I I I I I I I
I
I
I
I
1 I I I I I I
m:^.
"'""
'*' --------"·-*··
LEGEND
22 · BUILDING NUMBER SOIL BORING
© o
SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION WELL AIR INLET WELL
FIGURE 5-7 TARGET AREAS A, B, AND C FOR SOILS REMEDIAL ACTION AT UNIDYNAMICS
PHOENIX GOODYEAR AIRPORT ROD
RDD63605.RA AUGUST 1989
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS
Document 81-8
Filed 06/27/2006
Page 1 of 20
Table 5-18
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY SCREENING OF TECHNOLOGIES AND PROCESSES FOR THE SOILS OBJECTIVE
General Response Action
No Action No Action
Technology
Process
Feasibility Screening Comments
Monitoring, institutional controls
Required by NCP
Containment
Containment to minimize migration of contaminants into groundwater
Ui I
Capping
Soil cap Soil cap with synthetic membrane Asphalt cap Concrete cap
Potentially feasible Potentially feasible Potentially feasible Potentially feasible
01
Collection and Onsite Treatment Collection of volatiles Treatment of volatiles Soil vacuum extraction Physical treatment Thermal treatment Soil vacuum extraction Carbon adsorption Incineration, catalytic incineration Not feasible, inefficient for low (ppm) concentrations of organics. Poor for chlorinated organics, requires further treatment. Potentially feasible Potentially feasible
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS
Am c /not _l
Document 81-8
Filed 06/27/2006
Page 2 of 20
Table 5-18 (Continued)
General Response Action
Partial Removal and Treatment/Disposal
Technology
Process
Feasibility Screening Comments
Partial removal and offsite disposal of contaminated soils Partial removal and onsite treatment and disposal of contaminated soil
Excavation
Excavation
Drilled excavation
Potentially feasible Potentially feasible Potentially feasible Potentially feasible
Transport
Hazardous waste disposal facility
Transportation equipment
Incineration
Ul
<
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS
Document 81-8
Filed 06/27/2006
Page 3 of 20
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Table 5-19
SOILS REMEDIAL ACTIONS--COST SUMMARY
Alternative Technology Soil Vapor
Target Area Target Area A Target Area B Target Area C
O&M
Total
Capital Cost ($) 529,700
1,051,200 1,051,200
Annual O&M Cost ($) 75,000
110,000 110,000
Present Worth. 5 Percent
299,500 516,600 516,600
Present Worth
5 Percent
Extraction
829,200
1,567,800 1,567,800
Evaluation of Alternatives. The summary of the technical evaluation for the remedial action alternatives for VOC soils contamination in the vadose zone is presented in Table 5-20. Target Areas B and C overlap; consequently, these target areas were combined in the evaluation. Although not presented, excavation may be required for MEK-
and acetone-contaminated soils. Additional field investigation will be conducted during and after soils remedial actions to determine the extent of MEK and acetonecontaminated soils requiring excavation and treatment.
GROUNDWATER
Listing of Alternatives A wide range of alternatives was identified for the UPI portion of the PGA site. The general process and technology options were identified in part based on their potential application to the specific objectives for groundwater at the UPI site. These remedial response actions were:
o o o o
No action Limited action Containment Pumping and onsite treatment
Initial screening of the technologies and process options was based on technical implementability or feasibility. Entire technologies and individual process options were eliminated from further consideration if they could not be implemented because of physical constraints at the site, chemical characteristics, or if their implementation could potentially result in a greater risk to human health and the environment than presently exists.
5-59
RDD\R225\027.50
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS
Document 81-8
Filed 06/27/2006
Page 4 of 20
Five groundwater target volumes were evaluated for each alternative:
o o o o o Capture and treatment of TCE in Subunit A that exceeds 100 ppb Capture and treatment of TCE in Subunit A that exceeds Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) Capture and treatment of TCE in Subunit A that exceeds background concentrations Capture and treatment of TCE in Subunit C that exceeds MCLs Capture and treatment of TCE in Subunit C that exceeds background · H « ·
Groundwater options were combined to give a range of management and treatment options consistent with the groundwater objectives. Table 5-21 presents a summary of the technical feasibility of technologies and processes for the groundwater quality objective. The groundwater options were assembled from representative processes as follows:
1. 2. No action Groundwater extraction from Subunit A, treatment that exceeds MCLs by air stripping with vapor phase carbon, granular activated carbon polishing, and reinjection to Subunit A
· *TM · I
·
· ||
3.
