DOCSLIB.ORG

May 2016 Monthly Monitoring Rpt, W/Attchs

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
May 2016 Monthly Monitoring Rpt, W/Attchs SEMS-RM DOCID # 1163861 317 E. Main Street Ventura, CA 93001 Tel: (805) 585‐2110 Fax: (805) 585‐2111 MONTHLY MONITORING REPORT MAY 2016 DATE: July 8, 2016 (revised Jan 4, 2017 to correct groundwater gradient to southeasterly - see Section 2.0, 3rd line) PREPARED FOR: Rose Marie Caraway, Remedial Project Manager/Environmental Scientist U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 75 Hawthorne Street, SFD 7‐2 San Francisco, California 94105 PREPARED BY: Max Ramos, E.I.T., Staff Environmental Engineer, OTIE John Wingate, P.E., Project Manager, OTIE Lindsey Larsen, Environmental Scientist, OTIE RE: May 2016 Plant Influent and Effluent Sampling Results for the Pemaco Superfund Site Treatment Plant, Maywood, California 1.0 INTRODUCTION The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is currently implementing the Long‐Term Response Action (LTRA) at the Pemaco Superfund Site in Maywood, California. Oneida Total Integrated Enterprises, LLC. (OTIE) performs monthly monitoring work for the U.S. EPA under contract by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Los Angeles District Contract Number W912PL 13‐D‐0017, Task Order 0002. OTIE prepared this Report to summarize the results of monthly influent and effluent water and vapor sampling performed on May 12, 2016 at the Pemaco Superfund Site Treatment Plant (Plant). The influent and effluent water samples (SP‐201 and SP‐209, respectively), and influent and effluent vapor samples (SP‐104 and SP‐106, respectively) were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and 1,4‐dioxane. Samples were analyzed in accordance with the Final Sampling and Analysis Plan, (Field Sampling Plan and Quality Assurance Project Plan), Long‐Term Response Action for the Pemaco Remedial Action (OTIE, 2015). Monthly water and vapor sampling is performed to demonstrate compliance with Los Angeles County Sanitation District (LACSD) limits and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) guidance; confirm liquid phase granular activated carbon (LGAC) and vapor phase granular activated carbon (VGAC) effectiveness; and summarize data trends necessary for evaluation of remedial progress. The metric for “mass removal” is evaluated in the Quarterly Operations and Maintenance Report. The groundwater treatment system (GTS) and vapor treatment system (VTS) achieved operational uptimes of approximately 97% and 39%, respectively, during May 2016. The VTS was not operated from Oneida Total Integrated Enterprises Page 1 of 9 Monthly Monitoring Report May 2016 Plant Influent and Effluent Sampling Results Pemaco Superfund Site, Maywood, California May 23 to May 31 in accordance with the “pulsed” operational schedule. Additional treatment system shutdowns occurred as follows: The VTS was not operated from May 1 to May 9 due to a motor failure fault on the variable frequency drive for blower B‐101; The VTS was not operated on the morning of May 10 to accommodate changeout of VGAC for vessel T‐301 and cooling fan timer repair; and The GTS operation was temporarily suspended on May 15 and 22 because the filter bags were full. Operation resumed the following day subsequent to replacement of the filter bags. Additional operational details are available in the most recent Operations Summary and the May weekly Quality Control Reports located on the Pemaco SharePoint website. Plant operational details will be summarized in the 2016 Second Quarter Operation and Maintenance Report. 