prc engineering planning research corporation

proPRC Engineering Planning Research Corporation

RAYMARK CORPORATION

FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY

ADDENDUM

Prepared For

U.S, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYOffice of Waste Programs Enforcement

Washington, D.C. 20460

Work Assignment No.EPA RegionSite No.Date PreparedContract No.PRC No.Prepared By

Telephone No.'EPA Primary ContactTelephone No.

9433478March 11, 198668-01-703715-0940-93PRC EnvironmentalManagement, Inc.(Daniel T. Chow)(312) 938-0300Paula Luborksy(215) 597-1190

AR i 00473

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction 1

2.0 _ Ground Water Treatment""" •-•—-- ^

Sampling Results 4Remedial Action 5Carbon Adsorption " gAir Stripping - ^Combined Air Stripping and Carbon Adsorption ] 1

3.0 Soil Disposal 20

Sampling Results " 20Remedial Action 22

4.0 Cost Estimates Tor Sampling Program 22

5.0 Cost Analysis of "Remedial Action Alternatives 24

6.0 Summary of alternative Analyses 38

7.0 Reference" • -• -• ^

LIST OF FIGURES

Page , ^^

J. Location Map of Raymark Site, Hatboro Wells 2and Warminstcr Heights Wells

2, Soil Sampling Location Plan Map 3

3, Conceptual Flow Diagram For Carbon Adsorption 9Process - -. ;

4. Conceptual Flow Diagram For Air Stripping Process .. - -14

5. Conceptual Flow Diagram for Combined Air Stripping 17and Carbon Adsorption Processes

A \\\ u u 4 / o

LIST OF TABLES

Table . ., .___."__„_.,"".,. V_-.._.~"_ -_J",..".~ .!_,.'.. .!...- .". . „-....

1 . Contaminants of~Coneern . . , . - .

2. Design Criteria for Carbon Adsorption System 10

3. Estimated Costs for Carbon Adsorption Treatment 13

4. -Design Criteria for Air Stripping System : 15

5. Estimated Costs for Air Stripping Treatment 16

6. - Design Criteria for Combined Air Stripping and 18Carbon Adsorption System

7. Estimated Costs for Combined Air Stripping ' 19and Carbon Adsorption System

8.. Organic and Inorganic Contaminants'Directed in 21Soil Samples

9. Remedial Alternatives Cost Analyses! 25

10. Sumamry of the Comparison of Alternatives 40

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report is an addendum to the report "Raymark Corporation, Focused FeasibilityStudy" submitted by PRC to the U.S. EPA on March 20, 1985 (PRC, f985). The purposeof this addendum is to revise the proposed remedial action alternatives described inthe original report. This revision is necessary because EPA provided PRC withadditional results from laboratory analyses of soil and ground-water samplescollected by an EPA sampling team from October 28 to 31, 1985 at the Raymark site andsurrounding area.

The sampling team collected ground-water samples from monitoring wells Rl to R5, theFischer Porter (FP) monitoring well Nos. 13 and 14, Penn Fastener (PF) Well No. 1,and Hatboro Water Well No. 2 (Figure 1). The team also collected soil samples forvolatile organics analysis from 12 boreholes on the Raymark site (Figure 2). Adetailed description of the field investigation, sampling activities, and resultsof the soil and ground-water analyses is provided in the report, "Soil Sampling andGround-Water Sampling Report; Raymark Site" prepared by NUS Corporation and submittedto the EPA on January 28, 1986 (NUS, 1986).

PRC completed the following tasks before preparing this addendum.

o Reviewed the laboratory results of the ground-water and soil samples andtheir respective quality assurance reports.

o Selected the acceptable laboratory data as the design criteria for theground-water treatment systems.

o Redesigned the ground-water treatment systems based on the new criteria.

o Prepared cost estimates for the new ground-water treatment systems.

o Determined the extent of soil contamination based on the new data.

o Determined the need for soil removal at the Raymark site.

t

HATBORO WELLS..-=..

09SERVATION- WELLS

SAMPLING WELLS--- • - :. FIGURE

LOCATION MAP OF RAYMARK SITE,HATBOKO WELLS AND WARMINSTER HEIGHTS WELLS

WARMtNSTER HEIGHTS WELLSRAYMARK WELL

PRC ENGINEERING

E TESBORING LOCATIONNOTE- CAN'0 D SAMPLES

DELETED FROM SAMPLING PLAN

EXCAVATED .CONCRETE TANKS

x, / PAftWNG \'/ •-• x LOT _ \

Figured ; . . _- .Soil Sampling Location Plan Map

(No .scale) ; . _..

K. n t f- r- ' , "/H hi U U 4 /

o Prepared cost estimates for the new/revised remedial alternatives, theinstallation of three new ground-water monitoring wells, additional ground-water sampling and analyses, and a pump test.

This addendum consists of the following six sections:I. Introduction2. Groun'd-Water Treatment3. Soil Disposal4. Cost Estimate for Sampling Program5. Cost Analysis of Remedial Action Alternatives6. Summary of~the Alternatives Analyses

In Sections 2.0 and 3.0, PRC briefly discusses the additional laboratory data,presents new or modified designs of the remedial technologies, and estimates thecapital, operation, and maintenance costs associated with the new or modifieddesigns. Section 4.0 describes the additional ground-water sampling requested by EPAand its associated cost. Section 5.0 provides the revised costs of the modifiedremedial action alternatives incorporating the new or modified ground-water treatmentsystems. These revised costs include the construction, operation, and maintenancecosts for the ground water treatment system and other associated costs. Section 6.0summarizes the various modified remedial action alternatives and includes a revisionto Table 4-11 from the previous report (PRC, 1985).

2.0 GROUND WATER TREATMENT

The following two sections discuss the laboratory results for the ground-watersamples and the appropriate remedial actions necessary to reduce the contaminantconcentration in the ground water.

Sampling Results : . ..-'--

An EPA sampling team (FIT team IIT) visited the Raymark site and surrounding area onOctober 28~tb 31, 1985. The team collected ground-water samples for volatileorganics analysis (VOA) from the following locations (Figure 1):

o Off-Site Downgradient WellsMonitoring Wells: Rl, R2, R3, R4, R5, FP-I3, and FP-14Drinking Water Well: Hatboro Water Well No. 2

o On-Site WellMonitoring Wells: Penn Fastener Well No. 1 (PF-1)

PRC reviewed the laboratory results for the ground-water samples and selected fourcompounds as contaminants of concern. The four contaminants were selected asfollows: 1) Contaminants were rejected if the Quality Assurance Review Reportraised doubts as to the validity of the concentration data, and 2) PRC compared theremaining concentration data with current EPA guidelines and selected contaminantswith concentrations above the guidelines. These contaminants include the followingfour organic compounds.

o Carbon tetrachlorideo Tetrachloroetheneo Trans-l,2-dichloroetheneo Trichoroethylene

Remedial Action

One of the design objectives of the Raymark ground-water treatment system is toreduce the amount these compounds in the ground water to an acceptable level. Sincethe ground water withdrawn from the aquifer will be used as drinking water, PRCconsidered all appropriate EPA guidelines, standards, and criteria in establishingdesign objectives.

Table I lists, for each contaminant of concern, the maximum concentration detectedand the applicable or relevant standards and criteria that were used as designobjectives, EPA has recently proposed Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) of 5 ppbfor two of the contaminants of concern, trichloroethylene and carbon tetrachloride(U,S. EPA, 1985a). When promulgated in final form, these MCLs will be enforceablestandards for drinking water supplies. Since the MCLs are not yet final, PRC chose

i i 0 u k Q

Table 1

Contaminants of Concern

Contaminant

Carbon tetrachlorideTetrachloroetheneTrans- 1 ,2-dichloroetheneTrichloroethylene

Maximum ConcentrationDetected (ug/L)

380 -41

340 -8900

Permissible Level^(Treatment Objective)(ug/L)

0.42 (CWA)0.88 (CWA)

- -- 270 (SDWA)2.8 (CWA)

Notes: (1) From Table 5-2"Guidance oil Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA" (June,1985).

