Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
INDUSTRIAL HASTE CONTROL SITETECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Consolidation of Off-site SoilOnto the IWC Site -
Recreational/AgriculturalScenario
WA No. 6 9 . 6 L 3 7 . 0
June 13. 1986
003239
B r-A -... ._, -- r . " "~-\' , " . ' ' •J£:.•. ; . - ; yi
r:3J^ 1 7 r '12- 1 7C 1;' ;:t':"^ • ^ ^ l'^'/fc ^1 1 ... ^..^- — - . - 1 1 ^ 1 1
June 1 3 , 1986
W 6 6 2 3 7 . B C
hr. Anthony GardnerI'.S. Er.vironrr.ental Protection
Agency/ m;&jion VIFirgt International Building28th Floor1 2 0 3 Flm StreetDalloa, Tcxa5 7 5 2 7 0
Dear M r . Gardner:
Enclosed Is tht= tychnical Memorandui-r. you requested thataddresses consolidation of contaminated offsite soils ontothe; IWC site/ asf-uir.ing recreational and/or agricultural useof the otib^te areas. The memorandum presents the rationalefor determining the quantity of offbite soil that should beconsolidated onto the sity and presents estimated costs forconductinc, this remedial action.
If you have an> questions, please call.
Bichar^ E. hocJSSPM/ XWC Site
D E / 7 C / & r 2 f c lEnclosurescc; Mike Harris, Ch2M HILL, Dallas
Clyde Kutchison, Black & Veatch, Ka)ii3a& City
^.r^^'^jf,t,M,Offnr- CH^MHIli &Ml(ln"j. 5W5^ 'SyracuSE. Encjh-w^-iCl. CO 30,? 771 OWO^0 Bw 22^)8. D^n^Qf CtA^OOO <s0222
003240
This technical memorandum presents the rationale for determining the
q u a n t i t y of contaminated of f - s i te soil which vould be consolidated onto the
IVC site under the recreat ional /agr icul tural land use scenario defined in the
endangerment assessment (EPA, l986b).
Results of soil and grounduater sampl ing at o f f - s i t e locations presented
in the Remedial Xnvest igat ion Report (RI) (EPA, 1986a) indicated the presence
of organic chemicals that do not occur na tu ra l ly , and inorganic elements at
concent cat ions above established background repor t ing l i m i t s .
Tha Endangerment Assessment report (EA) (EPA, l986b) q u a n t i f i e d the risks
associated w i t h exposure to the chemicals reported in the soil both on-site
and o f E site and the ground water in the artesian system o f f - s i t e . The risk
tl-om. thifta exposure scenarios (Res iden t i a l , Light Commercia l / Industr ia l , and
Recrea t iona l ) vere q u a n t i f i e d . A f o u r t h exposure set t ing, ag r i cu l tu ra l ,
vas presented but not q u a n t i f i e d . The risks associated v i th the
agr icul tural land use are assumed to be less than or equal to the risks
associated w i t h the residential land use because:
o Children are potent ia l ly exposed under the recreational land use andnot under the agr icu l tu ra l .
o Agr icu l tu ra l field vork in the area is l imi t ed because most of theland is pasture and not cul t ivated on an annual basis.
The residential and commercial / industr ia l scenarios included results of
soil samples (surface and subsurface borings) f rom 0-15 feet deep since
founda t ion excavation could bring contaminated subsurface material to the
surface. The quan t i f i ca t ion of risks £01: the recreational scenario was based
on surface soil samples only because contact w i th contaminated soils vould be
llBiLted to the surface soils. Combining the recreational and agricultucal
003241
scenarios would po ten t ia l ly provide an exposure to soils from a depth of 0-2
feet to Include the agr icul tura l plov zone. Therefore, the off-s ite soil
potentially requiring remedia t ion in accordance w i t h a recreational/
agricultural land use would be from the surface to a depth of 2 feet.
The first objective of remedial action at the IVC s i te , as defined in
Chapter 2 of the Feasibility Study (EPA, 1986c), is to evaluate remedial
alternatives vhich reduce or e l imina te the potent ia l for di rect contact w i t h
or ingestion of con taminants in the on-s i te surface soils and preclude the
transport of these surface con taminan t s to o f f - s i t e areas by sur face va ter or
airborne transport mechanisms. In accordance v i t h this object ive , it vas
determinad by the EPA tha t contaminated o f f - s i t e soil also be remedia ted .
