United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of •
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R09-89/042
September 1989
PA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Nineteenth Avenue Landfill, AZ
-------
50272.101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 11. REPORTNO.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R09-89/042
I ~
3. RecIpient's AcceuIon No.
4. TiUe and SubtiUe
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Nineteenth Avenue Landfill, AZ
First Remedial Action - Final
50 Report Da"
09/29/89
s.
,. Au1hor(s)
S. Performing OrgmlzaUon Rept. No.
9. Performing OrgalnlzaUon Nan8 and Add-
10. ProjectlTuklWork Unit No.
11. Contract(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
..
1 ~ Sponaorlng Org8l1lz8llon N8In8 and AddrM8
U.S. Environmental Protection
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460-
13. Type of Report . PerIod Covered
Agency
800/000
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abetrsct (Umlt: 200 words)
The 213-a~re Nineteenth Avenue Landfill is in an industrial area of Maricopa County,
Phoenix, Arizona. The landfill is divided by the Salt River channel into two sections or
cells. A 200-acre section, Cell A, lies north of the channel and' a 13-acre section, Cell
A-I, lies south of the channel. State permitted landfill operations were conducted from
1957 to 1979 during which time approximately nine million cubic yards of municipal
~fuse, solid and liquid industrial wastes, and some medical wastes and materials
Jntaining low levels of radioactivity were deposited in the landfill. Sampling of the
landfill contents has revealed no concentrated sources of contamination, however, the
State ordered the landfill closed in 1979 .due to the periodic inundation of the landfill
by flood waters from the Salt River Channel. Subsequently, the city covered the site
with fill, stockpiled soil for final capping, installed ground water monitoring wells,
built berms around the landfill, and installed a methane gas collection system. This
remedial action is designed to mitigate threats resulting from flooding of the landfill,
which has occurred intermittently since 1965. The primary contaminants of concern in the
soil/refuse include VOCs such as toluene and xylenes. There is little risk to public
health from ground water pathways because ground water contaminants are of small
magnitude, and only limited migration has occurred off the site. (Continued on next page)
17. Document Analysis L Descriptors
Record of Decision - Nineteenth Avenue Landfill, AZ
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: soil/refuse
Key Contaminants: VOCs (toluene, xylenes)
b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
c. COSA 11 Reid/Group
t88i, Availsbility Statement
18. SecurIty Cls88 (This Report)
None
20. SecurIty Cis.. (ThIs Page)
NnnA
21. No. of Pages
600
I
22. Price
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
See /fIIJ/nICIJOfIIJ on ReIf8f8f1 .
272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTlS-35)
DeP8f1mllnt o. Commerce
-------
DO NOT PRINT THESE INSTRUCTIONS AS A PAGE IN A REPORT
INSTRUCTIONS
Optional Form 272, Report Documentation Page Is based on Guidelines for Format and Production of Scientific and Technical Reports,
ANSI Z39.18-1974 available from American National Standards Institute, 1430 Broadway, New York, New York 10018. Each separately
bound report-for example, each volume In a multivolume set-shall have Its unique Report Documentation Page.
1. Report Number. Each Individually bound report shall carrY a unique alphanumeric designation assigned by the performing orga-
nization or provided by the sponsoring organization In accordance with American National Standard ANSI Z39.23-1974, Technical
Report Number (STRN). For registration of report code, contact NTIS Report Number Clearinghouse, Springfield, VA 22161. Use
uppercase letters, Arabic numerals, slashes, and hyphens only, as In the following examples: FASEBINS--75/87 tad FAA!
RD-75/09.
2.
3.
Leave blank.
Recipient's Accession Number. Reserved for use by each report recipient.
4. Title and Subtitle. Title should Indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, subordinate subtitle to t~e main
title. When a report Is prepared In more than one volume, repeat the primary title, add volume number and Include s:.'btltle for
the specific volume.
5. Report Date. Each report shall carry a date Indicating at least month and year. Indicate the basis on which It was selec'...d (e.g.,
date of issue, date of approval, date of preparation, date published).
6. Sponsoring Agency Code. Leave blank.
7. Author(s). Give name(s) In conventional order (e.g., John R. Doe, or J. Robert Doe). List author's affiliation If It differs from
the performing organization.
8. Performing organization Report Number. Insert If performing organlzaton wishes to assign this number.
.9. Performing Organization Name and Mailing Address. Give name, street, city, state, and ZIP code. Ust no more than two levels c.f
an organizational hlerachy. Display the name of the organization exactly as It should appear In Government Indexes such as
Government Reports Announcements & Index (GRA & I).
10. ProjectlTaskIWork Unit Number. Use the project, task and work unit numbers under which the report was prepared.
11. Contract/Grant Number. Insert contract or grant number under which report was prepared.
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Mailing Address. Include ZIP code. Cite main sponsors.
13. Type of Report and Period Covered. State Interim, final, etc., and, If applicable, Inclusive dates.
14. Performing Organization Code. Leave blank.
15. Supplementary Notes. Enter Information not Included elsewhere but useful, such as: Prepared in cooperation with. . . Translation
of . . . Presented at conference of . . . To be published In . .. When a report Is revised, Include a statement whether the new
report supersedes or supplements the older report.
16. Abstract. Include a brief (200 words or less) factual summary of the most significant Information contained In the report. If the
report contains a significant bibliography or literature survey, mention It here.
17. Document Analysis. (a). Descriptors. Select from the Theseurusof Engineering and Scientific Terms the proper authorized terms
that Identify the major concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise to be used as Index entries for cataloging.
(b). Idenmlers and Open-Ended Terms. Use Identifiers for project names, code names. equipment designators, etc. Use open-
ended terms written In descriptor form for those subjects for which no descriptor exists.
(c). COSATI Field/Group. Field and Group asslgnments.are to be taken form the 1964 COSATI Subject Category Ust. Since the
majority of documents are multidisciplinary In nature, the primary Field/Group asslgnment(s) will be the specific discipline,
area of human endeavor, or type of physical object. The appllcatlon(s) will be cross-referenced with secondary Field/Group
assignments that will follow the primary posting(s).
18. Distribution Statement. Denote public releasability, for example "Release unlimited", or limitation for reasons other than
security. Cite any availability to the public, with address, order number and price, If known.
19. & 20. Security Classification. Enter U.S. Security Classification in accordance with U. S. Security Regulations (i.e., UNCLASSIFIED).
21. Number of pages. Insert the total number of pages, Including introductory pages, but excluding distribution list, if any.
22.
Price. Enter price in paper copy (PC) and/or microfiche (MF) If known.
GPO. 1983 0 - 381-526 (8393)
OPTIONAL FORM 272 BACK
(4-77)
-------
16.
Abstract
(Continued)
Nineteenth Avenue Landfill, AZ
First Remedial Action - Final
de selected remedial action for this site includes containing landfill wastes onsite by
constructing an impermeable cap and surface drainage structures over the ,landfill, as
well as soil-cement levees along the river at the landfill boundary; widening the river
channel; collecting and flaring landfill generated gases; institutional controls and
access restrictions; and air and ground water monitoring. A contingency ground water
treatment plan will be implemented whenever ground water standards are exceeded at the
landfill boundary. The estimated present worth cost for this remedial action is
$42,990,000, which includes an annual O&M cost of $1,010,000 for 30 years.
"\
.'
~
/'
-------
,i1>~'.
IS'
~tJ'
.-
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX
215 Fremont Street
San Frllncisco. Ca. 94105
September 25, 1989
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Il.~tve. Remedial
FROM: M~ Black
TO: Gail B. Cooper
Action Plan
The state of Arizona has approved a Remedial Action Plan
(RAP) for the cleanup of the 19th Avenue landfill located in
Phoenix, Arizona. The 19th Avenue landfill is a state-lead site
which is on the NPL.
The RAP for the site provides for containment of the
landfill wastes on-site with the collection and flarinq of
landfill qenerated qases. It also calls for air and qround water
monitorinq and a stand-by qround water treatment plan which will
be implemented whenever qro~d ~Qter quality standards are ex-
ceeded ~~ ~£a landfill boundary. Containment of the landfill
wastes will be achieved by construction of a compacted clay~soil
cap with surface drainage structures channelinq precipitation off
the cap. The remedv is ~----';.bed in qreater detail in the Letter
of Determination and RAP ~"'epared by the Arizona Depa~ei1t: of
Environ~ent~: Quality (ADEQ).
. EPA has consulted with the State in the preparation of the
RAP. I have reviewed and concurred on the EPA Record of Decision
declaration which states that the RAP meets therequirments of a
ROD under CERCLA.
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
DECLARA TION
Site Nameaad Locadoa:
Nineteenth Avenue Landfill
Phoenix. Arizona
Statemeat of Basis aad ParDose:
This document serves as the EPA selection of remedy for the Nineteellth Avenue
Landfill site in Phoenix. Arizona. The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ) has also approved this remedial action in conformance with: the Arizona Ad-
ministrative Code (A.A.C.) R18-7-108, Remedial Action Plan (RAP); Arizona Revised
Statute (A.R.s.) 49-282. Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund (WQARF); the Com-
prehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA),
as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA); the
National Contingency Plan (NCP), to the extent practicable; and relevant state and federal
requirements. This decision document explains the factual and legal basis for selecting the
remedy for this site.
The EPA remedy selection is based upon ADEQ's Letter of Determination, the
Remedial Action Plan. the Remedial Investigation, the Feasibility Study, the. Responsive-
ness Summary. and the Administrative Record. The information supporting this decision is
contained in the Administrative Record for this site. The attach~d index lists the items
comprising the administrative reco:d.. .
Assessmeat of the Site:
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous sUt)stances from this site, if not addressed
by implewc:nung the respon!!e action s~:ected in this Record of Decision, may present an
imminent and substantial entf"::lgerment to pubhc health, welfare, or the environment.
Desc:riatioa of the Selected Remedy:
This is a final remedy for the Nineteenth Avenue Landfill site. The final remedy
provides for containment of the landfill wastes on-site with the collection and flaring of
landfill generated sases. Landfill gases that arc generated shall be managed by separate
gas collection and flare systems which will operate independently in each cell of the
landfill. Air and ground water monitoring shall be performed at the site, and a stand-by
ground water treatment plan shall be implemented whenever groundwater quality stan-
dards are exceeded at the landfill boundary. . .
The containment of the landfill wastes and prevention of the infiltration of precipi.ta-
tion or a'DY liquids shall be achieved by construction of a compacted clay-soil cap with sur-
face drainage structures channeling precipitation off the cap. Construction of soil-cement
levees along the landfill cells t~at border the Salt River shall prevent erosion and over-
topping from the Salt River, while placement of a subsurface pipe with backfill will
prevent erosional undercutting along the east boundary of the landfill. ADEQ's Letter of
Determina~ion and the Remedial Action Plan describes the approved remedy in greater
detail.
-------
.-
-2-
Declaration of Statutorv Determinations:
The EPA final remedy selection for the Nineteenth Avenue Landfill site will be
protective of human health and the environment, is cost effective: and attains federal and
state requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate (ARARs). This alterna-
tive uses permanent solutions and alternate treatment technologies to the .maximum extent
practicable for this site. However, because treatment of the principal threat posed by the
landfill was not found to be practicable, this remedy does not fully satisfy the statutory
preference for treatment as a principal element of the remedy. The collection and flaring
of gas, and implementation of a ground water treatment plan are significant components
of the remedy; however, the size of the landfill and volume of landfill waste preClude a
remedy in which contaminants effectively could be excavated and treated.
As this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining on-site above health
based levels, a review will be conducted by EPA each five years after commencement of
remedial action to ensure the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human
health and the environment. If this selected remedial action does not meet the goals and
cleanup objectives identified in the remedy, or is not sufficiently protective of human
health and the environment, then EPA may, under the authorities of CERCLA, require
additional response action.
9.Zt:f. f!.'1
~ .
W~
I" Da. W. McGovern
-fo/ Reszional Administrator
Date.
-------
- - -~ ~.
~'- ~~
.-'
. ..II:
. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIT"{
ROSE MOFFORD. GOVERNOR.
RANDOLPH WOOD. DIRECTOR
Letter or Dete~nation
ror
City ot Phoeni~. 19tb.Avenue Landtill
September
RPU;371
CERTIFIED MAIL
Return Receipt Requested
, 19~9
Mr. George Britton
Environmental Services Manager
Clty or Phoenix
~,1 W. Washington Street.
Phoenix, Arizona ~5003
Vear Mr. Britton:
HE:
Approval ot Remedial Action Plan ror Ci ty or Phoeni~ 19th
Avenue Landt1ll. dated June 12. 19~9.
The Final Urart Remedial Action plan for the above rer~~~nced sitp
has been reviewed for conformance with the Arizona Administrative
Code (A.A. C.) Rl~-7-l0~ Remedial Action Plan (RAP), Ar:!.::':'1us Revised
Statute (A.R.S.) ~~9-2.~2 Water PI1~:lty Assurance Revolvlng Fund
(WQAF~), the ComprehEn~lve Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 19~O (CERCLA), the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act or 19~b (SARA), and other pertinent ~tate and
federal requlrements.
The Flnal Uraft Remedlal Action Plan for the 19th Avenue Land!'lll,
dated June l~, ,19~9, has been approved along with the proposed
Preferred Alternative A which includes a Groundwater Contingency
Plan. This proposal was compared with alternatives B, C, V, and a
No Action Alternat.ive. Alternatives A, B, C, and D were evaluated
using. the same criteria (Attachment I). This decision is
consistent with the recommendations made by the Office of Health
Assessment Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSUR)
or the U.S. Public Health Service in their assessment or the 19th
Avenue Landfill, dated April l~, 19~9.
The following provides a brier historical summary or the site.
rh. D.pan_II' of EII..irOfllfWlIlai QlMlli,y iI Nt EqlllJl 0pp""lUIily Itfji'mali... Itf:,ioll EmploY."
Central Palm Pla7.a Building
200S Nonb Cenual Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
-------
September. , 19~9
George Britton
Page 2
Location
The 19th Avenue Landfill is located in an industrial area 01'
Maricopa County within the municipal boundaries of Phoenix,
Arizona. The landfill is 213 acres 1n size. The major part of
the landfill, which covers approximately 200 acres and is referred
to as Cell A, is located on the north side of the Salt River
channel. This cell is bounded on the north by Lower Buckeye Road,
on the east by the 15th Avenue storm drain outfall channel, on the
west by 19th Avenue, and on the south by the river channel. The
remainder of the landfill, Cell A-l, covers approximately 13 acres
and is located on the south side of the Salt River channel. Cell
A-l is bounded on the north by the Salt River channel, on the east
by an active sand and gravel pit, on the south by industrial
property, .and on the west by an inactive sand and gravel pit.
History or Landrill
In 1955, the 19th Avenue Landfill site was relatively undisturbed
except for a shallow 20-acre excavation in the northweste~" ~O~~~~~
of Cell A. In 1957, the Ci~y of Phoenix extended an existing lease
with the landowner to operate a municipal landfill. The landowner
brought in another party to start sand and gravel mining at the
site to create the space needed for the landr111.
. Th~ mining and' landfill operations began around 195'{ Sand ar.ct
gravel ~~~d were eA~avated to a depth or approximately 30 to 35
feet, although some pits were excavated as deep.as 50 feet below
land surface. The pits were then backfilled with municipal refuse
from the Phoenix area. SoliC1 and liquid industrial wastes were
also depositeC1. Liquid wastes, including industrial wastes, were
poured into unlined pits dug into areas of Cell A previously filleC1
with refuse. In addition to the municipal and industrial wastes,
some medical wastes and materials containing low levels of
radioactivity were also deposited. It has.been estimated that the
landfill contains approximately nine million cubic yards of refuse.
The refuse was generally covered on a daily basis. A final soil
cap was placed over an area once it was full of waste.
Parts of the landfill were covered with water by at least one flood
event during 19b5 and 1ntermi ttently during the 19'( as. LiquiC1
waste disposal pits had been breached at least once. Surface water
runoff events in May, 19'(~, \'lashed refuse from the southwest part
of Cell A and the northern third of Cell A-l.
-------
September. J 19~9
George Britton
Page 3
The landfill was closed by a ceased and desist order issued by the
. Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) in February, 19'{9.
The City of Phoenix and ADHS entered into a consent agreement in
June, 1979. The consent order was amended, in Uecember, 19'(9. '1'0
comply with the first amended consent order, the City covered the
site with fill, stockpiled soil for final capping, installea
groundwater monitor wells, built berms around the boundary oi' the
landfill, and installed a methane gas collection system.
The landfill was placed on the Environmental Protection Agency's.
(EPA) National Priori ties List in September J 19~3. A Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) was voluntary conducted by
the City. It was completed in 19~~. The RI/FS was prepared in
accordance with the requirements of CERCLA and SARA. In addition
to the RI/FS, other tasks and studies were completed for the site.
These reports are listed in the index to .the Administrative Record
for 19th Avenue Landfill (Attachment 2).
In 19~~, the EPA delegated the lead oversite responsibility for
the site to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ).
Since ADEQ became the lead agency J the City of Phoenix .was then
required to prepared a remedial action plan (RAP) under the state
WQAl~ rules. The draft HAP was completed in June, 19~9J and was
determined to be ready for public review and comment.
Community Relations
A public comment pertod. was held on the 19th Avenue Landfill Draft
HAP from June 29, 19~9, through August 11, 19~9, by the ADEQ and
EPA. In addition, a pubic meeting was held on July 20, 19~9, to
present the RAP and to obtain additional public input. All
comments received during this period have been documented in the
Responsiveness ,Summary for the 19th Avenue Landfill. Both ADEQ
and EPA responded to public comments and questions which pertained
to the investigation and proposed RAP for the Land!'ill (Attachment
III ) . .
Purpose ot the Remedial Action Plan
The 19th Avenue Landfill RAP is required under state WQAr~ rules
since the lead oversight has been delegated to ADEQ. The RAP'~
purpose is to propose a remedy for the landfill which 1s subject
. to public review, agency revie\~, and agency approval prior to
implementation. .
-------
September , '19~9
George Britton
Page 4, 19~9
The RAP includes a summary of the results of the RIfFS. 1'h1s
includes a brief description of the impact that the 19th Avenue
Landfill has had on the environment. The RAP also describes five
different alternative remedies.
Alternative Selected
The Remedial Action Plan serves to document the selection of
Alternative A as the preferred remedy for 19th Avenue Landfill.
Alternative A consists of the following components: .
levees would be placed along both the north and
south banks or the Salt River at the lanarill s~te
to provide for flood protection;
o
o
the river channel would be widened;
o
a soil cap would be placed over the landfill so that
rain water does not seep into the landfill material;
a secure fence would be erected around the landfill
boundary;
o
o
ambient air quality, methane gas~ ~"~ :--~ndwater
would be monitored;
o
a contingency plan would be implemented should
groundwater quality standards be exceeded at the
landfill boundary; and,
methane gas would be collec ted and treated in a
manner that eliminates any risk of explosion.
o
Evaluation Criteria
The Remedial Action Plan describes the selected alternative as the-
Preferred Alternative A. . Alternative A is a remedy designed to
provide:
'0
Overall protection of human health and the
environment. The remedy will stabilize the landfill
ana monitor 1'or contaminants. Groundwater will be
remediated when standards are exceeded at the
land1'ill boundary.
-------
September., 19t19
George Britton
Page 5
o
Compliance with applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs) and substantive
requirements of any future permits if required.
Long-term effectiveness and performance... The remedy
will maintain reliable protection of human health
and the environment over time and will mitigate any.
potential releases of contaminants to the
groundwater.
o
o
Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume by
stabilizing the landfill and remediating groundwater
contamination at the landfill boundary.
o
Implementability. Alternative A is technically and
administratively feasible.
Cost. The estimated cost for Alternative A is
estimated to be ij2,990,000 over the next 30 years.
o
o
Community comment. ADEQ has evaluated every public
comment submitted concerning 19th Avenue Landfill
(see A ttachinen tIll) . Portions of the community
did.not feel that Alternative A went far enough in
remediating the Landfill. Others commented that
Alterna ti ve A is in excess "'f what is r:::.:ded for
remediation.
In summary, ADEQ believes that Alternative A will provide the best
remedy among the proposed alternatives with respect to criteria
used to evaluate remedies. Therefore based on the information
available at the time, the State of Arizona believes that
Alternative A .would be protective of human health and the
environment, would meet applicable State and local regulations, and
would be cost effective. This alternative satisfies the preference
for reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume as a. principal
element. All substantive permit requirements will be met during
the implementation of this remedial action. It is determined that
the remedy for this landfill will use permanent solw~ions and
alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent
practicable.
Outstanding issues pertaining to this remedy will be more clearly
defined and addressed during the Consent Order negotiations. One
-------
September . ~ 19ti9
George Britton
Page 6
item on the list of issues is recovery of past and future oversite
costs.
Thank you for your cooperation. If yo~ should have any questions
regarding this decision letter~ please contact Mr. Dan Marsin at
. (b02) 256-233ti.
Sincerely,
Norm Weiss
Assistant Director
Attachments
LGE:lge
cc:
Gerald Cllfford~ Environmental Protection Agency
Doug Toy~ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
-------
General Response
Action
No Action Response
No action
Monitoring
Regulation
ATTACHMENT 1*
THE NO ACTION ALTERNAT,IVE
Tecbnoloav
None
Monitoring river
erosion
Monitor storm
drain outfall
erosion
Regulate sand
and gravel mining
ProCf II:
None
Slope indicators,
inspection
Visual inspection
Regulate sand
and gra'el mtning
ScreeninG Co..ents
Does not meet objective
Not feasible alone.
Consent order requires
action.
Not feasible alone.
Consent order r~quires
action.
Potentially applicable
.
*Modified from the Final Draft remedial Action Plan for 19th Avenue Landfill, Dated June
12, 1989.
-------
trlterl.
AIt....tl". A
Effect Iwneu
'rotectlWlW8.
Short-t..
'I,"I'Icent public he.lth
end the In¥Ir~t.I rl.k.
ell.lnated et C.II A and A-'
for re'., ....haut, .ur'ace
..ter, end ,rClU1llw8t.r
,Itnl'Icent o,,-.Ite
8CCUIUI.tl Ion 0' ,..
ell.lnated. an-.lte rl.k
'OIl
,.tl.'I.. objective
CCIIIIIU'Iity protected cbl".
conetructl on
Warkerl protected cbl".
conetructl on
'rotectlon achl.ved e'ter
construction (1 ye.r)
l-. 'eN
IlIp8Cted 30-ye.r protection
future expoaur.. pr.vented
.erlodlc ".pectlon required
"'Intenence required for ...
lyet-
E , A l U A , 10.
Of
A l , E . . A , I , t s
. ."ernet I". I!
'I""lflcent ,.tlc he. I th
... the 1n¥1..~t.1 r,.b
ell.lnated .t Cell A an A-'
'or re'.e .. ..hout, aur ec:.
..ter, end,l0undw8ter
'lsnl'Icent ",-.Ite
IeCUIUlatlon.of ,..
ell.lnated. 'an-.lte rlr 'c
1-
,
'atl.fl.. obJective
COMMUnItyat,addltionsl
rl.t 'r. tr...portl".
re'.e leroat the river
end on fdtl It r08d8
Yorker. protfCted cb'",
construction
'rotectlon achfeved ,'ter
construction (1 ye.r)
Ixpected 30-ye.r protect on.
'eMl8fttl'lt protection .t
cen A-' .lte
future ellp08ur.. prevent d
'erlodlc Irwpectlon required
".Intenence required for ,..
.pt-
Alternative C
'Ienlflcent public heelth
end the environMent.1 rl.t.
III.lneted et Cell A end A-'
for ;'Ifusl vnhaut, .urfacl
".ter, end trcud8ter
'Ienlflclnt of,-.Ite
accumuletlon 0' ,..
eliMinated. an'.lte rl.t
low
'Itl.fl.. objective
CCIIIIIU'IIty protacted "'1",
cons t ruct I on
Uorter. protected dUrin.
construction
. Protection ac:hl8V8d .n..r
construction (1 ye.r)
.
EIlp8Cted 30-ye.r protection
Future ellpolur.. pre ventrad
Periodic INpection r~8Ired
".Intenence required for
,rCU1dw.ter end ,.. .ptlll8
Alt....U". D
.Isnlflclnt fdtllc heelth
end the envlf'Orll8'lt.I rleb
ell.lnated .t Cell A end
A-' for refUie ....hout,
lur'lee ..ter & ,rcudllter
.Isnlflcent o'f'.Ite
acCUIIII.tlon of ,..
III.Inatad. On-.lte rl.t
I",
,.tl.fl.. objective
COMMUnity .t additional
rllt fr. tr8'llportlng
refUie acrOi. the river
end on ....,t Ic roedl
Yorkerl protected ...1".
construction
. .rotectlon echleV8d I'tlr
construction (t ye.r)
bplcted :JJ-yeer p-otectlan.
'lMl8nlnt protection .t
cen A-' Iltl
future llIp08ur.. prlvented
,.,.Iodlc Inlp8Ctian ,...,Ired
".Intenencl required for
gr«rcMter Ind ... Ipt..
-------
crlterll
ledlctlan of '.Ie
. f 1IpCI8Ur8. IIIIbl" '1.
.... I.'... Yo'--
IlIplt8l!ntllb" 1'1
'''''''eal '_Iblllty
Ad8lnlatretl.. '_Ibilltr
Aft" lib" 1'1
Alt.....tl.. A
Contalment to redlce
.obl'lty of vaatl fro. w.lh-
out end Infiltration.
Co'lection to redlce .obl'Ity
of ,a.. 'raat~t to re4lc.
pa hallrd.
Conwntlonal teehnologlel
Good perfo..-nel Ixpected
C8n be 8IIftitored by periodic
lnepeetlon
'''''' I""t .....t'" wi th
..Iatl"' ""'OIrll8. API"'cml
frC18 othlr 8I8"CI.. IIh'y.
~tl IIOrlt fore. and
..Iplllnt 8Y81t.t.
AI tern8t I.. II
Contalment to reduce
.obit Ity of waIte trOll 1St -
out end aur'ece water
In'Ittration .t Ce" A.
18IINat to I~ I.Inet. r.us..
In C.U A-I. COU.ctlCII to
,8due1 .abl'Ity 0' ,...
',eat.ent to r8due1 ,.a
hallrd.
ConVentiona' techno'OIIel
Good pe,fCN'8nC~ 'IIpICted
C... be 811ftl tor'" by per I d"~
I nepecU on
'''''' I""te.ent'" IIIth
..I.U", "",ogr... -....C v.,
frC18 othl' 8fl!"CI.. tltel,.
~tl IIOrlt force end
8CJIlpnent Im"ab'.
.Itemethe C
Cont.lnment to reduce
mobl'Ity of vaatl frC18 "'Ih-
out Ind lur'ec. ...t.r
Infl'tr.tlon. Co"ectlon
to re4lc. .obttlty of ,a.
end ,rcudl8ter. 'r.at",,"t
to r8due. ,.. halard ...
,round-...tlr rl.lt.
Canventlone' techno'OII..
Good perfo..-nel IJlp8Ctocl
CIn be ...,Itored by periodic
Inspection
reI", I"", ellllnt'" IIlth
e.I.tl", ""'OIr.... Approv.t
fraM other 8fI"C'" tit.".
A~te lIOn forcI end
equlpnent .ve".',
Alternatl.. D
Cont.lnnent to reduce
.obH Ity of W.ltl fro. W.I"
out end lur'.ce wet.r
In'I'tr.tlon .t C." A.
I..,.' to.' '.'netl r"tM
In C.II A-I. Collectlan
to ~edUel 8Gbl'It, 0' ,..
end tr'«ftI_ter. 'f'I8t111ent
to r8due1 'II h.llrd end
,round IIIt.r rllt.
Conwntfonel technotogl..
Good perforwncl Ixpect'"
C8r1" ....Itored" periodic
Inlp8Ctf an
'''''' llIpl..,.t'" with
..Iltl,.""OIr_. .0Y8,
,.... otfler 8glnCi. tltet,.
~tl IIOrt fore. end
-.I.-nt IVIII.'.1
-------
Crlterl.
AltemetlWl A
Altemetlw'
AttemetlWl C
AUenwtl WI D
Caet.
Direct Ceplt.I Coet. . 21,120,000 . 21,840,000 . 24,260,000 . 26,980,000
IndIrect Ceplt.I Coet. 6.140.000 . 7.150.g 7.280.000 8.090.000
Tot.I Ceplt.I Coet. . 27,460,000 . 10,990,)00 . 11,540,000 15,070,000
DIrect A,..,.I Coetl . 510,000 . 470,)00 . 1,110,000 . 1,270,000
indirect A,..,.I Coetl SOO. 000 SZO.lQ! 570.000 580.000
Tot.I Annuli Coet, . ',010,000 . 990,)00 . 1,880,000 . 1,850,000
Preeent Ullrtlli
(51, 30 ye.". . 42,990,000 . 46,210, 100 . 60,"0,000 . 63,510,000
CaIpIIen:e .1 tit ... '.
MAlt, for ,round vlter,
.urfecl vlter, '011, Ind
.Ir vi It be compiled vlth
for ehellelt, loeltlon, end
eetlon ern"I.
0ver.1t Protectl.. of
..... lleat tit ... tM
!rN1~
Adequetl protection of h"'*'l
he.lth end thl envIronment
I. IChlevecl through
,",Ineerl", end I",tltutlonet
control,
t ',I I
AlAR' for ,ro.nt veter,
lurfec. nter, loll, end
'Ir .Itt be compiled .It
for ch..le.t, toe.tl.., ,~.
eetlon ern",.
A~tl protC!Ctlon of hlllln
he,lth end thft envlrClfWller t
I, echl8vecl through
...Ineerl", .111 I",tltutlontt
'control,
AItAItI for ,round nter, .
lurf.ee v.t", ,oil, enel
.Ir vltt be ~IIed .Ith
for chetllle,I, toe'tlon, 8nd
ectlon ern"I.
. ,
A~tl protection of ,,""'"
he.lth end thl envlr~t
II ,ehleYed through
...Ineerl", 8nd I,.tltutlonel
control,
AltAR, for ,round nter,
turf,ee veter, '011, and
.Ir vIII be e~Iled vlth
for dI8IlC81, ICIC8t1on, n
eetlon erlt"..
Mq..8te protectlCl'l of IuIw1
he,tth end the envlronnent
I, I!Chleved through
"I,.,.',. ref ,...t'tut'cnl
control, .
-------
APPENDIX A
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
and .
Uniti.j states Environmental Protection Agency
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
19th Avenue Landfill, Phoenix, Arizona
INTRODUCTION
During the public comment period fo.r the 19th Avenue
Landfill from June 29, 1989 through August 11, 1989, the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) and the United states
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received comments on the
proposed remedy for the site from persons residing or doing'
business in the area of the landfill, and from interested
parties. In this responsiveness summary, the agencies will
respond to comments and questions which pertain to the .
investigation and proposed remedy for the 19th Avenue Landfill.
In order to fully inform the public of the concerns and
questions, this responsiveness summary will also address and
document informal inquiries made to the agency during ~rte public
meeting held on July 20, 1989, in addition to the formal public
c::,.,!'!trnents submitted. Attached to this responsiveness ~u.mUlary are
full copies of all wri~ten comments received, a transcript of th~
public comment meeting, and the written script of a video
presentation made during the meeting.
The purpose of this responsiveness summary is to address
and document comments on the Remedial Action Plan for the 19th
Avenue Landfil~. This responsiveness summary will be used by
ADEQ and the EPA to gain an understanding of the views expressed
by the public and interested parties regardi~g the proposed
remedy and other actions considered. The comments will be taken
into consideration during the selection of the final remedy. The
ADEQ and EPA will prepare records of decision, which will include
the responsiveness summary, and which will explain the final
remedy selected for the 19th Avenue Landfill.
ATTACHMENT III
-------
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS AND AGENCY RESPONSES
Written Questions Presented During
the July 20, 1989 Public Conment Meeting
1. Question/Comment: Have you identified any
potentially responsible parties (parties who are legally
obligated under Superfund to help pay for remedial action at the
landfill)? Who are they? [See Reporter's Transcript of
Proceedings of Public Commenr-Meeting, Attachment 1, pp. 32.J.
Environme~~:lo~~~~eci~~~ A~~n~~8;;o;f~e~n~~~aft~~~~ce of
potentially responsible party status to the site's owners,
Superior Companies, Amos and Edna Pasqualetti, Pasqualetti
Properties, and Pasqualetti Properties, Inc. Subsequently, th~
united states Environmental Protection Agency, the Office of the
Arizona Attorney General, the Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality, and the City of Phoenix have been conducting an
investigation to identify parties with an interest at the 19th
Avenue Landfill site. . The investigation is continuing, and the
agencies and the City anticipate that more parties will be
contacted. No final list of such parties has been compiled.
Many companies have received requests for information
regarding potential waste disposal at 19th Avenue from t~a ~=; .
or EPA. EPA sent formal requests for information regarding use
of the 19th Avenue Landfill to 97 companies in April, 1987. On
June 16, 1989, ADEQ formally requested information from an
additional 58 companies. Companies who re"",=,~""'.: :..:_~ informatiol1
requests are listed io Attachment 3. The City, }~EQ, ~~c' Offi=a
of the Ar;~on~ Attornp~ ~gneral, and EPA are ~1~rently ~~~lyzing
this information and other evidence to identify all potentially
responsible parties. The City and State intend to seek cost
recovery, through legal action if necessary, from responsible
parties.. .
2. Question/Comment: How would the levy system in the
proposed remedy prevent groundwater from rising into the landfill
during flooding conditions? [See Reporter's Transcript,
Attachment 1, p. 32"] -
. Res~onse: The levy system is not intended to prevent
groundwater. rom rising int.) the landfill refuse during flooding.
The primary purpose of the levy is to prevent flood waters from
washing out landfill contents into the Salt River. The studies
conducted during the Remedial Investigation and Feasibi)ity study
show that although the deepest portion of the landfill has been
below the groundwater table, no primary drinking water standards
have been exceeded in the downgradient wells, except for nitrate,
which is a relatively common contaminant and which cannot be
positively identified as originating from the 19th Avenue
Landfill. The groundwater Contingency Plan would be implemented
- 2 -
-------
Written Questions From Public Comment Meeting
in the event flooding caused groundwater to rise into the
landfill and resulted in groundwater contamination. The
contingency plan is discussed further in response to Question 10
below.
3. 9Uestion/comment: How many consulting firms have
worked on the 19th Avenue Landfill project for the City? Who are
they? [~Reporter's Transcript, Attachment 1, p. 33.]
Response: Dames & Moore has performed the formal
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility study for the City of
Phoenix. The Remedial Investigation and Feasibility study
(RI/FS) relied in part on previous technical work done for EPA or
for the City. The woodward-Clyde consulting firm prepared an
RI/FS work plan outline for EPA in 1986. Previously, the
following consulting firms performed work pertaining to the 19th
Avenue Landfill on behalf of the City:
Emcon Associates (preliminary design for methane
gas control system, 1979);
Sverdrup and Parcel (flood protection engineering
work, 1979);
James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers
(preparation of report pertaining to environmental
impact of 19th Avenue Landfill, 1980);
ATL Testing Laboratories (subsurface investigation,
1980);
Brown and Caldwell (groundwater monitoring and
assessment and flood protection engineering work,
1981-86);
EAL Corporation (water sample analysis, 198?'~
western Technologies, Inc. (study of volume of
waste.in Ce!l A-1, 19~~); and
Water Resources Associates, Inc. (hydrologic
analysis, 1985).
4. Question/Comment: Did the City and the agencies
consider the use-of a leachate collection system and slurry walls
to eliminate the potential risk of off-site migration of .
groundwater contamination? [See Reporter's Transcript,
Attachment 1, p. 34.]
2.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.
3.
Response: Yes. Both systems were considered but
- rejected. Use of slurry walls was evaluated as part of -the
Feasibility Study. Their effectiveness was determined to be
doubtful because of the high permeability of the sand and gravel
deposits that comprise the sediments underlying the landfill.
During a flood condition, some of the water flowing in the Salt
River would move rapidly through the underlying sand and gravel
deposits. A slurry wall, even if constructed to the maximum
cost-effective depth of 50 feet, would not prevent ground watec
from moving under it. Installation of a leachate collection
system would require removal of the landfill contents, an option
that was determined to pose a risk to public health and the
environment, to be infeasible, and also nox to be cost-effective.
- 3 -
-------
Writ't.en Oues~.l.ons ~,"(.JUI
r'u.~~...1..
\......'U&UC:::44 '-
...'!";'~ --."'.;1
Further information regarding the removal option is contained in
response to Question No. 19 below.
5. Question/Comment: Is Alternative A a permanent
solution? (2!! Reporter's Transcript, Attachment 1, p. 35.]
Response: Yes, to the extent practicable. While EPA
and ADEQ give preference to permanent remedies, such remedies
were not considered feasible at 19th Avenue. Alternative A
accordingly will require future monitoring to ensure continued
protection. Alternative A also includes a Contingency Plan that
will be activated if groundwater standards are exceeded beyond
the landfill's property boundary.
cost?
6. Question/Comment: How $Uch will Alternative A
[~Reporter's Transcript, Attachment 1, p. 35.]
Response: Alternative A has an estimated present worth
of $42,990,000 over the next thirty years, as follows:
Direct Capital Costs
Indirect Capital Costs
$21,120,000
6,340,000
Total Capital Costs
Direct Annual Costs
$27,460,000
510,000
Indirect Annual Costs
500,000
$ 1,010,000
Total Annual Costs
Present Worth
(5%!. 30 years)
$42,990,000
7. Question/Comment: How much has been spent on the
landfill so far? [See Reporter's Transcript, Attachment 1, p.
37.] .
Respo~~e: To date, the City has incurred Superfund
response costs otaling approximately $11 million at the 19th
Avenue Landfill. EPA and the State of Arizona have also incurred
response and oversight costs, in an undetermined amount.
8. Question/Comment: How does Alternative A differ
from the remedy proposed by Brown & Caldwell in 1984? [See
Reporter's Transcript, Attacnment 1, p. 38.]
. Response: The Brown and Caldwell study, which was
incorporated into the formal Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study, did not address air quality issues at all.
Alternative A was selected after a formal Remedial Investigation
and Feasibility Study (RI/FS), conducted in accordance with the
Superfund process and the National Contingency Plan. The RI/FS
both incorporated old data and co~lected new data.
- 4 -
-------
Written Questions From Public Comment Meeting
9. Question/Comment: How much has the. City paid to
its technical consultant, Dames & Moore? [See Reporter's
Transcript, Attachment 1, p. 38.]
Response: To date, the City has paid Dames & Moore
approximately $1.3 million for work in connection with the 19th
Avenue Landfill.
deSCribedl~~ d~:~ii~~c~~e~;~t ;~ei~o~~;~f~~~~d:la~s~st be
Reporter's Transcript, Attachment 1, p. 40.] -
Respon~e: The Contingency Plan is described in detail
in Appendix Bothe Remedial Action Plan. The trigger for the
Contingency Plan is exceedance in groundwater monitor wells of
Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs),
Proposed MCLs, or state Action Levels (ALS). The Contingency
Plan will be triggered in the event of either three consecutive
quarterly exceedancesof anyone of such criteria, or one.
exceedance at three times such criteria. . Costs for monitoring
of groundwater quality under the plan are estimated to be less
than $100,000 per year. If triggered, the Contingency Plan would
require evaluation and selection of an additional remedial
alternative, if necessary. The cost for the remedial alternative
will depend upon the selected remedy. If the plan is never
triggered, the cost of the Contingency Plan would be limited to
the groundwater monitoring expense. Conversely, if severe
groundwater contamination occurred in the future, one potential
~emedyselected could be pumping and treating of groundwater,
which could cost in .the range of $20 to $40 million.
11. Question/Comment:
for ~l:- :_....:~...i.l.:'
What are the post-closure plans
. Response: Use of the landfill site in the future will
be limited to uses consistent with protection of public health
and the environment and with the final remedy selected. If the
proposed Alternative A is selected, the post-closure activities
will include at a minimum: maintenance of the flood protection
structures, soil cap, fences, perimeter ditches, monitor wells,
and the methane'gas and combustion system; the monitoring of
methane gas and ambient air quality; continued monitoring of
groundwater quality and water levels; and, if standards are
exceeded, an appropriate supplemental remedy to insure that
public health is not placed at risk.
The end use of the site could range from landscaping to
industrial development. However, land uSe decisions must comply
with local zoning, be approved by the landowner, and not
interfere with the implementation of the approved remedy. For
example, a proposed structure must be properly designed and
engineered so that the integrity of the cap is maintained and
~onitoring can continue.
- 5 -
-------
Oral Questions Presented During
the July 20, 1989 Public Comment Meeting
'12. Question/Comment: what will happen in the future
if buried drums begin to leak chemicals? (~Reporter's
Transcript, Attachment 1, p. 45.]
Response: The Contingency Plan of-Alternative A is
designed to address this concern. As described in detail in
response to Question No. 10 above, under the Contingency Plan the
site would be continually monitored in the future for groundwater
contamination (including any resulting from leaking drums). If
chemicals did leak into the groundwater and were detected, and an
appropriate supplemental remedy implemented in order to protect
public health and the environment.
. 13. Question/Comment: I am concerned that water will
seep into the landfill and cause migration of further groundwater
. contamination. [~Reporter's Transcript, Attachment 1, p. 47.)
Res~onse: Seepage of rainwater would be prevented under.
the preferre remedy by implacement of the soil cap. In -
addition, the groundwater Contingency Plan is designed to respond
to potential future migration of contaminated groundwater. The
plan is described in further detail in response to Questions 10
and 12 above.
14. -Question/Comment: Are responsible parties being
located? will they be held accountable? [See Reporter's
Transcript, Attachment 1, p. 48.] ---
ResDonse: The EPA, Ar.i~o"~ Dep~rtment of Environmental
Quality, Office of the Arizona at+~rney GenQ~~l, and the City of
Phoenix have been conducting an investigation to gather
additional information about waste handling practices. If during
the course of the project a responsible party is identified, the
City and State intend to hold these parties accountable, through
legal action if necessary. Further detail regarding the
investigation is contained in response to Question NO.1 above.
15. Question/Comment: what is being done differently
at other landfills_to prevent them from having similar problems?
[See Reporter's Transcript, Attachment 1, p. 51.]
Respons~: Subsequent to closure of the 19th Avenue
Landfill in 1979, the two major federal laws pertaining to
hazardous waste disposal, the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund), became
effective. Since 1980, RCRA regula.tions have prohibited disposal
of hazardous waste and substances in municipal landfills, such as
the 19th Avenue Landfill. The State of Arizona has since adopted
- 6 -
-------
OCaJ. l,Juest.~o~ J::CU!U ~~J.J~.J.'-
,-...UIAII~ ...
".J.CC;; '- ""'''';1
the federal regulations, and also developed a hazardous waste
program to control these wastes. Now, all hazardous wastes must
be tracked and sent to a permitted hazardous waste facility. The
Superfund law requires parties responsible for past disposal of
hazardous substances to pay for the cost of clean-up of those
substances. Both RCRA and Superfund contain civil and criminal
penalties' for non-compliance. In addition, the State has
developed other environmental programs and regulations, such as
the Groundwater Quality Protection Permit Program and the Aquifer
Protection Permit Program. These programs regulate new and
existing non-hazardous waste landfills. The Water Quality
Assurance Revolving Fund, also known as the State Superfund
Program, can also be used to clean-up closed or abandoned
landfills if groundwater quality is threatened. The laws have
been incorporated into the comprehensive Arizona Environmental
Quality Act, which became effective July 1, 1987.
16. Question/Comment: I am concerned about reports of
the landfill burning in the past. [See Reporter's Transcript,
, Attachment 1, p. 53.]'
Response: An underground fire at the landfill did occur
in February, 1986. EPA's emergency response section determined
that the fire did not pose a threat to public health.
Alternative A would prevent future such fires, which potentially
could allow chemicals to escape into the air, by expanding the
landfill's methane gas collection system. Further info.rmation
regarding the 1986 fire is contained in response to Question 32
iJt=low~
17. Question/Comment: Did the Remedial Action Plan
analyze the economic impact of the landfill on the surrounding
area? l~ nc~w~~wc's Transcript, Attachment 1, p. 57.]
Response: No. Whether the site or ~ts remediat~on may
have any econom.ic impact on the surrounding area is beyond the
scope of the Superfund process, and no economic evaluation was
performed. However', if Alternative A is implemented, there may
be a positive effect on the overall impact to property values.
If Alternative A is implemented, then off-site migration of
contaminants should be controlled. If additional work is
performed that increases the aesthetic appearance, such as berms
and landscaping, this should also have a positive effect on the
overall impact to property values. ' ., . '
18. Question/Comment: What use will be made of the
site in the future? [See Reporter's Transcript, Attachment 1, p.
58. ]
Response: Use of the landfill site in the future will
b~ limited to uses consistent with protection of public health
and the environment and with the final remedy selected. This may
require restricted use of the property.
- 7 -
-------
Public Comment Presented
During The Public Comment Meeting
19.
and remov~d.
Response: This option was considered but rejected,
based on an evaluation of relative risk to public health and the
environment using Superfund guidelines. The relative risks were
based upon a comparison of the potential amount of exposure to
haz.ardous materials from moving the landfill with that from.
leaving the landfill in place. At present, in place the landfill
has no significant impact on public health or the off-site
environment. Potential future impacts can be prevented by
leaving the landfill in place and implementing the preferred
alternative, in accordance with CERCLA (Superfund) Section
121(d) (2) (A).
Question/Comment:
The landfill should be excavated
Moving the landfill would increase the potentia~ for
exposure to the hazardous materials. Removing the landfill
closure cap and the existing flood berm ~n order to move the
landfill would increase the exposure of workers and nearby
businesses and residents to gases, odors, and hazardous materials
and substances. The landfill would also be susceptible to
flooding during a move, and transport of the material would have
the potential for accidents that might release bazardous
materials ~r cause injury to workers or other people.
The potential short-term risks .from moving the landfill
are much greater than those from leaving it in place. Th~ lopg-
term impact on public health and environment also would not be
~~CU~.J ~w~uced by moving the landfill, whose contents would have
to ::'.:.. ~.!~inerated or rebur led. Therefore, using EPA screening
.:riteria, the decision was made not I..U move the landfill. In
addition, moving the landfill would not be feasible or cost
effective. The estimated cost to remove the landfill is over one
billion doliars. This high cost estimate is the result of
dealing with the nine million cubic yards of waste in the
landfill which includes residential, agricultural and industrial
waste.
- 8 -
-------
Written Comments Received During Public
comment Period June 29, 1989 to August 11, 1989
Letter From Pamela E. Swift, Chairwoman
Toxic waste Investigative Group, Inc.
(~ text of letter at Attachment 4)
20. Question/Comment: The 19th Avenue tandfill site
should not have been administere~ under the Arizona water Quality
Assurance Revolving Fund program (the state's Superfund law), but
should have remained under the United states Environmental.
Protection Agency federal Superfund program. The Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) should not have been
g=~nted lead authority over the site. .
Respon~e: The landfill was administered under both
programs. EPA esignated ADEQ the "lead" agency for remedial
activities for the 19th Avenue Landfill Superfund site but
maintained oversight to ensure Superfund compliance. ADEQ has
coordinated all regulatory and remedial activit1es very closely
with EPA, which will issue a record of decision certifying that
the final remedy selected for the 19th Avenue Landfill complies
with federal as well as state law. A consent order will be
developed. ADEQ has been empowered-by the Arizona legislature to
deal with this type of problem. A strong lead presence at the
State level is more timely and more effective for ensuring
correction of any environmental problems if they. develop.
21. Question/Comment: Why didn't the ADEQ act upon the
injunction pertaining. to cloc:""'- ,..r . .-.- :andfill obtained in 1981
against -~~ City of Phoenix?
Response. ADEQ did act upon the injunction, and
subsequently developed in conjunction with the City a program for
responding to the environmental issues presented by the 19th
Avenue Landfill. This program resulted in the data used to
develop the work plan for the Remedial Investigation. Because
the City voluntarily undertook the Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility stu~y, there was no need for additional legal action.
22. Question/Comment: Why was the landfill evaluated
under the Arizona Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund program
instead of the u.S. EPA's Superfund program?
Response: The landfill was evaluated under both
programs. The Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study and
Remedial Action Plan followed Superfund guidance.. ADEQ was
delegated lead enf~rcement authority over the site in July, 1988,
and required compliance with the Arizona Water Quality Assurance
Revolving Fund program as well as with the federal Superfund
program. EPA also evaluated the City's activities for Superfund
compliance.
- 9 -
-------
Letter from Pamela E. Swift
23. Question/Comment: Why didn't the public comment
meeting discuss EPA's Superfund remedy selection process?
Response: It did. The purpose of the public meeting
was to discuss the remedial alternatives, including the agencies'
preferred alternative, and to present the results of the site
investigation. A general overview of the federal Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility study process under the Superfund law,
the Comprehensive Environmental Response and Liability Act of
1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), was presented during this
overview. .
24. Question/Comment: Why was the public comment
meeting held on one of the hottest days of the year?
Response: ADEQ notified the City of Phoenix by letter
that the City's Remedial Action Plan was ready for public comment
on June 12, 1989. According to the WQARF rules, the state then
had 90 days to determine the remedial alternative. The Rules
require a public comment period during this time, as does EPA's
Superfund program. The public meeting was held during the public
comment period. ADEQ scheduled the public comment meeting during
the cooler evening hours and arranged an air-conditioned building
to assure the comfort of the participants.
25. Question/Comment: Why weren't residents and
industries located d~~oara~ip-~t of the landfill notified of the
public comment meeting?~
. Res¥onse: They were, through both media and personally
delivered in orm~~;nn. ~ka ~ublic meeting was announced iu 19th
Avenue Landfill Fact Shee~ Number 3, 8,000 copies of which were
distributed door-t~-door on July 2 and July 3, 1989 to =~~~dences
and businesses in an area bounded by Buckeye Road to the north,
Southern Avenue to the south, Central Avenue to the east, and
35th Avenue (between Buckeye Road .and Lower Buckeye Road) or 27th
Avenue (from Lower Buckeye Road to Southern Avenue) to the west.
ADEQ also provided notice of the July 20, 1989 public meeting in
the Arizona Republic on June 25, 1989. In addition, the City
purchased advertising space to publicize the meeting in the
Arizona Republic on July 15, 1989, and in the suburban west
Phoenix newspaper Westsider on July 19. Broadcast and pritit
media were notified of the meeting, and public service.
announcements were distributed. KJZZ radio discussed the public
meeting or its "Morning Edition" program and included interviews
with Norm weiss of ADEQ on July 19, 1989 and pamela Swift of
Toxic Waste Investigative Group, Inc., on July 20, 1989.
26. Question/Comment: Since drinking water standards
have been violated at the 19th Avenue Landfill site, why have the
agencies chosen to require monitoring rather than cleanup?
- 10 -
-------
Letter from Pame~a E. Swift
Res¥onse: Groundwater treatment is not necessary for
protection a public health and the environment at present. The
infrequent and minor exceedances of drinking water standards were
determined not to require groundwater pumping and treating at
present. As discussed in the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
study and,Remedia~ Action Plan, drinking water standards were
occasionally exceeded in monitor we~ls at the boundary of the
landfill. Downgradient wells do not-exceed drinking water
standards except for nitrate, which is a relatively common.
contaminant and which cannot be positively identified as having
- originated fram the 19th Avenue Landfill. The exceedances on the
, boundary wells have generally been sporadic and at levels near
the standard. Of nearly 1,800 analyses performed for compounds
having drinking water standards, two percent exceeded the
standards during the RI/FS investigation.
If groundwater quality is impacted, cleanup may be
required in the future under the Contingency Plan. If there is a
consistent exceedance of drinking water standards in the future,
the Contingency Plan will require evaluation and implementation
of any necessary supplemental remedial action. The Contingency
Plan is discussed in detail in response to Question No. 10 above.
27. Question/Comment: There have been several studies
performed on the 19th Avenue Landfill site over the past 10
years. why have the agencies disregarded this past information?
Response: This. past..1nformation was not disregarded.
Data generated during studies conducted prior to the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility study (RI/FS) report were used to
examine and illustrate long-term trends (for example, water
levels or ~~~er quality) or for rom~~~i~n~ with data collected
during the remedial investigation. Numerous figures in the RI/FS
report are based on water level and water quality data dating
back to 1980, as are several of the technical discussions in the
text. "
28. Question/Comment: Why has the ADEQ disregarded its
own tests from the 19th Avenue Landfill site?
Respo~e: ADEQ has not disregarded any test data. As
explained in response to the previous question, the early data
were reviewed during the course of the studies to. help establish
historic (long-term) trends. .
29. Question/Comment: Methane gas has spread from the
landfill across 19th Avenue, off the north bank of the Salt.
River. Why wasn't this fact pointed out to the public at the
hearing?
Response: The transcript of the public meeting (Pp.
24-25 of Attachment 1) does show that the concern for potential
migration of methane past the boundaries of the landfill was
- 11 -
-------
Let~er irom Pame~a ~. ~W~~~
discussed. Air quality monitoring indicates that, in general,
methane and other gases are quickly dissipated in the air above
the landfill by natural processes. As reported in the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility study and Remedial Action Plan, prior
to renovation of the gas collection system methane had been
measured at concentrations exceeding the explosive limits for
methane in enclosed areas adjacent to the landfill. Since
renovation. the concentrations of methane have decreased below
the explosive limit.
30. Question/Comment: 19th Avenue itself used to be a
part of the 19th Avenue Landfill. Why wasn't this portion
tested?
Response: Groundwater monitoring wells were drilled at
various locations along 19th Avenue. near the street, but studies
indicated no refuse was contained under 19th Avenue. Three
separate means of identifying the western boundary of the
landfill along 19th Avenue were used. Aerial photographs of the
site were used in conjunction with geophysical surveys and
subsurface borings to locate the boundaries of the landfill.
Based on the review of aerial photographs. which date back to
1953. subsurface boring data. and geophysical results, no
landfill materials are present beneath 19th Avenue.
31. Question/Comment: In the past, there has been
extensive off-site groundwater contamination from the landfill.
Why wasn't this brought out at the public comment meeting?
. Res~onse: The data do not suggest that the landfill has
ever produce extensive off-site contamination. Occasional
exceedances of drinkinq water standards have been observed in
coundary wells, but grouuawcn..c:c 4uality data collected from off-
si1:e mOCl~tor wel~s do not ::anow 1:hat "extensive off-site
yroundwater contami!ldt~on" has occurred. Wells downgradien1: u!
the landfill do not exceed drinking water standards except for
nitrate, which is a relatively common contaminant and which
cannot be positively identified as having originated from the
19th Avenue Landfill.
started a~2the~:~~~~~i:om:~~t~as~~~mt~~~ef;~tt;:~ti;*~~sa~~ve
properly addressed at the public comment meeting?
Response: There were reports of landfill fires during
the operational history of the landfill. The only known fire at
the landfiil since it was closed occurred on February 26, 1986.
The fire was caused when high subsurface temperatures ignited a .
plastic pipe that was part of the methane gas collection system.
The burn~ngpipe was extinguished and no further evidence of .fire
was observed. EPA's emergency response section was called to the
scene and determined that the fire did not pose a risk to public
health. The elevated temperatures in the landfill material were
- 12 -
-------
Le~~er Lrarn ~ame~a ~.
.;)wl.J: C
monitored and dissipated in less than two weeks. The public
meeting concentrated on conveying as much information as possible
within a short time span. All the major aspects of the
investigation and cleanup were addressed, including prevention of
future fires under the preferred remedy through expansion of the
landfill ',s methane gas collection system. .
33. Question/Comment: Three years ago the City of
phoenix dumped hundreds of loads "clean dirt" at the landfill
site. Where was this .clean dirt" dumped and spread? Was this
area tested? why or why not?
Response: This area was tested. The clean fill was
placed on the northern one-third of the landfill. The landfill
materials beneath the area of stockpiled soil were tested by
borings placed into the landfill underneath. Soil gas surveys
were also conducted in this area.
34. Question/Comment: Why weren't the residents to the
south of the landfill notified of all meetings held regarding the
landfill and the July 20th public comment meeting?
Response: They were. Facts sheets were distributed in
November 1986, October 1987, and July 1989. Each fact sheet was
delivered door-to-door in an area bounded by Southern Avenue to
the South, Buckeye Road to the north, Central Avenue to the east,
35th Avenue (between Buckeye Road and Lower Buckeye Road) or 27th
Avenue (from Lower Buckeye Road to Southern.Avenu~) to the west.
The most recent fact sheet, distributed July 2 and. 3, 1989,
announced the public meeting of July 20. Each of the fact sheets
provided names and local telephone numbers of persons who could
provide more information about the landfill studi.=:: ..._~.: ..._.'.eo~led
meetings. The public co:m;c.~J.. IIlee:ting was a150 anno"..l.."lc=:: ~...ice in
the Arizona Republic and in the Westsider suburbar.. ~.~est Phoenix
newspaper. Further information regarding the public notification
program is contained in response to Question No. 25 above and in
response to Question No. 37 below.
35. Question/Comment: Who was on the list of 8,000
people that were notified of the public comment meeting? May I
have a copy of ~his list?
Response: Because the fact sheets were distributed
door-to-door, there is no list of the individuals (app~oximately
7,000) and businesses (approximately 1,000) which received
. notification of the public comment meeting in Fact Sheet Number
3. A list of the individuals on the fact sheet mailing list is
Attachment 20.
36. Question/Comment: Why wa3n't a clean-up plan
submitted regarding the landfill?
- 13 -
-------
Letter from Pamela E. Swift
Reslonse: If this question pertains to non-selection of
the option 0 excavation and removal of the landfill, this option
was considered but rejected as posing a greater risk to public
health and the environment than the preferred remedy, and also
not feas~ble or cost-effective, as outlined in detail in response
to Question No. 19 above.
.37. Question/Comment: Why didn't the ADEQ keep
residents and industries in the landfill area informed of the
progress of the landfill studies?
Response: ADEQ did. Facts sheets regarding the
landfill were distributed in November 1986, October 1987, and
July 1989. Each fact sheet was delivered door-to-door in an area
bounded by Southern Avenue to the south, Buckeye Road to the
north, Central Avenue to the east, and to 35th Avenue or 27th
Avenue to the west. The most recent fact sheet, distributed July
2 and 3, 1989, announced the public meeting of July 20 and
discussed the preferred remedy. Each of the fact sheets provided
names and local telephone numbers of persons who could provide
more information about the landfill studies and scheduled
meetings. AS. discussed further in response to Questions 25 and
34 above, the public comment meeting was also announced in local
media. In addition, West Phoenix Councilwoman Mary Rose Wilcox
formed a citizens' group in 1986 to keep local residents informed
about the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility study process
and results. This Citizens participation Committee met six times
between July 1986 and July ~:;G::; ~.:. d-isc-....:o:; the ?':~9re~~ ~f ~ha
studies.
38. Question/Comment: Why didn't the ADEQ or the City
get a writter.. ~~~~':_..__t from Conrad Gc:...._w, :.:_- .--'-ed at the
landfill for over 2C yea==, and w:. tnes:~ed t.t= =-';..~ping of
hazardous w~<:;+~ hy -".arious '::..dustries:
Response: Mr. Gamez has been interviewed twice. The
City, EPA, and ADEQ personally interviewed twenty-four former
City employees with knowledge of the landfill operations,
including Mr. Gamez. Mr. Gamez was interviewed on January 12,
1988 by representatives of the City and EPA, and again by .the
City and ADEQ on August 31, 1989.
39. ~~estion/C~~~ent: What two businesses
to be relocated if Alternative A was selected as the
the site? Why would these two businesses have to be
What is the time frame for relocation?
would have
remedy for
relocated?
Response: A&B Silica Sand and All Chevy Auto Parts
would need to be relocated to properly cap the landfill. The
schedule for relocating the two businesses will be dependent upon
the overall construction schedule for the chosen remedy, which
will be incorporated into the consent decree.
- 14 -
-------
~c:: .. .. c:...
.... .. .....,au .# ~....;- - -.
-., -- -
40. Question/Comment: Dames & Moore's draft Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility study was issued in June, 1988. Why
did it take so long to hold the public comment meeting?
Response: Once the RI/FS was completed, EPA and ADEQ
had to review it to make sure it complied with federal and state
law. Some modifications were required, including development of
the groundwater contingency Plan. In addition, the City was
required to develop a Remedial Action plan (RAP) under the state
WQARF Program. The draft RAP was determined to be ready for
public review and cormnent on June 12, 1989. The public meeting
was held during the public review comment period for the RAP.
41. Question/Comment: How many meetings were held with
various agencies regarding the 19th Avenue Landfill after the
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility study came out? Was the
public notified about these various meetings?
Response: The ADEQ and the City of Phoenix met 15 times
between June 1988 and July 1989 to discuss the draft Remedial
Action Plan and to develop the groundwater Contingency Plan.
After completion of the Remedial Action. Plan and Contingency
Plan, the public was invited to comment on the plans and attend
the public meeting held at the C.J. Jorgenson Elementary School
on July 20, 1989. Various issues were also discussed among the
City, the ADEQ,and the EPA. in additional informal meetings.
42. Question/Comment: If the landfill is too hazardous
to move, as 'lias stat~d at the public comment meeting,isn' t it
too hazardous to leave it in our neighborhood?
Response: No. As discussed in response to Question No.
19 above, moving .the landf!lJ -~~:~ pose a greater ~~~~ ~- .-~:~=
health and the environment than leavin~ the lar.dfill in ;:3=~ and
imple~e~ting the preferred remedy. In addition, reno'ling the
landfill would result in worker exposure at the site.
43. Question/Comment: There are schools in the area of
the landfill. what effect will the on- and off-site pollution of
this land have on these children?
Response: None. The Arthur Hamilton School at 2020
west Durango street is the nearest school to the 19th Avenue
Landfill. It is located approximately three-quarters of --a mile
from the closest landfill boundary. The 19th Avenue Landfill
presently does not have any effect on the children attending the
school. The City of Phoenix provides the school's water supply
from so~rces other than area groundwater. The landfill will not
have any identifiable impact on air quality in the area. School
children are prevented from wandering onto the landfill by the
security fencing and guard. The preferred alternative will
continue to ensure that the landfill poses no health risk to the
neighboring area, including the school.
- 15 -
-------
Letter from Pamela E. Swift
44. Question/Comment: What emergency steps are the
agencies prepared to take to protect public health and the
environment in the event of a fire, explosion, flood or other
rapid migration off-site of hazardous waste from the landfill?
what such,plans were in place in the past?
Response: The ADEQ Emergency Response Unit is on call
24 hours a day along with the City of Phoenix Fire Department in
case of a sudden emergency such as a fire, explosion, or surface
release of any hazardous material, although an event such as this
is unlikely at the 19th Avenue Landfill. In the event of a
flood, groundwater monitor wells are already in place and will
detect any increase in contaminant levels if they occur.
45. Question/Comment: Will capping the landfill and
monitoring the groundwater allow the agencies to. discover a
problem while it is happening, or only after it already has
happened?
Response: The monitoring provisions of the preferred
remedy would provide timely notice of potential adverse changes
in ground water quality, methane migration rates, or air quality.
46. Question/Comment: Why did the ADEQ and theEPA
allow the City to take so long to propose a final solution to the
landfill? Was this in the best interest of public health and the
environment? .
Response: The 19th Avenue Landfill is actually one of .
the first large municipal landfills listed as a Superfund site to
be processed for remedy selection. Remedy selection under
Superfund" and wQAP.=' :.:; __.....Jlex and time CUi."""i"~u~ ,....: ~aking
sure the final solution is th= p=cper :ne i~ in ~:.c ~~st interest
~f public heal th ..."!.~ i-he enviroi'....~nt.
47. Question/Comment: Are you aware that the City's
technical consultant, Dames & Moore, has also been an
environmental consultant for Motorola, one of the polluters of
the landfill? .
Response: Dames & Moore is an independent engineering
consulting firm that has worked with over 16,000 clients,
including -- on projects unrelated to the 19th Avenue landfill --
Motorola. No conflict of interest is presented by this unrelated
consulting work, which has been managed by different personnel.
Historical data are available with regard to Motorola's disposal
practices at the 19th Avenue Landfill.
48. Question/Comment: How does the Remedial Action
Plan prepared by Dames & Moore differ from the eight previous
studies performed by the City? .
- 16 -
-------
Letter from Pame~a E. sw~~~
R~po~se: Data generated during studies conducted prior
to the Rem ia Investigation/Feasibility study (RI/FS) report
were used to examine and illustrate long-term trends (for
example, water levels or water quality) or for comparison with
data collected during the remedial investigation. Numerous
figures in the RI/FS report are based on water level and water
quality data dating back to 1980, as are several of the technical
discussions in the text. Only the more recent data collected
during the official remedial investigation were used in the
baseline risk assessment for the site, because these data contain
consistent and verifiable QAlQC procedures. The response to
Question No.3 has additional information.
49. Question/Comment: Why has it taken the ADEQso
long to locate the potential industrial polluters of the
landfill? The EPA compiled a list of the potential industrial
polluters several years ago. why didn't you obtain a copy of
this list from the EPA and locate the polluters of the landfill?
Why wasn't. the list of the potential industrial polluters
presented at the public meeting?
Response: The City of Phoenix has been the operator of
the landfill and has taken initial responsibility for the
remediation. Parties that may have an interest in the landfill
have been notified. Others will be notified in the future. If
during the course of the project a responsible party is
identified, the City and state intends to hold those parties
accountable. .
50. Question/Comment: Why did the ADEQ allow Dames &
Moore to show a film regarding "general~ trash problems, since
the main problem with the landfill is hazardous wa~tc:
20, 1989 ~~~l~~s~~etI~~ ~~d~~ ~~~~~~t~a~o~~:~e~~:Cm~~o;h~i~~~~gS
of the investigation and to describe the preferred alternative in
an effective, concise medium, thereby increasing the ability of
the public to judge the preferred alternative. As noted in the
video presentation, the video was developed by Dames & Moore for
the City of Phoenix. A copy of the script of the video may be
found at Attachment 2. .
51. Question/Comment:
play in the final solution?
~eshonse: A role subordinate to protection of public
health an t e environment. In accordance with EPA regulations,
the cost factor was only considered when comparing alternatives
that provided equal protection of public health and the
environment. Only where two or more options provide the same
degree of short- and long-term protection of public health can
the less costly alternative can be selected. This is the case
with the preferred alternative for the 19th Avenue Landfill.
What role did the cost factor
- 17 -
-------
Letter from Pame~a E. ~W~~~
52. Question/Comment: what r~le did protestion of
public health and the environment play ~n the select~on of the
landfill remedy?