(2) CWA = Clean Water Act (Water Quality Criteria for human health --adjusted for drinking water only)

SDWA = Safe Drinking Water Act (10-day health advisory)

A R \ 0 0 k 8 2

to use more conservative design objectives. For three contaminants (trichloro-ethylenc, carbon tetrachloride, and tetrachloroethene), we used the Ambient WaterQuality Criterion for human health, adjusted for drinking water ingestion (U. S.__EPA, 1985b). These concentrations correspond to an incremental lifetime cancer riskof 10"c. (Note that this new design objective for trichloroethylene of 2.8 ppb islower than the 4.5 ppb used in the previous focused feasibility study report (PRC,1985)). For the remaining contaminant, trans-l,2-dichloroethene, the most appro-priate criterion available was the EPA 10-day health advisory (HA) of 270 ppb. HAsbased on non-carcinogenic health effects; thus, the design criterion is higher thanfor the other three contaminants.

The remedial action alternatives proposed in the previous focused feasibility study(PRC, 1985) remain essentially the same except for the on-site ground-water treat-ment unit. The original proposed design for on-site ground-water pumping anddisposal, and off-site ground-water pumping, treatment and disposal remain the same.The on-sitc ground-water treatment unit was originally designed to treat only on_e_contaminant, trichloroethylene (TCE), at a maximum concentration of 4100 ppb.However, the latest laboratory data of ground water at or near the Raymark siteindicate that the ground water contains several contaminants, and one ground-watersample indicated a TCE concentration of 8900 ppb. Based on these new ground-waterdata, PRC redesigned the on-site ground-water treatment unit to I) reduce theconcentrations of the additional contaminants (see Table 1), 2) accommodate thehigher TCE influent concentration of 8900 ppb, and 3) achieve the lower dischargerequirement of 2,8 ppb for TCE. Ground-water pumping rates of 200 gpm, 100 gpm, and50 gpm which were used as design criteria for the treatment system in the previousreport arc still valid. They will used for sizing the new treatment system in thisaddendum.

The two major treatment unit processes for the on-site ground-water treatment (airstripping and carbon adsorption) considered in the previous report remain suitablefor treating ground water with multiple contaminants. In addition to redesigningtreatment systems based on air stripping or carbon adsorption, PRC also designed athird treatment system consisting of an air stripper and a carbon adsorber in series.The contaminated ground water will pass through an air stripper and then a carbonadsorber prior to discharge. This combination of air stripping and carbon adsorption

ARiTTO!-;83

was not considered in the previous report. The following three sections presentbrief discussions on the design, operation, and costs of the following three ground-water treatment unit processes based on new data.

o Carbon Adsorptiono Air Strippingo Combined Air Stripping and Carbon Adsorption

The descriptions of design theory and operational principles in the previous report(PRC, 1985) are^still valid. The brief discussions presented below only relate tothe new designs.

Carbon Adsorption

The proposed on-site carbon adsorption treatment system would consist of twoidentical standard carbon columns as depicted in Figure 3. The design criteria forthis system are presented in Table 2. The proposed system is capable of treating thecontaminated ground water at the rates of 50, 100, and 200 gpm. The carbon systemdesign is based on the maximum contaminant levels and treatment objectives shown inTable 1. . -

PRC proposes to install a carbon adsorption system consisting of three identicalcarbon vessels, two of which are filled with carbon (20,000 Ib in each vessel for the200 gpm and 100 gpm units). The two carbon columns operate in series. This arrange-ment allows the lead column to be operated to exhaustion to ensure optimum useof the carbon. The empty vessel facilitates the exchange of spent carbon with virgincarbon. One tru'cklbaoT of carbon consists of 20,000 Ib of carbon. The virgin carbonwill be placed in the empty vessel before the spent carbon vessel is emptied. Thistransfer operation will need only one truck for replacing carbon; the operation willnot require an empty truck for storing the spent carbon vessel if an empty vessel isavailable.

The design for the 50~gpm unit is also shown in Table 2. Five filled carbon vesselsare required, each of which will have 2000 Ibs of carbon. Operation will be in

Q

LJOLJ

o tcUJ uj

I!CCLJ

5!-I<>

_j a. ; 7 •"2 H<CO

: - - - - - /^

Z£ D2 0o crO CD

ha I>CL

o 2CD Z>CE _l< Oo o

CO•CxJ—O ?=

C9

•oo-o <en

QUJ

< UJ

,AR i 00': 8 5PRC ENGINEERIN'G 9 - , — - -= -

Table 2

Design Criteria For Carbon Adsorption System

Pumping Rate

200 gpm , 100 gpm.._ 50 eom

Criteria . . . . . . . . - - . . - - : . - , - • • • - - • - - - - - - • - . . . .

Column Diameter (ft) 10 10 4

Height of Packing (ft) 10 """'. 10 10

Empty Bed Contact Time _30 . ..._ 60 19Per Carbon Unit (min)

Hydraulic Loadlng~(gpm/ftaj 2.5 1.3 4

Number of Vessels 3 3 5

Number of Carbon Units 2 2 5

Estimated Exhaustion 4. _ .., .._..._____ 8 .- 2.5Time Per Carbon Unit (months)

Estimated Carbon Treatment 8 _._ t _ _...... 16 12.5System ExhaustionTime (months)

10

A R 1 0 U 4 8 6

series. The first four columns will be operated to exhaustion. When the effluentfrom the fifth approaches the treatment limit, the system will be shut down, followedby carbon replacement. The process will then be started again. Five columns areused for this flow rate to minimize frequency of carbon replacement.

Table 3 presents a summary of cost estimates for the on-site carbon adsorptionsystems sized for the three pumping rates.

Air Stripping . : _ T

This proposed treatment process requires three identical stripping columns operatingin series. A schematic diagram of the on-site air stripping treatment process isshown in Figure 4. Pall rings would be used as the packing material for the airstrippers. Pall rings of 1-1/2-inch diameter are used for the 50 gpm unit and 2-inch diameter pall rings are used for the 100 gpm and 200! gpm units. Table 4summarizes the design criteria for the new air stripping system at the three pumpingrates considered (50 gpm, 100 gpm, and 200 gpm). The systems were designed toreduce the contaminants to the level shown in Table 1. Analysis of the contaminantconcentrations in the influent and effluent of the stripping columns will be requiredto determine when to terminate treatment and, more importantly, if the treatmentprocess is performing as designed.

Table 5 presents a summary of cost estimates for the on-site air stripping systemssized for the three pumping rates.

Combined Air Stripping and Carbon Adsorption

The third ground-water treatment system PRC evaluated uses both an air stripperand a carbon adsorber. Contaminated ground water flows through an air stripperand then enters the carbon adsorber for final treatment prior to discharge (Figure5). The unit dimensions for the air stripper and carbon adsorber (Table 6) are thesame as discussed in the previous two sections for air stripping and carbonadsorption. However, in this system, the estimated exhaustion time for the carbon

adsorber is longer than in the treatment process using a carbon adsorber alone.

11

This extended exhaustion time occurs because the air stripper removes a largepercentage of contaminants prior to discharging to the carbon adsorber.

Table 7 presents a summary of cost estimates for the on-site combined air-strippingand carbon adsorption system sized for the three pumping rates.

