Value Engii Mi itudy Report · one design suggestion that has the potential to limit costs during the operational phase of the contract. Implementing these alternatives can save approximately

*• y * * '" 1

&J-;>/-A^ i'.ot-

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Marion Pressure Treating CompanySuperfund Site

Marion, Louisiana

'•-2L&

< / •*

• - * - ' ' ! „ ' ••

^ ;

Value Engii

•y.

0 *"

*„!

f " i" i

' • i f , * 4'

Mil."*<*!

* ' ? '

itudy Reportrefinal Design Stage

May 2003

"u *

« fft

t 1

Deafgn Consultant , ^

000429

000430

9

n

Executive Summary |

Study Results

Project Description

Value Analysis & Conclusions

Table of Contents

000431

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction 2Project Description 2Concerns and Objectives 3Results 3Summary of Potential Cost Savings 5

STUDY RESULTS

General 6Highlights of the Results 7Evaluation of Alternatives 8Value Engineering Alternatives 9

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Project Description 36

VALUE ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

General 42Pre-Study Preparation 42Value Engineering Workshop Effort 42Post-Workshop Effort 45

Value Engineering Workshop Participants 46Economic Data 48Cost Model 49Function Analysis 54Creative Idea Listing and Judgment of Ideas 56

000432

000433

mX

Wl

Executive Summary

000434

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

This draft value engineering (VE) study report documents the events and results of the VE studyconducted by Lewis & Zimmerman Associates, Inc. for Tetra Tech EM, Inc., the designers for theMarion Pressure Treating Company Superfund Site, Marion, Union Parish, Louisiana. Tetra Tech isdesigning the cleanup of the site for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The studywas conducted May 13-14, 2003, in Tetra Tech's Dallas, Texas office and was based on the MarionPressure Treating Company Superfund Site, Marion Louisiana, Prefinal Design, dated April 30,2003.

A multidisciplinary team including a US/EPA representative, design team members, an independentremediation specialist and a facilitator with experience in the planning, design and remediation ofcontaminated soils and groundwater conducted the study. The six-phase VE Job Plan guided theteam's deliberations.

• Information Gathering• Function Identification and Analysis• Creative Idea Generation• Evaluation/Judgment of Creative Ideas• Development of Alternatives• Presentation of Results

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Marion Pressure Treating Company site is located in a rural area on the east side of StateHighway (SH) 551, approximately 0.5 miles north of SH 33, Marion, Union Parish, Louisiana. Thepredominant site features are associated with the facility's operational areas, which include adilapidated storage shed, a storage building/house, ditches, the former treated wood storage areas, theformer process area, a consolidation area built during the EPA removal action, the former backfilledprocess water ponds and lagoons, scattered pieces of metal, and hazardous and non-hazardous debris,including treated and untreated wood piles, vegetation debris, an abandoned tank trailer, and anabandoned wastewater treatment plant vat or tank.

The remedial investigation (RI) identified creosote-contaminated soil in and around the consolidationarea and the former backfilled process water ponds, and creosote-contaminated soil and sediment inon- and off-site soils and sediments along and adjacent to Big Creek on the southeast side of the site.The RI also identified the presence of dense nonaqueous-phase liquids (DNAPL) in three of themonitoring wells on site.

Thermal desorption was the chosen technology to remediate the creosote-contaminated soil andsediment. The Record of Decision established the cleanup criteria for creosote-contaminated soil at

000435

26 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) benzo(a)pryrene (B[a]P) equivalent and for creosote-contaminated sediment at 42 mg/kg B[a]P equivalent.

The remedial action will be conducted in two phases. During Phase 1, Steam Enhanced Remediation(SER) will be used to remove DNAPL from the saturated sands. SER uses a combination of SteamEnhanced Extraction, subsurface temperature monitoring, pneumatic and hydraulic control, andstimulated biological and chemical destruction to remove contaminants. The collected DNAPL willbe stored and then trucked to an incinerator for destruction. During Phase 2, the surfacecontaminated soil will be excavated and treated in the on-site low-temperature thermal desorption(LTTD) unit. It is estimated that approximately 54,000 cubic yards of creosote-contaminated soiland sediment will be excavated and treated. Debris in the contaminated areas will be separated,cleaned of dirt and hazardous material and sent to a landfill. Creosote-impregnated material will becollected and sent to a hazardous material incinerator.

The cleanup is expected to take about three and one-half years and cost approximately $25 million.

CONCERNS AND OBJECTIVES

This project meets the requirements of the Record of Decision and uses the best available technologyto achieve the stipulated cleanup goals. However, the project is expected to cost $25 million andpreserves a marginal water supply that potentially serves a very limited number of people. Thus, inorder to ensure that cleanup goals are achieved in the most cost-effective manner, Terra Techengaged this VE workshop.

The objective of the workshop was to identify areas of potential value enhancement in the designconcept and generate alternatives that will provide the necessary functions more cost-effectively.

RESULTS

The two basic elements of the cleanup, Steam Enhanced Remediation and LTTD, represent about50% of the project costs and were determined to be the most appropriate means to address thecontaminants on the site. Thus the team focused on the support functions necessary to implementthese measures.

The VE process yielded eight alternatives that specifically address the cost aspects of the project andone design suggestion that has the potential to limit costs during the operational phase of the contract.Implementing these alternatives can save approximately $1.26 million. Three of the alternatives,described below, provide the bulk of the cost savings.

Alternative No. 23 suggests taking the spent activated carbon from the wastewater treatment plantand placing it in the LTTD unit in lieu of taking it to an incinerator for disposal. As long as it doesnot affect the operation of the LTTD unit, it will save about $335,000.

A natural gas supply line is needed to provide a fuel source for the boiler used in the SER process.An electric power supply line is needed to provide a power source for the LTTD process and the SERprocess. Since natural gas is needed for the boilers, Alt. No. 5 suggests that a natural gas fueled

000436

electric generator supply process power in lieu of installing the new electric power line to saveapproximately $325,000.

In the present design, DNAPL collected from the soil is collected and sent to an incinerator fordestruction. Instead, the DNAPL can be sent to a fuel blender, as described in Alt. No. 2, to reducecosts by approximately $220,000.

Each developed alternative is summarized on the following table entitled Summary of PotentialCost Savings and detailed in the results section of the report.

000437

t i

SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL COST SAVINGSPROJECT: MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY SUPERFUND SITE,

Marion, Louisiana

PRESENT WORTH OF COST SAVINGS

ALT. ORIGINAL ALTERNATIVE INITIAL COST RECURRING TOTAL PW

NO. DESCRIPTION COST COST SAVINGS COST SAVINGS LCC SAVINGS

2

5

79A9B12

14

2021

23

Send DNAPL to a fuel blender in lieu of incinerating itUse a natural gas electric generator in lieu of installing a newelectric power lineUse a fixed and variable price for the steam operation costRemove a portion of Phase 1 road workRemove a portion of Phase 2 road workReduce the amount of temporary lighting in Phase 2Use a plastic liner with crane mats in lieu of concrete for thedecontamination area padReduce amount of Phase 1 surveying timeUse a lined pond in lieu of a Modutank

Run spent activated carbon through the thermal desorption system

Total

$270,000

$968,885

$49,500

$644,219

$220,500

$324,666

$220,500

$324,666

DESIGN SUGGESTION

$214,213$228,272$119,041

$74,704

$84,204$68,920

$338,000

$141,470$162,148$29,760

$10,455

$42,102$23,677

$2,958

$72,743$66,124$89,281

$64,249

$42,102$45,243

$335,042

$72,743$66,124$89,281

$64,249

$42,102$45,243

$335,042

$ 1,259,950

000438

000439

Study Results

000440

contract. Implementing these alternatives can save approximately $1.26 million. Three of thealternatives, described below, provide the bulk of the cost savings.

Alternative No. 23 suggests taking the spent activated carbon from the wastewater treatment plantand placing it in the LTTD unit in lieu of taking it to an incinerator for disposal. As long as it doesnot affect the operation of the LTTD unit, it will save about $335,000.