Response: Protection of public health and the
environment was the primary remedy selection criteria.
53. Question/Comment: Do you believe that the landfill
site is safer today than it was when it was put on the EPA
Superfund (National Priorities) List? Why or why not?
make the ~::a~~~~:sa~:~.si~C:~~:rs~~ea~;;o~~a~:deO~e~~et:~:n to
Superfund list. These include the following:
1. A soil cover was placed over the landfill to close
the landfill; .
. 2. A gas collection system was installed to prevent
the migration of methane and other gases; .
3. Ground-water monitoring wells were installed on-
and off-site of the landfill; and
4. Berms were constructed around the boundary of the
landfill to provide flood protection.
54. Question/Comment: What steps will the agencies
take to bring the City into compliance if the City does not.
fulfill its commitment to the site?
~esponse: The State and City will enter into a Consent
Decree, w ich is enforceable in Superior Court. Violations would
subject the City to fines of $5,000 per day and treble damages.
55. Question/Comment: Wha~ et~ec~ will this 213-acre
contaminated s~te have on the property values in tne
ne~gr!corhood?
Response: The site has been operated as a landfill
since about 1957, and has been on the NPL since 1983. If
remedial activities are implemented to prevent off-site migration
of contaminatioQ, property values should not be effected.
56. Question/Comment: Are you aware that information
is harder to obtain from ADEQin recent months regarding the 19th
Avenue Landfill and other polluted sites in Arizona?
Response: ADEQ records remain open to public
inspection. Compilation of the Administrative Record for the
19th Avenue Landfill has resulted in an organized, complete set
of important documents; however, these documents by law must
remain on the ADEQ premises so that any interestcJ party may
inspect them.
- 18 -
-------
Letter from pamela E. Swift
57. Question/comment: Do you
landfills [19th Avenue and 27th Avenue]
adverse effect on the environment? Are
risk to public health?
Response: The results of studies conducted at the 19th
Avenue Landfill indicate that it is not currently a risk to the
public health. Both landfills have been and are being studied
and evaluated independently. At this time the data indicate that
the two landfills are separate and distinct in terms of
gro~dwater quality.
think that two polluted
in the same area have an
these two landfills a
58. Question/Comment: Is there a risk to public health
because of the methane gas problems along the north bank of the
Salt River?
Response: If this question refers to the north bank of
the Salt River at 19th Avenue, results presented in the Remedial
Action Plan and the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
indicate that methane does not pose a risk to public health along
the north bank of the Salt River. No structures are present to
trap the gas and allow it to reach explosive levels.
59. Question/Comment:
Landfill stop the pollution?
Response: Monitoring alone will not stop groundwater
~~ll~tion, out is one part of a program to prevent pollution f=om
becoming a risk to public health and the environment.
Groundwater monitoring provides the data on groundwater
conditions so that an appropriate remedial response can be
implemented if or when standards are exceeded. M~~.~ ~C"~. :'._:: is a
key part of t~e groundwater Contingency Plan, which is further
discussed in respon~e to Question No. 10 above.
Will monitoring the 19th Avenue
60. Question/Comment: When will we get some landfill
laws that will prevent air, water, and soil pollution?
Resp~nse: There are currently existing laws
regulations t at control the release of contamination
landfills and are designed to prevent air, water, and
pollution from these sources. The laws are discussed
response to Question No. 15 above.
and
from
soil
further in
61.
Question/Comment:
Whatever happened to BADCAT?
Response: BADCT or, Best Available Demonstrated Control
Technology, applies to new or currently operating facilities
regulated under the Arizona Aquifer Protection Permit Program.
Since 19th Avenue Landfill closed prior to the implementation of
this program, BADCT would not apply.
- 19 -
-------
Letter from Anthony Abril
1190 E. Hilton
Phoenix, Arizona 85034
text of letter at Attachment 5)
( full
62. Question/Comment: I believe the preferred remedy
does not clean up the site, and I prefer excavation and removal.
Response: Excavation and removal of the landfill was
considered but rejected, because it would pose a greater risk to.
public health-and the -environment, and also would not be feasible
or cost-effective, as discussed in detail 'in response to Question
No. 19 above.
- 20 -
-------
Letter from J. Lacey
2228 West Tonopah
Phoenix, Arizona
text of letter at Attachment 6)
(full
63. Question/Comment: I am concerned that Alternative
A would not prevent hot spots from erupting in the future and
contaminating groundwater.
Response: Alternative A (the preferred remedy) contains
a groundwater Contingency Plan to address this concern.
Groundwater quality will be closely monitored, and if groundwater
quality degrades in the future, then any contamination will be
detected, evaluated, and appropriately addressed. The
contingency Plan is discussed further in response to Question No.
10 above.
- 21 -
-------
Letter from Jim and Nancy Giordano
6909 East Kathleen Road
Scottsdale, Arizona 85254
(full text of letter at Attachment 7)
64. Question/Comment: Excavation and removal of the
landfill is the only acceptable remedy.
Response: Excavation and removal of the landfill was
considered but rejected, because it would pose a greater risk to
Rublic health and the envir'onment, and also would not be feasible
or cost-effective. Both public health and the'environment will
be protected with Alternative A. Existing contaminants will be
contained at the landfill resulting~in minimal public exposure.
Please see response to Question No. 19 for additional discussion.
- 22--
i .
I
-------
Letter from Debbie McQueen
1408 Rosemont Drive
Phoenix, Arizona 85024
(full text of letter at Attachment 8)
~ 65. Question/Comment: Alternative A does not do enough
to protect public health and the environment because it allows
toxic waste to remain in the landfill. The landfill and the area
surrounding it should be cleaned up and returned to a pristine
condition.
Response: Excavation and removal of the landfill was
considered but rejected, because it would pose a greater risk to
public health and the environment, and also would not be feasible
or cost-effective, as discussed in detail in response to Question
No. 19 above.
- 23 -
-------
Letter from Teri Johnson
67"42 West Palm Lane
Phoenix, Arizona 85035
text of letter at Attachment 9)
( full
66. Question/Comment: ADEQ should take the City to
court and force the City to clean-up the landfill.
Response: The state of Arizona did obtain an injunction
regarding the landfill in 1980. Later, the landfill was placed
on the National Priorities (Superfund) List. Since then, the
EPA, state, and City have cooperated on responding to the
environmental issues presented by the 19th Avenue Landfill. No
court action has been required.
- 24 -
-------
Letter from Melody Baker
Mothers of Maryvale (C.A.R.E.S.)
P.O. Box 23495
Phoenix, Arizona 85063
(full text of letter at Attachment 10)
67. 9Uestion/Comment: Implementation of the
recommended alternative and leaving the landfill in-place would
not be in the best interest of public health and the environment.
We prefer excavation and removal.
--- - -- -- Response: Excavation and removal of thelandflli was.
considered but rejected, because it would pose a greater risk to
public health and the environment, and also would not be feasible
or cost-effective, as discussed in detail in response to Question
No. 19 above.
- 25 -
-------
Letter from pilomena B~ ~razo
1531 West Corona Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85041
(full text of letter at Attachment 11)
68. Question/Comment:
up and removed.
Response: Excavation and removal of the landfill was
considered but rejected, because it would. pose-a greater risk to
public health and the environment, and also"would not' be !:easible
or cost-effective,. as discussed in detail.. in response to Question.
No. 19 above. .
The landfill should be cleaned
69. Question/Comment: I am concerned that past fires
from the landfill caused toxic fumes to spread to residential
areas nearby.
Response: There is no evidence that harmful migration
of toxic fumes into residential areas occurred. An underground
fire at th& landfill did occur in February, 1986. EPA's
emergency response section determined that the fire did not pose
a threat to public health. Alternative A would prevent future
such fires, which potentially could allow chemicals to escape
into the air, by expanding the landfill's'methane gas collection
system. The 1986 fire is discussed in greater detail in response
to Ouestion No. 32 above. In addition, any toxic gases that may
be present will be monitored and controlled as necessary.
- 26 -
-------
Letter from Joyce ward
716 .West Broaaway
Phoenix, Arizona 85041
text of letter at Attachment 12)
(full
70. Question/Comment:
public meeting?
R~£P~~se: The public meeting was announced in the 19th
Avenue Lan i Fact Sheet Number 3, 8,000 copies of which were
distributed door-to-door on. July 2 and July 3, 1989 to residences
and businesses in an area bounded by Buckeye Road to the north,
Southern Avenue to the south, Central Avenue to the east, and
35th Avenue (between Buckeye Road and Lower Buckeye Road) or 27th
Avenue (from Lower Buckeye Road to Southern Avenue) to the west.
ADEQ also provided notice of the July 20, 1989 public meeting in
the Arizona Republic on June 25, 1989. In addition, the City
purchased advertising space to publicize the meeting in the
Arizona Republic on July 15, 1989, and in the suburban west
phoenix newspaper westsider on July 19. Broadcast and print
media were notified of the meeting, and public service
announcements were distributed. KJZZ radio discussed the public
meeting on its "Morning Edition" program and included interviews
with Norm weiss of ADEQ on July 19, 1989 and Pamela Swift of
Toxic waste Investigative Group, Inc., on July 20, 1989.
Why wasn't I notified about the
- 27 -
-------
-Letter from James J. Lemmon, R.G.
Hazardous Waste Specialist
Urban Research Associates
454 East Susan Lane
Tempe, Arizona 85281
(full text of letter at Attachment 13)
71. Question/Comment: I was the Arizona Department of
Health Services Hydrologist who testified on behalf of the agency
in legal proceedings regarding tbe landfill against the City in
1979. Although some of the data collected by the ADHS from 1979
to 1983 did not have full quality assurance/quality control, it
was scientifically invalid to disregard this data during the
remedial action process. This data has tremendous hydrologic
significance and should have been considered when evaluating
impacts of the landfill on human health, the environment and the
selection of the proposed remedial alternative. The missing data
demonstrated high levels of groundwater contamination at the
boundary of the landfill.
previous :~~a~~:e~er:~r~:i:w:~s~~si~~~~~~~~te~a1~t~o~;:c~:~e~~~~
Investigation and Feasibility study (RIfFS). In particular,
water-level and water quality trends were noted in data collected
from previous studies. Data collected from the earlier studies
were used in the ground water modeling task to calibrate the flow
and transport calculations. Data from earlier studies were also
used to score the site for placement on the National Priorities
(Superfundt List. Earlier data were also' used to examine water
quality trends for development of the groundwater Contingency
Plan.
- 28 -
-------
Letter from Thomas W. Kalinowski. Sc.D.
Project Manager
Erler & Kalinowski. Inc.
Consulting Engineers and Scientists
1930 South Amphlett Blvd.. SUite 320
San Mateo, California 94402
(on bebal.f of Phoenix Tall.ow, holder
of leasehold interest to the property
on which the landfill sits)
(full text of letter at Attachment 14)
. 72. Question/Comment: Can more time be made available
for review of the Draft RAP and supporting documents?
Response: The public comment period, which began on
June 29, 1989. was extended from July 28 to August 11, 1989.
- 73. Question/Comment: Did the risk assessment identify
any significant current or future public health risks associated
with the landfill?
R~shons~: The landf~lldoes not pose a current risk to
public hea t , a though releases from the 19th Avenue Landfill
have degraded, to some extent, the groundwater at the landfill
boundary. No current risks to public health were identified for
. the surface water, soil and refuse, and ambient air quality
exposure pathways that were examined. The hazard associated with
methane was limited to the off-site migration of methane if the
gas collection system were not operating.
without remedi~' ~ction, there would be Do~~ntial future
public health risks associated with the landfill.. Potential
public health risks could occur if landfill materials were washed
out of the landfil~ as a result of flows in the Salt River. .
Ingestion of landfill soil could be a possible exposure pathway
if areas of the landfill beneath the existing cover were exposed
in the future. Another potential risk to public health and the
environment could occur as a result of a rising water table
saturating a gr~ater volume of refuse and releasing additional
leachate. The preferred remedy is designed to minimize these
risks and the potential for release of hazardous substances.
74. Question/Comment: What is the linkage between the
. risk assessment and the "Areas of Environmental Concern" stated
in the Draft RAP? What is the linkage between the baseline risk.
assessment, ARAR's, and 1;he proposed remedy?
Response: The areas of concern evaluated during the
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study were. refuse washout,
surface-water quality, groundwater quality., and landfill-gas
accumulation. The risk assessment examined the current and
potential risks to public health and the environment through
~
- 29 -
-------
Letter from Thomas We Kalinowski, Sc.D.
these pathways. The proposed remedy was selected in accordance
with CERCLA Section 121, 42 U.S.C. S 9621, with the National
Contingency Plan (NCP), and with EPA guidance concerning ARARs,
or applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements. Under
EPA guidance, one factor in the ARARs analysis is risk. The
preferred remedy would ensure compliance with ARARs.
. 75. Question/Comment: Why is the Appendix B
contingency Plan for potential future groundwater degradation at
the 19th Avenue Landfill needed?
Response: To protect against the possibility of future
groundwater quality degradation and a resulting public health
risk, as discussed in further detail in response to Questions 10
and 12 above.
- 30 -
10
I
-------
Letter from Gary G. Small, Manager
Environmental Management Services Department
Salt River Project
P.O. Box 52025
Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2025
(full text of letter at Attachment 15)
addressin~6the~~~i~~iC~:~t~up;~~~~s;;o~~ ;~~e~~:dt~~~
public health and the environment have not been impacted or
threatened by the landfill. The proposed remedy appears to be a
closure plan for a nor.mal landfill, and not a response action to
a release of hazardous materials into the environment.
Therefore, the City, as the landfill operator, has a
responsibility for all of these costs.
Response: The 19th Avenue Landfill was scored, proposed
and went final on the NPL in the early 1980s. The public was
given an opportunity to comment on the proposal at that time.
CUrrently, it is listed as a site on the NPL and is being handled
as such.
77. Question/Comment: In order to remain consistent
with common usage, the geologic units in the site subsurface,
which have been referred to as Units S, A, 5, C, and MFU, would
be better described as subunits of the Upper Alluvium Unit (UAU)
and the Middle Fine Grained Unit (MFU), described as the Middle
Alluvium Unit.
R~sp~ns~: The Remedial Action Plan presents a brief
overview 0 t e ocal qeoJoov; a more thorough ~o~r~~~~~~~ of the
local geology is included in the Remedial Investigation Report
(pages 4-9 to 4-13). The designations S, A, 5, C and MFU were.
utilized for study of the 19th Avenue Landfill and not intended
as formal stratigraphic designations.
78. Question/Comment:.
contain further detail regarding
the constituents to be monitored
monitoring proposed in the RAP.
The Remedial Action Plan should
the analysis to be performed and
in the quarterly groundwater
Response: Groundwater analyses have included the
following parameters:
1..
EPA Method 601/602 volatile organic compounds
(total =36) .
Inorganic metals (total-21)
Radioisotope indicators (gross alpha and gross
beta)
Indicators: pH, alkalinity, Total Dissolved Solids
(TDS), Total Organic Carbon (TOC), Total Organic
2.
3 .
4.
- 31 -
-------
Letter trom.Gary~ma~~
5.
Halogen (TaX), Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD),
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), Cyanide (CN), and
phenol .
Major Ions: Ammonia (NH3), Boron (B), Calcium
(Ca), Iron (Fe), Magnesium (Mg), Manganese (Mn),
Potassium (K), Sodium (Na), Chloride (Cl), Fluoride
(F), Kjeldahl nitrogen (KN), Nitrate (N03),
Phosphate (P04), and Sulfate (504).
79. Question/Comment: The contingency plan should be
clarified to avoid triggering of an unnecessary evaluation when
there are exceedances of drinking water standards 'that are
already present in background groundwater (nitrate and possibly
barium). '.
Response: The Contingency plan sets forth specific
trigger criteria and does not provide for waiver of them, but
background contamination potentially may be considered in the
remedy selection phase. Upgradient wells and upgradient water
quality conditions will be evaluated prior to selection of any
remedial activity.
- 32 -
-------
Letter from Kenneth G. Ford, P.E.
Corporate Manager
Environmental Affairs
Honeywell, Inc.
(full text of letter at Attachment 16)
80. Question/Comment: Honeywell agrees that the
proposed remedy best "meets the Superfund objectives. However,
the landfill should not be treated as a Superfund site in view of
the City's responsibility for its operation as a municipal
sanitary landfill and the lack of a current risk to public health
or the environment. Review of the chemical data in the RAP shows
the site groundwater test results to be consistent with those
from sanitary landfills of its age which receiyed only municipal
waste. The components of the remedy are consistent with closure
of a municipal landfill and not of a Superfund site containing
significant quantities of hazardous substances. The refuse
. washout controls, cap, and groundwater monitoring would be
necessary for closure of a normal municipal landfill. Methane
gas production is the result of the municipal component of the
waste at the site. Therefore this site should not be a WQARF or
SARA site, but a normal landfill closure."
Resaonse: The landfill was addressed under the "
Superfund an WQARF programs because of the presence of a release
or threat of release of hazardous substances. The landfill
accepted both municipal and industrial wastes. The preferred
remedy has been selected because it would be protective of public
health and the environment and best meets the Superfund remedy
selection criteria. Although some of the actions under the
preferred remedy also may have" landfill clos'tn:..." aspects, to the
extent these actions are not inconsistent with the Nalional
Contingency Plan they constitute eligible costs of response under
CERCLA Section 107, 4? U.S.C. S 9607.
81. Question/Comment: The $11 million cost of the
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study is three to five times
higher than the average cost of su~ studies. This cost should
be borne by the City.
...
Response: The formal Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study by Dames & Moore has cost approximately $1.3
million to date. The balance of the City's $11 million have been
incurred for other activities and studies. The cost breakdown is
provided in the response to Question No.6.
- 33 -
-------
Letter from Terrence T. Holleran
Director of Safety, Medical, and Environmental Affairs
Motorola Semi-Conductor Products Sector
3102 North 56th Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85018-6606
(full text of letter at Attachment 17)
82. Question/Comment: Conditions at the landfill,
which do not pose a current risk to public health, are
insufficient to trigger application of state or federal
environmental laws.
ReStOnse: Application of the, federal Superfund and
state WQARF aws is authorized whenever there is a release or
threat of release of hazardous substances into the environment,
as was the case at the 19th Avenue Landfill.
83. Question/Comment: There is inadequate
substantiation in the Remedial Action Plan for the statement that
the proposed remedy is cost effective.
, .
Response: Table 4.16 of the Remedial Action Plan (RAP)
examines the cost of the alternative remedies evaluated,
including the preferred remedy. Tables 4.12 through 4.15
the projected cost of the underlying remedial options for
washout, surface water, groundwater, and landfill gases.
cost analysis is contained in Volume 3, Chaptpr ~ ~f ~hp
Feasibility study.
. 84. Question/Comment: It does not aDDear 'necessarv to
prohibit virtually all future use ~~ the landfiil Si~4~ ~;m.i_~
sites have been developed into golf courses, parking lots. pt~
examine
r e fu s e
Further
Response: Future use of the site must be lim~ted to
uses consistent with protection of public health and the
environment, and with the selected remedy. If consistent with
these criteria, such uses could be acceptable.
- 34 -
-------
Letter from Charles;]. Muchmore
O'Connor, Cavanaugh, Anderson, westover,
Killingsworth & Beshears
SUite 1100
one East Camelback Road
Phoenix, Arizona 85012-1656
(on behal.:f of waste Management of Arizona, Inc.,
Waste Management of Phoenix - South,
Waste Management of Phoenix - North,
Chemical Waste Management, Inc., and their affiliates).
(full text of letter at Attachment 18)
85. Question/Comment: The manner in which the Remedial
Action Plan .has been handled has violated my clients' due process
rights. The period of time which my clients were given to review
the RAP was too short.
Response: The public comment period, which began on
June 29, 1989, was extended from July 28 to August 11, 1989.
Your client has the same rights as any other member of the public
and has been provided an opportunity to comment during this
period. . .
86. Question/Comment: The proposed remedy is not the
most efficient and cost-effective remedy.
protectio~e~?o~~~{icTg:al~~m:~~ ~~~e~~v~~~~;*~~ c~it~~;ar:~:d~es
providing equal levels of protectiveness, Alternative A was
determined by EPA and ADEQ to be the most cost-effective.
87. Question/Comment: The RAP is inconsistdut with t.he
NCP, in part because the costs of implementing it shoula oe born
by the City.. .
Response: The preferred remedy, the Remedial Action
Plan, the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility study, and the
City's underlying response activities were determined by EPA and.
ADEQ to be cons~stent with the National Contingency Plan. In
addition, the RAP is a requirement under the state WQARF Program.
88. Question/Comment: Simple pilings could be used in
the Salt River bank rather than an expensive levy and bank
protection system', as proposed in the RAP.
Respons~: A simple piling constructed of soil or local
gravel could not be relied upon to prevent a lOO-year flood from
washing out refuse for any reasonable length of time. ~n the
event of such a flood, erosion wou~d quickly destroy the
integrity of the embankment by reducing the height and width of
the piles. The preferred remedy's levy and bank protection
system would provide a reliable, permanent protection for refuse
washout.
- 35 -
-------
Letter from Robert H. Allen
Allen, Kimerer & Lavelle
2715 North 3rd street
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
. (on behalf of Pasqualetti Properties, Illc.,
owner of the northern 150 acres of the landfill)
(full text of letter at Attachment 19) .
I
, -
,
any futur:9pub~~s~;~n~;~m:~~t~e ~~~:;s~;~~~~o~h;h:~~~~ill to
Action Plan does not specify how control of the property owned by
the Pasqualettis would be acquired. The Pasqualettis did not
have sufficient time to analyze the issue independently.
Response: Future use of the site must be limited to
uses consistent with protection of public health and the
environment, and with the selected remedy. If consistent with
these criteria, various land use options could be considered.
The Pasqualettis were previously given notice by EPA that, as
owners of the site, they were considered potentially responsible
for some or all of th~ cost of response at the landfill.
90. Question/Comment:
NationaJ Contingency Plan.
Response: The preferred remedy, the Remedial Action
Plan, the Remedial Investiqation and Feasibili.tv St:unv. ~nn tnIQ
City's underlying response-activities were determined. by EPA and
ADEQ to be consistent with the National Contingency Plan. In
addition, the RAP 1s a requirement under the state WQARF Program.
The RAP does not conform to the
- 36 -
-------
10 -
11.
12.
13.
Attachments
1.
2.
Transcript of Public Comment Meeting
Script of Infor.mational Video
3.
Receipients of EPA and ADEQ Infor.mation Request
~etters
Letter from Pamela E. Swift, Chairwoman
Toxic Waste Investigative Group, Inc.
4.
5.
Letter from Anthony Abril
1190 E.. Hilton
Phoenix, Arizona 85034
Letter from J. Lacey
2228 West Tonopah
Phoenix, Arizona
6.
7.
Letter from Jim and Nancy Giordano
6909 East Kathleen Road
Scottsdale, Arizona 85254
Letter from Debbie McQueen
1408 Rosemont Drive
Phoenix, Arizona 85024
8.
9.
Letter from Teri Johnson
6742 West Palm Lane
Phoenix, Arizona 85035
Letter from Melody Baker
Mothers of Maryville (C.A
P.O. Box 23495
Phoenix, Arizona 85063
R.r:.S. )
Letter from Filomena B. Durazo
1531 West Corona Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85041
...
Letter from Joyce Ward
716 West Broadway
Phoenix, Arizona 85041
.Letter from James J. Lemmon, R.G.
Hazardous Waste Specialist .
Urban Research Associates
454 East Susan Lane
Tempe, Arizona .85281
-------
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
14.
Letter from Thomas W. Kalinowski, Sc.D.
Project Manager
Erler & Kalinowski, Inc.
Consulting Engineers and .Scientists
1930 South Amphlett Blvd., Suite 320
San Mateo, California 94402
Letter from Gary G. Small, Manager
Environmental Management Services Department
Salt River Project
P.O. Box 52025
Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2025
15.
Letter from Kenneth G.
Corporate Manager
Environmental Affairs
Honeywell, Inc.
Letter from Terrence T. Holleran
Director of Safety, Medical, and
Affairs
Motorola Semi-Conductor Products
3102 North 56th Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85018-6606
Ford, P.E.
Environmental
sector
Letter from Charles J. Muchmore
O'Connor, Cavanaugh, Anderson, westover,
Killingsworth & Beshears
Suite 1100
One East CamelbacX Road
Phoenix, Arizona 85012-1656
Letter from Robert H. Allen
Allen, Kimerer & LaVelle
2715 North 3rd street
Phoenix. Ar~z~na 8~004
Mailing List for Fact Sheet Number 3
Letter from Nicholas Tereby, Jr.
P.O. Box 82712
Phoenix, Arizona 85071
-------
I
. "
Final Draft
June 12, 1989
\ :
t ~1 ~L'
- "
~, ., ()'
" -;'
Remedial Action
Plan
for
19th Avenue Landfill
. .
City of Phoenix
-
Prepared by .
.
.Dam~ & Moore
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
FINAL DRAFT
REMEDIAl. ACTION PLAN
FOR THE
19TH A VENUE LANDFILL
June 198~
-------
Final Draft RAp.
06/12/89.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1.0
[ntrodlJCtion ............................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1- 1
1.1 Purpose of Remedial Action Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 1
1.2 I.ocation of landfill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1- 3
1.3' Landfill History. . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1- 4
104 Overview of Landfill ImpactS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. L - ,
1.4.1 Remedia! [nvestigation Methodology....................... 1- 5
1.4.2 landfill Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 6
.i.4.J Ground Water....................................... . . .. 1- 6
1.4.4 Surface Water and Sediments.... ~ 0 0................ .... ... 1- 8
1.4.' Air QlJaLi ty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. l- 8
Baseline Risk Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1- 9
1.'.1 Current Risks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-10
1.'.2 Potentia! Risks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-10
Feasibility Study and Recommended Remedial Ac~ion ............. .1-11
1.6.1 Purpose of Feasibility Study........... .......... ...... .. . 1-11
.1.6.2 Feasibility Study Methodology. . . ~ . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . .1-11
1.6.3 Recommended Remedial Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-l3
1.'
1.6
2.0
Remediallnvestigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1 Intrad\JCtion .............................................. . . . .
2.2
2- 1
2- 1
Landfill and Refuse Characterization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2- 2 .
2.2.! Objectives and Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2- 2
2.2.2 Landfill Geometry and Refuse Volume. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2- 2
2.2.3 Landfill Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2- 4
Surface Water and Sediments [nvestigation ....................... 2- 3
2.3.1 Ob jectives and Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ .. 2- 8
2.3.2 Salt River Hydrology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2- 9
2.3.3 Surface-Water Quality. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-13
2.3.4 Sediment Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-l4
2.3.' Summary 0(. ResultS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . .2-14
Ground-Water [nvestigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . 2-l 5
2.4.1 Objectives. . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-1'
2.4.2 Methods. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-16
2.4.3 Geology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-18
2.~.4 Ground-Water Flow System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-19
2.4.' Water-Quality Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-24
2.4.6 Interpretation of landfill [nfluence on .....................2-29
Ground-Water Quality
Air Quality [nvestigation .......................................2-38
2.'.1 Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-38
2.'.2 Methodology.. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-40
2.'.3 Subsurface Cas Characterization. . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .245
2.'.4 Ambient Air Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-49
2.'.' [nterpretation of Air Quality ResultS...... . ... . ... .... . . . . .2-52
2.'.6 Gas Collection System Evaluation.. ..... .. ... . . ... . . . . . . . .2-56
2.3
2.4
2.'
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
Table of Contents (continued)
3.6
3.'.1 Exposure by Consumption of Vegetables
3..5.2 Exposure to Methane
Risk Characterization
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J- 1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3- 1
[[[ 3~ 1
. . . 0 0 0 . . . . . . . J- 2
3- 2
3- 3
3- 3
3- 4
3- 4
3- 4
. .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3- .5
3- 8
3- 8
3- 9
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3- 9
. . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 3-11
3.4
Baseline Risk Assessment
3.1 Objectives
3.2 Methods
3.3 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
3.3.1 Surface Water. 0 . . 0 . . CI . . . 0 0 0 e 0 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000 0 . . . . . . .
.3.302 Cround Water... . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . o. . . . . . . .00. . . . . . . .
3.3.3 Air. . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30.3.4 Soil and Refuse.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Exposure Assessment. . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . . . . . . . .
304.1 Potential Receptors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . . ... . . . . . . . . .
3.4.2 Human Exposure Pathways
3.4.3 Environmental Exposure Pathways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4.4 Exposure Pathways Evaluated. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Risk Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.0
3.'
.......... .~. 0... ... 0 ..... .... ..0..
Goo...J-ii
4.0
Feasibility Study. . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . 0 Q . . .0. . . . . . . . . . . ... .. . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . 0 co . . .
4.1 Introduction .......... a . . . . 0 0 . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2
4- 1
4-1
Objectives of the Feasibility Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4- 1
"'.201 Refuse Washout.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . .......... . . . . . . 4- 2
4.2.2 Surface-Water Quality. . a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 4- 2
4.2.3 Ground-Water Quality. . .. . . . 0 . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . 4- J
4.2.'" LandfiU-Gas Accumulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4- 3
4.2.' Methodology of the Feasibility StUdy. . o. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4- 4
Development of Options (Phase I). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4- ,
4..3.1 Genera! Response Actions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ - . . -
4.3.2 Identification and Saeening of Technologies and ............40 7
Processes
4.3.3 Selection of Representative Processes
4.3.4 Assembly of Options. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . co . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . 4- 9
Screening of Options' (Phase II> ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0. . . . . . . . 4-13
4.4.1 Criteria for Screening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-13
4.lt.2 Refuse-Washout Option. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . . . . . . . . . . .4-1'
4.4.3 Surface-Water Options. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-1 &
4.4.4 Creund-Water Option. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-20
4.,.., Landfill Cu ............"............................ . . . .4-21
4.4.6
Recommended Alternative (Phase III) ............................4-2'
4.'.1
4.'.2
4.'.3
4.'.4
4.'.'
4.'.6
.....................4- 8
4.3
4.4
Selected Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-23
4.'
IntrodlJction ....................................... a.. . . .4-2'
EvaJu.ation Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-2'
Summary of Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-29
Evaluation of Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-29
Comparison of Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-29
Recommended Alternative
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
Table of Contents (continued)
'.0
Recommended Remedial Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,- 1
.'.1 [ntrod\JCtian ............................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. . ,- 1
. '.2 ComponentS of Recommended Remedial Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5- 2
'.2.1 Refuse-Washout Control. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,- 2
'.2.2 Surface-Water and Sediment Quality Protection......... . . . . ,- 5
'.2..3 Cround-Water Quality Protection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ,- 7
'.2.4 Landfill Cas Migration Control. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,- 8
Implementation of the Remedial Action......................... . '-10
'.3.1 General. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-1 a
'..3.2 Design and ConstrUCtion DocumentS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '-l1
'.3.3 Permit Application. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-l2
'.).4 Contractor Selection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '-l4
;.3.' Site Remediation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '-14
,.)., Postconstruetion Work and Operations Monitoring......... . .'-l6
,.)
6.0
References and Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6- 1
Appendix A. Community Involvement History
Appendix 8. Contingency Plan
Appendix C. Water Quality Data
III
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
lIST OF TABLES
(all tables are at the end of the text)
TABLE
NUMBER
TITLE
1.1
1.2
Cross References Between RAP Sections and WQARF Requirements
Legal Description of 19th Avenue Landfill Property, Phoenix, Arizona
1.3
2.1
Summary of Alternatives
Analytical Parameters for Soil and Refuse Samples
2.2
Summary of Most Frequently Observed Organic Constituents in
Refuse Material
2.3
Chemical Analysis for Surface-Water Inve5tigation
2.4
Releases from Granite Reef Diversion Dam.
2.'
2.6
Chemical Analysis for Ground-Water Investigation
Summary of Ground-Water Quality Program for Geologic Unit A
2.7
Major Ion Concentration in Ground Water Mean t Standard Deviation
(mgji) Existing ([) Wells
2.8
Major Ion Concentrations in Ground Water Mean t Standard Deviation
(mg/l) New (DM) Wells
2.9
Water O,,~Ii." Classification Based on Mean Concentrations
2.10
2~1l
Summary of DetecteC ~.tetals in Ground ..vater Concentrations in ug/l
VOC Concentrations Exceeding' ugJ 1 or the MCL for Vinyl Chloride
"
2.12
2.13
Summary of Concentrations for BOD, COD, and TOC
City of Phoenix 19th Avenue Landfill Radioisotope Data
",Concentrations in PCi/l
2.14
Summary of Detections Above Maxim~m .Contaminant Levels:.
19th Avenue Landfill
2.1'
2.16
Comparison of Compounds Found in Borings DB-2 and WeH I-I
Summary of Total Hydrocarbon Concentrations (~ V IV) in City of
Phoenix Subsurface Gas Probes
LV
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
List of Tables (continued)
TABLE
NUMBER
2.17
2.18
2.19
2.20
2.21
2.22
2.23
2.24
2.2'
3.1
3.2
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
I .
I 4.5
I
4.6
4.7
TITLE
Short- Term Concentrations of Component Hydrocarbons (ppb) Obtained
in City of Phoenix Subsurface Gas Probes Using Portable Gas
Chromatograph
Concentration of the Major Gas Components in the Subsurface Gas
Collection System (96 Volume)
Concentrations of Organic Compounds in Subsurface Gas
Short-Term Ambient Concentrations of Component Hydrocarbons in
Unrestricted Areas. November 3-7, 1987
Short- Term Ambient Concentrations of Component Hydrocarbons in
Restricted Areas. November 3-7, 1987
. Test Data for Gas Extraction Wells with All Other Wells Closed
Test Data for Gas Extraction W'ells with All Wells Fully Open (90°)
Volume Flow Rates for Gas Extraction Wells at a Variety of Valve
Positions. .
Linear Best Fit of Volume Flow Rate Versus Pressure Drop
:............ry of Ground Water Analyses at tne 1 'Jtn Avenue Landfill
(ug/l or ~~j,,~
ADHS Suggested Health-Based Cleanup Levels for Contaminants in Soils
Applicability of General Response Actions to Specific Objectives
Summary of Applicable General Response Action
..
LandfiU Dimension Estimates
Screening of Technologies and Processes tor the Refuse-Washout
Objective .
Screening of Technologies and Processes for the Surface-Water
Quality Objective . .
Screening of Technologies.and Processes for the Ground-Water
Quality. Ob jective.
Screening of Technologies and Processes for the LandfiU-Gas
Accumulation Objective.
v
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
List of Tables (continued)
, 4.8
Process Screening and Selection Summary for the Refuse-Washout
Ob jective
4.9
Process Screening and Selection Summary for the Surface-Water
Quality Objective
4.10
Process Screening and Selection Summary for the Ground-Water
Quality Objective
4.11
Process Screening and Selection Summary for the Landfill-Gas
Accumulation Objective
4.12
Screening of Refuse-Washout Options
Screening of Surface-Water Options
4.13
4.14
Screening of Ground-Water Options
4.16
Screening of Landfi1l-G~ Options
Evaluation of Alternatives
4.1'
VI
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
FIGURE
NUMBER
1.1
1.2
201
2.2
2.3
2.4
2..5
2.6
2.7
208
2.9
2.10
2.11
.. '2
2.13
2.14
2.1.5
2.16
2.17
2.18
2.19
2.20
2.21
LIST OF FIGURES
(all figures are at the end of the text)
TITLE
Site Location Map
19th Avenue Landfill and Vi~inity
Landfill Boundaries an~ Location of Soil Borings
Estimate Top of Refuse
Estimated Thickness of Refuse
Surface Water Sampling Locations
Sediment Sampling Locations
lOO-Year Floodplain Limits
Subsurface Cross Section E-E'
Locations of Dams Upstr.eam Fror:n Landfill Site
Monitor Well Locations
Generalized Stratigraphic Column
Geologic Cross Section
Static Water Levels in [-1 and Rid Well Pumpage for 1987 "
Discharge from Granite Reef Dam
Ground-Water Level Contours January 8, 1987
Ground-Water Level Contours August 31, 1987
... Hydrogeologic Conceptual Diagram
Subsurface Cross Section E-E'
S"tatic Water Level and Total Dissolved Solids VS. Time Well [-4
Stiff Diagrams for Monitor Wells
Stiff Diagrams for Leachate and Wells (-3 and [-4
Base Case Predicted TDS Concentrations Compared to Second Quarter
1987 Measurements
VII
-------
L -
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
List of Figures (continued)
FIGURE
NUMBER
2.22
TITLE
2.23
2.24
Locations of Liquid Disposal PitS
Gas Collection System. and PrS)bes
Methane Concentrations in Shallow Soil Gas Ceil A
2.25
2.26
Ambient Air Sampling Locations
Dilution of Emissions From Ground Crack by Atmospheric Process
2.27
2.28
Baseline Risk Assessment Study Area
Current Land Use
.5.1
'.2
Salt River Channel Conceptual Alignment
Salt River Channel Conceptu.al Section F-F'
'.3
Shallow Seated Bank Protection Concept Section G-G'
5.4
ShaHuw Seated Bank Protection Concept Section H-H'
,.,
5.6
Shallow Seated Bank Protection Concept Section (-1'
Cross Section of Grade Control Structure Concept
5.7
.5.8
Storm Drain Ol....1ci~l ~hannel Conc.t:pt
Landfiil Cap Conceptual Section J-J'
5.9
5.10
Surface Drainage Concept
Surfae Drainage Channel Concept
5.ll
.5.12
Gas Extraction Well Concept
Gas Monitor Probe Concept
.5.13
'.14
Flaring Treatment Facility Concept
Design and Permitting Phase
5.15
Construction Phase
5.16
Postconstruction and Site Monitoring Phase
viii
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1
PURPOSE OF REMEDIAL ACTION PlAN
This remedial action plan (RAP) is submitted in accordance with the regulations and rules
stated in Arizona Compilation of Administrative Rules and Regulations (ACRR), Title 18,
Chapter 7, Article 1 under Arizona Revised Statute ~9-282.
The RAP provides required information on the set of corrective action that has been
designed to corafol, contain, and mitigate the effects of hazardous substances contained
in and generated by the 19th Avenue Landfill. The RAP is the culmination and summary
of an extensive remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS). The RI/FS report
was submitted to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) 00 June 9,
1988. The RI/FS report has been. reviewed by DEQ, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), and the Arizona Department of Water Resources (DWR). Comments by
the agencies have been incorporated in the RAP.
The RI/FS reports are comprehensive and should be referred to for detailed information
referred to but not presented in the RAP. Other key references are listed in Chapter 6.0
of this report. WQARF requirements are incorporated in this RAP by reference.
The. State" requirements for completing the RAP specify the indusion of legal,
administrative, and technical information. These requirements (as identified in AAC
RI8-7-108) are cross-referenced. in Table 1.1 with the section of the RAP that contains
the required information.
in addition to complying with the requirements set forth under the Arizona
Environmental Quality Act and its implementing regulations, the RAP presented in this
document was developed in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthoriution Act ("SARA"), codified at ~2 U.5.C. ~ 9601 ~~. ("CERCLA"); in
accordance with the National Contingency Plan, ~O C.F.R. Part 300; and in accordance
with United States Environmental Protection Agency guidance and regulations.
1-1
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
The preferred alternative presented in this document consists of the following elements:
o
Emplacement of shallow seated compacted soH Levees with soil cement. bank
protection along the Salt River banks adjacent to Cell A and Cell A-I.
o Construction of a subsurface soil cement grade control structure across the river
channel downstream of the Landfill.
o
Installation of a concrete pipe with compacted soil backfill along the l5tn Avenue
storm drain outfaU channel.
o
Widening of the Salt River Channel bottom by excavation and grading.
o
Construction of a single layer compacted soil cap over Cells A and A-I.
o
Provision of surface water drainage from Cells A and A-I.
o
\..onstructlon ot a tence around Cells A and A-l to prevent access to the site.
o
Relocation of A and B Silica Sand and AU Chevy Auto Parts.
\J
Monitoring of ground water quality using monitoring wells to detect possible
changes in water quality conditions.
o
Ground-water quality will be protected and controlled through the use of a ground- .
water contingent:y plan.
.0
Provision of local drinking water through the City ot Phoenix water distribution
system.
o Collection of landfill gas at the perimeter of the site with an active collection
system.
o
Treatment and collection of landfill gas by flaring and discharge to the atmosphere.
1-2
-------
Final Dratt RAP
06/12/&9
o Monitoring of methane at the perimeter of the site.
o Development and implementation of a methane and ambient air quality mvnitoring
program at completion of remedial actions provided for in this Remedial Action
Plan to ensure compliance with ARARs.
These remedial actions are preferred because they prqvide long-term protection oJf public
health and the environment equal to other alternatives, do not include relocation of Cell
A-I thereby avoiding potential short-term health risks and higher costs which may result
from relocation, and they are cost effective.
Community response will be enlisted during the public comment period and. at a public
hearing to be announced in the near future. A responsiveness summary wil! be oeveloped
following the public comment period to address concerns presented by interested
parties. This public involvem~nt program, described in more detail in Appendix A,.
satisfies the Public Participation requirements of CERC1.A Section L L3(k)(2)(i-iv) and
117.
1.2
LOCATION OF LANDFILL
The" landfill occupies approximately d3" acres in an industrial area of MaricJpa Cvunty
within the municipal boundaries of Phoenix, Arizona (Figure l.1>. The major part at the
landfill, Cell A, occupies approximately 200 acres north of the Salt Rive~ channel
(Figure 1.2). Cell A is bounded on the north by 1.ower Buckeye Road, on the ea~t: by the
15th Avenue storm drain outfall channel, on the west by 19th Avenue, and on the south
by the river chennel. The remainder of the landfill, Cell A-I, occupies about: LJ acres
south of the river channel (Figure 1.2). Cell A-I is bounded on the north b:-" the Sal t
River channel, on the east by an active sand and gravel pit, on the south bY.lndustrial
property, and on the west by an inactive sand and gravel pit. A legal descriptlvn v.f the
19th Avenue Landfill is given in Table L.2.
The Salt River bed adjacent to the landlil! is normaUy dry. Parts of both Cel! .~" and Cell
A-I are within the 100-year floodplain of the river. Flows in the Salt River at the
landfill result from controlled releases from dams more than 30 miles upstream and local
1-3
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
sources of discharge into the riverbed. Further information describing the physiography,
geology, and climate of the site may be found in the RI/FS reports.
1..3
LANDFILL HISTORY
Until 19", most of the 19th Avenue l.andfiil site was undisturbed except for a relatively
shallow 20-acre excavation in the northwestern portion of Ceil A. In 19'7, the City of
Phoenix extended an existing lease with the landowner to operate a municipallandfiU on
the site. This lease was subject to the landowner entering into an agreement with
another party to start sand and gravel mining at the site. The open pits resulting from
the mining excavations would create the space needed for landfilling. Excavation and
landfill operations began in approximately 19.57.
The sand and gravel pitS were generally excavated 30 to 3' feet deep in Cell A and Cell
A-I. Deeper pits were excavated in the southwestern portion of Cell A. The sand and
gravel pits were backfilled with material that was predominantly municipal refuse
couected In the Phoenix area. Some solid and liquid industrial waste was also
deposited. The refuse was generally covered on a daily basis and a final cover two to
three feet thick was placed over an area once it was filII of refuse. The liquids were
. mostly poured into pitS dug in -1"ei'.5 of C'~l! A p!"eviol:!I~. f:~~;:.:f with refuse. Most of the:
liquid disp>j..a; ~;d were in tne north-centrai part of Cell A and along the eastern
boundary.
Parts of the surface of the site were covered with water by at least one flood event
during 196.5 and interrmttently during the 1970s. River flows in May 1978 washed refuse
from the southwestern part of Cell A and the northern third of Cell A-I. The area in
Cell A was refiUed with refuse during the summer of 1978. The Cell. A-I area was
refilled with construction debris in 1979. River flows in the winter and spring of 1979
covered the snuthwestern part of Cell A and washed refuse out again. The portion of the
southwestern area of Cell A that was washed out by flooding was filled with rubble,
asphalt, and dirt over the past 'ew years.
The landfill was closed by a cease and desist order issued by the Arizona Department of
Health Services (ADHS) in February 1979. The City and ADHS entered into a consent
1-4
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
order agreement in Jun~ 1979. ,The consent order was ame,nded in December 1979. The
landfill was placed on the EPA's Superfund list in September 1983. To comply with the
first amended consent order, the City covered the site with fill, stockpiled soil for final
capping, installed ground-water monitor wells, built berms around the boundary of the
'landfiU, and installed a gas collection system. Since 1981, the City of Phoenix has
undertak~ several activities to address the potential public health and environmental
issues posed by the landfiU.
The City of ~hoenix has taken the lead role in performing the remedial investigation and
feasibility study of the landfill and will continue to work with ADEQ and EPA to pursue
implementation of the Remedial Action Plan.
1."
OV,ERVIEW OF LANDFILL IMPACTS
1.".1
Remedial (nvestittation MethodolOt(Y
The remedial investigation included four subjects of investigation: landfill cO!'1!ents,
, .
ground water, surface water and sediments, and air quality. The investigation of landfill
contentS provided information on types of refuse, chemical constituents in the refuse, '
and on the volume and distribution of refuse in t~e !ar;dfiU. Subjects of the grouno-I,\,CLLl:l
investigation were ground-water levels, direction of ground-water flow, horizontal and
vertical gradientS, chemical composition of ground water, and' physical characteristics of
the aquifer. Subjects of the surface, water and sediment studies were the extent of
potential flooding of the landfill by the Salt River, the potential for changes in the
location or depth of the channel near the landfill caused by flooding, and the quality of
surface water ~d sediments. The air quality investigation focused on the effectiveness
of the existing gas collection system and ~he potential impacts of the landfill on ambient
air quaH ty.
The findings of the remedial investigation were used in a baseline risk assessment to
evaluate the risk that the 19th Avenue Landfill might pose to public health and the
environment. The findings of the remedial investigation and the baseline risk assessme,nt
were then used to select and design appropriate corrective actions for the site.
1-5
-------
. Final Draft RAP
06/12/&9
1...2
Landfill Contents
The 19th Avenue Landfill contains approximately nine miHion cubic yards of material.
The average depth of the waste in the landfill is 30 to 35 feet. However, portions of the
southern one-third of Cell A have wastes buried deeper than 50 feet; refuse in Cell A-I is
only 10 to 20 feet thick next to the Salt River. [nterviews conducted with past operators
of the landfill indicate that some solid and liquid wastes with hazardous characteristics
and possibly materials with low levels of radioactivity were probably disposed of at the
landfill.
Sampling of soil and refuse in the landfill showed that the contents of the landfiU were
generaHy similar to those expected in municipal landfills. Sampling detected several
chemicals, including VOCs, PCBs, and pesticides. The most frequently detected VOCs
were ethylbenzene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, .xylenes, arid toluene. Analysis of EP Toxicity
extracts for metals generaHy detected low concentrations, mostly beneath the defining
criteria for hazardous wastes.
The principal conclusion drawn from the investigation of landfill contents is that the
. .
. .
contents of the' 19th A venue LandfiU are generaHy similar to those of other municipal
landfills of its era and include some hazardollc mu"!rials, pOllutants, anc ~~~~:-;-- .
~
1.4.3
Ground Water
The landfill is constructed on the aHuvial sedimentS of the Upper AHuvial Unit, which
extends to approximat1!ly 3'0 feet below the land surface. The Upper Alluvial Unit is
underlain by the Middle Fine-Grained Unit, and the contact between the two units is
gradational. The uppermost sediments of the Upper Alluvial Unit are extremely
coarse-grained, ranging from cobbles to gravels and coarse sands. The bottom of the
landfill is underlain by sedimerus of this type.
Ground water was found to flow to the northwest at .! rate of 1 to 8 feet per day.
Measured water levels vaded between 20 and 80 feet below the land surface. The depth
to water and the ground-wate~ flow rates at the L 9th Avenue Landfill are influenced by
irrigation and industrial wells that pump ground-water and by recharge from surface
1-6
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89 ,
water. Ground-water flow gradients, and therefore flow rates, increase during the
summer because of seasonal ground-water withdrawals. The use of agricultural irrigation
wells northwest of the 19th Avenue Landfill is limited almost exclusively to the
six-month summer growing season. This use creates drawdown in the aquifer and induces
steeper flow gradientS. Downward vertical gradientS were also observed in tne Upper
Alluvial Unit in response to summer agricultural irrigation pumping from nearby
production wells.
From ,the remedial investigation, it was learned that flows in the Salt River recharge the
ground water at an average rate of approximately one foot per day. The amount of
recharge increases in relation to the amount of the Salt River channel that is covered
with water. Therefore, the amount of water recharged is greatest when the river is in
flood stage. Water level increases ,of 20 to 30 feet have been observed as a result of
flood flows in the Salt River. The quality of water recharged by the Salt River flows is
better than that of the ground water in the area.
Portions of the bottom of the 19th Avenue Landfill have probably been saturated by
ground water at various ~imes since the mid-1970s. The southwestern part of Cell A may
have been saturated continuously since 1980. The saturation of the refuse in the landfill
generates water that is relatively high in TCS (J,OOO to 10,000 mg/I) and contains low
levels of VOCs (less than 10 ppb) and metals. The water then flows out of the landfiH, is
diluted by' ground water with lower TCS ~'=00-700 -mg/I) flowing past the site, and
migrates to the northwest along the direction of ground-water flow.
Water quality in some wells on the boundary of the landfill reflects the interaction of
landfill materials and ground water. Table 2.14 summarizes those compounds that were
detected above'MCls during the remedial investigation. Water quality in downgradient
wells shows little impact of the landfiU and meets drinking water standards. Off-site
. monitor wells range .from 300 feet
-------
Final Dra!t RAP
06/12/89
Surface Water and Sediments
1.4.4
The Salt River adjacent to the 19th Avenue Landfill is normally dry. Flows have
occurred in the normally dry river bed as a result of releases from upstream reservoirs.
The 100-year floodplain covers approximately '0 percent of Cell A-I and 30 percent of
Cell A at the present time.
-The Salt River bed is downc:utting in the vicinity of the landfill. Sand and gravel mining
in the river bed may increase this erosion process. Erosion may undercut structures built
along or within the river channel. In addition to general erosion of the channel on a
regional scale, local scour of the channel during flooding may erode the channel to depths
of lO feet or greater.
Sampling of surface water and sediments during the remedial investigation indicated that
there was negligible difference in the chemical quality of surface water or sediments in
the Salt River channel upstream or downstream of the landfill.
It was concluded from the remedial investigation that without additional flood
protection, approximately 30 percent of the surface area of Cell A and '0 percent of
Cell A-I will be subject to inundation during a lOa-year flow in the Salt River. W~~=~.::-
of some landfill material is likely during a lOa-year flow.
1.4.'
Air Quality
1.4.'.1
"-
Ambient Air
The remedial investigation revealed methane concentrations of up to .50 percent by
volume in the subsurface pores and voids of the landfill. The remedial investigation also
. found VOCs such as benzene, toluene, xylene, and trichloroethene in the landfill gas
below the cover of the landfill. The concentrations of these compounds ranged from less
than 0.001 ppm to 2.5 ppm.
Sampling of ambient air above the landfill indicated that concentrations of total
hydrocarbons were generally below 10 ppm, which is considered typical of concentrations
1-8
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
in an urban/suburban environment. Higher concentrations were sometimes observed near
cracks in the landfill cover or the collection system exhaust, but their occurrence was
sporadic and very short in duration.
Benzene was the most frequently detected component hydrocarbon. When detected the
short-term concentrations ranged from 0.004 ppm to 0.3 ppm. These concentrations
equate to long-term averages that are within the background concentrations measured in
the Phoenix metropolitan area. Other VOCs were detected infrequently. The 19th
Avenue Landfill does not appear to have an identifiable impact on the quality of ambient
air in the vicinity of the landfill.
1.4.'.2
Subsurface Cas Migration
Methane is generated in the 19th Avenue Landfill by the decomposition of landfill
refuse. The existing gas collection system is designed to control off-site migratron of
methane along only the northern and western boundaries of Cell A. Prior to renovation
of the collection system in December 1987 (during the RI investigation), concentrations
of methane above the lower explosive limit (LEI.) were measured in enclosed areas off
site. After the system was renovated, concentrations of methane decreased at most off-
site subsurfa(;e pruiJ~:i c1J1~ uu:':site enclosed areas. However, concentrations.in a pit at
Tanner Inc. exceeded the LEI. on occasion after the system was reno.w'a..:~d.
When the existing gas collection system is maintained in good condition, it is an effective
method for controlling off-site migration of landfill gas to levels below the LEL at most
locations along the northern and western boundaries of the landfill. However, tests
indicate that "the system needs additional renovation to achieve this level of control
along the entire extent of the e~jsting system.
1.'
BASEUNE RISK ASSESSMENT
The baseline risk assessment evaluated risk to public health and the environment
resulting from both current and potential conditions at the landfill.
1-9
-------
Final Oraft RAP
06/12/89
1.'.1
Current Risks
The assessment indicates that the landfill does not pose a current risk to public health,
although releases from the 19th Avenue Landfill have affected, to some extent, the
ground-water environment at the landfill boundary. Sampling of downgradient weils 300
to 1,600 feet show negligible impacts of 'the landfill on ground-water quality (see
. Table 2.4"). No current risks to public health were identified for surface water, soil and
refuse, and ambient air quality exposure pathways that were examined. The hazard
associated with methane was limited to the off-site migration of methane if the gas
collection system were not operating.
1.'.2
Potentia! Risks
Potential public health risks could occur if landfill materials were washed out of the
landfill as a result of flows in the Salt River, although the risk cannot be. quantified.
Ingestion of landfill soil could be a possible exposure pathway if areas of the landfill
beneath the existing cover were exposed in the future. For such exposure, however,
someone would have to gain access to the site and ingest the soil or refuse. Another
potef1ti.::a1 ,.i-de ,,, ""hli,. health and the environment may occur as a result of a rising
":.;a:er table '-:.i~. 3aturates a greater volume of refuse and releases additional'
leachate. The risk to the environment resulting from additional leachate generation by
this mechanism is unknown and cannot be precisely quantified. Historical water quality
data have not indicated any correlation between an increasing water table elevation and
increasing ground-water VOC concentrations (see Figures 5.15 and 5.16 of the RI/FS
repord. Exposure to "ground water from a shallow drinking water weil, assuming such a
well were drilled on or near the .landfiU boundary and used as a drinking water source,
represents the only potential public health risk. However, the City of Phoenix currently.
supplies drinking water in the area and will continue to in the future. The area. is
becoming increasingly industrialized, lessening the chance of ingestion of ground water
via a new domestic well.
1-10
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
1.6
FEASIBILITY STUDY AND RECOMMENDED REMEDIAL ACTION
This section presents the purpose of the feasibility study, the general approach to the
study~ and a summary of the results with special emphasis on the selected remedial
action. A basic premise of the feasibility study is that the 19th Avenue Landfill will not
be used for any purpose inconsistent with protection of public health and the environment
and that public access to the landfill site will be prohibited by a site perimeter fence.
1.601
Purpose of FeasibilitY Study
The purpose of the feasibility study for the 19th Avenue Landfill was to develop a
cost-effective corrective action or set of actions that will protect human health and the
environment from releases or potential releases from the landfill. The feasibility study
was completed concurrently with a remedial investigation in accordance with the Work
Plan for the 19th Avenue Landfill (Dames & Moore, 1986b). The Work Plan was reviewed
and approved by EPA, DEQ, and DWR.
The potential risks identified by the baseline risk assessment were considered as areas of
concern to ~e addressed in the feasibility study. The feasibility study f!"lr' the 19th
A venue LandfHl identifies, develops) screens, and evaluates potentia I corrective actions
(also'known as remedial actions) needed to protect humanhealtkand the environment.
1.6.2
FeasibilitY Study MethodolOKY
1.6.2.1
Envir.cnmental Ccncems
The remedial investigation identified some public and environmental risks associated
with conditions at the landfill. These risks established areas of concern to be addre~sed
by the feasibility study., The areas of concern were labeled, as follows:
o Refuse washout
o Surface-water quality
o Ground-water quality
o Landfill-gas accumulation
1-11
-------
Final Draft RAP
Q61 L2/89
The refuse washout concern is based on the potential for Salt River flows to wash
material out, of the landfiU and impact the quality of surface water and sediments,
thereby potentiaHy increasing risk for the surface water and sediment pathway.
The surface-water quality concern is based on the potential for surface-water runoff to
contaCt refuse and transport material to the Salt River, thereby potentially increasing
the risk for the surface-water and sediment pathway. .The surface-water quaHty area of
concern also addresses the potential for infiltration of surface-water runoff to infiltrate
tltlO the refuse and generate leachate. Leachate may impact the quality of ground water
and increase the risk for the ground-water exposure pathway.
The ground~water quality 'concern is based on the potential that someone could drill a
smail domestic water supply well (le~ than 35 gpm capacity) near the boundary of the
PandfiU and ingest the ground water. AU aquifers in the State have been classified as
drinking water aquifer by statute (ARSI+9-224.8). A total of 1,794 analyses were
performed for compounds which have an MCl. during the Remedial Investigation. Of this
total, 39 exceeded the MCL limit (Table 2.14). Ingestion of water exceeding standards
may present a possible health risk. However, because of the continuing in~ustriaHzation
Qf the area and the presence of the City of Phoenix water distribution system it is not
mticipated that drinkina UI~ter supply wells wHi to: ,~:H:-:'.
An adaitional ground-water quality concern includes the possibility that a rising water
table would inundate a larger volume of refuse than is presently inundated. The amount
1iI-! leachate originating from the landfill may be increased by this mechanism. Historical
\Vater quality data do not indicate a correlation between the degree of VOC ground-
water contamination and the ground-water table elevation (see Figures 5.1' and 5.16 of
me Rf/FS repord. Therefore, the risk of additional ground-water quality degradation due
to a rising water table cannot be quantified.
The landfill-gas accumulation concern is based on the'observations of off-site 'migration
at landfill gas. Methane in the landfill gas could accumulate in enclosed spaces in
potentiaHy explosive concentrati...ns. Future development in the vicinity of the landfill
may increase the risk of explosion along boundaries that are not presently protected by a
gas collection system.
1-12
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
1.6.2.2
Identification of Remedial Action Alternatives
Rem~ial goals were developed for the landfill by identifying an overall objective for the
entire site and then developing specific objectives for each of the four areas of
concern. The overall goal for the feasibility study was to develop an action or set of
actions that protects human health ~d the environment, meets federal and state public
health and environmental requirements, is cost-effective, and uses permanent solutions
and alternative treatments and resource recovery to the maximum extent practlcable.
Broad categories of technologies and methods of meeting the specific objectives for each
area of concern were identified and evaluated. The technologies and processes that
appeared to be the _most technically feasible were assembled into one or more actions
that could potentially meet the spedfic objectives for each of the four areas of
concern. These potential actions are referred to in this report as "options". Four sets of
options were independently developed for eaCh area. of concern. The options. were
further evaluated to select the option or options that best met the specific objective.
For exa'!'ple, aU options for the refuse washout concern were compared with each other,
and the best options were retained.
.
The options that survived this evaluation were assembled into potential actions tha~
.applied to the entire site. These potential solutions are referred to in this report as
"alternatives". Each alternative consisted of four options, one for each of the four areas
of concern. As a last step, the alternatives were screened and evaluated in detail to
provide information for selecting a recommended remedial action.
1.6.3
Recotnmended Remedial Action
Using the progressive process described above, four alternative remedial action plans
evolved. Each alternative addressed the four areas of ..:oncern defined in Section 1.6.2.
Of these four alternative plans, one plan was selected as the preferred alternative; it has
the following elements:
1. Refuse washout will be controlled to a lOa-year flood by the construction of
seated levees with bank protection for both Cell A and Celt A-I. A subsurface
1-13
-------
Fina! Draft RAP
06/12/89
grade control structure wiU be constructed across the river channel. The storm
drain 'outfaU channel will be piped and backfilled. The river channel between Cel!
A and Cell A-I will be widened.
2. Surface water quality impacts will be controlled by
o Instamng a single-layer soil cap over both cells.
o Providing positive drainage for both ceUs via surface grading and perimeter
di tches.
o Placement of fences around both ceils.
o Relocation of A & B Silica Sand and All Chevy Auto Parts (see Figure l.2).
"3. Potential ground-water impacts to human health and the environment wil! be
controUed by:
o
Monitoring ground-water quality and' implementing a contingency plan if
ground-water quality conditic:-.: ~:.!_. :...Q..e due to future contammanL re1t:~:'
trom the landfill. The objective of the contincr@"cy plan is to ~nsure that
potentia! ground-water degradation does not to pose a risk to public health,
welfare, or the environment in the future.
.
o Continuing ,to provide drinking water from the existing City of Phoenix
distribution system. .
4. Subsurface-gas migration will be controHed by
o Improving and expanding the- gas collection and combustion system for both
ceUs.
o Single-layer soH caps over both ceils (see la above).
o Monitoring of subsurface-methane concentrations.
l-14
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89 .
o
Development and implementation of a methane and ambient air quality rr..:mitoring
program at completion of remedial actions provided for in this Remedial Action
Plan to ensure compliance with ARARs.
The elements of the recommended remedial action are compared to the elements of the
other alternatives in Table 1.3. The recommended remedial action was selected because
it
o
Provides protection of public health and the environment equal to other
al terna ti ves.
o
Does not include relocation of Cell A-l and therefore avoids the potential short-
term health risks and higher costs that may result from relocation.
o
[s cost-effective.
o
Will assure that applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (.J..R~.Rs) are
complied with a~ the facility boundary after completion of construction activi ties
associated with the preferred alternative.
This alternative uses permanent solutions aFtd alternative treatment technologies to the
maximum extent practicable for this site. Becau.<~ treatment oi the principal threat at
the site was not found to be practicable, however, this remedy does not satisfy the
statutory preference for treatment as a principle element of the remedy.
Sections 4..5..5 (Comparison of Alternatives) and 4..5.6 (Recommended Alt~rnative)
describe more lully the recommended alternative.
1-1.5
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
2.0
REMEDIAl. INVESTICA TtON
2.1
INTRODUCTION
The remedial investigation comprised five separate studies. First, in order to understand
present environmental conditions and impacts associated with the landfill, to predict
possible future impacts, and to design and implement remedial activities, it was neces-
sary to characterize the amount, types, and location of refuse within the landfill.
Another task was to assess the effects of the landfill on surface water and sediments in
the Salt River and to evaluate the infiJtration of surface water into the refuse and the
subsequent impact an ground-water quality.
Another important task was the characterization of ground,.water flow system and the
existing quality of ground water. Information gained from this task allowed inferences to
be made regarding the current impact of the landfill on ground-water quality, provided
an understanding of the interaction between ground water and refuse, and provided
hydraulic and source data for predicting future changes in ground-water qua!i ty. The
ground-water investigation included ground-water modeling studies for predicting con-
taminant transport and for evaluating ground-water remedial actions.
The air qua1ity investigation had a two-fold objeCtive. One objective U':!S to evaluate the
impact of the landfill an ambient air quality. Another objective was to evaluate the
effectiveness of the existing gas collection system for controlling off-site mi&ration of
the subsurface gas.
-
The fifth and filial task was to assess the risks to public health and environment resulting
from releases of contamination from the landfill refuse. This task relied primarily on
data collected from the other tasks and on exposure and toxicity data from the published
literature on health effect$.
In the following sections of Chapter 2.0, the results from the first four tasks of the
remedial action will be presented. The risk assessment wiJ1 be summarized in
Chapter 3.0.
2-1
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
2.2
LANDFILL AND REFUSE CHARACTERlZA TION
2.2.1
Objectives and MethodolQKY
One purpose of the landfill characterization task was to gain an understanding of the
landfill as a potential source by assessing the size of the landfill and characterizing its
contents. Another purpose was to adequately estimate the dimensions of the landfill so
that potential corrective actions could be properly designed and evaluated.
There were two principal objectives for this task:
o
Identification of the lateral and vertical boundaries of the refuse.
o Characterization of the chemical composition of soil and refuse at selected loca-
tions in the landfill.
Both Cell A and Cell A-I were studied in the landfill characterization task. The investi-
gation comprised several sub tasks: interviews with former operators and other city
employees, a review of aerial photographs, a surface geophysical survey, drilling and
sampHn@ of bnrehol-. ;anti utilization of previous investigations of contents and size of
lan~!i!1.
2.2.2
Landfill GeometrY and Refuse Volume
-
2.2.2.1
...
HorizontaJ Extent
A review of historical aerial photographs indicated that the landfill is bounded by 19th
Avenue on the west, the 15th Avenue storm drain on the east, Lower Buckeye Road on
the north, and the Salt River on the south. However, interviews with city employees and
former landfill operators indicated that there was some uncertainty about the actual
boundaries of the refuse. Therefore, a geophysical investigation (soil conductivity) was
conducted to provide additional information on the refuse boundaries. The results of the
geophysical investigation were then confirmed by driUing shallow boreholes ar\Jund the
edges of Cell A and Cell A-I. The landfill boundaries, as inferred from geophysical and
borehole data, are shown in Figure 2.1, along with the location of soil borings.
2-2
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
The two businesses, All Chevy Auto Parts and A & 8 Silica, have been included within the
landfill boundary on the basis of evidence from aerial photographs. The tallow plant has
been excluded from Cell A, primarily because aerial photographs indicate that no refuse
was placed on the tallow plant site.
The extent of Cell A may be overestimated by the boundaries shown in Figure 2.1. Tbe
boundary includes a seven-acre area that is approximately 2,400 feet south of the inter-
section of Lower Buckeye Road and 19th Avenue in the west-central portion of Ceil A.
This seven acres corresponds to the area where geophysical measurements were unable to
locate the limits of the landfill and where reportedly no refuse was deposited. Aerial
photographs provide little additional information about this area. A review of aerial
photograph! showed that the seven-acre portion had not been excavated prior to January
1958, and the area was not disturbed after January 1963, the date of the next available
photograph.
",7 2.2
Vertical Extent
Eighteen boreholes provided information about the depth of refuse in Cell A and
Ceil A-I. The locations of the boreholes are shown in Figure '.1. r:'!'Ulinl) .Jch4 from
other sources were also used f"" ~'3.~uale' the vertical ext~t of the landfiU. Data from
27 borehole logs of work done prior to the RI were \Jtilized for the estimate of the land-
fill thickness.
Elevation contours of the top of the refuse and contours of the estimated refuse thick-
ness are shown in Figures 2.2 and 2.3, respectively. Figure 2.2 shows the location of ail
boreholes used in the analysis.
