US EPA Region V Imagery Insert Form Document ID: Some images in this document may be illegible or unavailable in SDMS. Please see reason(s) indicated below: Illegible due to bad source documents. Image(s) in SDMS is equivalent to hard copy. Specify Type of Document(s) / Comments: EPA Region 5 Records O 205286 Superfund Record of Decision f H Includes COLOR or RESOLUTION variations. Unless otherwise noted, these pages are available in monochrome. The source document page(s) is more legible than the images. The original document is available for viewing at the Superfund Records Center. Specify Type of Document(s) / Comments: Confidential Business Information (CB1). This document contains highly sensitive information. Due to confidentiality, materials with such information are not available in SDMS. You may contact the EPA Superfund Records Manager if you wish to view this document. Specify Type of Document(s) / Comments: Unscannable Material: Oversized ___ or Format. Due to certain scanning equipment capability limitations, the document page(s) is not available in SDMS. The original document is available for viewing at the Superfund Records center. Specify Type of Document(s) / Comments: Document is available at the EPA Region 5 Records Center. Specify Type of Document(s) / Comments: Page 1
Transcript
US EPA Region VImagery Insert Form
Document ID:
Some images in this document may be illegible or unavailable inSDMS. Please see reason(s) indicated below:
Illegible due to bad source documents. Image(s) in SDMS is equivalent to hard copy.
Specify Type of Document(s) / Comments:
EPA Region 5 Records O
205286
Superfund Record of Decision f H
Includes COLOR or RESOLUTION variations.Unless otherwise noted, these pages are available in monochrome. The source document page(s) is more legible than theimages. The original document is available for viewing at the Superfund Records Center.
Specify Type of Document(s) / Comments:
Confidential Business Information (CB1).This document contains highly sensitive information. Due to confidentiality, materials with such information are not available
in SDMS. You may contact the EPA Superfund Records Manager if you wish to view this document.
Specify Type of Document(s) / Comments:
Unscannable Material:Oversized ___ or Format.Due to certain scanning equipment capability limitations, the document page(s) is not available in SDMS. The original
document is available for viewing at the Superfund Records center.
Specify Type of Document(s) / Comments:
Document is available at the EPA Region 5 Records Center.
Specify Type of Document(s) / Comments:
Page 1
ATTACHMENT 20
Superfund Record of Decision:South Valley/Edmunds Street, NM
Second Remedial Action(EPA/ROD/R06-88/037)
June 1988
PB89-225528
Superfund Record of Decision (EPA Region 6!South Valley/Edmunds Street, NM.(Second Remedial Action), June 1988
•(U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
S'JPERF'JND RECCRTJ OF D E C I S I O NS c u t n V a l l e y / Edmunds Street, NM
*u»«r.»/
• • - '•' " 1 ' ~: ". , ~ . A" .
A -3. ^ r. , '. . 2 ~ - ' • t — - - . t- ^ "^ "^ v
'Wn^T^*, ':? * AS
1 MWVIOM
€ . : -: . » 8»• E>i*uff»i*n) Ovg»nu*«on R*pi Ho
10 »0««llM>W«» J~. HO
It Coow<»Cl 0* Ct:ntlG, No
1C)
C,
-
14
The Scut . ' i Val ley / E d m u n d s Street s i t e is a la rge area in the s o u t h e r n p a r tof the C i t y of Albuquerque, New Mexico , s u r r o u n d i n g the m u n i c i p a l w a t e r welK n o w n as San Jose 6. W i t h i n th is la rge area are a number of i n d u s t r i a lp r o p e r t i e s owned and operated ty d i f f e r e n t g r o u p s and i n d i v i d u a l s . T h i sr e m e d i a l a c t i on addresses the Edmunas Street G r o u n d W a t e r operable jr . i t : :"tr.e Soutr . ' /alley site; the Ed.-r.ur. as Street p r o p e r t y is l oca ted in tr.es o u t h e a s t e r n corner of the s i te . The f o c u s of t r . is operaole u n i t .5 tr.earea a r o u n d t h e m o n i t o r i n g we l l S V - 1 0 , r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e d r a i n a g e p i t a r eaon the Edmunds Street p r o p e r t y . This area s the low spot of tr.e p r o p e r t yar receives much of the p rope r ty d r a i n a g e . Analyses of th i s area haves: n s i g n i f i c a n t evelb of i ndus t r i a l solvents in the soi l , and a p lume ofc o n t a m i n a t e d ground water s ta r t ing at the dra inage pit area and ex tend ing tthe east . The ground wate r source w i l l be treated as a sole-source a q u i f e rbecause there are no a l ternate sources a v a i l a b l e to the C i t y of A l b u q u e r q u eThe c o n t a m i n a t e d ground water c u r r e n t l y poses a direct threat toA l c u jue rque ' s water supply by m o v i n g t o w a r d the cit s we l l f i e l d s . ~'-.ep r i m a r y con taminan ts of concern a f f e c t i n g the qroun.. water inc lude v^. ,5 sueas ?CE and T C E .(^f*0 A*"~a"h.od Shee*" )ir
it.
