FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY - Records Collections

SDMS DocID 2071078

FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY

CROSSLEY FARM SITEHEREFORD TOWNSHIP,

BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

EPA WORK ASSIGNMENT NO. 058-RDRD-03S2TETRA TECH NUS PROJECT NO. 7308

RAC 3 PROGRAMCONTRACT NO. 68-S8-3003

SEPTEMBER 2006

PHIL-20392

FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY

CROSSLEY FARM SITEHEREFORD TOWNSHIP, BERKS COUNTY,

PENNSYLVANIA

EPA WORK ASSIGNMENT NO. 058-RDRD-03S2TETRA TECH NUS PROJECT NO. 7308

RAG 3 PROGRAMCONTRACT NO. 68-S8-3003

SEPTEMBER 2006

SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY:

J/UAVINCENT OU, Ph.D., P.E.PROJECT MANAGERTETRA TECH NUS, INC.KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA

LEONARD C/dCpvlSONPROGRAM MANAGER, RAC 3TETRA TECH NUS, INC.KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA

TABLE OF CONTENTSSECTION PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-11.1 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT 1-11.2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1-11.3 CONTINUING INVESTIGATIONS AND TASKS IMPLEMENTING THE

ROD SINCE 2001 1-21.3.1 Installation of Additional Monitoring Wells and Hydrogeologic Investigations during

PDI 1-21.3.2 Installation of Extraction Wells during PDI 1-51.3.3 Installation of Injection Wells and Piezometers during PDI 1 -51.3.4 UV Oxidation Pilot Test for Destruction of High Levels of VOCs in Groundwater 1 -51.3.5 Remedial Design (RD) for OU-2 Remediation 1-71.4 SITE WIDE GROUNDWATER MONITORING EVENT 2005-2006 1 -81.5 ON-SITE TRASH DUMP 1-10

2.0 DEVELOPMENT OF REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES 2-12.1 CHEMICALS OF CONCERN (COC) 2-12.2 MEDIA OF CONCERN 2-22.3 POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS 2-32.4 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES 2-3

3.0 DEVELOPMENT AND DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES 3-13.1 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE 10 - VALLEY PLUME GROUNDWATER

INTERCEPTION, CONTAINMENT, TREATMENT, AND DISCHARGE 3-13.1.1 Component 1: Design and Installation of Groundwater Extraction Well

Network for Interception and Containment of >1,000 ug/L TCE Plume 3-23.1.2 Component 2: On-Site Treatment System for VOC-Contaminated Groundwater 3-43.1.3 Components: Discharge of Treated Water via Reinjection Wells, Infiltration

Gallery, or to West Branch Perkiomen Creek 3-93.1.4 Component 4: Institutional Controls 3-103.1.5 ' Components: Long-Term Monitoring and Five-Year Reviews 3-103.2 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE 11 - REMOVAL OF AN ON-SITE TRASH DUMP,

OFF-SITE DISPOSAL : 3-113.2.1 Component 1: Pre-Design Investigations and Developing Removal Action Plans 3-113.2.2 Component 2: Removal Action for Trash and Contaminated Soil underneath the

Dump, and Dispose Off-Site As Non-Hazardous Waste 3-113.2.3 Component 3: Clean-Up Verification Testing and Restoration 3-123.2.4 Component 4: Institutional Controls 3-123.2.5 Component 5: Limited-Term Monitoring, 5-Year Review, and

Clean-Closure Determination 3-12

4.0 DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 4-14.1 CRITERIA FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS 4-14.2 DETAILED ANALYSIS FOR REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE 10.... 4-44.3 DETAILED ANALYSIS FOR REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE 11 4-7

REFERENCES R-1

APPENDICES

A 2005/2006 MONITORING DATA SUMMARYB PROCESS CALCULATIONSC PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES - REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE 10D PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES - REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE 11E CONTAMINANT ISOTOPIC CONTOUR DRAWINGS

L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/7308/20392

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

*

TABLESNUMBER PAGE

1-1 Descriptions and Key Components of Remedial Alternatives 1-31 -2 Analytical Results for Positive Detections in Soil Test Pit Samples, Trash Dump Area 1 -112-1 Major VOCs AND Anticipated Concentrations in Valley Plume 2-22-2 Inorganics and Concentrations Detected in the Valley Plume 2-24-1 Cost Estimates for Remedial Alternative 10 4-74-2 Cost Estimates for Remedial Alternative 11 4-9

FIGURESNUMBER PAGE

FS-10-1 TCE Concentrations in Composite Groundwater Zones 1-9FS-10-2 Remedial alternative 10 Extraction-Treatment-Discharge System Layout Plan 3-3FS-10-3 Process Flow Diagram Alternative 10 3-5FS-10-4 Modular Implementation Concept Diagram Alternative 10 3-6

L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC:y7308/20392

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

This report presents a focused feasibility study (FFS) prepared for the Crossley Farm Site, located in

Hereford and Washington Townships, Berks County, Pennsylvania. This FFS report was prepared by

Tetra Tech NUS Incorporated (TtNUS) for the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

under Work Assignment 058-RDRD-03S2, Contract No. 68-S8-3003. The Crossley Farm Site was

formally added to the National Priorities List (NPL) in October 1992. The FFS report presents a remedial

alternative that addresses potential human health risks from exposure to groundwater downgradient from

the site that has been impacted by previous hazardous waste dumping activities at the "Borrow Pit" area.

Also included in this FFS is a remedial alternative that aims to remove an on-site trash dump to off-site

disposal, in order to eliminate a source of site groundwater contamination.

This FFS was prepared consistent with the requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended by the Superfund

Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances

Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) 40 CFR 300. The Interim Final Guidance for Conducting Remedial

Investigations and Feasibility Studies under CERCLA (EPA, October 1988) was also followed.

The remedial alternatives developed and presented in this document will be used by EPA to supplement

an existing Feasibility Study (FS), which addressed contaminated groundwater that is currently migrating

from the site. These remedial alternatives will be presented to the local community through a proposed

plan and public meeting, and will be subject to a 30-day public comment period. After the public

comment period has concluded, the selected remedy(s) will be used to amend the EPA Record of

Decision (ROD, September 2001) for the site.

1.2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Nine remedial alternatives for contaminated groundwater, impacted by the Crossley Farm Site, were

developed in the July 2001 FS Report (TtNUS, July 2001) in accordance with the NCP and EPA guidance.

Due to vast geographic extent of the plume, compounded by topography and/or geology of the site and

adjacent property ownership issues, these alternatives for groundwater remediation addressed specific

portions of the contaminated groundwater plumes (i.e., on-site portion; residual or hot-spot plume; plume

>1,000 ug/L Trichloroethylene (TCE); etc.). Remedial Alternative 6 was selected in the September 2001

Record of Decision (ROD) as the remedy for the Crossley Farm Site, and partially implemented between 2002

and 2004, during the Pre-Design Investigation (PDI) phase of Remedial Design.

L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/7308/20392 1 -1

To remediate the contaminant plume extended into the valley south of the site (the "valley plume"), it is

deemed necessary by EPA to address the valley plume and beyond. An additional remedy for the valley

plume has been developed thereafter to intercept and contain the VOC plume of >1,000 ug/L, in terms of TCE,

and to eliminate further migration of contaminated groundwater. Similar to the remedial alternatives developed

in the July 2001 FS Report (TtNUS, July 2001), the additional remedial alternative is in favor of treatment

technologies and process options that remediate principal threats, and utilize institutional controls to address

relatively low levels of contaminants with long-term threats. As part of the site groundwater remediation

efforts, an on-site trash dump is also evaluated for removal and off-site disposal. The subjects and key

elements of these remedial alternatives, including the Remedial Alternatives 1 through 9 in the July 2001 FS

Report and the newly developed Remedial Alternatives 10 and 11 for this FFS, are summarized in Table 1 -1.

1.3 CONTINUING INVESTIGATIONS AND TASKS IMPLEMENTING THE ROD SINCE 2001

Several major hydrogeologic investigations and various tasks were performed to implement the ROD for

the source area (Operable Unit 2 [OU-2]) since 2001. These investigations and tasks that supplemented

the RI/FS data and facilitated the remedial design for OU-2 remediation are described below:

1.3.1 Installation of Additional Monitoring Wells and Hydroqeoloqic Investigations during PDI

A total of 13 monitoring wells were installed at four locations during the period between July 2002 and

October 2002. Twelve of the wells were installed as components of 4-welI clusters at three locations

(TT-25, TT-26, and TT-27), and a single well was installed at the fourth location (TT-24). Each well

cluster consists of shallow, intermediate, and deep wells monitoring the soil/saprolite interface (-50 feet),

shallow but highly fractured bedrock (50 feet to 150 feet), and fresher but less fractured bedrock (>150

feet), respectively. The locations and construction details of the wells are provided in the PDI Report

(TtNUS, April 2005).

The installation of additional monitoring wells was one of the first activities conducted during the PDI. The

purpose of these additional monitoring wells was to determine the optimal locations and depths of the

groundwater extraction wells by precisely defining the lateral and vertical extent of the groundwater

contamination and distribution of hydraulic head in the vicinity of the source area, as well as providing

observation points to evaluate the effectiveness of the extraction well system upon its implementation.

Other activities in this step of PDI included collecting and analyzing groundwater samples and water level

measurements of all new and existing monitoring wells, springs, and surface water bodies in the vicinity

of the source area. Data from these activities and their evaluations are provided in the PDI Report

(TtNUS, April 2005).


TABLE 1-1Descriptions and Key Components of Remedial Alternatives

Feasibility StudyCrossley Farm Site

Hereford and Washington Townships Berks County, PennsylvaniaPage 1 of 2

ALTERNATIVE KEY COMPONENTS OF ALTERNATIVE

No Action Five-year reviews

Institutional Controls andGroundwater Monitoring

Institutional controls (deed notices/restrictions)Long-term monitoringFive-year reviews

Groundwater Containment ofCenter of Plume and On-Site

Treatment/Recharge

• Design investigation, treatability studies and groundwater modeling• Installation of groundwater extraction well network for plume containment• On-site treatment of VOC-contaminated groundwater

(i.e., by air stripping and activated carbon polishing)• Recharge of treated water• Institutional controls (deed restrictions)• Long-term monitoring• Five-year reviews

Groundwater Containment ofCenter of Plume, On-Site

Treatment and Discharge toWest Branch of Perkiomen

Creek

Design investigation, treatability studies and groundwater modelingInstallation of groundwater extraction well network for plume containmentOn-site treatment of VOC-contaminated groundwater(i.e., by air stripping and activated carbon polishing)Discharge of treated water to West Branch Perkiomen CreekInstitutional controls (deed restrictions)Long-term monitoringFive-year reviews

In-Situ Treatment of theResidual Plume

• Design investigation and treatability studies• In-situ treatment of residual groundwater plume

(i.e., chemical oxidation)• Sampling and analysis of treatment monitoring wells and long-term

monitoring• Institutional controls (deed restrictions)• Five-year reviews

6-R*

Residual/Hot Spot PlumePumping and On-SiteTreatment/Recharge

(Revised during PDI and RD)

• Design investigation and treatability studies (~ 75% complete)• Installation of additional groundwater extraction wells (6 wells installed in

2004)• Collection, transport and treatment of residual/hot-spot plume

groundwater(i.e., using air stripping and GAC polishing)(design completed in 2005 w/AOP to replace air stripping)

• Discharge of treated groundwater on-site (designed to use injection wells)• Institutional controls (deed restrictions)• Long-term monitoring• Five-year reviews

L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/7308/20392 1-3

TABLE 1-1Descriptions and Key Components of Remedial AlternativesFeasibility StudyCrossley Farm SiteHereford and Washington Townships Berks County, PennsylvaniaPage 2 of 2

ALTERNATIVE KEY COMPONENTS OF ALTERNATIVE

Groundwater Containment ofValley Plume, On-Site

Treatment and Discharge toWest Branch of Perkiomen

Creek

Design investigation and treatability studiesInstallation of groundwater extraction well network for plume containmentOn-site treatment of VOC-contaminated groundwater (i.e., by air strippingand activated carbon polishing)Discharge of treated water to West Branch Perkiomen CreekInstitutional controls (deed restrictions)Long-term monitoringFive-year reviews

In Situ Treatment of ValleyPlume

Design investigation and treatability studiesIn-Situ treatment of Valley Plume (i.e., chemical oxidation)Sampling and analysis of treatment monitoring wells and long-termmonitoringInstitutional controls (deed restrictions)Five-year reviews

Groundwater Containment ofCenter of Plume and ValleyPlume, On-Site Treatment

and Discharge to WestBranch of Perkiomen Creek

Design investigation, treatability studies and groundwater modelingInstallation of groundwater extraction well network for plume containmentOn-site treatment of VOG-contaminated groundwater (i.e., by air strippingand activated carbon polishing)Discharge of treated water to West Branch Perkiomen CreekInstitutional controls (deed restrictions)Long-term monitoringFive-year reviews

n

10

Groundwater Interceptionand Containment of ValleyPlume of 1,000 ug/L TCE(along Airport and Dale

Roads and Dairy Lane), On-Site Treatment and

Discharge via SubsurfaceRecharge and/or Surface

Discharge to West Branch ofPerkiomen Creek

Design and Installation of groundwater extraction well network in phasesfor containment of 1,000 ug/L TCE plumeOn-site treatment of VOC-contaminated groundwater by air stripping w/GAC polishingDischarge of treated water via subsurface recharge (by infiltration galleryand/or reinjection wells) and/or surface discharge to West Branch ofPerkiomen CreekInstitutional controlsLong-term monitoringFive-year reviews

11Removal of An On-SiteTrash Dump, Off-Site

Disposal

Design investigation, delineation of waste material, soil and groundwater,and development of removal action planRemoval action for the trash dump areaLimited-term monitoringFive-year reviews

*6-R denotes that this is a revised alternative from the July 2001 FS Report, which is documented in the 2001 ROD.


1.3.2 Installation of Extraction Wells during PDI

During the period of November 2002 to January 2003, three clusters of extraction wells, EW-1/EW-2,

EW-3/EW-4, and EW-5/EW-6, were installed in the source area. Each cluster well consists of an

intermediate well and a deep well. The intermediate wells, EW-1, EW-3, and EW-5, are all approximately

150 feet deep and are designed to extract groundwater from the saprolitic section of the groundwater

contaminant plume. The deep wells, EW-2, EW-4, and EW-6, ranging in depth from 338 feet to 418 feet,

are designed to extract groundwater from the fresher, less fractured bedrock. The location and

construction details of the wells are provided in the PDI Report (TtNUS, April 2005).

1.3.3 Installation of Injection Wells and Piezometers during PDI

A total of four injection wells (1-1 through I-4) and three piezometers (P-1 through P-3) were installed in

two separate events in January 2003 and February 2004. The location and construction details of the

injection wells and piezometers are provided in the PDI Report (TtNUS, April 2005). The injection wells

were designed in compliance with the discharge limitations issued by the Pennsylvania Department of

Environmental Protection (PADEP). The piezometers were designed to monitor the hydraulic heads in

the injection zones.

1.3.4 UV Oxidation Pilot Test for Destruction of High Levels of VOCs in Groundwater

A pilot test was performed at the site to determine the effectiveness of the proposed treatment system,

consisting of advanced oxidation process (AOP), granular activated carbon (GAC) adsorption, and

effluent filtration, in treating highly contaminated site groundwater and to acquire data needed to design a

full-scale treatment system. The pilot test was also intended to gain information to optimize the full-scale

treatment system and estimate the capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs.

The AOP was designed to destroy dissolved organic contaminants in groundwater utilizing the strong

oxidation capability of the hydroxyl radical (OH«) activated by applying ultraviolet (UV) light to an oxidizing

chemical. A UV lamp was used to emit high energy UV radiation through quartz sleeve/cells/tubes in the

contaminated water. An oxidizing agent, hydrogen peroxide, with or without catalysts, was added to the

contaminated water and was activated by the UV light to form oxidizing species (hydroxyl radicals). The

hydroxyl radjcals then reacted with the dissolved contaminants, initiating a rapid cascade of oxidation

reactions that ultimately oxidized the contaminants. When the oxidation reactions were complete, the

contaminants were converted into water, carbon dioxide, and, if the contaminant is chlorinated, residual

chloride in solution.


In addition, the influent to the AOP flowed through a pressurized coalescor to remove dense non-aqueous

phase liquid (DNAPL) and hence improved the efficiency of the AOP. The pressurized coalescor is a

solid-state device that coalesces and separates DNAPL. Once the DNAPL rises to a predefined level, the

solenoid valve at the bottom of the collection tube opens to permit the flow of DNAPL to a container for

disposal.

A GAC adsorption process was utilized to remove any residual VOCs and other organic compounds in

the groundwater from the AOP system. The process consisted of passing the groundwater through a bed

of activated carbon to allow adsorption of the organic compounds onto the carbon. Periodically, the GAC

became saturated and was exchanged for fresh carbon. The exhausted GAC was returned to the carbon

supplier for regeneration.

Furthermore, a filtration unit was required to remove carbon fines and other impurities present in the

treated water prior to its discharge. The effluent filter system typically consists of one or more cartridge

filters with screening larger than 10 microns. Pressure drop across the operating filter media was

monitored and dirty filter cartridges were replaced when .the pressure differential exceeded a preset level.

Loaded cartridges were placed in drums and disposed of at an approved off-site facility.

During the pilot test, water samples were collected and delivered to a commercial laboratory for fast

turnaround time analysis. Analytical parameters included Target Compound List (TCL) VOCs, TCL

semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) and "tris" compounds [tris(2-chloroethyl)phosphate and tris(2-

ethylhexyl)phosphate], total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), Target Analyte List (TAL) metals and cyanide,

anions (sulfate, chloride, fluoride, and chloride), total dissolved solids (TDS), total suspended solids (TSS),

total organic carbon (TOC), chemical oxygen demand (COD), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), and total

hardness. Parameters analyzed for samples from a sample port were based on information needs at the

particular sample port and treatment process. In addition, EPA requested to analyze the discharge

samples for quality assurance purposes.

The study presented first order rate constants for destruction of contaminants in the groundwater at

optimum pH and hydrogen peroxide dose. The data that were used to design an AOP system that could

meet the performance requirements were based on the pilot test, two AOP units are recommended.

Complete results of the pilot test are presented in the Groundwater Pilot Test Report (TtNUS, September

2003).


1.3.5 Remedial Design (RD) for OU-2 Remediation

TtNUS prepared a Basis of Design (BOD) Report for EPA (TtNUS, September 2004). This report

addresses the implementation of the remedy selected in the ROD (EPA, 2001) for OU-2. The selected

remedy is a limited groundwater treatment remedial action (RA) for the highest concentrations of

contamination at the top of Blackhead Hill at the Crossley Farm Site. The BOD presents details of the

groundwater extraction and treatment system for OU-2 and the criteria and rationale for the selection of

system components.

Groundwater will be extracted from areas represented by concentrations above 100,000 ug/L of TCE for

treatment. Six extraction wells have been installed immediately downgradient.of the borrow pit area at

depths of approximately 150 and 350 feet and will be pumped at rates between 3 and 10 gpm. If there is

evidence that DNAPL is present, based on routine sampling of the individual extraction well flows, the

flow from that well or wells will be diverted to the DNAPL/water separator (DWS) for phase separation.

The water from the DWS will then flow to the equalization tank after the removal of DNAPL. The

untreated water in the equalization tank will be pumped to the influent filter units to remove the filterable

solids. The filtered groundwater will then flow to the pressurized coalescor that coalesces and separates

residual DNAPL in groundwater, if present. The water from the coalescor then flows through the AOP

system for the removal of VOCs, SVOCs, and other organic compounds. After the groundwater is treated

in the AOP system, it is collected in the holding tank prior to activated carbon adsorption treatment. The

next step consists of pumping the groundwater to the activated carbon adsorption system consisting of

two carbon columns in series so that any residual organic compounds can be adsorbed by the activated

carbon. The treated effluent water from the carbon columns then flows through the effluent filter to

remove carbon fines present, if any, in the water. Finally the treated water is adjusted for pH, if required,

and flows to the backwash feed tank so that the water can be discharged within the acceptable pH range.

The individual units in the treatment process are controlled by the control relays and the programmable

logic control (PLC). Level switches and other elements in the process line will initiate most control

functions in the treatment system. The activation of a HI-HI switch in the equalization tank or the effluent

holding tank will normally indicate the failure of some process component and would result in an

appropriate system shutdown. In addition, the controls will be designed in a fail-safe manner such that

loss of controls results in the shutdown of the whole system. Any system shutdown will activate a

telemetry system that calls preset phone numbers for notification. Alarms will be provided on various

components that require immediate attention if preset conditions change.

Detailed descriptions of the groundwater extraction and treatment system, including design drawings,

calculations, and cost estimates, are provided in the BOD Report.


1.4 SITE WIDE GROUNDWATER MONITORING EVENT 2005-2006

A site-wide, comprehensive round of groundwater monitoring event was performed by TtNUS during the

period of October 2005 through January 2006 at all monitoring wells and springs on the Crossley Farm

and adjacent private properties. This monitoring event was to gather hydrogeologic and chemical data of

site groundwater since the Rl and PDI activities that mostly were conducted prior to Year 2002. In

conjunction with residential well monitoring data, these monitoring results are used to verify and assist in

determining the vertical and lateral nature and extent of groundwater contamination within the study area,

especially in the valley downgradient from the source area. These data provide essential information for the

conceptual design of the groundwater extraction, treatment, and discharge system in the remediation

process for amending the Operable Unit 2 (OU-2) ROD that involves site-wide groundwater.

One round of water level measurements at all monitoring wells within the study area were obtained prior to

sampling. The water level measurements would in particular refine the groundwater flow systems within the

study area. Also, water levels were measured at the end of the well sampling activities. All measurements

were collected within an 8-hour period of consistent weather conditions to minimize atmospheric or

precipitation effects on groundwater levels. The water levels were also obtained 24 hours after a significant

rainfall event in order to negate the effects of short-term fluctuations in hydraulic head.

Samples from more than 100 existing groundwater monitoring wells in the shallow, intermediate, and deep

groundwater systems within the study area were purged and collected by low-flow sampling techniques

following appropriate EPA Region 3 protocol and guidelines. However, the "Westbay" wells (HN-01W,

HN-11W, HN-17W, and HN-18W) were not purged prior to sampling, because their design precluded the

purging requirement. Sample ports of the Westbay wells were installed at specific fracture zones within the

bedrock. A total of 16 zones were sampled within the four Westbay wells. Open boreholes were sampled

by purging three volumes from the well at a purge rate of a minimum of 1 gallon per minute (gpm) or by

purging the well dry if the well could not sustain the 1 gpm purge rate. In addition, samples from six springs

within the study area were collected. All monitoring samples were analyzed by EPA's CLP laboratories for

TCL volatile organics, semi volatile organics (including Tris compounds), pesticide/PCBs, TAL metals, and

dissolved metals, except where noted.

Analytical results of this monitoring event are presented in Appendix A. These results were used to further

refine the vertical and lateral nature and extent of groundwater contamination in and adjacent to the

Crossley Farm site. The plumes of 100 ug/L and 1,000 ug/L in TCE are presented in Figure FS-10-1,

based on the results of this monitoring event and the recent sampling of residential wells. Isotopic

drawings for TCE, Tetrachloroethene (PCE), Cis-1,2-dichloroethene (Cis-1,2-DCE), and tris compounds

are provided in Appendix E.

L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3^7308/20392 1 -8

70JB\0390\7QjaCMOI-I.DWC 09/14/08 MKB

N .405.00.0 __

TCE CONCENTRATIONS INCOMPOSITE GROUNDWATER ZONES

CROSSLEY FARMHEREFORD TOWNSHIP

BUCKS COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA

100 TCE ag/L

1,000 TCE ug/L

FILE7036GM01-1.DWG

COMPOSITE TCE CONCENTRATIONS(SHALLOW-INTERMEDIATE-OEEP)BASED ON 2005 MW SAMPLING ANDRESIDENTIAL SAMPLING.

FIGURE NUMBER

FIGURE FS-10-1REV DATE

0 09/14/06

1-9

1.5 ON-SITE TRASH DUMP

»•An on-site trash dump, as shown on Figure FS-10-1, was investigated during Rl. The trash dump is

located approximately 2,000 feet south of Huffs Church Road and reportedly consists mainly of

household trash. The dump area is roughly rectangular and covers an area approximately 250 feet long

by 160 feet wide. Most of the waste area lies within wooded land, although the eastern extent of the trash

dump extends into the open field. The dump is situated along an east-west-trending ridge that forms a

prominent local topographic feature on the farm.

Soil samples were collected from two soil test pits, TP-1 and TP-2, in the trash dump area. A single

detection of TCE (18 M9/kg) was noted because it indicated that at least minor amount of solvent, or

materials and equipment containing solvent, were disposed of at the trash dump. Soil gas samples were

also collected at 34 locations on a 50-foot by 50-foot grid pattern in the trash dump area. No soil gas

contaminants were detected at the dump. Based on the frequency and amount of detection, the trash

dump was not regarded as a major contributor to the groundwater solvent plume on the Crossley Farm

site. Nonetheless, due to the detections of specific contaminants in the test pit samples and near-by

downgradient residential and monitoring wells, the trash dump is still considered to be a potential source

of site groundwater contamination.

Details for the sampling programs are provided in the Remedial Investigation (Rl) Report (TtNUS, July

2001 a). Analytical results of positive detections in the soil test pit samples are presented in Table 1-2.