12

Table 3

Estim'afe'd Costs for Carbon Adsorption Treatment*1)

Capital

Adsorption Column $ 300,000(2)Pump (3 units) „ 11,000Piping .... 3,000Electrical, Instrumentation 6,000Structures ; :

Holding well, Building 20,000

Subtotal $ 340,000

Contingency68,000

Subtotal $ 408,000Engineering, Administration, ^ _j._ .... _. ..... .._.-:.,, .and Contractor Fees (20%) - - 82,000

$490,000

Annual Q & M Cnsfg " ~ ' -,nn onm9V "™ 2w SPm. . . 100 gpm 5Q gpm

Electric power (@ 6 cents7KWH) ". $10,000 10000 5 nnnReplacement of carbon 48,000 24 000 680Laboratory costs " : ." — ^»uuu /,c>80

- I4'4°° I4'400 14«°(10 hours/week @$I8/hour). 9,400 9400 9400tenan - 3.000

Subt0tal $ 84,800 "'60,800 ——— i

Contingency (20%) '.16,960 "".72,960 7,896

Tbtal ''"""" $101,760 72,960 47,376

S'eStdJ" th£ '° and 4tl1 Carb°n C°1Umn SyStemS 3re"$300'°00 and $60'000

13

trLLJQ LJ

iii uja 5 >s 3 <u_ >

f-C/3

XXUJ

X

cc<H ——————!——"~T<r ~ ~--=**=~~ I I I _ Jw \ p= .—-X I Urf. _ — i--— - -JZD~<IXUJ

Q.<

LUf-<5

QLLJ1h-

r <CO

AR100U90 14LUC

J-l0 wfe K

01s H(0 05-1 S-l0i A-to•M cr

ocou

Table 4

Design Criteria For Air Stripping System

Pumping RateCriteria . ..

Column Diameter (ft)" ~~" 3 """" ' 2 sHeight of Packing (ft) 20 ' 20 ?nAir: Water Ratio :50 - i1" i« . i en ,Air Flow (acfm) 1337 =Number of Units 3

15

Table 5

Estimated Costs for Air Stripping Treatment

Capital Cost . .Pumping Rates

2QQ eom . 100 gpm . . 50 gpm

Stripping column (3 units)Tower, Packing, Blower $157,500 ' $ 60,000 ::: $ 48,900

Pump (3 units) 10,500 10,500 - 9,000Piping 3,000 : 3,000 - 3,000Electrical, Instrumentation 6,000 ; 6,000 6,000Structures

Holding well, Building 20,000 20,000 . 20,000

Subtotal $197,000 $ 99,500 ... _. $ 86,900

Contingency (20%) 39,400 19,900 .. 17,380

Subtotal $236,400 . $119,400 $104,300

Engineering, Administration,and Contractor fee (20%) 47,300 - : .23,900 20,900

Total $283,700 $143,300 _ $125,200

Annual Q & M Costs " . ...

Electrical power (©6 cents/KWH $ 10,000 '. $ 10,000 : "- $ 5,000

Laboratory costs (4 samples/month @ $300/sample) 14,400 14,400 14,400

Operating labor (10 hours/week @$18/hour) 9,400 .9,400 ;; . 9,400

Maintenance and supplies ' 3,000 '. -3,OOQL.--- 3,000

Subtotal $ 36,800 T $ 36,800 $ 31,800

Contingency (20%) 7,400 .. . : 7,400 . 6,400

Total $44,200 $44,200 $38,200

16

17 - A ft i 0 u 1} 9 3

Table 6

Design Criteria for Combined Air Strippingand Carbon Adsorption

Pumping'Rate

200 gpm 100 gpm 50 gpm

Criteria . ' . . . . .

Carbon Adsorber . ..._ _

Column Diameter (ft) 10 10 4Height of Packing (ft) 10 10 , 10Contact Time (min) 30 60 19Hydraulic Loading (gpm/ft2) 2.5 1.3 4Number of Vessels 1 1 1Estimated Exhaustion (months) 4 8 ... _2.5

Air Stripper . „ ._„ . . ___

Column Diameter (ft) 3 2.5 1.5Height of Packing (ft) 20 20. 20Air: Water Ratio 50 : 1 50 r: 1 50 : 1Air Flow (scfm) 1337 668. 334Number of Units 1 1 1

18

U

Table 7

Estimated Costs for Confined Air Stripping and Carbon Adsorption System

Capital Cost

Pumping Rates

100 com 50 eom

Annual Q & VT

Piping .-...-.- . . . , 10,500 9,000Electrical, Instrumentation "' ' ', «nnnStructures .... : . <W)U . 6,000

Holding well, Building 20,000 20,000 20,000

SUbt°tal 5271,000 "$259,500 £254.300

Contingency . 51,900 50,900

Subt°tal $325,200 $311,400 $305,200Engineering, Administration ' "and Contractor fee (20%) 65,000 ": " "62,300 61,000

5390,200 -$373,700 $366,200

Electrical power @"" ' ":" ;' " "" ~ ":~ "i"" ' "~x "" :-—"-^-™- '-'••

-£=£?<«." ::—.-.g,.---:-vi«5 , «„Laboratory costs (4 samples/ - . - - /)DUU 3>»00

month @$300/sample) „.; . . 14,400 ---14400 14400Operating labor (10 hours/ • * 14'400

week @$J8/JiouOMaintenance and sullies-

Subtotal $ 52,800 $ 44,400 $ 35,600

Contingency (20%) ". !. 10,600 8,900 7,100

Total $ 63,400 *" " $ 53,300 $ 42,700

19

•r- ]- I ,"1 ^ ' /"*! ™M n i U b 4 J 0

3.0 SOIL DISPOSAL

The following two sections discuss the laboratory results of the soil samples andPRC's findings concerning potential remedial action.

Sampling Results

PRC reviewed the results of the organic and inorganic analyses of composite boreholesamples from the former lagoons and former solvent tank storage area at the Raymarksite (NUS, 1986). These lagoons were used to neutralize and store wastewater from1948 to 1972. According to plant personnel, the lagoons were originally installedwith clay liners. It was reported that when the lagoons were removed from service in1972, the material above the liner was excavated and removed from the site, and thelagoons were then filled with clean material to grade (Betz-Cdnverse-Murdoch, 1982).

The results of the borehole analyses for both organics and inorganics are presentedin Table 8. The quality assurance review report determined that some laboratorydata are not acceptable. These pollutants are not included in Table 8. Table 8shows that extractablc organics are present in the soil and that many inorganiccompounds arc present at high concentrations.

The decision to treat, decontaminate, or remove soil is generally based on theresults of an cndangermcnt assessment. The endangerment assessment determineswhether existing soil contamination will have an adverse environmental impact.An endangerment assessment would be very useful for the Raymark site since there areno permissible limits or standards for the soil contaminants.

PRC reviewed the data for the inorganics (Table 8) and determined the contaminants ofconcern to be:

o Arsenico Bariumo Cadmiumo Chromiumo Lead

20

A R 1 U O U S 6

Table 8

Organic and Inorganic ContaminantsDetected in Soil Samples (NUS, 1986)

Extractable Organs ! Inorganics

,, . _ . MaximumMaximum...C.Qncentrati_Qn .. _ . ._..._. . . Concenfratinn...-.Oetep.ed (,,,) .. . .,CpmPpne,a Detected ""

Fluoranthene 340 Aluminum" ,6,800

Pyrene. ._.._ __ ....;.. ___ 340 ^Arsenic lg

Benzo(b&k) 460 - ' ' B a r i u m "" 142Fluoranthene

Benzo (a) Pyrene 36.0 Cadmium 55

PCB 1254- 7 " .."as- - ; - "ch ndum™"' 21

Copper 157

Iron 17,400

Lead 45

Magnesium 3500

Manganese 597

Nickel 74

Vanadium 35

21

These contaminants are considered in determining the characteristics of EP toxicityas detailed in 40 CFR 261.25. EP toxicity is one of the criteria for determining ifa waste is .hazardous.

In the absence of an established permissible level of these contaminants in the soil,PRC chose to estimate EP toxicity on these pollutants. PRC assumes that the soilsample contains the contaminants at the concentration listed in Table 8 was mixedwith water at 1:20 ratio. PRC also assumes that 100 percent of the contaminant inthe soil will leach out. Based on this assumption, all the inorganics listed abovepassed the EP toxicity evaluation except cadmium. If only 35 percent of the cadmiumleaches out from the soil it will pass the EP toxicity test. The other inorganicspresented in Table 8 are generally within the concentrations that are anticipated inshales or sandstones (Mason, 1966). Based on this preliminary analysis, theinorganic contaminants of the soil do not appear to be of significanfcbncern.

