United States Office of Pollution EPA-742-F-02-007
Environmental Protection Agency Prevention and Toxics Summer 2002
Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse (PPIC)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW ( 7407-T)
Washington, DC 20460-0001
(operated by Vistronix, Inc.)
Reference and Referral Fax E-mail Address
DUE'lTITMTIAlVr 202~566~0799 202-566-0794 PPic@epa.gov
Summer 2002 NEW PUBLICATIONS
Mail, phone, fax, or e-mail requests to the address and numbers above. EPA documents and fact sheets
are provided at no cost based on availability. Please allow 3 weeks for delivery and limit your request to a
total of 10 items. Note that some publications marked with an asterisk ( * ) are available online only.
GENERAL POLLUTION PREVENTION INFORMATION
EPA-625-R-01-003 An Organizational Guide to Pollution Prevention
(150 pp. + CD) * August 2001
Provides information to assist organizations in getting P2 programs started or re-evaluating existing ones.
Presents four approaches to implementation.
EPA-625-R-99-003 Guide to Industrial Assessments for Pollution Prevention and Energy
Efficiency
(310 pp. + appendices) * June 2001
Provides overview of and general framework for conducting combined P2 and energy efficiency
assessments for industrial and commercial facilities. Organized into sections on basic concepts; specific
waste generation info; energy consumption info; and references and case studies.
Also available online at:
http://www.epa.gov/ordntrnt/ORD/NRMRL/Pubs/2001/energy/complete.pdf
[warning-large file: PDF 4.43MB]
ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE PURCHASING
EPA-220-K-02-001 The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA
Campus in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
(74 pp) * November 2001
Provides project summary, lessons learned, and discussion of sustainable design and maintenance issues
for the U.S. EPA's new green campus at Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Also available online at:
http://www.epa.gov/rtp/new_bldg/environmental/thegreeningcurve-new.pdf
[warning-large file: PDF 3.57MB]
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 4
Region 4, Table 1 — Summary
July 3, 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
1of10
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
1of7
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
1of10
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
No-Longer-Operating Fund-lead P&T Systems
Hollingsworth Soiderless 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
-------
e •*»•
II
!S 5
I*: o
I
K.
-2
'55
CD
•8 S
I *
2,
-S
S
o
CM
0)
CD
o:
fl
to "X
S *
3 1
to ffl
CO u
3 £
o is
> W-
o 'S
D.
**~ c
1 ll
CO W (0
E £ I
tii fc- ®
o
•D C>-
§2
= 1
E o
3 O
Q-
U>
CO
o
o
E
o
u>
V)
E w
O 3
w w
° Q
*»
T3
CO
3
If
« c
111 <
0)
I
^
z
1
c
_g
. is
to
to
c
_g
2
03
Q.
O
to
c
Lu
<^
HI
1
c
^£
c
^3
BC Cleaners
<
•o
3
co
"5
03
"o
z
go
O
CM
C
CD
.C
CO
CO
_CD
o
c
_g
"5
o
•to
to
c:
_g
2
03
Q.
O
to
c
LL.
^
ui
o
o
o
o"
o
CO
69-
03
'o
merican Creos
forks (DNAPL)
< 5^
•a
3
CO
• u
CO
0
"o
Z
Z
o3
— c
C 0
CD y=
E 2
.E o
5 co
0 &
O
c
"co
0
•o
it
to
c
LL.
<^
111
o
o
0
CM"
in
fa-
03
"5
CO
o . — .
CO 03
o li
E CO
CD •«
.9 co
CD -s
E 5
< §
•a
to
13
CO
£
o
Z
5?
o
CM
C
, co
CO
_03
C
O
C
jst:
^
o3
«*-* C
S •—
i ^
co to
^~ 03
o tt^
O
to
o
"2
CD
a.
O
to
c
LL.
<^
LU
O
0
o
o
co
CO
01
enfieid Industri
ca
•^
CD
ts
3
CO
"o
Z
z
1
<=5
"*-* d
§ •—
E 2
.E o
^D to
o Q£
O
73
1 1
.0) »
CO —
CD -»-•
QO
"CD
LE
<^
LLJ
O
O
O
O
•<*•
•o
ape FearWooi
reserving
o a.
•a
03 ,
to
j
03
B
z
§
z
c:
g
"ro
o
to
03
a:
c
D)
"co
CD
T3
LX
E
^
LLJ
1
C
^
c:
^
•a
0
^
>
oleman Evans
reserving
o a.
l .
c
CD
"o
E
co
i
o
c
c
u
c
c
c
o3
, - £^
§-S
E 2
•- 3
co to
•£ CD
o f£
o
to
c
_g
'2
03
Q.
O
"CD
LL
CO -C
03 CJ
If
i
CO CO
"O ^
g
CD CO
ci
Q) o
i-cf
S^i
§1"
O) O
§ §•
CO 5
§•«
P -Q
^1
CO C
fl
Sf
al
co o
£ co
to
E
to
CO
to
c
to 9> co
§. So
9 ^-"S
m 2 ^
•
co
co
o>
_c
03
CO
03
T3
O
O
c
CO C t
C 3J
_03 "a. o
lili
CD -S r- J2
•O 03
£ •«
^•^
£ §
03 .S
03 "D
.a 03
S E
CO 03
-E- o;
to 03
03 O
CO ~-~
£ 2
Q- E
•a .o
8 =
?il
g S
LL. -a
£§
CO CO
O S
fl
^i co
O 03
-2-03
O) CO
I-
> TJ
CD "O
O S
co t
°-'>
^2
II
1-s
03 -^3
£ .2
o g
2 ">>
3 p
0 =
CO
= CD
I g
2 I
3 "G
to 03
0 ,!fc
a: 0
.. M—
o o
to co
co £
0 .2
D) to
8 - CD 5
•£ CD E 2
03 t S3 >
g .2 to 0
CD 0
"o T- £ oi co
z
m
Q
CO
I
2.
i
-------
c ^*
5 c
o -2
to CD
I
2
O
II
"•I
fi
«o 2
II
CD
o:
J)
ra
— c
3 'o
« Q.
re £
CD O
>• 0
c
li
£ 1
O
5 >-
!1
& i
5 i~
^
0 0
g£
c co
H
T3
C
... CO
= J
1 1
CD [1_
Q.
O
C
O TJ
53 CD
H
to E
o cj
Q £
ftf y
(0 "
3i
Q
O
1
D)
—
O
to
co
O3
CD
CM
JABC Cleaners
CO
T—
co
o
o
CM
in
cq
CO
o
o
CM
in
CO
O3
C73
55
co
03
O3
O3
§
CD
O
1 American Creos
Works (DNAPL)
CM
CO
O3
O
1
CM
co'
T—
T—
O
CM
35
s
o
CM
(33
§
§
O3
^
CO
CM
O
O
1 American Creos
Works (solute)
co
O3
i
CM
IO
CO
O3
O
CM
25
O
O
CM
25
O
O
C!
CM
T—
CO
CD
JBenfield Industri
•<*
co
12/2009
co
C3
1
CM
O
0
CM
03
O
O
CM
O3
T—
CD
CO
CM
CO
03
CO
O
co
CD
-n
IGape Fear Wooi
Preserving
25
CM
35
CD
co
25
CM
O3
•a
o
o-
>
IGoleman Evans
Preserving
CM
!^i
co
o
CM
03
CM
S
o
CM
03
CO
O3
O3
O3
CO
03
O3
T—
03
CO
O3
CD
CM
"to
0
a.
CO
b
-2
to
co
o
E
LLJ
CO
CD
co
o
o
CM
25
co
CO
CO
o
o
CM
25
CO
O3
0)
25
co
1
CO
03
co
O3
P^
CM
O3
PCX Statesville
CM
CM
O
O
CM
O3
CM
O3
O3
O3
CM
O3
03
O3
O
^^
0
T—
|
Q
1
_eo
cq
CD
co
o
o
CM
in
CO
co'
CO
o
0
CM
in
co
O3
03
^
03
O3
T—
25
§
^
oa
t^-
co
1
35
jPalmetto Wood
01
03
CO
2
CD
S .g
o •£
to co
S
CO -C
"
8?
l|
2 S
§ [i
c:
I
-5 'I
9? QJI
S2 S"
&»
S -o
l
m
I
I
s
a
S
I
•o
5
§
I
-------
'c ^
•2 c
;<§§
ill
"O. «o
i .^*
U
S
I
I
,
-Q
ff
™ -
V) 15
ill
II
; re cu
ia ce
I.
o
ts
2
c
o
O
ro
E
CL
^
O
CO
3
o>
o>
[£
0
4S
CO
s
£
0)
(/>
CO
CD
C
__z
"co
10 -"- E
log II
c o i^ —IS1
CD ££ CXI f- t- C
§,, o •«- co
c O co co E
CD -,, =c Z CM •* £
~a> 2? ° .c£ co co .2
z z °- ce 5> 5 "c
Luis Flores
EPA Region 4
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
404-562-8807
(fax)
flores.luis@epa.gov
CD
C
co
CD
O
o
m
t5
to
Q
CD
S CN
>••§ , o
— rf T
— 3 i> 2 co
"5?
o
0) 0>
CO T— T—
_g o.o
>. CO CO
"o O _i § S
-j U_ U. CO CO
Mark Fite
EPA Region 4
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
404-562-8927
(fax)
fite.mark@epa.gov
CO
o
CD
s
O
CD
0
c ,-^
So!
-£ , o
CD 2 — ! •*
Is 5i
§w -§s
-? 3 2 co
i.
0 0
CO -r- T-
^ 99
>> CO CO
n ^f ^«
Jjtj 66
O tJ _1 10 IO
-3 U- U- co co
Mark Fite
EPA Region 4
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
404-562-8927
(fax)
fite.mark@epa.gov
CO
O
CD.
"o
CO
0
CD
0
c
CD . .
•C 3?
CD ^
s a
< •£•
— N-
0 E S
CD tf 10
-J 0 CM
.go |- 9
O O Z ^
-
"S
c
*
"ro
E
10 -C-O
-oo g c
CO CD **— /»\
C ON- -— ^/
CO p^ CM t— t— C.
o ,v ^ ~Z. CM -
CD
«-•
C/3
^
^
C
CD
CD
I
I
.§-
I
i
2.
to
0)
.o
.O
5
-------
c ^
ll
o CD
S: ,
co
CO
Q.
X
s2 E
£
o
4S
I
II
•*.»
jo
*
o
3
1 -
> < 10
to? CDfT
ai m
So
1
1
I
r*
-CD
•Q
.«B
CD
o:
to -rr-
•o o :S
co co J2
c o r^j ^_ ~—
c .£ ^ § CQ
»
£
><
CO
CO
0
O
?
°
oo
CO
o £
o a.
kw "- -r— 5— O O
cc ILI co < -g- .c
"co
CO
o
CL
CO
b
03
(0
CD
£
o
UJ
CD LU .,— ^3 Q CD
_0
CO
s
03
w
s
IL.
I
•tf
CO
•
I
-------
•c
.
8*
C
ro
c*
.0
^5
|
IS
4S
c
o
o
si
f 5
& 2?
^^i 13
tf\ ~~*
VJ
•<*
«
p^
^F
c
.2
0)
0>
o:
^_
o
13
2
o
o
j^*
re
ol
i.
o
D)
K.
1
s
•x.
E
&
a>
V)
o
^ CD >
7r\ CO CD
v) i ro
of g Q.
•— o ^ *£ ro E
O fy £ of CD >-
2 "; 0 •£ up zj
=3 LU S < § E
£
Q
E
_co
5
in
CM
co
jg
'5
CO
•o
co
o
o:
£•0
"- °CM
•^•* Q> ^ C3>
C3) Q. JO O
g Q CO JO CO
p O CM < CD
g
CM
<3>
CM
0) g CO ^
^X2|I
"w C3 CQ 3 '
' o
CD DJ
r-- en
r^ o
>
q>
a.
CD
©
CD
1
1
I
o
2
s
I
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 — Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 4
Region 4, Table 5 - Top Contaminants Identified by RPMs
July 3, 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
Identifier
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
rluoranthene
Naphthalene
Pentachlorophenol (PCP)
carcinogenic PAHs
Creosote and petroleum hydrocarbons
Benzene
3enzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
3enzo(q,h,i)perylene
Dioxin
3entachlorophenol (PCP)
Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
Pesticides
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
PCE
richloroethylene (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&T system
Data provided by site RPMs
-------
.2' c
it; .2
IS o
15°:
', v» -i
Q §
; CD '
ill
i Q. v
I "3
S
,. o
•s >t:
ce a>
o ^
»* o
,0 jj, •—. 10
Pl =
4S re o co
to P r- -C
ji c .= o
o £
Jj 0
to Q.
5 to >-
•O JB to
0 C CO
r> ?-? flj
C CO O
= £ S
Z 1- 0.
"5 =
° o
>- — to
£8=3
E I g
= X
Z LU
0 ^
Ifl
X ZT *^-'
S | o
^ OL *"
< °L
t- (0
o to
(0 c CO .=.
£ = tj
Q. JO ,O
LU LU
« 0
T> =
O CO
,2 D
1 (/)
S -2
-S o
o >.
Q. O
£
— . ™ 0>
1| f°
O ^.j V|_ *J
S-1
E
to
co
national
n
O
<
^
CM
Z
1
c:
.^
c:
3
C
|
^£
£Z
3
ABC Cleaners
o o
c c
U^T.1 _.
^ ^
CO
CO
CO
CD
-,;,
.0
CO
3
CO
0
CO
CO
CO
&5
0
O
[American Creos
Works (DNAPL)
o o
c. c
\" Vj.
^ S
CM
CO
x—
CM
CD
•o
0
CO
3
CO
0
0
CO
s
O3
CM
4O-
as-
0
in"
CO
0
Benfield Industri
0 0
_
s s
CO
CO
CM
CO
0
CO
0
0
it
CO
CM
r-
CM
N-
co
in
CO
0
0
CM
JElmore Waste
IDisposal
o o
c c
^, 9^l
2 S
CM
CM
O
^
O
CM
C
0
_o
3
CO
CO
CD
CO
V
m
5
CD
CD
CM
FCX Statesville
$
z
^ —
o
•
0 O
c c
^~ ^"
2 s
o
CM
CM
CO
in
o
-c
0
CO
3
CO
>
0
z
CM
CO
CD
CM
O>
CO
CO
•*
«•
in
T—
0
O
American Creos
Works (solute)
0
0 t
C 0
^^ "O
2 o
o
0
*
^~
^
CO
T3
0
CO
CO
>
0
"o
'Z
^.
CO
CD
O>
CO
CM
CO
09-
ss
iq
CM
CM
•n
ICape Fear Woo
Preserving
<
z
•a
0
CO
§
0
"o
Z
1
c
j£
c
3
C
|
.v:
c
3
cc
IColeman Evans
Wood Preservin
£.
§
co"
CD
CO
CO
o
CD
1
CO
.c
^
ftt
s
co
I
CO
05
o
co
CD
CM
^t
1
C
CO
b
1
i£
_^
§'
1
CD
•Q
£2
S
CD
£-
1
S-*
O
I
15
"^3
CD
S
CD
Q:
'S provided by sit
ta reflect estimate
CO
Q
CD"
.S
"S
^
O
Q.
&5
i
-c
o
TO
E
!
s
I
1
1
'5
CD
Q.
CO
CO
g"
.0
"5
•S,
Q.
o
fc
co
a
42
CO
VT
03
-Q
|
CD
'•B
"5
.c
-2
CO
Q
"co
1
CO
|
o
•o
co
o
•^
— J
T3
£
0
\-
O
^
CO
L.
.p
o
"o
0
Q.
CO
E
to
>v
co
J
to
0
Q.
0
CJ
C
to
£
0
o
-o
o
"0
E
o>
'c
0
0
L.
o
CO
CO
E
f
~3
CO
0
t—
1
O
0
Z
a
!_i
c
0
>s:
"Potential Reduct
0
O "*-"
z
LU
CO
££
CO
"5
to
o
o
0
0
3
O
"o
c
c
co
0
3
CO
^>
LU
CO
OH
0
^
"o
to
O
o
0
0
corporat
c
T3
CO
C
O
to
.0
c
o
"o
0
Q.
0
•4—f
CO
W*
O3
C
"to
3
03
C
"co
3
^^
CO
1
0
0
"co
03
CO
CO
JD
i
Zi
!s
"o
Q.
CM
.
"co"
O3
_c
CO
CO
costs (negative ;
rentheses denote
CO
Q.
0
Q.
CO
C
0
0
O)
"iZ
"E
o
£
"o
0
E
3
C
0
•+-*
JD
0
D.
CO
CO
co
1
03
•^
"E
o
"5
0
E
c
0
OJ
_c
p.
"5
E
•o
CO
3
O
CO
CJ .
co
"t.
CO
0
1_
0
Q.
CO
0
Q.
E
"Groundwater Sa
ar.
• 0
CO >,
CO
c
.0
to
3
CO
LU
E
.2
co"
.0
to
:=
0
E
0
o:
0
•o"
3
0
i
c.
o
•o
"3
1
0
">
0
CO
0
>»
ID
0
T3
3
0
*""*
CO
CO
CO
0
ons of effectiven
Previous evaluati
•^
i
1
g
55
^^
-Q
1
S
Q.
45
CQ
Q
T system
4 Fund-lead, P&
c
.2
o>
CD
o:
-------
§"
Q >
nj •=
Q g
t S
ss
8 I
5= •£
0. w
ft
•0
li
CO ra
u
(a o
2: EC
to
I
I
42
!
is
3
c
c:
CO
S
CN
CO
•a
Q)
o:
o
o
w
w 3
£ w
•5 ^
5»"» CO
CO c
o
CO 3=
c co
a fe
2 o
CD J
a. £
O 0.
0 •
o
o
CO
,
"l
c
Ij
£
^
g
B
o
o
CO
cc
i
H
•§
IE
E
.
»i
c
r_
c
5
D
c
3
•a-
«•
•o
£«•
HP
m
p
F
IS
__
r
•^
P
J ";' . - " -
c
0
c
c
oooooooooo
oooooooooo
OrocON-CDlO'^tOOCMx-
LunjQ IUIEIIAJ
3||!ASS)B)S XOd
lEsodsig
3JSBM 3JOIU|3
ouiAjsssjd pooy\/\
SUBA3 UBU13|00
pooMJBa^adBo
SSUlSnpUl PI3UU3Q
(a;n|os) S)|JOM
3)OS08JO U80U9UJV
(idVNd) s>|JOM
8JOSOSJO UEOU8UJV
SJ3UE8IO OSV
0
II
o "5
to
S o
II
S
I S
CO
CO
(D
8
""
si
a
- S
II
0 '
5
35
t!
.5
o' 7
t3 CD
I "o
: CD
I
-S
I
•<*
.§
S1
a:
-------
c •»
'.a c
: o .2
O O)
% o
•
; : £
CB
;g
2.
to
•o
c
to
o
I
CM
1
.0)
CD
o:
T- CO
8 5
5 8
CM CM
.0
1 1
s Un
Yea
H Yea
oav
sjeaA
I
co"
CD
CO
co
o
1.1
o t:
CO CD
si
O) -C
& °
co ^
C" CO
I £
CO I
51
CD
s
CO
°
II
I- 1
1s.
4 1
I «
CD CD
• 1
a
f
CO O
•
I
.-£
55
o
S
T3
I
1
Q.
45
to
I
I
n
o
o
'
-------
Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative
Phase 1- Data Collection and System Screening
Region 5
July 3, 2001
Li the OSWER Directive No. 9200.0-33, Transmitted 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 Duel! 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 1 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 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.
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
-------
July3,2001
Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative
Phase 1-Data Collection and Site Screening, Region S
• 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
LaSalle
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 Mill
Perham Arsenic
Transferred to Responsible Parties
Bofors Nobel
Page 3 of 4
.
-------
July 3, 2001
Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative
Phase I-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
July 3, 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
uperationai 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
-------
c »o
i-S c
~
5; 53
1 CB Z?
i *•* ,C
Q i
;: 8
T- O
i
•2
i
O
CO
O
I CO
CM
c
-a.
O)
CD
o:
•c
I
;co
.2 w
•Jg U)
5 c
UJ '•&
CJ
« £
.2 uj
> V-
0 0
Q.
-00 =
d> «j .2
"co w "re
.£ *- O
"w c? 'w
iii i- CD
0)
c -5
£•,1
3 O
Q.
to
co
o
o
E
c
I
CO
i =
|,S
CO OT
**-
O Q
Q. O
^K
•o
ta
(U
_J
1 o
Is
U) =
i
t/3
CO
03
|g
n
CO
c
ro
-C s^
03 O
1
CO
03
08
*-• C
C 0
03 -J5
E E
— £
^0 "co
o CC
0
15
o
1
03
Q.
O
15
c
LL
JC oT
"i o
S ^
55 §
U-
0
0
o
CD
£-
03
C
"53
[Arrowhead R
03
]o
zs
CO
o
CM
C
ffi
CO
CO
_Q3
CO
03
08
_l^ f—
§s
E E
^* o
JO to
o CC
O
"ro
g
E
03
Q.
0
JZ 03
f |
03 ^
ro "g
CO Z!
u_
o
o
o
CD
- CO
•69-
CO
,0 §"
O JZ
03^
.E °
il
CQ 03
o5 |
"03 -C
m o
T3
03
ro
"TO
03
"o
^
z
^.
08
*- c
§s
E E
.= o
TO co
C ®
o CC
o
•o
^3
8
CO
c
"ra
IZ
Lu
..,,
0-
LU
O
0
o
o"
CM
rn
pouglass Ro;
•a
03
.TO
"ro
S
"o
^
2
2
c
.g
E
o
CO
03
CC
•a
15
to
E
jiS
£
<
a.
LU
1
c
Z)
,
03
"E
TO
O
TO
"03
Q
03
"o
it=
CO
>
o
c
c.
0
B
c
o
V
Z)
"TO
g
"TO
03
Q.
O
^ >>
% 0
03 ^
SI
CO 3
LL
o
0
LO
"55
^
"TO
.a.
I
£
TO
^2
03 .®
LU U-
03
"o
3=
.CO
^
o
OO
1
o
CM
r
08
•i-» C
03 -j:
E S
.S o
*S to
o CC
0
"TO
o
I
03
Q.
O
15
c
Lu
>>
"i °
03 ^
§1
CO Z!
LU
0
O
CD
o"
CO
CM
to
.92
—
v^
15
o
"o
03
LU
_03
15
CO
-a
TO
15
>
"o
0
o
CO
1
3?
o
CM
CO
03
^
g
E
0
CO
03
15
.g
'E
03
O.
O
"TO
c
u_
aT
"i °
03 ^
CO i
u.
0
0
o
CD
o
CO
.03
'1
Q.
D3
O
-a •
' 03
TO
Z!
TO
5
"o
o
CM
C
TO
CO
CO
_03
c
>
o
c
=>
c:
g
I
to
03
CC
15
g
"E
03
a.
0
15
c
Lu
<
a.
UJ
o
0
o
o"
o
CO
"55
CD
.a
JD
b 03
MacGillis and
Lumber & Pol
&•
CO
^*
to"
03
CO
§
-.
£
o
to
.C
S?
£
to
^3
CO
03
03
to
03
o
8
1
«5W
C
CO
1
1
03
1
"5
-Q
JO
03
I?
*o
c:
CB
i
0
•S.
15
^
03
03
cc
1
-Q
"Q
O
•i
2
to
S
CO
.£
03
"o
-S
1
*2
to
Q
03
"•g
Qi
O
CD
•§
^^
cts
£
i
sysfems-
o
to
|
t5
'5
03
8-
•o
1
03
I
o
^
1-
42
to
03
•Q
|
03
§>
•B
"5
!
CO
CO
Q
.^
15
"G
03
S
03
E
o
CO
•^
c
TO
to
+2
TO
E
to
03
03
TO
TO
to
T3
a>
."TO
"o
o
CO
to
TO
03
£
1
03
co"
CO
co
"ro
o
'I
03
Q.
9
Q.
£
ro
03
i
o.
co
co
_03
03
03
Q_
ro
03
"1
ro
O
•o
!Z-
TO
"03
13
Q
-
ro
&
CO
CO
ro
D3
o
CO Q
&
o •^:
c
5
o
c
c
13
£
TO
CO
B
CO
"03
_Q3
Q.
_
TO
03
O
0
£
0
CO
£
£=
03
03
.a
CO
TO
r:
to
03
3
~0.
03
H—
O
C
o
••e
0
Q.
XJ
to
E
to
03
03
.g
g
2
>£
03
"b
.0
E
Q
to
03
CC
"o
to
CO
£
D3
O
CL
*s
to
E
to
LU
CM
CO
o
to
^
LU
to
03
I
CO
o
mediati
03
CC
03
T3
"o
_C
.
O
o
•a
"3
CO
1
£
TO
03
|
10
03
•a
"o
_c
>,
veness ma
o
!f-
03
'o
CO
c
g
to
3
ro
03
to
O
£
Q.
CO
1
o
tc
Q
to
I-
13"
CO
V
I
10
o
I
-------
^ c?
s
CD
to
ca
I
o
I co
CM
-Q
fi
CD
o:
.
.
C
.2 w
*3 a
•3 ^
To a
LU S
CO a
3 <£•
o Lu
£ *c
i
•o o §
J£ CO t^
CO CO CO
EQ) L.
S O
SS D) *J
OT 2 O
0)
•o tv
5s
0 c
E
_to
CO
0
c
o
to
CO
S
CD
T5
^
ss
o
CO
i
o
CM
C
1
sr
1:3
OS
e §
CD =
1 §
"5 to
•g CD
o o:
o
To
o
TS
CD
0.
O
To
iZ
^t
LU
0
O
O
CD"
o
CM"
•ee-
E
CD
6
CO
>
o
Iott/Story/Cordi
Co.
CD
]g
fj —
Z!
CO
z
1
o
"s
o
to
&
•o
_CD
To
To
Lu
%
o
5
c.
Z)
o
0
o
o
•60-
CO
peerless Platin
c
CD
"o
tt=
3
CO
#
o
eo
o
CM
o
g
'g
0
co
CD
To
.g
"ra
CD
Q.
O
To
£Z
LJL
£ 1
^ j^-
S ~c
CO 3
LL
o
o
0
0
0
CO
X
.CD
CO
=)
TJ
05
CD
To
>
CD
"5
Z.
c
CO
CD O
c- CO
O
E
1
08
tz c
CD :c
E 5
•- S
JS to
o Q£
O
To
g
TO
CD
Q.
O
To
c
LL.
^^
Q.
