feasibility study reportstatic.azdeq.gov/wqarf/7s_arizona_fs_final.pdf · 2019. 8. 13. ·...
TRANSCRIPT
HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. Environmental Science & Technology
FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
7TH STREET AND ARIZONA AVENUE WQARF SITE TUCSON, ARIZONA
April 24, 2014
Prepared for: ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY SOUTHERN REGIONAL OFFICE Superfund Programs Unit 400 West Congress, Suite 433 Tucson, Arizona 85701 (520) 628-6733 Contract EV09-0100AL | Task Assignment ADEQ12-011179
Prepared by: HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. 51 West Wetmore Road, Suite 101 Tucson, Arizona 85705-1678 (520) 293-1500 Project Number 2012016.00
Feasibility Study Report H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\7AZ FS Fnl Rpt 20140424.doc April 24, 2014
E-i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Feasibility Study (FS) was conducted pursuant to Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C.)
R18-16-407 and screened eight remedial alternatives for their ability to meet Remedial
Objectives (ROs) for the 7th Street and Arizona Avenue Water Quality Assurance Revolving
Fund (WQARF) site (Site) in Tucson, Arizona. The ROs include restoring soil conditions to
meet non-residential standards and protecting the regional aquifer from contamination.
Chlorinated ethenes are present in the vadose zone and are mixed with diesel fuel from an
adjacent site on the water table below the former Oliver’s Cleaners property. As soil remediation
levels do not directly apply, compliance is being achieved by remediating to a non-residential
site-specific remediation level based on a site-specific human health risk assessment.
Based on the alternatives screening analysis, three alternatives were retained as the best potential
remedial options for the Site and were developed further. These included the reference remedy of
air sparging (AS) with soil vapor extraction (SVE), a less aggressive alternative of SVE alone
and a more aggressive alternative of in situ thermal treatment by electrical resistive heating.
These three remedial alternatives were then evaluated in a detailed analysis based on the
comparison criteria of practicability, cost, risk and benefit.
The reference remedy, AS/SVE, is recommended as the final remedy for this Site based on its
effectiveness and the conclusion that it will achieve the ROs in the most cost-effective manner.
This remedy meets remedial action requirements in Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 49-
282.06. The AS/SVE remedy is consistent with current and future land and water use; is
protective of public health, welfare and the environment; and is reasonable, necessary, cost-
effective, and technically feasible.
Feasibility Study Report H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\7AZ FS Fnl Rpt 20140424.doc April 24, 2014
E-ii
Feasibility Study Report H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\7AZ FS Fnl Rpt 20140424.doc April 24, 2014
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... E-i
ACRONYMS................................................................................................................................. iv
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Purpose and Scope of FS Report ............................................................................ 1
2. SITE BACKGROUND....................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Site Description....................................................................................................... 3 2.2 WQARF Registry.................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Remedial Investigation ........................................................................................... 4
2.3.1 Perched Groundwater Sampling ................................................................. 4 2.3.2 Soil Gas Investigation ................................................................................. 4
2.4 Risk Evaluation Summary ...................................................................................... 5
3. FEASIBILITY STUDY SCOPING.................................................................................... 7 3.1 Conceptual Site Model............................................................................................ 7 3.2 Delineation of Remediation Areas.......................................................................... 9
3.2.1 Extent of Perched Groundwater Contamination ......................................... 9 3.2.2 Extent of Soil Vapor Contamination........................................................... 9 3.2.3 LNAPL Distribution and Contamination.................................................. 11
3.3 Remedial Objectives ............................................................................................. 11
4. EARLY RESPONSE ACTIONS...................................................................................... 13 4.1 SVE Remedial Operation...................................................................................... 13
4.1.1 Pneumatic Testing and Vadose Zone Properties ...................................... 14 4.1.2 Numerical Modeling ................................................................................. 14
4.2 Sparging Pilot Test................................................................................................ 15
5. IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING OF REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES AND ALTERNATIVES ................................................................... 17 5.1 Remedy Selection Criteria and Site Assumptions ................................................ 17 5.2 Identification of Technologies and Alternatives................................................... 17 5.3 Screening of Alternatives...................................................................................... 18 5.4 Retained Alternatives............................................................................................ 19
6. DEVELOPMENT OF A REFERENCE REMEDY AND ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES.......................................................................................... 21 6.1 Reference Remedy: Strategy and Measures ......................................................... 21
6.1.1 Remedial Component Strategy ................................................................. 21 6.1.2 System Design and Installation................................................................. 21 6.1.3 Operation and Monitoring......................................................................... 22
Feasibility Study Report H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\7AZ FS Fnl Rpt 20140424.doc April 24, 2014
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
6.2 More Aggressive Remedy: Strategy and Measures .............................................. 22 6.2.1 Remedial Component Strategy ................................................................. 22 6.2.2 System Design and Installation................................................................. 22 6.2.3 Operation and Monitoring......................................................................... 23
6.3 Less Aggressive Remedy: Strategy and Measures ............................................... 23 6.3.1 Remedial Component Strategy ................................................................. 23 6.3.2 System Design and Installation................................................................. 23 6.3.3 Operation and Monitoring......................................................................... 24
7. DETAILED COMPARISON OF THE REFERENCE REMEDY AND ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES.......................................................................................... 25 7.1 Comparison Criteria.............................................................................................. 25
7.1.1 Reference Remedy - Air Sparging with SVE ........................................... 25 7.1.1.1 Practicability .............................................................................. 25 7.1.1.2 Cost ............................................................................................ 25 7.1.1.3 Risk ............................................................................................ 25 7.1.1.4 Benefit........................................................................................ 26
7.1.2 More Aggressive Remedy - Thermal Treatment ...................................... 26 7.1.2.1 Practicability .............................................................................. 26 7.1.2.2 Cost ............................................................................................ 27 7.1.2.3 Risk ............................................................................................ 27 7.1.2.4 Benefit........................................................................................ 27
7.1.3 Less Aggressive Remedy - SVE and Monitoring ..................................... 27 7.1.3.1 Practicability .............................................................................. 27 7.1.3.2 Cost ............................................................................................ 27 7.1.3.3 Risk ............................................................................................ 28 7.1.3.4 Benefit........................................................................................ 28
7.2 Comparison of Remedies...................................................................................... 28 7.2.1 Practicability ............................................................................................. 28 7.2.2 Cost ........................................................................................................... 28 7.2.3 Risk ........................................................................................................... 29 7.2.4 Benefit....................................................................................................... 29
7.3 Uncertainties ......................................................................................................... 29
8. RECOMMENDED REMEDY ......................................................................................... 31 8.1 Achievement of Remedial Objectives .................................................................. 31 8.2 Consistency with Current and Future Land and Water Use ................................. 31 8.3 Achievement of Remedial Action Criteria ........................................................... 32
8.3.1 Protectiveness ........................................................................................... 32 8.3.2 Reasonableness ......................................................................................... 32 8.3.3 Necessity ................................................................................................... 32 8.3.4 Cost Effectiveness..................................................................................... 32 8.3.5 Technical Feasibility................................................................................. 33
Feasibility Study Report H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\7AZ FS Fnl Rpt 20140424.doc April 24, 2014
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
9. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT ................................................................................... 35
10. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 37
11. LIMITATIONS................................................................................................................. 39
TABLES
1 Chronology of Site Activities 2 LNAPL VOC Results, 2002 to 2012 3 Monitoring and Remedial Well Details 4 SVE Operating Parameters and Measurements 5 Monthly SVE Operating Statistics 6 SVE System Removal Results through June 2009 7 SVE Influent, Between Vessel and Effluent VOC and Hydrocarbon Concentrations 8 VOC Concentrations in Soil Vapor Monitoring Wells 9 Pneumatic Properties 10 LNAPL VOC Concentrations Before and After Sparge Test 11 Screening of Remedial Alternatives 12 Air Sparging and SVE Remedial Costs 13 ERH Remedial Costs 14 SVE Remedial Costs
FIGURES
1 Site Location Map 2 Site Plan 3 Former Oliver’s Cleaners Property Soil Gas Sample Locations and PCE and TCE
Concentrations, 2013 4 Perched Groundwater Elevation Contours, March 2013 5 LNAPL Thickness, March 2013 6 Groundwater PCE Contours 7 Groundwater TCE Contours 8 PCE, TCE and 1,2-DCE Soil Vapor Concentrations, November 2011, May/June 2012,
November 2012 9 2011/2012 PCE Soil Vapor Contours 10 Former Oliver’s Cleaners Property Well Locations 11 Total VOC Concentration in SVE Influent 2006 - 2009 12 PCE, Total VOCs and HCs in SVE Influent 2006 - 2009 13 Measured PCE Concentration in SVE Influent 14 Chlorinated VOC and HC Concentrations in SVE Influent during Sparging, 2008 Data 15 AS/SVE Conceptual Design
Feasibility Study Report H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\7AZ FS Fnl Rpt 20140424.doc April 24, 2014
iv
ACRONYMS
A.A.C. Arizona Administrative Code ADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality ADWR Arizona Department of Water Resources A.R.S. Arizona Revised Statute AS Air Sparging AWQS Aquifer Water Quality Standards bls below land surface CAB Community Advisory Board COC Contaminant of Concern DCE dichloroethene DNAPL Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency ERA Early Response Action FID Flame Ionization Detector FS Feasibility Study GAC Granular Activated Carbon HGC Hydro Geo Chem, Inc. HHRA Human Health Risk Assessment HP Horsepower LNAPL Light Nonaqueous Phase Liquid MCL Maximum Contaminant Level MEK Methyl Ethyl Ketone (2-butanone) µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter mg/kg milligrams per kilogram NAPL Nonaqueous Phase Liquid O&M Operation and Maintenance OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PCE tetrachloroethene PEL Permissible Exposure Limit PID Photoionization Detector PRAP Proposed Remedial Action Plan PSIG Pounds per Square Inch, Gage RI Remedial Investigation RO Remedial Objective ROD Record of Decision SCFM standard cubic feet per minute SVE Soil Vapor Extraction TCE trichloroethene TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons UPRR Union Pacific Railroad UST Underground Storage Tank VOC Volatile Organic Compound WP Work Plan WQARF Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund
Feasibility Study Report H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\7AZ FS Fnl Rpt 20140424.doc April 24, 2014
1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose and Scope of FS Report
This Feasibility Study (FS) Report presents the evaluation and development of potential remedial
actions for the 7th Street and Arizona Avenue Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund
(WQARF) site (Site) in Tucson, Arizona (Figure 1). It addresses the concerns, that were detailed
in the Remedial Investigation (RI) Report (HGC, 2014), of impacts to perched groundwater, soil
and soil vapor within the Site boundary. This FS Report was prepared in accordance with
Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C.) R18-16-407 for Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality (ADEQ) under ADEQ Task Assignment 12-011179.
The objectives of the FS are to develop and evaluate a reference remedy and at least two
alternative remedies that:
1. Achieve remedial objectives pursuant to A.A.C. R18-16-407(E);
2. Are consistent with water management plans and general land use plans; and
3. Are evaluated with comparison criteria pursuant to A.A.C. R18-16-407(H) including practicability, risk, cost, and benefit.
The FS Report identifies and screens potential treatment and containment technologies that
satisfy the ROs, prior to developing and analyzing remedial alternatives. One of the developed
alternative remedies must be less aggressive than the reference remedy and one must be more
aggressive [A.A.C. R18-16-407(H)]. Based on a comparison of the developed remedial
alternatives, a remedy is recommended for the Site.
From the stated objectives, the recommended remedy for this Site will:
• Provide for the control or cleanup of hazardous substances to allow for land use;
• Ensure the protection of public health, welfare and the environment; and
• Be reasonable, necessary, cost-effective and technically feasible.
Feasibility Study Report H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\7AZ FS Fnl Rpt 20140424.doc April 24, 2014
2
.
Feasibility Study Report H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\7AZ FS Fnl Rpt 20140424.doc April 24, 2014
3
2. SITE BACKGROUND
2.1 Site Description
The former Oliver’s Laundry and Dry Cleaners Co. (Oliver’s Cleaners) property is the primary
source of contamination at the Site and is located at 300 E. 7th Street, Tucson, Arizona 85705
(NE-NW-SE-Sec 12-T14S-R13E, Tucson 7½’ topographic quadrangle). The former Oliver’s
Cleaners property is bounded by 7th Street to the north, Herbert Avenue to the east and 5th
Avenue to the west. Downtown Auto Center and Towing is located on the parcel to the south.
The property currently consists of an asphalt-paved parking lot. The location of the Site and the
surrounding features are shown on Figure 2.
The approximate WQARF Site boundaries are based on the extent of a groundwater plume of
tetrachloroethene (PCE) in the perched aquifer underlying the Site (Figure 2). The solute plume
begins at the former Oliver’s Cleaner’s facility, and extends at least 4,500 feet to the northwest.
A large body of light non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL) consisting of petroleum hydrocarbons
floating on the perched water table is associated with releases from the Union Pacific Railroad
(UPRR) passenger depot located approximately 1,000 feet to the south of the Site. This LNAPL
body exists at the southern, upgradient fringe of the PCE solute plume. Two leaking underground
storage tank (UST) sites, the Yellow Cab and the former Bridgestone-Firestone facilities, are
located northwest of the former Oliver’s Cleaners location within the extent of the PCE solute
plume.
Soil and perched groundwater have been impacted by volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
associated with the former Oliver’s Cleaners facility. Concentrations of PCE up to 17 milligrams
per kilogram (mg/kg) were detected in soil samples from beneath the facility during the site
investigation (Kleinfelder and HGC, 2003). PCE and its breakdown products, trichloroethene
(TCE), cis-1,2-dichloroethene (cis-DCE), and trans-1,2-dichloroethene (trans-DCE), have been
detected in groundwater samples from beneath and northwest of the facility at concentrations up
to 3,200 micrograms per liter (µg/L).
2.2 WQARF Registry
Dry cleaning operations may have taken place from 1935 to 1989, when the building was
destroyed by fire, on the former Oliver’s Cleaners property. Seven USTs were removed from the
property in 1991, including five solvent tanks (one 10,000 gallon and four 1,000 gallon). PCE
and TCE were first detected in 1992 at concentrations below Aquifer Water Quality Standards
(AWQS) in the former Oliver’s Cleaners supply well during an investigation under UST
Feasibility Study Report H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\7AZ FS Fnl Rpt 20140424.doc April 24, 2014
4
regulations. A 1997 Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection determined that PCE contamination
in soils was associated with a leak from at least two of the USTs.
The Site was placed on the WQARF Registry in April 2000 with an eligibility and evaluation
score of 40 out of a possible 120.
2.3 Remedial Investigation
The RI Report (HGC, 2014) gives a detailed summary of site history and previous environmental
investigations and actions. A description of the geology, hydrogeology and climate for this area
are also detailed in the RI Report. Table 1 presents a chronology of Site activities. A brief
summary of the most recent site activities from the RI are included below.
2.3.1 Perched Groundwater Sampling
Perched groundwater investigation activities were conducted at the Site in March 2013 to
evaluate the current degree and extent of VOC contamination and geochemical conditions in the
perched groundwater.
The perched groundwater gradient, based on March 2013 water levels, between MW-PD-4 and
MW-PD-31, was 0.0028 foot per foot (ft/ft) to the northwest, shifting to 0.0064 ft/ft to the north-
northwest from MW-PD-30 to 7AZP-11. LNAPL was observed up to a maximum of 6.89 feet (at
monitoring well MW-PD-12).
PCE concentrations in perched groundwater ranged from <0.5 µg/L to a maximum, in well MW-
PD-30, of 39 µg/L. TCE concentrations in perched groundwater ranged from <0.5 µg/L to a
maximum, in well 7AZP-2, of 12 µg/L. Cis-DCE and trans-DCE were detected at concentrations
up to 16 and 2.1 µg/L, both in well BF-1.
Geochemical parameters from the March 2013 sampling event (HGC, 2014) did not indicate a
discernible pattern. The geochemical parameters, rather than indicating the presence of strongly
reducing conditions associated with degradation of hydrocarbon compounds from the LNAPL in
perched groundwater, suggested that the LNAPL along the margins of the LNAPL body is
substantially depleted in soluble hydrocarbon constituents that could serve as electron donors for
reductive dechlorination.
2.3.2 Soil Gas Investigation
A soil gas investigation was conducted to collect shallow soil gas samples from beneath the
asphalt of the former Oliver’s Cleaners property for use in a vapor migration screening
Feasibility Study Report H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\7AZ FS Fnl Rpt 20140424.doc April 24, 2014
5
evaluation in May 2013. PCE was detected in all eleven soil gas sampling locations, up to a
maximum concentration of 499,000 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3)at location SG-6 at a
depth of 5 feet (Figure 3). TCE was detected in five of the shallow depth samples, up to a
maximum concentration of 16,900 µg/m3 at location SG-6-5’, as well as in the 10-foot sample.
Cis-DCE and a number of non-chlorinated organics, including BTEX, were detected at relatively
low concentrations in soil gas. 2-Butanone (MEK) was detected at location SG-6-5’ at a
relatively high concentration of 12,600 µg/m3, but below the level of health concern when
compared to the ambient air Regional Screening Level (RSL) (EPA, 2012).
2.4 Risk Evaluation Summary
A baseline human health risk assessment (HHRA) to evaluate and quantify potential human
health risks associated with the Site in support of decision-making regarding appropriate
remedial actions was completed as part of the RI Report (HGC, 2014). The HHRA considered
current use scenarios.
The identified exposure scenarios involved vapor migration of contaminants to indoor or outdoor
air. The principal risk drivers for residential and non-residential scenarios at the Site are PCE and
TCE. The potential health hazard associated with cis-DCE could not be evaluated directly owing
to the lack of an inhalation toxicity value. Estimated cancer risks were less than or equal to the
accepted de minimis target value of 1×10-6 and the hazard index values were less than the
accepted target of one for non-cancer health effects except for the indoor air exposure of
commercial workers in buildings adjacent to the former Oliver’s Cleaners property. For that
scenario, exposure of commercial workers to estimated indoor air concentrations yield estimated
excess caner risk of 7.6×10-5 and a hazard index of 21 that exceed the accepted de minimis target
cancer risk value of 1×10-6 and hazard index of 1.
A supplementary risk-based evaluation for vapor migration at the former Oliver’s Cleaners
property was performed to screen potential future exposure of commercial workers (HGC, 2014).
The analysis of samples collected from below the asphalt (Figure 3) showed elevated levels of
PCE and TCE in the shallow soil gas. A screening evaluation using an empirical attenuation
factor and ambient air RSLs (EPA, 2012) for industrial workers indicated that PCE and TCE
would constitute a health risk for future commercial development if a building is constructed on
the property. Exposure of commercial workers to estimated indoor air concentrations would
exceed the accepted de minimis target cancer risk value of 1×10-6.
Feasibility Study Report H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\7AZ FS Fnl Rpt 20140424.doc April 24, 2014
6
Feasibility Study Report H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\7AZ FS Fnl Rpt 20140424.doc April 24, 2014
7
3. FEASIBILITY STUDY SCOPING
3.1 Conceptual Site Model
A groundwater solute plume predominated by the chlorinated VOCs PCE, TCE, cis-DCE and
trans-DCE extends northwest at least 3,000 feet from the former Oliver’s Cleaners property in
the perched groundwater. The areal extent of the solute plume is relatively well-defined. This
solute plume begins on the northeastern fringe of an extensive body of LNAPL consisting of
petroleum hydrocarbons thought to be associated with the UPRR passenger depot which is
located approximately 1,000 feet to the south. Two UST sites, the Yellow Cab and former
Bridgestone-Firestone facilities, are located northwest of the dry cleaning facility within the PCE
solute plume.
The depth to perched groundwater is typically about 70 feet below land surface (bls) and perched
groundwater consistently flows in a northwesterly direction (Figure 4). The average linear
velocity of groundwater flow ranges from about 100 ft/year in the proximal part of the solute
plume to 240 ft/year in the distal portion.
Although there was no documented release of PCE from the former dry cleaner establishment,
such a release is apparent due to the widespread presence of PCE in the perched groundwater and
soil vapor below the Site. PCE is a widely used dry cleaning solvent and is a dense non-aqueous
phase liquid (DNAPL). No DNAPL has been identified from investigative soil borings or
monitoring wells, and measured concentrations of PCE do not reflect the presence of a free phase
DNAPL in groundwater. A likely scenario is that the released PCE moved downward through
the vadose zone as a DNAPL and encountered the LNAPL body that extends under the former
dry cleaning facility. The PCE dissolved into the LNAPL and this admixture acts as an ongoing
source of contamination to perched groundwater and soil vapor. The conceptual model of the
Site includes free-product PCE in the vadose zone thought to be contributing to soil vapor
concentrations, soil vapor vadose contaminants, LNAPL at the water table, solute contaminants
in perched groundwater, and the presence of an aquitard that prevents contaminant migration into
the regional aquifer.
The mobile LNAPL body ranges up to seven feet in apparent thickness in the vicinity of the Site
(Figure 5) and appears to be in a state of dynamic equilibrium. The LNAPL appears to consist of
a somewhat weathered diesel fuel (HGC, 2006). PCE concentrations in the LNAPL from the area
near the former Oliver’s Cleaners property range from <25 to 440 milligrams per kilogram
(mg/kg) and TCE concentrations range from <25 to 280 mg/kg. The DCE isomers are found at
concentrations up to 130 mg/kg in the LNAPL. The LNAPL may be depleted in soluble
Feasibility Study Report H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\7AZ FS Fnl Rpt 20140424.doc April 24, 2014
8
petroleum hydrocarbons, as the extent of the petroleum hydrocarbon solute plume substantially
mimics the extent of LNAPL, and dissolved organic carbon concentrations are low.
Based on the lack of any identifiable source of TCE and DCE in the vicinity of the Site and the
presence of petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil and perched groundwater, it is evident that
reductive dechlorination of PCE is occurring at the Site. Reductive dechlorination involves the
sequential replacement of chlorine atoms with hydrogen on the chlorinated hydrocarbon
compound, typically through microbial mediation, producing the well-defined reaction sequence:
PCE → TCE → DCE → vinyl chloride (Bradley, 2003). The lack of significant vinyl chloride in
groundwater or soil vapor suggests that reductive dechlorination has “stalled” at DCE which
likely reflects the underlying microbial community and/or a change in downgradient
groundwater geochemistry to more oxidized conditions.
The typical geochemical pattern associated with extensive petroleum hydrocarbon
biodegradation is not evident at the Site. Petroleum hydrocarbon biodegradation and its
associated strongly reducing conditions are thought to be restricted to the area immediately
surrounding the LNAPL.
The current distribution of chlorinated ethenes in groundwater suggests that reductive
dechlorination of PCE may be occurring at the petroleum hydrocarbon fringe around the
LNAPL. The center of mass of PCE has moved downgradient from the source area into the
aerobic portion of the solute plume. TCE is centered along the edge of the LNAPL northwest of
the source area where reductive dechlorination appears to be occurring and extends into the
aerobic portion of the groundwater at low concentrations. The center of mass for cis-DCE and
trans-DCE coincides with TCE northwest of the source area and their restricted distribution
suggests that these compounds may be degrading through direct oxidation as they enter the
aerobic portion of the solute plume.
Soil vapor contamination, predominantly PCE and TCE, is evident throughout the vadose zone
below the former Oliver’s Cleaners property. These constituents are also present in soil vapor
above the solute plume in perched groundwater and generally appear to be in a state of dynamic
equilibrium with groundwater concentrations. PCE, TCE and 1,2-DCE soil vapor concentration
gradients below the former Oliver’s Cleaners property suggest that the LNAPL is acting as a
source of chlorinated ethenes to the vadose zone. Additionally, high concentrations at shallower
depths indicate that PCE and TCE have diffused into low permeability zones that are also acting
as an ongoing source of soil vapor contamination. Relatively high concentrations of PCE and
TCE are present near the land surface and present a potential vapor migration concern.
Feasibility Study Report H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\7AZ FS Fnl Rpt 20140424.doc April 24, 2014
9
The Site is currently a parking lot and little potential for exposure exists with its current use.
However, if commercial development of the former Oliver’s Cleaner’s property occurs, receptors
of potential concern are future commercial workers that may be exposed to PCE and TCE in
indoor air. The perched groundwater is not used as a water supply and there are no potential
receptors for groundwater use.
3.2 Delineation of Remediation Areas
3.2.1 Extent of Perched Groundwater Contamination
The extent of VOCs in the perched groundwater is relatively well-defined. Figure 6 shows the
extent of the PCE plume in the perched groundwater, which defines the Site boundary. The
center of mass of the PCE solute plume has shifted downgradient from the former Oliver’s
Cleaners property over time. Relatively elevated concentrations of TCE also occur
downgradient, although the highest concentrations are found at the former Oliver’s Cleaners
property (7AZP-2) and upgradient (Figure 7). In contrast, the highest concentrations of cis-DCE
and trans-DCE occur below and immediately adjacent to the LNAPL body downgradient from
the former Oliver’s Cleaners property.