Table 1-2Analytical Results for Positive Detections in Soil Test Pit Samples

Trash Dump AreaCrossley Farm Site

Hereford and Washington Townships, Berks County, PennsylvaniaPage 1 of 2

Sample ID:Duplicate:

INORGANICSAluminumAntimonyArsenicBariumBerylliumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseNickelPotassiumSeleniumSilverSodiumThalliumVanadiumZinc

SEMIVOLATILES2,4-Dimethylphenol2,4-Dinitrotoluene2-Methylnaphthalene2-Methylphenol4-MethylphenolAcenaphtheneAcenaphthyleneAnthraceneBenz(a)anthraceneBenzo(a)pyreneBenzo(b)fluorantheneBenzo(g,h,i)peryleneBenzo(k)fluorantheneBis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalateButylbenzylphthalateCarbazoleChryseneDi-n-butylphthalateDi-n-octylphthalateDibenz(a,h)anthraceneOibenzofuranDiethylphthalateFluorantheneFluorenelndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyreneN-Nitrosodiphenylamine (1)NaphthalenePhenanthrenePyrene

TP1A

mg/kg18200

3.97.9

2390.99

3.6518030.412.9276

32300370

2860107037.98701.7

1.71881.9

40.1469

ug/kg

28

110

200

170260120

18055

140

89

2266

200

B

Ji_

J

J

J

JBB

JJ

J

J

JJJ

TP1BTP1BD

mg/kg13700

7.81511.1

0.79417020.810.128.2

2020086.4

209097616.1737

2981.5

31.9186

ug/kg31

12040

120130110420

260026003300710

310088

8803100

790290

4400240

1400

18039004400

B

J

JJJJJ

B

J

J

J

TP1BDTP1B

mg/kg13200

0.847.72791.1

0.92412023.79.5

30.323000

118268080118.3

1330

231

36.1174

ug/kg

27210280310160280

90

29310

60

25370

180

200460

B

JJJJJJB

JJ

J

JJ

J

J

TP1C

mg/kg16900

7.2134

10.734120

2410.831.1

2360079.92490

83417.5864

165

37.1152

ug/kg

100130140

11011027

140

140

74

66160

JJJ

JBB

J

J

J

JJ

TP2ATP2AD

mg/kg27700

15.8181

0.89

223068

25.728.4

4360052.3

7190650

33.21900

2.11893.1111116

ug/kg

100

96

B

J

B

B

TP2ADTP2A

mg/kg31400

0.85.6184

0.97

212085.527.936.3

5210017

8930649

38.32380

1.2

2.51913.8127118

ug/kg

110

2236

110

22

56

22

B

JL

B

JJB

J

J

J

TP2B

mg/kg18100

10.4129

1

301045.319.226.2

3310050.54770105021.11350

11452.671

129

ug/kg

160

32

45

46370

54

280

2668

42

2877

K

J

J

J

JB

J

B

JJ

J

JJ

TP2C

mg/kg31700

4.8207

0.75

158088.434.742.8

5380014.7

8180632

45.43090

21654.5164125

ug/kg

92

91

_

K

B

B


Table 1-2Analytical Results for Positive Detections in Soil Test Pit Samples

Trash Dump AreaCrossley Farm Site

Hereford and Washington Townships, Berks County, PennsylvaniaPage 2 of 2

Sample ID:Duplicate:

VOLATILESChloroformEthylbenzeneMethylene ChlorideTolueneTrichloroetheneXylene (Total)

PESTICIDES/PCBS4,4'-DDD4,4'-DDE4,4'-DDTAlpha-ChlordaneAroclor-1260DieldrlnEndrinEndrin KetoneGamma-ChlordaneHeptachlorHeptachlor EpoxideMethoxychlor

Data Qualifiers:

TP1A

ug/kg131354131313

ug/kg

1000

3.8

RRBRRR

J

TP1BTP1BD

ug/kg2013222

1865

ug/kg5.36.4

710

14

121.62.4

JRBBJJ

JJJJ

J

BJ

TP1BDTP1B

ug/kg44

12

51

ug/kg3.812

4.812

13

151.23.3

BBB

J

JJJ

J

BJ

TP1C

ug/kg131316131313

ug/kg

2.74414

5.49.5

RRBRRR

J

BJ

TP2ATP2AD

ug/kg64

313

20

ug/kg

0.780.860.31

0.21

0.130.5

BBBB

B

JJJ

J

JB

TP2ADTP2A

ug/kg62

202

9

ug/kg

0.881.1

0.34

0.190.7

B -- Positive result is considered to be an artifact of blank contamination, and should not be considered present.J -- Value is considered estimated due to exceedance of technical quality control criteria or because result is less than

the Contract Required Quantitation Limit (CRQL).K -- Positive result is considered biased high due to exceedance of technical quality control criteria.L -- Positive result is considered biased low due to exceedance of technical quality control criteria.R - Positive result is considered unusable due to exceedance of technical quality control criteria.(Blank value) -- Result is non-detected. Detection limits are omitted for clarity.

Database source file: C:\CROSSLEYFARMS\TSTPIT.DBF data retrieved on: 09/27/06

BBBB

B

JJJ

JB

TP2B

ug/kg10

18

ug/kg

2.28.51.4

0.64

0.87

0.46

B

B

J

J

J

J

J

TP2C

ug/kg72

153

13

ug/kg

0.340.63

0.23

1.1

BBBB

B

JJ

J

J


2.0 DEVELOPMENT OF REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES

This section presents the objectives for remedial action and the factors used in the development of

remedial action alternatives. Chemicals of concern and media that are specific to the valley plume for this

FFS are also presented in this section. Due to the interim nature of Remedial Alternative 10 for the valley

plume, the regulatory requirements to evaluate Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements

(ARARs) and Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) are not applicable to this FFS.

2.1 CHEMICALS OF CONCERN (COC)

Based on the results of the 2005-2006 site-wide groundwater monitoring results, media and chemicals of

concern for the groundwater in the valley plume area appear to be similar to those identified in the FS

(TtNUS, July 2001). The contaminants of concern, as presented in the FS Report, were developed by

comparing the maximum concentrations to U.S. EPA's current Drinking Water Standards (EPA, 1998)

and PADEP Medium Specific Concentrations (MSCs) for groundwater (i.e., used aquifers).

The primary contaminants in site groundwater are chlorinated volatile organic compounds (VOCs). TCE

is the most common groundwater contaminant, and is so pervasive that the extent of the plume can

largely be defined by the occurrence of TCE. TCE concentrations ranged from more than 1,100 mg/L

(i.e., in the form of DNAPL) detected just south of the former borrow pit on Blackhead Hill to less than 10

ug/L at the farthest edges of the plume. Other common VOCs detected at varying concentrations at or

near the plume include PCE and cis-1, 2-dichlorcethene (cis-1, 2-DCE). Many other VOCs were detected

less frequently and generally at lower concentrations, including 1,1-Dichloroethene, 1,1,2-

Trichloroethane, 1,2-Dichloroethane, carbon tetrachloride, trans-1,2-Dichloroethene, and vinyl chloride.

For development of the remedial alternative, the major VOCs and their concentrations detected in

groundwater within or adjacent to the targeted valley plume area, and the respective regulatory Maximum

Contaminant Level (MCL) as reference, are presented in Table 2-1 below:


Table 2-1

Major VOCs and Concentrations Detected in the Valley PlumeSampling Periods November 2005 to April 2006

Major VOCs Detected

Trichloroethene (TCE)

Tetrachloroethene (PCE)

cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis-1 ,2-DCE)

Carbon Tetrachloride

Trichlorfluoromethane

Range of Detects(M9/L)

ND-1,600

ND-69.6

ND-3

ND-0.3

ND-11.8

MCL

5

5

70

5

-

Also, a number of inorganics (metals) were detected at levels exceeding the contract required detection

limits (CRDL) in groundwater monitoring wells within or near the targeted valley plume area (Table 2-2).

These metals may exceed MCL or AWQC, or may present operational difficulties to the treatment system.

Table 2-2Inorganics and Concentrations Detected in the Valley Plume

Sampling Periods November 2005 to April 2006

Inorganics

Calcium

Copper

Iron

Lead

Magnesium

Potassium

Sodium

Zinc

Range of Detects(M9/L)

2,350 - 63,500

3.8-184

117-2,730

3.9 - 46.2

1,310-34,300

884 - 9,250

2,120-17,900

ND - 205

CRDL

5000

25

100

3

5000

5000

5000

20

2.2 MEDIA OF CONCERN

As shown in Figure FS-10-1, a large plume of contaminated groundwater emanates from the former

borrow pit on Blackhead Hill of the Crossley Farm to the valley south of the site at a downgradient

distance of more than 2 miles. The areal distribution of the groundwater contaminants and the directions


of groundwater flow indicated that the former borrow pit and the Environmental Photograph Interpretation

Center (EPIC) pit area are the principal source areas of groundwater contamination. The TCE plume

appears to continue to migrate and expand into the valley. The groundwater analytical results also

indicate that the intermediate and deep groundwater zones are more contaminated than the shallow

zone, and the contamination may extend into deeper zone(s). The reported geologic faults in the valley

may have complicated the migration of the contaminants. As such, this remedial alternative intends to

capture the majority of the contaminants by placing a number of extraction wells at the area of the

geologic faults.

2.3 POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS

The FS identified the media of concern overall at the site is groundwater. Soil and sediment were not

included in this FFS because the contaminants identified for these media are not related to the hazardous

waste disposal activities conducted at the site. The risk assessment identified unacceptable risk levels

for untreated residential well supplies. However, affected residential wells are currently addressed by the

RODforOU-1.

Under EPA's directive, TtNUS performed an investigation of vapor intrusion (VI) in early 2006 in selected

residences within the boundaries of the Crossley Farm groundwater plume. The primary objective of this

investigation was to obtain and analyze sub-slab vapor samples from beneath those residences. Results

of the analysis are being used by EPA to evaluate the potential human health risks caused by possible

vapor migration and intrusion of site-related contaminants from the plume into the residences.

2.4 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES

Based on COCs, media of concern, and exposure pathways, remedial action objectives (RAOs) may be

developed to permit consideration of a range of treatment and containment alternatives. This FFS

addresses contaminated groundwater in the valley plume area and the contaminated media in the trash

dump area. To protect the public and environment from potential current and future health risks, the

following remedial action objectives have been developed for the contaminated groundwater in the valley

plume area:

• To establish a hydraulic containment system that will intercept and cut-off VOC groundwater

contamination >1000 ug/L TCE plume in the valley.


• To prevent any further migration of the valley plume to protect downgradient residential water supply

and to reduce contamination in the aquifer and surface water springs downgradient of this hydraulic

contaminant system

For the trash dump area, the following RAO is established to protect human health and the environment:

• To reduce, and eventually eliminate, the threats presented by the contaminated materials in the trash

dump area


3.0 DEVELOPMENT AND DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES

This FFS presents a remedial alternative to address the plume of >1,000 ug/L in the valley plume area, as well

as a remedial alternative to address the on-site trash dump. These remedial alternatives are supplemental to

those in the 2001 FS Report and, therefore, are in subsequent number after the existing alternatives.

3.1 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE 10 - VALLEY PLUME GROUNDWATER INTERCEPTION,CONTAINMENT, TREATMENT, AND DISCHARGE

Remedial Alternative No. 10 is developed to address the valley plume of >1,000 ug/L TCE contaminated

groundwater (as shown in Figure FS-10-1) that appears to originate from the Borrow Pit area and extends

downgradient south into the valley. Similar to the remedial alternatives developed in the July 2001 FS

Report, this remedial alternative also favors proven treatment technologies and process options that address

principal threats, cut off the major pathways of contaminants, provide cost effective extraction and treatment,

discharge the treated water properly, and utilize engineering controls to address relatively low levels of

contaminants with long-term threats.

A "phased" approach is utilized to implement this remedial alternative cost effectively and to timely

achieve remedial action objectives of capturing the contaminated groundwater plume. The initial phase

calls for installation of ten extraction wells at predetermined locations, mostly in the area of >1,000 pg/L

TCE contaminated groundwater plume, and construction of a treatment system corresponding to the

initial inflow, estimated at 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm). Hydrogeologic conditions in the extraction well

field will be monitored during the system start-up period for a minimum of six months by a network of at

least three multi-port monitoring wells. Results will be evaluated to determine the effectiveness of

contaminated groundwater plume interception. Additional extraction wells are expected to be installed in

two or more phases that follow. For costing purposes of the final phase, it is assumed for this remedial

alternative that a network of 25 extraction wells will be installed to generate a total inflow of 2,500 gpm .to

the treatment system. It is also expected that the extraction well network will extend into the areas

between 100 ug/L and 1,000 ug/L of TCE plume contours.

To remediate the contaminant plume extending into the valley south of the site, this remedial alternative is

developed to address the 'Valley plume" and beyond, for instance, the plume >1,000 ug/L TCE. The

proposed groundwater extraction and treatment system consists of six major processes, including:

• Groundwater extraction and transfer

• Flow equalization

• Filtration (primary and secondary systems)

• Air stripping and off-gas treatment (vapor-phase granular activated carbon adsorption)


• Iron removal

• Liquid-phase granular activated carbon adsorption

An important feature of this remedial alternative is to eliminate a typically elaborate PDI and replace it

with a phased approach of construction of the extraction and treatment system. A phased approach for

system construction has proven for other sites to be efficient and cost effective. The application of this

approach utilizes an initial phase that includes installation of a limited number of extraction wells and

construction of a treatment system that has an adequate capacity for the limited inflow. The extraction

and treatment will be closely monitored and evaluated by the designer, remediator, and regulatory

agencies. Additional capacities for extraction and/or treatment will be constructed as the monitoring

results and remediation objectives dictate. Details of the phased approach in the major components of

this remedial alternative are presented below:

3.1.1 Component 1: Design and Installation of Groundwater Extraction Well Network forInterception and Containment of >1.000 uq/L TCE Plume

This component would consist of designing and installing an extraction well network for intercepting and

eventually containing the valley plume prior to discharging into, or flowing beneath the West Branch

Perkiomen Creek. Groundwater extraction wells are to be installed along the corridors of Airport Road,

Dale Road, and Dairy Lane as shown on Figure FS-10-2 for accessibility and minimum impact to private

properties. Despite a portion of the 1,000 ug/L TCE plume extending beyond the intersection of Airport

Road and Dale Road, it is believed that the extraction well network will not only intercept the plume, but

also withdraw the contaminated groundwater within its influence.

For the first phase, the extraction well network will consist of 10 extraction wells with most of them in or

near the >1,000 ug/L TCE contamination groundwater plume. Half of the wells are assumed to be in the

open bedrock and half are screened in more weathered zones. These wells are designed to capture the

>1,000 ug/L TCE contamination groundwater plume and, to the lesser degree, the >100 ug/L plume

throughout the'impacted water-bearing zones. Currently, the hydrogeologic characteristics of the various

water-bearing zones suggest that the wells may yield an average flow of 100 gallons per minute (gpm).

Total yield of these extraction wells are 1,000 gpm, which is the design flow for the treatment components

in the initial phase of remedial action. Since most of the flow is obtained from the extraction wells

installed in or near the >1,000 ug/L TCE contamination groundwater plume, the level of contaminants for

this flow is assumed to be 1,500 ug/L, in terms of TCE.


703e\OMO\703eCU01-2.0WC 09/14/06 MKB

/•' VMS/; W-210 O

\\ TRASH DUMP

LEGEND:© REINJECTION WELL

A SURFACE DISCHARGE POINT

IXI GROUNDWATER TREATMENT PLANT

NOTES:

- 100TCEugA

•— 1,OOOTCEugA

$ WEST BAY MONITORING WELL

• EXTRACTION WELL - INITIAL V/A INFILTRATION GALLERY

O EXTRACTION WELL - AT FINAL

COMPOSITE TCE CONCENTRATIONS (SHALLOW- INTERMEDIATE-DEEP)BASED ON 2005 MW SAMPLING AND RESIDENTIAL SAMPLING.

REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE 10

EXTRACTION-TREATMENT-DISCHARGE SYSTEM LAYOUT PLAN

CROSSLEY FARM

HEREFORD TOWNSHIPBUCKS COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA

RLE7038GM01-2.DWG

FIGURE NUMBER

FIGURE FS-10-2

SCALE

AS NOTED

REV DATE

0 09/14/06

3-3

To assess the effectiveness of the initial phase of groundwater extraction, at least 3 multiple port

monitoring wells will be installed downgradient of the initial extraction wells. Based on the results

obtained from these monitoring wells and previous sampling events, determination will be made whether

the objectives of interception and containment are achieved, where additional extraction wells are

needed, and the number and depth of these additional wells would be required. The additional extraction

wells may be installed in one or more phases.

For design and costing purposes of this remedial alternative, a total of 25 extraction wells will ultimately

be required to be installed at a depth of 300 feet each along Airport Road, Dale Road, and Dairy Lane.

Total extracted groundwater is estimated to be 2,500 gpm. The extracted groundwater is expected to

have a TCE concentration of 1,000 ug/L. Equipment required for extraction and transfer would include

submersible groundwater extraction pumps in each well, well vault, pumping and control system, and

double-walled conveyance piping between wells and treatment plant. Alignment of the extraction wells,

transfer network, and location of the treatment plant are shown on Figure FS-10-2.

3.1.2 Component 2: On-Site Treatment System for VOC-Contaminated Groundwater

Based on a preliminary conceptual design for this FFS, this component would consist of an on-site

treatment plant to be constructed in the field south of the intersection of Airport Road and Dale Road.

Similar to the extraction well network, the treatment system is assumed to initially treat a flow of

1,000 gpm at 1,500 ug/L of TCE. Ultimately, the capacity of the treatment system may be increased to

treat a flow of 2,500 gpm at 1,000 ug/L of TCE. The treatment processes will consist of equalization,

primary filtration, air stripping with vapor-phase carbon adsorption, iron removal, secondary filtration, and

liquid-phase GAC adsorption. Process flow diagram for the treatment system is presented in Figure

FS-10-3. Whenever possible, modular treatment units and equipment will be installed for the design flow

in each phase only and more units will be added as design flow increases. Modular design of the

treatment system is illustrated on Figure FS-10-4.


01

N.

(s

MIXER

r--i_D j—r" 2 "i

* OK) t •EQUALIZATION

TANK(S)

GROUNDWATEREXTRACTIONWELLS

GROUNDWATEREXTRACTIONPUMPS

QHJ.

) SIGNIFIES THAT TlUNDER DESIGN C

P

-G-1EQUALIZATION

TRANSFERPUMP(S)

i

VAPOR-PHASE \/ \/GAC ADSORPTION yA. /\

UNITS / \ / \

i . ;

OFFGASAIR HEATER

/ *

_/ 1-

TOATMOSPHERE

EXHAUSTSTACK

1 — "Lr "-JEXHAUST

BLOWER(S) ^

ATMOSPHERE

Y

-FILTER

~"~1 '

2vT-HUH —1 1 1 1 1 1

L"-"J

L J V /•—] _

PUMP(S)

MIXER

H -

E_^PERMANGANATE H^S5B^

FEED SYSTEM

HE MULTIPLE UNITS ARE USEDONDITIONS (2,500 GPM) ONLY

'

w -1 2ND STAGE

AIR STRIPPERUNIT(S)

UQUGREENSAND AD

FILTERS

'"ft" ~<AIR STRIPPFR

BLOWER(S) , \ / ^r-CS^ ' ? Yp^ /\

• v — 1 .J "• .•Lr -f2ND STAGE 1 K f

AIR STRIPPER r' ~TRANSFERPIJUP(<;) — S

ATMOSPHERE

' WJBACKWASH

SLOWERBACKWASH

MIXER

DPRECOAT

FILTER PRESS ,

- T1y_LLi

LU-« 1 — v r*- *~i

Sj — ^^^

ID- PHASE30RPTIONUNITS

LT1

^ ^ ,

P• c~r S31 —

1 BACKWASH EFFLUENTFUMF HOLDINC

1 RLTErfpRESS B^™WA?f I FEEDPUMPfS) ^^

^ ••••1 DRAWN BY DATE ____IPi ^HJ MF 8/29/06 / ^

FILTER CAKE CHECKED BY DATE 1 •§•)TO DISPOSAL | "I*!

REVISED BY DATETetra Tech

scAi£ NUS, Inc.AS NOTED

PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAMALTERNATIVE 10

CROSSLEY FARM SITEHEREFORD TOWNSHIP

BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVAN

I "~ •**•SURFACEDISCHARGE

r J > — •> [/^J

i < INHLTRAT10NDISCHARGE GALLERYTRANSFERPUMP(S)

GROUNDWATERREINJECTIONWELLS

CONTRACT Ha7308

OWNER Na

APPROVED BY DATE

A DRAWING NO. 1 REV.FIGURE FS-10-31 0

FHRN CAM) m rnws-mnvn -

CO

GROUNDWATERREDUCTION/MF1LTRAT1QN/

SURFACE DISCHARGE

OROUNDWATEREXTRACTION

•ELLS INITIAL EXTRACTION WELLS/REM.ECT10N WELLS-INFILTRATION CALLERY-SURFACE DISCHARGE

DESIGN EXTRACTION WELLS/REMJECTION WELLS ADO-ONS-INFU.TRAT10N GALLERY-SURFACE DISCHARGE

SCALEAS NOTED

Tetra TechNUS, Inc.

MODULAR IMPLEMENTATION CONCEPT DIAGRAMREMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE 10

CROSSLEY FARM SITEHEREFORD TOWNSHIP

BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

CONTRACT NO.7308

APPROVED BY

DRAWING NO. I REV.

FIGURE FS-10-41 0I -KVI-wn/M

Due to concerns of space availability, the groundwater treatment system is assumed to be housed in a

10,000 ft2 pre-engineered and pre-fabricated building, from the initial phase through the final phase. The

extracted groundwater, expected to have a TCE concentration of 1,000 ug/L, would enter the treatment

system in the equalization tank, travel through the primary filtration unit, air stripper (with vapor- phase

GAG adsorption system), iron removal system, secondary filtration unit, liquid-phase GAC adsorption

system, and exit the treatment system to surface or subsurface discharge. The flow will be in an

enclosed system for the entire treatment train. Preliminary process design calculations and process flow

diagram (PFD) of the treatment system are provided in Appendix B. Details of the treatment system are

provided below:

EQUALIZATION: An Equalization Tank is provided to blend groundwater from various extraction wells.

The Equalization Tank is equipped with an Equalization Mixer and features a closed-top design to control

VOC emissions. The Equalization Tank is vented to the inlet of the air stripper blower system. The

Equalization Tank, a 12,500-gallon tank, is designed to provide 5 minutes detention for an average

design flow of 2,500 gpm. Because all tanks and equipment must be enclosed in a building with a

maximum height of approximately 15 feet, two (2) Equalization Tanks will be used to provide the required

volume. The initial phase system only uses one of these two tanks. The initial 1,000 gpm flow would be

pumped by one 40-HP centrifugal pump through the primary filtration unit to the air stripper. At final

2,500 gpm phase, three 40-HP centrifugal pump will be required.

PRIMARY FILTRATION: Bag type filter units are used to avoid liquid residual stream from backwashing.

Initial pore size selection is 15 microns. Primary filter units are sized for replacement of filter bag elements

approximately once a day. Assuming approximately 10 mg/L total suspended solids (TSS) in untreated

groundwater and 90% removal rate, TSS accumulation in the filter within one day is approximately 108 Ibs.

With a typical solids capture capacity of 1.0 Ibs dry TSS per ft2 of bag filter, it will require 2 parallel (one

standby) 110 ft2 multi-bag pressurized primary filter unit during the initial phase of 1,000 gpm flow. Under

the final phase design flow of 2,500 gpm, the primary filter unit will be tripled to 6 units in order to match the

corresponding increase in flow.

AIR STRIPPER (WITH VAPOR-PHASE GAC ADSORPTION): Equalized and pre-filtered groundwater will

be treated to remove TCE in a two stage air stripper system consisting of multiple shallow tray type Air

Stripper Units. For the initial phase, two (2) 12' L x 6' W x 11' H shallow tray type Air Stripper Units will be

used to operate in series. Air for the air stripping is to be first directed to the bottom of the 2nd Stage Air

Stripper Unit and then from the top of the 2nd Stage Air Stripper Unit to the bottom of the 1st Stage Air

Stripper Unit. Air Stripper Blower (3,500 cfm, 50 HP) is to be mounted on 2nd Stage Air Stripper Unit skid.

Treated groundwater will be first pumped from the bottom sump of the 1st Stage Air Stripper Unit to the top


of the 2nd Stage Air Stripper Unit and then from the bottom sump of the 2nd Stage Air Stripper Unit to the

Liquid-Phase GAC Adsorption Unit.

For the final design flow of 2,500 gpm, six (6) 12' L x 6' W x 11' H shallow tray type Air Stripper Units

operating as three (3) parallel trains of two (2) units in series will be used. Air stripping air for each train to

be first directed to the bottom of the 2nd Stage Air Stripper Unit and then from the top of the 2nd Stage Air

Stripper Unit to the bottom of the 1st Stage Air Stripper Unit. Air Stripper Blowers (3,500 cfm 50 HP) are to

be mounted on 2nd Stage Air Stripper Units skids. Treated groundwater for each train to be first pumped

from the bottom sump of the 1st Stage Air Stripper Unit to the top of the 2nd Stage Air Stripper Unit and then

from the bottom sump of the 2nd Stage Air Stripper Unit to the liquid-phase GAC adsorption unit. Pumps are

to be mounted on Air Stripper Units skids. Pump operation (start/stop) will be controlled by the liquid level in

the Air Stripper Units sump. Six (6) horizontal-centrifugal 1,000 gpm Air Stripper Transfer Pumps

(50 ft design TDH, 50 HP motor) are needed.

The offgas of the 1st Stage Air Stripper Units (that also includes the offgas of the 2nd Stage Air Stripper

Units) is treated in a,vapor-phase GAC adsorption system to remove TCE. The humidity of the offgas

needs to be reduced from 100% to approximately 50% by an electric air dryer to optimize the effectiveness

of the vapor-phase GAC adsorption process. Initial weight of TCE in offgas is estimated to be 24 Ibs

TCE/day and initial GAC consumption is calculated to be 144 Ibs GAC/day or 52,560 Ibs GAC/year. It

requires a system consisting of two (2) Vapor-Phase GAC Adsorption Units operating in series, each

holding 13,500 Ibs GAC. System to be designed such that either unit can be placed in the lead or lag

position. Initial frequency of carbon replacement is estimated about 4 times a year. Replacement frequency

is anticipated to decrease starting in year two For costing purposes, it is assumed that carbons in the GAC

units will be replaced a total of 20 times over 30 years of operation.

IRON REMOVAL: For iron removal, a solution of potassium permanganate (KMnO4) will be injected in the

bottom sump of 2nd Stage Air Stripper Units to chemically oxidize iron. A Permanganate Feed System will

be used, consisting of one (1) 500-gallon FRP dissolution/feed tank, one (1) rim-mounted propeller-type

1 HP mixer, and one (1) manually-adjustable diaphragm-type 30-150 gpd feed pump. Greensand filters will

then be used to remove oxidized iron. For the initial phase of operation, two (2) 10-foot diameter, 20 feet

long pressure Greensand Filters operating in parallel will be used. At final phase, the iron removal system

will consist of five (5) 10-foot diameter, 20 feet long pressure Greensand Filters operating in parallel. In

addition, the Greensand filters will be backwashed by a backwash system consisting of backwash pump,

blower, clean water holding tank, spent water holding tank, and mixer.

LIQUID-PHASE GAC ADSORPTION: Air stripped groundwater will be treated in a liquid-phase GAC

adsorption system to remove residual TCE prior to discharge. For the initial phase, the effluent polishing

liquid-phase GAC adsorption system is designed with two units operating in series and each unit sized to

UDOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/7308/20392 3-8

provide an empty bed contact time (EBCT) of 5 - 10 minutes. Required GAC capacity per unit for the

initial phase of operation is calculated to be approximately 32,080 Ibs GAC. It requires a system consisting

of two (2) Liquid-Phase GAC Adsorption Units operating in series, each holding 20,000 Ibs GAC. For the

final phase at 2,500 gpm flow, there are four (4) Liquid-Phase GAC Adsorption Units operating in parallel,

each holding 20,000 Ibs GAC. There will be no replacement needed of the lead Liquid-Phase GAC

Adsorption Unit over the operating life of the system. Adsorption units will need to be regularly backwashed

to remove GAC fines, minimize water channeling, and prevent cementing of the GAC bed. This is

accomplished by "bumping" the units with a counter-current of water that "fluffs up" the GAC bed. The

same backwash system used for the Greensand filter will also be used for the liquid-phase GAC adsorption

system.

To minimize the volume of dirty backwash water to be disposed, it is treated with a filter press to remove the

majority of the TSS from it and concentrate these TSS as a filter cake that is disposed offsite. The filtered

backwash water is recycled to the Equalization.

3.1.3 Component 3: Discharge of Treated Water via Reiniection Wells. Infiltration Gallery, or toWest Branch Perkiomen Creek

This component would consist of the monitored discharge of 1,000 gpm to 2,500 gpm of treated water to

subsurface via reinjection wells and/or infiltration gallery, or to the West Branch Perkiomen Creek. The

treated water may be discharged to the farmland via reinjection wells that are located sufficiently

downgradient from the extraction well field, or to south of the proposed treatment plant using infiltration

gallery. Alternatively, the treated water upon exiting the on-site treatment system would flow through a

buried single-wall pipeline from the plant to one or more nearby discharge point(s) in the creek. The

exact locations of discharge would be determined during the remedial design and would be based on

proximity to the treatment system, site access, stream configuration, and cost to implement. The PDI

would also include an impact analysis on the addition of the treated water to the West Branch Perkiomen

Creek. The surface and subsurface discharge mechanisms would likely be used together in order to

alleviate the potentially dewatering situations in overburden soils and aquifers downgradient of the

extraction well network. The treated water will be sampled on a periodic basis as it exits the treatment

system prior to discharge. For design and costing purposes of this component, approximately 1,000 gpm

of treated water is assumed to be discharged via reinjection wells, 500 gpm will be discharged by

infiltration gallery, and 1,000 gpm will be discharged directly to the West Branch Perkiomen Creek.

