£EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Groundwater Pump and Treat Systems: Summary of
Selected Cost and Performance Information at
Superfund-financed Sites
PIPE
EXTRACTION WELLS
-------
Solid Waste and EPA542-R-01-021a
Emergency Response December 2001
(5102G) clu-in.org
-------
NOTICE
Work described herein was performed by GeoTrans, Inc. (GeoTrans) for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) under Dynamac Contract No. 68-C-99-256, Subcontract No. 91517, Task
AD01-117. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
This document, with its appendices (EPA 542-01-021b) or without its appendices (EPA 542-01-021a),
may be downloaded from EPA's Clean Up Information (CLUIN) System at http://www.clu-in.org. A
limited number of hard copies of each version are also available free of charge from the National Service
Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP) at the following address:
U.S. EPA National Service Center for Environmental Publications
P.O. Box 42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419
Phone: (800) 490-9198 or (513) 489-8190
Fax:(513)489-8695
-------
PREFACE
This report summarizes Phase 1 (the data collection phase) of the Nationwide Fund-lead Pump and Treat
Optimization Project. This phase included contacting a project liaison for each of the EPA Regions,
identifying the Fund-lead pump-and-treat (P&T) systems in each Region, collecting baseline information
about each system through a web-based questionnaire or phone interview, and selecting a total of 20
Fund-lead systems to receive RSEs. Four of the 20 P&T systems (two in Region 4 and two in Region 5)
were previously selected and evaluated as part of a demonstration project completed in 2000.
Data presented in this report reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers. These
estimates may, in some cases, vary from actuality. In addition, the data—including the number,
status, and costs of systems—may change over time.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The project team is grateful for the help provided by the EPA Project Liaisons from each Region. They
were vital in selecting the Fund-lead P&T systems to be evaluated and in facilitating communication
between the project team and the Remedial Project Managers (RPMs). The authors also extend sincere
thanks to the principal investigators from the U.S. EPA Technology Innovation Office (TIO) and U.S.
EPA Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR).
in
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This first phase of the Nationwide Fund-lead Pump and Treat Optimization Project successfully
identified a total of 88 Fund-lead (EPA-lead and State-lead with Fund money) pump-and-treat (P&T)
systems within the Superfund Program. Of the 88 systems identified, 67 are operational and 21 are pre-
operational (i.e., the Records of Decisions for the pre-operational systems specify pump-and-treat, but
these systems are in the design stage or some other stage prior to full operation). System identification
was accomplished through use of online databases and discussions with project liaisons in each Region.
The number of Fund-lead P&T systems in a Region ranged from zero in Region 8 to 22 in Region 2.
Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) of the identified systems submitted data and information on their
systems through a web-based questionnaire. Phone interviews were utilized in a limited number of
cases. A screening methodology using the collected data was applied to prioritize these systems with
respect to potential life-cycle savings resulting from optimization. Based on this screening and
discussions with the project liaison in each Region, specific systems in each Region were selected to
receive Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs). The RSE process was developed by the United States
Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) to evaluate a remediation system and provide recommendations to
improve effectiveness and reduce costs. Including the demonstration optimization project conducted in
2000, a total of 20 Fund-lead P&T systems were selected to receive RSEs.
This report identifies the 88 Fund-lead P&T systems, summarizes the information submitted by the
RPMs, and presents the screening and selection of those systems to receive RSEs.
Data presented in this report reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers. These
estimates may, in some cases, vary from actuality. In addition, the data— including the number,
status, and costs of systems—may change over time.
The following summaries result from the estimated cost data and system projections provided by the
RPMs:
The estimated average annual operation and maintenance (O&M) cost for a Fund-lead P&T
system (based on those 79 systems providing cost data) is approximately $570,000 and the
median cost is $350,000. The discrepancy between these two statistics is due to a small number
of systems with relatively high O&M costs.
Based on the 79 systems that provided cost information, the estimated total annual O&M cost for
operating the Fund-lead P&T systems in 2002 is approximately $38 million, with EPA incurring
approximately $32.5 million of the total annual cost and the associated States incurring the
remaining $5.5 million.
Based on the 79 systems that provided cost information, the estimated future cost for Long-term
Remedial Action (LTRA) O&M for all of these systems exceeds $210 million with discounting
(i.e., net present value)* and exceeds $270 million without discounting. LTRA refers to the first
10 years of operation of a groundwater or surface water restoration action. During this period,
*Net present value reflects the discounted or reduced cost of future expenditures due to interest gained between the present and the
time of the expenditure. A discount rate of 5% is assumed. Please see Section 4.0 for more information on discounting and net
present value as they apply to the presented costs.
iv
-------
EPA typically funds 90% of the cost and the associated State funds 10% of the costs. These
percentages translate directly to the presented costs; therefore, the Superfund is expected to pay
approximately $189 million ($243 million without discounting) and the States are expected to
pay approximately $21 million ($27 million without discounting).
Based on the 79 systems that provided cost information, the estimated future cost for O&M of
Fund-lead P&T systems until remediation completion is achieved is approximately $470 million
with discounting (net-present value) and $790 million without discounting. (These estimates of
future O&M costs are based on the annual costs of systems and expected durations of systems as
specified by the site managers. For some systems where expected system duration is unknown,
a value of 30 years may have been used as a default value for this parameter. While the practice
of using 30 years as a default was prevalent in the past, more recent EPA guidance on feasibility
study preparation recommends that 30 years not be used as a default.)
13 of the 79 systems that provided costs account for approximately 50% of the total reported
annual O&M costs.
A total of 26 States reportedly have Fund-lead P&T systems. Upon completion of the 10-year LTRA
period each system will be transferred to its associated State and that State will assume 100% of the
remaining O&M costs. For systems where restoration is not a goal (i.e., containment and water supply
systems) the systems are typically transferred to the States after one year. The collected data suggest that
the States will incur between approximately $250 million with discounting or $520 million without
discounting in post-LTRA O&M costs for Fund-lead P&T systems that reported annual O&M costs.
Furthermore, the data suggest that the following five States will likely incur 78% of these post-LTRA
O&M costs:
• New Jersey (27.6%)
Massachusetts (22.6%)
• New York (9.7%)
• Pennsylvania (9.6%)
• Michigan (8.4%)
In addition to cost information, the following statistics about the Fund-lead P&T systems were also
gleaned from the information reported by the system RPMs:
40 of 67 operating systems are reported to be controlling plume migration.
60 of the 67 operating systems have groundwater restoration as a goal but 21 of that 60 do not
have estimates of the progress toward that restoration. Of the 39 systems that have both
groundwater restoration as a goal and an estimate of progress toward restoration, 7 are estimated
to have made more than 80% progress toward restoration.
• 52 of the 88 systems have three or more primary contaminants of concern, and chlorinated
solvents are the most prevalent contaminants as they are addressed by 56 of the 88 systems.
35 of the 88 Fund-lead P&T systems are associated with sites where non-aqueous phase liquid
(NAPL) has either been observed or suspected.
-------
Carbon adsorption and air stripping are the most prevalent treatment processes (carbon
adsorption is used at 50 of the 88 systems and air stripping is used at 41).
Based on 64 of 88 systems where RPMs were able to determine costs specifically used for
groundwater monitoring, Fund-lead P&T systems have, on average, 23 monitoring wells for
groundwater sampling that are sampled three to four times per year for an average cost of
$112,000 per year.
36 of the 67 operating systems have previously had performance and effectiveness evaluated and
found "sufficient" while 7 had performance and effectiveness found "not sufficient" (the
remaining systems are either being evaluated, have not been evaluated, or have not provided
information regarding previous effectiveness evaluations).
Although the RSE selection process targeted systems in each Region that had effectiveness problems or
relatively high operating costs, a number of systems with similar issues still remain, and additional RSEs
are recommended to address these remaining systems.
VI
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NOTICE i
PREFACE ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS vii
LIST OF FIGURES viii
LIST OF TABLES ix
LIST OF APPENDICES x
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 BACKGROUND 1
1.2 DEMONSTRATION FUND-LEAD PUMP AND TREAT OPTIMIZATION PROJECT 1
1.3 NATIONWIDE FUND-LEAD PUMP AND TREAT OPTIMIZATION PROJECT 1
2.0 SYSTEM IDENTIFICATION 3
3.0 DATA COLLECTION 6
4.0 SUMMARIES OF COLLECTED DATA 10
4.1 SUMMARIES OF SYSTEM COSTS AND PROJECTIONS 10
4.2 SUMMARY OF COST DATA AS IT PERTAINS TO THE STATES 11
4.3 STATUS AND PROGRESS OF THE FUND-LEAD P&T SYSTEMS 13
4.4 SYSTEM GOALS 13
4.5 CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN, TREATMENT PROCESSES, AND MONITORING 13
4.6 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATIONS 14
5.0 SYSTEM SCREENING AND PRIORITIZATION WITH RESPECT TO OPTIMIZATION POTENTIAL . 43
6.0 SYSTEM SELECTION 46
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED 59
APPENDICES 63
vn
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4-1: Trend of Financial Responsibility of Fund-lead P&T Systems
Figure 4-2: Trend of Estimated Annual O&M Costs of Fund-lead P&T Systems
Figure 4-3: Status of Fund-lead P&T Systems
Figure 4-4: Progress of the 67 Operational Fund-lead P&T Systems
Figure 4-5: Treatment Processes at Fund-lead P&T Systems
Figure 6-1: Fund-lead P&T Systems Ranked by "Estimated Potential Life-cycle Savings ($)"
Figure 6-2: Fund-lead P&T Systems Ranked by Annual O&M Cost and the Cumulative Distribution of System
Annual O&M Costs
Vlll
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1: Number of Identified Fund-lead P&T Systems in each Region
Table 4-1: Region 1 Fund-lead P&T System Performance and Cost Information
Table 4-2: Region 2 Fund-lead P&T System Performance and Cost Information
Table 4-3: Region 3 Fund-lead P&T System Performance and Cost Information
Table 4-4: Region 4 Fund-lead P&T System Performance and Cost Information
Table 4-5: Region 5 Fund-lead P&T System Performance and Cost Information
Table 4-6: Region 6 Fund-lead P&T System Performance and Cost Information
Table 4-7: Region 7 Fund-lead P&T System Performance and Cost Information
Table 4-8: Region 9 Fund-lead P&T system Performance and Cost Information
Table 4-9: Region 10 Fund-lead P&T system performance and Cost Information
Table 4-10: Future O&M Costs of Fund-lead P&T Systems Expected to be Incurred by each State
Table 4-11: Region 1 Fund-lead P&T System O&M Costs According to State
Table 4-12: Region 2 Fund-lead P&T System O&M Costs According to State
Table 4-13: Region 3 Fund-lead P&T System O&M Costs According to State
Table 4-14: Region 4 Fund-lead P&T System O&M Costs According to State
Table 4-15: Region 5 Fund-lead P&T System O&M Costs According to State
Table 4-16: Region 6 Fund-lead P&T System O&M Costs According to State
Table 4-17: Region 7 Fund-lead P&T System O&M Costs According to State
Table 4-18: Region 9 Fund-lead P&T System O&M Costs According to State
Table 4-19: Region 10 Fund-lead P&T System O&M Costs According to State
Table 4-20: Categories of Contaminants Prevalent at Sites with Fund-lead P&T Systems
Table 5-1: Site-Specific Criteria Used to Calculate the "Estimated Potential Life-cycle Savings (%)" from
Optimization of each of the Identified Fund-lead P&T Systems (Page 1 of 2)
Table 6-1: For each Region Systems Selected for RSEs and the "Estimated Potential Life-cycle Savings ($)':
Suggested by Screening Analysis
Table 6-2: Fund-lead P&T Systems Ranked in Terms of "Estimated Potential Life-cycle Savings ($)" as
Calculated by the Screening Methodology
Table 6-3: Fund-lead P&T Systems Ranked According to Annual O&M Cost
IX
-------
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Information Sheets for each Fund-lead P&T System
Appendix B: Summary Phase 1 Reports of each Region
Appendix C: Screening Calculations for each Fund-lead P&T System
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
As part of an overall commitment toward optimization, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Headquarters continually offers resources and support to the EPA Regions to improve their operating
remedies. A large percentage of these remedies are pump-and-treat (P&T) systems designed to restore
groundwater, contain contaminant sources, or supply water. Thus, the EPA Technology Innovation
Office (TIO) and Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR) have commissioned
Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs) for Fund-lead P&T systems in each of the EPA Regions in an
effort to optimize their performance.
The Remediation System Evaluation (RSE) concept was developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USAGE) to improve remedies already in place. An RSE begins with the formation of a team of experts
including experienced engineers and hydrogeologists. Once a system has been selected for an RSE, the
team reviews site-related documents, visits the site to tour the facility and interview the site managers,
and compiles a report to document findings and any recommendations to improve the remedy.
Recommendations typically fall into the following categories:
recommendations to improve system effectiveness;
recommendations to reduce operation and maintenance (O&M) costs;
• recommendations for technical improvement; and
recommendations to gain site close out.
1.2 DEMONSTRATION FUND-LEAD PUMP AND TREAT OPTIMIZATION PROJECT
A demonstration optimization project of Fund-lead pump and treat systems conducted in Regions 4 and
5 identified a total of 28 planned or operating pump-and-treat (P&T) systems that are Fund-lead (or
state-lead with Superfund financing). On average, those systems cost approximately $300,000 per year
per site for operations and maintenance (O&M). Extrapolation of these results suggested that 140 such
systems might exist through the nation at a total estimated O&M cost of $4 million per year. Many of
these systems are anticipated to operate for decades with costs split between Superfund and the
individual states. For the first 10 years of operation of most Fund-lead sites, the Superfund Program
pays for 90% of the O&M costs and the State pays the remaining 10%. The State then assumes 100% of
the costs incurred after the initial 10 year period.
In addition to identifying the Fund-lead P&T systems, the pilot optimization study also included
Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs) of four P&T systems. These four evaluations resulted in a
number of recommendations to improve effectiveness and/or reduce O&M costs for each of the systems.
Thus, the results of this pilot study highlighted the benefits of optimizing Fund-lead systems.
1.3 NATIONWIDE FUND-LEAD PUMP AND TREAT OPTIMIZATION PROJECT
Based in part on the results of the demonstration project described above, OSWER Directive No. 9200.0-
33 (Transmittal of Final FYOO - FY01 Superfund Reforms Strategy, dated July 7,2000)
1
-------
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/reforms/docs/stratOO.pdf outlined a commitment to optimize the
Fund-lead P&T systems. To achieve that goal, a Nationwide RSE Optimization Project was
commissioned to accomplish the following tasks:
identify the Fund-lead P&T systems in each of the EPA Regions;
gather baseline data and information on these identified systems;
prioritize the systems in terms of optimization potential;
select 16 additional systems to receive RSEs;
conduct these RSEs; and
follow up with EPA project managers to track and facilitate implementation of resulting
recommendations.
This report summarizes Phase 1 of this project, which entails the first four of these six elements.
-------
2.0 SYSTEM IDENTIFICATION
The first step of the project involved determining the number of Fund-lead P&T systems in each EPA
Region and identifying key aspects of those systems for assessing optimization potential. For this project,
a Fund-lead P&T system must meet the following criteria:
pump-and-treat (sometimes referred to as groundwater extraction and treatment) must be
identified as a remedy in the Record of Decision (ROD) for the site;
the system must be either EPA-lead or State-lead with funding from the Superfund Program; and
the system must be operational or pre-operational (i.e., pre-design, design, being installed, or
installed but not yet operating). It should be noted that, consistent with the first criteria, "pre-
design" refers to systems that have RODs specifying pump and treat but that have not begun the
design process.