This resulted in the second object ive of the remedial action (FS, Chapter 2 ) ,
vhich is to reduce the risk of exposure to contaminants o f f - s i t e to levels
acceptable for residential development . This vas to be accomplished by
removing contaminated o f f - s i te soils back onto the site. The aereal extent
and q u a n t i f y of o f f - s i t e soil to be consolidated on the site was based on the
residential scenario of the Endangerment Assessment (EPA, 1986b) in
accordance v i th site cleanup goals established by EPA. This memorandum
presents the areal extent and q u a n t i t y of soil to be consolidated on the site
based o" a recreational/agricultural land use scenario rather than
residential usa. Data for both the residential and recreational/agricultural
scenarios for both the residential and recreational/agricultural scenarios are
provided for comparative purposes.
lUsk-assaasernQnts for the residential scenario presented in the EA
indicate riska associated vi th chronic Intake (AIC) of soil by a child at
ra^Qs of 0.1 g/day, 1.0 ff/day and 10.0 g/day and by adults at 0.1 g/day. Risk
S1VM06106
003242
assessments for the recreational scenario are associated v i th subchronic
( A I S ) intake of soil by a child at the same rates. The AIC is an es t imate of
an exposure level that vould not be expected to cause adverse effects vhen
exposure occurs for a s ign i f ican t po r t i on of the lifespan. The AIS is an
estimate of an exposure level that vould not be expected to cause adverse
e f f e c t s vhen exposure occurs dur ing a l imited time interval ( i . e . , for an
i n t e r v a l vhich does not c o n s t i t u t e a s igni f icant por t ion of the l ifespan —
several months or less). ( E P A , 198';)
The greatest r isk under each scenario vas for a child at an an ingestion
rate of 10 g/day. This is the ra te of ingestion of the so-called "pica
chi ld" . The presence of th i s type of child and concurrent ingestion rate of
10 g/day is remote due Co present and projected land use patterns and
demographics for the s i te area. Since the probabi l i ty of a pica child l i v i n g
near the s i te is remote, the ^ore realistic ingestion rate of 1.0 g/day vas
determined by EPA to be an appt-of . t iate upper l imi t .
Us ing EPA acceptable subchronic intakes (AIS) for non-carcinogenic
chemicals, in conjunct ion v i th a dai ly intake of 1 gram of soil by a 10 kg
child under the recreational use scenario, the concentrations of the various
chemicals found in o f f - s i t e soils vere established vhich vould equal or exceed
the AIS. Calculations vere also performed to determine the concentrations of
carcinogenic chemicals in the soil vhich vould pose an excess l i f e t ime cancer
risk equal to or greater than 1 x 10" . These calculations were based on
the model presented in Appendix A of the Endangerment Assessment (EPA, 1986b).
The results of the AIS and excesa cancer risk calculations for all
samples vhich exceeded the l imits are shovn in Table 1. The corresponding
sample locations are shovn on Figure 1.
S1VM06106
003243
TABLE 1OFF-SITE SOIL CONTAMINANT SCREENING RESULTS
REW^TWAL/AGRICULTIJRAL USE
AIC
Sa»plii?g Risk Reported - „ChffBleaS,. Seaeion Listit Concentration Ketained Deleted Reason for Deletion
pptn ppm
CadiniuiR IVC-23-I3 2.9 54 X(Surface)
IVC-27-II 3.7 X Prairie Creek sedireen(Surface)
IVC-50-II 4.3 X Prairie Creek sedimen(Surface)
AIC Lead IVC-00-2,1983 U(Surface)
22-7 X Less than backgroundreporting l imi t of 26 ppm.
Retained indicates sample used as a basis for cleanup of contaminated soil.Deleted indicates sample not used ais a basis for cleanup of contaminated soil.Roman nusseral following sample station number indicates remedial investigation phase. Phase I vas performed in 1984; PhaseII vas performed in 1985.
No AIS available, an AIC provided instead.
