sdms docid 2025672 · project number 5061 mr rorn roman (3hs21) united states environmental...
TRANSCRIPT
ItTE TRA TECH NUS, INC600 Clark Avenue, Suite 3 • King of Prussia PA 19406-1433(610) 491-9688 • FAX (610) 491-9645 • www tetratech com
PHIL-1 7293
August 8, 2003
Project Number 5061
Mr Rorn Roman (3HS21)United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)1650 Aich StreetPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029
Reference RAC 3 ProgramEPA Contract No 68-S8-3003
Subject Revised Materials for Final Engineering Eva(Third Set of Revisions)Valmont TCE SiteNon-Time-Critical Removal ActionEPA Work Assignment No 049-VOBB-031M
r
SDMS DocID 2025672
uation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) Report
Dear Mr Roman
Enclosed please find four copies of the third set of revisions to the final EE/CA report for the subject siteThis version incorporates remaining comments from reviewers of the previous version of the report,including comments made by Valmont Residents Against Pollution ((VRAP)
Please replace the following pages of the previously submitted EE/CA report, which was submitted inJanuary 2003
Cover (Rev 3)Table of Contents (Rev 3)Executive Summary - Pages ES-5, ES^6, and ES-7Section 1 - Pages 1-1, 1,2 (Figure 1-1), 1-21, 1-22, 1-24, 1-26, 1-28, 1-34, 1-58, 1-61 (Figure 1-28),and 1-62 (Figure 1-29)Section 4 - Pages 4-2, and 4-27 through 4-35 (includingSection 5 - Pages 5-1 through 5-9 (new)Appendix E-5 (new)Appendix F-4 (new)
rigures 4-6 and 4-7)
Copies are being directly sent to the individuals included on the distribution list Please contact me if youhave any questions or comments
Sincerely,
Neil TeamersonProject Manager
NT/vh
Enclosures
c Jennifer Hubbard (EPA Region 3)Bruce Rundell (EPA Region 3)Elaine Spiewak (EPA Region 3) (without enclosure)John Mellow (PADEP)Gerry Fajardo (PADOH)Leonard Johnson (Tetra Tech NUS) (without enclosure)File 7 1
Rev 3
Engineering Evaluation/ Cost Analysis(EE/CA)
for
VOC-Contaminated Soils
VALMONT TCE SITE
WEST HAZLETON, LUZERNE COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA
EPA WORK ASSIGNMENT NUMBER 049-VOBB-031IMTETRA TECH NUS PROJECT NO 5061
RAC 3 PROGRAMCONTRACT NUMBER 68-S6-3003
AUGUST 2003
TETRA TECH NUS INC
O
Rev 3
Engineering Evaluation/ Cost Analysis(EE/CA)i
for
VOC-Contaminated Soils
VALMONT TCE SITE
WEST HAZLETON, LUZERNE COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA
EPA WORK ASSIGNMENT NUMBER 049-VOBB-031MTETRA TECH NUS PROJECT NO 5061
RAC 3 PROGRAMCONTRACT NUMBER 68-S6-3003
AUGUST 2003
Rev 3PHIL-16679
ENGINEERING EVALUATION/COST ANALYSIS (EE/CA)FOR VOC-CONTAMINATED SOILS
VALMONT TCE SITEWEST HAZLETON, LUZERNE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
EPA WORK ASSIGNMENT NUMBER 049-VOBB-031MEPA CONTRACT NUMBER 68-S8-3003
TETRA TECH NUS PROJECT NUMBER 5061
AUGUST 2003
Tetra Tech NUS, Incorporated600 Clark Avenue, Suite 3
King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406-1433
SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY
NEIL TEAMERSONPROJECT MANAGERKING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA
PRpGRAMJVlANAGER, RAC 3KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
ACRONYMS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 0 INTRODUCTION1 I SITE DESCRIPTION1 il 1 Topography1 1 2 Ecological1 1 3 Geology and Soils114 Surface Water Hydrology1 1 5 Hydrogeology1 I 6 Climate and Meteorology1 ? SITE HISTORY AND PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS1 2 1 Circa 1963 through 19871 2 2 Circa 1 988 through 1 9941 2 3 Circa 1 995 through 20001 2 4 Circa 2001 through Present Day1 3 PREVIOUS RESPONSE ACTIONS1 4 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION141 Soil Gas Survey142 Surface Soil Sampling and Analysis143 Subsurface Soil Sampling and Analysis144 Indoor Air Sampling and Analysis145 Groundwater146 Sewer Sampling and Analysis147 Geotechmcal Soil Testing148 Summary and Conclusions1 5 ABBREVIATED RISK EVALUATION151 Data Evaluation152 Exposure Assessment153 Toxicity Assessment1 5 4 Risk Characterization1 5 5 Risk Assessment for Indoor Air156 Uncertainty1 6 ORGANIZATION
2 0 REMOVAL ACTION OBJECTIVES2 1 COMPLIANCE WITH ARARs AND TBCs2 2 REMOVAL ACTION OBJECTIVES2 3 PRELIMINARY REMEDIATION GOALS2 4 VOLUME OF CONTAMINATED VOC SOILS241 Volume of Zone "A" Contaminated VOC Soils2 4 2 Volume of Zone "B" Contaminated VOC Soils2 4 3 Volume of Zone "C° Contaminated VOC Soils244 Volume of Zone "D" Contaminated VOC Soils2 4 5 Volume of Contaminated Drainage Ditch Soil I2 5 REMOVAL ACTION SCHEDULE AND STATUTORY LIMITS
3 0 IDENTIFICATION/SCREENING OF TECHNOLOGIES/PROCESS OPTIONS3 1 INTRODUCTION I3 2 IDENTIFICATION OF GENERAL RESPONSE ACTIONS3 3 IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING OF REMOVAL TECHNOLOGIES
PAGE
ES-1
1-11-11-51-61-71-81-8
1-101-111-111-211-241-261-291-291-291-381-421-541-591-601-601-631-631-661-731-751-761-771-791-79
2-12-12-52-52-62-9
2-102-102-112-112-11
3-13-13-13-2
L/DOCUMENTT S/RAC/RAC3/5061/16679 Rev 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
SECTION PAGE
3 4 EVALUATION AND SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVE PROCESS OPTIONS 3-3
4 0 IDENTIFICATION /ANALYSIS OF REMOVAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES 4-141 INTRODUCTION 4-142 ALTERNATIVE NO 1 NO ACTION 4-34 21 Effectiveness 4-34 2 2 Implementability 4-34 2 3 Costs 4-34 3 ALTERNATIVE NO 2 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION WITH ON-SITE TREATMENT
OF RESIDUALS AND FOCUSED SOIL EXCAVATION WITH OFF-SITE DISPOSALFOR ACCESSIBLE AREAS 4-4
431 Soil Vapor Extraction (Component 1) 4-4432 Institutional Controls (Component 2) 4-74 3 3 Excavation of Contaminated VOC Soils (Component 3) 4-8434 Off-Site Transportation and Disposal of Soils With or Without Treatment
(Component 4} 4-94 3 5 Monitoring (Component 5 4-94 3 6 Effectiveness 4-10437 Implementability 4-10438 Costs 4-114 4 ALTERNATIVE NO 3 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION WITH ON-SITE TREATMENT
OF RESIDUALS AND SOIL EXCAVATION WITH OFF-SITE DISPOSAL 4-12441 Soil Vapor Extraction (Component 1) 4-12442 Institutional Controls (Component 2) 4-144 4 3 Excavation of Contaminated VOC Soils (Component 3) 4-15444 Off-Site Transportation and Disposal of Soils With or Without
Treatment (Component 4) 4-164 4 5 Monitoring (Component 5) 4-16446 Effectiveness 4-174 4 7 Implementability 4-174 4 8 Costs 4-184 5 ALTERNATIVE NO 3 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION WITH ON-SITE TREATMENT
OF RESIDUALS AND SOIL EXCAVATION WITH ON-SITE TREATMENTBYLTTD 4-18
4 5 1 Soil Vapor Extraction (Component 1) 4-194 5 2 Institutional Controls (Component 2) 4-214 5 3 Excavation of Contaminated VOC Soils (Component 3) 4-22454 On-Site Treatment by LTTD and Backfilling with Treated Soil (Component 4) 4-22455 Monitoring (Component 5) 4-24456 Effectiveness 4-244 5 7 Implementability 4-25458 Costs 4-2646 ALTERNATIVE 4 SOIL EXCAVATION WITH OFF-SITE DISPOSAL 4-27461 Excavation of VOC-Contammated Soils (Component 1) 4-27462 Off-Site Transportation and Disposal of Soils With or Without Treatment
(Component 2 4-32463 Effectiveness 4-32464 Implementability 4-33465 Costs 4-344 7 SUMMARY 4-34
L7DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/5061/16679 „ Rev 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
SECTION
5 0 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMOVAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES51 EFFECTIVENESS I511 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment5 1 2 Compliance with ARARs513 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence514 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume through Treatment515 Short-Term Effectiveness5 2 IMPLEMENTABILITY521 Technical Feasibility522 Availability523 Administrative Feasibility5 3 COST
6 0 RECOMMENDED REMOVAL ACTION ALTERNATIVE
REFERENCES
PAGE
5-15-15-15-15-15-25-25-45-45-55-55-5
6-1
R-1
APPENDICES
A ANALYTICAL INFORMATIONB EPC CALCULATIONS SUPPORTING RISK INFORMATIONC RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR INDOOR AIR SAMPLESD DEVELOPMENT OF PRGsE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN CALCULATIONSF REMOVAL ALTERNATIVE COSTS
TABLES
NUMBER
1-1 Occurrence and Distribution of Organics and Inorganics in Surface Soils1-2 Occurrence and Distribution of Organics and Inorganics in Subsurface Soils1-3 Occurrence and Distribution of Organics and Inorganics in Drainage Ditch Sediment1-4 Occurrence, Distribution and Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern Surface Soils1-5 Occurrence, Distribution and Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern Subsurface
Soils |1-6 Occurrence, Distribution and Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern Drainage
Ditch Sediment1-7 Cancer Risk Ratios Streamlined Risk Evaluation for Soils1-8 Cancer Risk Ratios Streamlined Risk Evaluation for Drainage Ditch Sediment1-9 NonCancer Risk Ratios Streamlined Risk Evaluation
lor Soils1-10 NonCancer Risk Ratios Streamlined Risk Evaluation for Drainage Ditch Sediment2-1 Summary of ARARs and TBC Criteria j2-2 PRGs for Contaminated VOC Soils at Chromatex Property
L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/5061/16679
PAGE
1-431-501-641-67
1-69
1-711-781-79
1-801-812-32-8
Rev 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
TABLESNUMBER PAGE
2-3 Estimated Volume of Contaminated VOC Soils 2-93-1 Preliminary Screening of Technologies and Process Options 3-43-2 Detailed Evaluation of Technologies and Process Options 3-74-1 Screening of Removal Action Alternatives 4-355-1 Comparative Analysis of Removal Action Alternatives 5-7
FIGURES
1-1 Site Location 1-21-2 Sediment Sampling Locations 1-31-3 Hydrologic Features 1-91-4 October 4, 1969 Aerial Photography 1-121-5 July 17, 1974 Aerial Photography 1 -131-6 May 2,1979 Aerial Photography 1-151-7 April 25, 1982 Aenal Photography 1-161-8 August 13, 1987 Aerial Photography 1-171-9 Chromatex Plant Vapor Recovery System 1-181-10 Apnl 8,1993 Aerial Photography 1-231-11 Chromatex Plant Layout Map 1-251-12 April 13, 2000 Aerial Photography 1 -271-13 Soil Gas Sample Locations 1-311-14 Residential Soil Gas Sampling Locations 1-321-15 Soil Gas Sample Concentrations for TCE 1-331-16 Soil Gas Sample Concentrations for Cis-1,2-DCE 1 -351-17 Residential Soil Gas Sample Concentrations 1-371-18 Surface Soil Sample Locations 1-391-19 Other Background Soil Sample Locations 1-401-20 TCE Levels in Surface Soil Samples 1-451-21 Cis-1 2-DCE Levels in Surface Soil Samples 1-461-22 Subsurface Soil Sample Locations 1-471-23 TCE Levels in Subsurface Soil Samples 1-521-24 Cis-1,2-DCE Levels in Subsurface Soil Samples 1-531-25 Indoor Air Sample Concentrations (May 2002) 1-551-26 Indoor Air Sample Concentrations (February 2001) 1-561-27 Indoor Air Samples TCE &1.1.1-TCA Concentrations 1-571-28 Monitoring Well Network 1-611-29 Sewer Sample Locations 1-622-1 Locations of Contaminated VOC Soils 2-74-1 Site Plan Alternative 2 4-54-2 Process Flow Diagram Typical SVE System 4-64-3 Site Plan Alternative 3A 4-134-4 Site Plan Alternative 3B 4-204-5 Process Flow Diagram Typical LTTD System 4-234-6 Site Plan Alternative 4 4-294-7 Site Sketch Map of Identified Underground Utilities 4-31
UDOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/5061/16679 !V Rev 3
REMOVAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
Objectives were developed to provide guidelines for evaluating the proposed removal action and to ensure
that the action complies with regulatory requirements The overall objective of any response action
performed at the site is to protect human receptors from contaminants of concern The planned sale of the
property for future light industnal use was also taken into consideration The removal action objectives for
contaminated soils at the Chromatex property included !
• Initiate removal of VOCs in contaminated soils
• Reduce the potential for VOC contaminants in groundwater to impact residential indoor air quality
Minimize further degradation of groundwater quality by reducing source(s) of VOC contaminants
• Prevent direct contact to exposed surface soils posing unacceptable human health nsks Exposed
surface soils include those that are not covered by generally impenetrable and structurally sound
surfaces such as asphalt, concrete, or the plant's foundation Drainage ditch sediments were considered
to be surface soil for the purpose of this EE/CA report
I
Ensure the removal action is consistent with future response actions for the site, if necessary
Clean-up goals were developed to define site-specific standards that must be met dunng removal action
implementation The clean-up goals for TCE and cis-1,2-DCE in contaminated Chromatex property soils are
6 ug/l and 39 ug/l, respectively, based on protection of groundwater quality The clean-up goals for PAHs in
drainage ditch soil were based on residential exposure to this soil and groundwater protection criteria
REMOVAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
Removal technologies and process options for VOC-contammated soils were evaluated and screened to
select those that were most viable for the removal action objectives The selected technologies and process
options I hat were retained were then combined to form removal action alternatives to address unacceptable
site contamination The removal alternatives were evaluated to distinguish advantages and disadvantages
of each using three criteria effectiveness, Implementability, and relative cost The removal action
alternatives that were evaluated in more detail included
• Alternative 1 No Action
L/DOCUME NTS/RAC/RAC3/5061/16679 ES-5 Rev 3
• Alternative 2 Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) with Off-Site Treatment of Residuals and "Focused Soil
Excavation with Off-Site Disposal
• Alternative 3A Soil Vapor Extraction with Off-Site Treatment of Residuals and Soil Excavation with Off-
Site Disposal
• Alternative 3B Soil Vapor Extraction with Off-Site Treatment of Residuals and Soil Excavation with On-
Site Treatment and Re-Use of Treated Soil
• Alternative 4 Soil Excavation with Off-Site Disposal
A comparative analysis was then conducted to identify the most appropnate removal action The capital
costs associated with these alternatives ranged from $0 to $3,700,000 The total present worth cost of
Alternatives 2, 3A, 3B, and 4 from $1 492 000 to $3,700,000
RECOMMENDED REMOVAL ACTION
Alternative 3A was identified as the most appropriate removal action It most effectively meets the removal
action objectives, complies with applicable or relevant and appropnate requirements (ARARs), and is easily
implemented
The recommended removal action would consist of a SVE system, institutional controls to protect the
system excavation of VOC-contammated soils followed by off-site disposal, and monitonng The SVE
system would be installed in the zone of VOC-contammated soils beneath the Chromatex plant The
process equipment and treatment component of the SVE system would be housed in a secure area inside
the plant The system would include vapor extraction wells screened immediately above the weathered
bedrock interface These wells would be connected to a vacuum pump equipped with a moisture separation
tank Condensed water would be sent to a tank for storage pnor to off-site disposal Pnor to discharge to the
atmosphere, the vapors extracted by the SVE system would be treated using granular activated carbon
(GAC) adsorption units
Soils contaminated with VOCs above the clean-up standards would be excavated from three separate zones
using conventional construction equipment The contaminated soils would be characterized for disposal
purposes Approximately 4,200 cubic yards of excavated matenal would be transported to a permitted solid
waste disposal facility or a municipal solid waste landfill The exca vated zones would then be backfilled with
clean fill and either 6 inches of topsoil or an asphalt surface would be used to cover these matenals By
L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/5061/16679 ES-6 Rev 3
removing these sources through early action, subsequent
restonmj groundwater quality in the vicinity of the site as opposed
response actions (if necessary) can focus on
to minimizing its migration
Long-teim monitoring and maintenance activities would include routine visual inspections of the area and
replacement or repair of the cover material as necessary Sampling and analysis of air and soil would be
conducted on a penodic basis during the operation of the SVE system The estimated net present worth cost
of the recommended removal action is $1,886,000 j
L/DOCUMEN7 S/RAC/RAC3/5061/16679 ES-7 Rev 3
1 0 INTRODUCTION
In response to Work Assignment No 049-VOBB-031M under Contract No 68-S8-3003, Tetra Tech NUS,
Inc (TtNUS) is submitting this engmeenng evaluation/cost analysis (EE/CA) report for the Valmont
Tnchloroethene (TCE) Site in Hazle Township, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania The purpose of the EE/CA
report is to meet the requirements of the Comprehensiv 5 Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthonzation Act
(SAR*0 of 1986 The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 3 has determined that a
non-time-cntica! removal action may be appropnate for soils contaminated with volatile organic compounds
(VOCs)atthesite I
An EE7CA is required under the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)
[Section 300 415(b)(4)(l)] for all non-tjme-cntical removal actions The EE/CA identifies the objectives of the
removal action, analyzes the vanous alternatives that may be used to satisfy these objectives, and
recommends the most appropnate response option to mitgate potential exposures to any VOC-
contammated soils and migration of these soils into the environment
This EE/CA incorporates the results of the ongoing remedial investigation (Rl) at the site, which pnmanly
focuses on the nature and extent of groundwater contamination attributable to the site The subsequent Rl
report will comprehensively address soils, surface water, sediment, and groundwater and assess any
unacceptable human health or ecological nsks posed by these media
As par) of the EE/CA, removal technologies and process options for on-site VOC-contammated soils were
evaluated and screened to select those that are most viable
technologies and process options were then combined to
unacceptable site contamination The removal alternatives
disadvantages of each
for the removal action objectives The selected
form removal action alternatives to address
were evaluated to distinguish advantages and
11 SITE DESCRIPTION
The Valmont TCE Site is located in Hazle Township and West Hazleton, Luzeme County, Pennsylvania The
site consists of at least one known source, the Chromatex Plant No 2 (Chromatex), a former upholstery
manufacturing plant at 423 Jaycee Dnve, and contaminated groundwater in a nearby residential
neighboitiood (Figures 1-1 and 1-2) The Rl will help determine the full nature and extent of groundwater
contamination attributable to the Chromatex plant
L/DOCUMi:NTS/RAC/RAC3/5061/16679 1-1 Rev 3
LEGEND
25 STREET ADDRESS
. __/ >
TETRA TECH NUS. MC.
SITE MAPVALMONT TCE SITE
HAZLE TOWNSHIP AND WEST HAZLETON BOROUGHLUZERNE COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA
FILENAME 5061cp31 dwgJLF PHL
SCALE
AS NOTEDFIGURE NUMBER
FIGURE 1-1DATE
1/24/03SCALE IN FEET
soil gae survey EPA conducted a head space analysis (chemical analysis of the air or gas that accumulates
at the top of a tank or other container) of an underground storage tank (UST) located on the northern section
of the ( hiomatex facility According to Chromatex this UST served as a collection point for the floor drains
within the plant and was not associated or connected with the solvent recovery system The head space
analyst, revealed a concentration of TCE within the UST at 1 100 ppm The UST was drained of
approximately 10 000 gallons of wastewater and nine 55-gallon drums of bottom sludge on November 10
and 11 1987 Chromatex reported that the analysis of the liquid revealed 14000 parts per billion (ppb) of
TCE and lower levels of other VOCs and that the tank was cleaned after removal of the liquid and sludge
and was closed to prevent future use
Chrom itex reported that the UST was pressure tested after removal of the wastewater and sludge and was
found to be airtight Chromatex also reported that the piping associated with the UST was clogged with latex
matenal After the tank testing PADEP determined that excavation of the lines was necessary and informed
Chromeitex that it must expose all lines to and from the UST for inspection On November 16 1987 PADEP
and EPA inspected the exposed lines around the UST The line excavation had uncovered a break in the
feed line to the UST Chromatex reported that the rupture occurred upon excavation however an EPA
representative who was onsite at the time reported that the pipe was broken pnor to excavation PADEP
reported that the piping contained solidified latex and did not contain liquid when it was uncovered and that
the brol< en portion of the pipe clearly showed corrosion and rust
Also on November 16 1987 PADEP and Chromatex collected split soil samples from the excavated area
and trenches that held the pipes connecting the containment system within the building to the UST In
addition to the soil samples PADEP collected a sample of the solidified latex from near the broken pipe Thei
laboratory reported that TCE was detected in the percent range (1 5) for the latex sample and that TCE was
detected in all but one soil sample at concentrations ranging from 50 to 1 800 000 ug/kg with the highest
concentration reported for the shallow sample collected beneath the broken pipe
i
By November 17 1987 EPA had provided bottled water and carbon filters to all affected residents and
resampled the wells TCE was detected in the well samples at concentrations ranging from non-detect to
1 630 ug/l and 111 TCA was detected at levels up to 273 ug/l In December 1987 EPA determined that a
more permanent solution was needed and subsequently funded the installation of public water supply
connections to all the houses in the neighborhood where TCE contamination had been found
On November 19 1987 PADEP collected samples from two tanker trucks which were holding the liquid
waste r« moved from the UST Analyses revealed the presence of 720 to 3 500 mg/l of TCE 3 7 to 23 mg/l
of 1 1 1 TCA 0 3 to 1 7 mg/l of 1 1 DCA and 0 065 mg/l of 1 1 DCE in one sample PADEP determined that
the wasle TCE was being stored in liquid and sludge forms in the UST without notice to PADEP and without
a permit A subsequent inspection by PADEP in December 1987 revealed that
L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/5061/16679 1 20
Chromatex had purchased 267 347 pounds of TCE from November 1986 through December 1987 and that
approximately 54 tons (108000 pounds) were unaccounted for after accounting for reclaimed TCE
discharge to the sewer fabnc retention emission control equipment recovery and steam regeneration
processes There were two 5 000-gallon aboveground storage tanks inside the plant for new and reclaimed
TCE and two others for stonng the latex coating mix used in the fabnc backing process
The PADEP inspection also revealed a distinct solvent odor at the plant and that one of the TCE tanks had
developed pmhole leaks PADEP also determined that the porthole on the tank was unbolted The single
10 000-gallon UST mentioned above was reportedly used for emergency spillage or overflow of hazardous
matenals stored within the facility The UST acted as secondary containment for the indoor tank farm and the
floor drains inside the plant earned spent TCE to the UST Chromatex did not have a permit for storage of
disposal of hazardous waste in the UST A storm dram reportedly existed in the vicinity of the UST location
which was connected to an underground pipe that discharged to a drainage pathway at the southwest comer
of facility
122 Circa 1988 through 1994
In March 1988 EPA issued Chromatex an Administrative Consent Order to perform an extent of
groundwater contamination study Chromatex installed and sampled monitonng wells at the site in March and
Apnl 1988 TCE was detected at a concentration of 17 000 ug/l in monitonng well sample MW-11 located at
the rear of the Chromatex plant and elevated contaminant levels were also detected in other wells TCE
concentrations of 17 000 ug/l suggest the presence of dense non aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs) because
this concentration exceeds 1 percent of the aqueous solubility (1 100000 ug/l) of TCE Groundwater
samples collected in 1988 from well MW 10A located at the northeastern side of the Chromatex parking lot
near the residential area also contained TCE concentrations that exceeded 1 percent of its solubility The
presence of DNAPLs in deeper water beanng zones will be evaluated as part of the ongoing Rl work
Chromatex operated a vapor recovery system to reclaim the TCE used in the stain repellent application
process which required a mixture of 4 pounds of stain repellent to 585 pounds of TCE (Figure 1 9) An EPA
inspection in 1987 indicated that the facility used 1 049 gallons of TCE per month and that 912 gallons per
month were reclaimed through the activated carbon recovery system The activated carbon adsorption unit
was part of the solvent vapor recovery system The activated carbon unit was serviced and recharged in
October 1986 generating 8 015 pounds of spent carbon with traces of TCE which was manifested and
shipped to a landfill in Pennsylvania
The exhaust for the vapor recovery system discharged to the roof of the building On May 17 1988
Chromatex notified EPA that there was a pile of carbon on the roof that was found after an employee said
that he remembered an accident with the TCE recovery system about 4 years earlier This was apparently
L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/5061/16679 1 21
due to the failure of screens at the top of the system that allowed TCE soaked carbon to blowout onto the
roof EPA arrived on site on May 23 1988 and observed that the thickness of the carbon ranged from 1 to 6
inches around the vent pipe and the lower portion was moist EPA collected two samples of the carbon from
the roof TCE was detected in the carbon samples at concentrations of 33 000 ug/kg and 265 000 ug/kg
EPA collected soil samples from depths of 1 to 3 feet on May 5 1988 and a surface soil sample on May 23
1988 at the site EPA reported that the samples were split with Chromatex personnel TCE concentrations of
38 000 ug/kg and 110 ug/kg were reported for soil samples collected 2 feet and 3 feet below the ground
surface respectively Both samples were collected at the rear of the Chromatex facility near the old loading
dock In addition 1 1 1 TCA was detected at levels of 23 000 ug/kg and 10 200 ug/kg in these soil samples
The highest concentration was contained in the sample collected where the roof dram spoul discharged onto
the ground near the loading dock at the rear of the facility
The vapor recovery system was shut down permanently on June 21 1988 when Chromatex switched to an
aqueous based fabnc protection application process as an alternative to the use of TCE On June 23 1988
Chrom atex representatives notified the Hazleton Sewer Authority that wastewater from the carbon adsorption
recoveiy system was being discharged to the Hazleton sanitary sewer system The wastewater that was
being discharged dunng this time penod apparently contained TCE at a concentration of approximately
850 000 ug/l
According to Chromatex the discharge into the sewer system was immediately suspended and wastewater
was instead collected in 55-gallon drums Chromatex noted that the volume of wastewater discharged vaned
substantially depending on the frequency with which the vapor recovery system was used (Segal June
1988)
By November 1988 the empty UST and pipes were no longer connected to the emergency overflow system
and the tank had been sealed to prevent the entrance of additional material The remains of the activated
carbon recovery unit on the roof were also removed in November 1988
Aerial photography from Apnl 1993 identified several areas of standing liquid at the site most likely due to
precipitation (or snowmelt) at the time of photo acquisition (Figure 110) Liquid within the dramageway at the
plant was visible and appeared to originate directly adjacent to the southeast wall of the plant Standing
liquid probably the result of overflow from the drainage way was observed in the parking lot north of the
plant Additional residences were constructed in the central and northern portions of the site as well as along
Fawn Drive
UDOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/5061/16679 1 22 Rev 3
By November 1993 the floor drains inside the plant had been plugged and filled A PADEP inspection of the
plant that same month indicated that the UST was still in place The tank was subsequt ntly removed on
October 10 1994 Also in November 1993 the Valmont Group sold the property to Chromatex Properties
Inc and the manufactunng operation to GULP Inc GULP was the parent company of Chromatex (i e
Chromatex was a division of GULP) Rossville Investments Inc is the current owner of both the property
and building Rossville Investments leased the building to Chromatex until October 2002
123 Circa 1995 through 2000
EPA completed an Expanded Site Inspection (ESI) of the site in January 1995 (Halliburton NUS Corporation
1995) EPA collected soil samples at the site on September 15 and 16 1993 as part of the ESI One soil
sample (S 5A) was collected from the 1 4 to 2 1 foot depth beneath the roof dram at the rear of the plant and
one soil sample (S-6A) was collected from the 1 7-foot depth in a nearby drainage ditch 1 1 1 TCA 11-
DCA and cis-1 2-DCE were detected at concentrations of 150 ug/kg 925 ug/kg and 197 ug/kg
respectively in sample S-6A Other than 1 1 1 TCA which was reported at an estimated concentration of
7 2 ug/t g the compounds were not detected in the background soil sample
Additional groundwater samples were collected by EPA in December 2000 (Tetra Tech EMI February 2001)
Due to harsh weather conditions at the time of the sampling event groundwater samples were collected from
only four wells TCE was detected in all four well samples at concentrations ranging from 100 to 370 ug/l
1 1 1-TCA was also reported in all four wells at concentrations ranging from 13 to 26 ug/l Vinyl chlonde was
reported at a concentration of 10 ug/l in one well and cis 1 2 DCE was also reported in this well at a
concenlration of 27 ug/l The results of this limited sampling documented that VOCs remain in groundwater in
the vicinity of the site Vinyl chlonde is known to be a degradation product of TCE The extent of vinyl
chloride contamination will be investigated as part of the Rl
Figure 1 12 displays the layout of the plant as of June 1994
L/DOCUWIENTS/RAC/RAC3/5061/16679 1 24 Rev 3
124 Circa 2001 through Present Day
The Chromatex plant was vacated in March 2001 EPA collected residential indoor air quality samples dunng
May arid June 2001 Based on the air quality data EPA determined that that the air in at least three
residences had chlonnated ethenes or ethanes above acceptable inhalation nsk levels although the VOCs of
concern might not be associated with site related hazardous constituents Groundwater samples from
several private wells in the residential neighborhood adjacent to the Chromatex plant were also collected in
the summer of 2001
EPA placed the Valmont TCE Site on the National Pnonties List (NPL) in September 2001 1 he NPL includes
those hazardous waste sites that appear to pose the most senous risks to public health or the environment
The NPL helps to determine which sites warrant further investigation and to evaluate what CERCLA
financed remedial action(s) if any may be appropnate
In October and November 2001 PADEP conducted a limited indoor air quality soil gas and groundwater
investigation at the site (Weston Apnl 2002) The work was sponsored under the PADEP Hazardous Sites
Cleanup Program (HSCP)
Also in October 2001 EPA conducted a preliminary assessment/site inspection (PA/SI) of the Poly Clean Dry
Cleaners Site (Poly Clean) located adjacent to and east of the residential area along Deer Run Fawn Drive
Bent Pine Road/Trail and Twin Oaks Road Poly Clean was located within the Valmont Shopping Plaza
along Route 93 Allegations were made by local residents that Poly Clean had disposed of cleaning wastes
at the re ar of the shopping plaza
During the PA/SI of the Poly Clean disposal area surface and subsurface soils and one well sample were
collected Analytical results of one surface soil sample showed elevated levels of 1 2-DCE at 2 800 ug/l TCE
at 1 800 ug/l and tetrachloroethene (PCE) at 6 600 ug/l Also one subsurface soil sample was shown toI
have el< vated levels of trans 1 2 DCE at 47 ug/l cis 1 2 DCE at 2 500 ug/l TCE at 13 ug/l and PCE at 30
ug/l Additional surface soil samples showed elevated levels of PCE ranging from 11 to 3 900 ug/l The well
sample (located approximately 750 feet east of the alleged disposal area) revealed toluene at 1 ug/l and PCE
at 5 ug/l Historical analytical data indicated that elevated levsls of 1 1 1 TCA at 1 3 ug/l and PCE at 34 ug/l
were detected within this well Groundwater contamination in the nearby residential area might be partially
related to the alleged Poly Clean disposal area This area and any other potential sources of environmental
contamination near the Valmont TCE Site will be referred to the appropnate agency (including EPA) for
further action as needed
L/DOCUWIENTS/RAC/RAC3/5061/16679 1 26 Rev 3
EPA started a full-scale environmental remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) of the site in January
2002 (TtNUS May 2002) The purposes of the Rl were to
• Characterize the nature and extent of contamination attributable to the site particularly the locations and
concentrations of groundwater contamination by VOCs
Better understand the physical parameters affecting contaminant fate and transport
• Provide a comprehensive assessment of the current and potential human health and environmental nsks
associated with the site
Data collected dunng the Rl will be used to evaluate potential environmental response clean up options (i e
removal actions and remedial actions) and to support the EE/CA and feasibility study (FS)
In I ebruary 2002 air samples were collected from basements and first floors in 28 houses EPA also
sampled sewer lines near the site to investigate possible pathways of contaminants EPA requested access
from the owner of Chromatex plant to perform investigations inside of the plant and to use a part of the
parking lot at the plant dunng the Rl
To date Rl work has included
• Air sampling and analysis within the nearby residential neighborhood
• Sampling and analysis of sewer samples
• Topographic surveying
• Geophysical surveys to identify any buried anomalies within the 423 Jaycee Dnve property boundary
• Soil gas surveys to identify VOC anomalies at the property and within the residential neighborhood
• Surface soil and subsurface soil sampling and analysisi
• Surface water and sediment sampling and analysis |
• Groundwater sampling and analysis
• Ecological characterization of the study area
• Installation and development of new monitonng wells
• Reconstruction and development of former residential wells as well as monitonng wells
• Focused site characterization sampling and analysis to support the EE/CA
The results of the soil gas survey work and soil sampling events are discussed in Section 1 4 The results of
the remaining investigative tasks will be included in the Rl report The Rl work is ongoing and should be
completed in the fall of 2003
L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/5061/16679 1 28 Rev 3
1 3 PREVIOUS RESPONSE ACTIONS
In October 1987 EPA provided bottled water and carbon filters to residences affected by the TCE
contamination in groundwater In December 1987 EPA determined that a more permanent solution was
needed and subsequently funded the installation of public water supply connections to all the houses in the
neighborhood where TCE contamination had been found
Chromatex operated a vapor recovery system to reclaim the TCE used in the stain repellent application
process The activated carbon adsorption unit was part of the solvent vapor recovery system The
activated carbon unit was serviced and recharged in October 1986 generating 8 015 pounds of spent
carbon with traces of TCE which was manifested and shipped to a landfill The roof vapor recovery system
was shut down permanently in June 1988 when Chromatex switched to an aqueous based fabnc protection
application process
The emergency overflow UST located on the northern section of the Chromatex plant was drained of
approximately 10 000 gallons of wastewater and nine 55-gallon drums of bottom sludge in November 1987
Chromatex reported that the tank was cleaned after removal of the liquid and sludge and was closed to
prevent future use By November 1988 the empty UST and pipes were no longer connected to the
emergency overflow system and the tank had been sealed to prevent the entrance of additional matenal By
November 1993 the floor drains inside the plant had been plugged and filled The tank was removed from
the site in October 1994
Based on the residential indoor air quality results EPA provided air filtration units to two residences in the
nearby neighborhood dunng February 2002 A third home was provided a similar unit in July 2002 EPA
currently maintains these filtration units
1 4 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION
Beginning in January 2002 TtNUS performed fieldwork in support of the Rl for the site as well as for this
EE/CA The results of this work as well as the results from previous investigations as they support the
decision making process for the potential removal action are descnbed below
141 Soil Gas Survey
A soil gas survey was conducted for all areas immediately around and within the Chromatex plant building
in June 2002 This survey was performed in order to evaluate subsurface soil conditions and to identify
potential contaminant source areas by measuring the total VOC concentration in the soil gas Selected
L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/5061 /16679 1 -29
(GC ) analyzed all soil gas samples The raw results of the soil gas survey work are contained in Appendix
A-1
1412 Soil Gas Survey Results
The results of the on site soil gas sampling were reviewed to determine the extent of any soil gas
anomalies The significant on site areas that exhibited elevated TCE or cis 1 2-DCE levels in soil gas were
as follows
• A small area south of the facility beneath the asphalt dnveway (near station D-00)
• An area along the eastern edge of that portion of the facility that was expanded (near stations J 200
and J 250)
• An area inside the facility near the former front office (near stations D 200 and D-2251
• A larger area north of the facility beneath the former employee parking lot (centered on station locations
E-450 G-450 and H-450)
Figures 1-15 and 1 16 show the highest TCE and cis 1 2 DCE concentrations respectively for each soil
gas station sampled dunng the soil gas survey Soil gas samples collected in August 2002 from the same
locations as samples taken in June 2002 contained significantly higher TCE levels
The highest soil gas detections for TCE were associated with the following soil gas stations
• D2-225 120 000 ug/l
• D-225 33 000 ug/l
• H-450 28 000 ug/l
• J-200 and J-250 11 000 ug/l
• F-450 9 600 ug/l
Thei e was a general absence of TCE soil gas detections in samples collected along the western and
southern sides of the plant and between the plant and Jaycee Drive The one exception was station D-00
Most soil gas samples obtained from beneath the plant's foundation contained TCE Of the 56 soil gas
samples collecting within the plant nearly 75 percent showed the presence of TCE concentrations ranging
from 1 to 120 000 ug/l The same was true for samples taken beneath the parking lot just north of the
plan i. The soil gas data indicates that TCE concentrations in soil gas appear to decrease between
L/DCCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/5061/16679 1 34 Rev 3
Othei chlonnated ethenes and ethanes were detected occasionally in indoor air samples PCE was
detected in indoor air samples at six homes ranging from 1 65 to 12 21 ug/m3 1 1 DCE (7 6 ug/m3) cis
1 2 DCE (1864 ug/m3) 1 1 2 2 tetrachloroethane (1 8 ug/m3) and vinyl chlonde (2 56 ug/m3) were each
contained in one residential air sample Chlonnated ethenes were not frequently detected in the ambient air
samples Therefore an outdoor source of air contamination appears less likely than an underground
source or indoor air source of contamination or both
From the data TCE in residential indoor air may be related to the groundwater plume particularly for
homes close to the former Chromatex property At least one home may be affected by the groundwater
plume attributable to the site the alleged Poly Clean disposal area or both It is possible that chlonnated
ethenss and other hazardous substances might also be related to indoor or outdoor sources other than the
Chromatex plant Because 1 1 1 TCA was so widely detected in air samples it is suspected that 111-
TCA has other anthropogenic background sources either indoor or outdoor Therefore 111 TCA
detections could be attributable to the site background levels or a combination of both
Some residential air samples exhibited chlonnated ethenes that might be associated with vapor intrusion
However these chemicals were usually not associated with unacceptable risk where theoretical nsks have
elicited concern the results have not been consistent from sampling round to sampling round (i e
concentrations have not stayed consistently high over a penod of months) While some of the houses
where chlorinated ethenes were detected were very near the Chromatex plant others were farther away
There were a greater variety of substances including PCE detected within the air samples taken from
home > on Fawn Drive near a suspected PCE dump It is possible that houses in this general area are
affech d by the Chromatex plume the PCE dump both or neither
Indooi air is generally not pristine but will contain some chemicals given that natural and human made
chemicals abound in the environment It should be noted that even the three houses considered to be
reasonably unaffected by the groundwater plume had indoor air contaminants (including treons benzene
and 1 1 1 TCA)
In parlicular 111 TCA appears likely to have indoor or outdoor sources in addition to its presence in the
groundwater plume It was detected more frequently and in a more widely scattered pdttern than other
chlorinated ethenes Furthermore since 111 TCA is now more common than TCE in commercial
products it is possible that 1 1 1 TCA inside homes comes from vapor intrusion indoor <ources outdoor
source s or a combination of these sources
L/DOCUMFNTS/RAC/RAC3/5061/16679 1 58 Rev 3
r
Several other substances including benzene toluene ethyl benzene and xylenes (referred to as BTEX
compounds) were present in ambient air samples near homes or elsewhere in the Valmont Industrial Park
For these types of compounds it appears that indoor outdoor or underground sources of contamination
might be present For chloroform carbon tetrachlonde and 1 3 butadiene an outdoor source of
contamination appears unlikely since these substances were not detected in ambient air samples
145 Groundwater
At a minimum the following substances have been detected at least once in monitonng or residential wells
near the site
TCE
1 1 DCA
Cis 1 2 DCE
Toluene
Methylene chloride
Carbon tetrachlonde
112 tnchloroethane
Chloroform
Xylenes
Chlorobenzene
Dibromochloromethane
Tnchlorofluoromethane
Chloroethane
PCE
1 1 DCE
Trans 1 2 DCE
1 1 1-TCA
Styrene
Vinyl chlonde
12 DCA
Ethyl benzene
1 1 2 trichloro-1 2 2-tnfluoroethane
Isopropylbenzene
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
The site related substances most frequently detected in historical groundwater sampling are TCE and
111 TCA TCE and 111 TCA have been contained in a number of residential well samples collected
north of the Chromatex plant at concentrations up to 1 630 ug/l and 273 ug/l respectively A sample from
monitonng well MW 11 located near the northeastern comer of the plant contained TCE at 17 000 ug/l in
Apnl 1988 as well as September 1993 1 1 1-TCA was also found in a sample from well MW 11 at a
maximum concentration of 13 000 ug/l
L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/5061 /16679 1 59 Rev 1
Samples from MW 11 also detected several other VOCs at high levels including 1 1 DCE (280 ug/l) 1 1
DCA 1370 ug/l) 1 2 DCE (1 030 ug/l) PCE (35 ug/l) toluene (140 ug/l) and ethyl benzene (29 ug/l) None of
the other Chromatex wells sampled (i e MW2 MW3 MW-4 MW 10A MW 10B MW 10C and MW 10D)
contained VOCs at concentrations greater than what were detected from sample MW 11
Other industrial firms near Chromatex have allegedly also once used solvents as part of their waste
management operations Allsteel Inc used a solvent containing 111 TCA but did not use TCE
Continental White Cap Inc utilized a solvent blend containing 45 percent TCE in its machine shop Based
on available groundwater flow contour maps groundwater moves toward the residential neighborhood from
the vicinity of MW 11 but does not appear to flow in that direction from either the Allsleel or Continental
White Cap properties
Figure 1 28 shows the existing monitonng well network in the vicinity of the site
146 Sewer Sampling and Analysis
In February 2002 EPA collected 10 aqueous samples from the sewer system north of the site (Figure 1-29)
Based on the sewer sampling results there is currently no evidence that the sanitary sewers emit benzene
chlonnated ethenes or chlonnated ethanes to indoor air It is not currently known whether substances found
in the sewers may affect the indoor air or whether the sewers and indoor air are affected by a common
soura (e g indoor use of household products or the presence of chemicals in the public water supply) The
contaminants most strongly associated with the groundwater plume (TCE and 111 TCA) attributable to the
site were not detected in sewer samples
The v alidated results of sewer samples are contained in Appendix A-4
147 Drainage Ditch Sampling and Analysis i
As part of the surface water and sediment sampling and analysis program three sediment samples (SD-CT
9 SD CT 10 and SD CT 11) were collected along the drainage pathway beginning at the eastern side of the
Chromatex plant These sample locations are shown in Figure 1 3 Since the drainage ditch is normally dry
these three samples were evaluated as a separate surface soil sample population Sample SD CT 10
contained elevated levels of several PAHs including benz9(a)pyrene (10 000 ug/kg) benzo(b)fluoranthene
(31000 ug/kg) fluoranthene (23 000 ug/kg) and pyrene (28000 ug/kg) Several PAH
L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/5061/16679 1-60 Rev 3
TdGW-70(1 300 FEET NDRTH)MONITORING WELL
STREET ADDRESS
RESIDENTIAL WELL
MW-19S/DMW-19I
MW-20I1
MW-20S
WDQDED AREA
MW-1AMW-1B
MW-1CVALMDNTSHOPPING
CENTEF!