Pec;rd of Decision3 - r u t n Va l l ey /Edmunds Street, NMSeccnd Remedial ActionC o n t a m i n a t e d Media: gwKey C o n t a m i n a n t s : VOCs (PCE, TCE)
'_;eite^ water ir.t: t r.e J^uiierwater ar.j j-r -cr. it :r ir. g . Tr.e: 3 C B" 4 . j ? C, wit.", c r e s e r. t w: r t r.
-j^-re_: cy tr.e ^a;e _rir.<ir.j .-.ater .-\
T';T::NAL TONTRCLS: N'ct aceiicable.K E':".%:? 3 5 : Aeration; Air Stripping; Containment; Extract i:n; Ground Xat-jrnnd Water Monitoring; Ground Water Treatment; '•'1'~s; Insite Iiscr.ar-je,rnsite Treatment; PCE; Plume Management; Safe Crinxing Water Act ;ode-£rurce Aquifer; State Criteria; TCE; Treatment Technology; VCCs.
} U N I T E D S T A T E S E N V I R O N M E N T A L P R O T E C T I O N A G E N C Y•' *f OION vi
DALLAS T[ (AS M202
:ON FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATIONSouth va l l ey s i te, Ei'i-nas Street Groundwater Operable UnitAlnuq-erque, New Mex ico
Tnis decision document outlines the selected remedial action for t^eEdnunds Street jroundwater Operable Unit in accordance with theComprehensive Environmental Response, Conpensation and Liability Act of1980 (CERClA), as anended by the Super fund Amendments and ReauthorizationAct of 1936 (SARA), and to the extent practicable, the National Oil andHazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan, 40 CJR Part 30C, November20, 1985.
The State of Hew Mexico (through the New Mexico Environmental ImprovementDivision) has heen provided an opportunity to comment on the technology anddegree of treatment proposed by the Record of Decision.
STATEMENT OF BASIS
This decision is based on the administrative record for the South Va.leysite, Edmunds Street Groundwate- Operable Unit ($** Attachment 7). Theattached index identifies t-e items which comprise the administrativerecord.
DESCRIPTION OF THE
Upon review of the Information contained in the administrative record. Itis EPA's judgement that recovery of the plune of contaminated groundwatermoving east from the Edmunds Street property with a well system and thetreatment of the recovered water with a packed aeration column appears tobest serve both statutory and selection criteria in relation to the othersolutions evaluated. The selected remedy would also Include monitoring ofboth groundwater, treated water and ambient air to ensure the effectivenessof the remedy. A detailed description of the remedy and an explanation ofhow it Tieets statutory requirements 1s contained In the attached "Summaryof Renedial Alternative Selection." This 1s only the first operable unitfor the Edmunds Street portion of the South Valley site. The selectedremedy is not intended to he the final remedy for this property.Additional remedial measures will be specified in subsequent Records ofDecision which nay affect the remedy selected 1n this Record of Decision.
ATTSITICN
FULLY LEGIBLE. DUE TO THE r^PCRTAJICZ
CF THE MATERIAL IT IS MADE AVAILABLE
TO THE PUELIC. HOWEVER, IT IS THE BEST
REPRODUCTION AVAILABLE FROM THE COPY
TO NTIS.
TIT CCfTLETE AS PAGPIATTD PER EOUECF..
DHffiCT QUESTIONS RESULTING FROM ILLEGIBILITY
U . S . EPAOSWER - HSCD
! ProncoonOfV»o<Em»fl»ncy
EPA.POD R06 »*03?J--« -9M
«EPA SuperfundRecord of Decision:
PB89-225S28
South Valley/Edmunds Street, NM
US. DEPARTMENT DFNATIONAL ~ = G H N C A . ,-;-o.-'Rl'J j f .^LO. VA JM., '
-•,e -j-ejj, 3es:ri.he-2 anove is protective 3* iunan nea'th and tie environment,attars iso'icar^e ar relevant and appropriate reaeral ano Stne re a, ji -eventsanc is cost-effective compared to equally protective alternatives. Thisrenedy satisfies tne preference for treatment that reduces toxicity, mobilityor volume as a principle elegant. Finally, it is determined that thtssa'jtioi u t i l i z e s 3e~iaient solutions and alternative technologies to the
extent practicahle.The State of New Mexico has been consulted on the selection of remedy forthe Sojth Valley Ednunds Sfeet 3roundwater Operable Uiit and the concurrenceof the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division has been requested.
Date Robert E. Layton Jr. .T.,Regional Administrator
2r Qpe-ar>le jmtSo.:* .alley Si:e3e:or: of Decision Concjrrences
Edmunds Street Groundwater Operable Unit Record of Decision has beenreviewed and I concur:
Allyn M. Cav-s, DirectorHazardous Waste Management Division (6H)
South Valley, Albuquerque, New "exlcoStreet Groundwater Operable Unit
Sue Location and Description
The Edn-jnds Street property is a portion of the South Valley Superfundsite in 4l5uquerqje, New Mexico. The South Valley Superfund site 1$ anarea surrounding the City of AlDuquerque Municipal Water Hell known asSan Jose 6, near the intersection of Broadway and Woodward Road 1nsouthern AlDuquerque. The Edmunds Street property 1s located at 3301Edmunds Street. Figure 1 below shows the larger South Valley site withthe Edmunds Street property 1n the southeastern corner of th* site.Figure 2 on the next page shows the Edmunds Street property 1n moredetail.
