HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-08-27 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
�s P.O. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY,CALIFORNIA 02728-8127
qy� WF 10844 ELLIS,FOUNTAIN VALLEY,CALIFORNIA 927D 7018
(714)982-2411
August 20, 1986
NOTICE OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
DISTRICTS NOS, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 & 14
AUGUST 27, 1986 - 7:00 P.M.
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, California
�.r
Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting of August 13, 1986,
the Boards of Directors of county Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2,
3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14 will meet in an adjourned regular meeting
at the above hour and date.
secretary
II BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
County Sanitation Districts apr, Offi. B. 8127
of Orange County, California 10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708
Telephones:
A. Code 774
JOINT BOARDS 962-2411
AGENDA
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 27, 1986 - 7 :00 P. M.
(1) Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation
( 2) Roll call
( 3 ) Briefing by the State Department of Health Services on a
draft report entitled "Stringfellow Facility Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study: Development and Initial
Screening of Alternatives"
( 4) Other business and communications, if any
( 5) Consideration of motion to adjourn
MANAGER'S AGENDA REPORT
Post Offiu Box 9127
County Sanitation Districts 10844 Ellis Avenue
of Orange County, California Fountain Volley, Calif., 92708
Tekph"nes:
Area Code 714
JOINT BOARDS 96124111
ADJOURNED JOINT MEETING
AUGUST 27, 1986 - 7:00 P.M.
Briefing by the State Department of Health Services on a draft report
entitled "Stringfellow Facility Remedial Investigation easibl ity tudy:
Development of Initial Screening of Alternatives."
On May 30, 1986 the State Department of Health Services (DOHS) issued a
Draft Report entitled "Stringfellow Facility Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study: Development and Initial Screening of Alternatives". The purpose of the
report is: (1) to formulate alternative long-term remedial actions to prevent
or minimize migration of contamination from the Stringfellow Hazardous Waste
Site; (2) to prevent or minimize the impact of the contaminants which have
already migrated from the site; and (3) to screen the alternative remedial
actions for technical feasibility environmental/public health impact and cost.
The report is termed a "working document" and will be used for discussion at
future community meetings involving the DOHS, EPA, and the public. The report
represents an intermediate step in the complete long-term feasibility study and
review process.
The staff prepared a Summary Report on the Stringfellow Long-Term Remedial
Plan and reviewed it with the Executive Committee in June. A copy of the
summary was provided to each Board member with the agenda material for the
regular July Joint Board Meeting. At the July meeting the Directors were polled
and August 27, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. was selected for a briefing on the report for
the Directors by DOHS representatives.
Enclosed is a copy of the Summary Report on the Stringfellow Long-Term
Remedial Plan prepared by staff. Any Director that would like a copy of the
full report, please contact Blake Anderson, the Districts' Director of
Operations at (714) 962-2411, Extension #350.
+ COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
w ORANGE COUNTY. CAUFORNIA
+LMa E . S avEMUE
June 20, 1986 wuwrux vx,_cr =wEc"wa MMn '27
mu xa.z9lo
SUMMARY REPORT
STRINGFELLOW LONG-TERM REMEDIAL PLAN
The purpose of this report is to update the Directors on the status of the
Stringfellow site and provide a preliminary review of the California Department
of Health Services (DOHS) recently completed draft report entitled "Stringfellow
Facility Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study: Development and Initial
Screening of Alternatives". The report was prepared by their consultant,
Science Applications International Corporation, and issued on May 30, 1986.
PURPOSE OF OOHS REPORT - DEVELOPMENT AND INITIAL SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES
The purpose of the DOHS report is to formulate broad alternative long-term
remedial actions to prevent or minimize the migration of contaminated
groundwater from the Stringfellow site, and to prevent or minimize the impact of
contaminants which have already migrated from the site. The report screens the
alternative remedial actions for technical feasibility, environmental/public
health impacts, and environmental suitability. The report is tensed a "working _
document" and will be used for discussion at future community meetings involving
the OOHS, EPA, and the public (a meeting in Orange County is planned for this
summer). The report represents an intermediate step in the complete long term
feasibility process.
STRINGFELLOW BACKGROUND
The Stringfellow hazardous waste site was operated as a hazardous waste disposal
facility from 1956 to 1972. It is located in the middle of a narrow box canyon
one-half mile north of Highway 60 in Riverside County near Glen Avon (see
Attachment 1).
Approximately 34 million gallons of liquid industrial waste from Los Angeles,
Orange, and other surrounding counties were deposited at the site. Included in
this amount were spent acids, caustics, solvents, pesticides, cyanides, and
metal compounds. The site was eventually closed when it became apparent that
liquid waste was percolating from the waste pits and into the groundwater and
that a down-canyon plume of contaminated groundwater was advancing toward the
community of Glen Avon and into the Chino Basin. Mitigation measures began in
1980 with the draining and minor excavation of the open disposal pits and
covering them with a clay cap. Also included were concrete diversion channels
that intercept surface flows and divert them away from the site.
1
INTERIM REMEDIAL PLAN
The Sanitation Districts became involved in the project when the Santa Ana
Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA) approached us for authorization to permit
contaminated groundwater extracted from the Stringfellow site to be discharged
to the Districts' sewerage system after pretreatment to Districts' standards.
Conditional permission was granted in late 1984 by the Boards of Directors after
having considered the suitability of the project for discharge to the Districts'
sewer system. In December 1985, the interim remedial plan was executed when
discharge commenced from the treatment plant constructed by the California
Department of Health Services and operated by the EPA. Daily analysis of the
treated groundwater has shown that the discharge is consistently in full
compliance with the stringent limitations of the discharge permit issued by
SAWPA as authorized by the Districts. The plant is currently operating at
approximately 25,000 to 40,000 gallons per day. The interim permit allows up
to 187,000 gallons per day.
LONG-TERM REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
The long term solution to the clean up of the Stringfellow site falls into three
broad categories (see Attachment 2).
° The first is the interception of the clean surface water and
groundwater prior to its entry into the Stringfellow site.
This alternative would prevent the ongoing contamination of
groundwater and its movement down-canyon and into the groundwater
basin adjacent to the Santa Ana River.
° The second alternative is to excavate all the contaminated soil
and waste mixture from the Stringfellow site, and then either
treat it on-site and rebury it or remove it to an off-site
location.
° The third major alternative is to intercept the contaminated
groundwater after it leaves the Stringfellow site, treat it,
and provide final disposal to a POTW (presumably our facilities
through the SARI line) or by on-site solar evaporation.
All of these alternatives have received preliminary evaluation within the DOHS
report. Key to their final evaluation is the development of a groundwater model
and completion of the final remedial investigation report which is due in late
1986.
According to the OOHS report, the following conclusions have been made regarding
the three major alternatives:
Intercept Clean Water Prior to Entering Site:
The first major alternative, the interception of clean water prior to its
entrance into the Stringfellow site, appears to be both economically and
technically feasible. Wells would be drilled up-canyon from the site and
the clean water would be pumped to a creek bed. Its only apparent
v
2
_ v
limitation is the inability to completely eliminate the problem. That is,
even with an interceptor system completely in service, it appears that the
migration of contaminated groundwater into the Stringfellow site will
continue. This is because full interception of the up-canyon water is not
possible. The effect of intercepting the clean groundwater would be to
significantly decrease the amount of contaminated groundwater necessary for
interception, treatment, and disposal . The report estimates that the
existing mid-canyon extraction rate of contaminated groundwater would
decrease approximately 50%.
Excavate and Treat or Haul Contaminated Soil/Waste:
The second major alternative, excavation of the contaminated waste and soil
material and either treat it and rebury it or haul it away, does not appear
to be feasible according to the consultant. The estimated volume of
material necessary for removal is approximately 1 million cubic yards. This
is equivalent to a football field 570' deep. The volume itself is
significant but other problems also exist.
Assuming that the material is removed off-site for ultimate disposal with or
without some kind of stabilization step, the likelihood of obtaining local
permits and community permission is doubtful . The problem with the McColl
Dump is an example of the near impossibility of transferring Superfund waste
from one site to another.
Excavation followed by on-site treatment and reburial was also considered.
The sail would first be treated utilizing incineration or chemical
stabilization. Several technologies were examined and all have been judged to be unsuitable because decontamination would not be to a degree which
would render the soil non-hazardous. The report does conclude that it is
feasible to leave the contaminated material in place if effective dewatering
is accomplished.
Pretreatment and Disposal to SAWPA/Districts' System or Solar Evaporation:
The third major alternative, down-canyon interception of the contaminated
groundwater followed by treatment and disposal to a POTW (presumably the
SAWPA/Districts' SARI system) or through solar evaporation, is an
alternative or a sub-alternative found in all of the recommended
alternatives appearing within the OOHS report.
In all of the Stringfellow remedial alternatives identified by the
consultant in the report, there apparently will exist the need for the
interception of down-canyon contaminated groundwater. This is because
upstream interception cannot prevent 100% of the water movement onto the
site and, even given the feasibility of excavation, significant quantities
of contaminated material would be left behind in the hard decomposed granite
and in fractures in the bedrock.
The 30 year present worth of the various alternatives examined range from
S97-334 million. Attachment 3 summarizes five alternatives presented in the
report. The report states that these are not meant to be a comprehensive
3
representation of the potential alternatives. These five are simply a
combination of the more promising technologies that can be applied to the
problem.
The report points out that there are literally hundreds of possible combinations
of technologies that can be potentially applied to the alternatives. All
alternatives identify the long term operation of the treatment plant and all
identify disposal of some volume of waste to a POTW (presumably the Santa Ana
River Interceptor and ultimately the Districts) and/or to on-site solar
evaporation ponds.
REMAINING TASKS OF FEASIBILITY STUDY
The alternative ultimately recommended may include the use of the SARI line for
the long-term disposal of some of the extracted groundwater after having
received suitable, treatment. This will be determined after the long-term
remedial action plan has been completed.