A natural gas supply line is needed to provide a fuel source for the boiler used in the SER process.An electric power supply line is needed to provide a power source for the LTTD process and theSER process. Since natural gas is needed for the boilers, Alt. No. 5 suggests that a natural gas fueledelectric generator supply process power in lieu of installing the new electric power line to saveapproximately $325,000.

In the present design, DNAPL collected from the soil is collected and sent to an incinerator fordestruction. Instead, the DNAPL can be sent to a fuel blender, as described in Alt. No. 2, to reducecosts by approximately $220,000.

EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

When reviewing the study results, the reader should consider each part of an alternative or designsuggestion on its own merit. There may be a tendency to disregard an alternative because of concernabout one part of it. Each area within an alternative that is acceptable should be considered for usein the final design, even if the entire alternative is not implemented. Design variations of thesealternatives are encouraged.

All alternatives were developed independently of each other. However, some of the alternatives areinterrelated so acceptance of one or more may not yield the total of the cost savings shown for eachone separately. The reader should evaluate those alternatives carefully in order to select thecombination of ideas with the greatest beneficial impact on the project.

000441

STUDY RESULTS

GENERAL

The results are the major feature of a value engineering review since they represent the benefits thatcan be realized on the project by the owner, users, designers, and contractor. The results willdirectly affect the project design and will require EPA staff in conjunction with its design consultant,Tetra Tech, to determine the disposition of each alternative.

The results of the study are presented as individual alternatives for change. These may be in theform of VE alternatives (accompanied by cost estimates) or design suggestions (typically withoutcost estimates). Each alternative consists of a summary of the original design, a description of theproposed change, a cost comparison, and a descriptive evaluation of the advantages anddisadvantages. A brief narrative to compare the original design and the proposed changeaccompanies each alternative. Sketches, where appropriate, are also presented. The costcomparisons reflect unit quantities, whenever possible, for determining overall life cycle cost. Unitcosts contained in the project cost estimate prepared by Tetra Tech were used whenever possible.Vendor's quotes for alternative processes were obtained as necessary.

Each design suggestion contains the same information as the VE alternatives, except that no costinformation is usually included. Design suggestions are presented to bring attention to areas of thedesign that, in the opinion of the VE team, should be changed for reasons other than cost. Examplesof these reasons include improved facility operation, ease of maintenance, ease of construction, saferworking conditions, etc. In addition, some ideas cannot be quantified in terms of cost with thedesign information provided; these are also presented as design suggestions and are intended toimprove the quality of the project.

Each idea is identified with an alternative number to facilitate referencing among the Creative IdeaListing and Evaluation, the alternatives, and the Summary of Potential Cost Savings. Summaries ofthe alternatives and design suggestions developed during the study are provided on the table entitled,Summary of Potential Cost Savings, with the complete documentation of the developed alternativesand design suggestions following.

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE RESULTS

The two basic elements of the cleanup, Steam Enhanced Remediation and LTTD, represent about50% of the project costs and were determined to be the most appropriate means to address thecontaminants on the site. Thus the team focused on the support functions necessary to implementthese measures.

The VE process yielded eight alternatives that specifically address the cost aspects of the project andone design suggestion that has the potential to limit costs during the operational phase of the

000442

SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL COST SAVINGSPROJECT: MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY SUPERFUND SITE,

Marion, Louisiana

PRESENT WORTH OF COST SAVINGS

ALT. ORIGINAL ALTERNATIVE INITIAL COST RECURRING TOTAL PWNO. DESCRIPTION COST COST SAVINGS COST SAVINGS LCC SAVINGS

2

5

79A9B12

14

2021

23

Send DNAPL to a fuel blender in lieu of incinerating itUse a natural gas electric generator in lieu of installing a newelectric power lineUse a fixed and variable price for the steam operation costRemove a portion of Phase 1 road workRemove a portion of Phase 2 road workReduce the amount of temporary lighting in Phase 2Use a plastic liner with crane mats in lieu of concrete for thedecontamination area padReduce amount of Phase 1 surveying timeUse a lined pond in lieu of a Modutank

Run spent activated carbon through the thermal desorption system

Total

$270,000

$968,885

$49,500

$644,219

$220,500

$324,666

$220,500

$324,666

DESIGN SUGGESTION$214,213$228,272$119,041

$74,704

$84,204$68,920

$338,000

$141,470$162,148$29,760

$10,455

$42,102$23,677

$2,958

$72,743$66,124$89,281

$64,249

$42,102$45,243

$335,042

$72,743$66,124$89,281

$64,249

$42,102$45,243

$335,042

$ 1,259,950

000443

VALUE ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVE

PROJECT: MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANYSUPERFUND SITE, MARION, LOUISIANA

DESCRIPTION: SEND DNAPL TO A FUEL BLENDER IN LIEU OFINCINERATING IT

ALTERNATIVE NO.: 2

SHEET NO.: 1 of 2

ORIGINAL DESIGN:

NAPL disposal via transportation to an incinerator, maximum = $270,000 from SER ($3.00/gallon?) for 90 kgal.

ALTERNATIVE:

Dispose at Fuel Blender for $0.55/gallon at Onyx, including transportation per Terry Melancon at Onyx.$49,000 for 90,000 gallons = $0.55/gallon.

ADVANTAGES:

• Reduces cost• Possibly reduces transportation

DISADVANTAGES:

• None apparent

DISCUSSION:

Disposal in estimate assumed as hazardous waste. Use in fuel blending is less expensive, has a better use ofheating valve, and has precedent for creosote from Superfund site. Alterative cost based on approximate quotefrom Onyx Environmental.

COST SUMMARY INITIAL COSTPRESENT WORTH

RECURRING COSTSPRESENT WORTHLIFE-CYCLE COST

ORIGINAL DESIGN 270,000 270,000

ALTERNATIVE 49,500 49,500SAVINGS 220,500 220,500

10

000444

COST WORKSHEET

PROJECT: MARION PRESURE TREATING COMPANYSUPERFUND SITE, MARION, LOUISIANA

CONSTRUCTION ITEM

ITEM UNITS

!

-

i

i!

Sub-total

Mark-up at

TOTAL

ORIGINAL ESTMATE

NO. OFUNITS

j

1

COST/UNIT

3.oo

TOTAL

ZIO.ooO \- —

1j

i

-

— - - -

i

- -i

ALTERNATIVE NO.

SHEET NO.

PROPOSED

NO. OFUNITS

9ofocx>

~ 1

COST/UNIT

i

• r - 1

1r

1

i

i - -|i

1Z. of "2-

ESTIMATE

TOTAL

11

000445



DESCRIPTION: USE A NATURAL GAS GENERATOR IN LIEU OFINSTALLING A NEW ELECTRIC POWER LINE

ALTERNATIVE NO.: 5

SHEET NO.: 1 of 3

ORIGINAL DESIGN:

The design provides materials, labor, and equipment to upgrade the electrical supply.

ALTERNATIVE: (Sketch attached)

Use natural gas generator to provide electricity to site.

ADVANTAGES:

• Eliminates electrical construction costs• Eliminates monthly facilities cost• Eliminates temporary facilities that may

never be used again

DISADVANTAGES:

• Natural gas upgrade may not be sufficient toprovide gas to generator and LTTD simultaneously

• Generator may not be sufficient to provideelectricity to facilities and LTTD

DISCUSSION:

The unit is refurbished and located in Jackson, MS. The amount of natural gas estimated to be needed appears tobe extreme. This appears to be the limiting factor in using this electrical source. Refine the amount of estimatednatural gas to be used. This is a purchase price and resell of used equipment is not included.