Cost estimates for the extraction, treatment and discharge system are presented in Appendix C.

L7DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/7308/20392 3-9

3.1.4 Component 4: Institutional Controls

The ROD for OU-2 (ROD, 2001) stated that groundwater extraction wells shall not be installed and

contaminated groundwater at the Crossley Farm Superfund Site shall not be used unless treatment units

are installed and maintained to ensure that any water used has contaminant levels at or below Safe

Drinking Water Act (SOWA) MCLs (40 CFR 141). Institutional controls are required to monitor the

groundwater and restrict the use of contaminated groundwater hydraulically downgradient of the Site

under OU-1. Private groundwater extraction wells shall not be installed and contaminated groundwater at

the Crossley Farm Superfund Site shall not be used unless treatment units are installed and maintained

to ensure that any water used has contaminant levels at or below MCLs. The Grossley Farm Superfund

Site includes, but is not limited to, the areas of Huff's Church Road, Dale Road, Forgedale Road, Dairy

Lane, Airport Road, and Camp Mench Mill Road. This control could be achieved with local government

restrictions on the use of groundwater.

3.1.5 Component 5: Long-Term Monitoring and Five-Year Reviews

The monitoring component would consist of the periodic collection and analysis of samples from on-site

and selected off-site well and surface water locations. Groundwater samples would be collected from

within the valley plume to assess progress of the remedial efforts, downgradient of the extraction well

network to evaluate contaminant migration, and from a number of the private well supplies to assess

groundwater quality at impacted residences. Surface water samples downgradient of the extraction well

network and treated water discharge point would also be collected to determine the effects of water

withdrawal and discharge on the West Branch Perkiomen Creek.

For design and costing purposes of this component, monitoring would be performed over a period of 30

years and would consist of collecting samples from 20 locations. The samples will be analyzed for VOCs

and inorganics. The sampling would be conducted on a semi-annual basis unless conditions changed

requiring either an increase or decrease in sampling frequency.

Data and statistical analysis reviews will be performed every fifth year, for a period of 30 years, to

evaluate site status, assess the continued adequacy of the remedial activities, and to determine whether

further action is necessary.

The monitoring component would also include well maintenance. In case of change of site ownership

during the course of the remedial activities, EPA and/or PADEP would meet with the new property owners

to ensure that monitoring, access restrictions, and easements would be able to continue.


For 5-year reviews, all monitoring data and statistical analysis will be reviewed every fifth year, over the

monitoring period, to evaluate site status, assess the continued adequacy of the remedial activities, and

to determine whether further action is necessary.

3.2 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE 11 - REMOVAL OF AN ON-SITE TRASH DUMP, OFF-SITEDISPOSAL

This remedial alternative has been developed to address the on-site trash dump as identified in the July

2001 Rl Report. The trash dump is suspected to be the source of minor levels of organic contaminants in

nearby residential wells. The intent of the remedial alternative is to perform a clean closure of the trash

dump. The following sections provide details of the remedial alternative components.

3.2.1 Component 1: Pre-Desiqn Investigations and Developing Removal Action Plans

A limited PDI, including survey, test pits, and sampling and analysis of underlying soil and groundwater,

would be conducted to provide needed information regarding the nature and extent of contamination for

the development of removal action plans. The investigation would include physical analysis of waste and

underlying soil at various locations and depths, and field survey for determination of perimeters and

thickness.

Results from the investigations will be used in developing removal action plans, including work plan,

health and safety plan, sampling and analysis plan, erosion and sedimentation plan, permits, and

specifications, as required. All engineering, permitting, and procurement activities will be performed

during this phase.

3.2.2 Component 2: Removal Action for Trash and Contaminated Soil underneath the Dump,and Dispose Off-Site As Non-Hazardous Waste

This component would consist of implementing a removal action for 5,000 cubic yards (i.e., 6,000 tons @

1.2 ton/cu. Yd.) trash, including contaminated soil underneath the dump, and disposing as non-hazardous

waste at a permitted landfill site. The removal and disposal will be performed in accordance with the

removal action plans and permits prepared in Component No. 1. For design and costing purposes, the

total quantity of 5,000 cubic yards of trash and contaminated soils are based on an average of 2 feet of

trash and 12 inches of contaminated soils over an area of 160 feet by 250 feet, as indicated in the 2001

Rl Report.


3.2.3 Component 3: Clean-Up Verification Testing and Restoration

This component will consist of a systematic approach to verify a complete removal of contamination by

testing the underlying soils in accordance with a verification test plan. Additional removal may be

required, depending upon the confirmation testing results. Upon completion of the removal and

verification testing, the site will undergo a restoration in accordance with an erosion and sedimentation

plan.

3.2.4 Component 4: Institutional Controls

As contamination may remain in groundwater beneath and downgradient of the trash dump for a limited

period, institutional controls to restrict the use of site groundwater may be necessary. This component

would consist of periodic monitoring of nearby monitoring wells and downgradient residential wells. The

monitoring should be performed, at a minimum, on a biennial basis (similar to the area-wide residential

well sampling and analysis). In addition, the residential wells that are affected by this trash dump will be

provided with treatment units until the groundwater quality has been restored. For costing purposes of

this component, it is assumed that two on-site monitoring wells will be monitored periodically.

3.2.5 Component 5: Limited-Term Monitoring. 5-Year Review, and Clean-Closure Determination

The monitoring component would consist of the annual sampling and analysis of groundwater samples

from on-site and selected off-site residential well locations. Data and statistical analysis will be reviewed

at the end of fifth year to assess the adequacy of the removal action, to evaluate the progress of

groundwater restoration, and to determine whether further action is necessary. For costing purposes of

this component, it is assumed that up to 5 years will be required to perform an adequate data acquisition

and review. If the review indicates the groundwater in and downgradient of trash dump has been

restored, a clean closure of the trash dump can then be determined. EPA and PADEP will be notified and

monitoring and treatment of residential wells will be discontinued.


4.0 DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

The remedial alternatives developed in Section 3 .0 are analyzed in accordance with the NCP and EPA

guidance. The evaluation criteria according to the NCP are as follows:

• Overall protection of human health and the environment

• Compliance with ARARs and TBCs

• Long-term effectiveness and permanence

• Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment

• Short-term effectiveness

• Implementability

• Cost

• State acceptance

• Community acceptance

Brief, general discussions of the evaluation criteria are presented in the following text. Detailed analyses

of the remedial alternatives using seven of the evaluation criteria are presented in this section.

4.1 CRITERIA FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS

Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

Alternatives must be assessed for adequate protection of human health and the environment. Overall

protection draws on the assessments of other evaluation criteria, especially long-term effectiveness and

permanence, short-term effectiveness, and compliance with ARARs. The evaluation focuses on whether

a specific alternative achieves adequate protection, how risks are eliminated, reduced, or controlled, and

whether remedial action objectives would be achieved.

Compliance with ARARs AND TBCs

Alternatives must be assessed to determine whether they attain applicable and appropriate requirements

under Federal and state environmental laws or facility siting laws. If one or more regulations that are

applicable cannot be complied with, then a waiver must be invoked.

For the purpose of this FFS, the ARARs are not evaluated because these alternatives are interim

measures. EPA, in consultation with PADEP, determines which specific ARAR/TBC requirements are

applicable.


Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence

Alternatives must be assessed for the long-term effectiveness and permanence they offer, along with the

degree of certainty that the alternative will prove successful. Factors that shall be considered as

appropriate are:

• Magnitude of Residual Risk - Assesses the risk posed by untreated waste or treatment residuals at

the conclusion of the remedial activities. The characteristics of residuals should be considered to the

degree that they remain hazardous, taking into account their volume, toxicity, mobility, and propensity

to bioaccumulate.

• Adequacy and Reliability of Controls - Assesses controls such as containment systems and

institutional controls that are necessary to manage treatment residuals or remaining untreated wastes

and their reliability. In particular, the uncertainties associated with land disposal for providing long-

term protection from residuals; the assessment for the potential need to replace technical

components of the alternative; and the potential exposure pathways and risks posed should the

remedial action need replacement.

Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment

The degree to which the alternative employs recycling or treatment that reduces the toxicity, mobility, or

volume shall be assessed, including how treatment is used to address the principal threats posed by the

site. Factors that shall be considered, as appropriate, include the following:

• The treatment processes that the alternative employs, the media they would treat, and threats

addressed.

• The amount of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants that will be destroyed, treated, or

recycled.

• The degree of expected reduction in toxicity, mobility, or volume as a result of treatment.

• The degree to which the treatment is irreversible.

• The type and quantity of residuals that would remain following treatment, considering the persistence,

toxicity, mobility, and bioaccumulation capacity of the contaminants of concern and impacted media.


• The degree to which treatment reduces the inherent hazards posed by principal threats at the site.

Snort-Term Effectiveness

The assessment of short-term effectiveness during construction or implementation until the RAOs are met

includes consideration of the following factors:

• Short-term risks that might be posed to the community during implementation.

• Potential impacts to, and protection of, the workers during remedial actions.

• Potential environmental impacts of the remedial action and the effectiveness and reliability of

mitigative measures during implementation.

• Time until the RAOs are achieved.

Implementability

The ease or difficulty of implementing the alternatives shall be assessed by considering the following

types of factors, as appropriate:

• Technical feasibility, including technical difficulties and unknowns associated with the construction

and operation of a technology, the reliability of the technology, ease of undertaking additional

remedial actions, and the ability to monitor the effectiveness of the remedy.

• Administrative feasibility, including activities needed to coordinate with other offices and agencies,

and the ability and time required obtaining any necessary approvals and permits from other agencies

(for off-site actions).

• Availability of services and materials, including the availability of adequate off-site treatment, storage

capacity, and disposal capacity and services, the availability of necessary equipment and specialists,

and provisions to ensure any necessary additional resources; the availability of services and

materials; and availability of prospective technologies.


Cost

A detailed cost analysis is performed for each alternative to assess the net present-worth cost to

implement the remedial action. The analysis includes an estimation of capital costs (direct and indirect),

annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, and the net present value of the capital and O&M costs.

Typically, the cost estimate accuracy range is plus 50 percent to minus 30 percent.

State Acceptance

PADEP has been providing input during the Rl phase and will continue during the FFS and public

comment period. The state's concerns that must be assessed include the following:

• The state's position and key concerns related to the preferred alternative and other alternatives.

• State comments on ARARs or the proposed use of waivers.

These concerns cannot be evaluated at this time in the FFS until EPA issues the proposed plan and the

state has reviewed and commented on the RI/FS. State concerns may be discussed, to the extent

possible, in the proposed plan to be issued for public comment.

Community Acceptance

This criterion refers to the community's comments on the remedial alternatives under consideration.

Community concerns will be addressed after the public comment period, which follows the release of the

RI/FS report and the proposed plan. As a result, this FFS does not provide any discussion regarding the

community acceptance of any of the remedial alternatives.

4.2 DETAILED ANALYSIS FOR REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE 10

The implementation of Remedial Alternative 10 will result in the extraction of contaminated groundwater

located downgradient of the site, by extraction wells at and near the geologic fault(s), prior to the

groundwater discharging into or beneath the West Branch Perkiomen Creek. The collected groundwater

will then be treated in an on-site treatment plant prior to discharging into subsurface formations via

reinjection wells and/or infiltration gallery, or into surface water body, i.e., the West Branch of Perkiomen

Creek.



The implementation of this alternative would result in limited protection to human health and

environmental receptors located downgradient of the proposed implementation area as the groundwater

with >1,000 u.g/L of TCE would be collected and treated. Upgradient of the location for Remedial

Alternative 10, human health and environmental receptors will not be fully protected as the alternative

would be implemented in the valley plume and would have limited impact concentrations of hazardous

constituents in site groundwater, soil, surface water, or sediment located upgradient of the area of

influence of the proposed remedial scheme. However, the implementation of institutional controls at the

site will provide additional protection if restrictions on the use of groundwater are enforced by the point-of-

entry treatment systems and/or institutional controls.

Long-term monitoring of groundwater would make it possible to evaluate site conditions and risks

regularly. In addition, 5-year reviews would need to be conducted.

Compliance with ARARs and TBCs

Remedial Alternative 10 is an interim measure for the groundwater contaminated with >1,000 ug/L of

TCE. As not all contaminated groundwater at the site would be subject to active treatment under

Remedial Alternative 10, ARARs and TBCs would not be fully complied with at the site. As a result, a Tl

waiver for remediation of groundwater at the site by Remedial Alternative 10 may be required.


Remedial Alternative 10 is expected to remediate site groundwaler over time. It will provide long-term

protection of human health and the environment and would result in a permanent reduction in health risks

within and downgradient of the area of application. Protection of human health would be dependent on

restrictions on the use of groundwater and by the point-of-entry treatment systems and/or institutional

controls. In presence of adequate enforcement, the current and future threats to human health from the

contaminated groundwater would be eliminated. Remaining contamination would be naturally attenuated

over time.

Long-term monitoring of groundwater will provide information regarding the effectiveness of the

groundwater containment and treatment system and the concentration and extent of the upgradient

dissolve and residual groundwater plumes. Monitoring will also provide information on a regular basis if

natural attenuation or degradation of the plumes is occurring and to what extent.


Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility or Volume through Treatment

The implementation of Remedial Alternative 10 will result in a reduction of toxicity, mobility and volume of

the valley plume. The selected extraction and treatment processes will remove groundwater

contaminants represented by >1,000 ug/L of TCE, and the resulting waste stream (i.e., vapor- and liquid-

phase activated carbon) would be treated or regenerated at an approved RCRA facility.

Short-Term Effectiveness

The implementation of Remedial Alternative 10 will provide almost immediate reduction of contamination.

This alternative is not expected to pose any significant risks to remediation workers or the community.

During construction, operation and routine maintenance of the groundwater collection and treatment

facilities, workers would have to comply with a site-specific HASP, applicable OSHA requirements, and

wear appropriate PPE. During construction and routine maintenance activities there would be a slight

increase in traffic in order to provide construction and maintenance materials.

Implementability

Remedial Alternative 10 should be readily implementable, though access and land use agreements will

need to be obtained from owners impacted by the construction and operation of the groundwater

collection and treatment system. The extraction wells are to be installed within the right-of-way of public

roads. A number of vendors are available for installation of the pumping wells, piping, and treatment

systems. Air stripping, iron removal, and carbon adsorption are technologies which have been widely

used for groundwater treatment for a number of years on similarly contaminated sites.

Compliance with several regulatory requirements may be required if Remedial Alternative 10 is

implemented. The DRBC may require approval for the withdrawal of the groundwater due to the amount

needed to be pumped (i.e., in excess of 10,000 gpd). To allow for the discharge of the treated water to

the West Branch Perkiomen Creek, state discharge requirements must be met. The transport and

disposal of any spent carbon will be subject to RCRA regulations, including manifesting.

Long-term monitoring (sampling and analysis) requires readily available personnel and equipment.

Regulatory personnel and environmental specialists are available to conduct five-year reviews that will be

required as contaminants will remain at the site.


Cost

The cost estimates associated with implementation of Remedial Alternative 10 are summarized in Table

4-1 below:

TABLE 4-1

Cost Estimates for Remedial Alternative 10

Capital Costs:

Annual O&M Costs Years 1 & 2

Years 3 & 4

Year 5

(Years 6, 8, 10, 13, 16, 19,

22, 25, 28,and 30)

(Years 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15,

17,18,20,21,23,24,26,

27, 29 and 30)

Present Worth for Capital and 30-yr O&M costs

Phase 11 ,000 gpm

$10,147,728

$836,437

$791 ,387

$750,887

$748,612

$708,112

$19,464,248

Phase 2 or At Final2,500 gpm

$17,375,865

$1 ,351 ,400

$1,301,100

$1 ,260,600

$1 ,255,700

$1,215,200

$33,005,093

The thirty-year net present worth was calculated based on a 7 percent discount rate. Costs for long-term

monitoring and five-year reviews are included in the annual O&M costs above.

The detailed cost estimate associated with implementation of Remedial Alternative 10 is presented in

Appendix C.

4.3 DETAILED ANALYSIS FOR REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE 11

Remedial Alternative 11 involves removal and disposal of .an on-site trash pile. It is not anticipated to

require any groundwater treatment at this time. A limited scope PDI will be conducted to determine the

extent of the removalarea and to prepare removal action plan and other supporting documents. The

removal action will be ;yerif ied in accordance with Verification 'sampling plan. Also, institutional controls,

monitoring, and 5-year riview will be performed to ensure a clean closure is achieved. This alternative is

analyzed in detail below:



Because of the removal action, direct contact with the contaminated material by the public is eliminated.

Remedial Alternative 11 would provide protection of human health and the environment to the limits of

site groundwater that is emanated from or through the area underneath the trash dump. Additional

sampling and analysis of groundwater would be conducted prior to the removal action to provide

information regarding the extent and distribution of contaminants. Once the source is confirmed and

removed, groundwater quality will be restored over time. As restrictions and requirements for any current

and future use of on-site groundwater would be in place until the groundwater quality is restored, human

health and the environment are protected.

Compliance with ARARs and TBCs

Remedial Alternative 11 is a removal action that addresses soil and groundwater contamination within a

specific area. As not all contaminated groundwater at the site would be subject to active treatment under

Remedial Alternative 11, ARARs and TBCs would not be fully complied with at the site. Certain location-

and action-specific ARARs and TBCs will be complied, however.


Once the source of contamination is removed, Remedial Alternative 11 would provide long-term

effectiveness and permanence to the known contaminants emanating from the trash dump. If other

sources of contamination exist, the contamination will be detected by the post-removal sampling and

further actions may be taken. Five-year reviews would assess whether human health risks are increasing

or abated with time due to changes in the conditions at the site.

No difficulties or uncertainties are anticipated in performing the removal action or long-term monitoring.

Groundwater monitoring wells are easily maintained and replaced if necessary.

Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment

The implementation of Remedial Alternative 11 would result in the reduction of toxicity, mobility, and

volume through removal of contamination source. However, contaminants in the groundwater will not be

reduced until natural attenuation is taking effect.


Short-Term Effectiveness

Remedial Alternative 11 would provide significant short-term effectiveness to the soil and groundwater

concerns. There would be no adverse impact on the surrounding community or the environment due to

implementation.

Implementability

Remedial Alternative 11 is easily implementable as equipment and personnel to carry out the removal

and sampling activities are readily available. Regulatory personnel and environmental specialists are

also readily available to perform five-year reviews.

Cost

The costs associated with implementation of Remedial Alternative 11 would be mostly for the removal

action. The capital costs for Remedial Alternative 11, excluding limited-term monitoring, 5-year review,

and clean-closure determination, are estimated to be $1,758,390. A detailed cost estimate is provided in

Appendix D.

The average annual costs for the limited-term monitoring under Remedial Alternative 11 are estimated to

be $12,000. The estimated costs for a 5-year review event and c:lean-closure determination are $5,000

and $3,000, respectively. However, the limited-term monitoring, 5-year review, and clean-closure

determination are expected to be performed in conjunction with other remedial actions (for instance,

Remedial Alternative 10) and their costs are not included under Remedial Alternative 11.

The cost estimates associated with implementation of Remedial Alternative 11 are summarized in Table

4-2 below:

Table 4-2

Cost Estimates for Remedial Alternative 11

• Capital Costs: (Pre-Removal, Removal,Disposal, and Verification

• Coast for Post-Removal Activities

Limited-Term Monitoring

5- Year Review

Clean-Closure Determination

• Present Worth for Capital and Post-RemovalCosts

$1,758,390

Included under other remedial alternative




$1 ,758,390


REFERENCES

EPA, 1988. The Interim Final Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studiesunder CERCLA. October

EPA, 2001. Record of Decision, for the Crossley Farm Superfund Site, Hereford and WashingtonTownship, Berks County, Pennsylvania, EPA ID3 PAD981740061. September

TtNUS, 2001. Feasibility Study for Crossley Farm Site, Hereford Township, Berks County, Pennsylvania.July

TtNUS, 2001 a. Remedial Investigation for Crossley Farm Site, Hereford Township, Berks County,Pennsylvania. July

TtNUS, 2003. Groundwater Pilot Test, Crossley Farm Site, Hereford Township, Berks County,Pennsylvania. September.

TtNUS, 2004. Groundwater Remedial Action Design, Basis ot Design Report, Crossley Farm Site,Hereford Township, Berks County, Pennsylvania. May.

TtNUS, 2005. Pre-Design Investigation Report, Crossley Farm Site, Hereford Township, Berks County,Pennsylvania. April.

L7DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/7308/20392 R-1

DATA SUMMARY OF POSITIVE ANALYTICAL RESULTSCROSSLEY FARM SITE-WIDE MONITORING WELLS NOVEMBER 2005 - FEBRUARY 2006

CROSSLEY FARM SITE, HEREFORD TOWNSHIP, BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

Sample ID:Sample Date:Duplicate:

TOTAL INORGANICSAluminumAntimonyArsenicBariumBerylliumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseMercuryNickelPotassiumSeleniumSilverSodiumThalliumVanadiumZinc

DISSOLVED INORGANICSAluminumAntimonyArsenicBariumBerylliumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseMercuryNickelPotassiumSeleniumSilverSodiumThalliumVanadiumZinc

PESTICIDES/PCBS4,4'-DDTDieldrin

EW-1-4001/17/06

NANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANA


NANA

EW-1-5501/17/06



NANA

EW-1-10001/17/06

EW-1-100-DUP

ug/L

103

42300.522.7

31.8

1330582

1.73640

10700

ug/L

102

0.384070

2.33.1

948

1320572

1.93560

0.710700

0.35

ug/L

J.

JBB

b

J

BJ

J

BJJB

J

BJ

J

B

EW-1-100-DUP01/17/06

EW-1-100

ug/L

105

0.234270

23

1380

1340594

1.93720

10900

ug/L

101

0.4540700.882.6

1320567

1.53540

2.60.63

10700

ug/L

J

BJBB

J

BJ

J

BJJB

J

BJBJ

.EW-1-15001/17/06



NANA

EW-1G01/17/06



NANA

HN01D-0312/15/05

ug/L41.9

l_ 22.90.46

4240

1.1

1640

3.33900

5890

30.9

ug/L40

22.90.4

4280

1.8

16407.8

2.83770

5780

51.1

ug/L

B

JB

J

J

J

BJ

B

B

JB

J

J

JJ

JJ

J

HN01E-0312/15/05

ug/L35.9

31.40.47

85201.1

1.4

3080

2.62120

8150

48.2

ug/L37

31.20.46

8540

1.5

3060

2.62170

8160

36.6

ug/L

B

JB

J

B

J

BJ

B

B

JB

J

J

JJ

J

HN01F-0312/16/05

NANANANANANANA.NANA

. NANANANANANANANANANANANANANA


ug/L

HN06D-0312/29/05

HN06D-03-DUP

ug/L

27.7

284001.51.8

57.4

167005.3

1120

4140

ug/L43.1

27.60.450.3

280000.680.83

165001.3

0.91110

3960

0.64

L_ "9"-

J

JJ

B

J

J

J

B

JBB

JB

B

JJ

J

B

HN06D-03-DUP12/29/05

HN06D-03

ug/L

27.6

282001.82.2

34

166004.9

0.641120

4150

0.41

ug/L

26.90.14

272000.65

2

161003.3

0.731090

3890

0.37

ug/L

J

JB

B

J

BJ

J

B

JB

JH

B

JJ

J

B

HN07D-0312/08/05

HN07D-03-DUP

. ug/L70.6

22.90.36

35900

1.6

20100

1.71990

5430

ug/L41.1

22.80.46

33900

19500

1.21950

5340

ug/L

B

JB

J

JJ

B

JB

JJ

DATA_SUM_CRGW_2006.xls 1 0(20




SEMIVOLATILESBis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalateBulylbenzylphlhalateCaprolaclamDi-n-butylphthalateDiethylphthalateIsophoroneNaphthalenePhenolPyreneTris(2-chloroethyl)phosphateTris(2-ethylhexyl)phosphale

VOLATILES1 ,1 ,1-Trichloroethane1,1,2-Trichloroethane1,1-Dichloroethane1,1-Dichloroethene1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene1 ,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane1 ,2-Dichloroethane1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis)1 ,2-Dichloroethene (trans)2-Butanone4-Methyl-2-pentanoneAcetoneBenzeneBromodichloromethaneCarbon DisulfideCarbon TetrachlorideChlorobenzeneChloroformDibromochloromethaneEthylbenzeneIsopropylbenzeneMethylene ChlorideStyreneTetrachloroetheneTolueneTrichloroetheneTrichlorofluoromethaneVinyl ChlorideXylene (Total)