2.0 ‘A’ ZONE GROUNDWATER LEVEL GAUGING Groundwater elevations and analytical data suggest an off‐site contaminant source is located northwest of Maywood Riverfront Park, with significant trichloroethene (TCE) concentrations in the Exposition Aquifer ‘A’ Zone (OTIE, 2016). Groundwater extraction from the ‘A’ Zone may promote a southeasterly migration of contaminants from northwest of the Park toward the former electrical resistive heating (ERH) area. In order to protect the ERH remedy area and discourage migration of the off‐site source, the ‘A’ Zone wells were shut down on April 28, 2016 following stakeholder discussion and U.S. EPA approval. Groundwater levels in the ‘A’ Zone will be gauged monthly to monitor gradient changes while the ‘A’ Zone extraction wells remain inactive. The May 26, 2016 ‘A’ Zone groundwater gauging event was the first groundwater level monitoring task performed since shutdown of ‘A’ Zone extraction wells in April 2016. Groundwater elevation data for the May 2016 gauging event is provided in Attachment 1. May 2016 groundwater elevations are compared to the most recent groundwater elevation data from the December 2015 semiannual groundwater monitoring event. ‘A’ Zone groundwater elevation changes at individual well locations include both increases and decreases compared to December 2015 values. The wells with the greatest change in groundwater elevation were DA‐12 (2.95‐foot decrease) and DA‐01 (2.09‐foot decrease). Evaluation of the overall ‘A’ Zone groundwater elevation trends will be included in future monthly monitoring reports, following sufficient rounds of monthly gauging. 3.0 PLANT WATER SAMPLING RESULTS Influent and effluent water grab samples were collected on May 12, 2016 and the detected analytical results are summarized in Table 1. The laboratory analysis was performed by Eurofins CalScience, Inc. The laboratory report containing the full list of analytes is provided in Attachment 2. The influent sample results represent a composite of flow from the following active wells screened in the Perched and Exposition Zones: Perched Zone (dual‐phase extraction [DPE]): PB‐01, PB‐02, PB‐03, PB‐05, PC‐06, PD‐04, PD‐05, PD‐06, and PD‐07; and Exposition Zones (groundwater only [GW]): DB‐01, DB‐03, DB‐04, DB‐05, DB‐07, and DB‐09. Oneida Total Integrated Enterprises Page 2 of 9 Monthly Monitoring Report May 2016 Plant Influent and Effluent Sampling Results Pemaco Superfund Site, Maywood, California Table 1 Monthly Summary of Detected VOCs in influent / Effluent Water Samples Sample Locations SP‐201 (Influent) SP‐201 (Effluent) Sample ID SP‐201‐20160512 SP‐201‐20160512 Sample Date 5/12/2016 5/12/2016 Analyte Method SSRL Unit Results Results 1,1‐Dichloroethane SW8260B 5 μg/L <0.28 1.1** 1,4‐Dioxane (P‐Dioxane) SW8260SIM 1* μg/L 7.9 J 8.6** Chloroform SW8260B 80 μg/L <0.46 0.92 J** cis‐1,2‐Dichloroethene SW8260B 6 μg/L 9.9 5 Trichloroethene SW8260B 5 μg/L 84 0.40 J Notes: 1. * ‐ Indicates value is a "California Notification Level" which is less than the SSRL of 3.0, listed in the ROD (U.S. EPA, 2005). 2. ** ‐ Indicates effluent sample concentration was higher than influent concentration as a result of preferential desorption. 3. Bold indicates a sample detection. 4. ID = identification; SSRL = site‐specific remediation level; μg/L = micrograms per liter; < = indicates compound was not detected above the method detection limit. 5. Effluent water quality complied with the LACSD permit limit of 1,000 μg/L for total VOCs. 3.1 PROCESS WATER INFLUENT (SP‐201) DISCUSSION The following VOCs are associated with groundwater plumes being monitored as part of the semiannual groundwater monitoring program. Analytical results for samples collected during the May 2016 event for these VOCs are summarized below: Cis‐1,2‐dichloroethene (cis‐1,2‐DCE) was detected at a concentration of 9.9 μg/L for the month of May (Figure 1). The cis‐1,2‐DCE concentration in process water influent shows some variation between monthly samples, although samples from the previous 24 months have not exceeded 17 μg/L. The overall cis‐1,2‐DCE concentration trend is slightly increasing for the previous 24 months. TCE was detected at a concentration of 84 μg/L, higher than the previous process water influent sample (64 μg/L) but within the typical range for influent TCE concentrations (Figure 2). The TCE concentration in process water influent samples from the previous 24 months shows significant variation between monthly samples, with a generally constant trend