ORIGINAL DESIGN 968,885 968,885ALTERNATIVE 644,219 644,219SAVINGS 324,666 324,666

12

000446

Cogeneration, Distributed Generation and On Site Power Solutions using Natural Gas Genei Page 1 of 1

MARSONENERGY

."• .iv

Sign up for

Mareon News

750 kWe Natural Gas Generator

Features:

1000 kWe Standby, 830 kWe Prime Power, 480V, 60 HzRatingFuel: Natural Gas, Landfill Gas, and Propane: 10,500BTU's/KWH.48 liter Guascor Spark Ignited EngineHigh efficiency 1000 kWe Marathon Generator, equippedfor VAR supportOnly 7 psi gas pressure required for operation80 dBA sound level at 7 metersUtility grade paralleling 600V class automatic switchgearOperate in goups of 1 -100Capable of Dial Up Model, or SCADA, remote operation

OPTIONAL ACCESSORIES:

Related Downloac750 Fact SheetCase StudiesCapabilities Brochi

• Step up transformers:o up to 15kv

(mobile)o upto230kv

(custompermanent)

• Load transferringisland switchgear

• Cable low voltage/high voltage• Total turn-key installation, operation, and maintenance. CHP (Cogeneration) 2 mmBTU/H

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Download the fact sheet or contact us

3

W

L u i s

http://www.marsonenergy.com/generators/750.htn3l ,5/14/2003000447

COST WORKSHEET

PROJECT: MARION PRESURE TREATING COMPANY ALTERNATIVE NO. £"SUPERPUND SITE, MARION, LOUISIANA SHEET NO. ^ of 3

CONSTRUCTION ITEM

ITEM UNITS

1

ORIGINAL ESTMATE

NO. OFUNITS

•

i

ZJj&CtfUcbl- SoPPLY-trrD

4^K) &7LhT0&L /rtA)0T.

i

j

i

Sub-total

Mark-up at 0 , \ 9 k^ 6

TOTAL

"7q

-

COST/UNIT

1

..

TOTAL

I

!

PROPOSED ESTIMATE

NO. OFUNITS

I

11

j

1

— —

7

j — —

\

%St3B€

COST/UNIT

TOTAL

$00 | £0 0

Z4, $0® \ 2>4 oo o

tioooU.ooo

71J4-1

r

i

$71 b¥h>

14

000448



DESCRIPTION: USE A FIXED AND VARIABLE PRICE FOR STEAMOPERATION COST

ALTERNATIVE NO.: 7

SHEET NO.: 1 of 1

ORIGINAL DESIGN:

The RD contains a conceptual level design for the steam enhanced remediation system during Phase 1.Additional data will be collected during the RA, the design will be completed, and the system will be installedand operated. The format for the procurement for the SER contractor has not been determined.

ALTERNATIVE:

Multiple procurements should be considered for the SER subcontractor. The initial procurement should coverthe installation of the temperature monitoring array, gathering additional DNAPL delineation and completingthe final design. After the completion of the final design the next procurement should consist of a fixed portionof the system installation and a unit rate for operation.

ADVANTAGES: DISADVANTAGES:

• Only get bid for what can be accurately • Do not have final costs nowdetermined now • Multiple procurements required, need incentives

• Gets hard bid for system installation once for contractor performance during operationthe design is finalized

• Per month cost for operation allows EPA todetermine cut off point for DNAPL removal

DISCUSSION:

The cost estimate provided in the design is based on a conceptual level design. As the design is finalized thecost estimate will become more accurate by staging the procurements. Subsequent procurements will be basedon the final design, and costs should be refined. Once the final design is completed, it should be possible toobtain an accurate installation cost. The duration of the operation may be flexible and should have a variablerate allowing charges in the duration.



ORIGINAL DESIGN

ALTERNATIVE DESIGN SUGGESTIONSAVINGS

15

000449



DESCRIPTION: REMOVE A PORTION OF PHASE 1 ROAD WORK

ALTERNATIVE NO.: 9 A

SHEET NO.: 1 of 3

ORIGINAL DESIGN: (Sketch attached)

The northwest portion of the planned "Y" road was planned for traffic diversion.

ALTERNATIVE:

Remove northwest portion of "Y" and construct "T" turnaround on northern portion of remaining road, « 660 ft.

ADVANTAGES:

• Reduces cost• Saves time

DISADVANTAGES:

• Increases two-way traffic; safety issues

DISCUSSION:

Removing the planned "Y' turnaround road, and creating a "T" shaped turnaround to the west of consolidatedarea saves cost while minimally affecting traffic flow on the site.




16

000450

( / A ([ («', \ \ I \

, , ( , j , • , X <

MARION PRE8SURE TREATING COMPANYMARION, UNION PARISH. LOUISIANA

Tetra Tech EM Inc.FOR CONSTRUCTION, BIOCXNO,RECOROAIKW, CONNCYANCC.

SALES, OS A3 THE BASIS FOBTHE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT.

Phase I Site Layout

000451

COST WORKSHEET

PROJECT: MARION PRESURE TREATING COMPANY ALTERNATIVE NO. ^ ax^

SUPERPUND SITE, MARION, LOUISIANA S H E E T N O . ^ of ^

CONSTRUCTION ITEM

ITEM UNITS

SY

iI

1

ORIGINAL ESTMATE

NO. OFUNITS

S7*«

Sub-total

Mark-up at

TOTAL

COST/UNIT

TOTAL

1

i

3 7 ^

i

PROPOSED ESTIMATE

NO. OFUNITS

3Sd> 4

i!i I

- •

j

_ -

COST/UNIT

r

1i

; i

I

\wcl-

Zl4-M}>

1

f

i - -

i

i1i

TOTAL

I4-/41O

18

000452


PROJECT: MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY ALTERNATIVE NO.: 9BSUPERFUND SITE, MARION, LOUISIANA

DESCRIPTION. REMOVE PORTION OF PHASE 2 ROAD WORK SHEET NO

ORIGINAL DESIGN:

Planned south road from soil reprocessing area.


Remove « 1,000 ft. of road to the southeast corner of the site during Phase 2.

ADVANTAGES: DISADVANTAGES:

• Reduces cost • None apparent• Reduces construction time

DISCUSSION:

: 1 of 3

The road south from soil reprocessing area is unnecessary considering the work to be done and the equipmentbeing used.

COST SUMMARY

ORIGINAL DESIGN

ALTERNATIVE

SAVINGS

INITIAL COST

$ 228,272

$ 162,148

$ 66,124

PRESENT WORTHRECURRING COSTS

—

PRESENT WORTHLIFE-CYCLE COST

$ 228,272

$ 162,148

$ 66,124

19000453

\ \ 11 j \ ~y~z^

LEGEND

FENCE

HIGHWAY

STREAM

OVERHEAD ELECTRIC

UNDERGROUND UTILITIES

_r^0^:^x•* ?*; \\ fcf ; i\[ ; if j / j / y / / ry */ - / p x s \ " , t ,r\.V

. - c i S f c . > - ^ . x - v - > - - ' - - . - _ . . . - - • — < • • - . . . . • < — . / . . . . i .<. i.s i j i / T^i^,^^> > ; — ' J - ^ - , M \ - i - + ,• •&• ,> % \+ \ -4-

-sir ^ s - ^ - • • x > - ' • ^ ' " " ^ - " V A - " '"' •*" s"' •••'•-••- -i-h j ! I I / I ] S ^ >!** - • v - l - x w .- \ i - ^ l v i. -J-/ W > •*• \ \ \-

^^V^vri^y:

WORK ASSIGNMENT NO.-

106-RD-RD-067Z

000454

COST WORKSHEET

PROJECT: MARION PRESURE TREATING COMPANY ALTERNATIVE NO. 9 kSUPERFUND SITE, MARION, LOUISIANA SHEET NO. 3 of 3

CONSTRUCTION ITEM

ITEM

1

UNITS

sY

" " " " 1i

1

j

ORIGINAL ESTMATE

NO. OFUNITS

CUB

1 I

i

i

i

Sub-total

Mark-up at

TOTAL

COST/UNIT

TOTAL

1!

57 ^

PROPOSED ESTIMATE

NO. OFUNITS

[ j

!