EW-1-4001/17/06

. ug/L

290

ug/L

10

372

623

6

21003

15000120

10

R

J

JJJ

B

J

J

EW-1-5501/17/06

ug/L

ug/L

10

34

7

4

26002

2100096

5

R

J

B

,l

J

,l

EW-1-10001/17/06

EW-1-100-DUP

ug/L

310

ug/L

2

10

382

933

2

5

15008

14000150

13

J

R

J

JJJ

J

B

,1

J

EW-1-100-DUP01/17/06

EW-1-100

ug/L

350

ug/L

2

10

342

933

15

15007

15000110

11

J

R

J

JJJ

B

J

EW-1-15001/17/06

ug/L

300

ug/L

10

677

386

10

6

14

300024

44000280

46

R

JJ

JJJ

J

B

J

J

J

EW-1G01/17/06

NANANANANANANANANANANA

ug/L

10

31

3

13

1400

1500043

R

J

B

J

HN01D-0312/15/05

ug/L

4NA

ug/L

3

10

162

2

5

4

470

14000130

J

J

R

J

J

J

B

J

HN01E-0312/15/05

ug/L

81NA

ug/L

4

10

193

2

6

13

680

16000120

J

J

R

J

J

J

J

HN01F-0312/16/05


ug/L

224

12

124

7

1500

40000240

JJ

J

BJ

B

HN06D-0312/29/05

HN06D-03-DUP

ug/L

180

ug/L

3

0.8

4

17

5607

J

J

B

B

J

HN06D-03-DUP12/29/05

HN06D-03

ug/L

ug/L

3

4

17

6006

J

B

B

J

HN07D-0312/08/05

HN07D-03-DUP

ug/L

ug/L

2

3

1902

B

J

J

DATA IGW 2006.xls






PEST1CIDES/PCBS4,4'-DDTDieldrin

HN07D-03-DUP12/08/05

HN07D-03

ug/L67.5

230.28

359000.89

1.9

20000

1.71980

5470

ug/L39.8

23.20.44

34700

20000

1.41930

5360

ug/L

B

Jti

JJ

JJ

B

JB

JJ

HN08R-0311/22/05

HN08R-03-DUP

ug/L35.4

14.4

266001.3

0.67

793

1500026.4

1.61330

2590

0.346

ug/L

259000.48

14700

1.1

2510

5.8

ug/L

B

J

BB

BJ

J

BB

J

J

J

J

HN08R-03-DUP11/22/05

HN08R-03

ug/L165

17.7

274002

2:1

0.83260

1540062.9

3.11400

2580

1.28.1

ug/L

254000.99

14500

1.5

2540

0.344.9

ug/L

B

J

BBJ

BJ

J

BB

J

J

J

JJ

HN08S-0311/22/05

ug/L326

10.3

2260063

704

1390037.5

5.91700

2990

0.737

ug/L

213001.22.6

12900

6.7

2930

0.424.7

ug/L

J

JB

JJ

J

BB

JJ

J

J

JJ

HN09D-0301/20/06

ug/L1100

25.3

0.7134500

3.71

5.112200

600140

7.425600

1.8

26700

5.924

ug/L347

10.9

31800

0.7

1971.6

1.425300

26400

3.3

ug/L

J

B

BBJ

J

JJB

JJ

J

B

JB

JJ

J

HN09I-0311/16/05

ug/L56.2

4.8

245000.940.53

1260019.7

3.81850

5440

8

ug/L

243000.4

12100

4.31950

5490

13.3

ug/L

B

J

JJ

BJ

B

J

JJ

J

HN09S-0311/16/05

ug/L402

8.7

437008.71.2

1284

686011.4

9.52810

10200

4.613.4

ug/L

429005.51.7

7200

8.42980

10500

3.915.5

ug/L

J

JJJ

J

JJ

JB

JJ

JJ

JJ

HN10D-0301/06/06

ug/L102

44.4

0.2325100

1.41.6

53.3

25004

0.7223000

21600

1.1

ug7L35.6

43.3

23900

22301.7

0.6822100

20800

0.59

ug/L

B

J

B

BB

B

JJ

JJ

B

J

J

JJ

JJ

J

HN10I1-0301/06/06

ug/L

29.4

106000.670.63

29.4

39901.7

0.961570

5540

0.39

ug/L

29.9

109000.61

40501.4

0.941610

5630

ug/L

J

BB

B

JB

JJ

B

J

B

JJ

JJ

HN10I2-0301/09/06

ug/L380

18.41.1

0.2327900

0.911.4

4784.9

482077

1.42020

0.686600

0.6813.3

ug/L66

8.7

23400

41

40408.8

0.571680

0.496130

ug/L

J

J,1B

BJ

,1J

JJ

J

BJ

B

J

B

JJ

BJ

J

HN10S-0301/09/06

HN10S-03-DUP

ug/L5790

891.5

1220071

5.89480

662070.7

5.53200

3.31

5240

9.248.8

ug/L101

41.20.79

12100

44402.2

17203.31.2

5420

ug/L

J

JB

JJB

JJJB

JJ

B

JB

JB

JBB

DATA_SUM_CRGW_2006.xls 3 of 20




SEMIVOLATILESBis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalateButylbenzylphthalateCaprolactamDi-n-butylphthalateDiethylphthalatsIsophoroneNaphthalenePhenolPyreneTris(2-chloroethyl)phosphateTris(2-ethylhexyl)phosphate

VOLATILES1 ,1 ,1 -Trichloroethane1 ,1 ,2-Trichloroethane1,1-Dichloroethane1,1-Dichloroethene1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene1 ,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane1 ,2-Dichloroethane1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis)1 ,2-Dichloroethene (trans)2-Butanone4-Methyl-2-pentanoneAcetoneBenzeneBromodichloromethaneCarbon DisulfideCarbon TetrachlorideChlorobenzeneChloroformDibromochloromethaneEthylbenzeneIsopropylbenzeneMethylene ChlorideStyreneTetrachloroetheneTolueneTrichloroetheneTrichlorofluoromethaneVinyl ChlorideXylene (Total)

HN07D-03-DUP12/08/05

HN07D-03

ug/L

ug/L

2

2

1702

B

J

,1

HN08R-0311/22/05

HN08R-03-DUP

ug/L

NA

ug/L

10

1

24

4

4

3003

R

J

B

B

J

J

HN08R-03-DUP11/22/05

HN08R-03

ug/L

NA

ug/L

1

8

2

5

4001

J

J

B

J

J

HN08S-0311/22/05

ug/L

NA

ug/L

10

2

3

1901

R

B

J

J

HN09D-0301/20/06

ug/L

8

ug/L

10

11

J

R

B

HN09I-0311/16/05

ug/L

10NA

ug/L

9

3

B

B

HN09S-0311/16/05

ug/L

10NA

ug/L

3

1

B

B

HN10D-0301/06/06

ug/L

ug/L

10

2

3

270

B

J

HN10I1-0301/06/06

ug/L

11

ug/L

2

0.8

1

39

270023

J

J

U

HN10I2-0301/09/06

ug/L

42

ug/L

3

47

4

3

13

150

15000110

J

LJ

B

B

L

LL

HN10S-0301/09/06

HN10S-03-DUP

ug/L

4

ug/L

4

13

10

7507

J

B

B

L

LJ

DATA. lGW_2006.xls


CROSSLEY FARM SITE. HEREFORD TOWNSHIP, BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA





HN10S-03-DUP01/09/06

HN10S-03

ug/L600

64.1

0.1812500

1.60.84

966

469040

2.21750

0.635810

1.614.7

ug/L

41.70.18

120001.1

43801.7

1.81700

5870

ug/L

J

J

B

BJ

J

JJ

J

BJ

JB

B

JJ

BJ

HN11D-0312/19/05



NANA

HN11E-0312/19/05



NANA

HN11F-0312/19/05

NANANANANANANANANANA

,NANANANANANANANANANANANANA


NANA

HN11G-0312/19/05



NANA

HN11H-0312/19/05



NANA

HN1 11-0312/14/05

ug/L215

1320.59

52205.6

305

1820

5.51330

3550

ug/L39.4

1110.38

4700

1640

3.61290

3510

ug/L

B

JB

J

J

BJ

J

B

JB

J

J

JJ

J

HN11J-0312/19/05



NANA

HN11S-0312/14/05

ug/L99.9

97.80.47

374010

1.3124

193012.1

11.61130

2330

ug/L40

95.10.39

37901.9

194013.5

10.21160

2460

ug/L0.077

B

JB

J

B

JJ

BJ

J

B

JB

JJ

JJ

JJ

J

J

HN12D-0312/15/05

ug/L297

76.10.45

218003.3

1.4213

9830

2.511000

7680

0.96

ug/L40.7

74.20.42

20400

1210

1.113400

8690

0.86

ug/L

B

JB

J

B

B

J

B

JB

J

J

J

HN1 21-0312/15/05

ug/L39.5

0.49

105001.1

2690

1.11060

3830

ug/L34.3

1.50.41

111001

2780

2.61160

4120

ug/L

B

B

J

J

BJ

J

B

BB

J

J

JJ

J

HN12S-0312/15/05

ug/L266

30.60.48

63702.5

462

179012.3

2.41560

4150

ug/L50

26.60.48

64800.97

1730

1.41520

4250

ug/L

J

JB

J

JJ

BJ

J

B

JB

J

J

JJ

J

HN13D-0312/07/05

ug/L20.3

26.3

38500

22700

0.781170

2570

ug/L37

280.46

38900

23400

0.561220

2590

ug/L

B

J

JJ

J

B

JB

JJ

J





SEMIVOLAT1LESBis(2-ethylhexyl)phlhalateButylbenzylphthalateCaprolactamDi-n-butyjphthalateDiethylphthalateIsophoroneNaphthalenePhenolPyreneTris(2-chloroethyl)phosphateTris(2-ethylhexyl)phosphate

VOLATILES1,1,1-Trichloroethane1 ,1 ,2-Trichloroethane1,1-Dichloroethane1,1-Dichloroethene1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene1 ,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane1 ,2-Dichloroethane1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis)1 ,2-Dichloroelhene (trans)2-Butanone4-Methyl-2-pentanoneAcetoneBenzeneBromodichloronnethaneCarbon DisulfideCarbon TetrachlorideChlorobenzeneChloroformDibromochloromethaneEthylbenzeneIsopropylbenzeneMethylene ChlorideStyreneTetrachloroetheneTolueneTrichloroetheneTrichlorofluoromethaneVinyl ChlorideXylene (Total)

HN10S-03-DUP01/09/06

HN10S-03

ug/L

4

ug/L

1

2

3

14

7708

J

J

B

B

L

LJ

HN11D-0312/19/05

ug/L

ug/L

0.9

1

6

3602

J

B

J

LJ

HN11E-0312/19/05

ug/L

ug/L

0.8

0.9

400

J

B

L

HN11F-0312/19/05

ug/L

ug/L

7

3002

J

LJ

HN11G-0312/19/05

ug/L

ug/L

1

0.5

1

7

3902

J

B

B

J

LJ

HN1 1 H-0312/19/05

ug/L

ug/L

1

6

3202

B

J

LJ

HN1 11-0312/14/05

ug/L

ug/L

9

2

46

B

J

HN11J-0312/19/05

ug/L

ug/L

2

171

1

58

460044

J

LJ

B

L

LL

HN11S-0312/14/05

ug/L

ug/L

11

0.8

21

B

J

HN12D-0312/15/05

ug/L

2NA

ug/L

1

150.9

3

2

7

68

290017

J

J

J

B

J

B

J

HN12I-0312/15/05

ug/L

NA

ug/L

1

1

1

26

B

J

HN12S-0312/15/05

ug/L

NA

ug/L

13

HN13D-0312/07/05

ug/L

ug/L

10 R

5 B

DATA_SI W 2006.xls







HN1 31-0312/07/05

ug/L62.6

2.842.80.260.91

44900

24200

2.68950

16700

1.5

ug/L52

4.343.70.46

43500

23700

1.59250

17900

1.6

ug/L

B

JJBB

J

B

B

JJB

J

J

HN13S-0312/07/05

ug/L321

. 30.80.29

65600

1.22.4641

34900192

9.6955

4500

1.2

ug/L47.4

24.20.53

63500

34300

2.4884

4440

ug/L

B

JB

JJ

JJ

J

B

B

JB

JJ

J

HN14D-0301/11/06

ug/L

0.78

187000.54

13800

3190

2820

0.36

ug/L

0.73

190000.58

14100

3260

2750

0.37

ug/L

B

J

J

J

B

B

B

J

J

B

HN14I-0312/05/05

ug/L65.8

8

65507.7

185

425029

9.13430

ug/L32.2

5.60.4

6630

4420

5.53600

ug/L

B

J

J

B

J

JJ

B

JB

J

JJ

HN14S-0312/05/05

ug/L213

14.50.26

20803.4

326

169018.7

8.13730

968

ug/L60.8

11.50.44

1790

1450

5.43550

832

ug/L

B

JB

JJ

J

JJ

J

B

JB

J

J

JJ

J

HN15D-0312/29/05

ug/L746

2350.423.4

3840018.62.6

26303

9910516

189930

36000

2.9141

ug/L226

1910.340.67

314005.61.2

521

99851

0.145.6

9620

34500

1.417.9

ug/L

BJ

J

J

JJ

J

B

JBB

JB

J

JJJ

BJ

HN15I-0312/29/05

ug/L156

132. 0.21

0.381780

127.3

335

. 94827.4

17.82340

2870

0.78

ug/L

81.80.180.191290

2.34.3

42

71318.1

102260

2680

0.3

ug/L

J

JBBJ

J

J

JJ

J

B

JBBJJJ

B

J

JJ

J

B

HN15S-0301/04/06

ug/L

52.7

3560' 1.70.54

30.9

29807.6

21490

2330

ug/L

51.40.16

33400.44

28506.9

1.61420

2120

ug/L

J

JJB

B

JJ

BJ

J

JB

JJ

JJ

JJ

J

HN1 60-0312/06/05

ug/L29.4

28.50.28

227001.6

79.7

12900

2.91250

2510

ug/L33.1

29.70.38

23400

13400

1.61320

2540

ug/L

B

JB

J

B

JJ

J

B

JB

JJ

J

HN16I-0312/06/05

ug/L518

70.50.32

254002.9

1.41090

1390035.1

2.61550

27106.61.6

ug/L30.4

1.8

55.10.34

23900

13400

1.9,_ 1450

2820

ug/L

JB

J

J

JJ

JJJ

BB

JB

JJ

J

HN16S-0312/06/05

ug/L52.5

48.7

18600

2.2

53.1

7230

0.94750

17300

ug/L51.1

54.80.54

18700

3.2

7490

2.5801

17500

ug/L

B

J

J

B

JJ

B

JB

J

JJ

HN17D-0311/21/05

ug/L2440

4.2

34.60.17

250002.72.33.7

1820002.2

3320938

7.72460

9260

5.6223

ug/L

22000

1

21.3

2.31340

8360

0.3419.2

NANA

,l

JB

BBJ

JJ

JJ

J

J

JJ

JJ

HN17E-0311/21/05

ug/L354

12.2

215001.8

848

266015.9

3.1536

9200

477

ug/L

21900

1.7

9410

12.6

ug/L

J

B

J

BJ

J

J





SEMIVOLATILESBis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalateButylbenzylphthalateCaprolactamDi-n-butylphthalateDiethylphthalateIsophoroneNaphthalenePhenolPyreneTris(2-chloroethyl)phosphateTris(2-ethylhexyl)phosphate

VOLAT1LES,1,1-Trichloroethane.1 ,2-Trichloroethane,1-Dichloroethane,1-Dichloroethene,2,4-Trichlorobenzene,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane

1 ,2-Dichloroethane1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis)1 ,2-Dichloroethene (trans)2-Butanone4-Methyl-2-pentanoneAcetoneBenzeneBromodichloromethaneCarbon DisulfideCarbon TetrachlorideChlorobenzeneChloroformDibromochloromethaneElhylbenzeneIsopropyl benzeneMethylene ChlorideStyreneTetrachloroetheneTolueneTrichloroetheneTrichlorofluoromethaneVinyl ChlorideXylene (Total)

HN13I-0312/07/05

ug/L

ug/L

10

4

R

B

MN13S-0312/07/05

ug/L

ug/L

10

6

R

B

HN14D-0301/11/06

ug/L

ug/L

2 B

HN14I-0312/05/05

ug/L

NA

ug/L

4 B

HN14S-0312/05/05

ug/L

NA

ug/L

3 B

HN15D-0312/29/05

ug/L

390

ug/L

1

4

1

18

J.

B

B

HN15I-0312/29/05

ug/L

ug/L

4

13

B

HN15S-0301/04/06

ugrt.5

ug/L

7

1

J

B

B

HN16D-0312/06/05

ug/L

NA

ug/L

3

4

340

B

J

HN16I-0312/06/05

ugn.

NA

ug/L

5

170

B

HN16S-0312/06/05

ug/L

3

NA

ug/L

3 B

HN17D-0311/21/05

ug/L

NA

ug/L

10

4

R

B

HN17E-0311/21/05

ug/L3

NA

ug/L

10

32

4

J

R

B

B

DATA IGW_2006.xls

DATA SUMMARY OF POSITIVE ANALYTICAL RESULTSCROSSLEY FARM SITE-WIDE MONITORING WELLS NOVEMBER 2005 • FEBRUARY 2006






HN17F-0311/21/05

ug/L672

10.8

203001.3

0.82

1450

253023.5

1.3654

12300

629

ug/L

19700

0.66

2.4

12300

35.6

ug/L

J

BB

J

BJ

J

J

J

HN17I-0311/16/05

ug/L68.1

6.8

228000.97

33901.9

2.21260

8950

0.646.9

ug/L

215000.9

0.53

2.31210

8730

0.686.1

ug/L

B

J

J

JB

BJ

JB

JJ

JJ

JJ

HN17S-0311/16/05

ug/L

. 15.7

113000.96

44801.4

1.2967

5940

0.397.4

ug/L

111002.5

0.64

3.1972

6020

0.526.5

ug/L

J

B

JB

BJ

BB

JJ

JJ

JJ

HN18D-0312/14/05

ug/L78.5

13.60.49

195003

24.33120

477037.9

3.72120

6710

471

ug/L36.6

8.80.37

14600

4090

0.121.2

3030

7870

ug/L

B

JB

J

J

J

BJ

B

JB

J

JJJ

HN18E-0312/13/05

ug/L48.7

90.34

124001.5

7.9105

247013.2

2.5656

15500

125

ug/L39.4

9.50.4

12900

1.1

256015.20.12

1.3681

16200

ug/L

B

JB

J

JB

JJ

JJ

B

JB

J

J

BJJ

HN18F-0312/13/05

ug/L785

13.90.36

124003

19.71530

269033.2

4.4790

16700

2.6148

ug/L62.3

11.10.42

12200

0.943

53

236017.9

0.0630.966361

17000

61.3

ug/L

JB

J

J

J

JJ

J

B

JB

JJJ

J

BJJ

HN18I-0301/13/06

ug/L470

34.9

4740014.46.95.5

1100

1040030.9

9.51670

1.7

7970

4.2

ug/L

24.4

45400

98903.2

1.11380

2.8

7550

1

ug/L

J

JJ

JJB

J

J

B

BJJ

J

HN18S-0312/13/05

ug/L69.6

26.10.38

145001.7

7960

2.8716

3320

ug/L61.3

27.10.48

14700

8050

1.8721

3380

ug/L

B

JB

J

JJ

J

B

JB

JJ

J

HN19I-0312/28/05

ug/L76.7

50.2

94001.81.7

77.41.8

307020.8

0.0542

1590

7990

0.36

ug/L

46.10.24

90401.1

2

28.7

293018.4

2.21550

7790

0.55

ug/L

J

J

JJ

BJJ

JJJ

B

JB

JB

B

J

JJ

B

HN20I-0312/16/05

ug/L778

20.30.58

85806.1

598

253014.8

4.61710

53405

ug/L25.8

18.90.3

8000

2410

21780

54305.6

ug/L

J

JB

J

JJ

JJ

J

B

JB

J

JJ

J

HN20S-0312/28/05

ug/L104

85

71803.95.1

132

193015.9

2.81610

3860

0.63

ug/L

81.80.31

718012

16709.6

1.81590

3710

0.33

ug/L

J

J

JJ

J

JJ

J

B

JB

JB

JJ

JJ

J

B

HN22I-0311/17/05

ug/L186

15.9

119001.3

0.85182

36805.4

2.11930

7400

9.7

ug/L

10900

1.61820

6840

0.3312.6

ug/L

J

J

B

J

JJ

BJ

B

JJ

JJ

HN22S-0311/17/05

ug/L36.2 B

19.3 J

106001.2 B

0.89 B

48.1 J

3700 J1.4 B

2.8 B1820 J

6900

9.9 B

ug/L

108000.4 J1.4 J

2.7 J1860 J

6890

17.7 J

ug/L





SEMIVOLATILESBis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalateBulylbenzylphthalateCaprolactamDi-n-butylphthalateDiethylphthalateIsophoroneNaphthalenePhenolPyreneTris(2-chloroethyl)phosphateTris(2-ethylhexyl)phosphate

VOLATILES1,1,1-Trichloroethane1 ,1 ,2-Trichloroethane1,1-Dichloroethane1,1-Dichloroethene1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene1 ,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane1 ,2-Dichloroethane1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis)1 ,2-Dichloroelhene (trans)2-Butanone4-Methyl-2-pentanoneAcetoneBenzeneBromodichloromethaneCarbon DisulfideCarbon TetrachlorideChlorobenzeneChloroformDibromochloromethaneEthyl benzeneIsopropylbenzeneMethylene ChlorideStyreneTetrachloroetheneTolueneTrichloroetheneTrichlorofluoromethaneVinyl ChlorideXylene (Total)

HN17F-0311/21/05

ug/L

NA

ug/L

10

6

4

R

B

B

HN17I-0311/16/05

ug/L

NA

ug/L

HN17S-0311/16/05

ug/L

NA

ug/L

2 B

HN18D-0312/14/05

ug/L1

ug/L

61

6

3

190

J

B

J

HN18E-0312/13/05

ug/L1

ug/L

3

11

13

11

J

J

B

B

HN18F-0312/13/05

ug/L

ug/L

10

3

B

J

HN18I-0301/13/06

ug/L

2

ug/L

160

7

15

81016

J

B

HN18S-0312/13/05

ug/L

7

ug/L

26

9

6

33035

J

B

J

J

HN19I-0312/28/05

ug/L

190

ug/L

2

4

2

1

3

650

12000150

J

J

J

J

B

J

J

HN20I-0312/16/05

ug/L

210NA

ug/L

3

3

1

1

510

8400120

J

J

B

HN20S-0312/28/05

ug/L

72

ug/L

1

3

200

330037

J

B

J

J

HN22I-0311/17/05

ug/L

NA

ug/L

28

HN22S-0311/17/05

ug/L

NA

ug/L

6 B

DATAJ iGW_2006.xls







HN23I-0312/29/05

ug/L

61.9

126000.73

30.1

424093.3

1.91740

7570

ug/L

62.90.2

129000.41

1.3

433096.4

1.41820

7640

0.27

ug/L

J

J

B

J

BJ

JB

JB

J

JJ

B

1-0101/11/06

ug/L

19.5

104000.39

38100.89

0.931590

1.7

6790

ug/L

19.90.190.23

105000.920.58

624

38402.3

1.31640

0.827210

0.8

ug/L

J

J

JB

BJB

JBB

BB

JB

BJ

J

B

1-0201/12/06I-02-DUP

ug/L

31

9040

0.44

31201.9

1.21500

7140

ug/L

30.10.15

8680

0.59

30001.3

1.21470

2.4

6920

ug/L

J

J

JB

BJ

JB

B

JB

BJJ

I-02-DUP01/12/06

I-02

ug/L

30.4

8850

0.9

30601.9

0.661480

7140

ug/L

30.70.250.188890

0.40.83

30701.6

1.61510

7150

0.47

ug/L

J

J

JB

BJ

JBB

JB

JB

BJ

J

I-0301/13/06

ug/L

24.9

72201.11.5

28400.81

1.51340

2.6

5690

ug/L

24.9

7310

1

28300.71

1.31350

5670

0.3

ug/L

J

JJ

JB

JJB

J

B

JB

BJ

J

1-0401/13/06I-04-DUP

ug/L

18.7

8160

26100.95

0.571340

6430

ug/L

18.6

8180

25900.94

1360

6310

ug/L

J

JB

JJ

J

JB

J

I-04-DUP01/13/06

I-04

ug/L

18.9

83700.49

26701

0.661360

6500

ug/L

18.8

0.1982700.45

26100.85

0.641340

1.8

6350

0.29

ug/L

J

J

JB

JJ

J

B

J

JB

BJJ

J

MW1.1OB-0301/09/06

ug/L

36.2

0.168750

7.5

41.2

34601.5

1.31410

5240

ug/L

35.40.18

86700.56

34000.9

0.851380

5130

0.35

ug/L

J

B

J

J

JJ

JJ

JB

B

JJ

BJ

B

MW1.2OB-0301/10/06

ug/L951

59.4

0.185510

2.71.23.5

14704.2

255032.9

1.71560

0.663750

2.417.3

ug/L

43.80.23

5300

22907.3

0.064

1150

3770

ug/L

J

J

B

BJB

JJ

JJ

JJ

JJ

JB

JJJ

J

J

MW1OB-0301/06/06

ug/L228

72.3

0.2913400

1.82.5

2336

310011.5

2.41980

4060

0.529

ug/L

68.7

118001.2

2

29405.9

1.51980

4120

19.5

ug/L

J

J

B

BB

JJJJ

JJ

J

BJ

J

BJ

JJ

JJ

J

J

MW1R-0301/19/06

MW1R-03-DUP

ug/L

62.4

79900.630.47

273

31009.1

1.21530

2.7

6550

0.42

ug/L

62.4

7850

98.9

30706.8

0.721520

1.9

6440

ug/L

J

BB

JJ

JJB

B

J

J

JJ

JJB

MW1R-03-DUP01/19/06

MW1R-03

ug/L

62.90.14

79200.770.59

263

31108

0.811550

6550

0.46

ug/L

62.4

7830

1.1

103

30808

0.851540

2.4

6500

ug/L

.1B

BB

JJ

JJ

B

J

B

JJ

JJB





SEMIVOLATILESBis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalateButylbenzylphthalateCaprolactamDi-n-butylphthalateDiethylphthalateIsophoroneNaphthalenePhenolPyreneTris(2-chloroethyl)phosphateTris(2-ethylhexyl)phosphate

VOLATILES1 ,1 ,1 -Trichloroethane1,1,2-Trichloroethane1,1-Dichloroethane1,1-Dichloroethene1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene1 ,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane1 ,2-Dichloroethane1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis)1 ,2-Dichloroethene (trans)2-Butanone4-Methyl-2-pentanoneAcetoneBenzeneBromodichloromethaneCarbon DisulfideCarbon TetrachlorideChlorobenzeneChloroformDibromochloromethaneEthyl benzeneIsopropyl benzeneMelhylene ChlorideStyreneTetrachloroetheneTolueneTrichloroetheneTrichlorofluoromethaneVinyl ChlorideXylene (Total)

HN23I-0312/29/05

ug/L

300

ug/L

17

1154

0.8

2135

5

1500

0.936000

660

3

JJ

JJJ

J

JJJ

B

J,l

J

,l

1-01

01/11/06

ug/L

ug/L

9

3

B

B

1-02

01/12/06I-02-DUP

ug/L

ug/L

3 B

I-02-DUP01/12/06

I-02

ug/L

ug/L

10

3

R

B

1-03

01/13/06

ug/L

ug/L

10

9

5

R

B

b

I-04

01/13/061-04-DUP

ug/L

ug/L

7 B

1-04-DUP01/13/06

1-04

ug/L

ug/L

5 B

MW1.1OB-0301/09/06

ug/L

15

ug/L

1

0.6

1

6

33

1700

7

J

J

B

B

L

LJ

MW1.2OB-0301/10/06

ug/L

7

ug/L

1

2

2

32

1300

13

J

J

B

B

L

LL

MW1OB-0301/06/06

ug/L

5

1

ug/L

5

7

96

J

J

B

J

MW1R-0301/19/06

MW1R-03-DUP

ug/L

15

ug/L

6

10

164

627

7

570

15000120

L

J

R

J

JJJ

B

J

MW1R-03-DUP01/19/06

MW1R-03

ug/L

13

ug/L

3

102

15

527

13

530

16000220

L

J

RJJ

JJJ

B

J

J

DATAJ GW_2006.xls

DATA SUMMARY OF POSITIVE ANALYTICAL RESULTSCROSSLEY FARM SITE-WIDE MONITORING WELLS NOVEMBER 2005 • FEBRUARY 2006






MW2.1OB-0301/19/06

ug/L101

2981

0.447470

7.57.8

590.5

1.4809064.1

. 53070

3390

23.7

ug/L44

2990.9

0.417380

1.66.14.5

36.61.7

804059.2

3.83080

3440

22.9

ug/L

B

BB

JJJBJ

JJ

J

J

J

BB

JJJJJ

JJ

J

J

MW2DR-0301/17/06

ug/L

-

3.1

0.1644600

1.3

1670

860027.1

1.31640

5300

0.8

ug/L

2.8

423000.480.49

842C10.6

1.3158C

2

0.59528C

1.3

ug/L

B

B

B

BJ

B

B

JB

J

BJBJ

B

MW2OB-0301/12/06

ug/L112

13.6

212001.6

182

98903.4

1.3656

3560

0.7

ug/L

12

219000.890.55

102000.72

1.6668

3690

0.4

ug/L

J

J

J

J

BJ

J

B

J

BB

B

BJ

J

B

MW2R-0301/12/06

ug/L

11

0.2621900

0.6

50.4

104000.53

0.72642

2

3480

0.58

ug/L

11.4

224000.4

10600

664

3460

0.3

ug/L

J

B

J

J

B

BJB

J

B

J

B

J

J

B

MW3DOB-0312/21/05



ug/L

MW3OB-0312/21/05

ug/L86.1

2.452.90.44

86701.7

80.8

308021.5

2.2586

7070

ug/L52.1

52.20.47

8640

3100

1.5588

7100

ug/L

B

JJB

J

J

J

BJ

B

JB

J

JJ

MW3OBD-0312/21/05

ug/L487

57.90.47

442006

98.5

1818.4

0.0464.7

2120

3570

1.6

ug/L385

2.653.50.52

38500

127

0.72070

3490

1.4

NANA

J

JB

J

J

JJBBJ

J

J

JJB

B

JJ

J

J

MW4OB-0312/20/05

ug/L61.3

60.60.44

58201.3

2670

1.11440

11100

ug/L44.5

60.50.53

57601

2660

1.11450

11000

ug/L

B

JB

J

J

JJ

B

JB

J

J

JJ

MW4R-0312/22/05

MW4R-03-DUP

ug/L60.9

300.54

13700

1940

793031.2

0.841060

1550

ug/L33.7

27.60.46

12900

748014

0.621020

1460

ug/L

B

JB

BJ

J

B

JB

J

JJ

J

MW4R-03-DUP12/22/05

MW4R-03

ug/L63.3

1.930.50.5

14000

2260

807035.2

0.671060

1550

ug/L37.9

26.30.5

123002.9

69.7

715012.8

969

1320

ug/L

R

,l,lR

BJ

J

B

JB

J

J

J

J

J

MW5DOB-0312/19/05


NANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANAwJ

ug/L





SEMIVOLATILESBis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalateButyl be nzylphthalateCaprolactamDi-n-butylphthalateDiethylphthalateIsophoroneNaphthalenePhenolPyreneTris(2-chloroethyl)phosphateTris(2-ethylhexyl)phosphate