I AWE A 4# .riv.ii* j-\
'""NEW MExTcV '
c- -:•,:':33::
II
2
tt«
Figure 2 above shows .ic various potential sources of contaminationwUMn tne Edmunds Street property. This document concerns only one ofthem, the area surrounding the monitoring well labeled SV-10. The areaaround SV-10 Is called the drainage pit area. This area Is a low spot onthe property and much of the drainage for the property flows to thisspot. Significant levels of Industrial solvents have been four.d whensoil samples from this drainage pit have been analysed 1n laboratories.An Investigation Into the contamination problems at the Edmunds Streetproperty resulted In the Installation of the groundwater monitoring wellsshown In Figure 2. One of the results of the Investigation was thediscovery of a plume of contaminated growndwater starting at the drainagepit area and extending to the east.
*^e 2'a--a;e 31: itse'', otne<- potential sources of contamnation w i t i i ntie E;-.,r;s S:reet prooerty, and groundwater contamination in other areasw i l l r>e laia'ed frougi later decision documents. Th's i$ only the firstphase o' renediation for tne Edmunds Street property. The selectedremedy may he incorporated into or superceeded by the remedy for sourceconfo' and groundwater rene-jiation made in the subsequent Record ofDecision for tms property.
Cj"rent Site Status
After the existence of the plume of contaninated groundwater Masdiscovered, a separate investigation was launcned to discover the natureand extent of the groundwater plufie. As tne more detailed map in Figure3 snows, additional ground*ater monitoring wells were drilled along the
Figure 3
£55"
fiH-tiO
SH-USO-liO
IW-KO
MONTTOWNQ WELL LOCATIONS
ar;; sati i* '.re grou^drtdta" p'^ie to define 'ts boundaries. «a*.ersamples *e'e t2«e ' *ror> the wells and analyzed to determine whatchemcals *ere present and at what levels.
Table 1 shows tie contaminants fiat were f^*-.? in the jroundwaterTOmiomg well sano'es ana tne leve's JL wnicr. tney were detected. 4scan be seen f--ci tne Tanle, TOst of tne contaminants found we^ei n d u s t r i a l solvents. As this data shows, the concentration of tnecorrtaninants falls as tne pij^e moves to tne east. The major concern attne nonent is the threat to the water supply for the City of Albuquerque.Ma;:r wells fields tnat produce water for the City are in the migrationpatiway of the contan'inant pljne. THrf nearest well in the migrationpatiway is Miles Well #1, less than one mile to the northeast.
Site Risks
This Record of Decision is concerned with a single contaminated media,groundwater. It is, therefore, the groundwater route of exposure whichis of greatest concern. Table 1 presents those contaminants found in thegroundwater. There are no current groundwater users for the contaminatedwater in the contaninant pi me of concern, hut there 1s a CHy ofAlbuquerque water supply well In the path of the plume migration. Thelevel of contaminants appears to h« to low for toxic effects, hut thersis risk associated with chronic carcinogenic effects of Z x 10-2 .Attachnent 1 shows the calculat ions involved in reaching this number.
Enforcement Analysis
There is a list of several potentially responslhle parties (PRPs) for theprooerty on which this groundwater contanination originates. Theseinclude past and present owners and operators of the property. Theprimary PRPs for the purposes uf this document are Van Waters andRodgers, the current operator, and AmeriGas, the property owner. Thesetwo PRPs have expressed wi l l ingness to implement the selected remedy.Negotiations will he conducted in an attempt to memorialize agreement forPRP conduct of the Renedial Action under terms of a Consent Order.
Community Relations
There has heen some media interest in the overall South Valley Superfundsite, hut the interest fron individual c i t izens has heen lov. Notice topotential ly a f fec ted persons and the puhlic was provided through a pressrelease on May 10, 1988 accompanied by a direct mailing to Individualsand groups on the si te nailing list. T^e nailing included a fact sheetdescribing the sue problem, al ternat ives for cleanup and the proposedpian for renediation. The puhlic comment p?riod on the remediala l te rna t i ves ran fron May 16 to June 17., 198.L A public meeting onremedy select ion was held in Albuquerque on May 26, 1988, The response
VOLATILE ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS
TABLE ONE
Parameter inmicrogram per liter
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
1,2 Oichloroethane
Trans-1,2 Oichloroethene
1,1 Oichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
Tetrachloroethene
1 , 1 , 1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Acetone
GM-1 GM-2 GM-7
4.1 4.2
7.7 22
26
1.6
8.3 140
.
51 420
73
170
.
Monitoring Well
GM-8 GM-9 GM-9D GM-10 GM-II GM-MO
. . . . .
19 3.5
130 - ??
3.4
58 910 - 110
440 -
760 4400 - 38 360 -
200 1000 - 38 -
210 1400 - 10 110
250 15000 77 - 8.2
September 1987, Sampling Episode Data from the repo t 'Feasibi l i ty Study for Pluiw MaMI i / . t t mr>and Extracted Ground-Watei At 3301 Edmunds S t rc ' t . Albuquerque, New
to significant conments or criticisms submitted during the publicand during the conment period ire presented n tie Responsi veness Sunraryat the end of this document.