0 0 8 0 1 4
003244
OFF-TABLE 1 (cont'd)
-SITE SOIL CONTAMINANT SCREENING RESULTSRECREATIONAL/AGRICULTURAL USE
Risk Chemical
AIC Lead
SamplingStation
IVC-16-I(Surface)
IVC-Z6-II(Surface)
TSC-17-I(Surface)IVC-17-II(Surface)IVC-20-T(Surface)IVC-24-I(Replicate 1)(Surface)(IVC-24-I(Replicaee 2)(Surface)
Risk ReportedLimit Concentrationppffi ppm
14 21
22
28
48
17
19
22
Retained Deleted Reason for Deletion
Prairie Creek sediment, remote from siteand less than background reporting limitof 26 ppm.
Prairie Creek sediment, remote from siteand less than bacJcground reporting limitof 26 ppm.
Prairie Creek sediment, remote from site.
X Prairie Creek sediment, remote from site.
X Remote from site and less than backgroundreporting limit of 26 ppm.
X Concentration less than backgroundreporting- limit of 26 ppfn.
X Concentration less than backgroundreporting limit of 26 ppm.
00 0 1 5'-S -s ., •S, •- aSKcs:!..... „•-.. i ..
003245
TABLE I (cont'd)OFF-SITE SOIL GOTAMINANT SCREENING RESULTS
RECmnOMAL/AGRrCULTOAL £JSR
Sisfe C^etsicalSamplingStation
rvc-24-r(Replicate 3)(Surface)
RiskUai£
ppfn
14
ReportedConcentrasion
PpER
19
Retained 1 Deieeed
X i
reason
Conc^n E rareporting
foT Deleiioa
tion less than backgroundHsRit of 26 ppm.
IVC-24-ICReplicate 4)(Surface)IWC-50-H(Surface)IVC-23-I(Surface)IVC-16-I(Surface)IVC-17-I(Surface)IVC-50-II(Surface)
X Concentration of other three replicatesless than background reporting limit of26 ppm.
X Prairie Creek sediment:, remote from site.
X Frairis Creek sediment, remote from sits.
X Prairie Creek sediment,, remote from siEe.
X Prairie Creek sediment, remote froin site.
003246
TABLE I (cont'd)
OFF-SITE SOIL CONTAKIEWT SCPEEMNG RESULTS£ECR£ATI(^AL/AGRICULTURAL USE
Sampling Ri?k ReportedStation Uadt Concen nation Ketained Deleted Reason for Deletion
B?C--24-I 530(Replicate 1)(Surface)
IVC-^4-1(Replicate 2)(Surface)
IVC-2A-I(Replicate 3)(Surface)
IVC-24-I(Replicate A)(Surface)
ZVC-25-I(Surface)
1430
1720
1400
2300' X
578
Less than background reporting limit ofU63 ppai.
Replicates 1 and ^ belov bac-kgroundreporting limit. Elevated levels ofmanganese not found in Phase 11 samplingor upgradient surface sample at IVC-48.
Less than background reporting limit ofU63 ppm.
RepliLaces I and 3 belov backgroundreporting liiait. Elevated levels ofmanganese not found in Phase II samplingor upgradient surface sample at iyc-4.8.
Less Ehan backgrotmd reporting l imit of14.63 ppm.
0 0 8 0 1 7i a-aifci(iJ. .3^.
003247
TABLE 1 (eonc'd?.SITE SOIL CONTAMINANT SCREEOTMS RESULTS
RECREATIONAL/AGRIOJLTURAL USE
Sisfe Checdcal
ass fifi'a^wip^?<COC2E^>
: • ''* "
^ - ,.:'„; ':tt - i • ; '
ATS tnefcel
EKcess Benzo-a^Cancer pyrene
SamplingStation
2%-&:»-££(Surface)
B?C-46-II(Six-face)
TBM7-II(Surface)
7W^A9-II(Surface)
IVC-49-H(Duplicate)(Surface)
IVC-54.-I:(Surface)
AVC-23-I(Surface)
iyc-23-s(Surface)
RiskUfflic
opm
530
200
^.005
ReportedCoBicentraEioTt
ppia
759
1310
662
1463
900
540
$02
2.3
1 2Retained Deleted
A
X
Y
^ X
x
2;
X
x
Reaso
Less;1A63
t'sss;1463
Less1&63
Equal1463
Less3A63
Less1453
m for Deletion
ehan baefcgxoond reporciog 15a5l ofpp<a.
lAaan background reporting liBit ofppra.
than bac&groisnd reporting XiiEil ofPPBI.
to bacAground reporting; limit ofppm.
chan background reporting 13iaiE ofppai.
than bacfcp-found reporting lafflit ofppia.
