United States

Environmental Protection 

Agency

Groundwater Pump and Treat Systems: Summary of

Selected Cost and Performance Information at

Superfund-financed Sites
Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response

(5102G)

EPA 542-R-01-021b

December 2001 

clu-in.org
i

NOTICE

Work described herein was performed by GeoTrans, Inc. (GeoTrans) for the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) under Dynamac Contract No. 68-C-99-256, Subcontract No. 91517, Task

AD01-117. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or

recommendation for use.

This document, with its appendices (EPA 542-01-021b) or without its appendices (EPA 542-01-021a),

may be downloaded from EPA’s Clean Up Information (CLUIN) System at http://www.clu-in.org. A

limited number of hard copies of each version are also available free of charge from the National Service

Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP) at the following address:

U.S. EPA National Service Center for Environmental Publications

P.O. Box 42419

Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419

Phone: (800) 490-9198 or (513) 489-8190

Fax: (513) 489-8695
ii

PREFACE

This report summarizes Phase 1 (the data collection phase) of the Nationwide Fund-lead Pump and Treat 

Optimization Project. This phase included contacting a project liaison for each of the EPA Regions,

identifying the Fund-lead pump-and-treat (P&T) systems in each Region, collecting baseline information

about each system through a web-based questionnaire or phone interview, and selecting a total of 20

Fund-lead systems to receive RSEs. Four of the 20 P&T systems (two in Region 4 and two in Region 5)

were previously selected and evaluated as part of a demonstration project completed in 2000.

Data presented in this report reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers. These

estimates may, in some cases, vary from actuality. In addition, the data—including the number,

status, and costs of systems—may change over time.
iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The project team is grateful for the help provided by the EPA Project Liaisons from each Region. They

were vital in selecting the Fund-lead P&T systems to be evaluated and in facilitating communication

between the project team and the Remedial Project Managers (RPMs). The authors also extend sincere

thanks to the principal investigators from the U.S. EPA Technology Innovation Office (TIO) and U.S.

EPA Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR). 
*Net present value reflects the discounted or reduced cost of future expenditures due to interest gained between the present and the

time of the expenditure. A discount rate of 5% is assumed. Please see Section 4.0 for more information on discounting and net

present value as they apply to the presented costs.

iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This first phase of the Nationwide Fund-lead Pump and Treat Optimization Project successfully

identified a total of 88 Fund-lead (EPA-lead and State-lead with Fund money) pump-and-treat (P&T)

systems within the Superfund Program. Of the 88 systems identified, 67 are operational and 21 are preoperational (i.e., the Records of Decisions for the pre-operational systems specify pump-and-treat, but

these systems are in the design stage or some other stage prior to full operation). System identification

was accomplished through use of online databases and discussions with project liaisons in each Region. 

The number of Fund-lead P&T systems in a Region ranged from zero in Region 8 to 22 in Region 2.

Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) of the identified systems submitted data and information on their

systems through a web-based questionnaire. Phone interviews were utilized in a limited number of

cases. A screening methodology using the collected data was applied to prioritize these systems with

respect to potential life-cycle savings resulting from optimization. Based on this screening and

discussions with the project liaison in each Region, specific systems in each Region were selected to

receive Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs). The RSE process was developed by the United States

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to evaluate a remediation system and provide recommendations to

improve effectiveness and reduce costs. Including the demonstration optimization project conducted in

2000, a total of 20 Fund-lead P&T systems were selected to receive RSEs. 

This report identifies the 88 Fund-lead P&T systems, summarizes the information submitted by the

RPMs, and presents the screening and selection of those systems to receive RSEs. 

Data presented in this report reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers. These

estimates may, in some cases, vary from actuality. In addition, the data— including the number,

status, and costs of systems—may change over time.

The following summaries result from the estimated cost data and system projections provided by the

RPMs:

• The estimated average annual operation and maintenance (O&M) cost for a Fund-lead P&T

system (based on those 79 systems providing cost data) is approximately $570,000 and the

median cost is $350,000. The discrepancy between these two statistics is due to a small number

of systems with relatively high O&M costs.

• Based on the 79 systems that provided cost information, the estimated total annual O&M cost for

operating the Fund-lead P&T systems in 2002 is approximately $38 million, with EPA incurring

approximately $32.5 million of the total annual cost and the associated States incurring the

remaining $5.5 million.

• Based on the 79 systems that provided cost information, the estimated future cost for Long-term

Remedial Action (LTRA) O&M for all of these systems exceeds $210 million with discounting

(i.e., net present value)* and exceeds $270 million without discounting. LTRA refers to the first

10 years of operation of a groundwater or surface water restoration action. During this period,
v

EPA typically funds 90% of the cost and the associated State funds 10% of the costs. These

percentages translate directly to the presented costs; therefore, the Superfund is expected to pay

approximately $189 million ($243 million without discounting) and the States are expected to

pay approximately $21 million ($27 million without discounting).

• Based on the 79 systems that provided cost information, the estimated future cost for O&M of

Fund-lead P&T systems until remediation completion is achieved is approximately $470 million

with discounting (net-present value) and $790 million without discounting. (These estimates of

future O&M costs are based on the annual costs of systems and expected durations of systems as

specified by the site managers. For some systems where expected system duration is unknown,

a value of 30 years may have been used as a default value for this parameter. While the practice

of using 30 years as a default was prevalent in the past, more recent EPA guidance on feasibility

study preparation recommends that 30 years not be used as a default.)

• 13 of the 79 systems that provided costs account for approximately 50% of the total reported

annual O&M costs.

A total of 26 States reportedly have Fund-lead P&T systems. Upon completion of the 10-year LTRA

period each system will be transferred to its associated State and that State will assume 100% of the

remaining O&M costs. For systems where restoration is not a goal (i.e., containment and water supply

systems) the systems are typically transferred to the States after one year. The collected data suggest that

the States will incur between approximately $250 million with discounting or $520 million without

discounting in post-LTRA O&M costs for Fund-lead P&T systems that reported annual O&M costs. 

Furthermore, the data suggest that the following five States will likely incur 78% of these post-LTRA

O&M costs:

• New Jersey (27.6%)

• Massachusetts (22.6%)

• New York (9.7%)

• Pennsylvania (9.6%)

• Michigan (8.4%)

In addition to cost information, the following statistics about the Fund-lead P&T systems were also

gleaned from the information reported by the system RPMs:

• 40 of 67 operating systems are reported to be controlling plume migration.

• 60 of the 67 operating systems have groundwater restoration as a goal but 21 of that 60 do not

have estimates of the progress toward that restoration. Of the 39 systems that have both

groundwater restoration as a goal and an estimate of progress toward restoration, 7 are estimated

to have made more than 80% progress toward restoration. 

• 52 of the 88 systems have three or more primary contaminants of concern, and chlorinated

solvents are the most prevalent contaminants as they are addressed by 56 of the 88 systems.

• 35 of the 88 Fund-lead P&T systems are associated with sites where non-aqueous phase liquid

(NAPL) has either been observed or suspected.
vi

• Carbon adsorption and air stripping are the most prevalent treatment processes (carbon

adsorption is used at 50 of the 88 systems and air stripping is used at 41).

• Based on 64 of 88 systems where RPMs were able to determine costs specifically used for

groundwater monitoring, Fund-lead P&T systems have, on average, 23 monitoring wells for

groundwater sampling that are sampled three to four times per year for an average cost of

$112,000 per year. 

• 36 of the 67 operating systems have previously had performance and effectiveness evaluated and

found “sufficient” while 7 had performance and effectiveness found “not sufficient” (the

remaining systems are either being evaluated, have not been evaluated, or have not provided

information regarding previous effectiveness evaluations).

Although the RSE selection process targeted systems in each Region that had effectiveness problems or

relatively high operating costs, a number of systems with similar issues still remain, and additional RSEs

are recommended to address these remaining systems.
vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

NOTICE ................................................................................ i

PREFACE .............................................................................. ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................. iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................. iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................. vii

LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................... viii

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................... ix

LIST OF APPENDICES ................................................................... x

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 1

1.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................. 1

1.2 DEMONSTRATION FUND-LEAD PUMP AND TREAT OPTIMIZATION PROJECT ................ 1

1.3 NATIONWIDE FUND-LEAD PUMP AND TREAT OPTIMIZATION PROJECT .................... 1

2.0 SYSTEM IDENTIFICATION ............................................................ 3

3.0 DATA COLLECTION ................................................................. 6

4.0 SUMMARIES OF COLLECTED DATA ................................................... 10

4.1 SUMMARIES OF SYSTEM COSTS AND PROJECTIONS ................................. 10

4.2 SUMMARY OF COST DATA AS IT PERTAINS TO THE STATES ........................... 11

4.3 STATUS AND PROGRESS OF THE FUND-LEAD P&T SYSTEMS .......................... 13

4.4 SYSTEM GOALS ........................................................... 13

4.5 CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN, TREATMENT PROCESSES, AND MONITORING ............. 13

4.6 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATIONS ............................. 14

5.0 SYSTEM SCREENING AND PRIORITIZATION WITH RESPECT TO OPTIMIZATION POTENTIAL . 43

6.0 SYSTEM SELECTION ................................................................ 46

7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED .............................................. 59

APPENDICES .......................................................................... 63
viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4-1: Trend of Financial Responsibility of Fund-lead P&T Systems

Figure 4-2: Trend of Estimated Annual O&M Costs of Fund-lead P&T Systems

Figure 4-3: Status of Fund-lead P&T Systems

Figure 4-4: Progress of the 67 Operational Fund-lead P&T Systems

Figure 4-5: Treatment Processes at Fund-lead P&T Systems

Figure 6-1: Fund-lead P&T Systems Ranked by “Estimated Potential Life-cycle Savings ($)”

Figure 6-2: Fund-lead P&T Systems Ranked by Annual O&M Cost and the Cumulative Distribution of System

Annual O&M Costs
ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1: Number of Identified Fund-lead P&T Systems in each Region

Table 4-1: Region 1 Fund-lead P&T System Performance and Cost Information

Table 4-2: Region 2 Fund-lead P&T System Performance and Cost Information

Table 4-3: Region 3 Fund-lead P&T System Performance and Cost Information

Table 4-4: Region 4 Fund-lead P&T System Performance and Cost Information

Table 4-5: Region 5 Fund-lead P&T System Performance and Cost Information

Table 4-6: Region 6 Fund-lead P&T System Performance and Cost Information

Table 4-7: Region 7 Fund-lead P&T System Performance and Cost Information

Table 4-8: Region 9 Fund-lead P&T system Performance and Cost Information

Table 4-9: Region 10 Fund-lead P&T system performance and Cost Information

Table 4-10: Future O&M Costs of Fund-lead P&T Systems Expected to be Incurred by each State

Table 4-11: Region 1 Fund-lead P&T System O&M Costs According to State

Table 4-12: Region 2 Fund-lead P&T System O&M Costs According to State

Table 4-13: Region 3 Fund-lead P&T System O&M Costs According to State

Table 4-14: Region 4 Fund-lead P&T System O&M Costs According to State

Table 4-15: Region 5 Fund-lead P&T System O&M Costs According to State

Table 4-16: Region 6 Fund-lead P&T System O&M Costs According to State

Table 4-17: Region 7 Fund-lead P&T System O&M Costs According to State

Table 4-18: Region 9 Fund-lead P&T System O&M Costs According to State

Table 4-19: Region 10 Fund-lead P&T System O&M Costs According to State

Table 4-20: Categories of Contaminants Prevalent at Sites with Fund-lead P&T Systems

Table 5-1: Site-Specific Criteria Used to Calculate the “Estimated Potential Life-cycle Savings (%)” from

Optimization of each of the Identified Fund-lead P&T Systems (Page 1 of 2)

Table 6-1: For each Region Systems Selected for RSEs and the “Estimated Potential Life-cycle Savings ($)”

Suggested by Screening Analysis

Table 6-2: Fund-lead P&T Systems Ranked in Terms of “Estimated Potential Life-cycle Savings ($)” as

Calculated by the Screening Methodology

Table 6-3: Fund-lead P&T Systems Ranked According to Annual O&M Cost
x

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: Information Sheets for each Fund-lead P&T System

Appendix B: Summary Phase 1 Reports of each Region

Appendix C: Screening Calculations for each Fund-lead P&T System
1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

As part of an overall commitment toward optimization, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Headquarters continually offers resources and support to the EPA Regions to improve their operating

remedies. A large percentage of these remedies are pump-and-treat (P&T) systems designed to restore

groundwater, contain contaminant sources, or supply water. Thus, the EPA Technology Innovation

Office (TIO) and Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR) have commissioned

Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs) for Fund-lead P&T systems in each of the EPA Regions in an

effort to optimize their performance.

The Remediation System Evaluation (RSE) concept was developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

(USACE) to improve remedies already in place. An RSE begins with the formation of a team of experts

including experienced engineers and hydrogeologists. Once a system has been selected for an RSE, the

team reviews site-related documents, visits the site to tour the facility and interview the site managers,

and compiles a report to document findings and any recommendations to improve the remedy. 

Recommendations typically fall into the following categories:

• recommendations to improve system effectiveness;

• recommendations to reduce operation and maintenance (O&M) costs;

• recommendations for technical improvement; and

• recommendations to gain site close out.

1.2 DEMONSTRATION FUND-LEAD PUMP AND TREAT OPTIMIZATION PROJECT

A demonstration optimization project of Fund-lead pump and treat systems conducted in Regions 4 and

5 identified a total of 28 planned or operating pump-and-treat (P&T) systems that are Fund-lead (or

state-lead with Superfund financing). On average, those systems cost approximately $300,000 per year

per site for operations and maintenance (O&M). Extrapolation of these results suggested that 140 such

systems might exist through the nation at a total estimated O&M cost of $4 million per year. Many of

these systems are anticipated to operate for decades with costs split between Superfund and the

individual states. For the first 10 years of operation of most Fund-lead sites, the Superfund Program

pays for 90% of the O&M costs and the State pays the remaining 10%. The State then assumes 100% of

the costs incurred after the initial 10 year period.

In addition to identifying the Fund-lead P&T systems, the pilot optimization study also included

Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs) of four P&T systems. These four evaluations resulted in a

number of recommendations to improve effectiveness and/or reduce O&M costs for each of the systems. 

Thus, the results of this pilot study highlighted the benefits of optimizing Fund-lead systems.

1.3 NATIONWIDE FUND-LEAD PUMP AND TREAT OPTIMIZATION PROJECT

Based in part on the results of the demonstration project described above, OSWER Directive No. 9200.0-

33 (Transmittal of Final FY00 - FY01 Superfund Reforms Strategy, dated July 7,2000)
2

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/reforms/docs/strat00.pdf outlined a commitment to optimize the

Fund-lead P&T systems. To achieve that goal, a Nationwide RSE Optimization Project was

commissioned to accomplish the following tasks:

• identify the Fund-lead P&T systems in each of the EPA Regions;

• gather baseline data and information on these identified systems;

• prioritize the systems in terms of optimization potential;

• select 16 additional systems to receive RSEs;

• conduct these RSEs; and

• follow up with EPA project managers to track and facilitate implementation of resulting

recommendations.

This report summarizes Phase 1 of this project, which entails the first four of these six elements.
3

2.0 SYSTEM IDENTIFICATION

The first step of the project involved determining the number of Fund-lead P&T systems in each EPA

Region and identifying key aspects of those systems for assessing optimization potential. For this project,

a Fund-lead P&T system must meet the following criteria:

• pump-and-treat (sometimes referred to as groundwater extraction and treatment) must be

identified as a remedy in the Record of Decision (ROD) for the site;

• the system must be either EPA-lead or State-lead with funding from the Superfund Program; and

• the system must be operational or pre-operational (i.e., pre-design, design, being installed, or

installed but not yet operating). It should be noted that, consistent with the first criteria, “predesign” refers to systems that have RODs specifying pump and treat but that have not begun the

design process.

Thus, this project does not include Fund-lead P&T systems that are no longer operating due to a change

in remedy or Fund-lead P&T systems that have been fully transferred to States or responsible parties. In

some cases, sites were identified where a P&T system will likely not be installed even though it is

specified in the ROD. Such systems are included as Fund-lead P&T systems in this project unless the

ROD already has been changed. In addition to systems not meeting the above criteria, Fund-lead wellhead treatment systems in Region 9 and a Fund-lead NAPL (non-aqueous phase liquid) extraction

system in Region 8 were not included in the project.

During the demonstration project in Region 4 and Region 5, it was initially hoped that the Fund-lead

P&T systems could be easily identified by an on-line search of the Superfund Hazardous Waste Sites:

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/query/advquery.htm

However, it was quickly determined that no set of search criteria would specifically yield the Fund-lead

P&T systems. Therefore, an initial set of sites was developed with the following query:

Category Entry Display Count

Site Name “blank” T

State/Territory/EPA Region Region 1 (example) T

Activity Type Remedial Design

Construction Completion

Remedial Action

T

Activity Lead EPA Fund-financed

State, Fund-financed

Tribal-lead, Fund-financed

T

Contaminated Media Groundwater T

Site Listing Narrative T

Site Fact Sheet T

Site Cleanup Decision T
4

ROD abstracts for these sites were reviewed and those sites without existing or planned P&T systems

were removed from the list.

During that process it became evident that isolating Fund-lead P&T systems was not straightforward. 

One complication is that the on-line databases are not completely up-to-date, and some systems that are

Fund-lead at one point in time become “PRP-lead” once responsible parties are defined and/or consent

decrees are put in place. As a result, the project liaisons for each Region were asked to identify the

Fund-lead or Fund-financed P&T systems in their Regions, which they typically did by interviewing the

branch chiefs and/or individual Remedial Project Managers (RPMs). The project liaisons were able to

quickly remove sites from the initial list because there was no P&T system (existing or planned) or

because the system was no longer Fund-lead. In some cases, the project liaisons also added systems that

did not appear on the initial list. In rare cases the on-line databases identified Fund-lead P&T systems

not identified by the EPA project liaison. 

The identified systems are presented in table format in Section 4.0; however, the following table

summarizes for each Region the number of operational and pre-operational (i.e., pre-design, design,

being installed, or installed but not yet operating) Fund-lead P&T systems.
5

Table 2-1: Number of Identified Fund-lead P&T Systems in each Region

Region

# of Pre-operational Fundlead P&T Systems# of Operational 

Fund-lead P&T Systems Total

Region 1 1 7 8

Region 2 4 18 22

Region 3 2 10 12

Region 4 3 7 10

Region 5 3 12 15

Region 6 3 6 9

Region 7 2 1 3

Region 8 0 0 0

Region 9 2 2 4

Region 10 1 4 5

Total 21 67 88

Presented data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. 

These estimates may vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of sites, may change over

time.

Notes:

1. Fund-lead refers to systems where oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from

Superfund.

2. Pump-and-treat (P&T) systems are those systems in which the extraction of groundwater and subsequent treatment is

specified in the Record of Decision (ROD). In this study, systems designed for water supply in Region 9 and a nonaqueous phase liquid (NAPL) extraction system in Region 8 were not included. 

3. Pre-operational P&T systems refer to those systems that are pre-design, design, being installed, or installed but not yet

operating. The systems must have RODs specifying P&T. 

4. Operational P&T systems are those that currently are operating or have operated and are shutdown temporarily.

5. The demonstration project yielded 14 operational and 4 pre-operational P&T systems for Region 5. Information

collected during the nationwide effort determined that site enforcement had changed for three sites in Region 5. The

above chart reflects the updated information.
6

3.0 DATA COLLECTION

Once the Fund-lead P&T systems were identified, a web-based questionnaire, accessed from the EPATIO webpage, was completed for each system by the EPA or State project manager for the associated

site. The questionnaire required responses to the following items or questions.

1. Site or system name, location, and CERCLIS number

2. Name and contact information of the individual that completed the questionnaire

3. Is the site Fund-lead (or State-lead and financed by Superfund) with a ROD and a P&T system 

that currently exists or is planned?

Explanation: If the answer to this question is “no”, then the system is no longer considered

for this project.

4. EPA Remedial Project Manager (RPM) name and contact information

5. State Manager or Regulator name and contact information

6. Contractor name and contact information

7. Site lead or management (EPA/Fund-lead or State-lead financed by Superfund)

8. The date the Record of Decision (ROD) for the remedy was signed

9. The date of most recent ROD modification, if any

10. Type of ROD (for an interim remedy or for a final remedy)

11. Status of P&T system 

Explanation: One of the following responses could be selected: 

• pre-design

• design

• designed/not installed

• being installed

• installed

• operational

• completed

It should be noted that a system classified as “pre-design” must have a ROD that specifies P&T. 

In addition, for the purposes of data analysis, “pre-operational” refers to those classifications in

the above list that precede operational.

12. Primary goal of the P&T system 

Explanation: One of the following responses could be selected:

• restoration 

• containment

• both restoration and containment

• water supply
7

13. Primary contaminants of concern

14. Presence or absence of contamination as a non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL)

15. Approximate annual O&M costs

Explanation: This is an approximate (i.e., plus or minus 25%) value of annual O&M costs

($/yr) including monitoring and analysis costs. Typical components of annual O&M costs

include labor, electricity, materials, discharge fees, analytical costs, consulting costs, etc. 

16. Portion of that cost used for monitoring

Explanation: Of the approximate annual O&M cost ($/yr), this cost is the portion costs

associated with long-term groundwater monitoring of the aquifer (labor associated with

sample collection and data reduction, analytical costs, etc.). It should not include process

monitoring of the above-ground treatment components, or monitoring associated with

discharge of treated water.

17. An approximate representative pumping rate in gallons per minute (gpm)

18. Number of extraction wells (not including injection wells, drains, or trenches)

19. The date (month and year) when construction of the systems was completed

20. The date (month and year) when the system became operational and functional

21. The date (month and year) when the system is expected to be transitioned to the State

Explanation: For Fund-lead remedies of surface or groundwater where restoration is the

goal, EPA typically manages the site and funds 90% of the cost (versus 10% from the State)

for the first 10 years after the site becomes operational and functional. This period is

known as a Long-term Remedial Action (LTRA). After this 10-year period the site is fully

transitioned to the State, and the State is responsible for site management and 100% of the

funding.

22. The date (month and year) the remedial action is expected to be complete

Explanation: This estimate for system shut-off date is subject to great uncertainty. An

estimate of 30 years from the date the system became operational and functional is often

used for financial reasons and may not represent operational projections. Other estimates

may be taken directly from the Record of Decision (ROD), and given that a ROD is written

before operation of a system, this estimate may not reflect operation data.

23. Approximate amount of system downtime per year

Explanation: The estimated number of weeks per year that the system does not operate as

anticipated.
8

24. Types of above-ground treatment processes

Explanation: This item includes above-ground treatment processes only. It does not

include in-situ processes. One or more of the following processes could be selected. 

metals precipitation filtration

air stripping ion exchange

biological treatment reverse osmosis

UV oxidation off-gas treatment

carbon adsorption other/not sure

25. Number of groundwater monitoring wells regularly monitored

26. Frequency of groundwater monitoring (i.e., annually, semi-annually, quarterly, etc.)

27. Assessment of plume migration control

Explanation: Based on current information, if any portion of the plume is continuing to

migrate beyond the current plume extent in a manner that is of concern, the answer is YES.

If plume is migration is currently controlled, the answer is NO. If current information is not

adequate to make this determination, the answer is DON'T KNOW. If plume migration

beyond the current plume extent is not a concern, the answer is CONTROLLING PLUME

MIGRATION IS NOT A GOAL OF THIS SYSTEM.

28. Progress toward cleanup

Explanation: The purpose of this item is to determine if the progress regarding plume

restoration, in terms of plume area reduction, is known, and if so, how much progress in

terms plume area reduction has been achieved. Note this question is not asking about mass

removal, but instead is asking about plume area. One of the following descriptions could be

chosen:

• A small portion (e.g., less than 20%) of the original plume area has been restored to

required cleanup levels.

• A “significant” portion of the original plume area (e.g., more than about 20%) has

been restored to required cleanup levels.

• Most of the original plume area (e.g., more than about 80%) has been restored to

required cleanup levels.

• Don’t know

• Aquifer restoration is not a goal of this system.

29. Result of previous (if any) evaluations of performance and effectiveness

Explanation: According to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,

and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the National Contingency Plan (NCP), a 5-year review

must be conducted for all remedial actions that do not allow unlimited use and unrestricted

exposure. The purpose of these reviews is to ensure that the remedies are protective of

human health and the environment and therefore include a statement regarding the

effectiveness and performance of the system. This item refers to 5-year reviews or other

such evaluations but does not refer to the RSEs conducted as part of this project. One of

three choices could be selected in response to this item:
9

• Performance/effectiveness has not been adequately evaluated.

• Performance/effectiveness has been evaluated, and is not sufficient.

• Performance/effectiveness is sufficient, further evaluation should be prioritized

based on potential cost savings that maintain equivalent effectiveness.

30. Degree of difficulty (socially or politically) in implementing recommendations

Explanation: Answers to this item could range from “little difficulty expected for minor or

major changes” to “severe difficulty expected for minor or major changes”.

31. Other comments

In cases where RPMs had technical difficulty with the questionnaire, information was gathered via a

phone interview with the RPM or the State project manager. In addition, phone interviews were used

for this nationwide project to confirm or update the information gathered during the demonstration

project from RPMs in Regions 4 and 5. Information sheets with the information and data for each

system are provided as Appendix A. Summary information and data for each Region were provided in

the form of Region-specific summary reports, which are included as Appendix B.
10

4.0 SUMMARIES OF COLLECTED DATA

A note on discounting (net present value) as it applies to the reported estimates of future costs

Because funds not spent at present can be invested a rate that exceeds inflation, current funds can yield

additional money for future expenditures thereby making present-day dollars worth more than future

dollars. As a result, future costs are often discounted and reported in net present value (NPV). 

The net present value of a series of annual future costs with discounting in all but the first year is

determined with the following relationship:

C

c

D

NPV

A

i

i

n

=

+

−

=

∑ (1 )

1

1

where:

CNPV = NPV of all of the annual costs incurred between the present and n years from the present

 cA = annual costs incurred each year between the present and n years from the present

D = discount rate (e.g., use 0.05 for 5%)

The actual discount rate (D) is a function of inflation, investment rates, and other opportunity costs

associated with present and future value of money. Complications in calculating net-present value can

include formulation of the discount rate with or without inflation, variation in the discount rate over

time, and a change in annual costs over time. A full explanation of the discount rate is beyond the scope

of this document. The reader is referred to the following references for a detailed explanation. 

• Damodaran, Aswath, 1994. Damodaran on Valuation, John Wiley & Sons.

• Ross, Stephen A., Randolf W. Westerfield, and Bradford D. Jordan, 1995. Fundamentals of

Corporate Finance, 3rd edition, Irwin Publishing.

For the future cost estimates discussed herein, a discount rate of 5% is applied and assumed constant.

4.1 SUMMARIES OF SYSTEM COSTS AND PROJECTIONS

Tables 4-1 through 4-9 present the following summary information for each Region (except Region 8,

which had no Fund-lead P&T systems):

• the result of previous evaluations with respect to performance and effectiveness (see item 29 in

Section 3.0);

• the estimated time remaining in the LTRA period (see item 21 in Section 3.0);

• the estimated time remaining until remediation is complete (see item 22 in Section 3.0);

• the annual O&M cost for each system (see item 15 in Section 3.0);

• the expected future cost (in net present value) to be incurred by Superfund for LTRA O&M;
11

• the expected future cost (in net present value) of O&M remaining to be incurred until

remediation is complete; and

• the systems selected for RSEs in bold.

In these tables, net-present value is calculated with a 5% discount rate, with no discounting in the first

year. Compiling information from Table 4-1 through Table 4-9 yields the following results regarding

system O&M costs:

• The estimated average annual O&M cost of a system (based on the 79 systems providing cost

data) is approximately $570,000 and the median is $350,000. This discrepancy is due to a small

number of systems with relatively high O&M costs.

• The estimated total annual O&M cost for operating the Fund-lead P&T systems in 2002 is

approximately $38 million, with EPA incurring approximately $32.5 million of the total annual

cost and the associated States incurring the remaining $5.5 million.

• The estimated future cost for LTRA O&M at all of these systems exceeds $210 million with

discounting (i.e., net present value) and exceeds $270 million without discounting. For each

system, Superfund is expected to pay 90% of the O&M cost and the associated State is expected

to pay 10%. These percentages translate directly to the presented costs; therefore, the Superfund

is expected to pay approximately $189 million ($243 million without discounting) and the States

are expected to pay $21 million ($27 million without discounting).

• The estimated future cost to reach remediation completion for all Fund-lead P&T systems is

approximately $470 million with discounting (i.e., net present value) and $790 million without

discounting. (These estimates of future O&M costs are based on the annual costs of systems and

expected durations of systems as specified by the site managers. For some systems where

expected system duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default value

for this parameter. While the practice of using 30 years as a default was prevalent in the past,

more recent EPA guidance on feasibility study preparation recommends that 30 years not be

used as a default.)

4.2 SUMMARY OF COST DATA AS IT PERTAINS TO THE STATES

Assuming no viable parties are found for these 88 Fund-lead P&T systems, the States will eventually

assume both management and funding responsibility for the systems. Figures 4-1 and 4-2 show

projected trends of agency financial responsibility and annual costs from 2001 through 2015. These

trends are best estimates based on the data provided by the site RPMs. Furthermore, because the actual

O&M costs and site enforcement may change with time, these projected trends may also change. 

Figure 4-1 shows two projected trends between 2001 and 2015 for 78 Fund-lead P&T systems (the 10

systems with unknown costs or transition dates are excluded). The first trend is the number of Fund-lead

P&T systems funded 90% by EPA and 10% by the States. The second trend is the number of Fund-lead

P&T systems that are the full responsibility of the States. When counting the number of systems for a

particular year, if the system transfer from the EPA to the State occurs before July, then the system is

counted as a State system. If the system transfer from EPA to the State occurs after July, then the system

is counted as an EPA system. 

Figure 4-2 also shows two trends between 2001 and 2015 for the same 78 systems. The first trend is the
12

total annual cost of Fund-lead P&T systems assumed by the EPA. This cost is 90% of the O&M costs of

the Fund-lead P&T systems. The second trend is the total annual cost of Fund-lead systems assumed by

the States. This cost is 10% of the O&M costs of Fund-lead P&T systems before transition to the State

and 100% of the cost subsequent to the transition. When calculating the costs of systems for a particular

year, if the system transfer from the EPA to the State occurs before July, then the State assumes the cost

for that year. If the system transfer from EPA to the State occurs after July, then the EPA assumes the

cost for that year.

Table 4-10 provides a list of the States that currently have operational or pre-operational Fund-lead P&T

systems. It also provides the number of Fund-lead P&T systems in each State and the expected future

costs (based on the estimates provided) each State is likely to incur from future O&M of these systems. 

These future costs are provided both with discounting (net present value) and without discounting. 

Discounted costs assume a 5% discount rate with no discounting in the first year. The expected future

costs are calculated based on the following information:

• the current annual O&M estimates for each system (see item 15 in Section 3.0);

• the estimated date of transition to the State (see item 21 in Section 3.0); and

• the estimated date the remedy will be complete (see item 22 in Section 3.0).

An analysis of the data in Table 4-10 shows that a total of 26 States currently have operational or preoperational Fund-lead P&T systems. The estimated total post-LTRA O&M costs expected to be incurred

by all of the States ranges from approximately $250 million with discounting to $520 million without

discounting. Approximately 78% of these costs, however, will be incurred by the following five the

States:

• New Jersey (27.6%)

• Massachusetts (22.6%)

• New York (9.7%)

• Pennsylvania (9.6%)

• Michigan (8.4%)

It should be noted that the expected future costs to be incurred by the States are only estimates and are

subject to variation. This variation may result from a number of reasons: 

• the estimated annual O&M costs will likely change in the future;

• the estimated dates, especially the dates the remedies are expected to be complete, may vary

significantly from the actual dates;

• the expected future costs do not include the cost of aquifer monitoring subsequent to remedy

completion. Additional Fund-lead P&T systems may arise in the future and eventually be

transitioned to the States; and

• the responsible parties at some of the current Fund-lead P&T systems may assume the financial

burden for their systems. 
13

The Fund-lead P&T systems in each Region and the associated costs are listed according to State in

Table 4-11 through Table 4-19. For each system, the table provides the date of transition to the State, the

estimated annual O&M cost, and the expected future O&M cost (with and without discounting) to be

assumed by the State.

4.3 STATUS AND PROGRESS OF THE FUND-LEAD P&T SYSTEMS

The collected data can be used to categorize the 88 Fund-lead P&T systems according to their status

and/or progress. The status may range from the “pre-design” to “operational” as described in item 11 of

Section 3.0, and the progress of systems with restoration as a goal may range from less than 20%

progress toward restoration to more than 80% progress toward restoration as described in item 28 in

Section 3.0. 

Figure 4-3 groups the 88 Fund-lead systems according to their status (i.e., pre-design, design,

designed/not installed, being installed, installed but not operational, or operational). Of the 88 systems,

67 are operational systems. As shown in Figure 4-4, 60 of the 67 operating systems are reported to have

groundwater restoration as a goal, but 21 of that 60 do not have estimates of the progress toward that

restoration. Of the 39 systems that have both groundwater restoration as a goal and an estimate of

progress toward restoration, 20 are estimated to have made less than 20% progress toward restoration

and 7 are estimated to have made more than 80% progress toward restoration. The remaining 12

systems are estimated to have made between 20% and 80% progress toward restoration. Those systems

that report less than 20% restoration have operated, on average, for approximately 4 years. Those

systems that report 20% to 80% restoration have operated, on average, for approximately 6 years. 

Finally, those systems that report more than 80% restoration have operated, on average, for 7 years. 

In addition to progress toward restoration, the submitted information (not shown in a figure) indicate

that 40 of the 67 operating systems are reportedly controlling migration of the plume. 

4.4 SYSTEM GOALS

The majority of the systems have aquifer restoration specified in the ROD as a remedy objective. During

data collection for this project, the remedy goal was not ascertained for two systems. Of the remaining

systems, one has public water supply as a goal (restoration may also be a goal) and seven have

containment as the only goal. Aquifer restoration is the primary goal for 22 of the systems and 56 of the

systems have both containment and restoration as primary goals.

4.5 CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN, TREATMENT PROCESSES, AND MONITORING

The collected data show that more than three contaminants of concern are identified for 52 of the 88

Fund-lead P&T systems. The prevalence of certain categories of contaminants, as identified by the

system RPMs, are highlighted in Table 4-20. Chlorinated solvents such as tetrachlorethylene (PCE)

represent the most prevalent contaminant category identified by RPMs with this contaminant category

addressed by 56 of the 88 systems.

Non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs) (see item 14 in Section 3.0), if present in the subsurface, will act as

continuing sources of some contaminants. The collected data indicate that 35 of the 88 Fund-lead P&T

systems are associated with sites where NAPL has either been observed or is suspected. The collected

data also indicate that 38 of the Fund-lead P&T systems are associated with sites where NAPL is not

present. The presence of NAPL at sites for the remaining 15 systems is not known.
14

Many of the P&T systems use multiple treatment processes to remove these contaminants from the

extracted water. Of the 88 systems, 32 are reported to have three or more treatment processes. Figure 4-

5 shows the number of systems that use each of the 10 treatment processes (see item 24 in Section 3.0). 

Carbon adsorption and air stripping are the most prevalent treatment processes. These two statistics

correlate with the prevalence of chlorinated solvents as identified contaminants of concern, because

these two treatment processes are commonly used to address those contaminants. 

The collected data include the number of monitoring wells, the frequency of monitoring, and costs

associated with monitoring (see items 25, 26, and 16 in Section 3.0). As identified in the collected data,

the number of monitoring wells associated with a Fund-lead P&T system ranges from 3 to 80 with an

average of approximately 23 wells per system (based on 79 of 88 systems where RPMs provided nonzero responses). The minimum sampling frequency (other than no sampling) is once per year whereas

the maximum sampling frequency is once per week. On average, monitoring wells at the Fund-lead

P&T systems are sampled between 3 and 4 times per year, and on average there are more than 80

samples of groundwater collected per Fund-lead P&T system in a year. As identified by the RPM,

monitoring costs range from as little as $5,000 per year to as much as $800,000 per year with an average

of approximately $112,000 per year (based on 64 of 88 systems where RPMs were able to determine

costs specifically used for groundwater monitoring). 

4.6 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATIONS

According to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)

and the National Contingency Plan (NCP), a 5-year review must be conducted for all remedial actions

that do not allow unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. The purpose of these 5-year reviews is to

ensure that the remedies are protective of human health and the environment. They therefore include a

statement regarding the effectiveness and performance of the system. Tables 4-1 through 4-9 provide

the results of 5-year reviews or other such evaluations, if they have been conducted, at each site. It

should be emphasized that these are not the results of RSEs conducted as part of this project. They are

the findings from 5-year reviews or similar evaluations that were conducted at these sites prior to this

Nationwide Optimization Project and reported by the RPM as part of this survey. The following points

summarize these results.

• 36 of the 67 operating systems are reported to have had performance and effectiveness evaluated

and found to be sufficient; 

• 7 of the 67 operating systems are reported to have had performance and effectiveness evaluated

and found to be not sufficient;

• 22 of the 67 operating systems reportedly are either currently being evaluated or have not been

evaluated with respect to effectiveness; and

• the evaluation status of two of the systems was not determined.
Figure 4-1: Trend of Financial Responsibility of Fund-lead P&T Systems

0

1020304050607080

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2

Year

Number of Systems

systems with 90% of funding from EPA, 10% of funding from Stsystems with 0% of funding from EPA, 100% of funding from St

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may vary from actual values. 

and status of systems, may change over time.

Notes:

1. Fund-lead P&T systems refers to systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and oversight is provided by the E

support from Superfund.

2. This chart only shows the trends between 2001 and 2015. Existing systems and new systems are expected to operate beyond 2015.
Figure 4-2: Trend of Estimated Annual O&M Costs of Fund-lead P&T Systems

$0

$5,000,000

$10,000,000$15,000,000$20,000,000$25,000,000$30,000,000$35,000,000$40,000,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

Year

Total Annual O&M Costs

O&M cost paid by EPAO&M cost paid by States

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may vary from actual values. 

and status of systems, may change over time.

Notes:

1. Fund-lead P&T systems refers to systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and oversight is provided by the E

support from Superfund.

2. Annual O&M costs are estimates and include such components as labor, utilities, materials, analytical costs, etc.3. This chart only shows the trends between 2001 and 2015. Existing systems and new systems are expected to operate beyond 2015.
Figure 4-3: Status of Fund-lead P&T Systems

0

10203040506070

Pre-design

Design

Designed/Not

Installed

Being Installed

Installed but

not operational

Number of Systems

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may vary from actual values. 

and status of systems, may change over time.

Notes:

1. Fund-lead P&T systems are those systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and oversight is provided by the E

support from Superfund.

2. Pre-designed Fund-lead P&T systems refer to those systems that have P&T specified in the Record of Decision but are not yet in the design stage.
Figure 4-4: Progress of the 67 Operational Fund-lead P&T Systems

05

10152025

Less than 20%

restored

20-80%

restored

More than 80%

restored

No estimate of

progress

provided

Groundwater

Number of Systems

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may vary from actual values. 

and status of systems, may change over time.

Notes:

1. Fund-lead P&T systems are those systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and oversight is provided by the E

support from Superfund.
Figure 4-5: Distribution of Treatment Processes at Fund-lead P&T Systems

0

102030405060

Carbon

adsorption

Air stripping

Filtration

Metals

precipitation

Other/not sure

Off-gas

treatment

Biological

treatment

Ion exchange

UV oxidation

Number of Systems

Data reflect information provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. This information

—including the number o

types of treatment processes

—may change over time.

Notes:

1. Fund-lead P&T systems are those systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and oversight is provided by the E

support from Superfund.

2. Individual systems may have multiple treatment processes.3. The treatment processes listed correspond to those shown in item 24 of Section 3.0.
20

Table 4-1: Region 1 Fund-lead P&T System Performance and Cost Information

Site

Performance &

Effectiveness

Estimated

Remaining

Time in

LTRA

(yrs)

Estimated

Duration

(yrs)

Annual 

O&M

($/yr)

Expected

Remaining

Cost for

LTRA

O&M

Expected

Total

Remaining

O&M Cost 

Operational Systems

Baird and

McGuire Sufficient 2.25 21.3 $3,500K $7.6M $47.5M

Charles George

Landfill Not Evaluated 7.7 26.7 $450K $3.0M $6.9M

Groveland Wells Sufficient 9.3 29.3 $500K $3.8M $8.0M

Kearsarge

Metallurgical Sufficient 1.7 3.7 $250K $0.4M $0.9M

Keefe Sufficient 1.7 1.7 $200K $0.3M $0.3M

Savage Well Not Evaluated 7.2 7.2 $500K $3.1M $3.1M

Silresim

Chemical Not Sufficient 5.7 15.9 $1,400K $7.1M $15.9M

Pre-operational Systems

Eastern Surplus Not Evaluated 9.7 5.7 $200K $1.0M $1.0M

Total $7.0M $26.3M $83.6M

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may

vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.

Notes:

1. Fund-lead P&T systems: systems where pump and treat (groundwater extraction and treatment) is specified in the Record of Decision

and oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.

2. Systems that appear in bold were selected for Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs).

3. Descriptions of “Performance and Effectiveness” refer to results of previous evaluations such as the 5-year reviews and not from

RSEs conducted as part of this project.

4. Long-term Remedial Action (LTRA): the first 10 years of operation and function of a Superfund restoration action for surface or

groundwater. Operation and maintenance costs of the remedy are 90% funded by Superfund and 10% funded by the associated State

during this time period. Thereafter, 100% of the costs are assumed by the States.

5. “Estimated Time Remaining in LTRA” and “Expected Duration” are calculated by determining the number of years between January 1,

2002 and time frame estimates provided by the site Remedial Project Managers. For some systems where the expected system

duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may underestimate the expected duration of systems,

especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL. 

6. Reported annual O&M costs are estimates and include such components as labor, utilities, materials, analytical costs, etc.

7. Expected costs are shown in net present value, calculated with a 5% discount rate with no discounting in the first year.

8. For Eastern Surplus, collected data indicate that remedy completion is expected prior to the end of LTRA. Expected remaining costs

for Superfund do not exceed the expected total remaining costs.
21

Table 4-2: Region 2 Fund-lead P&T System Performance and Cost Information (Page 1 of 3)

Site

Performance &

Effectiveness

Estimated

Remaining

Time in

LTRA

(yrs)

Estimated

Duration

(yrs)

Annual 

O&M

($/yr)

Expected

Remaining

Cost for

LTRA

O&M

Expected

Total

Remaining

O&M Cost 

Operational Systems

American

Thermostat Sufficient 6.8 26.7 $1,175K $6.9M $18.0M

Bog Creek Sufficient 2.7 22.9 $460K $1.2M $6.5M

Brewster Well

Field Not Evaluated 5.8 5.8 $400K $2.1M $2.1M

Circuitron Sufficient 8.4 1.4 $480K $0.7M $0.7M

Claremont

Polychemical Not Evaluated 8.1 18.1 $740K $5.1M $9.1M

Combe Fill South Not Sufficient 6.7 26.7 $920K $5.4M $14.1M

Garden State

Cleaners Not Evaluated 7.8 27.8 $500K $3.3M $7.8M

Higgins Farm Not Evaluated 7.0 26.7 $1,000K $6.1M $15.3M

Islip Municipal

Landfill Sufficient 4.7 1.0 $225K $0.2M $0.2M

Lang Property Sufficient 3.75 2.75 $700K $1.9M $1.9M

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may

vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.

Notes:

1. Fund-lead P&T systems: systems where pump and treat (groundwater extraction and treatment) is specified in the Record of Decision

and oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.

2. Systems that appear in bold were selected for Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs).

3. Descriptions of “Performance and Effectiveness” refer to results of previous evaluations such as the 5-year reviews and not from

RSEs conducted as part of this project.

4. Long-term Remedial Action (LTRA): the first 10 years of operation and function of a Superfund restoration action for surface or

groundwater. Operation and maintenance costs of the remedy are 90% funded by Superfund and 10% funded by the associated State

during this time period. Thereafter, 100% of the costs are assumed by the States.

5. “Estimated Time Remaining in LTRA” and “Expected Duration” are calculated by determining the number of years between January 1,

2002 and time frame estimates provided by the site Remedial Project Managers. For some systems where the expected system

duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may underestimate the expected duration of systems,

especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL. 

6. Reported annual O&M costs are estimates and include such components as labor, utilities, materials, analytical costs, etc.

7. Expected costs are shown in net present value, calculated with a 5% discount rate with no discounting in the first year.

8. For Circuitron, Islip Municipal Landfill, Lang Property, and SMS Instruments, collected data indicate that remedy completion is

expected prior to the end of LTRA. Expected remaining costs for Superfund do not exceed the expected total remaining costs.

9. The Army Corps of Engineers conducted an RSE of Lipari Landfill prior to this project.

10. The “Estimated Time Remaining in LTRA” exceeds 10 years for Lipari Landfill because this remedy is part of a source control

action.
22

Table 4-2: Region 2 Fund-lead P&T System Performance and Cost Information (Page 2 of 3)

Site

Performance &

Effectiveness

Estimated

Remaining

Time in

LTRA

(yrs)

Estimated

Duration

(yrs)

Annual 

O&M

($/yr)

Expected

Remaining

Cost for

LTRA

O&M

Expected

Total

Remaining

O&M Cost 

Operational Systems (continued)

Lipari Landfill Sufficient 17.8 2.9 $2,500K $7.0M $7.0M

Mattiace

Petrochemical Sufficient 7.2 27.6 $700K $4.3M $10.9M

Mohonk Road Not Evaluated 9.5 29.5 Unknown Unknown Unknown

SMS Instruments Sufficient 3.4 2.2 $400K $1.3M $0.8M

Syncon Resins Not Sufficient 0.0 26.7 $350K $0.0M $5.4M

Vestal Water

Supply Sufficient 3.2 13.2 $180K $0.5M $1.8M

Vineland

Chemical Not Evaluated 9.4 29.4 $4,000K $30.9M $64.0M

Williams Property Sufficient 0.0 0.0 $350K $0.0M $0.0M

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may

vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.

Notes:

1. Fund-lead P&T systems: systems where pump and treat (groundwater extraction and treatment) is specified in the Record of Decision

and oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.

2. Systems that appear in bold were selected for Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs).

3. Descriptions of “Performance and Effectiveness” refer to results of previous evaluations such as the 5-year reviews and not from

RSEs conducted as part of this project.

4. Long-term Remedial Action (LTRA): the first 10 years of operation and function of a Superfund restoration action for surface or

groundwater. Operation and maintenance costs of the remedy are 90% funded by Superfund and 10% funded by the associated State

during this time period. Thereafter, 100% of the costs are assumed by the States.

5. “Estimated Time Remaining in LTRA” and “Expected Duration” are calculated by determining the number of years between January 1,

2002 and time frame estimates provided by the site Remedial Project Managers. For some systems where the expected system

duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may underestimate the expected duration of systems,

especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL. 

6. Reported annual O&M costs are estimates and include such components as labor, utilities, materials, analytical costs, etc.

7. Expected costs are shown in net present value, calculated with a 5% discount rate with no discounting in the first year.

8. For Circuitron, Islip Municipal Landfill, Lang Property, and SMS Instruments, collected data indicate that remedy completion is

expected prior to the end of LTRA. Expected remaining costs for Superfund do not exceed the expected total remaining costs.

9. The Army Corps of Engineers conducted an RSE of Lipari Landfill prior to this project.

10. The “Estimated Time Remaining in LTRA” exceeds 10 years for Lipari Landfill because this remedy is part of a source control

action.
23

Table 4-2: Region 2 Fund-lead P&T System Performance and Cost Information (Page 3 of 3)

Site

Performance

&

Effectiveness

Estimated

Remaining

Time in

LTRA

(yrs)

Estimated

Duration

(yrs)

Annual 

O&M

($/yr)

Expected

Remaining

Cost for

LTRA

O&M

Expected

Total

Remaining

O&M Cost 

Pre-operational Systems

Dover Municipal

Well 4 Not Evaluated 10.0 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Metal

TEC/Aerosystems Not Evaluated Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Montgomery

Township/Rocky

Hill 

Not Evaluated 10.0 30.0 $400K $2.6M $5.8M

Stanton Cleaners Not Evaluated 9.7 19.7 $270K $2.1M $3.5M

Total >$17.5M >$81.1M >$174.9M

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may

vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.

Notes:

1. Fund-lead P&T systems: systems where pump and treat (groundwater extraction and treatment) is specified in the Record of Decision

and oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.

2. Systems that appear in bold were selected for Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs).

3. Descriptions of “Performance and Effectiveness” refer to results of previous evaluations such as the 5-year reviews and not from

RSEs conducted as part of this project.

4. Long-term Remedial Action (LTRA): the first 10 years of operation and function of a Superfund restoration action for surface or

groundwater. Operation and maintenance costs of the remedy are 90% funded by Superfund and 10% funded by the associated State

during this time period. Thereafter, 100% of the costs are assumed by the States.

5. “Estimated Time Remaining in LTRA” and “Expected Duration” are calculated by determining the number of years between January 1,

2002 and time frame estimates provided by the site Remedial Project Managers. For some systems where the expected system

duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may underestimate the expected duration of systems,

especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL. 

6. Reported annual O&M costs are estimates and include such components as labor, utilities, materials, analytical costs, etc.

7. Expected costs are shown in net present value, calculated with a 5% discount rate with no discounting in the first year.

8. For Circuitron, Islip Municipal Landfill, Lang Property, and SMS Instruments, collected data indicate that remedy completion is

expected prior to the end of LTRA. Expected remaining costs for Superfund do not exceed the expected total remaining costs.

9. The Army Corps of Engineers conducted an RSE of Lipari Landfill prior to this project.

10. The “Estimated Time Remaining in LTRA” exceeds 10 years for Lipari Landfill because this remedy is part of a source control

action.
24

Table 4-3: Region 3 Fund-lead P&T System Performance and Cost Information

Site

Performance &

Effectiveness

Estimated

Remaining

Time in

LTRA

(yrs)

Estimated

Duration

(yrs)

Annual 

O&M

($/yr)

Expected

Remaining

Cost for

LTRA

O&M

Expected

Total

Remaining

O&M Cost 

Operational Systems

AIW Frank Sufficient 9.7 29.7 $180K $1.4M $2.9M

Berks Sand Pit Sufficient 3.1 1.1 $150K $0.2M $0.2M

Butz Landfill Not Evaluated 9.3 29.3 $250K $1.9M $4.0M

Croydon TCE Sufficient 3.2 23.2 $200K $0.6M $2.8M

CryoChem Sufficient 6.4 8.4 $125K $0.7M $0.9M

Greenwood

Chemical Not Evaluated 9.8 18.9 $400K $3.2M $5.1M

Hellertown

Manufacturing Not Sufficient 4.7 24.7 $350K $1.5M $5.1M

North Penn Area 1 Not Evaluated 6.7 16.7 $100K $0.6M $1.2M

Raymark Not Evaluated 2.0 12.0 $156K $0.3M $1.4M

Saunders Supply Not Evaluated 7.3 6.3 $80K $0.4M $0.4M

Pre-operational Systems

Havertown PCP Not Evaluated 10.0 31.0 $1,000K $7.9M $16.1M

North Penn Area 6 Not Evaluated 10.0 30.0 $592K $4.0M $8.7M

Total $3.6M $22.7M $48.8M

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may

vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.

Notes:

1. Fund-lead P&T systems: systems where pump and treat (groundwater extraction and treatment) is specified in the Record of Decision

and oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.

2. Systems that appear in bold were selected for Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs).

3. Descriptions of “Performance and Effectiveness” refer to results of previous evaluations such as the 5-year reviews and not from

RSEs conducted as part of this project.

4. Long-term Remedial Action (LTRA): the first 10 years of operation and function of a Superfund restoration action for surface or

groundwater. Operation and maintenance costs of the remedy are 90% funded by Superfund and 10% funded by the associated State

during this time period. Thereafter, 100% of the costs are assumed by the States.

5. “Estimated Time Remaining in LTRA” and “Expected Duration” are calculated by determining the number of years between January 1,

2002 and time frame estimates provided by the site Remedial Project Managers. For some systems where the expected system

duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may underestimate the expected duration of systems,

especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL. 

6. Reported annual O&M costs are estimates and include such components as labor, utilities, materials, analytical costs, etc.

7. Expected costs are shown in net present value, calculated with a 5% discount rate with no discounting in the first year.

8. For Berks Sand Pit and Saunders Supply, collected data indicate that remedy completion is expected prior to the end of LTRA. 

Expected remaining costs for Superfund do not exceed the expected total remaining costs.
25

Table 4-4: Region 4 Fund-lead P&T System Performance and Cost Information

Site

Performance

&

Effectiveness

Estimated

Remaining

Time in

LTRA

(yrs)

Estimated

Duration

(yrs)

Annual 

O&M

($/yr)

Expected

Remaining

Cost for

LTRA

O&M

Expected

Total

Remaining

O&M Cost 

Operational Systems

ABC Cleaners Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

American Creosote

Works (DNAPL)

Not Evaluated 1.3 1.3 $300K $0.4M $0.4M

Benfield Industries Not Evaluated 9.3 19.3 $30K $0.2M $0.4M

Elmore Waste

Disposal

Sufficient 6.7 16.7 $180K $1.1M $2.1M

FCX Statesville Sufficient 6.3 6.3 $150K $0.8M $0.8M

Miami Drum Unknown 0.7 Unknown $1,000K $0.7M Unknown

Palmetto Wood Sufficient 6.3 6.3 $300K $1.7M $1.7M

Pre-operational Systems

American Creosote

Works (solute)

Not Evaluated 10.0 5.0 $452K $0.9M $0.9M

Cape Fear Wood

Preserving

Not Evaluated 9.8 7.3 $40K $0.2M $0.2M

Coleman Evans

Wood Preserving

Not Evaluated Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Total >$2.5M >$6.0M $7.2M

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may

vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.

Notes:

1. Fund-lead P&T systems: systems where pump and treat (groundwater extraction and treatment) is specified in the Record of Decision

and oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.

2. Systems that appear in bold were selected for Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs).

3. Descriptions of “Performance and Effectiveness” refer to results of previous evaluations such as the 5-year reviews and not from

RSEs conducted as part of this project.

4. Long-term Remedial Action (LTRA): the first 10 years of operation and function of a Superfund restoration action for surface or

groundwater. Operation and maintenance costs of the remedy are 90% funded by Superfund and 10% funded by the associated State

during this time period. Thereafter, 100% of the costs are assumed by the States.

5. “Estimated Time Remaining in LTRA” and “Expected Duration” are calculated by determining the number of years between January 1,

2002 and time frame estimates provided by the site Remedial Project Managers. For some systems where the expected system

duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may underestimate the expected duration of systems,

especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL. 

6. Reported annual O&M costs are estimates and include such components as labor, utilities, materials, analytical costs, etc.

7. Expected costs are shown in net present value, calculated with a 5% discount rate with no discounting in the first year.

8. For American Creosote Works (solute) and Cape Fear Wood Preserving, collected data indicate that remedy completion is expected

by the end of LTRA. Expected remaining costs for Superfund do not exceed the expected total remaining costs.

9. The sum of the “Total Expected Remaining Costs” includes the LTRA cost for Miami Drum as it is expected that O&M will continue

beyond LTRA.
26

Table 4-5: Region 5 Fund-lead P&T System Performance and Cost Information (Page 1 of 2)

Site

Performance &

Effectiveness

Estimated

Remaining

Time in

LTRA

(yrs)

Estimated

Duration

(yrs)

Annual 

O&M

($/yr)

Expected

Remaining

Cost for

LTRA

O&M

Expected

Total

Remaining

O&M Cost 

Operational Systems

Arrowhead

Refinery Sufficient 1.5 2.2 $70K $0.1M $0.2M

Better Brite Sufficient 4.4 28.3 $36K $0.1M $0.6M

Eau Claire Sufficient Unknown Unknown $175K Unknown Unknown

La Salle Sufficient 2.2 3.2 $230K $0.5M $0.7M

Long Prairie Not Evaluated 5.8 13.8 $300K $1.5M $3.1M

MacGillis &

Gibbs Not Evaluated 7.8 27.8 $300K $2.0M $4.7M

Oconomowoc Sufficient 4.7 24.7 $471K $2.0M $6.9M

Onalaska Sufficient 2.4 0.5 $200K $0.1M $0.1M

Ott/Story Not Evaluated 8.6 28.6 $2,400K $17.2M $37.9M

U.S. Aviex Sufficient 1.7 1.7 $300K $0.5M $0.5M

Verona Well Field Not Evaluated 4.4 Indefinite $225K $0.9M Indefinite

Wash King Not Evaluated 9.3 19.3 $75K $0.6M $1.0M

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may

vary from actual value. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.

Notes:

1. Fund-lead P&T systems: systems where pump and treat (groundwater extraction and treatment) is specified in the Record of Decision

and oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.

2. Systems that appear in bold were selected for Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs).

3. Descriptions of “Performance and Effectiveness” refer to results of previous evaluations such as the 5-year reviews and not from

RSEs conducted as part of this project.

4. Long-term Remedial Action (LTRA): the first 10 years of operation and function of a Superfund restoration action for surface or

groundwater. Operation and maintenance costs of the remedy are 90% funded by Superfund and 10% funded by the associated State

during this time period. Thereafter, 100% of the costs are assumed by the States.

5. “Estimated Time Remaining in LTRA” and “Expected Duration” are calculated by determining the number of years between January 1,

2002 and time frame estimates provided by the site Remedial Project Managers. For some systems where the expected system

duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may underestimate the expected duration of systems,

especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL. 

6. Reported annual O&M costs are estimates and include such components as labor, utilities, materials, analytical costs, etc.

7. Expected costs are shown in net present value, calculated with a 5% discount rate with no discounting in the first year.

8. For Onalaska, collected data indicate that remedy completion is expected prior to the end of LTRA. Expected remaining costs for

Superfund do not exceed the expected total remaining costs.

9. The sum of “Total Expected Remaining Cost” includes the LTRA cost for Verona Well Field as it is expected that O&M will continue

at this system beyond LTRA.
27

Table 4-5: Region 5 Fund-lead P&T System Performance and Cost Information (Page 2 of 2)

Site

Performance &

Effectiveness

Estimated

Remaining

Time in

LTRA

(yrs)

Estimated

Duration

(yrs)

Annual 

O&M

($/yr)

Expected

Remaining

Cost for

LTRA

O&M

Expected

Total

Remaining 

O&M Cost 

Pre-operational Systems

Douglass Road Not Evaluated 8.7 28.3 $120K $0.9M $1.9M

Duell and Gardner Not Evaluated 9.5 5.5 Unknow Unknown Unknown

Peerless Plating Sufficient Unknown Unknown $400K Unknown Unknown

Total >$5.3M >$26.4M >$58.5M

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may

vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.

Notes:

1. Fund-lead P&T systems: systems where pump and treat (groundwater extraction and treatment) is specified in the Record of Decision

and oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.

2. Systems that appear in bold were selected for Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs).

3. Descriptions of “Performance and Effectiveness” refer to results of previous evaluations such as the 5-year reviews and not from

RSEs conducted as part of this project.

4. Long-term Remedial Action (LTRA): the first 10 years of operation and function of a Superfund restoration action for surface or

groundwater. Operation and maintenance costs of the remedy are 90% funded by Superfund and 10% funded by the associated State

during this time period. Thereafter, 100% of the costs are assumed by the States.

5. “Estimated Time Remaining in LTRA” and “Expected Duration” are calculated by determining the number of years between January 1,

2002 and time frame estimates provided by the site Remedial Project Managers. For some systems where the expected system

duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may underestimate the expected duration of systems,

especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL. 

6. Reported annual O&M costs are estimates and include such components as labor, utilities, materials, analytical costs, etc.

7. Expected costs are shown in net present value, calculated with a 5% discount rate with no discounting in the first year.

8. For Onalaska, collected data indicate that remedy completion is expected prior to the end of LTRA. Expected remaining costs for

Superfund do not exceed the expected total remaining costs.

9. The sum of “Total Expected Remaining Cost” includes the LTRA cost for Verona Well Field as it is expected that O&M will continue

at this system beyond LTRA.
28

Table 4-6: Region 6 Fund-lead P&T System Performance and Cost Information

Site

Performance &

Effectiveness

Estimated

Remaining

Time in

LTRA

(yrs)

Estimated

Duration

(yrs)

Annual 

O&M

($/yr)

Expected

Remaining

Cost for

LTRA

O&M

Expected

Total

Remaining

O&M Cost 

Operational Systems

American

Creosote Works

Sufficient 25.1 25.1 $360K $5.3M $5.3M

Bayou Bonfouca Sufficient 1.5 19.5 $402K $0.6M $5.1M

Cimarron Mining Not Sufficient 2.8 Indefinite $1,000K $2.6M Indefinite

Geneva Industries Sufficient 2.0 2.0 $240K $0.5M $0.5M

Midland

Products

Sufficient 2.0 32.0 $180K $0.4M $3.0M

Odessa

Chromium #1

Sufficient 0.0 0.0 $500K $0M $0M

Pre-operational Systems

City of Perryton

Well #2

Not Evaluated 10.0 20.0 $37K $0.2M $0.4M

North Cavalcade Not Evaluated 0.0 5.0 Unknown Unknown Unknown

Sprague Road Not Evaluated 10.0 25.2 $1,200K $7.8M $15.8M

Total >$3.9M >$17.4M >$32.7M

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may

vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.

Notes:

1. Fund-lead P&T systems: systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and oversight is

provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.

2. Systems that appear in bold were selected for Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs).

3. Descriptions of “Performance and Effectiveness” refer to results from previous evaluations such as 5-year reviews and not from RSEs

conducted as part of this project.

4. LTRA refers to Long-term Remedial Action, the first 10 years of operation and function of a Superfund restoration action for surface

or groundwater. Operation and maintenance costs of the remedy are 90% funded by Superfund and 10% funded by the associated State

during this time period. Thereafter, 100% of the costs are assumed by the States.

5. “Estimated Time Remaining in LTRA” and “Expected Duration” are calculated by determining the number of years between January 1,

2002 and time frame estimates provided by the site Remedial Project Managers. For some systems where the expected system

duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may underestimate the expected duration of systems,

especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL. 

6. Annual O&M costs are estimates and include such components as labor, utilities, materials, analytical costs, etc.

7. Expected costs are presented in net present value, calculated with a 5% discount rate with no discounting in the first year.

8. The sum of “Total Expected Remaining Cost” includes the LTRA cost for Cimarron Mining as it is expected that O&M will continue

at this system beyond LTRA.

9. The “Estimated Time Remaining in LTRA” exceeds 10 years for American Creosote Works because this remedy is part of a source

control action.
29

Table 4-7: Region 7 Fund-lead P&T System Performance and Cost Information

Site

Performance &

Effectiveness

Estimated

Remaining

Time in

LTRA

(yrs)

Estimated

Duration

(yrs)

Annual 

O&M

($/yr)

Expected

Remaining

Cost for

LTRA

O&M

Expected

Total

Remaining

O&M Cost 

Operational Systems

Cleburn Street

Well Site/OU2

Not Evaluated 7.9 17.9 $100K $0.7M $1.2M

Pre-operational Systems

Ace Services Not Evaluated 10.0 12.1 $500K $3.2M $3.8M

Valley Park

TCE/OU2

Not Evaluated 0.0 10.0 Unknown Unknown Unknown

Total >$0.6M >$3.9M >$5.0M

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may

vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.

Notes:

1. Fund-lead P&T systems: systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and oversight is

provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.

2. Systems that appear in bold were selected for Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs).

3. Descriptions of “Performance and Effectiveness” refer to results from previous evaluations such as 5-year reviews and not from RSEs

conducted as part of this project.

4. LTRA refers to Long-term Remedial Action, the first 10 years of operation and function of a Superfund restoration action for surface

or groundwater. Operation and maintenance costs of the remedy are 90% funded by Superfund and 10% funded by the associated State

during this time period. Thereafter, 100% of the costs are assumed by the States.

5. “Estimated Time Remaining in LTRA” and “Expected Duration” are calculated by determining the number of years between January 1,

2002 and time frame estimates provided by the site Remedial Project Managers. For some systems where the expected system

duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may underestimate the expected duration of systems,

especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL. 

6. Annual O&M costs are estimates and include such components as labor, utilities, materials, analytical costs, etc.

7. Expected costs are presented in net present value, calculated with a 5% discount rate with no discounting in the first year.
30

Table 4-8: Region 9 Fund-lead P&T System Performance and Cost Information

Site

Performance &

Effectiveness

Estimated

Remaining

Time in

LTRA

(yrs)

Estimated

Duration

(yrs)

Annual 

O&M

($/yr)

Expected

Remaining

Cost for

LTRA

O&M

Expected

Total

Remaining

O&M Cost 

Operational Systems

Newmark Not Evaluated 6.8 26.8 $900K $5.3M $13.8M

Selma Treating

Co. Sufficient 6.8 6.8 $300K $1.8M $1.8M

Pre-operational Systems

Modesto Not Evaluated 10.0 20.0 $300K $2.3M $3.8M

Muscoy Not Evaluated 10.0 20.0 $1,100K $6.0M $11.5M

Total $2.6M $15.4M $30.9M

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may

vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.

Notes:

1. Fund-lead P&T systems: systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and oversight is

provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.

2. Systems that appear in bold were selected for Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs).

3. Descriptions of “Performance and Effectiveness” refer to results from previous evaluations such as 5-year reviews and not from RSEs

conducted as part of this project.