Groundwater extraction from Subunit A at a higher rate than Option 2, treatment that exceeds background concentrations by air stripping with vapor phase carbon, granular activated carbon polishing, and discharge to Subunit A by reinjection Groundwater extraction from Subunit C, treatment that exceeds MCLs by air stripping, granular activated carbon polishing, and discharge to Subunit C by reinjection or incorporation of treated water into the potable water supply
*
·
I TM
4.
fl ·
· I
I I
5-60
EDD\R225\027.50
*
I
Document 81-8 Filed 06/27/2006 Page 5 of 20
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS
Table 5-20
EVALUATION OF SOIL OPTIOSS
Excavation
Excavation
Target Area A Details of Options
Excavation of soil at Waste
Target Areas B fc C
SVE Target Area A
SVE Target Areas B t C
Facility Ho. 1 and Solvent Collection Areas A. B, and C, where sample analyses are greater than ADHS draft soil
action levels.
Excavation of soil within Target Area A plus excavation at Solvent Collection Area D; Waste
Facility No. 4; Waste
Installation at SVE network in Target Area A where sample analyses are greater than ADHS draft soil action levels.
Installation of SVE network in Target Areas B & C where sample analyses are greater than background and/or 1 Jlg/1 soil gas.
Facility Ho. 10; and
Waste Facility No. 12)
where sample analyses are greater than background
and/or soil gas is
greater than 1 |lg/l.
Treatment of contaminated soils
Treatment of
contaimlnated soils onsite via the use of rotary kilns.
onsite via the use of rotary kilns.
Treatment by soil vacuum extraction and vapor phase carbon.
Treatment by soil vacuum and vapor phase carbon in southern
two areas only.
Import of soil for backfill of excavated areas.
Community Acceptance Ul I Short-term Effectiveness Protectiveneas Unknown.
Short-term environmental Impacts via contaminated dust
Import of soil for backfill of excavated areas.
Unknown.
Short-term environmental
impacts via contaminated
Unknown.
Unknown.
Short-term environmental
Short-term environmental impacts are minimal.
impacts safety Issues in Areas
B & C.
problems may be difficult to
control. Construction complete within 1
dust problems may be difficult to control.
Construction complete
year.
Contaminated soil removed and treated with 1 year.
within 1 year.
Construction complete within 6 months. Soil contamination remediated In approximately 3 to 5 years. Workers are protected
during construction and implementation.
Construction complete within 6
months. Soil contamination remediated in approximately 3 to 5 years.
Contaminated soil removed and treated within 1
year.
Workers would need to be protected during construction
and implementation.
Workers are protected during
construction and implementation.
Workers would need to be protected during
construction and implementation.
RDD\R82\038.50-1
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS
Document 81-8
Filed 06/27/2006
Page 6 of 20
Table 5-20
(Continued)
Excavation Excavation
Target Area A
Imnleraentabllity
Target Areas B & C Conventional excavation
equipment and methodology.
SVE Target Area A
SVE Target Areas B It C______
Conventional technology for
Conventional excavation equipment and methodology. Would require tie-back wall at
Solvent Collection Areas A, B and C.
Conventional technology for soil vacuum extraction, collection, and treatment.
soil vacuum extraction, collection, and treatment.
Would require tie-back
wall at Solvent
Collection Areas A! B and
C. Would require some
Safety procedures would be
difficult to implement.
demolition and facility relocation. Hay require disruption of
certain explosive and Hay require disruption of
propellant operations.
certain explosive and propellent operations.
May require disruption of certain explosive and propellant operations.
Safety procedures would
be difficult to
implement.
cr> to
U1 I
Adequate work force and
equipment available.
Adequate work force and
equipment available.
Adequate work force and equipment available.
Moderate disruption to facility activities.
Adequate work force and equipment available. Severe disruption to facility activities.
Difficult to implement without moderate disruption to facility activities.
Difficult to implement without severe disruption to facility activities.
Safety requirements may be difficult to Implement.
Requires periodic
Requires periodic monitoring.
SVE treatment uses collection by soil vacuum extraction to
monitoring.
Reduction of
Toxicity, Mobility,
Soil excavation to reduce mobility or migration of
contaminants within soil. Reduces toxlcity and volume of contaminated soil by treatment
Soil excavation to reduce mobility or migration of contaminants within soil.