0 0 8 0 1 8
003248
Ki «— Mt«ki
°»«™»»Wtmr t™.. lh«,W •qu.t i« ,». to.,, ,
" •rtto, u««t <iwk w>*•v —*»»» thw IN. M»Wrt tWB fyMt
--I 111. II.
' ^*• -
] -c'.W O»>M email i. 1*9*1
UM> n K».FMUMM »W
tMMV ft, WH
S E , * if
1 \ , ••
'• - • './ ^ •
1————————f 1j VW-9* SMW St. IHOr
I CWOUt * 5 pf»1 .**C M
f twuimw <Joa ,,
twei to fni»w c. t^iUkO If W»
«
«
(Mfr.JT «MUB I. BKWt
UJU> f» KMIPJ1U*MB MM'
trm— if, ws^OtBtMH ».TwiMtf «B
'*
003249
The list of locations with contaminant concentrations exceeding an Alb orexcess cancer risk vas reviewed to determine the areas of off-site soil to beconsolidated on the site. Samples were deleted from the list (screened out)for the following reasons:
o Remoteness from the Site: Using the sample data available it couldnot be determined that elevated levels of chemicals at theselocations were due to site disposal activities. For example, thesediment in Prairie Creek vas not Included for remediation becauseof its remoteness from the site and because samples taken in thedrainage paths between Prairie Creek and the site during thereaedial investigation did not shov elevated concentrations ofchemicals (EPA, 1986a). Also, the vacer in Prairie Creek did notshov elevated levels of chemicals ( E P A , 1 9 3 6 a ) . The endangermentassessment did not indicate adverse health effects froia the use ofvater frora Prairie Creek (EPA. 1 9 8 6 b ) .
o Concentration Less Than Background: The RI report (EPA, l986a)established background reporting limits. These limits vereestablished as the naturally occurring concentrations. The limitswere established based on literature reviews and chemical analysesof sampler avay from the site in areas unaffected by site activi-ties. Only samples vhich contain inorganic chemicils at concentra-tions in excess of these limits were considered as potentiallyelevated due to waste disposal activities at the site* Samplinglocations vith levels of chemicals greater than the risk limits butless than the naturally occurring background concentration reportinglimits were not considered for remediation. It is EPA policy not toremediate soils vhich contain chemicals at concentrations vhich aayconstitute a health risk but which are less than the naturallyoccurring background concentration.
One area vhich shoved concentrations of lead and manganese above theAIS risk limit (14 ppm and 530 ppm, respectively) and the backgroundreporting l i m i t (26 ppm and 1 , ^ 6 3 ppm, respectively), but was not selected for
No AIS available foe lead. An AlC is provided instead,
003250
remediation vas around IVC-24 (Phase I , 1984) . Of the six surface samples
collected at sampling station IVC-24, only one sample vas reported to contain
lead ( IVC-24-I» Repl icate 1) and tvo vece reported to conta in manganese
;, iCXVC-24-X, Replicate 2 & 4) at concentrations greater than the background
reporting l i m i t . Dupl icate samples at IVC-24 taken duciftg Phase II d id not
shov elevated levels of lead or manganese- Elevated levels of lead and
manganese vere not detected in an upgcadient sample collected at station
IVC-48. Therefore, this area vas not considered for remedia t ion .
The sample locations remaining a f t e r the screening process are shown in
Table 2.
Table 2' SAMPLE LOCATIONS REQUIRING REMEDIATION
Hisk
AIC1
AIS
AIS
Cancer/1 x 10 "
Sample
IVC-23
IWC-23
IVC-23
IVC-23
Locatic
(Phase
(Phase
(Phase
(Phase
m
I)
I)
I)
I)
SampleLocation
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Chemical Con
Cadmium
Manganese
Mickel
Benzo-a-pyrene
c e n t r a t ippm
54
15^0
90;
2.3
AIS not available for Cadmium, AIC used instead
The results of. the screening ind ica te tha t , based on soil sampling at the
IVC s i te , only the area around Stat ion IVC-23 requires o f f - s i t e soil
remediation to meet acceptable l i m i t s for recreational/agricultural use.
