o
Accelerated reduction of contamination to exceed ARARs--continued use of existing wells and nine additional extraction wells (Groundwater Alternative 6)
Alternatives 5 and 6 are associated with two groundwater level-of-treatment alternatives. The groundwater level-oftreatment alternatives for Subunit B/C are;
o Removal until water from monitoring wells is of a quality that meets ARARs
o
Removal until levels of VOCs in water from monitoring wells are below detection limits, which is the background quality of groundwater in the area
Water Treatment Technologies. The possible technologies identified to treat water are:
o o o o o o o o o o o
Air stripping Activated carbon Reverse osmosis Distillation Critical fluid extraction Liquid-liquid extraction Photolysis Aerobic biological treatment Anaerobic biological treatment Steam treatment Wellhead treatment
Water End Use Alternatives. The principal objective of a water end use alternative is to provide an implementable, effective, economical, and safe means of disposal for extracted groundwater. Alternatives for water end use fall into the following basic categories: o Agriculture--Treated water could be used for irrigation and crop production. Water may not require treatment prior to delivery to agricultural users. Industrial--Treated water could be used for industrial processes or washdown. Municipal--Treated water could be used by a municipality for domestic supply, groundwater recharge, or to satisfy water requirements or certain types of water rights.
o o
5-24
RDD\R225\027.50
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS
Document 72-7
Filed 04/11/2006
Page 1 of 31
o
Recreational--Treated water could be used for creating lakes, irrigating public parks and golf courses, and other recreational uses.
o
Reinjection--Treated water could be reinjected into the aquifer at various locations in the
vicinity of the site. Surface discharge--Treated water could be discharged to waste in the Agua Fria or Gila Rivers for diversion downstream for municipal or other use, or to waste in these channels.
o
A number of engineering constraints related to water end-use alternatives were identified, and they will affect the costeffectiveness of the end use alternatives. A summary of engineering constraints is presented in Table 5-6. Public health and environmental considerations by water use type were also evaluated, and these are presented in Table 5-7. Screening of Alternatives
As noted previously, under SARA and CERCLA, remedial actions are those responses to releases that are consistent with a permanent remedy to prevent or minimize the release of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants so they do not migrate to cause substantial danger to present or future public health or welfare or the environment. Alternatives are screened based on their ability to meet the above-stated requirements, and those stated previously, and to meet the remedial response objectives for groundwater.
Based on the summary presented in Table 5-8, several alternatives were eliminated because they fail to satisfy the remedial response objectives. These include: o o o Construction of a containment slurry wall Groundwater pumping to control taminants beyond the 5 ppb TCE Groundwater pumping to control contamination beyond the areas migration of conboundary migration of the of detected TCE
Extraction Alternatives. A summary of the groundwater extraction alternatives is presented in Table 5-9. The alternative numbers correspond to those for the alternatives listed above. The alternatives were evaluated according to two criteria:
5-25
RDD\R225\027.50
I
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS Document 72-7 Filed 04/11/2006 Page 2 of 31
Table 5-6
SUMMARY OF ENGINEERING CONSTRAINTS FOR WATER END USE ALTERNATIVES
Alternative
AGRICULTURAL USE
Conveyance Requirements
Physical Barriers
Hydraulic Requirements
^Storage Requirements
Buckeye Irrigation District
1 to 4 miles south,
depending on source
location
Southern Pacific Railroad and State Highway 85.
None--delivery point is downhill. Pressurize to permit sprinkler irrigation, demand. Supply will
None--Buckeye Canal contains waste discharge facilities.
Park Shadows Apartments
1/4 to 3 miles, depending on source location.
4 to 5 miles, depending
No significant
barriers.
Must provide storage due to periodic
likely exceed demand.
Roosevelt Irrigation District Interstate 10.
on source location.
INDUSTRIAL USE
20- to 65-foot elevation head. No pressure head required.
None--Waste capabilities currently in place.
Ui I
Loral Electronics
Varies, depending on source location. Varies, depending on
No significant
Elevate to existing
barriers.
No significant barriers. No significant barriers.
storage tank.
Elevate to storage tank, industry's demand. Elevate to storage tank, industry's demand.
Supply may exceed industry's demand.
a\
to
Phoenix-Goodyear Airport
Supply may exceed
Supply may exceed
source location.
Unidynamics, Inc.
RECREATIONAL USE
Varies, depending on source location.
Estrella Golf Course
2 to 4-1/2 miles, depending on source location.
Southern Pacific Railroad, Buckeye Irrigation District Canal, and Gila River.
Pressurize to irrigate; no elevation head.
Provide storage due to fluctuating demand.
RDD\R57\042.50-1
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS
Document 72-7
Filed 04/11/2006
Page 3 of 31
Table 5-6 (Continued)
Alternative
MUNICIPAL USE
Conveyance Requirements
Physical Barriers
Hydraulic Requirements
Storage Requirements
City of Buckeye
1 to 4 miles south,
depending on source location. Conveyance would be via Buckeye Canal. City of Avondale 1 to 3 miles, depending on source location.
Southern Pacific Railroad and State Highway 85.
None.
None--City has storage facilities.
Conveyance through developed areas of Goodyear and
Avondale; utility
Pressurize to city
standard or elevate to storage tank.
Requires storage facility.
relocation, easement, coordination with cities.
City of Litchfield Park Ul I
3 to 5 miles, depending on source location.
Interstate 10, Roosevelt Irrigation District Canal.
May require utility relocation, easement acquisition, and coordination with the city.
40 to 85 feet of elevation head, pressurize to city standard or elevate to city storage tank.
None--Existing storage facilities.
to
City of Goodyear
1/4 to 3 miles, depending on source location.
Pressurize water to city standard or deliver to existing storage tank.
Existing storage tank;
additional storage would be required.
RECHARGE
Reinjection or Ponding
SURFACE DRAINAGE
Varies, depending on recharge points.
None anticipated.
Possible pressurization
to inject to aquifer.
None anticipated.
Surface Discharge to Agua Fria River
Storm drain exists at site.
None.
None.
None.
RDD\R57\042.50-2
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS
Document 72-7
Filed 04/11/2006
Page 4 of 31
Table 5-7 PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS BY WATER USE TYPE Water Uae Type Potential Public Health Impacts
Potential Environmental Impacts
Contact and/or ingestion of treated water by livestock.
Agriculture
Incidental contact and/or ingestion of treated water by agricultural labor.
Inhalation of volatile residual contaminants by agricultural labor or nearby residents.
Transport of residual contamination in Irrigated soils.
Transport of residual contamination to groundwater or surface-water systems. Uptake of residual contaminants by plants. Potential phytotoxicity of residual contaminants.
Industrial
Incidental contact and/or ingestion of treated water.
Inhalation of volatile residual contaminants.
Possible exceedance of industrial discharge requirements
to sewage treatment plants.
Municipal
Direct and/or incidental contact and Ingestion of treated water.
Potential phytotoxiclty of residual contaminants.
Inhalation of volatile residual contaminants.
Ul I
K> 00
Uptake of residual contaminants by plants, including those In residential gardens. Transport of residual contamination in irrigated soils. Potential aquatic toxicity of residual contaminants.
Transport of residual contamination to groundwater or
Direct and/or incidental ingestion of and contact with soil irrigated with the treated water. Recreational
Incidental Ingestion and contact with treated water by lake users. Inhalation of volatile residual contaminants.
surface-water systems.
Uptake of residual contaminants by aquatic plants and organisms.
Reinjection
Incidental contact and/or Ingestion of treated water, and humans. Inhalation of volatile residual contaminants.