1

i

j

j

i

-

r

£>• ^^^}j b* / («—

COST/UNIT

TOTAL

i

11I

Lh -

i

!i

1

i

21000455



DESCRIPTION: REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF TEMPORARY LIGHTING INPHASE 2

ALTERNATIVE NO.: 12

SHEET NO.: 1 of 2

ORIGINAL DESIGN:

Outdoor lighting for Phase 2 consists of eight portable lights.

ALTERNATIVE:

Provide only temporary lighting for the equipment pad and two portable lights.

ADVANTAGES:

• Saves cost

DISADVANTAGES:

• None apparent

DISCUSSION:

Excavation and backfilling operations will only be performed during daylight hours. The lighting of this area isunnecessary. Costs can be saved by only lighting the operations pad.




22000456



DESCRIPTION: USE A PLASTIC LINER WITH CRANE MATS IN LIEU OFCONCRETE FOR DECONTAMINATION AREA PAD

ALTERNATIVE NO.: 14

SHEET NO.: 1 of 2

ORIGINAL DESIGN:

The original design calls for a concrete decontamination pad approximately 70 ft. x 20 ft. The base consists of11 in. thick slab with a 6 in. curb.

ALTERNATIVE:

Use a 60 mil. HDPE liner over an earthen base with crane mats for a temporary decontamination facility insteadof a permanent/facility.

ADVANTAGES:

• Reduces cost• Flexible location• Can be moved

DISADVANTAGES:

• Less durable

DISCUSSION:

A plastic lined decontamination pad is being successfully used of the Delatte Metals Superfund site where thetraffic load to be decontaminated is much higher. The location can be shifted if necessary and it can be removedat the end of the project.



ORIGINAL DESIGN 74,704 74,704

ALTERNATIVE 10,455 10,455SAVINGS 64,249 64,249

24

000457

COST WORKSHEET

ROJECT: MARION PRESURE TREATING COMPANYSUPERFUND SITE, MARION, LOUISIANA

ALTERNATIVE NO.

SHEET NO.

14

CONSTRUCTION ITEM ORIGINAL ESTMATE PROPOSED ESTIMATE

ITEM UNITSNO. OFUNITS

COST/UNIT

TOTALNO. OFUNITS

COST/UNIT

TOTAL

<Z<jLmr\(L, 1 !>fk

I A ' I ~i 4 ! 3 •/{) <zrrvtJurt-i t 4 o

Lf

)eMO.--fr/O

-4---

—r

1_ _ L JMSL1I i /

j _ .

j

H

Sub-total

Mark-up at

TOTAL

2-ooz.- £ 33

000458


PROJECT: MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY ALTERNATIVESUPERFUND SITE, MARION, LOUISIANA

DESCRIPTION: REDUCE AMOUNT

ORIGINAL DESIGN:

A two-person survey crew for seven

ALTERNATIVE:

OF PHASE 1 SURVEYING TIME SHEET NO.:

days per week for 12 weeks during Phase 1 is specified.

Use a two-person survey crew for seven days per week for six weeks during Phase 1.

ADVANTAGES:

• Save cost• Saves time

DISCUSSION:

Given Phase 1 activities, 12 weeks

COST SUMMARY

ORIGINAL DESIGN

ALTERNATIVE

SAVINGS

DISADVANTAGES:

• None apparent

of survey time seems excessive.

INITIAL COST

$ 84,204

$ 42,102

$ 42,102


—

$

$

$

NO.: 20

1 of 2


84,204

42,102

42,102

26

000459

I i i i

Surveying - Phase I

ro

Surveying

Assumptions:

Surveying will be contracted by the Construction Management.

Based on completion date, surveying may occur 8 hours per day and 7 days per week for 12 weeks.

Cost per unit values include Tetra Tech's base and award fee.

Source of Information:1 RS Means, Environmental Remediation Cost Data, 8th Edition, page 10-11, (99/24/1201).

Description

Surveying Crew (2-person crew for 7 days per week)1

Unit

Hour

Cost/Unit

$125.30

Quantity

672

Surveying Subtotal

Subtotal

$84,204

/^$84,204 )•

0

S:\Govemment\G00DA\1106\RD\PRE-FINAL DESIGNVCost Estimate Docs 5/13/2003

000460


PROJECT: MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY ALTERNATIVESUPERFUND SITE, MARION, LOUISIANA

DESCRIPTION: USE A LINED POND IN LIEU OF A MODUTANK SHEET NO.:

ORIGINAL DESIGN:

NO.: 21

1 of 5

A Modutank is to be used to hold stormwater collected in the excavation area which is to be treated prior todischarge to the drainage ditch.


To hold stormwater, excavate an area capable of themil. polyethylene line, with an underlayment of 8 oz

ADVANTAGES:

• Eliminates cost of tankmobilization/demobilization

• Reduces/eliminates monthly costs• Eliminates set-up fees

DISCUSSION:

Provides same function at a lower cost.

COST SUMMARY

ORIGINAL DESIGN

ALTERNATIVE

SAVINGS

minimum storage capacity with a freeboard. geotextile (compaction of earth/clay).

DISADVANTAGES:

of 1 ft. Use 2-

• Possible concern for erosion• Possible concern for leakage• Area not available for sufficient size of pond• Increases disposal costs (liner)• Slope concerns

INITIAL COST

$

$

$

68,920

23,677

45,243


—

$

$

$


68,920

23,677

45,243

28

000461

f-iCLIENT

PROJECT

DETAIL

43 O

JOB NO.

DATE CHECKED

CHECKED BY

COMPUTED BY

DATE

PAGE NO.

-2klo.I

Shi.

29

000462

CLIENT

PROJECT

DETAIL

JOB NO.

DATE CHECKED

CHECKED BY

COMPUTED BY

DATE

PAGE NO.

r&~*JL

,G

ALT.

•2S>

000463

# • •CLIENT

PROJECT

DETAIL

JOB NO.

DATE CHECKED

CHECKED BY

IMPUTED BY

DATE

PAGE NO.

31

000464

COST WORKSHEET

PROJECT: MARION PRESURE TREATING COMPANYSUPERFUND SITE, MARION, LOUISIANA

CONSTRUCTION ITEM

ITEM UNITS

s%, -?t-

us1

pUduTQT\li V'S nn

/ I _ J4' / P\ "-V-kS

i

!

j

i

j

Sub-total

Mark-up at Ot 1 Q bl to

TOTAL

ORIGINAL

NO. OFUNITS

£~l\1)

i ,

COST/UNIT

i

II

ALTERNATIVE NO.

SHEET NO.

ESTMATE

TOTAL

PROPOSED

NO. OFUNITS

COST/UNIT

'6CXX>\ \ , o o

i

— —

-

1I

i

r " • • •

~ - - • - r-

|

$ of SESTIMATE

TOTAL

l^ooo3O)O

3000

7 1,0 (O

32

000465



DESCRIPTION: RUN SPENT ACTIVATED CARBON THROUGH THERMAL SHEET NO.:DESORPTION SYSTEM

ALTERNATIVE NO.: 23

1 of 2

ORIGINAL DESIGN:

The project cost estimate includes $300,000 for the disposal of 150,000 lbs. of activated carbon from thewastewater treatment system.

ALTERNATIVE:

Stockpile the spent activated carbon from Phase 1. Mix it with contaminated soil and run it through the thermaldesorption system during Phase 2.

ADVANTAGES:

• Eliminates off-site hazardous waste disposal

DISADVANTAGES:

• Must verify with LTTD company that it can be runthrough LTTD

DISCUSSION:

As long as the carbon will not cause problems with the LTTD, this will provide a less expensive disposalalternative.




33

000466

000467

Project Description

000468

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has contracted with Tetra Tech EM, Inc. to plan, designand manage the remediation of the Marion Pressure Treating Company Superfund Site in Marion,Union Parish, Louisiana. This site is located in a rural area on the east side of State Highway (SH)551, approximately 0.5 miles north of SH 33, Marion, Union Parish, Louisiana. The predominantsite features are associated with the facility's operational areas, which include a dilapidated storageshed, a storage building/house, ditches, the former treated wood storage areas, the former processarea, a consolidation area built during the EPA removal action, the former backfilled process waterponds and lagoons, scattered pieces of metal, and hazardous and non-hazardous debris, includingtreated and untreated wood piles, vegetation debris, an abandoned tank trailer, and an abandonedwastewater treatment plant vat or tank.