Although there is considerable variability, concentrations of the chlorinated ethenes generally
have declined from 2002 to 2013 in the vicinity of the former Oliver’s Cleaners property.
Reductive dechlorination is evidently occurring in the perched groundwater below the LNAPL in
this area. Concentrations of all the chlorinated ethenes in 7AZP-4 are declining, which appears to
be associated with the air sparge pilot test in late 2007. PCE and TCE concentrations, in general,
recovered following the air sparge test.
3.2.2 Extent of Soil Vapor Contamination
PCE, TCE, cis-DCE and trans-DCE soil vapor concentrations from November 2011 to
November 2012 are posted on Figure 8. A soil vapor concentration contour figure of PCE at the
water table (i.e. soil vapor sampled from monitoring wells) in 2011 and 2012 is presented as
Figure 9. This contour figure shows the distribution of PCE across the Site, generally following
PCE concentrations in groundwater.
Soil vapor concentration profiles for the chlorinated ethenes in the vicinity of the former Oliver’s
Cleaners property indicate that volatilization from the LNAPL is acting as a chlorinated ethene
source that contributes to soil vapor contamination by vapor diffusion. Based on calculated ratios
of the concentration in soil vapor divided by the concentration in groundwater, and Henry’s Law,
PCE in soil vapor appears to be a source for groundwater contamination in the vicinity of the
Feasibility Study Report H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\7AZ FS Fnl Rpt 20140424.doc April 24, 2014
10
former Oliver’s Cleaners property at 7AZP-1, 7AZP-3 and MW-PD-29, and at MW-PD-7
upgradient of the former Oliver’s Cleaners property. However, at other locations PCE appears to
be partitioning from groundwater into soil vapor. The results for TCE, cis-DCE and trans-DCE
do not show a consistent pattern, suggesting a more complex dynamic interaction between soil
vapor and groundwater concentrations.
PCE concentrations in soil vapor in the vicinity of the former Oliver’s Cleaners property are
heterogeneous in distribution, with locally elevated concentrations at shallower depths
suggesting the presence of DNAPL, not discovered during limited soil boring sample collection
and analysis, in the vadose zone. The highest concentrations of TCE are in well 7AZP-4 at a
depth of 30 ft bls (203,000 µg/m3) and at the water table (58,300 µg/m3), and in well 7AZP-2 at
the water table (88,100 µg/m3). TCE concentrations at all wells (other than 7AZP-4) are below or
just above the detection limit at 15 ft, 30 ft and 45 ft depths and slightly to somewhat elevated at
the water table (other than 7AZP-4 and 7AZP-2 where they are more than an order of magnitude
higher). The highest concentrations of cis-DCE and trans-DCE are in well MW-PD-14 at the
water table (19,800 and 5,540 µg/m3, respectively), with concentrations above the detection limit
at the water table depth for at least one of the isomers in YC-5, 7AZP-1, 7AZP-2, 7AZP-3 and
7AZP-4. The DCE isomers are below the detection limit or near it at 15 ft, 30 ft and 45 ft bls
depths near the former Oliver’s Cleaners property.
A generally decreasing trend for PCE has been observed since 2002 at all depths in the nested
wells at the former Oliver’s Cleaners property. TCE concentrations in soil vapor indicate a
generally decreasing trend, as well; however, TCE may be originating from both soil vapor
movement and reductive dechlorination of PCE.
The SVE system that operated under the Early Response Action (ERA) at the Site removed
around 780 pounds of VOC contaminant mass from the vadose zone. However, the leveling off
of the measured SVE exhaust concentrations of PCE indicates that PCE removal at the site
became in large part diffusion-dominated. PCE is likely present in relatively low permeability
lenses of finer grained materials that also have higher water saturations and/or possibly contain
residual NAPL. When the SVE system was shut down, the concentrations in the coarser-grained
materials rebounded, likely due to diffusion from the lower permeability sources. Additionally,
PCE dissolved in the LNAPL at the water table and groundwater can also diffuse into vadose
zone soils.
PCE and TCE were detected in shallow soil gas samples under the asphalt at the former Oliver’s
Cleaners property in May 2013 at values up to 499,000 µg/m3 and 16,900 µg/m3, respectively
(Figure 3). Calculations using an attenuation factor of 0.03 (EPA, 2013) indicated that PCE and
Feasibility Study Report H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\7AZ FS Fnl Rpt 20140424.doc April 24, 2014
11
TCE exceeded the ambient air screening levels for industrial exposures (EPA, 2012) at most of
the soil gas sample locations.
3.2.3 LNAPL Distribution and Contamination
The LNAPL body from the UPRR passenger depot site, located on the water table to the
southwest of the Site, extends below the former Oliver’s Cleaners property. The outline of the
mobile LNAPL body appears to have been stable over time, indicating that the LNAPL has
reached an equilibrium condition for lateral spreading.
LNAPL has been measured in monitoring wells 7AZP-2, 7AZP-3, 7AZP-4, MW-PD-2, MW-
PD-4, MW-PD-6, MW-PD-7, MW-PD-12, MW-PD-14, MW-PD-15, MW-PD-16, YC-5 and
YC-6 since 2002. LNAPL has been present in most of these wells since it was initially measured,
except in wells 7AZP-3, 7AZP-4, MW-PD-7, MW-PD-14 and YC-5, where it appeared in May
2012, February 2005, February 2005, May 2007 and April 2007, respectively. LNAPL thickness
has continued to increase from 2002 through 2013 at MW-PD-12, where the source is believed to
have originated, but has not increased substantially in other wells across the Site.
Table 2 presents a compilation of VOCs detected in LNAPL samples from select monitoring
wells (seven in total) from March 2002 through November 2012. In addition to PCE and TCE,
the trimethylbenzene isomers, naphthalene, butylbenzenes, 4-isopropyltoluene, n-propylbenzene
and BTEX have appeared. The non-chlorinated constituents are petroleum hydrocarbon
components typical of diesel fuel. PCE and TCE concentrations in LNAPL samples from 7AZP-
2 and 7AZP-4 have consistently been detected over time.
3.3 Remedial Objectives
The ROs specify contaminants and media of concern; exposure routes and receptors; and
remediation goals for each exposure route. ROs developed as part of the RI process, pursuant to
A.A.C. R18-16-406(I), were based on field investigation results, the Land and Water Use Study,
the Risk Assessment, ADEQ input and input from the community during the draft RO Report
public comment period. ROs are also used during alternatives development to identify
appropriate remedial technologies.
Because the former Oliver’s Cleaners property is currently, and will for the foreseeable future, be
zoned for commercial use, non-residential soil cleanup standards apply. Therefore, the RO for
land use at the former Oliver’s Cleaners property is to restore soil conditions to the remediation
standards for non-residential use specified in A.A.C. R18-7-203 (specifically background
remediation standards prescribed in R18-7-204, predetermined remediation standards prescribed
Feasibility Study Report H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\7AZ FS Fnl Rpt 20140424.doc April 24, 2014
12
in R18-7-205, or site specific remediation standards prescribed in R18-7-206) that are applicable
to the hazardous substances identified (PCE, TCE and cis-DCE). This RO is needed for the
present time and for as long as the level of contamination in the soil threatens use of the Site as a
non-residential property.
There are no current groundwater uses in the Study area; however, the regional aquifer is
considered to be a drinking water source for the City of Tucson. Therefore, the RO for regional
groundwater at the Site is to protect for the use of the groundwater supply of the City of Tucson
from contamination from the Site. This RO is needed for the present time and for as long as the
level of contamination in the soil threatens the regional groundwater for municipal uses.
Feasibility Study Report H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\7AZ FS Fnl Rpt 20140424.doc April 24, 2014
13
4. EARLY RESPONSE ACTIONS
Initial feasibility studies and remedial treatment at the Site were executed under an ADEQ-
approved ERA. SVE was performed at the Site from June 2006 through June 2009. Remedial
operations data were collected during operation of the SVE system and indicated successful
removal of chlorinated organics from the Site (HGC, 2008b). SVE is therefore considered the
primary (reference) remedial alternative technology for this Site.
An air sparging pilot test was conducted to evaluate the reduction of VOCs in the free product
layer. The air sparging is expected to reduce the transfer of COCs to groundwater and is regarded
as an important step in remediation of the Site.
4.1 SVE Remedial Operation
To support the ERA at the Site through removal of VOCs from the vadose zone, an SVE well
was installed and tested, and an SVE system was designed and constructed (HGC, 2006). SVE
system operation and mass removal are discussed below. Figure 10 shows the location of the
SVE compound and, located near the center of the former Oliver’s Cleaners property, the SVE
well. Table 3 summarizes construction details for well SVE-1. Operation of the SVE system at
the Site began June 13, 2006, with the system being in operation until June 23, 2009. Table 4
presents operational field data and Table 5 presents SVE operating statistics. Approximately 780
pounds of VOCs and over 10,800 pounds of hydrocarbons had been removed as of June 2009
(Table 6). Concentrations of VOCs declined rapidly in the first six months of operation and more
slowly after that time (HGC, 2008b).
Influent, between vessel, and effluent samples were collected approximately monthly through
2007, approximately bi-monthly in the first half of 2008, and then twice more (August 2008 and
May 2009) for analysis of VOCs and hydrocarbons (HCs), prior to shutting off the SVE system.
Table 7 presents these data. The rate of removal dropped from several pounds of VOCs per day
in the first four months of operation to approximately 0.4 pounds per day at the end of the
reporting period. The rate of hydrocarbon removal appears to vary considerably, but in general
appeared to be on a declining trend. Figure 11 presents total VOC concentrations with time in the
influent extracted vapors and Figure 12 shows PCE, total VOC and hydrocarbon concentrations
with time.
Table 8 presents the analytical results of vapor monitoring well samples collected from wells
7AZP-1, 7AZP-2, 7AZP-3, 7AZP-4, YC-5 and MW-PD-14 at the water table screened interval.
Feasibility Study Report H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\7AZ FS Fnl Rpt 20140424.doc April 24, 2014
14
4.1.1 Pneumatic Testing and Vadose Zone Properties
A SVE pilot test was conducted on the former Oliver’s Cleaners property (HGC, 2006) using
pressure transducers to evaluate pneumatic parameters of the vadose zone. Pneumatic properties
from this test are summarized in Table 9. Effective gas porosity estimates range from 0.08 to
0.23; the higher end of the range is generally consistent with the reported vadose zone volumetric
moisture content of 0.12 (B&R, 1998). Horizontal effective gas permeability values range from
15.9 to 41 darcies and vertical effective gas permeability values range from 1 to 5.7 darcies.
4.1.2 Numerical Modeling
The details of the numerical gas flow and transport model used for the Site are described in the
Draft Work Plan Addendum (HGC, 2006). Discrepancies between the measured and simulated
PCE concentrations, and the leveling off of the measured off-gas concentrations, indicated that
PCE removal at the site had become in large part diffusion-dominated (HGC, 2008b). This is
typical at sites where some VOCs are present in lower permeability materials through which gas
cannot be readily circulated but which can slowly yield VOCs to zones of active circulation via
diffusion. The zones of active circulation into which VOCs can diffuse supply most of the gas
extracted by the SVE well.
PCE is likely present in relatively low permeability lenses of finer grained materials that also
have higher water saturations and/or possibly contain residual free product. In the initial stages
of SVE operation at the Site, PCE present in relatively coarse-grained materials was rapidly
removed by advection. After an initial rapid drop from greater than 2,000 to less than 1,000
µg/L, off-gas concentrations plot along a best fit straight line on the semi-log plot between
approximately 0.1 and 0.4 years (solid line in Figure 13). The rate of PCE removal was then
reduced as the supply of PCE to the SVE well was presumably limited by diffusion from lower
permeability materials. These lower permeability materials provide a relatively continuous, but
slowly diminishing, supply of PCE to the active flow zones and SVE well. As a result, the PCE
off-gas concentrations plot along a line with a much reduced slope (dashed line in Figure 13).
The concentrations in the active flow zones would remain relatively low as long as the SVE
system continued to operate at design extraction rates because of the relatively low rate of PCE
mass addition (by diffusion) into the relatively large volumes of extracted gas. When the SVE
system was shut down, and dilution by relatively clean air no longer occurred, the concentrations
in the coarser-grained materials would rebound as diffusion from the lower permeability sources
continues. This is likely the cause of the rebound shown on Figure 13, which was collected in
March 2008 subsequent to SVE system restart after the system had been off for about two weeks.
Feasibility Study Report H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\7AZ FS Fnl Rpt 20140424.doc April 24, 2014
15
In addition to the low permeability soil zone sources, PCE dissolved in LNAPL and groundwater
can also diffuse into the vadose zone soils. Mass transfer of PCE from groundwater and LNAPL
will be enhanced by any fluctuations in water table elevation that may occur due to barometric
pressure changes or other processes. These fluctuations, which were not represented in the
model, likely helped maintain the relatively high PCE concentrations detected in samples
collected from 60 ft bls in 2008, and are expected to contribute to the rebound of PCE
concentrations in the vadose zone should air circulation cease. Maintenance of relatively high
PCE concentrations in these deep locations results partly from ineffective removal by SVE due
to high water and /or LNAPL saturations that reduce gas permeabilities and gas circulation rates
at these depths.
4.2 Sparging Pilot Test
A 1-day air sparging pilot test was conducted at the Site to test the effectiveness of sparging in
reducing VOC concentrations in the LNAPL layer that blankets the perched water table across
much of the former Oliver’s Cleaners property area (HGC, 2008a). A sparge well (7AZAS-1)
and two nests of vapor probes and piezometers (7AZV-1 and 7AZV-2) were installed to conduct
and monitor the test. Table 3 summarizes construction details for well 7AZAS-1 and associated
vapor wells. Vented Level TROLL® 500 pressure transducers were installed in ten vapor
monitoring locations at 7AZP-4, 7AZV-1, and 7AZV-2 and absolute pressure Level TROLL 500
transducers were installed in two piezometers 7AZV-1-70 and 7AZV-2-70 to monitor water
levels near the sparge well. In addition to pressure transducer data, flow rate and pressure, water
level, LNAPL thickness, field gas concentration, analytical vapor sample, dissolved oxygen and
analytical LNAPL data were collected during the sparge test.
The test was conducted at flow rates of 2.4, 28, and 47 scfm on November 1, 2007 while the
SVE system at the former Oliver’s Cleaners property was in continuous operation. Injection of
air at pressures sufficient to overcome the hydraulic head in the well displaced water and
LNAPL from pore space, creating an unsaturated envelope reaching approximately 35 feet in
radius and causing significant static water level rises in surrounding monitoring wells. After
about 100 minutes of high-flow sparging, the unsaturated envelope began to collapse as more air
pathways were established from the sparge well to the vadose zone.
The sparging was successful in stripping VOCs and hydrocarbons from the groundwater and
LNAPL layer in the vicinity of the sparge well (Figure 14). Liberated vapors were captured by
the SVE system and removed by carbon adsorption. Sampling of influent flow to the SVE
system demonstrated large increases in concentrations of target COCs, as well as petroleum
hydrocarbons. Comparison of LNAPL samples, especially at 7AZP-4 near the sparging well,
Feasibility Study Report H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\7AZ FS Fnl Rpt 20140424.doc April 24, 2014
16
indicated reduction of target COCs and demonstrated the effectiveness of air sparging in
reducing the potential for these compounds sequestered in the LNAPL to contaminate the
underlying regional aquifer (Table 10).
Data collected during the test indicated that air sparging was successful at removing chlorinated
VOCs from the LNAPL and that the SVE system effectively captured the VOCs. PCE
concentration in the LNAPL was reduced 48 percent, from 290 milligrams per kilogram (mg/Kg)
to 150 mg/Kg, and TCE and cis-DCE concentrations were reduced 80 and 74 percent,
respectively.
Feasibility Study Report H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\7AZ FS Fnl Rpt 20140424.doc April 24, 2014
17
5. IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING OF REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES AND ALTERNATIVES
Remedial alternatives are screened based on anticipated removal or reduction of contaminants at
a site and the ability to achieve the ROs.
5.1 Remedy Selection Criteria and Site Assumptions
Pursuant to A.A.C. R18-16-407(A), a remedy should be capable of achieving ROs. A reference
remedy and alternative remedies, pursuant to A.A.C. R18-16-407(E), must be developed and
described in sufficient detail to allow evaluation using the comparison criteria. The reference
remedy must be developed based on best engineering, geological or hydrogeological judgment
and follow scientific standards of practice. Information used in the assessment includes: 1) the RI
report, 2) best available information concerning available remedial methods and technologies,
and 3) a remedy analysis consistent with A.R.S. § 49-282.06.
Remedial alternatives were screened based on the criteria listed in Table 11 and discussed in
Section 5.3.
The Site assumptions used during identification and screening of remedial technologies included:
• A PCE DNAPL source potentially exists in vadose soils and this contributes to a soil vapor migration risk
• PCE and TCE sources exists as an admixture in LNAPL and this contributes to a soil vapor migration risk
• Perched groundwater is not of beneficial use and therefore does not need to be remediated since it does not contribute to a soil vapor migration risk
5.2 Identification of Technologies and Alternatives
The preliminary remedial technologies identified for removing the vapor migration risk and for
remediation of the PCE source from the LNAPL and from vadose soils are listed here.
IDENTIFIED REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
Preliminary Identified Remedial Technology Retained for Screening
SVE Yes
Air Sparging Yes
Raining Wells Yes
Feasibility Study Report H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\7AZ FS Fnl Rpt 20140424.doc April 24, 2014
18
IDENTIFIED REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
Preliminary Identified Remedial Technology Retained for Screening
Thermal Treatment Yes, two methods
Multiphase Extraction Yes
Chemical Oxidation Yes, two methods
Excavation No
Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) and No Action cannot be considered for the Site, as
current soil vapor concentrations are at high enough levels to pose a vapor migration risk to
commercial workers based on potential future uses at the former Oliver’s Cleaners property;
MNA and No Action would not reduce that risk.
Excavation was discarded as an impractical remedial alternative, as it is not only extremely
expensive, but it cannot be reasonably implemented due to the location of the Site and the depth
to LNAPL. Some of the preliminary remedial alternatives identified as potential Site remedies to
be further screened include two potential methods.
5.3 Screening of Alternatives
The identified remedial alternatives were generally screened per A.R.S. § 49-282.06 based on: 1)
protectiveness, 2) reasonableness, 3) necessity, 4) cost effectiveness, and 5) technical feasibility.
Source control has also been considered (A.A.C. R18-16-407(F)) as an element of the remedies.
These general screening constraints were developed into screening criteria which were applied to
the remedial alternatives (Table 11). Table 11 presents a description of the process and potential
COC removal and technical feasibility for each alternative, and assigns a qualitative score,
ranging from 1 to 3, to each remedial alternative for nine screening criteria. For consistency, 3
indicates a favorable rating and 1 indicates an unfavorable rating. For example, a score of 3 for
the screening criteria “Cost” indicates that the remedial alternative in question is relatively low
cost. Costs will be detailed for the retained remedial alternatives in Section 7.
Only technologies that are compatible with land use of the former Oliver’s Cleaners property
were screened; since the property is currently a parking lot, the technologies were either effective
on a short-term basis or acceptable for use during future development of the property. All
remedial technologies would furthermore meet regulatory requirements.
Feasibility Study Report H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\7AZ FS Fnl Rpt 20140424.doc April 24, 2014
19
5.4 Retained Alternatives
Based on the above screening, the following alternatives have been retained for further
consideration:
Alternative 1 – SVE
Alternative 2 – Air Sparging
Alternative 4 – Electrical Resistive Heating
The retained remedial alternatives are anticipated to achieve the ROs for the Site and meet the
screening conditions listed in Section 5.1. The retained alternatives have all been implemented at
other sites and would meet ADEQ, Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) and
federal regulatory requirements.
Alternative 5, steam injection, was not retained as it was operationally similar to the ERH
alternative, but appeared to be a less tested and less controlled option based on availability of
vendor information. Alternatives 3, 6, 7 and 8 were not retained as it was unclear if these
technologies would effectively remove COCs from the LNAPL without a better technical
understanding through performance of bench-scale and pilot-scale tests.
Feasibility Study Report H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\7AZ FS Fnl Rpt 20140424.doc April 24, 2014
20
Feasibility Study Report H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\7AZ FS Fnl Rpt 20140424.doc April 24, 2014
21
6. DEVELOPMENT OF A REFERENCE REMEDY AND ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES
Three remedial alternatives for addressing the vapor migration risk and for remediation of the
chlorinated ethene source from the LNAPL and from vadose soils are developed here. These
include a reference remedy, a more aggressive remedial alternative and a less aggressive
remedial alternative. All remedial alternatives will achieve the ROs at the Site. The remedial
alternatives consist of a combination of remedial strategies and remedial measures that are based
on the anticipated reduction of contaminants and the ability to achieve the ROs.
Of the retained alternatives (Section 5.4), AS/SVE was chosen as the reference remedy for its
known effectiveness and relatively high criteria ratings (Table 11). ERH was chosen as a more
aggressive remedial alternative based on expedited remediation time, anticipated to be within 1
to 2 years. SVE is the only remedial alternative that is considered less aggressive than the
reference remedy.
6.1 Reference Remedy: Strategy and Measures
6.1.1 Remedial Component Strategy
The reference remedy components are AS and SVE, with carbon adsorption for treatment of the
process stream, and monitoring of the soil vapor and perched groundwater, conceptually
represented in Figure 15. SVE will remove COCs to acceptable levels, while sparging will
decrease COC concentrations in the LNAPL. Carbon adsorption was chosen as the most
reasonable and cost-effective of the process stream treatment options for the reference remedy.
These remedial components were already executed or pilot-tested at the Site and proved to be
successful.
6.1.2 System Design and Installation
The existing AS/SVE remedial system at the former Oliver’s Cleaners property would be
augmented with an additional three SVE wells and three AS wells and associated trenched piping
runs. The proposed SVE blower unit would consist of a 10-15 HP blower, capable of a flow rate
of 250 scfm, and two 2,000-pound GAC vessels plus manifold for treating the waste stream. A
manifold of valves allowing for cycling of sparge wells would be plumbed to the proposed
sparge blower unit, consisting of a 10 HP blower capable of 100 scfm at 10 PSIG. Extraction
flow rates would be optimized based on numerical modeling results.
Feasibility Study Report H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\7AZ FS Fnl Rpt 20140424.doc April 24, 2014
22
6.1.3 Operation and Monitoring
Operation and maintenance data, including pressure, flow and PID readings, for the AS/SVE
remedial system would be collected approximately weekly. Vapor samples and PID readings
would be collected from the influent gas stream to the SVE unit, between the carbon vessels, and
from the effluent from the carbon lag vessel approximately monthly. Any required VOC
emissions testing and reporting would be performed.
Remedial progress data, including PID readings, air flow, water levels and LNAPL thickness,
would be collected weekly. Soil vapor samples from each SVE well and PID readings from the
ten shallow vapor probes on the former Oliver’s Cleaners property would be collected
approximately monthly. LNAPL samples would be collected for VOC analysis before startup of
the remedial system, and periodically throughout the remedial period, to evaluate VOC removal
effectiveness of the AS. Soil vapor samples would be collected from the shallow soil vapor
probes and the nested soil vapor probes and associated monitoring wells prior to remedial system
startup and on a quarterly basis to evaluate VOC removal efficiency.
6.2 More Aggressive Remedy: Strategy and Measures
6.2.1 Remedial Component Strategy
The remedial components for the more aggressive remedy are thermal treatment by ERH
combined with SVE, with carbon adsorption for treatment of the process stream, and monitoring
of the soil vapor and perched groundwater. The general goal is to raise the temperature in the
contaminated zones and thus increase the mobility of the contaminants which are then swept
from the vadose zone using an SVE system. ERH normally incorporates SVE to capture volatiles
that are essentially vaporized from subsurface soils and from LNAPL primarily through
evaporation and steam distillation. However, it is theoretically possible to remove 100 percent of
the contaminants by raising soil temperatures to the point of thermal destruction of the targeted
compounds. This alternative remedy will remove COCs from vadose soils and from the LNAPL
in a decreased time period when compared to AS/SVE. Carbon adsorption will be used as the
most reasonable and cost-effective option for treatment of the process stream.