MW-11DMW-11S
MW-14SMW-14D/I
MW-21S
3 MW-21D/I
TFTRA TECH NUS, MC.
MONITORING WELL LOCATIONSVALMONT TCE SITE
HAZLE TOWNSHIP AND WEST HAZLETON BOROUGHLUZERNE COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA
FILENAME 5061cp30dwgJLF PHL
SCALE
AS NOTEDFIGURE NUMBER
FIGURE 1-28REV DATE
1/24/03SCALE IN FEET
1 61
SEWER SAMPLE LOCATION
STREET ADDRESS
DIRECTION OFSEWER FLOW
ALLEGEDPOLYCLEANDISPOSALSITE
i SHOPPINGCENTER
WOODED AREA
TETRA TECHNU3, WC.
VALMONT TCE SITESEWER SAMPLE LOCATIONS
HAZLE TOWNSHIP AND WEST HAZLETON BOROUGHLUZERNE COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA
FILE 5061cp02dwg8/5/03 JLF PHL
SCALE
AS NOTEDDiTE
2 12/4/02SCALE IN FEET FIGURE 1-29
4 0 IDENTIFICATION/ANALYSIS OF REMOVAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
The purpose of the alternative development and screening process is to assemble an appropriate range
of possible cleanup alternatives to achieve the removal action objectives identified for VOC-contammated
soils at the Chromatex plant In this process technically feasible technologies retained for further
evaluation from Section 3 0 were combined to form removal action alternatives for more detailed
analysis
41 INTRODUCTION
In accordance with the procedures outlined in the NCP alternative development was conducted in
compliance with statutory requirements of the NCP and in consideration of the Guidance on Conducting
Non Time Critical Removal Actions Under CERCLA (OERR Publication No 9360 0-32 EPA/540/R 93
057 August 1993)
The NCP and other EPA guidance present a broad framework for the formulation evaluation and
selection of removal alternatives for hazardous waste sites The NCP encourages development of a
range ol treatment alternatives including one or more engineering control alternatives (e g containment
or fencing) one or more innovative treatment alternatives and the baseline no action alternative
Treatment technologies are favored to address principal threats and engineering controls are favored to
address relatively low long term threats
The Chiomatex plant is not well suited to the development of removal action alternatives that apply
innovative or treatment technologies Consideration was given to these technologies and process
options but site conditions the potential for property transfer the nature and extent of contamination and
the relatively low long term threat associated with current and future land uses are not conducive to their
application
The primary factor used to formulate removal action alternatives was the likelihood of meeting the
removal action objectives The objectives include
• Initieite removal of VOCs in contaminated soils
• Minimize further degradation of groundwater quality by reducing the source(s) of potential VOC
contaminants
• Reduce the potential for VOC contaminants in groundwater to impact residential indoor air quality
• Prevent direct contact to exposed surface soils posing unacceptable human health risks
L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/5061/16679 4 1 Rev 1
v As such the removal action alternatives for VOC contaminated soils at the plant are as follows
• Alternative 1 No Action
• Alternative 2 Soil Vapor Extraction with Off Site Treatment of Residuals and Focused Soil
Excavation with Off Site Disposal for Accessible Areas
• Alternative 3A Soil Vapor Extraction with Off Site Treatment of Residuals and Soil Excavation with
Off Site Disposal
• Alternative 3B Soil Vapor Extraction with Off Site Treatment of Residuals and Soil Excavation with
On Site Treatment and Re Use of Treated Soil
• Alternative 4 Soil Excavation with Off Site Disposal
These alternatives were developed based on the technologies retained from the preliminary screening
presented in Section 3 0 The no action alternative (Alternative 1) provides a comparative baseline as
required by the NCP The remaining alternatives are intended to prevent further migration of VOC
contaminants from potential sources at the Chromatex plant Alternatives 2 3A 3B and 4 were
assembled to incorporate the primary presumptive remedies for sites contaminated with VOC soils The
mam differences between these alternatives are the time required to accomplish removal action
objectives and the estimated cost of implementing each alternative Alternative 2 was developed to more
quickly address the more accessible contaminated soils without the need for additional SVE extraction
wells
The following sections describe the removal action alternatives and evaluate each based on the short
term and long term aspects of three broad criteria (i e effectiveness Implementability and cost) as
outlined in EPAs EE/CA guidance (EPA August 1993) Descriptions of the criteria are as follows
• Effectiveness
Protective of human health and the environment reduces toxicity mobility or volume and is a
permanent solution
Ability of the technology to address the estimated areas or volumes of contaminated medium
Ability of the technology to meet the clean up goals (PRGs) identified in the removal action objectives
Technical reliability (proven and demonstrated versus innovative) with respect to contaminants
and site conditions
• Implementability
Overall technical feasibility at the site
Availability of vendors mobile units and storage and disposal services
L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/5061/16679 42 Rev 3
**/»
• 2 Year Net Present Worth (NPW) of O&M Cost $ 194000
• 2 Ysar NPW $2 309 000
A detailed cost estimate for this alternative is provided in Appendix F 3 The capital cost associated with
Alternative 3B is about $2115 000 There are no long term operation maintenance or monitoring costs
associated with the excavation component of this alternative
4 6 ALTERNATIVE 4 SOIL EXCAVATION WITH OFF SITE DISPOSAL
Alternative 4 was developed based on one option for managing the excavated soils sine*3 Alternative 3B
(which involved on site treatment of excavated soils) was estimated to cost about 25 percent higher than
Alternative 3A Alternative 4 represents the upper end of the removal alternatives just as Alternative 1
represents the lower end or baseline for comparison purposes Under this alternative excavation would be
performf d in Zones A B C and D
Alternative 4 would consist of two major components
• Excavation of VOC-contammated soils
• Off >ite disposal of soils
Alternati/e 4 incorporates the excavation of all surface and subsurface soils containing concentrations in
excess of the PRGs This includes VOC-contammated soils present beneath the concrete foundation of the
plant the parking lot dnveways and other relatively impenetrable surfaces Following excavation all
surfaces such as the building foundation would be restored
461 Excavation of VOC Contaminated Soils (Component 1)
Soils contaminated with VOC concentrations above the PRGs would be excavated from Zones A B C and
D using conventional construction equipment Mechanical equipment such as backhoes bulldozers and
front-end loaders would be used for excavation and the excavation would be performed in accordance with
OSHA r< quirements It is anticipated that any dust generated during excavation would be controlled
through the use of water
Soil analytical results (from confirmation samples) in excess of the PRGs would increase the estimated soil
volume The estimated volume of contaminated soil and associated removal action costs in this EE/CA are
based on data available at the time of this report
UDOCUME NTS/RAC/RAC3/5061/16679 4 27 Rev 3
The contaminated soils would be characterized for disposal purposes pnor to mobilization Based on the
observed concentrations the soil is not expected to be classified as hazardous This would enable
immediate transportation off site once excavation operations begin At Zone A an area roughly 100 feet in
length and 40 feet in width as shown in Figure 4-6 would be excavated to a depth of about 3 feet bgs This
corresponds to a volume of approximately 440 cubic yards of excavated material
At Zone B an area roughly 180 feet in length and 100 feet in width as shown in Figure 4-6 where about half
the area would be excavated to a depth of about 3 feet bgs and the other half would be excavated to a
depth of about 12 feet bgs This corresponds to a volume of approximately 3 940 cubic yards of excavated
material Based on soil gas and soil sampling results this zone is primarily inside the former Chromatex
building
The warehouse space near Zone B consists of a floor plan having bays between steel columns spaced
about 30 feet wide by 50 feet long The existing footings supporting each column were estimated to be 4
feet by 4 feet with a depth of 12 inches The floor is a slab on grade about 6 inches thick The depth to
bedrock beneath the slab is estimated at 10 feet below grade The mtenor columns would need to be
supported dunng the excavation of the deeper contaminated soils (greater than 3 feet bgs) at Zone B
Approximately nine columns would be affected by this excavation along with the 10 inch concrete masonry
unit (CMU) walls associated with the former compressor room and a two story office
Based on a structural engineering evaluation of the loads associated with the existing roof the design load
for each column was estimated at 60 pounds per square foot (psf) The floor slab would be removed
around each footing to allow access for the installation of multiple micro piles to provide beanng support
pnor to removing the affected column The steel girders supporting the roof deck would be raised on each
side of the column using a bottle jack to relieve the beanng load The column and its existing footing would
then be removed
Subsequently four micro piles 7-mches in diameter would be driven into bedrock The piles would be filled
with concrete and a new footing would be poured on the micro piles The column would be reinstalled and
the jacking apparatus for that column would be removed After all columns are reset excavation activities
would be performed Most but not all of the Zone B contaminated soils would be accessible to excavation
equipment The exceptions would include the contaminated surface soils (less than 3 feet in depth) beneath
the existing column footings that are not removed surface soils beneath the exterior wall of the building and
possibly contaminated subsurface soils (greater than 3 feet in depth) in the vicinity of the micro piles
Appendix E 5 provides additional information on the structural engmeenng evaluation for Zone B
L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/5061/16679 4 28 Rev 3
LIMIT OF EXCAVATION
ZONE D
100 200
SCALE IN FEETSOURCE. SITE FEATURES SHOWN PER 5/21/02 FIELD SURVEY BY
LUDOATE ENGINEERING CORPORATION
LEGEND.
EXISTING TREES
EDGE OF WOODS
EXISTING CONTOURS
EXISTING INDEX CONTOURS
CONTAMINATED SURFACE SOILS
CONTAMINATED SUBSURFACE SOILS
NOTES.
1 SURVEY CONTROLHORIZONTAL PA STATE PLAN (FT) NORTHVERTICAL NGVD 29
SURVEY ACCURACYHORIZONTAL LOCATION 0 05 ±LISTED ELEVATIONS 0 05 ±CONTOURS 90% OF CONTOURS ACCURATE TOWITHIN 0510% OF CONTOURS ACCURATE TOWITHIN 1 0
TEIW TECH NUS INC
SITE PLANALTERNATIVE 4
VALMONT TCE SITEHAZLE TOWNSHIP AND WEST HAZLETON BOROUGH
LUZERNE COUNTY PA
5061gp06dwg8/1703 JLF PHL
FIGURE NUMBER
FIGURE 4-6
SCALE
AS NOTEDDATC s
8/1/03
429
Utilities beneath Zone B including electnc lines several floor/storm drams and sanitary lines would be de
energized and/or capped pnor to excavation Figure 4 7 shows the identified underground utilities in the
vicinity of Zone B Care would be taken to avoid releasing particulates or vapors from the excavated VOC
contejmmated soils or the excavated areas into the outdoor atmosphere A ventilation system may be
needed to improve the quality of the indoor air for construction workers dunng the removal action
Within Zone B an area of deeper contaminated soils beneath the 10-inch CMU walls would have to be
supported by a resistance pier This pier would consist of installing micro piles into bedrock approximately
ever}' 4 feet on center along the existing wall Using a bracket, the micro piles would be attached to the stnp
footing supporting the existing wall while VOC-contammated soils are removed from bene ath the wall
If a larger area of contaminated soils is encountered at Zone B similar methods would be used as described
above Additional costs would be incurred depending on the extent of the problem Upon completion of the
soil excavation work backfill stone or flowable fill would be placed over the excavated areas and any
distuibed utilities would be re installed A new slab on grade would then be poured with a design load of
250 psf
At Zone C an area roughly 220 feet in length and 120 feet in width as shown in Figure 4 6 where about 90
percent of the area would be excavated to a depth of about 3 feet bgs and the 10 percent would be
excavated to a depth of about 12 feet bgs This corresponds to a volume of approximately 2 600 cubic
yards of excavated matenal This zone is beneath the existing parking lot which would be removed and
replaced
At Zone D an area roughly 80 feet in length and 40 feet in width as shown in Figure 4-6 would be
excavated to a depth of about 9 5 feet bgs This corresponds to a volume of approximately 1 125 cubic
yards of excavated matenal
After completion of excavation samples would be collected from the sidewalls and the bottom of the
excavated area Venfication sampling and analysis would be conducted to ensure that the soils left in place
at the excavation limits do not exceed the PRGs Each excavated area would be backfilled with clean fill
At unpaved areas 6 inches of topsoil would be used to cover the area The disturbed area would be graded
to achieve desired surface elevations and then revegetated (Zone D) or repaved (Zones A and C) Inside
the building (Zone B) the concrete floor would be replaced
L/DOCIJMENTS/RAC/RAC3/5061/16679 4 30 Rev 3
/3CB1=1 JqoM.
I - , 1 -
L _L
T»- T! 1 1
1 1 1, | |
1 1 1
1 f 1 11 1 1
1 1 1
LffC- L 1 a"'1 1 1
1 1 1
I I I ' '
1 1 1
1 1 1— — |- — — |— — — |— — —
1 X 1 1
1 * 1 1
1 1 1
1 a- 1 11 1 1
1 1 1
_ J_ —
"~
t" r- —
|— 1
t
ri
_ _ _
— — —
— _ _
t
"'b* —
—
t-
r
i-k
—
—
f\
r
DK -t IPI -t
Joycee Drive109 Feet
fey
Building
Colunn
Floor Drain
Electric Line
Floor and Stern Drain
FVe Protection and Vater
UST and Associated Piping
Sanitary
Gas
Foundation Vail
Possible Foundation Trench
Utility Pole
Sale h Feet
D Ml utllty Ihe locttfcre are apfroxhoteand Hre not srveyed h bycrof sslcnal strveyor
Mtitaral fratre ny be present*»t could not be kfcnWei
3 Sow ston and sanitary senr ttws shotnat this nap caU not bs located u*g the UK, orSf uUHyVnttio nethods and ore based on xlsttauttlly dn»l«s offc site
and I! tun Muglno, L«w
FIGURE 4 7Site Sketch Hap ofIdentified Underground Utilities
Tetra Tech NUS Inc600 Clark Ave Suite 3King of Prussia PA 19406
Date June 28 2002ACS Reference 02 175 1/sb
Valnont TCE SiteHazle TownshipLuzerne CountyPennsylvania
Tet a Tech NUS I c
431
4 6 2 Off-Site Transportation and Disposal of Soils With or Without Treatment (Component 2)
It is not anticipated that the material excavated would be classified as hazardous contaminated soil (HCS)
as defined by RCRA in 40 CFR 268 2 As such land disposal restnctions (LDRs) would not apply The
excavated soils would be transported to a permitted solid waste disposal facility such as a RCRA Subtitle D
landfill or a municipal solid waste landfill Currently there are at least three such facilities within a 100 -mile
radius of the site The concrete and parking lot pavement may be disposed of at a Subtitle D landfill or
alternatively at a construction debns landfill The tile floonng in the building reportedly contains asbestos
and must be disposed of at a landfill that is permitted to receive asbestos-contaminated matenal
Pnor to the removal action samples of the excavated matenal would be analyzed to provide a waste
characteristic profile to the off site disposal facility These samples would be charactenzed using the toxicity
characb nstic leaching procedure (TCLP) The results of this analysis would be used to determine whether
the soil can be disposed as a non hazardous or a RCRA hazardous waste For the purpose of this EE/CA
it is assumed that none of the excavated soil would exceed TCLP cntena based on engmeenng judgment
after rev lew of the soil sampling results at the Chromatex property
Based on soil contaminant concentrations it is not anticipated that treatment of the excavated matenal
would be required If treatment is required the excavated soil would be treated off site to remove the VOCs
of cona rn by a process such as low temperature thermal desorption (LTTD) In this instance the treated
soil would be rendered as non hazardous waste Samples of the treated soil would be andlyzed to ensure
that the soil complies with the disposal facility permit Alternately the untreated soil could be disposed at a
RCRA Subtitle C landfill
463 Effectiveness
Excavation is generally effective for VOC-contammated soils Alternative 4 would be prote ctive of human
health emd the environment Excavation would be protective of the environment by removing the VOC
contaminated soil from the site In addition Alternative 4 would minimize further groundwater contaminate on
in the vanity of the site by providing an early action to reduce (or slow) the migration of VOC -contaminated
groundwater
Some short term risks could be incurred by workers from exposure to contaminated VOC soil dunng
excavation However the weanng of appropriate PPE and compliance with site specific he alth and safety
procedures would minimize the potential for exposure Transportation of contaminated VOC soils away
from th<j property slightly increases the potential for human exposure due to a spill or accident but
compliance with site specific health and safety procedures would minimize the potential for e<posure
L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/5061/16679 4 32 Rev 3
Alternative 4 would comply with all ARARs and TBCs including all state and federal requirements This
alternative would provide long term effectiveness and permanence Excavation would permanently reduce
soil contaminant concentrations to their PRGs
After treatment and excavation are complete no long term monitonng would be required
4 6 4 Implementability
This alternative would be somewhat difficult to implement Implementation of Alternative 4 would not
adversely impact the surrounding community or the environment Excavation would attain the soil PRGs in
less than 1 year
Techniques to excavate matenals outside (Zones A C and D) are common The equipment needed to
implement this alternative is readily available Standard equipment could be used to excavate and restore
these zones The excavation area is contained within the property and therefore no easements or impacts
to adjoining properties are anticipated There are no underground utilities located in the vicinity of Zones A
C andD
The excavation of Zone B is more complex Because building supports and load beanng walls are within
the excavation area special structural engineering measures would be necessary to remove several
existing columns and associated footings within Zone B and install a new system to support the beanng load
of the roof and miscellaneous dead loads In addition utility lines are located within the excavation which
must be supported or re routed dunng excavation Finally working inside the building would limit the
movement of excavation equipment and haul trucks reducing the efficiency of excavation and backfill
operations
The administrative aspects of Alternative 4 would require close coordination with the current property owner
any future property owner and any tenants leasing the Chromatex plant A construction permit would be
required for this alternative The excavation inside the building would likely impact unrestncted use of the
plant dunng the removal action
L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/5061/16679 4 33 Rev 3
465 Costs
The eslimated costs for Alternative 4 are
Capital cost $3 700 000
Zones A B C and D Excavation Cost $1 629 000
Soil Disposal Cost $1 038 000
Site Restoration $0
Net Present Worth (NPW) of O&M Cost $0
NPW $3 700 000
A detailed cost estimate for this alternative is provided in Appendix F-4 There are no significant long
term operation maintenance or monitoring costs associated with the excavation
4 7 SUMMARY
Table 4 1 summarizes the analysis of the four removal action alternatives evaluated for the EE/CA report
Section 5 0 provides a detailed comparative analysis of these alternatives
L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/5061/16679 4 34 Rev 3
TABLE 4 1SCREENING OF REMOVAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
VALMONT TCE SITEWEST HAZLETON, LUZERNE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
DRAFT
ALTERNATIVE EFFECTIVENESS IMPLEMENTABILITY COST COMMENTS
No Action Provides no additional protection of humanhealth Does not reduce potential for leachingVOCs to groundwater No reduction in toxicitymobility or volume of contaminants
Readily implementable No technical oradministrative difficulties
Total NPW$ 0
Retained as baseline alternativein accordance with NCP
Soil Vapor Extractionwith Off Site Treatmentof Residuals andFocused Soil
Excavation with OffSite Disposal forAccessible Areas
Meets PRGs to reduce the potential for leachingVOCs to groundwater Reduction of toxicity ormobility of some contaminants may beaccomplished by off site treatment/disposalShort term risk to workers would be addressed byPPE No long term monitoring
Readily implementable but SVE in this type ofsoil will be inefficient No other technical oradministrative difficulties Personnel andmaterials necessary to implement alternativeare widely available
Total NPW
$1 492 000
3A Soil Vapor Extractionwith Off Site Treatmentof Residuals and SoilExcavation with OffSite Disposal
Meets PRGs to reduce the potential for leachingVOCs to groundwater Reduction of toxicity ormobility of some contaminants may beaccomplished by off site treatment/disposalShort term risk to workers would be addressed byPPE No long term monitoring
Readily implementable but SVE in this type ofsoil will be inefficient No other technical oradministrative difficulties Personnel andmaterials necessary to implement alternativeare widely available
Total NPW
$1 886 000
3B Soil Vapor Extractionwith Off Site Treatmentof Residuals and SoilExcavation with OnSite Treatment and ReUse of Treated Soil
Meets PRGs to reduce the potential for leachingVOCs to groundwater Reduction of toxicity ormobility of most of the contaminants may beaccomplished by on site treatment and off sitetreatment/disposal Short term risk to workerswould be addressed by PPE No long termmonitoring
Readily implementable but SVE in this type ofsoil will be inefficient No other technical oradministrative difficulties Personnel andmaterials necessary to implement alternativeare widely available
Total NPW
$2 309 000
L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/5061 /16679^5
Rev 3
5 0 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMOVAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
This section provides a review of the removal action alternatives and presents a comparative analysis of the
alternatives relative to the specific evaluation criteria Section 4 0 details the evaluation of each alternative
as to the performance of that alternative under each criterion This section provides for a companson to
identify the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative relative to one another <o tradeoffs that
would affect the selection of the non time-cntical removal action can be identified Table 5 1 presents
summaries of the evaluation for each alternative
51 EFFECTIVENESS
511 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative 1 would not prevent further migration of VOCs to the groundwater and would not meet the
PRGs Alternatives 2 3A 3B and 4 would be equally protective and would be more protective compared to
Alternative 1 VOCs in the soil would be reduced to PRGs thus eliminating the potential for migration into the
groundwater
Under fi Iternative 4 most but not all Zone B VOC-contammated soils would be excavated The exceptions
would include the contaminated surface soils (less than 3 feet in depth) beneath the existing column
footings that are not removed surface soils beneath the exterior wall of the building and possibly
contaminated subsurface soils (greater than 3 feet in depth) in the vicinity of the micro piles
512 Compliance with ARARs
Alternative 1 would not comply with chemical specific ARARs since VOCs would remain in the soil
Location specific and action specific ARARs do not apply to this alternative
Alternatives 2 3A 3B and 4 would remove VOCs to less than PRGs and would comply with chemical
specific ARARs Location specific and action specific ARARs would be met with all of these alternatives
513 Long Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative 1 would have no long term effectiveness or permanence because contaminants would remain in
the soil There would be no monitoring to determine if migration was occumng There would be no way to
prevent exposure to future site users
L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/5061/16679 5 1 Rev 3
Alternatives 2 3A 3B and 4 are of equal long term effectiveness or permanence because contaminants in
all four zones would be permanently removed from the soil After treatment and excavation are complete
no long term monitoring of the soil at the site would be required
514 Reduction of Toxicitv. Mobility, and Volume through Treatment
Alternative 1 would not achieve reduction in toxicity mobility or volume of contaminants through treatment
Some reduction could occur through natural processes but this would not be measured
Alternative 2 would provide some reduction in toxicity mobility or volume of contaminants through
treatment About 6 3 pounds of VOCs adsorbed on the GAC from Zones B and C SVE systems would be
destroyed dunng the regeneration of the vapor phase GAC
Alternative 3A would provide some reduction in toxicity mobility or volume of contaminants through
treatment but less than Alternative 2 About 0 4 pounds of VOCs adsorbed on the GAC from Zone B SVE
system would be destroyed during the regeneration of the vapor phase GAC
Alternative 3B would provide the maximum reduction in toxicity mobility or volume of contaminants through
treatment more than Alternatives 2 3A and 4 About 0 4 pounds of VOCs adsorbed on the GAC from
Zone B SVE system would be destroyed dunng the regeneration of the vapor phase GAC About 6 1
pounds of VOCs removed by the LTTD of Zones A C and D would be destroyed by regeneration of the
LTTD vapor phase GAC or an LTTD off-gas oxidizer
Although all contaminants above PRGs would be removed from the site under Alternative 4 there would be
no reduction in toxicity mobility or volume of contaminants through on-site treatment
515 Short Term Effectiveness
Alternative 1 would not result in any risks to workers or the surrounding community since no remedial
activities will be performed
Alternative 2 would result in a slight possibility of exposing construction workers to contaminants during
installation and operation of the SVE system dunng soil excavation and dunng sampling These risks
would be controlled by PPE Vapor phase GAC of the SVE off gas would effectively control the nsk to
workers and the community Risks to the community during transport of contaminated soil and matenal
would be controlled through proper safety procedures Risks from exposure to dust during excavation
would be controlled through water sprays Use of part of the building would be limited dunng operation of
L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/5061/16679 52 Rev 3
the SVE system Because of the close proximity of residential areas to the site noise during excavation of
Zones A and D could impact the community for a short period of time The duration of outdoor activities
would be shorter compared to Alternatives 3A and 3B PRGs would be obtained in 2 5 years
Alternative 3A would result in a slight possibility of exposing construction workers to contaminants during
installation and operation of the SVE system dunng soil excavation and during sampling These risks
would be controlled by PPE Vapor phase GAC of the SVE off-gas would effectively control the nsk to
worker and the community Risks to the community during transport of contaminated soil and matenal
would be controlled through proper safety procedures Risks from exposure to dust during excavation
would be controlled through water sprays Use of part of the building would be limited dunng operation of
the SVI system Because of the close proximity of residential areas to the site noise during excavation of
Zones A C and D could impact the community The duration of outdoor activities would be shorter
compared to Alternative 3B but longer than Alternative 2 PRGs in Zone B would be obtained in 2 5 years
and in the other zones in less than one year
Alternative 3B would result in a slight possibility of exposing construction workers to contaminants during
installation and operation of the SVE system dunng soil excavation LTTD operation and dunng sampling
These risks would be controlled by PPE Vapor phase GAC of the SVE and LTTD off-gas would effectively
control the nsk to workers and the community Risks to the community dunng transport of contaminated
matenal would be controlled through proper safety procedures Risks from exposure to dust dunng
excavation and soil conveyance would be controlled through water sprays Use of part of the building would
be hmitpd during operation of the SVE system Because of the close proximity of residential areas to the
site noise dunng excavation conveyance and treatment of soil from Zones A C and D < ould impact the
community The duration of outdoor activities would be comparable to Alternative 3A PRGs in Zone B
would be obtained in 2 5 years and in the other zones in less than one year
Alternative 4 would result in a higher probability of exposing construction workers to contaminants during
soil excavation and sampling and during the installation of the new roof support structuie These nsks
would be controlled by PPE and a ventilation system if necessary Risks to the community during transport
of contaminated soil would be controlled through proper safety procedures Risks from exposure to dust
during « xcavation would be controlled through water sprays Use of part of the building would be limited
during the excavation inside the building Because of the close proximity of residential areas to the site
noise during excavations could impact the community The duration of outdoor activities would be
comparable to Alternative 3A and shorter than Alternatives 2 and 3B PRGs would be obtained in less than
one year which is the shortest clean-up timeframe compared to all other alternatives
