£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-01-021b
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
$112,000 per year.
36 of the 67 operating systems have previously had performance and effectiveness evaluated and
found "sufficient" while 7 had performance and effectiveness found "not sufficient" (the
remaining systems are either being evaluated, have not been evaluated, or have not provided
information regarding previous effectiveness evaluations).
Although the RSE selection process targeted systems in each Region that had effectiveness problems or
relatively high operating costs, a number of systems with similar issues still remain, and additional RSEs
are recommended to address these remaining systems.
VI
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NOTICE i
PREFACE ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS vii
LIST OF FIGURES viii
LIST OF TABLES ix
LIST OF APPENDICES x
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 BACKGROUND 1
1.2 DEMONSTRATION FUND-LEAD PUMP AND TREAT OPTIMIZATION PROJECT 1
1.3 NATIONWIDE FUND-LEAD PUMP AND TREAT OPTIMIZATION PROJECT 1
2.0 SYSTEM IDENTIFICATION 3
3.0 DATA COLLECTION 6
4.0 SUMMARIES OF COLLECTED DATA 10
4.1 SUMMARIES OF SYSTEM COSTS AND PROJECTIONS 10
4.2 SUMMARY OF COST DATA AS IT PERTAINS TO THE STATES 11
4.3 STATUS AND PROGRESS OF THE FUND-LEAD P&T SYSTEMS 13
4.4 SYSTEM GOALS 13
4.5 CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN, TREATMENT PROCESSES, AND MONITORING 13
4.6 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATIONS 14
5.0 SYSTEM SCREENING AND PRIORITIZATION WITH RESPECT TO OPTIMIZATION POTENTIAL . 43
6.0 SYSTEM SELECTION 46
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED 59
APPENDICES 63
vn
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4-1: Trend of Financial Responsibility of Fund-lead P&T Systems
Figure 4-2: Trend of Estimated Annual O&M Costs of Fund-lead P&T Systems
Figure 4-">: Status of Fund-lead P&T Systems
Figure 4-4: Progress of the 67 Operational Fund-lead P&T Systems
Figure 4-5: Treatment Processes at Fund-lead P&T Systems
Figure 0-1: Fund-lead P&T Systems Ranked by "Estimated Potential Life-cycle Savings ($)"
Figure 0-2: 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-Hi: 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-l">: 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-l(>: 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://wmv.epa.gov/superfand/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://mvw.epa.gov/superfand/sites/query/advquery.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 Tablg_4jvl_ through TaMeJjj 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. Fjgures_4_d. 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.
FjgurgJ^i 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.
Figurg^l-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
TaMeJ-ll through Tabje_4d^. 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.
Figur^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. TaMesAii 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&M cost paid by EPA
O&M cost paid by States
o
o
$25,000,000
06
O
75 $20,000,000
3
c
< $15,000,000
I
H $10,000,000
$5,000,000
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
70
60
I 50
0)
I 40
"8
jj 30
E
i 20
10
0
P>
O)
Q
00
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
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
60
50
E
3 40
0
.Q
E
3
30
20
10
c o
o '-^
Q Q.
O)
'5.
c
o
^5
I § Si 8| | .1 l-g
^^5 w SE'BE § ^5 ^2
CO
(/5
•a
CO
CD
i!
i
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 ($), based on the screening calculations,
relative to other systems
no major problems identified for potentially implementing RSE recommendations
• RPM request for involvement
For a variety of reasons, including recent optimization or litigation, some of the systems with the highest
potential for life-cycle savings in a Region were not selected for RSEs. Narratives describing the system
selection for each Region are included the Regional summary screening reports included in Appendix B.
Tablejvl. lists for each Region the systems selected to receive RSEs and the "Estimated Potential Savings
($)" from system optimization.
Table 6-2 ranks each Fund-lead P&T system according to "Estimated Potential Life-cycle Savings ($)" as
calculated by the screening methodology. In addition, the systems that were selected for RSEs appear in
bold. A graphical representation of this table is presented in Fjguj^J^i- Three of the top four ranked
systems were selected for RSEs. Out of 20 total RSEs, 14 of them were allocated to a system that is
ranked in the top 44 systems (top 50%). Summing the "Estimated Potential Life-cycle Savings ($)" 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 Figureji-2. Figureji-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
-------
O)
c
Figure 6-1 : Fund-lead P&T Systems Ranked by "Estimated Potential Life-
cycle Savings ($)"
$18,300,000
$14,000,000
™ $12,000,000
> $10,000,000
J — $8,000,000 -
^_ CO
.2 *"
I $6,000,000 -
s
£ $4,000,000
re
| $2,000,000
LU
$0
1
n
• Systems Selected for RSEs
•
)| II
11 21 31 41 51 61
Site Rank
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may vary from actual values. Data, including the number
and status of systems, may change over time.
Notes:
1. Fund-lead P&T systems refers to systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial
support from Superfund.
2. "Estimated Potential Life-cycle Savings ($)" 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. Values are shown for the 68 systems with positive "Estimated Potential Life-cycle Savings ($)" . This parameter was less than zero for 12 systems and could not be calculated for 8 systems
because of incomplete cost data.
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.
5. 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.
-------
Figure 6-2: Fund-lead P&T Systems Ranked by Annual O&M Cost and the
Cumulative Distribution of System Annual O&M Costs
$4,000
$3,500
^
re
> $3,000
o
o
^-- $2,500 --
o $2,000
O
$1,500
i $1,000
c
$500
$0
System Annual O&M Costs
Cumulative Distribution of
Annual O&M Costs
Systems Selected for RSEs _ _
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.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
O
c
o
1
£
£
W
Q
0)
>
1
(/)
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81
The 88 Fund-lead P&T Systems Ranked by Estimated Annual O&M Costs
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
63
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
REGION 1 INFORMATION SHEETS
-------
Baird & McGuire Superfund Site
Holbrook, MA (Region 1)
CERCLIS ID MAD001041987
Contact Information
RPM
Melissa Taylor
One Congress Street 11th floor
Boston, MA 02114
617-918-1310 (phone)
617-918-1291 (fax)
Taylor.MelissaG@epa.gov
State Regulator
Dorothy Allen
MADEP
One Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
617-292-5795 (phone)
617-292-5530 (fax)
Dorothy .Allen@state.ma.us
Contractor
Don Dwight
Metcalf & Eddy
30 Harvard Mill Sq.
Wakefield, MA01880
781-224-6286 (phone)
781-224-6880 (fax)
Don_Dwig ht@metcalfeddy.com
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
9/30/86
Final
Operational
Containment & Restoration
Observed
$3,500,000
$200,000
150gpm
Evaluated and found sufficient
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
7
4/1993
4/1994
4/2004
4/2023
2 weeks
80
1 times per year
Yes
20% to 80% restored
moderate/severe
Contaminants of Concern:
Treatment Processes:
Heavy metals
LNAPL
Pesticides
Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOC)
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
Arsenic, BTEX, PAHs
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
yes
yes
yes
Comments:
An LNAPL collection system is currently in place at the site that collects approximately 8 gal/day of pure product. The LNAPL is then shipped off site for
incineration.
A full evaluation of the groundwater pump and treat system was just completed in January 2001 and is expected to be implemented within the next
calendar year. The major recommendations of this evaluation are to move an extraction well from an area of limited plume contaminantion to the center of
the contaminant plume; and the in
main plume body.
-------
Charles George Landfill Superfund Site
Tyngsboro, MA (Region 1)
CERCLIS ID MAD003809266
Contact Information
RPM
Elaine Stanley
One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (HBO)
Boston, MA 02114-2023
617-918-1332 (phone)
617-918-1291 (fax)
stanley.elainet@epa.gov
State Regulator
David Buckley
MADEP
One Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
617-556-1184 (phone)
617-292-5530 (fax)
buckley.david@state.ma.us
Contractor
David O'Connor
USAGE North Central Residnet Office
50 McArthur Avenue, Box 689
Devens, MA 01432-4400
978-772-0148 (phone)
978-772-3104 (fax)
da vid.o'connor@nae02.usace.army.mil
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
3/23/88
9/26/98
Final
Operational
Containment & Restoration
Don't know
$450,000
$200,000
30gpm
Not evaluated
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
9
9/1998
9/1999
9/2009
9/2028
2 weeks
20
2 times per year
Yes
less than 20% restored
moderate/severe
Contaminants of Concern:
Treatment Processes:
Arsenic
BTEX
Chlorobenzene
Mercury
Tetrahydrofuran
1,4-Dioxane
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
Comments:
This system pumps the effluent off-site to a POTW, via the municipal sewer system under a discharge permit. Ground water and leachate are "treated" or
let's say, managed by adding an iron sequestering agent (citric acid) to keep iron from precipitating out and clogging the system and weekly biocide
shocking to aid in minimizing bacterial growth in the system.
-------
Eastern Surplus Company Superfund Site
Meddybemps, ME (Region 1)
CERCLIS ID MED981073711
Contact Information
RPM
Edward Hathaway
1 Congress Street, Suite 1100, mailcode: HBT
Boston, MA 02114
617-918-1372 (phone)
617-918-1291 (fax)
hathaway.ed@epa.gov
State Regulator
Rebecca Hewett
Maine DEP
17 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333-0017
207-287-8554 (phone)
207-287-7826 (fax)
rebecca.l.hewett@state.me.us
Contractor
Gordon Bullard
TTNUS
55 Jonspin Road
Wilmington, MA 01887
978-658-7899 (phone)
978-658-7870 (fax)
bullardg@ttnus.com
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
9/28/00
Final
Being Installed
Containment & Restoration
Suspected
$200,000
$0
20gpm
Not evaluated
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
12
8/2001
10/2001
9/2011
9/2007
2 weeks
30
2 times per year
minor/moderate
Contaminants of Concern:
Treatment Processes:
Methylene Chloride
PCE
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
yes
yes
Comments:
There is a limited system in place as part of a NTCRA to control plume migration. The ROD requires that the system be upgraded for groundwater
restoration. The design will complete in May and final construction could occur this summer.
-------
Grove/and Wells Superfund Site
Grove land, MA (Region 1)
CERCLIS ID MAD980732317
Contact Information
RPM
Derrick Golden
One Congress Street - Suite 1100 (HBO)
Boston, MA 02114
617-918-1448 (phone)
617-918-1291 (fax)
golden .derrick@epa .gov
State Regulator
Janet Waldron
MADEP
One Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
617-556-1156 (phone)
617-556-1118 (fax)
janet.waldron@state.ma.us
Contractor
Cinthia Mclane
Metcalf & Eddy
30 Harvard Mill Square
Wakefield, MA01880
781-224-6377 (phone)
781-245-6293 (fax)
cindy_mclane@metcalfeddy.com
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
9/9/91
11/15/96
Final
Operational
Containment & Restoration
Don't know
$500,000
$50,000
140gpm
Evaluated and found sufficient
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
10
4/2000
5/2001
4/2011
4/2031
1 week
21
1 times per year
Don't know
Don't know
minor/minor
Contaminants of Concern:
Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)
Treatment Processes:
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
yes
yes
yes
Comments:
-------
Kearsarge Metallurgical Corp.
Conway, NH (Region 1)
CERCLIS ID NHD062002001
Contact Information
RPM
Dick Goehlert
One Congress Street
Boston, MA 02 11 4-2023
61 7-91 8-1 335 (phone)
617-918-1291 (fax)
goehlert.dick@epa.gov
State Regulator
Paul Lincoln
NHDES
6 Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03301
603-271-2911 (phone)
603-271 -2456 (fax)
p_andrews@des.state.nh.us
Contractor
Bette Nowack
Weston
1 Wall St.
Manchester, NH03101
603-656-5400 (phone)
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
State-lead w/ Fund $
9/28/90
Final
Operational
Restoration
Suspected
$250,000
$30,000
42 gpm
Evaluated and found sufficient
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
14
9/1993
9/1993
9/2003
9/2005
4 weeks
30
2 times per year
Yes
more than 80% restored
moderate/moderate
Contaminants of Concern:
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene (TOE)
Treatment Processes:
Metals precipitation
Air stripping yes
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment yes
other/not sure
Comments:
Doug Sutton filled out this form based on a phone interview with Dick Goehlert.
The 2005 completion date is an estimate for 90% of the system. A few wells, pumping at a much lower rate will likely continue for longer
-------
Keefe Environmental Systems
Epping, NH (Region 1)
CERCLIS ID NHD092059112
Contact Information
RPM
Cheryl Sprague
One Congress Street, Suite 1100
Boston, MA 02114-2023
617 918-1244 (phone)
617918-1291 (fax)
Sprague.cheryl@epa.gov
State Regulator
Thomas Andrews
New Hampshire Department of Environmental
6 Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03301-6527
603 271-2910 (phone)
601 271-2456 (fax)
Tandrews@des.state.nh.us
Contractor
King Harvey
Woodard and Curran
41 Hutchins Drive
Portland, ME 04102
207 774-2112 (phone)
207 774-6635 (fax)
hking@woodardcurren.com
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
State-lead w/ Fund $
3/21/88
6/8/90
Final
Operational
Containment & Restoration
Not present
$200,000
$5,000
20gpm
Evaluated and found sufficient
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
4
9/1993
9/1994
9/2003
9/2003
2 weeks
41
2 times per year
Yes
more than 80% restored
minor/minor
Contaminants of Concern:
1,2,3,4-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD)
1,2-Dichloroethene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene
Treatment Processes:
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
yes
yes
Comments:
In 1998 a vacuum enhanced extraction system (3 wells) was installed to faciliate voc removal in the hot zone.
State lead - with PRP settlement money.
-------
Savage Well Municipal Water System
Milford, NH (Region 1)
CERCLIS ID NHD980671002
Contact Information
RPM
RICHARD GOEHLERT
ONE CONGRESS STREET
BOSTON, MA 02114-2023
617-918-1335 (phone)
617-918-1291 (fax)
GOEHLERT.DICK@EPA.GOV
State Regulator
THOMAS ANDREWS
NHDES
6 HAZEN DRIVE
CONCORD, NH 03301
603-271-2910 (phone)
603-271-2456 (fax)
t_andrews@des.state.nh.us
Contractor
Joe Newton
COM
ElmSt
Milford, NH 03055
603-249-9840 (phone)
603-249-9851 (fax)
jnewton@cdm.com
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
State-lead w/ Fund $
9/27/91
12/19/96
Final
Operational
Containment & Restoration
Observed
$500,000
$30,000
100gpm
Not evaluated
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
4
3/1998
4/1999
3/2009
3/2009
4 weeks
38
3 times per year
No
less than 20% restored
minor/minor
Contaminants of Concern:
Treatment Processes:
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Chlorinated Solvents
Cis-1,2-dichloroethene
Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
yes
yes
Comments:
The system consists of a slurry wall with extraction and injection wells inside and outside sluury wall witha recharge gallery, there is an SVE syatem with
air sparaging and carbon regeneration by steam. I also have 17 plus wells in the hot spot which i intend to use submesible pumps to effect a better
remedy . advice on this new extraction system would be very beneficial.
i will not fill this out a third time
-------
Silresim Chemical Corp.
Lowell, MA (Region 1)
CERCLIS ID MAD000192393
Contact Information
RPM
Chester Janowski
1 Congress Street, Suite 1100, HBO
Boston, MA 02114-2023
617-918-1324 (phone)
617-918-1291 (fax)
Janowski .chet@epa .gov
State Regulator
Janet Waldron
MADEP
One Winter Street, 7th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
617-556-1156 (phone)
617-292-5530 (fax)
janet.waldron@state.ma.us
Contractor
John Haley
Foster Wheeler Env. Corp.
133 Federal Street, 6th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
617-457-8200 (phone)
617-457-8498 (fax)
jhaley@fwec.com
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
9/19/91
Final
Operational
Containment & Restoration
Observed
$1,400,000
$160,000
25gpm
Evaluated and found not sufficient
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
31
11/1995
9/1997
9/2007
12/2017
2 weeks
47
2 times per year
No
less than 20% restored
minor/minor
Contaminants of Concern:
Treatment Processes:
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethylene (DOE)
Acids
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Methylphenol
Solid Propellants
Trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene
Volatile chlorinated organics
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
yes
yes
yes
Comments:
Operations Contractor provides semi-annual status reports of the P&T system including recommendations for P&T improvements. Improvements to the
source control approach are currently being evaluated and a ROD Amendment is anticipated.
-------
REGION 2 INFORMATION SHEETS
-------
American Thermostat
South Cairo, NY (Region 2)
CERCLIS ID NYD002066330
Contact Information
RPM
Christos Tsiamis
290 Broadway
New York, NY 12233
212-637-4257 (phone)
212-637-3966 (fax)
tsiamis.christos@epa.gov
State Regulator
Joseph Yavonditte
NYSDEC
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
518-457-9285 (phone)
518-457-7743 (fax)
jayavond@gw.dec.state.ny.us
Contractor
Feeney Richard
Foster Wheeler Env. Corporation
1000 The American Road
Morris Plains, NJ 07950
973-630-8092 (phone)
973-630-8111 (fax)
RFeeney@fwenc.com
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
6/29/90
Final
Operational
Containment & Restoration
Suspected
$1,175,000
70gpm
Evaluated and found sufficient
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
14
9/1998
9/1998
10/2008
9/2028
0 weeks
19
12 times per year
Yes
less than 20% restored
minor/severe
Contaminants of Concern:
1,2-Dichloropropane
Trichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)
Treatment Processes:
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
yes
yes
yes
Comments:
Based on cumulative long-term monitoring data, the system has currently been modified in order to optimize performance.
-------
Bog Creek Farm LTRA
Howell, NJ (Region 2)
CERCLIS ID NJD063157150
Contact Information
RPM
Edward Finnerty
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007
212 637 4367 (phone)
212-637-4393 (fax)
Finnerty.Ed@EPA.GOV
State Regulator
Craig Wallace
NJDEP
401 E State St.
Trenton, NJ 08625
609 984 2990 (phone)
609 633 2360 (fax)
Cwallace@DEP.STATE.NJ.US
Contractor
George Paprocki
USAGE
Ft. Monmouth
Eatontown, NJ 07703
732 389 3040 (phone)
732 389 1564 (fax)
George.B.Paprocki@nan02.USACE.army.mil
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
6/28/89
Final
Operational
Containment & Restoration
Observed
$460,000
$100,000
30gpm
Evaluated and found sufficient
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
33
5/1994
8/1994
9/2004
12/2024
4 weeks
9
1 times per year
Yes
20% to 80% restored
minor/minor
Contaminants of Concern:
Treatment Processes:
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene
Benzene and Toluene
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Phenol
copper, lead,zinc
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
yes
yes
yes
Comments:
The EPA will not meet the cleanup goal of 5ppb for benzene in the first ten years. The State's new criteria for benzene is 1ppb. This cleanup target may
not be achievable, hence a 30 year remediation time (to the year 2024) was used as a default. The costs in #16 ($100,000) include sampling 9 monitoring
wells and 33 extractions wells.
-------
Brewster Wellfield
Brewster, NY (Region 2)
CERCLIS ID 0202153
Contact Information
RPM
Lisa Wong
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007
212-637-4267 (phone)
212-637-3966 (fax)
wong.lisa@epa.gov
State Regulator
George Momberger
NYSDEC
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
518-457-0927 (phone)
518-457-8989 (fax)
gfmomber@gw.dec.state.ny.us
Contractor
Dawn Cermak
Sevenson Env.Services, Inc
Box 71A Route 518, Franklin Twsp
Princeton, NJ 08540
732-297-0432 (phone)
732-297-0441 (fax)
hawksister@earthlink.net
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
9/30/86
12/2/96
Final
Operational
Containment & Restoration
Suspected
$400,000
$244,000
SOgpm
Not evaluated
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
4
4/1997
9/1997
10/2007
10/2007
16
4 times per year
Yes
Don't know
minor/minor
Contaminants of Concern:
Treatment Processes:
1,2-Dichloroethylene (DCE)
Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
Comments:
Qs #15 & 16: Breakdown of approximate annual O&M cost for long-term groundwater monitoring is of ballpark rough estimate.
Qs #25 & 26: 8 monitoring wells are monitored quarterly and 8 other monitoring wells are monitored annually (concurrent w/ one of the quarterly
monitoring).
-------
Circuitron
East Farmingdale, NY (Region 2)
CERCLIS ID NYD981184229
Contact Information
RPM
Sharon Trocher
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
212-637-3965 (phone)
212-637-3966 (fax)
trocher.sharon@epa.gov
State Regulator
Jeffrey Trad
NYSDEC
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233-7010
518-457-9285 (phone)
518-457-7743 (fax)
jetrad@gw.dec.state.ny.us
Contractor
Shewen Bian
USAGE, New York District
1900 Hempstead Turnpike, Suite 16
East Meadow, NY 11554
516-794-2913 (phone)
516-794-2975 (fax)
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
9/30/94
Final
Operational
Restoration
Not present
$480,000
$45,000
SOgpm
Evaluated and found sufficient
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
3
6/2000
5/15/2001
6/2010
6/2003
6 weeks
19
4 times per year
Yes
less than 20% restored
minor/moderate
Contaminants of Concern:
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethylene (DOE)
Trichloroethylene (TOE)
Treatment Processes:
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
yes
yes
Comments:
Doug Sutton completed this questionnaire based on a phone interview with Sharon Trocher.
1,1,1 TCA is primary contaminant of concern
The remedial action is expected to be complete before turnover to the state.
Monitoring frequency will soon decrease from quarterly to semi-annually or annually.
-------
Claremont Polychemical Corp.
Town of Oyster Bay, NY (Region 2)
CERCLIS ID NYD002044584
Contact Information
RPM
Maria Jon
290 Broadway, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10007
212-637-3967 (phone)
212-637-4284 (fax)
Jon.Maria@epamail.epa.gov
State Regulator
Jeff Trad
NYSDEC
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12218
518-457-9285 (phone)
518-457-7743 (fax)
jetrad@gw.dec.state.ny.us
Contractor
Mark Kucera
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
501 Winding Road
OldBethpage, NY11804
516-249-8912 (phone)
516-249-8928 (fax)
unknown@na.com
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
9/28/90
Final
Operational
Containment & Restoration
Don't know
$740,000
420 gpm
Not evaluated
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
3
12/1998
2/2000
2/2010
2/2020
2 weeks
14
4 times per year
Yes
Don't know
minor/minor
Contaminants of Concern:
Treatment Processes:
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Toluene
Xylene
PCE
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
yes
yes
Comments:
The date in #22 is an estimate.
-------
Combe Fill South Landfill
Chester Township, NJ (Region 2)
CERCLISIDNJD94966611
Contact Information
RPM
Pamela J. Baxter
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1 866
212-637-4416 (phone)
2 12-637-4393 (fax)
baxter.pam@epamail.gov
State Regulator
Paula Walshe
NJDEP
401 East State St.
Trenton, NJ 08625
609-633-1 119 (phone)
609-292-1975 (fax)
pwalshe@dep.state.nj.us
Contractor
James Nash
Chapman, Inc.
25 West Highand Avenue
Atlantic Highlands, NJ 0771 6
732-291 -7773 (phone)
732-291 -7776 (fax)
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
State-lead w/ Fund $
9/23/86
Final
Operational
Containment & Restoration
Not present
$920,000
$480,000
121 gpm
Evaluated and found not sufficient
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
19
6/1998
9/1998
9/2008
9/2028
1 week
36
2 times per year
No
Don't know
minor/moderate
Contaminants of Concern:
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Ethyl benzene
Methylene Chloride
Toluene
Treatment Processes:
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
yes
yes
yes
Comments:
Combe Fill South is currently the subject of litigation.
-------
Dover Municipal Well 4
Dover, NJ (Region 2)
CERCLIS ID NJD980654131
Contact Information
RPM
Diego Garcia
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
212-637-4947 (phone)
garcia.diego@epa.gov
State Regulator
Mary Lou Parra
NJDEP
401 East State Street
Trenton, NJ 08625
609-633-3618 (phone)
Contractor
Kamala Morgan
USAGE
601 East 12th Street
Kansas City, MO 64106
818-983-3577 (phone)
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
9/30/92
Final
Predesign
Restoration
Not present
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes: minor/minor
Contaminants of Concern:
Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)
Treatment Processes:
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
Comments:
Do not know if pump and treat will be used. May decide against it and may use well head treatment.
Light industrial site with many sources; trying to find sources.
No NAPL observed, but some may be down gradient and not addressed by addresser or by the state.
-------
Garden State Cleaners/South Jersey Clothing Company
Minotola, NJ (Region 2)
CERCLIS ID NJD053280160
Contact Information
RPM
Brian Quinn
290 Broadway, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10007
212-637-4381 (phone)
212-637-4393 (fax)
quinn.brian@epa.gov
State Regulator
Akshay Parikh
N.J.D.E.P.
401 E. State Street, P.O. Box 413
Trenton, NJ 08625
609-777-0693 (phone)
609-633-2360 (fax)
APARIKH@dep.state.nj.us
Contractor
Steven Gillespie
Sevenson Env. Services, Inc.
2749 Lockport Road
Niagara Falls, NY 14305
856-905-0782 (phone)
856-697-9187 (fax)
sevenson@voicenet.com
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
9/26/91
Final
Operational
Containment & Restoration
Not present
$500,000
$125,000
300 gpm
Currently being evaluated
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
15
3/1999
9/2000
10/2009
9/2029
27
2 times per year
No
Don't know
minor/minor
Contaminants of Concern:
Treatment Processes:
Trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene
Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
yes
Comments:
First this questionaire only allowed one Cerclis ID to be entered, even though these are two separate sites being remediated under one ROD. The South
Jersey Clothing Company. The pump and treat system has been recovering and treating groundwater with lower concentrations of TCE and PCE than
expected. In addition, both
TCE and PCE have been detected in the furthest downgradient sentinel wells, implying that a portion of the plume has migrated beyond the current
network of extraction wells. The USAGE has been tasked by the USEPA to determine if there are additional sources of contamination downgradient of the
original source areas and to determine more optimal locations of groundwater extraction wells. Additionally, the Army Corp, through their contractor, will
review the treatment system design in an effort to optimize the treatment process and hydraulic capacity of the system.
ID is NJD980766828.
-------
Higgins Farm
Franklin Township, NJ (Region 2)
CERCLIS ID NJD981490261
Contact Information
RPM
Pamela J. Baxter
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1 866
212-637-4416 (phone)
2 12-637-4393 (fax)
baxter.pam@epamail.gov
State Regulator
NJDEP
401 East State St.
Trenton, NJ 08625
Contractor
Dawn Cermail
Sevenson Env. Service, Inc.
71 A Route 51 8
Princeton, NJ 08540
732-297-0432 (phone)
732-297-0441 (fax)
hawksiyseter@earthlink.com
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
9/30/92
Final
Operational
Containment & Restoration
Not present
$1,000,000
$800,000
30gpm
Not evaluated
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
20
5/1998
1/1999
1/2009
9/2028
4 weeks
34
3 times per year
Yes
less than 20% restored
minor/moderate
Contaminants of Concern:
Treatment Processes:
Acetone
Arsenic
Chloride
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
Xylene
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
yes
yes
yes
Comments:
Site is currently the subject of litigation.
17: Designed for 100 gpm actually getting SOgpm
20: Month of O&F is an estimate
26: This represents an average. Some wells are sampled semi-annually and some quarterly
From Region 2 Hydrogeologist Rob Alvey—
Fractured rock site.
Stringent discharge permit.
-------
/s//p Municipal Landfill
Islip, NY (Region 2)
CERCLIS ID NYD980506901
Contact Information
RPM
Mark Dannenberg
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007
212-637-4251 (phone)
212-637-3966 (fax)
dannenberg.mark@epa.gov
State Regulator
Carl Hoffman
NYSDEC
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
518-457-9538 (phone)
518-457-4198 (fax)
crhoffma@gw.dec.state.ny.us
Contractor
Paul DiMaria
Islip Resource Recovery Agency
401 Main Street
Islip, NY 11751
631-224-5644 (phone)
631-224-5645 (fax)
wfgraner@hotmail.com
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
State-lead w/ Fund $
9/19/92
Final
Operational
Containment & Restoration
Not present
$225,000
$95,000
300 gpm
Evaluated and found sufficient
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
6
9/1996
9/1997
9/2006
1/2003
1 week
24
4 times per year
Yes
20% to 80% restored
minor/minor
Contaminants of Concern:
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
Treatment Processes:
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
yes
Comments:
-------
Lang Property Superfund Site
Pemberton Township, NJ, NJ (Region 2)
CERCLIS ID NJD980505382
Contact Information
RPM
Lawrence Granite
290 Broadway - 19th floor
New York, New York, NY 10007-1866
212-637-4423 (phone)
212-637-4393 (fax)
granite.larry@epamail.epa.gov
State Regulator
Thomas Ferrara
NJDEP
401 East State Street
Trenton, NJ 08625
609-292-4095 (phone)
609-633-2360 (fax)
Contractor
Thomas Roche
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
192 City Line Road
Browns Mills, NJ 08015
609-893-0983 (phone)
609-893-5415 (fax)
thomas.p.roche@usace.army.mil
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
9/29/86
Final
Operational
Containment & Restoration
Suspected
$700,000
$60,000
30gpm
Evaluated and found sufficient
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
1
9/1995
10/1995
10/2005
1/2005
0 weeks
8
4 times per year
Yes
20% to 80% restored
minor/minor
Contaminants of Concern:
Treatment Processes:
1,1-dichloroethene
1,1-dichloroethane
trichloroethene
tetrachloroethene
chromium
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
yes
yes
Comments:
-Question 17 asked for the approximate pumping rate. The treatment system was designed to pump and treat, and formerly operated at, 150 gpm.
However, we have observed a significant reduction in ground water contaminant concentrations. As a result, we are now pumping at approximately 30 gpm.
-Question 18 asked for the number of ground water extraction wells. There are three extraction wells at the Site. Two of the three have been yielding clean
water; therefore, they are presently shut down to allow for a period of monitoring under non-pumping conditions. Also, please note that to supplement the
contaminant removal by the three extraction wells, three shallow ground water collection trenches were installed in summer 1996.
-Question 24 asked for the treatment processes which are used at the Site. We do have a metals precipitation unit and biological treatment units at the
Site. However, we stopped using them due to a reduction in contaminant concentrations.
-The Lang Property Superfund site team has always emphasized quality. Our enhancement efforts to date have expedited the remediation and resulted in
cost savings. If you have any questions on the above, please feel free to call me at 212-637-4423.
-------
/./par; Landfill site
Mantua Township, NJ (Region 2)
CERCLIS ID NJD980505416
Contact Information
RPM
Ferdinand Cataneo
290 Broadway
New York City, NY 10007-1866
212-637-4428 (phone)
212-637-4393 (fax)
cataneo.fred@epa.gov
State Regulator
Michael Burlingame
NJDEP
P.O. Box 413
Trenton, NJ 08625-0413
609-292-1424 (phone)
609-292-1975 (fax)
mburling@dep.state.nj.us
Contractor
Lee Anne Simmler
URS/Radian International
743 Mullica Hill Road
Glassboro, NJ 08028
856-582-6000 (phone)
856-582-6946 (fax)
lee_anne_simmler@ursco rp.com
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
9/30/85
Final
Operational
Containment & Restoration
Suspected
$2,500,000
$30,000
125 gpm
Evaluated and found sufficient
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
25
12/1992
6/1993
10/2019
12/2004
2 weeks
39
1 times per year
Yes
20% to 80% restored
minor/minor
Contaminants of Concern:
Treatment Processes:
Benzene and Toluene
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
Xylene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Methylene Chloride
Phenol
Chromium
Lead
Zinc
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
yes
yes
yes
Comments:
The system has been evaluated and improved on an annual basis since it began operating in 1993. The most significant improvement was designed in
April 1999 and constructed last year. The improvement converted the system to dual phase operation, which has doubled the rate of contaminated ground
water extraction while providing for soil vapor/air extraction that has increased the rate of BTEX/VOC removal from the site containment by an order of
magnitude.
In June 1999, the USACE Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste Center of Expertise conducted a workshop on Lipari Landfill site system operation,
maintenance, monitoring and optimization.
-------
Mattiace Petrochemical
Glen Cove, Nassau County, NY (Region 2)
CERCLIS ID NYD000512459
Contact Information
RPM
Edward Als
290 Broadway
NYC, NY 10007-1866
212-637-4272 (phone)
212-637-3966 (fax)
als.ed@epa.gov
State Regulator
Michael Mason
NY State Department of Environmental
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
518-457-9285 (phone)
518-457-7743 (fax)
mamason@gw.dec.state.ny.us
Contractor
Karuppenan Subburamu
Foster Wheeler Env.Corp.
1000 the American Road
Morris Plains, NJ 07950
973-630-8518 (phone)
973-630-8111 (fax)
ksubburamu@fwenc.com
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
6/27/91
Final
Operational
Containment & Restoration
Observed
$700,000
$50,000
10gpm
Evaluated and found sufficient
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
9
8/1998
9/1999
3/2009
8/2029
2 weeks
15
1 times per year
Yes
less than 20% restored
minor/moderate
Contaminants of Concern:
Aromatic VOCs
Chlorinated Aliphatics
Chlorinated Solvents
Ethyl benzene
Tetrachloroethylene, Trichloroethylene, Ethylbenzene, Toluene,
Xylenes, Methylene Chloride, Dichlorobenzene, Acetone
Treatment Processes:
Metals precipitation yes
Air stripping yes
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption yes
Filtration yes
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment yes
other/not sure
Comments:
Q#18. Of the 9 extraction wells, 3 extract almost 9 gallons/minute. The other 6 extract betw 1-2 gallons/minute.
Q#26. Wells were sampled twice in 1 st year, will be sampled annually thereafter.
-------
Metal TEC/Aerosystems
Franklin, NJ (Region 2)
CERCLIS ID NJD002517472
Contact Information
RPM
Dan Weissman
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
212-637-4384 (phone)
weissman.dan.epa.gov
State Regulator
Anton Navaragah
NJDEP
401 East State Street
Trenton, NJ 08625
609-777-0340 (phone)
Contractor
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site: EPA-lead
Date original ROD was signed: 9/27/90
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD: Final
Status of P&T system: Predesign
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs Observed
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
Contaminants of Concern:
Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)
Treatment Processes:
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
Comments:
Pump and treat is the selected remedy in the ROD. In RD contract to reconsider treatment approach at the site. If pump and treat is used at all, it would
be adjunct to another remedy or would have a goal of containment.
-------
Mohonk Road Industrial Plant Site
High Falls, NY (Region 2)
CERCLIS ID NYD986950012
Contact Information
RPM
Patrick Hamblin
290 Broadway, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10007-1866
212-637-3314 (phone)
212-637-3966 (fax)
hamblin.patrick@epa.gov
State Regulator
Michael Komoroske
NYSDEC
50 Wolf Road, Room 242
Albany, NY 12233-7010
518-457-3395 (phone)
518-457-4198 (fax)
mjkomoro@gw.dec.state.ny.us
Contractor
Eric Hamilton
EarthTech
7870 Villa Park Drive, Suite 400
Richmond, VA 23228
804-515-8300 (phone)
804-515-8414 (fax)
e_hamilton@ea rthtech.com
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
3/31/00
Final
Operational
Containment & Restoration
Not present
40gpm
Currently being evaluated
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
3
5/2000
7/2001
7/2011
7/2031
17
2 times per year
Don't know
Don't know
minor/moderate
Contaminants of Concern:
Treatment Processes:
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
yes
yes
yes
Comments:
This groundwater extraction and treatment system was constructed by the Region 2 Removal Program in May 2000 as a Non-Time Critical Removal Action
to address the 'nearfield plume', and underwent shakedown until responsibility for the system was transferred to the remedial program in February 2001.
For approximatey the next 5 months, the Remedial Program will be operate the system as a remedial action in order to complete shakedown activities.
After this period, the system will be operated as a Long-Term Response Action (beginning July 2001). Additional groundwater extraction wells may be
added to capture the 'farfield plume'.
-------
Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill
Montgomery Township, NJ (Region 2)
CERCLIS ID NJD980654164
Contact Information
RPM
Monica Mahar
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1 866
212-637-3942 (phone)
mahar.monica@epa.gov
State Regulator
Larry Quinn
NJDEP
401 East State Street
Trenton, NJ 08625
609-633-0766 (phone)
lquinn@dep.state.nj.us
Contractor
Geoffrey McKenzie
COM
107-F Corporate Blvd.
South Plainfield, NJ 07080
908-757-9500 (phone)
mckenziegm@cdm.com
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
6/27/88
Final
Design
Restoration
Don't know
$400,000
$80,000
250 gpm
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
3
9/2003
9/2003
9/2013
9/2033
40
2 times per year
minor/moderate
Contaminants of Concern:
Trichloroethylene (TOE)
Treatment Processes:
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
yes
Comments:
This is actually two sites, Montgomery Township and Rocky Hill, that will share a single P&T system.
In litigation with PRP.
-------
SMS Instruments
Deer Park, NY (Region 2)
CERCLIS ID NYD001533165
Contact Information
RPM
Mark Dannenberg
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007
212-637-4251 (phone)
2 12-637-3966 (fax)
dannenberg.mark@epa.gov
State Regulator
Joseph Yavonditte
NYSDEC
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
51 8-457-9280 (phone)
51 8-457-41 98 (fax)
jayovond@gw.dec.state.ny.us
Contractor
Paul Hagerman
COM Federal
125 Maiden Lane
New York, NY 10038
21 2-785-91 23 (phone)
21 2-785-61 14 (fax)
hagermanpr@cdm.com
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
9/29/89
Final
Operational
Containment & Restoration
Not present
$400,000
$130,000
100gpm
Evaluated and found sufficient
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
2
6/1994
6/1995
6/2005
3/2004
2 weeks
18
4 times per year
Yes
20% to 80% restored
minor/minor
Contaminants of Concern:
Xylene
Treatment Processes:
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
yes
Comments:
-------
Stanton Cleaners Area Groundwater Contamination Site
Great Neck, NY (Region 2)
CERCLIS ID NYD047650197
Contact Information
RPM
Damian Duda
290 Broadway - 20th Floor
New York, NY 10007-1866
212-637-4269 (phone)
212-637-3966 (fax)
duda.damian@epa.gov
State Regulator
Thomas Gibbons
NYSDEC
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
518-457-3960 (phone)
518-457-4158 (fax)
tlgibbon@gw.dec.state.ny.us
Contractor
Thomas Williams
Earth Tech
7870 Villa Park Drive - Suite 400
Richmond, VA 23228
516-482-7162 (phone)
516-466-8396 (fax)
twilliams@earthtech.com
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
3/31/99
Final
Being Installed
Containment & Restoration
Suspected
$270,000
$120,000
90gpm
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
3
6/2001
9/2001
9/2011
9/2021
1 weeks
30
4 times per year
minor/moderate
Contaminants of Concern:
Treatment Processes:
Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)
DCE, BTEX, MTBE
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Comments:
An additional source control operation is currently being implemented through an ongoing soil vapor extraction system (SVE). The SVE system is
expected to be in operation less than the time period estimated for the pump and treat system. Depending on the treatment efficiency of the pump and
treat system, an innovative treatment technology for biological treatment may be introduced during the course of its active operation.
-------
Syncon Resins
Kearny, NJ (Region 2)
CERCLIS ID NJD064263817
Contact Information
RPM
Pamela J. Baxter
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1 866
212-637-4416 (phone)
2 12-637-4393 (fax)
baxter.pam@epamail.gov
State Regulator
Jeanette Abels
NJDEP
401 East State St.
Trenton, NJ 08625
609-292-4873 (phone)
609-633-2360 (fax)
jabels@dep.state.nj.us
Contractor
John Sperber
LSR Levine and Fricke
P.O. Box 316
Closter, NJ 07624
201 -750-6880 (phone)
201-750-6890 (fax)
spurber@webstan.net
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
State-lead w/ Fund $
9/29/86
9/27/00
Final
Operational
Containment & Restoration
Observed
$350,000
20gpm
Evaluated and found not sufficient
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
3
4/1991
4/1991
4/2001
9/2028
3 weeks
0
0 times per year
Yes
less than 20% restored
minor/moderate
Contaminants of Concern:
Acetone
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Ethyl benzene
Toluene
Xylene
Treatment Processes:
Metals precipitation yes
Air stripping yes
Biological treatment yes
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption yes
Filtration yes
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment yes
other/not sure
Comments:
18: Wells used for water control. Also, there is a trench and three sump wells located in areas that flood locally.
21: Date of 10/93 is provided. This would mean it has already been transferred to the state. 10/93 is not a possible response given the format of the
webpage. 4/2001 is provided temporarily until more information is available.
27: A slurry wall is providing the control
-------
Vestal Water Supply Well 1-1
Vestal, NY (Region 2)
CERCLIS ID NYD980763767
Contact Information
RPM
Sharon Trocher
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
212-637-3965 (phone)
212-637-3966 (fax)
trocher.sharon@epa.gov
State Regulator
Jeffrey Trad
NYSDEC
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233-7010
518-457-9285 (phone)
518-457-7743 (fax)
jetrad@gw.dec.state.ny.us
Contractor
Heidemarie Adenau
Foster Wheeler Env.Corporation
1000 The American Road
Morris Plains, NJ 07950
973-630-7197 (phone)
973-630-8025 (fax)
hadenau@fwenc.com
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
6/27/86
Final
Operational
Containment & Restoration
Not present
$180,000
$30,000
450 gpm
Evaluated and found sufficient
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
1
12/1993
3/1995
3/2005
3/2015
1 week
12
1 times per year
Yes
less than 20% restored
minor/minor
Contaminants of Concern:
Treatment Processes:
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)
1,2-Dichloroethylene (DCE)
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
Comments:
-------
Vineland Chemical Co. Groundwater Treatment Plant
Vineland, NJ (Region 2)
CERCLIS ID NJD002385664
Contact Information
RPM
Matthew Westgate
290 Broadway 19th floor
New York City, NY 10007-1866
212 637-4422 (phone)
212 637-4429 (fax)
westgate.matthew@epamail.epa.gov
State Regulator
Craig Wallace
N.J. Dept. of Environmental Protection
401 East State Street CN413
Trenton, NJ 08625-0413
609 984-3727 (phone)
609 633-2360 (fax)
cwallac2@dep.state.nj.us
Contractor
Gillespie Steve
Sevenson Env. Services
1405A North Mill Road
Vineland, NJ 08360
856 690-1758 (phone)
856 690-1759 (fax)
vineland@voicenet.com
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
9/28/89
Final
Operational
Containment & Restoration
Not present
$4,000,000
$750,000
1400gpm
Currently being evaluated
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
13
4/2000
6/2000
6/2011
6/2031
0 weeks
40
52 times per year
Yes
Don't know
moderate/severe
Contaminants of Concern:
Arsenic
Treatment Processes:
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
yes
Comments:
Currently we are pumping 700 gpm. Major modifications are required to increase plant flow to maximum flow rate -1400 gpm.
We are in the process of hiring a contractor, SAIC of Harrisburg, PA, through the Philadelphia District Army Corps of Engineers, to perform a "SmartSite"
Optimization Study. Kickoff meeting is scheduled for March 1 2001. If you want to study this site and perform the optimization study, call me now at 212
637-4422.
-------
Williams Property
Swainton, Middle Township, NJ (Region 2)
CERCLIS ID NJD980529945
Contact Information
RPM
Ferdinand Cataneo
290 Broadway
New York City, NY 10007-1866
212-637-4428 (phone)
212-637-4393 (fax)
cataneo.fred@epa.gov
State Regulator
Steve Wohleb
NJDEP
P.O. Box 413
Trenton, NJ 08625-0413
609-633-3970 (phone)
609-292-1975 (fax)
swohleb@dep.state.nj.us
Contractor
Richard Talbot
TurnKey Env. Services, Inc
24 South Newton Street Road, Suite 1B
Newton Square, PA 19073
610-356-3790 (phone)
610-356-4780 (fax)
TurnKeyEnv@aol.com
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
State-lead w/ Fund $
9/29/87
Final
Operational
Restoration
Not present
$350,000
SOgpm
Evaluated and found sufficient
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
2
1/1995
1/1995
1/2001
12/2002
0 weeks
18
2 times per year
Yes
more than 80% restored
minor/minor
Contaminants of Concern:
Treatment Processes:
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)
Acetone
Isophorone
Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK)
Methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK)
Xylene
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
yes
yes
Comments:
At this time the plume appears to have been remediated except for low level PCE and TCE tailing. The pump and treat is expected to be shut down later
this year with the system maintained in a "ready-to-run" state. Long term monitoring for possible rebound of contamination will follow. Resumption of
operations would be triggered if rebound, as defined in a long-term testing plan,occurs.