Tht* area o£ off-si te soil excavation in the vicini ty o£ IVC-23 is shown
as Area B on Figure 2. This area is nocih of the old sUlp pit at the
S1VH06106 11
003251
0 0 8 0 2 2
003252
nofthvest corner of the site. This area includes the surface water drainage
path leading off the site to the northwest, and is a migration route tor
contaminants of f -s i te . Surface soil samples in this drainage path near the
s i te shoved elevated levels of several contaminants. The area also contains a
coal refuse pile and high subsurface conductivity measurements vere detected
in this area during the remedial investigation (EPA, 1986a). This area of high
conduct iv i ty probably results f rom the contaminated soil, ground vater , and
maybe leachate from the coal pile.
The soil in this area would be excavated to a depth of 2 feet in
accordance v i t h the recreational/ agricultural land use scenario, instead of
?.5 feet for the residential scenario as noted in Appendix D of the FS. The
total excavation volume of Area B vould be 1600 cubic yards. This Is 3700
cubic yards less than the 5300 cubic yards of excavation under the residential
scenario presented in Appendix D of the FS.
A second area of off-si te soil to be excavated and consolidated on-site
is designated as Area C on Figure 2. Data presented in r.he RI report (EPA,
1986a) indicate that the s t r i p mine extended beyond the presently def ined
western site boundary, but did not extend beyond the county road at the vest
end of the site. The area between the western site boundary and the county
road vest of the site vas included in the of f -s i te soil excavation for the
following reasons:
o The magnetometer survey performed during the RI indicated highmagnetic anomalies v i th in this area, an Indication of thepossibility of buried drums. Soms of these drums could be near thesurface.
o The on-site perch-ad ground vater system extends into this area, andfche on-site perched ground vater is contaminated.
SIVM06106 13
003253
o Aeria l photos taken dur ing the 1960's and 1970's indicate that; thes t r ip mine extended to the county road and the landfill operationsalso extended into this area.
o This area was an entrance to the IVC s i t e . Spills may have occurredin this area during s i te operations.
Assuming tha t the cleanup goal is to remediate off -s i te soils for
agricul tural / recreat ional use ra ther than residential use, the excavation
depth vould only be 2 feet instead of the deeper excavations described in
Appendix D.
In conclusion, if the resident ial scenario (Appendix D of the
Feas ib i l i t y S tudy) is used as a basis for consolidation of o f f - s i t e soil onto
the s i t e , the result ing to ta l excavation vould range between approximate ly
36,000 cubic yards and approximately 26,000 cubic yards (see Appendix D of
PS) . However , i f a recreat ional /agr icul tural land use is the basis, then the
to ta l excavat ion q u a n t i t y vould be 4,600 cubic yards. The d i f ference between
the tvo scenarios is a reduction of 31,400 cubic yards (assuming the on-site
giound water is cleaned up) , or a reduction of 21,400 cubic yards (assuming
the on-site ground wate r is not cleaned up and excavation is l imi ted to the
soil and debris above the water table).
Costs
The cap i t a l cons t ruc t ion costs for the consolidation of o f f - s i t e soils
onto the si te, for the recreational/agricultural land use scenario, are shown
in Table 3. Table 4 presents the capital cost comparison between
consolidation of the of f -s i te soils for residential use and for
^•eereational/agricultural use. Table 4 presents Cha eo^t data for the six
remedial a l te rna t ives evaluated in Chapter 5 of tha Feasibility Study.
S1VM06106 14
003254
Table 3CAPITAL COSTS - CONSOLIDATION OF OFF-SITE SOILS ONTO THE SITE
RECREATIONAL/AGRICULTURAL LAND USE
Quantity46004600
UnitCubic YardCubic Yard
Unit;Cost5.003.00
TotalCost
23,00013,800
Item Q\
Excavate Off-site SoilsTransport & Spread Onsite and
CompactBackfill & Compact Off-site Areas 4600 Cubic Yard 8.00 36^800
Total $73,61)0
Table 4
CAPITAL COST COMPARISONOFF-SITE SOIL CONSOLIDATION
AlternativeNumber Resident ia l
416.000
576.000
Recreational/Agricul tural
$
73,600
73,600
CostD i f f e r e n t i a l
$
342,400
502,400
2, 5 & 10
6,9. & 14
1 Costs f r om FS Appendix B
Tables 5a through 5f present the total present worth costs details f o r
each of the six remedial ae t ion alternatives that were subject to a de t a i l ed
analysis In the FS. The cost details for both the residential and
recreat ional /agricul tural scenarios are shown in Tables 5a through 5f to
clearly shov the d i f ferences in costs. The tables are adapted f rom the cost
sumary tables in Chapter 5 of the Feasibility Study (EPA, 1986c).