4. LTRA refers to Long-term Remedial Action, the first 10 years of operation and function of a Superfund restoration action for surface

or groundwater. Operation and maintenance costs of the remedy are 90% funded by Superfund and 10% funded by the associated State

during this time period. Thereafter, 100% of the costs are assumed by the States.

5. “Estimated Time Remaining in LTRA” and “Expected Duration” are calculated by determining the number of years between January 1,

2002 and time frame estimates provided by the site Remedial Project Managers. For some systems where the expected system

duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may underestimate the expected duration of systems,

especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL. 

6. Annual O&M costs are estimates and include such components as labor, utilities, materials, analytical costs, etc.

7. Expected costs are presented in net present value, calculated with a 5% discount rate with no discounting in the first year.
31

Table 4-9: Region 10 Fund-lead P&T System Performance and Cost Information

Site

Performance &

Effectiveness

Estimated

Remaining

Time in

LTRA

(yrs)

Estimated

Duration

(yrs)

Annual 

O&M

($/yr)

Expected

Remaining

Cost for

LTRA

O&M

Expected

Total

Remaining

O&M Cost 

Operational Systems

Boomsnub/Airco Sufficient 9.9 28.8 $1,000K $8.1M $15.8M

Commencement

Bay/ South

Tacoma

Channel, Well

12A

Not Sufficient 2.0 9.0 $300K $0.6M $2.2M

McCormick &

Baxter

Sufficient 4.2 Indefinite $250K $1.0M Indefinite

Wyckoff/Eagle

Harbor

Not Sufficient 22.0 Indefinite $500K $6.9M Indefinite

Pre-operational Systems

Bunker Hill Not Evaluated 10.0 30.0 Unknown Unknown Unknown

Total >$2.1M >$16.6M >$25.9M

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may

vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.

Notes:

1. Fund-lead P&T systems: systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and oversight is

provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.

2. Systems that appear in bold were selected for Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs).

3. Descriptions of “Performance and Effectiveness” refer to results from previous evaluations such as 5-year reviews and not from RSEs

conducted as part of this project.

4. LTRA refers to Long-term Remedial Action, the first 10 years of operation and function of a Superfund restoration action for surface

or groundwater. Operation and maintenance costs of the remedy are 90% funded by Superfund and 10% funded by the associated State

during this time period. Thereafter, 100% of the costs are assumed by the States.

5. “Estimated Time Remaining in LTRA” and “Expected Duration” are calculated by determining the number of years between January 1,

2002 and time frame estimates provided by the site Remedial Project Managers. For some systems where the expected system

duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may underestimate the expected duration of systems,

especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL. 

6. Annual O&M costs are estimates and include such components as labor, utilities, materials, analytical costs, etc.

7. Expected costs are presented in net present value, calculated with a 5% discount rate with no discounting in the first year.

8. The sum of “Total Expected Remaining Cost” includes the LTRA costs for McCormick & Baxter and Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor as it is

expected that O&M will continue at this system beyond LTRA.

9. The “Estimated Time Remaining in LTRA” exceeds 10 years for Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor because this remedy is part of a source control

action.
32

Table 4-10: Future O&M Costs of Fund-lead P&T Systems Expected to be Incurred by each

State after LTRA

State

Number of

Systems

Total O&M Cost Expected to be Incurred by State after LTRA

 NPV (Discount Rate of 5%) No Discounting

Arkansas 1 $2.6M $5.4M

California 4 $15.5M $32.0M

Florida 4 Unknown Unknown

Idaho 1 Unknown Unknown

Illinois 1 $0.2M $0.2M

Indiana 1 $1.0M $2.4M

Kansas 1 $0.6M $1.0M

Louisiana 2 $4.5M $7.2M

Maine 1 $0.0M $0.0M

Massachusetts 4 $56.8M $99.6M

Michigan 6 > $21.1M > $48.8M

Minnesota 3 $4.4M $8.4M

Missouri 1 Unknown Unknown

Nebraska 1 $0.5M $1.0M

New Hampshire 3 $0.5M $0.5M

New Jersey 12 $69.4M $154.7M

New Mexico 1 Unknown Unknown

New York 10 $24.4M $49.6M

North Carolina 4 >$0.2M >$0.3M

Oregon 1 Unknown Unknown

Pennsylvania 10 $24.2M $56.5M

South Carolina 2 $1.0M $1.8M

Texas 5 > $8.2M > $18.4M

Virginia 2 $1.9M $3.6M

Washington 3 > $9.3M > $21.0M

Wisconsin 4 > $5.4M > $10.3M

Total 88 > $251.7M > $522.7M

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may

vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.

Notes:

1. Fund-lead P&T systems are those systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and

oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.

2. Annual O&M costs are estimates and include such components as labor, utilities, materials, analytical costs, etc.

3. “Total O&M Cost Expected to be Incurred by State” refers to those costs incurred by the State after the Long-term Remedial Action

(LTRA). LTRA is the first 10 years of operation and function of a Superfund restoration action for surface or groundwater. Operation

and maintenance costs of the remedy are 90% funded by Superfund and 10% funded by the associated State during this time period. 

Thereafter, 100% of the costs are assumed by the States.

4. For some systems where the expected system duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may

underestimate the expected duration of systems, especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater

contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL. 
33

Table 4-11: Region 1 Fund-lead P&T System O&M Costs According to State

Site

Expected

date of

Transition

Annual O&M

Cost ($/yr)

Expected Cost to be Incurred by State

after LTRA

NPV (Discount

Rate of 5%) No Discounting

Maine

Eastern Surplus 9/2011 $200K $0.0M $0.0M

Massachusetts

Baird and McGuire 4/2004 $3,500K $39.9M $66.5M

Charles George Landfill 9/2009 $450K $3.9M $8.6M

Groveland Wells 4/2011 $500K $4.2M $10.0M

Silresim Chemical 9/2007 $1,400K $8.8M $14.4M

New Hampshire

Kearsarge Metallurgical 9/2003 $250K $0.5M $0.5M

Keefe 9/2003 $200K $0.0M $0.0M

Savage Well 3/2009 $500K $0.0M $0.0M

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may

vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.

Notes:

1. Fund-lead P&T systems are those systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and

oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.

2. Systems that appear in bold were selected for Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs).

3. Annual O&M costs are estimates and include such components as labor, utilities, materials, analytical costs, etc.

4. “Expected Cost to be Incurred by State” refers to those costs incurred by the State after the Long-term Remedial Action (LTRA). LTRA

is the first 10 years of operation and function of a Superfund restoration action for surface or groundwater. Operation and maintenance

costs of the remedy are 90% funded by Superfund and 10% funded by the associated State during this time period. Thereafter, 100%

of the costs are assumed by the States.

5. For systems where site Remedial Project Managers estimated remedy completion earlier than the end of LTRA, expected costs after

LTRA appear as $0.0M.

6. For some systems where the expected system duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may

underestimate the expected duration of systems, especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater

contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL. Therefore, total future cost estimates for some sites could be underestimated.
34

Table 4-12: Region 2 Fund-lead P&T System O&M Costs According to State

Site

Expected

date of

Transition

Annual O&M

Cost ($/yr)

Expected Cost to be Incurred by State

after LTRA

NPV (Discount

Rate of 5%) No Discounting

New Jersey

Bog Creek 9/2004 $460K $5.3M $9.3M

Combe Fill South 9/2008 $920K $8.7M $18.4M

Dover Municipal Well 4 Unknown Unknown $0.0M $0.0M

Garden State Cleaners 10/2009 $500K $4.5M $10.0M

Higgins Farm 1/2009 $1,000K $9.2M $19.7M

Lang Property 10/2005 $700K $0.0M $0.0M

Lipari Landfill 10/2019 $2,500K $0.0M $0.0M

Metal TEC/Aerosystems Unknown Unknown $0.0M $0.0M

Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill 9/2013 $400K $3.2M $8.0M

Syncon Resins 4/2001 $350K $5.4M $9.3M

Vineland Chemical 6/2011 $4,000K $33.1M $80.0M

Williams Property 6/2001 $350K $0.0M $0.0M

New York

American Thermostat 10/2008 $1,175K $11.1M $23.4M

Brewster Well Field 10/2007 $400K $0.0M $0.0M

Circuitron 6/2010 $480K $0.0M $0.0M

Claremont Polychemical 2/2010 $740K $4.0M $7.4M

Islip Municipal Landfill 9/2006 $225K $0.0M $0.0M

Mattiace Petrochemical 3/2009 $700K $6.6M $14.3M

Mohonk Road 7/2011 Unknown $0.0M $0.0M

SMS Instruments 6/2005 $400K $0.0M $0.0M

Stanton Cleaners 9/2011 $270K $1.4M $2.7M

Vestal Water Supply 3/2005 $180K $1.3M $1.8M

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These

estimates may vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.

Notes:

1. Fund-lead P&T systems are those systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and

oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.

2. Systems that appear in bold were selected for Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs).

3. Annual O&M costs are estimates and include such components as labor, utilities, materials, analytical costs, etc.

4. “Expected Cost to be Incurred by State” refers to those costs incurred by the State after the Long-term Remedial Action (LTRA). LTRA

is the first 10 years of operation and function of a Superfund restoration action for surface or groundwater. Operation and maintenance

costs of the remedy are 90% funded by Superfund and 10% funded by the associated State during this time period. Thereafter, 100%

of the costs are assumed by the States.

5. For systems where site Remedial Project Managers estimated remedy completion earlier than the end of LTRA, expected costs after

LTRA appear as $0.0M.

6. For some systems where the expected system duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may

underestimate the expected duration of systems, especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater

contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL. Therefore, total future cost estimates for some sites could be underestimated.
35

Table 4-13: Region 3 Fund-lead P&T System O&M Costs According to State

Site

Expected

date of

Transition

Annual O&M

Cost ($/yr)

Expected Cost to be Incurred by State

after LTRA

NPV (Discount

Rate of 5%) No Discounting

Pennsylvania

AIW Frank 9/2011 $180K $1.5M $3.6M

Berks Sand Pit 2/2005 $150K $0.0M $0.0M

Butz Landfill 4/2011 $250K $2.1M $5.0M

Croydon TCE 3/2005 $200K $2.2M $4.0M

CryoChem 6/2008 $125K $0.2M $0.3M

Hellertown Manufacturing 9/2006 $350K $3.6M $7.0M

North Penn Area 1 9/2008 $100K $0.6M $1.0M

Raymark 1/2004 $156K $1.1M $1.6M

Havertown PCP 4/2012 $1,000K $8.2M $21.0M

North Penn Area 6 6/2013 $592K $4.7M $11.9M

Virginia

Greenwood Chemical 11/2011 $400K $1.9M $3.6M

Saunders Supply 5/2009 $80K $0.0M $0.0M

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may

vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.

Notes:

1. Fund-lead P&T systems are those systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and

oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.

2. Systems that appear in bold were selected for Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs).

3. Annual O&M costs are estimates and include such components as labor, utilities, materials, analytical costs, etc.

4. “Expected Cost to be Incurred by State” refers to those costs incurred by the State after the Long-term Remedial Action (LTRA). LTRA

is the first 10 years of operation and function of a Superfund restoration action for surface or groundwater. Operation and maintenance

costs of the remedy are 90% funded by Superfund and 10% funded by the associated State during this time period. Thereafter, 100%

of the costs are assumed by the States.

5. For systems where site Remedial Project Managers estimated remedy completion earlier than the end of LTRA, expected costs after

LTRA appear as $0.0M.

6. For some systems where the expected system duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may

underestimate the expected duration of systems, especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater

contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL. Therefore, total future cost estimates for some sites could be underestimated.
36

Table 4-14: Region 4 Fund-lead P&T System O&M Costs According to State

Site

Expected

date of

Transition

Annual O&M

Cost ($/yr)

Expected Cost to be Incurred by State

after LTRA

NPV (Discount

Rate of 5%) No Discounting

Florida

American Creosote Works

(DNAPL)

5/2003 $300K $0.0M $0.0M

American Creosote Works

(solute)

9/2014 $452K $0.0M $0.0M

Coleman Evans Wood

Preserving

Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Miami Drum 9/2002 $1,000K Unknown Unknown

North Carolina

ABC Cleaners Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Benfield Industries 5/2011 $30K $0.2M $0.3M

Cape Fear Wood Preserving 10/2011 $40K $0.0M $0.0M

FCX Statesville 5/2008 $150K $0.0M $0.0M

South Carolina

Elmore Waste Disposal 9/2008 $180K $1.0M $1.8M

Palmetto Wood 5/2008 $300K $0.0M $0.0M

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may

vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.

Notes:

1. Fund-lead P&T systems are those systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and

oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.

2. Systems that appear in bold were selected for Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs).

3. Annual O&M costs are estimates and include such components as labor, utilities, materials, analytical costs, etc.

4. “Expected Cost to be Incurred by State” refers to those costs incurred by the State after the Long-term Remedial Action (LTRA). LTRA

is the first 10 years of operation and function of a Superfund restoration action for surface or groundwater. Operation and maintenance

costs of the remedy are 90% funded by Superfund and 10% funded by the associated State during this time period. Thereafter, 100%

of the costs are assumed by the States.

5. For systems where site Remedial Project Managers estimated remedy completion earlier than the end of LTRA, expected costs after

LTRA appear as $0.0M.

6. For some systems where the expected system duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may

underestimate the expected duration of systems, especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater

contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL. Therefore, total future cost estimates for some sites could be underestimated.
37

Table 4-15: Region 5 Fund-lead P&T System O&M Costs According to State

Site

Expected

date of

Transition

Annual O&M

Cost ($/yr)

Expected Cost to be Incurred by State

after LTRA

NPV (Discount

Rate of 5%) No Discounting

Illinois

La Salle 3/2004 $230K $0.2M $0.2M

Indiana

Douglass Road 9/2010 $120K $1.0M $2.4M

Michigan

Duell and Gardner 7/2011 Unknown Unknown $0.0M

Ott/Story 8/2010 $2,400K $20.7M $48.0M

Peerless Plating Unknown $400K Unknown $0.0M

U.S. Aviex 9/2003 $300K $0.0M $0.0M

Verona 6/2006 $225K Unknown Unknown

Wash King 4/2011 $75K $0.4M $0.8M

Minnesota

Arrowhead Refinery 7/2003 $70K $0.1M $0.1M

Long Prairie 10/2007 $300K $1.6M $2.4M

MacGillis & Gibbs 10/2009 $300K $2.7M $6.0M

Wisconsin

Better Brite 6/2006 $36K $0.5M $0.9M

Eau Claire Unknown $175K Unknown Unknown

Oconomowoc 9/2006 $471K $4.9M $9.4M

Onalaska 6/2004 $200K $0.0M $0.0M

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These

estimates may vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.

Notes:

1. Fund-lead P&T systems are those systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and

oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.

2. Systems that appear in bold were selected for Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs).

3. Annual O&M costs are estimates and include such components as labor, utilities, materials, analytical costs, etc.

4. “Expected Cost to be Incurred by State” refers to those costs incurred by the State after the Long-term Remedial Action (LTRA). LTRA

is the first 10 years of operation and function of a Superfund restoration action for surface or groundwater. Operation and maintenance

costs of the remedy are 90% funded by Superfund and 10% funded by the associated State during this time period. Thereafter, 100%

of the costs are assumed by the States.

5. For systems where site Remedial Project Managers estimated remedy completion earlier than the end of LTRA, expected costs after

LTRA appear as $0.0M.

6. For some systems where the expected system duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may

underestimate the expected duration of systems, especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater

contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL. Therefore, total future cost estimates for some sites could be underestimated.
38

Table 4-16: Region 6 Fund-lead P&T System O&M Costs According to State

Site

Expected

date of

Transition

Annual O&M

Cost ($/yr)

Expected Cost to be Incurred by State

after LTRA

NPV (Discount

Rate of 5%) No Discounting

Arkansas

Midland Products 1/2004 $180K $2.6M $5.4M

Louisiana

American Creosote Works 2/2027 $360K $0.0M $0.0M

Bayou Bonfouca 7/2003 $402K $4.5M $7.2M

New Mexico

Cimarron Mining 10/2004 $1,000K Unknown Unknown

Texas

City of Perryton Well #2 8/2013 $37K $0.2M $0.4M

Geneva Industries 1/2004 $240K $0.0M $0.0M

North Cavalcade 12/2005 Unknown Unknown Unknown

Odessa Chromium #1 12/2001 $500K $0.0M $0.0M

Sprague Road 9/2013 $1,200K $8.0M $18.0M

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may

vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.

Notes:

1. Fund-lead P&T systems are those systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and

oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.

2. Systems that appear in bold were selected for Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs).

3. Annual O&M costs are estimates and include such components as labor, utilities, materials, analytical costs, etc.

4. “Expected Cost to be Incurred by State” refers to those costs incurred by the State after the Long-term Remedial Action (LTRA). LTRA

is the first 10 years of operation and function of a Superfund restoration action for surface or groundwater. Operation and maintenance

costs of the remedy are 90% funded by Superfund and 10% funded by the associated State during this time period. Thereafter, 100%

of the costs are assumed by the States.

5. For systems where site Remedial Project Managers estimated remedy completion earlier than the end of LTRA, expected costs after

LTRA appear as $0.0M.

6. For some systems where the expected system duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may

underestimate the expected duration of systems, especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater

contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL. Therefore, total future cost estimates for some sites could be underestimated.
39

Table 4-17: Region 7 Fund-lead P&T System O&M Costs According to State

Site

Expected

date of

Transition

Annual O&M

Cost ($/yr)

Expected Cost to be Incurred by State

after LTRA

NPV (Discount

Rate of 5%) No Discounting

Kansas

Ace Services 9/2013 $500K $0.6M $1.0M

Missouri

Valley Park TCE/OU2 1/2006 Unknown Unknown Unknown

Nebraska

Cleburn Street Well Site/OU2 12/2009 $100K $0.5M $1.0M

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may

vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.

Notes:

1. Fund-lead P&T systems are those systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and

oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.

2. Systems that appear in bold were selected for Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs).

3. Annual O&M costs are estimates and include such components as labor, utilities, materials, analytical costs, etc.

4. “Expected Cost to be Incurred by State” refers to those costs incurred by the State after the Long-term Remedial Action (LTRA). LTRA

is the first 10 years of operation and function of a Superfund restoration action for surface or groundwater. Operation and maintenance

costs of the remedy are 90% funded by Superfund and 10% funded by the associated State during this time period. Thereafter, 100%

of the costs are assumed by the States.

5. For systems where site Remedial Project Managers estimated remedy completion earlier than the end of LTRA, expected costs after

LTRA appear as $0.0M.

6. For some systems where the expected system duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may

underestimate the expected duration of systems, especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater

contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL. Therefore, total future cost estimates for some sites could be underestimated.
40

Table 4-18: Region 9 Fund-lead P&T System O&M Costs According to State

Site

Expected

date of

Transition

Annual O&M

Cost ($/yr)

Expected Cost to be Incurred by State

after LTRA

NPV (Discount

Rate of 5%) No Discounting

California

Modesto 5/2012 $300K $1.5M $3.0M

Muscoy 10/2014 $1,100K $5.5M $11.0M

Newmark 10/2008 $900K $8.5M $18.0M

Selma Treating Co. 10/2008 $300K $0.0M $0.0M

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may

vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.

Notes:

1. Fund-lead P&T systems are those systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and

oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.

2. Systems that appear in bold were selected for Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs).

3. Annual O&M costs are estimates and include such components as labor, utilities, materials, analytical costs, etc.

4. “Expected Cost to be Incurred by State” refers to those costs incurred by the State after the Long-term Remedial Action (LTRA). LTRA

is the first 10 years of operation and function of a Superfund restoration action for surface or groundwater. Operation and maintenance

costs of the remedy are 90% funded by Superfund and 10% funded by the associated State during this time period. Thereafter, 100%

of the costs are assumed by the States.

5. For systems where site Remedial Project Managers estimated remedy completion earlier than the end of LTRA, expected costs after

LTRA appear as $0.0M.

6. For some systems where the expected system duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may

underestimate the expected duration of systems, especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater

contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL. Therefore, total future cost estimates for some sites could be underestimated.
41

Table 4-19: Region 10 Fund-lead P&T System O&M Costs According to State

Site

Expected

date of

Transition

Annual O&M

Cost ($/yr)

Expected Cost to be Incurred by State

after LTRA

NPV (Discount

Rate of 5%) No Discounting

Idaho

Bunker Hill 12/2030 Unknown Unknown Unknown

Oregon

McCormick & Baxter 3/2006 $250K Unknown Unknown

Washington

Boomsnub/Airco 12/2011 $1,000K $7.7M $18.9M

Commencement Bay/South

Tacoma Channel, Well 12A

1/2004 $300K $1.6M $2.1M

Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor 1/2024 $500K Unknown Unknown

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may

vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.

Notes:

1. Fund-lead P&T systems are those systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and

oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.

2. Systems that appear in bold were selected for Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs).

3. Annual O&M costs are estimates and include such components as labor, utilities, materials, analytical costs, etc.

4. “Expected Cost to be Incurred by State” refers to those costs incurred by the State after the Long-term Remedial Action (LTRA). LTRA

is the first 10 years of operation and function of a Superfund restoration action for surface or groundwater. Operation and maintenance

costs of the remedy are 90% funded by Superfund and 10% funded by the associated State during this time period. Thereafter, 100%

of the costs are assumed by the States.

5. For systems where site Remedial Project Managers estimated remedy completion earlier than the end of LTRA, expected costs after

LTRA appear as $0.0M.

6. For some systems where the expected system duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may

underestimate the expected duration of systems, especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater

contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL. Therefore, total future cost estimates for some sites could be underestimated.
42

Table 4-20: Categories of Contaminants Prevalent at Sites with Fund-lead P&T Systems

Contaminant Category

Number of Systems that Address that Contaminant

Category

Chlorinated solvents and degradation products:

• tetrachloroethylene (PCE)

• trichloroethylene (TCE)

• dichloroethlyene (DCE)

• trichloroethane (TCA)

• dichloroethane (DCA)

• methylene chloride

• vinyl chloride

56 of 88 systems

BTEX (one or more of the following):

• benzene

• toluene

• ethylbenze

• xylene

19 of 88 systems

Metals

• Arsenic

• Cadmium

• Chromium

• other metals

22 of 88 systems

Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs):

• anthracene

• benzo(a)pyrene

• benzo(k)fluoranthene

• fluoranthene

• napthalene

• other PAHs

17 of 88 systems

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may

vary from actuality. Data, including the number and status of systems and contaminants of concern, may change over time.

Notes:

1. Fund-lead P&T systems are those systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and

oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.

2. Individual systems may address more than one contaminant.

3. Presented data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates,

including the number and status of systems and contaminants of concern, may change over time.
43

5.0 SYSTEM SCREENING AND PRIORITIZATION WITH RESPECT TO

OPTIMIZATION POTENTIAL

A simple spreadsheet screening process was developed and implemented by the project team for

assessing the optimization potential of each Fund-lead P&T system. The screening process consists of

the following steps:

• calculate the “Baseline Present Value ($)” of the system by multiplying the annual cost by the

estimated system duration, and including a discount rate (5%) to account for the future value of

money;

• assume that a typical RSE will save 20% of the annual cost of the system;

• determine site-specific “Estimated Potential Reduction in Life-cycle Costs (%)” from an RSE by

adjusting the assumed 20% savings according to site-specific factors that increase or decrease the

likelihood that savings will be identified by the RSE process; and 

• determine “Estimated Potential Life-cycle Savings ($)” from an RSE by multiplying the “Baseline

Present Value ($)” by the “Estimated Potential Reduction in Life Cycle Costs (%)”, and

subtracting the approximate cost of a RSE evaluation ($25,000). 

The factors that were used to calculate the site-specific “Estimated Potential Reduction in Life-cycle

Costs (%)” (starting from the assumed 20% value) are listed in Table 5-1. The base savings value of

20%, and the subsequent adjustment factors, were determined by consensus of the project team based on

the assumption that, on average, all systems can benefit from optimization and more complex systems

would have greater opportunity for improvement. For each item, a “blank” response was allowed, and

did not impact the calculations. A positive adjustment was made to “Estimated Potential Reduction in

Life-cycle Costs (%)” for items that would increase the optimization potential (e.g., many wells, high

pumping rate, many above-ground treatment processes), and a negative adjustment was made to

“Estimated Potential Reduction in Life-cycle Costs (%)” for items that would decrease the optimization

potential (e.g., few pumping wells, short system duration). The “Estimated Potential Reduction in Lifecycle Costs (%)” was not allowed to be less than 5%, and not allowed to be greater than 45%. The

purpose of this step was to identify systems with the highest potential for cost reduction and those most

likely to benefit from optimization. All potential cost savings are estimates and are intended to be used

primarily for prioritizing systems.

Summaries of the screening calculations are included in the screening summary reports for each Region,

which are provided as Appendix B. The actual screening calculations for each system are presented in

Appendix C. Note that these calculation are all based on estimates provided by the RPMs, and in some

cases the “Estimated Potential Savings ($)” is negative, indicating that the estimated potential savings

from an RSE are not anticipated to offset the cost of the RSE itself.
44

Table 5-1: Site-Specific Criteria Used to Calculate the “Estimated Potential Life-cycle 

Savings (%)” from Optimization of each of the Identified Fund-lead P&T Systems (Page 1 of 2)

Result of performance and effectiveness evaluation (item 29, Section 3.0)

+0.0% default for blank value

+2.5% performance & effectiveness not evaluated

+5.0% performance & effectiveness evaluated and found not sufficient

-2.5% performance & effectiveness evaluated and found sufficient

Number of pumping wells (item 18, Section 3.0)

+0.0% default for blank value

+0.0% no wells (e.g., drains, etc.)

-5.0% 1 to 2 wells

-2.5% 3 to 4 wells

+0.0% 5 to 9 wells

+2.5% 10 or more wells

Pumping rate (item 17, Section 3.0)

+0.0% default for blank value

-5.0% <10 gpm

-2.5% 10 to 99.99 gpm

+0.0% 100 to 500 gpm

+2.5% >500 gpm

Down time per year (item 23, Section 3.0)

+0.0% default for blank value

+0.0% <2 wks

+2.5% 2.00 - 3.99 wks

+5.0% 4 wks or more

Number of above-ground treatment processes (item 24, Section 3.0)

+0.0% default for blank value

-2.5% 0 or 1 processes

+0.0% 2 processes

+2.5% 3 processes

+5.0% 4 processes

Groundwater monitoring (number wells × events per year)

(items 25-26, Section 3.0)

+0.0% default for blank value

-2.5% <25

+0.0% 25 to 49

+2.5% 50 to 74

+5.0% >75

Expected duration (item 22, Section 3.0)

+0.0% default for blank value

-20.0% <2 yrs

-15.0% 2.00 - 4.99yrs

-5.0% 5.00 - 9.99 yrs

-2.5% 10.00 - 19.99 yrs

+0.0% 20 yrs or more
45

Table 5-1: Site-Specific Criteria Used to Calculate the “Estimated Potential Life-cycle 

Savings (%)” from Optimization of each of the Identified Fund-lead P&T Systems (Page 1 of 2)

Difficulty in making minor changes to system due to political/social

factors (item 30, Section 3.0)

-5.0% default for blank value

-10.0% severe difficulty expected

-5.0% moderate difficulty expected

+0.0% little difficulty expected
46

6.0 SYSTEM SELECTION

The intent of the project was to select two operational Fund-lead P&T systems in each Region to receive

RSEs. However, the site-identification process demonstrated that Region 7 had only one operational

Fund-lead P&T system and Region 8 had none. As a result, these extra three RSEs were allocated to

other Regions. 

The selection of systems was based on satisfying most of the following factors:

• system is operating (required)

• Region agreed system is suitable for optimization (required)

• system effectiveness is questioned or found not sufficient

• system has high potential for life-cycle cost-savings ($), based on the screening calculations,

relative to other systems

• no major problems identified for potentially implementing RSE recommendations

• RPM request for involvement

For a variety of reasons, including recent optimization or litigation, some of the systems with the highest

potential for life-cycle savings in a Region were not selected for RSEs. Narratives describing the system

selection for each Region are included the Regional summary screening reports included in Appendix B. 

Table 6-1 lists for each Region the systems selected to receive RSEs and the “Estimated Potential Savings

($)” from system optimization.

Table 6-2 ranks each Fund-lead P&T system according to “Estimated Potential Life-cycle Savings ($)” as

calculated by the screening methodology. In addition, the systems that were selected for RSEs appear in

bold. A graphical representation of this table is presented in Figure 6-1. Three of the top four ranked

systems were selected for RSEs. Out of 20 total RSEs, 14 of them were allocated to a system that is

ranked in the top 44 systems (top 50%). Summing the “Estimated Potential Life-cycle Savings ($)” of

the systems selected for RSEs, the screening methodology suggests a total potential savings of

approximately $48 million. The methodology also suggests approximately $134 million could be saved

if RSEs are conducted at all 68 of the systems that indicate a positive “Estimated Potential Life-cycle

Savings ($)”.

Because the screening methodology is sensitive to the estimated duration of the P&T systems and this

estimated duration could vary significantly from actuality, it is of significant interest to rank the systems

according to estimated annual O&M costs. This ranking is provided in Table 6-3 and shown graphically

in Figure 6-2. Figure 6-2 also shows the cumulative contribution of the systems to the total annual cost. 

It appears that 13 of the systems account for over 50% of the annual O&M costs of all systems

combined. Regarding these thirteen systems, the following issues should be noted:

• three are selected to receive RSEs;

• one has previously received an RSE (by USACE);
47

• one has recently received an outside optimization evaluation;

• three are pre-operational and were therefore not selected to receive RSEs; and 

• the remaining five were deemed inappropriate by the Regions for outside evaluations.
Figure 6-1: Fund-lead P&T Systems Ranked by "Estimated Potential Life

cycle Savings ($)" 

$0

$2,000,000$4,000,000$6,000,000$8,000,000

$10,000,000$12,000,000$14,000,000

1 11 21 31 41 51 61

Site Rank

Estimated Potential Life-cycle Savings 

($)

Systems Selected for RSEs

$18,300,000

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may vary from actual values. 

and status of systems, may change over time.

Notes:

1. Fund-lead P&T systems refers to systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and oversight is provided by the E

support from Superfund.

2. “Estimated Potential Life-cycle Savings ($)” is calculated based on the screening methodology summarized in Section 5.0 and Table 5-1. The screening calcul

presented in Appendix C and summarized in Appendix B.

3. Values are shown for the 68 systems with positive “Estimated Potential Life-cycle Savings ($)” . This parameter was less than zero for 12 systems and could n

because of incomplete cost data.

4. For some systems where the expected system duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may underestimate the expected du

those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL. Therefore, life-cycle costs and life-cycle cost savinsome sites.

5. Cost information was reported for 79 of the 88 Fund-lead P&T systems. Costs for the remaining 9 systems are shown as $0 in this figure.
Figure 6-2: Fund-lead P&T Systems Ranked by Annual O&M Cost and t

Cumulative Distribution of System Annual O&M Costs

$0

$500

$1,000$1,500$2,000$2,500$3,000$3,500$4,000

1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81

The 88 Fund-lead P&T Systems Ranked by Estimated Annual O&M Costs

Annual O&M Cost ($1,000/year)

01234567891

System Annual O&M CostsCumulative Distribution ofAnnual O&M Costs

The top 13 systems represent over 50% of the total reported annual O&M cost for all systems

Systems Selected for RSEs

The top 13 systems each cost over $1,000,000 per year.

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may vary from actual values. 

and status of systems, may change over time.

Notes:

1. Fund-lead P&T systems refers to systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and oversight is provided by the E

support from Superfund.

2. Annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are estimates and include such items as labor, utilities, materials, analytical work, etc.3. Cost information was reported for 79 of the 88 Fund-lead P&T systems. Costs for the remaining 9 systems are shown as $0 in this figure.
50

Table 6-1: For each Region Systems Selected for RSEs and the “Estimated Potential Life-cycle

Savings ($)” Suggested by Screening Analysis

Region Number of Systems Selected

Estimated Potential 

Life-cycle Savings ($)**

Region 1 Baird and McGuire $12,402,549

Savage Municipal Water Supply Well $934,042

Silresim Chemical Corp. $6,025,600

Region 2 Claremont Polychemical $2,578,700

Mattiace Petrochemical $2,357,411

Brewster Well Field $317,513

Region 3 Hellertown Manufacturing $979,619

Raymark $216,640

Region 4 Elmore Waste Disposal (RSE demonstration project) $375,872

FCX Statesville (RSE demonstration project) $134,513

Region 5 MacGillis and Gibbs (RSE demonstration project) $1,399,624

Oconomowoc Electroplating (RSE demonstration project) $1,590,721

Ott/Story $14,418,502

Region 6 Bayou Bonfouca $1,233,790

Midland Products $528,408

Region 7 Cleburn St. Well $179,042

Region 8 — —

Region 9 Modesto $730,227

Selma Pressure Treating $261,332

Region 10 Commencement Bay/South Tacoma Channel, Well 12A $465,677

McCormick and Baxter $1,127,934

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may

vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.

Notes:

1. Fund-lead P&T systems refers to systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and

oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.

2. “Estimated Potential Life-cycle Savings ($)” is calculated based on the screening methodology summarized in Section 5.0 and Table 5-

1. The screening calculations for each system are presented in Appendix C and summarized in Appendix B.

3. Modesto is classified as a pre-operational system; however, it will have changed status and have operated for two months prior to the

RSE visit.
51

Table 6-2: Fund-lead P&T Systems Ranked in Terms of “Estimated Potential Life-cycle 

Savings ($)” as Calculated by the Screening Methodology (Page 1 of 4)

Rank Site name Region

Estimated

Potential

Reduction in 

Life-cycle Costs

Estimated

Potential Lifecycle Savings 

($)

1 Vineland Chemical Co. 2 30.0% $18,266,000

2 Ott/Story/Cordova Chem Co. 5 40.0% $14,419,000

3 Baird & McGuire Superfund Site 1 27.5% $12,403,000

4 Silresim Chemical Corp. 1 40.0% $6,026,000

5 Higgins Farm 2 40.0% $5,799,000

6 Sprague Road Ground Water Plume 6 32.5% $5,653,000

7 Combe Fill South Landfill 2 38.0% $5,065,000

8 American Thermostat 2 29.5% $5,022,000

9 Boomsnub/Airco / Site-Wide Ground Water OU 10 27.5% $4,124,000

10 Muscoy 9 27.0% $3,959,000

11 Havertown PCP OU2 3 25.5% $3,895,000

12 Newmark 9 25.5% $3,322,000

13 North Penn Area 6 3 35.5% $3,211,000

14 Claremont Polychemical 2 30.0% $2,579,000

15 Garden State Cleaners/South Jersey Clothing Company 2 32.5% $2,383,000

16 Mattiace Petrochemical 2 23.0% $2,357,000

17 Cimarron Mining 6 15.0% $2,281,000

18 Groveland Wells Superfund Site 1 27.5% $2,066,000

19 Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site 10 25.5% $1,935,000

20 Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill 2 30.5% $1,850,000

21 Bog Creek Farm LTRA 2 30.0% $1,833,000

22 Oconomowoc Electroplating 5 24.5% $1,591,000

23 Ace Services 7 32.5% $1,557,000

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may

vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.

Notes:

1. Fund-lead P&T systems refers to systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and

oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.

2. “Estimated Potential Life-cycle Savings ($)” is calculated based on the screening methodology summarized in Section 5.0 and Table 5-

1. The screening calculations for each system are presented in Appendix C and summarized in Appendix B.

3. For a variety of reasons, including recent optimization or litigation, some of the systems with the highest potential for life-cycle

savings in a Region were not selected for RSEs. Narratives describing the system selection for each Region are included the

Regional summary screening reports included in Appendix B. 

4. For some systems where the expected system duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may

underestimate the expected duration of systems, especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater

contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL. Therefore, life-cycle costs and life-cycle cost savings could be underestimated for some

sites.
52

Table 6-2: Fund-lead P&T Systems Ranked in Terms of “Estimated Potential Life-cycle 

Savings ($)” as Calculated by the Screening Methodology (Page 2 of 4)

Rank Site name Region

Estimated

Potential

Reduction in 

Life-cycle Costs

Estimated

Potential Lifecycle Savings 

($)

24 Greenwood Chemical Site 3 32.5% $1,538,000

25 Syncon Resins 2 28.0% $1,402,000

26 MacGillis and Gibbs/Bell Lumber & Pole 5 32.0% $1,400,000

27 Bayou Bonfouca 6 25.5% $1,234,000

28 Lipari Landfill site 2 17.5% $1,136,000

29 McCormick & Baxter Creosoting Co. 10 30.0% $1,128,000

30 Charles George Landfill Superfund Site 1 17.5% $1,122,000

31 American Creosote Works 6 22.0% $1,094,000

32 Hellertown Manufacturing 3 20.5% $980,000

33 Savage Well Municipal Water System 1 32.5% $934,000

34 Butz Landfill 3 25.0% $925,000

35 Stanton Cleaners Area Groundwater Contamination Site 2 28.0% $908,000

36 Verona Well Field 5 25.5% $857,000

37 AIW Frank/Mid-County Mustang Site, OU#1 3 28.0% $746,000

38 Modesto Superfund Site 9 20.0% $730,000

39 Douglass Road 5 32.5% $563,000

40 Midland Products 6 20.0% $528,000

41 Croydon TCE 3 20.0% $517,000

42 American Creosote Works (solute) 4 17.5% $469,000

43 Commencement Bay, South Tacoma Channel, Well 10 23.0% $466,000

44 Long Prairie 5 15.5% $430,000

45 Elmore Waste Disposal 4 20.0% $376,000

46 Brewster Wellfield 2 17.5% $318,000

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may

vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.

Notes:

1. Fund-lead P&T systems refers to systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and

oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.

2. “Estimated Potential Life-cycle Savings ($)” is calculated based on the screening methodology summarized in Section 5.0 and Table 5-

1. The screening calculations for each system are presented in Appendix C and summarized in Appendix B.

3. For a variety of reasons, including recent optimization or litigation, some of the systems with the highest potential for life-cycle

savings in a Region were not selected for RSEs. Narratives describing the system selection for each Region are included the

Regional summary screening reports included in Appendix B. 

4. For some systems where the expected system duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may

underestimate the expected duration of systems, especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater

contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL. Therefore, life-cycle costs and life-cycle cost savings could be underestimated for some

sites.
53

Table 6-2: Fund-lead P&T Systems Ranked in Terms of “Estimated Potential Life-cycle 

Savings ($)” as Calculated by the Screening Methodology (Page 3 of 4)

Rank Site name Region

Estimated

Potential

Reduction in 

Life-cycle Costs

Estimated

Potential Lifecycle Savings 

($)

47 Palmetto Wood 4 18.0% $262,000

48 Selma Treating Co. 9 17.0% $261,000

49 Eastern Surplus Company Superfund Site 1 28.0% $246,000

50 Raymark 3 17.5% $217,000

51 Wash King Laundry 5 23.0% $185,000

52 Cleburn Street Well Site/OU2 7 17.5% $179,000

53 Vestal Water Supply Well 1-1 2 10.0% $146,000

54 FCX Statesville 4 20.0% $135,000

55 North Penn Area 1 3 10.0% $86,000

56 Lang Property 2 5.0% $63,000

57 City of Perryton Well #2 6 17.5% $59,000

58 La Salle Electrical Utilities 5 12.5% $57,000

59 Kearsarge Metallurgical Corp. 1 10.0% $57,000

60 Saunders Supply Company 3 17.0% $47,000

61 CryoChem 3 8.0% $42,000

62 Better Brite Plating Co. Chrome and Zinc Shops 5 12.0% $40,000

63 SMS Instruments 2 7.5% $35,000

64 Cape Fear Wood Preserving 4 22.5% $33,000

65 Benfield Industries 4 15.0% $30,000

66 Circuitron 2 8.0% $26,000

67 Geneva Industries 6 8.0% $11,000

68 American Creosote Works (DNAPL) 4 7.5% $3,000

69 Keefe Environmental Systems 1 7.5% -$2,000

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may

vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.

Notes:

1. Fund-lead P&T systems refers to systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and

oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.

2. “Estimated Potential Life-cycle Savings ($)” is calculated based on the screening methodology summarized in Section 5.0 and Table 5-

1. The screening calculations for each system are presented in Appendix C and summarized in Appendix B.

3. For a variety of reasons, including recent optimization or litigation, some of the systems with the highest potential for life-cycle

savings in a Region were not selected for RSEs. Narratives describing the system selection for each Region are included the

Regional summary screening reports included in Appendix B. 

4. For some systems where the expected system duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may

underestimate the expected duration of systems, especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater

contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL. Therefore, life-cycle costs and life-cycle cost savings could be underestimated for some

sites.
54

Table 6-2: Fund-lead P&T Systems Ranked in Terms of “Estimated Potential Life-cycle 

Savings ($)” as Calculated by the Screening Methodology (Page 4 of 4)

Rank Site name Region

Estimated

Potential

Reduction in 

Life-cycle Costs

Estimated

Potential Lifecycle Savings 

($)

70 U.S. Aviex 5 5.0% -$2,000

71 Islip Municipal Landfill 2 7.5% -$9,000

72 Berks Sand Pit 3 5.0% -$17,000

73 Arrowhead Refinery 5 5.0% -$18,000

74 Onalaska Municipal Landfill 5 5.0% -$20,000

75 Williams Property 2 5.0% -$25,000

76 Odessa Chromium #1 6 5.0% -$25,000

77 North Cavalcade Superfund Site 6 27.5% -$25,000

78 Mohonk Road Industrial Plant Site 2 unknown unknown

79 Dover Municipal Well 4 2 unknown unknown

80 Metal TEC/Aerosystems 2 unknown unknown

81 ABC Cleaners 4 unknown unknown

82 Miami Drum 4 unknown unknown

83 Coleman Evans Wood Preserving 4 unknown unknown

84 Eau Claire Municipal Well Field 5 unknown unknown

85 Duell and Gardner 5 unknown unknown

86 Peerless Plating 5 unknown unknown

87 Valley Park TCE Site - OU2 7 unknown unknown

88 Bunker Hill Superfund Site 10 unknown unknown

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may

vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.

Notes:

1. Fund-lead P&T systems refers to systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and

oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.

2. “Estimated Potential Life-cycle Savings ($)” is calculated based on the screening methodology summarized in Section 5.0 and Table 5-

1. The screening calculations for each system are presented in Appendix C and summarized in Appendix B.

3. For a variety of reasons, including recent optimization or litigation, some of the systems with the highest potential for life-cycle

savings in a Region were not selected for RSEs. Narratives describing the system selection for each Region are included the

Regional summary screening reports included in Appendix B. 

4. For some systems where the expected system duration is unknown, a value of 30 years may have been used as a default and may

underestimate the expected duration of systems, especially those located at sites with continuing sources of groundwater

contamination such as LNAPL and DNAPL. Therefore, life-cycle costs and life-cycle cost savings could be underestimated for some

sites.
55

Table 6-3: Fund-lead P&T Systems Ranked According to Annual O&M Cost (Page 1 of 4)

Rank Site name Region Annual O&M Cost

1 Vineland Chemical Co. 2 $4,000,000 

2 Baird & McGuire Superfund Site 1 $3,500,000 

3 Lipari Landfill site 2 $2,500,000 

4 Ott/Story/Cordova Chem Co. 5 $2,400,000 

5 Silresim Chemical Corp. 1 $1,400,000 

6 Sprague Road Ground Water Plume 6 $1,200,000 

7 American Thermostat 2 $1,175,000 

8 Muscoy 9 $1,100,000 

9 Higgins Farm 2 $1,000,000 

10 Havertown PCP OU2 3 $1,000,000 

11 Miami Drum 4 $1,000,000 

12 Cimarron Mining 6 $1,000,000 

13 Boomsnub/Airco 10 $1,000,000 

14 Combe Fill South Landfill 2 $920,000 

15 Newmark 9 $900,000 

16 Claremont Polychemical Corp. 2 $740,000 

17 Lang Property Superfund Site 2 $700,000 

18 Mattiace Petrochemical 2 $700,000 

19 North Penn Area 6 3 $592,900 

20 Groveland Wells Superfund Site 1 $500,000 

21 Savage Well Municipal Water System 1 $500,000 

22 Garden State Cleaners/South Jersey Clothing Company 2 $500,000 

23 Odessa Chromium #1 6 $500,000 

24 Ace Services 7 $500,000 

25 Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site 10 $500,000 

26 Circuitron 2 $480,000 

27 Oconomowoc Electroplating 5 $471,000 

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may

vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.

Notes:

1. Fund-lead P&T systems refers to systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and

oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.

2. Annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are estimates and include such items as labor, utilities, materials, analytical work, etc.

3. For a variety of reasons, including recent optimization or litigation, some of the systems with the highest annual O&M costs in a

Region were not selected for RSEs. Narratives describing the system selection for each Region are included the Regional summary

screening reports included in Appendix B. 
56

Table 6-3: Fund-lead P&T Systems Ranked According to Annual O&M Cost (Page 2 of 4)

Rank Site name Region Annual O&M Cost

28 Bog Creek Farm LTRA 2 $460,000 

29 American Creosote Works (solute) 4 $452,000 

30 Charles George Landfill Superfund Site 1 $450,000 

31 Bayou Bonfouca 6 $402,000 

32 Brewster Wellfield 2 $400,000 

33 SMS Instruments 2 $400,000 

34 Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill 2 $400,000 

35 Greenwood Chemical Site 3 $400,000 

36 Peerless Plating 5 $400,000 

37 American Creosote Works 6 $360,000 

38 Syncon Resins 2 $350,000 

39 Williams Property 2 $350,000 

40 Hellertown Manufacturing 3 $350,000 

41 American Creosote Works (DNAPL) 4 $300,000 

42 Palmetto Wood 4 $300,000 

43 Long Prairie Groundwater Contamination 5 $300,000 

44 MacGillis and Gibbs/Bell Lumber & Pole 5 $300,000 

45 U.S. Aviex 5 $300,000 

46 Modesto Superfund Site 9 $300,000 

47 Selma Treating Co. 9 $300,000 

48 Commencement Bay, South Tacoma Channel, Well 10 $300,000 

49 Stanton Cleaners Area Groundwater Contamination Site 2 $270,000 

50 Kearsarge Metallurgical Corp. 1 $250,000 

51 Butz Landfill 3 $250,000 

52 McCormick & Baxter Creosoting Co. 10 $250,000 

53 Geneva Industries 6 $240,000 

54 La Salle Electrical Utilities 5 $230,000 

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may

vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.

Notes:

1. Fund-lead P&T systems refers to systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and

oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.

2. Annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are estimates and include such items as labor, utilities, materials, analytical work, etc.

3. For a variety of reasons, including recent optimization or litigation, some of the systems with the highest O&M costs in a Region

were not selected for RSEs. Narratives describing the system selection for each Region are included the Regional summary

screening reports included in Appendix B. 
57

Table 6-3: Fund-lead P&T Systems Ranked According to Annual O&M Cost (Page 3 of 4)

Rank Site name Region Annual O&M Cost

55 Islip Municipal Landfill 2 $225,000 

56 Verona Well Field 5 $225,000 

57 Eastern Surplus Company Superfund Site 1 $200,000 

58 Keefe Environmental Systems 1 $200,000 

59 Croydon TCE 3 $200,000 

60 Onalaska Municipal Landfill 5 $200,000 

61 Vestal Water Supply Well 1-1 2 $180,000 

62 AIW Frank/Mid-County Mustang Site, OU#1 3 $180,000 

63 Elmore Waste Disposal 4 $180,000 

64 Midland Products 6 $180,000 

65 Eau Claire Municipal Wel Field 5 $175,000 

66 Raymark 3 $155,711 

67 Berks Sand Pit 3 $150,000 

68 FCX Statesville 4 $150,000 

69 CryoChem 3 $125,000 

70 Douglass Road 5 $120,000 

71 North Penn Area 1 3 $100,000 

72 Cleburn Street Well Site/OU2 7 $100,000 

73 Saunders Supply Company 3 $80,000 

74 Wash King Laundry 5 $75,000 

75 Arrowhead Refinery 5 $70,000 

76 Cape Fear Wood Preserving 4 $40,000 

77 City of Perryton Well #2 6 $37,000 

78 Better Brite Plating Co. Chrome and Zinc Shops 5 $36,000 

79 Benfield Industries 4 $30,000 

80 Mohonk Road Industrial Plant Site 2 unknown

81 Dover Municipal Well 4 2 unknown 

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may

vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.

Notes:

1. Fund-lead P&T systems refers to systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and

oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.

2. Annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are estimates and include such items as labor, utilities, materials, analytical work, etc.

3. For a variety of reasons, including recent optimization or litigation, some of the systems with the highest O&M costs in a Region

were not selected for RSEs. Narratives describing the system selection for each Region are included the Regional summary

screening reports included in Appendix B. 
58

Table 6-3: Fund-lead P&T Systems Ranked According to Annual O&M Cost (Page 4 of 4)

Rank Site name Region Annual O&M Cost

82 Metal TEC 2 unknown

83 ABC Cleaners 4 unknown

84 Coleman Evans Wood Preserving 4 unknown

85 Duell and Gardner 5 unknown

86 North Cavalcade Superfund Site 6 unknown

87 Valley Park TCE Site - OU2 7 unknown

88 Bunker Hill Superfund Site 10 unknown

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may

vary from actual values. Data, including the number and status of systems, may change over time.

Notes:

1. Fund-lead P&T systems refers to systems where groundwater extraction and treatment is specified in the Record of Decision and

oversight is provided by the EPA or by a State with financial support from Superfund.

2. Annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are estimates and include such items as labor, utilities, materials, analytical work, etc.

3. For a variety of reasons, including recent optimization or litigation, some of the systems with the highest O&M costs in a Region

were not selected for RSEs. Narratives describing the system selection for each Region are included the Regional summary

screening reports included in Appendix B. 
59

7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED

This nationwide effort to identify and gather information on Fund-lead P&T systems resulted in an

improved understanding of the number of Fund-lead P&T systems, the specifications and performance

of these systems, and the estimated costs required to operate and maintain these systems. In total, 88

operational and pre-operational Fund-lead P&T systems were identified, with pre-operational referring

to systems that are identified in a ROD and are in a stage of pre-design, design, or installed but not yet

operating. Of these 88 systems, 67 are operational and 21 are pre-operational. Annual costs for each

system ranged from less than $100,000 per year to approximately $4,000,000 per year. The following

findings result from the cost information for Fund-lead P&T systems:

• The estimated average annual operation and maintenance (O&M) cost for a Fund-lead P&T

system (based on those 79 systems providing cost data) is approximately $570,000 and the

median cost is $350,000. The discrepancy between these two statistics is due to a small number

of systems with relatively high O&M costs.

• Based on the 79 systems that provided cost information, the estimated total annual O&M cost for

operating the Fund-lead P&T systems in 2002 is approximately $38 million, with EPA incurring

approximately $32.5 million of the total annual cost and the associated States incurring the

remaining $5.5 million.

• Based on the 79 systems that provided cost information, the estimated future cost for Long-term

Remedial Action (LTRA) O&M for all of these systems exceeds $210 million with discounting

(i.e., net present value) and exceeds $270 million without discounting. LTRA refers to the first

10 years of operation of a groundwater or surface water restoration action. During this period,

EPA typically funds 90% of the cost and the associated State funds 10% of the costs. These

percentages translate directly to the presented costs; therefore, the Superfund is expected to pay

approximately $189 million ($243 million without discounting) and the States are expected to

pay approximately $21 million ($27 million without discounting).

• Based on the 79 systems that provided cost information, the estimated future cost for O&M of

Fund-lead P&T systems until remediation completion is achieved is approximately $470 million

with discounting (net-present value) and $790 million without discounting. (These estimates of

future O&M costs are based on the annual costs of systems and expected durations of systems as

specified by the site managers. For some systems where expected system duration is unknown,

a value of 30 years may have been used as a default value for this parameter. While the practice

of using 30 years as a default was prevalent in the past, more recent EPA guidance on feasibility

study preparation recommends that 30 years not be used as a default.)

• 13 of the 79 systems that provided costs account for approximately 50% of the total reported

annual O&M costs.

A total of 26 States reportedly have Fund-lead P&T systems. Upon completion of the 10-year LTRA

period each system will be transferred to its associated State and that State will assume 100% of the

remaining O&M costs. For systems where restoration is not a goal (i.e., containment and water supply
60

systems) the systems are typically transferred to the States after one year. The collected data suggest that

the States will incur between approximately $250 million with discounting or $520 million without

discounting in post-LTRA O&M costs for Fund-lead P&T systems that reported annual O&M costs. 

Furthermore, the data suggest that the following five States will likely incur 78% of these post-LTRA

O&M costs:

• New Jersey (27.6%)

• Massachusetts (22.6%)

• New York (9.7%)

• Pennsylvania (9.6%)

• Michigan (8.4%)

In addition to cost information, the following statistics about the Fund-lead P&T systems were also

gleaned from the information reported by the system RPMs:

• 40 of 67 operating systems are reported to be controlling plume migration.

• 60 of the 67 operating systems have groundwater restoration as a goal but 21 of that 60 do not

have estimates of the progress toward that restoration. Of the 39 systems that have both

groundwater restoration as a goal and an estimate of progress toward restoration, 7 are estimated

to have made more than 80% progress toward restoration. 

• 52 of the 88 systems have three or more primary contaminants of concern, and chlorinated

solvents are the most prevalent contaminants as they are addressed by 56 of the 88 systems.

• 35 of the 88 Fund-lead P&T systems are associated with sites where non-aqueous phase liquid

(NAPL) has either been observed or suspected.

• Carbon adsorption and air stripping are the most prevalent treatment processes (carbon

adsorption is used at 50 of the 88 systems and air stripping is used at 41).

• Based on 64 of 88 systems where RPMs were able to determine costs specifically used for

groundwater monitoring, Fund-lead P&T systems have, on average, 23 monitoring wells for

groundwater sampling that are sampled three to four times per year for an average cost of

$112,000 per year. 

• 36 of the 67 operating systems have previously had performance and effectiveness evaluated and

found “sufficient” while 7 had performance and effectiveness found “not sufficient” (the

remaining systems are either being evaluated, have not been evaluated, or have not provided

information regarding previous effectiveness evaluations).
61

The following items detail lessons learned from this data-collection phase of the Nationwide

Remediation System Evaluation (RSE) Optimization Project.

Additional RSEs should be commissioned

Although the screening methodology targeted systems in each Region that had effectiveness problems or

relatively high operating costs, a number of systems with similar issues were not selected for RSEs. 

Some of these unselected systems are receiving third-party optimization evaluations not associated with

this project. Many of the other unselected systems, however, would benefit from third-party optimizaton

evaluations such as an RSE. Therefore, additional RSEs should be commissioned to optimize some of

the remaining Fund-lead systems.

A central database or other information system for Fund-lead systems (not limited to P&T) should be

developed and maintained through annual or semi-annual updates by Remedial Project Managers. 

Consideration should also be given to extend such a database to include non-Fund-lead systems as

well. 

• Identifying all of the Fund-lead P&T systems in each Region was greatly facilitated by the project

liaisons in each Region. However, to identify these systems, liaisons were required to interview

branch chiefs and individual Remedial Project Managers. A central, up-to-date database would

eliminate the need for repeating this interview process in the future. Managers for each site,

including sites new to Superfund, should be required to update site information in a central

information system (e.g., a database). The database created for this project offers a solid

beginning. The data in the current database could be made available to site managers so that they

may update it when required rather than reentering all of the information.

• Questions as to the definition of “pump-and-treat” arose repeatedly. In Region 9 well-head

treatment systems were not included, and in Region 8, a NAPL-recovery system was not

included. Furthermore, soil-vapor-extraction (SVE) systems were also not included. By not

including these systems in the study, the total amount of Fund-lead expenditures could not be

estimated and these systems were not considered for optimization. 

• Within each Region, “fact sheets” are prepared for each system by the system’s Remedial Project

Manager (RPMs). As these “fact sheets” are already updated on a regular basis, broadening the

required information on each “fact sheet” would make them the primary information source on

each system. Because they are written documents, these “fact sheets” are more flexible than

databases. First, they are not constrained to single preformatted answers (e.g., a selection from a

list or single number) as is typically required for database questionnaires. Second, they can be

used for any type of system or site whereas database questionnaires are typically tailored for a

specific type of system or site. Future databases for specific projects could be easily generated

from these “fact sheets”.

• The CERCLIS database and many resources or databases within each Region are available. 

Consideration should be given to linking the proposed central database to CERCLIS and these

Regional resources.

• Some of the data collected as part of this project may also be relevant for tracking the progress of

non-Fund-lead systems. Consideration should be given to collecting information on these

systems as well.
62

Future web-based questionnaires may need to be more lenient in accepting data.

A number of RPMs did not complete questionnaires because information required by the web-based

survey (i.e., “required fields”) was not available for the specific system. This repeatedly occurred for

planned P&T systems for which RPMs did not yet have cost estimates or system specifications. Because

these fields were required in order to save the input, information on many systems had to be gathered

through phone interviews. 
63

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
REGION 1 INFORMATION SHEETS
3

State Regulator Contractor

Dorothy Allen Don Dwight

One Winter Street 30 Harvard Mill Sq.

Boston, MA 02108 Wakefield, MA 01880

617-292-5795 (phone) 781-224-6286 (phone)

617-292-5530 (fax) 781-224-6880 (fax)

Dorothy.Allen@state.ma.us Don_Dwight@metcalfeddy.com

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 7

9/30/86 Date of construction completion: 4/1993

Date of operational and functional: 4/1994

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 4/2004

Operational Expected date of completion: 4/2023

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 2 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Observed Number of monitoring wells used: 80

Approximate annual O&M costs: $3,500,000 Frequency of sampling: 1 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $200,000 Is plume migration controlled? Yes

Approximate pumping rate: 150 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: 20% to 80% restored

Evaluated and found sufficient moderate/severe

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

192 Heavy metals Metals precipitation yes

227 LNAPL Air stripping yes

291 Pesticides Biological treatment

319 Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOC) UV oxidation

372 Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) Carbon adsorption yes

Arsenic, BTEX, PAHs Filtration yes

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

An LNAPL collection system is currently in place at the site that collects approximately 8 gal/day of pure product. The LNAPL is then shipped off site for 

incineration.

A full evaluation of the groundwater pump and treat system was just completed in January 2001 and is expected to be implemented within the next 

calendar year. The major recommendations of this evaluation are to move an extraction well from an area of limited plume contaminantion to the center of 

the contaminant plume; and the installation of an additional extraction well to address low concentrations of VOCs and aresenic found to the north of the 

main plume body. 

Contact Information

System Information and Data

One Congress Street 11th floor MADEP

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Boston, MA 02114

617-918-1310 (phone)

617-918-1291 (fax)

Baird & McGuire Superfund Site

Holbrook, MA (Region 1)

CERCLIS ID MAD001041987

Metcalf & Eddy

RPM

Melissa Taylor

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

Taylor.MelissaG@epa.gov
4

State Regulator Contractor

David Buckley David O'Connor

One Winter Street 50 McArthur Avenue, Box 689

Boston, MA 02108 Devens, MA 01432-4400

617-556-1184 (phone) 978-772-0148 (phone)

617-292-5530 (fax) 978-772-3104 (fax)

buckley.david@state.ma.us david.o'connor@nae02.usace.army.mil

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 9

3/23/88 Date of construction completion: 9/1998

9/26/98 Date of operational and functional: 9/1999

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 9/2009

Operational Expected date of completion: 9/2028

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 2 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Don't know Number of monitoring wells used: 20

Approximate annual O&M costs: $450,000 Frequency of sampling: 2 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $200,000 Is plume migration controlled? Yes

Approximate pumping rate: 30 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: less than 20% restored

Not evaluated moderate/severe

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

62 Arsenic Metals precipitation

66 BTEX Air stripping

114 Chlorobenzene Biological treatment

238 Mercury UV oxidation

340 Tetrahydrofuran Carbon adsorption

1,4-Dioxane Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure yes

354

Comments:

This system pumps the effluent off-site to a POTW, via the municipal sewer system under a discharge permit. Ground water and leachate are "treated" or 

let's say, managed by adding an iron sequestering agent (citric acid) to keep iron from precipitating out and clogging the system and weekly biocide 

shocking to aid in minimizing bacterial growth in the system.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (HBO) MADEP

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Boston, MA 02114-2023

617-918-1332 (phone)

617-918-1291 (fax)

Charles George Landfill Superfund Site

Tyngsboro, MA (Region 1)

CERCLIS ID MAD003809266

USACE North Central Residnet Office

RPM

Elaine Stanley

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

stanley.elainet@epa.gov
2

State Regulator Contractor

Rebecca Hewett Gordon Bullard

17 State House Station 55 Jonspin Road

Augusta, ME 04333-0017 Wilmington, MA 01887

207-287-8554 (phone) 978-658-7899 (phone)

207-287-7826 (fax) 978-658-7870 (fax)

rebecca.l.hewett@state.me.us bullardg@ttnus.com

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 12

9/28/00 Date of construction completion: 8/2001

Date of operational and functional: 10/2001

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 9/2011

Being Installed Expected date of completion: 9/2007

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 2 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Suspected Number of monitoring wells used: 30

Approximate annual O&M costs: $200,000 Frequency of sampling: 2 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $0 Is plume migration controlled?

Approximate pumping rate: 20 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration:

Not evaluated minor/moderate

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

249 Methylene Chloride Metals precipitation

PCE Air stripping

Biological treatment

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption yes

Filtration yes

Ion Exchange yes

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

There is a limited system in place as part of a NTCRA to control plume migration. The ROD requires that the system be upgraded for groundwater 

restoration. The design will complete in May and final construction could occur this summer.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

1 Congress Street, Suite 1100, mailcode: HBT Maine DEP

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Boston, MA 02114

617-918-1372 (phone)

617-918-1291 (fax)

Eastern Surplus Company Superfund Site

Meddybemps, ME (Region 1)

CERCLIS ID MED981073711

TTNUS

RPM

Edward Hathaway

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

hathaway.ed@epa.gov
5

State Regulator Contractor

Janet Waldron Cinthia Mclane

One Winter Street 30 Harvard Mill Square

Boston, MA 02108 Wakefield, MA 01880

617-556-1156 (phone) 781-224-6377 (phone)

617-556-1118 (fax) 781-245-6293 (fax)

janet.waldron@state.ma.us cindy_mclane@metcalfeddy.com

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 10

9/9/91 Date of construction completion: 4/2000

11/15/96 Date of operational and functional: 5/2001

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 4/2011

Operational Expected date of completion: 4/2031

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 1 week

Presence of NAPLs Don't know Number of monitoring wells used: 21

Approximate annual O&M costs: $500,000 Frequency of sampling: 1 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $50,000 Is plume migration controlled? Don't know

Approximate pumping rate: 140 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: Don't know

Evaluated and found sufficient minor/minor

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

354 Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE) Metals precipitation yes

Air stripping

Biological treatment

UV oxidation yes

Carbon adsorption yes

Filtration yes

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

Contact Information

System Information and Data

One Congress Street - Suite 1100 (HBO) MADEP

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Boston, MA 02114

617-918-1448 (phone)

617-918-1291 (fax)

Groveland Wells Superfund Site

Groveland, MA (Region 1)

CERCLIS ID MAD980732317

Metcalf & Eddy

RPM

Derrick Golden

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

golden.derrick@epa.gov
7

State Regulator Contractor

Paul Lincoln Bette Nowack

6 Hazen Drive 1 Wall St.

Concord, NH 03301 Manchester, NH 03101

603-271-2911 (phone) 603-656-5400 (phone)

603-271-2456 (fax)

p_andrews@des.state.nh.us

State-lead w/ Fund $ Number of extraction wells: 14

9/28/90 Date of construction completion: 9/1993

Date of operational and functional: 9/1993

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 9/2003

Operational Expected date of completion: 9/2005

Primary goal of system: Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 4 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Suspected Number of monitoring wells used: 30

Approximate annual O&M costs: $250,000 Frequency of sampling: 2 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $30,000 Is plume migration controlled? Yes

Approximate pumping rate: 42 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: more than 80% restored

Evaluated and found sufficient moderate/moderate

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

2 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Metals precipitation

357 Trichloroethylene (TCE) Air stripping yes

Biological treatment

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption

Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment yes

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

RPM

Dick Goehlert

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

goehlert.dick@epa.gov

Kearsarge Metallurgical Corp.

Conway, NH (Region 1)

CERCLIS ID NHD062002001

Weston

Doug Sutton filled out this form based on a phone interview with Dick Goehlert. 

The 2005 completion date is an estimate for 90% of the system. A few wells, pumping at a much lower rate will likely continue for longer

Contact Information

System Information and Data

One Congress Street NHDES

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Boston, MA 02114-2023

617-918-1335 (phone)

617-918-1291 (fax)
8

State Regulator Contractor

Thomas Andrews King Harvey

6 Hazen Drive 41 Hutchins Drive

Concord, NH 03301-6527 Portland, ME 04102

603 271-2910 (phone) 207 774-2112 (phone)

601 271-2456 (fax) 207 774-6635 (fax)

Tandrews@des.state.nh.us hking@woodardcurren.com

State-lead w/ Fund $ Number of extraction wells: 4

3/21/88 Date of construction completion: 9/1993

6/8/90 Date of operational and functional: 9/1994

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 9/2003

Operational Expected date of completion: 9/2003

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 2 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Not present Number of monitoring wells used: 41

Approximate annual O&M costs: $200,000 Frequency of sampling: 2 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $5,000 Is plume migration controlled? Yes

Approximate pumping rate: 20 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: more than 80% restored

Evaluated and found sufficient minor/minor

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

7 1,2,3,4-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD) Metals precipitation

15 1,2-Dichloroethene Air stripping yes

73 Benzo(a)pyrene Biological treatment

352 Trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption yes

Filtration yes

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

RPM

Cheryl Sprague

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

Sprague.cheryl@epa.gov

Keefe Environmental Systems

Epping, NH (Region 1)

CERCLIS ID NHD092059112

Woodard and Curran

In 1998 a vacuum enhanced extraction system (3 wells) was installed to faciliate voc removal in the hot zone.