Regarding Question #21, please note that the NJDEP has been running the p&t since operations began in January 1995.
-------
REGION 3 INFORMATION SHEETS
-------
AIW Frank/Mid-County Mustang Site, OU#1
Exton, PA (Region 3)
CERCLIS ID PAD004351003
Contact Information
RPM
Charlie Root
1650 Arch Street (3HS21)
Philadelphia, PA 19103
215-814-3193 (phone)
215-814-3002 (fax)
root.charlie@epa.gov
State Regulator
Ragesh Patel
PADEP
Lee Park, Suite 6010 555 North Lane
Conshohocken, PA 19428
610-832-6161 (phone)
610-832-6260 (fax)
patel.ragesh@state.pa.us
Contractor
Neil Teamerson
TetraTech NUS
600 Clark Avenue, Suite 3
King of Prussia, PA 19406
610-491-9688 (phone)
610-491-9645 (fax)
teamersonn@ttnus.com
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
9/29/95
Final
Operational
Restoration
Not present
$180,000
$50,000
118gpm
Evaluated and found sufficient
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
5
11/2000
9/2001
9/2011
9/2031
1 week
15
4 times per year
Don't know
Don't know
minor/moderate
Contaminants of Concern:
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene
Treatment Processes:
Metals precipitation
Air stripping yes
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption yes
Filtration yes
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment yes
other/not sure
Comments:
This Pump and Treat is only a few months old and there is not enough performance data to date to make any recomendations regarding optimization.
-------
Berks Sand Pit
Huffs Church, PA (Region 3)
CERCLIS ID PAD980691794
Contact Information
RPM
Bruce Rundell
1650 Arch Street
Philadephia, PA 19103-2087
215-814-3317 (phone)
215-814-3015 (fax)
rundell.bruce@epa.gov
State Regulator
Elise Juers
PADEP
909 Elmerton Av.
Harrisburg, PA 17110-8200
717-705-4852 (phone)
717-705-4830 (fax)
juers.elise@a1 .dep.state.pa.45
Contractor
Ed Kashdan
Gannett Fleming
PO Box 80794
Valley Forge, PA 19484
610-650-8101 (phone)
610-650-8190 (fax)
ekashdan@GFnet.com
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
9/29/88
2/2/94
Final
Operational
Restoration
Not present
$150,000
$25,000
90gpm
Evaluated and found sufficient
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
1
2/1995
2/1995
2/2005
2/2003
48
1 times per year
Yes
20% to 80% restored
minor/minor
Contaminants of Concern:
Treatment Processes:
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethylene (DOE)
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
Comments:
Maximum TCA and DCE concentrations in 1988 were 7,300 and 3,500 ppb, respectivly. By 1999 concentrations have been reduced to 470 ppb and 78
ppb for TCA and DCE respectively. This has been accomplished by maximizing pump rate with respect to contaminant concentrartions. Currently there is
one area that is less responcive to the pumping system. A pilot scale fentons reagent injection study will be conducted in this area in the Spring of 2001. If
successful oxidant injection will be used throughout the plume.
-------
Butz Landfill
Monroe Township, PA (Region 3)
CERCLIS ID PAD981034705
Contact Information
RPM
Rom Roman
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2087
215-814-3212 (phone)
215-814-3015 (fax)
roman.romuald@epa.gov
State Regulator
PADEP Paul Panek
PADEP
4530 Bath Pike
Bethlehem, PA 18017
610-861-2070 (phone)
610-861-2072 (fax)
panek.paul@dep.state.pa.us
Contractor
Charles Huval
Koester Environmental Services
14649 Highway 41 N
Evansville, IN 47725
812-483-4516 (phone)
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
6/30/92
8/27/99
Final
Operational
Restoration
Not present
$250,000
$125,000
90gpm
Not evaluated
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
3
4/2001
4/2001
4/2011
4/2031
0 weeks
17
4 times per year
Don't know
less than 20% restored
minor/minor
Contaminants of Concern:
Diesel fuel
Trichlorobenzene
Vinyl Chloride
Treatment Processes:
Metals precipitation
Air stripping yes
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment yes
other/not sure
Comments:
Doug Sutton completed this questionnaire based on phone interviews with Rom Roman (RPM) and Bruce Rundell (hydrogeologist).
At the time of this survey, the site was to begin operation within a couple of weeks. Thus, many of the responses are estimates including costs, flow rates,
and expected date of completion.
-------
Croydon TCE
Bristol Township, PA (Region 3)
CERCLIS ID PAD981035009
Contact Information
RPM
Cesar Lee
1650 Arch St
Philadelphia, PA 19103
215-814-3205 (phone)
215-814-3205 (fax)
lee.cesar@epa.gov
State Regulator
Ewald Dave
PADEP
Lee Park, Suite 6010
Conshohocken, PA 19428
610-832-6200 (phone)
610-832-5950 (fax)
Ewald.David@dep.state.pa.us
Contractor
Harish Mital
Tetra Tech, Inc.
Plaza 273, 56 West Main Street
Christiana, DE 19702
302-738-7551 (phone)
302-454-5988 (fax)
harish.mital@tetratech.com
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
6/29/90
Final
Operational
Containment & Restoration
Suspected
$200,000
$100,000
25gpm
Evaluated and found sufficient
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
6
3/1995
3/1995
3/2005
3/2025
7
4 times per year
Yes
less than 20% restored
minor/minor
Contaminants of Concern:
Treatment Processes:
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)
Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
yes
Comments:
-------
CryoChem
Earl Township, PA (Region 3)
CERCLIS ID PAD002360444
Contact Information
RPM
Joseph McDowell
1650 Arch Street
Phila, PA19103
215-814-3192 (phone)
215-814-3002 (fax)
mcdowell.joseph@epa.gov
State Regulator
Rich Morgan
PADEP
909 Elmerton Ave
Harrisburg, PA 17110
610-916-0122 (phone)
610-916-0100 (fax)
MORGAN.RICHARD@DEP.STATE.PA.US
Contractor
Don Koch
ETA
9115 Guilford Road Suite 100
Columbia, MD 21046
410-461-9920 (phone)
410-750-8565 (fax)
dkoch@md.ccjm.com
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
9/30/91
Final
Operational
Containment & Restoration
Don't know
$125,000
$40,000
60gpm
Evaluated and found sufficient
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
9
2/1998
6/1998
6/2008
6/2010
1 week
4
1 times per year
Yes
Don't know
minor/moderate
Contaminants of Concern:
Treatment Processes:
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
Comments:
-------
Greenwood Chemical Site
Greenwood, VA (Region 3)
CERCLIS ID VAD003125374
Contact Information
RPM
Philip Rotstein
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
215-814-3232 (phone)
215-814-3002 (fax)
rotstein.phil@epa.gov
State Regulator
Berry Wright
Department of Environmental Quality
629 E. Main Street
Richmond, VA 23219
804-698-4012 (phone)
804-698-4234 (fax)
bfwright@deq .state .va .us
Contractor
Jeff Waters
CH2M Hill
1700 Market Street, Suite 1600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
215-563-4220 (phone)
215-563-3828 (fax)
jwaters@ch2m.com
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
12/30/90
Interim
Operational
Containment & Restoration
Don't know
$400,000
$50,000
45gpm
Not evaluated
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
5
11/2000
11/2001
11/2011
11/2020
34
4 times per year
Not a goal
Don't know
minor/minor
Contaminants of Concern:
Treatment Processes:
1,1-Dichloroethane
Acetone
Arsenic
Benzene and Toluene
Naphthalene, Acetic Acid, 1,2-Dichloroethane, SVOCTICs,
Dibutyl phthalate, 2,4,6,-Trichlorophenol
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Comments:
Initial startup and testing of the pump and treat system began in November 2000. The system became fully operational in March 2001. Actual operational
costs (O&M) not known at this time.
-------
Havertown PCP OU2
Havertown, PA (Region 3)
CERCLIS ID PAD002338010
Contact Information
RPM
Gregory Ham
1650 Arch Street (3HS21)
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
215-814-3194 (phone)
215-814-3002 (fax)
ham.greg@epa.gov
State Regulator
April Flipse
PADEP
555 North Lane, Suite 6010
Conshohocken, PA 19428
610-832-5937 (phone)
610-832-6143 (fax)
Flipse .April@dep.state.pa.us
Contractor
Lori Stoll
URS Corporation
200 Orchard Ridge Drive, Suite 101
Gaithersburg, MD 20878-1978
301-258-9780 (phone)
301-869-2043 (fax)
lori_stoll@urscorp.com
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
9/30/91
Interim
Being Installed
Containment & Restoration
Observed
$1,000,000
$283,300
45gpm
Not evaluated
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
4
5/2001
4/2002
4/2012
4/2033
15
2 times per year
minor/moderate
Contaminants of Concern:
Treatment Processes:
Benzene and Toluene
Dioxin (TCDD equivalents)
Pentachlorophenol (PCP)
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
yes
yes
yes
Comments:
This system includes a 200 foot long collection trench and four oil/water extraction wells. There is free product (PCP/oil) being recovered from most of the
wells.
-------
Hellertown Manufacturing
Bethlehem, PA (Region 3)
CERCLIS ID PAD002390748
Contact Information
RPM
Cesar Lee
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
215-814-3205 (phone)
215-814-3205 (fax)
lee.cesar@epa.gov
State Regulator
Meg Mustard
PADEP
4530 Bath Pike
Bethlehem, PA 18017
610-861-2076 (phone)
610-861-2072 (fax)
boyer.margaret@dep.state.pa.us
Contractor
Jim Romig
COM Federal Corporation
993 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 408
Wayne, PA 19087
610-293-0450 (phone)
610-293-1920 (fax)
romigjm@cdm.com
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
9/3/91
Final
Operational
Containment & Restoration
Not present
$350,000
$150,000
SOgpm
Evaluated and found not sufficient
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
1
9/1996
3/1996
9/2006
9/2026
0 weeks
12
4 times per year
Yes
Don't know
minor/moderate
Contaminants of Concern:
Benzene
Cis-1,2-dichloroethene
TCE and Vinyl chloride
Trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene
Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)
Treatment Processes:
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
yes
Comments:
Doug Sutton filled this out based on hand written notes of Cesar Lee.
-------
North Penn Area 1
Souderton, Montgomery County, PA (Region 3)
CERCLIS ID PAD096834494
Contact Information
RPM
Maria de los A. Garcia
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
215-814-3199 (phone)
215-814-3002 (fax)
garcia.maria@epa.gov
State Regulator
April Flipse
Pennsylvania Department of Env. Protection
Lee Park, Suite 6010 555 North Lane
Conshohocken, PA 19428
610-832-5937 (phone)
610-832-6143 (fax)
Contractor
Policarpio Mijares
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1715
Baltimore, PA 21203
410-962-2782 (phone)
410-962-2318 (fax)
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
9/30/94
9/24/98
Final
Operational
Containment & Restoration
Not present
$100,000
$25,000
2gpm
Not evaluated
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
1
7/1998
9/1998
9/2008
9/2018
0 weeks
4
2 times per year
Don't know
Don't know
minor/minor
Contaminants of Concern:
Treatment Processes:
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)
Cis-1,2-dichloroethene
Trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene
Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
Comments:
The system in this site consists of an extraction system that discharges to a local wastewater treatment facility. There is no conventional treatment system
at the site.
-------
North Penn Area 6
Lansdale, PA (Region 3)
CERCLIS ID PAD980926976
Contact Information
RPM
Gregory Ham
1650 Arch Street (3HS21)
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
215-814-3194 (phone)
215-814-3002 (fax)
ham.greg@epa.gov
State Regulator
RobertZang
Pennsylvania Dept. of Env. Protection
555 North Lane, Suite 6010
Conshohocken, PA 19428
610-832-6152 (phone)
610-832-6259 (fax)
Zang.Robert@state.pa.us
Contractor
Ray Lees
It Corporation
1220 Ward Avenue, Suite 300
West Chester, PA 19380-3409
610-241-5000 (phone)
610-241-5050 (fax)
rlees@theitgroup.com
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
8/10/00
Final
Design
Containment & Restoration
Suspected
$592,900
$216,000
300 gpm
Not evaluated
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
10
9/2002
6/2003
6/2013
6/2033
30
4 times per year
minor/moderate
Contaminants of Concern:
Treatment Processes:
Carbon tetrachloride
TCE and Vinyl chloride
Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
yes
yes
Comments:
This site consists of a groundwater plume covering an area approximately 3 square miles, with multiple identified sources. It will be done as a mixed work
site (some wells installed and operated by EPA, some by PRPs). The first two wells are being done under a non-time critical removal action, the remainder
as a remedial action.
-------
Raymark
Hatboro, PA (Region 3)
CERCLIS ID 0300894
Contact Information
RPM
Deanna Moultrie
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
215-814-5125 (phone)
215-814-3002 (fax)
moultrie.deanna@epa.gov
State Regulator
David Minsker
PADEP
Lee Park Suite 6010 555 North Lane
Conshohocken, PA 19428
610-832-6193 (phone)
610-832-6143 (fax)
Minsker.David@dep.state.pa.us
Contractor
Andy Hopton
COM Federal Programs
993 Old Eagle School Road
Wayne, PA 19083
610-293-0450 (phone)
610-293-1920 (fax)
HoptonAP@cdm.com
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
9/28/90
Final
Operational
Containment & Restoration
Not present
$155,711
$140,000
62gpm
Not evaluated
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
2
1/1994
6/1995
1/2004
1/2014
2 weeks
0
0 times per year
Don't know
Don't know
minor/minor
Contaminants of Concern:
Treatment Processes:
Carbozol
Trichlorobenzene
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
yes
Comments:
Originally, the time frame for aquifer restoration was 20 years from system startup but we are currently re-evaluating the effectiveness of the remedy and
that time frame may change.
-------
Saunders Supply Company
Chuckatuck, VA (Region 3)
CERCLIS ID VAD003117389
Contact Information
RPM
Andrew Palestini
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
215-814-3233 (phone)
215-814-3002 (fax)
palestini.andy@epa.gov
State Regulator
Thomas Modena
Virginia Department of Env.Quality
629 East Main Street
Richmond, VA 23219
804-698-4183 (phone)
804-698-4500 (fax)
tdmodena@deq .state .va .us
Contractor
Marc Gutterman
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
803 Front Street
Norfolk, VA 23510
757-441-7669 (phone)
757-441-7478 (fax)
Marc.D.Gutterman@nao02.usace.army.mil
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
9/27/96
Final
Operational
Containment & Restoration
Suspected
$80,000
$25,000
2gpm
Not evaluated
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
4
4/1998
5/1999
5/2009
4/2008
2 weeks
10
4 times per year
Yes
Don't know
minor/severe
Contaminants of Concern:
Arsenic
Pentachlorophenol (PGP)
Treatment Processes:
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
yes
yes
Comments:
To clarify #19 above: The system was constructed by Removal because the plume was getting close to a drinking reservoir.
To clarify #30: The treatment plant is located on the PRP's property but the recovery wells and monitorong wells are located on the adjoining property. We
placed piping and power in the utilities conduit trench for another recovery well. We have access to these wells and the conduit trench through an access
agreement between the PRP and the owner of the adjoining property. However, any work outside of this area could be very difficult to implement because
it would probably require another access agreement.
-------
REGION 4 INFORMATION SHEETS
-------
ABC Cleaners
Jacksonville, NC (Region 4)
CERCLIS ID NCD024644494
Contact Information
RPM
Luis Flores
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
404-562-8807 (phone)
flores.luis@epa.gov
State Regulator
Nile Testerman
NCDENR
401 Oberlin Road
Raleigh, NC 27605
919-733-2801 (phone)
919-733-4811 (fax)
nile.testerman@ncmail.net
Contractor
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
1/26/93
Final
Operational
Restoration
Not present
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
Contaminants of Concern:
1,1-Dichloroethylene (DOE)
Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)
vinyl chloride
Treatment Processes:
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
yes
Comments:
Douglas Sutton completed this form based on a phone interview with Luis Flores.
The site has been shut down for approximately 1 year.
The EPA and the previous site contractor are currently in litigation and additional site details could not be discussed.
-------
American Creosote Works (DNAPL)
Pensacola, FL (Region 4)
CERCLIS ID
Contact Information
RPM
Mark File
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
404-562-8927 (phone)
fite.mark@epa.gov
State Regulator
John Sykes
FDEP
850-488-019 (phone)
850-488-0190 (fax)
Contractor
Joe Findley
USAGE, Mobile District
Mobile, AL
334-694-4012 (phone)
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
2/3/94
Final
Operational
Restoration
Observed
$300,000
0.1 gpm
Not evaluated
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
8
9/1998
9/1998
5/2003
5/2003
4 weeks
4
2 times per year
No
less than 20% restored
minor/minor
Contaminants of Concern:
Acenaphthene
Benzene
Dibenzofuran
Fluoranthene
Naphthalene
Pentachlorophenol (POP)
carcinogenic PAHs
Treatment Processes:
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
yes
yes
Comments:
Doug Sutton completed this form based on an interview with Mark File.
This system is a DNAPL recovery system that will be decommissioned in 2003. Therefore, the site will not be transferred to the state. A Fund-lead P&T
solute recovery system will be installed in 2004.
Optimization is currently underway with USAGE.
-------
American Creosote Works (solute)
Pensacola, FL (Region 4)
CERCLIS ID
Contact Information
RPM
Mark File
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
404-562-8927 (phone)
fite.mark@epa.gov
State Regulator
John Sykes
FDEP
850-488-0190 (phone)
Contractor
Joe Findley
USAGE, Mobile District
Mobile, AL
334-694-4012 (phone)
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
2/3/94
Final
Predesign
Containment & Restoration
Observed
$452,000
105gpm
Not evaluated
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
3
9/2004
9/2004
9/2014
9/2009
0 weeks
10
2 times per year
minor/minor
Contaminants of Concern:
Acenaphthene
Benzene
Dibenzofuran
Fluoranthene
Naphthalene
Pentachlorophenol (PGP)
carcinogenic PAHs
Treatment Processes:
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
yes
Comments:
Douglas Sutton completed this form based on a phone interview with Mark File.
This system is planned to address dissolved groundwater contamination in 2004 after the associated DNAPL recovery system is decommissioned.
Data provided here are estimates taken from the ROD.
-------
Benfield Industries
Hazelwood, NC (Region 4)
CERCLIS ID NCD981026479
Contact Information
RPM
Jon Bornholm
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
404-562-8820 (phone)
bornholm.jon@epa.gov
State Regulator
Nile Testerman
NCDENR
401 Oberlin Road
Raleigh, NC 27605
919-733-2801 (phone)
919-733-4811 (fax)
nile.testerman@ncmail.net
Contractor
Chris Leggett
CMC
Newport, TN
423-625-0557 (phone)
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
7/31/92
Final
Operational
Containment & Restoration
Not present
$30,000
$10,000
16gpm
Not evaluated
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
2
4/2001
5/2001
5/2011
5/2021
0 weeks
8
4 times per year
Don't know
less than 20% restored
minor/minor
Contaminants of Concern:
Creosote and petroleum hydrocarbons
Treatment Processes:
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
Comments:
This form was completed by Douglas Sutton based on a phone interview with Jon Bornholm.
Monitoring frequency is expected to drop from quarterly to annually.
-------
Cape Fear Wood Preserving
Fayetteville, NC (Region 4)
CERCLIS ID NCD003188828
Contact Information
RPM
Jon Bornholm
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-3104
404-562-8820 (phone)
404-562-8788 (fax)
bornholm.jon@epa.gov
State Regulator
Nile Testerman
NCDENR
401 Oberlin Road
Raleigh, NC 27605
919-733-2901 (phone)
919-733-4811 (fax)
nile.testerman@ncmail.net
Contractor
Ed Hicks
Black & Veatch
1145 Sanctuary Parkway, Suite 475
Alpharetta, GA 30004
770-521-8141 (phone)
770-751-8322 (fax)
hicksec@bc.com
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
6/30/89
3/23/01
Final
Design/Not Installed
Containment & Restoration
Observed
$40,000
$30,000
43gpm
Not evaluated
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
7
9/2001
9/2002
10/2011
12/2009
25
4 times per year
minor/minor
Contaminants of Concern:
Treatment Processes:
Benzene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
Comments:
-------
Coleman Evans Wood Preserving
Whitehouse, FL (Region 4)
CERCLIS ID FLD991279894
Contact Information
RPM
Randall Chaffins
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
404-562-8929 (phone)
chaffins.randall@epa.gov
State Regulator
John Sykes
FDEP
850-413-0066 (phone)
Contractor
Todd Trulock
USACE, Jacksonville District
Jacksonville, FL
904-232-1110 (phone)
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
9/25/86
9/25/97
Interim
Predesign
Restoration
Observed
Not evaluated
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
Contaminants of Concern:
Dioxin
Pentachlorophenol (PGP)
Treatment Processes:
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
Comments:
This form was completed by Douglas Sutton based on a phone interview with Randall Chaffins.
There are three RODs for this OU. The first is dated 1986 and the last is dated 1997.
As the system is in the pre-design stage, no information is availabe about system operations.
-------
Elmore Waste Disposal
Greer, SC (Region 4)
CERCLIS ID SCD980839542
Contact Information
RPM
Ralph Howard
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
404-562-8829 (phone)
howard.ralph@epa.gov
State Regulator
Lucas Berresford
SCDHEC
21 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
Contractor
Ed Hicks
Black and Veatch
Atlanta, GA
770-751-7517 (phone)
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
4/26/93
Final
Operational
Containment & Restoration
Don't know
$180,000
$18,000
30gpm
Evaluated and found sufficient
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
9
9/1998
9/1998
9/2008
9/2018
0 weeks
17
4 times per year
Don't know
Don't know
minor/minor
Contaminants of Concern:
Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
Treatment Processes:
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
yes
Comments:
This form was completed by Douglas Sutton based on information gathered during the demonstration project and the RSE visit in 2000.
Treatment processes include GAC and discharge to the POTW.
-------
PCX Statesville
Statesville, NC (Region 4)
CERCLIS ID NCD095458527
Contact Information
RPM
Ken Mallory
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
404-562-8802 (phone)
mallory.ken@epa.gov
State Regulator
Nile Testerman
NCDENR
401 Oberlin Road
Raleigh, NC 27605
919-733-2801 (phone)
919-733-4811 (fax)
nile.testerman@ncmail.net
Contractor
Ralph McKeen
Roy F. Weston
Atlanta, GA
770-263-5438 (phone)
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
9/27/93
9/30/96
Final
Operational
Containment & Restoration
Don't know
$150,000
$40,000
20gpm
Evaluated and found sufficient
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
10
5/1998
5/2008
5/2008
18
4 times per year
Don't know
less than 20% restored
minor/minor
Contaminants of Concern:
Treatment Processes:
Pesticides
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
PCE
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
yes
Comments:
This form was completed by Douglas Sutton based on information collected during the demonstration project. Data on the extraction, treatment, and
monitoring systems were obtained from the report resultingn from the RSE conducted in 2000.
-------
Miami Drum
Hialeah, FL (Region 4)
CERCLIS ID FLD076027820
Contact Information
RPM
Jim McGuire
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
404-562-8911 (phone)
mcguire.jim@epa.gov
State Regulator
Contractor
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
State-lead w/ Fund $
1/0/00
Final
Operational
Water supply
Not present
$1,000,000
1 04000 gpm
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
40
9/1992
9/1992
9/2002
Contaminants of Concern:
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
Treatment Processes:
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
Comments:
Douglas Sutton completed this form based on a phone interview with Jim McGuire.
No current RPM is appointed to this site. Jim McGuire is the point of contact.
EPA Region 4 provides $1,000,000 per year to Dade County to operate 40 air strippers that have been installed to remediate aquifer and to treat water
extracted from public well fields and used for water supply.
The total number of wells is not known but this number is likely similar to number of airstrippers (40).
-------
Palmetto Wood
Lexington, SC (Region 4)
CERCLIS ID SCD003362217
Contact Information
RPM
Al Cherry
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
404-562-8807 (phone)
cherry.al@epa.gov
State Regulator
Keisha Long
SCDH
21 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
803-896-4073 (phone)
Contractor
Tim Eggert
COM
2030 Powers Ferry Road, Suite 325
Atlanta, GA 30339
678-202-8912 (phone)
770-951 -8910 (fax)
eggerttj@cdm.com
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
9/30/87
8/4/93
Final
Operational
Containment & Restoration
Not present
$300,000
$25,000
130gpm
Evaluated and found sufficient
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
10
5/1997
1/1998
5/2008
5/2008
4 weeks
8
2 times per year
Yes
20% to 80% restored
minor/moderate
Contaminants of Concern:
Chromium
Treatment Processes:
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
Comments:
This form was completed by Doug Sutton based on a phone interview with Al Cherry and Tim Eggert.
11 of 17 original wells have met clean-up standards
expected time to remediation completion is an estimate
treatment processes include pH adjustment and discharge to the POTW
-------
REGION 5 INFORMATION SHEETS
-------
Arrowhead Refinery
Hermantown, MN (Region 5)
CERCLIS ID MND980823975
Contact Information
RPM
Darryl Owens
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
31 2-886-7089 (phone)
owens.darryl@epa.gov
State Regulator
Maureen Johnson
MPCA
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155-4194
651 -296-7353 (phone)
maureen.johnson@pca.state.mn.us
Contractor
Gary Schroeher
Delta Environmental
2770 Cleveland Ave
Roseville, MN 55113-1127
651 -639-9449 (phone)
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
State-lead w/ Fund $
9/30/86
2/9/94
Final
Operational
Containment & Restoration
Not present
$70,000
$10,000
25gpm
Evaluated and found sufficient
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
0
6/1993
7/1993
7/2003
4/2004
0 weeks
18
2 times per year
Yes
more than 80% restored
minor/moderate
Contaminants of Concern:
VOCs, PNAs, VC
Pentachlorophenol (PCP)
Treatment Processes:
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
Comments:
This form was completed by Douglas Sutton based on information collected during the demonstration project in 4/2000 and on phone interviews with Darryl
Owens and Maureen Johnson in 5/2001.
There are no extraction wells, but there is over 700 feet of trenches at a depth of 25 feet.
-------
Better Brite Plating Co. Chrome and Zinc Shops
Depere, Wl (Region 5)
CERCLISIDWIT560010118
Contact Information
RPM
John Peterson
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-353-1264 (phone)
peterson.john@epa.gov
State Regulator
Keld Lauredsen
WDNR
1125 Military Ave. Box 10448
Green Bay, Wl 54307
920-492-5921 (phone)
920-492-5913 (fax)
lauredsenk@dnr.state.wi.us
Contractor
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
State-lead w/ Fund $
9/24/96
Operational
Containment & Restoration
Not present
$36,000
$10,000
Ogpm
Evaluated and found sufficient
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
0
8/2000
4/1993
6/2006
4/2030
0 weeks
14
2 times per year
Yes
less than 20% restored
minor/severe
Contaminants of Concern:
Chromium
Treatment Processes:
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
Comments:
This form was completed by Douglas Sutton based on information collected during the demonstration project in 4/2000 and on phone interviews with John
Peterson and Keld Lauredsen.
This site consists of two different contaminant areas. The P&T system operated in the chrome shop from 1993 to 1999 and was moved to the zinc shop in
2000.
DNR provides the oversight; therefore, a contractor contact was not given.
The site has no extraction wells but has two trenches.
-------
Douglass Road
Mishawaka, IN (Region 5)
CERCLIS ID IND980607881
Contact Information
RPM
Dion Novak
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-886-4737 (phone)
Novak.Dion@epa.gov
State Regulator
Kevin Herron
317-234-0354 (phone)
Contractor
Dan Plomb
CH2MHILL
135 S. 84th Street Suite 325
Milwaukee, Wl 53214
414-272-2426 (phone)
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
5/3/96
Final
Installed
Containment & Restoration
Not present
$120,000
$60,000
1000gpm
Not evaluated
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
5
9/2000
7/2001
9/2010
10/2030
2 weeks
36
2 times per year
minor/minor
Contaminants of Concern:
Arsenic
TCE and Vinyl chloride
Tetrahydrofuran
Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)
Treatment Processes:
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
Comments:
Site is currently operating at approximately 60%.
-------
Due// and Gardner
Dalton Township, Ml (Region 5)
CERCLIS ID MID980504716
Contact Information
RPM
Kyle Rogers
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
31 2-886-1 995 (phone)
rogers.kyle@epa.gov
State Regulator
Walelign Wagaw
MDEQ
P.O. Box 30426
Lansing, Ml 48909
51 7-373-9896 (phone)
Contractor
Tim Gouger
USACE, Rapid Response
12565 West Center Road
Omaha, NE 68144-3869
402-293-251 4 (phone)
402-291 -81 77 (fax)
Timothy.P.Gouger@nwo02.usace.army.mil
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
9/30/93
5/31/01
Interim
Installed
Restoration
Not present
SOgpm
Not evaluated
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
2
7/2001
7/2001
7/2011
7/2007
0 weeks
25
2 times per year
minor/minor
Contaminants of Concern:
Treatment Processes:
Anthracene
Carbozol
Chloromethane
N-N dimethylanaline, Gentin Violet
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
Comments:
This form was completed by Douglas Sutton based on information collected during the demonstration project in 4/2000 and on a phone interview with Kyle
Rogers in 5/2001.
One well is currently installed and pumping. Another well will be installed in July 2001 marking the beginning of O&F.
-------
Eau Claire Municipal Wei Field
Eau Claire, Wl (Region 5)
CERCLIS ID WID980820054
Contact Information
RPM
Sheri Bianchin
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-886-4745 (phone)
bianchin.sheri@epa.gov
State Regulator
Contractor
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
State-lead w/ Fund $
3/31/88
8/1/90
Operational
Don't know
$175,000
4500 gpm
Evaluated and found sufficient
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
14
6/1987
3/1991
Don't know
Don't know
severe/severe
Contaminants of Concern:
Trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene
Vernolate
Treatment Processes:
Metals precipitation
Air stripping yes
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
Comments:
This form was completed by Douglas Sutton based on information obtained from
1) www.epa.gov/R5Super/npl/wisconsin/WID980820054.htm
and
2) Information Paper #61: Contaminated Land and Brownfields Cleanup Programs
State of Wisconsin Legislative Bureau, 1/2001
The EPA RPM was not available for comment.
Reference on stated that as of 6/30/00 the EPA had spent
$5.9M dollars on the site and Wisconsin had spent $175K on the site. If the state assumes approximately 10% of the O&M costs and the site ran for
approximately 9 years (up to 6/30/00) then this translates to an approximate O&M cost of $175K. This approximation is entered as the approximate O&M
cost for item 15.
System goals appear to be both restoration and water supply.
-------
La Salle Electrical Utilities
La Salle, IL (Region 5)
CERCLIS ID ILD980794333
Contact Information
RPM
Steve Padovani
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
31 2-353-6755 (phone)
padovani.steven@epa.gov
State Regulator
Rich Lang
IEPA
P.O. Box 151 5
La Salle, IL 61 301
81 5-223-6836 (phone)
epa4137@epa.state.il. us
Contractor
Neil Brown
Ecology and Environment
33 N. Deerborne St.
Chicago, IL 60602
31 2-578-9243 (phone)
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
State-lead w/ Fund $
8/29/86
3/30/88
Final
Operational
Containment & Restoration
Not present
$230,000
$50,000
20gpm
Evaluated and found sufficient
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
0
2/1998
3/1994
3/2004
3/2005
2 weeks
25
4 times per year
Yes
20% to 80% restored
minor/minor
Contaminants of Concern:
Transuranic wastes
PCB, TCA
Treatment Processes:
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
yes
Comments:
This form was completed by Douglas Sutton based information collected during the demonstration project in 4/2000 and on a phone interview with Steve
Padovani in 4/2001.
There are no extraction wells, but there are 4 trenches.
Treatment processes include treatment with liquid and vapor phase carbon and discharge to the POTW.
-------
Long Prairie Groundwater Contamination
Long Prairie, MN (Region 5)
CERCLIS ID MND980904072
Contact Information
RPM
Sheila Sullivan
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-886-5251 (phone)
sullivan.sheila@epa.gov
State Regulator
Mariam Horneff
MPCA
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155-4194
651-296-7228 (phone)
Contractor
Bill Bangsund
Barr Engineering
612-832-2738 (phone)
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
State-lead w/ Fund $
6/14/88
Final
Operational
Restoration
Observed
$300,000
$56,000
227 gpm
Not evaluated
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
9
11/1996
8/1996
10/2007
10/2015
2 weeks
22
1 times per year
Yes
20% to 80% restored
minor/moderate
Contaminants of Concern:
Treatment Processes:
Dichloroethylene
Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)
VC
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
Comments:
This form was completed by Douglas Sutton based on information collected during the demonstration project in 4/2000 and on phone interviews with
Sheila Sullivan and Mariam Horneff in 5/2001.
-------
MacGillis and Gibbs/Bell Lumber & Pole
New Brighton, MN (Region 5)
CERCLIS ID MND006192694
Contact Information
RPM
Darryl Owens
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-886-7089 (phone)
owens.darryl@epa.gov
State Regulator
Nile Fellows
MPCA
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155-4194
651-296-6300 (phone)
Contractor
Larry Campbell
Black and Veatch
Chicago, IL
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
9/30/91
9/22/94
Final
Operational
Restoration
Observed
$300,000
60gpm
Not evaluated
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
14
10/1999
10/1999
10/2009
10/2029
30
2 times per year
Don't know
less than 20% restored
minor/severe
Contaminants of Concern:
Chromium
Pentachlorophenol (POP)
carcinogenic PAHs
Treatment Processes:
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment yes
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption yes
Filtration yes
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment yes
other/not sure
Comments:
This form was completed by Douglas Sutton based on information collected during the demonstration project in 4/2001.
Data regarding the extraction, treatment, and monitoring systems was updated using information from the report generated from the RSE conducted in
2000.
-------
Oconomowoc Electroplating
Ashippun, Wl (Region 5)
CERCLIS ID WID006100275
Contact Information
RPM
Steve Padovani
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
31 2-353-6755 (phone)
padovani.steven@epa.gov
State Regulator
Paul Kozol
WDNR
391 1 Fish Hatchery Road
Fitchburg.WI 53711
608-275-3301 (phone)
608-275-3338 (fax)
kozolp@dnr.state.wi.us
Contractor
Craig Evans
USAGE, St. Paul District
190 Fifth Street East
St. Paul, MN 55101-1638
651 -290-5594 (phone)
651-290-5800 (fax)
Craig.O.Evans@mvp02.usace.army.mil
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
9/20/90
Final
Operational
Containment & Restoration
Not present
$471,000
$70,000
30gpm
Evaluated and found sufficient
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
5
9/1996
9/1996
9/2006
9/2026
4 weeks
20
2 times per year
Don't know
Don't know
minor/severe
Contaminants of Concern:
Cadmium
Cyanide
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
Treatment Processes:
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
yes
yes
Comments:
This form was completed by Douglas Sutton based on information collected during the demonstration project inn 4/2000.
Data regarding the extraction, treatment, and monitoring systems were updated based on the report generated from the RSE conducted in 2000.
-------
Onalaska Municipal Landfill
Onalaska, Wl (Region 5)
CERCLIS ID WID980821656
Contact Information
RPM
Timothy Prendiville
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
31 2-886-51 22 (phone)
prendiville.timothy@epa.gov
State Regulator
Dave Carper
WDNR
3550 Mormon Coulee Road
La Crosse, Wl 54601
608-785-9973 (phone)
608-785-9990 (fax)
carped@dnr.state.wi.us
Contractor
Jim Fisher
CH2MHNI
Milwaukee, Wl
41 4-272-1 052 (phone)
Jfisher1@ch2m.com
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
8/14/90
Final
Operational
Containment & Restoration
Not present
$200,000
$80,000
560 gpm
Evaluated and found sufficient
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
5
7/1994
8/1995
6/2004
7/2002
1 week
10
2 times per year
Yes
more than 80% restored
minor/minor
Contaminants of Concern:
Treatment Processes:
Benzo(a)pyrene
Trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene
Volatile chlorinated organics
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
yes
Comments:
This form was completed by Douglas Sutton based on information collected during the demonstration project in 4/2000 and a phone interview with Timothy
Prendiville in 5/2001.
-------
Ott/Story/Cordova Chem Co.
Dalton Township, Ml (Region 5)
CERCLIS ID MID060174240
Contact Information
RPM
John Fagiolo
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
31 2-886-0800 (phone)
fagiolo.john@epa.gov
State Regulator
Lisa Summer-field
Michigan Dept. of Env. Quality
P.O. Box 30426
Lansing, Ml 48909
51 7-335-3388 (phone)
summerfl@state.mi.us
Contractor
Brain Bouwhuis
USACE-Detroit District
PO Box 629
Grand Haven, Ml 49417
231 -766-2007 (phone)
231-766-3287 (fax)
Brian.j.Bouwhuis@usace.army.mil
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
9/29/89
9/29/90
Final
Operational
Containment & Restoration
Observed
$2,400,000
$250,000
700 gpm
Not evaluated
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
10
2/1996
2/1996
8/2010
8/2030
4 weeks
30
4 times per year
Don't know
20% to 80% restored
minor/minor
Contaminants of Concern:
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethylene (DCE)
Organophosphorus pesticides (4,4'-DDT, lindane)
Vapona
vinyl chloride
Treatment Processes:
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment yes
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption yes
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure yes
Comments:
This form was completed by Douglas Sutton based on a phone interview with John Fagiolo.
The subcontractor for this site is Carl Jager at Fishbeck Topmpson (231-766-9227).
With regard to the gpm, the actual gpm is 700, while the peak is 1200.
Another extraction well will be installed shortly.
-------
Peerless Plating
Muskegon Township, Ml (Region 5)
CERCLIS ID MID006031348
Contact Information
RPM
Mike Ribordy
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-886-4592 (phone)
ribordy.mike@epa.gov
State Regulator
Contractor
Mike Johnson
Tetra Tech
312-856-8796 (phone)
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
9/21/92
Final
Installed
Restoration
Don't know
$400,000
165gpm
Evaluated and found sufficient
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
6
11/2000
6
4 times per year
minor/minor
Contaminants of Concern:
Cadmium
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
Treatment Processes:
Metals precipitation yes
Air stripping yes
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment yes
other/not sure
Comments:
This form was completed by Douglas Sutton based on information collected during the demonstration project in 4/2000 and
www.epa.gov/R5Super/npl/michigan/MID006031348.htm
The RPM was not successfully contacted.
-------
U.S. Aviex
Howard Township, Ml (Region 5)
CERCLIS ID MID980794556
Contact Information
RPM
Ken Glatz
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-886-1434 (phone)
glatz.ken@epa.gov
State Regulator
Judy Gapp
MDEQ
P.O. Box 30426
Lansing, Ml 48909
517-335-3391 (phone)
517-335-4887 (fax)
gappj@state.mi.us
Contractor
Jack Brunner
Tetra Tech
312-856-8788 (phone)
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
State-lead w/ Fund $
9/7/88
Final
Operational
Restoration
Not present
$300,000
170 gpm
Evaluated and found sufficient
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
6
9/1993
9/1993
9/2003
9/2003
1 week
30
4 times per year
No
20% to 80% restored
minor/minor
Contaminants of Concern:
Treatment Processes:
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
diethylether
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
Comments:
This form was completed by Douglas Sutton based on information collected during the demonstration project in 4/2000 and on phone interviews with Ken
Glatz and Judy Gapp.
-------
Verona Well Field
Battle Creek, Ml (Region 5)
CERCLIS ID MID980793806
Contact Information
RPM
Richard Boice
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-886-4740 (phone)
boice.richard@epa.gov
State Regulator
Beth O'Brien
MDEQ
P.O. Box 30426
Lansing, Ml 48909
517-335-3908 (phone)
obrienea@state.mi.us
Contractor
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
8/12/85
Final
Operational
Containment & Restoration
Not present
$225,000
250 gpm
Not evaluated
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
6
6/1996
6/1996
6/2006
Indefinite
2 weeks
10
1 times per year
Yes
more than 80% restored
minor/moderate
Contaminants of Concern:
Treatment Processes:
1,2-Dichloropropane
Tin
Trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene
Volatile chlorinated organics
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
yes
Comments:
This form was completed by Douglas Sutton based on information collected during the demonstration project in 4/2000 and on phone interviews with
Richard Boice and Beth O'Brien.
At times, NAPL is pulled in from offsite.
-------
Wash King Laundry
Pleasant Plains Township, Ml (Region 5)
CERCLIS ID MID980701247
Contact Information
RPM
Russell Hart
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-886-4844 (phone)
hart.russell@epa.gov
State Regulator
Sally Beebe
MDEQ-ERD
P.O. Box 30426
Lansing, Ml 48909
517-373-4110 (phone)
517-335-4887 (fax)
beebes@state.mi.us
Contractor
Malcolm Pirnie
517-337-0111 (phone)
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
State-lead w/ Fund $
3/31/93
7/31/96
Final
Operational
Restoration
Don't know
$75,000
$15,000
250 gpm
Not evaluated
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
5
4/2001
4/2001
4/2011
4/2021
0 weeks
23
2 times per year
Don't know
less than 20% restored
minor/moderate
Contaminants of Concern:
Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)
Treatment Processes:
Metals precipitation
Air stripping yes
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment yes
other/not sure
Comments:
This form was completed by Douglas Sutton based on information collected during the demonstration project and a phone interview with Russell Hart.
There are 8 monitoring wells sampled quarterly and
14 monitoring wells sampled annually for a total of 46 samples per year. The 23 wells and semi-annual sampling were input to suggest 46 samples per
year.
-------
REGION 6 INFORMATION SHEETS
-------
American Creosote Works
Winnfield, LA (Region 6)
CERCLIS ID LAD000239814
Contact Information
RPM
Stacey Bennett
1 445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
2 14-665-6729 (phone)
2 14-665-6660 (fax)
bennett.stacey@epa.gov
State Regulator
Janaye Danage
Louisiana Dept.of Env. Quality
P.O. Box 821 78
Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2178
225-765-0475 (phone)
225-765-0484 (fax)
janaye_d@deq.state.la.us
Contractor
Bill Faught
CH2MHNI
7600 W. Tidwell, Suite 400
Houston, TX 77040-5719
713-462-0161 (phone)
71 3-462-01 65 (fax)
bfaught@ch2m.com
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
4/28/93
Final
Operational
Containment
Observed
$360,000
$360,000
5gpm
Evaluated and found sufficient
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
18
2/1997
2/1997
2/2027
2/2027
1 week
18
4 times per year
Yes
Not a goal
minor/severe
Contaminants of Concern:
Chlorinated polyaromatic hydrocarbons (CPAHs)
Creosote and petroleum hydrocarbons
Comments:
Treatment Processes:
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
yes
yes
The ROD states that the in-situ bioremediation and groundwater p&T as a long-term remedial action for this site. According to the ROD and the State
Superfund Contract(SSC), the EPA will finance 90% of the in-situ bioremediation system and the GW pump and treat system until the ROD performance
criteria are met. The SSC states that, "there are no technically-separable construction/operational functions associated specifically with groundwater pump
and treat since this will occur incidentally with in-situ soil treatment. Therefore, the time limitation (10 years) stated in 40 CFR Section 300.435(f)(3)
concerning the treatment of groundwater is not applicable." This is the reason why I did not put a date in which the pump and treatment system was
deemed functional and operational, because this is not applicable for this site. What the ROD is saying in plain English is that the in-situ bioremediation
treatment is the primary treatment. Until we reach the goals of the in-situ bioremediation, it will be impossible to determine whether groundwater goals are
being met. The success of the groundwater P& T is actually predicated on the successful completion of the in-situ bioremediation treatment.
