creek to no more than 1 �g/L. Any discharge above this amount could readily result in increased bioaccumulation of chromium during normal and elevated flow conditions and chromium VI toxicity that is present in the discharge and/or accumulated in the sediments due to the conversion of chromium III to chromium VI at concentrations of 0.5 �g/L.
If there are questions about this matter, please contact me.
Sincerely yours,
Fred
G. Fred Lee, PhD, DEE
Copy to: Members, SWRCB
Ed Schnabel, Chairman CVRWQCB
W. Pettit
J. Bennett
J. Leon SWRCB
L. Vanderhoef
Petition Order NO. 227 mailing list
GFL:djc
Enclosure
Reference as: "Lee, G. F., 'Petition to the State Water Resources Control Board to Review the Waste Discharge Requirements, Order 96-227, Issued by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board on August 9, 1996 to the University of California at Davis for the UCD Campus Landfill Ground Water Cleanup System,' Petition to the State Water Resources Control Board, September (1996) and October and November Supplements, Sacramento, CA, (1996)."
|
|