S1VM06106 15
003255
Table 5a
I PS ALTERNATIVE 2COST SUMMARY
INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTROL SITE
«Security Fence
l( Removal of Investigation
Derived Waste
Mobil izat ion/DetRob
SB CONSTRUCTION SUBTO
Bid Contingencie8 Scope Contingenc
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION
(
. \
® Scope Contingencies (15%)
H TOTAL ANNUAL O&M COSTS
ffi PRESENT WORTH 0^
TOTAL PRESENT WORT«
ConsolidaOn-site
ANNUAL O&H SUBTOTAL
C
T(
T(
Cost Corn
ontinued
P e r m i t t iService
3TAL IMPL
Engineet:
3TAL CAPI
^^^^^^
ponents
Moni to r i
Cion of Of f - s i t e Soils
ng and LDuring C
.EHENTATI
ing Design Costs W)
TAL COSTS
"g
iliza
»TAL
s (.15%)ics (10^)
COST
egalonstr
ON CO
COSTS
It COS
tion
Wuc t io
ST
T
n (8X)
11 IIIIB
Construct ion Costs ($) AnnualOperation
Recreational/ MaintenanceResidential Agricultural Costs (S)
23,000 23,000 66.8001
31.6002
32.200 32,200
416,000 73,600 0
38.200 38.200 0
25,000 25,000
534,400 192,000
80,200 28,80053.400 19.200
668,000 240,000
33,400 12,00053,400 19.200
754,800 271,200
45.300 16,300
800.100 287.500
67.7001
32.500°
10.2001
J^OO
77.9001
37.400'
389,400
(Residential) $1,189.500CP.ecreational/AgricultuEal) $676.900
liil
A
\0C\J
s WwW^'f& sMi
00000
-
1 First Year Monitoring Costs2 Thereafter
16
003256
Table 5bFS ALTERNATIVE 5COST SUMMARY
INDUSTRIAL VASTE CONTROL SITE
Cost ComponentsContinued Monitoring
Multi-layer CapSurface Vater DiversionSecurity PenceConsolidation of Off-site SoilsOn-siteRemoval of InvestigationDerived Waste ^Hobilization/DemobilinationCONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
Bid Contingencies (15^)Scope Contingencies (10%)
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTPermitting and Legal (5%)Service During Construction (8X) 15?,000
TOTAL IMPLEMENTATION COST 2.218,200Engineering Design Costs (Q%) 177,500
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTSANNUAL O&M SUBTOTAL
Scope Contingencies (15^)
TOTAL ANNUAL O&M COSTS
PRESENT VORTH O&M COSTSTOTAL PRESENT VORTH COST
First Year Monitoring CostsThereafter
Construe
Residentia
23,000
886,900
73,^00
32.200
W.OOO
38,200
AO.QOQ
1,510,000
226,500226.500
1,963,000
98.200) 15?,000
2.218,200
12ZjJQQ2,395.700
72,37.
10.JL83.42,
tion Cos
Recr1 Agrj,
23
886
73
32,200
73,600
38,200
^0.000
1,167,
175,175.
1.517,
75,121.
1,715,
137,
1,852.