Ill
O
0
0
to"
CM
CM
•€«•
"O
T5
LL.
1
CO
S
CD
•D
S
To
13
CO
>
CD
"5
"Z.
o
CM
CO
CO
eo
.CD
c
1
~)
g
2
0
CO
CD
cc
To
.g
S""
CD
Q.
O
To
LE
Si C
^ ^^
Jg ^
W §
LL
O
0
O
10"
>,
^^
c
CO
CO
c
k
CO
CO
fc,
§
CD
co
s .
CD g
O ^
°3 CD
c >
i CD
CO CS
c S
c CO
co -c:
^3 o
To 5s
.S g
HM W
CO i
03 CO
Qi t
CO ^
o> ^
<0
50
ruary and May 20*
and specifications
•Q -
CD co
LL, C
C ^
CD e>
CD 35
•is g*
® Q.
2 'co
CD O
O> u
c 2"
TO 5
S CO
^C *£?£
"o "
CD "-T
fl
-. 3
.S ^
"O CD
If
"w T3
•^7
1!
j~ o
f^i «i^*
co T5
•S3 s
co 73
S CB
g |
•W *fc
£
5
n
S
E
o
CO
c
CO
CO
t3
E
to
CD
E
CO
CO
To
"a
TJ
To
'o
0
CO
co
CO
CD
e
i systems; therefo
to
.c
.2
TO
CD
O.
9
ID
Q.
P
CO
CO
.£
CO
CL
CO
co
JD
CD
CD
D-
•0
CO
CD
IE
CO
O
-q
CO
15
13
Q
-a" g
ca >
o o
Q- jz
CO C
' frt ~"^
en i~
13 CO
co" Q £
J2 • CD
O T~~ -^
•z.
CO
CD (ri
> ^
CD Q
g-TS
c .2
CO CO
— LU
o ^^
si
•a CD
£ si
-2 co
CO "•'
CD C
<- o
ime that has been
include Remediati
— J ( .
Q_ O
fl. C
x: o
•^ T3
*^- ^,
O ^u
c .a
O £0
•c 5
O CD
CL->
-0 CD
JD w
CO CO
.— >l
CO LfS
0 CD
CD -o
O 2
•*-* ._
" fr
Q. CO
"O CD
52 CO
To z;
E .2
to CD
1° D-
CM" co"
8=
5
a>
re
Q
-------
c "o
'.2 c
' o -2
. o> o>
i= 0)
£
o
-c -S
0. w
O
t
73
c
v>
(0 >-
^>
•Q
icT
c:
.o
5>
0)
o:
!?
i|l
ill
CO O
a K.
•s
Q
=' E
-*•* o
3 1
CO Q.
CO E
O O
>- 0
E
Expected
ompletio
u
1 5
2 1
-5
5 a.
« E
c o
0 0
U
c
Q .2
o -s
D_ o '
Q
i
CO
c
_O)
O
a>
to
CO
CM
o
CM
0
CM
CO
O
O
CM
CO
cn
p:
CO
cn
CO
§5
CM
CD
CO
o
CO
35
>,
Arrowhead Refine
CO
co
CM
o
CO
O
CM
cn
CO
o
o
CM
CO
CO
OJ
O3
^
o
o
CO
co
CM
cn
CO
o Jz
0 ^^
c: o
if
m .m
ll
"CD jz
m o
CO
cn
CM
10/2030
CM
cn
0
o
CM
en
o
o
o
o
cn
CD
cn
CO
in
Douglass Road
o
CO
o
o
CM
0
o
o
CM
o
o
v-
o
o
X-
55
co
Cn
o
co
Cn
"1
CD
o
•o
CO
"55
Q
o
c
zi
unknown
1
c
c
Zi
jnknown
S
cn
CO
N-
co
en
CO
0
i
co
co
co
CO
"55
^>
to
a.
o
"c
Zi
5
CD
"co
li
111 UL
CO
3/2005
CM
O
O
CM
CO
en
CO
CO
cn
cn
CM-
CO
CO
o
co
CO
cn
CN
co
CO
CD
•4— «
^
CO
o
ts
CD
LU
_CD
"co
CO
_J
CO
?
10/2015
CM
CO
10/2007
CO
cn
cn
CO
CO
cn
cn
?=
T
co
co
^:
co
_0)
"1
a.
cn
c
o
CO
co
CM
10/2029
CO
CO
10/2009
cn
cn
0
cn
cn
en
o
^
•<*•
CM
CM
cn
cn
o
co
cn
CD
CD
1o
.a
MacGillis and Gib
Lumber & Pole
CM
in
CM
CO
CM
O
CM
cn
CM
in
CD
o
o
CM
cn
CD
cn
cn
cn"
CO
cn
cn
cn
o
cn
o
CM
en
Ioconomowoc
Electroplating
o
"-
CM
O
O
CM
cn
CM
o
CM
CO
in
cn
en
CO
cn
p:
0
cn
•*
CO
CO
IQnalaska Municip
Landfill
£
2
**—
^%
§
CO
CD
CO
s .
S £
co -C
CD C3
to ^»
-11
CO t
» cb
CD C
"S 1
£ S.
CO
• *i—
^~* o
CM ^
-2
CD to
§ -°
i*^
CD Q.
«""»
S §
CD to"
c -2
CD "cj
CD _CD
•^ 8*
2 w~
CD O
CD u
c »"
1 3
^ -2
"o ^
Q> *-?
§"-§
i 1
_ g>
^
>•* ^
co o
^S "^
-Q i
"O CO
IS
p
fe ^*
co ^
S 3
CD "o
g CD
"co
CD
-2
CB
"co
Q
0
E
o
CO
T3
c
CO
co
_CD
to
to
CD
CO
s
CO
•D
•o
t5
'o
0
CO
CO
CO
CD
S
1
"5
CD
.C
CO
E
"co
"co
c
"5
CD
Q.
I
a.
CD
CO
en
_c
to
DL
CO
CO
jCD
CD
CD
Q.
T3
C
CO
CD
C
]_
CO
O
•a
c
CO
"CD
3
Q
^~
CO
0
CC
CO
CO
co
cn
o
co Q
"o •<-
c
I
c.
s_
CD
CO
E
S
a
a>
.*£*
to
a>
^
•Q*
^3
1
1
«
Q
0)
1
si
(0
(•*
=3
a.
(Q
•2
>*L
3
U.
10
o
'5>
a>
K.
-------
C «0
*2 c
*«J CO
•Si
•Q
c:
i
Q)
o:
I
II
=:
0
a
s n
3 '"
£ g
co :
$8
c
•Sg
0 J
cu a
O. E
x c
UJ 0
^ L.
c c
-^ c
ll
2
§31
O *.
1_
3
•o
c
ro "a
U
~ 1
2 S
Q.
O
c _
O *J
It
co E
n o
3°
c
a o
Q£ o
»i
"I
a
o
a:
15
_c
*c
O
s
>»
OT
T~
CO
CM
O
CO
0
CM
CO
T—
cri
0
o
CM
CO
CD
CO
O)
CM
CD
CO
CM
O
O}
O5
CN
0>
CO
CO
35
CN
CO
E
CD
6
5
o
D
0
O
5,
o
IcS
c
o
c
c
ZJ
unknown
c
o
s
o
c
c
ZJ
c
1
•g
0
o
o
CM
^^*
CN
5
a>
D)
_c
"co
Q.
to
CO
.CD
CD
D.
CM
CN
CO
O
O
CN
S3
CM
c\i
s-
o
CN
CO
CO
CO
CO
T—
55
CO
a>
0)
55
co
CO
55
X
_CD
^
CO
Z)
CD
Indefinit
Indefinite
O)
CO
o
o
CN
CO
CO
O5
<3)
CD
CD
CO
CO
CO
S2
CN
CO
•a
CD
li.
—
CD
^
CO
c
§
co
CO
CN
o
CN
CO
CO
O
CN
^
O
o
CN
O
O
CN
^3-
CD
CO
CO
CO
CO
r—
co
CO
^
c
ZJ
CD
_J
en
_c
^
CO
CD
s
jg
^»
§
to"
CD
CO
CO
o
II
0 "5
CO CD
-£ |
CB C
g C
CO -C
S
CO X
-II
-co
qj 03
el
CO
• **^
o
c^ S
.0
ll
"O "?*
CD §.
v^ CO
CB "O
^3 ^
-Q .
CD CO
between
projectio
tn "*^
§>8
c °>
§ S
t3 *
•§.£
S -Q
i s
[ro c
"O Q>
CD j;
£ O>
^
3 ^3
x-S
J3 J
T3 CD
•g o
IQ
2 v^
fil
D O
; co
o
CD
J
2
D
D
D
CD
£
0
co
T>
C
CO
CO
1
"co
CD
• CD
CO
_co
"co
•o
•a
w
CO
'o
%
tn
CO
CD
•*-
CD"
c:
1
CD
'
-------
c
!
Q>
: i» C
:ai
§
i o °>
' W g
, f; S
Q. fo
! °>
\ c
: re
Q)
o
o
CM
c:
o
O)
0)
o:
T3
li
•5 t
-
L.
O
"Jj
£
c
0
£•
ro
'C
&.
ff
ro
3
ro
0)
Q£
a>
•s
w
L
E
in
>»
-^
CM
v
s §"
te|l§
-<= C m Z ro .
0 0 — ^ •*
O t- CD «= •"*•
•g'S-^S
C0 LLJ O •> CO
bSg-8"
^££8
to
. 13
cf
E
.2
CO
**• "to
05 „•
s s
^ ci
•a in 01
c co in «*
0 0 T- C
co Qi m o
_^ Q) "^ CO £Z
-^ "CD ^ co o
§ js-^cg . § '
co Q- S • j: co
2 2 S co CD E
CO
Darryl Owens
EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulev
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-886-7089
owens.darryl@epa.gov
^
CD
._
CD
(V
•a
CO
CD
|
"^
—
CO
^" 13
Q • ;
•"^* 5
X nj
O t •***
cn ^ f ^ jo
. ^£ X CO
Q) IT) ^ v*
CD < > -_ ^T 13
1 llslt
3 r== CD Csl C\J ^
1 P^ ^* __ O5 O5 ^*
T-, Z in CD f ^ CD
1 § ^ 2 ° S =
*: § ^ 0 en Si jo
"E
ca
John Peterson
EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulev
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-353-1264
peterson.john@epa.gov
CO
o §•
O JZ
C 0
•= c
^ ^_^
CD C
~ co
m CD
S 2
'CD .c
CD 0 .
_
m
CM
CO
CD
"3 *3*
$ in
^^ CNJ
ISifl
°- 5 C/> CO CM
c £! in 5 4
co X co — T—
Q O " S •*
§ i
t o
i 4
-1- co
.E cf)i
^ ? CO
Dion Novak
EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-886-473.7
Novak.Dion@epa.gov
CO
o
CO
CO
CO
D5
o
Q
"E
CO
8
CO
CO
13
CM
CD TJ <2
CO CO 0) 0
C O CO 5
O ££ CO C
CD Jg 4 "x" t.
Or> ^i/ - w
gjOi 0) 2: c\i cp CL
nulls
o>
^ c^
S CN §
S3 ^ ^ S
TO Q ^ _t CJ>
c o en ^
D5 *-*t .« ^- fs^
je LU • 's ^
CO Q O Cj N;
CO
Kyle Rogers
EPA Region 5
177 West Jackson Boulev
i Chicago, IL 60604-3507
!312-886-1995
rogers.kyle@epa.gov
CD
C
T3
t;
co
CD
-o
c
CO
"CD
Q
I
I
Q.
.O
13
to
I
03
Q.
re
•
i
-------
c «o
5 c
tl
s I
£I
•o
c:
£
cc
fi
I
•Q
ff
c:
.2
O)
s.
ii
co |
•
i
a>
a:
£
c
E
"c
o
O
£>
ra
E
(X
i_
3
2
3
I
D
|
55
*
s
u
n
U)
•p
Sheri Bianchin
EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevai
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-886-4745
bianchin.sheri@epa.gov
_
u
*
CO
2.
3
5
D
0
ll
111 U.
t .
0
E
c
£ CO CM
> CD O
!£ JD CD ^
S nj CD — 03
O >•» f\ O CO •
.hr CO •-"* CO N-
CD O • CO in
= -g Z .| CM
Z IJJ co O co
CO
3
1
o "Jo
in ?2 cd
T- CD co °-
I !fi I
5 Q. O tn co
r? I_LJ _• CO •«— CL
•o
Steve Padovani
EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevar
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-353-6755
padovani.steven@epa.gov
CO
CD
'^
r=
~i
S
J3
CD
LU
"co
CO
CO
en
c
l'§ I
co .E CM
°? g> CM
.S co
i= CO £J
mm CD
o
•a in
co in
0 i-
S= CC in
CD m /-f\
o "0*5^
T >< *= f>
^5 — r CD
E «}• ca g ro .
= ° o °- 5-
2 2 m co CD
•a
Sheila Sullivan
EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevar
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-886-5251
sullivan.sheila@epa.gov
CD
"1
Q.
CO
c
o
.c
o
_Q CD
£ T3 —
CO C rf
O W D)
•^ -^ CO
cp o o
^m §
C3>
•a in
ca in
0 i-
co Si Z o
| |||
'CD ° o ^ ^
i= fe CM -^ in
Z 2 in CO CD
Darryl Owens
EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevar
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-886-7089
owens.darryl@epa.gov
CD
m
3
3
CD ^
5 "£
co =3
11
| |
I
5
•Q
I
o
V)
K.
=8
Q.
tT
8
10
c
o
'
-------
C *O
•-§ §
CD '5
S*
o>
: 2
t- O
o ««
« I
? -2
tX. fo
to
.0
-4w
(TS
o
42
I
i i
&
CO
•SJ
25
c:
.2
D)
CD
13
tl
CO re
•S •-
s
tj
2
c
o
m
E
a
5
a
3)
jj
U
u
55
L
™
1)
A
OT
"E
CO
CD
O
CO
CO
^ oo =s
o co r\j
•C CD o
-1 to ^ §•
Q co 5 "x" P
— HI 2 CD Sv
2 -~ to fc©
.?; ,,r £ -=; o o .~
111 ri. — 3 °> a> O
o) 0 u. jo cv, ex, ^
CO rn O T- T— CD
osSSSSo
-c,
0 «
£• T- •£• 5
x: co ^,"§
•K — T- oo to
42 > o co ,_•
— I > co co c
° -^ C3) °? °? "°
5 Q ^- 0 00 03 N
CO -;. C33 ±i O O O
Q- > CO LL CD CO ^
Steve Padovani
EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Bouleval
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-353-6755
padovani.steven@epa.gov
o>
c
"co
Q.
O
"o
CD
111
o
§
1
0
o
o
0
^
I
c- p
^? CNJ
CD = CD T (?«
-C ^ j*: CM ^S1
•— ^ 3 ^~ ' TI
EX = ? •§
=5 O S. •* S,
CO
Q
Qi CO
CD T- .2
JD O , g
O "> S JO
C > CO O ^?
oj o > r»- en i-
E- i: CD" C35 o> "o
« o g in 10 ©
U Qi S o co co -o
CU Z 0 o "Y "> g.
> Q in ^^ oo oo Er
•p- s
Timothy Prendiville
EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Bouleval
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-886-5122
prendiville.timothy@epa.gc
«=
T3
C.
co
"co
Q.
'o
'c
13
CO
CO
CO .
co
c
0
E
- E
CO
CD
r^ o
. . ' «
75 T~ CO
1 | ' -§
f ^S |8?3 1
^ D CD CO °V °? O
CD "J § CD CO .-A
C ^ 03 c i 'Y c
1 OT 0 2 £ co ™
m 13 a. o CM CN m
"c
CD
C
0
I "
HI "p"
"55 . co en JS
t •Q.^ " g -2
c £J co ^ ^ (Qf
Jflfjf 1
'John Fagiolo
EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-886-0800
fagiolo.john@epa.gov
-
D
O
CO
?
3
5
5
CO
S 6
0 0
c: co
o en
CO .- N-
_§ •§ °?
|1 ^
5 l- co
•p
Mike Ribordy
EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevar
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-886-4592
ribordy,mike@epa.gov
O)
_c
lo
Q-
co '
J2
o
O.
1
I
8'
Q.
I
as
-
V)
•
I
V)
o
f
-------
c: «o
5 c
» s
•«- JO
o * LL1 • to i i Q.
s — . • co T— v- co
-o S D 1. 10 10 o>
CO
Ken Glatz
EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulev
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-886-1434
gjatz.ken@epa.gov
X
.92
>
^t
CO
CO
3
co 'E
0 "=
CD O> CD
i iil S
^ O D) ^^ Q3
j G^ CQ c CO »
c UJ • co i O
CD S oj _j in o
CO
Richard Boice
EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulev
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-886-4740
boice.richard@epa.gov
T3
CD
ill
"53
^
CO
c
8
CD
CD
'c ,-
u.
Q- o
E f~-
-i to
8 9
ro £
to
o co 'E
CD C33 fe. c
CM CO o .^ CD
^oSl-gS
Q fY1 CO j> ^. ^j CO
5? UJ x - «i* .A ©)
CD , o D3 ^ ^ rn
CO O CD .c ^r J^ S
j>.lil • co y V .a
,co Q ~? ca T- t- CD
CO S D i m LO .a
m
Russell Hart
EPA Region 5
i77 West Jackson Boulevi
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-886-4844
hart.russell@epa.gov
-a
c
ca
C3)
_c
V*
t~
CO
CO
.•8
1
I
w
•o"
(B
•2
•6
I
10
o
I
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 5
Region 5, Table 5 - Top Contaminants Identified by RPMs
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
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
Contam.
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)/Tetrachloroelthvlene (PCE)
Anthracene
Carbozol
Chlpromethane
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 RPIWs
JuiyS, 2001
System
Ott/Stoty/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&Tsystem
Data provided by site RPMs
-------
c «o
•2 c
"S .2
S c?
s
re
Q
* 1
•C -2
a. »
co
re
E
5
s
co
I
CO
(O
o
o
CM
O
QC
I
co 15
• 15
0 ^
•** o
li 2 •§ c
42 fo Q (o
S ^ .E o
0 J.
II
5 o >-
S (0
(5 CO
•5? S
&- 0) (/>
O C (/)
•Q ^ flj
p ro o
£00
Z h- 0.
fl) *• **
III
3 X
Z LU
a>
E = Q-
'^ Q- CT
*fc w
O (0
gl §
1 1 1
Q^ (O d)
LU LU
•0 =
*:§
o> ro
ill £*
s a
il
yz CO
0 >,
OL 0
c
— ~ . 42
g -g O (0
Q" Q? i—- f
Of
i
to"
c
.0
S
(i)
Q.
CD
o E
C CD
^ r>
«=r
CO
CO
"-
0
to
CM
CD
0
it
CO
CM'
CM
^L
CD
>,
CD
CD
cc
lArrowhead
if
CO
CO
CM
•«-
CD
O
CD
O
•3
CO
CO
CO
CM
I
C3~
CO
uo
S?
CD
CM'
o
c.
2>N
5 "O
03 W
z £
2 " §
S 6 .c
CQ O CO
E E
CD a
CD a
CO CO
o
•<-
T-
O
0
CD
O
it
CO
c
1
=
nknown
3
|
•^
CD
CL,
J
•3
- "O
5 .CD
11
b c
c c:
«5j «5j
o
0
CM
0
0
CM
CD
.O
CO
CO
CO
CM_
to
{&•
in
CM
"CD -
o
3
CD
LU
•&• CO
CD CD
CO S
CD
o E
C CD
*5> U
5
CM
CM
-e —
ro
CM
CM
•a
CD
CO
CO
CD
"o
•z.
CO
to
CD
CD
aT
CM
t»
10
to"
T —
CD
E
CL
ro
0
il
CO
0
CD
M-
?
O
CD
T3
CD
CO
13
Not eva
CO
CO
CM
CM
O3
ro
CO
Tn
0
CM"
CO
oQ
CD
.a
T3 3
C _J
CO _
to CD
== SJ
CD ^5
S2^
2 O a.
0 £
» ^
CO
o
CO
to
0
CO
CD
o
CO
CM
to"
CM
CM
CD
ro
•*-
to
CM
D £±
IOconomow
Electroplati
b b
c. c.
^^ ^
•^ "^
0
CM
CM
to
§
to
CD
O
it
CO
p
C55
CM
o"
CM
^
O
to"
CO
o .
5
s.
CO =?
CO ;g
i c
O _j
b
CO
i>
co"
CD
to
rrr
^li
o
CD
i
CO
.c
"""
co
"co
1
03
CD
—
CM
m4
1
O
:5
B
^
CD
U.
^
5
§
^
S
3)
S
5
j
^
[;
B
D
5
13
1
f
estimates pro\
3
3
3
D
5
Q
CD
CD
—
O
Q
C
i:
cc
to
£
&.
v.
4^
CO
.c
1
Cj
1
T3
s
to"
c
.0
*Q
CD
8*
Q.
O
O
to"
5
~Vl
\:
03
"1
3
CD
.C
|
|
i
Q
'om actuality.
o
"O
V.
c
c
. "c
•o
CD
H
C
g
"CD
|
|S
.0
"o
CD
Q.
CO
I
3
to
CO
CO
42
n
o
s-
o
. o
c
to
.c
>^
ro
o
o
•a
o
f
£
ro
'E
03
CD
O
CO
CD
E
o
•*•-*
to
03
Jr
%
to
O
O
.03
cp
'^3
1 Reduction in
s:
"Potentia
£ •
o *-
"Z.
c
CO
CD
lo
^>
.
LU
CO
CC
CD
M—
O
to
8
CD
Q)
-*— «
ncorpora
LU
CO
c
CO
M—
o
to
0
o
03
: include t
o
T3
c
CO
g
to
£
o
*r~
.£
o
M—
"o
®
Q.
*P
42
co
CO
ro
c
"to
13
ro
c
'to
T3
42
tc
E
to
03
SP
S«
1
—
CO
ro
CD
CO
J3
"Potentia
CM
to
CT
CO
CO
CD
to
ro
03
CO
to
o
o
03
"o
03
T3
•entheses
CO
a.
03
Q.
42
1
0
ro
J5
"E
o
£
•5
CD
E
3
C
CD
c~
i-
•o
"5.
£
CD
CO
^o
"03
ro
c.
o
'E
o
£
"5
CD
JD.
£
3
C
CD
ro
.c
^»
Q.
"5
E
^
^
1
to
o
to
CO
CD
^_
CD
Q.
rater Samples
"Groundv
ir.
1.U
CO &
to
c
g
to
"co
LU
.03
to
co1
C
.g
.H
03
CD
CC
03
"o
C
.
o
d
o
T3
^3
CD
">
E
,
CD
>,
to
03
"0
"o
CO
E
CO
to
03
C
03
"Q
03
evaluations of
Previous
^:
o:
O)
^
£
•Q
!
S
a
45
re
Q
1
h-
a.
•o"
re
•£
I
o
5>
a>
o:
-------
•2 c
^5
C1J CJJ
S: 'c? S
.2 = (= Dl
H 2 -S c
to Q.
5 -
•a <» P
§f*
S 1
O OT
"o c m
1- CO UJ
.§ 5 s
C CO U
1 2 S
2 J- a.
u« ^
i- — ID
m
3 X
Z Ul
tj "P*
(U O] ^«
E £ Q.
"x B--2
o E o
3 i^
<" °^
•ft <°
O co
W r" O
3 § C
111
a. § «S
til Ul
-0
£:§
co co
It !=
uj a
a> oi
ll
QJ «lii
0 >,
a- cj
c
*- '"" d>
llg,J2
i o 9 g
••• (p ^j
cc
E
to
CO
~—
C
O
£5
CD
Q.
0 O
C C
: ^^
^ ^
o
CM
CO
O
O
T3
0
Not evalual
•^
CM
CM
O
of
5
i
T™
t/J
s?
o
c>
?
ptt/Story/Cordo\
Chem Co.
O 0
C CZ
2 2
o
CM
CD
O
Sufficien
CM
CM
CO"
CO
to
£f%-
&
o
1O
X
0
CO
0
o S
CZ 0
«^ "c
2 o
o
CM
CD
o
10
CM
•a
0
CO
"co
0
"o
•z.
0
"c
-o
_c
C35
C35
CD"
10
CO
CO
iq
IO
CM
•a
0
u.
1
CO
E
0
a
0 ^
£Z 0
= T
2 o
CD
CM
m
0
to
CM
•a
0
Not evaluat
CO
o>
IO
0)
IO
CO
\JJ
0
CO
CM
L«
•a
3
CO
0)
5
JC
co
1
en
r
to
CD
a.
CD
DL
O O
c c
2 2
CM
in
o
o
o
*e~
•a
0
"Notevaluat
CO
02
CM
CD
CO
CO
CO
CD
in
co
LO
CM
CO
I Douglass Road
0 O
"~7 ^~
2 2
0
LO
CM
O
CO
0
CO
3
CO
0
•5
o
CD
|
C
nknown
Z!
0
"£
CO
O
c
CO
"0
Q
0 0
*— •—•
2 2
CM
CO
CO
10
CD
Sufficienl
c
%
c
3
1
^
-r
nknown
Z!
Peerless Plating
•m
^
CD
S
co
CD
CO
§
CD
0
CO
.C
c=s
s
CO
&
CD
CD
CD
CO
CD
3
C\l
1
CO
b
i
-Q
CD
U.
CD
CD
Z
-Q
2
Q)
O5
5
t:
§
^*
D
51
Q-
3
3
5
Q;
.n
f estimates provided i
D
D
D
5
Q
immsm
a
•S
CD
i>
0
G
cc
•§
iv,
CO
s
ystems-
'fications of s'
and sped
.
co"
c:
.0
*t^
03
I
to
O
0
CO
^
S
CO
cB
-Q
C
0
g
c
1
"o
1
1
•S
to
Q
"CD
t3
CD
I
o
^
CO
c
g
"•4- •
O
•o
n\
2:
v
TO
O
O
O
tu
.E
TO
'E
0
i_
u
CO
CO
E
CO
0
=co
to
o
O
0
o
o
g
"o
3
0
o:
JD
"o
.. CL
co =
_0
"o •<-
UU
CO
a:
CO
•8
to
o
o
0
0
"o
.£
"o
c:
CO
0
3
CO
QJ
a;
0
H—
O
to
0
o
0
0
nd incorporat
rmation a
o
**—
.^
o
«=
'o
0
Q.
E
to
CO
D3
"co
0>
"55
"a
-£2
CO
E
to
0
0
1
CO
173
0
'1
;i
0
o
13.