Reduces toxlcity and volume of contaminated soil by treatment using
SVE treatment uses
collection by soil vacuum
extraction to reduce
mobility of contaminants.
reduce mobility of contaminants.
Reduces toxicity and volume of contaminants by activated carbon treatment.
using onoite Incineration.
Reduces toxicity and volume of contaminants by activated carbon
treatment.
onsite incineration.
RDD\R82\038.50-Z
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS
Document 81-8
Filed 06/27/2006
Page 7 of 20
Table 5-20 (Continued) Excavation Target Area A Excavation
Target Areas B & G Reduces toxlcity and volume of residual contaminants by disposal at a TSD facility.
A calculated 23,200
SVE Target Area A
SVE Target Areas B & C
Reduction of Toxlclty, Mobility,
or Volume_______
Reduces toxlclty and volume of residual contaminants by disposal at a TSD facility. A calculated 23,200 pounds of TCE and other volatile organics currently estimated to be present is to be removed from the excavated areas in 2 years.
(Continued)
pounds of TCE and other volatile organics currently estimated to be present is to be removed from the excavated areas in 2 years. May increase VOC contamination In Up to the calculated 23,200 pounds of TCE and other volatile organics currently estimated to be present would be removed from the soil over a 5-year treatment period.
Up to the calculated 23,200
Hay increase VOC contamination in atmosphere via fugitive dust problems.
atmosphere via fugitive
dust problems.
pounds of TCE and other volatile organics currently estimated to be present would be removed from the soil over a 5-year treatment period.
Ul
!
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
co
O\
May increase short-term exposure of community and workers via atmospheric transport of VOCs. Short-term risks are high with potential for atmospheric contamination by VOCs in dust.
May increase short-term exposure of community and
workers via atmospheric
transport of VOCs. Short-term risks are high with potential for atmospheric contamination by VOCs in dust. Risks are reduced, and long-term permanent effectiveness is achieved. However, target levels may be in excess of required level
of cleanup. To that
Short-term risks are low with relatively short implementation times for treatment and protection of community and workers. Risks are reduced, and long-term permanent effectiveness is achieved. However, target levels may be in excess of required level of cleanup. To that extent there would be no further risk reduction.
Short-term risks are low with
relatively short
implementation times for treatment and protection of community and workers. Risks are reduced, and longterm permanent effectiveness is achieved. However, target levels may be in excess of required level of cleanup. To that extent there would be no further risk reduction.
Risks are reduced, and longterm permanent effectiveness is achieved. However, target levels may be in excess of required level of cleanup. To that extent there would be no further risk reduction.
extent there would be no further risk reduction.
RDD\R82\038.50-3
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS
Document 81-8
Filed 06/27/2006
Page 8 of 20
Table 5-20
(Continued)
Excavation Target Area A
Excavation
Target Areas B t C Does not conform to preference for avoiding land disposal.
There are no ARARs for
SVE Target Area A
SVE Target Areas B & C
Overall Protection of Hunan Health and the Environment (Continued)
Does not conform to preference
for avoiding land disposal.
There are no ARARs for soil
cleanup.
State Acceptance
Approval from agencies
soil cleanup.
Approval from agencies
There are no ARARs for
soil cleanup.
There are no ARARs for soil
cleanup.
Approval from agencies uncertain. $2,102,400
Approval from agencies
uncertain. COSTS
Capital Costs Annual Coats
$21,776,500
uncertain.
$40,328,150
uncertain.
$529,700
$ 75,000
$21,776,500 $40,328,150 $829,200
$ 220,000
$3,135,600
Present Worth Costa Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence____ U1 I
CF>
Ho risk remains at conclusion of remedial activities. Conventional technology with proven results.
No risk remains at conclusion of remedial
activities.
Conventional technology
Ho risk remains at conclusion of remedial activities. Conventional technology with proven results.
No risk remains at conclusion of remedial activities.
Conventional technology with
with proven results.
proven results.