The remedial investigation identified creosote-contaminated soil in and around the consolidation areaand the former backfilled process water ponds, and creosote-contaminated soil and sediment in on-and off-site soils and sediments along and adjacent to Big Creek on the southeast side of the site.The RI also identified the presence of dense nonaqueous-phase liquids in three of the monitoringwells on site.

The remedial action objectives (RAOs) were established in the Marion Pressure Treating CompanyRecord of Decision, and the risk-based cleanup levels were subsequently translated into performancegoals. The RAOs for this site are:

• Treating soils that are above acceptable risk levels to prevent contact by persons• Preventing further contamination of groundwater be removing soil and sediment contaminant

sources above acceptable levels and recovering dense nonaqueous-phase liquid to the greatestextent possible

• Monitoring the groundwater to determine the effectiveness of the source removal.

The following Benzo(a)pyrene (B(a)P) equivalent concentration performance goals for this site are:

• B(a)P equivalent concentrations of 26 mg/kg for all surface and subsurface soils• B(a)P equivalent concentrations of 42 mg/kg for sediments

These levels were chosen based on protection of human health from carcinogenic risks withinreasonably anticipated future land use.

The remedial action will be conducted in two phases. During Phase 1, Steam Enhanced Remediationwill be used to remove DNAPL from the saturated sands. SER uses a combination of SteamEnhanced Extraction, subsurface temperature monitoring, pneumatic and hydraulic control, andstimulated biological and chemical destruction and to remove contaminants. A process flow diagramfollows. The collected DNAPL will be stored and then trucked to an incinerator for destruction.During Phase 2, the surface contaminated soil will be excavated and treated in the on-site low-temperature thermal desorption unit. A process flow diagram is attached. It is estimated thatapproximately 54,000 cubic yards of creosote-contaminated soil and sediment will be excavated and

36

000469

Air drier

Liquid/vaporseparator

Fin-fanheat

exchangerHX-1


Vapors andentrained

liquidsfrom well -

field

KO-1

Liquidsfrom down-hole pumps

LEGEND:

• Monitoring/sample point (L=liquid, V=vapor)

F Flow meter

T Temperature sensor

SOURCE: SteamTech Enviromental Services 2003

ooKO-2

VacuumpumpsVP-1,2


KO-3

(*) P-1

F,T

Vapor phase GAC system

Treated airexhaust to

atmosphere

V-3

Liquid-liquid heatexchanger

HX-2

Condensate

F,TSurge tank

T-l

Multi-functionseparatorMFS-1

Waterholding tank

T-2

Multi-media filters L-1 Liquid phase GAC system

CoolingtowerCT-1

NAPL holding tankT-4

Sludge tankT-5

Treated waterholding tank

T-3

Treated waterfor disposal

MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANYMARION, LOUISIANA

FIGURE 10PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM

FOR THE EXTRACTION AND EFFLUENTTREATMENT SYSTEM

37

000470

COST WORKSHEET

PROJECT: MARION PRESURE TREATING COMPANY ALTERNATIVE NO. ^ ^

SUPEREUND SITE, MARION, LOUISIANA SHEET NO. £ o f Z .

CONSTRUCTION ITEM

ITEM

CfiC n) ^ 1/

I

UNITS

)£\

!

!

1

r- -

!

ORIGINAL ESTMATE

NO. OFUNITS

i

i i

Sub-total

Mark-up at

TOTAL

i

COST/UNIT

TOTAL

PROPOSED ESTIMATE

NO. OFUNITS

COST/UNIT

I' ' ii

i•

i1

i

13 J>T7' 7 7

i

. „__

1

i

i

|_. _. 1 -

i

i

TOTAL

34

000471

J

SUSPENDEDSOLIDSFILTERS

SUSPENDED

SOLIDS

FILTERS

i |

romTJ>

MARION PRESSURE TREATINQ COMPANYMARION, UNION PARISH, LOUISIANA

Process Flow Diagram, Phase 2Wastewater Treatment System

PREUMNARYDOCUMENT. NOT TO BE USED

FOR CONSTRUCTION, BDOMS,RECORDA110N, CONVEYANCE.

SA1£S, CD AS THE BASIS FORTHE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT.

Sign W I Iaan

Tetra Tech EM Inc.

DESIGNED BY; M.W.

DRAWN BYi_ T.E.P.

CHECKED BY: T.O.

RE-CHECKED BYrR.R.

APPROVED BY: S.W.

DATE 4/30/2003

REV. DATE DRVW CHKD

REVISIONS

000472

COCO

O) z

N "

Ml

>

MARION PRESSURE TREATINQ COMPANYMARION, UNION PARI8H, LOUISIANA

Process Flow DiagramThermal Desorptlon System

PRELIMINARYDOCUMENT. NOT TO BE USED

FDR CONSTRUCTION, HCONO,RECORDAHQN, CONVEYANCE,

SAU3. OR AS THE BASS FORTHE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT.

Stan * * « • ,JBM33, Apt* 2003

Tetra Tech EM Inc.

DESIGNED 8Yj_

DRAWN BY;

S.W,

J.S.

CHECKED BY: T.O.

RE-CHECKED

APPROVED

DATE! 4 /30 /03REV. DATE DRUM CHKD

REVISIONS

000473

treated. Debris in the contaminated areas will be separated, cleaned of dirt and hazardous materialand sent to a landfill. Creosote-impregnated material will be collected and sent to a hazardousmaterial incinerator.

The following is required to accomplish the remediation:

Phase 1:

• Mobilize general contractor• Clear and grub the site and transport stumps to non-hazardous landfill• Demolish and remove existing structures and transport to non-hazardous landfill• Install roads and parking areas on the site and contour the site to place engineer and

contractor trailers, create a stormwater storage pond, create an asphalt concrete pad for theLTTD process equipment, and create an area for storing treated soils

• Install erosion control measures• Erect site trailers• Provide electric, natural gas and water utilities• Construct a concrete pad for decontaminating equipment and debris• Drill steam injection wells, recovery wells and temperature monitoring wells• Install air monitors• Install boilers for steam production• Install a wastewater storage tank and wastewater treatment plant for separation of the

DNAPL from the groundwater and treatment of the remaining water prior to discharge to adrainage ditch

• Transfer and transport DNAPL to an incinerator facility

Phase 2:

• Extend clearing and grubbing to parts of site where soil excavation is required• Expand the internal road system• Conduct a soil boring program to more thoroughly define excavation requirements• Provide outdoor lighting and covered area for LTTD processing• Collect and transport non-hazardous waste to a landfill• Transfer and transport hazardous waste to an incinerator facility• Excavate contaminated soils, separate out larger materials, treat soil using LTTD, stockpile

treated soil, return treated soil to excavated area• Grade site to its final configuration and restore ground surface• Pump stormwater collected in contaminated excavation to storage pond, and treat storm

water before discharging to drainage ditch• Monitor air quality

Throughout phases 1 and 2, Terra Tech will provide project management, construction managementtesting services, and reporting services.

The estimated cost for executing the cleanup is $24.7 million.

40

000474

000475

Value Analysis & Conclusions

M W

000476

VALUE ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

GENERAL

This section describes the procedure used during the value engineering study on the Marion PressureTreating Company Superfund Site cleanup in rural Marion, Union Parish, Louisiana. Terra Tech EM,Inc. prepared the Prefinal Design report for the US/EPA, Region 6, Dallas, Texas, that was the basis ofthe study. The procedure is followed by separate narratives and conclusions concerning:

• Value Engineering Workshop Participants• Economic Data• Cost Model• Function Analysis• Creative Idea Listing and Judgment of Ideas

A systematic approach was used in the VE study and the key procedures involved were organized intothree distinct parts: 1) preparation; 2) VE workshop effort; and 3) post-study. A Task Flow Diagramthat outlines each of the procedures included in the VE study is attached for reference.