CM
t
"c/r
D)
CO
CO
0
to
D>
0
to
O
O
"o
0
•o
CO
0
co
0
-C
0
CO
Q.
0
Q.
CO
"H
0
0
D5
"JZ
O
O
"5
0
.Q
E
3
0
•o
0
CL
E
CO
CO
co
1
D)
J5 '
'S
o
E
o
^.
0
E
3
CZ
0
D)
C
^*
.9-
"3
E
•a
to
3
O
S
CO
CO
0
0
a.
CO
0
Q.
CO
CO
0
1
•o
c
1
p ^
~ CO
- 0
CO >,
CO
c
o
to
3
CO
UJ
3
co
mediation Sy
0
0
•a
3
O
.£— .
! .
o'
c
o
•a
"3.
1
">
£
CO
0
>»
10
0
TJ
O
• —
CO
CO
CO
0
c
0
> evaluations of effecl
UJ
O
"E
ol
*
I
1
8
a.
-2
§,
"O"
CB
•o
I
o
o:
-------
c «o
•2 c
o.2
:!!
:^1
c
as
CO
5
o
42
to
o
O
1
c
I
I
43
UJ
SJ
o
o
CN
CO"
c:
o
O)
Q)
:co IS
.(0 V
^ o:
s
J w
E
03
CO
"co
c
0
Q.
0
i
ct
H
CO
s
CO
"co
c
o
CD
Q.
0
n
c
c
a
«
o
o
s
fe[
8|~
:H
53C"^-" *^K
ilsiSs
1
"kV"-* A •*• " "*
o
o
CO
ff>
u
&
o Vs.-' •'
CM 'r~
3 i^raj^;
B
s ss
••in
s*
Of
c
>
1
c
=1
ll
CD I
£> \
of
fe '
Ajpunen
6U|>J LjSBM
Plaid II9M BUOJ9A
6lM}Bld SS3|J88d
"OQ LUaLJQ
BAOPJOO/AJOIQ/JIO
•
lljjpuB~i |Bdio|un|/\|
B>|SB|BUO
8|0d $ Jaquirn
PUB S!1H90B[/\|
aiJiBJd 6ucr|
saanwn
| BOUNDS [3 ®I|BS H~l
pi®y
IIQ/VA |BQ10IUn|AI
. .
ajjBio nsg
in it3(T\
jsupjey •
PUB iiang
pEoy ssB|6noa
OUIZ PUB 3LUOJL)Q
•GO 6uiiB|d
ajug ja«ag
Aj8uy.ay
o o o o o o o
o o o o o o t/>
•*_ O CO_ CM 03 TJ-
SI 8i S S ** . ***
(J^/000'.I.$) }s°0 IBnuuv
^^^••H
b
$0
co
co
CD
o
II
o t
•S 1
£§,
S §
CO -C
CD is
11
CO i
cJ
03 C
S 1
c w
CO
5 o
p
ll
o ^
cB |
II
c co
-Q .
05 CO
u. c
o
B "§
S .Si,
•S p1
03 Q.
"C3. ;^
yj **^
5 o
05 °
D "
5 5
^ JO
-w CO
•|, of
P -Q
ct |
5 c
3 03
2 -c
5 en
; .£
]3 'g
3 "o
^S -^
i
T3 CD
•§ «
IQ
- v^
to "CD
^ ^j
5 "o
= CD
II
o
3
3
42
3
Q
03
E
o
CO
•a
c:
CO
CO
"co
E
To
03
CO
S
CO
•o
•a
«
"o
o
CO
CO
CO
CD
•£
E
a
03
03
CO
03
CO
"co
c
o
CO
03
CX
9
Si
Q.
S.
CO
D>
.£
"co
D-
co
co
_CD
03
03
Q.
-D
CO
03
H
CO
O
-a
CO
"CD
Q
•si
0 0
— 03
a co
.0 co
CO 1-1 C
S • §
S
a>
'3
0)
^*
•o
Q)
5
o
Q.
S
Q
1
>s
K
Q.
•o"
to
•£
T3
!
•o
.0
o>
Q>
a:
-------
5 c
135
o O)
S: o>
"«
if
Q §
I £
V- O
8 I
45 §
CO
co"
CO
CD
o
ll
o •£
CO Q)
C; ^
§1
s g
CO -C
& °
CD ^.
ECO
.-. £
«0 i
0 CO
Q) C-
co ^
.
S
a
10
CO
'o
(D
.o
o>
-------
Nationwide Superfond Reform Initiative
Phase 1- Data Collection and System Screening
Region 6
July 3, 2001
In the OSWER Directive No. 9200.0-33, Transmitted of Final FYOO - FY01 Superfun d 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 tfie 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 liup:/Avww.cluin.org/optiinization and stored in a database. This information is summarized in
Table 1 and provided in detail in five additional tables:
-------
July 3,2001
Nationwide Super/and 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.
• 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 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.
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
July 3, 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
-------
•2 c
o.2
« a
== Q)
d>
to
,
3
CO «
ll
c
.° Ul
'•*-» 0
3 j
05 g
LU 5.
in £
3 f
1 s
a> "5
i» w
o.
M- r-
•DOS
to m ~
13 O • fn
in &
•5
0)
Q. *^
£•*
T3
1C
_l
4_*
•g s
«°
•i 1
•S
to =
U, =
E
*£
cS"
^_i
0
'o
it
CO
CO
.1 S
*-* Q
CO
^ CD
O j -«
0 c
cc
m
0
^
0
E
c
jo
o
O
CO
o
1
Q.
O
15
c
LL
^
o.
LU
0
0
o
o"
CD
CO
0
"o
CO
o
0
O
^
n
— co
55 •££
E °
< §
.«_,
0
"o
i|
.CO
nknown
^
c
o
c
c
08
II
i 1
if
o CH
O
15
g
's
0
Q.
O
"co
c
LL.
^
Q_
LU
O
o
o_
CM"
o
(&
S
13
1=
O
CQ
0
CO
m
•"
0
"o
it
CO
"5
^—
nknown
r>
c
§
c
3
°S
<- c
c: o
0 =
E ^
— 5
JO lo
0 C?
o
15
g
•s
0
Q.
O
"co
c.
LL.
^
n
LU
o
0
0
o~
o
S
O3
"c
£-
0
CD
E
b
-a
03
CO
3
CO
0
"o
"Z.
:|
<
Z
0
1
1
o
o
c
O3
"to
0
Q
£
0
*2
^
Q^
1 1 1
O
0
0
r--~
CO
CM
"0
c
0
£>
0
D-
i*-.
o
£?
b
•+-f
0
'o
i|
CO
nknown
• z>
to
>
oS
•*- c
i-2
E E
c o
| 1
o o:
o
15 "P"
II
E 2
0 =
0 ^1
O >2-
15
c
Lu .
j- CD
as c
5 o
"m -O
-S C
CO 3
IO-
CS
O
0
o"
ea-
CO
0
to
n
73
£—
CO
0
0
CD
l .
c
0
"o
it
CO
s^O
O
CM
C
CO
co
CO
_03
CO
0
.g
S
"S3
0
15
.g
0
Q.
O
15
£1
LL
J= 0"
"& O
'2
"m "O
•4— ' C
CO 3
LJL
O
0
0
cf
CO
w
"o
3
e
Q_
CO
.-D
2
S
§
O
11
o t:
co 5
•S 5
II
CO -C
II
CM
^•£
S g
>c
c S
CO c
2 "
8
ST-S
*I
3 Qj
3_g
CO
§ "S
•§ Q
co
_0
"S
E
"to
0
2
CO
03
TO
0 «j
TO i "co
£ -§ LU
0" o 2
•^5 o
^
o
C3
CN
0
E
£ "55 UJ
Z- E §
J5 c ••=
o ^ .2
5 S "5 o>.
0
Q.
X
0
- .
0"
8-f 5*^1
"co 0
-
0 co
Q. CO
B ^ O O E «
11 31
03 0 0 E
11^1
l5i =
•o c
CO O
o '-g
fV o
0 Q-
13 T3
531 S ^
E "5 CD
0 CO
i 0 -S E ° -o
•~ ^ -^^ CD 0
= CO -, o
0
T3
CD
75
.£ -2
O
T3 c
" CO
~o l~ .c
CD 5 C
E O O
0 B ^
CO Cl) CO
co "0 E
O co _, —
€'iS£s§
S "ra S E -^ S
. o "1 Q. § §)
= a: 3 =
111
^, i— S .ZZ
£ O) CC *0
CD £
a, Q.
>
CO T3 T3 C
0 C O
-p:
m m
CO
1
0
^ O
^ "io S "to ^
0 ~
"o t- oj co
*iii
O E .2
0
j£
IO CD
1
1
<0
I
I
I
I
o:
-------
I
o:
I
o
I
1?
t CO
» >,
CN
•SJ
-Q
c:
o
O)
CD
o:
L
li
c
55 W
JS o>
1 1
LU S:
(0 o
o S
> u-
0 o
a.
•o'S §
Q) m *—
JS D/ -^^
Estlmai
Progres
Restora
CO
a "o
o c
E o
3 0
Q.
75
0
C9
£
3
>>
tn
E w
4) 3
tn to
W W
ll
l-
•0
CO
J
ll
^ 1
E
I
tn
•o
to
1
"o
2
^>
2:
c
_g
2
0
8
C£
T3
_CD
"co
jCZ
75
c
LL
J= CD
?— C
5 ^
^>
to "a
CO §
LL
|
c
CD
"2 03
ca m
^ CO
ro 1
*—» t£»
JZ Q)
0 §
2 CO
t .
.92
'cj
it
ZI
CO
c
ca
CD o
§«
E
CO
CD
C
.0
s
2
S
tr
•75
.0
CD
Q.
O
T5
LL
£ ^
5 ^
^>
CD ^^
Si
CO §
LL
O
o
0
0
0
IO
£
E
8
.c
O
ca
CO
CO
CD
•a
O
•a
S.
to
"co
75
z
^f
—r
c
.g
"E
£
co
03
cc
03
'co
03
Q
"ca
LL
^^
f>
HI
o
o
0
0
o
CM_
TJ
CZ
1
•a
ca CD
o c
K. §
CD £L
^ k-
O) QJ
a ^°
CO 5
b
CO
i*
co"
CD
CO
CO
CJ
03
1
CO
.c
^^
ro
c
CO
1
03
03
CO
03
£
ruary and May 2001
•Q
£
03
1
CD
-Q
Q
1
i
medial Project
s
s
s provided by s/i
•2
CO
to
CD
t>
CD
**—
_co
ta
Q
.
03
.£•
CD
S
O
CD
CO
•g
CO
i
s
§,
co
and specifications o
co"
|
^3
-CD,
Q.
^
8
I
-2
co
03
1
03
1
0
•2
CD
Q
"co
t3
CO
S
.g
CO
B
ta
E
'•^
03
03
t_
CO
s
CO
•o
•o
*2
to
"o
o
co
CO
CO
CD
E"
1
CD
are pre-operational;
in
1
CO
CO
•Q
CO
&
(D
O3
E
Q.
rn
avalcade, and {
o
tr
o
CM"
=1*
1
.0
^
CD
D.
'o
O
03
.C
CO r—
0 T-
"Z.
CO
75
>
CD
Q.
CO
CD
CJ
T3
CD
2
CD
CD
03
SI
CO
CO
to
CD
"5.
CD
15
C
o
"t:
o
DL
1
to
CD
03
5
"E
o
ress of Restorat
D3
8
Q.
_Q3
to
E
CO
LU
CM
co
o
to
Z3
To
• co
co"
r-
include Remediatiol
"o
o
•a
"3
£*
ar reviews
>.
in
03
TD
ZI
O
£Z
CO
E
co
CO
03
tions of effective
CO
To
5
CO
o
CD
CL
CO
3ote Works site.
o
£
o
c
CO
o
at the Amei
>.
emedial strateg
J—
^
ca
.E
a.
CD
.c
CO
c.
g
to
T3
E
o
JQ
3
"co
t
^
.
o
o
CM
CD
ZJ
CO
E
o
"o
•. Operation is expe
o
o
2
r~
o
CJ
CD
.JZ
"i
CO
03
ZI
CO
CO
o
CD
T3
1
2
ZI
_c
co
£
CO
CO
.92
1
-Q
£
CO
CD
CD
CD
CD
.C
in
rrous sulfate.
5
"c
CD
E
to
E
_2
"co
_c
y enhanced by
1
'£
.03
'co
03
03
.a
co
CO
.c
c
.0
to
73
03
E
E
CD
JZ
CD
I
2
Q.
§,
CO
•o"
<0
CD
CO
o
-------
c ^o
.§ c
tS -2
CD Oj
% 0)
5'*
O
£
o
10
I
S ",j3
O
o
"0
(0
I
"0
c;
(0
0)
a:
I
'S
CO
_>.
13
CO
-SJ
-Q
<0
c
.o
&
CD
o:
•Q
. c
l-g
;ll
CO 03
s o:
-s
Q
:= C
c .2
13 "£
to ~5.
c5 B
o>< o
> 0
c
•o o
a> =
o ®
a> a.
§•§
iii .9
o
t*3 ^
i 1
.JJ K-
$
Sj £
o S
£ OT
3
1-
T3
C
TO 15
re =
c .2
11
01 U-
o.
O
c
0 13
11
£ g-
to c
c o
0 0
o
Q 0
o •&
IZ o
•" S
ro ~o
Q
O
15
.c
.S1
O
e
f
CD
to
CM
N-
CM
O
CM
CM
CD
in
CM
CN
O
CM
CM
O3
CN
O3
03
CN
CO
03
00
CM
^
CD
1 American Creoso
Works
p
CD
CM
CM
O
CM
0
CM
CO
O
O
CM
O
O
CM
CO
CD
O
O
CM
G3
p~
CM
00
^_
CO
CO
JBayou Bonfouca
S
'JE
•a
c:
Indefinite
CM
CO
o
CD
CM
O
O3
CM
O3
O)
O
03
^~
CM
C»
JGimarron Mining
•*
CM
CM
CO
CN
O
CM
CO
CM
CO
o
CM
00
CO
0
0
CM
OO
x —
CD
O
CM
00
O3
O3
CM
O3
CM
"CD
~^
ICity of Perryton V
• in
CM
0
CM
in
CM
o
o
CM
CO
O3
O3
jE
CO
03
O3
CD
CO
CO
O3
f/i
JGeneva Industrie!
in ;
CM
CO
CO
o
CM
in
CM"
o
o
CM
s
O3
CO
O3
O3
00
00
^j-
CM
CO
JMidland Products
* ••qt-i
O3
12/2010
^"
12/2005
in
o
o
S
o
o
CM
CO
CO
CO
CM
CO
JNorth Cavalcade
jSuperfund Site
CD
12/2001
C3
O
O
CM
CM
CO
O3
V~
CO
O3
03
*
03
O3
CO
CM
^
OO
OO
OO
CO
5-
=fC
p
jodessa Chromiur
CN
CN
OO
CN
O
CM
35
CN
CN
CO
T—
O
CM
03
CO
O
O
CN
55
g
Si
0
o
35
CN
35
-a
c
Z3
O
O
CD CD
O £
3
0.1!
CO ?
co
CD
CO
CD
I I
s g
CO -C
S °
'CD ^
I ?
03 CO
11
-C to
co
11
^ ro,
CD co
LL. g
CD "o
CO _CO
•^ P1
CD
s- co
O . ,
CD
S 5
to ^
O CD
IS
a §
CD "o
1
o
CD
CM
CD
E
ZJ
CO
CD
.2
t3
CD
Q.
X
CD
_CO
O
S
CD
Q.
O
I
CD
o:
I
8
. »
"S ^
t§
§3
~ w
« S
D3 -n
.£
>
m CD
c c
E _ CD
O JZ
LL H-
t-" CM
0)
73
I
I
a:
-------
Q
5
5°
•o
CO
o
t3
G
o
IS
E
CB
g
c:
o
O
S s
"•> o
Q>
o:
CD N-
•5§
W °-
_r o
X" 0
.S q
m o
co
a
CD"
E
UJ
CO
co
CO
o
0 _ < .2
*J CO _j fe-
i § g 10 10
i
a: «S CM5
CO
3
_co
B
s
1o
d-
CD
.
»
£ c
CO
CO
>
LU
l
•—
CO
o
~ o
§ ^" ^~
' CM CM
— r
C. —1 Q- CO CM CM 'iZ
x
CO
§
co'o 2
5 g .§
° -2 g X 5 CD -co
0 l-
jg to >
UJ
75
Q CM CM
a
3
O
03
z: o
CO
CD
O
CO
3
CM
.
UJ CD h-
•
.5 o
±r W T-
CQ 13 -*
0
CM
E"? in
^ 0 0
< IO IO
CD
Q
• .£2
Si
£ CO
2O) O
._ •«- tn
> •«- h-
c _ co
> en £ °? a? -a
1 o § ? 2 '£
Q 2: D_ CO CM CM "O
|
E
o
o
CM
T~ CO
CD CO
'5 CM
CO CM
§
D)
E -
eg 0
x S §
H^ ^
„,- CD co
2
8.
Q- UJ •<- Q CN CM CO
0>
O
CO
CD
CO
T3 O
to ^
.
x
CO
X J3-
_.
r! CM
o
D>
CO CD
f s H -i
- S. K- oT <0 CD ^
< w co 9 ® "5
E £ 5 1 ? ? «
> UJ 51- Q CM CM E
6
Q.
o:
-
1
S
S
Q.
C
I
S
i
<0
.0
-------
•5-2
® a
S: o>
.5
• -~
• >
J_
o
•4-1
1
O
£•
ra
S
™
a
t.
3
S
2
3)
1)
5
s
D
o
i)
d
£
c
CO
E
$
CD
^—
C <=«
•o 5 ij x o
co CD £> ra o
S "° ^ fc ~ — °
CO rQ~ ?. CO CO CO
y jt^ c co co (o)
>* § o o CD co $;
C u ^D ^ CO CO c~'
co o in ° t- T- co
CO _i t- X N- rs- co
E
E
o
0
CD
CO
o
James Sher
Texas Natural Resource C
P.O.Box 13087
Austin, TX 7871 1-3087
512-239-2444
512-239-2450 (fax)
JSher@tnrcc.state.tx.us
0
o
CM
3 >
•= Q
."g Is.
CD" S "^ CD
CD > Jo in O (Q)
& gt^Sgt
O -— $ X CM CO CD
o <£ in — ' ' •>,
a: LU S Q CM CM E
CO
CD
35
3
—
CO
2
5
O
0
CO
=2 CM
3 O5
W_ CO o
Is !§-
.C fv. o
o § ^ 5 ci i
en O tf\ C35 O5 ^^
co O £ ™ co co g
^
Ai
CO
a
c
0
p
Clark McWilliams
Arkansas Dept. of Environ]
P.O. 60X8913
Little Rock, AR 7221 9
501-682-0850
50 1-682-0565 (fax)
clarkm@adeq.state.ar.us
5>
O
q>
CO
§ ">? CD
13 CD r\i ^ — ' CO
CO CD 5 *~ IO IO N
3 ^ in _co i i o
5 Q. 5 "co S ? ci
O UJ T- Q CM CM CO
0
J
ZJ
D
L
3
0
5
>
c
"co ;
0?
£-CM
,9 CD
o m
— CO
•2 ^j-
CD CD
E -i=
C CO
E -Q
£ |E ^ j" £
Js "^fc ,_ o7 8
>, J ro ^5 » co |
J^ s_ CO O OT C5 g\
LL LL -c- X CM CM it
E
£
o
0
CD CO
CO ^f
C T—
0 m
o 5 §
CD O -
S o is. ^s
1 1 s _ |
x: x o In CM CM CD
O 3 . 3 i- i-- -^
13 1— 0. < in in "3
in
"T. CM *5^ i i i *—
05 CD n m in co
= co c? c? "£
TO S °? 1 ? ? S
O LU Z) Q CM CM JT
2
5
5
Q_
ZS
CO
3
0
D
^
O
JZ
5
B t
-1 CO
co" ^J
"g5"
"o ffi
c -—
' 1 — co >2
1 1 E o" § i •"!
i^siiif
i g K | S S "f
*> Q- "O O CO TO Q.
, £
o ^
IP'
co Q.
O - A
O Q <£.
^ i
g s s
CO CD ">?-2
^ir £3
3l2S85l
E^lxSctii
S I Q- 1- o> ci V
0 Cgg-iSSf
€ gcXi =^i^^
^> 1- ^~ < m m '5
§
q>
CD "5" CO
is £*
S c < f2 CM CD "to
1 1 S x S § |
^ CD P -W "** CD
n in m CD CO CD
r D_ ^ co ^- 5- co
LU LU T- Q CM CM ifc
t
—
^
5
6
CO
0
CO
CD
^
f
o;
.-£
CO
I
o
§
<«w
cts
(0
^J
s.
to
to
•
I
CO
§
5>
-------
to
o -2.
.JU O)
55 CD
•c j§
Q. g^
CO
C
CO
O
4S
c:
(S
Q)
&
CD
o:
«
CO CO
£
S
•g
u
TO
a
i.
s
3
3
O)
Q)
a:
Q
3
35
;
3
0
CO*
TJ
CO
a:
CO
O
1
"o
CD
CO
5
Vincent Malott
•o
c
2
O
•O
CO
O
tr
o
3
3J
B
3.
CO
LU
U
s
H
E
E
o
0
£
CD
CO
C
o
0
CD
e
0
(S
1
"co
CO
1
CD
O
D)
CD
IT
LLI
in
o
CM
CO
LU
•o
CO
tt!
o
0
o
CO
CO
T3
Cvl
S
CO
O
CO
i
CD
O
Q."
CD
C
CD
CO
CO
m
0
J53
Albuquerque, TX 8
505-881-3188
T—
h-
co
r-
P
c
"tn
<
CM
0
CM
in
X
tn
JS
15
Q
CM
O
in
(33
CO
CM
CO
CO
CO
in
CO
CO
"x
CO
CO
CM
CO
CO
CO
in
§
"x"
.S.
o
in
CO
CO
CM
•c—
in
"x"
214-665-6660 (fa
raduc@ttemi.com
CO
*
CD'
3
CO
8
c:
©
"S
CD
"o
a.
T3
o
q>
CO
Q.
malott.vincent@e
o:
5
35
I
I
i
CO
to
&
2.
CO
1-
,0
5)
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 ~ Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 6
Region 6, Table 5 - Top Contaminants Identified by RPMs
July 3, 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
3enzo(k)fluoranthene
!ndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Chrysene
Mitrate
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
3enzo(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
on 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&T system
Data provided by site RPMs
-------
I
b
TO
S
i
CO
5
CD
<3i
to«-
! t
O C 0
III
c ra o
1 s s
zt- &.
„_
L. tl)
|i
s —
rt ca E
2 f s"
Previous
Evaluation of
Effectiveness
"° c
S o
0 35
i.|
x 2
HI Q
• to
£ oi
|co
0 >>
CL O
C
llll
III «
ffl
tn
CO
•- £
5 co
CM
CD
O
O
CO
co
in
Sufficient
(D
to
CM
CO
in
CO
en
0
£
o
CM
CM
Creosote
American
Works
CD
0 2
C CD
2 "§
'
CM
co
£
o
u.
o
CO
?
to
CM
CM
Sufficient
0
o
CM
o
CT>
s
s
in
to
CM
1
£
Bayou Bo
CD
CD m
•a o
°co
CNJ
V-
CO
v-
Not Sufficient
CD
'£
CD
•a
.£1
CO
CO
CO
0
CO
CM
CM
te-
cs
in
c?
c
2
Cimarron
CD
0 £
C CD
^ O
^ o
CO
CM
CM
CO
m
Sufficient
in
CM
5
o
f»
ss
o
CO
dustries
Geneva In
i °
^ ^
o
£
o
o
CO
co
CO
Sufficient
in
CO
CO
co"
<*•
o
to
0
T3
O
Q.
c
0 0
c c
S:
co
o
CO
Sufficient
^
0
o"
a
o
to"
CM
0
in
hromium #1
o
OT
CO
to
CD
T3
O
0 0
c c
2 5
o
CM
-
1
Not evaluated
,_
CM
CM
CO
CO
C5
to
to
"CD
1
£•
CD
0-
"o
|BUO1
0 0
C C
2 2
o
£
o
o
CO
o>
o
Mot evaluated
^
en
o"
o
o
to
CM
in
CM
CD
IB
§ £
0,g
S °>
•e a.
O 3
•z. co
.BJedo-
O 0
c c
IS 5
0
o
CM
CM
CM
O
O
CM
Mot evaluated
CM
1^
CM
0>
'•<3-
CO
in
CD
to
(&
cS
to
CM
CO
kOad
ater Plume
II
3-ld
,
Q
.^
CO'
CD
S
.§
1
co"
CD
to
i some i
i/ertime.
•= o
is tD
CD O
s Is
CD "§
1!
to i
cf «
% s
CD fi
£ :£
to
CD"'^
n February and
tions, and specif
X> o
CD CO
S £5
-Q °-
CO ^"
u ^
CO y?
TO 3
S ro
1 J
R^
it §
15 c
?5
!!
Is
"O
CD
^
3.
0
S
3
D
D
CD
CD
Q
to'
CD
0
n-specific information. The reductions do not include the
CD
I
CO
s
0
o
u
c
13
dology th
O
.c
o>
C3)
c
m a screen!
2
•cycle Costs11 result
"Potential Reduction in Li
an RSE.
•^ c3
the cost of the RSE. Values in parentheses denote cost:
3
2
O
a.
8
.c
-o
c
CO
c;
.0
CO
,2
c:
o
1=
'o
CD
O.
to
ig using sys
'to
s" were estimated u
r-
"Potential Life-cycle Savh
CNJ
igative savings).
cu
•£-
by the number of monitoring events per year.
T3
CD
a.
CO
CO
-23
"5
CD
1
er of mon
IO
E
o
.c
multiplying
JD
Year" is calculated
CD
"Groundwater Samples p
CO
tem Evaluations.