Thus, this project does not include Fund-lead P&T systems that are no longer operating due to a change
in remedy or Fund-lead P&T systems that have been fully transferred to States or responsible parties. In
some cases, sites were identified where a P&T system will likely not be installed even though it is
specified in the ROD. Such systems are included as Fund-lead P&T systems in this project unless the
ROD already has been changed. In addition to systems not meeting the above criteria, Fund-lead well-
head treatment systems in Region 9 and a Fund-lead NAPL (non-aqueous phase liquid) extraction
system in Region 8 were not included in the project.
During the demonstration project in Region 4 and Region 5, it was initially hoped that the Fund-lead
P&T systems could be easily identified by an on-line search of the Superfund Hazardous Waste Sites:
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/querv/advquerv.htm
However, it was quickly determined that no set of search criteria would specifically yield the Fund-lead
P&T systems. Therefore, an initial set of sites was developed with the following query:
Category
Site Name
State/Territory/EPA Region
Activity Type
Activity Lead
Contaminated Media
Site Listing Narrative
Site Fact Sheet
Site Cleanup Decision
Entry
"blank"
Region 1 (example)
Remedial Design
Construction Completion
Remedial Action
EPA Fund-financed
State, Fund-financed
Tribal-lead, Fund-financed
Groundwater
Display
• •
• •
• •
• •
• •
• •
Count
• •
• •
-------
ROD abstracts for these sites were reviewed and those sites without existing or planned P&T systems
were removed from the list.
During that process it became evident that isolating Fund-lead P&T systems was not straightforward.
One complication is that the on-line databases are not completely up-to-date, and some systems that are
Fund-lead at one point in time become "PRP-lead" once responsible parties are defined and/or consent
decrees are put in place. As a result, the project liaisons for each Region were asked to identify the
Fund-lead or Fund-financed P&T systems in their Regions, which they typically did by interviewing the
branch chiefs and/or individual Remedial Project Managers (RPMs). The project liaisons were able to
quickly remove sites from the initial list because there was no P&T system (existing or planned) or
because the system was no longer Fund-lead. In some cases, the project liaisons also added systems that
did not appear on the initial list. In rare cases the on-line databases identified Fund-lead P&T systems
not identified by the EPA project liaison.
The identified systems are presented in table format in Section 4.0; however, the following table
summarizes for each Region the number of operational and pre-operational (i.e., pre-design, design,
being installed, or installed but not yet operating) Fund-lead P&T systems.
-------
Table 2-1: Number of Identified Fund-lead P&T Systems in each Region
Region
Region 1
Region 2
Region 3
Region 4
Region 5
Region 6
Region 7
Region 8
Region 9
Region 10
Total
# of Pre-operational Fund-
lead P&T Systems
1
4
2
o
J
o
J
o
J
2
0
2
1
21
# of Operational
Fund-lead P&T Systems
7
18
10
7
12
6
1
0
2
4
67
Total
8
22
12
10
15
9
o
J
0
4
5
88
Presented data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001.
These estimates may vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of sites, may change over
time.
Notes:
1. Fund-lead refers to systems where oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from
Superfund.
2. Pump-and-treat (P&T) systems are those systems in which the extraction of groundwater and subsequent treatment is
specified in the Record of Decision (ROD). In this study, systems designed for water supply in Region 9 and a non-
aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) extraction system in Region 8 were not included.
3. Pre-operational P&T systems refer to those systems that are pre-design, design, being installed, or installed but not yet
operating. The systems must have RODs specifying P&T.
4. Operational P&T systems are those that currently are operating or have operated and are shutdown temporarily.
5. The demonstration project yielded 14 operational and 4 pre-operational P&T systems for Region 5. Information
collected during the nationwide effort determined that site enforcement had changed for three sites in Region 5. The
above chart reflects the updated information.
-------
3.0 DATA COLLECTION
Once the Fund-lead P&T systems were identified, a web-based questionnaire, accessed from the EPA-
TIO webpage, was completed for each system by the EPA or State project manager for the associated
site. The questionnaire required responses to the following items or questions.
1. Site or system name, location, and CERCLIS number
2. Name and contact information of the individual that completed the questionnaire
3. Is the site Fund-lead (or State-lead and financed by Superfund) with a ROD and a P&T system
that currently exists or is planned?
Explanation: If the answer to this question is "no", then the system is no longer considered
for this project.
4. EPA Remedial Project Manager (RPM) name and contact information
5. State Manager or Regulator name and contact information
6. Contractor name and contact information
7. Site lead or management (EPA/Fund-lead or State-lead financed by Superfund)
8. The date the Record of Decision (ROD) for the remedy was signed
9. The date of most recent ROD modification, if any
10. Type of ROD (for an interim remedy or for a final remedy)
11. Status of P&T system
Explanation: One of the following responses could be selected:
pre-design
design
designed/not installed
being installed
installed
operational
completed
It should be noted that a system classified as "pre-design" must have a ROD that specifies P&T.
In addition, for the purposes of data analysis, "pre-operational" refers to those classifications in
the above list that precede operational.
12. Primary goal of the P&T system
Explanation: One of the following responses could be selected:
restoration
• containment
both restoration and containment
water supply
-------
13. Primary contaminants of concern
14. Presence or absence of contamination as a non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL)
15. Approximate annual O&M costs
Explanation: This is an approximate (i.e., plus or minus 25%) value of annual O&M costs
($/yr) including monitoring and analysis costs. Typical components of annual O&M costs
include labor, electricity, materials, discharge fees, analytical costs, consulting costs, etc.
16. Portion of that cost used for monitoring
Explanation: Of the approximate annual O&M cost ($/yr), this cost is the portion costs
associated with long-term groundwater monitoring of the aquifer (labor associated with
sample collection and data reduction, analytical costs, etc.). It should not include process
monitoring of the above-ground treatment components, or monitoring associated with
discharge of treated water.
17. An approximate representative pumping rate in gallons per minute (gpm)
18. Number of extraction wells (not including injection wells, drains, or trenches)
19. The date (month and year) when construction of the systems was completed
20. The date (month and year) when the system became operational and functional
21. The date (month and year) when the system is expected to be transitioned to the State
Explanation: For Fund-lead remedies of surface or groundwater where restoration is the
goal, EPA typically manages the site and funds 90% of the cost (versus 10% from the State)
for the first 10 years after the site becomes operational and functional. This period is
known as a Long-term Remedial Action (LTRA). After this 10-year period the site is fully
transitioned to the State, and the State is responsible for site management and 100% of the
funding.
22. The date (month and year) the remedial action is expected to be complete
Explanation: This estimate for system shut-off date is subject to great uncertainty. An
estimate of 30 years from the date the system became operational and functional is often
used for financial reasons and may not represent operational projections. Other estimates
may be taken directly from the Record of Decision (ROD), and given that a ROD is written
before operation of a system, this estimate may not reflect operation data.
23. Approximate amount of system downtime per year
Explanation: The estimated number of weeks per year that the system does not operate as
anticipated.
-------
24. Types of above-ground treatment processes
Explanation: This item includes above-ground treatment processes only. It does not
include in-situ processes. One or more of the following processes could be selected.
metals precipitation filtration
air stripping ion exchange
biological treatment reverse osmosis
UV oxidation off-gas treatment
carbon adsorption other/not sure
25. Number of groundwater monitoring wells regularly monitored
26. Frequency of groundwater monitoring (i.e., annually, semi-annually, quarterly, etc.)
27. Assessment of plume migration control
Explanation: Based on current information, if any portion of the plume is continuing to
migrate beyond the current plume extent in a manner that is of concern, the answer is YES.
If plume is migration is currently controlled, the answer is NO. If current information is not
adequate to make this determination, the answer is DON'T KNOW. If plume migration
beyond the current plume extent is not a concern, the answer is CONTROLLING PLUME
MIGRATION IS NOT A GOAL OF THIS SYSTEM.
28. Progress toward cleanup
Explanation: The purpose of this item is to determine if the progress regarding plume
restoration, in terms of plume area reduction, is known, and if so, how much progress in
terms plume area reduction has been achieved. Note this question is not asking about mass
removal, but instead is asking about plume area. One of the following descriptions could be
chosen:
A small portion (e.g., less than 20%) of the original plume area has been restored to
required cleanup levels.
A "significant" portion of the original plume area (e.g., more than about 20%) has
been restored to required cleanup levels.
Most of the original plume area (e.g., more than about 80%) has been restored to
required cleanup levels.
• Don't know
Aquifer restoration is not a goal of this system.
29. Result of previous (if any) evaluations of performance and effectiveness
Explanation: According to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the National Contingency Plan (NCP), a 5-year review
must be conducted for all remedial actions that do not allow unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure. The purpose of these reviews is to ensure that the remedies are protective of
human health and the environment and therefore include a statement regarding the
effectiveness and performance of the system. This item refers to 5-year reviews or other
such evaluations but does not refer to the RSEs conducted as part of this project. One of
three choices could be selected in response to this item:
-------
Performance/effectiveness has not been adequately evaluated.
Performance/effectiveness has been evaluated, and is not sufficient.
Performance/effectiveness is sufficient, further evaluation should be prioritized
based on potential cost savings that maintain equivalent effectiveness.
30. Degree of difficulty (socially or politically) in implementing recommendations
Explanation: Answers to this item could range from "little difficulty expected for minor or
major changes" to "severe difficulty expected for minor or major changes".
31. Other comments
In cases where RPMs had technical difficulty with the questionnaire, information was gathered via a
phone interview with the RPM or the State project manager. In addition, phone interviews were used
for this nationwide project to confirm or update the information gathered during the demonstration
project from RPMs in Regions 4 and 5. Information sheets with the information and data for each
system are provided as Appendix A. Summary information and data for each Region were provided in
the form of Region-specific summary reports, which are included as Appendix B.
-------
4.0 SUMMARIES OF COLLECTED DATA
A note on discounting (net present value) as it applies to the reported estimates of future costs
Because funds not spent at present can be invested a rate that exceeds inflation, current funds can yield
additional money for future expenditures thereby making present-day dollars worth more than future
dollars. As a result, future costs are often discounted and reported in net present value (NPV).
The net present value of a series of annual future costs with discounting in all but the first year is
determined with the following relationship:
CA
tui+^r1
where:
CNPV = NPV of all of the annual costs incurred between the present and n years from the present
CA = annual costs incurred each year between the present and n years from the present
D = discount rate (e.g., use 0.05 for 5%)
The actual discount rate (D) is a function of inflation, investment rates, and other opportunity costs
associated with present and future value of money. Complications in calculating net-present value can
include formulation of the discount rate with or without inflation, variation in the discount rate over
time, and a change in annual costs over time. A full explanation of the discount rate is beyond the scope
of this document. The reader is referred to the following references for a detailed explanation.
• Damodaran, Aswath, 1994. Damodaran on Valuation, John Wiley & Sons.
• Ross, Stephen A., Randolf W. Westerfield, and Bradford D. Jordan, 1995. Fundamentals of
Corporate Finance, 3rd edition, Irwin Publishing.
For the future cost estimates discussed herein, a discount rate of 5% is applied and assumed constant.
4.1 SUMMARIES OF SYSTEM COSTS AND PROJECTIONS
Tables 4-1 through 4-9 present the following summary information for each Region (except Region 8,
which had no Fund-lead P&T systems):
the result of previous evaluations with respect to performance and effectiveness (see item 29 in
Section 3.0);
• the estimated time remaining in the LTRA period (see item 21 in Section 3.0);
• the estimated time remaining until remediation is complete (see item 22 in Section 3.0);
the annual O&M cost for each system (see item 15 in Section 3.0);
the expected future cost (in net present value) to be incurred by Superfund for LTRA O&M;
10
-------
the expected future cost (in net present value) of O&M remaining to be incurred until
remediation is complete; and
the systems selected for RSEs in bold.
In these tables, net-present value is calculated with a 5% discount rate, with no discounting in the first
year. Compiling information from Table 4-1 through Table 4-9 yields the following results regarding
system O&M costs:
The estimated average annual O&M cost of a system (based on the 79 systems providing cost
data) is approximately $570,000 and the median is $350,000. This discrepancy is due to a small
number of systems with relatively high O&M costs.
The estimated total annual O&M cost for operating the Fund-lead P&T systems in 2002 is
approximately $38 million, with EPA incurring approximately $32.5 million of the total annual
cost and the associated States incurring the remaining $5.5 million.
The estimated future cost for LTRA O&M at all of these systems exceeds $210 million with
discounting (i.e., net present value) and exceeds $270 million without discounting. For each
system, Superfund is expected to pay 90% of the O&M cost and the associated State is expected
to pay 10%. These percentages translate directly to the presented costs; therefore, the Superfund
is expected to pay approximately $189 million ($243 million without discounting) and the States
are expected to pay $21 million ($27 million without discounting).
The estimated future cost to reach remediation completion for all Fund-lead P&T systems is
approximately $470 million with discounting (i.e., net present value) and $790 million without
discounting. (These estimates of future O&M costs are based on the annual costs of systems and
expected durations of systems as specified by the site managers. For some systems where
expected system duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default value
for this parameter. While the practice of using 30 years as a default was prevalent in the past,
more recent EPA guidance on feasibility study preparation recommends that 30 years not be
used as a default.)
4.2 SUMMARY OF COST DATA AS IT PERTAINS TO THE STATES
Assuming no viable parties are found for these 88 Fund-lead P&T systems, the States will eventually
assume both management and funding responsibility for the systems. Figures 4-1 and 4-2 show
projected trends of agency financial responsibility and annual costs from 2001 through 2015. These
trends are best estimates based on the data provided by the site RPMs. Furthermore, because the actual
O&M costs and site enforcement may change with time, these projected trends may also change.
Figure 4-1 shows two projected trends between 2001 and 2015 for 78 Fund-lead P&T systems (the 10
systems with unknown costs or transition dates are excluded). The first trend is the number of Fund-lead
P&T systems funded 90% by EPA and 10% by the States. The second trend is the number of Fund-lead
P&T systems that are the full responsibility of the States. When counting the number of systems for a
particular year, if the system transfer from the EPA to the State occurs before July, then the system is
counted as a State system. If the system transfer from EPA to the State occurs after July, then the system
is counted as an EPA system.
Figure 4-2 also shows two trends between 2001 and 2015 for the same 78 systems. The first trend is the
11
-------
total annual cost of Fund-lead P&T systems assumed by the EPA. This cost is 90% of the O&M costs of
the Fund-lead P&T systems. The second trend is the total annual cost of Fund-lead systems assumed by
the States. This cost is 10% of the O&M costs of Fund-lead P&T systems before transition to the State
and 100% of the cost subsequent to the transition. When calculating the costs of systems for a particular
year, if the system transfer from the EPA to the State occurs before July, then the State assumes the cost
for that year. If the system transfer from EPA to the State occurs after July, then the EPA assumes the
cost for that year.
Table 4-10 provides a list of the States that currently have operational or pre-operational Fund-lead P&T
systems. It also provides the number of Fund-lead P&T systems in each State and the expected future
costs (based on the estimates provided) each State is likely to incur from future O&M of these systems.
These future costs are provided both with discounting (net present value) and without discounting.