L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/5061/16679 5 3 Rev 3
5 2 IMPLEMENTABILITY
521 Technical Feasibility
Alternative 1 would be simple to implement because no action will occur
Alternative 2 would be relatively easy to implement. A pilot test will be required to design the SVE system
due to the low permeability soil Installation of the SVE wells and piping inside the building will require
special considerations to minimize the impact on use of the building Post-excavation samples would be
collected to monitor the completeness of the excavation Soil gas samples would be collected to monitor
the progress of the SVE treatment
Alternative 3A would be relatively easy to implement but slightly more feasible than Alternative 2 since
there is only one SVE system A pilot test will be required to design the SVE system due to the low
permeability soil Installation of the SVE wells and piping inside the building will require special
considerations to minimize the impact on use of the building Post-excavation samples would be collected
to monitor the completeness of the excavation Soil gas samples would be collected to monitor the progress
of the SVE treatment
Alternative 3B would be relatively easy to implement but slightly more feasible than Alternative 2 since
there is only one SVE system The high fines content of the soil will make LTTD processing difficult A pilot
test will be required to design the SVE system due to the low permeability soil Installation of the SVE wells
and piping inside the building will require special considerations to minimize the impact on use of the
building Post-excavation samples would be collected to monitor the completeness of the excavation Soil
gas samples would be collected to monitor the progress of the SVE treatment Treated soil from the LTTD
would be analyzed to confirm treatment
Alternative 4 would be somewhat difficult to implement Although the extenor excavations at Zones A C
and D can be performed using standard techniques the excavation (Zone B) inside the building would be
more difficult The integrity of the structure must be maintained by installing a new foundation system for at
least nine columns inside the building using micro piles and new column footings In addition a resistance
pier would be needed to support the concrete masonry unit (CMU) walls associated with an office and the
former compressor room Elevated TCE soil gas levels (up to 120 000 parts per billion) were detected
beneath the compressor room floor Special care would be needed to avoid any contact with the micro piles
during excavation work which might create lateral buckling and potential collapse of the new roof support
structure Movement inside the building by the excavation equipment and the haul trucks will be limited
L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/5061/16679 5.4 Rev 3
increasing the inefficiency of the operation Post excavation samples would be collected to monitor the
completeness of the excavation
In the event an additional volume of contaminated soils are identified in the vicinity of Zone B Alternative 4
offers the least flexibility and greatest cost in addressing such soils compared to all other alternatives The
capital ( ost to install extra soil vapor extraction wells near Zone B is less than the capital (josi to install the
new column support system
522 Availability
Availability for Alternative 1 is not applicable since no action is being taken
SVE equipment excavation equipment off site disposal capacity and contractors that can perform these
service' are generally available for Alternatives 2 and 3A
SVE equipment excavation equipment off site disposal capacity and contractors that can perform these
service* are generally available for Alternative 3B There are several LTTD contractors buf their availability
will ultimately effect scheduling
Excavation equipment off site disposal capacity and contractors that can perform these services are
generally available for Alternative 4 however specialized expertise will be required to maintain the integrity
of the building
523 Administrative Feasibility
Alternative 1 is feasible because there as no action
Alternatives 2 3A 3B and 4 are all administratively feasible No unusual permitting needs must be met
However there may be community resistance associated with the noise from the soil conveyance and
matenal handling of the LTTD system in Alternative 3B and excavation operations in general in Alternatives
2 3A and 4
5 3 COST
Based on net present worth (NPW) and capital costs the rank of the alternatives (excluding Alternative 1)
from lowest to highest is Alternative 2 3A 3B and 4 NPW costs range from $1 492 000 (Alternative 2) to
$3 700 000 (Alternative 4) Based on operating costs the rank of the alternatives from low* st to highest is
L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/5061/16679 5 5 Rev 3
Alternative 3A and 3B followed by Alternative 2 There are no significant operating costs associated with
Alternative 4
L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/5061/16679 5_6 Rev 3
TABLE 5 1COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMOVAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
VALMONT TCE SITEWEST HAZLETON LUZERNE COUNTY PE
PAGE 1 OF 3
CRITERION ALTERNATIVE 1
No Action
ALTERNATIVE 2
Soil Vapor Extraction with
Off-Site Treatment of
Residuals and Focused
Soil Excavation with Off
Site Disposal forAccessible Areas
ALTERNATIVE 3A
Soil Vapor Extraction with
Off-Site Treatment of
Residuals and Soil
Excavation with Off-Site
Disposal
ALTERNATIVE 3B
Soil Vapor Extraction with
Off-Site Treatment of
Residuals and Soil
Excavation with On-Site
Treatment and Re-Use ofTreated Soil
ALTERNATIVE 4
Soil Excavation with Off
Site Disposal
OVERALL PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Prevent Human
Exposure to
Contaminated
Subsurface and Surface
Soils
No action taken to prevent
migration of VOCs Existing
risks would remain
VOCs in all zones would be
removed from the site
eliminating the potential for
migration
VOCs in all zones would be
removed from the site
eliminating the potential for
migration
VOCs in all zones would be
removed from the site
eliminating the potential for
migration
Most VOCs would be
removed from the site
eliminating the potential for
migration
COMPLIANCE WITH ARARs
Compliance with
ARARs
No Complies with all ARARs
and TBCs
Complies with all ARARs
and TBCs
Complies with all ARARs
and TBCs
Complies with all ARARs
and TBCs
LONG TERM EFFECTIVENESS AND PERMANENCE
Long Term
Effectiveness and
Permanence
Potential for migration of
VOCs remains
All VOCs would be removed
from the site permanently
No long term monitoring
would be required
All VOCs would be removed
from the site permanentlyNo long term monitonng
would be required
All VOCs would be removed
from the site permanently
No long term monitoring
would be required
Most VOCs would be
removed from the site
permanently No long term
monitoring would be
required
REDUCTION OF TOXICITY MOBILITY AND VOLUME THROUGH TREATMENT
Reduction of Toxicity
Mobility or Volume
Through Treatment
No reduction since no
removal action would be
performed
Off site disposal of soil from
Zones A and D would not
reduce toxicity mobility or
volume Regeneration of
vapor phase GAC from SVE
system would eliminate
volume of VOCs from
Zones B and C
Off site disposal of soil from
Zones A C and D would
not reduce toxicity mobility
or volume Regeneration of
vapor phase GAC from SVE
system would eliminate
volume of VOCs from Zone
B
Regeneration of vapor
phase GAC or thermal
oxidizer of LTTD system
would eliminate volume of
VOCs from Zones A C and
D Regeneration of vapor
phase GAC from SVE
system would eliminate
volume of VOCs from Zone
B
Off site disposal of soil from
Zones A B C and D would
not reduce toxicity mobility
or volume through on site
treatment of contaminants
L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/5061/16679 5 7 Rev 3
TABLE 5 1COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMOVAL ACTION ALTERNATIVESVALMONT TCE SITEWEST HAZLETON, LUZERNE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIAPAGE 2 OF 3
CRITERION ALTERNATIVE 1
No Action
SHORT TERM EFFECTIVENESS
Community Protection
Worker Protection
Environmental Impacts
Time Until Action is
Complete
IMPLEMENTABILITY
Technical Feasibility
No additional nsk to
community anticipated
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
No construction or operation
involved
ALTERNATIVE 2
Soil Vapor Extraction with
Off-Site Treatment of
Residuals and Focused
Soil Excavation with Off
Site Disposal for
Accessible Areas
ALTERNATIVE 3A
Soil Vapor Extraction with
Off-Site Treatment of
Residuals and Soli
Excavation with Off-Site
Disposal
No significant risk to
community anticipated
Engineering controls during
operation and transport
would be used during
implementation to mitigate
risks
No risk to workers
anticipated if proper PPE is
used during soil removal
SVE installation and
operation and monitoring
No adverse impacts to the
environment anticipated
2 5 years for SVE less than
4 months for excavation
Uncertainty in the efficiency
of an SVE system SVE
pilot test is required
Excavation is a readily
implementable technology
Slight risk in the form of
increased truck traffic is
anticipated No other
significant risk to community
anticipated Engineering
controls during operation
and transport would be
used dunng implementation
to mitigate risks
No risk to workers
anticipated if proper PPE is
used dunng soil removal
SVE installation and
operation and monitoring
No adverse impacts to the
environment anticipated
2 5 years for SVE less than
6 months for excavation
Uncertainty in the efficiency
of an SVE system SVE
pilot test is required
Excavation is a readily
implementable technology
ALTERNATIVE 3B
Soil Vapor Extraction with
Off-Site Treatment of
Residuals and Soil
Excavation with On-Site
Treatment and Re Use of
Treated Soil
Slight risk in the form of
increased truck traffic and
noise is anticipated No
other significant risk to
community anticipated
Engineering controls during
operation and transport
would be used during
implementation to mitigate
risks
No risk to workers
anticipated if proper PPE is
used during soil removal
SVE installation and
operation LTTD operation
and monitoring
No adverse impacts to the
environment anticipated
2 5 years for SVE less than
8 months for LTTD
Uncertainty in the efficiency
of an SVE system SVE
pilot test is required LTTD
treatment of soil with high
fines content is difficult
Excavation is a readily
implementable technology
ALTERNATIVE 4
Soil Excavation with Off
Site Disposal
Slight risk in the form of
increased truck traffic is
anticipated No other
significant risk to community
anticipated Engineering
controls during excavation
and transport would beused during implementation
to mitigate risks
No risk to workers
anticipated if proper PPE is
used during soil removal If
necessary a ventilation
system would be needed for
excavation work at Zone B
No adverse impacts to the
environment anticipated
Less than 1 year forexcavation
Excavation is a readily
implementable technology
Support of building during
interior excavation will
require special procedures
;UMENTS/RAC/RAC3/5061 /16679
51COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMOVAL ACTION ALTERNATIVEVALMONT TCE SITEWEST HAZLETON, LUZERNE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIAPAGE 3 OF 3
CRITERION ALTERNATIVE 1
No Action
ALTERNATIVE 2
Soil Vapor Extraction with
Off-Site Treatment of
Residuals and Focused
Soil Excavation with Off
Site Disposal for
Accessible Areas
ALTERNATIVE 3A
Soil Vapor Extraction with
Off-Site Treatment of
Residuals and Soil
Excavation with Off-Site
Disposal
ALTERNATIVE 3B
Soil Vapor Extraction with
Off-Site Treatment of
Residuals and Soil
Excavation with On-Site
Treatment and Re-Use of
Treated Soil
ALTERNATIVE 4
Soil Excavation with Off
Site Disposal
IMPLEMENTABILITY (Continued)
Administrative Feasibility
Availability
Not applicable
Not applicable
No unusual permitting
requirements must be met
Excavation equipment SVE
equipment disposal
capacity and contractors
are generally available
No unusual permitting
requirements must be met
Excavation equipment SVE
equipment disposal
capacity and contractors
are generally available
Community resistance to
the inconvenience (noise
and traffic) resulting from
site operations may beanticipated No unusual
permitting requirements
must be met
Excavation equipment SVE
equipment disposal
capacity and contractorsare generally available
Limited number of LTTD
contractor may affect
scheduling
No unusual permitting
requirements must be met
Excavation equipment
disposal capacity and
contractors are generally
available
COST
Capital Costs
SVE System Capital
Excavation
Son Disposal
Site Restoration
O&M Cost
Estimated Net Present
Worth
—————
—
—
$1,279000
$375 000
$94 000
$349 000
$153000
$213000
$1 492 000
$1 692 000
$152000
$297 000
$916000
$42000
$194000
$1 886 000
$2115000
$166000
$260 000
$1 186000
$42 000
$194000
$2 309 000
$3 700 00—
$1 629 000
$1 038 000
$0$3 700 000
$3 700 000
Present worth cost is based on discount rate of 7%
L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/5061/16679 5 9 Rev 3
4J N.
APPENDIX E
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN CALCULATIONS
APPENDIX E-1
GENERAL CALCULATIONS FOR ALL ALTERNATIVES
Tetra Tech NUS STANDARD CALCULATIONSHEET
CLIENT EPA Region 3 FILE No N5061
SUBJECT Valmont TCE Site Areas and volumes of each zone
BY JWL
CHECKED BY/ ,
PAGE1of2
DATE 11/25/02
Purpose Calculate the areas and volumes of each zone to be used in later alti rnative-specifc calculations
Zone A
From Chapter 2 4 and attached figure the area is
40 feetx 100 feet = 4 000 ft2
Depth of contamination is 3 feet per Chapter 2 4
Volume
V = 4 000 ft2 x 3 feet = 12 000 ft3
V = 12 000 ft3 / 27 ft3/yd3 = 444 yd3
Zone B
From attached figure the area is measured in inches then the area is calculated from the scale(1 9 =150)
Dimension
b1b2h
Area B1inches22523505
Area B2inches235065075
Area = (b1 + b2)/2 x h x 1502/1 92
B1 = (2 25 + 2 35)/2 x 0 5 x 1502/1 92 = 7 200 ft2
B2 = (2 35 + 0 65)/2 x 0 75 x 1502/1 92 = 7 000 ft2
= 14200ft2
:>0 % of the depth of contamination is 3 feet bgs the balance is 12 feet bgs per Chapter 2 4
Volume
V = 14 200 ft2 x 3 feet x 0 5 + 14 200 ft2 x 12 feet x 0 5 = 106 500 ft1
V = 106 500 ft3 / 27 ft3/yd3 = 3 940 yd3
Tetra Tech NUS STANDARD CALCULATIONSHEET
CLIENT EPA Region 3 FILE No N5061
SUBJECT Valmont TCE Site Areas and volumes of each zone
BY JWL
CHECKED BYjH ^i A*-
PAGE2 of 2
DATE 11/25/02
ZoneC
From attached figure the area is measured in inches then the area is calculated from the scale(1 9 =150)
Dimension
b1b2h
Area C1inches2625065
Area C2inches250709
Area = (b1 + b2)/2 x h x 1502/1 92
Area C1 = (2 6 + 2 5)/2 x 0 65 x 1502/1 92 = 10 300 ft2
Area C2 = (2 5 + 0 7)/2 x 0 9 x 1502/1 92 = 9 000 ft2
Area C = 19 300 ft2
90 % of the depth of contamination is 3 feet bgs the balance is 10 feet bgs per Chapter 2 4
Volume
V = 19 300 ft2 x 3 feet x 0 9 + 19300ft2x 10 feet x 0 1 = 71 400 ft3
V = 71 400 ft3 / 27 ft3/yd3 = 2 600 yd3
ZoneD
From Chapter 2 4 and attached figure the approximate area is
40 feet x 80 feet = 3 200 ft2
Depth of contamination is 9 5 feet per Chapter 2 4
Volume
V = 3 200 ft2 x 9 5 feet = 30 400 ft3
V = 30 400 ft3 / 27 ft3/yd3 = 1 125 yd3
EXISTING BUILDING118 147 SO FT
LEGEND \@ = SURFACE SOIL SAMPLE
= EXISTING TREES
~ ' = EDGE OF WOODS
— _—— = EXISTING CONTOURS
-500- = EXISTING INDEX CONTOURS
* = EXISTING FENCE LINE
NO = NOT DEJECTED
12 = TCE CONCENTRATION (ug/kq)
= CONTAMINATED SURFACE SOILS
= CONTAMINATED SUBSURFACE SOILS
NOTES1 SITE FEATURES SHOWN PER 5/21/02 FIELD
SURVEY BY LUDGATE ENGINEERING CORPORATION
2 SURVEY CONTROLHORIZONTAL PA STATE PLAN (FT) NORTHVERTICAL NGVD 29
3 SURVEY ACCURACYHORIZONTAL LOCATION 0 05 ±LISTED ELEVATIONS 0 05 ±CONTOURS 90r OF CONTOURS ACCURATE TO
WITHIN 0510% OF CONTOURS ACCURATE TO
WITHIN 1 0
4 ALL SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED BETWEEN 0-2 FEETBELOW GROUND/FLOOR SURFACE
TETRA TECH NUS INC
LOCATIONS OFCONTAMINATED VOC SOILS
VALMONT TCE SITEHAZLE TOWNSHIP AND WEST HAZLETON BOROUGH
LUZERNE COUNTY PA
RLE NAME. 5061kp10dwgLDL PHL
FIGURE NUMBERFIGURE 1-20
SCALEAS NOTED
REV DATE11/6/02
Tetra Tech NUS STANDARD CALCULATIONSHEET
CLIENT EPA Region 3 RLE No N5061
SUBJECT Valmont TCE Site TCE and DCE concentrations ineach zone
BY JWL
CHECKED BY
PAGE1of2
DATE 11/25/02
Purpose Estimate the average concentrations of TCE and cis 1,2-DCE in each zone forlater use
Zone A
Because so few samples were collected use a geometnc mean Concentrations were taken fromFigure 2 1 Note undetected was given the value of the detections limit
TCE
1/3(1 110X80X60)1'J = 174 ug/kg
Cis 1 2 DCE
1/3(49x1x21) lM =10 ug/kg
Zone B
Because limited samples were collected use a geometric mean Concentrations were taken fromFigure 2 1
TCE
(350 x 160 x 100 x 8 x 7 x 8 x 8 5)1/7 =30 ug/kg
Cis 1 2 DCE
(28 x 1 x 33 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1)1/7 =3 ug/kg
Zone C
Because of the relatively large number of samples were collected and are more ike y to representthe distribution of the concentrations use anthmetic mean Concentrations were taken fromFigure 2 1
TCE
(5 + 8 + 7 + 5 + 3 + 10 + 1+110 + 1+09 + 4 + 29 + 1 200)/13 = 106 ug/kg
Cis 1 2 DCE
(66 + 830 + 1 300 + 44 + 190 + 3 900 + 1 + 800 + 340 + 12 + 690 + 88 + 13 )/13 =
= 636 ug/kg
Tetra Tech NUS STANDARD CALCULATIONSHEET
CLIENT EPA Region 3 RLE No N5061
SUBJECT Valmont TCE Site TCE and DCE concentrations ineach zone
BY JWL
CHECKED BY
sf/^ *h<fo
PAGE2 of 2
DATE 11/25/02
ne D
Because so few samples were collected use a geometnc mean Concentrations were taken fromFigure 2 1
TCE
i 1/3(2 300 x 1 x 59)irj = 51 ug/kg
Cis 1 2 DCE
(1x1 ,1/3 = 1 ug/kg
4ft
Tetra Tech NUS STANDARD CALCULATIONSHEET
CLIENT EPA Region 3 FILE No N5061
SUBJECT Valmont TCE Site Percent removal needed
BY JWL
CHECKED BY//v /
PAGE1of1
DATE 11/25/02
• J*,><
Purpose Estimate percent removal needed to meet the PRGs Estimate the percentremoval based on the maximum concentration observed in each zone and th< secondhighest concentration
TCE
Zone
AIBCD
MaximumConcentration ug/kg
1 110350
1 2002300
PRG ug/kg
5555
Percent removalneeded 1o meet PRG
995[_ 986
996998
rcE
lone
A13CD
Second highestConcentration ug/kg
80100U
110
PRG ug/kg
5555
Percent i emovalneeded to meet PRG
9495NA
955
Cis 1 2 DCE
/one
ARCD
MaximumConcentration ug/kg
4933
39001
PRG ug/kg
39393939
Percent i emovalneeded to meet PRG
20NA99NA
EJecause of the relatively high percentage removals required for TCE an active treatment systemwill be needed to meet the PRGs
Tetra Tech NUS STANDARD CALCULATIONSHEET
CLIENT EPA Region 3 RLE No N5061
SUBJECT Valmont TCE Site - Analytical requirements, allalternatives
BY JWL
CHECKED BYJ IV "/^
PAGE1of2
DATE 11/25/02
Purpose Summarize the analytical and monitoring requirements foe all the alternatives
The following analytical requirements are needed
Characterization samples TCLP VOCs at 1 per 500 cy Estimated will vary with thefacility)Excavation confirmation VOCs - side walls and bottomSoil Gas quarterly VOCs from 5 wells in each zone being treatedO & M VOCs from Zone headers and lead GAC exhaust to monitor for breakthrough
Characterization
ZoneABCD
Number of samples444/500 = 1No excavation2 600/500 = 61 125/500 = 3
By Alternative
Alternative 2 (Excavate Zones A and D) 1+3 = 4Alternative 3A (Excavate Zones A C and D) 1+6 + 3 = 10Alternative 3B (Excavate Zones A C and D) 1+6 + 3 = 10
Confirmation
ZoneABCD
Number of samples4 wall 1 bottom = 5No excavation8 wall 4 bottom = 124 wall 1 bottom = 5
By Alternative
Alternative 2 (Excavate Zones A and D) 5 + 5 = 10Alternative 3A (Excavate Zones A C and D) 5 + 12 + 5 = 22Alternative 3B (Excavate Zones A C and D) 5 + 12 + 5 = 22
Tetra Tech NUS STANDARD CALCULATIONSHEET
CLIENT EPA Region 3 RLE No N5061
SUBJECT Valmont TCE Site Analytical requirements allalternatives
BY JWL
CHECKED BYjy/< /<//*/w
PAGE2 of 2
DATE 11/25/02
Soil Gas
Soil Gas quarterly VOCs from 5 wells in each zone being treated
ZoneABCD
Number of samplesNo SVE2 5 yr x 4 quarter/yr x 5 wells/quarter = 502 yr x 4 quarter /yr x 5 wells/quarter = 40No SVE
By Alternative
Alternative 2 (SVE Zones B and C) 50 + 40 = 90Alternative 3A (SVE Zone B) 50Alternative 3B (SVE Zone B) 50
O & M Monitoring
The following schedule will be used
Month 1-4 sampling events per month = 4 eventsMonths 2 and 3-2 sampling events per month = 2 events each monthMonth 4 and through end of treatment) -1 sampling event 1 per month = 27 events total
Total number of analyses Assume 2 5 years (30 months)
Alternative
23A3B
Number Zoneheaders
211
GACexhaust
111
Total perevent
322
Total number of analyses
3 X (4 + 2 + 2+ 27x1) = 1052x(4 + 2 + 2+27x1) = 702 x (4 + 2 + 2+ 27x1) = 70
APPENDIX E-2
CALCULATIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE 2
Tetra Tech NUS STANDARD CALCULATIONSHEET
CLIENT EPA Region 3 RLE No N5061
SUBJECT Valmont TCE Site Alternative 2 SVE
BY JWL
CHECKED BY
PAGE1of6
DATE 11/25/02
tm
.O
Purpose Describe SVE design approach and provide a conceptual design of the mam SVEcomponents for Alternative 2
Introduction Alternative 2 includes SVE for Zones B and C and excavation for Zones A and DThe excavation calculations are in a subsequent calculation
The permeability data for the soils at the site show that soil consists of clay/silt clayey sand andsandy silt SVE cannot be efficiently applied to these types of soils because of high pressurelosses through the soil and the resulting low radius of influence This results in relatively low airflow rates per well and thus increases the time for VOC removal
The Continental White Cap (CWC) facility across the street has an SVE system to recoverxylenes This system has operated for several years and a 1994 report suggests an ROI of morethan 15 feet but there is little information about the soils However it is likely that the soils atCWC are similar to Valmont Also a paper about an SVE system in a clay formation atSacramento Army Base (SAAD) shows successful operation and implies ROIs of about 7 feetTherefore based on the observed operations at CWC it was assumed that an ROI of 10 feetcould be attained at the site It was further assumed that conditions under the building (Zone B)would be dner and the presence of the floor slab would be somewhat more favorable to SVE soan ROI of 15 was assumed for Zone B
The USEPA Hyperventilate program was used to estimate air flow rates An input to the programis air permeability An air permeability of 0 05 (1 cm2 = 108 darcies) darcies was assumed as thisvalue represents severe conditions indicated by the geotechnical data f or Zone B a slightlymore liberal value of 0 1 darcies was assumed
Assumptions
SVE extraction wells will be 4 inches diameter (radius = 2 )
The available vacuum will be limited to about 120 inches of water requiring a conventional lobetype blower
Number of pore volumes to meet PRGs is 600 This is a mid range value cited in the COE SVEManual (1 995) p 5 3 This also appears to be consistent with the SAAD results which attainedPRGs in 6 months
Zone B
Using the Hyperventilate program (output attached) the air flow rate for one well at 120 inchesvacuum 12 feet deep and ROI of 15 feet
Q (well) = 15 scfm
The pore volume for the cylinder of soil affected by the well based on a porosity of 0 37 per thegeotechnical data elsewhere in this report is
= PI x ROI2 x h x (porosity)
Tetra Tech NUS STANDARD CALCULATIONSHEET
CLIENT EPA Region 3 RLE No N5061
SUBJECT Valmont TCE Site Alternative 2 SVE
BY JWL
CHECKED BYJf * "U/o2
PAGE2of6
DATE 11/25/02
pi x (1 5 feet)2 x 12 feet x (0 37)
Vpore = 3138Ft3
The number of pore volumes needed to remove the VOCs has been assumed to be 600Therefore the air volume VT required is
VT = Vp^ x 600
VT = 3138Ft3x600
VT = 1 883 000 Ft3
At a flow rate of 1 5 scfm the time for treatment t is
t = VT/Q(well)
t = 1 883 000 Ft3 / 1 5 scfm x year/365 day x day/ 24 hour x hour/ 60 minute
t = 2 4 years
For the purposes of the estimate use 2 5 years
Estimate the number of extraction wells The area of influence AOI of each well is
AOI = pi x ROI2
AOI = pix152 = 707Ft2
From the general calculations the Area of Zone B is 14 200 Ft2 The number of wells is
Number of SVE wells = Total Area/ AOI = 14 200 Ft2 /707 Ft2 = 21
Because of the density of wells and the paved surface passive vent wells are needed to allow airflow in the interior portion of the treatment area About 1 vent well is needed for every three SVEwells
Number of vent wells = number of SVE wells/3 = 21/3 = 7
The total air flow rate is the product of the number of SVE wells and Q (well) plus a 25% safetyfactor
Or scfm = Q (well) x (number of SVE wells) x 1 25
QT scfm = 15 scfm x 21 x 1 25 = 40 scfm
Tetra Tech NUS STANDARD CALCULATION-SHEET
CLIENT EPA Region 3 RLE No N5061
SUBJECT Valmont TCE Site Alternative 2 SVE
BY JWL
CHECKED BYj7/t /f**z
PAGE3 of 6
DATE 11/25/02
From a Roots Blower catalogue a Roots 33J can provide this flow at 12 inches of Hg (160 incheswater) with a 5 hp motor
General piping size
For the main header allow a loss of 10 inches of water (0 74 inches Hg) The estimated length of1 he mam header will be 250 feet According to the Spencer Blower line loss chart a pipediameter of 2 inches will meet this For estimating purposes however use 4 inches Individuallines from the mam header to each well are assumed to be 2 inches in diameter
Moisture Separator
Assume a 5 second residence time
V = (residence time sec) x QT scfm x mm/60 sec
V = 5 sec x 40 scfm x mm/60 sec = 3 3 ft3 = 24 6 gallons say 25 gallons
Zone C
Using the Hyperventilate program (output attached) the air flow rate for one well at 120 inchesvacuum 10 feet deep and ROI of 10 feet
Q (well) = 07 scfm
The pore volume for the cylinder of soil affected by the well based on a porosity of 0 31 per thecjeotechnical data elsewhere in this report is
Vpore = pi x ROI2 x h x (porosity)
Vpore = pi x (10 feet)2 x 10 feet x (0 31)
Vp^ = 973 Ft3
1 he number of pore volumes needed to remove the VOCs has been assumed to be 6001 herefore the air volume VT required is
VT = V^ X 600
VT = 973 Ft3 x 600
VT = 584 000 Ft3
At a flow rate of 0 7 scfm the time for treatment t is
t = VT/Q(well)
Tetra Tech NUS STANDARD CALCULATIONSHEET
CLIENT EPA Region 3 RLE No N5061
SUBJECT Valmont TCE Site Alternative 2 SVE
BY JWL
CHECKED BY,fU Vw
PAGE4 of 6
DATE 11/25/02
t = 584 000 Ft / 0 7 scfm x year/365 day x day/ 24 hour x hour/ 60 minute
t = 1 6 years
For the purposes of the estimate use 2 years
Estimate the number of extraction wells The area of influence AOI of each well is
AOI = pi x ROI2
AOI = pix102 = 314Ft2
From the general calculations the Area of Zone C is 19 300 Ft2 The number of wells is
Number of SVE wells = Total Area/ AOI = 19 300 Ft2 /314 Ft2 = 61
(A sketch of the attached layout indicates that 58 wells will be sufficient)
Because of the density of wells and the paved surface passive vent wells are needed to allow airflow in the interior portion of the treatment area About 1 vent well is needed for every three SVEwells
Number of vent wells = number of SVE wells/3 = 58/3 = 20
The total air flow rate is the product of the number of SVE wells and Q (well) plus a 25% safetyfactor
Or scfm = Q (well) x (number of SVE wells) x 1 25
Or scfm = 07 scfm x 58 x 1 25 = 51 scfm
From a Roots Blower catalogue a Roots 33J can provide this flow at 12 inches of Hg (160 incheswater) with a 5 hp motor
General piping size
For the mam header allow a loss of 10 inches of water (0 74 inches Hg) The estimated length ofthe main header will be 450 feet According to the Spencer Blower line loss chart a pipediameter of 2 inches will meet this For estimating purposes however use 4 inches Individuallines from the main header to each well are assumed to be 2 inches in diameter
Moisture Separator
Assume a 5 second residence time
V = (residence time sec) x QT scfm x mm/60 sec
<ft
Tetra Tech NUS STANDARD CALCULATIONSHEET
CLIENT EPA Region 3 RLE No N5061
SUBJECT Valmont TCE Site Alternative 2 SVE
BY JWL
CHECKED BYx/yv ///, />*
PAGE5 of 6
DATE 11/25/02
V = 5 sec x 51 scfm x mm/60 sec = 4 2 ft3 = 31 gallons say 35 gallons
Estimate water removed per day
System will be indoors so temperature fluctuations will not be significant For sizing andestimating purposes assume that saturated air at 70 F is cooled to 60 F Assume tin air densityof 0 075 Ib/Ft3
From Perry's handbook 5th edition p 12 4 (psychometric chart)
70 F saturated - 0 0157 Ib water /Ib dry air60 F saturated - 0 0115 Ib water /Ib dry air
Total flow rate is 40 + 51 = 91 scfm
Mass of water per day
M = 91 scfm x 1440 mm/day x 0 075 Ib air/ft3 air x (0 0157 - 0 0115) Ib water/lb air
M = 41 Ib/day = 49 gallons/day
Size a tank for one month storage for offsite disposal
V water tank = 30 x 4 9 gall/day = 147 gallons
Therefore use a 200 gallon tank
Vapor Phase Carbon system
There will be one GAC system serving both Zone B and Zone C
Zone
BC
Vol ft3
10650071 400
Soil masskg5 400 0003 600 000
TCE ug/kg(average)
30106
TCE Ib(average)
0409
DCE ug/kg(average)
3636
DCE Ib(average)
0045
Where
Soil mass kg = Vol ft3 x cy/27 ft3 x 1 5 ton/cy x 2 000 Ib/ton x 0 454kg/lb
TCE (or DCE) mass lb = soil mass kg x concentration ug/kg x lb/(454 x 106)ug
From NFESC chart for vapor phase GAC loading at low concentrations
TCE-199lb/100lbGAC
Tetra Tech NUS STANDARD CALCULATIONSHEET
CLIENT EPA Region 3 RLE No N5061
SUBJECT Valmont TCE Site Alternative 2 SVE
BY JWL
CHECKED BYjYfc. "Wtu
PAGE6 of 6
DATE 11/25/02
Cis 1 2 DCE - 6 9 lb/100 Ib GAC
A Calgon publication notes that TCE loading under dilute conditions is about 5 lb/100 Ib GACtherefore a safety factor of 19 9/5 = 4 will be applied
Mass to be adsorbed per table above
TCE-04 + 09 = 13 Ib
DCE - 0 04 + 5 = 5 Ib
GAC needed
TCE - 1 3 x 100 Ib GAC/19 9 Ib TCEDCE - 5 x 100 Ib G AC/6 9 Ib DCE
Total
Apply a 4X factor - 78 5 x 4
Allow 10% more for other compounds 1 1x314
6572
785lb
314lb
350 Ib
Specify two Carbonair G PC 3 85 (or equal) with 250 Ib GAC per unit and rated for 36 to 360scfm
EXISTING BUILDING118147 SO FT
LEGENDSURFACE SOIL SAMPLE
EXISTING TREES
EDGE OF WOODS
EXISTING CONTOURS
EXISTING INDEX CONTOURS
EXISTING FENCE LINE
NOT DETECTED
TCE CONCENTRATION
CIS-1 2-DCE CONCENTRATION <A«g/kg)
CONTAMINATED SURFACE SOILS
CONTAMINATED SUBSURFACE SOILS
1 SFTE FEATURES SHOWN PER 5/21/02 HELDSURVEY BY LUDGATE ENGINEERING CORPORATION
SURVEY CONTROLHORIZONTAL PA STATE PiAN \F\) NORTHVERTICAL NGVD 29
SURVEY ACCURACYHORIZONTAL LOCATION 0 05 ±LISTED ELEVATIONS 0 05 ±CONTOURS 90^ OF CONTOURS ACCURATE TO
WITHIN 05OF CONTOURS ACCURATE TO
WITHIN 1 0
4 VOC CONCENTRATIONS ARE THE HIGHEST REPORTED«T THAT SPECIFIC uCOiiiON
TETRA TECH NUS INC
LOCATIONS OFCONTAMINATED VOC SOILS
VALMONT TCE SITEHAZLE TOWNSHIP AND WEST HAZLETON BOROUGH
LUZERNE COUNTY PA
5061kp10dwgLDL PHL
FIGURE NUMBER
FIGURE 2-1
SCALE
AS NOTEDREV DOTE
11/12/02
Flowrate 1 stunation.