£
CO
i
TJ
CD
E
CD
cc
CD
•a
3
0
'o
c
o
ews but
5-year revi
CD
T5
ictiveness may inclu
Previous evaluations of e
•*
3
'to
CO
i
Creosote
_
1
CD
§
tegy at the i
co
primary remedial si
CD
In situ bioremediation is tl
to
with ferrous sulfate.
treatment
ZJ
'co
.c
£
c
CO
c
CD
^»
i
§>
CO
c
CD
CD
.Q
1
S
ssa Chromium #1 s
CD
•n
The remediation at the CM
CO
T3
CD
•o
1
CL
for were |
to
13
"to
m
nd no cost i
CO
m is pre-operational
CD
The North Cavalcade sys
r~-
1
I
I
2.
to
I-
•53
I
§
I
-------
.2 c
•5 -2
§ $
•3*
«B '2
Q g
d ll
Q. » co
CO c
— O
03 '4=
C 03
.2 CD
s §•
L_ \^S
Q5 '
O" nl
m nn
0
o
T~"
M
o
o
o
€«•
M
c
c
L
t
i
D
•>
9-
i
M
1 pinnu
psoyenBeJds
t
-
o
co
^™*
**
O p
c
C
c
ss^t?
:K';'a:^'-'.
ill
sssepo
-
SpEO|BABO
U^JOM
spnpoJd
pUE|pl[^J
ssujsnpui
...
i
CO fi
fe^ i
I
-
CM
o
T
if*
O 0 O 0 O
O 0 0 0 0
•<* CNJ_ O_ CO CD
^. ^. ^
JA/OOOI-$
o
CD
co
t
^m
~
1
6u!Uj|/\|
UOJJBLUIO
-
Bono^uog
noXsg
S>|JOM
8JOSO3JO
UEOU9UJV
000
o o «e-
^ CM
ffi- «9-
^
TO
CO
co
2
11
O t
CO 03
_c ^
"~~* O
is 03
CO 03
E i
l-s
15 x
•1 1
® ci
03 E
||
rC CO
^. ^C
CO
§ «2
CM ^*
^ .O
TO TO
"O 'o
C Q3
TO Q.
CO "g
2 TO
-Q .
03 co
03 t5
03 Q3
^ '-=S
-Q C^
JO ^
C W"
CO 5
3 S
->-. CO
o
•§. 03
2 -Q
Q; s
-— 3
.TO c:
c S
cB en
„, ^
-2 5
"55 ^3
X •£
i
"O TO
•8 15
§Q
o
co 'TO
-2 5
CO O
g TO
w E
03 O
->I >fc
O
03 .
ft
03
-2
TO
Q
CO
^
CD
to
CD
CD
CO
CQ
CO
c
•a o
03 '•£
en
'o co
O °-
co O
II
CO
£ £
O c
' O "co
<-* co
"1" i
•— "§
"2 ^
O g£J
o 0
' t-
£ £
Q. „
£^
CO O
CO
£ ~°
Hi
•o ^
O CD
C£' CO
CD CD
^ CO
D3 Q3
O. •"
C/3 ^
d
•a 5
c o
^
03" ^
CO ">
o >,
CO ^
co £
_£- g
-t~*
o -52
z E
CM" 5
* >^
03 "^
> CO
> 03
c 43
O CO
CD —
D- CO
O CD
p?» ^7
O O
CD CO
lo H H
03
'O •«- CM
I
a:
to
Q)
1
I
5
SL
co
<0
•
(O
c
.2
I
-------
S S1
-S c
«o ^:
Q g
I 2
S*
W E
•o
c
C
.o
•*•»
O
f
CM
1
O)
CD
o:
•g
•g
II
to to
o> 5
1 f
ll
m Q)
Turnover
C
_o
]S
Q.
E
o
O
c c.
Z3 Z)
(/> CO
CO CO
> >
m n
!
•a
I
b
fo
co
CD
co
8
CD S>
ii
8*
1 «
I E
co
CD
JM
iS §,
CO
§1
-s"§
jC:
G
co
s,
•Q
S v.-
co cL
CO
g-g
5 *:
CD 03
^1
(D o
g .3^
11
•%
S8
g g-
B 5
I-
3 J3
I €
If
80
CO
co "o
P CO
.-2
55
13
i
I
4S
re
Q
o
E
si
O. o
ac CD
±3 .C
~ to
5 w
co CD
co n
5 "o
CD c
s I
~5.>?
E c
8 g
fli 3
.-^ "
i E
CD CD
It
= "
TO CD
D) 'C
_^ "rn
T3
c
CD
o ^
i_ CD
(0
CD
i
to
f-
03
Q.
(S
CD
<0
c
o
'
-------
Nationwide Supeffund 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 hufo/7www.cluirLorg/optiinizatiQn 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 7
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 me States and for system completion are depicted in Figure 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.
Page 2 of 3
-------
July 3-, 2001
Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative
Phase I—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, Clebum 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 7S Table 1 -- Summaiy
July 3, 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
Oof1
Oof 1
Oof 1
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
uperational 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
-------
s N-
.2 c
"5 -2
S a?
1
I
2
o
I
CM
1C
c:
'5
CD
o:
•i
II
to .2
-S S
•c t
o uj
1-6
cu
•*r c
T3 O SJ
Q) .2
15 w "co
Efl) UK
S o
i3 2 o
cu
^3 {V»
:§£
**^
E o
3 O
0.
in
a
o
O
E
u
to
E to
Q> 3
11
0Q
£"
T3
to
3
TJ «
0) ®
E ^
s 3
to c
m <
E
OT1
"73J
03
"5
"co
>
CD
•5
z
z
<
g
oS
•^ c
o3-2
E E
— S
CO CO
"H CD
o cc
o
c
O3
"co
03
Q
"5
d
^-
D.
LU
0
O
0_
o
o
in
to
8
*^
03
03
O
•a
S
"co
"co
>
03
"5
Z.
c
o
c
=3
C
O
c:
c
ID
°3
^-* c
03 '^=
E E
.£ o
CD c/j
0 L?
O
"5
o
'E
CD
a.
0
"co
d
E
^
D.
LU
O
0
O
o
o
€«•
"03
§
^_r
03
W CM
£ =>
-i
03 S
O CO
"O
J3
CO
"co
>
03
"5
Z.
1
,.,.
z
08
.,__. f**
§•2
E E
.E o
JO CO
o IT
O
c
D3
"to
03
•a
E
a.
"co
LU
£ t
> o
n?
CO §
LL.
c
1
_S^
c
13
CO
LU
O
1-
co
CL
_£ CM
> O
b
co
c
it
eo -C
"TO x
.S ^
03
1|
g|
H^
o °
O eo
"I
CO CD
H
CO o
b ^
I?
W CO
O CO*
cl
03 CO
^ '51
S O
Ig-
S -S
S .S
Is
2 -S
cc c
"O o
It
"O CO
S
CO CD
s a
CO O
g CD
§ £
03 CD
O
03
O,
C
13
E
CO
to
I co
11
O 03
co nj co
|0 |
~ -0 CD
CO 03 g
CO c '-+Z
'co CD .2
•a o -a
•o -0 ®
S J2 E
IIS
O CO 03
to i: -o
03 •<— '3
CO CD •„
03 E c
. Q. O
E 03 =
O J=. O
CD
o "S
_ C ^2
r. .2 to
£ O 03
til
OT CO CO
C "•!= i
O JO 10
^ o ""
E 2J ">>
Q. 03 TO
E E
LU "5 S
CO O3 CD
CL CD fc
-D E -2
i o g
c
.0
.0 "O CD
111
?? to 03
B . . .
O "^ CM CO
1
w
Q>
£
tJ
I
I
45
CB
Q
1
w
I-
tc
CD
i
-------
C N.
.2 c
«£
S &
5*
II
°* 2.
•Q
C
(0
to
c
o
I
co"
03
•o
I
CD
o:
•" _<
=3 1
u.
n.
O
c
fi
11
"S E
= 0
5°
c
Q o
g -5
UL o
*•< t£Z
CO "O
_J 0
s
Q
0
C£
"ra
£>
0
E
o>
ti>
w
CN
^
IO
o
CM
5;
CM
CM
CO
T—
O
CM
CO
CO
0
0
CM
3;
S
o
CM
CO
CO
SJ
IO
55
CO
o
CD
CO
CD
O
Tfr
CO
CO
O
§
CO
12/2009
O)
OJ
CO
o
CO
o>
o
s>
CO
en
fl^_
CO
5
§
CD
3>
-•
£ 3
= o
3 " —
11 Q>
O CO
10
^r
CO
o
CM
IO
CO
o
§
v-
CO
o
o
CN
IO
o
o
eg
T—
r-»
^
LO
CO
QJ
CO
LU
-
£
CO
Q.
>.
^ CM
CD ^
> o
1
•fc
^»
§
CD
CO
o .
0 |
I'l
•S o
£8,
c c:
fc CD
CO -C
CD 0
1!
•J)
fl
05 C
w S
CD JS
•^ o;
CO
il
§ iC
3 ^
5 c
H
15 Q.
| 's1
S Q.
•Q ^
2 "*•
J) ^
- CO
3 «
•v- co
) ^
ct S
-~ 3
.TO c:
"S ®
) ^
• •&
J "O
; -5
CO O
^*\ *^
"O CC
IS
) 4,
' CD
\ o
: ^
Q.
o:
.-S
to
CD
I
S
&
-------
5 N-
•2 c
•5 -2
.O O)
5= O
S
: 2
S«
8 I
.c a
Q.
(0
C
.o
•4«i
(0
£
o
o
o
O
O
CM
c:
o
O)
Q)
o:
II
co 15
• S
8-
o
O
CO
"S
CD
'o
CD
o co 2 M ,_ o
ro °- •£& o> >
m T3 -& 10 00 .0
> I o
>.-go
co 82 i««I
CD m co ^ o> CT) £
CD
C
LU
CD
CO
3
s.
CD
±i O
CO CM
||| 4^
s|i"lllS
m nT •«" CD CO
52 CO ^ cj) 0 T-I
g 0 -g CM CM C
C -S 0.10 10 S
O
D)
10
--
CO
T-
O Q. o CO T- r-
CD UJ OJ i^ <35 C»
CO
0
O
CD
CO
03
O
s-
o
o
co
t5
0
e"
Q.
!2 -o ^
0 CO CD
COCD£
^ "PS
O O X-
co ro m
E
Sg
alss
> O
s « s e 2
Q CD CD O O3 O5 CO
co
li
£ 5
'> 0
iSf
2f a
C ^ 0>
CD 0 "CO
E ^§ o>
o
.8
CO
-
.o g t t jc
•"-S 0 " CM CM Q.
o3 S --- g.
CO CD >< 0
COCO !§.©
• ^; ^ CM CO £>
-
2 LU 05
0
b
73 CM
||
J> CO
I
is
-O
•o
I
o
.§
CD
r^
CM
o
s
CO
Z3
to
Q>
>, Q-
-Q 3 £^
03 CO
0 , X
5^ CO <33 CO
»± CO CD £
O CN 00 £.
^~ l~~ @)
C i_ i_ ^
in c
CO
^_; ^ CO
^— /^ ^^
K O i
o
q>
co
Q.
0
^@
X o
& I
CO LLI CD
O> O5 CO
CM
O
CO
Ul
o
CO
Q.
CO
CO
«
§,.
CO
1-
g
I
o
5)
CD
o;
-------
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
Clebum Street
Well Site/0112
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
-------
s: N»
•2 c
If
i
Q Q>
: £
*- o
a,"
co c
2i
Q. W
to1
T3
C
CB
O)
£
o
CO
<0
•S*
•Q
O
o
CM
CO
55)
CD
o:
1.
«o «
o 5
5 5
o •£•
*ni
o JL
'•"•'!•'
5 co »-
| * g
§|*
2 §
O CO
"5 C ™
I- 0 to
c re o
3 £ 2
Z 1- 0.
o o
111
il5
Z LU
a> ^
co ro £
E .£ Q.
I E «T
"- (O
O co
CO r- CD
= 0 =
o ~ a>
°> CO .£
£ 5 o
LU S
•o c
•2 .2
O 53
0) <0
Q. >=
X n
111 Q
< co
»2 U)
3f
S to
C 0)
-2 o
0 >>
Q. 0
c
— ~ 0
.— Q O (/)
1 1 V 1
O -Q lt_ O
£*• o
b
CD
co"
03
CO
CO
0
03
S
O
CO
.C
co"
E
1
CO
s
03
CO
03
[5
1
tween February and May
03
-Q
2
§3
CD
CO
1
13
03
1
"co
"5
03
03
CC
-2
rovided by s,
Q.
CO
-E5
CO
to
03
.03
CD
CO
CO
Q
03"
•^
03
i.
O
03
D3
CO
"§
CO
CO
E
CD
I
CO
t~
0
CO
'ejections, and specificatit
*-_
to
8
1
-2
CO
03
-Q
C
03
^
"5
-2
Q
1
^
CO
o
Ifc
O
•o
CO
c
o
'"5
^
03
03
t~
*
g
to
E
£
_o
"o
03
a.
i
E
to
CO
CO
03
thodology that incorporat
03
E
D)
_C
. "j^
03
S?
O
CO
CO
1
"3
CO
c
1
O
in Life-cycle
.g
o
T3
03
CC
tz
'o
co -
"o •r-
LU
CO
CC
c
CO
'o
to
8
0
.£Z
0
•a
"5
_c
o
cz
CO
03
ZJ
CO
^
LU
CO
cc
' 0
14—
o
to
0
CJ
0
_C
-t-t
"ro
o
QL
§
pecific information and in
CO
I
to
CO
03
^
D3
C
"eo
1
CO
to
0
E
0
"co
D3
C
CO
CO
0
o
CJ
.2
LJ
"c
t .
o
Q.
CN"
'tn'
03
1
CO
its (negative
VI
8
0
O
C
0
•o
co
0
CO
0
£
0
CO
Q.
0
Q.
f^
0
0
O3
^~
P
"E
o
E
0
t—
0.
E
c
0
.c
J2
0
0
CO
CO
\mber of monitoring wells
—t
0
D3
•f.
Q.
3=
Z!
E
•a
1
Z3
^3
CO
CJ
CO
es per Year'
Q.
E
CO
CO
to
•a
c
Z5
O
CO
CO
g
to
"co
LU
E
0
to
co"
g
to
ut do not include Remedi
JQ
co
~
£
CO
0
>>
ID
0
T3
O
CO
E
CO
CO
0
of effectiver
CO
g
"ca
Z3
CO
0
eo
g
03
CD
0
>.^
I
CO
I
S
CO
1-
03
a.
CB
•
I
O
5)
0)
a:
-------
C N»
5 c
"n °
u **^
^* ^_
"CJ §
Q) CM
5^
& a
g* -3
•t^^
^4*d
LU
i
^^
^^
£
**•
^3
•9
^^
»N
r**«
c:
.0
5
CD
i o:
*.
§•1
to 15
•g -S
ll
CO
E
to 3
! i?
"to —
>v CD
CO c.
— O
CO *3
C CD
O ^J
'2 8-
03 '
Q. £
O EL
E] H
c
a
L
(_
t
c
c
•6
basi*^;
5
*
1
3
9-
n
1
i
m
m
m
O O O O O O O
o o o o o o o
•^ CM O CO CD ^ CN
^ ^ ^ ** ** ^^ ' **
j>Voooi.$
c
5
Z
c.
—
%-
— ^-
il
1
zno - SJ!S 3OX
HiBdtoHBA
}33j}g ujnqaio
i
i
H
o
09-
b
CO
,
1 1
o t:
CO fe
•£ o
S a
co -c
CD *«
1!
CO !
03 '
CO ?
^ I
il
§ §
X '43
CO IS
§ ;g
2 c
® |
•r! "^
ii r»
1) 0-
]> .CD
S a
£2 "co
cB p
3) ^
g w
5 ^2
2* ^
0 «
? ®
a: 1
5 c
3 O
& -c
I g>
- ^
s 5
CO 0
% t
I
*is
IS
| £,
CO "eg
•S 3
3 o
: CB
5 S
5
>
>
0
s
3
s
o
c
c.
£
TO
CO
E
.23
o
03
•o
CO
CO
CD
"co
to
CD
fl5
\tJ
CO
JO
•00
T3
1
"o
o
03
CO
CO
CD
*^
i
CD
CD
£:
co"
E
CO
"co
c
o
s
CD
0
0
m
£
Q.
£
CO
LJJ
O
-j£
CO
CL
]®
"co
-a
CO
CO
CD
.— .
CD
CO
CD
CJ
is "^
•Q •«-
I
DC
I
I
0_
45
a-
CO
a>
•6
I
o
85
-------
c f-
.2 c
•5-2
5 S1
II
Q. M
o:
l
S
8
CM
S
OJ
V- tO T-
O
H
C
Z>
2
cc
0
_CD
O
O
2
CO
0
m
zno -
P
o
m
CO
o
o
co
CD
in
CM
c>
CM
O
in
p
o
p
10
I
8
1.1
g£
II
CO
CD
CO .=
CO ^
t£ §.
CO
H^.
O
CO
"O
C
CB
•
CD
S2 co
CB iJ
~~ CD
75 g
t3 CB
CB
•i I
; CD
I
0
I
CD
«
1
I
to
I-
°a
o.
•tf
m
CD
I
i^
.§
O)
-------
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 littp:/Avww.cluin.org/oprimization and stored in a database. This information is summarized in
Table 1 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.
-------
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.
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 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 Hie 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 I—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
-------
c o>
II
E; o
O K
O «
42 c*
a} •=
Q g
£
!
II
•a
I
I
•S>
I
o
CO
>.
CM
0)
fi
oT
c:
.o
C)
CD
o:
.2 in
| |
in 53
O
rs «£
.O MJ
CO "5
EL
*•- I-
•oog
to y 'TO
- Us
to o J2
moL&
03
T3 CV
5s
ll
= 0
Q.
°!5
o
O
E
w
E w
to ra
C?1"
ll
•o
ra
I!
(0 _
E ra
— 3
(/> ^
111 <
E
0)
1/5
w"
13
to
to
>
CD
"o
Z
_i
2
^-*
CD
|
Is
"c
o
O
•o
.CD
Is
to
c
E
CL
111
0
0
o"
o
CO
03-
CO
C^
-i
CD
CL
ZJ
CO
o
to
CD
T3
O
2
•o
to
_3
CO
^
CD
"o
^
2
2
"c
CD
|
S
"c
0
O
•o
_CD
to
to
E
t:
LLl
O
O
0
cf
O
.
s
8
CO
!D
2
TO
to
to
>
CD
"5
~^-
i
0
c
CO
CD
"c.
CD
£
c
"c
o
0
to
_o
E
CD
a.
O
E
HI
0
o
0
o"
o
a>
•^
CO
§
•z
•*-»
CD
'o
CTZ
^
CO
0
CN
CO
CO
CO
_CD
1
08
'c o
CD ^
E S
.E o
CO to
0 &.
o
to
_0
to
CD'
0.
0
to
iZ
III
0
0
cf
o
CO
CD
0
O)
to
1 —
CO
"CD
CO
CO
CD
i .
CD CD.
O TH
CO m
CO -C
o o
is
ii
co i
CD '
CD C
It
co
i»
CD Q^
fi
CD Co
CD o
CD _CD
s S1
£2 w
CD O
8*5
c a
CD -c;
S CD
c
8"-5
il
® S
I O)
cc 5
^3
S-f
I!
CO CD
•2 3
CD -O
£= CD
CD P
£
S
CO
V CO
§ 5 g
CD JJ g
co Q. 'S
03 c 5
E co ro
O T3 CD
CO CD "S
•a o >>
to •- o
CD c ^
to
o "° 2
"2 to ro
CD P CD
^ ~ >•
Tl "?? 10
to o °
™"s '>.
CO CD CD
c ^ E
CO
c5
15 I
S
"c
w O
o- '-5
CD
o3
co
CO CD .O
I g1!
•D CL ro
ro "g CD
2 to 3
<8 .1 -2
O to CD
itu£
•«- CM' co
I
o
I
-2
2,
tt)
I-.
03
Q.
(B
0>
.o
5)
a>
a:
-------
C O
«!
-S
w
ft
to
c
0
I
|i
1/5 ^
c^"
K
•dT
c
.o
O)
Q)
•o
O
•
to .«
o .-5
11
ll
as a>
10
:= c
*; o
= J£
tf) Q.
1_ i£"
TO C
0) O
> 0
c
^3 O
"o ^>
0) Q.
§" £
Ml O
O
1 fe
=> g
2 £
(5 3
,* H-
' 0
^
C CO
^
I-
•o
C _
CO
li
i §
c?5
c
-i
0)
Q.
CO
o
1o
0)
-a
o
2
CO
CO
CM
10/2024
CO
CO
T~
5
o
CM
0
cS
o
CJ
0
CO
0
o
CM
O
in
g>
CM
co
o
o
w
2
co_
^s».
CM
10/2028
CO
K^
CO
0
o
CM
O
cn
o
CO
en
CD
0
CO
^=
co
i_
CO
5 °
§ «
xl
I
35 o
&s
c ™
ca ^
CD
to "5
IS
I.*
"
CD
O
CD
1
CD
TO
Q
I
.•2
55
o
a
CO
I
I
h.
2
ts"
m
o
0>
o
'5
a>
o;
-------
S S?
£
I
a. w
to"
t3
C
CO ^"^ T~"
C T3 IT
CD c «°
2 TOW
CO 0 03
*•— O IO
O UJ 5
O
C0|
^.|o
c ,0 co ^3"
QJ .— ^— ^f t a
5 CO f ^ f^"*
33 «_ o co~ in
2 o o co 10
i S to S^0!1
LU 55 to O 03
to
o
03 °> 0
CD < D)
W5>£ i
o co "> co ^j- co
3 "- CO LL. fv. ,_;
o Q. in co i? "m
Q UJ f- CO ^- eo
to
•o
f~
.g
CD
Q.
Z)
UJ
_o
to
CD
0
In.
CD
.C
^3
CD
Q
CD
Is
CO
CD
o
C
CO
"co
to
.0
X
o
_^_^ f~
•e ^J °
CO "CD °* C33
||"|og
IO |j_| ^Q ^ ^
W •— O5 ^» ^"
>- O to CJ^N!
, 10
0
Is !
O5 , 5-
> o B o >-
to
o
Kim Hoang
EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 941
415-744-2370
hoang.kim@epa.gov
t5
CO
E
c!
2
"o
"to
b
CO
CO
o
to" "o
>- CO C33
CD o CO
CD rw* CO
™ R_ ^
O5 QJ ^- j^
E ii "I" ^" CO
~s CD A-« ^ ^
CO *o O S^ IO CO
-Q . . OJ CO
•P !? CO IIJ IO OO
y & 03 Z -f. ^ ,1
i£ O Jj^ ^TO C53 CM
J= E IO C CM CM
°^?!5§o
n
J2
"§
|To> -5".
c c < -"
CO CD CD N-
i 'S. s" S §
CD P C CO CO
•c ' o ® 10 10
to E 10 io
m CO jj- CO CM CM
£ "J T~ 0 CO CD
.C Q- O CO T- T-
O Q t~ CO 03 03
IO
o
5 >
•8 °» _ S
i'o S g
m •*- Q
"•' - — • CD
CJ3 CD g 1^ O ©
TO g ^ .22 CM * o;
^ CD "g co ^; ^; -g
5 °^ as it ^! ^! -p
3 < ^ c in to •
^ Q. m co t- T- 3
S LU N- CO ^- •* ro
CD
o
D)
•—
CO
0
b_
1 —
CO
E
CD
CO
I
-
I
I
J
CO
1
a.
•tf
05
.§
5)
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 - Data Collection
and System Screening, Region 9
Region 9, Table 5 - Top Contaminants Identified by RPMs
July 3, 2001
System
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)rTetrachloroelthylene (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&T system
Data provided by site RPMs
-------
c o>
II
s
CO
I
1
03
(O
*«
V
•o
c
fa
&•
re
S
I
co
c
fl)v
bi
CO
CO
I >>
« B
ff
oT
c;
i
0
o:
ti
I
03 m
II
if
II
o tr
"** O
3 = f g)
S co o re
0 £ °
>- t.
O Q>
to B-
S en t-
13 O JO
c tt >•
I re
O CO
"*" •** (/>
O C fl)
l. CD to
CO C U)
.Q.5 § c
0 £ <1>
"> re .2
£ = 0
a. g.g
m iti
0 0
15 s
n, jr
ul a
.'. <"
£ B)
J =
i2 rn
5= CO
II
•Set
n
_ ~
2 (y-)
O
CO
^—
CD
O
in
CD
'o
3
CO
CO
P"""
CM
CO
co_
CO
CM
fa-
ct
6
O
D)
._
CO
CD
1—
CO
CD
CO
Operations
£
o o
_c c
2 2
0
CM
•^
0
m
•o
CD
CO
JZI
CD
•s
CO
o
CM
CM
CM
' 0
CO
0
C3
CM
T3
ZJ
t
CD
Q.
ZJ
CO
0
•§
O -4-*
S co
0 2
.£ >
2 yj
0
CD
V
m
o
0
- may change c
CO
03
I
and specifications ofs
co"
c
.0
t3
CD
I
to
8
I
*2
co
of
-Q
C
03
- including th<
•2
CO
Q
13
CO
1
o
-a
co
o
'"g
•a
. £
CD
|—
fie information.
o
CD
O.
£
:hat incorporates syste
>,
O3
.Q
O
o
"CD
O3
CD
• CD
U
CO
CO
1
-=
CO
£
"co
O
CD
O
i
i
1 Reduction in 1
to
CD
"5
en ?-
1"
LU
CO
CO
'B
to
o
o
CD
CD
T3
zs
o
^^^
o
c
£Z
CO
CD
3
CO
>
LU
CO
a:
CD
^O
til
8
CD
^3
rmation and incorporat
£
cz
o
'o
CD
Q.
.
T-j
CD
Q.
E
CO
CO
CO
1
O3
O
E
Q
03
-Q
03
03
"5.
~5
E
•o
to
Zi
o •
CO
o
_eo
.'CO
CD
>
CD
0.
CO
03
.Q.
'E
CO
CO
1—
o
1
T3
Z5
o
p
CO
'aluations.
LU
E
to
iclude Remediation Sy
•—
0
c
0
T3
13
CO
.92
£
&_
CO
CD
^
CD
O
.£
Jveness may
"o
1
i evaluations of
VJ
0
'>
. £
6 ^^
>» ^t-
I
o:
'5
I
-2
I
I
CO
CO
0>
o
I
a:
-------
.0) O)
O £t
?»
•SI
ij
11
Q. Mi
w"
•o
S
W)
I
2.
O
42
o
o
c:
c;
CB -|-
UJ
I
C
.o
Q>
o:
(a
E
CO .2
£ >,
3 w
CO —
>> CO
CO '-!=
C CO
O %:
8. jb
O O.
D .B
8" .
CO
S
1.1
-S o
CO -C
Qj O
*-• ^
CD *^>
5 ?
O to
"I
CO CB
5 .P
CO
.