C^e'-at-'e Units
*~e I:*'.* valley s'te *as neei a^iiec nto 'our ose-at^e jn;ts.are -:-.,nc:s Street ~jround*ater , Esnjncis Street Source Cont-o' . *••-or;e:j£ Source Control , ana tne overall Offsite portion. Tie aivis'ono^ tne sue into tnese parts follows from the natjre of the site. TheSoutn Valley site is a large area surrounding the City well San Jose *6.Witnii this larger area are a number of industrial properties owned ando;erate: r-y differe*t 9- cos and individuals. Each of tne two sojrce;o"f3' :perahle j-v .<; -I'l lea' «rth a single ir.djstria' property fatthrough tne investigation process nas heen shown to have contaminationthat needs to he correctec. The overall Offsite operable unit isintended to deal *ith the site as a whole, leading to a decision abouttne la-;er groundwater prohl en that caused this area to hecone aSuperf^na site, while the source control operable units eliminate thesources of groundwatsr contamination.
The fourth operable unit, the Edmunds Groundwater operable unit which isthe subject of this document, deals with a specific problem which doesnot appear to directly affect the larger South Valley problem. The Edmundsgroundwater problem does start within the Edmunds Street property, however,and needs to be dealt with during resolution of the greater South ValleySuperfund site problems. The overall Offsite operable unit and the twosource control operable units should he resolved within three months,following completion of reports detailing addition..! investigations inthe individual industrial properties and the overall site.
Alternatives Evaluation
The alternatives seek to eliminate the single route of contamination ofissue for this Record of Decision, groundwater. The source of thecontamination will be handled through a separate decision document. Asstated in -e Oedaratic' this is only a first action concerning thisproperty ana is not the al groundwater related remedial action.
This decision will be limited to the specific groundwater plume moving tothe east as previously described. Any other groundwater contaminationoriginating from the sane source will be considered in a separate document.The groundwater source in question, the Santa Fe formation will he treatedas a sole source aquifer. It is the source for drinking water for the Cityof Albuquerque and no alternate source is available. The Santa Fe Formationconsists of unconsoli dated sands, gravels, silts and clays to an approximate2000 foot depth. The contaminant plume appears to be currently containedabove a lower permeability layer found at approximately 180 feet in depth.However, in borings farther in the direction of migration, the lower permea-bility layer cannot be found. One purpose of this effort will be to haltmigration of the pi jme before it moves beyond the lower permeability layerand deeper into the aquifer. The contaminant plume poses a direct threatto the water supply for the City of Albuquerque. The contaminant plumeis moving toward the City well fields, with well Miles II the nearest well
saip'ng 3f tie *e'1 sno*s that it "as 10*. >e: neei contai'iaied.
Of tie decision elements listed ahove, tne ooses tne greatestconstraints on tie selection of renedy. Any --e^edy selected w i l l nave toha'*. •"•gra:ion of tie coftai'nait 3'j^e w.i'i a /ery siort period oft:*-*. j'^en tie constants j^s: I'sc^ssea, tie screening processraoidly e'lmnated i n - s i t - t-eat-ient j: in opt:in as it would invoke :solong j ;er;oJ or inple^eotation. Extraction and treatment remaned astne only viadle alternative.
A1ternatives
Eaci alternative was evaljated on tie following criteria:
1. Short-term effectiveness: Protection of nunan health and tn«environnent during construction and implementation.
2. Long-term effectiveness and pernanence: Effectiveness afterconstruction and implementation is complete.
3. Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or voljme: Anticipated performanceof the specified treatment technologies,
4. Implenentahllity: Technical and administrative feasibility ofalternatives and the availability of required resources.
5. Coot; Cost of construction and operation and maintenance.
6. Compliance with ARARs: Compliance with applicable or relevant andappropriate standards (abbreviated as ARARs) from existing laws andregulations. These are standards or regulations that either do applyor at least should be considered when looking at an alternative.
7. Overall protection of hunan health and environment: How thealternative as a whole protects and maintains protection of human healthand the environment.
S. State acceptance: The State's preferences or concerns about thealternatives.
9. Community acceptance: The community's preferences or concerns aboutthe alternatives.
All of the alternatives with the exception of no action require theextraction and treat-rent of the contaminated q'oundwater to existingstandards. This automatically -leets the requirements for both short
c*ite"a *3r •eiwCt'sn of to»':i:/, •nor- t/,wi:n iPA^s *.nrou;pl t~e 'eiova' 3* tie conta---a
*.ne ;r3jn-«a; — . Tms redoes the comparison of tne alternatives toimplenentaMlity, cost, -.erall protection and State and Communityacceptance cntena.
' s are:
'. No Action: No u.fon would ne taken. T«e site would renain in itscurrent condition. Tne pi .ne o* coordinated groundwater would continueto migrate toward tne City of ^uq-erque wells.
2. Recovery: All of these alternatives involve the extraction of ground-water througn pooping wells screened m tne portion of the aquifer contaminated,The extraction wells are planned to he 8-tnch dianeter wells with steelcasir,g naving stainless steel screens. The screens wi l l he positioned inthe upper portion of the aquifer to recover the contaminated groundwater.Preliminary design calls for wells capable of yielding 50 to 100 gallonsper minute (gpm). The punping system will be designed with sufficientwells and pumping capacity to recover tne contaminated groundwater comingfrom the Edmunds Street property ?hove the limits deemed necessary toprotect human health and the environment. These limits are discussedmore fully in the Statuatory Determinations Section of this summary.