Also, note that the State (LDEQ) does not assume O& M, according to the ROD, until in-situ bioremediation is completed, which is 20 years from constructic
A five-year review was completed in August 2000. We are currently in the process of taking additional sampling parameters and making adjustments to the
If you need more information, call me at (214)665-6729. Stacey Bennett, RPM Region 6
-------
Bayou Bonfouca
Slidell, LA (Region 6)
CERCLIS ID LAD980745632
Contact Information
RPM
Katrina Coltrain
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
214-665-8143 (phone)
214-665-6660 (fax)
coltrain.katrina@epa.gov
State Regulator
Rich Johnson
Louisiana Dept.of Env.Quality
P.O. Box 82282
Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2282
225-765-0487 (phone)
225-765-0435 (fax)
richj@deq.state.la.us
Contractor
Lee Guillory
USACE-New Orleans District
P.O. Box 60267
New Orleans, LA 70160-0267
504-862-2934 (phone)
504-862-2896 (fax)
Iee.a.guillory@mvn02.usace.army.mil
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
3/31/87
7/20/95
Final
Operational
Containment & Restoration
Observed
$402,000
22.5gpm
Evaluated and found sufficient
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
44
7/2000
3/2001
7/2003
7/2021
0 weeks
11
12 times per year
Don't know
Don't know
minor/moderate
Contaminants of Concern:
Treatment Processes:
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Chrysene
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
yes
yes
-------
Comments to Bayou Bonfouca:
Note to questions:
#9—An ESD was signed on February 5, 1990 which made adjustments to the ROD. The ROD amendment only stated that the incinerator at Bonfouca
would be used to treat soils from Southern Ship Superfund site.
#13 and 14- The cost is estimated between 360K to 444K per year and is all attributable to LTRA.
#15--There are three arrays on site with 44 individual wells. Individually the wells pump at 1/4gpm. Each array is estimated at 5-10gpm. The pumping
rate is dependent on the drawdown and is adjusted to maintain a -4fmsl.
#17—Array 2 was completed in 1991 and brought on line that same year. Based on the ESD and subsequent reports, new wells were constructed and
completed in 2000.
#18-The EPA, along with LDEQ, will meet to determine O&F March 2001.
#20--The aquifer is not currently used and will unlikly be used in the future as a drinking water source due to insufficient yield. The ESD states that a risk
based 10-4 to 10-6 level will be used or whatever is technologically feasible. The main objective of the system is to contain migration and prevent
recontamination of the bayou.
#21--There is not planned down time for the system. The system is set up with bypass measures when maintenance is needed. The system is only shut dc
#22--Treatment involves an oil/water separator, sand filter, oleophilic filter, granular activated carbon, and post aeration.
#24--The monitoring wells are monitored daily to ensure that the -4fmsl drawdown is maintained. These wells are surveyed once a month to monitor subsid
#27 and #28-reports on the effectiveness of the system was done and resulted in the upgrades to the system and the installation of additional wells which v
-------
Cimarron Mining
Carizozo, NM (Region 6)
CERCLIS ID NMD980749378
Contact Information
RPM
Petra Sanchez
1445 Ross Ave. Suite 1200 6SF-LT
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
214-665-6686 (phone)
214-665-6660 (fax)
sanchez.petra@epa.gov
State Regulator
David Henry
New Mexico Env. Department
PO Box 26110 1190 St. Francis Drive
Santa Fe, NM 87505
214-827-0037 (phone)
214-827-2965 (fax)
david_henry@nmev.state.nm.us
Contractor
Brian D. Jordan
USAGE
4101 Jefferson Plaza NE
Albuquerque, NM 87109
505-342-3472 (phone)
505-342-3208 (fax)
brian.D.Joran@spao2.usace.army.mil
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
9/21/90
Final
Operational
Containment & Restoration
Not present
$1,000,000
$60,000
1 gpm
Evaluated and found not sufficient
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
3
4/1991
12/1991
10/2004
Indefinite
4 weeks
3
4 times per year
Don't know
Don't know
moderate/severe
Contaminants of Concern:
Nitrate
Treatment Processes:
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
Comments:
-------
Geneva Industries
Houston, TX (Region 6)
CERCLIS ID TXD980748453
Contact Information
RPM
Ruben Moya
1445 Ross Ave., Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202
214-665-2755 (phone)
214-665-6660 (fax)
moya.ruben@epa.gov
State Regulator
James Sher
TNRCC
P.O.Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711-3087
512-239-2444 (phone)
512-239-2450 (fax)
JSher@tnrcc.state .tx.us
Contractor
Sanjay Ramabhadran
Lockwood, Andrews & Newman Inc.
1500Citywest
Houston, TX 77042
713-266-6900 (phone)
713-266-8971 (fax)
sanjay@lan-inc.com
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
State-lead w/ Fund $
9/18/86
Final
Operational
Containment & Restoration
Not present
$240,000
$240,000
5gpm
Evaluated and found sufficient
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
13
4/1993
7/1993
1/2004
1/2004
52 weeks
13
2 times per year
Yes
Don't know
minor/moderate
Contaminants of Concern:
Treatment Processes:
Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)
PCS, Benzene, Toluene, Chlorobenzene
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
yes
Comments:
***NOTE***
The Geneva Superfund Site has remained "shutdown"
due to contractual problems between contractor and
sub-contractor. The amount of time site has been
shutdown is now approximately 1 year.
-------
City of Perry ton Well #2
Perryton, TX (Region 6)
CERCLIS ID TX0001399435
Contact Information
RPM
Vincent Malott
1 445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
214-665-8313 (phone)
2 14-665-6660 (fax)
malott.vincent@epa.gov
State Regulator
Diane Poteet
TNRCC
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 7871 1
51 2-239-2502 (phone)
51 2-239-2450 (fax)
dpoteet@tnrcc.state.tx.us
Contractor
Peter van Noort
CH2M Hill
5339 Alpha Road, Suite 300
Dallas, TX 75240
972-980-21 70 (phone)
972-385-0846 (fax)
pvannoor@ch2m.com
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
9/29/99
Interim
Design
Containment
Not present
$37,000
150gpm
Not evaluated
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
1
8/2001
8/2003
8/2013
8/2023
10
2 times per year
minor/minor
Contaminants of Concern:
Treatment Processes:
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
Comments:
The interim remedy for this site consists of operating a municipal well (currently inactive) together with an air stripper to begin mass removal with limited
hydraulic control of the contaminant plume. The treated water will be supplied to the city water supply system. The final remedy for this site has yet to be
selected pending completion of the RI/FS reports and a final site-wide ROD scheduled for FY2001. A ground water monitoring schedule will also be
selected pending the final site-wide remedy. There are no indications of a DNAPL based on the site data. The O&F date was set at 2 years past the
construction date in case additional remedial measures are selected in the final ROD.
-------
Midland Products
Ola, AR (Region 6)
CERCLIS ID ARD98074566
Contact Information
RPM
Carlos Sanchez
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
214-665-8507 (phone)
214-665-6660 (fax)
sanchez.carlos@epa.gov
State Regulator
Clark McWilliams
Arkansas Dept.of Env.Quality
P.O. Box 8913
Little Rock, AR 72219
501-682-0850 (phone)
501-682-0565 (fax)
clarkm@adeq.state.ar.us
Contractor
Russell Perry
IT Corp.
13111 NW Highway, Suite 310
Houston, TX 77040-6392
713-996-4400 (phone)
713-939-9546 (fax)
rperry@theitgroup.com
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
State-lead w/ Fund $
3/24/88
Final
Operational
Restoration
Suspected
$180,000
$60,000
3gpm
Evaluated and found sufficient
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
8
11/1993
1/1994
1/2004
1/2034
1 week
20
2 times per year
Yes
less than 20% restored
minor/minor
Contaminants of Concern:
Treatment Processes:
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Naphthalene
Pentachlorophenol (POP)
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
yes
yes
Comments:
-------
North Cavalcade Superfund Site
Houston, TX (Region 6)
CERCLIS ID TXD980873343
Contact Information
RPM
Camille Hueni
U.S. EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Ave., 12th Floor,
Dallas, TX 75202-7233
214-665-2231 (phone)
214-665-6660 (fax)
hueni.camille@epa.gov
State Regulator
Uche Ikemba
TNRCC
P.O. Box 13087; Mail Code 143
Austin, TX 78711-3087
512-239-2595 (phone)
512-239-2449 (fax)
uikemba@tnrcc.state.tx.us
Contractor
Frank Frey
Foster Wheeler Env.Corporation
1001 S. Dairy Ashford Street, Ste. 210
Houston, TX 77077
281-597-4821 (phone)
281-596-0308 (fax)
ffrey@fwenc.com
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
State-lead w/ Fund $
6/28/88
Final
Installed
Restoration
Observed
19gpm
Not evaluated
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
19
3/2001
12/2005
12/2005
12/2010
52 weeks
20
0 times per year
minor/minor
Contaminants of Concern:
Treatment Processes:
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Arsenic
Benzene and Toluene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
BTEX
Chrysene
Creosote and petroleum hydrocarbons
Dibenzofuran
DNAPL
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
yes
yes
Comments:
The ground water treatment system has been out of operation since 1995 due to difficulties with DNAPL recovery. Prior to the system shut-down, the
system treated 11,500,000 gallons of contaminated groundwater, and recovered 7,000 gallons of DNAPL.
The treatment system is undergoing modification and is expected to be complete and operational by March, 2001, at which time ground water monitoring
will begin again (for this reason, information may have been entered as $0.00). Once the system goes on-line, the pump & treat system will be further
evaluated for remedial objectives.
Answers to questions 20-23 are unknown at this point; information was entered to allow form submittal.
-------
Odessa Chromium #1
Odessa, TX (Region 6)
CERCLIS ID TXD980867279
Contact Information
RPM
Ernest Franke
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
214-665-8521 (phone)
214-665-6660 (fax)
franke,ernest@e pamail.epa.gov
State Regulator
Uche Ikemba
Texas Natural Resource Commission
12100 Park Circle Bldg. D , P.O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711
512-239-2595 (phone)
512-239-2449 (fax)
uikemba@tnrcc.state.tx.us
Contractor
William Brown
Pacific Western Technologies, Ltd.
575 Oak Ridge Turnpike,Suite B-4
Oak Ridge, TN 37830
865-483-0554 (phone)
865-483-8838 (fax)
pwtitd@usit.net
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
State-lead w/ Fund $
3/18/88
11/23/99
Final
Operational
Restoration
Not present
$500,000
$8,000
60gpm
Evaluated and found sufficient
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
6
11/1993
12/2001
12/2001
12/2001
1 5 weeks
7
2 times per year
Yes
more than 80% restored
minor/minor
Contaminants of Concern:
Chromium
Treatment Processes:
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
Comments:
In-Situ Ferrous Sulfate treatment added by an ESD to the ROD
had enhanced remedial efforts
-------
Sprague Road Ground Water Plume
Odessa, TX (Region 6)
CERCLIS ID TX0001407444
Contact Information
RPM
Vincent Malott
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
214-665-8313 (phone)
214-665-6660 (fax)
malott.vincent@epa.gov
State Regulator
Diane Poteet
TNRCC
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711
512-239-2502 (phone)
512-239-2450 (fax)
dpoteet@tnrcc.state.tx.us
Contractor
Cristina Radu
Tetra Tech EMI
6121 Indian School Road NE, Suite 205
Albuquerque, TX 87110
505-881-3188 (phone)
505-881-3283 (fax)
raduc@ttemi.com
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
9/29/00
Final
Design
Restoration
Not present
$1,200,000
$80,000
200 gpm
Not evaluated
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
22
9/2002
9/2003
9/2013
9/2028
50
4 times per year
minor/minor
Contaminants of Concern:
Chromium
Treatment Processes:
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
Comments:
This site consists of three separate chromium contaminant plumes originating from three different facilities. The plume size and chromium concentrations
are different between all three plumes. Since the contaminant is a metal there is no DNAPL or LNAPL.
-------
REGION 7 INFORMATION SHEETS
-------
Ace Services
Colby, KS (Region 7)
CERCLIS ID KSD046746731
Contact Information
RPM
Bob Stewart
901 N. 5th St
Kansas City, KS66101
913-551-7654 (phone)
913-551-9654 (fax)
stewart.robert@epa.gov
State Regulator
Cynthia Randall
Kansas Dept of Health and Environment
Forbes Field, Bldg 20
Topeka, KS 66620
785-291-3245 (phone)
785-296-4823 (fax)
CRandal@kdhe.state.ks.us
Contractor
Gary Felkner
Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp
8400 Ward Parkway
Kansas City, MO 64114
913-458-6583 (phone)
913-458-9391 (fax)
felknerg@bv.com
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
5/5/99
Final
Design
Containment & Restoration
Not present
$500,000
$50,000
800 gpm
Not evaluated
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
12
9/2002
9/2003
9/2013
9/2015
62
2 times per year
minor/minor
Contaminants of Concern:
Chromium
Treatment Processes:
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
Comments:
-------
Cleburn Street Well Site/OU2
Grand Island, NE (Region 7)
CERCLIS ID NED981499312
Contact Information
RPM
Mary Peterson
901 North 5th Street
Kansas City, KS66101
913-551-7882 (phone)
913-551-7063 (fax)
peterson.mary@epa.gov
State Regulator
Ralph Martin
Nebraska Dept.of Env.Quality
1200 N Street, Suite 400 The Atrium
Lincoln, NE 68509-8922
402-471-3120 (phone)
402-471-2909 (fax)
ralph.martin@ndeq.state.ne.us
Contractor
David Sanders
Black and Veatch Special Projects Corp.
6601 College Boulevard
Overland Park, KS 66211
913-458-6605 (phone)
913-458-0000 (fax)
SandersHD@bv.com
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
6/7/96
Final
Operational
Containment & Restoration
Suspected
$100,000
$25,000
90gpm
Not evaluated
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
3
9/1998
10/1999
12/2009
12/2019
1 week
8
4 times per year
Don't know
Don't know
minor/minor
Contaminants of Concern:
Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)
Treatment Processes:
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
Comments:
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of containment, the contractor has been tasked to perform pumping tests. These tests are currently planned to take
place during the next quarterly sampling event which is scheduled for April 2001.
It is pertinent to note that significant progress is being made toward aquifer restoration. However, that progress has not been quantified to date.
-------
Valley Park TCE Site - OU2
Valley Park, MO (Region 7)
CERCLIS ID MOD98096834
Contact Information
RPM
Steve Auchterlonie
901 N. 5th St.
Kansas City, KS66101
913-551-7778 (phone)
913-551-7437 (fax)
auchterlonie.steve@epa.gov
State Regulator
Dave Mosby
MDNR - Superfund Unit
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176
573-751-1288 (phone)
573-751-7869 (fax)
nrmosbd@mail.dnr.state.mo.us
Contractor
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
State-lead w/ Fund $
8/15/01
Final
Predesign
Containment & Restoration
Suspected
Not evaluated
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
1/2005
1/2006
1/2006
1/2016
minor/minor
Contaminants of Concern:
Treatment Processes:
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
Comments:
This project is only now completing the ROD in FY2001. Negotiations and consent decree lodging and entry will carry through 2002. Design is planned for
2003 and construction through mid 2005.
Part of the construction may be imlemented by the responsible parties, but we are planning for the main system to be fund-lead with MDNR using federal
funds via a cooperative agreement.
-------
REGION 9 INFORMATION SHEETS
-------
Modesto Superfund Site
Modesto, CA (Region 9)
CERCLIS ID CAD981997752
Contact Information
RPM
David Seter
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-744-2212 (phone)
seter.david@epa.gov
State Regulator
Emanuel Mensah
State of California, DISC
916-255-3704 (phone)
Contractor
Chris Lichens
Ecology and Environment
415-981-2811 (phone)
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
9/26/97
Interim
Installed
Containment
Don't know
$300,000
$25,000
SOgpm
Not evaluated
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
1
7/2000
5/2002
5/2012
5/2022
10
4 times per year
#N/A
#N/A
minor/minor
Contaminants of Concern:
perchloroethylene
Treatment Processes:
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
yes
Comments:
The answers to items 20-23 are estimates.
-------
Muscoy
San Bernadino, CA (Region 9)
CERCLISIDCA1234
Contact Information
RPM
Kim Hoang
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-744-2370 (phone)
(fax)
hoang.kim@epa.gov
State Regulator
Yasser Aref
CalEPA Dept.of Toxic Substances Control
5796 Corporate Avenue
Cypress, CA 90630
714-484-5349 (phone)
Contractor
Dwayne Duetcher
URS
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
3/24/95
Interim
Installed
Containment
Don't know
$1,100,000
$100,000
9000 gpm
Not evaluated
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
5
10/2003
10/2004
10/2014
10/2024
15
4 times per year
minor/severe
Contaminants of Concern:
Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)
Treatment Processes:
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
Comments:
Doug Sutton filled out this questionnaire based on notes he took during a conversation with Kim Hoang.
James Bye from the San Bernadino Water Department is familiar with the site and should be noted along with the state regulator and contractor
-------
Newmark
San Bernadino, CA (Region 9)
CERCLIS ID CAD981434517
Contact Information
RPM
Kim Hoang
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-744-2370 (phone)
(fax)
hoang.kim@epa.gov
State Regulator
Yasser Aref
CalEPA Dept Toxic Substances Control
5796 Corporate Ave.
Cypress, CA 90630
714-484-5349 (phone)
Contractor
Dwayne Duetcher
URS
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
8/4/93
Interim
Operational
Containment
Don't know
$900,000
$100,000
12000gpm
Not evaluated
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
8
10/1998
10/1998
10/2008
10/2028
15
2 times per year
Yes
Don't know
minor/moderate
Contaminants of Concern:
Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)
Treatment Processes:
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
Comments:
Doug Sutton completed this questionnaire based on notes taken during a conversation with Kim Hoang.
A settlement in the near future may change the lead on this porject.
-------
Selma Treating Co.
Selma, CA (Region 9)
CERCLISIDCAD29452141
Contact Information
RPM
Michelle Lau
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
41 5-744-2227 (phone)
415-744-2180 (fax)
lau.michelle@epa.gov
State Regulator
Chris Sherman
DPES
10151 Croyden Way, Suite 3
Sacramento, CA 95827
91 6-255-3706 (phone)
91 6-255-3697 (fax)
Contractor
John Kirschbaum
USACE, Omaha District
12565 West Center Road
Omaha, NE 68144-3869
402-293-2525 (phone)
402-221 -7838 (fax)
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
9/24/88
6/30/01
Final
Operational
Containment & Restoration
Not present
$300,000
$35,000
150gpm
Evaluated and found sufficient
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
6
9/1998
10/1998
10/2008
10/2008
0 weeks
20
4 times per year
Yes
less than 20% restored
minor/severe
Contaminants of Concern:
Chromium
Treatment Processes:
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
Comments:
Doug Sutton completed this questionnaire based on a phone interview with Michelle Lau, the RPM for the site.
Regarding items 27 and 29, a recent 5-year review found that the plume was controleed in the shallow aquifer but that additional monitoring is required to
determine if it is controlled in the intermediate and deep aquifers.
The entry in item 22 is an estimate.
-------
REGION 10 INFORMATION SHEETS
-------
Boomsnub/Airco /Site-Wide Ground Water Oil
Hazel Dell, WA (Region 10)
CERCLIS ID WAD009624453
Contact Information
RPM
Debra Yamamoto
1200 Sixth Avenue - ECL-113
Seattle, WA 98101
206-553-7216 (phone)
206-553-0124 (fax)
yamamoto.debbie@epa.gov
State Regulator
Dan Alexanian
Dept.of Ecology - SWRO
P.O. Box 47775
Olympia, WA 98504
360-407-6249 (phone)
360-407-6305 (fax)
dale461 @ecy .wa.gov
Contractor
Jerry DeMuro
URS, Inc.
1500 Century Square, 1501 4th Ave, Suite 1500
Seattle, WA 98101
206-674-1800 (phone)
206-674-1801 (fax)
Jerry_DeMuro@urscop.com
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
2/3/00
Final
Operational
Containment & Restoration
Suspected
$1,000,000
$204,000
135gpm
Evaluated and found sufficient
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
22
10/2000
12/2001
12/2011
10/2030
3 weeks
80
2 times per year
Yes
Don't know
moderate/severe
Contaminants of Concern:
Treatment Processes:
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)
1,2-Dichloroethane
Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Chromium
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
yes
yes
Comments:
Question #20) the O&F is not yet complete, construction of a sewer line will take place this year. When that is complete extraction rates will increase up to
240 GPM. The date of O&F is not known at this time.
Question #21) The State will take over 10 years from the above date.
Question #26) Ground water long term monitoring takes place twice a year. The extraction wells are sampled quarterly and special ground water sampling
may take place monthly, e.g. sampling at the toe of the plume.
-------
Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Kellogg, ID (Region 10)
CERCLIS ID IDD048340921
Contact Information
RPM
Carmella Grandinetti
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
206-553-8696 (phone)
206-553-0124 (fax)
grandinetti.cami@epa.gov
State Regulator
Nick Zilka
Idaho Dept.of Env. Quality
1005 W. McKinley Avenue
Kellog, ID 83837
208-783-5781 (phone)
208-783-4561 (fax)
nzilka@nidlink.com
Contractor
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
9/1/92
Final
Predesign
Restoration
Not present
Not evaluated
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
12/2010
12/2020
12/2030
12/2050
58
4 times per year
minor/minor
Contaminants of Concern:
Asbestos
Creosote
Lindane
Merphos
RDX (cyclonite)
Selenium
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
Treatment Processes:
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
Comments:
Question #19) Date in the survey is not true, gave date to complete survey. See below for explanation.
Question #20) Date in the survey is not true, gave date to complete survey. See below for explanation.
Question #21 Date in the survey is not true, gave date to complete survey. See below for explanation.
Question #22 Date in the survey is not true, gave date to complete survey. See below for explanation.
Explanation:
The 1992 Record of Decision for the Bunker Hill non-populated areas included ground water Pump&treat as well as surface water controls and treatment.
However, none of the ground or surface water quality activities have been implemented to date. The site was divided into 2 phases in 1995 when EPA and
the Idaho Dept. of Env. Quality signed a State Superfund Contract. Phase 1, which includes source control measures is currently being implemented.
Based on the impact that phase 1 source control measures have on site surface water and ground water, Phase 2 water quality activities (including an
active pump and treat system) may or may not be necessary. A decision regarding the need for and extent of water quality remedial activities will be made
based on the results of ongoing surface water and ground water quality monitoring.
-------
Commencement Bay, South Tacoma Channel, Well 12A
Tacoma, WA (Region 10)
CERCLIS ID 981773849
Contact Information
RPM
Kevin Rochlin
ECL-112, 1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
206-553-2106 (phone)
206-553-0124 (fax)
rochlin.kevin@epa.gov
State Regulator
Contractor
Tom Abbott
URS
2401 4th Avenue, Suite 1000
Seattle, WA 98121
206-674-1800 (phone)
206-674-1801 (fax)
abbot.thomas@urs.com
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
EPA-lead
1/1/85
1/1/87
Final
Operational
Containment & Restoration
Observed
$300,000
$25,000
150gpm
Evaluated and found not sufficient
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
5
6/1988
5/1988
1/2004
1/2011
3 weeks
20
2 times per year
Yes
less than 20% restored
minor/moderate
Contaminants of Concern:
Treatment Processes:
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethene
Cis-1,2-dichloroethene
TCE and Vinyl chloride
Trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
Comments:
-------
McCormick & Baxter Creosoting Co.
Portland, OR (Region 10)
CERCLIS ID OR009020603
Contact Information
RPM
Alan Goodman
811 SW 6th Avenue, 3rd Floor
Portland, OR 97204
503-326-3685 (phone)
503-326-3399 (fax)
goodman.al@epa.gov
State Regulator
William Dana
Oregon Dept. Env. Quality
811 SW 6th Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
503-229-6530 (phone)
503-229-5830 (fax)
Dana.William.H@DEQ.State.OR.US
Contractor
John Montgomery
Ecology and Environment
333 SW Fifth
Portland, OR 97204
503-248-5600 (phone)
503-248-5577 (fax)
JMontgomery@ene.com
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peformance/effectiveness:
State-lead w/ Fund $
3/1/96
3/1/98
Final
Operational
Containment
Observed
$250,000
$40,000
3gpm
Evaluated and found sufficient
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
6
3/1996
3/1996
3/2006
Indefinite
5 weeks
25
2 times per year
No
Not a goal
minor/minor
Contaminants of Concern:
Treatment Processes:
Arsenic
Chlorinated polyaromatic hydrocarbons (CPAHs)
Creosote/Pentachlorophenol (PGP)
Pentachlorophenol (PGP)
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
yes
yes
yes
Comments:
The site RPM says that a barrier system is being design to prevent the PAHs and PCP from discharging to the river. The barrier design will be completed
this year or next. The site treatment processes also include NAPL/water separation and dissolved air flotation (DAF).
-------
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site
Bainbridge Island, WA (Region 10)
CERCLIS ID WAD009248295
Contact Information
RPM
Hanh Gold
1200 Sixth Avenue, ECL-115
Seattle, WA 98101
206-553-0171 (phone)
206-553-0124 (fax)
gold.hanh@epa.gov
State Regulator
Guy Barrett
State of Washington Dept.of Ecology
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
360-407-7244 (phone)
360-407-7154 (fax)
gbar461@ecy.wa.gov
Contractor
Ken Scheffler
CH2M HILL
P.O. Box91500
Bellevue, WA 98009-2050
425-453-5000 (phone)
425-462-5957 (fax)
kscheffl@ch2m.com
System Information and Data
Type of Fund-lead Site:
Date original ROD was signed:
Date of last modification to ROD:
Type of ROD:
Status of P&T system:
Primary goal of system:
Presence of NAPLs
Approximate annual O&M costs:
Costs related to monitoring:
Approximate pumping rate:
Result of previous evaluation of
peforma nee/effective ness:
EPA- lead
9/29/94
Interim
Operational
Containment
Observed
$500,000
$20,000
80 gpm
Evaluated and found not sufficient
Number of extraction wells:
Date of construction completion:
Date of operational and functional:
Expected date of turnover to state:
Expected date of completion:
Approximate downtime per year:
Number of monitoring wells used:
Frequency of sampling:
Is plume migration controlled?
Progress of aquifer restoration:
Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of
implementing minor/major changes:
8
2/1990
2/1 990
1/2024
Indefinite
20
1 times per year
Yes
Not a goal
minor/moderate
Contaminants of Concern:
Treatment Processes:
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Pentachlorophenol (PCP)
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Metals precipitation
Air stripping
Biological treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Off-gas treatment
other/not sure
yes
yes
yes
Comments:
The P&T system was constructed by the PRPs as part of an administrative order. When EPA took over operations of the system in 1993, it was in a severe
state of disrepair. In the 1994 interim ROD, EPA determined that the system is not effective at hydraulic containment of L- and DNAPL, and a new pump&
treat system and barrier wall was deemed appropriate (i.e., containment remedy). This remedy was never implemented, however, in February 2000, EPA
signed a final ROD selecting thermal remediation, or steam injection, as the remedy for soil and groundwater. Steam injection remediation will begin with an
onsite pilot study. The current pump & treat system will be used to treat extracted contaminants during the operation of this pilot study. Construction of the
pilot system will begin summer 2001 and operation is anticipated to begin early 2002. If the pilot study is successful at meeting performance objectives, EPA
will expand the system for full-scale cleanup. Therefore, optimization analysis is not applicable or appropriate for this pump & treat system. It should be
noted that a sheet pile wall has been constructed around this site to significantly reduce migration of contaminants to Eagle Harbor and Puget Sound.
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative
Phase 1- Data Collection and System Screening
Region 1
July 3, 2001
In the OSWER Directive No. 9200.0-33, Transmittal of Final FYOO - FY01 Superfund Reforms
Strategy, dated July 7,2000, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response outlined a
commitment to optimize our Fund-lead, pump-and-treat (P&T) systems. To fulfill this commitment,
Headquarters is assisting Regions in evaluating their Fund-lead operating P&T systems. Phase 1 of this
initiative involves identifying all Fund-lead P&T system, collecting baseline cost and performance data
on them, and selecting up to two sites in each Region for a Remediation System Evaluation (RSE).
This report summarizes the screening process for Region 1 which was conducted during January 2001.
The first section of this report presents the cost and performance data for the Region while the second
describes the screening process and system selection.
The data presented in this report reflect estimates provided by the site Remedial Project
Managers between January and May 2001. These estimates may vary from actuality. The
data- including the number, status, cost, specifications, and projections of systems- may
change over time.
Cost and Performance Data
A total of eight pre-operational and operational Fund-lead P&T systems were identified in Region 1.
Of this eight, seven are operational and one is pre-operational (i.e., pre-design, design, being installed,
installed but not yet operating)
In addition, the remedial action for one Fund-lead P&T system has been completed and two Fund-lead
P&T systems are no longer operating. One of the two systems that are no longer operating, Norwood
PCBs, has been shut down to determine if new groundwater standards set by the state are being met.
Pinette's Salvage Yard is also no longer operating. The system has been shut down and the site
managers are monitoring concentrations to determine if contamination is contained. An Explanation of
Significant Differences will be filed in the near future.
Cost and performance data and other information pertaining to the identified Fund-lead P&T systems
(estimates for the pre-operational system) were collected with a web-based questionnaire accessed
from ://www.cluin. and stored in a database. This information is summarized in
Table 1 and provided in detail in five additional tables:
-------
July 3, 2001 Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative
Phase 1-Data Collection and Site Screening, Region 1
• Table 2 provides overviews of the systems by providing items such as annual costs, lead,
status, goals, and progress of each system.
TableJ> includes the dates marking the signing of the ROD, construction completion,
system operation and function, turnover to the state, and expected close-out.
• Table 4 lists for each system the contact information for the site Remedial Project
Manager, the State Regulator, and the Contractor.
• Tabfejj. notes for each system and the associated site if NAPLS are present, the top
contaminants of concern, and the above-ground treatment processes.
• Table 6 lists system specifications such as the pumping rate, number of wells, number of
monitoring events per year, and other items used to determine the complexity of a system
and its potential for optimization.
Projected dates for turnover to the States and for system completion are depicted in 1. and
annual costs for each system are depicted in 2.
RSE Site Selection
Evaluation of Sites for Optimization Potential
Once the information is gathered from each of the Fund-lead P&T systems in a given Region, it
becomes input for a screening methodology that attempts to determine the optimization potential for
each system. This, in turn, provides a basis for selecting two systems where RSEs will be performed.
Because some EPA Regions do not have two Fund-lead P&T systems, an additional RSE may be
allocated to Region 1 allowing a total of three RSEs to be conducted in this Region as part of this
project.
The factors affecting the optimization potential of a system are
• the overall cost of a given system,
• the expected duration of the system,
• the number of above-ground treatment processes,
• the number of extraction wells,
• the number of monitoring events per year,
• the system downtime per year,
Page 2 of 3
-------
July 3, 2001 Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative
Phase 1-Data Collection and Site Screening, Region 1
• the pumping rate,
• the results (if any) of a previous performance and effectiveness evaluation, and
any social or political obstacles to implementing modifications to the system.
Table.6 summarizes the results of the screening process including the estimated life-cycle cost savings
that may result from performing an RSE.
Selecting Sites for RSEs
The following is a list of the identified Fund-lead P&T systems in Region 1 classified as completed,
operational, planned, and no-longer operating. Those in bold were selected or are being considered
for RSEs.
Completed
Sylvester/Gil son Road
Operational
Baird and McGuire
Charles George Landfill
Groveland Wells
Kearsarge Metallurgical Corp.
Keefe Environmental Systems
Savage Well Municipal Water Supply
Silresim Chemical Corp.
Pre-Operational
Eastern Surplus Company Superfund Site
No-longer Operating
Norwood PCBs
Pinette's
Only operational systems were considered in selecting the three systems to receive RSEs. Based on
the screening methodology employed in this project, Baird and McGuire, Savage Well Municipal
Water Supply, and Silresim Chemical Corp. were the sites with sufficient operating histories where
optimization would yield the greatest percentage reduction in life-cycle costs. In addition, the Remedial
Project Manager (RPM) of the Savage site expressed interest in having an RSE conducted at the site,
and the 5-year review of the Silresim site noted that the system performance and effectiveness were
insufficient. Collectively, the life-cycle savings, RPM interest, and effectiveness issues provided the
criteria for selecting Baird and McGuire, Savage Well Municipal Water Supply, and Silresim Chemical
Corp. for receiving RSEs.
Page 3 of 3
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 1
Region 1, Table 1 — Summary
JulyS, 2001
Completed Fund-lead P&T Systems
Sylvester/Gilson Road
Operational and Pre-operational Fund-lead P&T Systems
Number of systems
Number that are EPA lead
Number that are State lead
8
5 of 8
3 of 8
System Status
Number that are operational
Number that are pre-operational
Number where restoration is a goal
Number where the plume is controlled*
Number that are estimated to be more than 80% complete*
Number previously evaluated and effectiveness found sufficient*
Number previously evaluated and effectiveness found not sufficient*
7
1
8 of 8
4 of 7
2 of 7
4 of 7
1 of 7
Extent of Contamination
Number where NAPLs are observed
Number with more than 1 major contaminant identified
Number with 3 or more treatment processes
3 of 8
7 of 8
6 of 8
Average Costs and Time Frames
Average estimated annual O&M cost (including monitoring)
Average estimated annual monitoring cost
Average number of years until turnover to the States
Average number of years until completion
$875,000
$84,375
6.1
14.4
Operational sites only
No-Longer-Operating Fund-lead P&T Systems
Pinette's Salvage Yard
Norwood PCBs
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and
May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from actuality. Data- including the
number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Region 1 Fund-lead, P&T systems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 1
Region 1, Table 2 - System Overviews
JulyS, 2001
System
Baird & McGuire
Superfund Site
Charles George Landfill
Superfund Site
Eastern Surplus
Company Superfund Site
Groveland Wells
Superfund Site
Kearsarge Metallurgical
Corp.
Keefe Environmental
Systems
Savage Well Municipal
Water System
Silresim Chemical Corp.
Estimated
Annual Cost
$3,500,000
$450,000
$200,000
$500,000
$250,000
$200,000
$500,000
$1,400,000
Lead
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
State with
Fund Money
State with
Fund Money
State with
Fund Money
EPA
Type of
ROD
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
System
Status
Operational
Operational
Being
Installed
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
System Goals
Containment &
Restoration
Containment &
Restoration
Containment &
Restoration
Containment &
Restoration
Restoration
Containment &
Restoration
Containment &
Restoration
Containment &
Restoration
Plume Under
Control?
Yes
Yes
N/A
Unknown
Yes
Yes
No
No
Estimated
Progress of
Restoration
20% - 80%
less than 20%
N/A
Unknown
more than
80%
more than
80%
less than 20%
less than 20%
Previous Evaluation
of Effectiveness
Sufficient
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Sufficient
Sufficient
Sufficient
Not evaluated
Not Sufficient
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary
from actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Notes:
1. Easter Surplus Company Superfund Site is pre-operational; therefore, the associated data are estimates and some items are unknown.
2. "Estimated Progress of Restoration" refers to the estimated portion of the plume that has been restored to cleanup levels.
3. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation Systems Evaluations.
Region 1 Fund-lead, P& T systems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 1
Region 1, Table 3- P&T System Histories and Projections
July 3, 2001
System
Baird & McGuire
Superfund Site
Charles George Landfill
Superfund Site
Eastern Surplus
Company Superfund Site
Groveland Wells
Superfund Site
Kearsarge Metallurgical
Corp.
Keefe Environmental
Systems
Savage Well Municipal
Water System
Silresim Chemical Corp.
Date
Original ROD
9/30/86
3/23/88
9/28/00
9/9/91
9/28/90
3/21/88
9/27/91
9/19/91
Last ROD
Modification
9/26/98
11/15/96
6/8/90
12/19/96
Construction
Completed
4/1993
9/1998
8/2001
4/2000
9/1993
9/1993
3/1998
11/1995
Operational and
Functional
4/1994
9/1999
10/2001
5/2001
9/1993
9/1994
4/1999
9/1997
Turnover to
State
4/2004
9/2009
9/201 1
4/201 1
9/2003
9/2003
3/2009
9/2007
Years Until
Turnover
2.7
8.2
10.2
9.8
2.2
2.2
7.7
6.2
Expected
Completion
4/2023
9/2028
9/2007
4/2031
9/2005
9/2003
3/2009
12/2017
Years Until
Completion
21.8
27.2
6.2
29.8
4.2
2.2
7.7
16.4
I Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from I
I actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Region 1 Fund-lead, P&T systems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 — Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 1
Region 1, Table 4 - System Contact Information
JulyS, 2001
System
RPM
State Regulator
Primary Contractor
Baird & McGuire Superfund
Site
Taylor Melissa
EPA Region 1
One Congress Street 11th floor
Boston, MA 02114
617-918-1310
617-918-1291 (fax)
Taylor.MelissaG@epa.gov
Dorothy Allen
MADEP
One Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
617-292-5795
617-292-5530 (fax)
Dorothy. Allen@state.ma.us
Don Dwight
Metcalf & Eddy
30 Harvard Mill Sq.
Wakefield, MA 01880
781-224-6286
781-224-6880 (fax)
Don_Dwight@metcalfeddy.com
Charles George Landfill
Superfund Site
Stanley Elaine
EPA Region 1
One Congress Street, Suite 1100
Boston, MA 02114-2023
617-918-1332
617-918-1291 (fax)
stanley.elainet@epa.gov
David Buckley
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection
One Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
617-556-1184
617-292-5530 (fax)
buckley. david@state. ma. us
David O'Connor
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Central
Residnet Office
50 McArthur Avenue, Box 689
Devens, MA 01432-4400
978-772-0148
978-772-3104 (fax)
david.o'connor@nae02.usace.army.mil
Eastern Surplus Company
Superfund Site
Hathaway Edward
EPA Region 1
1 Congress Street, Suite 1100,
mailcode: HBT
Boston, MA 02114
617-918-1372
617-918-1291 (fax)
hathaway.ed@epa.gov
Rebecca Hewett
Maine DEP
17 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333-0017
207-287-8554
207-287-7826 (fax)
rebecca.l.hewett@state.me.us
Gordon Bullard
TTNUS
55 Jonspin Road
Wilmington, MA 01887
978-658-7899
978-658-7870 (fax)
bullardg@ttnus.com
Groveland Wells Superfund
Site
Golden Derrick
EPA Region 1
One Congress Street - Suite 1100
(HBO)
Boston, MA 02114
617-918-1448
617-918-1291 (fax)
golden.derrick@epa.gov
Janet Waldron
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection
One Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
617-556-1156
617-556-1118 (fax)
janet.waldron@state.ma.us
Cinthia Mclane
Metcalf & Eddy
30 Harvard Mill Square
Wakefield, MA 01880
781-224-6377
781-245-6293 (fax)
cindy mclane@metcalfeddy.com
Region 1 Fund-lead, P&T Systems
Information provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 — Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 1
Region 1, Table 4 - System Contact Information
JulyS, 2001
System
RPM
State Regulator
Primary Contractor
Kearsarge Metallurgical
Corp.
Goehlert Dick
EPA Region 1
One Congress Street
Boston, MA 02114-2023
617-918-1335
617-918-1291 (fax)
goehlert.dick@epa.gov
Paul Lincoln
NHDES
6 Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03301
603-271-2911
603-271-2456 (fax)
p_andrews@des.state, nh.us
Bette Nowack
Weston
1 Wall St.
Manchester, NH 03101
603-656-5400
Keefe Environmental
Systems
Sprague Cheryl
EPA Region 1
One Congress Street, Suite 1100
Boston, MA 02114-2023
617918-1244
617918-1291 (fax)
Sprague.cheryl@epa.gov
Thomas Andrews
New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services
6 Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03301-6527
603271-2910
601 271-2456 (fax)
Tandrews@des.state.nh. us
Harvey King
Woodard and Curran
41 Hutchins Drive
Portland, ME 04102
207774-2112
207 774-6635 (fax)
hking@woodardcurren.com
Savage Well Municipal
Water System
GOEHLERT RICHARD
EPA Region 1
ONE CONGRESS STREET
BOSTON, MA 02114-2023
617-918-1335
617-918-1291 (fax)
GOEHLERT.DICK@EPA.GOV
THOMAS ANDREWS
NHDES
6 HAZEN DRIVE
CONCORD, NH 03301
603-271-2910
603-271-2456 (fax)
t_andrews@des.state.nh.us
Joe Newton
COM
ElmSt
Milford, NH 03055
603-249-9840
603-249-9851 (fax)
jnewton@cdm.com
Silresim Chemical Corp.
Janowski Chester
EPA Region 1
1 Congress Street, Suite 1100, HBO
Boston, MA 02114-2023
617-918-1324
617-918-1291 (fax)
janowski.chet@epa.gov
Janet Waldron
MADEP
One Winter Street, 7th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
617-556-1156
617-292-5530 (fax)
janet.waldron@state.ma.us
John Haley
Foster Wheeler Environmental Corp.
133 Federal Street, 6th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
617-457-8200
617-457-8498 (fax)
jhaley@fwec.com
Region 1 Fund-lead, P&T Systems
Information provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 1
Region 1, Table 5 - Top Contaminants Identified by RPMs
JulyS, 2001
System
Baird & McGuire
Superfund Site
Charles George
Landfill Superfund
Site
Eastern Surplus
Company
Groveland Wells
Superfund Site
Kearsarge
Metallurgical
Keefe
Environmental
Systems
Savage Well
Municipal Water
System
Silresim Chemical
Corp.
NAPLS
Present?
Observed
Don't know
Suspected
Don't know
Suspected
Not present
Observed
Observed
#of
Identified
Contam.
8
6
2
1
2
4
4
8
Contaminants
Heavy metals
LNAPL
Pesticides
Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOC)
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
Aresenic
BTEX
PAHs
Arsenic
BTEX
Chlorobenzene
Mercury
Tetrahydrofuran
1 ,4-Dioxane
Methylene Chloride
PCE
Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
1 ,2,3,4-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD)
1,2-Dichloroethene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Trans 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Chlorinated Solvents
Cis-1 ,2-dichloroethene
Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)
Acids
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Methylphenol
Solid Propellants
Trans 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Volatile chlorinated organics
Treatment Processes
Metals Precipitation
Air Stripping
Carbon Adsorption
Filtration
Other/Not Sure
Carbon Adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Metals Precipitation
UV oxidation
Carbon Adsorption
Filtration
Air Stripping
Off-Gas Treatment
Air Stripping
Carbon Adsorption
Filtration
Air Stripping
Carbon Adsorption
Off-Gas Treatment
Metals Precipitation
Air Stripping
Filtration
Off-Gas Treatment
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These
estimates may, in some cases, vary from actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and
specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Region 1 Fund-lead, P&Tsystem
Data provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 1
Region 1, Table 6 — Screening Summary
JulyS, 2001
System
Baird & McGuire
Superfund Site
Charles George
Landfill Superfund
Site
Groveland Wells
Superfund Site
Kearsarge
Metallurgical Corp.
Keefe Environmental
Systems
Potential
Reduction in
Life -Cycle
Costs
Potential
Life-Cycle
Savings
Expected
Duration
Previous
Evaluation of
Effectiveness
Approximate
Pumping
Rate (gpm)
Number of
Extraction
Wells
Number of
Treatment
Processes
Groundwater
Samples per
Year
Obstacles to
making
(minor/major)
changes
Operational
27.5%
17.5%
27.5%
10.0%
7.5%
$12,402,549
$1,121,604
$2,065,504
$56,941
($1
21.8
27.2
29.8
4.2
2.2
Sufficient
Not evaluated
Sufficient
Sufficient
Sufficient
150
30
140
42
20
7
9
10
14
4
4
1
4
2
3
80
40
21
60
82
Moderate
Severe
Moderate
Severe
Minor
Minor
Moderate
Moderate
Minor
Minor
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary
from actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Notes:
1. "Potential Reduction in Life-cycle Costs" result from a screening methodology that incorporates system-specific information. The reductions do
not include the cost of an RSE.
2. "Potential Life-cycle Savings" were estimated using using system-specific information and incorporate the cost of the RSE. Values in
parentheses denote costs (negative savings).
3. "Groundwater Samples per Year" is calculated by multiplying the number of monitoring wells sampled by the number of monitoring events per
year.
4. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation System Evaluations.
Region 1 Fund-lead, P&Tsystem
Data provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 1
Region 1, Table 6 — Screening Summary
JulyS, 2001
System
Savage Well
Municipal Water
System
Silresim Chemical
Corp.
Eastern Surplus
Company Superfund
Site
Potential
Reduction in
Life -Cycle
Costs
Potential
Life-Cycle
Savings
Expected
Duration
Previous
Evaluation of
Effectiveness
Approximate
Pumping
Rate (gpm)
Number of
Extraction
Wells
Number of
Treatment
Processes
Groundwater
Samples per
Year
Obstacles to
making
(minor/major)
changes
Operational
32.5%
40.0%
$934,042
$6,025,600
7.7
16.4
Not evaluated
Not Sufficient
100
25
4
31
3
4
114
94
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
Pre-Operational
28.0%
$245,611
6.2
Not evaluated
20
12
3
60
Minor
Moderate
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary
from actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Notes:
1. "Potential Reduction in Life-cycle Costs" result from a screening methodology that incorporates system-specific information. The reductions do
not include the cost of an RSE.