VOLATILES1 ,1 ,1-Trichloroethane,1 ,2-Trichloroethane,1-Dichloroethane,1-Dichloroethene,2,4-Trichlorobenzene,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane,2-Dichloroethane

1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis)1 ,2-Dichloroethene (trans)2-Butanone4-Methyl-2-pentanoneAcetoneBenzeneBromodichloromethaneCarbon DisulfideCarbon TetrachlorideChlorobenzeneChloroformDibromochloromethaneEthylbenzeneIsopropylbenzeneMethylene ChlorideStyreneTetrachloroetheneTolueneTrichloroetheneTrichlorofluoromethaneVinyl ChlorideXylene (Total)

MW2.1OB-0301/19/06

ug/L

ug/L

10

11

4

22

R

B

J

B

MW2DR-0301/17/06

ug/L

ug/L

10

22

R

B

MW2OB-0301/12/06

ug/L

ug/L

10

2

7

R

B

B

MW2R-0301/12/06

ug/L

ug/L

10

3

R

B

MW3DOB-0312/21/05

ug/L

NA

ug/L

0.8

5

29

1

1701

J

B

B

J

JJ

MW3OB-0312/21/05

ug/L

NA

ug/L

3

24

1

661

J

J

J

MW3OBD-0312/21/05



L NANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANA

MW4OB-0312/20/05

ug/L

4NA

ug/L

9

17

12009

J

J

J

MW4R-0312/22/05

MW4R-03-DUP

ug/L

4NA

ug/L

13

2

2

3

29

100

720070

J

J

B

J

J

B

J

J

MW4R-03-DUP12/22/05

MW4R-03

ug/L

4NA

ug/L

10

2

1

83

670055

J

J

J

B

J

J

MW5DOB-0312/19/05

ug/L

ug/L

0.9

0.7

0.5

0.8

4

1400.9

B

J

B

B

J

LJ

DATA iGW_2006.xls



Sample 10:Sample Date:Duplicate:




MW5OB-0312/20/05

ug/L233

3140.7

9010

4.17.11642.7

60403282.4

54120

99200

22.3

ug/L92.3

3290.73

8460

1.43.1

60901992.64.6

4350

98800

16

ug/L

B

B

JB

J

BJ

B

B

B

JJ

JJ

J

MW5OBD-0312/19/05

ug/L213

2270.94

92105.4

431

4320994.7

10.23840

19400

15.9

ug/L130

2241.1

0.439210

1.7

431073.94.2

93840

19300

16

NANA

B

B

J

J

BJ

B

B

BB

J

J

JJ

J

MW5R-0312/20/05

ug/L61.7

45.50.44

19201.31.1

8090

804149

3.22600

2310

ug/L43.2

1.973.70.49

2570

1.5

507

1340154

0.273.1

2760

12600

ug/L

B

JB

JJJ

J

BJ

J

B

JJB

J

J

J

JJ

MW6OB-0312/27/05

ug/L415

29

0.165490

3.40.8

700

260017.3

1.71560

3110

1.3

ug/L56.1

24.40.26

53200.91.4

54.9

24803.4

0.811510

2970

ug/L

J

B

JJ

J

JJ

J

B

B

JB

JB

B

JB

JJ

J

MW6R-0312/28/05

ug/L

21.6

203000.78

733

1200011.5

1680

6130

0.55

ug/L

21.30.24

20300

0.63

40.4

119006.4

1700

5900

ug/L

J

J

J

J

B

JB

B

B

J

J

MW7DR-0312/27/05

ug/L

21.7

280001

663

1710015.6

1230

0.432240

0.46

ug/L

20.20.23

28300

0.92

172007

1280

2050

0.58

ug/L

J

J

J

JJ

B

JB

B

J

J

J

B

MW7OB-0312/08/05

ug/L1760

69.61.4

4010015.65.24.6

120005.3

25400765

18.65480

62500

12.522.5

ug/L40.8

38.90.48

39000

24300

3.34930

62400

ug/L

JB

JJ

J

J

JJ.

B

JB

JJ

MW7R-0312/08/05

ug/L279

34.90.45

393001.71.4

963

23300166

4.52390

6920

2

ug/L45

23.20.44

36300

2160039.2

2.82360

6770

ug/L

B

JB

JJ

JJ

J

B

JB

JJ

P-0101/05/06

ug/L

. 11.7

81201.71.8

33.3

25605.1

1.31250

5330

0.36

ug/L

12.2

0.428380

0.61.5

26204.7

0.731300

5510

ug/L

J

BB

B

JJ

JJ

B

J

B

BJ

JJ

JJ

P-0201/05/06

ug/L

25.2

89000.69

32000.57

1.11460

6310

0.27

ug/L

25.3

8840

31500.56

0.891460

6290

0.26

ug/L

J

B

JB

JJ

B

J

JJ

JJ

J

P-0312/14/05

ug/L4120

594.5

1.70.6

6820013.89.117

97805.5

16600177

27.73980

9290

8.283.5

ug/L38.9

40.20.47

42800

1.3

1020021

0.0752.4

3650

9190

ug/L

J

JJBJ

JJ

J

JJ

J

B

JB

J

JJJ

Spring-10101/06/06

ug/L

52.9

136000.74

66301.2

1.11230

6160

ug/L

51.80.140.16

133000.750.7

64902

1.51240

6040

0.38

ug/L

,l

B

B

JJ

JBB

BB

J

BJ

B





SEMIVOLATILESBis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalateButyl benzyl phthalateCaprolaclamDi-n-butylphthalateDielhylphthalaleIsophoroneNaphthalenePhenolPyreneTris(2-chloroethyJ)phosphateTris(2-ethylhexyl)phosphate

VOLATILES1 ,1 ,1 -Trichloroethane1 ,1 ,2-Trichloroethane1,1-Dichloroethane1,1-Dichloroethene1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene1 ,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane1 ,2-Dichloroethane1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis)1 ,2-Dichloroethene (trans)2-Butanone4-Methyl-2-pentanoneAcetoneBenzeneBromodichloromethaneCarbon DisulfideCarbon TetrachlorideChlorobenzeneChloroformDibromochloromethaneEthylbenzeneIsopropylbenzeneMethylene ChlorideStyreneTetrachloroetheneTolueneTrichloroetheneTrichlorofluoromethaneVinyl ChlorideXylene (Total)

MWSOB-0312/20/05

ug/L

11

NA

ug/L

5

15

4

JJ

B

B

MW5OBD-0312/19/05


NANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANA

MW5R-0312/20/05

ug/L

2NA

ug/L

7

1

15

8409

J

J

B

J

J

MW6OB-0312/27/05

ug/L

ug/L

4 B

MW6R-0312/28/05

ug/L

ug/L

4

1

34

B

b

MW7DR-0312/27/05

ug/L

ug/L

3

2

88

b

b

MW7OB-0312/08/05

ug/L

ug/L

10 R

MW7R-0312/08/05

ug/L

ug/L

1

4

2002

B

J

J

P-0101/05/06

ug/L

ug/L

14

4

63

b

J

P-0201/05/06

ug/L

ug/L

10

4

B

B

P-0312/14/05

ug/L

13010

ug/L

100

5

21

110083

b

Spring-10101/06/06

ug/L

54

ug/L

45

13

14

53055

b

J

DATAJ lGW_2006.xls







Spring-177-Finigan01/12/06

ug/L

39.3

0.163860

20.6

26602.6

1050

2010

ug/L

38.5

3980

26702

1050

2040

ug/L

J

BJ

B

JB

J

J

J

J

JB

J

J

Spring-1 81 -Ellis01/12/06

Spring-181-Ellis-DUP

ug/L

31.7

32300

194006.5

15503

3980

0.46

ug/L

39.4

32800

19600

15803.4

4020

0.29

ug/L

J

J

JB

J

B

J

JJ

J

B

Spring-181-Ellis-DUP01/12/06

Spring-1 81 -Ellis

ug/L

32.9

33300

39.4

200008.9

1590

4030

0.45

ug/L

29.3

30500

184000.55

1480

3700

0.33

ug/L

J

J

J

J

J

B

J

B

J

J

B

Spring-BP01/19/06



NANA

Spring-PVC01/04/06

ug/L74.2

48.1

14500

0.4

82.3

77902.4

3280

0.443900

0.7

ug/L56.5

48.9

0.2214600

0.391

44.2

78403.2

0.673380

3900

0.53

ug/L

J

J

B

B

J

J

JJ

B

J

J

B

JJ

B

J

JJ

J

J

Spring-Pine01/04/06

ug/L196

23.5

140000.4

225

62004.8

2910

2910

1.1

ug/L103

22.30.16

13600

1.7

108

60203.3

0.672850

2790

0.82

ug/L

J

J

J

J

J

J

B

J

JB

J

J

JJ

J

J

Spring-Steel01/04/06

ug/L343

30.1

187000.52

352

81003.2

0.652660

3370

1.5

ug/L129

29.6

185000.660.98

146

80403

0.662700

2.1

3380

1.2

ug/L

J

J

J

BJ

J

B

J

J

JJ

J

JJJ

J

J

TT24-I01/04/06

ug/L37.1

1930.160.49

127002.94.7

118

475049.1

42020

8500

0.55

ug/L

1950.18

127000.42

1.3

475047.1

2.72010

2.7

8310

ug/L

J

JBB

JJ

B

J

BJ

B

JB

JB

J

JJJ

TT25-D101/10/06

TT25-D1-DUP

ug/L

98.8

458000.53

46104.20.3

3060

0.56330

0.27

ug/L

104

475000.51

47704.2

3240

6390

0.63

ug/L

J

R

JJ

J

B

B

J

B

JJ

J

B

DATA_SUM_CRGW_2006.xls 17of20




SEMIVOLAT1LESBis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalateButylbenzylphthalateCaprolactamDi-n-butylphthalateDiethylphthalatesophoroneNaphthalenePhenol^yreneTris(2-chloroethyl)phosphateTris(2-ethylhexyl)phosphate

VOLATILES1 ,1 ,1 -Trichloroethane1 ,1 ,2-Trichloroethane1,1-Dichloroethane,1-Dichloroethene,2,4-Trichlorobenzene,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane,2-Dichloroelhane,2-Dichloroethene (cis)

1 ,2-Dichloroethene (trans)2-Butanone4-Methyl-2-pentanoneAcetoneBenzeneBromodichloromethaneCarbon DisulfideCarbon TetrachlorideChlorobenzeneChloroformDibromochloromethaneEthylbenzeneIsopropylbenzeneMethylene ChlorideStyreneTetrachloroetheneTolueneTrichloroetheneTrichlorofluoromethaneVinyl ChlorideXylene (Total)

Spring-177-Finigan01/12/06

ug/L

ug/L

1

7

4

150

4

J

B

J

J

J

Spring-1 81 -Ellis01/12/06

Spring-181-Ellis-DUP

ug/L

ug/L

7

3

190

4

B

J

B

Spring-181-Ellis-DUP01/12/06

Spring-1 81-Ellis

ug/L

ug/L

10

1

8

5

240

5

R

J

B

J

B

Spring-BP01/19/06


ug/L

10

10

R

B

Spring-PVC01/04/06

ug/L

ug/L

4

3

46

B

J

J

Spring-Pine01/04/06

ug/L

ug/L

2 B

Spring-Steel01/04/06

ug/L

ug/L

TT24-I01/04/06

ug/L

470

ug/L

4

122

o:e

815

5

720

18000150

J

J

B

JJJ

B

J

TT25-D101/10/06

TT25-D1-DUP

ug/L4 J

1 J4 J

1200

ug/L17 J

380 L23 J31 J

160 L1100 L200 L180 L360 L150 L

120 J39 J

210 L

42 J

980 B

6600 J990 L

970000 J5200 J

300 K

DATAJSflWGW_2006.xls


CROSSLEY FARM SITE, HEREFORD TOWNSHIP. BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA





TT25-D1-DUP01/10/06TT25-D1

ug/L

109

48100

48804.8

0.723280

6600

0.59

ug/L

104

46100

47104.6

31802.6

6280

0.41

ug/L

J

JJ

BJ

B

J

JB

JJ

B

TT25-D201/10/06

ug/L431

29.2

464006

1.4

9061.5

1.52550

4470

2.1

ug/L404

28

449004.3

8710.64

0.732490

4300

2

ug/L

J

JJ

Jb

BJ

J

B

J

J

JJ

BJ

J

B

TT25-I101/10/06

ug/L63.4

87.4

0.175380

1.7

28.6

98965.9

1610

2760

0.36

ug/L

84.7

5170

94962.6

1570

2560

0.35

ug/L

J

J

B

B

J

J

J

J

B

J

J

J

J

B

TT25-I201/10/06

ug/L76

15.3

0.2110900' 0.88

163

2020122

1.42060

0.7611000

0.47

ug/L

11.2

94100.390.42

1730101

0.952030

10900

0.37

ug/L

J

J

B

B

J

JJ

J

B

J

BB

J

BJ

B

TT25-S01/10/06

ug/L

32.1

127001

2.6

27.7

3750142

2.21540

7480

ug/L

31.4

125000.54

2.5

3650136

1.21530

7330

ug/L

J

BJ

J

J

JJ

J

BB

J

BJ

TT26-D101/04/06

ug/L693

17.6

275008.5

10.74

670

460043.6

10.12190

0.568410

1.69.6

ug/L

30.8

31300

26206.4

1810

4860

0.6

ug/L

J

JJB

J

JJ

J

BJ

J

JJ

J

J

B

TT26-D201/04/06

ug/L

31.2

326001.6

27007.1

1.51840

5110

0.43

ug/L

13.4

254000.66

1.8

406022.4

2.42330

8390

1.2

ug/L

J

J

JJ

BJ

B

J

JB

J

JJ

B

TT26-I01/05/06

ug/L

4.3

143002.93.4

39.3

478014.1

1.81350

6930

0.44

Ug/L

4.5

14900

1.3

493012.4

1.31410

7320

ug/L

J

BJ

B

JJ

JJ

B

J

J

JJ

JJ

TT26-S01/05/06

ug/L104

1820.4

0.22.10500

0.662.7

33

738053.7

1.52070

4670

10

ug/L70.5

. 1810.390.23

10400

2.7

727053.2

1.72080

4640

10.4

ug/L

0.087

B

JBB

BB

B

JJ

J

J

J

Jej

j

jj

j

j

j

TT27-D101/03/06

ug/L

10.4

132000.73

35304.7

0.732000

7510

0.4

ug/L

10.70.16

13300

35704.9

0.582080

7360

0.28

ug/L

J

J

JJ

BJ

B

JB

JJ

JJ

B

TT27-D201/03/06

ug/L

61.3

280000.580.94

143

353039

1880

6000

0.31

ug/L

62.80.22

28900

134

362039

1940

6030

0.29

ug/L

J

JJ

J

J

J

JB

J

J

B

TT27-I11/17/05

ug/L

12.3

162000.61

45207.7

1.22060

7870

6.3

ug/L

1610013.3

1.22

27.3

10.62100

7990

0.7117.7

ug/L

J

B

JJ

BJ

B

JJJ

JJ

JJ

TT27-S11/17/05

ug/L

56.4 J

101004 J

0.9 J

4080 J5.4 J

3.7 B1970 J

7110

0.63 J11.9 B

ug/L

-100001.7 J1.1 J

3.1 J1970 J

69205.1 J

0.34 J21.6 J

ug/L





SEMIVOLATILESBis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalateButyl benzylphthalateCaprolactamDi-n-butylphthalateDiethylphthalateIsophoroneNaphthalenePhenolPyreneTris(2-chloroethyl)phosphateTris(2-ethylhexyl)phosphate

VOLAT1LES1,1,1-Trichloroethane1 ,1 ,2-Trichloroethane1,1-Dichloroethane1,1-Dichloroethene1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene1 ,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane1 ,2-Dichloroethane1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis)1 ,2-Dichloroethene (trans)2-Butanone4-Methyl-2-pentanoneAcetoneBenzeneBromodichloromethaneCarbon DisulfideCarbon TetrachlorideChlorobenzeneChloroformDibromochloromethaneEthylbenzeneIsopropylbenzeneMethylene ChlorideStyreneTetrachloroetheneTolueneTrichloroetheneTrichlorofluoromethaneVinyl ChlorideXylene (Total)

TT25-D1-DUP01/10/06TT25-D1

ug/L

28

1700

ug/L25

4002655

1601100240130360170

18220

41220

48

990

58001100

9200008900

16330

JJ

JLJJ

LLLLLL

JJJL

J

B

JLJJJL

TT25-D201/10/06

ug/L

1

200

ug/L2

151

0.6

75414

9

268

11

82

301

1500130

79000980

45

J

JLJ

B

JLL

J

LJL

JJBJJI.JJ

L

TT25-I101/10/06

ug/L

48

ug/L

2

2

2

3

280

500058

J

J

B

B

J

LL

TT25-I201/10/06

ug/L

320

ug/L1

11

204

2366

73

13

2300110

41000600

31

JL

LJ

LJB

JJB

JLJJ

L

TT25-S01/10/06

ug/L

1

1

24

1500

ug/L18

15010

3024085

63

3204276

9842

250

13000610

5300004400

710

J

J

JLJ

JLJ

J

JJB

JJB

JLJJ

L

TT26-D101/04/06

ug/L

3

670

ug/L

1506

31

51480

79

35

55

731970

216

1600

420.460

31000390

8130

J

JJ

JJ

J

J

JJ

J

TT26-D201/04/06

ug/L

730

ug/L2

24

3

97613

2

274

19

56

5203

28000390

11

J

J

J

J

J

B

JJ

J

TT26-I01/05/06

ug/L

430

ug/L

6

3

163

1325

13

610

15000350

J

J

J

JJ

B

J

j

TT26-S01/05/06

ug/L

22

ug/L

2

43

5803

B

J

TT27-D101/03/06

ug/L

5

ug/L

3

102

3

7

55

12000120

J

J

J

J

B

TT27-D201/03/06

ug/L

ug/L

19

5

3

1200

B

J

TT27-I11/17/05

ug/L

460NA

ug/L

19

8324

22

21

. 27

15006

920001400

J

JJ

J

J

B

JJ

J

TT27-S11/17/05

ug/L

23NA

ug/L

6

2

79

98012

B

B

J

JJ

DATA lGW_2006.xls

APPENDIX B

PROCESS CALCULATIONS

Tetra Tech NUS STANDARD CALCULATION SHEETCLIENT:USEPA ARCS III

FILE No:7308-0390

SUBJECT: Crossley Farm Site

Alternative 10: Valley Farm Plume Extraction, Treatment, & Discharge

BY:JLG

CHECKED BY:JWL 08/25/06

PAGE:1 OF 13

DATE:09/12/06

1.0 DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS

• Based on a measured surface area of approximately 5,200,000 ft2, an estimated thickness ofapproximately 400 feet, and an assumed porosity of 35 percent, the approximate volume of the mostcontaminated area (ICE > 1,000 u.g/L ) of the Valley Plume is 5,500 million gallons (see attached FigureFS-10-2).

• Average TCE concentration in the extracted groundwater is initially 1,500 ug/L and will eventuallydecrease to 1,000 ug/L under average design conditions.

• Groundwater iron and TSS concentrations are approximately 1 mg/L and 10 mg/L, respectively.

2.0 TREATMENT SCHEME

Alternative 10B consists of a "pump-and-treat" system extracting and treating groundwater as illustrated onthe attached Figure FS-10-3 Process Flow Diagram (PFD) and including the following components:

• Groundwater extraction system• Equalization• Treatment System• Groundwater discharge system

The treatment system includes the following elements:

• Pre-Filtration• Air Stripping• Offgas Vapor-Phase Granular Activated Carbon (GAG) Adsorption• Chemical Oxidation• Greensand Filtration• Effluent Liquid-Phase GAC Adsorption• Backwash Water Filtration/Dewatering

In addition, because the flow of groundwater to be treated will increase over the operational lifetime of thesystem from approximately 1,000 gpm under initial conditions to 2,500 gpm under average design conditionsand 3,000 gpm under maximum design conditions, a modular concept is used for the design of severalelements of the treatment system including pre-filtration and air stripping. Under this concept, the basicmodule for each of these elements is designed to treat the 1,000 gpm initial groundwater flow and one thentwo additional identical 1,000 gpm modules will then be added to it as required by increases in the flow ofgroundwater to be treated. This modular implementation concept is illustrated on attached Figure FS-10-4.

The equalization and treatment system components to be housed in a 7,500 ft2 pre-engineered buildinglocated in the vicinity of existing monitoring well S-180 west of Dale Road, along the west branch ofPerkiomen Creek as illustrated on Figure FS-10-2.

3.0 GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION SYSTEM

3.1 Groundwater Extraction Wells and Pumping Rates

Extraction wells to be located downgradient of the TCE > 1,000 ug/L area of the Valley Plume along theAirport Road/Dale Road/Dairy Lane axis as illustrated on Figure FS-10-2. Design of the groundwaterextraction wells may be summarized as follows:

Tetra Tech NUS STANDARD CALCULA TION SHEETCLIENT:USEPA ARCS III

FILE No:7308-0390


Alternative 1 0: Valley Farm Plume Extraction, Treatment, & Discharge

BY:JLG


PAGE:2 OF 13

DATE:09/12/06

3.1.1 Initial Conditions

Well Number

EW-1 to EW-5

EW-6toEW-10

Type

Screened

Open Bedrock

Depth.(ft)300

300

Total

Pumping Rate(gpm per well)

100

100

1,000

3.1.2 Design Conditions

Well Number

EW-1 to EW-1 0

EW-1 1 to EW-25

Type

Screened

Open Bedrock

Depth(ft)300

300

Total


100

100

2,500

3.2 Groundwater Extraction Pumps

Multi-stage submersible centrifugal pumps are installed in the above wells as follows:


Well Number

EW-1 to EW-1 0

Total

Pump Design

Flow Rate(gpm)100

1,000

Total Discharge Head(ft)

200

Motor Size(HP)

15


Well Number

EW-1 to EW-25

Total

Pump Design

Flow Rate(gpm)

100

1,000

Total Discharge Head(ft)

200

Motor Size(HP)

15

4.0 EQUALIZATION

An Equalization Tank is provided to blend groundwater from various extraction wells. The Equalization Tankis equipped with an Equalization Mixer and features a closed-top design to control TCE emission. TheEqualization Tank is vented to the inlet of the air stripper blower system. The Equalization Tank is designedto provide 5 minutes detention under average design flow conditions.

Equalization Tank Volume: 2,500 gpm x 5 minutes = 12,500 gallons


FILE No:7308-0390



BY:JLG


PAGE:3 OF 13

DATE:09/12/06

Because all tanks and equipment must be enclosed in a building with a maximum heigth ofapproximately 15 feet, two (2) Equalization Tanks will be used to provide the required volume.

-> Call for two (2) 10-foot diameter, 12 feet straight shell heigth (SSH) Equalization Tanks with a workingcapacity of 6,250 gallons. Tanks to be of cylindrical vertical configuration and manufactured offiberglass or painted carbon steel. Tanks to be of closed-top design with vent.

Equalization Mixers sized @ 0.5 HP/1,000 gal: 6,250 gallons x 0.5 HP -=-1,000 gallons = 3.12, say 5 HP

-> Call for two (2) top-mounted 5 HP low-speed turbine-type Equalization Mixers.

Equalization Transfer Pumps are provided to transfer groundwater from the Equalization Tanks todownstream treatment processes. Pump operation (start/stop) is controlled by level switches (HI and LO) inthe Equalization Tanks.

4.1 Initial Conditions

-> Call for one (1) horizontal-centrifugal 1,000 gpm Equalization Transfer Pump (75 ft design TDH, 40 HPmotor).

4.2 Design Conditions

-» Call for three (3) horizontal-centrifugal 1,000 gpm Equalization Transfer Pumps operating in parallel (75ft design TDH, 40 HP motor).

5.0 TREATMENT SYSTEM

5.1 Pre-Filtration

Use bag type filter unit to avoid liquid residual stream from backwashing. Initial pore size selection is 15microns. Pre-Filter Units are sized for replacement of filter bag elements approximately once a day.


Assuming approximately 10 mg/L TSS in untreated groundwater and 90% removal, TSS accumulation in thefilter within one day is: .

1,000 gpm x 1,440 min/day x 8.34 Ibs/gal x [(10 - 1) mg/l] x 10"6 = 108 IDS dry TSS /day

With a typical solids capture capacity of 1.0 Ibs dry TSS per ft2 of bag filter, required surface of bag filters::

108lbs-f1.0lbs/ft2 = 108ft2

-> Call for two (2) parallel (one standby) 101 ft2 23-bag pressure Pre-Filter Units with 15-micron filter bags.Rosedale Model 48 or equivalent (see attached vendor information).


Under design conditions the initial conditions Pre-Filter System is triplicated to match the correspondingincrease in flow from 1,000 gpm to 2,500-3,000 gpm

Tetra Tech N US STANDARD CALCULA TION SHEETCLIENT:USEPA ARCS III

FILE No:7308-0390



BY:JLG


PAGE:4 OF 13

DATE:09/12/06

-» Call for six (6) 101 ft2 23-bag pressure Pre-Filter Units with 15-micron filter bags. Units operating asthree (3) parallel trains of two (2) units in parallel (one stand by). Rosedale Model 48 or equivalent (seeattached vendor information).