RDD\R82\038.50-4
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS
Document 81-8
Filed 06/27/2006
Page 9 of 20
Table 5-21
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY SCREENING OF TECHNOLOGIES AND PROCESSES FOR THE GROUNDWATER QUALITY OBJECTIVE
General Response Action
No Action No Action
Technology
Process
Feasibility Screening Comments
Monitoring
Monitoring, institutional controls
Required by NCP
Limited Action
Point of use wellhead
Treatment at drinking water production wells
Potentially feasible
Containment
Containment to prevent migration of contaminated groundwater Vertical barrier Slurry wall Steel sheet pile wall Grout wall Potentially feasible
Not feasible for depths required
I
Not feasible for depths required
Pumping and Onsite Treatment at a Central Treatment Facility
Pumping, onsite treatment and discharge
Groundwater pumping
Production wells
Potentially feasible
Physical-chemical treatment
Air stripping
Steam stripping
Carbon adsorption
Potentially feasible
Potentially feasible Potentially feasible Not feasible for organics; potentially feasible for inorganics
Reverse osmosis, ion exchange, vapor compression evaporation
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS
RDD/R15/022-1
Document 81-8
Filed 06/27/2006
Page 10 of 20
Table 5-21 (Continued) General Response Action
Pumping and Onsite Treatment at a Central Treatment Facility (continued)
Technology
Process
Feasibility Screening Comments
UV-oxidation
Biological treatment In situ treatment Biological treatment Enhanced bioreclamation
Potentially feasible
Not feasible; incompatible for waste types encountered Not feasible; incompatible for chlorinated organics Not feasible; undemonstrated with potential for adverse effects
in I o\
Chemical oxidation
Discharge
Discharge to aquifer Injection wells
Potentially feasible; potential clogging problems due to water quality
Potentially feasible Potentially feasible
Spreading basins
Discharge to surface water i I i Discharge to irrigation canal system Transmission system
il i · i | i ' Transmission system
Potentially feasible; seasonal use of water Potentially feasible; limited by demand Potentially feasible; limited capacity of current POTW to receive discharge
Page 11 of 20
Discharge to industrial user
Discharge to sewer (POTW)
Transmission system Transmission system
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS
Document 81-8
Filed 06/27/2006
Table 5-21 (Continued)
General Response Action
Pumping and Onsite Treatment at a Central Treatment Facility (continued)
Technology
Process
Feasibility Screening Comments
Discharge to potable water system
Transmission system
Potentially feasible; limited
by demand and capacity of current water supply system to receive discharge
en I
CTl
RDD/R15/022
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS
RDD/R15/022-3
Document 81-8
Filed 06/27/2006
Page 12 of 20
5.
Groundwater extraction from Subunit C at a higher rate than Option 4, treatment that exceeds background by air stripping, granular activated carbon polishing, and discharge to Subunit C by reinjection or incorporation of treated water into the potable water supply
Three options were considered for the removal of MEK from Subunit A sroundwater:
o o _____ ___,____ Steam stripping, vacuum steam stripping Hot air stripping
The technology evaluation process examined a number of extraction, treatment, and end use alternatives. These are discussed in the Unidynamics Feasibility Study, Chapter 4, and the EPA September 7, 1989, memo listed in the Administrative Record Index (Appendix A).
Screening of Alternatives
The groundwater options were screened based on the requirements outlined in SARA and CERCLA and based on effectiveness, implementability, and cost. Comparative analyses were performed so that options that may be unprotective, ineffective, difficult to implement, or excessively costly would be screened from the list of potentially viable options and dropped from further consideration. Based on this rationale, two alternatives were eliminated:
o o
Ultraviolet/ozone treatment for MEK removal Steam stripping, vacuum steam stripping for MEK removal
H
M
-- ·
The summary of the technical evaluation for the remedial action alternatives for groundwater contaminated by VOCs is presented in Table 5-22.
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The evaluation of alternatives was undertaken to provide the information needed to select an appropriate action that protects human health and the environment and is cost-effective. The evaluation was performed within the statutory and policy framework mandated by CERCLA and SARA. The evaluation of the various alternatives was based on the following factors:
B
fl · · H
5-68
RDD\R225\027.50
I
Document 81-8 Filed 06/27/2006 Page 13 of 20
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
o
o
Technical considerations of the hydrogeologic setting
Beneficial use of groundwater
o
o o
Uncertainties in the fate and transport of TCE in the groundwater flow system
Results of the Endangerment Assessment regarding public health and the environment ARARs and other institutional programs
o
Effectiveness in meeting remedial action objectives, implementability, and cost-effectiveness
A summary of the detailed analysis of groundwater alternatives is presented in Table 5-23. Detailed costs are
presented in Table 5-24. 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 released from pumped groundwater. Extraction/Treatment Alternatives. The pumping alternatives for both Subunit A and C accomplish the objective of stopping migration of contaminants at the UPI site. When coupled with treatment, they also 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 technol-
ogy has been demonstrated to be successful in other areas.