Discounted costs assume a 5% discount rate with no discounting in the first year. The expected future
costs are calculated based on the following information:
the current annual O&M estimates for each system (see item 15 in Section 3.0);
the estimated date of transition to the State (see item 21 in Section 3.0); and
the estimated date the remedy will be complete (see item 22 in Section 3.0).
An analysis of the data in Table 4-10 shows that a total of 26 States currently have operational or pre-
operational Fund-lead P&T systems. The estimated total post-LTRA O&M costs expected to be incurred
by all of the States ranges from approximately $250 million with discounting to $520 million without
discounting. Approximately 78% of these costs, however, will be incurred by the following five the
States:
• New Jersey (27.6%)
Massachusetts (22.6%)
• New York (9.7%)
• Pennsylvania (9.6%)
• Michigan (8.4%)
It should be noted that the expected future costs to be incurred by the States are only estimates and are
subject to variation. This variation may result from a number of reasons:
the estimated annual O&M costs will likely change in the future;
the estimated dates, especially the dates the remedies are expected to be complete, may vary
significantly from the actual dates;
the expected future costs do not include the cost of aquifer monitoring subsequent to remedy
completion. Additional Fund-lead P&T systems may arise in the future and eventually be
transitioned to the States; and
the responsible parties at some of the current Fund-lead P&T systems may assume the financial
burden for their systems.
12
-------
The Fund-lead P&T systems in each Region and the associated costs are listed according to State in
Table 4-11 through Table 4-19. For each system, the table provides the date of transition to the State, the
estimated annual O&M cost, and the expected future O&M cost (with and without discounting) to be
assumed by the State.
4.3 STATUS AND PROGRESS OF THE FUND-LEAD P&T SYSTEMS
The collected data can be used to categorize the 88 Fund-lead P&T systems according to their status
and/or progress. The status may range from the "pre-design" to "operational" as described in item 11 of
Section 3.0, and the progress of systems with restoration as a goal may range from less than 20%
progress toward restoration to more than 80% progress toward restoration as described in item 28 in
Section 3.0.
Figure 4-3 groups the 88 Fund-lead systems according to their status (i.e., pre-design, design,
designed/not installed, being installed, installed but not operational, or operational). Of the 88 systems,
67 are operational systems. As shown in Figure 4-4. 60 of the 67 operating systems are reported to have
groundwater restoration as a goal, but 21 of that 60 do not have estimates of the progress toward that
restoration. Of the 39 systems that have both groundwater restoration as a goal and an estimate of
progress toward restoration, 20 are estimated to have made less than 20% progress toward restoration
and 7 are estimated to have made more than 80% progress toward restoration. The remaining 12
systems are estimated to have made between 20% and 80% progress toward restoration. Those systems
that report less than 20% restoration have operated, on average, for approximately 4 years. Those
systems that report 20% to 80% restoration have operated, on average, for approximately 6 years.
Finally, those systems that report more than 80% restoration have operated, on average, for 7 years.
In addition to progress toward restoration, the submitted information (not shown in a figure) indicate
that 40 of the 67 operating systems are reportedly controlling migration of the plume.
4.4 SYSTEM GOALS
The majority of the systems have aquifer restoration specified in the ROD as a remedy objective. During
data collection for this project, the remedy goal was not ascertained for two systems. Of the remaining
systems, one has public water supply as a goal (restoration may also be a goal) and seven have
containment as the only goal. Aquifer restoration is the primary goal for 22 of the systems and 56 of the
systems have both containment and restoration as primary goals.
4.5 CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN, TREATMENT PROCESSES, AND MONITORING
The collected data show that more than three contaminants of concern are identified for 52 of the 88
Fund-lead P&T systems. The prevalence of certain categories of contaminants, as identified by the
system RPMs, are highlighted in Table 4-20. Chlorinated solvents such as tetrachlorethylene (PCE)
represent the most prevalent contaminant category identified by RPMs with this contaminant category
addressed by 56 of the 88 systems.
Non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs) (see item 14 in Section 3.0), if present in the subsurface, will act as
continuing sources of some contaminants. The collected data indicate that 35 of the 88 Fund-lead P&T
systems are associated with sites where NAPL has either been observed or is suspected. The collected
data also indicate that 38 of the Fund-lead P&T systems are associated with sites where NAPL is not
present. The presence of NAPL at sites for the remaining 15 systems is not known.
13
-------
Many of the P&T systems use multiple treatment processes to remove these contaminants from the
extracted water. Of the 88 systems, 32 are reported to have three or more treatment processes. Figure 4-
5 shows the number of systems that use each of the 10 treatment processes (see item 24 in Section 3.0).
Carbon adsorption and air stripping are the most prevalent treatment processes. These two statistics
correlate with the prevalence of chlorinated solvents as identified contaminants of concern, because
these two treatment processes are commonly used to address those contaminants.
The collected data include the number of monitoring wells, the frequency of monitoring, and costs
associated with monitoring (see items 25, 26, and 16 in Section 3.0). As identified in the collected data,
the number of monitoring wells associated with a Fund-lead P&T system ranges from 3 to 80 with an
average of approximately 23 wells per system (based on 79 of 88 systems where RPMs provided non-
zero responses). The minimum sampling frequency (other than no sampling) is once per year whereas
the maximum sampling frequency is once per week. On average, monitoring wells at the Fund-lead
P&T systems are sampled between 3 and 4 times per year, and on average there are more than 80
samples of groundwater collected per Fund-lead P&T system in a year. As identified by the RPM,
monitoring costs range from as little as $5,000 per year to as much as $800,000 per year with an average
of approximately $112,000 per year (based on 64 of 88 systems where RPMs were able to determine
costs specifically used for groundwater monitoring).
4.6 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATIONS
According to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
and the National Contingency Plan (NCP), a 5-year review must be conducted for all remedial actions
that do not allow unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. The purpose of these 5-year reviews is to
ensure that the remedies are protective of human health and the environment. They therefore include a
statement regarding the effectiveness and performance of the system. Tables 4-1 through 4-9 provide
the results of 5-year reviews or other such evaluations, if they have been conducted, at each site. It
should be emphasized that these are not the results of RSEs conducted as part of this project. They are
the findings from 5-year reviews or similar evaluations that were conducted at these sites prior to this
Nationwide Optimization Project and reported by the RPM as part of this survey. The following points
summarize these results.
36 of the 67 operating systems are reported to have had performance and effectiveness evaluated
and found to be sufficient;
7 of the 67 operating systems are reported to have had performance and effectiveness evaluated
and found to be not sufficient;
22 of the 67 operating systems reportedly are either currently being evaluated or have not been
evaluated with respect to effectiveness; and
the evaluation status of two of the systems was not determined.
14
-------
Figure 4-1: Trend of Financial Responsibility of Fund-lead P&T Systems
80
70
60
(A
o) 50
5,
w
•5 40
^
o>
£1
E 30
3
20
10
-systems with 90% of funding from EPA, 10% of funding from State
-systems with 0% of funding from EPA, 100% of funding from State
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Year
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may vary from actual values. Data, including the number
and status of systems, may change over time.
Notes:
1. Fund-lead P&T systems refers to systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial
support from Superfund.
2. This chart only shows the trends between 2001 and 2015. Existing systems and new systems are expected to operate beyond 2015.
-------
Figure 4-2: Trend of Estimated Annual O&M Costs of Fund-lead P&T Systems
$40,000,000
$35,000,000
w $30,000,000
o
o
$25,000,000
06
O
75 $20,000,000
3
c
< $15,000,000
I
H $10,000,000
$5,000,000
O&M cost paid by EPA
O&M cost paid by States
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Year
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may vary from actual values. Data, including the number
and status of systems, may change over time.
Notes:
1. Fund-lead P&T systems refers to systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial
support from Superfund.
2. Annual O&M costs are estimates and include such components as labor, utilities, materials, analytical costs, etc.
3. This chart only shows the trends between 2001 and 2015. Existing systems and new systems are expected to operate beyond 2015.
-------
Figure 4-3: Status of Fund-lead P&T Systems
/ u
fin
ou
w ^n
p ou
AD
w 4U
•5
Jn ^n
S
E
^ 9D
^ ^u
in
I U
n
, , | 1
O) O) -S CD ±i c
'w 'i/5 ^ "o = _o o
CD CD "O CD fV ^
s
m
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may vary from actual values. Data, including the number
and status of systems, may change over time.
Notes:
1. Fund-lead P&T systems are those systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial
support from Superfund.
2. Pre-designed Fund-lead P&T systems refer to those systems that have P&T specified in the Record of Decision but are not yet in the design stage.
-------
Figure 4-4: Progress of the 67 Operational Fund-lead P&T Systems
9*=;
^o
on
ZU
E
"w ic;
> io
(0
M-
o
S m
& \ \j
E
3
^
c
o
n
u
^
o
CN T3
CO O
r— -*— '
20-80%
restored
^9
0^
O
oo -a
^— CD
L_ t
CO o
.c *-
M—
o
CD CO "O
•Jn co CD
= O) >
sl
!° c —
5 o ro
c "co a)
CO
CD
i: co
CD E
O
CD
Q.
O cS
Dafa reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may vary from actual values. Data, including the number
and status of systems, may change over time.
Notes:
1. Fund-lead P&T systems are those systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial
support from Superfund.
-------
Figure 4-5: Distribution of Treatment Processes at Fund-lead P&T Systems
en
E
/in
M- -in
o
o3
J2
E20
3
z
m
n
i 1
.
It
o|
£
"o
c
"^
O)
6
8|
o
D
reflect information provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. This information—including the number of systems, system status, and
types of treatment processes—may change over time.
Notes:
1. Fund-lead P&T systems are those systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial
support from Superfund.
2. Individual systems may have multiple treatment processes.
3. The treatment processes listed correspond to those shown in item 24 of Section 3.0.
-------
Table 4-1: Region 1 Fund-lead P&T System Performance and Cost Information
Site
Performance &
Effectiveness
Estimated
Remaining
Time in
LTRA
(yra)
Estimated
Duration
(yrs)
Annual
O&M
($/yr)
Expected
Remaining
Cost for
LTRA
O&M
Expected
Total
Remaining
O&M Cost
Operational Systems
Baird and
McGuire
Charles George
Landfill
Groveland Wells
Kearsarge
Metallurgical
Keefe
Savage Well
Silresim
Chemical
Sufficient
Not Evaluated
Sufficient
Sufficient
Sufficient
Not Evaluated
Not Sufficient
2.25
7.7
9.3
1.7
1.7
7.2
5.7
21.3
26.7
29.3
3.7
1.7
7.2
15.9
$3,500K
$450K
$500K
$250K
$200K
$500K
$1,400K
$7.6M
$3.0M
$3.8M
$0.4M
$0.3M
$3.1M
$7.1M
$47. 5M
$6.9M
$8.0M
$0.9M
$0.3M
$3.1M
$15. 9M
Pre-operational Systems
Eastern Surplus
Not Evaluated
9.7
5.7
Total
$200K
$7.0M
$1.0M
$26. 3M
$1.0M
$83.6M
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may
vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.
Notes:
1. Fund-lead P&T systems: systems where pump and treat (groundwater extraction and treatment) is specified in the Record of Decision
and oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.
2. Systems that appear in bold were selected for Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs).
3. Descriptions of "Performance and Effectiveness" refer to results of previous evaluations such as the 5-year reviews and not from
RSEs conducted as part of this project.
4. Long-term Remedial Action (LTRA): the first 10 years of operation and function of a Superfund restoration action for surface or
groundwater. Operation and maintenance costs of the remedy are 90% funded by Superfund and 10% funded by the associated State
during this time period. Thereafter, 100% of the costs are assumed by the States.
5. "Estimated Time Remaining in LTRA" and "Expected Duration" are calculated by determining the number of years between January 1,
2002 and time frame estimates provided by the site Remedial Project Managers. For some systems where the expected system
duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may underestimate the expected duration of systems,
especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL.
6. Reported annual O&M costs are estimates and include such components as labor, utilities, materials, analytical costs, etc.
7. Expected costs are shown in net present value, calculated with a 5% discount rate with no discounting in the first year.
8. For Eastern Surplus, collected data indicate that remedy completion is expected prior to the end of LTRA. Expected remaining costs
for Superfund do not exceed the expected total remaining costs.
20
-------
Table 4-2: Region 2 Fund-lead P&T System Performance and Cost Information (Page 1 of 3)
Site
Performance &
Effectiveness
Estimated
Remaining
Time in
LTRA
(yra)
Estimated
Duration
(yra)
Annual
O&M
($/yr)
Expected
Remaining
Cost for
LTRA
O&M
Expected
Total
Remaining
O&M Cost
Operational Systems
American
Thermostat
Bog Creek
Brewster Well
Field
Circuitron
Claremont
Polychemical
Combe Fill South
Garden State
Cleaners
Higgins Farm
Islip Municipal
Landfill
Lang Property
Sufficient
Sufficient
Not Evaluated
Sufficient
Not Evaluated
Not Sufficient
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Sufficient
Sufficient
6.8
2.7
5.8
8.4
8.1
6.7
7.8
7.0
4.7
3.75
26.7
22.9
5.8
1.4
18.1
26.7
27.8
26.7
1.0
2.75
$1,175K
$460K
$400K
$480K
$740K
$920K
$500K
$1,OOOK
$225K
$700K
$6.9M
$1.2M
$2.1M
$0.7M
$5.1M
$5.4M
$3.3M
$6.1M
$0.2M
$1.9M
$18.0M
$6.5M
$2.1M
$0.7M
$9.1M
$14. 1M
$7.8M
$15. 3M
$0.2M
$1.9M
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may
vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.
Notes:
1. Fund-lead P&T systems: systems where pump and treat (groundwater extraction and treatment) is specified in the Record of Decision
and oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.
2. Systems that appear in bold were selected for Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs).
3. Descriptions of "Performance and Effectiveness" refer to results of previous evaluations such as the 5-year reviews and not from
RSEs conducted as part of this project.
4. Long-term Remedial Action (LTRA): the first 10 years of operation and function of a Superfund restoration action for surface or
groundwater. Operation and maintenance costs of the remedy are 90% funded by Superfund and 10% funded by the associated State
during this time period. Thereafter, 100% of the costs are assumed by the States.
5. "Estimated Time Remaining in LTRA" and "Expected Duration" are calculated by determining the number of years between January 1,
2002 and time frame estimates provided by the site Remedial Project Managers. For some systems where the expected system
duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may underestimate the expected duration of systems,
especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL.
6. Reported annual O&M costs are estimates and include such components as labor, utilities, materials, analytical costs, etc.
7. Expected costs are shown in net present value, calculated with a 5% discount rate with no discounting in the first year.
8. For Circuitron, Islip Municipal Landfill, Lang Property, and SMS Instruments, collected data indicate that remedy completion is
expected prior to the end of LTRA. Expected remaining costs for Superfund do not exceed the expected total remaining costs.
9. The Army Corps of Engineers conducted an RSE of Lipari Landfill prior to this project.
10. The "Estimated Time Remaining in LTRA" exceeds 10 years for Lipari Landfill because this remedy is part of a source control
action.