over time. 1,4‐Dioxane was detected at a concentration of 7.9 µg/L, slightly higher than the previous process water influent sample (6.9 μg/L) (Figure 3). The 1,4‐dioxane concentration in process water influent from the previous 24 months shows some variation between monthly samples, with a generally constant trend. Oneida Total Integrated Enterprises Page 3 of 9 Monthly Monitoring Report May 2016 Plant Influent and Effluent Sampling Results Pemaco Superfund Site, Maywood, California Figure 1 Historical Concentrations of cis‐1,2‐Dichloroethene in Influent Water Historical Concentrations of cis‐1,2‐DCE 18 1/19/15 2/12/16 16 12/2/14 3/5/15 9/3/15 14 (µg/L) 5/15/15 11/3/14 12 8/11/15 6/4/14 2/12/15 10/23/15 3/8/16 5/12/16 10 7/23/15 1/5/16 4/6/16 8 Concentration 9/3/14 6 10/1/14 Influent 4 12/2/15 GTS 2 8/6/14 0 Jun‐14 Sep‐14 Dec‐14 Mar‐15 Jul‐15 Oct‐15 Jan‐16 May‐16 Sample Date (Plant Water) Figure 2 Historical Concentrations of Trichloroethene in Influent Water Historical Concentrations of TCE 300 1/19/15 250 (µg/L) 4/14/15 9/3/15 2/12/16 200 12/2/14 5/15/15 2/12/15 6/1/15 3/5/15 8/11/15 150 6/4/14 11/3/14 8/11/15 Concentration 1/5/16 100 5/12/16 7/23/15 3/8/16 Influent 4/6/16 50 GTS 9/3/14 10/1/14 8/6/14 12/2/15 0 Jun‐14 Aug‐14 Nov‐14 Jan‐15 Apr‐15 Jul‐15 Sep‐15 Dec‐15 Mar‐16 May‐16 Sample Date (Plant Water) Oneida Total Integrated Enterprises Page 4 of 9 Monthly Monitoring Report May 2016 Plant Influent and Effluent Sampling Results Pemaco Superfund Site, Maywood, California Figure 3 Historical Concentrations of 1,4‐Dioxane in Influent Water Historical Concentrations of 1,4‐Dioxane 20 5/15/15 18 3/5/15 16 1/19/15 6/1/15 1/5/16 (µg/L) 2/12/15 14 4/14/15 9/3/15 12 6/4/14 8/6/14 8/11/15 10/23/15 2/12/16 10 7/23/15 12/2/15 5/12/16 8 Concentration 10/1/14 6 11/3/14 4/6/16 12/2/14 3/8/16 4 9/3/14 Influent 2 0 Jun‐14 Sep‐14 Dec‐14 Mar‐15 Jul‐15 Oct‐15 Jan‐16 May‐16 Sample Date (Plant Water) Notes for Figures 1, 2, and 3: 1.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Renewable and Alternative Energy at Superfund Sites HARNESSING NEW SOURCES of POWER
    Renewable and Alternative Energy at Superfund Sites www.epa.gov HARNESSING NEW SOURCES OF POWER Introduction This report provides interested parties – local governments, communities, utility and energy companies, and federal and state agencies – with an What’s Inside? overview of renewable and alternative energy opportunities at Superfund sites. Renewable energy facilities can be located on formerly contaminated + Superfund Sites and Renewable Energy lands. Renewable energy can also facilitate the cleanup of Superfund sites. In some cases, site wastes can serve as an alternative energy resource. Finally, the report describes available resources for parties interested in + 2010 Update: pursuing these opportunities. EPA-Tracked Sites To ensure domestic energy security and environmental sustainability, the + Taking a Closer Look: identification of diversified, renewable and alternative energy sources is a long-term national priority. In 2008, EPA launched a new effort – the Siting Wind Energy Renewable Energy on Contaminated Land and Mining Sites Initiative – to Biomass Energy highlight opportunities for the development of clean and renewable energy Solar Energy projects on contaminated lands. Georthermal Energy EPA is also working to help turn these opportunities into reality for + Renewable Energy and Green communities across the country. EPA’s Superfund Redevelopment Initiative Remediation (SRI) helps communities reclaim and reuse contaminated lands for a wide range of purposes, including renewable and alternative energy generation. Through tools, partnerships and activities, SRI continues to provide local + Waste Recycling at Superfund Sites communities with new opportunities to grow and prosper. + Taking a Look Back: To date, several significant opportunities have been realized. In Lackawanna, Superfund Sites and Energy Opportunities New York, the Steel Winds project has transformed a former slag pile into a 20-megawatt wind energy facility.