03 CO
CO ^
CO Q)
•= 2"
8,8
.2 c
"O m
§1
§ O)
o: S
T3 CD
12
I
O)
-------
c o>
II
S 8
S*
ft
8
•o
ra
o
.CD
I
c^1
CN
t m
« >.
CN
1
oT
c:
.o
CD
o:
I
trt ra
• *!
CO
CM
O
CM
CM
O
CM
O
CM
CO
o
0
CM
§ 1
§ f
u o
C C
13 r)
w w
CO CO
0 CD
>- >•
a
co
CO
CO
8
II
8 g
•S o
c CO
CO -g
|ct
w
iS §,
co
s S
^
"o Q
S »
CD Q
CO
§£
1 °L
0> eg
cS '•§
Oi 03
s '&
Is
If
|cS
«1
S£
3 .
S. "^
co 15
2 "o
; co
o
a>
a
D
0
3
Q
v>
o
I
I
3
I
a
2,
f-
°a
Q.
0>
I
Q>
a:
-------
Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative
Phase 1- Data Collection and System Screening
Region 10
July 3, 2001
hi 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.clum.om/optimization and stored in a database. This information is summarized in
Table 1 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.
-------
July 3,2001
Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative
Phase I—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.
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 Fig
annual costs for each system are depicted in Figure 2.
, and
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-qperational. Those in bold were selected for RSEs.
Operational
McCormick and Baxter Creosoting
Boomsnub/Airco
Commencement Bay/South Tacoma Channel 12A
Wyckoff Ox/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 - Summary
July 3, 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
1of5
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
uperational 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
-------
c o
p *-
*3 c
1 1
o o
o a:
S en
TO C
;Q 5
i O
*
CO
U)
•o
TO
C
Si
•S>
o
I
I
o
o
CM
CO
CD
o:
c
.2 a>
IS <"
3 £
? £
""I
S J
o 2
> X-
ffi 0
a.
*?.i
,J5 Cn JZ
ill
'•S cf|
11J rt r£
0)
11
0 C
E o
3 0
0.
.22
CO
o
O
E
3
£
tn
E «
O 3
Tn to
/ft1 W
OT
>g
^3
°-i
£
re
J
«-
*O fi
1 1
CO ^~
m <
E
3
u>
tn
•4-f
(D
'o
1
CO
c
0
c
c
— ^
co
CD
=3
"c c
CD -.c
E 2
.£ o
| cS
0 £
o
15
o
to
1_
0
Q.
O
CD
c
LL
Q.
LU
o
o
o
CD
o
o
s
48
CO £-
Boomsnub/Airco /
Wide Ground Wati
jj
"CD
CD
•5
S:
Z
i
c
_g
2
to
CD
a:
c
'co
CD
-o
CD
L_
D_
75
c
u_
a.
LIJ
c
o
jsi
C
3
C
^
t
CD
Q.
CO
if
CD
C 0
CD CO
"c
CD
]o
3
CO
•5
z
5S
o
CM
C
CO
.£
CO
CO
_CD
CO
o3
•*-» c.
C 0
CD '^=
E ^
i ^
§ &
0
"co
g
E
CD
Q.
0
"ca
ul
a.
m
o
0
0
o"
0
CO
•ee-
"CD
^ c
1 Commencement B
South Tacoma Chi
Well 12A
"£
CD
"o
tt=
CO
CO
c "CD
.2 o
2 **
CD C
o:
o
z
^
CD
|
1
O
o
"re
o
's
CD
Q_
0
"co
c
LL
CD ^
SE
CO 13
LL
O
0
0
o"
in
CM
CD
IMcCormick & Baxt
Creosoting Co.
"c
0
'u
3
CO
Z
to
c "CD
.2 o
•*••' D5
CO
"§ o
0 -C
a:
CO
0
"c
0
O
O
"CD
g
E
0
Q.
O
E
0
•^
—
a.
LU
o
o
0
o"
0
te-
t_
o
Iwyckoff/Eagle Hat
Superfund Site
b
fo;
co
CD
CO
CD
O
1-1
o t:
CO CD
c ^>
^ CD
CD Cn
c c
*"• Co
CO -C
CD O
1!
co i
CD S
fS Z
CO
!l
^ **—
| §
S ^
? 5
£ CD
CD D
b ^
P.
CD co
CD o
g> CD
-S P1
3-^
£2 to
CD O
&s
ll
t> «
CD "-^
~, CD
|1
CD C
- ; CD
CD .g
O 0>
a: S
to 0
-
ll
CD T3
8 §
O ^ CO
r~ CD ^
c "^--2
1 £ CD
£1{B ll •
CQ — >
co ° UJ
i ° E
S ~O 0
g i£
I « w
S £ §
T3 c T3
C Q> CD
CO CD =o
CO ^2 0
S co E
CD CD T3
« 1^
2 Q.O
T3 £ -S
111
CO O 0
co a. -5
0 -a 0
£ 3 L
£ E I
is o ^
CO ^^ CZ
S co "-
S.P 3
CD '- CO
Q. =_ O3
co 3 "G
— co 0
0 0 fc
*± C£ a>
CO u_ M-
-D o o
c to co
Z3 CO C
t 0 g
111
CO Q_ TO
^ "O Q)
X .S to
i_ ca rs
CO CD
0
"o -^ CM' co"
I
to
CD
I
I
I
o
T-
c
o
I
-------
s
=5 O)
O Q>
o a:
SI
§
§
»
II
I
•O
C
<9
c:
.o
"o
I
c:
CO
to
.CD
CD
o:
o
Q
• E
"c -
3 2
t/> "c
CO E
O C
>• o
c
TJ C
•5 »
Q. C
X ^
UJ 0
0
^7 fc-
E CO
13 §
05 c
S =
>- *~
o
**•*
t_
0 S
|to
•a
E
"" 1
° "S
s i
CD ii
Q.
O
E
0 T3
~ ^>
>? Q.
•3-
oj
o
in
o
CM
CM
^
O5
CM
o
CO
o
CM
CM
O
S
5
0
CD
CM
CM
CM
O>
^
05
•o
1
CD
Q.
CO
if
CD
§ S:
CO CO
iq
O5
o
CM
*
to
CM
o
o
CM
CO
CO
55
CO
CO
05
CD
N.
go
^
IO
CO
^
"CD
^- c.
ommencement Ba^
outh Tacoma Chan
fell 12A
o co •>
CD
[E
T3
&
"E
"5
"O
c
|V.
*
CD
0
0
CM
CO
CO
05
0)
CO
CD
ro
o>
CO
' CO
0)
CO
CD
en
CO
IcCormick & Baxter
reosoting Co.
2 0
CD
_'E
CD
~
CD
|c
•a
to
CM'
CM
CM
O
CM
O
O>
O3
S
0
en
O3
S
O5
OJ
CM
en
ryckoff/Eagle Harbc
uperfund Site
:> co
Cl
j;
o
Is
CO
tb
t1
L C
t
2 CO
as
§ "
-^. to
-i
s
CO O
CD
^
1
CD
.-2
CO
Q>
1
1
s
s,
CO
I
O
*-
§
-------
c o
.2 *•
-B p;
l!
4. 8
« £
u> *v
S 5
§
O
45
c
o
O
O
o
CM
0)
!
TOCDCD &
®OO 0>
-
O
o:
CO
0>
_o
8
LU
TO (!)
?S f—
o E
Q Q
O
o
D)
CM CO
CD
•
CD .2
O
a>
=
I
•— - co co o
CO CD LO in E
o 5 "? «? ro
°
^§
n ^
"S
T3
fl
co CD
= CD
O T3
O ^
m &
>, ®
21i
' CD \? « r- t- -
t *i •§ CO CO CD .£
Q. § 5 °° *-
— — —
CO CO *o\
O
D)
5
O LU
-
CO o 10 in
in in
CO CN CM
-a
§
D)
U
CO
2
5
5
Q.
o
o
o
E
8
ro -3
« -
85
0 N. l>-
« «
1
I
I
Q.
C
.0
I
(— ZD CM CO CM CM CO
CD
I
>
(D
-
S S8 S ^
UJ LU CO CN CM
O T-
n —
^>
CD ^
00 _-
•t± CD
— ^
E CD
D -C
D CD
= O
Is.
§,
to
tT
(B
•S
•6
I
o
x-
O
I
cc
-------
c o
0 f-
fe: QJ
o o
o a:
8 tf
G3 w
Q'5
2 S
£-2
c ,«
o
•45
eg
o
45
c:
o
O
Jl
>si
(D
cT
CD
o:
in m CL 10 ID ->
§
0
U)
d
1X1
£©!
_ _
E S
J2 S>
= m
"O
C
OJ C35
CM CM
^ co co
r T- O o O
O oo D. in in Q
o
^
LL.
s§
O
-—• ^
J co^
(V
"-
^
— Q-
< til
5> "0 «D CD TO
> c CM CM
CO co co co
^-^coco
T— O o O O
oo D- 10 to
X
CO
ffl
0
0
E —
O CO
O CD
O fU
2 O
o
10
o
CJ>
o
73
1
I
Q.
O
I
.
o a. m
CM
c
o
CO
c
o
D>
c
is CB
o
o
CD
o •>?
CO
o °°
co co en
=
o
;
XJ-?
a X
S
o>
D.
111
to
o
111
ti > i i •=
.£ _ co co £
CO CD U5 IO CO
o • S "? "? -^
CD CD CO "
CD o 0
o
CM
CO CM CM TO
o
jQ
-32 .-?
c?^
til "g
CO
2.
V)
-
I
c
o
I
a:
-------
Nationwide Superfund
Reform Initiative
Phase 1 — Data CoflecfJon
and System Screening, Region 10
Region 10, Table 5 - Top Contaminants Identified by RPMs
July 3, 2001 '
System
Boomsnub/Airco
/ Site-Wide
Ground Water OU
Bunker Hill
Superfund Site
Commencement
Bay, South
Tacoma Channel,
Well 12A
McCormick &
Baxter Creosotihg
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)
3olynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Treatment
Processes
Air Stripping
Carbon Adsorption
Ion Exchange
Other/Not Sure
Carbon Adsorption
Carbon Adsorption
riltration
on Exchange
Other/Not Sure
Biological
Carbon Adsorption
Filtration
uata reflect estimates provtaea by site Hemeaial 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
-------
C O
o CK
•2 c5
R> £
Q c
' §
•
II
"•I
•o
c
C3
CB
S
I
I
CD
O^ ^
CO S
s £
CO .2
£ = t5
ui u
"o c
a> o
g. 2
x 3
UJ Q
£ Si
~J *~
"ro ra
s O
C o
® 7-
o >>
a. o
E
_ — o
J2 ? o m
I? 9 S
fp°
i
tn
w
Moderate
Severe
o
CD
CO
CM
CM
in
CO
v-
"c
CD
"o
S
CO
CO
O3
CM
r--
CM
in
CO
CM
—
CO
^p
m
CM
~~ T3
3 C
Boomsnub/Airc
Site-Wide Grou
Water OU
CD
o 2
CZ CD
5E ^
o
^>
m
o
in
Sufficient
"o
m
CD
CO
m
^-
•69-
^p
0
CO
CM
>>
CQ <
*~* CN
Commencemer
South Tacoma
Channel, Well 1
0 C
o
in
^
CD
CO
• "£
CD
"o
it
CO
CD
cc
CD
-o
—
^.
CO
1^
CM
—
CO
^p
o
CO
L_
•2
CO
McCormick & B
Creosoting Co.
CD
ii
^ "0
^ o
o
CM
CO
CO
o
CO
Sufficient
"o
CD
<§
-a
co
oo
o>
co
, —
x.
^P
in
in"
CM
o
CO
T
Wyckoff/Eagle
Superfund Site
jBuoijejedo
&_ t_
o o
.E .£
CM
co
CM
;-
o
c
c
3
o
o
TJ
_CD
to
Zi
5
CD
"o
C33
>
O
C
c
•' ^
o
c
c
Z!
£Z
i
CD
Q.
ZJ
CO
if
CD
§ —
CQ CO
-—*—
|
§
co"
CD
CO
CO
O
1
0
CO
.g
\
q
.E
t
g
O
II
S
•*-*
CD
I
CO
CD
CO
CD
S
M
C^
3
io
>s
^:
|
Q
U.
i3
^,
Z
i
D
O3
D
B
^^
3
-
_
D
3
Q
S
B
0
"O
CD
3
5_
CO
2
3
Z
CD
3
>
3
D
J
Q
o
1
1
CO
1
nations ofs>
iS
c
CO
"Q
§
co"
C
"o
03
•--«
-*-T
8
1
sis
CO
E
t
S
c:
CI3
;g
0)
1
o
tc
Q
^.
1
o
CO
£
CD
£
C
g
to
E
o
ife«
o
S
o
CD
Q.
!=
E £
•§ >.
tti co
§•8
~1
if
1
c:
Zl
m
X!!
^— '
O
»*..
"d
03
determin
0>
0>
rO
'o
c
CD
>
CO
JZ
CO
cr
g
to
.0
'5
CD
Q.
CO
_CD
co'
c
CO
to
o
o
oS
0
"cc
=s
c
M <
_CD
"o •<-
O
Q.
I_
O
o
^c
.
CO
>^
CD
0
O
•o
O
.C
"5
CD
CD
2
O
CO
CO
E
0
t
"5
CO
JO
to
o
O
_CD
Hj
_C
C
g
tj
Zl
-D
CD
o:
[ro
S
o
0.
111
CO
QL
CO
"o
to
o
0
CD
CD
•o
J3
^j
C
C
O
CO
c
g
"o
c
CO
a
"cc
LLJ
CO
CD
C.
"o
"w
o
o
CD
incorporate
•o
c
CO
c
_g
122
CO
£>
.—
0
S
o
CD
Q.
CO
1
CD
CO
D)
C
"co
O3
C
'co
Zl
•o
0>
re estims
CD
"co
D)
_c
CO
CO
_CD
k
1_J
1
0.
T3
CM
L
oo
CO
c
CO
CO
(negative
3
co
o
o
CD
0
CD
•o
CO
0
CO
CD
.c
"c
CD
CO
Q.
D>
C
0
0
M—
o
1
n
£
>,
JO
Us sampled
CD
CO
C
•£I
2
0
^
"5
CD
J3
E
ZJ
c
CD
D)
_C
_"Q.
"5
^
o
•o
*J
to
z>
o
CO
o
CO
CO
CD
CD
n.
CO
CD
Q.
CO
CO
£ co"
CD Q)
5 2**
"= 0
0 tt
i_ (0
0 '£
>
•* CD
co
c
o
to
to
UJ
I
to
c
_g
to
'-a
CD
CD
CtL
CD
•o
Zl
o
.c
•*-*
0
c
o
•a
Z3
1
'!
CO
I
CD
•a
Z!
O
c
CO
E
CO
CO
CD
e—
effectivet
o
CO
c
o
•J=
CO
Z3
CO
>
CD
tn
.g
1
a.
in
I
-
-2
-------
C 0
p *-
o o
o a:
S 6
(0 C
Q '5
i CD
i|
11
to
•Q
15
!i
ii
c ?
V)
s
Q>
H^.
O
42
I
=3
c:
^o
(R co"
LU
I
1
CT
c
.o
o
o:
CO
£'
CO 3
S OT
CO
>v CC
% i
.2 o
2 o
CD '
CL $>
O 0.
m H
o
CD
O_
o
o
in
.<.
0
10
CN
4Q-
0
o
CO
•
^
-1 "*
'"'' «iT ^^
6^
1
o
c:
t a ^ s
OOOOOOOO
oooooooo
OOCON-CQIO^-CO
1
ajjS punpedng
ion IPI i
JULjJKj-J
ojDB J/^JO>JOAy\/\
•QO 6UJJOSO9JQ
J9pceg
^ >JOILUJOQ01/\J
V21.
II3M 'jsuueqo
BUJOOEl
qjnos 'Aeg
JU9U190U8UJUJOO
8}!S punpadng
H!H J3>)ung
no
j9je/\/\ punojg
®P!/\A~^T:S /
ooJiv/qnusoioog
000
O O €«•
CM T-
^
CO
co-
co
CO
o
1.1
o t:
co |
•£ o
_
co' c
s c
CO -C
^5 X
1 1
co ,
CO
CD C"
CO ^
03 ,
-------
II
*§!?
o
5
II
I
•a
c
(a
O
f
t «o"
cvf
1
CD
o:
(D
O
03
0
•a
f,
co ^
• 5
TO ffl
I
CO 05
s §
~
tn
03 .S
"O
C
CO
P.
f!
S t>
Qi 03
^ t
^
. |
"§ c
D)
I §
S "o
; CD
2
03
J
13
i
a:
as
35
Q)
I
I
IB
Q
(0
S
o>
<*•*
§,
«)
I-
o«
0.
CB
0)
I
O
O
-------
APPENDIX C
-------
-------
REGION 1 SCREENING CALCULATIONS
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM tax:
RPM email:
Melissa
Taylor
617-918-1310
617-918-1291
TayfOf.MeIissaG@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1,2002
Namo of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Baird & McGuire Superfund Site
Holbrook
MA
1
Units
Annual OSMccsl
Expected duration
Discount rate
Baseline present value ->
Value
S/yr S3.SOO.OOO
yrs 21.3 <-max of 30 yrs
% 5.00%
S $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 wens # 7 0.0%
Pumping rate gpm 150 OJO%
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%
PcEticalt'Social factors (minor changes) A-F E
Summation (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) -> 27.5%
$45,191,087
- 27.5%
$12,427,549
- $25,000
$12,402,549
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
5 to 9 wells
100 to 500 gpm
2.00 - 3.99 wks
4 or more processes
75 or more
20 yrs or more
-2.5% moderate difficulty for minor changes, severe for major changes
27.5%
(must be between 5% and 40%)
- Estimated potential savings ($)
"NotKEstimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name: Elaine
RPM Last Name: Stanley
RPM phone: 617-918-1332
RPM fax: 617-918-1291
RPM email: stanley.elainet@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1 , 2002
-•
i.
Name of Site: Charles George Landfill Superfund Site
Site City: Tyngsboro
Site State: MA
Site Region: 1
Cost Item
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wells
Pumping rate
Down time per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Political/Social factors (minor changes)
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
S
Units
%
A-C
#
gpm
wks
#
#
yrs
A-F
Value
S450.000
26.7
5.00%
56,552,022
Answer
A
9
30
2
1
40
26.7
E
Summation (%)• ->
<-maxof30yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0%
2.5%
0.0%
-2.5%
2.5%
-2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
-2.5%
17.5%
'
Range in Lookup Table
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
' Estimated potential savings (%) -> 17.5% (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:Estmated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM tax:
RPM email:
Edward
Hathaway
617-918-1372
617-918-1291
halhaway.ed@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1.2002
Nimo of Site:
Silo City:
SHo Stale:
Sito Region:
Annual OSM cost
Expected duration
Discount rato
Eastern Surplus Company Superfund Site
Meddybemps
ME
1
Cost Item
Units Value
S/yr S200.000
yrs 5.7
% 5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$966,468
Optimization Factor
Units
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (Initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wens
Pumping rate
Downtime per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Postal/Social factors (minor changes)
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
3270,611
- $25,000
$245,611
20.0%
A-C
#
gpm
wks
*
#
yrs
A-F
A
12
20
2
3
60
5.7
B
Summation (%) ->,
2.5%
2.5%
-2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
-5.0%
3.0%
28.0%
Estimated potential savings (%) -> 28.0%
$966,468
- 28.0%
Performance not evaluated
10 or more wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
2.00 - 3.99 wks
3 processes
50.00 to 74.99
5.00 - 9.99 yrs
little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
- Estimated potential savings ($)
"NototEstimated 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.derrick@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
Groveland Wells Superfund Site
Groveland
MA
1
Cost Item
Units
S/yr
yrs
%
Value
5500,000
29.3
5.00%
<-maxof30yrs
Baseline present value-> $
$7,601,834
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wells
Pumping rate
Down time per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Political/Social factors (minor changes)
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
$2,090,504
- $25,000
$2,065,504
20.0%
A-C
#
gpm
wks
#
#
yrs
A-F
C
10
140
1
4
21
29.3
A
Summation (%) ->
-2.5%
2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
5.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
5.0%
27.5%
Estimated potential savings (%) -> 27.5%
$7,601,834
- 27.5%
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
10 or more wells
100 to 500 gpm
<2wks
4 or more processes
<25
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
- Estimated potential savings ($)
"Note:EsGmated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name: Dick
RPM Last Name: Goehlert
RPM phone: 617-918-1335
RPH fax: 617-918-1291
RPM email: goehlert.didt@epa.gov
Name of Site: Kearsarge Metallurgical Corp.
Sits City: Conway
Site State: NH
Site Region: 1
Cost Item
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Baseline present value •
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wens
Pumping rate
Down lime per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * evcnts-per-yr)
Expected system duration
PoRJcal'Socal factors (minor changes)
* Estim
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Units
S/yr
yrs
%
•> S
Units
%
A-C
#
gpm
wks
#
#
yrs
A-F
Date of implementation:
Value
$250,000
3.7
5.00%
. $819,414
Answer
C
14
42
4
2
60
3.7
D
Summation (%) ->
atod potential savings (%) ->
-
-
$819,414
10.0%
$81,941
$25,000
<-max of 30 yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0%
-2.5%
2.5%
-2.5%
5.0%
0.0%
2.5%
-15.0%
0.0%
10.0%
10.0%
January 1,2002
Range in Lookup Table
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%)
$56,941
- Estimated potential savings ($)
"fYofe.'EStfmafed potential savings do not Include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name: Cheryl
RPM Last Name: Sprague
RPM phone: 617918-1244
RPM fax: 617918-1291
RPM email: Sprague.cheryl@epa.gov
Name of Site: Keefe Environmental Systems
Site City: Epping
Site State: NH
Site Region: 1
Cost Item
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wells
Pumping rate
Down time per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Political/Social factors (minor changes)
Units
S/yr
yrs
%
S
Units
%
A-C
#
gpm
wks
#
#
yrs
A-F
Date of implementation:
Value
$200,000
1.7
5.00%
$312,230
Answer
•••
C
4
20
2
3
82
1.7
A
Summation (%) ->
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
-
-
$312,230
7.5%
$23,417
$25,000
-$1,583
<-max of 30 yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0%
-2.5%
-2.5%
-2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
5.0%
-20.0%
5.0%
7.5%
7.5%
< Estimah
January 1,2002
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
3 to 4 wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
2.00 - 3.99 wks
3 processes
75 or more
<2yrs
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
;d potential savings ($)
"Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPH Last Name:
RPM phono:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
RICHARD
GOEHLERT
617-918-1335
617-918-1291
GOEHLERT.DICK@EPA.GOV
Date of implementation:
January 1,2002
NamoofSito:
Site City:
Silo Stato:
Site Region:
Annual OSM cost
Expected duration
Discount rale
Savage Well Municipal Water System
Milford
NH
1
Cost Item
Units
S/yr
yrs
%
Value
ssoo.ooo
7.2
S.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
52,950,900
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (Initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wetls
Pumping rate
Down time per year
# Of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (n-jmber wells • events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Political/Social factors (minor changes)
nrnar
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
$959,042
- $25,000
$934,042
20.0%
A-C
#
gpm
wks
»
#
yrs
A-F
A
4
100
4
3
114
7.2
A
Summation (%) ->
2.5%
-2.5%
0.0%
5.0%
2.5%
5.0%
-5.0%
5.0%
32.5%
Estimated potential savings (%) -> 32.5%
$2,950,900
- 32.5%
Performance not evaluated
3 to 4 wells
100 to 500 gpm
4 wks or more
3 processes
75 or more
5.00 - 9.99 yrs
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
- Estimated potential savings ($)
~Noto:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name: Chester
RPM Last Name: Janowski
RPM phone: 617-918-1324
RPM fax: 617-918-1291
, RPM email: janowski.chet@epa.gov
Name of Site: Silresim Chemical Corp.
Site City: Lowell
Site State: MA
Site Region:, 1
Cost Item
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wells
Pumping rate
Down time per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Political/Social factors (minor changes)
Date of implementation:
Units Value
S/yr 31,400,000
yrs 15.9 <-maxof30yrs
% 5.00%
S $15,126,499
Potential
Units Answer Savings (%)
% 20:0%
A-C B 5.0%
# 31 2.5%
gpm 25 -2:5%
wks 2 2.5%
# 4 5.0%
# 94 5.0%
yrs 15.9 -Z5%
A-F A 5.0%
Summation (%) -> 40.0%
Estimated potential savings (%)-> 40.0%
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
$15,126,499
- 40.0%
$6,050,600
- $25,000
.January 1,2002
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%)
-
$6,025,600
- Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
c
-------
REGION 2 SCREENING CALCULATIONS
-------
RPM First Name: Christos
RPM Last Name: Tsiamis
RPM phone: 212-637-4257
RPM fax: 212-637-3966
RPM email: tsiamis.chrislos@epa.gov
Name of Site: American Thermostat
Site City: South Cairo
Site State: NY
Sita Region: 2
Cost Item
Annual OSM cost
Expected duration
Discount rale
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wells
Pumping rate
Dawn 6m« per year
» of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
PcSUcatSocial factors (minor changes)
Date of implementation:
Units Value
S/yr 31,175,000
yrs 26.7
% 5.00% .