2. "Potential Life-cycle Savings" were estimated using using system-specific information and incorporate the cost of the RSE. Values in
parentheses denote costs (negative savings).
3. "Groundwater Samples per Year" is calculated by multiplying the number of monitoring wells sampled by the number of monitoring events per
year.
4. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation System Evaluations.
Region 1 Fund-lead, P&Tsystem
Data provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 1
Region 1, Figure 1 -
Estimated Annual Costs of Systems
JulyS, 2001
D Operational Systems
• Pre-operational Systems
$3,500
$3,500 -i
$3,000
$2,500
§ $2,000
o
° $1,500
$1,000
$500
$0 -
$1,400
$450 $500 $500
i 1 $200
rn
1 1 r
CD CD CD
sil IN! nil
••=05 ro o £ 3 oo & p 5
CO O ^ -C CD CO ^ CO 3 ^ ^
CO^g, OO-lg^ LJJW^Q.
3 33
WWW
1 =
n "
^^
^ou $200
I I I 1
-2 m ~CC ~CC
w P~ = «
^E S i& ^ E |
5 = S2 = o CD g .2
• -i s 20 ^11,
Q. ^5 > W
3 IN
w m
111
CD '0 (^
CO ^
(/)
> -55
^
P CO
•— •- Q.
— ^ o
Dafa reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary
from actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Region 1 Fund-lead, P& T systems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 1
Region 1, Figure 2 - System Projections
July 3, 2001
• Years Until Turnover
DYears Until Completion
2031
2026
2021
2016
2011
2006
2001
CO
O
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from
actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Region 1 Fund-lead, P&Tsystems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative
Phase 1- Data Collection and System Screening
Region 2
July 3, 2001
In the OSWER Directive No. 9200.0-33, Transmittal of Final FYOO - FY01 Superfund Reforms
Strategy, dated July 7,2000, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response outlined a
commitment to optimize our Fund-lead, pump-and-treat (P&T) systems. To fulfill this commitment,
Headquarters is assisting Regions in evaluating their Fund-lead operating P&T systems. Phase 1 of this
initiative involves identifying all Fund-lead P&T system, collecting baseline cost and performance data
on them, and selecting up to two sites in each Region for a Remediation System Evaluation (RSE).
This report summarizes the screening process for Region 2 which began in January 2001. The first
section of this report presents the cost and performance data for the Region while the second describes
the screening process and system selection.
The data presented in this report reflect estimates provided by the site Remedial Project
Managers between January and May 2001. These estimates may vary from actuality. The
data- including the number, status, cost, specifications, and projections of systems- may
change over time.
Cost and Performance Data
Twenty-two Fund-lead P&T systems were identified in Region 2. Of these twenty-two systems, 18
are operational and four are pre-operational (i.e., pre-design, design, being installed, installed but not
yet operating). In addition, pump-and-treat may be selected as a remedy for one Fund-lead site when
the Record of Decision is completed.
Cost and performance data and other information pertaining to the identified Fund-lead P&T systems
(estimates for the pre-operational system) were collected with a web-based questionnaire accessed
from ht^ywww^duiaOT^^timiz^CTi and stored in a database. This information is summarized in
Table 1 and provided in detail in five additional tables (Note: two of the pre-operational systems,
Dover Municipal Well 4 and Metal TEC/Aerosystems, may ultimately use a remedy other than P&T):
Tabled provides overviews of the systems by providing items such as annual costs, lead,
status, goals, and progress of each system.
Table 3 includes the dates marking the signing of the ROD, construction completion,
system operation and function, turnover to the state, and expected close-out.
-------
July 3, 2001 Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative
Phase 1-Data Collection and Site Screening, Region 2
• Table 4 lists for each system the contact information for the site Remedial Project
Manager, the State Regulator, and the Contractor.
TaMeJi notes for each system and the associated site if NAPLS are present, the top
contaminants of concern, and the above-ground treatment processes.
Table 6 lists system specifications such as the pumping rate, number of wells, number of
monitoring events per year, and other items used to determine the complexity of a system
and its potential for optimization.
Projected dates for turnover to the States and for system completion are depicted in 1. and
annual costs for each system are depicted in Figure 2.
RSE Site Selection
Evaluation of Sites for Optimization Potential
Once the information is gathered from each of the Fund-lead P&T systems in a given Region, it
becomes input for a screening methodology that attempts to determine the optimization potential for
each system. This, in turn, provides a basis for selecting two systems where RSEs will be performed.
The factors affecting the optimization potential of a system are
• the overall cost of a given system,
• the expected duration of the system,
• the number of above-ground treatment processes,
• the number of extraction wells,
• the number of monitoring events per year,
• the system downtime per year,
• the pumping rate,
• the results (if any) of a previous performance and effectiveness evaluation, and
any social or political obstacles to implementing modifications to the system.
To estimate potential life-cycle savings from optimization, a default reduction in life-cycle costs of 20%
is assumed and is adjusted based on the above factors. For example, according to the screening
methodology, a system with many above-ground treatment processes and a high pumping rate may
exhibit greater than a 20% reduction in life-cycle costs whereas a system with few extraction wells and
one treatment process may exhibit less than a 20% reduction in life-cycle costs.
Page 2 of 4
-------
July 3, 2001 Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative
Phase 1-Data Collection and Site Screening, Region 2
Table 6 summarizes the results of the screening process including the estimated life-cycle cost savings
that may result from performing an RSE. Because some EPA Regions do not have two Fund-lead
P&T systems, an additional RSE may be allocated to Region 2 allowing a total of three RSEs to be
conducted in this Region as part of this project.
Selecting Sites for RSEs
The following is a list of the identified Fund-lead P&T systems in Region 2 classified as operational,
pre-operational, or potential. Those in bold were selected or are being considered for RSEs.
Operational
American Thermostat
Bog Creek Farm
Brewster Wellfield
Circuitron
Claremont Polychemical Corp.
Combe Fill South
Garden State Cleaners/South
Higgins Farm
Islip Municipal Landfill
Lang Property
Lipari Landfill
Mattiace Petrochemical
Mohonk Road Industrial Plant
SMS Instruments
Syncon Resins
Vestal Water Supply Well 1-1
Vineland Chemical Company
Williams Property
Pre-operational
Dover Municipal Well 4
Metal TEC/Aerosystems
Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill*
Stanton Cleaners Area
Potential
Lehigh Valley
* Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill actually consists of two sites that will share a single P&T system.
Only operational systems are considered in selecting the systems in Region 2 to receive RSEs. Due to
the absence of Fund-lead P&T systems in other Regions, additional resources are available to conduct
Page 3 of 4
-------
July 3, 2001 Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative
Phase 1-Data Collection and Site Screening, Region 2
an additional RSE in Region 2, bringing the total number of RSEs conducted in this Region to three.
The Mattiace Petrochemical and Claremont Polychemical Sites already have been selected for an RSEs
due to their relatively high potential savings indicated by the screening process. The selection of
Brewster Wellfield is based on recommendations from within the Region.
Although Vineland, American Thermostat, Combe Fill South, and Ffiggins Farm also have relatively
high potential savings as determined by the screening process, these sites were deemed inappropriate
by the Region for receiving RSEs. At the time of the screening process, Vineland was undergoing an
external evaluation for optimization, American Thermostat was undergoing evaluation by the Region and
the Army Corps of Engineers for optimization, and Combe Fill South and Ffiggins Farm were the
subjects of litigation.
Page 4 of 4
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 2
Region 2, Table 1 - Summary
JulyS, 2001
Completed Fund-lead P&T Systems
Operational and Pre-operational Fund-lead P&T Systems
Number of systems
Number that are EPA lead
Number that are State lead
22
18 of 22
4 of 22
System Status
Number that are operational
Number that are pre-operational
Number where restoration is a goal
Number where the plume is controlled*
Number that are estimated to be more than 80% complete*
Number previously evaluated and effectiveness found sufficient*
Number previously evaluated and effectiveness found not sufficient*
18
4
21 of 22
15 of 18
1 of 18
10of18
2 of 18
Extent of Contamination
Number where NAPLs are observed
Number with more than 1 major contaminant identified
Number with 3 or more treatment processes
4 of 22
17 of 22
13 of 22
Average Costs and Time Frames
Average estimated annual O&M cost (including monitoring)
Average estimated annual monitoring cost
Average number of years until turnover to the States
Average number of years until completion
$828,947
$190,900
7.9
17.7
Operational sites only
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and
May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from actuality. Data- including the
number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Region 2 Fund-lead, P&T systems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 2
Region 2, Table 2 — System Overviews
JulyS, 2001
System
American Thermostat
Bog Creek Farm LIRA
Brewster Wellfield
Circuitron
Claremont Polychemical
Combe Fill South Landfill
Dover Municipal Well 4
Estimated
Annual Cost
$1,175,000
$460,000
$400,000
$480,000
$740,000
$920,000
unknown
Lead
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
State with
Fund Money
EPA
Type of
ROD
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
System
Status
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Predesign
System Goals
Containment &
Restoration
Containment &
Restoration
Containment &
Restoration
Restoration
Containment &
Restoration
Containment &
Restoration
Restoration
Plume Under
Control?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
N/A
Estimated
Progress of
Restoration
less than 20%
20% - 80%
Unknown
less than 20%
Unknown
Unknown
N/A
Previous Evaluation
of Effectiveness
Sufficient
Sufficient
Not evaluated
Sufficient
Not evaluated
Not Sufficient
N/A
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary
from actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Notes:
1. Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill are two separate Fund-lead sites that will share a single P&T system.
2. The following systems are pre-operational; therefore, the associated data are estimates and some items are unknown: Dover Municipal
Well 4, MetalTec/Aerosystems, Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill, and Stanton Cleaners.
3. Estimated progress toward restoration refers to the estimated portion of the plume that has been restored to cleanup levels.
4. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation System Evaluations.
Region 2 Fund-lead, P&T systems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 2
Region 2, Table 2 — System Overviews
JulyS, 2001
System
Garden State
Cleaners/South Jersey
Clothing Company
Higgins Farm
Islip Municipal Landfill
Lang Property
Lipari Landfill site
Mattiace Petrochemical
Metal TEC/Aerosystems
Estimated
Annual Cost
$500,000
$1,000,000
$225,000
$700,000
$2,500,000
$700,000
unknown
Lead
EPA
EPA
State with
Fund Money
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
Type of
ROD
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
System
Status
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Predesign
System Goals
Containment &
Restoration
Containment &
Restoration
Containment &
Restoration
Containment &
Restoration
Containment &
Restoration
Containment &
Restoration
N/A
Plume Under
Control?
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/A
Estimated
Progress of
Restoration
Unknown
less than 20%
20% - 80%
20% - 80%
20% - 80%
less than 20%
N/A
Previous Evaluation
of Effectiveness
Currently being
evaluated
Not evaluated
Sufficient
Sufficient
Sufficient
Sufficient
N/A
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary
from actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Notes:
1. Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill are two separate Fund-lead sites that will share a single P&T system.
2. The following systems are pre-operational; therefore, the associated data are estimates and some items are unknown: Dover Municipal
Well 4, MetalTec/Aerosystems, Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill, and Stanton Cleaners.
3. Estimated progress toward restoration refers to the estimated portion of the plume that has been restored to cleanup levels.
4. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation System Evaluations.
Region 2 Fund-lead, P&T systems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 2
Region 2, Table 2 - System Overviews
JulyS, 2001
System
Mohonk Road Industrial
Plant
Montgomery
Township/Rocky Hill
SMS Instruments
Stanton Cleaners Area
Groundwater
Contamination Site
Syncon Resins
Vestal Water Supply Well
1-1
Vineland Chemical Co.
Groundwater Treatment
Williams Property
Estimated
Annual Cost
unknown
$400,000
$400,000
$270,000
$350,000
$180,000
$4,000,000
$350,000
Lead
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
State with
Fund Money
EPA
EPA
State with
Fund Money
Type of
ROD
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
System
Status
Operational
Design
Operational
Being
Installed
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
System Goals
Containment &
Restoration
Restoration
Containment &
Restoration
Containment &
Restoration
Containment &
Restoration
Containment &
Restoration
Containment &
Restoration
Restoration
Plume Under
Control?
Unknown
N/A
Yes
N/A
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Estimated
Progress of
Restoration
Unknown
N/A
20% - 80%
N/A
less than 20%
less than 20%
Unknown
more than
80%
Previous Evaluation
of Effectiveness
Currently being
evaluated
N/A
Sufficient
N/A
Not Sufficient
Sufficient
Currently being
evaluated
Sufficient
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary
from actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Notes:
1. Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill are two separate Fund-lead sites that will share a single P&T system.
2. The following systems are pre-operational; therefore, the associated data are estimates and some items are unknown: Dover Municipal
Well 4, MetalTec/Aerosystems, Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill, and Stanton Cleaners.
3. Estimated progress toward restoration refers to the estimated portion of the plume that has been restored to cleanup levels.
4. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation System Evaluations.
Region 2 Fund-lead, P&T systems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 2
Region 2, Table 3 - P&T System Histories and Projections
July3, 2001
System
American Thermostat
Bog Creek Farm LIRA
BrewsterWellfield
Circuitron
Claremont Polychemical
Combe Fill South Landfill
Dover Municipal Well 4
Date
Original ROD
6/29/90
6/28/89
9/30/86
9/30/94
9/28/90
9/23/86
9/30/92
Last ROD
Modification
12/2/96
Construction
Completed
9/1998
5/1994
4/1997
6/2000
12/1998
6/1998
Unknown
Operational and
Functional
9/1998
8/1994
9/1997
5/15/2001
2/2000
9/1998
Unknown
Turnover to
State
10/2008
9/2004
10/2007
6/2010
2/2010
9/2008
Unknown
Years Until
Turnover
7.3
3.2
6.2
8.9
8.6
7.2
Unknown
Expected
Completion
9/2028
12/2024
10/2007
6/2003
2/2020
9/2028
Unknown
Years Until
Completion
27.2
23.4
6.2
1.9
18.6
27.2
Unknown
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from
actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Notes:
1. Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill are two separate Fund-lead sites that will share a single P&T system.
2. The following systems are pre-operational; therefore, the associated data are estimates and some items are unknown: Dover Municipal Well 4,
MetalTec/Aerosystems, Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill, and Stanton Cleaners.
Region 2 Fund-lead, P&T systems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 2
Region 2, Table 3 - P&T System Histories and Projections
July3, 2001
System
Garden State
Cleaners/South Jersey
Clothing Company
Higgins Farm
Islip Municipal Landfill
Lang Property
Lipari Landfill site
Mattiace Petrochemical
Metal TEC/Aerosystems
Date
Original ROD
9/26/91
9/30/92
9/19/92
9/29/86
9/30/85
6/27/91
9/27/90
Last ROD
Modification
Construction
Completed
3/1999
5/1998
9/1996
9/1995
12/1992
8/1998
Unknown
Operational and
Functional
9/2000
1/1999
9/1997
10/1995
6/1993
9/1999
Unknown
Turnover to
State
10/2009
1/2009
9/2006
10/2005
10/2019
3/2009
Unknown
Years Until
Turnover
8.3
7.5
5.2
4.2
18.3
7.7
Unknown
Expected
Completion
9/2029
9/2028
1/2003
1/2005
12/2004
8/2029
Unknown
Years Until
Completion
28.2
27.2
1.5
3.5
3.4
28.1
Unknown
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from
actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Notes:
1. Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill are two separate Fund-lead sites that will share a single P&T system.
2. The following systems are pre-operational; therefore, the associated data are estimates and some items are unknown: Dover Municipal Well 4,
MetalTec/Aerosystems, Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill, and Stanton Cleaners.
Region 2 Fund-lead, P&T systems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 2
Region 2, Table 3 - P&T System Histories and Projections
July3, 2001
System
Mohonk Road Industrial
Plant
Montgomery
Township/Rocky Hill
SMS Instruments
Stanton Cleaners Area
Groundwater
Contamination Site
Syncon Resins
Vestal Water Supply Well
1-1
Vineland Chemical Co.
Groundwater Treatment
Williams Property
Date
Original ROD
3/31/00
6/27/88
9/29/89
3/31/99
9/29/86
6/27/86
9/28/89
9/29/87
Last ROD
Modification
9/27/00
Construction
Completed
5/2000
9/2003
6/1994
6/2001
4/1991
12/1993
4/2000
1/1995
Operational and
Functional
7/2001
9/2003
6/1995
9/2001
4/1991
3/1995
6/2000
1/1995
Turnover to
State
7/201 1
9/2013
6/2005
9/201 1
4/2001
3/2005
6/201 1
1/2001
Years Until
Turnover
10.0
12.2
3.9
10.2
0.0
3.7
9.9
0.0
Expected
Completion
7/2031
9/2033
3/2004
9/2021
9/2028
3/2015
6/2031
12/2002
Years Until
Completion
30.0
32.2
2.7
20.2
27.2
13.7
29.9
1.4
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from
actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Notes:
1. Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill are two separate Fund-lead sites that will share a single P&T system.
2. The following systems are pre-operational; therefore, the associated data are estimates and some items are unknown: Dover Municipal Well 4,
MetalTec/Aerosystems, Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill, and Stanton Cleaners.
Region 2 Fund-lead, P&T systems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 2
Region 2, Table 4 - System Contact Information
July 3, 2001
System
RPM
State Regulator
Primary Contractor
American Thermostat
Christos Tsiamis
EPA Region 2
290 Broadway
New York, NY 12233
212-637-4257
212-637-3966 (fax)
tsiamis.christos@epa.gov
Joseph Yavonditte
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
518-457-9285
518-457-7743 (fax)
jayavond@gw.dec.state.ny.us
Feeney Richard
Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation
1000 The American Road
Morris Plains, NJ 07950
973-630-8092
973-630-8111 (fax)
RFeeney@fwenc.com
Bog Creek Farm LTRA
Edward Finnerty
EPA Region 2
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007
2126374367
212-637-4393 (fax)
Finnerty. Ed@EPA.GOV
Craig Wallace
NJDEP
401 E State St.
Trenton, NJ 08625
609 984 2990
609 633 2360 (fax)
Cwallace@DEP.STATE.NJ.US
George Paprocki
USAGE
Ft. Monmouth
Eatontown, NJ 07703
732 389 3040
732 389 1564 (fax)
George.B.Paprocki@nan02.USACE.army.mil
BrewsterWellfield
Lisa Wong
EPA Region 2
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007
212-637-4267
212-637-3966 (fax)
wong.lisa@epa.gov
George Momberger
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
518-457-0927
518-457-8989 (fax)
gfmomber@gw.dec.state.ny.us
Dawn Cermak
Sevenson Environmental Services, Inc
Box 71A Route 518, Franklin Twsp
Princeton, NJ 08540
732-297-0432
732-297-0441 (fax)
hawksister@earthlink.net
Circuitron
Sharon Trocher
EPA Region 2
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
212-637-3965
212-637-3966 (fax)
trocher.sharon@epa.gov
Jeffrey Trad
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233-7010
518-457-9285
518-457-7743 (fax)
jetrad@gw. dec. state, ny. us
Shewen Bian
USAGE, New York District
1900 Hempstead Turnpike, Suite 16
East Meadow, NY 11554
516-794-2913
516-794-2975 (fax)
Region 2 Fund-lead, P& T Systems
Information provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 2
Region 2, Table 4 - System Contact Information
July 3, 2001
System
RPM
State Regulator
Primary Contractor
Claremont Polychemical
Maria Jon
EPA Region 2
290 Broadway, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10007
212-637-3967
212-637-4284 (fax)
Jon.Maria@epamail.epa.gov
Jeff Trad
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12218
518-457-9285
518-457-7743 (fax)
jetrad@gw. dec. state, ny. us
Mark Kucera
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
501 Winding Road
OldBethpage, NY 11804
516-249-8912
516-249-8928 (fax)
Combe Fill South Landfill
Pamela J. Baxter
EPA Region 2
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
212-637-4416
212-637-4393 (fax)
baxter.pam@epamail.gov
Paula Walshe
NJDEP
401 East State St.
Trenton, NJ 08625
609-633-1119
609-292-1975 (fax)
pwalshe@dep.state.nj.us
James Nash
Chapman, Inc.
25 West Highand Avenue
Atlantic Highlands, NJ 07716
732-291-7773
732-291-7776 (fax)
Dover Municipal Well 4
Diego Garcia
EPA Region 2
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
212-637-4947
garcia.diego@epa.gov
Mary Lou Parra
NJDEP
401 East State St.
Trenton, NJ 08625
609-633-3618
Kamala Morgan
USAGE, Kansas City District
601 East 12th St.
Kansas City,, MO 64106
816-983-3377
Garden State
Cleaners/South Jersey
Brian Quinn
EPA Region 2
290 Broadway, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10007
212-637-4381
212-637-4393 (fax)
quinn.brian@epa.gov
Akshay Parikh
N.J.D.E.P.
401 E. State Street, P.O. Box 413
Trenton, NJ 08625
609-777-0693
609-633-2360 (fax)
APARIKH@dep.state.nj.us
Steven Gillespie
Sevenson Environmental Services, Inc.
2749 Lockport Road
Niagara Falls, NY 14305
856-905-0782
856-697-9187 (fax)
sevenson@voicenet.com
Region 2 Fund-lead, P& T Systems
Information provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 2
Region 2, Table 4 - System Contact Information
July 3, 2001
System
RPM
State Regulator
Primary Contractor
Higgins Farm
Pamela J. Baxter
EPA Region 2
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
212-637-4416
212-637-4393 (fax)
baxter.pam@epamail.gov
Unknown
NJDEP
401 East State St.
Trenton, NJ 08625
Dawn Cermail
Sevenson Environmental Service, Inc.
71A Route 518
Princeton, NJ 08540
732-297-0432
732-297-0441 (fax)
hawksiyseter@earthlink.com
Islip Municipal Landfill
Mark Dannenberg
EPA Region 2
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007
212-637-4251
212-637-3966 (fax)
dannenberg.mark@epa.gov
Carl Hoffman
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
518-457-9538
518-457-4198 (fax)
crhoffma@gw.dec.state.ny.us
Paul DiMaria
Islip Resource Recovery Agency
401 Main Street
Islip, NY 11751
631-224-5644
631-224-5645 (fax)
wfgraner@hotmail.com
Lang Property
Lawrence Granite
EPA Region 2
290 Broadway - 19th floor
New York, New York, NY 10007-1866
212-637-4423
212-637-4393 (fax)
granite.larry@epamail.epa.gov
Thomas Ferrara
NJDEP
401 East State Street
Trenton, NJ 08625
609-292-4095
609-633-2360 (fax)
Thomas Roche
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
192 City Line Road
Browns Mills, NJ 08015
609-893-0983
609-893-5415 (fax)
thomas.p.roche@usace.army.mil
Lipari Landfill site
Ferdinand Cataneo
EPA Region 2
290 Broadway
New York City, NY 10007-1866
212-637-4428
212-637-4393 (fax)
cataneo.fred@epa.gov
Michael Burlingame
NJDEP
P.O. Box 413
Trenton, NJ 08625-0413
609-292-1424
609-292-1975 (fax)
mburling@dep.state.nj.us
Lee Anne Simmler
URS/Radian International
743 Mullica Hill Road
Glassboro, NJ 08028
856-582-6000
856-582-6946 (fax)
lee_anne_simmler@urscorp.com
Region 2 Fund-lead, P& T Systems
Information provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 2
Region 2, Table 4 - System Contact Information
July 3, 2001
System
RPM
State Regulator
Primary Contractor
Mattiace Petrochemical
Edward Als
EPA Region 2
290 Broadway
NYC, NY 10007-1866
212-637-4272
212-637-3966 (fax)
als.ed@epa.gov
Michael Mason
NY State Department of
Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
518-457-9285
518-457-7743 (fax)
mamason@gw.dec.state.ny.us
Karuppenan Subburamu
Foster Wheeler Environmental Corp.
1000 the American Road
Morris Plains, NJ 07950
973-630-8518
973-630-8111 (fax)
ksubburamu@fwenc.com
Metal TEC/Aerosystems
Dan Weissman
EPA Region 2
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
212-637-4384
weissman.dan@epa.gov
Anton Navaragah
NJDEP
401 East State St.
Trenton, NJ 08625
609-777-0340
N/A
MohonkRoad Industrial
Plant
Patrick Hamblin
EPA Region 2
290 Broadway, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10007-1866
212-637-3314
212-637-3966 (fax)
hamblin.patrick@epa.gov
Michael Komoroske
NYSDEC
50 Wolf Road, Room 242
Albany, NY 12233-7010
518-457-3395
518-457-4198 (fax)
mjkomoro@gw.dec.state.ny.us
Eric Hamilton
EarthTech
7870 Villa Park Drive, Suite 400
Richmond, VA 23228
804-515-8300
804-515-8414 (fax)
e_hamilton@earthtech.com
Montgomery
Township/Rocky Hill
Monica Mahar
EPA Region 2
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
212-637-3942
mahar.monica@epa.gov
Larry Quinn
NJDEP
401 East State St.
Trenton, NJ 08625
609-633-0766
lquinn@dep.state.nj.us
Geoffrey McKenzie
COM
107-F Corporate Blvd.
South Plainsfield, NJ 07080
908-757-9500
mckenziegm@cdm.com
Region 2 Fund-lead, P& T Systems
Information provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 2
Region 2, Table 4 - System Contact Information
July 3, 2001
System
RPM
State Regulator
Primary Contractor
SMS Instruments
Mark Dannenberg
EPA Region 2
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007
212-637-4251
212-637-3966 (fax)
dannenberg.mark@epa.gov
Joseph Yavonditte
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
518-457-9280
518-457-4198 (fax)
jayovond@gw.dec.state.ny.us
Paul Hagerman
COM Federal
125 Maiden Lane
New York, NY 10038
212-785-9123
212-785-6114 (fax)
hagermanpr@cdm.com
Stanton Cleaners Area
Groundwater Contamination
Site
Damian Duda
EPA Region 2
290 Broadway - 20th Floor
New York, NY 10007-1866
212-637-4269
212-637-3966 (fax)
duda.damian@epa.gov
Thomas Gibbons
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
518-457-3960
518-457-4158 (fax)
tlgibbon@gw.dec.state.ny.us
Thomas Williams
Earth Tech
7870 Villa Park Drive - Suite 400
Richmond, VA 23228
516-482-7162
516-466-8396 (fax)
twilliams@earthtech.com
Syncon Resins
Pamela J. Baxter
EPA Region 2
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
212-637-4416
212-637-4393 (fax)
baxter.pam@epamail.gov
Jeanette Abels
NJDEP
401 East State St.
Trenton, NJ 08625
609-292-4873
609-633-2360 (fax)
jabels@dep. state, nj. us
John Sperber
LSR Levine and Fricke
P.O. Box 316
Closter, NJ 07624
201-750-6880
201-750-6890 (fax)
spurber@webstan.net
Vestal Water Supply Well 1-
1
Sharon Trocher
EPA Region 2
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
212-637-3965
212-637-3966 (fax)
trocher.sharon@epa.gov
Jeffrey Trad
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233-7010
518-457-9285
518-457-7743 (fax)
jetrad@gw. dec. state, ny. us
Heidemarie Adenau
Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation
1000 The American Road
Morris Plains, NJ 07950
973-630-7197
973-630-8025 (fax)
hadenau@fwenc.com
Region 2 Fund-lead, P& T Systems
Information provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 2
Region 2, Table 4 - System Contact Information
July 3, 2001
System
RPM
State Regulator
Primary Contractor
Vineland Chemical Co.
Groundwater Treatment
Matthew Westgate
EPA Region 2
290 Broadway 19th floor
New York City, NY 10007-1866
212637-4422
212 637-4429 (fax)
westgate.matthew@epamail.epa.gov
Craig Wallace
N.J. Dept. of Environmental Protection
401 East State Street CN413
Trenton, NJ 08625-0413
609 984-3727
609 633-2360 (fax)
cwallac2@dep.state. nj. us
Gillespie Steve
Sevenson Environmental Services
1405A North Mill Road
Vineland, NJ 08360
856690-1758
856 690-1759 (fax)
vineland@voicenet.com
Williams Property
Ferdinand Cataneo
EPA Region 2
290 Broadway
New York City, NY 10007-1866
212-637-4428
212-637-4393 (fax)
cataneo.fred@epa.gov
Steve Wohleb
NJDEP
P.O. Box 413
Trenton, NJ 08625-0413
609-633-3970
609-292-1975 (fax)
swohleb@dep.state.nj.us
Richard Talbot
TurnKey Environmental Services, Inc
24 South Newton Street Road, Suite 1B
Newton Square, PA 19073
610-356-3790
610-356-4780 (fax)
TurnKeyEnv@aol.com
Region 2 Fund-lead, P& T Systems
Information provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 2
Region 2 Table 5 - Top Contaminants Identified by RPMs
July3, 2001
System
American
Thermostat
Bog Creek Farm
LIRA
Brewster Wellfield
Circuitron
Claremont
Polychemical
Combe Fill South
Landfill
Dover Municipal
Well 4
Garden State
Cleaners/South
NAPLS
Present?
Suspected
Observed
Suspected
Not present
Don't know
Not present
Not present
Not present
#of
Identified
Contain.
3
9
2
4
4
8
2
2
Contaminants
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
Trichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethylene (DCE)
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Benzene
Phenol
Toluene
copper
lead
zinc
1 ,2-Dichloroethylene (DCE)
Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1 ,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Toluene
Xylene
PCE
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Toluene
TCE
PCE
Trans 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)
Treatment Processes
Metals Precipitation
Air Stripping
Carbon Adsorption
Filtration
Metals Precipitation
Air Stripping
Carbon Adsorption
Filtration
Air Stripping
Air Stripping
Carbon Adsorption
Filtration
Metals Precipitation
Air Stripping
Carbon Adsorption
Metals Precipitation
Biological Treatment
Carbon Adsorption
Filtration
Not Determined
Air Stripping
Carbon Adsorption
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates
may, in some cases, vary from actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of
systems- may change overtime.
Notes:
1. Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill are two separate Fund-lead sites that will share a single P&T system.
2. The following systems are pre-operational; therefore, the associated data are estimates and some items are
unknown: Dover Municipal Well 4, MetalTec/Aerosystems, Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill, and Stanton
Cleaners.
Region 2 Fund-lead, P&T system
Data provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 2
Region 2 Table 5 - Top Contaminants Identified by RPMs
July3, 2001
System
Higgins Farm
Islip Municipal
Landfill
Lang Property
Lipari Landfill site
Mattiace
Petrochemical
NAPLS
Present?
Not present
Not present
Suspected
Suspected
Observed
#of
Identified
Contain.
6
1
5
9
12
Contaminants
Acetone
Arsenic
Chloride
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
Xylene
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
tetrachlorethylene
1,1-dichloroethene
1,1-dichloroethane
trichloroethene
chromium
Benzene and Toluene
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
Xylene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Methylene Chloride
Phenol
Chromium
Lead
Zinc
Aromatic VOCs
Chlorinated Aliphatics
Chlorinated Solvents
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Xylenes
Methylene Chloride
Dichlorobenzene
Acetone
Treatment Processes
Metals Precipitation
Air Stripping
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Metals Precipitation
Air Stripping
Carbon Adsorption
Filtration
Off-Gas Treatment
Metals Precipitation
Carbon Adsorption
Off-Gas Treatment
Other/Not Sure
Metals Precipitation
Air Stripping
Carbon Adsorption
Filtration
Off-Gas Treatment
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates
may, in some cases, vary from actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of
systems- may change overtime.
Notes:
1. Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill are two separate Fund-lead sites that will share a single P&T system.
2. The following systems are pre-operational; therefore, the associated data are estimates and some items are
unknown: Dover Municipal Well 4, MetalTec/Aerosystems, Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill, and Stanton
Cleaners.
Region 2 Fund-lead, P&T system
Data provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 2
Region 2 Table 5 - Top Contaminants Identified by RPMs
July3, 2001
System
Metal
TEC/Aerosystems
Mohonk Road
Industrial Plant
Montgomery
Township/Rocky
SMS Instruments
Stanton Cleaners
Area Groundwater
Syncon Resins
Vestal Water
Supply Well 1-1
Vineland
Chemical Co.
Williams Property
NAPLS
Present?
Observed
Not present
Don't know
Not present
Suspected
Observed
Not present
Not present
Not present
#of
Identified
Contain.
2
4
1
1
4
6
5
1
7
Contaminants
TCE
PCE
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1 ,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
TCE
Xylene
Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)
DCE
BTX
MTBE
Acetone
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Xylene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1 ,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)
1 ,2-Dichloroethylene (DCE)
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
Arsenic
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)
Acetone
Isophorone
Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK)
Methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK)
Xylene
Treatment Processes
Not determined
Air Stripping
Carbon Adsorption
Filtration
Off-Gas Treatment
Air Stripping
Carbon Adsorption
Air Stripping
Carbon Adsorption
Metals Precipitation
Air Stripping
Carbon Adsorption
Filtration
Off-Gas Treatment
Metals Precipitation
Air Stripping
Biological Treatment
Carbon Adsorption
Filtration
Off-Gas Treatment
Air Stripping
Metals Precipitation
Filtration
Biological Treatment
UV oxidation
Carbon Adsorption
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates
may, in some cases, vary from actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of
systems- may change overtime.
Notes:
1. Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill are two separate Fund-lead sites that will share a single P&T system.
2. The following systems are pre-operational; therefore, the associated data are estimates and some items are
unknown: Dover Municipal Well 4, MetalTec/Aerosystems, Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill, and Stanton
Cleaners.
Region 2 Fund-lead, P&T system
Data provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 2
Region 2 Table 6 — Screening Summary
JulyS, 2001
System
Potential
Reduction in
Life-Cycle
Costs
Potential Life-
Cycle
Savings
Expected
Duration
Previous
Evaluation of
Effectiveness
Approximate
Pumping
Rate (gpm)
Number of
Extraction
Wells
Number of
Treatment
Processes
Groundwater
Samples per
Year
Obstacles to
making
(minor/major)
changes
Operational
American Thermostat
Bog Creek Farm
LIRA
BrewsterWellfield
Circuitron
Claremont
Polychemical
Combe Fill South
Landfill
Garden State
Cleaners/South
29.5%
30.0%
17.5%
8.0%
30.0%
38.0%
32.5%
$5,021,877
$1,833,415
$317,513
$26,187
$2,578,700
$5,065,193
$2,383,103
27.2
23.4
6.2
1.9
18.6
27.2
28.2
Sufficient
Sufficient
Not evaluated
Sufficient
Not evaluated
Not Sufficient
Currently being
evaluated
70
30
50
80
420
121
300
14
33
4
3
3
19
15
4
4
1
3
3
4
2
228
9
64
76
56
72
54
Minor
Severe
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
Moderate
Minor
Minor
Minor
Moderate
Minor
Minor
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from
actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Notes:
1. Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill are two separate Fund-lead sites that will share a single P&T system.
2. "Potential Reduction in Life-cycle Costs" result from a screening methodology that incorporates system-specific information. The reductions do not
include the cost of an RSE.
3. "Potential Life-cycle Savings" were estimated using using system-specific information and incorporate the cost of the RSE. Values in parentheses
denote costs (negative savings).
4. "Groundwater Samples per Year" is calculated by multiplying the number of monitoring wells sampled by the number of monitoring events per
year.
5. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation System Evaluations.
Region 2 Fund-lead, P&T system
Data provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 2
Region 2 Table 6 — Screening Summary
JulyS, 2001
System
Potential
Reduction in
Life-Cycle
Costs
Potential Life-
Cycle
Savings
Expected
Duration
Previous
Evaluation of
Effectiveness
Approximate
Pumping
Rate (gpm)
Number of
Extraction
Wells
Number of
Treatment
Processes
Groundwater
Samples per
Year
Obstacles to
making
(minor/major)
changes
Operational
Higgins Farm
Islip Municipal Landfill
Lang Property
Lipari Landfill site
Mattiace
Petrochemical
Mohonk Road
Industrial Plant
SMS Instruments
40.0%
7.5%
5.0%
17.5%
23.0%
unknown
7.5%
$5,799,020
$70,395
$1,136,049
$2,357,411
unknown
$35,130
27.2
1.5
3.5
3.4
28.1
30.0
2.7
Not evaluated
Sufficient
Sufficient
Sufficient
Sufficient
Currently being
evaluated
Sufficient
30
300
30
125
10
40
100
20
6
1
25
9
3
2
4
2
3
4
5
4
2
102
96
32
39
15
34
72
Minor
Moderate
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
Moderate
Minor
Moderate
Minor
Minor
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from
actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Notes:
1. Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill are two separate Fund-lead sites that will share a single P&T system.
2. "Potential Reduction in Life-cycle Costs" result from a screening methodology that incorporates system-specific information. The reductions do not
include the cost of an RSE.
3. "Potential Life-cycle Savings" were estimated using using system-specific information and incorporate the cost of the RSE. Values in parentheses
denote costs (negative savings).
4. "Groundwater Samples per Year" is calculated by multiplying the number of monitoring wells sampled by the number of monitoring events per
year.
5. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation System Evaluations.
Region 2 Fund-lead, P&T system
Data provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 2
Region 2 Table 6 — Screening Summary
JulyS, 2001
System
Potential
Reduction in
Life-Cycle
Costs
Potential Life-
Cycle
Savings
Expected
Duration
Previous
Evaluation of
Effectiveness
Approximate
Pumping
Rate (gpm)
Number of
Extraction
Wells
Number of
Treatment
Processes
Groundwater
Samples per
Year
Obstacles to
making
(minor/major)
changes
Operational
Syncon Resins
Vestal Water Supply
Well 1-1
Vineland Chemical
Co. Groundwater
Williams Property
28.0%
10.0%
30.0%
5.0%
$1,401,885
$145,660
$18,266,142
($9,717)
27.2
13.7
29.9
1.4
Not Sufficient
Sufficient
Currently being
evaluated
Sufficient
20
450
1400
80
3
1
13
2
6
1
2
3
0
12
2080
36
Minor
Moderate
Minor
Minor
Moderate
Severe
Minor
Minor
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from
actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Notes:
1. Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill are two separate Fund-lead sites that will share a single P&T system.
2. "Potential Reduction in Life-cycle Costs" result from a screening methodology that incorporates system-specific information. The reductions do not
include the cost of an RSE.
3. "Potential Life-cycle Savings" were estimated using using system-specific information and incorporate the cost of the RSE. Values in parentheses
denote costs (negative savings).
4. "Groundwater Samples per Year" is calculated by multiplying the number of monitoring wells sampled by the number of monitoring events per
year.
5. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation System Evaluations.
Region 2 Fund-lead, P&T system
Data provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 2
Region 2 Table 6 — Screening Summary
JulyS, 2001
System
Potential
Reduction in
Life-Cycle
Costs
Potential Life-
Cycle
Savings
Expected
Duration
Previous
Evaluation of
Effectiveness
Approximate
Pumping
Rate (gpm)
Number of
Extraction
Wells
Number of
Treatment
Processes
Groundwater
Samples per
Year
Obstacles to
making
(minor/major)
changes
Pre-Operational
Dover Municipal Well
4
Metal
TEC/Aerosystems
Montgomery
Township/Rocky Hill
Stanton Cleaners
Area Groundwater
unknown
unknown
28.0%
28.0%
unknown
unknown
$1,696,715
$908,161
N/A
N/A
32.2
20.2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
250
90
N/A
N/A
3
3
N/A
N/A
2
5
N/A
N/A
80
120
N/A
N/A
Minor
Moderate
Minor
Moderate
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from
actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Notes:
1. Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill are two separate Fund-lead sites that will share a single P&T system.
2. "Potential Reduction in Life-cycle Costs" result from a screening methodology that incorporates system-specific information. The reductions do not
include the cost of an RSE.
3. "Potential Life-cycle Savings" were estimated using using system-specific information and incorporate the cost of the RSE. Values in parentheses
denote costs (negative savings).
4. "Groundwater Samples per Year" is calculated by multiplying the number of monitoring wells sampled by the number of monitoring events per
5. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation System Evaluations.
Region 2 Fund-lead, P&T system
Data provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 2
Region 2, Figure 1 — Estimated Annual Costs of Systems
JulyS, 2001
$2,500 -
•c- $2,000 -
o
o
o
,-- $1,500 -
"55
o
0 $1,000 -
ro
c
< $500 -
$0 -
• Operational Systems
• Pre-operational Systems
$2,500
U5
•^-.
-n °
° «
•^r *"
8 g § A
y> ^" ^
nn"
r- "S E "° c "in -*=
11 1 i 1 §1 1
ajE^< 4> o E % (D
t .t;
0) (/)
o. —
Q
I
P J3
1 m
Q.
Lj
o
0
0)
E
88 o
C C "^ "^ ^ /v5
3 3 ^ ** E\i S §
0
M
n
"m ^•n'P^ ^w1" *" ^~ "m ^*
1 l°Efe^ « 2 " o | 1^1 1 „ 1
1 it lit!5 1 HI I |
Q_ ^^c~^5 CO "p ^ ^* "*:>T~(oOi^ OJ
^ ° i K|° W|c3 1
Dafa reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary
from actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Notes:
1. Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill are two separate Fund-lead sites that will share a single P&T system.
2. The following systems are pre-operational; therefore, the associated data are estimates and some items are unknown: Dover Municipal
Well 4, MetalTec/Aerosystems, Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill, and Stanton Cleaners.
3. Cost data is not yet available for the Mohonk Road Industrial Plant Site
Region 2 Fund-lead, P&T systems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 2
Region 2, Figure 2 — System Projections
JulyS, 2001
lYears Until Turnover HYears Until Completion
2041
Date reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from
actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Notes:
1. Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill are two separate Fund-lead sites that will share a single P&T system.
2. The following systems are pre-operational; therefore, the associated data are estimates and some items are unknown:
MetalTec/Aerosystems, Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill, and Stanton Cleaners.
Dover Municipal Well 4,
Region 2 Fund-lead, P&T systems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative
Phase 1- Data Collection and System Screening
Region 3
July 3, 2001
In the OSWER Directive No. 9200.0-33, Transmittal of Final FYOO - FY01 Superfund Reforms
Strategy, dated July 7,2000, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response outlined a
commitment to optimize our Fund-lead, pump-and-treat (P&T) systems. To fulfill this commitment,
Headquarters is assisting Regions in evaluating their Fund-lead operating P&T systems. Phase 1 of this
initiative involves identifying all Fund-lead P&T system, collecting baseline cost and performance data
on them, and selecting up to two sites in each Region for a Remediation System Evaluation (RSE).
This report summarizes the screening process for Region 3 which began in January 2001 and is an
ongoing process. The first section of this report presents the cost and performance data for the Region
while the second describes the screening process and system selection.
The data presented in this report reflect estimates provided by the site Remedial Project
Managers between January and May 2001. These estimates may vary from actuality. The
data- including the number, status, cost, specifications, and projections of systems- may
change over time.
Cost and Performance Data
Twelve Fund-lead P&T systems were identified in Region 3. Of this twelve, ten are operational and
two are pre-operational (i.e., pre-design, design, being installed, or installed but not operating). In
addition, two Fund-lead sites have been identified that will likely involve P&T technology.
Cost and performance data and other information pertaining to the identified Fund-lead P&T systems
(estimates for the pre-operational systems) were collected with a web-based questionnaire accessed
from http://wjfflLdm and stored in a database. This information is summarized in
Tabjel and provided in detail in five additional tables:
• Table 2 provides overviews of the systems by providing items such as annual costs, lead,
status, goals, and progress of each system.
• Tabfel includes the dates marking the signing of the ROD, construction completion,
system operation and function, turnover to the state, and expected close-out.
Table 4 lists for each system the contact information for the site Remedial Project
Manager, the State Regulator, and the Contractor.
-------
July 3, 2001 Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative
Phase 1-Data Collection and Site Screening, Region 3
• Table 5 notes for each system and the associated site if NAPLS are present, the top
contaminants of concern, and the above-ground treatment processes.
Tabjg-6 lists system specifications such as the pumping rate, number of wells, number of
monitoring events per year, and other items used to determine the complexity of a system
and its potential for optimization.