The refuse in Cell A varies in thickness from 12 feet to 58 feet. Cell A can be divided
into two general areas based on the thickness of the refuse. The northern two-thirds of
the site contains refuse that is generally between 20 and 30 feet thick. The southern
third of Cell A, the portion of the 19th Avenue Landfill nearest the Salt River, is
characterized by refuse thicknesses between 30 and 50 feet. The th~ckness of the soil
cover varies widely in Cell A. Much of the site is covered by two to four feet of silty
sands and gravels with some cobbles. This probably represents the final cover that was
2-3
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
placed over Cell A prior to and immediateiy after closure. The cover is generally thinner
over the partS of the southwestern portion of the site that were washed out during the
1978 flood and were not refilled with construction debris. The northwestern quarter of
the site is covered by approximately 15 feet of stockpiled silty sand with an estimated
volume of 1.7 million cubic yards. The City brought this material to the site fo~ use as
the final cover. .
The soil cover at Cell A-i is fairly uniform across the site, with a thickness of about 10
to i4 feet. The thinnest cover observed in remedial investigation borings was four feet.
The thickness of refuse in Cell A-I varies from 30 to 34 feet in much of the southern
two-thirds of the site to 10 to 20 feet in the northern portion near the Salt River.
2.2.2.3
Volume
The total estimated volume. of refuse in Cell A is 9 million cubic yards. The estimated
volume of Cell A- I refuse is 436,000 cubic yards. The estimated total volume is
consistent with the estimate by the City of Phoenix that approximately 3.4 million tons
of material were disposed of at the iandfill. A density of .37 tons per cubic yard of
refuse obtained by dividin~ the tOMage estimate by rh. vnlllrnA Acot'i"''''fe is in the rar.ge
expected for municipal refL!~e.
2.2.3
Landfill Contents
2.2.3.1
Visual Observations
A wide vaciety of materials was encountered during drilling. The materials recovered
would generally be expected to be present in a typical municipal landfill. Fo.r example,
some of the items that were observed were w~d, tires, plastic, newspapers. and other
paper products, glass, cardboard, wire, and metal scrap. Samples of soil and refuse were
occasionally recovered that appeared ~o be coated with a black oily substance.
2-4
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/&9
2.2.3.2
Soil and Refuse Analyses
Forty:-two samples of soH and refuse were analyzed for metals, organic compounds, and
chemical indicators identified in Table 2.1.
Or~anic Compounds
A complete listing of organic compounds with reported concentrations above the detec-
tion limits- is given in the RI report. The concentrations of the four most frequently
detected compounds are summarized in Table 2.2.
The highest total organic concentration (the sum of all detected organic compounds) was'
observed in boring DB-2 (Figure 2.1) near the top of the refuse, along the eastern
boundary and approximately 1,000 feet south of Lower Buckeye Road. This area had the
longest history of use for liquid disposal. The next highest total organic concentration
was found in boring DB-4 from within the refuse layer. This area, in the north-central
part of the landfill, was also a center for liquid disposal. The sa"1ples with the next
highest total organic concentrations were collected from borings DB-6 and 08-11 in
areas where liquid wastes were not known to have been disposed.
i
PCBs were detected in five samples of soil or refuse. The maximum observed PC8
concentration was 30 mg/kg which is weU below the DEQ guidance level for cleanup.
Samples were collected fr.om the refuse layer and from the alluvia. sediments below the
refuse at several locations throughout the landfill. Samples from the refuse tested
positively for various organic chemicals, such as chlorinated hydrocarbons, ethylbenzene,
xylenes, and toluene. In samples from the soils beneath the refuse, these organic chemi-
cals were not present above the analytical detection limits. The results from within the
refuse and below the refuse indicate "that organic chemical waste was not present below
the bottom of the refuse at the locations sampled. .
2-5
-------
. Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
Metals
Forty-two samples of refuse and soils were analyzed for the EP- Toxicity metals. Only
one sample, from 08-9, exceeded federal EP- Toxicity standards. Cadmium was detected
at a concentration of 2.1' mg/I. in the sample, compared to the federal standard of 1.0
mgJI.. Likewise, none of the soil samples that were collected from CeJi A (Brown and
Caldwell, L 983) and Cell A- L (Brown and CaldweU, L 986) prior to the RI exceeded federal
EP- Toxicity standards,;
Indica tors
The moisture content of samples collected near or below the water table was about 60
.percent. The moisture content for refuse samples above the water table ranged from l'
percent to '0 percent. SampleS of alluvial material from beneath the northern
two-thirds of Cell A had moisture contents of 5 percent or less. Most of the samples
coUected in the northern two-thirds of the landfiU were coUected beneath old liQUid
disposal pits. The moisture data therefore. are indicative of the. moisture contentS below
the pits at the time of sampling. These low moisture contents indicate that if leachate
was being produced in the refuse, it was not mi!r'.:~: 10wnward at the sam~~:...c ,. ~::-.:.
at the time of sampling.
.
The pH measurements generally ranged betwe1!n 8.' and 7.5. for the samples. The lowest
recorded pH values were 6.' and 6.6 from boring 08-6 within. the refuse. Total organic
halogen (TOX) and cyanide (CN) were detectable in less than one-fourth of the samples
analyzed. The highest CN concentration was observed. in the surface sample (2.98
mg/kg).
Phenols were detected in 10 of the 14 borings sampled and in 16 of the 42 samples
collected. No phenols were detected in samples of alluvial material beneath the refuse.
Total organic carbon (TOC) was detected in all samples and ranged from greater than
L6,000 mg/kg to 260 mg/kg. In almost aU cases, the lowest roc concentrations were
reported for the samples of alluvial material. Cation exchange capacity (CEC) values
ranged from betwe1!n 61.8 to 1.6 milliequivalent per 100 grams (meq/100g). The average
CEC value for refuse samples was 19.6 meq/lOOg, and the average for alluvial material
2-6
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89. .
was 6.3 meq/l00g. No significance is given to the CEC data. Soils of Maricopa County
are generally low in organic content. Therefore, low TOC is expected in alluvial soils at
the site.
2.2.3.3
Liquid Analyses
One liquid_sample was collected near the bottom of boring DB-IO and two liquid samples
were collected in boring OB-ll (Figure 2.1). The first sample.from boring OB-II was
coUected at a depth of approximately 33 feet below land surface and the second sample
was collected at a depth of '3 feet below land surface. The liquid samples were analyzed
for major ions, metals, coliform bacteria, indicator parameters, gross alpha and beta, and
VOC.
None of the liquid samples are believed to consist entirely of leachate generated in the
refuse above the water table. Water levels measured in November 1.986 in monitor weUs
on the boundary of the landfill indicate that each of the samples were collected below
the depth of the water table. .The sample at DB-IO and the shallower sample at DB-II
were col1ected in the refuse. The deeper water sample in boring DB-II was collected
from al1uvium below refuse.
Or~anic Compounds
There were no detections of VOCs, pesticide or lICBs. The only compound detected was
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate in the DB-IO liquid sample at a concentration of 7.6 ppb.
Metals
No metal concentration exceeded established federal drinking water standards.
2-7
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/&9
Maior Ions and Indicators
The Hquid samples can. be classified as sodium-bicarbonate/chloride water by the relative
percentages of their major ions. The TDS concentrations ranged from about 900 mgjl in
liquid collected below the refuse to 6,600 mg/l in liquid from the refuse layer.
liquid samples from the refuse also have higher concentrations of several other indicator
parameters than found in liquid samples from below the refuse and in monitor weUs. The
parameters that appear to be most characteristic of ground water in contact with the
refuse are ammonia (NHJ)' Kjeldahl-nitrogen, biological oxygen demand (BOD), chemical
oxygen demand (COD), and gross beta.
The relatively high concentrati,ons of TDS and other indicators within the refuse layer
are not observed in ground water below the refuse or off-site monitor wells. Therefore,
significant water quality changes due to interaction of refuse with ground water does not
persist over long distances.
2.3
SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENTS INVESnCA nON
2.3.1
Objectives and Methodolotrf
The Salt River channel lies between two individual portions (known as ce!ls) oi the 19th
A venue landfilJ. The river drains a larse area in north-central and northeastern
Arizona. The Salt River channel is often dry in the vicinity of the landfiU because river
flows are controUed "'by a system of upstream water conservation dams. Water is
released from the reservoirs when they become full. These controUed releases result in
flver flows past ~he 19th Avenue Landfill. These high volume flows are capable of
eroding into the landfill and carrying away portions of the landfill material. Flows in the
Salt River adjacent to the landfill also occur due to runoff from local rainfaU or local
discharges of ground water pumped to dewater sand and gravel pits or construction
projects. These nuisance flows are low volume and do not erode the landfill.
There is a potential that the erosion of landfill material could affect the quality of
surface water in the Salt River channel and downstream ponds. In addition, the chemical
2-&
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
quality of the sediments in the Salt River could also be affected. Water from high flows
in the Salt River could inundate parts of the landfill and percolate through the refuse.
. Leachate could then migrate downward and have an impact on the quality of ground
water.
Flows resulting from local dra~ge in the immediate vicinity of the landfill may also
flow across the landfill. Water from these local sources could percolate through the
refuse and generate leachate that could affect ground-water quality. Also, local drain-
age flows could erode landfill materials and carry them into the river, possibly lmpacting
the quality of downstream sediments and surface water.
Several sub tasks were conducted to examine each potential impact. Information on the
. .
hydrology of the Salt River and physical structures and processes in the riverbed were
obtained from previous investigations; maps, aerial photographs, and field observations.
Local drainage patterns were also investigated by the use of maps and field observa-
tions.
Surface-water quality was evaluated by collecting samples from the river upstream and
downstream of the landfill and from a pond immed~ately east of the landfill. The
sampling locations are shown in Figure 2.4. The constituents analyzed in surface-water
samples are given ~I'" i .4bt~ ~..Ji':'"
Sediments from the Salt River were collected upstream and downstream from the .landfill
to provide a comparison of the quality of the sediments on either side of the landfill.
Sediment sample locations are shown in Figure 2..5. The chemical analyses performed on
sediment samples are given in Table 2.38.
. 2.3.2
Salt River HYdrolOJ(Y
2.3.2.1
Drainage System and Flows
1 he 19th Avenue LandfiU is adjacent to the lower reach of the Salt River. The Granite
Reef Diversion Dam (GRDD) is about 2.5 miles upstream from the site. The Salt River
outfal1s to. the Gila River about 12 miles downstream from the site.
2-9
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
Six water conservation dams operated by the Salt River Project (SRP) are upstream from
the GROD. Four of these dams are on the Salt River, and two are on the Salt River's
major tributary, the Verde River. The GRDD provides controlled releases of water from
the six upstream dams into irrigation canals. Because the six water conservation dams
were not designed for flood control, large releases are not possible until reservoir levels
reach the emergency spillway crest elevations. At these times, floods can occur along
the lower Salt River. These flows can be relatively large with respect to volume and
duration. The 100-year floodplain, in relation to the landfill and vicinity, is shown in
Figure 2.6. Plans for increased flood control capability are currently under review, but
no final decisions have been made.
Between 1941 and 1962, the Salt, River below GRDD was essentially dry. Since 1962,
several large discharges past GRDD have occurred. A summary of these flows is
presented in Table 2.4. Flows during 1978 inundated the landfiU and eroded landfill
materials in both cells of the 19th Avenue Landfill.
2.3.2.2
Loca! Conditions
The r"e~ence of br:~~::. :rainage ditches, and sand and gravei quarries places constraints
on fu'ture construction in the landfill vicinity. The bridges are designed t'o withstand
large river flows; as a result, these structures can significantly affect river dynamics.
The present channel in the vicinity of the landfill is fairly weU defined, and there are
some channel bank stabilization measures in place upstream and downstream from the
landfill. The riverbed materials are alluvial and subject to rapid erosion during major
flows. The upstream channel bank protection includes a blanket of rock-filled wire
baskets (gab ions) on the south bank just upstream from Cell A-I. Downstream channel
bank protection includes the armoring of both abutments at the 19tn Avenue bridge. The
channel bottom width varies from about 400 to 600 feet and curves about 30 degrees to
the right as it approaches the 19th Avenue bridge, as shown in Figure 2.6. The channel
slope has been estimated at 0.0016 feet/foot for the reach from 7th Avenue to 19th
A venue.
2-10
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
The bridge across the Salt River at 19th Avenue is about 1,000 feet long. The present
channel width at this point is about 600 feet. The bridge is elevated at the approaches to
direct flows under the bridge. The channel could be widened several hundred feet to the
north without affecting the bridge. The bridge at 7th Avenue includes elevated, armored
approaches similar to those at the 19th Avenue bridge. These two bridges will tend to
restrict lateral migration in the channel between points one-half mile on either side of
the landfiU.
The 15th Avenue storm drain is an unlined open channel that lies along the east side of
~ell A. Landfill materials are exposed along the drain channel. Storm-water runoff
from tributary storm drain systems and local flows are carried by the drain and are
discharged to the Salt ~iver near the southeastern com,er of Cell A. Major flows in the
Salt River can restrict the flow through the drain. Flows can infiltrate directly into the
landfill material or possibly erode landfill materials and carry them to the Salt River.
According. to a report by theU.5. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE, 19&7), a 100-year
flow of 19',000 cfs would produce channel flows with velocities of , to 13 feet per
second (fps) and water depths of 24 to 36 feet adjacent to the landfill. A cross section of
the river channel and landfill showing the lOa-year water surface is shown in Figure 2.7.
Under present conditions, overbank flows would cover over 50 percent of Cell A-I and
about 30 percent of Cell A, a: St:';"~11 ia. Figure 2.6.
Large sand and gravel pits exist on the north side of the river just upstream from Cell A,
on the south side of the river just upstream from CeU A-l, and downstream (west> from
19th Avenue on the north side of the river. Attempts have been made to isolate these
, '.
pits from channel flows by leaving an aUuvial dike between the channel and the pit.
Although river- banks can be armored to minimize bank erosion, the potential exists for
major flows to overtop or erode these dikes and allow flows to pass through these pits.. It
is difficult to predict these types of failures or what effect they would have on the
19th A venue Landfill.
2-11
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
2.3.2.3
Sediment Movement
Sediment movement is a major concern when designing foundations for facilities in and
adjacent to aUuvial channels. Foundation design for these facilities must take into
account the combined effectS of aU river actions that can remove sediment adjacent to
the foundation. The upper reach of the Salt River below the CRDD has been degrading in
recent years. Active erosion of riverbed materials has deepened the channel. A previous
study indicated that between 19'2 and 1979, degradation of about 27 feet had occurred
at the [nterstate-lO crossing approximately seven miles upstream from the landfill
(Dames & Moore, 1979). [t is expected that riverbed degradation will continue in the
vicinity of the landfill. Design of structures along this reach of the river should take this
into consideration.
[n the Phoenix area, the need is extensive for sand and gravel. For the design of
structures in the floodplain, consideration should be given to the effects of future as well
as existing sand and gravel mining operations. The creation of pits as a result of sand
and gravel mining could result in serious damage to the channel and associate>d 5tr\Jctur",c:
during flood events unless the mining is carefully controlled. Erosion processes, specifi-
cally downstream migration and long-term channel degradation, have the potential to
substantially modify'''''' ,."'- --:.. -1 bottom and underc.i.. ..;~-, :.. - -0- ,..:.!rs, and other
structures (Anderson-Nichols/West, l"~H J.
The effects of local scour can be expected in the vicinity of fixed objects such as bridge
piers and abutments and channel bank protection materials. Local scour does not neces-
sarily involve large portions of the channel bottom but can extend tens of feet vertically.
...
2.3.2.4
Future Plans
Modifications are planned for several of the upstream water conservation dams on the
Salt and Verde rivers (see Figure 2.8). Additional water conservation storage. sediment
storage, and an increased flood storage allocation are planned for the reservoir at
Theodore Roosevelt Dam. Safety modifications are planned for. Stewart Mountain.
Horseshoe, and Bartlett dams. When these improvements are made. the lOO-year peak
flowrate past the landfill may be affected. Although t~e expected effect of the modifi-
2-12
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
cation of Roosevelt Dam will be a reduction of peak flowrate, the dam controls less than
haJf of the total drainage area of the Salt River at the landfill site. A major portion of
the watershed drains to the Verde River downstream from Roosevelt Dam.
It is difficult to predict flood control improvements for the Verde River now that Cliff
Darn has been removed from Plan 6. However, it is assumed that dam safety improve-
mentS wi11 be made to the two Verde River water conservation dams. While these
improvements may reduce peak flowrates in the Salt River adjacent to the landfill, their
purpose is to protect the dams, not to reduce flood peak flowrates. Without a flood
control structure on the Verde River, recurring flows may be expected at the landfill
from the Verde River watershed.
2.3J
Surface- Water QualitY
2.3.3.1
Major Ions
Water sampies were analyzed for major ions such as calcium and chi~ride, organic com-
pounds, metals! and other general indicators of water quality. Sodium is the major cation
found in aU surface water samples. Pond water can be classified as a sodium-
-------
. Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
2..3.3.2
Trace Constituents
The pH of pond and river water samples were 7.7 and &..5 respectively. Concentrations of
heavy metals were aU below maximum contaminant levels (MCL.s). In pond water, BOD
and COD were 20 mg/l and 3' mg/l respectively. In river water, BOD and COD were 16 .
mg/I and 37 mg/I. Cyanide was less than 0.01 mg/I and phenols were less than detection
limits in all samples. Total organic carbon was approximately 12 mg/I in pond water and
was approximately 3 mg/l in river water. Total organic halogens were less than 0.04
mg/l in all samples. Neither pond nor river samples contained detectable concentrations
of VOCs or pesticides.
The only drinking water standard exceeded in the four samples collected was for
coliforms. Concentrations of coHforms ranged' from 7.5 to 2400 coliform per 100 mi.
These concentrations are not unusual in untreated surface water.
No water quality problems (other than coliform) were identified. Thp...~=-I"""...~ ~::'~:!'~~!
impacts of. the landfill on the quality of water in either the pond ?r river.
,.
2..3.4
Sediment ~!!I
Sediment. samples were analyzed for organic compourids, priority poUutant metals, and
several indicator parameters. No organic compounds were detected in any of the
samples. None of the samples had EP- Toxicity concentrations above levels established
by the EP A.
A comparison between upstream and downstream sediment data revealed no evident
impact of the landfill on sediment quality.
2..3.'
Summary of Results
o
Flows have been observed in the normally dry Salt River as a result of releases
from upstream reservoirs. Flows during 1978 overtopped the landfill and eroded
and transported landfill material.
2-14
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
o A lOO-year flow in the Salt River would cover 50 percent of Cell A and 30 percent
of Cell A-I under present conditions.
o There are several factors that should be considered when designing structures in
the riverbed at the 19th Avenue landfill:
The riverbed tias the potential to cut a deeper channel adjacent to the 19th
Avenue L.andfill.
Sand and gravel mining operations in the river might cause additional down-
cutting by the river.
Loca! scour can result in large amounts of local erosion.
o Surface-water sampling showed that there was no impact from the landfiJl on water
quali ty.
a Sediment sampling showed that there was no impact from the landfill on the
chemical quality of the sediments.
2.4
GROUND-VI A TER (NVESTIGA TION
2.4.1
Ob jectives
After the 19th.. Avenue L.andfiU was closed in 1979, monitor wells were installed around
the boundary of the landfill for collecting data on ground-water levels and quality. The
wells on the boundary of tne landfill have been sampled since 1980.
Sampling of the monitor wells between 1980 and 1986 showed that drinking water
standards for some metals, the radioactivity indicator gross Beta, and VOCs were
exceeded in ground water at the boundaries of the landfill. Because there were no wells
upgradient or downgradient of the site, the source and extent of the compounds in ground
water could not be evaluated. Measurements of water levels showed the water levels
2-1.5
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
fluctuated tens of feet over a period of a few months and that water levels could be as
shallow as 20. feet below land surface. A study of ground-water occurrence and quality
was conducted during the remedial investigation to obtain the data needed to evaluate
the impactS of the landfill on ground-water quality and the extent of the impacts.
Table 2.14 summarizes the exceedances of drinking water standards (MC1-) for each well
in the monitoring network. The ground-water investigation also provided data on the
physical characteristics of the water-bearing materials beneath the site. The factors
influencing ground-water quality were evaluated using information on ground-water
occurrence and quality together with data on refuse and surface water.
The major objectives of the ground-water investigation were characterization of
o Geologic conditions beneath the landfill, including the sizes and types of materials
and their distribution.
o Horizontal and vertical directions and rate of ground-water flow and the factors
that influence ground-water flow.
o Ground-water quality upgradient, down gradient, and beneath the landfill.
2.4.2
Methods
Four subtasks were conducted to obtain data. during the remedial investigation:
(1) monitor well drilling, (2) ground-water quality sampling, () ground-water level
monitoring, and (4) a~ifer testing. Information collected by previous investigations of
the landfill supplemented the RI data. Each of these subtasks and the data generated by
them are fully disc~ in the RI report. A brief description of the methodology is given
in the following subsections.
2.4.2.1
Monitor Wells
Remedial investigation geologic data were primarily collected during the drilling of 12
new on-site and off-site monitor weils. These new weils were added to the existing
2-16
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
monitor well network of seven on-site wells, called the I-series weils. The I-series weils
are located primarily along the perimeters of Cell A and Cell A-I. In addition, three
small diameter wells designated River North, Ri~er South, and Jackrabbit are located
along the banks of the Salt River. The new wells, designated as the OM-series, are
located both on and off site. Figure 2.9 shows the locations of the monitor weils.
OM-series monitor wells were sited both on and off site of the landfill in order to
measure ground-water quality and water levels both upgradient and downgradient of the
site. Wells were also completed at different depth intervals 50 that vertical vanations in
ground-water quality and water levels could be assessed. DM-3 is actually a cluster of
six wells used for a long-term aquifer test.
2.4.2.2
Ccound-Water Sampling
Ground-water samples were collected from most of the monitor wells on a quarterly
basis during the remedial investigation. This was done to characterize ground-water
quality at various times during the year upgradient and downgradient from the landfill
and beneath the landfill. Ground-water samples were coUected from intervals at various
depths to characterize vertical ground-water quality differences near the landfiil. Ail
monitor wells, with the excepdon 01 OM-1 and OM-2, were sampled using dedicated
submersible. pumps and well head sampling systems. Weils OM-I and DM-2 are multipart
wells and were sampled using specialized pneumatic sampling equipment. Twenty-four
ground-water sampling points were monitored for water quality during the course of the
remedial investigation. Sampling levels at the multipart wells are identified by numbers
corresponding to the sampling port depth in feet below ground surface (for example,
OM-l '4). Stngle completion weils are identified by a letter to indicate the relative
depth of the well within the aquifer (for example, S, I, and 0 for shallow, intermediate
and deep, respectively). Of the 24 sampling locations, 12 are on site and 12 are off site.
The general analytical groups for which the samples were analyzed are given in
Table 2.'.
2-17
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
2.lf.2.J
Aquifer Testing and Monitoring
Both short-term and long-term aquifer tests were conducted to evaluate the hydraulic
properties of the aquifer below the landfill. The long-term test was performed at the
OM-J well cluster. Water level measurementS were made at five observation wells,
three of which were at the same depth as the production wells and two th;at were deeper.
Irrigation wells within one-half mile of the OM-J cluster were monitored to evaluate
their effects on the long-term test.
Short-term tests were performed on Well DM-~D and Well DM-6. 'lieU DM-5S was used
as an observation well for the OM-50 test. The DM-6 test was a single well test.
Ground-water levels were monitored throughout the remedial investigation to provide
information on the fluctuations in ground-water levels with time. Water levels were used
to estimate ground-water flow directions and gradients. Water levels were generally
measured on a monthly basis betWeen January 1986 and January 1988. Water tevels were
measured more frequently during the time periods in which water was released into the
" _. . . . - .. . .
Salt River from upstream dams so that the effects of recharge from surface water could
be noted.
~.4.3
Geolo~
2.4.3.1
Regional Geology
The 19th Avenue landfill is situated in the southeastern portion of the West Basin of the
Salt River Valley in central Arizona. The site is within the Basin and Range physio-
graphic province. The landfill is on alluvial fill material that commonly occupies the.
structurally depressed basins of the region. No active faults are known to be present
near the site. The basement rock near the landfill has not been drilled. However, based
on data from boreholes about five miles east of the site (Dames & Moore, 1987d), base-
ment rocks probably consist of Precambrian igneous and metamorphic rocks that have
been deformed by the nearby South Mountain metamorphic core complex and by Basin
and Range high angle normal faulting and Tertiary sedimentary and volcanic units.
2-18
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
2.4.3.2
Site Geology
One ~f the primary objectives of the remedial investigation monitor wel1 instaUatioll
program was to characterize the shal10w subsurface geology in the area near the land-
fill. This was accomplished by drilling 12 boreholes during the summer of 1987, 4 of
which were driUed to. a depth of 300 feet or greater. Data collected from the boreholes
indicate that at least five identifiable stratigraphic units exist within approximately 400
feet of the: surface. They have been designated Units S, A, B, C and MFU for the
purposes of this report. Unit A can be further subdivided in Subunits AI, and Al. Figure
2.10 gives a description of the geologic units and shows a generalized stratigraphic
column indicating the relationships between these. units. A cross section showing their
relationship is given in Figure 2.11. No major structural displacements or flexures were
identified during the driUing program. AU units appear to be essentially horizontal.
2.4.4
Ground-Water Flow System
This section describes the ground-water flow system in the vicinity of the site as
identified during the remedial investigation. Data from previous site-specific investiga-
tions were also included within this analysis. Components of the ground-wa""~ ".ow
system investigated were trends h. ground-water levels, ground-watc: (~harge,
ground-water flow directions, ground-water flow gradients, and aquifer characteristics.
Knowledge of the variation of these flow system components is necessary to characterize
ground-water movement and ground-water quality near the 19th Avenue site.
2.4.4.1
Ground-Water Levels
Water level measurements show that the upper surface of the saturated zone is relatively
close to the land surface in the area near the site~ In general, the water table is 20 to 40
feet below the land surface near the river and 60 'to 80 feet below the land surface north
of the site. Observed ground-water levels have fluctuated over 20 to .30 feet in the wells
at the landfill, because of two principal external factors. These factors are seasonal
water level fluctuations that result from the influence of agricultural ground-water.
pumping and variations in recharge to the ground-water system from the Salt River.
2-19
-------
. -- - .
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
The seasonal fluctuations in water level seen in monitor wells at the landfill can be
directly attributed to the seasonal use of large production weUs in the area. Most of
these wells are agricultural wells owned by the Roosevelt Irrigation District (RID).
EssentiaUy no pumping takes place at most wells from October through March, but aU
wells are pumped extensively from April through September. Most of the RID wells are
completed in geologic Units At Bt C, and the top of the MFU.
, .
I
I
The hydrographs of I-series wells from mid-1980 to the present show that water levels in
monitor wells peak in late March and then begin to decline in April when the RID wells
are turned on. Water levels reach their lowest water points in September and begin to
recover in October when the RID wells are turned off. Water levels recover in the wells
through the winter and decline in the following spring when the production wells are
turned on. Figure 2.12 portrays this relationship for 1987 data.
2.4.4.2
Cr~\Vater Recharge
Surface-water flow in the Salt River and l.5th Avenue storm drain adjacent to the 19th
Avenue Landfill has been observed to influence the ground-water levels in monitor wells
at the site. Water percolates A...u'" from the Salt River ~":~ ':"-:.~ .~-' .. ")f the storm
drain and enters the ground-water sy~tcl".
. A conservative estimate of the average infiltration rate in ephemeral Arizona rivers has
been set by various investigators at one foot per day (Babcock and Cushing, 1942; Briggs
and Werho, 1966; Mann and Rohne, 198:3). However, the investigations indicate that
infiltration rates rang. from more than two feet per day to less than one-half foot per
day depending on river flowrate, flow duration, and sediment load.
No flows OCCUrTed in the Salt River during the remedial investigation that were of large
enough magnitude and duration to allow calculation of recharge rates for the Salt River
in the vicinity of the landfill. The recharge rate probably falls within the range reported
by others for the Salt River. However, q..Jalitative estimates of the impact of recharge
on water levels at the site can be made by comparing monthly and daily Salt River flow
volumes past GRDD (Table 2.4) with observed ground-water level increases at the site
for' a particular year or month. The flows from GR~D' are depicted graphiCally in
Figure 2.13.
2-20
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
Increases in ground-water levels occurred during river flow eventS exceeding 10,000 cfs
past GRDD. Flows at the landfill are not equal to the flow past GRDD. However, the
best records exist at the GRee site and the flowrates are used as a relative number for
the purposes of this study. Therefore, it can be concluded that flows in excess of 10,000
cfs at GRee are capable of raising the ground-water level. beneath the site. Sustained
flows of smaller volumes are probably also capable af raising water levels. If the
monthly water level increase is divided by the days of river flow, a qualitative estimate
of daily wate~-Ievel increase for a given river flow can be made. Calculations for various
periods of flow result in a rat~ of ground-water level increases of approximately 0.7 to
1.3 feet per day of flow at the 19th Avenue Landfill. Ground-water levels decrease at
the site at an approximate rate of four feet per year given the absence of flow in the
Salt River past the site (Sverdrup de Parcel, 1980). Flows lasting longer than two to three
weeks in duration in the Salt River at the landfill may negate several years of water
level decline.
2.4.4.3
Ground-Water Flow Direction
Figures 2.14 and 2.1' show typical contours of summer and winter water levels measured
during the remedial investigation for wells in geologic Unit A, the shallowest unit. These
figures show that ground water flows to the west-nCJrlilweSL or northwest. The flow
. .
direction is controlled by ground-water pumping to the northwest of 19th Avenue Land-
fill. This includes the Luke pumping cone near Litchfield Park, local RID wells, and City
of Phoenix water production well fields. Although most pumping at these centers takes
place in the summer months, ground-water continues to flow to the northwest at the
landfill throughout the year. Data collected prior to the remedial investigation from
production weHs and the I-series wells also indicated a west-northwest to northwest flow
direction consistent with regional flow (James M. Montgomery, 1980; Brown and
Caldwell, 1983 and 198'; Sverdrup and Parcel, 1980).
--
~;!.
--
When flows occur in the Salt River, a ground-water mound develops beneath the river
because of recharge, and ground water appears to flow to the south and southeast on the
south side of the river based on data from shallow weUs. The apparent local reversal of
flow direction reflects changes in water levels in the shallow wells due to the temporary
recharge mound and does not affect regional flow.
2-21
-------
. Final Craft RAP
06/12/89
Wells in deeper geologic units were installed near the 19th Avenue site in mid-1987.
These deeper wells, cM-'c, cM-l, DM-2, DM-31 and DM-3D, are sited along a
southeast-northwest trending line (Figure 2.9). Based on the data for the wells
completed in Uni.t a, ground-water flow in Unit a is also generaUy to the northwest in
the deeper units.
2.4.4.4 Ccound-Water Flow Gradients
The rate at which ground-water moves is directly proportional to the ground-water flow
gradient. Variations in horizontal and vertical ground-water gradients in the vicinity of
the landfill are controlled primarily by pumping from production wells near the landfill.
As was discussed in Section 2.4.4.3, almost aU ot the pumping done by RID wells near the
landfill occurs during the summer months. This seasonal pumping causes changes in
vertica1 and horizontal ground-water flow gradients.
Curing the winter months, when ground-water pumping is at a minimum, or'ily sm~1I
vertical gradientS were observed. Ther~ was virtuaUy no di~ference in water levels
between WeUs DM-'S and DM-'D. Vertical gradientS of 0.01' ft/ft or less were
measured in the remainder of the weUs.
.
When ground-water pumping increases in the summer, water levels begin to decline in the
monitor weils closest to the RID weils. The pumping of the RID wells causes water
levels to drop more rapidly in Well DM-3D which is completed in Unit C, than in Wells
DM-3P and DM-31 w'!ich are completed in UnitS A and a, respectively. A downward
vertical gradient between UnitS A and a and Unit C is therefore induced by the summer
pumping. Water l,:vels in monitor wells at greater distances from the RID wells (DM"':1
and DM-' cluster) respond less to the effectS of the pumping.
Horizontal gradient data for the 19th Avenue site show increases in Unit A in the
summer months when the production wells are pumping. The horizontal gradient
decreases in the faU when the pumps are shut down. Since 1980, the horizontal gradient
has fluctuated between a value of nearly 0.0 feet per foot to over 0.007 feet per foot.
The yearly average horizontal gradient has increased since 1980 from a value of
approximately 0.0028 feet per foot to approximately 0.0044 feet per foot.
2-22
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
2.4.4.'
Aquifer Characteristics
Aquif«=r hydraulic characteristics of geologic Unit A were evaluated at the landfill to
obtain data that can be used to assess the rates and volume of ground-water flow and to
assess the volumes and rates at which ground water may be extracted or injected. The
hydraulic data were obtained from a long-term (62 hours) aquifer test conducted at the
DM-3 well cluster.
Data were analyzed using the Theis Method, the Cooper-Jacob Approximation Method,
and the distance-drawdown method. Table 2.6 summarizes transmissivity (T, gpd/ft),
storativity (S), and hydraulic conductivity (K, ft/day) values that were derived from the
different methods of analysis.
The values of S derived from the Theis analysis appear to indicate semi-confined aquifer
conditions. The lack of confining sedimentS found in the boreholes suggests that the
ground-water system should be unconfined to semi-confined. The average vaLue of
S (0.11) derived from the Jacobs analysis was used in modeling efforts. The average
values of T and K derived from the various analysis methods varied by less than 16
percent. Overall, average values of 188,565 gpd/ft and 230 ft/day-are obtained for T and
K, respectively, using a saturated aquifer thickness of 110 feet. The value for T is in
close a~r@fa",,"''''~ ,..nth 194,000 gpd/ft obtained by the U.S. Geologica! Survey (USGS) in
1984 from aquifer tests on wells completed in Salt River se
-------
I .
Final Draft RAP
. 06/12/89
2.4.'
V/ater~ty Results
2.4.'.1
Major Ions
The major chemical components of ground w~ter that can be ~ to classify different
general categories of waters are cations of calcium, .sodium, potassium, magnesium, and
anions of bicarbonate, sulfate, and chloride. The major chemical composition of ground
water can be used as a tool to help evaluate the flow paths and mixing of ground waters
with different compositions. The relative concentration of the individual major ions and
their total concentration can be expressed both graphically and numerically to interpret
the mixing and movement of different waters. This technique provides a convenient
framework within which ground water at the 19th Avenue Landfill can be described.
A summary of the statistics of the major ions for existing wells (the I series) is presented
in Table 2.7. Similar summaries for DM wells, installed during the remedial investiga-
tion, are listed in Table 2.8.
Water samples collected during the RI and in programs prior to the RI were classified
separately by water type based on the relative concentrations of major ions. A trilinear
piottinR technique which converts concentrations of ions to percentages of total milli-
eouiv="lpnts per liter of cations and anions (Piper, i 944) was used to classify the
samples. The mean concentrations of ground-water analyses listed in Tables 2.7 and 2.3
were plotted on the trilinear diagram and classified by selected hydrogeochemical
boundaries. The resulting classifications are given in Table 2.9.
The prevailing water quality of the various wells was identified as calcium-sodium/bicar-
bonate-chloride water or sodium-bicarbonate/chloride. There is no difference in classifi- .
cations between (-series. wells (data prior to the remedial investigation) and new wells.
Stiff diagrams were also used to evaluate geochemical variations in water quality for
data from both the remedial investigation and programs prior to the remedial investiga-
tion. Concentrations of cations were compared with anions by plotting them on four sets
of opposing parallel horizontal axes. The resulting data points were connected to obtain
polygonal shapes that indicate general chemical makeup of the water. In general,
calcium, sodium, bicarbonate, and chloride are the dominant projections for each Stiff
2-2"
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
diagram. However, the overaU size of the plots. varies, indicating that the .concentra-
tions of TDS vary.
The consistent shape for varying sizes of each Stiff diagram implies that TDS may
behave as a dependent variable with respect to each of the ions. To evaluate this
hypothes.is, the concentration of each major ion was plotted versus TDS. Data of the Salt
River surface water and upgradient ground water were included. Plots. of sodium,
potassium, calcium, magnesium, and chloride each displayed a linear trend, showing a
significant positive correlation between metal concentrations and TDS. Cvrrelation
coefficients were between 0;7 and 0.9.
The plots for sulfate and alkalinity also exhibit linear trends, but display a larger amount
of data scatter than the other ion data. Sulfate and alkalinity data for samples collected
at Wells 1-3 and 14 do not plot in areas consistent with the linear trends established by
the remaining data. Data for both of these weils indicate that the water is enriched with,
bicarbonate (as alkalinity) and depleted of sulfate.
[n general, the linear segmentS for each ion correspond to a TDS range approximately 500
to 1,900 mg/I. The lower end of the TDS range represents Salt River water and water in
the upgradient off-site weils. The linear trends are interpreted as a mixing line
b~ginning with Salt River recharge water and ground water located south of the river and
upgradier! from the landfill. The linear trends are very useful for explaining the
inorganic chemical quality of water in most monitor weBs at the 19th Avenue Landfill.
2.4.'.2
Trace ConstitUents
. Metals
A summary is given in Table 2.10 of the metals that were detected in one or more
samples in each quarter. The results presented in Table 2.10 indicate that of the eight
metals for which MCLs for drinking water have been set, mercury and barium had con-
centrations in excess of the MCL. Barium concentrations were above the standard 0.0
mg/U in Weils 1--3, [-4, and [-8. These weBs are located on the western boundary of the
landfill, generally downgradient with respect to ground-water flow. Barium was not
2-25
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
detected above the MCt in off-site wells downgradient of the landfiU. Mercury
exceeded the, MCt (2.0 ug/O in one sample from Well [-3 and equalled the MCL. in one
sample from WeU [-4. Arsenic exceeded the MCt in one sample from WeU [-8.
TIu.:oughout the sampling program, metals were detected at WeUs [-3, [-4, [-5, and [-6.
Concentrations of the metals detected were close to detection limits. The distribution
and concentration of metals observed in the remaining weUs at the 19th Avenue Landfill
have not produced regular patterns of detection. Off-site wells, upgradient and down-
gradient, have displayed a similar pattern of infrequent detections at concentrations near
but above detection limitS.
~
Vinyl chloride was detected in Wells [-1, [-2, and [-8 at concentrations in excess of the
current MCt of 2.0 ug/I. The maximum observed vinyl chloride concentration was
2.6 ug/I in Well [-1 in the third quarter of 1987. Carbon tetrachloride was detected only
. .. ~
once, at a concentration of 3' ug/t in Well [-1 in the fourth quarter of 1986. The MCL
for carbon tetrachloride is 5.0 ug/I...
Most rletect.:abJe c'Jnc!!n~:!~~j::: ;,f VOCs were less than 5.0 ug/I. The VOC concentra-
tiol1:aexceeding 5.0 ug/l are given in Table 2.11. VOC concentrations were several times
larger at [-1 than at other on-site wells.
Pesticides and PCBs
Pesticides and PCBs were analyzed in August 1986, August 1987, and December 1987
. sampling periods during the remedial investigation. During these three sampling rounds,
PCBs were cons:.uently below detection limits. The only pesticide detected in .off-site
wells was Dieldrin in Well DM-2 at '4 feet in December 1987. Pesticides were detected
in I'm-site wells in August 1986 and August 1987. Pesticides detected included 4-4DDE,
4-4DDT, A.:.BHC, Aldrin, D-BHC, Dieldrin, Endosulfan [I and G-BHC. No pesticides were
found above MCL.s. Pesticide concentrations ranged from 0.00' to 0.2 ppb.
2-26
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
2.4-'.3
Indicators
A summary of TOC, BOD, and COD data is given in Table 2.12. The results show that
concentrations of BOD and COD in off-site wells averaged 50 to 100 mg/l greater than
on-site weUs. TOC concentrations in off-site weUs were generally below the detection
limits of 0.01 mg/l. On-site wells showed TOC concentrations up to 0.139 mgll, with the
highest levels being detected at Wells 1-3 and 1-4. The distribution of the reported con-
centrations for 80D and COD does not indicate trends with respect to either proximity
to landfill boundaries or concentrations in surface water. Phenols and cyanide, if
present, were at concentrations either less than or only slightly above detection limits.
Coli forms
Coliform analyses conducted during the remedial investigation sampling program ranged
from < 2 to 2,400 col/100ml. Most coliform counts were less than 10 col/lOO mi.
Samples collected from the uppermost portion of the Upper Alluvial. Un.i.~ displayed
concentrations that were above those measured in deeper completion intervals. Samples
collected from the two uppermost ports at DM-2 and the sample collected at OM-5S
ranged from 49 to 2,400 col/lOOml. The uppermost port at DM-2 prnrfll("P4'i "i sir.i,'-
coliform count of 2,400 col/l00ml, a vc&lue that is approximately 50 to 100 time!a greater
than the other coliform coUnt data. .
Radioisotopes
Gross alpha and beta emissions measured on samples coUected at each weU showed that
concentrations were generally near detection limits. A total of 63 analyses. were.
performed for. gross alpha and beta. Of these analyses, one exceeded the gross alpha
MCL of l' pCi/l and four exceeded the gross beta MCL of .50 pCi/l. The results of all
radioisotopes analyses are. presented in Table 2.13. 'leU 1-' exceeded the MCL for gross
alpha emissions with a concentration of 17.9 +/- 4.2 pCil1 in the first quarter of 1987.
Although most of the gross beta measurements were below the MCL at Well I-J, three
measurements exceeded the standard. Sample concentrations from Well I-J exceeding 50
pCi/1 were measured in the third quarter of 1986 (:;7 +/- 10.7 pCi/I); the fourth quarter of
2-27
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
1986 022.0 +1- 8.7 pCi/O; and in the fourth quarter on 1987 <53.8 +1- 9.2 p Ci/l). One
measurement, at Well [-6 also exceeded the MCt. for gross beta in the fourth quarter of
1986 (92.3 +/- 12.6 pCi/l). The sampling results from wells at different depths indicate
that the uppermost portion of the aquifer has greater alfa and gross beta activity than
deeper water bearing zones. Off-site and on-site wells displayed similar concentration
ranges.
2.4.5.4
Summary of Results
The 19th Avenue Landfill is underlain by alluvial materials deposited within the West
Basin of the Salt River VaHey. These materials can generally be divided into five
different units above a depth of 350 feet below land surface. There is a 15-foot surface
layer composed of silty sand. Beneath this layer is approximately 100 feet of cobbles and
coarse gravels. The next three units below this layer are divisions within the Upper
Alluvial Unit.
. .
The depth to ground water is between 20 and 40 feet below land surface. Ground water
generaUy flows to the northwest beneath the landfill. Water levels have been observed
to fluctuate 20 to 30 feet over a period of a few months. Mo~? ",f 1'h- ""-."-.;"'n is due
to recharge from the Salt River that resu1tc: ~~~rn interrr.::t:!nt upstreci.ill (t:icases into the
~:.:: River bed. Th~ high ";'Gi.c.' i.cables resulting from the recharge of surface water are
gradually reduced at a rate of about four feet of head per year by regional agricultural
pumping.
The agricultural pump1ng also results in a seasonal fluctuation of water levels. Water
levels are generaUy highest during the winter months when agricultural pumping is at a
minimum 'and they decline during the summer as pumping increases. The agricultural
pumping also causes an increase in the ground-water flow gradient during the summer.
The alluvial materials beneath the site are generally coarse grained and can transmit a
relatively large amount of ground water. The transmissivity of the materials between a
depth of approximately 100 and 1'0 feet is estimated to be 190,000 gallons per day per
foot. The transmissivity of the cobble and gravel deposits above 100 feet is probably
even grea ter .
2-28
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
Ground-water quaiity sampiing of wells during the remedial investigation shows that
recharge from the Salt River improves the general ground-water quality along the river
as characterized by differences in major ions and TDS concentration between upgradient
wells which are not influenced and down gradient wells which are. Additional water
quaiity indicators such as pH and metals show that there is evidence for water quality
changes due to the landfill. However, water quaiity in wells approximately one-quarter
to one-half mile downgradient of the site show little impact and meet all federal primary
drinking water standards. Table 2.14 summarizes MCt exceedances for aU monitoring
wells. Of the 1,794 analyses performed for compounds with MCt's, 39 analyses were
found to exceed the MCt limit.
2.4.6
Interpretation of LandfiUlnfluence on Ground-Water QualitY
The chemical and physical processes that shape the ground-water quaiity observed during
the remedial. investigation must be understood in order to evaluate which, if any, correc-
tive actions should be considered for ground water at the landfill. [n particular, the
interactions between landfiU materials and ground water and its affect. on water quati:y
must be identified in the context of the overaU system. To this end, information is
combined from the several studies conducted during the remedial investigation to
identify the factors that influence ground-water quality.
2.4.6.1
Ground-Water' Levels and Refuse Saturation
A conceptual diagram of the hydrogeologic system at the 19th Avenue Landfill is
presented in F.igure 2.16. This diagram was developed early in the remedial investigation
from information developed by previous investigations and is confirmed by the remedial
investigation data. The diagram shows that when the water table is relatively high,
ground water rises into a portion of the refuse. The rising ground water can saturate the
refuse and provide a method for transporting materials away from the landfill. The
water in the refuse will enhance the production of methane as wett as dissolve component
of the refuse.
2-29
-------
. Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
In general, ground water is recharged by the downward percolation of water flowing in
the normally, dry Salt River in times of flood. Recharge is capable of raising the water
table near the landfill by 10 to 30 feet in the period of a few months. This mound of
recharged water gradually dissipates at a rate of about four feet of head per year.
Cround-water Levels fluctuate seasonally near the landfill because of the influence of
agricultural pumping (Figure 2.16). Ground water is pumped from several large agri-
cultural wells near the landfill between April and September. The greatest pumping
occurs in the summer months. Pumping of the wells causes a decline in water leve!s that
is greatest in August or September. When pumping stops in September, water levels
recover to near the winter water levels of the year before.
One cross section of the landfill is shown in figure 2.17. Refuse in the northern portion
of Cell ~ is generally above an elevation of 1 ,020 f~t msl. Parts of the refuse. in this
northern portion of the landfill may be above an elevation of 1,03' feet msl. The bottom
elevation of the refuse drops rapidly into an east-west trending trough in the southern
one-third of the site. The trough is higher at the east end of the landfill, with an e!eva-
tiun of approximately 1,00' teet msl, and deeper in the western end of the landfill, with
. .
the lowest point at an elevation of approximately 980 feet.. !n Cell A-I, refuse is
generally above an elevation of 1,040 feet msl. The remaindf!t' of Cell A-I has a bott('"..
~levation of approximately L ,020 feet msl. The deepest portic:\ of ~:;~~ .\. L has a ~o~tom
eleva::':'."1 v; approximatt.:;y 1,010 feet msl.
The highest and lowest water levels observed during the remedial investigation are
projected onto Figure 2.17. The top of the ground-water table has been above the
bottom of refuse in the deepest portion of the landfill (elevation 980 feet msU even at
the lowest recorded level during the remedial investigation. The water table was highest
and t."e most refuse was saturated in the winter months. The inundated refuse at the
highest observed water level is limited to the southern third of Cell A and a small portion
in the center of Cell A-I.
Evidence of ground water rising into excavations in Cell A can be seer. in aerial photo-
graphs taken between 1972 and 1976. The data from water level measurements since
19&0 indicate that the water table has probably no.t been below an. elevation of 995 feet
msl. At that eLevation, as much as L5 feet of refuse would be continuously saturated in
2-30
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
the deepest portions of refuse' in the southwestern par~ of the landfill. The data further
indicate that the water level was up to l,027 feet msl in 1983. Since 1983, ground-water
leve~ have slowly receded. However, in the winter months when the water levels are the
highest because there is no irrigation pumpage, refuse below an elevation of
approximately 1,01' feet msl is saturated.
2.4.6.2 lnarpnk Water Quality
Figure 2.18 gives a comparison between rDS and water levels in the time period between
1981 and 1988. There appears to have been a general tendency for higher rDS con-
centrations during periods of high water levels. .
Variations in the patterns for inorganic water quality in the monitor wells sampled during
the remedial investigation can be distinguished by superimposing Stiff diagrams on the
site map Figure 2.19. The overall size of the Stiff diagram is an indication of the TDS
concentration. The TDS concentrations are given within the Stiff diagrams in Figure
2.19. Waters with similar:ly shaped diagrams have similar quality.
Ground water in upgradient.WeUs OM-'S and 1-6 has higher rDS concentrations than
wells on th~ ~,.vy of the landfill or downgradient. Furthermore WeUs OM-55 and 1-6
have differen~ water quality types than the other wells. The waters in Wells OM-55 and
1-6 can be classified as sodium/chloride, while the water from other wells are classified
as sodium/chloride-bicarbonate.
The Stiff diagrams for Wells I-I, 1-2, 1-5, OM-3P, and OM-6 are similar to the surface
water Stiff diagram. The Stiff diagrams for Wells 1-3 and 1-4 are different from the stiff
diagrams for other wells on the boundary of the landfill or downgradient. in that there is
almost no sulfate in the water of Wells (-3 and 1-'+, and there is a reversal in the relative
concentrations of calcium and magnesium. Well 1-8 also shows the reversal in the
relative cor.centrations of calcium and magnesium and some reduction in the concentra-
tion of sulfate. The ground water in WeUs(-3 and (-'+ also contains a relatively greater
iJroportion of bicarbonate ions than in ground water from some other wells, such as (-2,
DM-6, and DM-3P. Other weUs showing the relative increase in bicarbonate ions are
OM-I, 1-8, and OM-2.
2-31
-------
Final Oraft RAP
06/12/89
The similarity between the general composition of ground water observed in some
monitor wells and the composition of the surface water in the Salt River is consistent
with the observation made in Section 2.4 that plots of the major ions for most shallow
monitor wells form a mixing line with the end members being composition of the ground
water in Well OM-'S and the composition of surface water.
The composition of the surface water sampled during the remedial investigation is
probably not entirely representative of the quality of surface water in the Salt River
during periods of high flow. Sampling by the SRP indicates that in high flow years, the
TDS concentration of the water may be as low as 200 to 300 mgJl (Salt River Project,
1982). The composition of the water can vary from sodium/chloride-bicarbonate, similar
to that seen in the remedial investigation," to calcium/bicarbonate. The effect of mixing
the recharged surface water with upgradient ground water would be to reduce the TDS
concentration and increase the proportion of bicarbonate relative to chloride. These
effects are consistent with the ground-water quality observed in several of the monitor
wells.
There have been se~eral periods of flow in the Salt River in the last decade that could
provide a source of recharge to the ground water. Water level trends observed at the
landfill indicate that recharge is taking place. The quality of the ground water in several
~f .~~ ~onitor wells can be explained by the simple mixing ot ground water up gradient
from the site with recharge from the Salt River.
The wells where the apparent impact of the landfill is least on inorganic water quality
are WeUs (- Land (-2 in the northeastern comer of the landfill. This is not unexpected
given the position of the wells and the geometry of the landfill. Well 1-2 is upgradient or
off-gradient from much of the landfill and Well (-1 is directly down gradient from only a
relatively small portion of the landfill. In addition, the bottom of the northern part of
the landfill was above the water table during the remedial investigation.
Wells for which TDS concentration is not a good indicator of overall water quality are
plotted off the linear trend were 1-3, 1-4, OM-2 54, and OM-50. Well OM-50 lS deeper
than shallow weUs and the differences in water quality are not unexpected. Well DM-2
54 is the shallowest port of a multiport installation and only contained enough water to
be sampled during one sampling episode. More data would be needed to develop a trend,
2-32
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
but it appears that the landfill may be having some impact on water quality at OM-2 54.
Waters from Wells 1-3 and 14 have already been identified as having water quality
char~teri5tics different than most other wells and their composition would not be
expected to plot on the mixing line. Other factors are influencing the quality of ground
water observed in these wells. Wells - 1-3 and 14 are downgradient from the deepest
portions of the landfill that have been below the w_ater table since at least 1981. The
obvious source of modifications to water quality in these wells is the interaction between
landfill materials and ground water.
The principal impact of the-landfill on water quality occurs when the refuse and ground
water come in contact. Ground water in contact with refuse has high TDS concentration
when compared to upgradient ground-water quality. The higher TDS concentration is a
- result of an increase in the major ions of bicarbonate, chloride, sodium, and magnesium.
Concentrations of calcium and sulfate ions are only slightly higher. Ground water in
contact with refuse in the landfill also has increased concentrations- of ammonia and
organic nitrogen and a higher chemical oxygen demand.
Figure 2.20 presents Stiff diagrams for water samples collected from saturated refuse
and for Wells 1-3 and 14~ Samples DB-IlW and DB-lOW were collected within the
refuse. Stiff diagrams for Wells 1-) and 14 show the same relative iricrease in bicar-
bonate composition and decrease In sulfate composition shown by DB-II Wand DB-lOW.
The redu("'.;~n in sulfate concentrations in DB-IlW and DB-lOW in combination wii.i1 the
fact that the landfill is producing methane gas suggest that the low oxygen condition
found in the landfill may provide a favorable environment for sulfate-reducing micro-
organisms. Such bacteria are commonly found in ground-water systems that are low in
oxygen with sulfate and iron available for metabolism. Simultaneously, the increase
observed in bicarbonate concentration in Wells 1-:4 and 1-3, and samples DB-II Wand
DB-lOW may be the result of other bacterial fermentation processes that release carbon
dioxide and thereby increase bicarbonate (alkalinity) concentrations.
The data indicate that the greatest impact of the landfi1~ on inorganic water quality
occurs when the refuse becomes saturated by a rising water table. Recognizable impacts
were- observed in wells on the western -boundary of the landfill. However, by the time
2-33
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/&9
ground water flows one-quarter to one-half mile do","gradient to the off-site monitor
wells, the impactS of the landfill on inorganic water quality are not discemable.
2.4.6.3
Modelinl Study
A ground-water transport model was applied to evaluate the above conclusions about the
effects of the landfill on inorganic water quality. A detailed discussion of modeling at
the landfill is given in Appendix A of the RI report. Information on geology and the
ground-water flow system discussed previously was used to create the flow portion of the
model. Total dissolved solids c~ncentrations were chosen as the parameter for transport
modeling.
The modeling scenario that best matched the observed distribution of TDS concentrations
in the monitor weils utilized a source term of 10,000 mgil of TDS input from a cell in the
area corresponding to the deepest part of the landfilL The cell represents thr'ee percent
of the total volume of refuse simulated. It was assumed water levels have been in the
retuse for ttie past nine years and leachate has been generated over that time. Back-
ground ms concentrations were set equal to the concentrations. in the pond to. the east
of the landfill and the TDS concentrations of the Salt River was assumed to be 400
m! 11. Rechargp. fram the '=a I! D i'.'er was simulated by supplying a flux of 0.17 feet per
day ciC a lOO-foot-wide cell along the upper boundary of the model. The flux rate was
derived by calculating the percent of time over the nine-year period that flows had
occurred below Granite Reef and using a seepage rate of one foot per day of flow,
Predicted TDS concentrations for off-site monitor wells are plotted versus time for four
well points in Figure 2.21. For comparison, concentrations measured in the second
quarter of 1987 are plotted in Figure 2.21. Predictions of the model are similar to the
actual measured field conditions.
Data coUected since 19&0 indicate that much more than three percent of the volume of
the landfill has been below the water table over the last nine years. However, modeling
indicates that the source term under one scenario must be restricted to the smaller area
of three percent at a concentration of 10,000 mg/l. Sensitivity analysis indicated that
either an increase in the area of the source or an increase in the strength of the source
2-34
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
resultS in much higher TDS concentrations than those observed during the remedial
investigation. The actual average concentration of liquids in the refuse may actually
have been lower over the time period modeled and may have been distributed over a
wider area. Total dissolved solids concentrations for liquids sampled in refuse have
varied between 3,200 and 10,000 mg/I. Alternatively, the effective horizontal and
vertical conductivity of landfill materials may be lower than estimated and the relative
amount of flow out of the landfill may be smaller in relationship to the regional
ground-water flow past the landfill. In this case, liquids may be flowing out of the
landfill over a broader area and at a much lower rate than modeled.
In general, ground-water flow and transport modeling are capable of reproducing the
general distribution of TDS concentrations seen in the monitor wells. The actual situa-
tion at the landfill may be slightly different from the model, but the general factors
influencing inorganic ground-water quality at the landfill are:
a Improvement of upgradient ground-water quality by recharge from the Salt River.
o
--
Degradation of ground-water quality when ground water comes in contact with
refuse.
~...'''''' '. ' .
a Dilution and mixing of high TDS ground water leaving the landfill with lower TDS
ground water that flows past the landfill.
The effects of the impact of the landfill on water quality were observed during the
remedial investigation in those weUs on the boundary of the landfill that were directly
down gradient from the southern portion of the landfill. This portion of the landfill has
been continuaHy below the water table in recent years. Dilution continues to improve
the quality of ground water as it moves away from the landfill, and impacts of the land-
fill on inorganic are generally not discernible at downgradient monitor wells.
2-35
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
2..4.6.4
VOCs
The total concentrations of VOCs in down gradient wells are generally similar to or less
than in upgradient wells, with the exception of Well (-1. Total concentrations in
boundary weils are also similar to those in the upgradient wells.
Well (-1 had the highest cumulative total of VOCs detected in the six sampling rounds.
WeU [-2 had the next highest total, followed by WeUs [-3 and [-4. A comparison between
total VOC concentrations and water levels in WeUs [-1 and [-4 revealed no evident,
consistent relation. This pattern is directly opposite the pattern for inorganic water
quality impacts from the landfill discussed in the previous section. The inorganic water
quality parameters in WeUs [-3 and [-4 were the most affected by the landfill. This
indicates that factors different than those influencing inorganic water quality result in
, the detection of VOCs in Wells [-1 and [-2.
Based on the data, saturation of refuse in the southern portion of the landfill has not
caused concentrations of VOCs above' ppb at the boundaries of the landfill. This con-
clusion is supported by the fact that no VOCs were detected in the two samples of liquids
coUected in the refuse during the remedial investigation_.
Trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethy!ene z.:= f;)u.,d at ~imilar canc-=....t'Q,I.~ol's in all
nlunltor wells regardless of melr, position relative to the landfill. Trans-I,2-DCE and
l,l-DCE are found in higher concentrations at the boundary of the landfill than in up-
gradient wells, but concentrations are similar in downgradient weUs to those in the
upgradient well.
There are six compounds O,I-DCA, TCA, 1,2-dichlorobenzene, vinyl chloride,
1,4-dichlorobenzene, and chlorobenzene) that are found in weUs on the boundary of the
landfill and not in the upgradient well. Only two compounds, 1,I-DCA and vinyl chloride,
are found in a downgradient well.
Atong with several other compounds, l,l-DCA JCcurs in the highest concentrations in
Well [-1. 'The presence of the VOC concentrations in WeU [-1 cannot be explained by the
processes that res,utt in the low concent'rations of compounds found in Wells 1-3 and [-4.
Well [-1 is nearest the northern part of the landfill, which is generally above the water
2-36
-------
FincH Draft RAP
06/12/89
table. Furthermore, Well 1-1 is down gradient from several former liquid disposal areas
that were located along the eastern boundarY of the landfill and had the longest history
of use, for liquid disposal (see Figure 2.22).
I..a.boratory analytical data for. samples collected in the liquid disposal area were
compared to the water quality in Well 1-1 to see if similar compounds were detected.
Table 2.1' shows this comparison. Phenols, xylenes, ethylben%ene, chlorobenzene,
toluene, and tetraChlex'oethene were aU found in soil samples collected at OB-2. In
addition, severa! other VOCs were detected.
The occurrence of phenols, xylenes, benzenes, and toluene is consistent with some of the
more frequently detected compounds elsewhere in the IandfUl. However, as data in
Table 2.1' show, several of the VOCs found in the D8-2 sample are also found in
Well (-1. The. source of some of the VOCs in Well 1-1 may be vertical movement of
compounds from the liquid disposaJ area. The downward movement may be encouraged
by infiltration from the unlined Uth Avenue norm drain.
The concentrations and frequencies_with which VOCs were detected in WeU I-I during
the RI were greater than for any other well on the boundary of the landfill. The sources
of all VOCs in Well (-1 are not evident. The liquid disposal pitS along the eastern
~IPY are possible sources of '.'~#'~ '" _.~ -is" not a good correlation between
. .
compounds found in solid samples from the patS and compounds found in water samples
from Well I-I. A drum-washing facility is located 700 feet east of Well 1-1. With respect
to ground water flow, this facility occurs upgradient and laterally to Well 1-1. VOCs
occurring in Well 1-1 may have originated from the drum washing facility.
2.,'" Summary of Results
-
There are several factors that have aq influence on ground-water quality in the vicinity
of the 19th Avenue landfilL One of the factors is recharge from the Salt River during
those periods when it is flowing past the landfill. Recharge from the Salt River improves
the inorganic quG;.lity of ground water by introducing water into the aquifer that is much
lower in TDS than ambient ground water (20Q-lM)0 mg/l vs. 1'00 mg/O.
2-)7
-------
. Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
Another factor is refuse below the water table. The inorganic quality of ground water
within the refuse is inferior to the quality of ground water in the aquifer, as evidenced by
higher ms concentrations, increased levels of ammonia and organic nitrogen, and higher
chemical oxygen demand. Water quality in Wells 1-) and [-4 that are closest to the
southwestern portion of the landfill that is below the water table reflect some impact
from the landfilL In panicular, sulfate concentrations decrease, bicarbonate ions
increase, and there is an increase in magnesium relative to calcium. However, the TDS
concentrations in Wells 1-) and [-4 are lower than in the upgradient well.
Modeling studies show that the amount of ground water flowing from the landfill with
high ms is relatively small compared to the quantity of better quality ground water
flowing beneath the landfill. The water quality impacts of the landfill are quickly diluted
and are almost unnoticeable in downgradient monitor wells. ,
Examination of the data also shows that the levels of VOCs that are leaching into the
ground water in the portion of the landfill that is below the water table are low. Con-
centrations of VOCs in the boundary wells are generally less than 10 ppb, except for Well
[-Ion the northern boundary of the landfill. The source of VOC~ in the Well [-1 may be
former liquid disposal pitS in the eastern panion of the landfill and/or off-site sources
~lIrh as the rendering plar.r QI\':' '-" .- ."'- ""u, or a drum-washing facility 700 feet east
of the 'oW".:::.
2.,
AIR QUALITY INVESTICA TION
2.5.1
Objectives
Air quality impactS that may result from a municipal landfill include the migration of
methane to nearby structures, the associated potential for explosion, and the release of
other compounds into the atmosphere.
Methane, \Jhich accounts for a large percentage of the gas produced in a landfill, is
combustible in concentrations between' and l' percent by volume in air (50,000 and
150,000 ppm). The principal hazard associated with methane is its explosivity and flam-
2-38
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
mabiHty when mixed with air. This hazard may extend to areas beyond a landfiU if
methane migrates and accumulates in buildings and enclosed areas.
In addition to methane, gases produced in landfills include vapors of VOCs and possibly
some inorganic gases. Examples of possible VOCs that may be expected are benzene,
toluene, chloroform, formaldehyde, and vinyt chloride. Other possible gases include
carbon dioxide (C02) and carbon monoxide (CO). [mpacts from airborne compounds may
occur from landfills that receive industrial refuse and from landfills that reeeive
ordinary garbage including household waste. The composition of landfill gas varies
among landfills because the type and quantity of refuse and the subsurface conditions
vary among landfills.
Several businesses are located immediately to the north and west of the 19th Avenue
Landfill (see Figure 1.2). As a means of controlling subsurface migra~ion of landfill gases
to off-site locations, the City of Phoenix has installed a gas extraction and coUeetion' .
system (Figure 2.23). [n addition, several probes were installed by the City of Phoenix in
order to monitor methane along the boundary of the landfill. The system comprises two
lines of gas extraction well.s. One line of wells is l~ated along the northern boundary of
the landfill, and the other line is located along the western boundary. The wells are
approximately 200 feet apart. Each line of wells is served by an exhaust blower, or ai,.
pump, located in the northwestern corner of the landfill. The blowpr~ tfraw subsurface
gas from within the influence of each well into a manifold connecting the we Us. The
gases are exhausted to the atmosphere through a flare at the northwestern corner of the
landfill. The gas coUection system was renovated in December 1987.
The air quality investigation at the 19th Avenue Landfill was conducted from July 1987
...
through February 1988. The overall air quality investigation involved three distinct but
related areas of investigation: 0) characterization of subsurface gas produced by refuse
in the landfill, (2) ambient air quality, and (3) the performance of the existing gas coUee-'
tion system. (The term ambient air is used in this report to refer to the open air, as
distinguished from subsurface air and other gasses .located beneath the surface of the
landfill.) There were two main purposes (or the air quality investigation: (I) evaluate if
the landfill is having an impact on ambient air quality, and (2) evaluate the performance
of the existing gas coUeetion system in preventing off-site migration of landfiU (sub-
surface) gas.
2-39
-------
Fmal Draft RAP
(J!Q-[2/$9
Several objectives for the investigation were developed to support the stated purposes:
o Characterization of the composition of subsurface gas and its distribution through-
out the landfill and adjacent properties.
o Measurement of the concentrations of compounds in ambient air that are found in
subsurface gas.
Q Measurement of the concentrations of methane in various areas to evaluate
possible hazards.
Q Evaluation of the performance of the existing gas collection system under a variety
of operational configurations.
. 2..5.2
MethodolOt(Y
The air quality inves~igation consisted of a shallow soil-gas investigation at the landfill, a
review of the existing subsurface gas data coUectedby the City of Phoenix at various gas
probes along the landfill perimeter, the COllpt".i,..~ ~c ~..: ':tionai data from these:: iJnJ"'C:~,
the c.wacterization af the subsurface gas, and the monitoring of ambient air concentra-
tions of total and component hydrocarbons on the landfill and on adjacent properties.
General procedures followed during the air quality investigation are described in the RI
report. The sampling and analysis plan was reviewed and approved by the regulatory
agencies prior to the start of the program.
"
2:.12.1
C).~..face Cas Imtestiption
ne term subsurface gas refers to gas, produced in or by buried refuse, that has not been
emitted to the atmosphere. Subsurface gas refers to gas beneath the surface of the
landfill and does not refer -to the gases or vapors in the ambient atmosphere above the
landfill. However, ambient air quality impacts from the landfill would be due to an
escape of the subsurface gas to the atmosphere. A characterization of the composition
2-40
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/&9
and distribution of subsurface gas is important to understanding the ambient air quali ty
. impacu of the landfill.
The subsurface gas was investigated by three methods over the period of about two
years. First, a shallow soil-gas investigation was conducted on site to obtain concentra-
tions of methane and other gases at a few feet below the surface of the landfill. Second,
existing data from probes associated with the gas collection system were evaluated.
