Department of Water Resources
A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment
November 1, 2007
4. Water Quality
GROUNDWATER CLEANUP:
Water cleanup funds secured; Settlement with EPA nets $12.5 million -
REGULATION:
Waste violations continuing on Sprinter line, state board says - San Diego Union Tribune
SLUDGE ISSUES:
Editorial: A small victory in sludge battle -
GROUNDWATER CLEANUP:
Water cleanup funds secured; Settlement with EPA nets $12.5 million
By Fred Ortega, staff writer
SOUTH EL MONTE - The federal Environmental Protection Agency secured $12.5 million from businesses to help clean groundwater in the
The money comes from a settlement filed last week with 39 parties, including Southern California Edison, Electronic Solutions and Cardinal Industrial Finishes.
Those companies, and others, including defunct businesses as well as small mom-and-pop operations, are believed responsible for contaminating local groundwater with industrial solvents, volatile organic compounds and the rocket fuel additive perchlorate.
The contamination, which took place over decades, led federal authorities in 1984 to declare the water table below a vast portion of the eastern
The money will be used to clean water from wells in the
"The EPA will continue to oversee cleanup work and pursue other potentially liable parties to recover cleanup costs," Takata said in a statement.
The settlement brings the total amount of money from local polluters to about $400 million, said Gabriel Monares of the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority. That's about 80 percent of the total half-billion spent on the cleanup effort so far.
"On the face of it $12.5 million is a lot of money, but when you look at the fact that we need about $70 million just to clean up that area (
Officials estimate it will take about 10 to 30 years and a total $1.2 billion to finish cleaning up the basin.
The added funds will help to continue operating about eight water purification facilities in and around
"Many either no longer exist or are mom-and-pop shops that don't have the money to settle," Monares. "Bottom line is, there is not enough money left through litigation for cleanup."
And while the federal government has provided nearly 14 percent of the remaining cleanup costs, the state has only contributed about 1.5 percent, Monares said.
"We really need the state to step up," he said. #
REGULATION:
Waste violations continuing on Sprinter line, state board says
By Michael Burge, staff writer
The staff of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board has told the North County Transit District it is still violating waste-discharge regulations along the Sprinter passenger-rail construction line.
The agency told the transit district Aug. 31 that it was levying a $160,000 penalty for failing to prevent runoff and falsifying inspection reports. Transit officials responded Oct. 4, saying they had corrected the problems and asking for a lower penalty.
The day after the district filed that response, inspectors for the regional board examined the 22-mile Sprinter construction line and discovered violations at eight locations.
“The timing isn't coincidental,” Chiara Clemente, a senior environmental scientist for the regional board, said yesterday. “We received the (transit district) report and it was for validation purposes.
“We did see some of the sites that were previously in noncompliance, and they were still in noncompliance.”
She said violations were noticed at some new locations as well.
Don Bullock, the transit district's project manager for the Sprinter project, said some of the alleged violations were “flat-out wrong.”
The maximum penalty is $10,000 per violation. The water-quality board had planned to assess the maximum $160,000 penalty for the 16 previous violations.
The water-quality board's inspection report cites eight locations along the Sprinter line where it found violations:
Violations included unprotected storm-drain inlets, trash along inlets, broken gravel bags, fallen silt fences and bare soil with no protection to prevent runoff from flowing into storm drains.
Bullock disputed the allegations, saying that in at least one instance, no discharge was flowing into a natural waterway because the storm drain wasn't connected to anything.
“There's no documented discharges where runoff is going into the water,” Bullock said. “There's probably at least 1,000 areas all along this line that have protection.
“That said, we're being very proactive.”
He said the district has its own inspector checking on the line and telling the contractor where to correct problems.
He said the project is about to be completed and that the contractor is focusing on getting the train operating so the district can start service by the end of December.
“In the heat to get this done, some of this was overlooked,” Bullock said.
Clemente said she recognized the challenge of maintaining all the protective measures, but added that the transit district promised to adhere to the terms of its permit when it undertook the job. #
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20071101/news_1mc1nctd.html
SLUDGE ISSUES:
Editorial: A small victory in sludge battle
Good catch, federal Judge Gary Feess. If you want the tab paid, itemize your bill.
It's a minor victory in a bigger war over Southern California's dumping of its sludge on
And call it poetic justice in a legal war that has seen
Sick of gagging on the fumes and dust, and worrying about groundwater pollution from millions of tons of Southern California sludge being hauled to
But the measure, which banned spreading onto
Despite Measure E's passage, Southern California's crap has continued to flow into
Meanwhile, the private farming and sludge-hauling companies that sued the county to block Measure E asked Judge Feess to order
But
Not so fast, Judge Feess last week told the companies, including Responsible Biosolids Management, farmer Shaen Magan and Sierra Transport Inc. Prove what you say
While payment of the legal fees is a moot point, because
And despite the mounting legal costs, it's still cheaper for
It was once cheaper for
http://www.bakersfield.com/opinion/editorials/story/273895.html
####
No comments:
Post a Comment