Projected dates for turnover to the States and for system completion are depicted in FjgureJ., and
annual costs for each system are depicted in FigurgJL
RSE Site Selection
Evaluation of Sites for Optimization Potential
Once the information is gathered from each of the Fund-lead P&T systems in a given Region, it
becomes input for a screening methodology that attempts to determine the optimization potential for
each system. This, in turn, provides a basis for selecting two systems where RSEs will be performed.
Because some Regions do not have two Fund-lead P&T systems, the allotted but unused RSEs for
those Regions are allocated to other Regions.
The factors affecting the optimization potential of a system are
• the overall cost of a given system,
• the expected duration of the system,
• the number of above-ground treatment processes,
• the number of extraction wells,
• the number of monitoring events per year,
• the system downtime per year,
• the pumping rate,
• the results (if any) of a previous performance and effectiveness evaluation, and
any social or political obstacles to implementing modifications to the system.
Table 6 summarizes the results of the screening process including the estimated life-cycle cost savings
that may result from performing an RSE.
Selecting Sites for RSEs
The following is a list of the identified Fund-lead P&T systems in Region 3 classified as completed,
operational, planned, and no-longer operating. Those in bold were selected for RSEs.
Page 2 of 3
-------
July 3, 2001 Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative
Phase 1-Data Collection and Site Screening, Region 3
Operational
AIW Frank
Berks Sand Pit
Bute Landfill
Croydon TCE
Cryo-Chem
Greenwood Chemical
Hellertown Manufacturing
North Penn Area 1
Raymark
Saunders Supply
Pre-Operational
Havertown PCP
North Penn Area 6
Potential
Crossley Fram
Vienna PCE
Typically, only systems with operational histories are chosen to receive RSEs, and the status of P&T
systems in Region 3 at the time of site screening complicates site selection. During the screening, many
of the P&T systems transitioned from pre-operational to operational systems. Specifically, at the time
of the screening, AIW Frank, Butz Landfill, and Greenwood Chemical were considered pre-
operational.
After these transitioning systems, Croydon TCE, Hellertown Manufacturing, and Raymark represented
the next largest estimated life-cycle cost savings based on the screening methodology employed for the
project. Croydon TCE was eliminated from consideration as it represented a conflict of interest for
many of the RSE team members. Hellertown Manufacturing, although scheduled for transition to the
responsible parties in late 2001, was still recommended for an RSE based on the support of Region 3.
Finally, the selection of Raymark was encouraged by the Remedial Project Manager. Thus, Hellertown
Manufacturing and Raymark are both selected for RSEs in Region 3.
Page 3 of 3
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 3
Region 3, Table 1 - Summary
JulyS, 2001
Completed Fund-lead P&T Systems
Operational and Pre-operational Fund-lead P&T Systems
Number of systems
Number that are EPA lead
Number that are State lead
12
12of12
Oof 12
System Status
Number that are operational
Number that are pre-operational
Number where restoration is a goal
Number where the plume is controlled*
Number that are estimated to be more than 80% complete*
Number previously evaluated and effectiveness found sufficient*
Number previously evaluated and effectiveness found not sufficient*
10
2
12of 12
5 of 10
Oof 10
4 of 10
1 of 10
Extent of Contamination
Number where NAPLs are observed
Number with more than 1 major contaminant identified
Number with 3 or more treatment processes
1 of 12
12of 12
5 of 12
Average Costs and Time Frames
Average estimated annual O&M cost (including monitoring)
Average estimated annual monitoring cost
Average number of years until turnover to the States
Average number of years until completion
$298,634
$102,442
7.6
20.0
Operational sites only
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and
May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from actuality. Data- including the
number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Region 3 Fund-lead, P&T systems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 3
Region 3, Table 2 - System Overviews
July 3, 2001
System
AIW Frank/Mid-County
Mustang Site, OU#1
Berks Sand Pit
Butz Landfill
Croydon TCE
CryoChem
Greenwood Chemical
Site
Havertown PCP OU2
Hellertown Manufacturing
North Penn Area 1
Estimated
Annual Cost
$180,000
$150,000
$250,000
$200,000
$125,000
$400,000
$1,000,000
$350,000
$100,000
Lead
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
Type of
ROD
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Interim
Interim
Final
Final
System
Status
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Being
Installed
Operational
Operational
System Goals
Restoration
Restoration
Restoration
Containment &
Restoration
Containment &
Restoration
Containment &
Restoration
Containment &
Restoration
Containment &
Restoration
Containment &
Restoration
Plume Under
Control?
Unknown
Yes
Unknown
Yes
Yes
Control is
not a goal
N/A
Yes
Unknown
Estimated
Progress of
Restoration
Unknown
20% - 80%
less than 20%
less than 20%
Unknown
Unknown
N/A
Unknown
Unknown
Previous Evaluation
of Effectiveness
Sufficient
Sufficient
Not evaluated
Sufficient
Sufficient
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not Sufficient
Not evaluated
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary
from actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Notes:
1. Havertown PCP and North Penn Area 6 are pre-operational; therefore, the associated data are estimates and some items are unknown.
2. "Estimated Progress of Restoration" refers to the estimated portion of the plume that has been restored to cleanup levels.
3. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation Systems Evaluations.
Region 3 Fund-lead, P&T systems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 3
Region 3, Table 2 - System Overviews
July 3, 2001
System
North Penn Area 6
Raymark
Saunders Supply
Company
Estimated
Annual Cost
$592,900
$155,711
$80,000
Lead
EPA
EPA
EPA
Type of
ROD
Final
Final
Final
System
Status
Design
Operational
Operational
System Goals
Containment &
Restoration
Containment &
Restoration
Containment &
Restoration
Plume Under
Control?
N/A
Unknown
Yes
Estimated
Progress of
Restoration
N/A
Unknown
Unknown
Previous Evaluation
of Effectiveness
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary
from actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Notes:
1. Havertown PCP and North Penn Area 6 are pre-operational; therefore, the associated data are estimates and some items are unknown.
2. "Estimated Progress of Restoration" refers to the estimated portion of the plume that has been restored to cleanup levels.
3. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation Systems Evaluations.
Region 3 Fund-lead, P&T systems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 — Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 3
Region 3, Table 3 - P&T System Histories and Projections
JulyS, 2001
System
AIW Frank/Mid-County
Mustang Site, OU#1
Berks Sand Pit
Butz Landfill
Croydon TCE
CryoChem
Greenwood Chemical
Site
Havertown PCP OU2
Hellertown Manufacturing
North Penn Area 1
North Penn Area 6
Raymark
Saunders Supply
Company
Date
Original ROD
9/29/95
9/29/88
6/30/92
6/29/90
9/30/91
12/30/90
9/30/91
9/3/91
9/30/94
8/10/00
9/28/90
9/27/96
Last ROD
Modification
2/2/94
8/27/99
9/24/98
Construction
Completed
11/2000
2/1995
4/2001
3/1995
2/1998
11/2000
5/2001
9/1996
7/1998
9/2002
1/1994
4/1998
Operational and
Functional
9/2001
2/1995
4/2001
3/1995
6/1998
11/2001
4/2002
3/1996
9/1998
6/2003
6/1995
5/1999
Turnover to
State
9/2011
2/2005
4/2011
3/2005
6/2008
11/2011
4/2012
9/2006
9/2008
6/2013
1/2004
5/2009
Years Until
Turnover
10.2
3.6
9.8
3.7
6.9
10.3
10.8
5.2
7.2
11.9
2.5
7.8
Expected
Completion
9/2031
2/2003
4/2031
3/2025
6/2010
11/2020
4/2033
9/2026
9/2018
6/2033
1/2014
4/2008
Years Until
Completion
30.2
1.6
29.8
23.7
8.9
19.3
31.8
25.2
17.2
31.9
12.5
6.8
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from
actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Region 3 Fund-lead, P&T systems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 3
Region 3, Table 4 - System Contact Information
JulyS, 2001
System
RPM
State Regulator
Primary Contractor
AIW Frank/Mid-County
Mustang Site, OU#1
Charlie Root
EPA Region 3
1650 Arch Street (3HS21)
Philadelphia, PA 19103
215-814-3193
215-814-3002 (fax)
root.charlie@epa.gov
Ragesh Patel
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection
Lee Park, Suite 6010 555 North Lane
Conshohocken, PA 19428
610-832-6161
610-832-6260 (fax)
patel. ragesh@state. pa. us
Neil Teamerson
TetraTech NUS
600 Clark Avenue, Suite 3
King of Prussia, PA 19406
610-491-9688
610-491-9645 (fax)
teamersonn@ttnus.com
Berks Sand Pit
Bruce Rundell
EPA Region 3
1650 Arch Street
Philadephia, PA 19103-2087
215-814-3317
215-814-3015 (fax)
rundell.bruce@epa.gov
Elise Juers
PADEP
909 Elmerton Av.
Harrisburg, PA 17110-8200
717-705-4852
717-705-4830 (fax)
juers.elise@a1.dep.state.pa.45
Ed Kashdan
Gannett Fleming
PO Box 80794
Valley Forge, PA 19484
610-650-8101
610-650-8190 (fax)
ekashdan@GFnet.com
Butz Landfill
Rom Roman
EPA Region 3
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2087
215-814-3212
215-814-3015 (fax)
roman.romuald@epa.gov
PADEP Paul Panek
PADEP
4530 Bath Pike
Bethlehem, PA 18017
610-861-2070
610-861-2072 (fax)
panek.paul@dep.state.pa.us
Charles Huval
Koester Environmental Services
14649 Highway 41 N
Evansville, IN 47725
812-483-4516
Croydon TCE
Cesar Lee
EPA Region 3
1650 Arch St
Philadelphia, PA 19103
215-814-3205
215-814-3205 (fax)
lee.cesar@epa.gov
Ewald Dave
PADEP
Lee Park, Suite 6010
Conshohocken, PA 19428
610-832-6200
610-832-5950 (fax)
Ewald. David@dep.state.pa. us
Harish Mital
Tetra Tech, Inc.
Plaza 273, 56 West Main Street
Christiana, DE 19702
302-738-7551
302-454-5988 (fax)
harish.mital@tetratech.com
Region 3 Fund-lead, P&T Systems
Information provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 3
Region 3, Table 4 - System Contact Information
JulyS, 2001
System
RPM
State Regulator
Primary Contractor
CryoChem
Joseph McDowell
EPA Region 3
1650 Arch Street
Phila, PA 19103
215-814-3192
215-814-3002 (fax)
mcdowell.joseph@epa.gov
Rich Morgan
PADEP
909 Elmerton Ave
Harrisburg, PA 17110
610-916-0122
610-916-0100 (fax)
MORGAN.RICHARD@DEP.STATE.PA.US
Don Koch
ETA
9115 Guilford Road Suite 100
Columbia, MD 21046
410-461-9920
410-750-8565 (fax)
dkoch@md.ccjm.com
Greenwood Chemical Site
Philip Rotstein
EPA Region 3
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
215-814-3232
215-814-3002 (fax)
rotstein.phil@epa.gov
Berry Wright
Department of Environmental Quality
629 E. Main Street
Richmond, VA 23219
804-698-4012
804-698-4234 (fax)
bfwright@deq.state.va.us
Jeff Waters
CH2M Hill
1700 Market Street, Suite 1600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
215-563-4220
215-563-3828 (fax)
jwaters@ch2m.com
Havertown PCP OU2
Gregory Ham
EPA Region 3
1650 Arch Street (3HS21)
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
215-814-3194
215-814-3002 (fax)
ham.greg@epa.gov
April Flipse
Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental
Protection
555 North Lane, Suite 6010
Conshohocken, PA 19428
610-832-5937
610-832-6143 (fax)
Flipse. April@dep.state, pa.us
Lori Stoll
URS Corporation
200 Orchard Ridge Drive, Suite 101
Gaithersburg, MD 20878-1978
301-258-9780
301-869-2043 (fax)
lori_stoll@urscorp.com
Hellertown Manufacturing
Cesar Lee
EPA Region 3
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
215-814-3205
215-814-3205 (fax)
lee.cesar@epa.gov
Meg Mustard
PADEP
4530 Bath Pike
Bethlehem, PA 18017
610-861-2076
610-861-2072 (fax)
boyer.margaret@dep.state.pa.us
Jim Romig
COM Federal Corporation
993 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 408
Wayne, PA 19087
610-293-0450
610-293-1920 (fax)
romigjm@cdm.com
Region 3 Fund-lead, P&T Systems
Information provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 3
Region 3, Table 4 - System Contact Information
JulyS, 2001
System
RPM
State Regulator
Primary Contractor
North Penn Area 1
Maria de los A. Garcia
EPA Region 3
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
215-814-3199
215-814-3002 (fax)
garcia.maria@epa.gov
April Flipse
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection
Lee Park, Suite 6010 555 North Lane
Conshohocken, PA 19428
610-832-5937
610-832-6143 (fax)
Policarpio Mijares
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1715
Baltimore, PA 21203
410-962-2782
410-962-2318 (fax)
North Penn Area 6
Gregory Ham
EPA Region 3
1650 Arch Street (3HS21)
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
215-814-3194
215-814-3002 (fax)
ham.greg@epa.gov
Robert Zang
Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental
Protection
555 North Lane, Suite 6010
Conshohocken, PA 19428
610-832-6152
610-832-6259 (fax)
Zang. Robert@state. pa. us
Ray Lees
It Corporation
1220 Ward Avenue, Suite 300
West Chester, PA 19380-3409
610-241-5000
610-241-5050 (fax)
rlees@theitgroup.com
Raymark
Deanna Moultrie
EPA Region 3
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
215-814-5125
215-814-3002 (fax)
moultrie.deanna@epa.gov
David Minsker
PADEP
Lee Park Suite 6010 555 North Lane
Conshohocken, PA 19428
610-832-6193
610-832-6143 (fax)
Minsker. David@dep.state, pa.us
Andy Hopton
COM Federal Programs
993 Old Eagle School Road
Wayne, PA 19083
610-293-0450
610-293-1920 (fax)
HoptonAP@cdm.com
Saunders Supply Company
Andrew Palestini
EPA Region 3
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
215-814-3233
215-814-3002 (fax)
palestini.andy@epa.gov
Thomas Modena
Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality
629 East Main Street
Richmond, VA 23219
804-698-4183
804-698-4500 (fax)
tdmodena@deq.state.va.us
Marc Gutterman
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
803 Front Street
Norfolk, VA 23510
757-441-7669
757-441-7478 (fax)
Marc.D.Gutterman@nao02.usace.army.mil
Region 3 Fund-lead, P&T Systems
Information provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 3
Region 3, Table 5 - Top Contaminants Identified by RPMs
JulyS, 2001
System
AIW Frank/Mid-
County Mustang
Site, OU#1
Berks Sand Pit
Butz Landfill
Croydon TCE
CryoChem
Greenwood
Chemical Site
Havertown PCP
OU2
Hellertown
Manufacturing
NAPLS
Present?
Not present
Not present
Not present
Suspected
Don't know
Don't know
Observed
Not present
#of
Identified
Contam.
2
2
3
4
3
5
4
5
Contaminants
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Trans 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)
Diesel fuel
Trichlorobenzene
Vinyl Chloride
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)
Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)
1,1-Dichloroethane
Acetone
Arsenic
Benzene and Toluene
Naphthalene Acetic Acid, 1,2-Dichloroethane, SVOC
TICs, Dibutyl phthalate, 2,4,6,-Trichlorophenol
Benzene and Toluene
Dioxin (TCDD equivalents)
Pentachlorophenol (PCP)
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
Benzene
Cis-1 ,2-dichloroethene
TCE and Vinyl chloride
Trans 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)
Treatment
Processes
Air Stripping
Carbon Adsorption
Filtration
Off-Gas Treatment
Air Stripping
Air Stripping
Off-Gas Treatment
Air Stripping
Carbon Adsorption
Air Stripping
Metals Precipitation
UV oxidation
Carbon Adsorption
Filtration
Off-Gas Treatment
Metals Precipitation
UV oxidation
Carbon Adsorption
Filtration
Air Stripping
Carbon Adsorption
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates
may, in some cases, vary from actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of
systems- may change overtime.
Region 3 Fund-lead, P&Tsystem
Data provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 3
Region 3, Table 5 — Top Contaminants Identified by RPMs
JulyS, 2001
System
North Penn Area 1
North Penn Area 6
Raymark
Saunders Supply
Company
NAPLS
Present?
Not present
Suspected
Not present
Suspected
#of
Identified
Contam.
7
3
2
2
Contaminants
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)
Cis-1 ,2-dichloroethene
Trans 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
Carbon tetrachloride
TCE and Vinyl chloride
Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)
Carbozol
Trichlorobenzene
Arsenic
Pentachlorophenol (PCP)
Treatment
Processes
Other/Not Sure
Metals Precipitation
Air Stripping
Off-Gas Treatment
Carbon Adsorption
Off-Gas Treatment
Metals Precipitation
Carbon Adsorption
Filtration
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates
may, in some cases, vary from actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of
systems- may change overtime.
Region 3 Fund-lead, P&Tsystem
Data provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 3
Region 3 Table 6 - Screening Summary
July3, 2001
System
AIW Frank/Mid-
County Mustang Site,
OU#1
Berks Sand Pit
Butz Landfill
Croydon TCE
CryoChem
Greenwood Chemical
Site
Potential
Reduction in
Life -Cycle
Costs
Potential Life-
Cycle Savings
Expected
Duration
Previous
Evaluation of
Effectiveness
Approximate
Pumping Rate
(gpm)
Number of
Extraction
Wells
Number of
Treatment
Processes
Groundwater
Samples per
Year
Obstacles to
making
(minor/major)
changes
Operational
28.0%
5.0%
25.0%
20.0%
8.0%
32.5%
$746,159
$925,229
$516,796
$42,373
$1,538,361
30.2
1.6
29.8
23.7
8.9
19.3
Sufficient
Sufficient
Not evaluated
Sufficient
Sufficient
Not evaluated
118
90
90
25
60
45
5
1
3
6
9
5
4
1
2
2
1
5
60
48
68
28
4
136
Minor
Moderate
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
Moderate
Minor
Minor
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary
from actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Notes:
1. "Potential Reduction in Life-cycle Costs" result from a screening methodology that incorporates system-specific information. The reductions do
not include the cost of an RSE.
2. "Potential Life-cycle Savings" were estimated using using system-specific information and incorporate the cost of the RSE. Values in
parentheses denote costs (negative savings).
3. "Groundwater Samples per Year" is calculated by multiplying the number of monitoring wells sampled by the number of monitoring events per
year.
4. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation System Evaluations.
Region 3 Fund-lead, P&T system
Data provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 3
Region 3 Table 6 - Screening Summary
July3, 2001
System
Hellertown
Manufacturing
North Penn Area 1
Raymark
Saunders Supply
Company
Havertown PCP OU2
North Penn Area 6
Potential
Reduction in
Life -Cycle
Costs
Potential Life-
Cycle Savings
Expected
Duration
Previous
Evaluation of
Effectiveness
Approximate
Pumping Rate
(gpm)
Number of
Extraction
Wells
Number of
Treatment
Processes
Groundwater
Samples per
Year
Obstacles to
making
(minor/major)
changes
Operational
20.5%
10.0%
17.5%
17.0%
$979,619
$86,353
$216,640
$46,510
25.2
17.2
12.5
6.8
Not Sufficient
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
50
2
62
2
1
1
2
4
2
1
2
3
48
8
0
40
Minor
Moderate
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
Severe
Pre-Operational
25.5%
35.5%
$3,894,975
$3,210,586
31.8
31.9
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
45
300
4
10
4
3
30
120
Minor
Moderate
Minor
Moderate
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary
from actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Notes:
1. "Potential Reduction in Life-cycle Costs" result from a screening methodology that incorporates system-specific information. The reductions do
not include the cost of an RSE.
2. "Potential Life-cycle Savings" were estimated using using system-specific information and incorporate the cost of the RSE. Values in
parentheses denote costs (negative savings).
3. "Groundwater Samples per Year" is calculated by multiplying the number of monitoring wells sampled by the number of monitoring events per
year.
4. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation System Evaluations.
Region 3 Fund-lead, P&T system
Data provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 3
Region 3, Figure 1 - Estimated Annual O&M Costs
July 3, 2001
D Operational Systems
• Pre-operational Systems
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from
actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Region 3 Fund-lead, P&T systems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 — Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 3
Region 3, Figure 2 -- System Projections
JulyS, 2001
I Years Until Turnover
I Years Until Completion
40.0
35.0
2041
2036
2031
2026
2021
2016
2011
2006
2001
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from actuality.
- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems— may change overtime.
Data!
Region 3 Fund-lead, P&Tsystems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative
Phase 1- Data Collection and System Screening
Region 4
July 3, 2001
In the OSWER Directive No. 9200.0-33, Transmittal of Final FYOO - FY01 Superfund Reforms
Strategy, dated July 7,2000, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response outlined a
commitment to optimize our Fund-lead, pump-and-treat (P&T) systems. To fulfill this commitment,
Headquarters is assisting Regions in evaluating their Fund-lead operating P&T systems. Phase 1 of this
initiative involves identifying all Fund-lead P&T system, collecting baseline cost and performance data
on them, and selecting up to two sites in each Region for a Remediation System Evaluation (RSE).
This report summarizes the screening process for Region 4 that began in July 2000 as part of a
demonstration optimization project and was revisited in April and May 2001 as part of a nationwide
optimization project. The Fund-lead P&T systems in Region 4 were identified during the demonstration
project and baseline information was collected on each system. Two of the identified P&T systems
were selected to receive RSEs and those two systems received their RSEs in 2000. This report
includes information collected during the demonstration project as well as additional information
collected during the nationwide project conducted in 2001. Where applicable, system information
collected in 2000 has been updated by system information collected in 2001.
The data presented in this report reflect estimates updated by the site Remedial Project
Managers between April and May 2001. These estimates may vary from actuality. The data-
including the number, status, cost, specifications, and projections of systems- may change
over time.
The first section of this report presents the cost and performance data for the Region while the second
describes the screening process and system selection.
Cost and Performance Data
Ten Fund-lead P&T systems were identified in Region 4. Of this ten, seven are operational and three
are pre-operational (i.e., pre-design, design, being installed, or installed but not operating). In addition,
two Fund-lead P&T systems have been identified that have been transferred to the responsible parties
and an additional Fund-lead P&T system is no longer operating.
Data collection is incomplete for the following three systems in Region 4 for the following reasons:
• EPA is currently in litigation with the system contractor for ABC Cleaners and details of the
system could not be discussed.
-------
July 3, 2001 Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative
Phase 1-Data Collection and Site Screening, Region 4
• There is no Remedial Project Manager for the Miami Drum site. EPA provides funding to the
local government for water supply but does not provide oversight.
• P&T is specified in the Record of Decision for Coleman Evans but that technology will likely
not be used.
Cost and performance data and other information pertaining to the remaining identified Fund-lead P&T
systems (estimates for the pre-operational systems) were collected with a web-based questionnaire
accessed from hnfil/wwmMuinMg/o^mizB^,Qii or from phone interviews and were stored in a
database. This information is summarized in JabkJ, and provided in detail in five additional tables:
Table 2 provides overviews of the systems by providing items such as annual costs, lead,
status, goals, and progress of each system.
TabjeJi includes the dates marking the signing of the ROD, construction completion,
system operation and function, turnover to the state, and expected close-out.
• Table 4 lists for each system the contact information for the site Remedial Project
Manager, the State Regulator, and the Contractor.
• TableJ) notes for each system and the associated site if NAPLs are present, the top
contaminants of concern, and the above-ground treatment processes.
Table 6 lists system specifications such as the pumping rate, number of wells, number of
monitoring events per year, and other items used to determine the complexity of a system
and its potential for optimization.
Projected dates for turnover to the States and for system completion are depicted in Figure 1. and
annual costs for each system are depicted in 2.
RSE Site Selection
Evaluation of Sites for Optimization Potential
Once the information is gathered from each of the Fund-lead P&T systems in a given Region, it
becomes input for a screening methodology that attempts to determine the optimization potential for
each system. This, in turn, provides a basis for selecting two systems where RSEs will be performed.
Because some Regions do not have two Fund-lead P&T systems, the allotted but unused RSEs for
those Regions are allocated to other Regions.
Page 2 of 4
-------
July 3, 2001 Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative
Phase 1-Data Collection and Site Screening, Region 4
The factors affecting the optimization potential of a system are
• the overall cost of a given system,
• the expected duration of the system,
• the number of above-ground treatment processes,
• the number of extraction wells,
• the number of monitoring events per year,
• the system downtime per year,
• the pumping rate,
• the results (if any) of a previous performance and effectiveness evaluation, and
any social or political obstacles to implementing modifications to the system.
Table 6 summarizes the results of the screening process including the estimated life-cycle cost savings
that may result from performing an RSE.
Selecting Sites for RSEs
The following is a list of the identified Fund-lead P&T systems in Region 4 classified as operational,
pre-operational, transferred to responsible parties, and no-longer operating. Those in bold were
selected for RSEs.
Operational
ABC Cleaners
American Creosote (current)
Benfield
Elmore Waste Disposal
FCX Statesville
Miami Drum
Palmetto Wood
Pre-Operational
American Creosote (future)
Cape Fear Wood Preserving
Coleman Evans
Transferred to Responsible Parties
Distler's Brickyard
Distler'sFarm
No Longer Operating
Hollingsworth Solderless Terminals
Page 3 of 4
-------
July 3, 2001 Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative
Phase 1-Data Collection and Site Screening, Region 4
Elmore Waste Disposal and PCX Statesville were selected for RSEs during the demonstration project
based on the interest of the Remedial Project Managers and estimated potential savings as determined
by screening calculations.
Page 4 of 4
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 4
Region 4, Table 1 - Summary
JulyS, 2001
Completed Fund-lead P&T Systems
Operational and Pre-operational Fund-lead P&T Systems
Number of systems
Number that are EPA lead
Number that are State lead
10
9 of 10
1 of 10
System Status
Number that are operational
Number that are pre-operational
Number where restoration is a goal
Number where the plume is controlled*
Number that are estimated to be more than 80% complete*
Number previously evaluated and effectiveness found sufficient*
Number previously evaluated and effectiveness found not sufficient*
7
3
9 of 10
1 of 7
Oof 7
3 of 7
Oof 7
Extent of Contamination
Number where NAPLs are observed
Number with more than 1 major contaminant identified
Number with 3 or more treatment processes
4 of 10
7 of 10
1 of 10
Average Costs and Time Frames
Average estimated annual O&M cost (including monitoring)
Average estimated annual monitoring cost
Average number of years until turnover to the States
Average number of years until completion
$306,500
$12,300
7.2
10.0
Operational sites only
No-Longer-Operating Fund-lead P&T Systems
Hollingsworth Solderless Terminals
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and
May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from actuality. Data- including the
number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Region 4 Fund-lead, P&T systems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 — Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 4
Region 4, Table 2 -- System Overviews
JulyS, 2001
System
ABC Cleaners
American Creosote
Works (DNAPL)
American Creosote
Works (solute)
Benfield Industries
Cape Fear Wood
Preserving
Coleman Evans Wood
Preserving
Elmore Waste Disposal
PCX Statesville
Miami Drum
Palmetto Wood
Estimated
Annual Cost
Unknown
$300,000
$452,000
$30,000
$40,000
Unknown
$180,000
$150,000
$1,000,000
$300,000
Lead
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
State with
Fund Money
EPA
Type of
ROD
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Interim
Final
Final
Final
Final
System
Status
Operational
Operational
Predesign
Operational
Designed/
Not Installed
Predesign
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
System Goals
Restoration
Restoration
Containment &
Restoration
Containment &
Restoration
Containment &
Restoration
Restoration
Containment &
Restoration
Containment &
Restoration
Water supply
Containment &
Restoration
Plume Under
Control?
N/A
No
N/A
Unknown
N/A
N/A
Unknown
Unknown
N/A
Yes
Estimated
Progress of
Restoration
N/A
less than 20%
N/A
less than 20%
N/A
N/A
Unknown
less than 20%
N/A
20% - 80%
Previous Evaluation
of Effectiveness
N/A
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Sufficient
Sufficient
N/A
Sufficient
I Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary
from actuality. Data— including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems— may change overtime.
Notes:
1. American Creosote Works (solute), Cape Fear Wood Preserving, and Coleman Evans Wood Preserving are pre-operational systems;
therefore, the reported data are estimates and some information is unknown.
2. "Estimated Progress of Restoration" refers to the estimated portion of the plume that has been restored to cleanup levels.
3. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation Systems Evaluations.
Region 4 Fund-lead, P&Tsystems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 — Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 4
Region 4, Table 3 - P&T System Histories and Projections
JulyS, 2001
System
ABC Cleaners
American Creosote
Works (DNAPL)
American Creosote
Works (solute)
Benfield Industries
Cape Fear Wood
Preserving
Coleman Evans Wood
Preserving
Elmore Waste Disposal
PCX Statesville
Miami Drum
Palmetto Wood
Date
Original ROD
1/26/93
2/3/94
2/3/94
7/31/92
6/30/89
9/25/86
4/26/93
9/27/93
1/0/00
9/30/87
Last ROD
Modification
3/23/01
9/25/97
9/30/96
8/4/93
Construction
Completed
9/1998
9/2004
4/2001
9/2001
9/1998
9/1992
5/1997
Operational and
Functional
9/1998
9/2004
5/2001
9/2002
9/1998
5/1998
9/1992
1/1998
Turnover to
State
5/2003
9/2014
5/2011
10/2011
9/2008
5/2008
9/2002
5/2008
Years Until
Turnover
1.8
13.2
9.8
10.3
7.2
6.8
1.2
6.8
Expected
Completion
5/2003
9/2009
5/2021
12/2009
9/2018
5/2008
5/2008
Years Until
Completion
1.8
8.2
19.8
8.4
17.2
6.8
6.8
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from
actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Region 4 Fund-lead, P&T systems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 4
Region 4, Table 4 - System Contact Information
JulyS, 2001
System
RPM
State Regulator
Primary Contractor
ABC Cleaners
Luis Flores
EPA Region 4
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
404-562-8807
(fax)
flores.luis@epa.gov
Nile Testerman
NCDENR
401 Oberlin Road
Raleigh, NC 27605
919-733-2801
919-733-4811 (fax)
nile.testerman@ncmail.net
American Creosote Works
(DNAPL)
Mark Fite
EPA Region 4
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
404-562-8927
(fax)
fite.mark@epa.gov
John Sykes
FDEP
FL
850-488-019
850-488-0190 (fax)
Joe Findley
USAGE, Mobile District
Mobile, AL
334-694-4012
American Creosote Works
(solute)
Mark Fite
EPA Region 4
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
404-562-8927
(fax)
fite.mark@epa.gov
John Sykes
FDEP
FL
850-488-0190
850-488-0190 (fax)
Joe Findley
USAGE, Mobile District
Mobile, AL
334-694-4012
Benfield Industries
Jon Bornholm
EPA Region 4
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
404-562-8820
(fax)
bornholm.jon@epa.gov
Nile Testerman
NCDENR
401 Oberlin Road
Raleigh, NC 27605
919-733-2801
919-733-4811 (fax)
nile.testerman@ncmail.net
Chris Leggett
CMC
Newport, TN
423-625-0557
Region 4 Fund-lead, P&T Systems
Information provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 4
Region 4, Table 4 - System Contact Information
JulyS, 2001
System
RPM
State Regulator
Primary Contractor
Cape Fear Wood Preserving
Jon Bornholm
EPA Region 4
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-3104
404-562-8820
404-562-8788 (fax)
bornholm.jon@epa.gov
Nile Testerman
NCDENR
401 Oberlin Road
Raleigh, NC 27605
919-733-2901
919-733-4811 (fax)
nile.testerman@ncmail.net
Ed Hicks
Black & Veatch
1145 Sanctuary Parkway, Suite 475
Alpharetta, GA 30004
770-521-8141
770-751-8322 (fax)
hicksec@bc.com
Coleman Evans Wood
Preserving
Randall Chaffins
EPA Region 4
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
404-562-8929
chaffins.randall@epa.gov
John Sykes
FDEP
FL
850-413-0066
850-488-0190 (fax)
Todd Trulock
USAGE, Jacksonville District
Jacksonville, FL
904-232-1110
Elmore Waste Disposal
Ralph Howard
EPA Region 4
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
404-562-8829
howard.ralph@epa.gov
Lucas Berresford
SCDHEC
21 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
Ed Hicks
Black and Veatch
Atlanta, GA
770-751-7517
FCX Statesville
Ken Mallory
EPA Region 4
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
404-562-8802
mallory.ken@epa.gov
Nile Testerman
NCDENR
401 Oberlin Road
Raleigh, NC 27605
919-733-2801
919-733-4811 (fax)
nile.testerman@ncmail.net
Ralph McKeen
Roy F. Weston
Atlanta, GA
770-263-5438
Region 4 Fund-lead, P&T Systems
Information provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 — Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 4
Region 4, Table 4 -- System Contact Information
JulyS, 2001
System
RPM
State Regulator
Primary Contractor
Miami Drum
Jim McGuire
EPA Region 4
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
404-562-8911
mcguire.jim@epa.gov
Palmetto Wood
Al Cherry
EPA Region 4
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
404-562-8807
cherry.al@epa.gov
Keisha Long
SCDH
21 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
803-896-4073
Tim Eggert
COM
2030 Powers Ferry Road, Suite 325
Atlanta, GA 30339
678-202-8912
770-951-8910 (fax)
eggerttj@cdm.com
Region 4 Fund-lead, P&T Systems
Information provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 4
Region 4, Table 5 - Top Contaminants Identified by RPMs
JulyS, 2001
System
ABC Cleaners
American Creosote
Works (DNAPL)
American Creosote
Works (solute)
Benfield Industries
Cape Fear Wood
Preserving
Coleman Evans
Wood Preserving
Elmore Waste
Disposal
PCX Statesville
Miami Drum
Palmetto Wood
NAPLS
Present?
Not present
Observed
Observed
Not present
Observed
Observed
Don't know
Don't know
Not present
Not present
#of
Identified
Contam.
3
7
7
1
5
2
2
3
1
1
Contaminants
1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)
Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)
vinyl chloride
Acenaphthene
Benzene
Dibenzofuran
Fluoranthene
Naphthalene
Pentachlorophenol (PCP)
carcinogenic PAHs
Acenaphthene
Benzene
Dibenzofuran
Fluoranthene
Naphthalene
Pentachlorophenol (PCP)
carcinogenic PAHs
Creosote and petroleum hydrocarbons
Benzene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Dioxin
Pentachlorophenol (PCP)
Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
Pesticides
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
PCE
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
Chromium
Treatment
Processes
Air Stripping
Filtration
Carbon Adsorption
Filtration
Other/Not Sure
Biological
Carbon Adsorption
Other/Not Sure
Carbon Adsorption
Carbon Adsorption
Other/Not Sure
Carbon Adsorption
Filtration
Air Stripping
Other/Not Sure
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates
may, in some cases, vary from actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of
systems- may change overtime.
Region 4 Fund-lead, P&Tsystem
Data provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Region 4, Table 6 — Screening Summary
JulyS, 2001
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 4
System
ABC Cleaners
American Creosote
Works (DNAPL)
Benfield Industries
Elmore Waste
Disposal
PCX Statesville
Miami Drum
Palmetto Wood
American Creosote
Works (solute)
Cape Fear Wood
Preserving
Coleman Evans
Wood Preserving
Potential
Reduction in
Life -Cycle
Costs
Potential Life-
Cycle Savings
Expected
Duration
Previous
Evaluation of
Effectiveness
Approximate
Pumping
Rate (gpm)
Number of
Extraction
Wells
Number of
Treatment
Processes
Groundwater
Samples per
Year
Obstacles to
making
(minor/major)
changes
Operational
unknown
7.5%
15.0%
20.0%
20.0%
unknown
18.0%
unknown
$3,248
$29,974
$375,872
$134,513
unknown
$262,124
1.8
19.8
17.2
6.8
6.8
N/A
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Sufficient
Sufficient
N/A
Sufficient
0.1
16
30
20
104000
130
8
2
9
10
40
10
2
3
1
2
2
1
1
8
32
68
72
16
N/A
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
N/A
Minor
Moderate
Pre-Operational
17.5%
22.5%
unknown
$468,926
$32,696
unknown
8.2
8.4
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
105
43
3
7
2
1
20
100
Minor
Minor
Minor
Moderate
N/A
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary
from actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Notes:
1. "Potential Reduction in Life-cycle Costs" result from a screening methodology that incorporates system-specific information. The reductions do
not include the cost of an RSE.
2. "Potential Life-cycle Savings" were estimated using using system-specific information and incorporate the cost of the RSE. Values in
parentheses denote costs (negative savings).
3. "Groundwater Samples per Year" is calculated by multiplying the number of monitoring wells sampled by the number of monitoring events per
year.
4. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation System Evaluations.
Region 4 Fund-lead, P&Tsystem
Data provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 — Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 4
Region 4, Figure 1 --
Estimated Annual Costs of Systems
JulyS, 2001
• Operational Systems
• Pre-operational Systems
$1,000 -i
$900
$800
$700 -
^ $600
§ $500
*» $400
$300
$200
$100
$0 -
$1,000
tA.^
$300 •
II $18°
II
H $30 $40
unknown . . unknown
W 0 0 V) -O in O)
0 o^T o ^ ® g c.E
1 8* 81 n If 11
§ if li" i il 11
00 05 'c ra (35
.^«^_
0
to
s
o
UJ
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 — Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 4
Region 4, Figure 2 - System Projections
JulyS, 2001
0.0 +~
O
O
CO
I Years Until Turnover
I Years Until Completion
2001
ro
o
(D
S
•
O Z
8 a
(D
O
CQ
0
E
< o -— '
2
O
ro
O
£
-------
Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative
Phase 1- Data Collection and System Screening
Region 5
July 3, 2001
In the OSWER Directive No. 9200.0-33, Transmittal of Final FYOO - FY01 Superfund Reforms
Strategy, dated July 7,2000, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response outlined a
commitment to optimize our Fund-lead, pump-and-treat (P&T) systems. To fulfill this commitment,
Headquarters is assisting Regions in evaluating their Fund-lead operating P&T systems. Phase 1 of this
initiative involves identifying all Fund-lead P&T system, collecting baseline cost and performance data
on them, and selecting up to two sites in each Region for a Remediation System Evaluation (RSE).
This report summarizes the screening process for Region 5 which began in April 2000 as part of a
demonstration optimization project and was revisited in April and May 2001 as part of a nationwide
optimization project. The Fund-lead P&T systems in Region 5 were identified during the demonstration
project and baseline information was collected on each system. Two of the identified P&T systems
were selected to receive RSEs and those two systems received their evaluations in 2000. This report
includes information collected during the demonstration project as well as additional information
collected during the nationwide project conducted in 2001. Where applicable, system information
collected in 2000 has been updated by system information collected in 2001.
The first section of this report presents the cost and performance data for the Region while the second
describes the screening process and system selection.
The data presented in this report reflect estimates provided by the site Remedial Project
Managers between January and May 2001. These estimates may vary from actuality. The
data- including the number, status, cost, specifications, and projections of systems- may
change over time.
Cost and Performance Data
Fifteen Fund-lead P&T systems were identified in Region 5. Of this fifteen, twelve are operational and
three are pre-operational (i.e., pre-design, design, being installed, or installed but not operating). In
addition, two previous Fund-lead P&T systems have been transferred to the relevant states and another
has been transferred to the responsible party.
Cost and performance data and other information pertaining to the identified Fund-lead P&T systems
(estimates for the pre-operational systems) were collected during phone interviews with the Remedial
Project Managers (RPMs) and were stored in a database. All RPMs were successfully contacted
except for those associated with Eau Claire Well Field and Duell and Gardner. For these two systems,
-------
July 3, 2001 Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative
Phase 1-Data Collection and Site Screening, Region 5
information was obtained from the site Record of Decisions, fact sheets, and notes from previous
interviews during the demonstration project. The collected information for all Fund-lead P&T systems
in Region 5 is summarized in Table.! and provided in detail in five additional tables:
• Table.2 provides overviews of the systems by providing items such as annual costs, lead,
status, goals, and progress of each system.
Table 3 includes the dates marking the signing of the ROD, construction completion,
system operation and function, turnover to the state, and expected close-out.
• Table 4 lists for each system the contact information for the site Remedial Project
Manager, the State Regulator, and the Contractor.
• Table.,5 notes for each system and the associated site if NAPLs are present, the top
contaminants of concern, and the above-ground treatment processes.
• Table 6 lists system specifications such as the pumping rate, number of wells, number of
monitoring events per year, and other items used to determine the complexity of a system
and its potential for optimization.
Projected dates for turnover to the States and for system completion are depicted in Figure,!, and
annual costs for each system are depicted in 2.
RSE Site Selection
Evaluation of Sites for Optimization Potential
Once the information is gathered from each of the Fund-lead P&T systems in a given Region, it
becomes input for a screening methodology that attempts to determine the optimization potential for
each system. This, in turn, provides a basis for selecting two systems where RSEs will be performed.
Because some Regions do not have two Fund-lead P&T systems, the allotted but unused RSEs for
those Regions are allocated to other Regions.
The factors affecting the optimization potential of a system are
• the overall cost of a given system,
• the expected duration of the system,
• the number of above-ground treatment processes,
Page 2 of 4
-------
July 3, 2001 Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative
Phase 1-Data Collection and Site Screening, Region 5
• the number of extraction wells,
• the number of monitoring events per year,
• the system downtime per year,
• the pumping rate,
• the results (if any) of a previous performance and effectiveness evaluation, and
• any social or political obstacles to implementing modifications to the system.
Table 6 summarizes the results of the screening process including the estimated life-cycle cost savings
that may result from performing an RSE.
Selecting Sites for RSEs
The following is a list of the identified Fund-lead P&T systems in Region 5 classified as operational,
pre-operational, transferred to responsible parties, and no-longer operating. Those in bold were
selected for RSEs.
Operational
Arrowhead
Better Brite
Eau Claire
La Salle
Long Prairie
MacGillis and Gibbs
Oconomowoc
Onalaska
Ott/Story/Cordova
U.S. Aviex
Verona
Wash King
Pre-Operational
Douglass Road
Duell and Gardner
Peerless Plating
Transferred to States
Old Mil
Perham Arsenic
Transferred to Responsible Parties
Bofors Nobel
Page 3 of 4
-------
July 3, 2001 Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative
Phase 1-Data Collection and Site Screening, Region 5
MacGillis and Gibbs and Oconomowoc Electroplating were selected for RSEs during the
demonstration project based on the interest of the Remedial Project Managers and estimated potential
savings as determined by screening calculations. Ott/Story/Cordova was selected for an RSE as part
of the nationwide project based on its high operational costs relative to other Fund-lead P&T systems
and the relatively high potential savings from optimization as indicated by the screening process.
Page 4 of 4
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 5
Region 5, Table 1 - Summary
JulyS, 2001
Completed Fund-lead P&T Systems
Operational and Pre-operational Fund-lead P&T Systems
Number of systems
Number that are EPA lead
Number that are State lead
15
7 of 15
7 of 15
System Status
Number that are operational
Number that are pre-operational
Number where restoration is a goal
Number where the plume is controlled*
Number that are estimated to be more than 80% complete*
Number previously evaluated and effectiveness found sufficient*
Number previously evaluated and effectiveness found not sufficient*
12
3
14 of 15
6 of 12
3 of 12
7 of 12
Oof 12
Extent of Contamination
Number where NAPLs are observed
Number with more than 1 major contaminant identified
Number with 3 or more treatment processes
3 of 15
13 of 15
4 of 15
Average Costs and Time Frames
Average estimated annual O&M cost (including monitoring)
Average estimated annual monitoring cost
Average number of years until turnover to the States
Average number of years until completion
$378,714
$42,929
5.9
15.8
Operational sites only
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and
May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from actuality. Data- including the
number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Region 5 Fund-lead, P&T systems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 5
Region 5, Table 2 — System Overviews
JulyS, 2001
System
Arrowhead Refinery
Better Brite Plating Co.
Chrome and Zinc Shops
Douglass Road
Duell and Gardner
Eau Claire Municipal Well
Field
La Salle Electrical Utilities
Long Prairie
MacGillis and Gibbs/Bell
Lumber & Pole
Estimated
Annual Cost
$70,000
$36,000
$120,000
Unknown
$175,000
$230,000
$300,000
$300,000
Lead
State with
Fund Money
State with
Fund Money
EPA
EPA
State with
Fund Money
State with
Fund Money
State with
Fund Money
EPA
Type of
ROD
Final
Final
Interim
Final
Final
Final
System
Status
Operational
Operational
Installed
Installed
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
System Goals
Containment &
Restoration
Containment &
Restoration
Containment &
Restoration
Restoration
Unknown
Containment &
Restoration
Restoration
Restoration
Plume Under
Control?