State lead - with PRP settlement money.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

One Congress Street, Suite 1100 New Hampshire Department of Environmental 

Services

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Boston, MA 02114-2023

617 918-1244 (phone)

617 918-1291 (fax)
6

State Regulator Contractor

THOMAS ANDREWS Joe Newton

6 HAZEN DRIVE Elm St

CONCORD, NH 03301 Milford, NH 03055

603-271-2910 (phone) 603-249-9840 (phone)

603-271-2456 (fax) 603-249-9851 (fax)

t_andrews@des.state.nh.us jnewton@cdm.com

State-lead w/ Fund $ Number of extraction wells: 4

9/27/91 Date of construction completion: 3/1998

12/19/96 Date of operational and functional: 4/1999

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 3/2009

Operational Expected date of completion: 3/2009

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 4 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Observed Number of monitoring wells used: 38

Approximate annual O&M costs: $500,000 Frequency of sampling: 3 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $30,000 Is plume migration controlled? No

Approximate pumping rate: 100 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: less than 20% restored

Not evaluated minor/minor

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

2 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Metals precipitation

108 Chlorinated Solvents Air stripping yes

120 Cis-1,2-dichloroethene Biological treatment

354 Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE) UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption yes

Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment yes

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

The system consists of a slurry wall with extraction and injection wells inside and outside sluury wall witha recharge gallery. there is an SVE syatem with 

air sparaging and carbon regeneration by steam. I also have 17 plus wells in the hot spot which i intend to use submesible pumps to effect a better 

remedy . advice on this new extraction system would be very beneficial.

i will not fill this out a third time

Contact Information

System Information and Data

ONE CONGRESS STREET NHDES

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

BOSTON, MA 02114-2023

617-918-1335 (phone)

617-918-1291 (fax)

Savage Well Municipal Water System

Milford, NH (Region 1)

CERCLIS ID NHD980671002

CDM

RPM

RICHARD GOEHLERT

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

GOEHLERT.DICK@EPA.GOV
1

State Regulator Contractor

Janet Waldron John Haley

One Winter Street, 7th Floor 133 Federal Street, 6th Floor

Boston, MA 02108 Boston, MA 02110

617-556-1156 (phone) 617-457-8200 (phone)

617-292-5530 (fax) 617-457-8498 (fax)

janet.waldron@state.ma.us jhaley@fwec.com

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 31

9/19/91 Date of construction completion: 11/1995

Date of operational and functional: 9/1997

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 9/2007

Operational Expected date of completion: 12/2017

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 2 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Observed Number of monitoring wells used: 47

Approximate annual O&M costs: $1,400,000 Frequency of sampling: 2 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $160,000 Is plume migration controlled? No

Approximate pumping rate: 25 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: less than 20% restored

Evaluated and found not sufficient minor/minor

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

3 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Metals precipitation yes

6 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE) Air stripping yes

42 Acids Biological treatment

74 Benzo(b)fluoranthene UV oxidation

250 Methylphenol Carbon adsorption

324 Solid Propellants Filtration yes

352 Trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene Ion Exchange

2 371 Volatile chlorinated organics Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment yes

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

Operations Contractor provides semi-annual status reports of the P&T system including recommendations for P&T improvements. Improvements to the 

source control approach are currently being evaluated and a ROD Amendment is anticipated.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

1 Congress Street, Suite 1100, HBO MADEP

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Boston, MA 02114-2023

617-918-1324 (phone)

617-918-1291 (fax)

Silresim Chemical Corp.

Lowell, MA (Region 1)

CERCLIS ID MAD000192393

Foster Wheeler Env. Corp.

RPM

Chester Janowski

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

janowski.chet@epa.gov
REGION 2 INFORMATION SHEETS
14

State Regulator Contractor

Joseph Yavonditte Feeney Richard

50 Wolf Road 1000 The American Road

Albany, NY 12233 Morris Plains, NJ 07950

518-457-9285 (phone) 973-630-8092 (phone)

518-457-7743 (fax) 973-630-8111 (fax)

jayavond@gw.dec.state.ny.us RFeeney@fwenc.com

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 14

6/29/90 Date of construction completion: 9/1998

Date of operational and functional: 9/1998

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 10/2008

Operational Expected date of completion: 9/2028

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 0 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Suspected Number of monitoring wells used: 19

Approximate annual O&M costs: $1,175,000 Frequency of sampling: 12 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: Is plume migration controlled? Yes

Approximate pumping rate: 70 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: less than 20% restored

Evaluated and found sufficient minor/severe

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

17 1,2-Dichloropropane Metals precipitation yes

355 Trichlorobenzene Air stripping yes

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) Biological treatment

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption yes

Filtration yes

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

Based on cumulative long-term monitoring data, the system has currently been modified in order to optimize performance. 

Contact Information

System Information and Data

290 Broadway NYSDEC

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

New York, NY 12233

212-637-4257 (phone)

212-637-3966 (fax)

American Thermostat

South Cairo, NY (Region 2)

CERCLIS ID NYD002066330

Foster Wheeler Env. Corporation

RPM

Christos Tsiamis

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

tsiamis.christos@epa.gov
15

State Regulator Contractor

Craig Wallace George Paprocki

401 E State St. Ft. Monmouth

Trenton, NJ 08625 Eatontown, NJ 07703

609 984 2990 (phone) 732 389 3040 (phone)

609 633 2360 (fax) 732 389 1564 (fax)

Cwallace@DEP.STATE.NJ.US George.B.Paprocki@nan02.USACE.army.mil

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 33

6/28/89 Date of construction completion: 5/1994

Date of operational and functional: 8/1994

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 9/2004

Operational Expected date of completion: 12/2024

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 4 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Observed Number of monitoring wells used: 9

Approximate annual O&M costs: $460,000 Frequency of sampling: 1 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $100,000 Is plume migration controlled? Yes

Approximate pumping rate: 30 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: 20% to 80% restored

Evaluated and found sufficient minor/minor

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

2 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Metals precipitation yes

352 Trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene Air stripping yes

71 Benzene and Toluene Biological treatment

28 2,4-Dimethylphenol UV oxidation

294 Phenol Carbon adsorption yes

copper, lead,zinc Filtration yes

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

RPM

Edward Finnerty

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

Finnerty.Ed@EPA.GOV

Bog Creek Farm LTRA

Howell, NJ (Region 2)

CERCLIS ID NJD063157150

USACE

The EPA will not meet the cleanup goal of 5ppb for benzene in the first ten years. The State's new criteria for benzene is 1ppb. This cleanup target may 

not be achievable, hence a 30 year remediation time (to the year 2024) was used as a default. The costs in #16 ($100,000) include sampling 9 monitoring 

wells and 33 extractions wells.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

290 Broadway NJDEP

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

New York, NY 10007

212 637 4367 (phone)

212-637-4393 (fax)
16

State Regulator Contractor

George Momberger Dawn Cermak

50 Wolf Road Box 71A Route 518, Franklin Twsp

Albany, NY 12233 Princeton, NJ 08540

518-457-0927 (phone) 732-297-0432 (phone)

518-457-8989 (fax) 732-297-0441 (fax)

gfmomber@gw.dec.state.ny.us hawksister@earthlink.net

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 4

9/30/86 Date of construction completion: 4/1997

12/2/96 Date of operational and functional: 9/1997

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 10/2007

Operational Expected date of completion: 10/2007

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year:

Presence of NAPLs Suspected Number of monitoring wells used: 16

Approximate annual O&M costs: $400,000 Frequency of sampling: 4 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $244,000 Is plume migration controlled? Yes

Approximate pumping rate: 50 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: Don't know

Not evaluated minor/minor

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

16 1,2-Dichloroethylene (DCE) Metals precipitation

354 Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE) Air stripping yes

Biological treatment

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption

Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

Qs #15 & 16: Breakdown of approximate annual O&M cost for long-term groundwater monitoring is of ballpark rough estimate.

Qs #25 & 26: 8 monitoring wells are monitored quarterly and 8 other monitoring wells are monitored annually (concurrent w/ one of the quarterly 

monitoring).

Contact Information

System Information and Data

290 Broadway NYSDEC

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

New York, NY 10007

212-637-4267 (phone)

212-637-3966 (fax)

Brewster Wellfield

Brewster, NY (Region 2)

CERCLIS ID 0202153

Sevenson Env.Services, Inc

RPM

Lisa Wong

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

wong.lisa@epa.gov
17

State Regulator Contractor

Jeffrey Trad Shewen Bian

50 Wolf Road 1900 Hempstead Turnpike, Suite 16

Albany, NY 12233-7010 East Meadow, NY 11554

518-457-9285 (phone) 516-794-2913 (phone)

518-457-7743 (fax) 516-794-2975 (fax)

jetrad@gw.dec.state.ny.us

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 3

9/30/94 Date of construction completion: 6/2000

Date of operational and functional: 5/15/2001

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 6/2010

Operational Expected date of completion: 6/2003

Primary goal of system: Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 6 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Not present Number of monitoring wells used: 19

Approximate annual O&M costs: $480,000 Frequency of sampling: 4 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $45,000 Is plume migration controlled? Yes

Approximate pumping rate: 80 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: less than 20% restored

Evaluated and found sufficient minor/moderate

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

2 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Metals precipitation

5 1,1-Dichloroethane Air stripping yes

6 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE) Biological treatment

357 Trichloroethylene (TCE) UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption yes

Filtration yes

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

Doug Sutton completed this questionnaire based on a phone interview with Sharon Trocher.

1,1,1 TCA is primary contaminant of concern

The remedial action is expected to be complete before turnover to the state.

Monitoring frequency will soon decrease from quarterly to semi-annually or annually.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

290 Broadway NYSDEC

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

New York, NY 10007-1866

212-637-3965 (phone)

212-637-3966 (fax)

Circuitron

East Farmingdale, NY (Region 2)

CERCLIS ID NYD981184229

USACE, New York District

RPM

Sharon Trocher

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

trocher.sharon@epa.gov
18

State Regulator Contractor

Jeff Trad Mark Kucera

50 Wolf Road 501 Winding Road

Albany, NY 12218 Old Bethpage, NY 11804

518-457-9285 (phone) 516-249-8912 (phone)

518-457-7743 (fax) 516-249-8928 (fax)

jetrad@gw.dec.state.ny.us unknown@na.com

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 3

9/28/90 Date of construction completion: 12/1998

Date of operational and functional: 2/2000

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 2/2010

Operational Expected date of completion: 2/2020

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 2 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Don't know Number of monitoring wells used: 14

Approximate annual O&M costs: $740,000 Frequency of sampling: 4 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: Is plume migration controlled? Yes

Approximate pumping rate: 420 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: Don't know

Not evaluated minor/minor

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

2 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Metals precipitation yes

346 Toluene Air stripping yes

373 Xylene Biological treatment

PCE UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption yes

Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

RPM

Maria Jon

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

Jon.Maria@epamail.epa.gov

Claremont Polychemical Corp.

Town of Oyster Bay, NY (Region 2)

CERCLIS ID NYD002044584

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

The date in #22 is an estimate.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

290 Broadway, 20th Floor NYSDEC

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

New York, NY 10007

212-637-3967 (phone)

212-637-4284 (fax)
19

State Regulator Contractor

Paula Walshe James Nash

401 East State St. 25 West Highand Avenue

Trenton, NJ 08625 Atlantic Highlands, NJ 07716

609-633-1119 (phone) 732-291-7773 (phone)

609-292-1975 (fax) 732-291-7776 (fax)

pwalshe@dep.state.nj.us

State-lead w/ Fund $ Number of extraction wells: 19

9/23/86 Date of construction completion: 6/1998

Date of operational and functional: 9/1998

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 9/2008

Operational Expected date of completion: 9/2028

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 1 week

Presence of NAPLs Not present Number of monitoring wells used: 36

Approximate annual O&M costs: $920,000 Frequency of sampling: 2 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $480,000 Is plume migration controlled? No

Approximate pumping rate: 121 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: Don't know

Evaluated and found not sufficient minor/moderate

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

19 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Metals precipitation yes

70 Benzene Air stripping

97 Carbon tetrachloride Biological treatment yes

114 Chlorobenzene UV oxidation

115 Chloroform Carbon adsorption yes

170 Ethylbenzene Filtration yes

249 Methylene Chloride Ion Exchange

2 346 Toluene Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

Combe Fill South is currently the subject of litigation.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

290 Broadway NJDEP

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

New York, NY 10007-1866

212-637-4416 (phone)

212-637-4393 (fax)

Combe Fill South Landfill

Chester Township, NJ (Region 2)

CERCLIS ID NJD94966611

Chapman, Inc.

RPM

Pamela J. Baxter

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

baxter.pam@epamail.gov
33

State Regulator Contractor

Mary Lou Parra Kamala Morgan

401 East State Street 601 East 12th Street

Trenton, NJ 08625 Kansas City, MO 64106

609-633-3618 (phone) 818-983-3577 (phone)

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells:

9/30/92 Date of construction completion:

Date of operational and functional:

Final Expected date of turnover to state:

Predesign Expected date of completion:

Primary goal of system: Restoration Approximate downtime per year:

Presence of NAPLs Not present Number of monitoring wells used:

Approximate annual O&M costs: Frequency of sampling:

Costs related to monitoring: Is plume migration controlled?

Approximate pumping rate: Progress of aquifer restoration:

minor/minor

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

354 Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE) Metals precipitation

Air stripping

Biological treatment

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption

Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

Do not know if pump and treat will be used. May decide against it and may use well head treatment.

Light industrial site with many sources; trying to find sources.

No NAPL observed, but some may be down gradient and not addressed by addressor or by the state.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

290 Broadway NJDEP

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

New York, NY 10007-1866

212-637-4947 (phone)

Dover Municipal Well 4

Dover, NJ (Region 2)

CERCLIS ID NJD980654131

USACE

RPM

Diego Garcia

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

garcia.diego@epa.gov
20

State Regulator Contractor

Akshay Parikh Steven Gillespie

401 E. State Street, P.O. Box 413 2749 Lockport Road

Trenton, NJ 08625 Niagara Falls, NY 14305

609-777-0693 (phone) 856-905-0782 (phone)

609-633-2360 (fax) 856-697-9187 (fax)

APARIKH@dep.state.nj.us sevenson@voicenet.com

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 15

9/26/91 Date of construction completion: 3/1999

Date of operational and functional: 9/2000

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 10/2009

Operational Expected date of completion: 9/2029

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year:

Presence of NAPLs Not present Number of monitoring wells used: 27

Approximate annual O&M costs: $500,000 Frequency of sampling: 2 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $125,000 Is plume migration controlled? No

Approximate pumping rate: 300 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: Don't know

Currently being evaluated minor/minor

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

352 Trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene Metals precipitation

354 Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE) Air stripping yes

Biological treatment

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption yes

Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

First this questionaire only allowed one Cerclis ID to be entered, even though these are two separate sites being remediated under one ROD. The South 

Jersey Clothing Company. The pump and treat system has been recovering and treating groundwater with lower concentrations of TCE and PCE than 

expected. In addition, both

TCE and PCE have been detected in the furthest downgradient sentinel wells, implying that a portion of the plume has migrated beyond the current 

network of extraction wells. The USACE has been tasked by the USEPA to determine if there are additional sources of contamination downgradient of the 

original source areas and to determine more optimal locations of groundwater extraction wells. Additionally, the Army Corp, through their contractor, will 

review the treatment system design in an effort to optimize the treatment process and hydraulic capacity of the system.

ID is NJD980766828.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

290 Broadway, 19th Floor N.J.D.E.P.

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

New York, NY 10007

212-637-4381 (phone)

212-637-4393 (fax)

Garden State Cleaners/South Jersey Clothing Company

Minotola, NJ (Region 2)

CERCLIS ID NJD053280160

Sevenson Env. Services, Inc.

RPM

Brian Quinn

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

quinn.brian@epa.gov
21

State Regulator Contractor

Dawn Cermail

401 East State St. 71A Route 518

Trenton, NJ 08625 Princeton, NJ 08540

732-297-0432 (phone)

732-297-0441 (fax)

hawksiyseter@earthlink.com

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 20

9/30/92 Date of construction completion: 5/1998

Date of operational and functional: 1/1999

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 1/2009

Operational Expected date of completion: 9/2028

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 4 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Not present Number of monitoring wells used: 34

Approximate annual O&M costs: $1,000,000 Frequency of sampling: 3 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $800,000 Is plume migration controlled? Yes

Approximate pumping rate: 30 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: less than 20% restored

Not evaluated minor/moderate

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

41 Acetone Metals precipitation yes

62 Arsenic Air stripping yes

105 Chloride Biological treatment

114 Chlorobenzene UV oxidation

346 Toluene Carbon adsorption

373 Xylene Filtration yes

Ion Exchange yes

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

RPM

Pamela J. Baxter

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

baxter.pam@epamail.gov

Higgins Farm

Franklin Township, NJ (Region 2)

CERCLIS ID NJD981490261

Sevenson Env. Service, Inc.

Site is currently the subject of litigation.

17: Designed for 100 gpm actually getting 30gpm

20: Month of O&F is an estimate

26: This represents an average. Some wells are sampled semi-annually and some quarterly

From Region 2 Hydrogeologist Rob Alvey--

Fractured rock site.

Stringent discharge permit.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

290 Broadway NJDEP

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

New York, NY 10007-1866

212-637-4416 (phone)

212-637-4393 (fax)
22

State Regulator Contractor

Carl Hoffman Paul DiMaria

50 Wolf Road 401 Main Street

Albany, NY 12233 Islip, NY 11751

518-457-9538 (phone) 631-224-5644 (phone)

518-457-4198 (fax) 631-224-5645 (fax)

crhoffma@gw.dec.state.ny.us wfgraner@hotmail.com

State-lead w/ Fund $ Number of extraction wells: 6

9/19/92 Date of construction completion: 9/1996

Date of operational and functional: 9/1997

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 9/2006

Operational Expected date of completion: 1/2003

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 1 week

Presence of NAPLs Not present Number of monitoring wells used: 24

Approximate annual O&M costs: $225,000 Frequency of sampling: 4 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $95,000 Is plume migration controlled? Yes

Approximate pumping rate: 300 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: 20% to 80% restored

Evaluated and found sufficient minor/minor

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

372 Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) Metals precipitation yes

Air stripping yes

Biological treatment

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption

Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

RPM

Mark Dannenberg

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

dannenberg.mark@epa.gov

Islip Municipal Landfill

Islip, NY (Region 2)

CERCLIS ID NYD980506901

Islip Resource Recovery Agency

Contact Information

System Information and Data

290 Broadway NYSDEC

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

New York, NY 10007

212-637-4251 (phone)

212-637-3966 (fax)
23

State Regulator Contractor

Thomas Ferrara Thomas Roche

401 East State Street 192 City Line Road

Trenton, NJ 08625 Browns Mills, NJ 08015

609-292-4095 (phone) 609-893-0983 (phone)

609-633-2360 (fax) 609-893-5415 (fax)

thomas.p.roche@usace.army.mil

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 1

9/29/86 Date of construction completion: 9/1995

Date of operational and functional: 10/1995

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 10/2005

Operational Expected date of completion: 1/2005

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 0 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Suspected Number of monitoring wells used: 8

Approximate annual O&M costs: $700,000 Frequency of sampling: 4 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $60,000 Is plume migration controlled? Yes

Approximate pumping rate: 30 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: 20% to 80% restored

Evaluated and found sufficient minor/minor

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

8 1,1-dichloroethene Metals precipitation

1,1-dichloroethane Air stripping

trichloroethene Biological treatment

tetrachloroethene UV oxidation

chromium Carbon adsorption yes

Filtration yes

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment yes

120 other/not sure

Comments:

RPM

Lawrence Granite

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

granite.larry@epamail.epa.gov

Lang Property Superfund Site

Pemberton Township, NJ, NJ (Region 2)

CERCLIS ID NJD980505382

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

--Question 17 asked for the approximate pumping rate. The treatment system was designed to pump and treat, and formerly operated at, 150 gpm. 

However, we have observed a significant reduction in ground water contaminant concentrations. As a result, we are now pumping at approximately 30 gpm. 

--Question 18 asked for the number of ground water extraction wells. There are three extraction wells at the Site. Two of the three have been yielding clean 

water; therefore, they are presently shut down to allow for a period of monitoring under non-pumping conditions. Also, please note that to supplement the 

contaminant removal by the three extraction wells, three shallow ground water collection trenches were installed in summer 1996.

--Question 24 asked for the treatment processes which are used at the Site. We do have a metals precipitation unit and biological treatment units at the 

Site. However, we stopped using them due to a reduction in contaminant concentrations.

--The Lang Property Superfund site team has always emphasized quality. Our enhancement efforts to date have expedited the remediation and resulted in 

cost savings. If you have any questions on the above, please feel free to call me at 212-637-4423.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

290 Broadway - 19th floor NJDEP

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

New York, New York, NY 10007-1866

212-637-4423 (phone)

212-637-4393 (fax)
24

State Regulator Contractor

Michael Burlingame Lee Anne Simmler

P.O. Box 413 743 Mullica Hill Road

Trenton, NJ 08625-0413 Glassboro, NJ 08028

609-292-1424 (phone) 856-582-6000 (phone)

609-292-1975 (fax) 856-582-6946 (fax)

mburling@dep.state.nj.us lee_anne_simmler@urscorp.com

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 25

9/30/85 Date of construction completion: 12/1992

Date of operational and functional: 6/1993

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 10/2019

Operational Expected date of completion: 12/2004

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 2 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Suspected Number of monitoring wells used: 39

Approximate annual O&M costs: $2,500,000 Frequency of sampling: 1 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $30,000 Is plume migration controlled? Yes

Approximate pumping rate: 125 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: 20% to 80% restored

Evaluated and found sufficient minor/minor

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

71 Benzene and Toluene Metals precipitation yes

82 Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether Air stripping

373 Xylene Biological treatment

14 1,2-Dichloroethane UV oxidation

249 Methylene Chloride Carbon adsorption yes

294 Phenol Filtration

118 Chromium Ion Exchange

2 228 Lead Reverse Osmosis

108 374 Zinc Off-gas treatment yes

120 other/not sure yes

354

Comments:

RPM

Ferdinand Cataneo

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

cataneo.fred@epa.gov

Lipari Landfill site

Mantua Township, NJ (Region 2)

CERCLIS ID NJD980505416

URS/Radian International

The system has been evaluated and improved on an annual basis since it began operating in 1993. The most significant improvement was designed in 

April 1999 and constructed last year. The improvement converted the system to dual phase operation, which has doubled the rate of contaminated ground 

water extraction while providing for soil vapor/air extraction that has increased the rate of BTEX/VOC removal from the site containment by an order of 

magnitude. 

In June 1999, the USACE Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste Center of Expertise conducted a workshop on Lipari Landfill site system operation, 

maintenance, monitoring and optimization. 

Contact Information

System Information and Data

290 Broadway NJDEP

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

New York City, NY 10007-1866

212-637-4428 (phone)

212-637-4393 (fax)
25

State Regulator Contractor

Michael Mason Karuppenan Subburamu

50 Wolf Road 1000 the American Road

Albany, NY 12233 Morris Plains, NJ 07950

518-457-9285 (phone) 973-630-8518 (phone)

518-457-7743 (fax) 973-630-8111 (fax)

mamason@gw.dec.state.ny.us ksubburamu@fwenc.com

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 9

6/27/91 Date of construction completion: 8/1998

Date of operational and functional: 9/1999

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 3/2009

Operational Expected date of completion: 8/2029

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 2 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Observed Number of monitoring wells used: 15

Approximate annual O&M costs: $700,000 Frequency of sampling: 1 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $50,000 Is plume migration controlled? Yes

Approximate pumping rate: 10 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: less than 20% restored

Evaluated and found sufficient minor/moderate

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

61 Aromatic VOCs Metals precipitation yes

106 Chlorinated Aliphatics Air stripping yes

108 Chlorinated Solvents Biological treatment

170 Ethylbenzene UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption yes

Filtration yes

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment yes

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

Q#18. Of the 9 extraction wells, 3 extract almost 9 gallons/minute. The other 6 extract betw 1-2 gallons/minute. 

Q#26. Wells were sampled twice in 1st year, will be sampled annually thereafter. 

Contact Information

System Information and Data

290 Broadway NY State Department of Environmental 

Conservation

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

NYC, NY 10007-1866

212-637-4272 (phone)

212-637-3966 (fax)

als.ed@epa.gov

Mattiace Petrochemical

Glen Cove, Nassau County, NY (Region 2)

CERCLIS ID NYD000512459

Foster Wheeler Env.Corp.

Tetrachloroethylene, Trichloroethylene, Ethylbenzene, Toluene, 

Xylenes, Methylene Chloride, Dichlorobenzene, Acetone

RPM

Edward Als

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:
34

State Regulator Contractor

Anton Navaragah

401 East State Street

Trenton, NJ 08625

609-777-0340 (phone)

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells:

9/27/90 Date of construction completion:

Date of operational and functional:

Final Expected date of turnover to state:

Predesign Expected date of completion:

Primary goal of system: Approximate downtime per year:

Presence of NAPLs Observed Number of monitoring wells used:

Approximate annual O&M costs: Frequency of sampling:

Costs related to monitoring: Is plume migration controlled?

Approximate pumping rate: Progress of aquifer restoration:

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

354 Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE) Metals precipitation

Air stripping

Biological treatment

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption

Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

Pump and treat is the selected remedy in the ROD. In RD contract to reconsider treatment approach at the site. If pump and treat is used at all, it would 

be adjunct to another remedy or would have a goal of containment.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

290 Broadway NJDEP

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

New York, NY 10007-1866

212-637-4384 (phone)

Metal TEC/Aerosystems

Franklin, NJ (Region 2)

CERCLIS ID NJD002517472

RPM

Dan Weissman

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

weissman.dan.epa.gov
26

State Regulator Contractor

Michael Komoroske Eric Hamilton

50 Wolf Road, Room 242 7870 Villa Park Drive, Suite 400

Albany, NY 12233-7010 Richmond, VA 23228

518-457-3395 (phone) 804-515-8300 (phone)

518-457-4198 (fax) 804-515-8414 (fax)

mjkomoro@gw.dec.state.ny.us e_hamilton@earthtech.com

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 3

3/31/00 Date of construction completion: 5/2000

Date of operational and functional: 7/2001

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 7/2011

Operational Expected date of completion: 7/2031

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year:

Presence of NAPLs Not present Number of monitoring wells used: 17

Approximate annual O&M costs: Frequency of sampling: 2 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: Is plume migration controlled? Don't know

Approximate pumping rate: 40 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: Don't know

Currently being evaluated minor/moderate

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

2 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Metals precipitation

5 1,1-Dichloroethane Air stripping yes

6 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE) Biological treatment

357 Trichloroethylene (TCE) UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption yes

Filtration yes

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment yes

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

This groundwater extraction and treatment system was constructed by the Region 2 Removal Program in May 2000 as a Non-Time Critical Removal Action 

to address the 'nearfield plume', and underwent shakedown until responsibility for the system was transferred to the remedial program in February 2001. 

For approximatey the next 5 months, the Remedial Program will be operate the system as a remedial action in order to complete shakedown activities. 

After this period, the system will be operated as a Long-Term Response Action (beginning July 2001). Additional groundwater extraction wells may be 

added to capture the 'farfield plume'.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

290 Broadway, 20th Floor NYSDEC

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

New York, NY 10007-1866

212-637-3314 (phone)

212-637-3966 (fax)

Mohonk Road Industrial Plant Site

High Falls, NY (Region 2)

CERCLIS ID NYD986950012

EarthTech

RPM

Patrick Hamblin

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

hamblin.patrick@epa.gov
35

State Regulator Contractor

Larry Quinn Geoffrey McKenzie

401 East State Street 107-F Corporate Blvd.

Trenton, NJ 08625 South Plainfield, NJ 07080

609-633-0766 (phone) 908-757-9500 (phone)

lquinn@dep.state.nj.us mckenziegm@cdm.com

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 3

6/27/88 Date of construction completion: 9/2003

Date of operational and functional: 9/2003

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 9/2013

Design Expected date of completion: 9/2033

Primary goal of system: Restoration Approximate downtime per year:

Presence of NAPLs Don't know Number of monitoring wells used: 40

Approximate annual O&M costs: $400,000 Frequency of sampling: 2 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $80,000 Is plume migration controlled?

Approximate pumping rate: 250 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration:

minor/moderate

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

357 Trichloroethylene (TCE) Metals precipitation

Air stripping yes

Biological treatment

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption yes

Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

This is actually two sites, Montgomery Township and Rocky Hill, that will share a single P&T system.

In litigation with PRP.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

290 Broadway NJDEP

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

New York, NY 10007-1866

212-637-3942 (phone)

Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill

Montgomery Township, NJ (Region 2)

CERCLIS ID NJD980654164

CDM

RPM

Monica Mahar

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

mahar.monica@epa.gov
27

State Regulator Contractor

Joseph Yavonditte Paul Hagerman

50 Wolf Road 125 Maiden Lane

Albany, NY 12233 New York, NY 10038

518-457-9280 (phone) 212-785-9123 (phone)

518-457-4198 (fax) 212-785-6114 (fax)

jayovond@gw.dec.state.ny.us hagermanpr@cdm.com

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 2

9/29/89 Date of construction completion: 6/1994

Date of operational and functional: 6/1995

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 6/2005

Operational Expected date of completion: 3/2004

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 2 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Not present Number of monitoring wells used: 18

Approximate annual O&M costs: $400,000 Frequency of sampling: 4 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $130,000 Is plume migration controlled? Yes

Approximate pumping rate: 100 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: 20% to 80% restored

Evaluated and found sufficient minor/minor

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

373 Xylene Metals precipitation

Air stripping yes

Biological treatment

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption yes

Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

Contact Information

System Information and Data

290 Broadway NYSDEC

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

New York, NY 10007

212-637-4251 (phone)

212-637-3966 (fax)

SMS Instruments

Deer Park, NY (Region 2)

CERCLIS ID NYD001533165

CDM Federal

RPM

Mark Dannenberg

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

dannenberg.mark@epa.gov
28

State Regulator Contractor

Thomas Gibbons Thomas Williams

50 Wolf Road 7870 Villa Park Drive - Suite 400

Albany, NY 12233 Richmond, VA 23228

518-457-3960 (phone) 516-482-7162 (phone)

518-457-4158 (fax) 516-466-8396 (fax)

tlgibbon@gw.dec.state.ny.us twilliams@earthtech.com

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 3

3/31/99 Date of construction completion: 6/2001

Date of operational and functional: 9/2001

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 9/2011

Being Installed Expected date of completion: 9/2021

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 1 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Suspected Number of monitoring wells used: 30

Approximate annual O&M costs: $270,000 Frequency of sampling: 4 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $120,000 Is plume migration controlled?

Approximate pumping rate: 90 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration:

minor/moderate

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

354 Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE) Metals precipitation yes

DCE, BTEX, MTBE Air stripping yes

Biological treatment

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption yes

Filtration yes

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment yes

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

An additional source control operation is currently being implemented through an ongoing soil vapor extraction system (SVE). The SVE system is 

expected to be in operation less than the time period estimated for the pump and treat system. Depending on the treatment efficiency of the pump and 

treat system, an innovative treatment technology for biological treatment may be introduced during the course of its active operation. 

Contact Information

System Information and Data

290 Broadway - 20th Floor NYSDEC

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

New York, NY 10007-1866

212-637-4269 (phone)

212-637-3966 (fax)

Stanton Cleaners Area Groundwater Contamination Site

Great Neck, NY (Region 2)

CERCLIS ID NYD047650197

Earth Tech

RPM

Damian Duda

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

duda.damian@epa.gov
29

State Regulator Contractor

Jeanette Abels John Sperber

401 East State St. P.O. Box 316

Trenton, NJ 08625 Closter, NJ 07624

609-292-4873 (phone) 201-750-6880 (phone)

609-633-2360 (fax) 201-750-6890 (fax)

jabels@dep.state.nj.us spurber@webstan.net

State-lead w/ Fund $ Number of extraction wells: 3

9/29/86 Date of construction completion: 4/1991

9/27/00 Date of operational and functional: 4/1991

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 4/2001

Operational Expected date of completion: 9/2028

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 3 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Observed Number of monitoring wells used: 0

Approximate annual O&M costs: $350,000 Frequency of sampling: 0 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: Is plume migration controlled? Yes

Approximate pumping rate: 20 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: less than 20% restored

Evaluated and found not sufficient minor/moderate

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

41 Acetone Metals precipitation yes

70 Benzene Air stripping yes

114 Chlorobenzene Biological treatment yes

170 Ethylbenzene UV oxidation

346 Toluene Carbon adsorption yes

373 Xylene Filtration yes

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment yes

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

18: Wells used for water control. Also, there is a trench and three sump wells located in areas that flood locally.

21: Date of 10/93 is provided. This would mean it has already been transferred to the state. 10/93 is not a possible response given the format of the 

webpage. 4/2001 is provided temporarily until more information is available.

27: A slurry wall is providing the control

Contact Information

System Information and Data

290 Broadway NJDEP

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

New York, NY 10007-1866

212-637-4416 (phone)

212-637-4393 (fax)

Syncon Resins

Kearny, NJ (Region 2)

CERCLIS ID NJD064263817

LSR Levine and Fricke

RPM

Pamela J. Baxter

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

baxter.pam@epamail.gov
30

State Regulator Contractor

Jeffrey Trad Heidemarie Adenau

50 Wolf Road 1000 The American Road

Albany, NY 12233-7010 Morris Plains, NJ 07950

518-457-9285 (phone) 973-630-7197 (phone)

518-457-7743 (fax) 973-630-8025 (fax)

jetrad@gw.dec.state.ny.us hadenau@fwenc.com

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 1

6/27/86 Date of construction completion: 12/1993

Date of operational and functional: 3/1995

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 3/2005

Operational Expected date of completion: 3/2015

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 1 week

Presence of NAPLs Not present Number of monitoring wells used: 12

Approximate annual O&M costs: $180,000 Frequency of sampling: 1 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $30,000 Is plume migration controlled? Yes

Approximate pumping rate: 450 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: less than 20% restored

Evaluated and found sufficient minor/minor

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

2 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Metals precipitation

5 1,1-Dichloroethane Air stripping yes

6 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE) Biological treatment

16 1,2-Dichloroethylene (DCE) UV oxidation

357 Trichloroethylene (TCE) Carbon adsorption

Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

RPM

Sharon Trocher

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

trocher.sharon@epa.gov

Vestal Water Supply Well 1-1

Vestal, NY (Region 2)

CERCLIS ID NYD980763767

Foster Wheeler Env.Corporation

Contact Information

System Information and Data

290 Broadway NYSDEC

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

New York, NY 10007-1866

212-637-3965 (phone)

212-637-3966 (fax)
31

State Regulator Contractor

Craig Wallace Gillespie Steve

401 East State Street CN413 1405A North Mill Road

Trenton, NJ 08625-0413 Vineland, NJ 08360

609 984-3727 (phone) 856 690-1758 (phone)

609 633-2360 (fax) 856 690-1759 (fax)

cwallac2@dep.state.nj.us vineland@voicenet.com

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 13

9/28/89 Date of construction completion: 4/2000

Date of operational and functional: 6/2000

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 6/2011

Operational Expected date of completion: 6/2031

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 0 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Not present Number of monitoring wells used: 40

Approximate annual O&M costs: $4,000,000 Frequency of sampling: 52 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $750,000 Is plume migration controlled? Yes

Approximate pumping rate: 1400 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: Don't know

Currently being evaluated moderate/severe

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

62 Arsenic Metals precipitation yes

Air stripping

Biological treatment

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption

Filtration yes

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

RPM

Matthew Westgate

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

westgate.matthew@epamail.epa.gov

Vineland Chemical Co. Groundwater Treatment Plant

Vineland, NJ (Region 2)

CERCLIS ID NJD002385664

Sevenson Env. Services

Currently we are pumping 700 gpm. Major modifications are required to increase plant flow to maximum flow rate -1400 gpm.

We are in the process of hiring a contractor, SAIC of Harrisburg, PA, through the Philadelphia District Army Corps of Engineers, to perform a "SmartSite" 

Optimization Study. Kickoff meeting is scheduled for March 1 2001. If you want to study this site and perform the optimization study, call me now at 212 

637-4422. 

Contact Information

System Information and Data

290 Broadway 19th floor N.J. Dept. of Environmental Protection

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

New York City, NY 10007-1866

212 637-4422 (phone)

212 637-4429 (fax)
32

State Regulator Contractor

Steve Wohleb Richard Talbot

P.O. Box 413 24 South Newton Street Road, Suite 1B

Trenton, NJ 08625-0413 Newton Square, PA 19073

609-633-3970 (phone) 610-356-3790 (phone)

609-292-1975 (fax) 610-356-4780 (fax)

swohleb@dep.state.nj.us TurnKeyEnv@aol.com

State-lead w/ Fund $ Number of extraction wells: 2

9/29/87 Date of construction completion: 1/1995

Date of operational and functional: 1/1995

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 1/2001

Operational Expected date of completion: 12/2002

Primary goal of system: Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 0 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Not present Number of monitoring wells used: 18

Approximate annual O&M costs: $350,000 Frequency of sampling: 2 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: Is plume migration controlled? Yes

Approximate pumping rate: 80 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: more than 80% restored

Evaluated and found sufficient minor/minor

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

82 Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether Metals precipitation

354 Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE) Air stripping

41 Acetone Biological treatment yes

217 Isophorone UV oxidation yes

244 Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) Carbon adsorption yes

245 Methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK) Filtration

373 Xylene Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

RPM

Ferdinand Cataneo

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

cataneo.fred@epa.gov

Williams Property

Swainton, Middle Township, NJ (Region 2)

CERCLIS ID NJD980529945

TurnKey Env. Services, Inc

At this time the plume appears to have been remediated except for low level PCE and TCE tailing. The pump and treat is expected to be shut down later 

this year with the system maintained in a "ready-to-run" state. Long term monitoring for possible rebound of contamination will follow. Resumption of 

operations would be triggered if rebound, as defined in a long-term testing plan,occurs. 

Regarding Question #21, please note that the NJDEP has been running the p&t since operations began in January 1995. 

Contact Information

System Information and Data

290 Broadway NJDEP

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

New York City, NY 10007-1866

212-637-4428 (phone)

212-637-4393 (fax)
REGION 3 INFORMATION SHEETS
44

State Regulator Contractor

Ragesh Patel Neil Teamerson

Lee Park, Suite 6010 555 North Lane 600 Clark Avenue, Suite 3

Conshohocken, PA 19428 King of Prussia, PA 19406

610-832-6161 (phone) 610-491-9688 (phone)

610-832-6260 (fax) 610-491-9645 (fax)

patel.ragesh@state.pa.us teamersonn@ttnus.com

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 5

9/29/95 Date of construction completion: 11/2000

Date of operational and functional: 9/2001

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 9/2011

Operational Expected date of completion: 9/2031

Primary goal of system: Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 1 week

Presence of NAPLs Not present Number of monitoring wells used: 15

Approximate annual O&M costs: $180,000 Frequency of sampling: 4 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $50,000 Is plume migration controlled? Don't know

Approximate pumping rate: 118 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: Don't know

Evaluated and found sufficient minor/moderate

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

3 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Metals precipitation

352 Trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene Air stripping yes

Biological treatment

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption yes

Filtration yes

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment yes

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

This Pump and Treat is only a few months old and there is not enough performance data to date to make any recomendations regarding optimization.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

1650 Arch Street (3HS21) PADEP

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Philadelphia, PA 19103

215-814-3193 (phone)

215-814-3002 (fax)

AIW Frank/Mid-County Mustang Site, OU#1

Exton, PA (Region 3)

CERCLIS ID PAD004351003

TetraTech NUS

RPM

Charlie Root

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

root.charlie@epa.gov
45

State Regulator Contractor

Elise Juers Ed Kashdan

909 Elmerton Av. PO Box 80794

Harrisburg, PA 17110-8200 Valley Forge, PA 19484

717-705-4852 (phone) 610-650-8101 (phone)

717-705-4830 (fax) 610-650-8190 (fax)

juers.elise@a1.dep.state.pa.45 ekashdan@GFnet.com

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 1

9/29/88 Date of construction completion: 2/1995

2/2/94 Date of operational and functional: 2/1995

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 2/2005

Operational Expected date of completion: 2/2003

Primary goal of system: Restoration Approximate downtime per year:

Presence of NAPLs Not present Number of monitoring wells used: 48

Approximate annual O&M costs: $150,000 Frequency of sampling: 1 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $25,000 Is plume migration controlled? Yes

Approximate pumping rate: 90 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: 20% to 80% restored

Evaluated and found sufficient minor/minor

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

2 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Metals precipitation

6 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE) Air stripping yes

Biological treatment

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption

Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

Maximum TCA and DCE concentrations in 1988 were 7,300 and 3,500 ppb, respectivly. By 1999 concentrations have been reduced to 470 ppb and 78 

ppb for TCA and DCE respectively. This has been accomplished by maximizing pump rate with respect to contaminant concentrartions. Currently there is 

one area that is less responcive to the pumping system. A pilot scale fentons reagent injection study will be conducted in this area in the Spring of 2001. If 

successful oxidant injection will be used throughout the plume.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

1650 Arch Street PADEP

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Philadephia, PA 19103-2087

215-814-3317 (phone)

215-814-3015 (fax)

Berks Sand Pit

Huffs Church, PA (Region 3)

CERCLIS ID PAD980691794

Gannett Fleming

RPM

Bruce Rundell

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

rundell.bruce@epa.gov
46

State Regulator Contractor

PADEP Paul Panek Charles Huval

4530 Bath Pike 14649 Highway 41 N

Bethlehem, PA 18017 Evansville, IN 47725

610-861-2070 (phone) 812-483-4516 (phone)

610-861-2072 (fax)

panek.paul@dep.state.pa.us

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 3

6/30/92 Date of construction completion: 4/2001

8/27/99 Date of operational and functional: 4/2001

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 4/2011

Operational Expected date of completion: 4/2031

Primary goal of system: Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 0 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Not present Number of monitoring wells used: 17

Approximate annual O&M costs: $250,000 Frequency of sampling: 4 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $125,000 Is plume migration controlled? Don't know

Approximate pumping rate: 90 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: less than 20% restored

Not evaluated minor/minor

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

155 Diesel fuel Metals precipitation

355 Trichlorobenzene Air stripping yes

Vinyl Chloride Biological treatment

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption

Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment yes

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

Doug Sutton completed this questionnaire based on phone interviews with Rom Roman (RPM) and Bruce Rundell (hydrogeologist). 

At the time of this survey, the site was to begin operation within a couple of weeks. Thus, many of the responses are estimates including costs, flow rates, 

and expected date of completion.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

1650 Arch Street PADEP

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2087

215-814-3212 (phone)

215-814-3015 (fax)

Butz Landfill

Monroe Township, PA (Region 3)

CERCLIS ID PAD981034705

Koester Environmental Services

RPM

Rom Roman

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

roman.romuald@epa.gov
47

State Regulator Contractor

Ewald Dave Harish Mital

Lee Park, Suite 6010 Plaza 273, 56 West Main Street

Conshohocken, PA 19428 Christiana, DE 19702

610-832-6200 (phone) 302-738-7551 (phone)

610-832-5950 (fax) 302-454-5988 (fax)

Ewald.David@dep.state.pa.us harish.mital@tetratech.com

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 6

6/29/90 Date of construction completion: 3/1995

Date of operational and functional: 3/1995

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 3/2005

Operational Expected date of completion: 3/2025

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year:

Presence of NAPLs Suspected Number of monitoring wells used: 7

Approximate annual O&M costs: $200,000 Frequency of sampling: 4 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $100,000 Is plume migration controlled? Yes

Approximate pumping rate: 25 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: less than 20% restored

Evaluated and found sufficient minor/minor

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

4 1,1,2-Trichloroethane Metals precipitation

6 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE) Air stripping yes

354 Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE) Biological treatment

357 Trichloroethylene (TCE) UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption yes

Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

RPM

Cesar Lee

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

lee.cesar@epa.gov

Croydon TCE

Bristol Township, PA (Region 3)

CERCLIS ID PAD981035009

Tetra Tech, Inc.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

1650 Arch St PADEP

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Philadelphia, PA 19103

215-814-3205 (phone)

215-814-3205 (fax)
48

State Regulator Contractor

Rich Morgan Don Koch

909 Elmerton Ave 9115 Guilford Road Suite 100

Harrisburg, PA 17110 Columbia, MD 21046

610-916-0122 (phone) 410-461-9920 (phone)

610-916-0100 (fax) 410-750-8565 (fax)

MORGAN.RICHARD@DEP.STATE.PA.US dkoch@md.ccjm.com

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 9

9/30/91 Date of construction completion: 2/1998

Date of operational and functional: 6/1998

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 6/2008

Operational Expected date of completion: 6/2010

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 1 week

Presence of NAPLs Don't know Number of monitoring wells used: 4

Approximate annual O&M costs: $125,000 Frequency of sampling: 1 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $40,000 Is plume migration controlled? Yes

Approximate pumping rate: 60 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: Don't know

Evaluated and found sufficient minor/moderate

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

2 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Metals precipitation

5 1,1-Dichloroethane Air stripping yes

6 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE) Biological treatment

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption

Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

RPM

Joseph McDowell

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

mcdowell.joseph@epa.gov

CryoChem

Earl Township, PA (Region 3)

CERCLIS ID PAD002360444

ETA

Contact Information

System Information and Data

1650 Arch Street PADEP

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Phila, PA 19103

215-814-3192 (phone)

215-814-3002 (fax)
49

State Regulator Contractor

Berry Wright Jeff Waters

629 E. Main Street 1700 Market Street, Suite 1600

Richmond, VA 23219 Philadelphia, PA 19103

804-698-4012 (phone) 215-563-4220 (phone)

804-698-4234 (fax) 215-563-3828 (fax)

bfwright@deq.state.va.us jwaters@ch2m.com

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 5

12/30/90 Date of construction completion: 11/2000

Date of operational and functional: 11/2001

Interim Expected date of turnover to state: 11/2011

Operational Expected date of completion: 11/2020

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year:

Presence of NAPLs Don't know Number of monitoring wells used: 34

Approximate annual O&M costs: $400,000 Frequency of sampling: 4 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $50,000 Is plume migration controlled? Not a goal

Approximate pumping rate: 45 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: Don't know

Not evaluated minor/minor

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

5 1,1-Dichloroethane Metals precipitation yes

41 Acetone Air stripping

62 Arsenic Biological treatment

71 Benzene and Toluene UV oxidation yes

83 Carbon adsorption yes

114 Filtration yes

115 Ion Exchange

2 130 Reverse Osmosis

108 249 Off-gas treatment yes

120 260 other/not sure

354 319

340

346

354

Comments:

RPM

Philip Rotstein

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

rotstein.phil@epa.gov

215-814-3002 (fax)

Greenwood Chemical Site

Greenwood, VA (Region 3)

CERCLIS ID VAD003125374

CH2M Hill

Naphthalene, Acetic Acid, 1,2-Dichloroethane, SVOC TICs, 

Dibutyl phthalate, 2,4,6,-Trichlorophenol

Initial startup and testing of the pump and treat system began in November 2000. The system became fully operational in March 2001. Actual operational 

costs (O&M) not known at this time. 

Contact Information

System Information and Data

1650 Arch Street Department of Environmental Quality

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Philadelphia, PA 19103

215-814-3232 (phone)
50

State Regulator Contractor

April Flipse Lori Stoll

555 North Lane, Suite 6010 200 Orchard Ridge Drive, Suite 101

Conshohocken, PA 19428 Gaithersburg, MD 20878-1978

610-832-5937 (phone) 301-258-9780 (phone)

610-832-6143 (fax) 301-869-2043 (fax)

Flipse.April@dep.state.pa.us lori_stoll@urscorp.com

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 4

9/30/91 Date of construction completion: 5/2001

Date of operational and functional: 4/2002

Interim Expected date of turnover to state: 4/2012

Being Installed Expected date of completion: 4/2033

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year:

Presence of NAPLs Observed Number of monitoring wells used: 15

Approximate annual O&M costs: $1,000,000 Frequency of sampling: 2 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $283,300 Is plume migration controlled?

Approximate pumping rate: 45 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration:

Not evaluated minor/moderate

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

71 Benzene and Toluene Metals precipitation yes

164 Dioxin (TCDD equivalents) Air stripping

290 Pentachlorophenol (PCP) Biological treatment

357 Trichloroethylene (TCE) UV oxidation yes

Carbon adsorption yes

Filtration yes

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

RPM

Gregory Ham

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

ham.greg@epa.gov

Havertown PCP OU2

Havertown, PA (Region 3)

CERCLIS ID PAD002338010

URS Corporation

This system includes a 200 foot long collection trench and four oil/water extraction wells. There is free product (PCP/oil) being recovered from most of the 

wells.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

1650 Arch Street (3HS21) PADEP

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029

215-814-3194 (phone)

215-814-3002 (fax)
51

State Regulator Contractor

Meg Mustard Jim Romig

4530 Bath Pike 993 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 408

Bethlehem, PA 18017 Wayne, PA 19087

610-861-2076 (phone) 610-293-0450 (phone)

610-861-2072 (fax) 610-293-1920 (fax)

boyer.margaret@dep.state.pa.us romigjm@cdm.com

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 1

9/3/91 Date of construction completion: 9/1996

Date of operational and functional: 3/1996

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 9/2006

Operational Expected date of completion: 9/2026

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 0 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Not present Number of monitoring wells used: 12

Approximate annual O&M costs: $350,000 Frequency of sampling: 4 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $150,000 Is plume migration controlled? Yes

Approximate pumping rate: 50 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: Don't know

Evaluated and found not sufficient minor/moderate

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

70 Benzene Metals precipitation

120 Cis-1,2-dichloroethene Air stripping yes

332 TCE and Vinyl chloride Biological treatment

352 Trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene UV oxidation

354 Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE) Carbon adsorption yes

Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

RPM

Cesar Lee

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

lee.cesar@epa.gov

Hellertown Manufacturing

Bethlehem, PA (Region 3)

CERCLIS ID PAD002390748

CDM Federal Corporation

Doug Sutton filled this out based on hand written notes of Cesar Lee.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

1650 Arch Street PADEP

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Philadelphia, PA 19103

215-814-3205 (phone)

215-814-3205 (fax)
52

State Regulator Contractor

April Flipse Policarpio Mijares

Lee Park, Suite 6010 555 North Lane P.O. Box 1715

Conshohocken, PA 19428 Baltimore, PA 21203

610-832-5937 (phone) 410-962-2782 (phone)

610-832-6143 (fax) 410-962-2318 (fax)

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 1

9/30/94 Date of construction completion: 7/1998

9/24/98 Date of operational and functional: 9/1998

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 9/2008

Operational Expected date of completion: 9/2018

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 0 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Not present Number of monitoring wells used: 4

Approximate annual O&M costs: $100,000 Frequency of sampling: 2 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $25,000 Is plume migration controlled? Don't know

Approximate pumping rate: 2 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: Don't know

Not evaluated minor/minor

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

2 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Metals precipitation

5 1,1-Dichloroethane Air stripping

6 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE) Biological treatment

120 Cis-1,2-dichloroethene UV oxidation

352 Trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene Carbon adsorption

354 Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE) Filtration

372 Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure yes

354

Comments:

RPM

Maria de los A. Garcia

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

garcia.maria@epa.gov

North Penn Area 1

Souderton, Montgomery County, PA (Region 3)

CERCLIS ID PAD096834494

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

The system in this site consists of an extraction system that discharges to a local wastewater treatment facility. There is no conventional treatment system 

at the site.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

1650 Arch Street Pennsylvania Department of Env. Protection

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Philadelphia, PA 19103

215-814-3199 (phone)

215-814-3002 (fax)
53

State Regulator Contractor

Robert Zang Ray Lees

555 North Lane, Suite 6010 1220 Ward Avenue, Suite 300

Conshohocken, PA 19428 West Chester, PA 19380-3409

610-832-6152 (phone) 610-241-5000 (phone)

610-832-6259 (fax) 610-241-5050 (fax)

Zang.Robert@state.pa.us rlees@theitgroup.com

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 10

8/10/00 Date of construction completion: 9/2002

Date of operational and functional: 6/2003

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 6/2013

Design Expected date of completion: 6/2033

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year:

Presence of NAPLs Suspected Number of monitoring wells used: 30

Approximate annual O&M costs: $592,900 Frequency of sampling: 4 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $216,000 Is plume migration controlled?

Approximate pumping rate: 300 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration:

Not evaluated minor/moderate

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

97 Carbon tetrachloride Metals precipitation yes

332 TCE and Vinyl chloride Air stripping yes

354 Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE) Biological treatment

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption

Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment yes

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

This site consists of a groundwater plume covering an area approximately 3 square miles, with multiple identified sources. It will be done as a mixed work 

site (some wells installed and operated by EPA, some by PRPs). The first two wells are being done under a non-time critical removal action, the remainder 

as a remedial action.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

1650 Arch Street (3HS21) Pennsylvania Dept. of Env. Protection

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029

215-814-3194 (phone)

215-814-3002 (fax)

North Penn Area 6

Lansdale, PA (Region 3)

CERCLIS ID PAD980926976

It Corporation

RPM

Gregory Ham

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

ham.greg@epa.gov
54

State Regulator Contractor

David Minsker Andy Hopton

Lee Park Suite 6010 555 North Lane 993 Old Eagle School Road

Conshohocken, PA 19428 Wayne, PA 19083

610-832-6193 (phone) 610-293-0450 (phone)

610-832-6143 (fax) 610-293-1920 (fax)

Minsker.David@dep.state.pa.us HoptonAP@cdm.com

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 2

9/28/90 Date of construction completion: 1/1994

Date of operational and functional: 6/1995

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 1/2004

Operational Expected date of completion: 1/2014

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 2 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Not present Number of monitoring wells used: 0

Approximate annual O&M costs: $155,711 Frequency of sampling: 0 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $140,000 Is plume migration controlled? Don't know

Approximate pumping rate: 62 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: Don't know

Not evaluated minor/minor

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

99 Carbozol Metals precipitation

355 Trichlorobenzene Air stripping

Biological treatment

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption yes

Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment yes

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

Originally, the time frame for aquifer restoration was 20 years from system startup but we are currently re-evaluating the effectiveness of the remedy and 

that time frame may change.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

1650 Arch Street PADEP

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Philadelphia, PA 19103

215-814-5125 (phone)

215-814-3002 (fax)

Raymark

Hatboro, PA (Region 3)

CERCLIS ID 0300894

CDM Federal Programs

RPM

Deanna Moultrie

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

moultrie.deanna@epa.gov
55

State Regulator Contractor

Thomas Modena Marc Gutterman

629 East Main Street 803 Front Street

Richmond, VA 23219 Norfolk, VA 23510

804-698-4183 (phone) 757-441-7669 (phone)

804-698-4500 (fax) 757-441-7478 (fax)

tdmodena@deq.state.va.us Marc.D.Gutterman@nao02.usace.army.mil

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 4

9/27/96 Date of construction completion: 4/1998

Date of operational and functional: 5/1999

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 5/2009

Operational Expected date of completion: 4/2008

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 2 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Suspected Number of monitoring wells used: 10

Approximate annual O&M costs: $80,000 Frequency of sampling: 4 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $25,000 Is plume migration controlled? Yes

Approximate pumping rate: 2 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: Don't know

Not evaluated minor/severe

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

62 Arsenic Metals precipitation yes

290 Pentachlorophenol (PCP) Air stripping

Biological treatment

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption yes

Filtration yes

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

To clarify #19 above: The system was constructed by Removal because the plume was getting close to a drinking reservoir.

To clarify #30: The treatment plant is located on the PRP's property but the recovery wells and monitorong wells are located on the adjoining property. We 

placed piping and power in the utilities conduit trench for another recovery well. We have access to these wells and the conduit trench through an access 

agreement between the PRP and the owner of the adjoining property. However, any work outside of this area could be very difficult to implement because 

it would probably require another access agreement. 

Contact Information

System Information and Data

1650 Arch Street Virginia Department of Env.Quality

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Philadelphia, PA 19103

215-814-3233 (phone)

215-814-3002 (fax)

Saunders Supply Company

Chuckatuck, VA (Region 3)

CERCLIS ID VAD003117389

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

RPM

Andrew Palestini

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

palestini.andy@epa.gov
REGION 4 INFORMATION SHEETS
60

State Regulator Contractor

Nile Testerman

401 Oberlin Road

Raleigh, NC 27605

919-733-2801 (phone)

919-733-4811 (fax)

nile.testerman@ncmail.net

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells:

1/26/93 Date of construction completion:

Date of operational and functional:

Final Expected date of turnover to state:

Operational Expected date of completion:

Primary goal of system: Restoration Approximate downtime per year:

Presence of NAPLs Not present Number of monitoring wells used:

Approximate annual O&M costs: Frequency of sampling:

Costs related to monitoring: Is plume migration controlled?

Approximate pumping rate: Progress of aquifer restoration:

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

6 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE) Metals precipitation

354 Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE) Air stripping yes

vinyl chloride Biological treatment

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption

Filtration yes

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

Douglas Sutton completed this form based on a phone interview with Luis Flores.

The site has been shut down for approximately 1 year.

The EPA and the previous site contractor are currently in litigation and additional site details could not be discussed.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

61 Forsyth Street, SW NCDENR

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Atlanta, GA 30303-8960

404-562-8807 (phone)

ABC Cleaners

Jacksonville, NC (Region 4)

CERCLIS ID NCD024644494

RPM

Luis Flores

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

flores.luis@epa.gov
61

State Regulator Contractor

John Sykes Joe Findley

Mobile, AL 

850-488-019 (phone) 334-694-4012 (phone)

850-488-0190 (fax)

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 8

2/3/94 Date of construction completion: 9/1998

Date of operational and functional: 9/1998

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 5/2003

Operational Expected date of completion: 5/2003

Primary goal of system: Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 4 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Observed Number of monitoring wells used: 4

Approximate annual O&M costs: $300,000 Frequency of sampling: 2 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: Is plume migration controlled? No

Approximate pumping rate: 0.1 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: less than 20% restored

Not evaluated minor/minor

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

39 Acenaphthene Metals precipitation

70 Benzene Air stripping

144 Dibenzofuran Biological treatment

175 Fluoranthene UV oxidation

260 Naphthalene Carbon adsorption yes

290 Pentachlorophenol (PCP) Filtration yes

carcinogenic PAHs Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure yes

354

Comments:

RPM

Mark Fite

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

fite.mark@epa.gov

American Creosote Works (DNAPL)

Pensacola, FL (Region 4)

CERCLIS ID

USACE, Mobile District

Doug Sutton completed this form based on an interview with Mark Fite. 

This system is a DNAPL recovery system that will be decommissioned in 2003. Therefore, the site will not be transferred to the state. A Fund-lead P&T 

solute recovery system will be installed in 2004. 

Optimization is currently underway with USACE.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

61 Forsyth Street, SW FDEP

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Atlanta, GA 30303-8960

404-562-8927 (phone)
62

State Regulator Contractor

John Sykes Joe Findley

Mobile, AL 

850-488-0190 (phone) 334-694-4012 (phone)

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 3

2/3/94 Date of construction completion: 9/2004

Date of operational and functional: 9/2004

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 9/2014

Predesign Expected date of completion: 9/2009

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 0 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Observed Number of monitoring wells used: 10

Approximate annual O&M costs: $452,000 Frequency of sampling: 2 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: Is plume migration controlled?

Approximate pumping rate: 105 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration:

Not evaluated minor/minor

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

39 Acenaphthene Metals precipitation

70 Benzene Air stripping

144 Dibenzofuran Biological treatment yes

175 Fluoranthene UV oxidation

260 Naphthalene Carbon adsorption yes

290 Pentachlorophenol (PCP) Filtration

carcinogenic PAHs Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

RPM

Mark Fite

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

fite.mark@epa.gov

American Creosote Works (solute)

Pensacola, FL (Region 4)

CERCLIS ID 

USACE, Mobile District

Douglas Sutton completed this form based on a phone interview with Mark Fite.

This system is planned to address dissolved groundwater contamination in 2004 after the associated DNAPL recovery system is decommissioned. 

Data provided here are estimates taken from the ROD. 

Contact Information

System Information and Data

61 Forsyth Street, SW FDEP

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Atlanta, GA 30303-8960

404-562-8927 (phone)
63

State Regulator Contractor

Nile Testerman Chris Leggett

401 Oberlin Road

Raleigh, NC 27605 Newport, TN 

919-733-2801 (phone) 423-625-0557 (phone)

919-733-4811 (fax)

nile.testerman@ncmail.net

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 2

7/31/92 Date of construction completion: 4/2001

Date of operational and functional: 5/2001

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 5/2011

Operational Expected date of completion: 5/2021

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 0 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Not present Number of monitoring wells used: 8

Approximate annual O&M costs: $30,000 Frequency of sampling: 4 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $10,000 Is plume migration controlled? Don't know

Approximate pumping rate: 16 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: less than 20% restored

Not evaluated minor/minor

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

127 Creosote and petroleum hydrocarbons Metals precipitation

Air stripping

Biological treatment

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption

Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure yes

354

Comments:

RPM

Jon Bornholm

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

bornholm.jon@epa.gov

Benfield Industries

Hazelwood, NC (Region 4)

CERCLIS ID NCD981026479

CMC

This form was completed by Douglas Sutton based on a phone interview with Jon Bornholm. 

Monitoring frequency is expected to drop from quarterly to annually.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

61 Forsyth Street, SW NCDENR

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Atlanta, GA 30303-8960

404-562-8820 (phone)
59

State Regulator Contractor

Nile Testerman Ed Hicks

401 Oberlin Road 1145 Sanctuary Parkway, Suite 475

Raleigh, NC 27605 Alpharetta, GA 30004

919-733-2901 (phone) 770-521-8141 (phone)

919-733-4811 (fax) 770-751-8322 (fax)

nile.testerman@ncmail.net hicksec@bc.com

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 7

6/30/89 Date of construction completion: 9/2001

3/23/01 Date of operational and functional: 9/2002

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 10/2011

Design/Not Installed Expected date of completion: 12/2009

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year:

Presence of NAPLs Observed Number of monitoring wells used: 25

Approximate annual O&M costs: $40,000 Frequency of sampling: 4 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $30,000 Is plume migration controlled?

Approximate pumping rate: 43 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration:

Not evaluated minor/minor

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

70 Benzene Metals precipitation

72 Benzo(a)anthracene Air stripping

73 Benzo(a)pyrene Biological treatment

74 Benzo(b)fluoranthene UV oxidation

75 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Carbon adsorption yes

Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

Contact Information

System Information and Data

61 Forsyth Street, SW NCDENR

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Atlanta, GA 30303-3104

404-562-8820 (phone)

404-562-8788 (fax)

Cape Fear Wood Preserving

Fayetteville, NC (Region 4)

CERCLIS ID NCD003188828

Black & Veatch

RPM

Jon Bornholm

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

bornholm.jon@epa.gov
64

State Regulator Contractor

John Sykes Todd Trulock

Jacksonville, FL 

850-413-0066 (phone) 904-232-1110 (phone)

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells:

9/25/86 Date of construction completion:

9/25/97 Date of operational and functional:

Interim Expected date of turnover to state:

Predesign Expected date of completion:

Primary goal of system: Restoration Approximate downtime per year:

Presence of NAPLs Observed Number of monitoring wells used:

Approximate annual O&M costs: Frequency of sampling:

Costs related to monitoring: Is plume migration controlled?

Approximate pumping rate: Progress of aquifer restoration:

Not evaluated

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

163 Dioxin Metals precipitation

290 Pentachlorophenol (PCP) Air stripping

Biological treatment

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption

Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

RPM

Randall Chaffins

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

chaffins.randall@epa.gov

Coleman Evans Wood Preserving

Whitehouse, FL (Region 4)

CERCLIS ID FLD991279894

USACE, Jacksonville District

This form was completed by Douglas Sutton based on a phone interview with Randall Chaffins. 

There are three RODs for this OU. The first is dated 1986 and the last is dated 1997. 

As the system is in the pre-design stage, no information is availabe about system operations.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

61 Forsyth Street, SW FDEP

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Atlanta, GA 30303-8960

404-562-8929 (phone)
65

State Regulator Contractor

Lucas Berresford Ed Hicks

21 Bull Street

Columbia, SC 29201 Atlanta, GA 

770-751-7517 (phone)

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 9

4/26/93 Date of construction completion: 9/1998

Date of operational and functional: 9/1998

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 9/2008

Operational Expected date of completion: 9/2018

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 0 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Don't know Number of monitoring wells used: 17

Approximate annual O&M costs: $180,000 Frequency of sampling: 4 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $18,000 Is plume migration controlled? Don't know

Approximate pumping rate: 30 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: Don't know

Evaluated and found sufficient minor/minor

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

354 Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE) Metals precipitation

372 Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) Air stripping

Biological treatment

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption yes

Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure yes

354

Comments:

This form was completed by Douglas Sutton based on information gathered during the demonstration project and the RSE visit in 2000.