O Medium Sand
O FmeS<md
O SftySmd
O Clayey Sib
<*} Input our 0™ Permeability]
Permeability Range (d
1 05 1 to 1 1
WeH Radios CEadras of Influence d
Interval Tlnclcness" 1
t) Choose Soil Type orOptional Enter your own permeability values (darcy)
2) Enter Well Radius (m)3) Enter Radius of Influence (Et) to Interval Thickness4) Optional Enter your own well vacuum (406 max)5) ChcX button to calculate Predicted Flowrate Ranges
Predicted Flovnate Ranges
lange
arcy)
n2 Im15 Ift
12 Ift
C > Calculate Flonrate Ranges<- }
tinclne. of < reened interval or [^ |permeable ••oi e (wliKliever a nailer).
Well FlowrateVacuum (SCFM)
Pw (single well)(inH.,0)
5
_ 1020
40
60
120200
. _JJPLOH .
028
~JJ1 _076111
tototototototo
„ JUL5__._J29_
056
/15U*T
1
d>/
\r,
\*
Atout Soils (S Unit Conversions) Into about Calcul.
locate Estimation.Hf^1*
O Medium SandO Fme Sand
O SiftySand
O Clayey Silts
® Input Your 0 wn Permeability RangePermeabihly Range (darcy)
1 05 Ito 1 05 1
Well Radios 1 2 ITT
1) Choose Soil Type orOptional Enter your own permeability values (darcy)
2) Enter Well Radius (m)3) Enter Radius oE Influence (Et) & Interval Thickness4) Optional Enter your own well vacuum (406 max)5) Click button to calculate Predicted Flowrate Ranges
1Radios of Influence | 10 IftInterval Thickness" 1 10 Ift
^ > Calculate Flowrate Ranges< J
Ouclcne o( creened interval or
permeable one (whichever i smaller).
aHL About Sofls [ft Unit ^Conversionsl "jl
El
Predicted Flovtrate Ranges
Hell FlowrateVacuum (SCFM)
Pw (single well)(mKjO)
5
_ 10_20JO
6ft120
200
_ 003___ 007
013_026__ .
_ 038069102
tototototototo
_003_._ 007-
____ 013026
IZ06%~W^
)
(
*• g ^?**n J*F^» ^^J
C
[Help Vapor Flowrateper Eton Hell Thickness _ _The equationltelowrs the steady-state one-dimensional radial flow solution to a vertical wed While simplistic itgeneraDyprovides good estimates Eor vapor Elowrates Its accuracy is oE course limited by the accuracy of the values you input. Inparticular the greatest uncertainty is usually associated with the soil permeability which can vary by several orders oEmagnitude ov r small distances
H M- l n ( R v / R i )soil permeability to air Bow [cm for [darcy]
t viscosity oE air 18x10 g/cm-s or 0 018 cp
w absolutepressure at extraction well [gfcm s for [atm]absolute ambient pressure 101x10g/cms oPlatm
B w radius oE vapor extraction well [cm]B j radius oE influence of vapor extraction well [cm]H thickness of well screen interval or permeable soil zone (choose smallest value)
UNIVERSAL RAI-J™ PERFORMANCE TABLE
45J
860
1760
3600
175
1 1
22
44
56
164
387
31
6.3
46
154
377
19
40
8.2
144
367
49
100
134
356
5.8
119 345 137 339 146
7
10
10
37
133
356
34
96
197
47J
860
1760
3600
95
239
532
1J3
28
56
83
227
520
1.9
3.9
81
72216509
2551
105
205
498
6.3
130
193
486
7.5154 473 17.9 467 190
7
7
7
63
206500
44
89
56J
700
1760
2850
108
342
583
15
39
6.2
95
329
570
22.
BJS
89
82
316
557
29
72
11.6
70304
545
3.58.8
14.3
291
532
105
J70
276 121
517 197 510 21X)
7
10
10
72
290
531
49
175
28.3
Notes 1 Vacuum ratings based on inlet air at standard temperature of 68 F discharge pressure of 30 Hg and specific gravity of 1 02 Pressure ratings based on inlet air at standard pressure of 14 7 psia standard temperature of 68 F and specific gravity of 1 0
LOWER AIR PULSATIONPatented Whispair blowers oper
ate with up to 50% less pressure pulsation than conventional blowers due
the pressure equalizing effect of thenspair designIn conventional blowers as the
impeller opens up to the outlet portthe higher pressure air in the discharge line rapidly expands into thelower pressure pocket formed by theimpeller and the blower case Theresulting shock wave strikes the advancmg surface of the impellerat sonicvelocity Four pressure pulses occureach revolution transmitting shockloads to the gears and bearings
LONGER BEARING LIFEThe pre pressunzation of the low
pressure pocket through the Whispaircavity smooths the pulsations and resuits m less shock being transmittedthrough the impellers to the bearingsresulting in approximately 20% longerbearing life
LOWER VIBRATIONThe reduction in the magnitude of
the pressure pulsation results insmoother operation
LOWER NOISEThe pressure pulses inherent in
the rotary lobe design are also themajor source of blower noise Therapid backflow of air into the blofrom the discharge line four times perevolution results in high noise levelsin the conventional blower TheWhispair design controls the backflowof air into the blower reducing noiseby approximately 5 dB vacuum 3 dBpressure
ROOTS, DIVISION-iOC «E 3T MOUNT S'PEET
NNE^Sv LLE rNCIANA=•= i "ID H J S A
prrpc RMA ^Cr 5ASED ONrNLE" - R ^3 FOIStHAPCE PPES5URE 3iJULf
HG ABS
VACUUM PERFORMANCEFRAME 33 UNIVERSAL RAI BLOWER
MAXIMUM VACUUM=I5 IN HGMAXIMUM SPEEO=3600 RPM
200
S 160o
4 HG6" HGer HG
10 HG12 HG14 HG
250u.»
200 'UJ
150
H tooUJ<r
tr50 a
1200 1800 2400 3000
SPEED-RPM
3500
//
VC-12-33
A Physical/ Chemical • Remediat_io^n Technology
Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) Adsorption (Vapor Phase)
More'lnrO'liCdntacts ^Related Sites
Vapor-phase GAC treatment is performedby passing an off-gas stream through oneor more vessels containing activatedcarbon, which removes contaminants fromthe gas stream by sorption until availableactive sites are occupied Carbon is"activated" for this purpose by beingprocessed to create porous particles with alarge internal surface area (300 to 2,500square meters or 3,200 to 27,000 squarefeet per gram of carbon) that attracts andadsorbs organic molecules as well ascertain metal and inorganic molecules
Commercial grades of activated carbon are available for specific use in vapor-phase applications The granular form of activated carbon is typically used inpacked beds through which the contaminated air flows until the concentration ofcontaminants in the effluent from the carbon bed exceeds an acceptable levelGAC systems typically consist of one or more vessels filled with carbonconnected in series and/or parallel operating under atmospheric, negative, orpositive pressure The carbon can then be regenerated in place, regenerated atan off-site regeneration facility, or disposed of, depending upon economicconsiderations
The capacity of carbon to adsorb contaminants depends on the properties ofthe contaminants In particular large, polar molecules tend to adsorb morestrongly than small, nonpolar molecules Some common chlorinated solvents,such as vinyl chloride, are poorly adsorbed (see following table)
Contaminant
Octane
QatlOppmv
174
Qat 100ppmv
246
Qat 1,000ppmv
328
http //enviro nfesc navy mil/erb/restoration/technologies/remed/phys_chem/phc-14 asp 11/7/02
Hexane
Benzene
Toluene
o-Xylene
Trichloroethylene
Tetrsichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
1,1-Dichloroethylene
1,2-Dichloroethylenes
11 2
11 9
201
287
199
392
043
64
69
167
196
282
357
332
547
1 5
122
143
229
290
361
41 4
494
694
42
21 9
262
a O = g compound/1 OOg GAC
Status* Conventionalp~,.w'"\. .? 1 - *•'• ~/*i • • !Ti • ™"v
cAppdic ability ;Tn'|» of the Page
C o n t a m i n a n t s Media Loca t ion Trea tmen tSite
Seconda ryP rocess
Vapor phase carbon adsorption is used primarily to treat halogenated andnonhaiogenated volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semivolatile organiccompounds (SVOCs) and polychlormated biphenyls (RGBs) in a gas streamGAC ti eatment is most efficiently applied when the contaminant concentrationis less than 200 ppmv or the off-gas flowrate is low
itationsl ,T*j» of the rage
The following factors may limit the effectiveness of this process
• Spent carbon may be a Resource Conservation and Recover/ Act (RCRA)hazardous waste
• Spent carbon must be regenerated or disposed of and the adsorbedcontaminants must be destroyed, often by incineration
http //en/iro nfesc navy mil/erb/restoration/technologies/remed/phys_chem/phc-14 asp 11/7/02
WASTE MANAGEMENT
prior to carbon treatment will lower the usage rate of GACby reducing the contaminants for which carbon has lesscapacity The carbon adsorption system will also maintainfinal effluent quality with varying influent concentrationsthat would affect the air stripper performance In some instances the effect of lower carbon usage rate and less elaborate air stripping may make the combined system more costeffective than the individual processes
Air Stripping Off Gas Treatment with Granular ActivatedCarbon
In an air stripping operation the VOCs are removed fromthe water phase into the air phase potentially creating an airpollution problem Granular activated carbon can be used toeffectively remove VOCs from the air -stream in much thesame manner as removing contaminants from liquidstreams GAC is a well established technology for removingorganic compounds from vapor sources and has been su^cessfully used in solvent recovery and odor control
In cases where either air stripping or granular activated.carbon can be used to treat groundwaters the overall^amount ol activated carbon used may be reduced hv rernnving organic compounds in the vapor phase rather than fromthejvater phase The_reas"n for this ic thpt thp adsorptioncapacities ot carbon for some of the common contaminantstound in groundwater are higher in the vapor phase than inthe liquid phase Figure 4 shows the vapor phase isothermsfor 1 2 dichloroethylene 111 trichloroethane trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene Isotherms show the adsorption capacity for pure components on carbon at different concentrations and forms the initial basis for feasibilityof use of carbon similar to the isotherm evaluation used forliquid phase applications
Design Considerations
To design granular carbon systems to treat contaminatedair from air strippers the choice is usually between two basictypes of design a regenerable carbon system and nonregenerable system The choice is made on the basis of economics
100
10
1 o
0101 100_10 10
,-• Vapor phase concentration ppm
Figure 5 Effect of relative humidity trichloroethylene adsorption on BPLcarbon at 25 C (computer estimate)
Figure 6 This air stripping system treats groundwater fromblocking wells removing contamination from the aquifier toprotect water wells The packed tower air stripper is 10 ft indiameter and contains 40 ft of packing to treat 1100 gpm Thevapor phase carbon adsorbers (foreground) each contain 314ft3 of carbon to treat 5350 cfm off-gas from the air stripper
the main factor being the total amount of VOCs to be removed Calgon Carbon Corporation s experience shows thatin a majority of cases the total amount of VOCs is smallenough that a nonregenerable carbon system is more economically feasible as the expense of replacing carbon is lessthan the initial capital expenditure for a regenerable systemcombined with expenses for utilities to operate this system
Design Considerations—Nonregenerable Vapor PhaseSystems
In a nonregenerable system the contaminated air fromthe air stripper is passed through either one of two vesselscontaining GAC and then discharged After a period of timewhen the carbon is exhausted and VOCs are beginning tobreak through the carbon is either replaced with fresh orvirgin carbon or removed reactivated at high temperaturesand returned to the vessel
The capital cost for this type of system is low as they canbe constructed of FRP similar to air stripping units Theprimary operating cost depends upon the frequency withwhich the carbon is replaced or the carbon usage rate
Figure 4 shows vapor phase isotherms for four commoncompounds found in contaminated groundwaters In a multicomponent vapor stream the adsorption capacities areusually lower than isotherm capacities because of competitive adsorption Another factor that affects adsorption capacities of air stripped VOCs from groundwater is the relalive humidity of the air stream Figure 5 shows the effect ofhumidity on adsorption capacity of trichloroethylene typical of VOC contaminants As can be seen from this isothermthe carbon life can be extended and therefore the operatingcost can be lowered b> a factor of three to four by loweringthe relative humidity of the air stream from the air stripperfrom 100 percent RH to less thant 40 percent This can beaccomplished by raising the temperature of the air streamwith an in line neater The isotherms in Figure 4 representadsorption at reduced humidity
An example of nonregenerable carbon adsorption systemto remove contaminants from air strippers off gases is the
1308 Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association
1 Ul t
C4RBONAIR*ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS
D ill <0 k E I m t IS ! t
Systems For ABetter Environment
Horru
ProductsRental Equipment
Field ServicesComprehensive
ControlsIntegrated Systems
IMP - Internet-basedMonitoring PackageIMP Customer Log-In
IMP InformationTry Our IMP DEMO'
What's Newoiec* Profiles
Downloads & LinksCareer Opportunities
| Proposal Request Form
Carbonair Vapor Phase Carbon AdsorbersCarbonair's vapor phase carbon adsorbers are designed to provide an efficient and economical means toreduce VOC concentrations corrosive gases toxic vapors and to control odor Several types of activatedcarbons are available for a variety of applications
Vapor Phase Carbon Adsorfer Specificationsrlei
MODEL GPC3
Dimensions
Bed Area(sqft)
Flow Range(cfm)
CarbonCapacity
| (Ibs)
Fittings
[ EmptyWeight (Ibs)
245ODx
365 H
27
20 100
200
15NPT
65
GPCJJSS
285 ODx385 H
368
136360
230
4 NPT
100
II II
GECJR
30 ODx58 H
491
40380
300
45nozzle
375
GPC_7R
3 ODx72 H
707
76500
1UUU
65/8nozzle
700
GP£_13R
4 ODx72 H
1257
1120 800
1 500
85/8nozzle
950
GP_C20R
5 ODx72 H
1963
200 1 800
200U
85/8nozzle
1200
|
GPCiQB
8 ODx72 H
5027
4804000
5000
123/4nozzle
2900
GPC70
1685 Lx5 Wx76 H
698
GPC120
166 Lx8 Wx710
H
120
7o°Hf^ol10000
123/4nozzle
5500
13600
123/4nozzle
7500
I |
file IIC \DOCUME~l\LoganJ\LOCALS~l\Temp\tnCPBLD htm 11/18/2002
Office Locations
Contact Us
Site MapSearch
Top of Page
OperatingWeight (Ibs) 275 350 900 1800 2450 3200 8000 16000 22000
Standard FeaturesGalvanized steel drum (GPC 3 & 3 85)Two 4" PVC connections (GPC 3 & 3 85)Baked enamel exterior (GPC 3 & 3 85)PVC internals (GPC 3 & 3 85)Welded steel constructionForkhftable tubesEpoxy coated interior & exteriorOne condensation dramFRP grate with screenNozzle connectionsVapor Phase Carbon Adsorbers data sheet
Optional Components• Blowers Humidity control• Influent/effluent ducting• Discharge stack• Additional sampling ports and valves• Vapor monitors
GPC 3 Vapor Phase Carbon AdsorberThe GPC 3 is an epoxy coated steel vapor phase carbon adsorber capable treating flows up to 100 cfmThe adsorber contains up to 200 Ibs of granular activated carbon The adsorber has 1 1/2" threaded inletand outlet connections Optional pressure gauges sample ports and interconnecting piping packages arealso available
Top of Page
GPC 3 85 Vapor Phase Carbon AdsorberThe GPC 3 85 is an epoxy coated steel vapor phase carbon adsorber capable treating flows up to 270 cfmThe adsorber contains up to 250 Ibs of granular activated carbon The adsorber has 4" threaded inlet andoutlet connections Optional pressure gauges sample ports, and interconnecting piping packages are alsoavailable
file^fclDOCUME- l\LoganJ\LOCALS~ 1 \Temp\tnCPBLD htm 72002
Tetra Tech NUS STANDARD CALCULATIONSHEET
CLIENT EPA Region 3 FILE No N5061
SUBJECT Valmont TCE Site - Alternative 2 Excavation
BY JWL
CHECKED BYf(* ///nr/.t
PAGE1of2
DATE 11/25/02
Purpose Calculate volumes of matenal to be excavated
In Alternative 2 Zones A and D are excavated for offsite disposal From the gene ral calculationsthe volumes are as follows
Zone A
Per the general calculations the area is
40 feet x 100 feet = 4 000 ft2
Depth of contamination is 3 feet
Volume
V = 4 000 ft2 x 3 feet = 12 000 ft3
V = 12 000 ft3 / 27 ft3/yd3 = 444 yd3
Zone D
Per the general calculations the area is
40 feet x 80 feet = 3 200 ft2
Depth of contamination is 9 5 feet
Volume
V = 3 200 ft2 x 9 5 feet = 30 400 ft3
V = 30 400 ft3 / 27 ft3/yd3 = 1 125 yd3
Check for potential to be a hazardous waste by TCLP The as is concentration I ug/kg)/20 givesthe maximum TCLP leachate concentration in ug/L For TCE the TCLP leachate concentrationfor the toxicity characteristic is 500 ug/L
From the general calculations
Zone A
TCE = 174 ug/kg
TCLP = 174/20 = 87 ug/L therefore not hazardous
Tetra Tech NUS STANDARD CALCULATIONSHEET
CLIENT EPA Region 3 FILE No N5061
SUBJECT Valmont TCE Site -Alternative 2 Excavation
BY JWL
CHECKED BY ,(fft • / <ft^
PAGE2of2
DATE 11/25/02
Zone D
TCE = 51 ug/kg
TCLP = 51/20 = 26 ug/L therefore not hazardous
APPENDIX E-3
O CALCULATIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE 3A ji
Tetra Tech NUS STANDARD CALCULATIONSHEET
CLIENT EPA Region 3 FILE No N5061
SUBJECT Valmont TCE Site Alternative 3A SVE
BY JWL
CHECKED BY3f\- "A//tz-
PAGE1of4
DATE 11/25/02
IPurpose Describe SVE design approach and provide a conceptual design of the main SVE< omponents for Alternative 3A
Introduction Alternative 3A includes SVE for Zone B and excavation for 2rones A C and DThe excavation calculations are in a subsequent calculation
The permeability data for the soils at the site show that soil consists of clay/silt clayey sand and>andy silt SVE cannot be efficiently applied to these types of soils because of high pressurelosses through the soil and the resulting low radius of influence This results in relatively low airHow rates per well and thus increases the time for VOC removal
The Continental White Cap (CWC) facility across the street has an SVE system to recover<ylenes This system has operated for several years and a 1994 report suggests an ROI of morelhan 15 feet but there is little information about the soils However it is likely that the soils atCWC are similar to Valmont Also a paper about an SVE system in a clay formation atSacramento Army Base (SAAD) shows successful operation and implies ROIs of about 7 feetTherefore based on the observed operations at CWC it was assumed that an ROI of 10 feeti ould be attained at the site It was further assumed that conditions under the building (Zone B)would be drier and the presence of the floor slab would be somewhat more favorable to SVE soin ROI of 15 was assumed for Zone B
The USEPA Hyperventilate program was used to estimate air flow rates An input to the programis air permeability An air permeability of 0 05 darcies (1 cm2 = 108 darcies) was as >umed as thisvalue represents severe conditions indicated by the geotechnical data For Zone B a slightlymore liberal value of 0 1 darcies was assumed
Assumptions
SVE extraction wells will be 4 inches diameter (radius = 2 )
The available vacuum will be limited to about 120 inches of water requmng a conventional lobelype blower
Number of pore volumes to meet PRGs is 600 This is a mid range value cited in the COE SVEManual (1995) p 5 3 This also appears to be consistent with the SAAD results whiuh attainedPRGs in 6 months
iJsmg the Hyperventilate program (output attached) the air flow rate for one well at 120 inches/acuum 12 feet deep and ROI of 15 feet
Q (well) = 1 5 scfm
The pore volume for the cylinder of soil affected by the well based on a porosity of Cl 37 per thegeotechnical data elsewhere in this report is
= P' x ROI2 x h x (porosity)
Tetra Tech NUS STANDARD CALCULATIONSHEET
CLIENT EPA Region 3 RLE No N5061
SUBJECT Valmont TCE Site Alternative 3A SVE
BY JWL
CHECKED BY
Al\.wA
PAGE2 of 4
DATE 11/25/02
Vpore = pi x (15 feet)2 x 12 feet x (0 37)
Vpore = 3 138 Ft3
The number of pore volumes needed to remove the VOCs has been assumed to be 600Therefore the air volume VT required is
VT = V^ x 600
VT = 3138Ft3x600
VT = 1 883 000 Ft3
At a flow rate of 1 5 scfm the time for treatment t is
t = VT/Q(well)
t = 1 883 000 Ft3 /1 5 scfm x year/365 day x day/ 24 hour x hour/ 60 minute
t = 2 4 years
For the purposes of the estimate use 2 5 years
Estimate the number of extraction wells The area of influence AOI of each well is
AOI = pi x ROI2
AOI = pix152 = 707Ft2
From the general calculations the Area of Zone B is 14 200 Ft2 The number of wells is
Number of SVE wells = Total Area/ AOI = 14 200 Ft2 /707 Ft2 = 21
Because of the density of wells and the paved surface passive vent wells are needed to allow airflow in the mtenor portion of the treatment area About 1 vent well is needed for every three SVEwells
Number of vent wells = number of SVE wells/3 = 21/3 = 7
The total air flow rate is the product of the number of SVE wells and Q (well) plus a 25% safetyfactor
Or scfm = Q (well) x (number of SVE wells) x 1 25
QT scfm = 15 scfm x 21 x 1 25 = 40 scfm
Tetra Tech NUS STANDARD CALCULATIONSHEET
CLIENT EPA Region 3 RLE No N5061
SUBJECT Valmont TCE Site Alternative 3A SVE
BY JWL
CHECKED BY
PAGE3 of 4
DATE 11/25/02
F rom a Roots Blower catalogue a Roots 33J can provide this flow at 12 inches of Hq (160 incheswater) with a 5 hp motor See Alternative 2 for equipment information
General piping size
F or the mam header allow a loss of 10 inches of water (0 74 inches Hg) The estim ited length ofthe mam header will be 250 feet According to the Spencer Blower line loss chart a pipediameter of 2 inches will meet this For estimating purposes however use 4 inches Individuallines from the main header to each well are assumed to be 2 inches in diameter
Moisture Separator
Assume a 5 second residence time
V = (residence time sec) x QT scfm x mm/60 sec
V = 5 sec x 40 scfm x mm/60 sec = 3 3 ft3 = 24 6 gallons say 25 gallons
E stimate water removed per day
System will be indoors so temperature fluctuations will not be significant For sizing purposeseissume that saturated air at 70 F is cooled to 60 F Assume an air density of 0 075 Ib/Ft3
F rom Perry's handbook 5th edition p 12 4 (psychometric chart)
70 F saturated - 0 0157 Ib water /Ib dry air60 F saturated - 0 0115 Ib water /Ib dry air
1 otal flow rate is 51 = 91 scfm
Mass of water per day
M = 40 scfm x 1440 min/day x 0 075 Ib air/ft3 air x (0 0157 - 0 0115) Ib water/lb air
M = 18 Ib/day = 22 gallons/day
Size a tank for one month storage for offsite disposal
V water tank = 30 x 2 2 gall/day = 66 gallons
Therefore use a 100 gallon tank
Vapor Phase Carbon system
1 here will be one GAC system serving Zone B
Tetra Tech NUS STANDARD CALCULATIONSHEET
CLIENT EPA Region 3 RLE No N5061
SUBJECT Valmont TCE Site Alternative 3A SVE
BY JWL
CHECKED BY^TflL //«/»
PAGE4 of 4
DATE 11/25/02
Zone
B
Vol ft3
106500
Soil masskg5 400 000
TCE ug/kg(average)
30
TCE Ib(average)
04
DCE ug/kg(average)
3
DCE Ib(average)
004
Where
Soil mass kg = Vol ft3 x cy/27 ft3 x 1 5 ton/cy x 2 000 Ib/ton x 0 454kg/lb
TCE (or DCE) mass lb = soil mass kg x concentration ug/kg x lb/(454x 106)ug
From NFESC chart for vapor phase GAC loading at low concentrations
TCE-199lb/100lbGAC
Cis 1 2 DCE - 6 9 lb/100 Ib GAC
A Calgon publication notes that TCE loading under dilute conditions is about 5 lb/100 Ib GACtherefore a safety factor of 19 9/5 = 4 will be applied
Mass to be adsorbed per table above
TCE-04lb
DCE-004lb
GAC needed
TCE - 0 4 x 100 Ib GAC/19 9 Ib TCEDCE - 04 x 100 Ib G AC/6 9 Ib DCE
Total
Apply a 4X factor - 2 6 x 4
Allow 10% more for other compounds 11x10
206
26lb
10 Ib
11 Ib
Specify two Carbonair GPC 3 85 (or equal) with 250 Ib GAC per unit and rated for 36 to 360scfm
See Alternative 2 for equipment information
Tetra Tech NUS STANDARD CALCULATION!SHEET
CLIENT EPA Region 3 FILE No N5061
SUBJECT Valmont TCE Site - Alternative 3A Excavation
BY JWL
CHECKED BY-J / f. C/z*/iiJ
PAGE1of2
DATE 11/25/02
Purpose Calculate volumes of material to be excavated
In Alternative 3A Zones A C and D are excavated for offsrte disposal From the generalcalculations the volumes are as follows
Zone A
Per the general calculations the area is
40 feet x 100 feet = 4 000 ft2
Depth of contamination is 3 feet
Volume
V = 4 000 ft2 x 3 feet = 12 000 ft3
V = 12 000 ft3 / 27 ft3/yd3 = 444 yd3
Zone C
Per the general calculations
Area C = 19 300 ft2
90 % of the depth of contamination is 3 feet bgs the balance is 10 feet bgs
Volume
V = 19 300 ft2 x 3 feet x 9 + 19 300 ft2 x 10 feet x 1 = 71 400 ft3
V = 71 400 ft3 / 27 ft3/yd3 = 2 600 yd3
ZoneD
Per the general calculations the area is
40 feet x 80 feet = 3 200 ft2
Depth of contamination is 9 5 feet
Volume
V = 3 200 ft2 x 9 5 feet = 30 400 ft3
V = 30 400 ft3 / 27 ft3/yd3 = 1 125 yd3
Tetra Tech NUS STANDARD CALCULATIONSHEET
CLIENT EPA Region 3 FILE No N5061
SUBJECT Valmont TCE Site- Alternative 3A Excavation
BY JWL
CHECKED BYJ7V if t^
PAGE2 of 2
DATE 11/25/02
Check for potential to be a hazardous waste by TCLP The as is concentration (ug/kg)/20 givesthe maximum TCLP leachate concentration in ug/L For TCE the TCLP leachate concentrationfor the toxicity characteristic is 500 ug/L
From the general calculations
Zone A
TCE = 174 ug/kg
TCLP = 174/20 = 87 ug/L therefore not hazardous
ZoneC
TCE = 106 ug/kg
TCLP = 106/20 = 53 ug/L therefore not hazardous
cone I
TCE = 51 ug/kg
TCLP = 51/20 = 2 6 ug/L therefore not hazardous
<
EXISTING BUILDING118 147 SO FT
LEGEND
-500-
= SURFACE SOIL SAMPLE
= EXISTING TREES
= EDGE OF WOODS
= EXISTING CONTOURS
= EXISTING INDEX CONTOURS
= EXISTING FENCE LINE
= NQT nrrrcTED
TCE CONCENTRATION
CIS-1 2-DCE CONCENTRATION
= CONTAMINATED SURFACE SOILS
= CONTAMINATED SUBSURFACE SOILS
NOTES1 SITE FEATURES SHOWN PER 5/21/02 FIELD
SURVEY BY LUDGATE ENGINEERING CORPORATIONI
2 SURVEY CONTROLI HORIZONTAL PA STATE PLAN (FT) NORTH
VERTICAL wGvD 29
3 SURVEY ACCURACYHORIZONTAL LOCATION 0 05 ±LISTED ELEVATIONS 0 05 ±CONTOURS 907 OF CONTOURS ACCURATE TO
WITHIN 05107 OF CONTOURS ACCURATE TOWITHIN 1 0
VOC CONCENTRATIONS ARE THE HIGHEST REPORTEDAT THAT SPECIFIC LOCATION
SCALE IN FEET
TETRA TECH NUS INC
LOCATIONS OFCONTAMINATED VOC SOILS
VALMONT TCE SITEHAZLE TOWNSHIP AND WEST HAZLETON BOROUGH
LUZERNE COUNTY PA
RLE NAME 5061kp10dwgLDL PHL
FIGURE NUMBER
FIGURE 2-1
SCALEAS NOTED
REV DATE
11/12/02
&
APPENDIX E-4
CALCULATIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE 3B
Tetra Tech NUS STANDARD CALCULATIONSHEET
CLIENT EPA Region 3 FILE No N5061
SUBJECT Valmont TCE Site Alternative 3B SVE
BY JWL
CHECKED BY
PAGE1of4
DATE 11/25/02
Purpose Describe SVE design approach and provide a conceptual design of the mam SVEt omponents for Alternative 3B
Introduction Alternative 3B includes SVE for Zone B and excavation for Zones A C and D1 he excavation calculations are in a subsequent calculation
1 he permeability data for the soils at the site show that soil consists of clay/silt clayey sand andeandy silt SVE cannot be efficiently applied to these types of soils because of high pressurelosses through the soil and the resulting low radius of influence This results in relatively low airflow rates per well and thus increases the time for VOC removal
1 he Continental White Cap (CWC) facility across the street has an SVE system to recover>ylenes This system has operated for several years and a 1 994 report suggests an ROI of morethan 15 feet but there is little information about the soils However it is likely that the soils atC WC are similar to Valmont Also a paper about an SVE system in a clayey formation atSacramento Army Base (SAAD) shows successful operation and implies ROIs of about 7 feet1 herefore based on the observed operations at CWC it was assumed that an ROI of 10 feetcould be attained at the site It was further assumed that conditions under the building (Zone B)v/ould be dner and the presence of the floor slab would be somewhat more favorable to SVE soan ROI of 15 was assumed for Zone B
1 he USEPA Hyperventilate program was used to estimate air flow rates An input to the programi > air permeability An air permeability of 0 05 darcies (1 cm = 108 darcies) was asc umed as thisvalue represents severe conditions indicated by the geotechnical data For Zone B a slightlymore liberal value of 0 1 darcies was assumed
Assumptions
S VE extraction wells will be 4 inches diameter (radius = 2 )
The available vacuum will be limited to about 120 inches of water requmng a conventional lobeblower
Number of pore volumes to meet PRGs is 600 This is a mid range value cited in the COE SVEManual (1995) p 5 3 This also appears to be consistent with the SAAD results which attainedF RGs in 6 months
Using the Hyperventilate program (output attached) the air flow rate for one well at 120 inchesvacuum 12 feet deep and ROI of 15 feet
Q (well) = 1 5 scfm
The pore volume for the cylinder of soil affected by the well based on a porosity of 0 37 per thegeotechnical data elsewhere in this report is
= Pi x ROI2 x h x (porosity)
Tetra Tech NUS STANDARD CALCULATIONSHEET
CLIENT EPA Region 3 FILE No N5061
SUBJECT Valmont TCE Site Alternative 3B SVE
BY JWL
CHECKED BY"A- 'fntfi
PAGE2 of 4
DATE 11/25/02
Vpore = pi x (15 feet)2 x 12 feet x (0 37)
Vpore = 3 138 Ft3
The number of pore volumes needed to remove the VOCs has been assumed to be 600Therefore the air volume VT required is
VT = V^ x 600
VT = 3138Ft3x600
VT = 1 883 000 Ft3
At a flow rate of 1 5 scfm the time for treatment t is
t = VT/ Q (well)
t = 1 883 000 Ft3 /1 5 scfm x year/365 day x day/ 24 hour x hour/ 60 minute
t = 2 4 years
For the purposes of the estimate use 2 5 years
Estimate the number of extraction wells The area of influence AOI of each well is
AOI = pi x ROI2
AOI = pix152 = 707Ft2
From the general calculations the Area of Zone B is 14 200 Ft2 The number of wells is
Number of SVE wells = Total Area/ AOI = 14 200 Ft2 /707 Ft2 = 21
Because of the density of wells and the paved surface passive vent wells are needed to allow airflow in the interior portion of the treatment area About 1 vent well is needed for every three SVEwells
Number of vent wells = number of SVE wells/3 = 21/3 = 7
The total air flow rate is the product of the number of SVE wells and Q (well) plus a 25% safetyfactor
QT scfm = Q (well) x (number of SVE wells) x 1 25
QT scfm = 15 scfm x 21 x 1 25 = 40 scfm
Tetra Tech NUS STANDARD CALCULATIONSHEET
CLIENT EPA Region 3 FILE No N5061
SUBJECT Valmont TCE Site Alternative 3B SVE
BY JWL
CHECKED BYxf/V »Mt>i
PAGE3 of 4
DATE 11/25/02
From a Roots Blower catalogue a Roots 33J can provide this flow at 12 inches of Hg (160 incheswater) with a 5 hp motor See Alternative 2 for equipment information
General piping size
For the mam header allow a loss of 10 inches of water (0 74 inches Hg) The estimated length ofthe mam header will be 250 feet According to the Spencer Blower line loss chart a pipediameter of 2 inches will meet this For estimating purposes however use 4 inches Individuallines from the mam header to each well are assumed to be 2 inches m diameter
Moisture Separator
Assume a 5 second residence time
V = (residence time sec) x QT scfm x mm/60 sec
V = 5 sec x 40 scfm x mm/60 sec = 3 3 ft3 = 24 6 gallons say 25 gallons
Estimate water removed per day
System will be indoors so temperature fluctuations will not be significant For sizing purposesassume that saturated air at 70 F is cooled to 60 F Assume an air density of 0 075 Ib/Ft3
From Perry's handbook 5th edition p 12 4 (psychometric chart)
70 F saturated - 0 0157 Ib water /Ib dry air60 F saturated - 0 0115 Ib water /Ib dry air
Total flow rate is 51 =91 scfm
Mass of water per day
M = 40 scfm x 1440 mm/day x 0 075 Ib air/ft3 air x (0 0157 - 0 011 (>) Ib watt r/lb air
M = 18 Ib/day = 22 gallons/day
Size a tank for one month storage for offsite disposal
V water tank = 30 x 2 2 gall/day = 66 gallons
Therefore use a 100 gallon tank
Vapor Phase Carbon system
There will be one GAC system serving Zone B
Tetra Tech NUS STANDARD CALCULATIONSHEET
CLIENT EPA Region 3 FILE No N5061
SUBJECT Valmont TCE Site Alternative 3B SVE
BY JWL
CHECKED BYJ/V if/7j,/«-
PAGE4 of 4
DATE 11/25/02
Zone
B
Vol ft3
106500
Soil masskg5 400 000
TCE ug/kg(average)
30
TCE Ib(average)
04
DCE ug/kg(average)
3
DCE Ib(average)
004
Where
Soil mass kg = Vol ft3 x cy/27 ft3 x 1 5 ton/cy x 2 000 Ib/ton x 0 454kg/lb
TCE (or DCE) mass lb = soil mass kg x concentration ug/kg x lb/(454 x 106)ug
From NFESC chart for vapor phase GAC loading at low concentrations
TCE-199lb/100lbGAC
Cis 1 2 DCE - 6 9 lb/100 Ib GAC
A Calgon publication notes that TCE loading under dilute conditions is about 5 lb/100 Ib GACtherefore a safety factor of 19 9/5 = 4 will be applied
Mass to be adsorbed per table above
TCE-04lb
DCE-004lb
GAC needed
TCE - 0 4 x 100 Ib GAC/19 9 Ib TCEDCE - 04 x 100 Ib GAC/6 9 Ib DCE
Total
Apply a 4X factor - 2 6 x 4
Allow 10% more for other compounds 11x10
206
26lb
10 Ib
11 Ib
Specify two Carbonair GPC 3 85 (or equal) with 250 Ib GAC per unit and rated for 36 to 360scfm
See Alternative 2 for equipment information
<ft
Tetra Tech NUS STANDARD CALCULATIONSHEET
CLIENT EPA Region 3 FILE No N5061
SUBJECT Valmont TCE Site - Alternative 3B Excavation
BY JWL
CHECKED BY
Sfi "/n/k-
PAGE1 of 2
DATE 11/25/02
Purpose Calculate volumes of matenal to be excavated
In Alternative 3B Zones A C and D are excavated for on site treatment and re use disposalfrom the general calculations the volumes are as follows
lone A
Per the general calculations the area is
40 feetx 100 feet = 4 000 ft2
Depth of contamination is 3 feet
Volume
V = 4 000 ft2 x 3 feet = 12 000 ft3
V = 12 000 ft3 / 27 ft3/yd3 = 444 yd3
/one C
Per the general calculations
Area C = 19 300 ft2
c>0 % of the depth of contamination is 3 feet bgs the balance is 10 feet bgs
Volume
V = 19 300 ft2 x 3 feet x 9 + 19 300 ft2 x 10 feet x 1 = 71 400 ft3
V = 71 400 ft3 / 27 ft3/yd3 = 2 600 yd3
2one_D
Per the general calculations the area is
40 feet x 80 feet = 3 200 ft2
Depth of contamination is 9 5 feet
Volume
V = 3 200 ft2 x 9 5 feet = 30 400 ft3
V = 30 400 ft3 / 27 ft3/yd3 = 1 125 yd3
Iff8Tetra Tech NUS STANDARD CALCULATION
SHEETCLIENT EPA Region 3 FILE No N5061
SUBJECT Valmont TCE Site - Alternative 3B Excavation
BY JWL
CHECKED BY
Jf* '//*</&'
PAGE2 of 2
DATE 11/25/02
Estimate the time for treatment
For soil with high content of fines the throughput for an LTTD is much lower compared toprocessing a sandy soil The estimated throughput is 7 tons per hour per RemediationTechnologies Screening Matrix Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable www frtr gov Itis also assumed that the unit would operate about 10 hours per day
Mass of soil assuming 1 5 tons/cubic yard
(444 + 2 600 + 1 125) x 1 5 ton/cy = 6 253 tons
Time to complete
6 253 tons x hour/7 ton x day/10 hour = 89 days
At 5 operating days per week
89 days x week/5 day x month/4 weeks = 45 months
APPENDIX E-5
CALCULATIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE 4
CONCEPTUAL ENGINEERING REPORTFOR
REMOVAL OF VOC-CONTAMINATED SOILSFOR
VALMONT TCE SITE(CHROMATEX NO 2)
PREPARED FOR
TETRA TECH NUS, INC600 Clark Avenue - Suite 3
King of Prussia, PA 19406-1433
JULY 2003
benesch PROJECT NO 849900
Prepared By
alfred benesch & companyEngineers • Planners • Surveyors400 One Norwegian Plaza Pottsville PA 17901Phone 570 622 4055 Fax 570 622 1232
Allentown PA Chicago IL Kenosha WI Lansing Ml
Nalf red benesch & company
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONCEPTUAL ENGINEERING REPORT FOR VOC-CONTAMINATED SOILSFOR
VALMONT TCE SITE
PURPOSE OF REPORT 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1
BOCA REQUIREMENTS/LOADING SCENARIO 2
RES ULTS OF THE EVALUATION 2
SUMMARY 4
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
APPENDIX - Information on Similar Project by Hayward Baker
•
Scope-of-Work
.
"7*alf red benesch & company
PURPOSE OF REPORT
The purpose of this report is to outline the results of alf red benesch & company's
conceptual investigation of the existing building elements located in the northeast corner of the
building of the Valmont TCE site The area under investigation has been contaminated by TCE
(Tnchoroethyle) that has percolated into the soil beneath the building floor slab At the request
of Tetra Tech NUS, Inc , an investigation into the feasibility of removing the contaminated soil
while still maintaining the building integrity was conducted The limit of contaminated soil was
determined by Tetra Tech NUS Inc Possible solutions to construction options will be presented
with tliis report
The analysis parameters used for this report incorpoi ate data and methods based on those
of the American Concrete Institute (ACI), American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Steel
Construction Manual, and the Building Officials & Code Administrators (BOCA) National
Building Code and are based on sound engineering judgment and principles
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is located in Valmont Industrial Park, West Ha2leton, Luzerne
County, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
The existing structure is composed of steel, concrete and masonry elements The
northeast part of the building being investigated is believed to have been built during the 1960's
as the original warehouse and was later added onto about 1976 Blueprints or plans were not
available for the original warehouse The building appears to be well maintained for its use
with no major defects observed The original use for this section of the plant Wcis warehousing
and/or processing From data obtained from borings and geotechnical investigation performed by
Tetra 1 ech NUS Inc the existing floor is a slab on grade There is an appro* imate ten-foot
(10') layer of soil between the slab and bedrock The warehouse consists of a floor plan having
bays b< tween steel columns of approximately 30'-0" x 50'-0" Construction joints around each
column indicate that their footings are largely independent of the floor slabs Columns exist
along the exterior walls indicating that the entire load from the roof and ceiling are borne by the
alf red benesch & companycolumns and its footings and the exterior walls could be ignored dunng any gravity load
investigation The roof deck is supported by bar joists, 32"± deep, spanning in the 50' direction
These bar joist in turn rest on steel girders spanning between the columns in the short direction
(30'-0")
BOCA REQUIREMENTS/LOADING SCENARIO
The BOCA Code was used to determine the loads used in the structural evaluation It
was assumed soil removal could happen at any time dunng the year, therefore a snow load was
considered for the loading scenano BOCA defines the site area as a 'Site-specific case study" in
regard to ground snow loads This means that with the mountainous and irregular topography
associated with the area snow loads can vary tremendously over short distances For our initial
evaluation a ground snow load of 30 pounds per square foot (psf) was considered, since this
region is neighbored by regions with 30 psf Past expenence also shows 30 psf to be the most
likely used ground snow load in the onginal design of the warehouse A ground snow load of 50
psf was used based on more recent expenence from roof evaluations following the blizzards and
unusually snowy winters of the early-to mid 1990's Also the nearby city of Wilkes-Barre
Pennsylvania mandates a 50 psf minimum ground snow load in their local junsdiction A
ground snow load translates to a roof snow load of 35 psf
Based on the existing conditions a dead load of 15 psf was used for the roof structure and
an additional 10 psf was used for miscellaneous dead loads The design load for each column
was 60 psf
For the floor replacement, BOCA requires heavy storage facilities to be designed for 250
uniform load
RESULTS OF THE EVALUATION
Based upon the existing conditions dnlled caissons were first evaluated for this
application However upon further review it was determined that the constructabihty of the
necessary size caisson would not be feasible for this application because of the limited overhead
height of 17' Upon further investigation and conversations with Hayward Baker, Inc, it was
determined that the use of four (4) seven inch (7") micro piles at each column would provide the
alf red benesch & company
necess uy beanng support for this application However based on the existing size of the
footings, which are assumed to be four foot (4') by four foot (41) by 12" deep, it was determined
that a larger and thicker footing size would be needed To accommodate the lar£ er footing size
the girders would be jacked on each side to relieve the column of load The column may require
removcil to accommodate micro pile dnlling The micro piles would be dnven < ight (8) to ten
feet (10') into bedrock Upon reaching the eight (8) to ten-foot (10') mark in the bedrock, the
piles v» ould be left long and be cut later to elevation by the concrete contractor The concrete
contractor would fill the piles with concrete A new footing 5' x 5' x 18" would be placed on the
micro piles to act as a pile cap and the column would b( reinstalled if it was removed (the
adequacy of the 5' x 5' x 18" footing would have to be venfi* d at a later engmeenng phase) The
jacking apparatus for the column would then be removed After all the columns are reset the slab
removal and soil excavation can commence However spe< lal care must be made to avoid any
contact with the piles during excavation that would create lateral buckling
The area of contaminated soil beneath the CMU walls on strip footings will have to be
supported by what is referred to as the Atlas Resistance Pier by Hayward Bakei or equivalent
system This system consists of dnving micro piles every four (4) to five foot (5') on center
along tlie wall down into bedrock Once the piles are embedded into the bedrock, a bracket is
attached to the side of the pile and then slipped under the existing stnp footing This application
will support the stnp footing and wall while the contaminated soil is removed from beneath it
Once the contaminated soil is removed new backfill stone or flowable fill can be placed After
the pla( ement of backfill the pile and bracket may stay in place if the contractor so desires This
application is more efficient and less costly than pressure giouting the soil beneath the ten-inch
(10") CMU walls
Upon the completion of all the contaminated soil removal, new backfill placement and a
new slab on grade designed for a 250 pound per square foot uniform load would be constructed
alf red benesch & company
SUMMARY
The conceptual study for the proposed soil removal has determined that this building is
structurally capable of handling this type construction procedure for the soil removal process
Contaminated soil can be removed to bedrock or to a minimum depth of three feet (3") where
necessary The estimated cost for the structural support, soil removal, and construction to return
the building to onginal condition, not including the environmental costs, is approximately
$900 000 00, see attached estimate
If a larger soil area of removal is required the same methods as outlined above can be
implemented for additional costs
Upon request, alfred benesch & company will be available to provide additional
consulting engmeenng services including additional site investigation more detailed analysis
and design for construction, and assistance with the construction process and methods by
Contractor
alf red benesch & company
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
1 1
LfebeneschI
.,
, / i ''"As~*> t1 " j i m 4+r*^
Cnmp hy <o n J na,fi ^ / 3Q [03 Sheet 1 nt il*
Phkri hy '^^~ "ale V/"i /^ .5 lob Nn 8 V9/ <^£?
Project \lQ\YV\Or\4- i C-C ^ IT* 5"cfl't ' = 25
Element
©— 3 \W C2
(D*
0
©I;
£
(3 X
(2
fV
IP beneschHomp by
nhkrt by
Project C
Element ^
U Ox) Date
C r> Date
Jlfbrrta-fa* &C
dlumrJ / r / "4 Ai '(7 '
7III&3 Rhpe, Z- of T
<-\ l\ }{j~\ , u K, (?4<? # <T2>' / ' .lob No JTT7 7 /U*-"
» i
^/cro /0j /€£>r
/J/10 k1
«k
AV.
^ %*
rn
_
_>_. rn]<^"Be>TT<-e sr/^e-tL x
teWSTALLeb ^^ L £ _
/
\ , 1/
/I
"
' ' VA.
f%t
//"/
\\j
}/ vv, /y
• ^7 iw<?l ^ $ - 10 '
-L
fbenesch
-
Homp hy
r,hkd hy
Project
Element
b^-
rfisSin 4C/1 /EYV-ia I
Wall t
na,, ik /<2S
^/3/<??
W fl>* E.
"2 *'S'flt,Sheet V of (T^sf
.lr,h No O^f 9« O
COMPBY GAS DATE 7/3/2003
HC/WP BY f^Pj DATE *7/"3/03^^ ^
PROJECT Valmont TCE Site
beneschalfred b«o*sch & companyEngineers Surveyors Planners
SUBJECT Cost Estimate
Micropile Support System 9 Columns @ $10 000 per column =
Atlas Resistance Pier (1 pile every 4 along 200 of Strip Footing / Wall) @$2000 Ea =
Jacking Apparatus (Material) 3 units will be utilized 2500 per unit =
Jacking Appar atus (Setup & removal)
Support Electrical Panel from Ceiling
Remove Block Walls
Excavation 5000 CV @
(Does not include any requirements /
2000 per setup =
25 per CY =
surcharges for contaminated soil)
Embankment 5000 CY@ 15 per CY =
upColumn Footings (9 5 x 5 x 18 with High Early Strength Concrete) @ $600/CY =
Slab on Grade 27000 SF with a 6 Slab
Sub Surface Drainage Replacement (Allowance)
= 500 CY @ $350/CY =
Sub Total257 Contingency
Total Construction Cost
Engineering (15% of Construction)
Total Project Cost
SHEET 4 OF 4
JOB NO 849900
$90000
$100000
$7500
$18000
$2000
$5000
$125 000
$75000
$7500
$175000
$25000
f 630 000$157500
f 787 500
$118 125
$905 625
Note The Total Project Cost does not include environmental services surcharge for
lipping fees building ventilation or other environmental measures
t,• t
APPENDIX
MinipilesIndustrial FacilityCentral Kentucky
«
one story industrial facility in central Kentucky
was constructed on shallow spread footings bear
in,? on naturally occurring cohesive soils
Sandstone bedrock elevation varied from 8 to 15 ft beneath
the slab on grade Over time industnal solvents had conta
minated the soil beneath approximately one quarter of the
500 000 ft2 building The contaminated matenal was to be
removed down to bedrock and replaced with clean fill
However 21 interior lightly loaded columns would have to
be supported pnor to soil removal Portions of the building
were still occupied by the owner therefore the length of
remediation time was a major concern
The original temporary support scheme consisted of
dnlling mtc bedrock and grouting four small rectangular
steel tube columns in place around the existing footing As
the excavation of matenal progressed steel framing would
be welded to these steel columns to provide lateral
restraint All of this work would be peformed with theappropnate personal protection restncting production and
adding time Once the contaminated soil was completely
removed the area enclosed by the structural steel frame
beneath thi existing footings would be backfilled by
crushed stone or flowable fill as the soil backfill was
replaced TCDI A Division of Hayward Baker proposed
a value enj meered underpinning alternative to perma
nently suppart each column with mimpiles This one step
solution saved both time and money for the owner
Right top Exposed originalspread footing and newly
installed mimpiles
Right Completed newreinforced concrete pile cap
surrounding the originalfooting and new mimpiles
Underpinning Design
Although column loads were very light TCDI/Hayward
Baker elected to install four 5 > inch diameter rock
socketed mimpiles per column to ensure stability and
provide a safety cushion against damage during soil
excavation The mimpiles were ev iluated for an unbraced
length up to 15 ft and determined to be more than adequate
to prevent buckling in the temporanly exposed condition
Industrial Facility, continued
Removal of the contaminated soilsin preparation for backfilling with
clean fill exposed the new mimpileload transfer systems
Production WorkThe floor slab was removed around the vicinity of each
footing to allow access for mimpile installation Care was
taken to ensure that contaminated soil particles were not
released into the atmosphere Water rather than air was used
as the flushing medium and the waste water was pumped to
a decontamination unit for treatment
The mimpiles were installed 12 to 18 inches from the
edges of the existing footings using rotary dnllmg tech
niques Casing was advanced through the overburden and
socketed five ft into rock The casing was tremie filled
with 5 000 psi cement grout to complete the mimpile
Existing column loads were transferred to the mimpiles via
a new reinforced concrete pile cap which surrounded the
onginal spread footing and the four new mimpiles Epoxy
dowel bars were used to connect the onginal footing to the
new pile cap
Post Construction PerformanceAfter completion of the underpinning work a remediation
contractor removed the contaminated soil and backfilled
the area with clean fill then placed a new slab-on grade
No settlement or movement of the mimpiles occurred
APPENDIX F
REMOVAL ALTERNATIVE COSTS
€
APPENDIX F-1
COST ESTIMATE FOR ALTERNATIVE 2
11/26/2002 11 17AM
VALMONT TCE SITEHazle Township and West Hazleton Borough
uas a Cu ly FBI lliyivdl idAlternative 2 Excavate Accessible/Isolated Areas In Situ Treat Other AreasCapital Cost
1 Item Q1 PROJECT DOCUMENTS/INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
1 1 Prepare Documents & Rans including Permits2 MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION AND FIELD SUPPORT
2 1 Office Trailer (2)2 2 Field Office Support2 3 Storage Trailer (1)2 4 Utility Connection/Disconnection (phone/electric)2 5 Construction Survey2 6 Equipment Mobilization/Demobilization2 7 Drill Rig Mob/Demob2 8 Site Utilities2 9 Professional Oversight (5p 5 days/week)
3 DECONTAMINATION3 1 Decontamination Trailer3 2 Pressure Washer3 3 Equipment Decon Pad3 4 Decon Water3 5 Decon Water Storage Tank 6 000 gallon3 6 Clean Water Storage Tank 4 000 gallon3 7 PPE (5 p 5 days 13 weeks)3 8 Disposal of Decon Waste (liquid & solid)
4 SVE PILOT TESTING41 Ran4 2 Field Work4 3 Drill Rig Mob/Demob44 Install Test Wells 4 Dia 5 @ 10 deep4 5 Install Test Vapor Extraction Wells Development4 6 Collect/Containerize IDW4 7 Transport/Dispose IDW Off Site4 8 Supplies
5 VAPOR EXTRACTION WELLS AND PIPING ZONEB5 1 Install Vapor Extraction WellsS 2 Install Vapor Extraction Wells Development5 3 Core Drilling 6 Diameter Reinforced Concrete Slabb 4 CoiiecvConiamerize IDW5 5 Transport/Dispose IDW Off Site5 6 4 PVC Mam Headers5 7 Piping 2 PVC from header to each well^ H n a' fta ige. war m
5 9 Rpe Valves 4 PVC Rastic Ball5 10 Pipe Valves 2 PVC Rastic Ball
6 VENT WELLS ZONEB6 1 Install Vent Wells 4 Dia6 2 Install Vent Wells Development6 3 Core Drilling 6 Diameter Reinforced Concrete Slab6 4 Collect/Containerize IDW6 5 Transport/Dispose IDW Off Site
jantity Unit) Subcontract
200 hr
4 mo $350 004 mo4 mo $103 001 IS $1 500 001 Is $3 000 004 ea1 Is $1 500 004 mo $1 000 00
17 mwk
4 mo $2 350 004 mo $1 050 001 Is
3 000 gal3 mo $600 003 mo $540 00
325 day3 mo $900 00
80 hr240 hr
1 Is $1 500 0050 Vlf $27 0010 well $75001 drum $50 001 drum $150001 Is $12 000 00
210 Vlf $270021 well $75 0021 ea21 arum $so oo21 drum $15000
400 ft325 n91 oa
4 ea21 ea
84 If $27 007 well $75 007 ea7 drum $50 007 drum $15000
Unit Cost IMaterial Labor Equipment!
$13900
$50000$020
$31 67
$860
$497$228
«21 f>n$355 00$109 00
$860
$3000
$10000 $35200
$4 000 00
$45000 $15500
$3000$21 00
$31 00 $6 65
$311$228to n£
$2600$1690
$31 00 $6 65
Subcontract
$0
$1 400$0
$412$1 500$3000
$0$1 500$4000
$0
$9400$4200
$0$0
$1800$1 620
$0$2700
$0$0
$1 500$1 350
$750$50
$150$12000
$5670$1 575
$0$1 050$3150
$0$0$"$0$0
$2268$525
$0$350
$1 050
Total CostMaterial Labor
$0
$0$556
$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
$0$0
$500$600
$0$0
$10293$0
$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
$0$0
$181$0$0
$1988$741cVI-T-r
$1 420$2289
$0$0
$60$0$0
$6000
$0$0$0$0$0
$400$0$0
$68 800
$0$0
$450$0$0$0$0$0
$2400$5040
$0$0$0$0$0$0
$0$0
$651$0$0
$1244$741« on
$104$355
$0$0
$217$0$0
Equipment!
$0
$0$0$0$0$0
$1 408$0$0$0
$0$0
$155$0$0$0$0$0
$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
$0$0
$140$0$0$0$0*nV
$0$0
$0$0
$47$0$0
Total Direct!Cost)
$6000
$1 400$556$412
$1 500$3000$1 808$1 500$4000
$68 800
$9400$4200$1 105
$600$1800$1 620
$10293$2700
$2400$5040$1500$1350
$750$50
$150$12000
$5670$1 575
$971$1 050$3150$3232$1 482
$5-$1 524$2644
$2268$525$324$350
$1 050
riley\Valmont\Alt 2\capcost Page 1 of 8,,
11/26/200211 17AM
VALMONT TCE SITEHazle Township and West Hazleton BoroughLuzerne County PennsylvaniaAlternative 2 Excavate Accessible/Isolated Areas In Situ Treat Other AreasCapital Cost
| Item Q7 VAPOR EXTRACTION WELLS AND PIPING ZONEC
7 1 Install Vapor Extraction Wells7 2 Install Vapor Extraction Wells Development7 3 Collect/Containerize IDW7 4 Transport/Dispose IDW Off Site7 5 4 PVC Mam Headers Buried7 6 Piping Trench/Backfill 2 5 deep7 7 Rpe Bedding7 8 4 PVC Mam Headers7 9 Rpmg 2 PVC from header to each well
710 Install Well Boxes711 Dial Gauges vacuum7 12 Pipe Valves 4 PVC Rastic Ball7 13 Pipe Valves 2 PVC Plastic Ball
8 VENT WELLS ZONEC81 Install Vent Wells 4 Diaa 2 Install Vent Wells Development8 3 Collect/Containerize IDW8 4 Transport/Dispose IDW Off Site
9 VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM INSTALLATION91 Vacuum/Blower with Motor 40 scfm 12 Hg ZoneB9 2 Vacuum/Blower with Motor 50 scfm 12 Hg Zone C9 3 Moisture Separation Tank 60 gallon9 4 Water Storage Tank 200 gal9 5 GAC Unit9 6 Plumb/Electrify System9 7 System Start up Test
10 FENCING101 Fencing Cham Link 8 High
1 1 ZONE A SOIL EXCAVATION AND DISPOSAL11 1 Backhoe w/Operator & Labor 1 1/2cy(444cy)112 Verification Sampling of Excavation (VOC)113 Transportation for Disposal (15 cy & 130 miles/trip)1 1 4 Disposal non hazardous (1 5 tons/cy)115 Waste Characterization Testing (TCLP)11 6 Import Fill1 1 7 Place/Grade/Compact Soil118 Replace Pavement (stone/pavement)
12 ZONE D SOIL EXCAVATION AND DISPOSAL12 1 Backhoe w/Operator & Labor 1 1/2 cy (1 125 cy)12 2 Building Shoring123 Verification Sampling of Excavation (VOC)12 4 Transportation for Disposal (15 cy & 130 miles/trip)12 5 Disposal non hazardous (1 5 tons/cy)12 6 Waste Characterization Testing (TCLP)12 7 Import Fill128 Race/Grade/Compact Soil
uantity Unit] Subcontract
290 Vlf $27 0058 well $75 0058 drum $50 0058 drum $150 00
150 ft150 If150 If860 n580 ft58 ea $480 0058 ea6 ea
58 ea
240 If $27 0020 well $75 0020 drum $50 0020 drum $15000
1 ea1 ea2 ea1 ea2 ea2 Is2 Is
800 If
4 day5 ea $247 so
3 900 mile $4 00666 ton $65 00
1 ea $800 00370 cy
2 day4 000 Sf $1 27
8 day25 mbf
5 ea $247 509 750 mile $4 001 688 ton $65 00
3 ea $800 001 065 cy
4 day
Unit CostMaterial Labor
$497
$026$497$228
$2100$355 00$109 00
$3 625 00$3 850 00
$37000$935 00
$1 250 00$4 500 00$3 000 00
$492
$2000
$2000$750
$850 00$2000
$2000$750
$311$025$033$311$228
$905$2600$1690
$328 60$32860
$2600$4300
$425 00$392000$2 800 00
$750
$705 00$5000
$5000
$432 60
$70500$520 00$5000
$5000
$432 60
Equipment
$021$012
$472 00$2000
$2000
$432 20
$472 00$7050$2000
$2000
$432 20
Subcontract
$7830$4350$2900$8700
$0$0$0$0$0
$27 840$0$0$0
$6480$1 500$1 000$3000
$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
$0
$0$1 238
$15600$43290
$800$0$0
$5080
$0$0
$1238$39 000
$109720$2400
$0$0
Total CostMaterial
$0$0$0$0
$746$0
$39$4274$1322
$0$1 218$2130$6322
$0$0$0$0
$3625$3850
$740$935
$2500$9000$6000
$3936
$0$100
$0$0
$20$2775
$0$0
$0$2125
$100$0$0
$60$7988
$0
Labor
$0$0$0$0
$467$38$50
$2675$1 322
$0$525$156$980
$0$0$0$0
$329$329$52$43
$850$7840$5600
$6000
$2820$250
$0$0
$50$0
$865$0
$5640$1 300
$250$0$0
$150$0
$1730
Equipment!
$0$0$0$0$0
$32$18$0$0$0$0$0$0
$0$0$0$0
$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
$0
$1 888$100
$0$0
$20$0
$864$0
$3776$176$100
$0$0
$60$0
$1 729
Total Direct]Coslj
$7830$4350$2900$8700$1212
$69$107
$6949$2645
$27 840$1743$2286$7302
$6480$1 500$1 000$3000
$3954$4 179
$792$978
$3350$16840$11 600
$9936
$4708$1 688
$15600$43 290
$890$2775$1730$5080
$9416$3601$1688
$39 000$109720
$2670$7988$3459
nlev\Valmont\Alt 2\capcost Page 2 of 8
11/26/200211 17AM
VALMONT TCE SITEHazle Township and West Hazleton BoroughI 7A rm f~*n tw Pa n ulua __Alternative 2 Excavate Accessible/Isolated Areas In Situ Treat Other AreasCapital Cost
I Item Quantity Unit Subc129 Import Topsoil 6 thick 60 cy
12 10 Revegetation 356 sy
Subtotal
Local Area Adjustments
Subtotal
Total Direct Cost
Subtotal
Total Field Cost
Overhead on Labor Cost @ 30 /G & A on Labor Cost @ 107
G & A on Material Cost @ 10 /G & A on Subcontract Cost @ 10 /
Unit Costontract Material Labor Equipment Subcontract
$10 00 $0$026 $119 $018 $0
$344 935
10007
$344 935
$34 494
$379 429
Total CostMaterial Labor
$600$93
$79 566
9907
$78 770
$7877
$86 647
$0$424
$127325
9907
$126052
$37816$12605
$176472
Indirects on Total Direct Cost @ 307 (excluding Transportation and Disposal Costs)Profit on Total Direct Cost 9 10 7
Health & Safety Monitoring @ 2°7
Contingency on Total Field Cost @ 20 7E g nee ing on Total Fieid Cusi @ iO /
J Total Direct!Cos]
$0 $600$64 $580
$10576 $562402
9907
$10 470 $560 227
$37 816$12605$7877
$34 494
$10470 $653018
$130 608$65 302
$848 928
$16 979
$865 906
$173181$86 591
TOTAL COST $1 125 678
nley\Valmont\Alt 2\capcost Page 3 of 8 ,.
11/26/200211 17AM
VALMONT TCE SfTEHazle Township and West Hazleton BoroughLuzerne County PennsylvaniaAlternative 2 Excavate Accessible/Isolated Areas In Situ Treat Other AreasCapital Cost System Removal and Site Restoration
t%
| Item Quantity Unit Subc1 PROJECT DOCUMENTS/INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
1 1 Prepare Documents & Plans including Permits 200 hr2 MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION AND FIELD SUPPORT
Unit Costontract Material Labor Equipment Subcontract
$3000 $0
2 1 Office Trailer (2) 2 mo $350 00 $7002 2 Field Office Support 1 mo $13900 $02 3 Storage Trailer (1) 1 mo $10500 $1052 4 Utility Connection/Disconnection (phone/electric) 1 Is $1 500 00 $1 5002 5 Equipment Mobilization/Demobilization 2 ea $10000 $35200 $02 6 Site Utilities 1 mo $1 000 00 $1 0002 7 Professional Oversight (2p 5 days/week) 4 mwk
3 WELLS AND PIPING REMOVAL & RESTORATION$1 600 00 $0
3 1 Drill Rig Mob/Demob 1 Is $1 500 00 $1 5003 2 Abandon Vent Wells 324 vlf $1000 $32403 3 Abandon Vapor Extraction Wells 500 vlf $1000 $50003 4 Backhoe with labor 80hp 3 day3 5 Pavement/Piping/Soil Disposal (up to 5 miles) 200 cy3 6 Pavement Replacement 37 500 sf
4 VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEMS REMOVAL & RESTORATION4 1 Cham Link Fence 800 If4 2 Blower/Motor and Controls 2 ea4 3 Water Storage Tank 2 ea4 4 Vacuum Blower 2 ea4 5 Moisture Separation Tank 2 ea4 6 Floor Repair 28 ea
Subtotal
Local Area Adjustments
Subtotal
Overhead on Labor Cost @ 30 7Q & A on Labor Cost © 10 7
G & A on Material Cost © 10 7G & A on Subcontract Cost @ 10 7
Total Direct Cost
Indirect on Total Direct Cost @ 25 7Profit on Total Direct Cost @ 10 7
Subtotal
Health & Safety Monitoring @ 0 7
Total Field Cost
$66920 $21560 $0$2 95 $7 50 $0
$1 27 $47 625
$1 38 $0 40 $0$500 00 $200 00 $0$150 00 $50 00 $0$15000 $5000 $0$15000 $5000 $0
$24 00 $50 00 $0
$60 670
10007
$60 670
$6067
$66 737
Total CostMaterial Labor
$0
$0$139
$0$0$0$0$0
$0$0$0$0$0$0
$0$0$0$0$0
$672
$811
9907
$803
$80
$883
$6000
$0$0$0$0
$200$0
$6400
$0$0$0
$2008$590
$0
$1 104$1 000
$300$300$300
$1400
$19602
9907
$19406
$5822$1941
$27168
Equipment!
$0
$0$0$0$0
$704$0$0
$0$0$0
$647$1 500
$0
$320$400$100$100$100
$0
$3871
9907
$3832
$3832
Total Direct!Cost]
$6000
$700$139$105
$1 500$904
$1 000$6400
$1 500$3240$5000$2654$2090
$47 625
$1 424$1 400
$400$400$400
$2072
$84953
$84711
$5822$1941
$80$6067
$98620
$24 655$9862
$133 137
$0
$133 137
rileyWalmontAlt 2\capcost (2) Page 4 of 8
11/26/200211 17AM
VALMONT TCE SITEHazle Township and West Hazleton BoroughLuzerne oounty PennsylvaniaAlternative 2 Excavate Accessible/isolated Areas In Situ Treat Other AreasCapital Cost System Removal and Site Restoration
| Item Quantity) Unit SubcontractUnit Cost
Material Labor Equipment] SubcontractTotal Cost
Material Labor Equipment!Total Direct!
Cost!
Contingency on Total Field Cost @ 10 7Engineering on Total Field Cost @ 5 7
$13314$6657
TOTAL COST (Removal & Restoration) $153 108
rileyWalmontAlt 2\capcost (2) Page 5 of 8
11/26/200211 17AM
VALMONT TCE SITEHazle Township and West Hazleton BoroughLuzerne County, PennsylvaniaAlternative 2 Excavate Accessible/Isolated Areas, In Situ Treat Other AreasOperation and Maintenance Costs per Year
|| Item Qty UnitUnit
CostSubtotal
CostI]
Notes I
1 Energy Electric2 Equipment Maintenance3 Labor Mobilization/Demobilization Per Diem Supplies4 Quarterly Reports
Cost for One Year Operation(for third year use 1/2 amount)
66000 kWh $006 $39601 Is $357649 $3576 5% of Installation Cost
52 wk $92500 $48100 1 visit per week 1 day4 ea $400000 $16000
$71 636
riley\Valmont\Alt 2\op&mamt Page 6 of 8
11/26/200211 17AM
VALMONT TCE SITEHazle Township and West Hazleton BoroughLuzerne County PennsylvaniaAlternative 2 Excavate Accessible/Isolated Areas In Situ Treat Other AreasAnnual Sampling Cost
I| Item
sampling &Analysis Air (1)
bampimg &Analysis Air (2)
Reporting
TOTALS
Cost
Year!
$17000
$21 675
$38 675
Cost
Year 2
$17000
$15300
$32 300
Cost
Years
$4250
$7650
$10000
$21 900
I
Notes
Monitor soil gas for VOCs from five wellls in each zonetreated
Monitor three locations (Zone B header Zone C headerGAC discharge) for VOCs
being
and
Reports Presentation and evaluation ot results conclusionsand recommendations
(1) Quarterly
(2) Foui times foi Month 1 tvvo times foi Months 2 & 3 one urne pe. month foi Months
riley\Valmont\Alt 2\anulcost Page 7 of 8
11/26/200211 17AM
VALMONT TCE SITEHazle Township and West Hazleton BoroughLuzerne County PennsylvaniaAlternative 2 Excavate Accessible/Isolated Areas In Situ Treat Other AreasPresent Worth Analysis
0123
$1 125678
$153 108
$38 675$32 300$21 900
$71636$71636$35818
$1 125678$110311$103936$210826
1 000093508730816
| YearCapitalCost
Annual SamplingCost
Operation &Maintenance Cost
Total YearCost
Annual DiscountRate at 7%
Present IIWorth 1
$1 125678$103141$90 737$172034
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH $1,491,590
yflwiiont\Alt 2\pwa 8 of 8
APPENDIX F-2
COST ESTIMATE FOR ALTERNATIVE 3A
11/26/200211 17AM
VALMONT TCE SITEHazle Township and West Hazleton BoroughLuzerne county PennsylvaniaAlternative 3A Excavation of Contaminated Soil and Offsite Disposal In Situ Treat Zone BCapital Cost
| Item1
2
3
4
5
6
PROJECT DOCUMENTS/INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS1 1 Prepare Documents & Rans including Permits
MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION AND FIELD SUPPORT2 1 Office Trailer (2)2 2 Field Office Support2 3 Storage Trailer (1)2 4 Utility Connection/Disconnection (phone/electric)2 5 Construction Survey2 6 Equipment Mobilization/Demobilization2 7 Drill Rig Mob/Demob2 8 Site Utilities2 9 Professional Oversight (5p 5 days/week)
DECONTAMINATION3 1 Decontamination Trailer3 2 Pressure Washer3 3 Equipment Decon Pad3 4 Decon Water3 5 Decon Water Storage Tank 6 000 gallon3 6 Clean Water Storage Tank 4 000 gallon3 7 PPE (5 p 5 days 13 weeks)3 8 Disposal of Decon Waste (liquid & solid)
SVE PILOT TESTING41 Ran4 2 Field Work4 3 Drill Rig Mob/Demob4 4 Install Test Wells 4 Dia 5 @ 10 deep4 5 Install Test Vapor Extraction Wells Development4 6 Collect/Containerize IDW4 7 Transport/Dispose IDW Off Site4 8 Supplies
VAPOR EXTRACTION WELLS AND PIPING ZONEB5 1 Install Vapor Extraction Wells5 2 Install Vapor Extraction Wells Development5 3 Core Drilling 6 Diameter Reinforced Concrete Slab5 4 Collect/Containerize IDW5 5 Transport/Dispose IDW Off Site5 6 4 PVC Mam Headers5 7 Piping 2 PVC from header to each wellO O D d Gd y«K» dl* u~
5 9 Pipe Valves 4 PVC Rastic Ball5 10 Rpe Valves 2 PVC Rastic Ball
VENT WELLS ZONEB6 1 Install Vent Wells 4 Dia6 2 Install Vent Wells Development6 3 Core Drilling 6 Diameter Reinforced Concrete Slab6 4 Collect/Containerize IDW6 5 Transport/Dispose IDW Off Site
Quantity!
200
44411414
17
441
300033
3253
80240
15010111
21021212121
400325
O
421
847777
Unit)
hr
momomo
IsIs
eaIs
momwk
momo
Isgalmomodaymo
hrhrIsvlf
welldrumdrum
Is
vlfwell
eadrumdrum
ftft
So
eaea
Ifwell
eadrumdrum
Unit Cost ISubcontract Material Labor Equipment!
$3000
$350 00$13900
$10300$1 50000$300000
$100 00 $352 00$1 500 00$1 00000
$4 000 00
$2 350 00$1 050 00
$50000 $45000 $15500$020
$600 00$54000
$31 67$900 00
$3000$21 00
$1 500 00$2700$7500$5000
$150 00$12 000 00
$2700$7500
$8 60 $31 00 $6 65$5000
$15000$497 $311$2 28 $2 28
$2 00 $DQ~$355 00 $26 00$10900 $1690
$2700$7500
$8 60 $31 00 $6 65$5000
$15000
Subcontract
$0
$1 400$0
$412$1 500$3000
$0$1 500$4000
$0
$9400$4200
$0$0
$1 800$1620
$0$2700
$0$0
$1500$1 350
$750$50
$150$12000
$5670$1 575
$0$1050$3150
$0$0$n
$0$0
$2268$525
$0$350
$1 050
Total CostMaterial Labor
$0
$0$556
$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
$0$0
$500$600
$0$0
$10293$0
$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
$0$0
$181$0$0
$1 988$741$441
$1 420$2289
$0$0
$60$0$0
$6000
$0$0$0$0$0
$400$0$0
$68 800
$0$0
$450$0$0$0$0$0
$2400$5040
$0$0$0$0$0$0
$0$0
$651JO$0
$1 244$741dan
$104$355
$0$0
$217$0$0
Equipment]
$0
$0$0$0$0$0
$1 408$0$0$0
$0$0
$155$0$0$0$0$0
$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
$0$0
$1403>0$0$0$0$n
$0$0
$0$0
$47$0$0
Total Direct!Cost]
$6000
$1 400$556$412
$1 500$3000$1808$1 500$4000
$68 800
$9400$4200$1 105
$600$1 800$1 620
$10293$2700
$2400$5040$1500$1 350
$750$50
$150$12000
$5670$1 575
$971$lObO$3150$3232$1 482
$fi11
$1524$2644
$2268$525$324$350
$1 050
nleyWalmontvMt 3A\capcost Page 1 of 7
11/26/200211 17AM
VALMONT TCE SfTEHazle Township and West Hazleton BoroughLuzerne County PennsylvaniaAlternative 3A Excavation of Contaminated Soil and Offsite Disposal In Situ Treat Zone BCapital Cost
•rt
1 Item7 VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM INSTALLATION
7 1 Vacuum/Blower with Motor 40 scfm 12 Hg Zone B7 2 Moisture Separation Tank 60 gallon7 3 Water Storage Tank 200 gal7 4 GAC Unit7 5 Rumb/Electnfy System7 6 System Start up Test
8 ZONE A SOIL EXCAVATION AND DISPOSAL8 1 Backhoe w/Operator & Labor 1 1/2 cy (444 cy)8 2 Verification Sampling of Excavation (VOC)8 3 Transportation for Disposal (15 cy & 130 miles/trip)8 4 Disposal non hazardous (1 5 tons/cy)8 5 Waste Characterization Testing (TCLP)8 6 Import Fill8 7 Race/Grade/Compact Soil8 8 Replace Pavement (stone/pavement)
9 ZONE C SOIL EXCAVATION AND DISPOSAL9 1 Backhoe w/Operator & Labor 1 1/2 cy (2 600 cy)9 2 Verification Sampling of Excavation (VOC)9 3 Transportation for Disposal (15 cy & 130 miles/trip)9 4 Disposal non hazardous (1 5 tons/cy)9 5 Waste Characterization Testing (TCLP)9 6 Import Fill9 7 Race/Grade/Compact Soil9 8 Replace Pavement (stone/pavement)
10 ZONE D SOIL EXCAVATION AND DISPOSAL101 Backhoe w/Operator & Labor 1 1/2 cy (1 125 cy)102 Building Shoring103 Verification Sampling of Excavation (VOC)104 Transportation for Disposal (15 cy & 130 miles/trip)105 Disposal non hazardous (1 5 tons/cy)10 6 Waste Characterization Testing (TCLP)107 Import Fill108 Race/Grade/Compact Soil109 Import Topsoil 6 thick
10 10 Revegetation
Subtotal
Local Area Adjustments
Subtotal
Quantity
1
45
3900666
1370
24000
1812
Unit
eaeaeaeaIsIs
dayea
miletoneacy
day
Subcontract
$247 50$400
$6500$800 00
Unit CostMaterial Labor
$3 625 00$370 00$93500
$1 250 00$4 500 00$3 000 00
$2000
$2000$750
$328 60$2600$4300
$425 00$3 920 00$2 800 00
$705 00$5000
$5000
$432 60
Equipment!
$472 00$2000
$2000
$432 20sf $1 27
dayea $247 50 $2000
$70500$5000
$472 00$2000
21190 mile $4003 900 ton $65 00
6 ea $800 002 240 cy
$2000$750
8 day
$5000
$43260
$2000
$432 2037 500 sf $1 27
8 day25 mbf
5 ea $247 50$850 00$2000
$705 00$520 00$5000
$47200$7050$2000
9 750 mile $4 001 688 ton $65 00
3 ea $800 oo1065 cy
$2000$750
4 day60 cy
356 sy$1000$026
$5000
$432 60
$1 19
$2000
$432 20
$018
Subcontract
$0$0$0$0$0$0
$0$1 238
$15600$43 290
$800$0$0
$5080
$0$2970
$84 760$253 500
$4800$0$0
$47 625
$0$0
$1 238$39 000
$109 720$2400
$0$0$0$0
$674 990
10007
$674 990
Total CostMaterial Labor
$3625$370$935
$1 250$4500$3000
$0$100
$0$0
$20$2775
$0$0
$0$240
$0$0
$120$16800
$0$0
$0$2125
$100$0$0
$60$7988
$0$600$93
$63 769
9907
$63 131
Overhead on Labor Cost @ 30 7G & A on Labor Cost @ 107
G & A on Material Cost @ 10 7G & A on Subcontract Cost @ 10 7 $67 499
$6313
$329$26$43
$425$3920$2800
$2820$250
$0$0
$50$0
$865$0
$12690$600
$0$0
$300$0
$3461$0
$5640$1 300
$250$0$0
$150$0
$1730$0
$424
$124665
9907
$123418
$37 025$12342
Equipment!
$0$0$0$0$0$0
$1 888$100
$0$0
$20$0
$864$0
$8496$240
$0$0
$120$0
$3458$0
$3776$176$100
$0$0
$60$0
$1729$0
$64
$22 840
9907
$22 612
Total Direct!Cosl|
$3954$396$978
$1 675$8420$5800
$4708$1 688
$15600$43 290
$890$2775$1 730$5080
$21 186$4050
$84 760$253 500
$5340$16800$6918
$47 625
$9416$3601$1 688
$39 000$109720
$2670$7988$3459
$600$580
$886 264
$884 151
$37 025$12342$6313
$67 499
rileyWalmontVMt SAteapcost Page 2 of 7
11/26/200211 17AM
VALMONT TCE SITEHazle Township and West Hazleton Boroughuu£B e Cu y Fo ay d dAlternative 3A Excavation of Contaminated Soil and Offsite Disposal In Situ Treat Zone BCapital Cost
Item Quanlililyl Unil| SubcontractUnit Cost Total Cost T Total Direct]
Material Labor Equipment! Subcontract Material Labor Equipment! Cosq
Total Direct Cost
Subtotal
$742489 $69444 $172785
Indirects on Total Direct Cost @ 30 7Profit on Total Direct Cost @ 10 7
Health & Safety Monitoring @ 2°7
(excluding Transportation and Disposal Costs)
$22612 $1007330
$136323$100733
Total Field Cost
Contingency on Total Field Cost @ 20 7Engineering on Total Field Cost @ 10°7
TOTAL COST
$1 244 386
$24 888
$1 269 274
$253 855$126927
$1 650 056
riley\Valmont\Alt 3A\capcost Page 3 of 7
11/26/200211 17AM
VALMONT TCE SITEHazle Township and West Hazleton BoroughLuzerne County PennsylvaniaAlternative 3A Excavation of Contaminated Soil and Offsite Disposal In Situ Treat Zone BCapital Cost System Removal and Site Restoration
| Item1 PROJECT DOCUMENTS/INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
1 1 Prepare Documents & Plans including Permits
Quantity)
100
1 Unit CostUnit) Subcontract Material Labor Equipment
hr $30 00
Total Cost 1Subcontract Material Labor Equipment!
$0 $0 $3000 $0
Total Direct!Cosq
$30002 MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION AND FIELD SUPPORT
2 1 Office Trailer (2)2 2 Field Office Support23 Storage Trailer (1)2 4 Utility Connection/Disconnection (phone/electric)2 5 Equipment Mobilization/Demobilization2 6 Site Utilities2 7 Professional Oversight (2p 5 days/week)
3 WELLS AND PIPING REMOVAL & RESTORATION3 1 Drill Rig Mob/Demob3 2 Abandon Vent Wells3 3 Abandon Vapor Extraction Wells
2111214
184
210
mo $350 00mo $13900mo $105 00
Is $1 50000ea $100 00 $352 00
mo $1 ooo oomwk $1 eoo oo
Is $1 500 00Vlf $10 00vlf $10 oo
$700 $0 $0 $0$0 $139 $0 $0
$105 $0 $0 $0$1 500 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $200 $704$1 000 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $6400 $0
$1 500 $0 $0 $0$840 $0 $0 $0
$2 100 $0 $0 $0
$700$139$105
$1 500$904
$1 000$6400
$1 500$840
$21004 VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEMS REMOVAL & RESTORATION
4 1 Blower/Motor and Controls4 2 Water Storage Tank4 3 Vacuum Blower4 4 Moisture Separation Tank4 5 Floor Repair
Subtotal
Local Area Adjustments
Subtotal
1111
28
ea $500 00 $200 00ea $15000 $5000ea $15000 $5000ea $15000 $5000ea $24 00 $50 00
Overhead on Labor Cost @ 30 7G & A on Labor Cost €
G & A on Material Cost €G & A on Subcontract Cost @
Total Direct Cost
107107107
$0 $0 $500 $200$0 $0 $150 $50$0 $0 $150 $50$0 $0 $150 $50$0 $672 $1 400 $0
$7745 $811 $11950 $1054
10007 9907 9907 9907
$7745 $803 $11831 $1043
$3549$1 183
$80$775
$8520 $883 $16563 $1043
Indirects on Total Direct Cost © 25 7Profit on Total Direct Cost @ 10 7
Subtotal
Health & Safety Monitoring @
Total Field Cost
Contingency on Total Field Cost €Engineering on Total Field Cost @
07
1071 57
$700$200$200$200
$2072
$21 560
$21 422
$3549$1 183
$80$775
$27 009
$6752$2701
$36 462
$0
$36 462
$3646$1 823
TOTAL COST (Removal & Restoration) $41 931
nleyWalmontAlt 3A\capcost (2) Page 4 of 7
11/26/2002 11 17AM
VALMONT TCE SITEHazle Township and West Hazleton BoroughLuzerne County, PennsylvaniaAlternative 3A Excavation of Contaminated Soil and Offsite Disposal, In Situ Treat Zone BOperation and Maintenance Costs per YearII Item Qty Unit
1234
Energy Electric 33000 kWhEquipment Maintenance 1 IsLabor Mobilization/Demobilization Per Diem Supplies 52 wkQuarterly Reports 4 ea
Unit Subtotal ICost Cost Notes I
$0 06 $1 980$82578 $826 5% of Installation Cost$92500 $48100 1 visit per week 1 day
$400000 $16000
Cost for One Year Operation(for third year use 1/2 amount)
$66 906
€">
nley\Valmont\Alt 3A\op&mamt Page 5 of 7--
11/26/200211 17AM
VALMONT TCE SITEHazle Township and West Hazleton BoroughLuzerne County PennsylvaniaAlternative 3A Excavation of Contaminated Soil and Offsite Disposal In Situ Treat Zone BAnnual Sampling Cost
I Item
Sampling &Analysis Air (1)
bampimg &Analysis Air (2>
Reporting
TOTALS
Cost
Yearl
$8500
$14450
$22 950
Cost
Year 2
$8500
$10200
$18700
Cost
YearS
$4250
$5100
$10000
$19350
INotes I
Monitor soil gas for VOCs from five welllstreated
Monitor two locations (Zone B header andVOCs
in each zone being
GAC discharge) for
Reports Presentation and evaluation ot results conclusionsand recommendations
(1) Quarterly
(2) Four times for Month 1 two times for Months 2 & 3 one time per month for Months 4+
nley\Valmont\Alt 3A\anulcost Page 6 of 7
VALMONT TCE SITEHarlp Tnwn«?hin anrl Wp«st Ha7lptnn RnrniighLuzerne County PennsylvaniaAlternative 3A Excavation of Contaminated Soil and Offsite Disposal In Situ Treat Zone BPresent Worth Analysis
0123
$1 650 056
$41 931
$22 950$18700$19350
$66 906$66 906$33 453
11/26/200211 17AM
I YearCapitalCost
Annual SamplingCost
Operation &Maintenance Cost
Total YearCost
Annual DiscountRate at 7%
Present IIWorth |
$1 650 056 1000 $1 650 056$89856 0935 $84015$85 606 0 873 $74 734$94734 0816 $77303
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH $1 886 108
nley\Valmont\Alt 3A\pwa Page 7 of 7
APPENDIX F-3
COST ESTIMATE FOR ALTERNATIVE 3B
11/26/200211 18AM
VALMONT TCE SfTEHazle Township and West Hazleton BoroughLuzerne County PennsylvaniaAlternative 3B Excavation of Contaminated Soil LTTD On site and Backfill/In Situ Treat Zone BCapital Cost
I Item Quantity! Unit) SubcontractUnit Cost
Material Labor Equipment) SubcontractTotal Cost
Material Labor Equipment!Total Direct!
Cost!PROJECT DOCUMENTS/INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
1 1 Prepare Documents & Plans including Permits2 MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION AND FIELD SUPPORT
2 1 Office Trailer (2)2 2 Field Office Support2 3 Storage Trailer (1)2 4 Utility Connection/Disconnection (phone/electric)2 5 Construction Survey2 6 Equipment Mobilization/Demobilization2 7 Drill Rig Mob/Demob2 8 Site Utilities2 9 Professional Oversight (5p 5 days/week)
3 DECONTAMINATION3 1 Decontamination Trailer3 2 Pressure Washer3 3 Equipment Decon Pad3 4 Decon Water3 5 Decon Water Storage Tank 6 000 gallon3 6 Clean Water Storage Tank 4 000 gallon3 7 PPE (6 p 5 days 22 weeks)3 8 Disposal of Decon Waste (liquid & solid)
4 SVE PILOT TESTING41 Ran4 2 Field Work4 3 Drill Rig Mob/Demob4 4 Install Test Wells 4 Dia 5 @ 10 deep4 5 install Test Vapor Extraction Wells Development4 6 Collect/Containerize IDW4 7 Transport/Dispose IDW Off Site4 8 Supplies
5 VAPOR EXTRACTION WELLS AND PIPING ZONEB5 1 Install Vapor Extraction Wells5 2 Install Vapor Extraction Wells Development5 3 Core Drilling 6 Diameter Reinforced Concrete Slab5 4 Collect/Containerize IDW5 5 Transport/Dispose IDW Off Site5 6 4 PVC Mam Headers5 7 Piping 2 PVC from header to each well6 a Dial Gauges vacuum5 9 Pipe Valves 4 PVC Rastic Ball
5 10 Pipe Valves 2 PVC Rastic Ball6 VENT WELLS ZONEB
6 1 Install Vent Wells 4 Dia6 2 Install Vent Wells Development6 3 Core Drilling 6 Diameter Reinforced Concrete Slab6 4 Collect/Containerize IDW6 5 Transport/Dispose IDW Off Site
300 hr $3000
66611416
26
551
500055
6605
80240
15010111
21021212121
4003252
421
847777
momomoIsIs
eaIs
momwk
momo
Isgalmomodaymo
hrhrIsvlf
welldrumdrum
Is
vlfwell
eadrumdrum
ftft
Bd
eaea
Ifwell
eadrumdrum
$35000
$10300$1 50000$3 000 00
$1 500 00$1 000 00
$2 350 00$1 050 00
$60000$540 00
$900 00
$1 500 00$2700$7500$5000
$15000$1200000
$2700$7500
$5000$15000
$2700$7500
$5000$15000
$13900
$10000 $35200
$4 000 00
$50000 $45000 $15500$020
$3167
$3000$2100
$860
$497$228
$2 Cv$355 00$109 00
$860
$31 00
$311$228.p3 GJ
$2600$1690
$31 00
$665
$0 $0 $9000 $0 $9000
$665
$2100$0
$618$1 500$3000
$0$1 500$6000
$0
$11 750$5250
$0$0
$3000$2700
$0$4500
$0$0
$1 500$1 350$750$50$150
$12 000
$5670$1 575
$0$1 050$3150
$0$0rf-rt
$0$0
$2268$525$0
$350$1 050
$0$834$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
$0$0
$500$1000
$0$0
$20 902$0
$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
$0$0
$181$0$0
$1 988$741f
-»-r$1420$2289
$0$0$60$0$0
$0$0$0$0$0
$400$0$0
$104 000
$0$0
$450$0$0$0$0$0
$2400$5040
$0$0$0$0$0$0
$0$0
$651$0$0
$1 244$741* nn
$104$355
$0$0
$217$0$0
$0$0$0$0$0
$1 408$0$0$0
$0$0
$155$0$0$0$0$0
$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
$0$0
$140$0$0$0$0tf-AM*w
$0$0
$0$0$47$0$0
$2100$834$618
$1500$3000$1808$1 500$6000
$104000
$11 750$5250$1 105$1000$3000$2700$20 902$4500
$2400$5040$1 500$1350$750$50$150
$12000
$5670$1 575$971
$1 050$3150$3232$1 482<tco
$1 524$2644
$2268$525$324$350
$1 050
riley\Valmont\Alt 3B\capcost Page 1 of 7
11/26/200211 18AM
VALMONT TCE SfTEHazle Township and West Hazleton BoroughLuzerne County PennsylvaniaAlternative 3B Excavation of Contaminated Soil LTTD On site and Backfill/In Situ Treat Zone BCapital Cost
| Item7 VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM INSTALLATION
71 Vacuum/Blower with Motor 40 scfm 12 Hg ZoneB7 2 Moisture Separation Tank 60 gallon7 3 Water Storage Tank 200 gal7 4 GAC Unit7 5 Rumb/Electrify System7 6 System Start up Test
8 ZONE A SOIL EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL8 1 Backhoe w/Operator & Labor 1 1/2 cy (444 cy)a 2 Verification Sampling of Excavation (VOC)8 3 Race/Grade/Compact Treated Soil8 4 Replace Pavement (stone/pavement)
9 ZONE C SOIL EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL9 1 Backhoe w/Operator & Labor 1 1/2 cy (2 600 cy)9 2 Verification Sampling of Excavation (VOC)9 3 Race/Grade/Compact Treated Soil9 4 Replace Pavement (stone/pavement)
10 ZONE D SOIL EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL10 1 Backhoe w/Operator & Labor 1 1/2 cy (1 125 cy)10 2 Building Shoring10 3 Verification Sampling of Excavation (VOC)104 Race/Grade/Compact Treated Soil105 Import Topsoil 6 thick
1060 Revegetation11 ON SITE SOIL TREATMENT
11 1 Mobilization/Demobilization Treatment Unit11 2 Unit Setups Startup11 3 Stockpile Areas114 Low Temperure Thermal Desorption (LTTD)115 Dump Truck w/operator 12 cy1 1 6 Front end Loader w/operator 1 5 cy
Subtotal
Local Area Adjustments
Subtotal
Quantity)
111111
4S2
4000
18128
37500
a25
54
60356
111
56508585
Unit) Subcontract
eaeaeaeaIsIs
dayea $247 50
daysf $1 27
dayea $247 50
daysf $1 27
daymbfea $247 50
daycysy
ea $5 600 00IsIs
ton $75 00dayea
Unit CostMaterial Labor
$3 625 00$37000$935 00
$1 250 00$4 500 00$3 000 00
$2000
$2000
$85000$2000
$1000$026
$2 000 00$500 00
$328 60$2600$4300
$425 00$3 920 00$2 800 00
$705 00$5000
$432 60
$705 00$5000
$432 60
$705 00$520 00$5000
$43260
$1 19
$4 000 00$2 300 00
$200 00$249 60
Equipment
$472 00$2000
$432 20
$472 00$2000
$43220
$472 00$7050$2000
$432 20
$018
$2 500 00$1 020 00
$353 20$276 40
Subcontract
$0$0$0$0$0$0
$0$1 238
$0$5080
$0$2970
$0$47625
$0$0
$1238$0$0$0
$5600$0$0
$423 750$0$0
$560856
10007
$560 856
Total CostMaterial Labor
$3625$370$935
$1250$4500$3000
$0$100
$0$0
$0$240
$0$0
$0$2125
$100$0
$600$93
$0$2000
$500$0$0$0
$49794
9907
$49 296
Overhead on Labor Cost @ 30 7Q & A on Labor Cost @ 107
G & A on Material Cost @ 10 7G & A on Subcontract Cost @ 10 7
Total Direct Cost
$56 086
$616942
$4930
$54 225
$329$26$43
$425$3920$2800
$2820$250$865
$0
$12 690$600
$3461$0
$5640$1 300
$250$1 730
$0$424
$0$4000$2300
$0$17 000$21 216
$206 881
9907
$204 812
$61 444$20 481
$286 736
Equipment!
$0$0$0$0$0$0
$1 888$100$864
$0
$8496$240
$3458$0
$3776$176$100
$1729$0
$64
$0$2500$1020
$0$30 022$23 494
$79 676
9907
$78 880
$78 880
Indirects on Total Direct Cost @ 30 7Profit on Total Direct Cost © 10 7
Total Direct!CosJ
$3954$396$978
$1675$8420$5800
$4708$1688$1 730$5080
$21 186$4050$6918
$47625
$9416$3601$1 688$3459
$600$580
$5600$8500$3820
$423 750$47 022$44 710
$897 206
$893 843
$61 444$20 481$4930
$56 086
$1 036 783
$311 035$103 678
riley\Valmont\Alt 3B\capcost Page 2 of 7
11/26/200211 18AM
VALMONT TCE SFTEHazle Township and West Hazleton BoroughLuzerne oouniy PennsylvaniaAlternative 3B Excavation of Contaminated Soil LTTD On site and Backfill/In Situ Treat Zone BCapital Cost
I Item Quantity Unit| SubcontractUnit Cost
Material Labor Equipment SubcontractTotal Cost
Material Labor Equipment!Total Direct!
Cost!
Subtotal
Total Field Cost
Health & Safety Monitoring @ 2°7
Contingency on Total Field Cost @ 25 7Engineering on Total Field Cost @ 15 7
TOTAL COST
$1 451 496
$29 030
$1 480 526
$370 131$222 079
$2 072 736
nley\Valmont\Alt 3B\capcost Page 3 of 7
11/26/200211 18AM
VALMONT TCE SfTEHazle Township and West Hazleton BoroughLuzerne County PennsylvaniaAlternative 3B Excavation of Contaminated Soil LTTD On site and Backfill/In Situ Treat Zone B
I Item Quantity Unit SubcontractUnit Cost
Material Labor Equipment SubcontractTotal Cost
Material Labor Equipment!Total Direct!
Cost)UUUUMhN I O/IINO 111UI IUNAL. WON I KULS
1 1 Prepare Documents & Plans including Permits2 MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION AND FIELD SUPPORT
2 1 Office Trailer (2)2 2 Field Office Support2 3 Storage Trailer (1)2 4 Utility Connection/Disconnection (phone/electric)2 5 Equipment Mobilization/Demobilization2 6 Site Utilities2 7 Professional Oversight (2p 5 days/week)
3 WELLS AND PIPING REMOVAL & RESTORATION3 1 Drill Rig Mob/Demob3 2 Abandon Vent Wells3 3 Abandon Vapor Extraction Wells
4 VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEMS REMOVAL & RESTORATION4 1 Blower/Motor and Controls4 2 Water Storage Tank4 3 Vacuum Blower4 4 Moisture Separation Tank4 5 Floor Repair
Subtotal
Local Area Adjustments
Subtotal
Overhead on Labor Cost © 30 7G & A on Labor Cost © 107
Q & A on Material Cost @ 107G & A on Subcontract Cost © 10 7
100 hr
2111214
184
210
1111
28
momomo
Isea
momwk
Isvlfvlf
eaeaeaeaea
$350 00
$105 00$1 500 00
$1 000 00
$1 500 00$1000$1000
$13900
$3000
$10000 $35200
$1 600 00
$2400
$500 00$15000$15000$15000$5000
$200 00$5000$5000$5000
Total Direct Cost
Subtotal
Indirects on Total Direct Cost @ 25 7Profit on Total Direct Cost @ 10 7
Health & Safety Monitoring @ 0 7
Total Field Cost
Contingency on Total Field Cost © 107Engineering on Total Field Cost © 5 7
$0 $0 $3000 $0 $3000
$700$0
$105$1500
$0$1 000
$0
$1 500$840
$2100
$0$0$0$0$0
$7745
10007
$7745
$775
$8520
$0$139$0$0$0$0$0
$0$0$0
$0$0$0$0
$672
$811
9907
$803
$80
$883
$0$0$0$0
$200$0
$6400
$0$0$0
$500$150$150$150
$1 400
$11 950
9907
$11 831
$3549$1 183
$16 563
$0$0$0$0
$704$0$0
$0$0$0
$200$50$50$50$0
$1054
9907
$1 043
$1 043
$700$139$105
$1 500$904
$1 000$6400
$1 500$840
$2100
$700$200$200$200
$2072
$21 560
$21 422
$3549$1 183$80$775
$27 009
$6752$2701
$36 462
$0
$36 462
$3646$1 823
TOTAL COST (Removal & Restoration) $41 931
rileyWalmontAlt SBVcapcost (2) Page 4 of 7
11/26/200211 18AM
VALMONT TCE SITEHazle Town«;hin anri West Hazleton BoroughLuzerne County, PennsylvaniaAlternative 3B Excavation of Contaminated Soil, LTTD On site, and Backfill/In Situ Treat Zone BOperation and Maintenance Costs per Year
I Item Qty UnitUnit
CostSubtotal
Cost Notes
1 Energy Electric2 Equipment Maintenance3 Labor Mobilization/Demobilization Per Diem Supplies4 Quarterly Reports
Cost for One Year Operation(for third year use 1/2 amount)
33 000 kWh $0 061 Is $825 78
52 wk $925 004 ea $4 000 00
$1 980$826 5% of Installation Cost
$48100 1 visit per week 1 day$16000
$66 906
nley\Valmont\Alt 3B\op&mamt Page 5 of 7
11/26/200211 18AM
VALMONT TCE SITEHazle Township and West Hazleton BoroughLuzerne County PennsylvaniaAlternative 3B Excavation of Contaminated Soil LTTD On site and Backfill/In Situ Treat Zone BAnnual Sampling Cost
I Item
bampnng &Analysis Air (1)
bampnng &Analysis Air (2)
Reporting
TOTALS
Cost
YeaM
$8500
$14450
$22 950
Cost
Year 2
$8500
$10200
$18700
Cost
Years
$4250
$5100
$10000
$19350
Notes I
Monitor soil gas for VOCs from five welllstreated
Monitor two locations (Zone B header andVOCs
in each zone being
GAC discharge) for
Reports Presentation and evaluation of results conclusionsand recommendations
(1) Quarterly
(2) Four times for Month 1 two times for Months 2 & 3 one time per month for Months 4+
nley\Valmont\Alt 3B\anulcost Page 6 of 7
VALMONT TCE SITEHazle Township and West Hazleton BoroughLuzerne County PennsylvaniaAlternative 3B Excavation of Contaminated SoilPresent Worth Analysis
LTTD On site and Backfill/In Situ Treat Zone B
0123
$2 072 736
$41 931
$22 950$18700$19350
$66 906$66 906$33 453
11/26/200211 18AM
J YearCapitalCost
Annual SamplingCost
Operation &Maintenance Cost
Total YearCost
Annual DiscountRate at 7%
Present IWorth
$2 072 736 1000 $2 072 736$89856 0935 $84015$85 606 0~873 $74 734$94734 0816 $77303
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH $2,308,788
nley\Valmont\Alt 3B\pwa Page 7 of 7
APPENDIX F-4
COST ESTIMATE FOR ALTERNATIVE 4
7f7, PM
VALMONT TCE SITEHazle Township and West Hazleton BoroughLuzeme County PennsylvaniaAlternative 4 Excavation of All Contaminated Soil and Offsite DisposalCanltal Co«sf
Kern1 PROJECT DOCUMENTS/INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
1 1 Prepare Documents & Plans including Permits2 MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION AND FIELD SUPPORT
21 Office Trailer (2)2 2 Field Office Support23 Storage Trailer (1)2 4 Utility Connection/Disconnection (phone/electnc)2 5 Construction Survey2 6 Equipment Mobilization/Demobilization2 7 Dnll Rig Mob/Demob2 8 Site Utilities2 9 Professional Oversight (5p 5 days/week)
3 DECONTAMINATION3 1 Decontamination Trailer3 2 Pressure Washer3 3 Equipment Decon Pad3 4 Decon Water3 5 Decon Water Storage Tank 6 000 gallon3 6 Clean Water Storage Tank 4 000 gallon3 7 PPE (5 p 5 days 13 weeks)3 8 Disposal of Decon Waste (liquid & solid)
4 ZONE A SOIL EXCAVATION AND DISPOSAL4 1 Backhoe w/Operator & Labor 1 1/2 cy (444 cy)4 2 Venfication Sampling of Excavation (VOC)4 3 Transportation for Disposal (15 cy & 130 miles/trip)4 4 Disposal non hazardous (1 5 tons/cy)4 5 Waste Characterization Testing (TCLP)4 6 Import Fill4 7 Piace/Grade/Compact Soil4 8 Replace Pavement (stone/pavement)
5 ZONEB SOIL EXCAVATION AND DISPOSAL5 1 Structural Support/ Floor Rpelacement5 2 Backhoe w/Operator & Labor 1 1/2 cy (3 900 cy)5 3 Venfication Sampling of Excavation (VOC)5 4 Transportation for Disposal (1 5 cy & 1 30 miles/trip)5 5 Disposal non hazardous (1 5 tons/cy)a 6 Voste Characterization Testing (TCLP;5 7 Import Fill5 8 Place/Grade/Compact Soil
6 ZONE C SOIL EXCAVATION AND DISPOSALfi 1 Barkhna w/Onnrgtn * lahn 1 1/2 ru /2 «V» i~<A6 2 Venfication Sampling of Excavation (VOC)63 Transportation for Disposal (1 5 cy& 130 miles/trip)6 4 Disposal non hazardous (1 5 tons/cy)6 5 Waste Characterization Testing (TCLP)6 6 Import Fill6 7 Place/Grade/Compact Soil6 8 Replace Pavement (stone/pavement)
Quantity
200
44411414
17
441
30003
Unit
hr
momomo
IsIs
eaIs
momwk
momo
Isgalmo
Subcontract
$35000
$10300$1 50000$300000
$1 50000$100000
$235000$105000
$60000
Unit CostMatenal Labor
$13900
$50000$020
$3000
$10000
$400000
$45000
Equipment
$35200
$15500
3 mo $540 00325 day $3167
3 mo $90000
4 day5 ea $247 50 $2000
$70500$5000
$47200$2000
3900 mile $400666 ton $65 00
1 ea $80000370 cy
$2000$750
2 day
$5000
$43260
$2000
$432204 000 sf $1 27
Is $564 500 0034 day15 ea $247 50 $2000
$70500$5000
$47200$2000
34 200 mile $4 005900 ton $6500
a e:1 $800003500 cy
$2000$750
13 day
$5000
$43260
$2000
$43220
Subcontract
$0
$1400$0
$412$1 500$3000
$0$1 500$4000
$0
$9400$4200
$0$0
$1 800$1620
$0$2700
$0$1 238
$15600$43290
$800$0$0
$5080
$564500$0
$3713$136800$383500
$6400$0$0
10 d- S'OoOO $V200 $012 ea $247 50 $2000 $5000 $2000
21190 mile $4003 900 ton $65 00
6 e i $800002 240 cy
$2000$750
8 day
$5000
$43260
$2970$84760
$253500$2000 $4800
$0$432 20 $0
37 500 sf $1 27 $47625
Total CostMatenal Labor
$0
$0$556
$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
$0$0
$500$600
$0$0
$10293$0
$0$100
$0$0
$20$2775
$0$0
$0$0
$300$0$0
$160$26 250
$0
$0$240
$0$0
$120$16800
$0$0
$6000
$0$0$0$0$0
$400$0$0
$68800
$0$0
$450$0$0$0$0$0
$2820$250
$0$0
$50$0
$865$0
$0$23970
$750$0$0
$400$0
$5624
$ 2 6srC$600
$0$0
$300$0
$3461$0
Equipment]
$0
$0$0$0$0$0
$1408$0$0$0
$0$0
$155$0$0$0$0$0
$1888$100
$0$0
$20$0
$864$0
$0$16048
$300$0$0
$160$0
$5619
$0496$240
$0$0
$120
$0$3458
$0
Total DirectlCost)
$6000
$1400$556$412
$1 500$3000$1808$1 500$4000
$68800
$9400$4200$1 105
$600$1 800$1 620
$10293$2700
$4708$1688
$15600$43290
$890$2775$1730$5080
$564 500$40018$5063
$136800$383500
$7120$26250$11 242
$2l IOD
$4050$84760
$253500$5340
$16800$6918
$47625
loganj\Valmont\Alt 4 cost1\capcost Page 1 of 7
7/7/2003 3 33 PM
VALMONT TCE SITEHazle Township and West Hazleton BoroughLuzeme County PennsylvaniaAlternative 4 Excavation of All Contaminated Soil and Offsite DisposalCapital Cost
| Item Quanti7 ZONE D SOIL EXCAVATION AND DISPOSAL
7 1 Backhoe w/Operator & Labor 1 1/2 cy (1 125 cy)
ty Unit Subcontract
8 day7 2 Building Shoring 25 mbf7 3 Verification Sampling of Excavation (VOC) 5 ea $247 50
Unit CostMatenal
$85000$2000
Labor
$70500$52000$5000
Equipment
$47200$7050$2000
7 4 Transportation for Disposal (15 cy& 130 miles/tnp) 9750 mile $4007 5 Disposal non hazardous (1 5 tons/cy) 1 688 ton $65 007 6 Waste Charactenzation Testing (TCLP) 3 ea $800 007 7 Import Fill 1 065 cy7 8 Place/Grade/Compact Soil 4 day7 9 Import Topsoil 6 thick 60 cy
7 10 Revegetation 356 sy
Subtotal
Local Area Adjustments
$2000$750
$1000$026
$5000
$43260
$1 19
$2000
$43220
$018
Subcontract
$0$0
$1238$39000
$109720$2400
$0$0$0$0
$1 738 465
1000/
Total CostMatenal Labor
$0$2125
$100$0$0
$60$7988
$0$600$93
$69679
99 O0/
$5640$1300
$250$0$0
$150$0
$1 730$0
$424
$136924
99 O/
Equipment]
$3776$176$100
$0$0
$60$0
$1729$0
$64
$44781
990/o
Total Direct!Cost|
$9416$3601$1688
$39000$109 720
$2670$7988$3459
$600$580
$1 989848
Subtotal $1738465 $68982 $135555 $44333 $1987334
Overhead on Labor Cost @ 30 /G&AonLaborCost@ 10°/
G & A on Matenal Cost @ 10 /G & A on Subcontract Cost © 10 /
$40666$13555
$6898$173846
$40666$13555$6898
$173 846
loganjWi 4 cost1\capcost ^Jage
3 PM
VALMONT TCE SITEHazle Township and West Hazleton BoroughLuzeme County PennsylvaniaAlternative 4 Excavation of All Contaminated Soil and Offsite DisposalCapital Cost
1 Item Quantity Unit SubcontractUnit Cost
Matenal Labor Equipment SubcontractTotal Cost
Matenal Labor Equipment!Total Direct!
Cost]
Total Direct Cost
Subtotal
Indirects on Total Direct Cost @ 30 /Profit on Total Direct Cost ® 107
Health & Safety Monitoring @ 2 /
(excluding Transportation and Disposal Costs)
$1912311 $75880 $189776 $44333 $2222301
$346029$222230
Total Field Cost
Contingency on Total Field Cost @ 20 /Engmeenng on Total Field Cost © 10 /
TOTAL COST
$2790560
$55811
$2 846 371
$569274$284637
$3700282
logan|\Valmont\Alt 4 cost1\capcost Page 3 of 7
7/7/2003 3 33 PM
VALMONT TCE SITEHazle Township and West Hazleton BoroughLuzerne County PennsylvaniaAlternative 4 Excavation of All Contaminated Soil and Offsite DisposalCapital Cost System Removal and Site Restoration
Hem Quantity Unit Subc1 PROJECT DOCUMENTS/INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
1 1 Prepare Documents & Plans including Permits 0 hr2 MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION AND FIELD SUPPORT
Unit Costontract Material Labor Equipment Subcontract
$3000 $0
2 1 Office Trailer (2) 0 mo $350 00 $02 2 Field Office Support 0 mo $13900 $02 3 Storage Trailer (1) 0 mo $10500 $02 4 Utility Connection/Disconnection (phone/electric) 0 Is $1 500 00 $02 5 Equipment Mobilization/Demobilization 0 ea $100 00 $352 00 $02 6 Site Utilities 0 mo $1 000 00 $02 7 Professional Oversight (2p 5 days/week) 0 mwk
3 WELLS AND PIPING REMOVAL & RESTORATION$160000 $0
3 1 Drill Rig Mob/Demob 0 Is $1 500 00 $03 2 Abandon Vent Wells 0 vlf $10 00 $03 3 Abandon Vapor Extraction Wells 0 vlf $1000 $0
4 VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEMS REMOVAL & RESTORATION4 1 Blower/Motor and Controls 0 ea4 2 Water Storage Tank 0 ea4 3 Vacuum Blower 0 ea4 4 Moisture Separation Tank 0 ea4 5 Floor Repair 0 ea
Subtotal
Local Area Adjustments
Subtotal
Overhead on Labor Cost @ 30 /G & A on Labor Cost @ 107
G & A on Matenal Cost © 10 /G & A on Subcontract Cost @ 10 /
Total Direct Cost
Indi reels on Total Direct Cost @ 25 /Profit on Total Direct Cost © 10 /
Subtotal
Health & Safety Monitonng @ O/
Total Field Cost
Contingency on Total Field Cost @ 10 /Engmeenng on Total Field Cost @ 5 /
$500 00 $200 00 $0$15000 $5000 $0$15000 $5000 $0$15000 $5000 $0
$24 00 $50 00 $0
$0
1000/
$0
$0
$0
Total CostMatenal
$0
$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
$0$0$0
$0$0$0$0$0
$0
99 O/
$0
$0
$0
Labor
$0
$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
$0$0$0
$0$0$0$0$0
$0
99 O/
$0
$0$0
$0
Equipment]
$0
$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
$0$0$0
$0$0$0$0$0
$0
99 O/
$0
$0
Total Direct!Cost]
$0
$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
$0$0$0
$0$0$0$0$0
$0
$0
$0$0$0$0
$0
$0$0
$0
$0
$0
$0$0
TOTAL COST (Removal & Restoration) $0
nleyWalmmjAlt 4 cost1\capcost (2) 'age 4 of 7
7/7/200: PM
VALMONT TCE SITEHazle Township and West Hazleton BoroughLuzerne County PennsylvaniaAlternative A ExC3 Sf C" C* A" Cc^tS"" 1S*Sd So ' 3"d G'
Operation and Maintenance Costs per YearapOSa
I Item Qty UnitUnit
CostSubtotal
Cost Notes 1
1 Energy Electric2 Equipment Maintenance3 Labor Mobilization/Demobilization Per Diem Supplies4 Quarterly Reports
Cost for One Year Operation(for third year use 1/2 amount)
0000
kWhIs
wkea
$006$000
$925 00$4 000 00
$0$0 5% of Installation Cost$0 1 visit per week 1 day$0
$0
nleyWalmontXAIt 4 cost1\op&mamt Page 5 of 7
7/7/2003 3 33 PM
VALMONT TCE SITEHazle Township and West Hazleton BoroughLuzerne County PennsylvaniaAlternative 4 Excavation of All Contaminated Soil and Offsite DisposalAnnual Sampling Cost
1 Item
Sampling &
Analysis Air (1)
Sampling &
Analysis Air (2)
Reporting
TOTALS
Cost
Year!
$0
$0
$0
Cost
Year 2
$0
$0
$0
Cost
YearS
$0
$0
$0
$0
Notes
Monitor soil gas for VOCs from five wellls in each zone beingtreated
Monitor two locations (Zone B header and GACVOCs
Reports Presentation and evaluation of resultsand recommendations
discharge) for
conclusions
(1) Quarterly
(2) Four times for Month 1 two times for Months 2 & 3 one time per month for Months 4+
4 cost 1 \anulcost of 7
PM
VALMONT TCE SITEHazle Township and West Hazleton BoroughLuzerne County PennsylvaniaAlternative 4 Excavation of All Contaminated Soil and Offsite DisposalPresent Worth Analysis
|| YearCapitalCost
Annual SamplingCost
Operation &Maintenance Cost
Total YearCost
Annual DiscountRate at 7%
Present 1Worth 1
$3 700 282 $3 700 282 1 000 $3700282
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH $3,700,282
nley\Valmont\Alt 4 cost1\pwa Page 7 of 7
mw$,ENCLOSURE 1
Engineering Evaluation/ Cost AnalysisValmont TCE
APPENDIX G
ATT 1 1UDOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/5061 /17260
ATTACHMENT 1
4 0 IDENTIFICATION/ANALYSIS OF REMOVAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
Note i he section numbering for this attachment is consistent with the EE/CA Report for VOC Contaminated
Soils at the Valmont TCE Site dated January 2003
4 6 ALTERNATIVE 4 SOIL EXCAVATION WITH OFF-SITE DISPOSAL
Alternative 4 was developed based on one option for managing the excavated soils since Alternative 3B
(which involved on site treatment of excavated soils) was estimated to cost about 25 percent higher than
Alternative 3A Alternative 4 represents the upper end of the removal alternatives just cis Alternative 1
represents the lower end or baseline for comparison purposes Under this alternative excavation would be
performed in Zones A B C and D
Alternative 4 would consist of two major components
Excava ion of VOC contaminated soils
Off site disposal of soils
Alternative 4 incorporates the excavation of all surface and subsurface soils containing concentrations in
excess of the PRGs This includes VOC contaminated soils present beneath the concrete fcundation of the
plant the parking lot driveways and other relatively impenetrable surfaces Following excavation all
surfaces such as the building foundation would be restored
461 Excavation of VOC Contaminated Soils (Component 1)
Soils ccntammated with VOC concentrations above the PRGs would be excavated from Zones A B C and
D using conventional construction equipment Mechanical equipment such as baokhoes bulldozers and
front end loaders would be used for excavation and the excavation would be performed in accordance with
OSHA lequirements It is anticipated that any dust generated during excavation would be controlled through
the use of water
Soil analytical results (from confirmation samples) in excess of the PRGs would increase the estimated soil
volume The estimated volume of contaminated soil and associated removal action costs in this EE/CA are
based on data available at the time of this report
The contaminated soils would be characterized for disposal purposes prior to mobilization Based on the
ATT 1 2UDOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/5061/17260
ATTACHMENT 1
observed concentrations the soil is not expected to be classified as hazardous Thus would enable
immediate transportation off site once excavation operations begin At Zone A an area roughly 100 feet in
length and 40 feet in width as shown in Figure 4 6 would be excavated to a depth of about 3 feet bgs This
corresponds to a volume of approximately 440 cubic yards of excavated material
At Zone B an area roughly 180 feet in length and 100 feet in width as shown in Figure 4 6 where about half
the are a would be excavated to a depth of about 3 feet bgs and the other half would be exccivated to a depth
of about 12 feet bgs This corresponds to a volume of approximately 3940 cubic yards of excavated
material Based on soil gas and soil sampling results this zone is primarily inside the former Chromatex
building
The w arehouse space near Zone B consists of a floor plan having bays between steel columns spaced about
30 feel wide by 50 feet long The existing footings supporting each column were estimated to be 4 feet by 4
feet with a depth of 12 inches The floor is a slab on grade about 6 inches thick The depth to bedrock
benealh the slab is estimated at 10 feet below grade The interior columns would need to be supported
during the excavation of the deeper contaminated soils (greater than 3 feet bgs) at Zone B Approximately
nine columns would be affected by this excavation along with the 10 inch concrete masonry unit (CMU) walls
associated with the former compressor room and a two story office
Based on a structural engineering evaluation of the loads associated with the existing roof the design load
for eac h column was estimated at 60 pounds per square foot (psf) The floor slab would be removed around
each footing to allow access for the installation of multiple micro piles to provide bearing support prior to
removing the affected column The steel girders supporting the roof deck would be raised on each side of
the column using a bottle jack to relieve the bearing load The column and its existing footing would then be
removed
Subsequently four micro piles 7 inches in diameter would be driven into bedrock The piles would be filled
with concrete and a new footing would be poured on the micro piles The column would be reinstalled and
the jac king apparatus for that column would be removed After all columns are reset excavation activities
would be performed Most but not all of the Zone B contaminated soils would be accessible to excavation
equipment The exceptions would include the contaminated surface soils (less than 3 feet in depth) beneath
the existing column footings that are not removed surface soils beneath the exterior wall of the building and
possibly contaminated subsurface soils (greater than 3 feet in depth) in the vicinity of the micro piles
Attachment 3 provides additional information on the structural engineering evaluation for addi essing Zone B
ATT1 3L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/5061/17260
ATTACHMENT 1
Utilitie8 beneath Zone B including electric lines several floor/storm drains and sanitary line s would be de
energu ed and/or capped prior to excavation Figure 1 shows the identified underground utilities in the vicinity
of Zone B Care would be taken to avoid releasing particulates or vapors from the excavated VOC
contaminated soils or the excavated areas into the outdoor atmosphere A ventilation system may be
needed to improve the quality of the indoor air for construction workers during the removal action
Within Zone B an area of deeper contaminated soils beneath the 10 inch CMU walls would have to be
suppored by a resistance pier This pier would consist of installing micro piles into bedrock approximately
every 4 feet on center along the existing wall Using a bracket the micro piles would be attached to the strip
footing supporting the existing wall while VOC contaminated soils arc removed from beneath the wall
If a larcier area of contaminated soils is encountered at Zone B similar methods would be used as described
above Additional costs would be incurred depending on the extent of the problem Upon completion of the
soil exi vation work backfill stone or flowable fill would be placed over the excavated areas and any
disturbs d utilities would be re installed A new slab on grade would then be poured with a design load of 250
psf
At Zone C an area roughly 220 feet in length and 120 feet in width as shown in Fiqure 4 6 where about 90
percent of the area would be excavated to a depth of about 3 leet bgs and the 10 percent would be
excavated to a depth of about 12 feet bgs This corresponds to a volume of approximately 2 bOO cubic yards
of exca /ated material This zone is beneath the existing parking lot which would be removed and replaced
At Zom* D an area roughly 80 feet in length and 40 feet in width as shown in Figure 4 6 would be excavated
to B depth of about 9 5 feet bgs This corresponds to a volume of approximately 1 125 cubic yards of
excavated material
After completion of excavation samples would be collected from the sidewalls and the bottom of the
excavated area Verification sampling and analysis would be conducted to ensure that the soils left in place
at the excavation limits do not exceed the PRGs Each excavated area would be backfilled with clean fill At
unpaved areas 6 inches of topsoil would be used to cover the area The disturbed area would be graded to
achieve desired surface elevations and then revegetated (Zone D) or repaved (Zones A and C) Inside the
building (Zone B) the concrete floor would be replaced
ATT 1 4L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/5061 /17260
ATTACHMENT 1
4 6 2 Off-Site Transportation and Disposal of Soils With or Without Treatment (Component 2)
Spent halogenated solvents including TCE are listed in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) regulations in 40 CFR §261 31 as hazardous wastes from non specific sources However
becau e the risk based concentration of TCE in the soils from the Plant and the Parking Area is below the
RCRA health based levels these soils can be disposed as residual waste This determm ation utilizes the
contained in policy ( published in EPAs Memorandum entitled Management of Remediation Waste
Under RCRA dated October 14 1998) which was evaluated vis avis analytical data from the Site by EPA
Region III and obtained PADEP s concurrence Prior to excavation the soils will be tested in accordance
with RCRA regulations specified in 40 CFR §261 24 Table 1 1o confirm that they are below Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure ( TCLP ) levels In the event «ome of these soils are ibove the TCLP
levels they will be transported to a permitted solid waste disposal lacility such as RCRA Subtitle C landfill
The excavated soils would be transported to a permitted solid waste disposal facility such as a RCRA Subtitle
D landlill or a municipal solid waste landfill Currently there are at least three such facilities within a 100 mile
radius of the site The concrete and parking lot pavement may be disposed of at a Subtitle D landfill or
alterna ively at a construction debris landfill The tile flooring in the building reportedly contains asbestos and
must bo disposed of at a landfill that is permitted to receive asbestos contaminated material
Prior to the removal action samples of the excavated material would be analyzed to provide a waste
characleristic profile to the off site disposal facility These samples would be charac terized using the toxicity
characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) The results of this analysis would be used to determine whether
the soil can be disposed as a non hazardous or a RCRA hazardous waste For the purpose of this EE/CA it
is assumed that none of the excavated soil would exceed TCLP criteria based on engineering judgment after
review of the soil sampling results at the Chromatex property
Based on soil contaminant concentrations it is not anticipated that treatment of the excavated material would
be required If treatment is required the excavated soil would be treated off site to remove the VOCs of
concern by a process such as low temperature thermal desorption (LTTD) In this instance the treated soil
would be rendered as non hazardous waste Samples of the treated soil would be analyzed to ensure that
the soil complies with the disposal facility permit Alternately the untreated soil could be disposed at a RCRA
Subtitle C landfill
463 Effectiveness
Excavation is generally effective for VOC contaminated soils Alternative 4 would be protective of human
ATT1 5L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/5061 /17260
ATTACHMENT 1
health and the environment Excavation would be protective of the environment by removing the VOC
contaminated soil from the site In addition Alternative 4 would minimize further groundwater contamination
in the \ icinity of the site by providing an early action to reduce (or slow) the migration of VOC contaminated
groundwater
Some short term risks could be incurred by workers from exposure to contaminated VOC soil during
excavation However the wearing of appropriate PPE and compliance with site specific h< alth and safety
procedures would minimize the potential for exposure Transportation of contaminated VOC soils away from
the property slightly increases the potential for human exposure due to a spill or accident but compliance
with site specific health and safety procedures would minimize the potential for exposure
Alternative 4 would comply with all ARARs and TBCs including all state and federal requirements This
alternative would provide long term effectiveness and permanence Excavation would permanently reduce
soil contaminant concentrations to their PRGs
After treatment and excavation are complete no long term monitoring would be required
464 Implementability
This alternative would be somewhat difficult to implement Implementation of Alternative 4 would not
adversely impact the surrounding community or the environment Excavation would attain the soil PRGs in
less th an 1 year
Techniques to excavate materials outside (Zones A C and D) aie common The equipment needed to
implement this alternative is readily available Standard equipment could be used to excavate and restore
these ones The excavation area is contained within the property and therefore no easements or impacts
to adjoining properties are anticipated There are no underground utilities located in the vicinity of Zones A
C and D
The excavation of Zone B is more complex Because building supports and load bearing walls are within the
excavation area special structural engineering measures would be necessary to remove several existing
columns and associated footings within Zone B and install a new system to support the be jnng load of the
roof and miscellaneous dead loads In addition utility lines are located within the excavation which must be
supported or re routed during excavation Finally working inside the building would limit the movement of
excav ition equipment and haul trucks reducing the efficiency of exc avation and backfill operations
A C T 1 6UDOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/5061 /17260
,ATTACHMENT 1
The administrative aspects of Alternative 4 would require close coordination with the current property owner
any fulure property owner and any tenants leasing the Chromatex plant A construction permit would be
required for this alternative The excavation inside the building would likely impart unrestncted use of the
plant during the removal action
465 Costs
The estimated costs for Alternative 4 are
Capital cost $3 700 000
Zones A B C and D Excavation Cost $1 629 000
Soil Disposal Cost 3>1 038 000
Site Re storation $
Net Pn sent Worth (NPW) of O&M Cost $0
NPW $3 700 000
A detailed cost estimate for this alternative is provided in Attachme nt 4 There are no significant long term
operation maintenance or monitoring costs associated with the excavation
ATT 1 7UDOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/5061/17260
ATTACHMENT 1
TABLE 4 1SCREENING OF REMOVAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
VALMONT TCE SITEwEST rtMZuETOw, uuZERraE COunTr, PENNSYLVANIA
ALTERNATIVE EFFECTIVENESS IMPLEMENTABILITY COST COMMENTS
No Action Provides no additional protection of humanhealth Does not reduce potential for leachingVOCs to groundwater No reduction in toxicity
mobility or volume of contaminants
Readily implementable No technical or
administrative difficulties
Total NPW
$0
Retained as baseline alternative
in accordance with NCP
Retained
Soil Vapor Extractionwith Off Site Treatment
of Residuals and
Focused SoilExcavation with OffSite Disposal for
Accessible Areas
Meets PRGs to reduce the potential for leachingVOCs to groundwater Reduction of toxicity or
mobility of some contaminants may beaccomplished by off site treatment/disposal
Short term risk to workers would be addressedby PPE No long term monitoring
Readily implementable but SVE in this type ofsoil will be inefficient No other technical or
administrative difficulties Personnel andmaterials necessary to implement alternative
are widely available
Total NPW
$1 492 000
3A Soil Vapor Extraction
with Off Site Treatmentof Residuals and Soil
Excavation with OffSite Disposal
Meets PRGs to reduce the potential for leaching
VOCs to groundwater Reduction of toxicity or
mobility of some contaminants may be
accomplished by off site treatment/disposalShort term risk to workers would be addressedby PPE No long term monitoring
Readily implementable but SVE in this type ofsoil will be inefficient No other technical or
administrative difficulties Personnel and
materials necessary to implement alternativeare widely available
Total NPW
$1 886 000
3B Soil Vapor Extractionh G" S e T ea ~en
of Residuals and SoilExcavation with On
Site Treatment and Re
Use of Treated Soil
Meets PRGs to reduce the potential for leachingOCs o g Ou-dwa c ReduC o- u OAIC y o
mobility of most of the contaminants may be
accomplished by on site treatment and off sitetreatment/disposal Short term risk to workers
would be addressed by PPE No long termmonitoring
Readily implementable but SVE in this type ofoo w be o^c e~ o u ue cJ~- oa 01administrative difficulties Personnel and
materials necessary to implement alternativeare widely available
Total NPW
$2 309 000
Retained
Soil Excavation with
Off Site Disposal
Meets PRGs to reduce the potential for leaching
VOCs to groundwater No reduction of toxicity or
mobility of contaminants Short term risk to
worxers would oe addressed Dy PPE NO long
term monitoring
Interior excavation will be somewhat difficult to
implement but outdoor excavation is
implementable No other technical or
administrative difficulties Personnel and
materials necessary to implement alternative
are widely available
Total NPW
$3 700 000
Retained
L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/5061/17260
ATT 1 8
ATTACHMENT2
5 0 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMOVAL ACTION ALTE RNATIVES
Note The section numbenng for this attachment is consistent with the EE/CA Report for VOC Contaminated
Soils at the Valmont TCE Site dated January 2003
This si ction provides a review of the removal action alternatives and presents a comparative analysis of the
alternatives relative to the specific evaluation criteria Section 4 0 d< tails the evaluation of each alternative as
to the performance of that alternative under each criterion This se< tion provides for a comparison to identify
the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative relative to one another so tradeoffs that would affect
the selection of the non time critical removal action can be identified Table 5 1 presents summaries of the
evaluation for each alternative
51 EFFECTIVENESS
511 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Altern itive 1 would not prevent further migration of VOCs to the groundwater and would not meet the PRGs
Alternatives 2 3A 3B and 4 would be equally protective and would be more protecti/e compared to
Alterndtive 1 VOCs in the soil would be reduced to PRGs thus eliminating the potential for migration into the
groundwater
Under Alternative 4 most but not all Zone B VOC contaminated soils would be excavated The exceptions
would include the contaminated surface soils (less than 3 feet in depth) beneath the existing column footings
that ate not removed surface soils beneath the exterior wall of the building and possibly contaminated
subsurface soils (greater than 3 feet in depth) in the vicinity of the micro piles
5 1 2 Compliance with ARARs
Altern itive 1 would not comply with chemical specific ARARs since VOCs would remain in the soil Location
specific and action specific ARARs do not apply to this alternative
Alternatives 2 3A 3B and 4 would remove VOCs to less than PRGs and would comply with chemical
specific ARARs Location specific and action specific ARARs would be met with all of these alternatives
ATT 2 1L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/5061 /17260
ATTACHMENT 2
513 Long Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alterneitive 1 would have no long term effectiveness or permanent because contaminants would remain in
the soil There would be no monitoring to determine if migration was occurring There would be no way to
prevent exposure to future site users
Alterncitives 2 3A 3B and 4 are of equal long term effectiveness or permanence because contaminants in
all four zones would be permanently removed from the soil After tr< atment and excavation are complete no
long term monitoring of the soil at the site would be required
514 Reduction of Toxicitv. Mobility, and Volume through Treatment
Alterneitive 1 would not achieve reduction in toxicity mobility or volume of contaminants thtough treatment
Some reduction could occur through natural processes but this would not be measured
Alterneitive 2 would provide some reduction in toxicity mobility or volume of contaminants thiough treatment
About 6 3 pounds of VOCs adsorbed on the GAC from Zones B and C SVE systems would be destroyed
during the regeneration of the vapor phase GAC
Alterneitive 3A would provide some reduction in toxicity mobility or volume of contaminants through
treatment but less than Alternative 2 About 0 4 pounds of VOCs adsorbed on the GAC from Zone B SVE
system would be destroyed during the regeneration of the vapor phase GAC
Alterneitive 3B would provide the maximum reduction in toxicity mobility or volume of contaminants through
treatment more than Alternatives 2 3A and 4 About 0 4 pounds of VOCs adsorbed on the GAC from Zone
B SVE system would be destroyed during the regeneration of the vapor phase GAC About 6 1 pounds of
VOCs removed by the LTTD of Zones A C and D would be destroyed by regeneration of the LTTD vapor
phase GAC or an LTTD off gas oxidizer
Although all contaminants above PRGs would be removed from the site under Alternative 4 there would be
no reduction in toxicity mobility or volume of contaminants through on site treatment
ATT 2 2L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/5061 /17260
fr*'4A1TACHMENT 2 ^
5 1 5 Short Term Effectiveness
Altern ative 1 would not result in any risks to workers or the surrounding community since no remedial
activities will be performed
Alternative 2 would result in a slight possibility of exposing construction workers to contaminants during
installation and operation of the SVE system during soil excavation and during sampling These risks would
be controlled by PPE Vapor phase GAC of the SVE off gas would effectively control the risk to workers and
the community Risks to the community during transport of contaminated soil and material would be
controlled through proper safety procedures Risks from exposure to dust during excavation would be
controlled through water sprays Use of part of the building would be limited during oper ation of the SVE
system Because of the close proximity of residential areas to the site noise during excavation of Zones A
and D could impact the community for a short period of time The duration of outdoor activities would be
shortei compared to Alternatives 3A and 3B PRGs would be obtained in 2 5 years
Alterneitive 3A would result in a slight possibility of exposing con truction workers to contaminants during
installation and operation of the SVE system during soil excavation and during sampling These risks would
be controlled by PPE Vapor phase GAC of the SVE off gas would effectively control the risk to workers and
the community Risks to the community during transport of contaminated soil and m jtenal would be
controlled through proper safety procedures Risks from exposure to dust during excavation would be
controlled through water sprays Use of part of the building would be limited during operation of the SVE
system Because of the close proximity of residential areas to the site noise during excavation of Zones A
C and D could impact the community The duration of outdoor activities would be shorter compared to
Alterneitive 3B but longer than Alternative 2 PRGs in Zone B would be obtained in 2 5 years and in the other
zones in less than one year
Alterneitive 3B would result in a slight possibility of exposing construction workers to contaminants during