The extractable organics detected in the soil were not analyzed for in the ground-water analyses. Thus, the data presented do not aid in making a decision on thenecessity of remedial action. In addition, background soil analyses are required forboth the extractable organics and inorganics to assess contamination resulting fromactivities at the Raymark site.

Remedial Action

PRC cannot recommend a remedial action for the soil contamination based on thepresent available information. PRC suggests that a formal endangerment assessment beconducted. If the contaminated soil is found to produce a hazard or have thepotential to create a hazard to the public or endanger the environment, appropriateremedial technologies should be developed and designed.

4,0 COST ESTIMATES FOR SAMPLING PROGRAM

EPA requested PRC to provide estimates for the cost of installing additional monitor-ing wells, conducting pump tests, and analyzing ground-water samples.

22

A R t O Q

EPA Is considering installing three monitoring well clusters near the Raymark site.Each cluster will consist of three wells screened at the respective depths of 80,130, and 145 feet. The screen length of each well will be 10 feet. PRC contacted adrilling contractor in eastern Pennsylvania to provide a cost estimate for developingthe proposed three clusters of wells (Chow, 1986).

EPA also requested PRC to estimate the cost for conducting a 72-hr, pump test atwell PF-I on the Raymark site. In estimating the cost for conducting the pump test,PRC assumed that (1) pumping equipment is available on-site and (2) the cost forconducting the pump test consists of costs of labor for performing field work andreviewing test results.

The field personnel will collect a set of ground-water samples at PF-1 before thepump test and every 8 hours throughout the duration of 72-hour pump test.

The third cost estimate requested by the EPA is for the collection and analysis of aset of ground-water samples from each of the following wells:

o Monitoring Well Rl, R2, R3, R4, and R5o FP Well Nos. 13 and 14o Hatboro Well Nos. 2 and 17o Monitoring wells in each of the three wells clusters

The sampling protocol will be the same as the one used in the sampling conducted inOctober 1985. All water samples, except those from the Hatboro Wells, will be takenunder static conditions'in the upper, middle, and lower thirds of each well. Waterlevels will be recorded for each well. After static samples are collected, eachwell will be purged of three well volumes of water, and a sample will be collectedfrom the lower third of the well. The water samples from the Hatboro wells will becollected from a spigot:at the well head. Two samples will be collected. The firstwill be collected from the line without purging, and the second sample will becollected after the water line is clear and three volumes are purged from the well.A total of 81 water samples will be collected. All the samples collected will beanalyzed for volatile organic compounds only.

23

Cost estimate for the three tasks of the sampling and monitoring program describedabove are as follows:

o Installing three well clusters : $55,000 -(3 monitoring wells each)

o Conducting a 72-hrs. Pump Test 5,800

o Collecting and Analyzing 81 26,883ground-water samples

Total for Sampling and Monitoring Program $88,683

5.0 COST ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES

In addition to the originally proposed ten remedial alternatives for ground-waterdecontamination, four new remedial alternatives are included in this revised costanalysis. The four new remedial alternatives incorporate the combined air strippingand carbon adsorption treatment system.

o On-site -- pumping, aeration and carbon adsorber treatment and and dischargeto surface water

o On-site -- pumping, aeration and carbon adsorber treatment and reinject intothe aquifer

o On-site -- pumping, aeration and carbon adsorber treatment, and discharge tosurface water; off-site -- pumping, aeration treatment, discharge to waterdistribution system

o On-site — pumping, aeration and carbon adsorber treatment, and reinject intothe aquifer; off-site — pumping, aeration treatment, and discharge to waterdistribution system

The following table (Table 9) provide cost estimates for each of the fourteenremedial action alternatives.

24

ARi OQ500"

Table 9

Remedial Alternatives Cost AnalysesAlternative ? __ __ _. . . . , . . . . . _ , , . . . . . . . ,,_ -, ._.___.._....

No Action s 0

=========B=!=S

Alternative 2 .._ .^__ .....__,.,,. .,.._.. .. ,.,,...___,.. - .. .. ...... .

On-Site; Pumping/AerationTreatment/Discharge To Surface Water

Capital Costs ; .";„„_"---;," ',"""""-:... . ,;.."! :; "" "-"'"" " r --•

Flow Rate 200 gpm 100 gpm 50gpm

$159,400 $.159,400 ' $159,400. ,fra,tlon ' . . , . . 283,700 143,300 125200

Discharge To Surface Water 10,700 9,400 8*500

Total 5453,800 " $312,100 ' $293,100

Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost

(15 years @ 10 percent) " $420,600 $420,600

25

A , $ 15'300 $ 15,300 $ 10,300Laboratory Analyses ..... 14,400" " 14,400 14400

^ 7,000 ^ 7,000 7 009,400 - 9,400 9,400

Subtotal $ 46,100 $ 46,100 $41,100

Contingency C2ff%)~H~;""J™"!-"".-" -£206""" 1 200 8,200

Total S 55,300 $ 55,300 $49,300

Present Worth O & M Cosfs$375,000

Total Present Worth $874,400 ' " $73 2/7 00 $668 1 00Value

fl R I 0 0 5 0

Table 9, continued

Alternative 3

On-Site, Pumping/AerationTreatment/Relnjection

Capital Costs

Flow Rate 200 gpm 100 gom .. 50 gpm

Pumping $159,400 $159,400 $159,400Aeration 283,700 143,300 .. 125,200Reinjection 48,200 48,200 48,200

26

Total $491,300 $350,900 $332,800

Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs

UtilitiesLaboratory AnalysesMaintenanceLabor

Subtotal

Contingency (20%)

Total

Present Worth O & M Costs(15 years @ 10 percent)

Total Present Worth $ 942,300 . ._$ 801,900 ...$ 738,200Value ________ _________ _______

$ 15,30014,40010,3009,400

$ 49,400

9,900

S 59,300

$ 451,000

$ 15,300- 14,40010,300. 9,400

$ 49,400

9,900

$ 59,300

__.$ 451,000

$ 10,30014,40010,300

. 9,400

$ 44,400

8,900

$ 53,300

$ 405,400

AR100502

Table 9, continued

Alternative 4

Off-Site, Pumping/AerationTreatment/Discharge ToWater Distribution System ":

Capital Costs .._.,.

Air Strippers for MHatboro Well I, 2, 3 $200,000Hatboro Well 7 130,000Hatboro Well 16 175,000

Total $405,000 "" "" -

Hatboro Borough has purchased air strippers Tor wells 12, 14, and 17.Therefore, no capital costs for these units were included in this costestimate,

Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs ,

Utilities (6 units @ $1200/month. each) $ 86,400Laboratory Analyses (6 units @~$2500/ ; ...\ ..._ ^ 15,000

year each) .Maintenance (6 units <® $3000 each) ... _ ._ , - 18,000Labor (6 hours per week per unit <S>_$l8/hr) _ _ ... _._. 33,700

Subtotal $ 153,100

:. "30j600Total $ 183,700

Present Worth O & M Costs : _ -~ ----=(15 years @ lQ.percentJ_ ._..! - --$1,397,200

Total Present Worth Value $1,802,200

Capital costs are based on estimates prepafed by Gilmore & Associates,Inc. for the Hatboro Borough Authority in August, 1983.

27

QflRi00503

Table 9, continued

Alternative 5 '. ~ .

On-Site, Pumping/Aeration Treatment/Discharge to Surface Water; Off-Site,Pumping/Aeration Treatment/DischargeTo Water Distribution System

Capital Costs _ .

Flow Rate 200 gpm •_ 100 gpm 50 gpm

Pumping $ 159,400 $ 159,400 $ 159,400Aeration'1) 688,700 548,300 530,200Discharge To Surface Water 10,700 9,400 8,500

Total $858,800 $717,100 $69ST100

Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs . . _ _ _ . .

Utilities $ 101,700 $ 101,700 $ 96,700Laboratory Analyses 29,400 29,400 29,400Maintenance 25,000 25,000 25,000Labor 43,100 -43,100 . .. 43,100

Subtotal $ 199,200 $ 199,200 $ 194,200

Contingency (20%) 39,800 39,800 39,000

Total $ :.39,000 .. $ 239,000 $ 233,200

Present Worth O & M Costs(15 years @ 10 percent) $1,818,000 $1,81.8,000 $1,774,000.

Total Present Worth $2,676,800 -$2,535,100 $2,472,100Value ________ ________ ______

Capital costs for the air strippers for Hatboro wells 1, 2, 3, 7 and16 are included.

28

ftRlOO'501*

Table 9, continued

Alternative 6 , „_. . ._.„..,:_..,._- .-.-. . •

On-Site, Pumping/Aeration Treatment/Reinjection; Off-Site, Pumping/AerationTreatment/Discharge To Water DistributionSystem ~r ~~

Capital Costs

Flow Rate

Pumpingft(tion

Total


UtilitiesLaboratory AnalysesMaintenanceLabor

Subtotal

Contingency (20%)

Total

Present Worth O & M Costs(15 years @ 10 percent)

Total Present WorthValue

Capital costs for the air strippers for Hatboro wells 1, 2, 3, 7 and16 are included.

200 aom

-$159,400 "688,70048,200

5896,300

ce Costs

$ 101,70029,40028,30043,100

$ 202,500

40,500

$ 243,000

$1,848,000

$2,744,300

_." 100 eom

$159,400548,30048,200

5755,900

$ 101,70029,40028,30043,100

$ 202,500

40,500

- 5 243,000

. $1,848,000

$2,603,900

50 epm

$159,400530,20048,200

$737,800

$ 96,70029,40028,30043,100

$ 197,500

39,500

$ 237,000

$1,803,000

$2,540,800

29

fififO.0505

Table 9, continued

Alternative 7

On-SIte, Pumping/Carbon AdsorptionDischarge To Surface Water

Capital Costs

Flow Rate 200 gpm . . ... 100 gpm . 50 gpm

Pumping $159,400 $159,400 $159,400Carbon Adsorber 490,000 490,000 490,000Discharge To Surface Water 10,700 9,400 ., - 8,500

30

Total $660,100 $658,800 $657,900

Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs .. _

Utilities $ 15,300 $ 15,300 $ 15,300Laboratory Analyses 14,400 14,400 14,400Maintenance 7,000 7,000 7,000Carbon Replacement 48,000 24,000 7,680Labor 9,400 0,400 _. 9,400

Subtotal $ 94,100 $ 70,100 $ 53,780

Contingency (20%) 19,000 . 14,000 10,800

Total $ 113,100 $ 84,100 $ 64,580

Present Worth O & M Costs(15 years @ 10 percent) $ 860,450 $ 639,800 $ 491,300

Total Present Worth 51,520,550 $1,298,600 $1,149,200

f i R l Q O o U G

Table 9, continued

Alternative g ._..,__._

On-Site, Pumping/CarbonAdsorption Treatment/Reinjection

Capital Costs

Flow Rate - .... _ 200 gprn .... JTTO gom "• 50 gpm

Pumping $159,400 . $159,400 $159,400Carbon Adsorber 490,000 490,000 490 000Discharge To Surface Water 48,200 . 48,200 48 200

Total $657,600 . $697,600 $697,600

Annual Operation, and Maintenance Costs ' _

Utilities . . $ 15,300 $ 15,300 $ 15,300Laboratory Analyses 14,400 14,400 14400Maintenance 10,300 10,300 10*300Carbon Replacement 48,000 24,000 7*680Labor 9)400 :. . - 9,400 9 400

Subtotal $ 97,400- $ 73,400 $ 57,080

Contingency (20%) 19,500 ...: 14,700 11,420

Total $ 116,900 $ 88,100 $ 68,500

Present Worth 6 & M Costs ~ ./".".."_"'"-'....(15 years @10 percen.t} . '.".' $ 889,400 $ 670,300 $ 86,800

Total Present Worth $1,587,000 ' ."$1,367,900 $ 784,400Value

31

A R 1 0 Q 5 0 7

Table 9, continued

Alternative 9

On-Site, Pumping/Carbon AdsorptionTreatment/Discharge To Surface Water;Off-Site, Pumping/Aeration Treatment/Discharge To Water Distribution System

Capital Costs

Flow Rate 200 gpm 100 gpm 50 gpm

Pumping $ 159,400 $ 159,400 $ 159,400Carbon Adsorber - 490,000 490,000 490,000Discharge To Surface Water 10,700 _ 9,400 - 8,500Aeration 405,000" — 405;000 405,000

32

Total $1,065,100 $1,063,800 $1,062,900


Utilities $ 101,700 $ 101,700 $ 101,700Laboratory Analyses 29,400 29,400 29,400Maintenance 25,000 25,000 - - 25,000Carbon Replacement 48,000 24,000 7,680Labor 43,100 43,100 43,100

Subtotal $ 247,200 $ 223,200 $ 206,880

Contingency (20%) 49,500 -44,600 42,000

Total $ 296,700 $ 267,800 $ "248,880

Present Worth O & M Costs :(15 years @ 10 percent) $2,257,300 $2,037,400 $1,894,000

Total Present Worth $3,322,400 $3,101,200 $2,956,900Value

A f i i C u S u S

Table 9, continued

Alternative 10 _. : .,, .._._._ ^ . . -^___ '. i,., , .... ... --.-_-, :

On-Site, Pumping/Carbon Adsorption """ =Treatment/Reinjection; Off-Site, Pumping/Aeration Treatment/Discharge To WaterDistribution System • -

Capital Costs , ;.......... ;;:...::_;._._._. ..-"=.."_. ,1 !.. "j~77..".,"",-,.-. ,., .-...". -.

Flow Rate 200 gpm . JOO-gom 50 gom

Pumping J ~ ; $ 159,400" " $ 159,400 $ 159,400Carbon Adsorber 490,000 _' 490,000 490000Reinjection ' .'."" f : 48,266 48,200 48,200Aeratlon " 405,000 405,000 405,000

Total $1,102,600 $1,102,600 $1,102,600

Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs , .,

Utilities — — $101,700 $ 101,700 $ 101,700Laboratory Analyses 2-9,400 29,400 29400Maintenance 28,300 -28,300 28 300Carbon Replacement 48,000 24,000 7,680Labor 43,100 43,100 43 100

Subtotal • $ 250,500 $ 226,500 $ 210,180

Contingency (2Q%) ; _": 50,100 " "45",300 42,000

Total - -- - $ 30o>600 :- $ 271,800 $ 252,180

Present Worth O & M Costs "" __ .„ "!!_..„__...(15 years @-TO percent); """ " "" $2,286,900 "._i;.$2,067",800 $1,918,500

Total Present Worth $3,389,500 $3,170,400 - $3,021,200Value

33

A R 1 0 J 5 0 9

Table 9, continued

Alternative 1 1 . ._. . . ' . . . . .

On-Site, Pumping/Aeration and Carbon AdsorptionTreatment/Discharge To Surface Water

Capital Costs . . . ' . " .