Contact and/or ingestion of treated water by livestock
Potential risk to aquifers and surface-water systems.
Potential phytotoxicity of residual contaminants.
Surface-Water
Discharge
Direct and/or incidental contact and ingestion of
treated water.
RDD\R13\017.50
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS
Document 72-7
Filed 04/11/2006
Page 5 of 31
Table 5-8
SUMHARY OF THE SCREENING OF GROUNDWATER AQUIFER REMEDIAL ACTIONS
Conclusions Alternative Inrolementability
N/A
_______Effectiveness_____
N/A
1. No action. 2. Containment using slurry walla.
No action is retained as a baseline for comparison.
Extremely difficult installation
High cost and relatively
ineffective.
because of depth of the middle fine-grained unit.
3. Groundwater pumping to meet ARAR concentrations in the aquifer. » Remedial action would be applied to the target area above 5 ppb VOCs. 4. Groundwater pumping to meet ARAR concentrations in the aquifer at an accelerated rate. Remedial action would be applied to the target area above 5 ppb VOCs. Ol t [sj 10 5. Groundwater pumping to exceed the ARAR concentrations in the aquifer. This alternative would be applied to the target area above background for VOCs. 6. Groundwater pumping to exceed the ARAR concentrations in the aquifer at an accelerated rate. This alternative would be applied to the target area above background for VOCs. 7. Groundwater pumping to control migration of the contaminants beyond the S ppb VOC boundary.
A groundwater extraction system would be relatively easy to construct and implement.
The ability of the system to extract contaminants is fairly certain. The duration of the remedial action is unknown. The ability of the system to extract contaminants is fairly certain. The duration of the remedial action is unknown.
Medium
to High
A groundwater extraction system would be relatively easy to construct and implement.
Medium to High
A groundwater extraction system would be relatively easy to construct and implement.
This alternative would be more effective than Alternatives 3 and 4 in that a greater amount of the aquifer would be rehabilitated. This alternative would be more effective than Alternatives 3 and 4 in that a greater amount of the aquifer would be rehabilitated. This alternative is relatively ineffective because the restoration of the drinking water aquifer is not the objective and restoration is not achieved for a very long period of time. This alternative is relatively ineffective because the restoration of the drinking
water aquifer is not the
Medium to High
A groundwater extraction system would be relatively easy to construct and implement.
Medium to High
A groundwater extraction system would be relatively easy to construct and Implement.
Medium
Relatively ineffective
alternative.
8. Groundwater pumping to control migration of the contamination beyond the areas of detected VOCs.
A groundwater extraction system would be relatively easy to construct and Implement.
Medium to High
Relatively ineffective
alternative.
objective and restoration is not achieved for a very long period
of time.
RDD\R51\015.50
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS
Document 72-7
Filed 04/11/2006
Page 6 of 31
Table 5-9 SUMM&RY TABLE OF GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION ALTERNATIVES
Total
Number of
Alternative 1 3 4 5 6
Existing Wells
Number of Hew Wells
0 1
Pumping Rate (ac-ft/yr)
20 20 20 20 20
3 4 9
--
7,463 8,673 11,093 12,303 18,353
o
The ability of the selected well array to develop a hydraulic capture zone that extends throughout the target area
o
The relative rate of contaminant capture by the extraction wells
Evaluation of the five Subunit B/C remedial action alternatives for the PGA site are summarized in Tables 5-10 through 5-12.
The five proposed remedial action alternatives are retained because they offer a wide range in the desirability of the factors of effectiveness, implementability, and cost. In general, effectiveness and cost factors are inversely related, while implementability factors do not vary greatly per alternative. Increasing the area of capture of contaminated groundwater and reducing the time of capture requires increased capital and operation costs.
Treatment Alternatives. Table 5-13 presents an evaluation of the technologies for VOC removal and screens out those that are not applicable. Air stripping and activated carbon adsorption were retained for detailed evaluation. The other technologies identified were dropped from further consideration for a variety of reasons including poor, variable, or unproven performance, institutional and management constraints, or inapplicability to expected contaminant concentrations. Chapter 5 of the PGA Feasibility Study provides the methodology for the screening of treatment alternatives.
5-30
RDD\R225\027.50
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS
Document 72-7
Filed 04/11/2006
Page 7 of 31
Table 5-10
DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES--EFFECTIVENESS Alternative 3--
Alternative 1-Evaluation Criteria Short-Term Protectiycneaa
Reduction of Contamination
_____to Meet ARARs______
Alternative 4-- Accelerated Reduction of
Contamination to Meet ARARs
Ho Action
Alternative 5-Reduction of Contamination _____to Exceed ARARs_____
Alternative 6-- Accelerated Reduction of Contamination to Exceed ARAga
Reduction of Existing Risks
No reduction of risk occurs because of lack of wellhead treatment.
Risks can be substantially reduced. Two types of risks are identif-ied: point of use of groundwater and the zone(s) of contamination within aquifers of Subunits B/C. Treatment of potentially con taniinated water is designed for existing and additional extraction wells. Contaminants within the ARAR target area will eventually be captured in extraction wells. However, contaminants now occurring in the back ground target area will not be fully captured. Ground water contamination above background but below ARAR concentrations will continue to spread. Same as Alternative 1.
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
No treatment of potentially contaminated waters is designed.
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
Contaminants in groundwater will be reduced by capture in extraction wells. However, not all of the ARAR or back ground target volumes will be captured. Groundwater contamination will continue to spread.
Contaminants within the ARAR target area will eventually be captured in extraction wells. However, contaminants now occurring in the back ground target area will not be fully captured. Ground water contamination above background but below ARAR concentrations will continue to spread. Same as Alternative 1.
Contaminants within the ARAR and background target area will be fully captured. The spread of groundwater contarn ination outside of the back ground target area will be eliminated.
Contaminants within the ARAR
and background target area will be fully captured. The spread of groundwater contain ination outside of the back ground target area will be eliminated.
Compliance with ARARs
Ul I U)
One location-specific ARAR, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FCWA) may be potentially applicable
within the FGA site.
Same as Alternative 1.
Same as Alternative 1.
Requirements of the FWCA will likely be met. Potential chemical-specific ARARs for the PGA site are listed in Table 2-5. ARARs ARARs for a number of potential contaminants are unlikely to be met at the place of use and within the groundwater target zones. Potential chemical-specific
ARARs for the PGA site are listed in Table 2-5. ARARs
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
ARARs for potential contaminants are likely to be met at the place of use during during the remedial action and within the target zone
RDD\R51\013.50-1
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS
Document 72-7
Filed 04/11/2006
Page 8 of 31
Table 5-10
(Continued)
Evaluation Criteria
Alternative 1-- No Action A waiver from the requirements of chemical-specific ARARs 18 not appropriate.
Alternative 3-- Reduction of Contamination
_____to Meet ARABS______
Alternative 4-- Accelerated Reduction of . Concaainatlon to Jfeet ARARs
Same as Alternative 1.
Alternative 5-- Reduction of Contamination
_____to Exceed ARAKa_____
Alternative 6-- Accelerated Reduction of Contamination to Exceed ARARs
Same as Alternative 1.
Compliance with ASARs (continued) Compliance with Other Criteria, Advisories,
Sane as Alternative 1.
Same as Alternative 1.
and Guidances
Protection of Community During Remedial Actlona
advisories, and guidances are not likely to be met. The risk to the community is
at the point of use of pumped
Requirements of criteria,
Requirements of criteria, advisories, and guidances are likely to be met. The risks to the community during the remedial action
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
groundwaters.
may result from accidents
associated with the construction operation and maintenance of the additional
groundwater wells and
treatment facilities.