6.2.2 System Design and Installation
ERH is accomplished by passing 3-phase electric current between an array of electrodes installed
10 to 20 feet apart in the vadose and saturated zones of the contaminated area. A six spot
configuration of electrodes installed about 20 feet apart surrounding a central vapor extraction
well is the preferred configuration. Subsurface temperatures are monitored continuously using an
Feasibility Study Report H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\7AZ FS Fnl Rpt 20140424.doc April 24, 2014
23
array of thermocouples set at targeted intervals. The SVE system would be similar to that
described for the reference remedy, with a SVE well in the center of every six-spot electrode
configuration (i.e. approximately 74 SVE wells total, each one surrounded by six electrodes).
6.2.3 Operation and Monitoring
Operation and maintenance data for the ERH remedial system would be collected approximately
weekly. Operation of the system would consist of maintaining the correct pressures and flows,
measuring temperatures from the site-wide array of thermocouples, and measuring the flow of
current to each electrode to ensure that a proper balance in amperage is maintained across the
site, adjusting as necessary.
Remedial progress data would include measuring VOC concentrations at each extraction well to
evaluate the overall system performance and contaminant removal trends at each extraction well.
Monitoring would be performed for both vapor phase and aqueous phase carbon vessels
monthly. Any required emissions testing and reporting would be performed.
6.3 Less Aggressive Remedy: Strategy and Measures
6.3.1 Remedial Component Strategy
The remedial components for the less aggressive remedy are SVE with carbon adsorption for
treatment of the process stream, and monitoring of the soil vapor and perched groundwater.
Although SVE will remove soil vapor COCs to acceptable levels, concentrations of COCs in the
LNAPL will be only minimally affected, so this remedial option is considered less aggressive as
it may not be able to clean up the LNAPL source. Only COCs above the LNAPL (i.e. in the soil
vapor) with a high enough vapor pressure will be removed by SVE. Carbon adsorption will be
used for process stream treatment as it is the most reasonable and cost-effective technology. The
monitoring remedial component is necessary to ensure that COC concentrations are decreasing to
acceptable levels in soil vapor and contaminants in the perched groundwater do not continue to
move downgradient at concentrations exceeding MCLs.
6.3.2 System Design and Installation
The SVE remedial system would be configured the same as the reference remedy The blower
unit would also be the same as that proposed for the reference remedy and process stream
treatment system would consist of two 2,000-pound GAC vessels plus manifold.
Feasibility Study Report H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\7AZ FS Fnl Rpt 20140424.doc April 24, 2014
24
6.3.3 Operation and Monitoring
Operation and maintenance for the SVE remedial system would follow the same plan and
schedule as that for the reference remedy, but without the tasks specific to the air sparge unit and
well valves.
Feasibility Study Report H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\7AZ FS Fnl Rpt 20140424.doc April 24, 2014
25
7. DETAILED COMPARISON OF THE REFERENCE REMEDY AND ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES
7.1 Comparison Criteria
Each retained remedial alternative was evaluated based on the criteria in A.A.C. R18-16-407(C).
These criteria include: practicability, cost, risk and benefit. Additionally, the comparison criteria
for each remedy in relation to the other retained remedies are evaluated.
7.1.1 Reference Remedy - Air Sparging with SVE
7.1.1.1 Practicability
Air sparging with SVE is a remedy that is known to be effective for this Site based on pilot
testing (see ERA – Section 4). Air sparging will strip the VOCs from the groundwater and
LNAPL layer in the vicinity of the sparge well and SVE will capture the liberated COCs with
subsequent removal by the GAC vessels through carbon adsorption. A smear zone will also be
created across the Site by performing cyclical air sparging, intended to increase the surface area
and therefore partitioning of COCs into the vapor stream for removal by SVE.
7.1.1.2 Cost
The estimated costs for the AS/SVE and Monitoring remedial components are summarized in
Table 12. Due to the undetermined volume of COCs to be remediated, and since the time needed
to achieve the ROs is unknown, duration of remedial operations cannot be effectively estimated.
Costs for the AS/SVE remedial components were based on estimated capital expenditures,
construction costs, and five years of estimated operation and maintenance (O&M) and remedial
monitoring. The Monitoring remedial component was based on five years of soil vapor sampling
from shallow probes on the former Oliver’s Cleaners property, nested vapor wells and perched
monitoring wells. Section 6 summarizes the development of remedial components that provided
the basis for cost categories for those components. The total estimated costs for installation and
five years of AS/SVE system operation, using compounded future worth at an interest rate of
3.25% for years 1 through 5, is approximately $1,251,000: around $854,000 for the AS/SVE
remedial component and around $397,000 for the monitoring component.
7.1.1.3 Risk
PCE and TCE must be removed from the LNAPL in order for the remedy to be effective in the
long term; air sparging does this. SVE will remove the COCs that partition into the vapor phase
Feasibility Study Report H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\7AZ FS Fnl Rpt 20140424.doc April 24, 2014
26
through air sparging of the LNAPL, as well as any residual DNAPL source from within the
unsaturated zone. The configuration of SVE wells will be optimized through modeling and SVE
flows will be maintained at 125% or more of air sparging flows to minimize the risk of vapors
from moving off of the former Oliver’s Cleaners property or into buildings on the property (if
developed during remediation). This is easy to achieve with scheduled flow rate measurements
during O&M, and a relay that will shut off the air sparging blower if the SVE blower goes down.
The risk will, therefore, be minimized and both the vapor migration and groundwater
protectiveness ROs for the Site will be met.
7.1.1.4 Benefit
The most significant benefit of air sparging with SVE is the removal of COCs from LNAPL and
therefore a more defined remedial timeline (to be evaluated with early operation of the system).
7.1.2 More Aggressive Remedy - Thermal Treatment
7.1.2.1 Practicability
ERH has the potential to remove 99 percent of the PCE from the former Oliver’s Cleaners
property in less than a year. A preliminary analysis using the lot dimensions by TRS Group Inc.
indicates that 148 thermo-electro heating element wells would have to be installed through the
NAPL to effectively vaporize the PCE for extraction by the SVE system. A SVE well would
need to be installed in the center of every six-spot electrode configuration, for a total of
approximately 74 SVE wells, to extract the contaminated vapors. Thermocouples would have to
be installed at many locations to monitor subsurface temperatures. As the temperature would be
at the heat of vaporization, the amount of condensation produced at the air exchanger and
collected in the water entrainment separator would increase; this condensate would need to be
treated through a separate aqueous phase GAC system. Estimates for this remedy predict a
condensate production rate of 9 gallons per minute (gpm). Average heating power input is
estimated to be 2,712 kW, not including the power required to operate the SVE treatment system.
The major technical limitation for implementation of ERH at the former Oliver’s Cleaners
property is the availability of adequate electrical infrastructure to meet the power demand of this
remedy. In addition, continued use of the property by the owner would not be possible if this
remedy were implemented, as the former Oliver’s Cleaners property would be covered with
equipment during remediation.
Feasibility Study Report H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\7AZ FS Fnl Rpt 20140424.doc April 24, 2014
27
7.1.2.2 Cost
Table 12 summarizes the estimated costs for the ERH remedy, along with the monitoring
remedial component. The total estimated costs for ERH for installation, 1 year of remedial
operation (at which point the Site is anticipated to be clean), and 1 year of monitoring, is
approximately $7 million: around $6,926,400 for the thermal remedial component construction
and O&M, and around $71,300 for the monitoring component. This estimate does not include the
cost of routing sufficient electrical power to the former Oliver’s Cleaners property, which could
be considerable.
7.1.2.3 Risk
The possibility of escape of contaminants above land surface is much greater for the thermally
enhanced remedy compared with the reference remedy and therefore the risk to public health is
greater. High voltage is required to operate the systems heating element grid presenting an
additional potential hazard to the public over the Site.
7.1.2.4 Benefit
The benefit of a thermal treatment alternative is a much shorter remedial timeline and potential
to remove 99 percent of the COCs from the former Oliver’s Cleaners property.
7.1.3 Less Aggressive Remedy - SVE and Monitoring
7.1.3.1 Practicability
SVE is a practicable remedial alternative; however, without removal of COCs from the LNAPL,
there will be a continuing source of soil vapor contamination. Therefore, the SVE system may
need to operate for an unknown period of time to be protective of human health with regard to
vapor migration. This makes SVE a less effective remedy for this Site, since development of the
property is anticipated, although SVE could continue operating from below-grade piping and
other installations.
7.1.3.2 Cost
Table 13 summarizes the estimated costs for SVE only, with monitoring. The total estimated
costs for installation and five years of remedial operation, using compounded future worth at an
interest rate of 3.25% for years 1 through 5, is approximately $1,082,000: around $685,000 for
the SVE remedial component and around $397,000 for the monitoring component. SVE is the
Feasibility Study Report H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\7AZ FS Fnl Rpt 20140424.doc April 24, 2014
28
least expensive of the retained remedial alternatives; however, SVE may need to continue to
operate indefinitely which would greatly affect the cost.
7.1.3.3 Risk
The SVE remedial alternative is used mainly for treating the vadose zone. SVE would have little
impact on the contaminated LNAPL source, thereby leaving a long-term potential threat to
perched groundwater, to the regional aquifer and to ambient air through a vapor migration
pathway if the SVE system is shut off or removed.
7.1.3.4 Benefit
SVE only would have the least disruption to the Site and would be the easiest to implement
while the Site is being developed.
7.2 Comparison of Remedies
7.2.1 Practicability
All three retained remedies are considered protective of human health and the environment. The
AS/SVE and thermal treatment remedy will remediate the former Oliver’s Cleaners property
within a reasonable timeframe. There is uncertainty in the protectiveness of SVE alone, as the
timeframe for cleanup of the LNAPL cannot be quantified. The thermal treatment remedy is less
practicable based on resource use and is limited by availability of an adequate supply of
electrical power. AS/SVE is the most practicable of the retained alternatives.
7.2.2 Cost
Tables 12, 13 and 14 present the costs for the three options. AS/SVE is nominally a more
expensive option than the less aggressive remedy (SVE), but considerably less expensive than
the more aggressive remedy (thermal). The less aggressive remedy does not effectively remove
all of the risk (i.e., COCs in the LNAPL) and the ongoing O&M costs to maintain lowered soil
vapor concentrations likely would increase the overall costs compared to the reference remedy.
The cost for the more aggressive remedy is exceptionally high, making this option unwarranted
at this particular Site due to the relatively low property value. AS/SVE is therefore the most cost-
effective alternative.
Feasibility Study Report H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\7AZ FS Fnl Rpt 20140424.doc April 24, 2014
29
7.2.3 Risk
The thermal treatment alternative provides the greatest certainty with respect to long-term risk
reduction. In contrast, the less aggressive remedy would provide risk reduction while the SVE
system is in operation, but provides less certainty over the long term. AS/SVE balances the risks
better than the other alternatives; long-term risk will be mitigated by remediation of both
potential sources (LNAPL and vadose soils) while still minimizing risk during operation of the
system.
7.2.4 Benefit
The thermal treatment alternative increases the likelihood that the former Oliver’s Cleaners
property will be completely cleaned up in a relatively short time frame. AS/SVE will remediate
both the soil vapor and LNAPL sources in a reasonable timeframe while meeting the ROs, and
cause the least disturbance to the Site and surrounding areas. The least aggressive remedy will
address the immediate concerns regarding soil vapor concentrations, but may not adequately deal
with long-term concerns.
7.3 Uncertainties
The major uncertainty associated with evaluating potential remedial actions at the Site is the lack
of definition of the total mass of COCs and their distribution in the vadose zone and LNAPL
below the former Oliver’s Cleaners property. This has less significance for the thermal treatment
alternative, but impacts the potential duration of the other alternatives.
Uncertainties exist with implementing the less aggressive and more aggressive remedies at this
Site. For the less aggressive remedy, SVE, the timeframe to fully remediate the LNAPL body, if
that can be achieved, is unknown. Thermal treatment, the more aggressive remedy, has been
proven to be effective with chlorinated ethenes at other sites; however, performing this extremely
aggressive remedial technology in an area surrounded by buildings and small retail
establishments may cause unquantifiable disturbance. Furthermore, there is uncertainty regarding
the level of effort related to routing adequate power and maintaining public safety with the
associated high voltages.
Feasibility Study Report H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\7AZ FS Fnl Rpt 20140424.doc April 24, 2014
30
Feasibility Study Report H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\7AZ FS Fnl Rpt 20140424.doc April 24, 2014
31
8. RECOMMENDED REMEDY
8.1 Achievement of Remedial Objectives
Pursuant to A.A.C. R18-16-407(C), the recommended remedy for the Site must address the
contaminated soil in a manner that achieves compliance with A.A.C. R18-16-406G and will
achieve the ROs for the use of the property. As soil remediation levels do not directly apply,
compliance is being achieved by remediating to a non-residential site-specific remediation level
based on a site-specific human health risk assessment (see A.A.C. R18-7-206).
Based on the evaluation and comparison of the reference remedy with alternative remedies in
this FS Report, the reference remedy is the recommended remedy for the Site. The reference
remedy is expected to achieve the ROs, described in Section 3.4, for the Site. The reference
remedy was chosen based on a combination of remedial effectiveness, practicability, cost, risk
and benefit to achieve the ROs for the Site. AS/SVE implementation at the former Oliver’s
Cleaners property is expected to decrease soil vapor levels and decrease the potential for vapor
migration from the subsurface. Furthermore, a long-term program to monitor contaminants in the
perched groundwater, the regional aquifer and soil vapor at the Site will be necessary.
8.2 Consistency with Current and Future Land and Water Use
As discussed in the RI Report (HGC, 2014), the zoning for the Site is established, with no
foreseeable changes to zoning in the future. The former Oliver’s Cleaners property, where
remedial actions are intended to occur, is currently zoned commercial. Access to the property for
implementation of remedial actions would presumably be granted prior to any former Oliver’s
Cleaners property development. Therefore, remedial action on the former Oliver’s Cleaners
property is deemed to be feasible.
As the perched groundwater being affected is not considered drinking water and will not be used
beneficially, the control, management and cleanup of the perched groundwater were not
considered as part of the FS. However, the reduction in COC mass and concentrations in the
vadose zone and LNAPL at the former Oliver’s Cleaners property will have the added benefit of
reducing the source input to the solute plume in perched groundwater.
Feasibility Study Report H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\7AZ FS Fnl Rpt 20140424.doc April 24, 2014
32
8.3 Achievement of Remedial Action Criteria
Remedial actions, pursuant to A.R.S. § 49-282.06, shall: 1) be protective of public health,
welfare and the environment; and 2) be reasonable, necessary, cost-effective and technically
feasible. These requirements applied to the recommended Site remedy are detailed below.
8.3.1 Protectiveness
The recommended remedial action is protective of human health in that it directly addresses
potential exposure. Remedial action implementation will reduce current soil vapor levels, both at
deep and shallow locations, and therefore reduce the current and future risk to human health. The
recommended remedy will be protective in the long term by reducing COC mass in the vadose
zone and LNAPL below the former Oliver’s Cleaners property.
8.3.2 Reasonableness
The recommended remedial action is reasonable for this Site as it focuses on addressing the
source, COCs and contaminated media of concern. Use of the remedial components has been
proven in the literature. SVE is a presumptive remedy for removal of volatile chlorinated organic
compounds from the vadose zone. AS, although not commonly used to remove contaminants
from a non-regulated LNAPL layer, has been used extensively to remove contaminants from
groundwater.
8.3.3 Necessity
Remedial action at this Site is necessary due to the presence of shallow soil vapor concentrations
for COCs that potentially could pose a vapor migration risk to surrounding properties, where
buildings and workers exist.
8.3.4 Cost Effectiveness
The recommended remedial components are cost-effective for the Site. In addition to SVE and
AS being potentially the only remedial technologies that would be effective, they are relatively
inexpensive options. An AS/SVE well pair already exists at the former Oliver’s Cleaners
property, along with partial piping, a remedial compound, available utilities and waste stream
treatment vessels. Any other more aggressive potential remedial option would be many times
more expensive.
Feasibility Study Report H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\7AZ FS Fnl Rpt 20140424.doc April 24, 2014
33
8.3.5 Technical Feasibility
AS/SVE is considered technically feasible and both have been used effectively at the former
Oliver’s Cleaners property to reduce soil vapor levels and to reduce COC concentrations within
the LNAPL contaminant source.
Feasibility Study Report H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\7AZ FS Fnl Rpt 20140424.doc April 24, 2014
34
Feasibility Study Report H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\7AZ FS Fnl Rpt 20140424.doc April 24, 2014
35
9. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
ADEQ is responsible for the selection of the remedy for the Site, based on the RI and FS Reports
and summarized in the Proposed Remedial Action Plan (PRAP), and includes public
involvement in this process.
A FS Work Plan (ADEQ, 2014) was developed, pursuant to A.A.C. R18-16-407(B). A notice of
availability of the FS WP was posted on March 28, 2014. The PRAP will describe the proposed
Site remedy, including estimated costs, and be issued for 30-day public comment after the FS
Report is finalized. A Community Advisory Board (CAB) meeting will also be scheduled during
the PRAP public comment period. CAB meeting agendas and minutes can be found at:
http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/waste/sps/reg.html.
Remedy selection will be documented in a Record of Decision (ROD) that will include a
response summary of any comments received during the PRAP 30-day public comment period.
This FS Report forms the basis for the selection of the remedy for the Site and will provide the
information necessary to support the development of the ROD.
Feasibility Study Report H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\7AZ FS Fnl Rpt 20140424.doc April 24, 2014
36
Feasibility Study Report H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\7AZ FS Fnl Rpt 20140424.doc April 24, 2014
37
10. REFERENCES
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). 2014. Feasibility Study Work Plan, 7th Street and Arizona Avenue WQARF Site, Tucson, Arizona. March 17, 2014.
B&R. 1998. Corrective Action Plan, Yellow Cab Company of Tucson, 411 North Fifth Avenue. Facility ID No. 0-006763, LUST File No. 1136.01, Civil Action No. CV 95-11404. April 24, 1998.
Battelle Memorial Institute (Battelle). 2007. Electrical Resistance Heating (ERH): Design and Performance Criteria. Presented at Remediation Innovative Technology Seminar, Columbus, Ohio, Spring 2007.
Bradley, P.M. 2003. History and ecology of chloroethene biodegradation: A review. Bioremediation Journal, v 7(2), p. 81-109.
Davis, E.L., 1998. Steam Injection for Soil and Aquifer Remediation, EPA 540-S-97-505, January 1998.
EPA. 1997. Analysis of Selected Enhancements for Soil Vapor Extraction, EPA 542-R-97-007, September 1997.
EPA. 1999. Multi-Phase Extraction: State-of-the-Practice, EPA 542-R-99-004. June 1999.
EPA. 2012. Regional Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites. http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb-concentration_table/index.htm
EPA. 2013. OSWER Final Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating the Vapor Intrusion Pathway from Subsurface Sources to Indoor Air (External Review Draft).
Huling, S.G. and B.E. Pivetz. 2006. In-Situ Chemical Oxidation, EPA 600-R-06-072, August 2006.
Hydro Geo Chem, Inc. (HGC). 2006. Draft Work Plan Addendum, 7th Street and Arizona Avenue WQARF Site, Tucson, Arizona. February 17, 2006.
HGC. 2008a. Air Sparge Pilot Testing Report, 7th Street and Arizona Avenue WQARF Site, Tucson, Arizona. February 28, 2008.
HGC, 2008b. 2008 Operation and Maintenance Summary Report, 7th Street and Arizona Avenue WQARF Site, Tucson, Arizona. August 18, 2008.
HGC, 2014. Remedial Investigation Report, 7th Street and Arizona Avenue WQARF Site, Tucson, Arizona. March 21, 2014.
Interstate Technology Regulatory Council. 2005. Technical and Regulatory Guidance for In Situ Chemical Oxidation of Contaminated Soil and Groundwater, Second Edition. January 2005.
TRS Group, Inc. website http://www.thermalrs.com/ and model run information.
Feasibility Study Report H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\7AZ FS Fnl Rpt 20140424.doc April 24, 2014
38
Feasibility Study Report H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\7AZ FS Fnl Rpt 20140424.doc April 24, 2014
39
11. LIMITATIONS
The opinions and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the scope of services
and information obtained through the performance of the services, as agreed upon by HGC and
ADEQ. Results of any investigations, tests, or findings presented in this report apply solely to
conditions existing at the time HGC’s investigative work was performed and are inherently
based on and limited to the available data and the extent of the investigation activities. No
representation, warranty, or guarantee, express or implied, is intended or given. HGC makes no
representation as to the accuracy or completeness of any information provided by other parties
not under contract to HGC to the extent that HGC relied upon that information. This report is
expressly for the sole and exclusive use of ADEQ and for the particular purpose that it was
intended. Reuse of this report, or any portion thereof, for other than its intended purpose, or if
modified, or if used by third parties, shall be at the sole risk of the user.
Feasibility Study Report H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\7AZ FS Fnl Rpt 20140424.doc April 24, 2014
40
TABLES
TABLE 1
Chronology of Site Activities
7th Street and Arizona Avenue WQARF Site, Tucson, Arizona
Year Site Activities
1928 - 1956 Dry cleaning may have been performed on the property, but cannot be verified.
1957 - 1989 Oliver's Cleaners owns the property and continuously operates a dry cleaning business.
1989 Oliver's Cleaners buildings are destroyed by fire.
1991Seven underground storage tanks (1 - 10,000 gallon solvent, 4 - 1,000 gallon solvent, 2 - 500 gallon heating/oil tanks) are
removed from the property.
1992Soil samples are collected in the vicinity of the heating/waste oil tanks for TPH analysis. An analysis of a groundwater sample
from the on-site water supply well detects PCE and TCE at concentrations below AWQS. (Zenitch)
1996 The water supply well on the property is abandoned.
199726 soil and soil gas samples are collected as part of a PA/SI investigation. Contamination is found near all solvent tank
locations. (ADEQ)
2000 Site is placed on the WQARF Registry with a score of 40 out of 120.
2002
A site investigation is completed to assess whether an Early Response Action is appropriate. Investigation includes: sampling
from perched groundwater and regional aquifer wells; LNAPL sampling; implementation of a passive soil gas survey; collection of
soil samples during well installation for VOC, petroleum hydrocarbon, TOC and physical property characterization; and soil vapor
sampling from nested wells. (Kleinfelder and HGC)
2003 First and second quarter groundwater monitoring/sampling is performed. (Kleinfelder)
2004 - 2008 Soil vapor monitoring and groundwater monitoring activities are performed. (HGC)
2005 - 2006An SVE well and SVE remedial system are installed under an ERA. An SVE pilot test is conducted to evaluate pneumatic
properties. (HGC)
2006 - 2009SVE is operated continuously as a remedial action to remove VOCs from the source property. Mass removal remedial data and
O&M data are collected. (HGC)
2007An air sparge well and associated vapor wells are installed. An air sparge pilot test is conducted to evaluate the efficacy of
removing chlorinated VOCs from the LNAPL. (HGC)
2009 SVE remedial system is shut down after removal of approximately 770 pounds VOCs.
2011 - 2012 Soil vapor samples are collected from nested probes and monitoring wells to establish current Site conditions. (HGC)
2012 Groundwater sampling of all existing monitoring wells is performed to establish current Site conditions. (HGC)
2013 March - RI/FS Work Plan is submitted to and approved by ADEQ. (HGC)
2013 March 29 - ARS §49-287.03 newspaper notification is posted for 30-day public comment for start of RI and FS studies.
2013 March - Perched groundwater wells are sampled for geochemical evaluation. A shallow soil gas survey is performed. (HGC)
2013 April - Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment is drafted, to be included as an appendix to the RI Report. (HGC)
2013 May - Land Use Study report is drafted, to be included as an appendix to the RI Report. (HGC)
2013 May - Remedial Investigation Report is drafted. (HGC)
2013 May 17 - Notice of 30-day public comment period for draft RI Report is posted in local newspaper.
2013 August - Responsiveness summary to address COT comments were drafted. (HGC)
2014 February 4 - Notice of solicitation of Remedial Objectives and February 18 CAB meeting is posted in local newspaper.