Preliminary des jns indicate that two wells located north and south ofthe monitoring well cluster GM11 should he sufficient when pumping at acombined rate of 75 gpm. Actual rates of pumping and the adequacy of twowells will he determined during remedial design and once the system is inplace and its performance can he monitored.
2-A. Groundwater Extraction We . System: This option would use pumpi - ;wells alone to contain and recover the contaminated groundwater.
2-B. Well System and Partial Slurry Wall: This option would conMnc apunping well system with a si jrry wall in front of the migrating plumeslowing further migration.
2-C. Well System and Complete Slurry Wall: This option would combine apunping well system and a slurry wall that completely surrounded the areaof contaninated groundwater.
3. Treatment of Contaminated Groundwater: Once the contaminatedgroundwater was recovered it would he treated by one of the following methods.
3-A. Treatment with Packed Column Aeration.
3-8. Treatnent with Carbon Adsorption.
3-C. Treatment at a Puhlically Owned Treatment Works (DOTW).
4. Discharge: Once the wa'.°r has neen feared, the treated -aterr>e foiled. Two options *e"eJ-A. S^-'acs di sc
•1-3. Restoration of *ate." to tie aq^'^er tnrcjgn i n f i l t r a t i o n ga'lenes.
Comparative Analy-.is of Alternatives
The following is a description of tne analysis of tne various alternatives-sing fie re-ia'n^ng criteria for comparison.
Irs'e-ent- Cost ?vera'l State Communityanility Protection Acceptance Acceptance
1
2-A
2-B
2-C
3-A
3-B
3-C
4-A
4-8
* h«1ng a favorahle evaluation- heing a negative evaluation
Impleirientability - All of the options use proven readily availabletechniques. The slurry wall options (2-3 and C) face difficulties due tothe presence of an interstate highway and a petroleum pipeline in thearea of construction as well as doubts about construction at 180 footplus depths. The City POTW desires to reserve its available treatmentcapacity, therefore the use of its plants for the POTW treatnent option(3-C) was eliminated.
Cost - Using a 10 year project life, a cost comparison was developed foreach of the three parts of the alternatives: extraction, treatment, anddischarge. More extensive cost information Is presented in Attachnent 2.All tne extraction options involve pumping well* and a collection systemestimated at $615,000. A partial slurry wall would cost $1,923,336.Costs for a fjll slurry wall could not te developed as engineering costsfor des'ign and construction could not he estimated. packed tower aeration
:i
was est'-iated to cos: $203,200. Carbon Adsorstion *as estimate: a:S'03,503 m a i n l y eke :o nigner operation and maintenance costs. ")iscr-ar5eof me treated watir to tie surface was estimated at S27.QOO.Using infiltration galleries was estimated at $54,000.
Overa'' 'rotectior, - *io act'on offers no protection. Packed toweraeration ana carrion acsoroticn riotn would treat to tie sane gro^nd-aterstanaa':s. Tie a^ re'ease associated with packed tower aeration josesno estimated nealth threats. Tie threat of tne contaminated carnon f'-oncarhon adsorption varies depending on the metnod of disposing of tnespent :arnon. Discharged water would be of similar qual'ty in eit*er
discnarge metnod.
State and Community Acceptance - Preservation of useable water ispreferred giving infiltration a higher level of acceptance than dischargeto the surface. Infiltration would also eliminate concerns of downstreamusers of surface waters.
Selected Remedy
The selected remedy consists of the following parts: containment andcollection of the contaminated groundwater through the use of anextraction well system, treatment of the recovered groundwater throughpacked tower aeration, and return of the treated water to the aquiferthrough ''nfiltration galleries.
The risk level attained at completion of the response action 1s discussedin the following Statutory Determinations section.
No action was rejected as it did nothing to mitigate the potentialimpa.:s of the contaminated groundwater. Of the collection options,pumpng alone was selected since a system of pumping wells alone iscapable of containing and recovering the contaminated groundwater. Thiseliminates the need for construction of slurry walls with the associatedrisks of exposure during construction and implementation difficulties.Packed tower aeration was selected for the treatment method due togreater ease of operation and lower operation and maintenance costs overcarbon adsorption. ReinfiItration of the treated water was chosen oversurface discharge due to a desire to preserve the water that could belost through evaporation during surface discharge and the beneficialeffects of recycling the treated water through the contaminated area ofthe aquifer. The additional benefits include the flushing action of therecycled water and the containnent and retreatment of any water exitingthe treatment system above standards for cleanup.
Statutory Determinations
Under Section 121 of CE&CL.A, the selected renedy must satisfy certainstatutory requirements specified within that section. This section willdiscuss each of these requirements one at a time. The selected remedy nust:
1. Be prs:ective of lunan iealth ani tne environment.
?. ^'*3"> A.-^ARs
3. 9e cost-effective
4. Utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies orresource recovery technologies to the -naximun extent practicable.
5. Address whether the preference for treatment that reduces toxicity,momlity, or volune as a principle element is satisfied.-
The f'rst statutory requirement, that the selected remedy he protectiveof lunan health and the environment can he examined through examinationof tne two pathways for exposure, ingestion of contaminated groundwaterand inhalation of volatilized contaminants. The first of these wi l l beaddressed tnrough the goals for treat-rent of the contaminatedgroundwater. The treatment goals will he hased primarily on twocriteria, maximum contaminant levels (HCLs) developed under, the SafeDrinking Act and tne State of New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission(NMVQCC'/ Regulations for discharges onto or below the surface of theground whichever of the two is more stringent. These goals are given inTable 2.