21
-------
Table 4-2: Region 2 Fund-lead P&T System Performance and Cost Information (Page 2 of 3)
Site
Performance &
Effectiveness
Estimated
Remaining
Time in
LTRA
(yra)
Estimated
Duration
(yra)
Annual
O&M
($/yr)
Expected
Remaining
Cost for
LTRA
O&M
Expected
Total
Remaining
O&M Cost
Operational Systems (continued)
Lipari Landfill
Mattiace
Petrochemical
Mohonk Road
SMS Instruments
Syncon Resins
Vestal Water
Supply
Vineland
Chemical
Williams Property
Sufficient
Sufficient
Not Evaluated
Sufficient
Not Sufficient
Sufficient
Not Evaluated
Sufficient
17.8
7.2
9.5
3.4
0.0
3.2
9.4
0.0
2.9
27.6
29.5
2.2
26.7
13.2
29.4
0.0
$2,500K
$700K
Unknown
$400K
$350K
$180K
$4,OOOK
$350K
$7.0M
$4.3M
Unknown
$1.3M
$O.OM
$0.5M
$30. 9M
$O.OM
$7.0M
$10. 9M
Unknown
$0.8M
$5.4M
$1.8M
$64.0M
$O.OM
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may
vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.
Notes:
1. Fund-lead P&T systems: systems where pump and treat (groundwater extraction and treatment) is specified in the Record of Decision
and oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.
2. Systems that appear in bold were selected for Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs).
3. Descriptions of "Performance and Effectiveness" refer to results of previous evaluations such as the 5-year reviews and not from
RSEs conducted as part of this project.
4. Long-term Remedial Action (LTRA): the first 10 years of operation and function of a Superfund restoration action for surface or
groundwater. Operation and maintenance costs of the remedy are 90% funded by Superfund and 10% funded by the associated State
during this time period. Thereafter, 100% of the costs are assumed by the States.
5. "Estimated Time Remaining in LTRA" and "Expected Duration" are calculated by determining the number of years between January 1,
2002 and time frame estimates provided by the site Remedial Project Managers. For some systems where the expected system
duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may underestimate the expected duration of systems,
especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL.
6. Reported annual O&M costs are estimates and include such components as labor, utilities, materials, analytical costs, etc.
7. Expected costs are shown in net present value, calculated with a 5% discount rate with no discounting in the first year.
8. For Circuitron, Islip Municipal Landfill, Lang Property, and SMS Instruments, collected data indicate that remedy completion is
expected prior to the end of LTRA. Expected remaining costs for Superfund do not exceed the expected total remaining costs.
9. The Army Corps of Engineers conducted an RSE of Lipari Landfill prior to this project.
10. The "Estimated Time Remaining in LTRA" exceeds 10 years for Lipari Landfill because this remedy is part of a source control
action.
22
-------
Table 4-2: Region 2 Fund-lead P&T System Performance and Cost Information (Page 3 of 3)
Site
Performance
&
Effectiveness
Estimated
Remaining
Time in
LTRA
(yrs)
Estimated
Duration
(yrs)
Annual
O&M
($/yr)
Expected
Remaining
Cost for
LTRA
O&M
Expected
Total
Remaining
O&M Cost
Pre-operational Systems
Dover Municipal
Well 4
Metal
TEC/Aero systems
Montgomery
Township/Rocky
Hill
Stanton Cleaners
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
10.0
Unknown
10.0
9.7
Unknown
Unknown
30.0
19.7
Total
Unknown
Unknown
$400K
$270K
>$17.5M
Unknown
Unknown
$2.6M
$2.1M
>$81.1M
Unknown
Unknown
$5.8M
$3.5M
>$174.9M
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may
vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.
Notes:
1
Fund-lead P&T systems: systems where pump and treat (groundwater extraction and treatment) is specified in the Record of Decision
and oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.
2. Systems that appear in bold were selected for Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs).
3. Descriptions of "Performance and Effectiveness" refer to results of previous evaluations such as the 5-year reviews and not from
RSEs conducted as part of this project.
4. Long-term Remedial Action (LTRA): the first 10 years of operation and function of a Superfund restoration action for surface or
groundwater. Operation and maintenance costs of the remedy are 90% funded by Superfund and 10% funded by the associated State
during this time period. Thereafter, 100% of the costs are assumed by the States.
5. "Estimated Time Remaining in LTRA" and "Expected Duration" are calculated by determining the number of years between January 1,
2002 and time frame estimates provided by the site Remedial Project Managers. For some systems where the expected system
duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may underestimate the expected duration of systems,
especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL.
6. Reported annual O&M costs are estimates and include such components as labor, utilities, materials, analytical costs, etc.
7. Expected costs are shown in net present value, calculated with a 5% discount rate with no discounting in the first year.
8. For Circuitron, Islip Municipal Landfill, Lang Property, and SMS Instruments, collected data indicate that remedy completion is
expected prior to the end of LTRA. Expected remaining costs for Superfund do not exceed the expected total remaining costs.
9. The Army Corps of Engineers conducted an RSE of Lipari Landfill prior to this project.
10. The "Estimated Time Remaining in LTRA" exceeds 10 years for Lipari Landfill because this remedy is part of a source control
action.
23
-------
Table 4-3: Region 3 Fund-lead P&T System Performance and Cost Information
Site
Performance &
Effectiveness
Estimated
Remaining
Time in
LTRA
(yra)
Estimated
Duration
(yrs)
Annual
O&M
($/yr)
Expected
Remaining
Cost for
LTRA
O&M
Expected
Total
Remaining
O&M Cost
Operational Systems
AIW Frank
Berks Sand Pit
Butz Landfill
Croydon TCE
CryoChem
Greenwood
Chemical
Hellertown
Manufacturing
North Perm Area 1
Raymark
Saunders Supply
Sufficient
Sufficient
Not Evaluated
Sufficient
Sufficient
Not Evaluated
Not Sufficient
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
9.7
3.1
9.3
3.2
6.4
9.8
4.7
6.7
2.0
7.3
29.7
1.1
29.3
23.2
8.4
18.9
24.7
16.7
12.0
6.3
$180K
$150K
$250K
$200K
$125K
$400K
$350K
$100K
$156K
$80K
$1.4M
$0.2M
$1.9M
$0.6M
$0.7M
$3.2M
$1.5M
$0.6M
$0.3M
$0.4M
$2.9M
$0.2M
$4.0M
$2.8M
$0.9M
$5.1M
$5.1M
$1.2M
$1.4M
$0.4M
Pre-operational Systems
Havertown PCP
North Perm Area 6
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
10.0
10.0
31.0
30.0
Total
$1,OOOK
$592K
$3.6M
$7.9M
$4.0M
$22.7M
$16. 1M
$8.7M
$48. 8M
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may
vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.
Notes:
1. Fund-lead P&T systems: systems where pump and treat (groundwater extraction and treatment) is specified in the Record of Decision
and oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.
2. Systems that appear in bold were selected for Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs).
3. Descriptions of "Performance and Effectiveness" refer to results of previous evaluations such as the 5-year reviews and not from
RSEs conducted as part of this project.
4. Long-term Remedial Action (LTRA): the first 10 years of operation and function of a Superfund restoration action for surface or
groundwater. Operation and maintenance costs of the remedy are 90% funded by Superfund and 10% funded by the associated State
during this time period. Thereafter, 100% of the costs are assumed by the States.
5. "Estimated Time Remaining in LTRA" and "Expected Duration" are calculated by determining the number of years between January 1,
2002 and time frame estimates provided by the site Remedial Project Managers. For some systems where the expected system
duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may underestimate the expected duration of systems,
especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL.
6. Reported annual O&M costs are estimates and include such components as labor, utilities, materials, analytical costs, etc.
7. Expected costs are shown in net present value, calculated with a 5% discount rate with no discounting in the first year.
8. For Berks Sand Pit and Saunders Supply, collected data indicate that remedy completion is expected prior to the end of LTRA.
Expected remaining costs for Superfund do not exceed the expected total remaining costs.
24
-------
Table 4-4: Region 4 Fund-lead P&T System Performance and Cost Information
Site
Performance
&
Effectiveness
Estimated
Remaining
Time in
LTRA
(yrs)
Estimated
Duration
(yrs)
Annual
O&M
($/yr)
Expected
Remaining
Cost for
LTRA
O&M
Expected
Total
Remaining
O&M Cost
Operational Systems
ABC Cleaners
American Creosote
Works (DNAPL)
Benfield Industries
Elmore Waste
Disposal
FCX Statesville
Miami Drum
Palmetto Wood
Unknown
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Sufficient
Sufficient
Unknown
Sufficient
Unknown
1.3
9.3
6.7
6.3
0.7
6.3
Unknown
1.3
19.3
16.7
6.3
Unknown
6.3
Unknown
$300K
$30K
$180K
$150K
$1,OOOK
$300K
Unknown
$0.4M
$0.2M
$1.1M
$0.8M
$0.7M
$1.7M
Unknown
$0.4M
$0.4M
$2.1M
$0.8M
Unknown
$1.7M
Pre-operational Systems
American Creosote
Works (solute)
Cape Fear Wood
Preserving
Coleman Evans
Wood Preserving
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
10.0
9.8
Unknown
5.0
7.3
Unknown
Total
$452K
$40K
Unknown
>$2.5M
$0.9M
$0.2M
Unknown
>$6.0M
$0.9M
$0.2M
Unknown
$7.2M
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may
vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.
Notes:
1. Fund-lead P&T systems: systems where pump and treat (groundwater extraction and treatment) is specified in the Record of Decision
and oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.
2. Systems that appear in bold were selected for Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs).
3. Descriptions of "Performance and Effectiveness" refer to results of previous evaluations such as the 5-year reviews and not from
RSEs conducted as part of this project.
4. Long-term Remedial Action (LTRA): the first 10 years of operation and function of a Superfund restoration action for surface or
groundwater. Operation and maintenance costs of the remedy are 90% funded by Superfund and 10% funded by the associated State
during this time period. Thereafter, 100% of the costs are assumed by the States.
5. "Estimated Time Remaining in LTRA" and "Expected Duration" are calculated by determining the number of years between January 1,
2002 and time frame estimates provided by the site Remedial Project Managers. For some systems where the expected system
duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may underestimate the expected duration of systems,
especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL.
6. Reported annual O&M costs are estimates and include such components as labor, utilities, materials, analytical costs, etc.
7. Expected costs are shown in net present value, calculated with a 5% discount rate with no discounting in the first year.
8. For American Creosote Works (solute) and Cape Fear Wood Preserving, collected data indicate that remedy completion is expected
by the end of LTRA. Expected remaining costs for Superfund do not exceed the expected total remaining costs.
9. The sum of the "Total Expected Remaining Costs" includes the LTRA cost for Miami Drum as it is expected that O&M will continue
beyond LTRA.
25
-------
Table 4-5: Region 5 Fund-lead P&T System Performance and Cost Information (Page 1 of 2)
Site
Performance &
Effectiveness
Estimated
Remaining
Time in
LTRA
(yra)
Estimated
Duration
(yrs)
Annual
O&M
($/yr)
Expected
Remaining
Cost for
LTRA
O&M
Expected
Total
Remaining
O&M Cost
Operational Systems
Arrowhead
Refinery
Better Brite
Eau Claire
La Salle
Long Prairie
MacGillis &
Gibbs
Oconomowoc
Onalaska
Ott/Story
U.S. Aviex
Verona Well Field
Wash King
Sufficient
Sufficient
Sufficient
Sufficient
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Sufficient
Sufficient
Not Evaluated
Sufficient
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
1.5
4.4
Unknown
2.2
5.8
7.8
4.7
2.4
8.6
1.7
4.4
9.3
2.2
28.3
Unknown
3.2
13.8
27.8
24.7
0.5
28.6
1.7
Indefinite
19.3
$70K
$36K
$175K
$230K
$300K
$300K
$471K
$200K
$2,400K
$300K
$225K
$75K
$0.1M
$0.1M
Unknown
$0.5M
$1.5M
$2.0M
$2.0M
$0.1M
$17.2M
$0.5M
$0.9M
$0.6M
$0.2M
$0.6M
Unknown
$0.7M
$3.1M
$4.7M
$6.9M
$0.1M
$37. 9M
$0.5M
Indefinite
$1.0M
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may
vary from actual value. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.
Notes:
1. Fund-lead P&T systems: systems where pump and treat (groundwater extraction and treatment) is specified in the Record of Decision
and oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.
2. Systems that appear in bold were selected for Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs).
3. Descriptions of "Performance and Effectiveness" refer to results of previous evaluations such as the 5-year reviews and not from
RSEs conducted as part of this project.
4. Long-term Remedial Action (LTRA): the first 10 years of operation and function of a Superfund restoration action for surface or
groundwater. Operation and maintenance costs of the remedy are 90% funded by Superfund and 10% funded by the associated State
during this time period. Thereafter, 100% of the costs are assumed by the States.
5. "Estimated Time Remaining in LTRA" and "Expected Duration" are calculated by determining the number of years between January 1,
2002 and time frame estimates provided by the site Remedial Project Managers. For some systems where the expected system
duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may underestimate the expected duration of systems,
especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL.
6. Reported annual O&M costs are estimates and include such components as labor, utilities, materials, analytical costs, etc.
7. Expected costs are shown in net present value, calculated with a 5% discount rate with no discounting in the first year.
8. For Onalaska, collected data indicate that remedy completion is expected prior to the end of LTRA. Expected remaining costs for
Superfund do not exceed the expected total remaining costs.
9. The sum of "Total Expected Remaining Cost" includes the LTRA cost for Verona Well Field as it is expected that O&M will continue
at this system beyond LTRA.
26
-------
Table 4-5: Region 5 Fund-lead P&T System Performance and Cost Information (Page 2 of 2)
Site
Performance &
Effectiveness
Estimated
Remaining
Time in
LTRA
(yra)
Estimated
Duration
(yrs)
Annual
O&M
($/yr)
Expected
Remaining
Cost for
LTRA
O&M
Expected
Total
Remaining
O&M Cost
Pre-operational Systems
Douglass Road
Duell and Gardner
Peerless Plating
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Sufficient
8.7
9.5
Unknown
28.3
5.5
Unknown
Total
$120K
Unknow
$400K
>$5.3M
$0.9M
Unknown
Unknown
>$26.4M
$1.9M
Unknown
Unknown
>$58.5M
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may
vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.
Notes:
1.
Fund-lead P&T systems: systems where pump and treat (groundwater extraction and treatment) is specified in the Record of Decision
and oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.
Systems that appear in bold were selected for Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs).
Descriptions of "Performance and Effectiveness" refer to results of previous evaluations such as the 5-year reviews and not from
RSEs conducted as part of this project.
Long-term Remedial Action (LTRA): the first 10 years of operation and function of a Superfund restoration action for surface or
groundwater. Operation and maintenance costs of the remedy are 90% funded by Superfund and 10% funded by the associated State
during this time period. Thereafter, 100% of the costs are assumed by the States.
"Estimated Time Remaining in LTRA" and "Expected Duration" are calculated by determining the number of years between January 1,
2002 and time frame estimates provided by the site Remedial Project Managers. For some systems where the expected system
duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may underestimate the expected duration of systems,
especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL.
Reported annual O&M costs are estimates and include such components as labor, utilities, materials, analytical costs, etc.
Expected costs are shown in net present value, calculated with a 5% discount rate with no discounting in the first year.
For Onalaska, collected data indicate that remedy completion is expected prior to the end of LTRA. Expected remaining costs for
Superfund do not exceed the expected total remaining costs.
The sum of "Total Expected Remaining Cost" includes the LTRA cost for Verona Well Field as it is expected that O&M will continue
at this system beyond LTRA.