2014 February 19 - RO Report is drafted and 30-day public comment period starts (ADEQ)
2014 March 28 - Availability of FS Work Plan is posted in local newspaper.
2014 March 21 - RI Report is finalized. (HGC)
H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\Tables April 2014\Table 1 - Chronology of Site Activities FS.xls: Table 1 4/24/2014
TABLE 2
LNAPL VOC Results, 2002 - 2012
7th Street and Arizona Avenue WQARF Site, Tucson, ArizonaS
am
ple
Da
te C
olle
cte
d
1,1
,2,2
-Te
tra
ch
loro
eth
an
e
1,2
,4-T
rim
eth
ylb
en
ze
ne
1,2
,3-T
ric
hlo
rob
en
ze
ne
1,2
,3-T
ric
hlo
rop
rop
an
e
1,3
,5-T
rim
eth
ylb
en
ze
ne
1,1
-Dic
hlo
roe
the
ne
4-I
so
pro
py
lto
lue
ne
Be
nze
ne
Ch
loro
be
nze
ne
Ch
loro
form
cis
-1,2
-Dic
hlo
roe
the
ne
tra
ns
-1,2
-Dic
hlo
roe
the
ne
Eth
ylb
en
ze
ne
Iso
pro
py
lbe
nze
ne
Na
ph
tha
len
e
n-B
uty
lbe
nze
ne
n-P
rop
ylb
en
ze
ne
se
c-B
uty
lbe
nze
ne
tert
-Bu
tylb
en
ze
ne
Te
tra
ch
loro
eth
en
e
Tri
ch
loro
eth
en
e
Xy
len
es
, T
ota
l
MW-PD-2 Mar-02 <100 345 <100 <100 120 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 1,235 220 100 115 <100 <100 <100 <100
MW-PD-6 Mar-02 <100 710 <100 <100 180 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 1,380 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100
MW-PD-15 Mar-02 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 735 315 250 290 <100 <100 <100 <100
7AZP-2 Jun-02 <10 264 <10 <10 71 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 21 529 144 39 48 <10 198 <10 20
7AZP-4 May-04 <100 410 <100 <100 <100 <100 150 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 820 NA <100 140 <100 500 570 <200
7AZP-2 May-04 <100 480 <100 <100 150 <100 100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 920 NA <100 <100 <100 680 <100 <200
MW-PD-2 Feb-05 84 280 29 38 110 <1.0 110 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 1.2 62 800 150 93 89 <2.5 0.85 0.5 15
MW-PD-15 Feb-05 <1.0 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <1.0 8.6 0.8 0.56 <0.5 0.58 <0.5 5.0 120 320 140 140 190 8.6 2.0 5.8 <1.5
7AZP-4 Feb-05 120 130 <25 38 25 <1.0 <25 <0.5 <0.5 0.81 46 13 6.0 <25 440 66 28 35 <25 150 300 11
7AZP-2 Feb-05 210 290 <25 66 95 <1.0 66 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 7.3 <25 450 93 42 43 <25 520 8.5 21
MW-PD-2 May-05 <20 450 <50 <50 180 <20 120 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <20 110 1,000 190 160 150 <50 <10 <10 <30
7AZP-4 May-05 <20 260 <50 <50 <50 <20 73 <10 <10 <10 120 23 <20 <50 630 100 56 70 <50 440 690 <30
7AZP-2 May-05 <20 380 <50 <50 120 <20 78 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <20 <50 670 95 58 61 <50 790 13 56
MW-PD-2 Nov-05 <9.8 430 <24 <24 180 <9.8 120 <4.9 <4.9 <4.9 <4.9 <4.9 <9.8 120 1,100 180 160 170 <24 <4.9 <4.9 29
MW-PD-6 Nov-05 <9.9 650 <25 <25 210 <9.9 94 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <9.9 45 730 110 59 82 <25 8.1 15 36
7AZP-4 Nov-05 <9.9 240 <25 <25 57 <9.9 79 <4.9 <4.9 <4.9 220 37 11 37 790 110 59 77 <25 620 970 16
7AZP-2 Nov-05 <9.9 470 <25 <25 130 <9.9 80 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <9.9 30 820 84 53 62 <25 1,100 13 <15
MW-PD-2 May-06 <10 380 <25 <25 160 <10 120 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <10 93 810 230 150 170 <25 <5.0 <5.0 <15
YC-6 May-06 <10 50 <25 <25 33 <10 <25 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <10 <25 570 85 51 26 <25 <5.0 <5.0 <15
7AZP-4 May-06 <10 270 <25 <25 57 22 73 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 110 <5.0 12 32 670 130 60 72 <25 310 530 16
7AZP-2 May-06 <10 370 <25 <25 120 <10 87 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 10 29 660 110 57 71 <25 830 17 28
MW-PD-2 Apr-07 <4.5 290 <9.1 <9.1 110 <4.5 79 <4.5 <4.5 <4.5 <4.5 <4.5 <4.5 NA NA <4.5 120 110 <4.5 <4.5 <4.5 5
YC-6 Apr-07 <4.9 53 <9.8 <9.8 33 <4.9 13 <4.9 <4.9 <4.9 <4.9 <4.9 <4.9 NA NA <4.9 47 17 <4.9 <4.9 <4.9 6.8
7AZP-4 Apr-07 <5.0 250 <9.9 <9.9 57 <5.0 49 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 240 62 13 NA NA <5 52 49 <5.0 360 820 19
7AZP-2 Apr-07 <4.6 260 <9.3 <9.3 97 <4.6 70 <4.6 <4.6 <4.6 <4.6 <4.6 8.3 NA NA <4.6 39 45 <4.6 630 19 17
MW-PD-14 Oct-07 <50 160 <100 <250 <50 <50 66 <50 <50 <50 78 <50 <50 NA NA <50 <50 94 <50 <50 <50 <150
YC-6 Oct-07 <51 56 <100 <250 <51 <51 <51 <51 <51 <51 <51 <51 <51 NA NA <51 <51 <51 <51 <51 <51 <151
7AZP-4 Oct-07 <50 220 <99 <250 68 <50 73 <50 <50 <50 170 <50 <50 NA NA 140 61 67 <50 310 660 <149
7AZP-2 Oct-07 <50 190 <100 <250 84 <50 70 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 NA NA <50 <50 54 <50 480 <50 <150
MW-PD-14 Apr-08 <25 130 <50 <50 <25 <25 54 <25 <25 <25 89 <25 <25 NA NA 96 40 64 <25 26 <25 <75
YC-6 Apr-08 <25 50 <50 <50 31 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 NA NA 84 45 <25 <25 <25 <25 <75
7AZP-4 Apr-08 <25 180 <50 <50 50 <25 38 <25 <25 <25 98 32 <25 NA NA 96 41 41 <25 140 280 <75
7AZP-2 Apr-08 <25 170 <49 <49 70 <25 59 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 NA NA 83 33 40 <25 440 <25 <74
MW-PD-14 Oct-08 <49 140 <120 <250 <49 <12 61 <49 <49 <49 94 <49 <49 <49 590 <120 <49 <120 <120 <49 <49 <150
YC-6 Oct-08 <48 50 <120 <240 <48 <12 <48 <48 <48 <48 <48 <48 <48 <48 710 <120 <48 <120 <120 <48 <48 <140
7AZP-4 Oct-08 <50 170 <120 <250 <50 <12 <50 <50 <50 <50 69 <50 <50 <50 560 <120 <50 <120 <120 <50 52 <150
7AZP-2 Oct-08 <50 190 <120 <250 71 <12 59 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 590 <120 <50 <120 <120 390 <50 <150
MW-PD-6 Nov-12 <4.9 140 <12 <24 83 <12 25 <4.9 <4.9 <4.9 <4.9 <4.9 <4.9 5.2 260 <12 <4.9 22 <12 <4.9 16 <15
YC-6 Nov-12 <5.1 37 <13 <25 18 <13 14 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 19 870 <13 56 22 <13 <5.1 <5.1 <15
7AZP-2 Nov-12 <5.0 170 <12 <25 68 <12 59 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5 <5 5.6 26 540 <12 40 52 <12 190 130 20
7AZP-4 Nov-12 <5.0 170 <12 <25 39 <12 62 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 57 <5 13 39 740 <12 67 74 <12 19 15 26
YC-5 Nov-12 <5.0 160 <12 <25 <5 <12 19 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 31 <5 5.5 34 430 170 58 120 <12 150 150 <15
Notes:
All concentrations are in milligrams per kilogram (or parts per million).
Bold values indicate detections.
H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\Tables April 2014\Table 2 - NAPL VOCs 2002-2012.xls: Table 2 4/24/2014
TABLE 3
Monitoring and Remedial Well Details
7th Street and Arizona Avenue WQARF Site
Well IDADWR
RegistrationInstallation Date
State Plane
Arizona Central
NAD83 E
(feet)
State Plane
Arizona Central
NAD83 N
(feet)
Measuring
Point
Elevation
NAVD88
(ft amsl)
Borehole
Depth
(ft bgs)
Casing
Diameter/
Schedule
Screened Interval
(ft bgs)
Screen
Slot Size
(inch)
7AZP-1c
55-591718 4/18/2002 993,826.790 447,346.479 2,378.27 87.0 1", 4" / SCH40 14-15; 29-30; 44-45; 60 - 85 0.02
7AZP-2c
55-591719 4/10/2002 993,827.832 447,179.925 2,378.35 86.0 1", 4" / SCH40 14-15; 29-30; 44-45; 58.7 - 83.9 0.02
7AZP-3c
55-591720 4/15/2002 993,684.018 447,180.330 2,377.26 87.0 1", 4" / SCH40 14-15; 29-30; 44-45; 60 - 85 0.02
7AZP-4c
55-591721 4/16/2002 993,761.950 447,241.212 2,377.58 87.0 1", 4" / SCH40 14-15; 29-30; 44-45; 60 - 85 0.02
7AZP-5 55-214637 2/13/2007 991,842.107 448,336.054 2,369.81 90.0 4" / SCH40 65 - 85 0.02
7AZP-6 55-214638 2/15/2007 992,635.997 448,753.758 2,386.61 95.0 4" / SCH40 65 - 95 0.02
7AZP-7a
55-214639 2/18/2007 993,629.193 448,123.531 2,387.26 90.0 4" / SCH40 65 - 85 0.02
7AZP-8b,c NA 2/19/2007 993,606.393 447,335.834 NA 46.0 1" / SCH40 14-15; 29-30; 44-45 0.02
7AZP-9 55-908158 11/15/2007 992,289.069 449,772.337 2,380.76 100.0 4" / SCH40 70 - 90 0.02
7AZP-10 55-908157 11/15/2007 993,253.360 448,838.421 2,385.61 95.0 4" / SCH40 74 - 94 0.02
7AZP-11 55-914796 11/1/2012 991,215.961 450,510.308 2,367.24 90.0 4" / SCH40 70 - 90 0.02
7AZP-12d 55-914795 10/24/2012 992,265.334 451,317.162 2,378.00 87.0 4" / SCH40 67 - 87 0.02
BF-1 55-548521 6/10/1995 993,104.380 447,683.465 2,375.38 80.5 4" / SCH40 50.5 - 80.5 0.02
BF-3 55-555810 4/4/1996 992,877.393 447,911.237 2,373.07 76.0 4" / SCH40 50 - 75 0.02
YC-5 55-552811 4/12/1996 993,681.743 447,357.540 2,377.20 85.0 4" / SCH40 55 - 80 0.02
YC-6 55-553162 12/15/1995 993,108.723 447,348.073 2,374.64 85.0 4" / SCH40 55 - 80 0.02
MW-PD-1 55-571702 4/7/1999 993,125.406 447,641.383 2,374.58 70.0 4" / SCH40 49.5 - 69.5 0.02
MW-PD-2 55-571705 4/9/1999 993,615.179 446,814.826 2,378.53 71.0 4" / SCH40 50.5 - 70.5 0.02
MW-PD-4 55-571710 4/15/1999 995,123.511 445,589.458 2,399.43 86.0 4" / SCH40 70 - 85 0.01
MW-PD-5 55-571709 4/19/1999 995,473.492 446,455.479 2,396.25 87.0 4" / SCH40 66 - 86 0.02
MW-PD-6 55-571707 4/21/1999 994,266.836 446,437.466 2,385.17 89.0 4" / SCH40 58 - 88 0.02
MW-PD-7 55-571704 4/22/1999 994,651.175 446,959.550 2,384.44 83.0 4" / SCH40 59 - 79 0.01
MW-PD-12 55-575075 7/1/1999 993,373.219 446,470.668 2,386.40 86.0 4" / SCH40 65.5 - 85.5 0.01
MW-PD-13 55-575616 8/30/1999 992,295.905 447,540.194 2,371.36 80.0 4" / SCH40 58 - 78 0.02
MW-PD-14b
55-576297 9/1/1999 993,605.663 447,326.490 2,376.21 83.5 4" / SCH40 52 - 82 0.01
MW-PD-15 55-576300 9/2/1999 992,652.586 447,726.252 2,368.54 77.0 4" / SCH40 51 - 76 0.01
PERCHED GROUNDWATER WELLS
ADEQ Wells
Bridgestone/Firestone Wells
Union Pacific Railroad Wells
Yellow Cab Wells
H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\Tables April 2014\
Table 3 - Site Well Details.xls Table 3 Page 1 of 2 4/24/2014
TABLE 3
Monitoring and Remedial Well Details
7th Street and Arizona Avenue WQARF Site
Well IDADWR
RegistrationInstallation Date
State Plane
Arizona Central
NAD83 E
(feet)
State Plane
Arizona Central
NAD83 N
(feet)
Measuring
Point
Elevation
NAVD88
(ft amsl)
Borehole
Depth
(ft bgs)
Casing
Diameter/
Schedule
Screened Interval
(ft bgs)
Screen
Slot Size
(inch)
MW-PD-16b
55-576298 9/7/1999 992,583.469 447,012.016 2,377.52 88.5 4" / SCH40 57 - 82 0.01
MW-PD-17b
55-576299 9/8/1999 994,180.269 446,949.532 2,380.30 81.5 4" / SCH40 51 - 81 0.01
MW-PD-29 55-902377 6/5/2005* 994,045.576 447,428.706 2,379.35 90.0 4" / SCH40 59 - 89 0.02
MW-PD-30 55-902378 6/5/2005* 992,647.644 448,258.043 2,375.24 85.0 4" / SCH40 61 - 81 0.02
MW-PD-31 55-902379 6/5/2005* 991,717.539 447,992.189 2,364.61 85.0 4" / SCH40 64.5 - 84.5 0.02
7AZAS-1e 55-907974 10/15/2007 993,753.223 447,235.092 2,375.56 88.0 2" / SCH40 82 - 87 0.02
7AZV-1e 55-907978 10/16/2007 993,740.223 447,242.593 2,375.59 70.0 1" / SCH40 44-45; 62-63; 69-70 0.02
7AZV-2e 55-907975 10/17/2007 993,727.224 447,250.092 2,375.93 70.0 1" / SCH40 44-45; 62-63; 69-70 0.02
SVE-1e NA 12/20/2005 993,766.223 447,227.593 NA 55.0 4" / SCH40 30 - 50 0.06
7AZR-1 55-591722 4/20/2002 993,841.492 447,313.505 2,378.23 201.0 4" / SCH80 133 - 195 0.02
7AZR-2 55-214640 3/2/2007 993,600.195 447,651.326 2,379.54 210.0 4" / SCH40 165 - 205 0.02
7AZR-3 55-914797 10/30/2012 992,647.088 448,234.225 2,374.78 200.0 4" / SCH40 160 - 205 0.02
MW-PD-19b 55-581740 9/10/2000 993,770.309 446,949.703 2,378.21 194.5 4.5" / SCH80 153 - 193 0.02
Notes:
ADWR = Arizona Department of Water Resources
ADEQ = Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
ft amsl = feet above mean sea level
ft bgs = feet below ground surface
NAVD88 = North American Vertical Datum 1988
NAD83 = North American Datum 1983
UTM = Universal Transcerse Mercatora
= Well compromisedb
= Well has been abandonedc
= Nested probesd
= Well is dry; used as a soil vapor welle
= Well not surveyed; measured off of surveyed wells
* = ADWR application date
NA = not applicable
Measuring point elevation for MW-PD-29 was resurveyed May 2012 because casing was cut off during City of Tucson construction activiities (0.25 ft lower); coordinates from March 2007 survey
REGIONAL AQUIFER WELLS
SOURCE PROPERTY REMEDIAL WELLS
H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\Tables April 2014\
Table 3 - Site Well Details.xls Table 3 Page 2 of 2 4/24/2014
TABLE 4
SVE Operating Parameters and Measurements
7th Street and Arizona Avenue WQARF Site SVE System
Electric
MeterFlow Meter
Outlet
Pressure
Wellhead
VacuumGrease?
kWh (ft/min) Pre-Filter Post-Filter Inlet Outlet (inH20) (inHg) Influent Between Effluent Y/N
6/13/06 15:10 NR NR NR 53 59 116 152 NR 3.3 NR NR NR RKZ Initial start-up; sampling 0.0
6/16/06 13:55 59.4 NR 2500 48 52 115 155 NR 2.0 274 0 0 WAT 70.7
6/19/06 13:38 114.1 NR 2550 46 50 124 165 NR 2.0 468 1 0 WAT 142.5
6/21/06 13:35 139.8 NR 2550 46 50 122 165 NR NR 938 1 0 WAT 190.4
6/21/06 13:40 WAT System off to remove hr. meter 190.5
6/21/06 14:35 WAT System on - no hour meter. 190.5
6/22/06 17:00 0.0 426 2600 46 50 108 145 NR NR 900 0 0 RKZ New hour meter added 216.9
6/23/06 15:56 22.6 470 2600 46 50 112 147 0 NR 871 0 0 WAT Switched pressure outlet gauge 239.5
6/26/06 15:00 93.6 604 2650 46 50 115 155 0 NR 831 0 0 WAT 310.5
6/30/06 12:41 187.3 787 2650 46 51 115 155 0 NR 785 160 0 WAT 404.2
7/10/06 16:40 398.7 1123 2900 48 52 123 165 0 NR 750 770 2 RKZ Changed belt 615.6
7/11/06 11:25 417.4 1158 3000 48 52 118 167 0 NR 729 30 0 RKZ Rpl 2,000# carbon, north vessel 634.3
7/14/06 12:52 490.8 1300 3000 46 50 117 150 0 2.0 640 0 0 RKZ 707.7
7/18/06 10:15 584.0 1478 3000 46 50 120 155 13 NR 680 1 1 Y BA New press.gauge/greased blower 800.9
7/26/06 13:30 775.9 1850 3000 46 51 110 145 11 NR 619 328 0 Y WAT 992.8
7/28/06 16:18 826.5 1950 3000 47 51 98 140 11 2.0 640 680 8 N RKZ Samp: Well, between, eff. 1043.4
8/1/06 13:49 919.0 2134 3000 46 50 110 160 18 NR 620 648 1 Y WAT Changed blower oil 1135.9
8/11/06 13:00 1154.9 2594 3000 48 52 108 140 15 2.0 NR NR NR N BA Rpl 2,000# carbon, south vessel 1371.8
8/14/06 17:20 1231.1 2747 3000 48 52 98 130 14 2.0 600 16 1 N RKZ Switched lead/lag 1448.0
8/15/06 10:03 1247.7 2780 2900 48 52 102 135 19 NR 640 25 1 N RKZ 1464.6
8/25/06 10:20 1485.5 3250 3000 50 54 105 125 18 NR 623 61 1 N BA Rpl 2,000# carbon, north vessel 1702.4
9/1/06 15:00 1658.0 3588 3000 49 53 110 145 17 NR 604 9 2 Y WAT 1874.9
9/7/06 12:32 1799.0 3874 3200 50 55 89 120 16 NR 602 212 13 N WAT Samp: Well, between, eff. 2015.9
9/11/06 14:00 1897.0 4069 2950 50 54 100 135 16 NR 605 375 5 v RKZ 2113.9
9/14/06 14:21 1969.0 4213 3000 50 54 100 140 17 2.0 573 344 11 Y WAT Wellhead PID = 564 2185.9
9/24/06 11:00 2154.0 4591 3000 49 54 100 105 17 NR 650 60 2 Y BA Rpl 2,000#, grease, change oil 2370.9
9/27/06 14:00 2277.0 4848 3150 51 56 100 135 17 NR 603 15 2 N BA Collect vapor samples, wells 2493.9
Comments
Corrected
Operation
Time (hrs)
Temperature (°F) PID Readings (ppmv)Date / Time Initials
Hour
Meter
Inlet Vacuum (inH2O)
H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\Tables April 2014\Tables 4-8 - SVE O&M.xls Table 4 - SVE op parameters 4/24/2014 Page 1 of 5
TABLE 4
SVE Operating Parameters and Measurements
7th Street and Arizona Avenue WQARF Site SVE System
Electric
MeterFlow Meter
Outlet
Pressure
Wellhead
VacuumGrease?
kWh (ft/min) Pre-Filter Post-Filter Inlet Outlet (inH20) (inHg) Influent Between Effluent Y/N
Comments
Corrected
Operation
Time (hrs)
Temperature (°F) PID Readings (ppmv)Date / Time Initials
Hour
Meter
Inlet Vacuum (inH2O)
10/7/06 9:50 2438.0 5178 3100 52 56 92 130 17 NR 394 91 1 N MA 2654.9
10/18/06 0:00 2771.0 5870 3000 51 55 80 95 17 NR 402 35 1 N BA Chg. N. carbon 2987.9
10/25/06 8:05 2938.4 6217 3000 52 56 80 115 17 NR 345 79 0 N RKZ ~1 in. in Sight Glass 3155.3
10/25/06 8:30 2938.5 6218 3500 61 63 80 105 42 NR NR 134 10 N RKZ Readings after flow switched 3155.4
10/25/06 15:50 2946.5 6235 >4000 NR NR 80 100 51 NR 420 335 6 Y MA Flow rate = 92 cu.ft./min. 3163.4
11/3/06 15:48 3160.4 6686 >4000 60 62 82 120 42 NR 500 470 50 N RKZ Valve found open = part. recirc. 3377.3
11/7/06 10:10 3250.4 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 2.0 420 335 6 N MA Removed 7 gal. of condensate 3467.3
11/14/06 14:13 3422.1 7214 >4000 59 64 80 115 50 NR 500 450 11 N RKZ Removed approx. 40 gal of condensate 3639.0
11/21/06 11:30 3587.0 7954 NR 60 65 80 120 48 NR 385 360 160 N BA Decant water 3803.9
11/27/06 11:00 3729.0 7953 NR 60 75 70 90 41 2.5 600 249 265 N MA Shut system down 3945.9
11/30/06 11:40 3729.3 7954 >5,600 70 74 50 55 35 NR NR NR NR N RKZ Restart, chg 4,000#, S lead 3946.2
12/7/06 15:20 3900.7 8323 NR 62 78 75 100 30 2.5 446 58 0 N MA 4117.6
12/14/06 14:05 4067.0 8682 >5,600 65 69 75 105 42 NR 490 0 0 N RKZ 4283.9
12/20/06 17:30 4209.0 8990 NR 65 71 70 95 36 NR 443 3 0 N BA Installed manometer 4425.9
12/28/06 14:00 4341.1 9285 NR 72 78 60 78 35 NR 696 16 5 Y MA 4558.0
1/4/07 17:30 4462.8 9555 6000 70 78 65 100 42 NR 480 68 0 N MA 4679.7
1/10/07 16:30 4594.6 9861 NR 65 70 70 105 48 NR 602 181 2 Y MA 4811.5
1/15/07 15:30 4713.6 10141 NR 68 72 65 90 45 NR 665 441 3 Y MA Process samples 4930.5
1/19/07 10:30 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR N MA Chg S carbon, N lead
1/23/07 12:35 4897.3 10579 3000 68 72 65 115 45 NR 645 56 0 Y MA 5114.2
1/26/07 11:00 4967.6 10741 4500 68 72 65 95 40 NR 413 150 0 N MA Chg blower oil 5184.5
1/30/07 13:20 5063.9 10964 5200 65 72 70 100 45 NR 255 120 0 Y MA Gas samples mon. wells 5280.8
2/7/07 13:00 5254.4 11419 6200 68 72 75 105 52 NR 280 221 0 N MA 5471.3
2/14/07 10:00 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR N WT Chg N carbon, S lead
2/16/07 9:30 5464.6 11927 6200 68 72 70 100 55 NR 525 128 0 Y MA 5681.5
2/27/07 14:45 5730.4 12592 6000 67 72 75 100 64 NR 670 510 0 Y WAT Chg blower oil / tighten belt 5947.3
3/2/07 11:30 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR N WAT Process samples 6015.4
3/14/07 13:15 5813.3 13452 6000 65 70 85 120 50 NR NR NR NR N MA PID malfunction 6302.2
3/20/07 14:30 5827.2 13795 6000 65 70 90 130 52 NR 425 280 40 Y MA 6446.0
3/21/07 9:30 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR N MA Chg S carbon, N lead
H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\Tables April 2014\Tables 4-8 - SVE O&M.xls Table 4 - SVE op parameters 4/24/2014 Page 2 of 5
TABLE 4
SVE Operating Parameters and Measurements
7th Street and Arizona Avenue WQARF Site SVE System
Electric
MeterFlow Meter
Outlet
Pressure
Wellhead
VacuumGrease?