Carhon TefachlorideChloroform1,2 DichloroethaneTrans-1,2 Dichloroetnent1,1 OichloroetheneHethylene ChlorideTetrachloroethene1,1,1 -Trie hi oroethaneTnchloroetheneAcetone
5100
570**
5100-20
60-5.
MCINMWQCC
NCLICLG
WQCCWWQCC
-NMWQCCNHWQCC-MCL.
* MCI - for the maximum contaminant under the Safe Drinking Uater ActNMUQCC - for the New Mexico discharge regulations
** This standard is a maximum contaminant limit goal (NClG)
13
r-e;t'.< ta tie discjssnn 3* app''s^j--e~en*. s I'A^s , tie se:onc s t a t u t o r y aete-^'iat' 3^ . Tie
t*o reg u l a t i o n s -ne-itioned <jnove are tne primary standards nvs'. *ed *j'gr3una*ater. "nere is a tnird NMWQCC standard tnat may apply. It isGeneral Provision 1-101.UU which calls for control of 'toxicpo'> 1 atmt",'s* which would create a lifetime cancer risk of -lore tnan one:i^cer :er ::c,:03 eocsed person:,. Attachment 1 shows the lifet'-.eci->cer ••>«. nosed iy :onti-*.Tants detected in tne contaminatedg-DuiJwate*. ^ttacnnent 1 also negates those contamnants wtnci arc.mcluaed in tie '(HWQCC list of tome pollutants. Water heingreinf11trated « i 1 1 need to neet this standard. In addition to thesegroundwater regulations, the use of packed tower aeration also involvedcompliance witn ai" regulations. Air dispersion modeling using two £PAcertified .-xdels, ISC and Valley, was done to determine air impacts.Tnere appears to he no significant health impacts associated with use ofpackeo tower aeration. Calculations of these impacts are shown inAttacnment 3. The two air ARARs most applicable are the Cl*an Air Actand the Anhient Air Quality Standards and Air Quality Control Regulationsfor Alr>uquerque/3ernalillo County. The emission rate from the packedtower aeration system is well helow the regulated rates from both ofthese sets of air regulations. The calculations are shown in Attachment 4.A full list of all ARARs considered can be found in Attachment 5.
The third criteria, cost effectiveness, is met by the selected remedy.Packed tower aeration -s the nost cost effective of the treatment methodswhich are protective of human health. The fourth criteria, permanence,can be related to the recovery and treatment of the contaminatedg.-oundwater. The selected remedy will restore the contaminated water toa fully useable condition and the will restore the treated water to theaqui fer.
The final criteria 1s the preference for treatinent that reduces toxicity,mobility, or volume as a principle element. The selected remedy stopsmigration of the contaminated groundwater plume and treats thecontaminated groundwater to reduce its toxicity. This eliminates theprimary route of exposure to the public. The air exposure associatedwith the selected remedy has been examined and appears to pose nosignificant threat to human health.
Significant Changes 1n the Selected Alternative
There was no change in the recommended alternative presented to the publicduring tne puMic comment period and at the public meeting and thatrecommended alternative is the selected remedy.
This rormuniry Relations Responsiveness Surrnary lias been prepared toprovide written responses to corrvents submitted regarding the proposed planof action at 3331 Edmunds street, South Valley hazardous waste site. Thesu-rtnary is divided into two sections:
Section I: Background of Cormm'.ty Involverent and Concerns. This sectionprovides a brief nisccr/ of rotnr, unity interest and concerns raised dur ingtne remedial planning activities at South Valley.
Section II: Sontnary of Major Comments Received. The comments (both oraland written) are sumar i zeu and EPA's responses art provided.
I . Background of Community Involvement
Due to the possibility of contamination of the entire San JoseWellfield, the South valley site has received extensive media attention.However, because of the heavily industrialized nature of the site areaand the lack of exposure, citizen concern has been very
Although no citizen groups have been formed to deal specifically withthe problems posed by the South Valley site, several groups haveexpressed a general interest regarding overall environmental concerns inthe Albuquerque area. No specific interest has been not-d involving theEdmunds Street — operty.
II. Summary of Major Comments Received
The press release and Proposed plan fact sheet announcing the publiccomment period and public -nee ting were distributed on May 10, 1988.The corment period beqa.~ xi Nay 16, 1988 and was extended until June17, 1988. A public meeting was held for the area residents and localofficials on nay 26, 1988 at the Radisson Hotel. The purpose of thismeeting was to explain the results of the remedial investigation andto outline the various alternatives presented in the feasibilitystudy. Approxi.ttatrly 43 people from the area attended the meeting, and5 residents made oral statements or asked questions. No written Garmentsor questions were received.