Flow Rate 200 gpm 100 EDTTI 50 gpm

Pumping - - -- $ 9 00 $ 159,400 $ 159,400Aeration/Carbon Adsorber 390,200 373,700 : 366,200Discharge To Surface Water 10,700 - -9,400- 8,500

34

Total $ 560,300 $ 542,500 $ 534,100


Utilities $ 18,000 $ 18,000 $ 12,000Laboratory Analyses 14,400 14,400 14,400Replacement of Carbon 16,000 7,600 3,800Maintenance 7,000 7,000 - "r 7,000Labor _ . 9,400 9,400 9,400

Subtotal $ 64,800 $ 56,400 _$ 46,600

Contingency (20%) 13,000 ..,. 11,300 9,400

Total $ 77,800 $ 67,700 $ 56,000

Present Worth O & M Costs :(15 years @~J0 percent) S 591,900 $ 515,000 $ 426,000

Total Present Worth $1,152,200 $1,057,500 $ 960,100Value

i Oub f0

Table 9, continued

Alternative 12

On-Site, Pumping/^Aeration/and Carbon AdsorptionTreatment/Rein jectioh "

Capital Qostg " "' . . _ __Lr ....... "__.J. _.._ _._... ,! .. -";--_ '

Flow Rate "" '' ^ gOpVprn"'.' ....'.' iOO.gpm 50 gpm

Pumping^ - -. $ 159,400" $ .159,400 $ 159400Aeration/Carbon Adsorber 39Q,2Qp „ _3L73,700 366 200Reinjection _. . . . 48,200 48,200 48*200

35

Total " $ 597,800 $ 581,300 $ 573,800

Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs^ ! ._ _","" . ,."J

Utilities _$ 18,000"" $ 18,000 $ 12,000Laboratory Analyses , ^ ,~ 14,400" ,. . .-14,400 14,400Replacement of Carbon = " 16,000 . 7,600 3,800Maintenance „.._.._". 10,300 10,300 10,300Labor 9,400 . 9,400 9,400

Subtotal ~$ 68,100 S - 59,700 ~$ 49,900

Contingency (20%) . ' 13,600 12,000 10,000

Total - - - $~ "81,700 "$ 71,700 ~$ 59,900

Present Worth O &_M Costs :(15 years @ 10 percent) $ 621,600 $ 545,500 $ 455,700

To'ral Present Worth $1,219,400 $1,126,800 $1,029,500Value

A f i l O O S

Table 9, continued

Alternative 15 _

On-SIte, Pumping/Aeration and Carbon AdsorptionTreatment/Discharge To Surface Water;Off-Site, Pumping/Aeration Treatment/Discharge To Water Distribution System

Capital Costs .__

Flow Rate " 200 gsm _ 100 gpm 50 gpm

Pumping $ 159,400 $ 159,400 $ 159,400Aeration of Carbon Adsorber 390,200 373,700 366,200Discharge To Surface Water 10,700 9,400 8,500Aeration 405,000 405,000 ,~ :405,000

36

Total $ 965,300 $ 947,500 $ 939,100

Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs . _..„ '. .....

Utilities $ 101,700 $ 101,700 $ 96,700Laboratory Analyses 29,400 29,400 29,400Maintenance 25,000 — 25>000 25,000Carbon Replacement 16,000 7,600 3,800Labor 43,100 43,100 43,100

Subtotal $ 215,200 $ 206,800 $ 198,000

Contingency (20%) 43,000 42,000 40,000

Total S 258,200 $ 248,800 $ 238,000

Present Worth O & M Costs(15 years @ 10 percent) $1,964,000 $1,893,000 $1,811,00.0

Total Present Worth $2,929,300 $2,840,500 -$2,750,100Value

flfi!00572

Table 9, continued

Alternative 14 _ .,J____^=,I _ .... ,r . .....+ -,.. . „

On-Site, Pumping/Aeration and Carbon AdsorptionTreatment/Reinjection; Off-Site, Pumping/^Aeration Treatment/Discharge To Water \Distribution System

Capital Costs "_ .. _.: l "--:-"—"""" ' -" ----- - - - . "".'"' '-... ~~. --- -

Flow Rate -' 200 gpm .. :.Ufl0.gPm 50 gom

Pumping . ;$ 159,400 $ 159,400 $ 159,400Aeration and Carbon Adsorber 390,200 .373,700 366,200Reinjection ; ; 4.8,200 48,200 48 200Aeration 405,00*0 , 405,000 . 405,000

37

$1,002,800 $ 986,300 $ 978,800

Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs " " " .

Utilities $ 101,700 $ 101,700 $ 96,700Laboratory Analyses 29,40.0 . ; -29,400 29,400Maintenance 28,300 . „ 28,300 25,000Carbon Replacement I6i°°° - 7>600 3,800Labor "" 43,100 43",100 43 100

$ 218,500 _ . $ 210,100 $ 201,300

Contingency (20%) r\" ; 43,700 42,000 40,300

$ 262,200 $ 252,100 $ 241,600

Present Worth O &M Costs "~.*1 ""T' '." ' "~ ''.''.'. " ./"(15 years @ 10 percent) _ $1,995,000 $1,918,000 $1,838,000

Total Present Worth $2,997,800 / $2,904,300 $2,816,800Value

A R 1 0 0 5 I 3

6.0 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE ANALYSES

The summary of analyses for the proposed alternatives is presented in Table 10 whichcan be used to readily compare the alternatives. The findings can b.e summarized inthe following manner.

1, Except for the no action alternative, each remedial alternative will reduce thepublic health threat to a certain degree. For the alternatives examined, publichealth risks would be reduced to the greatest extent when the contaminatedground water is treated both on-site and off-site,

2. For the no action alternative, ingestion of the contaminated water poses asignificant concern regarding the potential adverse impacts of the contaminantson the health of the affected population. The other remedial alternatives willdecontaminate the ground water and/or retard any further migration of thecontaminated ground water.

3, The appropriate ground-water treatment technologies include air stripping andcarbon adsorption. These two technologies have proven to be both dependable andreliable. The air stripping, carbon adsorption, or combined air stripping andcarbon adsorption systems can each meet the treatment requirements. Hence, thechoice of the treatment system to be used would strictly depend on economics.

4. Except for the no action alternative, the anticipated public responses to thealternatives range from marginally acceptable to highly acceptable. Since theoverall objectives are to decontaminate the ground water and curtail themigration of contaminants in ground water, a remedial alternative which willmost likely be highly acceptable to the public calls for (1) pumping the groundwater on-site, treating it by either air stripping, carbon, or combined airstripping and carbon adsorption, and reinjectihg it into the aquifer and (2)treating the water from the Hatboro contaminated water wells by air stripping.The public response to the other alternatives will depend on the degree to whicheach alternative can meet the overall objectives.

38

5. To dispose of contaminated soil at the Raymark site, PRC cannot recommendremedial action, and, hence technology development, screening and conceptualdesign, for the following two reasons. First, soil background information hasnot been supplied. Second, the contaminants within the soil have not yet beendetermined to have an adverse environmental impact. Although PRC recognizesthat, as a result of precipitation and ground-water movement, the contaminantsheld in the soil matrix may reach the aquifer, PRC cannot accurately estimatethe quantity of contaminants being released. Further sampling and analyses ofextractable organics and inorganic in ground water will provide additionalinformation on the potential impact of contaminated soil.