    [Show full text]
  • First Five-Year Review Report for Pemaco Superfund Site Maywood, California
    SDMS DOCID# 1123240 First Five-Year Review Report for Pemaco Superfund Site Maywood, California September 2010 u.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 San Francisco, California Approved by: Date: ~M~~~ Kathleen Salyer Assistant Director Superfund Division California Site Cleanup Branch Table of Contents Executive Summary..............................................................................................................ES-1 Five-Year Review Summary Form .......................................................................................ES-2 1.0 Introduction .....................................................................................................................4 2.0 Site Chronology ..............................................................................................................5 3.0 Background .....................................................................................................................7 3.1 Site Location and Physical Characteristics ...................................................................7 3.2 Former, Current, and Future Land Use.........................................................................8 3.3 History of Contamination...............................................................................................9 3.4 Initial Response.............................................................................................................9 3.5 Basis for Taking Action................................................................................................10
    [Show full text]
  • Ltr: Sep 2016 Monthly Monitoring Rpt, W/Attchs
    SEMS-RM DOCID # 1163863 317 E. Main Street Ventura, CA 93001 Tel: (805) 585-2110 Fax: (805) 585-2111 MONTHLY MONITORING REPORT SEPTEMBER 2016 DATE: October 28, 2016 (revised Jan 4, 2017 to correct groundwater gradient to southeasterly - see Section 2.0, 3rd line). PREPARED FOR: Rose Marie Caraway, Remedial Project Manager/Environmental Scientist U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 75 Hawthorne Street, SFD 7-2 San Francisco, California 94105 PREPARED BY: Max Ramos, E.I.T., Staff Environmental Engineer, OTIE Lindsey Larsen, Environmental Scientist, OTIE John Wingate, P.E., Project Manager, OTIE RE: September 2016 Plant Influent and Effluent Sampling Results for the Pemaco Superfund Site Treatment Plant, Maywood, California 1.0 INTRODUCTION The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is currently implementing the Long-Term Response Action (LTRA) at the Pemaco Superfund Site in Maywood, California. Oneida Total Integrated Enterprises, LLC (OTIE) performs monthly monitoring work for the U.S. EPA under contract by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Los Angeles District Contract Number W912PL 16-C-0016. OTIE prepared this Report to summarize the results of monthly influent and effluent water and vapor sampling performed on September 13, 2016 at the Pemaco Superfund Site Treatment Plant (Plant). The influent and effluent water samples (SP-201 and SP-209, respectively), and influent and effluent vapor samples (SP-104 and SP-106, respectively) were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and 1,4-dioxane. Samples were analyzed in accordance with the Final Sampling and Analysis Plan, (Field Sampling Plan and Quality Assurance Project Plan), Long-Term Response Action for the Pemaco Remedial Action (OTIE, 2015).
    [Show full text]
  • Green Remediation and the Use of Renewable Energy Sources for Remediation Projects
    Green Remediation and the Use of Renewable Energy Sources for Remediation Projects August 2007 Prepared by Amanda D. Dellens National Network for Environmental Management Studies Fellow Case Western Reserve University for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation Washington, D.C. www.epa.gov www.clu-in.org Green Remediation and the Use of Renewable Energy for Remediation Projects NOTICE This document was prepared by a National Network for Environmental Management Studies (NNEMS) grantee under a fellowship from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This report was not subject to EPA peer review or technical review. The EPA makes no warranties, expressed or implied, including without limitation, warranty for completeness, accuracy, or usefulness of the information, warranties as to the merchantability, or fitness for a particular purpose. Moreover, the listing of any technology, corporation, company, person, or facility in this report does not constitute endorsement, approval, or recommendation by the EPA. The report contains information attained from a wide variety of currently available sources, including project documents, reports, periodicals, Internet websites, and personal communication with both academically and commercially employed sources. No attempts were made to independently confirm the resources used. It has been reproduced to help provide federal agencies, states, consulting engineering firms, private industries, and technology developers with information on the current status of this project. About the National Network for Environmental Management Studies The NNEMS is a comprehensive fellowship program managed by the Environmental Education Division of EPA. The purpose of the NNEMS Program is to provide students with practical research opportunities and experiences.