5.2 Air Stripping

Equalized and pre-filtered groundwater is treated to remove TCE in an dual stage air stripper systemconsisting of multiple shallow tray type Air Stripper Units. Although it requires a greater air flow and thecapacity of the largest commercially-available units is limited to 1,000 gpm, this type of air stripper wasselected to allow enclosure in a building of normal height. The design of the air stripper system may besummarized as follows:

Design Parameters Initial ConditionsAverage Design

ConditionsMaximum Design

Conditions1 Stage Air Stripper UnitNumber of UnitsGroundwater Flow (gpm)Groundwater Temperature (°F)TCE In (ug/L)TCE Out(1) (uq/L)PCE In (uq/L)PCE Out(1) (uq/L)c-1 ,2-DCE In (uq/L)c-1 ,2-DCE Out(1) (ug/L)Other VOCs In (ug/L)Other VOC Our' (ug/L)Number of Air Stripping TraysTray Dimensions (LxWxH) (ft)Stripping Air Flow (cfm)Percolation Rate (gpm/ft2)Air-to-Water Ratio

11,000

551,500

3630

0.6210

0.5515

0.366

12x6x13,50013.926.2

3 in parallel83355

1,00014.530

0.3710

0.3615

0.236

12x6x13,50011.631.4

3 in parallel1,000

551 ,000

2430

0.6210

0.5515

0.366

12x6x13,50013.926.2

2 Stage Air Stripper UnitNumber of UnitsGroundwater Flow (gpm)Groundwater Temperature (°F)TCE ln(1) (uq/L)TCE Out(li (uq/DPCE ln(1) (uq/L)PCE Out(1) (uq/L)c-1 ,2-DCE ln(1) (ug/L)c-1 ,2-DCE Out0' (U9/L)Other VOCs ln(1) (U9/L)Other VOCs Out(1) (ug/L)Number of Air Stripping TraysTray Dimensions (LxWxH) (ft)Percolation Rate (gpm/ft2)Stripping Air Flow (cfm)Air-to-Water Ratio

11,000

55360.90.620.010.550.030.360.02

612x6x1

13.93,50026.2

3 in parallel83355

14.50.20.370.0050.360.010.230.01

612x6x1

11.63,50031.4

3 in parallel1,000

55240.6

0.620.010.550.030.360.02

612x6x1

13.93,50026.2

Other VOCs include chloroform, vinyl chloride, and trichlorofluoromethane (5 ug/L each)(1) As predicted by Carbonair STAT modeling software


FILE No:7308-0390



BY:JLG


PAGE:5 OF 13

DATE:09/12/06

5.2.1 Initial Conditions:

-> Call for two (2) 12 x 6 x 11 ft LWH 6-tray shallow tray type Air Stripper Units operating in series. UseCarbonair Model STAT 720 or equivalent (see attached vendor information).

Air stripping air to be first directed to the bottom of the 2nd Stage Air Stripper Unit and then from the top of the2nd Stage Air Stripper Unit to the bottom of the 1st Stage Air Stripper Unit. Air Stripper Blower to be mountedon 2nd Stage Air Stripper Unit skid.

-» Call for one (1) 3,500 cfm centrifugal type Air Stripper Blower (50 HP motor).

Treated groundwater to be first pumped from the bottom sump of the 1st Stage Air Stripper Unit to the top ofthe 2nd Stage Air Stripper Unit and then from the bottom sump of the 2nd Stage Air Stripper Unit to the Liquid-Phase GAC Adsorption Unit. Pumps to be mounted on Air Stripper Units skids. Pumps operation (start/stop)to be controlled by level switches (HI and LO) in the Air Stripper Units sumps.

-> Call for one (1) 1,000 gpm horizontal-centrifugal 1sl Stage Air Stripper Transfer Pump (30 ft design TDH,15 HP motor).

-> Call for one (1) 1,000 gpm horizontal-centrifugal 2nd Stage Air Stripper Transfer Pump (75 ft designTDH, 40 HP motor).

5.2.2 Design Conditions:

-> Call for six (6) 12 x 6 x 11 ft LWH 6-tray shallow tray type Air Stripper Units operating as three (3)parallel trains of two (2) units in series. Use Carbonair Model STAT 720 or equivalent (see attachedvendor information).

Air stripping air for each train to be first directed to the bottom of the 2nd Stage Air Stripper Unit and then fromthe top of the 2nd Stage Air Stripper Unit to the bottom of the 1st Stage Air Stripper Unit. Air Stripper Blowersto be mounted on 2nd Stage Air Stripper Units skids.

-> Call for three (3) 3,500 cfm centrifugal type Air Stripper Blower (50 HP motor).

Treated groundwater for each train to be first pumped from the bottom sump of the 1st Stage Air Stripper Unitto the top of the 2nd Stage Air Stripper Unit and then from the bottom sump of the 2nd Stage Air Stripper Unitto the Greensand Filters. Pumps to be mounted on Air Stripper Units skids. Pumps operation (start/stop) tobe controlled by level switches (HI and LO) in the Air Stripper Units sump.

-> Call for three (3) 1,000 gpm horizontal-centrifugal 1st Stage Air Stripper Transfer Pumps (30 ft designTDH, 15 HP motor).

-^ Call for three (3) 1,000 gpm horizontal-centrifugal 2nd Stage Air Stripper Transfer Pumps (75 ft designTDH, 40 HP motor).

5.3 Offqas Vapor-Phase GAC Adsorption

The off gas of the 1 Stage Air Stripper Units (that also includes the offgas of the 2 Stage Air Stripper Units)is treated in a vapor-phase GAC adsorption system to remove TCE. The humidity of the offgas needs to bereduced from 100% to approximately 50% by an electric air heater to optimize the effectiveness of the vapor-phase GAC adsorption process.


FILE No:7308-0390



BY:JLG


PAGE:6 OF 13

DATE:09/12/06

Weight of air be heated: (3 x 3,500) cfm air x 0.075 Ibs/ft3 air = 787.5 Ibs air/min

As per Perry's Handbook Figure 12-1 (5th Edition, page 12-4), power needed to dry 60 °F air from saturationto 50% is approximately 6 BTU/lb air.

Required Power: 787.5 Ibs air/min x 6 BTU/lb air x 0.01757 kW/BTU/min = 83, say 84 kW

-» Call for a 84 kW electrical Offgas Air Heater. Use Heat Exchange & Transfer, Inc. (HE&T) Model ADH-84-483 or equivalent (see attached vendor information).

Total weight of TCE in offgas over operating life of the air stripper system:5,500,000,000 gallons x 8.34 Ibs/gal x (1.0 - 0.0002) mg/L TCE x 10"6 = 45,861 Ibs TCE

Assume that approximately 6 pounds of GAC are consumed for each pound of TCE removed.

Total GAG consumption over operating life of the system:45,861 Ibs TCE x 6 Ibs GAC/lb TCE = 275,166 Ibs, or 137.6 tons GAC

Initial weight of TCE in offgas:1,000 gpm x 1,440 min/day x 8.34 Ibs/gal x (1.5 - 0.0009) mg/L TCE x 10"6 = 18 Ibs TCE/day

Initial GAC consumption:18 Ibs TCE/day x 6 Ibs GAC/lb TCE = 108 Ibs GAC/day or 52,560 Ibs GAC/year

-» Call for a system consisting of two (2) Vapor-Phase GAC Adsorption Units operating in series, eachholding 13,500 Ibs GAC. Use a Carbonair Model GPC 120 or equivalent (see attached vendorinformation). System to be designed such that either unit can be placed in the lead or lag position.

Estimated replacement frequency of lead Vapor-Phase GAC Adsorption Unit over the operating life of thesystem:(275,166 Ibs total GAC use + 13,500 Ibs GAC in lead unit) - 1 (initial charge) = 19.4, say 20 replacements

Initial frequency of replacement:13,500 Ibs GAC in lead unit-r 108 Ibs/day initial GAC use = 125 days, or 3 times a year

For costing purposes, it is assumed that the lead GAC unit is replaced 20 times over 30 years, approximatelyaccording to the following schedule:

Years

1-23-45-67-1011-30

Replacements per Year

321

1/2 years1 / 3 years

Treated air stripper offgas is conveyed out of the Vapor-Phase GAC Adsorption Units by Exhaust Blowersthat create a "push-pull" action with the Air Stripper Blowers.

Tetra Tech NUS STANDARD CALCULATION SHEETCLIENT:USEPA ARCS ill

FILE No:7308-0390



BY:JLG


PAGE:7 OF 13

DATE:09/12/06


-> Call for one (1) 3,500 cfm centrifugal type Exhaust Blower (50 HP motor).


-> Call for three (3) 3,500 cfm centrifugal type Exhaust Blowers (50 HP motor).

5.4 Chemical Oxidation

A solution of potassium permanganate (KMnO4) is injected in the bottom sump of 2nd Stage Air Stripper Unitsto chemically oxidize iron.

KMnO4 dosage: 1 x mg/L Fe = 1 x 1.0 = 1 mg/L

Initial KMnO4 use: 1,000 gpm x 1440 min/day x 1 mg/L x 8.34 Ibs/gal x 10"6 = 12 Ibs/dayInitial KMnO4 feed solution volume @ 3 % (wt): 12 Ibs/day -=- (0.03 x 8.5 Ibs/gal) = 47 gal/day

Design KMnO4 use: 2,500 gpm x 1440 min/day x 1 mg/L x 8.34 Ibs/gal x 10"6 = 30 tbs/dayDesign KMnO4 feed solution volume @ 3 % (wt): 30 Ibs/day -r (0.03 x 8.5 Ibs/gal) =118 gal/day

-> Call for a Permanganate Feed System consisting of: one (1) 500-gallon FRP dissolution/feed tank, one(1) rim-mounted propeller-type 1 HP mixer, and one (1) manually-adjustable diaphragm-type 30-150gpd feed pump.

5.5 Greensand Filtration

Pressure Greensand Filters are used to remove oxidized iron.

Design Greensand Filters for a maximum percolation rate of 3.0 gpm/ft2 (10-States Standards requirement)then check that backwash frequency doesn't exceed once-a-day.


Minimum Greensand filtration area: 1,000 gpm -=- 3 gpm/ft2 = 333 ft2

Anticipated filter cycle @ specific loading of 700 grains Fe/ft2 (Hungerford & Terry):

Volume of water per cycle: 700 grains x 333 ft2 + (1 mg/L -=• 17.1 mg/L per gpg) = 3,986,000 gallonsFilter backwash frequency: 3,986,000 gal -r (1,000 gpm x 1440 min/day) = 2.77 days OK

-> Call for two (2) 10-foot diameter, 20 feet long pressure Greensand Filters operating in parallel. UseHungerford & Terry or equivalent as vendor (custom designs).

Actual filter area: 2 x 10 ft x 20 ft = 2 x 200 ft2 = 400 ft2

Actual filtration rate: 1,000 gpm -=- 400 ft2 = 2.5 gpm/ft2 OKActual backwash frequency: 400 ft2 -=- 333 ft2 x 2.77 days = 3.32 days OK

Estimate Greensand medium attrition losses @ approximately 3% per yearGreensand volume with 2-foot layer: 400 ft2 x 2 ft = 800 ft3

Yearly attrition losses: 800 ft3 x 0.03 = 24 ft3, or 2,400 Ibs @ 100 Ibs/ft3 bulk density


FILE No:7308-0390



BY:JLG


PAGE:8 OF 13

DATE:09/12/06


Increase number of Greensand Filters in proportion to flow.

Number of Greensand Filters: 2 x (2,500 gpm -=-1,000 gpm) = 5

-> Call for five (5) 10-foot diameter, 20 feet long pressure Greensand Filters operating in parallel. UseHungerford & Terry or equivalent as vendor (custom designs).

Filter rate and backwash frequency stay the same as 2.5 gpm/ft2 and 3.32 days, respectively.Attrition losses will increase proportionaly to: 2,400 Ibs/yr x (5 -=- 2) = 6,000 Ibs/yr

5.5.3 Greensand Filters Backwash

Typical Greensand Filter backwash sequence is as follows (Hungerford & Terry):

• Filter drain-down to filter media• Upflow air and water scour (1 cfm/ft2 air, 4 gpm/ft2 water) for 3 minutes• Upflow water wash (12 gpm/ft2) for 10 minutes• Downflow water rinse at service flow (500 gpm) for 3 minutes

With 10-ft diameter x 20 ft long Greensand Filters and 12 gpm/ft2

Maximum backwash water rate: 200 ft2 x 12 gpm/ft2 = 2,400 gpm

-> Call for one (1) 2,400 gpm horizontal-centrifugal Backwash Pump (75 ft design TDH, 100 HP motor).

With 10-ft diameter x 20 ft long Greensand Filters and 1 cfm/ft2

Maximum backwash air rate: 200 ft2 x 1 cfm/ft2 = 200 cfm

-> Call for one (1) 200 cfm positive displacement, lobe-type Backwash Blower (10 psig, 15 HP motor).

Total volume per backwash per filter:(4 gpm/ft2 x 200 ft2 x 3 min) + (12 gpm/ft2 x 200 ft2 x 10 min) + (500 gpm x 3 min) = 27,900 gallons

Average daily spent backwash water volume: 27,900 gal/filter x 5 filters -e- 3.32 days = 42,018 gal/day

Minimum volume of air stripped groundwater processed during backwash:1,000 gpm x 16 = 16,000 gallons

Clean backwash water is supplied from the Effluent Holding Tank of the groundwater reinjection system.Net clean backwash water volume requirement: 27,900 -16,000 = 11,900 gallons

-> Call for one (1) 14-foot diameter, 12 feet SSH Effluent Holding Tank with a working capacity of 12,000gallons. Tank to be of cylindrical vertical configuration and manufactured of painted carbon steel. Tankto be of open-top design. Note that because of its large diameter this tank must be field-fabricated.

Also need tank sized to hold at least the volume of spent backwash water from one Greensand Filter, or27,900 gallons.


FILE No:7308-0390



BY:JLG


PAGE:9 OF 13

DATE:09/12/06

-> Call for one (1) 21-foot diameter, 12 feet SSH Backwash Storage Tank with a working capacity of28,000 gallons. Tank to be of cylindrical vertical configuration and manufactured of painted carbonsteel. Tank to be of open-top design. Note that because of its large diameter this tank must befield-fabricated.

A Backwash Mixer is required to keep the TSS in suspension in the Backwash Storage Tank.Backwash Mixer sized @ 0.5 HP/1,000 gal: 28,000 gallons x 0.5 HP •=-1,000 gallons = 14, say 15 HP

->• Call for one (1) top-mounted 15 HP low-speed turbine-type Backwash Mixer.

5.6 Effluent Liquid-Phase GAG Adsorption

Greensand Filters effluent is treated in a liquid-phase GAC adsorption system to remove residual TCE priorto discharge.

Effluent polishing with liquid-phase GAC adsorption typically requires an empty bed contact time (EBCT)ranging from 5 to 10 minutes. Use 8 minutes EBCT

Because this is only for effluent poslishing following a very efficient dual stage air strippingsystem, a dual stage liquid-phase GAC system is not absolutely required. Therefore, the liquid-phase GAC adsorption system could consist simply of units in parallel without the "back-up" of secondstage units.

5.6.1 Intitial Conditions

Required GAC volume:1,000 gpm x 8 minutes -r 7.4805 gal/ft3 = 1,069 ft3 GAC or, @ approximately 30 Ibs/ft3, 32,080 Ibs GAC

-> Call for two (2) Liquid-Phase GAC Adsorption Units operating in parallel, each holding 20,000 Ibs GAC.Use Carbonair Model PC-113 or equivalent (see attached vendor information). Adsorption units to bedesigned to allow for periodic backwash.


Required GAC volume:2,500 gpm x 8 minutes -f 7.4805 gal/ft3 = 2,674 ft3 GAC or, @ approximately 30 Ibs/ft3, 80,208 Ibs GAC

-> Call for four (4) Liquid-Phase GAC Adsorption Units operating in parallel, each holding 20,000 Ibs GAC.Use Carbonair Model PC-113 or equivalent (see attached vendor information). Adsorption units to bedesigned to allow for periodic backwash.

Estimated quantity of residual TCE in air stripper effluent:2,500 gpm x 1,440 min/day x 8.34 Ibs/gal x 0.0002 mg/L TCE x 10"6 = 0.006 Ibs TCE/day

Assume that approximately 40 pounds of GAC would be consumed per pound of residual TCE removed.

Estimated GAC usage:0.006 Ibs TCE/day x 40 Ibs GAC/lb TCE removed = 0.24 Ibs GAC/day or 88 Ibs/year

Estimated replacement frequency of Liquid-Phase GAC Adsorption Units over the operating life of thesystem:[(88 Ibs/year GAC use x 30 years operating time) -=- 80,000 Ibs GAC in system] - 1 (initial charge) = - 0.967


FILE No:7308-0390



BY:JLG


PAGE:10 OF 13

DATE:09/12/06

No replacement needed.

However, a typical yearly attrition loss of 10%, or 8,000 Ibs/year is used for O&M costing.

5.6.3 Backwash System

Due to the extremely low frequency of required regeneration, It is anticipated that the Liquid-Phase GACAdsorption Unit will need to be regularly backwashed to remove GAC fines, minimize water channeling, andprevent cementing of the GAC bed. This is accomplished by "bumping" the units with a counter-current ofwater that "fluffs up" the GAC bed.

With 12-ft diameter Liquid-Phase GAC Adsorption Units and 15 gpm/ft2

Backwash water rate: 11.3 ft2 x 15 gpm/ft2 = 1,695 gpm

With 5 min backwash duration:Backwash water volume: 1,695 gpm x 5 min = 8,475 gal/ unit backwash

Assume backwash frequency is once every 30 days for each Liquid-Phase GAC Adsorption UnitTotal backwash water volume per event: 8,475 gal/ unit x 4 units = 33,900 gallonsAverage daily volume of dirty backwash water: 33,900 gal -=- 30 days = 1,130 gal/day

Use the same backwash system as for the Greensand Filters.

5.7 Backwash Water Filtration/Dewaterinq

To minimize the volume of dirty backwash water to be disposed, it is treated with a filter press to remove themajority of the TSS from it and concentrate these TSS as a filter cake that is disposed offsite. The filteredbackwash water is recycled to the Equalization Tanks.

Assume that average TSS concentration of dirty backwash water (Greensand Filters & Liquid-Phase GACAdsorption Units) is approximately 500 mg/L, which is typical. Also assume a 5 days-a-week operatingschedule for the filter press.


Average daily weight (dry basis) of dirty backwash solids to be filtered/dewatered:[(16,807 + 565) x 7 -=- 5] gal x 500 mg/L x 8.34 Ibs/gal x 10"6 = 101.4, say 105 dry pounds solids/day

Assume a filter press solids capture of 95% and a filter cake solids content of 25% (by weight) and specificgravity of 80 pounds per ft3.

Average daily filter cake volume:(105 Ibs x 0.95) + (0.25 x 80 Ibs/ft3) = 4.99 ft3/dayAdjust for use of approximately 10% pre-coat (by volume):4.99 ft3 x 1.1 = 5.48 ft3/day filter cake

Assume filter press plate size is a typical 800 x 800 mm (2.62 x 2.62 ft) and cake thickness is a typical 1 inch.Filter cake volume per press chamber: (2.62 ft)2 x 1 in -=- 12 in/ft = 0.57 ft3/chamberNumber of press chambers required: 5.48 ft3 -=- 0.57 ft3/chamber = 9.6, say 10 chambers

Size filter press to handle dirty backwash water within one daily 4-hour filter cycle


FILE No:7308-0390



BY:JLG


PAGE:11 OF13

DATE:09/12/06

Filter press feedrate: [(16,807 + 565) x 7 -^ 5] gal/day -r (4 hr/day x 60 min/hr) = 101.3, say 100 gpmFilter press filtration surface: (2.62 ft)2 per chamber wall x 2 walls/chamber x 10 chambers = 137.3 ft2

Average filtration rate: 100 gpm -=-137.3 ft2 = 0.73 gpm/ft2 OK

-> Call for one (1) 6 ft3 sidebar type Filter Press with ten (10) 800x800 mm recessed-plate chambers. FilterPress to be platform-mounted and equipped with precoat feed system, automatic plate shiftermechanism, light cutrain, and "bomb bay" doors. Use US Filter 800x800 mm sidebar type J-Press orequivalent.

-> Call for one (1) manually-adjustable 50-250 gpm positive displacement, progressive cavity type FilterPress Feed Pump (100 psig discharge, 30 HP motor).


Average daily weight (dry basis) of dirty backwash solids to be filtered/dewatered:[(42,018 + 1,130) x 7 -r 5] gal x 500 mg/L x 8.34 Ibs/gal x 10"6 = 251.8, say 250 dry pounds solids/day

Assume a filter press solids capture of 95% and a filter cake solids content of 25% (by weight) and specificgravity of 80 pounds per ft3.

Average daily filter cake volume:(250 Ibs x 0.95) 4- (0.25 x 80 Ibs/ft3) = 11.87 ft3/dayAdjust for use of approximately 10% pre-coat (by volume):11.87 ft3 x 1.1 = 13.06 ft3/day filter cake

Assume filter press plate size is a typical 800 x 800 mm (2.62 x 2.62 ft) and cake thickness is a typical 1 inch.Filter cake volume per press chamber: (2.62 ft)2 x 1 in -r 12 in/ft = 0.57 ft3/chamberNumber of press chambers required: 13.06 ft3 -=- 0.57 ft3/chamber = 22.8, say 23 chambers

Size filter press to handle dirty backwash water within one daily 4-hour filter cycleFilter press feedrate: [(42,018 + 1,130) x 7 -=- 5] gal/day -=- (4 hr/day x 60 min/hr) = 251.6 gpmFilter press filtration surface: (2.62 ft)2 per chamber wall x 2- walls/chamber x 23 chambers = 315.8 ft2

Average filtration rate: 251.6 gpm -=-315.8 ft2 = 0.796, say 0.8 gpm/ft2 OK

-> Call for one (1) 13 ft3 sidebar type Filter Press with twenty-three (23) 800x800 mm recessed-platechambers. Filter Press to be platform-mounted and equipped with precoat feed system, automatic plateshifter mechanism, light cutrain, and "bomb bay" doors. Use US Filter 800x800 mm sidebar type J-Press or equivalent.

-» Call for two (2) manually-adjustable 50-250 gpm positive displacement, progressive cavity type FilterPress Feed Pump (100 psig discharge, 30 HP motor).

6.0 TREATED GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE

Treated groundwater is discharged as follows:• The first 1,000 gpm of flow (initial conditions) is discharged through reinjection into the aquifer• The next 500 gpm of flow (design conditions) is also discharged back to the aquifer but through

infiltration• The remaining 1,000 gpm (design conditions) is discharged to the west branch of Perkiomen Creek


FILE No:7308-0390



BY:JLG


PAGE:12 OF13

DATE:09/12/06

6.1 Reinfection (Initial & Design Conditions)

Treated groundwater from the Liquid-Phase GAG Adsorption Units is collected into an Effluent Holding Tankand pumped from there to reinjection wells as illustrated on Figure FS-10-2.

The Effluent Holding tank is designed to provide 5 minutes detention time for adequate control of theReinjection Pump.

Effluent Holding Tank Volume: 1,000 gpm x 5 minutes = 5,000 gallons

Use the same 12,000-gallon, 14-foot diameter x 12 feet SSH Effluent Holding Tank as designed for theGreensand Filters backwash (see Section 5.5.3).

A Reinjection Pump is provided to transfer groundwater from the Effluent Holding Tank to the reinjectionwells. Pump operation (start/stop) is controlled by the level switches (HI & LO) in the Effluent Holding Tank.

-» Call for one (1) horizontal-centrifugal 1,000 gpm Reinjection Pump (200 ft design TDH, 100 HP motor).

Design of the groundwater reinjection wells may be summarized as follows:

Well Number

IW-1 to IW-25

Type

Screened

Depth(ft)

300

Total


40

1,000

6.2 Infiltration (Design Conditions)

Treated groundwater from the Liquid-Phase GAG Adsorption Units is collected into the Effluent Holding Tankand pumped from there to an infiltration gallery as illustrated on Figure FS-10-2.

The Effluent Holding tank is designed to provide 5 minutes detention time for adequate control of theInfiltration Pump.

Effluent Holding Tank Volume: 500 gpm x 5 minutes = 2,500 gallons

Use the same 12,000-gallon, 14-foot diameter x 12 feet SSH Effluent Holding Tank as designed for theGreensand Filters backwash (see Section 5.5.3) and treated groundwater reinjection (see Section6.1).

An Infiltration Pump is provided to transfer groundwater from the Effluent Holding Tank to the infiltrationgallery. Pump operation (start/stop) is controlled by the level switches (HI & LO) in the Effluent Holding Tank.

-> Call for one (1) horizontal-centrifugal 500 gpm Infiltration Pump (100 ft design TDH, 25 HP motor).

The infiltration gallery is of the French drain type approximately 300 feet long by 4 feet wide and 15 feet deep.A 20-inch perforated PVC pipe is installed along the length of that gallery and this pipe is embedded in alayer of pea gravel approximately 5 feet thick.


FILE No:7308-0390



BY:JLG


PAGE:13 OF13

DATE:09/12/06

6.3 Discharge to Perkiomen Creek (Design Conditions)

Treated groundwater from the Liquid-Phase GAC Adsorption Units is collected in the Effluent Holding Tankand pumped from there to the nearby west branh of Perkiomen Creek at the two locations illustrated onFigure FS-10-2.

The Effluent Holding tank is designed to provide 5 minutes detention time for adequate control of the SurfaceDischarge Pump.

Effluent Holding Tank Volume: 1,000 gpm x 5 minutes = 5,000 gallons

Use the same 12,000-gallon, 14-foot diameter x 12 feet SSH Effluent Holding Tank as designed for theGreensand Filters backwash (see Section 5.5.3).

A Surface Discharge Pump is provided to transfer groundwater from the Effluent Holding Tank to PerkiomenCreek. Pump operation (start/stop) is controlled by the level switches (HI & LO) in the Effluent Holding Tank.

-> Call for one (1) horizontal-centrifugal 1,000 gpm Surface Discharge Pump (50 ft design TDH, 25 HPmotor).