kWh (ft/min) Pre-Filter Post-Filter Inlet Outlet (inH20) (inHg) Influent Between Effluent Y/N
Comments
Corrected
Operation
Time (hrs)
Temperature (°F) PID Readings (ppmv)Date / Time Initials
Hour
Meter
Inlet Vacuum (inH2O)
4/13/07 12:35 0.0 15054 6000 68 70 80 100 45 NR 554 170 0 N MA Process samples; Replace hour meter 7003.6
4/19/07 10:30 149.9 15370 6000 65 70 90 120 45 NR NR NR NR Y MA PID malfunction 7153.5
5/2/07 10:56 454.0 16074 6000 64 65 95 139 50 3.0 485 288 176 N JS 7457.6
5/7/07 10:50 540.2 16344 6000 65 68 95 135 50 3.0 400 319 260 Y MA 7543.8
5/11/07 0:00 598.7 16399 6000 68 70 95 125 40 NR NR NR NR N MA Chg N carbon, S lead 7602.3
5/21/07 10:50 840.8 16909 6000 65 78 100 130 40 3.0 NR NR NR Y MA Add oil to manometer 7844.4
5/31/07 15:46 1085.7 17428 6000 65 68 110 140 40 3.0 290 135 0 Y MA Collect process samples 8089.3
6/13/07 10:10 1389.8 18061 6000 68 71 110 125 40 NR 250 190 0 N RKZ Chg S, N lead 8393.4
6/22/07 13:43 1607.7 18530 6000 68 71 118 155 40 NR 210 90 0 N MA Vapor samples 8611.3
6/22/07 14:19 1608.0 18530 5200 58 60 120 150 30 NR NR NR NR N MA Switched flow 8611.6
6/28/07 13:40 1751.3 18853 5200 58 59 118 160 30 2.5 248 61 0 Y MA 8754.9
7/6/07 8:35 1938.0 19277 5100 60 62 115 150 30 NR 261 130 0 N MA 8941.6
7/13/07 15:28 2104.2 19645 6000 64 68 115 155 28 NR NR NR NR N RKZ Chg N, S lead 9107.8
7/25/07 16:09 2384.5 20276 4900 61 63 100 135 28 2.5 211 0 0 N MA Conduct vapor sampling 9388.1
8/3/07 12:30 2434.3 20387 6000 62 68 110 135 20 NR NR NR NR N MA System off, turned on 9437.5
8/6/07 10:00 2434.3 20532 5000 60 62 80 110 20 2.5 119 21 0 Y MA Hour meter broken 9502.0
8/10/07 14:40 0.0 20745 5000 62 65 115 150 20 2.8 NR NR NR N MA Hour meter replaced 9596.8
8/17/07 10:30 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR N MA Chg S, N lead
8/28/07 10:50 425.4 21635 N/R 65 68 110 155 18 2.7 283 0 0 Y MA Collect process samples 10022.2
9/5/07 9:35 675.8 22041 N/R 65 68 105 145 18 N/R 84 1 0 N 10272.6
9/12/07 10:20 784.2 22400 5000 68 69 110 150 18 2.7 105 1 0 N 10381.0
9/20/07 14:45 824.0 22592 5200 70 70 105 140 18 4.0 43 0 0 Y 10420.8
9/27/07 17:15 1044.3 22958 5200 68 72 97 140 18 N/R 132 107 0 N RKZ Collect process samples 10641.1
9/28/07 13:37 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR N RKZ Chg N, S lead
10/5/07 16:40 1230.5 23363 5000 70 72 95 140 18 N/R 110 0 0 N RKZ 10827.3
10/17/07 11:23 1513.1 23988 5200 74 76 NR NR 17 2.5 155 0 0 N RKZ 11109.9
10/26/07 9:30 1720.7 24454 5100 75 78 80 125 18 2.5 98 0 0 Y MA Chg blower oil 11317.5
11/2/07 8:00 1892.7 24841 5000 76 78 80 120 16 N/R 106 0 0 N WAT Collect inlet and between samples 11489.5
11/13/07 10:15 2152.2 25422 5100 87 90 80 120 15 5.0 61 0 0 Y MA 11749.0
11/28/07 15:30 2517.3 26340 4400 73 78 85 120 14 5.0 NR NR NR N MA Adjust drive belt 12114.1
H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\Tables April 2014\Tables 4-8 - SVE O&M.xls Table 4 - SVE op parameters 4/24/2014 Page 3 of 5
TABLE 4
SVE Operating Parameters and Measurements
7th Street and Arizona Avenue WQARF Site SVE System
Electric
MeterFlow Meter
Outlet
Pressure
Wellhead
VacuumGrease?
kWh (ft/min) Pre-Filter Post-Filter Inlet Outlet (inH20) (inHg) Influent Between Effluent Y/N
Comments
Corrected
Operation
Time (hrs)
Temperature (°F) PID Readings (ppmv)Date / Time Initials
Hour
Meter
Inlet Vacuum (inH2O)
12/6/07 10:30 2704.1 26842 4700 83 86 75 130 14 5.0 190 160 0 Y MA Chg to push mode and collect process samples12300.9
12/13/07 12:20 2867.4 27281 5100 100 100 60 100 34 5.0 NR NR NR N MA Chg S, N lead 12464.2
12/21/07 11:30 3058.6 27773 5100 100 100 70 100 32 5.0 375 2 0 Y MA 12655.4
1/2/08 13:15 3347.7 28559 5100 100 100 70 90 32 5.0 NR NR NR N MA 12944.5
1/9/08 12:20 3513.6 28988 5400 100 100 70 125 42 6.0 NR NR NR N MA Collect process samples 13110.4
1/15/08 11:00 3649.5 29357 5300 100 100 60 90 42 6.0 NR NR NR Y MA DRAIN 500 GAL POLY 13246.3
1/22/08 13:20 3767.3 29687 5400 100 100 65 105 50 6.0 260 41 0 Y MA 13364.1
1/30/08 11:30 3889.2 30016 5800 84 85 65 120 38 5.0 NR NR NR Y MA 13486.0
2/8/08 13:15 3990.4 30257 5600 74 78 65 120 39 5.0 48 0 0 Y BA Chg N, S lead 13587.2
2/18/08 12:40 4110.0 30525 5200 70 75 70 130 39 3.5 125 0 0 Y BA 13706.8
3/5/08 11:15 4290.4 30934 4100 64 75 70 105 45 NR 371 54 0 N WAT Collect process & VM samples 13887.2
3/21/08 12:04 4478.6 31366 NR 76 78 80 125 46 NR 66 16 0 Y WAT 14075.4
4/11/08 9:00 4973.2 32576 6000 69 72 80 110 67 3.5 74 40 3 Y MA Chg oil/Process Samples 14570.0
4/28/08 12:35 5094.4 32881 5800 80 82 95 120 55 NR NR NR NR Y MA 14691.2
5/9/08 9:45 5355.6 33515 6000 70 72 92 120 63 3.5 NR NR NR Y MA 14952.4
5/15/08 14:00 5527.7 33940 5900 70 74 95 130 63 3.5 NR NR NR Y MA 15124.5
5/22/08 10:25 5668.2 34285 5700 72 75 90 120 59 3.5 830 780 850 N RKZ Breakthrough - shutdown system 15265.0
6/24/08 12:20 5668.8 34290 5800 90 92 120 145 56 NR NR NR NR Y MA Carbon Change, both vessels 15265.6
6/30/08 12:05 5812.6 34652 5800 78 72 110 150 70 3.5 NR NR NR N MA Collect process samples 15409.4
7/10/08 10:00 5915.8 34911 5800 82 82 100 120 60 3.5 NR NR NR Y MA 15512.6
7/18/08 11:00 6069.6 35305 5800 78 80 120 135 64 NR NR NR NR Y MA 15666.4
7/25/08 14:30 6240.9 35742 5200 70 73 110 140 68 NR NR NR NR N MA 15837.7
8/1/08 15:20 6409.4 36165 5200 76 79 120 150 72 NR NR NR NR N MA 16006.2
8/8/08 11:50 6574.4 36590 5000 76 78 105 135 60 NR 335 182 0 N MA 16171.2
9/15/08 16:00 6574.8 36595 5200 98 98 100 145 60 NR 18 14 0 Y MA System off 16171.6
10/1/08 6:30 6949.1 37577 5400 88 90 85 125 72 NR 346 418 0 Y MA Change drive belt 16545.9
10/17/08 12:12 7332.5 38742 5200 100 >100 85 136 70 NR 280 280 169 N MO/RZ 16929.3
10/22/08 10:53 7451.1 39106 4800 >100 >100 82 132 70 6.5 273 198 137 N CM/MO System off 17047.9
12/10/08 8:10 7451.1 39106 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR N RKZ Change Carbon north vessel 17047.9
12/19/08 16:00 7451.1 39106 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR N WAT Fix lateral, change south vessel 17047.9
H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\Tables April 2014\Tables 4-8 - SVE O&M.xls Table 4 - SVE op parameters 4/24/2014 Page 4 of 5
TABLE 4
SVE Operating Parameters and Measurements
7th Street and Arizona Avenue WQARF Site SVE System
Electric
MeterFlow Meter
Outlet
Pressure
Wellhead
VacuumGrease?
kWh (ft/min) Pre-Filter Post-Filter Inlet Outlet (inH20) (inHg) Influent Between Effluent Y/N
Comments
Corrected
Operation
Time (hrs)
Temperature (°F) PID Readings (ppmv)Date / Time Initials
Hour
Meter
Inlet Vacuum (inH2O)
1/20/09 8:00 7451.1 39106 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR N WAT Develop SVE-1 17047.9
2/18/09 11:25 7516.4 39284 NR 74 78 70 110 34 NR NR NR NR N WAT Restart with new motor 17113.2
2/18/09 15:54 7529.4 39316 5800 70 74 72 110 34 NR 313 0 0 N WAT Change drive belt, add blower oil 17126.2
2/25/09 14:06 7581.7 39440 5800 68 72 82 120 42 NR 315 0 0 Y WAT 17178.5
3/2/09 16:36 7637.2 39570 5800 68 72 85 115 42 NR NR NR NR N WAT 17234.0
3/12/09 16:08 7718.4 39760 5800 68 71 79 115 42 NR NR NR NR N WAT Drained KO tank ~5 gal 17315.2
3/20/09 15:46 7790.5 39928 5800 67 70 87 120 42 2.5 291 0 0 N RKZ Drained KO tank ~3 gal 17387.3
4/2/09 15:15 7916.5 40218 5800 66 69 86 118 42 NR 283 0 0 N RKZ Vac line to shut-off needs repair 17513.3
4/15/09 16:14 8025.8 40467 5800 69 72 84 122 41 NR 308 0.2 0.2 N RKZ Plugged vac line 17622.6
4/23/09 15:00 8096.1 40627 5800 68 71 98 130 40 NR 288 0.5 0.5 Y WAT 17692.9
5/5/09 10:40 8365.0 41230 5800 68 72 95 125 38 NR 278 0.4 0.3 N WAT Changed blower oil 17961.8
5/13/09 14:36 8441.0 41396 5800 68 70 105 135 38 NR 267 0.2 0.2 N WAT Collected In-eff samples 18037.8
5/22/09 11:36 8519.2 41566 5800 68 72 90 125 38 NR 271 10 0.2 N WAT 18116.0
5/27/09 10:30 8563.5 41662 5600 68 72 105 135 38 NR 273 70 0.3 Y WAT 18160.3
6/1/09 13:25 8638.6 41825 5600 68 71 113 138 38 NR 303 105 0.0 N RKZ 18235.4
6/10/09 7:15 8687.4 41932 5600 68 72 100 120 38 NR NR NR NR N WAT Carbon changed in north vessel 18284.2
6/12/09 12:50 8754.3 42078 5600 68 72 110 130 38 NR 279 0.2 0.0 N WAT 18351.1
6/23/09 7:50 8803.5 42185 WAT System shut down 18400.3
H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\Tables April 2014\Tables 4-8 - SVE O&M.xls Table 4 - SVE op parameters 4/24/2014 Page 5 of 5
TABLE 5
Monthly SVE Operating Statistics
7th Street and Arizona Avenue WQARF Site
Start Date and Time 6/13/06 15:10 Start Date and Time 7/28/06 16:18
End Date and Time 7/28/06 16:18 End Date and Time 9/1/06 15:00
Elapsed Time (hrs) 1081.1 Elapsed Time (hrs) 838.7
Hour Meter Start 0.0 Hour Meter Start 826.5
Hour Meter End1 1043.4 Hour Meter End 1658.0
Operating Time (hrs) 1043.4 Operating Time (hrs) 831.5
Operating Percent 97% Operating Percent 99%
Flow Rate (ft3/min) 65 Flow Rate (ft
3/min) 65
Soil Vapor Extracted (ft3) 4,069,325 Soil Vapor Extracted (ft
3) 3,242,850
Estimated VOCs Removed (lbs) 314 Estimated VOCs Removed (lbs) 148
Average Removal Rate (lbs/hr) 0.30 Average Removal Rate (lbs/day) 4.23
Carbon Change Date 7/11/06 Previous Carbon Change Date 8/11/06
Estimated Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 3.0 Should be 73.1Most Recent Carbon Change 8/25/06
Estimated Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 142.9
Note: Carbon Changes to Date 31Corrected. Hour meter replaced 6/22/06. Overall Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 83
Start Date and Time 9/1/06 15:00 Start Date and Time 9/27/06 14:00
End Date and Time 9/27/06 14:00 End Date and Time 10/25/06 15:50
Elapsed Time (hrs) 623.0 Elapsed Time (hrs) 673.8
Hour Meter Start 1658.0 Hour Meter Start 2277.0
Hour Meter End 2277.0 Hour Meter End 2946.5
Operating Time (hrs) 619.0 Operating Time (hrs) 669.5
Operating Percent 99% Operating Percent 99%
Flow Rate (ft3/min) 65 Flow Rate (ft
3/min) 65
Soil Vapor Extracted (ft3) 2,414,100 Soil Vapor Extracted (ft
3) 2,611,050
Estimated VOCs Removed (lbs) 114 Estimated VOCs Removed (lbs) 36
Average Removal Rate (lbs/day) 4.39 Average Removal Rate (lbs/day) 1.30
Previous Carbon Change Date 8/25/06 Estimated HCs Removed (lbs) 621
Most Recent Carbon Change 9/24/06 Average Removal Rate (lbs/day) 22.12
Estimated Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 66.7 Previous Carbon Change Date 9/24/06
Carbon Changes to Date 4 Most Recent Carbon Change 10/18/06
Overall Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 78 Estimated Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 83.3
Carbon Changes to Date 5
Overall Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 79
July 2006 August 2006
September 2006 October 2006
H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\Tables April 2014\
Tables 4-8 - SVE O&M.xls Table 5 - SVE op statistics Page 1 of 8 4/24/2014
TABLE 5
Monthly SVE Operating Statistics
7th Street and Arizona Avenue WQARF Site
Start Date and Time 10/25/06 15:50 Start Date and Time 11/30/06 11:40
End Date and Time 11/30/06 11:40 End Date and Time 12/28/06 14:00
Elapsed Time (hrs) 859.8 Elapsed Time (hrs) 674.3
Hour Meter Start 2946.5 Hour Meter Start 3729.3
Hour Meter End 3729.3 Hour Meter End 4341.1
Operating Time (hrs) 782.8 Operating Time (hrs) 611.8
Operating Percent 91% Operating Percent 91%
Flow Rate (ft3/min) 92 Flow Rate (ft
3/min) 92
Soil Vapor Extracted (ft3) 4,321,056 Soil Vapor Extracted (ft
3) 3,377,136
Estimated VOCs Removed (lbs) 35 Estimated VOCs Removed (lbs) 23
Average VOC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 0.97 Average VOC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 0.83
Estimated HCs Removed (lbs) 616 Estimated HCs Removed (lbs) 522
Average HC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 17.20 Average HC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 18.58
Previous Carbon Change Date 10/18/06 Previous Carbon Change Date 10/18/06
Most Recent Carbon Change 11/30/06 Most Recent Carbon Change 11/30/06
Estimated Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 93.0 Estimated Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 93.0
Carbon Changes to Date 7 Carbon Changes to Date 7
Overall Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 83 Overall Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 83
Start Date and Time 12/28/06 14:00 Start Date and Time 1/30/07 13:20
End Date and Time 1/30/07 13:20 End Date and Time 2/27/07 14:45
Elapsed Time (hrs) 791.3 Elapsed Time (hrs) 673.4
Hour Meter Start 4341.1 Hour Meter Start 5063.9
Hour Meter End 5063.9 Hour Meter End 5730.4
Operating Time (hrs) 722.8 Operating Time (hrs) 666.5
Operating Percent 91% Operating Percent 99%
Flow Rate (ft3/min) 92 Flow Rate (ft
3/min) 92
Soil Vapor Extracted (ft3) 3,989,856 Soil Vapor Extracted (ft
3) 3,679,080
Estimated VOCs Removed (lbs) 25 Estimated VOCs Removed (lbs) 20
Average VOC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 0.75 Average VOC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 0.72
Estimated HCs Removed (lbs) 670 Estimated HCs Removed (lbs) 535
Average HC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 20.33 Average HC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 19.06
Previous Carbon Change Date 11/30/06 Previous Carbon Change Date 1/19/07
Most Recent Carbon Change 1/19/07 Most Recent Carbon Change 2/14/07
Estimated Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 40.0 Estimated Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 76.9
Carbon Changes to Date 8 Carbon Changes to Date 9
Overall Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 73 Overall Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 73
November 2006 December 2006
February 2007January 2007
H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\Tables April 2014\
Tables 4-8 - SVE O&M.xls Table 5 - SVE op statistics Page 2 of 8 4/24/2014
TABLE 5
Monthly SVE Operating Statistics
7th Street and Arizona Avenue WQARF Site
Start Date and Time 2/27/07 14:45 Start Date and Time 3/20/07 14:30
End Date and Time 3/20/07 14:30 End Date and Time 4/19/07 10:30
Elapsed Time (hrs) 503.7 Elapsed Time (hrs) 716.0
Hour Meter Start 5947.3 Hour Meter Start 5827.2
Hour Meter End1 6446.0 Hour Meter End
1 149.9
Operating Time (hrs) 498.7 Operating Time (hrs) 707.5
Operating Percent 99% Operating Percent 99%
Flow Rate (ft3/min) 92 Flow Rate (ft
3/min) 92
Soil Vapor Extracted (ft3) 2,752,893 Soil Vapor Extracted (ft
3) 3,905,202
Estimated VOCs Removed (lbs) 16 Estimated VOCs Removed (lbs) 26
Average VOC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 0.76 Average VOC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 0.87
Estimated HCs Removed (lbs) 361 Estimated HCs Removed (lbs) 775
Average HC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 17.20 Average HC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 25.96
Previous Carbon Change Date 2/14/07 Previous Carbon Change Date 2/14/07
Most Recent Carbon Change 3/21/07 Most Recent Carbon Change 3/21/07
Estimated Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 57.1 Estimated Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 57.1
Carbon Changes to Date 10 Carbon Changes to Date 10
Overall Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 71 Overall Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 71
1 Estimated: Hour meter malfunctioning
1 Hour meter replaced at approximately 7004 hrs.
Start Date and Time 4/19/07 10:30 Start Date and Time 5/31/07 15:46
End Date and Time 5/31/07 15:46 End Date and Time 6/28/07 13:40
Elapsed Time (hrs) 1013.3 Elapsed Time (hrs) 669.9
Hour Meter Start 149.9 Hour Meter Start 1085.7
Hour Meter End 1085.7 Hour Meter End 1751.3
Operating Time (hrs) 935.8 Operating Time (hrs) 665.6
Operating Percent 92% Operating Percent 99%
Flow Rate (ft3/min) 92 Flow Rate (ft
3/min) 85
Soil Vapor Extracted (ft3) 5,165,616 Soil Vapor Extracted (ft
3) 3,394,560
Estimated VOCs Removed (lbs) 14.8 Estimated VOCs Removed (lbs) 13.5
Average VOC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 0.35 Average VOC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 0.48
Estimated HCs Removed (lbs) 478 Estimated HCs Removed (lbs) 448
Average HC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 11.3 Average HC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 16.1
Previous Carbon Change Date 3/21/07 Previous Carbon Change Date 5/11/07
Most Recent Carbon Change 5/11/07 Most Recent Carbon Change 6/13/07
Estimated Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 39.2 Estimated Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 59.8
Carbon Changes to Date 11 Carbon Changes to Date 12
Overall Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 66 Overall Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 66
June 2007May 2007
April 2007March 2007
H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\Tables April 2014\
Tables 4-8 - SVE O&M.xls Table 5 - SVE op statistics Page 3 of 8 4/24/2014
TABLE 5
Monthly SVE Operating Statistics
7th Street and Arizona Avenue WQARF Site
Start Date and Time 6/28/07 13:40 Start Date and Time 7/25/07 16:09
End Date and Time 7/25/07 16:09 End Date and Time 8/28/07 10:50
Elapsed Time (hrs) 650.5 Elapsed Time (hrs) 810.7
Hour Meter Start 1751.3 Hour Meter Start 2384.5
Hour Meter End 2384.5 Hour Meter End 425.4
Operating Time (hrs) 633.2 Operating Time (hrs) 634.1
Operating Percent 97% Operating Percent 78%
Flow Rate (ft3/min) 60 Flow Rate (ft
3/min) 60
Soil Vapor Extracted (ft3) 2,279,520 Soil Vapor Extracted (ft
3) 2,282,736
Estimated VOCs Removed (lbs) 11.1 Estimated VOCs Removed (lbs) 8.5
Average VOC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 0.41 Average VOC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 0.25
Estimated HCs Removed (lbs) 366 Estimated HCs Removed (lbs) 315
Average HC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 13.5 Average HC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 9.3
Previous Carbon Change Date 6/13/07 Previous Carbon Change Date 7/13/07
Most Recent Carbon Change 7/13/07 Most Recent Carbon Change 8/17/07
Estimated Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 67.6 Estimated Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 57.1
Carbon Changes to Date 13 Carbon Changes to Date 14
Overall Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 66 Overall Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 65
1 Hour meter replaced at approximately 9596.8 hrs.
Start Date and Time 8/28/07 10:50 Start Date and Time 9/27/07 17:15
End Date and Time 9/27/07 17:15 End Date and Time 10/26/07 9:30
Elapsed Time (hrs) 726.4 Elapsed Time (hrs) 688.3
Hour Meter Start 425.4 Hour Meter Start 1044.3
Hour Meter End 1044.3 Hour Meter End 1720.7
Operating Time (hrs) 618.9 Operating Time (hrs) 676.4
Operating Percent 85% Operating Percent 98%
Flow Rate (ft3/min) 60 Flow Rate (ft
3/min) 60
Soil Vapor Extracted (ft3) 2,228,040 Soil Vapor Extracted (ft
3) 2,435,040
Estimated VOCs Removed (lbs) 8.0 Estimated VOCs Removed (lbs) 8.3
Average VOC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 0.26 Average VOC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 0.29
Estimated HCs Removed (lbs) 285 Estimated HCs Removed (lbs) 307
Average HC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 9.4 Average HC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 10.7
Previous Carbon Change Date 8/17/07 Previous Carbon Change Date 8/17/07
Most Recent Carbon Change 9/28/07 Most Recent Carbon Change 9/28/07
Estimated Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 47.5 Estimated Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 47.5
Carbon Changes to Date 15 Carbon Changes to Date 15
Overall Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 64 Overall Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 64
July 2007 August 2007
October 2007September 2007
H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\Tables April 2014\
Tables 4-8 - SVE O&M.xls Table 5 - SVE op statistics Page 4 of 8 4/24/2014
TABLE 5
Monthly SVE Operating Statistics
7th Street and Arizona Avenue WQARF Site
Start Date and Time 10/26/07 9:30 Start Date and Time 11/28/07 15:30
End Date and Time 11/28/07 15:30 End Date and Time 12/21/07 11:30
Elapsed Time (hrs) 798.0 Elapsed Time (hrs) 548.0
Hour Meter Start 1720.7 Hour Meter Start 2517.3
Hour Meter End 2517.3 Hour Meter End 3058.6
Operating Time (hrs) 796.6 Operating Time (hrs) 541.3
Operating Percent 100% Operating Percent 99%
Flow Rate (ft3/min) 60 Flow Rate (ft
3/min) 60
Soil Vapor Extracted (ft3) 2,867,760 Soil Vapor Extracted (ft
3) 1,948,680
Estimated VOCs Removed (lbs) 9.2 Estimated VOCs Removed (lbs) 6.0
Average VOC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 0.28 Average VOC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 0.26
Estimated HCs Removed (lbs) 358 Estimated HCs Removed (lbs) 230
Average HC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 10.8 Average HC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 10.1
Previous Carbon Change Date 8/17/07 Previous Carbon Change Date 8/17/07
Most Recent Carbon Change 9/28/07 Most Recent Carbon Change 12/13/07
Estimated Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 47.5 Estimated Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 17.0
Carbon Changes to Date 15 Carbon Changes to Date 17
Overall Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 64 Overall Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 62
Start Date and Time 12/21/07 11:30 Start Date and Time 1/30/08 11:30
End Date and Time 1/30/08 11:30 End Date and Time 2/18/08 12:40
Elapsed Time (hrs) 960.0 Elapsed Time (hrs) 457.2
Hour Meter Start 3058.6 Hour Meter Start 3889.2
Hour Meter End 3889.2 Hour Meter End 4110.0
Operating Time (hrs) 830.6 Operating Time (hrs) 220.8
Operating Percent 87% Operating Percent 48%
Flow Rate (ft3/min) 60 Flow Rate (ft
3/min) 60
Soil Vapor Extracted (ft3) 2,990,160 Soil Vapor Extracted (ft
3) 794,880
Estimated VOCs Removed (lbs) 8.8 Estimated VOCs Removed (lbs) 2.3
Average VOC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 0.22 Average VOC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 0.12
Estimated HCs Removed (lbs) 445 Estimated HCs Removed (lbs) 101
Average HC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 11.1 Average HC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 5.3
Previous Carbon Change Date 8/17/07 Previous Carbon Change Date 12/13/07
Most Recent Carbon Change 12/13/07 Most Recent Carbon Change 2/8/08
Estimated Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 17.0 Estimated Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 35.1
Carbon Changes to Date 17 Carbon Changes to Date 18
Overall Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 62 Overall Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 60
January 2008
December 2007
February 2008
November 2007
H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\Tables April 2014\
Tables 4-8 - SVE O&M.xls Table 5 - SVE op statistics Page 5 of 8 4/24/2014
TABLE 5
Monthly SVE Operating Statistics
7th Street and Arizona Avenue WQARF Site
Start Date and Time 2/18/08 12:40 Start Date and Time 3/21/08 12:04
End Date and Time 3/21/08 12:04 End Date and Time 4/28/08 12:35
Elapsed Time (hrs) 767.4 Elapsed Time (hrs) 912.5
Hour Meter Start 4110.0 Hour Meter Start 4478.6
Hour Meter End 4478.6 Hour Meter End 5094.4
Operating Time (hrs) 368.6 Operating Time (hrs) 615.8
Operating Percent 48% Operating Percent 67%
Flow Rate (ft3/min) 60 Flow Rate (ft
3/min) 60
Soil Vapor Extracted (ft3) 1,326,960 Soil Vapor Extracted (ft
3) 2,216,880
Estimated VOCs Removed (lbs) 3.7 Estimated VOCs Removed (lbs) 6.0
Average VOC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 0.12 Average VOC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 0.16
Estimated HCs Removed (lbs) 173 Estimated HCs Removed (lbs) 251
Average HC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 5.4 Average HC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 6.6
Previous Carbon Change Date 12/13/07 Previous Carbon Change Date 12/13/07
Most Recent Carbon Change 2/8/08 Most Recent Carbon Change 2/8/08
Estimated Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 35.1 Estimated Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 35.1
Carbon Changes to Date 18 Carbon Changes to Date 18
Overall Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 60 Overall Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 60
Start Date and Time 4/28/08 12:35 Start Date and Time 5/22/08 10:25
End Date and Time 5/22/08 10:25 End Date and Time 6/30/08 12:05
Elapsed Time (hrs) 573.8 Elapsed Time (hrs) 937.7
Hour Meter Start 5094.4 Hour Meter Start 5668.2
Hour Meter End 5668.2 Hour Meter End 5812.6
Operating Time (hrs) 573.8 Operating Time (hrs) 144.4
Operating Percent 100% Operating Percent 15%
Flow Rate (ft3/min) 60 Flow Rate (ft
3/min) 64
Soil Vapor Extracted (ft3) 2,065,680 Soil Vapor Extracted (ft
3) 554,496
Estimated VOCs Removed (lbs) 5.4 Estimated VOCs Removed (lbs) 1.3
Average VOC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 0.23 Average VOC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 0.03
Estimated HCs Removed (lbs) 258 Estimated HCs Removed (lbs) 65
Average HC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 10.8 Average HC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 1.7
Previous Carbon Change Date 12/13/07 Previous Carbon Change Date 2/8/08
Most Recent Carbon Change 2/8/08 Most Recent Carbon Change 6/24/08
Estimated Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 35.1 Estimated Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 29.2
Carbon Changes to Date 18 Carbon Changes to Date 19
Overall Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 60 Overall Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 51
April 2008
May 2008
March 2008
June 2008
H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\Tables April 2014\
Tables 4-8 - SVE O&M.xls Table 5 - SVE op statistics Page 6 of 8 4/24/2014
TABLE 5
Monthly SVE Operating Statistics
7th Street and Arizona Avenue WQARF Site
Start Date and Time 6/30/08 12:05 Start Date and Time 8/8/08 11:50
End Date and Time 8/8/08 11:50 End Date and Time 10/1/08 6:30
Elapsed Time (hrs) 935.8 Elapsed Time (hrs) 1290.7
Hour Meter Start 5812.6 Hour Meter Start 6574.4
Hour Meter End 6574.4 Hour Meter End 6949.1
Operating Time (hrs) 761.8 Operating Time (hrs) 374.7
Operating Percent 81% Operating Percent 29%
Flow Rate (ft3/min) 64 Flow Rate (ft
3/min) 64
Soil Vapor Extracted (ft3) 2,925,312 Soil Vapor Extracted (ft
3) 1,438,848
Estimated VOCs Removed (lbs) 6.9 Estimated VOCs Removed (lbs) 3.3
Average VOC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 0.18 Average VOC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 0.06
Estimated HCs Removed (lbs) 339 Estimated HCs Removed (lbs) 165
Average HC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 8.7 Average HC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 3.1
Previous Carbon Change Date 2/8/08 Previous Carbon Change Date 2/8/08
Most Recent Carbon Change 6/24/08 Most Recent Carbon Change 6/24/08
Estimated Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 29.2 Estimated Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 29.2
Carbon Changes to Date 19 Carbon Changes to Date 19
Overall Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 51 Overall Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 51
Start Date and Time 10/1/08 6:30 Start Date and Time 12/10/08 8:10
End Date and Time 12/10/08 8:10 End Date and Time 2/25/09 14:06
Elapsed Time (hrs) 1681.7 Elapsed Time (hrs) 1853.9
Hour Meter Start 6949.1 Hour Meter Start 7451.1
Hour Meter End 7451.1 Hour Meter End 7581.7
Operating Time (hrs) 502.0 Operating Time (hrs) 130.6
Operating Percent 30% Operating Percent 7%
Flow Rate (ft3/min) 64 Flow Rate (ft
3/min) 85
Soil Vapor Extracted (ft3) 1,927,680 Soil Vapor Extracted (ft
3) 666,060
Estimated VOCs Removed (lbs) 4.3 Estimated VOCs Removed (lbs) 1.5
Average VOC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 0.06 Average VOC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 0.02
Estimated HCs Removed (lbs) 220 Estimated HCs Removed (lbs) 76
Average HC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 3.1 Average HC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 1.0
Previous Carbon Change Date 2/8/08 Previous Carbon Change Date 6/24/08
Most Recent Carbon Change 6/24/08 Most Recent Carbon Change 12/10/08
Estimated Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 29.2 Estimated Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 11.8
Carbon Changes to Date 19 Carbon Changes to Date 19
Overall Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 51 Overall Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 42
July 2008 Aug/Sept 2008
Oct/Nov 2008 Jan/Feb 2009
H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\Tables April 2014\
Tables 4-8 - SVE O&M.xls Table 5 - SVE op statistics Page 7 of 8 4/24/2014
TABLE 5
Monthly SVE Operating Statistics
7th Street and Arizona Avenue WQARF Site
Start Date and Time 2/25/09 14:06 Start Date and Time 3/20/09 15:46
End Date and Time 3/20/09 15:46 End Date and Time 4/23/09 15:00
Elapsed Time (hrs) 553.7 Elapsed Time (hrs) 815.2
Hour Meter Start 7581.7 Hour Meter Start 7790.5
Hour Meter End 7790.5 Hour Meter End 8096.1
Operating Time (hrs) 208.8 Operating Time (hrs) 305.6
Operating Percent 38% Operating Percent 37%
Flow Rate (ft3/min) 85 Flow Rate (ft
3/min) 85
Soil Vapor Extracted (ft3) 1,064,880 Soil Vapor Extracted (ft
3) 1,558,560
Estimated VOCs Removed (lbs) 2.3 Estimated VOCs Removed (lbs) 3.4
Average VOC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 0.10 Average VOC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 0.10
Estimated HCs Removed (lbs) 121 Estimated HCs Removed (lbs) 176
Average HC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 5.2 Average HC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 5.2
Previous Carbon Change Date 6/24/08 Previous Carbon Change Date 6/24/08
Most Recent Carbon Change 12/10/08 Most Recent Carbon Change 12/10/08
Estimated Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 11.8 Estimated Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 11.8
Carbon Changes to Date 19 Carbon Changes to Date 19
Overall Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 42 Overall Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 42
Start Date and Time 4/23/09 15:00 Start Date and Time 5/22/09 11:36
End Date and Time 5/22/09 11:36 End Date and Time 6/23/09 7:50
Elapsed Time (hrs) 692.6 Elapsed Time (hrs) 764.2
Hour Meter Start 8096.1 Hour Meter Start 8519.2
Hour Meter End 8519.2 Hour Meter End 8803.5
Operating Time (hrs) 423.1 Operating Time (hrs) 284.3
Operating Percent 61% Operating Percent 37%
Flow Rate (ft3/min) 85 Flow Rate (ft
3/min) 85
Soil Vapor Extracted (ft3) 2,157,810 Soil Vapor Extracted (ft
3) 1,449,930
Estimated VOCs Removed (lbs) 4.6 Estimated VOCs Removed (lbs) 3.0
Average VOC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 0.16 Average VOC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 0.10
Estimated HCs Removed (lbs) 243 Estimated HCs Removed (lbs) 163
Average HC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 8.4 Average HC Removal Rate (lbs/day) 5.1
Previous Carbon Change Date 6/24/08 Previous Carbon Change Date 12/10/08
Most Recent Carbon Change 12/10/08 Most Recent Carbon Change 6/10/09
Estimated Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 11.8 Estimated Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 11.0
Carbon Changes to Date 19 Carbon Changes to Date 19
Overall Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 42 Overall Carbon Usage (lbs/day) 35
June 2009
March 2009 April 2009
May 2009
H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\Tables April 2014\
Tables 4-8 - SVE O&M.xls Table 5 - SVE op statistics Page 8 of 8 4/24/2014
TABLE 6
SVE System Removal Results through June 2009
7th Street and Arizona Avenue WQARF Site
3.746E-06 As of: 6/23/09
Start End Flow
Time Time Rate VOCs HCs VOCs HCs VOCs HCs
hours hours ft3/min µg/L µg/L pounds pounds pounds per day pounds per day
0 202 202 65 2,963 10,000 146 492 17 58
202 724 522 65 1,108 5,300 141 673 6.5 31
724 1,530 806 65 624 4,200 122 824 3.6 25
1,530 2,255 725 65 237 3,600 42 636 1.4 21
2,255 2,981 726 65 329 3,400 58 601 1.9 20
2,981 4,199 1,218 72 92 840 30 276 0.60 5.4
4,199 5,473 1,274 72 104 3,800 36 1,306 0.67 25
5,473 6,509 1,037 72 76 3,300 21 923 0.49 21
6,509 7,546 1,037 72 57 2,300 16 643 0.37 15
7,546 8,350 804 72 71 2,300 15 499 0.46 15
8,350 9,000 649 60 71 1,400 10 204 0.38 7.6
9,000 9,705 705 60 54 1,400 9 222 0.29 7.6
9,705 10,670 965 60 57 2,200 12 477 0.31 12
10,670 11,809 1,139 60 28 1,200 7 307 0.15 6.5
11,809 12,706 896 60 35 1,400 7 282 0.19 7.6
12,706 13,499 793 60 54 3,600 10 642 0.29 19
13,499 14,229 730 60 110 2,000 18 328 0.59 11
14,229 14990 761 72 61 1,500 13 308 0.39 10
14,990 15790 801 72 94 1,300 20 281 0.61 8
15,790 17,104 1,314 60 57 1,600 17 473 0.31 9
17,104 18,400 1,296 72 75 1,200 26 419 0.49 8
Note: Totals 777 10,816
ft3/min = cubic feet per minute
µg/L = micrograms per liter
VOCs = sum of volatile organic compounds by Method TO-15
HCs = total petroleum hydrocarbon compounds C 6 -C 10 by Method TO-15 Modified
Concentration Mass Removed Duration
hours
Unit Conversion = 28.32 L/ft3 x 60 min/hr x 1.0E-09 kg/µg x 2.2046 lb/kg =
H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\Tables April 2014\Tables 4-8 - SVE O&M.xls: Table 6 - Removal 4/24/2014
TABLE 7
SVE Influent, Between Vessel and
Effluent VOC and Hydrocarbon Concentrations
7th Street and Arizona Avenue WQARF Site
Sample Date
5/13/2009 8/8/2008 6/30/2008 4/11/08 3/5/08 1/9/08 12/6/07 11/1/07 9/27/07 8/28/07 7/25/07 6/22/07 5/31/07 4/13/07 3/2/07 1/15/07 11/7/06 9/27/06 9/7/06 7/28/06 6/30/06 6/13/06
Influent/Wellhead Samples
1,1-Dichloroethane <1,900 <250 <500 <500 <500 <500 <100 <100 <200 <250 <250 <100 <100 <100 <500 <500 <500 <500 <500 <500 <1,000 <10,000
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene <1,900 370 950 <500 <500 <500 240 220 <800 <1000 290 260 510 200 <500 1,400 <500 790 <500 530 <1,000 <10,000
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene <1,900 <250 <500 <500 <500 <500 <100 190 <200 <250 280 210 370 140 <500 560 <500 <500 <500 <500 <1,000 <10,000
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane <1,900 <250 <500 <500 <500 <500 <100 <100 <200 <250 <250 <100 100 <100 <500 <500 <500 <500 <500 <500 <1,000 <10,000
2-Butanone (MEK) <3,900 <500 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <200 <200 <400 <500 <500 <200 <200 <200 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 5,600 <1,000 <1,000 <2,000 <20,000
2-Propanol <7,800 <1000 <2,000 <2,000 <2,000 <2,000 <400 <400 <800 <1000 <1,000 <400 <400 <400 <2,000 4,200 <2,000 <2,000 <2,000 <2,000 <4,000 <40,000
4-Ethyltoluene <1,900 <250 <500 <500 <500 <500 <100 <100 <200 <250 280 240 390 160 <500 720 <500 <500 <500 <500 <1,000 <10,000
Acetone <19,000 <2500 <5,000 <5,000 <5,000 <5,000 <1,000 <1,000 <2000 <2500 <2,500 1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <5,000 <5,000 <5,000 14,000 <5,000 7,200 <10,000 <100,000
Benzene <1,900 <250 <500 <500 <500 <500 <100 <100 <200 <250 <250 <100 <100 <100 <500 <500 <500 <500 <500 <500 <1,000 <10,000
Carbon Disulfide <1,900 <250 <500 <500 <500 <500 <100 <100 <200 <250 <250 <100 <100 <100 <500 <500 <500 <500 <500 <500 <1,000 <10,000
Chloroform <1,900 <250 <500 <500 <500 <500 <100 <100 <200 <250 <250 <100 <100 <100 <500 <500 <500 <500 <500 <500 <1,000 <10,000
Cholormethane <1,900 <250 <500 <500 <500 <500 <100 <100 <200 <250 <250 <100 <100 <100 <500 <500 <500 <500 <500 <500 <1,000 <10,000
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene <1,900 <250 <500 <500 <500 <500 110 150 <200 <250 280 340 430 460 530 610 950 2,300 2,600 7,600 15,000 19,000
Dichlorodifluoromethane <1,900 <250 <500 <500 <500 <500 <100 <100 <200 <250 <250 <100 <100 <100 <500 <500 <500 <500 <500 <500 <1,000 <10,000
Ethyl Acetate <1,900 <250 <500 <500 <500 <500 <100 <100 <200 <250 <250 <100 <100 <100 <500 <500 <500 <500 <500 <500 <1,000 <10,000
Ethylbenzene <1,900 <250 <500 <500 <500 <500 <100 <100 <200 <250 <250 <100 <100 <100 <500 <500 <500 <500 <500 <500 <1,000 <10,000
m&p-Xylene <3,900 <500 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <200 <200 <400 <500 <500 <200 <200 <200 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <2,000 <20,000
Methyl tert-butyl ether <3,900 <500 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <200 <200 <400 <500 <500 <200 <200 <200 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <2,000 <20,000
Methylene Chloride <1,900 <250 <500 <500 <500 <500 <100 <100 <200 <250 <250 <100 <100 <100 <500 1,100 <500 <500 <500 <500 <1,000 <10,000
o-Xylene <1,900 <250 <500 <500 <500 <500 <100 <100 <200 <250 <250 <100 100 <100 <500 <500 <500 <500 <500 <500 <1,000 <10,000
Propene <1,900 <250 <500 <500 <500 <500 <100 <100 <200 <250 <250 <100 <100 <100 <500 <500 <500 <500 <500 <500 <1,000 <10,000
Styrene <1,900 <250 <500 <500 <500 <500 <100 <100 <200 <250 <250 <100 <100 <100 <500 <500 <500 <500 <500 <500 <1,000 <10,000
Tetrachloroethene 11,000 7,300 12,000 7,700 14,000 6,700 4,100 6,400 3,500 6,800 6,400 7,400 8,200 6,300 8,400 12,000 9,600 30,000 25,000 66,000 110,000 310,000
Tetrahydrofuran <7,800 <1000 <2,000 <2,000 <2,000 <2,000 <400 <400 <800 <1000 <1,000 <400 <400 <400 <2,000 <2,000 <2,000 2,700 <2,000 <2,000 <4,000 <40,000
Toluene <250 <250 <500 <500 <500 <500 <100 <100 <200 <250 <250 <100 <100 <100 <500 <500 <500 <500 <500 <500 <1,000 <10,000
Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene <250 <250 <500 <500 <500 <500 <100 <100 <200 <250 <250 <100 <100 <100 <500 <500 <500 <500 <500 <500 <1,000 <10,000
Trichloroethene <1,900 470 890 740 980 690 780 630 390 1,200 950 2,000 1,500 1,500 1,900 2,200 2,800 7,200 6,900 17,000 39,000 100,000
Hydrocarbons (C6 - C10) 1,200,000 1,600,000 1,300,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 3,600,000 1,400,000 1,600,000 1,200,000 2,200,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 2,300,000 NS 2,300,000 3,800,000 840,000 3,400,000 NS NS NS NS
Compound
H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\Tables April 2014\Tables 4-8 - SVE O&M.xls: Table 7 - system analytical 4/24/2014 Page 1 of 3
TABLE 7
SVE Influent, Between Vessel and
Effluent VOC and Hydrocarbon Concentrations
7th Street and Arizona Avenue WQARF Site
Sample Date
5/13/2009 8/8/2008 6/30/2008 4/11/08 3/5/08 1/9/08 12/6/07 11/1/07 9/27/07 8/28/07 7/25/07 6/22/07 5/31/07 4/13/07 3/2/07 1/15/07 11/7/06 9/27/06 9/7/06 7/28/06 6/30/06 6/13/06Compound
Between-Vessel Samples
1,1-Dichloroethane <10 <250 <1.0 <25 <50 <25 <50 <0.50 <100 <0.50 <0.50 <50 <25 <50 <250 <250 <50 <50 <50 <500 NS NS
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene <10 <250 12 <25 <50 <25 <50 0.50 <100 2.5 <0.50 <50 44 <50 <250 <250 <50 630 <50 <500 NS NS
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene <10 <250 3.9 <25 <50 <25 <50 <0.50 <100 0.72 <0.50 <50 <25 <50 <250 <250 <50 300 <50 <500 NS NS
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane <10 <250 <1.0 <25 <50 <25 <50 2.7 <100 <0.50 5.7 <50 37 <50 <250 <250 <50 <50 <50 <500 NS NS
2-Butanone (MEK) <20 <500 <2.0 <50 <100 <50 <100 4.6 <200 67 15 <100 <50 <100 <500 <500 <100 1,600 <100 <1,000 NS NS
2-Propanol <40 <1,000 <4.0 <100 <200 <100 <200 <2.0 <400 <2.0 <2.0 480 <100 <200 <1,000 1,700 <200 <200 <200 <2,000 NS NS
4-Ethyltoluene <10 <250 4.2 <25 <50 <25 <50 <0.50 <100 1.4 <0.50 <50 32 <50 <250 <250 <50 <50 <50 <500 NS NS
Acetone <100 <2,500 12 <250 <500 <250 <500 8.8 <1,000 17 25 <500 <250 1,200 <2,500 <2,500 <500 <500 <500 <5,000 NS NS
Benzene <10 <250 <1.0 <25 <50 <25 <50 0.55 <100 <0.50 1.6 <50 <25 <50 <250 <250 <50 <50 <50 <500 NS NS
Carbon Disulfide <10 <250 <1.0 <25 <50 <25 <50 <0.50 <100 1.4 <0.50 <50 <25 <50 <250 <250 <50 <50 <50 <500 NS NS
Chloroform <10 <250 <1.0 34 50 68 <50 2.9 <100 <0.50 3.6 80 <25 <50 <250 <250 66 800 1,300 3,400 NS NS
Cholormethane <10 <250 <1.0 <25 <50 <25 <50 0.75 <100 1.0 <0.50 <50 <25 <50 <250 <250 <50 <50 <50 <500 NS NS
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene <10 270 <1.0 280 93 470 140 1.0 240 0.66 0.84 900 310 400 1,400 650 1,700 15,000 22,000 36,000 NS NS
Dichlorodifluoromethane <10 <250 <1.0 <25 <50 <25 <50 <0.50 <100 <0.50 <0.50 <50 <25 <50 <250 <250 <50 <50 <50 <500 NS NS
Ethyl Acetate <10 <250 <1.0 <25 <50 <25 <50 <0.50 <100 <0.50 <0.50 <50 <25 <50 <250 <250 <50 <50 <50 <500 NS NS
Ethylbenzene <10 <250 <1.0 <25 <50 <25 <50 <0.50 <100 0.57 <0.50 <50 <25 <50 <250 <250 <50 <50 <50 <500 NS NS
m&p-Xylene <20 <500 <2.0 <50 <100 <50 <100 <1.0 <200 <1.0 <1.0 <100 100 <100 <500 <500 <100 <100 <100 <1,000 NS NS
Methyl tert-butyl ether <20 <500 <2.0 62 <100 <50 <100 <1.0 <200 <1.0 1.9 <100 57 <100 <500 <500 <100 <100 <100 <1,000 NS NS
Methylene Chloride 31 <250 <1.0 <25 <50 <25 <50 1.8 <100 0.54 2.2 96 <25 <50 <250 390 <50 <50 <50 <500 NS NS
o-Xylene <10 <250 <1.0 <25 <50 <25 <50 <0.50 <100 0.83 <0.50 <50 40 <50 <250 <250 <50 <50 <50 <500 NS NS
Propene 50 <250 27 25 <50 <25 <50 14 <100 16 14 <50 <25 <50 <250 <250 <50 <50 <50 <500 NS NS
Styrene <10 <250 <1.0 <25 <50 <25 <50 <0.50 <100 0.66 0.53 <50 <25 <50 <250 <250 <50 <50 <50 <500 NS NS
Tetrachloroethene <10 6,700 15 4,400 56 710 3,700 1.5 <100 10 5.0 3,100 3,000 3,100 12,000 9,600 2,900 5,100 4,500 120,000 NS NS
Tetrahydrofuran <40 <1,000 <4.0 <100 <200 <100 <200 4.7 <400 41 11 <200 <100 <200 <1,000 <1,000 <200 1,400 <200 <2,000 NS NS
Toluene <10 <250 <1.0 <25 <50 <25 <50 0.69 <100 10 1.1 <50 36 <50 <250 <250 <50 <50 <50 <500 NS NS
Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene <10 <250 <1.0 37 <50 50 <50 <0.50 <100 <0.50 <0.50 70 29 <50 <250 <250 60 380 700 1,400 NS NS
Trichloroethene <10 720 1.3 680 100 640 490 <0.50 <100 2.5 3.0 2,300 960 1,200 4,400 2,100 2,300 1,500 14,000 93,000 NS NS
H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\Tables April 2014\Tables 4-8 - SVE O&M.xls: Table 7 - system analytical 4/24/2014 Page 2 of 3
TABLE 7
SVE Influent, Between Vessel and
Effluent VOC and Hydrocarbon Concentrations
7th Street and Arizona Avenue WQARF Site
Sample Date
5/13/2009 8/8/2008 6/30/2008 4/11/08 3/5/08 1/9/08 12/6/07 11/1/07 9/27/07 8/28/07 7/25/07 6/22/07 5/31/07 4/13/07 3/2/07 1/15/07 11/7/06 9/27/06 9/7/06 7/28/06 6/30/06 6/13/06Compound
Effluent/Discharge Samples
1,1-Dichloroethane <9.7 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <2.5 <2.5 <5.0 <0.50 <10 <5.0 <5.0 <25 <5.0 <5.0 NS
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene <9.7 <0.50 1.6 <0.50 1.3 3.1 1.3 <0.50 <0.50 1.1 0.66 <2.5 <10 8.7 <0.50 <10 <5.0 130 <25 <5.0 5.6 NS
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene <9.7 <0.50 0.60 <0.50 <0.50 0.89 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <2.5 <2.5 5.1 2.8 <10 <5.0 55 <25 <5.0 <5.0 NS
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane <9.7 <0.50 <0.50 2.6 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <2.5 <2.5 <5.0 <0.50 <10 <5.0 <5.0 <25 <5.0 <5.0 NS
2-Butanone (MEK) <19 13 1.3 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 23 12 22 66 17 <5.0 <5.0 <10 <1.0 13 13 31 <50 360 <10 NS
2-Propanol <39 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 2.8 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <10 24 <20 <2.0 <40 <20 <20 <100 <20 <20 NS
4-Ethyltoluene <9.7 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 1.1 1.0 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 0.91 <0.50 <2.5 <2.5 5.20 0.94 <10 <5.0 <5.0 <25 <5.0 <5.0 NS
Acetone <97 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 6.0 <5.0 30 20 31 38 22 <25 <25 <50 12 <100 <50 <50 <250 <50 <50 NS
Benzene <9.7 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 0.72 <0.50 <0.50 0.66 <0.50 1.6 0.98 <2.5 <2.5 <5.0 <0.50 <10 <5.0 <5.0 <25 <5.0 <5.0 NS
Carbon Disulfide <9.7 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 1.1 <0.50 <2.5 <2.5 <5.0 <0.50 <10 <5.0 <5.0 <25 <5.0 <5.0 NS
Chloroform <9.7 1.8 <0.50 4.2 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 160 74 5.2 <0.50 50 66 <5.0 <25 <5.0 <5.0 NS
Cholormethane <9.7 <0.50 0.91 0.62 1.5 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.62 0.91 <0.50 <2.5 <2.5 <5.0 <0.50 <10 <5.0 <5.0 <25 <5.0 <5.0 NS
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene <9.7 3.2 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <2.5 <2.5 8.2 <0.50 450 690 85 31 <5.0 <5.0 NS
Dichlorodifluoromethane <9.7 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 0.73 <0.50 0.63 0.67 <0.50 <2.5 <2.5 <5.0 <0.50 <10 <5.0 <5.0 <25 <5.0 <5.0 NS
Ethyl Acetate <9.7 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 0.58 2.0 <0.50 <0.50 <2.5 3.6 <5.0 <0.50 <10 <5.0 <5.0 27 14 96 NS
Ethylbenzene <9.7 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 0.54 0.93 <0.50 0.50 <0.50 0.83 <0.50 <2.5 <2.5 <5.0 <0.50 <10 <5.0 <5.0 <25 <5.0 <5.0 NS
m&p-Xylene <19 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 4.1 7.6 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.5 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 <10 <1.0 <20 <10 <10 <50 <10 <10 NS
Methyl tert-butyl ether <19 <1.0 <1.0 1.2 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 <10 <1.0 <20 <10 <10 <50 <10 <10 NS
Methylene Chloride 24 0.65 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 0.69 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 3 <2.5 <5.0 <0.50 <10 <5.0 <5.0 <25 <5.0 <5.0 NS
o-Xylene <9.7 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 1.3 2.8 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 0.98 <0.50 <2.5 <2.5 <5.0 <0.50 <10 <5.0 <5.0 <25 <5.0 <5.0 NS
Propene 57 <0.50 49 14 46 18 1.3 1.2 0.67 0.69 0.74 21 15 15 14 19 <5.0 18 29 16 76 NS
Styrene <9.7 3.3 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 1.1 <0.50 <2.5 <2.5 <5.0 <0.50 <10 <5.0 <5.0 <25 <5.0 <5.0 NS
Tetrachloroethene <9.7 12 3.1 <0.50 0.79 0.50 7.6 1.1 <0.50 2.4 22 <2.5 52 52 8.7 <10 <5.0 1,800 160 14 180 NS
Tetrahydrofuran <39 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 32 25 38 96 29 <10 51 51 <2.0 <40 <20 34 <100 83 <20 NS
Toluene <9.7 1.1 0.94 <0.50 4.3 6.7 0.81 1.5 0.61 9.4 1.2 <2.5 <2.5 <5.0 <0.50 <10 <5.0 <5.0 <25 <5.0 <5.0 NS
Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene <9.7 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.5 <2.5 <2.5 <5.0 <0.50 51 26 <5.0 <25 <5.0 <5.0 NS
Trichloroethene <9.7 4.4 <0.50 <0.50 0.68 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 0.29 <0.50 2.1 3.6 <5.0 <5.0 1.3 160 53 160 50 17 24 NS
Note:
All sample results in parts per billion by volume (ppbv) except hydrocarbons
NS = Not sampled
<### = Sample concentration below ### (practical quantitation limit)
Hydrocarbons analyzed by TO-15 modified reported as micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3)
H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\Tables April 2014\Tables 4-8 - SVE O&M.xls: Table 7 - system analytical 4/24/2014 Page 3 of 3
TABLE 8
VOC Concentrations in Soil Vapor Monitoring Wells
7th Street and Arizona Avenue WQARF Site
Sample Sample
Location Date Benzene Ethylbenzene Toluene m,p-Xylene* o-Xylene cis-1,2-DCE trans-1,2-DCE PCE TCE Vinyl Chloride
1/3/2006 <50 <50 <50 <100 <50 69,000 930 150,000 40,000 <50
6/13/2006 <2,500 <2,500 <2,500 <5,000 <2,500 58,000 <2,500 90,000 34,000 <2,500
9/27/2006 <2,500 <2,500 <2,500 <5,000 <2,500 35,000 <2,500 190,000 25,000 <2,500
1/30/2007 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <2,000 <1,000 13,000 <1000 60,000 7,400 <1,000
7/25/2007 <500 <500 <500 <1000 580 5,800 <500 22,000 2,800 <500
3/5/2008 <500 <500 <500 <1000 <500 700 <500 8,000 1,200 <500
9/15/2008 <250 <250 <250 <500 <250 4,040 <250 19,174 2,045 <250
1/3/2006 60 190 50 900 650 53 <50 98,000 3,000 <50
6/13/2006 <2,500 <2,500 7,800 <5,000 <2,500 <2,500 <2,500 49,000 2,900 <2,500
9/27/2006 <2,500 <2,500 <10,000 <5,000 <2,500 3,000 <2,500 73,000 8,800 <2,500
1/30/2007 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <2,000 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 65,000 <1,000 <1,000
7/25/2007 <500 <500 670 <1,000 580 <500 <500 17,000 <500 <500
3/5/2008 <500 <500 <500 <1,000 <500 <500 <500 25,000 <500 <500
9/15/2008 <250 <250 <250 <500 <250 <250 <250 2,065 <250 <250
1/3/2006 56 <50 <50 <100 <50 16,000 530 500,000 100,000 <50
6/13/2006 <10,000 <10,000 <10,000 <20,000 <10,000 <10,000 <10,000 250,000 49,000 <10,000
9/27/2006 <10,000 <10,000 <10,000 <20,000 <10,000 18,000 <10,000 140,000 48,000 <10,000
1/30/2007 <500 <500 <500 <1,000 <500 <500 <500 30,000 1,200 <500
7/25/2007 <250 <250 280 1700 620 610 <250 15,000 1,500 <250
3/5/2008 <500 <500 <500 <1,000 <500 <500 <500 20,000 650 <500
9/15/2008 <10 <10 <10 <20 <10 53 111 11,947 409 <10
1/3/2006 38 <50 <50 <100 57 190,000 8,600 200,000 440,000 <50
6/13/2006 <10,000 <10,000 <10,000 <20,000 <10,000 180,000 <10,000 110,000 460,000 <10,000
9/27/2006 <10,000 <10,000 <10,000 <20,000 <10,000 220,000 14,000 450,000 430,000 <10,000
1/30/2007 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <2,000 <1,000 62,000 6,200 69,000 84,000 <1,000
7/25/2007 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 13,000 4,800 18,000 3,100 28,000 26,000 <1,000
3/5/2008 <500 <500 <500 <1,000 <500 21,000 3,400 63,000 38,000 <500
9/15/2008 <100 <100 <100 <200 <100 4,545 1,692 7,080 8,364 <100
1/3/2006 <30 <50 <50 <100 <50 4,500 620 480,000 480,000 <50
6/13/2006 <10,000 <10,000 <10,000 <20,000 <10,000 17,000 <10,000 170,000 40,000 <10,000
9/27/2006 <5,000 <5,000 <5,000 <10,000 <5,000 <5,000 <5,000 160,000 5,500 <5,000
1/30/2007 <250 <250 <250 <500 <250 460 <250 12,000 380 <250
7/25/2007 <100 <100 <100 <200 <100 1,500 460 31,000 1,200 <100
3/5/2008 <500 <500 <500 <1,000 <500 910 <500 26,000 1,300 <500
9/15/2008 <500 <500 <500 <1000 <500 934 <500 23,599 911 <500
1/3/2006 92 <50 <50 <100 <50 5,500 1,100 560,000 63,000 <50
6/13/2006 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS
9/27/2006 <10,000 <10,000 <10,000 <20,000 <10,000 10,000 <10,000 210,000 23,000 <10,000
1/30/2007 <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 <2,000 <1,000 4,800 2,000 58,000 2,600 <1,000
7/25/2007 <250 <250 <250 <500 <250 2,600 1,000 20,000 900 <250
3/5/2008 <500 <500 <500 <1,000 <500 1,200 510 21,000 <500 <500
9/15/2008 <100 <100 <100 <200 <100 2,096 505 3,245 100 <100
Note:
* Coeluting compounds, reported as sum cis-1,2-DCE = cis-1,2-dichloroethene PCE = Tetrachloroethene <### = Concentration below detection limit
All results in part per billion by volume (ppbv) trans-1,2-DCE = trans-1,2-dichloroethene TCE = Trichloroethene NS = Not sampled
7AZP-1
YC-5
MW-PD-14
Compound
7AZP-2
7AZP-3
7AZP-4
H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\Tables April 2014\Tables 4-8 - SVE O&M.xls: Table 8 - VM Data 4/24/2014
TABLE 9
Pneumatic Property Estimates
Measurement
Location kh kv kconf Ø c n
SVE-1 30 2.0 1.0 0.23 2800 1.59
7AZP-4 15 2.0 2.0 0.23 na na
7AZP-4-15 ft 40 2.5 2.5 0.23 na na
7AZP-4-30 ft 20 3.0 3.0 0.23 na na
7AZP-4-45 ft 21 2.5 2.5 0.23 na na
7AZP-2 41 5.7 0.6 0.08 na na
7AZP-2-15 ft 41 2.2 2.2 0.23 na na
7AZP-2-30 ft 41 2.2 2.2 0.23 na na
7AZP-2-45 ft 41 1.0 1.0 0.15 na na
7AZP-3 41 2.1 0.9 0.08 na na
7AZP-3-15 ft 40.9 3.0 3.0 0.10 na na
7AZP-3-30 ft 24.5 3.0 1.7 0.10 na na
7AZP-3-45 ft 22.9 3.6 1.8 0.10 na na
7AZP-1 15.9 3.0 1.7 0.10 na na
7AZP-1-45 ft 24.5 3.0 1.7 0.10 na na
Notes:
k h = Horizontal gas permeability (darcies)
k v = Vertical gas permeability (darcies)
k conf = Semi-confining layer permeability (darcies)
Ø = Effective air porosity
c = Well loss contant
n = Well loss exponent
na = not applicable
H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\Tables April 2014\
Table 9 - Pneumatic Property Estimates.xls: Table 9 4/24/2014
TABLE 10
LNAPL VOC Concentrations Before and After Sparge Test
7th Street and Arizona Avenue WQARF Site
Before Sparging After Sparging
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 200 210
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene <49 62
4-Isopropyltoluene <49 49
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 180 <47
Ethylbenzene <49 92
m,p-Xylene <98 330
n-Butylbenzene 110 130
n-Propylbenzene <49 50
o-Xylene <49 84
sec-Butylbenzene <49 52
Tetrachloroethene 290 150
Toluene <49 300
Trichloroethene 690 130
Results in milligrams per kilogramCompound
H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\Tables April 2014\
Table 10 - LNAPL VOCs (Sparge Test Tables).xls: Table 10 4/24/2014
TABLE 11
Screening of Remedial Alternatives
7th Street and Arizona Avenue WQARF Site, Tucson, Arizona
Remedial Alternative Description COC Removal Technical FeasibilityLand Use
Compatibilitya
Treatment
Effectiveness
Time for COC
RemovalConstructability
Operation and
Maintenance
Considerations
Health and Safety
Considerations
Waste
Generation and
Management
Flexibility Cost
Soil Vapor Extraction
Removal of highly volatile contaminants
from unsaturated soils using vapor
extraction wells, after contaminants have
partitioned from the aqueous or sorbed
phase into the gas phase.
Performs well in high permeability soils
when target is highly volatile. Removal
efficiency limited by the surface area of
groundwater or LNAPL in contact with the
vapor phase.
Very easy to implement. Existing
infrastructure from the former SVE system
can be used with additional wells, piping,
and valves.
3 2 1 3 3 3 3 3 3
Air Sparging
Injecting pressurized air through wells into
saturated soils to increase partitioning of
contaminants into the gas phase for
subsequent removal by SVE.
Shown to be effective at removing COCs
from LNAPL at this Site during pilot test.
Easy to implement and has been shown to
be feasible at this Site. Adequate space
exists for the addition of sparge wells with
their associated trenches, piping and
valves.
3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3
Raining Wells
Extraction of LNAPL and groundwater
from saturated soils and subsequent
introduction into the vadose zone through
injection wells or near-surface percolation
trenches, with subsequent COC
volatilization and capture by SVE.
Spreading COCs throughout the vadose
zone should increase the efficiency of
SVE at removing chlorinated ethenes by
increasing the surface area for
volatilization.
Technically challenging. While SVE
efficiency of COC removal would be
improved, extraction of LNAPL from the
subsurface may prove to be very difficult.
Significant operation & maintenance
issues.
3 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 2
Electrical Resistance
Heating
Heating of subsurface materials
generated from the passage of an
electrical current through soil moisture
between electrodes to increase the
volatility of COCs from LNAPL and
groundwater to facilitate removal in the
vapor phase by SVE.
Conceptually capable of removing up to
99% of COC mass from the subsurface
over a relatively short time frame (1 - 2
years).
Requires the installation of an electrode
network and a voltage control system.
Consumes large quantities of electricity.
The major limitation on use is availability
of an adequate supply of electricity.
2 3 3 2 1 2 2 1 1
Steam Injection
Heating of subsurface materials by
injection of pressurized steam into the
subsurface to increase the volatility of
COCs from LNAPL and groundwater to
facilitate removal in the vapor phase by
SVE.
Conceptually capable of removing up to
99% of COC mass from the subsurface
over a relatively short time frame.
Requires a steam generator and a steam
distribution system with wells, and
demands large quantities of electricity.
Water for steam generation must be
treated to prevent scale buildup on the
steam generator, distribution system, and
wells.
2 3 3 2 1 1 2 2 1
Multiphase Extraction
Groundwater and LNAPL extraction
lowers the water table around remediation
wells to expose volatile contaminants
sorbed onto the previously saturated
formation to SVE.
Enhances SVE removal effectiveness by
dropping the entire LNAPL layer as
dewatering occurs, thereby exposing
COCs to partition into the vapor phase.
More effective than groundwater
extraction for removal of VOCs with low
water solubility and high soil carbon
affinity.
Technically challenging to screen and
pump wells appropriately and dispose of
extracted groundwater. Appropriate for
sites with saturated soils and moderate
permeabilities due to the formation of
deeper cones of depression in the water
table.
3 2 2 2 2 3 1 2 1
Permanganate
Injection
Delivering a strong chemical oxidant
solution through wells to a target
contaminant in the subsurface in order to
transform it into a less harmful species.
Removal effectiveness is not easily
quantified and a high oxidant dose would
be necessary to effectively impact the
LNAPL body.
Difficult to deliver to the appropriate
location within the subsurface. Installation
of a large number of vertical injection
wells or horizontal wells would be required
to effectively distribute permanganate
over the LNAPL layer. MnO2 can
accumulate, potentially lowering formation
permeability. Metals in the subsurface can
be mobilized.
3 2 2 1 2 2 3 2 1
Ozone Sparging
Delivering a strong gas-phase chemical
oxidant to a target contaminant in the
subsurface in order to transform it into a
less harmful species. Injection of a
hydrogen peroxide solution would also be
necessary for hydroxyl radical generation
to target the COCs.
Removal effectiveness is not easily
quantified and a high oxidant dose would
be necessary to effectively impact the
LNAPL body.
Ozone must be generated on site by
applying high voltage or ultraviolet
radiation to air, dry air, or oxygen,
consuming significant energy and creating
hazards. Ozone gas injection can form
channels of preferential ozone flow in the
subsurface, complicating delivery of
injected ozone. Hydrogen peroxide must
be injected in liquid form for hydroxyl
radical formation to target the COCs.
3 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1
Notes: a
Compatibility with current and reasonably foreseeable uses of former Oliver’s Cleaners property and surrounding properties
SVE = soil vapor extraction
COC = contaminants of concern
LNAPL = light nonaqueous phase liquid
VOCs = volatile organic compounds
Qualitative ratings: 3 = Highest rating; 2 = middle rating; 1 = lowest rating for the criteria
H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\Tables April 2014\Table 11 - Alternatives Screening.xls: Table 11 4/24/2014
TABLE 12
Costs for AS/SVE Remedial Components
5 Years of Operation and Maintenance and Monitoring Activities
COST CATEGORIES
Cost per Unit Quantity Cost Total Cost per Unit Quantity Cost Total
Remedial Design/Plan
Category Total $27,750 1 $27,750 NA NA $0
Permitting
Category Total $1,800 1 $1,800 NA NA $0
Construction/System Installation
Drilling/well completion $52,500 1 $52,500 $1,200 10 $12,000
Well Development $3,500 1 $3,500 NA NA NA
Traffic Grade Vault, 12" (ea) $90 3 $270 NA NA NA
Traffic Grade Vaults, 24" x 24" (ea) $400 3 $1,200 NA NA NA
Pipe and Fittings $7,000 1 $7,000 NA NA NA
AS Solenoid Valves (ea) $715 4 $2,860 NA NA NA
Control Panel $1,800 1 $1,800 NA NA NA
Trenching, Pipe Install, Connections $38,000 1 $38,000 NA NA NA
Saw Cut and Patching of Asphalt $6,000 1 $6,000 NA NA NA
IDW + profiling $4,850 1 $4,850 NA NA NA
PID (per wk) $480 4 $1,920 NA NA NA
Vehicle $80 20 $1,600 $80 2 $160
Contractor Oversight $39,950 1 $39,950 NA NA NA
Category Total $161,450 $12,160
RA Equipment (Annual)
250 scfm SVE blower (per month) $1,200 12 $14,400 NA NA NA
100 scfm sparge blower (per month) $1,600 12 $19,200 NA NA NA
Freight/mobilization $4,000 1 $4,000 NA NA NA
Category Total $37,600 $0
O&M and Monitoring
Carbon Change out (per lb) $1.80 4,000 $7,200 NA NA NA
Spent carbon profiling (ea tank) $200 4 $800 NA NA NA
Utilities (per month) $600 12 $7,200 NA NA NA
EPA TO-15 Analysis (ea) $185 42 $7,770 $185 156 $28,860
EPA 8260B Analysis (ea) NA NA NA $185 10 $1,850
Vehicle $80 52 $4,160 $80 17 $1,360
Generator (per d) NA NA NA $60 15 $900
PID (per d) $120 52 $6,240 $120 15 $1,800
Velocicalc (per d) $30 52 $1,560 NA NA NA
Air Purge Pump (per d) $100 52 $5,200 $100 15 $1,500
Interface Probe $70 52 $3,640 $70 2 $140
Sampling Supplies $500 1 $500 $500 2 $1,000
Contractor Labor $53,000 1 $53,000 $21,750 1 $21,750
Category Total $97,270 $59,160
TOTAL COSTS YEAR 0
Remedial Design/Well Install/Monitoring$27,750 $71,320
TOTAL COSTS YEAR 1
Remedial Construction/6 month
O&M/Monitoring
$240,247 $61,083
TOTAL COSTS YEAR 2
1 year O&M/Monitoring$139,515 $63,068
TOTAL COSTS YEAR 3
1 year O&M/Monitoring$144,049 $65,118
TOTAL COSTS YEAR 4
1 year O&M/Monitoring$148,731 $67,234
TOTAL COSTS YEAR 5
1 year O&M/Monitoring$153,564 $69,419
CAPITAL + 5-YEAR OPERATION AND
MONITORING COSTS$853,856 $397,242
Notes:
Year 1 through Year 5 costs are calculated using compounded Future Worth at 3.25% interest rate. Remedial construction and remedial
action are assumed to start in Year 1 rather than Year 0.
REMEDIAL COMPONENTS
SVE and Air Sparging with GAC
Adsorption TreatmentSoil Vapor and LNAPL Monitoring
H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\Tables April 2014\
Tables 12, 13, 14 - remedy costs.xls: Table 12 - AS SVE 5 yr 4/24/2014
TABLE 13
Costs for ERH Remedial Components
1 Year of Operation and Maintenance, and 1 Year of Monitoring Activities
COST CATEGORIESCost per Unit Quantity Cost Total
Remedial Design/Plan/Permitting
Category Total $158,000 1 $158,000
Construction/System Installation
Private Utility Locating $750 1 $750
Electrodes Materials Mobilization $1,183,000 1 $1,183,000
Drilling/well completion - dual electrode & extraction $917,000 1 $917,000
Subsurface Equipment Installation $245,000 1 $245,000
Surface Equipment Install and Start-up $653 1 $653
Trenching and Restoration $341,000 1 $341,000
Connection to Power Control Unit/Permit $50,000 1 $50,000
IDW + profiling/assuming $300/ton $126,000 1 $126,000
PID (per week) $480 4 $1,920
Vehicle $80 80 $6,400
Contractor Oversight (based on 16 weeks) $54,400 1 $54,400
Category Total $2,926,123
O&M and Monitoring
Electrical Energy Usage (assume $0.10/kW) $1,663,000 1 $1,663,000
Water/Condensate Disposal (assumes $0.01/gal) $67,000 1 $67,000
Carbon Usage -based on $1.40/lb (turn-key) $182,000 1 $182,000
Remediation System Operation (Complete Turn-Key) $1,817,000 1 $1,817,000
Spent carbon profiling (each tank) $200 4 $800
EPA TO-15 Analysis (each) $185 42 $7,770
PID (per day) $120 30 $3,600
Air Purge Pump (per day) $100 30 $3,000
Interface Probe $70 30 $2,100
Other Operational Costs $49,000 1 $49,000
Demobilization and Final Report $47,000 1 $47,000
Category Total $3,842,270
Total Estimated Remediation Cost $6,926,393 or $62.40 per cu. Yd
REMEDIAL COMPONENTS
1 year of soil vapor and LNAPL monitoring is estimated to cost $71,320 (in addition to remedial costs)
Electric Resistance Heating
Notes:
Costs are from TRS Group, Inc. based on a model using relevant PCE and TCE contaminant concentrations. The model
predicts 99 percent contaminant mass removal in 218-291 days
H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\Tables April 2014\
Tables 12, 13, 14 - remedy costs.xls: Table 13 - Thermal 1 yr 4/24/2014
TABLE 14
Costs for SVE Remedial Components
5 Years of Operation and Maintenance and Monitoring Activities
COST CATEGORIES
Cost per Unit Quantity Cost Total Cost per Unit Quantity Cost Total
Remedial Design/Plan
Category Total $22,750 1 $22,750 NA NA $0
Permitting
Category Total $1,800 1 $1,800 NA NA $0
Construction/System Installation
Drilling/well completion $24,700 1 $24,700 $1,200 10 $12,000
Traffic Grade Vaults, 24" x 24" (ea) $400 3 $1,200 NA NA NA
Pipe and Fittings $7,000 1 $7,000 NA NA NA
Control Panel $1,800 1 $1,800 NA NA NA
Trenching, Pipe Install, Connections $19,000 1 $19,000 NA NA NA
Saw Cut and Patching of Asphalt $5,500 1 $5,500 NA NA NA
IDW + profiling $4,450 1 $4,450 NA NA NA
PID (per wk) $480 4 $1,920 NA NA NA
Vehicle $80 17 $1,360 $80 2 $160
Contractor Oversight $34,100 1 $34,100 NA NA NA
Category Total $101,030 $12,160
RA Equipment (Annual)
250 scfm SVE blower (per month) $1,200 12 $14,400 NA NA NA
Freight/mobilization $4,000 1 $4,000 NA NA NA
Category Total $18,400 $0
O&M and Monitoring
Carbon Change out (per lb) $1.80 4,000 $7,200 NA NA NA
Spent carbon profiling (ea tank) $200 4 $800 NA NA NA
Utilities (per month) $500 12 $6,000 NA NA NA
EPA TO-15 Analysis (ea) $185 42 $7,770 $185 156 $28,860
EPA 8260B Analysis (ea) NA NA NA $185 10 $1,850
Vehicle $80 52 $4,160 $80 17 $1,360
Generator (per d) NA NA NA $60 15 $900
PID (per d) $120 52 $6,240 $120 15 $1,800
Velocicalc (per d) $30 52 $1,560 NA NA NA
Air Purge Pump (per d) $100 52 $5,200 $100 15 $1,500
Interface Probe $70 52 $3,640 $70 2 $140
Sampling Supplies $500 1 $500 $500 2 $1,000
Contractor Labor $53,000 1 $53,000 $21,750 1 $21,750
Category Total $96,070 $59,160
TOTAL COSTS YEAR 0
Remedial Design/Well Install/Monitoring$22,750 $71,320
TOTAL COSTS YEAR 1
Remedial Construction/6 month
O&M/Monitoring
$167,332 $61,083
TOTAL COSTS YEAR 2
1 year O&M/Monitoring$117,767 $63,068
TOTAL COSTS YEAR 3
1 year O&M/Monitoring$121,595 $65,118
TOTAL COSTS YEAR 4
1 year O&M/Monitoring$125,546 $67,234
TOTAL COSTS YEAR 5
1 year O&M/Monitoring$129,627 $69,419
CAPITAL + 5-YEAR OPERATION AND
MONITORING COSTS$684,617 $397,242
Notes:
Year 1 through Year 5 costs are calculated using compounded Future Worth at 3.25% interest rate. Remedial construction and remedial
action are assumed to start in Year 1 rather than Year 0.