    [Show full text]
  • Renewable and Alternative Energy at Superfund Sites: Harnessing New
    Renewable and Alternative Energy at Superfund Sites www.epa.gov HARNESSING NEW SOURCES OF POWER Introduction This report provides interested parties – local governments, communities, utility and energy companies, and federal and state agencies – with an What’s Inside? overview of renewable and alternative energy opportunities at Superfund sites. Renewable energy facilities can be located on formerly contaminated + Superfund Sites and Renewable Energy lands. Renewable energy can also facilitate the cleanup of Superfund sites. In some cases, site wastes can serve as an alternative energy resource. Finally, the report describes available resources for parties interested in + 2010 Update: pursuing these opportunities. EPA-Tracked Sites To ensure domestic energy security and environmental sustainability, the + Taking a Closer Look: identification of diversified, renewable and alternative energy sources is a long-term national priority. In 2008, EPA launched a new effort – the Siting Wind Energy Renewable Energy on Contaminated Land and Mining Sites Initiative – to Biomass Energy highlight opportunities for the development of clean and renewable energy Solar Energy projects on contaminated lands. Georthermal Energy EPA is also working to help turn these opportunities into reality for + Renewable Energy and Green communities across the country. EPA’s Superfund Redevelopment Initiative Remediation (SRI) helps communities reclaim and reuse contaminated lands for a wide range of purposes, including renewable and alternative energy generation. Through tools, partnerships and activities, SRI continues to provide local + Waste Recycling at Superfund Sites communities with new opportunities to grow and prosper. + Taking a Look Back: To date, several significant opportunities have been realized. In Lackawanna, Superfund Sites and Energy Opportunities New York, the Steel Winds project has transformed a former slag pile into a 20-megawatt wind energy facility.
    [Show full text]
  • Examples of Groundwater Remediation at NPL Sites
    EPA 542-R-18-002 May 2018 http://www.epa.gov/remedytech http://cluin.org Examples of Groundwater Remediation at NPL Sites Notice and Disclaimer Preparation of this report has been funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI) under Contract Numbers EP-D-09-053 and EP-W-14-001. Information in this report is derived primarily from EPA sources, including personal communications with EPA staff familiar with the remedies discussed in this report. Some information was also obtained from state personnel and remediation contractors. This report is not intended, nor can it be relied upon, to create any rights enforceable by any party in litigation with the United States. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. A PDF version of Examples of Groundwater Remediation at NPL Sites is available for viewing or downloading from https://www.epa.gov/remedytech, or http://www.cluin.org. For questions concerning this document, contact Linda Fiedler at [email protected] or 703-603-7194. Acknowledgements Acknowledgment is given to the federal and state Remedial Project Managers and technical staff and other remediation professionals for providing information for this document. Their cooperation and willingness to share their expertise on Superfund remedies will help regulators and system operators make informed decisions that will promote progress towards remedial action objectives at NPL and other contaminated sites throughout the U.S. and other nations. Cover pictures from top, clockwise: Groundwater treatment facility at Pemaco Superfund Site; In situ thermal treatment at Fort Lewis Logistics Center Superfund Site; Treatment Plant #1 at Holingsworth Solderless Terminal Superfund Site; Treatment building and air stripper tower at Tabernacle Drum Dump Superfund Site.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Study
    710 Arterial Intersection #71 E Slauson Ave & S Eastern Ave Los Angeles, CA 90040 Inquiry Number: 3167286.12s September 15, 2011 The EDR Radius Map™ Report 440 Wheelers Farms Road Milford, CT 06461 Toll Free: 800.352.0050 www.edrnet.com FORM-NULL-ASH TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE Executive Summary ES1 Overview Map 2 Detail Map 3 Map Findings Summary 4 Map Findings 8 Orphan Summary 210 Government Records Searched/Data Currency Tracking GR-1 GEOCHECK ADDENDUM GeoCheck - Not Requested Thank you for your business. Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050 with any questions or comments. Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property.
    [Show full text]