27
-------
Table 4-6: Region 6 Fund-lead P&T System Performance and Cost Information
Site
Performance &
Effectiveness
Estimated
Remaining
Time in
LTRA
(yra)
Estimated
Duration
(yra)
Annual
O&M
($/yr)
Expected
Remaining
Cost for
LTRA
O&M
Expected
Total
Remaining
O&M Cost
Operational Systems
American
Creosote Works
Bayou Bonfouca
Cimarron Mining
Geneva Industries
Midland
Products
Odessa
Chromium #1
Sufficient
Sufficient
Not Sufficient
Sufficient
Sufficient
Sufficient
25.1
1.5
2.8
2.0
2.0
0.0
25.1
19.5
Indefinite
2.0
32.0
0.0
$360K
$402K
$1,OOOK
$240K
$180K
$500K
$5.3M
$0.6M
$2.6M
$0.5M
$0.4M
$OM
$5.3M
$5.1M
Indefinite
$0.5M
$3.0M
$OM
Pre-operational Systems
City of Perry ton
Well #2
North Cavalcade
Sprague Road
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
10.0
0.0
10.0
20.0
5.0
25.2
Total
$37K
Unknown
$1,200K
>$3.9M
$0.2M
Unknown
$7.8M
>$17.4M
$0.4M
Unknown
$15. 8M
>$32.7M
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may
vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.
Notes:
1. Fund-lead P&T systems: systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and oversight is
provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.
2. Systems that appear in bold were selected for Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs).
3. Descriptions of "Performance and Effectiveness" refer to results from previous evaluations such as 5-year reviews and not from RSEs
conducted as part of this project.
4. LTRA refers to Long-term Remedial Action, the first 10 years of operation and function of a Superfund restoration action for surface
or groundwater. Operation and maintenance costs of the remedy are 90% funded by Superfund and 10% funded by the associated State
during this time period. Thereafter, 100% of the costs are assumed by the States.
5. "Estimated Time Remaining in LTRA" and "Expected Duration" are calculated by determining the number of years between January 1,
2002 and time frame estimates provided by the site Remedial Project Managers. For some systems where the expected system
duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may underestimate the expected duration of systems,
especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL.
6. Annual O&M costs are estimates and include such components as labor, utilities, materials, analytical costs, etc.
7. Expected costs are presented in net present value, calculated with a 5% discount rate with no discounting in the first year.
8. The sum of "Total Expected Remaining Cost" includes the LTRA cost for Cimarron Mining as it is expected that O&M will continue
at this system beyond LTRA.
9. The "Estimated Time Remaining in LTRA" exceeds 10 years for American Creosote Works because this remedy is part of a source
control action.
28
-------
Table 4-7: Region 7 Fund-lead P&T System Performance and Cost Information
Site
Performance &
Effectiveness
Estimated
Remaining
Time in
LTRA
(yrs)
Estimated
Duration
(yrs)
Annual
O&M
($/yr)
Expected
Remaining
Cost for
LTRA
O&M
Expected
Total
Remaining
O&M Cost
Operational Systems
Cleburn Street
Well Site/0112
Not Evaluated
7.9
17.9
$100K
$0.7M
$1.2M
Pre-operational Systems
Ace Services
Valley Park
TCE/OU2
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
10.0
0.0
12.1
10.0
Total
$500K
Unknown
>$0.6M
$3.2M
Unknown
>$3.9M
$3.8M
Unknown
>$5.0M
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may
vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.
Notes:
1. Fund-lead P&T systems: systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and oversight is
provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.
2. Systems that appear in bold were selected for Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs).
3. Descriptions of "Performance and Effectiveness" refer to results from previous evaluations such as 5-year reviews and not from RSEs
conducted as part of this project.
4. LTRA refers to Long-term Remedial Action, the first 10 years of operation and function of a Superfund restoration action for surface
or groundwater. Operation and maintenance costs of the remedy are 90% funded by Superfund and 10% funded by the associated State
during this time period. Thereafter, 100% of the costs are assumed by the States.
5. "Estimated Time Remaining in LTRA" and "Expected Duration" are calculated by determining the number of years between January 1,
2002 and time frame estimates provided by the site Remedial Project Managers. For some systems where the expected system
duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may underestimate the expected duration of systems,
especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL.
6. Annual O&M costs are estimates and include such components as labor, utilities, materials, analytical costs, etc.
7. Expected costs are presented in net present value, calculated with a 5% discount rate with no discounting in the first year.
29
-------
Table 4-8: Region 9 Fund-lead P&T System Performance and Cost Information
Site
Performance &
Effectiveness
Estimated
Remaining
Time in
LTRA
(yrs)
Estimated
Duration
(yrs)
Annual
O&M
($/yr)
Expected
Remaining
Cost for
LTRA
O&M
Expected
Total
Remaining
O&M Cost
Operational Systems
Newmark
Selma Treating
Co.
Not Evaluated
Sufficient
6.8
6.8
26.8
6.8
$900K
$300K
$5.3M
$1.8M
$13. 8M
$1.8M
Pre-operational Systems
Modesto
Muscoy
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
10.0
10.0
20.0
20.0
Total
$300K
$1,100K
$2.6M
$2.3M
$6.0M
$15.4M
$3.8M
$11. 5M
$30. 9M
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may
vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.
Notes:
1. Fund-lead P&T systems: systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and oversight is
provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.
2. Systems that appear in bold were selected for Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs).
3. Descriptions of "Performance and Effectiveness" refer to results from previous evaluations such as 5-year reviews and not from RSEs
conducted as part of this project.
4. LTRA refers to Long-term Remedial Action, the first 10 years of operation and function of a Superfund restoration action for surface
or groundwater. Operation and maintenance costs of the remedy are 90% funded by Superfund and 10% funded by the associated State
during this time period. Thereafter, 100% of the costs are assumed by the States.
5. "Estimated Time Remaining in LTRA" and "Expected Duration" are calculated by determining the number of years between January 1,
2002 and time frame estimates provided by the site Remedial Project Managers. For some systems where the expected system
duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may underestimate the expected duration of systems,
especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL.
6. Annual O&M costs are estimates and include such components as labor, utilities, materials, analytical costs, etc.
7. Expected costs are presented in net present value, calculated with a 5% discount rate with no discounting in the first year.
30
-------
Table 4-9: Region 10 Fund-lead P&T System Performance and Cost Information
Site
Performance &
Effectiveness
Estimated
Remaining
Time in
LTRA
(yra)
Estimated
Duration
(yra)
Annual
O&M
($/yr)
Expected
Remaining
Cost for
LTRA
O&M
Expected
Total
Remaining
O&M Cost
Operational Systems
Boomsnub/Airco
Commencement
Bay/ South
Tacoma
Channel, Well
12A
McCormick &
Baxter
Wyckoff/Eagle
Harbor
Sufficient
Not Sufficient
Sufficient
Not Sufficient
9.9
2.0
4.2
22.0
28.8
9.0
Indefinite
Indefinite
$1,OOOK
$300K
$250K
$500K
$8.1M
$0.6M
$1.0M
$6.9M
$15. 8M
$2.2M
Indefinite
Indefinite
Pre-operational Systems
Bunker Hill
Not Evaluated
10.0
30.0
Total
Unknown
>$2.1M
Unknown
>$16.6M
Unknown
>$25.9M
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may
vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.
Notes:
1. Fund-lead P&T systems: systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and oversight is
provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.
2. Systems that appear in bold were selected for Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs).
3. Descriptions of "Performance and Effectiveness" refer to results from previous evaluations such as 5-year reviews and not from RSEs
conducted as part of this project.
4. LTRA refers to Long-term Remedial Action, the first 10 years of operation and function of a Superfund restoration action for surface
or groundwater. Operation and maintenance costs of the remedy are 90% funded by Superfund and 10% funded by the associated State
during this time period. Thereafter, 100% of the costs are assumed by the States.
5. "Estimated Time Remaining in LTRA" and "Expected Duration" are calculated by determining the number of years between January 1,
2002 and time frame estimates provided by the site Remedial Project Managers. For some systems where the expected system
duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may underestimate the expected duration of systems,
especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL.
6. Annual O&M costs are estimates and include such components as labor, utilities, materials, analytical costs, etc.
7. Expected costs are presented in net present value, calculated with a 5% discount rate with no discounting in the first year.
8. The sum of "Total Expected Remaining Cost" includes the LTRA costs for McCormick & Baxter and Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor as it is
expected that O&M will continue at this system beyond LTRA.
9. The "Estimated Time Remaining in LTRA" exceeds 10 years for Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor because this remedy is part of a source control
action.
31
-------
Table 4-10: Future O&M Costs of Fund-lead P&T Systems Expected to be Incurred by each
State after LTRA
State
Arkansas
California
Florida
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Louisiana
Maine
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
Total
Number of
Systems
1
4
4
1
1
1
1
2
1
4
6
o
J
1
1
o
J
12
1
10
4
1
10
2
5
2
o
J
4
88
Total O&M Cost Expected to be Incurred by State after LTRA
NPV (Discount Rate of 5%)
$2.6M
$15. 5M
Unknown
Unknown
$0.2M
$1.0M
$0.6M
$4.5M
$O.OM
$56. 8M
>$21.1M
$4.4M
Unknown
$0.5M
$0.5M
$69.4M
Unknown
$24.4M
>$0.2M
Unknown
$24.2M
$1.0M
>$8.2M
$1.9M
>$9.3M
>$5.4M
>$251.7M
No Discounting
$5.4M
$32.0M
Unknown
Unknown
$0.2M
$2.4M
$1.0M
$7.2M
$O.OM
$99.6M
>$48.8M
$8.4M
Unknown
$1.0M
$0.5M
$154.7M
Unknown
$49.6M
>$0.3M
Unknown
$56. 5M
$1.8M
>$18.4M
$3.6M
>$21.0M
>$10.3M
>$522.7M
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may
vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.
Notes:
1. Fund-lead P&T systems are those systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and
oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.
2. Annual O&M costs are estimates and include such components as labor, utilities, materials, analytical costs, etc.
3. "Total O&M Cost Expected to be Incurred by State" refers to those costs incurred by the State after the Long-term Remedial Action
(LTRA). LTRA is the first 10 years of operation and function of a Superfund restoration action for surface or groundwater. Operation
and maintenance costs of the remedy are 90% funded by Superfund and 10% funded by the associated State during this time period.
Thereafter, 100% of the costs are assumed by the States.
4. For some systems where the expected system duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may
underestimate the expected duration of systems, especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater
contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL.
32
-------
Table 4-11: Region 1 Fund-lead P&T System O&M Costs According to State
Site
Expected
date of
Transition
Annual O&M
Cost ($/yr)
Expected Cost to be Incurred by State
after LTRA
NPV (Discount
Rate of 5%)
No Discounting
Maine
Eastern Surplus
9/2011
$200K
$O.OM
$O.OM
Massachusetts
Baird and McGuire
Charles George Landfill
Groveland Wells
Silresim Chemical
4/2004
9/2009
4/2011
9/2007
$3,500K
$450K
$500K
$1,400K
$39. 9M
$3.9M
$4.2M
$8.8M
$66. 5M
$8.6M
$10.0M
$14.4M
New Hampshire
Kearsarge Metallurgical
Keefe
Savage Well
9/2003
9/2003
3/2009
$250K
$200K
$500K
$0.5M
$O.OM
$O.OM
$0.5M
$O.OM
$O.OM
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may
vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.
Notes:
1. Fund-lead P&T systems are those systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and
oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.
2. Systems that appear in bold were selected for Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs).
3. Annual O&M costs are estimates and include such components as labor, utilities, materials, analytical costs, etc.
4. "Expected Cost to be Incurred by State" refers to those costs incurred by the State after the Long-term Remedial Action (LTRA). LTRA
is the first 10 years of operation and function of a Superfund restoration action for surface or groundwater. Operation and maintenance
costs of the remedy are 90% funded by Superfund and 10% funded by the associated State during this time period. Thereafter, 100%
of the costs are assumed by the States.
5. For systems where site Remedial Project Managers estimated remedy completion earlier than the end of LTRA, expected costs after
LTRA appear as SO.OM.
6. For some systems where the expected system duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may
underestimate the expected duration of systems, especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater
contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL. Therefore, total future cost estimates for some sites could be underestimated.
33
-------
Table 4-12: Region 2 Fund-lead P&T System O&M Costs According to State
Site
Expected
date of
Transition
Annual O&M
Cost ($/yr)
Expected Cost to be Incurred by State
after LTRA
NPV (Discount
Rate of 5%)
No Discounting
New Jersey
Bog Creek
Combe Fill South
Dover Municipal Well 4
Garden State Cleaners
Higgins Farm
Lang Property
Lipari Landfill
Metal TEC/Aerosystems
Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill
Syncon Resins
Vineland Chemical
Williams Property
9/2004
9/2008
Unknown
10/2009
1/2009
10/2005
10/2019
Unknown
9/2013
4/2001
6/2011
6/2001
$460K
$920K
Unknown
$500K
$1,OOOK
$700K
$2,500K
Unknown
$400K
$350K
$4,OOOK
$350K
$5.3M
$8.7M
$O.OM
$4.5M
$9.2M
$O.OM
$O.OM
$O.OM
$3.2M
$5.4M
$33. 1M
$O.OM
$9.3M
$18.4M
$O.OM
$10.0M
$19.7M
$O.OM
$O.OM
$O.OM
$8.0M
$9.3M
$80.0M
$O.OM
New York
American Thermostat
Brewster Well Field
Circuitron
Claremont Polychemical
Islip Municipal Landfill
Mattiace Petrochemical
Mohonk Road
SMS Instruments
Stanton Cleaners
Vestal Water Supply
10/2008
10/2007
6/2010
2/2010
9/2006
3/2009
7/2011
6/2005
9/2011
3/2005
$1,175K
$400K
$480K
$740K
$225K
$700K
Unknown
$400K
$270K
$180K
$11. 1M
$O.OM
$O.OM
$4.0M
$O.OM
$6.6M
$O.OM
$O.OM
$1.4M
$1.3M
$23. 4M
$O.OM
$O.OM
$7.4M
$O.OM
$14. 3M
$O.OM
$O.OM
$2.7M
$1.8M
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These
estimates may vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.
Notes:
1. Fund-lead P&T systems are those systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and
oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfiind.
2. Systems that appear in bold were selected for Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs).
3. Annual O&M costs are estimates and include such components as labor, utilities, materials, analytical costs, etc.
4. "Expected Cost to be Incurred by State" refers to those costs incurred by the State after the Long-term Remedial Action (LTRA). LTRA
is the first 10 years of operation and function of a Superfiind restoration action for surface or groundwater. Operation and maintenance
costs of the remedy are 90% funded by Superfiind and 10% funded by the associated State during this time period. Thereafter, 100%
of the costs are assumed by the States.
5. For systems where site Remedial Project Managers estimated remedy completion earlier than the end of LTRA, expected costs after
LTRA appear as SO.OM.
6. For some systems where the expected system duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may
underestimate the expected duration of systems, especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater
contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL. Therefore, total future cost estimates for some sites could be underestimated.