7.0 ATTACHMENTS

Figure FS-10-2: Alternative 10 Extraction-Treatment-Discharge System Layout Plan (1 page, pdf)Figure FS-10-3: Alternative 10 Process Flow Diagram (1 page, pdf)Figure FS-10-4: Alternative 10 Modular Implementation Concept DiagramRosedale Filters Catalog (7 pages, pdf)Carbonair STAT Air Strippers (2 pages, pdf)HE&T Air Heater (1 page, pdf)Hungerford & Terry Ferrosand Filter (6 pages, pdf)Carbonair Vapor-Phase GAC Adsorption (2 pages, pdf)Carbonair Liquid-Phase GAC Adsorption (2 pages, pdf)US Filter J-Press (12 pages, pdf)

APPENDIX C

PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES


CROSSLEY FARM SITEBERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIAFEASIBILITY STUDYALTERNATIVE 10i: VALLEY PLUME GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEM, INITIAL CONDITIONSCapital Cost

| Item Quantity1 PROJECT PLANNING

1.1 Prepare Documents & Plans including Permits . 4002 FIELD SUPPORT

2.1 Office Trailer 72.2 Storage Trailer 72.3 Site Utilities (phone & electric) 72.4 Construction Survey 13 DECONTAMINATION

3.1 Temporary Decon Pad 13.2 Decontamination Services 43.3 Decon Water 40003.4 Decon Water Storage Tank, 6,000 gallon 43.5 Clean Water Storage Tank, 4,000 gallon 43.6 Disposal of Decon Waste (liquid & solid) 44 GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION SYSTEM INSTALLATION

i Unit Subcontract

hr .

momomo

Is $2,000.00

Ismogalmomomo $900.00

Unit CostMaterial Labor

$35.00

$202.50$105.00

$302.00

$500.00 $450.00$210.00 $1,800.00

$0.20

Equipment

$155.00$315.00

$645.00$580.00

4.1 12" ODEX to 150 ft, 5 Extraction Wells 750 ft $90.004.2 12" air rotary 150 ft to 300 ft, 5 Extraction Wells 750 ft $50.004.3 8" Stainless Steel Casing to 50 ft, 5 wells 250 ft $80.004.4 8" Stainless Steel Screen 50 ft to 300 ft, 5 wells 1 ,250 ft $1 00.004.5 Well Development, 6 hrs per well, 5 wells 30 hr $250.004.6 Transport/Dispose Liquid IDW Off Site 432,000 gal $1 .204.7 Transport/Dispose Solid IDW Off Site 5 wells $11,100.004.8 IDW Management per 300 ft Extraction Well 5 wells $5,000.004.9 12" air rotary to 45 ft, 5 Extraction Wells, 225 ft $50.00

4.10 8" air rotary 45 ft to 300 ft, 5 Extraction Wells 1,250 ft $40.004.11 8" Stainless Steel Casing to 45 ft, Swells 225 ft $45.004.12 Well Development, 6 hrs per well, Swells 30 hr $250.004.13 Transport/Dispose Liquid IDW Off Site 90,000 gal $1.204.14 Transport/Dispose Solid IDW Off Site 5 wells $6,300.004.15 IDW Management per 300 ft Extraction Well 5 wells $5,000.004.16 6" air rotary to 45 ft, 3 observation wells 135 ft $40.004.17 4" air rotary, 45 ft to 400 ft, 3 observation wells 1,065 ft $40.004.18 4" Stainless Steel Casing to 45 ft, Swells 135 ft $40.004.19 Well Development, 6 hrs per well, Swells 18 hr $250.004.20 Transport/Dispose Liquid IDW Off Site 63,000 gal $1 .204.21 Transport/Dispose Solid IDW Off Site 3 wells $10,220.004.22 IDW Management per 400 ft Observation Well 3 wells $5,000.004.23 Westbay Well Materials 3 wells4.24 Technical Support Is $25,000.004.25 Groundwater Extraction Pumps, submrs-cfgl (100 gpm, 15 HP) 10 ea4.26 Excavate/Backfill Pipe 4' Deep Trench 2,000 If4.27 20/24-inch Dia. PE Piping 2,000 ft4.28 Leak Detection Monitor 2,000 If4.29 Vault Boxes with valves, in-line flow indicator, & level switches 10 ea

5 ON-SITE TREATMENT SYSTEM INSTALLATION

$20,000.00

$2,182.00 $1,065.00$2.74

$71.02 $19.50$9.50 $4.75

$500.00

$348.00$0.79

5.1 Treatment Building 7,500 sf $35.505.2 Equalization Tank, 6250 gallon, 10 ft dia x 12 ft H5.3 Equalization Mixer, 5 HP

eaea

5.4 Equalization Transfer Pump, 1000 gpm, 40 HP 1 ea5.5 Pre-Filter Units, 100 sf, multi-bags, 1,000 gpm 2 ea5.6 Air Stripper Units, 6-tray, 12x6x1 1 ft LWH 2 ea5.7 Air Stripper Blower, 3500 cfm, 50 HP5.8 1 st Stage Air Stripper Transfer Pump, 1 000 gpm, 1 5 HP

1 eaea

$9,004.32$22,417.00$5,381.00

$56,700.00$99,654.75$8,987.25$4,500.00

$2,251.08$5,604.25$1,345.25

$14,175.00$24,913.69$2.246.81$1,125.00

Subcontract

$0

$0$0

$0$2,000

$0$0$0$0$0

$3,600

$67,500$37,500$20,000

$125,000$7,500

$518,400$55,500$25,000$11,250$50,000$10,125$7,500

$108,000$31 ,500$25,000$5,400

$42,600$5,400$4,500

$75,600$30,660$15,000

$0$25,000

$0$0$0$0$0

$266,250$0$0$0$0$0$0$0

Extended CostMaterial Labor

$0

$1,418$735

$2,114$0

$500$840$800

$0$0$0

$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0

$60,000$0

$21,820$0

$142,032$19,000$5,000

$0$9,004

$22,417$5,381

$113,400$199,310

$8,987$4,500

$14,000

$0$0

$0$0

$450$7,200

$0$0$0$0

$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0

$10,650$5,480

$38,990$9,500

$0

$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0

9/28/2006

Equipment||

$0

$0$0

$0$0

$155$1,260

$0$2,580$2,320

$0

$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0

$3,480$1,580

$0$0$0

$0$2,251$5,604$1,345

$28,350$49,827$2,247$1,125

1:39 PM

Subtotal

$14,000

$1,418$735

$2,114$2,000

$1,105.$9,300

$800$2,580$2,320$3,600

$67,500$37,500$20,000

$125,000$7,500

$518,400$55,500$25,000$11,250$50,000$10,125$7,500

$108,000$31,500$25,000

$5,400$42,600$5,400$4,500

$75,600$30,660$15,000$60,000$25,000$35,950$7,060

$181,022$28,500$5,000

$266,250$1 1 ,255$28,021$6,726

$141,750$249,137$11,234

$5,625

balsamoVCrossley FarmVAIt 10i Cost (9-14-06) (rev 9-18-06) .xls\capcost Page 1 of 3

CROSSLEY FARM SITEBERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIAFEASIBILITY STUDYALTERNATIVE 10i: VALLEY PLUME GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEM, INITIAL CONDITIONSCapital Cost

9/28/2006 1:39 PM

| Item Quantity5.9 2nd Stage Air Stripper Transfer Pump, lOOOgpm, 40 HP 1

5.10 Offgas Air Heater, 84 kW with Control Panel 1

Unit Subcontracteaea

5.11 Vapor-Phase GAC Adsorption Units, 1 3500 Ibs G AC, 1 6.5x8 ft 2 ea5.1 2 Exhaust Blower, 3500 cfm, 50 HP 15.1 3 Exhaust Stack, 1 2" dia. x 1 5 ft H - 15.14 Permanganate Stor. & Diss. Tank, 500-gal, FRP 15.15 Permanganate Feed Mixer, 1 HP 15.16 Permanganate Feed Pump, 30-150 gpd 1

eaeaIs

eaea

5.17 Greensand Filters, 10 ft dia x 20 ft long horiz pressure 2 ea5.18 Backwash Pump, 2400 gpm, 100 HP 15.19 Backwash Blower, 200 cfm pos disp lobe-type, 15 HP 15.20 Backwash Storage Tank, 28,000 gallon, 21 ft dia x 1 2 ft H 15.21 Backwash Mixer, 15 HP 1

eaeaeaea

5.22 Liquid-Phase GAC Adsrpt Units, 20,000 Ibs GAC each, 12-ft di; 2 ea5.23 Filter Press, 6 cf sidebar recessed plate, precoat, 10 chambers 15.24 Filter Press Feed Pump, 50-250 gpm pos disp, 30 HP 15.25 Control Panel 1

IsIsIs $25,000.00


$5,381.00$10,200.00$34,064.55

$8,987.25$12,000.00$2,350.00$2,799.81$2,366.91

$100,000.00$15,840.63

$5,607.00$37,557.00$42,929.00$87,500.00$30,000.00$10,000.00

Equipment$1,345.25$2,550.00$8,516.14$2,246.81$3,000.00

$587.50$699.95$591.73

$25,000.00$3,960.16$1,401.75$9,389.25

$10,732.25$21 ,875.00$7,500.00$2,500.00

5.26 Overhead Feed, per Power Pole, 50 ft apart 20 ea $3,000.005.27 Transformer 15.28 Switchgear 15.29 Electrical to Connect from Switchgear to Loads 1

ea $9,000.00ea $2,600.00Is

5.30 Heat Tracing 200 ft5.31 Plumb/Electrify Systems (Pipe Fitters & Electricians) 540 mn-days5.32 Systems Start-Up and Testing, 10 hour days 40 mn-days

6 GROUNDWATER REINJECTION SYSTEM INSTALLATION6.1 Effluent Holding Tank, 12,000 gallon, 14 ft dia x 12 ft, Open To[ 16.2 Reinjection Pump, 1000 gpm, 100 HP 1

eaea

6.3 Excavate/Backfill Pipe 4' Deep Trench 2,500 If6.4 14-inch Dia. PE Piping 2,500 ft6.5 Vault Boxes with valves & in-line flow indicator 25 ea

$3,680.00$12.00

$340.00$500.00

$11,122.02 $1,610.00$9,620.79 $835.20

$3.28$17.18 $4.59

$500.00

$261.30

$1.36$2.54

6.6 12" air rotary to 45 ft, 25 Injection Wells 1,125 ft $50.006.7 8" air rotary 45 to 300 ft (255' total), 25 Injection Wells 6,375 ft $40.006.8 8" casing to 45 ft, 25 Injection Wells 1 ,1 25 ft $45.006.9 8" Stainless Steel Screen 50 ft to 300 ft, 25 wells 0 ft $100.00

6.1 0 Well Development, 6 hrs per well, 25 wells 1 50 hr $1 25.006.11 Transport/Dispose Liquid IDW Off Site, 18,000 gal/well 450,000 gal $1.206.12 Transport/Dispose Solid IDW Off Site, $6,300/well 25 wells $6,300.006.13 IDW Management, $5,000 per 300 ft Injection Well 25 wells $5,000.00

7 MISCELLANEOUS7.1 Construction Oversite (2p*7 months) 294 mn-days7.2 Post Construction Documents • 200 hr

Subtotal

Local Area Adjustments

Overhead on Labor Cost @ 30%G & A on Labor Cost @ 10%

G & A on Material Cost @ 10%G & A on Equipment Cost @ 10%

G & A on Subcontract Cost @ 10%

$240.00$35.00

Subcontract$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0

$25,000$60,000

$9,000$2,600

$0$0$0$0

$0$0$0$0$0

$56,250$255,000

$50,625$0

$18,750$540,000$157,500$125,000

$0$0

$2,875,510

100.0%

$2,875,510

$287,551

Extended CostMaterial Labor$5,381

$10,200$68,129

$8,987$12,000$2,350$2,800$2,367

$200,000$15,841$5,607

$37,557$42,929

$175,000$30,000$10,000

$0$0$0$0

$3,680$2,400

$0$0

$11,122$9,621

$0$42,955$12,500

$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0

$0$0

$1,328,683

100.0%

$1,328,683

$132,868

$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0

$183,600$20,000

$1,610$835

$8,200$11,475

$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0

$70,560$7,000

$389,550

100.0%

$389,550

$116,865$38,955

Equipment^$1,345$2,550

$17,032$2,247$3,000

$588$700$592

$50,000$3,960$1,402$9,389

$10,732$43,750$7,500$2,500

$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0

$261$0

$3,400$6,350

$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0

$0$0

$269,423

100.0%

$269,423

$26,942

Subtotal!$6,726

$12,750$85,161$11,234$15,000

$2,938$3,500$2,959

$250,000$19,801

$7,009$46,946$53,661

$218,750$37,500$12,500$25,000$60,000$9,000$2,600$3,680$2,400

$183,600$20,000

$12,993$10,456$1 1 ,600$60,780$12,500$56,250

$255,000$50,625

$0$18,750

$540,000$157,500$125,000

$70,560$7,000

$4,863,166

$4,863,166

$116,865$38,955

$132,868$26,942

$287,551

balsam' ley FarnMIt 10i Cost (9-14-06) (rev 9-18-06) .xls\capcost 2 of 3

CROSSLEY FARM SITEBERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIAFEASIBILITY STUDYALTERNATIVE 101: VALLEY PLUME GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEM, INITIAL CONDITIONSCapital Cost

9/28/2006 1:39 PM

Item Quantity! Unit SubcontractUnit Cost

Material Labor Equipment SubcontractExtended CostMaterial Labor Equipmen' Subtotal

Total Direct Cost

Subtotal

Total Field Cost

TOTAL COST

$3,163,061 $1,461,551 $545,370 $296,365

Indirects on Total Direct Cost @ 30%Profit on Total Direct Cost @ 10%

Health & Safety Monitoring @ 2%

Contingency on Subtotal Cost @ 20%Engineering on Subtotal Cost @ 10%

$5,466,348

$1,639,904$546,635

$7,652,887

$153,058

$7,805,945

$1,561,189$780,594

$10,147,728

balsamo\Crossley FarrrMIt 10i Cost (9-14-06) (rev 9-18-06) .xls\capcost Page 3 of 3

9/28/2006 9:40 AM

CROSSLEY FARM SITEBERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIAFEASIBILITY STUDYALTERNATIVE 101: VALLEY PLUME GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEM, INITIAL CONDITIONSOperation and Maintenance Costs per Year

| Item Qty UnitUnit Subtotal I

Cost Cost Notes |

Years 1 & 21 Energy - Electric 4,949,361 kWh $0.08 $395,9492 Maintenance 1 Is $156,208.39 $156,208 5% of Installation Cost3 Labor 365 day $280.00 $102,200 One operator, 8 hours per day4 Dilute Hydrochloric Acid (5%), including Disposal 2,000 gallons $3.50 $7,000 For cleaning of Air Stripper Units, Once per Year5 Replace Lead Vapor-Phase GAG Unit 40,500 Ib $3.00 $121,500 Replace 13,500 Ib GAG Unit three times in Years 1 & 26 Potassium Permanganate 4,400 Ib $3.00 $13,2007 Greensand Filter Medium 2,400 Ib $1.00 $2,4008 Replace Liquid-Phase GAG 4,000 Ib $1.00 $4,0009 Dispose of Filter Press Cake with Residue of Iron Removal 124,800 Ib $0.10 $12,480 5,200 Ib per week10 Influent & Effluent Sampling 24 ea $175.00 $4,200 monthly VOCs, iron, and TSS, includes 30% for QA11 Extraction & Monitoring Wells Sampling (10 + 3) 52 ea $175.00 $9,100 Quarterly VOCs, iron and TSS, includes 30% for QA12 Air Stripper Offgas Sampling & Chlorinated VOC Analysis 1 ea $200.00 $200 Annually, includes 30% for quality assurance13 Semi-Annual Reports 2 ea $4,000.00 $8,000

Subtotal Cost for One Year Operation $836,437

Years 3 & 41 Energy - Electric 4,949,361 kWh $0.08 $395,9492 Maintenance 1 Is $156,208.39 $156,208 5% of Installation Cost3 Labor 365 day $280.00 $102,200 One operator, 8 hours per day4 Dilute Hydrochloric Acid (5%), including Disposal 2,000 gallons $3.50 $7,0005 Replace Lead Vapor-Phase GAG Unit 27,000 Ib $3.00 $81,000 Replace 1 3,500 Ib GAG Unit twice in Years 3 &46 Potassium Permanganate 4,400 Ib $3.00 $13,2007 Greensand Filter Medium 2,400 Ib $1.00 $2,4008 Replace Liquid-Phase GAG 4,000 Ib $1.00 $4,0009 Dispose of Filter Press Cake with Residue of Iron Removal 124,800 Ib $0.10 $12,480 5,200 Ib per week10 Influent & Effluent Sampling 24 ea $175.00 $4,200 monthly VOCs, iron, and TSS, includes 30% for QA11 Extraction* Monitoring Wells Sampling (10 + 3) 26 ea $175.00 $4,550 semi-annually VOCs, iron and TSS, includes 30% for QA12 Air Stripper Offgas Samplings. Chlorinated VOC Analysis 1 ea $200.00 $200 Annually, includes 30% for quality assurance13 Semi-Annual Reoorts 2 ea $4,000.00 $8,000

Subtotal Cost for One Year Operation $791,387

(1) Replace Lead Vapor-Phase GAC Adsorption Unit Three Times Years 1 & 2(2) Replace Lead Vapor-Phase GAC Adsorption Unit Twice Years 3&4(3) Replace Lead Vapor-Phase GAC Adsorption Unit Once, Years 5 & 6(4) Replace Lead Vapor-Phase GAC Adsorption Unit Once Every 2 Years, Years 7 through 10(5) Replace Lead Vapor-Phase GAC Adsorption Unit Once Every 3 Years, Years 11 through 30

(6) Extraction and Monitoring Wells Sampling and Analysis: Quarterly for Years 1 & 2, Semi-Annually for Years3 to 5, and Annually Years 6 to 30.

isley FarrrAAIt 10i Cost (9-14-06) (rev 9-18-06) .xls\op8.maint ige 1 of 1

9/28/2006 9:40 AM

CROSSLEY FARM SITEBERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIAFEASIBILITY STUDYALTERNATIVE 10): VALLEY PLUME GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEM, INITIAL CONDITIONSOperation and Maintenance Costs per Year

| Item

Years1 Energy - Electric2 Maintenance3 Labor4 Dilute Hydrochloric Acid (5%), including Disposal5 Replace Lead Vapor-Phase GAC Unit6 Potassium Permanganate7 Greensand Filter Medium8 Replace Liquid-Phase GAC9 Dispose of Filter Press Cake with Residue of Iron Removal10 Influent & Effluent Sampling1 1 Extraction & Monitoring Wells Sampling (10 + 3)

Qty

4,949,3611

365

Unit

kWhIs

day2,000 gallons

13,5004,4002,4004,000

124,8002426

12 Annual Air Stripper Offgas Sampling & Chlorinated VOC Anal 113 Semi-Annual Reports

Subtotal Cost for One Year Operation

Years 6, 8, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 25, and 281 Energy - Electric2 Maintenance3 Labor4 Dilute Hydrochloric Acid (5%), including Disposal5 Replace Lead Vapor-Phase GAC Unit6 Potassium Permanganate7 Greensand Filter Medium8 Replace Liquid-Phase GAC9 Dispose of Filter Press Cake with Residue of Iron Removal10 Influent & Effluent Sampling1 1 Extraction & Monitoring Wells Sampling (10 + 3)

2

4,949,3611

365

IbIbIbIbIb

eaeaeaea

kWhIs

day2,000 gallons

13,5004,4002,4004,000

124,8002413

12 Annual Air Stripper Offgas Sampling & Chlorinated VOC Anal 113 Semi-Annual Reports


2

IbIbIbIbIb

eaeaeaea

UnitCost

$0.08$156,208.39

$280.00$3.50$3.00$3.00$1.00$1.00$0.10

$175.00$175.00$200.00

$4,000.00

$0.08$156,208.39

$280.00$3.50$3.00$3.00$1.00$1.00$0.10

$175.00$175.00$200.00

$4,000.00

SubtotalCost

$395,949$156,208$102,200

$7,000$40,500$13,200$2,400$4,000

$12,480$4,200$4,550

$200$8,000

$750,887

$395,949$156,208$102,200

$7,000$40,500$13,200$2,400$4,000

$12,480$4,200$2,275

$200$8,000

$748,612

Notes

5% of Installation CostOne operator, 8 hours per day

5,200 Ib per week

I

monthly VOCs, iron, and TSS, includes 30% for QAsemi-annually VOCs, iron and VOCs,includes 30% for quality assurance


5,200 Ib per week

includes 30% for QA

monthly VOCs, iron, and TSS, includes 30% for QAannually VOCs, iron and VOCs, includes 30% for QAincludes 30% for quality assurance

(1) Replace Lead Vapor-Phase GAC Adsorption Unit Three Times Years 1 & 2(2) Replace Lead Vapor-Phase GAC Adsorption Unit Twice Years 3 & 4(3) Replace Lead Vapor-Phase GAC Adsorption Unit Once, Years 5 & 6(4) Replace Lead Vapor-Phase GAC Adsorption Unit Once Every 2 Years, Years 7 through 10(5) Replace Lead Vapor-Phase GAC Adsorption Unit Once Every 3 Years, Years 11 through 30


balsamoVCrossley Farm\Alt 10i Cost (9-14-06) (rev 9-18-06) .xls\op&maint (2) Page 1 of 1

9/28/2006 9:40 AM

CROSSLEY FARM SITEBERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIAFEASIBILITY STUDYALTERNATIVE 101: VALLEY PLUME GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEM, INITIAL CONDITIONSOperation and Maintenance Costs per Year

1 item 1 Qty UnitUnitl

Cost|Subtotal

Cost Notes 1

Years 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, and 301 Energy - Electric 4,949,361 kWh $0.082 Maintenance 1 Is $156,208.393 Labor 365 day $280.004 Dilute Hydrochloric Acid (5%), including Disposal 2,000 gallons $3.505 Replace Lead Vapor-Phase GAC Unit 0 Ib $3.006 Potassium Permanganate 4,400 Ib $3.007 Greensand Filter Medium 2,400 Ib $1.008 Replace Liquid-Phase GAC 4,000 Ib $1.009 Dispose of Filter Press Cake with Residue of Iron Removal 124,800 Ib $0.1010 Influent* Effluent Sampling 24 ea $175.0011 Extraction* Monitoring Wells Sampling (10+ 3) 13 ea $175.0012 Annual Air Stripper Offgas Sampling & Chlorinated VOC Anal 1 ea $200.0013 Semi-Annual Reports 2 ea $4,000.00


$395,949$156,208 5% of Installation Cost$102,200 One operator, 8 hours per day

$7,000$0

$13,200$2,400$4,000

$12,480 5,200 Ib per week$4,200 monthly VOCs, iron, and TSS, includes 30% for QA$2,275 annually VOCs, iron and TSS, includes 30% for QA

$200 includes 30% for quality assurance$8,000

$708,112



iSley FarnMIt 10i Cost (9-14-06) (rev 9-18-06) .xls\op&maint (3) Rage 1 of 1

CROSSLEY FARM SITEBERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIAFEASIBILITY STUDYALTERNATIVE 10i: VALLEY PLUME GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEM, INITIALCONDITIONSPresent Worth Analysis

9/18/2uvx> 2:40 PM

( CaiYear C(

Dital Operation andDst Maintenance Cost

0 $10,147,7281234567'89101112131415161718192021222324252627282930

$836,437.$836,437$791 ,387$791,387$750,887$748,612$708,112$748,612$708,112$748,612$708,112$708,112$748,612$708,112$708,112$748,612$708,112$708,112$748,612$708,112$708,112$748,612$708,112$708,112$748,612$708,112$708,112$748,612$708,112$708,112

Total YearCost

$10,147,728$836,437$836,437$791 ,387$791 ,387$750,887$748,612$708,112$748,612$708,112$748,612$708,112$708,112$748,612$708,112$708,112$748,612$708,112$708,112$748,612$708,112$708,112$748,612$708,112$708,112$748,612$708,112$708,112$748,612$708,112$708,112

Annual DiscountRate at 7%

1.0000.9350.8730.8160.7630.7130.6660.6230.5820.5440.5080.4750.4440.4150.3880.3620.3390.3170.2960.2770.2580.2420.2260.21 10.1970.1840.1720.1610.1500.1410.131

Present IWorth I

$10,147,728$782,069$730,210$645,772$603,828$535,383$498,576$441,154$435,692$385,213$380,295$336,353$314,402$310,674$274,748$256,337$253,780$224,472$209,601$207,366$182,693$171,363$169,186$149,412$139,498$137,745$121,795$114,006$112,292$99,844$92,763

TOTAL PRESENT WORTH $19,464,248

balsamo\Crossley FarrrMIt 10i Cost(9-14-06) (rev 9-18-06) .xls\pwa Page 1 of 1

CROSSLEY FARM SITEBERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIAFEASIBILITY STUDYALTERNATIVE 10d: VALLEY PLUME GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEM, DESIGN CONDITIONSCapital Cost

9/28/2006 1:43 PM

| Item Quantity Unit SubcontractUnit Cost

Material Labor Equipment SubcontractExtended CostMaterial Labor Equipment Subtotal

1 PROJECT PLANNING1.1 Prepare Documents & Plans including Permits .2 FIELD SUPPORT

2.1 Office Trailer2.2 Storage Trailer2.3 Site Utilities (phone & electric)2.4 Construction Survey3 DECONTAMINATION

3.1 Temporary Decon Pad3.2 Decontamination Services3.3 Decon Water3.4 Decon Water Storage Tank, 6,000 gallon3.5 Clean Water Storage Tank, 4,000 gallon3.6 Disposal of Decon Waste (liquid & solid)4 GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION SYSTEM INSTALLATION

4.1 12" ODEX to 150 ft, 10 Extraction Wells4.2 12" air rotary 150 ft to 300 ft, 10 Extraction Wells4.3 8" Stainless Steel Casing to 50 ft, 10 wells4.4 8" Stainless Steel Screen 50 ft to 300 ft, 10 wells4.5 Well Development, 6 hrs per well, 10 wells4.6 Transport/Dispose Liquid IDW Off Site4.7 Transport/Dispose Solid IDW Off Site4.8 IDW Management per 300 ft Extraction Well4.9 12" air rotary to 45 ft, 15 Extraction Wells,

4.10 8" air rotary 45 ft to 300 ft, 15 Extraction Wells4.11 8" Stainless Steel Casing to 45 ft, 15 wells4.12 Well Development, 6 hrs per well, 15 wells4.13 Transport/Dispose Liquid IDW Off Site4.14 Transport/Dispose Solid IDW Off Site4.15 IDW Management per 300 ft Extraction Well4.16 6" air rotary to 45 ft, 3 observation wells4.17 4" air rotary, 45 ft to 400 ft, 3 observation wells4.18 4" Stainless Steel Casing to 45 ft, 3 wells4.19 Well Development, 6 hrs per well, 3 wells4.20 Transport/Dispose Liquid IDW Off Site4.21 Transport/Dispose Solid IDW Off Site4.22 IDW Management per 400 ft Observation Well4.23 Westbay Well Materials4.24 Technical Support4.25 Groundwater Extraction Pumps, submrs-cfgl (100 gpm, 15 HP)4.26 Excavate/Backfill Pipe 4' Deep Trench4.27 20/24-inch Dia. PE Piping4.28 Leak Detection Monitor4.29 Vault Boxes with valves, in-line flow indicator, & level switches

5 ON-SITE TREATMENT SYSTEM INSTALLATION5.1 Treatment Building5.2 Equalization Tanks, 6250 gallon, 10 ft dia x 12 ft H5.3 Equalization Mixers, 5 HP5.4 Equalization Transfer Pumps, 1000 gpm, 40 HP5.5 Pre-Filter Units, 100 sf, multi-bags, 1,000 gpm5.6 Air Stripper Units, 6-tray, 12x6x11 ft LWH5.7 Air Stripper Blowers, 3500 cfm, 50 HP5.8 1 st Stage Air Stripper Transfer Pumps, 1000 gpm, 15 HP

400 hr $35.00 $0 $0 $14,000 $0 $14,000

8881

14

4000444

1,5001,500500

2,50060

864,0001010675

3,82567590

270,0001515

1351,06513518

63,0003331

255,0005,0005,000

25

7,5002236633

momomoIs

Ismogalmomomo

ftftftfthrgal

wellswells

ftftfthr

galwellswells

ftftfthr

galwellswellswells

Isea

IfftIf

ea

sfeaeaeaeaeaeaea

$2,000.00

$900.00

$90.00$50.00$80.00$100.00$250.00$1.20

$11,100.00$5,000.00$50.00$40.00$45.00$250.00

$1.20$6,300.00$5,000.00$40.00$40.00$40.00$250.00

$1.20$10,220.00$5,000.00

$25,000.00

$35.50

$202.50$105.00$302.00

$500.00 $450.00$210.00 $1,800.00$0.20

$20,000.00

$2,182.00 $1,065.00$3.28

$71.02 $19.50$9.50 $4.75

$500.00

$9,004.32$22,417.00$5,381.00$56,700.00$99,654.75$8,987.25$4,500.00

$0$0$0

$2,000

$155.00 $0$315.00 $0

$0$645.00 $0$580.00 $0

$3,600

$135,000$75,000$40,000$250,000$15,000

$1,036,800$111,000$50,000$33,750$153,000$30,375$22,500$324,000$94,500$75,000$5,400$42,600$5,400$4,500$75,600$30,660$15,000