Overall, the residents and local officials do not oppose the proposedremedy. During the public corment period, there were conments/questionsregarding the following:
:on*. i~-
Response: Tn-s is only the first of several ooerahle units. There w i l l r>ef .it-re "eetings and comment periods on otner portions of tne largerSouti Valley site. Resets of other renedial investigations and cleanup:'a"s w i l l ?e a v a i l a b l e to t-e p u b l i c m t"e "ex*. few montns. '-ose whoattends tne p^nl i : -ieetmg ana registered or nade comments djn-«g :iePwo'ic conr.en: period ^e^e aa^ea to tie n a i l i n g l i s t and w i l l recede :ni'-
^n 2: 3o you [EPA] have a l i s t of the conpounds that you haveiae n c i f i e d as contaminants in tne area'
Response: Ves, the l i s t is included in the reports at the publicrepositories, specifically in Tahle 1 of "Feasibility Study for PI j-neStabilization and Extracted Ground-Water At 3301 Edmunds Street, Alnuquerque,New Mexico."
Question 3: Oo you have any preliminary technical data Involving theefficiency of the two proposed methods, the air stripping process or carbonadsorption?
Response: Yes, there is information available through the USEPA Office ofDrinking Uater on the efficiency of air stripping for the majority ofcompounds that ** found at the site. No individual st.Mes were • * usingwaste from this site. Once the cleanup decision 1s na^e, such • . ,y *111he performed as a part of the design process.
Question 4: Are copies of the remedial Investigation anrf feasibility studyavai lable?
Response: 'es, they are a v a i l a b l e at the four repositories in flew Mexicowhich are listed in the fact sheet and at the EPA offices in Dallas.
Question 5: The estimate for cleanup tine in the proposed plan Mas fiveyears. Is this a realistic estimate?
Response: The five year time is a minimum. Groundwater contaminationgenerally takes ; long time to clean up. EPA does not wish to understatethe cleanup time.
Question 6: A v a i l a b i l i t y of the documents seens to he a problem,particularly at the Albuquerque Public Library. Is this the onlyrepository'
Response: NO, there are two others in Albuquerque, the University of NewMexico Linrary, and the City County SjilJing. A check w i l l be made at theAlbuquerque puMic Library to see if tnere *as a problem in a v a i l a b i l i t y oftne documents.
?jesf:- ': Are fere any ::>n*,a-"ia-it$ t-a*. <*0j'1 no: r>e -e-iovei fa: 3-e^Jji^ :n :ne Edi^nis Street properties7
Response: No. It is a requirement that all of tne contaminants that arefound in the groundwater he renoved to levels that are below those set Mytne Sa'e Drinking Uater Act or the 'lew Mexico Water Control Comnission
l at ions.
ion 3: This nethod [tie air stripping netnod] would releaseconta-nnants into the air. Is there any data available to the public ontne estimated amount of contamination to he released?
Response: Yes. One of the documents in the public repositories tilled,"Air Dispersion Modeling Analysis For A Packed Aeration Column, VanWaters & Rogers, Inc., Edmunds Street Site, Albuquerque, New Mexico"involves an air model that was used to predict the levels of contaninationtnet could he expected if the air stripping method is used*.
Question 9: M i l l you also he monitoring air quality if that method [airstripping] is used?
Response: Yes, we would not use the air stripping method unless we couldmonitor for air quality. Regular air monitoring w1l be required to ensurethat the air stripping method is operating properly.
Question 10: Given the fact that the City of Albuquerque Is under sanctionfor violations of the Clean Air Act, has the proposal for «1r stripping beencleared through the City?
Response: The City is under sanction for violations of the carbon monoxidestandards. The contaminants associated with this cleanup would have noeffect on this situation. Use of the air stripper falls within the standardsset by the Albuquerque/Sernali llo County air regulations and the Clean AirAct.
Question 11: Old you consider the cumulative effects of operating the airstripper?
Response: Yes, w« examined both the short-term effects and long-term effectsof air releases during use of the stripper and found that they would notpose a health threat either to workers onslte or nearby residents.
17
ATTACHMENT ONE
CARINOGENIC RISK FROMCHRONIC EXPOSURE TO CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER
isA-l
Carcinogenic R^s* rrom Chronic Exposu'e to Contaminated Groundxater
The following calculations involve the use of certain standard assumptions.These assumptions include the following: Consumption of 2 liters ofwater a day for 70 years at a body weight of 70 kilograms. The valuesused for me concentrations of contaminants are a combination of valuesfor two wells. Host of tie concentrations come from a sample frommonitoring well 3N-9, the monitoring well within the plume having thehighest level of contamination. However, this well does not contain allof the contaminants of concern. For those that did not appear in thesample from G*-9, valjes were taken from a sample for well GM-1.
The calculations were done as follows:
concentration 2 liters cancer potencyof contaminant x 3 a y x factor Increased
(part per million)_____________________ • lifetime cancer risk
70 kilograms hody weight
It should be noted that there are no cancer potency factors fortrans 1.2 dlchloroethene, 1,1,'. tMchloroethane, or ictton*.
Contaminant Concentration Cancer Potency Risk(part per billion) Factor
8.1 x 10-29.1 x 10-20.57.5 x 10-35.1 x 10-21.1 x 10-2
1.86.81.69.46.44.4
10-510-510-210-S10-310-4
total 2.3 x 10-2
1')
ATTACHMENT 2
COST ESTIMATES
Cost EstimatesA-2
Tne cost estimates ^elo* were ;alcu'3ted ass^-^g t^at insta'latim ::s:$'j :,e 1.5 tnes tie cao'tal costs, fiat 9";'ieering costs wojl-3 r-e
percent :f tie capital costs, fiat tne project *ou'2 ^ave a tenyear l i f e and tie c a l c u l a t i o n s jsed a J\ C'sco-nted rate.