ts ($)
eational/cultural
,000
.900
,700
600
100100
800
900400
100
200
300
AnOper
' M a i n tCos
6631
4
438,
inuala t ion &enancet s ( $ )
.8001
.600-
,500
0
900
0
0
2001
000
8001
600"
0001
600
300
(Residential) S2,S3/*,000(Recreational/Agricultural) $2,290,600
17
003257
Table 5cFS ALTERNATIVE 6COST SUMMARY
INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTROL SITE
Cog t Components
Continued Monitoring
Slurry Vail. Pipe Drain,Treatment with- Rigid BarrierSurface Water Diversion
Security FenceNative Soil Cap
Consolidation of Off-site SoilsOn-site
Removal of InvestigationDerived WasteMobilization/DemobilizationCONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
Bid Contingencies (15%)Scope Contingencies (W)
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 1Permitting and Legal (5%)Service During Construction W) 87 A.700
TOTAL IMPLEMENTATION COST 12,355,500Engineering Desig.. Costs W) 988,500
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTSANNUAL O&M SUBTOTAL
Construction Costs ($) Annual
Residential
55,000
6,772.700
73,700
34,200
158,100
576.000
15.400
125.000
7.810,000
1,562.0001.562.000
0.934.000
546,700) 874.700
2.355,500
988.500
3.344,000
Operation &Recreational/ MaintenanceAgricultural Costs (S)
55,000 66.8001
31,60Q2
6,772,700 117,5003
69,700'
73,700 0
34,200 900
158,100 3.000
73.600 0
15,400 0
125,000
7,307,700
1.461,5001,461,500
10.230,700
511,500818.500
11.560.700
693^600
12,254,300
70.7001 117,5C03
35,500" 69,700
Scope Contingencies (152)
T&TAL ANNUAL Q&H COSTS
PXBSBNT VO&TI: O&M COSTS
10.600;5,300'
81,300]40,800'
1.385.000
17.600;10,400
135,100;80,100
TOTAL PRESENT VORTH COST (Resider.lial) 514,729,000(Recreational/Agricultural) $13.639,300
Pirst Year Monitoring CoJtsThereat ee 18 First 5 Yes
Thereafter (25 Yrs)
003258
Table 5dPS ALTEPJiAIIVS 9
COST SUMMARYINDUSTRIAL VASTfi COTOOL SITS
Construclion Coata A^)
Recreational/R^Mg_»^al Agricultural
Annna\Operation ^
Maintenance_J^ts ($)
Continued Monitoring
Slurry Vail, Pipe Drain,Treatment v i th Rigid Barrier
Surface Vater Diversion
Security Fence
Nat ive Soil Cap
73,700
34,200
158,100
576,000
73.700
3^200
158.100
73.600Consolidation of O f f - s i t e SoilsOn-site
Removal of InvestigationDerived Waste
Mobi l i za t ion /Demobi l i za t ion
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
Bid Contingencies (20%)Scope Cont ingencies (20^) W, 900
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
Permi t t ing and Legal (5%) .,-..,.-,...Service During Construct ion W) 532,000
TOTAL IMPLEMENTATION COST
Engineering Design Costs W) 601,_10Q
TOTAL CAPITAL C.OSTS 8,115,000
ANNUAL O&M SUBTOTAL
849,-i008^ 00
303,200485,OU
117,500369,700"
Scope Contingencies (15X)
TOTAL ANNUAL O&M COSTS
PRESENT VORTH O&M COSTS40,800^
JL 385,OOQTOTAL PRESENT WORTH COST (Residential) $9,500,000
(Recreational/Agricultural) $8,784,3001 First Year Monitoring Costs ' First 5 Yrs" Thereafter ,g Thereafter (25 Us^
003259
Tab la 5ePS ALTERNATIVE 10
COST SUHtlAKYINDUSTRIAL VASTS COHTROL SITE
Cos'. Coaponcnts
Continued Moni to r ing
Clay Cap
Surface Water Divacxfon
Sacuricy Pence
Consolidation oi O f E - x t t e SoilsOn-site
Druas-Fxcavation, OH-atieDisposal
Ranoval of Invest igat ionDerived Vasie
H o b i l i z a t ion/Datfiobi l i z a t i o n
COMST&UCTIOH SUBTOTAL
Bid Contingencies (153;)Scope Contingencies (102)
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
Perai t t ing and Legal (5?) .^.J.uuuService During Construction (8X) 129^000
TOTAL IHPLEMENTATION COST 10.296.600
Engineering Design Costa (82) 823,700
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
AWUAL O&H SUBTOTAL
11.120,300
Scope Contingencies (15?)
TOTAL ANNUAL O&M COSTS
TOgENT WORTH O&M COSTS
'TOTAL PRESENT WORTH COST (Residential)(Recreational/Agricultural)
* First Year Monitoring Costs- Thereafter 20
Conttcuctlon Coals ($)
Residential
23.000
685,300
73,700
32.200
416,000
5.181,000
22,400
73,000
6.508,600
1,301,7001,101x700
9,112,000
455,600) 729.000
ftecreation&X/AericulCural
23,000
685,300
73.700
32.200
73,600
5.161,000
22.400
75^000
6.166,200
1.233,2001,233,200
8,632,600
431,600690,600
AnnualOperAlion 6
MaintenanceCoats (S»
66,BOO1
UfWQ2
3.500
0
900
0
0
——^L.