34
-------
Table 4-13: Region 3 Fund-lead P&T System O&M Costs According to State
Site
Expected
date of
Transition
Annual O&M
Cost ($/yr)
Expected Cost to be Incurred by State
after LTRA
NPV (Discount
Rate of 5%)
No Discounting
Pennsylvania
AIW Frank
Berks Sand Pit
Butz Landfill
Croydon TCE
CryoChem
Hellertown Manufacturing
North Perm Area 1
Raymark
Havertown PCP
North Perm Area 6
9/2011
2/2005
4/2011
3/2005
6/2008
9/2006
9/2008
1/2004
4/2012
6/2013
$180K
$150K
$250K
$200K
$125K
$350K
$100K
$156K
$1,OOOK
$592K
$1.5M
$O.OM
$2.1M
$2.2M
$0.2M
$3.6M
$0.6M
$1.1M
$8.2M
$4.7M
$3.6M
$O.OM
$5.0M
$4.0M
$0.3M
$7.0M
$1.0M
$1.6M
$21.0M
$11. 9M
Virginia
Greenwood Chemical
Saunders Supply
11/2011
5/2009
$400K
$80K
$1.9M
$O.OM
$3.6M
$O.OM
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may
vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.
Notes:
1. Fund-lead P&T systems are those systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and
oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.
2. Systems that appear in bold were selected for Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs).
3. Annual O&M costs are estimates and include such components as labor, utilities, materials, analytical costs, etc.
4. "Expected Cost to be Incurred by State" refers to those costs incurred by the State after the Long-term Remedial Action (LTRA). LTRA
is the first 10 years of operation and function of a Superfund restoration action for surface or groundwater. Operation and maintenance
costs of the remedy are 90% funded by Superfund and 10% funded by the associated State during this time period. Thereafter, 100%
of the costs are assumed by the States.
5. For systems where site Remedial Project Managers estimated remedy completion earlier than the end of LTRA, expected costs after
LTRA appear as SO.OM.
6. For some systems where the expected system duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may
underestimate the expected duration of systems, especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater
contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL. Therefore, total future cost estimates for some sites could be underestimated.
35
-------
Table 4-14: Region 4 Fund-lead P&T System O&M Costs According to State
Site
Expected
date of
Transition
Annual O&M
Cost ($/yr)
Expected Cost to be Incurred by State
after LTRA
NPV (Discount
Rate of 5%)
No Discounting
Florida
American Creosote Works
(DNAPL)
American Creosote Works
(solute)
Coleman Evans Wood
Preserving
Miami Drum
5/2003
9/2014
Unknown
9/2002
$300K
$452K
Unknown
$1,OOOK
$O.OM
$O.OM
Unknown
Unknown
$O.OM
$O.OM
Unknown
Unknown
North Carolina
ABC Cleaners
Benfield Industries
Cape Fear Wood Preserving
FCX Statesville
Unknown
5/2011
10/2011
5/2008
Unknown
$30K
$40K
$150K
Unknown
$0.2M
$O.OM
$O.OM
Unknown
$0.3M
$O.OM
$O.OM
South Carolina
Elmore Waste Disposal
Palmetto Wood
9/2008
5/2008
$180K
$300K
$1.0M
$O.OM
$1.8M
$O.OM
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may
vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.
Notes:
1. Fund-lead P&T systems are those systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and
oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.
2. Systems that appear in bold were selected for Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs).
3. Annual O&M costs are estimates and include such components as labor, utilities, materials, analytical costs, etc.
4. "Expected Cost to be Incurred by State" refers to those costs incurred by the State after the Long-term Remedial Action (LTRA). LTRA
is the first 10 years of operation and function of a Superfund restoration action for surface or groundwater. Operation and maintenance
costs of the remedy are 90% funded by Superfund and 10% funded by the associated State during this time period. Thereafter, 100%
of the costs are assumed by the States.
5. For systems where site Remedial Project Managers estimated remedy completion earlier than the end of LTRA, expected costs after
LTRA appear as SO.OM.
6. For some systems where the expected system duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may
underestimate the expected duration of systems, especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater
contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL. Therefore, total future cost estimates for some sites could be underestimated.
36
-------
Table 4-15: Region 5 Fund-lead P&T System O&M Costs According to State
Site
Expected
date of
Transition
Annual O&M
Cost ($/yr)
Expected Cost to be Incurred by State
after LTRA
NPV (Discount
Rate of 5%)
No Discounting
Illinois
La Salle
3/2004
$230K
$0.2M
$0.2M
Indiana
Douglass Road
9/2010
$120K
$1.0M
$2.4M
Michigan
Duell and Gardner
Ott/Story
Peerless Plating
U.S. Aviex
Verona
Wash King
7/2011
8/2010
Unknown
9/2003
6/2006
4/2011
Unknown
$2,400K
$400K
$300K
$225K
$75K
Unknown
$20.7M
Unknown
$O.OM
Unknown
$0.4M
$O.OM
$48.0M
$O.OM
$O.OM
Unknown
$0.8M
Minnesota
Arrowhead Refinery
Long Prairie
MacGillis & Gibbs
7/2003
10/2007
10/2009
$70K
$300K
$300K
$0.1M
$1.6M
$2.7M
$0.1M
$2.4M
$6.0M
Wisconsin
Better Brite
Eau Claire
Oconomowoc
Onalaska
6/2006
Unknown
9/2006
6/2004
$36K
$175K
$471K
$200K
$0.5M
Unknown
$4.9M
$O.OM
$0.9M
Unknown
$9.4M
$O.OM
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These
estimates may vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.
Notes:
1. Fund-lead P&T systems are those systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and
oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.
2. Systems that appear in bold were selected for Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs).
3. Annual O&M costs are estimates and include such components as labor, utilities, materials, analytical costs, etc.
4. "Expected Cost to be Incurred by State" refers to those costs incurred by the State after the Long-term Remedial Action (LTRA). LTRA
is the first 10 years of operation and function of a Superfund restoration action for surface or groundwater. Operation and maintenance
costs of the remedy are 90% funded by Superfund and 10% funded by the associated State during this time period. Thereafter, 100%
of the costs are assumed by the States.
5. For systems where site Remedial Project Managers estimated remedy completion earlier than the end of LTRA, expected costs after
LTRA appear as SO.OM.
6. For some systems where the expected system duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may
underestimate the expected duration of systems, especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater
contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL. Therefore, total future cost estimates for some sites could be underestimated.
37
-------
Table 4-16: Region 6 Fund-lead P&T System O&M Costs According to State
Site
Expected
date of
Transition
Annual O&M
Cost ($/yr)
Expected Cost to be Incurred by State
after LTRA
NPV (Discount
Rate of 5%)
No Discounting
Arkansas
Midland Products
1/2004
$180K
$2.6M
$5.4M
Louisiana
American Creosote Works
Bayou Bonfouca
2/2027
7/2003
$360K
$402K
$O.OM
$4.5M
$O.OM
$7.2M
New Mexico
Cimarron Mining
10/2004
$1,OOOK
Unknown
Unknown
Texas
CityofPerrytonWell#2
Geneva Industries
North Cavalcade
Odessa Chromium #1
Sprague Road
8/2013
1/2004
12/2005
12/2001
9/2013
$37K
$240K
Unknown
$500K
$1,200K
$0.2M
$O.OM
Unknown
$O.OM
$8.0M
$0.4M
$O.OM
Unknown
$O.OM
$18.0M
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may
vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.
Notes:
1. Fund-lead P&T systems are those systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and
oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.
2. Systems that appear in bold were selected for Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs).
3. Annual O&M costs are estimates and include such components as labor, utilities, materials, analytical costs, etc.
4. "Expected Cost to be Incurred by State" refers to those costs incurred by the State after the Long-term Remedial Action (LTRA). LTRA
is the first 10 years of operation and function of a Superfund restoration action for surface or groundwater. Operation and maintenance
costs of the remedy are 90% funded by Superfund and 10% funded by the associated State during this time period. Thereafter, 100%
of the costs are assumed by the States.
5. For systems where site Remedial Project Managers estimated remedy completion earlier than the end of LTRA, expected costs after
LTRA appear as SO.OM.
6. For some systems where the expected system duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may
underestimate the expected duration of systems, especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater
contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL. Therefore, total future cost estimates for some sites could be underestimated.
38
-------
Table 4-17: Region 7 Fund-lead P&T System O&M Costs According to State
Site
Expected
date of
Transition
Annual O&M
Cost ($/yr)
Expected Cost to be Incurred by State
after LTRA
NPV (Discount
Rate of 5%)
No Discounting
Kansas
Ace Services
9/2013
$500K
$0.6M
$1.0M
Missouri
Valley Park TCE/OU2
1/2006
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Nebraska
Cleburn Street Well Site/0112
12/2009
$100K
$0.5M
$1.0M
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may
vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.
Notes:
1. Fund-lead P&T systems are those systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and
oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.
2. Systems that appear in bold were selected for Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs).
3. Annual O&M costs are estimates and include such components as labor, utilities, materials, analytical costs, etc.
4. "Expected Cost to be Incurred by State" refers to those costs incurred by the State after the Long-term Remedial Action (LTRA). LTRA
is the first 10 years of operation and function of a Superfund restoration action for surface or groundwater. Operation and maintenance
costs of the remedy are 90% funded by Superfund and 10% funded by the associated State during this time period. Thereafter, 100%
of the costs are assumed by the States.
5. For systems where site Remedial Project Managers estimated remedy completion earlier than the end of LTRA, expected costs after
LTRA appear as SO.OM.
6. For some systems where the expected system duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may
underestimate the expected duration of systems, especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater
contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL. Therefore, total future cost estimates for some sites could be underestimated.
39
-------
Table 4-18: Region 9 Fund-lead P&T System O&M Costs According to State
Site
Expected
date of
Transition
Annual O&M
Cost ($/yr)
Expected Cost to be Incurred by State
after LTRA
NPV (Discount
Rate of 5%)
No Discounting
California
Modesto
Muscoy
Newmark
Selma Treating Co.
5/2012
10/2014
10/2008
10/2008
$300K
$1,100K
$900K
$300K
$1.5M
$5.5M
$8.5M
$O.OM
$3.0M
$11.0M
$18.0M
$O.OM
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may
vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.
Notes:
1. Fund-lead P&T systems are those systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and
oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.
2. Systems that appear in bold were selected for Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs).
3. Annual O&M costs are estimates and include such components as labor, utilities, materials, analytical costs, etc.
4. "Expected Cost to be Incurred by State" refers to those costs incurred by the State after the Long-term Remedial Action (LTRA). LTRA
is the first 10 years of operation and function of a Superfund restoration action for surface or groundwater. Operation and maintenance
costs of the remedy are 90% funded by Superfund and 10% funded by the associated State during this time period. Thereafter, 100%
of the costs are assumed by the States.
5. For systems where site Remedial Project Managers estimated remedy completion earlier than the end of LTRA, expected costs after
LTRA appear as SO.OM.
6. For some systems where the expected system duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may
underestimate the expected duration of systems, especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater
contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL. Therefore, total future cost estimates for some sites could be underestimated.
40
-------
Table 4-19: Region 10 Fund-lead P&T System O&M Costs According to State
Site
Expected
date of
Transition
Annual O&M
Cost ($/yr)
Expected Cost to be Incurred by State
after LTRA
NPV (Discount
Rate of 5%)
No Discounting
Idaho
Bunker Hill
12/2030
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Oregon
McCormick & Baxter
3/2006
$250K
Unknown
Unknown
Washington
Boomsnub/Airco
Commencement Bay/South
Tacoma Channel, Well 12A
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor
12/2011
1/2004
1/2024
$1,OOOK
$300K
$500K
$7.7M
$1.6M
Unknown
$18. 9M
$2.1M
Unknown
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may
vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.
Notes:
1. Fund-lead P&T systems are those systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and
oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.
2. Systems that appear in bold were selected for Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs).
3. Annual O&M costs are estimates and include such components as labor, utilities, materials, analytical costs, etc.
4. "Expected Cost to be Incurred by State" refers to those costs incurred by the State after the Long-term Remedial Action (LTRA). LTRA
is the first 10 years of operation and function of a Superfund restoration action for surface or groundwater. Operation and maintenance
costs of the remedy are 90% funded by Superfund and 10% funded by the associated State during this time period. Thereafter, 100%
of the costs are assumed by the States.
5. For systems where site Remedial Project Managers estimated remedy completion earlier than the end of LTRA, expected costs after
LTRA appear as SO.OM.
6. For some systems where the expected system duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may
underestimate the expected duration of systems, especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater
contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL. Therefore, total future cost estimates for some sites could be underestimated.
41
-------
Table 4-20: Categories of Contaminants Prevalent at Sites with Fund-lead P&T Systems
Contaminant Category
Number of Systems that Address that Contaminant
Category
Chlorinated solvents and degradation products:
tetrachloroethylene (PCE)
trichloroethylene (TCE)
dichloroethlyene (DCE)
trichloroethane (TCA)
dichloroethane (DCA)
• methylene chloride
• vinyl chloride
56 of 88 systems
BTEX (one or more of the following):
• benzene
toluene
ethylbenze
• xylene
19 of 88 systems
Metals
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
other metals
22 of 88 systems
Poly aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs):
anthracene
benzo(a)pyrene
benzo(k)fluoranthene
• fluoranthene
napthalene
other PAHs
17 of 88 systems
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may
vary from actuality. Data, including the number and status of systems and contaminants of concern, may change over time.
Notes:
1. Fund-lead P&T systems are those systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and
oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.
2. Individual systems may address more than one contaminant.
3. Presented data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates,
including the number and status of systems and contaminants of concern, may change over time.
42
-------
5.0 SYSTEM SCREENING AND PRIORITIZATION WITH RESPECT TO
OPTIMIZATION POTENTIAL
A simple spreadsheet screening process was developed and implemented by the project team for
assessing the optimization potential of each Fund-lead P&T system. The screening process consists of
the following steps:
calculate the "Baseline Present Value ($)" of the system by multiplying the annual cost by the
estimated system duration, and including a discount rate (5%) to account for the future value of
money;
assume that a typical RSE will save 20% of the annual cost of the system;
determine site-specific "Estimated Potential Reduction in Life-cycle Costs (%)" from an RSE by
adjusting the assumed 20% savings according to site-specific factors that increase or decrease the
likelihood that savings will be identified by the RSE process; and
determine "Estimated Potential Life-cycle Savings ($)" from an RSE by multiplying the "Baseline
Present Value ($)" by the "Estimated Potential Reduction in Life Cycle Costs (%)", and
subtracting the approximate cost of a RSE evaluation ($25,000).
The factors that were used to calculate the site-specific "Estimated Potential Reduction in Life-cycle
Costs (%)" (starting from the assumed 20% value) are listed in Table 5-1. The base savings value of
20%, and the subsequent adjustment factors, were determined by consensus of the project team based on
the assumption that, on average, all systems can benefit from optimization and more complex systems
would have greater opportunity for improvement. For each item, a "blank" response was allowed, and
did not impact the calculations. A positive adjustment was made to "Estimated Potential Reduction in
Life-cycle Costs (%)" for items that would increase the optimization potential (e.g., many wells, high
pumping rate, many above-ground treatment processes), and a negative adjustment was made to
"Estimated Potential Reduction in Life-cycle Costs (%)" for items that would decrease the optimization
potential (e.g., few pumping wells, short system duration). The "Estimated Potential Reduction in Life-
cycle Costs (%)" was not allowed to be less than 5%, and not allowed to be greater than 45%. The
purpose of this step was to identify systems with the highest potential for cost reduction and those most
likely to benefit from optimization. All potential cost savings are estimates and are intended to be used
primarily for prioritizing systems.
Summaries of the screening calculations are included in the screening summary reports for each Region,
which are provided as Appendix B. The actual screening calculations for each system are presented in
Appendix C. Note that these calculation are all based on estimates provided by the RPMs, and in some
cases the "Estimated Potential Savings ($)" is negative, indicating that the estimated potential savings
from an RSE are not anticipated to offset the cost of the RSE itself.