PRE-STUDY PREPARATION

Pre-workshop preparation for the VE effort consisted of scheduling study participants and tasks;gathering necessary background information on the facility; and compiling project data into a costmodel and/or graphic function analysis. Information relating to the design, construction, and operationof the facility is important as it forms the basis of comparison for the study effort. Information relatingto funding, project planning, operating needs, systems evaluations, basis of cost, and construction of theroad network was also a part of the analysis.

VALUE ENGINEERING WORKSHOP EFFORT

The VE workshop was a two-day, 16-hour, multidisciplinary team study effort. During the workshop,the VE job plan was followed. The job plan guided the search for high cost areas in the project andincluded procedures for developing alternative solutions for consideration. It includes six phases:

• Information Phase• Function Identification and Analysis Phase• Creative Phase• Evaluation Phase• Development Phase• Presentation Phase

42

000477

Value Engineering Study Task Flow Diagram

Preparation Effort

Coordinate Project

Verify Schedule

Suggest Format for DesignerPresentation

Outline Project Responsibilities

Outline Needed BackgroundData

Define Project Value Objectives

Identify Project Constraints

•

Prepare for Workshop

Collect Project Data

Distribute Data to TeamMembers

Verify Cost Data

Team Members BecomeFamiliar with Project

Construct Cost Models

Construct Cost Models

Construct Graphic FunctionAnalysis

Outline High Cost Areas

LCC Model

Process Areas

Staffing

Chemicals

Energy

User Impact

Workshop Effort

Information Phase

Introduction by VETL

Project Description andPresentation by Designer

Outine OwnerRequirements

Review Project Data

Visit Project Site (Alt.)

Identification andAnalysis PhaseAnalyze Project Costs andEnergy Usage

Perform Function Analysisand FAST Diagram

Identify High Cost andEnergy Areas

Calculate Cost/Worth

Identify Paradigms

Ratios

List Ideas Generated DuringFunction Analysis

Creative Phase

Introduction by VETL

Creative Idea Listing:- Quantity of Ideas- Association of Ideas

Brainstorming

Creative Thinking:- Group & Individual

Use Checklist for Ideas

Evaluation Phase

Eliminate ImpracticalIdeas

Rank Ideas with Advan-tages/Disadvantages

Evaluate Alternatives(Indude Non-Economicconsiderations: Safety,Reliability. Environment,Aesthetics, O & M, etc.)

Select Best Ideas forImplementation

Development Phase

Develop ProposedAlternatives

Prepare AlternativeDesign Sketches

Estimate Costs

Perform Life CycleComparison

- Initial Cost- Redesign Cost-O&MCost-LCC Cost

Presentation Phase

Summarize Findings

Present VE Ideas toOwner/User/Designer

Oral Presentation

Post-Workshop Effort

VE Study Report Implementation Phase Final Acceptance

Prepare Preliminary VE Report

Designer Prepares Responsesto VE Report

Owner EvaluatesRecommendations

Participate in ImplementationMeeting with Owner/User/Designer/VE Team, as needed

Prepare Final VE Report

Redesign by Designer

000478

Information Phase

At the beginning of the study, the conditions and decisions that have influenced the development of theproject must be reviewed and understood. For this reason, the design team presented information aboutthe project to the VE team on the first day of the VE session. The VE team spent the next part of thefirst day becoming familiar with the project document prepared by the design team:

• Marion Pressure Treating Company Superfund Site, Marion, Louisiana, Prefinal Design, datedApril 30, 2003, including drawings and design specifications.

Function Identification and Analysis Phase

Based on the data provided in the cost model, the VE team defined the functions that the projectelements were required to accomplish using the active verb/measurable noun combinations (sometimesmodified by one or more adjectives) to obtain a more in-depth understanding of the intent. The cost toaccomplish the functions was also identified. These functions were then combined into a FunctionAnalysis Systems Technique (FAST) Diagram to enhance the team's understanding of the processesbeing studied.

Creative Phase

This VE study phase involved the creation and listing of ideas. During this phase, the VE teamdeveloped as many means as possible to provide the necessary functions within the project at a lowercost to the owner, or to improve the quality of the project. Judgment of the ideas was restricted at thispoint. The VE team was looking for a large quantity of ideas and association of ideas. Over 20 ideaswere generated.

EPA and design team staff may wish to review the creative ideas worksheets since they may containideas which can be further evaluated for potential use in the design.

Evaluation Phase

During this phase of the workshop, the VE team judged the ideas generated during the creative phase.Advantages and disadvantages of each idea were discussed to find the best ideas for development.Ideas found to be irrelevant or not worthy of additional study were discarded. Those that representedthe greatest potential for cost savings or improvement to the project were then developed further.

The VE team would like to develop all ideas, but time constraints usually limit the number that can bedeveloped. Therefore, each idea was compared with the present design concept in terms of how well itmet the design intent. Advantages and disadvantages were discussed and recorded and the ideas wererated on a scale of one to five, with the best ideas rated five. Generally, only ideas rated four or higherwere developed into alternatives. In cases where there was little cost impact, but an improvement tothe project was anticipated, the designation DS, for design suggestion, was used. The design teamshould review this listing for possible incorporation of ideas into the project.

The creative idea listing was re-evaluated during the process of developing alternatives. As therelationship between creative ideas became more clearly defined, their importance and ratings may

44

000479

have changed, or they may have been combined into a single alternative. For these reasons, some of theoriginally high-rated items may not have been developed into alternatives.

Development Phase

During the development phase, each highly rated idea was expanded into a workable solution. Thedevelopment consisted of a description of the recommended design, life cycle cost comparisons, whereapplicable, and a descriptive evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of the proposedalternatives. Each alternative was written with a brief narrative to compare the original design to theproposed change. Sketches and design calculations, where appropriate, were also prepared in this partof the study. The VE alternatives are included in the section entitled: Study Results.

Presentation Phase

The last phase of the VE study was the presentation of the alternatives. At the completion of the VEstudy, the VE team made an informal presentation of the developed alternatives to representatives ofEPA and the project team. The purpose of the presentation was to give the interested parties a briefingon the developed alternatives so that they would have an opportunity to ask questions of the VE teamprior to conclusion of the workshop and the onset of their review.

POST-WORKSHOP EFFORT

The post-study portion of the VE study includes the preparation of this Value Engineering StudyReport. Personnel from the US/EPA and the design team will analyze each alternative and prepare aresponse, recommending either incorporating the alternative into the project, offering modificationsbefore implementation, or presenting reasons for rejection. At the conclusion of the review, a meetingwill be organized by the EPA to decide which alternatives should be implemented. LZA is available toanswer questions as the alternatives are reviewed.

45000480

VALUE ENGINEERING WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS

The VE team was organized to provide specific expertise on the project elements involved. Teammembers consisted of a multidisciplinary group with professional design and construction experienceand a working knowledge of VE procedures. The VE team members are shown on the followingpage.

DESIGNER'S PRESENTATION

Representatives from the Tetra Tech EM Inc. design team provided an overview of the project onTuesday, May 13, 2003. This included a presentation by Tim Oliver on an air curtain process for thedisposal of creosote-laden timber. The purpose of this meeting, in addition to being an integral partof the Information Phase of the VE study, was to bring the VE team "up-to-speed" regarding theoverall project. Additionally, the meeting afforded the design team the opportunity to highlight ingreater detail those areas of the project requiring additional or special attention.

VALUE ENGINEERING TEAM'S INFORMAL ORAL PRESENTATION

An informal oral VE presentation was conducted on Wednesday, May 14, 2003. The purpose of thismeeting was to review the various alternatives developed during the study with the EPA projectmanager and answer any questions about the information presented.

46

000481

MEETING PARTICIPANTS

EVENT: MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY, DATE: MAY 13 - 14, 2003SUPERFUND SITE VE STUDY

NAME & E-MAIL (PLEASE PRINT)

Stanley Wallace

em [email protected]

Eric Johnstone


April Ballweg


Michael Wilson


Bartolome J. Canellas


Gilbert Long


Howard Greenfield


em

em

em

em

em

ORGANIZATION/TITLE

Tetra Tech EM, Inc.