Third, additional samples were collected from the probes and other locations on the
landfill and analyzed to further characterize the components of the subsurface gas and
their migration to the surface of the landfill.
On the basis of the information existing prior to the RI investigation, three halogeoated
hydrocarbons (TCE, TCA, and PCE), benzene and toluene .were selected to be studied in
the soil-gas investigation. Methane was also studied, since it is a principal product from
the decay of buried organic refuse.
Soil-gas sampling points were located on a grid of approximately 400 feet between points
and over an area of approximately one square mile. This area included the portion of the
landfill north of the Salt River (Cell A) and a 2,OOO-foot strip directly north and west of
the. landfill. Within this area, 126 locations were sampled. A soil-gas survey of Cell A-I
. south of the Salt River was also conducted. A more closely spaced grid was e:.labusnea
in areas that' had been previously designated as liquid disposal areas or where a closer
grid was believed to be needed as the investigation progressed.
",.
Landfill-gas probes located along the nor.th and west boundaries of the 19th Av~nue
Landfill are routinely monitored by the City of Phoenix for concentrations of TH,
expressed as methane. Probe locations are shown in Figure 2.23. The data from these
probes represent concentrations of methane, expressed as percent by volume (96 vlv),
obtained in 23 probes at various locations near the landfill boundary and on properties
adjacent to the landfill. The data collected by the City of Phoenix during 1986 and 1987
were reviewed to evaluate the subsurface gas concentrations in the probes, to ideotify
possible trends, and to identify the probes with the highest concentrations.
. Based on the review of the existing subsurface gas data collected by the City \){ Phoenix,
several probes were selected and monitored with an Organic Vapor Analyzer (OVA) for
2-4l
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
TH content. Probes 2, 3, and 13 were selected for monitoring on the basis of their
relatively high annual average concentrations of subsurface gas compared to concentra-
tions in other probes.
Sampling and chemical analysis of gas from the gas probes around the landfill, the collec-
tion system manifold, and a ground crack near the center of the landfill was also
performed to characterize specific compounds in landfill gas in addition to TH. These
samples were coUected and analyzed Using two techniques: portable gas chromatograph
for on-site analysis, and grab sample for laboratory analysis.
2.'.2.2 Ambient Air Monitoring
Possible air quality impacts of the landfill were evaluated by monitoring ambient levels
both of TH and of specific component hydrocarbons. Ambient levels for methane and
VOCs were measured on the landfiJ1 and at adjacent properties.
The monitoring plan was influenced by the expected variable nature of landfill
emissions. Because the landfill covers a rather large area and atmospheric and. subsur-
face conditions vary, gases were expected to emanate from the landf;l! i.. '7-~h~~ .~es or
rates that change with location over the landfill and vary over time. Consequently, aIr
quality impacts near the landfill were expected to be variable both in location and time
(see Section 2.5.3.5). Preliminary and existing data indicated that the potential for
emission of subsurface gas is greatest in late morning to afternoon hours and least at
night and early morning hours. Therefore, the air quality investigation was designed to
obtain information on'" ambient air concentrations of several gases at several locations
within periods of a few
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
The flexibility of this approach allowed sampling under a variety of conditions. Sampling
was conducted during periods of variable atmospheric pressure, calm to moderate winds5
variable temperatures, and rainy and dry periods. With the exception of one air quality
survey conducted in February 1988, ambient sampling was conducted prior to the
December 19&7 renovation of the gas coUection system.
Ambient air was generally monitored" by the OVA in a layer within about 6 inches to 36
inches ab()ve the surface. In some instances, the air immediately above a ground crack
was monitored. If a concentration peak was observed as a result either of changing
location or a change in time at a fixed location, an attempt was made to locate the
source of the emission. Peaks generally were short-lived and could not be traced to a
definite source. Consistent, or lasting, concentrations could be obtained from various
ground cracks or vents.
Restricted areas, including structures on the landfill and at ad jacent businesses, were
also monitored. The term "restricted-, as used here, means either an indoor area where
methane could col1ect or an accessible, outside area where ventilation is restricted by
nearby structur~., Employees of businesses adjacent to the landfill on the north and west
sides and adjacent to Cel1 A-I were interviewed. The Phoenix Fire Department was also
interviewed about its involvement in methane-related problems in the area. The
businesses that were Cl.lhl.CL\.LC\i Cll"e listed below;
;~
o Blue Circle
o California Arizona Tractor (CAT)
o Kaiser Cement & Gypsum
o Waste Management, Inc.
...
o All Chevy Auto Parts (ACAP)*
o A&B Silica.
o Lincoln Auto
o Chevron
o Beverage Industry Recycling Program (BIRP).
. .
o Tanner [nc..
o
Ha-ter Manufacturing, Inc.
2-43
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
The properties or businesses that indicated possible problems with methane are identified
above with an asterisk. Restricted and unrestricted areas of these businesses were
monitored routinely. Some surveys were made on the property of businesses reporting no
problems with methane.
The ambient levelS of component hydrocarbons on and in the vicinity of the 19th A venue
landfill were monitored on a real time basis during November 3 through 7, 1987. The
hydrocarbons that were sampled were the same components monitored in the"landfill gas
probes: benzene (BNZ); toluene (TOl); tetrachloroethene (PCE); I, I, I-trichloroethene
(TCA); and trichloroethene (TCE).
During February 1988, ambient air samples were collected with air sampling bags and
analyzed in a laboratory by GC/MS. These samples were coUected at a height of lO feet
along the upwind and downwind boundaries of the landfill. As with the portable GC,
these samples are collected over a brief time period of about:; to lQ minutes.
Meteorological data for the dates of ambient monitorin@ were obtained for each survey
period from the National Weather Service (NWS) at Sky Harbor Airport.
2.'.2.3
Cas CyllecL"", 5y;;aLeJ1\
The performance of the gas coUection system was evaluated by measuring the flows and
pressures along each leg of the system and at the blower" assemblies under several
adjustments of the system. The configuration of the system in relation to the landfitl
and adjacent properties is shown in Figure 2.23 in conjunction with Figure 1.2.
Pressure observation weUs were installed (it various distances from selected extraction
wells to examine the ability of the system to capture or draw gas from zones around the
extraction wells. Two observation weUs were installed along the north leg of the system,
" "
and four observation weUs were installed along the west leg of the system. The observa-
tion wells are shown in Figure 2.23 and identified as "GP".
"2-4,.
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/ L 2/89
2.j.)
Subsurface Cas Characterization
2.j.3.1,
InttoduCtion
The data presented in the foUowing sections were collected on the landfill and adjacent
properties prior to and after the gas coUection -. system was renovated in December
1987. The resultS obtained alter renovation will be specifically identified.
Subsurface gas concentrations ranging from trace amounts to 50 percent or more by
volume were observed. Therefore, two -units will be used to report these
concentrations: parts per million (ppm), and percent by volume (96 v/v). These units are
related as follows:
1 96 v/v = LO,OOO ppm
U.3.2
Soil Cas In Cell A
Methane
Methane C:ui'I~~r1L& caUUIIS' in soil gas on the landfiU ranged trom about 1 ppm up to 54
percent by 'volume ('40,000 ppmL Methane conc~ntrations decreased to approximately 1
ppm within 400 feet outside of the boundaries of the landfill. Methane concentration
contours of 1.' and 15 percent v/v are shown in Figure 2.24. Concentrations exceeded
15 percent v/v over approximately 30 percent of the area of the landfill. The largest
concentrations were foUnd in the southern two-thirds of Cell A.
Halo~enated Hydrocarbon Vapors
The soil-gas concentrations of TCA ranged from less than 0.000 L ppm up to 25 ppm, the
highest observed value for the halogenated hydrocarbons. The 2' ppm value was
recorded about 400 feet west of the midpoint of the eastern boundary of the landfiU..
TCA concentrations at surrounding sample points were much lower. -
2-45
-------
. Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
Concentrations of PCE measured in soil gas varied from 0.0006 ppm to 3 ppm. The
location of the 3 ppm PCE concentration was coincident with the location of the highest
observed TCA concentration. PCE concentrations ranging between 0.01.5 ppm and 0.90
ppm were observed immediately to the north of the landfill. The 0.90 ppm concentration
was measured near the intersection of I .5th dA venue and lower Buckeye Road. Several
locations within the landfill itself also had f)CE concentrations between 0.01' ppm and
0.13' ppm. PCE concentrations above the detection limit were not as widespread as
were the TCA concentrations; but PCE was detected at more sampling points than TCA.
Observed TCE concentrations ranged from less than 0.000 I ppm to 1..5 ppm. TCE was
detected more often than TCA within the Landfill. TCE was also observed immediately
north of the landfill. A relatively high TCE concentration (0.4 ppm) in soil gas was
measured at the intersection of 15th Avenue and Lower Buckeye Road. This area also
had a high TCA concentration of about 6 ppm.
Benzene and Toluene
Because of high methane concentrations within the landfill soH, detection limits of
benzene and tol\!ene were as large u q~ "nrn s...~ ~, ppm, respectively. Ai though
benzene and !~lue!1e ~:u!d :'tot bE dctectc~ in ;~:: &.... eit most locations within the land-
fili, ~i1~y could have been present at concentrations less than the above noted detection
limits. At the sampling points where benzene could be detected, the largest quantifiable
concentration in the soil gas was 2 ppm, occurring at an off-site location near 15th
A venue and lower Buckeye Road. A t the sampling points where toluene could be
detected, the largest 'quantifiable concentration in the soil gas was 27 ppm, occurring in
the southwest quadrant of the landfill.
2.'.3.3
Soil Gas in Cell A-I
Concentrations of gase: measured in Cell A-I were generally less than those measured in
Cell A. The highest concentrations of TCA, TCE, and PCE were 0.07 ppm, 0.07 ppm, and
0.3 ppm, respectively~ Benzene was not detected (the detection limit for benzene was
0.3 ppm).
2-46
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12J&~
~.J.1f
Existing Subsurface Cas Data
As noted previously, the City of Phoenix has installed several probes to monitor off-site
migration of methane. A review of the data obtained from the subsurface gas probes by
the City of Phoenix indicated that TH concentrations (which are almost 100 percent
methane) vary considerably among the probes~ Total hydrocarbon concentrations ranged
from near O. to over 40% v/v. Probes 2, 3, L3, and L4 (Figure 2.23) typically. had the
highest readings. averaging respectively 12, L 4, 14 and 1296 v Iv during 19&6 and 14, 15,
L6, and 23% v/v respectively during 1987. A summary of the TH concentrations obtained
from the gas moni toring probes during 1986 and 1987 is presented in Table 2.15.
The probes with the high annual average concentrations (probes 2, 3, 1:3, and 14) are in
areas along the landfill boundary where some of the highest soil-gas concentrations of
methane were observed during the soil-gas investigation. Probes 2 and 3 are in an area
where soib-gas concentrations of methane were 596 v/v to 2096 v/v; probe 13 is in an area
with soil gas concentrations of 4096 v/v.
~.3.'
Subsurface Cas From Collection System WeUs and Probes .
Results obtained by additional mQnitoring of the City of Phoenix gas probes durin~; -the
remedial investigation identified a diurnal pattern in the subsurface TH concentrations.
The concentrations observed in the probes during the very early morning hours
<0500-0700 Mountain Standard Time (MST» were less than 10 ppm and remained Jess than
10 ppm until the late morning 0000-1200 MST). The concentrations then increased and
remained at ~oncentrations greater than 1,000 ppm into the afternoon, exceeding the
upper limit of the OV A instrument. As a consequence of this diurnal pattern, ambient air
monitoring was routinely conducted during the late morning and afternoon hours when
the subsurface TH concentrations tended to be highest.
Concentrations of TH obtained in the gas probes after renovation of the gas coHection
system were generally less than 10 ppm in most of the probes. Exceptions .vere probe 14,
located in the BIRP parking lot and probe 2L,-located on the landfill across from Tanner
Inc., (Figure 1.2) where occasionally concentrations above L,OOO ppm were observed.
247
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/&9
2--'.3.6 SpecUJC Hydrocarbons From Probes
Subsurface gas from the gas migration monitoring probes was analyzed with a portable
gas chromatograph during the period November 3 through 7. A listing of results obtained
from the probes is presented in Table 2.17.
[n many of the probes that were monitored, a distinctly different compound (or group of
compounds) was found at apparently greater concentrations than the compounds that the
GC was calibrated to identify, namely benzene, toluene, PCE, TCA, and TCE. The
concentration of this different compound could not be quantified or identified with the
portable chromatograph used. The presence of the unknown masked the possible.
presence of the compounds of interest in several cases. General characteristics of the
GC column in use indicated that the unknown could possibly be 2,2-dimethyl butanone or
acetone.
Bag samples were coUected from the manifold of the gas coUection system and analyzed
by GC in the laboratory for major and trace constituents. Results are presented In
Tables 2.1& and 2.19. Samples, labeled GCS-1 and GC5-2, were obtained from the same
location on December 28, 1987 and January 13, 1988, respectively. The two sampies
from the coUection syste~ were quite similar in contents of methane, nitrogen, and
carbon dioxide, but f"~~ differed somewhat in C"vyZ." ':ontent. Sa."",~es GCS';'l, GCS-2,
were also analyzed for VOCs. A third sample, GRN-I, obtained from within a ground
. .
crack near the center of the landfill on January 13, 1988 was also analyzed for VOCs.
The reported concentrations, if not the actual presence, of compounds labeled with an
asterisk in Table 2.19 should be qualified as uncertain. None of the compounds
delineated by an asterisk in Table 2.19 were detected in samples GCS-2 a,id GRN- i, but
were detected ina control sample of commercial test gas.
2-48
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
".4
Ambient Air OualitV
".'~1
Tota! Hydrocarbon Survey
Ambient air concentrations of TH, expressed as methane, were .less than 10 ppm at most
locations on the landfill and off-site. MeasurementS above 10 ppm were occasionally
obtained, but they either were transient, lasting a few seconds, or were obtained from
near ground cracks where landfill gas apparently vents to the air. These ground cracks
were found along the collection system, at some locations along the river, along bank
faces on the landfill, and at a PVC pipe near the center of the landfill. Readings from
these ground cracks decreased rapidly within five to ten feet from the ground crack.
Readings above 10 ppm were also obtained in. the vicinity of the collection system
exhaust and, depending on the wind direction, could be detected at the northwestern
comer of the landfill, at 19th Avenue and Lower Buckeye Road. Transient readings of
100 to 1,000 ppm were obtained in the immediate vicinity of the system exhaust. The
flare at the exhaust system was not operating when these measurements were made. .
An ambient air concentration of T'H between '00 to 1,000 ppm lasting greater than 30
seconds was obtained from within 10 to 20 feet of a PVC pipe protruding from the ground
necu: the center of the landfill. The concentration decreased to less than 10 ppm within
100 feet of the pipe. The readings obtained at other locations were either much less than
1,000 ppm or .Iasted less than 30 secord$. Ambient concentrations varied little over the
area before and after the gas collection system was renovated.
With a few exceptions, concentrations of TH in restricted areas off site were no higher
than the concentrations observed in the unrestricted areas. Of the restricted areas that
'-
were monitored, two locations at the Tanner Plant had the highest observed concentra-
tions. At the Tanner Plant, the first location was within an enclosed elevator shaft near
the Tanner scale house. Within this area, concentrations of 200 to '00 ppm were
observed. The second location was an enclosed underground shaft or pit conn~ted to the
elevator shaft. Levels of methane within this area exceeded the lower explosive limit
(lEL) of ,% v/v'before and after renovation of the gas collection system. Total hydro-
carbon concentrations at the Tanner pit were observed to be higher than at other
ambient locations both prior to and after renovation of the gas collection system.
2-49
-------
.
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
Other restricted locations had TH concentrations above 1,000 ppm, but these areas were
either small 'and inaccessible or were above ground c,racks. At the BIRP facility, con-
centrations in a small ground pit and in a below-grade conveyer were observed at a
maximum of 0.' percent v/v. Lower concentrations were observed in the ground pit
after the gas collection system was renovated.
The maximum TH concentration within a ground crack in an open-sided wooden shed
adjacent to the office at All Chevy Auto Parts was 46 percent by volume prior to renova-
tion of the gas collection system. Ambient concentrations in the shed above the ground
crack ranged from less than 10 ppm to transient peaks of 500 ppm during this period.
Concentrations in the shed above the ground crack were less than 10 ppm after the gas
collection system was renovated.
2.'.4.2
Specific Component Hydrocarbons
Measurements for five VOCs in ambient air were made with a portable gas chromato-
graph at locations on and near the landfill. These locations are shown on Figure 2.25.
The measurements were made in November 1987, prior to renovation of the gas
collection system. Results are itemized in Tables 2.20 and 2.21 for e;u~h t'\f. -.. - ".ve
compounds analyzed.
Benzene was detected most frequently in the samples on and near the landfill. Ambient
benzene concentrations are shown on Figure 2.25. Measurements made at 19th Avenue
and Adams indicate that background ambient benzene concentrations of 0.01 ppm can
occur. Data from a recent investigation by the DEQ show that over a period of three
. weeks, background ambient benzene concentrations in west Phoenix and central Phoenix
averaged from 0.008 to 0.006 ppm, respectively for 24-hour sampling intervals (DEQ,
1988). Short-term sampling concentrations, such as those measured at. the landfill, are
generally higher than 24-hour samples. Therefore, the short-term background ambient
benzene concentrations could frequently be greater than 0.010 ppm. For purposes of this
report, it is assumed that the short-term background ambient benzene concentration is
0.02 ppm, allowing for potential local sources of benzene that may raise concentrations
in the area above measured baf:kground concentrations.
2-'0
-------
Final CraIt RAP
06/12/89
Benzene concentrations exceeded 0.02 ppm at 12 locations. Several of these 12
measurementS may be of the same event. For example, wind direction data indicate that
the measurement of 0.120 ppm near probe 13 may be associated with the measurement of
0.209 ppm within the landfill boundary east of gas extraction Well 7W. Concentrations in
excess of 0.02 ppm occurred primarily in the northwest part of the landfill between east
and west coordinates defined by gas extraction Wells 'N and 3N and between north and
south coordinates defined by Wells 6'1' and 8W. Concentrations in excess of 0.02 ppm
occurred also along the north boundary, near gas extraction. Wells 2N and 7N, and along
the west boundary near probes 8 and 13, and at business along 19th Avenue from the
intersection with 1.ower Buckeye Road to the BIRP property.
The largest observed benzene concentration was 0.336 ppm, which was measured near
probe 3 on the northern boundary of the landfill. Several minutes later benzene was not
detectable at this location.
The second most frequently observed compound was TCE. The largest TCE concentra-
tion at 1.4 ppm was measured on November 4, occurring near a PVC pipe protruding from
the surface in _the.north central part of the landfill. 8enzene at 0.104 ppm was observed
near this location two days later. A TCE concentration of 0.048 ppm was observed at the
BIRP lot. TCE was detected at concentrations of 0.08' and 0.11' ppm in an event at the
"'orthwest corner of the t.atlow pical1t 1-enCI:. .
Ambient air was analyzed, using the portable gas chromatograph, for the five hydro~
carbon components in restricted areas where relatively high levels of TH were
detected. This included samples from the shed adjacent to the office al All Chevy Auto
Parts, the underground pit shaft at Tanner, Inc., and one sample from a small ground pit
..
at BIRP. Toluene, TCA, and PCE were not detected at these locations. Benzene was
detected twice in the All Chevy Auto Parts shed at concentrations of .01 J ppm. TCE.
. .
was detected once in the AU Chevy Auto PartS shed (.080 ppm) and once in the Tanner
pit 0.3 ppm). None of these concentrations of tCE occurred at the same time that
benzene was detected.
2-51
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
2..5..5
Interpretation of Air Quality Results
2..5.'.1
General Observations
Although methane concentrations in soil gas exceeded 1',000 ppm over 60 percent of the
landfill, ambient concentrations of TH (including methane) were on the order of 10 ppm
above the surface of the landfill, except for occasionally higher transient readings. The
higher ambient concentrations of about 1,000 ppm occurred downwind from the exhaust
of the gas collection system and near vents such as ground cracks and gas probes that
may penetrate the refuse below the landfill cap. Field observations indicate that higher
ambient concentrations are transient at a fixed point and that the concentrations fall to
10 ppm or less within several feet of the location.
Comparing the concentrations of methane betwC!en the shallow soil zone and the ambient
atmosphere indicates. that gases diffuse slowly through the landfill cap. Furthermore,
from the transient behavior of the higher ambient concentrations that were detected, it
is evident that atmospheric processes such as turbulence and variable wind dirP<:'tion act
to quickly disperse gases that originate from localized .sources such as ground cracks.
These effectS are illustrated in Figure 2.26.
2.'.'.2
Effects of Dispersion on Air Quality
According to general concepts of atmospheric mixing, an initial instantaneous release of
air pollutant would decrease in average concentration with the inverse of the square root
of the sampling time (Csanady, 1973). Accordingly, a 20-second short-term ambient
concentration would be reduced by a factor of 0.01' over a 24-hour averaging time. .The
factor of 0.01' to convert a 20-second average to a 24-hour average is not applicable to
an averaging time of more than a few hours~ The annual average, however, is most
important in the assessment of long-term chronic health effects. To estimate the. annual
average from the short-term values, an additional model is needed. Studies of the DEQ
ao! useful in providing the needed information. The DEQ (ADEQ 1988) has estimated
that the annual average concentration is .485 times the maximum 24-hour concentra-
tion. This factor was deriveq from a study of carbon monoxide levels in urban Phoenix.
Using the two factors of 0.01' and 0.48.5, the annual average concentration may be
2-.52
-------
Finai Draft RAP
06/12/89
estimated from the peak short-term 20-second concentration by applying a factor of
0.007 to the short-term concentration. This factor may yield an overestimate of the
ann~ average at the landfill < because it is surrounded locall.y by large areas of
undeveloped land in contrast with the urban area for which the factor was developed.
~.'.J
Specific Compounds
Benzene
From the shaUow soil-gas measurements, it can be conduded that benzene may have
been present below detection limitS that varied between 0.06 ppm to 94 ppm, depending
on location. The largest concentration of benzene detected and measured in subsurface
gas was 0.1 ppm, detected in a sample collected from the manifold of the gas collection
s....stem. The sample from the manifold should be considered as an average sample' from
along the lines of extraction wells and their zone of influence. The concentration may
also have been diluted by ambient air that is drawn into the collection system.
Within the landfill boundary, the highest ambient 'benzene concentratio'n, 0.209 ppm, was
found in an area' where the benzene detection limit in soil gas was 31 ppm. It would
appear that the recu.f~' '.or benzene are consbte::t ..,:itt. ~~e ir...;i"pretation that benzene
emanates from the surface. aL highly localized pointS rather than from a large surface
area of the landfill. It is possible also that one or more sources of benzene, other than
the landfill, are nearby. It is weU known, 'for example, that benzene is a component of
gasoline and would be emitted by vehicles moving along 19th Avenue.
Near probe )"'(Figure 2.23), along the northern boundary of the landfill, a short-term
benzene concentration of 0.336 ppm was observed. The concentration decreased to 0.004
ppm within 7 minutes and to less than 0.001 ppm within 23 minutes. Over the 2J-minute
period, the average benzene concentration was approximately 0.003 ppm, about one
percent of the initial value of 0.336 ppm. This observed decrease over the 2J-minute
observation period is .slightly greater than predicted using the turbulent diffusion
concepts described above. The greater decrease is likely due to changes in wind direc-
t ion and wind speed.
2-53
-------
. Final Draft RA.P
06/12/89
The 24-hour average associated with the 0.336 ppm short-term concentration is
estimated to be from 0.0004
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
the shallow soil gas was 1.' ppm, located at the northwest corner of the landfill. No TCE
was detected in the ambient air in the vicinity of this location.
These observations are consistent with the conclusion that sources of TCE are highly
localized and other TCE sources may be in the vicinity of the landfill.
Other VOCs
Toluene was found in grab samples collected over an interval of approximately 15
minutes on both the downwind (east) and upwind sides (west) of the landfill (see RI
repord. The concentrations along both boundaries were very nearly the same, averaging
0.176 and 0.180 ppm on the east and west sides, respectively. [n other short-term
samples, the iMgest toluene concentration was 0.02 ppm. These results indicate that
toluene, while present in subsurface gas on the landfill, is emitted by other sources in the
vicinity and that the contribution to ambient air from the landfill cannot be identified.
TCA was observed ato~ly two locations. The most significant detectIon
occurred near the tallow plant fence line. The concentration of th.is event was
The infrequent detection of TCA indicates that it does not impact air quality.
of . TCA
1.1 ppm.
Other VOCs were either not detected or were detected in essentially equ4! concentra-
tions, on the order of 0.01 ppm, on both upwind and downwind boundaries, indicating
sources not associated with the landfill.
2.'.'.4
ConClusions
Emissions of subsurface gas from the landfill occur primarily at isolated locations such as
ground cracks, a pipe that extends into the subsurface at the center of the landfill, and
from uncapped gas probes on the boundary of the landfill. Emissions from the major
portion of the landfill appear to occur at a slow rate. Ambient concentrations of gases
emitted by the landfill are transient and are quickly diluted by atmospheric processes.
Annual average concentrations, resulting from landfill emissions, would be within general
background levels typically found in the urban Phoenix area.
2-55
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12l89
2.j.'
Cas Collection System Evaluation
2.'.6.1
Genera! Observations
Some pressure gauges at the blower assemblies are broken. These gauges were installed
to monitor pressure on each side of the" blowers and the pressure differentials created by
the blowers. Some of the valves (gates) that control the air flow in the extraction weBs
also are in" need of repair or replacement.
There are air leaks along the system at some couplings and at. a cracked collection pipe
between Wells 18 W and 19W. The presence of these leaks reduces the flow within the
extraction wells and ultimately reduces the ability of the extraction wells to withdraw
subsurfa~e gases from the landfill.
Water was found in the collection pipe and in several of the extraction. wells. The
presence of water in the system reduces the air flow and the ability of each extraction
well .to withdraw subsurface gases. Although engineering drawings of fn@ o;""surf~c~ga5
collection system indicate that condensate should drain back toward the extraction well,
differential settlement in the collection pipe may have reduced the effectiveness of the
system in preventing the accumulation of water in ~!':: :}:._....
, .
Flow volumes among wells varied from near 0 cf.m to near 240 cfm. The lowest flow
volumes were .obtained in the extraction wells along the west leg of the collection
system. Maximum flow volumes in the extraction wells along the west leg generally
were 50-100 cfm. The lower flow volumes were at the end of the system leg varying
'-
from 22 to 48 cfm from Wells l'W and 19W. Extraction Well 7W had a flow near zero
and appeared to have a broken valve.
,
I "
Flow volumes in wells along the north leg of the system were higher than along the west
leg and generally ranged from 90 to near 200 cfm. A relatively low flow volume of
approximately 2 cfm was recorded in Well 'N. This low flow could be a result vf water
in the well, or the well could be plugged. tn Well 8N, another low flow volume of .5 cfm
was measured. No water could be detected in Well 8N, 50 the low flow may result either
from a collapsed or plugged well or very dense soil.
.
2-56
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
2.,.6.2
Test Data
All gas extraction wells were fully open when the blowers were tested. Flows through
the blowers fluctuated over a period of about five seconds. Flows varied between 470
and 1200 cfm in the north leg blower. and between 400 and 2000 cfm in the west leg
blower. Pressures on the vacuum sides of the blowers varied between 3.7 and 6.5 inches
of water for the north leg blower and between 2.1 and 4.3 inches of water for the west
leg blower. Positive side pressures of about 1.0 psi were measured on both blowers.
Pressure and linear flow rates were measured in gas extraction Wells 15N, 3N, 5W, 6W,
9W, and 12W. Pressures were measured in observation wells installed for the tests
(Figure 2.23) near the selected wells. [n one series of tests, each test well was tested at
four valve positions with all other gas collection wells closed. The data for this series of
tests are given in Table 2.22. [n a second series of testS, all wells were opened fully (a
valve position of 90.). Pressures and flow rates were then measured in several wells.
The test data are given in Table 2.23. Finally, volume flowrates are summarized in T~le
2.24 for wells operating one at a time and for aU wells open simultaneously.
U.6.J
Evaluation
The radius of influence of an extr2.!:!!~n well is defi":::: as the average radial distance
from the well at which the pressure gradient toward the well .is effectively zero
(Schumacher, 1983). For practical application, pressure differences less than 0.1 inch of
water between the observation well and the extraction well are considered small enough
to place a practical upper bound on the radius of influence (Schumacher, 1983).
Four observation wells were at or above atmospheric pressure in tests involving
individual isolated wells. This indicates. that these observations wells were outside the
radius of influence of the extraction wells. These observation wells, the valve positions,
the associated extraction wells, and the distance. between each observation well and
extraction weU are as follows:
2-57
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/!2/89
Observation Vlell. Extraction Vlell Valve Positions Separation (ft.)
GP3N 3N 90. 30
GP'WB ,W. 20. ,40. ,60. ,90. 11'
GP'WB 6W 20.~40. ,60. ,90. 118
GP9W 9W 20. ,40. 16
From the test data presented above it may be concluded that the radii of influence of
Wells IN, 'W, and 6W are less than 30 feet, 11' feet, and 118 feet, respectively. For
Well 9W, the radius of influence at valve positions 20° and 40° is less than 16 feet.
These conclusions are' based on tests made with each well isolated from the effectS of all
other wells of the system. If several weils are placed in operation simultaneously, a
mutual interference develops and the production capacities per weU decrease for fixed
pressure gradients. If the pressure gradients decrease, as would occur if several wells
are operated by one blower, the production capacities per well would be less than the
capacity of a single well operating alone. Therefore, when all of the wells are in o!,,"'-~
tion, the radius of influence of a given well will be less than when the well is IJperating
alone. .
The following empirical relationship describes the data of Table 2.22:
Q = [al/la(r/rw)] (pw - Pr) + b
Equation (1.)
where
Q: volume flow rate (cfm)
2
Q = r wF
2-58
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89 .
r w: well radius (ft)
F: average. linear flow rate (fpm)
Pw:
average well pressure (inches of water) relative to atmospheric
pressure
Pr:
average observation well pressure (inches of water) relative to
atmospheric pressure
r:
distance to observation point
The values of al and b are given in Table 2.25 for extraction wells for which the observa-
tion wells are within their radii of influence. For Well 5W and Well 6W, the observation
wells are beyond the radius of influence and equation (1) cannot be applied. it is assumed
. .
that equation (1) is good for aU values of r greater than r w and less than the radius of
influence.
.
The data .of, Table. 2.24 suggestS that when all wells are operating simultaneously and
fully open, each well is withdrawing at a volume rate approximately equivalent to its
capacity at a valve position of 20. when operating alone within the system. The relation
jc; ~ot exact, but is a reasonable approximation.
For evaluating the radius of influence using equation (1), Q is taken as the flow rate wi'th
the well operating alone in the system with the value set at 200, to simulate system
operation with aU well valves fully open.
The following conclusions are drawn using equation (1):
o Wells 15N and 12W are effective at distances of at least 100 feet.
o
Well 5W is marginally effective at 100 feet.
o
Well 9W is not effective at 100 feet.
2-59
-------
Final-Draft RAP
06/12/89
To summarize the information on the influence of all the wells tested:
15N: effective at 100 feet
3N: not effective at distances greater than 30 feet
,W: marginaUy effective at 100 feet
6W: not effective at 100 feet
9W: not effective at 100 feet
12W: effective at 100 feet
2.'.6.4
Conclusion
The existing gas collection system at the landfill appears to be partiaHy effective in
preventing off-site migration of methane and other landfill gases. In areas adjacent to
the landfill, methane was observed in the subsurface and in enclosed structures at con-
centrations exceeding five percent by volume, the lower explosive limit (LEL) of
methane in air, prior to renovation of the system in late L 987. After the system \AI;:!')
renovated, subsurface concentrations of methane decreased at most off-site locations.
Even 50, concentrations in a pit at the Tanner Inc. plant continued to exceed to LEL
after rp,novation. ~- c;::"': - ..;- ,- ~_:"g indicates that the concentrations have dropped
t..,;~uw the! LE4.. (Bruce Hennillg, \..1ty of Phoenix, personal communication, 1988) at these
locations also. Tests indicate that the zones of influence of some gas coHection wells
are not as large as one-half' the well spacing, and gas may be migrating through the
collection bart'ier at ~uch Locations~ The gas flare was inoperable during the remedial
investigation.
2-60
-------
FinafDratt RAP
06/12/89
3.0
BASEUNE RISK ASSESSMENT
3.1
OBJECTIVES
The purpose of the baseline risk assessment was to evaluate the impact to public health
and the environment that may result from releases from the 19th A venue Landfill. A
human exposure pathway consists of four elements: (1) a source and mechanism of
chemical. release,(2) an environmental transport medium such as air or ground water,
(3) a point of potential human contact with the medium, and (4) a human exposure route
such as inhalation of air or ingestion of ground water at the contact point. AU four
elements must be present to complete a pathway.
The baseline evaluation for the 19th Avenue Landfill considers each of the four areas of
study in the remedial investigation: ground-water quality, surface-water quality, soils
. .
and refuse quality, and air quality. The objective of the baseline risk assessment was to
characterize the following for each area of study:
~
"-r
:.0.
-
o Potential for a release from the landfill.
o
Toxicity, quantity, transport, and fate of the substance in each affected media
(ground water, !atoldGC.e 1Rater, soils, and aid.
..
-
o
Presence of an exposure pathway.
o
Likelihood and magnitude of any impact on public health or the environment. .
A complete description of the baseline risk assessment is given in the RI report.
3.2
METHODS
The baseline risk assessment follows principles outlined in the EP A Superfund Public
Health Evaluation Manual (U.S. EPA, 1986a).
3-1
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
The National Contingency Plan (40 CFR 300, 1987) and EPA Draft Guidance for
Conducting Remedial [nvestigations and Feasibility Studies under CERCLA (U.S. EPA
1988) requires the selection of corrective actions that are protective of public health and
the environment. The baseline risk assessment is conducted to evaluate whether
corrective action is required to reduce existing and future threats. The basic steps to
complete the baseline risk assessment are:
o [dentification of applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs).
o Exposure assessment.
o . Toxicity assessment.
. 0 Risk characterization.
Each of these steps is described below.
.'
3.3
APPUCABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
3.3.1
Surface WCiter
Arizona's environmental protection regulations (ACRR R9-21-206) designate three
protected uses for the Salt River in the study area: incidental human body contact,
agricultural irrigation and livestock watering, and aquatic wildlife use. The regulations
apply to the Salt River from below Granite Reef Dam to 99th Avenue. The regulations
provide protection for both actual and future uses. There is no actual use of surface
water at the present time because the river is dry. The standards set by the state for
protection of these uses are' considered applicant' or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs).
3-2
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/&9
3.3.2
Ground Water
Safe ,Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Levels ("MCI.s") are retevant and
appropriate requirements at the 19th Avenue landfill facility, because of the statutory
designation of the underlying aquifer for drinking water use (although at. present no
drinking water wells are affected). Attached as Table 3.1 to this Remedial Action Plan
is a summary of the ground-water analysis performed at the 19th Avenue Landfill. The
table summarizes. the resultS of the ground-water monitoring program at the landfill,
comparing the range of concentration levels of detected compounds with \~CLs. [n
addition, the table specifies for each compound the Safe Drinking Water Act \\aximum
Contaminant Level Coal, the Arizona Department of Health Service State Action Level,
and the 10-6 excess risk level. These criteria have not been selected as present ARARs,
but will be considered in the event future remedy selection under CERCLA 9 121 is
triggered by the Contingency Plan. In the event the Contingency Plan is triggered, such
criteria will be considered as potential ARARs during the process of additional remedy
selection analysis under CERCLA Section 121 and the National Contingency Plan. The
Contingency plan framework is attached as Appendix B.
3.3.3
~
Methane and 'OC: have been detected at the 19th Avenue Landfill. Different ARARs
apply to each of these componentS of air quality. The Phoenix metropolitan area is a
non-attainment area for the foHowing air poUutants: ozone, carbon monoxide, and
airbomeparticulates. There are several organic compounds found in the ambient air in
the Phoenix metropolitan area.
Regulations have been proposed under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act that,
. if promulgated, will establish an upper limit of 1.2' percent by volume for methane in
landfill facility struCtUres and an upper limit of , percent by volume (the LEL) at landfill
boundaries (U.s. EPA, 1981b). Therefore, these limits are taken to be ARARs for
methane in structures both new and.on the landfill and at the landfill boundary.
EPA's ambient air quality standards are directly applicable to the 19th Avenue Landfill.
However, standards have not been developed for the constituents under consideration at
3-3
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
the landfiII. At present, no ARARs can be identified which apply specifically to the
VOCs which are detected in gas emissions from the landfiII. Developments in setting
additional standards will be considered when evaluating the design of the gas collection
system.
3.3.4
Soil and Refuse
Table 3.2 presents a summary of soil and refuse ARARs for the landfiU site.
Health-based standards for soil are not well developed at the state or federal level. The
ADHS has developed interim soil action levels that represent the 10-6 excess lifetime
cancer risk level for carcinogens. In the absence of definable ARARs for soils, published
toxicological data will be used to assess risk for soils, if necessary.
3.4
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
3.4.1
Potential Receptors
The populations and environment in the vicinity of the landfill were characterized within
a study area (Figure 2.27) to identify potential receptors.
Figure 2.28 illustrates the current land use in the, area. The landfill is located in an
industrial portion of Phoenix. Existing industrial facilities occupy more than '0 percent
of the land in the study area. Nearly 99 percent of the study area is zoned for heavy or
light industrial use. The residential population of the area is relatively small and has
declined over the past 10 to l' years due to increasing industrialization of the area.
Land in the study area will continue to be used primarily for heavy industrial applications
with agricultural, vacant, and residential uses being converted to heavy industrial uses.
Ground water in the study area is used for agricultural and industrial applications. There
, ,
are only three wells in the study area that are downgradient from the landfill: the RID
well and the two Tanner wells. There is no known domestic use of the ground water in
the area. The City of Phoenix operates the public water supply system that serves this
3-4
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
area. The Arizona Corporation Commission prevents any other company from providing
drinking water within the City's service area.
Surface water in the study area has either limited use or no use because of the
intermittent nature of flows in the Salt River. Arizona's environmental protection
regulations (A.A.C. R9-21-206) designate three protected uses for the Salt River in the
study area: incidental human body contact, agricultural irrigation and livestock
watering, and aquatic wildlife use. There are no recreational facilities along the Salt
River within the study area. Salt River water from this area is not used for agricultural
- --
purposes.
Several native species of plants and animals have been displaced by urbanization in the
vicinity of the landfill. Various species of birds occur in the study area. Jackrabbits and
burrowing owls have been observed living on the surface of the landfill. Some fish
species may be present in the .Salt River during periods of flow. Permanent fi$!1
- -
populations probably do not occur in the Salt River adjacent to the landfill because of the
intermittent -and varying flow in the river.
3.4.2
Human Exposure PathwayS
,'-....
Potential points of expoiuremust be identified for each media as a part of the risk
assessment process. Risks are evaluated on the basis of the estimated concentrations of
indicator constituents at these points of exposure. If no exposure paint exits, there is no
complete exposure pathway, and it is assumed for the purpose of the assessment that
there is no associated risk.
Possible pathways of exposure for human receptors are as follows:
- la. Inhalation of particulate matter dispersed by wind action, and
lb. InRestion of off-site soil containing deposited particulates.
/
Since the site is covered to a minimum depth of two feet, pathways la and Ib can
be eliminated.
,/
3-,
], .
, -
--
'. .,...,.' .
--
,--
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
2.
Consumption of ~round water. Ground water in the vicinity of the 19th Avenue
Landfill is used for agricultural and industrial purposes. The mean concentrations
of detected compounds in any given well do not exceed drinking water standards.
Maximum concentrations exceed MCLs for four compounds. Drinking water use in
this area is supplied by the City and there are no known domestic wells. Thus,
consumption of contaminated ground water does not represent a complete
exposure pathway at this time. However, the RI report contains a supplementary
analysis of risks associated with using ground water for drinking water purposes.
An additional exposure would be incidental use of industrial and agricul tural weB
water for drinking water purposes. Samples collected from downgradient
industrial and agricultural wells did not exceed MCLs for any compounds,
therefore, exposure from this pathway is not evaluated further.
3.
Emission of volatile orRanics into air. The exposure point for emissions from the
landfill into the air would be nearby populations such as businesses on the landfill
or in the surrounding area. People driving or walking along 19th A venue a150
present another actual exposure point. .A.ir sampling in the vici:tity ~f ::-:~ :...~~n::
has indicated that the concentrations of volatile organics in air in the vicinity of
the landfill are within the range expected for the Phoenix urban area. !n the
absence of standards and guidelines for VOCs in cU.tDle=nt au', ARARs are taken as
the levels in the Phoenix area. Consequently. evaluation of eX~--:'Jre to VOC~
emitted by the landfill via this potential exposure pathway has been omitted.
4a. Emission of volatile orRanics from ~round water used for either industrial or
aRriculturaf putP05eS. Cround water samples from wells near the landfill used for
agricultUral and industrial purposes do not contain volatile organics above
detection limits; therefore, no exposure has occurred from this pathway and "0
further evaJuation of risk is made.
4b. [ncidental contact with Rround water pumped from contaminated wells. Only the
monitor wells at the boundary of the landfill exceed MCLs. No exposure point
exists for this pathway and the pathway is not further evaluated.
,.
Consumption of foodstuffs «rown usinR «round water for ilTi.r;ation purposes. Most
compounds are below limits of detection in the agricultural well nearest the
31
-------
Final Craft RAP
06/12/89
landfill. This exposure pathway is evaluated, however, for both barium and zinc
which are present in ground water above detection limits.
6.' Surface-water contact. The surface-water exposure point would be incidental
human contaCt by populations that may encounter intermittent low volume flows
in the Salt River, such as those observed during the remedial investigation.
Transient populations were observed residing part time near the landfill during the
remedial investigation, and other. persons were occasionally observed along the
riverbed. The exposure point only exists intermittently when there is flow in the
river and people in the area at the same time. These conditions were observed
very infrequently during the investigation and, therefore, this pathway was not
considered further.
Flood flows in the Salt River may wash refuse out of the landfill and .into the
riverbed. The impacu due to the refuse washout cannot be quantified.
7.
Methane exposure. The exposure point for the methane exposure pathway would
be populations in enctosed spaces on or near the landfill. Enclosed spaces would
be buildings or pitS below ground. Examples of existing potential exposure points
include the AU Chevy Auto PartS and A&8 Silica businesses on the landfill and
. those businesses to the north and west of the landfill.
Methane concentrations observed in the subsurface adjacent to the landfill and in
structures or pits on or near the landfill were used to evaluate the. actual and
potential risk for the methane exposure pathway. The variation in concentrations
observed before and after the renovation of the gas collection system were
considered in the assessment of risk.
8.
Consumption of on-site contaminated soil. The landfill is covered although there
are a few locations on the surface of the landfill where tar-like or oily materials
are visible at the surface. Since access to the landfill is controlled, this exposure
pathway is highly unlikely and has been omitted.
3-7
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
3.4.3
Environmental E~e Pathways
On the basis of the remedial investigation, the surface water and sediments in the Salt
River have not been adversely affected. Maximum observed surface-water concentra-
tions do not exceed standards set for protection of aquatic: wildlife and agric:ultural
uses. Although waste washout could result in potential risks to aquatic: wildlife and
agric:ulture use, these risks are difficult to quantify. Protective measures suCh as bank
protection along the river should further reduc:e the potential for future impacts.
A permanent fish population is not supported by the Salt River adjacent to the landfill
because the flow is intermittent. Therefore, bioac:cumulation of compounds in fish is not
considered a potential impact.
The animal species that were identified in the vicinity of the landfill may drink from the
Salt River when there is water present. This would provide an intermittent exposure
route; however, ARARs for protection of aquatic and wildlife are not e'Xceeded.
Therefore, there is no risk to small animals or birds through exposure to surface water.
,.
The small mammals and birds observed at the landfill would not be expected to ingest
soils and refuse. Therefore, no complete exposure pathway existS.
The air above the landfill provides another potential exposure pathway for small
mammals and birds. Air quality monitoring during the remedial investigation showed no
apparent additional impact from landfiU emissions on the quality of ambient air near the
landfill. SmaU mammals and birds would not be exposed to any additional risk due to air
quali ty impactS. ...
3.4.4
Exposure Pathways Evaluated
Based on the considerations presented above, the foUowing pathways were included in the
risk assessment:
o Consumption of vegetables grown using ground water for irrigation purposes.
I
I,
o Methane accumulation.
)-8
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
3.'
RISK ASSESSMENT '
3.'.1 .
Exoncwe By Consumotion of VeKetables
This exposure pathway has been evaluated for barium and zinc, the two compounds
present in wells used for irrigation purposes at levels ,above limits of detection. In
addition, the pathway has been evaluated using the detectiqn limit for arsenic since. this
is a potential carcinogen and has a high carcinogenic potency slope.
Calculations are described below. The following assumptions are made:
o Plants grown and consumed from this area are of the leafy vegetable type. The soil
to metal uptake ratios used for this assessment are those developed by Baes et al.
(1984) who developed values for leafy and reproductive part.s of the plant.
o
Uptak~ by plants is considered to be by root uptake only. Deposition on the plants
is not considered a pathway.
"
o The concentration of constituent in ground water is equivalent to the concentration
of soil. Concentrations in soil will actually be less than concentrations in water.
o Gastrointestinal (GO absorption efficiency is assumed to be 100 percent.
o The average amount of leafy vegetables eaten daily in the United States is assumed
to be 52.3 g (U.S. EPA 1980a).
o A lifetime average body weight is assumed to be 70 kg. A lifetime is assumed to be
70 years.
The portion of the locally grown fruit and garden vegetable ingestion due to root uptake
of contaminants is described by the folloving equation (Baes et al., 1984):
Dose (ug/kg/day) =
concentration in soil (g/g) x soil/plant uptake factor x amount
of vegetables/fruit eaten (ug per day) x GI absorption
efficiency /body weight
3-9
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
30'..1.1
Bariwn Expos-Jr'e
The barium concentration in nearby irrigation wells is 0.11 mg/kg, based on monitoring
data. Using the assumptions noted above along with a plant uptake factor of 15 percent,
the predicted chronic daily intake (COn is 1.2 x 10.5 mg/kg-day. The acceptable daily
intake for barium is 0.0'1 mg/kg-day. For barium the ratio of predicted to acceptable.
chronic daily intakes is
(CO()/(AIC) = 2.4 X 10.4
3.'.1.2
Zinc Exposure
The dose of zinc, even if this water was used as drinking water, assuming consumption of
2 L/day and a concentration of zinc of 0.05 mg/L, would be 0.1 mg/day. Zinc is an
essential element and the recommended daily intake of zinc is 15 mg/day (EPA, 1980b).
The (COU/(AIC) ratio would, therefore, be no greater than 6.7 x 10-3.
Cumulative Risks of B~ ~~.~ ,.;..~
The total ratio COil ADI for barium and zinc is 6.93 x 10.3. Since this value does not
exceed 1, it is acceptable.
3.'.1.3
...
Arsenic: Exposure
The calcuiation utilized for barium was also used to calculate risk for arsenic at a
concentration of 0.014 mg/l, the detection limit reported for arsenic. With a plant
uptake factor of 0.04 a daily intake is predicted of 4.2 x 10-7 mg/kg/day. [f an arsenic
ingestion cancer potency slope of I.' is utilized, an excess cancer risk of 6.3 )( 10.7 is
produ("~. This value is an upperbound estimate of excess cancer risk potentially arising
from a lifetime hypothetical exposure to arsenic which was not actually detected. A
number of other assumptions were made in the calculations, most of which are
intentional overestimates of exposure or toxicity. The actual risk may even be zero.
3-10
-------
Final'Draft RAP
06/12/89
3-'.2
Exposure to Methane
Accumulation of methane in enclosed areas was observed prior to the renovation of thG
gas collection system. Accumulation of methane may occur if the existing gas collection
system does not operate properly. Furthermore, no collection system exists on the
eastern and southern boundaries. of Cel1 A or on the eastern, northern, and western
boundaries of Cel1 A-l. Future development may place buildings along boundaries that
are not presently protected from off-site migration. Therefore, explosion is a potential
risk.
Monitoring of methane concentrations during the remedial investigation in subs~rface
probes and pits below ground revealed that methane migrates away from the landfill
when the existing methane collection system is not operational.
. Methane can be explosive if it accumulates in confined areas in concentrations between."
and 14 percent by volume. The ARAR for methane is a concentration of 1.2' percent by
volume within a building or less than , percent by volume in the subsurface outside the
boundaries of the landfiU. There are two businesses located on the landfill itself and
. . .
several others located along the western and northern boundaries. Buildings and other
structures at these businesses are in areas where methane may coUect. Concentrations
above the ARAR ,,~ 1.~':; ~c:ent methane by volume have been observed in confined
spaces adjacent to the landfill prior to the renovation of the gas collection system.
Concentrations in excess of , percent by volume were also observed in probes outside the
boundaries of the landfill.
~erefore, the risk of explosion in confined spaces on the landfill is present if tne exist-
ing methane collection system is not operational. This demonstrates a potential risk of
explosion in these areas~
3.6
RISK CHARACTERIZA nON
The baseline risk assessment for the 19th Avenue Landfill indicates that there is no
current risk to public health; however, releases from the landfill have affected the
. environment at the landfill boundary. Table 2.14 summari~es MCL exceedances at the
3-11
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
landfill boundary. No risks to public health were identified due to (1) inhalation of VOCs
and particula~e matter originating from the landfill, (2) the use of ground water for
industrial use and agricultural irrigation, () contact with surface water, and (4) ingestion
of soil and refuse. Public health risks resulting from releases from the landfill are
limited to the possible accum~lation of methane in enclosed areas at explosive levels, if
the exiting gas coUection system is not operating properly. Although there is no current
use of local ground water for drinking and other domestic purposes, this pathway could
result in a. risk to public health if domestic ground-water weBs are developed in the
future.
3-12
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
4.0
FEASIBILITY STUDY
4.1
INTRODUCTION
A phased approach was used for selecting a recommended remedial action.. Phase [ of
the narrowing process begins with general concepts and objectives and ends with the
identification of specific processes combined into options to meet the individual objec-
tives. in Phase II,. these options are evaluated, screened, and combined into alternatives
for remedial action. The alternatives are evaluated further and compared in Phase HI to
select a preferred remedial action.
A basic premise for aU options of the feasibility study is that the 19th A venue Landfill
will not be used for any purpose in the future. Public access to the present landfill si te
will be prohibited.
4.2
OBJECTIVES Of THE FEASIBILITY STUDY
The overall objective for the feasibility study was to arrive at a set of corrective actions
that protects human health and the environment, meets federal and state requirements,
is cost-effective, and uses permanent s,?lutions and alternative treatments or resource
recovery to the maximum extent practicable. The initial step in developing options for
the 19th Avenue Landfill was to develop specific objectives that would meet the overall
goal of the feasibility study. The specific objectives were developed for each of four
areas of concern identified as a result of the remedial investigation. These areas of
concern are:
o Refuse washout
o Surface-wa ter quality
o Ground-water quality
o Landfill-gas accumulation
Site conditions, health risks, and ARARs were considered when developing specific
objectives. Site conditions and the health risk assessment were described in Chapters 2.0
and 3.0 of this RAP. Some portions of the areas of concern may overlap and the specific
4-l
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
objective devel~ped' for one area of concern may also provide a benefit for other areas of
concern. The specific objectives for each area of concern are discussed in the following
paragraphs.
4.2.1
Refuse Washout
The contentS of the landfill are generally ~imi1ar to other municipallandfiUs of the same
era and include some hazardous wastes, pollutantS, and contaminants. The Salt River
may inundate portions of Cell A and Cell A-l during a lOa-year flow and it is likely that
some landfill material would be washed out if additional flood protection is not pro-
vided. Inundation of the landfill and refuse washout might adversely impact the quali ty
of ground water and sediments or water in the Salt River and support the generation of
methane. The ARARs identified for the ground-water, surface-water, and landfill-gas
accumulation could apply to the refuse-washout objective. Preventing refuse washout
would potentially reduce risks for these various pathways and assist in complying with
ARARs. Most recently constructed major structures located along the Salt ~h'~r !":~.;c. .
been designed using the lOa-year flood as a practical and effective criterion. Therefore,
the specific objective for the refuse-washout objective is to prevent erosion or
overtopping of the landfill during a lOo-year flow in the ~~ ~l.~&.
4.2.2
Surface-Water QualitY
Surface-water runoff across the landfill may transport the exposed refuse to the Salt
River resulting in adverse impactS on the quality of surface water or sedimentS. Surface
water runoff may also pond in existing depressions in the landfill cover and seep into the
underlying refuse, affecting the quality of ground water and increasing the generation of .
methane. As was the case with the refuse washout objective, ARARs for several
different areas of corcem are applicable to the surface-water quality objective. [n
particular, ARARs and health risks associated with surface-water quality, ground-water
quality, and the landfill-gas accumulation would apply. The specific objective for the
surface-water qUality objective is to prevent the infiltration of surface-water into the
landfill and the transport of landfill material in surface-water runoff.
4-2
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
4.2.3
Ground-Water Ouality
The remedial investigation showed that the landfill has had little, if any, impact on
downgradient ground-water quality, but has had an identifiable effect on ground-water
quality at the boundary of the landfill. Water in some monitor wells occasionally exceeds
maximum contaminant levels for drinking water. Although ground-water in the vicinity
of the Landfill is not currently used for drinking water, a risk could develop in the
unlikely event that someone would install a domestic drinking water supply well near the
boundary of t.he landfill in the future. The relevant and appropriate standards for the
ground-water quality objective are the maximum co!'!!aminant levels tOcH have been set
for drinking water. Of the 1,794 analyses performed for compounds with MCLs, 39
analyses were found to exceed the MCt limit. Table 2.14 summarizes MCt exceedances
for all monitoring wells at the landfill. If there continues to be no exposure to ground
water near the boundary of the landfill, as is the present situation, there would continue
to be no risk in this regard. Therefor~, the specific objective for the ground-water
quality area of concern is to ensure that in the future, potential ground-wat~r
degradation does not pose a risk to publlc health, welfare, or the environment.
4.2.4.
LandfilJ-Gas Accumulation
Off-site migration of Landfill gas was observed during the rc..;,edial investigation. Con-
centrations of methane above the lower explosive limit were measured off-site before
renovation of the existing gas colleCtion system. Concentrations of methane dropped
below the lower explosive limit after renovation of the system. The ARAR for the
landfill gas accumulation would be a limit of , percent on the concentration of methane
(the Lower explosive limit> in the subsurface at the boundary of the landfill and less than
L .2' percent methane in buildings. Prevention of landfill gas migration past the landfill
boundaries wouldeHminate the risk of explosion due .to the accumulation of methane in
enclosed spaces off site. Therefore, the specific objective for the landfill gas
accumulation objective is to prevent the off-site migration of landfill gas.
4-3
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
4.2.'
Me~IOt(Y of the Feasibilitv Study
The phased approach for selecting a recommended remedial action was described in
Section 1.6.2.
In the feasibility study, the technologies, options, and alternatives for the 19th Avenue
Landfill were screened to varying degrees so that the most promising general response
actions received the most detailed attention. The technologies, options, and alternatives
were screened according to effectiveness in protecting human health and the environ-
ment, ease of implementation (constructed and maintained), and cost to construct and
maintain. The approach described generally in Section 1.6.2 was conducted in three
phases of increasing scrutiny as outlined below:
1. Phase I, the development of options, consisted of:
o
Identifying regulatory requirements for the landfill.
o
Developing specific objectives for the area of concern.
u Identifying general response actions for each area of concern.
o
.(dentifying dimensions of the landfill to which general response actions might be
applied.
o
[dentifying and screening potential technologies and processes for each general
response action.
o
Evaluating the processes and selecting representative processes.
o Assembling the processes into options for each area of concern.
2. Phase [[, screening of options, consisted of:
o
Refining each option by developing design concepts and identifying interactions
with other options. .
4-4
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
o Evaluating each option based on its effectiveness, implementabiHty, and cost.
o Assembling the surviving options into alternatives for the entire site.
J. Phase III, analysis of alternatives, consisted of:
o Evaluating each alternative for its long- and short-term effectiveness, imple-
mentabiHty, and cost.
o Evaluating the sensitivity of alternatives to varying assumptions on effec::tiye~
neSs, implementabiJity, and cost.
o Comparing the alternatives.
o Summarizing the analysis of the alternatives.
4.J
DEVELOPMeIT OF OPTIONS (PHASE I)
4.3.1
Genera! Resoonse Actions
4.3.1.1
Potentia! CeneraJ Respo.ase Actions
Fifteen potential general response actions (U.S. EPA, 1985b) were identified as being
potentiaUy applicable to the specific objectives developed for the 19th Avenue Landfill.
Definitions of these general response actions were developed specificaUy for appHcation
to the conditions at the landfill as foHows:
o No action: either no action at aH or minimal action such as monitoring and institu-
tional actions.
o Containment: complete or partial encapsulation to prevent off-site migration of
liquids, gas, or refuse.
4-5
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
o Pumping: either removing ground water and surface water after contact with
refuse or preventing ground water or surface water from contacting the refuse.
o Collection: the controlled accumulation of liquids and gases.
o Diversion: intercepting and redirecting off-site surface water or ground water to
prevent contaCt with refuse.
o Complete removal: excavating the entire landfill.
o
Partial removal: excavating portions of the landfill.
o On-site treatment: processing of refuse, ground water, and gas on the site..
o Off-site treatment: processing of refuse, ground water, and gas off the site.
o
tn-situ treatment: on-site processing of refuse, ground water~ and gas.
o Storage: holding collected refuse, ground water, and gas for future treatment or
disposal.
a On-site disposal: landfiHing of refuse on the site.
a Off-site disposal: landfiUing of refuse off the site.
o Alternative water supply: providing another water source to users whose supply is
impacted.
a
Relocate r.eceptors: relocating businesses and resident dwellers.
4.3.1.2
~ elected Genera! Response Actions
A general response was eliminated for further consideration for a specific objective if
one or more of the following criteria applied:
4-6
-------
Final -Draft. RAP
06/12/89
o The general response action is not effective in meeting the specific objective.
o " The general response action is not applicable for an area of concern. For examplc,
collection refers to liquids and gases but not to refuse. Therefore, collection is not
applicable to the refuse-washout objective.
o The general response action would require a remedy that would be unreasonable to
implement, create a greater risk to either environment or health or both, or not be
cost effective.
The potential general response &ctiOn$ for each specific objective are identified and
evaluated in Table 4.1. General response actions that were-found to be applicable are
listed in Table 4.2. Each general response action is described in detail in Appendix A of
the Feasibility Study report.
4.3.1.3
Dimensions for Cenera! RespGnSe Acti~
Volume, area, and length dimensions relevant to each specific objective were identified
for each general response action. Preliminary dimensions, given in Table 4.3, are based
on site characteristi.:.) ~ ~~ in the remedial investigation. These quantities were
used to develop appropriate technologies and processes that can be applied to conditions
a t the landfill.
4.3.2
Identification and ScreeninR of TechnoloRies and Processes
This section summarizes the identification and screening of potentially applicable tech-
nologies and processes for each applicable general response action at the 19th A venue
Landfill. [n this feasibility study, the term "technology" refers to a" broad group of
technical actions that could be applied to the general response actions, such as chemi~al
treatment for the general response action of on-site treatment. The term "process"
refers to a more specific technical action, such as adsorption by activated carbon and
4-7
-------
rinal Dratt RAP
06/12/89
reverse osmosis for ground-water treatment.. (n cases where no subdivision is necessary,
the technology and process may be the same.
The technologies and processes for the general response actions were identified based on
engineering experience, reference to EPA documentS
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
o Reliability and past experience of the process with respect to site conditions and
refuse characteristics.
The evaluation of implementability considered:
o Approvals required from federal, state, and local government agencies.
o Compliance with ARARs.
o Availability and capacity of treatment and disposal services.
a AvailabiEty of equipment and workers to implement the process.
The evaluation of cost was based on approximate capital costs and the approximate costs
of operations and maintenanc~ rather than on detailed engineering cost estimates. The
cost evaluations for each process were based on engineering judgment and on how the
costs compared to costS of other processes of the same technology type. Of the three
criteria, cost was the least influential in selecting final processes.
The resUlts of the identification, screening, and evaluation of technologies and processes
are summarized in Tables 4.8 through 4.11..
4.3.4.
Assembly of Options
From the selected processes, nine options were assembled for the four specific objectives
for the 19th Avenue Landfill: four for the refuse washout objective, two for the surface-
water quality objective, two for the ground-water quality objective, and one for the'
landfill-gas accumulation objective.
Four options were developed for the refuse-washout objective.
4-9'
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/&9
1f.3...1
Refuse-Washout Options
Each option for control of refuse washout consistS of three or more of the foHowing
processes:
AI: Relatively deep seated compacted soH levees with soil cement bank protection
along the river banks of Cell A and Cell A-I.
A2: Relatively deep seated compacted soil levees with soil cement bank protection
along the river banks of Cell A only.
61 :
Relatively shallow seated compacted soil levees with soil cement bank protection
along the river banks of Cell A and Cell A-I.
62:
Relatively shallow seated compacted soil levees with soil cement bank protection
along the river banks of Cell A only.
C:
Subsurface soil cement grade control structure across the river channel down-
stream of the landfill.
D:
Concrete pipe with compacted soil backfill along the 15th Avenue storm drain
outfall channel.
E:
Widened river channel bottom by excavating and grading.
F:
Relocation of Cell A-I to Cell A by excavating, transporting, and landfiUing.
The four individual options are defined. in terms of these processes as follows:
RW-I:
RW-2:
RW-3:
R W-4:
AI' 0, and E
61' C, 0, and E
A2' 0, E, and F
62' C, 0, E, and F
4-10
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
The use of a grade control structure would affect the required depth of the bank protec-
tion for the levees. If a grade control structure were used, bank protection would be
need~ through a shallow depth to protect against local river scour. If a grade control
structure were not used, bank protection would be required through a somewhat greater
depth to protect against the combination of local scour and general riverbed degradation.
Relocating of Cell A-I" (Process F) would eliminate the need for any other remedial work
at Cell A-I. Details of Process E could differ slightly between options with and without
Process F. The relocation of Cell A- L would affect other objectives. For instance, if
Cell A-I were relocated, a cap would not be required at CeU A-I for the surface-water
objective.
403.4.2
Surface- Water Options
Two options, SW-I and SW-2, were defined for the surface-water objectives.
Option SW-l consists of four processes:
o . Single-layer compacted soil cap over Cell A and Cell A-I.
o Surface drainage from Cell A and Cell A-l.
o
Fence around Cell A and Cell A-l to prevent access to the si tee
o
Relocate A and B Silica Land and AU Chevy Auto Parts.
Option SW-2 consists of the four processes:
o
Double-layer soil and synthetic liner cap over Cell A and Cell A-l.
o
Surface drainage from Cell A and Cell A-I.
o
Fence around Cell A and Cell A-I.
,4-11
-------
L---
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
o
Relocate A and B Silica Land and AU Chevy Auto Parts.
The relocation of the two businesses from the landfill is recommended so that a properly
graded cap can be installed. Furthermore, relocation of the businesses will reduce the
potential for exposure to the landfill and is consistent with the design objective of no end
use for the landfill. .
4.3.4.3
Ground-Water Options
Two options were defined for addressing the ground-water quality concerns. Option
GW -1 consists of three processes:
o Ground-water quality monitoring using the existing monitoring network td detect
possible changes in water quality conditions.
o
Provision of drinking water by the City of Phoenix water distribution system.
Option GW-2 consists of four processes:
o Collection of ground water flowinll oast the landfill USif'! production weils.
o
Treatment of the collected ground water.
o
Discharge of th-: treated ground water.
o
Verification of the effectiveness of the option using the existing monitoring
network.
4-12
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
4.3.404
Landfill-Gas AccumuJation Options
One option (lC-l) was assembled for the landfill gas accumulation objective:
a Collection of landfill gas at the perimeter of the site with an active collection
system.
a Treatment of and collect landfill gas by flaring and discharge to the atmosphere.
o Monitoring of landfill gas at the perimeter of the site and monit'or air quality.
4.4
SCREENING OF OPTIONS (PHASE ll)
4.4.1
Criteria fer Sc:reeninl(
The procedural steps in Pha$! 11 were the refinement of each option by developing design
conceptS and identifY,ing interactions with- other specific objectives, and the evaluation
of all options and elimination of some options based on effectiveness, implementability,
and cost, with emphasis on the protection of human health and the environment. The
surviving options were assembled Into alternatives for addressing all objectives
together. The alternatives that emergM from Phase 11 were carried into Phase III for
evaluation of their abilities to meet all objectives of remediation.
4.4.1.1
Effectiveness
Effectiveness is defined as a combination of several measures of protection:
a
Extent to which ARARs are complied with.
a
Extent to which workers and the public are protected from exposure to toxic and
hazardous substan,ces during implementation of the remedial action.
4-13
I
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
o
Ultimate risk to public health and the environment after remedial action has been
implemented.
o
Time to achieve protection.
o
Need for maintenance of remedial system.
.0
Permanency of protection.
4.4.1.2
Irnplementability
The implementability of each option was evaluated on the basis of technical feasibih ty,
administrative feasibility, and availability of processes. Evaluation of technical feasi-
bility involves the consideration of reliability, operability, maintainability, and verifia-
. .
bility of process action over the long term.
Administrative feasibility involves consideration of obtaining approvals from federal,
state, county, and local agencies, and compliance with pertinent regulations. Permits
-... ..",t required at a Supenund :'HC, ""~~ ~~...4ntive requirements must be met. Options
found not to be administratively feasible at present were not eliminated since a~~i~::
trative procedures might evolve in the future to make the options feasible.
Availability refers to the availability of technologies such as earthwork, construction,
transportation, landfijling, treatment, and pumping.
4.4.1.3
Cost
Capital, operation, and maintenance cost estimates were developed for each option at
the 19th Avenue Landfill on the basis of the design concept considerations and unit cost
estimates. rhe unit cost estimates were based on unit costs from construction cost guide
publications (R.5. Means Company, [ne., 1987a, 1 987b, 1988; U.S. EPA, 1987c),
discussions with suppliers and contractors, and engineering cost estimating and
construction-related experience in Arizona. The cost es~imates are considered to be
4-1lf
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
within minus 30 percent and plus .50 percent of the actual cost. This cost precision is
sufficiently accurate to make relative cost comparisons between options
-------
final Draft RAP
06/12/89
o
levees would extend three feet above the 100-year flow level.
o
levees for Cell A would extend from lOO feet upstream from the storm drain
outfall channel to the 19th Avenue bridge.
o
levees for Cell A-I. would extend from 100 feet upstream from the eastern boun-
dary of Cell A-I to the western boundary of Cell A-I.
o
Refuse excavated for constructing the levees would be landfilled on the same side
of the river as the excavation.
The soil cement grade control structure would be downstream of the 19th A venue
bridge. Design concepts developed for the grade control were:
o The structure would traverse the 600-foot channel width and would tie into the Cell
A channel bank protection structure.
o
The foundation of the structure would be deeper than foundati~ns of the levees.
Design concepts dev@ln~ .~- .I-.e storm drain were dc'....:..,t"-~ - ~. .- ~-
o
A three-foot bedding layer of compacted granular soil would be placed under the
pipe.
o
The pipe would be eight feet in diameter and would be equipped with a gas monitor-
...
ing system and inspection shafu.
o
The zone above the pipe will be backfilled with compacted soil to the final ground
surface.
Design concepts developed for relocating Cell A-I to Cell A were:
o
The existing soil cover on Cell A-I would be excavated to within one foot of the
top of refuse and stockpiled for use as backfill.
4-16
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
o All refuse and the remaining cover material would be transported across the river
to Cell A by trucks or scrapers.
o Relocated material would be placed near the center of Cell A, compacted, and
covered daily with soil.
4.4.2.2
[nteraction with Other Options
The compacted soil levee and soil cement bank protection structures for optiuns R W - t
through RW~ could interact ';,;ith tne surface water quality objective by obstructing
surface-water runoff from the landfill. Out falls would be required through the levees to
convey on-site and diverted off-site surface water to the river. On the other hand, the
compacted soil levees with soil cement facing would prevent high river flows fr,om inun-
dating and infiltrating landfill.
The concrete pipe could be construCted to convey on-site and off-site surface water
directed to the east side of Cell A. The concrete pipe for the storm drain outfall channel
would prevent infiltration from high flows in the outfaU channel. Gas coUection and
monitoring systems wiU be required to prevent gases from accumulating in and around
the pipe.
Relocation of Cell A-l to Cell A in options RW-J and RW~ would eliminate the need for
further remediation of the surface-water quality, ground-water quality, and landfiU;.gas
accumulation objectives at Cell A-L.
4.4.2.3
Evaluation of Options
The screening comparison of the refuse-washout options is. summarized in Table ~.12.
4-L7
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/&9
4.4.3
Surface-Water Options
4.4.3.1
Design Considerations
Design concepts far the surface-water options at the 19th Avenue Landfill were
developed to better quantify the dimensions and configurations of the 213-acre cap and
the sizes and capacities of the processes required. Design concepts developed for the
cap were:
o Earthwork for site preparation would leave at least one foot of existing soil cover
in place over the refuse. .
o The calJ would be constructed using only soil presently stockpiled at the site.
o The single-layer cap section would consist of at Least one foot of existing soil and
three feet of compacted soil.
o The double-layer cap section would consist of at least one foot of existing soil, a
60-mil synthetic liner, and three feet of compacted soH.
\) Compacted soil in the cap would have a permeanility less than LO-4 centimeters oer
second.
o
The cap would be graded with a surface slope of two percent so that surface water
is directed toward the perimeter of the site.
,
o - Refuse relocated from Cell A-I would be spread near the center of Cell A where
final grades would be the highest.
Design concepts developed for the surface drainage and outfall structure were:
o
Surface-water flows onto Cell A from the northerly direction.
o Off-site surface water would be directed around Ceil A-l by existing ridges.
4-18
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
o The slopes of perimeter channels would be at least 0.2 percent and side slopes
would be lined with gunite.
o Perimeter channels empty into the. river except for the northern channel of Cell A
which empties into the storm drain.
o River outfalls would have flap -gates if they are below the lOa-year water surface
profile.
4.4.3.2
'n1'-"-;-- _.:_UJL r...ft.. rw.uoos"
-.....- ..-.w..,.1 ""I ".............,.,
The levees from the refuse washout options would prevent inundation of the landfill from
river flows. The pipe and backfill for the storm drain outfall channel would prevent
inundation from storm drain flows as well as river inflow. Levees along the river banks
of the landfill would affect surface-water drainage by c.reating barriers between tne
landfill and the river. Because the levees would extend upstream and downstream of Cell
A and Cell A-I, they could impound off-site surface water diverted around the site.
Outfalls would be needed through the levees to convey on-site and diverted off-site
surfa~e water. Outfalls below the IOO-year water surface profile would include a flap
. -
;;..te lo;, ~~ ~vent inflow from the river.
The single-layer soil cap in option SW-I would be more permeable to landfill gas than the
double-layer cap in option SW-2. Either cap, however, would retard emissions of gases
from cracks and holes observed in the present cap. Gases contained by the cap would
migrate laterally and be intercepted by the gas collection system.
Drainage for the surface-water options would be
channel. A second pipe would be added to convey
directed toward the eastern side of the site.
aided by the storm drain outfall
on-site and off-site surface water
The cap would reduce infiltration of surface water into the refuse and the generation of
leachate. This would reduce potential ground-water quality impacts that might be
caused by. the leachate by surface water. The refuse washout options of relocating Cell
4-19
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
A-I to Cell A would eliminate the need for a cap on Cell A-I. Final cap grades at Cell A
would reflect the added waste relocated from Cell A-I.
"."..3.3
Evaluation of Option
The screening comparison of the surface-water options is summarized in Table 4.13.
4.4.4
Cround-Water Option
4.4.4.1
Design Considerations
Design concepts developed for ground-water monitoring were:
o
Water levels would be monitored in aU wells, at a minimum of once ever-y three
months.
o Cround water would be sampled every three months from the monitor weBs.
~e$ign concepts developed ior the extraction wells, treatment system, and discharge
system were:
o Six ground-water extraction wells and a treatment plant would be installed at
Cell A.
o
Each well would pump at least 700 gallons per minute to capture water flowing
beneath the landfill in geologic Unit A.
o
Each pump would be run 24 hours per day, 36' days per year. (In practice this mal
not be necessary.)
o
Constituents to be treated would be: arsenic, vinyl chloride, I,I-dichloroethene,
barium, and nickel.
4-20
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
o Treatment would use ten beds of granulated activated carbon with five parallel
banks of two beds each in series.
4.4.4.2
Interaction with Other Options
The refuse washout option of relocating Cell A- L to Cell A would eliminate the need to
remediate or monitor ground water near Cell A-L. A levee at the south end of Cell A
could reduce the potential for surface water from the river to infiltrate the refuse.
Installation of a cap over the landfill, diverting drainage around the landfill, and enclos-
ing the storm drain outfall would all reduce surface-water infiltration into the landfill.
This would aid in decreasing the amount of leachate generated in the landfill that might
impact ground-water quality.
No direct impact on the ground-water options is expected from the landfill gas objec-
tive. However, ground-water extraction may be beneficial to the gas control objec-
tives. lowering the ground-water levels by .pumping would tend to reduce moisture in
the refuse, thereby reducing the amount of gas generated.
4.4.4.1
EvaJuation of Options
The screening comparison of the ground-water options is summarized in Table 4.14.
4.4.'
Landfill Gas
4.4.'.1
Design Considerations
Evaluation of the existing gas collection system during the remedial investigation indi-
cated that renovations to the system are needed to ensure proper operation. The extent
of renovations to the existing system will be decided during the design phase. Renova-
tion or replacement of the existing system would be. a relatively small capital cost com-
pared to other options considered in this report.
4-21
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
The existing active gas coUection system to be renovated or replaced comprises two lines
of extraction wells interconnected by header pipes in CeU A, and the header pipes are
connected to a blower which discharges to a flare system. A similar but much smaller
system exists at Cell A-i.
Improvemenu would be made to the existing gas coUection system as foUows:
o Additional extraction wells would extend to the bottom of the refuse.
o
Valves would be placed at each weU head for adjustments.
o
Well and header pipe joints would be flexible to allow for settlement of the refuse.
o
The header pipe can be either above ground for ease of maintenance or below
ground for protection.
o
The header pice would be sloped to drains tn ~I!(\W cry"densate to trickle back :n:o
the refuse.
surface.
Drains would consist of a small pipe extending LO feet below the
o
The blower would discharge to a small flare for destruction of combustibles.
Gas monitor wells or probes would be installed to evaluate the efficiency of the collec-
tion system and to check if gases are bypassing the wells.
4.4.'.2
Interaction with Other Options
Options for the refuse washout and surface-water objectives would affect the location,
layout and size of a gas control system. The ground-water objective would not directly
interact with the landfill gas. .
Addition of the storm drain outfall pipe for the waste washout and surface-water objec-
tive requires adding a new gas collection system along the eastern perimeter of Cell A
similar in construction and layout to the existing systems at the site.
4-22
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
The refuse-washout options RW-J and RW-4 involving removal of Cell A-l would elimi-
nate the need for gas controls in the Cell A-l area. River bank protection at Cell A
woul~ restrict gas migration from the river bank. This would not affect the gas control
requirementS and would encourage gas t~ migrate either to other perimeters or to the
surface of Cell A.
The installation of a compacted soil cap over the site for the surface-water option should
restrict the vertical movement of landfill gas, enhancing horizontal migration of the gas
toward the gas collection system. Processes such as capping and bank protection that
restrict gas flow indirectly benefit the control of gas migration when used with conven-
tional gas control methods. Options that restrict surface water or ground water from
entering the refuse have an indirect benefit in possibly reducing gas generation.
4.4.'.3
Evaluation of Option
The screening comparison for the landfill gas accumulation option is summarized in
Table 4.1'.
4.".6
Selected Alternatives
4.4.6.1
Elimination of Options
Options RW-L and RW-J for refuse washout were eliminated on the basis that Options
RW-2 and RW-4, with relatively shallow seated levees and a grade control structure
across the river, would be as effective as RW-l and RW-3 and implementable at a lower
cost. Because of the small differences in cost developed at the screening level, Options
RW-I and RW-J should be re-examined during detailed design.
The surface-water quality option SW-2 uses a double-layer compacted soil and synthetic
Liner cap, whereas option SW-l uses a single-layer compacted soil cap. SW-L would be as
effective as SW-2, would be more implementable, and cost less. Therefore, SW-2 was
eliminated.
~-2J
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/L2/&9
The ground-water quality options GW-l and GW-2 were both retained for assembly into
alternatives'to preserve a range of remedies for detailed analysis in Phase III. Option
GW-l uses no action with monitoring of ground water and uses. Option GW-2 uses pump-
ing and treatment of ground water.
The landfill gas accumulation objective LC-L uses an active collection system with
treatment. Phase II screening revealed that the option could be effective and imple-
men table.
Following the Phase II screening, the surviving options for the four areas of concern were
as follows:
Refuse Surface Water Ground Water Landfill Gas
Washout QuaJi ty Quality AccumuJation
Options Options Options Options
RW-2 SW-l GW-L LG-l
RW-4 (;W-2
4.4.6.2 Alternatives
The options surviving screening in Phase II of the feasibility study for the 19th Avenue
Landfill were assembled into alternatives for addressing all objectives combined. This
was accomplished by using all combinations of one option each from the four areas of
concern. Five alte~tives were selected and designated as Alternatives A, 8, C, D, and
No Action. The lettered alternatives are the options shown in the following table:
Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative
A B C D
RW-2 RW-4 RW-2 RW-4
SW-l SW-l SW-l SW-l
GW-l GW-I GW-2 GW-2
LG-l LG-l LG-l LG-l
4-24
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
The no action alternative is defined as consisting of continued ground water monitoring,
installation of a perimeter fence to prevent access, and monitoring of ground water usa
through ACWR permit applications for well construction. No other surface work would
be performed. This alternative did not meet federal or state objectives for assuring
permanent protection of human health and the environment.
4.'
RECOMMENDED AL TERNA mE (PHASE m>
4.5.i
introduction
The purpose of Phase m was the evaluation of Alternatives A, 8, C, and D and the selec-
tion of. a preferred alternative for remedial action that addresses aU objectives
together.
Alternatives A, 8, C, and D were evaluated on ~he basis of their short-term and long-
term effectiveness, implementability, and cost in more detail than applied in Phase II.
Short-term refers to the period of construction plus any operation and maintenance
required to complete the remediation. Long-term refers to the period of operation ~nd
maintenance after construction is complete. Long-term considerations include any
required replacement.and limitations in the eff~tive life of an action.
Evaluation Criteria
4.'.2
.-'.2.1
Effectiveness
Effectiveness was evaluated in. ~erms of. short- and long-term protectiveness, extent of
and permanence in the reduct~on of potential for toxic exposure, and mobility of contam-
ination and refuse.
Components of short-term protectiveness included:
o Reduction of existing risks.
4-25
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89 .
o Compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
o
Protection of the community and workers during remedial actions.
o Time until protection is achieved.
ComponentS of long-term protectiveness included:
o Magnitude of residual risk.
o Long-term reliability for continued protection, including assessing the potential for
failure of the alternative.
o Compliance with ARARs.
o Prevention of future exposure to residuals.
o
Potential need for replacement, when such replacement might be needed,. and the
risks associated with replacement.
4.'.2.2
Implementability
[mplementability was judged in terms of short- and long-term technical feasibility,
administrative feasibility, and the availability of required resources.
Components of short-term technical feasibility include:
o
Ability to construct components of toe remedy, considering difficulties and
. unknowns.
o Short-term reliability of meeting performance specifications, and at the potential
for schedule delays.
4-26
-------
Final Draft RAP
0.6/12/89
Components-of long-term technical feasibility include: -
o
Ease of undertaking additional remedial action, if necessary.
o
Ability to monitor effectiveness of the remedy and perform operation and mainte-
nance functions.
Components of administrative feasibility include:
o
Ability to obtain approvals from federal, staLe, ilfid local agencies.
o
Likelihood of favorable community response and steps required to address com-
muni ty concerns.
o - Activities requiring coordination with federal, state, and county agencies.
Components of availability considered for the analysis include:
o
Availability of adequate off-site treatment, storage, and disposal services.
o
Aval1aD1i1ty of necessary equipment and specialists to construct the remedy.
4.'.2.3
Cost
In Phase III, indirect costs were added to the direct costs, developed in Phase II, to obtain
the estimated 1:ost of each alternative. The cost estimates are considered to be within
minus 30. percent and plus ,0. percent of the actual cost.
Capital costs considerations include:
o
Estimated direct capital cost for devel~pme~1t and construction.
o
Estimated indirect costs for engineering design and preparation of specifications
and bid documents.
4-27
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
o Other capital and short-term costs, such as permitting and legal costs until the
alternative is constructed.
Annual operating and maintenance costs include:
o Operating labor, materials and energy, maintenance materials and labor,. and dis-
posal of residues.
o
Administration, insurance, taxes, and license.
o Costs of five-year reviews such as sampling and analyses.
o
A contingency for potential future remedial action and replacement costs.
Present worth calculations were based on a , percent discount rate and a 30-year time
period
-------
Final Oraft RAp
06/12/89
If.,J
Summary of Alternatives
Altef1\&tives A, a, C, and 0, resulting- from the Phase 11 evaluation, are summarized in
Table 1.3.
..,..
Evaluation of Alternatives
A thorough, discusSion of the evaluation of each alternative would be lengthy. Such ~
discussion is contained in the feasibility study report. The evaluation of alternatives is
summarized in Table 4.16.
..,.,
Comoarisan of Alternati.!!!
This section presents a qualitative assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of Alter-
natives A, a, C, and 0 for the 19th Avenue Landfill so that a comparative analysis can be
. made between t.~e altemaLi'
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
The community and workers can be protected during construction of Alternatives A and
C if proper safety procedures are followed by workers. Possible risks of exposure would
be greater in' Alternatives B and D because the option to relocate Cell A-I to CeU A has
the potential for spilling refuse along roads or the river channel while it is being trans-
ported. I..arger amounts of landfill material will be moved in the construCtion of Alter-
natives B and D, increasing the potential for worker or community exposure to landfill
materials.
1.ong-term protection would be achieved for the refuse washout and surface water
quality objectives of each alternative if the flood control struCture and cap are properly
maintained. Changes in ground-water flow directions and other hydrogeologic conditions
at the site may affect the effectiveness of the options designed to protect public health
from the impacts of the landfill on ground-water quality. 1.ong-term monitoring is
required for all alternatives.. A contingency plan will assure long-term protection of
public health and the environment by ensuring compliance with ARARs. Proper design,.
operation, and maintenance of the gas collection, should provide long-term protection of
public health and the environment.
Mobility of refuse is reduced in all alternatives by containment or by relocation and
containment. Mobility and hazards of landfill :'. ~~_._... .' -- --e reduced fur' all
alternatives by CQUectic~ ar.:S =.:;.tnient. Alternotives r\ arid 8 do not reduce the
mooility of curlltMJrlOS in ground water. However, wells downgradient of the property
boundary do not presently exceed MC1. 'so Alternatives C and D use pumpiFig to reduce
mobility of contamination and treatment to reduce toxicity of contaminated ground
wa ter .
4.'.'.2
lmpiementability
._- - -
The implementability of Alternatives A, 8, C, and D was analyzed in terms of technical
feasibility, administrative feasibility, and availability of resources.
The technical feasibility of implementing Alternatives A, B, C, and D is sound. Remedial
actions for the alternatives would employ conventional technologies that have been used
in the arid desert regions of Arizona. Good performance is expected.
. .
4-30
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/&9
Administrative feasibility problems are not expected to be significant. Approval from
the appropriate regulatory agencies is considered likely for aU alternatives. The moni-
toring of ground-water use (which is a component of Alternatives A and 8) will require
coordination with DWR.
Resources to implement Alternatives A, 8, C, and D are readily available in Arizona.
Adequate equipment, services, labor, and technical expertise are available in the Phoenix
area. The actions can be monitored and inspected for a11 alternatives.
'.,.,.3 Cost
The costs for Alternatives A, 8, C, and D at the 19th Avenue Landfil1. were analyzed in
terms of capital costs, operation and maintenance COStS, and present worth.
Present worth comparisons show a small difference between Alternative A and 8. This
indicates that the difference between contaming or relocating CeU A-I is not a major
cost factor given the. assumptiQnS and level of ~ysis in the feasibi~~.ty study. ine
sensitivity analysis showed that costs of relocating CeU A-I will increase greatly if
hazardous waste is encountered. The addition of ground-water treatment in Alterna-
tives C and 0 over no action in Alternatives A and 8 resultS In an increase in capital cost
and significant increase in annual operation and maintenaI'Cp ~nc;ts.
,.,.,., [)~
The analysis of Alternatives A, a, C, and D provides information that is used to select an
action or set of actions for the landfill that protect numan health and the environment.
Each alternative contains options that address the four areas of concern at the landfill:
. . refuse washout, surface-water quality, ground-water quality, and landfUf gas accumula-
tion. The proposed actions fulfill the foUowmg goals:
o Human health and the environment would be protected.
a Specific objectives and the overall site objective would be met.
o Cost-effective remediation would be achieved.
4-31
-------
I_~.:_.
Final Craft RAP
06/12/89
Two major differences among Alternatives A, B, C, and C are the removal of Cell A- L
and the pumping and treatment of ground water.
The first major difference involves relocating Cell A-I to Cell A. Alternatives A and C
would leave Cell A-I in place. This means that flood protection structures, caps, and gas
collection system would have to be built at !:2oth Cell A and Cell A-I. If Cell A-I is
moved to Cell A, as called for in Altematives8--and C, no additional action would be
required at Cell A-l. Impacts from Cell A-l would be eliminated, and the solution for
Cell A-I would be permanent.
The removal of Cell A-I in Alternatives 8 and C, however, would require the excavation
and exposure of much more refuse than in Alternatives A and C. The chances of short-
term health impacts to workers and the community increases with the amount of refuse.
that is exposed and handled. If hazardous materials are encountered during the excava-
tion of Cell A-I, costs can be expected to inaease significantly. Inaeased time and
expense will be required to detect, handle, and dispose of hazardous waste. Protection of
workers and the community would become more time-consuming, expensive, and less
n:iicWie.
The second major difference between alternatives involves takin'l either a managern""""
approach or pump in! and treating to meet. the ground-water qo-=~;tJ ~bject~,;c:. The
im~~~ un the alteri,.auves and the tradt:Offs beLween alternatives are based on the
issues of protection, cost, and beneficial use of resources.
The no action option for ground water in Alternatives A and 8 will be protective of
public health. The City of Phoenix presently provides water from their distribution
system for the area. The City plans to eliminate the use of ground water for drinking
water in the future except for periods of peak aemand but has no plans to develop ground
water in the area of the landfill. Continued industrialization of the area makes devel-
opment of small domestic wells a remote possibility, A ground-water quality monitoring
program coupled with the contingency plan will assure long-term protection of public
health, welfare, and the environment.
Capturing aU ground water that flows through the 19th Avenue landfill by pumping and
then treating it, as in Alternatives C and D, will cost approximately $3 million in capital
4-32
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
expenses and $890,000 a year in operationaL expenses. The principal difference from the
no action alternative would be that there are no off-site migration of compounds in
gro~d water for any distance. However, approximately 4,200 gallons per minute or
6,800 acre-feet per year will have to be pumped to capture all the ground water. At the
present time, this ground water wHl require minimal or no treatment (i.e., it would meet
MCLs 98 percent of the time). This water will have to be put to beneficial use. It may
be very difficult to find a beneficial use for that amount of water in the vicinity of the
site. Additionally,. the wisdom of pumping large volumes of ground water that meets
MCL.s is questionable given the State's objective of meeting safe yield and stabilizing
ground water levels.
ComponentS of Alternatives A, B, C, and D relating to the surface-water quality and
landfill-gas accumulation areas of concern are basically constant for aU four alterna-
tives. Removing Cell A-I to Cell A will reduce the surface area to be capped by 6.5
- percent, but will not reduce the volume of refuse.
The comparison process presented in the feasibility study showed that, with the
exception of the no action ca~. all alternatives are protective of human health and the
environment and will comply with all federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and
standards. The principal differences between Alternatives A, B, C, and D are the
removal of Coall 4 I ~!\d the pumping and treatments of ground water. Remov=!.! of Cell
. .
A-I po~ ~-=:-~,,- :ahort term health impactS to worker and the community and increases
the ~x~nse and time required to achieve adequate protection of human health and the
environment. Pumping and treating ground water wHl significantly add to the cost of
remediation and produce large quantities of water which will require minimal or no
treatment. Based on these considerations, a recommended alternative was identified and
is described irt the foUowing section.
4.'.6
Recommended Alternative
Alternative A is the recommended remedial action for the 19th Avenue Landfi11 for the
fo11owing reasons:
4-33
-------
FinaL. Draft RAP
06/L2/&9.
o Alternative A provides long-term protection of public health and the environment
equal to other alternatives.
o Alternative A does not include relocation of Ceil A-l and therefore avoids the
potential short-term heaJth risks and higher costS that may result from relocation. .
o Alternative A is cost-effective.
4-34
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
'.0
RECOMMENDED REMEDIAL ACTION
'.1
INTRODUCTION
The feasibility study for the 19th Avenue Landfill evaluated alternatives for correcting
existing public health or environmental impactS. and for preventing future impactS. In
order to accomplish this purpose, several goals should be met by the selected remedial
action. The goals are related to impactS and potential risks identified by the remedial
investigation. The remedial action goals are:
o Prevention of erosion and overtopping of the landfill during a 100-year flood to
eliminate the risk of refuse being washed out of the landfill and prevent impacts on
surface water and sediment quality in the Salt River.
o Pr.evention of infiltration of surface water into the landfill and the transport of
landfill material in surface-water runoff to eliminate the possible impact of the-
landfill on surface water and sediment quality, to reduce the generation of leachate
in the landfill. and f() ,.Prl1I("- 1Ot::!li?ed air emissions from cracks or holes in the
existing landfill cover.
.J Ensure that in the ~u';~.o, .......-...ua. dround-water degradation does not to pose a
fiSk to public health, welfare, or the environment.
o Prevention of the off-site migration of landfill gas to eliminate the risk of
explosions that could result from the accumulation of methane.
a Compliance with ARARs presented in Section 3.3 of this document.
The recommended remedial action would achieve these goals through the use of:
a
Levees with bank protection designed to protect Cell A and Cell A-I from the 100-
year flood.
a
A single-layer soil cap with surface drainage control for both cells.
'-I
-------
Final Draft RAP
06112/89
o
Continued ground-water monitoring at the site.
o Continued deHvery of an adequate supply of drinking water from the City of
Phoenix distribution system to residents and businesses in the vicinity of the
landfill.
o
Renovation or replacement and expansion of the existing gas collection system at
both cells.
The following sections of this report describe the components of the recommended
remedial action and discusses how the recommended remedial action (1) minimizes or
mitigates danger to public health and the environment from release or threatened release
from the landfill site, (2) reduces the mobility of contaminants and refuse, and
(:3> reduc.es the potential for exposure to toxic contaminantS and hazardous- materiaLs
generated by the landfill.
The Recommended Remedial Action presented below is preHminary and could change as
a resuJt of public commentS or new information. The public is encouraged to review and
comment on all alternatives presented in the RAP.
5.2
COMPONI:.N-. S OF RECOMMENDED REMEDIAL. ACTION
5.2.1
Refuse-Washout Canuol
'.2.1.1
Summary
The proposed ievee and bank protection system will provide containment of the refuse
and will protect the landfill from inundation by the laO-year flood. A concrete pipe
instaUed in the storm drain outfall chaM"'!l will prevent refuse washout by isolating the
refuse from flows in the drain. The effectS of general riverbed degradation would be
cont:roUed by a subsurface .grade control structure. The structure would I1mit the levee
foundation depth. to the depth of local scour (estimated to be about nine feet).
5-2
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
'.2.1.2
Levees and Bank Protection
Concepts for the shaUow seated compacted earth levee and soil cement bank protection
system are illustrated in Figures 5.1 through 5.5. The design concepts for the earth
levees are as foUows:
a Levees wi11 extend three feet above the laO-year flow level.
o Levees for Cell A will extend from about 100 feet upstream from the storm drain
outfall channel to the 19th Avenue bridge and wiU tie into "the existing topography
with a minimum of disturbance.
o
Levees for CeU A-I wiU extend from lOa feet upstream from the eastern boundary
to the western boundary of the cell.
o Refuse excavated during the construCtion of the levees will be buried in the cell on
the same side of the river as the levee excavation.
o All refuse and cover material will be transported by trucks or scrapers.
o
The existing soil cover will be excavated tn lIIitt,in or.~ foet ~f th~ -ca~~c: and
c;'",,=~piled for use as an en!~~::'::~ fill prio!' to waste placement.
o
Relocated refuse will be placed near the center of the ceUs, compacted, and
provided with a daily soil cover.
o Excavation side slopes will not be allowed to exceed 1.5:1.
o
Dewatering will be required to five feet below' the bottom of excavations that
extend below the ground-water table.
o
Refuse beneath structures will be replaced wit'h compacted soil to stabilize the
levee foundation area.
5-3
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
o SoH used for construction and for producing soil cement aggregates will be obtained
from aUuvium in the site area.
o Excavations for structures will be backfilled with compacted soil around the
completed structures.
'.2.1..3
Ga-ade Contro! Structure
The grade control structure will be downstream of the 19th Avenue bridge and configured
as shown in Figure '.6. Design concepts for the structure are:
o The structure would be constructed of soil cement.
o The structure will traverse the 60o-foot channel width and wiU tie into the Cell A
channel bank protection structure.
o The foundation of the structure wiU be significantly deeper than foundations of the
levees.
';.kl.4
Storm Drain Pipe
A configuration of the concrete storm drain pipe and backfill is shown in Figure 5.7.
Design concepts for the storm drain pipe are:
...
o A three-foot thick bedding layer of compacted granular soil will be placed under
[he pipe.
o The pipe wiU be eight feet in diameter and will be equipped with a gas monitaring
system and inspection shafts.
o The trench around the pipe will be backfilled with compacted 50il to the final
ground surface.
5-4
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
'.2.2
Surface-Water and Sediment QualitY Protection
'.2.2.1. Summary
With regular inspection and maintenance, a single-layer soil cap will provide long-term
protection to human health and the environment by preventing contact between surface
water and refuse.
Evapotranspiration at the lan~fi11 greatly exceeds rainfall. The average annual rainfa11
and evaporation are approximately 7.1 and 71 inches (National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, 1973, 1979), respectively. Given these parameters, a minimum surface
slope of 2 percent, and a soil permeability ot 104 centimeters per second~ the I+-foot
thic!< single-layer soil cap should prevent surface water from infiltrating the refuse
quring a 100-year rain event. This 'will reduce potential ground-water quality impacts
that might be caused by leachate generation.
This cap together with the levees and wider river channel will effectively prevent
surface water from contacting the refuse and minimize surface water infHtration into
. .
refuse and transport of leachate into the ground water. The cap will isolate the refuse
from rain. Perimeter ditches will intercept off-site flows and convey and discharge them
into the river.
5.2.2.2
Single layer Soil Cap
Single layer compacted soil caps over Cell A and Cell A-I are illustrated in Figures 5.8
and 5.9. Design 'concepts for the surface cap are as foUows:
a Site preparation earthwork- will leave at least one foot of existing soil cover in
place over the refuse.
a . The cap wiU be constructed using the soil presently stockpiled at the siT~ without
mixing in any other materials.
5-5
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
a The singte-layer cap section will consist of at least one foot of existing soU and
three fee,t of compacted soil.
o The compacted soH of the cap will have a permeabHity less than 10-4 centimeters
per second.
a The .cap wiU have a surface stope of two percent to direct surface water toward the
perimeter of the s~te and away from the landfill.
a Refuse excavated during the construction of the levees will be placed at the center
of each cell where final grades would be the highest.
'.2.2.3
Drainage and Outfall StI'1.ICtW'es
The surface drainage and outfall structures wiU be configured as shown in Figures '.7,
'.9, and '.10. Design conceptS are as follows:
. .
a Surface water flowing onto Cell A from off the site originates from north of the
si tee
o SUrIace water flowing onto CeU A-L from off the site will be directed around .the
ceH by existing ridg~s.
a The slopes of the perimeter drainage collection channel will be at least
0.2 percent. Side slopes will be lined with gunite.
o
P~rimeter cnanneis will empty into the river with the exception of the northern
channel of Cell A which will empty into the storm drain.
a River out falls will have flap gates if they are below the lOa-year water surface
profile.
,-6
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
'.2.3
Ground-Water QualitY Protection
'.2.3.1 ,Summary
Ground-water quality does not currently pose a risk to public health, welfare, or the
environment. Ground water in the vicinity of the landfill is not currently used for
drinking water. Drinking water will continue to be supplied by the City of Phoenix water
distribution system. I.ong-term protection will be assessed by monitoring ground water
at the landfill. Monitoring of ground-water use will prevent inadvertent use of ground
water for drinking water at and downgradient of the boundary of the landfill. Protection
of human health at the boundary of the landfill will be verified by ground-water
monitoring. Monitoring will detect changes in ground-water quality and in the flow
system. . A contingency plan (Appendix B) will be implemented if contaminant levels
exceed MCI.s at the property boundary.
Maintenance of the existing monitoring network would be required. Ground-water
monitoring has been ongoing at the landfill for several years. I.ong-term consistency in
the monitoring program can be achieved by deveioping specifications for procedures and
analytical requirements in advance.
'.2.1.2
Monitori.'5
A monitoring weil network wiil be used for detecting changes in ground-water quality and.
fiow systems. Key concepts for monitoring are:
o The monitoring well network will include the existing wells shown on Figure 2.9 and
two existing production wells.
o Sampling will be on a quarterly basis.
o Supplementary sampling will be conducted if flows in the Salt River exceed flows
that occurred during the RI.
5-7
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89 .
o
At the compietion of the remedial action currentiy provided for in this Remedial
Action Pian, a methane and ambient air quality monitoring progranl will be
developed and impLemented to ensure compliance with ARARs.
'.3
IMPLEMENT A nON OF THE REMEDIAL ACTION
5.3.1
General
A remediation plan will be prepared to identify steps necessary for implemeriting the
recommended remedial action and achieving the goals of remedial action. In order to
accomplish the goals and objectives of the remedial action, the foHowing tasks are
necessary:
o
Prepare design and construction documents.
o
Acquire Dermits.
o
Select a qualified contractor.
o
COllstruct the required site features under strict r;,,~.lip~, control anc:' :;~...rance.
o
Operate and maintain the site faclllties properly to protect the public n~alth and
the environment.
The foHowing sections discuss the steps associated with carrying out the remeo!al action
and presents an estimated schedule over which the plan can be imp!emen:ed.
The information presented in th\.:se sections utilize the assumptions and the IG percent
conceptual design .Ievei documents presented 10 the feasibili ty stud~ report.
Modifications to design and construction features are to be expected during the final
design, permitting, and construction process in order to accomphsh the goals and
ubJectives uf the remediation pian.
5-10
-------
Fina! Draft RAP
06/12/89
'.3.2
DesiJt!1 and ConstruCtion Documents
Construction drawings and specifications will be prepared for aU components of the
project. These documents will be submitted for review by appropriate federal, state,
county, and city agencies for regulatory compliance and be used as a basis for bids and
subsequent construction. It is anticipated that the appropriate regulatory agencies will
review the design documents at the 30 and 90 percent levels of design as well as at the
completion of the design. Cn addition, it is assumed that prior to starting the design
phase that additional geotechnical and geophysical work, and aerial and ground survey
work will be required to further define surface and subsurface site conditions. The
estimated schedule for developing design and construction is given on Figure 5.14.
[t is anticipated that construction documents will consist of drawings that willinciude:
o Site location drawings.
o
Cenera! plan showing the location of existing and proposed facilities, runoff
diversion system, levee and soil cement bank protection system, grade control
structure, storm drain pipe and outfall system, and methane collection system.
o Plans showing the location t"f h""ing5, t~t pits, monitor weUs, recommended
borro.. areas, and recommended stockpile areas.
o
Plans, profiles, sections, and details for the following:
levee and soH cement bank protection system
,
grade control structure
widening of the Sel!t River channel
storm drain pipe and outfall system
single layer compacted soil cap
runoff diversion system
methane collection system
site security fence system
o Pertinent boring logs, test pit logs, and geologic cross sections.
5-11
-------
Final Craft RAP
06/12/89
o Plans showing location of required demolition activities.
o
Plans and details for the dewatering systems.
o Miscellaneous plans, sections, details, for required mechanical, electrical, and'
structural work.
. Construction specifications ,wiU be. required for use as part of the bid documents, and are'
anticipated to consist of:
o
o
Instruction to bidders
Bid forms
o General conditions
o SuppLementary conditions
o Technical specifications, and
o Appendices-geotechnical and materials data
Following the preparation of the construction plans and specifications an engineer's
estimate of the construction cost will be required for comparison against contractor
~ids. The engineer's bUU'til.c WU& ...e u......!d on the actUal bidding schedule(s) developed in
the contract document.
.5.3.3
Permit Application
Applicable permits and/or approvals for construction and operation will be obtained from
various federal, state, county, and city agencies. As discussed earlier in this re~Q!'!f t~e
appropriate regulatory agencies would review the design and construction documents at
key points in the design for regulatory compliance. The agencies anticipated to be
involved in the permitting, review, and/or approval process and their area af
responsibili ty are as follows:
5-12
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
o United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
L 980 (CERCLA)
- Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA)
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for disposal
of water in the Salt River
o United States Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE)
- Section-404 of the Clean Water Act (404 Permit)
o Maricopa County Flood Control District (MCFCD)
Floodplain ordinances
o Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR)
Dewatering Permit
o Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)
Su:-f;1Ce- Water Quali ty Standards
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
.;.
o Maricopa County Health Department (MC~D)
A or ~uality Discharge Permit
Air Quality Standards
o Ci ty of Phoenix
Right-of-way /easements
"-
Land ownership
- City floodplain regulations
Surface water diversion and discharge regulations
(t is presumed that the design documents will be formally reviewed at the 30 and 90
percent levels of design as well as at the completion of the design. (t is assumed that the
agencies will require at least a JO-day review period ~fter the 30 and 90 percent design
submittal and a 90-day review period after submittal of the final design and permit
application. The estimated schedule for this process is illustrated in Figure 5.14.
5-l3
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
'.3.4
ConU"aCtor Selection
After the completion of the design and construction documentS and the issuing of the
appropriate permits, the project will be advertised for bids. AU bids. once received, will
have to be evaluated based on contractors qualifications and pricing. A contractor wiH
be selected following this review process.
Following the selection of the contractor, a pre-construction meeting should be held
among the principal parties involved in the remediation. The organization of the parties
to the project is delineated at this meeting, and the decision-making authority is
clarified and acknowledged. The network of information and communication specified at
this meeting will be utilized throughout the projects implementation. At this meeting,
the parties will analyze the project requirements and examine the contractors schedule
for meeting requirementS.
Throughout the term of the project, the principal parties would confer periodically.
TI1I!S'! m~ti~gs are used to clarify ~H ~utst~"':~'i& ~~~;a Q"~ 'i\.AC;a"1UII;a, lUlU ~\J jJ.:rmll
regular review of the progress of the remediation. The estimated schedule for these
processes is included in Figure ,~ 14.
5.3.'
Site Remediation
Once the project has been planned, the schedule has been laid out, and all issues have
been addressed by the contract documents or consent order, the actual remediation of
the site begins. From the beginning, it is essential that the contractor and the
construction management team:
o Maintain communications with regard to aU construction activities.
o Direct the progress of the work to ensure that it advances correctly.
o Coordinate the work.
o Document a11 aspects of the work.
The preliminary assessment of the construction effort required for the remedial action
plan is based on a number broad and qualified assumptions.. The construction schedule
5-l4
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
assumes that a sequential order of construction activities would be fotlowed, using
reasonable amountS of equipment and resources. The schedule further assumes a single;
contr~tor will be utilized. The duration of the construction period is based on the
quantities and scope of work developed in the feasibility study. The schedule duration
further reflects consideration for various other aspecu of the work such as:
o Dewatering of the project site.
o . Procurement of select equipment required for the landfiU gas cotlection.
o Environmental monitoring of the individual construction activities and the overall
site operations.
o Standard efficiencies in the work effort.
The preliminary assessment of the duration of the construction effort does not include
the adverse impact of encountering the foLlowing considerations:
o
~ncountering hazardous waste within the landfill requiring significantly different
handling than the bulk of the material handling and the associated inefficiencies in
the construCtion activities.
o
The impact of severe weather and large flows in the Salt River.
o
Limitations or resuictions on the. availability of construction resources or
materials which could significantly impact the consuuction progress.
A preliminary estimate of the duration of the construction effort required is shown in
Fi.gure 5.15. This duration is estimated assuming the construction effort wil1 proceed in
a logical progression to initially provide the shaLlow seated levees with soil cement bank
protectign for. Cell A and CeLl A-1 respectively, foHowed by the construction of the.
subsurface grade control suucture.
The sequencing is predicated on the potential1y very costly site dewatering requirements
and constraint in the production of soil cement. Dewatering, the widening of the existing
5-15
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/121&9
channel, the relocation of ceH refuse, and the partial completion of the single layer
compacted soil cap for CeH A and CeH A-I respectively will be an integral aspect of
these activities.
The landfill gas collection systli!m, the surface water collection and control facili ties, and
the storm drain outfall channel will be construCted within the same time frame.
Construction of the single layer compacted soil cap for CeH A and CeH A-I will be
complete once the refuse is relocated and the final configuration of the landfill is
determined.
This evaluation is based on the assumption that a single prime contractor has limited
resources. Various other scenario's using combinations of contracts and prime
contractors could potentially apply. For example, the construction of the subsurface
grade control struCtion in advance of any other work on site may provide an option to
reduce the overall project duration. These various options would need further assessment
as the scope of work is better defined and the project economies can b.- 1'T'",r. ar"1Ir;:aTel~
addressed.
Basic prac1ices of constrUCtion management throughou: ~:-..;. ..w...." ..;ction period wiB be
followed in implementing the work. These practices include schedule contf(')l, quality
control, quality assurance, health and safety, competitive pricing and purchasing, project
cost monitoring, manpower aUocation, and site documentation.
The estimated schedule for the site remediation construction is illustrated on
'-
Figure 5.15.
5.3.6
Postc:onstruCtion Work and Operations MonitorinJ(
A t the completion of the final inspection and close-out of the construction contract, a
construction report will be prepared to document each aspect of the project. Records of
construction activities and inspection and materials data gained during construction will
be summarized and compiled. The report will additionally provide a summary of the
construction history complete with dates, names' of contractors, names of persons
5-16
-------
Final Draft RAP.
06/12/89
involved, volumes of materials, types of equipment, details on excavations and
installations, and other pertinent details.
As-built drawings of aU components of the project wiUbe maintained throughout the
construction phase. They wiU be completed, revieWed, and finalized concurrently with
the preparation of the construction report.
Operation and maintenance manuals wiU be prepared to provide operations and
maintenance- staff with the correct procedures for operating and maintaining the various
instaUed systems. The estimated schedule for postconstruction is iUustrated in
Figure 5.16.
5-17
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
6.0
REFERENCES AND BIBUOCRAPHY
Am~ican CeologicaJ institUte. 1976. Dictionary of Geologic:aJ Terms. Anchor Books
Edition. Anchor Press: Garden City, New York.
Anderson, M.P. 1977. Using models to simulate the movement of contaminants through
ground-water flow systems: Critic:aJ Reviews in Environmental Control, v.9, issue 2,
pp.97-1'6.
Anderson-Nichols/West. 1981. Impact of Gravel Mining of the Salt River Channel at the
1-10 Bridge for Arizona Department of Transportation.
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. 1988. Air Toxies Monitoring Study of
Phoenix Urban Area, April 1988.
Arizona Department of Water Resources. 1986. Maps showing ground-water conditions
in the west Salt River, east Salt River, lake Pleasant, Carefree and Fountain Hills
sub-basins of the Phoenix ACtive Management Area, Maricopa, Pinal, and Yavapai
Counties, Arizona - 1983. By: Reeter, R. W., and Remick, W.H., Hydrologic Map
Series Report Number 12, Phoenix, Arizona, July 1986.
Arizona Testing Laboratories. 1980. Report of subsurface investigation for the City of
Phoenix, June 16, 1980. . .
Babcock, HeM. and !.M. Cushing. 1942. Recharge to ground water from floods in a
typical desert wash, Pinal County, Arizona. Transactions of the American
Geophysical Union, Volume 23, pp. ,.9-'6.
Baes, C.S. et al. 1984. A Review and Analysis of Parameters for Assessing Transport of
E"vironmentaUy Released RadiQ!"':-~~.:~;:=:~".ough Agriculture. Oak Ridge National
Laboratories. ORNL-'786. .
Barry, D.I.. 1986. Hazards from Methane on Contaminated Sites. [n: Building on
Marginal and Der.elict land. Thomas Telford, Ltd., London. Proceedings of a
Conference Organized by the Institution of Civil Engineers, Glasgow.
Blacklock, J.R.
ASCE.
Undated.
landfill Stabilization for StrUctural Purposes.
Abstract
Bouwer and Rice. 1977. Rapid infiltration system for wastewater renovation and
beneficia! reuse: Phoenix, Arizona, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, rnterim
Report, 21 p.
Bouwer, H. 1969. Theory of seepage from open channels in "Advances in Hydroscience,
Volume " V.T. Chow (editor), Academic Press, Inc., New York, pp. 121-172. .
Briggs, P.C. and L.I.. Werho. 1966. Infiltration and recharge from the flow of April 1965
in the Salt River near Phoenix, Arizona. Arizona State Land Department,
Water-Resources Report 29.
Brown, D.E. 1982. Biotic Communities of the American Southwest - United States and
Mexico. Desert PlantS ,. (14):1-342.
6-1
-------
Final Dralt RAP
06/12/89
Brown and Caldwell. 1982. Environmental evaluation, 19th Avenue Landfill, Project No.
SA-791'O.11, prepared for the City of Phoenix, January 1982-
Brown and Caldwell. 1983. Environmental evaluation and preliminary design for
corrective measures, 19th A venue landfill (including Appendix B- Test Logs,
Appendix C-Anaiytical Data, Appendix D-Computer Models); Project No. SA-&21447, .
prepared for the City of Phoenix, December 1983; revised July 198'. (See also
Brown and Caldwell, 198').
. 198'. Environmental evaluation and preliminary design for corrective measures,
- 19th Avenue landfill
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
Dames & Moore. 1987c. 1.andfill boundary definition and soil and refuse sampling task -
19th Avenue Landfill, May L 987. .
-. 1987d. Report Text Remedial Investigation, Motorola 52nd Street RI/FS (Draft)
Report to Motorola Inc., June L 987.
. 1987e. Landfill boundary definition and soil and refuse sampling task - 19th 1.andfill
- Cell A-I, September 28, 1987.
. 1987. Operations Plan, Northwest Regional Landfill for Maricopa County 1.andfill
- Department, Phoenix, Arizona.
Driscoll, F .G. 1986. . Ground water and wells: St. Paul, Minnesota, Johnson Division,
1089 p. .
Emcon Associates. 1979. Preliminary Design Report, Methane Gas Control System, 19th
Avenue Refuse Disposal Facility. Project No. SA-79150.02, prepared for the City of
Phoenix. Phoenix, Arizona. ",
Findikakis. A.N. and J.O. 1.eckie. 1979. Numerical simulation of gas flow in sanitary
landfills: Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division; pp. 927-9~5.
Freeze, R.A. and J.A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 60~ p.
''','
Griffin, R.A., K. Cartwright, N.F. Shimp, J.D. Steele,R.R. .Ruch, . W.A. 'while,
G.M. Hughes and R.H. Gilkeson. 1977. A ttenuation of pollutions in municipal
landfill leachate by clay minerals. Part 1 - Column leaching and field verification: .
Environmental Geology Notes Series.
Hantush, M.s. 1964. Hydraulics of Well!" In.'' rwwances. in~ Hydroscience," Acader::i.:
Press, Inc., New York.
p',
_0 1967. Growth and decay of ground-water - mounds in response to uniform
percolation. Water Resources Res. J:227-2.3~.
James M. Montgomery Engineers. 1979. City of Phoenix, 27th Avenue, 19th Avenue, and
Del Rio landfiUs, Geology and Hydrology Final Report, December 17, 1979.
_0 1980. City of Phoenix, 27th Avenue. 19th Avenue. and Del Rio Landfills,
Ground-Water study, Phase II report, February 1980.
Lane, et al. 19~7. Modified Wentworth Grain Size Scale, Transactions of the American
Geophysical Union, Volume 28, pp. 936-938.
Laney, R. and M.E. Hahn. 1986. Hydrogeology of the eastern part of the Salt River
vaHey area, Maricopa and Pinal Counties, Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey Water
Resources Investigation Report 86-41 ~7, Tucson, Arizona, 1 ~86. '
Mann, 1.. and Po Rohne. 1983. Streamflow losses and changes in ground-water leveis
along the Salt and Gila Rive near Phoenix, Arizona - February 1978 to June 1980.
U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 83-4043.
6-3 .
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/8'
Maricopa County Association of Governments (MAG). 1981. Results of the initial
ground-water quality monitoring phase (November 1979-January 1981). Prepared by
Kenneth D. Schmidt, May 1981.
Marsh, P.Co and '11.1.. Minckley. 1982. Fishes of the Phoenix Metropolitan Area in
Centra! Phoenix. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 4:39'~02.
Mercer, J.W. and C.R. Faust. 1981. Ground-Water Modeling: National Water 'lieU
Association, 60 p.
Mountain West Research-Southwest, Inc. 1987. Draft table - Total resident population,
traffic analysis zones and districts, Maricopa County (1980-201'): Phoenix, Arizona,
March 3, 1987. .
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1'73. Precipitation-Frequency Atlas
of the Western United States. Volume III - Arizona. U.S. Department of
Commerce. NOAA Atlas 2. Silver Springs, Maryland.
. 1<)7'. Climatic Atlas of the United States. U.s. Department of Commerce.'
- AsheviHe, North Carolina.
NCRPM, Report No. 4'.
United States.
Perry, R.H., D. w. C;r~ and J.O. Maloney. -l91't:"---f'erry's Chemicaf Engineer's
Handbook.' 6th Edition. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, N.Y.
1'7'.
Naturally Occurring Background Radiologies in the
Piper, A.M. 1944. A graphic procedure in the geochemical interpretation of "";lTM
analyses. Transactions of the Am-'-:~:. :~-.mysic:a! Union, Volume ~" pp. 'll~'123.
R.S. Means Company, Inc.
Edition. Kingston, MA.
1987a. Me~u,s Site Work :~st Data.
1 ~a/. 6th Annual
-. 1 987b. Repair and Remodeling Cost Data, Commercial/Residential. 1987. 8th
Amual Edition. Kingston, MA.
-. 1988. Means Concrete Cost Data. 1988. 6th Amual Edition. Kingston, MA.
Salt River Project. 1'82. Water Quality in the Salt River Project, Ground-Water
Planning Division, August 1982.
SCAQMD. 1987~' The Magnitude of Ambient Air Toxics Impacts from Existing Sources in
the South Coast Air Basin, Southwest Air Quality Management District, June L 987.
Schumacher. 1'83. landfill Methane Recovery, Noyes Data Corp. .
Shuckrow, A.J.,. A.P. Pajak, and C.J. Touhill. 1982. Hazardous Waste Leachate
Management Manual. Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, NJ.
Sommerfield, M.R. and R. Amalii. L986. Translocation of Toxic SubstanCes - Summary
Report and I.iterature Review.
6-4
-------
.
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
Sverdrup c5c Parcel and Associates. 1980. Final report, Salt River landfill sites. Project
No. SA-79346.00, prepared for the City of Phoenix, December 1980.
. 1984. Drawings, 19th Avenue Landfill Flood Protection, 15th to 19th Avenue a.t the
~ Salt River. Project No. SA-814079, prepared for the City of Phoenix. Phoenix,
Arizona.
u.s. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Draft HEC-2 computer printoutS and contour maps
showing cross section locations, Los Angeles district. office. U.s. Bureau of..
Reclamation, 1976, Centra! Arizona Project, Geology and ground-water resources
report. Maricopa and Pinal Counties, Arizona. Volume 1, December 1976. .
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1976. Central Arizona Project, Geology and ground-water
resources report. Maricopa and Pinal Counties, Arizona. Volume 1, December 1976.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 198ea. Dietary Consumption Distributions of
Selected Food Groups For U.s. Population. EPA/'60/11-80/012.
_0 1980b. Ambient Water Quality Criteria For Zinc. EPA 440/5-80/0-rJo
. 198'a. Remedial action at Waste Disposal Sites. Revised. Volumes [ and U.
- EPA/62'/6-8'/006. Cincinnati,OH. .
_0 198'b. Guidance on Feasibility StUdies under CERCLA.
Washington, D.C.
_0 1986a. Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual. Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. Washington, D.C., October 1986.
EP A/540/G-85/003.
-'. I 986b. The Comprehensive Envir:onl11ental Response, Compensation, and liability
Act of 1980 (Superfund) (P.L. 96-'10) as airiended by The Superfund AmendmentS and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (P.L. "-499~. Washington, D.C.
_0 1986c. Interim Guidance on Superfund Selection of Remedy. Memorandum from
J. Winston Porter, Assistant Administrator. 93".1-19.
. 1987a. Additional Interim Guidance for FY'S7 Records of Decision. Memorandum
- from J. Winston Porter, Assistant administrator. 93".0-21.
-' 1987b. Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigation and Feasibility studies
Under CERCLA. Preliminary Review Draft. Contract 6&-01-7090.
_'0 1987c. Remedial Action Costing Procedures Manual. . EPA/600/8-87/049o
Washington, D.C. and Cincinnati, OH. .
_0 1988. Guidance for ConduCting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies
under CERCLA, Draft, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response/Office of Soli~
Waste and Emergency Response, March 1988.
_0 1988b. Federal Register, Vol 53, No. l68, August 30, 1988.
6-5
-------
Fina! Draft RAP
06/12/89
u..s. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Endangered and Threatened Species of Arizona and
New Mexico. 124 pp.
. 1981.. Persona! communication with William Kepner, Ecological Services, Phoenix,
- Arizona.. January 1988.
U..s. Geologica! Survey. 1981. Water Resources Data, Arizona Water Year 1981. U.S.
Geologica! Survey Wa~er - Data Report AZ-11-i. '32 pp.
Van Genuchten, M. Th., G.P. Pinder and W.P. Saukin. (1977); Modeling of leachate and
soil interactions in an aquifer, in Proceedings of Third Annual Municipal Solid Waste
Research Symposium: EP A-600/9-77 -016.
Verschueren, Karel. 1983. Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemical
Second Editions, Van Nostand Reinhold Co., 1 '83.
Walton, W.C. 1970. Groundwater Resource Evaluation, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New
York, 664 p. .
Wilson, L.C. 1971. Case history - Groundwater recharge in Arizona, -in Groundwater
Recharge Symposium, November 27-28, 1978, Phoenix, Arizona..
6-6
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/&'
TABLE 1.1
CROSS REFERENCES BETWEEN RAP SECTIONS
AND WQARF REQUIREMENTS
"QARF Citaticn
(RlI-7)
RAP Section, Table
or Figure Number
Cover letter dated
February 17, 1989
10a.A.l. (Name, title, etc. of
person submitting plan)
IOa.A.2. (The location and legal
description of the site)
Figures 1.1 and. 1.2 and
Table 1.2
10a.A.). (Description of the release
of a hazardous substance)
1.), 1.4
108.A.4. (Exposure routes, environ-
mental effect and population)
Section 3.4
10a.A.'. (Purpose and schedule of
the remedial action)
Sections 1.6, 4.2, '.1, 5.3
10a.A.6. (Notarized statement
regarding cost recovery)
1 08.A.7. (Meeting requirementS and
criteria of RAP)
Transmittal letter
1.1, Table 1.1
108.A.8. . (Expedi tious RAP)
108.A.:7. ({veatching funds)
Section 4.5, Chapter 5.0
Not Applicablea
~08.8.1. (Review of the potential for
release of hazardous substance)
108.8.2. (Remedial Investigation)
Sections 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5
108.B.3. (Risk Assessment>
108.B.4. (Health effects stUdy)
Chapter 2.0
Chapter 3.0
108.B.'. (Feasibility study)
108.8.6. (Description of cleanup
methods)
Not Applicable
Chapter 4.0
Chapter 5.0
I of 2
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
Table 1.1 (continued)
Cross References BetWeen RAP Sections
and 'NQARF RequirementS
"QARf' Citation
. (Rl&-7)
. RAP Section, Table
or Figure Number
Section '.3
108.8.7. (O&M, and monitoring plan)
109.A.1. (Protect public health,
welfare and environment>
Sections 4.3, 4.4, 4.5
109.A.2. (Beneficial use of waters
of the state)
Chapters 4.0, 5.0
109.A.3. (Cost effective)
Sections 4.", 4.'
109.A.4. (Consistent with A.R.S.
45-401 through 45-655)
109.8.6 (Description of clean-up methods)
Chapters 4.0, .5.0
109.C.6 (Description of c:1ean-up methods)
109.D.6 (DescriPtion of cleaG-::UD .methods)
Chapter '.0
Chapter '.0
Chapt4!l!f' ',1)
aNo monies frnrn the Fund are s~'Jght for remedial 'action at the 19th Avenue Landf~~~.
2 of 2
-------
. Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
TABLE 1.2
LECAL DESCRIPTION Of 19TH A VENUE
LANDF1lJ. PROPERTY, PHOENIX, AlUZONA
That pan of the Southwest quarter of Section 19, Township 1 North, Range 3 East, G &
SRBc5cM, described as foHows:
COMMENCING at the South quarter comer of said Section 19; thence North 00 degrees
49 minutes l' seconds West, along the North-South mid-section line of said Sec~ion 19, a
distanCe of 11'6.40 feet;
thence North '9 degrees 51 minutes 22 seconds West to the West line of the East 40 feet
of said Southwest quarter and the POINT OF BEGINNING of this parcel description;
thence North 00 degrees 49 minutes 15 seconds West, along said West line, a distance of
1143.20 feet;
thence South 57 degrees 45 minutes 0' seconds West, a distance of 1094.11 feet;
thence South 81 degrees 3' minutes 36 seconds East, a distance of 380.58 feet;
thence South 00 degrees' 1 minutes 22 seconds East, a distance of 492.5' feet;
thence SouU\ 88 degrees' 1 minutes 22 seconds East, a distance of '58.00 feet to the
POINT OF BEGINNINC:
TOGETHER WITH that part o(ihe West hall of said Section! 9 described as foHows:
COMMENCING at the POINT OF BEGINNING of the parcel of land described herein-
. above;
thence North 00 degrees 49 minutes i, seconds West, along th- '1.'est line of t:te East 40 .
feet of said West half of Section I', a distanCe of 1896.31 feet to the TRUE PO[NT OF
BEGINNING of this parcel description;
thence North 00 degrees 49 minutes 15 seconds West, along the West line, a. distance of
2094.65 feet; .
thence North 86 degrees 3' minutes 4' seconds West~ a distance of '10 feet;
thence North 00 degrees 49 minutes l' seconds West. a distance of 460 feet;
thence North 88 degrees 50 minutes 45 seconds West, a distance of 2101.70 feet;
thence southet'ly, along said East line, a distanCe of 3943.49 feet;
thence North 89 degrees 12 minutes 27 seconds East, a distance of 562.00 feet;
thence North 68 degrees 26 minutes 16 seconds East, a distance of 588.30 feet;
thence North 58 degrees 06 minutes 18 seconds East, a distance of 1080.75 feet;
1 of 2
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
Table 1.2 (continued)
legal Description of 19th Avenue landfiU Property, Phoenix, Arizona
thence North" degrees 19 minutes 20 seconds East, a distanCe of 436.20 feet;
thence North 1M) degrees 06 minutes 21 seconds East, a distance of 3'7.39 feet to the
TRUE POINT OF BECINNINC.
2 of 2
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
TABLE 1.3
SUMMARY OF AJ.. TERNA TIVES
PreferTed
Alternative Alternative Alternative Altemati\f~
Componenu of Alternatives A B C D
Refuse Washout Components
ShaUow-seated levee with Yes Yes Yes Yes
bank protection for Cell A
ShaUow-seated levee with Yes No Yes No
bank protection for Cell A-I
Subsurface grade control Yes Yes Yes Yes
structure across the river channel
Pipe and backfill for the Yes Yes Yes Yes
storm drain outfall channel
Relocate CeU A-I to CeU A No Yes No Yes
Wider river channel between Yes Yes Yes Yes
CeU A and Cell A-l
Surface Water Quality
-------
Final Craft RAP,
06/12/&9
r able 1.3 (continued)
Summary of Alternatives
Preferred
Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative
Components of Alternatives A B C D
Ground-Water' Quality Components
Ground-water quality Yes Yes Yes Yes
monitoring
Ground-water weU and No No Yes Yes
pump system
Ground-water treatement No No Yes Yes
system
Ground-water treatment No No Yes Yes
system
Landfill Gas Aa:umuJatian ComponentS
Landfill gas monitoring Yes Yes Yes Yes
at Ceu A.
Landfill gas monitoring Yes No . YeS No
at Ceil A-i
Landfill gas collt:Ction Yes Yes Yes Yes
system at Cell A
Landfill gas coilection Yes No Yes No
system at Cell A-l
Landfill gas treatment Yes Yes Yes Yes
system at Ceil A
Landfill gas treatment Yes No Yes No
system at Cell A-l
2 of 2
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/&9
TABLE 2.1
ANALYTICAL. PARAMETERS FOR SOIL AND REf1JSE SAMPLES
Metals (EP - ToxicitY>
As. Hg, Se, Cd, Pb, Cr, Ag, Ba
Metals (total)
As, Hg, Se, Cd, Pb, Cr, Be,
Cu, Ni, Zn, Sb, Ag, Ba, Tl
Or~anic CompOunds
Volatiles, (EPA Method 8010), Aromatics
(EP A Method 8020), Pesticides/PCBs
(EP A Method 8080)
Indicators
TOX, TOC, pH, Cyanide, Phenols, Moisture,
Cation Exchange Capacity
L of L.
-------
Final Dralt RAP
06/12/&9
TABLE 2.2
SUMMARY OF MOST f'REQUENTL Y OBSERVED ORCANIC. CONSTITtJENTS
IN REFUSE MATERIAL
Concentration
(ppm) No. ol Detections Physica.1 Data a
Vapoc
Sojub Press
Max. Avg. Barinp Samples (mg/l) (ann)
ethlybenzene J2 5 10 20 1.52 0.01
1,4dichlorobenzene 6 1 10 20 79 1.0 .
xy 1enes 30 6 6 12 180 0.008
toluene 13 4 6 10 530 0.04
aat 2'- C
l of l
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
. TABLE 2.J
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS FOR SURFACE-WATER INVESTICATION
~
Surface-Water Samples
General C1assifation
Ions
Ammonia, Boron, Calcium, Chloride, Fluoride,
Iron, Kjeldahl Nitrogen, Magnesium, Manganese,
Nitrate, Phosphate, Potassium, Sodium, Sulfate.
Metals (Dissolved)
Antimony, Arsenic, Barium, BerylHum, Cadmium,
Chromium, Copper, Lead, Mercury, Nickelt
Selenium, Silver, ThaUium, Zinc
Organics
EPA Method 601 (Volatiles)
EPA Method 602 (Aromatics)
EPA Method 608 (Pesticides/PCBs)
Indica tors -
Biological Oxygen Demand, Chemical Oxygen
Demand, Coliform Bacteria, Cyanide, pH,
Phenols, Total Dissolved Solids, Total Organic
Halides, T otai Organic Carbon
B.
Sediment Samples
Total Metals
Antimol1Y, Arsenic, Barium, Beryllium, Cadmium.
Chromium, Copper, Lead, Mercury, Nickel,
Selenium, Silver, Thallium, Zinc
EP Toxicity Metals
Arsenic, Barium, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead,
Mercury, Selenium, Silver, Thallium, Zinc
Organics
EPA Method 8010 (Volatiles)
EPA Method 8020 (Aromatics)
EPA Method 8080 (Pesticides/PCBs)
Indicators
Cation Exchange Capacity, Cyanide, ~oisture,
pH, Phenols, Total Organic Carbon, T ota! Organic
Halides
1 of 1
-------
Final Dralt RAP
06/12/89
TABLE 2.4
RELEASES FROM CRANITE REEF DIVERSION DAMa
1962 - 1987
Annual Volume
Calendar Duration of of Flow Maximum Flow RateS
Year Flow (days) (acre-ft) ds Date
1962 0 0 0
1963 10 1,000 ~OO 8-17
1964 7 7,000 2,600. 8-01
196' 4 200,000 67,000 12- 31
1966 33 38,000 '3,000 1-01
1967 2 12,000 3,000 12-19
1968 26 106,000 3,700 2-15
1969 1 0 <100 3-10
1970 2 ° 1',000 9-0'
1971 1 0 <100 8-15
1972 9 75,000 10,000 12-27
197:3 11 1,240,000 22,000 4-01
1974 6 1 ,000 300 8-03
191' 2 ° 100 7-13
1976 7 2,000 '00 2-09
1911 1. 0 300 10-23
1978 41 1,389~000 9',!00 3-03
1978b l' 110,000 12-19
&0,000 3-03
129,000 12-19
1979 1'2 1,997,000 &7,'00 . 1-18
L979b 51,800 3-29
&',400 L- L.q
60,000 3-29
1980b 91 2,061,000 137,700 2-16
1980 18',000 2-16
1981 0 ° 0
1982 40 178,000 9,000 3-14
1983 16' 1,744,000 30,000 2-10
41 4',000 10-03
7 1.1 ,000 12-26
1984 29 270,000 2',600 12-28
198' 1'8 772,000 16,'00 3-18
1986 29 6,000 900 4-05
1987'= 37 N/A 2,'00 3-22
a Source: Salt River Project, 1987
For years with multiple releases, only major releases (> 10,000 cfs) are shown. AU
volumes.are rounded to the nearest 1,000 acre-ft. AU flow rates are rounded to the
b nearest 100 cfs.
Approximate: measured at the old Joint Head Dam about seven miles upstream from
the landfilJ si tee
c Da ta through April 15, 1987.
1 of L
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
TABLE 2.,
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS FOR GROUND-WATER INVESTIGATION
C4!nera1 Classif"lCation
Ions
Ammonia, Boron, Calcium, Chloride, Fluoride,
Iron, Kjeldahl Nitrogen, Magnesium, Manganese,
Nitrate, Phosphate, Potassium, Sodium, Sulfate
Metals (Dissolved)
Antimony, Arsenic, B_¥ium, Beryllium, Cadmium,
Chromium, Copper, Lead, Mercury, NickeL,
Selenium, Silver, Thallium, Zinc
Indica tors
Biological Oxygen Demand, Chemical Oxygen
Demand, Coliform Bacteria, Cyanide, pH,
Phenols, Total Dissolved Solids. Total Organic
Halides, Total Organic Carbon, ALkalinity,
Radionuc1ides (alpha. beta)
Organicsa
Volatile Organic Cpds. EPA (601, 602, 62~)
Semilolatile Organic Cpds. EPA (62j)
Pesticides and PCBs EPA (608)
Acrolein and AcryLonitrile EPA (603)
2,3, 7, 8 - TeDO EPA (613)
ae,PA (601, etc.) denctes-EPA M"thCJd for analysis of water samples.