39

f i f i i O G S J S

11I1 uj : «1] uj ; .fl >• ta >. o x.4»I *j —* ID ^ a*

Q. e e 4-> <o 4-> ao — a. t. Q. i_ a.O E3) ft) ft) G} O ft)(| L. u TJ O 13 U

Iw lUJ I> 1

U ]

>- >. , >.— J I CD) C CT> CO)< to I 06 o o o oU 3E I — _. ; —— B£ I ( S C O MCO , W C OZ U l t > 4t O C ft) fl> C ; -ft) 41 Ca u I — > ^ •- > jc • ; - - - • - > .eo a c i — OO — o o . _> o u ~uj o t a > i - a ) o t_ «u o i- at

£K CL 4J OS CL 1— --(^ Q. 4J

: iC C - C . 4^

U t_ (J t_ (J *JO 4)O «OC> j=> j = > —

o

C M- a l_ n- • t.**-. (_•+-... I. .— O i 3 O t - 3 O <- 3 O (- >*- 41fet ^ ft) fc- O »*• ftl *J^ C ^ C *J C 4J C ±1 Hi *p-Q O C M O f f l W O «3

3 < S ^ £ - f l I C L ^ C O C ' t - O C c A f t )b t - S ) -M l_ 3 4-i U 3 • 4J t. 3 *J. +J— aa C ca o C W O c r a o o . c s— ^-c o — i- o— t- o •— i- a c< S — CJ E OJ L I E D : U S I3> O —

I o eeu. i ae uio O ! — o" I > xx ) a ouj O I uj u

J M !EB *^ '* < ! ! » " •a. ) i uj c > • at i i ' oX i i o — e g • .c t_ s E . .c t- uoO ] 3E | - Ji (_ 03 13 *rf V t_ a; "U 4-J ft) — *J 4-t 33

c a 4-1 c_ o — — c: 3 t- *> es — c 3 t- a* a) jo^t

ael Q- (- £ —• **- 3 o c - —• H- 3 o c '• ause t « D B » « — o ~o *• ™- >, — O~D *-> >— >. «.ct.—• UJ I O (9 3 t- B 4)U .V —' ffl 8) (- ^ —* < J 4 - > ( U_i o j o o b e ) J-- c *-• as 4> c Q. *j c *J ai 4> c b. 3 —• o

O. U *J I. O « 4J 4J ~ Q. £_ O ffl 4J 4J - Q. Tl «3 C=30a. u — c e •— *-3 3 •« c «J •— <- b

o u — 3; « "c M o f «- -3 w ~o H

) O 3C I e O M ^ - CO (VJ EM f\Jl O ' t >OfOf^ - M O ^ - .- - Ol o e - l «ON-eo i--«3O* . e o

O < j p'»-in m m O * 'o

i ii _; • •" :i (_ ai o( t- O 41 £- 4) - *J t. OCI €> & tJ f t ) ^ C C " Q) 4^O

1 C B - t t ) 3 f f l — « t * . _ * « ) w

<[ B Q. 3 <S 6J re U •*• tt. 3 W (0 C — QL 3 • ffl ffl O 4> *J

40 A R i 0 0 5 1 6

T31013!Cl— i•MlC!0|CJI

101•-II4>1

-Q{<D[M

UJw•xoo.(AUJ

O 0£UJi— >-< t- - -Q. 4——— :

•— 3EU Z>

t- x -Z O< (J

— J< w0 Z1-4 Q£

Z UJ3T Uu =eUJ Ot- CJ

_1<t—a:wX MZ 2O t£. -at ujH (J

>- zac oUJ U

3£(—_l

LUI (O

PUBL

ICCO

NCER

N

**• •0 DtOo a.

M

t— •t/t CL.0 <(-} U

UJ>---»—<za:UJi— --_!<

_ .__ . . ........

• " - -<D

.J3 _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . .03

>• *--

J= 4>O) O•— O , - ,, ...........= <

X . . . . . . .C '01 " --- " -. ', .o o .M C- -0 - — " - -----ftj d, C— > J=— • O 0fl> U - 41a! Q_ *J ... := =^

•D• 01 01 a.= 4-1 • C -r - -- ——4J C C. — . ... .....- —t_ .- 0 E .3 o n> i_ . ~ -- .U- , 4-> O>

C -D C 4- ,M o c o a— ' — a o 3O 4 "O

t. ffl « M C .. --. — - __ - -4-> C_ 4J — ( 3 i--— : — ;-= =--.C O) Q. O O ......O '— ft) e_ t. ;U E 0 4J 0)

U ^— *J M— • a •- c • '- '- _ . - - . . .J3 0) t_ O«O - ———3 t_ - ,J— O " ^ " -:—— T- _.Q. J= (. 4-> •-

4-r 010) u M C. — - -ft) J= - C CO 4)o 4J a 4> a.3____. CJ -J . i -.,.-. .::.- :.-T3 03 ftt

4) CU t- O Ca: j: O 4-> C' ' ' -- - - '

ru m S-r Ki r--41 (T> 'O

f\J (M <M

oo r ^ > , , - . . .O~*~ in -•O N CO

t. E" .t_ • O 4( 41 X0) "D 4-f *J 4J — >4-> C ' « 0) Caj « - * > f t t 3 L . x > -

4-> 3 4) X C- OS 0) to —3 . . ft)-.. *j & o t- eu 4-« 4-<o "o w -i- — - - a o <o x u

C— W 4 - > 4 J . c e o 3—- 4)O , 3 W - ( O « O t - Q.Q.EO • ' H- 4t 1- M C - - C Q . W3 C_ C M-- i_ - ft) .^- 3 • C ,p 41a. no o *j <a ~o « -'<a M L.

in

_. — .1

4t

- - , fl -,a

X *J•—•• a • • • -j= oO) U

- —— -O= •<

. ._. X-c- -- o»o o~Tw~c 6

41 ftl C - --— "-> J=_ o o« (- 4>• of. a. *-f

•ato C

i — . 3C- I- O 04> ...ID (- C-

- ;E 4-i 4-> Dl«-•- C Ci- — O ~O3 O «)>4- . ' 4J

c TJ aM O C C

O 4-> E •- I- ffl M O t_+J - L. 4J 4-r 01c o> a. c 4->o — a> o 03U E U U 3

U ^— *J CO— — a — c .J3 41 (- fflvO3 C- J= OQ.-JZ (_' JJ T-

4-. O)M— —— ~o~ ta t.41 J= C (0 ft)U 4- 9J 41 Q.

•- 3 i* U — 'T3 UJ 01«_ C> *4^- O Cee ^ O 4-» o

*- * -•d- O ** ,in >o r<M c\j ru

ca -o <oKI in or-- r oo

L.O "O4- C<5 SJ -

4-- 3 01 X C3 4> 4J .Q Oo -a 4- — —

c '•- , ca t-i -4->O. 3 us • as (oE O i '4- (U i.3 (_ C *- t.. oa. o. o o 4-> a

V5

•

•

>• «- - - - - - - -^ ^3

flj asC 4-1.— Q, -CT Ot. Oa ua: <

XC 09O O

CO C Od) oi c•— > j=— ' O 00> (- ft)oc a, 4->

. . c

(_ OCO O-c >4->t- M-3 O <-•*. a?

C 4-«M O O— ' —--IO 4J -D

- - 1- W C*-. l_ 3 .C O) OO — (-u e 0)

. . ft)ra E < J=

.. — . .... t_ flj Tl 4-0) 4-> C— C 3 L.E O O O

0 t- ~O01 n c— s- D— o -a— . _ « *» t-4-> C -I-- HIt- O IO *J3 — c mO 4J — 3

O« O* »--<r o- CMr- (\i un

00 O> Om m -O*o -o *o

4->O « • . 014-> X X t_ 01C TJ — ' —— 4> L.M- C Q. 41 4J t-i

a D . > w e4-> 3 -— 4-« 3 * OU ( - C O « 4 - > 3 Ol^lO f t ) E O O t 7 4 - I L .•— i <4- L. O ft) C "- fflC — 01 4J Q. Q . 3 W O'— 3 4^ w M E O •O i t T O X t o 3 U C X1 - C I 3 3 U C - Q. 0) 0 J5

^

Uft)4-"

C (0o ai 3M- at4J 1_ 4)a. a uu j= eo o «*-in « u1 3 — 3<D "D o)

4i Afi 100517

aji31CI

el01Ul

01•-I1eit

UJt»3£Oa.wUJ

G iQCUJ>— >-< t—a. —*-• ac" 3~ JCi- X3E O Xat oUl (j

•X 0_> ^— .fle «c *^•— Q-E» <JI- U(9 OX <

c o»o om^

* C 0« « c— O (JV L. 4J

c

i- Uai oj= >*-i3 O t_

C **M o a

t- C C

o — £O E Q)

, ,

4)« ——— - ! - &4> «a

— u= <

e r a e a so o o oM c o ta c oc a> c - o « c—' O U — O O

T3 •• -oWC , O) C

• — 3 . . . . , _ , 3C . L . O O _ t - ( - O OV V U t . O _ 4) t_ t--C+'+'Ot £ 4J J OJ*-< C C *J C CC - « - O - O 1..-O-DD O W 3 U < D

c- a vt es t. .... - -_- £_ BJ vj «3 t_4 - ^ L » > W 4 - t 4 ) 4 J ^ . 4 ^ ^ J OcraQ.c*' c ra Q. c •*-"o — aj o in o ••- 4J o HIu g o u x • u E u u z

tuj i o c _ - o 4 r f a. j= «• e 1 n.^'^c1 3e w | eo (3» C o» u k o i > *-> t_ a! •

X I — *- 3 O C . M .E-O « ^sOo ae [ «— o "D 4-« — >. « ^ L , * J O -~o j; «.- 4- o— t u i a < i b . _ ^ c — ' u ^ a j i — o tJ o i^-_iu t « c *J «j aj c O- 3 —•- u u 3 -• o «3d! D— ?« — "3" " S S ^ u a S : Ti a c « L.Q . U I o -w — S « ~o « ae .c u —• fl. : a: jz o —t a.