Design Manager

Tetra Tech EM, Inc.

Project Manager

Tetra Tech EM, Inc.

Environmental Engineer

Tetra Tech EM, Inc.

Environmental Engineer

U.S. EPA

Remedial Project Manager - Superfund

Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.

Remediation Specialist

Lewis & Zimmerman Associates, Inc.

VETL

PHONE/FAX

ph 214-740-2020

fx

ph 214-740-2001

fx

ph 214-740-2038

fx

ph 214-740-2057

fx

ph 214-665-6662

fx

ph 713-850-1921

fx

ph 301-984-9590

fx

ph

fx

ph

fx

ph

fx

ph

fx

| Ph

fx

47000482

ECONOMIC DATA

The VE team used information gathered from the designer's Prefinal Design documents to developeconomic criteria used for evaluation of VE alternatives. The analyses were completed based on thefollowing parameters:

Year of Analysis: 2003

Current Project Estimate $24.7 million

Expected Construction Start October 2003

Project Duration 3-1/2 years

This project will be conducted as a two-phase effort. The first phase will take about two years andthe second phase one and one-half years.

48

000483

COST MODEL

The VE team prepared a Pareto cost model for the project which follows this page. This cost modeldisplays the major project elements and reflects the information that appeared in the cost estimateprepared by the designer. The Pareto Chart is an aid to identifying high cost areas. This provides theVE team with its general direction of work during the study. For this project, ten of the 42 itemsrepresent more than 80% of the project costs. They are:

• Phase I Steam Enhanced Remediation• Phase II On-property Low Temperature Thermal Desorption• Phase II Construction Management• Phase II Off-property Transportation and Disposal of All Wastes• Phase I Construction Management• Phase II Excavation• Phase II Backfilling• Phase I Electrical Supply• Phase I Project Management Construction Phase• Phase II Temporary Facilities

49

000484

COST HISTOGRAM

PROJECT: MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY SUPERFUND SITE

PROJECT ELEMENT

Phase I Steam Enhanced Remediation System ^Phase II On-Property Low Temperature Thermal Desorption

Phase II Construction Management oPhase II Off-Property Transportation & Disposal of All Wastes **Phase I Construction Management •£>Phase II Excavation P-Phase II Backfilling °Phase I Electrical Supply oPhase I Project Management Conststruction PhasePhase II Temporary Facilities _____^

Phase II Project Management Conststruction PhasePhase I Natural Gas SupplyPhase II Air Monitoring TestingPhase II SurveyingPhase I Site Grading and EarthworkPhase I Temporary FacilitiesPhase II RoadsPhase I RoadsPhase I Off-Property Transportation & Disposal of Hazardous WastePhase I Water Supply WellPhase I Clearing and GrubbingPhase II Analytical TestingPhase II Decontamination of EquipmentqPhase I Project Management O&M PhasePhase II Surface RestorationPhase II Contract CloseoutPhase II Wastewater Treatment and DischargePhase I Contract Close-outPhase II Contractor BondingPhase II Cleaning & GrubbingPhase I Asphalt PavingPhase I SurveyingPhase I Contractor BondingPhase II Storm Water Control MeasuresPhase I Process Water Conveyance SystemPhase II Soil Borings and TestingPhase I Ground Water Monitoring Well AbandonmentPhase I Air MonitoringPhase I DemolitionPhase II Site Grading and EarthworkPhase I Storm Water Control MeasuresPhase II Demolition

TOTAL

COST

6,983,0005,193,000

1,953,0001,473,0001,055,000

940,000627,000535,000532,000532,000

480,000445,000

418,000392,000319,000231,000228,000214,000190,000168,000156,000155,000153,000139,000

134,000120,000110,000100,00095,00094,00085,00084,00081,00073,00065,00057,00034,00011,0007,0006,0004,0003,000

$ 24,674,000

PERCENT

28.30%21.05%

7.92%5.97%4.28%3.81%2.54%2.17%2.16%2.16%

1.95%1.80%1.69%1.59%1.29%0.94%0.92%0.87%0.77%0.68%0.63%0.63%0.62%0.56%0.54%

0.49%0.45%0.41%0.39%0.38%0.34%0.34%0.33%0.30%0.26%0.23%0.14%0.04%0.03%0.02%0.02%0.01%

CUM.PERCENT

28.30%

49.35%57.26%63.23%67.51%71.32%73.86%76.03%78.18%80.34%

82.28%84.09%85.78%

f 87.37%88.66%89.60%90.52%

91.39%92.16%92.84%93.47%94.10%94.72%

95.29%95.83%96.32%

96.76%97.17%97.55%97.93%98.28%98.62%98.95%99.24%99.51%99.74%99.87%99.92%99.95%99.97%99.99%

100.00%

100.00% H H I H I H

50

000485

COST HISTOGRAM


r i i i

rnasB i oissm tnnanceu rxsmsuiauon oysism

rnase n un-rTopercy LOW lemperacure inermai uesorpuon

Phase II Construction Management

Phase II Off-Property Transportation & Disposal of All Wastes

Phase 1 Construction Management

Phase II Excavation

Phase II Backfilling

Phase 1 Electrical Supply

Phase 1 Project Management Conststruction Phase

Phase II Temporary Facilities

Phase 11 Project Management Conststruction Phase

Phase 1 Natural Gas Supply

Phase II Air Monitoring Testing

Phase II Surveying

Phase 1 Site Grading and Earthwork

Phase 1 Temporary Facilities

Phase II Roads

Phase 1 Roads

Phase 1 Off-Property Transportation & Disposal of Hazardous Waste

Phase 1 Water Supply Well

Phase 1 Clearing and Grubbing

Phase II Analytical Testing

Phase II Decontamination of Equipmentq

Phase 1 Project Management O&M Phase

Phase II Surface Restoration

Phase II Contract Closeout

Phase II Wastewater Treatment and Discharge

Phase 1 Contract Close-out

Phase II Contractor Bonding

Phase II Cleaning & Grubbing

Phase 1 Asphalt Paving

Phase 1 Surveying

Phase 1 Contractor Bonding

Phase II Storm Water Control Measures

Phase 1 Process Water Conveyance System

Phase II Soil Borings and Testing

Phase 1 Ground Water Monitoring Well Abandonment

Phase 1 Air Monitoring

Phase 1 Demolition

Phase II Site Grading and Earthwork

Phase 1 Storm Water Control Measures

Phase II Demolition

Costs in graph are not marked-up.

—

MHHB

~

1

• •• •• •• •

80% o r Project Costs

•1•••••1

I

•

•

j

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

ii

ii

i

i

I

ii

3 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000

51

000486

COST HISTOGRAM


PROJECT ELEMENT

Steam Enhanced Remediation SystemOn-Property Low Temperature Thermal DesorptionConstruction ManagementOff-Property Transportation & Disposal of All WastesProject ManagementPhase II ExcavationTemporary FacilitiesPhase II BackfillingPhase I Electrical SupplySurveyingPhase I Natural Gas SupplyRoadsAir Monitoring TestingPhase I Site Grading and EarthworkClearing and GrubbingContract CloseoutContractor BondingPhase I Water Supply WellPhase II Analytical TestingPhase II Decontamination of EquipmentPhase II Surface RestorationPhase II Wastewater Treatment and DischargePhase I Asphalt PavingPhase II Storm Water Control MeasuresPhase I Process Water Conveyance SystemPhase II Soil Borings and TestingPhase I Ground Water Monitoring Well AbandonmentDemolitionPhase I Storm Water Control Measures

COST

6,983,0005,193,0003,008,0001,663,0001,151,000

940,000763,000627,000535,000476,000445,000442,000429,000325,000250,000220,000176.000168,000155,000153,000134,000110,00085.00073,00065,00057,00034,00010,0004,000

