OUFS for North Hollywood Well Field Area of North Hollywood/Burbank NPL Site, SFV Groundwater Basin, W/Executive Summary
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
POOR LEGIBILITY ONE OR MORE PAGES IN THIS DOCUMENT ARE DIFFICULT TO READ DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL V SFUND RECORDS CTR 2166-04905 Los Angeles Department of Water and Power SFUND RECORDS CTR 88134326 OPERABLE UNIT FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE NORTH HOLLYWOOD WELL FIELD AREA OF THE NORTH HOLLYWOOD-BURBANK NPL SITE, SAN FERNANDO VALLEY GROUNDWATER BASIN NOVEMBER 1986 n LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER OPERABLE UNIT FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE NORTH HOLLYWOOD WELL FIELD AREA n / OF THE NORTH HOLLYWOOD-BURBANK NPL SITE, SAN FERNANDO VALLEY GROUNDWATER BASIN a November 17, 1986 p*« fi •i TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . 1 FORWARD• 7 I. INTRODUCTION 10 Background 10 Importance of Los Angeles Groundwater 14 Regional Setting and Site Location 17 Hydrogeologic Setting1 18 Nature and Extent of Problem ' 19 n Characterization of Contaminant Incidence 22 II. IDENTIFICATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND SCREENING OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES . 25 Overview of Screening 25 Screening Criteria . 26 Response Actions - 27 Summary of Preliminary Remedial Action Screening 58 III. DEVELOPMENT OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES . 60 Description of Groundwater Extraction/Conveyance System . 61 Alternative A - Aeration 62 Alternative B - Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption 66 Alternative C - Combined Aeration/GAC 70 Alternative D - Ultraviolet Irradiation/Ozonation 70 IV. SCREENING OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES 73 Environmental and Public Health Screening .74 Cost Screening 78 Recommendation and Summary of Candidate Treatment Methods . 83 V. TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF SCREENED ALTERNATIVES 86 Aeration ••'• ' ~ 87 Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption 90 Aeration/GAC 92 Summary of Technical Evaluation Process 95 Cost Comparison 98 . VI. INSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS . 103 Federal Agencies 105 State Agencies 106 Regional Agencies . 107 VII. PUBLIC HEALTH EVALUATION ' 110 Alternative A - Aeration 111 Alternative B - Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption 113 Alternative C - Aeration/GAC 114 Groundwater Extraction/Conveyance System 115 VIII. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE 116 APPENDIX 1 Acronyms APPENDIX 2 References . APPENDIX 3 Abstract-Use of Well Packers to Control TCE and PCE Contamination APPENDIX 4 SFVGWB Well Contamination Data APPENDIX 5 DHS Letter to SCAQMD.on Health Effects APPENDIX 6 Scope of Work for Aeration Facility Project APPENDIX 7 Analysis of Area of Influence of Shallow Aquifer Wells APPENDIX 8 Estimation of Granular Activated Carbon Requirements APPENDIX 9 Excerpt from "Initial Study and Proposed Negative Declaration for the Proposed North Hollywood-Burbank Aeration Facility Project" APPENDIX 10 Cost Analysis ri- ff [15 ' I ~ *~, - ii - LIST OF FIGURES Following Figure x> Page No. 1. Vicinity Map of the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area . \ . 14 . I .-.'.. 2. Political Boundaries-San Fernando v Valley Basin .'..••:.." 14 'f-T^ ' - •'•.'•'•':' ji". 3. Los Angeles' Water Supply ' • ' * 15 ( '-':. ...... 4. Locations of Groundwater Basins and rf". NPL Sites in ULARA 17 5. San Fernando and Verdugo Basins r^ Groundwater Flow Map 18 ' •"" 6. Soil Infiltration-Groundwater Quality r. Management Plan Study, San Fernando r~N, Valley Basin ' . 18 7. Location of Wells Containing TCE pi1"' and/or PCE in Excess of DHS Action ] L; Levels 19 8. North Hollywood TCE Contamination - 1981 vs. 1985 19 9. Diagram of Typical Aeration Facility . 64 ft 10. Effects of Contaminant Loading On GAC Treatment Efficiency 68 fl 11. Schematic of a GAC Treatment System 68 rI.- - Hi - LIST OF TABLES Appears Table on Page L .' .' 1. Cost Summary of Screened Alternatives 99 2. Cost Estimates for the Removal of Trichloroethylene (TCE), Using Packed . Tower Aeration . 100 3. Cost Estimates for the Removal of Trichloroethylene (TCE), Using GAC . Contactors : 101 4. Cost Estimates for Aeration/GAC 102 n rG ro r; P - •• (S\ ,: : ~" - :r-- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY :r. i. i ' ;r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The enclosed document constitutes a report by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) on an Operable Unit Feasibility Study (OUFS) of the North Hollywood-Burbank well field area of the San Fernando Valley Groundwater Basin. The purpose of the OUFS is to identify and evaluate candidate remedial response actions for the North Hollywood-Burbank well field area which are consistent with long-term contaminant cleanup and . mitigation efforts for groundwaters of the San Fernando Valley Groundwater Basin. The overall objective of the OUFS is to identify a recommended remedial