REMEDIAL COMPONENTS
SVE and Air Sparging with GAC
Adsorption TreatmentSoil Vapor and LNAPL Monitoring
H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\Tables April 2014\
Tables 12, 13, 14 - remedy costs.xls: Table 14 - SVE 5 yr 4/24/2014
FIGURES
LOCATION MAP7TH STREET AND ARIZONA AVENUE WQARF SITE
TUCSON, ARIZONA
9TH STREET
10TH STREET
6/25/13Ò 1
Spatial Reference: NAD 1983, UTM Zone 12N
LOCATION
Approved Date FigureFile
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.K:\2012016\7AZ Site Location MapMJB
2,000 0 2,0001,000
Feet
Ò
#0
#0
#0
L�
L�L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�L�
L�
L�
6TH STREET
SPEEDWAY BLVD
7TH STREET
8TH STREET
9TH STREET
10TH STREET
AR
IZO
NA
AV
EN
UE
1ST STREET
2ND STREET
3RD STREET
4TH STREET
5TH STREET
9T
H A
VE
NU
E
7T
H A
VE
NU
E
N. S
TO
NE
AV
EN
UE
4T
H A
VE
NU
E
6T
H A
VE
NU
E
5T
H A
VE
NU
E
3R
D A
VE
NU
E
2N
D A
VE
NU
E
1S
T A
VE
NU
E
10
TH
AV
EN
UE
HE
RB
ER
T A
VE
NU
E
7AZR-3
7AZR-2
7AZR-1
7AZP-11
7AZP-12
MW-PD-5
7AZP-10
MW-PD-4
7AZP-1
MW-PD-31
MW-PD-6
MW-PD-29
MW-PD-7
MW-PD-30
YC-5YC-6
MW-PD-15
MW-PD-13
MW-PD-12
MW-PD-1
BF-3
BF-1
7AZP-9
7AZP-5
7AZP-37AZP-2
7AZP-6
FORMER OLIVER'SCLEANERS PROPERTY
7AZP-4
Spatial Reference: NAD 1983, UTM Zone 12N
500 1,0000
Feet
SITE PLAN7TH STREET AND ARIZONA AVENUE WQARF SITE
TUCSON, ARIZONA
MJB 02/04/14
Approved Date FigureFile
2
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.K:\2012016\7AZ Site Plan_20130213
UNION PACIFIC RAILROADPASSENGER DEPOT SITE
Note: PCE outline is based on May 2012, November 2012, and March 2013 PCE data from perched groundwater wells.LNAPL outline is based on March 2013 LNAPL contours.
Legend
7AZP = 7TH & Arizona WQARF Site WellBF = Bridgestone/Firestone WellYC = Yellow Cab WellMW-PD = Union Pacific Railroad Passenger Depot Well
BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONELUST SITE
YELLOW CABLUST SITE
Perched Groundwater WellsL�
Approximate Location of PCE Solute Plume/WQARF Site Boundary
#0 Regional Aquifer Wells
Approximate Location of LNAPL Plume
! L
! L
! L
! L! L! L! L
! L
! L
! L! L
SG-11-5
SG-10-5SG-9-4
SG-8-5 SG-7-4SG-6-5
SG-5-5
SG-1-5 SG-2-5 SG-3-5 SG-4-5
1,600
25,50082,700
4,350 5,850
499,000
12,300
886 2,410 2,260 3,030
<26.9
<269266
<53.7 158
16,900
1,890
<13.4 <53.7 <53.7 43
SG-5-1038,5005,690
5t
h
Av
en
ue
He
rb
er
t
Av
en
ue
7 t h S t r e e t
SVECOMPOUND
FORMER OLIVER'S CLEANERS PROPERTY SOIL GAS SAMPLE LOCATIONS AND PCE AND TCE CONCENTRATIONS, 2013
7th STREET AND ARIZONA AVENUE WQARF SITETUCSON, ARIZONA
K:\2012016\7AZ SourceProperty SoilGasWells01/17/14MJB 3
Spatial Reference: NAD 83 HARN State PlaneArizona Central FIPS 0202 Feet
Legend
! L
3
3
25 500
Feet
Approved Date File Name Figure
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.Ò
82,700 PCE Concentration (µg/m )266 TCE Concentration (µg/m )
SG-9-4 Soil Gas Sample Location
AJB 03/28/14Ò Approved Date FigureFile
L�
L�L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�L�
L�
L�
6TH STREET
SPEEDWAY BLVD
7TH STREET
8TH STREET
9TH STREET
10TH STREET
AR
IZO
NA
AV
EN
UE
1ST STREET
2ND STREET
3RD STREET
4TH STREET
5TH STREET
9T
H A
VE
NU
E
7T
H A
VE
NU
E
N. S
TO
NE
AV
EN
UE
4T
H A
VE
NU
E
6T
H A
VE
NU
E
5T
H A
VE
NU
E
3R
D A
VE
NU
E
2N
D A
VE
NU
E
1S
T A
VE
NU
E
10
TH
AV
EN
UE
HE
RB
ER
T A
VE
NU
E
2304
2303
2307
2306
2305
2311
2309
2308
2310
2302
2312
2313
2301
2314
2300
2299
2315
2298
2295
2294
2293
2316
2292
2317
2291
2290
7AZP-11
7AZP-12
MW-PD-5
MW-PD-4
MW-PD-31
MW-PD-29
MW-PD-30
MW-PD-15
MW-PD-13
MW-PD-12
MW-PD-1
BF-3
BF-17AZR-2
7AZP-9
7AZP-5
7AZP-37AZP-2
7AZP-6
7AZP-10
MW-PD-6
MW-PD-7
YC-5YC-6 7AZP-1
FORMER OLIVER'S CLEANERS PROPERTY
4
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.K:\2012016\7AZ WaterCont_Mar2013.mxd
2289.52
2313.40
2309.72
2303.12
2296.45
2308.30
2306.58
2309.182309.20
2308.14
2302.94
2312.642315.412313.84
2317.46
2305.82
2311.45
2311.40
2311.06
2311.05
2311.15
2310.817AZP-4
2307.68
�
2305.37
Legend
Perched Groundwater WellL�
�
March 2013 Groundwater Elevation (ft amsl)7AZP-92296.11
2316
Approximate Location of PCE Plume
Perched Groundwater Elevation Contour(ft amsl) for March 2013
Spatial Reference: NAD 1983, UTM Zone 12N
dry
Note: Plume is based on May 2012, November 2012, and March 2013 PCE data
Hydraulic gradient 0.0028 ft/ft Northwest (calculated between MW-PD-4 and MW-PD-31)and 0.0064 ft/ft North-Northwest (calculated between MW-PD-30 and 7AZP-11)
500 1,0000
Feet7TH STREET AND ARIZONA AVENUE WQARF SITE
TUCSON, ARIZONA
MARCH 2013PERCHED GROUNDWATER ELEVATION CONTOURS
AJB 01/17/14Ò Approved Date FigureFile
L�
L�L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�L�
L�
L�
6TH STREET
SPEEDWAY BLVD
7TH STREET
8TH STREET
9TH STREET
10TH STREET
AR
IZO
NA
AV
EN
UE
1ST STREET
2ND STREET
3RD STREET
4TH STREET
5TH STREET
9T
H A
VE
NU
E
7T
H A
VE
NU
E
N. S
TO
NE
AV
EN
UE
4T
H A
VE
NU
E
6T
H A
VE
NU
E
5T
H A
VE
NU
E
3R
D A
VE
NU
E
2N
D A
VE
NU
E
1S
T A
VE
NU
E
10
TH
AV
EN
UE
HE
RB
ER
T A
VE
NU
E
L�L� L�
L�L�
MW-PD-1
BF-1MW-PD-15
7AZP-2
MW-PD-29
MW-PD-6
MW-PD-12
MW-PD-4
1
7AZP-11
7AZP-12
MW-PD-5
7AZP-10
7AZP-1
MW-PD-31
MW-PD-7
MW-PD-30
MW-PD-13
BF-3
7AZP-9
7AZP-5
7AZP-6
FORMER OLIVER'S CLEANERS PROPERTY
5
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.K:\2012016\7AZ LNAPL Mar2013 contours_FS
0.28
0.52
0.70
6.89
0.31
1.440.96
2.2
0.327AZP-4
Legend
Perched Groundwater WellL�March 2013 Apparent LNAPL Thickness (feet)
7AZP-21.44
5 LNAPL Thickness (feet)
Spatial Reference: NAD 1983, UTM Zone 12N
0.45
MARCH 2013 LNAPL THICKNESS7TH STREET AND ARIZONA AVENUE WQARF SITE
TUCSON, ARIZONA
2
500 1,0000
Feet
YC-5
7AZP-3
YC-6
0
0
0
0
00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
4
5
6
0
YELLOW CABLUST SITE
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD PASSENGER DEPOT SITE
BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONELUST SITE
Ò
L�
L�L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�L�
L�
L�
6TH STREET
SPEEDWAY BLVD
7TH STREET
8TH STREET
9TH STREET
10TH STREET
AR
IZO
NA
AV
EN
UE
1ST STREET
2ND STREET
3RD STREET
4TH STREET
5TH STREET
9T
H A
VE
NU
E
7T
H A
VE
NU
E
N. S
TO
NE
AV
EN
UE
4T
H A
VE
NU
E
6T
H A
VE
NU
E
5T
H A
VE
NU
E
3R
D A
VE
NU
E
2N
D A
VE
NU
E
1S
T A
VE
NU
E
10
TH
AV
EN
UE
HE
RB
ER
T A
VE
NU
E
21
42.5
2
<0.5
3.7 14
1.2
7AZP-4<0.5
17
48
<0.5
4.3
16
26
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5 <0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
2.0
(Dry)
14
MW-PD-7
MW-PD-6 MW-PD-5
MW-PD-4
MW-PD-12
YC-6 YC-5
BF-1
7AZP-9
7AZP-5
7AZP-37AZP-2
7AZP-10
MW-PD-31
MW-PD-29
MW-PD-16
MW-PD-15
MW-PD-13
7AZP-11
7AZP-12
Legend
Perched Groundwater WellL�PCE Concentrations from May 2012, November 2012, and March 2013 data (µg/L)
7AZP-2
14
5 PCE Groundwater Contour
Spatial Reference: NAD 1983, UTM Zone 12N
AWQS for PCE = 5 µg/L
500 1,0000
Feet
5 1015
20
25
30
35
40
MW-PD-30
MW-PD-1
7AZP-6
7AZP-1
20
FORMER OLIVER'SCLEANERS PROPERTY
BF-319
510
AJB 01/17/14
Approved Date FigureFile
6
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.K:\2012016\7AZ PCE Mar2013 contours
GROUNDWATER PCE CONTOURS7TH STREET AND ARIZONA AVENUE WQARF SITE
TUCSON, ARIZONA
AJB 01/20/14Ò Approved Date FigureFile
L�
L�L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�L�
L�
L�
6TH STREET
SPEEDWAY BLVD
7TH STREET
9TH STREET
10TH STREET
AR
IZO
NA
AV
EN
UE
1ST STREET
2ND STREET
3RD STREET
4TH STREET
5TH STREET
9T
H A
VE
NU
E
7T
H A
VE
NU
E
N. S
TO
NE
AV
EN
UE
4T
H A
VE
NU
E
6T
H A
VE
NU
E
5T
H A
VE
NU
E
3R
D A
VE
NU
E
2N
D A
VE
NU
E
1S
T A
VE
NU
E
10
TH
AV
EN
UE
HE
RB
ER
T A
VE
NU
E
MW-PD-613
7AZP-11
7AZP-12
MW-PD-5
7AZP-10
MW-PD-4
MW-PD-31
MW-PD-29
MW-PD-7
MW-PD-30
YC-5
MW-PD-16
YC-6
MW-PD-13
MW-PD-12
MW-PD-1
BF-3
BF-1
7AZP-9
7AZP-5
7AZP-6
FORMER OLIVER'SCLEANERS PROPERTY
7
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.
<0.5
0.5
11
<0.5
<0.5
207.7
0.7
3.57AZP-4
Legend
Perched Groundwater WellL�TCE Concentrations from May 2012,November 2012, and March 2013 data (µg/L)
7AZP-220
5 TCE Groundwater Contour
Spatial Reference: NAD 1983, UTM Zone 12N
GROUNDWATER TCE CONTOURS7TH STREET AND ARIZONA AVENUE WQARF SITE
TUCSON, ARIZONA
2.9
0.8
2.5
0.6
<0.5
1
4.3
1.8
4.4
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
3.4
<0.5
AWQS for TCE = 5 µg/L
510 1,0200
Feet
K:\2012016\7AZ TCE Mar2013 contours.mxd
7AZP-27AZP-3
7AZP-1
8TH STREET
DATA FROM MW-PD-6 NOT USED IN CONTOURING; NOT KNOWN TO BE SITE-ASSOCIATED.
5
5
1015
10MW-PD-15
Ò
L�
L�L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�L� L�
L�
L�
6TH STREET
SPEEDWAY BLVD
7TH STREET
8TH STREET
9TH STREET
10TH STREET
AR
IZO
NA
AV
EN
UE
1ST STREET
2ND STREET
3RD STREET
4TH STREET
5TH STREET
9T
H A
VE
NU
E
7T
H A
VE
NU
E
N. S
TO
NE
AV
EN
UE
4T
H A
VE
NU
E
6T
H A
VE
NU
E
5T
H A
VE
NU
E
3R
D A
VE
NU
E
2N
D A
VE
NU
E
1S
T A
VE
NU
E
10
TH
AV
EN
UE
HE
RB
ER
T A
VE
NU
E
7AZP-12
7AZP-11
FORMER OLIVER'SCLEANERS PROPERTY
488
17.2
<3.96
4,480
252
<39.6
17,600
1,770
277
67.8
<5.37
<3.96
81.4/563
<5.37/<269
<3.96/<198
2,710
<1,340
<990
<1,700
2,150
1,310
<17,000
<13,400
<9900
7,460
537
1,310
278
10.7
<3.96
8,140
913
1,700
461
<269
<198
51,700/39,700
<537/<537
<396/<396
746
30.6
<9.9
25.8
<13.4
<9.9
<67.8
<53.7
<39.6
6,780
241
<39.6
10.2
<5.37
<3.96
YC-5
November 2012
25,800
5,160
19,800
17,600
3,710
3,090
<39.6
<198
<3.96
<3.96/<198
<990
2,180
<3.96
329594
<3.96
<9900 <396
5,540<39.6
<9.9
<396/<396<198
<9.9
<39.6
<3.96
MW-PD-5MW-PD-6
MW-PD-4
7AZP-9
MW-PD-7
MW-PD-31
MW-PD-29
7AZP-5
YC-6
MW-PD-2
MW-PD-17
7AZP-6
MW-PD-30
7AZP-10
MW-PD-16
MW-PD-15
MW-PD-14
MW-PD-13
MW-PD-12
YC-4
MW-PD-1
BF-3
BF-1
Legend
Perched Groundwater WellL� 7AZP-94,480
Spatial Reference: NAD 1983, UTM Zone 12N
500 1,0000
Feet
L�
L�L�
L�
L�
7AZP-1
7AZP-2
7AZP-3
7AZP-4
7AZP-835.9
<13.4
<9.9
@15'
305
<26.9
<19.8
@30'
12,900
<537
<396
@45'
35,900
<537
<396
@15'
17,000
<537
<396
@30'
13,600
644
<396
@45'8,800
<269
<198
@15'
12,200
<269
<198
@30'
590
<26.9
<19.8
@45'
14,200
354
<99.0
@15'
9,670
203,000
325
@30'
7,460
338
<99.0
@45'
19,700
<537
<396
@15'
19,000
591
<396
@30'
16,300
752
<396
@45'
17,600
1,990
1,470
25,100
1,070
<396
November 2011
7AZP-3
7AZP-1
<9.9 <19.8 <396<396 <396 <396<396
<99.0 <198 <99.0
<396 <396 <396475 <198 <198 <19.8
<39.6252 TCE Concentration (µg/m )3
PCE Concentration (µg/m )3
Note: Results are from May/June 2012 unless otherwise specified.
<39.6cis-1,2-DCE Concentration (µg/m )3
trans-1,2-DCE Concentration (µg/m )3
PCE, TCE AND 1,2-DCE SOIL VAPOR CONCENTRATIONSNOVEMBER 2011, MAY/JUNE 2012, AND NOVEMBER 2012
7TH STREET AND ARIZONA AVENUE WQARF SITETUCSON, ARIZONA
AJB 03/28/14
Approved Date FigureFile
8
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.7AZ Soil Vapor Concentrations
L�
L� L�
L�
INSET
2011/2012 PCE SOIL VAPOR CONTOURS7TH STREET AND ARIZONA AVENUE WQARF SITE
TUCSON, ARIZONA
AJB 03/28/14Ò Approved Date FigureFile
L�
L�L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�
L�L� L�
L�
L�
6TH STREET
SPEEDWAY BLVD
7TH STREET
8TH STREET
9TH STREET
10TH STREET
AR
IZO
NA
AV
EN
UE
1ST STREET
2ND STREET
3RD STREET
4TH STREET
5TH STREET
9T
H A
VE
NU
E
7T
H A
VE
NU
E
N. S
TO
NE
AV
EN
UE
4T
H A
VE
NU
E
6T
H A
VE
NU
E
5T
H A
VE
NU
E
3R
D A
VE
NU
E
2N
D A
VE
NU
E
1S
T A
VE
NU
E
10
TH
AV
EN
UE
HE
RB
ER
T A
VE
NU
E
7AZP-12488
7AZP-11
17,600
MW-PD-5
MW-PD-6
MW-PD-4
7AZP-9
MW-PD-7
MW-PD-31
7AZP-7
MW-PD-29
7AZP-5
YC-6
MW-PD-2
7AZP-2
MW-PD-17
7AZP-6
MW-PD-30
7AZP-10
MW-PD-16
7AZP-1
MW-PD-15
MW-PD-13
MW-PD-12
YC-4
MW-PD-1
BF-3
BF-1
278
563
461
746
10.2
25.8
67.8
6,780
2,710
7,460
4,480
5,910
<1,700
39,700
17,600
<17,000
<67.8
8,140
17,600
FORMER OLIVER'S CLEANERS PROPERTY
9
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.
Legend
Perched Groundwater WellL� 7AZP-94,480
Spatial Reference: NAD 1983, UTM Zone 12N
500 1,0000
Feet
PCE Soil Vapor Contour8000
PCE Soil Vapor Concentration (µg/m )3
K:\2012016\7AZ-PCEcontours2012_FS
?
?
?
?
2000
4000
8000
8000 4000 200016000
DATA FROM MW-PD-6 NOT USED IN CONTOURING; NOT KNOWN TO BE SITE-ASSOCIATED.
MW-PD-1425,8007AZP-8
7AZP-439,200
YC-5
7AZP-325,100
?
?
��
��
��
��
��
��
�
!�
L�
!�
!�
!�
OC-1
7AZAS-1
7AZP-1
7AZP-3
7AZP-4
7AZP-8
7AZR-1
7AZV-1
7AZV-2
MW-PD-14
SVE-1
YC-5
5t
h
Av
en
ue
He
rb
er
t
Av
en
ue
7 t h S t r e e t
SVECOMPOUND
Spatial Reference: NAD 83 HARN State PlaneArizona Central FIPS 0202 Feet
7AZP-2
�� Perched Groundwater Well
!� Vapor Well
� Regional Aquifer Well
!� Soil Vapor Extraction Well
Legend
25 500
Feet ¡
!
L� Air Sparge Well
Soil Boring Location!
FORMER OLIVER'S CLEANERS PROPERTY WELL LOCATIONS7th STREET AND ARIZONA AVENUE WQARF SITE
TUCSON, ARIZONA
K:\2012016\7AZ SourcePropertyWells_FS03/28/14AJB 10
Approved Date File Name Figure
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.
H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\figures\Figs 11-12 - Influent data plots.xls: Fig 11
y = 675332x-0.6821
R2 = 0.8324
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
110,000
120,000
130,000
140,000
150,000
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Days of Operation
Co
ncen
trati
on
in
pp
bv
Total VOCs
Total VOCs - power curvefit
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.FIGUREDATEAPPROVED
TOTAL VOC CONCENTRATION IN SVE INFLUENT
(2006 THRU 2009)
AJB 6/25/13 11
H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\figures\Figs 11-12 - Influent data plots.xls: Fig 12
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
110,000
120,000
130,000
140,000
150,000
6/13/2006 12/30/2006 7/18/2007 2/3/2008 8/21/2008 3/9/2009 9/25/2009
Time
PC
E a
nd
To
tal V
OC
Co
ncen
trati
on
(p
pb
v)
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
Hyd
rocarb
on
Co
ncen
trati
on
(p
pb
v)
PCE
Total VOCs
Hydrocarbons C6-C10
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.FIGUREDATEAPPROVED
PCE, TOTAL VOCs, AND HCs IN SVE INFLUENT
(2006 THRU 2009)
AJB 6/25/13 12
APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.
MEASURED PCE CONCENTRATION IN SVE INFLUENT(semi-log plot)
H:/832200/data/tracrn/runnapl2y/offgasl2.srf
PCE removal fromcoarser-grained soils
PCE removal from finer-grained soils (primarily by diffusion)
rebound aftertemporary
SVE shutdown
SJS 6/20/08 13
H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\figures\Fig 14 - Chorinated VOC and HC Concentrations in SVE Influent, 2008 Data.xls Figure 14
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800
Elapsed Time in minutes
PC
E,
TC
E a
nd
cis
-1,2
-DC
E C
on
cen
trati
on
(p
pb
v)
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
Hyd
rocarb
on
Co
ncen
trati
on
(µ
g/L
)
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
C6 to C10 Hydrocarbons
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.FIGUREDATEAPPROVED
AJB 6/25/13 14
CHLORINATED VOC AND HC CONCENTRATIONS
IN SVE INFLUENT DURING SPARGING, 2008 DATA
AS/SVE Compound
Air Sparge Wells
Soil Vapor Extraction Wells
SVE/AS CONCEPTUAL DESIGN7TH STREET AND ARIZONA AVENUE WQARF SITE
TUCSON, ARIZONA
AJB 7/31/13Approved Date FigureFile
15
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.K:\2012016\7AZ 3dSVE_Concept
Legend
LNAPL Plume
Perched Groundwater
Vadose Zone
Air Sparge Piping
Soil Vapor Extraction Piping