Risks that remain and that U1 I
W
cannot'be readily controlled are the uncertainties associated with potential
groundwater contaminants within the aquifers of Subunlts B and C. Protection of Workers
Risks that remain and that cannot be readily controlled are the uncertainties associated with potential
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
groundwater contaminants
within the aquifers of Subunlts B and C.
to
During Remedial Actions
Not applicable.
The risks to workers during the remedial action include various levels of exposure to potential contaminants and accidents during all phases of the remedial action. All risks should be minimized
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
with appropriate preparation
and conscientious performance.
Sane aa Alternative 3.
The time required to reduce contamination to concentration goals is not definitely known. However, it is estimated that «t least 38 years
Sams as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
Achieved
Time Until Protection is Hot applicable.
The tine required to reduce
contamination to concentration goals is not definitely
known. However, It is estimated that at least 90 years of pumping will ba required to reduce contaminant levels in the aquifer to below ARAR
ofl pumping will be! required to reduce contaminant levels In the aquifer to below ARAR
contamination to concentration goals la not definitely known. However, it Is estimated that at least 65 years
of pumping will be required to reduce contaminant levels in the aquifer to below ARAR
The time required to reduce
The time required to reduce contamination to concentration goals it not definitely known. However, it is estimated that at least 40 years of pumping will be required to reduce contaminant levels In the aquifer to below ARAR
RDD\R51\013.50-2
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS
Document 72-7
Filed 04/11/2006
Page 9 of 31
Table 5-10
(Continued) Alternative 3-- Reduction of Contamination
_____to Meet ARARs______ Alternative 4-- Alternative 5-- Alternative 6-- Accelerated Reduction of Contamination to Exceed ARARs
Alternative 1Evaluation Criteria
Accelerated Reduction of
Contamination to Meet ARARs
Ho Action
Reduction of Contamination
_____to Exceed ABARs______
Time Until Protection is Achieved (continued)
concentrations within the
ARAR target volume. This
concentrations within the
ARAR target volume. This alternative is not effective in flushing the aquifer in
concentrations within the
ARAR target volume. It is
concentrations within the
ARAR target volume. It is estimated that at least 108 years of pumping will be
alternative is not effective in flushing the aquifer in the background target area.
estimated that at least 158 years of pumping will be
required to reduce contaminant levels in the aquifer to
the background target area.
below background concentrations within the background
target volume.
required to reduce contaminant levels in the aquifer to below background concentrations within the background target volume.
Same as Alternative 3.
The tine when remedial activities will commence is not known. The time when remedial actions will be complete Is not known.
The risk or magnitude of the principal threat during the remedial action should be minimal if appropriate measures are followed. Long-Term Protectiveness Reduction of Future Risks
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
I OJ U) Not applicable.
The remaining sources of risk include potential groundwater contamination greater than ARAR and background concentrations both inside and outside the target cleanup areas. Unknown sources of risk that may remain after the remedial action include additional undiscovered sources of groundwater pollution and migration of potentially contaminated groundwaters that escape monitoring and remediation.
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
RDD\R51\013.50-3
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS
Document 72-7
Filed 04/11/2006
Page 10 of 31
Table 5-10 (Continued)
Alternative 3--
Evaluation Criteria Loog-Term Reliability
Alternative 1No Action Not applicable.
Reduction of Contamination
____to Meet ARARs_____
Alternative 4-- Accelerated Reduction of Contamination to MeetARARs
Sane as Alternative 3.
Alternative 5-- Reduction of Contamination
_____to Exceed ARMis_____
Alternative 6-- Accelerated Reduction of Contamination to Exceed ARARs
Sane as Alternative 3.
The potential for failure of
Sane as Alternative 3.
tbe additional groundwater extraction well depends on
how accurately the target cleanup area(s) define the
actual spatial distribution of contamination and how
completely groundwater extraction can collect groundwater contamination from within the target
cleanup area(s).
The magnitude of the threats Sale as Alternative 3. Sane as Alternative 3. Same as Alternative 3.
or risk should remedial
action fail may range from minimal to severe. Nontreated, potentially contaminated waters used for municipal and industrial
U1 I
U)
*>·
purposes offer the greatest risk.
Compliance witb ARARs Not applicable.
Long-term requirements of location-specific and
chemical-specific ARARs,
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3,
Same as Alternative 3.
other criteria, advisories, and guidances are likely to be met.
Prevention of Future
Exposure to Residuals
Not applicable.
The likelihood of future exposure to residual contaminants is not known but may be present.
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
Sane as Alternative 3,
Should the remedial action fail, the threats or risks are likely limited to the
Same as Alternative 3.
Sane as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
point of use of extracted
groundwater. Tbe magnitude
of these risks is not known.
Potential Need for
Replacement Not applicable.
tbe likelihood for needing
The likelihood for needing
replacement of the monitoring
replacement of the monitoring wells, extraction wells, and
pumps is very high.
wells, extraction wells, and
puop® is very high.
Tbe likelihood for needing replacement of the monitoring wells, extraction wells, and pimps is very high.
Tbe likelihood for needing replacement of tbe monitoring wells, extraction wells, and pumps is very high.
RD/R51/013-4
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS
Document 72-7
Filed 04/11/2006
Page 11 of 31
Table 5-10 (Continued)
Alternative 3--
Alternative 4-~
Accelerated Reduction of Contamination to Meet ARARs
Alternative 1Evaluation Criteria Ho Action
Reduction of Contamination
_____to Meet ARARs______
Alternative 5-Reduction of Contamination
_____to Exceed ARARs____
Alternative 6-- Accelerated Reduction of Contamination to Exceed ARARs Same as Alternative 3.
Potential Need for Replacement (continued)
The required replacement of wells is anticipated to be every 40 years, pumps every 30 years. If rehabilitation of the wells occurs at regular intervals, risks associated with failure should be low. Replacement of monitoring wells should not present significant risk as long as the retired wells are prop erly sealed.
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Permanent and Significant Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume
Treatment is not designed.
Treatment of groundwater to remove potential groundwater contaminants is an essential design of the remedial action. All groundwater discharges from the additional extraction well and all operating wells within or near to either the ARAR and/or background target areas will be included in the treatment design. It is not known, quantita tively, to what extent the total mass of toxic contami nation within Subunits B/C will be reduced or destroyed. Significant reduction should occur, however, during the operation of the remedial action.
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
Same ad Alternative 3.
None of the groundwater is designated for treatment.
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
Ul I
CO
Ul
It is not known, quantita tively, to what extent the total mass of toxic contami nation within Subunits B/C will be reduced or destroyed. Significant reduction should occur, however, during the operation of existing extrac tion wells.
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
RDD\R51\013.50-5
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS
Document 72-7
Filed 04/11/2006
Page 12 of 31
Table 5-10 (Continued) Alternative 3-« Reduction of Contamination
_____to Meet ABARs______
Evaluation Criteria Permanent and Significant Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume (continued)
Alternative 1-___Ho Action _
Alternative 4-Accelerated Reduction of Contamination to Meet ARARs
Contaminants within the ARAR
Alternative 5« Reduction of Contamination ,____to.-Bxce.ed ARARs____ Contaminants within the ARAR and background target area
will be fully captured. The
Alternative 6~Accelerated Reduction of
Contamination to Exceed ARARe
Mobility of contaminants in groundwater will be reduced by capture in extraction wells. Howeveri not all of the ARAR or background target volumes will be captured. Groundwater contamination will continue to spread.
Contaminants within the ARAR target area will eventually be captured in extraction wells. However* contaminants now occurring in the background target area will not be fully captured. Groundwater contamination above background but below ARAR concentrations will continue to spread.
The time required to reduce
target area will eventually be captured in extraction wells. However* contaminants now occurring in the background target area will not be fully captured. Groundwater contamination above background but below ARAR oticent rat ions will continue
spread of groundwater contamination outside of the background target area will be eliminated.
Contaminants within the ARAR and background target area will be fully captured. The spread of groundwater contamination outside of the background target area will be
eliminated.
to spread.
The time required to reduce contamination to concentration goals is not definitely known. However, it Is estimated that at least 38 years of pumping will be required to reduce contaminant levels in the aquifer to below ARAR concentrations within the ARAR target volume. This alternative is not effective in flushing the aquifer in the background target area.
The time required to reduce
This alternative is not effective in reducing concentrations Co below ARARa throughout the target volume.
contamination to concentration goals io not definitely known. However, it is estimated that at least 90 years of pumping will be required to reduce contaminant levels in the aquifer to below ARAR concentrations within the ARAR target volume» This alternative is not effective in flushing the aquifer in the background target area*
contalmlnatlon to concentration goals is not definitely known. However, it is estimated that at least 65 years of pumping will be required to reduce contaminant levels in the aquifer to below ARAR concentrations within the ARAR target volume. It is estimated that at least 158 years of pumping will be required to reduce contaminant levels in the aquifer to below background concentrations within the background target volume.
The time required to reduce contamination to concentration goals is not definitely known. However* it Is estimated that at least 40 years of pumping will be required to reduce contaminant levels
In the aquifer to below ARAR
concentrations within the ARAR target volume. It is estimated that at least 108 years of pumping will be required to reduce contaminant levels in che aquifer to below background concentrations within the background target volume. Same as Alternative 5.
en I u>
To what extent the overall threats are reduced is not known.
There will be permanent and significant reduction of Toxicity, Mobility and Volume by removing the contamination to meet ARARa.
us Alternative 3.
There will be permanent and significant reduction of Toxicity, Mobility and Volume by removing the contamination to exceed ARARs.
RDI)\R51\013.50-6
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS
Document 72-7
Filed 04/11/2006
Page 13 of 31
Table 5-11
DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ALTESMATIVES--IHPLEHENTABILITY
Alternative 3-- Alternative 1Evaluation Criteria
Short-Term Technical Feasibility Ability to Construct
Alternative 4--
Accelerated Reduction of Contamination to Meet ABARs
Alternative 5--
No Action
Reduction of Contamination to Meet ARARs_____
Reduction of Contamination
to Exceed ARARs
Alternative 6-- Accelerated Reduction of Contamination to Exceed ARARs
Not applicable.
Technology
No serious difficulties are anticipated with construction of the extraction and monitoring wells. The unknowns related to construction are the spatial variability in llthology and potential groundwater contamination.
Sane as Alternative 3.
Sane as Alternative 3.
Sane as Alternative 3.
Short-Term Reliability of Technology
Not applicable.
Ul U>
The likelihood is high that groundwater extraction well and surface treatment technologies will meet required process efficiencies or performance specifications. The likelihood that technology problems will lead to schedule delays Is not known.
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
Compliance with Some
Action-Specific ARARs
Not applicable.
All action-specific ARARS are
Sane as Alternative 3.
Sane as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
likely to be met.
Long-Term Technical
Feasibility
Ease of Undertaking
Additional Remedial Action, if Necessary
Not applicable.
The likely future remedial action that nay be anticipated is the need for additional extraction wells to capture potentially contaminated groundwater, both within and outside of the target cleanup areas: It should not be difficult to Implement additional remedial actions if required.
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
HD/R51/012-1
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS
Document 72-7
Filed 04/11/2006
Page 14 of 31
Table S-ll
(Continued) Alternative 3~
Evaluation Criteria
Ability to Monitor Effectiveness of Remedy Alternative 1No Action Not applicable.
Reduction of Contamination ____to Meet ARABs______
Alternative *-Accelerated Reduction of
Contamination to Meet ARABs
Same as Alternative 3.
Alternative S-- Reduction of Contamination ____to Exceed ABARs_____
Same as Alternative 3.
Alternative 6-- Accelerated Reduction of Contamination to Exceed ARABs
Sane as Alternative 3.
Migration pathways of potentially contaminated groundwater nay occur along
relatively narrow "shoestring" permeable units. These units nay miss monltoring efforts. Exposure
pathways are Halted to point of use of extracted groundwater. Points of use can be
easily monitored.
Risk of exposure due to monitoring that Is insufficient
to detect failure most likely
will occur dowild ip from the western boundaries of the
U1 I U> CO
target cleanup areas. Anticipated contaminant concentrations should be on the
sane order of magnitude as
AMR concentrations. Ability to Perform Operation and Maintenance
Functions Not applicable. Difficulties associated with long-tern operation and maintenance include the finite design life of extraction wells. Monitoring wells/ pumps, and treatment
Same as Alternative 3. Same as Alternative 3. Same as Alternative 3.
facilities.
Unknowns related to long-term
operation and maintenance include the ability of groundwater flux to cleanse pollutants fro* the aquifer and
the time of the working life of wells, pumps, and conveyance systems.
RD/R51/012-2
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS
Document 72-7
Filed 04/11/2006
Page 15 of 31
Table 5-11 (Continued)
Alternative 1Evaluation Criteria
No Action
Alternative 3-- Reduction of Contamination to Meet ARAfis
Alternative 4-- Accelerated Reduction of
Contamination to Meet ARARs
Alternative 5--
Reduction of Contamination to Exceed ARARs
Alternative 6-- Accelerated Reduction of Contamination to Exceed ARARs
Administrative
Feasibility
Ability to Obtain Approvals fro* Other
Agencies
Not applicable.
Specific approvals frog other agencies include Arizona Department of Hater Resources
(ADHR)--poor water quality
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
withdrawal pemlt and Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality (ADEQ)--concurrence with remedial actions as
required by SARA.
It is likely approval froa agencies Mill be obtained.
Likelihood of Favorable
Community Response
The community response is likely to be highly unfavorable to "no action." The technical basis for the highly unfavorable response is valid--possible exposure to contaminated groundwater.
Ul I
The community response is likely to be mixed. It will likely be favorable to the complete cleanup of contamination above ARARs and unfavorable to the incomplete cleanup of contamination below ARARs. The technical basis for the unfavorable response may be valid.
Same as Alternative 3.
The community response is likely to be favorable to the total cleanup of contamination within the target cleanup areas. The high costs of the cleanup nay be unfavorably received by the communityr however.
Sane as Alternative 5.
Coordination with Other Agencies
Not applicable.
Creating a plan for groundwater management of the target cleanup areas is a step that requires coordination with other agencies. Long-term or future coordination among agencies requires a designated agency to oversee the groundwater
management at the site.
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
Compliance with Some
Location-Specific ARARs
Not applicable.
All location-specific ARARs are likely to be met.
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
RD/R51/012-3
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS
Document 72-7
Filed 04/11/2006
Page 16 of 31
Table 5-11
(Continued)
Alternative 3~
Evaluation Criteria
Alternative 1No Action
Reductlon of Contamination
to Meet ARARs
Alternative 4-- Accelerated Reduction of Contamination to Meet ARARs
Alternative 5-- Reduction of Contamination to Exceed ARARs
Alternative 6-- Accelerated Reduction of Contamination to Exceed ARARs
Availability
Availability of Treat-
Nat applicable.
Adequate treatment, storage,
Same as Alternative 3.
Sane as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
Bent, Storage, and Disposal Services and Capacity
and disposal services and
capacity are available per
design.
No additional capacity is necessary unless the target cleanup areas require
·edification.
Availability of Necessary Equipment and Specialists
Not applicable.
The necessary eguipnent and specialists should be avail-
Sane as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 3.
able to construct, operate,
and maintain the operation of the remedial action.
Ul I
O
RD/RS1/012-4
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS
Document 72-7
Filed 04/11/2006
Page 17 of 31
Table 5-12
DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ALTERHATIVES--Cost
Evaluation Criteria Capital Costa
Alternative 1No Action
Alternative 3-Reduction of Contamination
_____to Meet ARARs_____
Alternative 4-Accelerated Reduction of Contamination to Meet ARARe
Alternative 5-- Reduction of Contamination
_____to Exceed ARARs____
Alternative 6-Accelerated Reduction of Contamination to Exceed ARARs
Estimated Capital Costs for Development and Construction Direct Costa Not applicable.
25 Monitoring wells
at $25,000 each 1 Extraction well single caaing at $39,000 Telescoped casing
Ul I
$625,000
25 Monitoring wells at $25,000 each $625,000 3 Extraction wells single casing at $39,000 each 1 Telescoped casing at $58,000 3 Well pumps at
$25,000 each
50 Monitoring wells
at $25,000 each $1,250,000
50 Monitoring wells
at $25,000 each
$1,250,000
39,000
117,000 58,000
75.000 $7,0 8500
3 Extraction wells single casing at $39,000 each 1 Telescoped casing at $58,000 4 Well pumps at $25,000 each
9 Extraction wells single casing at 117,000
58,000
$39,000 each
351,000
0
Telescoped casing 9 Well pumps at $25,000 each
0
1 Well pump at $25,000
25.000
$689,000
__ 100.000
$1.525,000
$1,826,000
Indirect Costa
Not applicable.
Other Capital and Short- Not applicable. Term Costs until Remedial Action la in Place Annual Operating Costa Estimated Annual Costs of Operation and Maintenance for as long as Necessary Operating Labor Maintenance, Materials and Labor Hot applicable. Not applicable, Well and pump rehabilitation, 26 wells, $10,000/10 years/ well - $260,000/10 years Well and pump rehabilitation 10-year design, 28 wells, $10,000/well/10 years $280,000/10 years Well and pump rehabilitation 10-year design, 54 wells, SlO.OOO/well/10 years $540,000/10 years Well and pump rehabilitation 10-year design, 59 wells, $10,000/well/10 years $590,000/10 years
RDD\R51\014.50-1
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS
Document 72-7
Filed 04/11/2006
Page 18 of 31
TabZe 5-12 (Continued). Alternative 3-Alternative 4-Accelerated Reduction of Contamination to Meet ARARs Electrical power costs for pumping extraction wells, 3 extraction wella: Alternative 5-- Reduction of Contamination ____to Exceed ARARa_____ Alternative 6-Accelerated Reduction of Contamination to Exceed AHARa
Evaluation Criteria
Annual Operating Costa (continued) Operation Materials and Energy
Alternative 1No Action Not applicable.
Reduction of Contamination
_____to Meet ARARs_____
Electrical power costs for pumping extraction wella, 1 extraction well:
Electrical power costs for pumping extraction wells, 4 extraction wella: Irrigation--7.5c/kWh,
$b2,500/purap - $210,000;
Electrical power costs for pumping extraction wells, 9 extraction wells: Irrigation--7.5c/kWh,
$52,500/pump « $472,500;
Irrigation--7.5c/kWh,
$52,500/pump;
Irrigation--7.SC/kWh,
$52,500/pui»p « $157,500;
water supply--llc/kWh,
$77*000 per pump
water aupply--llC/kWh, $77,000/punp · $231,000 1 man-year required at
560,000/year « $60,000
water aupply--llc/kWh,
$77,000/pump - $308,000
water supply-»lic/kWh,
$77,000/pump « $693,000
Administration Taxes and Insurance
Not applicable.
1 roan-year required at
$60,000/year * $60,000 Not applicable.
1 man-year required at $60,000/year » $60,000 Not applicable. Not applicable.
1 man-year required at
560,000/year * $60,000
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Hot applicable.
Not applicable. Not applicable.
Maintenance Reserve and Not applicable. Contingency
Monitoring Costs
Not applicable.
U1 I
Water Level Monitoring
Not applicable.
Monthly measurement, A mandays/month - $l,BOO/raonth «
$21,600/year
Water Quality Sampling Not applicable.
Monthly measurement, 4 mandays/month · $l,800/month $21,600/year Quarterly sampling, 15 mandays/quarter « $6,750/ quarter » $27,000/year
Monthly measurement, 4 man(layu/month * $l,800/tnonth »
$21,600/year
Monthly measurement, 4 mandays /month * $l,800/month -
$21,600/year
Quarterly sampling, 28 mandays/quarter » S12.600/ quarter * $50,400/year Methods 601 and 602, BO" wells, 1 sample/well * $230/ well * $18,400/quarter * $73,600 year Yearly Inorganic, 80* wells, 1 sample/well » $270/well ·= $21,600/year 9 Extraction wells, 40-year design, $39,000/well/40 years * $351,000/40 years 50; Monitoring, iwellsj 4;0-year' design, $25,000/Hell/4b years « $1,250,000/40 years 9 Pumps, 30-year design, $25,000/pump/30 years > $225,000/30 years
Quarterly sampling, IS mandaya/quarter · $6,750/ quarter * $27,000/year Methods 601 and 602, 47* wella, 1 sample/veil » $230/uell - $lO,800/quarter
- $43,200/year
Quarterly sampling, 25 mandays /quarter = $11,300/ quarter - $45,000/year Methods 601 and 602, TJ" wella, 1 sample/well - $230/ well * $17,300/quarter * $69,000/year
Analysis of Hater
Quality Sampling
Not applicable.
wells, 1 sample/well -
Methods 601 and 602, 49" $230/well - $U,300/quarter
- $45,100/year
Yearly Inorganic, 49* wells, 1 sample/well * $270/well
Yearly Inorganic, 47*
wella, 1 sample/well <*
$270/well - $12,700/year Replacement Coeta
Yearly inorganic, 75* wella,
1 sample/well * $270/well - $20,300/yesr 4 Extraction wells, 40-year design, $39,000/well/40
- $13,200/year 3 Extraction wells, 40-year
design, $39,000/well/40 years » $117,000/40 years 25 Monitoring wells, 40-year design, $25,000/well/40j years > $625,000/40 years 3 Pumps, 30-year design, $25,000/pump/30 years « $75,000/30 years
Not applicable.
1 Extraction well, 40-year design, 539,000/well/
40 years
25 Monitoring wells, 40-year
years - $156,000/40 years
SO Monitoring wells, 40-year dwign), $25,000/wellMo years * $1,250,000/40 years 4 Pumpfl, 30-year design, $25,000/punp/30 yean * $100,000/30 years
design, $25,000/weU/40
years - $625,000/40 years 1 Pump, 30-year design, $25,000/pump/30 years
ROD\RSl\014.50-2
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS
Document 72-7
Filed 04/11/2006
Page 19 of 31
Table 5-12 (Continued)
Alternative 1-Evaluation Criteria
Present North
Alternative 3-Reduction of Contamination
_____to Meet ARARs_____
90 YEARS OF REMEDIAL ACTION:
Alternative 4-Accelerated Reduction of
Contamination to Meet ARARs
38 YEARS OF REMEDIAL ACTION: $ 875,000
Alternative 5-Reductlon of Contamination _____to Exceed ARARa_____
65 YEARS OF REMEDIAL ACTION: $1,525,000 5,230,000
No Action
Alternative 6-- Accelerated Reduction of Contamination to Exceed ARARa
40 YEARS OF REMEDIAL ACTION: $1,826,000 9,000,000
Capital Costs
Not applicable. Not applicable.
$
689,000
Power Costs, Administration, Water Level Monitoring, Water Quality Sampling Analysis Hell and Pump Rehabilitation (10 years)
Well Replacement (40 years) Pump Replacement (30 years)
Ul I
2,420,000
3,870,000
Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable.
366,000 32,000 13.500 $11,200,000
Total Present Worth
*» U)
"Includes 21 existing monitoring wells completed entirely within Subunits B and/or C. "Present worth of all costs adjusted to end of year zero (10 percent annual rate).
RDDVR51\014.50-3
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS
Document 72-7
Filed 04/11/2006
Page 20 of 31
Table 5-13
SUMMARY OF VOC REMOVAL TECHNOLOGIES SCREENING
Process Description
Air Stripping
State of
Development Commercial
Ability to Heet
performance
Record tow
Relative Costs
Capital Operation Haste Streams
Discharge Standards
exceeding 9 . percent 99
Additional Contents
Commonly used for removal of VOCs
Retained for Further Analysis Yes
Capable of VOC removal Excellent
Low to moderate
Air exhaust (can be
carbon treated)
at low concentrations. Not typically used for this type
of application; can also remove NH and H S from wastewater.
3 2
Steam Stripping
Commercial
Capable of VOC removal Excellent exceeding 9 . percent 99
Moderate
High
Small air exhaust. condensate with organics Carbon containing organics requires regeneration or
replacement
No -- not well demonstrated for removal
of low concentrations
of VOCs
Activated Carbon Adsorption
Commercial
Capable of VOC removal Excellent exceeding 9 . percent 99
Low
Moderate to high
Relatively poor carbon utilization Yes--useful for vapor for treatment of streams with very and aqueous phase VOC low organic concentrations. removal Generally used for removal of salts and high molecular weight organics.
Generally used for treatment of concentrated streams where high degree of separation is required.
No--poor performance
Reverse Osmosis
Commercial
Relatively poor
performance for VOCs
Poor for VOC
High
High
removal
Produces a concentrate stream that requires additional treatment
for VOC removal
Distillation
Commercial
cm
Capable of achieving very high VOC removal
Good on high
Moderate
concentration
streams; not
appropriate for
low concentration streams
Liquid-Liquid Limited High Unknown -- polishing is Good, but usually required ability to meet discharge requirements is unknown
Very high Snail air exhaust, organic liquid, condensate with organics
No--not appropriate
for low levels of
contaminants
Extraction
Commercial
Very high Solvent with extracted Produces a solvent stream with organics organics that requires additional
treatment; requires use of
No--ability to meet
discharge requirements is unknown
potentially hazardous solvents; residual solvent in treated water. Moderate to high High ' None None
No--poor performance for this application
Critical Fluid
Limited
Extraction
Commercial
Unknown-- although unlikely to reduce
below 100 ppb
Limited--few
Very High
large-scale applications Variable i performance
for VOCs
Aerobic Biological Commercial
Some compounds not
readily biodegradable
High
Sludge produced that requires disposal
Sludge produced
May not be stable, susceptible to shock, temperature-dependent, acclimation is Important. May not be stable, susceptible to shock, temperature-dependent, acclimation is important.
High power requirements, many oxidants are toxic; potential for toxic breakdown products to be formed.
No--variable performance No--variable performance
No--Toxic breakdown
Anaerobic Biological Chemical Oxidation
Commercial
Hay not consistently aeet standards Capable of achieving very high VOC removal
Variable performance for VOCs
High
High
Commercial
Applicable to High low concentrations
High
Co plus byproducts
products can be
formed
RDD/R39/001-1
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS
Document 72-7
Filed 04/11/2006
Page 21 of 31
End Use Alternatives. Water end use alternatives were screened based on the evaluation of engineering constraints, statutory considerations, and public health and environmental considerations. Only one alternative,
recreational end use, was eliminated. In this case, distance, physical barriers, absence of storage facilities, and seasonal demand tend to be the major disadvantages for potential end use by the only recreational user to express interest in treated water from the project, the Estrella Golf Course.
Evaluation of Alternatives
No Action Alternative. The no action alternative would allow the groundwater contamination to spread over an everwidening area and would likely have continuing adverse environmental and health consequences. These include exposure to carcinogens and other harmful contaminants through ingestion of water and soil and inhalation of soil gas and gas released from pumped groundwater.
Extraction Alternatives. The pumping alternatives accomplish the objective of stopping migration of contaminants at the airport site. When coupled with treatment, they also will reduce the volume, mobility, and toxicity of the groundwater contaminants. Pumping to extract contaminated groundwater would prevent migration of contaminants from the chosen pumping area. This technology has been demonstrated to be successful in other areas. However, aquifer restoration estimations are based on hydrogeologic principles and regional flow characteristics. There is some uncertainty as to the time required for restoration. Analysis of water samples from monitoring wells for contaminant levels will indicate aquifer cleanup. Operation is relatively simple and is not expected to significantly affect the alternative's reliability. It is likely that during the remedial action, some components will require maintenance or replacement. No impediments to well construction are foreseen, and no significant safety hazards are expected during construction. If pump failure occurs, there would be no short-term release of contaminants that could pose a threat to public health or the environment.
Treatment Alternatives. Both air stripping and activated carbon adsorption achieve the desired goal of reducing volume and toxicity of the groundwater contaminants suffi-
ciently to meet the applicable and appropriate requirements and will likely exceed these requirements. Treatment of
5-45
RDD\R225\027.50
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS
Document 72-7
Filed 04/11/2006
Page 22 of 31
contaminated groundwater, either by air stripping or the use of granular activated carbon, has been shown to be very effective with removals of organic contaminants often exceeding 99.9 percent. These processes are relatively predictable, and they have been used successfully at a number of CERCLA sites. Equipment is relatively easy to operate once initial adjustments have been completed. Operator training will be required. Occasional attention for adjustment, monitoring, and testing will be required. With industrial-grade components and regular preventive maintenance, process integrity should be 10 years or more. Scaling of air stripping tower internals has been a problem at some sites. A small amount of an antiscalant, such as hypochlorite, would be required to remedy this.
Numerous vendors are available to produce the process components. Conventional materials for construction are required.
All equipment items can be shop-fabricated and skid-mounted, making field erection easier. Construction of either process could be completed within 2 years. The startup period may take several days. Catastrophic failure of components is unlikely, and any threat to public health and the environment is relatively low.
The costs associated with every treatment alternative are summarized in Tables 5-14 through 5-16.
Air emission controls were considered as part of the air stripping alternative for two reasons. First, SARA states that a remedy should reduce the toxicity, mobility,-and volume of contaminants. Second, the Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Board requires all new plants with air emissions to employ reasonably achievable control technology to reduce emissions and "will adequately dilute, reduce, or eliminate the discharge of air pollution to adjoining property." The following Maricopa County and ADHS standards would apply to ambient releases of VOCs from an air stripper:
Maximum Release (Ib per day) Maricopa County ADHS
** A permit is required if this level is exceeded.
40* 70
5-46
EDD\E225\027.50
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS
Document 72-7
Filed 04/11/2006
Page 23 of 31
I
I
I
Table 5-14 ·TREATMENT SYSTEM COSTS AIR STRIPPING
Alternative
·reatment Level
ARARs
ARARs
ARARs
Background
6 ARARs
Background
§
_________Item______ pital Cost ite Preparation
Includes clearing, utilities, roads,
$
57,000 $ 60,500 $ 57,000 $ 169,000
$ 60,500 $
176,500
«£ence, and ·foundation)
»
Air Stripping
System tartup
232,700 10,000 242,700 60,675 80,900 72,810
457,085
294,300 10,000
304,300 76,075 101,433 91,290
232,700 10,000 242,700
60,675
737,925 10,000 747,925 186,982 249,308 244,378
294,300 10,000 304,300 76,075 101,433 91,290
573,098
958,050 10,000 968,500
242,013 322,683
Direct Costs
·Fee and Expenses
Engineering Contingency
ital I Capital Cost
80,900 72,810
290,415
1,823,161
124,700 43,680 48,403
573,098
38,823 14,560 15,215
457,085 1,408,592
Operating Cost ·power JLabor iflaint enanc e Other · Includes JP?.nalytical, insurance,
18,716 14,560 12,135 18,571
19,731
18,716 14,560 12,135 18,571
74,478 43,680 37,396 56,086
38,823 14,560 15,215 19,731
60,232
and administration)
Contingency
19,195 83,176 24,270
26,499 114,827 30,430
19,195
63,492
26,499
83,104
3tal Operating Cost mobilization
83,176 24,270
275,133 74,793
114,827 30,430
360,118 96,805
IWorth Present oject
3
1,502,792 2,015,569 1,502,792 4,865,541
2,015,569
6,347,514
I Present worth is calculated
assuming a 20-year period and a 5 percent rate of return.
t I 1 I
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS Document 72-7 Filed 04/11/2006 Page 24 of 31
RDD\R82\019.50
5-47
Table 5-15
TREATMENT SYSTEM COSTS ACTIVATED CARBON
Alternative 3
Treatment Level:
4 5 5 6 6
ARARs
ARARs
ARARs
Background
ARARs
Background
Item
Capital Cost $ 90,500 Site Preparation (Includes clearing, utilities, roads, fence , and foundation) Activated Carbon System Startup Direct Costs
$ 102,500 $ 90,500
$ 267,000
$
102,500
$ 295,000
1,196,121 10,000
1,206,121 301,530 398,020 361,836 2,267,508 124,565 18,200 17,273 36,184 36,675
2,034,057 10,000 2,044,057 511,015 674,539 613,217 3,842,828 232,392 18,200 35,820 61,322 52,428
1,196,121 10,000 1,206,121 301,530 398,020 361,836 2,267,508 125,871 18,200 17,273 36,184 36,675
4,156,067 10,000 4,166,067 1,041,517 1,374,802 1,249,820 7,832,207 473,473 54,600 68,722 124,982 120,322
2,034,057 10,000 2,044,057 511,015 674,539 613,217 3,842,828 241,304 18,200 35,820 61,322 52,428
5,937,784 10,000 5,947,784 1,486,946 1,962,769 1,784,335 11,181,835 739,285 54,600 115,077 178,434 153,818
Fee and Expenses Engineering Contingency
Ul I *>
00
Total Capital Cost
Operating Cost Carbon Replacement Labor Power Maintenance Other (Includes analytical, insurance, and administration) Contingency
69,869 302,766 120,612 6,086,098
120,049 520,211 204,406 10,402,850
70,261 304,464
120, 6^2
252,630 1,094,729 416,607 21,631,969
122,722 531,796 204,406 10,547,225
372,364 1,613,578 594,778 31,514,744
Total Operating Cost
Demobilization
Project 0Present Worth
6,107,262
a
Presenl worlh is calculated assuming a 20-year period and a S percent rale of return.
RDD/R82/020.50
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS
Document 72-7
Filed 04/11/2006
Page 25 of 31
Table 5-16 TOTAL TREATMENT COSTS Alternative
Treatment Level:
ARARs Item ARARs
ARARs Background
ARARs
Background
Air Stripping Pipeline Cost Present Worth Treatment System Cost Present Worth
Total Cost Present Worth Activated Carbon Pipeline Cost Present Worth Treatment System Cost Present Worth Total Cost Present Worth
$1,517,794 1,502,792
3,020,586
$ 2,267,102 2,015,569
$ 764,000 1,502,792
$ 3,774,393 4,865,541
$ 2,367,137 2,015,569
$ 5,653,202 6,347,514
4,282,671
2,266,792
8,639,934
4,382,706
12,000,716
ui I
*» IO
1,517,794 6,086,098 7,603,892
2,267,102 10,402,850 12,669,952
764,000 6,107,262 6,871,262
3,774,393 21,631,969 25,406,362
2,367,137 10,547,225 12,914,362
5,653,202 31,514,744 37,167,946
Note: All present worth costs assume a 20-year period and a 5 percent rate of return.
RDD\R82\021.50
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS
Document 72-7
Filed 04/11/2006
Page 26 of 31
Currently, Maricopa County is considering lowering its standard to 2 pounds per day. In addition, EPA has established guidance on the control of air emissions from air strippers used at Superfund sites. This guidance suggests the adoption of emission controls at sites located in nonattainment areas, even if they are not mandated by Federal or State laws and regulations or indicated by a cancer risk analysis. A nonattainment area is an area that does not meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone. The EPA guidance suggests that sources most in need of controls are those with an actual emission rate of 15 pounds per day or more. For all the alternatives considered here for Subunit B/C, the VOC air emissions are estimated at 1 pound per day or lower Concentrations of VOCs in the air would be difficult to measure without sophisticated air monitoring equipment. The cost of installing an air emission control unit on the air stripper will increase the project costs by two to three times that of the air stripper alone. Considering all regulations and guidance, the low emission rate from the air strippers will have a negligible effect on air quality or public health. Therefore, air emission controls have been deleted from the design of the air stripping equipment because they provide little benefit for the cost involved. This requirement may change in the future.
· ]p Jf » · ^ · * flf H 11 te jg m
End Use Alternatives. A number of end use alternatives are considered feasible based on the evaluation conducted in the Feasibility Study. These include:
o Delivery of treated water to nearby municipalities
o
o
Reinjection of treated water
Delivery of treated water to irrigation or surface water · * ft *
End use alternatives for treated groundwater must be consistent with ADWR Active Management Area plans and goals.
Table 5-17 presents a summary of cost estimates for the various extraction quantities and distribution options considered in the evaluation of water end use alternatives.
The City of Goodyear was chosen as the primary recipient of treated water because of its proximity to the site and the fact that the water extracted from the contaminated B/C aquifer will be in Goodyear *s use area. Water utilized by
· m
f|
m
5-50
RD0\R225\027.50
I 1
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS
Document 72-7
Filed 04/11/2006
Page 27 of 31
^^^H ^B^B
>^^^^^ i^^^^^
-^BJBB
^^^^M
^^^^^
^^^^H
^^^^& ^jflH^Mi ^^^^^ ^^^^B
MIHB ^^^^^
j^mi
Table 5-17 HJD USE ALTERNATIVES COST SUWARY
Extraction and Treatment Alternative 3. Reduction of VOC Contamination to
Meet ARARs
Alternative Extraction Target Area Contamination greater than ARARs
Alternative Distribution City of Goodyear
96-inch Storm Drain
Total Capital Cost ($) 1,895,000
414,000 4,633,000
Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost (S)
3% 133,000 22,000 249,000 5% 133,000 22,000 248,000 10%
131,000 22 ,000 246 ,000
Present Worth of Operation and Maintenance ($) 5% 10% 3%
2,613,000 429,000 4,886,000 2,040,000 1,059,000
335,000
Total Project Cost (S) 3% 10% 5%
4,508,000 842,000 9,519,000 3,935,000 748,000 8,447,000 2,954,000 587,000
174,000 1,981,000
Roosevelt Irrigation District Buckeye Irrigation District Main Canal Reinfection (east) Reinfection (west) 4. Accelerated Reduction of Contamination to Meet ARARs Contamination greater than ARARs City of Goodyear 96-Inch Storn Drain Roosevelt Irrigation District Buckeye Irrigation District Main Canal Reinjection (east) Reinfection (west) 5. Reduction of VOC Contamination to Exceed ARARS Contamination greater than background City of Goodyear 96-inch Stom Drain
3,814,000
6,614,000
3,111,000
78,000
78,000
77 ,000
1,532,000
1,196,000
621,000
4,642,000
4,307,000
3,732,000
3,794,000 4,229,000 2,196,000 270,000 5,313,000
230,000 250,000 158,000 26,000 289,000
229,000 249,000 157,000 26,000 287,000
227 ,000 247 ,000 156 ,000 26 ,000 285 ,000
4,500,000 4,900,000 3,095,000 510,000 5,659,000
3,517,000
1,831,000
8,293,000 9,129,000 5,290,000
7,311,000 8,059,000
5,625,000 6,222,000 3,450,000 476,000 7,607,000
3,830,000 1,993,000 2,416,000 398,000 4,418,000 1,254,000 207,000 2,294,000
4,612,000 668,000 9,731,000
779,000 10,972,000
1 O1 I-1
3,468,000
73,000
73,000
72 ,000
1,432,000
1,119,000
581,000
4,900,000
4,587,000
4,049,000
4,311,000 4,786,000 2,341,000 290,000 5,677,000
249,000 268,000 178,000 27,000 268,000
248,000 267,000 177,000 27,000 266,000
246 ,000 265,000 175 ,000 26 ,000 264 ,000
4,875,000 5,247,000 3,480,000 526,000 5,246,000
3,810,000
1,983,000
9,186,000
8,121,000 6,294,000 8,887,000 6,920,000 5,057,000 700,000 9,774,000 3,751,000 503,000 7,804,000
4,101,000 2,134,000 10,033,000 2,716,000 411,000 4,096,000 1,410,000 213,000 2,127,000 5,820,000 816,000
10,924,000
Roosevelt Irrigation
District Buckeye Irrigation District Main Canal Reinjection (east) Reinjection (west)
3,655,000
35,000
35,000
35 ,000
695,000
543,000
283,000
4,350,000
4,199,000 3,938,000
4,585,000 5,053,000
222,000 231,000
221,000 230,000
220 ,000 229 ,000
4,352,000 4,529,000
3,402,000 1,771,000 3,541,000 1,843,000
8,937,000 9,582,000
7,988,000
6,357,000
8,594,000 6,897,000
RDD/R103/008-1
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS
Document 72-7
Filed 04/11/2006
Page 28 of 31
Table 5-17 (Continued)
Extraction and
Treatment
Annual Operation and Alternative Extraction
____Target Area Alternative Distribution
Present Worth of
Operation and Maintenance ($)
3% 5% 10% 3%
Total Capital
Cost ($1
Alternative
Maintenance Cost ($) 5% 3* 10%
Total Project Cost ($1
5% 10%
6. Accelerated
Reduction of VOC
Contamination greater City of Goodyear
than background 96-inch Storm Drain
2,414,000 384,000 70700 ,4,0
193,000 42,000 4800 3,0
192,000 41,000 4600 3,0
190,000 4,0 100 4200 3,0
3,781,000 816,000 85700 ,7,0
2,953,000 637,000 66600 ,9,0
1,534,000 331,000 34700 ,7,0
6,195,000 12000 ,0,0 1,2,0 56300
5,367,000 1,021,000 1,4,0 37300
3,948,000 714,000 10,523,000
Contaalnation to
Exceed ARARs
Roosevelt Irrigation
District
Buckeye Irrigation District Main Canal
Reinjection (east) Reinfection (west)
4,310,000
8,0 600
8,0 600
85,000
1,692,000
1,322,000
687,000
6,002,000
5,631,000
4,997,000
56400 ,0,0 6,192,000
337,000 360,000
336,000 358,000
334,000 356,000
6,613,000 7,052,000
5,167,000 5,510,000
2,687,000 2,866,000
12,216,000 13,244,000
10,771,000 11,702,000
8,291,000 9,057,000
Ul I Ul
( 0
RDD/B103/008-2
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS
Document 72-7
Filed 04/11/2006
Page 29 of 31
I
I
the City o£ Goodyear will need to be treated to drinking water standards.
E I I I f I I I I I I 1 I 1 1 I I
UNIDYNAMICS PHOENIX. INC.. FACILITY SOILS
Listing of Alternatives
A wide range of technologies was identified for VOC-contaminated soil and groundwater for the UniDynamics Phoenix, Inc. (UPI) facility. For soil, the technologies were screened to identify alternatives that would prevent migration of TCE to subunit A and, if necessary, to preserve uses of Subunit C groundwater. For groundwater, the technologies were screened to identify alternatives that would preserve the current uses of Subunit C groundwater and protect future uses. Various processes were combined to form a range of reasonable treatment options to meet the soil objective. The remedial alternatives to be evaluated for soils are: 'o o o o No action Containment through the construction of a cap Collection and onsite treatment Partial removal and treatment/disposal
The selected processes were assembled into options that would satisfy the specific objectives for the UPI site. The options represent combinations, either singly or jointly, of the general response actions and their selected representative processes. These alternatives were evaluated based on effectiveness and implementability; cost was also evaluated but to a lesser extent than other parameters. A range of action levels, determined through analyzing the applicable and relevant or appropriate requirements, was also evaluated for three areas delineated by the level of soil contamination:
o Target Area A is the area where analyses of soil samples collected identified levels of TCE or other VOCs significantly in excess of ADHS-suggested health-based cleanup levels for soil contaminants.
5-53
EDD\R225\027.50
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS
Document 72-7
Filed 04/11/2006
Page 30 of 31
o
Target Area B is the area in which analyses of soil samples identified VOC contamination above background levels in vadose zone soils.
Target Area C is defined by soil gas analyses that quantified VOCs in soil gas in concentrations greater than 1 ug/1.
o
Target Areas A, B, and C appear on Figure 5-7.
The evaluation process is summarized in Table 5-18. The resulting potential remedial action alternatives considered for screening were:
o
o
o
No action
Removal by excavation and treatment of soils in Target Area A, B, or C
Soil vapor extraction of VOCs with vapor phase carbon treatment applied in Target Area A, B, or C
Screening of Alternatives
Alternatives were screened based on their ability to meet the above-stated requirements and to meet the remedial response objectives for each media.
B W
Based on the screening of the above-mentioned alternatives, the option for excavation and onsite treatment was originally eliminated based on implementability, effectiveness, and cost factors. However, this alternative may be necessary for effective removal of soil contaminated with methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) and acetone since soil vapor extraction is not effect