I of I
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
TABLE 2.6
SUMMAR Y OF GROUND-WATER QUALITY PROGRAM fOR GEOLOGIC UNIT A
WeUID Location Metals Inorganics Indica tors RadioisotOPes Coliforms Or~anics restiddes
(WeBs InstaUed Prior to Rn
I-I On-site I-VI 1- VI I-VI I-VI I-VI I-VI I, VI
1-2 On-si te I-VI I-VI I-VI 1,111- VI I-VI I-VI I,IV, VI
1-) On-site I.-VI I-VI I-VI I-VI .I-VI I-VI I, VI
1-" On-site I-VI I-VI I-VI I,III-VI I-V I-VI I,IV, VI
I-} On-site I-VI I-VI I-IV 1,111- VI I-VI I-VI I,IV
1-6 On-site I-VI I-VI I-VI I-VI I-VI I-VI I, VI
1-7 On-site IV-VI IV-VI IV-VI IV-VI IV-VI IV-VI I,IV ,VI
(Wells Installed During Rn
DM-I@5'" On-site IV,VI IV,VI IV,VI IV,VI VI IV,VI
DM-I@86' On-si te IV,VI
OM-I@122' On-site IV IV IV IV IV,VI IV
OM-I@U7' On-site IV, VI
DM-I@192' On-site IV. VI IV, VI IV,VI IV IV IV,VI IV,VI
DM-2@}'" Off-site VI VI VI VI IV,VI IV,VI VI
DM-2@89' Off-site IV IV IV . IV IV IV, VI . IV
DM-2@121f' Off-site IV,VI
DM-2@U9' Off-site IV, VI
DM-2@19'" Off-site IV,VI IV,VI IV,VI IV,VI IV,VI IV.VI IV,VI
DM-3P Off-site IV-VI IV-VI IV-VI IV-VI IV-VI IV-VI IV-VI
OM-31 Off-site IV-VI IV-VI IV-VI IV-VI IV-VI IV-VI IV-VI
DM=-)O Off-site IV-VI IV-VI IV-VI IV-VI IV-VI IV-VI IV-VI
OM-If Off-site IV-VI IV-VI IV-VI IV-VI IV-VI IV-VI IV-VI
DM-}S Off-site IV-VI IV-VI IV-VI IV-VI IV-VI IV-VI IV-VI
DM-}O 011 -si te IV-VI IV-VI IV-VI IV-VI IV-VI IV-VI IV-VI
DM-6 Off-site IV-VI IV-VI IV-VI IV-VI IV-VI IV-VI IV-VI
Note: Roman numerals refer to specific sampling rounds as listed below:
1- 3rd quarter 1986; II - "th quarter 19Hb; III - 1st quarter 1987; IV - 2nd quarter 19b7; V - 3rd quarter 1987;
and,VI - 11th quarter 1987.
n on ~
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
'T A8l£ 2.1
MAJOR ION CONCENTRATION IN GROUND VI A TER
MEAN t STANDARD D£VIA TlON (mg/I)
EXISTING (I) VI£LLS
Parameter Data Seta. I-Ib I_b I-}b I-Itb I-~b I-,b I-Ic
Sodium R I") t 6 l)) t I" 2)01 I" 2)} 1 20 179 t 1) 277 1 21 11019
H 162 1 60 13" t )9 ))81 128 298 t "6 211 1 76 2)" 1 88
Calcium R )811 j8 t) )7 t 9 61 t 12 )9 t 12 88 t 17 "1 t 6
H 1) t 2) 62 t 2) 116 t 6) 80 t )0 )1 t 2" 80 1 29
Magnesium R' 28 t 2 26 t 2 )91) II) 1 ) 27 t 6 "6 t " 32 t "
H )7 t I) 30 t 11 69 t 3" )) t 19 27 t 6 "0 t I"
Bicarbonate R' 261 t U 23) t JI )6" t )9 )20 1 26 312 t "8 )23 t 12 323 t )"
H ))) t 72 299 t 91 998 t 30 6"" 1 'I J8 "32 t 98
SuUate R 6" 1 10 66 1 10 61" 816 83 t 30 1)0 t 18 28 t 9
H 10) 1 )6 81 1 32 16 1 ." 22 t )6 9) t 30 IUt,,1
Chloride R 1~7 t )3 208 1 3" )02 t 30 ))1 1 19 22) t 71 "2" t 39 210 t 2"
H 199 1 86 18)1 III "7" t 2"7 38" t U9 2)6 t 2)1 )21 1 167
Total R 672 1 28 662 t 3) 100) t 76 1078 t 77 8" 1 t 111 12631)" 198 1 69
Dissolved H 826 1 2"6 600 t I U 162~ t )88 1301 t 192 71) 1 173 1088 t 262
Solids
a
b
c
R - Remedial investigation and feasibility study data collected 8/86 - 12/87
H - Historical data collected 8/78 - 6/86
Basedon six observations
Based on three observations
no' D
-------
final Draft RAP
06/12/&9
TABLE 2.1
I MAJOR ION CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUND VI A TER
MEAN i STANDARD DEVIA nON (mg/O
NEVI (DM) WELLS'
DM-Ib DM-Ia DM-Ib DM-ii DM-r DM-~
Parameter liU,,' liU 22' (CU 92' lit>'" (089' (0 I 9'" DM- Jpc OM-Jf OM-JDc DM-ltc OM-)Sc
Sodium 272 t 28 2"3 2",. t I" 387 2aG 27. t 29 119 t aG 2)) t)O 1)7t8 16" t ) 360 t I"
Calc ium "" t 9 ". 60 t 9 j3 )0 I" t 8 )1 t I 110 t"2 ]9 t 1 71 t 7 101 t I
Magnesium 21 t) .1& 27 t 1 8 2) 3" t If 2" t I 36 t 10 20 t I 27 t 0 "0 t 2
Bicarbonate "9) t 12" 231 277 t n 170 390 280 t 20 288 t 9 297 t 30 83 t 1 31) t 9 )2) t"
Sulfate "'I t )2 8" 1"6 t 22 2) 60 110 t )" 90 t 12 16) t 38 }'I to 121 t 8 11" t 10
ChJor ide 2j6 t U 19) 290 t 18 742 227 291 t 124 227 t J6 360 t 97 J40 t II 186 t 7 )0) t 3~
. Total 100) 1 13" 710 1040 t 60 noo 900 116) t 1:)) 773 t 6 U"3 t 271 693 t 21 790 t 17 '''17 t 2)
Dissolved
Sotids'
aOne observation'
bTwo observations
cThree observations
ft ad n
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
TABLE 2.10
SUMMARY OF DETECTED METALS IN CROUND WATER
CONCENTRATIONS IN ugJ 1
CONSTITUENT QTR/'iR I-1 I-2 I-3 I-4 I-5 I-6 :-3
ARSENIC J RD/8 6 . 7 32 42 32 .
BARIUM 3RD/86 170 160 1940 2'80 370 270
BERYLLIUM 3RD/86 . 13 12 13 16 14
CADMIUM 3RD/86 S S 8 6 a 6
MERCURY 3RD/86 1.4 0.4 11 0.4 6 o.a
NICKEL 3RD/86 10 20 30 30 20 30
ZINC JRD/S6 .30 10 10 60 10
ARSENIC 4TH/86 . . 40 47 23 .
BAlUUM 4TH/86 140 160 1200 2130 390 280
CHROMIUM (TOT) 4TH/S6 10 20 .
MERc:tJRY 4TH/a6 . . . 0.8 .
NICKEL 4TH/a6 20 . 50 70 20 30
ZINC 4TH/86 80 10 JO 60 90 120
ARSENIC 1ST/81 . . 28 46 19 .
BAlUtnf 1ST/81 90 110 1050 1680 350 . 210
BERYLLIt1K 1ST/81 . . 24 13 4S 18
MERCURY 1ST/S1 . 0.5 . . . .
NICKEL 1ST/S1 45 34 45 13 21 6S
ZINC. 1ST/81 76 73 64 68 101 lsa
ARSENIC 2ND/a7 . . 29 33 22 . --
BARIUM . 2ND/a1 404).. 280 1660 160 600 420 :~3:)
:ERYLLIUM 2ND/81 . . . . . . . 11
t:AOMIUM 2ND/a1 3 3 9 4 7
CHROMItrn (TOT) 2ND/a1 . . 10 . . .
coppu 2ND/81 70 2' 180 110 90 20 (;,:)
LEAD 2ND/a1 2 2 2 .
MERc:t1RY 2ND/81 . . . 0.6
NICKEL 2ND/81 .. 40 40 50 60 ..5
SILVU 2ND/81 ' -
. . . . . . <:::1
ZINC 2ND/81 2' 20 20 30 100 110 JO
ARSENIC 3RD/81 . . . 32 23 . 170
BARIUM 3RD/81 130 210 920 1620 510 190
CHROMIUM (TOT) JRD/81 ' ~
. . ."
COPPO 3RD/81 . . . 72 . 12
NICKEL JRD/81 50 50 50 90 30 70 :10
ARSENIC 4TH/81 . J8 36 23 . .'
BARIUM 4TH/81 290 . 12ao 1290 500 230 1:30
BERYLLIUM 4TH/a7 270
CADMIUM 4TH/a1 . "
COPPER 4TH/a1 J, 14
MERc:tJRY 4TH/a7 . . 2 .
NICKEL 4TH/a7 39 . 113 99 . ~2
ZINC 4TH/a7 53 30 69 71 99 139 ~ -
- -
1 of 2
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
Table 2.10 (continued)
Summary of Detected Metals in Ground Water
Concentrations in uS/1
- . CONSTITUENT ~'- - Q'l'R/YR CM-1 OM-1, OM-1 "M-2 OM-2 OM-2
54 1~4 192 54 89 194
BARIUM ~ND/81 460 90 60 430 ~o
CADMIUM ~ND/81 J J
COPPER 2ND/81 10 .
MERCURY: 2ND/11 . 0.4
NICIa:L 2ND/81 30 . . 30 40
ZINC 2ND/81 34 20 30 17 S..
ARSENIC 4TH/11 ' 12 . 22
BARIUM ' - 4TH/11 SSO 100 580 l40
NICDI. 4TH/11 44 o . .
ZINC ,4TH/17 12 0 1.6 3:1" 36
CONSTITUENT QTRlYR OK-3D ex-3I CM-3P ex-. CH-!D OM-55 OM-~
BARITJH "N",e-. 60 . 130 . 60
CADMIUM 2ND/S7 3 ~
. . ., ~ .
'-n~\JKItJM (TOT) 2ND/11 37 22 30 16 ~ - . ..
.. I
COJ:-t':A 2ND/17 13 14 14 . ...
. . -.
LEAD 2ND/17 . . . 2 2
ZINC 2ND/81 20 16 23 33 53 --
BARIUM 3RD/17 70 150 90 230 150 l' "'!
.. ..
LEAD 3RD/17 2 . . . . .
NICKEL 3RD/17 . 30 30 30 40 40 JQ
ZINC 3RD/17 12 32 11 11 24 36 27
BARITJH 4'1'H/I? 1'0 250 130 140 300 150 l5'J
CADMITJH 4TH/I? . . .. 4 4 .
ZINC 4'1'21/11 2' l' 32 41 41 37
2 of 2
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
TABLE 2.11
VOC CONCENTRA nONS EXCEEDINC , ugfl
OR THE MCL FOR VINYL CHLORIDE
Concentration (ug/l)
Compound Qtr/Yr \Velll-l \VeU 1-2 DM-l
1,1, I-Trichloroethane 1/87 60'
3/87 1'.8
4/87 11
Trans-1 ,2-dichloro- 3/86 '.1
ethylene 1f/86 11
3/87 7.'
4/87 La
1, 1-Dich1oroethane 4/86 11
1/87 64
2/87 '06
3/87 8.'
,~ '9"7 .,'"
'1-" ....
Carbon te~rachloride 4/86 3'
1,1 Dichloroethylene 4/87 'olf
~: ..w, '-AI. .hane 1/5/ o.u
Vinyl chloridelt J/'!-6 2.' 2.'
3/87 206
ItMCl for vinyl chloride = 2.0 ug/t
L of L
-------
. Final Craft RAP
06/12/89
CDmpound
1,1,1- Trichloroethane
Trans-l,2-dichloro-
ethylene
1,I-Dichloroethane
Carbon tetrachloride
1,1 Dich-loroethylene
Chloroethane
V iny 1 chlor ide"
TABLE 2.11
VOC CONCENTRA nONS EXCEEDINC , ug/l
OR THE MCL FOR VINYL CHLORIDE
Concentration (ugJl)
Qtr/Yr Well [-1 Well [-2 DM-l
1/87 60'
3/87 1'.8
4/87 11
3/86 501
4/86 11
3/87 7.5
4/87 10
4/86 11.
1/87 64
2/87 '.6
3/87 80.5
4/87 20
4/86 35
4/87 5.4
1/87 6.0
3/86 20' 205
3/87 206
"MCL for vinyl chloride = 200 ug/!
l'of I
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
TABLE 2.12
SUMMAR. Y OF CONCENTRA nONS FOR BOD, COD, AND TOC
WeU ID BOD (mg/l) COD (mg/1) TOC (mg/l)
On-Site (- L 26 60 2.6
Wells (-2 32 38 3.'
[-) )4 78 2'
[-4 29 8& 21
[-, 38 '7 4.4
(:-6 36 39 l'
[-8 29 39 .. 11
Mean J2 '7 12
Off-Site DM-3P 36 77 4.1
WeUs. DM-4 62 1'4 1.&
DM-5S '3 106 0.6
DM-6 7L 100 1.6
Mean 56 109 '2.0
.For weils penetrating upper portion of UAU only.
I \Jf L
-------
--- -~-~- - _.- -
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
TABLE 2.13
CITY OF PHOENIX 1 9TH AVENUE LANCFILL
RADIOISOTOPE DATA CONCENTRA -noNS IN pClIL.
IoaL LIVIL aATI GlOSS Al.PIfA GlOSS IITA RADIUM 226 RADIUM Z28
011.1 ~ 87'a8Z4 -2_7 1.8 10.7 5.6 0.5 0.1 0
0"-1 54 871217 -0.1 3.2 17.8 6.6 .
0...' 122 87'0825 2.0 2.6 2.~ 5.6 0.0 0.1 0
0...1 192 87'0825 0.2 1.9 2.1 3.3 0.2 0.1 0
0"-1 192 871217 10.2 2.7 16.2 6.8
0".2 54 871217 -8.0 6.1 11.8 10.6 . .
O"-Z 89 8708Z5 -2.3 2.7 9.4 5.2 0.7 0.1 0
0".2 194 8708Z6 0.3 2.2 4.1 4.3 0.6 0.1 0
0".2 194 871217 -2.1 8.4 14.9 11.6 . . .
0"-30 87'0818 -0.8 2.6 5.6 4.9 0.2 0.1 0
0..-30 871021 -2.6 1.6 3.9 4.9
OM-3D 871217 0.7 10.5 4.8 5.10 .
OM.51 87'0818 -3.0 2.7 8.9 5.4 0.3 0_1 0
0... 31 871021 1.8 10.10 10_0 8.0
0"-31 871218 '2.8 10.3 9.10 10.0 .
OM-3P 87'0819 -3.10 10.5 9.5 3.10 0.0 0.1 0
OM-3P 871023 -1.7 1.2 9.0 5.5
OM-3P 871217 '2.8 1.3 0.10 6.3
OM.4 87'0818 1.3 3.5 12.lo 5.9 0.6 0.1 a
OM-4 871021 O.lo 1.6 4.1 5.2
OM-" 871216 -5.7 Io.a 8.8 6.2 . .
OM-50 8708Z0 '0.7 2.5 8.2 5.5 0.0 0.1 0
0...50 871021 '0.7 3.7 6.5 9.1 . .
0"-55 8708Z0 - 1 .lo 3.2 10.5 5.9 0.4 0.1 0
OM-55 871020 1.5 6.1 8.7 12.2
OM-55 871216 0.5 2.3 10.1 6.2 . .
OM-6 87'0818 '0.5 2.4 11.5 4.3 0.3 O. I 0
OM-6 871022 -1.4 1.4 6.4 8.2
OM-6 871216 '2.1 2.4 "" 4.1 5.1
1.1 860821 '2.4 2.9 8.3 3.a
1-' 87033 I 4.6 2.1 7.9 6.0
1-' 870728 -2.1 2.a 8.a 5.a 0.7 0.1 a 2
1-' 871019 -2.0 3.8 3.5 5-2
1-1 87121lo -"".1 1.4 6.6 5.5
1-2 860821 -2.5 ~.a. 3.3 3.9
1-2 870331 '0.9 10.0 7.5 5.4 .
('2 870728 -0.4 0.7 2.2 1.5 0.0 0.1 0 2
1-2 871019 0.5 La 19.4 6.1
('2 a7121lo 0.9 9.4 lo.6 5.lo
1.3 860822 1.9 5.7 51.0 10.7
(-3 861016 '0.9 3.4 122.0 8.7
1.3 870331 -1.4 1.a 33.0 a.1 .
1.3 870724 0.8 5.9 3.5 5.3 1.0 0.1 0 2
1-3 871019 -1.5 3.6 31.a 8.2
1.3 871217 -3.7 2.6 53.8 9.2
1-4 860821 0.1 6.2 a.a 7.t.
1.4 870331 -0.2 2.5 39.6 8.0 .
1-4 87'0727' 0.2 '_9 31.5 T.a 1.0 0.1 0 2
1-4 871020 -0.3 3.4 21.9 10.1
1-4 871 21S -2.9 3.a 32.1 8.1
1-5" 860IZZ -1.7 3.7 13.8 1.5
'-5 S7'0401 17.9 10.2 8.7 6.2
"1-5 87'0727' '0.1 2.6 15.6 6.1 0.7 0.1 0 2
1-5 8710Z11 -4.3 10.2 19.2 10.1
1-5 8712'"5 -0.6 2.1 13.9 5.8
(,6 860821 -".1 8.1 "22.0 17.2
1'6 861016 0.1 2.t. 92.8 12.6
1-' 87'04G 1 10.1 2.7 10.0 6.5
.
1.6 870724 2.9 3.2 11.9 6.5 0.0 0.1 0
1.6 a71020 '2.0 3.7 8.7 11.4
1.8 a70131 lo.O 6.5 9.6 6.0 0.3 0.1 . 0
1.8 871023 -2.8 4.6 8.0 5.1
(.a 871218 '2.lo 3.5 11.9 6.3
. no N88ur-.t
1 of 1
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/19
TABLE 2.14
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS AT OR ABOVE MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVELS
19TH A VENUE lANDFILL
No. of
Detections Maximum
MCL Above MCLI Cone.
Well Location Compcuxt (ugl 1) No. of Samples Observed
DM-'S Upgradient Nitrate 10 mglL-N 3/3 16.0
DM-5D Upgradient Nitrate 10 mglL-N 3/3 14.9
[-6 Boundary Gross Beta 50 pCi/l 1/6 92.8
Cell A-I
[-5 Boundary Gross Alpha 15 pCi/L 1/6 17.9
Cell A-I
[-.1 Boundary Carbon T etra- 5.0 1/6 35.1
CellA chloride
Vinyl Chloride 200 2/6 2.6
[-2 Boundary Vinyl Chloride 200 1/6 2.'
Cell A
[-J Boundary Gross Beta 50 pCi/l 3/6 122
Cell A Barium 1.0 5/6 1.94
1-4 Boundary Barium 1.0 mgll 5/6 2.58
Cell A . Merc:lJry 200 1/6 2.0
1-8 Boundary Vinyl Chloride 2.0 1/3 - 2.0
Cell A Barium 1.0 mg/l 2/3 1.18
Arsenic 50.0 1/3 170
DM-1-54 Down- NO COMPOUNDS ABOVE MCL
gradient
Cell A
DM-I-86 Down- NO COMPOUNDS ABOVE MCt.
gradient
CellA
DM-I-L22 Down- NO COMPOUNDS ABOVE MCL
gradient
CellA
DM-1-157 Down- NO COMPOUNDS ABOVE MCL
gradient
Cell A
1 \)f 2
-------
Final-Draft RAP
06/12/89.
Table 2.14 (continued)
Summary of Detections Above Maximum Contaminant Levels
No. of
Detections Maximum
MCL Above MCLI Cone:.
WeU Location Compound (ug/l) No.. of Samples Observed
DM-l-1'2 Down- NO COMPOUNDS ABOVE MCL
gradient
CellA
DM-2-54 Down- NO COMPOUNDS ABOVE MCL
graident
Cell A
DM-2-8' Down- NO COMPOUNDS ABOVE MCL
graident
Cell A
DM-2-124 Down- - NO COMPOUNDS ABOVE MCL
graident
CellA
DM-2-159 Down- NO COMPOUNDS ABOVE MCL
graident
Cell A
DM-2-194 Down- NO COMPOUNDS ABOVE MCL
!ra irl."..
Cell A
DM-3P Down- NO COMPOUNDS ABOVE MCL
graident
Cell A
DM-J[ Down- NO COMPOUNDS ABOVE MCL
graident
Cell A
OM-3D Down- NO COMPOUNDS ABOVE MCL
i graiden t
Cell A
DM-I; Down- NO COMPOUNDS ABOVE MCL
graident
Cell A
OM-6 Down- NO COMPOUNDS ABOVE MCL
graiden t
Cell A
2 of 2
-------
. Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
TABLE 2.1'
COMPARISON OF COMPOUNDS FOUND IN BORINGS D8-2 AND WELL 1-1
Compound Borin! D8-2 Well 1-1
Phenols Yes No
X y lenes Yes No
Ethylbenzene Yes No
Chlorobenzene Yes No
Toluene Yes No
Tetrachloroethene Yes Yes
Trans-I,2-DCE Yes Yes
1,2-dichlorobenzene Yes Yes
1,1-dichloroethane Yes Yes
1,I-dichloroethene No Yes
Trichloroethene No Yes
Trichloroethane No Yes
Vinyl Chloride No Yes
I of I
-------
- --~-- ~
Final Craft RAP
06/12/89
TABLE 2.16
SUMMAR Y OF TOTAL HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATIONS (9ft V IV)
IN CITY OF PHOENIX SUBSURFACE CAS PROBES
1986 19&7
Probe No. Mean (ma.x./min.) Mean (max./min.)
1. 7 (23/0) 6 ( 16/0)
2 12 (28/0) 1 If. (28/0 .
3 14 (37/0) l' (32/1)
4 .. ..
5 6 (20/0) 8 (23/0)
6 <1 (2/0) a (0/0)
. 7 If. 08/0) 10 (21/0)
8 3 (14/0) 8 08/0)
9 <1 (3/0) l' (3'/0)
10 5 (19/0) 8 (24/0)
11. <1 (trace/O) 2 (6/0)
12. <1 (trace/O) <1 (trace/O)
13 14 . (42/0) 16 (34/0)
14. 12 (37/0) 23 (36/0)
1'. <1 0/0) 6 (2'/0)
16* <1 (3/0) 2 (6/0)
16A. 0 (0/0) <1 (trace/O)
17 <1 (2/0) <1 (trace/O)
18 6 (27/0) 22 (40/0)
19. <1 0/0) <1 (trace/O).
20. <1 (I/O) <1 (trace/O)
21 5 04/0) <1 (4/0)
22 (Ceil A-I) 3 . 02/0) 2 06/0)
23 (Cell A-l) 1 ('/0) , ( 12/0)
. Off-site probe
.. Probe not available
1 tJf 1
-------
---- - -~-- -~---
Final Oraft RAP
06/12/8'
TABLE 2.17
SHORT-TERM CONCENTRA nONS OF COMPONENT HYDROCARBONS (ppb)
OBTAINED (N CITY OF PHOENIX SUBSURFACE GAS PROBES
USING PORTABLE GAS CHROMA TOCRAPH
Date
Probe No. (HCU'-MST) BNZ TOL TCE TCA PeE
2 11/3/87 (14'9) NO NO ND NO NO
3 11/3/87 ( 1 '07) T T ND NO NO
11/4/81 (14~6) NO NO T NO NO
11/'/87 (1434) NO NO NO NO NO
11/6/87 (1417) NO NO 1200 NO NO
11/7/87 (11'0) NO NO ND NO NO
, 11/3/87 (1"6) NO NO T NO NO
6 11/3/87 (1'31) NO NO NO NO NO
7 11/3/87 (1'38) NO NO .T NO NO
8 11/3/87 (094~) NO NO NO NO NO
11/3/87 ( 1(08) NO NO. T NO NO
1l/4/87 (163~) NO 2'00 7000 NO NO
11/7/87 (0'13) 26 NO NO NO NO
13 11/3/87 (10'0) NO NO NO NO .NO
11/"87 ( 1327) NO NO NO NO NO
11/6/87 ( 1227) NO NO NO NO NO
14 . 11/3/87 (101l) NO NO ND NO NO
11/4187 ( 1 ,,7t NO NO 1100 T NO
. 11/6/87 0"') NO NO NO NO NO
15 * 11/3/87 (1034) NO NO NO NO NO
11/7/87 (0"8) 12 NO NO NO NO
18 '. 11/3/87 (L O..-Zj.. NfJ"'- NO NO NO. NO
21* 11/3/87 ( 11 i 9) NO NO NO NO NO
111'+/87 (1626) NO NO NO NO NO
11/5187 (1352) NO NO NO NO NO
11/7/87 (1103) NO NO NO ND NO
NO - not detected « 1 ppb)
T - trace amount (detected, but too low to quantify)
* - off-site probe
I of 1
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/8'
CompcuId.
TABLE 2.11
CONCENTRAnON OF THE MAJOR GAS COMPONENTS IN THE
StJasURF ACE GAS COLLEC"nON SYSTEM (CJr. VOLUME)
Sample CCS-la Sample CCS-~
. Oxygen and/or Argon
Nitrogen
Methane
Carbon Dioxide
Carbon Monoxide
0.3'
60.7
13.6
19.9
ND .
6.3
60.7
1'.7
1'.1
ND
ND - not detected
0.01% volume for sample GCS-l
.0.'96 volume for sample GCS-2
aCoUected December 28, 1987
bCoUected January 13, 1988
Detection Limits:
..
1 of 1
-------
. Fin&! Draft RAP
06/12/8'
TABLE 2..19
CCNCEHI'RATIONS OF ORCANIC COMPOUNDS IN SUBSURFACE CAS
Concentration (ppb)
Compound GCS-l a GCS-r GRN-l
Acetone 340 100 NO
Benzene 100 200 '0
2-Butanone '0 NO NO
Chlorobenzene* l' NO NO
1,1-dichloroethane l' NO NO
1,2-dichloroethene (trans) 40 NO NO
E thy lbenzene * " NO NO
2-Hexanone 12 NO NO
. T etrachloroethene. 4 NO NO
Toluene 4,'00 200 1 ,600
1,1,1- Trichloroethane. 18 NO NO
Trichloroethene* 18 NO NO
Vinyl Chloride 46 NO NO
Xylenes 113 100 '0
a GCS-1 and GCS-2 were grab samples coUected from the manifold of the gas
coUectiQn system on December 28, 1987 and January 13, 1988 r~t1vely.
b GRN-l was a .grab sample coUected from a ground crack near the center of the
landfill on January 13, 1988. .
.. Quantitation uncertain in sample GCS-1.
1 of 1
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/8'
TABLE 2.20
SHORT-TERM AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS OF COMPONENT HYDROCARBONS
IN UNRESTRICTED AREAS. NOVEMBER 3-7, 1987
(Samples AnaJyzed Usins Pon.ahle Gas Chromatograph)
Concentration (ppb)
Location Date (Hour-MST> 8NZ TOL TCE TCA PeE
ACAP lot 11/3/87 (08'3) ND ND ND ND ND
*Between 8'1' and 9V1 ( 1128) NO ND ND NO NO
Between 8V1 and 9V1 0 lJ4) ND ND ND NO NO
SVI comer of system ( 1446) NO NO NO NO ND
fence
NVI corner Tallow Fence 11/4/&7 (450) NO NO NO NO NO
Near Probe 113 (1'00) NO NO NO NO NO
VI of PVC Pipe ( 1508) NO NO NO NO NO
VI of PVC Pipe O,lJ) NO NO 1400. NO NO
BIRP lot 0,,1) 58 ND 48 ND ND
Tanner lot (610) 10-20 10-20 ND 10-20 ND
Tanner lot (1618) ND NO ND NO ND
19th/lower Buckeye (1641) NO NO NO NO ND
Near Probe 1113 11/'/&7 (1320 NO NO NO NO ND
*600' E 7V1 11/6/87 (11'0) 17 NO NO NO NO
600' E 7V1 (1202) 209 NO NO NO NO
Near Probe 1113 (1218) 120 NO NO NO ND
500. =: ~ 7.VI (1238) 16 NO NO NO ND
1000' E 17V1 (124&) 169 NO NO NO ND
1 500' E 17V1 (12'8) 11 i"O NO NO ND
1800' E 12V1 ( 1 308) 9 NO NO NO ND
1900' E 12V1 (1315) ' NO NO NO NO
900' E 7W 11/6/87 (1322) 104 NO NO NO NO
800' E 11 VI ( 1 346) 101 NO NO NO NO
Near Probe 116 (1356) " NO NO NO ND
Near Probe 113 (1411) NO NO NO NO NO
NW Corner Tallow Fence (1426) NO NO 8' NO !-JD
NW Corner Tallow Fence (1434) NO NO 117 NO ND
Near 15N (1440) NO NO NO NO NO
Near UN ."..A. (1445) NO NO NO NO NO
. ~~.
Between 11N arMt.12N ( 1449) NO NO NO NO NO-
. N- TaUow Fence-"':: - 04") ND NO NO 1100 NO
15th/lower Buckeye 04'8) NO NO NO NO NO
E of Tal10w Plant (503) NO NO NO ND NO
.Refers to collection system extraction well numbers.
1 of 2
-------
-. --
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
Table 2.20 (continued)
Short- Term Ambient Concentrations of Component Hydrocarbons
in Unrestricted Areas
Concentration (ppb)
Location Date (Hour-MST) BNZ TOL TCE TCA PCE
19th/Lower Buckeye ( U 12) NO NO ND' NO NO
Waste Mgt. 1.ot (530) ND ND NO NO NO
ACAP 1.ot (545) NO NO NO NO NO
BIR? Lot 05'0) ND ND NO NO NO
Chevron Lot (601) NO ND NO NO NO
Tanner 1.ot (606) NO NO NO NO NO
Near Probe 118 11/7/87 (08'9} 71 NO NO NO NO
S~W aste Mgt. Lot (0923) 22 ND NO NO NO
ACAP Lot (0927) 18 NO NO NO :--.lO
Chevron Lo t (0942) 13 NO NO NO NO
81R? Lot (0947) 13 NO NO NO NO
81RP Lot 11/7/87 (09'2) 10 NO ND NO NO
Near Probe 111 J (004) 10 NO NO NO NO
19th A ve./ Adams (011) 11 NO NO NO NO
Tanner Lot (1046) NO ND NO ~D NC
Near Probe In 1 (057) NO NO NO NO NO
15th/1.ower 8uckeye ' (1114) NO NO NO NO NO
E of Tallow Plant (1120) 20 NO NO NO NO
Near Probe 113 01 J6> 336 4 NO Nn ~O
1.....oU' Probe 113 . ~1143> 4 NO NO NO ND
Near Probe i; 3 (1159) NO NO NO ND NO
E Probe #6 U2(4) NO NO NO NO NO
600' E 7W (1209) NO NO ND NO NO
500' E 12W (1215) ND NO NO NO N,D
1600' E 12W (1224) NO NO ND ND NO
400' 5E 13N (1229) 36 NO NO NO NO
NW Corner TaLlow Fence ( 1236) NO NO NO NO NO
N-Tallow Fence (241) NO NO NO NO NO
Near Probe 118 (250) NO NO NO NO NO
5- Waste M tg. Lot 02") NO NO NO NO ND
Near Probe 1# 13 ( 12'&) NO NO ND NO NO
Near Probe 118 (302) NO NO NO NO . NO
19th Ave./Adams ( 1308) NO NO NO' NO NO
2 of 2
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
l.oc:atian
TABLE 2.21 .
SHORT-TERM AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS OF COMPONENT HYDROCARBONS
IN RESTRICTED AREAS. NOVEMBER 3-7, 1987
(Samples Analyzed Usinl Panable Gas Chromatograph)
Concentration (ppb)
TCE TCA
Date (Hour-MST)
BNZ
TOL
-BIRP Pit 11/3/87 (1027) NO NO NO NO
. Tanner Pit '(1112) NO NO NO NO
ACAP Shed 11/4/87 (1'36) NO NO 80 ND
Tanner Pit (1616) NO NO 1300 ND
ACAP Shed 11/6/87 U'36) NO NO NO NO
Tanner Pit (1612) NO NO NO NO
ACAP Shed 11/7/87 (0930 13 NO NO ND
ACAP Shed (0937) 13 NO NO NO
Tanner Pit UO'2) ND NO NO NO
- - Not accessible'
NO - Not Detected « 1 ppb)
1 of 1
PeE
NO
~D
~D
ND
ND
~D
ND
ND
ND
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
T A8lE 2.22
TEST DATA fOR GAS EXTRACTION WfllS WITH ALL OTHftt WELLS CLOSED
Ranle 01 Well pressuresb Ranle 01 flow Rates
Valve -.Jinches 0' ._2L ~ Preweb
Extraction Position Distaocec
\Vella (degrees) Low High low High Obs. 'lieU (inches 01 "2) (fee&)
UN 90 2.3 ,..) 1100 1800 GP I)N 0.29 39
UN 60 .' 2.0 ".2 1000 1600 GP I)N 0.27 39
UN "0 . I.) 2.) 900 1"00 GP I)N 0.2" 39
UN 20 0.) 0.7 2)0 )00 GPUN 0.07 39
IN 90 }." 8.1 3)0 600 GP3N 0.00 30
)W 90 0.1 3.2 2)0 700 GP)W A 0.01 J8
)W 60 2." 3.6 ))0 700 GP)WA 0.01 J8
)'1' ,.0 2.0 2.8 )00 600 GP)W A O.OJ J8
)W 20 0." 0." 200 2"0 GP)W A 0.01 38
)W 90 0.1 3.2 2)0 700 GP)W8 0.00 115
)'1' 60 . 2." 3.6 ))0 700 GP)W8 0.00 115
)'1' ..0 . 2.0 2.8 )00 , 600 GP)W8 0.00 115
)W 20 ,: 0." 0." 200 no GP)W8 0.00 115
6'1' 90 2." 3." 1)0 1020 GP)W8 0.00 tal
6'1' 60 2.6 3." 900 1020 GP)W8 0.00 118
6'1' "0 2.1 2.) 780 900 GP)W8 0.00 118
6W 20 0." 0." 2..0 280 GP)W8 -0.07 1&8
9\1' 90 0.2 1.6 )00 2"00 GP9W O.OJ 16
9'1' 60 0.2 1.6 )00 2100 GP9W O.OJ 16
9W ..0 0.2 1.0 "00 ( 1700 CP9W -0.01 16
9'1' 20 0.0 0.0 200 11)0 GP9W -0.06 16
12VJ 90 0." J.O 60 1100 GPI2W 0.J7 19
12W 60 0." 2.8 60 10)0: GP 12W 0.3) 19
12'1' "0 . 0." 2.1 60 1)0 GPI2W 0.28 19
12W 20 0.2 0.2 60 300 GP 12W 0.06 19
a Cas extraction we tis are" inches in diameter. Valve ~ofiti >n 0' 90° is lun)' open. . ~
b Pressure in observalion well. Positively signed pressul es al e increm mas below atmospheric pressure.
c Oistance between exlraclion well and observation well.
n d D
-------
. Final Draft RAP
06/12/&9
TABLE 2.23
TEST DATA FOR CAS EXTRACTION WELLS
WITH ALl. WELLS FULLY OPEN (908)
1,N
3N
'W
9W
12W
Range of Well Pressuresa Range of Flow Rates
(inches of H~) (feet/min)
Low High Low High
-
0048 00" 380 380
230 350 ---
-0004 0092 60 3'0
0020 0.42 2'0 920
0028 0.42 120 180
'lieU
a Positively signed pressures are increments below atmospheric pressure.
1 of 1
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
TABLE 2.24
VOLUME FLOW RATES FOR CAS EXTRACTION WELlS AT
A V AR.IETY OF VALVE POSmONS
Average Volwne Flow Rate (cfm)
Valve poSition; All
Other WeUs Closed
All Wells
WeU 908 608 408 208 Fully Open (908)
L5N L27 113 lOa 33 33
IN 41 2'
5"11 41 54 48 19 18
6"11 82 84 73 23
9"11 127 122 92 28 51
12"11 51 48 40 16 l3
1 of l
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
TABLE 2.~
LINEAR BEST FIT Of VOLUME FLOW RATE VERSUS PRESSURE DROp!
WeU2 b at R
l'N 23 18' 0.9~
'W(A) 14 76 0.9!
. 'W(B) 14 N/A 0.99
6W 12 N/A 0.99
9W 21 543 0.99
L2W 12 137 0.99
Linear best fit for equation (1): Q= (a\/Ln(r/r w)] (pw-Pr).b
2 5W(A) and 5W(B) refer to data associated with observation weil GP'W A and GP5WB,
respectively. Other wells are associated with only one observation well, as indicated
in Table -'-9.
R in column" is correlation coefficient.
L of L
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
TABLE 3.1
SUMMARY OF GROUND WATER ANALYSES
AT 19TH AVENUE LANDFILL (ugJI 01' ppb)
Not Presently Relevant
Not and Appropriate but
Presently Presently Potentially Relevant
.Relevant and Relevant and and Appropriate
Appropriate Appropriate in the Future
SDWA Exc~ 10~ ADEQ Rangei of
Pro SOW A (b) Actio~Jrevel Detected
Compound M~ MCLG Risk c Water Concen tra tic
. Bromodichloromethane 100(e) ND-O.J
Bromomethane 2.5 ND-O.7
Carbon Tetrachloride 5 0 0.42 5 ~D-J5.l
Chlorobenzene ND-2.9
Chloroethane ND-6.0
Chloroform 100(e) 0.19 3.0 ND-l.O
Chloromethane 0.' NO-1.37
1,2 Dichlorobenzene ...-.. .
(~u-....v
1,4 Dichlorobenzene 75 75 SD-J.6
1,1 Dichloroethane ~D-64.J
D ichlorodif luoro- 1.0 ND-L~
methane
1,1 Dichloroethene 7 7 0.033 7 ND-5.lI,
Trans 1,2 DCE - ND-lO.7
..
Freon ND-l.2
Methy lene Chloride - 4.7 ND-7.6
Toluene 2,000 ND-O.9
T etrachloroethene 0.88 1.0 ~D-2.5
I, 1,1 Trichloroethane 200 200 200 ~D-l5.3
Trichloroethene 5 ° 2.8 5 ND-2.4
T r ichlorof luoromethane 1.0 NO-l.l
Vinyl Chloride 2 0 2.0 NO-2.G
1 of 2
-------
Final Oraft RAP-
06/12/89
Table 301 (continued)
Summary of Ground Water Analyses
at 19th Avenue Landfill (ug/' or ppb)
Compound
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Bery Ilium
Cadmium
Chromium (Total)
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Sc:tefiium
Silver
Zinc
Presently
Relevant and
Appropriate
Not
Pre:m\t1y
ReJevant and
Appropriate
Not Presently Relevant
and Appropriate but
Potentially Relevant
and AppI'opciate
in the Future
SOWA
Pro
M~~
- - - ADEQ - Range of
~ lo-6---Aar----Jiever---Detede
-------
. Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
TABLE 3.2
ADHS SUCCESTED HEAl. TH-BASED CLEANUP LEVELS
FOR CONT AMlNANTS IN SOILS (ug/kg)
TCE 320
l,l-DCE 700
1,2-DCE 700
4,4'-DOE 1 ,000
4,4'-DOT 1 ,000
Chromium 1,500,000
'.
Arsenic 100,000
8arium 5,000,000
Cadmium 1,000
Lead 700,000
Mercury ',000
Zinc 2,000,000
PCE 67
PCBs 0.79
T r lcnlorof luoromethane 19.0
Toluene- 200,000
EChylbenzene 68,000
Xvlenes 44,000
o-d ichiorobenzene 62,000
p-dichiorobenzene 7,500
Sources:
l} AOHS draft policy for establishing drinking water action levels, .\\arch 13,
1987
2) CH2M Hill Draft R[/FS - Phoenix - Goodyear S..aperfund Site, 1989
1 of 1
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
TABLE 4.1
APPUCABILITY OF GENERAL RESPONSE ACTIONS
TO SPECIFIC OBJEcnvesa
Potentia!
Genera! Refuse- Surface-Water Ground-Water Landfill-Gas
Response Washout Quality Quality AccumuJatioo
ACtions Objective Objective Objective Ob jective
No Action X X X X
Containment X X X 2
Pumping 1 2 X
Collection 2 X X
Diversion 4 X X I
Complete Removal J 3 3 J
Partial Removal X 2 3 2
On-Site Treatment 2 1 X X
Off-Site Treatment - 2 1 X 1
In Situ Treatment X X X
Storage 2 2 2
On-Site Disposal X 3 3
Off-Site Disposal 3 3 3
Alternative Water 2
Supply
Relocate Receptors 2 2 2 2
a. X: The general response action is applicable.
1. The general response action was not applicable to area of concern.
2. . The general response action would not be effective in satisfying the specific
ob jective. .
3. The general response action would require a remedy that would be unreas.:1nable to
implement or prohibitive in cost.
4. "Diversion- for the refuse washout objective is considered under "Containment".
1 of 1
-------
Final Oraft RAP
06/12/89
T A8LE 4.2
SUMMAR. Y OF APPLICABLE GENERAl. RESPONSE ACTION
Refuse-
Washout
Objective
No Action
Containment
Partial Removal
In Situ Treatment
On-Site Disposal
Surface-Water
Quality
Objective
No Action
Containment
Diversion
Ground- Water
Quality
Objective
No Action
Containment
Pumping
Collection
Diversion
On-Site Treatment
Off-Site Treatment
In Situ Treatment
l of l
Landfill-Gas
Accumulation
Ob jective
No Action
Collection
On-Site Treatment
In Situ Treatment
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89.
TABLE 4.3
LANDFILL DIMENSION ESTIMA res
Dimension Cell A Cell A-I
Materia! Volume (cubic yards) . 436,000
Refuse 8,977,000
Surface Cover 1,8& 1 ,000 173,000
Stockpiled Soil 1,674,000 0
Total Material 12,'32,000 609,000
Surface Area (aaes) 200 13
Boundary Length (feed 2,500 1,000
Northern Boundary
Southern Boundary 3,000 500
Eastern Boundary 2,500 1 ,300
Western Boundary 4,000 900
Total Boundary 12,000 3,700
Maximum Thickness (feed
Refuse 58 38
Surface Cover 10 10
Stockpiled Soil 20 0
Maximum Depth (feed
. Refuse 67 14
Surface Cover 30 10
Stockpiled Soil 15 0
Ground-Water Depth (feed
Maximum M 50
Minimum 20 20
River Channel Dimensions (feed
River Length Adjacent to Site 3,000 500
River Channel Average Width 500 500 .
15th Avenue Storm Drain Dimensions (feet)
Storm Drain Pipe Diameter 8
Storm Drain Pipe Length 800
OutfaU Channel Length 1,700
Total
9,433,000
2,054,000
1,674,000
LJ,141,OOO
21)
3,500
3,500
3,&00
4,900
15,700
3,000
500
(1) Volumes are rounded to the nearest L,OOO cubic yards. (2) Areas are estimated to the
nearest acre. (3) Horizontal linear dimensions are rounded to the nearest L 00 feet.
(4) Thicknesse5 and depths are esti'mated to the nearest one foot. (5) Dimensions do not
include construction debris dumped into Cell A in 1987.
L of 1
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
.General Response Action
No Action Response
No action
Monitoring
Regulation
Containment Response Action
Containment of river and
storm drain outfall .
channel
TABLE lj.lj
SCREENING Of' TiCHNOLOGIES AND PROCESSES fOR
TUE RE';USE-WAStiOUT OBJECTIVE
T echnolo~y
Process
None
None
. Monitoring river bank
erosion
Si'ope indicators. visual
inspec t ion
Monitor storm drain
outfall erosion
Visual inspection
Regulate sand and
gravel mining
Regulate sand and gravel
mining
Capping
Soil cap. soH cap with
synthetic membrane. asphalt
cap. RCC cap. concrete cap
Physical barrier
Slurry wall
Steel sheet piles
Concrete retaining wall,
reinforced earth wall,
compacted earth levee,
soil grouting
I 01 J
Screenin, Comments
Does not meet objective
Not feasible alone. Consent order
requires action.
Not feasible alone. Consent order
requires action.
Potentially applicable
Not feasible because high flows would
inundate site
Not feasible due to potential for scour-
induced erosion and instability
Not feasible due \0 inabitity \0
drive piles
Potentially applicable
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89 .
Table "."
Screening of Technologies and Processes for the Refuse-Witsho .t Objecti/e
General RespOnse Action
Technology
Process
River channel
I:xcavatioo, grading
Concrete :itructure, RCC
structure, soil-cement
structure
River grade control
5truc lUre
River bank protection
Riprap, grouted riprap, RCC,
soU-cement, gabions, shotcrete
Grout mat
Storm drain outfall
lining
Riprap, grouted riprap, RCC,
soil-cement, grout mat,
gab ions, shotcrete
Storm drain outfall
closed conveyance
Concrete pipe, steel pipe,
polymer pipe
Partial Removal and
On-Site Disposal
Response Action
Partial Removal and
on-site disposal of
Cell A-I.
Excavation
Excavation equipment
Transportation
Trucks, SCf apers
On-si te landtilling
l.:mdfilling
2 of )
. 'I
Screening Comments
PotentiaUy applicable
Potentially applicable
Potentially applicable
Not compatible with cobble
river bottom
PotentiaUy applicable
Potentially applicable
Potentially applicable
Potentially applicable
Potentially applicable
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
Table 14.14 (continued) .
Screening 0' Technologies and Processes for the Refuse-Washout Objective
General ResDOnse Action
Technology
process
In Situ Treatment
Response Action
In situ treatment
Groutinr. of waste
In situ treatment
3 o! ]
Screening Comments
Not applicable due to potential for
scour-induced erosion
-------
final 15raft RAP
06/12/89
I .
T A8LE ,..~
SCREENING Of TECllNOlOGIES I-ND PROCESSES fOR TIlE SURFACE-WATER QUALITY OOJECTIVE
General Response Action
! echnol02Y
proce~iS
Screenin2 Comment'
No Action Response
No action
None
None
, I
Does not meet objective
Monitoring
Monitoring surface
water quality
Water sampling
Not jeasible alone. Consent order
requires action.
land use restrictions
land use restrictions
land use restrictions
Potentially applicable
Potentially appHcable
Access restrictions
fencing
fencing
Containment and Diversion
Response Action
Containment and
diversion
Capping
Soil cap. soil cap with
synthetic membrane
Potentially appHcable
Asphalt cap
Not applicable due to potential for
significant cracking
,,:oncrete cap
Not apphcable due to potential for
significant cracking
Not applicable due to potential for
significant cracking
RCC cap
Draiflage improvements
; \iversion. grading.
, Jnveyance. detention.
t ttfaU
Potent ially applicable
I 05 n
-------
final Draft RAP
06/12/89
. T AbLE If.'
SCREENIN~ Of TECHNOLOGIES AUD PROCESSE.S fOR TilE GROUND-VI A TER QUALITY OBJECTIVE
General Response Action
Technology
Process
Screeninc Comment.
No Action Response
No aCt ion
None
None
Does not meet objective
Monitori.ng
Ground-water quality
monitoring
Existing monitoring system
Potentially applicable
Water supply
Drinking water
distribution system
Expand existing COP water
distribution system
Potentially applicable
Containment and
Diversion Response Action
Containment and diversion
Vertical barrier
Slurry wall
Not feasible for cell containment due
to downward ground-water flow
gradients
Steel sheet pile wall
Not feasible due to inability 10 drive
piles and assure an adequate barrier
Not feasible due to inability to assure
an adequate barrier
Grout wall
Soil cement, concrete liner,
shotcrele, RCC, asphalt
Potentially applicable to reduce
recharge from river ttow
Id51
-------
final Draft RAP
06/12/89
Table 11.6 (continued)
Screening of Technologies and Proces)es for the Ground-W Jter Quality Objective
General Response Action
T echnoloJY
Pr ocess
Synthetic membrane wall
Horizontal barrier
Synthetic membrane
Grout mat
~oil cement. concrete
liner. shot::rete. RCC. asphalt
Ground-water extraction
Deep prod'lction welts
2 of )
Screening Comments
Not feasible for landfill cells due to
inability to keep deep trench walls
open for membrane placement
Potentially applicable to reduce
recharge from river flow
Not feasible for landfill cells due to
volume of waste that would be required
to be moved
Potentially applicable to reduce
recharge 'rom river flow
Not feasible 'or landfill cells due to
volume of waste that would be required
to be moved. Not feasible due to
inability to assure effectiveness for
reduction o' river recharge
Not feasible 'or landfill cells due to
volume of waste that would be' required
to be moved
Potentially applicable to reduce
recharge from river flow
Potentially applicable
-------
final Draft RAP
06/12/89
Table 4.6 (continued)
Screening of Technologies and Processes for the Ground-Wa' ~r Qualitl Objective
General Response Action
TechnoloJY
Process
Subsurface drains
Trench drains, drain fields
Collection or
Pumping and On-site
or Off-site Treatment
RespOnse Action
CoUection. pumping,
on-site treatment.
and discharge
Ground-water pumping
Deep production weUs
Subsurface drains
Trench drains, drain fields
Physical-chemical
treatment
Activated carbon. reverse
osmosis. ion exchange, .
precipitation, pH
adjustment, neutralization
filtration, sedimentation.
coagulation, ftocculation
Stripping
Chemical oxidation.
chemical reduction
3 uf :>
Screening Comments
Not feasible due 10 high permeability
of aquifer material and volumes of
water and waste requiring removal
PotentiaUy applicable
Not feasible due to high permeability
of aquifer material and volume of water
requir ing removal
PotentiaUy applicable
Not applicable for t)'pe of constituents
and volume of water requiring treatment
-------
Fmal Draft RAP
06/12/89
Table '1.6 (continued)
. Screening of Technologies and Processes for the Ground-Water' 'u.ality Ohjective
General Resoonse Action
T echnologv
Biological treatment
~ischarge to aquifer
Discharge to Salt River
Discharge to irrigation
canal system
Collection or
pumping, and
off-site tre.. unent
. Subsurface drains
. Discharge to POTW
In Situ Treatment
Response Action
In situ
stabilization
Physkal stabilization
L rocess
Bioactivat~d sludge
Injection \A,eUs
Spreading hasins
Transmission system
Transmissiun system
Trench drains, drain
tie Ids
Transmission system
Grouting
'I of ~
.'\'
Screening. Comments
Not applicable, low organic content of
ground water is not suitable 'or
biodegradation
Potentially applicable
Potentially applicable
Potentially applicable
Potentially applicable
Not feasible due to high permeability
of aquifer material and volume of
water requiring removal
Potentially applicable
Not feasible due 10 waste degradatior,
inability to confirm stabilization,
and limited sphere of stabilizing
int luence
-------
final Draft RAP
O£/l2/89
Table 4.6 (continued)
Screening of Technologies and Processes for the Ground..W Her Quality Objective
General Response Action
Technology
Process
In situ treatment
Physical treatment
Clean water flushing and
circulation with subsequent
surface treatment
.' Soil gas venting
Chemical treatment
Chemical treatment water
Hushing and circulation
Enhanced subsurface
biodegradation
Biological treatment
) oa 5-
Screening Comments
Not feasible for wide scale application
Not feasible for wide scale application
Not feasible for wide scale application
Not feasible, not demonstrated for wide
scale application
-------
final Draft RAP
06/12/89
General Response Action
No Action Response
No action
Monitoring
Collection and On-Site
Treatment Response Action
Collection and discharge
Collection, on-site
treatment and di~charge
T A8lE ".7
SCREENING Of TECHNOLOGIES AND PROCESSES fOR
THE lANDfILL'-GA~ ACCUMULATION OOJECTIVE
T echnol02Y
process
None
None
Monitor subsurface
methane
Gas monitor welts
Capping
)oil cap, soil cap with
synthetic membrane
Gas barriers
Synthetic membrane, slurry
wall
Gas collection
Passive vents, action system
Discharge raw gas 10
atmosphere
Venting
Discharge raw gas to
user
Transport system
Capping
~'i)il cap, soil cap with
s'nthetic membrane
I of 2
Screening Comments
Does not meet objective
Po\entiaUy appHcabte
Not appticable, vertkat migration
does not pose hazard
PotentiaUy appHcabte at perimeter
tUI lateral migration control
PotentiaUy applicable at perimeter
PotentiaUy applicable
Not appticable, gas collected at
perimeter has insufficient methane
content to be used as a viable fuel
source
Not applicable, vertical migration'
does not pose hazard
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
Tabie 4.7 (continued)
Screening 01 Technoiogies and Processes tor the landfiU-Gas Accumuiation Objective
General Response Action
T echnoloJ.Y
rrocess
Screenin, Comments
Gas ban iers
Synthetic membrane, slurry
wall
Generally not required where active
perimeter system a5 employed
Gas collection
Passive vents
Not applicable for collecting gas for
treatment
Thermal treatment
; taring
Potentially appHcabte. perimeter
system tor migration control
PotentiaUy appHcabie for destruction
01 methane and trace organics
Active system
Recovery
Solvent adsorption,
adsorbenti, and membrane
separatior:
Not applicable, gas collected at
perimeter has insufficient methane
content to be recovered as a viabie
fuel source
Discharge flared gas \0
atmosphere
Discharge treated gas
to us~r
Venting
Poten.aaUy applicable
1 ransport system
Not applicable, gas collected at
perimeter has insufficient metha~e
coment to be used as a viabie Sue'
source
In Situ Treatment
Response Action
In situ treatment
In-situ treatment
Lrouting
Unproven tec~nology tor reducing gas
gen~ration
2 of 2
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
General Response Action
No Action Response
No action
Moni tor ing
Regulation
I .
Containment
Response Action
Containment
TABLE "'.1
PROCESS SCREENING AND SELECTION SUMMARY fOR
. TUE REfUSE-W AStOJT OBJECTIVE
T echnolo8Y
process Screened Out
None
No action
Monitor storm drain.
outfall for erosion
Slope indicators, visual
inspection
Regulate sand and
gravel mining
Capping
SoH cap, soH cap with
synthetic membrane.
as'.)hah cap, RCC cap,
co )Crete cap
Physical barrier
SIHry wall, steel sheet
pil :s, soil grouting
River channel
River grade control
structure
I ott 2
Process Retained
Regulate sand and gravel
mining
Concrete retaining wall,
reinforced earth wall,
compacted earth levee
Excavation, grading
Concrete structure, RCC
structure, soil cement
structure
Selected Representa-
tive Process
Regula te sand and
gravel mining
Excavation, grading
Compacted earth
levee
Soil cement
structure
-------
Final Uraft i
-------
final Draft RAP
06/12/889
PAtOCL.~~ ~L~U.L IIi :.. . ... ...t~&....., . j.;i ...iMMARY FOR
TilE SURFA:E-VJAlfR QUA-La"..- OIUECTlVf
General Response Action
T echnoi02Y
!'~ocess Screened Out
No Action Response
No action
None
No action
Monitoring
Monitor surface
water quality
. F endng
Water sampling
Access restrictions
Land use
restrictions
Land use
restrictions
Containment and
Diversion Response
Action
Containment and
diversion
Capping
Asphait cap, ace, cap,
concrete cap
Drainage improvements
~ o( fl
Process Retained
. fencing
Land use restrictions
SoH cap, soH cap with
synthetic membrane
Diversion, grading,
conveyance, detention,
outfaH
Selected Representa-
tive Process
Fencing
Land use
restrictions
SoH cap, soil cap
with synthetic
membr ane
Diversion, grading,
conveyance,
detention outfall
-------
final Draft RAP
O£, I 2/89
General Response Action
No Action Response
No action
Monitoring
Water supply
Containment and
Diversion Response
Action
Containment and
diversion
TABlE".IO .
PROCESS SCREENING AND SELECTION SUMMARY fOR
THE GROUND-WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVE
Technology
Process Screened Out
None
N) action
Ground-water
quality monitoring
Drinking water
distribution system
Vertical barrier
Steel sheet, pUe waU,
grouted watt, soU cement
dike, synthetic membrane
wall, slurry watt
Horizontal barrier
Synthetic membrane,
grout mat, soU cement
Ground water extraction
Subsurface drains
Trench drains, drain
fields
R oa }I
Process Retained
Existing monitoring
system
Expand existing COP
system
Deep production wells
Se8ected Repre&enta-
tive Process
Existing monitoring
system
Expand existing COP
system
-------
final Draft RAP
06/12/89
Table '1.10 (continued)
: Process Screening and Selection Summary tor the Ground-\\'atu Quality Objective
General RespOOSe Action
T echnologv
Collection, Pumping
and Treatment
Response Action
Collection, pumping,
on-site treatment,
and discharge
Ground-water pumping
Subsur face drains
Physical-chemical
treatment
Biological treatment
Discharge to aquifer
Discharge to Salt River
Discharge to irrigation
canal system
&2!;ess Ser ~ened Out
. fr :nch draills, drain
Ii. jds
Chemical 0) idation,
chemical reduction
8ioactivated sludge
Injection wells
2 o. 3
Process Retained
I
Deep production wells
Activated carbon, reverse
osmosis, filtration,
sedimenta t ion, coagula lion,
flocculation, strippina,
ion exchange, precipitation,
pH adjustment
Spreading basins
Transmission systems
Transmission system
~ J \ I .
Selected Representa-
tive Process
Deep production
wells
Activated carbon
Transmission sYStem
-------
final Draft RAP
06/12/89
Table 'If. to (continued)
Process Screening and Selection Summary for the Ground-Water QuahlJ Objective
General Response Action
T echnologv
Process Screened Out
Collection, pumping,
and oft-site treatment
Ground-water pumping
Subsurface drains
Trench drains, drain
fields
Discharge to POTW
In Situ Treatment
Response Action
Physical treatment
~ lean water flushing and
, c rculation with surface
. treatment, soil gas
v.:nting
In Situ Treatment
Chemical treatment
Chemical treatment water
flushing and circulation
Enhanced subsurface
biodegradation
Biological treatmenl
3 o~ :;;
Process Retained
Deep production wells
Discharge to POTW
Selected Representa-
tive Process
Deep production
wells
-------
final Draft RAP
06/12/89
General Response Action
No Action Response
No action
Monitoring
Collection and On-Site
Treatment Response
Action
CoUection and
discharge
T A8LE ".11
PROCESS SCREENING AND SELECTION SUMMAR Y fOR
TtIE LANDfilL-GAS ACCUMULATION 08JECTIVE
Technology
Process Screened Out
Process Retained
None
No action
Monitor subsurface
methane
Gas monitor weUs
Capping
Soil cap, soil cap with
synthetic membrane
--
Gas barr iers
Synthetic membrane,
slurry wall
Gas collection
Passive vents
Active system
Discharge raw gas
to atmosphere
V'.mt ing
Discharge raw gas
user
Transport system
I tJg 1
Selected Representa-
tive Process
Gas monitor wells
-------
final Draft RAP
06/12/89
Table 11.11 (continued)
Process Screening and Selection Summary for the Landfill-Gas Accumulation Objective
. General Response Action
T echnol08Y
Process Sctfeened Out Selected Representa-
Process Retained live Process .
Soil cap, .selil cap ".,ith
synthetic membrane
Synthetic membrane,
slurry wall
Passive vents Active system Active system
Flaring F lar ing
. Solvent absorption,
adsorbents, membrane
separ a t ion
Transport system
Venting Venting
Collection, on-site,
treatment, and
discharge
Capping
Gas barriers
Gas collection
Thermal treatment
Recovery
Discharge treated
gas to user
Discharge flared
. gas to atmosphere
In Situ Treatment
Response Action
In situ treatment
In situ treatment
Gr.outing
2d2
-------
Final Draft RAP
06" 2/89
TABLE ".12
SCREENING Of REfUSE-VI ASIiOUT OPTIONS
Option
RW-I
Option
RW-2
Option Details.
~
o Deep-seated levee 0 ShalJ.;>w-seated levee
with bank protection with bank protection
Cell A and A-I for Cell A and A-I
o Pipe and backfill for
the storm drain
outfall channel
o Wider river channel
between Cell A and
A-I
Effectiveness
Protectiveness
o Existing risks at
Cell A and Cell A-I
eliminated for 100-
year flow by physical
barrier along river
and pipe for the storm
drain outfall
-Expanded option details presented in Appendix B.
o Subsurface grade
control structure
across the river
channel
o Pipe and backfill for
the storm drain
outfall channel
o Wider river channel
between Cen A and
Cell A-I
o Existing risks at
Cell A and Cell A-I
eliminated for 100-
year flow by physical
barrier along river
and pipe for the storm
dram outfall
I of ]
Option
RW-)
o Deep-seated levee with
bank protection for
Cell A
o Pipe and backfiU lor
the storm drain outfall
channel
o Wider river channel
alongside Cell A
o Relocate Cell A-I to
Cell A
o Existing risks at
Cell A eliminated for
100-year flow by
physical barri~r along
river and pipe for the
storm drain outfall
Option
R" -If
o Shallow-seated levee
with bank protection
for Cell A
o Subsurface grade
control structure
across the river
channel
o Pipe and backfill for
the storm drain outfall
channel
o Wider river channel
alongside Cell A
o Relocate Cell A- I to
Cell A
o Existing risks at
Cell A and Cell A-I
eliminated for 100-
year flow by physical
barrier along river
and pipe for the storm
drain outfall
-------
final Draft RAP
06/ J 2189
Table 4.12 (continued)
Screening of Refuse-Washout Options
Option
~W-I
o Satisfies ARARs
o Community protected
during construction'
o Workers protected
during construction
o Protection achieved
aher construction
o Expected to be
protective for at
least 10 years
o Future exposures
prevented
o Periodic inspection
required
Option
RW-2
o Satisfies ARAR s
o Community protected
during construe tion
o Workers protected
during construction
o Protection achieved
a Cter construchon
o E 'pected to be
pr otective for at
least 30 years
o Ftuure exposures
pre~'ented
o Perio(hc insepction
required
20t 3
Option
~W-)
o Existing risks at
Cell A-I eliminated
by removal .
o Satisfies ARARs
o Some additional risk
to community from
transporting waste
across river
o Workers protected
dudng com_nuction
o Protection achieved
after construction
o Expected to be
protective for at
leas t JO years at
Ceil A. Permanent
protectiveness at
Cell A-I
o futUre exposures
prevented
o Periodic inspection
required
Option
R VI -It
o Existing risks at
Cell A-I eliminated
by removal
o Satisfies ARARs
o Some additional risk
to community from
transporting waste
across river
o Workers protected
during constructaon
o Protection achieved
after construction
o Expected to be
protective for at
least JO years at
Cell A. Permanent
protectiveness at
Cell A-I
o Future exposures
prevented
o Periodic inspection
required
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
Table ".12 (continued)
Screening of Refuse:-Washout Options
Reduction of Toxicity,
Mobility, of Volume
ImplementabiUty
.Technical FeasibiJity
Administrative
Feasibility
A vailabi Ii t Y
Cost
Capital Costs
Annual Costs
Present-worth Costs
Option
RVI-I
Option
RW-2
Option
RW-}'
Option
RW-'
o Option uses contain-
ment to reduce
mobility of refuse
o Option uses contain-
ment to reduce
mobility of refuse
o Option uses contain-
ment to reduce
mobility of refuse at
Cell A and removal to
reduce mobility and
volume at Cell A-I
o Option uses contain-
ment to reduce
mobility of refuse at
Cell A and removal to
reduce mobility and
volume at CeU A- J
o Conventional 0 Conventional 0 Conventional 0 Conventional
technologies techr.ologies technologies technologies
o Good performance 0 Good performance 0 Good performance 0 Good performance
expected expected expected expected
o Can be monitored by 0 Can be monitored by 0 Can be monitored by 0 Can be monitored by
periodic inspection periodic inspection periodic inspection periodic inspection
o Approval from other 0 Approval from others 0 Approval from others 0 Approval from others
agencies likely agencies likely agencies likely agencies likely
o Adequate work force 0 Adequate work force 0 Adequate work force 0 Adequate work force
and equipment available and equipment available and equipment available and equipment available
$
$
13,7)0,000
$
, $
12,270,000
10,500,000
. ",790,000
210,000
160,000
190,000
J 70,000
15,500,000
16,190,000
13,"20,000
17,"00,000
J o~ }\
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
Option Details*
Effectiveness
Protectiveness
TABLE ".1.3
SCREENING Of SURFACE-WATER OPTIONS
Option
S\\'-l
o Single-layer soil cap over
Cell A and Cell A-I
o Surface drainage at Cell A
and Cell A-I
o Fence around Cell A and
Cell A-I
o Relocate A&S Silica Sand
and All Chevy Auto Parts
o Existing risks at Cell A
and Cell A-I eliminated
by capping
o Satisfies ARARs
o Community protected during
construction
o Workers protected during.
construction
o Protection achieved after
construction
o Expected to have long-term
protectiveness
o Future exposures prevented
o Periodic inspection
required
*Expanded option details presented in Appendix B.
I of 2
. Option
S\\'-2
o Double-layer soil and
synthetic liner cap over
Cell A and Cell A-I
o Surface drainage at
Cell A and Cell A-I
o Fence around Cell A and
Cell A-I
o Relocate A&S Silica Sand
and All Chevy Auto Parts
o Existing risks at Cell A
and Cell A-I eliminated
by capping
o Satisfies ARARs
o Community protected during
construction
o Workers protected duril1g
construction
o Protection achieved after
construction
o Expected to have long-term
protectiveness
o Future exposures prevented.
o Periodic inspection
required
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
Table 4.13 (continued)
Screening of Surface-Water Options
Option
511-1
RedUCtion of
Toxicity,
Mobility, or
Volume
ImplemenUbiJity
Technical
Feasibility
Cost
Adm inistra tive
F e4Sibili ty
A vailabili ty
. Capi tal Costs
Annual Costs
Present-worth
Costs .
o Option uses containment
to reduce mobility of
contaminants
o Conventional technologies
o Good performance expected
o Can be moni tored by periodic
inspection
o Approval Irom other agencies
iikely
o Adequate work force and
equipment available
s
9,770,000
190,000
12,690,000
2 of 2
Option
5W-2
o Option uses containment
to reduce mobility of.
contaminants
o Conventional technologies
but liner-installation
covers larger area than
any previous similar
application
o Good performance expected
but not verifiable
o Could only be monitored
..." 8v...a.....;,.- I A""'! ,.
-J -..--.._4t.- ........,
detection leak system
o Approval frnrn ':'~...~~
i\gef'C'ie-e likely
o Adequate work force and
equipment available
s
13,050,000
260,000
17,050,000
-------
Final Draft RAp.
061 12/8c)
Option Detailsit
Effectiveness
Protectiveness
TABLE 4.14
scREENINc OF GROUND-WATER OPTIONS
Optian
GVI-l
o Ground-water quality
monitoring
o Ground-water use monitoring
o Expand existing COP water
o Future potential exposures
to ground water at the-
boundary of the landfill is
prevented
o Expected to be protective
to human health for at
least 30 years
o Satisfies ARARs
.Expanded option details presented in Appendix 8.
1 of 2
Option
GVI-2
o Ground-water quali ty
monitoring
o Ground-water well and
pump system
o Ground-water treatment
system
o Ground-water discharge
system
o Future exposures to degrade
ground water are prevented
o Protective of the off-site
environment
o Satisfies ARARs
o Workers protected during
const" ,~"'il"'''
o. Community protected during
and after construction.
o Periodic insepction and
maintenance required
o Expected to be protective
for at least 30 years
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
Table 4.14 (continued)
Screening of Ground-Water Options
Option
GW-l
Reduction of
Toxicity,
Mobility, Of
Volume
ImpAementabili ty
T echnica!