Attachment 4 is the Executive Summary and the Table of Contents of the DOHS
report. Directors interested in obtaining a copy of the report can contact
Blake Anderson, the Districts' Director of Operations, who will request extra
copies from the DOHS. A public meeting is planned this summer to receive
comment on the report. Page ES-3 of the Executive Summary outlines the
remaining tasks that must be performed to complete the planning process.
rr
4
ATTACIIMENT l
NOTHERN
Stringfellow Site Plan PITAREA ..
MID-CANYON • ,l
WELL NO. 114
fl '. • ,.SOUTHERN
•a _ • • ;"' PIT AREA
LOWER CANYON
WAMINUe
• • • —MID CANYON
• LOWER CANYON
WELL NO. MW-178
•
GLEN AVON
• ``�`. PYRITE
�= CHANNEL
COMMUNITY GLEN AVON
WELL NO. FC-211A2 ELEMENTARY
SC)IOOL
Figure 3-1 . Location of Wells Selected as Representing Average Contaminant Concentrations for Mid-Canyon, Lower
Canyon, and Coomouity.
Takeo frum Draft Report: Stringfellow Facility Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study; May 30, 1906; 0011S
ATTACHMENT 2
Excavate Contaminated
Intercept Clean Water Soil/Waste Mixture _ Extract Contaminated Groundwater _
YplJl... (rwNYYr Surf[[.W W 4461.[rWIrYY M SIu Lmmrlu pr
Wru9rnl WYLrI.{ 5.11 WY9rl.l WruY+rnl Da.nyyl.[Irl LrtunJ.Yr
Ilrr Wu9rr.l
Vl�b
Y,II _ MII WEI
SYtlr SYLL1 [YlulY1N
1.-Slm 4.ur16r11 r
911rl1$, .. [r1r1Y1N [r(rlYYe
Ibw.6nlrrlJ .IiUu.anl.r DI,Jul✓
1 [.[rtllr Ir ital oil r�WI IUtlr.l a 14f t
y DI ul 1 1
f.•hu I SY.Ir e f/•SII. ,�L_ ' �� t �
YlrcWr9. S LL4-11�IIY Off-f1U h-SII. Off-fll.
K q1Y UIJ—[11 K4 41Ur[tl Wl1°� MIN f.lJ K4
.CIIIIY MNI jILn11Y glm•9.
WcrO.d.W WJI fJ1111y
Srrrla. WUr
� DIIF
IS.a 1 1
Y.[r' IYW Sur4°� YrIn11Y11M1 _ IIOW.1 41nIW.{ 114-9 W IrirWa
Cnu. r DIuYr9. D4 JI _�c
DIIp�.I [..(41.11J 1
Y Ou tw [a.1rlYlr.
- Yminllul U. KW at 1 irwMnpr
IJ Ix1Yrllir .JIIU DU�uI
9.1MI1r I.If.lttr 4lnctM
WII 4Ur11 b. WII 119Y1
Y .eu1rl11Lll.o frlr�Y1J
S Yr. IYIYmIIr fY111. Ll.uWIW
J 1U.11.. DI. W
4-SIY
[Iw 11
Lllllq
W Y111r
Fii,w-e 2-5. TLeliu)logy C"birtatim Fluxlwrt
Taken from @-aft Report: Stringfellow Facility Remedial Investigation/reasibility Study; May 30, 19116; MIS
ATTACHMENT 3
STRINGFELLOW SITE LONG TERM REMEDIAL PLAN
FIVE REPRESENTATIVE COMBINED ALTERNATIVESI)
CAPITAL ANNUAL 30 YEAR
COST O&M PRESENT 'NORTH
ALTERNATIVE 1
Extract On-Site Contaminated Groundwater
wells, tanks, treatment plant, POTW
disposal, monitoring S 2,900,000 $ 4,200,000 $ 42,600,000
Extract Downcanyon Contaminated Groundwater
Hid-canyon (existing) wells, freeway wells
and community wells; either traaNent and
POTW disposal or solar evaporation 8,200,GOD 5,700,000 61,900,000
TOTAL $ 11,100,000 $ 9,900,000 $104,500,000
ALTERNATIVE 2
Intercept Clean pater
Groundwater interceptor system, recap the
site, improve surface water collectors,
monitoring S 25,300,000 S 400,000 S 29,400,000
Extract On-Site Contaminated Groundwater
Wells, tanks, treatment plant, POTW
disposal, monitoring 3,100,000 3,300,000 20,800,000
Extract Ocwncanyon Contaminated Groundwater
Mid-canyon (existing) wells, freeway wells
and community wells; either treatment and
POTW disposal or solar evaporation 26,300,000 2,900,000 46.400.000
TOTAL S 54,700,000 $ 6,600,000 S 96,600,000
ALTERNATIVE 3
Excavate Soil and Intercept Clean pater
Groundwater interceptor system, excavate
digabte soil, on-site neutralization,
reburial, improve surface water collectors,_
monitoring
$ 79,000,000 $ 500,000 S 84,200,C00
Extract On-Site Contaminated Groundwater
Wells, tanks, treatment plant, POTW
disposal, monitoring 3,ID0,000 3,300,000 20,800,000
Extract Oawncanvpn Contaminated Groundwater
Hid-canyon (existing) wells, freeway walls
and community wells; either treatment and
ROTH disposal or solar evaporation 26,300,000 2,900,000 46,400,000
TOTAL $100,400,000 S 6,700,000 $151,400,000
Draft Report: Stringfellow Facility Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study,
ifornia Department of Health Services, May 1986, data from tables 6-2 through 6.6.
ATTACHMENT 3 ,
(CONT'D)
..
CAPITAL ANNUAL JO YEAR
COST O&M PRESENT 'WORTH
ALTERNATIVE 4
Excavate Sail and Intercept Clean Water
Groundwater interceptor system, excavate
digable soil, omits neutralization,
omits incineration, reburial, improved
surface water collectors, monitoring $264,000,000 $ 300,000 $266,000,000
Extract On-Site Contaminated Groundwater
Wells, tanks, treatment plant, POTW
disposal, monitoring 3,IDO,000 3,300,000 20,800,000
Extract Downcenyon Contaminated Groundwater
Mid-canyon (existing) wells, freeway walla
and community walla; either treatment and
POTW disposal or solar evaporation
26,300,000 2.900,000 46,400,000
TOTAL
$293,400,000 $ 6,500,000 $334,000,000
ALTERNATIVE 5
Excavate Sail and Intercept Clean Water
Groundwater interceptor system, excavate ...
digable sail, transport to offsits RCRA
location, improve surface water collectors, -
monitoring 218,300,000 400,000 222,400,000
Extract On-Site Contaminated Groundwater
Wells, tanks, treatment plant, POTW
disposal, monitoring 3,100,000 3,300,000 20,800,000
Extract Oowncanyon Contaminated Groundwater
Mid-canyon (existing) wells, freeway walls
and community wells; either treatment and
POTW disposal or solar evaporation 26,300,000 2,900,000 46,400,000
TOTAL $247,700,000 S 6,600,000 $289,600,000
..r
ATTACHMENT 4
MESCUTIVE SUMMARY
1.0 0TRODUCTION
The Stringfellow Hazardous Waste Site, located in .Riverside County,
California was operated as a hazardous waste disposal facility from 1995 to
1972. About 34 million gallons of liquid industrial wastes were disposed of at
the site, including spent acids, caustics, solvents, pesticides, cyanides , and
metal compounds. During the course of operation it became apparent that liquid
wastes were percolating from the waste pits into the groundwater and contami.
nation was detected downgradienc.
The site is situated on the southern slopes of the Jurupa Mountains
within a box canyon known as Pyrite Canyon. Approximately one mile southwest
of the site lies the community of Glen Avon. The original disposal site covers
approximately 17 acres and is located at the head of Pyrite Canyon. A contami-
... nacad groundwater plume extends downgradienc throughout Pyrite Canyon with con-
taminanc concentrations decreasing with increasing distance from the anginal
disposal site. A plume of contaminated water has been located which axtands
southerly into Glen Avon, and threatens drinking water wells.
During 1981-1982 interim construction was done at the or'_;'iral sita tc
reduce pollutant migration, including removal of surface waste, erasion con-
crol, capping, and barrier wall construction. In addition, concam:nated
groundwater has been routinely extracted downgradient of the Bice from :930 :c
present. As an interim measure a mid-canyon treatment planc for craacmer.t a -
che extracted groundwacer was placed in operation is December 1995.
nary analysis indicates chat these interim sceps have reduced, but not e':Gmi-
nated, the migration of pollutants downgradienc from the site.
The California Department of Health Services (OHS) , with funding
through a cooperative agreement with the U.S. EPA Region LK, contracted with
Science Applications International Corporation (SAID) in March 1984 to compre-
hensively evaluate the Stringfellow Site, perform a :emedial investigation (R:)
ES-1
and conduct a feasibility study (FS) to investigate the extent of contamination
and evaluate methods for mitigating the spread of contaminants from rho Size.
The RI process at the Stringfellow Site includes investigation of site
geology, hydrology, water quality, and air quality. In addition, contaminated
groundwater and sails are being sampled and analyzed. The field work in. esti-
gation is virtually complete. The do" generated are being used to develop a
groundwater model and an RI report, both scheduled for completion in lata 1986.
This report is part of the FS process. The FS process evaluates tech-
nologies and develops and evaluates specific remedial alternatives which are
applicable at the Site. Figure ES-1 shows the steps in the FS process sche-
matically. The alternatives are screened and analyzed at several points in the
RI/FS process. A "Draft Interim Report on Development and Screening of Reme-
dial Technologies and Alternatives-, issued an July 30. 1985, contains informa-
cion on the Site configuration, geological and hydrological features of the
Pyrite Canyon area, a characterization of environmental impacts associated with
the present Site condition, and standards and criteria applicable to potential
remedial actions. Information presented in the Interim Report is relevant to this report, and, for the most part, is included here by reference only. Both
volumes comprise the Task XI/XII report.
The purpose of this repot: is to:
1. Formulate broad alternative remedial actions to: (1) pre-
vent or significantly minimize migration of conramination
from the Site and (2) prevent or minimize impacts from
contaminants which have already migrated from rho Size.
2. Screen the alternative remedial actions for technical
feasibility, arvironmental/public health impacts and
cost.