Extraction and pumps
capital costs 50,000pipelines ! 90,000installation 4 engineering 255,000operation & maintenance
materials & power at 15,000/yearlanor at 15,000/year 210,000
Partial Slurry Hall
capital costs 1,680,000engineering 336,000savings from reduced pumping -92,664
Complete Slurry Wall
total 615,600
total 1,923,000
No calculation was done 'or this option. The figure for thepartial slurry wall can he used as a minimum. In addition tothose costs would be an unknown additional cost for furtherinvestigation of the confining layer into which the wall wouldbe based and subsequent greater extent of the slurry wall.
Packed Aeration Column
capita? costs 50,000Deration and maintenance 70,200*TStallation and engineering 85,000
Carbon Adsorption Unit
capital costs 150,000sand filters 50,000installaiton and engineering 340,000operation and maintenance at 24,000/year 240,000
Surface Discharge
pipe 10,000installation and engineering 17,000
Infiltration Galleries
total 205,200
total 780,OOC
total 27,000
caoital costsinstallation and engineering
20,00034,300 total 54,000
• A
ATTACHMENT 3
A-3
Health Impacts From Packed Tower Aeration
The calculations that follow on the health impacts of packed tower aerationare based on the air dispersion modeling detailed in the report entitled,"AT- Dispersion Modeling Analysis for a Packed Aeration Column, Van Water ana3oge-s, inc., Ednunds Street Sue, Albuquerque, New Mexico."" Tnree .Ticdels «ereused in this report. The calculations below are based on the one known asValley, tne more conservative of the models for complex terrain. In addition,t«o conservative assumptions were made. The first involved the quality oftne water entering the column. The level of contaminants in the incoming wateris expected to rise for approximately two years and to then hegin to decline.The peak predicted contaminant values were used for the calculation even thoughthis condition will he short-lived. The second conservative assumption involvedthe use of sunmer inversion neterologicel conditions. This is the worse casefor valley conditions and was used even though this condition will not occurfor most of the year. Finally, the values used to calculate exposures for thetwo nearest residential areas came from points between the proposed towerlocation and the residential area. This gives higher levels than would occurat the actual locations. The Kirtland Addition is 1500 meters north/northeastof the column location so ihe 1373 meter value was used. The houses alongUesmeco are 850 meters northwest of the site, so the 686 meter value was used.The Table that follows shows that even with these combined conservativeconditions, the risk posed by the aeration column is very smal1.
- This indicates that no carcinogenic risk was calculated as no cancer pot* ty factor was available,
ATTACHMENT 4
Tne Clean Air Act limits air emission from hydrocarbon sources to UD tonsper year, using the estimated worst quality of water expecte-1 to enter theaeration column (1628 total micrograms per liter contaminants) and a 100gallon per minute How rate of water, the following calculation wa$performed for annual emissions:
3400 hours 4500 gallons 1628 ug 1 g. 1 lb. 3.785 liter—....... x —......... X ———-- X -— X ——— X ———-- ——
year hour liter 10 454 g gallon
•513 pounds per year or 0.25 tons per year.
The Ambient Air Quality Standards and Air Quality Control Regulations forAlbuquerque/Bernallllo County have a maximum concentration of 100 ug/m3
In ambient afr for non-methane hydrocarbons. The air Modeling using theVALLEY model showed the maximum Impact would occur north/northeast of thecolumn at a distance of 229 meters.
Chemical Concentration In micrograms per cubic meter
im!"iii!!!*!<? f iJ :>»«JFli is - « >H;»»-',!• P * *
•"'I'
11
7
[•
••
^£S
Rit
titif*•S r•»rH1
^
1*
ii
ATTACHMENT 6
STATE OF NEW MEXICO CONCURRENCE
.11.°3»: 0"ce Be. 968
^cj ft Nt* Me^co 87534. C96B
EN\, iRONMEMTAL
.Cf«t JTBuf Wri .
C -*c:c-- ' - '
.» HEALTH «o ENVIRONMENT
June 27, 1988
Allyn D a v i S , Director ( 6 H )Hazardous W a s t e Management D i v i s i onU.S. EPA, Region VI1445 Ross Ave .Dal las. TX 75202-2733
Dear Mr. Dav is :
EID concurs with the remedy proposed by EPA for the Edmunds StreetGroundwater Operable Unit of the South Va l ley Superfund site, withthe understanding that this decision relates only to the plume ofcontaminated ground ttater that extends eastward from the 3301 EdmundsStreet property in Albuquerque, tour staff has done excellent workon this project.
We stress thet this operable unit concerns only a small part of thesite and only a part of the Edmunds Street property. As we discussedwith your staff on June IS, selection Implementation of a comprehensiveremedy for the South Valley site demands multi-agency coordination.EIO trusts EPA, the lead agency for this site, to provide the necessarycoordination and to work with the rest of us toward a viable remedy.EID also expects EPA to follow through with past commitments to definethe extent of contamination by CERCLA wastes to the north and eas t .during remedial design if ne r»ssary.