Feasibility
Administrative'
F easibili ty
Availability
Cost
Capi tal Costs
Annual C,,)sts
Present-worth
CostS
o No remediation measures
taken
o Conventional moni toring and
water supply technologies
o DWR cooperation required to
monitor use. AU processes
needed in place and easily
implemented
o Adequate work force and
equipment are available
$
o
bO,OOO
920,000
2 of 2
Option
CW-2
o Prevents ground wa tel'
from moving off-site
o Reduces constituents in
collected ground water
through treatment
o Reduces the volume of
leachate produced if
ground-water levels are
lowered
o Conventional technologies
for coUection, treatment,
and disposal
o Good performance eX~P("'tprl
o Administrative
implementation easily
accomolished
o Irrigation district
approval is uncertain
o Adequate work force and
equipment are available
$
3,140,000
860,000
16,360,000
-------
Pinal Draft RAP
06/12/8'
Optian Details-
Effectiveness
Protectiveness
Reduction of Toxicity,
Mobility, or VoJume
Implementability
T echnicaJ F easibili ty
TABLE 4.U
SCREENINC OF LANDFILL-cAS OPTIONS
Option
LG-l
o Landfill-gas monitoring
o Landfill-gas collection system
o Landfill-gas treatment by flai-ing
o Existing risks reduced by collecting gas;
remaining risks Jow, remedy is protective
o Objective met
o Community protected during remedial actions
o
Works protected during construction
o Protection achieved after construction
(1 year)
o Collection and treatment system expected to be
protective Jong term (30 years)
o FutUre exposure can be prevented
o Periodic maintenance and replacement of
materials expected
o Option uses collection to reduce mobility
of gas, and flaring to reduce hazard
o ConventionaJ technologies
o Good performance expected
o Can be monitored by periodic inspection
-Expanded option details presented in Appendix 8.
1 of 2
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
Table 4.1' (continued)
Screening of LandfiU-Gas Options
Administrative Feasibility
Availability
Cost
Capital CostS
Annual CostS
Present-worth Costs
Option
LG-l
o Approval from other agencies likely
o Adequate work force and equipment available
$
850,000
70,000
L,930,000
2 of 2
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
TABLE ".1'
EVAL JATION Of AL.TERNATIVES
:Alternative '\Iternative Alternative Alternative
A 8 .c D
Effectiveness
Protectiveness
Short Term 0 Sisnificant public o. Sisnificant public 0 Significant public 0 Significant public
health and the health and the health and the health and the
environmental risks environmental risks environmental risks environmental risks
elimin~ted at Cell A eliminated at Cell A eliminated at Cell A eliminated at Cell A
and A-I for refuse and A-I for refuse. and A-I for refuse and A-I for refuse
washout. surface washout. -iurface washout. surface washout. surface
water. and ground water. and ground water. and ground water; and ground
water water water water
o Significant oft-site 0 Significam off-site 0 Significant off-site 0 Significant oft-site
accumulation of gas accumula tion of gas accumulation of gas accumulation of gas
eliminated. On-site eliminated. On-site eliminated. On-site eliminated. On-site
risk low risk low risk low risk low
I 0 Satisfies objective 0 Satisfies objective 0 Satisfies objective 0 Satisfies objective
I. 0 Community protected 0 Community at additional 0 Community protected 0 Community at additional
during construction risk from transporting during cons~ruction risk from transporting
refuse across the river refuse across the river
and on public roads and on public roads
o Workers protected 0 Workers protected 0 Workers protected 0 Workers protected
during construction during construction during construction during construction
A uf ))
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12189
Table 4.16 (continued)
Evaluation of Alternatives
long Term
Reduction 0'
Toxic Exposure,
Mobility, and
Refuse Volume
Alternative
A
o Protection achieved
alter construction
(I year)
o Expected 30-year
protection
o Future exposures
prevented
o Periodic inspection
required
o Maintenance required
for gas system
o Containment to reduce
mobility of waste
from washout and
infiltration.
CoUection to reduce
mobility of gas.
Treatment to reduce
gas hazard.
AI'.ernalive
8
o Protection achieved
after construction
(& year),
o Expected 30-year
protection. Permant'nt
protecti,'n . \1 Cell A. I
site
o Future e 'Pl sures
prevente ;j
o Periodic an: )ection
required
o Maintenance required
for gas system
o Containment 10 reduc:e
mobility of waste
from washout and
surface water infil-
tration at Celt A.
Removal to eliminate
refuse in Cell ~-I.
Collection to reduce
mobility (,f gas.
Treatment to reduce
gas haz ud.
2 of }
Alternative
C
o Protection achieved
alter construction
(a year)
o Expected 30-year
protection
o Future exposures
prevented
o Periodic inspection
required
o Maintenance required
for ground-water and
gas systems
o Containment to reduce
mobility of waste
from washout and
surface-water infil-
tration. Collection
to reduce mobility of
gas 'and ground water.
, Treatment to reduce
8as hazard and ground
water risk.
i. I
Alternative
D
o Protection achieved
alter construction
U year)
o Expected 30-year
protecdon. Permanent
protection at Cell A-I
site
o Future exposures
prevented
o Periodic inspection
required
o Maintenance required
for ground-water and
Bas systems
o Containment to reduce
mobility of waste
from washout and
surface water infil-
tration at Cell A.
Removal to eliminate
refuse in Cell A- J.
Collection to reduce
mobili t y of gas and
ground water. Treat-
ment to reduce gas
hazard and ground water
risk.
-------
final Draft RAP
06/12/89
Table ".16 (continued)
Evaluation of Alternatives
Implementability
Technical
feasibitity
Administrative
feasibihty
Availability
I
I
I
Alternative
A
Alternative
8
Alaernative
C
Alternative
D
o Conventional 0 Conventional 0 Conventional 0 Conventional
technologies technologies technologies technologies
o Good performance 0 Good performance 0 Good performance 0 Good performance
expected expected expected expected
o Can be moni tored by 0 Can be monitored by 0 Can be monitored by 0 Can be monitored by
periodic inspection periodic inspection periodic inspection periodic inspection
o Easily implemented 0 Easily implemented 0 . Easily implemented 0 Easily implemented
with existing with existing with existing with existing
programs. Approval programs. Approval programs. Approval programs. Approval
from other agencies from ot.her agencies from other agencies from other agencies
likely. likely. likely. takely.
o Adequate work force 0 Adequate work force 0 Adequate work force 0 Adequate work force
and equipment and equipment and equipment and equipment
available available available available
} oU ~
-------
randl UrdJL KAt-'
06/12/89
Table 11.16 (continued)
Evaluation of Alternatives
Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative
A 8 C D
Cos ts
Direct Capital $
Costs $ 21,120,000 23,8110,000 $ 24,260,000 $ 26,980,000
Indirect Capital
Costs 6.3110.000 7,UO.000 7 .280.000 8.090,000
Total Capital $ $ $
Costs 27,"60,000 ),1,990,000 $ J 1,)110,000 )),070,000
Direct Annual
Costs )10,000 1170,000 1,310,000 1,270,000
Indirect Annual
Costs )00,000 )20.000 )70.000 )80.000
Total Annual
Costs $ 1,010,000 $ 990,000 $ 1,880,000 $ 1,8)0,000
Present Worth
U9b, 30 years) $ 42,990,000 $ .6,210,000 $ 60,4"0,000 $ 63,'10,000
" of ,
-------
final Draft RAP
06/12/89
Table II .16 (cont inued)
Evaluation of Alternatives
Compliance with
ARARs
Overall Protec-
tion of Human
Health and the
Environment
I
I
I
Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative
A 6 C D
i
0 ARARs for around 0 ARARs for ground 0 ARARs for ground 0 ARARs for around
water, surface water, water, surface water, water, surface water, water, surface water,
soH, and air will soH, and air will soil, and air will soil, and air wilt
be complied with be complied with be complied with. be complied with
for chemical, for chemical, for chemical, for chemical,
location, and action location, and action loca tion, and action location, and action
criteria criteria criteria . criteria
o Adequate protection 0 Adequate protection 0 Adequate protection 0 Adequate protection
of human health and of human health and' of human health and of human health and
the environment is the environment is the environment is the environment is
achieved through achieved through achieved through achiev~d through
engineering and engineering and engineering and engineering and
institutional institutional institutional institutional
comrols controls controls controls
jd5J
-------
tlliUt-H:~
, ,
"
, ,
,.
-------
,
:r-
i
!
;
...--.-
PHOENIX
I
,
;
I
.
/1
/:Ii
! :':i:::>
: .:;~~:
, :':::~::
:11
=*t
':::if:
po.. 1111
-
. '~
Iz
;111 A
I>
,c
:=
lat :
1- a , 2 3
Sea..
. (mll_)
I ~10 : ----~}i---~ r-:/''<,~--:''-
::~ ~::::==----,._'_. ' /~~
.r ''''''''''''--'~'. ." .~."'- '" ..... . ~
. ,.."-.-..-'-'--:1:...' _.
~~/-sALT I ~D'F~E
Q
~~............... -
,,-- ...--." ~ ~
. ~ SOUTH ~
...- --.....-.<'- MOUNT AJM ~
,-..-.,..-..., ""'/-.._.._..._.._.._..._.~::~"73'~:'
~_.--.--
.......--
--
..,...-----...
---
~......--
-.-
.-.-
SITe LOCATION MAP
19th AVENUe LANDFILL
Figure 1.1
-------
-ti1,-,.,,,,; " ._"" '-'.~."" t8Q" ,',,- "i..':.' -' '.~. :'.,~~-',:' '-~"'-."-1.f:".~~:-...
1.;7- :. . ""..,:,.,,:~ . "~:;' ;-~' -, -. ..~', -....' '-. '..-~.:.....
-""'1~'.~1 . :-'~.-:-""7'~t' .~-;.- ,- - -~...".~... "" ~;' "'~:~ -~.--=' I'~~~~'~
- :...'-.;::" . .-:"--"k;:-':'" t. t&~~.. :' < :, ~ ' ,Z - '!::;-::. ~ .:"- "'''~'~ Y.~'~~4':: ~
:~ .fJlJ;:: 1;;...,~. I ~J ; ;_: ; ~~.~ -"', -:.-.:8 ~:, .,..,-:-.::..;.., .', ,~- ..:.' ~~.-~j.I~~;~ .~: , I ".
a,..: ~;l ~Jr"-"'0' ~. -=s:" ::.-= c ,',':,' ~:;.;' . "i<~ .;'~ ~~.~':'"' N'
,=.:. .: ._~.~:_,--.-..., "'~ 1 ~., ' ~~ .-~.~ .- 0 ---;; ., -. ',:~"l:<, ::::.:2~;' ~;~: ~ ;,:,: ;":'~ I ~
."' '. ~,:'.J_@" .~:.- . ~ @ --.. ,::-. ,". '@ :- PHOENIX ;~oO "':"'1..':~.::, .-:.:, '-1-
~. . .~~- - : ~,'~'-LOWER BUCKEYE ROAD '.c J . ,-~. TALLOW, ri c1:::=j~..~ ..
~;: ~-" ~..'-'" - f, ''!r~._._._._.-I- "'~ :;t-._- ,- -, 'oZ--.
.." .,@~ -- :'--, - - -"" :Jlm~~ ~ 0 ~
-,<,,'.], ~,','-. '1"'~'II'r~£~:~~~i~..~:,~~ ~'.. .,~~'
. ~- . . -; ~. ,~~ r@~~",.~, - ; ~;,\ :i'... ", " .. _: .' .
'.--! ;' - . ~ -::. . ~-' :..._~~.>: I" '., ""';..~-t'i . , PIKE PIT', . '
;~~."".-" ,.::~~:.,~,,~ ._._~: B''''~''UNAc;,~IVE)' '.
i '1 ~.l-' ""'I r' ~ .', " I '. - -.. -' -. "
£ '. ': ','" . ~ .:';: :~" ... M8 SlUCA , .~'~i~ .t ~ ' " ':~/~"- coO ~,..::.:-- . .' .~:
..~t " .,.::.~~~, , ,.' ... r'.. ' : ~ ,- .-c"
. .~... . -.; ". ~I. .., ~ It' ~ ..
~ .;..,. ..; " '~:: £~~ !. . C EL L~A ' : ~.,~ 1:~'b'~R"'~, j. ,-"-, ~iYJf .
--~- - -~:. ;;~":.., - , . , .' 1 . OUTFALL CHANNEL 1\11 A VENU
-~, t ~.;..' ~(!):' i ','.' .~ \'" ~:/; ." .' --" )~~~RIOG~'
:;TANNER PIT -, - ...~.' ." ~~' " ,..: ~:.._:':
~ (ACTIVE) - ~ :~; U. . ' . " ,'" ,,' " ,,' ,,' :.'
. '- - , , .~., ,/ £ ' .
"'-'::""'.' ,~..'.. .,.~' ~\.~~"'iI, ."'"
:< ".: :'.~ ~ -~. . "'~ t! ':, . \~- r~. ' C~~~~ ~--~ ~~ ;~
...~r:: X;J.. ' ~ - "
.. - ... ~ -~. '';''. .! . .. . . ~ ~ ". ". . -..
", ..,' -. .,;.,~ - ".-- . C' Ell:~.:, 1;'-\. ,.,uNION ROCK~
.-::' _..-- '. . ~' .~ -",,;., !'.T (ACT"V~):
~19th AV~~UE, - ~ , ,-,~'..', - :...:~' ....... '.'--A::;_~1 if' "i ;~:~~-, ~~~«:;.:.I
8RIOO~-.: '. ~.. . -.. P'"',, . - 1!T...:r.:~ "'x '.
. -.,.. ., --.. f. - ..~.. '. ... .. ~...t..,. " . ~--
. _.----.. - , .. - ,-. ---' :.;;J(tJ" ~..f.-:.":'~~ 1-1
.;::,-. - '!'- "- '. -. -~ ;. ",,'- .'~, ,-'.,-'" . ,:".~---':""""..:.\:~ -
.' _c--". '"... :--t'.' -=~~. ~ '..-~'. . . - -. -:... ~ ;"1. 1 ,..-, . ,'".w. ~, :~.'. ~:.~J.. ," ~ ':.
. .'" ~-.:. ..... .'.;.tr... ..~ .:1.;'.".' - I."" . ..".... .~. ...~'"".:v:.~t?"..:.,.-W:'
....-~~ ~~.;.:~-; ~.~'"~ ~,' 'J'., PETERS '~'T'~ ~~.=i L~'. ',--e' ::.-, ~. :'e;~..~.:s-~~,-~" ~'
;t~~.., i';:~/'~~~I~'~~:'. '\, " .kUNACTIVI!)~'~k:~"'=~-:: I ~~~.'::,',;~~-,;11.h~~::~.
"-.,. ",;'::' '~.,.;~. .' ~.. > :.-".-; - = ~....,. ,.' " . ,. " ' '~::':"'." -';' - '--:';"(~1.:&. -.. .... ....~' '< ...
,t""~I~" ,.', 1. < ~'-. ~ r::r.::--..hi' ~.' --.-" '. '-~~'" - "
~/1O "t, ' :~, r. ~~. . :,:t:: S =--= -... '...,... i . ~ L:~~': .. U J:;t"'" ,1 I' ~. t, 'i-. .' ".::s.; =-
','" ,'., -' . - ..:sU \..., -- .." .. .-y~,"",. - ..'- ...'-"'i' t . ';-". : ~.,- 1'00 :
' ':','-:: :-,::~,:-~';".. ':-.~~:::;,::_~.~ .,..~~ ':-.~--:,'~: ~'-~ BROAOWAY ROAO~~~....: "~~)'.
.- . .... ~ '''..... .... i..~ .:.7:".,. ~111\ ~\L..t7 ..~'" '::-..,- 8'; \.:--.~=.iL=i.
LEGEND: SCALE
U_.- APPROXIMATE 80UNDARYO 1000
OF 19t1l AVENUE LANDFILL I I
FEET
2000
I
ADJACENT BUSINESSES:
1. 8LU8 CI RCLE
2. CAUPORNIA ARIZONA TRACTOR (CAT)
3. KAI88R CEMENT CORP.
4. WAS,.. MANAGEMENT INC.
5. ALL CHEVY AUTO PARTS (ACAP)
8. A&a SILICA SAND
1. LINCOLN AUTO OF PHOENIX
8. CHEVRON-ASPHALT DIVISION
8. BEVERAGE INDUSTRY RECYCLING
PROGRAM (8IRP)
10. THE TANNER COMPANIES-UNITED
METRO MATERIALS DIVISION
11. HAATER WM MANUF ACTUAl NO INC.
12. PHOENI X TALLOW
13. WESTERN BLOCK CO.
14. UNION ROCK AND MATERIALS COR~.
15. fWCHEM
19th AVeNUE LANDFI LL
AND VICINITY
Figure 1.2
-------
I
I
I,
I
I
[
- - -...--.. .-..-- - ---r - ----.--
' I 11= ~)
H I -
-
- l 1111 A~ENUE
-
NM 9rh A 'IE/WE J
... O:::J
w
w
a: .
1111> AVE/M: ... 0
~.., ~ " '"
~ ..
.
S t
0
i: .
. C
::; TnB TtlC ;
..:- 15111 AVEr"JE
- ._._._._._._.~J~ p.-.-.-.,
.. .. .
..... '" , ' \ tI' ~ I
CJ .. '7 . .
CC ~ ...... ~
... , .~ 11 ~.._._.J
- 1-- "
'"' .
. '" ~ HIli ,"'/EllIJE
I 1 1>
,~ \~ :
<
j ;;
~
.
r !
T I J::un ~'JE'IU!:
- II. .'T2lC
I UlA r- ~
T2lB -
< 1/ -fr
i--- I :;:
, ""
>-
\ w
\ "
\
'---' . 0]
'"
," w
t
I -: '::J
2:"" AVErllJE - J
~'
.JI \\ ') "
I
l - ) I I \
I \
I ------1
r .
:'
I'
,
lEGEND:
.'
SEDIMENT SAM~l!
- DIRECTION OF IIIV!" no"
'-'-
APPROXIMATE lANO'llllOUNO""y
-z
SCAli
0 1000 1000
Fru
SEDIMENT SAMPLING.
lOCATIONS
19th AVENUE ,lANDFill
Figure 2.5
1
-------
...-. .---.
. --
:1 .,...
.~. t..
.. 'l - -
-=~ ~:-i ; ~ i I , ,.-
- : ;', ., -~, I .
.." ~. i' PIKE PIT ,..'
. .. :UNACTIVeJ .
I .:':?-L'"-~ ;
'i,e..: :~. . if:
-...-re:- I - '
,
""'~.
, :,
Ii. --"
:ii. .
I .
I. . ;i-
i . - -li~ ~ -..,.,.
Ur'. L-"I-I~
u ~- ..._,. -_.
. :; Ii " :
. !.,
. g '1'
~ " . .' ~'.I:i :
, r.,g. . : - STOAM OR
~~ ~ .~J'i CEL~A ~ j . - in: ~::~~~~
-:.~~.. '. Ii ,,!:- ::... . - i~;"':
.r''''~:!'\ .'.~: I A'./,o - .
"~f~~:~';T- ~ 11'i!!:.,~~. -. ~.~: - - -.)! -'C "'- ~
. . - - . Iii,.; - ."', '.. , '.': '. .
~~:.:':'r;' "..--!...~,r""'-' ".- ::-~~ - -. :.,.-;-.~~-
r. - . a-- . ~ ~i-' I 8 .' ....,. ~~"', ;'/" /-
; .. < ,:8 : ,~ .;. ,. . ~" . >i'r-~ ,. '. . . /'. .
" "'. tJ;. i i'j'-!' , . ;,'';'' ,..t." c:. , ,,1' . '.",-"./
'-I! ...,. :r. t I,.:.. -,' . .~.~. "... ."...~,.
.' - .,'-' ~ : 0; 8. ....~r. ","'.-. ,--",'.- . .:_8 ':'.'
.. .., '..:; . ,!. .. '''''.iI! .;-
~,,~,...<..., J.',:-. 't, ,~.-.", .. - '~~r.ELL' !" L ' .
~.~ .~ .; _-.-.,-:.: . ,.........",-.~ ",:" ,.
, ~ ~:..-.. ..,., ~-..,... ~ ., . 10.
. - ,1.-' .. . -"r" .,...!~-"_:.." . .'
. ,.."AveNuIL.' .-' . ,'.' .-, I . UI~ION ;1OC
- BAIOGI .. ;' . '\..'. Ai PIT (...c.r,
';, . ~' -1.
PITEAS PIT-------:
~t.. . (lNACTIVEJ ~.'>.'-,r
: . .~ '!I ~
I r i.
-.,. .,
...... ., :.. "-.---...., c:;
Ae,r"UCI: us AAMY COA~S 0' rNGINUAS ....,
...'
- - .
-
-.
.'
. ,
~ .
\ .
,.
.
CI
SCAU
SOO
~ .
I
100-YEAR
FLOODPLAIN LIMITS
19th AVENUE LANDFILL
Figure 2.6
1200
FUT
LEGEND:
.._1. A~~"OXU"ATE 80UNOA"Y 0'
II." AYINUE LANO"LL
A~~"OXIMATI LIMITS 0'
loo-yrAA 'LOOO~LAIN
,..2'."",,'
-------
, 'v
11= r-=7 - .-.- , , ~ . .
I'
-'-'
I r-- i '~
- i l 7Ih MENUE
-
0
i 9th A VEtlUE -
< =::r
::;
1 Ith Ave~ 0 I
'\' ~ a
c
:; ~
- - IU 15th "VE'"JE
TILl
'---'_'___8_____' p.-.-.-..,
. . .
.... ~ \ ~ I
. . .
- - '\ \:. ~ .._._.J
~ '" ~. .
. f ~ Hlh .-VEllIJE.
I ~ i \\~ >
,. i
<. . c
B ;; ,~
..
-
! ,;
( ~, I~I~ ":~rJUE!!
I" I
..' Tn' r 1
i uu ~ ,..... .....
~ ~
~ I .e-
\. w /
\ >-
\ w
"
\ Jl
-~ ' . as au
c:
\~
~
22nd AVEI/UE
~
~ ,"n
I ..
l "' ) ~ I
j , ,
' I l-----~ I
lEGEND:
.
9AMPliNO LOCATlOII
. -. APPRO."" IE LANDFILL BOUNDA""
-z
SCAli!
0 1000 1000
FUT
SURFACE WATER
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
19th AVENUE LANDFILL
Figure 2.4
1
-------
~
1
L-
--r
A'
'I
'I
58-1
~
1-
_1
C'
P8'
~~
c
-
~
L-
-I
0'
-
~-
~
t
.......
, "'"
. I I I.F
,.u
....
--I
.m
tl-L -
p- W-~'I._~G8-"-
D8-~.--"'-'I-
A-_.___.u.y,-
---.-----
ESTIWATED THICKNESS
OF REFUSE
19th -... Landfill
""II... ....... I flU
a-r C.O" ..CTIO..
------.&.
:;'~~_=-:_J ~)~,~;
-------
'i
e-
~,
58-1 0
,
\
:!POO"
paoo
L-
~ .
j
Q
I-~
.~.
l!!L n --1:8
'mY
m
-+ --..----
+ ----
. - -.-, . - ........ -. 1-
..-.---.-
..-.----".-
---.----.-
uatG8 "'''IIM.. .. ) t(U
- ..TUMT8D 8OUIIO""'0II LMIOf'Iu.
LANDF'ILL BOUNDARIES
AND LOCA 110114 OF'
SOIL BORINGS
19th AVENUE LNlOF'ILL.
--, --
------
...., co. - r- .. AUIC..
,-...... ...........
GIID.-.-r. ..,.
..... 1.1
-------
-. ~-- --
--- 'i II
1 sa-I
TL-2
2
+ ,CJQz,)l
.,.. +
p8
+
-2
4 58-3
~
..ooci!
06
10
~
r
+08-8
+
..ooor:
!~
+
1\-6
""""L
A-II
~-9
.,yoaoo
t
i-
t
-oooi
t
1
"DO.,
~. .J::"..j~...:--==-~
.(0
m
~o6 -:-: ~s . .... SIaL" -. ..-
.. . ..., . -- .,. --.. ,-
. - 0-.. -- -. -. MY ,"
.--.----..
...---..--.-
--------...- .-.-
ESTIWA TED TOP
OF REfUSE
,"' ...... l.andftI
. ...,..... "L-- ... ') '..'
-----
- - - Uthlaft8,. - ...... AI -...w
,..u
-------
6'
!oJ
~
~ 1040
1=
~
...
...
,.
SOUTH
1120
10110
1000
980
E
SALT RIVER
°
I
HORllONTAl SCAl[
400
V[RnCAl SC).lE
40
1100
o
~
r[ET
rEET
E:LJ REfUSE
NOTE: THE CROSS SECTION ALIGNMENT IS
SHOWN ON fiGURE 2.3
LOWER
BUCKE'fE ROAD-
,
1987 LANOF"lLL SURf ACE-
\
ESTIMATED TOP Of REfUSE
-ESTIMATED BOTTOM OF REFUSE
80
~
E'
NORTH
\ 1120
\
\
\
'080
-
...
...
~
1040 !
~
...
,z
I
I
]
")()()
~60
SUBSURFACE
CROSS SECTION E -E'
19th AVENUE LAfU)F"lLL
Figure 2.7
-------
~
'-. <::.:~
" !" I ".: .
,"' I 1 I I c', ~; i
\1 j
J; !
'\
.'
-------
I
it; "
".
I
111 ~
. ,:1. D..-I
- ',./,,- CLUIT£A
" .:~~ - -0- .'\,::,:~;~~',': 11,( "-~~:;;,--;._~...._~~~'~'-"~~:
- - -' .' ~~j. f:::-~ f~ -~i1 ~tli: ,r' . :::1~;j~:~~';;~'~~
~ . 0"-.,- (- ~.if1iji'ITJ:1? ~: ";:':1- /~:~"~'~tjlO i
- ~~..... ~, .~~ '1~~~11 i!I,!- 8M l~:O~:,;.., ....(-~'!., n .:.. Towt!,~ ~
:',..L.e..... - I'IIJ~" . .':' Ii"' ... ... '~~ '. .', r ',. .
/-;;' I' 1 >'-='i~:. !. ..~ . :, '.: . ,'U:;' Jiu ". II' ..' ..-'=-
/':' -,'- "00 , ~. ~;-_:__~~~i~~~;: "~::.!!r. :: .1;,...---:::(""'''
/. - ~ ~ ,J" .... ."'......".".'--:' . "~.
/'" I '.,,'. , . / ,L . .r" ".. .
.' 8- "'!' I '.. . .J'~~-~ . ~ ,; L..,/,,:
/ ,.' E~ lO~ ~ - ..4 - f S F~ / -. -. .' . .,1-::;: : "':""'~-":
l . , ' ...,,1' -.. -_!. Co .J. - .'] I .., :'...~::::: .' " /:;,:;.'c~:~
''--''.:-::;.' - ----; 0"-2 ~....-.,. i~':~'-'.~."._T' _.. .... - ]"' ~ : ": ' :....: /:~:. '~~....: ::'
z;=--/', .-. ~.- .-' "C..'] \'!:H:H\., ':,f!'." ,,-://'~'t',~~:.~\,
, :/ / c...------. I i ..o~':~ '- .-1--.,.-. . .' .;;:::::::::='1 ~ -- ,,,I,, ~,/ """"., . J -~:o... ....',
~-/~ ~~~.~..-.[J .' i~'~=~t::~:J:~ ---':i.1:: ~ ~~':":!~;~):~j!ijlji~ :; (~ ~-~;~ ~i ,':~,:,:.. . :./_~:L.:' \
L.../'~r . !~.: 8.:£.:-::::. .~~) -//-=::. ~a"! I:j~~~:::!!!j!!:!!wt
~ .,.-1-', " . '{ -- .~' 1 ;;;;;;;;;:;;;;;;:;:;:"
.. ---.' i Cjf.>->")---- . r~;jj~
~i-l:;'~i ~~"' .~..-, i i~~J-L ~:::D;"~;;~~;;:::.~~:""....
'f>'" A~~~"" ~ ~~J~~
.-' ( ~;-- \ r !~'--_R~R;"o~;--:::;r~?f:t:~::::;iIT
('~~i-$l' :! '~:~IT/~/, ~.~:~~~.~~-,~~:
/. I .(". 00.... :.:. '.; -' .... ~~ ~'YER SOUTH ,;:..;:;:;'" .
r.. "..;1 F'",r. ;"" ~"I,,"lo3.2;:-./ . ;t;...., ;""'~'-'. -oJ '':;';-: ....
c~ ";"-- ',if. ,-. r ~ .. , ..
/' :": J ' .!~,.' ,.. ,/.' .-" .-
=:-~." '.=' ,---"'-'-.- ". L,.;'-;' .~.,/ ~ . ;"'!~':AHOOHEO: -
-~. '......-~ -- .-!-." (# ,-_. /,..
", '. I-'-"-,~,: . --. i"''', y-,> '~'..- '- .;'':\1 \,)/
~'. ..::." .':);:f"':'~ -~.;~_/ '/I'~/I --~~~, na"I~:".:.'. -- /
. t--_. -.. - / // I~::'; t/:. )3'1 ....~. 0"-'-1
'.. ~~~:'I : " <--'-~~~' ..,.':':": .::~ HI:. . 0l1li-6-0
t: ..' - l....- . .~.... ., 1::- f. ~ all -/.. .;.: ,'"
,"?=:'~~5~ ;.r~~\~~:.-=~;~; - ,
-~
:- --
"--- --
I,_~
""'..
~
-..;
,
"
c
f
M
o
~'-
SCALE
1000
2000
FEET
ti~
I};s;o--,
MONITOR WELL
LOCA TIONS
t~lh AVENUE lANDfill
..
-------
---~-,
,,'- - - - . ,-.' ,. ,
50
100
110
zoo
210
300
380
400
..0..'. .
. . 0 . "
. .'. ' .
o . 0
.. .
o 0 . .
.00,..
a~
A,
.. .. .
. .
, . . .
--
o
. .
o .
o
,'. ,.
'. .
~",~~'h:::': ~.~. ;;:..~~
. . 0 O' 0 QP-SP
" . ,.' .
. .
~.~:;:,;."..~~.=:
" .. .
. . - . '
.. ..
. .
~
';-,' ~'..'~
. -' 0--:- If-G
~ '.'='~
II
~~.=.
~ O~ '.
.' -',
-.-
. . . .'.'
- ~
i '. '.
~.~--.
..~o.~.
aM
C
. .
'.
- -
.. .... .
..:,.... ~
. .~.. .
. -.
. , . . .
'., ..,
.-'
If-G
IoIPU ...200
-0' ,-
. -'.
-. -
.,.- .
~'.=:
- CO.TACT
- - T1tAN.moNAL CONTACT
.U"IPW!D SOl. CLA.S~ATlO" SYSTeM
15
10
so-so
IZO
DI!SCRI~N
. SILTY SAND. BROWN TO LIGHT BROWN. SO-6a~
FINE TO MEDIUM SAND. 30-40: SILT cIrri C:';''(,
<10% GRAVEL. TRACE CALICHE.
GRAVEL. 80-90% FIrIE iO C:JARSE "RAVEL;::O
COBBLES. 20-10: ~E!)!IJM ~O C:JARSE S':::C, :':--.
TO 110 F !tiES.
SANDY GRAVEL. 60- iO~ FHIE ':'0 C:;ARSC: ji<':-:~:",
30-40:' FIrIE iO C:JARSE S':':ID, "1~:CR 5::" ~,
[IICREASIIiG FUIES (SAliD & S;L7) .;I;~ :~~-:;.
INTERBEDDED SAND (SP) LENSES.
.SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL. ~EDDISH gROWN,
40-50% FINE TG MEDIUM SAND. 4O-50~ SiLT
WITH CLAY. la-IS: FINE GRAVEL.
SANDY GRAVEL ',11TH S iL i :'110 ::";Y, ;RG'~:-i,
40-50: F!NE TO ~E~IUM ~RAVELS, ~O-:0~
FINE TO COARSE SAND. Q-2D~ SiLT '~I;~ Ct..;-'.
INTERBEDDED SAND (SP) AND GaAVEL (G?)
LENSES. DECRE~SINC ;INES (SiLT ~ E!.~{)
WITH DEPTH.
SILTY SAND '"jITH 5RAVEL. CL..~VE'f SIL 75, 3::
-------
'il
J
m
I S50
Z
e
5
011-3-0
t055.3'"
NW
1050
150
~
750
850
r TOTAL DEPTH
370n
LEGEND
--
011-'
t052.35 H
TOTAL DEPTH
300".
-T-
PROJECTED Sua-UNIT CONTACT
-PROJECTI!O lua-UHfT CONTACT
ITRANSITIONAU
lANDFIU.
DM-t
tCMO.30 'T
SALT
RIVER
At
AI
8
C
TOTAL DIPTH
300"
--'1-
--1-
..'U
011-5-0
lDe3.'M "
SE
TOTAL OPTH
300H
HORIZONTAL ICAll!
P t~ 1000
F Et
VERTICAllCAll!
P I~O 'cr .'
HEY
-a:rt:J
I
~
I
~
HOT TO SCALI
lEGEND:
UIITING WEll
. NEW WEll
GEOLOGIC
CROSS SECTION
19th Avenue land'"
Figure 2.11
1
-------
-----.
. ~ ..
'.;~.~c-
: ~:.:; C~ -
~
'Of'l7 ~n -.
::
- ..
: i JC: ~O ~
,
.... ,
". ,
~ .
.j' '.JOO 00 ~
-;91 ~O -
,
j9~ 00 ~
192 ~O -
.::t:' :,1
.~,_.
.--'
/,/
:;;''':~''':I'':.
;,.,'P;.. '::1':
~ ,':1-
"
I
, , i
~
~ ..--.--.-
'.
19th '::'v-!, -':~ :::1,
:;'-''''''oc1~ :s -'':"'!
\
'.
2
"
--
. -
....
- .
...... ..
--... --
"
, "
,?
I
.....
'-..., .
,.,,- .~r, -
--
.- ,
:::3
'.I.<.R
.:.t=;;
'J:'Y
.JUN
'337
.,J'J...
- --
- -
STATIC WATER LEVEL
IN 1-1 AND RID WELL
PUMP AGE FOR 1987
19th AVENUE LANDFILL
Figure 2.12
..-
-------
.-.
-..
.,'... .
. - . . - -. ~,'." .
...-. .'
o
'0
~l
1:
~.~
~;~_I
.- -
a:: u)
l.W -
C-
O
u.Jo
~o
.-r 0
-0
.J..0
g"~ I
1:0
u.J (') -
u::O
U'~ -
~.:::J
..)
I :
I
I I
~ t
i. I , .
I ~
I I
I I I I
I :!. u
i ~ I ~\
'I I ! I !' r t \ '~. . I
I '.
71 n 7S n 79 3; - -
y ::,~ R
Q-
oj
r.
65
';7
69
DISCHARGE FROM
GRANITE REEF DAM
(TOTAL ACRE FEET PER YEAR)
19th AVENue LANOFILL
Figure 2. 13
., :.1:4
-------
I
,
I-- t- 1-
-
0
i
"" AV£~
.~
- -
...
--
B ~I\
T -
~
-
~#I
j ~
..
I
l
.~
\... .
r
i
I
"
,
,
,
.
I
-)
l
w
I
.' i
.;.' i
) ~f.f~ ~
~,~ iJ,{t.~, ,;1
':':"..t.:IJ>::;
'11'1 AVENUE
" '~. N
'. .j'
..
,.
J
~
~
. '.
jlll AVENUE
..
':.' ;.
.' 1:
'..f'
, ' I,i(\
. ! ":.
1-2 , :'.,
tOtt.18 , ,.
~~._._.,._._._.,\\ . P'-'-'-"
,. ,IWER... . .
" '~IIOR,"" ~ I
" . '.... tOt,,". ~ . 1-.
"'\ "'~, . . ".-.-..J tOtl.08
" ' ,. ~. I.'
, '.... tOtlOt
, " JACIeR"'"'' ..1 4l:_--____-IDtl
~ Jot " ',t098.08 ~~.... ~,
~ tD07.88 ,," -~~ ~
~ i.. . "'~ ,~. .. ---- '0 I 3 ~
-, r.. ~ ~~, g
~~ ~~', ~.... !I
...... ~., ...--- ,
'.... ..8.. ~ I" ...
""io 1004." ~....
... . ~. ' . "'.........
tp.!! -...
- '''0,
"':~"~'" .fT"
0. I ... '''0,
-
10';, 'WE'IUE
w
~
w
"
~
'.
(]]J
II:
'"
.
~
!
, I
I '~).
Uno ~ VE'IUE
I
/
i
!
I
1
i
'/
,
I
. j: :",'
.t.
~r:, :
I~{:;f'~\~' :
~~..~....
ilJf.c..:"'&~'
(~....o! ...
~~;~;\.: ::::'
,
\
i
"." .
------1
I ,
-:J
,
15111 AVEIIIJE
"11'1 AVEI~ IE
- p.-.
r-
c.
lEOEND
. WI!lL
--- GROUND-WAf'" LIIIIL CD8ffOUft . I
2-'00T CON'Ourt "'''''Y''l
., -. APPRO.IUA ,.. LANDFIlL IIOUIIDAfIY
-2:
,
ICAll
'000
FI..
1000
o
GROUND-WATER
LEVEL CONTOURS
JANUARY 8. 1987
19th AVENUE lANOFIlL
Figure .2.14
1
-------
, "" AVENUE
.,
.i-"
~I*..I!
7t1'o "VENUE
~
~
o
~
~
:I!
...
<
I
~
------1
. I
I
, {f'~
'i:< ,
. ,t;;:~..~)~.'" ,."', "
#"i:.!:.;\~.J.:.; .~.I,C' .
'r-)..;;; "':" ,.1"" ,. '!' .
;g~'/~'~~\':~.:f:~: '..
.' .
..--..
15111 AVEllUE
111" AVEI
LEOEND
. WUl
--- OROUND-WA fEA LEVU COIITOUIt
'-'OOT CONTOUR '"TrAVAL
-. - APPRo.rIotA Tf U-IlLIOIMDARY
-2:
SCALI
0 1000 1000
'I!!T
GROUND-W A TER
LEVEL CONTOURS
AUGUST 3 " 1987
1 91h A VENUE lANDFU
Figure 2.1!5
. !
1
-------
~ _. --.
- -
Not to Scale
_N~
---~-
HYDROGEOLOGIC
CONCEPTUAL
DIAGRAM
191" A VENue LANDFILL
Figure 2. 18
-
- ---:------::-_~----=-=-=-,-- --,.-..--
-------
e
~
2 1040
~
i:I
or
SOUTH
1120
1080
1000
9110
E
/.' '/j/;///.
. CELL A-V ,-
/ . ,/' / ,/ /,' /,.' /'
.,/,~///
. , / / /
NOTE: THE CROSS SECr:ON AUG;JMENT IS
SHOWN cr4 fIGURE.2.3
v
lOWER
BUCKE"fE ROAD-
\
\
1ge7 lANDfill SURf ACE-
\
\
SALT RIVER CHANNEL ~ ESTIMATED TOP Of RErUSE . \
/ / /- ' " '/ / ' / / , ., / /j .
/ t / /~:~~}~~/.
-------
---
,~:,
. .-, -
. '
~';y -
".~ co -
'd."".":(J -
.j -
=
v~ 00 ~
",
.,J:O -
,..~ .;~ -
!90CO -
~d~)oJ -
~'!~ ~,J
, ,
- --
---.
-'. -
.,:
_u
I ,"
.'
. '
- --
... ..
=
. '\
"
. -
..
"",,'
"
"
--~
-. .
, .
, --
- --
.- -
-' -
" -
. -
STATIC WATER LEVEL
AND TOTAL DISSOLVED
SOLI OS VS. Tt ME
WELL 1-4
19m AVENUe LANOFILL
Figure 2.18
-J;,,-
-------
-.
I,
. fit ~ -, "4-1'-.. - :...J"'~-
r .. .. --v9!"ett:'IY' .-t..w':"::----='" ,..C=:---,- . :I'.~" ,:~
t~:',\ - - . ..,," ,.~;: 7:~'51"~~~';';" r .' . ",:..:' ::>
~ r::- ~~~3 ~... V ~'f~~~1~ ~\ij; ,{ .
t ,,:: - ,<.:. ~~ f. . ..-'. . ...I;ti~~I~" I~;': '>
~. -II.~ . .' .I~ ~ . h!. ~rr'-li. 8M !070~'...., ....~...
.~. _.~' nII8 - ...~ II. ~ = .J~ t' .. "'" :ii :': . ,f~:,r,:!::;--" :;'
. . . . 1.- ~ I . . C"..- .', '".. .~. I ~. .'
.=-> ..r.II' r:~ f'=: c:UJ'.~ ~ ~- '.'-= i ,u:.; .....: '.,.. '.,. ..~ :,:~:::V;~,"~~T' ~
~~. J:. '~- I 872' I! ~ :. 'r=-=-.:~
.' ,'~: ./ 900 II J i _,I, (!I:' \'~:.' ,
. n I . - . . ,. ...... ... /"
P . '/ ,. -,-...........~,-,... '. - - . ~ ,:.. ": . -<-...-;
,.,... OM-I'~--_._---~._.1 .--;, ~ L., "
""'-- ~ 890 .> ... .'~ I -,-. - ,.., ::::" .' -,- ' : .--7'
,./ v--- fJ I' t "O~ L '"----- r~mmY \.... /'",;:: .-',,:-- J.
'7,<~t':>;'~~." ~P';----:l'7.'-i~. <0 ,:<:....~~>'=C,6
: r~~~ <~;/ .j 118 C<~j$tW;,j-.~/
~~~~1-~! ~j~:l~~: J'~i~~
~.. ( ~ I I::-------- RIvER NORTH .~d}. ~ ' .",~:::::::::::::::::::
:~~ Y-::::--1-----"005 ~ ~ .~:J.;~~,)'~ V ::- \D~::::::"
HiH!i::.'iii~:~~'.. //-r'----~ ".'- ~ :-.".'"''''')/'0:,:, . ," -:"1.i....f~~~.;::" ~ / 1,'1 -..---=: ~ ' . I
\f::;:::::' '. Gg~ -. ,. . .:$ ~ ~..t-J::::::::::'-" ,'- ----===c;- ~- I . I
i1::::.::::,~ra',:_' t .::~a'I"L"~:;.":'::"~~41: X '.- "":
,..., ,.'.:. -.. "':-"'o. . ""'""'==~ ",
. . ~ - .-''''''''' I ..i'. ,. . f8 .87 .. -
' , I, ,~;- -E-.=:-';:. .....'i1P--'" /,/'~ ~~- ~. 1 : ..:.'
. ',;',' .:.,' t.~ " ~ I)~ ...f-.,. /...~$o-~":.' ..::0
~ .'~ ..: ~. ~/O.!.i' ..... ~~ // :~ Itsffiii OM S S ~... ... '011.. ,,." ,
=.i.~'..:::::':.:~..'::, ~ ~ 1~~~ .., '=:::>-4:'~, I ~~~ - '/~::'. :::.!!::: :,';:, .:
>~.i.::,,;;';:~.."..::""ri.~ ~ .f~.:,; v"---v/ ,'......... -~,:; ,
~":'K',::: ": ,.,:' -,"-61:':' ~.r ':r -.... t.: Ie. . ... .. .. .........
""",~.:....... " '/-$,...J \..r -fJ :; - . ~:~ '1....-. -.. . ::::::::
~ ~ , - ... .. --I' ... .=-
. - - rn '" I '. -......,
; .. ~ I \~/,r" : .. .
.- '~:~ . . . .~: hi :. ,,-::,
. ==.. - .... -2RC~C\'\/AY ......~~
I ~
I'
i
I.
I
'.I
1.1
I, ~
"
...:E ~A::.~:..~.
I,
. I.
"
lfQfNO
No . y Alk
c. CI
"" SO,
"'n '103
I
~7~SfDD'"
I I I
27.0 Z 1.0 15.0 9.0 3.0 0 3.0 9 C 1~,0 :1.0 Z~.O
EfJUIVAlEllrs p!:p '.tllL'':)'' (:;::"n
SCAlf
j
I
.~
o
-
'000
1000 .
,
~EEi
STfFF DfAGRAMS
FOR MONfTOR WELLS
19th AVENUE LANDFIll
Figure 2.19
1
-------
-,---.
.~~~
-----
------
----
----
WILL'
NO.
"""If ...
~,ow...
.50.0
N.. K
Ca
"'Q
"'I-ot:
~,
"'"
~C4
"C;
.. ~,.. SAMPUS
: 1.0
100.0
50.0 0 50.0
eQUIVALeNTS PER ",n.UON CEP"')
100.0
.. .
-I
..0 .
1-3
I
I
1-.
~I~
18.0
9.0 0 ~ 0
eQUIvALENTS PER "'IL~JON (EP"')
18 Q
. .
STIFF DIAGRAMS
FOR .
LEACHA TE AND WELLS
1-3 AND 1-4
19th A VENUE LANDFILL
Figure 2.20
-------
~,
~---=-- -. --- - -- --=----- -~
. - -.-- -. . .
. . .-. .....
'.
I~': 2-OU-JO: J-OW-JP: 4-1»-2D
1200
I
I
OM-20 I
'~.
, 'I
>1 /
/
/ /
1
7/ o~
OM~C
II 1 UO
i
// I DM-3PI,
7~~, ,r
/1 I,/~ I
ji b
~ I
I~{ / - ~~3ol
. '
. / ,2'
- '
- " " ;70 !
~' " . -
:".~::: ,r .,' " I
-- --+ i
-,-
1100
~ 1000
N
c:
.
N
I '
,
o
I gOO
i
o
.
I
N
. 80D
,
I
700
600
117'
1113
1184
IllS
""
1117
IUO
1182
1111
19811
v..,
loc..'o..~ . .50../1. P.INt 50.,e. . 10.000.'"
Q 111_- TO! Coftc:8U,.llan ''''9/11
BASE CASE PREDI CTED
TOS CONCENTRA TI ONS
, COMPARED TO
SECOND aUARTER
1987 MEASUREMENTS
19th AVEHUe LANDFILL
Figure 2.21
-'",'..."'''
-------
---
.' .
~
::...
1."":"., . ~ro - ~
,0 ..l~~ jitt.
. 4i r~' #I !.:.I: I, '
. . "'Pf I i-i -,. - -',
" r~'" . "~ ;-.:."..: ..
. ..: .. .
-
~
,.. =TIII
t:-
1.-" .-
1, ~ =
; ~= I. '-":~";"'; ';1
.. /,~'.'; - .... ~1
/. ::r.,' -c;?1 ... ..1 -~. S FI .'-
.II ;. - --... "" . .~ 1
~~; ~~IOrr ""'~__.
"," -- . .' 8, . : - .., :-....
/ ' I. -;:") - - I - :
:".0';:":-" t;:;~ - . -;::-:.... (:;;,:;.,::~~'- ~ '., ~
~,a . :~~~. ~~~l ;; ~ ~~ il~~:l" -=.~
~~:. ,'~~, . : , ~J~;~~~\;tJ.:-
~-~)~ -- ~~~'.;1r~ .
-' .;:..' ~. \ -. --- -----~~:;::
~-~~ .iI)1'I'~'~'--- ~~: :::..;,j'
.;:-;:::; :: rjf:;::"/-~' ~~.:. <'-4;~
,-', -." '. ",:' "" '/.,i" ,,' --~ ,..
-'.....,. ~- '; ,~-' : /" '.....
~'.:- ==-,' =-' I V' ~. "'. ",' ..A8AIIOO.. - '
.-:., - -"",.,~..... I ..,. '-,-
..e . .., .
'. ......~ '1'::2j. .. :.-- . / '" it:~.,. -. - ..,
- - @~l .-:,;" &~~-2~ . = .".:.:"
.., .~):I :: &.~~'~'.' ;'.. :..
.:1 ,=~.",-, \ '=' ..- - ...-....
,~~_o~.. Y. -~, ..
--=::,. LI tI : - ~.:. '0..
=-=a--.~ - I ~/C5~ 0 - ~.
=- "": . . .. ..- I. . -.'
"~ - ...
.0 ~...O~~~. .!:.,.o 0'
0..+
o ..
. ..
'F '.0 ..~~. ~':~:7~~"":
o~
-
I: ',-
- -
.-., -
, -
LEGEND:
~ ~T
~
N
I
-j
LOCATIONS OF
LIaUID DISPOSAL PIT
19th AVENUE LANDFILL
Figure 2.22
o
SCALI
'000
PUT
w....-
-------
.. . .
t . '~.'!
,.'. ',- -. .
..~. .~.~: :. ..~s~~~
\ ' .---
.'. - --.-.
V."',,,,- .
~~ '-'-'-'-,-,-,-,~
~. I
, ~ i
'\" ~~ CEll A-1 i
, !
I
--.-.-.-.-.
"
.
~~~.' :~~
, ..,..'.. :' .. .Ip .::'l
....:.~_..' '.\\.
- . .. "0:'
-_..~~ ~
.... ."'\:. " '1
....,.
.,
.
,
.
,
. ~~.
,.,.
.
\
\
.
'-,
..
-...,
\,
"
.
,
.
,
.
-
~ L.
I.~ ~':
""' . yrNU!
~
,- _..17 -...-- -
.,.' .......... ... ~
.~~J :::'~,;-'" ~!- -'.~,; !
: , . . ;- ," . .': I
'.~ ..
r.i;;..~!'!
-'. '~." I
...-.-....-.-..
.
I
..~....
......,
~
..
~,
.
ill
.
~
. ..,.,
.. .
..~\." .:
...~
.~
. t,
~ . .
I..
or;
.
A
a; .
:a
c.
:.
W'
lj.
;).
:.
w.
U
,J'
I
'.i
.
.
'...t'.~.
--- _. .-
~YC
.
CEll A
IlOWI"
AND
FlA"'NG
'''IA'MINT
'ACllITY
;~f".'
,T' .
:.1:'
- .
fl.
roe
lIIIOIII/'
: .It .,
.1. .'
;
"'"
. .
".
-=-.=-:- -
....--
:::~~.~
-~.=-
lEOEND:
. UII''''II 0.. COlUCTlON wnll
- HIADI" ~I~I
.... ... ........ ''', - .......
,.."............. -.,-.-..
"',p"",,,
. 0.. MONITO" '''01£
.-i .~~"0.'''"Tll"NO'l\.l80UND"''Y
08 !I!"y II TlON WIll
.
I.
.L -
..
.1-
. .
- ::t.
..
~~
...
~-. -.'
a
:~
c. .
~
c-.
.
~
i
.
.~
--
It'
"WI A YlNU!
GAS COLLECTION
SYSTEM AND PROBES
19th AVENUE lANDFLl
Figure 2.23
-------
. .'
-.-.....-.-.....- '-'-~-7'-'-'-'-'-!
~'J" . I
~ 1.5" !
1.5.. !
I
I
.
!
I
.
I
.
I
.
I
.
I
.
I
.
I
.
I
.
I
.
I
.
I
.
I
.
I
.
I
.18..
. !
.
,.
,.
,.
,.
,.
,.
,.
,.
,.
,.
.
L.&GENO:
-.8- MCTMAII8 ISOCCi'"
1 METHANE
i CONCENTRA T\ ONS
~
1 IN SHALLOW SOIL GAS
SCAU ' CELL A
o 500 tooo ,
......--- -' 19th AVENUE LANDFILL
'UT Figure 2.24
-
--=-------~-
-------
,;~!Il... ,",\'~"\\. '''~1~~ '." ,-"~~....",~,, ,,'
JfK ,~- ..... ~ . ,,~.- ~4":!.. \
7iI ,. . ,.....::r." -- I. . \ L ...' " ..' . ~ - . .. .
-;',},,;;'.. "', ' "'~':-::~4JJ \ ,- " ~,
.. .''''' -' 4 . . . V"w ~ :..... -:"'.:..' '.--sr - - .
-- -.. ~ 4 - . '....-.-.-.-.-.-..,
I8111AVfNUf 0 "'",,0 .'. rliillar.:.;~-...-----. . "':,;'i\1 ~'\- ,!
:: .' ,.,... ~ . '. ", .
:- I \ ,.,( ,) \ CEll A- 1 I
':~i J. ! '."
,~ k,. ,: ..01 . <~"" ',' \ ~._._._._.;
,0 ...-.-.,..-.-.. o~--, #... ,; ~. , "
NO . ~. .. .
:: '''''0 00- "_: ',~:
"" 2. I;;' '3N \. :'ri:- . """~':'J.
! 0... #,' '" ......", '"
3. , ~',\o:-:. "~
;::.:i ~ oro \. ~;;:::::7" - ::
..... . =I'ltt'e \, ".~u
.. iT T CEll A \'" .~", ' - ",'M
:1 ~ \~
..:: . . . r
~! ='0' eN \'3.~. ~:, -!
. :I'._~ .
II: ~ , ';.J;~ I
.. . a ..,- .".
I ~I ,..- " ",
.J. ...
0;:' , ,,' '\
'.18 ,~:: , :\
J . :'fO =..0 ::t. _e . ".
~-, , '
BlO"ER 8 ' '
AND , :,
FURINO .
TREATMENT 3. ." . 8" '" '0;' "" '''' I'. ,." ,." "" "" 'IWV , 'I" ,
'ACllln'_~ .,..,. ""1 .,..,..,..,..,..,..,..,..,..,..,..
~ .-.-. --.0 _,___,-%-.__---,- O"-'II'a._~_._._._._._.---_._.-....._._._._._.1
8. ii 'o. i3. - OJ ,.. I.. II. .
Ii(, a ~ - ,,,..
"0"- 10- II,;;.... . "~~': '.A.-tl. 20.
fil,: ~... 0' ~,:g""~
"" II ""
. .,"'"
="10
'''IOIII!/
'. .1 """
...,
'J-
'0-
-IO\'!'tO
"" .
...
.'"
_. ..-
,." 'II.. ....".., cn. ow .."-.
,........,.. .....- ...........
..,...,,,..
LEGEND:
.,. EXISTINII OA8 COLLI!CTlON "Illl
. OA8 MONITO" '''OBE
'_1
'''E TO TRI!ATMENT 'ACILITY
APP"O.IMATI! lAND'lll80UNDA".,
I " .
- SAMPLINO lOCA TrON
" '0' 8"NlENE CONC"NTRATION
... --
~ JI.
\ .
~~-
J
~
, .
o
c
°
tr
~
c
t
o
c
o
II:
II
"" AVI!NUI!
AMBIENT AIR
SAMPLING lOCATIONS
19th AVENUE lANDFILL
Figure 2,25
1
-------
"
J
I"
I I II Ii' I ,I
j{ 'r I'. I I (I If
\I \ \ I II, I I I'
I Ii II I I (' "
.
.,
,
/IHlIIAL CONCENIRATION
i WINO DIfIEC~ON 1"1' .
DUAL A_II
CONCINIRA 110
~~~~ .-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- I .- rL. . -- ..------.---
, "ORIIONIAL
" PlITANCI AlII
~ ." .
LEGEND:
-.-.- AMMNI-COHCIHIRAIIOH DUE 10
,...IIION fAOM QlN(RAL LANDfILL IURfACE
........... AM"IINI CONCINIRA liON DUE TO
,...8810H8 fROM OROUHO CRACK
C]
rn~
"_IIIIHO CAP
AtfUIiE
DILUTION OF
EMISSIONS FROM
GROUND CRACK BY
A TMOSPHER~C PROCESS
19th AVENUE lANDFill
n"f.D1:i' ~L?€
-------
8UCICIY.ItOAO
-,.,....,.,
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
-
"
-
\ ~OW'" 1IUC1C~
,
\
-
"
-
-
-
,.,.",
,,, I"'.."" """,""
\: :
\: :
\:: :
-= :
~ '.'7 :
ROAO
r--:I'"
~~
il
s.c. F "'ItIIt
:~
.. ; ~
i III Z
.. i ...
::I .. .. ,.
.. Z ,. ,. III «
::I .. C C ,.
Z ,. J 5 .. c ;:
.. c C8 : 5
,. ' .. Q;
c ~ G
5 N z ""
"/ .. L'
,.
C
..
.;
..
LEGEND:
.:->*- .- AV..,. ~NDII1U. STUDY AItU IOUIIOAIt\'
"", CIN8U8 TRACT ".7 80WIDAltY liMa)
,.....- CIN8U8 TltACT .,.. IOWIDAII't (1180)
1 OI"8CTlON 01' A.OW
:.;:'t"'F":~W I..UIIfI1I.L
. NOT TO SCAlA
BASEUNE RISK
ASSESSMENT
STUDY AREA
19th AVENUE LANDFILL
Figure 2.27
-------
-.--
L.EGENO:
MOAD_A., ..cAD
SCAlA
'~
...,
2-
o
,
.~~--
1
~
~"-
~-
8-
!:Jv-
8-
- c.-- ,~---.
-..-
- '..--~-..
CURRENT
LAND USE
19tn AVENUE LANDFILL.
Figure 2.28
......,~.
-------
:" ~,""r',~~~F.r
[I , '. , ".
"t. ' I :
~L-l-JI~.~~- .~'~.~. '
. c - . '"'...
- .
. .
- .
, .
'.- ,.', ~ ,.
.. l'
r--' -. c.
lac. . .
. ,
. LOWER 8UCKEYE ROAO
,.. 1i8'~-~,.--:-:;-~ , . ,"r"
" - .. ~ I "
'.- -~. ..
.. I .8':
. -=-'-' '!'!I e
.!'. -I~
I...i-.. .
."
_.:~
,.,'
,
;'~r' ~ ,
, ~\'S, - .
\ .._~ ;
"
,
CEll A
. :~\-
': - \',
:--_....1. \' ,
'8TORM DRAIN' ,
::TfALLCHANN!l N
. ~.~,.
rr .
~:-'.~'
.-:~
~~i:.-'- - - >;
. ~
:j'
I
"' -'
,.
L .,
,.
...
.:...
.~
o
FEU
"" ..~ .
. , . . ,."'.' ,
"
...
~
J .....'..-
.;;-- --... ".0
SCALE
800
lEGEND:
A~~AOJlI"AT! LIMIT8 OF
-... '"'' AVENue LANDFill AEFU8E
.....-- SALT IUVEA flOW O'AIECTION
-lIM1T8 OF lOO-VEAR flOODPLAIN'
---- CONcePfUAL A'VER CHANNIEl AlIONMIENT
"". CONcePTUAL ORADI CONTROL
8TAUCTUAI AliONMINf
L1 CA088 IECTlONII OF 8ANII PROTECTION
COMCnTa 8HOWN ON FlOUREII II.' THROUGH 11,6
1100
.ft'
SALT RIVER CHAMEL
CONCEPTUAL ALIGNMENT
19th AVENUE LANDFILL
Figure 5.1
-------
SOUTH
1120
10110
6
~
~ 1040
t:
~
-I
W
'-j
~60
F
.C~L~'.~-:,i
SAL T RIVER
I..
APPROXIMATE
---fO~TIoOOPLAIN
-IOO-YEAR FLOW
,: WATER SURFACE
I ...;
~PROXIMATE ..J
\:i-1A~FJrLUJJiT
.1
-=-
HORIlOIiTAl S~lE
400
rEEf
300
o
~
.ERTlc.:.~ :: :~- E
41)
.EE;
NOTE: ;HE CROSS SECTION ALiG:/I.tHIT IS
~HOWN ON FiGURE 5.'
"
MAXIMUM WATER T~BLE ::_'::.~Tlorl (1/10, e6)
~
-
IAINIMUM WATER TABLE t:_t: ,ATlON (9/25 e:")
[2]
REFUSE
~r)WER
B'ICKUE ROAD
19B 7 ~AIIOFIL L 5 URF At:E -
- EST1f.IAiEJ TOP OF REFU~E
-::5:-1~.'ATED B0T70lA OF REFUSE
..
F'
!/QPIH
, 112" .
I
I
I
~ :"~o
i
i ~
L '''4'' .~
~
~
....
..J
""
~ 1""0
- 3~"
SALT RIVER CHANNEL.
CONCEPTUAL SECTION f" -f"'
i 9~h.. JEt IUE -;.; I;: =- '_!...
Figure 5.2
-------
\
, \
f
~
.j
,
!
o
10UI"
1010
\060
..
... 1040
...
..
!
Z 1010 @a@
2 BALT IUVIIi
~
c CMAtINIL 80"011
~ \020 CELL A
III
.~
1010
1000 SCALE
° 20 40
. .
F£lI
0'
NOli'"
lOG YEAII FLOOD
i UVU
LEGEND:
CD SOIt CEIIENI 8ANII '110 nc HON
(~ II£FUSE £IICAVAnD DURING CONS1RUClION
(~ CO..'ACIED SOil
(~ ~MJ~:~ ~g~SC1~~~~~~~AVAIEO
(~) REfUSE HOI £IICIlI/IlIED
(!) iKISIiNU SOIL COVEll NUl (XLAVAllO
laJH IWII',', ',llllUti AlII""~1
'..I"m Uh '1101btl ~.I
SHALLOW SEA TED BANK
PROTECTIOrM CONCEPT
SECnOrNJ G-G'
19th AVENUE lANDfILL
filPlfl ~,1
-------
1080
10'0
...
:I 10.0
..
!
I: 1030
o
0:
c
~ 1020
III
1010
1000
"
H
SOUTH
H'
NOATH
~~
lOO-VIEA" FlOOO '7 ~.!:!..,
. . ~ I 11.0
. 1888 LANDFILL IIU"F ACI: I' lIE VIEl ;v:'" -!J . . 3) .
L I,ol'/"-
--------- .
---------- ------------ ----- . .",
....-- ----------------.L'.------------------- .
-- {~ LL .
-----...---- ------------------- ~ (-jtlt. I . .' @
.",-- ----------...;------- ------- - -" . .
/ \!> V ---.-------------------
'...:):@(::l:::::::" :.. ...:'::::::::::::. : :::::::::::::.: :::::::::::::: ::. .:::... t. . .
'ALT "'YER .,... \ -1. "" r.-.
CHANNlEllOnOM ""'''. '" , ~10 \!II@ ClEll A --!I
I.~&.\,.... ... [[[ ..... . .....
t.8 . . ~ ..........~~~~............ ..........:..,................... :..................................._-~-_............. -...... .............. ...... -- --... - - -'
SHALLOW SEA TED BANK.
PROTECTION CONCEPT
SECTION H-H'
191h AVENUE lANDFill
. Figure 5.4
o
,
SCALI!
20
."
FnT
lEGEND:
CD SOIL CEMI!NT IANIe PROTECTION
(!) REFUIII! exCAYATED DURINO CONSTRUCTION
@ COMPACTIED 1I0Il
(!) :J~~:? ~g~II~~'{,~~I~;AVATIED
@ REFUSI! NOT I!XCAVATED
@ EXI'flNO 1I0Il COYIER NOT EXCAYATED
'..
-------
1080
f080
..
:: f040
II.
!
Z 1030
o
~
c
~ 10'0
w
1010
fOOO
t
10UTH
I'
NOli'"
r-f1
lOO-v!'AII HOOD
10'.8 "~:' .. \1 UYI!L
',..", '-! I \!,' f.1 - ,-1188 lANDFill IUIIFAC! SALT '''V!II
"",, , , f,O , l ' CHANN!l 10 no..,
~------------- ~'--' -----------------,---- .i ' ,
- '"" ~ i1 t'i) --- -------------------------\
!' , ""', ~,.'~ ~ --- ,
',:,:, " --------- -------------------------------, ---- ",
~'--~------~~:~A~'-- ~ ",-:, ,. :: . ~lill"3 ,;~/ -,-' ~
, -, ,-, ---~" ~ -' -------~----------/
,\.~ ,'~ . ~ .......------~- ~. "'::,' ~ ':. -~~.~:~~~- .---- ,-" .-, ". .. . .. ...,..' .
,- ,~
..'/'~,
..:~~~: :..,
°
.
ICAl!
I!J
F!!T
4'1
lEOEND:
CD 'On. C!M!NT 8A"1( PIIOT!C"ON
@ R!FUII! UCAVATI!D DURINO CONSTRUCTION
(!) COMPAc,m lOll
o rJ~~= ~g~s~~~~,\~,fAVAT!D
@ R!FUS! NO' UCAVATI!D
@ UI8"NO lOll COV!R NOT !XCAVATI!D
SHALLOW SEA TED BANK
PROTECTION CONCEPT
, SECTION I-I'
19th A VENUE LANDFILL
FIgure 5.5
','1[' ~~':11jS U~ ::, II I":'."~'I'
''-I7.m ,,', . ''i'''.' ( :
"'
-------
I
. . ':.
, ',I ( 111'1 f
: Ii ! ' II' iI' 1< 'i
, I 1111 \. ( \ r Ii I . '
I
I I II II ,
",'"., It
.
. ~
IAl1 RIVER CHAMNiL DlREC110N Of HOW
~
5L
1-10'-.1
-----"I' CHANNEL 10110M
AIIUWED GROUND-WAUR "'llE-
@
ql
III
I,OL::::
...
1.0
Uf)
aG'
1
I.
--:10,-----1
N01 10 SCALE
LEGEND:
(I) &AU RIVER CHANNEL ALLUVI.,.. UCAVAItP 10 CONS1RUC1
1HI GRADE CONIROl 8JRUC'UIIE AHD BACKfiLLED A8
COHI'RUCHON PROCEEOI: DEWAfEKING Of 1HE
I.CAVA IIOH WIU IE REQUIRED
1"," 1111 1.11111'1 1118111:'11 '.'I«~ W~I
N 1.,1&1'1111 ',nuw.. I.IU 111..1111 !. I
CROSS SECTION Of
GRADE CONTROL
S1RUC1l](RtE COfMC[El?u
HUh A VENUE LANDfIll
fiOlllu 5.6
'~J SOil CEMENI GIIADE CONIIIOI SIMUCIUM!; Willi
.NUIIMAI DIIAIHAGE fOR QIIOUHP'WAriH HO\r:l
-------
, .;~~" ";?
I
.
"
t
GRADE '0 DRAIN
- ..
4 GRADI 10 DRAIN
GOMPAGTED lOlL IAGllflLL
GOWl'AGTIED IEDDING
,"
CEl'- A AND 161h AVENUE
8GAU
!o
o
I
20
flIT
IA) 'oa" I"I'i WOULD DRAIN IURfAct RUNOff fROM
- 'Hi NOI"H AND iA" PO"JlON9 Of CtLL A
1.1 .." PIPt WOUlD It A CONJINUA JlON Of
- hIt '.'h AlltNUk I'OR'" DR"'N
STORM DAAuN OUlrf All
CHANNEL CONCEPT
191h AVENUE lANDFill
~ L;;i'J!~C t':J :;;;.;/
-------
SOUTH
1120
1080
E
~
2 1040
~
....