A subsequent Task XIO report will provide a detailed technical, envi.
ronmental, public health, institutional and cost analysis of the remedial
alcernatives which survive the screening presented in this report.
ES-2
FEASIBILITY STUDY PROCESS
CONTRACT TASK VJMBERS
Characterize Problem and Identl:-
General Resaonse Ae t!ons
ULY 1985
81=11 Formulate and Develop
REPORT [Alternative Saecifie Technolo iea
- Screen Scecifie Techrolo !es
TASK 11/12— — Formulate Broad Remedial Action Alternatives
Environmental and Public Health Screening
THIS DOCUMIT Cest Sc:een!n
Eliminate Inaaarooriate Alrernatives
� 11,
Identify Remaining Remedial
STA=S Action Alternatives
TASK Treatabillcj
13 1 Studies Detailed Analysis o: Al ternat8�es
Technical Institutional Cost Pub llc _nviror�entsl
Hoal c4
Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Aralvss
TASXIL
14 Summary a: Alternatives Evaluation (Draft Seas ib i'_i c� 6C_dv�
TASK Concep+I'-
Desi
13
TASK Final FeasibilirF Report and Responsiveness Summar, 1
16
Figure 3-1. Schematic Diagram of Feasibili—f Study Process and its
Relationship to this Stac-us Report. and the Project Contract Task N"-hers
ES-3
2.0 TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY SCREEPLYc OF CANDIDATE RElEDL1L ALTER-`TATIVES
Development of remedial alternatives is the process of compiling suit-
able technologies into feasible systems to manage and control the source waste
material and the migrating contaminant plume at the Stringfellow Site. The
process is accomplished in three steps:
• First, the treatment and disposal options are defined in
very broad corms. Figure ES-2 illustrates the full range
of treatment and disposal options which could be employed
in solving Stringfellow Site problems.
• Second, the specific treatment, mitigation, and disposal
technologies are related to the general options in Step
One above.
• Third, specific remedial alternatives are developed.
Treatment and disposal technologies are combined to
create remedial alternatives to manage the source
material and migrating plume at the Stringfellow Site.
Remedial action is required to control and manage four primary types
of materials: (1) uncontaminated surface water runoff from surrounding drainage
areas; (2) uncontaminated groundwater from areas upgradient of the Site; (3)
the contaminated sail/waste mixture; and (4) contaminated groundwacers from
beneath the Site and from the downgradient plume. Individual technologies for
each of the four primary material types were evaluated, and then selectively
combined into potentially suitable technology combinations and alternatives.
The results of this screening process are summarized in the following
subsections.
`Sanagement of Clean Surface later
Uncontaminated surface water should continue to be diverted around the
Site. Diverting clean surface waters is more effective and less expensive than
managing and treating waters which have contacted the contaminated material.
Additional run-an and run-off control structures are required, such as new
storm drains and improvement of existing drains. The existing cap over the
Site is not an adequate seal to prevent surface water percolation into the
ES-4
l ( 1
IMcanWluteO Sur Wler NIWW 1
IP. Slrinyf.l loll SIW Onimag. bale I a-Sit. $n Flpun g-t for
Disposal detail. of Specific
Getu.Y.Wr option& For bnaye-
UKenlWluleJSrounJuWrUpyraJiut W(racllu UPpr�Iwt.nfilo .l..or
Of the WIn9l.11oa Site I off-Site
— olaposal
III MlaKp IO
11.fO-r1pI.P.. L HYJSeIWnWl l
nc
"I'a" R.Utingl
Sea figure 1-1 for
Dawl, cut Speclfl—
c
S Water —
4tl.n. for Nawye-
W-SIW nl of Wales 1.4
0.-514 olsppw Lon(u1w WY Soils
l
IW.WaI
[o.WnlutJ Soll/Yaat. Nlatur.
LKWaW
Nm off-Site
LrKWWt Illspos.l
a
J
a-sua
fn.t OLLpoWI
.t
O.-Sit. lrulmul
OIL SIW See #'lure 3 a tar
pispuul pel.11t ma S'c"o'
LIP l Iona I., Nanya.
ItanbdwleJ 9rumu6", W1. SiteIerlaalmleJ
l IlwcPa te) anJ Do.agraJl.nl IPlune) I U dllel
1111 Wla
lrin4 Ym
DwayaJleat - Irw We.t
II lll#MllelI
li1Nl'na.J
Figure IS-2. Schia'rll.ill U)sgn9n of 11ro;ul Dul !,Als Well amild lie lkilul To Minapp SI-rlogfol lend WaeLlu :1Lltmle:
contaminated material on-site. Any remedial action which involves leaving the
waste material in-place should include installation of a new multi-layer can .
Management of Clean Groundwater
Clean groundwaters from upgradienc areas will become contaminated i.
they contact the contaminated soil/waste mixture on-sice. It is desirable to
intercept this clean groundwater before it contacts the contaminated material.
Two apparently feasible technologies for lncercepting clean groundwacers are
extraction well barriers and an adit/gallery system. An extraction well bar-
rier could consist of an undetermined number of wells arranged in two rings
along the periphery of the Site. Wells in the outer ring would extract un-
contaminated groundwaters, which would be dischazged to surface drainage (e.g. ,
Pyrite Creek) or reinjected for groundwater recharge. Wells placed in the
inner ring would be used to extract contaminated leachace from 'oeneath the
Site. The contaminated leathers, would require further treatment and/or manage-
ment. Groundwater pumping operations would need to be controlled to ensure
that the slope of the groundwater was always towards the on-eite area, prevent.
ing clean groundwater extraction wells from becoming contaminated with
leathers. -
An adit/gallery system could consist of a tunnel, approximately 6,000
ft in length with an 11 ft diameter, drilled through bedrock around the perim-
eter of the Site and at elevations lower than that of the contaminated solid
waste materials. Separate drain holes would be drilled into off-site soi'_s to
intercept clean groundwacers and into on-site soil/wastes to remove contami.
named leachace. Clean groundwaters would be collected and discharged off-site,
whereas the contaminated leachace would require further treatment or restricted
disposal. This technology is hydrologically feasible.
Detailed requirements for a possible extraction well barrier system
and/or adi❑/gallery await completion and analysis of on-going water modeling
and geological studies.
ES-6
Subsurface passive groundwater barriers, slurry walls or grout cur-
cains, will not provide an adequate seal to prevent the migration of upgtadiant
groundwacers into the contaminated sail/waste mixture. However, the use of
such barriers in conjunction with an adic/gallery drainage system is pocan-
cially feasible.
Additional subsurface field work scheduled for mid 1986 is expected to
provide additional data to evaluate interception and extraction of claan
groundwater.
Management of the Sail/f7asta Mixture
It is not passible to excavate all of the on-site contaminated mate-
rial using conventional excavation techniques. Following excavation a sigri-
ficanc quantity of contamination would be left in the hard decomposed granite
(DG) and fractures in the bedrock. She excavatable portions of on-site contami-
nated material comprise the alluvium and -digable- DC with an estimacad in-
place volume of 908,000 cubic yards. After excavacion the material would
expand (fluff up) to approximately 1,180,000 cubic yards.
Off-site transport and disposal to a remoce location of over one
million cubic yards of excavated contaminated material is nor feasible. It
would be virtually impassible to obtain necessary approvals from all the pcli-
cical entitles and regulatory agencies involved. In addition, the cost would
be very high and, finally, a significant quantity of contaminazion would be
left on-site in the hard DO and fractured bedrock.
Off-site treatment of the excavated soil/waste mixture would not be
feasible because no adequate facility can be idencified.
On-site treatment, including neucralizacion, rotary kiln incineration,
and/or stabilization, of excavated contaminated material would be technically
feasible. However none of chase treatment techniques is expected to decon-
taminate on-site soils to a degree which would render them a non-hazardous
•wasce. For example, incineration does nor destroy the heavy metals, and stabi-
SS-7
lization and neutralization do not destroy either organics or heavy metals, but
reduce their mobility to various degrees. Therefore redisposal of created
residues must be to a RCRA approved site whether located on-site or off-sice.
In-situ treaccenc of contaminated on-sice material is not technically
feasible because of the heterogeneous distribution and variation in depth of
chemicals ac the Site.
Excavation of digable contaminated on-site material and redisposal of
the material into newly constructed RCRA approved calls on-sice would be tech-
nically feasible. Treatment of excavated soil using neutralization, incinera-
tion and/or stabilization prior to redisposal on-sita into RCRA cype cells
would also be technically feasible.
It is technically feasible cc leave the contaminated on-site material
in place if effective dewacering and isolation of the Site is accomplished.
All options for management of on-site waste materials will leave in
place the existing contamination in the hard OG and fractured bedrock which is _
not digable by normal excavation methods. Therefore, all remedial alternatives
will require perpetual operation and maintenance to some degree because a con-
taminanc source will remain.
.Nanacement of Contaminated Groundwater
Broad options for managing contaminated groundwacers include contain-
ment, on-size extraction, and extraction downgradienc. Containment of on-site
leachace, or ocher contaminated groundwacers, with subterranean barriers wculd
not be feasible because of probable leakage problems. The appropriateness of
candidate technologies for treating contaminated groundwaters vary depending on
the levels of contaminants present. In general, leachace from the on-site area
is characterized as heavily contaminated, whereas the mid-canyon groundwacers
are moderately contaminated and groundwacers from the lower canyon and commu-
nity areas are lightly contaminated.
ES-8
Heavily contaminated and moderately contaminated groundwaters from the
on-site and mid-canyon areas must be subjected to treatment prior to any form
of disposal, except for disposal to a Class Z &CRA approved dispose: site.
Treatment of heavily contaminated groundwaters from the on-sit* and mid-canyon
arena to meet surface water discharge standards or reinjection criteria is not
technically feasible. Thus, this groundwater will require disposal to a ?07';
or- to solar evaporation ponds after treatment.
Treatment of lightly contaminated groundwater in the lower canyon and
commmmicy area to meac discharge standards for surface discharge or groundwater
reinjection would be technically feasible. Disposal of uncr*aced contaminated
groundwater from the lower canyon and community areas to a POT; would also be
technically feasible.