43
-------
Table 5-1: Site-Specific Criteria Used to Calculate the "Estimated Potential Life-cycle
Savings (%)" from Optimization of each of the Identified Fund-lead P&T Systems (Page 1 of 2)
Result of performance and effectiveness evaluation (item 29, Section 3.0)
+0.0% default for blank value
+2.5% performance & effectiveness not evaluated
+5.0% performance & effectiveness evaluated and found not sufficient
-2.5% performance & effectiveness evaluated and found sufficient
Number of pumping wells (item 18, Section 3.0)
+0.0% default for blank value
+0.0% no wells (e.g., drains, etc.)
0% 1 to 2 wells
5% 3 to 4 wells
+0.0% 5 to 9 wells
+2.5% 10 or more wells
Pumping rate (item 17, Section 3.0)
+0.0% default for blank value
-5.0% <10 gpm
-2.5% 10 to 99.99 gpm
+0.0% 100 to 500 gpm
+2.5% >500 gpm
Down time per year (item 23, Section 3.0)
+0.0% default for blank value
+0.0% <2 wks
+2.5% 2.00-3.99 wks
+5.0% 4 wks or more
Number of above-ground treatment processes (item 24, Section 3.0)
+0.0% default for blank value
-2.5% 0 or 1 processes
+0.0% 2 processes
+2.5% 3 processes
+5.0% 4 processes
Groundwater monitoring (number wells * events per year)
(items 25-26, Section 3.0)
+0.0% default for blank value
-2.5% <25
+0.0% 25 to 49
+2.5% 50 to 74
+5.0% >75
Expected duration (item 22, Section 3.0)
default for blank value
<2 yrs
2.00 - 4.99yrs
5.00 - 9.99 yrs
10.00 - 19.99 yrs
20 yrs or more
44
-------
Table 5-1: Site-Specific Criteria Used to Calculate the "Estimated Potential Life-cycle
Savings (%)" from Optimization of each of the Identified Fund-lead P&T Systems (Page 1 of 2)
Difficulty in making minor changes to system due to
factors (item 30, Section 3.0)
-5.0% default for blank value
-10.0% severe difficulty expected
-5.0% moderate difficulty expected
+0.0% little difficulty expected
45
-------
6.0 SYSTEM SELECTION
The intent of the project was to select two operational Fund-lead P&T systems in each Region to receive
RSEs. However, the site-identification process demonstrated that Region 7 had only one operational
Fund-lead P&T system and Region 8 had none. As a result, these extra three RSEs were allocated to
other Regions.
The selection of systems was based on satisfying most of the following factors:
system is operating (required)
Region agreed system is suitable for optimization (required)
system effectiveness is questioned or found not sufficient
system has high potential for life-cycle cost-savings ($), based on the screening calculations,
relative to other systems
no major problems identified for potentially implementing RSE recommendations
• RPM request for involvement
For a variety of reasons, including recent optimization or litigation, some of the systems with the highest
potential for life-cycle savings in a Region were not selected for RSEs. Narratives describing the system
selection for each Region are included the Regional summary screening reports included in Appendix B.
Table 6-1 lists for each Region the systems selected to receive RSEs and the "Estimated Potential Savings
($)" from system optimization.
Table 6-2 ranks each Fund-lead P&T system according to "Estimated Potential Life-cycle Savings ($)" as
calculated by the screening methodology. In addition, the systems that were selected for RSEs appear in
bold. A graphical representation of this table is presented in Figure 6-1. Three of the top four ranked
systems were selected for RSEs. Out of 20 total RSEs, 14 of them were allocated to a system that is
ranked in the top 44 systems (top 50%). Summing the "Estimated Potential Life-cycle Savings ($)" of
the systems selected for RSEs, the screening methodology suggests a total potential savings of
approximately $48 million. The methodology also suggests approximately $134 million could be saved
if RSEs are conducted at all 68 of the systems that indicate a positive "Estimated Potential Life-cycle
Savings ($)".
Because the screening methodology is sensitive to the estimated duration of the P&T systems and this
estimated duration could vary significantly from actuality, it is of significant interest to rank the systems
according to estimated annual O&M costs. This ranking is provided in Table 6-3 and shown graphically
in Figure 6-2. Figure 6-2 also shows the cumulative contribution of the systems to the total annual cost.
It appears that 13 of the systems account for over 50% of the annual O&M costs of all systems
combined. Regarding these thirteen systems, the following issues should be noted:
three are selected to receive RSEs;
one has previously received an RSE (by USAGE);
46
-------
one has recently received an outside optimization evaluation;
three are pre-operational and were therefore not selected to receive RSEs; and
the remaining five were deemed inappropriate by the Regions for outside evaluations.
47
-------
Figure 6-1: Fund-lead P&T Systems Ranked by "Estimated Potential Life-
cycle Savings ($)"
$18,300,000
w *R14 nnn nnn H
c
re
-------
$4,000 -•
Figure 6-2: Fund-lead P&T Systems Ranked by Annual O&M Cost and the
Cumulative Distribution of System Annual O&M Costs
100
90
80
4- 70
System Annual O&M Costs
Cumulative Distribution of
Annual O&M Costs
Systems Selected for RSEs __ QQ
o $2,000
O
The top 13 systems represent over 50% of the
total reported annual O&M cost for all systems
The top 13 systems each cost over $1,000,000 per year.
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81
The 88 Fund-lead P&T Systems Ranked by Estimated Annual O&M Costs
O
c
o
1
£
£
W
Q
0)
>
1
(/)
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may vary from actual values. Data, including the number
and status of systems, may change over time.
Notes:
1. Fund-lead P&T systems refers to systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial
support from Superfund.
2. Annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are estimates and include such items as labor, utilities, materials, analytical work, etc.
3. Cost information was reported for 79 of the 88 Fund-lead P&T systems. Costs for the remaining 9 systems are shown as $0 in this figure.
-------
Table 6-1: For each Region Systems Selected for RSEs and the "Estimated Potential Life-cycle
Savings ($)" Suggested by Screening Analysis
Region
Region 1
Region 2
Region 3
Region 4
Region 5
Region 6
Region 7
Region 8
Region 9
Region 10
Number of Systems Selected
Baird and McGuire
Savage Municipal Water Supply Well
Silresim Chemical Corp.
Claremont Polychemical
Mattiace Petrochemical
Brewster Well Field
Hellertown Manufacturing
Raymark
Elmore Waste Disposal (RSE demonstration project)
PCX Statesville (RSE demonstration project)
MacGillis and Gibbs (RSE demonstration project)
Oconomowoc Electroplating (RSE demonstration project)
Ott/Story
Bayou Bonfouca
Midland Products
Cleburn St. Well
—
Modesto
Selma Pressure Treating
Commencement Bay /South Tacoma Channel, Well 12A
McCormick and Baxter
Estimated Potential
Life-cycle Savings ($)**
$12,402,549
$934,042
$6,025,600
$2,578,700
$2,357,411
$317,513
$979,619
$216,640
$375,872
$134,513
$1,399,624
$1,590,721
$14,418,502
$1,233,790
$528,408
$179,042
—
$730,227
$261,332
$465,677
$1,127,934
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may
vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.
Notes:
1. Fund-lead P&T systems refers to systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and
oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.
2. "Estimated Potential Life-cycle Savings ($)" is calculated based on the screening methodology summarized in Section 5.0 and Table 5-
1. The screening calculations for each system are presented in Appendix C and summarized in Appendix B.
3. Modesto is classified as a pre-operational system; however, it will have changed status and have operated for two months prior to the
RSE visit.
50
-------
Table 6-2: Fund-lead P&T Systems Ranked in Terms of "Estimated Potential Life-cycle
Savings ($)" as Calculated by the Screening Methodology (Page 1 of 4)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Site name
Vineland Chemical Co.
Ott/Story/Cordova Chem Co.
Baird & McGuire Superfund Site
Silresim Chemical Corp.
Higgins Farm
Sprague Road Ground Water Plume
Combe Fill South Landfill
American Thermostat
Boomsnub/Airco / Site-Wide Ground Water OU
Muscoy
HavertownPCPOU2
Newmark
North Perm Area 6
Claremont Polychemical
Garden State Cleaners/South Jersey Clothing Company
Mattiace Petrochemical
Cimarron Mining
Groveland Wells Superfund Site
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site
Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill
Bog Creek Farm LTRA
Oconomowoc Electroplating
Ace Services
Region
2
5
1
1
2
6
2
2
10
9
o
J
9
o
J
2
2
2
6
1
10
2
2
5
7
Estimated
Potential
Reduction in
Life-cvcle Costs
30.0%
40.0%
27.5%
40.0%
40.0%
32.5%
38.0%
29.5%
27.5%
27.0%
25.5%
25.5%
35.5%
30.0%
32.5%
23.0%
15.0%
27.5%
25.5%
30.5%
30.0%
24.5%
32.5%
Estimated
Potential Life-
cycle Savings
($)
$18,266,000
$14,419,000
$12,403,000
$6,026,000
$5,799,000
$5,653,000
$5,065,000
$5,022,000
$4,124,000
$3,959,000
$3,895,000
$3,322,000
$3,211,000
$2,579,000
$2,383,000
$2,357,000
$2,281,000
$2,066,000
$1,935,000
$1,850,000
$1,833,000
$1,591,000
$1,557,000
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may
vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.
Notes:
1. Fund-lead P&T systems refers to systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and
oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.
2. "Estimated Potential Life-cycle Savings ($)" is calculated based on the screening methodology summarized in Section 5.0 and Table 5-
1. The screening calculations for each system are presented in Appendix C and summarized in Appendix B.
3. For a variety of reasons, including recent optimization or litigation, some of the systems with the highest potential for life-cycle
savings in a Region were not selected for RSEs. Narratives describing the system selection for each Region are included the
Regional summary screening reports included in Appendix B.
4. For some systems where the expected system duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may
underestimate the expected duration of systems, especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater
contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL. Therefore, life-cycle costs and life-cycle cost savings could be underestimated for some
sites.
51
-------
Table 6-2: Fund-lead P&T Systems Ranked in Terms of "Estimated Potential Life-cycle
Savings ($)" as Calculated by the Screening Methodology (Page 2 of 4)
Rank
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Site name
Greenwood Chemical Site
Syncon Resins
MacGillis and Gibbs/Bell Lumber & Pole
Bayou Bonfouca
Lipari Landfill site
McCormick & Baxter Creosoting Co.
Charles George Landfill Superfund Site
American Creosote Works
Hellertown Manufacturing
Savage Well Municipal Water System
Butz Landfill
Stanton Cleaners Area Groundwater Contamination Site
Verona Well Field
AIW Frank/Mid-County Mustang Site, OU#1
Modesto Superfund Site
Douglass Road
Midland Products
Croydon TCE
American Creosote Works (solute)
Commencement Bay, South Tacoma Channel, Well
Long Prairie
Elmore Waste Disposal
BrewsterWellfield
Reeion
o
J
2
5
6
2
10
1
6
3
1
o
J
2
5
o
J
9
5
6
o
J
4
10
5
4
2
Estimated
Potential
Reduction in
Life-cvcle Costs
32.5%
28.0%
32.0%
25.5%
17.5%
30.0%
17.5%
22.0%
20.5%
32.5%
25.0%
28.0%
25.5%
28.0%
20.0%
32.5%
20.0%
20.0%
17.5%
23.0%
15.5%
20.0%
17.5%
Estimated
Potential Life-
cycle Savings
f$)
$1,538,000
$1,402,000
$1,400,000
$1,234,000
$1,136,000
$1,128,000
$1,122,000
$1,094,000
$980,000
$934,000
$925,000
$908,000
$857,000
$746,000
$730,000
$563,000
$528,000
$517,000
$469,000
$466,000
$430,000
$376,000
$318,000
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may
vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.
Notes:
1. Fund-lead P&T systems refers to systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and
oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.
2. "Estimated Potential Life-cycle Savings ($)" is calculated based on the screening methodology summarized in Section 5.0 and Table 5-
1. The screening calculations for each system are presented in Appendix C and summarized in Appendix B.
3. For a variety of reasons, including recent optimization or litigation, some of the systems with the highest potential for life-cycle
savings in a Region were not selected for RSEs. Narratives describing the system selection for each Region are included the
Regional summary screening reports included in Appendix B.
4. For some systems where the expected system duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may
underestimate the expected duration of systems, especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater
contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL. Therefore, life-cycle costs and life-cycle cost savings could be underestimated for some
sites.
52
-------
Table 6-2: Fund-lead P&T Systems Ranked in Terms of "Estimated Potential Life-cycle
Savings ($)" as Calculated by the Screening Methodology (Page 3 of 4)
Rank
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
Site name
Palmetto Wood
Selma Treating Co.
Eastern Surplus Company Superfund Site
Raymark
Wash King Laundry
Cleburn Street Well Site/0112
Vestal Water Supply Well 1-1
PCX Statesville
North Perm Area 1
Lang Property
CityofPerrytonWell#2
La Salle Electrical Utilities
Kearsarge Metallurgical Corp.
Saunders Supply Company
CryoChem
Better Brite Plating Co. Chrome and Zinc Shops
SMS Instruments
Cape Fear Wood Preserving
Benfield Industries
Circuitron
Geneva Industries
American Creosote Works (DNAPL)
ECeefe Environmental Systems
Region
4
9
1
3
5
7
2
4
o
J
2
6
5
1
o
J
o
J
5
2
4
4
2
6
4
1
Estimated
Potential
Reduction in
Life-cvcle Costs
18.0%
17.0%
28.0%
17.5%
23.0%
17.5%
10.0%
20.0%
10.0%
5.0%
17.5%
12.5%
10.0%
17.0%
8.0%
12.0%
7.5%
22.5%
15.0%
8.0%
8.0%
7.5%
7.5%
Estimated
Potential Life-
cycle Savings
($)
$262,000
$261,000
$246,000
$217,000
$185,000
$179,000
$146,000
$135,000
$86,000
$63,000
$59,000
$57,000
$57,000
$47,000
$42,000
$40,000
$35,000
$33,000
$30,000
$26,000
$11,000
$3,000
-$2,000
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may
vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.
Notes:
1. Fund-lead P&T systems refers to systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and
oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.
2. "Estimated Potential Life-cycle Savings ($)" is calculated based on the screening methodology summarized in Section 5.0 and Table 5-
1. The screening calculations for each system are presented in Appendix C and summarized in Appendix B.
3. For a variety of reasons, including recent optimization or litigation, some of the systems with the highest potential for life-cycle
savings in a Region were not selected for RSEs. Narratives describing the system selection for each Region are included the
Regional summary screening reports included in Appendix B.
4. For some systems where the expected system duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may
underestimate the expected duration of systems, especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater
contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL. Therefore, life-cycle costs and life-cycle cost savings could be underestimated for some
sites.
53
-------
Table 6-2: Fund-lead P&T Systems Ranked in Terms of "Estimated Potential Life-cycle
Savings ($)" as Calculated by the Screening Methodology (Page 4 of 4)
Rank
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
Site name
U.S. Aviex
[slip Municipal Landfill
Berks Sand Pit
Arrowhead Refinery
Onalaska Municipal Landfill
Williams Property
Odessa Chromium #1
North Cavalcade Superfund Site
Mohonk Road Industrial Plant Site
Dover Municipal Well 4
Metal TEC/Aerosystems
ABC Cleaners
Miami Drum
Coleman Evans Wood Preserving
Eau Claire Municipal Well Field
Duell and Gardner
Peerless Plating
Valley Park TCE Site - OU2
Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Region
5
2
o
J
5
5
2
6
6
2
2
2
4
4
4
5
5
5
7
10
Estimated
Potential
Reduction in
Life-cvcle Costs
5.0%
7.5%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
27.5%
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
Estimated
Potential Life-
cycle Savings
($)
-$2,000
-$9,000
-$17,000
-$18,000
-$20,000
-$25,000
-$25,000
-$25,000
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may
vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.