...
I.
1000 I
I
I
960 -J
.
J
J'
- CONCEPTUAL LANDFILL
CAP SURF ACE -,
,
LOWER
BUCKE'fE ROAD .-
r'fJRil-t
r 1120
'\,
~987 ~'\NDFILL SURFI\r.E-
/
~ PROPOSED lEVEES AND
BANK PROTECTION 7
I '-
//\.\ ~~~TI.MA~ED TOP OF REFUSE --,--' '\
- PROPOSED ~_!\--- - ---=-==-::- \:
S~~~:N~[R '///<"~//~«.,..~./>~/- -:,: :c<.'- ~',' " r- ~""
/ / , .. .' ,.CELl A, ,'.' - .. .
~///, /'//~'/.~./,' ',','/ ,,/', .
,. '" /. '" ' . .I . .' .
;~;<>;>;~.;;/ >,. " '.
. . /"""- ESTiMATED SOnOIA OF REF'iJSE
\
~ 11)80
/
.'
,
..,
,,' ,./ ,/',' ",/ '//'." ',.,
, :C~l~ ~-:",
L I,QO
'- ~60
,
:
HORllONTAl SCAlE
400
rEET
.rET
.ERTICAl 5t;.>lE
40
)
!.:"
800
ELJ
REF' USE
NOTE: THE CROSS SECTION AlIG:JMn/T IS
SHOWN ON F'IGURE 5.9
....
'"
'"
~
Z
0:
C
.
~
...
...
LANDFILL CAP
. CONCEPTUAL SECTION J-J'
. 9th AVE~ iUE _,UIC r,:..:"
Figure 5.8
-------
,
. . ... . lOWER 8UCl(I.!VIl 1'/0,,1:1
.~--:-~2-~~~..,":.,,- :~~-:-~
. . -. ..'.' - ~., , .iJI ,
- -!: -- t. -~.
,. "1
.-- :.~
: .f
,
,
I::' .
rl'"
c '.
" ,
I', .
--;:-.- ..
- ,
, .
, "
.. : ~
. 'I,
I:
.: ",
I' .
"
;"
,
. ~ } ,..~.~: j: .
~~~r' ~: .:
'...,.- -~... . 'I .
- ...........\ . ..
. ,
"".. , .,
;. " .
~ . - :. ,
.~ " ..
.=~ I i~~ .; ~ :fl
.~ '.""" c \ ~ ~, ;",..~
~ . --: .'>( -' I:": - ",-,,/ - .
-: I' '"
, ....
r :.:~~~~-
i.
.:=-t-':'_-~ c
" I!
,
. to.
.,
~ \ ~. "* ,.
.~ .
I
:
,
,
,
, . -:::' , .
, . '.
---~-.-
I
I
,\
..
'\,
, .
.'
f
N
lEOENO:
f "'''CENT SlOP!! CONTOUR8 '0" LANO'lll CA"
-.-
lANOI'lll SURI'ACI ORAINAOE .O"IN CNAltJf1!l
!OIItl!CTlON 01' 'lOW)
"''',,;
.. lAIIOI"ll 8UAI'ACI O"A'NAOI.
... .. 8"""0 CONC""I ""E !DI"ICTION 01' I'lOW)
.
."
-
lAIIOI"ll CA" 8""1' ACI D"AINAOI DI"ICTION
---- ""0"0810 8Al T "I VI" CNANH!l AlION"'NT
~ BAl T "'VE" now DIRICTION
~
SCALI
800
1200
.
-. .--! .-.~~~.
... !..- ,. . ./ :1""
. .~c--f'
- -i'
o
'En
," .
.
.:-"-. I..
" "
..-. ......
~._~. .~'. ~ .
.
1";;-
.. '.~,
--;~.J ..
....-
,," .
,,'"
: ........;-----~.....,
:.~,--
"
.'
'\.
.
. -
"
2,.. "
- J. ~ . -.
ItWINIICe III AItUV COIt"8 01' '_NU"S. 1187
.'
=-. 'J!
8-"
~!".~.-
.~
~-
:;8,.
~
, .
.
~
.. '
SURFACE DRAINAGE
CONCEPT
'9th A VENUE LANDFILL
FIgure 5.9
..
-------
;- -
''''., .
... --.-....-
. . - - - - ... -... . ,-, 1 '
'. - - - "." ..----''''''-.'-'.'''-
.
5S&.o..
'-......_~
... 1" - ,.or::::;;:;
V-CH1rHNEL DRAINAGE
,. Qu18T8 ~AC.\
z'aON- \
1-., ~
TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL DRAINAGE
Q
SC~LI
'0
zo
SURFACE DRAINAGE
CHANNEL CONCEPT
19th AVENUE LANDFILL.
Figure 5. 1 (J
"..T
-------
~ - -------- - -
GA.
C0LL8CTI018
HCAGP
~
PIP. C".OI.&
~[F£'(NC[. .(I'&~.
.o€'l(OIAl J.CflOtI If -'AU[
,,- \Iru., t"'.
" ClIUrVn
POII'O". TC "'8
CAP
. I
-L
I 24" Ol.lI8TUr~
NOT TO SCALI
'.
;~
It;
Ie
ill!
i~
G;
Ie
:
U
WI
...
.;;
..
~
II
..
i
<
.:>
':I;
'"
~
WI
Q
GAS EXTRACTt ON
WElL CONCEPT
19th AVeNUe LANDFILL
Fi9ute 5. 11
. ~-"'#'-. :.
-------
-.-:..
. .--
-.'.
- - ---
---
- .--------------- .-
It[mc:cr:: ErA H,\:IOeoul.
..V!tOu,r. ACTIO" .\T 1IfUT&
OU""SAL SI':'U". 1"'.
I
~I
III'
..
-------
----~ -
-.::. -
...-.-... ...
0.
rl
I I
vlJilT STAC:I: I I
tA&.TDMAm-.....
I I
I I
I :
wA8TW QA8
.."...
QAI COLL8CT1Otl H8A08II
~lto" IXTltACT108I WILU
~t~:J!~~!
:': -~ICIOOIt:
~t-!tH" ':'=.:::1 ,I~ ...;~t
::S,iJf)SAL ~:~tS". ~ 155.
IIIOIllTOItIllll
,"ORT WI TN CA~
'AC.~"'"
It.., VALVI
8UTTIIIP&.Y VALVI\
NOT TO SCALI
FLARING TREATMENT
FACIUTY CONCEPT
19th A VENUE LANDFILl.
Figure 5. 13
IF ......
-------
WOR~ PLAN :£VElOPUENT
& AF;:~OVAI.
I
I.
SITE SURVEY
ADDITION SITE INVESTIGATIONS
--..-
DE SIGN TO 90.
AGENCY R[VIEW
PREPARATION or
CONSTRUCTION DOCUUENTS
reRM'-!..T_INO___-
125-150 WEE:
Ut)
I- -
-tll..
~W
WI
~
I
.j!,
DESIGN
PERMITTING
&
PHASE
FIGURE 5.' 4
,.
-------
'
t:)
G:
w
Z
-J
::I:
U
.-.
«
~
I
I
?
SURF ACE ORAINAr,r F ACllnrES CEll A
BANK PROTECTION TOE EXCAVATION. BACKFILL. &
lEVEL CONSTRUCTION CEll A
EW~TERING-BANK PROTEC110N CONStRUCTION CEll
SIV( E~CNIA[NTAL_~~IA.!:.!.'!_':I!~~If<:>~:N.: _'H. _.- ..,.
-~---,-_.- ----.
EXCAVATION. RELOCATION. " COVER OF REFUSE CEll A
CAS COllECTION sYSTEU COORDINATION
" PROCUREUENT
o
REHABILItATION/INSTAllATION CAS WEllS CE~l A ot CEll A-I
DEWATERING BANK' P"':'TECTlON~
CONSTRUCTION CEI . A-'
---- --~
\ SOIL CEI.IEN1 8ANK COIISTRUCJII)II
BANK PROTLCTION. 1.1E FXCAVATION \ pl/'HECI/ON CELL At CRAil/AGE OUT- ~Ll
It lEVEE CONSTRU~'ION CELL A- , 'tj. -.J CELL A-I
Ct)~STRUCtION /
\)RAIIIAG( .
'r All CEll A
'.
DEWATERIIIG SUBSURFAI:L GRADE
COIITROL STRUCTURE
'r
EXCAV~TION. RELOCATION. " COVER OF RHUSE CELL A-I
SINGlE lAVERED COIAPACTED SOIL CAP tELL A-I
SURF ACE DRAINAG( FACILITIES CELL A-'
-0-
SINGlE lAVERED COUPACTED SOil CAP CELL A
INsrALlAI/ON OF FlARE E~UIPUENT
PIPE AIID FIniNG INSTALL AI/ON GAS COllECTION sYSTEIA
-,-
FEIIC[ CONSTRUCTION
70- 100 WEn:s
. .
CONSTRUCTION
PHASE
FIGURE 5.15 .
~
-------
p
.n
W
0::
:J
t.:)
LL
W
Z
.J
:r:
U
I-
~
~
DEMOBILIZATION
CONTRACT ClOSE OUT
8-12 WEEKS
--~- ----- ---...-...
COIISIRUCTlOII REI'ORI
,. PREPAPI\;ION or
",";-BUlU" ORAWIr/!;';
--- _. ----.- - - .
" ''\,
OPERATIONS ... UAINIENANCE~~'_R',\t~-o
/
/
/
TRAINING
OPERATIONS. \WIITEr/AIICE ... SITE UONITOPII'G
()
!>
POST CONSTRUCTION,
OPERATIONS, & SITE"
MONITORING PHASE
FIGURE 5.18
-------
Final. Craft RAP
06/12/89
APPENDIX A
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT HISTORY
:.
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89 .
APPENDIX A
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT HISTORY
In accordance with Section 11J(K)(2)(i-iv) and 117 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA), a
Community Relations Plan (CRP) was developed and implemented for the duration of the
Superfund process. The CRP is included in the RI/FS Work Plan (Dames de Moore, 1986,
Appendix B-4).
. The- . City of Phoenix (city), with oversight from the Arizona. Department of
Environmental Quality (ADEQ), initially undertook an analysis of community concerns
regarding the 19th Avenue landfill prior to preparing the plan. The analysis included
informal interviews with nearby residents and agency representatives. The purpose of.
the analysis was to evaluate current and potential areas of public concern regarding the
site, and to identify objectives and techniques for addressing those concerns.
CommunitY Relations Activities
A number of community relations activities described in the CRP have occurred over the
past three years and several are planned in the ~car !~-'~:1re. These activities inciuded:
Establishment of Information Repositories
[nformation regarding the site and the remediation process was provided to repositories
at the city's Oeotillo Branch library at 102 W. Southern and the ADEQ office at 200.5 N.
Central Avenue. These repository locations have been announced to the media in the
fact sheetS distributed in the study area, and to the Citizen Participation Committee.
The repositories will include the following documents: the CRP, fact sheets, RIIFS work
plan, draft RI/FS report, the Remedial Action Plan, .and miscellaneous other documents.
A-I
-------
.
Final Craft RAP
06/12/89
Desiption of Information Contacts
To ensure dissemination of accurate information on the project and timely responses to
inquiries, key contact persons were designated. Ron Jensen, public works director for
the City of Phoenix, and Martha Rozelle of Carnes '" Moore were the information
contaCtS for the project. Councilwoman Mary Rose Wilcox has played an active role in
coml1)unicating with the community. Sam Ziegler, COI11O"unity Relations~Coordinator for
the Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, was also listed as a~contaCt person.
Each of these individuals responded to inquiries from citizens, interested groups, elected
officials, and the media. Their names, addresses, and telephone numbers were provided
in news releases, fact sheets, community meetings, and local information repositories.
Development of a Mailing l.ist
The mailing list includes elected officials, media contaCts, agency and local
representatives, and [hose moivioua1S wno returned mail-in reply cards enclosed in the
first fact sheet, among others. The list contains over 1 .50 names. In addition, more than
8,000 residents or businesses have received the fact sheetS at their door.
Preparation of Fact Sheets
To date, the city has distributed two bilingual fact sheets, in English and Spanish, to
more than 8,000 community members. The history of the landfill operations was
explained, the plan for Remedial Investigation was presented, and contact people and
information repositories were announced in the first fact sheet. A response card asking
for concerns and questions was enclosed, and. approximately..50 replies were received.
The second fact sheet, released during the fall of 1987, summarized the preliminary
results of the Etemedial Investigation.
The third fact sheet will be distributed in conjunction with the start of the public
comment period for the remedial action plan. The third fact sheet wiU discuss the
A-2
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
results of the Rl/FS, the final draft Remedial Action Plan, the extent of landfill impactS
on public health, and the environment, various cleanup alternatives described in the draft
Remedial ACtion Plan (RAP), and the recommended alternative.
Media Relations Program
The city has maintained contacts with appropriate media representatives to promote
accurate and timely coverage of the RI/FS process. Press releases have been and will
continue to be distributed before Community Participation Group meetings. A briefing
for the press was held midway through the project and included a field trip to the landfill
to look at the drilling activities and the methane collection system. A suppler1:'ental
briefing wil! be conducted during the public comment period.
Community Partjcipation Croup
The city established a community participation group consisting of 12 individuals
representing various interests. This group
o reviews available information about the project and provides comments to the city
o serves as a point for information exchange
o. educates their neighbors about the project
The Community Participation Group has met seven times to date~ usuaUy at the
Southwest Service Center. The group meetings are chaired by City Councilwoman Mary
Rose Wilcox and are open to the public.
Comment Period on the Draft RAP
A 30-day public comment period will be held on the dratt RAP. Public notices in area
newspapers and the fact sheet will s~ify the dates of the comment period, date of a
public meeting during the public comment period, and the name and address of contact
A-J
-------
'-
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
person for questions and Wt'itten comments.. The fact sheet will be placed in the
. information repository and distributed throughout the information area as before.
CommW'lity Meeting
A community meeting will be held during the comment period to receive comments on -
the draft RAP. [t;.will be publicized through the media and the fact sheet mailings.
Preparation of the Responsiveness Summary .
A Responsiveness Summary, required as part of the Record of Decision, wi!! document
pUblic concerns and issues raised during the public comment period. ADEQ will respond
to these concerns, and the Responsiveness Summary will be placed in. the information
repositories.
. .
A-'+
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/8'
APPENDIX B
CONTINGENCY PLAN
.
-------
Final DraIt RAP
06/12/89
APPENDIX B
CONTINCENCY PLAN FOR POTENTIAL FUTURE
CROUND-VI A TER DECRADA nON AT THE
19TH A VENUE LANDFILL
A Remeqial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) was conducted at the 19th Avenue
Landfill between January 1986 and June 1988 by the City of Phoenix. Sampling of the
landfill contents revealed no concentrated sources of contamination. Landfill impacts on
ground-water quality pose n~ health risk at present and are observable only within and at
the boundary of the landfill. Sporadic exceedences of Safe Drinking Water Act .'Aaximum
Contaminant Levels (MC1..s) in different monitor wells at different times have been
noted, with approximately two percent of samples exceeding MCLs. The small
magnitude and infrequency of the exceedences, the limited migration off the site of the
detected contaminants, and the lack of risk to public health have resulted in present
recommendation of a No Action alternative for ground water (except for monitoring,
which wiii continue on a quarterly basis).
Other corrective actions to be implemented as part of the complete remedial action at
this site, such as flood protection and capping, are anticipated to further reduce the
frequency and concenuation level of contaminants detected in ground water. However,
because'the landfill wi11 remain onsite, the parties have prepared this contingency plan to
addres~ t~l: jJossitHity of potentia! grou,"1d-water quality degradation in the future.
In accordance with Section 121(d) of the Comprehensive Environmental Responses,
Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (CERCLA), the contingency plan will be
implemented 'upon completion of the remedial action selected in this Remedial Action
Plan. The framework of the contingency plan is as follows:
. 1. Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) will be properly
utilized in the development of any future ground-water remedial action, if such
action becomes, necessary. Consistent with the National Contingency Plan, Safe'
Drinking Water Act MCLs are considered ARARs for the determination of ground-
water standards.
2~ The landfiU facility boundary will be the compliance point for purposes of
monitoring and triggering any remedial response. In the event a remedial response
8-1
-------
Final Dratt RAP
06/12/89
is triUered, the landfill facility boundary will be considered the compliance point
for additionaJ remedial action if selection of it is consistent with the National
Contingency Plan and app~opriate remedy selection under CERCLA. For such
purposes, ARARs may be complied with within the capture "zone of hypothetical
recovery wells located at the landfill boundary. Establishment of the landfill
facility boundary as the point of remedial action compliance does not preclude
future selection of "a remedial action of no action, if consistent with CERCL.A, the"
National Contingency Plan, and the Arizona Environmental Quality Act.
- -
J. Confirmed exceedence of MCL.s, Proposed MCL.s, or, for constituents which have
no MCL. or Proposed MCL., State Action L.evels (ALs) will trigger a remedial
response. The remedial response will be triggered when the following conditions
are met:
A. The average of three consecutive quarterly samples from a single well exceeds
a constituent's MCL, Proposed MCL (or an AL where an MCL has not been
established or an MCL Proposed), 9t a single sample exceeds three times the
MCL, ~oposed MCL., or AL; and
~. .4 'oUow-up sample confirms that either of the exceedenee conditions
aescribed above has occurred. The fOllow-up sample will be collected within
15 calendar days of receipt of the results wh.ich indicated the apparent
exceedence condition. The initiation of confirmatory sampling will start a
monthly schedule of sampling at the affected weU(s) for the exceeding
constituent(s). [f a follow-up sample does not confirm the exceedence,
quarterly sampling may resume after three months of monthly sampling.
4. Once triuered, the remedial response will begin a process of evaluation and
selection of a supplemental remedial action, not necessarily excluding no actio"n,
consistent" with the requirements of CERCL.A, the National Contingency Plan, and
the Arizona Environmental Quality Act.
5. Because much of the information regarding the hydrogeology and evaluation of
remedial alternatives has already been developed during the RIfFS, it is
anticipated that the process of evaluating and selecting a remedial action under
8-2
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
this contingency plan can be eXpedited. Based on these considerations, the City of
Phoenix will provide to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quali ty a report
on remedial alternatives within 1'0 days after the initiation of the remedial
response, excluding time for agency review and public participation.
6. The remedial action will be implemented upon selection and continue as necessary
to ensure continued compliance with ARARs.
7. If continued operation of the selected ground-water remedial action is no -longer
required to ensure compliance with ARARs, the selected action may be
concluded. Monthly ground-water monitoring of the affected we!1s(s) will
continue for a period of six months after conclusion of the selected remedial
action, before resumption of the schedule of routine ground-water monitoring.
B-3
.
-------
Final Draft RAP
06/12/89
APPENDIX C
VIA 'fER QUAUTY CAT A
-------
INORGANIC DATA.
-------
CITY OF PIIGENU 19m .AVOIE LANDfill.
3RD QTR 1986 IOORGANIC "A111I QUAUn DATA
coocmt'RATlooS 11M PPH "'LESS aruEBVlSB tm'ED
YELL 1-1 1-2 1-] 1-4 1-~ 1-6
DATE 860821 ~60821 860822 860821 860822 860821
AtIOfU 0.48 0.21 16.2 10.8 ].92 <0.1
80100 ';', ,1(, .ocO','; (\,C! ~ I' i: '':: ' r ~ \', . ' t ,~ ') -.
-------
CITY OF P'JOUfH 19111 A\lam: LAIO'ItJ.
4TIt QTR 1986 INOa aHlC UA1 ER QUAUn DATA
C4KDlI'RATJ~S iN P~" IIfLESS anlERVlS£ tm'ED
,
VEil. 1-1 l-~ I-} 1-4 I-~ 1-6
DATE 861011 86101 ' 861016 861016 861016 861016 i '
AJOQfJA 0.61 0.26 14.1 11.4 4.11 <0.1 \ ,
8OR~
-------
CITY OF PIIOooX 19111 AVtHIE lANDFIll.
1ST QTR 1981 lN08GANIC "ATER QUALITY OATA
CONCENfRATlOOS IN "PH lI-Il.£SS Ol1l£lUlISi OOTED
,!
lIEU. I-I 1-2 1-3 1-4 1~5' i-6
'\' 1\ Iq ,\ \ I
DATI 8103U IU03U' 8103}1 8103U 810311 810311
AHH(IftA 1.12 0.32 14.2 16.2 5.23 <0.1
BOIU»f <0.5 <0.5 0.9 0.08 <0.5 <0.5
CA1£11It 59.4 61.1 51.1 52.1 58.6 99
IIU* <0.05 <0.05 1.1 1.14 <0.05 <0.05
HA.QWS11lt I' 28.6 '~6.4 15.2 44.8 24.8 45.4
tWlaNESI 2.28 2.81 3.52 3.64 2.01 2.92
MASSIIlt 1.8 1.01 19.8 46.4 11.2 10.4
5001&11 149 154 224 263 168 261
f1IlJWlDE 184 198 282 115 141 181
FLDtIUDE 0.24 0.21 0.25 0.21 0.11 O~]]
~£UWlL NI1'ROGD.1 1.1 0.21 10.9 14 4.09 0.41
NITRATE 2.96 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 5.19
PtIOSPBATK <0.05
-------
CITY OF fUOOOI 1911t AVDU: LANDFIll.
2ND QTR 1981 INORGANIC VATD QUAUn DATA
COOCOll'RATIOOS IN PPH IJ.ft.£SS (1I1I£1UIISI NOTED
VEU.. I»t -1 111-1 lit-I 1*-2
L£VIL 54 \22 192 89
DATI 810824 )10825 . 810825 810825
AI90fU 3.21 ).14 <0.1 ,<0.1
BORCIt 0.5 ".2 0.5" '<0.5
CAl.ClIlt ~.6 40.9 51.1 5O.J
DU* " <0.03
TorAL 0ftGAN1 C CARBC* 11.1 J.1 2.6 18.9
TO'rAL OftGANIC ilAI.oGENS 0.056 <0.01 0.016 0.0]
BOD 18 15 21 5]
CUD 244J 44J 14J 1111
CYANW': <0.01 <0.01
-------
CITY OF '11000]( 19TH AVEHJE L.Ua'1IJ.
2ND QfR 1981 IN)RCANIC YATER QUALITY DATA
COOCEtll'RATIOOS IN PPH ~L£SS antERVlSI tm'ED
. lIEU. 1»t-2 1»I-:1D 1»1-31 1»t-1' 111-4 1*-5D
lEVEL 194
DATE 810826 810018 810818 810819 810818 810820
AHHONIA <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
BORON 0.5 '<0.1 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6
CALCUtt 18.5 19.2 61.1 50.1 11.6 121
IRON 0.054 <0.01 o.on 0.196 <0.01 <0.01
HAmEsntt 29.1 21.4 24.1 25.6 21.5 48.6
HAOOANESI 0.118 o.on 0.01 0.92 0.018 <0.01
fOTASSnlt 5.5 5.4 5.6 9.6 6.4 1.2
soonlt 242 148 195 188 161 159
atlOlUDi 161 111 248 268 119 514
FLOtIUDI 0.21 0.5 0.21 . 0.26 0.21 0.26
IU£UWlL 1fITa~ 0.11 0.08 0.11 <0.05 0.25 0.11
NITBATB 1.96 0.5 2.11 0.14 1.05 11.5
PHOSPHATE <2.5 0.09 0.14 0.14 0.31 <0.05
SULFATE 56.5 11.1 128, 91.1 115 111
AHfIHONY <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
ARSOOC <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
8ARIlit 0.09 0.06 <0.06 0.11 <0.06 <0.06
8£RYU.I1It <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
CADttIUH <0.001 <0.003 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 o. ocn
CUROHIIlt (HEX) <0.03 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
CIIROHIIlt (TOT) <0.01 0.011 0.022 <0.01 0.01 0.016
COPPER <0.01 0.011 0.014 <0.01 0.014 <0.01
lEAD <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.002
H£RL1JR Y <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002
NICI{£L 0.04 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
S£lDUUH <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 ' <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
SILVER <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
TtlAU.HIt <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
ZINC 0.094 <0.01 0.02 0.016 0.021 0.033
AIJCA1.INITY 261 84 263 298 325 248
'ClrfA). DISSOI.VIID SOI.IUS 1030 6JO 830 110 800 1550
TItfAI. ORGANIC CAJUU!N 25.4 1.4 I.} 8.8 2.1 2
1tt1'AI. ORGANIC ltAIJ)(;rns 0.014 0.001} o.nna 0.041 0.0009 o.nna
11111) :w eH D25 65 c)3 n~
I 1111 19 n:lil nn5 nn 157 rJ5
c '{N4WE (lUll (o.m (o.m <0. C)l <0. C)l (n.tH
I" IFII' L~~ t..( :. ~ [.:., -'"'r. "'.' , .1
",I, I u.
-------
CITY OF PHOENIX 191B AVEKJE UHDFIU.
2HD OTR 1987 INORCaANlC WATDt QUAUTY DATA
COOCENfRATIONS IN PPH Wl£SS amEBVtSI tm'EO
WELL I»t-SS Otf-.) 1-1 1-2 1-1 1-4 1-5
.
DATE 810820 870818 870128 810128 810124 810121 810121
AHH£WIA <0.1 <0.'1 0.16 0.16 44.1 U. 4.52
BOR~ 0.8 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 . I 0.8 <0.1
CALCIIlt 97 61.1 59 64" :' 50 62" ",'!' 14
IRoo O.O}
-------
CITY OF II»IIOooX 19m AVDIJE LANDnu.
2ND Q11\ 1981 INORGANIC VATDt QUALITY PATA
coocmrRATlONS IN PPH Wl£SS OI1l£lUnS£ tm'£O
\lEU.
"- \I It,
PATE
AHHOOA
BORON
CAt£llIt
DON
tWM:SIlIt
tWG\N£S£ .
fOTASSl1I8
SOOltlt
atLORID8
FLOUIU08
tUEUWlL mnoGDI
NlTlATB
POOSPDATB
SULFATB
ANfIHONY
ARSFNlC
BAR I tit
BERYWUH
CAI»t lilt
CHROH I tit (IIEI)
aJROH1l1t (TOT)
COPPER
,LEAD
. HERCUR Y
N(DEL
S£l£NIUH
SILVER
11W.UUH
ZINC
AIUUNITY
T(1I' AI. 01 SSOI.VW 501.1 DS
TurAL ORGANIC CARBON
TUfAI. ORGANIC IftAnAX;I::NS
ilj,(W
011)
c:y AN 1111-:
~ n \ J '.I
'"
1-6
. ,,'
810124
<0.1
o.~
68
0.01
11.4
1.29
9.4~
254
429
O.}~
0.~9
1.09
0.01
149
<0.02
<0.01
0.42
0.011
<0.001
<0.01
0.02 .,
<0.002
0.0006
0.06
<0.01
<0.01
<0.02
0.11
126
1238
2
o.on
n~
~9 .
(0 oa "
'1-8
Ii
810Bl
}.n
0.2
46
0.05
12.4
2.92
11
111
232
0.26
2.9
0.24
<0.05
2~.)
<0.02
0.015
1.15
<0.01
-------
CITY OF PIIOD4IX 19TH AVENUE LANDFIU
3M QTR 1981 INORGANIC UA1'ER QUAUn DATA
CtH»ffRATIONS ItI PPH &lU.£S~1 al1lEIUI1SI tm'ED
VEU I»t- 3D 1»t-3) 1»1-3' 1»t-4 I»t-SD bt-5S bt-6
DATE 811021 811021 8110n 811021 811020 811020 811022
AHHl»flA <0.1 <0.1 <0. t <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
BORL* 0.22 0.95 0.45 0.65 0.65 0.95; 0.64
CAlCItIt 40.5 123 50.1 11.,1 110 111 ' 65.1
IftL* 0.01 0.056 0.119 o.on o.on <0.03 0.041
HA£J4£Snlt 18.6 40.6 2.1.2 26.9 48.8 11.1 23.8
tWaNESB <0.01 0.01 0.441 G. 021 0.01 0.012 0.«4
POTASSltIt 5.11 1.62 5.84 5.49 8.]5 8.01 5.11
SOOltlt 160 280 180 110 140 160 230
atLORIDE 15] 41(.\ 201 191 191 501 211
FLOIIUDB 0.)4 0.11 0.11 0.19 0.22 0.21 0.21
IUEUWlL NI1ROGDI O.l1J 0.19J O.)8J O.l1J 0.21J 0.11J 0.29J
NITRATE 0.54 1.49 o.n 0.58 12.5 14.6 2.)8
PUOSPHATB <0.05 <0.05 0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
SULFATE 31.9 165 16.1 111 123 165 96.1
AHfIHOOY . <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
ARSENIC <0.01
-------
CITY OF PIiOENlX 19TH AVWUE !.ANDFlIJ.
]RD 01'R 1981 INORGANIC WATER QUALln 'DATA
COOCEUl'RATlONS IN PPH lJft..£SS (mIEIUIIS£ NOTED
\lEu. 1-1 1-1 1-1 1-4 1-5 1-6 1-8
DATE 811019 811019 871019 811020 811020 811020 811023
MUOfIA 1.88 1.44 12.1 12.2 6.54 0.12 2.42
BORON 0.68 0.81 0.~9 0.59 0.6} 0.86 0.65
CALCIUH 58 55 41 52 12 .66 41.8
IRON <0.05 0.05 0.86 0.141 10.959 <0.01 0.042
HAGNESltIt 29.8 25.8 15.5 19.4 12.} 44.6 . 28.2
HAtG\NESI 2.11 4.04 2.81 1.15 1.51 2.86 2.89
POTASS 1 lit 6.6 6.4 16.1 15 15.8 9.4 10.9
SODIUM 140 134 209 240 200 290 180
CHLOIUDB 128 206 214 148 294 466 205
PLOtlllOK 0.21 0.28 0.26 0.2 0.24 0.28 0.18
IU£LDAJlL NlTROGW 0.48J 0.14J 29.1J 12.8J 5.5J 0.2J 2.1J
NITRATE <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1.11 <0.1 8.96 <0.1
PHOSPHATE <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 . <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
SUlFATE, 51.2 65.6 }..86 12.4 84.4 180 38.1
ANTIHONY <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
ARSENIC <0.01 <0.01 . <0.01 0.012 0.021 <0.01 0.11
BARIUM 0.11 0.21 0.92 1.62 0.51 0.19 <0.06
BERYLUUH <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
CAl»tI UH <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0. ocn <0.001 <0. ocn <0.001
CIIROHIUH (HEX) <0.01 <0.0} <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 15
-------
CITY OF PHOFJUX 19TU AVElIUE LAt«»FlU
4nt QTR 1981 INORG#.NIC UATDt QUALITY DATA
COOCDfI'RATIOOS I~ 1»PI' IR£SS .,11011151 NarEo
VEil. 1Mt- 1 lit-I DK-2 1»1-1 lit-3D 1It-1I at-3p.
LEVEL 54 192 54 194
DATE 811211 811211 811218 81121' 811211 811216 ' 811211
AHKOOIA 4.11 <0.1 0.44 <0.1 . <0.1 <0.1 \ <0.1
BOROO 0.54 0.65 0.58J 1.05.1' o.} I 0.16": \ 0.61
CALCutt 18 69 '.1 5J 91 'I ": I 38 145 ""I' 52
IROO
-------
I "
CITY OF lPHOOOX 19TH AVQAJE LAt«)FlU.
4n1 QTR 1987 lOORGANIC "ATOt QUALITY DATA
~TIOOS IN PPH WL£SS anJDtVlSl NOTED
. '!' :, I!
lIEU. 1»t-4 I»t- 50 1»t-5S 1»t..6 1-1 I-~ 1-1
" I" \ j' ~ ,)! II III \ I
DATE 811216 811216 871216 811216 811214 871214 811217
AHHC»IIA <0.1
-------
---"~-"-- . - - -- -
C IT'" 01-' I'UOUU X 19'111 AilWUE LANDFI U.
4111 O'fR 1987 INORGANIC VATER OUAUTY DATA
COOCOO'RATIONS IN PPH ~L£SS O11IF.RWISE Har£D
VEIL 1-4 I-~ 1-6 1-8
DATE 81121~ 81l21~ ,.1121~ 811218
AHtOaA 12.~ 1.81 <0.1 <0.1
lOR... (1.96 0.61 0.81 0.14J
CAUIIlt !O ~6.6 88.4 51.5
OUt (..111 0.81 <0.05 0.645
IlAQllSIIIt ~ ).2 21.1 48 15.4
IWQNIS£ ~,~, 1 2.9 1.8
MASSIIlt 1 ..1 12.6 9.99 16.1
SODIIlt 224 181 102 189
t1P r.aIDI 124 226 441 252
ruuJDI 0.2 0.29 0.16 O. 22J
UlUWIL NI1'ROGDf 0.22J 4.9 O.11J 1.61
NItRATE 1.68 '~.11 9.9 0.21
PBOSPftATE 0.01 /).11
-------
RADIOISOTOPE DATA
-------
CITY OF PHOENIX 19TH AVENUE LANDFILL
RADIOISOTOPE DATA
CONCEITRATIONS IN pCi/L
WELL LEVEL DATE GROSS ALPHA GROSS BETA RADIUM 226 RADIUM 228
OH-1 54 870824 -2.7 1.0 10.7 5.6 0.5 0.1 0 1
OH-1 54 871217 -0.1 3.2 17.8 6.6 . . . .
OH-1 122 870825 2.0 2.6; 2.9 5.6 0.0 0.1 0 1
OH-1 192 870825 0.2 1.9 2.1 3.3 0.2 0.1 0 1
OH-1 192 871217 10.2 2.7 16.2 6.8
OM-2 54 871217 -8.0 6.1 11.8 10.6 . . . .
OH-2 89 870825 -2.3 2.7 9.4 5.2 0.7 0.1 0 1
OM-2 194 870826 0.3 2.2 4.1 4.3 0.6 0.1 0 1
OH-2 194 871217 -2.1 8.4 14.9 11.6 . . .
OM-3D 870818 -0.8 2.6 5.6 4.9 0.2 0.1 0 1
OM-3D 871021 -2.6 1.6 3.9 4.9
OM-3D 871217 0.7 4.5 4.8 5.4 . . . .
DM-3I 870818 -3.0 2.7 8.9 5.4 0.3 0.1 0 1
DM-3I 871021 1.8 4.4 4.0 8.0
I DM-3I 871218 -2.8 4.3 9.4 10.0 . . . .
DM-3P 870819 -3.4 4..5 9.5 3.4 0.0 0.1 0 1
DM-3P 871023 -1.7 1.'2 9.0 5.5
DM-3P 871217 -2.8 1.3 0.4 6.3 . . .
OM-4 870818 1.3 3.5 12.4 5.9 0.6 0.1 0 1
OM-4 871021 0.4 1.6 4.1 5.2
OM-4 871216 -5.7 4.8 8.8 6.2 . ,
OM-50 870820 -0.7 2.8 8.2 5.8 0.0 0.1 0 1
OM-50 871021 -0.7 3.7 6.8 9.1 . .
OM-5S 870820 -1.4 3.2 10.5 5.9 0.4 0.1 0 :l
O"-5S 871020 1.8 6.1 8.1 . ; ;1.2.2
DM-5S 871216 0.8 2.3 4.1 6.2 . . .
OM-6 870818 -0.5 2.4 11.5 , :4.3 0.3 0.1 0 1
DM-6 871022 ,-1.4 1.4. 6.4 8.2
OM-6 871216 -2.1 2.4 4.1 5.1 . I 'I ..
1-1 860821 -2.4 2.9 8.3 3.8
1-1 870331 4.6 2.1 7.9 &.0 . .
1-1 870728 -2.1 2.8 8.8 5.8 0.1 0.1 0 2
1-1 871019 -2.0 .3.8 3.5 5.2
1-1 871214 -2.1 1.4 6.6 5.5
1-2 860821 -2.5 2.8 3.3 3.9
1-2 810331 -0.9 4.0 ,1.5 5.4 . .
1-2 810128 -0.4 0.1 2.2 1.5 0.0 0.1 0 2
J-2 811019 0.5 1.8 19.4 6.1
I .
'1(1 1IIt.!...~; II a-enw n t
-------
---- ---- --- -------------
CITY OF PHOF nx 19'1'H AVENUE LANDFILL
!U[{OISOTCPE DATA
CONCENTRATIOt;:S IN pCi/L
WELL LEVEL DATE GROSS ALPHA GItOSS BETA RADIUM 226 RADIUM 228
1-2 811214 0.9 9.4 4.6 5.4
. 1-3 86U822 1.9 5.1 51.0 10.1
1-3 861016 -0.9 3.4 122.0 8.1
1-3 810331 -1.4 1.8 33.0 8.1 . . . .
1-3 810124 0.8 5.9 . 3.5 5.3 1.0 0.1 0 2
1-3 811019 -1.5 3.6 31.8 8.2
1-3 811217 -3.1 2.6 53.8 . 9.2
1-4 860821 0.1 6.2 8.8 7.4
1-4 810331 -0.2 2.5 39.6 8.0 . . . .
1-4 810727 0.2 1.9 31.5 7.8 1.0 0.1 0 2
1-4 811020 -0.3 3.4 21.9 10.1
1-4 811215 -2.9 3.8 32.8 8.1
1-5 860822 -1.7 3.1 13.8 1.5 .
1-5 810401 17.9 4.2 8.1 6.2 . . . .
1-5 810121 -0.8 2.6 15.6 6.1 0.1 0.1 0 2
1-5 811020 -4.3 4.2 19.2 10.8
1-5 811215 -0.6 2.8 13.9 5.8
1-6 860821 -4.1 8.1 22.0 11.2
1-6 861016 0.1 2.4 92.8 12.6
1-6 810401 4.1 2.1 4.0 6.5 . . . .
1-6 810124 2.9 3.2 11.9 6.5 0.0 0.1 0 1
1-6 811020 -2.0 :1.1 8.1 11.4 '
. . . .
1-8 810131 4.0 6.5 9.6 6.0 0.3 0.1 0 ~
1-8. 811023 -2.8 4.6 8.0 5.1
1-8 811218 -2.4 3.8 11.9 .6.3
! . ~
. no measurement
i' t
-------
.
EPA METHOD 601./602 DATA:
-------
CITY Of PHOOOX 19111 AVFHJ2 L.\tI)FlU
)RD 01'R 1986 ORGANIC YATEB QUAUn DATA
601/602 ANALYSES CONCENI'IATI'*S IH PPB
I ,
\ . ~ II .
VEU. 1-1 1-1 1-2 '1~1 1-4 t~5 1-6
DATI 860821 860822 860821 860822 860821 860822 860821
atLOROKI'I'IW8 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
BROHOHEI'IIANI <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06
DIQW)IOOlfUJOROttElllAHl <1.8 <1.8 <1.8 <1.8 <1.8 <1.8 <1.8
VINYL C1I1.ou.. 2.~ 1.9 2.5 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
CULORO&'I'IW8 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.6 <0.1 <0.1
HE11IYIAIB CII4UDB <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
TlUQlLOBOPLOOIIOHE'I'IIANB <1 <1 <1 . <1 <1 <1 <1
1,I-DICBLOaOlTHENl 0.2 1.4 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 1.4
l,l-DICHLOBOITHANE 1.9 1.1 1.5
-------
CITY OF PIJOOOX 19TH AVOIJE UHDfIU
4111 QTR 1986 ORGANIC UAn:a QUAUn DATA
601/602 ANALYSES COOCF.NI"kATI'*5 IN ppa
VEU. 1-1 1-2 1-1 1-4 1-5 1-6
DATI 861011 861011 861016 861016 861016 861016
CIIlaROHEI'IIAHB <0.1.2 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
BROttOHBT'BANB <0.116 <0.06 <0.06 . <0.06 <0.06 <0.06
OlnIJ "I1\IPLOOIOHEIIlANE
-------
CITY OF PHOOOX 19TH AVDIJB I.NI)PIU
1ST QTR 1981 ORGANIC VATER QIWJTY DATA
601/602 ANALYSES COOCDlfRATI~ IN PPB
UEU. I-I 1-2 1-) 1-4 I-~ 1-6
DATI 810131 810131 810111 810111 8101}1 810111
(]IU)ROtIEI'BANB <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
BROItOHBTIIANI <0.05 <0.06 '<0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06
DII'1I1l)pOOIfLOOlOttiTllANl <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04
vnm. nq l)pIDl 1.2 0.6
-------
! \-!
" \
CITY OF PHOOOX 19TH AIIOIJE l.MI)FlU. . \
2ND QTR 1981 ORCaAHlC UAT£R QUAUn DATA
601/602 ANALYSES COOCEHl'RAnONS IN PPI
/
\lEu. I»t -1 1»1-1 1»1-1 1»1-1 1»«-2 1»«-2 "'-2
LEVEL 86 122 1~1 192 89 124 159
DATE 810901 610901 810901 " 810901 810904 " 810904 ., 810904
OU.()ftOttE'l'llANl <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 I 1<0.02 <0.02 ,,<0.02 I' .<0.02
BROHOHE'I'IIAHI <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 'I <0.06 <0.06 1,<0.06 1\ .<0.06
DICUWRODI'LUOBOtti.'1BANB <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 , . <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 . <0.04
VINYL QIIl\III18 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 ,<0.05 <0.05 " <0.05 <0.05
OILDROEIIIANB <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
HE'I'IIY1J!HI nil l\A,JDE <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 ' '<0.02
TlUOIWRO'LOOIIOHI11IANI <0.01 <0.01 1.1 . 0.9 <0.01 0.4 <0.01
l,I-DICBLOIOBTHENE <0.01 0.5 2.1 1.1 <0.01 <0.01 0.3
1,I-DICBLOROIIHANI <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 1.1 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
TRANS-l.2-DICJIWROI'I'III!N <0.09 <0.09 <0.09 0.4 <0.09 <0.09 <0.09
atLOROfOlH
-------
CITY OF 'HOQUI 19TH AVEHJE LAtl)FllJ.
2ND QTR 1981 ORGANIC VATER QUALITY DATA
601/602 ANALYSES CONCOfI'IATIONS IN 'PI
I ..
UElJ. 1It-2 lit... 30 lit...:] I 1it-1' 1»t-4 I' t
"'-50 I»t-~S
LEVEL 194 'I '\, I ~ . II n.
810908 810818 810818 '
DATE 810819 810818 810820 810820
alLOROHE'I1W8 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 . <0.02 <0.02
BROttOHEI'BANI <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06
OIalUJIOOI'LUOROttE11IANI <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 1.9 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04
VINYL on I\PJDB <0. OS
-------
CITY OF PHOt)41 , 19111 A\£HUE LAtlJfIU
2ND QT1I 198] ORUNIC UATU 00AUn OATA
601/602 ANALYSES mNCEHI"BATI«*S III PPI
\lEu. 1»t-6 1-1 1-2 1-1 1-4 1-5 1-6
DATE 810818 810128 810128 810124 810121 810121 810124
OIWROHEI1IANI <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
BROHOHE11IANI <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06
OlalLOltOOIFUlOlWHEl1lANE <0.04 <0.04 <0.04
-------
CITY OF PtIOOOX 19111 AVtBJE LAtQ11IJ.
2m QTR 1981 ORGANIC VATER QlWJTY DATA
6011602 ANALYSES COOCDII'BATI'*S DI 'fB
VEil.
DATE
au:.oROKETIIANE
BROHOHEI'IIANB
DlalWBODIPLOOftOHETIIANI
VINYL OILOIUI»:
CllLOROETUANI
HE'I'UYUNB ~npllW '
11lIC8WROFLOOROKmIANI
l,I-DIC8LOBO£THENB
1,I-DICHLOROETUANI
tRANS-l,2-DI~
ClLOROFONt
1,2-DICILOROET8ANB
I, 1,1- tUOILOBOBTIIAHB
~ TE'l"RAalLOIUDI
BROHOOICHIl.OIlOKE'I'UAN
1,2-DIClLOROPBOfENB
TRANS-l,3-,DIClLOROPBOfH
TRlatLOROE1'llD4£
DI BROHOCIILOROHE'I1IANE
I, 1,2 -tlUO!IU)ItOD'UANE
CIS-l,,3-DICHLOROPROfENB
2-atLOROImIYLVINYL £'I"IIEI
BROKOFOIUt
1,I,2,2-~~ETBANB
TETRAatWROE'l1lENB
BEN'lENE
TOl.tJmE
CIII.oROBDllENB
ETHYLBEN'lOW
1,3-DlCULOROBDfla4E
1,2 -DIClII.oROBDflmE
1,4 -DIClII.okOBDllJ:}4E
TR n Cftftft AMi\~J1I1'M IT rr'n.uOROt:n~
ACft::n-ON1iS
(). P - XYU:N;:::
H mrlHm
I-B
810111
1.31
0.1
<0.04
2
1.1
<0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.05
2'
<0.05
<0.01
2.5
<0.08
0.1
<0.03
<0.11
0.4
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.09
<0.01
<0.01
<0.2
<0.4
O.S
<0.1
<0.4
<0.4
<0.6
(dUb~
<1.1
<0.15
-------
"
CITY OF 11110001 19111 A',IDIJE W&)F1U"
3RD QTR 1981 ,JRGANIC VAn~ QtW.ITY DATA
601/602 ANALYSES COOCENntAnOO 1M PPI
VEil. Dt-JO Dt-li 1It-1P Dt-4 lit-SO 1*-5S 1»t-6
"
DATI 81102' ..' ,811021 811021 811021 811020 811020 811022
alLORoaentAN£ <0.02 "I' <~b. D 5 (0. A~ (n.15 (U. 15 <(0). ft5 <0. 1 5
I.,
-------
CITY OF POOOUX 19'111 AVDU: LAtQ"lU
3M QTR 1981 ORGANIC VATER QUA1.In OATA
601/602 ANALYSES COtQ1lrRATiOOS IN PP8 'I
II "
UEU 1-1 1':'2 I~} . ' 1'~6'1
1-4 1-5 1-8
I, ,II .'
DATE 811019 811019 811019 811020 811020 81'1020 81102}
QlWftOKEI'IIANI <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
BROHOHI'IIIANB <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06
01(111 ()IQI)IPLOOROHEI1IANB <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04
VINYL aILOIUDB 2.6
-------
CITY OF PIIOOOX 19T11 AVDIJE LAtlWIlL
4TH QTR I~Hl ORGANIC UAm Q(JAUTY'DATA
601/602 ANALYSES ~TI~ IH PPI
UElL
LEVEL
DATE
atLOROHB'IIIANI
BROttOHE1'IIANI
DlalLORODIFLOOIWHE1'IIAHI
VINYL noMJDI
, alLORO£TBANI
HE11IYLD8 ,aq lWIDB
TIlICllt.OIIOftJJOBOHEI'BANI
1,1-~I~
1,'I-DlatIOB()B1'UANB
TRANS-l,2-DI~
atLOROIOIM :
1,2-DICHLORO£THANI
1,1', 1- D!OIU)IO£'I'IIANI
CAUM TI'I"ItAaIWIIDE
BROHODICIILOIOHE'I'IIAHI
1,2-0IaILOIOPlOPDm '
TRANS-l,3-DICHLOROPBOPENE
l1UOIU)IU)£'l1ma
DIBROtW1tlnROttaUANE
I, 1,2 - TIIatLOIOt.iIIANI
CIS-l,}-OICHLOROPBOPENB
2 -atLOROITIIYLVINYL mtER
BROItOFOIUt
1,I,2,2-1'E'I'RACIIWftOETIIANB
T£T8ACULORO~
BF.NZtm
TOUJOfE '
OU1)(tOBOflOI£
t.THYLBoao.E
1,1-DlatLOROB£NZ£NE
1.2-DICHLOROBOflENE
1.4-DICHLOROBENZENE
Tit I QIWIUmU FUJORO&nlANE
01 P xn.mE
H XYIHU:
I»t-l
54
811214
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<2
<2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.2
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
I»t -1
86
81:,214
<0 2
<0,2
<0.1
,0.1
-------
CITY OF POOo.U 19'111 AVQ«JE LAtl)FIIJ.
4TU QTR 1987 ORGANIC UATEI QUAUTy DATA
601/602 AlWLYSES COOCEN1IAl100s 1M PP8
YEll. ht-2 ht-2 "'-2 "'-3D 1*-11 "'-1P "'-4
LEVEL 124 1~9 194
DATI 81l21~ ,81l21~ 81121~ 811211 811216 811211 811216
atWROHrI'IIANE <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
BMOHC»tB'I'IIANI <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
DlaJU)IODIPUJOROHmIANE <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
VINYL I1IJ -OIIDI <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
CIIWROImIANB <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
tOO1IYIJ!NB aILORlDI <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
TRlCIIU)BOFLOOROHEI'IIANI <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
1,I-DICHLOROITBENI <0.2 to.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
I,I-DICULOROETUANI <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 1.9 <0.2
TRANS-I,2-DI~ <0.2 ," :';
-------
CITY OF pmt:NIX 19T11 A\i'DIJE LANDFlIJ.
4111 Q1'R 1987 ORGANIC UA1U OOAUTY DATA
6011602 ANAlYSES a»o1fI'BATI~ IN PPB
YELL 1»8- 50 1»8-55 1»t-6 1-1 "
II
DATI 8112'16 811216 871216 811214 '0
aILD80HImIANB <0.2 <0.2 . "<0.2 <0.2 .11 ,
BROttOHE'I1IANB I <0.2 <0.2 ,,<0.2 <0.2 .Ii',
DII'JP ~ODIPUJOROttE'I1IANB (0.2 <0.2 ' <0.2 . <0.2 ./1
V1HYL CIIIJ\8ID1 (0.2 <0.2 .(0.2 0.5 II
C8LOBOBI'IIANI <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
HE1'IIYI.H aILOIllDE <4. 6W <2 <2 <2
malUJROfUJOaOt£l1lAHE <2 <2. <2 <2
1.1-DICJIL080~ <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.5
1.1-Dlc:IIWRO£11IANB <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 19.1
TRANS-I,2-DICHLOROETUENE <0.2 0.4 <0.2 10.5
1111 J1IU}fOBH <0.2 0.1 <0.2 <0.2
1.2-DlaiLOBO£'I'IIANE <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
1,1,1- mall.DROETIIANE <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 11
CAIIWf TmAaIlORIDE <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
BROHODI~ . <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
l,2-DlalLOaOPitOP£NE <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
TRAN5-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
TRICllLOaOE11lDft: <0.2 0.9 <0.2 <0.2
DIBROHOaILOROH£11tAN£ <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
1,1 ,2 -11UCHLORO£TIIANE <0.2 , <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
CI5.-1, 3-0IatWROPROPe4E <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
2 -atLOROETHYLVINYL £'I1IEat <0.5 I <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
BftOHOFOIUt <0.5 I <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
l,I,2.2-TETRACHLOROETHANE <0.2 i <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
I
T£11tAaiLOROE'nIENE <0.2 <0.2 ,. <0.2 <0.2
BOllENB <0.5 ! <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
TOWN <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
OIWROBENZmE <0.5 <0.5 <0.5' <0.5
£I1IYLB04'lIm <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
1,3-0ICHLOROBENZENE <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
l,2-0ICHlnROBEirlENE <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
l,4-010ILOROBENZENE <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
TlUC1I1.olumU FWURUEl1lANE <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
AC"'TOOE <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
O,P-XYI.mE <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
-------
CITY OF PIIOOOX 19TH AViHIE LAtl)FIIJ.
4111 QTR 1\987 ORGANIC UATER QUALITY DATA
6011602 ANALYSES COOCENI'RATIOOS IN PPB
YEu. 1-2 1-1 1-4 I-~ C6 1-8
" II ." I ,
DATE 811214 871217 81121~ 87121~ 8j121~ 811218
QII1lROHE11IANI <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 (0.2 <0.2
BROHOttB'I'IIAN <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
DIQlU)MOOIPUDOttE'I'IUNE <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
VINYL mlw.. <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
aIWROE'I1IANI <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
HE1'IIYLDm C1Q 11JIDE <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
mQW)ROPLIJOIOHD1IANE <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
1,I-DICULORO£TBBNl <0.2 <0.2 0.5 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
1,I-DICULOROETBANI 0.5, <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
TaANS-I,2-DIr.HlnpnETHENE <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.1
aw>ROFOIUt <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
1,2-DICULOROETBANE <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
I,I,I-TRICHLOROETHANE <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
CARlON TE'l'RAClllJ)UD£ <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
BaOHODICULOROHETIIANE . <0.2' <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
1,2-DICHLOROPROP£NE <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
TaANS-I,1-DICULOROPROP£NE <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
mCULORO£11lDm <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 1.4 <0.2
DIBROHOCULOROHETIIANE <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
1,I,2-TRICHLOROETHANE <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
CIS-I,1-D.ICULOROPBOPENE <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
2-CltLORO£TIIYLVINYL mD <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
BaOHOfORH <0.5 <0.5 <0~5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
1,I,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE <0.,2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
T£TRACHLOROI11lm£ <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
BFNlEHE <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
TOW£NE <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
-------
EPA METHOD 608 DATA
,
,
i
-------
CITY OF 1'Il1000]( 19111 AVDIJE UNDFlll.
3RD Q1'R 1986 ORGANIC VAtU QUAUTY DATA
608 ANALYSES coocomtATI'*S 1M PPI
UIU. 1-1 1-2 1-1 1-4 I-~ 1-6
DATI 860821 860821 860822 860821 860822 860821
A-8IIC <0. OC)) <0. OC)} O.011J <0.001 0.051.1 <0.001
1-8IIC <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006
C-BIIC <0.009 <0.009 0.01 <0.009 0.041 <0.009
D-BIIC <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004
IIEP1'jntlnR :<0.08] <0.081 <0.081 <0.08] <0.081 <0.081
AWUN <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 0.004J <0.004
1IEP1'AQW)R 11'01101 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0,24 <0.24 <0.24
DI)OSUl.FANI <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004
4-4 ID <0.004 <0.004 O.OO~ <0.004 <0.004 <0.004
DIIWUN 0.006J '~.OO5J 0.01~ <0.002 0.02~ 0.006J
DDIN <0.023 <0.023 <0.021 <0.021 <0.021 <0.021
DIJOSULPAN II <0.066 <0.066 <0.066 <0.066 <0.066 <0.066
4-4 W) <0.011 <0.011 <0.011 <0.011 <0.011 <0.011
flOlJN AU»IYD£ <0.003 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
4-4 WI' <0.012 <0.012 <0.012 <0.012 0.01] <0.012
fH)OSULFAN SULFATE <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006
all.DIDANI <0.014 <0.014 <0.014 <0.014 <0.014 <0.014
TOW~ <0.06~ <0.065 <0.06~ <0.065 <0.065 <0.06~
rea 1016 ' <0.065 . <0.065 <0.06~ <0.065 <0.06~ <0.06~
fCB 1221 <0.065 <0.065 <0.06~ <0.065 <0.065 <0.065
rea 1232 <0.065 <0.065 <0.06~ , <0.065 <0.065 <0.065
fCl 1242 <0.065 <0.065 <0.065 <0.065 <0.065 <0.065
PCB 1248 <0.065 <0.065 <0.065, <0.065 <0.065 <0.06~
fCB 1254 <0.065 <0.065 <0.065 <0.065 <0.065 <0.065
fCB 1260 <0.065 <0.065 <0.065 <0.065 <0.065 <0.065
,
-------
CITY OF PUOOOX 1m. A\1ENU8 L.\tI)FIU.
2ND (lI'R 1981 ORGANIC UATI:a OtWJTY DATA
608 ANALYSES COOCDfl'RA1'I(»,IS IN 'PI
YEu. I»t - 1 III -1 111-1 111-2 111-30 111-31 111-1'
LEVEL 54 122 194 19
DATE 810824 810825 810825 810825 810818 810818 810819
A-BOC <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
I-BOC <0.1 (0.1 . <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
C-BOC <0.1 <0 1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
O-BUC <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 . <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
HEn ACJII ()t <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
AWUN <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
BEPTAaILOI BfOllD! <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
OI)()SUl.PAN I <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
4-4 001 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
D'EUIUN <0.1 <0.' <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
DOUN <0.1 <0. L <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
OI)()SULFAN II ! <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
4-4 10) <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 ' <0.1
EIOlIH AWIYDI <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
4-4 wr <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
ENOOSULFAN SULfATE <0.1 <0.1 <0.. <0.1 <0.1, <0.1 <0.1
atLORDANE <20 <50 <50 <50 <20 <20 <20
TOXAftlDm <50 <50 <~ <50 <50 <50 <50
PCB 1016 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50
PCB 1221 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50
PCB 1212 <50 <50 <50 <50 " i <50 <50 <50
PCB 1242 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50
PCB 1248 <50 <50 <50 <50 <.50 <50 <50
PCB 1254 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50
PCB 1260 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50
-------
CITY OF PIltOOOX 1911t AVDm: LAtl)fIU
2ND QTR 198;' ORGANIC VATER OUAUTY DATA
608 ANALYSES CCR»II'RATIMS IN 'PB
UEU bt-4 bt - 50 bt-55 1»1-6 1-2 1-4 1-5
DATI 870818 810820 810820 810818 870128 810121 810121
A-BIIC <0.1
-------
CITY OF fOOEHII 19T11 AViHJE LANDFIU.
2ND QTR 1981 ORGAHIC VATER OUAUn DATA
608 ANALYSES CC»D1fl'RATIOO IN fPB
YEll.
1-6
DATE
A-BHC
B-BHC
C-BItC
D-IUIC
BEnACIILOI .
AWUH
B£f1'ACULOi lfODDI
omSULFAH 1
4-4 OPE
DIEWUH
£1QlIH
ENDOSULFAH II
4-4 DOO .
DQUH AUUYPI
4-4 WI'
ENDOSULfAN SUI. 'ATE
an.DRDANE
TOWIID$
PCB 1016
PCB 1221
PCB 1232
PCB 1242
PCB 1248
PCB 1254
PCB 1260.
810124
<0.1
<0.1
<:0.1
0.11
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1 .
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<50
<50
<50
<50
<50
<50
<50
<50
<~)()
1-8
810111
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1 .
0.11
<0.1
<0.1
. <0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<50
<50
<50
<50
<50
<50
<50
<50
<50
.' .
., \
-------
. \
CITY OF PIIOENU 19111 AVDU: LANDfllJ.
4m OTR 19ti17 ORGANIC UATER OIWJTY DATA
608 ANAL1S£S COOCWmATIOOS lMPPB
I
WIJ. lit-I lit-I 1It-2 1It-2 lit - 30 1It-3I DtI-JP
LEVEL. 54 192 54 194
DATI 811211 811211 811218 811218 811211 811216 811211
A-BIIC <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
B- BIIC <0.05
-------
CITY OF PII(}:J\JX 19111 A'IENUE lANDFILL
4TH QTR 1981 )It ANIC UATfo:R OOA1.fn DATA
608 ANALYSES OOCOlfRA'rI~ ~ 'fB '
UEU 1»1-4 1»1-50 1»1-5S "'-6' 1-1 1-2 1-1
DATE 811216 811216 811216 811216 811214 811214 811211
A-BHC <0.05 <0.0) <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
B-BItC <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
C - BIIC <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
D-BUC <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
IlEPTAI1III* <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
AWlJH <0.05
-------
CITY OF PHOWII 19TH AVOIJE lAtQPlU
4111 Q1'R 1981 ORGANIC VATER WAUTY DATA
608 ANALYSES ClKD«RATI<»IS IN 'PI
UELL 1-4 1-5 1-6 1-8
PATE 811215 811215 811215 811218
A-BHC <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
8-BHC <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
C-BIIC SULPAN SULFATB <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
atWRDANE (1:
-------
EPA METHOD 624 DATA
. .'
-------
CITY OF PH09UX 19111 AViHJE lANDFIll.
380 QTR 1986 ORGANIC VATER QUAUn DATA
624 ANAlYSES ~tm1L\TIONS IN 'PI
VEil. 1-1 1-3
DATE 860822. 860822
aILOROtU::i'HAH&' <10 <10
BROHOHET'BANI (10 (10
VINYL CUI.()llI~ ~10 <10
I ClW)R()E11IANI (10 <10
I . tIB11IYlEHI C8U}UDI 10.3 10.1
1'IIaiLOROFLOOROHE'I'IIANB <10 <10
1,I-DICHLORO£TUENB 5.6 <5
l,l-DICULOROETUANB 3.1 <5
T8AHS-l,2-DlaILOaoE'l1lDm <5 <5
aILOROFORH <5 <51
1,2-DICULOROETHANB <5. <5
I, I, l-TlUCUWROE'I'IIANB <5 <5
~ ttI'IW:1ILOBJDI <5 <5
BROHODlau.oROHB'I1IANB <5 <5
1,2-DICULOROPllWPANE <5 <5
taANS-l,3-DICHLOROPROPENI <5 <5
nICULOROE'I'IIDa <5 <5
BEN2D4K <5 <5
DIBROHOCULOROHE'I'UANE <5 <5
I, 1,2 -matLOROE'l1lANE
-------
CITY OF PHOWU 19TH AVO«JE I.AN)FIU
2ND Q'fR 1917 ORGANIC UA1'ER OUAUTY DATA
624 ANALJSES COOCEHI'RAn'*S D1 'P8
Ui:U 1»t-2 1»t-2 '1-1 1-1
UVEL 89 194
DATI 870904 870908 870728 870724
atWROltE'l1lANE <10 <10 <10 <10
880H0HE'111ANE <10 . <10 <10 <10
VINYL alLOIUDB
-------
EPA MET-HOD 625 DATA
-------
. ~:.
cln OF PIIOOOI 19111 AVDIJE LANWlU.
1RD Q1B 1986 ORGANIC YATER QIW.ITY DATA
625 ANALYSES COOCDlI'RATI~ iii 'fl
UELL
1-1
D4TB
Jl-NI11IOSOOIHETHYL WNB
IIS( 2..a1W1O£111YL)B11IER
l,1-01aw80BDllDC
1,4-01011 n8OBDllD8
1,2-0111lllWOlOOH
IIS(2-CHLOIOISOPlO'YL)ETUER
A.-V I"., l1U\ITBANI '
N-NI1IIOSOOI-N-PIOPYL AHIHB
IfI1"I08DaDiI
ISOPllOlUHl
IIS( 2-01L010111101Y)HE11IAHB
1,2,4- ftlaIl.OI08iHZI!HI .
tWIrrIIA1.D8 '
IIEIAaILOBOIUI'AOID8
IIUAQW)ROCYCLOfDfrADIIH
2-aILOIUIWlI'l1WJ.NI
ACOWVl1IYL!NE '
DIHE'I'IIYL fll'l'llALATB
2.4-DOOnarOa.uo.B
ACENAPII'I1IENI
2.6-01N11'1U1l'OWH
PLIJORDfI
4-QlLOROPIIDffi. PIIOftL ImlER
DI£1'IIYLPII11IALATB ,
N-N11ROSOOlfHDm..AHINB
4-BBOHOPItOftL PIIortL D1IER
HRVVUL0R08~
A-BIIC
I-BIIC
C-BIIC
fllENAHl1ll\mE
AHnIRACDm
D- 81M;
DlEn.ND:lOaAVl
BENZiDINE'
UI mrrvt rimlAIA'I't'
8W122
<10
<10
<10
<10
,<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
, <50
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<10
<10
-------
CITY Of PIIOENIX 19TI1 AVENUI:: LANDFIll.
3RD OTR 1986 ORGA nc VATER QlJAUTY DATA
625 ANALYSES '~~Ull'RATlOO~; IN PPI
HEPT AalWR EPOXI DE
F~E
,YRDfE
. DmSULFAN I
4,4-00£
DJEWUH
FlUIH
fMOOSULFAN J I
4,4-000
BUm. BENZYL PUTlWA11
1,1-DIan.naoBDllIDIHr
I!II)OSUIIAN SULPATB
CIIIYSENI
4,4-WI'
8iN'l.O(A )AHI1IRA(DI
IIS( 2-I'I'UYUIEXYL)PIn1W.ATI
01 -1I-OCnL PIlI'IW.ATI
BDO.O(I )FLIJORAHI'mU
BDtl.O(I)fUJORANI'IIDm
BENZO(A)PYR£N£ .
lNDENO(I,2,1-C,D)PYRENI
OIBDaO(A,H)ANTIIRACENB
8ENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE
DUJN AlD£IIYDE .
0I1.0IWAN£
TOWHDm
fCB-I016
PCI-1221
fCB-1212
fCI-1242
fCI-1248
fCI-1254
PCB-1260
PUFMOL
2 -all.D80PIIDr)(.
2-NlTROPlimoL
2,4-DIHETUYI.PllmoL
2,4 -DIOII.OROPlimoL
4 -OII.D80- ]-HETIIYI.PII. ':NOL
2,4,6-TRICIIWROPII£NUL
2,4 -DINJTHCU'limU.
4 - NITHC)POI~1-MU.
'J HVI'IIYI I. I. IIItHTIlUO'OOo.'L\lOU
40.05
410
.10
(0.05
'0.05
(0.1,
, (0.1 "-,
(0.1 ".
co. I ,
<10
<20
<0.1
<10
<0.1 .
<10
1.25
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<0.1
<0.5
<1
<]0
<36
<10
<10 .
<10
<10
<10
<]0
<10
<10
<~14)
)
<0.05
<10
<10
<0.05
<0.05
<0.,1-
<0.1,
<0.1
<0.1
<10
<20
<0.1
<10
<0.1
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
-------
,,'
:'
CITY OF PHOOOX 1911t AViHE 1AtIWIu. I,
2M) Q1R 1981 ORGANIC UATER QUAUTY DATA : '
625 ANALYSES OH»lI'BATI'*S 1M "I
II
'i-
UIU. 1It-2 111-2 DH-2 1-1 It;]
I.IVIL 89' 89' lt4 I ' III
DAti 870904 810909 8'10826 810128 8~0124
II-IU'IIOSOOIIIE'IIIYL A.tINE <10 <10 <10 <10
-------
CITY OF fIlO£NIX 1911t A\/aU: LOOnu.
2ND QTR 1981 ORGANIC VATER QUAUTY DATA
625 ANA: ,YSES COOCWTRATIONS IN '1'8
IlEPTAatLOR IPOXlD£ (10 (10 (10 <10 <10
PLUOIWmIENI <10 (10 (10 <10 <10
PYIH <10 (10 <10 <10 (10
fJI)OSUUPAN I <10 (10 <10 <10 (10
4,4"'" <10 <10 (10 <10 <10
0111-.01 <10 . <10 <10 <10 (10
IItUDI <10 <10 <10. (10 <10
~UAN II <10 <10 .
------- |