Extraction well barriers are the only methods considered technically
feasible to intercept the contaminated groundwater plume downgradient of the
Site. The present status of extraction well barriers is:
..
• A mid-canyon extraction well barrier is partially in _
place and operating, and is expected to soon be fully in
plate and operating.
• A new lower canyon extraction wall barrier near Highway
60 is recommended for early implementation.
• An additional excaction well barriers) in the community
may be recommended later, depending upon the results of a
groundwater modeling study jusc underway.
The provision of a permanent alternate water supply to residents of
Glen Avon currently receiving bottled water funded by the State will be an
element of the long-term remedial actions implemented to manage the
downgradient groundwater plume. The alternate water supply program is not
addressed in this report but will be discussed in the detailed evaluations of
institutional and public health factors which will be included in the Task YT7
iS report.
ES-9
3.0 ENVIRONNEINTAL AND PUBLIC HEALTH SCREENING
Section 3.0 of this report presents a discussion of the methodology
employed in environmental and public health screening of proposed remedial
alternatives. Routes of exposure, population exposed, and a toxicity and
exposure evaluation are presented. Environmental and public health impacts of
specific technologies are presented. No remedial technology combinations were
eliminated an the basis of environmental and public health screening.
4.0 COST ESTLYATES
Section 4.0 of the report presents capital and operation and mainte-
nance (0d11) cost estimates for twenty seven individual treatment and disposal
technologies under consideration. Table 4-1 (in the text only) summarizes the
costs and supporting detail is presented in approximately 50 pages. The indi-
vidual treatment and disposal technologies are combined into technically feasi-
ble combinations in Section 5.0. The reader may estimace the cost of other
cechnology combinations using Section 4.0, if desired. The accuracy of these
estimates may vary within a range of 100 percent above to 50 percent below `•�
actual costs.
5 .0 COST OF TEMINOLOGY C0-3I:TATIONS
Estimated costs for the various technology combinations are presented
in this section of the report. A technology combination is an assembly of
remedial technologies applied to contaminant pathways and points of exposure in
one area, or one media, only. Because of the complexity of the St^ngfellow Site, technology combinations were first cost estimated and analyzed, and -hen
assembled into remedial alternatives for costing in Section 6.0 (below) .
The cechnology combinations for downgradient groundwater management
are cost estimated for two different scenarios: (1) t-he Site is dewatered, and
(2) the Site is not dewacered. The average cost for each condition is then
used during later analyses.
ES-10
Costs for on-site technology combinations are presented for:
1. No Action.
2. On-site Leachata Management Only; (no dewatering) .
3. Dewatering Only; dewater the Site by means of an adic/
gallery system or extraction wells, with recapping and
surface drainage improvements. Minimal excavation of
contaminated soil is included.
4. Dewatering, Excavation, Treatment by Neutralization, and
RCRA Cell Construction; dewater the Site plus excavation
of the digable contaminated soil, neutralization of the
soil, and redeposition into on-site RCRA type cells.
S. Dewatering, Excavation, Treatment by Incineration, and
RCRA Cell Construction; dawater the Site, with excavation
of the digable soil, neutralization and incineration, and
radeposition into RCRA type calls.
6. Dewatering, Excavation Plus Disposal to Off-Site RCR4
Site; dawater the Site, with excavation of the digable
soil, transport and disposal to an off-site RCRA per-
mitted disposal facility.
6.0 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
In this section remedial alternatives were developed by assembling
technology combinations (5.0 above) into feasible systems to manage and control
the source waste material and the migrating contaminant plume at the Stt'_ag-
fellow Site.
Downgradienc extraction well barriers and extracted water management
are included in all Stringfellow remedial alternatives regardless of the speci-
fic remedial actions implemented in upgradient or on-sice areas.
Estimated costs for general remedial alternatives are presented in
Table ES-1. In terms of estimated 30 years present worth costs the temedial
alternatives range in cost from $97 to $334 million. Initial capital cost for
remedial alternatives ranges from $55 to $293 million.
ES-11
Table ES•1. Summary of Socal Capital, Annual 0&11, and 30 Year ?resent
Worth Costs for General Remedial Alternatives Including
Downgradient Extraction and Management
Costs ($1,000)
30 Year
Capital Annual ?resent
Remedial Alternative at the Site Cosa O&M 'Worth
(1) Extraction and treatment of 20 gpm from 11,100 9,912 104,526
on-site wells with no dewatering
(2) Adit/gallery installation, and recapping 54,750 6,593 96,831
on-sita area
(3) On-site soil excavation with on-site 108.480 6,700 151,390
disposal in RCRA-type cells
(4) On-site excavation with neutralization, 293,470 6,450 334,024
incineration, and redisposal to an
on-site RCRA type call
(5) On-site excavation with off-site disposal 247,750 6,593 289,651
ES•12
In the next step of the Feasibility Study (Task Xi7) a deca_:ad.
evaluation of each of these remedial alternatives will be made, excec= fo_
-excavation with off-site disposal', which has been eliminated for
cional and cost reasons, and -No .Action- which has been eliminated for public
health and environmental reasons.
�5-13
Table of Concencs
Title
EXECUTIVE S➢MIARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . =5--
1.0 INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '1 -1
2.0 TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY OF CANDIDATE R=IAL ALTEMIATIVES. . . . . . . . _-:
2.1 Alternative Screening Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.1 Remedial Alternative Technology Combinations. . . . . . . .2-3
2.1.2 Groundwater Treatment Technology Combinations. . . . . . .2.13
2.2 Management of Clean Surface ;;star. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-LS
2.3 Management of the Clean Groundwater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-19
2.4 Management of the Soi1/Vasta Mixture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-20
2.4.1 Excavation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-20
2.4.2 Leave in Place. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-21
2.4.3 Excavated Soil Treatment Option. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-24
2.5 Management of Contaminated Groundwater and Leachate. . . . . . . .2-25
2.5.1 Extraction or Containment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-23 ...
2.5.2 Treatment or No Treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-28 -
2.5.3 Treatment/Disposal Options for Heavily
Contaminated Leachate From On-Site and
Immediately Below the Barrier Dam. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-29
2.5.4 Remedial Actions For Moderately Cancaminatad
Groundwater Extracted from the Mid-Canvon Area. . . .2-30
2.5.5 Trea®ent/➢isposal Options for Lightly Contaminated
Groundwater Extracted from the Lower Canvon and
Community Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.3_
2.5.6 Extraction Vell Barriers Flow Volume. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-32
3.0 ENVIRONME MA.L AND PUBLIC HEALTH EVALUATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3--
3. 1 Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1-
3.2 Chemical Constituents of Concern at the Stringfellow Sire. . 31-2
3.3 Exposure Evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2
3.3.1 Possible Rau-as of Exposure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2
3.3.2 Populations Exposed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
v
i
Table of Contents (conc'd)
Title sa a..
3.4 Toxicity and Exposure Evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . .3 .
3.5 Environmental and Public Health Impacts of Specific
Technologies. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.7
3.6 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-7
4.0 COST ESTIMATES. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.1
4.1 General. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.1
4.2 Individual Remedial Action Costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-2
4.2.1 General. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . .4-2
4.2.2 Cast of the Adit/Gallery System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.7
4.2.3 Cost of Upgradient Extraction Wells to Dewater
the On-Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.10
4.2.4 Cost of Improved Surface Water Management. . . . . . . . . . .4.10
4.2.5 Cost of Multi-layar Cap System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.12
4.2.6 Cost of Excavating Digable On-Site Contaminated
Soil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-14
4.2.7 Cost of Transporting and Disposing Excavated
Material to an Off-Site Land Disposal Facility. . . .4-15
4.2.8 Cost for Neutralizing Excavated Material. . . . . . . . . . . .4.16
4.2.9 Cost of On-Site Incineration of Excavated
Material. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.16
4.2.10 Cost of Solidification/Fixacion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-18
4.2.11 Cost of Redisposal of Excavated and Treated
Material ac an On-Site Facility Meeting RCRA —
Standards. . . .
tandards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-19
4.2.12 Cost of Redisposal of Excavated and Treated
Material at an On-Site Facility With a Single
Liner. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.20
4.2.13 Cost of a Mid-Canyon Extraction Well Barrier. . . . . . . .4-21
4.2.14 Cost of a Lover Canyon Extraction Well Barrier. . . . . .4.21
4.2.15 Cost of Downgradient Reinjection Wells. . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-23
4.2.16 Cost of Flow Equalization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.24
4.2.17 Cost of Lime Precipitation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-25
4.2.18 Cost of Rotating Biological Contactors. . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.26
4.2.19 Cost of Air Stripping. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-28
4.2.20 Cost of Activated Carbon Contact Beds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-29
4.2.21 Cost of Reverse Osmosis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.29
4.2.22 Cost of PACT T:! Treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-31
4.2.23 Cost for POTW Sewer Line Disposal. . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . .4.34
4.2.24 Cost of Soler Evaporation Ponds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.37
4.2.25 Cost of Disposal of Liquids to Off-Site
RCRA Permitted Facility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-37
4.2.26 Cost of Discharge of Treated Liquids to Surface
Waters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-29
4.2.27 Costs for Monicoring, Sampling, and Analysis. . . . . . . .4-39
ii
Table of Contents (conc'd)
Title
5.0 COST OF TECHNOLOGY CONBLTIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..i.
5.1 Purpose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.11
5.2 Required Downgradient Remedial Actions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
5.2.1 Extraction Well Barriers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . .... . . . .5-
5.2.2 Management of Groundwater From the Hid-Carry
Extraction Well Barrier. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.3 Management of Groundwater From Lover Canyon
and Community Extraction Well Barriers. . . . . . . . . . . .3.6
5.3 On-site Remedial Actions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-10
5.3.1 Management of Heavily Contaminated Leachate
Extracted From the Site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-10
5.3.2 Oewacering of the Site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-15
5.3.3 Management of On-Site Contaminated Soil. . . . . . . . . . . . .5-'_6
6.0 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-1
6.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-'
6.2 Development of Remedial Alternatives of Downgradienc
Plume Management as a Constant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-1
6.3 Downgradienc Plume Management Options. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.10
6.4 No Action Alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-13 _
6.5 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-16
APPENDICES
A A Preliminary Estimate of Stringfellow Site Fxcavac'-on
Volume. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .a-1
B Community Soils Characterization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-1
C Objectives and Scandards/Criteria for Stringfellow Size
Clean-Up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
D Possible Methodology to Determine Soil Contaminant levels
to Meet Clean-Up Criteria at the Stringfellow Size. . . . .