M -* ift (M INJ rj E«ococq -o -o -o o o o oO CN O - - 3 ^ CD L ^~->^ *~ - |.

^ w <B~» - 4-1 3 — > T~ t~ - *J *O ~ '(0 C O Q . U < l l a !4«4> ^-* Q 1 O O O >* - <S iJ S tO t- Q >*

! VI— *C L. 4J^J ^^j'c^-'*^ t. C 3 3 * r f C * J * ^i * 4 * * c — o c a a o o . a i c — 0 . 1 3 0 0 .t eCO U O I U 3 * J . . - Q.

I CO

42 J R I 0 0 5 I 8

-oi

Cl

ClOl0110!.-1

1CUI—•IJ31mii-t

aUJi—<a.u•""•t—z<

<u3C

UJ»— -

.^t— -zUJx:z

ENVI

RO

sh- -

UJ3

PUBL

IC

ooo

t*

1— —wo

UJv>zoQ.

UJQ£

>-*—«Z

x:z:ou

M

tx.UJa_zou

V)

COHC

ER

t/)Z

CONC

ER

••a.

a.<o_

UJ

i—

o-UJ

—1

XZ!(0E

OiL.

x:

Co

I

oe

to•~T3

(A

Cont

ro

iai_

E

(0— *

Curt

ai

o*O0

„,in

3O

Q.E3Q.

•to2)a4JCL, .touu*

X

oC 0to c> £ .O 0i_ toQ. 4->

C--— - --

UD^•*- .O t_

toc t->o at•- X

migr

atgr

ound

i to£ • .cto "O *->4J CC 3 L.o o toU e_ ^o

0) C**- 3

tion o

inat

edwa

ter

CO OJin ino •-1— *— • —

m o _=s £01c- - to

to t- ~o

31 - —to J2

TJ 4- EC — O3 .W 0O •(. C X0> O _Q

X. ; _. . . . _

acatL.OZ

CO

- •" ' Cftto

toOf

t_. ... . a•£*

- - - 3**-

CA

O•-. L.

- - - C-ou

,

«» . (-to a .-J= 3 £** . ,a «o c - . ... -.*j <••* X --- ••—j< — .. --=:*to C O. 4-rw — a i_— t_ 3 .- ..3in T) w o

o•A_. —— o

- — — -..

......c •""" K"o US+j •a t.

13 c. o toe o *•> *-•a co «•a to 3C *0 Ol *O t. to 3••- C 03 U O*j- o .c <ot- (- « (_ £to ffl '- 3 .3<0 U "D « <L

,to

-jaa4J

atouu<

c.too[_Q.

UO^

oco

migr

at

tEascoo\oco

r-P\J

^*"

-eO"m

t.<u*to

C

oL.CO

-X--- --- •

o 'o . ,coto4-1

_. 1:_.._..

- - !

(1 ' - -toa3

c3 . . . .OL.D)

to> -C - - C.T3 4-. toC 4J3 U to ISO to f 3t. -O 4-io> c : w

3 0 C •"D *J « Xto c- & — '•M to to c a.(0 4J 4J «•- Q.c n — e_ 3••- x M -a o)

1

f—

~T- --

«0 "" 1Q.in

. : -_- .....

ato *jt- c - o<*•> 0 C C 0

— 0 0, •-.- *-• J2 — Cto in t. « —4-< (_ HI Q. to" 1> O (- L.M to O' "D (ft T3C" X C 13, Eo ,a aj o Q

X_f

D)

K

CoMto

toae

*_to

. --_r--_ £.

4-tt.3

.».

Cont

rol

O

3arn

Redu

ce:

oin

OJ

-=•£o.

c.to

5 4-1tr 3« .P

0 CL

C 3- a.

toJD^a.touo

cto>oL.a.

toi-lc"-_

co

migr

ati

•*-o

10tot_-j

heal

th

^

CO

~00

o*

t-

undw

ate

oD)

XO)ooC -•Cuto4->

". T3 - -- --M C— • 30 OL. I_*-• Wco -a-O . to

TJ <0c.. c

i *« 03 t_*j *j toa c •>->to o aU U X

o4-t to

c- : o— cu at. 4-> Oto T-o wc m t.n to too — a.

ftJt>r\j

inO

Co

- X C "-Qto J3 O t-4J •*- 03••- »-J *J O« ffi (0• to t- "Uc t_ a* cQ 4J <S <0

~

T3• C

t- 3o to o» 4-> 4-1 L.C (BO)O to 3

•u <- to 3a. <o o ot- JC BJo o •+- aM 10 t_ E•0 — 3 3w "D w a.

43 f l R l O O S i 9

atu^<«"t—<

—i<„acasuUJ>—

oQ-t»UJoc>->-3C

X3COU

XeeUJLi3COU

>.J=O)*—=

coMV—^V

*41~*Jl

4-1

iiou<

C4l>ot_

>.8)O

OcJ=oo+•>

WI31Ci 1

6£ UJ^ J_L i-» *J

c[ ! > 5 i c 'G» a" e01

« C_ 3O O

** C C --(- — o -a3 O V

M O C C

o 7S 1

ut1 o — ti o

E O U

OO

J<<LUasuM«_)ca3a.

uzacUJUX0O

& It5 «-o- •£«aw ^*= -V Oe£ j=

>f(O—c.i_vUc;aU

ocw •-C4J O

~Mtft t.V <*- £L

or*O • --00.o a. 1 so o- o-

O C I C * *-** 3O O |

I a. ai o g w TJ*j 3 — C O >.

{_ - C O - « ffl jj _i4> "C C — T3 • av O O CM- » (U Q.

O. 3 » 0 s o c — f f i a a u o )

44

.ARI00520

7.0 LIST OF REFERENCES

Betz-Convefse-Murdoch Inc., 1982. Letter Report to Ms. Susan L. Gordon, Esquire,Morgan Lewis and Bockius.

Chow 1986. Telephone Conversation between Mr. Daniel T. Chow of PRC Engineering andMr. John Thalda of Hydro-Group, March 2.

Mason, B., 1966. "Principles of Geochemistry, 3rd Ed., John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,New York

NUS Corporation"," 1986- Soil Sampling and Ground Water Sampling Report, RaymarkSite, Prepared for the Hazardous Site Control Division, U.S. EPA.

PRC Engineering;" 1985. Raymark Corporation: Focused Feasibility Study, FinalReport, Prepared for U.S. EPA. ~

U.S. EPA, 1985a. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Volatile SyntheticOrganic Chemicals; Final Rule and Proposed Rule. 50 Federal Register 46880,November 13.

U.S. EPA, 1985b^Guidance on Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA Office of Researchand Development, Cincinnati, OH, April.

45m f- f -* **S £**" /"?'" 1fl R I u u 5 / i

prc engineering planning research corporation

Documents