Notes:
1. Fund-lead P&T systems refers to systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and
oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.
2. "Estimated Potential Life-cycle Savings ($)" is calculated based on the screening methodology summarized in Section 5.0 and Table 5-
1. The screening calculations for each system are presented in Appendix C and summarized in Appendix B.
3. For a variety of reasons, including recent optimization or litigation, some of the systems with the highest potential for life-cycle
savings in a Region were not selected for RSEs. Narratives describing the system selection for each Region are included the
Regional summary screening reports included in Appendix B.
4. For some systems where the expected system duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may
underestimate the expected duration of systems, especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater
contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL. Therefore, life-cycle costs and life-cycle cost savings could be underestimated for some
sites.
54
-------
Table 6-3: Fund-lead P&T Systems Ranked According to Annual O&M Cost (Page 1 of 4)
Rank
1
2
o
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Site name
Vineland Chemical Co.
Baird & McGuire Superfund Site
Lipari Landfill site
Ott/Story/Cordova Chem Co.
Silresim Chemical Corp.
Sprague Road Ground Water Plume
American Thermostat
Muscoy
Higgins Farm
HavertownPCPOU2
Miami Drum
Cimarron Mining
Boomsnub/Airco
Combe Fill South Landfill
Newmark
Claremont Polychemical Corp.
Lang Property Superfund Site
Mattiace Petrochemical
North Perm Area 6
Groveland Wells Superfund Site
Savage Well Municipal Water System
Garden State Cleaners/South Jersey Clothing Company
Odessa Chromium #1
Ace Services
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site
Circuitron
Oconomowoc Electroplating
Region
2
1
2
5
1
6
2
9
2
o
J
4
6
10
2
9
2
2
2
o
J
1
1
2
6
7
10
2
5
Annual O&M Cost
$4,000,000
$3,500,000
$2,500,000
$2,400,000
$1,400,000
$1,200,000
$1,175,000
$1,100,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$920,000
$900,000
$740,000
$700,000
$700,000
$592,900
$500,000
$500,000
$500,000
$500,000
$500,000
$500,000
$480,000
$471,000
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may
vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.
Notes:
1. Fund-lead P&T systems refers to systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and
oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.
2. Annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are estimates and include such items as labor, utilities, materials, analytical work, etc.
3. For a variety of reasons, including recent optimization or litigation, some of the systems with the highest annual O&M costs in a
Region were not selected for RSEs. Narratives describing the system selection for each Region are included the Regional summary
screening reports included in Appendix B.
55
-------
Table 6-3: Fund-lead P&T Systems Ranked According to Annual O&M Cost (Page 2 of 4)
Rank
28
29
30
31
32
o o
J J
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Site name
Bog Creek Farm LTRA
American Creosote Works (solute)
Charles George Landfill Superfund Site
Bayou Bonfouca
BrewsterWellfield
SMS Instruments
Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill
Greenwood Chemical Site
Peerless Plating
American Creosote Works
Syncon Resins
Williams Property
Hellertown Manufacturing
American Creosote Works (DNAPL)
Palmetto Wood
Long Prairie Groundwater Contamination
MacGillis and Gibbs/Bell Lumber & Pole
U.S. Aviex
Modesto Superfund Site
Selma Treating Co.
Commencement Bay, South Tacoma Channel, Well
Stanton Cleaners Area Groundwater Contamination Site
Kearsarge Metallurgical Corp.
Butz Landfill
McCormick & Baxter Creosoting Co.
Geneva Industries
La Salle Electrical Utilities
Region
2
4
1
6
2
2
2
o
J
5
6
2
2
3
4
4
5
5
5
9
9
10
2
1
o
J
10
6
5
Annual O&M Cost
$460,000
$452,000
$450,000
$402,000
$400,000
$400,000
$400,000
$400,000
$400,000
$360,000
$350,000
$350,000
$350,000
$300,000
$300,000
$300,000
$300,000
$300,000
$300,000
$300,000
$300,000
$270,000
$250,000
$250,000
$250,000
$240,000
$230,000
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may
vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.
Notes:
1. Fund-lead P&T systems refers to systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and
oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.
2. Annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are estimates and include such items as labor, utilities, materials, analytical work, etc.
3. For a variety of reasons, including recent optimization or litigation, some of the systems with the highest O&M costs in a Region
were not selected for RSEs. Narratives describing the system selection for each Region are included the Regional summary
screening reports included in Appendix B.
56
-------
Table 6-3: Fund-lead P&T Systems Ranked According to Annual O&M Cost (Page 3 of 4)
Rank
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
Site name
[slip Municipal Landfill
Verona Well Field
Eastern Surplus Company Superfund Site
ECeefe Environmental Systems
Croydon TCE
Onalaska Municipal Landfill
Vestal Water Supply Well 1-1
AIW Frank/Mid-County Mustang Site, OU#1
Elmore Waste Disposal
Midland Products
Eau Claire Municipal Wei Field
Raymark
Berks Sand Pit
PCX Statesville
CryoChem
Douglass Road
North Perm Area 1
Cleburn Street Well Site/0112
Saunders Supply Company
Wash King Laundry
Arrowhead Refinery
Cape Fear Wood Preserving
CityofPerrytonWell#2
Better Brite Plating Co. Chrome and Zinc Shops
Benfield Industries
Mohonk Road Industrial Plant Site
Dover Municipal Well 4
Region
2
5
1
1
o
J
5
2
o
J
4
6
5
3
o
J
4
o
J
5
o
J
1
o
J
5
5
4
6
5
4
2
2
Annual O&M Cost
$225,000
$225,000
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
$180,000
$180,000
$180,000
$180,000
$175,000
$155,711
$150,000
$150,000
$125,000
$120,000
$100,000
$100,000
$80,000
$75,000
$70,000
$40,000
$37,000
$36,000
$30,000
unknown
unknown
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may
vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.
Notes:
1. Fund-lead P&T systems refers to systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and
oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.
2. Annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are estimates and include such items as labor, utilities, materials, analytical work, etc.
3. For a variety of reasons, including recent optimization or litigation, some of the systems with the highest O&M costs in a Region
were not selected for RSEs. Narratives describing the system selection for each Region are included the Regional summary
screening reports included in Appendix B.
57
-------
Table 6-3: Fund-lead P&T Systems Ranked According to Annual O&M Cost (Page 4 of 4)
Rank
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
Site name
Metal TEC
ABC Cleaners
Coleman Evans Wood Preserving
Duell and Gardner
North Cavalcade Superfund Site
Valley Park TCE Site - OU2
Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Region
2
4
4
5
6
7
10
Annual O&M Cost
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may
vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.
Notes:
1. Fund-lead P&T systems refers to systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and
oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.
2. Annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are estimates and include such items as labor, utilities, materials, analytical work, etc.
3. For a variety of reasons, including recent optimization or litigation, some of the systems with the highest O&M costs in a Region
were not selected for RSEs. Narratives describing the system selection for each Region are included the Regional summary
screening reports included in Appendix B.
58
-------
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
This nationwide effort to identify and gather information on Fund-lead P&T systems resulted in an
improved understanding of the number of Fund-lead P&T systems, the specifications and performance
of these systems, and the estimated costs required to operate and maintain these systems. In total, 88
operational and pre-operational Fund-lead P&T systems were identified, with pre-operational referring
to systems that are identified in a ROD and are in a stage of pre-design, design, or installed but not yet
operating. Of these 88 systems, 67 are operational and 21 are pre-operational. Annual costs for each
system ranged from less than $100,000 per year to approximately $4,000,000 per year. The following
findings result from the cost information for Fund-lead P&T systems:
The estimated average annual operation and maintenance (O&M) cost for a Fund-lead P&T
system (based on those 79 systems providing cost data) is approximately $570,000 and the
median cost is $350,000. The discrepancy between these two statistics is due to a small number
of systems with relatively high O&M costs.
Based on the 79 systems that provided cost information, the estimated total annual O&M cost for
operating the Fund-lead P&T systems in 2002 is approximately $38 million, with EPA incurring
approximately $32.5 million of the total annual cost and the associated States incurring the
remaining $5.5 million.
Based on the 79 systems that provided cost information, the estimated future cost for Long-term
Remedial Action (LTRA) O&M for all of these systems exceeds $210 million with discounting
(i.e., net present value) and exceeds $270 million without discounting. LTRA refers to the first
10 years of operation of a groundwater or surface water restoration action. During this period,
EPA typically funds 90% of the cost and the associated State funds 10% of the costs. These
percentages translate directly to the presented costs; therefore, the Superfund is expected to pay
approximately $189 million ($243 million without discounting) and the States are expected to
pay approximately $21 million ($27 million without discounting).
Based on the 79 systems that provided cost information, the estimated future cost for O&M of
Fund-lead P&T systems until remediation completion is achieved is approximately $470 million
with discounting (net-present value) and $790 million without discounting. (These estimates of
future O&M costs are based on the annual costs of systems and expected durations of systems as
specified by the site managers. For some systems where expected system duration is unknown,
a value of 30 years may have been used as a default value for this parameter. While the practice
of using 30 years as a default was prevalent in the past, more recent EPA guidance on feasibility
study preparation recommends that 30 years not be used as a default.)
13 of the 79 systems that provided costs account for approximately 50% of the total reported
annual O&M costs.
A total of 26 States reportedly have Fund-lead P&T systems. Upon completion of the 10-year LTRA
period each system will be transferred to its associated State and that State will assume 100% of the
remaining O&M costs. For systems where restoration is not a goal (i.e., containment and water supply
59
-------
systems) the systems are typically transferred to the States after one year. The collected data suggest that
the States will incur between approximately $250 million with discounting or $520 million without
discounting in post-LTRA O&M costs for Fund-lead P&T systems that reported annual O&M costs.
Furthermore, the data suggest that the following five States will likely incur 78% of these post-LTRA
O&M costs:
• New Jersey (27.6%)
• Massachusetts (22.6%)
• New York (9.7%)
• Pennsylvania (9.6%)
• Michigan (8.4%)
In addition to cost information, the following statistics about the Fund-lead P&T systems were also
gleaned from the information reported by the system RPMs:
• 40 of 67 operating systems are reported to be controlling plume migration.
• 60 of the 67 operating systems have groundwater restoration as a goal but 21 of that 60 do not
have estimates of the progress toward that restoration. Of the 39 systems that have both
groundwater restoration as a goal and an estimate of progress toward restoration, 7 are estimated
to have made more than 80% progress toward restoration.
• 52 of the 88 systems have three or more primary contaminants of concern, and chlorinated
solvents are the most prevalent contaminants as they are addressed by 56 of the 88 systems.
• 35 of the 88 Fund-lead P&T systems are associated with sites where non-aqueous phase liquid
(NAPL) has either been observed or suspected.
• Carbon adsorption and air stripping are the most prevalent treatment processes (carbon
adsorption is used at 50 of the 88 systems and air stripping is used at 41).
• Based on 64 of 88 systems where RPMs were able to determine costs specifically used for
groundwater monitoring, Fund-lead P&T systems have, on average, 23 monitoring wells for
groundwater sampling that are sampled three to four times per year for an average cost of
$112,000 per year.
• 36 of the 67 operating systems have previously had performance and effectiveness evaluated and
found "sufficient" while 7 had performance and effectiveness found "not sufficient" (the
remaining systems are either being evaluated, have not been evaluated, or have not provided
information regarding previous effectiveness evaluations).
60
-------
The following items detail lessons learned from this data-collection phase of the Nationwide
Remediation System Evaluation (RSE) Optimization Project.
AdditionalRSEs should be commissioned
Although the screening methodology targeted systems in each Region that had effectiveness problems or
relatively high operating costs, a number of systems with similar issues were not selected for RSEs.
Some of these unselected systems are receiving third-party optimization evaluations not associated with
this project. Many of the other unselected systems, however, would benefit from third-party optimizaton
evaluations such as an RSE. Therefore, additional RSEs should be commissioned to optimize some of
the remaining Fund-lead systems.
A central database or other information system for Fund-lead systems (not limited to P&T) should be
developed and maintained through annual or semi-annual updates by Remedial Project Managers.
Consideration should also be given to extend such a database to include non-Fund-lead systems as
well
• Identifying all of the Fund-lead P&T systems in each Region was greatly facilitated by the project
liaisons in each Region. However, to identify these systems, liaisons were required to interview
branch chiefs and individual Remedial Project Managers. A central, up-to-date database would
eliminate the need for repeating this interview process in the future. Managers for each site,
including sites new to Superfund, should be required to update site information in a central
information system (e.g., a database). The database created for this project offers a solid
beginning. The data in the current database could be made available to site managers so that they
may update it when required rather than reentering all of the information.
• Questions as to the definition of "pump-and-treat" arose repeatedly. In Region 9 well-head
treatment systems were not included, and in Region 8, a NAPL-recovery system was not
included. Furthermore, soil-vapor-extraction (SVE) systems were also not included. By not
including these systems in the study, the total amount of Fund-lead expenditures could not be
estimated and these systems were not considered for optimization.
• Within each Region, "fact sheets" are prepared for each system by the system's Remedial Project
Manager (RPMs). As these "fact sheets" are already updated on a regular basis, broadening the
required information on each "fact sheet" would make them the primary information source on
each system. Because they are written documents, these "fact sheets" are more flexible than
databases. First, they are not constrained to single preformatted answers (e.g., a selection from a
list or single number) as is typically required for database questionnaires. Second, they can be
used for any type of system or site whereas database questionnaires are typically tailored for a
specific type of system or site. Future databases for specific projects could be easily generated
from these "fact sheets".
• The CERCLIS database and many resources or databases within each Region are available.
Consideration should be given to linking the proposed central database to CERCLIS and these
Regional resources.
• Some of the data collected as part of this project may also be relevant for tracking the progress of
non-Fund-lead systems. Consideration should be given to collecting information on these
systems as well.
61
-------
Future web-based questionnaires may need to be more lenient in accepting data.
A number of RPMs did not complete questionnaires because information required by the web-based
survey (i.e., "required fields") was not available for the specific system. This repeatedly occurred for
planned P&T systems for which RPMs did not yet have cost estimates or system specifications. Because
these fields were required in order to save the input, information on many systems had to be gathered
through phone interviews.
62
-------
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Information Sheets for each Fund-lead P&T System
Appendix B: Summary Phase 1 Reports of each Region
Appendix C: Screening Calculations for each Fund-lead P&T System
These appendices are not included in this document. This document, with its appendices
(EPA 542-01-021b) or without its appendices (EPA 542-01-021a), may be downloaded from EPA's Clean
Up Information (CLUIN) System at http://www.clu-in.org. A limited number of hard copies of each
version are also available free of charge from the National Service Center for Environmental Publications
(NSCEP) at the following address:
U.S. EPA National Service Center for Environmental Publications
P.O. Box 42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419
Phone: (800) 490-9198 or (513) 489-8190
Fax: (513)489-8695
63
-------
------- |