E Estimated Contaminant Removal Efficiancies of Trea�ent
Technologies When Applied to Stringfellow Wastewater
Streams. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E•1
F Estimated Air Emissions From Solar Evaoorarion Ponds at
Stringfellow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F-1
G Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .G
iii -
List of Figures
v Title ?aae
ES-1 Schematic Diagram of Feasibility Study Process and Its
Relationship to This Scatus Report, and the Project
Contract Task lumbers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-3
ES-2 Technology Combination Flowchart. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-:
1-1 Schematic Diagram of Feasibility Study Process and Its
Relationship to This Status Report, and the Project
Contract Task lumbers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5
2.1 Schematic Diagram of Broad General Options Potentially Used
to Manage Stringfellow Waste Streams. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2
2-2 Specific Options for Management of Uncontaminated Upgradient
Groundwater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7
2.3 Details of Specific Options for Management of Wastes and
Contaminated Soils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8
2-4 Specific Options for Management of Contaminated Groundwater. . . . 2.9
2.5 Technology Combination Flowchart. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10
2-6 Treatment and Disposal Options for Heavily Contaminated Ground-
water From an On-Site Adit System or Extraction Wells. . . . . . . . 2.15
2.7 Treatment and Disposal Options for Moderately Contaminated
Groundwater From the Plume in the Mid-Canyon Area. . . . . . . . . . . . 2-16'
2-8 Treatment and Disposal Options for Lightly Contaminated
Groundwater From the Plume in the Mid-Canyon Area. . . . . . . . . . . . 2-17
3-1 Location of Wells Selected as Representing Average Contaminant
Concenracions for Mid-Canyon, Lower Canyon, and Communi�y. . . . . 3-6
APPENDICES
A-1 Approximate Surface Areas of Site Areas Delineated in this
Calculation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-:
B-1 Location of Soil Sampling, Zones Along'Pyrite Channel. . . . . . . . . . . 3-2
F-1 Effect of Molecular Weight and Environmental Characteristics
on Liquid-Phase Exchange Coefficient. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-3
F-2 Effecr of Molecular Weight, Wind Speed and Current on Gas-Phase
Exchange Coefficient. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F•4
iv
List of Figures
Title 'as=
F-3 Solubility, Vapor Pressure and Henry's Law Constant for Selec_ad
Chemicals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7•3
�.r
v
List of Tables
..r
Title ?axe
ES-1 Summary of Total Capital, Annual O&A, and 30 Year Present
Worth Costs for General Remedial Alternatives Including
Downgradienc Extraction and Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E5-12
1.1 Sham and Inn$-Term Clean-Up Objectives for Stringfellow. . . . . . . 1.3
2-1 Candidate Remedial Technologies Remaining After Initial
Technical Feasibility Screening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2--.
2-2 Technologies Eliminated from Further Consideration for Use
at Stringfellow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11
2-3 Remedial Action Technology Chart. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.14
2.4 Assumed Flow Volumes from Extraction Well Barriers Under
Present Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-33
3.1 Summary of Potential Environmental and Public Health
Impacts of Technologies at the Stringfellow Sice. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8
4-1 Cost 5ummary of Various Remedial Actions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
4.2 Estimated Capital Cost of the Adit/Gallery System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
4.3 Estimated 0 S H Cost of the Adit/Gallery System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8
4.4 Assumed Effect of a Sice Dewatering System (Gallery or
Extraction Wells) Installation On Future Quantity and
Quality of On-Site Ieachate and Downgradient Extracted
Groundwater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
4-5 Estimate of Capital Costs for Upgradienc Extraction Wells. . . . . .
4-6 Estimate of Annual 0&1 Cost for Upgradient Extraction Wells. .
4-7 Estimated Capital and Annual OM Costs for a Mulzi-lavered
CapSystem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.8 Estimated Capital Cost of Neutralization of Excavated
.aterial On-SLte. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -17
4.9 Estimated Capital and OM Costs for Operation of Hid-Canyon
Extraction Wells. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4-10 Estimated Capital and 0&1 Costs for the Installation of a
Lower Canyon Extraction Wall Bar-ier. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +-22
vi
List of Tables (cont'd)
v
Title Page
4-11 Estimated Capital and O6M Costs for the Installation of a
Lower Canyon Extraction Well Barrier and Pumping cc the
Mid-Canyon. .: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.22
4-12 Estimated Capital and O&M Costs for the Installation of
Downgradient Reinjection Galls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-23
4.13 Estimated Capital Costs for Flow Equalization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.24
4-14 Estimated Operation and Maintenance Costs for Flow
Equalization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-25
4.15 Estimated Capital Costs for Lime Precipitation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.25
4-16 Estimated Operation and Maintenance Costs for Lima
Precipitation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.26
4.17 Estimated Capital Costs for Rotating Biological Contactors. . . . . 4.27
4.18 Estimated Odds Costs for Rotating Biological Contactor
Treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.27
4.19 Estimated Capital Costs for Air Stripping. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-28
..r
4-20 Estimated Odds Costs for Air Stripping. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-29
4.21 Estimated Capital Costs for Granular Activated Carbon
Treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-30
4.22 06M Cost Estimate for Granular Activated Carbon Treament. . . . . . 4.30
4-23 Estimated Capital Costs for Reverse Osmosis Treatment. . . . . . . . . . 4-22
4-24 Estimated O&M Costs for Reverse Osmosis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-32
4-25 Estimated Capital Costs for FACT I.- Treatment System. . . . . . . . . . . . 4.33
4.26 Estimated OSM Costs for PACT Treatment System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.33
4-27 Estimated Capital and 06.4 Costs for Disposal to the SAR:
Line (From Extraction Well Barrier Area) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.35
4-28- Estimated Capital and Odell Costs for Disposal cc the SARI
Line (From Mid-Canyon Treatment Plant Area) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.36
4-29 Capital Cost Estimate or Solar Evaporation Ponds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-38
4.30 OSM Cost Estimate for Solar Evaporation Ponds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.38
vii `�
List of Tables (cone d)
Title ?aze
4.31 Estimated Capital and 0&11 Costs for Liquid Disposal to a RCRA
Permitted Facility (From Extraction Well Barrier Area) . . . . . . . 4.4C
4-32 Estimated Capital and 0&1 Costs for Liquid Disposal to a RCRA
Permitted Facility (From Mid-Canyon Treatment Plant Area) . . . . +
4.33 Estimated Capital Casts for Discharge of Treated Liquids to
Surface Waters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :-42
4.34 Estimated Operation and Maintenance Costs for Discharging
Treated Effluent to Surface Waters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-42
5-1 Extraction Well Barrier Flow Output and Selected Quality
Parameters. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3
5-2 Estimated Casts for Technically Feasible Treatment and
Disposal Combinations for 20 gpm of Extracted Groundwater
From Mid-Canyon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5
5-3 Estimated Costs for Technically Feasible Treatment and
Disposal Combinations for 100 gpm of Extracted Groundwater
From the Laver Canyon or Community. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 5.7
5-4 Estimated Costs for Technically Feasible Treatment and
Disposal Combinations for Constant 20 gpm of On-Site _
Leachate, Assumes Site is Not Devatered. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-11
5-5 Estimated Coscs for Technically Feasible Treatment and
Disposal Options for On-Sice Leathers Produced by
Dewatering the Site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-_3
5-6 Comparison of Site Devatering Costs by Two Yachods. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-_5
5-7 Escimaced Costs for Technically Feasible Treatment and
Disposal Combinations for Management of On-Site
Concaminaced Soils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `-. -
5-1 Cost Range of Downgradient Groundwater Nanagemenc
Technology Combinations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3
6.2 Cost of Typical Remedial Alternative Involving Extraction
and Treatment of a Conscanc 20 gpm From On-Site Wells (Na
Dewacering) With Downgradient Groundwater Extraction and
Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4
6-3 Cost of Typical Remedial Alternative Involving Inscallacion
of Adic/Gallerj System, Recapping of On-Sita Area, and
Downgradient Groundwater Extraction and Management. . . . . . . . . . . 6-5
viii
List of Tables (cont'd)
Title ?age
6-4 Cost of Typical Remedial Alternative Involving On-Site
Excavation Followed by On-Site RCRA Type Disposal With
Downgradient Groundwater Extraction and Management. . . . .. . . . . . 6-6
6-5 Cost of Typical Remedial Alternative Involving On-Site
Excavation Followed by Neutralization, Incineration, and
Redisposal to an On-Site RCRA Type Facility With
Downgradient Groundwater Extraction and Management. . . . . . . . . . . 6-7
6-6 Cost of Typical Remedial Alternative Involving On-Site
Excavation, Followed by Off-Site RCRA Site Disposal With
Downgradient Groundwater Extraction and Management. . . . . . . . . . . 6-8
6-7 Summary of Total Capital, Annual O&M, and 30 Year Present
Worth Costs for General Remedial Alternatives Including
Downgradient Extraction and Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.9
6.8 Cost of Downgradient Portion of Typical Remedial
Alternative (Disposal Option 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-11
6-9 Cost of Downgradient Portion of Typical Remedial
Alternative (Disposal Option 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-12
6-10 Cost of Downgradient Portion of Typical Remedial
Alternative (Disposal Option 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-13
6-11 Cost of Downgradient Portion of Typical Remedial `
Alternative (Disposal Option 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-14
APPENDICES
A-1 Estimated Excavation Volumes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-3
A-2 Core Analysis Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-5
A-3 Average Thickness of Units (£t) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-6
3-1 Community Soils Investigation Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . 3-3
C-1 Clean-Up Objectives for Stringfellow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-2
C-2 Standards and Criteria Applicable to Stringfellow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-4
C-3 National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards (April 1985) . . C-11
C-4 Threshold Limits for Discharges in the South Coast Air Quality
Management District. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-12
is .s
List of Tables (conc'd)
Title 'aze
D-1 Preliminary Input Values and Restoration Criteria for
Stringfellow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-3
D-2 Estimated Soil Ingestion by Age Group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C
E-1 Stringfellow Site Contaminated Groundwater Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . E-2
E-2 Estimated Contaminant Removal Efficiencies of Treatment
Technologies from Highly Contaminated Groundwater. . . . . . . . . . . .
E-3 Estimated Contaminant Removal Efficiencies of Various Treatment
Technologies from Moderately Contaminated Groundwater. . . . . . . . E.4
E-4 Contaminant Removal Efficiencies of Various Treatment
Technologies from Lightly Contaminated Groundwater. . . . . .. . . . . E-5
E-5 Selected Discharge Quality Requirements for Specific Disposal
Opcions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E.7
F-1 Volatilization Parameters for Selected Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-5
F-2 Volatilization Rates of Pollutants From a Lagoon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :.3
F-3 Concentration of Contaminants in Typical Groundvaters from lower
Canyon and Mid-Canyon, Plus Streams and A and S Hixture. . . . . .
F-4 Method 2: Determination of Air Quality Criteria from OHS
Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
F-5 Emission Concentrations from Solar Evaporation During I;orst
Lase (Radiation Inversion) and Normal ;eather Conditions . . . . . 9
x
j '9.h•�+12 9.� 'to �iaeSc+-a �r Qla� 18�
baA
Ot
�r
An Overview of the
Stringfellow Project
Presented to the
Hoard of Directors
County Sanitation Districts
of orange County
August 27, 1986
by
Ted Rauh
Department of Health Services
Representatives
Ted Rauh, Stringfellow Project Manager
Mark Galloway, Stringfellow RI/FS Project Engineer
-1-
'r
August 27, 1986
FEASIBILITY STUDY PROCESS
Identify General Response Actions
I
Develop and Screen Technologies
W
Formulate Remedial Action Alternatives
Screen (environ., publ. health, cost)
Eliminate
Identify Feasible Remedial Action Alternatives
Current Status I Public Review
Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
Technical Public Health
Institutional Environmental
Cost Risk/Reliability
Summary of Alternatives Evaluation
Public Review/Response
Remedial Action Selection
Conceptual Design Final Feasibility Report/
Responsiveness Summary
Record of Decision
1966-87 Calendar Year
Stringfellow RI/FS Schedule August 27, 1986
1986 1967
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Stringfellow Adv. Comm. • i
Meetings • • ,
1. OTC Field Program `
(Upper Canyon) i---
2. Drill Cuttings Disposal
7. Air Quality Assessment —� i
1
d. Aquifer Tests b,..} ._.d
5. Phase I GW Modeling
a. Additional Comm. Wells 1
6. Remedial Investigation
(RI)Report
7. Feasibilty Study (FS) Report
S. initial Screening Re t_, , , , ~
9. Treatability Studies '
--r- }
i
10. PMd90/ZI/6N/C10dYXC1(9 �Hf
11. Early Imlementation Actions
a. Lower Canyon Extraction
b. Site Surf. Drains
�r
12. Alternative Water Supply
r,
n � \
A \
S \
1 1 ,
[ a r y
v
z
2
—
Co
iw ,•
II •�
m
I
Ce
r
a �
Q � • JAf•,� 4
W
y
a
W
• E �i c.
Z
a • e i C
3 • Wt �
a
as
o a �
2
Development and Initial
Screening of Alternatives
Report
o Combines technologies into alternative remedial actions.
o Screens these actions for technical feasibility,
environmental/public impacts and costs.
Alternative Action Combinations
o Management of upgradient surface and groundwater.
o Isolation of on-site wastes by either containment; treatment
and containment or removal.
o Cleanup of downgradient surface and groundwater.
Potential Stringfellow
Water Treatment
Effluent Volumes
Location Gallons Per Minute
On-site Leachate 10-20
V Mid-Canyon 20-30
Lower Canyon 35-50
Community 100 +
165-200
MEETING D-lt Mgust 27, 1986 TIME 7:00 p.m. DISTRICTS 1,2,3,5,6,7,11,13 s 14
( ^" DISIRL:T I JOINT 90ARDS
(SALTARE LL1I...XOESTEREY...�� _ (MANDI:)...... ...BAILEY......
(CRANK)........HANSON...... (MURPHY)..... . .. .BEVERAGE...._
(LUXEMBOURGER).GRI SET......�_ (ZIEGLER)... . ... BUCK........
(KIEDER).......STANTON...... (HOBBY)..........CATLIN......
(RISNER).........CLIFT.......
DISTRICT 2 (PERRY)..........CULVER......
(SALTARELLI).....EOGAR.......
(NORBY)........CATLIN....... I REESE)..........GRIFFIN....:_
(ZIEGLER)......BUCK........}por (LUXEM90URGER)...GRISET......
(LUXEMBOURGER).GRISET....... V_ (CRANK)..........HANSON......
(SILZEL).......KAVANAMI.... (COX)............HART........
(VEDEL)........MAN~......G (SALTARELL1).....MOESTEREY..._
(BEVERAGE).....MURPHY......JG (SILZEL).........KAVANAMI...._
(SCOTT)........NEAL........L (SALTARELLI).....KENNEDT.....
_
(CULVER).......PERRY.......L (VEDEL)..........MAHONEY.....
(OVERHOLT).....ROTH........ Ll (COX)............MAURER......
(DETER)........SMITH.......JC _ (AGRAN)..........MILLER......
(VIEDER).......STANTON.....}C'_ (BEVERAGE).......MURPHY......
(NELSON).......SOTMN.......AG— (SCOTT)..........NEAL........�
(SUTTON).........NELSON......
DISTRICT 3 (LACAYO).........PARTIN......
(CULVER)..... PERRY....... _
(LACAYO).......PARTIN......J� (COX)............PLUMMER.....
(NELSON).......POLIS ....... (NELSON).........POLIS.......
(MANDIC).......BAILEY....... _ (OVERHOLT).......ROTH........ _
(NORBY)........CATLIN......JC_ (PACE)...........SAPIEN...... _
(RISHER).......CLIFT......._,_ (WILES)..........SIEFEN......
(PERRY)........CULVER......_{� (BEVER)..........SMITH.......
(REESE)........GRIFFIN..... (VIEDER).........STANTON.....
(LUXEMBOURG .G RIS ET......_ (NELSON).........SUTTON......
( )........N ...... (MILLER) .......SWAN ......
(SCOTT .......NEAL........jC ( VAGGI).......SYLVIA
( UTON) .....NELSON.......SC_ _ (FINLEY).........
THOMAR......
(OVERHLT).....ROTH
........yi_ (BREEN) . VAHNER......
(PACE).... . SE ........L _ (]OHNiON ........NpXNER......
(WILES)...
.. ..SI EFH .....JC
(VIEDER).......STANTON......Lc
(SELVAGGI).....SYLVIA......_AC— STAFF:
DISTRICT 5 SYLVESTER... V
I� CLARKE......!/
(COX)..........HART.......... DAWES.........6C
(COX).. . .......MAURER....... ANDERSON....JC
(VIEDER).......STANTON..... BUTLER......JC
BROWN....... V
DISTRICT 6 BAKER.......
KYLE........
(]OHNSON I....NAHNER......LG VON LANGEN
(COX)..........PLUMMER.....jG _ NINSOR......_
(KIEDER).......STANTON.....JC_ STREED......_
CLAWSON.....J�
DISTRICT 7 OOTEN.......
LINDER......�
(SALTARELLI)...EDGAR....... _ DEBLIEUX...._
(AGRAH)........MILLER......
(LUXEMBOURGER).GRISET......�_
(COX)..........MAURER.......
(BEYER)........SMITH........
(KIEDER).......STANTON....._K
(GREEH)........VANNER.......
DISTRI-T Is
(MANOI::.......BAILEY...... A�
:f:EDER�.......STANTON..... _
IaINLrvi.......THOMAS......
OTHERS: WOODRUFF.....
ATKINS...... y_ /� Row•
•IIFLBOM`.......�tliTM...... HOHENER.....
HOWARD......
:=vEAMJLT).....ROTH........J�—: HUNT..........
,BE YER)........SMITH.......JC KEITH....... l ' *w—
(VIEDER).......STANTON.....
� KNOPF.......L/
LE BLANC....
_
5:3TRi:T 1E LINCH... ..._
V� LYNCH......._
(MILLER).......MILLER...... J PEARCE...... �APPpMvamq
(BEYER)........SMITH..NEDY....._j_ YOUNG.......
_
(BEYER)........SMITH....... ✓_ YOUNG.......
_ -
(VIEDER).......STANTON.....y�_
09!13Y96 ���Vi $RIG.
Rel,ulr AILeXA�
NEET)NG DA, ATIg115t 27, 1986 TIME 7:00 p.m. DISTRICTS 1,2,3,5,6,7,11,13 a 14
DISTRICT 1 JOINT BOARDS
ISALTARELLI)...MOESTEREY... (MANDIC).........BA "Y; ....
(CRANK)........HANSON....... — — (MURPHY).........BE VERAG ....
(LUXEMBOURGER).GRISET......L (ZIEGLER)........BUCK........
(NIEDER).......STANTON..... 4 (MOREY)..........CATLIN......
(RISHER).........CLIFT.......
DISTRICT 2 (PERRY)..........CULVER......
(SALTARELLI).....EDGAR......._
(NORBY)........CATLIN...... REESE)..........GRIFFIN....:_
(ZIEGLER)......BUCK........= _ (LU%EMBOURGER)...GRISET......
(LUKEMBOURGER).GRISET...... W- (CRANK)..........HANSON......
(SILIEL).......KAWANAMI.... (COX)............HART........
(WEDEL)........MANBNET'.l..T (SALTARELLI).....HOESTEREY..._
(BEVERAGE).....MURPHY.M.Z _ (SILIEU.........KAWANAMI...._
(SCOTT)........MEAL........= (SALTARELLI).....KENNEDY.....
(CULVER).......PERRY....... (UEDEL)..........MAHONEY.....
(OVERHOLT).....ROTH.. (COX)............MAURER...... _
(BEYER)........SMITH.(twv... (AGRAN)..........MILLER......
(WIEDER).......STANTON.....+ (BEVERAGE).......MURPHY.....
(NELSON).......4uxzw......?r (SCOTT)..........NEAL........
(SUTTON).........NELSON......
DISTRICT J (LACAYD).........PARTIN...... _
((LAC AYO).......PRR TIN. ..._ CUL VER).........PERRY.......__ _
CO% ONI.........PLUMMER....._ _
(NELSON)... POLIS (NELS OLIS.......
.._V (OVERHOLT).......ROTH........
(NORSY)... ATLIN�p+ + (PACE)...........SAPIEN......
(RISHER).......
.....0 CL IFT. (WILES)..........SIEFEN......
(PERRY)........CULVER...... - (BEYER)..........SMITH.......
(REESE)........GRIFFIN.....! (MIEDER).........STANTON.....
(LUXEMSOURGER).GRISET...... (NELSON).........SUTTON......
(WEOEL)........ (MILLER).........SWAN........ _
(SCOTT)........N:::::NE At. _ (SELVAGGI).......SYLVIA......
(SUTTON).......NELSON......✓ (FINLEY).........THOMAS......
(OVERHOLT).....ROTH........✓ (GREEN)..........MANNER...... _
(PACE).........SAPIEN...... ✓ (JOHNSON)........MANNER......
(WILES)........SIEFEN......✓ _
(MIEDER).......STANTON yy--. ✓ _
(SELVAGGI).....SYLVIA.i- ..=
STAFF:
DISTRICT 5 SYLVESTER..._CLARKE......
(CO%)..........HART........ r DAWES.......
(COX)..........MAURER...... ANDERSON...._
(RIEDER).......STANTON..... BUTLER......
BROWN.......
DISTRICT 6 BAKER.......
KYLE........
VON LANGEN
MINSOR......
STREED......
CLAWSON.....
DOTER.......
LINDER......
DEOLIEU%...._
v
Dogs
led /�avl1
OTHERS: WOODRUFF...._
ATKINS......
nn HOHENER.....
U 4 Er _ HOWARD......
HURT........
_ KEITM.......
_ KNOPF.......
E� LE
..._
LINDSTROM..._
LYNCH. ....._
MARTISO ..._
PEARCE......
l //Tfa r7/ _= WASON......._
YOUNG.......
i3rpn U/�e,I Sv"7 -
LILI CA
August 27, 1986 Adjourned Joint Meeting Notes - 7:00 p.m.
SEE ATTACHED SUMMARY REPORT for report of DOHS & EPA.
Questions from Directors following DOHS & EPA presentation:
Director Ddgar said he was curious re pace of what we are achieving. What
number of pounds are involved? What the original volume was compared to what we
have taken away. Was answered, don't have any numbers at this time. Should be
in remedial study though. we won't be able to document any estimate of how
much each element is moving. %s know what we have taken away. Aren't good
records of what was put there originally. There were two floods. Are going to
do our best to-do what you asked for in remedial investigation. Dort know if
we are going to be able to quantify it.
Director Catlin asked, how often do you have to recycle if the water doesn't
meet standards? Answered, up to now, we have processed about 4 million gallons.
Early on there was only one batch that we recycled. This has only happened
once.
Director PLis asked, will this problem ever be resolved totally or will it be
there forever? Answered, don't know whether it is possible to canpletely remove
all the contaminants or not. Are attempting to ascertain what we could do.
Don't know if we could ever say that. Monitoring will have to go on for a log
time. Can develop strategies to protect community.
Director Polis commented about receiving bottled drinking water in Glen Avon and
asked what they were doing about the swimming pool water? Answered, we are in
the process of connecting to Jurupa Community Services District now. Are
400-500 citizens on bottled water now. Are going through construction program
V with Jurupa. Reason for going to Jurupa system is based on radiation in water
supply not because of Stringfellow. Haven't found contaminants in any of the
wells the citizens are using. It is just a protective action.
Director Catlin asked, where would you take soils and water to? Answered,
it is a problem knowing where to move it to. local citizens in Glen Avon feel
the requirement to move it away is not as important to them as being assured
that it is treated and contained.
Director Stanton stated, sore time back this District was informed that this
treatment plant would last 2-3 years. Shortly thereafter it was stated it might
last 20 years. were concerned that this situation might last forever. Asked,
how many pounds of materials have been removed in the 4 million gallons removed
so far? Don't think you really have to have an answer as to how much was dumped
in the first place. The number of pounds removed is probably not very
significant at all. You are never going to wash it out. If you don't use
excavation procedure, will have a permanent process there. Re most economical
alternative, what is important to ask is what is the cost per pound of materials
removed. If you excavate as much as possible, you are going to have a cheaper
cost to remove than if you continue letting clear water wash through and collect
at the ed. What is the total cost of material removed?! ! Cost per measure is
much cheaper with total excavation.
i
Answered, could probably com up with a number re how many pounds. Agreed with
Stanton. If we evaluate options, that is something we will have to consider.
Tfeatmnt plant is to manage groundwater until we complete this study. Were not
trying to indicate that flushing contaminants is what we are trying to do. Have
to work on soil contamination first and it is going very slowly now. Added that
soil washing approach was evaluated but is prohibitively expensive. It was
�r eliminated in the beginning. Are getting down to the fine tuning of the
containment process. Re digging up contaminants, Glen Avon residents have a
good appreciation of the process of removing contaminants from one area to
another. We have fast learned that if we take a broader look at hazardous
waste, removing it from me area to another is only going to create greater
problem in the other area. Don't think that many of these facilities are going
to maintain their integrity forever. ERA and the State of California are
placing tremendous emphasis on permanent cleanup from a regional perspective.
Director asked, where does waste from carbon filter go? Answered, bark to
manufacturer for regeneration. Is trucked to Pennsylvania for incineration.
Organics can be destroyed.
Director Hoesterey asked, are there many sites of contamination downstream?
Answered, no, are not finding any evidence in soil samples.
Director Hdgar asked, have we seen in 6-8 months of treating the water a change
in the concentrations of the treated water? Answered, haven't seen any obvious
valid decease. Very difficult. May take years before you see a reduction.
Director Stanton commented re excavation, sounds like you are against it. Where
can it be taken? What will the problem be like 20-25 years from now if you
excavate or leave there? Report should give figures 25 years from now.
Director Peer Swan asked, how deep is the aquifer? Where is the barrier and
how successful is it? Haw deep are the wells? Answered, sane wells are
several hundred feet but don't produce as much as the shallow ones. This is in
a box canyon. Peer wondered why the urgency before? Was answered that it was
urgent to get the plant built because there wasn't going to be any place to take
the water. In fact, the day after the plant was built, there wasn't anyplace to
take it anymore.
Director Smith asked, are you looking at any other areas in that watershed
that are contaminated besides this one? Answered, there is a shall site in the
canyon that was reported to have some waste. The State took measures there and
it would be dwarfed compared to Stringfellow.
Director Hart asked, what are you doing now with waste that is left over?
Answered, there are three streams that go out of the plant: (1) treated water
goes to OCSD (2) sludge goes to hazardous waste disposal site- Casmalia (3)
activate] carbon goes to Pennsylvania.
Partin asked, can you Wild a catch basin there? Answered, yes, is in
conceptual design now. Asked, are there any financing problem as far as
funding? Answered, State and EPA has a Superfund. be are responsible for a 10%
share of the ultimate cost of cleanup. Ultimately, we will seek to recover
costs from responsible parties. Are in litigation with then now. Citizens in
the area have sued responsible parties also and the State. EPA will pay for
operation and maintenance for six months to one year. State must show we will
have the money to spend for the next 20 years. That money does rat exist at
this time.
v
-2-
Asked, who is in charge of cleanup? Answered, State of California. It is a
cooperative relationship between the State and ERA.
Director Stanton referred to statement in salmon Sumetry Report saying
"presumably, the Districts' facilities". Mist happened to the line that goes to
o.i L.A. County? Blake Anderson answered, that is our assumption because Orange
County is a more likely choice. It is up to their study. DOHS added, we
certainly haven't ruled out IA or any other line that might be willing to
accept. We haven't dealt with this specific line alternative yet. Should
address it later in the report.
Joint Chairman Griffin then announced that that will be a public meeting in
Orange County relative to this subject. It will be held September 18th at
7:00 p.m. at Mile Square Park Community Center.
-3-
COUNTY SANITATION
DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 22 3, 59 62 72 11, 13 AND 14
OF
ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
ON
AUGUST 27, 1986 - 7:00 P.M.
tTATtO&
I
S'ae� 195e
NGE COON`
ADMDgISTRA= OFFICES
10844 FT1. AVENUE
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
ROLL CALL
.An adj named regular meeting of the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts
Nee. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, It$ lJ and 14 of Orange County, California, was held on August 27, 1986,
at 7:00 p.m., in the Districts' Administrative Office.. Following the Pledge of Allegiance and
invocation the roll was called and the Secretary reported a quorum present for Districts gas. 1,
2, 3, 5, 6, 7, ll,,13 and 14 ae follow.:
AC[Spe DIRECTORS ALTERNATE DIRECTORS
DISTRICT NO. 1: x Ronald B. Hoe.terey, Chairman _Donald J. Saltarelli
x Robert Hanson, Chairman pro tam _Oran Creak
--a-Dan Driest Robert Luxembourger
: Roger Stanton _Rarriect Wieder
DISTRICT NO. 2: .Huck Catlin, Chairman _Chris Norby
x Richard Buck, Chairman pro tea _George Ziegler
e Dan Geiser Robert Luxembourger
m Carol Kawavmi _We". Sliest
William D. Mahoney x Dorothy Wedel
i J. Todd Murphy Michael J. Beverage
: Jame. Meet _George Scott
: Bob Perry Norm Culver
z D. Roth _ a E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr.
x Don Smith Gene Beyer
z eo8ex Suntan _Harrlecc Wieder
_John R. Sutton .Caney Nelsen
DISTRICT NO. 3: z Richard Partin, Chairmen Otto J. Lacayo
xRichard Polio, Chairman pro cm _Keith Nelson
-7--Ruth Bailey _Robert Mardi., Jr.