Aquifer rehabilitation estimations are based on hydrogeo-
logic principles and regional flow characteristics; consequently, the rate of extraction will impact the time required for rehabilitation. 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; however, safety hazards may be present during construction. These
5-69
RDD\R225\027.50
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS
Document 81-8
Filed 06/27/2006
Page 14 of 20
Table 5-22 SUMMARY OF THE SCREENING OF GROUNDWATER AQUIFER REMEDIAL ACTIONS
.Alternative,
1. No Action
Implementability
N/A N/A
Effectiveness
Low
Relative Cost
2. Groundwater extraction from the area in Subunit A above 100 ppb TCE. Treatment by air-stripping with vapor phase carbon and reinjection to Subunit A. 3. Groundwater extraction from Subunit A treatment that exceeds ARARs by air stripping with vapor phase carbon, granular activated carbon polishing, and reinjection to Subunit A. 4. Groundwater extraction from Subunit A at a higher rate than Option 3, treatment that exceeds background by air stripping with vapor phase carbon, granular activated carbon polishing, and reinjection to
Subunit A.
A groundwater extraction, treatment, and reinjection system would be relatively easy to construct and implement.
The ability of the system to extract contaminants ia fairly certain. The duration of the action is estimated at 20 years. The ability of the system to extract contaminants is fairly certain* The duration of the action ia estimated at 25 years. The ability of the system to extract contaminants la fairly certain. The duration of the action is estimated at 17 years. The ability of the system to extract contaminants ia fairly certain. The duration of the action is estimated at 25 yeara.
Medium
A groundwater extraction, treatment, and reinjection system would be relatively easy to construct and Implement. A groundwater extraction, treatment, and reinjection system would be relatively easy to construct and implement.
Medium to High
High
o
Ul I -J
5. Groundwater extraction from Subunit C, treatment that exceeds ARARs by air stripping, granular activated carbon polishing, and discharge to Subunit C by reinjection or incorporation of treated water into the potable water supply. Groundwater extraction from Subunit C at a higher rate than Option 5, treatment that exceeds background by air stripping and granular activated carbon polishing, discharge to Subunit C by reinjection or incorporation of treated water Into the potable water supply.
Low
A groundwater extraction, treatment, and reinjection or distribution system would be relatively easy to construct and implement. Community opposition may prohibit Introduction of treated groundwater into potable supply.
A groundwater extraction, treatment, and reinjection or distribution system would be relatively easy to construct and
implement. Community opposition
The ability of the system to extract contaminants is fairly certain. The duration of the action is estimated at 25
Low
years.
may prohibit introduction of treated groundwater into potable supply.
RDD\R82\037.50-1
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS
Document 81-8
Filed 06/27/2006
Page 15 of 20
Table 5-22 (Continued) Alternative 7. Ultraviolet/ozone treatment for HER removal. Impelementabllltv A groundwater treatment system for MEK removal would be relatively easy to construct and Implement. Effectiveness Relative Cost High
Hay not be effective because
high carbonate levels Interfere with ozone oxidation; ultraviolet light intensity reduces
rapidly due to filming of
quartz tubes. Influent MEK concentrations are difficult to predict. 8. Steam stripping, vacuum steam stripping for HER removal. A groundwater treatment system for MEK removal would be relatively easy to construct and Implement. Hay not be effective because
Medium to High
high calcium carbonate calcium
sulfate concentrations will scale portions of these units. Influent HER concentrations are
difficult to predict.