Yes
Yes
N/A
N/A
Unknown
Yes
Yes
Unknown
Estimated
Progress of
Restoration
more than
80%
less than 20%
N/A
N/A
Unknown
20% - 80%
20% - 80%
less than 20%
Previous Evaluation
of Effectiveness
Sufficient
Sufficient
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Sufficient
Sufficient
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary
from actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Notes:
1. Douglass Road, Duell and Gardner, and Peerless Plating are pre-operational systems; therefore, the associated data are estimates and some
items are unknown.
2. "Estimated Progress of Restoration" refers to the estimated portion of the plume that has been restored to cleanup levels.
3. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation Systems Evaluations.
Region 5 Fund-lead, P&Tsystems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 5
Region 5, Table 2 — System Overviews
JulyS, 2001
System
Oconomowoc
Electroplating
Onalaska Municipal
Landfill
Ott/Story/Cordova Chem
Co.
Peerless Plating
U.S. Aviex
Verona Well Field
Wash King Laundry
Estimated
Annual Cost
$471,000
$200,000
$2,400,000
$400,000
$300,000
$225,000
$75,000
Lead
EPA
EPA
EPA
Unknown
State with
Fund Money
EPA
State with
Fund Money
Type of
ROD
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
System
Status
Operational
Operational
Operational
Installed
Operational
Operational
Operational
System Goals
Containment &
Restoration
Containment &
Restoration
Containment &
Restoration
Restoration
Restoration
Containment &
Restoration
Restoration
Plume Under
Control?
Unknown
Yes
Unknown
N/A
No
Yes
Unknown
Estimated
Progress of
Restoration
Unknown
more than
80%
20% - 80%
N/A
20% - 80%
more than
80%
less than 20%
Previous Evaluation
of Effectiveness
Sufficient
Sufficient
Not evaluated
Sufficient
Sufficient
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary
from actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Notes:
1. Douglass Road, Duell and Gardner, and Peerless Plating are pre-operational systems; therefore, the associated data are estimates and some
items are unknown.
2. "Estimated Progress of Restoration" refers to the estimated portion of the plume that has been restored to cleanup levels.
3. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation Systems Evaluations.
Region 5 Fund-lead, P&Tsystems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 5
Region 5, Table 3 - P&T System Histories and Projections
July3, 2001
System
Arrowhead Refinery
Better Brite Plating Co.
Chrome and Zinc Shops
Douglass Road
Duell and Gardner
Eau Claire Municipal Well
Field
La Salle Electrical Utilities
Long Prairie
MacGillis and Gibbs/Bell
Lumber & Pole
Oconomowoc
Electroplating
Onalaska Municipal
Landfill
Date
Original ROD
9/30/86
9/24/96
5/3/96
9/30/93
3/31/88
8/29/86
6/14/88
9/30/91
9/20/90
8/14/90
Last ROD
Modification
2/9/94
5/31/01
8/1/90
3/30/88
9/22/94
Construction
Completed
6/1993
8/2000
9/2000
7/2001
6/1987
2/1998
11/1996
10/1999
9/1996
7/1994
Operational and
Functional
7/1993
4/1993
7/2001
7/2001
3/1991
3/1994
8/1996
10/1999
9/1996
8/1995
Turnover to
State
7/2003
6/2006
9/2010
7/201 1
unknown
3/2004
10/2007
10/2009
9/2006
6/2004
Years Until
Turnover
2.0
4.9
9.2
10.0
unknown
2.7
6.2
8.3
5.2
2.9
Expected
Completion
4/2004
4/2030
10/2030
7/2007
unknown
3/2005
10/2015
10/2029
9/2026
7/2002
Years Until
Completion
2.7
28.8
29.3
6.0
unknown
3.7
14.3
28.3
25.2
1.0
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from
actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Notes:
1. Douglass Road, Duell and Gardner, and Peerless Plating are pre-operational systems; therefore, the associated data are estimates and some
items are unknown.
Region 5 Fund-lead, P&T systems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 5
Region 5, Table 3 - P&T System Histories and Projections
July3, 2001
System
Ott/Story/Cordova Chem
Co.
Peerless Plating
U.S. Aviex
Verona Well Field
Wash King Laundry
Date
Original ROD
9/29/89
9/21/92
9/7/88
8/12/85
3/31/93
Last ROD
Modification
9/29/90
7/31/96
Construction
Completed
2/1996
11/2000
9/1993
6/1996
4/2001
Operational and
Functional
2/1996
unknown
9/1993
6/1996
4/2001
Turnover to
State
8/2010
unknown
9/2003
6/2006
4/201 1
Years Until
Turnover
9.1
unknown
2.2
4.9
9.8
Expected
Completion
8/2030
unknown
9/2003
Indefinite
4/2021
Years Until
Completion
29.1
unknown
2.2
Indefinite
19.8
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from
actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Notes:
1. Douglass Road, Duell and Gardner, and Peerless Plating are pre-operational systems; therefore, the associated data are estimates and some
items are unknown.
Region 5 Fund-lead, P&T systems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 5
Region 5, Table 4 - System Contact Information
July 3, 2001
System
RPM
State Regulator
Primary Contractor
Arrowhead Refinery
Darryl Owens
EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-886-7089
owens.darryl@epa.gov
Maureen Johnson
MPCA
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155-4194
651-296-7353
maureen.johnson@pca.state, mn.us
Gary Schroeher
Delta Environmental
2770 Cleveland Ave
Roseville, MN 55113-1127
651-639-9449
Better Brite Plating Co.
Chrome and Zinc Shops
John Peterson
EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-353-1264
peterson.john@epa.gov
Keld Lauredsen
WDNR
1125 Military Ave. Box 10448
Green Bay, Wl 54307
920-492-5921
920-492-5913 (fax)
lauredsenk@dnr.state.wi.us
Douglass Road
Dion Novak
EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-886-4737
Novak.Dion@epa.gov
Kevin Herron
IN
317-234-0354
Dan Plomb
CH2MHILL
135S. 84th Street Suite 325
Milwaukee, Wl 53214
414-272-2426
Duell and Gardner
Kyle Rogers
EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-886-1995
rogers.kyle@epa.gov
Walelign Wagaw
MDEQ
P.O. Box 30426
Lansing, Ml 48909
517-373-9896
Tim Gouger
USAGE, Rapid Response
12565 West Center Road
Omaha, NE 68144-3869
402-293-2514
402-291-8177 (fax)
Timothy.P.Gouger@nwo02.usace.army.mil
Region 5 Fund-lead, P& T Systems
Information provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 5
Region 5, Table 4 - System Contact Information
July 3, 2001
System
RPM
State Regulator
Primary Contractor
Eau Claire Municipal Well
Field
Sheri Bianchin
EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-886-4745
bianchin.sheri@epa.gov
La Salle Electrical Utilities
Steve Padovani
EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-353-6755
padovani.steven@epa.gov
Rich Lang
IEPA
P.O. Box1515
La Salle, IL 61301
815-223-6836
epa4137@epa.state.il.us
Neil Brown
Ecology and Environment
33 N. Deerborne St.
Chicago, IL 60602
312-578-9243
Long Prairie
Sheila Sullivan
EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-886-5251
sullivan.sheila@epa.gov
Mariam Horneff
MPCA
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155-4194
651-296-7228
Bill Bangsund
Barr Engineering
612-832-2738
MacGillis and Gibbs/Bell
Lumber & Pole
Darryl Owens
EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-886-7089
owens.darryl@epa.gov
Nile Fellows
MPCA
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155-4194
651-296-6300
Larry Campbell
Black and Veatch
Chicago, IL
Region 5 Fund-lead, P& T Systems
Information provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 5
Region 5, Table 4 - System Contact Information
July 3, 2001
System
RPM
State Regulator
Primary Contractor
Oconomowoc Electroplating
Steve Padovani
EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-353-6755
padovani.steven@epa.gov
Paul Kozol
WDNR
3911 Fish Hatchery Road
Fitchburg, Wl 53711
608-275-3301
608-275-3338 (fax)
kozolp@dnr.state.wi.us
Craig Evans
USAGE, St. Paul District
190 Fifth Street East
St. Paul, MN 55101-1638
651-290-5594
651-290-5800 (fax)
Craig.O.Evans@mvp02.usace.army.mil
Onalaska Municipal Landfill
Timothy Prendiville
EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-886-5122
prendiville.timothy@epa.gov
Dave Carper
WDNR
3550 Mormon Coulee Road
La Crosse, Wl 54601
608-785-9973
608-785-9990 (fax)
carped@dnr.state.wi.us
Jim Fisher
CH2MHIII
Milwaukee, Wl
414-272-1052
Jfisher1@ch2m.com
Ott/Story/Cordova Chem
Co.
John Fagiolo
EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-886-0800
fagiolo.john@epa.gov
Lisa Summerfield
Michigan Dept. of Environmental
P.O. Box 30426
Lansing, Ml 48909
517-335-3388
summerfl@state.mi.us
Brain Bouwhuis
USACE-Detroit District
PO Box 629
Grand Haven, Ml 49417
231-766-2007
231-766-3287 (fax)
Brian.j.Bouwhuis@usace.army.mil
Peerless Plating
Mike Ribordy
EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-886-4592
ribordy.mike@epa.gov
Mike Johnson
Tetra Tech
312-856-8796
Region 5 Fund-lead, P& T Systems
Information provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 5
Region 5, Table 4 - System Contact Information
July 3, 2001
System
U.S. Aviex
Verona Well Field
Wash King Laundry
RPM
Ken Glatz
EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-886-1434
glatz.ken@epa.gov
Richard Boice
EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-886-4740
boice. richard@epa.gov
Russell Hart
EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-886-4844
hart.russell@epa.gov
State Regulator
Judy Gapp
MDEQ
P.O. Box 30426
Lansing, Ml 48909
517-335-3391
51 7-335-4887 (fax)
gappj@state.mi.us
Beth O'Brien
MDEQ
P.O. Box 30426
Lansing, Ml 48909
517-335-3908
obrienea@state. mi. us
Sally Beebe
MDEQ-ERD
P.O. Box 30426
Lansing, Ml 48909
517-373-4110
51 7-335-4887 (fax)
beebes@state.mi.us
Primary Contractor
Jack Brunner
Tetra Tech
312-856-8788
Malcolm Pirnie
517-337-0111
Region 5 Fund-lead, P& T Systems
Information provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 5
Region 5, Table 5 - Top Contaminants Identified by RPMs
July3, 2001
System
Arrowhead Refinery
Better Brite Plating
Co. Chrome and
Zinc Shops
Douglass Road
Duell and Gardner
Eau Claire Municipal
Well Field
La Salle Electrical
Utilities
Long Prairie
MacGillis and
Gibbs/Bell Lumber &
Pole
Oconomowoc
Electroplating
Onalaska Municipal
Landfill
NAPLS
Present?
Not present
Not present
Not present
Not present
Don't know
Not present
Observed
Observed
Not present
Not present
#of
Identified
Con tarn.
4
1
4
5
2
3
3
3
3
3
Contaminants
Pentachlorophenol (PCP)
VOCs
PNAs
VC
Chromium
Arsenic
TCE and Vinyl chloride
Tetrahydrofuran
Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)
Anthracene
Carbozol
Chloromethane
N-N dimethylanaline
Gentin Violet
Trans 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Vernolate
Transuranic wastes
PCB
TCA
Dichloroethylene
Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)
VC
Chromium
Pentachlorophenol (PCP)
carcinogenic PAHs
Cadmium
Cyanide
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
Benzo(a)anthracene
Trans 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Volatile chlorinated organics
Treatment Processes
Other/Not Sure
Metals Precipitation
Other/Not Sure
Carbon Adsorption
Air Stripping
Carbon Adsorption
Other/Not Sure
Carbon Adsorption
Biological Treatment
Carbon Adsorption
Filtration
Off-Gas Treatment
Metals Precipitation
Air Stripping
Carbon Adsorption
Metals Precipitation
Air Stripping
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates
may, in some cases, vary from actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of
systems- may change overtime.
Region 5 Fund-lead, P&T system
Data provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 5
Region 5, Table 5 - Top Contaminants Identified by RPMs
July3, 2001
System
Ott/Story/Cordova
Chem Co.
Peerless Plating
U.S. Aviex
Verona Well Field
Wash King Laundry
NAPLS
Present?
Observed
Don't know
Not present
Not present
Don't know
#of
Identified
Contain.
5
2
4
4
1
Contaminants
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethylene (DCE)
Organophosphorus pesticides (4,4'-DDT, lindane)
Vapona
vinyl chloride
Cadmium
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
diethylether
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
Tin
Trans 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Volatile chlorinated organics
Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)
Treatment Processes
Biological Treatment
Carbon Adsorption
Other/Not Sure
Metals Precipitation
Air Stripping
Off-Gas Treatment
Air Stripping
Air Stripping
Off-Gas Treatment
Air Stripping
Off-Gas Treatment
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates
may, in some cases, vary from actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of
systems- may change overtime.
Region 5 Fund-lead, P&T system
Data provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 5
Region 5, Table 6 ~ Screening Summary
JulyS, 2001
System
Potential
Reduction in
Life-Cycle
Costs
Potential Life-
Cycle Savings
Expected
Duration
Previous
Evaluation of
Effectiveness
Approximate
Pumping
Rate (gpm)
Number of
Extraction
Wells
Number of
Treatment
Processes
Groundwater
Samples per
Year
Obstacles to
making
(minor/major)
changes
Operational
Arrowhead Refinery
Better Brite Plating
Co. Chrome and Zinc
Shops
Eau Claire Municipal
Well Field
La Salle Electrical
Utilities
Long Prairie
MacGillis and
Gibbs/Bell Lumber &
Pole
Oconomowoc
Electroplating
Onalaska Municipal
Landfill
5.0%
12.0%
unknown
12.5%
15.5%
32.0%
24.5%
5.0%
($17,724)
$39,644
unknown
$57,261
$429,665
$1,399,624
$1,590,721
2.7
28.8
unknown
3.7
14.3
28.3
25.2
1.0
Sufficient
Sufficient
Sufficient
Sufficient
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Sufficient
Sufficient
25
0
4500
20
227
60
30
560
0
0
14
0
9
14
5
5
1
1
1
2
1
4
3
2
36
28
0
100
22
60
40
20
Minor
Moderate
Minor
Severe
Severe
Severe
Minor
Minor
Minor
Moderate
Minor
Severe
Minor
Severe
Minor
Minor
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary
from actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Notes:
1. "Potential Reduction in Life-cycle Costs" result from a screening methodology that incorporates system-specific information. The reductions do
not include the cost of an RSE.
2. "Potential Life-cycle Savings" were estimated using using system-specific information and incorporate the cost of the RSE. Values in
parentheses denote costs (negative savings).
3. "Groundwater Samples per Year" is calculated by multiplying the number of monitoring wells sampled by the number of monitoring events per
year.
4. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation System Evaluations.
Region 5 Fund-lead, P&Tsystem
Data provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 5
Region 5, Table 6 ~ Screening Summary
JulyS, 2001
System
Potential
Reduction in
Life-Cycle
Costs
Potential Life-
Cycle Savings
Expected
Duration
Previous
Evaluation of
Effectiveness
Approximate
Pumping
Rate (gpm)
Number of
Extraction
Wells
Number of
Treatment
Processes
Groundwater
Samples per
Year
Obstacles to
making
(minor/major)
changes
Operational
Ott/Story/Cordova
Chem Co.
U.S. Aviex
Verona Well Field
Wash King Laundry
40.0%
5.0%
25.5%
23.0%
$14,418,502
($1
$856,994
$185,195
29.1
2.2
Indefinite
19.8
Not evaluated
Sufficient
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
700
170
250
250
10
6
6
5
3
1
2
2
120
120
10
46
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
Moderate
Minor
Moderate
Pre-Operational
Douglass Road
Duell and Gardner
Peerless Plating
32.5%
unknown
unknown
$563,336
unknown
unknown
29.3
6.0
unknown
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Sufficient
1000
80
165
5
2
6
1
1
3
72
50
24
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary
from actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Notes:
1. "Potential Reduction in Life-cycle Costs" result from a screening methodology that incorporates system-specific information. The reductions do
not include the cost of an RSE.
2. "Potential Life-cycle Savings" were estimated using using system-specific information and incorporate the cost of the RSE. Values in
parentheses denote costs (negative savings).
3. "Groundwater Samples per Year" is calculated by multiplying the number of monitoring wells sampled by the number of monitoring events per
year.
4. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation System Evaluations.
Region 5 Fund-lead, P&Tsystem
Data provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 5
Region 5, Figure 1 — Estimated Annual Costs of Systems
JulyS, 2001
.^uu
o
0
to
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 5
Region 5, Figure 2 - System Projections
JulyS, 2001
lYears Until Turnover
lYears Until Completion
Indefinite
O
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from
actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Notes:
1. Douglass Road, Duell and Gardner, and Peerless Plating are pre-operational systems; therefore, the associated data are estimates and some
items are unknown.
Region 5 Fund-lead, P& T systems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative
Phase 1- Data Collection and System Screening
Region 6
July 3, 2001
In the OSWER Directive No. 9200.0-33, Transmittal of Final FYOO - FY01 Superfund Reforms
Strategy, dated July 7,2000, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response outlined a
commitment to optimize our Fund-lead, pump-and-treat (P&T) systems. To fulfill this commitment,
Headquarters is assisting Regions in evaluating their Fund-lead operating P&T systems. Phase 1 of this
initiative involves identifying all Fund-lead P&T system, collecting baseline cost and performance data
on them, and selecting up to two sites in each Region for a Remediation System Evaluation (RSE).
This report summarizes the screening process for Region 6 which was conducted during January 2001.
The first section of this report presents the cost and performance data for the Region while the second
describes the screening process and system selection.
The data presented in this report reflect estimates provided by the site Remedial Project
Managers between January and May 2001. These estimates may vary from actuality. The
data- including the number, status, cost, specifications, and projections of systems- may
change over time.
Cost and Performance Data
Eleven Fund-lead P&T systems were identified in Region 6. Of this eleven,
six are operational,
• three are pre-operational,
• one is complete, and
• one has returned to remedial-investigation status.
One of the operational P&T systems is a component of a more comprehensive strategy that primarily
relies on in situ bioremediation. In addition, another one of the operational systems and the completed
system utilize in situ chemical treatment to enhance the P&T remediation.
Cost and performance data and other information pertaining to the identified Fund-lead P&T systems
(estimates for the pre-operational systems) were collected with a web-based questionnaire accessed
from ://www.cluin. and stored in a database. This information is summarized in
Table 1 and provided in detail in five additional tables:
-------
July 3, 2001 Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative
Phase 1-Data Collection and Site Screening, Region 6
• Table 2 provides overviews of the systems by providing items such as annual costs, lead,
status, goals, and progress of each system.
TableJ> includes the dates marking the signing of the ROD, construction completion,
system operation and function, turnover to the state, and expected close-out.
• Table 4 lists for each system the contact information for the site Remedial Project
Manager, the State Regulator, and the Contractor.
• Tabfejj. notes for each system and the associated site if NAPLS are present, the top
contaminants of concern, and the above-ground treatment processes.
• Table 6 lists system specifications such as the pumping rate, number of wells, number of
monitoring events per year, and other items used to determine the complexity of a system
and its potential for optimization.
Projected dates for turnover to the States and for system completion are depicted in 1. and
annual costs for each system are depicted in 2.
RSE Site Selection
Evaluation of Sites for Optimization Potential
Once the information is gathered from each of the Fund-lead P&T systems in a given Region, it
becomes input for a screening methodology that attempts to determine the optimization potential for
each system. This, in turn, provides a basis for selecting two systems where RSEs will be performed.
The factors affecting the optimization potential of a system are
• the overall cost of a given system,
• the expected duration of the system,
• the number of above-ground treatment processes,
• the number of extraction wells,
• the number of monitoring events per year,
• the system downtime per year,
• the pumping rate,
• the results (if any) of a previous performance and effectiveness evaluation, and
any social or political obstacles to implementing modifications to the system.
Page 2 of 3
-------
July 3, 2001 Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative
Phase 1-Data Collection and Site Screening, Region 6
Table 6 summarizes the results of the screening process including the estimated life-cycle cost savings
that may result from performing an RSE.
Selecting Two Sites for RSEs
The following is a list of the identified Fund-lead P&T systems in Region 6 classified as completed,
operational, planned, and no-longer operating. Those in bold were selected for RSEs.
Completed
*Odessa Chromium #2
Operational
**American Creosote Works
Bayou Bonfouca
Cimarron Mining
Geneva Industries
Midland Products
*Odessa Chromium #1
Planned
City of Perryton Well #2
North Cavalcade Superfund Site
Sprague Road Ground Water Plume
No longer operating
Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers
* Remediation was significantly enhanced through in situ treatment with ferrous sulfate.
** In-situ bioremediation is the primary remedial action.
Only operational systems that are not temporarily shutdown (Geneva Industries) and not within a year
of completion (Odessa Chromium #1) were considered in selecting the two systems for RSEs.
Because American Creosote Works had recently completed an intensive 5-year review with an outside
party, its P&T system was removed from consideration as other systems would likely benefit more from
an RSE. While Cimarron Mining exhibited high estimated potential savings, it is a relatively simple
system with a pumping rate of 1 gpm, three wells, and direct discharge of the extracted water.
Furthermore, for Cimarron Mining moderate social and political obstacles for minor system
modifications and severe social and political obstacles for major system modifications discourage an
RSE since suggested modifications likely would not be implemented.
Thus, the selection of the P&T systems at Bayou Bonfouca and Midland Products for RSEs arose not
from a quantitative analysis of the potential cost savings but rather from feasibility and practicality of
conducting and RSE and implementing the suggested modifications.
Page 3 of 3
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 6
Region 6, Table 1 — Summary
JulyS, 2001
Completed Fund-lead P&T Systems
Odessa Chromium #2
Operational and Pre-operational Fund-lead P&T Systems
Number of systems
Number that are EPA lead
Number that are State lead
9
5 of 9
4 of 9
System Status
Number that are operational
Number that are pre-operational
Number where cleanup is a goal
Number where the plume is controlled*
Number that are estimated to be more than 80% complete*
Number previously evaluated and effectiveness found sufficient*
Number previously evaluated and effectiveness found not sufficient*
6
3
6 of 9
4 of 6
1 of 6
5 of 6
1 of 6
Extent of Contamination
Number where NAPLs are observed
Number with more than 1 major contaminant identified
Number with 3 or more treatment processes
3 of 9
6 of 9
4 of 9
Average Costs and Time Frames
Average estimated annual O&M cost (including monitoring)
Average estimated annual monitoring cost
Average number of years until turnover to the States
Average number of years until completion
$489,875
$63,111
7.2
17.5
Operational sites only
No-Longer-Operating Fund-lead P&T Systems
Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers
*** Note: Remediation for the completed system and 80%-complete system was
significantly enhanced by in situ treatment.
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and
May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from actuality. Data- including the
number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-may change overtime.
Region 6 Fund-lead, P&T systems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 6
Region 6, Table 2 - System Overviews
JulyS, 2001
System
American Creosote
Works
Bayou Bonfouca
Cimarron Mining
City of Perryton Well #2
Geneva Industries
Midland Products
Estimated
Annual Cost
$360,000
$402,000
$1,000,000
$37,000
$240,000
$180,000
Lead
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
State with
Fund Money
State with
Fund Money
Type of
ROD
Final
Final
Final
Interim
Final
Final
System
Status
Operational
Operational
Operational
Design
Operational
(shutdown)
Operational
System Goals
Containment
Containment &
Restoration
Containment &
Restoration
Containment
Containment &
Restoration
Restoration
Plume Under
Control?
Yes
Unknown
Unknown
N/A
Yes
Yes
Estimated
Progress of
Restoration
Restoration is
not a goal
Unknown
Unknown
N/A
Unknown
less than 20%
Previous Evaluation
of Effectiveness
Sufficient
Sufficient
Not Sufficient
Not evaluated
Sufficient
Sufficient
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary
from actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Notes:
1. The City of Perryton Well #2, North Cavalcade, and Sprague Road systems are pre-operational; therefore, the associated data are estimates
2. "Estimated Progress of Restoration" refers to the estimated portion of the plume that has been restored to cleanup levels.
3. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation Systems Evaluations.
4. In-situ bioremediation is the primary remedial strategy at the American Creosote Works site.
5. The Geneva Industries system is shutdown due to issues with the contractor. Operation is expected to resume in 2004.
6. The remediation has been significantly enhanced by in situ treatment with ferrous sulfate.
Region 6 Fund-lead, P& T systems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 6
Region 6, Table 2 - System Overviews
JulyS, 2001
System
North Cavalcade
Superfund Site
Odessa Chromium #1
Sprague Road Ground
Water Plume
Estimated
Annual Cost
unknown
$500,000
$1,200,000
Lead
State with
Fund Money
State with
Fund Money
EPA
Type of
ROD
Final
Final
Final
System
Status
Installed
Operational
Design
System Goals
Restoration
Restoration
Restoration
Plume Under
Control?
N/A
Yes
N/A
Estimated
Progress of
Restoration
N/A
more than
80%
N/A
Previous Evaluation
of Effectiveness
Not evaluated
Sufficient
Not evaluated
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary
from actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Notes:
1. The City of Perryton Well #2, North Cavalcade, and Sprague Road systems are pre-operational; therefore, the associated data are estimates
2. "Estimated Progress of Restoration" refers to the estimated portion of the plume that has been restored to cleanup levels.
3. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation Systems Evaluations.
4. In-situ bioremediation is the primary remedial strategy at the American Creosote Works site.
5. The Geneva Industries system is shutdown due to issues with the contractor. Operation is expected to resume in 2004.
6. The remediation has been significantly enhanced by in situ treatment with ferrous sulfate.
Region 6 Fund-lead, P& T systems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 6
Region 6, Table 3 - P&T System Histories and Projections
JulyS, 2001
System
American Creosote
Works
Bayou Bonfouca
Cimarron Mining
City of Perryton Well #2
Geneva Industries
Midland Products
North Cavalcade
Superfund Site
Odessa Chromium #1
Sprague Road Ground
Water Plume
Date
Original ROD
4/28/93
3/31/87
9/21/90
9/29/99
9/18/86
3/24/88
6/28/88
3/18/88
9/29/00
Last ROD
Modification
7/20/95
11/23/99
Construction
Completed
2/1997
7/2000
4/1991
8/2001
4/1993
11/1993
3/2001
11/1993
9/2002
Operational and
Functional
2/1997
3/2001
12/1991
8/2003
7/1993
1/1994
12/2005
11/1/93
9/2003
Turnover to
State
2/2027
7/2003
10/2004
8/2013
1/2004
1/2004
12/2005
12/2001
9/2013
Years Until
Turnover
25.6
2.0
3.2
12.1
2.5
2.5
4.4
0.4
12.2
Expected
Completion
2/2027
7/2021
Indefinite
8/2023
1/2004
1/2034
12/2010
12/2001
9/2028
Years Until
Completion
25.6
20.0
Indefinite
22.1
2.5
32.5
9.4
0.4
27.2
I Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from I
actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Notes:
1. For Cimarron Mining an indefinite completion date was provided by the RPM.
2. The Geneva Industries system is currently shutdown due to issues with the contractor. Operation is expected to resume in 2004.
Region 6 Fund-lead, P&T systems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 6
Region 6, Table 4 - System Contact Information
JulyS, 2001
System
RPM
State Regulator
Primary Contractor
American Creosote Works
Stacey Bennett
EPA Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
214-665-6729
214-665-6660 (fax)
bennett.stacey@epa.gov (fax)
Janaye Danage
Louisiana Dept. of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 82178
Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2178
225-765-0475
225-765-0484 (fax)
janaye_d@deq.state.la.us
Bill Faught
CH2MHill
7600 W. Tidwell, Suite 400
Houston, TX 77040-5719
713-462-0161
713-462-0165 (fax)
bfaught@ch2m.com
Bayou Bonfouca
Katrina Coltrain
EPA Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
214-665-8143
214-665-6660 (fax)
coltrain.katrina@epa.gov (fax)
Rich Johnson
Louisiana Dept. of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 82282
Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2282
225-765-0487
225-765-0435 (fax)
richj@deq.state.la.us
Lee Guillory
USACE-New Orleans District
P.O. Box60267
New Orleans, LA 70160-0267
504-862-2934
504-862-2896 (fax)
Iee.a.guillory@mvn02.usace.army.mil
Cimarron Mining
Petra Sanchez
EPA Region 6
1445 Ross Ave. Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
214-665-6686
214-665-6660 (fax)
sanchez.petra@epa.gov
David Henry
New Mexico Environment Dept.
PO Box 26110 1190 St. Francis Drive
Santa Fe, NM 87505
214-827-0037
214-827-2965 (fax)
david_henry@nmev.state.nm.us
Brian D. Jordan
USAGE
4101 Jefferson Plaza NE
Albuquerque, NM 87109
505-342-3472
505-342-3208 (fax)
brian.D.Joran@spao2.usace.army.mil
City of Perryton Well #2
Vincent Malott
EPA Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
214-665-8313
214-665-6660 (fax)
malott.vincent@epa.gov
Diane Poteet
Texas Natural Resource Conserv. Comm.
P.O. Box13087
Austin, TX 78711
512-239-2502
512-239-2450 (fax)
d poteet@tn rcc.state .tx. us
Peter van Noort
CH2M Hill
5339 Alpha Road, Suite 300
Dallas, TX 75240
972-980-2170
972-385-0846 (fax)
pvannoor@ch2m.com
Region 6 Fund-lead, P& T Systems
Information provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 6
Region 6, Table 4 - System Contact Information
JulyS, 2001
System
RPM
State Regulator
Primary Contractor
Geneva Industries
Ruben Moya
EPA Region 6
1445 Ross Ave., Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202
214-665-2755
214-665-6660 (fax)
moya.ruben@epa.gov
James Sher
Texas Natural Resource Conserv. Comm.
P.O.Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711-3087
512-239-2444
512-239-2450 (fax)
JSher@tnrcc.state.tx.us
Sanjay Ramabhadran
Lockwood, Andrews & Newman Inc.
1500 Citywest
Houston, TX 77042
713-266-6900
713-266-8971 (fax)
sanjay@lan-inc.com
Midland Products
Carlos Sanchez
EPA Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
214-665-8507
214-665-6660 (fax)
sanchez.carlos@epa.gov
Clark McWilliams
Arkansas Dept. of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 8913
Little Rock, AR 72219
501-682-0850
501-682-0565 (fax)
clarkm@adeq.state.ar.us
Russell Perry
IT Corp.
13111 NW Highway, Suite 310
Houston, TX 77040-6392
713-996-4400
713-939-9546 (fax)
rpe rry @th e itg ro u p. co m
North Cavalcade Superfund
Camille Hueni
EPA Region 6
U.S. EPA Region 6, 1445
Dallas, TX 75202-7233
214-665-2231
214-665-6660 (fax)
hueni.camille@epa.gov
Uche Ikemba
Texas Natural Resource Conserv. Comm.
P.O. Box 13087; Mail Code 143
Austin, TX 78711-3087
512-239-2595
512-239-2449 (fax)
uikemba@tnrcc.state.tx.us
Frank Frey
Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation
1001 S. Dairy Ashford Street, Ste. 210
Houston, TX 77077
281-597-4821
281-596-0308 (fax)
ffrey@fwenc.com
Odessa Chromium #1
Ernest Franke
EPA Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
214-665-8521
214-665-6660 (fax)
franke, ernest@epa.gov
Uche Ikemba
Texas Natural Resource Conserv. Comm.
12100 Park Circle Bldg. D , P.O. Box
Austin, TX 78711
512-239-2595
512-239-2449 (fax)
uikemba@tnrcc.state.tx.us>
William Brown
Pacific Western Technologies, Ltd.
575 Oak Ridge Turnpike,Suite B-4
Oak Ridge, TN 37830
865-483-0554
865-483-8838 (fax)
pwtitd@usit.net
Region 6 Fund-lead, P& T Systems
Information provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 6
Region 6, Table 4 - System Contact Information
JulyS, 2001
System
RPM
State Regulator
Primary Contractor
Sprague Road Ground
Vincent Malott
EPA Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
214-665-8313
214-665-6660 (fax)
malott.vincent@epa.gov
Diane Poteet
Texas Natural Resource Conserv. Comm.
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711
512-239-2502
512-239-2450 (fax)
d poteet@tn rcc.state .tx. us
Cristina Radu
Tetra Tech EMI
6121 Indian School Road NE, Suite 205
Albuquerque, TX87110
505-881-3188
505-881-3283 (fax)
raduc@ttemi.com
Region 6 Fund-lead, P& T Systems
Information provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 6
Region 6, Table 5 - Top Contaminants Identified by RPMs
JulyS, 2001
System
American
Creosote Works
Bayou Bonfouca
Cimarron Mining
City of Perryton
Well #2
Geneva Industries
Midland Products
North Cavalcade
Superfund Site
Odessa
Chromium #1
Sprague Road
Ground Water
NAPLS
Present?
Observed
Observed
Not present
Not present
Not present
Suspected
Observed
Not present
Not present
#of
Identified
Contam.
2
6
1
2
5
4
15
1
1
Contaminants
Chlorinated polyaromatic hydrocarbons (CPAHs)
Creosote and petroleum hydrocarbons
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Chrysene
Nitrate
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)
PCB
Benzene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Naphthalene
Pentachlorophenol (PCP)
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Arsenic
Benzene and Toluene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
BTEX
Chrysene
Creosote and petroleum hydrocarbons
Dibenzofuran
DNAPL
Ethylbenzene
Chromium
Chromium
Treatment
Processes
Bio. Treatment
Carbon Adsorption
Filtration
Carbon Adsorption
Filtration
Other/Not Sure
Other/Not Sure
Air Stripping
Carbon Adsorption
Other/Not Sure
Carbon Adsorption
Filtration
Other/Not Sure
Carbon Adsorption
Filtration
Other/Not Sure
Other/Not Sure
Ion Exchange
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These
estimates may, in some cases, vary from actuality. Data— including the number, status, cost, projections, and
specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Region 6 Fund-lead, P&Tsystem
Data provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 — Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 6
Region 6, Table 6 - Screening Summary
JulyS, 2001
Operational
Pre-operational
System
American Creosote
Works
Bayou Bonfouca
Cimarron Mining
Geneva Industries
Midland Products
Odessa Chromium #1
City of Perryton Well
#2
North Cavalcade
Superfund Site
Sprague Road
Ground Water Plume
Potential
Reduction in
Life-Cycle
Costs
22.0%
25.5%
15.0%
8.0%
20.0%
5.0%
17.5%
27.5%
32.5%
Potential Life-
Cycle Savings
$1,093,548
$1,233,790
$2,280,868
$10,701
$528,408
($25,000)
$59,346
($25,000)
$5,653,419
Expected
Duration
25.6
20.0
Indefinite
2.5
32.5
0.4
22.1
9.4
27.2
Previous
Evaluation of
Effectiveness
Sufficient
Sufficient
Not Sufficient
Sufficient
Sufficient
Sufficient
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Approximate
Pumping
Rate (gpm)
5
22.5
1
5
3
60
150
19
200
Number of
Wells
18
44
3
13
8
6
1
19
22
Number of
Treatment
Processes
3 or more
3 or more
1
2
3 or more
1
1
3 or more
1
Ground water
Samples per
Year
72
132
12
26
40
14
20
0
200
Obstacles to
making
(minor/major)
changes
Minor
Severe
Minor
Moderate
Moderate
Severe
Minor
Moderate
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
I Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from actuality. Data—
including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems— may change overtime.
Notes:
1. "Potential Reduction in Life-cycle Costs" result from a screening methodology that incorporates system-specific information. The reductions do not include the cost
of an RSE.
2. "Potential Life-cycle Savings" were estimated using using system-specific information and incorporate the cost of the RSE. Values in parentheses denote costs
(negative savings).
3. "Groundwater Samples per Year" is calculated by multiplying the number of monitoring wells sampled by the number of monitoring events per year.
4. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation System Evaluations.
5. In situ bioremediation is the primary remedial strategy at the American Creosote Works site.
6. The remediation at the Odessa Chromium #1 site has been signficantly enhanced by in situ treatment with ferrous sulfate.
7. The North Cavalcade system is pre-operational, and no cost estimates for were provided.
Region 6 Fund-lead, P&Tsystem
Data provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 6
Region 6, Figure 1 -
Estimated Annual Costs of Systems
JulyS, 2001
$1,400
$1,200
$1,000
r $800
o
o
5>
$600
$400
$0
I Operational Systems
I Pre-operational Systems
$1,000
$360
$500
$37
$180
unknown
E £
< 6
- I
o 3
>* o
(0 c
m o
m
o,
'
0
"o
O
in
ro g)
^ I
5|
?«
^5 3
1!
to?
i g t
ro X
$1,200
Dafa reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary
from actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Notes:
1. The City of Perryton Well #2, North Cavalcade, and Sprague Road systems are pre-operational; therefore, the associated data are estimates
2. The Geneva Industries system is currently shutdown. These are estimated costs for O&M when system resumes operation.
Region 6 Fund-lead, P& T systems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 6
Region 6, Figure 2 - System Projections
JulyS, 2001
Indefinite
I Years Until Turnover
lYears Until Completion
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from
actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Notes:
1. For Cimarron Mining an indefinite completion date was provided by the RPM.
2. The Geneva Industries system currently shutdown due to issues with the contractor.
Region 6 Fund-lead, P& T systems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative
Phase 1- Data Collection and System Screening
Region 7
July 3, 2001
In the OSWER Directive No. 9200.0-33, Transmittal of Final FYOO - FY01 Superfund Reforms
Strategy, dated July 7,2000, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response outlined a
commitment to optimize our Fund-lead, pump-and-treat (P&T) systems. To fulfill this commitment,
Headquarters is assisting Regions in evaluating their Fund-lead operating P&T systems. Phase 1 of this
initiative involves identifying all Fund-lead P&T system, collecting baseline cost and performance data
on them, and selecting up to two sites in each Region for a Remediation System Evaluation (RSE).
This report summarizes the screening process for Region 7 which was conducted during February
2001. The first section of this report presents the cost and performance data for the Region while the
second describes the screening process and system selection.
The data presented in this report reflect estimates provided by the site Remedial Project
Managers between January and May 2001. These estimates may vary from actuality. The
data- including the number, status, cost, specifications, and projections of systems- may
change over time.
Cost and Performance Data
Four Fund-lead P&T systems were identified in Region 7. Of this four,
one is operational,
• two are pre-operational, and
• one is complete.
In addition, two sites are still in the investigation stage and have potential to be pump-and-treat.
Because a remediation strategy has not yet been selected, these two sites are not discussed further in
this report.
The site that is undergoing completion, Hastings Groundwater Contamination, has reached the MCL
after approximately 10 years of operation.
Cost and performance data and other information pertaining to the identified Fund-lead P&T systems
(estimates for the pre-operational systems) were collected with a web-based questionnaire accessed
from http://www.cluin.org/optimization and stored in a database. This information is summarized in
Table..! and provided in detail in five additional tables:
-------
July 3, 2001 Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative
Phase 1-Data Collection and Site Screening, Region 7
• Table 2 provides overviews of the systems by providing items such as annual costs, lead,
status, goals, and progress of each system.
TableJ> includes the dates marking the signing of the ROD, construction completion,
system operation and function, turnover to the state, and expected close-out.
• Table 4 lists for each system the contact information for the site Remedial Project
Manager, the State Regulator, and the Contractor.
• Tabfejj. notes for each system and the associated site if NAPLS are present, the top
contaminants of concern, and the above-ground treatment processes.
• Table 6 lists system specifications such as the pumping rate, number of wells, number of
monitoring events per year, and other items used to determine the complexity of a system
and its potential for optimization.
Projected dates for turnover to the States and for system completion are depicted in 1. and
annual costs for each system are depicted in 2.
RSE Site Selection
Evaluation of Sites for Optimization Potential
Once the information is gathered from each of the Fund-lead P&T systems in a given Region, it
becomes input for a screening methodology that attempts to determine the optimization potential for
each system. This, in turn, provides a basis for selecting two systems where RSEs will be performed.
The factors affecting the optimization potential of a system are
• the overall cost of a given system,
• the expected duration of the system,
• the number of above-ground treatment processes,
• the number of extraction wells,
• the number of monitoring events per year,
• the system downtime per year,
• the pumping rate,
• the results (if any) of a previous performance and effectiveness evaluation, and
any social or political obstacles to implementing modifications to the system.
Page 2 of 3
-------
July 3, 2001 Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative
Phase 1-Data Collection and Site Screening, Region 7
Table 6 summarizes the results of the screening process including the estimated life-cycle cost savings
that may result from performing an RSE.
Selecting Sites for RSEs
The following is a list of the identified planned and operating Fund-lead P&T systems and potential
Fund-lead P&T systems in Region 7 classified as completed, operational, pre-operational, potential,
and no longer operating. As indicated, only one system is operational. By default, it was selected for
an RSE and is shown in bold.
Completed
Hastings Groundwater Contamination
Operational
Cleburn Street Well
Pre-operational
Ace Services
Valley Park TCE
Potential
Ogallala
10th Street Site
Because it is the only operating Fund-lead P&T system in Region 7, Cleburn Street Well, will be the
sole recipient of a RSE in this Region.
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Ogallala site is scheduled for 2002 and may involve P&T. The
ROD for the 10th Street site indicated monitoring with a contingency plan for P&T; however, during site
activities an additional source was discovered and the site is has returned to the remedial-investigation
status.
Page 3 of 3
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 7
Region 7, Table 1 - Summary
JulyS, 2001
Completed Fund-lead P&T Systems
Hastings Groundwater Contamination
Operational and Pre-operational Fund-lead P&T Systems
Number of systems
Number that are EPA lead
Number that are State lead
3
2 of 3
1 of 3
System Status
Number that are operational
Number that are pre-operational
Number where restoration is a goal
Number where the plume is controlled*
Number that are estimated to be more than 80% complete*
Number previously evaluated and effectiveness found sufficient*
Number previously evaluated and effectiveness found not sufficient*
1
2
3 of 3
Oof1
Oof 1
Oof 1
Oof1
Extent of Contamination
Number where NAPLs are observed
Number with more than 1 major contaminant identified
Number with 3 or more treatment processes
1 of 3
1 of 3
Oof 3
Average Costs and Time Frames
Average estimated annual O&M cost (including monitoring)
Average estimated annual monitoring cost
Average number of years until turnover to the States
Average number of years until completion
$300,000
$25,000
8.4
15.7
Operational sites only
No-Longer-Operating Fund-lead P&T Systems
10th Street Site (back in Remedial Investigation)
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and
May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from actuality. Data- including the
number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Region 7 Fund-lead, P&T systems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 7
Region 7, Table 2 - System Overviews
JulyS, 2001
System
Ace Services
Cleburn Street Well
Site/0112
Valley Park TCE Site -
OU2
Estimated
Annual Cost
$500,000
$100,000
unknown
Lead
EPA
EPA
State with
Fund Money
Type of
ROD
Final
Final
Final
System
Status
Design
Operational
Predesign
System Goals
Containment &
Restoration
Containment &
Restoration
Containment &
Restoration
Plume Under
Control?
N/A
Unknown
N/A
Estimated
Progress of
Restoration
N/A
Unknown
N/A
Previous Evaluation
of Effectiveness
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary
from actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Notes:
1. Ace Services and Valley Park TCE are pre-operational systems; therefore, the associated data are estimates and some items are unknown.
2. "Estimated Progress of Restoration" refers to the estimated portion of the plume that has been restored to cleanup levels.
3. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation Systems Evaluations.
Region 7 Fund-lead, P& T systems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 7
Region 7, Table 3- P&T System Histories and Projections
July 3, 2001
System
Ace Services
Cleburn Street Well
Site/0112
Valley Park TCE Site -
OU2
Date
Original ROD
5/5/99
6/7/96
8/15/01
Last ROD
Modification
Construction
Completed
9/2002
9/1998
1/2005
Operational and
Functional
9/2003
10/1999
1/2006
Turnover to
State
9/2013
12/2009
1/2006
Years Until
Turnover
12.2
8.4
4.5
Expected
Completion
9/2015
12/2019
1/2016
Years Until
Completion
14.2
18.4
14.5
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from
actuality. Data— including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Region 7 Fund-lead, P&T systems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 7
Region 7, Table 4 - System Contact Information
JulyS, 2001
System
RPM
State Regulator
Primary Contractor
Ace Services
Bob Stewart
EPA Region 7
901 N. 5th St
Kansas City, KS66101
913-551-7654
913-551-9654 (fax)
stewart.robert@epa.gov
Cynthia Randall
Kansas Dept of Health and Environment
Forbes Field, Bldg 20
Topeka, KS 66620
785-291-3245
785-296-4823 (fax)
CRandal@kdhe.state.ks.us
Gary Felkner
Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp
8400 Ward Parkway
Kansas City, MO 64114
913-458-6583
913-458-9391 (fax)
felknerg@bv.com
Cleburn Street Well
Site/0112
Mary Peterson
EPA Region 7
901 North 5th Street
Kansas City, KS66101
913-551-7882
913-551-7063 (fax)
peterson.mary@epa.gov
Ralph Martin
Nebraska Department of Environmental
1200 N Street, Suite 400 The Atrium
Lincoln, NE 68509-8922
402-471-3120
402-471-2909 (fax)
ralph.martin@ndeq.state.ne.us
David Sanders
Black and Veatch Special Projects Corp.
6601 College Boulevard
Overland Park, KS 66211
913-458-6605
913-458-0000 (fax)
SandersHD@bv.com
Valley Park TCE Site - OU2
Steve Auchterlonie
EPA Region 7
901 N. 5th St.
Kansas City, KS66101
913-551-7778
913-551-7437 (fax)
auchterlonie.steve@epa.gov
Dave Mosby
MDNR - Superfund Unit
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176
573-751-1288
573-751-7869 (fax)
nrmosbd@mail.dnr.state.mo.us
Region 7 Fund-lead, P& T Systems
Information provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 7
Region 7, Table 5 — Top Contaminants Identified by RPMs
JulyS, 2001
System
Ace Services
Cleburn Street
Well Site/OU2
Valley Park TCE
Site - OU2
NAPLS
Present?
Observed
Don't know
Not present
#of
Identified
Contam.
1
1
2
Contaminants
Chromium
Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)
Treatment
Processes
Ion Exchange
Air Stripping
Air Stripping
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These
estimates may, in some cases, vary from actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and
specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Region 7 Fund-lead, P&Tsystem
Data provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 7
Region 7, Table 6 - Screening Summary
JulyS, 2001
System
Potential
Reduction in
Life-Cycle
Costs
Potential Life-
Cycle Savings
Expected
Duration
Previous
Evaluation of
Effectiveness
Approximate
Pumping
Rate (gpm)
Number of
Extraction
Wells
Number of
Treatment
Processes
Groundwater
Samples per
Year
Obstacles to
making
(minor/major)
changes
Operational
Cleburn Street Well
Site/0112
17.5%
$179,042
18.4
Not evaluated
90
3
1
32
Minor
Minor
Pre-Operational
Ace Services
Valley Park TCE Site -
OU2
32.5%
unknown
$1,557,210
unknown
14.2
14.5
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
800
unknown
12
unknown
1
1
124
unknown
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary
from actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Notes:
1. "Potential Reduction in Life-cycle Costs" result from a screening methodology that incorporates system-specific information. The reductions do
not include the cost of an RSE.
2. "Potential Life-cycle Savings" were estimated using using system-specific information and incorporate the cost of the RSE. Values in
parentheses denote costs (negative savings).
3. "Groundwater Samples per Year" is calculated by multiplying the number of monitoring wells sampled by the number of monitoring events per
year.
4. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation System Evaluations.
Region 7 Fund-lead, P&Tsystem
Data provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 7
Region 7, Figure 1 —
Estimated Annual Costs of Systems
JulyS, 2001
$1,400 -,
> -^ CM CM
! i§ Is
8 11 I"
< g| >S
Dafa reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary
from actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Notes:
1. Ace Services and Valley Park TCE are pre-operational systems; therefore, the associated data are estimates and some items are unknown.
Region 7 Fund-lead, P& T systems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 7
Region 7, Figure 2 - System Projections
July 3, 2001
I Years Until Turnover
lYears Until Completion
2041
2036
2031
2026
2021
2016
2011
2006
2001
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from
actuality. Data— including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Region 7 Fund-lead, P&Tsystems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative
Phase 1- Data Collection and System Screening
Region 9
July 3, 2001
In the OSWER Directive No. 9200.0-33, Transmittal of Final FYOO - FY01 Superfund Reforms
Strategy, dated July 7,2000, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response outlined a
commitment to optimize our Fund-lead, pump-and-treat (P&T) systems. To fulfill this commitment,
Headquarters is assisting Regions in evaluating their Fund-lead operating P&T systems. Phase 1 of this
initiative involves identifying all Fund-lead P&T system, collecting baseline cost and performance data
on them, and selecting up to two sites in each Region for a Remediation System Evaluation (RSE).
This report summarizes the screening process for Region 9 which was conducted from January through
April 2001. The first section of this report presents the cost and performance data for the Region while
the second describes the screening process and system selection.
The data presented in this report reflect estimates provided by the site Remedial Project
Managers between January and May 2001. These estimates may vary from actuality. The
data- including the number, status, cost, specifications, and projections of systems- may
change over time.
Cost and Performance Data
Four Fund-lead P&T systems were identified in Region 9. Of this four, two are classified as
operational and two are classified as pre-operational (i.e., pre-design, design, being installed, or
installed but not operating). Region 9 has a number of other Fund-lead sites; however, these sites are
classified as well-head treatment projects rather than P&T systems and are not considered in this
project.
Cost and performance data and other information pertaining to the identified Fund-lead P&T systems
(estimates for the pre-operational system) were collected with a web-based questionnaire accessed
from ://www.cluin. and stored in a database. This information is summarized in
Table 1 and provided in detail in five additional tables:
Tabled provides overviews of the systems by providing items such as annual costs, lead,
status, goals, and progress of each system.
Table 3 includes the dates marking the signing of the ROD, construction completion,
system operation and function, turnover to the state, and expected close-out.
-------
July 3, 2001 Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative
Phase 1-Data Collection and Site Screening, Region 9
• Table 4 lists for each system the contact information for the site Remedial Project
Manager, the State Regulator, and the Contractor.
TaMeJi notes for each system and the associated site if NAPLS are present, the top
contaminants of concern, and the above-ground treatment processes.
Table 6 lists system specifications such as the pumping rate, number of wells, number of
monitoring events per year, and other items used to determine the complexity of a system
and its potential for optimization.
Projected dates for turnover to the States and for system completion are depicted in 1. and
annual costs for each system are depicted in Figure 2.
RSE Site Selection
Evaluation of Sites for Optimization Potential
Once the information is gathered from each of the Fund-lead P&T systems in a given Region, it
becomes input for a screening methodology that attempts to determine the optimization potential for
each system. This, in turn, provides a basis for selecting two systems where RSEs will be performed.
The factors affecting the optimization potential of a system are
• the overall cost of a given system,
• the expected duration of the system,
• the number of above-ground treatment processes,
• the number of extraction wells,
• the number of monitoring events per year,
• the system downtime per year,
• the pumping rate,
• the results (if any) of a previous performance and effectiveness evaluation, and
• any social or political obstacles to implementing modifications to the system.
Table 6 summarizes the results of the screening process including the estimated life-cycle cost savings
that may result from performing an RSE.
Page 2 of 3
-------
July 3, 2001 Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative
Phase 1-Data Collection and Site Screening, Region 9
Selecting Two Sites for RSEs
The following is a list of the identified Fund-lead P&T systems in Region 9 classified as operational and
pre-operational. Those in bold were selected for RSEs.
Operational
Newmark
Selma Pressure Treating
Pre-operational
Modesto
Muscoy
Selma Pressure Treating and Modesto were selected for RSEs. Despite its operational status and high
operating costs, Newmark was not selected for an RSE due to political complications. Modesto,
although classified as pre-operational, is scheduled to be operational and funcational in May 2001,
which is approximately two months before an RSE would be conducted. Due to the lack of other
operating Fund-lead P&T systems in the Region, and the existing (although minimal) operational history,
Modesto was selected as the second site in Region 9 to receive an RSE.
Page 3 of 3
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 9
Region 9, Table 1 - Summary
JulyS, 2001
Completed Fund-lead P&T Systems
Operational and Pre-operational Fund-lead P&T Systems
Number of systems
Number that are EPA lead
Number that are State lead
4
4 of 4
Oof 4
System Status
Number that are operational
Number that are pre-operational
Number where restoration is a goal
Number where the plume is controlled*
Number that are estimated to be more than 80% complete*
Number previously evaluated and effectiveness found sufficient*
Number previously evaluated and effectiveness found not sufficient*
2
2
1 of 4
2 of 2
Oof 2
1 of 2
Oof 2
Extent of Contamination
Number where NAPLs are observed
Number with more than 1 major contaminant identified
Number with 3 or more treatment processes
1 of 4
3 of 4
Oof 4
Average Costs and Time Frames
Average estimated annual O&M cost (including monitoring)
Average estimated annual monitoring cost
Average number of years until turnover to the States
Average number of years until completion
$650,000
$65,000
9.6
19.7
Operational sites only
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and
May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from actuality. Data- including the
number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Region 9 Fund-lead, P&T systems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 9
Region 9, Table 2 - System Overviews
JulyS, 2001
System
Modesto Superfund Site
Muscoy
Newmark
Selma Treating Co.
Estimated
Annual Cost
$300,000
$1,100,000
$900,000
$300,000
Lead
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
Type of
ROD
Interim
Interim
Interim
Final
System
Status
Installed
Installed
Operational
Operational
System Goals
Containment
Containment
Containment
Containment &
Restoration
Plume Under
Control?
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Estimated
Progress of
Restoration
N/A
N/A
Unknown
less than 20%
Previous Evaluation
of Effectiveness
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Sufficient
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary
from actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Notes:
1. Modesto and Muscoy are pre-operational systems; therefore, the associated data are estimates and some items are unknown.
2. "Estimated Progress of Restoration" refers to the estimated portion of the plume that has been restored to cleanup levels.
3. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation Systems Evaluations.
Region 9 Fund-lead, P& T systems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 9
Region 9, Table 3- P&T System Histories and Projections
July 3, 2001
System
Modesto Superfund Site
Muscoy
Newmark
Selma Treating Co.
Date
Original ROD
9/26/97
3/24/95
8/4/93
9/24/88
Last ROD
Modification
6/30/01
Construction
Completed
7/2000
10/2003
10/1998
9/1998
Operational and
Functional
5/2002
10/2004
10/1998
10/1998
Turnover to
State
5/2012
10/2014
10/2008
10/2008
Years Until
Turnover
10.8
13.3
7.3
7.3
Expected
Completion
5/2022
10/2024
10/2028
10/2008
Years Until
Completion
20.8
23.3
27.3
7.3
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from
actuality. Data— including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Region 9 Fund-lead, P&T systems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 9
Region 9, Table 4 - System Contact Information
JulyS, 2001
System
RPM
State Regulator
Primary Contractor
Modesto Superfund Site
David Seter
EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-744-2212
seter.david@epa.gov
Emanuel Mensah
State of California, DISC
5796 Corporate Avenue
Cypress, CA 90630
916-255-3704
Chris Lichens
Ecology and Environment
415-981-2811
Muscoy
Kim Hoang
EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-744-2370
hoang.kim@epa.gov
Yasser Aref
CalEPA Department of Toxic Substances
5796 Corporate Avenue
Cypress, CA 90630
714-484-5349
Dwayne Duetcher
URS
Newmark
Kim Hoang
EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-744-2370
hoang.kim@epa.gov
Yasser Aref
CalEPA Dept Toxic Substances Control
5796 Corporate Ave.
Cypress, CA 90630
714-484-5349
Dwayne Duetcher
URS
Selma Treating Co.
Michelle Lau
EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-744-2227
415-744-2180 (fax)
lau.michelle@epa.gov
Chris Sherman
DPES
10151 Croyden Way, Suite 3
Sacramento, CA 95827
916-255-3706
916-255-3697 (fax)
John Kirschbaum
Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District
12565 West Center Road
Omaha, NE 68144-3869
402-293-2525
402-221-7838 (fax)
Region 9 Fund-lead, P& T Systems
Information provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 9
Region 9, Table 5 — Top Contaminants Identified by RPMs
JulyS, 2001
System
Modesto
Superfund Site
Muscoy
Newmark
Selma Treating
Co.
NAPLS
Present?
Don't know
Don't know
Don't know
Not present
#of
Identified
Contam.
2
1
1
1
Contaminants
perchloroethylene
Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)
Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)
Chromium
Treatment Processes
Air Stripping
Carbon Adsorption
Carbon Adsorption
Carbon Adsorption
Filtration
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These
estimates may, in some cases, vary from actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and
specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Region 9 Fund-lead, P&Tsystem
Data provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 9
Region 9, Table 6 — Screening Summary
JulyS, 2001
System
Potential
Reduction in
Life-Cycle
Costs
Potential Life-
Cycle Savings
Expected
Duration
Previous
Evaluation of
Effectiveness
Approximate
Pumping
Rate (gpm)
Number of
Extraction
Wells
Number of
Treatment
Processes
Groundwater
Samples per
Year
Obstacles to
making
(minor/major)
changes
Operational
Newmark
Selma Treating Co.
25.5%
17.0%
$3,321,528
$261 ,332
27.3
7.3
Not evaluated
Sufficient
12000
150
8
6
1
1
30
80
Minor
Moderate
Minor
Severe
Pre-Operational
Modesto Superfund
Site
Muscoy
20.0%
27.0%
$730,227
$3,958,747
20.8
23.3
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
50
9000
1
5
2
1
40
60
Minor
Minor
Minor
Severe
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary
from actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Notes:
1. "Potential Reduction in Life-cycle Costs" result from a screening methodology that incorporates system-specific information. The reductions do
not include the cost of an RSE.
2. "Potential Life-cycle Savings" were estimated using using system-specific information and incorporate the cost of the RSE. Values in
parentheses denote costs (negative savings).
3. "Groundwater Samples per Year" is calculated by multiplying the number of monitoring wells sampled by the number of monitoring events per
year.
4. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation System Evaluations.
Region 9 Fund-lead, P&Tsystem
Data provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 9
Region 9, Figure 1 - Estimated Annual Costs of Systems
JulyS, 2001
D Operational Systems
• Pre-operational Systems
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary
from actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Region 9 Fund-lead, P& T systems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 9
Region 9, Figure 2 - System Projections
July 3, 2001
40.
CO
I Years Until Turnover
lYears Until Completion
2041
2036
2031
2026
2021
2016
2011
2006
2001
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from
actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Region 9 Fund-lead, P&Tsystems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative
Phase 1- Data Collection and System Screening
Region 10
July 3, 2001
In the OSWER Directive No. 9200.0-33, Transmittal of Final FYOO - FY01 Superfund Reforms
Strategy, dated July 7,2000, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response outlined a
commitment to optimize our Fund-lead, pump-and-treat (P&T) systems. To fulfill this commitment,
Headquarters is assisting Regions in evaluating their Fund-lead operating P&T systems. Phase 1 of this
initiative involves identifying all Fund-lead P&T system, collecting baseline cost and performance data
on them, and selecting up to two sites in each Region for a Remediation System Evaluation (RSE).
This report summarizes the screening process for Region 10 which was conducted during January
through March 2001. The first section of this report presents the cost and performance data for the
Region while the second describes the screening process and system selection.
The data presented in this report reflect estimates provided by the site Remedial Project
Managers between January and May 2001. These estimates may vary from actuality. The
data- including the number, status, cost, specifications, and projections of systems- may
change over time.
Cost and Performance Data
Five Fund-lead P&T systems were identified in Region 10. Of this five, four are operational and one is
pre-operational (i.e., pre-design, design, being installed, or installed but not operating).
Cost and performance data and other information pertaining to the identified Fund-lead P&T systems
(estimates for the pre-operational systems) were collected with a web-based questionnaire accessed
from http://www.Muin, jg/QptimizatiQn and stored in a database. This information is summarized in
TableJL and provided in detail in five additional tables:
• Table 2 provides overviews of the systems by providing items such as annual costs, lead,
status, goals, and progress of each system.
TableJi includes the dates marking the signing of the ROD, construction completion,
system operation and function, turnover to the state, and expected close-out.
Table 4 lists for each system the contact information for the site Remedial Project
Manager, the State Regulator, and the Contractor.
-------
July 3, 2001 Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative
Phase 1-Data Collection and Site Screening, Region 10
• Table 5 notes for each system and the associated site if NAPLS are present, the top
contaminants of concern, and the above-ground treatment processes.
TableJ? lists system specifications such as the pumping rate, number of wells, number of
monitoring events per year, and other items used to determine the complexity of a system
and its potential for optimization.
Projected dates for turnover to the States and for system completion are depicted in Figure 1. and
annual costs for each system are depicted in HgureJZ.
RSE Site Selection
Evaluation of Sites for Optimization Potential
Once the information is gathered from each of the Fund-lead P&T systems in a given Region, it
becomes input for a screening methodology that attempts to determine the optimization potential for
each system. This, in turn, provides a basis for selecting two systems where RSEs will be performed.
The factors affecting the optimization potential of a system are
• the overall cost of a given system,
• the expected duration of the system,
• the number of above-ground treatment processes,
• the number of extraction wells,
• the number of monitoring events per year,
• the system downtime per year,
• the pumping rate,
• the results (if any) of a previous performance and effectiveness evaluation, and
• any social or political obstacles to implementing modifications to the system.
To estimate potential life-cycle savings from optimization, a default reduction in life-cycle costs of 20%
is assumed and is adjusted based on the above factors. For example, according to the screening
methodology, a system with many above-ground treatment processes and a high pumping rate may
exhibit greater than a 20% reduction in life-cycle costs whereas a system with few extraction wells and
one treatment process may exhibit less than a 20% reduction in life-cycle costs.
Table.6 summarizes the results of the screening process including the estimated life-cycle cost savings
that may result from performing an RSE.
Page 2 of 3
-------
July 3, 2001 Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative
Phase 1-Data Collection and Site Screening, Region 10
Selecting Two Sites for RSEs
The following is a list of the identified Fund-lead P&T systems in Region 10 classified as operational
and pre-operational. Those in bold were selected for RSEs.
Operational
McCormick and Baxter Creosoting
Boomsnub/Airco
Commencement Bay/South Tacoma Channel 12A
Wyckoff Co./Eagle Harbor
Pre-operational
Bunker Hill
Only operational systems were considered for RSEs in this Region. Because Boomsnub/Airco is
anticipating transition to the responsible party, substantial cost savings to the Superfund program would
not be realized by optimizing this site. Because a pilot study to determine the effectiveness of steam
injection at Wyckoff Co./Eagle Harbor is planned for the summer of 2001 and the site managers are
already investigating alternative technologies, this site was not selected for an RSE. Thus,
Commencement Bay/South Tacoma Channel 12A and McCormick and Baxter are the two sites
selected to receive RSEs in Region 10.
Page 3 of 3
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 10
Region 10, Table 1 - Sum maty
JulyS, 2001
Completed Fund-lead P&T Systems
Operational and Pre-operational Fund-lead P&T Systems
Number of systems
Number that are EPA lead
Number that are State lead
5
4 of 5
1 of 5
System Status
Number that are operational
Number that are pre-operational
Number where restoration is a goal
Number where the plume is controlled*
Number that are estimated to be more than 80% complete*
Number previously evaluated and effectiveness found sufficient*
Number previously evaluated and effectiveness found not sufficient*
4
1
3 of 5
3 of 4
Oof 4
2 of 4
2 of 4
Extent of Contamination
Number where NAPLs are observed
Number with more than 1 major contaminant identified
Number with 3 or more treatment processes
3 of 5
5 of 5
3 of 5
Average Costs and Time Frames
Average estimated annual O&M cost (including monitoring)
Average estimated annual monitoring cost
Average number of years until turnover to the States
Average number of years until completion
$512,500
$57,800
13.9
29.4
Operational sites only
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and
May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from actuality. Data- including the
number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Region 10 Fund-lead, P&T systems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 10
Region 10, Table 2 - System Overviews
JulyS, 2001
System
Boomsnub/Airco / Site-
Wide Ground Water OU
Bunker Hill Superfund
Site
Commencement Bay,
South Tacoma Channel,
Well 12A
McCormick & Baxter
Creosoting Co.
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor
Superfund Site
Estimated
Annual Cost
$1,000,000
unknown
$300,000
$250,000
$500,000
Lead
EPA
EPA
EPA
State with
Fund Money
EPA
Type of
ROD
Final
Final
Final
Final
Interim
System
Status
Operational
Predesign
Operational
Operational
Operational
System Goals
Containment &
Restoration
Restoration
Containment &
Restoration
Containment
Containment
Plume Under
Control?
Yes
N/A
Yes
No
Yes
Estimated
Progress of
Restoration
Unknown
N/A
less than 20%
Restoration is
not a goal
Restoration is
not a goal
Previous Evaluation
of Effectiveness
Sufficient
Not evaluated
Not Sufficient
Sufficient
Not Sufficient
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary
from actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Notes:
1. Bunker Hill Superfund Site is pre-operational; therefore, the associated data are estimates and some items are unknown.
2. "Estimated Progress of Restoration" refers to the estimated portion of the plume that has been restored to cleanup levels.
3. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation System Evaluations.
Region 10 Fund-lead, P& T systems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 10
Region 10, Table 3 — P&T System Histories and Projections
JulyS, 2001
System
Boomsnub/Airco / Site-
Wide Ground Water OU
Bunker Hill Superfund
Site
Commencement Bay,
South Tacoma Channel,
Well 12A
McCormick & Baxter
Creosoting Co.
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor
Superfund Site
Date
Original ROD
2/3/00
9/1/92
1/1/85
3/1/96
9/29/94
Last ROD
Modification
1/1/87
3/1/98
Construction
Completed
10/2000
12/2010
6/1988
3/1996
2/1990
Operational and
Functional
12/2001
12/2020
5/1988
3/1996
2/1990
Turnover to
State
12/2011
12/2030
1/2004
3/2006
1/2024
Years Until
Turnover
10.4
29.4
2.5
4.7
22.5
Expected
Completion
10/2030
12/2050
1/2011
Indefinite
Indefinite
Years Until
Completion
29.3
49.4
9.5
Indefinite
Indefinite
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from
actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Region 10 Fund-lead, P&T systems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 10
Region 10, Table 4 - System Contact Information
JulyS, 2001
System
RPM
State Regulator
Primary Contractor
Boomsnub/Airco / Site-
Wide Ground Water OU
Debra Yamamoto
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue - ECL-113
Seattle, WA 98101
206-553-7216
206-553-0124 (fax)
yamamoto.debbie@epa.gov
Dan Alexanian
Department of Ecology - SWRO
P.O. Box 47775
Olympia, WA 98504
360-407-6249
360-407-6305 (fax)
dale461 @ecy .wa.gov
Jerry DeMuro
URS, Inc.
1500 Century Square, 1501 4th Ave, Suite
1500
Seattle, WA 98101
206-674-1800
206-674-1801 (fax)
Jerry_DeMuro@urscop.com
Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Carmella Grandinetti
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
206-553-8696
206-553-0124 (fax)
grandinetti.cami@epa.gov
NickZilka
Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality
1005 W. McKinley Avenue
Kellog, ID 83837
208-783-5781
208-783-4561 (fax)
nzilka@nidlink.com
Commencement Bay, South
Tacoma Channel, Well 12A
Kevin Rochlin
EPA Region 10
ECL-112, 1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
206-553-2106
206-553-0124 (fax)
rochlin.kevin@epa.gov
Tom Abbott
URS
2401 4th Avenue, Suite 1000
Seattle, WA 98121
206-674-1800
206-674-1801 (fax)
abbot.thomas@urs.com
Region 10 Fund-lead, P& T Systems
Information provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 10
Region 10, Table 4 - System Contact Information
JulyS, 2001
System
RPM
State Regulator
Primary Contractor
McCormick & Baxter
Creosoting Co.
Alan Goodman
EPA Region 10
811 SW6th Avenue, 3rd Floor
Portland, OR 97204
503-326-3685
503-326-3399 (fax)
goodman.al@epa.gov
William Dana
Oregon Dept. Env. Quality
811 SW 6th Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
503-229-6530
503-229-5830 (fax)
Dana.William.H@DEQ.State.OR.
John Montgomery
Ecology and Environment
333 SW Fifth
Portland, OR 97204
503-248-5600
503-248-5577 (fax)
JMontgomery@ene.com
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor
Superfund Site
Hanh Gold
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue, ECL-115
Seattle, WA 98101
206-553-0171
206-553-0124 (fax)
gold.hanh@epa.gov
Guy Barrett
State of Washington Department
of Ecology
P.O. Box47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
360-407-7244
360-407-7154 (fax)
gbar461 @ecy.wa.gov
Ken Scheffler
CH2M HILL
P.O. Box 91500
Bellevue, WA 98009-2050
425-453-5000
425-462-5957 (fax)
kscheffl@ch2m.com
Region 10 Fund-lead, P& T Systems
Information provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 10
Region 10, Table 5 — Top Contaminants Identified by RPMs
JulyS, 2001
System
Boomsnub/Airco
/ Site-Wide
Ground Water OU
Bunker Hill
Superfund Site
Commencement
Bay, South
Tacoma Channel,
Well 12A
McCormick &
Baxter Creosoting
Co.
Wyckoff/Eagle
Harbor Superfund
Site
NAPLS
Present?
Suspected
Not present
Observed
Observed
Observed
#of
Identified
Contam.
6
7
5
4
6
Contaminants
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Chromium
Asbestos
Creosote
Lindane
Merphos
RDX (cyclonite)
Selenium
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Cis-1 ,2-dichloroethene
TCE and Vinyl chloride
Trans 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Arsenic
Chlorinated polyaromatic hydrocarbons (CPAHs)
Creosote/Pentachlorophenol (PCP)
Pentachlorophenol (PCP)
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Pentachlorophenol (PCP)
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Treatment
Processes
Air Stripping
Carbon Adsorption
Ion Exchange
Other/Not Sure
Carbon Adsorption
Carbon Adsorption
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Other/Not Sure
Biological
Carbon Adsorption
Filtration
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These
estimates may, in some cases, vary from actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and
specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Notes:
1. Bunker Hill Superfund Site is pre-operational, and treatment processes are not yet determined.
2. Other treatment processes at the McCormick and Baxter Creosoting Co. include dissolved air flotation (DAF)
and NAPL separation.
Region 10 Fund-lead, P&Tsystem
Data provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 10
Region 10, Table 6 - Screening Summary
JulyS, 2001
Operational
Pre-operationa
System
Boomsnub/Airco /
Site-Wide Ground
Water OU
Commencement Bay,
South Tacoma
Channel, Well 12A
McCormick & Baxter
Creosoting Co.
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor
Superfund Site
Bunker Hill Superfund
Site
Potential
Reduction in
Life -Cycle
Costs
27.5%
23.0%
30.0%
25.5%
unknown
Potential Life-
Cycle Savings
$4,123,527
$465,677
$1,127,934
$1,934,988
unknown
Expected
Duration
29.3
9.5
Indefinite
Indefinite
49.4
Previous
Evaluation of
Effectiveness
Sufficient
Not Sufficient
Sufficient
Not Sufficient
Not evaluated
Approximate
Pumping Rate
(gpm)
135
150
3
80
0
Number of
Extraction
Wells
22
5
6
8
0
Number of
Treatment
Processes
3
1
4
3
Unknown
Groundwater
Samples per
Year
160
40
50
20
232
Obstacles to
making
(minor/major)
changes
Moderate
Severe
Minor
Moderate
Minor
Minor
Minor
Moderate
Minor
Minor
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from
actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Notes:
1. Annual O&M costs and system specifications have not been determined for the Bunker Hill Superfund Site.
2. "Potential Reduction in Life-cycle Costs" result from a screening methodology that incorporates system-specific information. The
reductions do not include the cost of an RSE.
3. "Potential Life-cycle Savings" were estimated using using system-specific information and incorporate the cost of the RSE. Values in
parentheses denote costs (negative savings).
4. "Groundwater Samples per Year" is calculated by multiplying the number of monitoring wells sampled by the number of monitoring
events per year.
5. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation System Evaluations.
Region 10 Fund-lead, P&T system
Data provided by site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 10
Region 10, Figure 1 -
Estimated Annual Costs of Systems
JulyS, 2001
$1,000 T-
$900
$800
$700
$1,000
o $500
$300
$100
$0
CO
Operational Systems
Pre-operational Systems
$500
$300
$250
unknown
il
-
O
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary
from actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Notes:
1. Bunker Hill Superfund Site is pre-operational, and O&M costs have not been estimated.
Region 10 Fund-lead, P& T systems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 10
Region 10, Figure 2 - System Projections
JulyS, 2001
50 years
I Years Until Turnover
lYears Until Completion
Indefinite
Indefinite
Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from
actuality. Data- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems- may change overtime.
Region 10 Fund-lead, P& T systems
Data provided by the site RPMs
-------
APPENDIX C
-------
REGION 1 SCREENING CALCULATIONS
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Melissa
Taylor
617-918-1310
617-918-1291
Taylor. MelissaG@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Baird &
McGuire Superfund Site
Holbrook
MA
1
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$3,500,000
21.3
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$45,191,087
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) % 20.0%
Performance evaluation? A-C C -2.5%
Number of pumping wells # 7 0.0%
Pumping rate gpm 150 0.0%
Down time per year wks 2 2.5%
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 4 5.0%
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 80 5.0%
Expected system duration yrs 21.3 0.0%
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F E -2.5%
Summation (%) -> 27.5%
Estimated potential savings (%) -> 27.5%
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
5 to 9 wells
100 to 500 gpm
2.00 - 3.99 wks
4 or more processes
75 or more
20 yrs or more
moderate difficulty for minor changes, severe for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
$45,191,087
- 27.5%
$12,427,549
- $25,000
$12,402,549 < Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Elaine
Stanley
617-918-1332
617-918-1291
stanley.elainet@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Charles George Landfill Superfund Site
Tyngsboro
MA
1
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$450,000
26.7
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$6,552,022
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) % 20.0%
Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5%
Number of pumping wells # 9 0.0%
Pumping rate gpm 30 -2.5%
Down time per year wks 2 2.5%
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 1 -2.5%
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 40 0.0%
Expected system duration yrs 26.7 0.0%
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F E -2.5%
Summation (%) -> 17.5%
Estimated potential savings (%) -> 17.5%
Performance not evaluated
5 to 9 wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
2.00 - 3.99 wks
0 or 1 processes
25.00 to 49.99
20 yrs or more
moderate difficulty for minor changes, severe for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
$6,552,022
- 17.5%
$1,146,604
- $25,000
$ 1,121,604 < Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Edward
Hathaway
617-918-1372
617-918-1291
hathaway. ed@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Eastern Surplus Company Superfund Site
Meddybemps
ME
1
Cost Item
Units Value
$/yr $200,000
yrs 5.7
% 5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$966,468
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C A
Number of pumping wells # 12
Pumping rate gpm 20
Down time per year wks 2
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 3
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 60
Expected system duration yrs 5.7
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F B
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$966,468
- 28.0%
20.0%
2.5%
2.5%
-2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
-5.0%
3.0%
28.0%
28.0%
Performance not evaluated
10 or more wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
2.00 - 3.99 wks
3 processes
50.00 to 74.99
5.00 - 9.99 yrs
little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$270,611
- $25,000
$245,611
< Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Derrick
Golden
617-918-1448
617-918-1291
golden, derrickgepa. gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Groveland Wells Superfund Site
Groveland
MA
1
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$500,000
29.3
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$7,601,834
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C C
Number of pumping wells # 10
Pumping rate gpm 140
Down time per year wks 1
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 4
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 21
Expected system duration yrs 29.3
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$7,601,834
- 27.5%
20.0%
-2.5%
2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
5.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
5.0%
27.5%
27.5%
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
10 or more wells
100 to 500 gpm
<2wks
4 or more processes
<25
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$2,090,504
- $25,000
$2,065,504 < Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Dick
Goehlert
617-918-1335
617-918-1291
goehlert.dick@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Kearsarge Metallurgical Corp.
Conway
NH
1
Cost Item Units
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$250,000
3.7
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$819,414
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C C
Number of pumping wells # 14
Pumping rate gpm 42
Down time per year wks 4
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 2
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 60
Expected system duration yrs 3.7
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F D
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$819,414
- 10.0%
$81,941
- $25,000
20.0%
-2.5%
2.5%
-2.5%
5.0%
0.0%
2.5%
-15.0%
0.0%
10.0%
10.0%
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
10 or more wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
4 wks or more
2 processes
50.00 to 74.99
2.00 - 4.99yrs
moderate difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$56,941
< Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Cheryl
Sprague
617918-1244
617918-1291
Sprague.cheryl@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Keefe Environmental Systems
Epping
NH
1
Cost Item Units
$/yr
yrs
Value
$200,000
1.7
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$312,230
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C C
Number of pumping wells # 4
Pumping rate gpm 20
Down time per year wks 2
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 3
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 82
Expected system duration yrs 1.7
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$312,230
- 7.5%
$23,417
- $25,000
20.0%
-2.5%
-2.5%
-2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
5.0%
-20.0%
5.0%
7.5%
7.5%
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
3 to 4 wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
2.00 - 3.99 wks
3 processes
75 or more
<2yrs
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
-$1,583
< Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
RICHARD
GOEHLERT
617-918-1335
617-918-1291
GOEHLERT.DICK@EPA.GOV
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Savage Well Municipal Water System
Milford
NH
1
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$500,000
7.2
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$2,950,900
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C A
Number of pumping wells # 4
Pumping rate gpm 100
Down time per year wks 4
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 3
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 114
Expected system duration yrs 7.2
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$2,950,900
- 32.5%
20.0%
2.5%
-2.5%
0.0%
5.0%
2.5%
5.0%
-5.0%
5.0%
32.5%
32.5%
Performance not evaluated
3 to 4 wells
100 to 500 gpm
4 wks or more
3 processes
75 or more
5.00 - 9.99 yrs
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$959,042
- $25,000
$934,042
< Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Chester
Janowski
617-918-1324
617-918-1291
janowski.chet@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Silresim Chemical Corp.
Lowell
MA
1
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$1,400,000
15.9
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$15,126,499
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C B
Number of pumping wells # 31
Pumping rate gpm 25
Down time per year wks 2
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 4
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 94
Expected system duration yrs 15.9
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$15,126,499
- 40.0%
20.0%
5.0%
2.5%
-2.5%
2.5%
5.0%
5.0%
-2.5%
5.0%
40.0%
40.0%
Performance evaluated and found insufficient
10 or more wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
2.00 - 3.99 wks
4 or more processes
75 or more
10.00-19.99 yrs
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$6,050,600
- $25,000
$6,025,600 < Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
REGION 2 SCREENING CALCULATIONS
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Christos
Tsiamis
212-637-4257
212-637-3966
tsiamis.christos@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
American Thermostat
South Cairo
NY
2
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$1,175,000
26.7
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$17,108,057
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C C
Number of pumping wells # 14
Pumping rate gpm 70
Down time per year wks 0
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 4
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 228
Expected system duration yrs 26.7
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F C
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$17,108,057
- 29.5%
$5,046,877
- $25,000
$5,021,877
20.0%
-2.5%
2.5%
-2.5%
0.0%
5.0%
5.0%
0.0%
2.0%
29.5%
29.5%
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
10 or more wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
<2wks
4 or more processes
75 or more
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes, severe for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
: Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Edward
Finnerty
2126374367
212-637-4393
Finnerty.Ed@EPA.GOV
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Bog Creek Farm LIRA
Howell
NJ
2
Cost Item Units
$/yr
yrs
Value
$460,000
22.9
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$6,194,718
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) % 20.0%
Performance evaluation? A-C C -2.5%
Number of pumping wells # 33 2.5%
Pumping rate gpm 30 -2.5%
Down time per year wks 4 5.0%
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 4 5.0%
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 9 -2.5%
Expected system duration yrs 22.9 0.0%
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F A 5.0%
Summation (%) -> 30.0%
Estimated potential savings (%) -> 30.0%
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
$6,194,718
- 30.0%
$1,858,415
- $25,000
$1,833,415
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
10 or more wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
4 wks or more
4 or more processes
<25
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
: Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Lisa
Wfong
212-637-4267
212-637-3966
wong.lisa@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
BrewsterWellfield
Brewster
NY
2
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$400,000
5.8
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$1,957,217
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C A
Number of pumping wells # 4
Pumping rate gpm 50
Down time per year wks 0
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 1
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 64
Expected system duration yrs 5.8
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$1,957,217
- 17.5%
$342,513
- $25,000
20.0%
2.5%
-2.5%
-2.5%
0.0%
-2.5%
2.5%
-5.0%
5.0%
17.5%
17.5%
Performance not evaluated
3 to 4 wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
<2wks
0 or 1 processes
50.00 to 74.99
5.00 - 9.99 yrs
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$317,513
: Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Sharon
Trocher
212-637-3965
212-637-3966
trocher.sharon@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Circuitron
East Farmingdale
NY
2
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$480,000
1.4
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$639,836
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C C
Number of pumping wells # 3
Pumping rate gpm 80
Down time per year wks 6
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 3
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 76
Expected system duration yrs 1.4
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F B
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$639,836
- 8.0%
$51,187
- $25,000
20.0%
-2.5%
-2.5%
-2.5%
5.0%
2.5%
5.0%
-20.0%
3.0%
8.0%
8.0%
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
3 to 4 wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
4 wks or more
3 processes
75 or more
<2yrs
little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$26,187
: Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Maria
Jon
212-637-3967
212-637-4284
Jon.Maria@epamail.epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Claremont Polychemical
Town of Oyster Bay
NY
2
Cost Item Units
$/yr
yrs
Value
$740,000
18.1
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$8,678,999
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C A
Number of pumping wells # 3
Pumping rate gpm 420
Down time per year wks 2
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 3
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 56
Expected system duration yrs 18.1
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$8,678,999
- 30.0%
20.0%
2.5%
-2.5%
0.0%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
-2.5%
5.0%
30.0%
30.0%
Performance not evaluated
3 to 4 wells
100 to 500 gpm
2.00 - 3.99 wks
3 processes
50.00 to 74.99
10.00-19.99 yrs
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$2,603,700
- $25,000
$2,578,700
: Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Pamela J.
Baxter
212-637-4416
212-637-4393
baxter. pam@epamail.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Combe Fill South Landfill
Chester Township
NJ
2
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$920,000
26.7
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$13,395,245
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C B
Number of pumping wells # 19
Pumping rate gpm 121
Down time per year wks 1
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 4
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 72
Expected system duration yrs 26.7
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F B
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$13,395,245
- 38.0%
$5,090,193
- $25,000
$5,065,193
20.0%
5.0%
2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
5.0%
2.5%
0.0%
3.0%
38.0%
38.0%
Performance evaluated and found insufficient
10 or more wells
100 to 500 gpm
<2wks
4 or more processes
50.00 to 74.99
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
: Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Diego
Garcia
212-637-4947
garcia.diego@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Dover Municipal Wfell 4
Dover
NJ
2
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
Value
$0
0.0
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$0
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C 0.0
Number of pumping wells # 0
Pumping rate gpm 0
Down time per year wks 0
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 0
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 0
Expected system duration yrs 0.0
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$0
-#N/A
#N/A
- $25,000
20.0%
#N/A
0.0%
-5.0%
0.0%
-2.5%
-2.5%
-20.0%
5.0%
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
no wells (e.g., drains, etc.)
<10gpm
<2wks
0 or 1 processes
<25
<2yrs
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
#N/A
< Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Brian
Quinn
212-637-4381
212-637-4393
quinn.brian@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site: Garden State Cleaners/South Jersey Clothing Company
Site City: Minotola
Site State: NJ
Site Region: 2
Cost Item
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$500,000
27.7
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$7,409,547
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) % 20.0%
Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5%
Number of pumping wells # 15 2.5%
Pumping rate gpm 300 0.0%
Down time per year wks 0 0.0%
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 2 0.0%
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 54 2.5%
Expected system duration yrs 27.7 0.0%
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F A 5.0%
Summation (%) -> 32.5%
Estimated potential savings (%) -> 32.5%
Performance not evaluated
10 or more wells
100 to 500 gpm
<2wks
2 processes
50.00 to 74.99
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
$7,409,547
- 32.5%
$2,408,103
- $25,000
$2,383,103
: Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Pamela J.
Baxter
212-637-4416
212-637-4393
baxter. pam@epamail.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Higgins Farm
Franklin Township
NJ
2
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$1,000,000
26.7
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$14,560,049
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C A
Number of pumping wells # 20
Pumping rate gpm 30
Down time per year wks 4
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 4
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 102
Expected system duration yrs 26.7
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F B
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$14,560,049
- 40.0%
$5,824,020
- $25,000
$5,799,020
20.0%
2.5%
2.5%
-2.5%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
0.0%
3.0%
40.5%
40.0%
Performance not evaluated
10 or more wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
4 wks or more
4 or more processes
75 or more
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
: Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
10
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Mark
Dannenberg
212-637-4251
212-637-3966
dannenberg.mark@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Islip Municipal Landfill
Islip
NY
2
Cost Item
Units Value
$/yr $225,000
yrs 1.0
% 5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$214,286
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C C
Number of pumping wells # 6
Pumping rate gpm 300
Down time per year wks 1
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 2
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 96
Expected system duration yrs 1.0
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$214,286
- 7.5%
$16,071
- $25,000
20.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
5.0%
-20.0%
5.0%
7.5%
7.5%
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
5 to 9 wells
100 to 500 gpm
<2wks
2 processes
75 or more
<2yrs
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
-$8,929
: Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
11
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Lawrence
Granite
212-637-4423
212-637-4393
granite.larry@epamail.epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Lang Property
Pemberton Township, NJ
NJ
2
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$700,000
3.0
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$1,907,890
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C C
Number of pumping wells # 1
Pumping rate gpm 30
Down time per year wks 0
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 3
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 32
Expected system duration yrs 3.0
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$1,907,890
- 5.0%
$95,395
- $25,000
20.0%
-2.5%
-5.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
2.5%
0.0%
-15.0%
5.0%
2.5%
5.0%
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
1 to 2 wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
<2wks
3 processes
25.00 to 49.99
2.00 - 4.99yrs
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$70,395
: Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
12
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Ferdinand
Cataneo
212-637-4428
212-637-4393
cataneo.f redgepa. gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Lipari Landfill site
Mantua Township
NJ
2
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$2,500,000
2.9
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$6,634,566
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C C
Number of pumping wells # 25
Pumping rate gpm 125
Down time per year wks 2
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 4
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 39
Expected system duration yrs 2.9
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$6,634,566
- 17.5%
$1,161,049
- $25,000
$1,136,049
20.0%
-2.5%
2.5%
0.0%
2.5%
5.0%
0.0%
-15.0%
5.0%
17.5%
17.5%
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
10 or more wells
100 to 500 gpm
2.00 - 3.99 wks
4 or more processes
25.00 to 49.99
2.00 - 4.99yrs
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
: Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
13
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Edward
Als
212-637-4272
212-637-3966
als.ed@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Mattiace Petrochemical
Glen Cove, Nassau County
NY
2
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$700,000
27.6
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$10,358,307
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) % 20.0%
Performance evaluation? A-C C -2.5%
Number of pumping wells # 9 0.0%
Pumping rate gpm 10 -2.5%
Down time per year wks 2 2.5%
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 5 5.0%
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 15 -2.5%
Expected system duration yrs 27.6 0.0%
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F B 3.0%
Summation (%) -> 23.0%
Estimated potential savings (%) -> 23.0%
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
$10,358,307
- 23.0%
$2,382,411
- $25,000
$2,357,411
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
5 to 9 wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
2.00 - 3.99 wks
4 or more processes
<25
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
: Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
14
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Dan
Weissman
212-637-4384
0.0%
weissman.dan@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Metal TEC/Aerosystems
Franklin
NJ
2
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
Value
$0
0.0
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$0
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C 0.0
Number of pumping wells # 0
Pumping rate gpm 0
Down time per year wks 0
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 0
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 0
Expected system duration yrs 0.0
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F 0.0
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$0
-#N/A
#N/A
- $25,000
20.0%
#N/A
0.0%
-5.0%
0.0%
-2.5%
-2.5%
-20.0%
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
no wells (e.g., drains, etc.)