alternative for development and implementation on the basis of demonstrated cost-effectiveness and feasibility. The North Hollywood-Burbank area is one of four sites in the Basin listed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on its National Priorities List for uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. Consequently, remedial action in the study area is eligible for Federal funding under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (also known as Superfund). The OUFS represents a discrete element of an overall remedial investigation which is now in progress under a Cooperative Agreement between the EPA and the LADWP. Implementation of the recommended measure as described in the OUFS report would initiate urgently-needed cleanup action in the study area and provide • ' additional valuable information regarding the viability of future remedial measures. IV . - ;-'- - In contrast with the usual EPA definition of a feasibility study, an OUFS is essentially a fast-track action applicable to situations where a sufficient quantity of data exists to justify an expedient approach to remedial action. As documented in the OUFS report, this data has been collected and compiled by the LADWP through previous studies and investigations beginning in 1980. The findings indicate that contamination by trichloroethylene (TCE) and perchloroethylene (PCE) is spreading rapidly with an average of two additional groundwater. wells becoming contaminated each year. In view of this continuing threat, it is imperative that immediate remedial action be undertaken to halt the spread of contamination and to begin cleanup operations. Although the recommended action would not necessarily serve to increase or maintain the present water supply, it would act to protect the quality of the existing supply and preserve those supplies which would otherwise shortly become contaminated. In addition, the recommended action would enhance the efforts of the remedial investigation and have a potential beneficial impact on the cost and feasibility of future cleanup measures. The OUFS, being a fast-track action, is necessarily limited in scope in order to allow for a quick identification of candidate measures that could be implemented immediately; consequently, no attempt was made to conduct a comprehensive and exhaustive study of all possible remedial technologies. Further- ~ •>•'•• more, while the information on the relative costs of alternatives that were identified for consideration and screening is considered • accurate or representative for OUFS purposes, it is emphasized that in some cases costs for capital and operational details were unavailable, incomplete, or conflicting. • In these cases, a conservative approach was adopted in order to make the comparisons as objective as possible. The LADWP has identified, evaluated, and screened various candidate technologies with regard to cost-effectiveness/ environmental and public health impact, and other related considerations. It was determined that groundwater extraction and treatment is the only effective means for halting the spread of contamination. Three treatment alternatives were identified as primary candidates for the project; these alternatives and their estimated costs are summarized below: 1. Granular activated carbon (GAC) - Groundwaters are passed through a bed of activated carbon to remove the volatile organic compounds. The carbon is periodically replaced with fresh carbon to prevent the breakthrough of contaminants to the effluent. - 2. Combined Aeration/GAC* - Groundwaters undergo an aeration process to remove the volatile organic compounds which f: are then captured by vapor-phase activated carbon contactors to prevent the release of contaminants to the air. 3. Aeration - Contaminated groundwaters are conveyed to an aeration column where volatile organic compounds are stripped from the water by a countercurrent flow of air; the aerated organics are vented to the atmosphere. Treatment operations would be supplemented by a groundwater extraction and conveyance system, consisting of a number of shallow groundwater extraction wells and transmission pipeline. The estimated project costs shown below include these facilities with the costs of treatment: ••'•.•• 1 '•' ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS i-v^ (Assumes 15-Year Project Life at 10%) I ' • ' F:": . Annual Total P_:-. Operating and Present Maintenance _ Worth p. Alternative Capital Cost Cost Cost |' 1. GAC $2,249,000 $495,000 $6,000,000 2. Aeration/GAC* 2,193,000 258,000 4,100,000 fi 3. Aeration 2,033,000 206,000 3,600,000 n ft f \ *Recommended alternative r- - 5 - On the basis of previous and ongoing studies, numerous public meetings, and on recommendations and assistance provided by the Region IX office of the EPA, the LADWP recommends the construction of a groundwater extraction, conveyance, and treatment facility to be located in North Hollywood. The recommended facilities would consist of extraction wells, transmission pipeline, a groundwater aeration tower, granular activated carbon air filtering contactors,