S $17,108,057
Units Answer
%
A-C C
# 14
gpm 70
wks 0
# 4
# 228
yrs 26.7
A-F C
Summation (%) ->
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
0
$17,108,057
- 29.5%
$5,046,877
- $25,000
$5,021,877
<-maxof30yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0%
-2.5%
2.5%
-2.5%
0.0%
5.0%
5.0%
0.0%
2.0%
29.5%
29.5%
January 1 , 2002
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
1 0 or more wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
<2wks
4 or more processes
75 or more
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes, severe for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
< Estimated potential savings ($)
"Note:Estlmatetl potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name: Edward
RPM Last Name: Finnerty
RPM phone: 2126374367
RPM fax: 212-637-4393
RPM email: Finnerty.Ed@EPA.GOV
Name of Site: Bog Creek Farm LIRA
Site City: Howell
Site State: NJ
Site Region: 2
Cost Item
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wells
Pumping rate
Down time per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Political/Social factors (minor changes)
Date of implementation:
Units Value
S/yr $460,000
yrs 22.9
% 5.00%
S $6,194,718
Units Answer
%
A-C C
* 33
gpm 30
wks 4
# 4
# 9
yrs • 22.9
A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Estimated potential,savings (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
0
$6,194,718
- 30.0%
$1,858,415
- $25,000
$1,833,415
<-maxof30yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0%
-2.5%
2.5%
-2.5%
5.0%
5.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
5.0%
30.0%
30.0%
January 1,2002
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
10 or more wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
4 wks or more
4 or more processes
<25
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes •
(must be between 5% and 40%)
< Estimated potential savings ($)
"Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name: Lisa
RPM Last Name: Wong
RPM phone: 212-637-4267
RPM tax: 212-637-3366
RPM email: wong.lisa@epa.gov
Name of Site: BrewslerWellfleld
Site City: Brewster
Site State: NY
Site Region: 2
Cost Item
Annual OSM cost
Expected duration
Discount rale
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping weds
, Pumping rate
Down Bme per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number welts * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
PoSticatfSoctal factors (minor changes)
Date of implementation:
Units
S/yr
yrs
%
S
Units
%
A-C
#
gpm
wks
#
#
yrs
A-F
Value
3400,000
5.8
5.00%
$1,357,217
Answer
A
, 4
50
0
1
64
5.8
A
Summation (%} ->
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
-
-
0
$1,957,217
17.5%
$342,513
$25,000
<-max of 30 yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0%
2.5%
-2.5%
-2.5%
0.0%
-2.5%
2.5%
-5.0%
5.0%
17.5%
17.5%
January 1,2002
Range in Lookup Table
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;Est!mated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name: Sharon
RPM Last Name: Trooher
RPM phone: 212-637-3965
RPM fax: 212-637-3966
RPM email: trocher.sharon@epa.gov
Name of Site: Circuitron
Site City: East Farmingdale
Site State: NY
Site Region: 2
Cost Item
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate.
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wells
Pumping rate
Down time per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Political/Social factors (minor changes)
Date of implementation:
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
$
Units
%
A-C
#
gpm
wks
#
#
yrs
A-F
Value
$480,000
1.4
5.00%
$639,835
Answer
C
3
80
6
3
76
1.4
B
Summation (%) ->
Estimated potential savings (%} ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
-
-
0
$639,836
8.0%
$51,187
$25,000
$26,187
<-max of 30 yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0%
-2.5%
-2.5%
-2.5%
5.0%
2.5%
5.0%
-20.0%
3.0%
8.0%
8.0%
January 1,2002
Range in Lookup Table
--
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
3 to 4 wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
4 wks or more
3 processes
75 or more
<2 yrs
little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
< Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name: Maria Date of implementation:
RPM Last Name: Jon
RPM phone: 212-637-3967
RPM fax: 212-637-4284
RPM email: Jon.Maria
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping weds
Pumping rate
Down Erne per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
PoSlfcal/Socfail factors (minor changes)
Units Value
S/yr 3740,000
yrs 18.1
% . 5.00%
S 58,678,999
Units Answer
%
A-C A
# 3
gpm 420
wHs 2
# 3
# 56
yrs 18.1
A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
0
$8,678,999
- 30.0%
$2,603,700
- $25,000
$2,578,700
<-max of 30 yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0%
2.5%
-2.5%
0.0%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
-2.5%
5.0%
30.0%
30.0%
< Estimate
January 1 , 2002
Range in Lookup Table
Performance not evaluated
3 to 4 wells
100 to 500 gpm
2.00 - 3.99 wks
3 processes
50.00 to 74.99
10.00 -19.99 yrs
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
*d potential savings ($)
"NoteEstimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name: Pamela J.
RPM Last Name: . Baxter
RPM phone: 212-637-4416
RPM fax: 212-637-4393
RPM email: baxter.pam@epaniaiLgov
Name of Site: Combe Fill South Landfill
Site City: Chester Township
Site State: NJ
Site Region: 2
Cost Item
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate}
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wells
Pumping rate
Down time per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Political/Social factors (minor changes)
Date of implementation: January 1, 2002
•
Units Value
S/yr $920.000
yrs 26.7
% S.00%.
$ $13,395,245
Units Answer
%
A-C B
# 19
gpm 121
wks 1
# 4
# 72
yrs - • 26.7
.A-F ' B
Summation (%) ->
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
0
$13,395,245
- 38.0%
$5,090,193
- $25,000
$5,065,193
<-max of 30 yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0%
5.0%
2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
5.0%
2.5%
0.0%
3.0%
38.0%
38.0%
< Estimate
Range in Lookup Table
Performance evaluated and found insufficient
10 or more wells
100 to 500 gpm
<2wks
4 or more processes
50.00 to 74.99
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
id potential savings ($)
**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
gareia.diego@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1 , 2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Slit Region:
Dover Municipal Well 4
Dover
NJ
2
Annual OSM coat
Expected duration
Discount rate
Sfyr
yrs
Baseline present value ->
Value
SO
0.0
5.00%
<-maxof30yrs
$0
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (Initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C 0.0
Number of pumping weds it o
Pumping rata gpm 0
Down lima per year wks 0
# of above-ground water treatment processes # 0
GWmonitoAig(numbsrwells"evenls-per-yr) # 0
Expected system duration yrs 0.0
PoSticjl'Social factors (minor changes) A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Estimated potential savings <%) ->
0
$0
-#N/A
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
#N/A
- $25,000
20.0%
0.0%
-5.0%
0.0%
-2.5%
-2.5%
-20.0%
5.0%
#N/A
no wells (e.g., drains, etc.)
<10 gpm
<2wks
0 or 1 processes
•=25
<2yrs
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
#N/A
Estimated potential savings ($)
~Note:Estitnate
-------
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:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Garden State CleanE
Minotola
NJ
2
Cost Item
:rs/South Jersey Clothing Company
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
Value .
5500,000
27.7 <-maxof30yrs
5.00%
Baseline present value-> $
$7,403,547
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wells
Pumping rate
Down time per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Political/Social factors (minor changes)
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
0
$7,409,547
- 32.5%
20.0%
A-C
#
gpm
wks
#
#
yrs
A-F
A
15
300
0
2
54
27.7
A
Summation (%) ->
2.5%
2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Z5%
0.0%
5.0%
32.5%
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%)
$2,408,103
- $25,000
$2,383,103 < Estimated potential savings ($)
~Nate:EsUmated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name: Pamela J.
RPM Last Name: Baxter
RPM phone: 212-637-4416
RPM fax: 212-637-4393
RPM email: baxter.pam@epamail.gov
Name of Site: Higgins Farni
Site City: Franklin Township
Site Stale: NJ
Site Region: 2
Cost Item
Annual OSM cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wens
Pumping rale
Down time per year
# of abovo-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells • events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
PoStical/Social factors (minor changes)
Date of implementation:
Units Value
S/yr S1, 000,000
yrs 26.7
% 5.00%
S $14,560,049
Units Answer
%
A-C A
# 20
gpm 30
wks 4
# 4
# 102
yrs 26.7
A-F B
Summation (%) ->
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
0
$14,560,049
- 40.0%
$5,824,020
- $25,000
$5,799,020
<-max of 30 yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0%
2.5%
2.5%
-2.5%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
0.0%
3.0%
40.5%
40.0%
January 1 , 2002
Range in Lookup Table
Performance not evaluated
10 or more wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
4 wks or more
4 or more processes
75 or more
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
< Estimated potential savings ($)
"VtotasEstlmated 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
S/yr $225,000
yrs 1.0
% 5.00%
<-maxof30yrs
Baseline present value ->
$214,286
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wells
Pumping rate
Down time per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number weRs * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Political/Social factors (minor changes)
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%)->
0
$214,286
- 7.5%
$16,071
- $25,000
-$8,929
20.0%
A-C
#
gpm
wks
#
#
yrs
A-F
C
6
300
1
2
96
1.0
A
Summation (%) ->
-2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
O/o
0.0%
5.0%
-20.0%
5.0%
7.5%
7.5%
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
5 to 9 wells
100 to 500 gpm
<2wks
2 processes
~~ 75 or more
<2yrs
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
- Estimated potential savings ($)
"NoteiEstimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name: Lawrence
RPM Last Name: Granite
RPM phono: 212-637-4423
RPM fax: 212-637-4393
RPM email: granrie.lany@epamail.epa.gov
Namo of Site: Lang Property
Site Cltyi Pemberton Township. NJ
Site State: NJ
Site Region: 2
Cost Item
Annual OSM cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping weHs
Pumping rale
Down time per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW moniloring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
PoSticatffioctal factors (minor changes)
Units
S/yr
yrs
%
S
Units
%
A-C
gpm
wks
I
yrs
A-F
Date of implementation:
Value
S700.000
3.0
5.00%
$1,907,890
Answer
C
1
30
0
3
32
3.0
A
Summation (%) ->
, Estimated potential savings (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
-
-
0
$1,907,890
5.0%
$95,395
$25,000
<-maxof30yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0%
-2.5%
-5.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
2.5%
0.0%
-15.0%
5.0%
2.5%
5.0%
January 1,2002
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
1 to 2 wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
<2 wks
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%)
$70,395
- Estimated potential savings ($)
~Nota:Estlm!ited potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
12
RPM First Name: Ferdinand
RPM Last Name: Cataneo
RPM phone: 212-637-4428
RPM fax: • 212-637-4393
RPM email: cataneo.fred@epa.gov
Name of Site: Lipari Landfill site
Site City: Mantua Township
Site State: NJ
Site Region: 2
Cost Item
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number.of pumping wells
Pumping rate
Down time per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Political/Social factors (minor changes)
Date of implementation:
Units Value
S/yr S2.500.000
yrs 2.9
% 5.00%
$ 56,634,566
Units Answer
%'
A-C C
# 25
gpm 125
wks 2
# 39
yrs 2.9
A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
0
$6,634,566
- 17.5%
$1,161,049
- $25,000
<-max of 30 yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0%
-2.5%
2.5%
0.0%
2.5%
5.0%
0.0%
-15.0%
5.0%
17.5%
17.5%
January 1,2002
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%)
$1,136,049
• Estimated potential savings ($)
"Note:Est!mated 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
Ms
212-637-4272
212-637-3966
als.ed@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1.2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Silo Region:
Annual OSM cost
Expected duration
Discount rale
Matliace Petrochemical
Glen Cove, Nassau County
NY
2
Cost Item
Units
S/yr
yrs
%
Value
S700.000
27.6
5.00%
<-maxof30yrs
Baseline present value ->
$10,358.307
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
PatCflSal savings (Initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping weds
Pumping rale
Down firms per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * evenls-per-yr)
Expected system duration
PofitkaUSocial factors (minor changes)
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
$2,382,411
- $25,000
$2,357,411
20.0%
A-C
#
gpm
wks
#
*
yrs
A-F
C
9
10
2
5
15
27.6
B
Summation (%) ->
-2.5%
0.0%
-2.5%
2.5%
5.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
3.0%
23.0%
Estimated potential savings (%) -> 23.0%
$10,358,307
- 23.0%
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
5 to 9 wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
2.00 - 3.99 wks
4 or more processes
<25
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
- Estimated potential savings ($)
"NotetEstlmated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
14
RPM First Name: Dan
RPM Last Name: Weissman
RPM phone: 212-637-4384
RPM fax: 0.0%
RPM email: weissman.dan@epa.gov
Name of Site: Metal TEC/Aerosystems
Site City: Franklin
Site State: NJ
Site Region: 2
Cost Item
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wells
Pumping rate '
Down time per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Political/Social factors (minor changes)
Date of implementation: January 1,2002
Units Value
S/yr SO
yrs 0.0
% 5.00%
S $0
Units Answer
%
A-C 0.0
# 0
gpm 0
-wks 0
# 0
* 0
yrs 0.0
A-F 0.0
Summation (%) ->
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
0
$0
-#N/A
#N/A
- $25,000
#N/A
<-max of 30 yrs
Potential ~~
Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table
20.0%
#N/A #N/A
0.0% no wells (e.g., drains, etc.)
-5.0% <10gpm
0.0% <2 wks
-2.5% 0 or 1 processes
-2.5% <25
-20.0% . <2yrs
#N/A , ffiM/A .
#N/A
#N/A (must be between 5% and 40%)
< Estimated potential savinas f$)
"Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
15
RPM First Name: Patrick
RPM Last Name: Hamblin
RPM phone: 212-637-3314
RPM fax: 212-637-3966
RPM email: hamblin.patrick@epa.gov
Name of Site: Mohonk Road Industrial Plant
Sita City: High Falls
Site State: NY
Slto Region: 2
Cost Item
Annual O4M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wells
Pumping rale
Down time per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells " events-per-yr)
Expected system duraSon
PoEtical/Social factors (minor changes)
Units
S/yr
yrs
%
S
Units
%
A-C
#
gpm
wks
#
#
yrs
A-F
Date of implementation:
Value
SO
29.5
5.00%
SO
Answer
A
3
40
0
4
34
29.5
B
Summation (%) ->
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
Summary
Basel/no present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
-
-
0
$0
25.5%
$0
$25,000
-$25,000
<-maxof30yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0%
2.5%
-2.5%
-2.5%
0.0%
5.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.0%
25.5%
25.5%
January 1,2002
Range in Lookup Table
Performance not evaluated
3 to 4 wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
<2wks
4 or more processes
25.00 to 49.99 '
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
< Estimated potential savings ($)
"Noto-.Estimatcdpotential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
16
RPM First Name: Monica , Date of implementation:
RPM Last Name: Mahar
RPM phone: 212-637-3942
RPM fax:
RPM email: mahar.monica@epa.gov
Name of Site: Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill
Site City: Montgomery Township
Site State: NJ
Site Region: 2
Cost Item
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wells
Pumping rate
Down time per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Political/Social factors (minor changes)
Units Value
S/yr $400,000
yrs 30.0
% 5.00%
$ $6,143,980
Units Answer
%
A-C A
# 3
gpm 250
wks 0
# 2
# 80
yrs 30.0
A-F B
Summation (%) ->
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
0
$6,148,980
- 28.0%
$1,721,715
- $25,000 ,
$1,696,715
<-maxof30yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0%
2.5%
-2.5%
0.0%
'0.0%
0.0%
5.0%
0.0%
3.0%
28.0%
28.0%
January 1,2002 ,
'-— -,
Range in Lookup Table
Performance not evaluated
3 to 4 wells
100 to 500 gpm
<2 wks
, 2 processes
75 or more
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
<- — Estimated potential savings ($)
"Note:Est!mated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
17
RPM First Name: Mark
RPM Last Kama: Dnnnenberg
RPM phone: 212-637-4251
RPM fax: 212-637-3966
RPM email: dannenberg.mark@epa.gov
Name of Site: SMS Instruments
Situ City: Deer Park
Site State: NY
Sits Region: 2
Cost Item
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rale
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping weBs
Pumping rate
Down Sma per year
tf of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
PoBUcatfSocial factors (minor'changes)
Units
S/yr
yrs
%
S
Units
%
A-C
gpm
wks
#
#
yrs
A-F
Date of implementation:
Value
5400,000
2.2
5.00%
$801,729
Answer '
C
2
100
2
2
72
2.2
A
Summation (%) ->
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
-
-
'0
$801,729
7.5%
$60,130
$25,000
$35,130
<-max of 30 yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0%
-2.5%
-5.0%
0.0%
2.5%
0.0%
2.5%
-15.0%
5.0%
7.5%
7.5%
< Estimati
January 1,2002
3
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
1 to 2 wells
100 to 500 gpm
2.00 - 3.99 wks
2 processes
50.00 to 74.99
2.00 - 4.99yrs
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
id potential savings ($)
"NotvEstimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
18
RPM First Name: Damian Date of implementation:
RPM Last Name: Duda
RPM phone: 212-637-4269
RPM fax: 212-637-3966
RPM email: duda.damian@epa.gov
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
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wells
Pumping rate
Down Bme per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Political/Social factors {minor changes)
.Units Value
Slyr $270,000
yrs 19.7
% 5.00%
S $3,332,717
Units Answer
%
A-C A
# 3
gpm 90
wks 1
# 5
# . 120
yrs 19.7
A-F B
Summation (%) ->
Estimated potential savings <%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
0
$3,332,717
-28.0%
$933,161
- $25,000
'<-maxo(30yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0%
2.5%
-2.5%
-2.5%
0.0%
5.0%
5.0%
-2.5%
3.0%
28.0%
28.0% '
January 1 , 2002
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: Pamela J.
RPM Last Name: Baxter
RPM phono: 212-637-4416
RPM fax: 212-637-4393
RPM email: baxter.pam@epamail.gov
Name of Silo: Syncon Resins
Site City: Keamy
Site State: NJ
Site Region: 2
Cost Item
Annual OSM cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wells
Pumping rate
Down time per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GVV monitoring (number wells * evenls-per-yr)
Expected system duration
PotticaVSoclal factors (minor changes)
Date of implementation:
Units Value
S/Vr 5350,000
yrs 26.7
% 5.00%
S $5.096,017
Units Answer
%
A-C B
# 3
gpm 20
wks 3
# ' 6
# 0
yrs 26.7
A-F B
Summation (%) ->
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
0
$5,096,017
- 28.0%
$1,426,885
- $25,000
$1,401,885
<-max of 30 yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0% '
5.0%
-2.5%
-2.5%
2.5%
5.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
3.0%
28.0%
28.0%
January 1,2002
Range in Lookup Table
Performance evaluated and found insufficient
3 to 4 wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
2.00 - 3.99 wks
4 or more processes
<25
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
< Estimated potential savings ($)
"Note:Est!mated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
20
RPM First Name: Sharon
RPM Last Name: Trocher
RPM phone: 212-637-3965
RPM fax: 212-637-3966 •
RPM email: trocher.sharon@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1, 2002
Name of Site: Vestal Water Supply Well 1 -1
Site City: Vestal
Site State: NY
Site Region: 2
Cost Item
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wells
Pumping rate
Down time per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Political/Social factors (minor changes)
Units Value
S/yr 3180,000.
yrs 13.2
% 5.00%
S $1,706,600
Units Answer
%
A-C . C
# 1
gpm 450
wks 1
# 1
# 12
yrs 13.2
A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
0
$1,706,600
- 10.0%
$170,660
- $25,000
<-max of 30 yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
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
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
-------
21
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM tax:
RPM email:
Matthew
Weslgate
212 637-4422
212537-4429
westgate.matthew@epamail.epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1,2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual OSM cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Vineland Chemical Co. Groundwater Treatment
Vineland
NJ
2
Cost Item
Units
S/yr
yrs
%
Value
34,000,000
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)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wens
Pumping raid
Down lime per year
K of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number weds • events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
PoEtfcatfSocia! factors (minor changes)
A-C
#
gpm
wks
#
#
yrs
A-F
A
13
1400
0
2
2080
29.4
E
Summation (%) ->
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
5.0%
0.0%
-2.5%
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
' Estimated potential savings (%) -> 30.0% (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
$18,266,142
- Estimated potential savings ($)
"NateiEstimatecl potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
_
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phone:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
22
Ferdinand
Cataneo
212-637-4428
212-637-4393
cataneo.fred@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
Williams Property
Swainton, Middle Township
NJ
2
Cost Item Units
S/yr
yrs
%
Value
S350.000
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)
Perfoimance evaluation?
Number of pumping wells
Pumping rate
Down time per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Political/Social factors (minor changes)
20.0%
A-C C
# 2
gpm 80
wks 0
# 4
# 36
yrs 0.0
A-F A
Summation (%) ->
-2.5%
-5.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
5.0%
0.0%
-20.0%
5.0%
0.0%
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
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings {%) -> 5.0% • (must be between 5% and 40%)
0
$0
-5.0%
$0
- $25,000
-$25,000
- Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
-------
REGION 3 SCREENING CALCULATIONS
-------
RPM First Name: Charlie
RPM Last Name: Root
RPM phone: 215-814-3193
RPM fax: 215-814-3002
RPM email: root.charlie@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1 , 2002
Name of Site: AIW Frank/Mid-County Mustang Site, OU#1
SRe City: Exton
Site State: PA
Site Region: 3
Cost Item
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
PctenEal savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wells
Pumping rate
Down fime per year
£ of above ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
PoiteVSocial factors (minor changes)
Units Value
Sfyr 3180,000
yrs 29.7
% 5.00%
S $2,754,138
Units Answer
%
A-C C
# 5
gpm 118
wks 1
# 4
# 60
yrs 29.7
A-F B
Summation {%) ->
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
$2,754,138
- 28.0%
$771,159
- $25,000
$746,159
<-max of 30 yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
5.0%
2.5%
0.0%
3.0%
28.0%
28.0%
< Estimatt
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
5 to 9 wells
100 to 500 gpm
<2 wks
4 or more processes
50.00 to 74.99
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
id potential savings ($)
"HoteiEstimitatt potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name: Bruce
RPM Last Name: Rundell
RPM phone: 215-814-3317
RPMfax: 215-814-3015
RPMemail: rundell.bruce@epa.gov
Name of Site: Berks Sand Pit
Site City: Huffs Church
Site State: PA
Site Region: 3
Cost Item
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wells
Pumping rate
Down time per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Political/Social factors (minor changes)
Date of implementation:
Units Value
$/yr $150,000
yrs 1.1
% 5.00%
$ $154,672
Units Answer
%
A-C C
* 1
gpm 90
wks 0
# 1
# -48
yrs 1.1
A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
$154,672
- 5.0%
$7,734
- $25,000
-$17,266
<-max of 30 yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0%
-2.5%
-5.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
-20.0%
5.0%
-7.5%
5.0%
January 1,2002
Range in Lookup Table
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
1 to 2 wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
<2wks
0 or 1 processes
25.00 to 49.99
<2yrs
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
< Estimated potential savings ($)
"Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name: Rom
RPM Last Name: Roman
RPM phone: 215-814-3212
RPM fax: 215-814-3015
RPM email: roman.romuald@epa.gov
Name of Site: Bute Landfill
Sits City: Monroe Township
Site State: PA
Site Region: 3
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Polenta! savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaiuafion?
Number of pumping wets
Pumping raie
Down fime per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number weSs * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
PcWcal/Sodal factors (minor changes)
Estimate
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Date of implementation:
Units Value
S/yr S250.000
yrs 29.3
% 5.00%
S $3,800,917
A-C A
# 3
gpm 90
wks 0
# 2
* 68
yrs 29.3
A-F A
Summation (%) ->
•d potential savings (%) ->
$3,800,917
- 25.0%
$950,229
- $25,000
$925,229
<-maxof30yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0%
2.5%
-2.5%
-2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
2.5%
0.0%
5.0%
25.0%
25.0%
< Estimate
January 1,2002
Range in Lookup Table
Performance not evaluated
3 to 4 wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
<2wks
2 processes
50.00 to 74.99 '
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
id potential savings ($)
"Wota.'Estfmafed potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name: Cesar
RPM Last Name: Lee
RPM phone: 215-814-3205
RPM fax: 215-814-3205
RPM email: lee.cesar@epa.gov
Name of Site: CroydonTCE
Site City: Bristol Township
Site State: PA
Site Region: 3
Cost Item
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wells
Pumping rate
Down time per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Political/Social factors (minor changes)
Date of implementation:
Units
S/yr
yrs
%
S
Units
%
A-C
n
gpm
wks
#
if
yrs
A-F
Value
S200.000
23.2
5.00%
$2, 708,981
Answer
C
6
25
0
2
28
23.2
A
Summation (%) ->
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
-
-
$2,708,981
20.0%
$541,796
$25,000
$516,796
<-max of 30 yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
5.0%
20.0%
20.0%
< Estimate
January 1 , 2002
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
5 to 9 wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
<2 wks
2 processes
25.00 to 49.99
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
td potential savings ($)
"Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name: Joseph
RPM Last Name: McDowell
RPM phone: 215-814-3192
RPM fax: 215-814-3002
RPM email: mcdowefl.josephgepa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1,2002
Name of Silo: CryoChem
Site City: Earl Township
Site State: PA
Site Region: 3
Cost Item
Annual OSM cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wets
Pumping rate
Down 8ma per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Petal/Social factors (minor changes)
Estimate
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Units Value
S/yr 3125,000
yrs 8.4
% 5.00%
S $842,157
Units Answer
%
A-C C
it 9
gpm 60
wks 1
# 1
# "4
yrs 8.4
A-F B
Summation (%) ->
d potential savings (%) ->
$842,157
- 8.0%
$67,373
- $25,000
$42,373
<-maxof30yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
-2.5%
-2.5%
-5.0%
3.0%
8.0%
8.0%
< Estimati
Range in Lookup Table
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
5 to 9 wells
' 10 to 99.99 gpm
<2wks
0 or 1 processes
<25
5.00 - 9.99 yrs
little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
id potential savings ($)
"NotesEstimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name: Phaip
RPM Last Name: Rotstein
RPM phone: 215-814-3232
RPM fax: 215-814-3002
RPM email: rotstein.phil@epa.gov
Name of Site: Greenwood Chemical Site
Site City: Greenwood
Site State: VA
Site Region: 3
Cost Item
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration -
Discount rate
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluab'on?
