FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORTstatic.azdeq.gov/wqarf/7s_arizona_fs_final.pdf · 2019. 8. 13. ·...

$: FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORTstatic.azdeq.gov/wqarf/7s_arizona_fs_final.pdf · 2019. 8. 13. · Feasibility Study Report H:\2012016.00 ADEQ 7AZ RIFS\RIFS\FS Rpt\7AZ FS Fnl Rpt 20140424.doc$
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.


E-ii


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


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


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


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


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.


2

.


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


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


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.


6


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


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.


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


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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,


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.


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


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.


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.


20


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.


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


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.


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


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).


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


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.


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.


24


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.


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


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


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.


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


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


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.


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.


30


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.


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.


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.


34


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.


36


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.


38


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.


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


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


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



Electric

MeterFlow Meter

Outlet

Pressure

Wellhead

VacuumGrease?


Comments

Corrected

Operation

Time (hrs)


Hour

Meter


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


TABLE 4



Electric

MeterFlow Meter

Outlet

Pressure

Wellhead

VacuumGrease?


Comments

Corrected

Operation

Time (hrs)


Hour

Meter


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


TABLE 4



Electric

MeterFlow Meter

Outlet

Pressure

Wellhead

VacuumGrease?


Comments

Corrected

Operation

Time (hrs)


Hour

Meter


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


TABLE 4



Electric

MeterFlow Meter

Outlet

Pressure

Wellhead

VacuumGrease?


Comments

Corrected

Operation

Time (hrs)


Hour

Meter


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


TABLE 5

Monthly SVE Operating Statistics


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





Hour Meter End 2277.0 Hour Meter End 2946.5




3/min) 65


3) 2,611,050


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


Tables 4-8 - SVE O&M.xls Table 5 - SVE op statistics Page 1 of 8 4/24/2014

TABLE 5











3/min) 92


3) 3,377,136


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









3/min) 92


3) 3,679,080










November 2006 December 2006

February 2007January 2007



TABLE 5







Hour Meter End1 6446.0 Hour Meter End

1 149.9




3/min) 92


3) 3,905,202










1 Estimated: Hour meter malfunctioning

1 Hour meter replaced at approximately 7004 hrs.









3/min) 85


3) 3,394,560

Estimated VOCs Removed (lbs) 14.8 Estimated VOCs Removed (lbs) 13.5









June 2007May 2007

April 2007March 2007



TABLE 5











3/min) 60


3) 2,282,736










1 Hour meter replaced at approximately 9596.8 hrs.









3/min) 60


3) 2,435,040










July 2007 August 2007

October 2007September 2007



TABLE 5











3/min) 60


3) 1,948,680


















3/min) 60


3) 794,880










January 2008

December 2007

February 2008

November 2007



TABLE 5











3/min) 60


3) 2,216,880


















3/min) 64


3) 554,496










April 2008

May 2008

March 2008

June 2008



TABLE 5











3/min) 64


3) 1,438,848


















3/min) 85


3) 666,060










July 2008 Aug/Sept 2008

Oct/Nov 2008 Jan/Feb 2009



TABLE 5











3/min) 85


3) 1,558,560


















3/min) 85


3) 1,449,930










June 2009

March 2009 April 2009

May 2009



TABLE 6

SVE System Removal Results through June 2009


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


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




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


TABLE 7




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)


TABLE 8

VOC Concentrations in Soil Vapor Monitoring Wells


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


Table 9 - Pneumatic Property Estimates.xls: Table 9 4/24/2014

TABLE 10

LNAPL VOC Concentrations Before and After Sparge Test


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


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


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


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


TOTAL COSTS YEAR 4


TOTAL COSTS YEAR 5


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


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


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


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


Permitting



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


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


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


TOTAL COSTS YEAR 3


TOTAL COSTS YEAR 4


TOTAL COSTS YEAR 5


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


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


500 1,0000

Feet

SITE PLAN7TH STREET AND ARIZONA AVENUE WQARF SITE

TUCSON, ARIZONA

MJB 02/04/14


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


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


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


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)


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


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


BF-319

510

AJB 01/17/14


6

HYDRO

GEO

CHEM, INC.K:\2012016\7AZ PCE Mar2013 contours

GROUNDWATER PCE CONTOURS7TH STREET AND ARIZONA AVENUE WQARF SITE

TUCSON, ARIZONA


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


9

HYDRO

GEO

CHEM, INC.

Legend

Perched Groundwater WellL� 7AZP-94,480


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


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


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

FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORTstatic.azdeq.gov/wqarf/7s_arizona_fs_final.pdf · 2019. 8. 13. ·...

Documents

Transcript of FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORTstatic.azdeq.gov/wqarf/7s_arizona_fs_final.pdf · 2019. 8. 13. ·...