<10gpm
<2wks
0 or 1 processes
<25
<2yrs
#N/A
(must be between 5% and 40%)
#N/A
< Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
15
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Patrick
Hamblin
212-637-3314
212-637-3966
hamblin.patrick@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Mohonk Road
High Falls
NY
2
Cost Item
Industrial Plant
Units
$/yr
yrs
Value
$0
29.5
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$0
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C A
Number of pumping wells # 3
Pumping rate gpm 40
Down time per year wks 0
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 4
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 34
Expected system duration yrs 29.5
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F B
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$0
- 25.5%
20.0%
2.5%
-2.5%
-2.5%
0.0%
5.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.0%
25.5%
25.5%
Performance not evaluated
3 to 4 wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
<2wks
4 or more processes
25.00 to 49.99
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$0
- $25,000
-$25,000
< Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
16
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Monica
Mahar
212-637-3942
mahar.monica@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill
Montgomery Township
NJ
2
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$400,000
30.0
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$6,148,980
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C A
Number of pumping wells # 3
Pumping rate gpm 250
Down time per year wks 0
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 2
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 80
Expected system duration yrs 30.0
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F B
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$6,148,980
- 28.0%
$1,721,715
- $25,000
$1,696,715
20.0%
2.5%
-2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
5.0%
0.0%
3.0%
28.0%
28.0%
Performance not evaluated
3 to 4 wells
100 to 500 gpm
<2wks
2 processes
75 or more
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
: Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
17
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Mark
Dannenberg
212-637-4251
212-637-3966
dannenberg.mark@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
SMS Instruments
Deer Park
NY
2
Cost Item
Units Value
$/yr $400,000
yrs 2.2
% 5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$801,729
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C C
Number of pumping wells # 2
Pumping rate gpm 100
Down time per year wks 2
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 2
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 72
Expected system duration yrs 2.2
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$801,729
- 7.5%
20.0%
-2.5%
-5.0%
0.0%
2.5%
0.0%
2.5%
-15.0%
5.0%
7.5%
7.5%
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
1 to 2 wells
100 to 500 gpm
2.00 - 3.99 wks
2 processes
50.00 to 74.99
2.00 - 4.99yrs
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$60,130
- $25,000
$35,130
: Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
18
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Damian
Duda
212-637-4269
212-637-3966
duda.damian@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site: Stanton Cleaners Area Groundwater Contamination Site
Site City: Great Neck
Site State: NY
Site Region: 2
Cost Item
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Units Value
$/yr $270,000
yrs 19.7
% 5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$3,332,717
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C A
Number of pumping wells # 3
Pumping rate gpm 90
Down time per year wks 1
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 5
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 120
Expected system duration yrs 19.7
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F B
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$3,332,717
- 28.0%
$933,161
- $25,000
20.0%
2.5%
-2.5%
-2.5%
0.0%
5.0%
5.0%
-2.5%
3.0%
28.0%
28.0%
Performance not evaluated
3 to 4 wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
<2wks
4 or more processes
75 or more
10.00-19.99 yrs
little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$908,161
: Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
19
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Pamela J.
Baxter
212-637-4416
212-637-4393
baxter. pam@epamail.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Syncon Resins
Kearny
NJ
2
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$350,000
26.7
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$5,096,017
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C B
Number of pumping wells # 3
Pumping rate gpm 20
Down time per year wks 3
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 6
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 0
Expected system duration yrs 26.7
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F B
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$5,096,017
- 28.0%
$1,426,885
- $25,000
$1,401,885
20.0%
5.0%
-2.5%
-2.5%
2.5%
5.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
3.0%
28.0%
28.0%
Performance evaluated and found insufficient
3 to 4 wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
2.00 - 3.99 wks
4 or more processes
<25
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
: Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
20
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Sharon
Trocher
212-637-3965
212-637-3966
trocher.sharon@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Vestal Water Supply Well
Vestal
NY
2
Cost Item
1-1
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$180,000
13.2
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$1,706,600
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C C
Number of pumping wells # 1
Pumping rate gpm 450
Down time per year wks 1
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 1
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 12
Expected system duration yrs 13.2
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$1,706,600
- 10.0%
$170,660
- $25,000
20.0%
-2.5%
-5.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-2.5%
-2.5%
-2.5%
5.0%
10.0%
10.0%
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
1 to 2 wells
100 to 500 gpm
<2wks
0 or 1 processes
<25
10.00-19.99 yrs
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$145,660
: Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
21
Matthew
Westgate
212637-4422
212637-4429
westgate.matthew@epamail.epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Vineland Chemical Co.
Vineland
NJ
2
Cost Item
Groundwater Treatment
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$4,000,000
29.4
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$60,970,474
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) % 20.0%
Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5%
Number of pumping wells # 13 2.5%
Pumping rate gpm 1400 2.5%
Down time per year wks 0 0.0%
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 2 0.0%
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 2080 5.0%
Expected system duration yrs 29.4 0.0%
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F E -2.5%
Summation (%) -> 30.0%
Estimated potential savings (%) -> 30.0%
Performance not evaluated
10 or more wells
>500 gpm
<2wks
2 processes
75 or more
20 yrs or more
moderate difficulty for minor changes, severe for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
$60,970,474
- 30.0%
$18,291,142
- $25,000
$18,266,142 < Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
22
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Ferdinand
Cataneo
212-637-4428
212-637-4393
cataneo.f redgepa. gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Williams Property
Swainton, Middle Township
NJ
2
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$350,000
0.0
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$0
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C C
Number of pumping wells # 2
Pumping rate gpm 80
Down time per year wks 0
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 4
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 36
Expected system duration yrs 0.0
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$0
- 5.0%
$0
- $25,000
20.0%
-2.5%
-5.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
5.0%
0.0%
-20.0%
5.0%
0.0%
5.0%
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
1 to 2 wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
<2wks
4 or more processes
25.00 to 49.99
<2yrs
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
-$25,000
< Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
REGION 3 SCREENING CALCULATIONS
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Charlie
Root
215-814-3193
215-814-3002
root.charlie@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
AIW Frank/Mid-County Mustang Site,
Exton
PA
3
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
OU#1
Value
$180,000
29.7
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$2,754,138
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C C
Number of pumping wells # 5
Pumping rate gpm 118
Down time per year wks 1
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 4
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 60
Expected system duration yrs 29.7
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F B
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$2,754,138
- 28.0%
20.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
5.0%
2.5%
0.0%
3.0%
28.0%
28.0%
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
5 to 9 wells
100 to 500 gpm
<2wks
4 or more processes
50.00 to 74.99
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$771,159
- $25,000
$746,159
< Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Bruce
Rundell
215-814-3317
215-814-3015
rundell.bruce@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Berks Sand Pit
Huffs Church
PA
3
Cost Item
Units Value
$/yr $150,000
yrs 1.1
% 5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$154,672
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C C
Number of pumping wells # 1
Pumping rate gpm 90
Down time per year wks 0
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 1
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 48
Expected system duration yrs 1.1
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$154,672
- 5.0%
$7,734
- $25,000
20.0%
-2.5%
-5.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
-20.0%
5.0%
-7.5%
5.0%
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
1 to 2 wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
<2wks
0 or 1 processes
25.00 to 49.99
<2yrs
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
-$17,266
< Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Rom
Roman
215-814-3212
215-814-3015
roman.romuald@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Butz Landfill
Monroe Township
PA
3
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$250,000
29.3
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$3,800,917
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C A
Number of pumping wells # 3
Pumping rate gpm 90
Down time per year wks 0
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 2
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 68
Expected system duration yrs 29.3
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$3,800,917
- 25.0%
$950,229
- $25,000
20.0%
2.5%
-2.5%
-2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
2.5%
0.0%
5.0%
25.0%
25.0%
Performance not evaluated
3 to 4 wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
<2wks
2 processes
50.00 to 74.99
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$925,229
< Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Cesar
Lee
215-814-3205
215-814-3205
lee.cesar@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Croydon TCE
Bristol Township
PA
3
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$200,000
23.2
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$2,708,981
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C C
Number of pumping wells # 6
Pumping rate gpm 25
Down time per year wks 0
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 2
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 28
Expected system duration yrs 23.2
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$2,708,981
- 20.0%
$541,796
- $25,000
20.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
5.0%
20.0%
20.0%
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
5 to 9 wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
<2wks
2 processes
25.00 to 49.99
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$516,796
< Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Joseph
McDowell
215-814-3192
215-814-3002
mcdowell.joseph@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
CryoChem
Earl Township
PA
3
Cost Item
Units Value
$/yr $125,000
yrs 8.4
% 5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$842,157
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C C
Number of pumping wells # 9
Pumping rate gpm 60
Down time per year wks 1
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 1
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 4
Expected system duration yrs 8.4
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F B
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$842,157
- 8.0%
$67,373
- $25,000
20.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
-2.5%
-2.5%
-5.0%
3.0%
8.0%
8.0%
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
5 to 9 wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
<2wks
0 or 1 processes
<25
5.00 - 9.99 yrs
little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$42,373
< Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Philip
Rotstein
215-814-3232
215-814-3002
rotstein.phil@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Greenwood Chemical Site
Greenwood
VA
3
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$400,000
18.8
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$4,810,341
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) % 20.0%
Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5%
Number of pumping wells # 5 0.0%
Pumping rate gpm 45 -2.5%
Down time per year wks 0 0.0%
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 5 5.0%
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 136 5.0%
Expected system duration yrs 18.8 -2.5%
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F A 5.0%
Summation (%) -> 32.5%
Estimated potential savings (%) -> 32.5%
Performance not evaluated
5 to 9 wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
<2wks
4 or more processes
75 or more
10.00-19.99 yrs
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
$4,810,341
- 32.5%
$1,563,361
- $25,000
$1,538,361 < Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Gregory
Ham
215-814-3194
215-814-3002
ham.greg@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Havertown PCP OU2
Havertown
PA
3
Cost Item
Units Value
$/yr $1,000,000
yrs 30.0
% 5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$15,372,451
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) % 20.0%
Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5%
Number of pumping wells # 4 -2.5%
Pumping rate gpm 45 -2.5%
Down time per year wks 0 0.0%
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 4 5.0%
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 30 0.0%
Expected system duration yrs 30.0 0.0%
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F B 3.0%
Summation (%) -> 25.5%
Estimated potential savings (%) -> 25.5%
Performance not evaluated
3 to 4 wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
<2wks
4 or more processes
25.00 to 49.99
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
$15,372,451
- 25.5%
$3,919,975
- $25,000
$3,894,975 < Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Cesar
Lee
215-814-3205
215-814-3205
lee.cesar@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Hellertown Manufacturing
Bethlehem
PA
3
Cost Item Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$350,000
24.7
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$4,900,578
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C B
Number of pumping wells # 1
Pumping rate gpm 50
Down time per year wks 0
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 2
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 48
Expected system duration yrs 24.7
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F B
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$4,900,578
- 20.5%
$1,004,619
- $25,000
$979,619
20.0%
5.0%
-5.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.0%
20.5%
20.5%
Performance evaluated and found insufficient
1 to 2 wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
<2wks
2 processes
25.00 to 49.99
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
< Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Maria de losA.
Garcia
215-814-3199
215-814-3002
garcia. maria@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
North Penn Area 1
Souderton,
PA
3
Cost Item
Montgomery County
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$100,000
16.7
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$1,113,534
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C A
Number of pumping wells # 1
Pumping rate gpm 2
Down time per year wks 0
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 1
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 8
Expected system duration yrs 16.7
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$1,113,534
- 10.0%
$111,353
- $25,000
20.0%
2.5%
-5.0%
-5.0%
0.0%
-2.5%
-2.5%
-2.5%
5.0%
10.0%
10.0%
Performance not evaluated
1 to 2 wells
<10gpm
<2wks
0 or 1 processes
<25
10.00-19.99 yrs
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$86,353
< Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
10
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Gregory
Ham
215-814-3194
215-814-3002
ham.greg@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
North Penn Area 6
Lansdale
PA
3
Cost Item
Units Value
$/yr $592,900
yrs 30.0
% 5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$9,114,326
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) % 20.0%
Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5%
Number of pumping wells # 10 2.5%
Pumping rate gpm 300 0.0%
Down time per year wks 0 0.0%
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 3 2.5%
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 120 5.0%
Expected system duration yrs 30.0 0.0%
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F B 3.0%
Summation (%) -> 35.5%
Estimated potential savings (%) -> 35.5%
Performance not evaluated
10 or more wells
100 to 500 gpm
<2wks
3 processes
75 or more
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
$9,114,326
- 35.5%
$3,235,586
- $25,000
$3,210,586 < Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
11
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Deanna
Moultrie
215-814-5125
215-814-3002
moultrie.deanna@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Raymark
Hatboro
PA
3
Cost Item
Units Value
$/yr $155,711
yrs 12.0
% 5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$1,380,802
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C A
Number of pumping wells # 2
Pumping rate gpm 62
Down time per year wks 2
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 2
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 0
Expected system duration yrs 12.0
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$1,380,802
- 17.5%
$241,640
- $25,000
20.0%
2.5%
-5.0%
-2.5%
2.5%
0.0%
-2.5%
-2.5%
5.0%
17.5%
17.5%
Performance not evaluated
1 to 2 wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
2.00 - 3.99 wks
2 processes
<25
10.00-19.99 yrs
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$216,640
< Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
12
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Andrew
Palestini
215-814-3233
215-814-3002
palestini.andy@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Saunders Supply Company
Chuckatuck
VA
3
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$80,000
6.3
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$420,648
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C A
Number of pumping wells # 4
Pumping rate gpm 2
Down time per year wks 2
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 3
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 40
Expected system duration yrs 6.3
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F C
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$420,648
- 17.0%
$71,510
- $25,000
20.0%
2.5%
-2.5%
-5.0%
2.5%
2.5%
0.0%
-5.0%
2.0%
17.0%
17.0%
Performance not evaluated
3 to 4 wells
<10gpm
2.00 - 3.99 wks
3 processes
25.00 to 49.99
5.00 - 9.99 yrs
little difficulty for minor changes, severe for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$46,510
< Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
REGION 4 SCREENING CALCULATIONS
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Luis
Flores
404-562-8807
flores.luis@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
ABC Cleaners
Jacksonville
NC
4
Cost Item
Units Value
$/yr $0
yrs 0.0
% 5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$0
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C 0.0
Number of pumping wells # 0
Pumping rate gpm 0
Down time per year wks 0
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 2
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 0
Expected system duration yrs 0.0
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F 0.0
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$0
-#N/A
#N/A
- $25,000
20.0%
#N/A
0.0%
-5.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-2.5%
-20.0%
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
no wells (e.g., drains, etc.)
<10gpm
<2wks
2 processes
<25
<2yrs
#N/A
(must be between 5% and 40%)
#N/A
< Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Mark
File
404-562-8927
fite.mark@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
American Creosote Works (DNAPL)
Pensacola
FL
4
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$300,000
1.3
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$376,644
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C A
Number of pumping wells # 8
Pumping rate gpm 0
Down time per year wks 4
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 3
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 8
Expected system duration yrs 1.3
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$376,644
- 7.5%
$28,248
- $25,000
20.0%
2.5%
0.0%
-5.0%
5.0%
2.5%
-2.5%
-20.0%
5.0%
7.5%
7.5%
Performance not evaluated
5 to 9 wells
<10gpm
4 wks or more
3 processes
<25
<2yrs
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$3,248
< Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Mark
File
404-562-8927
fite.mark@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
0.0%
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
American Creosote Works (solute)
Pensacola
FL
4
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$452,000
7.7
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$2,822,434
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C A
Number of pumping wells # 3
Pumping rate gpm 105
Down time per year wks 0
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 2
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 20
Expected system duration yrs 7.7
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$2,822,434
- 17.5%
$493,926
- $25,000
20.0%
2.5%
-2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-2.5%
-5.0%
5.0%
17.5%
17.5%
Performance not evaluated
3 to 4 wells
100 to 500 gpm
<2wks
2 processes
<25
5.00 - 9.99 yrs
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$468,926
< Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Jon
Bornholm
404-562-8820
0.0%
bornholm.jon@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Benfield Industries
Hazelwood
NC
4
Cost Item
Units Value
$/yr $30,000
yrs 19.3
% 5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$366,494
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C A
Number of pumping wells # 2
Pumping rate gpm 16
Down time per year wks 0
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 1
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 32
Expected system duration yrs 19.3
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$366,494
- 15.0%
$54,974
- $25,000
20.0%
2.5%
-5.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
-2.5%
5.0%
15.0%
15.0%
Performance not evaluated
1 to 2 wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
<2wks
0 or 1 processes
25.00 to 49.99
10.00-19.99 yrs
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$29,974
< Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Jon
Bornholm
404-562-8820
404-562-8788
bornholm.jon@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Cape Fear Wood
Fayetteville
NC
4
Cost Item
Preserving
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$40,000
7.9
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$256,425
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C A
Number of pumping wells # 7
Pumping rate gpm 43
Down time per year wks 0
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 1
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 100
Expected system duration yrs 7.9
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$256,425
- 22.5%
$57,696
- $25,000
20.0%
2.5%
0.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
-2.5%
5.0%
-5.0%
5.0%
22.5%
22.5%
Performance not evaluated
5 to 9 wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
<2wks
0 or 1 processes
75 or more
5.00 - 9.99 yrs
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$32,696
< Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Randall
Chaffins
404-562-8929
0.0%
chaffins.randall@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Coleman Evans Wfood Preserving
Whitehouse
FL
4
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
Value
$0
0.0
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$0
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C 0.0
Number of pumping wells # 0
Pumping rate gpm 0
Down time per year wks 0
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 0
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 0
Expected system duration yrs 0.0
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F 0.0
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$0
-#N/A
#N/A
- $25,000
20.0%
#N/A
0.0%
-5.0%
0.0%
-2.5%
-2.5%
-20.0%
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
no wells (e.g., drains, etc.)
<10gpm
<2wks
0 or 1 processes
<25
<2yrs
#N/A
(must be between 5% and 40%)
#N/A
< Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Ralph
Howard
404-562-8829
0.0%
howard.ralph@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Elmore Waste Disposal
Greer
SC
4
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$180,000
16.7
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$2,004,361
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C C
Number of pumping wells # 9
Pumping rate gpm 30
Down time per year wks 0
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 2
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 68
Expected system duration yrs 16.7
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$2,004,361
- 20.0%
$400,872
- $25,000
20.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
2.5%
-2.5%
5.0%
20.0%
20.0%
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
5 to 9 wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
<2wks
2 processes
50.00 to 74.99
10.00-19.99 yrs
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$375,872
< Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Ken
Mallory
404-562-8802
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
0.0%
mallory.ken@epa.gov
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
PCX Statesville
Statesville
NC
4
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$150,000
6.3
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$797,565
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C C
Number of pumping wells # 10
Pumping rate gpm 20
Down time per year wks 0
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 2
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 72
Expected system duration yrs 6.3
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$797,565
- 20.0%
$159,513
- $25,000
20.0%
-2.5%
2.5%
-2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
2.5%
-5.0%
5.0%
20.0%
20.0%
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
10 or more wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
<2wks
2 processes
50.00 to 74.99
5.00 - 9.99 yrs
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$134,513
< Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Jim
McGuire
404-562-8911
0.0%
mcguire.jim@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Miami Drum
Hialeah
FL
4
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$1,000,000
0.0
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$0
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C 0.0
Number of pumping wells # 40
Pumping rate gpm 104000
Down time per year wks 0
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 1
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 0
Expected system duration yrs 0.0
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F 0.0
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$0
-#N/A
#N/A
- $25,000
20.0%
#N/A
2.5%
2.5%
0.0%
-2.5%
-2.5%
-20.0%
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
10 or more wells
>500 gpm
<2wks
0 or 1 processes
<25
<2yrs
#N/A
(must be between 5% and 40%)
#N/A
< Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
10
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Al
Cherry
404-562-8807
cherry.al@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
0.0%
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Palmetto Wood
Lexington
SC
4
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$300,000
6.3
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$1,595,131
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C C
Number of pumping wells # 10
Pumping rate gpm 130
Down time per year wks 4
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 1
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 16
Expected system duration yrs 6.3
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F B
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$1,595,131
- 18.0%
$287,124
- $25,000
20.0%
-2.5%
2.5%
0.0%
5.0%
-2.5%
-2.5%
-5.0%
3.0%
18.0%
18.0%
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
10 or more wells
100 to 500 gpm
4 wks or more
0 or 1 processes
<25
5.00 - 9.99 yrs
little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$262,124
< Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
REGION 5 SCREENING CALCULATIONS
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Darryl
Owens
312-886-7089
0.0%
owens.darryl@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Arrowhead Refinery
Hermantown
MN
5
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$70,000
2.2
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$145,512
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C C
Number of pumping wells # 0
Pumping rate gpm 25
Down time per year wks 0
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 1
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 36
Expected system duration yrs 2.2
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F B
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$145,512
- 5.0%
$7,276
- $25,000
20.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
-15.0%
3.0%
0.5%
5.0%
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
no wells (e.g., drains, etc.)
10 to 99.99 gpm
<2wks
0 or 1 processes
25.00 to 49.99
2.00 - 4.99yrs
little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
-$17,724
: Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
John
Peterson
312-353-1264
0.0%
peterson.john@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Better Brite Plating Co. Chrome and Zinc Shops
Depere
Wl
5
Cost Item Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$36,000
28.3
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$538,699
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C C
Number of pumping wells # 0
Pumping rate gpm 0
Down time per year wks 0
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 1
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 28
Expected system duration yrs 28.3
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F C
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$538,699
- 12.0%
$64,644
- $25,000
20.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
-5.0%
0.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
2.0%
12.0%
12.0%
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
no wells (e.g., drains, etc.)
<10gpm
<2wks
0 or 1 processes
25.00 to 49.99
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes, severe for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$39,644
: Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Dion
Novak
312-886-4737
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
0.0%
Novak.Dion@epa.gov
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Douglass Road
Mishawaka
IN
5
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$120,000
28.8
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$1,810,266
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C A
Number of pumping wells # 5
Pumping rate gpm 1000
Down time per year wks 2
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 1
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 72
Expected system duration yrs 28.8
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$1,810,266
- 32.5%
20.0%
2.5%
0.0%
2.5%
2.5%
-2.5%
2.5%
0.0%
5.0%
32.5%
32.5%
Performance not evaluated
5 to 9 wells
>500 gpm
2.00 - 3.99 wks
0 or 1 processes
50.00 to 74.99
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$588,336
- $25,000
$563,336
: Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Kyle
Rogers
312-886-1995
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
0.0%
rogers. kyle@epa.gov
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Duell and Gardner
Dalton Township
Ml
5
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
Value
$0
5.5
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$0
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C A
Number of pumping wells # 2
Pumping rate gpm 80
Down time per year wks 0
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 1
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 50
Expected system duration yrs 5.5
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$0
- 15.0%
$0
- $25,000
20.0%
2.5%
-5.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
-2.5%
2.5%
-5.0%
5.0%
15.0%
15.0%
Performance not evaluated
1 to 2 wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
<2wks
0 or 1 processes
50.00 to 74.99
5.00 - 9.99 yrs
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
-$25,000
< Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Sheri
Bianchin
312-886-4745
0.0%
bianchin.sheri@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Eau Claire Municipal Well Field
Eau Claire
Wl
5
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$175,000
0.0
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$0
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C C
Number of pumping wells # 14
Pumping rate gpm 4500
Down time per year wks 0
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 1
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 0
Expected system duration yrs 0.0
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F F
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$0
- 5.0%
$0
- $25,000
20.0%
-2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
0.0%
-2.5%
-2.5%
-20.0%
-5.0%
-7.5%
5.0%
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
10 or more wells
>500 gpm
<2wks
0 or 1 processes
<25
<2yrs
severe difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
-$25,000
< Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Steve
Padovani
312-353-6755
0.0%
padovani.steven@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
La Salle Electrical Utilities
La Salle
IL
5
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$230,000
3.2
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$658,089
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C C
Number of pumping wells # 0
Pumping rate gpm 20
Down time per year wks 2
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 2
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 100
Expected system duration yrs 3.2
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$658,089
- 12.5%
$82,261
- $25,000
20.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
-2.5%
2.5%
0.0%
5.0%
-15.0%
5.0%
12.5%
12.5%
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
no wells (e.g., drains, etc.)
10 to 99.99 gpm
2.00 - 3.99 wks
2 processes
75 or more
2.00 - 4.99yrs
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$57,261
: Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Sheila
Sullivan
312-886-5251
0.0%
sullivan.sheila@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Long Prairie
Long Prairie
MN
5
Cost Item
Units Value
$/yr $300,000
yrs 13.8
% 5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$2,933,325
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C C
Number of pumping wells # 9
Pumping rate gpm 227
Down time per year wks 2
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 1
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 22
Expected system duration yrs 13.8
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F B
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$2,933,325
- 15.5%
$454,665
- $25,000
20.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
2.5%
-2.5%
-2.5%
-2.5%
3.0%
15.5%
15.5%
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
5 to 9 wells
100 to 500 gpm
2.00 - 3.99 wks
0 or 1 processes
<25
10.00-19.99 yrs
little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$429,665
: Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Darryl
Owens
312-886-7089
0.0%
owens.darryl@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
MacGillis and Gibbs/Bell Lumber & Pole
New Brighton
MN
5
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$300,000
27.8
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$4,451,949
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) % 20.0%
Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5%
Number of pumping wells # 14 2.5%
Pumping rate gpm 60 -2.5%
Down time per year wks 0 0.0%
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 4 5.0%
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 60 2.5%
Expected system duration yrs 27.8 0.0%
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F C 2.0%
Summation (%) -> 32.0%
Estimated potential savings (%) -> 32.0%
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
$4,451,949
- 32.0%
$1,424,624
- $25,000
$1,399,624
Performance not evaluated
10 or more wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
<2wks
4 or more processes
50.00 to 74.99
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes, severe for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
: Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Steve
Padovani
312-353-6755
0.0%
padovani.steven@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Oconomowoc Electroplating
Ashippun
Wl
5
Cost Item Units
$/yr
yrs
Value
$471,000
24.7
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$6,594,778
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C C
Number of pumping wells # 5
Pumping rate gpm 30
Down time per year wks 4
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 3
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 40
Expected system duration yrs 24.7
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F C
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$6,594,778
- 24.5%
$1,615,721
- $25,000
$1,590,721
20.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
-2.5%
5.0%
2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
2.0%
24.5%
24.5%
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
5 to 9 wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
4 wks or more
3 processes
25.00 to 49.99
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes, severe for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
: Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
10
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Timothy
Prendiville
312-886-5122
0.0%
prendiville.timothy@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Onalaska Municipal Landfill
Onalaska
Wl
5
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$200,000
0.5
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$95,617
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C C
Number of pumping wells # 5
Pumping rate gpm 560
Down time per year wks 1
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 2
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 20
Expected system duration yrs 0.5
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$95,617
- 5.0%
20.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
-2.5%
-20.0%
5.0%
2.5%
5.0%
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
5 to 9 wells
>500 gpm
<2wks
2 processes
<25
<2yrs
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$4,781
- $25,000
-$20,219
: Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
11
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
John
Fagiolo
312-886-0800
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
0.0%
fagiolo.john@epa.gov
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Ott/Story/Cordova Chem Co.
Dalton Township
Ml
5
Cost Item Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$2,400,000
28.6
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$36,108,756
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) % 20.0%
Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5%
Number of pumping wells # 10 2.5%
Pumping rate gpm 700 2.5%
Down time per year wks 4 5.0%
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 3 2.5%
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 120 5.0%
Expected system duration yrs 28.6 0.0%
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F A 5.0%
Summation (%) -> 45.0%
Estimated potential savings (%) -> 40.0%
Performance not evaluated
10 or more wells
>500 gpm
4 wks or more
3 processes
75 or more
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
$36,108,756
- 40.0%
$14,443,502
- $25,000
$14,418,502 < Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
12
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Mike
Ribordy
312-886-4592
0.0%
ribordy.mike@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Peerless Plating
Muskegon Township
Ml
5
Cost Item
Units Value
$/yr $400,000
yrs 0.0
% 5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$0
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C C
Number of pumping wells # 6
Pumping rate gpm 165
Down time per year wks 0
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 3
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 24
Expected system duration yrs 0.0
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$0
- 5.0%
20.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.5%
-2.5%
-20.0%
5.0%
2.5%
5.0%
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
5 to 9 wells
100 to 500 gpm
<2wks
3 processes
<25
<2yrs
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$0
- $25,000
-$25,000
< Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
13
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Ken
Glatz
312-886-1434
glatz.ken@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
0.0%
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
U.S. Aviex
Howard Township
Ml
5
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$300,000
1.7
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$468,345
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C C
Number of pumping wells # 6
Pumping rate gpm 170
Down time per year wks 1
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 1
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 120
Expected system duration yrs 1.7
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$468,345
- 5.0%
$23,417
- $25,000
20.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-2.5%
5.0%
-20.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
5 to 9 wells
100 to 500 gpm
<2wks
0 or 1 processes
75 or more
<2yrs
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
-$1,583
: Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
14
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Richard
Boice
312-886-4740
0.0%
boice. richardgepa. gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Verona Well Field
Battle Creek
Ml
5
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$225,000
30.0
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$3,458,801
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C A
Number of pumping wells # 6
Pumping rate gpm 250
Down time per year wks 2
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 2
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 10
Expected system duration yrs 30.0
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F B
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$3,458,801
- 25.5%
20.0%
2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
2.5%
0.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
3.0%
25.5%
25.5%
Performance not evaluated
5 to 9 wells
100 to 500 gpm
2.00 - 3.99 wks
2 processes
<25
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$881,994
- $25,000
$856,994
: Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
15
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Russell
Hart
312-886-4844
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
0.0%
hart, russellgepa. gov
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Wash King Laundry
Pleasant Plains Township
Ml
5
Cost Item Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$75,000
19.3
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$913,889
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C A
Number of pumping wells # 5
Pumping rate gpm 250
Down time per year wks 0
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 2
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 46
Expected system duration yrs 19.3
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F B
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$913,889
- 23.0%
$210,195
- $25,000
20.0%
2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-2.5%
3.0%
23.0%
23.0%
Performance not evaluated
5 to 9 wells
100 to 500 gpm
<2wks
2 processes
25.00 to 49.99
10.00-19.99 yrs
little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$185,195
: Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
REGION 6 SCREENING CALCULATIONS
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Stacey
Bennett
214-665-6729
214-665-6660
bennett.stacey@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
American Creosote Works
Winnfield
LA
6
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$360,000
25.1
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$5,084,310
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) % 20.0%
Performance evaluation? A-C C -2.5%
Number of pumping wells # 18 2.5%
Pumping rate gpm 5.0 -5.0%
Down time per year wks 1 0.0%
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 3 2.5%
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 72 2.5%
Expected system duration yrs 25.1 0.0%
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F C 2.0%
Summation (%) -> 22.0%
Estimated potential savings (%) -> 22.0%
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
10 or more wells
<10gpm
<2wks
3 processes
50.00 to 74.99
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes, severe for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
$5,084,310
- 22.0%
$1,118,548
- $25,000
$1,093,548 < Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Katrina
Coltrain
214-665-8143
214-665-6660
coltrain.katrina@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Bayou Bonfouca
Slidell
LA
6
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$402,000
19.5
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$4,936,430
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C C
Number of pumping wells # 44
Pumping rate gpm 22.5
Down time per year wks 0
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 3
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 132
Expected system duration yrs 19.5
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F B
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$4,936,430
- 25.5%
20.0%
-2.5%
2.5%
-2.5%
0.0%
2.5%
5.0%
-2.5%
3.0%
25.5%
25.5%
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
10 or more wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
<2wks
3 processes
75 or more
10.00-19.99 yrs
little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$1,258,790
- $25,000
$1,233,790 < Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Petra
Sanchez
214-665-6686
214-665-6660
sanchez. petra@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Cimarron Mining
Carizozo
NM
6
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$1,000,000
30.0
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$15,372,451
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C B
Number of pumping wells # 3
Pumping rate gpm 1.0
Down time per year wks 4
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 1
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 12
Expected system duration yrs 30.0
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F E
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$15,372,451
- 15.0%
20.0%
5.0%
-2.5%
-5.0%
5.0%
-2.5%
-2.5%
0.0%
-2.5%
15.0%
15.0%
Performance evaluated and found insufficient
3 to 4 wells
<10gpm
4 wks or more
0 or 1 processes
<25
20 yrs or more
moderate difficulty for minor changes, severe for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$2,305,868
- $25,000
$2,280,868 < Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Vincent
Malott
214-665-8313
214-665-6660
malott.vincent@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
City of Perryton Wfell #2
Perryton
TX
6
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$37,000
21.6
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$481,977
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C A
Number of pumping wells # 1
Pumping rate gpm 150.0
Down time per year wks 0
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 1
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 20
Expected system duration yrs 21.6
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$481,977
- 17.5%
$84,346
- $25,000
20.0%
2.5%
-5.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-2.5%
-2.5%
0.0%
5.0%
17.5%
17.5%
Performance not evaluated
1 to 2 wells
100 to 500 gpm
<2wks
0 or 1 processes
<25
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$59,346
< Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Ruben
Moya
214-665-2755
214-665-6660
moya.ruben@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Geneva Industries
Houston
TX
6
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$240,000
2.0
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$446,259
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C C
Number of pumping wells # 13
Pumping rate gpm 5.0
Down time per year wks 52
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 2
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 26
Expected system duration yrs 2.0
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F B
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$446,259
- 8.0%
$35,701
- $25,000
20.0%
-2.5%
2.5%
-5.0%
5.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-15.0%
3.0%
8.0%
8.0%
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
10 or more wells
<10gpm
4 wks or more
2 processes
25.00 to 49.99
2.00 - 4.99yrs
little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$10,701
< Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Carlos
Sanchez
214-665-8507
214-665-6660
sanchez. carlosgepa. gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Midland Products
Ola
AR
6
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$180,000
30.0
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$2,767,041
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C C
Number of pumping wells # 8
Pumping rate gpm 3.0
Down time per year wks 1
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 3
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 40
Expected system duration yrs 30.0
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$2,767,041
- 20.0%
$553,408
- $25,000
20.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
-5.0%
0.0%
2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
5.0%
20.0%
20.0%
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
5 to 9 wells
<10gpm
<2wks
3 processes
25.00 to 49.99
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$528,408
< Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Camille
Hueni
214-665-2231
214-665-6660
hueni.camille@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
North Cavalcade Superfund Site
Houston
TX
6
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
Value
$0
8.9
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$0
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C A
Number of pumping wells # 19
Pumping rate gpm 19.0
Down time per year wks 52
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 3
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 0
Expected system duration yrs 8.9
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$0
- 27.5%
20.0%
2.5%
2.5%
-2.5%
5.0%
2.5%
-2.5%
-5.0%
5.0%
27.5%
27.5%
Performance not evaluated
10 or more wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
4 wks or more
3 processes
<25
5.00 - 9.99 yrs
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$0
- $25,000
-$25,000
< Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Ernest
Franks
214-665-8521
214-665-6660
franke,ernest@epamail.epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Odessa Chromium #1
Odessa
TX
6
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$500,000
0.0
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$0
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C C
Number of pumping wells # 6
Pumping rate gpm 60.0
Down time per year wks 15
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 1
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 14
Expected system duration yrs 0.0
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$0
- 5.0%
$0
- $25,000
20.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
-2.5%
5.0%
-2.5%
-2.5%
-20.0%
5.0%
0.0%
5.0%
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
5 to 9 wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
4 wks or more
0 or 1 processes
<25
<2yrs
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
-$25,000
< Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Vincent
Malott
214-665-8313
214-665-6660
malott.vincent@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Sprague Road Ground VJaler Plume
Odessa
TX
6
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$1,200,000
26.7
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$17,472,059
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C A
Number of pumping wells # 22
Pumping rate gpm 200.0
Down time per year wks 0
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 1
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 200
Expected system duration yrs 26.7
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$17,472,059
- 32.5%
20.0%
2.5%
2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
-2.5%
5.0%
0.0%
5.0%
32.5%
32.5%
Performance not evaluated
10 or more wells
100 to 500 gpm
<2wks
0 or 1 processes
75 or more
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$5,678,419
- $25,000
$5,653,419 < Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
REGION 7 SCREENING CALCULATIONS
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Bob
Stewart
913-551-7654
913-551-9654
stewart.robert@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Ace Services
Colby
KS
7
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$500,000
13.7
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$4,868,337
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C A
Number of pumping wells # 12
Pumping rate gpm 800
Down time per year wks 0
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 1
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 124
Expected system duration yrs 13.7
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$4,868,337
- 32.5%
20.0%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
0.0%
-2.5%
5.0%
-2.5%
5.0%
32.5%
32.5%
Performance not evaluated
10 or more wells
>500 gpm
<2wks
0 or 1 processes
75 or more
10.00-19.99 yrs
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$1,582,210
- $25,000
$1,557,210 < Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Mary
Peterson
913-551-7882
913-551-7063
peterson. marygepa. gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Cleburn Street Well Site/OU2
Grand Island
NE
7
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$100,000
17.9
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$1,165,954
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C A
Number of pumping wells # 3
Pumping rate gpm 90
Down time per year wks 1
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 1
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 32
Expected system duration yrs 17.9
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$1,165,954
- 17.5%
$204,042
- $25,000
20.0%
2.5%
-2.5%
-2.5%
0.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
-2.5%
5.0%
17.5%
17.5%
Performance not evaluated
3 to 4 wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
<2wks
0 or 1 processes
25.00 to 49.99
10.00-19.99 yrs
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$179,042
< Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Steve
Auchterlonie
913-551-7778
913-551-7437
auchterlonie.steve@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Valley Park TCE Site - OU2
Valley Park
MO
7
Cost Item Units
$/yr
yrs
Value
$0
14.0
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$0
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C A
Number of pumping wells # 0
Pumping rate gpm 0
Down time per year wks 0
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 1
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 0
Expected system duration yrs 14.0
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$0
- 15.0%
$0
- $25,000
20.0%
2.5%
0.0%
-5.0%
0.0%
-2.5%
-2.5%
-2.5%
5.0%
15.0%
15.0%
Performance not evaluated
no wells (e.g., drains, etc.)
<10gpm
<2wks
0 or 1 processes
<25
10.00-19.99 yrs
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
-$25,000
< Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
REGION 9 SCREENING CALCULATIONS
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
David
Seter
415-744-2212
111-111-1111
seter.david@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Modesto Superfund Site
Modesto
GA
9
Cost Item Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$300,000
20.3
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$3,776,134
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C A
Number of pumping wells # 1
Pumping rate gpm 50
Down time per year wks 0
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 2
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 40
Expected system duration yrs 20.3
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$3,776,134
- 20.0%
$755,227
- $25,000
20.0%
2.5%
-5.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
5.0%
20.0%
20.0%
Performance not evaluated
1 to 2 wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
<2wks
2 processes
25.00 to 49.99
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$730,227
< Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Kim
Hoang
415-744-2370
999-999-9999
hoang.kim@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Muscoy
San Bernadino
GA
9
Cost Item
Units Value
$/yr $1,100,000
yrs 22.8
% 5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$14,754,617
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) % 20.0%
Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5%
Number of pumping wells # 5 0.0%
Pumping rate gpm 9000 2.5%
Down time per year wks 0 0.0%
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 1 -2.5%
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 60 2.5%
Expected system duration yrs 22.8 0.0%
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F C 2.0%
Summation (%) -> 27.0%
Estimated potential savings (%) -> 27.0%
Performance not evaluated
5 to 9 wells
>500 gpm
<2wks
0 or 1 processes
50.00 to 74.99
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes, severe for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
$14,754,617
- 27.0%
$3,983,747
- $25,000
$3,958,747 < Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Kim
Hoang
415-744-2370
999-999-9999
hoang.kim@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Newmark
San Bernadino
CA
9
Cost Item
Units Value
$/yr $900,000
yrs 26.8
% 5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$13,123,638
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) % 20.0%
Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5%
Number of pumping wells # 8 0.0%
Pumping rate gpm 12000 2.5%
Down time per year wks 0 0.0%
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 1 -2.5%
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 30 0.0%
Expected system duration yrs 26.8 0.0%
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F B 3.0%
Summation (%) -> 25.5%
Estimated potential savings (%) -> 25.5%
Performance not evaluated
5 to 9 wells
>500 gpm
<2wks
0 or 1 processes
25.00 to 49.99
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
$13,123,638
- 25.5%
$3,346,528
- $25,000
$3,321,528 < Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Michelle
Lau
415-744-2227
415-744-2180
lau. michelle@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Selma Treating Co.
Selma
CA
9
Cost Item
Units Value
$/yr $300,000
yrs 6.8
% 5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value •>
$1,684,303
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C C
Number of pumping wells # 6
Pumping rate gpm 150
Down time per year wks 0
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 1
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 80
Expected system duration yrs 6.8
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F C
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$1,684,303
- 17.0%
$286,332
- $25,000
20.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-2.5%
5.0%
-5.0%
2.0%
17.0%
17.0%
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
5 to 9 wells
100 to 500 gpm
<2wks
0 or 1 processes
75 or more
5.00 - 9.99 yrs
little difficulty for minor changes, severe for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$261,332
< Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
REGION 10 SCREENING CALCULATIONS
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Debra
Yamamoto
206-553-7216
206-553-0124
yamamoto.debbie@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Boomsnub/Airco
Hazel Dell
WA
10
Cost Item
/ Site-Wide Ground Water OU
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$1,000,000
28.8
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$15,085,551
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C C
Number of pumping wells # 22
Pumping rate gpm 135
Down time per year wks 3
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 3
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 160
Expected system duration yrs 28.8
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F E
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$15,085,551
- 27.5%
20.0%
-2.5%
2.5%
0.0%
2.5%
2.5%
5.0%
0.0%
-2.5%
27.5%
27.5%
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
10 or more wells
100 to 500 gpm
2.00 - 3.99 wks
3 processes
75 or more
20 yrs or more
moderate difficulty for minor changes, severe for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$4,148,527
- $25,000
$4,123,527 < Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Carmella
Grandinetti
206-553-8696
206-553-0124
grandinetti.cami@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Kellogg
ID
10
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$0
30.0
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$0
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C A
Number of pumping wells # 0
Pumping rate gpm 0
Down time per year wks 0
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 1
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 232
Expected system duration yrs 30.0
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$0
- 25.0%
$0
- $25,000
20.0%
2.5%
0.0%
-5.0%
0.0%
-2.5%
5.0%
0.0%
5.0%
25.0%
25.0%
Performance not evaluated
no wells (e.g., drains, etc.)
<10gpm
<2wks
0 or 1 processes
75 or more
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
-$25,000
< Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Kevin
Rochlin
206-553-2106
206-553-0124
rochlin.kevin@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Commencement Bay,
Tacoma
WA
10
Cost Item
South Tacoma Channel, Wfell 12A
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$300,000
9.0
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$2,133,380
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C B
Number of pumping wells # 5
Pumping rate gpm 150
Down time per year wks 3
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 1
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 40
Expected system duration yrs 9.0
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F B
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$2,133,380
- 23.0%
$490,677
- $25,000
20.0%
5.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.5%
-2.5%
0.0%
-5.0%
3.0%
23.0%
23.0%
Performance evaluated and found insufficient
5 to 9 wells
100 to 500 gpm
2.00 - 3.99 wks
0 or 1 processes
25.00 to 49.99
5.00 - 9.99 yrs
little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$465,677
< Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Alan
Goodman
503-326-3685
503-326-3399
goodman.al@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
McCormick & Baxter Creosoting Co.
Portland
OR
10
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$250,000
30.0
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$3,843,113
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C C
Number of pumping wells # 6
Pumping rate gpm 3
Down time per year wks 5
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 4
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 50
Expected system duration yrs 30.0
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$3,843,113
- 30.0%
20.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
-5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
2.5%
0.0%
5.0%
30.0%
30.0%
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
5 to 9 wells
<10gpm
4 wks or more
4 or more processes
50.00 to 74.99
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$1,152,934
- $25,000
$1,127,934 < Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Hanh
Gold
206-553-0171
206-553-0124
gold.hanh@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Vtyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site
Bainbridge Island
WA
10
Cost Item
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value
$500,000
30.0
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$7,686,226
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C B
Number of pumping wells # 8
Pumping rate gpm 80
Down time per year wks 0
#of above-ground water treatment processes # 3
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr) # 20
Expected system duration yrs 30.0
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F B
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
$7,686,226
- 25.5%
20.0%
5.0%
0.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
2.5%
-2.5%
0.0%
3.0%
25.5%
25.5%
Performance evaluated and found insufficient
5 to 9 wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
<2wks
3 processes
<25
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$1,959,988
- $25,000
$1,934,988 < Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
------- |