value engii mi itudy report · one design suggestion that has the potential to limit costs during...
Post on 20-Aug-2020
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
*• 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
VALUE ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVE
PROJECT: MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANYSUPERFUND SITE, MARION, LOUISIANA
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.
COST SUMMARY INITIAL COSTPRESENT WORTH
RECURRING COSTSPRESENT WORTHLIFE-CYCLE COST
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
VALUE ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVE
PROJECT: MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANYSUPERFUND SITE, MARION, LOUISIANA
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.
COST SUMMARY INITIAL COSTPRESENT WORTH
RECURRING COSTSPRESENT WORTHLIFE-CYCLE COST
ORIGINAL DESIGN
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN SUGGESTIONSAVINGS
15
000449
VALUE ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVE
PROJECT: MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANYSUPERFUND SITE, MARION, LOUISIANA
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.
COST SUMMARY INITIAL COSTPRESENT WORTH
RECURRING COSTSPRESENT WORTHLIFE-CYCLE COST
ORIGINAL DESIGN 214,213 214,213ALTERNATIVE 141,470 141,470SAVINGS 72,743 72,743
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
VALUE ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVE
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.
ALTERNATIVE: (Sketch attached)
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
VALUE ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVE
PROJECT: MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANYSUPERFUND SITE, MARION, LOUISIANA
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.
COST SUMMARY INITIAL COSTPRESENT WORTH
RECURRING COSTSPRESENT WORTHLIFE-CYCLE COST
ORIGINAL DESIGN 119,041 119,041ALTERNATIVE 29,760 29,760SAVINGS 89,281 89,281
22000456
VALUE ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVE
PROJECT: MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANYSUPERFUND SITE, MARION, LOUISIANA
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.
COST SUMMARY INITIAL COSTPRESENT WORTH
RECURRING COSTSPRESENT WORTHLIFE-CYCLE COST
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
VALUE ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVE
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
PRESENT WORTHRECURRING COSTS
—
$
$
$
NO.: 20
1 of 2
PRESENT WORTHLIFE-CYCLE COST
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
VALUE ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVE
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.
ALTERNATIVE: (Sketch attached)
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
PRESENT WORTHRECURRING COSTS
—
$
$
$
PRESENT WORTHLIFE-CYCLE COST
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
VALUE ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVE
PROJECT: MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANYSUPERFUND SITE, MARION, LOUISIANA
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.
COST SUMMARY INITIAL COSTPRESENT WORTH
RECURRING COSTSPRESENT WORTHLIFE-CYCLE COST
ORIGINAL DESIGN 338,000 338,000ALTERNATIVE 2,958 2,958SAVINGS 335,042 335,042
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
Liquid/vaporseparator
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
Liquid/vaporseparator
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 stan.wallace@ttemi.com
Eric Johnstone
em eric.johnstone@ttemi.com
April Ballweg
em april.ballweg@ttemi.com
Michael Wilson
em mike.wilson@ttemi.com
Bartolome J. Canellas
em canellas.bart@epa.gov
Gilbert Long
em longgm@cdm.com
Howard Greenfield
em howardbg@aol.com
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
PROJECT: MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY SUPERFUND SITE
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: MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY SUPERFUND SITE
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
PROJECT: MARION PRESSURE TREATING COMPANY SUPERFUND SITE
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
top related