UI I -J
RDD\R82\037.50-2
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS
Document 81-8
Filed 06/27/2006
Page 16 of 20
r
Table 5-23
DETAILED ANALYSIS OF GROUMDWATER ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1 o Groundwater quality Alternatives
Alternative 2
o Groundwater quality monitoring o Extract groundwater at 400 gpm for 20
years using four production wells o Pipe to UnlDynamlcs facility
Alternative 3
-Alternative 4 o Groundwater quality
Alternative .5 o Groundwater quality monitoring o Extract groundwater at 40 gpm for 25 years using one extraction well
Alternative 6 o Groundwater quality monitoring o Extract groundtfater at 60 gpm for 25 years using one extraction well
monitoring
o Aquifer use restrictions
o Groundwater quality monitoring
monitoring
o Extract groundwater at 1,000 gpm for
23 years using nine
o Extract groundwater
at 3,000 gpm for
17 years using 24
production wells
o Pipe to UnlDynamlcs
production wells
o Pipe to UnlDynamlcs facility o Treatment will organic air
o Ho remedial action taken
facility
o Treatment will
Include volatile organic air
o Treatment will
Include volatile
organic air stripping with vapor phase carbon and granular activated
Include volatile
stripping with vapor phase carbon and
carbon polishing
granular activated o Re Inject treated water into Unit A aquifer o Treatment of stripped volatlles
stripping with vapor
phase carbon and granular activated carbon polishing o Reinjeet treated water into Unit A aquifer o Treatment of stripped volatile* by vapor phase carbon o Community is protected during con-
a Treatment will include volatile organic air
stripping and
granular activated carbon polishing o Discharge into Subunit C aquifer by reinjection o Other beneficial uses may be appropriate and would be evaluated o Community is protected during construction and implementation o Workers are pro» tected during construction and Implementation o Community acceptance for drinking water end use will be low
carbon polishing
o Re inject treated water into Unit A
o Treatment will Include volatile organic air strip ping and granular activated carbon polishing o Discharge into Subunit C aquifer by reinfection o Other beneficial uses may be appropriate and would be evaluated o Community is protected during construction and Implementation o Workers are protected during construction and Implementation o Community acceptance for drinking water and use will be, low
en
I
aquifer o Treatment of
stripped volatile s by vapor phase
·vl
by vapor phase carbon
Community
carbon
o Community is protected during con-
o Community is protected during conconstruction and Implementation o Workers are protected during construction and implementation
st met ion and implementation
o Workers are protected during con-
struction and
implementation o Workers are protected during construction and implementation
struction and
implementation
RD0/R18/029-1
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS
Document 81-8
Filed 06/27/2006
Page 17 of 20
Table 5-23 (Continued) Alternative 1 ____Ten Effectiveness Protectiveness Alternative 2
o Short-term environmental impacts
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
o Short-terra environmental impacts minimal
Alternative 5
o Short-term environmental impacts minimal
Alternative 6
o Community is protected by monitoring
and aquifer use
minimal
o Construction com-
o Short-term environmental Impacts minimal
o Short-terra environmental Impacts minimal
restrictions
o No adverse Impacts
on the environment
plete within 1 year
o Construction complete within 1 year
o Goundwater objective achieved in 25 years
with removal of 5 pore
from activities
o Construction complete within 1 year 6 months
o Groundwater objective achieved in 17 years
o Construction complete within 6 months
o Groundwater objective
o Construction complete within 6 months
o Groundwater objective achieved in 25 years with removal of 5 pore volumes. o Low risk remains at conclusion of remedial activities o Risk incurred of degrading water quality o Conventional technologies with proven performance o Requires periodic maintenance and inspection during operations o Drinking water end use requires frequent monitoring of VOCs in treated water
o Objectives may not be achieved
o Groundwater objective achieved in 20 years with removal of 5 pore volumes
achieved in 25 years
with removal of
volumes
o Low risk remains at conclusion of remedial activities
with removal of 5 pore volumes o Low risk remains at
conclusion of
5 pore volumes o Low risk remains at conclusion of remedial activities
o Risk incurred of degrading water quality
Long-Term Effectiveness
o Existing and future risks remain
o Some risk remains at conclusion of
remedial activities
and Permanence
remedial activities
en
I
o Conventional and specialized technologies with proven
performance
o Conventional and specialized technologies with proven performance
o Requires periodic
o Conventional and
specialized technologies with proven performance o Requires periodic maintenance and inspection during operations
o Conventional technologies with proven performance
o Requires periodic maintenance and inspection during
o Requires periodic maintenance and inspection during operations
maintenance and inspection during operations
operations
o Drinking water end use requires frequent monitoring of VOCs in treated
water
RDD/R18/029-2