Treatment processes include GAC and discharge to the POTW.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

61 Forsyth Street, SW SCDHEC

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Atlanta, GA 30303-8960

404-562-8829 (phone)

Elmore Waste Disposal

Greer, SC (Region 4)

CERCLIS ID SCD980839542

Black and Veatch

RPM

Ralph Howard

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

howard.ralph@epa.gov
66

State Regulator Contractor

Nile Testerman Ralph McKeen

401 Oberlin Road

Raleigh, NC 27605 Atlanta, GA 

919-733-2801 (phone) 770-263-5438 (phone)

919-733-4811 (fax)

nile.testerman@ncmail.net

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 10

9/27/93 Date of construction completion:

9/30/96 Date of operational and functional: 5/1998

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 5/2008

Operational Expected date of completion: 5/2008

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year:

Presence of NAPLs Don't know Number of monitoring wells used: 18

Approximate annual O&M costs: $150,000 Frequency of sampling: 4 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $40,000 Is plume migration controlled? Don't know

Approximate pumping rate: 20 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: less than 20% restored

Evaluated and found sufficient minor/minor

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

291 Pesticides Metals precipitation

372 Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) Air stripping

PCE Biological treatment

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption yes

Filtration yes

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

This form was completed by Douglas Sutton based on information collected during the demonstration project. Data on the extraction, treatment, and 

monitoring systems were obtained from the report resultingn from the RSE conducted in 2000.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

61 Forsyth Street, SW NCDENR

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Atlanta, GA 30303-8960

404-562-8802 (phone)

FCX Statesville

Statesville, NC (Region 4)

CERCLIS ID NCD095458527

Roy F. Weston

RPM

Ken Mallory

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

mallory.ken@epa.gov
67

State Regulator Contractor

State-lead w/ Fund $ Number of extraction wells: 40

1/0/00 Date of construction completion: 9/1992

Date of operational and functional: 9/1992

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 9/2002

Operational Expected date of completion:

Primary goal of system: Water supply Approximate downtime per year:

Presence of NAPLs Not present Number of monitoring wells used:

Approximate annual O&M costs: $1,000,000 Frequency of sampling:

Costs related to monitoring: Is plume migration controlled?

Approximate pumping rate: 104000 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration:

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

357 Trichloroethylene (TCE) Metals precipitation

Air stripping yes

Biological treatment

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption

Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

Douglas Sutton completed this form based on a phone interview with Jim McGuire. 

No current RPM is appointed to this site. Jim McGuire is the point of contact. 

EPA Region 4 provides $1,000,000 per year to Dade County to operate 40 air strippers that have been installed to remediate aquifer and to treat water 

extracted from public well fields and used for water supply.

The total number of wells is not known but this number is likely similar to number of airstrippers (40). 

Contact Information

System Information and Data

61 Forsyth Street, SW

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Atlanta, GA 30303-8960

404-562-8911 (phone)

Miami Drum

Hialeah, FL (Region 4)

CERCLIS ID FLD076027820

RPM

Jim McGuire

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

mcguire.jim@epa.gov
68

State Regulator Contractor

Keisha Long Tim Eggert

21 Bull Street 2030 Powers Ferry Road, Suite 325

Columbia, SC 29201 Atlanta, GA 30339

803-896-4073 (phone) 678-202-8912 (phone)

770-951-8910 (fax)

eggerttj@cdm.com

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 10

9/30/87 Date of construction completion: 5/1997

8/4/93 Date of operational and functional: 1/1998

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 5/2008

Operational Expected date of completion: 5/2008

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 4 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Not present Number of monitoring wells used: 8

Approximate annual O&M costs: $300,000 Frequency of sampling: 2 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $25,000 Is plume migration controlled? Yes

Approximate pumping rate: 130 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: 20% to 80% restored

Evaluated and found sufficient minor/moderate

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

118 Chromium Metals precipitation

Air stripping

Biological treatment

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption

Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure yes

354

Comments:

This form was completed by Doug Sutton based on a phone interview with Al Cherry and Tim Eggert.

11 of 17 original wells have met clean-up standards

expected time to remediation completion is an estimate

treatment processes include pH adjustment and discharge to the POTW

Contact Information

System Information and Data

61 Forsyth Street, SW SCDH

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Atlanta, GA 30303-8960

404-562-8807 (phone)

Palmetto Wood

Lexington, SC (Region 4)

CERCLIS ID SCD003362217

CDM

RPM

Al Cherry

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

cherry.al@epa.gov
REGION 5 INFORMATION SHEETS
71

State Regulator Contractor

Maureen Johnson Gary Schroeher

520 Lafayette Road 2770 Cleveland Ave

St. Paul, MN 55155-4194 Roseville, MN 55113-1127

651-296-7353 (phone) 651-639-9449 (phone)

maureen.johnson@pca.state.mn.us

State-lead w/ Fund $ Number of extraction wells: 0

9/30/86 Date of construction completion: 6/1993

2/9/94 Date of operational and functional: 7/1993

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 7/2003

Operational Expected date of completion: 4/2004

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 0 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Not present Number of monitoring wells used: 18

Approximate annual O&M costs: $70,000 Frequency of sampling: 2 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $10,000 Is plume migration controlled? Yes

Approximate pumping rate: 25 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: more than 80% restored

Evaluated and found sufficient minor/moderate

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

VOCs, PNAs, VC

290 Pentachlorophenol (PCP) Metals precipitation

Air stripping

Biological treatment

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption

Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure yes

354

Comments:

This form was completed by Douglas Sutton based on information collected during the demonstration project in 4/2000 and on phone interviews with Darryl 

Owens and Maureen Johnson in 5/2001.

There are no extraction wells, but there is over 700 feet of trenches at a depth of 25 feet.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

77 West Jackson Boulevard MPCA

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Chicago, IL 60604-3507

312-886-7089 (phone)

Arrowhead Refinery

Hermantown, MN (Region 5)

CERCLIS ID MND980823975

Delta Environmental

RPM

Darryl Owens

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

owens.darryl@epa.gov
72

State Regulator Contractor

Keld Lauredsen

1125 Military Ave. Box 10448

Green Bay, WI 54307

920-492-5921 (phone)

920-492-5913 (fax)

lauredsenk@dnr.state.wi.us

State-lead w/ Fund $ Number of extraction wells: 0

9/24/96 Date of construction completion: 8/2000

Date of operational and functional: 4/1993

Expected date of turnover to state: 6/2006

Operational Expected date of completion: 4/2030

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 0 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Not present Number of monitoring wells used: 14

Approximate annual O&M costs: $36,000 Frequency of sampling: 2 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $10,000 Is plume migration controlled? Yes

Approximate pumping rate: 0 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: less than 20% restored

Evaluated and found sufficient minor/severe

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

118 Chromium Metals precipitation yes

Air stripping

Biological treatment

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption

Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

Comments:

This form was completed by Douglas Sutton based on information collected during the demonstration project in 4/2000 and on phone interviews with John 

Peterson and Keld Lauredsen.

This site consists of two different contaminant areas. The P&T system operated in the chrome shop from 1993 to 1999 and was moved to the zinc shop in 

2000. 

DNR provides the oversight; therefore, a contractor contact was not given.

The site has no extraction wells but has two trenches.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

77 West Jackson Boulevard WDNR

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Chicago, IL 60604-3507

312-353-1264 (phone)

Better Brite Plating Co. Chrome and Zinc Shops

Depere, WI (Region 5)

CERCLIS ID WIT560010118

RPM

John Peterson

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

peterson.john@epa.gov
73

State Regulator Contractor

Kevin Herron Dan Plomb

135 S. 84th Street Suite 325

Milwaukee, WI 53214

317-234-0354 (phone) 414-272-2426 (phone)

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 5

5/3/96 Date of construction completion: 9/2000

Date of operational and functional: 7/2001

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 9/2010

Installed Expected date of completion: 10/2030

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 2 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Not present Number of monitoring wells used: 36

Approximate annual O&M costs: $120,000 Frequency of sampling: 2 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $60,000 Is plume migration controlled?

Approximate pumping rate: 1000 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration:

Not evaluated minor/minor

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

62 Arsenic Metals precipitation

332 TCE and Vinyl chloride Air stripping

340 Tetrahydrofuran Biological treatment

354 Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE) UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption

Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure yes

354

Comments:

Site is currently operating at approximately 60%.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

77 West Jackson Blvd.

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Chicago, IL 60604-3507

312-886-4737 (phone)

Douglass Road

Mishawaka, IN (Region 5)

CERCLIS ID IND980607881

CH2MHILL

RPM

Dion Novak

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

Novak.Dion@epa.gov
74

State Regulator Contractor

Walelign Wagaw Tim Gouger

P.O. Box 30426 12565 West Center Road

Lansing, MI 48909 Omaha, NE 68144-3869

517-373-9896 (phone) 402-293-2514 (phone)

402-291-8177 (fax)

Timothy.P.Gouger@nwo02.usace.army.mil

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 2

9/30/93 Date of construction completion: 7/2001

5/31/01 Date of operational and functional: 7/2001

Interim Expected date of turnover to state: 7/2011

Installed Expected date of completion: 7/2007

Primary goal of system: Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 0 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Not present Number of monitoring wells used: 25

Approximate annual O&M costs: Frequency of sampling: 2 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: Is plume migration controlled?

Approximate pumping rate: 80 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration:

Not evaluated minor/minor

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

58 Anthracene Metals precipitation

99 Carbozol Air stripping

116 Chloromethane Biological treatment

N-N dimethylanaline, Gentin Violet UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption yes

Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

RPM

Kyle Rogers

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

rogers.kyle@epa.gov

Duell and Gardner

Dalton Township, MI (Region 5)

CERCLIS ID MID980504716

USACE, Rapid Response

This form was completed by Douglas Sutton based on information collected during the demonstration project in 4/2000 and on a phone interview with Kyle 

Rogers in 5/2001.

One well is currently installed and pumping. Another well will be installed in July 2001 marking the beginning of O&F.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

77 West Jackson Boulevard MDEQ

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Chicago, IL 60604-3507

312-886-1995 (phone)
75

State Regulator Contractor

State-lead w/ Fund $ Number of extraction wells: 14

3/31/88 Date of construction completion: 6/1987

8/1/90 Date of operational and functional: 3/1991

Expected date of turnover to state:

Operational Expected date of completion:

Primary goal of system: Approximate downtime per year:

Presence of NAPLs Don't know Number of monitoring wells used:

Approximate annual O&M costs: $175,000 Frequency of sampling:

Costs related to monitoring: Is plume migration controlled? Don't know

Approximate pumping rate: 4500 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: Don't know

Evaluated and found sufficient severe/severe

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

352 Trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene Metals precipitation

370 Vernolate Air stripping yes

Biological treatment

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption

Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

Comments:

RPM

Sheri Bianchin

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

bianchin.sheri@epa.gov

Eau Claire Municipal Wel Field

Eau Claire, WI (Region 5)

CERCLIS ID WID980820054

This form was completed by Douglas Sutton based on information obtained from

1) www.epa.gov/R5Super/npl/wisconsin/WID980820054.htm

and 

2) Information Paper #61: Contaminated Land and Brownfields Cleanup Programs

 State of Wisconsin Legislative Bureau, 1/2001

The EPA RPM was not available for comment.

Reference on stated that as of 6/30/00 the EPA had spent 

$5.9M dollars on the site and Wisconsin had spent $175K on the site. If the state assumes approximately 10% of the O&M costs and the site ran for 

approximately 9 years (up to 6/30/00) then this translates to an approximate O&M cost of $175K. This approximation is entered as the approximate O&M 

cost for item 15.

System goals appear to be both restoration and water supply.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

77 West Jackson Boulevard

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Chicago, IL 60604-3507

312-886-4745 (phone)
76

State Regulator Contractor

Rich Lang Neil Brown

P.O. Box 1515 33 N. Deerborne St.

La Salle, IL 61301 Chicago, IL 60602

815-223-6836 (phone) 312-578-9243 (phone)

epa4137@epa.state.il.us

State-lead w/ Fund $ Number of extraction wells: 0

8/29/86 Date of construction completion: 2/1998

3/30/88 Date of operational and functional: 3/1994

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 3/2004

Operational Expected date of completion: 3/2005

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 2 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Not present Number of monitoring wells used: 25

Approximate annual O&M costs: $230,000 Frequency of sampling: 4 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $50,000 Is plume migration controlled? Yes

Approximate pumping rate: 20 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: 20% to 80% restored

Evaluated and found sufficient minor/minor

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

353 Transuranic wastes Metals precipitation

PCB, TCA Air stripping

Biological treatment

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption yes

Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure yes

354

Comments:

RPM

Steve Padovani

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

padovani.steven@epa.gov

La Salle Electrical Utilities

La Salle, IL (Region 5)

CERCLIS ID ILD980794333

Ecology and Environment

This form was completed by Douglas Sutton based information collected during the demonstration project in 4/2000 and on a phone interview with Steve 

Padovani in 4/2001.

There are no extraction wells, but there are 4 trenches.

Treatment processes include treatment with liquid and vapor phase carbon and discharge to the POTW.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

77 West Jackson Boulevard IEPA

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Chicago, IL 60604-3507

312-353-6755 (phone)
77

State Regulator Contractor

Mariam Horneff Bill Bangsund

520 Lafayette Road

St. Paul, MN 55155-4194

651-296-7228 (phone) 612-832-2738 (phone)

State-lead w/ Fund $ Number of extraction wells: 9

6/14/88 Date of construction completion: 11/1996

Date of operational and functional: 8/1996

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 10/2007

Operational Expected date of completion: 10/2015

Primary goal of system: Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 2 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Observed Number of monitoring wells used: 22

Approximate annual O&M costs: $300,000 Frequency of sampling: 1 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $56,000 Is plume migration controlled? Yes

Approximate pumping rate: 227 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: 20% to 80% restored

Not evaluated minor/moderate

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

150 Dichloroethylene Metals precipitation

354 Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE) Air stripping

VC Biological treatment

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption yes

Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

RPM

Sheila Sullivan

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

sullivan.sheila@epa.gov

Long Prairie Groundwater Contamination

Long Prairie, MN (Region 5)

CERCLIS ID MND980904072

Barr Engineering

This form was completed by Douglas Sutton based on information collected during the demonstration project in 4/2000 and on phone interviews with 

Sheila Sullivan and Mariam Horneff in 5/2001.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

77 West Jackson Boulevard MPCA

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Chicago, IL 60604-3507

312-886-5251 (phone)
78

State Regulator Contractor

Nile Fellows Larry Campbell

520 Lafayette Road

St. Paul, MN 55155-4194 Chicago, IL 

651-296-6300 (phone)

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 14

9/30/91 Date of construction completion: 10/1999

9/22/94 Date of operational and functional: 10/1999

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 10/2009

Operational Expected date of completion: 10/2029

Primary goal of system: Restoration Approximate downtime per year:

Presence of NAPLs Observed Number of monitoring wells used: 30

Approximate annual O&M costs: $300,000 Frequency of sampling: 2 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: Is plume migration controlled? Don't know

Approximate pumping rate: 60 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: less than 20% restored

Not evaluated minor/severe

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

118 Chromium Metals precipitation

290 Pentachlorophenol (PCP) Air stripping

carcinogenic PAHs Biological treatment yes

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption yes

Filtration yes

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment yes

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

RPM

Darryl Owens

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

owens.darryl@epa.gov

MacGillis and Gibbs/Bell Lumber & Pole

New Brighton, MN (Region 5)

CERCLIS ID MND006192694

Black and Veatch

This form was completed by Douglas Sutton based on information collected during the demonstration project in 4/2001.

Data regarding the extraction, treatment, and monitoring systems was updated using information from the report generated from the RSE conducted in 

2000.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

77 West Jackson Boulevard MPCA

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Chicago, IL 60604-3507

312-886-7089 (phone)
79

State Regulator Contractor

Paul Kozol Craig Evans

3911 Fish Hatchery Road 190 Fifth Street East

Fitchburg, WI 53711 St. Paul, MN 55101-1638

608-275-3301 (phone) 651-290-5594 (phone)

608-275-3338 (fax) 651-290-5800 (fax)

kozolp@dnr.state.wi.us Craig.O.Evans@mvp02.usace.army.mil

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 5

9/20/90 Date of construction completion: 9/1996

Date of operational and functional: 9/1996

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 9/2006

Operational Expected date of completion: 9/2026

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 4 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Not present Number of monitoring wells used: 20

Approximate annual O&M costs: $471,000 Frequency of sampling: 2 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $70,000 Is plume migration controlled? Don't know

Approximate pumping rate: 30 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: Don't know

Evaluated and found sufficient minor/severe

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

92 Cadmium Metals precipitation yes

130 Cyanide Air stripping yes

372 Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) Biological treatment

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption yes

Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

RPM

Steve Padovani

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

padovani.steven@epa.gov

Oconomowoc Electroplating

Ashippun, WI (Region 5)

CERCLIS ID WID006100275

USACE, St. Paul District

This form was completed by Douglas Sutton based on information collected during the demonstration project inn 4/2000. 

Data regarding the extraction, treatment, and monitoring systems were updated based on the report generated from the RSE conducted in 2000.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

77 West Jackson Boulevard WDNR

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Chicago, IL 60604-3507

312-353-6755 (phone)
80

State Regulator Contractor

Dave Carper Jim Fisher

3550 Mormon Coulee Road

La Crosse, WI 54601 Milwaukee, WI 

608-785-9973 (phone) 414-272-1052 (phone)

608-785-9990 (fax)

carped@dnr.state.wi.us jfisher1@ch2m.com

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 5

8/14/90 Date of construction completion: 7/1994

Date of operational and functional: 8/1995

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 6/2004

Operational Expected date of completion: 7/2002

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 1 week

Presence of NAPLs Not present Number of monitoring wells used: 10

Approximate annual O&M costs: $200,000 Frequency of sampling: 2 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $80,000 Is plume migration controlled? Yes

Approximate pumping rate: 560 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: more than 80% restored

Evaluated and found sufficient minor/minor

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

73 Benzo(a)pyrene Metals precipitation yes

352 Trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene Air stripping yes

371 Volatile chlorinated organics Biological treatment

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption

Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

This form was completed by Douglas Sutton based on information collected during the demonstration project in 4/2000 and a phone interview with Timothy 

Prendiville in 5/2001.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

77 West Jackson Boulevard WDNR

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Chicago, IL 60604-3507

312-886-5122 (phone)

Onalaska Municipal Landfill

Onalaska, WI (Region 5)

CERCLIS ID WID980821656

CH2MHill

RPM

Timothy Prendiville

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

prendiville.timothy@epa.gov
81

State Regulator Contractor

Lisa Summerfield Brain Bouwhuis

P.O. Box 30426 PO Box 629

Lansing, MI 48909 Grand Haven, MI 49417

517-335-3388 (phone) 231-766-2007 (phone)

231-766-3287 (fax)

summerfl@state.mi.us Brian.j.Bouwhuis@usace.army.mil

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 10

9/29/89 Date of construction completion: 2/1996

9/29/90 Date of operational and functional: 2/1996

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 8/2010

Operational Expected date of completion: 8/2030

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 4 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Observed Number of monitoring wells used: 30

Approximate annual O&M costs: $2,400,000 Frequency of sampling: 4 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $250,000 Is plume migration controlled? Don't know

Approximate pumping rate: 700 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: 20% to 80% restored

Not evaluated minor/minor

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

14 1,2-Dichloroethane Metals precipitation

16 1,2-Dichloroethylene (DCE) Air stripping

280 Organophosphorus pesticides (4,4'-DDT, lindane) Biological treatment yes

369 Vapona UV oxidation

vinyl chloride Carbon adsorption yes

Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure yes

354

Comments:

This form was completed by Douglas Sutton based on a phone interview with John Fagiolo.

The subcontractor for this site is Carl Jager at Fishbeck Topmpson (231-766-9227).

With regard to the gpm, the actual gpm is 700, while the peak is 1200. 

Another extraction well will be installed shortly.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

77 West Jackson Blvd. Michigan Dept. of Env.Quality

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Chicago, IL 60604-3507

312-886-0800 (phone)

Ott/Story/Cordova Chem Co.

Dalton Township, MI (Region 5)

CERCLIS ID MID060174240

USACE-Detroit District

RPM

John Fagiolo

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

fagiolo.john@epa.gov
82

State Regulator Contractor

Mike Johnson

312-856-8796 (phone)

Number of extraction wells: 6

9/21/92 Date of construction completion: 11/2000

Date of operational and functional:

Final Expected date of turnover to state:

Installed Expected date of completion:

Primary goal of system: Restoration Approximate downtime per year:

Presence of NAPLs Don't know Number of monitoring wells used: 6

Approximate annual O&M costs: $400,000 Frequency of sampling: 4 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: Is plume migration controlled?

Approximate pumping rate: 165 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration:

Evaluated and found sufficient minor/minor

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

92 Cadmium Metals precipitation yes

357 Trichloroethylene (TCE) Air stripping yes

Biological treatment

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption

Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment yes

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

This form was completed by Douglas Sutton based on information collected during the demonstration project in 4/2000 and 

www.epa.gov/R5Super/npl/michigan/MID006031348.htm

The RPM was not successfully contacted.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

77 West Jackson Boulevard

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Chicago, IL 60604-3507

312-886-4592 (phone)

Peerless Plating

Muskegon Township, MI (Region 5)

CERCLIS ID MID006031348

Tetra Tech

RPM

Mike Ribordy

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

ribordy.mike@epa.gov
83

State Regulator Contractor

Judy Gapp Jack Brunner

P.O. Box 30426

Lansing, MI 48909

517-335-3391 (phone) 312-856-8788 (phone)

517-335-4887 (fax)

gappj@state.mi.us

State-lead w/ Fund $ Number of extraction wells: 6

9/7/88 Date of construction completion: 9/1993

Date of operational and functional: 9/1993

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 9/2003

Operational Expected date of completion: 9/2003

Primary goal of system: Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 1 week

Presence of NAPLs Not present Number of monitoring wells used: 30

Approximate annual O&M costs: $300,000 Frequency of sampling: 4 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: Is plume migration controlled? No

Approximate pumping rate: 170 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: 20% to 80% restored

Evaluated and found sufficient minor/minor

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

2 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Metals precipitation

5 1,1-Dichloroethane Air stripping yes

14 1,2-Dichloroethane Biological treatment

diethylether UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption

Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

This form was completed by Douglas Sutton based on information collected during the demonstration project in 4/2000 and on phone interviews with Ken 

Glatz and Judy Gapp.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

77 West Jackson Boulevard MDEQ

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Chicago, IL 60604-3507

312-886-1434 (phone)

U.S. Aviex

Howard Township, MI (Region 5)

CERCLIS ID MID980794556

Tetra Tech

RPM

Ken Glatz

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

glatz.ken@epa.gov
84

State Regulator Contractor

Beth O'Brien

P.O. Box 30426

Lansing, MI 48909

517-335-3908 (phone)

obrienea@state.mi.us

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 6

8/12/85 Date of construction completion: 6/1996

Date of operational and functional: 6/1996

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 6/2006

Operational Expected date of completion: Indefinite

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 2 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Not present Number of monitoring wells used: 10

Approximate annual O&M costs: $225,000 Frequency of sampling: 1 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: Is plume migration controlled? Yes

Approximate pumping rate: 250 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: more than 80% restored

Not evaluated minor/moderate

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

17 1,2-Dichloropropane Metals precipitation

344 Tin Air stripping yes

352 Trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene Biological treatment

371 Volatile chlorinated organics UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption

Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment yes

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

This form was completed by Douglas Sutton based on information collected during the demonstration project in 4/2000 and on phone interviews with 

Richard Boice and Beth O'Brien.

At times, NAPL is pulled in from offsite.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

77 West Jackson Boulevard MDEQ

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Chicago, IL 60604-3507

312-886-4740 (phone)

Verona Well Field

Battle Creek, MI (Region 5)

CERCLIS ID MID980793806

RPM

Richard Boice

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

boice.richard@epa.gov
85

State Regulator Contractor

Sally Beebe

P.O. Box 30426

Lansing, MI 48909

517-373-4110 (phone) 517-337-0111 (phone)

517-335-4887 (fax)

beebes@state.mi.us

State-lead w/ Fund $ Number of extraction wells: 5

3/31/93 Date of construction completion: 4/2001

7/31/96 Date of operational and functional: 4/2001

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 4/2011

Operational Expected date of completion: 4/2021

Primary goal of system: Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 0 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Don't know Number of monitoring wells used: 23

Approximate annual O&M costs: $75,000 Frequency of sampling: 2 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $15,000 Is plume migration controlled? Don't know

Approximate pumping rate: 250 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: less than 20% restored

Not evaluated minor/moderate

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

354 Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE) Metals precipitation

Air stripping yes

Biological treatment

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption

Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment yes

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

This form was completed by Douglas Sutton based on information collected during the demonstration project and a phone interview with Russell Hart.

There are 8 monitoring wells sampled quarterly and 

14 monitoring wells sampled annually for a total of 46 samples per year. The 23 wells and semi-annual sampling were input to suggest 46 samples per 

year.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

77 West Jackson Boulevard MDEQ-ERD

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Chicago, IL 60604-3507

312-886-4844 (phone)

Wash King Laundry

Pleasant Plains Township, MI (Region 5)

CERCLIS ID MID980701247

Malcolm Pirnie

RPM

Russell Hart

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

hart.russell@epa.gov
REGION 6 INFORMATION SHEETS
93

State Regulator Contractor

Janaye Danage Bill Faught

P.O. Box 82178 7600 W. Tidwell, Suite 400

Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2178 Houston, TX 77040-5719

225-765-0475 (phone) 713-462-0161 (phone)

225-765-0484 (fax) 713-462-0165 (fax)

janaye_d@deq.state.la.us bfaught@ch2m.com

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 18

4/28/93 Date of construction completion: 2/1997

Date of operational and functional: 2/1997

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 2/2027

Operational Expected date of completion: 2/2027

Primary goal of system: Containment Approximate downtime per year: 1 week

Presence of NAPLs Observed Number of monitoring wells used: 18

Approximate annual O&M costs: $360,000 Frequency of sampling: 4 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $360,000 Is plume migration controlled? Yes

Approximate pumping rate: 5 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: Not a goal

Evaluated and found sufficient minor/severe

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

112 Chlorinated polyaromatic hydrocarbons (CPAHs) Metals precipitation

127 Creosote and petroleum hydrocarbons Air stripping

Biological treatment yes

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption yes

Filtration yes

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

Comments:

The ROD states that the in-situ bioremediation and groundwater p&T as a long-term remedial action for this site. According to the ROD and the State 

Superfund Contract(SSC), the EPA will finance 90% of the in-situ bioremediation system and the GW pump and treat system until the ROD performance 

criteria are met. The SSC states that, "there are no technically-separable construction/operational functions associated specifically with groundwater pump 

and treat since this will occur incidentally with in-situ soil treatment. Therefore, the time limitation (10 years) stated in 40 CFR Section 300.435(f)(3) 

concerning the treatment of groundwater is not applicable." This is the reason why I did not put a date in which the pump and treatment system was 

deemed functional and operational, because this is not applicable for this site. What the ROD is saying in plain English is that the in-situ bioremediation 

treatment is the primary treatment. Until we reach the goals of the in-situ bioremediation, it will be impossible to determine whether groundwater goals are 

being met. The success of the groundwater P& T is actually predicated on the successful completion of the in-situ bioremediation treatment. 

Also, note that the State (LDEQ) does not assume O& M, according to the ROD, until in-situ bioremediation is completed, which is 20 years from construction. After that time, th

A five-year review was completed in August 2000. We are currently in the process of taking additional sampling parameters and making adjustments to the plant to determine if 

If you need more information, call me at (214)665-6729. Stacey Bennett, RPM Region 6 

Contact Information

System Information and Data

1445 Ross Avenue Louisiana Dept.of Env.Quality

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Dallas, TX 75202-2733

214-665-6729 (phone)

214-665-6660 (fax)

American Creosote Works

Winnfield, LA (Region 6)

CERCLIS ID LAD000239814

CH2MHill

RPM

Stacey Bennett

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

bennett.stacey@epa.gov
92

State Regulator Contractor

Rich Johnson Lee Guillory

P.O. Box 82282 P.O. Box 60267

Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2282 New Orleans, LA 70160-0267

225-765-0487 (phone) 504-862-2934 (phone)

225-765-0435 (fax) 504-862-2896 (fax)

rich_j@deq.state.la.us lee.a.guillory@mvn02.usace.army.mil

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 44

3/31/87 Date of construction completion: 7/2000

7/20/95 Date of operational and functional: 3/2001

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 7/2003

Operational Expected date of completion: 7/2021

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 0 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Observed Number of monitoring wells used: 11

Approximate annual O&M costs: $402,000 Frequency of sampling: 12 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: Is plume migration controlled? Don't know

Approximate pumping rate: 22.5 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: Don't know

Evaluated and found sufficient minor/moderate

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

72 Benzo(a)anthracene Metals precipitation

73 Benzo(a)pyrene Air stripping

74 Benzo(b)fluoranthene Biological treatment

76 Benzo(k)fluoranthene UV oxidation

210 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Carbon adsorption yes

119 Chrysene Filtration yes

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure yes

354

Contact Information

System Information and Data

1445 Ross Avenue Louisiana Dept.of Env.Quality

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Dallas, TX 75202

214-665-8143 (phone)

214-665-6660 (fax)

Bayou Bonfouca

Slidell, LA (Region 6)

CERCLIS ID LAD980745632

USACE-New Orleans District

RPM

Katrina Coltrain

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

coltrain.katrina@epa.gov
Comments to Bayou Bonfouca:

Note to questions:

#9--An ESD was signed on February 5, 1990 which made adjustments to the ROD. The ROD amendment only stated that the incinerator at Bonfouca 

would be used to treat soils from Southern Ship Superfund site.

#13 and 14-- The cost is estimated between 360K to 444K per year and is all attributable to LTRA.

#15--There are three arrays on site with 44 individual wells. Individually the wells pump at 1/4gpm. Each array is estimated at 5-10gpm. The pumping 

rate is dependent on the drawdown and is adjusted to maintain a -4fmsl.

#17--Array 2 was completed in 1991 and brought on line that same year. Based on the ESD and subsequent reports, new wells were constructed and 

completed in 2000.

#18--The EPA, along with LDEQ, will meet to determine O&F March 2001.

#20--The aquifer is not currently used and will unlikly be used in the future as a drinking water source due to insufficient yield. The ESD states that a risk 

based 10-4 to 10-6 level will be used or whatever is technologically feasible. The main objective of the system is to contain migration and prevent 

recontamination of the bayou.

#21--There is not planned down time for the system. The system is set up with bypass measures when maintenance is needed. The system is only shut down when there is a t

#22--Treatment involves an oil/water separator, sand filter, oleophilic filter, granular activated carbon, and post aeration.

#24--The monitoring wells are monitored daily to ensure that the -4fmsl drawdown is maintained. These wells are surveyed once a month to monitor subsidence. The system is 

#27 and #28--reports on the effectiveness of the system was done and resulted in the upgrades to the system and the installation of additional wells which was completed in 200
96

State Regulator Contractor

David Henry Brian D. Jordan

PO Box 26110 1190 St. Francis Drive 4101 Jefferson Plaza NE

Santa Fe, NM 87505 Albuquerque, NM 87109

214-827-0037 (phone) 505-342-3472 (phone)

214-827-2965 (fax) 505-342-3208 (fax)

david_henry@nmev.state.nm.us brian.D.Joran@spao2.usace.army.mil

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 3

9/21/90 Date of construction completion: 4/1991

Date of operational and functional: 12/1991

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 10/2004

Operational Expected date of completion: Indefinite

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 4 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Not present Number of monitoring wells used: 3

Approximate annual O&M costs: $1,000,000 Frequency of sampling: 4 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $60,000 Is plume migration controlled? Don't know

Approximate pumping rate: 1 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: Don't know

Evaluated and found not sufficient moderate/severe

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

264 Nitrate Metals precipitation

Air stripping

Biological treatment

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption

Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure yes

354

Comments:

RPM

Petra Sanchez

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

sanchez.petra@epa.gov

Cimarron Mining

Carizozo, NM (Region 6)

CERCLIS ID NMD980749378

USACE

Contact Information

System Information and Data

1445 Ross Ave. Suite 1200 6SF-LT New Mexico Env. Department

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Dallas, TX 75202-2733

214-665-6686 (phone)

214-665-6660 (fax)
94

State Regulator Contractor

James Sher Sanjay Ramabhadran

P.O.Box 13087 1500 Citywest

Austin, TX 78711-3087 Houston, TX 77042

512-239-2444 (phone) 713-266-6900 (phone)

512-239-2450 (fax) 713-266-8971 (fax)

JSher@tnrcc.state.tx.us sanjay@lan-inc.com

State-lead w/ Fund $ Number of extraction wells: 13

9/18/86 Date of construction completion: 4/1993

Date of operational and functional: 7/1993

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 1/2004

Operational Expected date of completion: 1/2004

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 52 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Not present Number of monitoring wells used: 13

Approximate annual O&M costs: $240,000 Frequency of sampling: 2 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $240,000 Is plume migration controlled? Yes

Approximate pumping rate: 5 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: Don't know

Evaluated and found sufficient minor/moderate

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

354 Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE) Metals precipitation

PCB, Benzene, Toluene, Chlorobenzene Air stripping

Biological treatment

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption yes

Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure yes

354

Comments:

RPM

Ruben Moya

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

moya.ruben@epa.gov

Geneva Industries

Houston, TX (Region 6)

CERCLIS ID TXD980748453

Lockwood, Andrews & Newman Inc.

***NOTE***

The Geneva Superfund Site has remained "shutdown"

due to contractual problems between contractor and

sub-contractor. The amount of time site has been 

shutdown is now approximately 1 year.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

1445 Ross Ave., Suite 1200 TNRCC

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Dallas, TX 75202

214-665-2755 (phone)

214-665-6660 (fax)
95

State Regulator Contractor

Diane Poteet Peter van Noort

P.O. Box 13087 5339 Alpha Road, Suite 300

Austin, TX 78711 Dallas, TX 75240

512-239-2502 (phone) 972-980-2170 (phone)

512-239-2450 (fax) 972-385-0846 (fax)

dpoteet@tnrcc.state.tx.us pvannoor@ch2m.com

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 1

9/29/99 Date of construction completion: 8/2001

Date of operational and functional: 8/2003

Interim Expected date of turnover to state: 8/2013

Design Expected date of completion: 8/2023

Primary goal of system: Containment Approximate downtime per year:

Presence of NAPLs Not present Number of monitoring wells used: 10

Approximate annual O&M costs: $37,000 Frequency of sampling: 2 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: Is plume migration controlled?

Approximate pumping rate: 150 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration:

Not evaluated minor/minor

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

97 Carbon tetrachloride Metals precipitation

115 Chloroform Air stripping yes

Biological treatment

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption

Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

RPM

Vincent Malott

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

malott.vincent@epa.gov

City of Perryton Well #2

Perryton, TX (Region 6)

CERCLIS ID TX0001399435

CH2M Hill

The interim remedy for this site consists of operating a municipal well (currently inactive) together with an air stripper to begin mass removal with limited 

hydraulic control of the contaminant plume. The treated water will be supplied to the city water supply system. The final remedy for this site has yet to be 

selected pending completion of the RI/FS reports and a final site-wide ROD scheduled for FY2001. A ground water monitoring schedule will also be 

selected pending the final site-wide remedy. There are no indications of a DNAPL based on the site data. The O&F date was set at 2 years past the 

construction date in case additional remedial measures are selected in the final ROD.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

1445 Ross Avenue TNRCC

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Dallas, TX 75202

214-665-8313 (phone)

214-665-6660 (fax)
99

State Regulator Contractor

Clark McWilliams Russell Perry

P.O. Box 8913 13111 NW Highway, Suite 310

Little Rock, AR 72219 Houston, TX 77040-6392

501-682-0850 (phone) 713-996-4400 (phone)

501-682-0565 (fax) 713-939-9546 (fax)

clarkm@adeq.state.ar.us rperry@theitgroup.com

State-lead w/ Fund $ Number of extraction wells: 8

3/24/88 Date of construction completion: 11/1993

Date of operational and functional: 1/1994

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 1/2004

Operational Expected date of completion: 1/2034

Primary goal of system: Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 1 week

Presence of NAPLs Suspected Number of monitoring wells used: 20

Approximate annual O&M costs: $180,000 Frequency of sampling: 2 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $60,000 Is plume migration controlled? Yes

Approximate pumping rate: 3 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: less than 20% restored

Evaluated and found sufficient minor/minor

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

58 Anthracene Metals precipitation

175 Fluoranthene Air stripping

260 Naphthalene Biological treatment

290 Pentachlorophenol (PCP) UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption yes

Filtration yes

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure yes

354

Comments:

Contact Information

System Information and Data

1445 Ross Avenue Arkansas Dept.of Env.Quality

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Dallas, TX 75202

214-665-8507 (phone)

214-665-6660 (fax)

Midland Products

Ola, AR (Region 6)

CERCLIS ID ARD98074566

IT Corp.

RPM

Carlos Sanchez

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

sanchez.carlos@epa.gov
98

State Regulator Contractor

Uche Ikemba Frank Frey

P.O. Box 13087; Mail Code 143 1001 S. Dairy Ashford Street, Ste. 210

Austin, TX 78711-3087 Houston, TX 77077

512-239-2595 (phone) 281-597-4821 (phone)

512-239-2449 (fax) 281-596-0308 (fax)

uikemba@tnrcc.state.tx.us ffrey@fwenc.com

State-lead w/ Fund $ Number of extraction wells: 19

6/28/88 Date of construction completion: 3/2001

Date of operational and functional: 12/2005

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 12/2005

Installed Expected date of completion: 12/2010

Primary goal of system: Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 52 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Observed Number of monitoring wells used: 20

Approximate annual O&M costs: Frequency of sampling: 0 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: Is plume migration controlled?

Approximate pumping rate: 19 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration:

Not evaluated minor/minor

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

39 Acenaphthene Metals precipitation

40 Acenaphthylene Air stripping

58 Anthracene Biological treatment

62 Arsenic UV oxidation

71 Benzene and Toluene Carbon adsorption yes

72 Benzo(a)anthracene Filtration yes

73 Benzo(a)pyrene Ion Exchange

2 74 Benzo(b)fluoranthene Reverse Osmosis

108 76 Benzo(k)fluoranthene Off-gas treatment

120 66 BTEX other/not sure yes

354 119 Chrysene

127 Creosote and petroleum hydrocarbons

144 Dibenzofuran

137 DNAPL

170

Comments:

The ground water treatment system has been out of operation since 1995 due to difficulties with DNAPL recovery. Prior to the system shut-down, the 

system treated 11,500,000 gallons of contaminated groundwater, and recovered 7,000 gallons of DNAPL. 

The treatment system is undergoing modification and is expected to be complete and operational by March, 2001, at which time ground water monitoring 

will begin again (for this reason, information may have been entered as $o.oo). Once the system goes on-line, the pump & treat system will be further 

evaluated for remedial objectives. 

Answers to questions 20-23 are unknown at this point; information was entered to allow form submittal. 

Contact Information

System Information and Data

U.S. EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Ave., 12th Floor, 

MC: 6SF-AP

TNRCC

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Dallas, TX 75202-7233

214-665-2231 (phone)

214-665-6660 (fax)

North Cavalcade Superfund Site

Houston, TX (Region 6)

CERCLIS ID TXD980873343

Foster Wheeler Env.Corporation

RPM

Camille Hueni

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

hueni.camille@epa.gov
100

State Regulator Contractor

Uche Ikemba William Brown

 12100 Park Circle Bldg. D , P.O. Box 13087 575 Oak Ridge Turnpike,Suite B-4

Austin, TX 78711 Oak Ridge, TN 37830

512-239-2595 (phone) 865-483-0554 (phone)

512-239-2449 (fax) 865-483-8838 (fax)

uikemba@tnrcc.state.tx.us pwtitd@usit.net

State-lead w/ Fund $ Number of extraction wells: 6

3/18/88 Date of construction completion: 11/1993

11/23/99 Date of operational and functional: 12/2001

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 12/2001

Operational Expected date of completion: 12/2001

Primary goal of system: Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 15 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Not present Number of monitoring wells used: 7

Approximate annual O&M costs: $500,000 Frequency of sampling: 2 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $8,000 Is plume migration controlled? Yes

Approximate pumping rate: 60 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: more than 80% restored

Evaluated and found sufficient minor/minor

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

118 Chromium Metals precipitation

Air stripping

Biological treatment

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption

Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure yes

354

Comments:

In-Situ Ferrous Sulfate treatment added by an ESD to the ROD

had enhanced remedial efforts

Contact Information

System Information and Data

1445 Ross Avenue Texas Natural Resource Commission

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Dallas, TX 75202

214-665-8521 (phone)

214-665-6660 (fax)

Odessa Chromium #1

Odessa, TX (Region 6)

CERCLIS ID TXD980867279

Pacific Western Technologies, Ltd.

RPM

Ernest Franke

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

franke,ernest@epamail.epa.gov
97

State Regulator Contractor

Diane Poteet Cristina Radu

P.O. Box 13087 6121 Indian School Road NE, Suite 205

Austin, TX 78711 Albuquerque, TX 87110

512-239-2502 (phone) 505-881-3188 (phone)

512-239-2450 (fax) 505-881-3283 (fax)

dpoteet@tnrcc.state.tx.us raduc@ttemi.com

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 22

9/29/00 Date of construction completion: 9/2002

Date of operational and functional: 9/2003

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 9/2013

Design Expected date of completion: 9/2028

Primary goal of system: Restoration Approximate downtime per year:

Presence of NAPLs Not present Number of monitoring wells used: 50

Approximate annual O&M costs: $1,200,000 Frequency of sampling: 4 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $80,000 Is plume migration controlled?

Approximate pumping rate: 200 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration:

Not evaluated minor/minor

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

118 Chromium Metals precipitation

Air stripping

Biological treatment

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption

Filtration

Ion Exchange yes

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

RPM

Vincent Malott

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

malott.vincent@epa.gov

Sprague Road Ground Water Plume

Odessa, TX (Region 6)

CERCLIS ID TX0001407444

Tetra Tech EMI

This site consists of three separate chromium contaminant plumes originating from three different facilities. The plume size and chromium concentrations 

are different between all three plumes. Since the contaminant is a metal there is no DNAPL or LNAPL.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

1445 Ross Avenue TNRCC

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Dallas, TX 75202

214-665-8313 (phone)

214-665-6660 (fax)
REGION 7 INFORMATION SHEETS
106

State Regulator Contractor

Cynthia Randall Gary Felkner

Forbes Field, Bldg 20 8400 Ward Parkway

Topeka, KS 66620 Kansas City, MO 64114

785-291-3245 (phone) 913-458-6583 (phone)

785-296-4823 (fax) 913-458-9391 (fax)

CRandal@kdhe.state.ks.us felknerg@bv.com

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 12

5/5/99 Date of construction completion: 9/2002

Date of operational and functional: 9/2003

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 9/2013

Design Expected date of completion: 9/2015

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year:

Presence of NAPLs Not present Number of monitoring wells used: 62

Approximate annual O&M costs: $500,000 Frequency of sampling: 2 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $50,000 Is plume migration controlled?

Approximate pumping rate: 800 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration:

Not evaluated minor/minor

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

118 Chromium Metals precipitation

Air stripping

Biological treatment

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption

Filtration

Ion Exchange yes

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

Contact Information

System Information and Data

901 N. 5th St Kansas Dept of Health and Environment

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Kansas City, KS 66101

913-551-7654 (phone)

913-551-9654 (fax)

Ace Services

Colby, KS (Region 7)

CERCLIS ID KSD046746731

Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp

RPM

Bob Stewart

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

stewart.robert@epa.gov
107

State Regulator Contractor

Ralph Martin David Sanders

1200 N Street, Suite 400 The Atrium 6601 College Boulevard

Lincoln, NE 68509-8922 Overland Park, KS 66211

402-471-3120 (phone) 913-458-6605 (phone)

402-471-2909 (fax) 913-458-0000 (fax)

ralph.martin@ndeq.state.ne.us SandersHD@bv.com

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 3

6/7/96 Date of construction completion: 9/1998

Date of operational and functional: 10/1999

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 12/2009

Operational Expected date of completion: 12/2019

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 1 week

Presence of NAPLs Suspected Number of monitoring wells used: 8

Approximate annual O&M costs: $100,000 Frequency of sampling: 4 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $25,000 Is plume migration controlled? Don't know

Approximate pumping rate: 90 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: Don't know

Not evaluated minor/minor

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

354 Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE) Metals precipitation

Air stripping yes

Biological treatment

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption

Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

In order to evaluate the effectiveness of containment, the contractor has been tasked to perform pumping tests. These tests are currently planned to take 

place during the next quarterly sampling event which is scheduled for April 2001.

It is pertinent to note that significant progress is being made toward aquifer restoration. However, that progress has not been quantified to date. 

Contact Information

System Information and Data

901 North 5th Street Nebraska Dept.of Env.Quality

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Kansas City, KS 66101

913-551-7882 (phone)

913-551-7063 (fax)

Cleburn Street Well Site/OU2

Grand Island, NE (Region 7)

CERCLIS ID NED981499312

Black and Veatch Special Projects Corp.

RPM

Mary Peterson

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

peterson.mary@epa.gov
108

State Regulator Contractor

Dave Mosby

P.O. Box 176

Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176

573-751-1288 (phone)

573-751-7869 (fax)

nrmosbd@mail.dnr.state.mo.us

State-lead w/ Fund $ Number of extraction wells:

8/15/01 Date of construction completion: 1/2005

Date of operational and functional: 1/2006

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 1/2006

Predesign Expected date of completion: 1/2016

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year:

Presence of NAPLs Suspected Number of monitoring wells used:

Approximate annual O&M costs: Frequency of sampling:

Costs related to monitoring: Is plume migration controlled?

Approximate pumping rate: Progress of aquifer restoration:

Not evaluated minor/minor

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

2 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Metals precipitation

354 Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE) Air stripping yes

Biological treatment

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption

Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

This project is only now completing the ROD in FY2001. Negotiations and consent decree lodging and entry will carry through 2002. Design is planned for 

2003 and construction through mid 2005.

Part of the construction may be imlemented by the responsible parties, but we are planning for the main system to be fund-lead with MDNR using federal 

funds via a cooperative agreement.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

901 N. 5th St. MDNR - Superfund Unit

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Kansas City, KS 66101

913-551-7778 (phone)

913-551-7437 (fax)

Valley Park TCE Site - OU2

Valley Park, MO (Region 7)

CERCLIS ID MOD98096834

RPM

Steve Auchterlonie

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

auchterlonie.steve@epa.gov
REGION 9 INFORMATION SHEETS
114

State Regulator Contractor

Emanuel Mensah Chris Lichens

916-255-3704 (phone) 415-981-2811 (phone)

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 1

9/26/97 Date of construction completion: 7/2000

Date of operational and functional: 5/2002

Interim Expected date of turnover to state: 5/2012

Installed Expected date of completion: 5/2022

Primary goal of system: Containment Approximate downtime per year:

Presence of NAPLs Don't know Number of monitoring wells used: 10

Approximate annual O&M costs: $300,000 Frequency of sampling: 4 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $25,000 Is plume migration controlled? #N/A

Approximate pumping rate: 50 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: #N/A

Not evaluated minor/minor

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

0 perchloroethylene Metals precipitation

Air stripping yes

Biological treatment

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption yes

Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

The answers to items 20-23 are estimates. 

Contact Information

System Information and Data

75 Hawthorne Street State of California, DTSC

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

San Francisco, CA 94105

415-744-2212 (phone)

Modesto Superfund Site

Modesto, CA (Region 9)

CERCLIS ID CAD981997752

Ecology and Environment

RPM

David Seter

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

seter.david@epa.gov
115

State Regulator Contractor

Yasser Aref Dwayne Duetcher

5796 Corporate Avenue

Cypress, CA 90630

714-484-5349 (phone)

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 5

3/24/95 Date of construction completion: 10/2003

Date of operational and functional: 10/2004

Interim Expected date of turnover to state: 10/2014

Installed Expected date of completion: 10/2024

Primary goal of system: Containment Approximate downtime per year:

Presence of NAPLs Don't know Number of monitoring wells used: 15

Approximate annual O&M costs: $1,100,000 Frequency of sampling: 4 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $100,000 Is plume migration controlled?

Approximate pumping rate: 9000 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration:

Not evaluated minor/severe

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

354 Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE) Metals precipitation

Air stripping

Biological treatment

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption yes

Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

Doug Sutton filled out this questionnaire based on notes he took during a conversation with Kim Hoang.

James Bye from the San Bernadino Water Department is familiar with the site and should be noted along with the state regulator and contractor

Contact Information

System Information and Data

75 Hawthorne Street CalEPA Dept.of Toxic Substances Control

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

San Francisco, CA 94105

415-744-2370 (phone)

 (fax)

Muscoy

San Bernadino, CA (Region 9)

CERCLIS ID CA1234

URS

RPM

Kim Hoang

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

hoang.kim@epa.gov
116

State Regulator Contractor

Yasser Aref Dwayne Duetcher

5796 Corporate Ave.

Cypress, CA 90630

714-484-5349 (phone)

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 8

8/4/93 Date of construction completion: 10/1998

Date of operational and functional: 10/1998

Interim Expected date of turnover to state: 10/2008

Operational Expected date of completion: 10/2028

Primary goal of system: Containment Approximate downtime per year:

Presence of NAPLs Don't know Number of monitoring wells used: 15

Approximate annual O&M costs: $900,000 Frequency of sampling: 2 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $100,000 Is plume migration controlled? Yes

Approximate pumping rate: 12000 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: Don't know

Not evaluated minor/moderate

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

354 Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE) Metals precipitation

Air stripping

Biological treatment

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption yes

Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

RPM

Kim Hoang

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

hoang.kim@epa.gov

Newmark

San Bernadino, CA (Region 9)

CERCLIS ID CAD981434517

URS

Doug Sutton completed this questionnaire based on notes taken during a conversation with Kim Hoang.

A settlement in the near future may change the lead on this porject.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

75 Hawthorne Street CalEPA Dept Toxic Substances Control

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

San Francisco, CA 94105

415-744-2370 (phone)

 (fax)
117

State Regulator Contractor

Chris Sherman John Kirschbaum

10151 Croyden Way, Suite 3 12565 West Center Road

Sacramento, CA 95827 Omaha, NE 68144-3869

916-255-3706 (phone) 402-293-2525 (phone)

916-255-3697 (fax) 402-221-7838 (fax)

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 6

9/24/88 Date of construction completion: 9/1998

6/30/01 Date of operational and functional: 10/1998

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 10/2008

Operational Expected date of completion: 10/2008

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 0 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Not present Number of monitoring wells used: 20

Approximate annual O&M costs: $300,000 Frequency of sampling: 4 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $35,000 Is plume migration controlled? Yes

Approximate pumping rate: 150 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: less than 20% restored

Evaluated and found sufficient minor/severe

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

118 Chromium Metals precipitation

Air stripping

Biological treatment

UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption

Filtration yes

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

RPM

Michelle Lau

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

lau.michelle@epa.gov

Selma Treating Co.

Selma, CA (Region 9)

CERCLIS ID CAD29452141

USACE, Omaha District

Doug Sutton completed this questionnaire based on a phone interview with Michelle Lau, the RPM for the site. 

Regarding items 27 and 29, a recent 5-year review found that the plume was controleed in the shallow aquifer but that additional monitoring is required to 

determine if it is controlled in the intermediate and deep aquifers.

The entry in item 22 is an estimate.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

75 Hawthorne Street DPES

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

San Francisco, CA 94105

415-744-2227 (phone)

415-744-2180 (fax)
REGION 10 INFORMATION SHEETS
130

State Regulator Contractor

Dan Alexanian Jerry DeMuro

P.0. Box 47775 1500 Century Square, 1501 4th Ave, Suite 1500

Olympia, WA 98504 Seattle, WA 98101

360-407-6249 (phone) 206-674-1800 (phone)

360-407-6305 (fax) 206-674-1801 (fax)

dale461@ecy.wa.gov Jerry_DeMuro@urscop.com

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 22

2/3/00 Date of construction completion: 10/2000

Date of operational and functional: 12/2001

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 12/2011

Operational Expected date of completion: 10/2030

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 3 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Suspected Number of monitoring wells used: 80

Approximate annual O&M costs: $1,000,000 Frequency of sampling: 2 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $204,000 Is plume migration controlled? Yes

Approximate pumping rate: 135 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: Don't know

Evaluated and found sufficient moderate/severe

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

2 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Metals precipitation

6 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE) Air stripping yes

14 1,2-Dichloroethane Biological treatment

354 Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE) UV oxidation

Hexavalent Chromium Carbon adsorption yes

Total Chromium Filtration

Ion Exchange yes

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

Question #20) the O&F is not yet complete, construction of a sewer line will take place this year. When that is complete extraction rates will increase up to 

240 GPM. The date of O&F is not known at this time.

Question #21) The State will take over 10 years from the above date.

Question #26) Ground water long term monitoring takes place twice a year. The extraction wells are sampled quarterly and special ground water sampling 

may take place monthly, e.g. sampling at the toe of the plume. 

Contact Information

System Information and Data

1200 Sixth Avenue - ECL-113 Dept.of Ecology - SWRO

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Seattle, WA 98101

206-553-7216 (phone)

206-553-0124 (fax)

Boomsnub/Airco / Site-Wide Ground Water OU

Hazel Dell, WA (Region 10)

CERCLIS ID WAD009624453

URS, Inc.

RPM

Debra Yamamoto

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

yamamoto.debbie@epa.gov
133

State Regulator Contractor

Nick Zilka

1005 W. McKinley Avenue

Kellog, ID 83837

208-783-5781 (phone)

208-783-4561 (fax)

nzilka@nidlink.com

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells:

9/1/92 Date of construction completion: 12/2010

Date of operational and functional: 12/2020

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 12/2030

Predesign Expected date of completion: 12/2050

Primary goal of system: Restoration Approximate downtime per year:

Presence of NAPLs Not present Number of monitoring wells used: 58

Approximate annual O&M costs: Frequency of sampling: 4 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: Is plume migration controlled?

Approximate pumping rate: Progress of aquifer restoration:

Not evaluated minor/minor

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

63 Asbestos Metals precipitation

126 Creosote Air stripping

230 Lindane Biological treatment

239 Merphos UV oxidation

310 RDX (cyclonite) Carbon adsorption

318 Selenium Filtration

372 Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure yes

Comments:

RPM

Carmella Grandinetti

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

grandinetti.cami@epa.gov

Bunker Hill Superfund Site

Kellogg, ID (Region 10)

CERCLIS ID IDD048340921

Question #19) Date in the survey is not true, gave date to complete survey. See below for explanation.

Question #20) Date in the survey is not true, gave date to complete survey. See below for explanation.

Question #21 Date in the survey is not true, gave date to complete survey. See below for explanation.

Question #22 Date in the survey is not true, gave date to complete survey. See below for explanation.

Explanation:

The 1992 Record of Decision for the Bunker Hill non-populated areas included ground water Pump&treat as well as surface water controls and treatment. 

However, none of the ground or surface water quality activities have been implemented to date. The site was divided into 2 phases in 1995 when EPA and 

the Idaho Dept. of Env. Quality signed a State Superfund Contract. Phase 1, which includes source control measures is currently being implemented. 

Based on the impact that phase 1 source control measures have on site surface water and ground water, Phase 2 water quality activities (including an 

active pump and treat system) may or may not be necessary. A decision regarding the need for and extent of water quality remedial activities will be made in the future 

based on the results of ongoing surface water and ground water quality monitoring.

Contact Information

System Information and Data

1200 Sixth Avenue Idaho Dept.of Env. Quality

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Seattle, WA 98101

206-553-8696 (phone)

206-553-0124 (fax)
131

State Regulator Contractor

Tom Abbott

2401 4th Avenue, Suite 1000

Seattle, WA 98121

206-674-1800 (phone)

206-674-1801 (fax)

abbot.thomas@urs.com

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 5

1/1/85 Date of construction completion: 6/1988

1/1/87 Date of operational and functional: 5/1988

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 1/2004

Operational Expected date of completion: 1/2011

Primary goal of system: Containment & Restoration Approximate downtime per year: 3 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Observed Number of monitoring wells used: 20

Approximate annual O&M costs: $300,000 Frequency of sampling: 2 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $25,000 Is plume migration controlled? Yes

Approximate pumping rate: 150 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: less than 20% restored

Evaluated and found not sufficient minor/moderate

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

3 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Metals precipitation

15 1,2-Dichloroethene Air stripping

120 Cis-1,2-dichloroethene Biological treatment

332 TCE and Vinyl chloride UV oxidation

352 Trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene Carbon adsorption yes

Filtration

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

Contact Information

System Information and Data

ECL-112, 1200 6th Avenue

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Seattle, WA 98101

206-553-2106 (phone)

206-553-0124 (fax)

Commencement Bay, South Tacoma Channel, Well 12A

Tacoma, WA (Region 10)

CERCLIS ID 981773849

URS

RPM

Kevin Rochlin

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

rochlin.kevin@epa.gov
132

State Regulator Contractor

William Dana John Montgomery

811 SW 6th Avenue 333 SW Fifth

Portland, OR 97204 Portland, OR 97204

503-229-6530 (phone) 503-248-5600 (phone)

503-229-5830 (fax) 503-248-5577 (fax)

Dana.William.H@DEQ.State.OR.US JMontgomery@ene.com

State-lead w/ Fund $ Number of extraction wells: 6

3/1/96 Date of construction completion: 3/1996

3/1/98 Date of operational and functional: 3/1996

Final Expected date of turnover to state: 3/2006

Operational Expected date of completion: Indefinite

Primary goal of system: Containment Approximate downtime per year: 5 weeks

Presence of NAPLs Observed Number of monitoring wells used: 25

Approximate annual O&M costs: $250,000 Frequency of sampling: 2 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $40,000 Is plume migration controlled? No

Approximate pumping rate: 3 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: Not a goal

Evaluated and found sufficient minor/minor

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

62 Arsenic Metals precipitation

112 Chlorinated polyaromatic hydrocarbons (CPAHs) Air stripping

128 Creosote/Pentachlorophenol (PCP) Biological treatment

290 Pentachlorophenol (PCP) UV oxidation

Carbon adsorption yes

Filtration yes

Ion Exchange yes

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure yes

354

Comments:

RPM

Alan Goodman

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

goodman.al@epa.gov

McCormick & Baxter Creosoting Co.

Portland, OR (Region 10)

CERCLIS ID OR009020603

Ecology and Environment

The site RPM says that a barrier system is being design to prevent the PAHs and PCP from discharging to the river. The barrier design will be completed 

this year or next. The site treatment processes also include NAPL/water separation and dissolved air flotation (DAF).

Contact Information

System Information and Data

811 SW 6th Avenue, 3rd Floor Oregon Dept. Env. Quality

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Portland, OR 97204

503-326-3685 (phone)

503-326-3399 (fax)
129

State Regulator Contractor

Guy Barrett Ken Scheffler

P.O. Box 47600 P.O. Box 91500

Olympia, WA 98504-7600 Bellevue, WA 98009-2050

360-407-7244 (phone) 425-453-5000 (phone)

360-407-7154 (fax) 425-462-5957 (fax)

gbar461@ecy.wa.gov kscheffl@ch2m.com

EPA-lead Number of extraction wells: 8

9/29/94 Date of construction completion: 2/1990

Date of operational and functional: 2/1990

Interim Expected date of turnover to state: 1/2024

Operational Expected date of completion: Indefinite

Primary goal of system: Containment Approximate downtime per year:

Presence of NAPLs Observed Number of monitoring wells used: 20

Approximate annual O&M costs: $500,000 Frequency of sampling: 1 times per year

Costs related to monitoring: $20,000 Is plume migration controlled? Yes

Approximate pumping rate: 80 gpm Progress of aquifer restoration: Not a goal

Evaluated and found not sufficient minor/moderate

Contaminants of Concern: Treatment Processes:

72 Benzo(a)anthracene Metals precipitation

73 Benzo(a)pyrene Air stripping

74 Benzo(b)fluoranthene Biological treatment yes

75 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene UV oxidation

290 Pentachlorophenol (PCP) Carbon adsorption yes

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons Filtration yes

Ion Exchange

2 Reverse Osmosis

108 Off-gas treatment

120 other/not sure

354

Comments:

The P&T system was constructed by the PRPs as part of an administrative order. When EPA took over operations of the system in 1993, it was in a severe 

state of disrepair. In the 1994 interim ROD, EPA determined that the system is not effective at hydraulic containment of L- and DNAPL, and a new pump & 

treat system and barrier wall was deemed appropriate (i.e., containment remedy). This remedy was never implemented, however, in February 2000, EPA 

signed a final ROD selecting thermal remediation, or steam injection, as the remedy for soil and groundwater. Steam injection remediation will begin with an 

onsite pilot study. The current pump & treat system will be used to treat extracted contaminants during the operation of this pilot study. Construction of the 

pilot system will begin summer 2001 and operation is anticipated to begin early 2002. If the pilot study is successful at meeting performance objectives, EPA 

will expand the system for full-scale cleanup. Therefore, optimization analysis is not applicable or appropriate for this pump & treat system. It should be 

noted that a sheet pile wall has been constructed around this site to significantly reduce migration of contaminants to Eagle Harbor and Puget Sound. 

Contact Information

System Information and Data

1200 Sixth Avenue, ECL-115 State of Washington Dept.of Ecology

Date original ROD was signed:

Date of last modification to ROD:

Seattle, WA 98101

206-553-0171 (phone)

206-553-0124 (fax)

Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site

Bainbridge Island, WA (Region 10)

CERCLIS ID WAD009248295

CH2M HILL

RPM

Hanh Gold

Type of Fund-lead Site:

Result of previous evaluation of 

peformance/effectiveness:

Difficulty (due to social/political factors) of 

implementing minor/major changes:

Type of ROD:

Status of P&T system:

gold.hanh@epa.gov
APPENDIX B
Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative

Phase 1– Data Collection and System Screening

Region 1

July 3, 2001

In the OSWER Directive No. 9200.0-33, Transmittal of Final FY00 - FY01 Superfund Reforms

Strategy, dated July 7,2000, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response outlined a

commitment to optimize our Fund-lead, pump-and-treat (P&T) systems. To fulfill this commitment,

Headquarters is assisting Regions in evaluating their Fund-lead operating P&T systems. Phase 1 of this

initiative involves identifying all Fund-lead P&T system, collecting baseline cost and performance data

on them, and selecting up to two sites in each Region for a Remediation System Evaluation (RSE).

This report summarizes the screening process for Region 1 which was conducted during January 2001. 

The first section of this report presents the cost and performance data for the Region while the second

describes the screening process and system selection.

The data presented in this report reflect estimates provided by the site Remedial Project

Managers between January and May 2001. These estimates may vary from actuality. The

data– including the number, status, cost, specifications, and projections of systems– may

change over time.

Cost and Performance Data

A total of eight pre-operational and operational Fund-lead P&T systems were identified in Region 1. 

Of this eight, seven are operational and one is pre-operational (i.e., pre-design, design, being installed,

installed but not yet operating)

In addition, the remedial action for one Fund-lead P&T system has been completed and two Fund-lead

P&T systems are no longer operating. One of the two systems that are no longer operating, Norwood

PCBs, has been shut down to determine if new groundwater standards set by the state are being met. 

Pinette’s Salvage Yard is also no longer operating. The system has been shut down and the site

managers are monitoring concentrations to determine if contamination is contained. An Explanation of

Significant Differences will be filed in the near future.

Cost and performance data and other information pertaining to the identified Fund-lead P&T systems

(estimates for the pre-operational system) were collected with a web-based questionnaire accessed

from http://www.cluin.org/optimization and stored in a database. This information is summarized in

Table 1 and provided in detail in five additional tables:
July 3, 2001 Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative

Phase 1– Data Collection and Site Screening, Region 1

Page 2 of 3

• Table 2 provides overviews of the systems by providing items such as annual costs, lead,

status, goals, and progress of each system. 

• Table 3 includes the dates marking the signing of the ROD, construction completion,

system operation and function, turnover to the state, and expected close-out. 

• Table 4 lists for each system the contact information for the site Remedial Project

Manager, the State Regulator, and the Contractor. 

• Table 5 notes for each system and the associated site if NAPLS are present, the top

contaminants of concern, and the above-ground treatment processes. 

• Table 6 lists system specifications such as the pumping rate, number of wells, number of

monitoring events per year, and other items used to determine the complexity of a system

and its potential for optimization.

Projected dates for turnover to the States and for system completion are depicted in Figure 1, and

annual costs for each system are depicted in Figure 2. 

RSE Site Selection

Evaluation of Sites for Optimization Potential

Once the information is gathered from each of the Fund-lead P&T systems in a given Region, it

becomes input for a screening methodology that attempts to determine the optimization potential for

each system. This, in turn, provides a basis for selecting two systems where RSEs will be performed. 

Because some EPA Regions do not have two Fund-lead P&T systems, an additional RSE may be

allocated to Region 1 allowing a total of three RSEs to be conducted in this Region as part of this

project.

The factors affecting the optimization potential of a system are

• the overall cost of a given system, 

• the expected duration of the system, 

• the number of above-ground treatment processes, 

• the number of extraction wells,

• the number of monitoring events per year,

• the system downtime per year,
July 3, 2001 Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative

Phase 1– Data Collection and Site Screening, Region 1

Page 3 of 3

• the pumping rate,

• the results (if any) of a previous performance and effectiveness evaluation, and

• any social or political obstacles to implementing modifications to the system.

Table 6 summarizes the results of the screening process including the estimated life-cycle cost savings

that may result from performing an RSE. 

Selecting Sites for RSEs

The following is a list of the identified Fund-lead P&T systems in Region 1 classified as completed,

operational, planned, and no-longer operating. Those in bold were selected or are being considered

for RSEs. 

Completed

Sylvester/Gilson Road

Operational

Baird and McGuire

Charles George Landfill

Groveland Wells

Kearsarge Metallurgical Corp.

Keefe Environmental Systems

Savage Well Municipal Water Supply

Silresim Chemical Corp.

Pre-Operational

Eastern Surplus Company Superfund Site

No-longer Operating

Norwood PCBs

Pinette’s

Only operational systems were considered in selecting the three systems to receive RSEs. Based on

the screening methodology employed in this project, Baird and McGuire, Savage Well Municipal

Water Supply, and Silresim Chemical Corp. were the sites with sufficient operating histories where

optimization would yield the greatest percentage reduction in life-cycle costs. In addition, the Remedial

Project Manager (RPM) of the Savage site expressed interest in having an RSE conducted at the site,

and the 5-year review of the Silresim site noted that the system performance and effectiveness were

insufficient. Collectively, the life-cycle savings, RPM interest, and effectiveness issues provided the

criteria for selecting Baird and McGuire, Savage Well Municipal Water Supply, and Silresim Chemical

Corp. for receiving RSEs.
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 1

Number of systems 8

Number that are EPA lead 5 of 8

Number that are State lead 3 of 8

Number that are operational 7

Number that are pre-operational 1

Number where restoration is a goal 8 of 8

Number where the plume is controlled* 4 of 7

Number that are estimated to be more than 80% complete* 2 of 7

Number previously evaluated and effectiveness found sufficient* 4 of 7

Number previously evaluated and effectiveness found not sufficient* 1 of 7

Number where NAPLs are observed 3 of 8

Number with more than 1 major contaminant identified 7 of 8

Number with 3 or more treatment processes 6 of 8

Average estimated annual O&M cost (including monitoring) $875,000

Average estimated annual monitoring cost $84,375

Average number of years until turnover to the States 6.1

Average number of years until completion 14.4

*Operational sites only

Pinette's Salvage Yard

Norwood PCBs

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and 

May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from actuality. Data-- including the 

number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

No-Longer-Operating Fund-lead P&T Systems

Extent of Contamination

Average Costs and Time Frames

Region 1, Table 1 -- Summary

July 3, 2001

System Status

Operational and Pre-operational Fund-lead P&T Systems

Completed Fund-lead P&T Systems

Sylvester/Gilson Road

Region 1 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 1

System

Estimated 

Annual Cost Lead

Type of 

ROD

System 

Status System Goals 

Plume Under 

Control?

Estimated 

Progress of 

Restoration

Previous Evaluation 

of Effectiveness

Baird & McGuire 

Superfund Site $3,500,000 EPA Final Operational Containment & Restoration Yes 20% - 80% Sufficient

Charles George Landfill 

Superfund Site $450,000 EPA Final Operational Containment & Restoration Yes less than 20% Not evaluated

Eastern Surplus 

Company Superfund Site $200,000 EPA Final Being Installed

Containment & 

Restoration N/A N/A Not evaluated

Groveland Wells 

Superfund Site $500,000 EPA Final Operational Containment & Restoration Unknown Unknown Sufficient

Kearsarge Metallurgical 

Corp. $250,000 State with Fund Money Final Operational Restoration Yes more than 80% Sufficient

Keefe Environmental 

Systems $200,000 State with Fund Money Final Operational Containment & Restoration Yes more than 80% Sufficient

Savage Well Municipal 

Water System $500,000 State with Fund Money Final Operational Containment & Restoration No less than 20% Not evaluated

Silresim Chemical Corp. $1,400,000 EPA Final Operational Containment & 

Restoration No less than 20% Not Sufficient

Notes: 

3. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation Systems Evaluations.

Region 1, Table 2 -- System Overviews

July 3, 2001

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary 

from actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

1. Easter Surplus Company Superfund Site is pre-operational; therefore, the associated data are estimates and some items are unknown.

2. "Estimated Progress of Restoration" refers to the estimated portion of the plume that has been restored to cleanup levels.

Region 1 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs 
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 1

System Original ROD

Last ROD 

Modification

Construction 

Completed

Operational and 

Functional

Turnover to 

State

Years Until 

Turnover

Expected 

Completion

Years Until 

Completion

Baird & McGuire 

Superfund Site 9/30/86 4/1993 4/1994 4/2004 2.7 4/2023 21.8

Charles George Landfill 

Superfund Site 3/23/88 9/26/98 9/1998 9/1999 9/2009 8.2 9/2028 27.2

Eastern Surplus 

Company Superfund Site 9/28/00 8/2001 10/2001 9/2011 10.2 9/2007 6.2

Groveland Wells 

Superfund Site 9/9/91 11/15/96 4/2000 5/2001 4/2011 9.8 4/2031 29.8

Kearsarge Metallurgical 

Corp. 9/28/90 9/1993 9/1993 9/2003 2.2 9/2005 4.2

Keefe Environmental 

Systems 3/21/88 6/8/90 9/1993 9/1994 9/2003 2.2 9/2003 2.2

Savage Well Municipal 

Water System 9/27/91 12/19/96 3/1998 4/1999 3/2009 7.7 3/2009 7.7

Silresim Chemical Corp. 9/19/91 11/1995 9/1997 9/2007 6.2 12/2017 16.4

Region 1, Table 3 -- P&T System Histories and Projections

Date

July 3, 2001

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from 

actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

Region 1 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 1

RPM State Regulator Primary Contractor

1 Taylor Melissa Dorothy Allen Don Dwight

EPA Region 1 MADEP Metcalf & Eddy

One Congress Street 11th floor One Winter Street 30 Harvard Mill Sq.

Boston, MA 02114 Boston, MA 02108 Wakefield, MA 01880

617-918-1310 617-292-5795 781-224-6286

617-918-1291 (fax) 617-292-5530 (fax) 781-224-6880 (fax)

Taylor.MelissaG@epa.gov Dorothy.Allen@state.ma.us Don_Dwight@metcalfeddy.com

2 Stanley Elaine David Buckley David O'Connor

EPA Region 1 Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Central 

Residnet Office

One Congress Street, Suite 1100 One Winter Street 50 McArthur Avenue, Box 689

Boston, MA 02114-2023 Boston, MA 02108 Devens, MA 01432-4400

617-918-1332 617-556-1184 978-772-0148

617-918-1291 (fax) 617-292-5530 (fax) 978-772-3104 (fax)

stanley.elainet@epa.gov buckley.david@state.ma.us david.o'connor@nae02.usace.army.mil

3 Hathaway Edward Rebecca Hewett Gordon Bullard

EPA Region 1 Maine DEP TTNUS

1 Congress Street, Suite 1100, 

mailcode: HBT 17 State House Station 55 Jonspin Road

Boston, MA 02114 Augusta, ME 04333-0017 Wilmington, MA 01887

617-918-1372 207-287-8554 978-658-7899

617-918-1291 (fax) 207-287-7826 (fax) 978-658-7870 (fax)

hathaway.ed@epa.gov rebecca.l.hewett@state.me.us bullardg@ttnus.com

4 Golden Derrick Janet Waldron Cinthia Mclane

EPA Region 1 Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection Metcalf & Eddy

One Congress Street - Suite 1100 

(HBO) One Winter Street 30 Harvard Mill Square

Boston, MA 02114 Boston, MA 02108 Wakefield, MA 01880

617-918-1448 617-556-1156 781-224-6377

617-918-1291 (fax) 617-556-1118 (fax) 781-245-6293 (fax)

golden.derrick@epa.gov janet.waldron@state.ma.us cindy_mclane@metcalfeddy.com

Charles George Landfill 

Superfund Site

Eastern Surplus Company 

Superfund Site

Groveland Wells Superfund 

Site

Region 1, Table 4 -- System Contact Information

July 3, 2001

System

Baird & McGuire Superfund 

Site

Region 1 Fund-lead, P&T Systems Information provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 1

RPM State Regulator Primary Contractor

Region 1, Table 4 -- System Contact Information

July 3, 2001

System

5 Baird & McGuire Superfund Goehlert Dick Paul Lincoln Bette Nowack

EPA Region 1 NHDES Weston

One Congress Street 6 Hazen Drive 1 Wall St.

Boston, MA 02114-2023 Concord, NH 03301 Manchester, NH 03101

617-918-1335 603-271-2911 603-656-5400

617-918-1291 (fax) 603-271-2456 (fax)

goehlert.dick@epa.gov p_andrews@des.state.nh.us

6 Sprague Cheryl Thomas Andrews Harvey King

EPA Region 1 New Hampshire Department of 

Environmental Services Woodard and Curran

One Congress Street, Suite 1100 6 Hazen Drive 41 Hutchins Drive

Boston, MA 02114-2023 Concord, NH 03301-6527 Portland, ME 04102

617 918-1244 603 271-2910 207 774-2112

617 918-1291 (fax) 601 271-2456 (fax) 207 774-6635 (fax)

Sprague.cheryl@epa.gov Tandrews@des.state.nh.us hking@woodardcurren.com

7 GOEHLERT RICHARD THOMAS ANDREWS Joe Newton

EPA Region 1 NHDES CDM

ONE CONGRESS STREET 6 HAZEN DRIVE Elm St

BOSTON, MA 02114-2023 CONCORD, NH 03301 Milford, NH 03055

617-918-1335 603-271-2910 603-249-9840

617-918-1291 (fax) 603-271-2456 (fax) 603-249-9851 (fax)

GOEHLERT.DICK@EPA.GOV t_andrews@des.state.nh.us jnewton@cdm.com

8 Janowski Chester Janet Waldron John Haley

EPA Region 1 MADEP Foster Wheeler Environmental Corp.

1 Congress Street, Suite 1100, HBO One Winter Street, 7th Floor 133 Federal Street, 6th Floor

Boston, MA 02114-2023 Boston, MA 02108 Boston, MA 02110

617-918-1324 617-556-1156 617-457-8200

617-918-1291 (fax) 617-292-5530 (fax) 617-457-8498 (fax)

janowski.chet@epa.gov janet.waldron@state.ma.us jhaley@fwec.com

Savage Well Municipal 

Water System

Silresim Chemical Corp.

Kearsarge Metallurgical 

Corp.

Keefe Environmental 

Systems

Region 1 Fund-lead, P&T Systems Information provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection 

and System Screening, Region 1

NAPLS 

Present?

# of 

Identified 

Contam. Contaminants Treatment Processes

Observed 8 Heavy metals Metals Precipitation

LNAPL Air Stripping

Pesticides Carbon Adsorption

Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOC) Filtration

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)

Aresenic

BTEX

PAHs

Don't know 6 Arsenic Other/Not Sure

BTEX

Chlorobenzene

Mercury

Tetrahydrofuran

1,4-Dioxane

Suspected 2 Methylene Chloride Carbon Adsorption

PCE Filtration

Ion Exchange

Don't know 1 Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE) Metals Precipitation

UV oxidation

Carbon Adsorption

Filtration

Suspected 2 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Air Stripping

Trichloroethylene (TCE) Off-Gas Treatment

Not present 4 1,2,3,4-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD) Air Stripping

1,2-Dichloroethene Carbon Adsorption

Benzo(a)pyrene Filtration

Trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene

Observed 4 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Air Stripping

Chlorinated Solvents Carbon Adsorption

Cis-1,2-dichloroethene Off-Gas Treatment

Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)

Observed 8 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Metals Precipitation

1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE) Air Stripping

Acids Filtration

Benzo(b)fluoranthene Off-Gas Treatment

Methylphenol

Solid Propellants

Trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene

Volatile chlorinated organics

Keefe 

Environmental 

Systems

Kearsarge 

Metallurgical 

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These 

estimates may, in some cases, vary from actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and 

specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

Region 1, Table 5 -- Top Contaminants Identified by RPMs

July 3, 2001

Baird & McGuire 

Superfund Site

System

Savage Well 

Municipal Water 

System

Silresim Chemical 

Corp.

Charles George 

Landfill Superfund 

Site

Groveland Wells 

Superfund Site

Eastern Surplus 

Company 

Superfund Site

Region 1 Fund-lead, P&T system Data provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 1

System

Potential 

Reduction in 

Life-Cycle 

Costs

Potential 

Life-Cycle 

Savings

Expected 

Duration

Previous 

Evaluation of 

Effectiveness

Approximate 

Pumping 

Rate (gpm)

Number of 

Extraction 

Wells

Number of 

Treatment 

Processes

Groundwater 

Samples per 

Year

Obstacles to 

making 

(minor/major) 

changes

Baird & McGuire 

Superfund Site 27.5% $12,402,549 21.8 Sufficient 150 7 4 80 Moderate Severe

Charles George 

Landfill Superfund 

Site

17.5% $1,121,604 27.2 Not evaluated 30 9 1 40 Moderate 

Severe

Groveland Wells 

Superfund Site 27.5% $2,065,504 29.8 Sufficient 140 10 4 21 Minor Minor

Kearsarge 

Metallurgical Corp. 10.0% $56,941 4.2 Sufficient 42 14 2 60 Moderate Moderate

Keefe Environmental 

Systems 7.5% ($1,583) 2.2 Sufficient 20 4 3 82 Minor Minor

2. "Potential Life-cycle Savings" were estimated using using system-specific information and incorporate the cost of the RSE. Values in 

parentheses denote costs (negative savings).

3. "Groundwater Samples per Year" is calculated by multiplying the number of monitoring wells sampled by the number of monitoring events per 

year.

4. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation System Evaluations.

Region 1, Table 6 -- Screening Summary

July 3, 2001

Operational

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary 

from actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

Notes: 

1. "Potential Reduction in Life-cycle Costs" result from a screening methodology that incorporates system-specific information. The reductions do 

not include the cost of an RSE.

Region 1 Fund-lead, P&T system Data provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 1

System

Potential 

Reduction in 

Life-Cycle 

Costs

Potential 

Life-Cycle 

Savings

Expected 

Duration

Previous 

Evaluation of 

Effectiveness

Approximate 

Pumping 

Rate (gpm)

Number of 

Extraction 

Wells

Number of 

Treatment 

Processes

Groundwater 

Samples per 

Year

Obstacles to 

making 

(minor/major) 

changes

Region 1, Table 6 -- Screening Summary

July 3, 2001

Operational

Savage Well 

Municipal Water 

System

32.5% $934,042 7.7 Not evaluated 100 4 3 114 Minor 

Minor

Silresim Chemical 

Corp. 40.0% $6,025,600 16.4 Not Sufficient 25 31 4 94 Minor Minor

Eastern Surplus 

Company Superfund 

Site

28.0% $245,611 6.2 Not evaluated 20 12 3 60 Minor 

Moderate

2. "Potential Life-cycle Savings" were estimated using using system-specific information and incorporate the cost of the RSE. Values in 

parentheses denote costs (negative savings).

3. "Groundwater Samples per Year" is calculated by multiplying the number of monitoring wells sampled by the number of monitoring events per 

year.

4. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation System Evaluations.

1. "Potential Reduction in Life-cycle Costs" result from a screening methodology that incorporates system-specific information. The reductions do 

not include the cost of an RSE.

Notes: 

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary 

from actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

Pre-Operational

Region 1 Fund-lead, P&T system Data provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 1

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary 

from actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

Region 1, Figure 1 -- Estimated Annual Costs of Systems

July 3, 2001

$3,500

$450 $500

$250 $200

$500

$1,400

$200

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

Baird &

McGuire

Superfund Site

Charles

George

Landfill

Superfund Site

Eastern

Surplus

Company

Superfund Site

Groveland

Wells

Superfund Site

Kearsarge

Metallurgical

Corp.

Keefe

Environmental

Systems

Savage Well

Municipal

Water System

Silresim

Chemical

Corp.

$1000/yr

Operational Systems

Pre-operational Systems

Region 1 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs 
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 1

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from 

actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

July 3, 2001

Region 1, Figure 2 -- System Projections

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

Baird & McGuire

Superfund Site

Charles George

Landfill

Superfund Site

Eastern Surplus

Company

Superfund Site

Groveland Wells

Superfund Site

Kearsarge

Metallurgical

Corp.

Keefe

Environmental

Systems

Savage Well

Municipal Water

System

Silresim

Chemical Corp.

years

Years Until Turnover

Years Until Completion

2021

2026

2031

2001

2006

2011

2016

Region 1 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative

Phase 1– Data Collection and System Screening

Region 2

July 3, 2001

In the OSWER Directive No. 9200.0-33, Transmittal of Final FY00 - FY01 Superfund Reforms

Strategy, dated July 7,2000, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response outlined a

commitment to optimize our Fund-lead, pump-and-treat (P&T) systems. To fulfill this commitment,

Headquarters is assisting Regions in evaluating their Fund-lead operating P&T systems. Phase 1 of this

initiative involves identifying all Fund-lead P&T system, collecting baseline cost and performance data

on them, and selecting up to two sites in each Region for a Remediation System Evaluation (RSE).

This report summarizes the screening process for Region 2 which began in January 2001. The first

section of this report presents the cost and performance data for the Region while the second describes

the screening process and system selection.

The data presented in this report reflect estimates provided by the site Remedial Project

Managers between January and May 2001. These estimates may vary from actuality. The

data– including the number, status, cost, specifications, and projections of systems– may

change over time.

Cost and Performance Data

Twenty-two Fund-lead P&T systems were identified in Region 2. Of these twenty-two systems, 18

are operational and four are pre-operational (i.e., pre-design, design, being installed, installed but not

yet operating). In addition, pump-and-treat may be selected as a remedy for one Fund-lead site when

the Record of Decision is completed.

Cost and performance data and other information pertaining to the identified Fund-lead P&T systems

(estimates for the pre-operational system) were collected with a web-based questionnaire accessed

from http://www.cluin.org/optimization and stored in a database. This information is summarized in

Table 1 and provided in detail in five additional tables (Note: two of the pre-operational systems,

Dover Municipal Well 4 and Metal TEC/Aerosystems, may ultimately use a remedy other than P&T):

• Table 2 provides overviews of the systems by providing items such as annual costs, lead,

status, goals, and progress of each system. 

• Table 3 includes the dates marking the signing of the ROD, construction completion,

system operation and function, turnover to the state, and expected close-out. 
July 3, 2001 Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative

Phase 1– Data Collection and Site Screening, Region 2

Page 2 of 4

• Table 4 lists for each system the contact information for the site Remedial Project

Manager, the State Regulator, and the Contractor. 

• Table 5 notes for each system and the associated site if NAPLS are present, the top

contaminants of concern, and the above-ground treatment processes. 

• Table 6 lists system specifications such as the pumping rate, number of wells, number of

monitoring events per year, and other items used to determine the complexity of a system

and its potential for optimization.

Projected dates for turnover to the States and for system completion are depicted in Figure 1, and

annual costs for each system are depicted in Figure 2. 

RSE Site Selection

Evaluation of Sites for Optimization Potential

Once the information is gathered from each of the Fund-lead P&T systems in a given Region, it

becomes input for a screening methodology that attempts to determine the optimization potential for

each system. This, in turn, provides a basis for selecting two systems where RSEs will be performed.

The factors affecting the optimization potential of a system are

• the overall cost of a given system, 

• the expected duration of the system, 

• the number of above-ground treatment processes, 

• the number of extraction wells,

• the number of monitoring events per year,

• the system downtime per year,

• the pumping rate,

• the results (if any) of a previous performance and effectiveness evaluation, and

• any social or political obstacles to implementing modifications to the system.

To estimate potential life-cycle savings from optimization, a default reduction in life-cycle costs of 20%

is assumed and is adjusted based on the above factors. For example, according to the screening

methodology, a system with many above-ground treatment processes and a high pumping rate may

exhibit greater than a 20% reduction in life-cycle costs whereas a system with few extraction wells and

one treatment process may exhibit less than a 20% reduction in life-cycle costs.
July 3, 2001 Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative

Phase 1– Data Collection and Site Screening, Region 2

Page 3 of 4

Table 6 summarizes the results of the screening process including the estimated life-cycle cost savings

that may result from performing an RSE. Because some EPA Regions do not have two Fund-lead

P&T systems, an additional RSE may be allocated to Region 2 allowing a total of three RSEs to be

conducted in this Region as part of this project.

Selecting Sites for RSEs

The following is a list of the identified Fund-lead P&T systems in Region 2 classified as operational,

pre-operational, or potential. Those in bold were selected or are being considered for RSEs. 

Operational

American Thermostat

Bog Creek Farm

Brewster Wellfield

Circuitron

Claremont Polychemical Corp.

Combe Fill South

Garden State Cleaners/South

Higgins Farm

Islip Municipal Landfill

Lang Property

Lipari Landfill

Mattiace Petrochemical

Mohonk Road Industrial Plant

SMS Instruments

Syncon Resins

Vestal Water Supply Well 1-1

Vineland Chemical Company

Williams Property

Pre-operational

Dover Municipal Well 4

Metal TEC/Aerosystems

Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill*

Stanton Cleaners Area

Potential

Lehigh Valley

* Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill actually consists of two sites that will share a single P&T system.

Only operational systems are considered in selecting the systems in Region 2 to receive RSEs. Due to

the absence of Fund-lead P&T systems in other Regions, additional resources are available to conduct
July 3, 2001 Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative

Phase 1– Data Collection and Site Screening, Region 2

Page 4 of 4

an additional RSE in Region 2, bringing the total number of RSEs conducted in this Region to three. 

The Mattiace Petrochemical and Claremont Polychemical Sites already have been selected for an RSEs

due to their relatively high potential savings indicated by the screening process. The selection of

Brewster Wellfield is based on recommendations from within the Region.

Although Vineland, American Thermostat, Combe Fill South, and Higgins Farm also have relatively

high potential savings as determined by the screening process, these sites were deemed inappropriate

by the Region for receiving RSEs. At the time of the screening process, Vineland was undergoing an

external evaluation for optimization, American Thermostat was undergoing evaluation by the Region and

the Army Corps of Engineers for optimization, and Combe Fill South and Higgins Farm were the

subjects of litigation. 
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 2

Number of systems 22

Number that are EPA lead 18 of 22

Number that are State lead 4 of 22

Number that are operational 18

Number that are pre-operational 4

Number where restoration is a goal 21 of 22

Number where the plume is controlled* 15 of 18

Number that are estimated to be more than 80% complete* 1 of 18

Number previously evaluated and effectiveness found sufficient* 10 of 18

Number previously evaluated and effectiveness found not sufficient* 2 of 18

Number where NAPLs are observed 4 of 22

Number with more than 1 major contaminant identified 17 of 22

Number with 3 or more treatment processes 13 of 22

Average estimated annual O&M cost (including monitoring) $828,947

Average estimated annual monitoring cost $190,900

Average number of years until turnover to the States 7.9

Average number of years until completion 17.7

*Operational sites only

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and 

May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from actuality. Data-- including the 

number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

Extent of Contamination

Average Costs and Time Frames

Region 2, Table 1 -- Summary

July 3, 2001

System Status

Operational and Pre-operational Fund-lead P&T Systems

Completed Fund-lead P&T Systems

Region 2 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 2

System

Estimated 

Annual Cost Lead

Type of 

ROD

System 

Status System Goals 

Plume Under 

Control?

Estimated 

Progress of 

Restoration

Previous Evaluation 

of Effectiveness

American Thermostat $1,175,000 EPA Final Operational Containment & 

Restoration Yes less than 20% Sufficient

Bog Creek Farm LTRA $460,000 EPA Final Operational Containment & 

Restoration Yes 20% - 80% Sufficient

Brewster Wellfield $400,000 EPA Final Operational Containment & 

Restoration Yes Unknown Not evaluated

Circuitron $480,000 EPA Final Operational Restoration Yes less than 20% Sufficient

Claremont Polychemical $740,000 EPA Final Operational Containment & 

Restoration Yes Unknown Not evaluated

Combe Fill South Landfill $920,000 State with 

Fund Money Final Operational Containment & Restoration No Unknown Not Sufficient

Dover Municipal Well 4 unknown EPA Final Predesign Restoration N/A N/A N/A

Notes: 

Region 2, Table 2 -- System Overviews

July 3, 2001

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary 

from actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

1. Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill are two separate Fund-lead sites that will share a single P&T system.

2. The following systems are pre-operational; therefore, the associated data are estimates and some items are unknown: Dover Municipal 

Well 4, MetalTec/Aerosystems, Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill, and Stanton Cleaners.

3. Estimated progress toward restoration refers to the estimated portion of the plume that has been restored to cleanup levels.

4. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation System Evaluations.

Region 2 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs 
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 2

System

Estimated 

Annual Cost Lead

Type of 

ROD

System 

Status System Goals 

Plume Under 

Control?

Estimated 

Progress of 

Restoration

Previous Evaluation 

of Effectiveness

Region 2, Table 2 -- System Overviews

July 3, 2001

Garden State 

Cleaners/South Jersey 

Clothing Company

$500,000 EPA Final Operational Containment & 

Restoration No Unknown Currently being evaluated

Higgins Farm $1,000,000 EPA Final Operational Containment & 

Restoration Yes less than 20% Not evaluated

Islip Municipal Landfill $225,000 State with 

Fund Money Final Operational Containment & Restoration Yes 20% - 80% Sufficient

Lang Property $700,000 EPA Final Operational Containment & 

Restoration Yes 20% - 80% Sufficient

Lipari Landfill site $2,500,000 EPA Final Operational Containment & 

Restoration Yes 20% - 80% Sufficient

Mattiace Petrochemical $700,000 EPA Final Operational Containment & 

Restoration Yes less than 20% Sufficient

Metal TEC/Aerosystems unknown EPA Final Predesign N/A N/A N/A N/A

Notes: 

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary 

from actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

1. Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill are two separate Fund-lead sites that will share a single P&T system.

2. The following systems are pre-operational; therefore, the associated data are estimates and some items are unknown: Dover Municipal 

Well 4, MetalTec/Aerosystems, Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill, and Stanton Cleaners.

3. Estimated progress toward restoration refers to the estimated portion of the plume that has been restored to cleanup levels.

4. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation System Evaluations.

Region 2 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs 
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 2

System

Estimated 

Annual Cost Lead

Type of 

ROD

System 

Status System Goals 

Plume Under 

Control?

Estimated 

Progress of 

Restoration

Previous Evaluation 

of Effectiveness

Region 2, Table 2 -- System Overviews

July 3, 2001

Mohonk Road Industrial 

Plant unknown EPA Final Operational Containment & Restoration Unknown Unknown Currently being evaluated

Montgomery 

Township/Rocky Hill $400,000 EPA Final Design Restoration N/A N/A N/A

SMS Instruments $400,000 EPA Final Operational Containment & 

Restoration Yes 20% - 80% Sufficient

Stanton Cleaners Area 

Groundwater 

Contamination Site

$270,000 EPA Final Being 

Installed

Containment & 

Restoration N/A N/A N/A

Syncon Resins $350,000 State with 

Fund Money Final Operational Containment & Restoration Yes less than 20% Not Sufficient

Vestal Water Supply Well 

1-1 $180,000 EPA Final Operational Containment & Restoration Yes less than 20% Sufficient

Vineland Chemical Co. 

Groundwater Treatment $4,000,000 EPA Final Operational Containment & Restoration Yes Unknown Currently being evaluated

Williams Property $350,000 State with 

Fund Money Final Operational Restoration Yes more than 80% Sufficient

Notes: 

4. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation System Evaluations.

2. The following systems are pre-operational; therefore, the associated data are estimates and some items are unknown: Dover Municipal 

Well 4, MetalTec/Aerosystems, Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill, and Stanton Cleaners.

3. Estimated progress toward restoration refers to the estimated portion of the plume that has been restored to cleanup levels.

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary 

from actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

1. Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill are two separate Fund-lead sites that will share a single P&T system.

Region 2 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs 
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 2

System Original ROD

Last ROD 

Modification

Construction 

Completed

Operational and 

Functional

Turnover to 

State

Years Until 

Turnover

Expected 

Completion

Years Until 

Completion

American Thermostat 6/29/90 9/1998 9/1998 10/2008 7.3 9/2028 27.2

Bog Creek Farm LTRA 6/28/89 5/1994 8/1994 9/2004 3.2 12/2024 23.4

Brewster Wellfield 9/30/86 12/2/96 4/1997 9/1997 10/2007 6.2 10/2007 6.2

Circuitron 9/30/94 6/2000 5/15/2001 6/2010 8.9 6/2003 1.9

Claremont Polychemical 9/28/90 12/1998 2/2000 2/2010 8.6 2/2020 18.6

Combe Fill South Landfill 9/23/86 6/1998 9/1998 9/2008 7.2 9/2028 27.2

Dover Municipal Well 4 9/30/92 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Notes: 

Region 2, Table 3 -- P&T System Histories and Projections

Date

July 3, 2001

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from 

actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

1. Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill are two separate Fund-lead sites that will share a single P&T system.

2. The following systems are pre-operational; therefore, the associated data are estimates and some items are unknown: Dover Municipal Well 4, 

MetalTec/Aerosystems, Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill, and Stanton Cleaners.

Region 2 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 2

System Original ROD

Last ROD 

Modification

Construction 

Completed

Operational and 

Functional

Turnover to 

State

Years Until 

Turnover

Expected 

Completion

Years Until 

Completion

Region 2, Table 3 -- P&T System Histories and Projections

Date

July 3, 2001

Garden State 

Cleaners/South Jersey 

Clothing Company

9/26/91 3/1999 9/2000 10/2009 8.3 9/2029 28.2

Higgins Farm 9/30/92 5/1998 1/1999 1/2009 7.5 9/2028 27.2

Islip Municipal Landfill 9/19/92 9/1996 9/1997 9/2006 5.2 1/2003 1.5

Lang Property 9/29/86 9/1995 10/1995 10/2005 4.2 1/2005 3.5

Lipari Landfill site 9/30/85 12/1992 6/1993 10/2019 18.3 12/2004 3.4

Mattiace Petrochemical 6/27/91 8/1998 9/1999 3/2009 7.7 8/2029 28.1

Metal TEC/Aerosystems 9/27/90 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Notes: 

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from 

actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

1. Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill are two separate Fund-lead sites that will share a single P&T system.

2. The following systems are pre-operational; therefore, the associated data are estimates and some items are unknown: Dover Municipal Well 4, 

MetalTec/Aerosystems, Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill, and Stanton Cleaners.

Region 2 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 2

System Original ROD

Last ROD 

Modification

Construction 

Completed

Operational and 

Functional

Turnover to 

State

Years Until 

Turnover

Expected 

Completion

Years Until 

Completion

Region 2, Table 3 -- P&T System Histories and Projections

Date

July 3, 2001

Mohonk Road Industrial 

Plant 3/31/00 5/2000 7/2001 7/2011 10.0 7/2031 30.0

Montgomery 

Township/Rocky Hill 6/27/88 9/2003 9/2003 9/2013 12.2 9/2033 32.2

SMS Instruments 9/29/89 6/1994 6/1995 6/2005 3.9 3/2004 2.7

Stanton Cleaners Area 

Groundwater 

Contamination Site

3/31/99 6/2001 9/2001 9/2011 10.2 9/2021 20.2

Syncon Resins 9/29/86 9/27/00 4/1991 4/1991 4/2001 0.0 9/2028 27.2

Vestal Water Supply Well 

1-1 6/27/86 12/1993 3/1995 3/2005 3.7 3/2015 13.7

Vineland Chemical Co. 

Groundwater Treatment 9/28/89 4/2000 6/2000 6/2011 9.9 6/2031 29.9

Williams Property 9/29/87 1/1995 1/1995 1/2001 0.0 12/2002 1.4

Notes: 

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from 

actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

1. Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill are two separate Fund-lead sites that will share a single P&T system.

2. The following systems are pre-operational; therefore, the associated data are estimates and some items are unknown: Dover Municipal Well 4, 

MetalTec/Aerosystems, Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill, and Stanton Cleaners.

Region 2 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 2

RPM State Regulator Primary Contractor

1 Christos Tsiamis Joseph Yavonditte Feeney Richard

EPA Region 2 New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation

290 Broadway 50 Wolf Road 1000 The American Road

New York, NY 12233 Albany, NY 12233 Morris Plains, NJ 07950

212-637-4257 518-457-9285 973-630-8092

212-637-3966 (fax) 518-457-7743 (fax) 973-630-8111 (fax)

tsiamis.christos@epa.gov jayavond@gw.dec.state.ny.us RFeeney@fwenc.com

2 Edward Finnerty Craig Wallace George Paprocki

EPA Region 2 NJDEP USACE

290 Broadway 401 E State St. Ft. Monmouth

New York, NY 10007 Trenton, NJ 08625 Eatontown, NJ 07703

212 637 4367 609 984 2990 732 389 3040

212-637-4393 (fax) 609 633 2360 (fax) 732 389 1564 (fax)

Finnerty.Ed@EPA.GOV Cwallace@DEP.STATE.NJ.US George.B.Paprocki@nan02.USACE.army.mil

3 Lisa Wong George Momberger Dawn Cermak

EPA Region 2 New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation Sevenson Environmental Services, Inc

290 Broadway 50 Wolf Road Box 71A Route 518, Franklin Twsp

New York, NY 10007 Albany, NY 12233 Princeton, NJ 08540

212-637-4267 518-457-0927 732-297-0432

212-637-3966 (fax) 518-457-8989 (fax) 732-297-0441 (fax)

wong.lisa@epa.gov gfmomber@gw.dec.state.ny.us hawksister@earthlink.net

4 Sharon Trocher Jeffrey Trad Shewen Bian

EPA Region 2 New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation USACE, New York District

290 Broadway 50 Wolf Road 1900 Hempstead Turnpike, Suite 16

New York, NY 10007-1866 Albany, NY 12233-7010 East Meadow, NY 11554

212-637-3965 518-457-9285 516-794-2913

212-637-3966 (fax) 518-457-7743 (fax) 516-794-2975 (fax)

trocher.sharon@epa.gov jetrad@gw.dec.state.ny.us

Region 2, Table 4 -- System Contact Information

July 3, 2001

System

American Thermostat

Bog Creek Farm LTRA

Brewster Wellfield

Circuitron

Region 2 Fund-lead, P&T Systems Information provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 2

RPM State Regulator Primary Contractor

Region 2, Table 4 -- System Contact Information

July 3, 2001

System

5 Maria Jon Jeff Trad Mark Kucera

EPA Region 2 New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

290 Broadway, 20th Floor 50 Wolf Road 501 Winding Road

New York, NY 10007 Albany, NY 12218 Old Bethpage, NY 11804

212-637-3967 518-457-9285 516-249-8912

212-637-4284 (fax) 518-457-7743 (fax) 516-249-8928 (fax)

Jon.Maria@epamail.epa.gov jetrad@gw.dec.state.ny.us

6 Pamela J. Baxter Paula Walshe James Nash

EPA Region 2 NJDEP Chapman, Inc.

290 Broadway 401 East State St. 25 West Highand Avenue

New York, NY 10007-1866 Trenton, NJ 08625 Atlantic Highlands, NJ 07716

212-637-4416 609-633-1119 732-291-7773

212-637-4393 (fax) 609-292-1975 (fax) 732-291-7776 (fax)

baxter.pam@epamail.gov pwalshe@dep.state.nj.us

7 Diego Garcia Mary Lou Parra Kamala Morgan

EPA Region 2 NJDEP USACE, Kansas City District

290 Broadway 401 East State St. 601 East 12th St.

New York, NY 10007-1866 Trenton, NJ 08625 Kansas City,, MO 64106

212-637-4947 609-633-3618 816-983-3377

garcia.diego@epa.gov

8 Brian Quinn Akshay Parikh Steven Gillespie

EPA Region 2 N.J.D.E.P. Sevenson Environmental Services, Inc.

290 Broadway, 19th Floor 401 E. State Street, P.O. Box 413 2749 Lockport Road

New York, NY 10007 Trenton, NJ 08625 Niagara Falls, NY 14305

212-637-4381 609-777-0693 856-905-0782

212-637-4393 (fax) 609-633-2360 (fax) 856-697-9187 (fax)

quinn.brian@epa.gov APARIKH@dep.state.nj.us sevenson@voicenet.com

Combe Fill South Landfill

Dover Municipal Well 4

Garden State 

Cleaners/South Jersey 

Claremont Polychemical

Region 2 Fund-lead, P&T Systems Information provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 2

RPM State Regulator Primary Contractor

Region 2, Table 4 -- System Contact Information

July 3, 2001

System

9 Pamela J. Baxter Unknown Dawn Cermail

EPA Region 2 NJDEP Sevenson Environmental Service, Inc.

290 Broadway 401 East State St. 71A Route 518

New York, NY 10007-1866 Trenton, NJ 08625 Princeton, NJ 08540

212-637-4416 732-297-0432

212-637-4393 (fax) 732-297-0441 (fax)

baxter.pam@epamail.gov hawksiyseter@earthlink.com

# Mark Dannenberg Carl Hoffman Paul DiMaria

EPA Region 2 New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation Islip Resource Recovery Agency

290 Broadway 50 Wolf Road 401 Main Street

New York, NY 10007 Albany, NY 12233 Islip, NY 11751

212-637-4251 518-457-9538 631-224-5644

212-637-3966 (fax) 518-457-4198 (fax) 631-224-5645 (fax)

dannenberg.mark@epa.gov crhoffma@gw.dec.state.ny.us wfgraner@hotmail.com

# Lawrence Granite Thomas Ferrara Thomas Roche

EPA Region 2 NJDEP U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

290 Broadway - 19th floor 401 East State Street 192 City Line Road

New York, New York, NY 10007-1866 Trenton, NJ 08625 Browns Mills, NJ 08015

212-637-4423 609-292-4095 609-893-0983

212-637-4393 (fax) 609-633-2360 (fax) 609-893-5415 (fax)

granite.larry@epamail.epa.gov thomas.p.roche@usace.army.mil

# Ferdinand Cataneo Michael Burlingame Lee Anne Simmler

EPA Region 2 NJDEP URS/Radian International

290 Broadway P.O. Box 413 743 Mullica Hill Road

New York City, NY 10007-1866 Trenton, NJ 08625-0413 Glassboro, NJ 08028

212-637-4428 609-292-1424 856-582-6000

212-637-4393 (fax) 609-292-1975 (fax) 856-582-6946 (fax)

cataneo.fred@epa.gov mburling@dep.state.nj.us lee_anne_simmler@urscorp.com

Islip Municipal Landfill

Lang Property

Lipari Landfill site

Higgins Farm

Region 2 Fund-lead, P&T Systems Information provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 2

RPM State Regulator Primary Contractor

Region 2, Table 4 -- System Contact Information

July 3, 2001

System

# Edward Als Michael Mason Karuppenan Subburamu

EPA Region 2 NY State Department of 

Environmental Conservation Foster Wheeler Environmental Corp.

290 Broadway 50 Wolf Road 1000 the American Road

NYC, NY 10007-1866 Albany, NY 12233 Morris Plains, NJ 07950

212-637-4272 518-457-9285 973-630-8518

212-637-3966 (fax) 518-457-7743 (fax) 973-630-8111 (fax)

als.ed@epa.gov mamason@gw.dec.state.ny.us ksubburamu@fwenc.com

# Dan Weissman Anton Navaragah N/A

EPA Region 2 NJDEP

290 Broadway 401 East State St.

New York, NY 10007-1866 Trenton, NJ 08625

212-637-4384 609-777-0340

weissman.dan@epa.gov

# Patrick Hamblin Michael Komoroske Eric Hamilton

EPA Region 2 NYSDEC EarthTech

290 Broadway, 20th Floor 50 Wolf Road, Room 242 7870 Villa Park Drive, Suite 400

New York, NY 10007-1866 Albany, NY 12233-7010 Richmond, VA 23228

212-637-3314 518-457-3395 804-515-8300

212-637-3966 (fax) 518-457-4198 (fax) 804-515-8414 (fax)

hamblin.patrick@epa.gov mjkomoro@gw.dec.state.ny.us e_hamilton@earthtech.com

# Monica Mahar Larry Quinn Geoffrey McKenzie

EPA Region 2 NJDEP CDM

290 Broadway 401 East State St. 107-F Corporate Blvd.

New York, NY 10007-1866 Trenton, NJ 08625 South Plainsfield, NJ 07080

212-637-3942 609-633-0766 908-757-9500

mahar.monica@epa.gov lquinn@dep.state.nj.us mckenziegm@cdm.com

Metal TEC/Aerosystems

Mohonk Road Industrial 

Plant

Montgomery 

Township/Rocky Hill

Mattiace Petrochemical

Region 2 Fund-lead, P&T Systems Information provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 2

RPM State Regulator Primary Contractor

Region 2, Table 4 -- System Contact Information

July 3, 2001

System

# Mark Dannenberg Joseph Yavonditte Paul Hagerman

EPA Region 2 New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation CDM Federal

290 Broadway 50 Wolf Road 125 Maiden Lane

New York, NY 10007 Albany, NY 12233 New York, NY 10038

212-637-4251 518-457-9280 212-785-9123

212-637-3966 (fax) 518-457-4198 (fax) 212-785-6114 (fax)

dannenberg.mark@epa.gov jayovond@gw.dec.state.ny.us hagermanpr@cdm.com

# Damian Duda Thomas Gibbons Thomas Williams

EPA Region 2 New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation Earth Tech

290 Broadway - 20th Floor 50 Wolf Road 7870 Villa Park Drive - Suite 400

New York, NY 10007-1866 Albany, NY 12233 Richmond, VA 23228

212-637-4269 518-457-3960 516-482-7162

212-637-3966 (fax) 518-457-4158 (fax) 516-466-8396 (fax)

duda.damian@epa.gov tlgibbon@gw.dec.state.ny.us twilliams@earthtech.com

# Pamela J. Baxter Jeanette Abels John Sperber

EPA Region 2 NJDEP LSR Levine and Fricke

290 Broadway 401 East State St. P.O. Box 316

New York, NY 10007-1866 Trenton, NJ 08625 Closter, NJ 07624

212-637-4416 609-292-4873 201-750-6880

212-637-4393 (fax) 609-633-2360 (fax) 201-750-6890 (fax)

baxter.pam@epamail.gov jabels@dep.state.nj.us spurber@webstan.net

# Sharon Trocher Jeffrey Trad Heidemarie Adenau

EPA Region 2 New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation

290 Broadway 50 Wolf Road 1000 The American Road

New York, NY 10007-1866 Albany, NY 12233-7010 Morris Plains, NJ 07950

212-637-3965 518-457-9285 973-630-7197

212-637-3966 (fax) 518-457-7743 (fax) 973-630-8025 (fax)

trocher.sharon@epa.gov jetrad@gw.dec.state.ny.us hadenau@fwenc.com

Stanton Cleaners Area 

Groundwater Contamination 

Site

Syncon Resins

Vestal Water Supply Well 1-

1

SMS Instruments

Region 2 Fund-lead, P&T Systems Information provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 2

RPM State Regulator Primary Contractor

Region 2, Table 4 -- System Contact Information

July 3, 2001

System

# Matthew Westgate Craig Wallace Gillespie Steve

EPA Region 2 N.J. Dept. of Environmental Protection Sevenson Environmental Services

290 Broadway 19th floor 401 East State Street CN413 1405A North Mill Road

New York City, NY 10007-1866 Trenton, NJ 08625-0413 Vineland, NJ 08360

212 637-4422 609 984-3727 856 690-1758

212 637-4429 (fax) 609 633-2360 (fax) 856 690-1759 (fax)

westgate.matthew@epamail.epa.gov cwallac2@dep.state.nj.us vineland@voicenet.com

# Ferdinand Cataneo Steve Wohleb Richard Talbot

EPA Region 2 NJDEP TurnKey Environmental Services, Inc

290 Broadway P.O. Box 413 24 South Newton Street Road, Suite 1B

New York City, NY 10007-1866 Trenton, NJ 08625-0413 Newton Square, PA 19073

212-637-4428 609-633-3970 610-356-3790

212-637-4393 (fax) 609-292-1975 (fax) 610-356-4780 (fax)

cataneo.fred@epa.gov swohleb@dep.state.nj.us TurnKeyEnv@aol.com

Williams Property

Vineland Chemical Co. 

Groundwater Treatment

Region 2 Fund-lead, P&T Systems Information provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection 

and System Screening, Region 2

NAPLS 

Present?

# of 

Identified 

Contam. Contaminants Treatment Processes

Suspected 3 1,2-Dichloropropane Metals Precipitation

Trichlorobenzene Air Stripping

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) Carbon Adsorption

Filtration

Observed 9 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Metals Precipitation

1,2-Dichloroethylene (DCE) Air Stripping

2,4-Dimethylphenol Carbon Adsorption

Benzene Filtration

Phenol

Toluene

copper

lead

zinc

Suspected 2 1,2-Dichloroethylene (DCE) Air Stripping

Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)

Circuitron Not present 4 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Air Stripping

1,1-Dichloroethane Carbon Adsorption

1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE) Filtration

Trichloroethylene (TCE)

Don't know 4 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Metals Precipitation

Toluene Air Stripping

Xylene Carbon Adsorption

PCE

Not present 8 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Metals Precipitation

Benzene Biological Treatment

Carbon tetrachloride Carbon Adsorption

Chlorobenzene Filtration

Chloroform

Ethylbenzene

Methylene Chloride

Toluene

Not present 2 TCE Not Determined

PCE

Not present 2 Trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene Air Stripping

Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE) Carbon Adsorption

Notes: 

Garden State 

Cleaners/South 

2. The following systems are pre-operational; therefore, the associated data are estimates and some items are 

unknown: Dover Municipal Well 4, MetalTec/Aerosystems, Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill, and Stanton 

Cleaners.

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates 

may, in some cases, vary from actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of 

systems-- may change overtime.

1. Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill are two separate Fund-lead sites that will share a single P&T system.

Brewster Wellfield

Claremont 

Polychemical

Combe Fill South 

Landfill

Dover Municipal 

Well 4

Bog Creek Farm 

LTRA

Region 2 Table 5 -- Top Contaminants Identified by RPMs

July 3, 2001

System

American 

Thermostat

Region 2 Fund-lead, P&T system Data provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection 

and System Screening, Region 2

NAPLS 

Present?

# of 

Identified 

Contam. Contaminants Treatment Processes

Region 2 Table 5 -- Top Contaminants Identified by RPMs

July 3, 2001

System

American Not present 6 Acetone Metals Precipitation

Arsenic Air Stripping

Chloride Filtration

Chlorobenzene Ion Exchange

Toluene

Xylene

Not present 1 Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) Metals Precipitation

Air Stripping

Suspected 5 tetrachlorethylene Carbon Adsorption

1,1-dichloroethene Filtration

1,1-dichloroethane Off-Gas Treatment

trichloroethene

chromium

Suspected 9 Benzene and Toluene Metals Precipitation

Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether Carbon Adsorption

Xylene Off-Gas Treatment

1,2-Dichloroethane Other/Not Sure

Methylene Chloride

Phenol

Chromium

Lead

Zinc

Observed 12 Aromatic VOCs Metals Precipitation

Chlorinated Aliphatics Air Stripping

Chlorinated Solvents Carbon Adsorption

Ethylbenzene Filtration

Tetrachloroethylene Off-Gas Treatment

Trichloroethylene

Ethylbenzene

Toluene

Xylenes

Methylene Chloride

Dichlorobenzene

Acetone

Notes: 

Higgins Farm

Islip Municipal 

Landfill

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates 

may, in some cases, vary from actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of 

systems-- may change overtime.

Lipari Landfill site

Lang Property

Mattiace 

Petrochemical

1. Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill are two separate Fund-lead sites that will share a single P&T system.

2. The following systems are pre-operational; therefore, the associated data are estimates and some items are 

unknown: Dover Municipal Well 4, MetalTec/Aerosystems, Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill, and Stanton 

Cleaners.

Region 2 Fund-lead, P&T system Data provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection 

and System Screening, Region 2

NAPLS 

Present?

# of 

Identified 

Contam. Contaminants Treatment Processes

Region 2 Table 5 -- Top Contaminants Identified by RPMs

July 3, 2001

System

American Observed 2 TCE Not determined

PCE

Not present 4 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Air Stripping

1,1-Dichloroethane Carbon Adsorption

1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE) Filtration

Trichloroethylene (TCE) Off-Gas Treatment

Don't know 1 TCE Air Stripping

Carbon Adsorption

Not present 1 Xylene Air Stripping

Carbon Adsorption

Suspected 4 Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE) Metals Precipitation

DCE Air Stripping

BTX Carbon Adsorption

MTBE Filtration

Off-Gas Treatment

Observed 6 Acetone Metals Precipitation

Benzene Air Stripping

Chlorobenzene Biological Treatment

Ethylbenzene Carbon Adsorption

Toluene Filtration

Xylene Off-Gas Treatment

Not present 5 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Air Stripping

1,1-Dichloroethane

1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)

1,2-Dichloroethylene (DCE)

Trichloroethylene (TCE)

Not present 1 Arsenic Metals Precipitation

Filtration

Not present 7 Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether Biological Treatment

Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE) UV oxidation

Acetone Carbon Adsorption

Isophorone

Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK)

Methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK)

Xylene

Notes: 

Syncon Resins

Vestal Water 

Supply Well 1-1

Vineland 

Chemical Co. 

Metal 

TEC/Aerosystems

2. The following systems are pre-operational; therefore, the associated data are estimates and some items are 

unknown: Dover Municipal Well 4, MetalTec/Aerosystems, Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill, and Stanton 

Cleaners.

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates 

may, in some cases, vary from actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of 

systems-- may change overtime.

1. Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill are two separate Fund-lead sites that will share a single P&T system.

Mohonk Road 

Industrial Plant

Montgomery 

Township/Rocky 

SMS Instruments

Williams Property

Stanton Cleaners 

Area Groundwater 

Region 2 Fund-lead, P&T system Data provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 2

System

Potential 

Reduction in 

Life-Cycle 

Costs

Potential LifeCycle 

Savings

Expected 

Duration

Previous 

Evaluation of 

Effectiveness

Approximate 

Pumping 

Rate (gpm)

Number of 

Extraction 

Wells

Number of 

Treatment 

Processes

Groundwater 

Samples per 

Year

Obstacles to 

making 

(minor/major) 

changes

American Thermostat 29.5% $5,021,877 27.2 Sufficient 70 14 4 228 Minor 

Severe

Bog Creek Farm 

LTRA 30.0% $1,833,415 23.4 Sufficient 30 33 4 9

Minor 

Minor

Brewster Wellfield 17.5% $317,513 6.2 Not evaluated 50 4 1 64 Minor 

Minor

Circuitron 8.0% $26,187 1.9 Sufficient 80 3 3 76 Minor 

Moderate

Claremont 

Polychemical 30.0% $2,578,700 18.6 Not evaluated 420 3 3 56 Minor 

Minor

Combe Fill South 

Landfill 38.0% $5,065,193 27.2 Not Sufficient 121 19 4 72 Minor Moderate

Garden State 

Cleaners/South 32.5% $2,383,103 28.2 Currently being 

evaluated 300 15 2 54 Minor Minor

Notes: 

4. "Groundwater Samples per Year" is calculated by multiplying the number of monitoring wells sampled by the number of monitoring events per 

year.

2. "Potential Reduction in Life-cycle Costs" result from a screening methodology that incorporates system-specific information. The reductions do not 

include the cost of an RSE.

Region 2 Table 6 -- Screening Summary

July 3, 2001

1. Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill are two separate Fund-lead sites that will share a single P&T system.

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from 

actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

3. "Potential Life-cycle Savings" were estimated using using system-specific information and incorporate the cost of the RSE. Values in parentheses 

denote costs (negative savings).

Operational

5. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation System Evaluations.

Region 2 Fund-lead, P&T system Data provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 2

System

Potential 

Reduction in 

Life-Cycle 

Costs

Potential LifeCycle 

Savings

Expected 

Duration

Previous 

Evaluation of 

Effectiveness

Approximate 

Pumping 

Rate (gpm)

Number of 

Extraction 

Wells

Number of 

Treatment 

Processes

Groundwater 

Samples per 

Year

Obstacles to 

making 

(minor/major) 

changes

Region 2 Table 6 -- Screening Summary

July 3, 2001

Higgins Farm 40.0% $5,799,020 27.2 Not evaluated 30 20 4 102 Minor 

Moderate

Islip Municipal Landfill 7.5% ($8,929) 1.5 Sufficient 300 6 2 96 Minor 

Minor

Lang Property 5.0% $70,395 3.5 Sufficient 30 1 3 32 Minor 

Minor

Lipari Landfill site 17.5% $1,136,049 3.4 Sufficient 125 25 4 39 Minor 

Minor

Mattiace 

Petrochemical 23.0% $2,357,411 28.1 Sufficient 10 9 5 15 Minor Moderate

Mohonk Road 

Industrial Plant unknown unknown 30.0 Currently being 

evaluated 40 3 4 34 Minor 

Moderate

SMS Instruments 7.5% $35,130 2.7 Sufficient 100 2 2 72 Minor 

Minor

Notes: 

4. "Groundwater Samples per Year" is calculated by multiplying the number of monitoring wells sampled by the number of monitoring events per 

year.

2. "Potential Reduction in Life-cycle Costs" result from a screening methodology that incorporates system-specific information. The reductions do not 

include the cost of an RSE.

Operational

1. Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill are two separate Fund-lead sites that will share a single P&T system.

3. "Potential Life-cycle Savings" were estimated using using system-specific information and incorporate the cost of the RSE. Values in parentheses 

denote costs (negative savings).

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from 

actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

5. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation System Evaluations.

Region 2 Fund-lead, P&T system Data provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 2

System

Potential 

Reduction in 

Life-Cycle 

Costs

Potential LifeCycle 

Savings

Expected 

Duration

Previous 

Evaluation of 

Effectiveness

Approximate 

Pumping 

Rate (gpm)

Number of 

Extraction 

Wells

Number of 

Treatment 

Processes

Groundwater 

Samples per 

Year

Obstacles to 

making 

(minor/major) 

changes

Region 2 Table 6 -- Screening Summary

July 3, 2001

Syncon Resins 28.0% $1,401,885 27.2 Not Sufficient 20 3 6 0

Minor 

Moderate

Vestal Water Supply 

Well 1-1 10.0% $145,660 13.7 Sufficient 450 1 1 12 Minor Minor

Vineland Chemical 

Co. Groundwater 30.0% $18,266,142 29.9 Currently being 

evaluated 1400 13 2 2080 Moderate 

Severe

Williams Property 5.0% ($9,717) 1.4 Sufficient 80 2 3 36 Minor 

Minor

Notes: 

2. "Potential Reduction in Life-cycle Costs" result from a screening methodology that incorporates system-specific information. The reductions do not 

include the cost of an RSE.

3. "Potential Life-cycle Savings" were estimated using using system-specific information and incorporate the cost of the RSE. Values in parentheses 

denote costs (negative savings).

4. "Groundwater Samples per Year" is calculated by multiplying the number of monitoring wells sampled by the number of monitoring events per 

year.

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from 

actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

1. Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill are two separate Fund-lead sites that will share a single P&T system.

Operational

5. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation System Evaluations.

Region 2 Fund-lead, P&T system Data provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 2

System

Potential 

Reduction in 

Life-Cycle 

Costs

Potential LifeCycle 

Savings

Expected 

Duration

Previous 

Evaluation of 

Effectiveness

Approximate 

Pumping 

Rate (gpm)

Number of 

Extraction 

Wells

Number of 

Treatment 

Processes

Groundwater 

Samples per 

Year

Obstacles to 

making 

(minor/major) 

changes

Region 2 Table 6 -- Screening Summary

July 3, 2001

Dover Municipal Well 

4

unknown unknown N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Metal 

TEC/Aerosystems unknown unknown N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Montgomery 

Township/Rocky Hill 28.0% $1,696,715 32.2 N/A 250 3 2 80 Minor Moderate

Stanton Cleaners 

Area Groundwater 28.0% $908,161 20.2 N/A 90 3 5 120 Minor Moderate

Notes: 

5. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation System Evaluations.

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from 

actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

4. "Groundwater Samples per Year" is calculated by multiplying the number of monitoring wells sampled by the number of monitoring events per 

1. Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill are two separate Fund-lead sites that will share a single P&T system.

2. "Potential Reduction in Life-cycle Costs" result from a screening methodology that incorporates system-specific information. The reductions do not 

include the cost of an RSE.

3. "Potential Life-cycle Savings" were estimated using using system-specific information and incorporate the cost of the RSE. Values in parentheses 

denote costs (negative savings).

Pre-Operational

Region 2 Fund-lead, P&T system Data provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 2

1

 System is currently shutdown. These are estimated costs for O&M when system resumes operation.

2 The system is preoperational with no cost estimates provided.

Notes: 

2. The following systems are pre-operational; therefore, the associated data are estimates and some items are unknown: Dover Municipal 

Well 4, MetalTec/Aerosystems, Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill, and Stanton Cleaners.

3. Cost data is not yet available for the Mohonk Road Industrial Plant Site

July 3, 2001

Region 2, Figure 1 -- Estimated Annual Costs of Systems

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary 

from actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

1. Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill are two separate Fund-lead sites that will share a single P&T system. $460 $400 $480$740$920 $500 $1,000 $225 $700 $700 $400 $400

$270

$350

$180

$350

$1,175

unknown unknown unknown 

$4,000 $2,500

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

American

Thermostat

Bog Creek Farm

LTRA

Brewster Wellfield

Circuitron

Claremont

Polychemical

Combe Fill South

Landfill

Dover Municipal

Well 4

Garden State

Cleaners/South

Jersey Clothing

Higgins Farm

Islip Municipal

Landfill

Lang Property

Lipari Landfill site

Mattiace

Petrochemical

Metal

TEC/Aerosystems

Mohonk Road

Industrial Plant

Montgomery

Township/Rocky

Hill

SMS Instruments

Stanton Cleaners

Area Groundwater

Contamination

Syncon Resins

Vestal Water

Supply Well 1-1

Vineland Chemical

Co. Groundwater

Treatment

Williams Property

Annual Cost ($1,000/yr)

Operational Systems Pre-operational Systems

Region 2 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs 
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 2

Notes: 

July 3, 2001

Region 2, Figure 2 -- System Projections

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from 

actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

1. Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill are two separate Fund-lead sites that will share a single P&T system.

2. The following systems are pre-operational; therefore, the associated data are estimates and some items are unknown: Dover Municipal Well 4, 

MetalTec/Aerosystems, Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill, and Stanton Cleaners.

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

American

Thermostat

Bog Creek Farm

LTRA

Brewster Wellfield

Circuitron

Claremont

Polychemical

Combe Fill South

Landfill

Dover Municipal

Well 4

Garden State

Cleaners/South

Jersey Clothing

Higgins Farm

Islip Municipal

Landfill

Lang Property

Lipari Landfill site

Mattiace

Petrochemical

Metal

TEC/Aerosystems

Mohonk Road

Industrial Plant

Site

Montgomery

Township/Rocky

Hill

SMS Instruments

Stanton Cleaners

Area Groundwater

Contamination

Syncon Resins

Vestal Water

Supply Well 1-1

Vineland Chemical

Co. Groundwater

Treatment

Williams Property

years

Years Until Turnover Years Until Completion

2021

2026

2031

2036

2041

2001

2006

2011

2016

unknownunknown

Region 2 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative

Phase 1– Data Collection and System Screening

Region 3

July 3, 2001

In the OSWER Directive No. 9200.0-33, Transmittal of Final FY00 - FY01 Superfund Reforms

Strategy, dated July 7,2000, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response outlined a

commitment to optimize our Fund-lead, pump-and-treat (P&T) systems. To fulfill this commitment,

Headquarters is assisting Regions in evaluating their Fund-lead operating P&T systems. Phase 1 of this

initiative involves identifying all Fund-lead P&T system, collecting baseline cost and performance data

on them, and selecting up to two sites in each Region for a Remediation System Evaluation (RSE).

This report summarizes the screening process for Region 3 which began in January 2001 and is an

ongoing process. The first section of this report presents the cost and performance data for the Region

while the second describes the screening process and system selection.

The data presented in this report reflect estimates provided by the site Remedial Project

Managers between January and May 2001. These estimates may vary from actuality. The

data– including the number, status, cost, specifications, and projections of systems– may

change over time.

Cost and Performance Data

Twelve Fund-lead P&T systems were identified in Region 3. Of this twelve, ten are operational and

two are pre-operational (i.e., pre-design, design, being installed, or installed but not operating). In

addition, two Fund-lead sites have been identified that will likely involve P&T technology.

Cost and performance data and other information pertaining to the identified Fund-lead P&T systems

(estimates for the pre-operational systems) were collected with a web-based questionnaire accessed

from http://www.cluin.org/optimization and stored in a database. This information is summarized in

Table 1 and provided in detail in five additional tables:

• Table 2 provides overviews of the systems by providing items such as annual costs, lead,

status, goals, and progress of each system. 

• Table 3 includes the dates marking the signing of the ROD, construction completion,

system operation and function, turnover to the state, and expected close-out. 

• Table 4 lists for each system the contact information for the site Remedial Project

Manager, the State Regulator, and the Contractor. 
July 3, 2001 Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative

Phase 1– Data Collection and Site Screening, Region 3

Page 2 of 3

• Table 5 notes for each system and the associated site if NAPLS are present, the top

contaminants of concern, and the above-ground treatment processes. 

• Table 6 lists system specifications such as the pumping rate, number of wells, number of

monitoring events per year, and other items used to determine the complexity of a system

and its potential for optimization.

Projected dates for turnover to the States and for system completion are depicted in Figure 1, and

annual costs for each system are depicted in Figure 2. 

RSE Site Selection

Evaluation of Sites for Optimization Potential

Once the information is gathered from each of the Fund-lead P&T systems in a given Region, it

becomes input for a screening methodology that attempts to determine the optimization potential for

each system. This, in turn, provides a basis for selecting two systems where RSEs will be performed. 

Because some Regions do not have two Fund-lead P&T systems, the allotted but unused RSEs for

those Regions are allocated to other Regions. 

The factors affecting the optimization potential of a system are

• the overall cost of a given system, 

• the expected duration of the system, 

• the number of above-ground treatment processes, 

• the number of extraction wells,

• the number of monitoring events per year,

• the system downtime per year,

• the pumping rate,

• the results (if any) of a previous performance and effectiveness evaluation, and

• any social or political obstacles to implementing modifications to the system.

Table 6 summarizes the results of the screening process including the estimated life-cycle cost savings

that may result from performing an RSE. 

Selecting Sites for RSEs

The following is a list of the identified Fund-lead P&T systems in Region 3 classified as completed,

operational, planned, and no-longer operating. Those in bold were selected for RSEs. 
July 3, 2001 Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative

Phase 1– Data Collection and Site Screening, Region 3

Page 3 of 3

Operational

AIW Frank

Berks Sand Pit

Butz Landfill

Croydon TCE

Cryo-Chem

Greenwood Chemical

Hellertown Manufacturing

North Penn Area 1

Raymark

Saunders Supply

Pre-Operational

Havertown PCP

North Penn Area 6

Potential

Crossley Fram

Vienna PCE

Typically, only systems with operational histories are chosen to receive RSEs, and the status of P&T

systems in Region 3 at the time of site screening complicates site selection. During the screening, many

of the P&T systems transitioned from pre-operational to operational systems. Specifically, at the time

of the screening, AIW Frank, Butz Landfill, and Greenwood Chemical were considered preoperational. 

After these transitioning systems, Croydon TCE, Hellertown Manufacturing, and Raymark represented

the next largest estimated life-cycle cost savings based on the screening methodology employed for the

project. Croydon TCE was eliminated from consideration as it represented a conflict of interest for

many of the RSE team members. Hellertown Manufacturing, although scheduled for transition to the

responsible parties in late 2001, was still recommended for an RSE based on the support of Region 3. 

Finally, the selection of Raymark was encouraged by the Remedial Project Manager. Thus, Hellertown

Manufacturing and Raymark are both selected for RSEs in Region 3. 
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 3

Number of systems 12

Number that are EPA lead 12 of 12

Number that are State lead 0 of 12

Number that are operational 10

Number that are pre-operational 2

Number where restoration is a goal 12 of 12

Number where the plume is controlled* 5 of 10

Number that are estimated to be more than 80% complete* 0 of 10

Number previously evaluated and effectiveness found sufficient* 4 of 10

Number previously evaluated and effectiveness found not sufficient* 1 of 10

Number where NAPLs are observed 1 of 12

Number with more than 1 major contaminant identified 12 of 12

Number with 3 or more treatment processes 5 of 12

Average estimated annual O&M cost (including monitoring) $298,634

Average estimated annual monitoring cost $102,442

Average number of years until turnover to the States 7.6

Average number of years until completion 20.0

*Operational sites only

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and 

May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from actuality. Data-- including the 

number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

Extent of Contamination

Average Costs and Time Frames

Region 3, Table 1 -- Summary

July 3, 2001

System Status

Operational and Pre-operational Fund-lead P&T Systems

Completed Fund-lead P&T Systems

Region 3 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 3

System

Estimated 

Annual Cost Lead

Type of 

ROD

System 

Status System Goals 

Plume Under 

Control?

Estimated 

Progress of 

Restoration

Previous Evaluation 

of Effectiveness

AIW Frank/Mid-County 

Mustang Site, OU#1 $180,000 EPA Final Operational Restoration Unknown Unknown Sufficient

Berks Sand Pit $150,000 EPA Final Operational Restoration Yes 20% - 80% Sufficient

Butz Landfill $250,000 EPA Final Operational Restoration Unknown less than 20% Not evaluated

Croydon TCE $200,000 EPA Final Operational Containment & 

Restoration Yes less than 20% Sufficient

CryoChem $125,000 EPA Final Operational Containment & 

Restoration Yes Unknown Sufficient

Greenwood Chemical 

Site $400,000 EPA Interim Operational Containment & Restoration

Control is 

not a goal Unknown Not evaluated

Havertown PCP OU2 $1,000,000 EPA Interim Being 

Installed

Containment & 

Restoration N/A N/A Not evaluated

Hellertown Manufacturing $350,000 EPA Final Operational Containment & 

Restoration Yes Unknown Not Sufficient

North Penn Area 1 $100,000 EPA Final Operational Containment & 

Restoration Unknown Unknown Not evaluated

Notes: 

3. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation Systems Evaluations.

Region 3, Table 2 -- System Overviews

July 3, 2001

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary 

from actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

1. Havertown PCP and North Penn Area 6 are pre-operational; therefore, the associated data are estimates and some items are unknown.

2. "Estimated Progress of Restoration" refers to the estimated portion of the plume that has been restored to cleanup levels.

Region 3 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs 
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 3

System

Estimated 

Annual Cost Lead

Type of 

ROD

System 

Status System Goals 

Plume Under 

Control?

Estimated 

Progress of 

Restoration

Previous Evaluation 

of Effectiveness

North Penn Area 6 $592,900 EPA Final Design Containment & 

Restoration N/A N/A Not evaluated

Raymark $155,711 EPA Final Operational Containment & 

Restoration Unknown Unknown Not evaluated

Saunders Supply 

Company $80,000 EPA Final Operational Containment & Restoration Yes Unknown Not evaluated

Notes: 

3. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation Systems Evaluations.

Region 3, Table 2 -- System Overviews

July 3, 2001

2. "Estimated Progress of Restoration" refers to the estimated portion of the plume that has been restored to cleanup levels.

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary 

from actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

1. Havertown PCP and North Penn Area 6 are pre-operational; therefore, the associated data are estimates and some items are unknown.

Region 3 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs 
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 3

System Original ROD

Last ROD 

Modification

Construction 

Completed

Operational and 

Functional

Turnover to 

State

Years Until 

Turnover

Expected 

Completion

Years Until 

Completion

AIW Frank/Mid-County 

Mustang Site, OU#1 9/29/95 11/2000 9/2001 9/2011 10.2 9/2031 30.2

Berks Sand Pit 9/29/88 2/2/94 2/1995 2/1995 2/2005 3.6 2/2003 1.6

Butz Landfill 6/30/92 8/27/99 4/2001 4/2001 4/2011 9.8 4/2031 29.8

Croydon TCE 6/29/90 3/1995 3/1995 3/2005 3.7 3/2025 23.7

CryoChem 9/30/91 2/1998 6/1998 6/2008 6.9 6/2010 8.9

Greenwood Chemical 

Site 12/30/90 11/2000 11/2001 11/2011 10.3 11/2020 19.3

Havertown PCP OU2 9/30/91 5/2001 4/2002 4/2012 10.8 4/2033 31.8

Hellertown Manufacturing 9/3/91 9/1996 3/1996 9/2006 5.2 9/2026 25.2

North Penn Area 1 9/30/94 9/24/98 7/1998 9/1998 9/2008 7.2 9/2018 17.2

North Penn Area 6 8/10/00 9/2002 6/2003 6/2013 11.9 6/2033 31.9

Raymark 9/28/90 1/1994 6/1995 1/2004 2.5 1/2014 12.5

Saunders Supply 

Company 9/27/96 4/1998 5/1999 5/2009 7.8 4/2008 6.8

Region 3, Table 3 -- P&T System Histories and Projections

Date

July 3, 2001

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from 

actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

Region 3 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 3

RPM State Regulator Primary Contractor

1 Charlie Root Ragesh Patel Neil Teamerson

EPA Region 3 Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection TetraTech NUS

1650 Arch Street (3HS21) Lee Park, Suite 6010 555 North Lane 600 Clark Avenue, Suite 3

Philadelphia, PA 19103 Conshohocken, PA 19428 King of Prussia, PA 19406

215-814-3193 610-832-6161 610-491-9688

215-814-3002 (fax) 610-832-6260 (fax) 610-491-9645 (fax)

root.charlie@epa.gov patel.ragesh@state.pa.us teamersonn@ttnus.com

2 Bruce Rundell Elise Juers Ed Kashdan

EPA Region 3 PADEP Gannett Fleming

1650 Arch Street 909 Elmerton Av. PO Box 80794

Philadephia, PA 19103-2087 Harrisburg, PA 17110-8200 Valley Forge, PA 19484

215-814-3317 717-705-4852 610-650-8101

215-814-3015 (fax) 717-705-4830 (fax) 610-650-8190 (fax)

rundell.bruce@epa.gov juers.elise@a1.dep.state.pa.45 ekashdan@GFnet.com

3 Rom Roman PADEP Paul Panek Charles Huval

EPA Region 3 PADEP Koester Environmental Services

1650 Arch Street 4530 Bath Pike 14649 Highway 41 N

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2087 Bethlehem, PA 18017 Evansville, IN 47725

215-814-3212 610-861-2070 812-483-4516

215-814-3015 (fax) 610-861-2072 (fax)

roman.romuald@epa.gov panek.paul@dep.state.pa.us

4 Cesar Lee Ewald Dave Harish Mital

EPA Region 3 PADEP Tetra Tech, Inc.

1650 Arch St Lee Park, Suite 6010 Plaza 273, 56 West Main Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Christiana, DE 19702

215-814-3205 610-832-6200 302-738-7551

215-814-3205 (fax) 610-832-5950 (fax) 302-454-5988 (fax)

lee.cesar@epa.gov Ewald.David@dep.state.pa.us harish.mital@tetratech.com

Region 3, Table 4 -- System Contact Information

July 3, 2001

System

AIW Frank/Mid-County 

Mustang Site, OU#1

Berks Sand Pit

Butz Landfill

Croydon TCE

Region 3 Fund-lead, P&T Systems Information provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 3

RPM State Regulator Primary Contractor

Region 3, Table 4 -- System Contact Information

July 3, 2001

System

5 Joseph McDowell Rich Morgan Don Koch

EPA Region 3 PADEP ETA

1650 Arch Street 909 Elmerton Ave 9115 Guilford Road Suite 100

Phila, PA 19103 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Columbia, MD 21046

215-814-3192 610-916-0122 410-461-9920

215-814-3002 (fax) 610-916-0100 (fax) 410-750-8565 (fax)

mcdowell.joseph@epa.gov MORGAN.RICHARD@DEP.STATE.PA.US dkoch@md.ccjm.com

6 Philip Rotstein Berry Wright Jeff Waters

EPA Region 3 Department of Environmental Quality CH2M Hill

1650 Arch Street 629 E. Main Street 1700 Market Street, Suite 1600

Philadelphia, PA 19103 Richmond, VA 23219 Philadelphia, PA 19103

215-814-3232 804-698-4012 215-563-4220

215-814-3002 (fax) 804-698-4234 (fax) 215-563-3828 (fax)

rotstein.phil@epa.gov bfwright@deq.state.va.us jwaters@ch2m.com

7 Gregory Ham April Flipse Lori Stoll

EPA Region 3 Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental 

Protection URS Corporation

1650 Arch Street (3HS21) 555 North Lane, Suite 6010 200 Orchard Ridge Drive, Suite 101

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Gaithersburg, MD 20878-1978

215-814-3194 610-832-5937 301-258-9780

215-814-3002 (fax) 610-832-6143 (fax) 301-869-2043 (fax)

ham.greg@epa.gov Flipse.April@dep.state.pa.us lori_stoll@urscorp.com

8 Cesar Lee Meg Mustard Jim Romig

EPA Region 3 PADEP CDM Federal Corporation

1650 Arch Street 4530 Bath Pike 993 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 408

Philadelphia, PA 19103 Bethlehem, PA 18017 Wayne, PA 19087

215-814-3205 610-861-2076 610-293-0450

215-814-3205 (fax) 610-861-2072 (fax) 610-293-1920 (fax)

lee.cesar@epa.gov boyer.margaret@dep.state.pa.us romigjm@cdm.com

Greenwood Chemical Site

Havertown PCP OU2

Hellertown Manufacturing

CryoChem

Region 3 Fund-lead, P&T Systems Information provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 3

RPM State Regulator Primary Contractor

Region 3, Table 4 -- System Contact Information

July 3, 2001

System

9 Maria de los A. Garcia April Flipse Policarpio Mijares

EPA Region 3 Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

1650 Arch Street Lee Park, Suite 6010 555 North Lane P.O. Box 1715

Philadelphia, PA 19103 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Baltimore, PA 21203

215-814-3199 610-832-5937 410-962-2782

215-814-3002 (fax) 610-832-6143 (fax) 410-962-2318 (fax)

garcia.maria@epa.gov

# Gregory Ham Robert Zang Ray Lees

EPA Region 3 Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental 

Protection It Corporation

1650 Arch Street (3HS21) 555 North Lane, Suite 6010 1220 Ward Avenue, Suite 300

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 Conshohocken, PA 19428 West Chester, PA 19380-3409

215-814-3194 610-832-6152 610-241-5000

215-814-3002 (fax) 610-832-6259 (fax) 610-241-5050 (fax)

ham.greg@epa.gov Zang.Robert@state.pa.us rlees@theitgroup.com

# Deanna Moultrie David Minsker Andy Hopton

EPA Region 3 PADEP CDM Federal Programs

1650 Arch Street Lee Park Suite 6010 555 North Lane 993 Old Eagle School Road

Philadelphia, PA 19103 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Wayne, PA 19083

215-814-5125 610-832-6193 610-293-0450

215-814-3002 (fax) 610-832-6143 (fax) 610-293-1920 (fax)

moultrie.deanna@epa.gov Minsker.David@dep.state.pa.us HoptonAP@cdm.com

# Andrew Palestini Thomas Modena Marc Gutterman

EPA Region 3 Virginia Department of Environmental 

Quality U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

1650 Arch Street 629 East Main Street 803 Front Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103 Richmond, VA 23219 Norfolk, VA 23510

215-814-3233 804-698-4183 757-441-7669

215-814-3002 (fax) 804-698-4500 (fax) 757-441-7478 (fax)

palestini.andy@epa.gov tdmodena@deq.state.va.us Marc.D.Gutterman@nao02.usace.army.mil

North Penn Area 6

Raymark

Saunders Supply Company

North Penn Area 1

Region 3 Fund-lead, P&T Systems Information provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection 

and System Screening, Region 3

NAPLS 

Present?

# of 

Identified 

Contam. Contaminants

Treatment 

Processes

Not present 2 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Air Stripping

Trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene Carbon Adsorption

Filtration

Off-Gas Treatment

Not present 2 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Air Stripping

1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)

Not present 3 Diesel fuel Air Stripping

Trichlorobenzene Off-Gas Treatment

Vinyl Chloride

Croydon TCE Suspected 4 1,1,2-Trichloroethane Air Stripping

1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE) Carbon Adsorption

Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)

Trichloroethylene (TCE)

CryoChem Don't know 3 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Air Stripping

1,1-Dichloroethane

1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)

Don't know 5 1,1-Dichloroethane Metals Precipitation

Acetone UV oxidation

Arsenic Carbon Adsorption

Benzene and Toluene Filtration

Naphthalene Acetic Acid, 1,2-Dichloroethane, SVOC 

TICs, Dibutyl phthalate, 2,4,6,-Trichlorophenol

Off-Gas Treatment

Observed 4 Benzene and Toluene Metals Precipitation

Dioxin (TCDD equivalents) UV oxidation

Pentachlorophenol (PCP) Carbon Adsorption

Trichloroethylene (TCE) Filtration

Not present 5 Benzene Air Stripping

Cis-1,2-dichloroethene Carbon Adsorption

TCE and Vinyl chloride

Trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene

Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)

Berks Sand Pit

Butz Landfill

Region 3, Table 5 -- Top Contaminants Identified by RPMs

July 3, 2001

System

AIW Frank/MidCounty Mustang 

Site, OU#1

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates 

may, in some cases, vary from actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of 

systems-- may change overtime.

Greenwood 

Chemical Site

Havertown PCP 

OU2

Hellertown 

Manufacturing

Region 3 Fund-lead, P&T system Data provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection 

and System Screening, Region 3

NAPLS 

Present?

# of 

Identified 

Contam. Contaminants

Treatment 

Processes

Region 3, Table 5 -- Top Contaminants Identified by RPMs

July 3, 2001

System

AIW Frank/Mid- Not present 7 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Other/Not Sure

1,1-Dichloroethane

1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)

Cis-1,2-dichloroethene

Trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene

Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)

Suspected 3 Carbon tetrachloride Metals Precipitation

TCE and Vinyl chloride Air Stripping

Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE) Off-Gas Treatment

Not present 2 Carbozol Carbon Adsorption

Trichlorobenzene Off-Gas Treatment

Suspected 2 Arsenic Metals Precipitation

Pentachlorophenol (PCP) Carbon Adsorption

Filtration

North Penn Area 1

North Penn Area 6

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates 

may, in some cases, vary from actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of 

systems-- may change overtime.

Raymark

Saunders Supply 

Company

Region 3 Fund-lead, P&T system Data provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 3

System

Potential 

Reduction in 

Life-Cycle 

Costs

Potential LifeCycle SavingsExpected 

Duration

Previous 

Evaluation of 

Effectiveness

Approximate 

Pumping Rate 

(gpm)

Number of 

Extraction 

Wells

Number of 

Treatment 

Processes

Groundwater 

Samples per 

Year

Obstacles to 

making 

(minor/major) 

changes

AIW Frank/MidCounty Mustang Site, 

OU#1

28.0% $746,159 30.2 Sufficient 118 5 4 60 Minor 

Moderate

Berks Sand Pit 5.0% ($17,266) 1.6 Sufficient 90 1 1 48 Minor 

Minor

Butz Landfill 25.0% $925,229 29.8 Not evaluated 90 3 2 68 Minor 

Minor

Croydon TCE 20.0% $516,796 23.7 Sufficient 25 6 2 28 Minor 

Minor

CryoChem 8.0% $42,373 8.9 Sufficient 60 9 1 4

Minor 

Moderate

Greenwood Chemical 

Site 32.5% $1,538,361 19.3 Not evaluated 45 5 5 136 Minor 

Minor

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary 

from actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

Notes: 

1. "Potential Reduction in Life-cycle Costs" result from a screening methodology that incorporates system-specific information. The reductions do 

not include the cost of an RSE.

2. "Potential Life-cycle Savings" were estimated using using system-specific information and incorporate the cost of the RSE. Values in 

parentheses denote costs (negative savings).

3. "Groundwater Samples per Year" is calculated by multiplying the number of monitoring wells sampled by the number of monitoring events per 

year.

4. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation System Evaluations.

Operational

Region 3 Table 6 -- Screening Summary

July 3, 2001

Region 3 Fund-lead, P&T system Data provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 3

System

Potential 

Reduction in 

Life-Cycle 

Costs

Potential LifeCycle SavingsExpected 

Duration

Previous 

Evaluation of 

Effectiveness

Approximate 

Pumping Rate 

(gpm)

Number of 

Extraction 

Wells

Number of 

Treatment 

Processes

Groundwater 

Samples per 

Year

Obstacles to 

making 

(minor/major) 

changes

Operational

Region 3 Table 6 -- Screening Summary

July 3, 2001

Hellertown 

Manufacturing 20.5% $979,619 25.2 Not Sufficient 50 1 2 48 Minor Moderate

North Penn Area 1 10.0% $86,353 17.2 Not evaluated 2 1 1 8

Minor 

Minor

Raymark 17.5% $216,640 12.5 Not evaluated 62 2 2 0

Minor 

Minor

Saunders Supply 

Company 17.0% $46,510 6.8 Not evaluated 2 4 3 40 Minor Severe

Havertown PCP OU2 25.5% $3,894,975 31.8 Not evaluated 45 4 4 30 Minor 

Moderate

North Penn Area 6 35.5% $3,210,586 31.9 Not evaluated 300 10 3 120 Minor 

Moderate

4. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation System Evaluations.

Notes: 

1. "Potential Reduction in Life-cycle Costs" result from a screening methodology that incorporates system-specific information. The reductions do 

not include the cost of an RSE.

2. "Potential Life-cycle Savings" were estimated using using system-specific information and incorporate the cost of the RSE. Values in 

parentheses denote costs (negative savings).

3. "Groundwater Samples per Year" is calculated by multiplying the number of monitoring wells sampled by the number of monitoring events per 

year.

Pre-Operational

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary 

from actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

Region 3 Fund-lead, P&T system Data provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 3

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from 

actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

Region 3, Figure 1 -- Estimated Annual O&M Costs

July 3, 2001

$180 $150

$250

$200

$125

$1,000

$350

$100

$593

$156

$80

$400

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

AIW Frank/MidCounty Mustang

Site, OU#1

Berks Sand Pit

Butz Landfill

Croydon TCE

CryoChem

Greenwood

Chemical Site

Havertown PCP

OU2

Hellertown

Manufacturing

North Penn Area 1North Penn Area 6

Raymark

Saunders Supply

Company

$1000/yr

Operational Systems

Pre-operational Systems

Region 3 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs 
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 3

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from actuality. Data-

- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

July 3, 2001

Region 3, Figure 2 -- System Projections

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

AIW Frank/MidCounty Mustang

Site, OU#1

Berks Sand Pit

Butz Landfill

Croydon TCE

CryoChem

Greenwood

Chemical Site

Havertown PCP

OU2

Hellertown

Manufacturing

North Penn Area

1

North Penn Area

6

Raymark

Saunders Supply

Company

years

Years Until Turnover

Years Until Completion

2021

2026

2031

2036

2041

2001

2006

2011

2016

Region 3 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative

Phase 1– Data Collection and System Screening

Region 4

July 3, 2001

In the OSWER Directive No. 9200.0-33, Transmittal of Final FY00 - FY01 Superfund Reforms

Strategy, dated July 7,2000, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response outlined a

commitment to optimize our Fund-lead, pump-and-treat (P&T) systems. To fulfill this commitment,

Headquarters is assisting Regions in evaluating their Fund-lead operating P&T systems. Phase 1 of this

initiative involves identifying all Fund-lead P&T system, collecting baseline cost and performance data

on them, and selecting up to two sites in each Region for a Remediation System Evaluation (RSE).

This report summarizes the screening process for Region 4 that began in July 2000 as part of a

demonstration optimization project and was revisited in April and May 2001 as part of a nationwide

optimization project. The Fund-lead P&T systems in Region 4 were identified during the demonstration

project and baseline information was collected on each system. Two of the identified P&T systems

were selected to receive RSEs and those two systems received their RSEs in 2000. This report

includes information collected during the demonstration project as well as additional information

collected during the nationwide project conducted in 2001. Where applicable, system information

collected in 2000 has been updated by system information collected in 2001.

The data presented in this report reflect estimates updated by the site Remedial Project

Managers between April and May 2001. These estimates may vary from actuality. The data–

including the number, status, cost, specifications, and projections of systems– may change

over time.

The first section of this report presents the cost and performance data for the Region while the second

describes the screening process and system selection.

Cost and Performance Data

Ten Fund-lead P&T systems were identified in Region 4. Of this ten, seven are operational and three

are pre-operational (i.e., pre-design, design, being installed, or installed but not operating). In addition,

two Fund-lead P&T systems have been identified that have been transferred to the responsible parties

and an additional Fund-lead P&T system is no longer operating.

Data collection is incomplete for the following three systems in Region 4 for the following reasons:

• EPA is currently in litigation with the system contractor for ABC Cleaners and details of the

system could not be discussed.
July 3, 2001 Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative

Phase 1– Data Collection and Site Screening, Region 4

Page 2 of 4

• There is no Remedial Project Manager for the Miami Drum site. EPA provides funding to the

local government for water supply but does not provide oversight.

• P&T is specified in the Record of Decision for Coleman Evans but that technology will likely

not be used.

Cost and performance data and other information pertaining to the remaining identified Fund-lead P&T

systems (estimates for the pre-operational systems) were collected with a web-based questionnaire

accessed from http://www.cluin.org/optimization or from phone interviews and were stored in a

database. This information is summarized in Table 1 and provided in detail in five additional tables:

• Table 2 provides overviews of the systems by providing items such as annual costs, lead,

status, goals, and progress of each system. 

• Table 3 includes the dates marking the signing of the ROD, construction completion,

system operation and function, turnover to the state, and expected close-out. 

• Table 4 lists for each system the contact information for the site Remedial Project

Manager, the State Regulator, and the Contractor. 

• Table 5 notes for each system and the associated site if NAPLs are present, the top

contaminants of concern, and the above-ground treatment processes. 

• Table 6 lists system specifications such as the pumping rate, number of wells, number of

monitoring events per year, and other items used to determine the complexity of a system

and its potential for optimization.

Projected dates for turnover to the States and for system completion are depicted in Figure 1, and

annual costs for each system are depicted in Figure 2. 

RSE Site Selection

Evaluation of Sites for Optimization Potential

Once the information is gathered from each of the Fund-lead P&T systems in a given Region, it

becomes input for a screening methodology that attempts to determine the optimization potential for

each system. This, in turn, provides a basis for selecting two systems where RSEs will be performed. 

Because some Regions do not have two Fund-lead P&T systems, the allotted but unused RSEs for

those Regions are allocated to other Regions. 
July 3, 2001 Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative

Phase 1– Data Collection and Site Screening, Region 4

Page 3 of 4

The factors affecting the optimization potential of a system are

• the overall cost of a given system, 

• the expected duration of the system, 

• the number of above-ground treatment processes, 

• the number of extraction wells,

• the number of monitoring events per year,

• the system downtime per year,

• the pumping rate,

• the results (if any) of a previous performance and effectiveness evaluation, and

• any social or political obstacles to implementing modifications to the system.

Table 6 summarizes the results of the screening process including the estimated life-cycle cost savings

that may result from performing an RSE. 

Selecting Sites for RSEs

The following is a list of the identified Fund-lead P&T systems in Region 4 classified as operational,

pre-operational, transferred to responsible parties, and no-longer operating. Those in bold were

selected for RSEs. 

Operational

ABC Cleaners

American Creosote (current)

Benfield

Elmore Waste Disposal

FCX Statesville

Miami Drum

Palmetto Wood

Pre-Operational

American Creosote (future)

Cape Fear Wood Preserving

Coleman Evans

Transferred to Responsible Parties

Distler’s Brickyard

Distler’s Farm

No Longer Operating

Hollingsworth Solderless Terminals
July 3, 2001 Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative

Phase 1– Data Collection and Site Screening, Region 4

Page 4 of 4

Elmore Waste Disposal and FCX Statesville were selected for RSEs during the demonstration project

based on the interest of the Remedial Project Managers and estimated potential savings as determined

by screening calculations.
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 4

Number of systems 10

Number that are EPA lead 9 of 10

Number that are State lead 1 of 10

Number that are operational 7

Number that are pre-operational 3

Number where restoration is a goal 9 of 10

Number where the plume is controlled* 1 of 7

Number that are estimated to be more than 80% complete* 0 of 7

Number previously evaluated and effectiveness found sufficient* 3 of 7

Number previously evaluated and effectiveness found not sufficient* 0 of 7

Number where NAPLs are observed 4 of 10

Number with more than 1 major contaminant identified 7 of 10

Number with 3 or more treatment processes 1 of 10

Average estimated annual O&M cost (including monitoring) $306,500

Average estimated annual monitoring cost $12,300

Average number of years until turnover to the States 7.2

Average number of years until completion 10.0

*Operational sites only

Hollingsworth Solderless Terminals

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and 

May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from actuality. Data-- including the 

number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

No-Longer-Operating Fund-lead P&T Systems

Extent of Contamination

Average Costs and Time Frames

Region 4, Table 1 -- Summary

July 3, 2001

System Status

Operational and Pre-operational Fund-lead P&T Systems

Completed Fund-lead P&T Systems

Region 4 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 4

System

Estimated 

Annual Cost Lead

Type of 

ROD

System 

Status System Goals 

Plume Under 

Control?

Estimated 

Progress of 

Restoration

Previous Evaluation 

of Effectiveness

ABC Cleaners Unknown EPA Final Operational Restoration N/A N/A N/A

American Creosote 

Works (DNAPL) $300,000 EPA Final Operational Restoration No less than 20% Not evaluated

American Creosote 

Works (solute) $452,000 EPA Final Predesign Containment & 

Restoration N/A N/A Not evaluated

Benfield Industries $30,000 EPA Final Operational Containment & 

Restoration Unknown less than 20% Not evaluated

Cape Fear Wood 

Preserving $40,000 EPA Final Designed/ 

Not Installed

Containment & 

Restoration N/A N/A Not evaluated

Coleman Evans Wood 

Preserving Unknown EPA Interim Predesign Restoration N/A N/A Not evaluated

Elmore Waste Disposal $180,000 EPA Final Operational Containment & 

Restoration Unknown Unknown Sufficient

FCX Statesville $150,000 EPA Final Operational Containment & 

Restoration Unknown less than 20% Sufficient

Miami Drum $1,000,000 State with 

Fund Money Final Operational Water supply N/A N/A N/A

Palmetto Wood $300,000 EPA Final Operational Containment & 

Restoration Yes 20% - 80% Sufficient

Notes: 

3. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation Systems Evaluations.

Region 4, Table 2 -- System Overviews

July 3, 2001

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary 

from actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

2. "Estimated Progress of Restoration" refers to the estimated portion of the plume that has been restored to cleanup levels.

1. American Creosote Works (solute), Cape Fear Wood Preserving, and Coleman Evans Wood Preserving are pre-operational systems; 

therefore, the reported data are estimates and some information is unknown.

Region 4 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs 
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 4

System Original ROD

Last ROD 

Modification

Construction 

Completed

Operational and 

Functional

Turnover to 

State

Years Until 

Turnover

Expected 

Completion

Years Until 

Completion

ABC Cleaners 1/26/93

American Creosote 

Works (DNAPL) 2/3/94 9/1998 9/1998 5/2003 1.8 5/2003 1.8

American Creosote 

Works (solute) 2/3/94 9/2004 9/2004 9/2014 13.2 9/2009 8.2

Benfield Industries 7/31/92 4/2001 5/2001 5/2011 9.8 5/2021 19.8

Cape Fear Wood 

Preserving 6/30/89 3/23/01 9/2001 9/2002 10/2011 10.3 12/2009 8.4

Coleman Evans Wood 

Preserving 9/25/86 9/25/97

Elmore Waste Disposal 4/26/93 9/1998 9/1998 9/2008 7.2 9/2018 17.2

FCX Statesville 9/27/93 9/30/96 5/1998 5/2008 6.8 5/2008 6.8

Miami Drum 1/0/00 9/1992 9/1992 9/2002 1.2

Palmetto Wood 9/30/87 8/4/93 5/1997 1/1998 5/2008 6.8 5/2008 6.8

Region 4, Table 3 -- P&T System Histories and Projections

Date

July 3, 2001

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from 

actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

Region 4 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 4

RPM State Regulator Primary Contractor

1 Luis Flores Nile Testerman

EPA Region 4 NCDENR

61 Forsyth Street, SW 401 Oberlin Road

Atlanta, GA 30303-8960 Raleigh, NC 27605

404-562-8807 919-733-2801

 (fax) 919-733-4811 (fax)

flores.luis@epa.gov nile.testerman@ncmail.net

2 Mark Fite John Sykes Joe Findley

EPA Region 4 FDEP USACE, Mobile District

61 Forsyth Street, SW

Atlanta, GA 30303-8960 FL Mobile, AL 

404-562-8927 850-488-019 334-694-4012

 (fax) 850-488-0190 (fax)

fite.mark@epa.gov

3 Mark Fite John Sykes Joe Findley

EPA Region 4 FDEP USACE, Mobile District

61 Forsyth Street, SW

Atlanta, GA 30303-8960 FL Mobile, AL 

404-562-8927 850-488-0190 334-694-4012

 (fax) 850-488-0190 (fax)

fite.mark@epa.gov

4 Jon Bornholm Nile Testerman Chris Leggett

EPA Region 4 NCDENR CMC

61 Forsyth Street, SW 401 Oberlin Road

Atlanta, GA 30303-8960 Raleigh, NC 27605 Newport, TN 

404-562-8820 919-733-2801 423-625-0557

 (fax) 919-733-4811 (fax)

bornholm.jon@epa.gov nile.testerman@ncmail.net

Region 4, Table 4 -- System Contact Information

July 3, 2001

System

ABC Cleaners

American Creosote Works 

(DNAPL)

American Creosote Works 

(solute)

Benfield Industries

Region 4 Fund-lead, P&T Systems Information provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 4

RPM State Regulator Primary Contractor

Region 4, Table 4 -- System Contact Information

July 3, 2001

System

5 Jon Bornholm Nile Testerman Ed Hicks

EPA Region 4 NCDENR Black & Veatch

61 Forsyth Street, SW 401 Oberlin Road 1145 Sanctuary Parkway, Suite 475

Atlanta, GA 30303-3104 Raleigh, NC 27605 Alpharetta, GA 30004

404-562-8820 919-733-2901 770-521-8141

404-562-8788 (fax) 919-733-4811 (fax) 770-751-8322 (fax)

bornholm.jon@epa.gov nile.testerman@ncmail.net hicksec@bc.com

6 Randall Chaffins John Sykes Todd Trulock

EPA Region 4 FDEP USACE, Jacksonville District

61 Forsyth Street, SW

Atlanta, GA 30303-8960 FL Jacksonville, FL 

404-562-8929 850-413-0066 904-232-1110

850-488-0190 (fax)

chaffins.randall@epa.gov

7 Ralph Howard Lucas Berresford Ed Hicks

EPA Region 4 SCDHEC Black and Veatch

61 Forsyth Street, SW 21 Bull Street

Atlanta, GA 30303-8960 Columbia, SC 29201 Atlanta, GA 

404-562-8829 770-751-7517

howard.ralph@epa.gov

8 Ken Mallory Nile Testerman Ralph McKeen

EPA Region 4 NCDENR Roy F. Weston

61 Forsyth Street, SW 401 Oberlin Road

Atlanta, GA 30303-8960 Raleigh, NC 27605 Atlanta, GA 

404-562-8802 919-733-2801 770-263-5438

919-733-4811 (fax)

mallory.ken@epa.gov nile.testerman@ncmail.net

Coleman Evans Wood 

Preserving

Elmore Waste Disposal

FCX Statesville

Cape Fear Wood Preserving

Region 4 Fund-lead, P&T Systems Information provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 4

RPM State Regulator Primary Contractor

Region 4, Table 4 -- System Contact Information

July 3, 2001

System

9 Jim McGuire

EPA Region 4

61 Forsyth Street, SW

Atlanta, GA 30303-8960

404-562-8911

mcguire.jim@epa.gov

# Al Cherry Keisha Long Tim Eggert

EPA Region 4 SCDH CDM

61 Forsyth Street, SW 21 Bull Street 2030 Powers Ferry Road, Suite 325

Atlanta, GA 30303-8960 Columbia, SC 29201 Atlanta, GA 30339

404-562-8807 803-896-4073 678-202-8912

770-951-8910 (fax)

cherry.al@epa.gov eggerttj@cdm.com

Palmetto Wood

Miami Drum

Region 4 Fund-lead, P&T Systems Information provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection 

and System Screening, Region 4

NAPLS 

Present?

# of 

Identified 

Contam. Contaminants

Treatment 

Processes

ABC Cleaners Not present 3 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE) Air Stripping

Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE) Filtration

vinyl chloride

Observed 7 Acenaphthene Carbon Adsorption

Benzene Filtration

Dibenzofuran Other/Not Sure

Fluoranthene

Naphthalene

Pentachlorophenol (PCP)

carcinogenic PAHs

Observed 7 Acenaphthene Biological 

Benzene Carbon Adsorption

Dibenzofuran

Fluoranthene

Naphthalene

Pentachlorophenol (PCP)

carcinogenic PAHs

Benfield Industries Not present 1 Creosote and petroleum hydrocarbons Other/Not Sure

Observed 5 Benzene Carbon Adsorption

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

Observed 2 Dioxin

Pentachlorophenol (PCP)

Don't know 2 Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE) Carbon Adsorption

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) Other/Not Sure

Don't know 3 Pesticides Carbon Adsorption

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) Filtration

PCE

Miami Drum Not present 1 Trichloroethylene (TCE) Air Stripping

Palmetto Wood Not present 1 Chromium Other/Not Sure

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates 

may, in some cases, vary from actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of 

systems-- may change overtime.

FCX Statesville

Region 4, Table 5 -- Top Contaminants Identified by RPMs

July 3, 2001

System

American Creosote 

Works (DNAPL)

American Creosote 

Works (solute)

Cape Fear Wood 

Preserving

Coleman Evans 

Wood Preserving

Elmore Waste 

Disposal

Region 4 Fund-lead, P&T system Data provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 4

System

Potential 

Reduction in 

Life-Cycle 

Costs

Potential LifeCycle SavingsExpected 

Duration

Previous 

Evaluation of 

Effectiveness

Approximate 

Pumping 

Rate (gpm)

Number of 

Extraction 

Wells

Number of 

Treatment 

Processes

Groundwater 

Samples per 

Year

Obstacles to 

making 

(minor/major) 

changes

ABC Cleaners unknown unknown N/A 2 N/A

American Creosote 

Works (DNAPL) 7.5% $3,248 1.8 Not evaluated 0.1 8 3 8

Minor 

Minor

Benfield Industries 15.0% $29,974 19.8 Not evaluated 16 2 1 32 Minor 

Minor

Elmore Waste 

Disposal 20.0% $375,872 17.2 Sufficient 30 9 2 68 Minor Minor

FCX Statesville 20.0% $134,513 6.8 Sufficient 20 10 2 72 Minor 

Minor

Miami Drum unknown unknown N/A 104000 40 1 N/A

Palmetto Wood 18.0% $262,124 6.8 Sufficient 130 10 1 16 Minor 

Moderate

American Creosote 

Works (solute) 17.5% $468,926 8.2 Not evaluated 105 3 2 20 Minor Minor

Cape Fear Wood 

Preserving 22.5% $32,696 8.4 Not evaluated 43 7 1 100 Minor Moderate

Coleman Evans 

Wood Preserving unknown unknown Not evaluated N/A

4. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation System Evaluations.

Notes: 

1. "Potential Reduction in Life-cycle Costs" result from a screening methodology that incorporates system-specific information. The reductions do 

not include the cost of an RSE.

2. "Potential Life-cycle Savings" were estimated using using system-specific information and incorporate the cost of the RSE. Values in 

parentheses denote costs (negative savings).

3. "Groundwater Samples per Year" is calculated by multiplying the number of monitoring wells sampled by the number of monitoring events per 

year.

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary 

from actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

Operational

Region 4, Table 6 -- Screening Summary

July 3, 2001

Pre-Operational

Region 4 Fund-lead, P&T system Data provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 4

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from 

actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

July 3, 2001

Region 4, Figure 1 -- Estimated Annual Costs of Systems

$300

$452

$30 $40

$180 $150

$1,000

$300

unknown unknown 

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

$900

$1,000

ABC Cleaners

American Creosote

Works (DNAPL)

American Creosote

Works (solute)

Benfield Industries

Cape Fear Wood

Preserving

Coleman Evans

Wood Preserving

Elmore Waste

Disposal

FCX Statesville

Miami Drum

Palmetto Wood

$1000/yr

Operational Systems

Pre-operational Systems

Region 4 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs 
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 4

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from actuality. Data-

- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

July 3, 2001

Region 4, Figure 2 -- System Projections

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

ABC Cleaners

American

Creosote Works

(DNAPL)

American

Creosote Works

(solute)

Benfield

Industries

Cape Fear

Wood

Preserving

Coleman Evans

Wood

Preserving

Elmore Waste

Disposal

FCX Statesville

Miami Drum

Palmetto Wood

years

Years Until Turnover

Years Until Completion

2021

2026

2031

2036

2041

2001

2006

2011

2016

Region 4 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative

Phase 1– Data Collection and System Screening

Region 5

July 3, 2001

In the OSWER Directive No. 9200.0-33, Transmittal of Final FY00 - FY01 Superfund Reforms

Strategy, dated July 7,2000, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response outlined a

commitment to optimize our Fund-lead, pump-and-treat (P&T) systems. To fulfill this commitment,

Headquarters is assisting Regions in evaluating their Fund-lead operating P&T systems. Phase 1 of this

initiative involves identifying all Fund-lead P&T system, collecting baseline cost and performance data

on them, and selecting up to two sites in each Region for a Remediation System Evaluation (RSE).

This report summarizes the screening process for Region 5 which began in April 2000 as part of a

demonstration optimization project and was revisited in April and May 2001 as part of a nationwide

optimization project. The Fund-lead P&T systems in Region 5 were identified during the demonstration

project and baseline information was collected on each system. Two of the identified P&T systems

were selected to receive RSEs and those two systems received their evaluations in 2000. This report

includes information collected during the demonstration project as well as additional information

collected during the nationwide project conducted in 2001. Where applicable, system information

collected in 2000 has been updated by system information collected in 2001.

The first section of this report presents the cost and performance data for the Region while the second

describes the screening process and system selection.

The data presented in this report reflect estimates provided by the site Remedial Project

Managers between January and May 2001. These estimates may vary from actuality. The

data– including the number, status, cost, specifications, and projections of systems– may

change over time.

Cost and Performance Data

Fifteen Fund-lead P&T systems were identified in Region 5. Of this fifteen, twelve are operational and

three are pre-operational (i.e., pre-design, design, being installed, or installed but not operating). In

addition, two previous Fund-lead P&T systems have been transferred to the relevant states and another

has been transferred to the responsible party.

Cost and performance data and other information pertaining to the identified Fund-lead P&T systems

(estimates for the pre-operational systems) were collected during phone interviews with the Remedial

Project Managers (RPMs) and were stored in a database. All RPMs were successfully contacted

except for those associated with Eau Claire Well Field and Duell and Gardner. For these two systems,
July 3, 2001 Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative

Phase 1– Data Collection and Site Screening, Region 5

Page 2 of 4

information was obtained from the site Record of Decisions, fact sheets, and notes from previous

interviews during the demonstration project. The collected information for all Fund-lead P&T systems

in Region 5 is summarized in Table 1 and provided in detail in five additional tables:

• Table 2 provides overviews of the systems by providing items such as annual costs, lead,

status, goals, and progress of each system. 

• Table 3 includes the dates marking the signing of the ROD, construction completion,

system operation and function, turnover to the state, and expected close-out. 

• Table 4 lists for each system the contact information for the site Remedial Project

Manager, the State Regulator, and the Contractor. 

• Table 5 notes for each system and the associated site if NAPLs are present, the top

contaminants of concern, and the above-ground treatment processes. 

• Table 6 lists system specifications such as the pumping rate, number of wells, number of

monitoring events per year, and other items used to determine the complexity of a system

and its potential for optimization.

Projected dates for turnover to the States and for system completion are depicted in Figure 1, and

annual costs for each system are depicted in Figure 2. 

RSE Site Selection

Evaluation of Sites for Optimization Potential

Once the information is gathered from each of the Fund-lead P&T systems in a given Region, it

becomes input for a screening methodology that attempts to determine the optimization potential for

each system. This, in turn, provides a basis for selecting two systems where RSEs will be performed. 

Because some Regions do not have two Fund-lead P&T systems, the allotted but unused RSEs for

those Regions are allocated to other Regions. 

The factors affecting the optimization potential of a system are

• the overall cost of a given system, 

• the expected duration of the system, 

• the number of above-ground treatment processes, 
July 3, 2001 Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative

Phase 1– Data Collection and Site Screening, Region 5

Page 3 of 4

• the number of extraction wells,

• the number of monitoring events per year,

• the system downtime per year,

• the pumping rate,

• the results (if any) of a previous performance and effectiveness evaluation, and

• any social or political obstacles to implementing modifications to the system.

Table 6 summarizes the results of the screening process including the estimated life-cycle cost savings

that may result from performing an RSE. 

Selecting Sites for RSEs

The following is a list of the identified Fund-lead P&T systems in Region 5 classified as operational,

pre-operational, transferred to responsible parties, and no-longer operating. Those in bold were

selected for RSEs. 

Operational

Arrowhead

Better Brite

Eau Claire

La Salle

Long Prairie

MacGillis and Gibbs

Oconomowoc

Onalaska

Ott/Story/Cordova

U.S. Aviex

Verona

Wash King

Pre-Operational

Douglass Road

Duell and Gardner

Peerless Plating

Transferred to States

Old Mill

 Perham Arsenic

Transferred to Responsible Parties

Bofors Nobel
July 3, 2001 Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative

Phase 1– Data Collection and Site Screening, Region 5

Page 4 of 4

MacGillis and Gibbs and Oconomowoc Electroplating were selected for RSEs during the

demonstration project based on the interest of the Remedial Project Managers and estimated potential

savings as determined by screening calculations. Ott/Story/Cordova was selected for an RSE as part

of the nationwide project based on its high operational costs relative to other Fund-lead P&T systems

and the relatively high potential savings from optimization as indicated by the screening process.
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 5

Number of systems 15

Number that are EPA lead 7 of 15

Number that are State lead 7 of 15

Number that are operational 12

Number that are pre-operational 3

Number where restoration is a goal 14 of 15

Number where the plume is controlled* 6 of 12

Number that are estimated to be more than 80% complete* 3 of 12

Number previously evaluated and effectiveness found sufficient* 7 of 12

Number previously evaluated and effectiveness found not sufficient* 0 of 12

Number where NAPLs are observed 3 of 15

Number with more than 1 major contaminant identified 13 of 15

Number with 3 or more treatment processes 4 of 15

Average estimated annual O&M cost (including monitoring) $378,714

Average estimated annual monitoring cost $42,929

Average number of years until turnover to the States 5.9

Average number of years until completion 15.8

*Operational sites only

Region 5, Table 1 -- Summary

July 3, 2001

System Status

Operational and Pre-operational Fund-lead P&T Systems

Completed Fund-lead P&T Systems

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and 

May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from actuality. Data-- including the 

number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

Extent of Contamination

Average Costs and Time Frames

Region 5 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 5

System

Estimated 

Annual Cost Lead

Type of 

ROD

System 

Status System Goals 

Plume Under 

Control?

Estimated 

Progress of 

Restoration

Previous Evaluation 

of Effectiveness

Arrowhead Refinery $70,000 State with 

Fund Money Final Operational Containment & Restoration Yes more than 80% Sufficient

Better Brite Plating Co. 

Chrome and Zinc Shops $36,000 State with Fund Money Operational Containment & Restoration Yes less than 20% Sufficient

Douglass Road $120,000 EPA Final Installed Containment & 

Restoration N/A N/A Not evaluated

Duell and Gardner Unknown EPA Interim Installed Restoration N/A N/A Not evaluated

Eau Claire Municipal Well 

Field $175,000 State with Fund Money Operational Unknown Unknown Unknown Sufficient

La Salle Electrical Utilities $230,000 State with 

Fund Money Final Operational Containment & Restoration Yes 20% - 80% Sufficient

Long Prairie $300,000 State with 

Fund Money Final Operational Restoration Yes 20% - 80% Not evaluated

MacGillis and Gibbs/Bell 

Lumber & Pole $300,000 EPA Final Operational Restoration Unknown less than 20% Not evaluated

Notes: 

3. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation Systems Evaluations.

Region 5, Table 2 -- System Overviews

July 3, 2001

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary 

from actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

1. Douglass Road, Duell and Gardner, and Peerless Plating are pre-operational systems; therefore, the associated data are estimates and some 

items are unknown.

2. "Estimated Progress of Restoration" refers to the estimated portion of the plume that has been restored to cleanup levels.

Region 5 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs 
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 5

System

Estimated 

Annual Cost Lead

Type of 

ROD

System 

Status System Goals 

Plume Under 

Control?

Estimated 

Progress of 

Restoration

Previous Evaluation 

of Effectiveness

Region 5, Table 2 -- System Overviews

July 3, 2001

Oconomowoc 

Electroplating $471,000 EPA Final Operational Containment & Restoration Unknown Unknown Sufficient

Onalaska Municipal 

Landfill $200,000 EPA Final Operational Containment & Restoration Yes more than 80% Sufficient

Ott/Story/Cordova Chem 

Co. $2,400,000 EPA Final Operational Containment & Restoration Unknown 20% - 80% Not evaluated

Peerless Plating $400,000 Unknown Final Installed Restoration N/A N/A Sufficient

U.S. Aviex $300,000 State with 

Fund Money Final Operational Restoration No 20% - 80% Sufficient

Verona Well Field $225,000 EPA Final Operational Containment & 

Restoration Yes more than 80% Not evaluated

Wash King Laundry $75,000 State with 

Fund Money Final Operational Restoration Unknown less than 20% Not evaluated

Notes: 

3. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation Systems Evaluations.

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary 

from actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

1. Douglass Road, Duell and Gardner, and Peerless Plating are pre-operational systems; therefore, the associated data are estimates and some 

items are unknown.

2. "Estimated Progress of Restoration" refers to the estimated portion of the plume that has been restored to cleanup levels.

Region 5 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs 
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 5

System Original ROD

Last ROD 

Modification

Construction 

Completed

Operational and 

Functional

Turnover to 

State

Years Until 

Turnover

Expected 

Completion

Years Until 

Completion

Arrowhead Refinery 9/30/86 2/9/94 6/1993 7/1993 7/2003 2.0 4/2004 2.7

Better Brite Plating Co. 

Chrome and Zinc Shops 9/24/96 8/2000 4/1993 6/2006 4.9 4/2030 28.8

Douglass Road 5/3/96 9/2000 7/2001 9/2010 9.2 10/2030 29.3

Duell and Gardner 9/30/93 5/31/01 7/2001 7/2001 7/2011 10.0 7/2007 6.0

Eau Claire Municipal Well 

Field 3/31/88 8/1/90 6/1987 3/1991 unknown unknown unknown unknown

La Salle Electrical Utilities 8/29/86 3/30/88 2/1998 3/1994 3/2004 2.7 3/2005 3.7

Long Prairie 6/14/88 11/1996 8/1996 10/2007 6.2 10/2015 14.3

MacGillis and Gibbs/Bell 

Lumber & Pole 9/30/91 9/22/94 10/1999 10/1999 10/2009 8.3 10/2029 28.3

Oconomowoc 

Electroplating 9/20/90 9/1996 9/1996 9/2006 5.2 9/2026 25.2

Onalaska Municipal 

Landfill 8/14/90 7/1994 8/1995 6/2004 2.9 7/2002 1.0

Notes: 

1. Douglass Road, Duell and Gardner, and Peerless Plating are pre-operational systems; therefore, the associated data are estimates and some 

items are unknown.

Region 5, Table 3 -- P&T System Histories and Projections

Date

July 3, 2001

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from 

actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

Region 5 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 5

System Original ROD

Last ROD 

Modification

Construction 

Completed

Operational and 

Functional

Turnover to 

State

Years Until 

Turnover

Expected 

Completion

Years Until 

Completion

Region 5, Table 3 -- P&T System Histories and Projections

Date

July 3, 2001

Ott/Story/Cordova Chem 

Co. 9/29/89 9/29/90 2/1996 2/1996 8/2010 9.1 8/2030 29.1

Peerless Plating 9/21/92 11/2000 unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown

U.S. Aviex 9/7/88 9/1993 9/1993 9/2003 2.2 9/2003 2.2

Verona Well Field 8/12/85 6/1996 6/1996 6/2006 4.9 Indefinite Indefinite

Wash King Laundry 3/31/93 7/31/96 4/2001 4/2001 4/2011 9.8 4/2021 19.8

Notes: 

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from 

actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

1. Douglass Road, Duell and Gardner, and Peerless Plating are pre-operational systems; therefore, the associated data are estimates and some 

items are unknown.

Region 5 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 5

RPM State Regulator Primary Contractor

1 Darryl Owens Maureen Johnson Gary Schroeher

EPA Region 5 MPCA Delta Environmental

77 West Jackson Boulevard 520 Lafayette Road 2770 Cleveland Ave

Chicago, IL 60604-3507 St. Paul, MN 55155-4194 Roseville, MN 55113-1127

312-886-7089 651-296-7353 651-639-9449

owens.darryl@epa.gov maureen.johnson@pca.state.mn.us

2 John Peterson Keld Lauredsen

EPA Region 5 WDNR

77 West Jackson Boulevard 1125 Military Ave. Box 10448

Chicago, IL 60604-3507 Green Bay, WI 54307

312-353-1264 920-492-5921

920-492-5913 (fax)

peterson.john@epa.gov lauredsenk@dnr.state.wi.us

3 Dion Novak Kevin Herron Dan Plomb

EPA Region 5 CH2MHILL

77 West Jackson Blvd. 135 S. 84th Street Suite 325

Chicago, IL 60604-3507 IN Milwaukee, WI 53214

312-886-4737 317-234-0354 414-272-2426

Novak.Dion@epa.gov

4 Kyle Rogers Walelign Wagaw Tim Gouger

EPA Region 5 MDEQ USACE, Rapid Response

77 West Jackson Boulevard P.O. Box 30426 12565 West Center Road

Chicago, IL 60604-3507 Lansing, MI 48909 Omaha, NE 68144-3869

312-886-1995 517-373-9896 402-293-2514

402-291-8177 (fax)

rogers.kyle@epa.gov Timothy.P.Gouger@nwo02.usace.army.mil

Region 5, Table 4 -- System Contact Information

July 3, 2001

System

Arrowhead Refinery

Better Brite Plating Co. 

Chrome and Zinc Shops

Douglass Road

Duell and Gardner

Region 5 Fund-lead, P&T Systems Information provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 5

RPM State Regulator Primary Contractor

Region 5, Table 4 -- System Contact Information

July 3, 2001

System

5 Sheri Bianchin

EPA Region 5

77 West Jackson Boulevard

Chicago, IL 60604-3507

312-886-4745

bianchin.sheri@epa.gov

6 Steve Padovani Rich Lang Neil Brown

EPA Region 5 IEPA Ecology and Environment

77 West Jackson Boulevard P.O. Box 1515 33 N. Deerborne St.

Chicago, IL 60604-3507 La Salle, IL 61301 Chicago, IL 60602

312-353-6755 815-223-6836 312-578-9243

padovani.steven@epa.gov epa4137@epa.state.il.us

7 Sheila Sullivan Mariam Horneff Bill Bangsund

EPA Region 5 MPCA Barr Engineering

77 West Jackson Boulevard 520 Lafayette Road

Chicago, IL 60604-3507 St. Paul, MN 55155-4194

312-886-5251 651-296-7228 612-832-2738

sullivan.sheila@epa.gov

8 Darryl Owens Nile Fellows Larry Campbell

EPA Region 5 MPCA Black and Veatch

77 West Jackson Boulevard 520 Lafayette Road

Chicago, IL 60604-3507 St. Paul, MN 55155-4194 Chicago, IL 

312-886-7089 651-296-6300

owens.darryl@epa.gov

La Salle Electrical Utilities

Long Prairie

MacGillis and Gibbs/Bell 

Lumber & Pole

Eau Claire Municipal Well 

Field

Region 5 Fund-lead, P&T Systems Information provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 5

RPM State Regulator Primary Contractor

Region 5, Table 4 -- System Contact Information

July 3, 2001

System

9 Steve Padovani Paul Kozol Craig Evans

EPA Region 5 WDNR USACE, St. Paul District

77 West Jackson Boulevard 3911 Fish Hatchery Road 190 Fifth Street East

Chicago, IL 60604-3507 Fitchburg, WI 53711 St. Paul, MN 55101-1638

312-353-6755 608-275-3301 651-290-5594

608-275-3338 (fax) 651-290-5800 (fax)

padovani.steven@epa.gov kozolp@dnr.state.wi.us Craig.O.Evans@mvp02.usace.army.mil

# Timothy Prendiville Dave Carper Jim Fisher

EPA Region 5 WDNR CH2MHill

77 West Jackson Boulevard 3550 Mormon Coulee Road

Chicago, IL 60604-3507 La Crosse, WI 54601 Milwaukee, WI 

312-886-5122 608-785-9973 414-272-1052

608-785-9990 (fax)

prendiville.timothy@epa.gov carped@dnr.state.wi.us jfisher1@ch2m.com

# John Fagiolo Lisa Summerfield Brain Bouwhuis

EPA Region 5 Michigan Dept. of Environmental USACE-Detroit District

77 West Jackson Blvd. P.O. Box 30426 PO Box 629

Chicago, IL 60604-3507 Lansing, MI 48909 Grand Haven, MI 49417

312-886-0800 517-335-3388 231-766-2007

231-766-3287 (fax)

fagiolo.john@epa.gov summerfl@state.mi.us Brian.j.Bouwhuis@usace.army.mil

# Mike Ribordy Mike Johnson

EPA Region 5 Tetra Tech

77 West Jackson Boulevard

Chicago, IL 60604-3507

312-886-4592 312-856-8796

ribordy.mike@epa.gov

Onalaska Municipal Landfill

Ott/Story/Cordova Chem 

Co.

Peerless Plating

Oconomowoc Electroplating

Region 5 Fund-lead, P&T Systems Information provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 5

RPM State Regulator Primary Contractor

Region 5, Table 4 -- System Contact Information

July 3, 2001

System

# Ken Glatz Judy Gapp Jack Brunner

EPA Region 5 MDEQ Tetra Tech

77 West Jackson Boulevard P.O. Box 30426

Chicago, IL 60604-3507 Lansing, MI 48909

312-886-1434 517-335-3391 312-856-8788

517-335-4887 (fax)

glatz.ken@epa.gov gappj@state.mi.us

# Richard Boice Beth O'Brien

EPA Region 5 MDEQ

77 West Jackson Boulevard P.O. Box 30426

Chicago, IL 60604-3507 Lansing, MI 48909

312-886-4740 517-335-3908

boice.richard@epa.gov obrienea@state.mi.us

# Russell Hart Sally Beebe

EPA Region 5 MDEQ-ERD Malcolm Pirnie

77 West Jackson Boulevard P.O. Box 30426

Chicago, IL 60604-3507 Lansing, MI 48909

312-886-4844 517-373-4110 517-337-0111

517-335-4887 (fax)

hart.russell@epa.gov beebes@state.mi.us

Verona Well Field

Wash King Laundry

U.S. Aviex

Region 5 Fund-lead, P&T Systems Information provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection 

and System Screening, Region 5

NAPLS 

Present?

# of 

Identified 

Contam. Contaminants Treatment Processes

Not present 4 Pentachlorophenol (PCP) Other/Not Sure

VOCs

PNAs

VC

Better Brite Plating 

Co. Chrome and 

Zinc Shops

Not present 1 Chromium Metals Precipitation

Douglass Road Not present 4 Arsenic Other/Not Sure

TCE and Vinyl chloride

Tetrahydrofuran

Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)

Not present 5 Anthracene Carbon Adsorption

Carbozol

Chloromethane

N-N dimethylanaline

Gentin Violet

Don't know 2 Trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene Air Stripping

Vernolate

Not present 3 Transuranic wastes Carbon Adsorption

PCB Other/Not Sure

TCA

Observed 3 Dichloroethylene Carbon Adsorption

Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)

VC

Observed 3 Chromium Biological Treatment

Pentachlorophenol (PCP) Carbon Adsorption

carcinogenic PAHs Filtration

Off-Gas Treatment

Not present 3 Cadmium Metals Precipitation

Cyanide Air Stripping

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) Carbon Adsorption

Not present 3 Benzo(a)anthracene Metals Precipitation

Trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene Air Stripping

Volatile chlorinated organics

Duell and Gardner

Eau Claire Municipal 

Well Field

Long Prairie

Region 5, Table 5 -- Top Contaminants Identified by RPMs

July 3, 2001

System

Arrowhead Refinery

Oconomowoc 

Electroplating

Onalaska Municipal 

Landfill

MacGillis and 

Gibbs/Bell Lumber & 

Pole

La Salle Electrical 

Utilities

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates 

may, in some cases, vary from actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of 

systems-- may change overtime.

Region 5 Fund-lead, P&T system Data provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection 

and System Screening, Region 5

NAPLS 

Present?

# of 

Identified 

Contam. Contaminants Treatment Processes

Region 5, Table 5 -- Top Contaminants Identified by RPMs

July 3, 2001

System

Arrowhead Refinery Observed 5 1,2-Dichloroethane Biological Treatment

1,2-Dichloroethylene (DCE) Carbon Adsorption

Organophosphorus pesticides (4,4'-DDT, lindane) Other/Not Sure

Vapona

vinyl chloride

Don't know 2 Cadmium Metals Precipitation

Trichloroethylene (TCE) Air Stripping

Off-Gas Treatment

Not present 4 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Air Stripping

1,1-Dichloroethane

1,2-Dichloroethane

diethylether

Not present 4 1,2-Dichloropropane Air Stripping

Tin Off-Gas Treatment

Trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene

Volatile chlorinated organics

Don't know 1 Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE) Air Stripping

Off-Gas Treatment

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates 

may, in some cases, vary from actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of 

systems-- may change overtime.

Verona Well Field

Wash King Laundry

Peerless Plating

Ott/Story/Cordova 

Chem Co.

U.S. Aviex

Region 5 Fund-lead, P&T system Data provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 5

System

Potential 

Reduction in 

Life-Cycle 

Costs

Potential LifeCycle SavingsExpected 

Duration

Previous 

Evaluation of 

Effectiveness

Approximate 

Pumping 

Rate (gpm)

Number of 

Extraction 

Wells

Number of 

Treatment 

Processes

Groundwater 

Samples per 

Year

Obstacles to 

making 

(minor/major) 

changes

Arrowhead Refinery 5.0% ($17,724) 2.7 Sufficient 25 0 1 36 Minor 

Moderate

Better Brite Plating 

Co. Chrome and Zinc 

Shops

12.0% $39,644 28.8 Sufficient 0 0 1 28 Minor 

Severe

Eau Claire Municipal 

Well Field unknown unknown unknown Sufficient 4500 14 1 0

Severe 

Severe

La Salle Electrical 

Utilities 12.5% $57,261 3.7 Sufficient 20 0 2 100 Minor Minor

Long Prairie 15.5% $429,665 14.3 Not evaluated 227 9 1 22 Minor 

Moderate

MacGillis and 

Gibbs/Bell Lumber & 

Pole

32.0% $1,399,624 28.3 Not evaluated 60 14 4 60 Minor 

Severe

Oconomowoc 

Electroplating 24.5% $1,590,721 25.2 Sufficient 30 5 3 40 Minor Severe

Onalaska Municipal 

Landfill 5.0% ($20,219) 1.0 Sufficient 560 5 2 20 Minor Minor

Operational

Region 5, Table 6 -- Screening Summary

July 3, 2001

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary 

from actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

Notes: 

1. "Potential Reduction in Life-cycle Costs" result from a screening methodology that incorporates system-specific information. The reductions do 

not include the cost of an RSE.

2. "Potential Life-cycle Savings" were estimated using using system-specific information and incorporate the cost of the RSE. Values in 

parentheses denote costs (negative savings).

3. "Groundwater Samples per Year" is calculated by multiplying the number of monitoring wells sampled by the number of monitoring events per 

year.

4. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation System Evaluations.

Region 5 Fund-lead, P&T system Data provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 5

System

Potential 

Reduction in 

Life-Cycle 

Costs

Potential LifeCycle SavingsExpected 

Duration

Previous 

Evaluation of 

Effectiveness

Approximate 

Pumping 

Rate (gpm)

Number of 

Extraction 

Wells

Number of 

Treatment 

Processes

Groundwater 

Samples per 

Year

Obstacles to 

making 

(minor/major) 

changes

Operational

Region 5, Table 6 -- Screening Summary

July 3, 2001

Ott/Story/Cordova 

Chem Co. 40.0% $14,418,502 29.1 Not evaluated 700 10 3 120 Minor Minor

U.S. Aviex 5.0% ($1,583) 2.2 Sufficient 170 6 1 120 Minor 

Minor

Verona Well Field 25.5% $856,994 Indefinite Not evaluated 250 6 2 10 Minor 

Moderate

Wash King Laundry 23.0% $185,195 19.8 Not evaluated 250 5 2 46 Minor 

Moderate

Douglass Road 32.5% $563,336 29.3 Not evaluated 1000 5 1 72 Minor 

Minor

Duell and Gardner unknown unknown 6.0 Not evaluated 80 2 1 50 Minor 

Minor

Peerless Plating unknown unknown unknown Sufficient 165 6 3 24 Minor 

Minor

3. "Groundwater Samples per Year" is calculated by multiplying the number of monitoring wells sampled by the number of monitoring events per 

year.

Pre-Operational

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary 

from actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

4. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation System Evaluations.

Notes: 

1. "Potential Reduction in Life-cycle Costs" result from a screening methodology that incorporates system-specific information. The reductions do 

not include the cost of an RSE.

2. "Potential Life-cycle Savings" were estimated using using system-specific information and incorporate the cost of the RSE. Values in 

parentheses denote costs (negative savings).

Region 5 Fund-lead, P&T system Data provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 5

1

 System is currently shutdown. These are estimated costs for O&M when system resumes operation.

2 The system is preoperational with no cost estimates provided.

Notes: 

July 3, 2001

Region 5, Figure 1 -- Estimated Annual Costs of Systems

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary 

from actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

1. Douglass Road, Duell and Gardner, and Peerless Plating are pre-operational systems; therefore, the associated data are estimates and some 

items are unknown.

$70 $36 $120 $200

$2,400

$400

$300

unknown 

$230

$175 $300

$300

$75

$225

$0

$400

$800

$1,200

$1,600

$2,000

$2,400

Arrowhead

Refinery

Better Brite

Plating Co.

Chrome and Zinc

Douglass Road

Duell and

Gardner

Eau Claire

Municipal Well

Field

La Salle Electrical

Utilities

Long Prairie

MacGillis and

Gibbs/Bell

Lumber & Pole

Onalaska

Municipal Landfill

Ott/Story/Cordova

Chem Co.

Peerless Plating

U.S. Aviex

Verona Well Field

Wash King

Laundry

Annual Cost ($1,000/yr)

Operational Systems Pre-operational Systems

Region 5 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs 
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 5

Notes: 

July 3, 2001

Region 5, Figure 2 -- System Projections

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from 

actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

1. Douglass Road, Duell and Gardner, and Peerless Plating are pre-operational systems; therefore, the associated data are estimates and some 

items are unknown.

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

Arrowhead

Refinery

Better Brite

Plating Co.

Chrome and Zinc

Douglass Road

Duell and

Gardner

Eau Claire

Municipal Well

Field

La Salle Electrical

Utilities

Long Prairie

MacGillis and

Gibbs/Bell

Lumber & Pole

Oconomowoc

Electroplating

Onalaska

Municipal Landfill

Ott/Story/Cordova

Chem Co.

Peerless Plating

U.S. Aviex

Verona Well Field

Wash King

Laundry

years

Years Until Turnover

Years Until Completion Indefinite

unknownunknown

2021

2026

2031

2036

2041

2001

2006

2011

2016

Region 5 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative

Phase 1– Data Collection and System Screening

Region 6

July 3, 2001

In the OSWER Directive No. 9200.0-33, Transmittal of Final FY00 - FY01 Superfund Reforms

Strategy, dated July 7,2000, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response outlined a

commitment to optimize our Fund-lead, pump-and-treat (P&T) systems. To fulfill this commitment,

Headquarters is assisting Regions in evaluating their Fund-lead operating P&T systems. Phase 1 of this

initiative involves identifying all Fund-lead P&T system, collecting baseline cost and performance data

on them, and selecting up to two sites in each Region for a Remediation System Evaluation (RSE).

This report summarizes the screening process for Region 6 which was conducted during January 2001. 

The first section of this report presents the cost and performance data for the Region while the second

describes the screening process and system selection.

The data presented in this report reflect estimates provided by the site Remedial Project

Managers between January and May 2001. These estimates may vary from actuality. The

data– including the number, status, cost, specifications, and projections of systems– may

change over time.

Cost and Performance Data

Eleven Fund-lead P&T systems were identified in Region 6. Of this eleven, 

• six are operational, 

• three are pre-operational, 

• one is complete, and 

• one has returned to remedial-investigation status. 

One of the operational P&T systems is a component of a more comprehensive strategy that primarily

relies on in situ bioremediation. In addition, another one of the operational systems and the completed

system utilize in situ chemical treatment to enhance the P&T remediation.

Cost and performance data and other information pertaining to the identified Fund-lead P&T systems

(estimates for the pre-operational systems) were collected with a web-based questionnaire accessed

from http://www.cluin.org/optimization and stored in a database. This information is summarized in

Table 1 and provided in detail in five additional tables:
July 3, 2001 Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative

Phase 1– Data Collection and Site Screening, Region 6

Page 2 of 3

• Table 2 provides overviews of the systems by providing items such as annual costs, lead,

status, goals, and progress of each system. 

• Table 3 includes the dates marking the signing of the ROD, construction completion,

system operation and function, turnover to the state, and expected close-out. 

• Table 4 lists for each system the contact information for the site Remedial Project

Manager, the State Regulator, and the Contractor. 

• Table 5 notes for each system and the associated site if NAPLS are present, the top

contaminants of concern, and the above-ground treatment processes. 

• Table 6 lists system specifications such as the pumping rate, number of wells, number of

monitoring events per year, and other items used to determine the complexity of a system

and its potential for optimization.

Projected dates for turnover to the States and for system completion are depicted in Figure 1, and

annual costs for each system are depicted in Figure 2. 

RSE Site Selection

Evaluation of Sites for Optimization Potential

Once the information is gathered from each of the Fund-lead P&T systems in a given Region, it

becomes input for a screening methodology that attempts to determine the optimization potential for

each system. This, in turn, provides a basis for selecting two systems where RSEs will be performed. 

The factors affecting the optimization potential of a system are

• the overall cost of a given system, 

• the expected duration of the system, 

• the number of above-ground treatment processes, 

• the number of extraction wells,

• the number of monitoring events per year,

• the system downtime per year,

• the pumping rate,

• the results (if any) of a previous performance and effectiveness evaluation, and

• any social or political obstacles to implementing modifications to the system.
July 3, 2001 Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative

Phase 1– Data Collection and Site Screening, Region 6

Page 3 of 3

Table 6 summarizes the results of the screening process including the estimated life-cycle cost savings

that may result from performing an RSE. 

Selecting Two Sites for RSEs

The following is a list of the identified Fund-lead P&T systems in Region 6 classified as completed,

operational, planned, and no-longer operating. Those in bold were selected for RSEs. 

Completed

*Odessa Chromium #2

Operational

**American Creosote Works

Bayou Bonfouca

Cimarron Mining

Geneva Industries

Midland Products

*Odessa Chromium #1

Planned

City of Perryton Well #2

North Cavalcade Superfund Site

Sprague Road Ground Water Plume

No longer operating

Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers

* Remediation was significantly enhanced through in situ treatment with ferrous sulfate.

** In-situ bioremediation is the primary remedial action.

Only operational systems that are not temporarily shutdown (Geneva Industries) and not within a year

of completion (Odessa Chromium #1) were considered in selecting the two systems for RSEs. 

Because American Creosote Works had recently completed an intensive 5-year review with an outside

party, its P&T system was removed from consideration as other systems would likely benefit more from

an RSE. While Cimarron Mining exhibited high estimated potential savings, it is a relatively simple

system with a pumping rate of 1 gpm, three wells, and direct discharge of the extracted water. 

Furthermore, for Cimarron Mining moderate social and political obstacles for minor system

modifications and severe social and political obstacles for major system modifications discourage an

RSE since suggested modifications likely would not be implemented. 

Thus, the selection of the P&T systems at Bayou Bonfouca and Midland Products for RSEs arose not

from a quantitative analysis of the potential cost savings but rather from feasibility and practicality of

conducting and RSE and implementing the suggested modifications. 
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 6

Odessa Chromium #2

Number of systems 9

Number that are EPA lead 5 of 9

Number that are State lead 4 of 9

Number that are operational 6

Number that are pre-operational 3

Number where cleanup is a goal 6 of 9

Number where the plume is controlled* 4 of 6

Number that are estimated to be more than 80% complete* 1 of 6

Number previously evaluated and effectiveness found sufficient* 5 of 6

Number previously evaluated and effectiveness found not sufficient* 1 of 6

Number where NAPLs are observed 3 of 9

Number with more than 1 major contaminant identified 6 of 9

Number with 3 or more treatment processes 4 of 9

Average estimated annual O&M cost (including monitoring) $489,875

Average estimated annual monitoring cost $63,111

Average number of years until turnover to the States 7.2

Average number of years until completion 17.5

*Operational sites only

Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and 

May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from actuality. Data-- including the 

number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

*** Note: Remediation for the completed system and 80%-complete system was 

significantly enhanced by in situ treatment. 

No-Longer-Operating Fund-lead P&T Systems

Extent of Contamination

Average Costs and Time Frames

Region 6, Table 1 -- Summary

July 3, 2001

System Status

Operational and Pre-operational Fund-lead P&T Systems

Completed Fund-lead P&T Systems

Region 6 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 6

System

Estimated 

Annual Cost Lead

Type of 

ROD

System 

Status System Goals 

Plume Under 

Control?

Estimated 

Progress of 

Restoration

Previous Evaluation 

of Effectiveness

American Creosote 

Works $360,000 EPA Final Operational Containment Yes Restoration is not a goal Sufficient

Bayou Bonfouca $402,000 EPA Final Operational Containment & 

Restoration Unknown Unknown Sufficient

Cimarron Mining $1,000,000 EPA Final Operational Containment & 

Restoration Unknown Unknown Not Sufficient

City of Perryton Well #2 $37,000 EPA Interim Design Containment N/A N/A Not evaluated

Geneva Industries $240,000 State with 

Fund Money Final Operational 

(shutdown)

Containment & 

Restoration Yes Unknown Sufficient

Midland Products $180,000 State with 

Fund Money Final Operational Restoration Yes less than 20% Sufficient

3. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation Systems Evaluations.

4. In-situ bioremediation is the primary remedial strategy at the American Creosote Works site.

5. The Geneva Industries system is shutdown due to issues with the contractor. Operation is expected to resume in 2004.

6. The remediation has been significantly enhanced by in situ treatment with ferrous sulfate.

2. "Estimated Progress of Restoration" refers to the estimated portion of the plume that has been restored to cleanup levels.

Notes: 

Region 6, Table 2 -- System Overviews

July 3, 2001

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary 

from actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

1. The City of Perryton Well #2, North Cavalcade, and Sprague Road systems are pre-operational; therefore, the associated data are estimates 

Region 6 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs 
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 6

System

Estimated 

Annual Cost Lead

Type of 

ROD

System 

Status System Goals 

Plume Under 

Control?

Estimated 

Progress of 

Restoration

Previous Evaluation 

of Effectiveness

North Cavalcade 

Superfund Site unknown State with Fund Money Final Installed Restoration N/A N/A Not evaluated

Odessa Chromium #1 $500,000 State with 

Fund Money Final Operational Restoration Yes more than 80% Sufficient

Sprague Road Ground 

Water Plume $1,200,000 EPA Final Design Restoration N/A N/A Not evaluated

3. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation Systems Evaluations.

4. In-situ bioremediation is the primary remedial strategy at the American Creosote Works site.

5. The Geneva Industries system is shutdown due to issues with the contractor. Operation is expected to resume in 2004.

6. The remediation has been significantly enhanced by in situ treatment with ferrous sulfate.

1. The City of Perryton Well #2, North Cavalcade, and Sprague Road systems are pre-operational; therefore, the associated data are estimates 

2. "Estimated Progress of Restoration" refers to the estimated portion of the plume that has been restored to cleanup levels.

Notes: 

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary 

from actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

Region 6, Table 2 -- System Overviews

July 3, 2001

Region 6 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs 
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 6

System Original ROD

Last ROD 

Modification

Construction 

Completed

Operational and 

Functional

Turnover to 

State

Years Until 

Turnover

Expected 

Completion

Years Until 

Completion

American Creosote 

Works 4/28/93 2/1997 2/1997 2/2027 25.6 2/2027 25.6

Bayou Bonfouca 3/31/87 7/20/95 7/2000 3/2001 7/2003 2.0 7/2021 20.0

Cimarron Mining 9/21/90 4/1991 12/1991 10/2004 3.2 Indefinite Indefinite

City of Perryton Well #2 9/29/99 8/2001 8/2003 8/2013 12.1 8/2023 22.1

Geneva Industries 9/18/86 4/1993 7/1993 1/2004 2.5 1/2004 2.5

Midland Products 3/24/88 11/1993 1/1994 1/2004 2.5 1/2034 32.5

North Cavalcade 

Superfund Site 6/28/88 3/2001 12/2005 12/2005 4.4 12/2010 9.4

Odessa Chromium #1 3/18/88 11/23/99 11/1993 11/1/93 12/2001 0.4 12/2001 0.4

Sprague Road Ground 

Water Plume 9/29/00 9/2002 9/2003 9/2013 12.2 9/2028 27.2

Notes:

1. For Cimarron Mining an indefinite completion date was provided by the RPM. 

2. The Geneva Industries system is currently shutdown due to issues with the contractor. Operation is expected to resume in 2004.

Region 6, Table 3 -- P&T System Histories and Projections

Date

July 3, 2001

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from 

actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

Region 6 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 6

RPM State Regulator Primary Contractor

1 American Creosote Works Stacey Bennett Janaye Danage Bill Faught

EPA Region 6 Louisiana Dept. of Environmental Quality CH2MHill

1445 Ross Avenue P.O. Box 82178 7600 W. Tidwell, Suite 400

Dallas, TX 75202-2733 Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2178 Houston, TX 77040-5719

214-665-6729 225-765-0475 713-462-0161

214-665-6660 (fax) 225-765-0484 (fax) 713-462-0165 (fax)

bennett.stacey@epa.gov (fax) janaye_d@deq.state.la.us bfaught@ch2m.com

2 Bayou Bonfouca Katrina Coltrain Rich Johnson Lee Guillory

EPA Region 6 Louisiana Dept. of Environmental Quality USACE-New Orleans District

1445 Ross Avenue P.O. Box 82282 P.O. Box 60267

Dallas, TX 75202 Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2282 New Orleans, LA 70160-0267

214-665-8143 225-765-0487 504-862-2934

214-665-6660 (fax) 225-765-0435 (fax) 504-862-2896 (fax)

coltrain.katrina@epa.gov (fax) rich_j@deq.state.la.us lee.a.guillory@mvn02.usace.army.mil

3 Cimarron Mining Petra Sanchez David Henry Brian D. Jordan

EPA Region 6 New Mexico Environment Dept. USACE

1445 Ross Ave. Suite 1200 PO Box 26110 1190 St. Francis Drive 4101 Jefferson Plaza NE

Dallas, TX 75202-2733 Santa Fe, NM 87505 Albuquerque, NM 87109

214-665-6686 214-827-0037 505-342-3472

214-665-6660 (fax) 214-827-2965 (fax) 505-342-3208 (fax)

sanchez.petra@epa.gov david_henry@nmev.state.nm.us brian.D.Joran@spao2.usace.army.mil

4 City of Perryton Well #2 Vincent Malott Diane Poteet Peter van Noort

EPA Region 6 Texas Natural Resource Conserv. Comm. CH2M Hill

1445 Ross Avenue P.O. Box 13087 5339 Alpha Road, Suite 300

Dallas, TX 75202 Austin, TX 78711 Dallas, TX 75240

214-665-8313 512-239-2502 972-980-2170

214-665-6660 (fax) 512-239-2450 (fax) 972-385-0846 (fax)

malott.vincent@epa.gov dpoteet@tnrcc.state.tx.us pvannoor@ch2m.com

Region 6, Table 4 -- System Contact Information

July 3, 2001

System

Region 6 Fund-lead, P&T Systems Information provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 6

RPM State Regulator Primary Contractor

Region 6, Table 4 -- System Contact Information

July 3, 2001

System

5 Geneva Industries Ruben Moya James Sher Sanjay Ramabhadran

EPA Region 6 Texas Natural Resource Conserv. Comm. Lockwood, Andrews & Newman Inc.

1445 Ross Ave., Suite 1200 P.O.Box 13087 1500 Citywest

Dallas, TX 75202 Austin, TX 78711-3087 Houston, TX 77042

214-665-2755 512-239-2444 713-266-6900

214-665-6660 (fax) 512-239-2450 (fax) 713-266-8971 (fax)

moya.ruben@epa.gov JSher@tnrcc.state.tx.us sanjay@lan-inc.com

6 Midland Products Carlos Sanchez Clark McWilliams Russell Perry

EPA Region 6 Arkansas Dept. of Environmental Quality IT Corp.

1445 Ross Avenue P.O. Box 8913 13111 NW Highway, Suite 310

Dallas, TX 75202 Little Rock, AR 72219 Houston, TX 77040-6392

214-665-8507 501-682-0850 713-996-4400

214-665-6660 (fax) 501-682-0565 (fax) 713-939-9546 (fax)

sanchez.carlos@epa.gov clarkm@adeq.state.ar.us rperry@theitgroup.com

7 North Cavalcade Superfund Camille Hueni Uche Ikemba Frank Frey

EPA Region 6 Texas Natural Resource Conserv. Comm. Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation

U.S. EPA Region 6, 1445 P.O. Box 13087; Mail Code 143 1001 S. Dairy Ashford Street, Ste. 210

Dallas, TX 75202-7233 Austin, TX 78711-3087 Houston, TX 77077

214-665-2231 512-239-2595 281-597-4821

214-665-6660 (fax) 512-239-2449 (fax) 281-596-0308 (fax)

hueni.camille@epa.gov uikemba@tnrcc.state.tx.us ffrey@fwenc.com

8 Odessa Chromium #1 Ernest Franke Uche Ikemba William Brown

EPA Region 6 Texas Natural Resource Conserv. Comm. Pacific Western Technologies, Ltd.

1445 Ross Avenue 12100 Park Circle Bldg. D , P.O. Box 575 Oak Ridge Turnpike,Suite B-4

Dallas, TX 75202 Austin, TX 78711 Oak Ridge, TN 37830

214-665-8521 512-239-2595 865-483-0554

214-665-6660 (fax) 512-239-2449 (fax) 865-483-8838 (fax)

franke,ernest@epa.gov uikemba@tnrcc.state.tx.us> pwtitd@usit.net

Region 6 Fund-lead, P&T Systems Information provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 6

RPM State Regulator Primary Contractor

Region 6, Table 4 -- System Contact Information

July 3, 2001

System

9 Sprague Road Ground Vincent Malott Diane Poteet Cristina Radu

EPA Region 6 Texas Natural Resource Conserv. Comm. Tetra Tech EMI

1445 Ross Avenue P.O. Box 13087 6121 Indian School Road NE, Suite 205

Dallas, TX 75202 Austin, TX 78711 Albuquerque, TX 87110

214-665-8313 512-239-2502 505-881-3188

214-665-6660 (fax) 512-239-2450 (fax) 505-881-3283 (fax)

malott.vincent@epa.gov dpoteet@tnrcc.state.tx.us raduc@ttemi.com

Region 6 Fund-lead, P&T Systems Information provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection 

and System Screening, Region 6

NAPLS 

Present?

# of 

Identified 

Contam. Contaminants

Treatment 

Processes

Observed 2 Chlorinated polyaromatic hydrocarbons (CPAHs) Bio. Treatment

Creosote and petroleum hydrocarbons Carbon Adsorption

Filtration

Observed 6 Benzo(a)anthracene Carbon Adsorption

Benzo(a)pyrene Filtration

Benzo(b)fluoranthene Other/Not Sure

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

Chrysene

Cimarron Mining Not present 1 Nitrate Other/Not Sure

Not present 2 Carbon tetrachloride Air Stripping

Chloroform

Geneva Industries Not present 5 Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE) Carbon Adsorption

PCB Other/Not Sure

Benzene

Toluene

Chlorobenzene

Midland Products Suspected 4 Anthracene Carbon Adsorption

Fluoranthene Filtration

Naphthalene Other/Not Sure

Pentachlorophenol (PCP)

Observed 15 Acenaphthene Carbon Adsorption

Acenaphthylene Filtration

Anthracene Other/Not Sure

Arsenic

Benzene and Toluene

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

BTEX

Chrysene

Creosote and petroleum hydrocarbons

Dibenzofuran

DNAPL

Ethylbenzene

Odessa 

Chromium #1

Not present 1 Chromium Other/Not Sure

Sprague Road 

Ground Water 

Not present 1 Chromium Ion Exchange

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These 

estimates may, in some cases, vary from actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and 

specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

City of Perryton 

Well #2

North Cavalcade 

Superfund Site

Region 6, Table 5 -- Top Contaminants Identified by RPMs

July 3, 2001

American 

Creosote Works

Bayou Bonfouca

System

Region 6 Fund-lead, P&T system Data provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 6

System

Potential 

Reduction in 

Life-Cycle 

Costs

Potential LifeCycle SavingsExpected 

Duration

Previous 

Evaluation of 

Effectiveness

Approximate 

Pumping 

Rate (gpm)

Number of 

Wells

Number of 

Treatment 

Processes

Groundwater 

Samples per 

Year

Obstacles to 

making 

(minor/major) 

changes

American Creosote 

Works 22.0% $1,093,548 25.6 Sufficient 5 18 3 or more 72 Minor Severe

Bayou Bonfouca 25.5% $1,233,790 20.0 Sufficient 22.5 44 3 or more 132 Minor 

Moderate

Cimarron Mining 15.0% $2,280,868 Indefinite Not Sufficient 1 3 1 12 Moderate 

Severe

Geneva Industries 8.0% $10,701 2.5 Sufficient 5 13 2 26 Minor 

Moderate

Midland Products 20.0% $528,408 32.5 Sufficient 3 8 3 or more 40 Minor 

Minor

Odessa Chromium #1 5.0% ($25,000) 0.4 Sufficient 60 6 1 14 Minor 

Minor

City of Perryton Well 

#2 17.5% $59,346 22.1 Not evaluated 150 1 1 20 Minor Minor

North Cavalcade 

Superfund Site 27.5% ($25,000) 9.4 Not evaluated 19 19 3 or more 0

Minor 

Minor

Sprague Road 

Ground Water Plume 32.5% $5,653,419 27.2 Not evaluated 200 22 1 200 Minor 

Minor

5. In situ bioremediation is the primary remedial strategy at the American Creosote Works site.

6. The remediation at the Odessa Chromium #1 site has been signficantly enhanced by in situ treatment with ferrous sulfate.

7. The North Cavalcade system is pre-operational, and no cost estimates for were provided.

4. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation System Evaluations.

Region 6, Table 6 -- Screening Summary

July 3, 2001

Pre-operational Operational

Notes: 

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from actuality. Data-- 

including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

1. "Potential Reduction in Life-cycle Costs" result from a screening methodology that incorporates system-specific information. The reductions do not include the cost 

of an RSE. 

2. "Potential Life-cycle Savings" were estimated using using system-specific information and incorporate the cost of the RSE. Values in parentheses denote costs 

(negative savings).

3. "Groundwater Samples per Year" is calculated by multiplying the number of monitoring wells sampled by the number of monitoring events per year.

Region 6 Fund-lead, P&T system Data provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 6

2. The Geneva Industries system is currently shutdown. These are estimated costs for O&M when system resumes operation.

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary 

from actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

Notes: 

1. The City of Perryton Well #2, North Cavalcade, and Sprague Road systems are pre-operational; therefore, the associated data are estimates 

Region 6, Figure 1 -- Estimated Annual Costs of Systems

July 3, 2001

$360 $402

$1,000

$37

$240 $180

$500

$1,200

unknown 

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

American

Creosote

Works

Bayou

Bonfouca

Cimarron

Mining

City of Perryton

Well #2

Geneva

Industries

Midland

Products

North

Cavalcade

Superfund Site

Odessa

Chromium #1

Sprague Road

Ground Water

Plume

$1000/yr

Operational Systems

Pre-operational Systems

Region 6 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs 
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 6

Notes:

1. For Cimarron Mining an indefinite completion date was provided by the RPM. 

2. The Geneva Industries system currently shutdown due to issues with the contractor.

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from 

actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

July 3, 2001

Region 6, Figure 2 -- System Projections

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

American

Creosote

Works

Bayou

Bonfouca

Cimarron

Mining

City of Perryton

Well #2

Geneva

Industries

Midland

Products

North

Cavalcade

Superfund Site

Odessa

Chromium #1

Sprague Road

Ground Water

Plume

years

Years Until Turnover

Years Until Completion

2021

2026

2031

2036

2041

2001

2006

2011

2016

Indefinite

Region 6 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative

Phase 1– Data Collection and System Screening

Region 7

July 3, 2001

In the OSWER Directive No. 9200.0-33, Transmittal of Final FY00 - FY01 Superfund Reforms

Strategy, dated July 7,2000, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response outlined a

commitment to optimize our Fund-lead, pump-and-treat (P&T) systems. To fulfill this commitment,

Headquarters is assisting Regions in evaluating their Fund-lead operating P&T systems. Phase 1 of this

initiative involves identifying all Fund-lead P&T system, collecting baseline cost and performance data

on them, and selecting up to two sites in each Region for a Remediation System Evaluation (RSE).

This report summarizes the screening process for Region 7 which was conducted during February

2001. The first section of this report presents the cost and performance data for the Region while the

second describes the screening process and system selection.

The data presented in this report reflect estimates provided by the site Remedial Project

Managers between January and May 2001. These estimates may vary from actuality. The

data– including the number, status, cost, specifications, and projections of systems– may

change over time.

Cost and Performance Data

Four Fund-lead P&T systems were identified in Region 7. Of this four, 

• one is operational, 

• two are pre-operational, and

• one is complete. 

In addition, two sites are still in the investigation stage and have potential to be pump-and-treat.

Because a remediation strategy has not yet been selected, these two sites are not discussed further in

this report.

The site that is undergoing completion, Hastings Groundwater Contamination, has reached the MCL

after approximately 10 years of operation.

Cost and performance data and other information pertaining to the identified Fund-lead P&T systems

(estimates for the pre-operational systems) were collected with a web-based questionnaire accessed

from http://www.cluin.org/optimization and stored in a database. This information is summarized in

Table 1 and provided in detail in five additional tables:
July 3, 2001 Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative

Phase 1– Data Collection and Site Screening, Region 7

Page 2 of 3

• Table 2 provides overviews of the systems by providing items such as annual costs, lead,

status, goals, and progress of each system. 

• Table 3 includes the dates marking the signing of the ROD, construction completion,

system operation and function, turnover to the state, and expected close-out. 

• Table 4 lists for each system the contact information for the site Remedial Project

Manager, the State Regulator, and the Contractor. 

• Table 5 notes for each system and the associated site if NAPLS are present, the top

contaminants of concern, and the above-ground treatment processes. 

• Table 6 lists system specifications such as the pumping rate, number of wells, number of

monitoring events per year, and other items used to determine the complexity of a system

and its potential for optimization.

Projected dates for turnover to the States and for system completion are depicted in Figure 1, and

annual costs for each system are depicted in Figure 2. 

RSE Site Selection

Evaluation of Sites for Optimization Potential

Once the information is gathered from each of the Fund-lead P&T systems in a given Region, it

becomes input for a screening methodology that attempts to determine the optimization potential for

each system. This, in turn, provides a basis for selecting two systems where RSEs will be performed. 

The factors affecting the optimization potential of a system are

• the overall cost of a given system, 

• the expected duration of the system, 

• the number of above-ground treatment processes, 

• the number of extraction wells,

• the number of monitoring events per year,

• the system downtime per year,

• the pumping rate,

• the results (if any) of a previous performance and effectiveness evaluation, and

• any social or political obstacles to implementing modifications to the system.
July 3, 2001 Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative

Phase 1– Data Collection and Site Screening, Region 7

Page 3 of 3

Table 6 summarizes the results of the screening process including the estimated life-cycle cost savings

that may result from performing an RSE. 

Selecting Sites for RSEs

The following is a list of the identified planned and operating Fund-lead P&T systems and potential

Fund-lead P&T systems in Region 7 classified as completed, operational, pre-operational, potential,

and no longer operating. As indicated, only one system is operational. By default, it was selected for

an RSE and is shown in bold.

Completed

Hastings Groundwater Contamination

Operational

Cleburn Street Well

Pre-operational

Ace Services

Valley Park TCE

Potential

Ogallala

10th Street Site

Because it is the only operating Fund-lead P&T system in Region 7, Cleburn Street Well, will be the

sole recipient of a RSE in this Region. 

The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Ogallala site is scheduled for 2002 and may involve P&T. The

ROD for the 10th Street site indicated monitoring with a contingency plan for P&T; however, during site

activities an additional source was discovered and the site is has returned to the remedial-investigation

status.
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 7

Hastings Groundwater Contamination

Number of systems 3

Number that are EPA lead 2 of 3

Number that are State lead 1 of 3

Number that are operational 1

Number that are pre-operational 2

Number where restoration is a goal 3 of 3

Number where the plume is controlled* 0 of 1

Number that are estimated to be more than 80% complete* 0 of 1

Number previously evaluated and effectiveness found sufficient* 0 of 1

Number previously evaluated and effectiveness found not sufficient* 0 of 1

Number where NAPLs are observed 1 of 3

Number with more than 1 major contaminant identified 1 of 3

Number with 3 or more treatment processes 0 of 3

Average estimated annual O&M cost (including monitoring) $300,000

Average estimated annual monitoring cost $25,000

Average number of years until turnover to the States 8.4

Average number of years until completion 15.7

*Operational sites only

10th Street Site (back in Remedial Investigation)

Region 7, Table 1 -- Summary

July 3, 2001

System Status

Operational and Pre-operational Fund-lead P&T Systems

Completed Fund-lead P&T Systems

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and 

May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from actuality. Data-- including the 

number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

No-Longer-Operating Fund-lead P&T Systems

Extent of Contamination

Average Costs and Time Frames

Region 7 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 7

System

Estimated 

Annual Cost Lead

Type of 

ROD

System 

Status System Goals 

Plume Under 

Control?

Estimated 

Progress of 

Restoration

Previous Evaluation 

of Effectiveness

Ace Services $500,000 EPA Final Design Containment & 

Restoration N/A N/A Not evaluated

Cleburn Street Well 

Site/OU2 $100,000 EPA Final Operational Containment & Restoration Unknown Unknown Not evaluated

Valley Park TCE Site - 

OU2 unknown State with Fund Money Final Predesign Containment & Restoration N/A N/A Not evaluated

Notes: 

3. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation Systems Evaluations.

Region 7, Table 2 -- System Overviews

July 3, 2001

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary 

from actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

1. Ace Services and Valley Park TCE are pre-operational systems; therefore, the associated data are estimates and some items are unknown.

2. "Estimated Progress of Restoration" refers to the estimated portion of the plume that has been restored to cleanup levels.

Region 7 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs 
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 7

System Original ROD

Last ROD 

Modification

Construction 

Completed

Operational and 

Functional

Turnover to 

State

Years Until 

Turnover

Expected 

Completion

Years Until 

Completion

Ace Services 5/5/99 9/2002 9/2003 9/2013 12.2 9/2015 14.2

Cleburn Street Well 

Site/OU2 6/7/96 9/1998 10/1999 12/2009 8.4 12/2019 18.4

Valley Park TCE Site - 

OU2 8/15/01 1/2005 1/2006 1/2006 4.5 1/2016 14.5

Region 7, Table 3 -- P&T System Histories and Projections

Date

July 3, 2001

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from 

actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

Region 7 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 7

RPM State Regulator Primary Contractor

1 Bob Stewart Cynthia Randall Gary Felkner

EPA Region 7 Kansas Dept of Health and Environment Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp

901 N. 5th St Forbes Field, Bldg 20 8400 Ward Parkway

Kansas City, KS 66101 Topeka, KS 66620 Kansas City, MO 64114

913-551-7654 785-291-3245 913-458-6583

913-551-9654 (fax) 785-296-4823 (fax) 913-458-9391 (fax)

stewart.robert@epa.gov CRandal@kdhe.state.ks.us felknerg@bv.com

2 Mary Peterson Ralph Martin David Sanders

EPA Region 7 Nebraska Department of Environmental Black and Veatch Special Projects Corp.

901 North 5th Street 1200 N Street, Suite 400 The Atrium 6601 College Boulevard

Kansas City, KS 66101 Lincoln, NE 68509-8922 Overland Park, KS 66211

913-551-7882 402-471-3120 913-458-6605

913-551-7063 (fax) 402-471-2909 (fax) 913-458-0000 (fax)

peterson.mary@epa.gov ralph.martin@ndeq.state.ne.us SandersHD@bv.com

3 Steve Auchterlonie Dave Mosby

EPA Region 7 MDNR - Superfund Unit

901 N. 5th St. P.O. Box 176

Kansas City, KS 66101 Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176

913-551-7778 573-751-1288

913-551-7437 (fax) 573-751-7869 (fax)

auchterlonie.steve@epa.gov nrmosbd@mail.dnr.state.mo.us

Cleburn Street Well 

Site/OU2

Valley Park TCE Site - OU2

Region 7, Table 4 -- System Contact Information

July 3, 2001

System

Ace Services

Region 7 Fund-lead, P&T Systems Information provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection 

and System Screening, Region 7

NAPLS 

Present?

# of 

Identified 

Contam. Contaminants

Treatment 

Processes

Ace Services Observed 1 Chromium Ion Exchange

Cleburn Street 

Well Site/OU2

Don't know 1 Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE) Air Stripping

Not present 2 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Air Stripping

Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These 

estimates may, in some cases, vary from actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and 

specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

Region 7, Table 5 -- Top Contaminants Identified by RPMs

July 3, 2001

System

Valley Park TCE 

Site - OU2

Region 7 Fund-lead, P&T system Data provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 7

System

Potential 

Reduction in 

Life-Cycle 

Costs

Potential LifeCycle SavingsExpected 

Duration

Previous 

Evaluation of 

Effectiveness

Approximate 

Pumping 

Rate (gpm)

Number of 

Extraction 

Wells

Number of 

Treatment 

Processes

Groundwater 

Samples per 

Year

Obstacles to 

making 

(minor/major) 

changes

Cleburn Street Well 

Site/OU2 17.5% $179,042 18.4 Not evaluated 90 3 1 32 Minor Minor

Ace Services 32.5% $1,557,210 14.2 Not evaluated 800 12 1 124 Minor 

Minor

Valley Park TCE Site - 

OU2 unknown unknown 14.5 Not evaluated unknown unknown 1 unknown Minor 

Minor

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary 

from actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

Region 7, Table 6 -- Screening Summary

July 3, 2001

Operational

Pre-Operational

4. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation System Evaluations.

Notes: 

1. "Potential Reduction in Life-cycle Costs" result from a screening methodology that incorporates system-specific information. The reductions do 

not include the cost of an RSE. 

2. "Potential Life-cycle Savings" were estimated using using system-specific information and incorporate the cost of the RSE. Values in 

parentheses denote costs (negative savings).

3. "Groundwater Samples per Year" is calculated by multiplying the number of monitoring wells sampled by the number of monitoring events per 

year.

Region 7 Fund-lead, P&T system Data provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 7

Notes: 

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary 

from actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

1. Ace Services and Valley Park TCE are pre-operational systems; therefore, the associated data are estimates and some items are unknown.

Region 7, Figure 1 -- Estimated Annual Costs of Systems

July 3, 2001

$100

$500

unknown 

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

Ace Services

Cleburn Street

Well Site/OU2

Valley Park

TCE Site - OU2

$1000/yr

Operational Systems

Pre-operational Systems

Region 7 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs 
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 7

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from 

actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

July 3, 2001

Region 7, Figure 2 -- System Projections

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

Ace Services

Cleburn Street Well

Site/OU2

Valley Park TCE

Site - OU2

years

Years Until Turnover

Years Until Completion

2021

2026

2031

2036

2041

2001

2006

2011

2016

Region 7 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative

Phase 1– Data Collection and System Screening

Region 9

July 3, 2001

In the OSWER Directive No. 9200.0-33, Transmittal of Final FY00 - FY01 Superfund Reforms

Strategy, dated July 7,2000, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response outlined a

commitment to optimize our Fund-lead, pump-and-treat (P&T) systems. To fulfill this commitment,

Headquarters is assisting Regions in evaluating their Fund-lead operating P&T systems. Phase 1 of this

initiative involves identifying all Fund-lead P&T system, collecting baseline cost and performance data

on them, and selecting up to two sites in each Region for a Remediation System Evaluation (RSE).

This report summarizes the screening process for Region 9 which was conducted from January through

April 2001. The first section of this report presents the cost and performance data for the Region while

the second describes the screening process and system selection.

The data presented in this report reflect estimates provided by the site Remedial Project

Managers between January and May 2001. These estimates may vary from actuality. The

data– including the number, status, cost, specifications, and projections of systems– may

change over time.

Cost and Performance Data

Four Fund-lead P&T systems were identified in Region 9. Of this four, two are classified as

operational and two are classified as pre-operational (i.e., pre-design, design, being installed, or

installed but not operating). Region 9 has a number of other Fund-lead sites; however, these sites are

classified as well-head treatment projects rather than P&T systems and are not considered in this

project.

Cost and performance data and other information pertaining to the identified Fund-lead P&T systems

(estimates for the pre-operational system) were collected with a web-based questionnaire accessed

from http://www.cluin.org/optimization and stored in a database. This information is summarized in

Table 1 and provided in detail in five additional tables:

• Table 2 provides overviews of the systems by providing items such as annual costs, lead,

status, goals, and progress of each system. 

• Table 3 includes the dates marking the signing of the ROD, construction completion,

system operation and function, turnover to the state, and expected close-out. 
July 3, 2001 Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative

Phase 1– Data Collection and Site Screening, Region 9

Page 2 of 3

• Table 4 lists for each system the contact information for the site Remedial Project

Manager, the State Regulator, and the Contractor. 

• Table 5 notes for each system and the associated site if NAPLS are present, the top

contaminants of concern, and the above-ground treatment processes. 

• Table 6 lists system specifications such as the pumping rate, number of wells, number of

monitoring events per year, and other items used to determine the complexity of a system

and its potential for optimization.

Projected dates for turnover to the States and for system completion are depicted in Figure 1, and

annual costs for each system are depicted in Figure 2. 

RSE Site Selection

Evaluation of Sites for Optimization Potential

Once the information is gathered from each of the Fund-lead P&T systems in a given Region, it

becomes input for a screening methodology that attempts to determine the optimization potential for

each system. This, in turn, provides a basis for selecting two systems where RSEs will be performed. 

The factors affecting the optimization potential of a system are

• the overall cost of a given system, 

• the expected duration of the system, 

• the number of above-ground treatment processes, 

• the number of extraction wells,

• the number of monitoring events per year,

• the system downtime per year,

• the pumping rate,

• the results (if any) of a previous performance and effectiveness evaluation, and

• any social or political obstacles to implementing modifications to the system.

Table 6 summarizes the results of the screening process including the estimated life-cycle cost savings

that may result from performing an RSE. 
July 3, 2001 Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative

Phase 1– Data Collection and Site Screening, Region 9

Page 3 of 3

Selecting Two Sites for RSEs

The following is a list of the identified Fund-lead P&T systems in Region 9 classified as operational and

pre-operational. Those in bold were selected for RSEs. 

Operational

Newmark

Selma Pressure Treating

Pre-operational

Modesto

Muscoy

Selma Pressure Treating and Modesto were selected for RSEs. Despite its operational status and high

operating costs, Newmark was not selected for an RSE due to political complications. Modesto,

although classified as pre-operational, is scheduled to be operational and funcational in May 2001,

which is approximately two months before an RSE would be conducted. Due to the lack of other

operating Fund-lead P&T systems in the Region, and the existing (although minimal) operational history,

Modesto was selected as the second site in Region 9 to receive an RSE.
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 9

Number of systems 4

Number that are EPA lead 4 of 4

Number that are State lead 0 of 4

Number that are operational 2

Number that are pre-operational 2

Number where restoration is a goal 1 of 4

Number where the plume is controlled* 2 of 2

Number that are estimated to be more than 80% complete* 0 of 2

Number previously evaluated and effectiveness found sufficient* 1 of 2

Number previously evaluated and effectiveness found not sufficient* 0 of 2

Number where NAPLs are observed 1 of 4

Number with more than 1 major contaminant identified 3 of 4

Number with 3 or more treatment processes 0 of 4

Average estimated annual O&M cost (including monitoring) $650,000

Average estimated annual monitoring cost $65,000

Average number of years until turnover to the States 9.6

Average number of years until completion 19.7

*Operational sites only

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and 

May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from actuality. Data-- including the 

number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

Extent of Contamination

Average Costs and Time Frames

Region 9, Table 1 -- Summary

July 3, 2001

System Status

Operational and Pre-operational Fund-lead P&T Systems

Completed Fund-lead P&T Systems

Region 9 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 9

System

Estimated 

Annual Cost Lead

Type of 

ROD

System 

Status System Goals 

Plume Under 

Control?

Estimated 

Progress of 

Restoration

Previous Evaluation 

of Effectiveness

Modesto Superfund Site $300,000 EPA Interim Installed Containment N/A N/A Not evaluated

Muscoy $1,100,000 EPA Interim Installed Containment N/A N/A Not evaluated

Newmark $900,000 EPA Interim Operational Containment Yes Unknown Not evaluated

Selma Treating Co. $300,000 EPA Final Operational Containment & 

Restoration Yes less than 20% Sufficient

Notes: 

3. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation Systems Evaluations.

Region 9, Table 2 -- System Overviews

July 3, 2001

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary 

from actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

1. Modesto and Muscoy are pre-operational systems; therefore, the associated data are estimates and some items are unknown.

2. "Estimated Progress of Restoration" refers to the estimated portion of the plume that has been restored to cleanup levels.

Region 9 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs 
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 9

System Original ROD

Last ROD 

Modification

Construction 

Completed

Operational and 

Functional

Turnover to 

State

Years Until 

Turnover

Expected 

Completion

Years Until 

Completion

Modesto Superfund Site 9/26/97 7/2000 5/2002 5/2012 10.8 5/2022 20.8

Muscoy 3/24/95 10/2003 10/2004 10/2014 13.3 10/2024 23.3

Newmark 8/4/93 10/1998 10/1998 10/2008 7.3 10/2028 27.3

Selma Treating Co. 9/24/88 6/30/01 9/1998 10/1998 10/2008 7.3 10/2008 7.3

Region 9, Table 3 -- P&T System Histories and Projections

Date

July 3, 2001

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from 

actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

Region 9 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 9

RPM State Regulator Primary Contractor

1 David Seter Emanuel Mensah Chris Lichens

EPA Region 9 State of California, DTSC Ecology and Environment

75 Hawthorne Street 5796 Corporate Avenue 415-981-2811

San Francisco, CA 94105 Cypress, CA 90630

415-744-2212 916-255-3704

seter.david@epa.gov

2 Kim Hoang Yasser Aref Dwayne Duetcher

EPA Region 9 CalEPA Department of Toxic Substances URS

75 Hawthorne Street 5796 Corporate Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94105 Cypress, CA 90630

415-744-2370 714-484-5349

hoang.kim@epa.gov

3 Kim Hoang Yasser Aref Dwayne Duetcher

EPA Region 9 CalEPA Dept Toxic Substances Control URS

75 Hawthorne Street 5796 Corporate Ave.

San Francisco, CA 94105 Cypress, CA 90630

415-744-2370 714-484-5349

hoang.kim@epa.gov

4 Michelle Lau Chris Sherman John Kirschbaum

EPA Region 9 DPES Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District

75 Hawthorne Street 10151 Croyden Way, Suite 3 12565 West Center Road

San Francisco, CA 94105 Sacramento, CA 95827 Omaha, NE 68144-3869

415-744-2227 916-255-3706 402-293-2525

415-744-2180 (fax) 916-255-3697 (fax) 402-221-7838 (fax)

lau.michelle@epa.gov

Muscoy

Newmark

Selma Treating Co.

Region 9, Table 4 -- System Contact Information

July 3, 2001

System

Modesto Superfund Site

Region 9 Fund-lead, P&T Systems Information provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection 

and System Screening, Region 9

NAPLS 

Present?

# of 

Identified 

Contam. Contaminants Treatment Processes

Don't know 2 perchloroethylene Air Stripping

Carbon Adsorption

Muscoy Don't know 1 Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE) Carbon Adsorption

Newmark Don't know 1 Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE) Carbon Adsorption

Selma Treating 

Co.

Not present

1

Chromium Filtration

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These 

estimates may, in some cases, vary from actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and 

specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

Region 9, Table 5 -- Top Contaminants Identified by RPMs

July 3, 2001

Modesto 

Superfund Site

System

Region 9 Fund-lead, P&T system Data provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 9

System

Potential 

Reduction in 

Life-Cycle 

Costs

Potential LifeCycle SavingsExpected 

Duration

Previous 

Evaluation of 

Effectiveness

Approximate 

Pumping 

Rate (gpm)

Number of 

Extraction 

Wells

Number of 

Treatment 

Processes

Groundwater 

Samples per 

Year

Obstacles to 

making 

(minor/major) 

changes

Newmark 25.5% $3,321,528 27.3 Not evaluated 12000 8 1 30 Minor 

Moderate

Selma Treating Co. 17.0% $261,332 7.3 Sufficient 150 6 1 80 Minor 

Severe

Modesto Superfund 

Site 20.0% $730,227 20.8 Not evaluated 50 1 2 40 Minor Minor

Muscoy 27.0% $3,958,747 23.3 Not evaluated 9000 5 1 60 Minor 

Severe

4. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation System Evaluations.

Notes: 

1. "Potential Reduction in Life-cycle Costs" result from a screening methodology that incorporates system-specific information. The reductions do 

not include the cost of an RSE. 

2. "Potential Life-cycle Savings" were estimated using using system-specific information and incorporate the cost of the RSE. Values in 

parentheses denote costs (negative savings).

3. "Groundwater Samples per Year" is calculated by multiplying the number of monitoring wells sampled by the number of monitoring events per 

year.

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary 

from actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

Region 9, Table 6 -- Screening Summary

July 3, 2001

Operational

Pre-Operational

Region 9 Fund-lead, P&T system Data provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 9

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary 

from actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

Region 9, Figure 1 -- Estimated Annual Costs of Systems

July 3, 2001

$900

$300 $300

$1,100

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

Modesto

Superfund Site

Muscoy

Newmark

Selma Treating

Co.

$1000/yr

Operational Systems

Pre-operational Systems

Region 9 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs 
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 9

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from 

actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

July 3, 2001

Region 9, Figure 2 -- System Projections

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

Modesto

Superfund Site

Muscoy

Newmark

Selma Treating

Co.

years

Years Until Turnover

Years Until Completion

2021

2026

2031

2036

2041

2001

2006

2011

2016

Region 9 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative

Phase 1– Data Collection and System Screening

Region 10

July 3, 2001

In the OSWER Directive No. 9200.0-33, Transmittal of Final FY00 - FY01 Superfund Reforms

Strategy, dated July 7,2000, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response outlined a

commitment to optimize our Fund-lead, pump-and-treat (P&T) systems. To fulfill this commitment,

Headquarters is assisting Regions in evaluating their Fund-lead operating P&T systems. Phase 1 of this

initiative involves identifying all Fund-lead P&T system, collecting baseline cost and performance data

on them, and selecting up to two sites in each Region for a Remediation System Evaluation (RSE).

This report summarizes the screening process for Region 10 which was conducted during January

through March 2001. The first section of this report presents the cost and performance data for the

Region while the second describes the screening process and system selection.

The data presented in this report reflect estimates provided by the site Remedial Project

Managers between January and May 2001. These estimates may vary from actuality. The

data– including the number, status, cost, specifications, and projections of systems– may

change over time.

Cost and Performance Data

Five Fund-lead P&T systems were identified in Region 10. Of this five, four are operational and one is

pre-operational (i.e., pre-design, design, being installed, or installed but not operating).

Cost and performance data and other information pertaining to the identified Fund-lead P&T systems

(estimates for the pre-operational systems) were collected with a web-based questionnaire accessed

from http://www.cluin.org/optimization and stored in a database. This information is summarized in

Table 1 and provided in detail in five additional tables:

• Table 2 provides overviews of the systems by providing items such as annual costs, lead,

status, goals, and progress of each system. 

• Table 3 includes the dates marking the signing of the ROD, construction completion,

system operation and function, turnover to the state, and expected close-out. 

• Table 4 lists for each system the contact information for the site Remedial Project

Manager, the State Regulator, and the Contractor. 
July 3, 2001 Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative

Phase 1– Data Collection and Site Screening, Region 10

Page 2 of 3

• Table 5 notes for each system and the associated site if NAPLS are present, the top

contaminants of concern, and the above-ground treatment processes. 

• Table 6 lists system specifications such as the pumping rate, number of wells, number of

monitoring events per year, and other items used to determine the complexity of a system

and its potential for optimization.

Projected dates for turnover to the States and for system completion are depicted in Figure 1, and

annual costs for each system are depicted in Figure 2. 

RSE Site Selection

Evaluation of Sites for Optimization Potential

Once the information is gathered from each of the Fund-lead P&T systems in a given Region, it

becomes input for a screening methodology that attempts to determine the optimization potential for

each system. This, in turn, provides a basis for selecting two systems where RSEs will be performed. 

The factors affecting the optimization potential of a system are

• the overall cost of a given system, 

• the expected duration of the system, 

• the number of above-ground treatment processes, 

• the number of extraction wells,

• the number of monitoring events per year,

• the system downtime per year,

• the pumping rate,

• the results (if any) of a previous performance and effectiveness evaluation, and

• any social or political obstacles to implementing modifications to the system.

To estimate potential life-cycle savings from optimization, a default reduction in life-cycle costs of 20%

is assumed and is adjusted based on the above factors. For example, according to the screening

methodology, a system with many above-ground treatment processes and a high pumping rate may

exhibit greater than a 20% reduction in life-cycle costs whereas a system with few extraction wells and

one treatment process may exhibit less than a 20% reduction in life-cycle costs.

Table 6 summarizes the results of the screening process including the estimated life-cycle cost savings

that may result from performing an RSE. 
July 3, 2001 Nationwide Superfund Reform Initiative

Phase 1– Data Collection and Site Screening, Region 10

Page 3 of 3

Selecting Two Sites for RSEs

The following is a list of the identified Fund-lead P&T systems in Region 10 classified as operational

and pre-operational. Those in bold were selected for RSEs. 

Operational

McCormick and Baxter Creosoting

Boomsnub/Airco

Commencement Bay/South Tacoma Channel 12A

Wyckoff Co./Eagle Harbor

Pre-operational

Bunker Hill

Only operational systems were considered for RSEs in this Region. Because Boomsnub/Airco is

anticipating transition to the responsible party, substantial cost savings to the Superfund program would

not be realized by optimizing this site. Because a pilot study to determine the effectiveness of steam

injection at Wyckoff Co./Eagle Harbor is planned for the summer of 2001 and the site managers are

already investigating alternative technologies, this site was not selected for an RSE. Thus,

Commencement Bay/South Tacoma Channel 12A and McCormick and Baxter are the two sites

selected to receive RSEs in Region 10.
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 10

Number of systems 5

Number that are EPA lead 4 of 5

Number that are State lead 1 of 5

Number that are operational 4

Number that are pre-operational 1

Number where restoration is a goal 3 of 5

Number where the plume is controlled* 3 of 4

Number that are estimated to be more than 80% complete* 0 of 4

Number previously evaluated and effectiveness found sufficient* 2 of 4

Number previously evaluated and effectiveness found not sufficient* 2 of 4

Number where NAPLs are observed 3 of 5

Number with more than 1 major contaminant identified 5 of 5

Number with 3 or more treatment processes 3 of 5

Average estimated annual O&M cost (including monitoring) $512,500

Average estimated annual monitoring cost $57,800

Average number of years until turnover to the States 13.9

Average number of years until completion 29.4

*Operational sites only

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and 

May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from actuality. Data-- including the 

number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

Extent of Contamination

Average Costs and Time Frames

Region 10, Table 1 -- Summary

July 3, 2001

System Status

Operational and Pre-operational Fund-lead P&T Systems

Completed Fund-lead P&T Systems

Region 10 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 10

System

Estimated 

Annual Cost Lead

Type of 

ROD

System 

Status System Goals 

Plume Under 

Control?

Estimated 

Progress of 

Restoration

Previous Evaluation 

of Effectiveness

Boomsnub/Airco / SiteWide Ground Water OU $1,000,000 EPA Final Operational Containment & 

Restoration Yes Unknown Sufficient

Bunker Hill Superfund 

Site unknown EPA Final Predesign Restoration N/A N/A Not evaluated

Commencement Bay, 

South Tacoma Channel, 

Well 12A

$300,000 EPA Final Operational Containment & 

Restoration Yes less than 20% Not Sufficient

McCormick & Baxter 

Creosoting Co. $250,000 State with Fund Money Final Operational Containment No Restoration is not a goal Sufficient

Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor 

Superfund Site $500,000 EPA Interim Operational Containment Yes Restoration is not a goal Not Sufficient

Notes: 

3. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation System Evaluations.

Region 10, Table 2 -- System Overviews

July 3, 2001

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary 

from actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

1. Bunker Hill Superfund Site is pre-operational; therefore, the associated data are estimates and some items are unknown.

2. "Estimated Progress of Restoration" refers to the estimated portion of the plume that has been restored to cleanup levels.

Region 10 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs 
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 10

System Original ROD

Last ROD 

Modification

Construction 

Completed

Operational and 

Functional

Turnover to 

State

Years Until 

Turnover

Expected 

Completion

Years Until 

Completion

Boomsnub/Airco / SiteWide Ground Water OU 2/3/00 10/2000 12/2001 12/2011 10.4 10/2030 29.3

Bunker Hill Superfund 

Site 9/1/92 12/2010 12/2020 12/2030 29.4 12/2050 49.4

Commencement Bay, 

South Tacoma Channel, 

Well 12A

1/1/85 1/1/87 6/1988 5/1988 1/2004 2.5 1/2011 9.5

McCormick & Baxter 

Creosoting Co. 3/1/96 3/1/98 3/1996 3/1996 3/2006 4.7 Indefinite Indefinite

Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor 

Superfund Site 9/29/94 2/1990 2/1990 1/2024 22.5 Indefinite Indefinite

Region 10, Table 3 -- P&T System Histories and Projections

Date

July 3, 2001

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from 

actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

Region 10 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 10

RPM State Regulator Primary Contractor

1 Debra Yamamoto Dan Alexanian Jerry DeMuro

EPA Region 10 Department of Ecology - SWRO URS, Inc.

1200 Sixth Avenue - ECL-113 P.0. Box 47775 1500 Century Square, 1501 4th Ave, Suite 

1500

Seattle, WA 98101 Olympia, WA 98504 Seattle, WA 98101

206-553-7216 360-407-6249 206-674-1800

206-553-0124 (fax) 360-407-6305 (fax) 206-674-1801 (fax)

yamamoto.debbie@epa.gov dale461@ecy.wa.gov Jerry_DeMuro@urscop.com

2 Bunker Hill Superfund Site Carmella Grandinetti Nick Zilka

EPA Region 10 Idaho Department of 

Environmental Quality

1200 Sixth Avenue 1005 W. McKinley Avenue

Seattle, WA 98101 Kellog, ID 83837

206-553-8696 208-783-5781

206-553-0124 (fax) 208-783-4561 (fax)

grandinetti.cami@epa.gov nzilka@nidlink.com

3 Kevin Rochlin Tom Abbott

EPA Region 10 URS

ECL-112, 1200 6th Avenue 2401 4th Avenue, Suite 1000

Seattle, WA 98101 Seattle, WA 98121

206-553-2106 206-674-1800

206-553-0124 (fax) 206-674-1801 (fax)

rochlin.kevin@epa.gov abbot.thomas@urs.com

Region 10, Table 4 -- System Contact Information

July 3, 2001

System

Boomsnub/Airco / SiteWide Ground Water OU

Commencement Bay, South 

Tacoma Channel, Well 12A

Region 10 Fund-lead, P&T Systems Information provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 10

RPM State Regulator Primary Contractor

Region 10, Table 4 -- System Contact Information

July 3, 2001

System

4 Boomsnub/Airco / Site- Alan Goodman William Dana John Montgomery

EPA Region 10 Oregon Dept. Env. Quality Ecology and Environment

811 SW 6th Avenue, 3rd Floor 811 SW 6th Avenue 333 SW Fifth

Portland, OR 97204 Portland, OR 97204 Portland, OR 97204

503-326-3685 503-229-6530 503-248-5600

503-326-3399 (fax) 503-229-5830 (fax) 503-248-5577 (fax)

goodman.al@epa.gov Dana.William.H@DEQ.State.OR. JMontgomery@ene.com

5 Hanh Gold Guy Barrett Ken Scheffler

EPA Region 10 State of Washington Department 

of Ecology CH2M HILL

1200 Sixth Avenue, ECL-115 P.O. Box 47600 P.O. Box 91500

Seattle, WA 98101 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 Bellevue, WA 98009-2050

206-553-0171 360-407-7244 425-453-5000

206-553-0124 (fax) 360-407-7154 (fax) 425-462-5957 (fax)

gold.hanh@epa.gov gbar461@ecy.wa.gov kscheffl@ch2m.com

Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor 

Superfund Site

McCormick & Baxter 

Creosoting Co.

Region 10 Fund-lead, P&T Systems Information provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection 

and System Screening, Region 10

NAPLS 

Present?

# of 

Identified 

Contam. Contaminants

Treatment 

Processes

Suspected 6 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Air Stripping

1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE) Carbon Adsorption

1,2-Dichloroethane Ion Exchange

Trichlorethylene (TCE)/Tetrachloroelthylene (PCE)

Hexavalent Chromium

Total Chromium

Not present 7 Asbestos Other/Not Sure

Creosote

Lindane

Merphos

RDX (cyclonite)

Selenium

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)

Observed 5 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Carbon Adsorption

1,2-Dichloroethene

Cis-1,2-dichloroethene

TCE and Vinyl chloride

Trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene

Observed 4 Arsenic Carbon Adsorption

Chlorinated polyaromatic hydrocarbons (CPAHs) Filtration

Creosote/Pentachlorophenol (PCP) Ion Exchange

Pentachlorophenol (PCP) Other/Not Sure

Observed 6 Benzo(a)anthracene Biological 

Benzo(a)pyrene Carbon Adsorption

Benzo(b)fluoranthene Filtration

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

Pentachlorophenol (PCP)

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons

2. Other treatment processes at the McCormick and Baxter Creosoting Co. include dissolved air flotation (DAF) 

and NAPL separation.

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These 

estimates may, in some cases, vary from actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and 

specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

Notes: 

1. Bunker Hill Superfund Site is pre-operational, and treatment processes are not yet determined.

Commencement 

Bay, South 

Tacoma Channel, 

Well 12A

McCormick & 

Baxter Creosoting 

Co.

Wyckoff/Eagle 

Harbor Superfund 

Site

Region 10, Table 5 -- Top Contaminants Identified by RPMs

July 3, 2001

System

Boomsnub/Airco 

/ Site-Wide 

Ground Water OU

Bunker Hill 

Superfund Site

Region 10 Fund-lead, P&T system Data provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 10

System

Potential 

Reduction in 

Life-Cycle 

Costs

Potential LifeCycle SavingsExpected 

Duration

Previous 

Evaluation of 

Effectiveness

Approximate 

Pumping Rate 

(gpm)

Number of 

Extraction 

Wells

Number of 

Treatment 

Processes

Groundwater 

Samples per 

Year

Obstacles to 

making 

(minor/major) 

changes

Boomsnub/Airco / 

Site-Wide Ground 

Water OU

27.5% $4,123,527 29.3 Sufficient 135 22 3 160 Moderate 

Severe

Commencement Bay, 

South Tacoma 

Channel, Well 12A

23.0% $465,677 9.5 Not Sufficient 150 5 1 40 Minor 

Moderate

McCormick & Baxter 

Creosoting Co. 30.0% $1,127,934 Indefinite Sufficient 3 6 4 50 Minor 

Minor

Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor 

Superfund Site 25.5% $1,934,988 Indefinite Not Sufficient 80 8 3 20 Minor Moderate

Pre-operational

Bunker Hill Superfund 

Site unknown unknown 49.4 Not evaluated 0 0 Unknown 232 Minor Minor

Region 10, Table 6 -- Screening Summary

July 3, 2001

Operational

4. "Groundwater Samples per Year" is calculated by multiplying the number of monitoring wells sampled by the number of monitoring 

events per year.

Notes: 

5. Previous evaluations of effectiveness may include 5-year reviews but do not include Remediation System Evaluations.

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from 

actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

1. Annual O&M costs and system specifications have not been determined for the Bunker Hill Superfund Site.

2. "Potential Reduction in Life-cycle Costs" result from a screening methodology that incorporates system-specific information. The 

reductions do not include the cost of an RSE.

3. "Potential Life-cycle Savings" were estimated using using system-specific information and incorporate the cost of the RSE. Values in 

parentheses denote costs (negative savings).

Region 10 Fund-lead, P&T system Data provided by site RPMs
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 10

Notes: 

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary 

from actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

1. Bunker Hill Superfund Site is pre-operational, and O&M costs have not been estimated.

July 3, 2001

Region 10, Figure 1 -- Estimated Annual Costs of Systems

$1,000

$300

$500

$250

unknown 

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

$900

$1,000

Boomsnub/Airco

/ Site-Wide

Ground Water

OU

Bunker Hill

Superfund Site

Commencement

Bay, South

Tacoma

Channel, Well

12A

McCormick &

Baxter

Creosoting Co.

Wyckoff/Eagle

Harbor

Superfund Site

$1000/yr

Operational Systems

Pre-operational Systems

Region 10 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs 
Nationwide Superfund 

Reform Initiative

Phase 1 -- Data Collection

 and System Screening, Region 10

Data reflect estimates provided by site Remedial Project Managers between February and May 2001. These estimates may, in some cases, vary from 

actuality. Data-- including the number, status, cost, projections, and specifications of systems-- may change overtime.

July 3, 2001

Region 10, Figure 2 -- System Projections

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

Boomsnub/Airco 

/ Site-Wide

Ground Water

OU

Bunker Hill

Superfund Site

Commencement

Bay, South

Tacoma Channel,

Well 12A

McCormick &

Baxter

Creosoting Co.

Wyckoff/Eagle

Harbor

Superfund Site

years

Years Until Turnover

Years Until Completion

2021

2026

2031

2036

2041

2001

2006

2011

2016

50 years Indefinite Indefinite

Region 10 Fund-lead, P&T systems Data provided by the site RPMs
APPENDIX C
REGION 1 SCREENING CALCULATIONS
1

RPM First Name: Melissa Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Taylor

RPM phone: 617-918-1310

RPM fax: 617-918-1291

RPM email: Taylor.MelissaG@epa.gov

Name of Site: Baird & McGuire Superfund Site

Site City: Holbrook

Site State: MA

Site Region: 1

Units Value

$/yr $3,500,000

yrs 21.3 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $45,191,087

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C C -2.5% Performance evaluated and found sufficient

# 7 0.0% 5 to 9 wells

gpm 150 0.0% 100 to 500 gpm

wks 2 2.5% 2.00 - 3.99 wks

# 4 5.0% 4 or more processes

# 80 5.0% 75 or more

yrs 21.3 0.0% 20 yrs or more

A-F E -2.5% moderate difficulty for minor changes, severe for major changes

27.5%

27.5% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$45,191,087

Estimated potential savings (%): - 27.5%

Subtotal $12,427,549

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$12,402,549

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->
2

RPM First Name: Elaine Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Stanley

RPM phone: 617-918-1332

RPM fax: 617-918-1291

RPM email: stanley.elainet@epa.gov

Name of Site: Charles George Landfill Superfund Site

Site City: Tyngsboro

Site State: MA

Site Region: 1

Units Value

$/yr $450,000

yrs 26.7 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $6,552,022

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5% Performance not evaluated

# 9 0.0% 5 to 9 wells

gpm 30 -2.5% 10 to 99.99 gpm

wks 2 2.5% 2.00 - 3.99 wks

# 1 -2.5% 0 or 1 processes

# 40 0.0% 25.00 to 49.99

yrs 26.7 0.0% 20 yrs or more

A-F E -2.5% moderate difficulty for minor changes, severe for major changes

17.5%

17.5% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$6,552,022

Estimated potential savings (%): - 17.5%

Subtotal $1,146,604

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$1,121,604

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate
3

RPM First Name: Edward Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Hathaway

RPM phone: 617-918-1372

RPM fax: 617-918-1291

RPM email: hathaway.ed@epa.gov

Name of Site: Eastern Surplus Company Superfund Site

Site City: Meddybemps

Site State: ME

Site Region: 1

Units Value

$/yr $200,000

yrs 5.7 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $966,468

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5% Performance not evaluated

# 12 2.5% 10 or more wells

gpm 20 -2.5% 10 to 99.99 gpm

wks 2 2.5% 2.00 - 3.99 wks

# 3 2.5% 3 processes

# 60 2.5% 50.00 to 74.99

yrs 5.7 -5.0% 5.00 - 9.99 yrs

A-F B 3.0% little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes

28.0%

28.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$966,468

Estimated potential savings (%): - 28.0%

Subtotal $270,611

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$245,611

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->
4

RPM First Name: Derrick Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Golden

RPM phone: 617-918-1448

RPM fax: 617-918-1291

RPM email: golden.derrick@epa.gov

Name of Site: Groveland Wells Superfund Site

Site City: Groveland

Site State: MA

Site Region: 1

Units Value

$/yr $500,000

yrs 29.3 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $7,601,834

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C C -2.5% Performance evaluated and found sufficient

# 10 2.5% 10 or more wells

gpm 140 0.0% 100 to 500 gpm

wks 1 0.0% <2 wks

# 4 5.0% 4 or more processes

# 21 -2.5% <25

yrs 29.3 0.0% 20 yrs or more

A-F A 5.0% little difficulty for minor changes or major changes 

27.5%

27.5% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$7,601,834

Estimated potential savings (%): - 27.5%

Subtotal $2,090,504

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$2,065,504

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate
5

RPM First Name: Dick Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Goehlert

RPM phone: 617-918-1335

RPM fax: 617-918-1291

RPM email: goehlert.dick@epa.gov

Name of Site: Kearsarge Metallurgical Corp.

Site City: Conway

Site State: NH

Site Region: 1

Units Value

$/yr $250,000

yrs 3.7 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $819,414

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C C -2.5% Performance evaluated and found sufficient

# 14 2.5% 10 or more wells

gpm 42 -2.5% 10 to 99.99 gpm

wks 4 5.0% 4 wks or more

# 2 0.0% 2 processes

# 60 2.5% 50.00 to 74.99

yrs 3.7 -15.0% 2.00 - 4.99yrs

A-F D 0.0% moderate difficulty for minor changes or major changes

10.0%

10.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$819,414

Estimated potential savings (%): - 10.0%

Subtotal $81,941

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$56,941

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->
6

RPM First Name: Cheryl Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Sprague

RPM phone: 617 918-1244

RPM fax: 617 918-1291

RPM email: Sprague.cheryl@epa.gov

Name of Site: Keefe Environmental Systems

Site City: Epping

Site State: NH

Site Region: 1

Units Value

$/yr $200,000

yrs 1.7 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $312,230

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C C -2.5% Performance evaluated and found sufficient

# 4 -2.5% 3 to 4 wells

gpm 20 -2.5% 10 to 99.99 gpm

wks 2 2.5% 2.00 - 3.99 wks

# 3 2.5% 3 processes

# 82 5.0% 75 or more

yrs 1.7 -20.0% <2 yrs

A-F A 5.0% little difficulty for minor changes or major changes 

7.5%

7.5% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$312,230

Estimated potential savings (%): - 7.5%

Subtotal $23,417

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

-$1,583

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate
7

RPM First Name: RICHARD Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: GOEHLERT

RPM phone: 617-918-1335

RPM fax: 617-918-1291

RPM email: GOEHLERT.DICK@EPA.GOV

Name of Site: Savage Well Municipal Water System

Site City: Milford

Site State: NH

Site Region: 1

Units Value

$/yr $500,000

yrs 7.2 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $2,950,900

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5% Performance not evaluated

# 4 -2.5% 3 to 4 wells

gpm 100 0.0% 100 to 500 gpm

wks 4 5.0% 4 wks or more

# 3 2.5% 3 processes

# 114 5.0% 75 or more

yrs 7.2 -5.0% 5.00 - 9.99 yrs

A-F A 5.0% little difficulty for minor changes or major changes 

32.5%

32.5% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$2,950,900

Estimated potential savings (%): - 32.5%

Subtotal $959,042

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$934,042

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->
8

RPM First Name: Chester Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Janowski

RPM phone: 617-918-1324

RPM fax: 617-918-1291

RPM email: janowski.chet@epa.gov

Name of Site: Silresim Chemical Corp.

Site City: Lowell

Site State: MA

Site Region: 1

Units Value

$/yr $1,400,000

yrs 15.9 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $15,126,499

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C B 5.0% Performance evaluated and found insufficient

# 31 2.5% 10 or more wells

gpm 25 -2.5% 10 to 99.99 gpm

wks 2 2.5% 2.00 - 3.99 wks

# 4 5.0% 4 or more processes

# 94 5.0% 75 or more

yrs 15.9 -2.5% 10.00 - 19.99 yrs

A-F A 5.0% little difficulty for minor changes or major changes 

40.0%

40.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$15,126,499

Estimated potential savings (%): - 40.0%

Subtotal $6,050,600

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$6,025,600

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate
REGION 2 SCREENING CALCULATIONS
1

RPM First Name: Christos Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Tsiamis

RPM phone: 212-637-4257

RPM fax: 212-637-3966

RPM email: tsiamis.christos@epa.gov

Name of Site: American Thermostat

Site City: South Cairo

Site State: NY

Site Region: 2

Units Value

$/yr $1,175,000

yrs 26.7 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $17,108,057

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C C -2.5% Performance evaluated and found sufficient

# 14 2.5% 10 or more wells

gpm 70 -2.5% 10 to 99.99 gpm

wks 0 0.0% <2 wks

# 4 5.0% 4 or more processes

# 228 5.0% 75 or more

yrs 26.7 0.0% 20 yrs or more

A-F C 2.0% little difficulty for minor changes, severe for major changes

29.5%

29.5% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary 0

$17,108,057

Estimated potential savings (%): - 29.5%

Subtotal $5,046,877

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$5,021,877

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->
2

RPM First Name: Edward Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Finnerty

RPM phone: 212 637 4367

RPM fax: 212-637-4393

RPM email: Finnerty.Ed@EPA.GOV

Name of Site: Bog Creek Farm LTRA

Site City: Howell

Site State: NJ

Site Region: 2

Units Value

$/yr $460,000

yrs 22.9 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $6,194,718

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C C -2.5% Performance evaluated and found sufficient

# 33 2.5% 10 or more wells

gpm 30 -2.5% 10 to 99.99 gpm

wks 4 5.0% 4 wks or more

# 4 5.0% 4 or more processes

# 9 -2.5% <25

yrs 22.9 0.0% 20 yrs or more

A-F A 5.0% little difficulty for minor changes or major changes 

30.0%

30.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary 0

$6,194,718

Estimated potential savings (%): - 30.0%

Subtotal $1,858,415

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$1,833,415

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate
3

RPM First Name: Lisa Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Wong

RPM phone: 212-637-4267

RPM fax: 212-637-3966

RPM email: wong.lisa@epa.gov

Name of Site: Brewster Wellfield

Site City: Brewster

Site State: NY

Site Region: 2

Units Value

$/yr $400,000

yrs 5.8 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $1,957,217

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5% Performance not evaluated

# 4 -2.5% 3 to 4 wells

gpm 50 -2.5% 10 to 99.99 gpm

wks 0 0.0% <2 wks

# 1 -2.5% 0 or 1 processes

# 64 2.5% 50.00 to 74.99

yrs 5.8 -5.0% 5.00 - 9.99 yrs

A-F A 5.0% little difficulty for minor changes or major changes 

17.5%

17.5% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary 0

$1,957,217

Estimated potential savings (%): - 17.5%

Subtotal $342,513

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$317,513

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->
4

RPM First Name: Sharon Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Trocher

RPM phone: 212-637-3965

RPM fax: 212-637-3966

RPM email: trocher.sharon@epa.gov

Name of Site: Circuitron

Site City: East Farmingdale

Site State: NY

Site Region: 2

Units Value

$/yr $480,000

yrs 1.4 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $639,836

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C C -2.5% Performance evaluated and found sufficient

# 3 -2.5% 3 to 4 wells

gpm 80 -2.5% 10 to 99.99 gpm

wks 6 5.0% 4 wks or more

# 3 2.5% 3 processes

# 76 5.0% 75 or more

yrs 1.4 -20.0% <2 yrs

A-F B 3.0% little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes

8.0%

8.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary 0

$639,836

Estimated potential savings (%): - 8.0%

Subtotal $51,187

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$26,187

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate
5

RPM First Name: Maria Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Jon

RPM phone: 212-637-3967

RPM fax: 212-637-4284

RPM email: Jon.Maria@epamail.epa.gov

Name of Site: Claremont Polychemical

Site City: Town of Oyster Bay

Site State: NY

Site Region: 2

Units Value

$/yr $740,000

yrs 18.1 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $8,678,999

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5% Performance not evaluated

# 3 -2.5% 3 to 4 wells

gpm 420 0.0% 100 to 500 gpm

wks 2 2.5% 2.00 - 3.99 wks

# 3 2.5% 3 processes

# 56 2.5% 50.00 to 74.99

yrs 18.1 -2.5% 10.00 - 19.99 yrs

A-F A 5.0% little difficulty for minor changes or major changes 

30.0%

30.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary 0

$8,678,999

Estimated potential savings (%): - 30.0%

Subtotal $2,603,700

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$2,578,700

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->
6

RPM First Name: Pamela J. Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Baxter

RPM phone: 212-637-4416

RPM fax: 212-637-4393

RPM email: baxter.pam@epamail.gov

Name of Site: Combe Fill South Landfill

Site City: Chester Township

Site State: NJ

Site Region: 2

Units Value

$/yr $920,000

yrs 26.7 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $13,395,245

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C B 5.0% Performance evaluated and found insufficient

# 19 2.5% 10 or more wells

gpm 121 0.0% 100 to 500 gpm

wks 1 0.0% <2 wks

# 4 5.0% 4 or more processes

# 72 2.5% 50.00 to 74.99

yrs 26.7 0.0% 20 yrs or more

A-F B 3.0% little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes

38.0%

38.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary 0

$13,395,245

Estimated potential savings (%): - 38.0%

Subtotal $5,090,193

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$5,065,193

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate
7

RPM First Name: Diego Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Garcia

RPM phone: 212-637-4947

RPM fax:

RPM email: garcia.diego@epa.gov

Name of Site: Dover Municipal Well 4

Site City: Dover

Site State: NJ

Site Region: 2

Units Value

$/yr $0

yrs 0.0 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $0

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C 0.0 #N/A #N/A

# 0 0.0% no wells (e.g., drains, etc.)

gpm 0 -5.0% <10 gpm

wks 0 0.0% <2 wks

# 0 -2.5% 0 or 1 processes

# 0 -2.5% <25

yrs 0.0 -20.0% <2 yrs

A-F A 5.0% little difficulty for minor changes or major changes 

#N/A

#N/A (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary 0

$0

Estimated potential savings (%): - #N/A

Subtotal #N/A

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

#N/A

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->
8

RPM First Name: Brian Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Quinn

RPM phone: 212-637-4381

RPM fax: 212-637-4393

RPM email: quinn.brian@epa.gov

Name of Site: Garden State Cleaners/South Jersey Clothing Company

Site City: Minotola

Site State: NJ

Site Region: 2

Units Value

$/yr $500,000

yrs 27.7 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $7,409,547

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5% Performance not evaluated

# 15 2.5% 10 or more wells

gpm 300 0.0% 100 to 500 gpm

wks 0 0.0% <2 wks

# 2 0.0% 2 processes

# 54 2.5% 50.00 to 74.99

yrs 27.7 0.0% 20 yrs or more

A-F A 5.0% little difficulty for minor changes or major changes 

32.5%

32.5% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary 0

$7,409,547

Estimated potential savings (%): - 32.5%

Subtotal $2,408,103

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$2,383,103

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate
9

RPM First Name: Pamela J. Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Baxter

RPM phone: 212-637-4416

RPM fax: 212-637-4393

RPM email: baxter.pam@epamail.gov

Name of Site: Higgins Farm

Site City: Franklin Township

Site State: NJ

Site Region: 2

Units Value

$/yr $1,000,000

yrs 26.7 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $14,560,049

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5% Performance not evaluated

# 20 2.5% 10 or more wells

gpm 30 -2.5% 10 to 99.99 gpm

wks 4 5.0% 4 wks or more

# 4 5.0% 4 or more processes

# 102 5.0% 75 or more

yrs 26.7 0.0% 20 yrs or more

A-F B 3.0% little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes

40.5%

40.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary 0

$14,560,049

Estimated potential savings (%): - 40.0%

Subtotal $5,824,020

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$5,799,020

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->
10

RPM First Name: Mark Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Dannenberg

RPM phone: 212-637-4251

RPM fax: 212-637-3966

RPM email: dannenberg.mark@epa.gov

Name of Site: Islip Municipal Landfill

Site City: Islip

Site State: NY

Site Region: 2

Units Value

$/yr $225,000

yrs 1.0 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $214,286

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C C -2.5% Performance evaluated and found sufficient

# 6 0.0% 5 to 9 wells

gpm 300 0.0% 100 to 500 gpm

wks 1 0.0% <2 wks

# 2 0.0% 2 processes

# 96 5.0% 75 or more

yrs 1.0 -20.0% <2 yrs

A-F A 5.0% little difficulty for minor changes or major changes 

7.5%

7.5% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary 0

$214,286

Estimated potential savings (%): - 7.5%

Subtotal $16,071

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

-$8,929

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate
11

RPM First Name: Lawrence Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Granite

RPM phone: 212-637-4423

RPM fax: 212-637-4393

RPM email: granite.larry@epamail.epa.gov

Name of Site: Lang Property

Site City: Pemberton Township, NJ

Site State: NJ

Site Region: 2

Units Value

$/yr $700,000

yrs 3.0 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $1,907,890

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C C -2.5% Performance evaluated and found sufficient

# 1 -5.0% 1 to 2 wells

gpm 30 -2.5% 10 to 99.99 gpm

wks 0 0.0% <2 wks

# 3 2.5% 3 processes

# 32 0.0% 25.00 to 49.99

yrs 3.0 -15.0% 2.00 - 4.99yrs

A-F A 5.0% little difficulty for minor changes or major changes 

2.5%

5.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary 0

$1,907,890

Estimated potential savings (%): - 5.0%

Subtotal $95,395

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$70,395

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->
12

RPM First Name: Ferdinand Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Cataneo

RPM phone: 212-637-4428

RPM fax: 212-637-4393

RPM email: cataneo.fred@epa.gov

Name of Site: Lipari Landfill site

Site City: Mantua Township

Site State: NJ

Site Region: 2

Units Value

$/yr $2,500,000

yrs 2.9 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $6,634,566

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C C -2.5% Performance evaluated and found sufficient

# 25 2.5% 10 or more wells

gpm 125 0.0% 100 to 500 gpm

wks 2 2.5% 2.00 - 3.99 wks

# 4 5.0% 4 or more processes

# 39 0.0% 25.00 to 49.99

yrs 2.9 -15.0% 2.00 - 4.99yrs

A-F A 5.0% little difficulty for minor changes or major changes 

17.5%

17.5% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary 0

$6,634,566

Estimated potential savings (%): - 17.5%

Subtotal $1,161,049

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$1,136,049

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate
13

RPM First Name: Edward Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Als

RPM phone: 212-637-4272

RPM fax: 212-637-3966

RPM email: als.ed@epa.gov

Name of Site: Mattiace Petrochemical

Site City: Glen Cove, Nassau County

Site State: NY

Site Region: 2

Units Value

$/yr $700,000

yrs 27.6 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $10,358,307

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C C -2.5% Performance evaluated and found sufficient

# 9 0.0% 5 to 9 wells

gpm 10 -2.5% 10 to 99.99 gpm

wks 2 2.5% 2.00 - 3.99 wks

# 5 5.0% 4 or more processes

# 15 -2.5% <25

yrs 27.6 0.0% 20 yrs or more

A-F B 3.0% little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes

23.0%

23.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary 0

$10,358,307

Estimated potential savings (%): - 23.0%

Subtotal $2,382,411

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$2,357,411

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->
14

RPM First Name: Dan Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Weissman

RPM phone: 212-637-4384

RPM fax: 0.0%

RPM email: weissman.dan@epa.gov

Name of Site: Metal TEC/Aerosystems

Site City: Franklin

Site State: NJ

Site Region: 2

Units Value

$/yr $0

yrs 0.0 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $0

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C 0.0 #N/A #N/A

# 0 0.0% no wells (e.g., drains, etc.)

gpm 0 -5.0% <10 gpm

wks 0 0.0% <2 wks

# 0 -2.5% 0 or 1 processes

# 0 -2.5% <25

yrs 0.0 -20.0% <2 yrs

A-F 0.0 #N/A #N/A

#N/A

#N/A (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary 0

$0

Estimated potential savings (%): - #N/A

Subtotal #N/A

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

#N/A

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate
15

RPM First Name: Patrick Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Hamblin

RPM phone: 212-637-3314

RPM fax: 212-637-3966

RPM email: hamblin.patrick@epa.gov

Name of Site: Mohonk Road Industrial Plant

Site City: High Falls

Site State: NY

Site Region: 2

Units Value

$/yr $0

yrs 29.5 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $0

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5% Performance not evaluated

# 3 -2.5% 3 to 4 wells

gpm 40 -2.5% 10 to 99.99 gpm

wks 0 0.0% <2 wks

# 4 5.0% 4 or more processes

# 34 0.0% 25.00 to 49.99

yrs 29.5 0.0% 20 yrs or more

A-F B 3.0% little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes

25.5%

25.5% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary 0

$0

Estimated potential savings (%): - 25.5%

Subtotal $0

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

-$25,000

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->
16

RPM First Name: Monica Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Mahar

RPM phone: 212-637-3942

RPM fax:

RPM email: mahar.monica@epa.gov

Name of Site: Montgomery Township/Rocky Hill

Site City: Montgomery Township

Site State: NJ

Site Region: 2

Units Value

$/yr $400,000

yrs 30.0 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $6,148,980

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5% Performance not evaluated

# 3 -2.5% 3 to 4 wells

gpm 250 0.0% 100 to 500 gpm

wks 0 0.0% <2 wks

# 2 0.0% 2 processes

# 80 5.0% 75 or more

yrs 30.0 0.0% 20 yrs or more

A-F B 3.0% little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes

28.0%

28.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary 0

$6,148,980

Estimated potential savings (%): - 28.0%

Subtotal $1,721,715

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$1,696,715

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate
17

RPM First Name: Mark Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Dannenberg

RPM phone: 212-637-4251

RPM fax: 212-637-3966

RPM email: dannenberg.mark@epa.gov

Name of Site: SMS Instruments

Site City: Deer Park

Site State: NY

Site Region: 2

Units Value

$/yr $400,000

yrs 2.2 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $801,729

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C C -2.5% Performance evaluated and found sufficient

# 2 -5.0% 1 to 2 wells

gpm 100 0.0% 100 to 500 gpm

wks 2 2.5% 2.00 - 3.99 wks

# 2 0.0% 2 processes

# 72 2.5% 50.00 to 74.99

yrs 2.2 -15.0% 2.00 - 4.99yrs

A-F A 5.0% little difficulty for minor changes or major changes 

7.5%

7.5% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary 0

$801,729

Estimated potential savings (%): - 7.5%

Subtotal $60,130

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$35,130

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->
18

RPM First Name: Damian Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Duda

RPM phone: 212-637-4269

RPM fax: 212-637-3966

RPM email: duda.damian@epa.gov

Name of Site: Stanton Cleaners Area Groundwater Contamination Site

Site City: Great Neck

Site State: NY

Site Region: 2

Units Value

$/yr $270,000

yrs 19.7 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $3,332,717

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5% Performance not evaluated

# 3 -2.5% 3 to 4 wells

gpm 90 -2.5% 10 to 99.99 gpm

wks 1 0.0% <2 wks

# 5 5.0% 4 or more processes

# 120 5.0% 75 or more

yrs 19.7 -2.5% 10.00 - 19.99 yrs

A-F B 3.0% little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes

28.0%

28.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary 0

$3,332,717

Estimated potential savings (%): - 28.0%

Subtotal $933,161

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$908,161

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate
19

RPM First Name: Pamela J. Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Baxter

RPM phone: 212-637-4416

RPM fax: 212-637-4393

RPM email: baxter.pam@epamail.gov

Name of Site: Syncon Resins

Site City: Kearny

Site State: NJ

Site Region: 2

Units Value

$/yr $350,000

yrs 26.7 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $5,096,017

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C B 5.0% Performance evaluated and found insufficient

# 3 -2.5% 3 to 4 wells

gpm 20 -2.5% 10 to 99.99 gpm

wks 3 2.5% 2.00 - 3.99 wks

# 6 5.0% 4 or more processes

# 0 -2.5% <25

yrs 26.7 0.0% 20 yrs or more

A-F B 3.0% little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes

28.0%

28.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary 0

$5,096,017

Estimated potential savings (%): - 28.0%

Subtotal $1,426,885

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$1,401,885

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->
20

RPM First Name: Sharon Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Trocher

RPM phone: 212-637-3965

RPM fax: 212-637-3966

RPM email: trocher.sharon@epa.gov

Name of Site: Vestal Water Supply Well 1-1

Site City: Vestal

Site State: NY

Site Region: 2

Units Value

$/yr $180,000

yrs 13.2 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $1,706,600

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C C -2.5% Performance evaluated and found sufficient

# 1 -5.0% 1 to 2 wells

gpm 450 0.0% 100 to 500 gpm

wks 1 0.0% <2 wks

# 1 -2.5% 0 or 1 processes

# 12 -2.5% <25

yrs 13.2 -2.5% 10.00 - 19.99 yrs

A-F A 5.0% little difficulty for minor changes or major changes 

10.0%

10.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary 0

$1,706,600

Estimated potential savings (%): - 10.0%

Subtotal $170,660

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$145,660

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate
21

RPM First Name: Matthew Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Westgate

RPM phone: 212 637-4422

RPM fax: 212 637-4429

RPM email: westgate.matthew@epamail.epa.gov

Name of Site: Vineland Chemical Co. Groundwater Treatment

Site City: Vineland

Site State: NJ

Site Region: 2

Units Value

$/yr $4,000,000

yrs 29.4 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $60,970,474

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5% Performance not evaluated

# 13 2.5% 10 or more wells

gpm 1400 2.5% >500 gpm

wks 0 0.0% <2 wks

# 2 0.0% 2 processes

# 2080 5.0% 75 or more

yrs 29.4 0.0% 20 yrs or more

A-F E -2.5% moderate difficulty for minor changes, severe for major changes

30.0%

30.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary 0

$60,970,474

Estimated potential savings (%): - 30.0%

Subtotal $18,291,142

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$18,266,142

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->
22

RPM First Name: Ferdinand Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Cataneo

RPM phone: 212-637-4428

RPM fax: 212-637-4393

RPM email: cataneo.fred@epa.gov

Name of Site: Williams Property

Site City: Swainton, Middle Township

Site State: NJ

Site Region: 2

Units Value

$/yr $350,000

yrs 0.0 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $0

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C C -2.5% Performance evaluated and found sufficient

# 2 -5.0% 1 to 2 wells

gpm 80 -2.5% 10 to 99.99 gpm

wks 0 0.0% <2 wks

# 4 5.0% 4 or more processes

# 36 0.0% 25.00 to 49.99

yrs 0.0 -20.0% <2 yrs

A-F A 5.0% little difficulty for minor changes or major changes 

0.0%

5.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary 0

$0

Estimated potential savings (%): - 5.0%

Subtotal $0

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

-$25,000

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate
REGION 3 SCREENING CALCULATIONS
1

RPM First Name: Charlie Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Root

RPM phone: 215-814-3193

RPM fax: 215-814-3002

RPM email: root.charlie@epa.gov

Name of Site: AIW Frank/Mid-County Mustang Site, OU#1

Site City: Exton

Site State: PA

Site Region: 3

Units Value

$/yr $180,000

yrs 29.7 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $2,754,138

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C C -2.5% Performance evaluated and found sufficient

# 5 0.0% 5 to 9 wells

gpm 118 0.0% 100 to 500 gpm

wks 1 0.0% <2 wks

# 4 5.0% 4 or more processes

# 60 2.5% 50.00 to 74.99

yrs 29.7 0.0% 20 yrs or more

A-F B 3.0% little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes

28.0%

28.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$2,754,138

Estimated potential savings (%): - 28.0%

Subtotal $771,159

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$746,159

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate
2

RPM First Name: Bruce Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Rundell

RPM phone: 215-814-3317

RPM fax: 215-814-3015

RPM email: rundell.bruce@epa.gov

Name of Site: Berks Sand Pit

Site City: Huffs Church

Site State: PA

Site Region: 3

Units Value

$/yr $150,000

yrs 1.1 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $154,672

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C C -2.5% Performance evaluated and found sufficient

# 1 -5.0% 1 to 2 wells

gpm 90 -2.5% 10 to 99.99 gpm

wks 0 0.0% <2 wks

# 1 -2.5% 0 or 1 processes

# 48 0.0% 25.00 to 49.99

yrs 1.1 -20.0% <2 yrs

A-F A 5.0% little difficulty for minor changes or major changes 

-7.5%

5.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$154,672

Estimated potential savings (%): - 5.0%

Subtotal $7,734

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

-$17,266

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->
3

RPM First Name: Rom Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Roman

RPM phone: 215-814-3212

RPM fax: 215-814-3015

RPM email: roman.romuald@epa.gov

Name of Site: Butz Landfill

Site City: Monroe Township

Site State: PA

Site Region: 3

Units Value

$/yr $250,000

yrs 29.3 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $3,800,917

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5% Performance not evaluated

# 3 -2.5% 3 to 4 wells

gpm 90 -2.5% 10 to 99.99 gpm

wks 0 0.0% <2 wks

# 2 0.0% 2 processes

# 68 2.5% 50.00 to 74.99

yrs 29.3 0.0% 20 yrs or more

A-F A 5.0% little difficulty for minor changes or major changes 

25.0%

25.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$3,800,917

Estimated potential savings (%): - 25.0%

Subtotal $950,229

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$925,229

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate
4

RPM First Name: Cesar Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Lee

RPM phone: 215-814-3205

RPM fax: 215-814-3205

RPM email: lee.cesar@epa.gov

Name of Site: Croydon TCE

Site City: Bristol Township

Site State: PA

Site Region: 3

Units Value

$/yr $200,000

yrs 23.2 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $2,708,981

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C C -2.5% Performance evaluated and found sufficient

# 6 0.0% 5 to 9 wells

gpm 25 -2.5% 10 to 99.99 gpm

wks 0 0.0% <2 wks

# 2 0.0% 2 processes

# 28 0.0% 25.00 to 49.99

yrs 23.2 0.0% 20 yrs or more

A-F A 5.0% little difficulty for minor changes or major changes 

20.0%

20.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$2,708,981

Estimated potential savings (%): - 20.0%

Subtotal $541,796

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$516,796

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->
5

RPM First Name: Joseph Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: McDowell

RPM phone: 215-814-3192

RPM fax: 215-814-3002

RPM email: mcdowell.joseph@epa.gov

Name of Site: CryoChem

Site City: Earl Township

Site State: PA

Site Region: 3

Units Value

$/yr $125,000

yrs 8.4 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $842,157

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C C -2.5% Performance evaluated and found sufficient

# 9 0.0% 5 to 9 wells

gpm 60 -2.5% 10 to 99.99 gpm

wks 1 0.0% <2 wks

# 1 -2.5% 0 or 1 processes

# 4 -2.5% <25

yrs 8.4 -5.0% 5.00 - 9.99 yrs

A-F B 3.0% little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes

8.0%

8.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$842,157

Estimated potential savings (%): - 8.0%

Subtotal $67,373

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$42,373

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate
6

RPM First Name: Philip Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Rotstein

RPM phone: 215-814-3232

RPM fax: 215-814-3002

RPM email: rotstein.phil@epa.gov

Name of Site: Greenwood Chemical Site

Site City: Greenwood

Site State: VA

Site Region: 3

Units Value

$/yr $400,000

yrs 18.8 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $4,810,341

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5% Performance not evaluated

# 5 0.0% 5 to 9 wells

gpm 45 -2.5% 10 to 99.99 gpm

wks 0 0.0% <2 wks

# 5 5.0% 4 or more processes

# 136 5.0% 75 or more

yrs 18.8 -2.5% 10.00 - 19.99 yrs

A-F A 5.0% little difficulty for minor changes or major changes 

32.5%

32.5% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$4,810,341

Estimated potential savings (%): - 32.5%

Subtotal $1,563,361

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$1,538,361

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->
7

RPM First Name: Gregory Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Ham

RPM phone: 215-814-3194

RPM fax: 215-814-3002

RPM email: ham.greg@epa.gov

Name of Site: Havertown PCP OU2

Site City: Havertown

Site State: PA

Site Region: 3

Units Value

$/yr $1,000,000

yrs 30.0 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $15,372,451

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5% Performance not evaluated

# 4 -2.5% 3 to 4 wells

gpm 45 -2.5% 10 to 99.99 gpm

wks 0 0.0% <2 wks

# 4 5.0% 4 or more processes

# 30 0.0% 25.00 to 49.99

yrs 30.0 0.0% 20 yrs or more

A-F B 3.0% little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes

25.5%

25.5% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$15,372,451

Estimated potential savings (%): - 25.5%

Subtotal $3,919,975

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$3,894,975

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate
8

RPM First Name: Cesar Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Lee

RPM phone: 215-814-3205

RPM fax: 215-814-3205

RPM email: lee.cesar@epa.gov

Name of Site: Hellertown Manufacturing

Site City: Bethlehem

Site State: PA

Site Region: 3

Units Value

$/yr $350,000

yrs 24.7 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $4,900,578

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C B 5.0% Performance evaluated and found insufficient

# 1 -5.0% 1 to 2 wells

gpm 50 -2.5% 10 to 99.99 gpm

wks 0 0.0% <2 wks

# 2 0.0% 2 processes

# 48 0.0% 25.00 to 49.99

yrs 24.7 0.0% 20 yrs or more

A-F B 3.0% little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes

20.5%

20.5% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$4,900,578

Estimated potential savings (%): - 20.5%

Subtotal $1,004,619

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$979,619

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->
9

RPM First Name: Maria de los A. Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Garcia

RPM phone: 215-814-3199

RPM fax: 215-814-3002

RPM email: garcia.maria@epa.gov

Name of Site: North Penn Area 1

Site City: Souderton, Montgomery County

Site State: PA

Site Region: 3

Units Value

$/yr $100,000

yrs 16.7 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $1,113,534

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5% Performance not evaluated

# 1 -5.0% 1 to 2 wells

gpm 2 -5.0% <10 gpm

wks 0 0.0% <2 wks

# 1 -2.5% 0 or 1 processes

# 8 -2.5% <25

yrs 16.7 -2.5% 10.00 - 19.99 yrs

A-F A 5.0% little difficulty for minor changes or major changes 

10.0%

10.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$1,113,534

Estimated potential savings (%): - 10.0%

Subtotal $111,353

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$86,353

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate
10

RPM First Name: Gregory Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Ham

RPM phone: 215-814-3194

RPM fax: 215-814-3002

RPM email: ham.greg@epa.gov

Name of Site: North Penn Area 6

Site City: Lansdale

Site State: PA

Site Region: 3

Units Value

$/yr $592,900

yrs 30.0 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $9,114,326

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5% Performance not evaluated

# 10 2.5% 10 or more wells

gpm 300 0.0% 100 to 500 gpm

wks 0 0.0% <2 wks

# 3 2.5% 3 processes

# 120 5.0% 75 or more

yrs 30.0 0.0% 20 yrs or more

A-F B 3.0% little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes

35.5%

35.5% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$9,114,326

Estimated potential savings (%): - 35.5%

Subtotal $3,235,586

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$3,210,586

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->
11

RPM First Name: Deanna Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Moultrie

RPM phone: 215-814-5125

RPM fax: 215-814-3002

RPM email: moultrie.deanna@epa.gov

Name of Site: Raymark

Site City: Hatboro

Site State: PA

Site Region: 3

Units Value

$/yr $155,711

yrs 12.0 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $1,380,802

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5% Performance not evaluated

# 2 -5.0% 1 to 2 wells

gpm 62 -2.5% 10 to 99.99 gpm

wks 2 2.5% 2.00 - 3.99 wks

# 2 0.0% 2 processes

# 0 -2.5% <25

yrs 12.0 -2.5% 10.00 - 19.99 yrs

A-F A 5.0% little difficulty for minor changes or major changes 

17.5%

17.5% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$1,380,802

Estimated potential savings (%): - 17.5%

Subtotal $241,640

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$216,640

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate
12

RPM First Name: Andrew Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Palestini

RPM phone: 215-814-3233

RPM fax: 215-814-3002

RPM email: palestini.andy@epa.gov

Name of Site: Saunders Supply Company

Site City: Chuckatuck

Site State: VA

Site Region: 3

Units Value

$/yr $80,000

yrs 6.3 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $420,648

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5% Performance not evaluated

# 4 -2.5% 3 to 4 wells

gpm 2 -5.0% <10 gpm

wks 2 2.5% 2.00 - 3.99 wks

# 3 2.5% 3 processes

# 40 0.0% 25.00 to 49.99

yrs 6.3 -5.0% 5.00 - 9.99 yrs

A-F C 2.0% little difficulty for minor changes, severe for major changes

17.0%

17.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$420,648

Estimated potential savings (%): - 17.0%

Subtotal $71,510

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$46,510

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->
REGION 4 SCREENING CALCULATIONS
1

RPM First Name: Luis Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Flores

RPM phone: 404-562-8807

RPM fax:

RPM email: flores.luis@epa.gov

Name of Site: ABC Cleaners

Site City: Jacksonville

Site State: NC

Site Region: 4

Units Value

$/yr $0

yrs 0.0 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $0

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C 0.0 #N/A #N/A

# 0 0.0% no wells (e.g., drains, etc.)

gpm 0 -5.0% <10 gpm

wks 0 0.0% <2 wks

# 2 0.0% 2 processes

# 0 -2.5% <25

yrs 0.0 -20.0% <2 yrs

A-F 0.0 #N/A #N/A

#N/A

#N/A (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$0

Estimated potential savings (%): - #N/A

Subtotal #N/A

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

#N/A

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->
2

RPM First Name: Mark Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Fite

RPM phone: 404-562-8927

RPM fax:

RPM email: fite.mark@epa.gov

Name of Site: American Creosote Works (DNAPL)

Site City: Pensacola

Site State: FL

Site Region: 4

Units Value

$/yr $300,000

yrs 1.3 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $376,644

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5% Performance not evaluated

# 8 0.0% 5 to 9 wells

gpm 0 -5.0% <10 gpm

wks 4 5.0% 4 wks or more

# 3 2.5% 3 processes

# 8 -2.5% <25

yrs 1.3 -20.0% <2 yrs

A-F A 5.0% little difficulty for minor changes or major changes 

7.5%

7.5% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$376,644

Estimated potential savings (%): - 7.5%

Subtotal $28,248

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$3,248

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate
3

RPM First Name: Mark Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Fite

RPM phone: 404-562-8927

RPM fax: 0.0%

RPM email: fite.mark@epa.gov

Name of Site: American Creosote Works (solute)

Site City: Pensacola

Site State: FL

Site Region: 4

Units Value

$/yr $452,000

yrs 7.7 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $2,822,434

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5% Performance not evaluated

# 3 -2.5% 3 to 4 wells

gpm 105 0.0% 100 to 500 gpm

wks 0 0.0% <2 wks

# 2 0.0% 2 processes

# 20 -2.5% <25

yrs 7.7 -5.0% 5.00 - 9.99 yrs

A-F A 5.0% little difficulty for minor changes or major changes 

17.5%

17.5% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$2,822,434

Estimated potential savings (%): - 17.5%

Subtotal $493,926

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$468,926

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->
4

RPM First Name: Jon Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Bornholm

RPM phone: 404-562-8820

RPM fax: 0.0%

RPM email: bornholm.jon@epa.gov

Name of Site: Benfield Industries

Site City: Hazelwood

Site State: NC

Site Region: 4

Units Value

$/yr $30,000

yrs 19.3 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $366,494

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5% Performance not evaluated

# 2 -5.0% 1 to 2 wells

gpm 16 -2.5% 10 to 99.99 gpm

wks 0 0.0% <2 wks

# 1 -2.5% 0 or 1 processes

# 32 0.0% 25.00 to 49.99

yrs 19.3 -2.5% 10.00 - 19.99 yrs

A-F A 5.0% little difficulty for minor changes or major changes 

15.0%

15.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$366,494

Estimated potential savings (%): - 15.0%

Subtotal $54,974

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$29,974

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate
5

RPM First Name: Jon Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Bornholm

RPM phone: 404-562-8820

RPM fax: 404-562-8788

RPM email: bornholm.jon@epa.gov

Name of Site: Cape Fear Wood Preserving

Site City: Fayetteville

Site State: NC

Site Region: 4

Units Value

$/yr $40,000

yrs 7.9 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $256,425

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5% Performance not evaluated

# 7 0.0% 5 to 9 wells

gpm 43 -2.5% 10 to 99.99 gpm

wks 0 0.0% <2 wks

# 1 -2.5% 0 or 1 processes

# 100 5.0% 75 or more

yrs 7.9 -5.0% 5.00 - 9.99 yrs

A-F A 5.0% little difficulty for minor changes or major changes 

22.5%

22.5% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$256,425

Estimated potential savings (%): - 22.5%

Subtotal $57,696

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$32,696

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->
6

RPM First Name: Randall Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Chaffins

RPM phone: 404-562-8929

RPM fax: 0.0%

RPM email: chaffins.randall@epa.gov

Name of Site: Coleman Evans Wood Preserving

Site City: Whitehouse

Site State: FL

Site Region: 4

Units Value

$/yr $0

yrs 0.0 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $0

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C 0.0 #N/A #N/A

# 0 0.0% no wells (e.g., drains, etc.)

gpm 0 -5.0% <10 gpm

wks 0 0.0% <2 wks

# 0 -2.5% 0 or 1 processes

# 0 -2.5% <25

yrs 0.0 -20.0% <2 yrs

A-F 0.0 #N/A #N/A

#N/A

#N/A (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$0

Estimated potential savings (%): - #N/A

Subtotal #N/A

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

#N/A

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate
7

RPM First Name: Ralph Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Howard

RPM phone: 404-562-8829

RPM fax: 0.0%

RPM email: howard.ralph@epa.gov

Name of Site: Elmore Waste Disposal

Site City: Greer

Site State: SC

Site Region: 4

Units Value

$/yr $180,000

yrs 16.7 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $2,004,361

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C C -2.5% Performance evaluated and found sufficient

# 9 0.0% 5 to 9 wells

gpm 30 -2.5% 10 to 99.99 gpm

wks 0 0.0% <2 wks

# 2 0.0% 2 processes

# 68 2.5% 50.00 to 74.99

yrs 16.7 -2.5% 10.00 - 19.99 yrs

A-F A 5.0% little difficulty for minor changes or major changes 

20.0%

20.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$2,004,361

Estimated potential savings (%): - 20.0%

Subtotal $400,872

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$375,872

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->
8

RPM First Name: Ken Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Mallory

RPM phone: 404-562-8802

RPM fax: 0.0%

RPM email: mallory.ken@epa.gov

Name of Site: FCX Statesville

Site City: Statesville

Site State: NC

Site Region: 4

Units Value

$/yr $150,000

yrs 6.3 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $797,565

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C C -2.5% Performance evaluated and found sufficient

# 10 2.5% 10 or more wells

gpm 20 -2.5% 10 to 99.99 gpm

wks 0 0.0% <2 wks

# 2 0.0% 2 processes

# 72 2.5% 50.00 to 74.99

yrs 6.3 -5.0% 5.00 - 9.99 yrs

A-F A 5.0% little difficulty for minor changes or major changes 

20.0%

20.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$797,565

Estimated potential savings (%): - 20.0%

Subtotal $159,513

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$134,513

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate
9

RPM First Name: Jim Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: McGuire

RPM phone: 404-562-8911

RPM fax: 0.0%

RPM email: mcguire.jim@epa.gov

Name of Site: Miami Drum

Site City: Hialeah

Site State: FL

Site Region: 4

Units Value

$/yr $1,000,000

yrs 0.0 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $0

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C 0.0 #N/A #N/A

# 40 2.5% 10 or more wells

gpm 104000 2.5% >500 gpm

wks 0 0.0% <2 wks

# 1 -2.5% 0 or 1 processes

# 0 -2.5% <25

yrs 0.0 -20.0% <2 yrs

A-F 0.0 #N/A #N/A

#N/A

#N/A (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$0

Estimated potential savings (%): - #N/A

Subtotal #N/A

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

#N/A

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->
10

RPM First Name: Al Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Cherry

RPM phone: 404-562-8807

RPM fax: 0.0%

RPM email: cherry.al@epa.gov

Name of Site: Palmetto Wood

Site City: Lexington

Site State: SC

Site Region: 4

Units Value

$/yr $300,000

yrs 6.3 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $1,595,131

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C C -2.5% Performance evaluated and found sufficient

# 10 2.5% 10 or more wells

gpm 130 0.0% 100 to 500 gpm

wks 4 5.0% 4 wks or more

# 1 -2.5% 0 or 1 processes

# 16 -2.5% <25

yrs 6.3 -5.0% 5.00 - 9.99 yrs

A-F B 3.0% little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes

18.0%

18.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$1,595,131

Estimated potential savings (%): - 18.0%

Subtotal $287,124

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$262,124

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate
REGION 5 SCREENING CALCULATIONS
1

RPM First Name: Darryl Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Owens

RPM phone: 312-886-7089

RPM fax: 0.0%

RPM email: owens.darryl@epa.gov

Name of Site: Arrowhead Refinery

Site City: Hermantown

Site State: MN

Site Region: 5

Units Value

$/yr $70,000

yrs 2.2 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $145,512

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C C -2.5% Performance evaluated and found sufficient

# 0 0.0% no wells (e.g., drains, etc.)

gpm 25 -2.5% 10 to 99.99 gpm

wks 0 0.0% <2 wks

# 1 -2.5% 0 or 1 processes

# 36 0.0% 25.00 to 49.99

yrs 2.2 -15.0% 2.00 - 4.99yrs

A-F B 3.0% little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes

0.5%

5.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary 0

$145,512

Estimated potential savings (%): - 5.0%

Subtotal $7,276

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

-$17,724

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate
2

RPM First Name: John Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Peterson

RPM phone: 312-353-1264

RPM fax: 0.0%

RPM email: peterson.john@epa.gov

Name of Site: Better Brite Plating Co. Chrome and Zinc Shops

Site City: Depere

Site State: WI

Site Region: 5

Units Value

$/yr $36,000

yrs 28.3 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $538,699

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C C -2.5% Performance evaluated and found sufficient

# 0 0.0% no wells (e.g., drains, etc.)

gpm 0 -5.0% <10 gpm

wks 0 0.0% <2 wks

# 1 -2.5% 0 or 1 processes

# 28 0.0% 25.00 to 49.99

yrs 28.3 0.0% 20 yrs or more

A-F C 2.0% little difficulty for minor changes, severe for major changes

12.0%

12.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary 0

$538,699

Estimated potential savings (%): - 12.0%

Subtotal $64,644

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$39,644

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->
3

RPM First Name: Dion Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Novak

RPM phone: 312-886-4737

RPM fax: 0.0%

RPM email: Novak.Dion@epa.gov

Name of Site: Douglass Road

Site City: Mishawaka

Site State: IN

Site Region: 5

Units Value

$/yr $120,000

yrs 28.8 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $1,810,266

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5% Performance not evaluated

# 5 0.0% 5 to 9 wells

gpm 1000 2.5% >500 gpm

wks 2 2.5% 2.00 - 3.99 wks

# 1 -2.5% 0 or 1 processes

# 72 2.5% 50.00 to 74.99

yrs 28.8 0.0% 20 yrs or more

A-F A 5.0% little difficulty for minor changes or major changes 

32.5%

32.5% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary 0

$1,810,266

Estimated potential savings (%): - 32.5%

Subtotal $588,336

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$563,336

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate
4

RPM First Name: Kyle Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Rogers

RPM phone: 312-886-1995

RPM fax: 0.0%

RPM email: rogers.kyle@epa.gov

Name of Site: Duell and Gardner

Site City: Dalton Township

Site State: MI

Site Region: 5

Units Value

$/yr $0

yrs 5.5 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $0

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5% Performance not evaluated

# 2 -5.0% 1 to 2 wells

gpm 80 -2.5% 10 to 99.99 gpm

wks 0 0.0% <2 wks

# 1 -2.5% 0 or 1 processes

# 50 2.5% 50.00 to 74.99

yrs 5.5 -5.0% 5.00 - 9.99 yrs

A-F A 5.0% little difficulty for minor changes or major changes 

15.0%

15.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary 0

$0

Estimated potential savings (%): - 15.0%

Subtotal $0

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

-$25,000

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->
5

RPM First Name: Sheri Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Bianchin

RPM phone: 312-886-4745

RPM fax: 0.0%

RPM email: bianchin.sheri@epa.gov

Name of Site: Eau Claire Municipal Well Field

Site City: Eau Claire

Site State: WI

Site Region: 5

Units Value

$/yr $175,000

yrs 0.0 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $0

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C C -2.5% Performance evaluated and found sufficient

# 14 2.5% 10 or more wells

gpm 4500 2.5% >500 gpm

wks 0 0.0% <2 wks

# 1 -2.5% 0 or 1 processes

# 0 -2.5% <25

yrs 0.0 -20.0% <2 yrs

A-F F -5.0% severe difficulty for minor changes or major changes

-7.5%

5.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary 0

$0

Estimated potential savings (%): - 5.0%

Subtotal $0

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

-$25,000

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate
6

RPM First Name: Steve Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Padovani

RPM phone: 312-353-6755

RPM fax: 0.0%

RPM email: padovani.steven@epa.gov

Name of Site: La Salle Electrical Utilities

Site City: La Salle

Site State: IL

Site Region: 5

Units Value

$/yr $230,000

yrs 3.2 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $658,089

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C C -2.5% Performance evaluated and found sufficient

# 0 0.0% no wells (e.g., drains, etc.)

gpm 20 -2.5% 10 to 99.99 gpm

wks 2 2.5% 2.00 - 3.99 wks

# 2 0.0% 2 processes

# 100 5.0% 75 or more

yrs 3.2 -15.0% 2.00 - 4.99yrs

A-F A 5.0% little difficulty for minor changes or major changes 

12.5%

12.5% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary 0

$658,089

Estimated potential savings (%): - 12.5%

Subtotal $82,261

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$57,261

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->
7

RPM First Name: Sheila Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Sullivan

RPM phone: 312-886-5251

RPM fax: 0.0%

RPM email: sullivan.sheila@epa.gov

Name of Site: Long Prairie

Site City: Long Prairie

Site State: MN

Site Region: 5

Units Value

$/yr $300,000

yrs 13.8 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $2,933,325

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C C -2.5% Performance evaluated and found sufficient

# 9 0.0% 5 to 9 wells

gpm 227 0.0% 100 to 500 gpm

wks 2 2.5% 2.00 - 3.99 wks

# 1 -2.5% 0 or 1 processes

# 22 -2.5% <25

yrs 13.8 -2.5% 10.00 - 19.99 yrs

A-F B 3.0% little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes

15.5%

15.5% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary 0

$2,933,325

Estimated potential savings (%): - 15.5%

Subtotal $454,665

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$429,665

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate
8

RPM First Name: Darryl Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Owens

RPM phone: 312-886-7089

RPM fax: 0.0%

RPM email: owens.darryl@epa.gov

Name of Site: MacGillis and Gibbs/Bell Lumber & Pole

Site City: New Brighton

Site State: MN

Site Region: 5

Units Value

$/yr $300,000

yrs 27.8 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $4,451,949

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5% Performance not evaluated

# 14 2.5% 10 or more wells

gpm 60 -2.5% 10 to 99.99 gpm

wks 0 0.0% <2 wks

# 4 5.0% 4 or more processes

# 60 2.5% 50.00 to 74.99

yrs 27.8 0.0% 20 yrs or more

A-F C 2.0% little difficulty for minor changes, severe for major changes

32.0%

32.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary 0

$4,451,949

Estimated potential savings (%): - 32.0%

Subtotal $1,424,624

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$1,399,624

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->
9

RPM First Name: Steve Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Padovani

RPM phone: 312-353-6755

RPM fax: 0.0%

RPM email: padovani.steven@epa.gov

Name of Site: Oconomowoc Electroplating

Site City: Ashippun

Site State: WI

Site Region: 5

Units Value

$/yr $471,000

yrs 24.7 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $6,594,778

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C C -2.5% Performance evaluated and found sufficient

# 5 0.0% 5 to 9 wells

gpm 30 -2.5% 10 to 99.99 gpm

wks 4 5.0% 4 wks or more

# 3 2.5% 3 processes

# 40 0.0% 25.00 to 49.99

yrs 24.7 0.0% 20 yrs or more

A-F C 2.0% little difficulty for minor changes, severe for major changes

24.5%

24.5% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary 0

$6,594,778

Estimated potential savings (%): - 24.5%

Subtotal $1,615,721

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$1,590,721

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate
10

RPM First Name: Timothy Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Prendiville

RPM phone: 312-886-5122

RPM fax: 0.0%

RPM email: prendiville.timothy@epa.gov

Name of Site: Onalaska Municipal Landfill

Site City: Onalaska

Site State: WI

Site Region: 5

Units Value

$/yr $200,000

yrs 0.5 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $95,617

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C C -2.5% Performance evaluated and found sufficient

# 5 0.0% 5 to 9 wells

gpm 560 2.5% >500 gpm

wks 1 0.0% <2 wks

# 2 0.0% 2 processes

# 20 -2.5% <25

yrs 0.5 -20.0% <2 yrs

A-F A 5.0% little difficulty for minor changes or major changes 

2.5%

5.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary 0

$95,617

Estimated potential savings (%): - 5.0%

Subtotal $4,781

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

-$20,219

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->
11

RPM First Name: John Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Fagiolo

RPM phone: 312-886-0800

RPM fax: 0.0%

RPM email: fagiolo.john@epa.gov

Name of Site: Ott/Story/Cordova Chem Co.

Site City: Dalton Township

Site State: MI

Site Region: 5

Units Value

$/yr $2,400,000

yrs 28.6 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $36,108,756

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5% Performance not evaluated

# 10 2.5% 10 or more wells

gpm 700 2.5% >500 gpm

wks 4 5.0% 4 wks or more

# 3 2.5% 3 processes

# 120 5.0% 75 or more

yrs 28.6 0.0% 20 yrs or more

A-F A 5.0% little difficulty for minor changes or major changes 

45.0%

40.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary 0

$36,108,756

Estimated potential savings (%): - 40.0%

Subtotal $14,443,502

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$14,418,502

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate
12

RPM First Name: Mike Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Ribordy

RPM phone: 312-886-4592

RPM fax: 0.0%

RPM email: ribordy.mike@epa.gov

Name of Site: Peerless Plating

Site City: Muskegon Township

Site State: MI

Site Region: 5

Units Value

$/yr $400,000

yrs 0.0 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $0

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C C -2.5% Performance evaluated and found sufficient

# 6 0.0% 5 to 9 wells

gpm 165 0.0% 100 to 500 gpm

wks 0 0.0% <2 wks

# 3 2.5% 3 processes

# 24 -2.5% <25

yrs 0.0 -20.0% <2 yrs

A-F A 5.0% little difficulty for minor changes or major changes 

2.5%

5.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary 0

$0

Estimated potential savings (%): - 5.0%

Subtotal $0

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

-$25,000

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->
13

RPM First Name: Ken Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Glatz

RPM phone: 312-886-1434

RPM fax: 0.0%

RPM email: glatz.ken@epa.gov

Name of Site: U.S. Aviex

Site City: Howard Township

Site State: MI

Site Region: 5

Units Value

$/yr $300,000

yrs 1.7 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $468,345

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C C -2.5% Performance evaluated and found sufficient

# 6 0.0% 5 to 9 wells

gpm 170 0.0% 100 to 500 gpm

wks 1 0.0% <2 wks

# 1 -2.5% 0 or 1 processes

# 120 5.0% 75 or more

yrs 1.7 -20.0% <2 yrs

A-F A 5.0% little difficulty for minor changes or major changes 

5.0%

5.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary 0

$468,345

Estimated potential savings (%): - 5.0%

Subtotal $23,417

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

-$1,583

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate
14

RPM First Name: Richard Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Boice

RPM phone: 312-886-4740

RPM fax: 0.0%

RPM email: boice.richard@epa.gov

Name of Site: Verona Well Field

Site City: Battle Creek

Site State: MI

Site Region: 5

Units Value

$/yr $225,000

yrs 30.0 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $3,458,801

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5% Performance not evaluated

# 6 0.0% 5 to 9 wells

gpm 250 0.0% 100 to 500 gpm

wks 2 2.5% 2.00 - 3.99 wks

# 2 0.0% 2 processes

# 10 -2.5% <25

yrs 30.0 0.0% 20 yrs or more

A-F B 3.0% little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes

25.5%

25.5% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary 0

$3,458,801

Estimated potential savings (%): - 25.5%

Subtotal $881,994

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$856,994

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->
15

RPM First Name: Russell Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Hart

RPM phone: 312-886-4844

RPM fax: 0.0%

RPM email: hart.russell@epa.gov

Name of Site: Wash King Laundry

Site City: Pleasant Plains Township

Site State: MI

Site Region: 5

Units Value

$/yr $75,000

yrs 19.3 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $913,889

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5% Performance not evaluated

# 5 0.0% 5 to 9 wells

gpm 250 0.0% 100 to 500 gpm

wks 0 0.0% <2 wks

# 2 0.0% 2 processes

# 46 0.0% 25.00 to 49.99

yrs 19.3 -2.5% 10.00 - 19.99 yrs

A-F B 3.0% little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes

23.0%

23.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary 0

$913,889

Estimated potential savings (%): - 23.0%

Subtotal $210,195

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$185,195

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate
REGION 6 SCREENING CALCULATIONS
1

RPM First Name: Stacey Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Bennett

RPM phone: 214-665-6729

RPM fax: 214-665-6660

RPM email: bennett.stacey@epa.gov

Name of Site: American Creosote Works

Site City: Winnfield

Site State: LA

Site Region: 6

Units Value

$/yr $360,000

yrs 25.1 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $5,084,310

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C C -2.5% Performance evaluated and found sufficient

# 18 2.5% 10 or more wells

gpm 5.0 -5.0% <10 gpm

wks 1 0.0% <2 wks

# 3 2.5% 3 processes

# 72 2.5% 50.00 to 74.99

yrs 25.1 0.0% 20 yrs or more

A-F C 2.0% little difficulty for minor changes, severe for major changes

22.0%

22.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$5,084,310

Estimated potential savings (%): - 22.0%

Subtotal $1,118,548

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$1,093,548

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->
2

RPM First Name: Katrina Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Coltrain

RPM phone: 214-665-8143

RPM fax: 214-665-6660

RPM email: coltrain.katrina@epa.gov

Name of Site: Bayou Bonfouca

Site City: Slidell

Site State: LA

Site Region: 6

Units Value

$/yr $402,000

yrs 19.5 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $4,936,430

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C C -2.5% Performance evaluated and found sufficient

# 44 2.5% 10 or more wells

gpm 22.5 -2.5% 10 to 99.99 gpm

wks 0 0.0% <2 wks

# 3 2.5% 3 processes

# 132 5.0% 75 or more

yrs 19.5 -2.5% 10.00 - 19.99 yrs

A-F B 3.0% little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes

25.5%

25.5% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$4,936,430

Estimated potential savings (%): - 25.5%

Subtotal $1,258,790

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$1,233,790

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

January 1, 2002

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate
3

RPM First Name: Petra Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Sanchez

RPM phone: 214-665-6686

RPM fax: 214-665-6660

RPM email: sanchez.petra@epa.gov

Name of Site: Cimarron Mining

Site City: Carizozo

Site State: NM

Site Region: 6

Units Value

$/yr $1,000,000

yrs 30.0 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $15,372,451

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C B 5.0% Performance evaluated and found insufficient

# 3 -2.5% 3 to 4 wells

gpm 1.0 -5.0% <10 gpm

wks 4 5.0% 4 wks or more

# 1 -2.5% 0 or 1 processes

# 12 -2.5% <25

yrs 30.0 0.0% 20 yrs or more

A-F E -2.5% moderate difficulty for minor changes, severe for major changes

15.0%

15.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$15,372,451

Estimated potential savings (%): - 15.0%

Subtotal $2,305,868

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$2,280,868

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->
4

RPM First Name: Vincent Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Malott

RPM phone: 214-665-8313

RPM fax: 214-665-6660

RPM email: malott.vincent@epa.gov

Name of Site: City of Perryton Well #2

Site City: Perryton

Site State: TX

Site Region: 6

Units Value

$/yr $37,000

yrs 21.6 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $481,977

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5% Performance not evaluated

# 1 -5.0% 1 to 2 wells

gpm 150.0 0.0% 100 to 500 gpm

wks 0 0.0% <2 wks

# 1 -2.5% 0 or 1 processes

# 20 -2.5% <25

yrs 21.6 0.0% 20 yrs or more

A-F A 5.0% little difficulty for minor changes or major changes 

17.5%

17.5% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$481,977

Estimated potential savings (%): - 17.5%

Subtotal $84,346

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$59,346

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

January 1, 2002

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate
5

RPM First Name: Ruben Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Moya

RPM phone: 214-665-2755

RPM fax: 214-665-6660

RPM email: moya.ruben@epa.gov

Name of Site: Geneva Industries

Site City: Houston

Site State: TX

Site Region: 6

Units Value

$/yr $240,000

yrs 2.0 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $446,259

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C C -2.5% Performance evaluated and found sufficient

# 13 2.5% 10 or more wells

gpm 5.0 -5.0% <10 gpm

wks 52 5.0% 4 wks or more

# 2 0.0% 2 processes

# 26 0.0% 25.00 to 49.99

yrs 2.0 -15.0% 2.00 - 4.99yrs

A-F B 3.0% little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes

8.0%

8.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$446,259

Estimated potential savings (%): - 8.0%

Subtotal $35,701

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$10,701

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->
6

RPM First Name: Carlos Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Sanchez

RPM phone: 214-665-8507

RPM fax: 214-665-6660

RPM email: sanchez.carlos@epa.gov

Name of Site: Midland Products

Site City: Ola

Site State: AR

Site Region: 6

Units Value

$/yr $180,000

yrs 30.0 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $2,767,041

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C C -2.5% Performance evaluated and found sufficient

# 8 0.0% 5 to 9 wells

gpm 3.0 -5.0% <10 gpm

wks 1 0.0% <2 wks

# 3 2.5% 3 processes

# 40 0.0% 25.00 to 49.99

yrs 30.0 0.0% 20 yrs or more

A-F A 5.0% little difficulty for minor changes or major changes 

20.0%

20.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$2,767,041

Estimated potential savings (%): - 20.0%

Subtotal $553,408

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$528,408

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

January 1, 2002

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate
7

RPM First Name: Camille Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Hueni

RPM phone: 214-665-2231

RPM fax: 214-665-6660

RPM email: hueni.camille@epa.gov

Name of Site: North Cavalcade Superfund Site

Site City: Houston

Site State: TX

Site Region: 6

Units Value

$/yr $0

yrs 8.9 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $0

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5% Performance not evaluated

# 19 2.5% 10 or more wells

gpm 19.0 -2.5% 10 to 99.99 gpm

wks 52 5.0% 4 wks or more

# 3 2.5% 3 processes

# 0 -2.5% <25

yrs 8.9 -5.0% 5.00 - 9.99 yrs

A-F A 5.0% little difficulty for minor changes or major changes 

27.5%

27.5% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$0

Estimated potential savings (%): - 27.5%

Subtotal $0

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

-$25,000

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->
8

RPM First Name: Ernest Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Franke

RPM phone: 214-665-8521

RPM fax: 214-665-6660

RPM email: franke,ernest@epamail.epa.gov

Name of Site: Odessa Chromium #1

Site City: Odessa

Site State: TX

Site Region: 6

Units Value

$/yr $500,000

yrs 0.0 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $0

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C C -2.5% Performance evaluated and found sufficient

# 6 0.0% 5 to 9 wells

gpm 60.0 -2.5% 10 to 99.99 gpm

wks 15 5.0% 4 wks or more

# 1 -2.5% 0 or 1 processes

# 14 -2.5% <25

yrs 0.0 -20.0% <2 yrs

A-F A 5.0% little difficulty for minor changes or major changes 

0.0%

5.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$0

Estimated potential savings (%): - 5.0%

Subtotal $0

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

-$25,000

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

January 1, 2002

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate
9

RPM First Name: Vincent Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Malott

RPM phone: 214-665-8313

RPM fax: 214-665-6660

RPM email: malott.vincent@epa.gov

Name of Site: Sprague Road Ground Water Plume

Site City: Odessa

Site State: TX

Site Region: 6

Units Value

$/yr $1,200,000

yrs 26.7 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $17,472,059

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5% Performance not evaluated

# 22 2.5% 10 or more wells

gpm 200.0 0.0% 100 to 500 gpm

wks 0 0.0% <2 wks

# 1 -2.5% 0 or 1 processes

# 200 5.0% 75 or more

yrs 26.7 0.0% 20 yrs or more

A-F A 5.0% little difficulty for minor changes or major changes 

32.5%

32.5% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$17,472,059

Estimated potential savings (%): - 32.5%

Subtotal $5,678,419

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$5,653,419

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->
REGION 7 SCREENING CALCULATIONS
1

RPM First Name: Bob Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Stewart

RPM phone: 913-551-7654

RPM fax: 913-551-9654

RPM email: stewart.robert@epa.gov

Name of Site: Ace Services

Site City: Colby

Site State: KS

Site Region: 7

Units Value

$/yr $500,000

yrs 13.7 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $4,868,337

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5% Performance not evaluated

# 12 2.5% 10 or more wells

gpm 800 2.5% >500 gpm

wks 0 0.0% <2 wks

# 1 -2.5% 0 or 1 processes

# 124 5.0% 75 or more

yrs 13.7 -2.5% 10.00 - 19.99 yrs

A-F A 5.0% little difficulty for minor changes or major changes 

32.5%

32.5% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$4,868,337

Estimated potential savings (%): - 32.5%

Subtotal $1,582,210

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$1,557,210

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate
2

RPM First Name: Mary Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Peterson

RPM phone: 913-551-7882

RPM fax: 913-551-7063

RPM email: peterson.mary@epa.gov

Name of Site: Cleburn Street Well Site/OU2

Site City: Grand Island

Site State: NE

Site Region: 7

Units Value

$/yr $100,000

yrs 17.9 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $1,165,954

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5% Performance not evaluated

# 3 -2.5% 3 to 4 wells

gpm 90 -2.5% 10 to 99.99 gpm

wks 1 0.0% <2 wks

# 1 -2.5% 0 or 1 processes

# 32 0.0% 25.00 to 49.99

yrs 17.9 -2.5% 10.00 - 19.99 yrs

A-F A 5.0% little difficulty for minor changes or major changes 

17.5%

17.5% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$1,165,954

Estimated potential savings (%): - 17.5%

Subtotal $204,042

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$179,042

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->
3

RPM First Name: Steve Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Auchterlonie

RPM phone: 913-551-7778

RPM fax: 913-551-7437

RPM email: auchterlonie.steve@epa.gov

Name of Site: Valley Park TCE Site - OU2

Site City: Valley Park

Site State: MO

Site Region: 7

Units Value

$/yr $0

yrs 14.0 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $0

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5% Performance not evaluated

# 0 0.0% no wells (e.g., drains, etc.)

gpm 0 -5.0% <10 gpm

wks 0 0.0% <2 wks

# 1 -2.5% 0 or 1 processes

# 0 -2.5% <25

yrs 14.0 -2.5% 10.00 - 19.99 yrs

A-F A 5.0% little difficulty for minor changes or major changes 

15.0%

15.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$0

Estimated potential savings (%): - 15.0%

Subtotal $0

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

-$25,000

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate
REGION 9 SCREENING CALCULATIONS
1

RPM First Name: David Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Seter

RPM phone: 415-744-2212

RPM fax: 111-111-1111

RPM email: seter.david@epa.gov

Name of Site: Modesto Superfund Site

Site City: Modesto

Site State: CA

Site Region: 9

Units Value

$/yr $300,000

yrs 20.3 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $3,776,134

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5% Performance not evaluated

# 1 -5.0% 1 to 2 wells

gpm 50 -2.5% 10 to 99.99 gpm

wks 0 0.0% <2 wks

# 2 0.0% 2 processes

# 40 0.0% 25.00 to 49.99

yrs 20.3 0.0% 20 yrs or more

A-F A 5.0% little difficulty for minor changes or major changes 

20.0%

20.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$3,776,134

Estimated potential savings (%): - 20.0%

Subtotal $755,227

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$730,227

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->
2

RPM First Name: Kim Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Hoang

RPM phone: 415-744-2370

RPM fax: 999-999-9999

RPM email: hoang.kim@epa.gov

Name of Site: Muscoy

Site City: San Bernadino

Site State: CA

Site Region: 9

Units Value

$/yr $1,100,000

yrs 22.8 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $14,754,617

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5% Performance not evaluated

# 5 0.0% 5 to 9 wells

gpm 9000 2.5% >500 gpm

wks 0 0.0% <2 wks

# 1 -2.5% 0 or 1 processes

# 60 2.5% 50.00 to 74.99

yrs 22.8 0.0% 20 yrs or more

A-F C 2.0% little difficulty for minor changes, severe for major changes

27.0%

27.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$14,754,617

Estimated potential savings (%): - 27.0%

Subtotal $3,983,747

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$3,958,747

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate
3

RPM First Name: Kim Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Hoang

RPM phone: 415-744-2370

RPM fax: 999-999-9999

RPM email: hoang.kim@epa.gov

Name of Site: Newmark

Site City: San Bernadino

Site State: CA

Site Region: 9

Units Value

$/yr $900,000

yrs 26.8 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $13,123,638

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5% Performance not evaluated

# 8 0.0% 5 to 9 wells

gpm 12000 2.5% >500 gpm

wks 0 0.0% <2 wks

# 1 -2.5% 0 or 1 processes

# 30 0.0% 25.00 to 49.99

yrs 26.8 0.0% 20 yrs or more

A-F B 3.0% little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes

25.5%

25.5% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$13,123,638

Estimated potential savings (%): - 25.5%

Subtotal $3,346,528

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$3,321,528

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->
4

RPM First Name: Michelle Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Lau

RPM phone: 415-744-2227

RPM fax: 415-744-2180

RPM email: lau.michelle@epa.gov

Name of Site: Selma Treating Co.

Site City: Selma

Site State: CA

Site Region: 9

Units Value

$/yr $300,000

yrs 6.8 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $1,684,303

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C C -2.5% Performance evaluated and found sufficient

# 6 0.0% 5 to 9 wells

gpm 150 0.0% 100 to 500 gpm

wks 0 0.0% <2 wks

# 1 -2.5% 0 or 1 processes

# 80 5.0% 75 or more

yrs 6.8 -5.0% 5.00 - 9.99 yrs

A-F C 2.0% little difficulty for minor changes, severe for major changes

17.0%

17.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$1,684,303

Estimated potential savings (%): - 17.0%

Subtotal $286,332

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$261,332

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate
REGION 10 SCREENING CALCULATIONS
1

RPM First Name: Debra Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Yamamoto

RPM phone: 206-553-7216

RPM fax: 206-553-0124

RPM email: yamamoto.debbie@epa.gov

Name of Site: Boomsnub/Airco / Site-Wide Ground Water OU

Site City: Hazel Dell

Site State: WA

Site Region: 10

Units Value

$/yr $1,000,000

yrs 28.8 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $15,085,551

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C C -2.5% Performance evaluated and found sufficient

# 22 2.5% 10 or more wells

gpm 135 0.0% 100 to 500 gpm

wks 3 2.5% 2.00 - 3.99 wks

# 3 2.5% 3 processes

# 160 5.0% 75 or more

yrs 28.8 0.0% 20 yrs or more

A-F E -2.5% moderate difficulty for minor changes, severe for major changes

27.5%

27.5% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$15,085,551

Estimated potential savings (%): - 27.5%

Subtotal $4,148,527

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$4,123,527

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->
2

RPM First Name: Carmella Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Grandinetti

RPM phone: 206-553-8696

RPM fax: 206-553-0124

RPM email: grandinetti.cami@epa.gov

Name of Site: Bunker Hill Superfund Site

Site City: Kellogg

Site State: ID

Site Region: 10

Units Value

$/yr $0

yrs 30.0 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $0

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C A 2.5% Performance not evaluated

# 0 0.0% no wells (e.g., drains, etc.)

gpm 0 -5.0% <10 gpm

wks 0 0.0% <2 wks

# 1 -2.5% 0 or 1 processes

# 232 5.0% 75 or more

yrs 30.0 0.0% 20 yrs or more

A-F A 5.0% little difficulty for minor changes or major changes 

25.0%

25.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$0

Estimated potential savings (%): - 25.0%

Subtotal $0

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

-$25,000

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate
3

RPM First Name: Kevin Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Rochlin

RPM phone: 206-553-2106

RPM fax: 206-553-0124

RPM email: rochlin.kevin@epa.gov

Name of Site: Commencement Bay, South Tacoma Channel, Well 12A

Site City: Tacoma

Site State: WA

Site Region: 10

Units Value

$/yr $300,000

yrs 9.0 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $2,133,380

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C B 5.0% Performance evaluated and found insufficient

# 5 0.0% 5 to 9 wells

gpm 150 0.0% 100 to 500 gpm

wks 3 2.5% 2.00 - 3.99 wks

# 1 -2.5% 0 or 1 processes

# 40 0.0% 25.00 to 49.99

yrs 9.0 -5.0% 5.00 - 9.99 yrs

A-F B 3.0% little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes

23.0%

23.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$2,133,380

Estimated potential savings (%): - 23.0%

Subtotal $490,677

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$465,677

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->
4

RPM First Name: Alan Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Goodman

RPM phone: 503-326-3685

RPM fax: 503-326-3399

RPM email: goodman.al@epa.gov

Name of Site: McCormick & Baxter Creosoting Co.

Site City: Portland

Site State: OR

Site Region: 10

Units Value

$/yr $250,000

yrs 30.0 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $3,843,113

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C C -2.5% Performance evaluated and found sufficient

# 6 0.0% 5 to 9 wells

gpm 3 -5.0% <10 gpm

wks 5 5.0% 4 wks or more

# 4 5.0% 4 or more processes

# 50 2.5% 50.00 to 74.99

yrs 30.0 0.0% 20 yrs or more

A-F A 5.0% little difficulty for minor changes or major changes 

30.0%

30.0% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$3,843,113

Estimated potential savings (%): - 30.0%

Subtotal $1,152,934

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$1,127,934

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate
5

RPM First Name: Hanh Date of implementation:

RPM Last Name: Gold

RPM phone: 206-553-0171

RPM fax: 206-553-0124

RPM email: gold.hanh@epa.gov

Name of Site: Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site

Site City: Bainbridge Island

Site State: WA

Site Region: 10

Units Value

$/yr $500,000

yrs 30.0 <-max of 30 yrs

% 5.00%

$ $7,686,226

Units Answer

Potential 

Savings (%) Range in Lookup Table

% 20.0%

Performance evaluation? A-C B 5.0% Performance evaluated and found insufficient

# 8 0.0% 5 to 9 wells

gpm 80 -2.5% 10 to 99.99 gpm

wks 0 0.0% <2 wks

# 3 2.5% 3 processes

# 20 -2.5% <25

yrs 30.0 0.0% 20 yrs or more

A-F B 3.0% little difficulty for minor changes, moderate for major changes

25.5%

25.5% (must be between 5% and 40%)

Summary

$7,686,226

Estimated potential savings (%): - 25.5%

Subtotal $1,959,988

Estimated RSE cost (Tier 3): - $25,000

$1,934,988

**Note:Estimated potential savings do not include costs associated with implementing actual system modifications

January 1, 2002

# of above-ground water treatment processes

GW monitoring (number wells * events-per-yr)

Down time per year

Optimization Factor

Number of pumping wells

Pumping rate

<------ Estimated potential savings ($)

Summation (%) ->

Estimated potential savings (%) ->

Annual O&M cost

Expected duration

Discount rate

Baseline present value:

Expected system duration

Political/Social factors (minor changes)

Potential savings (initial estimate)

Cost Item

Baseline present value ->