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-01-021a

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: 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

These appendices are not included in this document. 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