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS
Document 81-8
Filed 06/27/2006
Page 18 of 20
Table 5-23 (Continued)
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
o Groundwater extraction to reduce mobility or migration of contaminated
Alternative 4
o Groundwater extraction to reduce mobility or migration of contaminated groundwater
Alternative 5
o Groundwater extraction to reduce mobility or migration of contaminated groundwater
Alternative 6
o Groundwater extraction to reduce mobility or migration of contaminated groundwater
Reduction of Mobility, or Volume
(Considers
o No remediation
measures taken
o Groundwater extraction to reduce mobility or migration of contaminated groundwater
groundwater
o Reduces volume of contaminated ground water by treatment
alternativespecific target arena)
o Reduces volume of contaminated groundwater by treatment o Reduces mobility of o Reduces volume of contaminated ground water by treatment o Reduces volume of volatiles in air by treatment from Subunlt A, o Reduces toxicity of collected organice o Reduces volume of contaminated ground" water by treatment o Reduces volume of volatlles In air by treatment o Reduces volume of contaminated groundwater by treatment o Reduces volume of volatiles in air by treatment
organics in groundwater by collection
o Reduces mobility of
organica in groundwater by collection o Reduces volume of volatiles in air by
o Reduces volume of
U1 I volatiles in air by
treatment
treatment
o Reduces toxicity of
by offsite Inclnera
tion at a TSD facility
o Reduces toxicity of
collected organica by offaite incineration at a TSD facility o A calculated 117,200 pounds of TCE and other VOCs ia removed in 20 yeard
collected organics
by offsite incineration at a TSD facility o A calculated 117»900 pounds of TCE and other volatile organics currently estimated to be present is removed from the groundwater In 25 years
o High TDS eliminates o A calculated 118,200
o A calculated 44
pounds of TCE and other volatile organics currently estimated to be present is removed from the groundwater In 17 years
o High TDS eliminates steam atripping,
UV/ozone, etc.; thus
pounds of TCE and other volatile organics currently estimated to be present is removed
from the groundwater
in 25 years
o A calculated 7 pounds of TCE and other volatile organics currently estimated to be present is removed from the groundwater in 25 years
o High TDS eliminates steam stripping) UV/ozone} etc.j thus
removal of MEK to health advisory
levels may not be realised I '
steam stripping* UV/ozone, etc.; thus removal of MEK to
health advisory
levels may not be i
realized
removal of MEK to health advisory 1 levels1 may not be realized
RDD/R-18/029-3
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS
Document 81-8
Filed 06/27/2006
Page 19 of 20
Table 5-23
(Continued)
Alternative 1
Alternative 3
o Conventional technologies for extraction, treatment of organics o Conventional tech nologies for extraction, treatment of organica
Alternative 4
Alternative 5
Alternative 6
Conventional technologies for extraction, treatment of organics, and reinjection of treated water or drinking water end use
o Conventional tech nologies for extraction, treatment of organics
o Conventional technologies for extraction, treatment of organics, and reinjection of treated water or drinking water end use
o High IDS may make reinjection of treated water difficult to implement. Reinjection of Subunit A water has been successfully implemented in the south portion of the site
o High TDS may make reinjection of treated water difficult to implement. Reinjection of Subunit A water has been successfully implemented in the south portion of the site
o High TDS may make reinjection of treated water diffi cult to implement Reinjection of Subunit A water has been successfully implemented in the south portion of the Bite
o Adequate work force
Ul I ·~J
o Adequate work force and equipment available
o Good performance in collection and treatment of volatile organice
o Adequate work force and equipment available
o Good performance in collection and treatment of volatile organics
and equipment available
o Good performance in collection and treatment of volatile organics
o Low reliability and high maintenance of
o Adequate work force and equipment available
o Good performance in collection and treatment of volatile organics o Good reliability,
but high maintenance of reinjection
o Adequate work force
and equipment
available
o Good performance in
U1
collection and treatment of volatile organics o Good reliability,
but high maintenance
o Low reliability and high maintenance of reinjection system
o Requires periodic monitoring
o Low reliability and high maintenance of reinjection system
o Requires periodic monitoring
reinjection system o Requires periodic monitoring
system o Reinjection end use requires periodic
monitoring
of reinjection system o Reinjection end use
requires periodic
monitoring
o Drinking water end use requires frequent monitoring of
o Drinking water end use requires frequent monitoring of VQCs in treated water o Drinking water end use requires highly reliable process control instrumentation
VOCs in treated water o Drinking water end
use requires highly
reliable process control instrumentation
RDD/R18/029-4
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS
Document 81-8
Filed 06/27/2006
Page 20 of 20
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms