Prepared  for:      Arizona  Department  of  Environmental  Quality     On  Behalf  of:        Roosevelt  Irrigation  District       Prepared  by:        Synergy  Environmental  LLC       PROPOSED . REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN WEST VAN BUREN AREA WQARF SITE PHOENIX, ARIZONA June 2015 Prepared for: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality On Behalf of: Roosevelt Irrigation District .1 Prepared by: Synergy Environmental LLC PETERSON re ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE       TABLE  OF  CONTENTS     EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 1   1.0   INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 5   1.1   PURPOSE  OF  DOCUMENT ........................................................................................... 5   1.2   REPORT  ORGANIZATION............................................................................................. 6   2.0   SITE  DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................... 7   2.1   BOUNDARIES  OF  WVBA  WQARF  SITE  AND  REGIONAL  GROUNDWATER   CONTAMINATION ............................................................................................................... 7   2.2   CONTAMINANTS  OF  CONCERN ................................................................................... 8   2.3   HISTORY  OF  REMEDIAL  INVESTIGATIONS  AT  WVBA  WQARF  SITE.............................. 16   2.4   EARLY  RESPONSE  ACTIONS ....................................................................................... 21   2.4.1   FACILITY-­‐SPECIFIC  RESPONSE  ACTIONS ................................................................................ 21   2.4.2   ROOSEVELT  IRRIGATION  DISTRICT  EARLY  RESPONSE  ACTIONS............................................ 21   2.5   COMMUNITY  INVOLVEMENT  ACTIVITIES .................................................................. 27   3.0   SITE  CHARACTERIZATION .................................................................................. 31   3.1   HYDROGEOLOGIC  SETTING ....................................................................................... 31   3.2   IDENTIFICATION  OF  CONTAMINANT  SOURCES.......................................................... 33   3.2.1   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  FACILITIES ..................................................................................... 33   3.2.2   MOTOROLA  52ND  STREET  CERCLA  SITE ................................................................................. 34   3.2.3   WEST  OSBORN  COMPLEX  WQARF  SITE ................................................................................ 35   3.3   NATURE  AND  EXTENT  OF  CONTAMINATION ............................................................. 36   3.3.1   SOIL/UNSATURATED  ZONE ................................................................................................... 36   3.3.2   GROUNDWATER ................................................................................................................... 37   3.3.3   POTENTIAL  OCCURRENCE  OF  DNAPLs .................................................................................. 41   3.3.4   CANAL/SURFACE  WATER ...................................................................................................... 42   3.3.5   AIR ........................................................................................................................................ 43   4.0   PRAP  SCOPING.................................................................................................. 45   4.1   REGULATORY  REQUIREMENTS.................................................................................. 45   4.2   REMEDIAL  OBJECTIVES  AT  THE  WVBA  WQARF  SITE .................................................. 46   4.2.1   REMEDIAL  OBJECTIVES  FOR  LAND  USE................................................................................. 46   4.2.2   REMEDIAL  OBJECTIVES  FOR  GROUNDWATER  USE ............................................................... 47   4.2.3   REMEDIAL  OBJECTIVES  FOR  CANAL/SURFACE  WATER  USE.................................................. 48   4.3   REMEDIAL  OBJECTIVES  AT  ADJACENT  SITES .............................................................. 49   4.3.1   MOTOROLA  52ND  STREET  CERCLA  SITE ................................................................................. 49   4.3.2   WEST  OSBORN  COMPLEX  WQARF  SITE ................................................................................ 50   4.3.3   56TH  STREET  AND  EARLL  DRIVE  WQARF  SITE ........................................................................ 51   4.4   EXTENT  OF  IMPACTS  TO  AREA  WATER  PROVIDERS ................................................... 51     i     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE         TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  (CONT.)     5.0   NEED  FOR  REMEDIAL  ACTION ........................................................................... 55   6.0   SUMMARY  OF  REMEDIAL  STRATEGIES  AND  REMEDIAL  MEASURES  IN  RID  FS   REPORT ..................................................................................................................... 57   6.1   REMEDIAL  STRATEGIES............................................................................................. 58   6.2     REMEDIAL  MEASURES .............................................................................................. 59   7.0   SUMMARY  OF  GROUNDWATER  REMEDIES  EVALUATED  IN  RID  FS  REPORT........ 61   7.1   7.2   7.3   7.4   REFERENCE  REMEDY................................................................................................. 61   LESS  AGGRESSIVE  ALTERNATIVE  REMEDY ................................................................. 61   MORE  AGGRESSIVE  ALTERNATIVE  REMEDY .............................................................. 61   MOST  AGGRESSIVE  ALTERNATIVE  REMEDY .............................................................. 61   8.0   EVALUATION  OF  ALTERNATIVE  REMEDIES  IN  RID  FS  REPORT ............................ 63   8.1   EVALUATION  CRITERIA ............................................................................................. 63   8.1.1   ACHIEVEMENT  OF  ALL  REMEDIAL  OBJECTIVES  (ROs): .......................................................... 63   8.1.2   CONSISTENCY  WITH  WATER  AND  LAND  USE  PLANS ............................................................ 64   8.1.3   PRACTICABILITY .................................................................................................................... 65   8.1.4   RISK....................................................................................................................................... 66   8.1.5   COST ..................................................................................................................................... 67   8.1.6   BENEFIT/VALUE .................................................................................................................... 69   9.0     PROPOSED  REMEDY ......................................................................................... 71   9.1   COMPARISON  CRITERIA............................................................................................ 71   9.1.1   ACHIEVEMENT  OF  REMEDIAL  OBJECTIVES ........................................................................... 71   9.1.2   CONFORMANCE  WITH  ARS  §  49-­‐282.06............................................................................... 72   9.1.3   CONSISTENCY  WITH  WATER  MANAGEMENT  PLANS ............................................................ 73   9.1.4   CONSISTENCY  WITH  GENERAL  LAND  USE  PLANNING........................................................... 73   9.2   CONTINGENCIES ....................................................................................................... 74   9.3   REMEDIATED  WATER  END  USE ................................................................................. 76   9.4   LEAD  AGENCY  STATEMENT  FOR  REMEDY  SELECTION ................................................ 76   10.0   COMMUNITY  PARTICIPATION ......................................................................... 75   10.1   PUBLIC  COMMENT  PERIOD  OF  PRAP......................................................................... 75   10.2   PUBIC  MEETINGS...................................................................................................... 75   10.3   ADMINISTRATIVE  RECORD........................................................................................ 75   10.4   OTHER  CONTACT  INFORMATION .............................................................................. 76   11.0   REFERENCES.................................................................................................... 77         ii     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE         TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  (CONT.)       TABLES            Table                       1 Summary  of  Water  Quality  –  ADEQ  Monitor  Wells,  March  2013   2 Summary  of  Water  Quality  –  RID  Production  Wells   3 Chromium  Data  Summary,  March  2014   4 Estimated  Costs  for  Remedial  Alternatives   5 Comparative  Cost  of  Remedial  Alternatives  –  Net  Present  Value  Analysis   6 Summary  of  Comparison  Criteria  for  Groundwater  Alternative  Remedies   7 Groundwater  Remedial  Actions  –  Comparative  Analysis         FIGURES        Figure     1 Site  Location  Map   2 Central  Phoenix  Regional  Groundwater  Contamination   3 Target  COC  Concentrations  Over  Time,  RID  Wells   4 West  Osborn  Complex  Vicinity  Site  Shallow  Groundwater  System  Plume   5 Regions  of  WVBA  Contaminant  Plume  Based  on  VOC  Trends   6 VOC  Trends  in  Eastern  Core  of  WVBA  Contaminant  Plume   7 VOC  Trends  in  Southeast  Lobe  of  WVBA  Contaminant  Plume   8 VOC  Trends  in  Southern  Flank  of  WVBA  Contaminant  Plume   9 VOC  Trends  in  North  Central  Portion  of  WVBA  Contaminant  Plume   10 VOC  Trends  in  Leading  Edge  of  WVBA  Contaminant  Plume   iii     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE       LIST  OF  ACRONYMS   AAC   ADEQ   ADHS   ADWR   AF   AFY   ALASG   ALSCo   APS   ARS   ASR   ATSDR   AWQS   bls   CAB   CERCLA   CFR   CGTF   CIP   COC   COP   COT   CREG   DCA   DCE   DNAPL   EPA   ERA   FS   ft/d   GAC   GPL   gpm   HVOCs   LAU   LGAC   M&A   M&I   M52     Arizona  Administrative  Code   Arizona  Department  of  Environmental  Quality   Arizona  Department  of  Health  Services   Arizona  Department  of  Water  Resources   acre-­‐feet   acre-­‐feet  per  year   Air  Liquide  America  Specialty  Gases   American  Linen  Supply  Company   Arizona  Public  Service   Arizona  Revised  Statutes   Aquifer  Storage  and  Recovery   Agency  for  Toxic  Substances  and  Disease  Registry   Aquifer  Water  Quality  Standards   below  land  surface   community  advisory  board   Comprehensive  Environmental  Response,  Compensation  and  Liability  Act   Code  of  Federal  Regulations   Central  Groundwater  Treatment  Facility   Community  Involvement  Plan   contaminant  of  concern   City  of  Phoenix   City  of  Tolleson   Cancer  Risk  Evaluation  Guideline   dichloroethane   dichloroethene   dense  non-­‐aqueous  phase  liquid   U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency   Early  Response  Action   Feasibility  Study   feet  per  day   granular  activated  carbon   Groundwater  Protection  Level   gallons  per  minute   halogenated  volatile  organic  compounds   lower  alluvial  unit   liquid-­‐phase  granular  activated  carbon   Montgomery  &  Associates   municipal  &  industrial   Motorola  52nd  Street  Federal  Superfund  Site   iv     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     LIST  OF  ACRONYMS  (Cont.)     MAU   MCL   MCMM   mg/kg   mg/L   OU   PCE   POS   PRAP   PRP   RI   RID   RO   ROD   RSL   SHA   SRL   SRP   SRV   SSL   SVE   SWQS   TCA   TCE   UAU   µg/kg   µg/L   µg/m3   UIC   UNOCAL   UDOE   VBTF   VOC   WCP   WOC   WQARF   WVBA   WVBG   WVBSA   VW&R     middle  alluvial  unit   maximum  contaminant  level   Maricopa  County  Materials  Management   milligrams  per  kilogram   milligrams  per  liter   Operable  Unit   tetrachloroethene   Prudential  Overall  Supply   Proposed  Remedial  Action  Plan   potentially  responsible  party   Remedial  Investigation   Roosevelt  Irrigation  District   Remedial  Objective   Record  of  Decision   Regional  Screening  Level   Sky  Harbor  International  Airport   Soil  Remediation  Level   Salt  River  Project   Salt  River  Valley   soil  screening  level   soil  vapor  extraction   surface  water  quality  standards   trichloroethane     trichloroethene   upper  alluvial  unit   micrograms  per  kilogram   micrograms  per  liter   micrograms  per  cubic  meter   United  Industrial  Corporation   Union  Oil  Company  of  California   United  States  Department  of  Energy   Van  Buren  Tank  Farm   volatile  organic  compound   West  Central  Phoenix   West  Osborn  Complex   Water  Quality  Assurance  Revolving  Fund   West  Van  Buren  Area     West  Van  Buren  Group   West  Van  Buren  Study  Area   Van  Waters  &  Rogers   v     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE                                       THIS  PAGE  LEFT  INTENTIONALLY  BLANK vi     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE       EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY     Roosevelt   Irrigation   District   (RID)   has   prepared   this   Proposed   Remedial   Action   Plan   (PRAP),   pursuant  to  Arizona  Administrative  Code  (AAC)  R18-­‐16-­‐408  and  in  accordance  with  the  terms  of   the  Agreement  to  Conduct  Work  between  ADEQ  and  RID,  to  select  a  remedy  to  address  regional   groundwater   contamination   impacting   the   West   Van   Buren   Area   (WVBA)   Water   Quality   Assurance   Revolving   Fund   (WQARF)   Site   in   Phoenix,   Arizona,   consistent   with   the   proposed   regional   groundwater   remedy   in   the   ADEQ-­‐approved   RID   FS   Report.     This   PRAP   is   based   on   the   analysis   and   findings   documented   in   the   Revised   Draft   Feasibility   Study   Report,   submitted   by   RID   to   ADEQ   on   November   26,   2014   (the   “RID   FS   Report”).     Following   detailed   review,   ADEQ   determined  that  the  RID  FS  Report  meets  the  requirements  of  Arizona  Revised  Statutes  (ARS)   49-­‐287.03  and  AAC  R18-­‐16-­‐407  and  approved  the  RID  FS  Report  on  April  13,  2015.    The  RID  FS   Report  was  prepared  following  completion  of  the  final  Remedial  Investigation  Report  that  was   issued  by  ADEQ  in  August  2012  (the  “Final  WVBA  RI  Report”).         The   Final   WVBA   RI   Report   indicates   that   groundwater   in   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   contains   significant   concentrations   of   hazardous   chlorinated   volatile   organic   compounds   (VOCs)   that   are   widely  distributed  throughout  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site.    Site  investigations  conducted  over  the   past   25   years   at   over   50   industrial   and   commercial   facilities   in   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   have   identified   numerous   source   areas   that   released   VOC   contaminants   and   contributed   to   area-­‐ wide   groundwater   contamination.     Moreover,   groundwater   contamination   in   the   WVBA   WQARF  Site  is  part  of  a  larger  commingled  plume  of  VOC  contaminants  that  encompasses  the   adjacent  Motorola  52nd  Street  federal  Superfund  Site  to  the  east,  the  Sky  Harbor  International   Airport  Site  to  the  southeast,  and  the  West  Central  Phoenix  Area  WQARF  sites  to  the  north,  as   shown  below.         1     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE       Collectively,   the   commingled   VOC   groundwater   plume   extends   nearly   15  miles   throughout   central   Phoenix   from   52nd   Street   to   beyond   75th   Avenue   and   is   by   far   the   largest   combined   groundwater   contaminant   plume   in   Arizona   and   one   of   the   single   largest   VOC   plumes   in   the   country.     The  commingled  plumes  of  VOC-­‐contaminated  groundwater  in  the  adjacent  sites  flow  toward   and  enter  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site  in  response  to  large-­‐scale  pumping  of  RID  water  supply  wells   within  the  WVBA.    VOC  contaminants  in  groundwater  from  these  adjacent  sites,  along  with  VOC   releases  within  the  WVBA  Site,  have  impacted  24  RID  wells  with  detectable  concentrations  of   one   or   more   hazardous   VOCs,   while   13   of   these   wells   exceed   applicable   VOC   aquifer   water   quality   standards   (AWQSs)   and   maximum   contaminant   levels   (MCLs).     In   recent   years   the   33   RID   wells   in   the   WVBA   vicinity   have   pumped   an   average   of   83,500   acre-­‐feet   of   groundwater,   and   extracted   an   estimated   2,900   pounds   of   VOCs   annually.     Without   treatment,   the   contaminated  groundwater  pumped  by  RID  discharges  to  a  surface  conveyance  system  where   VOCs   in   the   water   are   known   to   volatilize   and   transfer   hazardous   VOC   air   pollutants1   from   groundwater  to  air.         The  RID  FS  Report  evaluated  four  (4)  possible  groundwater  alternative  remedies  as  a  potential   regional   groundwater   remedy   for   the   WVBA   Site   in   accordance   with   the   applicable   requirements   in   ARS   §   49-­‐282.06   and   AAC   R18-­‐16-­‐407.     By   law   and   rule,   all   possible   groundwater  alternative  remedies  must  be  capable  of  achieving  all  of  the  Remedial  Objectives   (ROs)  for  water  use  within  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site  and  need  to  be  consistent  with  general  land   use   and   water   management   plans.2     Although   RID   currently   is   the   only   WVBA   water   provider   whose   existing   water   supply   wells   and   reasonably   foreseeable   water   end   use   as   a   drinking   water   supply   are   adversely   impacted   or   immediately   threatened   by   the   widespread   VOC   groundwater   plume   in   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site,   other   water   providers   such   as   Arizona   Public   Service,  Salt  River  Project,  and  the  cities  of  Phoenix  and  Tolleson  have  water  supply  wells  in  the   WVBA   vicinity   that   are   potentially   threatened   and   must   be   considered   in   the   regional   groundwater  remedy  selected  by  ADEQ  for  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site.3    Because  the  focus  of  the   PRAP   is   on   a   regional   groundwater   remedy,   response   actions   conducted   by   private   parties   or   ADEQ  to  address  facility-­‐specific  sources  of  VOC  releases  or  hot  spots  within  the  WVBA  WQARF   Site  are  not  included  in  the  scope  of  this  PRAP.       This   PRAP   summarizes   the   major   findings   of   the   RID   FS   Report.     Four   (4)   groundwater   alternative  remedies  were  evaluated  as  a  potential  regional  groundwater  remedy  for  the  WVBA   WQARF  Site,  and  in  simplest  terms,  the  main  elements  consist  of:                                                                                                                                   1 See 42 United States Code (USC) § 7412.b. See ARS § 49-287.03.F and AAC R18-16-407.E.1 and G. 3 See ARS §§ 49-282.06.A and 49-282.06.B.4.b. 2   2     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE         Reference   Remedy   –   Installing   wellhead   treatment   at   nine   (9)   existing   impacted   wells   and  blending  of  four  (4)  other  impacted  wells  that  would  be  operated  to  achieve  both   applicable   AWQSs   and   MCL   water   quality   for   all   current   and   reasonably   foreseeable   water   end   uses   at   all   wells   of   the   existing   water   providers   within   or   adjacent   to   the   WVBA   WQARF  Site.    Two  (2)  replacement  wells  would  be  drilled  to  enhance  hydraulic   capture   in   critical   areas   of   plume   containment   and   to   restore   any   reduction   in   the   available  supply  of  water  caused  by  addressing  impacted  wells.       Less   Aggressive   Groundwater   Alternative   Remedy   –   Reducing   the   scale   of   the   Reference   Remedy   by   installing   wellhead   treatment   at   six   (6)   existing   impacted   wells   and  blending  of  six  (6)  other  impacted  wells  to  achieve  both  applicable  AWQSs  and  MCL   water   quality   for   all   current   and   reasonably   foreseeable   water   end   uses   at   all   wells   of   the  existing  water  providers  within  or  adjacent  to  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site.    Only  one  (1)   replacement  well  would  be  drilled  to  address  and  achieve  both  applicable  AWQSs  and   MCL   water   quality   for   all   current   and   reasonably   foreseeable   water   end   uses,   as   well   as   to  enhance  hydraulic  capture  and  plume  containment  at  the  leading  edge  of  the  WVBA   plume   and   to   restore   any   reduction   in   the   available   supply   of   water   caused   by   addressing  impacted  wells.         More   Aggressive   Groundwater   Alternative   Remedy   –   All   elements   of   the   Less   Aggressive   Remedy   plus   proposed   modifications   at   five   (5)   wells   in   peripheral   areas   most  threatened  by  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site  plume  to  reconfigure  the  wells  for  injection   of  underutilized  effluent  that  is  available  during  low  irrigation  demand  periods.       Most   Aggressive   Groundwater   Alternative   Remedy   –   Installing   wellhead   treatment   at   all  13  existing  impacted  wells  that  exceed  AWQSs  and  MCLs  for  the  VOC  groundwater   contaminants.   Based  on  the  results  of  detailed  analysis  set  forth  in  the  RID  FS  Report  and  summarized  in  this   PRAP,   the   Less   Aggressive   groundwater   alternative   remedy   is   the   proposed   regional   groundwater  remedy  for  the  WVBA  Site.    This  groundwater  alternative  remedy  is  reasonable,   necessary,   cost-­‐effective   and   technically   feasible   and   decisively   considered   the   most   readily   implementable  and  cost  beneficial  approach  that  satisfies  all  of  the  applicable  remedial  action   criteria  in  ARS  §  49-­‐282.06.A.  and  ARS  §  49-­‐282.06.B.4.b.,  including  cleaning  up  waters  of  the   state  for  their  “maximum  beneficial  use”  and  addressing  all  existing  wells  within  and  adjacent   to  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site  that  may  not  be  fit  for  their  “current  or  reasonably  foreseeable  end   uses”  without  treatment.    This  groundwater  remedy  also  meets  all  of  the  groundwater  ROs  for   the  WVBA  WQARF  Site,  including  the  restoration  of  the  impacted  groundwater  for  its  current  or   reasonably   foreseeable   end   use   as   a   source   of   drinking   water,   while   ensuring   protection   of   other  water  provider  wells  that  are  peripheral  to  and  downgradient  from  the  VOC  plume,  and   reducing  the  risk  of  hazardous  VOCs  being  transferred  to  surrounding  communities.       3     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     The  Less  Aggressive  regional  groundwater  alternative  remedy  would  require  implementation  of   the   following   remedial   measures,   in   addition   to   the   four   (4)   existing   wellhead   treatment   systems  that  were  installed  to  address  certain  highly  impacted  wells  within  the  WVBA  WQARF   Site   as   part   of   a   wellhead   treatment   system   pilot   initiative   which   was   approved   by   ADEQ   as   being  necessary,  reasonable  and  cost-­‐effective  in  the  Modified  Early  Response  Action:     • Wellhead   treatment   using   liquid   phase   granular   activate   carbon   at   two   (2)   additional   existing  impacted  water  supply  wells;     • Installation  of  a  higher  capacity  replacement  well,  completed  solely  in  the  contaminated   aquifer,  to  address  and  achieve  both  applicable  AWQSs  and  MCLs  for  the  target  COCs  at   RID  well  106,  as  well  as  to  enhance  hydraulic  capture  at  the  leading  edge  of  the  plume   and   to   restore   any   reduction   in   the   available   supply   of   water   caused   by   addressing   impacted  wells;   • Priority   pumping   of   all   impacted   wells   equipped   with   treatment   to   enhance   mass   removal  and  plume  containment  to  achieve  applicable  AWQSs  for  the  target  COCs  and   to  enable  blending  of  other  impacted  wells  to  achieve  necessary  MCL  water  quality  for   all   current   and   reasonably   foreseeable   end   uses   of   the   groundwater   as   a   source   of   drinking   water   by   all   existing   water   providers   at   all   wells   within   and   adjacent   to   the   WVBA  WQARF  Site;   • Engineering  controls  to  limit  potential  routes  of  public  exposure  to  COCs  within  the  RID   water  delivery  system;  and   • Groundwater  monitoring  to  verify  plume  containment  and  assess  the  progress  towards   groundwater  remediation.     The   estimated   capital   cost   of   the   Less   Aggressive   regional   groundwater   alternative   remedy   is   $9.4  million   for   all   remedial   measures   (including   those   already   implemented),   and   annual   operation   and   maintenance   costs   are   projected   to   be   $2.0   million.     Pursuant   to   AAC   R18-­‐16-­‐ 411.G,   RID   is   fully   committed   to   implement   and   operate   the   regional   groundwater   remedy   proposed   in   this   PRAP,   in   working   partnership   with   ADEQ,   to   address   VOC   groundwater   contamination  to  achieve  applicable  AWQSs  for  the  target  COCs,  to  achieve  MCL  water  quality   to   protect   the   current   and   reasonably   foreseeable   water   end   uses   of   all   existing   well   owners   at   all   wells   within   and   adjacent   to   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   (including   RID   and   other   water   provider   wells)  and  to  mitigate  environmental  concerns  at  the  largest  groundwater  contaminant  plume   in  Arizona.       4     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     1.0   INTRODUCTION     Synergy  Environmental,  LLC  (Synergy)  has  developed  this  Proposed  Remedial  Action  Plan  (PRAP)   for   submittal   to   the   Arizona   Department   of   Environmental   Quality   (ADEQ)   for   the   West   Van   Buren  Area  (WVBA)  Water  Quality  Assurance  Revolving  Fund  (WQARF)  Site,  located  in  Phoenix,   Arizona   (see   Figure   1).     The   widespread   plume   associated   with   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   is   the   result   of   contamination   sources   within   the   WVBA   as   well   as   sources   of   contamination   originating  from  the  east,  from  the  Motorola  52nd  Street  federal  Superfund  Site  (M52  Site),  as   well  as  from  the  north,  from  the  West  Osborn  Complex  (WOC)  WQARF  Site.         Under   Arizona   Revised   Statute   (ARS)   §   49-­‐287.04,   a   PRAP   must   be   prepared   for  the  proposed   remedy   of   the   WVBA   contaminated   groundwater   plume   for   public   review   and   comment.     Pursuant   to   Arizona   Administrative   Code   (AAC)   R18-­‐16-­‐408,   “following   the   completion   of   the  feasibility  study  report  under  R18-­‐16-­‐407(I),  the  Department  or  any  person  shall  prepare  a   proposed  remedial  action  plan”  and  any  person  “may  submit  a  proposed  remedial  action  plan   to   the   Department   for   approval   under   R18-­‐16-­‐413.”     This   section   provides   information   regarding  the  purpose  and  organization  of  this  PRAP.   1.1   PURPOSE  OF  DOCUMENT     This  PRAP  is  submitted  on  behalf  of  the  Roosevelt  Irrigation  District  (RID)  to  ADEQ  pursuant  to   AAC  R18-­‐16-­‐408  and  in  accordance  with  the  terms  of  the  Agreement  to  Conduct  Work  between   ADEQ   and   RID   dated   October   8,   2009   (ADEQ,   2009),   as   Amended   February   27,   2014   (ADEQ,   2014a),4   and   consistent   with   the   proposed   regional   groundwater   remedy   and   findings   documented   in   the   Revised   Draft   Feasibility   Study   Report,   submitted   by   RID   to   ADEQ   on   November  26,  2014  (hereafter  referred  to  as  the  RID  FS  Report;  Synergy,  2014b).    The  RID  FS   Report   was   approved   by   ADEQ   on   April   13,   2015   for   “meet[ing]   the   requirements   of   Arizona   Revised   Statutes   49-­‐287.03   and   Arizona   Administrative   Code   R18-­‐16-­‐407”   (ADEQ,   2015).     The   RID   FS   Report   was   prepared   following   completion   of   the   final   Remedial   Investigation   Report   (Terranext,  2012)  for  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site  (hereafter  referred  to  as  the  Final  WVBA  RI  Report)   that   was   issued   by   ADEQ   in   August   2012.     The   information   contained   in   the   PRAP   is   drawn   from  and,  in  many  cases,  quotes  directly  from  the  above-­‐referenced  remedial  investigation  (RI)   and  feasibility  study  (FS)  reports   without  attribution  other  than  as  noted  here.         The   purpose   of   the   PRAP   is   to   inform   the   public   on   the   proposed   r e g i o n a l   g r o u n d w a t e r   remedy   selected   from   the   alternatives   evaluation   in   the   RID   FS   Report,   pursuant  to  AAC  R18-­‐16-­‐407(I),  to  address  the   contaminants  of  concern  (COCs)  in  groundwater   within  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site  and  satisfy  the  statutory  requirements  in  ARS  §  49-­‐282.06  and  all   the   site-­‐ specific   remedial   objectives   (ROs)   established   by   ADEQ   for   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site.                                                                                                                             4 ADEQ confirmed in writing that RID’s submittal of this PRAP is within the scope of the existing written working agreement between RID and ADEQ, see electronic mail from Ms. Laura Malone to Mr. David Kimball dated June 22, 2015.   5     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     The   PRAP   is   part   of   the   regional  groundwater  remedy  selection  process  under  WQARF  where   public   input   is   solicited   on   all   alternatives   and   on   the   rationale   for   the   proposed   regional   groundwater   remedy.     Therefore,   the   public   is   encouraged   to   review   and   comment   on   this   PRAP.       1.2   REPORT  ORGANIZATION         This  PRAP  has  been  organized  into  the  following  sections:         Section  1  -­‐  Introduction     Section  2  -­‐  Site  Background     Section  3  -­‐  Site  Characterization     Section  4  -­‐  PRAP  Scoping     Section  5  -­‐  Need  for  Remedial  Action       Section  6  -­‐  Summary  of  Remedial  Strategies  and  Measures     Section  7  -­‐  Summary  of  Groundwater  Remedies  Evaluated  in  RID  FS  Report     Section  8  -­‐  Evaluation  of  Proposed  Remedies  in  RID  FS  Report   Section  9  -­‐  Proposed  Remedy   Section  10  -­‐  Community  Participation   Section  11  -­‐  References                                 6     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     2.0   SITE  DESCRIPTION     This   section   presents   a   summary   description   of   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site,   the   volatile   organic   compounds  (VOCs)  that  are  COCs  at  the  Site,  Site  registry  and  remedial  investigation  activities   conducted  within  the  Site,  chronology  of  Site  activities  by  ADEQ,  and  the  early  response  actions   conducted  to  date.       2.1   BOUNDARIES  OF  WVBA  WQARF  SITE  AND  REGIONAL  GROUNDWATER   CONTAMINATION     The  WVBA  WQARF  Site,  originally  called  the  Van  Buren  Tank  Farm  Study  Area,  was  placed  on   the  WQARF  Registry  as  a  priority  site  in  November  1987.    Since  1988,  ADEQ  and  various  parties   have  conducted  investigations  of  contaminated  soil  and  groundwater  within  the  WVBA  WQARF   Site  through  a  protracted,  20-­‐year  RI  process.       According   to   the   Final   WVBA   RI   Report,   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   extends   from   approximately   7th  Avenue   west   to  beyond  75th   Avenue,   and   from   Buckeye   Road   north   to   Interstate   10.   This   corresponds   to   an   area   approximately   eight  miles   in   length   and   1.5   miles   in   width   (i.e.,   approximately   12   square   miles),   see   Figure   1.   In   addition,   a   finger   shaped   plume   exists   approximately  between  7th  and  27th  Avenues   between   Buckeye   and   Lower  Buckeye  Roads.       The   entire   WVBA   WQARF   Site   is   located   within   the   City   of   Phoenix   (COP),   although   the   western   margin   along   75th   Avenue   abuts   the   City   of   Tolleson   (COT).     Land   within   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   is   used   for   a   combination   of   residential,   commercial,   industrial   and   agricultural   purposes.     According   to   the   Final   RO   Report   (ADEQ,   2012a),   the   Estrella   Village,   which   is   referenced   as   one   (1)   of   15   “urban   villages”   that   comprise   the   COP   and   one   (1)   of   two   (2)   “urban  villages”  within  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site,  is  a  targeted  growth  area  that  is  expected  to   experience   significant   increases   in   both   employment   and   residential   growth.     Further   information  concerning  site  demography  is  available  in  the  Final  WVBA  RI  Report  and  Final  RO   Report.     The   WVBA   WQARF   Site   also   is   part   of   a   larger   region   of   groundwater   contamination   that   encompasses  the  adjacent  Motorola  52nd  Street  federal  Superfund5  site  (M52  Site)  to  the  east,   the   Sky   Harbor   Area   Site   (SHA   Site)   to   the   southeast,   and   the   West   Central   Phoenix   Area   WQARF  sites  (WCP  sites)  to  the  north,  as  shown  in  Figure  2.    Prior  to  submittal  of  the  RID  FS   Report,   the   regional   extent   of   groundwater   contamination   had   not   been   mapped   and   addressed   in   an   integrated   manner.     The   depicted   regional   groundwater   contaminant   plume   in   Figure   2   is   an   extrapolation   of   commingled   groundwater   contaminant   plumes   from   multiple                                                                                                                             5 The Federal Superfund program was promulgated under CERCLA and is administered by the Environmental Protection Agency.   7     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     sources  throughout  the  four  (4)  regional  sites.6    As  noted  in  stakeholder  comments  on  the  Draft   WVBA   RI   Report,   “the   concept   of   the   ‘WVBA   groundwater   plume’   is   a   simplification   of   the   distribution   of   contaminants   in   groundwater   in   the   WVSA   [sic].     In   reality,   the   WVBSA   [West   Van   Buren   Study   Area]   has   a   combination   of   many,   commingled   plumes   with   different   sources,   different   timing,   different   VOCs   and   differing   fate   and   transport   parameters.   In   addition,   a   significant   portion   of   the   groundwater   contamination   of   the   WVBA   appears   to   be   related   to   contamination  entering  the  Site  from  the  east."7 2.2   CONTAMINANTS  OF  CONCERN     Volatile  Organic  Compounds     The  VOCs  that  are  COCs  at  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site  have  been  identified  based  on  historical  and   present  data  obtained  from  samples  collected  by  ADEQ.8  These  COCs  comprise  the  commingled   WVBA  WQARF  Site  plume  and  are  listed  as  follows,  including  the  chemical  name  and  the   Chemical  Abstract  Service  (CAS)  number:     • 1,1-­‐Dichloroethene  (1,1-­‐DCE)       CAS  number  75-­‐53-­‐4   • Tetrachloroethene  (PCE)       CAS  number  127-­‐18-­‐4   • Trichloroethene  (TCE)         CAS  number  79-­‐01-­‐6   • 1,1,1-­‐Trichloroethane  (TCA)       CAS  number  71-­‐55-­‐6   • cis-­‐1,2-­‐Dichloroethene  (cis-­‐1,2-­‐DCE)     CAS  number  156-­‐59-­‐2   • 1,1-­‐Dichloroethane  (1,1-­‐DCA)       CAS  number  75-­‐34-­‐3     Table  1  presents  a  summary  of  analytical  results  for  groundwater  samples  collected  at  WVBA   WQARF  Site  monitor  wells  by  ADEQ  during  March  2013  (Terranext,  2013).    Table  2  presents  a   summary   of   analytical   results   for   PCE,   TCE,   and   1,1-­‐DCE   found   in   groundwater   samples   collected   at   RID   water   supply   wells   by   ADEQ   during   2003   through   2014.9     These   three   (3)   COCs   are  the  principal  VOC  contaminants  in  WVBA  groundwater  and  are  referred  to  as  “target  COCs”   throughout  this  report.10                                                                                                                             6 In this and subsequent maps, the SHA Site is not shown. Rather, as will be discussed in section 3.2.2, the SHA subarea will be treated as part of Operable Unit 2 (OU2) of the M52 Site. 7 Letter from Univar to ADEQ regarding Univar USA Inc.’s Comments, Draft Remedial Investigation Report, West Van Buren Area WQARF Site, Phoenix, AZ, dated December 29, 2008 (Univar, 2008). 8 Terranext (2012) indicated 1,4-dioxane is a notable COC for OU3. To evaluate the occurrence of this potential COC in the WVBA, RID sampled and analyzed the four (4) RID wells having the highest VOC concentrations for 1,4-dioxane in March 2015. The data indicate 1,4-dioxane was present at concentrations of 0.60 µg/L at RID-114, 0.84 µg/L at RID-92, 0.99 µg/L at RID-89, and 1.2 µg/L at RID-95. 9 With RID’s assistance, ADEQ sampled RID wells in the WVBA WQARF Site for VOC contaminants in March 2015. The data from this sampling event are not available at the time of this PRAP. Split sampling conducted by RID at RID wells 89, 92, 95, 106, 109, and 114 indicates that VOC concentrations are comparable to results obtained in March 2014. 10 Although all three (3) target COCs occur in concentrations exceeding AWQSs and MCLs, this PRAP, consistent   8     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     Chromium     Chromium,   to   a   limited   extent,   also   is   considered   a   COC   that   occurs   locally   within   the   WVBA   WQARF  Site  boundaries.    During  the  March  2013  sampling  round  (Terranext,  2013),  analytical   results  for  11  out  of  50  WVBA  monitor  wells  indicated  concentrations  of  total  chromium  greater   than  the  applicable  numeric  aquifer  water  quality  standard  (AWQS)  and  maximum  contaminant   level  (MCL)  of  0.1  milligrams  per  liter  (mg/L)11  with  the  highest  concentration  detected  at  5.74   mg/L  and  the  lowest  concentration  detected  at  0.11  mg/L  (Table  1).    During  March  2014,  ADEQ   sampled  28  of  the  33  RID  water  supply  wells  located  within  or  adjacent  to  the  WVBA  WQARF   Site   for   chromium,   and   analytical   results   provided   in   Table   3   indicate   that   the   highest   total   chromium   concentration   detected   was   less   than   half   of   the   applicable   numeric   AWQS   and   MCL.12     The   Final   WVBA   RI   Report   indicated   that   chromium   is   limited   in   occurrence   and   can   only   be   clearly  attributed  to  one  known  source  area  in  the  southeast  portion  of  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site.     Additionally,   the   Final   WVBA   RI   Report   noted   that   ADEQ   believes   the   chromium   detected   in   monitor   wells   may   be   due   to   deterioration   of   stainless   steel   well   casing,   where   present,   or   naturally   occurring   in   subsurface   soils.   Due   to   the   limited   and   localized   occurrence   of   chromium,   the   uncertainty   regarding   sources   of   chromium   in   groundwater   within   the   WVBA   WQARF  Site,  and  the  fact  that  there  are  no  existing  wells  within  or  adjacent  to  the  WVBA    Site   (including  RID,  SRP,  COP,  APS  and  COT  wells)  that  exceed  the  applicable  numeric  AWQS  or  MCL,   chromium   will   not   be   further   evaluated   or   addressed   in   this   regional   groundwater   PRAP,   which   is  consistent  with  the  scope  of  chromium  evaluation  under  the  RID  FS  Report.13     Extent  of  Volatile  Organic  Compounds  in  Groundwater     Water   quality   data   obtained   in   recent   years   at   WVBA   WQARF   Site   monitor   wells,   RID   water   supply   wells,   and   shallow   groundwater   monitor   wells   in   the   WCP   sites   (principally   the   WOC   WQARF   Site)   are   shown   on   the   plume   map   depicted   in   Figure   2.     This   map   represents   the   estimated   regional   extent   of   TCE   and   PCE   contamination   in   UAU   groundwater   that   is   greater   than   the   applicable   numeric   AWQS   and   MCL   of   5.0   micrograms   per   liter   (µg/L)   in   the   commingled   plume.14     Additionally,   this   figure   identifies   the   projected   extent   of   groundwater                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           with the RID FS Report, primarily focuses on PCE and TCE since these compounds are more prevalent, have higher concentrations, and are considered a greater health risk than 1,1-DCE. 11 See 40 CFR 141.62 and AAC R18-11-406. 12 The current numeric AWQS and primary MCL drinking water standard are for total chromium. These samples also were analyzed for hexavalent chromium with the understanding that EPA likely will develop a primary drinking water standard applicable to this species of chromium. Of the 28 RID wells tested for hexavalent chromium, 10 RID wells had concentrations above the method reporting limit of 5 µg/L. The observed hexavalent chromium concentrations are all below 15 µg/L, with the exception of well RID-99 at 43 µg/L. 13 Although the PRAP, consistent with the RID FS Report, does not address chromium contamination as part of the regional groundwater remedy, it may be necessary to reevaluate requirements for remedial actions in the WVBA WQARF Site if EPA and/or ADEQ should adopt a MCL or AWQS for hexavalent chromium at or below 10 µg/L. 14 The primary MCL of five (5) µg/L   for TCE and PCE was established by EPA under the federal Safe Drinking   9     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     contamination  in  the  M52  Site  based  on  mapping  of  the  plume  by  ADEQ.     Given   that   there   are   multiple   COCs   in   groundwater   originating   from   various,   widespread   sources   identified   in   four   (4)   different   regional   areas   under   different   agency   oversight,   the   depiction   of   a   regional   plume   throughout   this   area   is,   by   its   very   nature,   a   generalized   representation.     Furthermore,   the   data   available   to   characterize   the   extent   of   groundwater   contamination   derives   from   diverse   well   completions   ranging   from   monitoring   wells   having   limited,   depth-­‐discrete   sampling   intervals   to   large   capacity   RID   water   supply   wells   that   may   yield   groundwater   from   perforated   casing   over   many   hundreds   of   feet   within   the   aquifer(s).     Consequently,   well   data   do   not   always   appear   consistent   and   are   interpreted   with   greater   significance   attached   to   water   supply   well   data,   since   this   provides   more   representative   characterization  of  bulk  conditions  of  the  producing  aquifer.     Regional  Extent  of  Volatile  Organic  Compounds  in  Groundwater     Three   (3)   target   COCs   (TCE,   PCE   and   1,1-­‐DCE)   are   present   in   groundwater   within   the   WVBA   WQARF  Site  at  concentrations  that  exceed  the  applicable  numeric  and  narrative  AWQSs15  and   MCLs.16    The  numeric  AWQSs,  MCLs  and  MCL  Goals17  for  the  target  COCs  are:   • TCE  =  5.0  µg/L  (AWQS/MCL)  and  0  µg/L  (MCL  Goal)   • PCE  =  5.0  µg/L  (AWQS/MCL)  and  0  µg/L  (MCL  Goal)   • 1,1-­‐DCE  =  7.0  µg/L  (AWQS/MCL)  and  7.0  µg/L  (MCL  Goal)   Aside   from   the   primary   MCL   drinking   water   quality   standards,   which   were   applicable   prior   to   the  WQARF  Program,  various  other  regulatory  standards  and  thresholds  are  listed  for  the  target   COCs   in   the   Final   WVBA   RI   Report,   including:   human   Health-­‐Based   Guidance   Levels   (HBGLs)   implemented   by   ADEQ   in   1992,   Soil   Remediation   Levels   (SRLs)   implemented   by   ADEQ   in   December  1997  and  revised  in  May  2007,  Groundwater  Protection  Levels  (GPLs)  implemented   by   ADEQ   in   September   1996,   EPA   MCLs   promulgated   in   1987,   and   Arizona   numeric   and   narrative  AWQSs  implemented  by  ADEQ  in  January  1990.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Water Act and has been adopted as applicable Arizona drinking water quality MCLs and numeric AWQSs. See 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 141.61, AAC R18-11-406 and ARS §§ 49-223A and 49-224.B. 15   Arizona   has   established   enforceable   numeric   AWQSs   based   upon   EPA’s   primary   drinking   water   MCL   standards  because  all  aquifers  in  Arizona  are  classified  for  drinking  water  protected  use.    See  ARS  §  49-­‐224.B.,   ARS   §   49-­‐223.A.,   and   AAC   R18-­‐11-­‐406.   In   addition   to   the   enforceable   numeric   AWQSs,   Arizona   has   established  the  following  enforceable  narrative  AWQSs:  a  discharge  shall  not  cause  a  pollutant  to  be  present   in   an   aquifer   classified   for   a   drinking   water   protected   use   in   a   concentration   which   endangers   human   health;   a   discharge   shall   not   cause   or   contribute   to   a   violation   of   a   water   quality   standard   established   for   a   navigable   water   of   the   state;   and   a   discharge   shall   not   cause   a   pollutant   to   be   present   in   an   aquifer   which   impairs   existing  or  reasonably  foreseeable  uses  of  water  in  an  aquifer.  See  ARS  §  49-­‐221.D.  and  AAC  R18-­‐11-­‐405.   16 EPA has established primary MCLs as enforceable drinking water standards determined by balancing the adverse health effects of a particular chemical against the feasibility and cost of treating contaminated water. Arizona has adopted EPA’s primary MCLs as enforceable state drinking water quality standards. See AAC R18-4-104. 17 EPA has established a MCL Goal as non-enforceable health-based guidelines, which have been traditionally set to zero (0) for potential human carcinogens.   10     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE       More   recently,   EPA   developed   risk-­‐based   screening   levels   applicable   to   CERCLA   hazardous   substances,   including   WVBA   WQARF   Site   target   COCs,   for   potential   public   exposure   to   these   contaminants   in   water,   soil,   and   air.     In   2009,   EPA   harmonized   the   screening   levels   from   Regions  3,  6,  and  9  into  a  single  table  to  derive  Regional  Screening  Levels  (RSLs)  for  Chemical   Contaminants   at   Superfund   Sites.     The   RSLs18   were   developed,   and   are   periodically   updated,   using   risk   assessment   guidance   from   the   EPA   Superfund   program.     RSLs   are   derived   from   standardized   equations   combining   exposure   information   assumptions   with   current   EPA   toxicity   data.19     A   summary   of   the   RSLs20   for   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   target   COCs   is   included   in   the   following  table:     EPA  Regional  Screening  Level  Summary  Table21     Protection  of   Groundwater  SSLs   Screening  Levels   Analyte   Residential   Industrial   Residential   Industrial   Soil   Soil   Air   Air   (mg/kg)   (mg/kg)   (µg/m3)   (µg/m3)   1,1-­‐DCE   230   1,000   210   880   PCE   24   100   11   47   TCE   0.94   6.0   0.48   3.0       Tapwater   (µg/L)   MCL   (µg/L)   280   11   0.49   7.0   5.0   5.0   Risk-­‐Based   MCL-­‐Based       SSL               SSL                       (µg/kg)   (µg/kg)   100   2.5   5.1   2.4   0.18   1.8                                                                                                                             18 See EPA user guide: http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb-concentration_table/usersguide.htm On February 10, 2012, EPA issued new toxicity information for PCE. This publication followed the release of new toxicity factors on September 28, 2011 for TCE. EPA’s recent review lowered the carcinogenic values previously used as screening levels for TCE (i.e., TCE is now considered a more potent carcinogen). The new toxicity criteria led EPA to adjust the RSLs it uses for evaluating environmental data for TCE in November 2011. However, unlike TCE, the cancer RSLs for PCE have actually increased (are less conservative) by about 20 times. See EPA updates located online at http://www.epa.gov/reg3hscd/risk/human/rb-concentration_table/whatsnew.htm (last visited on 5/13/2014) and http://www.epa.gov/region9/superfund/prg/rsl-table.html (last visited 5/4/2012). From a drinking water quality perspective, the new toxicity data are impacting EPA’s review of its MCLs for both chemicals. The MCL for TCE is expected to decrease, perhaps by a factor of up to 10, because it is considered to be carcinogenic by all routes of exposure (EPA’s highest carcinogenicity classification), while the MCL for PCE is expected to increase. EPA proposed MCL revisions for both chemicals could be revised in the next five (5) years. This new toxicity information for PCE and TCE also may become relevant under ADEQ’s narrative AWQSs, which prohibit pollutants to be present in an aquifer classified for a drinking water protected use in a concentration which endangers human health or which impairs existing or reasonably foreseeable uses of water in an aquifer. See AAC R18-11-405 and ARS § 49-221. 20 Current soil data are not indicative of potential prior contamination to the groundwater. See Memorandum from Michael Leach, ADEQ Hydrologist, to Tom Curry, ADEQ WQARF Coordination Unit, re: “Van Buren Tank Farm – Final Summary Site Assessment Report” (ADEQ, 1990), (noting that contaminants from facilities could also reach the water table by way of surface conduits [such as drywells] with very little detectable contamination of the vadose zone.”) 21 EPA regional screening levels (RSLs) and soil screening levels (SSLs), last updated January 2015 and published at http://www.epa.gov/region9/superfund/prg/. Data based on target cancer risk of 1x10-6 and target hazard quotient of 1.0 19   11     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     Profiles  of  Target  COCs       Brief  summaries  regarding  the  hazardous  properties  for  each  of  the  target  COCs,  obtained  from   the  EPA  and  Agency  for  Toxic  Substances  and  Disease  Registry  (ATSDR),  are  included  below.     TCE:   • Chemical  Classification:    volatile  organic  compound     • Summary   and   Uses:     TCE   is   a   nonflammable,   colorless   liquid   with   a   somewhat   sweet   odor  and  a  sweet,  burning  taste.  It  is  used  mainly  as  a  solvent  to  remove  grease  from   metal   parts,   but   it   also   is   an   ingredient   in   adhesives,   paint   removers,   typewriter   correction   fluids,   and   spot   removers.   TCE   is   not   found   naturally   in   the   environment.   However,  it  has  been  found  in  underground  water  sources  and  many  surface  waters  as  a   result  of  the  manufacture,  use,  and  disposal  of  the  chemical.   • Cancer  Effects:22  carcinogenic  in  humans23  by  all  routes  of  exposure;  strong  evidence  of   causal   association   with   TCE   exposure   in   humans   and   kidney   cancer   and   non-­‐Hodgkin   lymphoma;   less   well   defined   association   of   TCE   exposure   to   other   types   of   cancer,   including   liver,   biliary   tract,   bladder,   esophageal,   prostrate,   cervical,   breast   and   childhood  leukemia.       • Non-­‐Cancer   Effects:24   potential   human   health   hazard   for   non-­‐cancer   toxicity   to   the   central   nervous   system,   kidney,   liver,   immune   system,   male   reproductive   system,   and   the  developing  fetus.     • Ecological   Impacts:   according   to   background   analysis   of   TCE   environmental   toxicity   contained  in  the  June  2014  TSCA  Work  Plan  Chemical  Risk  Assessment  (EPA,  2014),  TCE   poses   a   negligible   ecological   risk   to   aquatic   and   terrestrial   biota   due   to   its   moderate   persistence,   low   bioaccumulation   potential,   and   low   aquatic   toxicity.     The   promulgation   of  significantly  higher  (less  stringent)  surface  water  quality  standards  for  TCE  applied  to   aquatic  and  wildlife  designated  uses  under  the  Clean  Water  Act  corroborates  the  overall   low  concern  for  potential  ecological  impacts  related  to  TCE  releases.     PCE:   • Chemical  Classification:    volatile  organic  compound                                                                                                                               22 Toxicology Review of Trichloroethylene, In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System, EPA/635/R-09/011F, US EPA, Washington, DC, September 2011. (EPA, 2011) 23 The National Toxicology Program announced that TCE should be reclassified as a “known human carcinogen” from “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen,” in a draft report released June 27, 2014. The report indicated there is sufficient evidence based on studies in humans that exposure to TCE causes kidney cancer in humans. The draft report further states there is only limited evidence in human studies that TCE exposure causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma and there is insufficient evidence to evaluate the relationship between TCE exposure and liver cancer. The draft report is undergoing peer review. (National Toxicology Program, 2014)   24 Ibid.   12     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     • Summary   and   Uses:     PCE   is   a   manufactured   chemical,   not   found   naturally   in   the   environment,  that  is  widely  used  for  dry  cleaning  of  fabrics  and  for  metal  degreasing.  It   also  is  used  to  make  other  chemicals  and  is  used  in  some  consumer  products.   • Cancer   Effects:25   likely   to   be   carcinogenic   to   humans   by   all   routes   of   exposure   based   on   epidemiologic   evidence   associating   PCE   exposure   in   humans   with   several   types   of   cancer,   including   bladder,   non-­‐Hodgkin   lymphoma,   and   multiple   myeloma   and   animal   studies  of  increased  incidence  of  liver,  kidney,  and  testicular  tumors.       • Non-­‐Cancer   Effects:26   potential   human   health   hazard   for   non-­‐cancer   toxicity   to   the   central   nervous   system,   kidney,   liver,   immune   and   hematologic   system,   and   on   development  and  reproduction.     • Ecological  Impacts:  PCE  has  similar  physical  and  chemical  properties  to  that  of  TCE  and  is   anticipated   to   behave   similarly   in   having   overall   limited   ecological   impacts   on   aquatic   and   terrestrial   biota   due   to   its   moderate   persistence,   low   bioaccumulation   potential,   and   low   aquatic   toxicity   (EPA,   2014).     The   promulgation   of   significantly   higher   (less   stringent)   surface   water   quality   standards   for   PCE   applied   to   aquatic   and   wildlife   designated   uses   under   the   Clean   Water   Act   corroborates   the   overall   low   concern   for   potential  ecological  impacts  related  to  PCE  releases.   1,1-­‐DCE:   • Chemical  Classification:    volatile  organic  compound   • Summary  and  Uses:     1,1-­‐DCE  is  an  industrial  chemical  that  is  not  found  naturally  in  the   environment.  It  is  a  colorless  liquid  with  a  mild,  sweet  smell.  It  also  is  called  vinylidene   chloride.    1,1-­‐DCE  is  used  to  make  certain  plastics,  such  as  flexible  films  like  food  wrap,   and   in   packaging   materials.     It   also   is   used   to   make   flame   retardant   coatings   for   fiber   and   carpet   backings,   and   in   piping,   coating   for   steel   pipes,   and   in   adhesive   applications.   1,1-­‐DCE  may  be  found  in  the  environment  from  the  biotic  or  abiotic  breakdown  of  PCE,   1,1,1-­‐TCA,  1,1,2-­‐TCA,  and  1,1-­‐DCA.27                                                                                                                             25 Toxicology Review of Tetrachloroethylene, In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System, EPA/635/R-08/011F, US EPA, Washington, DC, February 2012. (EPA, 2012) 26 Ibid. 27 Researchers have identified the following compounds as daughter compounds of TCE, TCA, and PCE degradation: (1) 1,1-DCE; (2) 1,2-DCE; (3) 1,1-DCA; (4) chloroethane; (5) chloroethene; (6) ethanol; (7) acetic acid; and, (8) carbon dioxide. Suzanne Lesage, Richard E. Jackson, Mark W. Priddle, & Peter G. Riemann, Occurrence and Fate of Organic Solvent Residues in Anoxic Groundwater at the Gloucester Landfill, Canada, 24 Environmental Science and Technology, 559, 564 (1990) (providing a flowchart of parent compounds degrading into daughter compounds). Researchers and EPA have taken the position that abundant sources of organic carbon, including fuel hydrocarbons, are a driving force behind the chemical reactions, which create chlorinated daughter compounds inside VOC-contaminated groundwater. See EPA, Technical Protocol for Evaluating Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated Solvents in Groundwater, 3, 23-26 (1998) (explaining that the chemical reaction facilitated by organic carbon is “reductive dechlorination”) (EPA, 1998). In fact, ADEQ reviewed leaking underground storage tanks as potential sources for VOC-contaminated groundwater “because of the potential for petroleum hydrocarbon contamination to facilitate natural biodegradation of VOCs.” ADEQ, Final Remedial Investigation Report, WCP East Grand Avenue WQARF Site, Phoenix, Arizona, 2-15 (June 2006). (ADEQ, 2006b).   13     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     • Cancer   Effects:28     EPA   considers   1,1-­‐DCE   to   be   a   possible   human   carcinogen   based   on   animal   studies;   there   are   limited   and   inconclusive   data   for   assessment   of   human   carcinogenic  potential.       • Non-­‐Cancer   Effects:29     no   information   is   available   on   the   non-­‐cancer   health   effects   associated   with   human   exposure   to   1,1-­‐DCE.   In   animal   studies,   the   target   organs   associated  with  1,1-­‐DCE  exposure  are  the  liver,  kidney,  and  lungs.     • Ecological  Impacts:  1,1-­‐DCE  has  similar  physical  and  chemical  properties  to  that  of  TCE   and   is   anticipated   to   behave   similarly   in   having   overall   limited   ecological   impacts   on   aquatic   and   terrestrial   biota   due   to   its   moderate   persistence,   low   bioaccumulation   potential,   and   low   aquatic   toxicity   (EPA,   2014).     The   promulgation   of   significantly   higher   (less   stringent)   surface   water   quality   standards   for   1,1-­‐DCE   applied   to   aquatic   and   wildlife   designated   uses   under   the   Clean   Water   Act   corroborates   the   overall   low   concern  for  potential  ecological  impacts  related  to  1,1-­‐DCE  releases.     Routes  of  Potential  Exposure     According  to  the  Final  WVBA  RI  Report,  groundwater  pumpage  is  the  major  outflow  from  the   groundwater   system   and   is   therefore   the   main   exposure   pathway   for   COCs   that   have   been   released   to   surface   and   subsurface   soils   and   entered   groundwater   to   come   in   contact   with   environmental   receptors.     The   exposure   point   occurs   when   the   contaminated   groundwater   is   withdrawn   from   the   aquifer   and   enters   the   outfall   to   the   water   provider’s   water   distribution   system  (into  canal  water).     The  primary  water  supply  wells  within  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site  are  those  operated  by  RID.      RID   wells  pump  and  discharge  contaminated  groundwater  into  a  system  of  discharge  boxes,  water   transmission   lines   (mostly   buried),   and   conveyance   canals.     As   identified   in   the   previous   discussion,  the  exposure  pathway  and  potential  for  target  COC  releases  to  impact  aquatic  and   terrestrial   biota   in   of   low   concern.     Consequently,   further   discussion   of   routes   of   potential   exposure   to   target   COCs   and   associated   risks   will   focus   on   the   substantially   more   significant   concern  for  potential  hazards  to  human  health.     Primary   public   exposure   routes   to   COCs   discharged   into   the   RID   water   system   include   inhalation  (air),30  ingestion  (water),  and  dermal  absorption.    Public  exposure  is  controlled  at  RID                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           As noted in Honeywell’s Additional Site Characterization Work Plan (April 2003), “an important aspect of the presence of fuel hydrocarbons is the chlorinated solvent biodegradation (anaerobic dechlorination) stimulated by the fuel hydrocarbons. … Therefore, the areas at the Site where anaerobic biodegradation of chlorinated solvents is enhanced coincide with the areas of free-phase and dissolved-phase fuel hydrocarbons. … In summary, detection of the chlorinated solvent byproducts of TCE and 1,1,1-TCA in groundwater samples collected from groundwater monitor wells indicates that reductive dechlorination occurs within and downgradient of the Honeywell Site.” 28 Toxicology Review of 1,1-Dichloroethylene, In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System, EPA/635/R02/002, US EPA, Washington, DC, June 2002. (EPA, 2002) 29 Ibid. 30 The Final RI Report fails to address the volatilization of the COCs into the air as a contributing factor for the   14     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     well  sites  by  security  fencing  that  precludes  general  public  access,  but  is  uncontrolled  outside  of   the  RID  well  sites  at  open  segments  along  canals/laterals  (ingestion  and  dermal  absorption)  and   where   volatilization/engineering   controls   have   not   been   installed   at   the   discharge   structure   for   each  well  (inhalation).31    Engineering  controls  have  only  been  installed  at  RID-­‐89,  RID-­‐92,  RID-­‐95   and  RID-­‐114  where  wellhead  treatment  systems  were  voluntarily  constructed  pursuant  to  the   RID-­‐95   Wellhead   Treatment   Systems   Proposal   as   agreed   to   by   ADEQ   (ADEQ,   2011c).     Further   discussion   of   the   extent   of   contamination   impacts   and   environmental   fate   of   COCs   in   groundwater,  surface  water  and  air  in  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site  is  given  in  Section  3.4.     With   respect   to   impacts   to   other   water   provider   wells,   ADHS   completed   a   health   risk   assessment   in   October   1992   addressing   the   potential   threat   to   drinking   water   wells.     The   study   was   conducted   in   anticipation   of   potential   groundwater   contamination   of   COT   wells   by   the   westerly  groundwater  movement  of  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site  plume.  The  study  concluded  there   would   be   significant   health   effects   from   domestic   consumption   of   groundwater   containing   COCs   at   concentrations   similar   to   those   found   in   ADEQ   monitor   wells   located   near   67th   Avenue   and  West  Van  Buren  Street.32         Finally,   as   stated   in   the   Final   WVBA   RI   Report,   vapor   intrusion   is   a   potential   exposure   pathway.     “Once   released   to   the   unsaturated   zone,   VOCs   can   volatilize   into   soil   gas,   which   can   migrate   upwards  to  the  ground  surface.    Depending  on  the  land  use/surface  cover,  soil  gas  can  either  be   released   directly   to   the   atmosphere,   become   trapped   beneath   impermeable   structures,   or   migrate  into  structures  either  beneath  or  at  the  ground  surface.    Typically,  vapor  intrusion  will   occur   at   or   near   the   contaminant   (in   this   case   VOC)   source   area,   but   can   also   occur   via   off-­‐ gassing   from   the   groundwater.     The   likelihood   of   vapor   intrusion   via   this   pathway   decreases   with  increasing  depth  to  groundwater.”33    This  PRAP,  consistent  with  the  RID  FS  Report,  does   not  address  vapor  intrusion  issues  due  to  the  observed  depth  to  groundwater  in  the  WVBA  Site,   which  minimizes  the  potential  for  vapor  migration  to  land  surface.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         reduced VOC concentrations within 125 feet of the point of discharge. 31 See ADEQ’s Approval of RID’s Modified Early Response Action Work Plan (February 1, 2013) (requiring that measures be implemented to limit exposures that might cause long-term effects based on data that significant volatilization and transfer of contaminants, from water into the air, is occurring and ongoing.) (ADEQ, 2013a) 32 In January 2015, ADHS performed a health consultation report at the request of certain parties identified as Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs), who may be liable for the costs incurred to address the groundwater contamination in the WVBA WQARF Site. Although some PRPs argued that the ADHS health consultation report declared there would be no health risk if the contaminated water supply was used as a domestic water supply, ADHS confirmed that the “risk assessment was conducted based on contact with the water for recreational use and gardening.” When comments were submitted to ADHS clarifying that there were independent aquifer water quality standards and maximum contaminant levels applicable to the contaminated aquifer and its future use as a domestic water supply, ADHS noted that such comments “address[ed] areas beyond the scope of this report.” Additionally, the ADHS Health Consultation Report did not address the Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide (CREG) that ATSDR has developed for TCE (0.75 µg/L) and PCE (17 µg/L). CREG is a media-specific comparison value that is used to identify concentrations of cancer causing substances that are unlikely to result in an increase of cancer rates in an exposed population after a lifetime of exposure (ADHS, 2015). The ADHS Health Consultation Report, comments and ADHS response are available on ADEQ’s website for the WVBA Site. 33 Terranext, 2012   15     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     2.3   HISTORY  OF  REMEDIAL  INVESTIGATIONS  AT  WVBA  WQARF  SITE     Following  is  a  brief  summary  of  the  chronology  of  WVBA  WQARF  Site  activities.    For  a  more   substantive  summary,  please  refer  to  the  Final  WVBA  RI  Report.     1986     Groundwater   contamination   was   first   detected   in   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site,   originally   called   the   Van   Buren   Tank   Farm   Study   Area,   during   groundwater   sampling   conducted   by   Chevron   USA   Inc.   (Chevron)   at   its   facility   in   the   Phoenix   Terminal   located   south   of   Van   Buren   Street,   and   between   51st   and   55th   Avenues.   Because   Chevron   reportedly   had   never   used   the   solvents   detected,34   the   Arizona   Department   of   Water   Resources   (ADWR)   conducted   an  area-­‐wide   groundwater   investigation   in   conjunction   with   the   ADHS.     1987   The   WVBA  WQARF  Site  was  placed  on  the  WQARF  Registry  as  a  priority  site  in   November.         1988   ADEQ   contracted   with   Kleinfelder,  Inc.  (Kleinfelder)  to  conduct  the  preliminary   site   investigation.   Since   1988,   ADEQ   and   several   companies   within   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   have   conducted   investigations   of   contaminated   soil   and   groundwater.   Initial   field   work   included   groundwater   monitoring,   soil   sampling,   examining   area   land   uses,   reviewing   past   and   current   disposal   practices   of   industrial   operations,   and   analyzing   the  potential   health   risks   of   identified   COCs.       1989   A   Phase   I   report   was   finalized   for   ADEQ   in   July.   The   report   concluded   that   five  (5)   COCs   were   found   in  groundwater  at   levels   above   EPA  MCLs.     1991-­‐1998   A   Phase   II   groundwater   investigation   was   conducted   in   1991   and   sampling   report  issued  in  1992.       In   October   1992,   ADHS   completed   a   health   risk   assessment   addressing   the   potential   threat   to   COT   drinking   water   wells.   The   study   was   conducted   in   anticipation   of   potential   groundwater   contamination   of   wells   by   the   westerly   groundwater   movement   of   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   plume.   The   study   concluded   there   would   be   significant   health   effects   from   domestic   consumption   of   groundwater   containing   COCs   at   concentrations   similar   to                                                                                                                             34 See Memorandum from Michael Leach, ADEQ Hydrologist, to Tom Curry, ADEQ WQARF Coordination Unit, re: “Van Buren Tank Farm (VBTF) – Final Summary Site Assessment Report” (Feb. 26, 1990) noting that despite claims that “VBTF facilities could not be responsible for the halogenated [HVOC] contamination found in the groundwater underlying the site because the site operations don’t use or store any HVOCs … [and] no HVOCs were detected as a result of soil sampling of the vadose zone,” that “evidence developed by [VBTF facilities] indicates that HVOCs have been stored or used, and have subsequently been detected in soil samples collected from UNOCAL, one of the VBTF facilities. In addition, as explained in my 3-16-89 memo, contaminants from the other VBTF facilities could also reach the water table by way of surface conduits (such as drywells) with very little detectable contamination of the vadose zone.” (ADEQ, 1990)   16     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     those   found   in   ADEQ   monitor   wells   located   near   67th   Avenue   and   West   Van   Buren   Street.     COT’s   most   easterly   well   is   located   at   approximately   83rd   Avenue   and   Harrison   Street.   In   response,   COT   removed   potentially   affected   wells   from   service.     As   indicated   in   the   Final   WVBA   RI   Report,   COT   currently   receives   most   of   its   water   from   the   COP   through   an   Intergovernmental   Agreement.  The  four  (4)  operating  COT  wells  are  used  mainly  during  summer   months   for   backup   supply   purposes.   Two   (2)   ADEQ   monitor   wells   have   been   installed   at   79th   Avenue,   north   and   south   of   the   RID   canal,   between   the   leading   edge   of   the   plume   and   the   COT   municipal   well   field   to   monitor   groundwater  quality   in  the  area  of  concern.35   ADEQ   conducted   a   soil   investigation   at   the   Maricopa   County   Materials   Management   (MCMM)   facility   in   1992   as   a   result   of   groundwater   contamination   detected   in   an   ADEQ   monitor   well   located   downgradient   of   the   MCMM   facility.   ADEQ   also   installed  three  (3)  groundwater  monitor  wells   at   the   MCMM   facility.   Maricopa   County   then   conducted   a   site   characterization   of   its   facility   and   installed   and   operated   a   soil   vapor   extraction  (SVE)  system  to  remove  the  hazardous  substances.   In   November   1992,   ADEQ   encouraged   approximately   50   parties   to   form   a   steering   committee   to   address   groundwater   contamination   issues   in   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site.   Participants   of   the   steering   committee   formed   the   West   Van  Buren  Group  (WVBG).    The   WVBG   was   a   key   component   of   the   steering   committee.   The   makeup   and   formal   membership   of   the   WVBG   varied   during   the   mid-­‐1990s,   and   originally   consisted   of:   Reynolds   Metals   Co.   (Reynolds   Metals),   Van   Waters   &   Rogers   Inc.   (VW&R),   Maricopa   County,   Dolphin,   Inc.   (Dolphin),   American   Linen   Supply   Company   (ALSCo,   formerly   Maroney’s   Cleaners),  and  ChemResearch  Company,  Inc.  (ChemResearch).  ChemResearch,   ALSCo,   and   Maricopa   County   withdrew   from   the   WVBG   by   1995.   The   WVBG   suspended   further   negotiations   with   ADEQ   for   a   site-­‐wide   consent   agreement   in   June   1996   in   anticipation   of   Arizona   legislative   changes   that   were  enacted  to  the  WQARF  program  in  1997.   In   May   1997,   ALSCo   settled   with   ADEQ   for   $2   million;   a   federal   court   approved   the   Consent   Decree   between   ADEQ   and   ALSCo  in  August  1997.    No   settlement   was  negotiated  between  ADEQ  and  Maroney’s  Cleaners  &  Laundry.   Two  well  inventories  were  conducted  by  Kleinfelder  and  Weston  to  identify   groundwater   wells   located   within/adjacent   to   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site.   Information   obtained   from   the   surveys   was   used   to   identify   wells   for                                                                                                                             35 Although ADEQ monitor wells located east of 79th Avenue do not have detectable PCE or TCE concentrations, this does not delineate the extent of the WVBA WQARF Site groundwater contamination. Recent sampling in March 2014 of well RID-82 located at 83rd Avenue and McDowell Road indicate PCE and TCE have been detected at concentrations of 3.53 µg/L and 1.22 µg/L, respectively. As shown in Figure 2, RID-82 had 2.95 µg/L of PCE and 1.00 µg/L of TCE when sampled in September 2013.   17     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     collecting   groundwater   samples.   Concurrent   with   the   well   inventory,   Weston   developed  a  Phase  I  database  followed  by  a  conceptual   model.   Weston   (2000   and   2001)   developed   a   five-­‐layer   model   with   seasonal   stress   periods   as   a   final  end  product  (i.e.,  Central  Phoenix  Plume  Model).   By   the   end   of   1998,   site   investigation   work   included   installation   of   35  monitor   wells  by  Kleinfelder  (8),  Weston  (14),  Fluor  Daniel  GTI  (6)  and  GEC  (7).     1999     2000     2001   ADEQ   retained   Terranext   (previously   known   as   BE&K/Terranext)   to   perform   RI   activities.   Terranext   developed   project   plans   and   initiated   on-­‐going   site   characterization  activities  including:  a  well  inventory;  monitor  well  installations;   water   level   measurements;   groundwater   sampling;   preparation   of   water   level   and  COC  concentration  contour  maps;  and  monitor  well  abandonments.   Reynolds  Metals   received   a   No   Further   Action   (NFA)   letter   for   soils   within   14   specific   areas   at   its   facility   by   ADEQ.     A   Resources   Conservation   and   Recovery   Act   (RCRA)   Consent   Decree   was   issued   to   Dolphin   by   ADEQ   in   January.     Pursuant   to   AAC   R18-­‐16-­‐406(D),   a   Land   and   Water   Use   Study   was   prepared.   Terranext   gathered   information   on   current   and   foreseeable   land   and   water   usage  through  interviews,  COP  General  Plan   maps,  ADWR  well  database,  aerial   photographs,   and   facility   reports   submitted   to   ADEQ   and   zoning   maps   from   the   COP,   COT,   and   Maricopa   County.   Updates   since   2001   were   obtained   through   researching   current   information   and   issuing   a   questionnaire   to   stakeholders   within   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site.   Two   (2)   different   questionnaires   were   developed  for  stakeholders.    One  focused  on  property  owners  within  the   WVBA   Site   and   one   focused   on   municipalities/utilities.     A   final   Land   and   Water   Use   Study   can   be   found   in   Appendix   K   of   the   Final   WVBA   RI   Report   along   with   sample   questionnaires.     In   January,  the   WQARF   Program  collected   $410,000   from   Dolphin   to   be   used   in   remedial   action   on   the   WVBA  WQARF  Site   plume’s   threat   to   COT   drinking   water  wells.   Upon   completion   of   site   characterization   and   soil   remediation,   Maricopa   County  and  Union  Pacific  Railroad,  one  of  the  previous  owners  of  the  MCMM   property,   negotiated   a   settlement   with   ADEQ.   In   October,   Maricopa   County   and   Union   Pacific   Railroad   settled   with   ADEQ   for   $450,000   for   ADEQ’s   response   and   oversight   costs.   ADEQ   continues   to   investigate   the   ownership   and   tenant   history   of   the   facility   to   evaluate   whether   other   entities   may   also   be   responsible   for   contamination   detected   at   the   MCMM   facility.           18     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     2002       2005       2006     2008   Reynolds   Metals   entered   into   a   Consent   Decree   with   the   State   of   Arizona   in   September.     The   Consent   Decree   resolved   the   alleged   liability   and   potential   liability   of   Reynolds   Metals   by   seeking   recovery   of   costs,   recovery   for   natural   resource   damages,   injunctive   relief,   and   declaratory   judgment.   Reynolds   Metals   settled   with   ADEQ   for  $1,956,474  in  October.     ADEQ   issued   a   NFA   letter   to   VW&R   for   soils,   which   terminated   a   1996   Consent  Decree.   VW&R  paid  ADEQ  $7,711  for  oversight  costs  incurred.     ADWR   conducted   a   review   of   its   database,   ADEQ   files,   and   conducted   field   surveys   to   identify   monitor   wells   within   and  adjacent   to   the   WVBA  WQARF   Site.   Information   from   this   survey   was   used   to   identify   duplicates   in   the   ADEQ   database   and   identify   private   wells   for   sampling.  The   data   was   submitted   to   ADEQ   in   database   format   for   incorporation   into   the   ADEQ   database   (September).   Twenty-­‐nine   domestic   wells   were   identified   in   or   adjacent   to   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site;   of   these,   five   (5)   are   located   within   the   Site   and   provide   groundwater   for   domestic   use.   In   order   to   gain   access   to   domestic   wells,   ADEQ   attempted   to   contact   domestic   well   owners   through   certified   letters   and   residential   visits.   ADEQ   was   able   to   gain   access   to   four   (4)   of   the   five  (5)   domestic   wells   for   sampling.  No  VOCs  (analyzed  by  EPA  Method  8260B   with  the  reporting  limit  ranging  from   <0.50  µg/L  to  <20  µg/L)  were  detected  in   any   of   the   groundwater   samples   collected   from   the   four   domestic   wells.       Dolphin   received  closure  of  the  2000  RCRA  Consent  Decree  in  June.     ADEQ   granted   ALSCo   an   NFA   determination   for   soil   in   March.     Terranext  issued  the  Draft  RI  Report  during  October.     2009   RID   submitted   comments   to   ADEQ   on   the   Draft   RI   Report   in   December,   requesting  immediate  action  to  mitigate  groundwater  contamination  impact  on   RID  wells  and  water  operations.   In   early   2009,   RID   initiated   voluntary   remedial   actions   to   address   the   groundwater   contamination   impacting   and   threatening   its   wells   within   the   WVBA  WQARF  Site.     In   September,   RID   met   with   the   Potentially   Responsible   Party   (PRP)   Group   to   discuss  response  actions  and  settlement  opportunities.   In  September,  RID  voluntarily  submitted  the  Implementation  Plan  (Montgomery   &   Associates   [M&A],   2009a)   to   ADEQ36   and   entered   into   an   agreement   with   ADEQ  to  conduct  an  ERA  and  FS.                                                                                                                             36 Further explanation of RID response actions following the voluntary submittals of the Draft Implementation Plan and subsequent ERA Work Plan are included in Section 2.4.2.   19     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE       2010   In   October,   RID   voluntarily   submitted   the   Draft   Early   Response   Action   Work   Plan   (M&A,  2009b)  to  ADEQ   In   early   2010,   RID   responded   to   public   comments   on   the   Draft   ERA   Work   Plan   (M&A,  2010).         2011     In  June,  ADEQ  approved  the  Draft  ERA  Work  Plan  with  conditions.     In   August,   RID   voluntarily   submitted   the   RID-­‐95   Wellhead   Treatment   Systems   Proposal  (Synergy  ,  2011).       2012   In  May,  ADEQ  issued  the  Proposed  RO  Report  for  public  comment.   In  September,  ADEQ  agrees  to  the  RID-­‐95  Wellhead  Treatment  Systems  Proposal   and  Working  Group  submits  Draft  FS  Work  Plan  (Haley  &  Aldrich,  2011).   In  February,  RID  voluntarily  initiated  treatment  at  well  RID-­‐95.   ADEQ   issued   the   Final   RO   Report   and   Terranext   issued   the   Final   WVBA   RI   Report  in  August.     2013     RID   voluntarily   submitted   a   Modified   ERA   Work   Plan   (Synergy,   2012c)   in   October.   In   February,   ADEQ   approves   the   Modified   ERA   Work   Plan,   and   RID   voluntarily   submitted  Draft  Final  FS  Work  Plan  (Synergy,  2013a)   RID  voluntarily  submitted  a  Final  FS  Work  Plan  (Synergy,  2013c)  in  June.   In  July,  ADEQ  approved  the  RID  FS  Work  Plan,  and  Working  Group  submitted  its   Final  FS  Work  Plan  (Haley  &  Aldrich,  2013).         2014   In  August,  ADEQ  approves  the  Working  Group’s  FS  Work  Plan.     In   November,   RID   (Synergy,   2014b)   responded   to   ADEQ’s   administrative   review   checklist  and  submitted  a  revised  FS  Report.     In   December,   the   Working   Group   (Haley   &   Aldrich,   2014b)   responded   to   ADEQ’s  administrative  review  checklist  and  submitted  a  revised  FS  Report;  both   FS  Reports  were  published  for  public  comment.     2015     In  July,  RID  (Synergy,  2014a)  and  the  Working  Group  (Haley  &  Aldrich,  2014a)   voluntarily  submit  draft  FS  Reports  for  ADEQ  approval   In   April,   ADEQ   approved   both   the   RID   and   Working   Group   FS   Reports   after   significant  public  comments.         20     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     2.4   EARLY  RESPONSE  ACTIONS     Pursuant   to   AAC   R18-­‐16-­‐405,   an   ERA   is   authorized   to   address   current   risks   to   public   health,   welfare,  and  the  environment;  to  protect  or  provide  a  supply  of  water;  to  address  sources  of   contamination;   or   to   control   or   contain   contamination   where   such   actions   are   expected   to   reduce  the  scope  or  cost  of  the  remedy  needed  at  the  site.    The  following  sections  describe  the   ERAs  conducted  or  currently  underway  at  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site.     2.4.1   FACILITY-­‐SPECIFIC  RESPONSE  ACTIONS     ADEQ  conducted  an  ERA  at  the  ALSCo  facility  to  address  a  known  source  of  VOC  contamination.     The  ERA  was  initiated  to  reduce  VOC  concentrations  in  soils  and  control  the  migration  of  VOCs   to,  and  in,  groundwater  beneath  the  facility.    As   part   of   the   ERA,   a   SVE,  air  sparge  (AS),   and   groundwater   extraction   and   treatment   remediation   system   were   installed   and   operated   periodically   from   2001   to   2003.     Confirmation   sampling   following   system   shut   down   indicated   that   the   ERA   remedial   action   objectives   (RAOs)   were   accomplished.   The   ending   soil   gas  PCE  and  TCE  concentrations  indicated  that  the  unsaturated  zone  RAOs  of  20  µg/L  for  PCE   and   14  µg/L  for   TCE   were   met,   and  VOC   concentrations  detected   in   downgradient   wells  were   similar   to   those   in   upgradient   wells.     According   to   a   2006   WVBA   WQARF   Site   Fact   Sheet   prepared   by   ADEQ   (ADEQ,   2006a),   over   900   pounds   of   VOCs   were   removed   by   the   SVE/AS   system  before  it  was  shut  down  in  October  2002.    The  groundwater  pump  and  treat  system  was   shut  down  in  September  2003  after  treating  approximately  118  million  gallons  of  groundwater   and  removing  24  pounds  of  VOCs.     2.4.2   RID  EARLY  RESPONSE  ACTIONS     RID   currently   is   conducting   a   voluntary   ERA   to   address   the   widespread   threat   and   impact   of   COCs   on   its   wells   and   water   supply   in   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site.     The   groundwater   contamination   in  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site  has  impacted37  or  threatens  to  impact  all  32  of  the  RID  water  supply   wells  located  within  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site  boundary  and  at  least  one  RID  well  adjacent  to  and   down  gradient  from  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site.38     Pursuant   to   AAC   R18-­‐16-­‐405.I,   the   RID   ERA   is   “necessary”   as   a   matter   of   law   because   “[i]n   considering   whether   an   early   response   action   is   necessary   to   protect   or   provide   a   supply   of   water  because  a  well  is  threatened  by  contamination,  a  well  located  in  the  area  within  ¼  mile                                                                                                                             37 See Agreement to Conduct Work between ADEQ and RID, dated October 8, 2009 (ADEQ determined that releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances have occurred, resulting in groundwater contamination that has impacted multiple RID water supply wells which may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health, welfare or the environment within the WVBA WQARF Site). (ADEQ, 2009) 38 RID well 82 is located at 83rd Avenue and McDowell, approximately one mile beyond the currently defined western boundary of the WVBA WQARF Site. In sampling conducted in March 2014, RID well 82 had 3.53 µg/L PCE and 1.22 µg/L TCE. This well was not operational during the March 2015 sampling event.   21     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     upgradient,   ½   mile   cross-­‐gradient   and   1  mile   down-­‐gradient   of   the   areal   extent   of   contamination   at   the   site   shall   be   presumed   to   be   threatened   by   the   contamination.”     RID’s   wells   and   water   supply   in   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   already   are   either   impacted   or   threatened   by   COCs  in  the  groundwater  as  defined  in  AAC  R18-­‐16-­‐405.I.    The  RID  ERA  was  initiated  voluntarily   and  is  “necessary”  to  mitigate  threats  and  impacts  to  RID  wells,  its  operations  and  water  uses;   to  mitigate  current  risks  to  public  health  from  exposures  to  contaminants  in  the  groundwater   and  to  contaminants  that  volatilize  into  the  air;  to  reduce  the  scope  and  costs  of  the  regional   groundwater  remedy;  and,  ultimately,  to  provide  RID  with  unrestricted  use  of  its  water  supply   for  all  reasonably  foreseeable  end  uses.39     In   early   2009,   RID   initiated   voluntary   remedial   actions   to   address   the   COC   groundwater   contamination  impacting  and  threatening  its  wells  and  water  supply  in  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site.   These   actions   began   shortly   after   the   ADEQ   Draft   Remedial   Investigation   Report   (Terranext,   2008)  was  issued.    From  early  2009  to  the  present,  RID  has  attempted  to  engage  stakeholders  in   order  to  develop  a  cost-­‐effective  regional  groundwater  remedy.    Significant  milestones  in  this   process  are  as  follows:     • Jan  2009:   RID  and  ADEQ  meet  with  EPA  to  discuss  remedial  actions   • Feb  2009:   RID  meets  with  ADEQ  and  Attorney  General’s  Office  to  discuss  proposed   remedial  actions                                         • Feb  2009:   RID  attends  WVBA  Community  Advisory  Board  (CAB)  meeting   • Sep  2009:   RID  meets  with  PRP  Group  to  discuss  response  actions  and  settlement         opportunities   • Oct  2009:   RID  voluntarily  submits  Draft  Implementation  Plan  (M&A,  2009a)  to                 ADEQ   • Oct  2009:     RID  enters  into  agreement  with  ADEQ  to  conduct  voluntary  ERA  and  FS  in       the  WVBA  WQARF  Site   • Nov  2009:   RID  voluntarily  submits  Early  Response  Action  Work  Plan  (M&A,  2009b)  to       ADEQ   • Dec  2009:   RID  attends  and  presents  at  WVBA  CAB  meeting   • Jan  2010:   RID  voluntarily  submits  Early  Response  Action  Work  Plan  (M&A,  2010)  to         ADEQ     Jun  2010:   RID  responds  to  public  comments  on  RID  ERA  Work  Plan     • Mar  2010:   RID  attends  and  presents  at  WVBA  CAB  meeting   • Jun  2010:   ADEQ  grants  approval  of  the  RID  ERA  Work  Plan  with  conditions   • Sep  2010:   RID  holds  meetings  with  prospective  contractors  to  conduct  ERA  work   • Jun  2011:   RID  attends  and  presents  at  WVBA  CAB  meeting                                                                                                                             39   See AAC R18-16-405.A. 22     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     • • • • • • • • • • •   • • • • • • • • • •         Jul  2011:     Aug  2011:       Sep  2011:   Sep  2011:       Feb  2012:   Mar  2012:                 Jul  2012:   Aug  2012:   Oct  2012:       Dec  2012:   Dec  2012-­‐   Jan  2013:   Feb  2013:   Feb  2013:   Feb  2013-­‐   Jun  2013:   Apr  2013:           Apr  2013:   Jul  2013:   Oct  2013:       June  2014:   Jul  2014-­‐   Nov  2014:   Apr  1015:   RID  releases  Request  for  Qualifications  (RFQ)  for     design/build/own/operate  for  RID-­‐95  Wellhead  Pilot  Treatment  Systems   RID  voluntarily  submits  RID-­‐95  Wellhead  Treatment  Systems  Proposal     (Synergy,  2011)  to  ADEQ   ADEQ  agrees  to  RID-­‐95  Wellhead  Treatment  Systems  Proposal   RID  issues  Notice  to  Proceed  for  RID-­‐95  Wellhead  Pilot  Treatment       Systems   RID  voluntarily  initiates  treatment  at  RID-­‐95   RID  voluntarily  submits  Technology/Design  Demonstration  Report       (Synergy,  2012a)  to  ADEQ:  RID-­‐95  Pilot  System  completed,  treatment     initiated  at  three  (3)  additional  treatment  sites  pursuant  to  RID-­‐95     Wellhead  Treatment  Systems  Proposal   RID  submits  Draft  Modified  ERA  Proposal  (Synergy,  2012c)  to  ADEQ   ADEQ  issues  Final  WVBA  RI  Report   RID  submits  voluntarily  Modified  ERA  Work  Plan  (Synergy,  2012d)  to     ADEQ     RID  attends  and  presents  at  WVBA  CAB  meeting   RID  responds  to  public  comments  on  Modified  ERA  Work  Plan   ADEQ  issues  approval  of  RID  Modified  ERA  Work  Plan  with  conditions   RID  submits  voluntarily  Draft  FS  Work  Plan  (Synergy,  2013a)  to  ADEQ   RID  responds  to  public  comments  on  RID  Draft  FS  Work  Plan   RID  voluntarily  completes  the  Long-­‐Term  Operational  Assessment       (Synergy,  2013b)  of  wellhead  treatment  systems  and  submits  report  to     ADEQ   RID  attends  and  presents  at  WVBA  CAB  meeting   ADEQ  approves  RID  FS  Work  Plan   RID  voluntarily  submits  Operation  and  Maintenance  Plan  (Synergy,     2013d)  to  ADEQ   ADEQ  publishes  RID  O&M  Plan  for  public  comment   ADEQ  receives  comments  and  responses  to  comments  on  RID  O&M  Plan   ADEQ  certifies  RID’s  Revised  O&M  Plan  with  conditions   ADEQ  approves  the  RID  FS  Report  after  significant  public  comments   23     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE       The  original  ERA  Work  Plan  voluntarily  submitted  by  M&A  in  February  2010,  on  behalf  of  RID,   included  four  (4)  conceptual  components:  1)  a  new  priority  pumping  regimen  for  the  RID  well   field  to  maximize  removal  of  COCs  from  the  groundwater  and  to  protect  RID’s  threatened  wells   while   maintaining   current   annual   groundwater   withdrawal   rates   and   meeting   the   seasonally   variable   demand   of   RID’s   customers;   2)   construction   of   a   new   centralized   groundwater   treatment   facility   (CGTF)   to   reliably   remove   COCs   and   reduce   their   concentrations   to   meet   standards  acceptable  for  all  reasonably  foreseeable  end  uses  of  the  waters  of  the  state  in  the   WVBA   WQARF   Site;   3)   physical   improvements   to   selected   RID   wells   and   canals   to   control   emission   of   COCs   from   water   to   air   and   to   control   exposure   to   COCs;   and   4)   discharge   of   remediated   water   supply   to   the   RID   Main   Canal   for   irrigation   use   or   to   a   delivery   system   for   potable  use.         Under   the   original   ERA   Work   Plan,   the   ERA   would   predominantly   use   existing   RID   pipelines   and   canals   to   convey   up   to   a   nominal   20,000   gallons   per   minute   (gpm)   of   contaminated   groundwater  pumped  from  the  10  most  highly  contaminated  RID  wells  to  the  CGTF  that  would   be   constructed   on   RID   property   adjacent   to   the   Main   Canal   at   84th   Avenue.     A   new   pipeline   would  be  constructed  from  the  terminus  of  the  Salt  Canal  at  83rd  Avenue  to  the  CGTF.    Separate   new   pipelines   would   be   installed   later   in   the   ERA   to   convey   groundwater   with   lower   VOC   concentrations   (RID   wells   105,   109,   and   110)   south   to   the   Main   Canal   and   to   convey   groundwater  with  higher  VOC  concentrations  (RID  wells  89,  92,  95,  and  100)  north  to  the  Salt   Canal   and   then   to   the   CGTF   for   treatment.     Installation   of   these   pipelines   would   enable   treatment  of  impacted  groundwater  from  RID  wells  with  the  highest  COC  concentrations,  which   would   afford   public   health   and   welfare   protection   from   the   higher   concentrations   of   these   contaminants  and  provide  substantial  COC  mass  removal  from  the  environment  during  the  ERA.     Under   the   original   ERA   Work   Plan,   the   new   treatment   facility   would   remove   thousands   of   pounds  of  COCs  from  the  groundwater  annually  and  discharge  remediated  water  of  sufficient   quality  for  all  RID  current  and  reasonably  foreseeable  end  uses.    Under  state  law,40  no  remedial   or   response   action   can   reduce   the   quantity   of   RID’s   water   supply   or   restrict   the   quality   of   RID’s   water  supply  from  its  “maximum  beneficial  use”  or  its  “current  or  reasonably  foreseeable  end   uses.”     The  objectives  of  the  voluntary  RID  ERA  remedial  action  are:   • To  protect  and  provide  a  water  supply  from  the  most  highly  contaminated  RID  wells  in   the  WVBA  WQARF  Site  that  is  protective  of  all  RID  current  and  reasonably  foreseeable   municipal,  agricultural,  and  industrial  end  uses;  and,   • To  address  current  and  future  risks  to  public  health,  welfare  and  the  environment  from   exposures  to  contaminants  in  the  groundwater  that  are  known  to  volatilize  into  the  air   when  pumped  from  the  most  highly  contaminated  RID  wells.                                                                                                                             40   See ARS § 49-282.06.A.2 and B.4.b 24     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE       ADEQ  approved  the  original  ERA  Work  Plan41  with  conditional  tasks  in  a  letter  dated  June  24,   2010  (ADEQ,  2010a).    The  conditional  tasks  included  a  public  health  exposure  assessment,  well   investigations,  groundwater  modeling  and  engineering  studies.    The  work  conducted  for  each   task  is  summarized  in  Appendix  A  of  the  RID  FS  Report.     A   Modified   ERA   Work   Plan   (Synergy,   2012c)   voluntarily   was   submitted   by   RID   to   ADEQ   on   October  19,  2012  to  improve  upon  the  original  ERA  (M&A,  2010).    The  Modified  ERA  Work  Plan   proposed   using   wellhead   treatment   systems   at   select   RID   well   sites   in   lieu   of   the   central   groundwater  treatment  facility.    The  modification  to  the  original  ERA  was  proposed  in  order  to   provide  a  more  cost-­‐effective  approach  to  protect  the  RID  water  supply  while  achieving  all  of   the  statutory  and  regulatory  requirements  for  an  ERA.       The   Modified   ERA   Work   Plan   provided   a   more   efficient   approach   to   address   these   objectives   and   incorporated   information   and   insights   gained   from   the   conditional   tasks   prescribed   by   ADEQ   in   the   original   ERA   Work   Plan   approval   letter   and   the   RID-­‐95   Wellhead   Treatment   Systems   Proposal   (summarized   in   Appendix   A   of   the   RID   FS   Report).     The   modifications   proposed   to   the   ERA   were   consistent   with   WQARF   program   authority42   and   certain43   stakeholder  input  submitted  to  ADEQ  during  the  public  comment  period  of  the  original  RID  ERA.     Among   those   substantial   comments,   a   recurring   critique   was   that   the   proposed   original   RID   ERA,  as  approved  by  ADEQ,  was  large,  costly,  technically  complex,  and  unsound  to  treat  huge   volumes  of  water  at  a  centralized  plant.    Specifically,  the  comments  noted  that,   • “…the   contaminated   plume   can   be   remediated   in   a   far   more   efficient   approach   by   focusing   on   contaminant   source   areas   and   zones   of   highest   contaminant   concentrations.”  (City  of  Phoenix,  2010b)   • “…RID  does  not  mention  the  possibility  of  targeting  the  wells  with  the  highest  levels  of   contaminants   …   numerous   reasonable   options   could   be   envisioned   for   targeting   “hot   spots”  in  the  West  Van  Buren  Plume  …  this  option  could  result  in  the  targeted  removal  of   contaminant  mass  at  similar  levels  as  RID’s  proposal,  but  with  a  much  more  simplified   system  and  at  much  lower  cost.”  (Honeywell,  2010)                                                                                                                             41 Contrary to claims by parties identified as PRPs, who may be liable for the costs incurred to address the groundwater contamination, ADEQ’s approval of the original RID ERA Work Plan was a formal approval that is protected by statutory procedures like any ADEQ-approved permit. See Letter from Henry Darwin, ADEQ Deputy Director, to David Armstrong, attorney for SRP, re: ADEQ Response to Request for Interim Decision (Oct. 13, 2010) (declaring that “ADEQ’s June 24, 2010 approval of RID’s February 3, 2010 ERA Work Plan is a final decision” and that “ADEQ has and will continue to evaluate RID’s adherence to [procedures, statute and rule] … and if compliance is not achieved revoke the approval under the appropriate legal procedures.” (ADEQ, 2010b) 42 AAC R18-16-405.H.3. 43 Substantial stakeholder comments were received from parties that are identified as PRPs for releases of hazardous substances and have vested interests in avoiding remedial actions that will impose costs to address site-wide groundwater contamination. Additionally, certain parties with professed competing water rights raised comments that are in direct contradiction to RID’s basic right provided by the WQARF program, pursuant to AAC R18-16411.G, that allows any water provider to take necessary actions, in its sole discretion (emphasis added), to implement an ERA that will address the use of its impacted or threatened wells in a WQARF site.   25     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     • “Groundwater   pump-­‐and-­‐treat,   if   selected   as   an   ERA   or   a   final   remedy,   should   focus   first,   and   perhaps   only,   on   areas   having   the   highest   concentrations   within   the   plume.     This  strategy  has  proven  to  be  very  effective  in  the  Motorola  52nd  Street  Operable  Unit  2   groundwater  extraction  system.”  (Dolphin,  2010)   • “…an   effective   early   response   action   would   consider   [among   other   listed   elements]   …   strategically   located   capture   wells   for   containing   the   regional   plume   …   supplemented   with   pumping   at   the   leading   downgradient   edge   of   the   plume   …   some   or   all   of   the   groundwater  could  be  treated  to  reduce  the  transfer  of  VOCs  from  the  current  plume  to   the  air.”  (Salt  River  Project,  2009)     Based  on  the  insights  and  information  indicated  above,  the  Modified  ERA  Work  Plan  proposed   the  following  modifications  to  the  original  ADEQ-­‐approved  ERA  Work  Plan,  which  are  consistent   with  the  prior  stakeholder  comments:   • Utilization   of   wellhead   treatment   at   the   most   highly   contaminated   RID   wells   and   blending  to  effectively  reduce  the  concentration  of  VOCs  from  several  additional  wells,   with  lower  contaminant  concentrations,  to  achieve  target  water  quality.    This  approach   will   result   in   a   lower   volume   of   contaminated   water   being   directly   treated   while   providing  a  higher  total  volume  of  contaminated  well  water  that  will  be  remediated  to   meet   applicable   MCLs   to   ensure   protection   of   all   RID   current   and   reasonably   foreseeable  water  supply  end  uses.   • Elimination   of   approximately   25,000   feet   of   north-­‐south   lateral   pipelines   between   the   southern  tier  wells  and  the  Salt  Canal;  and   • Elimination   of   the   gravity   pipeline   between   the   end   of   the   Salt   Canal   and   the   RID   Maintenance  Yard  (i.e.,  the  central  water  treatment  facility  location).         The  proposed  modifications  also  provided  additional  ancillary  benefits  believed  to  result  in  the   following  performance  improvements  as  compared  to  the  original  ERA  Work  Plan:   • • • Reduce   capital   costs   by   approximately   50%,   from   approximately   $34   million   to   approximately  $18  million;     Reduce   O&M   costs   by   approximately   50%,   from   approximately   $3.0   million   to   $4.0   million  per  year  to  approximately  $1.5  million  to  $2.0  million  per  year;     Enable   blending   of   treated   water   with   untreated   water   from   wells   having   lower   contaminant  concentrations  along  the  Salt  Canal,  thereby  increasing  the  total  volume  of   contaminated   well   water   that   will   be   remediated   to   meet   applicable   MCLs   by   approximately  50%;       •   Significantly   reduce   the   time   required   to   implement   the   early   response   pump   and   treatment  action  due  to  the  simplified  and  modular  nature  of  the  wellhead  treatment   systems   (compared   to   central   water   treatment   facility)   and   the   elimination   of   the   complex  and  disruptive  construction  of  north-­‐south  lateral  pipelines;  and,     26     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     • Reduce   the   scope   and   cost   of   the   groundwater   remedy   at   the   WOC   WQARF   Site   by   addressing  the  groundwater  contamination  that  is  migrating  into  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site   and  impacting  and  threatening  to  impact  RID’s  water  supply  wells.     ADEQ   approved   the   Modified   ERA   Work   Plan   with   conditions   on   February   1,   2013   (ADEQ,   2013a).     As   provided   by   ADEQ   in   that   letter,   ADEQ’s   approval   is   subject   to   the   following   conditions:     1. RID  must  maintain  historical  pumping  rates  to  ensure  that  there  are  no  adverse  impacts   to  groundwater  quality  and  levels;  and,   2. RID  must  follow  through  on  the  commitment  to  implement  measures  to  limit  exposures   to  public  from  the  contamination  being  released  from  the  RID  water  systems.     RID  has  maintained  historical  pumping  rates  in  the  RID  wells  located  in  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site   and   will   continue   to   do   so   until   modeling   has   demonstrated   that   increased   extraction   at   the   most   highly   contaminated   RID   wells   with   wellhead   treatment   will   not   adversely   impact   groundwater  levels  in  the  region  or  groundwater  quality.    RID  also  implemented  volatilization   control   measures   at   the   four   (4)   RID   wells   with   wellhead   treatment   and   enclosed   one   of   the   laterals   used   to   convey   impacted   groundwater.     RID   intends   to   continue   to   implement   these   engineering  control  measures  to  limit  potential  public  exposure.   2.5   COMMUNITY  INVOLVEMENT  ACTIVITIES     Public  participation  and  community  relations  activities  during  the  PRAP  process  will  adhere  to   the   community   involvement   requirements   of   AAC   R18-­‐16-­‐404   and   ADEQ’s   Community   Involvement   Plan   [CIP]   for   West   Van   Buren   WQARF   Site,   Phoenix,   Arizona   (ADEQ,   2011a)   as   discussed   in   Section   10.0.     Consistent   with   the   CIP,   ADEQ   will   lead   the   public   outreach   and   coordinate   public   communication   and   comments.   Specific   community   involvement   activities   may   include   the   preparation   and   distribution   of   public   notices   describing   the   availability   of   this   PRAP   for   public   review   and   participation   in   public   meetings   to   discuss   the   document.   It   is   anticipated   that   ADEQ   will   continue   the   agency’s   practices   of   complying   with   the   public   participation  requirements  of  the  WQARF  program  evident  during  the  RI  reports,  RID’s  ERA,  the   RO  Report,  the  FS  Work  Plan  and  FS  Report.    In  fact,  ADEQ  maintains  an  Internet  website44  that   contains   a   large   number   of   relevant   documents   about   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site,   including   the   public  participation  efforts.     In  order  to  broaden  communication  outreach  and  enhance  transparency,  RID,  in  coordination   with   ADEQ,   will   continue   to   deliver   messages   and   information   through   the   various   communications   channels   and   platforms   developed   for   its   ADEQ-­‐approved   ERA.     These   channels  and  platforms  may  include  one-­‐on-­‐one  briefings,  group  presentations,  electronic  and                                                                                                                             44   Accessible through ADEQ Waste Programs page or http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/waste/sps/wvb.html 27     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     print  media,  and  web-­‐based  communications.  RID  has  continually  used  these  various  channels   and  platforms  to  reach  out  to  the  local  community  and  involve  stakeholders  during  the  past  five   (5)   years   regarding   all   work   activities   undertaken   at   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site.     Specifically,   RID   has  participated  in  over  100  separate  meetings  with  various  external  stakeholders  including  the   EPA,  ADEQ,  ADWR,  Central  Arizona  Project  (CAP),  community  leaders,  individual  PRPs  and  PRP   groups,  elected  officials,  COP,  COT,  City  of  Avondale,  City  of  Goodyear  and  City  of  Buckeye.       RID   has   been   diligent   in   its   efforts   to   keep   the   public   informed   of   planned   and   on-­‐going   field   programs.  RID  hand  delivered  informational  flyers,  in  both  English  and  Spanish,  to  residents  and   businesses  in  the  areas  where  RID’s  wellhead  treatment  systems  were  installed  (to  date  about   1,000  flyers  have  been  provided)  and  continues  to  distribute  email  updates  of  monthly  progress   reports   and   other   project   information   to   interested   parties.   Likewise,   RID   offers   tours   of   the   treatment  facilities  to  interested  parties  to  inform  them  of  RID’s  voluntary  treatment  progress.     RID   has   been   involved   in   every   WVBA   CAB   meeting   since   December   2009.     Although   the   WVBA   CAB  has  not  met  very  regularly,  RID  has  approached  ADEQ  and  offered  to  provide  presentations   to  the  WVBA  CAB  at  more  frequent  intervals  to  update  the  CAB  on  the  progress  of  the  ADEQ-­‐ approved  ERA,  the  RID-­‐95  Wellhead  Pilot  Treatment  Systems  Initiative,  and  RID  FS  process  and   report.    Despite  the  lack  of  WVBA  CAB  meetings,  RID  developed  and  continues  to  maintain  an   Internet  website45  that  contains  updated  information  on  RID’s  work  activities  and  provides  all   relevant  information  relating  to  the  ADEQ-­‐approved  ERA  that  is  accessible  to  the  general  public.     The   Community   Involvement   Area   for   the   WVBA,   as   described   in   the   CIP,   is   located   in   Congressional   District   7.     The   WVBA   also   is   located   within   the   boundaries   of   Legislative   Districts  19,   27,   and   30,   COP   Council   Districts   4,   7,   and   8   and   Maricopa   County   Supervisors   District  5.    The  following  elected  officials  represent  these  affected  districts:     • Congressional  District  7:       Representative  Paul  Gosar                       • Arizona  Legislative  District  19:                             Senator  Lupe  Chavira  Contreras   Representative  Mark  A.  Cardenas   Representative  Diego  Espinoza   • Arizona  Legislative  District  27:                             Senator  Catherine  Miranda   Representative  Reginald  Bolding  Jr.   Representative  Rebecca  Rios   • Arizona  Legislative  District  30:                             Senator  Robert  Meza   Representative  Jonathan  Larkin   Representative  Debbie  McCune  Davis                                                                                                                               45   http://www.wvgroundwater.org 28     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE         • Phoenix  City  Council  District  4:     Councilwoman  Laura  Pastor   • Phoenix  City  Council  District  7:     Councilman  Michael  Nowakowski   • Phoenix  City  Council  District  8:     Councilwoman  Kate  Gallego     • Maricopa  County  Supervisor  District  5:   Supervisor  Steve  Gallardo     RID,  in  coordination  with  ADEQ,  will  provide  periodic  briefings  and  updates  to  elected  officials   in  the  WVBA  to  assure  that  they  are  informed  with  regards  to  the  ongoing  voluntary   remediation  efforts  and  the  development  and  implementation  of  the  proposed  regional   groundwater  remedy.                                                             29     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE                                                                   THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK   30     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     3.0   SITE  CHARACTERIZATION     This   section   provides   a   general   overview   of   the   geology   and   hydrogeology   of   the   WVBA   and   adjacent   areas,   identifies   potential   contaminant   sources,   and   summarizes   the   nature   and   extent  of  contamination  at  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site.    Detailed  summaries  of  site  characteristics   are  provided  in  Section  3  of  the  RID  FS  Report.     3.1   HYDROGEOLOGIC  SETTING     The   WVBA   WQARF   Site   and   adjacent   regional   contaminant   sites   are   located   in   the   West   Salt   River   Valley   (SRV)   in   a   broad   sediment-­‐filled   basin   formed   as   a   result   of   basin-­‐and-­‐range   structural  development  that  mostly  occurred  between  15  and  8  million  years  ago  (Brown  and   Pool,  1989).    Crustal  extension,  which  caused  the  downward  faulted  sedimentary  basin,  created   a  large  structural  depression  that  contains  more  than  11,000  feet  of  basin-­‐fill  sediments  in  the   central  part  of  the  West  SRV.    Basin  fill  sediments  derive  from  the  surrounding  mountains  and   through-­‐flowing   streams   such   as   the   Salt,   Gila,   and   Agua   Fria   rivers.     The   West   SRV   basin   is   almost  completely  surrounded  by  mountains  composed  of  granitic,  metamorphic  and  volcanic   rocks.         The  geology  of  the  West  SRV  is  well  known  (Brown  and  Pool,  1989;  Corkhill  et  al.,  1993)  through   interpretation   of   available   lithologic,   geologic,   and   geophysical   data   from   the   drilling   of   deep   wells  throughout  the  West  SRV.    Generally,46  the  basin  fill  deposits  are  differentiated  into  three   (3)  distinctive  hydrogeologic  units  that  are  referred  to  as  (from  oldest  to  youngest)  the:  Lower   Alluvial  Unit  (LAU),  Middle  Alluvial  Unit  (MAU),  and  Upper  Alluvial  Unity  (UAU).    The  following   descriptions  taken  from  Brown  and  Pool  (1989)  and  Terranext  (2012)  provide  a  basic  overview   of  the  three  (3)  principal  basin-­‐fill  sedimentary  units:     Lower  Alluvial  Unit       The   LAU   consists   mainly   of   conglomerate   and   gravel   grading   into   mudstones   in   the   center   of   the   basin.     The   LAU   is   subdivided   into   lower   and   upper   parts.     Both   parts   are   generally   fine-­‐ grained,   but   differ   in   consolidation,   homogeneity,   types   of   evaporite   deposits   and   structure.     The  lower  part  of  the  LAU  is  moderately  to  well-­‐cemented  mudstone,  siltstone,  sand  and  gravel   containing   significant   gypsum,   anhydrite,   and   halite.     The   upper   part   of   the   LAU   is   weakly   to   moderately   cemented   and   consists   of   silt,   clay,   mudstone,   siltstone,   and   gypsum   with   interbedded  sand  and  gravel.    The  LAU  may  be  as  much  as  1,000  feet  thick  at  basin  margins  and   more  than  10,000  feet  thick  in  the  center  of  the  basin.                                                                                                                                   46 This discussion of regional sedimentology excludes the Red Unit. According to Brown and Pool (1989), the Red Unit was deposited prior to the basin-and-range structural development and is found mostly in the southeast part of the West SRV.   31     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     Middle  Alluvial  Unit     The   MAU   overlies   the   LAU   and   consists   of   weakly   consolidated,   but   moderately   to   well-­‐ cemented  silt,  clay,  silty  sand,  and  gravel.    Collectively,  the  MAU  contains  more  than  40  percent   sand  and  gravel  throughout  most  of  the  basin.    Generally,  grain  size  decreases  downward  in  the   MAU.    The  MAU  ranges  in  thickness  from  0  to  800  feet  in  the  West  SRV.    The  contact  between   the   LAU   and   MAU   is   gradational,   but   distinguishable   by   a   greater   bedding   frequency   or   heterogeneity  and  a  buff  or  brown  color  as  opposed  to  red-­‐brown.    The  uppermost  interval  of   the  MAU  is  characterized  by  a  clay  layer  at  least  40  feet  thick,  that  is  typically  described  as  a   hard  brown  clay  or  sticky  brown  clay.     Upper  Alluvial  Unit     The   UAU   consists   of   unconsolidated   Quaternary-­‐aged   silt,   sand,   and   gravel   that   extend   from   the   top   of   the   MAU   to   ground   surface.   The   gravel-­‐size   sediments   can   be   quite   coarse   and   include   cobbles   and   boulders.     UAU   sediments   range   in   thickness   from   200   to   500   feet.     Within   the   WVBA,   the   UAU   is   differentiated   as   two   sub-­‐layers   referred   to   as   UAU1   and   UAU2.     The   UAU1   layer   ranges   in   thickness   from   approximately   170   to   310   feet   bls   and   is   comprised   of   unconsolidated   mixtures   of   clay,   silt,   and   sand   in   the   upper   10   feet   to   50   feet   bls   that   overlie   a   relatively   thick   sequence   of   gravels   and   cobbles   with   varying   amounts   of   sand,   clay,   and   silt.     The   transition   between   UAU1   and   underlying   UAU2   is   gradational   and   characterized   by   an   increase   in   clay   content   until   clays   dominate   the   lithologic   horizons.   The   thickness   of   the   UAU2   is  variable,  ranging  from  approximately  30  to  260  feet  or  greater.     Further   description   of   geologic   conditions   in   the   WVBA   and   adjacent   contaminated   sites   is   provided  in  Section  3.1  of  the  RID  FS  Report.     In  the  West  SRV,  groundwater  occurs  in  the  UAU,  MAU  and  LAU,  and  is  stored  and  moves  under   different  regimes  based  on  hydraulic  properties  within  the  aquifer  units.    Hydraulic  properties   vary  between  and  within  the  alluvial  aquifers  due  to  notable  heterogeneities  that  exist  across   the  West  SRV.    As  reported  by  Brown  and  Pool  (1989),  groundwater  in  the  UAU  is  unconfined   and  the  most  permeable  and  productive  of  the  hydrostratigraphic  units.    Groundwater  in  the   underlying   MAU   and   LAU   is   under   confined   (Weston,   2000)   to   leaky   and   semi-­‐confined   conditions  (Brown  and  Pool,  1989).         Wells   completed   within   the   UAU   yield   between   1,500   and   5,500   gpm   and   have   measured   hydraulic  conductivity  ranging  from  50  to  1,700  feet  per  day  (ft/d).  Yield  to  wells  in  the  MAU   and   LAU   is   appreciably   less   than   the   UAU,   ranging   from   several   hundred   to   2,000   gpm.     Hydraulic   conductivity   in   the   MAU   and   LAU   is   generally   in   the   range   of   3   to   60   ft/d.       According   to   Terranext   (2012),   it   is   apparent   from   pumping   data   and   observed   water   level   responses   in   nearby  wells  that  the  three  units  are  hydraulically  interconnected.           32     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     Groundwater  movement  within  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site  is  predominantly  controlled  by  pumping   and  the  areal  distribution  of  Salt  River  recharge.  Groundwater  pumping  by  RID  represents  the   major   outflow   from   the   groundwater   system   within   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site.     The   bulk   of   groundwater  extraction  from  RID  wells  in  the  WVBA  is  from  the  UAU  and  largely  from  depths   that  correspond  to  the  UAU1  interval.    RID  pumpage  within  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site47  has  ranged   from   around   75,000   to   94,000   acre-­‐feet   (AF)   per   year   from   2008   to   2012,   with   an   annual   average  of  about  83,500  AF.  As  noted  in  the  Final  WVBA  RI  Report,  pumping  of  this  magnitude   exerts   significant   hydraulic   control   on   area-­‐wide   groundwater   within   the   WVBA   and   the   upgradient   WOC   and   M52   Sites.     RID   pumping   is   seasonal   with   demand   for   water   in   the   summertime   frequently   requiring   pumping   of   all   RID   wells   in   this   area   at   their   maximum   groundwater  extraction  rate  of  around  85,000  gpm.       Further  description  of  groundwater  hydrology  in  the  WVBA  and  adjacent  contaminated  sites  is   provided  in  Section  3.2  of  the  RID  FS  Report.     3.2     IDENTIFICATION  OF  CONTAMINANT  SOURCES   Numerous  facility  investigations  in  the  WVBA  and  adjacent  regional  groundwater  contaminant   sites  have  documented  releases,  or  threatened  releases,  of  hazardous  substances  that  are  COCs   in  the  regional  groundwater  contaminant  plume  impacting  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site.    This  section   provides   a   general   summary   of   the   more   notable   contaminant   sources.     More   detailed   summaries  of  the  contaminant  sources  are  provided  in  Section  3.3  of  the  RID  FS  Report.     3.2.1   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  FACILITIES     ADEQ  has  conducted  or  directed  numerous  facility  investigations  that  are  identified  in  the  Final   WVBA   RI   Report.     The   findings   indicate   that   over   50   facilities   in   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   were   determined  to  have  had  documented  COC  contamination  in  soils  or  soil  gas.    As  noted  in  the   Final   WVBA   RI   Report,   ADEQ   decided   to   focus   on   the   following   nine   (9)   facilities48   as   most   notable  contamination  sources  within  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site:     • Air  Liquide  America  Specialty  Gases,  LP  (ALASG);                                                                                                                             47 Consisting of 33 RID wells, designated by consecutive well numbers RID-82 through RID-114. The rationale to exclude certain facilities from further groundwater investigations is unclear since it appears a number of facilities never completed the investigative work required by ADEQ. Additionally, as noted in stakeholder comments to ADEQ on the Draft RI Report, at least 16 of the 42 facilities where further investigations were not performed had detectable concentrations of at least one VOC in soil (Univar USA, Inc. 2008). It is indicated that this is particularly significant because soil investigations conducted to determine the releases of VOCs in soils were done at a time when soil sampling did not include procedures to minimize VOC loss during sampling. Consequently, Univar stressed that the presence of VOCs in soils indicated the potential for the presence of an onsite source of VOCs to groundwater. It is important to note that these VOCs are not naturally occurring and the presence of the VOCs in the soil must have resulted from a release at the facility. 48   33     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     • • • • • • • • ALSCo;   ChemResearch;   U.S.  Department  of  Energy  (USDOE);   Dolphin;   Maricopa  County  Materials  Management  (MCMM);   Prudential  Overall  Supply  (POS);   Reynolds  Metals;  and,   Van  Waters  &  Rogers  (now  Univar  USA,  Inc.).     Appendix  B  of  the  RID  FS  Report  summarizes  facility  operations,  source  area  investigations  and   remedial   activities   conducted   at   each   facility,   as   originally   presented   in   the   Final   WVBA   RI   Report.       3.2.2   MOTOROLA  52ND  STREET  CERCLA  SITE     The  M52  Site  encompasses  the  regional  groundwater  contamination  plume  to  the  east  of  the   WVBA  WQARF  Site  as  shown  in  Figure  2  and  is  subdivided  into  three  operable  units:  OU1,  OU2,   and   OU3.     The   M52   Site   is   a   federal   site   under   CERCLA   authority   and   EPA   has   designated   numerous  entities  as  potentially  responsible  parties  (PRPs)  for  the  groundwater  contamination   identified  in  the  M52  Site.    In  addition,  according  to  ADEQ’s  Narrative  Site  Information  for  the   M52   Site,   on   September   3,   2003,   EPA   issued   CERCLA   General   Notice   letters   to   the   following   companies  in  OU2:   • • • • • • • • • • • • D-­‐Velco  Manufacturing  of  Arizona   Honeywell  International,  Inc.   City  of  Phoenix   U.S.  Air  Force   ITT  Industries     Kachina  Technical  Services  and  Processes,  Inc.   Phoenix  Industrial  Properties,  Ltd.   Joray  Corporation   Laundry  and  Cleaners  Supply,  Inc.   Papago  Plating  Company,  Inc.   B  and  G  Investments   Thomas  and  Nancy  Stonebraker   • • • Arizona  Public  Service/Pinnacle  West  Capital  Corporation   Arvin  Meritor/Adobe  Air/Cooper  Industries   Baker  Metal  Products     According   to   information   presented   by   Terranext   (2012)   in   the   Final   WVBA   RI   Report,   the   following  parties  have  also  been  identified  as  PRPs  at  OU3:     34     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     • • • • • • • • • Capitol  Engineering   Fruehauf  Trailer  Sales/Wabash  National  Trailer  Centers   McCoy’s  Laundry  and  Dry  Cleaners   Milum  Textile  Services  Company   Phoenix  Newspapers   Salt  River  Project   Walker  Power  Systems/Tierney  Turbines   Union  Pacific  Railroad   Westinghouse     Finally,  a  number  of  facilities  have  been  identified49  as  potential  sources  within  the  scope  of   City  of  Phoenix  investigation  of  the  Sky  Harbor  International  Airport  Area:50     • Arizona  Wholesale  Supply   • Continental  Airlines   • DynAir  Tech.   • Lockheed  Air  Terminal   • Arizona  Tool  Products   • C.S.&W  Contractors   • Frontier  Airlines   • Pacific  Southwest  Airlines   • Pride  Expeditors   • PSA/US  Air   • Sky  Harbor  Airport  Airline  Maintenance   • Trans  World  Airlines   • Transco   • United  Airlines   • Wien  Air  Alaska     3.2.3   WEST  OSBORN  COMPLEX  WQARF  SITE     Contaminated  groundwater  north  of  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site  between  27th  and  51st  Avenues  is   associated  with  the  WCP  Area  and  is  being  managed  by  ADEQ.    The  WCP  Area  was  placed  on   the   WQARF   Registry   as   a   priority   site   in   1987   and   later   divided   into   five   (5)   separate   WQARF   Registry  sites  in  1998:  1)  East  Grand  Avenue,  2)  West  Grand  Avenue,  3)  North  Plume,  4)  North   Canal  Plume,  and  5)  West  Osborn  Complex  (WOC),  of  which  the  WOC  is  the  southernmost  site   and,  therefore,  most  closely  associated  with  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site.                                                                                                                                 49 Memorandum from David Hawkins to Lowell Carty, Project Manager for East Washington WQARF Site, re: “List of facilities to be evaluated in the East Washington Study Area” (ADEQ, 1989). However, as noted above, the COP initially identified 218 facilities within the SHA Site, but not all of these were investigated. 50 See Section 3.3.2 of the RID FS Report for more detailed information about the history and prior investigations of the Sky Harbor International Airport Area.   35     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE       The  WOC  WQARF  Site  and  other  West  Central  Phoenix  WQARF  sites  are  identified  as  potential   sources   of   the   groundwater   contamination   plume   to   the   north   of   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site,   as   shown  in  Figure  2.         As   indicated   in   the   Final   WVBA   RI   Report,   three   (3)   facilities   have   been   identified   as   likely   sources  of  groundwater  contamination:   • United  Industrial  Corporation  (UIC)   • Corning  Inc./Components  Inc.   • Nucor  Corporation     It  also  appears  clear  that  sources  other  than  the  WOC  Site  have  impacted  shallow  and  possibly   deeper   contamination   in   the   plumes   at   the   WOC   Site.     In   this   regard,   historical   VOC   releases   from   facilities   associated   with   the   nearby   North   Canal   Plume   and   East   and   West   Grand   Avenue   WQARF   sites   are   suspected   by   WOC   facility   operators   (GeoTrans,   2012a   and   2012b)   to   have   commingled  with  groundwater  contamination  in  the  WOC  Site  plume.         3.3   NATURE  AND  EXTENT  OF  CONTAMINATION     As   summarized   in   the   previous   section,   site   investigations   have   been   conducted   at   numerous   industrial   and   commercial   facilities   throughout   the   regional   groundwater   contaminant   area   over  the  past  25  years.    These  investigations  have  identified  many  widespread  sources  of  VOC   contamination   in   soil   and   groundwater   throughout   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   and   adjacent   regional   groundwater   contaminant   sites.     The   impact   of   these   source   areas   on   area-­‐wide   groundwater   has   been   documented   by   remedial   investigations   that   include   data   from   a   network  of  over  100  monitor  wells.             The   following   sections   summarize   the   nature   and   extent   of   COCs   and   the   potential   routes   of   migration   of   these   contaminants   in   the   environment   within   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site.     A   more   detailed  analysis  of  the  nature  and  extent  of  contamination  is  provided  in  Section  3  of  the  RID   FS  Report.     3.3.1   SOIL/UNSATURATED  ZONE     Numerous  facilities  within  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site  and  adjacent  M52  Site  and  WCP  sites  have   documented  releases  of  PCE,  TCE,  and  other  chlorinated  VOCs  that  comprise  the  COCs  in  the   regional   groundwater   contaminant   plume.     Releases   of   solvents   in   chemical   products   and   wastes   containing   VOCs   as   a   result   of   spills,   leaks,   discharges,   and   waste   disposal   practices   provide   a   direct   mechanism   for   downward   vertical   contaminant   migration   through   the   unsaturated  zone  and/or  possibly  migration  as  soil  vapor  to  the  land  surface.         36     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE       Within  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site,  depth  to  groundwater  currently  ranges  from  approximately  75   to  140  feet  bls  (Terranext,  2013).  In  past  decades,  when  historic  releases  more  likely  occurred,   groundwater   levels   were   significantly   higher   resulting   in   a   more   direct   and   rapid   pathway   for   contaminant  transport  to  groundwater  as  well  as  greater  potential  for  vapor  flux  from  shallow   groundwater  contamination  to  migrate  upwards  to  the  ground  surface.       Terranext  (2012)  also  indicates  that  COCs  released  to  the  unsaturated  zone  can  volatilize  into   soil   gas,   which   will   migrate   upwards   to   the   ground   surface.     Depending   on   the   extent   of   facility   development,  the  soil  gas  may  discharge  directly  to  the  atmosphere,  become  trapped  beneath   impermeable  structures,  or  migrate  into  structures  either  beneath  or  at  ground  surface.       The  RID  FS  Report  assumed  that  actions  taken  to  date  under  ADEQ  oversight  have  adequately   characterized  and  addressed  the  known  sources  of  hazardous  substances  impacting  the  surface   and   subsurface   soils   in   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site.     It   also   is   assumed   that   any   additional   source   control   actions   that   may   be   required   to   eliminate   or   mitigate   a   continuing   source   of   contamination  or  address  vapor  intrusion  will  be  facility-­‐specific  and  subject  to  ADEQ’s  lead  and   oversight.    Should  any  further  information  arise  that  identifies  the  need  to  address  a  presently   unknown   source   of   hazardous   substances   or   loss   or   impairment   of   land   use   caused   by   contamination   of   surface   and   subsurface   soils,   it   is   further   assumed   that   ADEQ   will,   independent   of   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   regional   groundwater   remedy,   assure   that   necessary   actions  are  taken  to  remediate  or  control  the  hazardous  substances  causing  the  impairment  or   restriction  to  the  land  and/or  groundwater  use.     3.3.2   GROUNDWATER     Information  from  the  Final  WVBA  RI  Report  indicates  that  VOCs  are  prevalent  in  groundwater   throughout   a   large   portion   of   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site.     The   data   indicate   widespread   VOC   contamination  within  the  UAU  and,  to  a  significantly  lesser  degree,  the  MAU  by  TCE,  PCE,  1,1-­‐ DCE,   and   other   compounds   that   may   be   breakdown   products.     Further,   the   Final   WVBA   RI   Report  indicates  that  these  same  VOC  contaminants  are  entering  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site  from   upgradient  areas  to  the  east  (M52  Site)  and  north  (WOC  Site).51     Terranext   (2012)   indicates   that   PCE   is   the   predominant   COC   for   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site.     Although   this   may   be   true   in   terms   of   the   magnitude   of   contamination   detected   historically   within  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site,  at  present  TCE  occurs  as  prevalently,  if  not  more  so,  than  PCE.    In   fact  based  on  data  reported  in   first  quarter  2013  (Terranext,  2013)  and  provided  in  Table  1,   52   of  the  94  UAU  monitor  wells  sampled  have  detectable  PCE  concentrations  while  56  wells  have   detectable  TCE  levels.    The  maximum  PCE  concentration  measured  at  this  time  was  87.5  µg/L  at                                                                                                                             51 As discussed in prior sections, additional information prepared by and for ADEQ indicates VOCs from the upgradient SHA and other WCP sites are commingling with contaminants from the M52 Site and WOC Site and are entering into the WVBA WQARF Site.   37     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     well  AVB  119-­‐01,  whereas  the  maximum  TCE  concentration  was  177  µg/L  at  well  AVB  132-­‐01.     Additionally,   concentrations   of   up   to   31.7  µg/L   cis-­‐1,2-­‐DCE,   29.4  µg/L   1,1-­‐DCE,   and   10.4  µg/L   1,1-­‐DCA  were  observed.  Based  on  these  data  and  the  recent  EPA  toxicity  studies,52  TCE  is  the   more  significant  target  COC  for  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site.     PCE   and   TCE   are   similarly   prevalent   in   RID   water   supply   wells   in   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   and   vicinity.     Of   the   33   RID   wells   within   and   adjacent   to   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site,   22   wells   had   detectable  PCE  concentrations  and  19  wells  had  detectable  TCE  concentrations  when  sampled   in  2013  (see  Table  2).    The  maximum  PCE  concentration  measured  at  this  time  was  22.1  µg/L  at   well   RID-­‐106,   whereas   the   maximum   TCE   concentration   was   86.4  µg/L   at   well   RID-­‐92.     The   concentration   of   PCE,   TCE,   and   1,1-­‐DCE   in   the   RID   water   supply   wells   over   time   is   shown   on   graphs  provided  in  Figure  3.53     Given  that  groundwater  within  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site  largely  moves  in  response  to  pumping,   PCE   and   TCE   contamination   transport   in   groundwater   is   generally   by   advection,   which   is   through   bulk   groundwater   movement.   Although   chlorinated   solvent   compounds   such   as   PCE   and   TCE   may   biodegrade   under   appropriate   conditions,   this   occurs   slowly,   if   at   all,   in   aerobic   groundwater   such   as   the   UAU   (ERM,   2010).     With   exception   of   portions   of   the   M52   Site,   the   SHA  Site  and  the  Phoenix  Fuel  Terminal,  located  between  51st  and  55th  Avenue  along  Van  Buren   Street,   where   bulk   petroleum   products   leaked   to   shallow   groundwater,   conditions   within   the   regional  commingled  groundwater  contaminant  plume  are  not  conducive  to  biodegradation.       Concentrations  of  individual  VOCs  detected  in  RID  water  supply  wells  and  at  WVBA  WQARF  Site   groundwater   monitor   wells   are   not   uniform,   and   there   are   notable   spatial   variations   that   suggest   multiple   sources   have   contributed   to   the   regional   commingled   groundwater   contaminant   plume,   and   are   still   contributing   to   the   plume.     The   spatial   variations   in   VOC   concentrations   are   particularly   evident   in   UAU1   groundwater   in   earlier   representations   of   water   quality   data   provided   in   the   Final   WVBA   RI   Report   (e.g.   years   1998   and   2003).     Maps   showing  the  distribution  of  PCE  concentrations  in  UAU1  groundwater  monitoring  wells  in  1998   and  2003  that  were  provided  in  Figures  4  and  5  of  the  RID  FS  Report  indicate  relatively  high  PCE   concentrations   present   in   groundwater   at   four   (4)   locations,   or   hotspots,   in   the   vicinity   of   facilities   owned   and/or   operated   by   ALSCO,   ChemResearch,   Dolphin,   and   Prudential   Overall   Supply.     High   PCE   concentrations   that   were   historically   observed   at   source   areas   such   as   the   Dolphin  and  ALSCo  facilities  have  attenuated  substantially  over  time.         Maps  showing  the  distribution  of  TCE  concentrations  observed  in  these  same  wells  in  1998  and   2003  that  were  provided  in  Figures  6  and  7  of  the  RID  FS  Report  show  more  extensive  regions   of   elevated   TCE   concentrations   as   opposed   to   hot   spots   as   defined   by   the   PCE   occurrence.     For   example,  a  broad  region  of  relatively  high  TCE  concentrations  occurs  in  the  east-­‐central  WVBA   WQARF   Site.     This   suggests   that   a   plume   of   commingled   TCE   contamination   originates   from                                                                                                                             52 53   See footnote 19. See footnote 9. 38     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     sources  upgradient  of  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site  (e.g.,  the  M52  Site)  as  well  as  within  this  portion   of  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site.         More   recent   maps   depicting   PCE   and   TCE   occurrence   in   UAU1   and   UAU2   groundwater   monitoring  wells  were  provided  in  Figures  8  through  11  of  the  RID  FS  Report.    As  evident,  the   areal   extent   of   PCE   and   TCE   plumes   is   approximately   the   same   as   the   earlier   monitoring   periods,   but   with   the   exception   of   relatively   high   TCE   concentrations   throughout   the   east-­‐ central   WVBA,   the   COC   concentrations   have   substantially   declined.     The   MAU   is   indicated   to   have  very  limited  impact  with  monitoring  data  indicating  only  two  wells  in  the  vicinity  of  67th   Avenue  and  Van  Buren  Street  to  be  impacted  above  AWQSs.     With   respect   to   groundwater   contamination   entering   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   from   the   east,   monitoring  data  in  both  the  M52  Site  and  eastern  part  of  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site  indicate  M52   Site   remedial   actions   are   effectively   decreasing   TCE   concentrations   in   the   UAU   groundwater   plume.     For   example,   as   shown   in   Figure   3,   since   initiation   of   groundwater   pumping   of   OU2   extraction  wells  in  2001,  TCE  levels  at  RID-­‐114  and  other  RID  wells  in  the  eastern  core  of  the   WVBA   plume   have   declined   appreciably.   The   data   suggest   that   the   significant   decline   in   TCE   concentrations   occurring   at   RID-­‐114   by   at   least   2011   correlate   to   OU2   groundwater   remedial   actions  to  cut  off  and  contain  westward  contaminant  migration  that  began  10  years  earlier.    In   response  to  the  reduced  mass  loading  associated  with  M52  Site  interim  groundwater  remedies,   TCE   concentrations   are   expected   to   slowly   decrease   in   the   eastern   portion   of   the   WVBA   WQARF  Site  over  time.         With   respect   to   groundwater   contamination   entering   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   from   the   north,   the   WOC   Site   Final   FS   Report   (GeoTrans,   2012a)   confirms   a   relatively   large   geographic   area   has   been   impacted   by   plume   migration   to   the   south   of   the   WOC   Site.     Conservative   contaminant   concentrations   derived   from   the   central   portion   of   the   Shallow   Groundwater   System   (SGWS)   include   TCE   at   180  µg/L,   PCE   at   5  µg/L,   and   1,1-­‐DCE   at   25  µg/L.     Based   on   observed   water   quality   data   from   the   monitor   well   network   in   this   area,   as   shown   in   Figure   4,   the   COC   concentrations  in  the  shallow  groundwater  plume  extending  south  toward  the  WVBA  WQARF   Site  have  remained  relatively  constant  over  time  and  suggest  persistent  COC  mass  is  migrating   from   the   WOC   Site   to   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site.     The   limited   scope   of   the   proposed   WOC   Site   groundwater  remedy  is  not  anticipated  to  reduce  COC  mass  loading  entering  the  WVBA  WQARF   Site  from  the  WOC  Site.54     Sampling   results   from   RID   wells   provide   a   useful   basis   to   interpret   water   quality   impacts   within   the  WVBA  WQARF  Site.    As  opposed  to  monitoring  wells  that  only  characterize  discrete  depth   intervals   of   the   contaminant   plume,   water   quality   data   at   RID   water   supply   wells   represent                                                                                                                             54 The Proposed Remedial Action Plan for the SGWS consists of 30 gpm groundwater extraction and treatment for source control at the WOC Site along with Monitored Natural Attenuation of the plume south of the WOC Site. Prevailing groundwater flow in the WOC Site is generally to the south in response to annual RID pumping of around 50,000 gpm of groundwater, on average.   39     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     composite   conditions   throughout   the   primary   zone   of   groundwater   contamination   since   RID   wells   typically   produce   groundwater   from   the   entire   contaminated   UAU   aquifer.     The   historical   trends   of   COC   concentrations55   in   RID   wells   are   indicators   of   area-­‐wide   fate   and   transport   of   COCs   from   the   various   source   contributions.     The   data   allow   differentiation   of   the   WVBA   WQARF  Site  into  five  (5)  specific  regions  based  on  the  temporal  and  spatial  COC  concentration   trends  in  the  RID  well  field,  as  shown  in  Figure  5,  to  help  define  priorities  for  applied  remedial   strategies   and   measures   to   achieve   a   more   focused   and   cost-­‐effective   proposed   regional   groundwater  remedy  for  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site.56       Eastern  Core     Within   this   region,   as   shown   in   Figure   6,   RID-­‐110,   RID-­‐112,   RID-­‐113,   and   RID-­‐114   are   predominantly   impacted   by   TCE   at   concentrations   generally   ranging   from   10   to   100  µg/L,   whereas  PCE  concentrations  are  consistently  less  than  5  µg/L.    The  largest  TCE  concentrations   observed   in   this   region   occur   at   RID-­‐114,   which   formerly   had   levels   as   high   as   110  µg/L   in   2006   that   have   declined   to   45.6  µg/L   in   2014.     TCE   concentrations   in   all   wells   in   this   region   have   similarly  declined  since  the  mid  2000s.    The  RID  water  supply  wells  in  this  region  appear  to  be   impacted  by  dissolved  phase  transport  of  TCE  from  multiple,  indistinct  releases  in  the  eastern   portion  of  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site  and  in  groundwater  entering  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site  from  the   M52  Site.     Southeast  Lobe     Within   this   region,   as   shown   in   Figure   7,   RID-­‐99,   RID-­‐102,   and   RID-­‐104   are   almost   exclusively   impacted   by   PCE   at   variable   but   relatively   low   level   concentrations   ranging   from   about   5   to   10  µg/L.     TCE,   if   detected,   is   typically   found   at   concentrations   less   than   1  µg/L.   RID-­‐99   with   a   concentration   of   8.3  µg/L   PCE   is   the   only   well   in   this   region   that   exceeds   AWQSs.   PCE   concentrations   in   all   wells   appear   to   be   declining   somewhat.     Commingled   groundwater   contamination  within  this  region  is  more  limited  and  localized.       Southern  Flank     Within  this  region,  as  shown  in  Figure  8,  RID-­‐89,  RID-­‐92,  and  RID-­‐95  are  dominantly  impacted   by   TCE   at   concentrations   ranging   from   about   30   to   80  µg/L,   although   PCE   also   is   observed   at   concentrations  ranging  from  5  to  20  µg/L.    RID-­‐92  has  the  highest  TCE  and  PCE  concentrations   in  this  region  at  about  80  and  15  µg/L,  respectively.    TCE  and  PCE  levels  in  the  RID  water  supply   wells  in  this  region  are  not  declining  which  suggests  the  wells  are  impacted  by  dissolved  phase   contamination  that  may  be  associated  with  continuing  source  contribution  and/or  the  presence                                                                                                                             55 As mentioned in Section 2.2, PCE and TCE are the predominant target COCs at the WVBA WQARF Site and will be the focus of the discussion that follows. 56 WQARF rules allow an approach that may incorporate different strategies for portions of the aquifer pursuant to AAC R18-16-407.E.1.   40     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     of   dense   non-­‐aqueous   phase   liquids   (DNAPLs),   possibly   from   multiple   sources.     Recent   monitoring   data   obtained   at   RID   water   supply   wells   along   the   Main   Canal,   such   as   RID-­‐91,   indicate  TCE  contamination  is  increasingly  impacting  threatened  RID  wells  in  this  region.       North  Central     Within  this  region,  as  shown  in  Figure  9,  RID-­‐107,  RID-­‐108,  RID-­‐109,  and  RID-­‐110  are  impacted   by   variable,   but   relatively   lower   level   concentrations   of   both   TCE   and   PCE   ranging   from   5   to   10  µg/L.     RID-­‐109   currently   has   the   highest   TCE   and   PCE   concentrations   observed   in   this   region   at  about  10.6  and  7.2  µg/L,  respectively.    There  are  no  clear  spatial  or  temporal  trends  apparent   in   this   region   suggesting   that   multiple,   indistinct   sources,   such   as   dissolved   phase   transport   from   local   facility   releases   within   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   and   from   groundwater   entering   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   from   the   WOC   Site,   are   commingling   and   likely   contributing   to   well   impacts   in  this  region.     Leading  Edge       Within  this  region,  as  shown  in  Figure  10,  RID-­‐84  and  RID-­‐106  are  predominantly  impacted  by   PCE   at   concentrations   ranging   from   10   to   25  µg/L   and   lesser   TCE   concentrations.   RID-­‐106   currently  has  the  highest  PCE  and  TCE  concentrations  observed  in  this  region  at  about  22  and   8  µg/L,   respectively,   although   both   wells   had   PCE   concentrations   at   around   50  µg/L   in   the   past.     Over   the   past   10   years,   COC   concentrations   have   slowly   declined   indicating   dissolved   phase   transport   of   PCE   and   TCE,   likely   attributed   to   multiple   releases   in   the   western   portion   of   the   WVBA  WQARF  Site.    Even  though  the  Final  WVBA  RI  Report  indicates  the  western  boundary  of   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   extends   to   around   75th   Avenue,   it   should   be   noted   that   PCE   and   TCE   contamination  at  3.53  µg/L  and  1.22  µg/L,  respectively,  is  present  in  RID  well  82,  located  at  83rd   Avenue  and  McDowell.57     3.3.3   POTENTIAL  OCCURRENCE  OF  DNAPLs     Groundwater  within  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site  is  impacted  by  VOCs  that  are  chlorinated  solvents,   which   are   denser   than   water.     The   potential   presence   of   liquid-­‐phase   VOCs   from   releases   of   these  chlorinated  solvents  (commonly  referred  to  as  DNAPLs)  can  serve  as  a  long-­‐term  source   of  dissolved  contaminant  plumes  and  persist  in  groundwater  over  a  long  time.    Data  compiled   in  the  Final  WVBA  RI  Report  provide  indications  of  notably  high  PCE  concentrations  at  the  four   (4)  facilities  identified  below.      Based  on  methodology  discussed  in  Section  3.4.3  of  the  RID  FS   Report,  the  potential  occurrence  of  subsurface  DNAPL  at  these  sites  is  as  follows:     • VERY   HIGH   at   the   Dolphin   facility   because   the   maximum   observed   PCE   concentration   in   groundwater  (63%  of  PCE  aqueous  solubility)  exceeds  50%  of  its  pure-­‐phase  solubility.                                                                                                                             57   Based on RID well sampling conducted in March 2014. 41     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     • HIGH   at   the   ALSCo   facility   because   the   maximum   observed   PCE   concentration   in   groundwater  (28%  of  PCE  aqueous  solubility)  is  between  10  and  50%  of  its  pure-­‐phase   solubility  of  PCE.   • MEDIUM   at   the   MCMM   facility   because   the   maximum   observed   PCE   concentration   in   groundwater   (2.8%   of   PCE   aqueous   solubility)   is   between   1   and   3%   of   its   pure-­‐phase   solubility  of  PCE.     • MEDIUM   at   the   ChemResearch   facility   because   the   maximum   observed   PCE   concentration  in  groundwater  (1.2%  of  PCE  aqueous  solubility)  is  between  1  and  3%  of   its  pure-­‐phase  solubility  of  PCE.       3.3.4   CANAL/SURFACE  WATER     There  has  been  limited  characterization  of  the  nature  and  extent  of  contamination  in  surface   water   at   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site.     The   work   that   has   been   done   pertains   to   RID   water   conveyance  canals,  since  the  RID  water  distribution  system  is  the  only  surface  water  resource   impacted  by  WVBA  WQARF  Site  COCs.    In  this  regard,  the  Final  WVBA  RI  Report  indicated  that   the   RID   water   supply   wells   that   extract   and   discharge   VOC-­‐contaminated   groundwater   to   surface  water  are  the  major  outflow  of  contamination  from  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site,  and  noted   that   the   RID   canals58   provide   a   potential   route   of   surface   water   and   contaminant   migration   downstream  of  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site.       Characterization  of  the  fate  and  transport  of  contaminants  in  the  RID  water  conveyance  canals   within  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site  is  provided  in  two  references:  1)  the  Roosevelt  Irrigation  District   Canal   Characterization   Report   (BE&K/Terranext,   2001)   and   2)   the   Public   Health   Exposure   Assessment  and  Mitigation  Summary  Report  (Synergy,  2011c).    In  general  these  studies  indicate   VOC   concentrations   within   RID   surface   water   conveyances   are   significantly   reduced   downstream   of   discharging   RID   water   supply   wells   due   to   volatilization   and,   at   points   of   discharge  to  the  Main  Canal,  dilution.    Water  quality  data  obtained  by  sampling  and  analysis  of   VOCs   in   the   RID   water   supply   systems   document   the   occurrence   of   TCE   and   PCE   at   levels   safely   below   numeric   limits   established   for   Arizona   Surface   Water   Quality   Standards   for   dermal   exposure  by  partial  and  full  body  contact  during  bathing  and  swimming  in  the  open  RID  laterals   and  canals  as  well  as  ingestion  of  fish  caught  in  these  waterways.                                                                                                                               58 The RID water supply system is largely open to public access. RID has taken a number of measures to limit and prevent public use of open RID canals and laterals, including signage to warn people not to swim or consume water and the use of contractor security personnel to patrol sections of the water system. RID also voluntarily has taken steps to close open sections of laterals by installing and burying pipelines for water conveyance. For example, when it came to RID’s attention that the public was swimming and drinking highly contaminated water at an open lateral on 27th Avenue, RID voluntarily took immediate action to install piping to limit public access.   42     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE       3.3.5   AIR     There  also  has  been  limited  characterization  of  the  nature  and  extent  of  contamination  in  air   potentially  attributed  to  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site.    The  Final  WVBA  RI  Report  indicates  that  vapor   intrusion   is   one   of   “...   four   potential   routes   of   migration   ...   identified   for   VOCs   released   into   the   unsaturated  zone  in  the  WVBA”  (see  Routes  of  Exposure  summary  included  in  Section  2.2)  but   neglects   to   elaborate   on   air   impacts   from   volatilization   of   contaminants   that   occurs   during   discharge   and   conveyance   of   contaminated   groundwater   in   the   RID   water   supply   delivery   system.     Such   neglect   is   inconsistent   with   ADEQ’s   policy   to   prohibit   the   transfer   of   contaminants  from  one  environmental  media  to  another  (e.g.,  from  groundwater  to  air).59         The  fate  of  COCs  in  groundwater  pumped  from  RID  water  supply  wells  and  conveyed  through   gravity   pipelines   and   open   canals   is   determined,   in   large   measure,   by   the   individual   contaminant’s  physical  and  chemical  properties.    The  main  route  of  transfer  of  PCE,  TCE,  and   1,1-­‐DCE   from   water   is   volatilization   (EPA,   1981).     This   behavior   is   consistent   with   the   compounds’  relatively  high  Henry’s  Law  constants.    Laboratory  studies  cited  in  toxicity  profiles   generated  by  ATSDR  (1997)  have  demonstrated  that  PCE  and  TCE  rapidly  volatilize  from  water.         Volatilization   that   occurs   in   the   RID   water   supply   delivery   system   transfers   COCs   from   groundwater   to   ambient   air.     Based   on   the   last   10   years   of   data   (2004-­‐2013),   the   magnitude   of   the  impact  at  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site,  estimated  using  VOC  concentrations  obtained  from  ADEQ   sampling  of  impacted  RID  water  supply  wells  (see  Table  2)  and  RID  historical  pumping  records   (discharge   volume),   is   approximately   2,900   pounds   of   target   COCs   released   to   the   local   environment  annually.    A  summary  of  the  estimated  mass  of  target  COCs  released  by  year  to   the  local  environment  is  included  as  follows:60                                                                                                                                 59 This policy was not neglected in ADEQ’s approval of RID’s ERA Work Plan or Modified ERA Work Plan: “longterm effects are uncertain and data also show that ‘significant volatilization and transfer of contaminants, from the water to air, is occurring and ongoing’” such that a specific condition within ADEQ’s approval of the Modified ERA Work Plan is for RID “to implement measures to limit these exposures.” ADEQ’s policy was not recognized in the WVBA CIP that instead concluded: “In spite of the contaminants currently found in some soils and in the groundwater at the site, the public health impacts are minimal because none of the drinking water wells in use within the site have been found to be contaminated.” 60 It should be noted that the estimated mass removal rates pertain to RID pumping under an operating strategy that intentionally restricts pumping of the most highly contaminated wells. Historically, RID operations favored pumping of their larger producing wells on the Main Canal, which are on the periphery of the plume, more than the contaminated wells located in the interior plume. In more recent years, RID has limited discretionary pumping of the most highly contaminated wells so as to reduce pollutant transfer. Consistent with the ADEQ-approved RID FS Report, the PRAP will prioritize pumping of the most highly contaminated wells equipped with treatment to enhance VOC mass removal. For example, had RID conducted priority pumping in 2013 consistent with that deemed feasible in the remedial alternatives evaluated in the FS Report, then the projected mass removal would have ranged from 2,500 to about 3,200 pounds of target COCs. Such priority pumping would increase mass removal by approximately 25 to 50 percent.   43     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE           RID  WATER  SUPPLY  WELLS  –  MASS  REMOVAL  ESTIMATES   FROM  2004  TO  2013,  WVBA  WQARF  Site   (values  presented  are  estimated  pounds  of  target  COCs  released)   2004   2005   2006   2007   2008   2009   2010   2011   2012   2013   TOTAL   3,500   2,975   3,575   3,150   3,330   2,815   2,760   2,625   2,200   2,070   29,000       RID  conducted  limited-­‐scope  sampling  of  air  and  water  from  RID  water  supply  well  discharges   and   surface   conveyances   of   contaminated   groundwater   to   measure   VOC   contamination   entering   the   environment   and   provide   insight   into   the   fate   and   transport   of   these   contaminants.     The   limited-­‐scope   sampling   event   was   intended   to   facilitate   a   preliminary   assessment  of  the  potential  risk  to  the  public  health  from  inhalation  of  COCs  released  to  the  air   from   RID   water   supply   system   operations   in   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site.     The   findings   indicate   concentrations  of  target  COCs  in  ambient  air  are  less  than  screening-­‐level  guidelines  for  acute   and   sub-­‐acute   exposures   developed   by   ADHS   and   ATSDR.     As   such,   it   is   reasonable   to   conclude   that   the   current   air   emissions   from   RID   water   supply   well   discharges   and   water   supply   conveyance  do  not  pose  an  acute  risk  to  public  health.           While   there   does   not   appear   to   be   an   acute   exposure   risk   to   the   public   from   these   contaminants,   the   long-­‐term   effects   from   public   exposure   to   uncontrolled   air   emissions   cannot   be   determined   by   this   limited-­‐scope   sampling   event.61     The   results   revealed   the   presence   of   WVBA   WQARF   Site   target   COCs   in   all   air   samples   obtained   in   and   proximal   to   the   RID   water   supply  wells  and  water  supply  conveyance  systems.    In  contrast,  target  COCs  were  not  detected   in   air   samples   collected   in   background   locations   situated   away   from   the   RID   water   supply   system.     The   data   demonstrate   that   the   presence   of   target   COCs   in   air   is   directly   associated   with  the  RID  pumping  and  conveyance  of  contaminated  groundwater  in  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site.   Additionally,   mass   balance   determinations   indicated   substantial   transfer   of   target   COCs   from   water   to   air   from   the   discharge   of   contaminated   groundwater   and   conveyance   into   the   RID   receiving  water  system.                                                                                                                             61 See ADEQ’s Approval of RID’s Modified Early Response Action Work Plan (February 1, 2013) requiring that measures be implemented to limit exposures that might cause long-term effects based on data that significant volatilization and transfer of contaminants, from water into the air, is occurring and ongoing. (ADEQ, 2013a)   44     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     4.0   PRAP  SCOPING     This  section  presents  information  on  regulatory  remedial  requirements,  ROs  identified  by  ADEQ   for  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site,  ROs  at  adjacent  sites,  and  extent  of  impacts  to  area  water  providers.     4.1   REGULATORY  REQUIREMENTS     The  Arizona  legislature  has  established  specific  remedial  action  criteria  pursuant  to  ARS  §  49-­‐ 282.06  that  must  be  met  in  the  consideration  and  selection  of  remedial  action(s)  for  the  WVBA   WQARF  Site.     Among  other  requirements,  remedial  actions62  shall:     • Assure  the  protection  of  public  health  and  welfare  and  the  environment;   • Provide  for  the  control,  management  or  cleanup  of  the  hazardous  substances  in  order  to   allow  the  maximum  beneficial  uses  of  waters  of  the  state,  to  the  extent  practicable;  and,   • Be  reasonable,  necessary,  cost-­‐effective,  and  technically  sound.     Additionally,   for   remediation   of   waters   of   the   state,   “the   selected   remedy   must   address,   at   a   minimum,  any  well  that  at  the  time  of  the  remedial  action  either  supplies  water  for  municipal,   domestic,  irrigation  or  agricultural  uses  or  is  part  of  a  public  water  system  if  the  well  would  now   or  in  the  reasonably  foreseeable  future  produce  water  that  would  not  be  fit  for  its  current  or   reasonably   foreseeable   end   uses   without   treatment   due   to   the   release   of   hazardous   substances.”63     Additionally,  the  following  factors  must  be  considered  in  selecting  remedial  actions:64     1. Population,  environmental  and  welfare  concerns  at  risk;   2. Routes  of  exposure;                                                                                                                             62 Pursuant to ARS § 49-281, “remedial action” means “those actions that are reasonable, necessary, cost-effective and technically feasible in the event of the release or threat of release of hazardous substances into the environment, such actions as may be necessary to investigate, monitor, assess and evaluate such release or threat of release, actions of remediation, removal or disposal of hazardous substances or taking such other actions as may be necessary to prevent, minimize or mitigate damage to the public health or welfare or to the environment which may otherwise result from a release or threat of release of a hazardous substance. Remedial actions include the use of biostimulation with indigenous microbes and bioaugmentation using microbes that are nonpathogenic, that are nonopportunistic and that are naturally occurring. Remedial actions may include community information and participation costs and providing an alternative drinking water supply.” 63 See ARS § 49-282.06.B.4.b. 64 See ARS § 49-282.06.C.   45     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     3. Amount,   concentration,   hazardous   properties,   environmental   fate,   such   as   the   ability   to   bioaccumulate,  persistence  and  probability  of  reaching  the  waters  of  the  state,  and  the   form  of  the  substance  present;   4. Physical   factors   affecting   human   and   environmental   exposure   such   as   hydrogeology,   climate  and  the  extent  of  previous  and  expected  migration;   5. The  extent  to  which  the  amount  of  water  available  for  beneficial  use  will  be  preserved   by  a  particular  type  of  remedial  action;   6. The   technical   practicality   and   cost-­‐effectiveness   of   alternative   remedial   actions   applicable  to  the  site;  and,   7. The  availability  of  other  appropriate  federal  or  state  remedial  action  and  enforcement   mechanisms,   including,   to   the   extent   consistent   with   this   article,   funding   sources   established  under  CERCLA,  to  respond  to  the  release.     4.2   REMEDIAL  OBJECTIVES  AT  THE  WVBA  WQARF  SITE     ROs  are  goals  to  be  achieved  by  the  selected  remedy  under  an  approved  remedial  action  plan.     Final  ROs  for  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site  are  provided  in  Appendix  AA  of  the  Final  WVBA  RI  Report   for   land   use,   groundwater   use   (municipal,   agricultural,   and   commercial,   industrial,   and   domestic   uses   considered   separately),   and   surface   water   use.     The   reference   remedy   and   alternative   remedies   evaluated   for   the   RID   FS   Report   and   this   PRAP   “shall   be   capable   of   achieving  all  of  the  remedial  objectives,”65  which  have  been  established  as  follows.     4.2.1   REMEDIAL  OBJECTIVES  FOR  LAND  USE     Although  this  PRAP,  consistent  with  the  RID  FS  Report,  does  not  specifically  include  source   control  actions  associated  with  surface  and  subsurface  soils  in  developing  remedial  alternatives   for  the  regional  groundwater  remedy,  the  ROs  for  current  and  reasonably  foreseeable  land  uses   are  included  for  completeness  and  are  as  follows:   • Protect   against   possible   exposure   to   hazardous   substances   in   surface   and   subsurface   soils   that   could   occur   during   development   of   property   based   upon   applicable   zoning   regulations.   • Protect   against   possible   leaching   of   hazardous   substances   in   surface   and   subsurface   soils  to  the  groundwater.   • Protect  against  the  loss  or  impairment  of  current  and  all  reasonably  foreseeable  future   uses  of  land  as  provided  in  zoning  regulations  and  the  Land  and  Water  Use  report  as  a   result   of   hazardous   substances   in   surface   and   subsurface   soils.     Appropriate   remedial   actions   will   be   implemented   as   an   ERA   or   after   the   Record   of   Decision   (ROD)   is   finalized                                                                                                                             65   AAC R18-16-407.E.1. 46     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     whichever   is   warranted   and   continued   until   hazardous   substances   causing   the   impairment  or  restriction  to  the  land  use  are  remediated.       4.2.2   REMEDIAL  OBJECTIVES  FOR  GROUNDWATER  USE     ROs   for   groundwater   use   are   divided   into   three   subsets:   Municipal,   Agricultural   and   Commercial/Industrial/Domestic.     Each   of   these   groundwater   use   classifications   is   addressed   in   the  following  sections.     Municipal   Groundwater   Use   -­‐   Based   upon   review   of   public   comments,   which   identified   water   quality   degradation   and   the   potential   establishment   of   more   stringent   MCLs,   ADEQ’s   ROs   for   Municipal  Groundwater  Use  are  the  following:   • To   protect,   restore,   replace   or   otherwise   provide   a   water   supply   for   municipal   use   by   currently   and   reasonably   foreseeable   future   municipal   well   owners   within   the   WVBA   WQARF  Site  if  the  current  and  reasonably  foreseeable  future  uses  are  impaired  or  lost   due   to   contamination   from   the   Site.     Remedial   actions   will   be   in   place   for   as   long   as   need  for  water  exists,  the  resource  remains  available  and  the  contamination  associated   with   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   prohibits   or   limits   groundwater   use.     Remedial   actions   to   meet  ROs  will  be  implemented  upon  issuance  of  the  ROD.    If  there  is  an  imminent  risk  to   human   health   or   the   environment,   then   an   ERA   may   be   initiated   prior   to   implementation  of  the  ROD.   • To   protect,   restore,   replace   or   otherwise   provide   a   water   supply   for   municipal   groundwater   use   by   currently   and   reasonably   foreseeable   future   municipal   well   owners   outside   the   current   plume   boundaries   of   the   WVBA   WQARF   site   if   the   current   and   reasonably  foreseeable  future  uses  are  impaired  or  lost  due  to  contamination  from  the   Site.     Remedial   actions   will   be   in   place   for   as   long   as   need   for   the   water   exists,   the   resource   remains   available   and   the   contamination   associated   with   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   prohibits   or   limits   groundwater   use.   Remedial   actions   to   meet   ROs   will   be   implemented  upon  issuance  of  the  ROD.  If  there  is  an  imminent  risk  to  human  health  or   the  environment,  then  an  ERA  may  be  initiated  prior  to  implementation  of  the  ROD.     Agricultural   Groundwater   Use   -­‐   Based   upon   review   of   public   comments,   ADEQ’s   ROs   for   Agricultural  Groundwater  Use  are  as  follows:   •   To   protect,   restore,   replace   or   otherwise   provide   for   the   current   and   reasonably   foreseeable   future   supply   of   groundwater   for   agricultural/irrigation   use   and   for   the   associated   recharge   capacity   that   is   threatened   by   or   lost   due   to   contamination   associated  with  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site.    Remedial  actions  will  be  in  place  for  as  long  as   the   need   for   water   exists,   the   resource   remains   available   and   the   contamination   associated  with  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site  prohibits  or  limits  groundwater  use.    Remedial   actions   to   meet   ROs   will   be   implemented   upon   issuance   of   the   ROD.     If   there   is   an   47     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     imminent  risk  to  human  health  or  the  environment,  then  an  ERA  may  be  initiated  prior   to  implementation  of  the  ROD.     Commercial/Industrial/Domestic   Groundwater   Use   -­‐   Based   upon   review   of   public   comments,   ADEQ’s  ROs  for  Commercial,  Industrial,  and  Domestic  Groundwater  Use  are  as  follows:     • To   protect,   restore,   replace   or   otherwise   provide   a   water   supply   for   potable   or   non-­‐ potable   use   by   currently   impacted   commercial,   industrial,   and   domestic   well   owners   within   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   if   the   current   and   reasonably   foreseeable   future   uses   are   impaired  or  lost  due  to  contamination  from  the  Site.    Remedial  actions  will  be  in  place   for   as   long   as   the   need   for   water   exists,   the   resource   remains   available   and   the   contamination   associated   with   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   prohibits   or   limits   groundwater   use.    Remedial  actions  to  meet  ROs  will  be  implemented  upon  issuance  of  the  ROD.    If   there   is   imminent   risk   to   human   health   or   the   environment,   then   an   ERA   may   be   initiated  prior  to  implementation  of  the  ROD.   • To   protect,   restore,   replace   or   otherwise   provide   a   water   supply   for   potable   or   non-­‐ potable   use   by   commercial,   industrial,   and   domestic   well   owners   outside   the   current   plume  boundaries  of  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site  if  the  current  and  reasonably  foreseeable   future  uses  are  impaired  or  lost  due  to  contamination  from  the  Site.    Remedial  actions   will   be   in   place   for   as   long   as   the   need   for   the   water   exists,   the   resource   remains   available   and   the   contamination   associated   with   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   prohibits   or   limits   groundwater   use.     Remedial   actions   to   meet   ROs   will   be   implemented   upon   issuance  of  the  ROD.    If  there  is  an  imminent  risk  to  human  health  or  the  environment,   then  an  ERA  may  be  initiated  prior  to  implementation  of  the  ROD.     4.2.3   REMEDIAL  OBJECTIVES  FOR  CANAL/SURFACE  WATER  USE     ROs  for  surface  water  use  are  divided  into  two  subsets:  RID  Canal  Water  Use  and  SRP  Canal   Water  Use.    Both  of  these  surface  water  uses  are  addressed  in  the  following  sections.     RID  Canal  Water  Use  -­‐  Based  upon  review  of  public  comments,  ADEQ’s  ROs  for  RID  Canal  Water   Use  are  as  follows:   •   To   protect,   restore,   replace   or   otherwise   provide   a   water   supply   for   potable   or   non-­‐ potable  use  by  currently  impacted  RID  wells  within  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site  if  the  current   and   reasonably   foreseeable   future   uses   are   impaired   or   lost   due   to   contamination   from   the  Site.    Remedial  actions  will  be  in  place  for  as  long  as  the  need  for  water  exists,  the   resource   remains   available   and   the   contamination   associated   with   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   prohibits   or   limits   groundwater   use.     Remedial   actions   to   meet   ROs   will   be   implemented  upon  issuance  of  the  ROD.    If  there  is  an  imminent  risk  to  human  health  or   the  environment,  then  an  ERA  may  be  initiated  prior  to  implementation  of  the  ROD.     48     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     • To   protect,   restore,   replace   or   otherwise   provide   a   water   supply   for   potable   or   non-­‐ potable   use   by   RID   wells   outside   the   current   plume   boundaries   of   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   if   the   current   and   reasonably   foreseeable   future   uses   are   impaired   or   lost   due   to   contamination  from  the  Site.    Remedial  actions  will  be  in  place  for  as  long  as  the  need   for  water  exists,  the  resource  remains  available  and  the  contamination  associated  with   the  WVBA  WQARF  Site  prohibits  or  limits  groundwater  use.    Remedial  actions  to  meet   ROs   will   be   implemented   upon   issuance   of   the   ROD.     If   there   is   an   imminent   risk   to   human   health   or   the   environment,   then   an   ERA   may   be   initiated   prior   to   implementation  of  the  ROD.     SRP  Canal  Water  Use  -­‐  Based  upon  review  of  public  comments,  ADEQ’s  ROs  for  SRP  Canal   Water  Use  are  as  follows:   •   4.3   To  protect,  restore,  replace  or  otherwise  provide  a  water  supply  for  potable  or  non-­‐ potable  use  by  SRP  wells  outside  the  current  plume  boundaries  of  the  WVBA  WQARF   Site  if  the  current  and  reasonably  foreseeable  future  uses  are  impaired  or  lost  due  to   contamination  from  the  Site.    Remedial  actions  will  be  in  place  for  as  long  as  the  need   for  water  exists,  the  resource  remains  available  and  the  contamination  associated  with   the  WVBA  WQARF  Site  prohibits  or  limits  groundwater  use.    Remedial  actions  to  meet   ROs  will  be  implemented  upon  issuance  of  the  ROD.    If  there  is  an  imminent  risk  to   human  health  or  the  environment,  then  an  ERA  may  be  initiated  prior  to   implementation  of  the  ROD.   REMEDIAL  OBJECTIVES  AT  ADJACENT  SITES     The  ROs  for  CERCLA  and  WQARF  sites  adjacent  to  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site  are  provided  in  the   following  sections.     4.3.1   MOTOROLA  52ND  STREET  CERCLA  SITE     The   OU1   remedy   was   designed   to   meet   the   substantive   requirements   of   applicable   permits.   Although  not  explicitly  stated  as  a  remedial  action  objective,  the  OU1  Letter  of  Determination   indicates  that,  “the  intent  of  the  interim  remedy  is  to  be  part  of  a  final  remedy  for  the  Site  that   will   protect   human   health   and   the   environment   by   containing   the   migration   of   high   concentrations  of  VOCs  in  groundwater  via  extraction  and  treatment  to  a  level  commensurate   with   its   use.     These   efforts   would   thus   reduce   the   toxicity,   mobility,   or   volume   of   contamination   present   at   the   Site”   (ADEQ,   2011b).     The   major   components   of   the   interim   remedy   selected   include  the  following:     • Extraction   and   treatment   of   groundwater   from   the   Courtyard/50th   Street   area   at   the   M52  Facility;     49     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     • Extraction   and   treatment   of   vapor   phase   organic   contaminants   from   soils   at   the   Courtyard/50th  Street,  the  Acid  Treatment  Plant,  and  the  Southwest  Parking  Lot  areas  of   the  M52  Facility;   • Extraction   of   groundwater   designed   to   contain   contaminant   migration   in   alluvium   groundwater  (east  of)  at  the  Old  Crosscut  Canal;   • Treatment   at   the   M52   Facility   of   groundwater   extracted   from   the   Old   Crosscut   Canal   containment  system;  and   • Use   of   all   treated   groundwater   at   the   M52   Facility   to   replace   water   currently   purchased   from  the  COP.     The  primary  ROs  of  the  M52  OU2  area  are  to  establish  a  capture  zone  across  the  entire  north-­‐ south   width   and   depth   of   the   contaminant   plume   and   to   reduce   contaminant   concentrations   within   the   alluvial   aquifer   upgradient   of   the   extraction   wells.     The   major   components   of   the   selected   remedy,   as   modified   by   the   Explanation   of   Significant   Differences   (EPA,   1999)   dated   September  1999,  are:     • Installation   of   wells   and   extraction   of   groundwater   in   the   vicinity   of   Interstate   10   and   Van  Buren  Street;   • Treatment   of   extracted   groundwater   to   drinking   water   quality   standards   using   carbon   adsorption  and  ultraviolet  oxidation  at  a  treatment  plant  located  near  extraction  wells;   and,   • Discharge   of   treated   water   to   the   SRP   Grand   Canal   for   agricultural   irrigation   and   livestock  watering.     No   ROs   have   been   established   for   the   OU3   Study   Area   as   RI   activities   are   currently   being   conducted  in  the  OUS  Study  Area.     4.3.2   WEST  OSBORN  COMPLEX  WQARF  SITE     The  ROs  for  the  WCP-­‐WOC  Site  were  formalized  in  the  Remedial  Objectives  Report,  prepared  by   ADEQ,   and   dated   May   2005   (ADEQ,   2005).     The   RO   Report   for   the   WOC   Site   indicated   that   ROs   are  not  needed  for  land  use.    Current  and/or  potential  groundwater  uses  that  were  identified   within  the  WOC  Site  include:  1)  the  current  and  future  use  of  groundwater  for  drinking  water   purposes   by   the   COP;   and,   2)   the   current   and   future   use   of   SRP   wells   for   municipal   and   irrigation  use.     COP  Municipal  Use  -­‐  The  RO  for  the  COP  current  municipal  use  is:   •   To   restore,   replace,   or   otherwise   provide   for   the   COP   groundwater   supply   that   has   currently   been   lost   due   to   PCE   and/or   TCE   contamination   associated   with   the   Site.     This   action  is  needed  as  soon  as  possible.    This  action  is  needed  for  as  long  as  the  need  for   50     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     the  water  exists,  the  resource  remains  available,  and  PCE  and/or  TCE  concentrations  in   the  water  prohibit  or  limit  its  use.       The  RO  for  the  COP  future  municipal  supply  use  is:   To  protect  for  the  use  of  the  COP  municipal  groundwater  supply  threatened  by  the  PCE   and/or  TCE  contamination  emanating  from  the  Site.    According  to  the  COP,  this  use  may   be  the  year  2010.    This  action  would  be  needed  for  as  long  as  the  level  of  contamination   in  the  identified  groundwater  resource  threatens  or  prohibits  its  use.     SRP   Municipal   and   Irrigation   Use   -­‐   The   RO   for   the   SRP   current   and   future   municipal   and   irrigation  use  of  the  wells  is:   • • To  protect  for  the  use  of  the  SRP  groundwater  supply  threatened  by  the  PCE  and/or  TCE   contamination  emanating  from  the  Site.    According  to  SRP,  this  use  may  be  needed  as   soon  as  is  technically  feasible.    This  action  would  be  needed  for  as  long  as  the  level  of   contamination  in  the  identified  groundwater  resource  threatens  or  prohibits  use.     4.3.3   56TH  STREET  AND  EARLL  DRIVE  WQARF  SITE     The  major  components  of  the  early  response  action  are:     • Installation  of  wells  and  extraction  of  groundwater  located  along  the  bank  of  the  Grand   Canal  to  the  east  of  32nd  Street;   • Treatment   of   extracted   groundwater   to   drinking   water   quality   standards   using   carbon   adsorption;  and;   • Discharge  of  treated  water  to  the  SRP  Grand  Canal  for  agricultural  irrigation.     4.4   EXTENT  OF  IMPACTS  TO  AREA  WATER  PROVIDERS     There  are  five  (5)  major  water  providers  with  water  supply  wells  in  the  WVBA  vicinity:  RID,  SRP,   APS,   and   the   Cities   of   Phoenix   and   Tolleson.     Of   these   providers,   the   only   operating   water   supply   wells   currently   impacted   by   target   COCs   at   concentrations   above   applicable   AWQSs   and   MCLs  belong  to  RID.    Data  reported  in  the  RID  FS  Report  indicate  RID  has  33  operating  water   supply   wells   in   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   vicinity   of   which   24   are   actually   impacted   by   COCs,   thirteen  (13)  of  these  impacted  wells  exceed  AWQSs  and  MCLs  for  one  or  more  of  the  target   COCs,   while   the   other   eleven   (11)   impacted   RID   wells   currently   exhibit   concentrations   of   the   target   COCs   below   AWQSs   and   MCLs.     The   remaining   nine   (9)   RID   water   supply   wells   are   potentially  threatened66  by  WVBA  WQARF  Site  contamination.                                                                                                                                 66 For the purposes of identifying wells “threatened” by groundwater contamination, the FS Report and this PRAP utilized the convention defined in AAC R-18-16-405(I) that considers a well located in the area within one-quarter mile upgradient, one-half mile cross-gradient, or one mile downgradient of the areal extent of contamination at the Site as presumed to be threatened by the contamination.   51     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE       The   impact   to   other   water   providers   is   currently   limited.     COP   has   two   (2)   shallow   Parks   Department   wells   within   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   that   have   been   disconnected   from   use   since   the   mid-­‐1990s.     All   other   COP   wells   are   outside   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   and   not   currently   threatened  by  WVBA  WQARF  Site  groundwater  contamination.67     Water  supply  wells  operated  by  APS,  SRP,  and  Tolleson  that  are  within  or  downgradient  of  the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   are   potentially   threatened   or   currently   are   nominally   impacted   by   the   WVBA  WQARF  Site  groundwater  contamination;  however,  the  extent  to  which  the  wells  may  be   impacted  will  depend  on  the  actions  decided  for  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site  regional  groundwater   remedy.     In   this   regard,   certain   SRP   and   COT   wells   downgradient   of   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   groundwater   contaminant   plume   have   historically   had   low   levels   of   detectable   COC   concentrations.     As   indicated   in   the   plume   map   shown   in   Figure   2,   these   wells   are   presently   outside  of  the  estimated  extent  of  contamination  defined  by  the  5  µg/L  AWQS  plume  boundary   for   TCE   and   PCE.     To   prevent   future   impacts   to   downgradient   SRP   and   COT   wells,   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   proposed   regional   groundwater   remedy   will   require   sufficient,   sustained   groundwater  extraction  from  the  contaminated  UAU  aquifer  within  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site  to   hydraulically   contain   the   plume   and   prevent   westward   contaminant   migration   beyond   its   current  limit.       APS  has  production  wells  within  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site,  but  they  produce  water  from  the  LAU   only.     The   WVBA   Final   RI   Report   indicates   that   the   LAU   does   not   appear   to   be   contaminated   within  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site.    To  limit  future  impacts  to  deep  APS  wells,  it  will  be  important  to   monitor  vertical  gradients  and  the  potential  for  downward  groundwater  flow  and  address  any   conditions  that  could  lead  to  vertical  cross  contamination  of  aquifers.     In  consideration  of  potential  future  groundwater  use  in  this  region,  the  COP  had  indicated  its   need   to   assure   groundwater   resources   are   available   to   augment   City   drinking   water   supplies   to   reduce  drought  impacts.    In  both  the  COP’s  response  to  ADEQ’s  Land  and  Water  Use  Survey  for   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   and   its   suggested   ROs   for   the   Site,68   COP   emphasized   future   drinking   water   supply   usage   of   the   groundwater   in   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site.     However,   there   is   no   reasonable   prospect   of   the   City   installing   shallow   wells   within   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   in   the   near  future  due  to  the  fact  that  the  City  has  long-­‐standing  policies69  that  discourage  or  outright   prohibit   the   introduction   of   contaminated   groundwater   through   a   treatment   plant   directly   into   the   City   distribution   system.     Moreover,   as   is   the   case   in   the   planning   for   the   new   Western                                                                                                                             67 At least two (2) COP wells are impacted by the contaminant plume in the WOC Site to the north of the WVBA WQARF Site, but the planned WOC Site selected groundwater remedy addresses these wells. 68 COP Land and Water Use Questionnaire completed by Donn Stoltzfus, Manager, COP Environmental Program Specialist (September 21, 2007) and letter from Philip McNeeley, Manager COP Environmental Programs to Julie Riemenschneider, Manager, ADEQ Remedial Projects Section. (January 7, 2010) 69 The reference to City policies on remediated water use is based on information COP provided in Appendix E of the RID FS Report.   52     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     Canal   Well   Field,70   COP   would   be   expected,   at   least   in   the   near   future,   to   construct   any   new   water  supply  wells  exclusively  in  the  LAU  to  target  better  inorganic  water  quality.         SRP  also  has  expressed  an  interest  in  developing  water  supply  resources  in  the  area  to  augment   drinking  water  supplies  for  its  shareholders.    Similar  to  the  COP  and  RID,  SRP  has  emphasized   future   drinking   water   supply   usage   of   groundwater   in   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   and   further   indicates   the   plan   to   provide   SRP   wells   for   use   by   the   COP.71     Again,   it   is   not   reasonable   to   assume   that   SRP   would   consider   or   plan   new   shallow   wells   within   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   since   SRP   already   has   a   number   of   underutilized   wells   throughout   west   Phoenix   and   Tolleson.     These   wells   are   outside   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   and   could   be   connected   for   City   use.     More   importantly,  use  of  these  outlying  wells  would  not  conflict  with  COP  policies  that  prohibit  the   use  of  treated  groundwater  from  a  contaminated  site.           In  sum,  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site  regional  groundwater  remedy  must,  consistent  with  ARS  §  49-­‐ 282.06.B.4.b.,   protect   all   existing   water   supply   wells   that   are   not   fit   for   their   current   or   reasonably  foreseeable  water  end  uses  over  at  least  the  next  100  years,72  as  well  as  the  needs   of  the  water  providers  to  assure  their  water  supply  in  their  wells  is  not  diminished  in  quality,   quantity,   and/or   reliability   by   implementation   of   any   remedial   strategies   or   measures.     Groundwater   alternative   remedies   have   been   developed   pursuant   to   the   RID   FS   Report   to   address   the   impacted   and   threatened   water   provider   wells,   as   required   by   the   ROs   and   ARS   §§   49-­‐282.06.A.  and  49-­‐282.06.B.4.b.                                                                                                                               70 See discussion on COP water infrastructure in Section 4.6.3 of the RID FS Report. See SRP Land and Water Use Questionnaire completed by Daniel Casiaro, Manager, SRP Environmental Compliance (September 21, 2007).. 72 See AAC R18-16-406.D. 71   53     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE                                         THIS  PAGE  INTENTIONALLY  LEFT  BLANK   54   PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     5.0   NEED  FOR  REMEDIAL  ACTION     Information  from  the  Final  WVBA  RI  Report  indicates  that  VOCs  are  prevalent  in  groundwater   throughout   a   large   portion   of   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site.     The   data   indicate   widespread   VOC   contamination  within  the  UAU  and,  to  a  significantly  lesser  degree,  the  MAU  by  TCE,  PCE,  1,1-­‐ DCE,  and  other  compounds  that  may  be  breakdown  products.    Three  (3)  target  COCs  (TCE,  PCE   and  1,1-­‐DCE)  are  present  in  groundwater  within  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site  at  concentrations  that   exceed  the  applicable  numeric  and  narrative  AWQSs73  and  MCLs.74    Terranext  (2012)  indicates   that   PCE   is   the   predominant   COC   for   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site.     Although   this   may   be   true   in   terms  of  the  magnitude  of  contamination  detected  historically  within  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site,  at   present  TCE  occurs  as  prevalently,  if  not  more  so,  than  PCE.    In  fact  based  on  data  reported  in   the   first   quarter   2013   (Terranext,   2013)   and   provided   in   Table   1,   52   of   the   94   UAU   monitor   wells   sampled   have   detectable   PCE   concentrations   while   56   of   the   94   UAU   monitor   wells   sampled  have  detectable  TCE  levels.    The  maximum  PCE  concentration  measured  at  this  time   was   87.5  µg/L   at   well   AVB  119-­‐01,   whereas   the   maximum   TCE   concentration   was   177  µg/L   at   well  AVB  132-­‐01.         Accordingly  and  as  described  in  the  RID  FS  Report,  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site  regional  groundwater   remedy   must,   consistent   with   the   applicable   numeric   and   narrative   aquifer   water   quality   standards75   and   the   applicable   remedial   action   criteria   in   ARS   §   49-­‐282.06.A   requiring   “protection  of  public  health,  welfare  and  the  environment”  and  the  “control,  management  or   cleanup   of   the   hazardous   substances   in   order   to   allow   the   maximum   beneficial   use   of   the   waters   of   the   state,”   achieve   containment   of   the   VOC-­‐contamination   to   protect   the   groundwater   from   further   degradation,   remediate   the   contaminant   groundwater   to   achieve   applicable  aquifer  water  quality  standards  for  the  target  VOCs  in  waters  of  the  state,  address   the   uncontrolled   emissions   of   hazardous   VOCs   into   the   local   community,   and   treat   the   extracted  contaminated  groundwater  to  maximize  the  beneficial  end  use  of  the  contaminated   groundwater  to  meet  the  reasonably  foreseeable  end  use  of  the  WVBA  aquifer.       Additionally   and   as   noted   in   the   previous   section,   there   are   five   (5)   major   water   providers   with   water  supply  wells  in  the  WVBA  vicinity:  RID,  SRP,  APS,  and  the  Cities  of  Phoenix  and  Tolleson.                                                                                                                               73   Arizona   has   established   enforceable   numeric   AWQSs   based   upon   EPA’s   primary   drinking   water   quality   MCL  standards  because  all  aquifers  in  Arizona  are  classified  for  drinking  water  protected  use.    See  ARS  §  49-­‐ 224.B.,   ARS   §   49-­‐223.A.,   and   AAC   R18-­‐11-­‐406.   In   addition   to   the   enforceable   numeric   AWQSs,   Arizona   has   established  the  following  enforceable  narrative  AWQSs:  a  discharge  shall  not  cause  a  pollutant  to  be  present   in   an   aquifer   classified   for   a   drinking   water   protected   use   in   a   concentration   which   endangers   human   health;   a   discharge   shall   not   cause   or   contribute   to   a   violation   of   a   water   quality   standard   established   for   a   navigable   water   of   the   state;   and   a   discharge   shall   not   cause   a   pollutant   to   be   present   in   an   aquifer   which   impairs   existing  or  reasonably  foreseeable  uses  of  water  in  an  aquifer.  See  ARS  §  49-­‐221.D.  and  AAC  R18-­‐11-­‐405.   74 EPA has established primary MCLs as enforceable drinking water standards determined by balancing the adverse health effects of a particular chemical against the feasibility and cost of treating contaminated water. Arizona has adopted EPA’s primary MCLs as enforceable state drinking water quality standards. See AAC R18-4-104. 75 ARS § 49-221.A and D, 49-223.A, 49-224.B, AAC R18-11-405 and 406.   55     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     Of   these   providers,   the   only   operating   water   supply   wells   currently   impacted   by   target   COCs   at   concentrations  above  applicable  AWQSs  and  MCLs  belong  to  RID.    Data  reported  in  the  RID  FS   Report   indicate   RID   has   33   operating   water   supply   wells   in   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   vicinity   of   which  24  are  actually  impacted  by  COCs,  thirteen  (13)  of  these  impacted  wells  exceed  AWQSs   and  MCLs  for  one  or  more  of  the  target  COCs  (maximum  concentration  of  22.1  µg/L  for  PCE  at   well   RID-­‐106   and   86.4  µg/L   for   TCE   at   well   RID-­‐92),   while   the   other   eleven   (11)   impacted   RID   wells   currently   exhibit   concentrations   of   the   target   COCs   below   AWQSs   and   MCLs.     The   remaining   nine   (9)   RID   water   supply   wells   are   potentially   threatened76   by   WVBA   WQARF   Site   contamination.     As  discussed  earlier,  other  water  providers  either  are  not  impacted  by  the  contamination  (wells   outside   the   WVBA   boundary   or   deep   wells   limited   to   the   non-­‐contaminated   LAU)   or   are   threatened  to  exceed  AWQSs  and  MCLs  if  the  contamination  is  not  sufficiently  contained.    To   limit   future   impacts   to   deep   wells,   it   will   be   important   to   monitor   vertical   gradients   and   the   potential   for   downward   groundwater   flow   and   address   any   conditions   that   could   lead   to   vertical   cross   contamination   of   aquifers.     To   prevent   future   impacts   to   downgradient   wells,   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   proposed   regional   groundwater   remedy   will   require   sufficient,   sustained   groundwater  extraction  from  the  contaminated  UAU  aquifer  within  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site  to   hydraulically   contain   the   plume   and   prevent   westward   contaminant   migration   beyond   its   current  limit.     Accordingly,   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   regional   groundwater   remedy   also   must,   consistent   with   ARS  §  49-­‐282.06.B.4.b.,  protect  all  existing  water  supply  wells  that  are  not  fit  for  their  current   or   reasonably   foreseeable   water   end   uses   over   at   least   the   next   100   years,77   as   well   as   the   needs   of   the   water   providers   to   assure   their   water   supply   in   their   wells   is   not   diminished   in   quality,  quantity,  and/or  reliability  by  implementation  of  any  remedial  strategies  or  measures.78     Groundwater   alternative   remedies   in   the   FS   Report   were   developed   to   address   the   impacted   and  threatened  water  provider  wells,  as  required  by  the  ROs  and  ARS  §§  49-­‐282.06.A.  and  49-­‐ 282.06.B.4.b.                                                                                                                           76 See footnote 66. See AAC R18-16-406.D. 78 AAC R18-16-407.G. 77   56     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     6.0   SUMMARY  OF  REMEDIAL  STRATEGIES  AND  REMEDIAL  MEASURES  IN  RID   FS  REPORT     The  RID  FS  Report  presented  the  evaluation  process  used  in  developing  and  selecting  remedial   technologies,  remedial  measures,  prescribed  remedial  strategies  and  discharge  considerations.     Pursuant  to  ARS  §  49-­‐287.03,  the  “feasibility  study  shall  …  include  an  alternative  screening  step   to   select   a   reasonable   number   of   alternatives   in   a   manner   consistent   with   the   rules   and   procedures   adopted   pursuant   to   section   49-­‐282.06.”     Consistent   with   ARS   §   49-­‐282.06.B.4.,   ADEQ’s  “rules  shall  provide  for  the  selection  of  a  remedial  action  by  comparison  of  alternative   remedial   actions,   which   may   include   no   action,   monitoring,   source   control,   controlled   migration,  physical  containment,  [and]  plume  remediation.”    Furthermore,  ARS  §  49-­‐282.06.B.4   requires   that   “the   selected   remedial   action   meet   the   requirements   of   [ARS   §   49.282.06.A.]   and   [ARS   §   49-­‐282.06.B.4.b.]   for   remediation   of   waters   of   the   state.”     These   mandated   statutory   requirements  for  a  selected  remedial  action  include:   1. Assure  the  protection  of  public  health  and  welfare  and  the  environment;   2. To   the   extent   practicable,   provide   for   the   control,   management   and   cleanup   of   the   hazardous  substances  in  order  to  allow  for  the  maximum  beneficial  use  of  the  waters  of   the  state;   3. Be  reasonable,  necessary,  cost  effective  and  technically  feasible;  and,   4. Address,   at   a   minimum,   any   well   that   at   the   time   of   selection   of   the   remedial   action   either  supplies  water  for  municipal,  domestic,  industrial,  irrigation  or  agricultural  uses  or   is  part  of  a  public  water  system  if  the  well  would  now  or  in  the  reasonably  foreseeable   future  produce  water  that  would  not  be  fit  for  its  current  or  reasonably  foreseeable  use   without  treatment  due  to  the  release  of  hazardous  substances.       According   to   the   rules   adopted   pursuant   to   ARS   §   49-­‐282.06,   AAC   R18-­‐16-­‐407.E.1   requires   that   the   reference   remedy   and   each   alternative   remedy   shall   consist   of   a   remedial   strategy   and   specify  all  remedial  measures  to  be  employed.    Importantly,  the  combination  of  the  remedial   strategy   and   the   remedial   measures   for   each   alternative   also   must   achieve   all   the   ROs   (as   described   in   Section   4).79     Furthermore,   pursuant   to   ARS   §   49-­‐282.06.B.4.b.,   the   “specific   measures  to  address  any  such  well  [protected  by  ARS  §  49-­‐282.06.B.4.b.]  shall  not  reduce  the   supply  of  water  available  to  the  owner  of  the  well.”     The   reference   remedy   and   alternative   remedies   also   may   incorporate   different   strategies   for   different  aquifers  or  portions  of  aquifers  and  also  may  include  contingent  remedial  strategies  or   measures  to  address  reasonable  uncertainties  regarding  achievement  of  ROs  or  uncertainty  in   the  time-­‐frames  in  which  the  ROs  are  expected  to  be  achieved.80                                                                                                                           79 80   AAC R18-16-407.E.1 Ibid. 57     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     Based   on   this   process,   a   Reference   Remedy   was   developed   along   with   three   alternative   remedies   referred   to   as   a   Less   Aggressive   Remedy,   More   Aggressive   Remedy   and   Most   Aggressive   Remedy   for   comparison   in   the   FS   Report.   The   Reference   Remedy   and   each   alternative   remedy  consist  of  a  remedial  strategies  and  measures  to  achieve  the  cleanup  goals   specified   in   Section   4.1   that   includes   the   statutory   remedial   requirements   and   the   ROs   established  by  ADEQ  for  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site.         6.1   REMEDIAL  STRATEGIES     As   provided   in   A.A.C.   Rl8-­‐16-­‐407(F),   remedial   strategies  that   were   considered   when   developing   the  Reference  Remedy  and  each  alternative  remedy   included  one  or  more  of  the  following:   • Plume   remediation   to   achieve   applicable   water-­‐quality   standards   for   COCs   in   waters  of  the   state  throughout  the  Site;   • Physical  containment  to  contain  contaminants  within  definite  boundaries;   • Controlled   migration   to   control   the   direction   or   rate   of   migration,   but   not   necessarily  to  contain  migration  of  contaminants;   • Source  control  to  eliminate  or  mitigate  a  continuing  source  of  contamination;   • Monitoring   to   observe   and   evaluate   the   contamination   at   the   Site   through   the   collection  of  data;  and   • No  action.     Remedial   strategies   form   the   framework   of   the   possible   remedies   and,   by   incorporating   remedial   measures,   define   the   detailed   approach   for   implementing   the   selected   remedy.   Therefore,   in   determining   which   strategies   are   suitable   for   achieving   a   compliant   regional   groundwater   remedy   at   the  WVBA   WQARF   Site,   each   strategy   was   considered   in   the   context   of   whether   the   strategy   is   capable   of   achieving   the   legal   requirements.     The   screening   and   suitability  of  each  of  these  remedial  strategies  is  discussed  in  Section  5  of  the  RID  FS  Report  and   those   strategies   incorporated   in   the   Reference   Remedy   and   each   alternative   remedy   are   summarized  in  Section  7  of  the  RID  FS  Report.     As   noted   in   the   RID   FS   Report,   source   control   is   not   applicable   and,   therefore,   not   explicitly   included  in  the  reference  or  alternative  remedies  on  the  belief,  as  stated  in  the  FS  Work  Plan   (Synergy,   2013c),   that   actions   taken   to   date   under   ADEQ   oversight81   have   adequately   characterized   and   addressed   the   known   sources   of   hazardous   substances   that   may   be   impacting  groundwater.    Although  these  historical  source  control  activities  were  not  featured  in   the   RID   FS   Report,   the   actions   have   beneficially   lessened   COC   mass   loading82   to   UAU                                                                                                                             81 According to Section 4.2 of the Final WVBA RI Report, there have been source investigations at nearly 50 facilities within and adjacent to the WVBA WQARF Site. 82 For example, source control at the ALSCo and Dolphin facilities appears to have significantly reduced PCE   58     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     groundwater   by   removing   continuing   sources   of   groundwater   contamination.       Should   any   further   information   arise   that   identifies   the   need   to   address   a   known   source   or   a   presently   undefined   source   of   hazardous   substances,   it   is   assumed   that   ADEQ   will,   independent   of   the   groundwater   remedy,   assure   that   necessary   actions   are   taken   to   remediate   or   control   the   hazardous  substances  causing  the  impairment  or  restriction  to  groundwater  use.       6.2     REMEDIAL  MEASURES     In   developing   alternative   remedies,   all   necessary   remedial   measures   must   “achieve   remedial   objectives   [and]   satisfy   the   requirements   of   ARS   §   49-­‐282.B.4.b.”83     The   remedial   measures   “shall   be   identified   in   consultation   with   water   providers   or   known   well   owners   whose   water   supplies  are  affected  by  the  release  or  threatened  release  of  a  hazardous  substance.”    Remedial   measures,  as  discussed  in  AAC  R18-­‐16-­‐407.G,  may  include  but  are  not  limited  to:   • Well  Replacement   • Well  Modification   • Water  Treatment   • Provision  of  Replacement  Water  Supplies   • Engineering  Controls     Each  of  these  remedial  measures  is  discussed  in  more  detail  in  the  following  sections  along  with   their  suitability  for  continued  consideration  given  the  unique  WVBA  WQARF  Site  characteristics   and   the   applicable   statutory   and   regulatory   requirements.     Specifically,   each   remedial   measure   must  meet  all  the  ROs  established  by  ADEQ  for  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site,  satisfy  the  requirements   of  ARS  §  49-­‐282.06.B.4.b.  and  consider  the  needs  of  affected  water  providers  and  known  well   owners,  including:   1. Quantity  and  quality  of  water;   2. Water  rights  and  other  legal  constraints  on  water  supplies;   3. Reliability  of  water  supplies;  and,     4. Operational  implications.     The  screening  and  suitability  of  each  of  these  remedial  measures  is  discussed  in  Section  5  of  the   RID   FS   Report   and   those   measures   incorporated   in   the   Reference   Remedy   and   each   alternative   remedy   are   summarized   in   Section   7   of   the   RID   FS   Report.     The   Reference   Remedy   and   each   alternative   remedy   also   include,   if   necessary,   contingent   remedial   strategies   or   remedial   measures   to   address  reasonable   uncertainties   regarding  the  achievement   of  cleanup  goals,  or   uncertain  time  frames  in  which  cleanup  goals  will  be  achieved.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           concentrations from potential DNAPL sources, as discussed in Section 3. 83 AAC R18-16-407.G   59     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE                                 THIS  PAGE  INTENTIONALLY  LEFT  BLANK     60     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     7.0   SUMMARY  OF  GROUNDWATER  REMEDIES  EVALUATED  IN  RID  FS  REPORT       Four   (4)   groundwater   alternative   remedies   were   fully   described   and   evaluated   in   Section   7   and   8  of  the  RID  FS  Report  as  a  potential  regional  groundwater  remedy  for  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site,   and  in  simplest  terms,  the  main  elements  consist  of:     7.1   REFERENCE  REMEDY     Installing   wellhead   treatment   at   nine   (9)   impacted   wells,   extracting   and   treating   the   contaminated  groundwater  from  those  wells  and  blending  of  four  (4)  other  impacted  wells  that   would  be  operated  to  achieve  both  applicable  AWQSs  and  MCL  water  quality  for  all  current  and   reasonably   foreseeable   water   end   uses   at   all   wells   of   the   existing   water   providers   within   or   adjacent   to   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site.     Two   (2)   replacement   wells   would   be   drilled   to   enhance   hydraulic   capture   in   critical   areas   of   plume   containment   and   to   restore   any   reduction   in   the   available  supply  of  water  caused  by  addressing  impacted  wells.     7.2   LESS  AGGRESSIVE  ALTERNATIVE  REMEDY     Reducing   the   scale   of   the   Reference   Remedy   by   installing   wellhead   treatment   at   six   (6)   impacted  wells,  extracting  and  treating  the  contaminated  groundwater  and  blending  of  six  (6)   other  impacted  wells  to  achieve  both  applicable  AWQSs  and  MCL  water  quality  for  all  current   and  reasonably  foreseeable  water  end  uses  at  all  wells  of  the  existing  water  providers  within  or   adjacent   to   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site.     Only   one   (1)   replacement   well   would   be   drilled   to   address   and   achieve   both   applicable   AWQSs   and   MCL   water   quality   for   all   current   and   reasonably   foreseeable   water   end   uses   at   one   (1)   other   impacted   well,   as   well   as   to   enhance   hydraulic   capture   in   critical   areas   of   plume   containment   and   to   restore   any   reduction   in   the   available   supply  of  water  caused  by  addressing  impacted  wells.     7.3   MORE  AGGRESSIVE  ALTERNATIVE  REMEDY     All   elements   of   the   Less   Aggressive   Remedy   plus   proposed   modifications   at   five   (5)   wells   in   peripheral   areas   most   threatened   by   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   plume   to   reconfigure   the   wells   for   injection  of  underutilized  effluent  that  is  available  during  low  irrigation  demand  periods.     7.4   MOST  AGGRESSIVE  ALTERNATIVE  REMEDY     Installing  wellhead  treatment  and  extracting  and  treating  contaminated  groundwater  at  all  13   impacted  wells  that  exceed  AWQSs  and  MCLs  for  the  VOC  groundwater  contaminants.     61     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE                           THIS  PAGE  INTENTIONALLY  LEFT  BLANK         62     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     8.0   EVALUATION  OF  ALTERNATIVE  REMEDIES  IN  RID  FS  REPORT     In   the   RID   FS   Report,   the   Reference   Remedy   and   alternative   remedies84   were   compared   to   determine   which   remedy   should   be   proposed   as   the   regional   groundwater   remedy   and   subjected  to  the  regulatory  process  described  in  A.A.C.  R18-­‐16-­‐408  (Proposed  Remedial  Action   Plan).     Therefore,   the   four   (4)   remedies   described   in   Section   7   were   evaluated   in   the   RID   FS   Report  using  the  comparison  criteria  described  in  the  following  section  to  enable  detailed  and   methodical  consideration  of  each  remedial  alternative.       8.1   EVALUATION  CRITERIA     In   accordance   with   the   remedy   selection   process   described  in  A.A.C.  R18-­‐16-­‐407,   the   RID   FS   Report  was   conducted  to  ensure  achievement  of  all  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site  groundwater  ROs   and  to  satisfy  the  requirements  of  ARS  §  49-­‐282.06,  including  specifically  ARS  §  49-­‐262.06.B.4.b.     During   the   FS,   the   possible   remedies   were   developed   with   consideration   of   the   water   resource   needs   of   the   water   providers   within   WVBA   WQARF   Site   and   specifically   formulated   to   best   address   the   impacts   and   threats   to   the   wells   and   water   supply   of   said   water   providers   consistent   with   applicable   groundwater   remedial   action   requirements   under   the   Arizona   WQARF   program.     The   RID   FS   Report   included   a   detailed   comparative   evaluation   of   the   Reference  Remedy  and  alternative  remedies.    For  each  alternative,  the  comparison  included  a   demonstration  that  all  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site  groundwater  ROs  will  be  achieved,  an  evaluation   of  consistency  with  the  water  management  plans  of  affected  water  providers  and  an  evaluation   of  the  practicality,  risk,  cost  and  benefit/value  analysis  as  set  forth  in  AAC  R18-­‐16-­‐407.H.3.     8.1.1   ACHIEVEMENT  OF  ALL  REMEDIAL  OBJECTIVES  (ROs):     As   noted,   the   scope   of   the   RID   FS   Report   and   this   PRAP   is   to   identify   possible   regional   groundwater   remedies   to   address   the   target   COCs   in   groundwater   within   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site,   which   also   has   been   commingled   with   target   COCs   from   adjacent   regional   groundwater   contaminant  sites.    Consequently,  the  RID  FS  Report  and  this  PRAP  are  focused  on  groundwater   contamination  and  addressing  the  impacts  to  water  providers  as  defined  in  Section  4.4  (Extent   of  Impact  to  Area  Water  Providers)  and  protecting,  at  a  minimum,  all  “current  and  reasonably   foreseeable   water   end   uses”   as   defined   in   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   RO   Report.85     As   shown   in   Table  6,  all  identified  groundwater  remedial  alternatives  meet  essential  WQARF  requirements   established  to  assure  the  proposed  regional  groundwater  remedy,  at  a  minimum,  meets  all  ROs   for  “current  and  reasonably  foreseeable  water  end  uses”  within  and  outside  the  WVBA  WQARF   Site.                                                                                                                                 84 Throughout this section, the Reference Remedy and alternative remedies will be referred to as an “alternative remedy.” 85 See ARS § 49-282.06.B.4.b.   63     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE       The   detailed   analysis   provided   for   each   groundwater   alternative   remedy   described   in   Section   7   of  the  RID  FS  Report  identified  the  specific  remedial  measures,  including  proposed  actions  that   would  be  taken  to  treat,  replace  or  otherwise  modify  water  provider  wells,  to  assure  all  ROs  are   achieved.    The  proposed  actions  of  each  alternative  will  assure  that  all  impacted  water  provider   wells,  principally  RID  wells,  which  are  not  suitable  for  current  or  reasonably  foreseeable  water   end  uses  without  treatment  are  adequately  addressed.    Where  information  is  uncertain,  such   as   the   current   situation   affecting   the   inactive   COP   wells,   potential   requirements   to   address   the   wells  are  identified  as  a  contingency.    Importantly,  the  proposed  actions  to  address  impacted   wells   within   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   contaminant   plume   will   ensure   that   water   provider   wells   downgradient   from   or   peripheral   to   the   plume   that   are   less   impacted   or   threatened   by   the   contamination  are  protected  for  their  “current  and  reasonably  foreseeable  water  end  uses.” With   regard   to   WVBA   WQARF   Site   ROs   associated   with   land   use   and   impacts,   numerous   facility   investigations  have  been  conducted  throughout  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site  over  the  past  25  years   to  characterize  and  remediate  the  impacts  of  hazardous  substance  releases.    The  scope  of  the   RID  FS  Report  and  this  PRAP,  which  addresses  a  regional  groundwater  remedy,  does  not  include   past  or  future  work  to  address  soil  contamination  at  sources  areas,  nor  the  impacts,  if  any,  on   the   loss   or   impairment   to   land   uses.     Instead,   the   FS   assumed,   as   does   this   PRAP,   that   the   actions   taken   under   ADEQ   oversight   have   adequately   addressed   the   known   sources   of   hazardous  substances  impacting  surface  and  subsurface  soils  and  the  potential  this  may  have  to   cause  a  loss  or  impairment  of  land  use.    Further,  should  any  additional  information  arise  that   identifies  the  need  to  address  a  presently  unknown  source  of  hazardous  substances  in  surface   or   subsurface   soil,   it   is   assumed   that   ADEQ   will   assure   that   actions   taken   will   not   adversely   impact  or  impair  land  uses  in  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site.     8.1.2   CONSISTENCY  WITH  WATER  AND  LAND  USE  PLANS     As  discussed  above  and  shown  in  Table  6,  all  identified  groundwater  remedial  alternatives  meet   all  essential  WQARF  requirements  that  have  been  established  to  assure  the  proposed  regional   groundwater   remedy   meets   the   water   management   needs   of   affected   water   providers.     Specifically,   as   it   pertains   to   RID,   the   identified   remedial   alternatives   evaluated   in   the   RID   FS   Report   and   discussed   in   this   PRAP   are   consistent   with   established   RID   policy   to   assure:   1)   all   wells  located  in  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site  that  are  contaminated  with  hazardous  substances  are   remediated   to   mitigate   the   actual   and/or   potential   harm   to   public   health,   welfare,   and   the   environment,   2)   discharges   or   delivery   of   remediated   water   into   the   RID   water   distribution   system   meet   MCLs   and   AWQSs   for   the   COCs,   and   3)   response   actions   developed   to   protect   RID   wells   provide   for   the   maximum   beneficial   use   of   the   water   supply   and   do   not   reduce   the   quantity  of  water  available  to  RID.         The   groundwater   remedial   alternatives   evaluated   in   the   RID   FS   Report   and   described   in   this   PRAP   also   were   developed   in   consideration   of   the   stated   water   management   plans,   policies,     64     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     and  future  needs  of  COP  and  SRP,  as  documented  in  Section  4.    In  particular,  as  expressed  in   suggested   ROs   by   COP   (2010a),   the   objective   of   the   groundwater   remedy   “should   be   for   the   long-­‐term   groundwater   use”   and   “where   treatment   is   necessary   to   protect   future   long-­‐term   groundwater  use,  the  remedy  should  include  measures  to  provide  for  the  long-­‐term  operation   and   maintenance   of   reliable   and   cost-­‐effective   water   treatment   technologies.”     The   City   further   noted,   “[a]s   an   interim   measure,   the   water   produced   from   the   contaminated   area   during   remediation   that   is   intended   for   irrigation   or   non-­‐potable   uses,   should   be   applied,   or   if   necessary,   treated   appropriately   to   prevent   a   health   risk   to   the   end   users   or   others   with   an   exposure  pathway  to  the  water.”    Although  there  are  currently  limited  impacts  to  these  water   providers,   all   the   groundwater   remedial   alternatives   evaluated   in   the   RID   FS   Report   and   described   in   this   PRAP   will   ensure   that   COP,   SRP,   and   other   water   provider   wells   that   are   threatened  by  the  contamination  are  protected  for  their  “current  and  reasonably  foreseeable   water  end  uses.”         With  regard  to  land  use  plans,  the  scope  of  the  RID  FS  Report  and  this  PRAP,  which  addresses  a   regional   groundwater   remedy   for   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site,   was   anticipated   to   have   relatively   limited   impacts   to   land   use.     In   general,   land   use   impacts   are   primarily   associated   with   site   improvements  proposed  at  RID  well  sites  and  along  RID  conveyance  canals  on  land  owned  by   RID  or  within  established  RID  easements  and  rights-­‐of-­‐way.    As  a  municipal  corporation,  RID  is   not   subject   to   City   requirements   that   typically   apply   to   privately   owned   properties,   such   as   zoning,  use  permits,  plan  reviews,  and  inspections.    In  implementing  the  selected  remedy,  RID  is   the  best  party  to  assure  the  remedial  measures  do  not  excessively  impair  land  use  and  will  lead   the   design   and   construction   effort   of   the   selected   regional   groundwater   remedy   to   appropriately  manage  the  impact  to  RID  lands  and  easements.     Remedial  measures  identified  for  all  four  (4)  of  the  groundwater  remedial  alternatives  involve  a   select  number  of  new  wellhead  treatment  systems  where  it  will  be  necessary  to  acquire  land  to   build  out  the  remedy  components.    Installation  of  liquid  phase  granular  activated  carbon  (LGAC)   treatment  systems  will  impact  land  use  in  vicinity  of  these  wells.  Review  of  aerial  photographs   of   the   well   sites   targeted   for   treatment   indicates   there   is   generally   vacant   or   undeveloped   land   adjacent  to  these  wells,  the  surrounding  land  use  is  commercial  and  industrial,  and  the  planned   remedial  measures  are  consistent  with  existing  land  uses.     8.1.3   PRACTICABILITY     Each  of  the  four  (4)  groundwater  alternative  remedies  presented  and  evaluated  in  the  RID  FS   Report   and   described   in   this   PRAP   is   considered   to   be   technically   feasible   and   operationally   practicable.      While  all  alternatives  are  generally  practicable,  they  each  involve  differing  levels   of   added   infrastructure,   as   shown   below,   which   differentiates   them   based   on   the   associated   level  of  effort  of  implementation.       65     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE         Reference  Remedy   Less  Aggressive   More  Aggressive   Most  Aggressive   Number  of   Existing   Treatment   Skids86   9   9   9   9   Number  of   New   Treatment   Skids   12   5   5   22   Number  of   Replacement   Wells   2   1   1   2   Number  of   Existing  Wells   Reconfigured  as   ASR  Wells   0   0   5   0    ASR  =  Aquifer  Storage  and  Recovery     From   an   ease   of   implementation   standpoint,   the   Less   Aggressive   groundwater   alternative   remedy  is  a  significantly  more  viable  option  than  the  other  groundwater  alternative  remedies  in   that  it  requires  the  installation  of  only  two  (2)  additional  wellhead  treatment  systems  (a  total  of   five  [5]  new  treatment  skids)  and  a  single  replacement  well.    The  Reference  Remedy  and  More   Aggressive   groundwater   alternative   remedy   are   considered   more   challenging   in   implementation,  primarily  due  to  the  added  water  treatment  infrastructure  and  corresponding   need   to   expand   access   and   acquire   land   to   facilitate   the   proposed   remedial   measures.     The   Most   Aggressive   groundwater   alternative   remedy   is   the   least   practicable   of   the   groundwater   alternative   remedies   evaluated   due   to   the   substantially   greater   requirements   associated   with   access   and   land   acquisition   for   installation   of   water   treatment   systems   at   nine   (9)   additional   well  sites.         8.1.4   RISK     All   of   the   four   (4)   groundwater   alternative   remedies   presented   and   evaluated   in   the   RID   FS   Report  and  described  in  this  PRAP  reduce  the  risk  of  imminent  and  substantial  endangerment   to   public   health   and   welfare   by   substantially   reducing   uncontrolled   releases   of   hazardous   substances   into   the   environment   through   the   use   of   installed   treatment   systems.     The   Most   Aggressive   groundwater   alternative   remedy,   however,   provides   the   highest   level   of   risk   reduction  compared  to  the  other  remedies  since  it  includes  wellhead  treatment  on  the  largest   number   of   impacted   wells   (all   13   wells   exceeding   AWQSs/MCLs),   would   remove   the   largest   amount  of  contaminants  from  the  environment,  and  does  not  rely  on  blending  to  achieve  MCLs.         The   Reference   Remedy   consists   of   wellhead   treatment   on   nine   (9)   wells   and   both   the   Less   Aggressive   and   the   More   Aggressive   groundwater   alternative   remedies   consist   of   wellhead   treatment   on   six   (6)   wells.     The   relative   differences   in   risk   reduction,   however,   are   not   proportional   since   the   six   (6)   wellhead   treatment   systems   conceived   in   the   Less   and   More                                                                                                                             86 A treatment skid consists of two (2) GAC vessels and appurtenant piping that are operated in series to provide treatment of VOC-contaminated groundwater in a lead/lag configuration. Each of the treatment vessels contains a nominal 20,000 pounds of GAC.   66     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     Aggressive   groundwater   alternative   remedies   address   the   six   (6)   most   highly   contaminated   wells   in   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   and   the   additional   wells   treated   in   the   Reference   and   Most   Aggressive   groundwater   alternative   remedies   are   considerably   lower   in   contaminant   concentration  (as  shown  in  Table  2).         In  numerical  terms,  the  amount  of  projected  target  COC  mass  removal  associated  with  each  of   the   proposed   groundwater   alternative   remedies   does   not   vary   significantly,   ranging   from   an   estimated   77   to   91   percent   of   the   total   contaminant   mass   that   is   currently   extracted   by   RID   wells  and  released  to  the  environment:   • the  Reference  Remedy  removes  approximately  83%  of  the  total  mass  of  VOCs   estimated  to  be  released  into  the  environment  each  year;     • the  Less  Aggressive  groundwater  alternative  remedy  removes  approximately  77%  of   the  total  mass  of  VOCs  estimated  to  be  released  into  the  environment  each  year;     • the  More  Aggressive  groundwater  alternative  remedy  removes  approximately  77%  of   the  total  mass  of  VOCs  estimated  to  be  released  into  the  environment  each  year;  and,     • the  Most  Aggressive  groundwater  alternative  remedy  removes  approximately  91%  of   the  total  mass  of  VOCs  estimated  to  be  released  into  the  environment  each  year.     In  addition,  each  of  the  groundwater  alternative  remedies  incorporates  identical  volatilization   control   measures   to   mitigate   COC   exposure   pathways   to   the   public.     These   measures   include   elimination  of  point  source  emissions  at  wellhead  and  lateral  discharges.    These  measures  also   include   enclosing   the   few   remaining   open   sections   of   the   RID-­‐92   lateral   and   the   Salt   Canal.     Consequently,  the  small  mass  of  VOCs  that  are  not  removed  by  direct  remedial  measures  will   pose  a  reduced  risk  to  the  public.     8.1.5   COST     The  estimated  costs  for  the  four  (4)  groundwater  alternative  remedies  presented  and  evaluated   in   the   RID   FS   Report   and   this   PRAP   are   presented   in   Table   4.     The   Capital   and   O&M   cost   estimates,  rounded  to  the  nearest  $100,000,  are  summarized  as  follows:       Capital  Expense   Annual  O&M   Reference  Remedy   $  13,600,000   $  3,000,000   Less  Aggressive   $    9,400,000   $  2,000,000   Alternative  Remedy   More  Aggressive   $  14,600,000   $  2,200,000   Alternative  Remedy   Most  Aggressive   $  19,500,000   $  4,200,000   Alternative  Remedy       67     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     Projection  of  the  30-­‐year  and  50-­‐year  net  present  value  costs  (present  worth)  of  the  proposed   groundwater   alternative   remedies   are   presented   in   Table   5   and   summarized   below.     These   values   (rounded   to   the   nearest   $100,000)   assume   that   the   capital   and   O&M   costs   indicated   above   would   be   incurred   beginning   in   2015   and   annual   cash   flows   for   estimated   O&M   costs   continue   for   the   long-­‐term   future   without   adjustment   for   inflation.     Periodic   costs   for   equipment   maintenance,   repair,   and/or   replacement   are   accounted   for   as   a   recurring   three   (3)   percent  expense  (based  on  equipment  costs),  included  in  the  annual  O&M  cost  roll-­‐up.           Reference  Remedy   Less  Aggressive   Alternative  Remedy   More  Aggressive   Alternative  Remedy   Most  Aggressive   Alternative  Remedy   30-­‐Year  Present   Worth   $  73,300,000   50-­‐Year  Present  Worth   $  92,000,000   $  50,800,000   $  63,800,000   $  58,900,000   $  72,700,000   $  103,600,000   $  130,000,000     The  present  worth  calculations  includes  a  three  (3)  percent  discount  rate  applied  to  account  for   the  time  value  of  money.    The  use  of  this  discount  factor87  is  for  comparative  cost  estimation   purposes   only   and   has   not   been   analyzed   in   terms   of   whether   this   discount   rate   would   satisfactorily   establish   the   level   of   long-­‐term   funding   necessary   to   cover   the   cost   of   future   expenditures  through  established  financial  mechanisms  such  as  a  trust  fund.     As   evidenced   by   this   cost   summary,   the   Less   Aggressive   groundwater   alternative   remedy   is   considerably   less   expensive   than   the   other   groundwater   alternative   remedies   in   terms   of   capital   expense,   annual   O&M   and   the   resulting   30-­‐year   and   50-­‐year   present   worth   projections.88    In  comparison  to  remedial  actions  underway  at  other  WQARF  and  CERCLA  sites   in   Phoenix   and   Tucson,   the   Less   Aggressive   groundwater   alternative   remedy   is   particularly   cost   effective  (Table  7).                                                                                                                               87 A three (3) percent discount rate was used in lieu of the higher rate (e.g. 7%) specified by EPA guidance document (EPA, 2000) to reflect the currently lower productivity costs of capital. The 3% rate reflects an estimate of the private sector cost of capital for which the inflation premium has been removed. In contrast, based on economic assumptions included in the 2015 Federal Budget, the US Office of Management and Budget (OMB) currently uses a 1.9% real discount rate for discounting long-term constant-dollar cash flows, as indicated in the Memorandum from the Director of OMB re: 2014 Discount Rates for OMB Circular No. A-94 dated February 7, 2014. (Burwel, 2014) 88 For further comparative analysis, ADEQ recently estimated the Net Present Value of remedial action costs associated with the PRAP for the 7th Avenue and Bethany Home Road WQARF Site assuming a three (3) percent inflation rate and seven (7) percent discount factor to future costs. Using these input values, the 50-year Present Worth of capital and recurring O&M costs for the Less Aggressive groundwater alternative remedy is $51,467,800.   68     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE       8.1.6   BENEFIT/VALUE     Each  of  the  four  (4)  groundwater  alternative  remedies  presented  and  evaluated  in  the  RID  FS   Report  and  described  in  this  PRAP  benefits  the  environment  through  elimination  of  significant   point   source   emissions   due   to   volatilization   and   removal   of   significant   amounts   of   hazardous   substances   from   the   groundwater,   surface   waters   and   air   in   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site.     Each   groundwater   alternative   remedy   also   will   provide   the   benefit   to   water   providers   within   and   adjacent   to   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   (whose   existing   wells   are   impacted   by   groundwater   contamination  above  AWQSs/MCLs)  of  remediating  the  impacted  water  to  allow  the  “maximum   beneficial  use  of  the  waters  of  the  state”89  as  a  source  of  drinking  water,  which  is  a  “reasonably   foreseeable   water   end   use”   for   all   existing   wells   within   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site,90   while   containment  of  the  plume  will  ensure  that  any  other  less  impacted  or  threatened  wells  of  the   water  providers  within  and  adjacent  to  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site  will  produce  water  fit  for  their   “current   or   reasonably   foreseeable   end   uses”   both   now   and   in   the   reasonably   foreseeable   future.91         Compared  to  continuation  of  current  RID  operations,  groundwater  model  projections  indicate   implementation  of  any  of  the  groundwater  remedial  alternatives  would  result  in  localized  and   manageable   changes   in   hydrologic   conditions   in   the   WVBA,   but   would   not   cause   significant   additional   water   table   decline   or   adverse   movement   of   the   WOC   and   M52   plumes.     These   conclusions   are   consistent   with   the   fundamental   formulation   criteria   of   the   groundwater   alternative   remedies,   which   include   reprioritized   and   increased   pumping   of   key   RID   wells   to   enhance  contaminant  mass  removal  and  hydraulic  control  of  the  plume  where  feasible,  but  do   not  include  changes  to  the  total  amount  of  groundwater  pumped  by  RID  on  an  annual  basis.         Although   not   significant   at   a   regional   scale,   the   reprioritized   and   increased   pumping   of   RID   wells   associated   with   the   groundwater   alternative   remedies   are   projected   to   locally   improve   hydraulic  containment  of  the  WVBA  plume,  particularly  in  the  central  and  western  portions  of   the   Site.     Importantly,   the   extent   of   capture   is   projected   to   expand   where   new   wells   are   proposed  and  increased  UAU  pumping  rates  are  expected,  such  as  at  RID-­‐106  located  near  the   leading  edge  of  the  plume.         In   terms   of   overall   value,   the   Less   Aggressive   groundwater   alternative   remedy   provides   the   most   practicable   and   lowest   cost   alternative   that   achieves   an   acceptable   level   of   risk   reduction   while  satisfying  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site  groundwater  RO  of  restoring  the  impacted  groundwater   for  use  as  a  source  of  drinking  water.                                                                                                                             89 See ARS § 49-282.06.A.2. See ADEQ, Final Remedial Objectives Report (2012b) 91 See ARS § 49-282.06.B.4.b. 90   69     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE                                 THIS  PAGE  INTENTIONALLY  LEFT  BLANK     70     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     9.0     PROPOSED  REMEDY     Based   on   the   results   of   detailed   analysis   that   is   set   forth   in   the   RID   FS   Report,   the   Less   Aggressive   alternative   remedy   is   the   proposed   regional   groundwater   remedy   for   the   WVBA   WQARF  Site.    As  specified  in  AAC  R18-­‐16-­‐407.I,  reasons  for  selecting  the  proposed  groundwater   remedy   shall   include:   how   the   comparison   criteria   were   considered,   how   the   proposed   groundwater   remedy   will   achieve   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   groundwater   ROs,   and   how   the   proposed   groundwater   remedy   meets   the   requirements   of   ARS   §   49-­‐282.06,   including   specifically   ARS   §   49-­‐282.06.B.4.b.     Additionally,   AAC   R18-­‐16-­‐407.G,   requires   that   the   proposed   groundwater  remedy  address  the  needs  of  affected  water  providers.   9.1   COMPARISON  CRITERIA     The   evaluation   criteria,   including   achievement   of   all   WVBA   WQARF   Site   groundwater   ROs,92   consistency   with   water   management   plans,   practicability,   risk,   cost   and   benefit/value,   were   considered  for  each  of  the  four  (4)  groundwater  alternative  remedies  and  discussed  in  the  RID   FS   Report.     The   comparison   of   these   criteria,   as   evaluated   in   relation   to   each   other,   was   discussed  in  Section  8  and  is  summarized  in  Table  9.     9.1.1   ACHIEVEMENT  OF  REMEDIAL  OBJECTIVES     As   noted   before,   the   scope   of   the   RID   FS   Report   and   this   PRAP   was   to   identify   possible   regional   groundwater   alternative   remedies   to   address   target   COCs   in   groundwater   within   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site,   which   also   has   been   commingled   with   target   COCs   from   adjacent   regional   groundwater   contaminant   sites.     As   such,   the   FS   Report   was   focused   on   groundwater   contamination  and  addressing  the  impacts  to  water  providers  and  protecting,  at  a  minimum,  all   current   and   reasonably   foreseeable   water   end   uses   as   defined   in   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   RO   Report.93     The   analysis   provided   in   the   RID   FS   Report   and   described   in   Section   8   determined   that   all   four   (4)   groundwater   alternative   remedies   would   meet   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   groundwater   ROs   for   water   use   by   addressing   all   impacted   wells   that   are   not   suitable   for   current   or   reasonably   foreseeable   water   end   uses   without   treatment   and   ensuring   that   less   impacted  and  threatened  wells  are  suitable  for  current  and  reasonably  foreseeable  water  end   uses.         As   shown   in   Table   6,   all   four   (4)   groundwater   alternative   remedies   evaluated   in   the   RID   FS   Report  and  discussed  in  this  PRAP  meet  all  essential  WQARF  requirements  established  to  assure   the   proposed   regional   groundwater   remedy,   at   a   minimum,   meets   all   ROs   for   all   current   and   reasonably  foreseeable  water  end  uses  within  and  outside  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site.    The  Most                                                                                                                             92 93   AAC R18-16-407.E.1. See ARS § 49-282.06.B.4.b. 71     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     Aggressive   groundwater   alternative   remedy   proposes   direct   treatment   at   all   thirteen   (13)   existing  wells  that  are  impacted  above  AWQSs  and  MCLs  making  those  wells  unfit  to  produce   water   for   their   current   or   reasonably   foreseeable   water   end   uses   without   treatment;   however,   the   costs   associated   with   this   groundwater   alternative   remedy   are   the   highest   of   all   four   (4)   groundwater   alternative   remedies.     The   Less   Aggressive   groundwater   alternative   remedy,   which  utilizes  direct  treatment  at  the  six  (6)  most  highly  contaminated  wells  and  addresses  all   of   the   other   less   impacted   wells   (albeit   still   above   AWQSs/MCLs)   through   blending,   distinguishes  itself  from  the  other  groundwater  alternative  remedies  in  the  RID  FS  Report  as  the   most   effective   combination   of   practicability,   cost,   and   benefit   for   timely   restoration   of   the   groundwater   resource   and   mitigation   of   environmental   and   public   health   impacts,   while   fully   compliant   with   all   groundwater   ROs   for   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   and   applicable   state   law   requirements.         With   regard   to   land   use   and   impacts,   numerous   facility   investigations   have   been   conducted   throughout   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   over   the   past   25   years   to   characterize   and   remediate   the   impacts  of  hazardous  substance  releases.    The  scope  of  the  RID  FS  Report,  which  was  a  regional   groundwater   remedy   evaluation,   did   not   include   past   or   future   work   to   address   soil   contamination  at  sources  areas,  nor  the  impacts,  if  any,  on  the  loss  or  impairment  to  land  uses.     Instead,   the   RID   FS   Report   assumed,   as   does   this   PRAP,   that   the   actions   taken   under   ADEQ   oversight   have   adequately   addressed   the   known   sources   of   hazardous   substances   impacting   surface  and  subsurface  soils  and  the  potential  this  may  have  to  cause  a  loss  or  impairment  of   land   use.     Further,   should   any   additional   information   arise   that   identifies   the   need   to   address   a   presently  unknown  source  of  hazardous  substances  in  surface  or  subsurface  soil,  it  is  assumed   that   ADEQ   will   assure   that   actions   taken   will   not   adversely   impact   or   impair   land   uses   in   the   WVBA  WQARF  Site.   9.1.2   CONFORMANCE  WITH  ARS  §  49-­‐282.06     As  stated  in  ARS  §  49-­‐282.06.A.,  remedial  actions  shall:     1. Assure  the  protection  of  public  health  and  welfare  and  the  environment;   2. Provide  for  the  control,  management  or  cleanup  of  the  hazardous  substances  in  order  to   allow  the  maximum  beneficial  use  of  the  [impacted]  waters  of  the  state;  and,   3. Be  reasonable,  necessary,  cost-­‐effective  and  technically  feasible.     As  discussed  in  more  detail  in  the  RID  FS  Report,  the  proposed  regional  groundwater  remedy,   the   Less   Aggressive   groundwater   alternative   remedy,   meets   all   of   these   requirements.     Treatment   systems   will   cost   effectively   remove   a   large   portion   of   hazardous   substances   from   the   environment,   protecting   public   health   and   welfare,   while   providing   for   the   control   and   cleanup   necessary   to   allow   “maximum   beneficial   use”   as   a   drinking   water   source   of   the   remediated   water.     The   Less   Aggressive   groundwater   alternative   remedy   also   is   reasonable,     72     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     cost-­‐effective  and  technically  feasible  as  discussed  Section  8.     In   addition,   ARS   §   49-­‐282.06.B.4.b.   expressly   requires   that   the   selected   remedial   action   for   waters  of  the  state  “shall  address,  at  a  minimum,  any  well  that  at  the  time  of  selection  of  the   remedial   action   either   supplies   water   for   municipal,   domestic,   industrial,   irrigation   or   agricultural  uses  or  is  part  of  a  public  water  system  if  the  well  would  now  or  in  the  reasonably   foreseeable  future  produce  water  that  would  not  be  fit  for  its  current  or  reasonably  foreseeable   end  uses  without  treatment  due  to  the  release  of  hazardous  substances.”  Likewise,  ARS  §  49-­‐ 282.06.B.4.b.   expressly   requires   that   “specific   measures   to   address   any   such   well   shall   not   reduce   the   supply   of   water   available   to   the   owner   of   the   well.”     The   Less   Aggressive   groundwater  alternative  remedy  conforms  to  these  requirements  by  ensuring  all  existing  wells   within   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   will   produce   water   that   is   fit   for   its   current   and   reasonably   foreseeable   end   uses   as   determined   in   the   groundwater   ROs   for   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   and   restoring   any   reduction   in   the   available   supply   of   water   caused   by   addressing   any   impacted   wells.   9.1.3   CONSISTENCY  WITH  WATER  MANAGEMENT  PLANS     Previous  analysis  in  the  RID  FS  Report  and  as  provided  in  Section  8  determined  that  all  four  (4)   groundwater   alternative   remedies   were   consistent   with   affected   water   provider   needs   and   management  plans.    As  shown  in  Table  9,  all  four  (4)  alternative  groundwater  remedies  meet  all   essential   WQARF   requirements   that   have   been   established   to   assure   the   proposed   regional   groundwater   remedy   meets   the   water   management   needs   of   affected   water   providers.     The   Most   Aggressive   groundwater   alternative   remedy,   at   a   substantial   cost,   fully   addresses   RID’s   needs   to   directly   treat   all   impacted   wells   having   COCs   in   excess   of   AWQSs/MCLs   and   addresses   the  needs  of  all  water  providers  (RID,  SRP,  COP,  APS  and  COT)  by  ensuring  that  any  impacted  or   threatened   existing   well   within   and   adjacent   to   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site   will   now   and   in   the   reasonable   foreseeable   future   (i.e.   at   least   over   the   next   100   years)   produce   water   fit   for   its   “current   or   reasonably   foreseeable   end   uses”   for   all   water   providers   pursuant   to   ARS   §   49-­‐ 282.06.B.4.b.     The   Less   Aggressive   groundwater   alternative   remedy,   however,   is   adequate   to   meet   the   needs   of   all   of   the   water   providers   and   distinguishes   itself   from   the   other   groundwater   remedies   in   the   RID   FS   Report   as   the   most   effective   combination   of   practicability,   cost,   and   benefit   for   timely   restoration   of   the   groundwater   resource   and   mitigation   of   environmental   and   public   health   impacts,   while   fully   compliant   with   all   groundwater   ROs   for   the  WVBA  WQARF  Site  and  applicable  state  law  requirements.     9.1.4   CONSISTENCY  WITH  GENERAL  LAND  USE  PLANNING     As   explained   in   the   RID   FS   Report   and   as   mentioned   in   the   discussion   of   land   use   ROs   in   this   PRAP,   the   source   area   work   that   has   been   or   may   be   conducted   to   address   facility-­‐specific   releases   of   hazardous   substances   is   independent   of   and   outside   the   scope   of   the   RID   FS   Report   and   this   PRAP.     With   respect   to   the   proposed   groundwater   remedy,   the   actions   necessary   to     73     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     implement   the   Less   Aggressive   groundwater   alternative   remedy   will   have   minimal   impact   on   land  use  in  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site.           The   remedial   measures   for   the   Less   Aggressive   groundwater   alternative   remedy   listed   in   Section  7.5.3  of  the  RID  FS  Report  all  involve  enhanced  water  infrastructure  at  RID  well  sites  and   within  the  RID  water  distribution  system.    However,  there  are  two  (2)  locations  at  RID-­‐106  and   RID-­‐109   where   it   will   be   necessary   to   acquire   land   to   build   out   the   remedy   components.     Review  of  aerial  photographs  indicates  there  is  vacant  or  undeveloped  land  adjacent  to  these   well   sites,   the   surrounding   land   use   is   commercial   and   industrial   private   property,   and   the   planned  remedial  measures  are  consistent  with  existing  land  uses.   9.2   CONTINGENCIES     As   explained   in   the   RID   FS   Report   and   as   discussed   in   Section   8,   the   Less   Aggressive   groundwater   alternative   remedy   is   subject   to   uncertainties   that   may   require   contingency   actions.     The   COP   owns   four   (4)   shallow   production   wells   within   the   WVBA   WQARF   Site.     Although  the  City  has  indicated  it  does  not  intend  to  use  the  wells  and  the  wells  are  currently   capped  and  out  of  service,  the  City  has  an  established  right  to  withdraw  groundwater  at  these   wells.    Should  the  City  require  the  wells  for  some  non-­‐potable  use94  in  the  future,  then  it  will  be   necessary  to  evaluate  potential  remedial  measures  and  take  appropriate  actions  to  address  the   water  provider  needs.     With  respect  to  uncertainties  associated  with  implementation  of  the  remedial  measures  for  the   Less   Aggressive   groundwater   alternative   remedy,   this   action   requires   additional   land   in   the   vicinity  of  RID  106  and  RID-­‐109  to  install  wellhead  treatment  systems,  and  in  the  case  of  RID-­‐ 106,  to  drill  a  replacement  well.    Review  of  aerial  photographs  of  these  locations  indicates  there   is  vacant  or  undeveloped  land  adjacent  to  the  wells.    From  a  planning  perspective,  it  appears   reasonable  to  assume  that  sufficient  land  can  be  acquired  for  the  planned  remedial  measures.     Should   any   constraints   arise   that   limit   land   access   or   acquisition,   further   action   may   be   necessary  by  ADEQ  or  RID  to  acquire  the  necessary  land  by  eminent  domain.     The   Less   Aggressive   groundwater   alternative   remedy   indirectly   addresses   groundwater   contamination   at   well   RID-­‐84,   which   currently   has   PCE   contamination   in   excess   of   MCLs/AWQSs,   by   expanded   pumping   and   treatment   of   RID-­‐106   and   prioritized   pumping   of   wells   in   this   area   as   a   means   to   limit   PCE   contamination   at   RID-­‐84.     Although   projected   groundwater   modeling   simulations   provide   reason   to   believe   that   this   approach   will   effectively   address  the  RID-­‐84  impact,  it  is  not  assured  this  action  will  achieve  MCLs/AWQSs  at  RID-­‐84  or   the   timeframe   it   may   require.     Once   actions   to   increase   production   capacity   at   RID-­‐106   are   completed,  RID  will  monitor  water  quality  and  groundwater  conditions  throughout  the  leading                                                                                                                             94 As noted previously, COP operates under a set of long-standing policies, including specific city council direction, which discourages or outright prohibits the introduction of contaminated groundwater through a treatment plant directly into the potable distribution system (See Appendix E of the RID FS Report).   74     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     edge   of   the   plume   to   determine   the   effectiveness   of   this   approach   in   limiting   contamination   at   RID-­‐84.    If,  after  three  (3)  years,  PCE  concentrations  are  not  declining  at  RID-­‐84,  and/or  there   has   been   no   change   in   the   AWQS/MCL   for   PCE   based   on   EPA’s   recent   toxicity   information,95   contingent  actions  may  be  necessary.    With  ADEQ  approval,  RID  would  take  subsequent  action   at  RID-­‐84  to  reconfigure  the  well  to  enable  injection  of  water  from  the  adjacent  RID  Main  Canal,   to  further  mitigate  COC  impacts,  consistent  with  the  approach  described  in  Appendix  G  to  the   RID   FS   Report.     In   the   unlikely   event   that   this   subsequent   contingency   action   is   unsuccessful,   wellhead  treatment  may  be  necessary.         Beyond   these   specific   concerns,   there   are   other   broad-­‐based   uncertainties   that   may   pose   a   potential  impact  to  the  outcome  of  the  proposed  regional  groundwater  remedial  action.    These   uncertainties  include:     • The   extent   to   which   the   Less   Aggressive   groundwater   alternative   remedy   is   able   to   provide  physical  containment  of  the  plume,  to  reduce  contamination  at  impacted  wells   that   are   currently   below   AWQSs/MCLs   and   prevent   threatened   wells   from   becoming   impacted  in  the  future;  and,   • The  potential  action  by  EPA  to  lower  the  MCL  for  TCE,  thereby  lowering  the  treatment   goals  associated  with  this  remedial  action.     With   respect   to   plume   containment,   the   Less   Aggressive   groundwater   alternative   remedy   would  include  on-­‐going  monitoring  of  groundwater  elevations  and  water  quality  to  determine   whether  groundwater  extraction  in  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site  is  effective  in  physically  containing   the  plume  and  preventing  it  from  migrating  to  impacted  wells  that  are  not  currently  impacted   above   AWQSs/MCLs   or   to   threatened   wells   that   are   not   currently   impacted   by   COCs.     Although   not  considered  likely,  should  future  monitoring  data  indicate  that  RID,  SRP,  COP  or  COT  wells   outside   of   the   plume   show   increasing   COC   impacts,   contingent   actions   may   be   necessary   to   more  fully  contain  the  contaminant  plume.         Finally,  there  is  uncertainty  regarding  whether  and  the  extent  to  which  the  MCL  for  TCE  may  be   reduced,   through   pending   action   by   EPA.     If   this   change   occurs,   the   specific   time   period   for   completing  the  remedy  (the  next  50  plus  years)  would  likely  increase  and  there  may  be  need  to   treat   additional   wells   since   the   target   for   blending   (the   MCL)   is   now   5  µg/L   for   TCE   and   the   revised   MCL   could   be   substantially   lower.     Concentrations   in   individual   wells   also   will   change   with  time.    Routine  monitoring  of  water  quality  within  the  RID  well  field  and  water  system  will   be   conducted   to   track   trends   and   assure   blended   water   supplies   meet   target   water   quality.     Adjustments  to  the  remedy  could  be  warranted  based  on  the  results  of  system  monitoring.    The   modular   nature   of   the   wellhead   treatment   systems   will   facilitate   relocation   of   treatment   systems  should  contaminant  distribution  change  significantly.                                                                                                                                       95   See footnote 19 regarding EPA’s recent changes to the risk factor for PCE. 75     PROPOSED  REMEDIAL  ACTION  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE     Despite  these  potential  contingencies,  implementation  of  the  proposed  regional  groundwater   remedy  will  commence  immediately  even  as  RID  continues  independent  efforts  to  obtain  cost   recovery,  including  potential  settlements,  from  various  third  parties.     9.3   REMEDIATED  WATER  END  USE     Consistent   with   the   RID   FS   Report,   remediated   water   that   is   conveyed   via   the   Salt   Canal   will   be   used  for  either  agricultural  purpose,  by  release  into  the  Main  Canal,  or  municipal  and  industrial   (M&I)  use.    M&I  use  will  require  the  construction  of  a  pipeline  within  and/or  along  the  RID  Main   Canal  right-­‐of-­‐way,  to  convey  this  remediated  water  to  users  in  the  west  valley.         Water   produced   from   RID-­‐84,   RID-­‐89,   RID-­‐92,   RID-­‐95   and   RID-­‐100   will   continue   to   be   conveyed   through  the  Main  Canal  (and  feeder  laterals)  to  RID  lands  for  its  current  use  as  an  agricultural   water  supply.    Any  potential  future  M&I  use  of  this  water  supply  may  require  RID  to  discontinue   the  delivery  of  treated  effluent  in  the  Main  Canal.     9.4   LEAD  AGENCY  STATEMENT  FOR  REMEDY  SELECTION     Consistent   with   AAC   R18-­‐16-­‐407.I   and   based   on   the   detailed   analysis   set   forth   in   the   RID   FS   Report   and   this   PRAP,   the   Less   Aggressive   Remedy   is   the   proposed   regional   groundwater   remedy  for  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site.    On  April  13,  2015,  ADEQ  completed  its  review  of  the  RID  FS   Report  that  was  submitted  to  ADEQ  for  approval  under  AAC  R18-­‐16-­‐413.    Pursuant  to  AAC  R18-­‐ 16-­‐413,   the   RID   FS   Report   was   published   and   the   public   was   provided   an   opportunity   to   comment   on   RID’s   request   for   approval.     After   considering   the   public   comments   and   RID’s   comprehensive  responses,  ADEQ  approved  the  RID  FS  Report  after  a  determination  that  “the  FS   Report   meets   the   requirements   of   Arizona   Revised   Statutes   49-­‐287.03   and   Arizona   Administrative  Code  R18-­‐16-­‐407.”                                                 76                                     DRAFT  FEASIBILITY  STUDY  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE       __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 10.0   COMMUNITY  PARTICIPATION     Public   participation   and   community   relations   activities   associated   with   the   groundwater   remedy  selection  process  will  follow  community  involvement  requirements  of  AAC  R18-­‐16-­‐404   and  the  Community  Involvement  Plan  for  West  Van  Buren  WQARF  Site,  Phoenix,  Arizona  (ADEQ,   2011a).    Consistent  with  this  Community  Involvement  Plan,  ADEQ  will  lead  the  public  outreach   and   coordinate   public   communication   and   comments.     Specific   community   involvement   activities   may   include   the   preparation   and   distribution   of   public   notices   describing   the   availability   of   the   ADEQ-­‐approved   RID   FS   Report   and   this   PRAP   for   public   review   and   participation  in  public  meetings  to  discuss  the  ADEQ-­‐approved  RID  FS  Report  and  PRAP.         In  order  to  broaden  communication  outreach  and  enhance  transparency,  RID  will  continue  to   deliver   messages   and   information,   in   coordination   with   ADEQ,   through   the   various   communications   channels   and   platforms   developed   for   the   Early   Response   Action.     These   channels   and   platforms   include   one-­‐on-­‐one   briefings   with   interested   individuals,   group   presentations,  electronic  and  print  media,  and  web-­‐based  communications.     10.1   PUBLIC  COMMENT  PERIOD  OF  PRAP     The  public  comment  period  will  be  no  less  than  30  days.  ADEQ  will  accept  written  comments  on   this  PRAP  that  are  postmarked  within  the  comment  period  and  submitted  to:     Scott  R.  Green,  Manager,  Remedial  Projects  Unit   Arizona  Department  of  Environmental  Quality,     1110  West  Washington  Street     Phoenix,  Arizona  85007     10.2   PUBIC  MEETINGS     There  will  be  a  WVBA   WQARF  CAB  meeting  where  the  public  will  hear  a  presentation  on  the   PRAP.   Oral   and   written   comments   will   also   be   accepted   at   the   meeting.   The   meeting   will   be   held  one  week  prior  to  the  end  of  the  comment  period.     10.3   ADMINISTRATIVE  RECORD     Interested   parties   can   review   the   PRAP   and   other   Site   documents   at   the   Burton   Barr   Central  Library  (Arizona  Room)  located  at  1221  N.  Central  Avenue  in  Phoenix  (602)  262-­‐4636  or   on  ADEQ’s  website  for  the  WVBA  WQARF  Site.   75                                       DRAFT  FEASIBILITY  STUDY  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE       __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________     The   complete   official   WVBA   WQARF   Site   file   also   can   be   reviewed   at   the   ADEQ   Main   Office   located   at   1110   West   Washington   Street,   Phoenix,   Arizona.     With   24-­‐hour   notice,   an   appointment   to   review   related   documentation   is   available   Monday   through   Friday   from   8:30   a.m.   to   4:30   p.m.,   at   the  ADEQ  Records  management  Center.  Please  contact  (602)  771-­‐4380  or   (800)  234-­‐5677   to  schedule  an  appointment  to  review  these  documents.     10.4   OTHER  CONTACT  INFORMATION       Name/Title/Address   Phone/Fax   E-­‐mail      (602)  771.1612      Scott  R.  Green,  ADEQ        SRG@azdeq.gov      Remedial  Projects  Unit                                                                          (    602)                    7    71-­‐4138                                  f  ax                                                Wendy  Flood,  ADEQ      Community  Involvement  Coordinator      (602)  771-­‐4410      (602)  771-­‐4138  fax      flood.wendy@azdeq.gov     76                                       DRAFT  FEASIBILITY  STUDY  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE       __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 11.0   REFERENCES     Agency   for   Toxic   Substances   and   Disease   Registry   (ATSDR),   1997.     Toxicological   Profile   for   Tetrachloroethylene,   U.S.   Department   of   Health   and   Human   Services,   Public   Health   Service,  originally  published  September  1997  and  last  updated  March  2011.     ADEQ,   1989.     Memorandum   from   David   Hawkins   to   Lowell   Carty,   Project   Manager   for   EW   WQARF   Site,   re:   “List   of   facilities   to   be   evaluated   in   the   East   Washington   Study   Area”,   December  28.     ,   1990.   Memorandum   from   Michael   Leach,   ADEQ   Hydrologist,   to   Tom   Curry,   ADEQ   WQARF   Coordination   Unit,   re:   “Van   Buren   Tank   Farm   –   Final   Summary   Site   Assessment  Report”,  February  26.     ,   2005.     Remedial   Objectives   Report,   West   Central   Phoenix   –   West   Osborn   Complex,   Phoenix,  Arizona,  May  2005.       ,   2006a.   Fact   Sheet   –   West   Van   Buren   Water   Quality   Assurance   Revolving   Fund   Site,   February.     ,   2006b.     Final   Remedial   Investigation   Report,   WCP   East   Grand   Avenue   WQARF   Site,   Phoenix,  Arizona,  2-­‐15,  June.     ,   2009.   Agreement   to   Conduct   Work   between   Arizona   Department   of   Environmental   Quality  and  Roosevelt  Irrigation  District,  October  8.     ,   2010a.   Conditional   Approval   of   a   Water   Quality   Assurance   Fund   (WQARF)   Early   Response  Action  (ERA)  Work  Plan  for  the  West  Van  Buren  Registry  Site,  June  24.     ,   2010b.   Letter   from   Henry   Darwin,   ADEQ   Deputy   Director,   to   David   Armstrong,   attorney  for  SRP,  re:  ADEQ  Response  to  Request  for  Interim  Decision,  October  13.       ,  2011a.  Community  Involvement  Plan,  West  Van  Buren  Site  Water  Quality  Assurance   Revolving   Fund   (WQARF)   Site,   Phoenix,   Arizona,   ADEQ   Document   No.   EQR   10-­‐01,   December.     ,  2011b.  2011  Sitewide  Five-­‐Year  Review  Report,  Motorola  52nd  Street  Superfund  Site,   Phoenix,   Arizona,   prepared   by   ADEQ   in   collaboration   with   U.S.   Environmental   Protection  Agency  and  URS  Corporation,  September.     ,  2011c.  Review  of  RID-­‐95  Wellhead  Pilot  Treatment  System  Proposal  Work  Plan,  West   Van  Buren  Water  Quality  Assurance  Revolving  Fund  Registry  Site,  September  2.     77                                       DRAFT  FEASIBILITY  STUDY  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE       __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________     ,   2012.   Remedial   Objectives   Report,   West   Van   Buren   Area   WQARF   Registry   Site,   Phoenix,  Arizona,  August  8.     ,  2013.  Conditional  Approval  of  RID’s  Modified  Early  Response  Action  Work  Plan,  West   Van  Buren  WQARF  Registry  Site,  Phoenix,  Arizona,  February  1.     ,   2014.   Agreement   to   Conduct   Work   between   Arizona   Department   of   Environmental   Quality  and  Roosevelt  Irrigation  District  (Amended),  February  27.     ,  2015.  Draft  Feasibility  Study  –  Roosevelt  Irrigation  District,  April  13.   Arizona   Department   of   Health   Services,   1992.   Statement   of   Risk,   Task   Assignment   II-­‐18,   October  30.     ,   2015.     Health   Consultation,   Evaluation   of   Water   Sampling   Results   in   the   Roosevelt   Irrigation  District  (RID),  Phoenix,  Maricopa  County,  Arizona,  January  8.   BE&K/Terranext,  2001.  Roosevelt  Irrigation  District,  Canal  Characterization  Report,  West  Van   Buren  WQARF  Area,  Phoenix,  Arizona,  February  8.   Brown,   James   G.,   and   Pool,   D.R.     1989.     Hydrogeology   of   the   Western   Part   of   the   Salt   River   Valley   Area,   Maricopa   County,   Arizona,   U.   S.   Geological   Survey   Water-­‐Resources   Investigations  Report  88-­‐4202.   Burwel,   S.M.,   2014.     Memorandum   for   the   Heads   of   Departments   and   Agencies:   2014   Discount  Rates  for  OMB  Circular  No.  A-­‐94,  February  7.   City  of  Phoenix,  2010a.  Suggested  Remedial  Objectives  for  the  West  Van  Buren  WQARF  Site,   letter  from  Philip  McNeeley  of  COP  to  Julie  Riemenschneider  of  ADEQ,  January  7.     ,   2010b.   City   of   Phoenix   Comments   on   West   Van   Buren   (“WVB”)   WQARF   Site,   Roosevelt   Irrigation   District   (“RID”)   Early   Response   Action   Work   Plan,   letter   from   Thomas  Buschatzke  of  COP  to  Jennifer  Thies  of  ADEQ,  April  21.   Corkhill,  F.,  Corell,  S.,  Hill,  B.,  and  Carr,  D.,  1993.    A  Regional  Groundwater  Flow  Model  of  the   Salt   River   Valley   –   Phase   II   Phoenix   Active   Management   Area,   Hydrogeologic   Framework  and  Basic  Data  Report,  Arizona  Department  of  Water  Resources  Modeling   Report  No.  09.   Dolphin,   2010.   Early   Response  Action   Proposed  by  Roosevelt  Irrigation  District  for  the   West   Van   Buren   Water   Quality   Assurance   Revolving   Fund   (WQARF)   Site,   letter   from   Pete   Polson  of  Dolphin,  Inc.  to  Jennifer  Thies  of  ADEQ,  April  22.   78                                       DRAFT  FEASIBILITY  STUDY  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE       __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________   Environmental  Protection  Agency  (EPA),  1981.    Aquatic  Fate  Process  Data  of  Organic  Priority   Pollutants,  Washington,  D.C.,  EPA-­‐440/4-­‐81-­‐014.     ,  1998.  Technical  Protocol  for  Evaluating  Natural  Attenuation  of  Chlorinated  Solvents   in  Groundwater,  3,  23-­‐26.     ,   1999.     EPA   Superfund   Explanation   of   Significant   Differences   (ESD#1)   to   July   1994   Record   of   Decision,   Operable   Unit   Two,   East   Phoenix   Groundwater   Containment,   Motorola   52nd   Street   Superfund   Site,   Phoenix,   Arizona,   EPA/ESD/R09-­‐99/054,   September  10,  1999.     ,   2000.     A   Guide   to   Developing   and   Documenting   Cost   Estimates   During   the   Feasibility   Study,   U.S.   Army   Corps   of   Engineers   and   EPA   Office   of   Emergency   and   Remedial   Response,  EPA  540-­‐R-­‐00-­‐002,  July.     ,   2002.   Toxicology   Review   of   1,1-­‐Dichloroethylene,   In   Support   of   Summary   Information  on  the  Integrated  Risk  Information  System,  EPA/635/R02/002,  June.     ,   2011.     Toxicology   Review   of   Trichloroethylene,   In   Support   of   Summary   Information   on  the  Integrated  Risk  Information  System,  EPA/635/R-­‐09/011F,  September.     ,  2012.    Toxicology  Review  of  Tetrachloroethylene,  In  Support  of  Summary  Information   on  the  Integrated  Risk  Information  System,  EPA/635/R-­‐08/011F,  February.     ,   2014.     TSCA   Work   Plan   Chemical   Risk   Assessment,   Trichloroethylene:   Degreasing,   Spot   Cleaning,   and   Arts   &   Crafts   Uses;   DASRN:   79-­‐01-­‐6,   EPA   Document   740-­‐R1-­‐4002,   Office  of  Chemical  Safety  and  Pollution  Prevention,  June.   ERM,   2010.     Final   OU3   Phase   III   Groundwater   Remedial   Investigation   and   Feasibility   Study   Work  Plan,  52nd  Street  Superfund  Site  Operable  Unit  3  Study  Area,  Phoenix,  Arizona,   prepared   by   Environmental   Resource   Management   on   behalf   of   the   Motorola   52nd   Street  Superfund  Site  Operable  Unit  3  Work  Group,  August.   GeoTrans,   2012a.     Final   Feasibility   Study   Report   for   the   Shallow   Groundwater   Subsystem,   West  Osborn  Complex  WQARF  Site,  Phoenix,  Arizona,  January  17.     ,  2012b.    Final  Feasibility  Study  Report  for  the  Lower  Sand  and  Gravel  Subunit,  West   Osborn  Complex  WQARF  Site,  Phoenix,  Arizona,  May  16.   Haley   &   Aldrich,   2011.     Feasibility   Study   Work   Plan,   West   Van   Buren   WQARF   Site,   Phoenix,   Arizona,  September  6.   79                                       DRAFT  FEASIBILITY  STUDY  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE       __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________     ,   2013.     Final   Feasibility   Study   Work   Plan,   West   Van   Buren   WQARF   Site,   Phoenix,   Arizona,  July  1.     ,   2014a.     Draft   Feasibility   Study   Report,   West   Van   Buren   WQARF   Site,   Phoenix,   Arizona,  July  14.     ,   2014b.     Feasibility   Study   Report,   West   Van   Buren   WQARF   Site,   Phoenix,   Arizona,   December  1.   Honeywell,  2003.  Additional  Site  Characterization  Work  Plan,  April.     ,   2010.   West   Van   Buren   WQARF   Site,   Roosevelt   Irrigation   District   Proposal   for   Early   Response   Action,   letter   from   Karen   Gaylord,   Honeywell   counsel,   to   Jennifer   Thies   of   ADEQ,  April  22.   Lesage,   S.,   Jackson,   R.E.,   Priddle,   M.W.,   &   Riemann   P.G.,   1990.   Occurrence   and   Fate   of   Organic   Solvent   Residues   in   Anoxic   Groundwater   at   the   Gloucester   Landfill,   Canada,   24   Environmental  Science  and  Technology,  559,  564,  1990.   M&A,   2009a.   Implementation   Plan,   Roosevelt   Irrigation   District   Groundwater   Response   Action,  West  Van  Buren  Water  Quality  Assurance  Revolving  Fund  Site,  September  25.     ,  2009b.  Draft  Work  Plan,  Roosevelt  Irrigation  District  Early  Response  Action,  West  Van   Buren  Water  Quality  Assurance  Revolving  Fund  Site,  October  5.     ,  2010.  Work  Plan,  Roosevelt  Irrigation  District  Early  Response  Action,  West  Van  Buren   Water  Quality  Assurance  Revolving  Fund  Site,  February  3.   National   Toxicology   Program,   2014.   Report   on   Carcinogens,   Monograph   on   Trichloroethylene,   Peer   Review   Draft,   Division   of   the   National   Toxicology   Program,   National   Institute   of   Environmental  Health  Services,  U.S.  Department  of  Health  and  Human  Services,  June  27.   Salt   River   Project   (SRP),   2009.   West   Van   Buren   WQARF   Site,   Roosevelt   Irrigation   District’s   Proposed  Early  Response  Plan,  letter  from  W.R.  Powell  of  SRP  to  Julie  Riemenschneider   of  ADEQ,  December  4.   Synergy,   2011.   RID-­‐95   Wellhead   Pilot   Treatment   System   Proposal,   West   Van   Buren   Area   Water  Quality  Assurance  Revolving  Fund  Site,  August  18.     ,   2012a.   1-­‐Month   Technology/Design   Demonstration   Report:   RID-­‐95   Pilot   System,   West  Van  Buren  Area  Water  Quality  Assurance  Revolving  Fund  Site,  May  8.     80                                       DRAFT  FEASIBILITY  STUDY  REPORT   WEST  VAN  BUREN  AREA  WQARF  SITE       __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________     ,   2012b.   Follow-­‐Up   on   Phase   1   Groundwater   Modeling   and   Modified   ERA   Proposal,   July  24.       ,  2012c.  Modified  Early  Response  Action  Work  Plan,  West  Van  Buren  WQARF  Registry   Site,  Phoenix,  Arizona,  October  19.       ,  2013a.  Draft  Final  Feasibility  Study  Work  Plan,  West  Van  Buren  WQARF  Registry  Site,   Phoenix,  Arizona,  February  8.         ,  2013b.  Long-­‐Term  Operational  Assessment  Report,  RID-­‐95  Wellhead  Pilot  Treatment   Systems,  West  Van  Buren  WQARF  Registry  Site,  Phoenix,  Arizona,  April  5.     ,   2013c.   Final   Feasibility   Study   Work   Plan,   West   Van   Buren   WQARF   Registry   Site,   Phoenix,  Arizona,  June  21.         ,   2013d.     Operation   &   Maintenance   Plan,   RID   Wellhead   Treatment   Systems,   West   Van   Buren  Area  WQARF  Site,  Phoenix,  Arizona,  October  2.         ,  2014a.  Draft  Feasibility  Study  Report,  West  Van  Buren  WQARF  Site,  Phoenix,  Arizona,   July  15.         ,  2014b.  Revised  Draft  Feasibility  Study  Report,  West  Van  Buren  WQARF  Site,  Phoenix,   Arizona   and   Response   to   ADEQ   Comments,   Administrative   Completeness   Review   of   RID  Draft  Feasibility  Study  Report,  November  26.       Terranext,  2008.  Draft  Remedial  Investigation  Report,  West  Van  Buren  WQARF  Registry  Site,   Phoenix,  AZ,  prepared  for  ADEQ,  October.     ,  2012.  Remedial  Investigation  Report,  West  Van  Buren  WQARF  Registry  Site,  Phoenix,   AZ,  prepared  for  ADEQ,  August.     ,   2013.   First   Quarter   2013   Water-­‐Quality   Report,   West   Van   Buren   Area   (WVBA)   Water   Quality  Assurance  Revolving  Fund  (WQARF)  Registry  Site,  Phoenix,  Arizona,  Prepared   for  Arizona  Department  of  Environmental  Quality,  July.   Univar,   USA,   Inc.   2008.   Univar   USA   Inc.’s   Comments,   Draft   Remedial   Investigation   Report,   West  Van  Buren  Area  WQARF  Site,  Phoenix,  AZ,  letter  from  Michael  Gaudette  of  Univar   to  Jennifer  Thies  of  ADEQ,  December  29,  2008.     Weston,  2000.    Central  Phoenix  Plume  Model,  prepared  by  Roy  F.  Weston  on  behalf  of  ADEQ.     ,  2001.    Central  Phoenix  Plume  Model,  Phase  III:    Groundwater  Flow  Model,  Final,   1996-­‐1998  Validation  Simulations,  prepared  for  ADEQ,  February  12.   81       (y SYNERGY ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC TABLES TABLE  1.  SUMMARY  OF  WATER  QUALITY  -­‐  ADEQ  MONITOR  WELLS,  MARCH  2013 West  Van  Buren  Area  WQARF  Site WVBA  WELL  ID Sample  ID  (last  three  digits  idenbfy  sample  depth)          Date  Collected          Owner/Facility          Facility  Well  No.          Sample  Type          ADWR  No.          Alluvial  Unit          Lab  ID  No. Component  -­‐  EPA  8260B AWQS Units NE ug/L Acetone 5 ug/L Benzene NE ug/L Bromobenzene NE ug/L Bromochloromethane 100 ug/L Bromodichloromethane 100 ug/L Bromoform NE ug/L Bromomethane NE ug/L 2-­‐Butanone  (MEK) NE ug/L MTBE NE ug/L n-­‐Butylbenzene NE ug/L sec-­‐Butylbenzene NE ug/L tert-­‐Butylbenzene NE ug/L Carbon  Disulfide 5 ug/L Carbon  Tetrachloride 100 ug/L Chlorobenzene NE ug/L Chloroethane 100 ug/L Chloroform NE ug/L Chloromethane NE ug/L 2-­‐Chlorotoluene NE ug/L 4-­‐Chlorotoluene NE ug/L p-­‐Isopropyltoluene 100 ug/L Dibromochloromethane 0.2 ug/L 1,2-­‐Dibromo-­‐3-­‐chloropropane NE ug/L 1,2-­‐Dibromoethane  (EDB) NE ug/L Dibromomethane AVB10-­‐01 AVB10-­‐0100-­‐37120 3/13/13 ESTRELLA  BUSINESS  PARK MW-­‐1 PURGE 55-­‐532041 UAU1 459172-­‐006 AVB12-­‐01 AVB12-­‐0100-­‐36152 3/18/13 ADEQ  7TH  AVE MW-­‐4 PURGE 55-­‐532767 UAU1 459346-­‐004 AVB14-­‐01 AVB14-­‐0100-­‐34108 3/18/13 ADEQ  7TH  AVE MW-­‐2 PURGE 55-­‐531086 UAU1 459346-­‐005 AVB15-­‐01 AVB15-­‐0100-­‐14116 3/19/13 ROGERS  SHELL MW-­‐2 PURGE 55-­‐520257 UAU1 459504-­‐007 AVB18-­‐01 AVB18-­‐0100-­‐35108 3/25/13 ADEQ  7TH  AVE MW-­‐1 PDB 55-­‐531084 UAU1 459871-­‐002 AVB20-­‐03 AVB20-­‐0300-­‐19149 3/20/13 APS  WEST  PHOENIX RB-­‐3 PURGE 55-­‐590922 UAU1 459593-­‐001 AVB26-­‐01 AVB26-­‐0100-­‐15099 3/15/13 ADOT DW-­‐2 PDB 55-­‐504687 UAU1 459337-­‐015 <20.0 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <20.0 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <20.0 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 1.69 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <20.0 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 0.940 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <20.0 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 4.22 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 1,2-­‐Dichlorobenzene 600 ug/L <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 1,3-­‐Dichlorobenzene 1,4-­‐Dichlorobenzene Dichlorodifluoromethane 1,1-­‐Dichloroethane  (1,1-­‐DCA) 1,2-­‐Dichloroethane 1,1-­‐Dichloroethene  (1,1-­‐DCE) cis-­‐1,2-­‐Dichloroethene trans-­‐1,2-­‐Dichloroethene 1,2-­‐Dichloropropane 1,3-­‐Dichloropropane 2,2-­‐Dichloropropane 1,1-­‐Dichloropropene cis-­‐1,3-­‐Dichloropropene trans-­‐1,3-­‐Dichloropropene Ethylbenzene Hexachlorobutadiene 2-­‐Hexanone Isopropylbenzene Methylene  chloride Methyl  Iodide 4-­‐Methyl-­‐2-­‐pentanone  (MIBK) Napthalene n-­‐Propylbenzene Styrene 1,1,1,2-­‐Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-­‐Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethene  (PCE) Toluene 1,2,3-­‐Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-­‐Trichlorobenzene 1,1,1-­‐Trichloroethane  (TCA) 1,1,2-­‐Trichloroethane Trichloroethene  (TCE) Trichlorofluoromethane  (CFC  11) 1,2,3-­‐Trichloropropane 1,2,4-­‐Trimethylbenzene 1,3,5-­‐Trimethylbenzene o-­‐Xylene m,p-­‐Xylenes Vinyl  Acetate Vinyl  Chloride Xylenes,  Total 1,4-­‐Dioxane Total  Chromium Dissolved  Chromium NE ug/L <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 75 NE NE 5 7 70 100 5 NE NE NE NE NE 700 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 100 NE NE 5 1000 NE 70 200 5 5 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 2 10000 NE 0.1 ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L mg/l <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 0.62 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <5.00 23.9 4.53  (S) <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 2.00 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 0.0144 <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 4.04 <2.0 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 3.85 <2.0 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 <0.0100 <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 1.20 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <2.0 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 4.37 <2.0 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 0.0211 <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 6.20 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 3.07 <2.0 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 34.7 <2.0 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 0.0146 <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 0.680 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA <1.50 <2.00 1.78 <0.500 2.17 6.98 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 8.6 <2.0 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 <0.500 47.6 <2.0 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 <0.0100 <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 1.49 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 0.630 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA 0.1 mg/l <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100 NA <0.0100 NA Explanabon: NE  -­‐  Not  Established;  NA  -­‐  Not  Analyzed Shading  indicates  AWQS  equaled  or  exceeded (S)  -­‐  data  suspect   (J)  -­‐  esbmated  value (ND)  considered  not  detected  due  to  field  blank  cont Page  1  of  15 TABLE  1.  SUMMARY  OF  WATER  QUALITY  -­‐  ADEQ  MONITOR  WELLS,  MARCH  2013 West  Van  Buren  Area  WQARF  Site WVBA  WELL  ID Sample  ID  (last  three  digits  idenbfy  sample  depth)          Date  Collected          Owner/Facility          Facility  Well  No.          Sample  Type          ADWR  No.          Alluvial  Unit          Lab  ID  No. Component  -­‐  EPA  8260B AWQS Units NE ug/L Acetone 5 ug/L Benzene NE ug/L Bromobenzene NE ug/L Bromochloromethane 100 ug/L Bromodichloromethane 100 ug/L Bromoform NE ug/L Bromomethane NE ug/L 2-­‐Butanone  (MEK) NE ug/L MTBE NE ug/L n-­‐Butylbenzene NE ug/L sec-­‐Butylbenzene NE ug/L tert-­‐Butylbenzene NE ug/L Carbon  Disulfide 5 ug/L Carbon  Tetrachloride 100 ug/L Chlorobenzene NE ug/L Chloroethane 100 ug/L Chloroform NE ug/L Chloromethane NE ug/L 2-­‐Chlorotoluene NE ug/L 4-­‐Chlorotoluene NE ug/L p-­‐Isopropyltoluene 100 ug/L Dibromochloromethane 0.2 ug/L 1,2-­‐Dibromo-­‐3-­‐chloropropane NE ug/L 1,2-­‐Dibromoethane  (EDB) NE ug/L Dibromomethane AVB38-­‐04 AVB38-­‐05x110 3/25/13 ADEQ AVB38-­‐04 GRAB 55-­‐535311 UAU1 459871-­‐011 AVB40-­‐05 AVB40-­‐0500-­‐21098 3/15/13 ADEQ-­‐ALSCO MW-­‐3 PDB 55-­‐536228 UAU1 459337-­‐004 AVB40-­‐06 AVB110-­‐0600-­‐21098 3/15/13 ADEQ-­‐ALSCO MW-­‐1 PDB 55-­‐536229 UAU1 459337-­‐009 AVB40-­‐07 AVB40-­‐0700-­‐21098 3/15/13 ADEQ-­‐ALSCO MW-­‐2 PDB 55-­‐536227 UAU1 459337-­‐005 AVB40-­‐08 AVB40-­‐0800-­‐18098 3/18/13 ADEQ-­‐ALSCO MW-­‐4 GRAB 55-­‐536284 UAU1 459346-­‐008 AVB57-­‐01 AVB57-­‐0100-­‐32100 3/18/13 ADEQ APS-­‐1 PURGE 55-­‐539219 UAU1 459346-­‐002 AVB68-­‐02 AVB68-­‐0200-­‐24110 3/25/13 ADEQ MW-­‐2 GRAB 55-­‐561942 UAU1 459871-­‐005 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 2.47 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 0.590 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <20.0 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 1,2-­‐Dichlorobenzene 600 ug/L <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 1,3-­‐Dichlorobenzene 1,4-­‐Dichlorobenzene Dichlorodifluoromethane 1,1-­‐Dichloroethane  (1,1-­‐DCA) 1,2-­‐Dichloroethane 1,1-­‐Dichloroethene  (1,1-­‐DCE) cis-­‐1,2-­‐Dichloroethene trans-­‐1,2-­‐Dichloroethene 1,2-­‐Dichloropropane 1,3-­‐Dichloropropane 2,2-­‐Dichloropropane 1,1-­‐Dichloropropene cis-­‐1,3-­‐Dichloropropene trans-­‐1,3-­‐Dichloropropene Ethylbenzene Hexachlorobutadiene 2-­‐Hexanone Isopropylbenzene Methylene  chloride Methyl  Iodide 4-­‐Methyl-­‐2-­‐pentanone  (MIBK) Napthalene n-­‐Propylbenzene Styrene 1,1,1,2-­‐Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-­‐Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethene  (PCE) Toluene 1,2,3-­‐Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-­‐Trichlorobenzene 1,1,1-­‐Trichloroethane  (TCA) 1,1,2-­‐Trichloroethane Trichloroethene  (TCE) Trichlorofluoromethane  (CFC  11) 1,2,3-­‐Trichloropropane 1,2,4-­‐Trimethylbenzene 1,3,5-­‐Trimethylbenzene o-­‐Xylene m,p-­‐Xylenes Vinyl  Acetate Vinyl  Chloride Xylenes,  Total 1,4-­‐Dioxane Total  Chromium Dissolved  Chromium NE ug/L <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 75 NE NE 5 7 70 100 5 NE NE NE NE NE 700 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 100 NE NE 5 1000 NE 70 200 5 5 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 2 10000 NE 0.1 ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L mg/l <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 2.01 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 0.810 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 3.06 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 3.07 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 1.58 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 2.04 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 24.5 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 6.59 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 3.69 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 9.62 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 0.0185 <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 0.590 <2.0 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 <0.500 <2.0 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 0.465 <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 1.27 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA 0.1 mg/l NA NA NA NA <0.0100 <0.0100 NA Explanabon: NE  -­‐  Not  Established;  NA  -­‐  Not  Analyzed Shading  indicates  AWQS  equaled  or  exceeded (S)  -­‐  data  suspect   (J)  -­‐  esbmated  value (ND)  considered  not  detected  due  to  field  blank  cont Page  2  of  15 TABLE  1.  SUMMARY  OF  WATER  QUALITY  -­‐  ADEQ  MONITOR  WELLS,  MARCH  2013 West  Van  Buren  Area  WQARF  Site WVBA  WELL  ID Sample  ID  (last  three  digits  idenbfy  sample  depth)          Date  Collected          Owner/Facility          Facility  Well  No.          Sample  Type          ADWR  No.          Alluvial  Unit          Lab  ID  No. Component  -­‐  EPA  8260B AWQS Units NE ug/L Acetone 5 ug/L Benzene NE ug/L Bromobenzene NE ug/L Bromochloromethane 100 ug/L Bromodichloromethane 100 ug/L Bromoform NE ug/L Bromomethane NE ug/L 2-­‐Butanone  (MEK) NE ug/L MTBE NE ug/L n-­‐Butylbenzene NE ug/L sec-­‐Butylbenzene NE ug/L tert-­‐Butylbenzene NE ug/L Carbon  Disulfide 5 ug/L Carbon  Tetrachloride 100 ug/L Chlorobenzene NE ug/L Chloroethane 100 ug/L Chloroform NE ug/L Chloromethane NE ug/L 2-­‐Chlorotoluene NE ug/L 4-­‐Chlorotoluene NE ug/L p-­‐Isopropyltoluene 100 ug/L Dibromochloromethane 0.2 ug/L 1,2-­‐Dibromo-­‐3-­‐chloropropane NE ug/L 1,2-­‐Dibromoethane  (EDB) NE ug/L Dibromomethane AVB69-­‐02R AVB69-­‐02R0-­‐01128 3/18/13 ADEQ AVB69-­‐02R PURGE 55-­‐914602 UAU1 459346-­‐009 AVB70-­‐01 AVB70-­‐0100-­‐25115 3/19/13 ADEQ MW-­‐1 PURGE 55-­‐569883 UAU1 459504-­‐006 AVB71-­‐01 AVB71-­‐0100-­‐25158 3/21/13 ADEQ MW-­‐2 PURGE 55-­‐569741 UAU1 459683-­‐004 AVB72-­‐01 AVB72-­‐0100-­‐24135 3/19/13 ADEQ MW-­‐3 PURGE 55-­‐569882 UAU1 459504-­‐008 AVB73-­‐01 AVB73-­‐0100-­‐23118 3/21/13 ADEQ MW-­‐4 PURGE 55-­‐569882 UAU1 459683-­‐007 AVB74-­‐01 AVB74-­‐0100-­‐33098 3/21/13 ADEQ MW-­‐5 PURGE 55-­‐570051 UAU1 459683-­‐005 AVB75-­‐01 AVB75-­‐0100-­‐25132 3/21/13 ADEQ MW-­‐6 PURGE 55-­‐569881 UAU1 459683-­‐006 <20.0 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <20.0 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <20.0 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <20.0 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 1.89 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <20.0 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <20.0 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <20.0 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 1,2-­‐Dichlorobenzene 600 ug/L <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 1,3-­‐Dichlorobenzene 1,4-­‐Dichlorobenzene Dichlorodifluoromethane 1,1-­‐Dichloroethane  (1,1-­‐DCA) 1,2-­‐Dichloroethane 1,1-­‐Dichloroethene  (1,1-­‐DCE) cis-­‐1,2-­‐Dichloroethene trans-­‐1,2-­‐Dichloroethene 1,2-­‐Dichloropropane 1,3-­‐Dichloropropane 2,2-­‐Dichloropropane 1,1-­‐Dichloropropene cis-­‐1,3-­‐Dichloropropene trans-­‐1,3-­‐Dichloropropene Ethylbenzene Hexachlorobutadiene 2-­‐Hexanone Isopropylbenzene Methylene  chloride Methyl  Iodide 4-­‐Methyl-­‐2-­‐pentanone  (MIBK) Napthalene n-­‐Propylbenzene Styrene 1,1,1,2-­‐Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-­‐Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethene  (PCE) Toluene 1,2,3-­‐Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-­‐Trichlorobenzene 1,1,1-­‐Trichloroethane  (TCA) 1,1,2-­‐Trichloroethane Trichloroethene  (TCE) Trichlorofluoromethane  (CFC  11) 1,2,3-­‐Trichloropropane 1,2,4-­‐Trimethylbenzene 1,3,5-­‐Trimethylbenzene o-­‐Xylene m,p-­‐Xylenes Vinyl  Acetate Vinyl  Chloride Xylenes,  Total 1,4-­‐Dioxane Total  Chromium Dissolved  Chromium NE ug/L <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 75 NE NE 5 7 70 100 5 NE NE NE NE NE 700 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 100 NE NE 5 1000 NE 70 200 5 5 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 2 10000 NE 0.1 ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L mg/l <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 7.24 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 0.0254 <1.50 <2.00 0.850 <0.500 <0.500 7.25 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 11.2 <2.0 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 7.16 <2.0 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 3.19 <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <2.0 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 <0.500 <2.0 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 1.21 <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 2.79 <2.0 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 6.70 <2.0 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 1.19 <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 2.05 <2.0 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 <0.500 <2.0 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 2.32 <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <2.0 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 <0.500 <2.0 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 5.74 <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 1.03 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 13.6 <2.0 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 2.29 <2.0 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 3.84 0.1 mg/l <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100 0.0322 <0.0100 Explanabon: NE  -­‐  Not  Established;  NA  -­‐  Not  Analyzed Shading  indicates  AWQS  equaled  or  exceeded (S)  -­‐  data  suspect   (J)  -­‐  esbmated  value (ND)  considered  not  detected  due  to  field  blank  cont Page  3  of  15 TABLE  1.  SUMMARY  OF  WATER  QUALITY  -­‐  ADEQ  MONITOR  WELLS,  MARCH  2013 West  Van  Buren  Area  WQARF  Site WVBA  WELL  ID Sample  ID  (last  three  digits  idenbfy  sample  depth)          Date  Collected          Owner/Facility          Facility  Well  No.          Sample  Type          ADWR  No.          Alluvial  Unit          Lab  ID  No. Component  -­‐  EPA  8260B AWQS Units NE ug/L Acetone 5 ug/L Benzene NE ug/L Bromobenzene NE ug/L Bromochloromethane 100 ug/L Bromodichloromethane 100 ug/L Bromoform NE ug/L Bromomethane NE ug/L 2-­‐Butanone  (MEK) NE ug/L MTBE NE ug/L n-­‐Butylbenzene NE ug/L sec-­‐Butylbenzene NE ug/L tert-­‐Butylbenzene NE ug/L Carbon  Disulfide 5 ug/L Carbon  Tetrachloride 100 ug/L Chlorobenzene NE ug/L Chloroethane 100 ug/L Chloroform NE ug/L Chloromethane NE ug/L 2-­‐Chlorotoluene NE ug/L 4-­‐Chlorotoluene NE ug/L p-­‐Isopropyltoluene 100 ug/L Dibromochloromethane 0.2 ug/L 1,2-­‐Dibromo-­‐3-­‐chloropropane NE ug/L 1,2-­‐Dibromoethane  (EDB) NE ug/L Dibromomethane AVB76-­‐01 AVB76-­‐0100-­‐21113 3/21/13 ADEQ MW-­‐7 PURGE 55-­‐570052 UAU1 459683-­‐003 AVB77-­‐01 AVB77-­‐0100-­‐24108 3/15/13 ADEQ MW-­‐5S PDB 55-­‐567445 UAU1 459337-­‐006 AVB77-­‐03 AVB77-­‐0300-­‐24215 3/15/13 ADEQ MW-­‐5M PDB 55-­‐567444 UAU1 459337-­‐008 AVB81-­‐02 AVB81-­‐0200-­‐22118 3/25/13 ADEQ AVB81-­‐02 PDB 55-­‐584500 UAU1 459871-­‐013 AVB83-­‐01 AVB83-­‐0100-­‐22114 3/15/13 ADEQ AVB84-­‐01 AVB84-­‐0100-­‐XXX 3/15/13 ADEQ AVB83-­‐01 PDB 55-­‐584501 UAU1 459337-­‐010 AVB84-­‐01 PDB 55-­‐584497 UAU1 459337-­‐014 AVB85-­‐01 AVB85-­‐0100-­‐23112 3/15/13 ADEQ AVB85-­‐01 PDB 55-­‐584505 UAU1 459337-­‐016 <20.0 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 1,2-­‐Dichlorobenzene 600 ug/L <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 1,3-­‐Dichlorobenzene 1,4-­‐Dichlorobenzene Dichlorodifluoromethane 1,1-­‐Dichloroethane  (1,1-­‐DCA) 1,2-­‐Dichloroethane 1,1-­‐Dichloroethene  (1,1-­‐DCE) cis-­‐1,2-­‐Dichloroethene trans-­‐1,2-­‐Dichloroethene 1,2-­‐Dichloropropane 1,3-­‐Dichloropropane 2,2-­‐Dichloropropane 1,1-­‐Dichloropropene cis-­‐1,3-­‐Dichloropropene trans-­‐1,3-­‐Dichloropropene Ethylbenzene Hexachlorobutadiene 2-­‐Hexanone Isopropylbenzene Methylene  chloride Methyl  Iodide 4-­‐Methyl-­‐2-­‐pentanone  (MIBK) Napthalene n-­‐Propylbenzene Styrene 1,1,1,2-­‐Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-­‐Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethene  (PCE) Toluene 1,2,3-­‐Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-­‐Trichlorobenzene 1,1,1-­‐Trichloroethane  (TCA) 1,1,2-­‐Trichloroethane Trichloroethene  (TCE) Trichlorofluoromethane  (CFC  11) 1,2,3-­‐Trichloropropane 1,2,4-­‐Trimethylbenzene 1,3,5-­‐Trimethylbenzene o-­‐Xylene m,p-­‐Xylenes Vinyl  Acetate Vinyl  Chloride Xylenes,  Total 1,4-­‐Dioxane Total  Chromium Dissolved  Chromium NE ug/L <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 75 NE NE 5 7 70 100 5 NE NE NE NE NE 700 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 100 NE NE 5 1000 NE 70 200 5 5 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 2 10000 NE 0.1 ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L mg/l <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <2.0 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 <0.500 <2.0 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 0.361 <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 1.47 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 2.77 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 0.840 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 1.40 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 1.47 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 0.560 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 15.5 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 36.8 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 0.600 <0.500 10.1 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA 0.1 mg/l 0.0115 NA NA NA NA NA NA Explanabon: NE  -­‐  Not  Established;  NA  -­‐  Not  Analyzed Shading  indicates  AWQS  equaled  or  exceeded (S)  -­‐  data  suspect   (J)  -­‐  esbmated  value (ND)  considered  not  detected  due  to  field  blank  cont Page  4  of  15 TABLE  1.  SUMMARY  OF  WATER  QUALITY  -­‐  ADEQ  MONITOR  WELLS,  MARCH  2013 West  Van  Buren  Area  WQARF  Site WVBA  WELL  ID Sample  ID  (last  three  digits  idenbfy  sample  depth)          Date  Collected          Owner/Facility          Facility  Well  No.          Sample  Type          ADWR  No.          Alluvial  Unit          Lab  ID  No. Component  -­‐  EPA  8260B AWQS Units NE ug/L Acetone 5 ug/L Benzene NE ug/L Bromobenzene NE ug/L Bromochloromethane 100 ug/L Bromodichloromethane 100 ug/L Bromoform NE ug/L Bromomethane NE ug/L 2-­‐Butanone  (MEK) NE ug/L MTBE NE ug/L n-­‐Butylbenzene NE ug/L sec-­‐Butylbenzene NE ug/L tert-­‐Butylbenzene NE ug/L Carbon  Disulfide 5 ug/L Carbon  Tetrachloride 100 ug/L Chlorobenzene NE ug/L Chloroethane 100 ug/L Chloroform NE ug/L Chloromethane NE ug/L 2-­‐Chlorotoluene NE ug/L 4-­‐Chlorotoluene NE ug/L p-­‐Isopropyltoluene 100 ug/L Dibromochloromethane 0.2 ug/L 1,2-­‐Dibromo-­‐3-­‐chloropropane NE ug/L 1,2-­‐Dibromoethane  (EDB) NE ug/L Dibromomethane AVB88-­‐01 AVB88-­‐0100-­‐23118 3/19/13 ADEQ AVB88-­‐01 PURGE 55-­‐584498 UAU1 459504-­‐002 AVB91-­‐01 AVB91-­‐0100-­‐21138 3/21/13 ADEQ AVB92-­‐01 AVB92-­‐0100-­‐19138 3/20/13 ADEQ AVB92-­‐02 AVB92-­‐0200-­‐XXX 3/26/13 ADEQ AVB93-­‐01 AVB93-­‐0100-­‐20137 3/20/13 ADEQ AVB94-­‐01 AVB94-­‐0100-­‐17138 3/26/13 ADEQ AVB94-­‐02 AVB94-­‐0200-­‐21260 3/26/13 ADEQ AVB91-­‐01 PURGE 55-­‐589635 UAU1 459683-­‐002 AVB92-­‐01 PURGE 55-­‐589637 UAU1 459592-­‐007 AVB92-­‐02 PDB 55-­‐589646 UAU1 459938-­‐012 AVB93-­‐01 PURGE 55-­‐589638 UAU1 459592-­‐006 AVB94-­‐01 PDB 55-­‐589639 UAU1 459938-­‐007 AVB94-­‐02 PDB 55-­‐589642 UAU1 459938-­‐006 <20.0 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <20.0 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <20.0 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <20.0 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 0.570 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 1,2-­‐Dichlorobenzene 600 ug/L <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 1,3-­‐Dichlorobenzene 1,4-­‐Dichlorobenzene Dichlorodifluoromethane 1,1-­‐Dichloroethane  (1,1-­‐DCA) 1,2-­‐Dichloroethane 1,1-­‐Dichloroethene  (1,1-­‐DCE) cis-­‐1,2-­‐Dichloroethene trans-­‐1,2-­‐Dichloroethene 1,2-­‐Dichloropropane 1,3-­‐Dichloropropane 2,2-­‐Dichloropropane 1,1-­‐Dichloropropene cis-­‐1,3-­‐Dichloropropene trans-­‐1,3-­‐Dichloropropene Ethylbenzene Hexachlorobutadiene 2-­‐Hexanone Isopropylbenzene Methylene  chloride Methyl  Iodide 4-­‐Methyl-­‐2-­‐pentanone  (MIBK) Napthalene n-­‐Propylbenzene Styrene 1,1,1,2-­‐Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-­‐Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethene  (PCE) Toluene 1,2,3-­‐Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-­‐Trichlorobenzene 1,1,1-­‐Trichloroethane  (TCA) 1,1,2-­‐Trichloroethane Trichloroethene  (TCE) Trichlorofluoromethane  (CFC  11) 1,2,3-­‐Trichloropropane 1,2,4-­‐Trimethylbenzene 1,3,5-­‐Trimethylbenzene o-­‐Xylene m,p-­‐Xylenes Vinyl  Acetate Vinyl  Chloride Xylenes,  Total 1,4-­‐Dioxane Total  Chromium Dissolved  Chromium NE ug/L <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 75 NE NE 5 7 70 100 5 NE NE NE NE NE 700 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 100 NE NE 5 1000 NE 70 200 5 5 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 2 10000 NE 0.1 ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L mg/l <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 65.1 <2.0 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 <0.500 <2.0 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 0.0607 <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <2.0 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 <0.500 <2.0 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 0.141 <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <2.0 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 <0.500 <2.0 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 0.0575 <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 13.5 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 8.31 <2.0 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 <0.500 <2.0 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 0.0295 <1.50 11.9 <0.500 1.57 1.43 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 27.8 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 2.76 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 4.19 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA 0.1 mg/l 0.0569 0.0208 0.0115 NA <0.0100 NA NA Explanabon: NE  -­‐  Not  Established;  NA  -­‐  Not  Analyzed Shading  indicates  AWQS  equaled  or  exceeded (S)  -­‐  data  suspect   (J)  -­‐  esbmated  value (ND)  considered  not  detected  due  to  field  blank  cont Page  5  of  15 TABLE  1.  SUMMARY  OF  WATER  QUALITY  -­‐  ADEQ  MONITOR  WELLS,  MARCH  2013 West  Van  Buren  Area  WQARF  Site WVBA  WELL  ID Sample  ID  (last  three  digits  idenbfy  sample  depth)          Date  Collected          Owner/Facility          Facility  Well  No.          Sample  Type          ADWR  No.          Alluvial  Unit          Lab  ID  No. Component  -­‐  EPA  8260B AWQS Units NE ug/L Acetone 5 ug/L Benzene NE ug/L Bromobenzene NE ug/L Bromochloromethane 100 ug/L Bromodichloromethane 100 ug/L Bromoform NE ug/L Bromomethane NE ug/L 2-­‐Butanone  (MEK) NE ug/L MTBE NE ug/L n-­‐Butylbenzene NE ug/L sec-­‐Butylbenzene NE ug/L tert-­‐Butylbenzene NE ug/L Carbon  Disulfide 5 ug/L Carbon  Tetrachloride 100 ug/L Chlorobenzene NE ug/L Chloroethane 100 ug/L Chloroform NE ug/L Chloromethane NE ug/L 2-­‐Chlorotoluene NE ug/L 4-­‐Chlorotoluene NE ug/L p-­‐Isopropyltoluene 100 ug/L Dibromochloromethane 0.2 ug/L 1,2-­‐Dibromo-­‐3-­‐chloropropane NE ug/L 1,2-­‐Dibromoethane  (EDB) NE ug/L Dibromomethane AVB95-­‐01 AVB95-­‐0100-­‐21138 3/26/13 ADEQ AVB95-­‐02 AVB95-­‐0200-­‐X230 3/26/13 34TH  AVE/ROOSEVELT AVB96-­‐01 AVB96-­‐0100-­‐20121 3/26/13 ADEQ AVB97-­‐01 AVB97-­‐0100-­‐20118 3/19/13 ADEQ AVB99-­‐01 AVB99-­‐0100-­‐21109 3/15/13 ADEQ AVB95-­‐01 PDB 55-­‐589636 UAU1 459938-­‐002 AVB95-­‐02 PDB 55-­‐626533 UAU1 459938-­‐003 AVB96-­‐01 PDB 55-­‐589640 UAU1 459938-­‐014 AVB97-­‐01 GRAB 55-­‐589641 UAU1 459504-­‐004 AVB99-­‐01 PDB 55-­‐589634 UAU1 459337-­‐011 AVB103-­‐02 AVB102-­‐0200-­‐12098 3/18/13 TRISTAR MW-­‐2 PURGE 55-­‐581001 UAU1 459346-­‐006 AVB106-­‐01 AVB106-­‐0100-­‐25102 3/18/13 MARICOPA  COUNTY MC-­‐05 PURGE 55-­‐549619 UAU1 459346-­‐003 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 1.12 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <20.0 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <20.0 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <20.0 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 0.720 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 1,2-­‐Dichlorobenzene 600 ug/L <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 1,3-­‐Dichlorobenzene 1,4-­‐Dichlorobenzene Dichlorodifluoromethane 1,1-­‐Dichloroethane  (1,1-­‐DCA) 1,2-­‐Dichloroethane 1,1-­‐Dichloroethene  (1,1-­‐DCE) cis-­‐1,2-­‐Dichloroethene trans-­‐1,2-­‐Dichloroethene 1,2-­‐Dichloropropane 1,3-­‐Dichloropropane 2,2-­‐Dichloropropane 1,1-­‐Dichloropropene cis-­‐1,3-­‐Dichloropropene trans-­‐1,3-­‐Dichloropropene Ethylbenzene Hexachlorobutadiene 2-­‐Hexanone Isopropylbenzene Methylene  chloride Methyl  Iodide 4-­‐Methyl-­‐2-­‐pentanone  (MIBK) Napthalene n-­‐Propylbenzene Styrene 1,1,1,2-­‐Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-­‐Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethene  (PCE) Toluene 1,2,3-­‐Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-­‐Trichlorobenzene 1,1,1-­‐Trichloroethane  (TCA) 1,1,2-­‐Trichloroethane Trichloroethene  (TCE) Trichlorofluoromethane  (CFC  11) 1,2,3-­‐Trichloropropane 1,2,4-­‐Trimethylbenzene 1,3,5-­‐Trimethylbenzene o-­‐Xylene m,p-­‐Xylenes Vinyl  Acetate Vinyl  Chloride Xylenes,  Total 1,4-­‐Dioxane Total  Chromium Dissolved  Chromium NE ug/L <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 75 NE NE 5 7 70 100 5 NE NE NE NE NE 700 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 100 NE NE 5 1000 NE 70 200 5 5 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 2 10000 NE 0.1 ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L mg/l <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <2.0 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 <0.500 <2.0 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 0.0136 <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <2.0 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 0.650 <2.0 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 <0.0100 <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 1.04 <2.0 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 2.75 <2.0 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 0.0172 0.1 mg/l NA NA NA <0.0100 NA <0.0100 <0.0100 Explanabon: NE  -­‐  Not  Established;  NA  -­‐  Not  Analyzed Shading  indicates  AWQS  equaled  or  exceeded (S)  -­‐  data  suspect   (J)  -­‐  esbmated  value (ND)  considered  not  detected  due  to  field  blank  cont Page  6  of  15 TABLE  1.  SUMMARY  OF  WATER  QUALITY  -­‐  ADEQ  MONITOR  WELLS,  MARCH  2013 West  Van  Buren  Area  WQARF  Site WVBA  WELL  ID Sample  ID  (last  three  digits  idenbfy  sample  depth)          Date  Collected          Owner/Facility          Facility  Well  No.          Sample  Type          ADWR  No.          Alluvial  Unit          Lab  ID  No. Component  -­‐  EPA  8260B AWQS Units NE ug/L Acetone 5 ug/L Benzene NE ug/L Bromobenzene NE ug/L Bromochloromethane 100 ug/L Bromodichloromethane 100 ug/L Bromoform NE ug/L Bromomethane NE ug/L 2-­‐Butanone  (MEK) NE ug/L MTBE NE ug/L n-­‐Butylbenzene NE ug/L sec-­‐Butylbenzene NE ug/L tert-­‐Butylbenzene NE ug/L Carbon  Disulfide 5 ug/L Carbon  Tetrachloride 100 ug/L Chlorobenzene NE ug/L Chloroethane 100 ug/L Chloroform NE ug/L Chloromethane NE ug/L 2-­‐Chlorotoluene NE ug/L 4-­‐Chlorotoluene NE ug/L p-­‐Isopropyltoluene 100 ug/L Dibromochloromethane 0.2 ug/L 1,2-­‐Dibromo-­‐3-­‐chloropropane NE ug/L 1,2-­‐Dibromoethane  (EDB) NE ug/L Dibromomethane AVB106-­‐02 AVB106-­‐0200-­‐24177 3/15/13 MARICOPA  COUNTY MC-­‐N06  #2 PDB 55-­‐549233-­‐03 UAU1 459337-­‐002 AVB107-­‐01 AVB107-­‐0100-­‐22118 3/25/13 TRANSCON    (TRANS03-­‐01) MW-­‐2 PDB 55-­‐525469 UAU1 459871-­‐007 AVB108-­‐01 AVB108-­‐0100-­‐25148 3/20/13 VOPAK MW-­‐6 PURGE 55-­‐531539 UAU1 459592-­‐002 AVB108-­‐02 AVB108-­‐0200-­‐18225 3/20/13 VOPAK MW-­‐11 PDB 55-­‐562746 UAU1 459592-­‐004 AVB112-­‐05 AVB112-­‐0500-­‐12160 3/20/13 ADEQ MW-­‐5 PURGE 55-­‐200601 UAU1 459592-­‐005 AVB115-­‐01 AVB115-­‐0100-­‐19127 3/22/13 ADEQ AVB115-­‐01 PDB 55-­‐596920 UAU1 459692-­‐002 AVB  116-­‐01 AVB116-­‐0100-­‐19134 3/22/13 ADEQ AVB  116-­‐01 PDB 55-­‐596916 UAU1 459692-­‐007 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 3.39 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <20.0 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 3.61 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <20.0 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 9.73 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <20.0 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 1.20 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 1,2-­‐Dichlorobenzene 600 ug/L <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 1,3-­‐Dichlorobenzene 1,4-­‐Dichlorobenzene Dichlorodifluoromethane 1,1-­‐Dichloroethane  (1,1-­‐DCA) 1,2-­‐Dichloroethane 1,1-­‐Dichloroethene  (1,1-­‐DCE) cis-­‐1,2-­‐Dichloroethene trans-­‐1,2-­‐Dichloroethene 1,2-­‐Dichloropropane 1,3-­‐Dichloropropane 2,2-­‐Dichloropropane 1,1-­‐Dichloropropene cis-­‐1,3-­‐Dichloropropene trans-­‐1,3-­‐Dichloropropene Ethylbenzene Hexachlorobutadiene 2-­‐Hexanone Isopropylbenzene Methylene  chloride Methyl  Iodide 4-­‐Methyl-­‐2-­‐pentanone  (MIBK) Napthalene n-­‐Propylbenzene Styrene 1,1,1,2-­‐Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-­‐Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethene  (PCE) Toluene 1,2,3-­‐Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-­‐Trichlorobenzene 1,1,1-­‐Trichloroethane  (TCA) 1,1,2-­‐Trichloroethane Trichloroethene  (TCE) Trichlorofluoromethane  (CFC  11) 1,2,3-­‐Trichloropropane 1,2,4-­‐Trimethylbenzene 1,3,5-­‐Trimethylbenzene o-­‐Xylene m,p-­‐Xylenes Vinyl  Acetate Vinyl  Chloride Xylenes,  Total 1,4-­‐Dioxane Total  Chromium Dissolved  Chromium NE ug/L <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 75 NE NE 5 7 70 100 5 NE NE NE NE NE 700 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 100 NE NE 5 1000 NE 70 200 5 5 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 2 10000 NE 0.1 ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L mg/l <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA <1.50 <2.00 2.49 <0.500 3.27 5.21 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 3.53 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 20.1 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA <1.50 <2.00 0.620 <0.500 <0.500 0.900 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 10.3 <2.0 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 12.9 <2.0 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 0.0268 <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 3.24 <2.0 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 2.77 <2.0 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <2.0 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 <0.500 <2.0 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 0.0185 <1.50 <2.00 4.14  (J) <0.500 6.02 8.90 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 1.51 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 40.8 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA <1.50 <2.00 0.790  (J) <0.500 <0.500 0.660 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 3.51 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA 0.1 mg/l NA NA <0.0100 NA 0.0106 NA NA Explanabon: NE  -­‐  Not  Established;  NA  -­‐  Not  Analyzed Shading  indicates  AWQS  equaled  or  exceeded (S)  -­‐  data  suspect   (J)  -­‐  esbmated  value (ND)  considered  not  detected  due  to  field  blank  cont Page  7  of  15 TABLE  1.  SUMMARY  OF  WATER  QUALITY  -­‐  ADEQ  MONITOR  WELLS,  MARCH  2013 West  Van  Buren  Area  WQARF  Site WVBA  WELL  ID Sample  ID  (last  three  digits  idenbfy  sample  depth)          Date  Collected          Owner/Facility          Facility  Well  No.          Sample  Type          ADWR  No.          Alluvial  Unit          Lab  ID  No. Component  -­‐  EPA  8260B AWQS Units NE ug/L Acetone 5 ug/L Benzene NE ug/L Bromobenzene NE ug/L Bromochloromethane 100 ug/L Bromodichloromethane 100 ug/L Bromoform NE ug/L Bromomethane NE ug/L 2-­‐Butanone  (MEK) NE ug/L MTBE NE ug/L n-­‐Butylbenzene NE ug/L sec-­‐Butylbenzene NE ug/L tert-­‐Butylbenzene NE ug/L Carbon  Disulfide 5 ug/L Carbon  Tetrachloride 100 ug/L Chlorobenzene NE ug/L Chloroethane 100 ug/L Chloroform NE ug/L Chloromethane NE ug/L 2-­‐Chlorotoluene NE ug/L 4-­‐Chlorotoluene NE ug/L p-­‐Isopropyltoluene 100 ug/L Dibromochloromethane 0.2 ug/L 1,2-­‐Dibromo-­‐3-­‐chloropropane NE ug/L 1,2-­‐Dibromoethane  (EDB) NE ug/L Dibromomethane AVB117-­‐01 AVB117-­‐0100-­‐19149 3/26/13 ADEQ AVB117-­‐01 PDB 55-­‐596917 UAU1 459938-­‐005 AVB119-­‐01 AVB119-­‐0100-­‐19144 3/26/13 ADEQ AVB119-­‐01 PDB 55-­‐596918 UAU1 459938-­‐009 AVB120-­‐01 AVB120-­‐0100-­‐19120 3/22/13 ADEQ AVB120-­‐01 PDB 55-­‐596919 UAU1 459692-­‐015 AVB121-­‐01 AVB121-­‐0100-­‐19132 3/22/13 ADEQ AVB121-­‐01 PDB 55-­‐596921 UAU1 459871-­‐008 AVB122-­‐01 AVB122-­‐0100-­‐19152 3/25/13 ADEQ AVB122-­‐01 PDB 55-­‐596931 UAU1 459871-­‐009 AVB122-­‐02 AVB122-­‐0200-­‐19245 3/25/13 ADEQ AVB122-­‐02 PDB 55-­‐596932 UAU1 459871-­‐010 AVB  123-­‐01 AVB123-­‐0100-­‐17148 3/22/13 ADEQ AVB  123-­‐01 PDB 55-­‐202185 UAU1 459692-­‐003 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 1.96 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 3.00 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 0.630 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 4.77 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 2.12 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 1,2-­‐Dichlorobenzene 600 ug/L <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 1,3-­‐Dichlorobenzene 1,4-­‐Dichlorobenzene Dichlorodifluoromethane 1,1-­‐Dichloroethane  (1,1-­‐DCA) 1,2-­‐Dichloroethane 1,1-­‐Dichloroethene  (1,1-­‐DCE) cis-­‐1,2-­‐Dichloroethene trans-­‐1,2-­‐Dichloroethene 1,2-­‐Dichloropropane 1,3-­‐Dichloropropane 2,2-­‐Dichloropropane 1,1-­‐Dichloropropene cis-­‐1,3-­‐Dichloropropene trans-­‐1,3-­‐Dichloropropene Ethylbenzene Hexachlorobutadiene 2-­‐Hexanone Isopropylbenzene Methylene  chloride Methyl  Iodide 4-­‐Methyl-­‐2-­‐pentanone  (MIBK) Napthalene n-­‐Propylbenzene Styrene 1,1,1,2-­‐Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-­‐Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethene  (PCE) Toluene 1,2,3-­‐Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-­‐Trichlorobenzene 1,1,1-­‐Trichloroethane  (TCA) 1,1,2-­‐Trichloroethane Trichloroethene  (TCE) Trichlorofluoromethane  (CFC  11) 1,2,3-­‐Trichloropropane 1,2,4-­‐Trimethylbenzene 1,3,5-­‐Trimethylbenzene o-­‐Xylene m,p-­‐Xylenes Vinyl  Acetate Vinyl  Chloride Xylenes,  Total 1,4-­‐Dioxane Total  Chromium Dissolved  Chromium NE ug/L <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 75 NE NE 5 7 70 100 5 NE NE NE NE NE 700 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 100 NE NE 5 1000 NE 70 200 5 5 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 2 10000 NE 0.1 ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L mg/l <1.50 2.17 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 1.72 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 0.620 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 87.5 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA <1.50 <2.00 3.11  (J) 0.500 4.32 12.3 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 9.53 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 74.0 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 0.930 0.560 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 13.4 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 9.13 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 2.13 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 8.83 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 7.49 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 1.03 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 0.710 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 7.47 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA 0.1 mg/l NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Explanabon: NE  -­‐  Not  Established;  NA  -­‐  Not  Analyzed Shading  indicates  AWQS  equaled  or  exceeded (S)  -­‐  data  suspect   (J)  -­‐  esbmated  value (ND)  considered  not  detected  due  to  field  blank  cont Page  8  of  15 TABLE  1.  SUMMARY  OF  WATER  QUALITY  -­‐  ADEQ  MONITOR  WELLS,  MARCH  2013 West  Van  Buren  Area  WQARF  Site WVBA  WELL  ID Sample  ID  (last  three  digits  idenbfy  sample  depth)          Date  Collected          Owner/Facility          Facility  Well  No.          Sample  Type          ADWR  No.          Alluvial  Unit          Lab  ID  No. Component  -­‐  EPA  8260B AWQS Units NE ug/L Acetone 5 ug/L Benzene NE ug/L Bromobenzene NE ug/L Bromochloromethane 100 ug/L Bromodichloromethane 100 ug/L Bromoform NE ug/L Bromomethane NE ug/L 2-­‐Butanone  (MEK) NE ug/L MTBE NE ug/L n-­‐Butylbenzene NE ug/L sec-­‐Butylbenzene NE ug/L tert-­‐Butylbenzene NE ug/L Carbon  Disulfide 5 ug/L Carbon  Tetrachloride 100 ug/L Chlorobenzene NE ug/L Chloroethane 100 ug/L Chloroform NE ug/L Chloromethane NE ug/L 2-­‐Chlorotoluene NE ug/L 4-­‐Chlorotoluene NE ug/L p-­‐Isopropyltoluene 100 ug/L Dibromochloromethane 0.2 ug/L 1,2-­‐Dibromo-­‐3-­‐chloropropane NE ug/L 1,2-­‐Dibromoethane  (EDB) NE ug/L Dibromomethane AVB  125-­‐01 AVB125-­‐0100-­‐17148 3/18/13 ADEQ AVB  125-­‐01 PURGE 55-­‐202189 UAU1 459346-­‐011 AVB126-­‐01 AVB126-­‐0100-­‐13142 3/19/13 ADEQ AVB126-­‐01 PURGE 55-­‐211115 UAU1 459504-­‐005 AVB127-­‐01 AVB127-­‐0100-­‐16140 3/22/13 ADEQ AVB127-­‐01 PDB 55-­‐202279 UAU1 459692-­‐010 AVB  129-­‐01 AVB129-­‐0100-­‐17152 3/25/13 ADEQ AVB  129-­‐01 PDB 55-­‐202280 UAU1 459871-­‐017 AVB  130-­‐01 AVB130-­‐0100-­‐17159 3/26/13 ADEQ AVB  130-­‐01 PDB 55-­‐202188 UAU1 459938-­‐008 AVB  133-­‐01 AVB133-­‐0100-­‐14200 3/8/13 ADEQ AVB  133-­‐01 PURGE 55-­‐207162 UAU1 458918-­‐002 AVB134-­‐01 AVB134-­‐0100-­‐12120 3/22/13 ADEQ AVB134-­‐01 PDB 55-­‐211113 UAU1 459692-­‐011 <20.0 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <20.0 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 4.08 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <20.0 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 1.12 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 1,2-­‐Dichlorobenzene 600 ug/L <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 1,3-­‐Dichlorobenzene 1,4-­‐Dichlorobenzene Dichlorodifluoromethane 1,1-­‐Dichloroethane  (1,1-­‐DCA) 1,2-­‐Dichloroethane 1,1-­‐Dichloroethene  (1,1-­‐DCE) cis-­‐1,2-­‐Dichloroethene trans-­‐1,2-­‐Dichloroethene 1,2-­‐Dichloropropane 1,3-­‐Dichloropropane 2,2-­‐Dichloropropane 1,1-­‐Dichloropropene cis-­‐1,3-­‐Dichloropropene trans-­‐1,3-­‐Dichloropropene Ethylbenzene Hexachlorobutadiene 2-­‐Hexanone Isopropylbenzene Methylene  chloride Methyl  Iodide 4-­‐Methyl-­‐2-­‐pentanone  (MIBK) Napthalene n-­‐Propylbenzene Styrene 1,1,1,2-­‐Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-­‐Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethene  (PCE) Toluene 1,2,3-­‐Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-­‐Trichlorobenzene 1,1,1-­‐Trichloroethane  (TCA) 1,1,2-­‐Trichloroethane Trichloroethene  (TCE) Trichlorofluoromethane  (CFC  11) 1,2,3-­‐Trichloropropane 1,2,4-­‐Trimethylbenzene 1,3,5-­‐Trimethylbenzene o-­‐Xylene m,p-­‐Xylenes Vinyl  Acetate Vinyl  Chloride Xylenes,  Total 1,4-­‐Dioxane Total  Chromium Dissolved  Chromium NE ug/L <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 75 NE NE 5 7 70 100 5 NE NE NE NE NE 700 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 100 NE NE 5 1000 NE 70 200 5 5 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 2 10000 NE 0.1 ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L mg/l <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 18.1  (J) <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 0.155 <1.50 <2.00 0.660 <0.500 <0.500 3.56 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 6.47 <2.0 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 5.39 <2.0 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 0.0163 <1.50 <2.00 1.44  (J) <0.500 1.31 6.20 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 3.16 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 33.2 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 1.40 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 8.40 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 51.3  (S) <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 <0.500 <2.0 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 <0.0100 <1.50 <2.00 8.62  (J) <0.500 13.3 18.9 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 5.05 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 77.7 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA 0.1 mg/l 0.135 <0.0100 NA NA NA <0.0100 NA Explanabon: NE  -­‐  Not  Established;  NA  -­‐  Not  Analyzed Shading  indicates  AWQS  equaled  or  exceeded (S)  -­‐  data  suspect   (J)  -­‐  esbmated  value (ND)  considered  not  detected  due  to  field  blank  cont Page  9  of  15 TABLE  1.  SUMMARY  OF  WATER  QUALITY  -­‐  ADEQ  MONITOR  WELLS,  MARCH  2013 West  Van  Buren  Area  WQARF  Site WVBA  WELL  ID Sample  ID  (last  three  digits  idenbfy  sample  depth)          Date  Collected          Owner/Facility          Facility  Well  No.          Sample  Type          ADWR  No.          Alluvial  Unit          Lab  ID  No. Component  -­‐  EPA  8260B AWQS Units NE ug/L Acetone 5 ug/L Benzene NE ug/L Bromobenzene NE ug/L Bromochloromethane 100 ug/L Bromodichloromethane 100 ug/L Bromoform NE ug/L Bromomethane NE ug/L 2-­‐Butanone  (MEK) NE ug/L MTBE NE ug/L n-­‐Butylbenzene NE ug/L sec-­‐Butylbenzene NE ug/L tert-­‐Butylbenzene NE ug/L Carbon  Disulfide 5 ug/L Carbon  Tetrachloride 100 ug/L Chlorobenzene NE ug/L Chloroethane 100 ug/L Chloroform NE ug/L Chloromethane NE ug/L 2-­‐Chlorotoluene NE ug/L 4-­‐Chlorotoluene NE ug/L p-­‐Isopropyltoluene 100 ug/L Dibromochloromethane 0.2 ug/L 1,2-­‐Dibromo-­‐3-­‐chloropropane NE ug/L 1,2-­‐Dibromoethane  (EDB) NE ug/L Dibromomethane AVB135-­‐01 AVB135-­‐0100-­‐12138 3/21/13 ADEQ AVB135-­‐01 PURGE 55-­‐211111 UAU1 459683-­‐008 AVB140-­‐01 AVB140-­‐0100-­‐09128 3/18/13 ADEQ AVB140-­‐01 PURGE 55-­‐214610 UAU1 459346-­‐007 PS-­‐6 PS-­‐6 PS-­‐7 PS-­‐7 PS-­‐9 PS-­‐9 3/19/13 REYNOLDS PS-­‐9 PURGE 55-­‐545678 UAU1 459504-­‐009 AVB10-­‐02 AVB10-­‐0200-­‐36290 3/13/13 ESTRELLA  BUSINESS  PARK MW-­‐2 PURGE 55-­‐532042 UAU2 459172-­‐005 AVB77-­‐02 AVB77-­‐0200-­‐24140 3/15/13 ADEQ MW-­‐5D PDB 55-­‐567443 UAU2 459337-­‐007 3/19/13 REYNOLDS PS-­‐6 PURGE 55-­‐532037 UAU1 459504-­‐011 3/19/13 REYNOLDS PS-­‐7 PURGE 55-­‐545676 UAU1 459504-­‐010 <20.0 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <20.0 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <20.0 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 3.55 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <20.0 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <20.0 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 3.37 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <20.0 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 1,2-­‐Dichlorobenzene 600 ug/L <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 1,3-­‐Dichlorobenzene 1,4-­‐Dichlorobenzene Dichlorodifluoromethane 1,1-­‐Dichloroethane  (1,1-­‐DCA) 1,2-­‐Dichloroethane 1,1-­‐Dichloroethene  (1,1-­‐DCE) cis-­‐1,2-­‐Dichloroethene trans-­‐1,2-­‐Dichloroethene 1,2-­‐Dichloropropane 1,3-­‐Dichloropropane 2,2-­‐Dichloropropane 1,1-­‐Dichloropropene cis-­‐1,3-­‐Dichloropropene trans-­‐1,3-­‐Dichloropropene Ethylbenzene Hexachlorobutadiene 2-­‐Hexanone Isopropylbenzene Methylene  chloride Methyl  Iodide 4-­‐Methyl-­‐2-­‐pentanone  (MIBK) Napthalene n-­‐Propylbenzene Styrene 1,1,1,2-­‐Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-­‐Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethene  (PCE) Toluene 1,2,3-­‐Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-­‐Trichlorobenzene 1,1,1-­‐Trichloroethane  (TCA) 1,1,2-­‐Trichloroethane Trichloroethene  (TCE) Trichlorofluoromethane  (CFC  11) 1,2,3-­‐Trichloropropane 1,2,4-­‐Trimethylbenzene 1,3,5-­‐Trimethylbenzene o-­‐Xylene m,p-­‐Xylenes Vinyl  Acetate Vinyl  Chloride Xylenes,  Total 1,4-­‐Dioxane Total  Chromium Dissolved  Chromium NE ug/L <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 75 NE NE 5 7 70 100 5 NE NE NE NE NE 700 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 100 NE NE 5 1000 NE 70 200 5 5 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 2 10000 NE 0.1 ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L mg/l <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <2.0 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 <0.500 <2.0 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 0.0754 <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <2.0 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 <0.500 <2.0 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 0.0175 <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 0.660  (J) <2.0 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 1.14  (J) <2.0 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 0.0411 <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <2.0 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 <0.500 <2.0 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 <0.0100 <1.50 <2.00 0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 1.33 <2.0 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 5.23 <2.0 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 0.0437 <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 7.54 5.50  (S) <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 2.33 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 <0.0100 <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 0.980 <1.00 <4.00 NA 0.1 mg/l <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100 NA Explanabon: NE  -­‐  Not  Established;  NA  -­‐  Not  Analyzed Shading  indicates  AWQS  equaled  or  exceeded (S)  -­‐  data  suspect   (J)  -­‐  esbmated  value (ND)  considered  not  detected  due  to  field  blank  cont Page  10  of  15 TABLE  1.  SUMMARY  OF  WATER  QUALITY  -­‐  ADEQ  MONITOR  WELLS,  MARCH  2013 West  Van  Buren  Area  WQARF  Site WVBA  WELL  ID Sample  ID  (last  three  digits  idenbfy  sample  depth)          Date  Collected          Owner/Facility          Facility  Well  No.          Sample  Type          ADWR  No.          Alluvial  Unit          Lab  ID  No. Component  -­‐  EPA  8260B AWQS Units NE ug/L Acetone 5 ug/L Benzene NE ug/L Bromobenzene NE ug/L Bromochloromethane 100 ug/L Bromodichloromethane 100 ug/L Bromoform NE ug/L Bromomethane NE ug/L 2-­‐Butanone  (MEK) NE ug/L MTBE NE ug/L n-­‐Butylbenzene NE ug/L sec-­‐Butylbenzene NE ug/L tert-­‐Butylbenzene NE ug/L Carbon  Disulfide 5 ug/L Carbon  Tetrachloride 100 ug/L Chlorobenzene NE ug/L Chloroethane 100 ug/L Chloroform NE ug/L Chloromethane NE ug/L 2-­‐Chlorotoluene NE ug/L 4-­‐Chlorotoluene NE ug/L p-­‐Isopropyltoluene 100 ug/L Dibromochloromethane 0.2 ug/L 1,2-­‐Dibromo-­‐3-­‐chloropropane NE ug/L 1,2-­‐Dibromoethane  (EDB) NE ug/L Dibromomethane AVB81-­‐01 AVB81-­‐0100-­‐23295 3/25/13 ADEQ AVB81-­‐01 PDB 55-­‐584503 UAU2 459871-­‐012 AVB91-­‐02 AVB91-­‐0200-­‐21291 3/26/13 ADEQ AVB96-­‐02 AVB96-­‐0200-­‐21332 3/26/13 ADEQ AVB98-­‐01 AVB98-­‐0100-­‐21287 3/25/13 ADEQ AVB98-­‐01 PDB 55-­‐589645 UAU2 459871-­‐014 AVB106-­‐03 AVB106-­‐0300-­‐24100 3/15/13 MARICOPA  COUNTY MC-­‐N06  #3 PDB 55-­‐549233 UAU2 459337-­‐003 AVB  116-­‐02 AVB116-­‐0200-­‐17205 3/22/13 ADEQ AVB  116-­‐02 PDB 55-­‐202187 UAU2 459692-­‐006 AVB120-­‐02 AVB120-­‐0200-­‐19245 3/22/13 ADEQ AVB120-­‐02 PDB 55-­‐596922 UAU2 459692-­‐014 AVB91-­‐02 PDB 55-­‐589644 UAU2 459938-­‐015 AVB96-­‐02 PDB 55-­‐589643 UAU2 459938-­‐013 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 1,2-­‐Dichlorobenzene 600 ug/L <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 1,3-­‐Dichlorobenzene 1,4-­‐Dichlorobenzene Dichlorodifluoromethane 1,1-­‐Dichloroethane  (1,1-­‐DCA) 1,2-­‐Dichloroethane 1,1-­‐Dichloroethene  (1,1-­‐DCE) cis-­‐1,2-­‐Dichloroethene trans-­‐1,2-­‐Dichloroethene 1,2-­‐Dichloropropane 1,3-­‐Dichloropropane 2,2-­‐Dichloropropane 1,1-­‐Dichloropropene cis-­‐1,3-­‐Dichloropropene trans-­‐1,3-­‐Dichloropropene Ethylbenzene Hexachlorobutadiene 2-­‐Hexanone Isopropylbenzene Methylene  chloride Methyl  Iodide 4-­‐Methyl-­‐2-­‐pentanone  (MIBK) Napthalene n-­‐Propylbenzene Styrene 1,1,1,2-­‐Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-­‐Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethene  (PCE) Toluene 1,2,3-­‐Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-­‐Trichlorobenzene 1,1,1-­‐Trichloroethane  (TCA) 1,1,2-­‐Trichloroethane Trichloroethene  (TCE) Trichlorofluoromethane  (CFC  11) 1,2,3-­‐Trichloropropane 1,2,4-­‐Trimethylbenzene 1,3,5-­‐Trimethylbenzene o-­‐Xylene m,p-­‐Xylenes Vinyl  Acetate Vinyl  Chloride Xylenes,  Total 1,4-­‐Dioxane Total  Chromium Dissolved  Chromium NE ug/L <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 75 NE NE 5 7 70 100 5 NE NE NE NE NE 700 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 100 NE NE 5 1000 NE 70 200 5 5 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 2 10000 NE 0.1 ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L mg/l <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 3.13 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 1.24 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA <1.50 <2.00 2.40  (J) <0.500 3.48 2.66 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 12.3 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA <1.50 4.63 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 35.5 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 130 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA 0.1 mg/l NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Explanabon: NE  -­‐  Not  Established;  NA  -­‐  Not  Analyzed Shading  indicates  AWQS  equaled  or  exceeded (S)  -­‐  data  suspect   (J)  -­‐  esbmated  value (ND)  considered  not  detected  due  to  field  blank  cont Page  11  of  15 TABLE  1.  SUMMARY  OF  WATER  QUALITY  -­‐  ADEQ  MONITOR  WELLS,  MARCH  2013 West  Van  Buren  Area  WQARF  Site WVBA  WELL  ID Sample  ID  (last  three  digits  idenbfy  sample  depth)          Date  Collected          Owner/Facility          Facility  Well  No.          Sample  Type          ADWR  No.          Alluvial  Unit          Lab  ID  No. Component  -­‐  EPA  8260B AWQS Units NE ug/L Acetone 5 ug/L Benzene NE ug/L Bromobenzene NE ug/L Bromochloromethane 100 ug/L Bromodichloromethane 100 ug/L Bromoform NE ug/L Bromomethane NE ug/L 2-­‐Butanone  (MEK) NE ug/L MTBE NE ug/L n-­‐Butylbenzene NE ug/L sec-­‐Butylbenzene NE ug/L tert-­‐Butylbenzene NE ug/L Carbon  Disulfide 5 ug/L Carbon  Tetrachloride 100 ug/L Chlorobenzene NE ug/L Chloroethane 100 ug/L Chloroform NE ug/L Chloromethane NE ug/L 2-­‐Chlorotoluene NE ug/L 4-­‐Chlorotoluene NE ug/L p-­‐Isopropyltoluene 100 ug/L Dibromochloromethane 0.2 ug/L 1,2-­‐Dibromo-­‐3-­‐chloropropane NE ug/L 1,2-­‐Dibromoethane  (EDB) NE ug/L Dibromomethane AVB121-­‐02 AVB121-­‐0200-­‐11240 3/12/13 ADEQ AVB121-­‐02 PDB 55-­‐596932 UAU2 459063-­‐002 AVB  122-­‐03 AVB122-­‐0300-­‐16330 3/12/13 ADEQ AVB  122-­‐03 PURGE 55-­‐202186 UAU2 459063-­‐005 AVB  124-­‐01 AVB124-­‐0100-­‐17215 3/22/13 ADEQ AVB  124-­‐01 PDB 55-­‐202184 UAU2 459692-­‐004 AVB  124-­‐02 AVB124-­‐0200-­‐14270 3/11/13 ADEQ AVB  124-­‐02 PURGE 55-­‐207163 UAU2 459007-­‐002 AVB126-­‐02 AVB126-­‐0200-­‐12230 3/8/13 ADEQ AVB126-­‐02 PURGE 55-­‐211114 UAU2 458918-­‐003 AVB  128-­‐01 AVB128-­‐0100-­‐17279 3/25/13 ADEQ AVB  128-­‐01 PDB 55-­‐202283 UAU2 459871-­‐006 AVB129-­‐02 AVB129-­‐0200-­‐16310 3/25/13 ADEQ AVB129-­‐02 PDB 55-­‐202282 UAU2 459871-­‐016 <20.0 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <20.0 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <20.0 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <20.0 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 3.08 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 1,2-­‐Dichlorobenzene 600 ug/L <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 1,3-­‐Dichlorobenzene 1,4-­‐Dichlorobenzene Dichlorodifluoromethane 1,1-­‐Dichloroethane  (1,1-­‐DCA) 1,2-­‐Dichloroethane 1,1-­‐Dichloroethene  (1,1-­‐DCE) cis-­‐1,2-­‐Dichloroethene trans-­‐1,2-­‐Dichloroethene 1,2-­‐Dichloropropane 1,3-­‐Dichloropropane 2,2-­‐Dichloropropane 1,1-­‐Dichloropropene cis-­‐1,3-­‐Dichloropropene trans-­‐1,3-­‐Dichloropropene Ethylbenzene Hexachlorobutadiene 2-­‐Hexanone Isopropylbenzene Methylene  chloride Methyl  Iodide 4-­‐Methyl-­‐2-­‐pentanone  (MIBK) Napthalene n-­‐Propylbenzene Styrene 1,1,1,2-­‐Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-­‐Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethene  (PCE) Toluene 1,2,3-­‐Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-­‐Trichlorobenzene 1,1,1-­‐Trichloroethane  (TCA) 1,1,2-­‐Trichloroethane Trichloroethene  (TCE) Trichlorofluoromethane  (CFC  11) 1,2,3-­‐Trichloropropane 1,2,4-­‐Trimethylbenzene 1,3,5-­‐Trimethylbenzene o-­‐Xylene m,p-­‐Xylenes Vinyl  Acetate Vinyl  Chloride Xylenes,  Total 1,4-­‐Dioxane Total  Chromium Dissolved  Chromium NE ug/L <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 75 NE NE 5 7 70 100 5 NE NE NE NE NE 700 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 100 NE NE 5 1000 NE 70 200 5 5 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 2 10000 NE 0.1 ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L mg/l <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 49.1  (S) <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 <0.500 <2.0 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 <0.0100 <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 3.01 <2.0 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 2.63 <2.0 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 <0.0100 <1.50 <2.00 3.53  (J) <0.500 13.4 16.7 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 7.39 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 99.5 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 46.8  (S) <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 <0.500 <2.0 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 0.0115 <1.50 <2.00 0.99 <0.500 3.31 2.53 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 1.73 6.61  (S) <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 10.6 <2.0 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 0.0341 <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 1.44 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 1.18 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA 0.1 mg/l <0.0100 <0.0100 NA <0.0100 <0.0100 NA NA Explanabon: NE  -­‐  Not  Established;  NA  -­‐  Not  Analyzed Shading  indicates  AWQS  equaled  or  exceeded (S)  -­‐  data  suspect   (J)  -­‐  esbmated  value (ND)  considered  not  detected  due  to  field  blank  cont Page  12  of  15 TABLE  1.  SUMMARY  OF  WATER  QUALITY  -­‐  ADEQ  MONITOR  WELLS,  MARCH  2013 West  Van  Buren  Area  WQARF  Site WVBA  WELL  ID Sample  ID  (last  three  digits  idenbfy  sample  depth)          Date  Collected          Owner/Facility          Facility  Well  No.          Sample  Type          ADWR  No.          Alluvial  Unit          Lab  ID  No. Component  -­‐  EPA  8260B AWQS Units NE ug/L Acetone 5 ug/L Benzene NE ug/L Bromobenzene NE ug/L Bromochloromethane 100 ug/L Bromodichloromethane 100 ug/L Bromoform NE ug/L Bromomethane NE ug/L 2-­‐Butanone  (MEK) NE ug/L MTBE NE ug/L n-­‐Butylbenzene NE ug/L sec-­‐Butylbenzene NE ug/L tert-­‐Butylbenzene NE ug/L Carbon  Disulfide 5 ug/L Carbon  Tetrachloride 100 ug/L Chlorobenzene NE ug/L Chloroethane 100 ug/L Chloroform NE ug/L Chloromethane NE ug/L 2-­‐Chlorotoluene NE ug/L 4-­‐Chlorotoluene NE ug/L p-­‐Isopropyltoluene 100 ug/L Dibromochloromethane 0.2 ug/L 1,2-­‐Dibromo-­‐3-­‐chloropropane NE ug/L 1,2-­‐Dibromoethane  (EDB) NE ug/L Dibromomethane AVB  131-­‐01 AVB131-­‐0100-­‐14215 3/11/13 ADEQ AVB  131-­‐01 PURGE 55-­‐207161 UAU2 459007-­‐003 AVB132-­‐01 AVB132-­‐0100-­‐13210 3/22/13 ADEQ AVB132-­‐01 PDB 55-­‐208664 UAU2 459692-­‐008 AVB132-­‐02 AVB132-­‐0200-­‐13280 3/11/13 ADEQ AVB132-­‐02 PURGE 55-­‐208663 UAU2 459007-­‐004 AVB134-­‐02 AVB134-­‐0200-­‐12230 3/22/13 ADEQ AVB134-­‐02 PDB 55-­‐211112 UAU2 459692-­‐012 AVB136-­‐01 AVB136-­‐0100-­‐12235 3/11/13 ADEQ AVB136-­‐01 PURGE 55-­‐211110 UAU2 459007-­‐005 AVB137-­‐01 AVB137-­‐0100-­‐11260 3/12/13 ADEQ AVB137-­‐01 PURGE 55-­‐211109 UAU2 459063-­‐003 AVB139-­‐01 AVB139-­‐0100-­‐11290 3/14/13 ADEQ AVB139-­‐01 PURGE 55-­‐214809 UAU2 459243-­‐003 <20.0 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 7.13 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 1.08  (J) <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <20.0 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 1.38 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <20.0 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <20.0 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <20.0 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 1,2-­‐Dichlorobenzene 600 ug/L <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 1,3-­‐Dichlorobenzene 1,4-­‐Dichlorobenzene Dichlorodifluoromethane 1,1-­‐Dichloroethane  (1,1-­‐DCA) 1,2-­‐Dichloroethane 1,1-­‐Dichloroethene  (1,1-­‐DCE) cis-­‐1,2-­‐Dichloroethene trans-­‐1,2-­‐Dichloroethene 1,2-­‐Dichloropropane 1,3-­‐Dichloropropane 2,2-­‐Dichloropropane 1,1-­‐Dichloropropene cis-­‐1,3-­‐Dichloropropene trans-­‐1,3-­‐Dichloropropene Ethylbenzene Hexachlorobutadiene 2-­‐Hexanone Isopropylbenzene Methylene  chloride Methyl  Iodide 4-­‐Methyl-­‐2-­‐pentanone  (MIBK) Napthalene n-­‐Propylbenzene Styrene 1,1,1,2-­‐Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-­‐Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethene  (PCE) Toluene 1,2,3-­‐Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-­‐Trichlorobenzene 1,1,1-­‐Trichloroethane  (TCA) 1,1,2-­‐Trichloroethane Trichloroethene  (TCE) Trichlorofluoromethane  (CFC  11) 1,2,3-­‐Trichloropropane 1,2,4-­‐Trimethylbenzene 1,3,5-­‐Trimethylbenzene o-­‐Xylene m,p-­‐Xylenes Vinyl  Acetate Vinyl  Chloride Xylenes,  Total 1,4-­‐Dioxane Total  Chromium Dissolved  Chromium NE ug/L <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 75 NE NE 5 7 70 100 5 NE NE NE NE NE 700 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 100 NE NE 5 1000 NE 70 200 5 5 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 2 10000 NE 0.1 ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L mg/l <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 4.26 5.42  (S) <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 0.083 <2.0 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 <0.0100 <1.50 <2.00 10.4  (J) <0.500 23.1 31.7 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 8.36 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 177 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 43.8  (S) <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 1.24 <2.0 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 <0.0100 <1.50 <2.00 10.3  (J) 0.500 24.5 27.6 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 9.88 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 168 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 2.13 3.62 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 8.66 16.1  (S) <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 16.9 <2.0 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 0.0177 <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <2.0 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 <0.500 <2.0 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 0.0118 <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <2.0 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 <0.500 <2.0 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 0.019  (J) 0.1 mg/l <0.0100 NA <0.0100 NA <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100 Explanabon: NE  -­‐  Not  Established;  NA  -­‐  Not  Analyzed Shading  indicates  AWQS  equaled  or  exceeded (S)  -­‐  data  suspect   (J)  -­‐  esbmated  value (ND)  considered  not  detected  due  to  field  blank  cont Page  13  of  15 TABLE  1.  SUMMARY  OF  WATER  QUALITY  -­‐  ADEQ  MONITOR  WELLS,  MARCH  2013 West  Van  Buren  Area  WQARF  Site WVBA  WELL  ID Sample  ID  (last  three  digits  idenbfy  sample  depth)          Date  Collected          Owner/Facility          Facility  Well  No.          Sample  Type          ADWR  No.          Alluvial  Unit          Lab  ID  No. Component  -­‐  EPA  8260B AWQS Units NE ug/L Acetone 5 ug/L Benzene NE ug/L Bromobenzene NE ug/L Bromochloromethane 100 ug/L Bromodichloromethane 100 ug/L Bromoform NE ug/L Bromomethane NE ug/L 2-­‐Butanone  (MEK) NE ug/L MTBE NE ug/L n-­‐Butylbenzene NE ug/L sec-­‐Butylbenzene NE ug/L tert-­‐Butylbenzene NE ug/L Carbon  Disulfide 5 ug/L Carbon  Tetrachloride 100 ug/L Chlorobenzene NE ug/L Chloroethane 100 ug/L Chloroform NE ug/L Chloromethane NE ug/L 2-­‐Chlorotoluene NE ug/L 4-­‐Chlorotoluene NE ug/L p-­‐Isopropyltoluene 100 ug/L Dibromochloromethane 0.2 ug/L 1,2-­‐Dibromo-­‐3-­‐chloropropane NE ug/L 1,2-­‐Dibromoethane  (EDB) NE ug/L Dibromomethane AVB141-­‐01 AVB141-­‐0100-­‐11285 3/14/13 ADEQ AVB141-­‐01 PURGE 55-­‐214609 UAU2 459243-­‐002 AVB142-­‐01 AVB142-­‐0100-­‐09335 3/12/13 ADEQ AVB142-­‐01 PURGE 55-­‐217206 UAU2 459063-­‐006 AVB69-­‐01 AVB69-­‐0100-­‐25255 3/15/13 ADEQ MW-­‐2 PDB 55-­‐562052 UAU2/MAU 459337-­‐012 AVB60-­‐01 AVB60-­‐0100-­‐31473 3/25/13 ADEQ  NSW AVB60-­‐01 PDB 55-­‐543717 MAU 459871-­‐015 AVB61-­‐01 AVB61-­‐0100-­‐30450 3/14/13 ADEQ  SSW AVB61-­‐01 PURGE 55-­‐546228 MAU 459243-­‐005 AVB68-­‐04 AVB68-­‐0400-­‐24255 3/25/13 ADEQ MW-­‐3 PDB 55-­‐561940 MAU 459871-­‐003 AVB82-­‐01 AVB82-­‐0100-­‐22327 3/13/13 ADEQ AVB82-­‐01 PDB 55-­‐584504 MAU 459172-­‐003 <20.0 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <20.0 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 174 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 24.4 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 1,2-­‐Dichlorobenzene 600 ug/L <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 1,3-­‐Dichlorobenzene 1,4-­‐Dichlorobenzene Dichlorodifluoromethane 1,1-­‐Dichloroethane  (1,1-­‐DCA) 1,2-­‐Dichloroethane 1,1-­‐Dichloroethene  (1,1-­‐DCE) cis-­‐1,2-­‐Dichloroethene trans-­‐1,2-­‐Dichloroethene 1,2-­‐Dichloropropane 1,3-­‐Dichloropropane 2,2-­‐Dichloropropane 1,1-­‐Dichloropropene cis-­‐1,3-­‐Dichloropropene trans-­‐1,3-­‐Dichloropropene Ethylbenzene Hexachlorobutadiene 2-­‐Hexanone Isopropylbenzene Methylene  chloride Methyl  Iodide 4-­‐Methyl-­‐2-­‐pentanone  (MIBK) Napthalene n-­‐Propylbenzene Styrene 1,1,1,2-­‐Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-­‐Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethene  (PCE) Toluene 1,2,3-­‐Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-­‐Trichlorobenzene 1,1,1-­‐Trichloroethane  (TCA) 1,1,2-­‐Trichloroethane Trichloroethene  (TCE) Trichlorofluoromethane  (CFC  11) 1,2,3-­‐Trichloropropane 1,2,4-­‐Trimethylbenzene 1,3,5-­‐Trimethylbenzene o-­‐Xylene m,p-­‐Xylenes Vinyl  Acetate Vinyl  Chloride Xylenes,  Total 1,4-­‐Dioxane Total  Chromium Dissolved  Chromium NE ug/L <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 75 NE NE 5 7 70 100 5 NE NE NE NE NE 700 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 100 NE NE 5 1000 NE 70 200 5 5 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 2 10000 NE 0.1 ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L mg/l <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 52.3  (S) <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 <0.500 <2.0 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 0.0106 <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 2.53 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 7.34 <2.0 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 3.11 <2.0 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 <0.0100 <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 179  (S) <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 <0.500 <2.0 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 0.109 <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 29.4 1.52 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 70.2 <2.0 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 21.2 4.81 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA 0.1 mg/l <0.0100 <0.0100 NA NA <0.0100 NA NA Explanabon: NE  -­‐  Not  Established;  NA  -­‐  Not  Analyzed Shading  indicates  AWQS  equaled  or  exceeded (S)  -­‐  data  suspect   (J)  -­‐  esbmated  value (ND)  considered  not  detected  due  to  field  blank  cont Page  14  of  15 TABLE  1.  SUMMARY  OF  WATER  QUALITY  -­‐  ADEQ  MONITOR  WELLS,  MARCH  2013 West  Van  Buren  Area  WQARF  Site WVBA  WELL  ID Sample  ID  (last  three  digits  idenbfy  sample  depth)          Date  Collected          Owner/Facility          Facility  Well  No.          Sample  Type          ADWR  No.          Alluvial  Unit          Lab  ID  No. Component  -­‐  EPA  8260B AWQS Units NE ug/L Acetone 5 ug/L Benzene NE ug/L Bromobenzene NE ug/L Bromochloromethane 100 ug/L Bromodichloromethane 100 ug/L Bromoform NE ug/L Bromomethane NE ug/L 2-­‐Butanone  (MEK) NE ug/L MTBE NE ug/L n-­‐Butylbenzene NE ug/L sec-­‐Butylbenzene NE ug/L tert-­‐Butylbenzene NE ug/L Carbon  Disulfide 5 ug/L Carbon  Tetrachloride 100 ug/L Chlorobenzene NE ug/L Chloroethane 100 ug/L Chloroform NE ug/L Chloromethane NE ug/L 2-­‐Chlorotoluene NE ug/L 4-­‐Chlorotoluene NE ug/L p-­‐Isopropyltoluene 100 ug/L Dibromochloromethane 0.2 ug/L 1,2-­‐Dibromo-­‐3-­‐chloropropane NE ug/L 1,2-­‐Dibromoethane  (EDB) NE ug/L Dibromomethane AVB91-­‐03 AVB91-­‐0300-­‐10360 3/13/13 ADEQ AVB91-­‐03 PURGE 55-­‐214616 MAU 459172-­‐002 AVB120-­‐03 AVB120-­‐0300-­‐08235 3/22/13 ADEQ AVB120-­‐03 PURGE 55-­‐217205 MAU 459692-­‐013 AVB126-­‐03 AVB126-­‐0300-­‐11325 3/8/13 ADEQ AVB126-­‐03 PURGE 55-­‐214611 MAU 458918-­‐004 <20.0 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <20.0 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 NA <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 NA NA <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <20.0 <0.500 <1.50 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <2.50 <1.50 <2.50 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <4.00 <0.500 <5.00 <1.50 <2.00 <1.50 <0.500 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 1,2-­‐Dichlorobenzene 600 ug/L <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 1,3-­‐Dichlorobenzene 1,4-­‐Dichlorobenzene Dichlorodifluoromethane 1,1-­‐Dichloroethane  (1,1-­‐DCA) 1,2-­‐Dichloroethane 1,1-­‐Dichloroethene  (1,1-­‐DCE) cis-­‐1,2-­‐Dichloroethene trans-­‐1,2-­‐Dichloroethene 1,2-­‐Dichloropropane 1,3-­‐Dichloropropane 2,2-­‐Dichloropropane 1,1-­‐Dichloropropene cis-­‐1,3-­‐Dichloropropene trans-­‐1,3-­‐Dichloropropene Ethylbenzene Hexachlorobutadiene 2-­‐Hexanone Isopropylbenzene Methylene  chloride Methyl  Iodide 4-­‐Methyl-­‐2-­‐pentanone  (MIBK) Napthalene n-­‐Propylbenzene Styrene 1,1,1,2-­‐Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-­‐Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethene  (PCE) Toluene 1,2,3-­‐Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-­‐Trichlorobenzene 1,1,1-­‐Trichloroethane  (TCA) 1,1,2-­‐Trichloroethane Trichloroethene  (TCE) Trichlorofluoromethane  (CFC  11) 1,2,3-­‐Trichloropropane 1,2,4-­‐Trimethylbenzene 1,3,5-­‐Trimethylbenzene o-­‐Xylene m,p-­‐Xylenes Vinyl  Acetate Vinyl  Chloride Xylenes,  Total 1,4-­‐Dioxane Total  Chromium Dissolved  Chromium NE ug/L <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 <1.50 75 NE NE 5 7 70 100 5 NE NE NE NE NE 700 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 100 NE NE 5 1000 NE 70 200 5 5 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 2 10000 NE 0.1 ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L mg/l <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 7.06 46.7  (S) <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 0.0169 <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <2.0 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 <0.500 <2.0 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 0.0140 <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 NA <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 NA 67.7 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 1.03 <2.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 NA <1.50 <2.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 <1.00 <0.500 <1.00 <1.00 <0.500 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.50 <3.00 <2.00 <5.00 <5.00 <2.00 <1.00 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 24.1  (S) <5.00 <5.00 <5.00 <0.500 <0.500 <2.0 <1.00 <2.00 <1.50 <1.00 <2.00 <5.00 <0.500 <1.00 <4.00 0.0342 0.1 mg/l 0.0132  (ND) <0.0100 NA 0.0104 Explanabon: NE  -­‐  Not  Established;  NA  -­‐  Not  Analyzed Shading  indicates  AWQS  equaled  or  exceeded (S)  -­‐  data  suspect   (J)  -­‐  esbmated  value (ND)  considered  not  detected  due  to  field  blank  cont Page  15  of  15 AVB82-­‐02 AVB82-­‐0200-­‐10410 3/13/13 ADEQ AVB82-­‐02 PURGE 55-­‐214608 MAU 459172-­‐004 1,1-­‐DCE PCE TCE TABLE  2.  SUMMARY  OF  WATER  QUALITY  -­‐  RID  PRODUCTION  WELLS West  Van  Buren  Area  WQARF  Site Sample Date Jun-­‐03 Jun-­‐04 Sep-­‐05 Dec-­‐06 Mar-­‐08 Sep-­‐08 Jun-­‐10 Apr-­‐11 Sep-­‐11 Sep-­‐12 Apr-­‐13 Sep-­‐13 Mar-­‐14 82 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 1.00 1.22 83 NS NS NS NS NS NS ND NS ND NS NS NS NS 84 8.8 5.9 1.4 2.1 NS 1.4 1.2 NS 1.11 1.22 1.09 1.38 1.26 85 0.57 ND NS ND ND ND ND NS NS NS NS ND ND 86 NS NS ND ND ND ND NS NS ND ND ND ND ND 87 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS ND ND 88 NS NS ND ND ND ND NS NS NS NS ND ND ND 89 33 28 31 NS 23 32 32 NS 27.5 26.4 34.1 37.5 35.5 90 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS ND 0.74 0.63 91 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 1.07 2.63 2.99 4.13 1.11 92 92 84 NS 79 71 85 84 NS 65.3 63.9 73.5 86.4 76.2 93 NS NS NS 0.87 ND ND NS NS 1.02 1.85 1.17 2.14 1.05 94 7.1 NS NS 0.76 NS 0.81 ND ND 0.67 ND 0.88 1.24 0.65 95 51 62 NS 47 55 56 57 NS 52.3 60.2 54.4 59.6 44.0 96 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 97 NS NS NS ND ND ND NS NS NS NS NS NS NS RID  Well  Number 98 99 100 NS 2.3 63 NS 1.7 42 NS NS NS NS 0.51 18 NS ND 20 NS 0.71 34 NS ND NS NS ND NS NS ND 14.9 NS ND 15.8 NS ND 9.38 NS ND 12.6 ND 8.97 NS 101 NS NS NS NS NS ND NS NS NS NS ND ND ND 102 NS 1.1 NS 0.62 0.72 ND 0.72 NS NS NS ND ND ND 103 NS ND NS ND NS ND ND NS NS NS ND ND ND 104 NS 1.5 NS 1.2 1.1 1.2 0.79 NS NS ND ND ND ND 105 1.0 ND 0.65 0.55 ND 0.58 0.57 0.51 0.52 0.56 0.55 0.54 0.59 106 14 15 NS 14 13 NS 10 8.6 7.49 7.66 NS 8.43 8.06 107 13 13 13 NS NS 11 9.5 7.4 7.1 6.30 7.82 6.73 8.11 108 9.4 4.5 3.0 3.1 2.3 3.2 2.6 2.4 2.98 2.89 3.10 3.94 2.69 109 13 11 9.3 7.4 7.8 7.7 6.5 5.5 6.25 6.58 6.92 5.93 7.15 110 3.4 2.5 NS 2.7 2.1 1.8 1.9 1.5 1.31 0.80 1.21 1.10 1.53 111 IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO 111R Sample Date Jun-­‐03 Jun-­‐04 Sep-­‐05 Dec-­‐06 Mar-­‐08 Sep-­‐08 Jun-­‐10 Apr-­‐11 Sep-­‐11 Sep-­‐12 Apr-­‐13 Sep-­‐13 Mar-­‐14 82 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 2.95 3.53 83 NS NS NS NS NS NS ND NS ND NS NS NS NS 84 52 51 10 18 NS 10 8.8 NS 7.8 7.25 6.91 8.16 8.04 85 4.5 1.7 NS 0.56 ND ND ND NS NS NS NS ND ND 86 NS NS ND ND ND ND NS NS ND ND ND ND ND 87 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS ND ND 88 NS NS ND ND ND ND NS NS NS NS ND ND ND 89 12 12 10 NS 9.3 11 8.7 NS 7.99 8.03 11.0 11.7 10.3 90 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS ND ND ND 91 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS ND ND ND 1.36 ND 92 28 29 NS 20 20 19 17 NS 12.3 12.5 14.7 14.5 13.5 93 NS NS NS ND ND ND NS NS 0.60 0.53 ND 1.01 0.63 94 5.0 NS NS 1.1 NS 1.2 0.69 0.87 1.15 1.20 0.59 1.58 1.34 95 7.1 7.7 NS 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.0 NS 4.04 4.12 3.44 3.71 2.99 96 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 97 NS NS NS ND ND ND NS NS NS NS NS NS NS RID  Well  Number 98 99 100 NS 18 15 NS 11 9.7 NS NS NS NS 12 8.8 NS 14 9.3 NS 7.9 7.8 NS 7.0 NS NS 7.3 NS NS 5.63 5.77 NS 3.80 4.13 NS 8.85 4.72 NS 5.38 3.11 NS 8.31 3.25 101 NS NS NS NS NS ND NS NS NS NS ND ND ND 102 NS 12 NS 18 15 12 17 NS NS NS 5.36 4.01 3.86 103 NS ND NS ND NS ND ND NS NS NS ND ND ND 104 NS 12 NS 17 10 7.5 6.0 NS NS 3.11 4.20 ND 3.38 105 5.8 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.1 3.9 3.4 3.0 3.01 2.61 2.56 2.54 2.39 106 28 45 NS 45 39 NS 27 21 23.4 21.1 NS 22.1 21.5 107 15 18 13 NS NS 13 10 6.8 7.9 5.38 4.43 5.31 5.95 108 15 12 7.8 11 12 10 8.7 7.6 6.78 5.19 6.24 3.92 4.90 109 10 10 7.8 9.2 6.5 8.5 6.9 6.0 5.42 4.94 6.65 9.41 10.6 110 11 11 NS 11 10 7.7 7.9 6.5 6.33 6.38 6.85 5.72 8.16 111 IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO 111R Sample Date Jun-­‐03 Jun-­‐04 Sep-­‐05 Dec-­‐06 Mar-­‐08 Sep-­‐08 Jun-­‐10 Apr-­‐11 Sep-­‐11 Sep-­‐12 Apr-­‐13 Sep-­‐13 Mar-­‐14 82 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 0.96 1.14 83 NS NS NS NS NS NS ND NS ND NS NS NS NS 84 7.6 5.2 1.1 1.4 NS 0.99 0.76 NS 0.94 0.98 ND 1.14 1.08 85 1.9 ND NS ND ND ND ND NS NS NS NS ND ND 86 NS NS ND ND ND ND NS NS ND ND ND ND ND 87 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS ND ND 88 NS NS ND ND ND ND NS NS NS NS ND ND ND 89 4.1 3.4 2.9 NS 1.9 3.2 2.7 NS 2.75 2.39 2.39 3.14 2.84 90 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS ND ND ND 91 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS ND 0.58 ND 0.80 ND 92 3.5 4.0 NS 4.2 2.7 4.4 4.4 NS 4.36 4.68 5.17 6.22 4.84 93 NS NS NS ND ND ND NS NS ND 0.57 ND 0.51 ND 94 1.9 NS NS 1.2 NS 0.98 0.85 0.87 0.94 ND ND 1.04 1.03 95 3.4 5.5 NS 7.6 6.4 6.9 8.4 NS 7.24 7.33 9.23 7.52 6.18 96 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 97 NS NS NS ND ND ND NS NS NS NS NS NS NS RID  Well  Number 98 99 100 NS 1.1 21 NS 1.3 15 NS NS NS NS 2.5 7.8 NS 1.2 6.0 NS 2.0 9.3 NS 1.4 NS NS 1.1 NS NS 1.22 3.99 NS ND 3.29 NS ND 1.89 NS 0.56 3.56 NS 0.50 2.51 101 NS NS NS NS NS 2.0 NS NS NS NS ND 1.04 1.14 102 NS ND NS ND 0.50 ND ND NS NS NS ND ND ND 103 NS 1.8 NS 2.2 NS 1.6 1.4 NS NS NS ND 0.64 ND 104 NS 1.7 NS 1.2 1.2 1.0 0.76 NS NS ND ND 0.56 ND 105 2.4 ND ND 0.98 ND 0.78 0.66 0.68 0.67 0.68 ND 0.68 ND 106 11 13 NS 9.0 7.4 NS 5.7 5.0 5.09 3.82 NS 5.63 4.66 107 9.0 7.5 6.5 NS NS 4.7 3.6 2.9 2.61 1.25 0.81 2.45 2.38 108 3.0 1.9 ND 0.98 ND 0.98 0.84 0.88 0.96 ND ND 0.65 ND 109 5.4 5.2 3.5 3.5 2.7 3.2 3.0 2.9 2.74 2.08 1.76 1.93 2.60 110 1.9 ND NS ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 111 IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO 111R EXPLANATION: All  numeric  values  presented  in  micrograms  per  liter  (µg/L) NS    =    Not  Sampled ND    =    Non-­‐detect  result  (typically  less  than  reporVng  limit  of  0.50  µg/L) COCs  =  Contaminants  of  Concern X.X =  Meets  or  exceeds  MCL  &  AWQS. IO =  Well  was  inoperable. ND ND 0.60 ND 0.97 0.63 1.52 1.53 ND ND ND ND 112 5.5 6.7 13 14 8.1 19 17 12 10.3 6.33 6.40 6.39 NS 113 19 26 NS 37 18 NS NS 29 19.1 5.31 8.14 5.86 8.24 114 98 79 99 110 90 85 87 74 52.8 44.1 48.6 39.0 45.6 112 8.6 6.7 5.3 5.3 4.8 4.5 4.5 3.0 2.98 1.78 2.01 2.59 NS 113 6.0 6.2 NS 4.5 4.2 NS NS 2.8 2.8 1.79 1.92 2.53 3.03 114 5.3 4.4 5.0 6.3 5.0 4.6 4.3 3.9 3.1 2.61 2.20 2.63 2.86 112 ND ND ND 0.71 ND 0.91 0.76 0.64 0.57 ND ND 0.51 NS 113 ND 1.4 NS 1.8 ND NS NS 2.5 1.88 ND ND 0.50 0.52 114 2.4 3.0 3.9 5.4 2.5 3.7 5.5 4.7 3.73 1.71 3.33 2.50 3.01 TABLE  3.    CHROMIUM  DATA  SUMMARY West  Van  Buren  Area  WQARF  Site WELL  ID Hexavlent   Dissolved   Sample                                  Total               Chromium                         Chromium                               Chromium                                 Date (as  µg/l) (as  µg/l) (as  µg/l) RID-­‐82 3/28/14 14.7 14.0 14.4 RID-­‐83 NS -­‐-­‐-­‐ -­‐-­‐-­‐ -­‐-­‐-­‐ RID-­‐84 3/28/14 <10.0 6.0 <10.0 RID-­‐85 3/28/14 <10.0 <5.0 <10.0 RID-­‐86 3/28/14 <10.0 <5.0 <10.0 RID-­‐87 3/28/14 <10.0 <5.0 <10.0 RID-­‐88 3/27/14 <10.0 <5.0 <10.0 RID-­‐89 3/27/14 <10.0 <5.0 <10.0 RID-­‐90 3/27/14 <10.0 <5.0 <10.0 RID-­‐91 3/27/14 <10.0 <5.0 <10.0 RID-­‐92 3/27/14 <10.0 <5.0 <10.0 RID-­‐93 3/27/14 <10.0 <5.0 <10.0 RID-­‐94 3/27/14 <10.0 <5.0 <10.0 RID-­‐95 3/27/14 <10.0 6.0 <10.0 RID-­‐96 NS -­‐-­‐-­‐ -­‐-­‐-­‐ -­‐-­‐-­‐ RID-­‐97 NS -­‐-­‐-­‐ -­‐-­‐-­‐ -­‐-­‐-­‐ RID-­‐98 NS -­‐-­‐-­‐ -­‐-­‐-­‐ -­‐-­‐-­‐ RID-­‐99 3/27/14 48.1 43.0 14.4 RID-­‐100 3/27/14 <10.0 <5.0 <10.0 RID-­‐101 3/27/14 <10.0 <5.0 <10.0 RID-­‐102 3/27/14 16.1 13.0 15.7 RID-­‐103 3/27/14 <10.0 <5.0 <10.0 RID-­‐104 3/27/14 <10.0 <5.0 <10.0 RID-­‐105 3/27/14 13.0 12.0 13.4 RID-­‐106 3/27/14 <10.0 7.0 <10.0 RID-­‐107 3/27/14 <10.0 6.0 <10.0 RID-­‐108 3/27/14 <10.0 9.0 <10.0 RID-­‐109 3/27/14 <10.0 9.0 <10.0 RID-­‐110 3/27/14 <10.0 <5.0 <10.0 RID-­‐111R 3/27/14 <10.0 <5.0 <10.0 RID-­‐112 Offline -­‐-­‐-­‐ -­‐-­‐-­‐ -­‐-­‐-­‐ RID-­‐113 3/27/14 <10.0 <5.0 <10.0 RID-­‐114 3/27/14 <10.0 <5.0 <10.0 EXPLANATION: μg/l  = micrograms  per  liter NS  = Well  was  not  sampled  per  Arizona  Department  of  Environmental  Quality. Offline  = Well  was  offline  during  the  sampling  round. TABLE  4.    ESTIMATED  COSTS  OF  REMEDIAL  ALTERNATIVES West  Van  Buren  Area  WQARF  Site Costs  Summary: Reference  Remedy Capital  Cost Annual  O&M $13,645,000 $2,956,900 Less  Aggressive $9,445,000 More  Aggressive $14,623,000 $2,192,600 Most  Aggressive $19,460,000 $4,169,900 $2,049,500 Reference  Remedy Well DescripCon Capital  Cost Annual  O&M 89 92 3  skids  GAC  treatment 2  skids  GAC  treatment $1,500,000 $1,000,000 95 2  skids  GAC  treatment $1,000,000 114 100 106 109 112 84 3  skids  GAC  treatment 2  skids  GAC  treatment 3  skids  GAC  treatment 2  skids  GAC  treatment 2  skids  GAC  treatment 2  skids  GAC  treatment $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 volaClizaCon  control $180,000 groundwater  monitoring Salt  Canal  improvements restore  lost  producCon   capacity $750,000 $1,215,000 power  penalty   equipment  repair  and/or   replacement real  estate  acquisiCon project  administraCon  and   reporCng Comments/ExplanaCon $300,000 Modified  Early  Response  AcCon  (ERA) $200,000 Modified  ERA  +  supplemental  acCon Modified  ERA  (increased  O&M  with  higher   $250,000 concentraCon  of  1,1-­‐dichloroethene,   resulCng  in  quicker  breakthrough) $300,000 Modified  ERA $200,000 Modified  ERA $300,000 Modified  ERA $200,000 Modified  ERA $200,000 Modified  ERA $200,000 Supplemental  AcCon sealing  wellhead  discharge  boxes  @  sites  with   COCs  greater  than  MCLs  &  enclose  open   lateral  south  of  RID-­‐92 based  on  Fiscal  Year  2015  budget  esCmate  by   $134,000 Terranext 2  open  secCon  +  manholes  (1,500  feet  @   $500/foot) 1)  re-­‐drill,  new  pump,  same  motor  at  RID-­‐92 2)  re-­‐drill,  new  pump,  new  motor  at  RID-­‐106 3)  new  pump,  same  motor  at  RID-­‐114   esCmated  offset  for  increased  pumping  cost   $210,000 through  wellhead  treatment  from  increase  in   operaCng  pressure  ($10,000/skid/year) $315,000 3%  of  capital  equipment  costs $1,000,000 92,  100,  106,  109,  112  ($200,000/site) 6.0%  of  annual  O&M  (excludes  power  penalty   $147,900 and  groundwater  monitoring) TOTALS: $13,645,000 $2,956,900 1 of 4 TABLE  4.    ESTIMATED  COSTS  OF  REMEDIAL  ALTERNATIVES West  Van  Buren  Area  WQARF  Site Less  Aggressive Well DescripCon Capital  Cost Annual  O&M 89 92 3  skids  GAC  treatment 1  skid  GAC  treatment $1,500,000 $1,000,000 95 2  skids  GAC  treatment $1,000,000 114 106 109 3  skids  GAC  treatment 3  skids  GAC  treatment 2  skids  GAC  treatment $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 84 off-­‐season  injecCon volaClizaCon  control TBD $180,000 groundwater  monitoring Salt  Canal  improvements $750,000 restore  lost  producCon   capacity $615,000 power  penalty   equipment  repair  and/or   replacement real  estate  acquisiCon project  administraCon  and   reporCng Comments/ExplanaCon $300,000 Modified  ERA $100,000 Modified  ERA Modified  ERA  (increased  O&M  with  higher   $250,000 concentraCon  of  1,1-­‐dichloroethene,   resulCng  in  quicker  breakthrough) $300,000 Modified  ERA $300,000 Modified  ERA  +  supplemental  acCon $200,000 Modified  ERA operaCon  of  pumps  and  filtraCon                                                 (conCngengy;  If  >  MCLs  aier  2  years  of   remedy) sealing  wellhead  discharge  boxes  @  sites  with   COCs  greater  than  MCLs  &  enclose  open   lateral  south  of  RID-­‐92 based  on  Fiscal  Year  2015  budget  esCmate  by   $134,000 Terranext 2  open  secCon  +  manholes  (1,500  feet  @   $500/foot) 1)  re-­‐drill,  new  pump,  new  motor  at  RID-­‐106 2)  new  pump,  same  motor  at  RID-­‐114 esCmated  offset  for  increased  pumping  cost   $140,000 through  wellhead  treatment  from  increase  in   operaCng  pressure  ($10,000/skid/year) TBD $225,000 3%  of  capital  equipment  costs $400,000 TOTALS: $9,445,000 106,  109  ($200,000/site) 6.0%  of  annual  O&M  (excludes  power  penalty   $100,500 and  groundwater  monitoring) $2,049,500 2 of 4 TABLE  4.    ESTIMATED  COSTS  OF  REMEDIAL  ALTERNATIVES West  Van  Buren  Area  WQARF  Site More  Aggressive Well DescripCon Capital  Cost Annual  O&M 89 92 3  skids  GAC  treatment 1  skids  GAC  treatment $1,500,000 $1,000,000 95 2  skids  GAC  treatment $1,000,000 114 106 109 3  skids  GAC  treatment 3  skids  GAC  treatment 2  skids  GAC  treatment $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 84,  85,   InjecCon  of  treated  and   90,  91,   reclaimed  water  during 93 low-­‐demand  period volaClizaCon  control $5,178,000 $180,000 groundwater  monitoring Salt  Canal  improvements $750,000 restore  lost  producCon   capacity $615,000 power  penalty   equipment  repair  and/or   replacement real  estate  acquisiCon project  administraCon  and   reporCng Comments/ExplanaCon $300,000 Modified  ERA $100,000 Modified  ERA Modified  ERA  (increased  O&M  with  higher   $250,000 concentraCon  of  1,1-­‐dichloroethene,   resulCng  in  quicker  breakthrough) $300,000 Modified  ERA $300,000 Modified  ERA  +  supplemental  acCon $200,000 Modified  ERA Capital  Cost:  lii  pump,  filters,  piping,  flow   control  valving,  instrumentaCon  and  controls,   $135,000 system  design  (engineering  and  hydrology) Annual  O&M:  pumping/filtraCon sealing  wellhead  discharge  boxes  @  sites  with   COCs  greater  than  MCLs  &  enclose  open   lateral  south  of  RID-­‐92 based  on  Fiscal  Year  2015  budget  esCmate  by   $134,000 Terranext 2  open  secCon  +  manholes  (1,500  feet  @   $500/foot) 1)  re-­‐drill,  new  pump,  new  motor  at  RID-­‐106 2)  new  pump,  same  motor  at  RID-­‐114 esCmated  offset  for  increased  pumping  cost   $140,000 through  wellhead  treatment  from  increase  in   operaCng  pressure  ($10,000/skid/year) $225,000 3%  of  capital  equipment  costs $400,000 106,  109  ($200,000/site) 6.0%  of  annual  O&M  (excl.  power  penalty  and   $108,600 groundwater  monitoring) TOTALS: $14,623,000 $2,192,600 3 of 4 TABLE  4.    ESTIMATED  COSTS  OF  REMEDIAL  ALTERNATIVES West  Van  Buren  Area  WQARF  Site Most  Aggressive Well DescripCon Capital  Cost Annual  O&M 89 92 3  skids  GAC  treatment 2  skids  GAC  treatment $1,500,000 $1,000,000 95 2  skids  GAC  treatment $1,000,000 114 100 106 107 109 110 112 113 84 99 3  skids  GAC  treatment 2  skids  GAC  treatment 3  skids  GAC  treatment 2  skids  GAC  treatment 2  skids  GAC  treatment 3  skids  GAC  treatment 2  skids  GAC  treatment 2  skids  GAC  treatment 3  skids  GAC  treatment 2  skids  GAC  treatment $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 volaClizaCon  control $180,000 groundwater  monitoring Salt  Canal  improvements restore  lost  producCon   capacity $750,000 $1,230,000 power  penalty   equipment  repair  and/or   replacement real  estate  acquisiCon project  administraCon  and   reporCng Comments/ExplanaCon $300,000 Modified  ERA $200,000 Modified  ERA Modified  ERA  (increased  O&M  with  higher   $250,000 concentraCon  of  1,1-­‐dichloroethene,   resulCng  in  quicker  breakthrough) $300,000 Modified  ERA $200,000 Modified  ERA $300,000 Modified  ERA  +  supplemental  acCon $200,000 Supplemental  AcCon $200,000 Modified  ERA $300,000 Supplemental  AcCon $200,000 Modified  ERA $200,000 Modified  ERA $200,000 Supplemental  AcCon $200,000 Supplemental  AcCon sealing  wellhead  discharge  boxes  @  sites  with   COCs  greater  than  MCLs  &  enclose  open   lateral  south  of  RID-­‐92 based  on  Fiscal  Year  2015  budget  esCmate  by   $134,000 Terranext 2  open  secCon  +  manholes  (1,500  feet  @   $500/foot) 1)  new  pump,  same  motor  at  RID-­‐84 2)  re-­‐drill,  new  pump,  same  motor  at  RID-­‐92 3)  re-­‐drill,  new  pump,  new  motor  at  RID-­‐106 4)  new  pump,  same  motor  at  RID-­‐114   esCmated  offset  for  increased  pumping  cost   $310,000 through  wellhead  treatment  from  increase  in   operaCng  pressure  ($10,000/skid/year) $465,000 3%  of  capital  equipment  costs $1,800,000 92,  99,  100,  106,  107,  109,  110,  112,  113   ($200,000/site) 6.0%  of  annual  O&M  (excludes  power  penalty   $210,900 and  groundwater  monitoring) TOTALS: $19,460,000 $4,169,900 4 of 4 TABLE  5.    COMPARATIVE  COST  OF  REMEDIAL  ALTERNATIVES   NET  PRESENT  VALUE  ANALYSIS West  Van  Buren  Area  WQARF  Site Reference  Remedy Discount  Factor  to  Present  Value  =  Year Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 3% Annual           CumulaAve   Capital                                      Annual                                                     Total                                                       Total  Present                         Discount     Present  Value   Costs O&M  Costs   Costs   Value  Cost Factor Cost $  13,645,000   $                      2,956,900   $              16,601,900   $                      2,956,900   $                  2,956,900   $                      2,956,900   $                  2,956,900   $                      2,956,900   $                  2,956,900   $                      2,956,900   $                  2,956,900   $                      2,956,900   $                  2,956,900   $                      2,956,900   $                  2,956,900   $                      2,956,900   $                  2,956,900   $                      2,956,900   $                  2,956,900   $                      2,956,900   $                  2,956,900   $                      2,956,900   $                  2,956,900   $                      2,956,900   $                  2,956,900   $                      2,956,900   $                  2,956,900   $                      2,956,900   $                  2,956,900   $                      2,956,900   $                  2,956,900   $                      2,956,900   $                  2,956,900   $                      2,956,900   $                  2,956,900   $                      2,956,900   $                  2,956,900   $                      2,956,900   $                  2,956,900   $                      2,956,900   $                  2,956,900   $                      2,956,900   $                  2,956,900   $                      2,956,900   $                  2,956,900   $                      2,956,900   $                  2,956,900   $                      2,956,900   $                  2,956,900   $                      2,956,900   $                  2,956,900   $                      2,956,900   $                  2,956,900   $                      2,956,900   $                  2,956,900   $                      2,956,900   $                  2,956,900   $                      2,956,900   $                  2,956,900   $                      2,956,900   $                  2,956,900   $                      2,956,900   $                  2,956,900   $                      2,956,900   $                  2,956,900   $                      2,956,900   $                  2,956,900   Page  1  of  8 1 0.971 0.943 0.915 0.888 0.863 0.837 0.813 0.789 0.766 0.744 0.722 0.701 0.681 0.661 0.642 0.623 0.605 0.587 0.570 0.554 0.538 0.522 0.507 0.492 0.478 0.464 0.450 0.437 0.424 0.412 0.400 0.388 $            16,601,900 $                2,870,777 $                2,787,162 $                2,705,982 $                2,627,167 $                2,550,648 $                2,476,357 $                2,404,230 $                2,334,204 $                2,266,218 $                2,200,211 $                2,136,127 $                2,073,910 $                2,013,505 $                1,954,859 $                1,897,922 $                1,842,642 $                1,788,973 $                1,736,867 $                1,686,279 $                1,637,164 $                1,589,479 $                1,543,184 $                1,498,237 $                1,454,599 $                1,412,232 $                1,371,099 $                1,331,164 $                1,292,392 $                1,254,750 $                1,218,204 $                1,182,722 $                1,148,274 $        16,601,900 $        19,472,677 $        22,259,839 $        24,965,821 $        27,592,988 $        30,143,636 $        32,619,993 $        35,024,224 $        37,358,428 $        39,624,645 $        41,824,857 $        43,960,984 $        46,034,894 $        48,048,399 $        50,003,259 $        51,901,180 $        53,743,823 $        55,532,796 $        57,269,663 $        58,955,942 $        60,593,105 $        62,182,585 $        63,725,769 $        65,224,006 $        66,678,605 $        68,090,836 $        69,461,935 $        70,793,099 $        72,085,492 $        73,340,241 $        74,558,445 $        75,741,167 $        76,889,441 TABLE  5.    COMPARATIVE  COST  OF  REMEDIAL  ALTERNATIVES   NET  PRESENT  VALUE  ANALYSIS West  Van  Buren  Area  WQARF  Site Reference  Remedy  (ConBnued) Discount  Factor  to  Present  Value  =  Year Year 3% Annual           CumulaAve   Capital                                      Annual                                                     Total                                                       Total  Present                         Discount     Present  Value   Costs O&M  Costs   Costs   Value  Cost Factor Cost 2048 33 2049 34 2050 35 $                2,956,900   $                2,956,900   $                2,956,900   $              2,956,900 $              2,956,900 $              2,956,900 0.377 0.366 0.355 $          1,114,829   $  78,004,270   $          1,082,358   $  79,086,628   $          1,050,833   $  80,137,461   2051 36 $                      2,956,900   $                  2,956,900   0.345 $                1,020,226 $        81,157,687 2052 37 2053 38 2054 39 2055 40 2056 41 2057 42 2058 43 2059 44 2060 45 2061 46 2062 47 2063 48 2064 49 TOTALS $                      2,956,900   $                      2,956,900   $                      2,956,900   $                      2,956,900   $                      2,956,900   $                      2,956,900   $                      2,956,900   $                      2,956,900   $                      2,956,900   $                      2,956,900   $                      2,956,900   $                      2,956,900   $                      2,956,900   $  13,645,000   $            147,845,000   $                  2,956,900   $                  2,956,900   $                  2,956,900   $                  2,956,900   $                  2,956,900   $                  2,956,900   $                  2,956,900   $                  2,956,900   $                  2,956,900   $                  2,956,900   $                  2,956,900   $                  2,956,900   $                  2,956,900   $          161,490,000 0.335 0.325 0.316 0.307 0.298 0.289 0.281 0.272 0.264 0.257 0.249 0.242 0.235 $                      990,511   $                      961,661   $                      933,652   $                      906,458   $                      880,056   $                      854,424   $                      829,537   $                      805,376   $                      781,919   $                      759,144   $                      737,033   $                      715,566   $                      694,725   $          92,007,749   Page  2  of  8 $        82,148,198 $        83,109,860 $        84,043,511 $        84,949,969 $        85,830,025 $        86,684,449 $        87,513,986 $        88,319,363 $        89,101,281 $        89,860,425 $        90,597,459 $        91,313,025 $        92,007,749 TABLE  5.    COMPARATIVE  COST  OF  REMEDIAL  ALTERNATIVES   NET  PRESENT  VALUE  ANALYSIS West  Van  Buren  Area  WQARF  Site Less  Aggressive  Remedy Discount  Factor  to  Present  Value  = 3% Annual           CumulaAve   Capital                                      Annual                                                     Total                                                       Total  Present                          Year Year Discount     Present  Value   Costs O&M  Costs   Costs   Value  Cost Factor Cost 2015 0 $      9,445,000   $                      2,049,500   $              11,494,500   1 $            11,494,500 $        11,494,500 2016 1 $                      2,049,500   $                  2,049,500   0.971 $                1,989,806 $        13,484,306 2017 2 $                      2,049,500   $                  2,049,500   0.943 $                1,931,850 $        15,416,156 2018 3 $                      2,049,500   $                  2,049,500   0.915 $                1,875,583 $        17,291,739 2019 4 $                      2,049,500   $                  2,049,500   0.888 $                1,820,954 $        19,112,693 2020 5 $                      2,049,500   $                  2,049,500   0.863 $                1,767,917 $        20,880,610 2021 6 $                      2,049,500   $                  2,049,500   0.837 $                1,716,424 $        22,597,034 2022 7 $                      2,049,500   $                  2,049,500   0.813 $                1,666,431 $        24,263,465 2023 8 $                      2,049,500   $                  2,049,500   0.789 $                1,617,894 $        25,881,359 2024 9 $                      2,049,500   $                  2,049,500   0.766 $                1,570,771 $        27,452,130 2025 10 $                      2,049,500   $                  2,049,500   0.744 $                1,525,020 $        28,977,151 2026 11 $                      2,049,500   $                  2,049,500   0.722 $                1,480,602 $        30,457,753 2027 12 $                      2,049,500   $                  2,049,500   0.701 $                1,437,478 $        31,895,231 2028 13 $                      2,049,500   $                  2,049,500   0.681 $                1,395,610 $        33,290,841 2029 14 $                      2,049,500   $                  2,049,500   0.661 $                1,354,961 $        34,645,802 2030 15 $                      2,049,500   $                  2,049,500   0.642 $                1,315,496 $        35,961,298 2031 16 $                      2,049,500   $                  2,049,500   0.623 $                1,277,181 $        37,238,479 2032 17 $                      2,049,500   $                  2,049,500   0.605 $                1,239,981 $        38,478,460 2033 18 $                      2,049,500   $                  2,049,500   0.587 $                1,203,865 $        39,682,325 2034 19 $                      2,049,500   $                  2,049,500   0.570 $                1,168,801 $        40,851,126 2035 20 $                      2,049,500   $                  2,049,500   0.554 $                1,134,758 $        41,985,885 2036 21 $                      2,049,500   $                  2,049,500   0.538 $                1,101,707 $        43,087,592 2037 22 $                      2,049,500   $                  2,049,500   0.522 $                1,069,619 $        44,157,211 2038 23 $                      2,049,500   $                  2,049,500   0.507 $                1,038,465 $        45,195,675 2039 24 $                      2,049,500   $                  2,049,500   0.492 $                1,008,218 $        46,203,894 2040 25 $                      2,049,500   $                  2,049,500   0.478 $                      978,853   $        47,182,746 2041 26 $                      2,049,500   $                  2,049,500   0.464 $                      950,342   $        48,133,089 2042 27 $                      2,049,500   $                  2,049,500   0.450 $                      922,662   $        49,055,751 2043 28 $                      2,049,500   $                  2,049,500   0.437 $                      895,789   $        49,951,540 2044 29 $                      2,049,500   $                  2,049,500   0.424 $                      869,698   $        50,821,238 2045 30 $                      2,049,500   $                  2,049,500   0.412 $                      844,367   $        51,665,605 2046 31 $                      2,049,500   $                  2,049,500   0.400 $                      819,774   $        52,485,378 2047 32 $                      2,049,500   $                  2,049,500   0.388 $                      795,897   $        53,281,275 Page  3  of  8 TABLE  5.    COMPARATIVE  COST  OF  REMEDIAL  ALTERNATIVES   NET  PRESENT  VALUE  ANALYSIS West  Van  Buren  Area  WQARF  Site Less  Aggressive  Remedy  (ConBnued) Discount  Factor  to  Present  Value  =  Year Year 2048 33 2049 34 2050 35 2051 36 2052 37 2053 38 2054 39 2055 40 2056 41 2057 42 2058 43 2059 44 2060 45 2061 46 2062 47 2063 48 2064 49 TOTALS 3% Annual           CumulaAve   Capital                                Annual                                                        Total                                                         Total  Present                         Discount     Present  Value   Costs O&M  Costs   Costs   Value  Cost Factor Cost $                2,049,500   $              2,049,500 0.377 $                  772,715 $  54,053,990   $                2,049,500   $              2,049,500 0.366 $                  750,209 $  54,804,199   $                2,049,500   $              2,049,500 0.355 $                  728,358 $  55,532,558   $                2,049,500   $              2,049,500 0.345 $                  707,144 $  56,239,701   $                2,049,500   $              2,049,500 0.335 $                  686,548 $  56,926,249   $                2,049,500   $              2,049,500 0.325 $                  666,551 $  57,592,800   $                2,049,500   $              2,049,500 0.316 $                  647,137 $  58,239,937   $                2,049,500   $              2,049,500 0.307 $                  628,288 $  58,868,225   $                2,049,500   $              2,049,500 0.298 $                  609,989 $  59,478,214   $                2,049,500   $              2,049,500 0.289 $                  592,222 $  60,070,436   $                2,049,500   $              2,049,500 0.281 $                  574,973 $  60,645,408   $                2,049,500   $              2,049,500 0.272 $                  558,226 $  61,203,634   $                2,049,500   $              2,049,500 0.264 $                  541,967 $  61,745,601   $                2,049,500   $              2,049,500 0.257 $                  526,182 $  62,271,783   $                2,049,500   $              2,049,500 0.249 $                  510,856 $  62,782,639   $                2,049,500   $              2,049,500 0.242 $                  495,977 $  63,278,615   $                2,049,500   $              2,049,500 0.235 $                  481,531 $  63,760,146   $  9,380,000   $      102,475,000   $    111,920,000   $      63,760,146 Page  4  of  8 TABLE  5.    COMPARATIVE  COST  OF  REMEDIAL  ALTERNATIVES   NET  PRESENT  VALUE  ANALYSIS West  Van  Buren  Area  WQARF  Site More  Aggressive  Remedy Discount  Factor  to  Present  Value  = 3% Annual           CumulaAve   Capital                                      Annual                                                     Total                                                       Total  Present                          Year Year Discount     Present  Value   Costs O&M  Costs   Costs   Value  Cost Factor Cost 2015 0 $  14,623,000   $                      2,192,600   $              16,815,600   1 $            16,815,600 $        16,815,600 2016 1 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.971 $                2,128,738 $        18,944,338 2017 2 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.943 $                2,066,736 $        21,011,074 2018 3 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.915 $                2,006,540 $        23,017,613 2019 4 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.888 $                1,948,097 $        24,965,710 2020 5 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.863 $                1,891,356 $        26,857,066 2021 6 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.837 $                1,836,268 $        28,693,334 2022 7 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.813 $                1,782,784 $        30,476,118 2023 8 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.789 $                1,730,859 $        32,206,977 2024 9 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.766 $                1,680,445 $        33,887,422 2025 10 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.744 $                1,631,500 $        35,518,923 2026 11 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.722 $                1,583,981 $        37,102,904 2027 12 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.701 $                1,537,846 $        38,640,749 2028 13 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.681 $                1,493,054 $        40,133,803 2029 14 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.661 $                1,449,567 $        41,583,370 2030 15 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.642 $                1,407,347 $        42,990,716 2031 16 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.623 $                1,366,356 $        44,357,072 2032 17 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.605 $                1,326,559 $        45,683,631 2033 18 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.587 $                1,287,921 $        46,971,553 2034 19 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.570 $                1,250,409 $        48,221,962 2035 20 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.554 $                1,213,989 $        49,435,951 2036 21 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.538 $                1,178,631 $        50,614,582 2037 22 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.522 $                1,144,301 $        51,758,883 2038 23 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.507 $                1,110,972 $        52,869,856 2039 24 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.492 $                1,078,614 $        53,948,470 2040 25 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.478 $                1,047,198 $        54,995,668 2041 26 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.464 $                1,016,697 $        56,012,365 2042 27 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.450 $                      987,085   $        56,999,449 2043 28 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.437 $                      958,334   $        57,957,784 2044 29 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.424 $                      930,422   $        58,888,206 2045 30 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.412 $                      903,322   $        59,791,528 2046 31 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.400 $                      877,012   $        60,668,540 2047 32 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.388 $                      851,468   $        61,520,007 Page  5  of  8 TABLE  5.    COMPARATIVE  COST  OF  REMEDIAL  ALTERNATIVES   NET  PRESENT  VALUE  ANALYSIS West  Van  Buren  Area  WQARF  Site More  Aggressive  Remedy  (ConBnued) Discount  Factor  to  Present  Value  = 3% Annual           CumulaAve   Capital                                      Annual                                                     Total                                                       Total  Present                          Year Year Discount     Present  Value   Costs O&M  Costs   Costs   Value  Cost Factor Cost 2048 33 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.377 $                      826,668   $        62,346,675 2049 34 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.366 $                      802,590   $        63,149,265 2050 35 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.355 $                      779,214   $        63,928,479 2051 36 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.345 $                      756,518   $        64,684,997 2052 37 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.335 $                      734,484   $        65,419,480 2053 38 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.325 $                      713,091   $        66,132,571 2054 39 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.316 $                      692,321   $        66,824,893 2055 40 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.307 $                      672,157   $        67,497,049 2056 41 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.298 $                      652,579   $        68,149,628 2057 42 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.289 $                      633,572   $        68,783,200 2058 43 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.281 $                      615,118   $        69,398,319 2059 44 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.272 $                      597,202   $        69,995,521 2060 45 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.264 $                      579,808   $        70,575,329 2061 46 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.257 $                      562,921   $        71,138,250 2062 47 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.249 $                      546,525   $        71,684,774 2063 48 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.242 $                      530,607   $        72,215,381 2064 49 $                      2,192,600   $                  2,192,600   0.235 $                      515,152   $        72,730,533 TOTALS $  14,623,000   $            109,630,000   $          124,253,000 $          72,730,533   Page  6  of  8 TABLE  5.    COMPARATIVE  COST  OF  REMEDIAL  ALTERNATIVES   NET  PRESENT  VALUE  ANALYSIS West  Van  Buren  Area  WQARF  Site Most  Aggressive  Remedy Discount  Factor  to  Present  Value  = 3% Annual           CumulaAve   Capital                                      Annual                                                     Total                                                       Total  Present                          Year Year Discount     Present  Value   Costs O&M  Costs   Costs   Value  Cost Factor Cost 2015 0 $  19,460,000   $                      4,169,900   $              23,629,900   1 $            23,629,900 $        23,629,900 2016 1 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.971 $                4,048,447 $        27,678,347 2017 2 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.943 $                3,930,531 $        31,608,877 2018 3 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.915 $                3,816,049 $        35,424,926 2019 4 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.888 $                3,704,902 $        39,129,829 2020 5 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.863 $                3,596,992 $        42,726,821 2021 6 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.837 $                3,492,226 $        46,219,047 2022 7 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.813 $                3,390,510 $        49,609,557 2023 8 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.789 $                3,291,758 $        52,901,314 2024 9 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.766 $                3,195,881 $        56,097,196 2025 10 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.744 $                3,102,797 $        59,199,993 2026 11 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.722 $                3,012,424 $        62,212,417 2027 12 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.701 $                2,924,684 $        65,137,101 2028 13 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.681 $                2,839,499 $        67,976,600 2029 14 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.661 $                2,756,795 $        70,733,395 2030 15 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.642 $                2,676,500 $        73,409,896 2031 16 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.623 $                2,598,544 $        76,008,439 2032 17 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.605 $                2,522,858 $        78,531,297 2033 18 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.587 $                2,449,377 $        80,980,674 2034 19 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.570 $                2,378,036 $        83,358,710 2035 20 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.554 $                2,308,773 $        85,667,482 2036 21 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.538 $                2,241,527 $        87,909,009 2037 22 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.522 $                2,176,240 $        90,085,249 2038 23 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.507 $                2,112,854 $        92,198,103 2039 24 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.492 $                2,051,314 $        94,249,417 2040 25 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.478 $                1,991,567 $        96,240,985 2041 26 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.464 $                1,933,561 $        98,174,545 2042 27 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.450 $                1,877,243 $    100,051,789 2043 28 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.437 $                1,822,566 $    101,874,355 2044 29 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.424 $                1,769,482 $    103,643,837 2045 30 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.412 $                1,717,944 $    105,361,780 2046 31 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.400 $                1,667,906 $    107,029,687 2047 32 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.388 $                1,619,327 $    108,649,013 Page  7  of  8 TABLE  5.    COMPARATIVE  COST  OF  REMEDIAL  ALTERNATIVES   NET  PRESENT  VALUE  ANALYSIS West  Van  Buren  Area  WQARF  Site Most  Aggressive  Remedy  (ConBnued) Discount  Factor  to  Present  Value  = 3% Annual           CumulaAve   Capital                                      Annual                                                     Total                                                       Total  Present                          Year Year Discount     Present  Value   Costs O&M  Costs   Costs   Value  Cost Factor Cost 2048 33 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.377 $                1,572,162 $    110,221,175 2049 34 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.366 $                1,526,371 $    111,747,546 2050 35 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.355 $                1,481,913 $    113,229,459 2051 36 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.345 $                1,438,751 $    114,668,210 2052 37 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.335 $                1,396,845 $    116,065,055 2053 38 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.325 $                1,356,161 $    117,421,216 2054 39 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.316 $                1,316,661 $    118,737,876 2055 40 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.307 $                1,278,311 $    120,016,188 2056 41 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.298 $                1,241,079 $    121,257,267 2057 42 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.289 $                1,204,931 $    122,462,198 2058 43 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.281 $                1,169,836 $    123,632,034 2059 44 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.272 $                1,135,763 $    124,767,797 2060 45 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.264 $                1,102,683 $    125,870,479 2061 46 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.257 $                1,070,566 $    126,941,045 2062 47 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.249 $                1,039,384 $    127,980,429 2063 48 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.242 $                1,009,111 $    128,989,540 2064 49 $                      4,169,900   $                  4,169,900   0.235 $                      979,719   $    129,969,259 TOTALS $  19,460,000   $            208,495,000   $          227,955,000 $      129,969,259   Page  8  of  8   TABLE  6.  SUMMARY  OF  COMPARISON  CRITERIA  FOR  GROUNDWATER  ALTERNATIVE  REMEDIES       REFERENCE     REMEDY   CRITERIA   THRESHOLD  REQUIREMENTS     COMPARISON  CRITERIA   Source  control  activities  at  individual   facilities  are  outside  the  scope  of  FS   ADEQ  to  assure  facility  work  meets   general  land  use  plans   • Source  control  activities  at  individual   • Source  control  activities  at  individual   • Source  control  activities  at  individual   • Adequately  addresses  RID  needs     • Protects  water  quality,  quantity,  and   • Adequately  addresses  RID  needs   • Protects  water  quality,  quantity,  and   • Adequately  addresses  RID  needs     • Protects  water  quality,  quantity,  and   • Fully  addresses  RID  needs   • Assures  water  quality,  quantity,  and   • Moderate  implementation  issues   • Requires  treatment  at  5  additional                       • Comparatively  easy  to  implement   • Requires  treatment  at  2  additional                       • Consistency     with  General                 • Land  Use     reliability  of  affected  water  supply   RID  well  sites     • Requires  drilling  of  2  replacement  wells   • Treatment  reduces  risk  of  imminent  and   Risk   Cost   substantial  endangerment  to  public   • Treatment  addresses  estimated  83%  of   VOC  mass  impacting  RID  well  field   $    13.6  million  -­‐  Capital  Cost   $        3.0  million  -­‐  Annual  O&M  Cost   $    92.0  million  -­‐  50-­‐year  NPV   • RID  pumping  physically  contains  regional   Benefit         MOST     AGGRESSIVE   • Water  treatment  and  blending  approach     Practicability   MORE     AGGRESSIVE   Water  treatment  and  blending  approach   • Water  treatment  and  blending  approach   provides  protection  of  water  supplies  for   provides  protection  of  water  supplies  for   all  beneficial  uses   all  beneficial  uses   Soil  remediation  at  source  areas  addresses   • Soil  remediation  at  source  areas  addresses   loss/impairment  of  land  use   loss/impairment  of  land  use   • Achievement  of     Remedial   • Objectives   Consistency     with  Water   Management   Plans   LESS     AGGRESSIVE   plume;  priority  pumping  enhances   hydraulic  capture   • Treatment  restores  impacted  wells  and   provides  high  degree  of  public  protection   against  potential  exposure  to  VOCs  in  air     facilities  are  outside  the  scope  of  FS   • ADEQ  to  assure  facility  work  meets  general   land  use  plans   reliability  of  affected  water  supply   RID  well  sites     • Requires  drilling  of  1  replacement  well   • Treatment  reduces  risk  of  imminent  and   substantial  endangerment  to  public   • Treatment  addresses  estimated  77%  of   VOC  mass  impacting  RID  well  field   $        9.4  million  -­‐  Capital  Cost   $        2.0  million  -­‐  Annual  O&M  Cost   $    63.8  million  -­‐  50-­‐year  NPV   • RID  pumping  physically  contains  regional   plume;  priority  pumping  enhances   hydraulic  capture   • Treatment  restores  impacted  wells  and   provides  high  degree  of  public  protection   against  potential  exposure  to  VOCs  in  air     provides  protection  of  water  supplies  for   all  beneficial  uses   • Soil  remediation  at  source  areas  addresses   loss/impairment  of  land  use   facilities  are  outside  the  scope  of  FS   • ADEQ  to  assure  facility  work  meets  general   land  use  plans   reliability  of  affected  water  supply   • Moderate  implementation  issues   • Requires  treatment  at  2  additional                       RID  well  sites     • Water  treatment  fully  provides  protection   of  water  supplies  for  all  beneficial  uses   • Soil  remediation  at  source  areas  addresses   loss/impairment  of  land  use   facilities  are  outside  the  scope  of  FS   • ADEQ  to  assure  facility  work  meets  general   land  use  plans   reliability  of  affected  water  supply   • Comparatively  more  difficult  to  implement   • Requires  treatment  at  9  additional                     RID  well  sites   • Requires  drilling  of  1  replacement  well   • Requires  reconfiguring  5  wells  for  injection   • Requires  drilling  of  2  replacement  wells   • Treatment  reduces  risk  of  imminent  and   • Treatment  reduces  risk  of  imminent  and   substantial  endangerment  to  public   • Treatment  addresses  estimated  77%  of   VOC  mass  impacting  RID  well  field   $    14.6  million  -­‐  Capital  Cost   $        2.2  million  -­‐  Annual  O&M  Cost   $    72.7  million  -­‐  50-­‐year  NPV   • RID  pumping  physically  contains  regional   plume;  priority  pumping  and  injection   enhances  hydraulic  capture   • Treatment  restores  impacted  wells  and   provides  high  degree  of  public  protection   against  potential  exposure  to  VOCs  in  air     substantial  endangerment  to  public   • Treatment  addresses  estimated  91%  of   VOC  mass  impacting  RID  well  field   $    19.5  million  -­‐  Capital  Cost   $        4.2  million  -­‐  Annual  O&M  Cost   $    130  million  -­‐  50-­‐year  NPV   • RID  pumping  physically  contains  regional   plume;  priority  pumping  enhances   hydraulic  capture   • Treatment  restores  impacted  wells  and   provides  high  degree  of  public  protection   against  potential  exposure  to  VOCs  in  air                TABLE  7.    GROUNDWATER  REMEDIAL  ACTIONS  -­‐  COMPARATIVE  ANALYSIS West  Van  Buren  Area  WQARF  Site Normalized3                     Amount  of   Average  Annual   Required             End  Use  of             Remedy                           Remedy                           Design                       Capital   Costs/   Groundwater   Amount  of  VOC   Groundwater                                Annual                                   Annual                           RouYne               RouYne                                       Treatment     Treatment             Remediated         Capital  Cost                Capital   Cost                Treatment     Site                    Treatment   Mass  Removed   VOC    Mass                                Remedy                                O&M             Cost       O&M  Cost                         Technology               (in  years   Extracted                       Pump  &  Treat                                                   2 Water Capacity Through  2013 Removal  Rate O&M  Costs   ($/lb VOC) ($/Kgal) Levels 1 Capacity                        Through  2013 completed) (2014  dollars) Rate ($/gpm) Industrial                     pounds/yearj                                         Primary               230  gpm j                      813   $6.37p                                     3.6  billion       p                 M52  CERCLA  Site              Air              S    tripping                                                                                   Sanitary   $3.1  MMb                          $5.3   $1,210p                                 g j Drinking  Water                 MM $6,490 (2010-­‐2013)                          (2010-­‐2013)                                    $1.3                   MM/year 810   g pm 23,635   p ounds (2006-­‐2010)                           j Operable  Unit  1 with  VGAC Sewer             (1992) gallons (2006-­‐2010) $1,446 Standards $11.50 215  gpm j 899  poundsj Irriga@on     pounds/yeark                                 Primary                     2.108  gpmk                  612   $0.84p                                       13.3  billion   p                         M52  CERCLA  Site                          LGAC                                             $12.0  MM c           $16.2  MM $794p                                     g k Drinking  Water                Irriga@on $3,057 (2010-­‐2013)                        (2010-­‐2013);                  $1.1                    M        M/year   5,300  gpm 14,116  pounds (2006-­‐2010)                     k Operable  Unit  2 (lead/lag) (2001) gallons (2006-­‐2010) $2,743 Standards $1.09 1,919  gpmk 401  poundsk NIBW  CERCLA  Site           Primary                               Central   Air  Stripping                                                     Drinking                        $10.4     MM d                                $16.2   Drinking  Water                 MM Groundwater   with  VGAC Water (1993-­‐2000) Standards Treatment  Facility                                               9,400  gpmd $1,723 NIBW  CERCLA  Site             Primary                         Air  Stripping                                                     Drinking                        $10.3     MM d                    $15.3   Miller  Road                                                                   Drinking  Water                 MM with  VGAC Water (1995-­‐97) Treatment  Facility                                                 Standards 6,300  gpmd $2,429 TIAA  CERCLA  Site             Primary                     Air  Stripping                                 Drinking                          $8.7  MMe             Tucson  Airport                                                 Drinking  Water                 with  VGAC Water (1994) RemediaYon  Project                       Standards $13.9  MM 6,200  gpmh $2,242 56.8  billion   gallonsl 32.4  billion   gallonsl 38.1  billion   gallonsm TCE  only                                 1,065   4,343  gpml                         $807                         $0.37                                                               l              $0.86                        M        M/year q              (2010-­‐2013)   51,129  pounds (2010-­‐2013)                        pounds/year            (2010-­‐2013)                                           (TCE  only) (2005-­‐2009) (2010-­‐2013)                         $856 $0.45 3,624  gpml 1,004  poundsl   TCE  only                                         $0.54  MM/year q   $932  -­‐  4,064                             4,891  gpml                                                     pounds/yearl                  (2005-­‐2007)            $0.21             -­‐  0.91                                         7,937  poundsl                     (2010-­‐2013)                574                (2010-­‐2013)                           (2010-­‐2013)                         (2010-­‐2013)                ~        $      2.3             MM/year                $1,334  -­‐   (TCE  only) $0.25  -­‐  1.11 4,003  gpml 5,818   (2008) 401  poundsl l   TCE  only                                                     $0.85  MM/year h   161         gpmm                         $5,280                     $0.49                         4,570  poundsm                    3,274   (before  1,4-­‐ m                                           (2010-­‐2013)                      pounds/year     (2010-­‐2013)          (2010-­‐2013)                                   (TCE  only   dioxane   (2010-­‐2013)                            treatment       $7,944 $0.64 through  2012) 2,511  gpmm began) 107  poundsm WVBA  Site                                                               Primary                   Irriga@on             Proposed                                        LGAC                                         Drinking  Water                  Drinking   ~  $9.4  MMf Less  Aggressive                      (lead/lag)     Standards Watera AlternaYve  Remedy   WVBA  Site                                                               Primary                     Irriga@on             LGAC                     Proposed  Reference   Drinking  Water                 Drinking   ~  $13.6  MMf (lead/lag) Remedy   Standards Watera WVBA  Site                                                               Primary                     Irriga@on             Proposed                                        LGAC                                         Drinking  Water                 Drinking   ~  $14.6  MMf More  Aggressive                    (lead/lag)       Standards Watera AlternaYve  Remedy   ~  $9.4  MM ~13,300  gpmf,i   ~  $707 -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐ -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐ ~  11,758  gpmn ~  2,503         ~  $1.7   pounds/year o       MM/year f,r ~  $13.6  MM ~19,500  gpmf,i   ~  $697 -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐ -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐ ~  16,071  gpmn ~  2,820     ~  $2.5   pounds/yearo       MM/year f,r ~  $14.6  MM ~13,300  gpmf,i   ~  $1,098 -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐ -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐ ~  12,142  gpmn ~  2,569       ~  $1.8   pounds/year o       MM/year f,r WVBA  Site                                                               Primary                     Irriga@on             Proposed                                        LGAC                                         Drinking  Water                 Drinking   ~  $19.5  MMf Most  Aggressive                    (lead/lag)       a Standards Water AlternaYve  Remedy   ~  $19.5  MM ~29,100  gpmf,i   ~  $670 -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐ -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐ ~  23,047  gpmn ~  3,164         ~  $3.5   pounds/year o       MM/year f,r Notes: 1) 2) 3) * Treatment  Levels  applicable  to  site  Contaminants  of  Concern Based  on  percentage  increase  in  Consumer  Price  Index  (CPI)  from  dates  of  construc@on  comple@on  through  May  2014. Capital  Cost  in  2014  dollars  rela@ve  to  design  treatment  capacity  in  gpm. Values  in  red  denote  2013  reported  values/metrics Page 1 of 2 ~  $670 ~  $0.27 ~  $883 ~  $0.29 ~  $708 ~  $0.28 ~  $1,120 ~  $0.29            TABLE  7.    GROUNDWATER  REMEDIAL  ACTIONS  -­‐  COMPARATIVE  ANALYSIS West  Van  Buren  Area  WQARF  Site AbbreviaYons: M52  = NIBW  = TIAA  = WVBA  = VGAC  = Motorola  52nd  Street  Superfund  Site North  Indian  Bend  Wash Tucson  Interna@onal  Airport  Area West  Van  Buren  Area   vapor-­‐phase  GAC LGAC  = lb  = Kgal  = MM  = gpm  = liquid-­‐phase  GAC pound thousand  gallons   million   gallons  per  minute O&M  = VOC  = TCE  = ~  = CERCLA  = opera@on  and  maintenance vola@le  organic  compound trichloroethene values  are  es@mates Comprehensive  Environmental  Response,   ExplanaYon: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) j) k) l) m) n) o) p) q) r) A  major  por@on  of  remediated  water  is  planned  for  municipal  use  pending  RID  construc@on  of  a  separate  conveyance  pipeline  from  the  WVBA  Site  to  District  land.     Letter of Determination for Motorola 52nd Street Facility,  Phoenix,  dated  September  30,  1988. Final Remedial Action Report for Motorola 52nd Street Superfund Site, Operable Unit 2 Area,  Phoenix,  Arizona,  prepared  by  Black  &  Veatch  Corpora@on,  dated  September  12,  2003. Final Feasibility Study Addendum,  North  Indian  Bend  Wash  Superfund  Site,  Scogsdale,  Arizona,  prepared  by  the  NIBW  Par@cipa@ng  Companies,  dated  November  15,  2000  (See  Table  M5  in  Appendix  M,  Volume  5). Verbal  communica@on:  Mr.  Jeff  Biggs,  Project  Coordinator,  Tucson  Airport  Remedia@on  Project,  Tucson  Water. f)   Dra'  Feasibility  Study  Report,  West  Van  Buren  Area  WQARF  Site,  Phoenix,  Arizona,  prepared  by  Synergy  Environmental  (See  Table  5  for  design  treatment  capacity  and  Table  7  for  capital  and  O&M  costs). 2011  Sitewide  Five-­‐Year  Review  Report,  Motorola  52nd  Street  Superfund  Site,  Phoenix,  Arizona,  prepared  by  URS  Corpora@on,  September  2011  (See  Sec@ons  4.1  and  4.2;  Tables  4-­‐1  and  4-­‐2). First  Five-­‐Year  Report  for  Tucson  Interna@onal  Airport  Area  Superfund  Site,  Pima  County,  Arizona,  prepared  by  U.S.  Environmental  Protec@on  Agency,  September  2013  (See  Sec@on  4.2.1  for  pounds  of  VOCs  removed  and  volume  of   groundwater  extrac@on  over  216  month  period,  and  Sec@on  4.3.1  for  O&M  costs  [2001]).                       The  proposed  remedy  provides  remedia@on  of  up  to  26,800  gpm  water  supply  when  including  blending  of  other  contaminated  supply  wells  that  would  operate  according  to  an  approved  remedial  ac@on  plan. Informa@on  pertaining  to  amount  of  groundwater  treated  and  mass  removed  is  from  annual  Operable  Unit  No.  1  Effec@veness  Reports  prepared  by  Clear  Creek  Associates. Informa@on  pertaining  to  amount  of  groundwater  treated  and  mass  removed  is  from  annual  Effec@veness  Reports  for  20th  Street  Groundwater  Treatment  Facility,  Operable  Unit  2  Area  prepared  by  Connestoga-­‐Rovers  &  Associates. Informa@on  pertaining  toamount  of  groundwater  treated  and  mass  removed  is  from  annual  Site  Monitoring  Reports,  NIBW  Superfund  Site  prepared  by  the  NIBW  Par@cipa@ng  Companies. Informa@on  pertaining  to  amount  of  groundwater  treated  and  mass  removed  is  from  annual  Water  Quality  Reports  prepared  by  Tucson  Water.   Es@mated  pumping  rate  is  based  on  assigned  pumping  of  remedy  wells  developed  for  the  FS  Model  (see  Appendix  F).     Based  on  reported  2013  concentra@ons  of  PCE,  TCE,  and  1,1-­‐DCE  and  projected  pumping  in  groundwater  modeling  scenarios  (see  Appendix  F). Motorola  52nd  St.  Superfund  Site,  Five-­‐Year  Review  Completed  Fact  Sheet,  prepared  by  Environmental  Protec@on  Agency  and  Arizona  Department  of  Environmental  Quality    (See  page  2  for  average  VOC  mass  removed  and  average   volume   of  Year   groundwater   extracted   2006-­‐2010). First  Five-­‐ Review,  Indian   Bend  for   Wash   Superfund  Site,  Scogsdale  and  Tempe,  Maricopa  County,  Arizona,  prepared  by  U.S.  Environmental  Protec@on  Agency,  September  2011  ( See  Table  4-­‐8;  periodic  rehabilita@on  costs  not  included  in   O&M  Costs  Summary). Excluding  line  item  costs  for  area-­‐wide  groundwater  monitoring  and  capital  equipment  costs  from  Table  7  Dra'  Feasibility  Study  Report,  West  Van  Buren  Area  WQARF  Site,  Phoenix,  Arizona,  prepared  by  Synergy  Environmental.   Page 2 of 2 SYNERGY ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC FIGURES Drawing Path: N:\Swap\AcPublish_5820\, Drawing Name: Site Location Map Fig 01 Exhibit.dwg NOT TO SCALE 0 2 Abbreviations EXPLANATION Site Boundary WQARF PCE TCE g/L - Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund - Tetrachloroethene - Trichloroethene - Micrograms per liter ARIZONA Estimated Extent of PCE and/or TCE Contamination greater than 5 g/L in Central Phoenix Groundwater Contaminant Plume SITE LOCATION MAP Roosevelt Irrigation District West Van Buren Area WQARF Site By: LD Date: 05/28/15 10645 N. Tatum Blvd. Suite 200-437 Phoenix, AZ 85028 602-430-2785 Project No. Figure 805.01 1 0 6,600 13,200 Abbreviations EXPLANATION Site Boundary Plot Date: 05/28/15 - 2:28pm, Plotted by: Luke Drawing Path: N:\Synergy\Roosevelt Irr\July 2014 Feasibility Study\, Drawing Name: Figure 2 Exhibit.dwg Roosevelt Irrigation District Well Identifier RID-89 NS, NS AVB10-01 Concentration of PCE, in µg/L Concentration of TCE, in µg/L Monitor Well and Identifier (Black=UAU1; Orange=UAU2; Green=MAU) Estimated Extent of PCE and/or TCE Contamination greater than 5µg/L in Central Phoenix Groundwater Contaminant Plume Existing Canal or Pipeline City of Phoenix Well Interstates City of Tolleson Well Local Streets Salt River Project Well NOTE: Water quality data noted for RID wells are from September 2013. Water quality data reported for monitor well in the West Van Buren Area and West Osborn Complex WQARF site are from March 2013 and October 2013, respectively WQARF - Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund WWTP - Waste Water Treatment Plant RID - Roosevelt Irrigation District LAU - Lower Aquifer Unit MAU - Middle Aquifer Unit UAU - Upper Aquifer Unit ND - Not Detected NS - Not Sampled ADEQ - Arizona Department of Environmental Quality PCE - Tetrachloroethene TCE - Trichloroethene µg/L - Micrograms per Liter APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET Groundwater contamination depicted on this map represents the author's interpretation of currently available data to estimate the geographical extent of PCE and TCE contamination in commingled contaminant plumes throughout the central and west central Phoenix area. There are numerous sources of contaminants of concern in groundwater throughout this region and interpolation of data and its representation in a consolidated regional plume is subjective; the actual extent of contamination may be different. Sources of data include depth specific UAU and MAU monitor wells and large capacity RID wells that produce groundwater largely from the UAU. The representation of the extent of groundwater contamination within the Motorola 52nd Street Superfund site is generated from the most recent plume map published by ADEQ and posted on their web site. CENTRAL PHOENIX REGIONAL GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION Roosevelt Irrigation District West Van Buren Area WQARF Site By: ld Date: 05/28/15 Project No. Figure 805.01 2 Drawing Path: N:\Swap\AcPublish_5820\, Drawing Name: Target COC Concentrations over time Fig 3 Exhibit.dwg NOTES: 1. Water Quality data noted for RID Wells are from September 2013. 2. Data presented as micrograms per liter (µg/L). EXPLANATION RID-89 NS, NS Roosevelt Irrigation District Well Identifier Concentration of PCE, in µg/L Concentration of TCE, in µg/L Site Boundary Estimated Extent of PCE and/or TCE Contamination greater than 5 µg/L in Central Phoenix Groundwater Contaminant Plume Abbreviations WQARF COC RID Existing Canal or Pipeline PCE TCE Interstates DCE µg/L - Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund - Contaminant of Concern - Roosevelt Irrigation District - Tetrachloroethene - Trichloroethene - 1,1-Dichloroethene - Micrograms per Liter 0 4,000 8,000 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET TARGET COC CONCENTRATIONS OVER TIME RID WELLS Roosevelt Irrigation District West Van Buren Area WQARF Site By: LD Date: 05/28/15 10645 N. Tatum Blvd. Suite 200-437 Phoenix, AZ 85028 602-430-2785 Project No. Figure 805.01 3 TCE Concentration (µg/L) TCE Concentration (µg/L) TCE Concentration (µg/L) TCE Concentration (µg/L) M-52 OU1 M-52 OU3 M-52 OU2 EXPLANATION West Van Buren Area WQARF Site Existing Canal or Pipeline Interstates Abbreviations WQARF RID PCE TCE µg/L - Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund - Roosevelt Irrigation District - Tetrachloroethene - Trichloroethene - Micrograms per liter MW-206S Monitor Well Identifier KEY MAP NOT TO SCALE Site Boundary - West Osborn Complex Estimated Extent of PCE and/or TCE Contamination greater than 5 µg/L in West Osborn Complex Vicinity Contaminant Plume 0 2,000 4,000 WEST OSBORN COMPLEX VICINITY SHALLOW GROUNDWATER SYSTEM PLUME Roosevelt Irrigation District West Van Buren Area WQARF Site By: LD APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET Date: 05/28/15 10645 N. Tatum Blvd. Suite 200-437 Phoenix, AZ 85028 602-430-2785 Project No. Figure 805.01 4 Drawing Path: N:\Swap\AcPublish_5820\, Drawing Name: Regions of WVBA Fig 5 Exhibit.dwg 0 EXPLANATION RID-89 AVB10-01 Roosevelt Irrigation District Well Well Identifier Monitor Well and Identifier (Black=UAU1; Orange=UAU2; Green=MAU) Abbreviations WQARF WVBA VOC Estimated Extent of PCE and/or TCE Contamination greater than RID 5 µg/L in Central Phoenix Groundwater Contaminant Plume LAU MAU Existing Canal or Pipeline UAU PCE Interstates TCE µg/L Site Boundary - Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund - West Van Buren Area - Volatile Organic Compound - Roosevelt Irrigation District - Lower Aquifer Unit - Middle Aquifer Unit - Upper Aquifer Unit - Tetrachloroethene - Trichloroethene - Micrograms per liter 3,600 7,200 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET REGIONS OF WVBA CONTAMINANT PLUME BASED ON VOC TRENDS Roosevelt Irrigation District West Van Buren Area WQARF Site By: LD Date: 05/28/15 10645 N. Tatum Blvd. Suite 200-437 Phoenix, AZ 85028 602-430-2785 Project No. Figure 805.01 5 Drawing Path: N:\Swap\AcPublish_5628\, Drawing Name: VOC Trends of WVBA Fig 6 Eastern Core Exhibit.dwg TCE Concentrations - Select ADEQ Monitor Wells in Eastern Core: EXPLANATION Roosevelt Irrigation District Well Identifier AVB14-01 AVB115-01 AVB124-01 (66-106 feet bls) (70-150 feet bls) (200-230 feet bls) 2003 87 210 2008 48 120 2013* 4.4 40.8 2014* 4.3 40.9 *Based on Sampling in 1st Quarter Site Boundary N/A 100 100 127 RID-89 AVB10-01 Monitor Well and Identifier (Black=UAU1; Orange=UAU2; Green=MAU) NOTE: 1. Data presented as micrograms per liter (µg/L) Estimated Extent of PCE and/or TCE Contamination greater than 5 µg/L in Central Phoenix Groundwater Contaminant Plume Existing Canal or Pipeline Interstates Abbreviations WQARF WVBA VOC RID LAU MAU UAU PCE TCE DCE µg/L bls N/A - Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund - West Van Buren Area - Volatile Organic Compound - Roosevelt Irrigation District - Lower Aquifer Unit - Middle Aquifer Unit - Upper Aquifer Unit - Tetrachloroethene - Trichloroethene - 1,1-Dichloroethene - Micrograms per Liter -Below Land Surface - Not Applicable 0 3,600 7,200 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET VOC TRENDS IN EASTERN CORE OF WVBA CONTAMINANT PLUME Roosevelt Irrigation District West Van Buren Area WQARF Site By: LD Date: 05/28/15 10645 N. Tatum Blvd. Suite 200-437 Phoenix, AZ 85028 602-430-2785 Project No. Figure 805.01 6 Drawing Path: N:\Swap\AcPublish_5820\, Drawing Name: VOC Trends of WVBA Fig 7 Southeast Lobe Exhibit.dwg Abbreviations 0 Abbreviations EXPLANATION Roosevelt Irrigation District Well Identifier RID-89 AVB10-01 Monitor Well and Identifier (Black=UAU1; Orange=UAU2; Green=MAU) NOTE: 1. Data presented as micrograms per liter (µg/L) WQARF WVBA Site Boundary VOC RID Estimated Extent of PCE and/or TCE Contamination greater than LAU 5 µg/L in Central Phoenix Groundwater Contaminant Plume MAU UAU Existing Canal or Pipeline PCE TCE Interstates DCE µg/L - Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund - West Van Buren Area - Volatile Organic Compound - Roosevelt Irrigation District - Lower Aquifer Unit - Middle Aquifer Unit - Upper Aquifer Unit - Tetrachloroethene - Trichloroethene - 1,1-Dichloroethene - Micrograms per Liter 3,600 7,200 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET VOC TRENDS IN SOUTHEAST LOBE OF WVBA CONTAMINANT PLUME Roosevelt Irrigation District West Van Buren Area WQARF Site By: LD Date: 05/28/15 10645 N. Tatum Blvd. Suite 200-437 Phoenix, AZ 85028 602-430-2785 Project No. Figure 805.01 7 Drawing Path: N:\Swap\AcPublish_2208\, Drawing Name: VOC Trends of WVBA Fig 8 Southern Flank Exhibit.dwg TCE Concentrations: Sep-11 Sep-12 Apr-13 Sep-13 Mar-14 RID-90 N/S N/S 0.5 0.74 0.63 RID-91 1.07 2.63 2.99 4.13 1.11 RID-93 1.02 1.85 1.17 2.14 1.05 Abbreviations NOTE: 1. Data presented as micrograms per liter (µg/L) EXPLANATION RID-89 AVB10-01 Roosevelt Irrigation District Well Identifier Monitor Well and Identifier (Black=UAU1; Orange=UAU2; Green=MAU) Site Boundary Estimated Extent of PCE and/or TCE Contamination greater than 5 µg/L in Central Phoenix Groundwater Contaminant Plume Existing Canal or Pipeline Interstates WQARF - Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund WVBA - West Van Buren Area VOC - Volatile Organic Compound RID - Roosevelt Irrigation District LAU - Lower Aquifer Unit MAU - Middle Aquifer Unit UAU - Upper Aquifer Unit PCE - Tetrachloroethene TCE - Trichloroethene DCE - 1,1-Dichloroethene µg/L - Micrograms per Liter N/S - Not Sampled 0 3,600 7,200 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET VOC TRENDS IN SOUTHERN FLANK OF WVBA CONTAMINANT PLUME Roosevelt Irrigation District West Van Buren Area WQARF Site By: LD Date: 06/29/15 10645 N. Tatum Blvd. Suite 200-437 Phoenix, AZ 85028 602-430-2785 Project No. Figure 805.01 8 Drawing Path: N:\Swap\AcPublish_5820\, Drawing Name: VOC Trends of WVBA Fig 9 North Central Exhibit.dwg Abbreviations EXPLANATION RID-89 AVB10-01 NOTE: 1. Data presented as micrograms per liter (µg/L) Roosevelt Irrigation District Well Identifier Monitor Well and Identifier (Black=UAU1; Orange=UAU2; Green=MAU) Site Boundary Estimated Extent of PCE and/or TCE Contamination greater than 5 µg/L in Central Phoenix Groundwater Contaminant Plume Existing Canal or Pipeline Interstates WQARF - Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund WVBA - West Van Buren Area VOC - Volatile Organic Compound RID - Roosevelt Irrigation District LAU - Lower Aquifer Unit MAU - Middle Aquifer Unit UAU - Upper Aquifer Unit PCE - Tetrachloroethene TCE - Trichloroethene DCE - 1,1-Dichloroethene µg/L - Micrograms per Liter 0 3,600 7,200 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET VOC TRENDS IN NORTH CENTRAL PORTION OF WVBA CONTAMINANT PLUME Roosevelt Irrigation District West Van Buren Area WQARF Site By: LD Date: 05/28/15 10645 N. Tatum Blvd. Suite 200-437 Phoenix, AZ 85028 602-430-2785 Project No. Figure 805.01 9 VOC Concentrations at AVB 82-01 (perforated interval: 310 to 340 feet bls) Drawing Path: N:\Synergy\Roosevelt Irr\July 2014 Feasibility Study\, Drawing Name: VOC Trends of WVBA Fig 10 Leading Edge Exhibit.dwg DCE TCE PCE 27.7 22.9 68.1 Based on sample obtained in March 2014, Results in µg/L EXPLANATION Roosevelt Irrigation District Well Identifier NOTE: 1. Data presented as micrograms per liter (µg/L) RID-89 Abbreviations WQARF - Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund WVBA - West Van Buren Area VOC - Volatile Organic Compound RID - Roosevelt Irrigation District LAU - Lower Aquifer Unit MAU - Middle Aquifer Unit UAU - Upper Aquifer Unit PCE - Tetrachloroethene TCE - Trichloroethene DCE - 1,1-Dichloroethene µg/L - Micrograms per Liter AVB10-01 Monitor Well and Identifier (Black=UAU1; Orange=UAU2; Green=MAU) 0 Estimated Extent of PCE and/or TCE Contamination greater than 5 µg/L in Central Phoenix Groundwater Contaminant Plume Interstates 7,200 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET Site Boundary Existing Canal or Pipeline 3,600 VOC TRENDS IN LEADING EDGE OF WVBA CONTAMINANT PLUME Roosevelt Irrigation District West Van Buren Area WQARF Site By: LD Date: 05/28/15 10645 N. Tatum Blvd. Suite 200-437 Phoenix, AZ 85028 602-430-2785 Project No. Figure 805.01 10