Number of pumping wells
Pumping rate
Down time per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Political/Social factors (minor changes)
Date of implementation:
Units
S/yr
yrs
%
S
Units
%
A-C
#
gpm
wks
#
#
yrs
A-F
Value
S400.000
18.8
5.00%
$4,$10,341
Answer
A
5
45
0
5
136
18.8
A
Summation (%) ->
' Estimated potential savings (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
-
-
$4,810,341
32.5%
$1,563,361
$25,000
$1,538,361
<-max of 30 yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0%
2.5%
0.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
5.0%
5.0%
• -2.5%
5.0%
32.5%
32.5%
< Estimate
January 1 , 2002
Range in Lookup Table
Performance not evaluated
5 to 9 wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
<2 wks
4 or more processes
T5 or more
10.00 -19.99 yrs
littfe difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
;d potential savings ($)
•*Note:Estimatedpotential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modificatio
-------
RPM First Name: Gregory
RPM Last Name: Ham
RPM phone: 215-814-3194
RPM fax: 215-814-3002
RPM email: ham,greg@epa.gov
Name of Site: Havertown POP OU2
Silo City: Havertown
Site State: PA
Site Region: 3
Cost Item
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping we 5s
Pumping rate
Down lino per year
n of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Poetical/Social factors (minor changes)
Date of implementation:
Units Value
S/yr 51,000,000
yrs 30.0
% 5.00%
S $15,372,451
Units Answer
%
A-C A
# 4
gpm 45
wks 0
# 4
# 30
yrs 30.0
A-F B
Summation (%) ->
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
$15,372,451
- 25.5%
$3,919,975
- $25,000
$3,894,975
<-max of 30 yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0%
2.5%
-2.5%
-2.5%
0.0%
5.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.0%
25.5%
25.5%
January 1,2002
Range in Lookup Table
Performance not evaluated
3 to 4 wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
<2wks
4 or more processes
25.00 to 49.99
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
< Estimated potential savings ($)
"NatwEstimated potential savings do not Include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name: Cesar
RPM Last Name: Lee
RPM phone: 215-814-3205
RPM fax: 215-814-3205
RPM email: lee.cesar@epa.gov
Name of Site: Hellertown Manufacturing
Site City: Bethlehem
Site State: PA
Site Region: 3
Cost Item
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wells
Pumping rate
Down time per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Political/Social factors (minor changes)
Date of implementation: January 1 , 2002
Units
$/yr
yrs
%
S
Units
%
A-C
*
gpm
wks
#
#
yrs
A-F
Value
S350.000
24.7
5.00%
$4,900,578
Answer
B
1
50
0
2
48
24.7
B
Summation (%) ->
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
-
-
$4,900,578
20.5%
$1,004,619
$25,000
$979,619
<-rnax of 30 yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0%
5.0%
-5.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.0%
20.5%
20.5%
< Estimate
Performance evaluated and found insufficient
1 to 2 wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
<2wks
2 processes
25.00 to 49.99
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
•d potential savings ($)
**Note:Est!mated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name: Maria de los A.
RPM Last Name: Garcia
RPM phone: 215-814-3199
RPM fax: 215-814-3002
RPM email: gareia.maria@epa.gov
Name of Site: North Penn Area 1
Date of implementation:
January 1,2002 -
Site City: Souderton, Montgomery County
Site State: PA
Site Region: 3
Cost Item
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
PotenSal savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping weds
Pumping rale
Down time per year
If of above-ground water treatment processes
GW mentoring (number wells * evenls-per-yr)
Expected system duration
PolIUcaVSocial factors (minor changes)
Units
S/yr
yrs
%
$
Units
%
A-C
#
gpm
wks
#
#
yrs
A-F
Value
S100.000
16.7
5.00%
$1,113,534
Answer
A
1
2
0
1
8
16.7
A
Summation (%) ->
'Estimated potential savings (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potent/at savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
-
-
$1,113,534
10.0%
$111,353
$25,000
<-max of 30 yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0%
2.5%
-5.0%
-5.0%
0.0%
-2.5%
-2.5%
-2.5%
5.0%
10.0%
10.0%
Range in Lookup Table
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%)
$86,353
Estimated potential savings ($)
"NotdEstimatcd potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
10
RPM First Name: . Gregory
RPM Last Name: Ham
RPM phone: 215-814-3194
RPM fax: . 215-814-3002
RPM email: ham.greg@epa.gov
Name of Site: North Penn Area 6
Site City: Lansdale
Site State: PA
Site Region: 3
Cost Item
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wells
Pumping rate
Down time per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Political/Social factors (minor changes)
Date of implementation:
Units Value
S/yr $592,900
yrs 30.0 <-maxof30yrs
% 5.00%
S $9,1*4,326
Potential
Units Answer Savings (%)
% 20.0%
A-C A 2.5%
# 10 2.5%
gpm 300 0.0%
wks 0 0.0%
* 3 2.5%
# 120 5.0%
yrs 30.0 0.0%
A-F B 3.0%
Summation (%) -> 35.5%
Estimated potential savings (%) -> 35.5%
Summsrv
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
$9,114,326
- 35.5%
$3,235,586
-$25,000
$3,210,586 < EstimaU
January 1,2002
-
Range in Lookup Table
Performance not evaluated
10 or more wells
100 to 500 gpm
<2 wks
3 processes
75 or more
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
xl potential savings ($)
"Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name: Deanna
RPM Last Name: Moultrie
RPM phone: 215-814-5125
RPM fax: 215-814-3002
RPM (mail: moultre.deanna@epa.gov
Name of Site: Raymark
Stte City: HaUx>ro
Site State: PA
Site Region: 3
Cost Item
Annual OSM cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wetis
Pumping rate
Down Sroo per year
If of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (numberweHs • events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
PoBlcal/Social factors (minor changes)
Date of implementation:
Units Value
S/yr 5155,711
yrs 12.0
% , 5.00%
S $1,380,802
Units Answer
%
A-C A
# 2
gpm 62
wks 2
* 2
it 0
yrs 12.0
A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
$1,380,802
- 17.5%
$241,640
- $25,000
<-max of 30 yrs
Potential
20.0%
. 2.5%
-5.0%
-2.5%
2.5%
0.0%
-2.5%
-2.5%
5.0%
17.5%
17.5%
January 1 , 2002
Range in Lookup Table
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: Andrew
RPM Last Name: Palestini
RPM phone: 215-814-3233
RPM fax: 215-814-3002
RPM email: palestini.andy@epa.gov
Name of Site: Saunders Supply Company
Site City: Chuckatuck
Site State: VA
Site Region: 3
Cost Item
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wells
Pumping rate
Down time per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Political/Social factors (minor changes)
Date of implementation:
Units Value"
S/yr $80,000
yrs 6.3
% 5.00%
S $420,648
Units Answer
%
A-C A
# 4
gpm 2
wks 2
# ' 3
# 40
yrs 6.3
A-F C
Summation (%) ->
Estimated potential-savings (%} ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
$420,648
- 17.0%
$71,510
- $25,000
<-maxof30yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0%
2.5%
-2.5%
-5.0%
2.5%
2.5%
0.0%
-5.0%
2.0%
17.0%
17.0%
January 1.2002
Range in Lookup Table
Performance not evaluated
3 to 4 wells
<10 gpm
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: Luis
RPM Last Name: Floras
RPM phono: 404-562-8807
RPM fax:
RPM email: flores.luis@epa.gov
Name of Silo: ABC Cleaners
Site City. Jacksonville
Site State: NO
Site Region: 4
Annual O5M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping weBs
Pumping rate
Down time per year
ff of above-ground water treatment processes
GW mentoring (number wells • events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
PoSfcal/Social factors (minor changes)
Date of implementation: January 1, 2002
Units Value
S/yr SO
yrs 0.0
% 5.00%
S $0
A-C 0.0
#' 0
gpm 0
wks 0
fir 2
# 0
yrs 0.0
A-F 0.0
Summation (%) ->
<-maxof30yrs
Potential " —
Savings (%) Range n Lookup Table
20.0%
#N/A #N/A
°-0% no wells (e.g.. drains, etc.)
-5.0% <10 gpm
0.0% <2wks
°-0% 2 processes
-2.5% <25
-20.0%. <2yrs
#N/A #N/A
#N/A
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) -> #N/A
$0
-#N/A
(must be between 5% and 40%)
- $25,000
#N/A
- Estimated potential savings ($)
"NotoEstfrnatcd 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
ffle.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
S/yr
yrs
Value
5300,000
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?
Number of pumping wells
Pumping rate
Down time per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Political/Social factors (minor changes)
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%
A-C
#
gpm
wks
#
#
yrs
A-F
A
8
0
4
3
8
1.3
A
Summation (%) ->
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.rnark@epa.gov
0.0%
Date of implementation:
January 1,2002
Kama of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual OSM cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
American Creosote Works (solute)
Pensacola
FL
4
-
Units
S/yr
yrs
%
Value
$452,000
7.7
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$2,822,434
Optimization Factor
Potential
Units Answer Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wets
Pumping rate
•Down lime per year
#
2.5%
-2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-2.5%
-5.0%
5.0%
17.5%
Estimated potential savings (%) -> 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%)
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
$2,822,434
-17.5%
$493,926
- $25,000
,$468,926
- Estimated potential savings ($)
"NoteiEstimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual.system modifications
-------
RPM First Name: Jon
RPM Last Name: Bomholm
RPM phone: 404-562-8820
RPM fax: 0.0%
RPM email: • bornholm.jon@epa.gov
Name of Site: Benfield Industries
Site City: Hazelwood
Site State: NC
Site Region: 4
Cost Item
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wells
Pumping rate
Down time per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Political/Social factors (minor changes)
Date of implementation:
Units Value
S/yr $30,000
yrs 19.3
% ' 5.00%
S $366.494
Units Answer
%
A-C A
# ' 2
gpm ' 16
wks 0
# J1
# 32
yrs 19.3
A-F A
Summation (%) ->
' Estimated potential savings (%)->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
$366,494
- 15.0%
$54,974
- $25,000
$29,974
<-max of 30 yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0%
2.5%
-5.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
-2.5%
5.0%
15.0%
15.0%
January 1,2002
Range in Lookup Table
Performance not evaluated
1 to 2 wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
<2wks
0 or 1 processes
25.00 to 49.99
10.00 -19.99 yrs
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
< Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estlmated potential savings do not Include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phono:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Jon
Bomhdm
404-562-8820
404-562-8788
bomholm.jon@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1,2002
Name of Silo:
Site City:
Site Stale:
Site Region:
Cape Fear Wood Preserving
Fayetteville
NC
4
Cost Item
Annual OSM cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
S/yr
yrs
Baseline present value -> $
Value
S40.000
7.9
5.00%
5256,425
<-maxof30yrs
Optimization Factor
Units
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (Initial estimate) %
Performance evaluation? A-C A
Number of pumping wells # 7
Pumping rale gpm 43
Down Sme per year wte o
K of above-ground water treatment processes # 1
GW monitoring (number weBs * events-per-yr) # 100
Expected system duration yrs 7.9
Political/Social (actors (minor changes) A-F A
Summation (%) -
2.5%
0.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
-2.5%
5.0%
-5.0%
5.0%
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
Estimated potential savings (%)-> 22.5% (must be between 5% and 40%)
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
$256,425
- 22.5%
$57,696
- $25,000
$32,696
- Estimated potential savings ($)
"NoteiEsttmated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name: Randall Date of implementation: January 1 , 2002
RPM Last Name: Chaffins
RPM phone: 404-562-8929
RPM fax: 0.0%
RPM email: chaffins.randall@epa.gov '
Name of Site: Coleman Evans Wood Preserving
Site City: Whitehouse . .
Site State: FL
Site Region: 4
Cost Item
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Units Value
$/yr SO
yrs 0.0
% . 5.00%
$ $0
Units Answer
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) # p
Expected system duration yrs 0.0
Political/Social factors (minor changes) A-F 0.0
Summation (%) ->
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value: $0
Estimated potential savings (%): -#N/A
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
#N/A
- $25,000
#N/A
<-max of 30 yrs
Potential
Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table
20.0%
#N/A . . #N/A
0.0% no wells (e.g., drains, etc.)
-5:0% <10 gpm
0.0% <2 wks
-2.5% 0 or 1 processes
-2.5% <25
-20.0% <2 yrs
#N/A #N/A
#N/A
SN/A (must be between 5% and 40%)
< Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Namo:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phono:
RPM (ax:
RPMematl:
Ralph
Howard
404-562-8829
0.0%
howard.ralph@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1,2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
SlteSUtei
Si!o Region:
Annual OSM cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Elmore Waste Disposal
Greer
SC
4
Cost Item Units
S/yr
yrs
Value
S180.000
16.7
5.00%
<-maxof30yrs
Baseline present value ->
$2,004,361
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%l
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wete
Pumping rate
Down toe per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
PoWeat'Sodat factors (minor changes)
20.0%
A-C C
# 9
gpm 30
wks 0
# 2
# 68
yrs 16.7
A-F A
Summation (%) ->
-2.5%
0.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
2.5%
-2.5%
5.0%
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
' Estimated potential savings (%) -> 20.0% {must be between 5% and 40%)
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
$2,004,361
- 20.0%
$400,872
-$25,000
$375,872
- Estimated potential savings ($)
"NotKEstlmatod potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name: Ken
RPM Last Name: Mallory
RPM phone: 404-562-8802
RPM fax: 0.0%
RPM email: mallory.ken@epa.gov
Name of Site: PCX Statesville
Site City: Statesville
Site State: NC
Site Region: 4
Cost Item
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wells
Pumping rate
Down time per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Political/Social factors (minor changes)
Date of implementation:
Units Value
S/yr 5150,000
yrs 6.3
% 5.00%
S 5797,565
Units Answer
%
A-C C
# ' 10
gpm 20
wks 0
' # '2
# 72
yrs 6.3
A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Estimated potential savings (%) •>
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
$797,565
- 20.0%
$159,513
- $25,000
$134,513
<-max of 30 yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0%
-2.5%
2.5%
-2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
2.5%
-5.0%
5.0%
20.0%
20.0%
January 1,2002
Range in Lookup Table
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
10 or more wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
<2wks
2 processes
50.00 to 74.99
5.00 - 9.99 yrs
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
< Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with Implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name: Jim
RPM Last Name: McGuire
RPM phono: 404-562-8911
RPM fax: 0.0%
RPM email: mcguire.jim@epa.gov
Name of Silo: Miami Drum
Site City: Hialeah
Site State: FL
Site Region: 4
Cost Item
Annual OSM cost
Expected duration
Discount rale
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wefts
Pumping rale
Down time per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
PolitoitfSocial factors (minor changes)
Date of implementation: January 1 , 2002
Units
S/yr
yrs
S
Units
%
A-C
gpm
wks
#
yrs
A-F
Value
31,000,000
0.0
5.00%
$0
Answer
0.0
40
104000
0
1
0
0.0
0.0
<-max of 30 yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0%
SWA
2.5%
2.5%
0.0%
-2.5%
-2.5%
-20.0%
#N/A
Range in Lookup Table
10 or more wells
>500 gpm
<2wks
0 or 1 processes
<25
<2yrs
#N/A
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Summation (%) -> #N/A
Estimated potential savings (%)-> #N/A
$0
-#N/A
(must be between 5% and 40%)
#N/A
- $25,000
#N/A
- Estimated potential savings ($)
~Woto;EjD'mafed potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
10
RPM First Name: Al
RPM Last Name: Cherry
RPM phone: 404-562-8807
RPM fax: • 0.0%
RPM email: cheny.al@epa.gov
Name of Site: Palmetto Wood
Site City: Lexington
Site State: SC
Site Region: 4
Cost Item
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Baseline present value -> '
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wells
Pumping rate
Down time per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Political/Social factors (minor changes)
Date of implementation: January 1,2002
Units
S/yr
yrs
%
S
Units
%
A-C
#
gpm
wks
#
#
yrs
A-F
Value
$300,000
6.3
5.00%
$1,595.131
Answer
C
10
130
4
1
16
6.3
B
Summation (%) ->
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
'
-
$1,595,131
18.0%
$287,124
$25,000
$262,124
<-max of 30 yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0%
-2.5%
2.5%
0.0%
5.0%
-2.5%
-2.5%
-5.0%
3.0%
18.0%
18.0%
,_•-
Range in Lo'okup Table
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
1 0 or more wells
100 to 500 gpm
4 wks or more
0 or 1 processes
<25
5.00 - 9.99 yrs
little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
< Estimated potential savings ($)
"Note:Est!mated 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:
Daftyl
Owens
312-886-7089
0.0%
cwens.danyl@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1,2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annul O&.M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Arrowhead Refinery
Hermantown
MN
5
Units Value
S/yr $70,000
yrs 2.2
% 5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$145,512
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
sin Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performanca evaluation?
Number of pumping wells
Pumping rale
Down lime per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW mentoring (number wells • events-per-yr)
Bpeeted system duration
Political/Social factors (minor changes)
nmai
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings f%) ->
0
$145,512
- 5.0%
$7,276
• $25,000
20.0%
A-C
#
gpm
wks
#
#
yrs
A-F
C
0
25
0
1
36
2.2
B
Summation (%) ->
-2.5%
0.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
-15.0%
3.0%
0.5%
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
no wells (e.g., drains, etc.)
10 to 99.99 gpm
<2wks
0 or 1 processes
25.00 to 49.99
2.00-4.99yre
little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes
5.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)
-S17,724
- Estimated potential savings ($)
"NoteiEstlmated potential savings do not Include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name: John
RPM Last Name: Peterson
RPM phone: 312-353-1264
RPM fax: 0.0%
RPM email: , peterson.john@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1,2002
Name of Site: Better Brite Plating Co. Chrome and Zinc Shops
Site City: Depere
Site State: Wl
Site Region: 5
Cost Item
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wells
Pumping rate
Down time per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Political/Social factors (minor changes)
Units Value
S/yr S36.000
yrs' 28.3
% 5.00%
S $538,699
Units Answer
%
A-C C
# 0
gpm 0
wks 0
# 1
# 28
yrs 28.3
A-F C
Summation (%) ->
Estimated potential savings (%} ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
0
$538,699
- 12.0%
$64,644
-$25,000
$39,644
<-maxof30yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
-5.0%
0.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
2.0%
12.0%
12.0%
Range in Lookup Table
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
no wells (e.g., drains, etc.)
<10gpm
<2wks
0 or 1 processes
25.00 to 49.99
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes, severe for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
< Estimated potential savings ($)
"Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Namo: Dion
RPM Last Name: Novak
RPM phone: 312-886-4737
RPM fax: 0.0%
RPM email: Novak.Dion@epa.gov
Namo of Sito: Douglass Road
Silo City: Mishawaka
SHo State: IN
Site Region: 5
Annual OSM cost
Expected dura lion
Discount rate
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping weBs
Pumping rata
Down few per year
* of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells • events-per-yr)
Enpected system duration
PoKttaVSodal factors (minor changes)
Date of implementation:
S/yr S1 20,000
yrs 28.8 <-maxof30yrs
% 5.00%
S $1,810,266
Units Answer Savings (%)
% . 20.0%
A-C A 2.5%
# 5 0.0%
gpm 1000 2.5%
wks 2 2.5%
# 1 -2.5%
* 72 2.5%
yre ' 28.8 0.0%
A-F A 5.0%
Summation (%) -> 32.5%
Estimated potential savings (%) -> 32.5%
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
0
$1,810,266
- 32.5%
$588,336
- $25,000
$563,336 < Estimate
January 1,2002
Range in Lookup Table
Performance nol evaluated
5 to 9 wells
>500 gpm
2.00 - 3.99 wks
0 or 1 processes
50.00 to 74.99
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
iflf potential savings ($)
"Wofo.-Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name: .Kyle Date of implementation: January 1, 2002
RPM Last Name: Rogers
RPM phone: 312-886-1995
RPM fax: 0.0% '
RPM email: rogers.kyle@epa.gov
Name of Site: Duell and Gardner
Site City: Dalton Township
Site State: Ml
Site Region: 5
Cost Item Units Value
Annual O&M cost Sfyr SO
Expected duration yrs 5.5
Discount rate % 5.00%
Baseline present value -> S $0
Optimization Factor Units Answer
Potential savings (initial estimate) -.. %
Perfonnance 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 (%) ->
' Estimated potential savings (%) ->
Summary 0
Baseline present value: $0
Estimated potential savings (%): -15.0%
Subtotal $0
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000
-$25,000
<-max of 30 yrs
Potential
Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table
20.0%
2.5% Performance not evaluated •
-5.0% , 1 to 2 wells
-2.5% 10 to 99.99 gpm
0.0% <2 wks .
-2.5% 0 or 1 processes
2.5% 50.00 to 74.99
-5.0% 5.00 -9.99 yrs
5.0% little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
15.0%
1 5.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)
< Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name: Sheri
RPM Last Name: Bianchin
RPM phone: 312-886-4745
RPM fax: 0.0%
RPM email: bianchin.sheri@epa gov
Name of Site: Eau Claire Municipal Well Field
Silo City: Eau Claire
Sito Slat*: Wt
Site Region: 5
Cost Item
Annual OSM cost
Expected duration
Discount raie
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping weds
Pumping rate
Downtime per year
S of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells • events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
PoKfcaUSocfal factors (minor changes)
Units
S/yr
yrs
%
S
Units
%
A-C
gpm
wks
#
yrs
A-F
Date of implementation:
Value
3175,000
0.0
5.00%
$0
Answer
C
14
4500
0
1
0
0.0
F
Summation (%) ->
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
Summary
Base/me present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
-
-
0
$0
5.0%
$0
$25,000
<-max of 30 yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0%
-2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
0.0%
-2.5%
-2.5%
-20.0% '
-5.0%
-7.5%
5.0%
January 1,2002
Range in Lookup Table
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
10 or more wells
>500 gpm
<2 wks
0 or 1 processes
<25
<2 yrs
severe difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%) '
-325,000
Estimated potential savings ($)
~Note:Estimattd potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-
-------
6
RPM First Name: • Steve
RPM Last Name: Padovani
RPM phone: 312-353-6755
RPM fax: 0.0%
RPM email: padovani.steven@epa.gov
Name of Site: La Salle Electrical Utilities
Site City: La Salle
Site State: IL
Site Region: 5
Cost Item
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wells
Pumping rate
Down time per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Political/Social factors (minor changes)
Date of implementation:
Units
S/yr
yrs
%
S
Units
%
A-C
#•
gpm
wks
. #
#
yrs _
A-F
Value
$230,000
3.2
5.00%
$656,089
Answer
C
0
20
2
2
100
3.2
A
Summation (%) ->
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
_
0
$658,089
12.5%
$82,261
$25,000
$57,261
<-maxof30yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
-2.5%
2.5%
0.0%
5.0%
-15.0%
5.0%
12.5%
12.5%
January 1,2002
-
Range in Lookup Table
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
no wells (e.g., drains, etc.)
10 to 99.99 gpm
2.00 - 3.99 wks
2 processes
75 or more
2.00 - 4.99yrs
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between'5% and 40%)
< Estimated potential savings ($)
"Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM RfSt Namo: Sheila
RPM Last Name: Sullivan
RPM phone: 312-886-5251
RPM fax: 0.0%
RPM email: sullivan.sheila@epa.gov
Name of Site: Long Prairie
Site City: Long Prairie
Si!o State: MN
Slio Region: 5
Cost Item
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rale
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wets
Pumping rats
Down time per year
* of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells • events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
PoStfcal/Sochl factors (minor changes)
Date of implementation:
Units Value
S/yr 5300,000
yrs 13.8
% 5.00%
S $2,933,325
Units Answer
%
A-C C
# 9
gpm 227
wks 2
# 1
# 22
yrs 13.8
A-F B
Summation (%) ->
' Estimated potential savings (%)->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
0
$2,933,325
- 15.5%
$454,665
- $25,000
<-maxof30yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
2.5%
-2.5%
-2.5%
-2.5%
3.0%
15.5%
15.5%
January 1,2002
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%)
$429,665
Estimated potential savings ($)
~Nato:Esttmatod 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: MacGillis and Gibbs/Bell Lumber & Pole
Site City: New Brighton
Site State: MN
Site Region: 5
Cost Item
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Units Value
$/yr $300,000
yrs 27.8
- % 5.00%
<-maxof30yrs
Baseline present value -> $
$4,451,949
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wells
Pumping rate
Down time per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Political/Social factors (minor changes)
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
$1,424,624
- $25,000
$1,399,624
20.0%
A-C
#
gpm
wks
#
#
yrs
A-F
A
14
60
0
4
60
27.8
C
Summation (%) ->
2.5%
2.5%
-2.5%
0.0%
5.0%
2.5%
0.0%
2.0%
32.0%
Estimated potential savings (%} -> 32.0%
$4,451,949
- 32.0%
Performance not evaluated
10 or more wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
<2wks ,
4 or more processes
50.00 to 74.99
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes, severe for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
- Estimated potential savings ($)
"Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name:
RPM Last Name:
RPM phono:
RPM fax:
RPM email:
Steve
Padovani
312-353-6755
0.0%
padovanUteven@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1,2002
NanuofSite:
Silo City:
Silo State:
Site Region:
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Oconomowoc Electroplating
Ashippun
Wl
5
Cost Item Units
S/yr
yre
%
Value
S471.000
24.7
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$6,534,778
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (Initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wefts
Pumping rate
Down Brno per year
# ot sbove-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
PolUcal/Sodal factors (minor changes)
Units
%
A-C
gpm
wks
»
#
yrs
A-F
Answer
C
5
30
4
3
40
24.7
C
Summation (%) ->
Potential
Savings (%)
;20.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
-2.5%
5.0%
2,5%
0.0%
0.0%
2.0%
24.5%
Range in Lookup Table
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
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
0
$6,594,778
- 24.5%
24.5% (must be between 5% and 40%)
$1,615,721
- $25,000
$1,590,721
- Estimated potential savings ($)
"NotKEstlmatcit potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
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
S/yr
yrs '
%
Value
$200,000
0.5
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$95,617
Optimization Factor
Units
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wells
Pumping rate
Down time per year
it of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number weils * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Political/Social factors (minor changes)
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
0
$95,617
- 5.0%
$4,781
- $25,000
20.0%
A-C
#
gpm
wks
#
#
yrs
A-F
C
5
560
1
2
20
0.5
A
Summation (%) ->
-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
<2 wks
2 processes
<25
<2yre
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
-$20,219
- Estimated potential savings ($)
™Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
11
RPM First Name: John
RPM Last Name: Fogi'olo
RPM phone: 312-866-0800
RPM fax: 0.0%
RPM email: fagioto.john@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1,2002
Nsmo of Sits:
Sits City:
Slto State:
Site Region:
Annual OSM cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Ott/Story/Cordova Chem Co.
Dalton Township
Ml
5
Cost Item Units
S/yr
yrs
%
Value
32,400,000
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)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wells
Pumping rate
Down time per year
If of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number weBs • events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Poilteal/Social factors (minor changes)
Summation (%) -
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
$14,443,502
- $25.000
$14,418,502
20.0%
A-C
#
gpm
wks
it
#
yrs
A-F
A
10
700
4
3
120
28.6
A
2.5%
2.5%
ZS%
5.0%
2.5%
5.0%
0.0%
5.0%
45.0%
Estimated potential savings (%) -> 40.0%
0
$36,108,756
- 40.0%
Performance not evaluated
"10 or more wells
>500 gpm
4 wks or more
3 processes
75 or more
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
- Estimated potential savings ($)
"NotvEstimated potential savings do not Include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
_
-------
12
RPM First Name: Mike
RPM Last Name: Ribordy
RPM phone: 312-886-4592
RPM fax:
RPM email: ribordy.mikei
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
Peerless Plating
Muskegon Township
Ml
5
Cost Item
Units Value
S/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)
Perfoimance evaluation?