$0$25,000

$348.00 $0$1.36 $0

$0$0$0

$266,250$2,251 .08 $0$5,604.25 $0$1,345.25 $0$14,175.00 $0$24,913.69 $0$2,246.81 $0$1,125.00 $0

$1,620$840

$2,416$0

$500$840$800$0$0$0

$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0

$60,000$0

$54,550$0

$355,080$47,500$12,500

$0$18,009$44,834$16,143$340,200$597,929$26,962$13,500

$0$0$0$0

$450$7,200

$0$0$0$0

$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0

$26,625$16,400$97,475$23,750

$0

$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0

$0$0$0$0

$155$1 ,260

$0$2,580$2,320

$0

$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0

$8,700$6,800

$0$0$0

$0$4,502$11,209$4,036$85,050$149,482$6,740$3,375

$1,620$840

$2,416$2,000

$1,105$9,300$800

$2,580$2,320$3,600

$135,000$75,000$40,000$250,000$15,000

$1 ,036,800$1 1 1 ,000$50,000$33,750$153,000$30,375$22,500$324,000$94,500$75,000$5,400$42,600$5,400$4,500$75,600$30,660$15,000$60,000$25,000$89,875$23,200$452,555$71,250$12,500

$266,250$22,511$56,043$20,179$425,250$747,41 1$33,702$16,875

balsamo\Crossley FarrrAAIt 10d Cost (9-14-06) (rev 9-18-06).xls\capcost Page 1 of 3


9/28/2006 1:43 PM

| Item Quantity Unit Subcontract5.9 2nd Stage Air Stripper Transfer Pumps, 1 000 gpm, 40 HP 3 ea

5.10 Offgas Air Heater, 84 kW with Control Panel 15.1 1 Vapor-Phase GAG Adsorption Units, 13500 Ibs GAG, 16.5x8 ft 2

eaea

5.12 Exhaust Blowers, 3500 cfm, 50 HP 3 ea5.13 Exhaust Stack, 12" dia.x 15ft H - 15.14 Permanganate Stor. & Diss. Tank, 500-gal, FRP 15.15 Permanganate Feed Mixer, 1 HP 15.16 Permanganate Feed Pump, 30-150 gpd

eaIs

eaea

5.17 Greensand Filters, 10ft diax 20 ft long horiz pressure 5 ea5.18 Backwash Pump, 2400 gpm, 100 HP5.19 Backwash Blower, 200 cfm pos disp lobe-type, 15 HP5.20 Backwash Storage Tank, 28,000 gallon, 21 ft dia x 1 2 ft H 15.21 Backwash Mixer, 15 HP 1

eaeaeaea

5.22 Liquid-Phase GAG Adsrpt Units, 20,000 Ibs GAG each, 12-ft di< 4 ea5.23 Filter Press, 13 cf sidebar recessed plate, precoat, 23 chamber 1 Is5.24 Filter Press Feed Pumps, 50-250 gpm pos disp, 30 HP 2 Is5.25 Control Panel 1 Is $25,000.00


$5,381.00$10,200.00$34,064.55$8,987.25

$12,000.00$2,350.00$2,799.81$2,366.91

$100,000.00$15,840.63$5,607.00

$37,557.00$42,929.00$87,500.00$40,000.00$10,000.00

Equipment$1,345.25$2,550.00$8,516.14$2,246.81$3,000.00

$587.50$699.95$591.73

$25,000.00$3,960.16$1,401.75$9,389.25

$10,732.25$21,875.00$10,000.00$2,500.00

5.26 Overhead Feed, per Power Pole, 50 ft apart 20 ea $3,000.005.27 Transformer5.28 Switchgear5.29 Electrical to Connect from Switchgear to Loads

ea $9,000.00ea $2,600.00Is

5.30 Heat Tracing 200 ft$3,680.00

$12.005.31 Plumb/Electrify Systems (Pipe Fitters & Electricians) 880 mn-days5.32 Systems Start-Up and Testing, 10 hour days 40 mn-days

6 GROUNDWATER REINJECTION SYSTEM INSTALLATION6.1 Effluent Holding Tank, 1 2,000 gallon, 1 4 ft dia x 1 2 ft, Open To[ 16.2 Reinjection Pump, 1000 gpm, 100 HP

eaea

$11,122.02$9,620.79

6.3 Excavate/Backfill Pipe> Deep Trench 2,500 If6.4 14-inch Dia. PE Piping 2,500 ft6.5 Vault Boxes with valves & in-line flow indicator 25 ea

$17.18$500.00

$340.00$500.00

$1,610.00$835.20

$3.28$4.59

$261.30

$1.36$2.54

6.6 1 2" air rotary to 45 ft, 25 Injection Wells 1 ,1 25 ft $50.006.7 8" air rotary 45 to 300 ft (255' total), 25 Injection Wells 6,375 ft $40.006.8 8" casing to 45 ft, 25 Injection Wells 1 ,1 25 ft $45.006.9 8" Stainless Steel Screen 50 ft to 300 ft, 25 wells 0 ft $100.00

6.10 Well Development, 6 hrs per well, 25 wells 150 hr $125.006.11 Transport/Dispose Liquid IDW Off Site, 18,000 gal/well 450,000 gal $1.206.12 Transport/Dispose Solid IDW Off Site, $6,300/well 25 wells $6,300.006.13 IDW Management, $5,000 per 300 ft Injection Well 25 wells $5,000.00

7 GROUNDWATER INFILTRATION SYSTEM INSTALLATION7.1 Horizontal-Centrifugal Infiltration Pump, 500 gpm, 25 HP 1 ea7.2 Excavate/Backfill Pipe 4' Deep Trench 300 If7.3 10-inch Dia. PE Piping 300 ft

$4,254.00

$11.177.4 Excavate/Backfill 4' Wide by 15 ft Deep Infiltration Gallery 300 If7.5 20-inch Dia. Perforated PVC Piping 300 ft7.6 5 ft Thick Layer Fine Gravel 222 cy8 GROUNDWATER SURFACE DISCHARGE SYSTEM INSTALLATION

8.1 Horizontal-Centrifugal Infiltration Pump, 1000 gpm, 25 HP 1 ea8.2 Excavate/Backfill Pipe 4' Deep Trench 1,500 If8.3 14-inch Dia. PE Piping 1,500 ft8.4 14-inch Diffuser-Pipe Surface Discharge Structures 2 ea9 MISCELLANEOUS

$32.07$18.15

$5,381.00

$17.18$200.00

9.1 Construction Oversite (2p*8 months) 336 mn-days9.2 Post Construction Documents 200 hr

$3.28$3.73$14.20$8.05$0.96

$3.28$4.59$20.00

$240.00$35.00

$1,063.50$1.36

$1.90$6.85

$1.89

$1,345.25$1.36

$2.54

Subcontract$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0

$25,000$60,000$9,000$2,600

$0$0$0$0

$0$0$0$0$0

$56,250$255,000

$50,625$0

$18,750$540,000$157,500$125,000

$0$0$0$0$0$0

$0$0$0$0

$0$0

Extended CostMaterial Labor

$16,143$10,200$68,129$26,962$12,000$2,350$2,800$2,367

$500,000$15,841$5,607

$37,557$42,929

$350,000$40,000$20,000

$0$0$0$0

$3,680$2,400 '

$0$0

$11,122$9,621

$0$42,955$12,500

$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0

$4,254$0

$3,350$0

$9,620$4,029

$5,381$0

$25,773$400

$0$0

$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0

$299,200$20,000

$1,610$835

$8,200$11,475

$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0

$0$984

$1,119$4,260$2,415

$213

$0$4,920$6,885

$40

$80,640$7,000

Equipment!$4,036$2,550

$17,032$6,740$3,000

$588$700$592

$125,000$3,960$1,402$9,389

$10,732$87,500$10,000$5,000

$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0

$261$0

$3,400$6,350

$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0

$1 ,064$408$570

$2,055$0

$420

$1 ,345$2,040$3,810

$0

.$0$0

Subtotal]$20,179$12,750$85,161$33,702$15,000$2,938$3,500$2,959

$625,000$19,801$7,009

$46,946$53,661

$437,500$50,000$25,000$25,000$60,000$9,000$2,600$3,680$2,400

$299,200$20,000

$12,993$10,456$11,600$60,780$12,500$56,250

$255,000$50,625

$0$18,750

$540,000$157,500$125,000

$5,318$1,392$5,039$6,315

$12,035$4,662

$6,726$6,960

$36,468$440

$80,640$7,000

balsarr^^Bslley FarrrMIt 10d Cost (9-14-06) (rev 9-18-06).xls\capcost ie 2 of 3


9/28/2006 1:43 PM

I Item Quantity Unit SubcontractUnit Cost

Material Labor Equipment SubcontractExtended CostMaterial Labor

IIEquipment! Subtotal

Subtotal

Local Area Adjustments

Total Direct Cost

Subtotal

Total Field Cost

TOTAL COST

Overhead on Labor Cost @ 30%G & A on Labor Cost @ 10%

G & A on Material Cost @ 10%G & A on Equipment Cost @ 10%

G & A on Subcontract Cost @ 10%

Indirects on Total Direct Cost @ 30%Profit on Total Direct Cost @ 10%

Health & Safety Monitoring @ 2%

Contingency on Subtotal Cost @ 20%Engineering on Subtotal Cost @ 10%

$4,221,660 $2,882,191 $635,696 $596,153 $8,335,700

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

$4,221,660 $2,882,191 $635,696 $596,153

$190,709$63,570

$288,219$59,615

$422,166

$4,643,826 $3,170,410 $889,975 $655,768

$8,335,700

$190,709$63,570$288,219$59,615$422,166

$9,359,979

$2,807,994$935,998

$13,103,971

$262,079

$13,366,050

$2,673,210$1.336,605

$17,375,865

balsamo\Crossley FarrrAAIt 10d Cost (9-14-06) (rev 9-18-06).xls\capcost Page 3 of 3

9/28/2006 9:38 AM

CROSSLEY FARM SITEBERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIAFEASIBILITY STUDYALTERNATIVE 10d: VALLEY PLUME GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEM, DESIGN CONDITIONSOperation and Maintenance Costs per Year

| Item Qty UnitUnit

CostSubtotal

Cost Notes I

Years 1 & 21 Energy - Electric2 Maintenance3 Labor4 Dilute Hydrochloric Acid (5%), including Disposal5 Replace Lead Vapor-Phase GAC Unit6 Potassium Permanganate7 Greensand Filter Medium8 Replace Liquid-Phase GAC9 Dispose of Filter Press Cake with Residue of Iron Removal10 Influent & Effluent Sampling11 Extraction & Monitoring Wells Sampling (25 + 3)12 Air Stripper Offgas Sampling & Chlorinated VOC Analysis13 Semi-Annual Reports


9,521,993 kWh1 Is

365 day5,000 gallons

40,500 Ib11,000 Ib6,000 Ib8,000 Ib

270,400 Ib24 ea

112 ea1 ea2 ea

$0.08$242,400.71

$280.00$3.50$3.00$3.00$1.00$1.00$0.10

$175.00$175.00$200.00

$4,000.00

$761,759$242,401$102,200$17,500

$121,500$33,000$6,000$8,000

$27,040$4,200

$19,600$200

$8,000

5% of Installation CostOne operator, 8 hours per dayFor cleaning of Air Stripper Units, Once per YearReplace 13,500 Ib GAC Unit three times in Years 1 & 2

5,200 Ib per weekmonthly VOCs, iron, and TSS, includes 30% for QAQuarterly VOCs, iron and TSS, includes 30% for QAAnnually, includes 30% for quality assurance

$1,351,400

Years 3 & 41 Energy - Electric2 Maintenance3 Labor4 Dilute Hydrochloric Acid (5%), including Disposal5 Replace Lead Vapor-Phase GAC Unit6 Potassium Permanganate7 Greensand Filter Medium8 Replace Liquid-Phase GAC9 Dispose of Filter Press Cake with Residue of Iron Removal10 Influent & Effluent Sampling11 Extraction & Monitoring Wells Sampling (25 + 3)12 Air Stripper Offgas Sampling & Chlorinated VOC Analysis13 Semi-Annual Reports


9,521,993 kWh1 Is


27,000 Ib11,0006,0008,000

270,400245612

$0.08 $761,759$242,400.71 $242,401 5% of Installation Cost

$280.00 $102,200 One operator, 8 hours per day$3.50 $17,500$3.00 $81,000 Replace 13,500 Ib GAC Unit twice in Years 3 & 4$3.00 $33,000$1.00 $6,000$1.00 $8,000$0.10 $27,040 5,200 Ib per week

$175.00 $4,200 monthly VOCs, iron, and TSS, includes 30% for QA$175.00 $9,800 semi-annually VOCs, iron and TSS, includes 30% for QA$200.00 $200 Annually, includes 30% for quality assurance

$4,000.00 $8,000

$1,301,100



iley FarrrAAIt 10d Cost (9-14-06) (rev 9-18-06).xls\op&maint ige 1 of 1

9/28/2006 9:39 AM


I . Item Qty UnitUnitCost

SubtotalCost

Year 51 Energy - Electric2 Maintenance3 Labor4 Dilute Hydrochloric Acid (5%), including Disposal5 Replace Lead Vapor-Phase GAC Unit6 Potassium Permanganate7 Greensand Filter Medium8 Replace Liquid-Phase GAC9 Dispose of Filter Press Cake with Residue of Iran Removal10 Influent & Effluent Sampling11 Extraction & Monitoring Wells Sampling (25 + 3)12 Annual Air Stripper Offgas Sampling & Chlorinated VOC Anal13 Semi-Annual Reports


Years 6, 8,10,13,16,19, 22, 25, and 281 Energy - Electric2 Maintenance3 Labor4 Dilute Hydrochloric Acid (5%), including Disposal5 Replace Lead Vapor-Phase GAC Unit6 Potassium Permanganate7 Greensand Filter Medium8 Replace Liquid-Phase GAC9 Dispose of Filter Press Cake with Residue of Iron Removal10 Influent & Effluent Sampling11 Extraction & Monitoring Wells Sampling (25 + 3)12 Annual Air Stripper Offgas Sampling & Chlorinated VOC Anal13 Semi-Annual Reports


9,521,993 kWh1 Is

365 day5,000 gallons13,500 Ib11,000 Ib6,000 Ib8,000 Ib

270,400 Ib24 ea56 ea1 ea2 ea

$0.08$242,400.71

$280.00$3.50$3.00$3.00$1.00$1.00$0.10

$175.00$175.00$200.00

$4,000.00

$761,759$242,401$102,200$17,500$40,500$33,000$6,000$8,000$27,040$4,200$9,800$200

$8,000


5,200 Ib per weekmonthly VOCs, iron, and TSS, includes 30% for QAsemi-annually VOCs, iron and VOCs, includes 30% for QAincludes 30% for quality assurance

$1,260,600

9,521,993 kWh1 Is


13,500 Ib11,0006,0008,000

270,4002428

12

$0.08$242,400.71

$280.00$3.50$3.00$3.00$1.00$1.00$0.10

$175.00$175.00$200.00

$4,000.00

$761,759$242,401 5% of Installation Cost$102,200 One operator, 8 hours per day$17,500$40,500$33,000$6,000$8,000

$27,040 5,200 Ib per week$4,200 monthly VOCs, iron, and TSS, includes 30% for QA$4,900 annually VOCs, iron and VOCs, includes 30% for QA


$1,255,700



balsamoVCrossley Farm\Alt 10d Cost (9-14-06) (rev 9-18-06).xls\op&maint (2) Page 1 of 1

9/28/2006 9:39 AM


I Item Qty UnitUnit

CostSubtotal

Cost Notes I

Years 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, and 301 Energy - Electric 9,521,993 kWh $0.082 Maintenance 1 Is $242,400.713 Labor 365 day $280.004 Dilute Hydrochloric Acid (5%), including Disposal 5,000 gallons $3.505 Replace Lead Vapor-Phase GAC Unit 0 Ib $3.006 Potassium Permanganate 11,000 Ib $3.007 Greensand Filter Medium 6,000 Ib $1.008 Replace Liquid-Phase GAC 8,000 Ib $1.009 Dispose of Filter Press Cake with Residue of Iron Removal 270,400 Ib $0.1010 Influents Effluent Sampling 24 ea $175.0011 Extraction & Monitoring Wells Sampling (25 + 3) 28 ea $175.0012 Annual Air Stripper Offgas Sampling & Chlorinated VOC Anal 1 ea $200.0013 Semi-Annual Reports 2 ea $4,000.00


$761,759$242,401 5% of Installation Cost$102,200 One operator, 8 hours per day$17,500

$0$33,000$6,000$8,000

$27,040 5,200 Ib per week$4,200 monthly VOCs, iron, and TSS, includes 30% for QA$4,900 annually VOCs, iron and TSS, includes 30% for QA


$1,215,200



isley FarrmAlt 10d Cost (9-14-06) (rev 9-18-06).xls\op&maint (3) ige 1 of 1

CROSSLEY FARM SITEBERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIAFEASIBILITY STUDYALTERNATIVE 10d: VALLEY PLUME GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEM, DESIGNCONDITIONSPresent Worth Analysis

9/18/2uud4:16PM

I CaYear C

pital Operation andost Maintenance Cost

0 $17,375,865123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930

$1,351,400$1 ,351 ,400$1,301,100$1,301,100$1,260,600$1 ,255,700$1,215,200$1,255,700$1,215,200$1 ,255,700$1,215,200$1,215,200$1 ,255,700$1,215,200$1,215,200$1,255,700$1,215,200$1,215,200$1 ,255,700$1,215,200$1,215,200$1,255,700$1,215,200$1,215,200$1 ,255,700$1,215,200$1,215,200$1 ,255,700$1,215,200$1,215,200

Total YearCost

$17,375,865$1 ,351 ,400$1 ,351 ,400$1,301,100$1,301,100$1,260,600$1 ,255,700$1,215,200$1,255,700$1,215,200$1 ,255,700$1,215,200$1,215,200$1,255,700$1,215,200$1,215,200$1 ,255,700$1,215,200$1,215,200$1,255,700$1,215,200$1,215,200$1 ,255,700$1,215,200$1,215,200$1 ,255,700$1,215,200$1,215,200$1 ,255,700$1,215,200$1,215,200

Annual DiscountRate at 7%

1.0000.9350.8730.8160.7630.7130.6660.6230.5820.5440.5080.4750.4440.4150.3880.3620.3390.3170.2960.2770.2580.2420.2260.2110.1970.1840.1720.1610.1500.1410.131

Present |jWorth |

$17,375,865$1,263,559$1,179,772$1,061,698$992,739$898,808$836,296$757,070$730,817$661 ,069$637,896$577,220$539,549$521,116$471 ,498$439,902$425,682$385,218$359,699$347,829$313,522$294,078$283,788$256,407$239,394$231,049$209,014$195,647$188,355$171,343$159,191

TOTAL PRESENT WORTH $33,005,093

balsamo\Crossley FarrrAAIt 10d Cost (9-14-06) (rev 9-18-06).xls\pwa Page 1 of 1

APPENDIX D

PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES


Updated 05/05/2006

CROSSLEY FARM SITEBerks County, PennsylvaniaAlternative 11: Excavation and disposal of non-hazardous trash landfill

AssumptionsExcavation/disposal of non-hazardous wasteDisposal area 160' L x 250' W x 4' D - 3' waste + 1' soil to be removedSafety Level DCleanup verification and restorationFill not required to replace waste, assuming clean fill available on siteBonding not requiredBrief completion report

Capital Costs Qty Unit

1 PROJECT DOCUMENTS/INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS

1.1 Senior Engineer: Prepare Documents &Plans including Permits

1.2 Senior Engineer: Prepare DeedRestrictions

120

80

hr

hr

2 MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION & SITE SUPPORT

2.1 Office Trailer, furnished, no hookups, 32'x8'

2.2 Field Office Expense2.3 Storage Trailer (1)2.4 Utility Connection/Disconnection

(phone/electric)2.5 Construction Survey2.6 Equipment Mobilization/Demobilization2.7 Site Utilities2.8 Project Engineer: Field construction mgt.

(4wk)

3 DECONTAMINATION3.1 Decontamination Services3.2 Temporary Equipment Decon Pad3.3 Decon Water3.4 Decon Water Storage Tank, 6,000 gallon

3.5 Clean Water Storage Tank, 4,000 gallon3.6 Disposal of Decon Waste (liquid & solid)

4 EXCAVATION/DISPOSAL

Site Preparation4.1 Site Clearing: Clear and grub, cut & chip

light trees to 6" diam.

1

1

1

1

1.521

200

11

2,0001

11

2

mo

mo

mo

Is

aceamo

hr

moIs

galmb

momo

acre

vnu uosiEscal. Unit

Subcon Material Labor Equipmt Cost

43.19 45.78

43.19 45.78

340.00

145.00109.00

1,500.00 1,500.00

2,000.00 2,000.00151.00 350.00 501.00

150.00 150.0032.34 34.28

1,100.00 1,850.00 1,200.00 4,399.001,500.00 2,000.00 300.00 4,028.00

0.20 0.21645.00 683.70

580.00 614.80950.00 1,007.00

225.00 238.50

Subcon

0

0

0

0

01,500

3,0000

150

0

0000

01,007

477

Material

,

0

0

0

145

00

000

0

1,1661,590

4240

00

0

.osi

Labor

5,494

3,663

0

0

00

0302

0

6,856

1,9612,120

00

00

0

Equipmt

0

0

340

0

1090

0700

0

0

1,272318

0684

6150

0

Total

$

$

$

$

$$

$$$

$

$$$$

$$

$

Direct Cost

5,494

3,663

340

145

1091,500

3,0001,002

150

6,856

4,3994,028

424684

6151,007

477

Alt 11 Cost - Sept 14 2006.xls 1 of 3 Printed 9/28/2006 1:45 PM

Updated 05/05/2006

Capital Costs

4.2 Gravel Access Road: Roads, gravel fill,no surfacing, 8" gravel depth

4.3 Erosion Control: Silt fence, polypropylene,3' high, adverse conditions

4.4 Hay bales, staked

Dewatering4.5 Trash pump-self priming, 3-4" (2002)4.6 Pump hose, 4-6" discharge (2002)4.7 Pump hose, 4-6" suction (2002)4.8 Frac tank, 2 1,000 gal, (2006)

4.9 Frac tank mob/demob (2006)

4.10 Frac tank fuel surcharge (21% ofmob/demob)

4.1 1 Aqueous sample analysis, TCLP w/RCRAchar, package

4.12 Field Technician (2005)

Excavation / Disposal4/13 Excavation: Excavator and operator; 6000

yd3; 600 yd3/day => 10 days4.14 Transport to disposal site: 22 t/load =>

6000 yd3 = 7200 t (1 .2 ton/yd) = 327 load

4.15 Disposal: $58/t non-haz waste

4.16 Technician for inspection, per day,earthwork

4.17 Misc. construction supplies

5 SITE RESTORATION5.1 Dozer: Mobilization up to 50 miles, 70 -

250 hp (2002)5.2 Demobilization up to 50 miles, 70 - 250

hp (2002)5.3 Tractor, crawler, with bulldozer, torque

converter, diesel 200 hp (2002)5.4 Planting: Hydro or air seeding for large

areas, incl. seed and fertilizer (2002)5.5 Surveying: 3-person crew

6 COMPLETION REPORT6.1 Senior Engineer

Qty

1760

1500

200

121

30

1

1

4

10

10

327

6,000

10

1

1

1

5

5,000

2

80

Unit

sy

If

If

monmonmonday

ea

ea

ea

ea

day

load

t

day

Is

ea

ea

day

sy

day

hr

Subcon

85.00

0.93

555^00158.00156.0038.00

2,467.00

519.00

850.00

1,300.00

850.00

58.00

180.00

180.00

823.40

0.35

1,200.00

Unit Co~tEscal. Unit

Material Labor Equipmt Cost

90.10

0.93

2.50 2.65

732.60208.56205.92

50.16

3,256.44

685.08

1,122.00

25.48 27.01

1,300:00

850.00

58.00

25.48 27.01

2,000.00 2,120.00

237:60

237.60

1 ,086.89

0.46

1,584.00

43.19 45.78

Subcon

158,576

1,395

0

733417206

1,505

3,256

685

4,488

0

13,000

277,950

348,000

0

0

238

238

5,434

2,310

3,168

0

T_A_I

Material

0

0

530

0000

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2,120

0

0

0

0

0

0

/^_«»

Labor

0

0

0

0000

0

0

0

270

0

0

0

270

0

0

0

0

0

0

3,663

Equipmt

0

0

0

0000

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Total Direct Cost

$ 158,576

$ 1,395

$ 530

$ 733$ 417$ 206$ 1,505

$ 3,256

$ 685

$ 4,488

$ 270

$ 13,000

$ 277,950

$ 348,000

$ 270

$ 2,120

$ 238

$ 238

$ 5,434

$ 2,310

$ 3,168

$ 3,663

Alt 1-P f-Sept142006.xls Printed 9/2; :45PM

Updated 05/05/2006

Capital Costs Qty

6.2 Word Processing /Clerical 246.3 Draftsman/CADD 24

Subtotal

Local Area Adjustment

Subtotal

Escal. UUnit Subcon Material Labor Equipmt Cost

hr 15.61 16hr 18.61 18

-

Overhead on Labor Cost @ 30%G&A on Labor Cost @ 10%G&A on Material Cost @ 10%G&A on Subcontract Cost @ 10%

Total Direct Costs

Indirects on Total Direct Costs @ 30%Profit on Total Direct Costs @ 10%

SubtotalHealth & Safety Monitoring @2%

Total Field Cost

Contingency on Total Field Costs @ 20%Engineering on Total Field Costs @ 1 0%

nitSubcon Material Labor Equipmt Total Direct Cost

.55 0 0 397 0 $ 397

.73 0 0 473 0 $ 473

827,733 5,975 25,469 4,038 $ 863,214

0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99

819,455 5,915 25,214 3,997 $ 854,582

7,564 $ 7,5642,521 $ 2,521

592 $ 59281,946 $ 81,946

901,401 6,507 35,299 3,997 $ 947,204

$ 284,161$ 94,720

$ 1,326,086$ 26,522

$ 1,352,608

$ 270,522$ 135,261

TOTAL COST 1,758,390

Alt 11 Cost-Sept142006.xls 3 of 3 Printed 9/28/2006 1:45 PM

APPENDIX E

CONTAMINANT ISOTOPIC CONTOUR DRAWINGS

SDMS US EPA Region IIIImagery Insert Form

Site Name: .Q T _ Document ID

Some images in this document may be illegible or unavailable in SDMS. Please seereason(s) indicated below:

ILLEGIBLE due to bad source documents. Images(s) in SDMS equivalent to hard copy,

Specify Type of Document(s) / Comments:

Includes COLOR or RESOLUTION variations. Unless otherwise noted, thesepages are available in monochrome. The source document page(s) is more legible than theimages. The original document is available for viewing at the Superfund Records Center.


RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION (CBI-R):Restricted or copyrighted documents that cannot be imaged.


UNS€ANNABLE MATERIAL:V Oversized or Format. Due to certain scanning equipment capability limitations, the

document page(s) is not available in SDMS. The original document is available for vie1''inf! bitthe EPA Region 3 Superfund Records Center.


c£ flfao* I

Document is available at the EPA Region 3 Superfund Records Center.