9,754,800
780,400
10.535.200
71.200J36.000'
10.7001
JL400
81.9001
41,400"
427.100
$11,547.400$10.962,300
003260
Table 5fFS ALTERNATIVE 14
COST SUHHAJtYINDUSTRIAL VASTE COWTBOL §116
Cost Coaponents
Continuad Honicor ing 23,000
32,200
<>996,000
576,000
^,6A2,000
15.AO-3
200.000
10, W, 600
i,572,7001^572,?00
13,630.000
681.500
1,090,400
15,^01,900
1,232,100
16,634,000
23,000
32,200
4,996,000
73,600
4.642,000
15,400
200,000
9,982,200
1,497,3001^97,300
l2»976,800
646.800
1,038,100
14.663,700
1,173,100
15,836.800
56,800l
"• a.600"
900
4l,0001
12,500"
0
0
Security Fance
excavation On-si lc RCRAVault Disposal
Coniolldatlon oi Of^-s l ie SoilsOn-iite
DruBa-Excavaiion, Of f - s i t eDisposal
Raaoval of I n v e s l i g a t i o nDerived Vaste
Hobiltzation/DantobUiisation
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
Bid Contingencies (153;)Scope Contingencies (103>)
tOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
P B t B i t U n g and Legal OX)Service DuringConstruction (8X)
TOTAL IHPLEMEHTATION COST
Rnglnesring Design Costs (8%) J,232,100
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
ANNUAL O&H SUBTOTAL 108.700.45.000"
16,3001
6,8Q(T
t25.0001
M.SOO-
554,900
S&ope Contingencies (15%)
WAL ANNUAL O&H COSTS
fcSENT VOftTB O&M COSTS
'WAL PRESENT WORTH COST (Residential) $1^,188.900(SecreaEional/Agricultuial) $16.391,700
• First ?aar Konitoring Costs~ ThecsaEtar ^
CgMtruetion Cos's (S) AnnualOperation &
Recreational/ MaituanancaRasideniial Agrici? •.ural Costs (S)
003261
A potential cost savings o£ $313,000 to $1.090,000 can b« realized if the
recra/.tio.ial/agricultural land use scenario i» 6elecl«4 as fchfc basis for
o f f - s i t e soil consolidation in3l<.ad of the casideniial ^arid use scenario.
Table 5
SUMMARYPRESENT SUMMARY VORTH COMPARISON
OFF-SITE SOU CONSOl-IDATIO^
Cleanup
Res iden t i a lLand Use$ x 1000
1,190
2,83-i
14,729
9,500
11.5^7
17.189
Goals
Recreational/Agr icu l tu ra l
Land Use^ x 1000
677
2,291
13.639
8,78-i
10,962
16,392
Present Vor thD i f f e r e n t i a l
^ x 1000
513
M
1,090
716
585
797
RcBedlalalternative No.
6
9
10
14
EsUblishing the extent of reraediation of rhe o f f - s i t e soils according to
the recreailonal/agriculEural land use scenario does not eliminate the risk to
the public o f f - s i t e . In the absence of any off-aUe land use restr ict ions,
construction activit ies could be undertaken that may d is turb the soil deeper
than 2 faof and thus, bring contamina ted soil to the surface or expose
workers lo St>ntaniinanls during t;ie construction operations. The threat of
exposure to contaminated soil deeper than th<i 2 foot layer nmediatad under
the E-ecisfttltinal/agricultural scenario would still remain.i-irSit-'9'""- • •^3 '1 ! '".
22
003262
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Environmental Protection Agency, 1984. Health jt'fects Assessment forPolycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons PAH. U.S. EPA Environmental Criteriaan3 Assessment Off ice. September, ^Qn.
Environmental Protection Agency, March 31, 1986a, Industrial V^s^eControl Site Final Remedial Investigation (RI) Report, Volumes I and II.
Environmental Protection Agency, March 31, 19866, Industrial VasteCOiiUrol Site Final Endangerment Assessment.
Snvironmenta), Protection Agency, March 31, 1986c, Industr ial VasteControl Site Final Dra r t Feasibi l i ty Study Report.
23
003263