Number of pumping wells
Pumping rate
Down time per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Political/Social factors (minor changes)
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
$0
• $25,000
20.0%
A-C
#
gpm
wks
#
#
yrs
A-F
C
6
165
0
3
24
0.0
A
Summation (%) ->
-2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.5%
-2.5%
-20.0%
5.0%
2.5%
Estimated potential savings (%) -> 5.0%
$0
. 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%)
-$25,000
- Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
13
RPM First Name: Ken
RPM Last Name: Glatz
RPM phone: 312-886-1434
RPM fax: 0.0%
RPM email: glatz.ken@epa.gov
Name of Site: US.Aviex
Site City: Howard Township
Silo SUto: MI
SIM Region: 5
Cost Item
Annual OSM cost
Expected duration
Ditcount rale
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping weSs
Pimping rate
Downfcne per year
n 01 above-ground waler treatment processes
GW monitoring (numberwells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
PoitatfSocial factors (minor changes)
Date of implementation: January 1 , 2002
Units Value
S/yr S300.000
yrs 1.7
% 5.00%
S $468,345
Units Answer
%
A-C ' C
# 6
gpm 170
wks 1
# 1
# 120
yrs 1.7
A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
0
$468,345
- 5.0%
$23,417
- $25,000
-$1,583
<-max of 30 yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-2.5%
5.0%
-20.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
Range in Lookup Table
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
5 to 9 wells
100 to 500 gpm
<2wks
0 or 1 processes
75 or more
<2yrs
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
< Estimated potential savings ($)
"NotatEstimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name: Richard
RPM Last Name: Boice
RPM phone: 312-886-4740
RPM fax: 0.0%
RPM email: boice.richard@epa.gov
Name of Site: Verona Well Field
Site City: Battle Creek
Site State: Ml
Site Region: 5
Cost Item
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wells
Pumping rate
Down time per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Political/Social factors (minor changes)
Date of implementation:
Units Value
S/yr $225,000
yrs 30.0
% 5.00%
S $3,458,801
Units Answer
%
A-C A
'#. 6
gpm 250
wks 2
# 2
# 10
yrs 30.0
A-F B
Summation (%) ->
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
0
$3,458,801
-25.5%
$881,994
- $25,000
$856,994
<-max of 30 yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0%
2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
2.5%
0.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
3.0%
25.5%
25.5%
< Estimati
January 1 , 2002
Range in Lookup Table
Performance not evaluated
5 to 9 wells
100 to 500 gpm
2.00 -3.99 wks
2 processes
<25
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
id potential savings ($)
"Note:EsOmated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
15
RPM First Name: Russell
RPM Last Name: Hart
RPM phone: 312.886-4844
RPM (ax: 0.0%
RPM email: hatttussell@epa.gov
Namo of Site: Wash King Laundry
Site City: Pleasant Plains Township
Sitt State: Ml
Site Region: 5
Cost Item
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rale
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wells
Pumping rate
Down lima per year
n of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells • events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
PottieaUSocial (actors (minor changes)
Date of implementation:
Units Value
S/yr S75.000
yrs 19.3
% 5.00%
S $913,889
Units Answer
%
A-C A
# 5
gpm 250
wks 0
# 2
# .46
yrs 19.3
A-F B
1 Summation (%) ->
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
0
$913,889
- 23.0%
$210,195
- $25,000
$185,195
<-max of 30 yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0%
2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-2.5%
3.0%
23.0%
23.0%
January 1 . 2002
Range in Lookup Table
Performance not evaluated
5 to 9 wells
100 to 500 gpm
<2wks
2 processes
25.00 to 49.99 '
10.00 -19.99 yrs
little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
< Estimated potential savings ($)
"NotasEsBntatedpotential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
REGION 6 SCREENING CALCULATIONS
-------
RPM First Name: Slacey
RPM Last Name: Bennett
RPM phone: 214-665-6729
RPM fax: 214-665-6660
RPM email: bennett.stacey@epa.gov
Name of Silo: American Creosote Worics
Site City: Winnfieid
Site State: LA
Sits Region: 6
Cost Item
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount ra!a
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping weBs
Pumping raia
Down Brno per year
H Ot above-ground water treatment processes
6VV monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Pottol/Sodal factors (minor changes)
Date of implementation:
Units
Sfyr
yrs
%
S
Units
%
A-C
#
gpm
wks
#
#
yrs
A-F
Value
S360.000
25.1
5.00%
55,084,3*0
Answer
C
18
5.0
1
3
72
25.1
C
Summation (%) ->
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
-
--
$5,084,310
22.0%
S1, 11 8,548
$25,000
$1,093,548
<-max of 30 yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0%
-2.5%
2.5%
-5.0%
0.0%
2.5%
2.5%
0.0%
2.0%
22.0%
22.0%
January 1, 2002
Range in Lookup Table
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
10 or more wells
<10gprn
<2wks
3 processes
50.00 to 74.99
20 yrs or more v
little difficulty for minor changes, severe for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
< Estimated potential savings ($)
"Note:Est!mated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name: Katrina
RPM Last Name: Coltrain
RPM phone: 214-665-8143
RPM fax: 214-665-6660
RPM email: coltrain.katrina@epa.gov
Name of Site: Bayou Bonfouca
Site City: Slidell
Site State: LA
Site Region: 6
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wells
Pumping rate
Down time per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Political/Social factors (minor changes) '
Date of implementation:
Units
S/yr
yrs
%
$
Units
%
A-C
#
gpm
wks
#
#
yrs.
A-F
Value
$402,000
19.5
5.00%
$4,936,430
Answer
C
44
22.5
0
3
132
19.5
8
Summation {%) ->
Estimated potential savings (%)->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
-
-
$4,936,430
25.5%
$1,258,790
$25,000
$1,233,790
<-max of 30 yrs
Potential
20.0%
-2.5%
2.5%
-2.5%
0.0%
2.5%
5.0%
-2.5%
3.0%
25.5%
25.5%
' Estimate
January 1,2002
Range in Lookup Table
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%)
d potential savinas fSt
-Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
r
RPM First Name: Petra
RPM Last Name: Sanchez
RPM phone: 214-665-6686
RPM fax: 214-665-6660
RPM email: sanchez.petra@epa.gov
Name of Silo: Cimanon Mining
Site City: Carizozo
Site State: NM
Sito Region: 6
Cost Item
Annual OSM cost
Expected duration
Discount rale
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wens
Pumping rate
Down 6me per year
n of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number welis ' evenls-per-yr)
Expected system duration
PcWcaVSocial factors (minor changes)
Date of implementation:
Units Value
S/yr 31,000,000
yrs 30.0
% 5.00%
S $15,372,451
Units Answer
%
A-C B
if 3
gpm 1.0
wks 4
# 1
# 12
yrs . 30.0
A-F E
Summation (%) ->
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
$15,372,451
- 15.0%
$2,305,868
- $25,000
$2,280,868
<-maxof30yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0%
5.0%
-2.5%
-5.0%
5.0%
-2.5%
-2.5%
0.0%
-2.5%
15.0%
15.0%
January 1 , 2002
Range in Lookup Table
Performance evaluated and found insufficient
3 to 4 wells
<10 gpm
4 wks or more
0 or 1 processes
<25
20 yrs or more
moderate difficulty for minor changes, severe for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
< Estimated potential savings ($)
~Note;Estlm*ted potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name: Vincent
RPM Last Name: Malott
RPM phone: 214-665-8313
RPM fax: 214-665-6660
RPM email: malotLvincent@epa.gov
Name of Site: City of Perryton Well #2
Site City: Pern/ton
Site State: TX
Site Region: 6
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wells
Pumping rate
Down time per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Political/Social factors (minor changes)
Date of implementation:
Units Value
S/yr $37,000
yrs 21.6
% 5.00%
$ $481.977
%
A-C A
# 1
gpm 150.0
wks 0
# 1
# 20
yrs 21.6
A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
$481,977
- 17.5%
$84,346
- $25,000
<-max of 30 yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0%
2.5%
-5.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-2.5%
-2.5%
0.0%
5.0%
17.5%
17.5%
January 1,2002
Range in Lookup Table
Performance not evaluated
1 to 2 wells
100 to 500 gpm
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: Ruben
RPM Last Name: Moya
RPM phone: 214-665-2755
RPM fax: 214-665-6660
RPM email: moya.ruben@epa.gov
Name of Site: Geneva Industries
Site City: Houston
Sito State: TX
Sits Region: 6
Cost Item
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (Initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of Dumping wells
Pumping rate
Down Bme per year
tt of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wetts • events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Political/Social factors (minor changes)
Date of implementation:
Units
S/yr
yrs
%
S
Units
%
A-C
#
gpm
wks
#
#
yrs
A-F
Value
S240.000
2.0
5.00%
$446,259
Answer
C
13
5.0
52
2
26
2.0
B
Summation (%) ->
Estimated potential savings (%)->
Summary
Basel/no present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
-
-
$446,259
8.0%
$35,701
$25,000
$10,701
<-maxof30yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0%
-2.5%
2.5%
-5.0%
5.0%
0.0%
• 0.0%
-15.0%
3.0%
8.0%
8.0%
January 1,2002
Range in Lookup Table
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
10 or more wells
<10gpm
4 wks or more
2 processes
25.00 to 49.99
2.00-4.99yrs
little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
< Estimated potential savings ($)
"NottsEstlmated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name: . Carlos
RPM Last Name: Sanchez
RPM phone: 214-665-8507
RPM fax: 214-665-6660
RPM email: sanchez.carios@epa.gov '
Name of Site: Midland Products
Site City: Ola
Site State: AR
Site Region: 6
Cost Item
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wells
Pumping rate
Down time per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Political/Social factors (minor changes)
Date of implementation:
Units
S/yr
yrs '
%
$
Units
%
A-C
#
gpm
wks
#
#
yrs
A-F
Value
$180,000
30.0
5.00%
$2,76T,041
Answer
C
8 x
3.0
1
3
40
30.0
A
Summation (%) ->
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
-
-
$2,767,041
20.0%
$553,408
$25,000
<-max of 30 yrs .
Potential
20.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
-5.0%
0.0%
2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
5.0%
20.0%
20.0%
January 1,2002
V
Range in Lookup Table
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
5 to 9 wells
<10 gpm
<2 wks
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 Namo: Camilte Date of implementation: January 1 , 2002
RPM Last Name: Hueni
RPM phone: 214-665-2231
RPM fax: 214-655-6660
RPM email: hueni.camille@epa.gov
Kama of Site: North Cavalcade Superfund Site
Site City: Houston
Silo State: TX
Site Region: 6
Cost Item
Annual OSM cost
Expected duration
Discount rata
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (inibal estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wells
Pumping rate
Downtime per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (numberwells * evenls-per-yr)
Expected system duration
PoBtal/Social factors (minor changes)
Units
S/yr
yrs
%
S
Units
%
A-C
#
gpm
wks
#
# '
yrs
A-F
Value
SO
8.9
5.00%
Answer
A
19
19.0
52
3
0
8.9
A
<-maxof30yrs
$0
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0%
2.5%
2.5%
' -2.5%
5.0%
2.5%
-2.5%
-5.0%
5.0% .
Range in Lookup Table
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
Summary
Baselina present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Summation (%) -> 27.5%
Estimated potential savings (%) -> 27.5%
$0
- 27.5%
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$0
• $25,000
-$25,000
- Estimated potential savings ($)
"Note:Estimat(td potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name: Ernest
RPM Last Name: Franke
RPM phone: 214-665-8521
RPM fax: 214-665-6660
RPM email: franke.ernest@epamail.epa.gov
Name of Site: • Odessa Chromium #1
Site City: Odessa
Site State: TX
Site Region: 6
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wells
Pumping rate
Down time per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Political/Social factors (minor changes)
Units
S/yr
yrs
%
S
Units
%
A-C
#
gpm
wks
#
#
yrs
A-F
Date of implementation: January 1 , 2002
Value
$500,000
0.0
5.00%
$0
c
6
60.0
15
1
14
0.0
A
Summation (%) ->
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
-
-
$0
5.0%
$0
$25,000
<-max of 30 yrs '
Potential ~ :
Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table
20.0%
-2.5% Performance evaluated and found sufficient
0.0% 5 to 9 we||S
-2.5% 10 to 99.99 gpm
5.0% 4 wks or more
-2.5% 0 or 1 processes
-2.5% <25
-20.0% <2yrs
5.0% little difficulty for minor changes or major chanqes
0.0%
5.0% (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 small:
Vincent
Malolt
214-665-8313
214-665-6660
maloltvincenl@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1,2002
Name of Site:
Site City:
Site State:
Site Region:
Annual O4M cost
Expected duration
Discount tale
Sprague Road Ground Water Plume
Odessa
TX
6
Cost Item
Units
S/yr
yrs
%
Value
51,200,000
26.7
5.00%
<-max of 30 yrs
Baseline present value ->
$17,472,059
Optimization Factor
Units
Answer
Potential
Savings (%)
Range in Lookup Table
PolsnSal savings fmitial esOmale) % ' 20.0%
Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5%
Number of pumping wells # 22 2.5%
Pumping rale gpm 200.0 0.0%
Down Sme per year wks 0 0.0%
It of above-ground water treatment processes # 1 -2.5%
GW monitoring (number weHs • events-per-yr) # 200 5.0%
Expected system duration yrs 26.7 0.0%
PoRtasl'Sodal factors (minor changes) A-F A 5.0%
Summation (%) -> 32.5%
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential sav/ngs (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) -> 32.5%
$17,472,059
-32.5%
$5,678,419
. $25,000
$5,653,419
Performance not evaluated
10 or more wells
100 to 500 gpm
<2wks
0 or 1 processes
75 or more
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
- Estimated potential savings ($)
"Note&tlmatcd potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
REGION 7 SCREENING CALCULATIONS
-------
RPM First Name: Bob
RPM Last Name: Slewart
RPM phone: 913-551-7654
RPM fax: 913-551-9654
RPM (mall: slewaitrobert@epa.gov
Name of Site: Ace Services
Site City: Colby
Site State: KS
Sita Region: 7
Cost Item
Annual OSM cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Baseline present value •>
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping weds
Pumping rale
Downtime per year
It of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wetls * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
PoStkalfSocial factors (minor changes)
Date of implementation:
Units Value
S/yr $500,000
yrs 13.7
% 5.00%
S $4,868.337
Units Answer
%
A-C A
# 12
gpm 800
wks 0
# 1
# 124
yrs 13.7
A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
$4,868,337
- 32.5%
$1,582,210
- $25,000
<-max of 30 yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
0.0%
-2.5%
5.0%
-2.5%
5.0%
32.5%
32.5%
January 1,2002
Range in Lookup Table
Performance not evaluated
10 or more wells
>5"00 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%)
$1,557,210
- Estimated potential savings ($)
"NoteiEstimatest potential savings do not include costs associated with implemen ling actual system modifications
-------
SoIU f'rstName: Ma(y Date of implementation: ' January 1 2002
RPM Last Name: Peterson
RPM phone: 913-551-7882
RPM fax: 913-551-7063
RPM email: peterson.mary@epa.gov.
Name of Site: Clebum Street Well Site/OU2
Site City: Grand Island ,
Site State: NE
Site Region: 7
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wells
Pumping rate
Down time per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Political/Social factors (minor changes)
-
Units Value
S/yr $100,000
yrs 17.9
% 5.00%
S $1,165,954
%
A-C A
# 3
gpm 90
wks 1
# 1
# 32
yrs 17.9
A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
$1,165,954
- 17.5%
$204,042
- $25,000
<-maxof30yrs
Potential ~
Savings (%) Range n Lookup Table
20.0%
2.5% Performance not evaluated
-2-5% 3 to 4 wells
-2-5% 10 to 99.99 gpm
0.0% <2wks
•2-5% 0 or 1 processes
0-0% 25.00 to 49.99
-2^% 10.00 -19.99 yrs
5-0% little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
17.5/O
17.5% (must be between 5% and 40%)
$179,042
- Estimated potential savings ($)
-------
RPM First Name: Steve
RPM Last Name: Auchterlonle
RPM phone: 913-551-7778
RPM fax: 913-551-7437
RPM email: auchtertonie.steve@epa.gov
Name of Site: Valley Park TCE Site - OU2
Sit* City: Valley Park
Site State: MO
Site Region: 7
Cost Item
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wels
Pumping rate
Down time per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
PoKteal/Sociiil factors (minor changes)
Units
S/yr
yrs
%
S
Units
%
A-C
if
gpm
wks
#
#
yrs
A-F
Date of implementation: January 1 , 2002
Value
SO
14.0
5.00%
SO
Answer
A
0
0
0
1
0
14.0
A
Summation (%) ->
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
Summary
Basettna present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
$0
- 15.0%
$0
- $25,000
-$25,000
<-max of 30 yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0%
2.5%
0.0%
-5.0%
0.0%
-2.5%
-2.5%
-2.5%
5.0%
15.0%
15.0%
Range in Lookup Table
Performance not evaluated
no wells (e.g., drains, etc.)
<10gpm
<2wks
0 or 1 processes
<25
10.00 -19.99 yrs
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
< Estimated potential savings ($)
•"WoteiEstfrnafcd1 potential savings do not Include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
r
REGION 9 SCREENING CALCULATIONS
-------
RPM First Mama: DavkJ
RPM Last Name: Seter
RPM phone: 415-744-2212
RPM fax: 111-111-1111
RPM email: scter.davfd@epa.gov
Name of Site: Modesto Superfund Site
Site City: Modesto
Silo State: CA
Site Region: 9
Cost Item
Annual OSM cost
Expected duration
Disroont rote
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Perfbimance evaluation?
Number of pumping weds
Pumping rate
Down Erne per year
£ of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number welts * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Pot Seal/Social factors (minor changes)
Date of implementation:
Units Value
S/yr S300.000
yrs 20.3
% 5.00%
S $3,776,134
Units Answer
%
A-C A
# 1
gpm 50
wks 0
# 2
$ 40
yrs 20.3
A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
$3,776,134
- 20.0%
$755,227
- $25,000
$730,227
<-max of 30 yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0%
2.5%
-5.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
5.0%
20.0%
20.0%
January 1 , 2002
-
Performance not evaluated
1 to 2 wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
<2wks
2 processes
25.00 to 49.99
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
< Estimated potential savings ($)
"NottiEstimatcdpotential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
_
-------
RPM First Name: Kim
RPM Last Name: Hoang
RPM phone: 415-744-2370
RPM fax: 999-999-9999
RPM email: hoang.kim@epa.gov
Name of Site: Muscoy
Site City: San Bemadino
Site State: CA
Site Region: 9
Cost Item
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wells
Pumping rate
Down time per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (numberwells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Political/Social factors (minor changes)
Date of implementation: January 1 , 2002
Units
S/yr
yrs
%
. S
Units
%
A-C
#
gpm
wks
#
#
yrs
A-F
Value
$1, 100,000
22.8
5.00%
$14,754,617
Answer
A
5
9000
0
1
60
22.8
C
Summation (%) ->
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
• -
-
$14,754,617
27.0%
$3,983,747
$25,000
<-max of 30 yrs
Potential ~~"
Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table
20.0%
2.5% Performance not evaluated
0.0% 5 to 9 wells
2.5% >soo gpm
0.0% <2 wks
-2.5% 0 or 1 processes
2.5% 50.00 to 74.99
0.0% 20 yrs or more
2.0% little difficulty for minor changes, severe for major changes
27.0%
27.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)
$3,958,747
Estimated potential savings ($)
"Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name: Kim
RPM Last Name: Hoang
RPM phone: 415-744-2370
RPM fax: 999-999-9999
RPM email: hoang.ltim@epa.gov
Name of Site: Newmarfc
Silo City: San Bemadino
Sits Stale: CA
Site Region: 9
Cost Item
Annual OSM cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Base/me present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping weBs
Pumping rate
Down 8ma per year
tf ot above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
PcSucal/Social factors (minor changes)
Date of implementation:
Units Value
S/yr 5900,000
yrs 26.8
% 5.00%
S $13,123,638
Units Answer
%
A-C A
# 8
gpm 120'00
wks 0
# 1
# 30
yrs 26.8
A-F B
Summation (%) ->
• Estimated potential savings (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
$13,123,638
- 25.5%
$3,346,528
- $25,000
$3,321,528
<-max of 30 yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0%
2.5%
0.0% •
2.5%
0.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
3.0%
25.5%
25.5%
January 1 , 2002
Range in Lookup Table
Performance not evaluated
5 to 9 wells
>500 gpm
<2wks
0 or 1 processes
25.00 to 49.99
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
< Estimated potential savings ($)
"Not&Estimatod potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name: Michelle
RPM Last Name: Lau
RPM phone: 415-744-2227
RPM fax: 415-744-2180
RPM email: lau.michelle@epa.gov
Name of Site: Selma Treating Co.
Site City: Selma
Site State: CA
Site Region: • 9
Cost Item
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wells
Pumping rate
Down time per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Political/Social factors (minor changes)
Date of implementation: ,
Units
S/yr
yrs
%
$
Units
%
A-C
#
gpm
wks
#
#'
yrs
A-F
Value
$300,000
6.8
5.00%
$1,684,303
C
6
150
0
1
80
6.8
C
Summation (%) ->
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
-
-
$1,684,303
17.0%
$286,332
$25,000
<-max of 30 yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0% '
-2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-2.5%
5.0%
-5.0%
2.0%
17.0%
17.0%
January 1,2002
Range in Lookup Table
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: Debra Date of implementation:
RPM Last Namo: Yamamoto
RPM phono: 206-553-7216
RPM fax: 206-553-0124
RPM email: yamamolo.debbie@epa.gov
Namo of Sile: Boomsnub/Airco / Site-Wide Ground Water OU
Sit* City: Hazel Dell
Silo state: WA
Site Region: 10
Annual OSM cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (Mai estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping weds
Pumping rats
Down lime per year
*o( above-ground water treatment processes
OW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Postal/Social factors (minor changes)
Units
S/yr
yrs
%
S
Units
%
A-C
#
gpm
wks
#
£
yrs
A-F
Value
S1.000.000
28.8
5.00%
$15.085,551
C
22
135
3
3
160
28.8
E
Summation (%) ->
<-maxof30yrs
Savings {%)
20.0%
-2.5%
2.5%
0.0%
2.5%
2.5%
5.0%
0.0%
-2.5%
27.5%
January 1,2002
Range in Lookup Table
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
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) •
$15,085,551
- 27.5%
27.5%
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$4,148,527
-$25,000
$4,123,527
- Estimated potential savings ($)
"NotKEstimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
_
-------
RPM First Name: Carmella
RPM Last Name: Grandinetti
RPM phone: 206-553-8696
RPM fax: ' 206-553-0124
RPM email: grandinetti.cami@epa.gov
Name of Site: Bunker Hill Superfund Site
Site City: Kellogg
Site State: ID
Site Region: 10
Cost Item
Annual O&M cost
Expected duration
Discount rate
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wells
Pumping rate
Down time per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Political/Social factors (minor changes)
Date of implementation:
Units Value
, S/yr SO
yrs .30.0
% 5.00%
$ SO
Units Answer
%
A-C A
# 0
gpm 0
wks 0
# 1
# 232
yrs 30.0
A-F A
Summation (%) ->
Estimated potential savings <%) •>
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
$0
- 25.0%
$0
- $25,000
-$25,000
<-max of 30 yrs
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0%
2.5%
0.0%
• -5.0%
0.0%
-2.5%
5.0%
0.0%
5.0%
25.0%
25.0%
January 1,2002
Range in Lookup Table
Performance not evaluated
no wells (e.g., drains, etc.)
<10'gpm
<2 wks
0 or 1 processes
75 or more
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
< Estimated potential savings ($)
**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
-------
RPM First Name: Kevin
RPM Last Name: Rochlin
RPM phone: 206-553-2106
RPM fax: 206-5530124
RPM email: rochlin.kevin@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1,2002
Name of Site: Commencement Bay, South Tacoma Channel, Well 12A
Stto City: Tacoma
Site State: WA
Site Region: 10
Cost Item
Annual OSM cost
Expected duration
Discount rale
Baseline present value ->
Optimization Factor
Poten&l savings EMBal estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wens
Pumping rata
Down time per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW mentoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
PooticafSociol factors (minor changes)
Units Value
S/yr 3300,000
yrs 9.0
% 5.00%
S $2,133,380
Units Answer
%
A-C B
# 5
gpm 150
wks 3
# 1
# 40
yrs 9.0
A-F B
Summation (%) ->
Estimated potential savings (%) ->
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
$2,133,380
- 23.0%
$490,677
- $25,000
<-max of 30 yrs
Potential
20.0%
5.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.5%
-2.5%
0.0%
-5.0%
3.0%
23.0%
23.0%
Range in Lookup Table
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%)
$465,677
- Estimated potential savings ($)
"NotasEsUmated 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
S/yr
yrs
Value
S250.000
. 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?
Number of pumping wells
Pumping rate
Down time per year
# of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
Political/Social factors (minor changes)
Summary
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
$1,152,934
- $25,000
$1,127,934
20.0%
A-C
#
gpm
wks
#
#
yrs
A-F
C
6
3
5
4
50
30.0
A
Summation (%) ->
-2.5%
0.0%
-5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
2.5%
0.0%
5.0%
30.0%
Estimated potential savings (%) -> 30.0%
$3,843,113
- 30.0%
Performance evaluated and found sufficient
5 to 9 wells
<10 gpm
4 wks or more
4 or more processes
50.00 to 74.99
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes or major changes
(must be between 5% and 40%)
- Estimated potential savings ($)
"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
205-553-0124
goldJianh@epa.gov
Date of implementation:
January 1,2002
Name of Site: WyckofBEagte Harbor Superfund Site
Silo City: Bainbridge Island
Site State: WA
Silo Region: 10
AlYKOl OS.M COCl
Expected duration
Discount rate
Baseline present value ->
Styr
yrs
Value
5500,000
30.0
5.00%
57,686,226
<-maxof 30 yrs
Optimization Factor
Potential savings (initial estimate)
Performance evaluation?
Number of pumping wels
Pumping rate
Down Sma per year
If of above-ground water treatment processes
GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)
Expected system duration
PcfrJcarSocto! factors (minor changes)
Units
%
A-C
#
gpm
wks
£
*
. yrs
A-F
Answer
B
8
80
0
3
20
30.0
B
Summation (%) ->
Potential
Savings (%)
20.0%
5.0%
0.0%
-2.5%
0.0%
2.5%
-2.5%
0.0%
3.0%
25.5%
Range in Lookup Table
Performance evaluated and found insufficient
5 to 9 wells
10 to 99.99 gpm
<2 wks
3 processes
<25
20 yrs or more
little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes
Baseline present value:
Estimated potential savings (%):
Subtotal
Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3):
Estimated potential savings (%) -> 25.5%
$7,686,226
- 25.5%
(must be between 5% and 40%)
$1,959,988
- $25.000
$1,934,988
- Estimated potential savings ($)
"Nato:Esti'mated potential savings do not Include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications
------- |