.Huck Catlin _Chris Morby
.Prank Clift _Joyce Risher
.Morman Culver _Bob Perry
z Dnn Griffin Lester Reese
a Dnn Geiser _Robert Luxembourger
_William D. Mahoney x Dorothy Wedel
-7--Jams Meet _George Scott
V .Carrey Nelson _John H. Sutton
x Don Roth E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr.
.Sal Sapien _Mike Pace
.J.R. "Bob" Siefev Dewey Wiles
.Roger Stanton _Harriett Wieder
x Charles Sylvia Anthony Selva"i
DISTRICT MO. 5: z Evelyn Hart, Chairman _John Cox, Jr.
.Philip Hoover, Chairman pro tam Job. Cox, Jr.
_:...Roger Stanton Harriett Wieder
DISTRICT NO. 6: .Jams Wahnee, Chairman Eric C. Johnson
x Ruthelya Plummer, Chairman pro tam John Co., Jr.
.Roger Stanton -Harriett Rieder
DISTRICT MD. 7: .Richard Edger, Chairman _Donald J. Seltarelli
.Sally Anne Hiller, Chairman pro tom _Larry Agean
a Dan Grisee Robert Luxembourger
z Philip Maurer _John Cox, Jr.
x Don Smith _Cane Bayer
i Boger Stanton Rarriect Winder
x James Wah.ar _Harry Green
DISTRICT ND. il: _1.__Ruth Bailey, Chairman _Robert Mandic, Jr.
_1.._Roger Stanton, Chairmen pro tea Harriett Wieder
a John Threes _Ruth Finley
,
DISTRICT NO. 13: _John H. Sutton, Chairman x Carrey Nelson
x Michael J. Beverage, Chairman pro tem J. Todd Murphy
IF-Do. Roth _E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr.
.Don Smith Gene Beyer
.Roger Stanton _Harriet Wieder
DISTRICT W. 14: x Sally Anne Miller, Chairman _Larry Agran
x Peer A. Swan, Chairman pro tm Darryl Miller
`/ -:-Ursula Kennedy _Donald J. Seltarelli
x D. Smith Gene Bayer
n Roger Stanton _Harriett Wieder
'2-
08/27/86
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Wayne Sylvester, General Manager, Rita
Brown, Board Secretary, William N. Clarke,
Thomas M. Dawes, Blake Anderson, Bill
Butler, Hilary Baker, Corinne Clawson, Judy
Bucher, Jim Benzie
OTHERS PRESENT: Thomas L. Woodruff, General Counsel, Harvey
Hunt, Bill Knopf, Ray Lewis, Ted Rauh, Mark
Galloway, Sue Sher, Jerry Clifford, Brian
Dllensvang, Sandra Carroll, Robert Shotee
ALL DISTRICTS The Joint Chairman introduced Mr. Ted
Briefing by the State Department of Rauh of the Department of Health
Health Services on a draft report Services (DORS) who then introduced
re Stringfellow Facility Remedial other DONS and EPA representatives in
Investigation/Feasibility Study: attendance that have been working on the
Development and Initial Screening Stringfellow Study: Mark Galloway and Sue
Sher from DOHS; Jerry Clifford, Brian
Dllenavang, and Sandra Carroll of the Environmental Protection Agency; and Robert
Shotee from Science Applications International Corporation.
The purpose of the recently completed draft report entitled "Stringfellow
Facility Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study: Development and Initial
Screening of Alternatives" is to formulate broad alternative long-term remedial
actions to prevent or minimize the migration of contaminated groundwater from the
Stringfellow site, and to prevent or minimize the impact of contaminants which
have already migrated from the site. The report screens the alternative remedial k.�
actions for technical feasibility, environmental/public health impacts, and
environmental suitability. The clean-up effort is to protect the underground
drinking water basins of the Santa Ana River. The report is a working document
and will be used for discussion at future community meetings involving the DOES,
EPA and the public. The report represents an intermediate step in the complete
long-term feasibility process.
Mr. Rauh reviewed the history of the Stringfellow hazardous waste site which was
operated as a hazardous waste disposal facility from 1956 to 1972. It is located
in the middle of a narrow box canyon one-half mile north of Highway 60 in
Riverside County near Glen Avon. Approximately 34 million gallons of liquid
industrial waste from Los Angeles, Orange and other surrounding counties were
deposited at the site. Mitigation measures began in 1980. EPA looked at interim
alternatives for managing the groundwater until a final decision could be made on
the ultimate, long-term solution.
The interim remedial plan selected was the construction of an on-site
pretreatment system to treat the water to Districts' standards prior to discharge
into the Districts' sewerage system. Conditional permission was granted in late ,
1984 by the Boards of Directors after having considered the suitability of the
project. In December 1985 the interim remedial plan was executed when discharge
commenced. The pretreatment plant produces three wastestreams: (1) the plant
effluent treated to Districts' standards which is discharged to the Districts'
facilities via the Santa Ana River Interceptor (SARI); (2) the sludge from the
treatment process that is hauled to a Class I dump in Casmalia; and (3) the spent
activated carbon in the treatment plant filters that is trucked to Pennsylvania
-3-
08/27/86
for regeneration. Daily analyses of the treated groundwater has shown that the
discharge is consistently in full compliance with the stringent limitations of
the discharge permit issued by the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA) ,
as authorized by the Districts. The interim three-year permit allows up to
187,000 gallons per day, however, the plant is currently operating at
approximately 25,000 to 40,000 gallons per day and approximately 4,000,000
gallons have been removed since it was started up in December. It is too soon to
determine what impact the removal of the contaminated groundwater has had on the
overall problem and the DOHS/EPA representatives speculated that it could be some
time before a determination could be made.
DOHS then reviewed the more apparently feasible long-term remedial alternatives
being considered which included:
- Interception of the clean surface water and groundwater prior to its entry
into the Stringfellow site. (Virtually all of the options include this
alternative as an element.)
,
- Excavation of all the contaminated soil and waste mixture from Stringfellow
site, and then either treat it on-site and rebury it or remove it to an
off-site location.
- Intercept the contaminated groundwater after it leaves the Stringfellow
site, treat it, and provide final disposal to a POTW or on on-site solar
evaporation.
Final evaluation of all of these alternatives is subject to development of a
groundwater model and completion of the final remedial report which is due in
late 1986.
The Directors then entered into a lengthy discussion relative to various
alternatives and the important points to be included in the final feasibility
study report.
In response to questions regarding the volume of waste that had been removed from
the site and the remaining volume to be removed, DOHS and EPA representatives
stated that they do not have good information on that and it will probably be
very difficult to quantify although they are attempting to do so as part of the
study. It was also stated that it will be difficult to ascertain over what
length of time it will be necessary for clean-up action to take place to remove
the contaminants, or if the contaminants can, in fact, be totally removed.
However, to a certain degree it will depend upon the remedial alternative
selected.
Board members pointed out to DOHS and EPA representatives that although the
interim remedial solution was to build a treatment plant to pretreat the
extracted groundwaters and discharge them to the Districts' sewerage system
through the Santa Ana River Interceptor, the study of utilizing this method as a
t Long-term alternative should not preclude discharge to a POTW other than the
Orange County Sanitation Districts; nor should the alternative of excavating the
material and hauling it to another approved site be summarily eliminated because
of difficulties encountered at other Superfund sites for this method. Further,
in the evaluation of all the various alternatives in the final analysis,
considerable weight should be given to the coat per unit-of-measure of clean-up
in determining the most economical alternative.
.:
-4-
08/27/86
In response to a question on funding of the clean-up program for Stringfellow,
DONS and EPA representatives explained the program as a cooperative effort
between DONS and EPA and reviewed the funding responsibilities of the
respective agencies.
A public meeting to receive comments on the draft report will be held on
September 18,- 1986, at 7:00 p.m. at Mile Square Park Community Center in Fountain
Valley.
DISTRICT 1 Moved, seconded and duly carried:
Adjournment
That this meeting of the Board of
Directors of County Sanitation District No. 1 be adjourned. The Chairman then
declared the meeting so adjourned at 8:35 p.m., August 27, 1986.
DISTRICT 2 Moved, seconded and duly carried:
Adjournment
That this meeting of the Board of
Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 be adjourned. The Chairman then
declared the meeting so adjourned at 8:35 p.m. , August 27, 1986.
DISTRICT 3 Moved, seconded and duly carried:
Adjournment
That this meeting of the Board of
Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3 be adjourned. The Chairman then
declared the meeting so adjourned at 8:35 p.m. , August 27, 1986.
DISTRICT 5 Moved, seconded and duly carried:
Adjournment
That this messing of the Board of
Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 be adjourned. The Chairman then
declared the meeting so adjourned at 8:35 p.m. , August 27, 1986.
DISTRICT 6 Moved, seconded and duly carried:
Adjournment
That this meeting of the Board of
Directors of County Sanitation District No. 6 be adjourned. The Chairman then
declared the meeting so adjourned at 8:35 p.m. , August 27, 1986.
DISTRICT 7 Moved, seconded and duly carried:
Adjournment
That this meeting of the Board of
Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7 be adjourned. The Chairman then
declared the meeting so adjourned at 8:35 p.m., August 27, 1986.
DISTRICT 11 Moved, seconded and duly carried:
Adjournment
That this meeting of the Board of ,
Directors of County Sanitation District No. 11 be adjourned. The Chairman then
declared the meeting so adjourned at 8:35 p.m., August 27, 1986.
DISTRICT 13 Moved, seconded and duly carried:
Adjournment
That this meeting of the Board of
Directors of County Sanitation District No. 13 be adjourned. The Chairman then V
declared the meeting so adjourned at 8:35 p.m., August 27, 1986. -
-5-
08/27/86
DISTRICT 14 Moved, seconded and duly carried:
Adjournment
That this meeting of the Board of
Directors of County Sanitation District No. 14 be adjourned. The Chairman then
declared the meeting so adjourned at 8:35 p.m. , August 27, 1986.
e
r
Secretary, Dire
V County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3,
5, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14
-6-