$ 24,674,000

PERCENT

28.30%21.05%12.19%6.74%4.66%3.81%3.09%2.54%

2.17%1.93%1.80%1.79%1.74%1.32%

1.01%0.89%0.71%0.68%0.63%0.62%0.54%0.45%0.34%0.30%0.26%0.23%0.14%0.04%0.02%

100.00%

CUM.PERCENT

28.30%49.35%61.54%

68.28%72.94%

76.75%79.85%82.39%84.55%86.48%88.29%90.08%91.82%93.13%94.15%95.04%95.75%96.43%

97.06%97.68%98.22%98.67%99.02%99.31%99.57%99.81%99.94%99.98%

100.00%

WKKKKKKKKi

52000487

COST HISTOGRAM


roicsm cnricinccQ rvciTieuiduun oyaicin

un-r^ropeny LOW temperature insrmai uesorpiion

Construction Management

i

1Off-Property Transportation & Disposal of All Wastes ^ ^ | ^ m | | | ^ | ^ |

Project Management H M ^ H

Phase II Excavation H ^ I H H I

Temporary Facilities H U H

Phase II Backfilling M | | B

Phase 1 Electrical Supply | B B I

Surveying H H

Phase 1 Natural Gas Supply | H

Roads H H

Air Monitoring Testing H | |

Phase 1 Site Grading and Earthwork H |

Clearing and Grubbing H

Contract Closeout H |

Contractor Bonding H

Phase 1 Water Supply Well •

Phase II Analytical Testing •

Phase II Decontamination of Equipment •

Phase II Surface Restoration •

Phase II Wastewater Treatment and Discharge •

Phase 1 Asphalt Paving •

Phase II Storm Water Control Measures 1

Phase 1 Process Water Conveyance System I

Phase II Soil Borings and Testing 1

Phase 1 Ground Water Monitoring Well Abandonment 1

Demolition

Phase 1 Storm Water Control Measures V

• 80% of Project Co

i

i i :

i

sts

h

I

0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 7,000 000

Costs in graph are not marked-up.

53

000488

FUNCTION ANALYSIS

A function analysis was performed to: (1) define the requirements for each project element, and (2)to ensure a complete and thorough understanding by the VE team of the basic function(s) needed toattain a given requirement.

Function Analysis is a means of evaluating a project to see if the expenditures actually perform therequirements of the project, or if there are disproportionate amounts of money spent on supportfunctions. These elements add cost to the final product, but have a relatively low worth to the basicfunction.

To understand how project funds are being allocated, the team created the Function Analysis SystemTechnique Diagram shown on the following page. This diagram portrays function relationships byasking the questions "how?," "why?" and "when?." Reading the diagram from left to right andasking the question "how is this function performed," the answer appears to the left. If severalfunctions answer the same question, they are stacked vertically. Conversely, if the diagram is readfrom right to left and the question "why is this function performed" is asked, the answer appears tothe left. If the answers to both questions are logical, then we achieve a better understanding of theproject.

Functions shown in boxes with heavy black lines are critical functions that must occur for the project tobe successful. Functions shown in boxes with light black lines support the critical function or definethe methodology for accomplishing the critical functions. These may or may not be necessary toachieve the project goals and often add major project costs that can be eliminated or reduced.

Analyzing the cost of the functions revealed that about 50% of the costs are for providing the basicfunction of the project, "prevent ground water pollution," the other 50% support the completion ofthis function and offer opportunities to save costs.

54000489

MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY SUPERFUND SITEFUNCTION ANALYSIS SYSTEM TECHNIQUE (FAST) DIAGRAMMay 2003

OBJECTIVES

HOW?

PROTECTPEOPLE

REMOVENON-HAZARDOUS

WASTE MONITORACTIVITIES

PREVENTGROUND WATER

POLLUTION

Basic Function

TESTSOIL

MEETCLEANUPCRITERIA

WHY?

TESTAIR

BECOST-EFFECTIVE

DESTROYCREOSOTE

MONITORBORINGS

DESTROYPAHs

INClNERATl 1 /DNAPL

RETURNDIRT

INCINERATEDEBRIS

SEPARATEDNAPL

FROM WATER

COLLECTDNAPL

EXTRACTDNAPL

$7.0 m

TRANSPORTDNAPL

INJECTSTEAM

SEPARATEDNAPL

FROM DIRT$5.9 m

HEATDIRT

DISPOSEDEBRIS

TRANSPORTDEBRIS

SEPARATEDEBRIS

FROM DIRT

MOVEDIRT

One-Time Functions

INSTALLTEMPORARY

FACILITIES

SUPPLYTEMPORARY

UTILITIES

SURVEYAREA

RETURNCLEANWATER

DISPOSESLUDGE

CLEANWATER

COLLECTCONTAMINATED

WATER

MANAGEPROJECT

CLOSEOUTPROJECT

CONSTRUCTPADS

55000490

CREATIVE IDEA LISTING AND JUDGMENT OF IDEAS

During the creative phase, numerous ideas, alternatives proposals and/or recommendations weregenerated using conventional brainstorming techniques as recorded on the following pages.

These ideas were then discussed, highlighting the advantages/disadvantages of the listed alternatives.The VE team compared each of the ideas with the as-designed solution determining whether itimproved value, was equal in value, or lessened the value of the presented solution in terms of:

• Cost effectiveness• Functionality• Meets laws and regulations• Time savings

The ideas were then ranked on a scale of one to five on how well the VE team believed the idea metthese criteria overall. The higher-rated ideas were then developed into formal alternatives andincluded in the Study Results section of the report. Some ideas were judged to have minimal costimpact on the project but provided enhancements in the form of improved operations, efficiency,constructibility or potential to save unknown or hidden costs. These were given the designation (DS)that indicates a design suggestion. This designation is also used when an idea increases cost resultingfrom improving the functionality of the project or system, and is deemed by the VE team to be ofsignificant value to the owner, user, operator or designer.

Typically, all ideas that rate four or five are included in the Study Report. When this is not the case,an idea was combined with another related idea or discarded, as a result of additional research thatindicated the concept as not being cost-effective or technically feasible.

The reader is encouraged to review the Creative Idea Listing since it may suggest additional ideasthat can be applied to the design.

56

000491

CREATIVE IDEA LISTING

PROJECT: MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY SHEET NO.: 1 of 1SUPERFUND SITEMarion, Louisiana

NO.

1

2

3

4

5

6

-j

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

IDEA DESCRIPTION

Install slurry cut-off wall and dewater the area in lieu of steam enhanced remediation

Send DNAPL to fuel blender

Dig test pits in consolidation area in Phase 1 to refine debris amount

Use natural gas electric generator in lieu of installing a new electrical power line

Use stack gas from electric generator as a heat source for preheating boiler water

Use an on-site well for water supply

Use a fixed and variable price in contract for steam operation

Limit remedial excavation to 2-feet below original grade level

Reduce amount of temporary site roadwork

Do not remediate totally and buy land around this area - treat surface soils only

Use propane fuel for LTTD

Reduce amount of temporary site lighting provided

Use a smaller boiler for steam generation

Use plastic liner with crane mats for decontamination pad in lieu of a concrete pad

Use concrete pad in lieu of asphalt pad for processing area

Reverse Phase 1 and Phase 2 work

Define in contract when SER is to be terminated

Optimize number and size of trailers on site

Use on-site gas generator for pre-heating water for steam generation

Reduce Phase 1 surveying time

Use a lined pond in lieu of a Modutank

Check size of Modutank compared to excavation area

Send spent carbon from the wastewater treatment plant to the LTTD unit for disposal

RATING

2

4

3

5

DS

ABD

DS

2

4

2

2

5

4

4

2

1

Combinew/7

4

See 5

4

4

DS

4

Rating: 1->2 = Not to be Developed; 3 = Of marginal value - use if project is over budget;

4-»5 = Most likely to be Developed; DS = Design Suggestion; ABD = Already being done

57000492

Documents

Value Engii Mi itudy Report · one design suggestion that has the potential to limit costs during the operational phase of the contract. Implementing these alternatives can save approximately