installation and operation of the SVE system during soil excavation LTTD operation and during sampling
These risks would be controlled by PPE Vapor phase GAC of the SVE and LTTD off gas would effectively
control the risk to workers and the community Risks to the community during transport of contaminated
material would be controlled through proper safety procedures Risks from exposure to dust during
excaveition and soil conveyance would be controlled through water sprays Use of part of the building would
be limited during operation of the SVE system Because of the close proximity of residential cireas to the site
noise during excavation conveyance and treatment of soil from Zones A C cind D could impact the
community The duration of outdoor activities would be comparable to Alternate 3A PRGs in Zone B
A T T 2 3L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/5061 /17260
ATTACHMENT 2
would be obtained in 2 5 years and in the other zones in less than one year
Alternative 4 would result in a higher probability of exposing construction workers to contaminants during soil
excavation and sampling and during the installation of the new roof support structure The e risks would be
controlled by PPE and a ventilation system if necessary Risks to the community during transport of
contaminated soil would be controlled through proper safety procedures Risks from exposure to dust during
excavation would be controlled through water sprays Use of part of the building would be limited during the
excavation inside the building Because of the close proximity of residential areas to the ite noise during
excavations could impact the community The duration of outdoor activities would b« comparable to
Altern Jtive 3A and shorter than Alternatives 2 and 3B PRGs would be obtained in less than one year which
is the hottest clean up timeframe compared to all other alternative
5 2 IMPLEMENTABILITY
521 Technical Feasibility
Alterneitive 1 would be simple to implement because no action will 01 cur
Alternative 2 would be relatively easy to implement A pilot test will be required to design the SVE system
due to the low permeability soil Installation of the SVE wells and piping inside the building will require special
considerations to minimize the impact on use of the building Post ( xcavation samples would be collected to
monitor the completeness of the excavation Soil gas samples would be collected to monitoi the progress of
the SVE treatment
Alterneitive 3A would be relatively easy to implement but slightly more feasible than Alternative 2 since there
is only one SVE system A pilot test will be required to design the SVE system due to the low permeability
soil Installation of the SVE wells and piping inside the building will require special considerations to minimize
the impact on use of the building Post excavation samples would be collected to monitor the completeness
of the < xcavation Soil gas samples would be collected to monitor the progress of the SVE tr< atment
Alterneitive 3B would be relatively easy to implement but slightly more feasible than Alternative 2 since there
is only one SVE system The high fines content of the soil will make LTTD processing difficult A pilot test
will be required to design the SVE system due to the low permeability soil Installation of the SVE wells and
piping inside the building will require special considerations to minimize the impact on use of the building
Post e <cavation samples would be collected to monitor the completeness of the excav ation Soil gas
ATT 2 4L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/5061/17260
ssATTACHMENT 2
samph s would be collected to monitor the progress of the SVE treatment Treated soil from the LTTD
would be analyzed to confirm treatment
Altern itive 4 would be somewhat difficult to implement Although the exterior excavations at Zones A C and
D can be performed using standard techniques the excavation (Zone B) inside the building would be more
difficul The integrity of the structure must be maintained by installing a new foundation system for at least
nine columns inside the building using micro piles and new column footings In addition a resistance pier
would be needed to support the concrete masonry unit (CMU) wall associated with an office and the former
compressor room Elevated TCE soil gas levels (up to 120 000 parts per billion) were dete< ted beneath the
compressor room floor Special care would be needed to avoid any contact with the micro piles during
excaveition work which might create lateral buckling and potential collapse of the new roof support structure
Movement inside the building by the excavation equipment and the haul trucks will be limited increasing the
mefficK ncy of the operation Post excavation samples would be collected to monitor the completeness of the
excaveition
In the event an additional volume of contaminated soils are identified in the vicinity of Zone B Alternative 4
offers ihe least flexibility and greatest cost in addressing such soils compared to all other alternatives The
capital cost to install extra soil vapor extraction wells near Zone B is less than the capital cost to install the
new cclumn support system
522 Availability
Availability for Alternative 1 is not applicable since no action is being taken
SVE equipment excavation equipment off site disposal capacity and contractors that can perform these
services are generally available for Alternatives 2 and 3A
SVE equipment excavation equipment off site disposal capacity and contractors that can perform these
services are generally available for Alternative 3B There are several LTTD contractors but their availability
will ultimately effect scheduling
Excaveition equipment off site disposal capacity and contractor > that can perform the e services are
generally available for Alternative 4 however specialized expertise will be required to maintain the integrity of
the building
ATT 2 5L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/5061/17260
AFTACHMENT 2
523 Administrative Feasibility
Alternative 1 is feasible because there as no action
Alternatives 2 3A 3B and 4 are all administratively feasible No unusual permitting needs must be met
However there may be community resistance associated with Ihe noise from the soil conveyance and
material handling of the LTTD system in Alternative 3B and excavation operations in genei al in Alternatives
2 3A and 4
5 3 COST
Based on net present worth (NPW) and capital costs the rank of the alternatives (excluding Alternative 1)
from lowest to highest is Alternative 2 3A 3B and 4 NPW costs range from $1 492 000 (Alternative 2) to
$3 700 000 (Alternative 4) Based on operating costs the rank of the alternatives from lowest to highest is
Alterneitive 3A and 3B followed by Alternative 2 There are no significant operating costs associated with
Alterneitive 4
ATT 2 6L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/5061/17260
TABLE 5 1COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMOVAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
VALMONT TCE SITEWEST HAZLETON, LUZERNE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
PAGE 1 OF 3
ATTACHMENT 2
CRITERION ALTERNATIVE 1C nCuOn
ALTERNATIVE 2Son vapor Extraction with
Off-Site Treatment ofResiduals and FocusedSoil Excavation with Off
Site Disposal forAccessible Areas
ALTERNATIVE 3ASoil Vapor Extraction with
Off-Site Treatment ofResiduals and Soil
Excavation with Off-SiteDisposal
ALTERNATIVE 3BSoil Vapor Extraction with
Off Site Treatment ofResiduals and Soil
Excavation with On SiteTreatment and Re Use of
Treated Soil
AI_TPBWATI\/C 4
Soil Excavation with OffSite Disposal
OVERALL PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Prevent HumanExposure toContaminatedSubsurface and SurfaceSoils
No action taken to preventmigration of VOCs Existingrisks would remain
VOCs in all zones would beremoved from the siteelm rsatng the potential <oimigration
VOCs in all zones would beremoved from the siteeliminating me potential formigration
VOCs in all zones would beremoved from the siteeliminating the potential formigration
Most VOCs would beremoved from the siteeliminating the potential formigration
COMPLIANCE WITH ARARs
Compliance withARARs
No Complies with all ARARsand TBCs
Complies with all ARARsand TBCs
Complies with all ARARsand TBCs
Complies with all ARARsand TBCs
LONG TERM EFFECTIVENESS AND PERMANENCE -~
Long TermEffectiveness andPermanence
Potential for migration ofVOCs remains
All VOCs would be removedfrom the site permanentlyNo long term monitoringwould be required
All VOCs would be removedfrom the site permanentlyNo long term monitoringwould be required
All VOCs would be removedfrom the site permanentlyNo long term monitoringwould be required
Most VOCs would beremoved from the sitepermanently No long termmonitonng would berequired
REDUCTION OF TOXICITY MOBILITY AND VOLUME THROUGH TREATMENT
Reduction of ToxicityMobility or VolumeThrough Treatment
No reduction since noremoval action would beperformed
Off site disposal of soil fromZones A and D would notreduce toxicity mobility orvolume Regeneration ofvapor phase GAC from SVEsystem would eliminatevolume of VOCs fromZones B and C
Off site disposal of soil fromZones A C and D wouldnot reduce toxicity mobilityor volume Regeneration ofvapor phase GAC from SVEsystem would eliminatevolume of VOCs from ZoneB
i
Regeneration of vaporphase GAC or thermaloxidizer of LTTD systemwould eliminate volume ofVOCs from Zones A C andD Regeneration of vaporphase GAC from SVEsystem would eliminatevolume of VOCs from Zonen
j o
Off site disposal of soil fromZones A B C and D wouldnot reduce toxicity mobilityor volume through on sitetreatment of contaminants
L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/5061/17260 ATT 2-7
ATTACHMENT 2
TABLE 5 1COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMOVAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
VALMONT TCE SITEWEST HAZLETON, LUZERNE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
PAGE 2 OF 3
CRITERION ALTERNATIVE 1No Action
ALTERNATIVE 2Soil Vapor Extraction with
Off-Site Treatment ofResiduals and FocusedSoil Excavation with Off
Site Disposal forAccessible Areas
ALTERNATIVE 3ASoil Vapor Extraction with
Off Site Treatment ofResiduals and Soil
Excavation with Off-SiteDisposal
ALTERNATIVE 3BSoil Vapor Extraction with
Off-Site Treatment ofResiduals and Soil
Excavation with On-SiteTreatment and Re Use of
Treated Soil
ALTERNATIVE 4Soil Excavation with Off
Site Disposal
SHORT TERM EFFECTIVENESS
Community Protection
Worker Protection
Environmental Impacts
Time Until Action isComplete
No additional risk tocommunity anticipated
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
No significant nsk tocommunity anticipatedEngineering controls duringoperation and transportwould be used duringimplementation to mitigaterisks
No risk to workersanticipated if proper PPE isused during soil removalSVE installation andoperation and monitoring
No adverse impacts to theenvironment anticipated2 5 years for SVE less than4 months for excavation
Slight risk in the form ofincreased truck traffic isanticipated No othersignificant risk to communityanticipated Engineeringcontrols during operationand transport would beused during implementationto mitigate risks
No risk to workersanticipated if proper PPE isused during soil removalSVE installation andoperation and monitoring
No adverse impacts to theenvironment anticipated2 5 years for SVE less than6 months for excavation
Slight risk in the form ofincreased truck traffic andnoise is anticipated Noother significant nsk tocommunity anticipatedEngineering controls duringoperation and transportwould be used duringimplementation to mitigaterisksNo risk to workersanticipated if proper PPE isused during soil removalSVE installation andoperation LTTD operationand monitoringNo adverse impacts to theenvironment anticipated2 5 years for SVE less than8 months for LTTD
Slight risk in the form ofincreased truck traffic isanticipated No othersignificant risk to communityanticipated Engineeringcontrols during excavationand transport would beused during implementationto mitigate risks
No risk to workersanticipated if proper PPE isused during soil removal Ifnecessary a ventilationsystem would be needed forexcavation work at Zone BNo adverse impacts to theenvironment anticipatedLess than 1 year forexcavation
UDOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/5061 /17260 ATT 2 8
ATTACHMENT 2
TABLE 5 1COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMOVAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
VALMONT TCE SITEWEST HAZLETON LUZERNE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
PAGE 3 OF 3
CRITERION ALTERNATIVE 1mo Mcuon
ALTERNATIVE 2Sou vapor Extraction with
Off-Site Treatment ofResiduals and FocusedSoil Excavation with Off
Site Disposal forAccessible Areas
IMPLEMENTABILITY
Technical Feasibility
Administrative Feasibility
Availability
No construction or operationinvolved
Not applicable
Not applicable
Uncertainty in the efficiencyof an SVE system SVEpilot esi is requiiedExcavation is a readilyimplementable technology
No unusual permittingrequirements must be met
Excavation equipment SVEequipment disposalcapacity and contractorsare generally available
ALTERNATIVE 3ASoil Vapor Extraction with
Off-Site Treatment ofResiduals and Soil
Excavation with Off-SiteDisposal
Uncertainty in the efficiencyof an SVE system SVEpilot test is requiredExcavation is a readilyimplementable technology
No unusual permittingrequirements must be met
Excavation equipment SVEequipment disposalcapacity and contractorsare generally available
ALTERNATIVE 3BSoil Vapor Extraction with
Off Site Treatment ofResiduals and Soil
Excavation with On SiteTreatment and Re Use of
Treated Soil
Uncertainty in the efficiencyof an SVE system SVEpilot test is required LTTDtreatment of soil with highfines content is difficultExcavation is a readilyimplementable technologyCommunity resistance tothe inconvenience (noiseand traffic) resulting fromsite operations may beanticipated No unusualpermitting requirementsmust be metExcavation equipment SVEequipment disposalcapacity and contractorsare generally availableLimited number of LTTDcontractor may affectscheduling
AI_TEI»MATI\/C 4
Soil Excavation with OffSite Disposal
Excavation is a readilyimplementable technologySupport of building duringinterior excavation willrequire special procedures
No unusual permittingrequirements must be met
Excavation equipmentdisposal capacity andcontractors are generallyavailable
COSTCapital CostsSVE System CapitalExcavationSoil DisposalSite RestorationO&M CostEstimated Net PresentWnrth
—_._
_.——_
$1 279 000$375 000$94 000$349 000$153000$213000
$1 492 000
$1 692 000$152000$297 000$916 000$42000$194000
$1 886 000
$2115000$166 000$260 000
$1 186000$42 000$194 000
$2 309 000
$3 700 00—
$1 629 000$1 038 000
$0$3 700 000$1 ?nn nnn
Present worth cost is based on discount rate of 7%
L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/5061 /17260 ATT 2 9
a l f r Bd benesch & co Fax 5706221232J u l 7 2003 14 29 02
CONCEPTUAL ENGINEERING REPORTFOR
REMOVAL OF VOC-CONTAMDSATED SOILSFOR
VALMONT TCE SI CE(CHROMATEX NO 2)
PREPARED FOR
TETRA TECH NUS, INC600 Clark Avenue - Suite 3
King of Prussia, PA 19406-1433
JULY 2003
benesch PROJECT NO 8499 00
Prepared By i
alf red benesch & companyEngineers • Planners • Surveyors400 One Norwegian Plaza Pottsvdle PAJ17901Phone 570622-4055 Fax 570 6'i 1232
Alleniowa PA Chicago IL Keno^ha WI Lansing MI
a , f r e d benesch . co Fax 5706221232 J« l 7 2 0 0 3 1 4 2 9
alf red benesch & company
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONCEPTUAL ENGINEERING REPORT FOR VOC-CONTAMINATED SOILSFOR !
VALMONT TCE SITE
PURPOSE OF REPORT [ it
PROJECT DESCRIPTION „ j \
BOCA REQUIREMENTS/LOADING SCENARIO i 2
RESULTS OF THE EVALUATION ' 2
SUMMARY- ' 4
SUPPORTING INFORMATION !
iAPPENDIX - Information on Similar Project by Hayward Baker \
Scope-of-Work
c c:7nK99m? Jul 7 2003 14 29 P 04a l f i e d benesch & co Fax 570622123,!
alf red benosch ft company
PURPOSE OF REPORTi
The purpose of this report is to outline the results of alf red! benesch & company's
com^ptual investigation of the existing building elements located in the northeast comer of the
building of the Valmont TCE site The area under investigation has been conkraunated by TCEi i
(Tni horoethyle) that has percolated into the soil beneath the building floor slab At the request
of Tetra Tech NUS, Inc an investigation into the feasibility of removing the contaminated soili I
while stall maintaining the building integrity was conducted The limit of contaminated soil was
determined by Tetra Tech NUS, Inc Possible solutions to construction options will be presented
with this report '
The analysis parameters used for this report incorporate data and methods based on those
of th< American Concrete Institute (ACI) American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Steel
Construction Manual and the Building Officials & Code Administrators (BOCA) National
Building Code and are based on sound engineering judgment and principles '
PRO IECT DESCRIPTION 'I
The proposed project is located in Valmont Industrial Park, West Hazleton Luzeme
Counly Commonwealth of Pennsylvania il
The existing structure is composed of steel, concrete, and masonry dements The
northeast part of the building being investigated is believed to have been built duinng the 1960 si
as the onginal warehouse and was later added onto about 1976 Blueprints or plans were noti
available for the original warehouse The building appears to be well maintained I for its use
with no major defects observed The onginal use for this section of the plant wtis warehousing
and/or processing From data obtained from bonngs and geotechnical investigation performed byi |
Tetra Tech NUS Inc , the existing floor is a slab on grade |There is an approximate ten footi
(10 ) layer of soil between the slab and bedrock The warehouse consists of a floor plan having
bays between steel columns of approximately 30-0" x 50-0 , Construction joints around each
column indicate that their footings are largely independent of the floor slabs Columns exist
along the exterior walls indicating that the entire load from the r.oof and cejjjuig are borne by the
.,f,,d M...CI. I c. fax 5706221232 J.I 7 2003 H 29 P 05
_. alf red benesch & companycolumns and its footings and the exterior walls could be ignored dunng any gravity load
investigation The roof deck is supported by bar joists 32 ± deep spanning in the 50' direction
These bar joist in turn rest on steel girders spanning between the columns in the short direction
(30-0')
BOCA REQUIREMENTS/LOADING SCENARIOi
The BOCA Code was used to determine the loads used in the structural evaluation It
was assumed soil removal could happen at any time dunng the year, therefore a snow load wasi I
considered for the loading scenano BOCA defines the site area as a' Site-specific case study inI '
regard to ground snow loads This means that with the mquntainous and irregular topography
associated with the area, snow loads can vary tremendously over short distances For our initial
evaluation a ground snow load of 30 pounds per square foot (psf) was considered, since this
region is neighbored by regions with 30 psf Past expenence also shows 30 psf to' be the most
likely used ground snow load in the onginal design of the warehouse A ground snow load of 50
psf was used based on more recent experience from roof evaluations following the b'lizzards and
unusually snowy winters of the early to-mid 1990s Also, the nearby city of \\filkes-Barrei
Pennsylvania mandates a 50 psf minimum ground snow load in their local jurisdiction A
ground snow load translates to a roof snow load of 35 psf Il
Based on the existing conditions a dead load of 15 psf was used for the roof structure andi
an additional 10 psf was used for miscellaneous dead loads The design load for each columni
was 60 psf
For the floor replacement BOCA requires heavy storage facilities to be designed for 250
uniform load ',
iRESULTS OF THE EVALUATION
Based upon the existing conditions, drilled caissons were first evaluated for this
application However upon further review, it was determined that the constructability of the
necessary size caisson would not be feasible for this application because of the bmited overheadI 1
height of 17 Upon further investigation and conversations with Hayward Baker, Inc, it was
determined that the use of four (4) seven inch (7 ) micro piles at each column would provide the
c K7nK97l717 J u t 7 2003 14 29 P 06a l f r e d benesch & co Fax 5706221232
alf red benesch & company
necessary beanng support for this application However based on the existing size of the
footings which are assumed to be four foot (4) by four foot (4') by 12" deep it was determined
that a larger and thicker footing size would be needed To accommodate the larger footing sizei I
the g urders would be jacked on each side to relieve the column of load Die column may requirei j
removal to accommodate micro pile dnlhng The micro piles would be dnver: eight (8) to ten
feet f lO) into bedrock Upon reaching the eight (8) to t<n-foot (101) mark in the bedrock the
piles would be left long and be cut later to elevation by the concrete contractor The concrete
contractor would fill the piles with concrete A new footing 5' x 5 x 18" would be placed on the
micro piles to act as a pile cap and the column would be reinstalled if it was removed (the
adequacy of the 5' x 5' x IS footing would have to be venfiepl at a later engineering! phase) Thei
jacking apparatus for the column would then be removed After all the columns are reset the slab
removal and soil excavation can commence However, special care must be made to avoid anyi '
conta< t with the piles dunng excavation that would create lateral buckling
The area of contaminated soil beneath the CMU walls on strip footings will have to be
supported by what is referred to as the Atlas Resistance Pier by Hayward Baker ojr equivalenti i
system This system consists of dnvujg micro piles every four (4) to five fooit (5 ) on center
along the wall down into bedrock Once the piles are embedded into the bedroc k a bracket isi '
attach* d to the side of the pile and then slipped under the existing stnp footing This) applicationi
will support the stop footing and wall while the contaminated soil is removed from beneath it
Once the contaminated soil is removed new backfill stone or flowable fill can be placed After
the placement of backfill the pile and bracket may stay in place, if the contractor so desires This
application is more efficient and less costly than pressure grouting the soil beneath the ten-inch
(10") (MU walls j
Upon the completion of all the contaminated soil removal, new backfill placement, and a
new si ib on grade designed for a 250 pound per square foot uniform load would be constructed
nncoom? Jul 7 2003 14 29 P 0?a l f r e d benesch 8 co Fax 5706221232 Jul
alf red benesch & company
SUMMARY
The conceptual study for the proposed soil removal has determwed that this building is
structurally capable of handling this type construction procedure for the soil removal process
Contaminated soil can be removed to bedrock or to a minimum depth of three feet (31) where
necessary The estimated cost for the structural support soil removal and construction to return
the building to original condition, not including the environmental costs is approximatelyl i
$900 000 00, see attached estimate Ii I
If a larger soil area of removal is required the same methods as outlined above can be
implemented for additional costs
Upon request, alfred benesch & company will be available to provide additionali
consulting engineering services including additional site investigation, more detailed analysis
and design for construction and assistance with the construction process and methods by
Contractor
c K7nG99m? Jul 7 2003 14 29 P 08alfred benesch & co Fax 5706221232
alf red bencksch & company
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
JI
a, fred benesch * co Fax 5706221232Jul 7 2003 14 30 p ua
beneschComp by ,/3Q/(Q3 Shew / „ f
Element
a,fred benesch & co Fax 5706221232jul 7 2003 14 30 P ">
beneschComp by
ChKd by
Project
Element
ill 103 Sheel
/tfl
of
Si
i—z
CAA//o>» truaff&t
+0^
7'-*"*
i
V s ' x .'y
Iio!/
.'I
i»//fA
jn
/
'benesch & co Fax 5706221232 Jul 7 2003 14 30 P 11
"il« SdhfjiP ''
beneschComp by fj fT~
Chkd hy /7/r5
Project CJf\ AHWl a r
Element Ma [\ r~
ik M
DfitoJ t/-^/ f -lnh
^ At* 2.
el -? of y"
L
0 >/Jb/
r^i
a l f r e d benesch & co Fax 5706221232Ju| 7 2003 14 30 P 12
COMP0Y
CHKD PY
GAS 7/3/2003
oATf
beneach
PROJECT Valmont TCE Site
SHEET 4 OF 4I
Gnglnners surveyors - Planners tOBflO 849900
SUBJECT Cost Estimate ,
Micropile 5up|x>rt System 9 Columns @ $10 000 per column =
Atlas Resistance Pier (1 pile every 4 along 200 of Stnp Footing / Wall) @$2000 Ea
2500 per unit =
2000 per setup
Jacking Apparatus (Material) 3 units will be utilized
Jacking Apparatus (Setup & removal)i
Support Electrical Panel from Ceiling
Remove Block Vl/alls
Excavation 5000 CV €> 25 perCV =(Does not include any requirements / surcharges for contaminated soil)
Embankment 5000 CV@ 15 perCV =
Column Footings (9 5 x 5 x 18" with High Early Strength Concrete) @ $600/CY =
Slab on Grade 27000 SF wrfh a 6" Slab = 500 CV @ $3.50/CV =
Sub Surface Drainage Replacement (Allowance)
Sub Total25 /o Contingency
Total Construction
Engineering (15X of, Construction)
Total Project Cost
I
Note The Total Project Cost does not include environmental services surcharge for
tipping fees building ventilation or other environmental measures
i$90000
$100000
$7500iI
$18000I
I^2000
$5000
$125000
I
$75000
$7500
$175 0001
$25000
$630 000
3 157 500
$787500
$118 125I
$<X)5 625
*<! 1232
P 73
I
I
I
I
alfred benesch 8 co Fax 5706221232Jul 7 2003 14 30 P 14
Project Summary
Industrial FacilityCentral Kentucky
one story industrial facility in central Kentuckywas constructed on shallow spread footings bearing on naturally occurring cohesive sols
Sandstone bedrock elevation varied from 8 to 15 ft beneaththe slab on grade Over time industrial solvents had contaounated the soil beneath approximately one-quarter of the500 000 ft1 building The contaminated matenal was to beremoved down to bedrock and replaced with clean fillHowever 21 interior lightly loaded columns would have tobe supported pnor to soil removal Portions of the buildingwere stilll occupied by (he owner therefore the length ofremediation tune was a major concern
The original temporary support scheme consisted ofdrilling into bedrock and grouting four small rectangularsteel tub* columns in place around the existing footing Asthe excavation of matenal progressed steel framing wouldbe welded to these steel columns to provide lateralrestraint All of this work would be peformed with theappropnate personal protection restricting production andadding time Once the contaminated soil was completelyremoved the area enclosed by the structural steel framebeneath the existing footings would be backfilled bycrushed .tone or flowable fill as the soil backfill wasreplaced TCDl A Division of Hayward Baker proposeda value engineered underpinning alternative to permanently support each column with mimpiles This one stepsolution s ived both ume and money for the owner
Right top Exposed onginalSpread footing end newly
installed m
Right Completed newreinforced concrete pile cap
surrounding the onginalfooting and new mmipiles
i
Minipiles
Underpinning Design
Although column loads were very light TCDI/HaywardBaker elected to install four 5 5 incti diameter rocksocketed mimpiles per column to ensure stability andprovide a safety cushion against damage dunng soilexcavtuon The numpiles were evaluated for an unbracedlength up to 15 ft and determine d to be more than adequateto prevent buckling in the temporarily exposed condition
alfred benesch & co Fax 5706221232 Jul 7 2003 14 30 P 15
Industrial Facility, continued
Removal of the contaminated soilsin preparation for backfilling with
clean fill exposed the new mimpileload transfer systems
Production WorkThe floor slab was removed around the vicinity of each
footing to allow access for rrumpile installation Care was
taken to ensure that contaminated soil particles were not
released into the atmosphere Water rather than air was used
as the flushing medium and the waste water was pumped to
a decontamination unit for treatment
The mimpiles were installed 12 to 18 inches from the
edges of the exisung footings using rotary drilling tech-
niques Casing was advanced through the overburden and
socketed five ft into rock The casing was tremie-filled
with 5 000 psi cement grout to complete the mimpile
Existing column loads were transferred to the mimpiles via
a new reinforced concrete pile cap which surrounded the
onginal spread footing and the four new mimpiles Epoxy
dowel bars were used to connect the onginal footing to the
new pile cap
Post Construction PerformanceAfter completion of the underpinning work a remediation
contractor removed the contaminated soil and backfilled
the area with clean fill then placed a new slab-on grade
No settlement or movement of the mimpiles occurred
7/7/2003 3 33 PM
VALMONT TCE SITEnazie Townsmp ana west Hazleton borougnLuzeme County PennsylvaniaAlternative 4 Excavation of All Contaminated Soil and Offsite DisposalCapital Cost
1 Item1 PROJECT DOCUMENTS/INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
1 1 Prepare Documents & Plans including Permits2 MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION AND FIELD SUPPORT
2 1 Office Trailer (2)2 2 Field Office Support2 3 Storage Trailer (1)2 4 Utility Connection/Disconnection (phone/electnc)2 5 Construction Survey2 6 Equipment Mobilization/Demobilization2 7 Drill Rig Mob/Demob2 8 Site Utilities2 9 Professional Oversight (5p 5 days/week)
3 DECONTAMINATION3 1 Decontamination Trailer3 2 Pressure Washer3 3 Equipment Decon Pad3 4 Decon Water3 5 Decon Water Storage Tank 6 000 gallon3 6 Clean Water Storage Tank 4 000 gallon3 7 PPE (5 p 5 days 1 3 weeks)3 8 Disposal of Decon Waste (liquid & solid)
4 ZONE A SOIL EXCAVATION AND DISPOSAL4 1 Backhoe w/Operator & Labor 1 1/2 cy (444 cy)4 2 Venfication Sampling of Excavation (VOC)4 3 rran porta'son fo Disposa1 '15 c> & *3Q mi'es/tnp)4 4 Disposal non hazardous (1 5 tons/cy)4 5 Waste Charactenzation Testing (TCLP)4 6 Import Fill4 7 Place/Grade/Compact Soil4 8 Replace Pavement (stone/pavement)
5 ZONE B SOIL EXCAVATION AND DISPOSAL5 1 Structural Support/ Floor Rpelacement5 2 Backhoe w/Operator & Labor 1 1/2 cy (3 900 cy^5 3 Venfication Sampling of Excavation (VOC)5 4 Transportation for Disposal (15 cy & 130 miles/trip)5 5 Disposal non hazardous (1 5 tons/cy)5 6 Waste Charactenzation Testing (TCLP)5 7 Import Fill5 8 Place/Grade/Compact Soil
6 ZOtfE C SOIL EXCAVATION AND DISPOSAL6 1 Backhoe w/Operator & Labor 1 1/2 cy (2 600 cy)6 2 Venfication Sampling of Excavation (VOC)6 3 Transportation for Disposal (15 cy & 130 miles/trip)6 4 Disposal non hazardous (1 5 tons/cy)6 5 Waste Charactenzation Testing (TCLP)6 6 Import Fill6 7 Place/Grade/Compact Soil6 8 Replace Pavement (stone/pavement)
Quantity
200
44411414
17
441
Unit
hr
momomo
IsIs
eaIs
mo
Subcontract
$35000
$10300$1 500 00$300000
$150000$100000
Unit CostMatenal Labor
$13900
mwk
momo
Is
$235000$105000
3 000 gal$50000
$020
$3000
$10000
$4 000 00
$45000
Equipment
$352 00
$15500
3 mo $600 003 mo $540 00
325 day $31673 mo $900 00
4 day5 ea $247 50 $2000
$70500$5000
$47200$2000
3900 ~ e $tOO666 ton $65 00
1 ea $80000370 cy
$2000$750
2 day
$5000
$43260
$2000
$432204 000 sf $1 27
Is $564 500 0034 day15 ea $24750 $2000
$'05 X$5000
$4'200$2000
34 200 mile $4 005900 ton $6500
8 e<i $800003 500 cy
$2000$750
13 day
18 day12 ea $24750 $2000
$5000
$43260
$70500$5000
$2000
Subcontract
$0
$1400$0
$412$1 500$3000
$0$1 500$4000
$0
$9400$4200
$0$0
$1800$1620
$0$2700
$0$1238
Jl&bOO$43290
$800$0$0
$5080
$564 500$0
$3713$136800$383500
tRdnn$0
$432 20 $0
$472 00 $0$2000 $2970
21190 mile $4003 900 ton $65 00
6 ea $800002 240 cy
$2000$750
8 day
$5000
$43260
$84760$253 500
$2000 $4800$0
$43220 $037 500 sf $1 27 $47625
Total CostMatenal Labor
$0
$0$556
$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
$0$0
$500$600
$0$0
$10293$0
$0$100
$0$0
$20$2775
$0$0
$0$0
$300$0$0
$16°$26*250
$0
$0$240
$0$0
$120$16800
$0$0
$6000
$0$0$0$0$0
$400$0$0
$68800
$0$0
$450$0$0$0$0$0
$2820$250
$0$0
$50$0
$865$0
$0$/id 970
$750$0$0
$400$0
$5624
$12690$600
$0$0
$300$0
$3461$0
Equipment!
$0
$0$0$0$0$0
$1408$0$0$0
$0$0
$155$0$0$0$0$0
$1 888$100
$0$0
$20$0
$864$0
$0$16048
$300$0$0
* onS> ww
$0$5619
$8496$240
$0$0
$120
$0$3458
$0
Total Direct!Costj
$6000
$1400$556$412
$1500$3000$1808$1 500$4000
$68800
$9400$4200$1 105
$600$1800$1620
$10293$2700
$4708$1688
$15600$43290
$890$2775$1730$5080
$564 500$40018$5063
$136800$383500
F 20$26 250$11242
$21 186$4050
$84760$253 500
$5340$16 800$6918
$47625
loganj\Valmorrt\Alt 4 cost1\capcost Page 1 of 7
7/7/2003 3 33 PM
VALMONT TCE SITEHazle Township and West Hazleton BoroughLuzeme County PennsylvaniaAlternative 4 Excavation of All Contaminated Soil and Offsite DisposalCapital Cost
1 Item I7 ZONE D SOIL EXCAVATION AND DISPOSAL
71 Backhoe w/Operator & Labor 1 1/2cy(1 125 cy)7 2 Building Shoring7 3 Venfication Sampling of Excavation (VOC)7 4 Transportation for Disposal (15 cy & 130 miles/tnp)7 5 Disposal non hazardous (1 5 tons/cy)7 6 Waste Characterization Testing (TCLP)7 7 Import Fill7 8 Place/Grade/Compact Soil7 9 Import Topsoil 6 thick
7 10 Revegetation
Quantityl
825
597501 688
31065
460
356
Unit
daymbfea
miletoneacy
daycysy
Subcontract
$247 50$400
$6500$80000
Unit CostMatenal
$85000$2000
$2000$750
$1000$026
Labor
$70500$52000$5000
$5000
$43260
$1 19
Equipment
$47200$7050$2000
$2000
$43220
$018
Subcontract
$0$0
$1238$39000
$109720$2400
$0$0$0$0
Total CostMatenal Labor
$0$2125
$100$0$0
$60$7988
$0$600
$93
$5640$1300
$250$0$0
$150$0
$1730$0
$424
Equipment!
$3776$176$100
$0$0
$60$0
$1 729$0
$64
Total Direct!Cost)
$9416$3601$1 688
$39000$109720
$2670$7988$3459
$600$580
Subtotal
Local Area Adjustments
Subtotal
$1738465 $69679 $136924
100 O/ 99 O/ 99 O/
$44 781 $1 989 848
99 O/
$1738465 $68982 $135555
Overhead on Labor Cost @ 30 /G&AonLaborCost @ 10/
G & A on Material Cost @ 10 /G & A on Subcontract Cost @ 10 /
$6898
$40 666$13555
$173846
$44 333 $1 987 334
$40666$13555$6898
$173 846
loganj\Valmont\Alt 4 cost1\capcost Page 2 of 7
t) *7/7/2003 3 33 PM
VALMONT TCE SITEHazle Township and West Hazleton BoroughLuzeme County PennsylvaniaAlternative 4 Excavation of All Contaminated Soil and Offsite Disposal
1 Item Quantity Unit SubcontractUnit Cost
Matenal Labor Equipment SubcontractTotal Cost
Matenal Labor Equipment!Total Direct!
Cost!
Total Direct Cost
Subtotal
Indirects on Total Direct Cost @ 30 /Profit on Total Direct Cost @ 10 /
Health & Safety Monitonng @ 2 /
(excluding Transportation and Disposal Costs)
$1912311 $75880 $189776 $44333 $2222301
$346029$222 230
Total Field Cost
Contingency on Total Field Cost @ 20 /Engmeenng on Total Field Cost @ 10 /
TOTAL COST
$2790560
$55811
$2 846 371
$569 274$284 637
$3700282
logan|\Valmont\Alt 4 cost1\capcost Page 3 of 7 j R,
7/7/2003 3 33 PM .as
VALMONT TCE SITEHazle Township and West Hazleton BoroughLuzeme County PennsylvaniaAlternative 4 Excavation of All Contaminated Soil and Offsite DisposalCapital Cost System Removal and Site Restoration
| Item Quantity Unit SubcontractUnit Cost
Matenal Labor Equipment SubcontractTotal Cost
Material Labor Equipment]I Total DirectCost]
1 .1 1 Prepare Documents & Plans including Permits
2 MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION AND FIELD SUPPORT21 Office Trailer (2)2 2 Field Office Support23 Storage Trailer (1)2 4 Utility Connection/Disconnection (phone/electric)2 5 Equipment Mobilization/Demobilization2 6 Site Utilities2 7 Professional Oversight (2p 5 days/week)
3 WELLS AND PIPING REMOVAL & RESTORATION3 1 Drill Rig Mob/Demob3 2 Abandon Vent Wells3 3 Abandon Vapor Extraction Wells
4 VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEMS REMOVAL & RESTORATION4 1 Blower/Motor and Controls4 2 Water Storage Tank4 3 Vacuum Blower4 4 Moisture Separation Tank4 5 Floor Repair
Subtotal
Local Area Adjustments
Subtotal
Overhead on Labor Cost @ 30 /G & A on Labor Cost @ 10 /
G & A on Matenal Cost @ 10 /G & A on Subcontract Cost @ 10 /
hr
0000000
000
00000
momomo
Isea
momwk
Isvlfvlf
eaeaeaeaea
$35000
$10500$1 500 00
$100000
$1 500 00$1000$1000
$13900
$3000
$100 00 $352 00
$160000
$2400
$500 00$15000$15000$15000$5000
$200 00$5000$5000$5000
Total Direct Cost
Subtotal
Indirects on Total Direct Cost @ 25 /Profit on Total Direct Cost @ 10 /
Health & Safety Monitonng @ 0 /
Total Field Cost
Contingency on Total Field Cost @ 10 /Engmeenng on Total Field Cost @ 5 /
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
$0$0$0
$0$0$0$0$0
$0
100 O/
$0
$0
$0
$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
$0$0$0
$0$0$0$0$0
$0
99 O/
$0
$0
$0
$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
$0$0$0
$0$0$0$0$0
$0
99 O/
$0
$0$0
$0
$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
$0$0$0
$0$0$0$0$0
$0
99 O/
$0
$0
$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
$0$0$0
$0$0$0$0$0
$0
$0
$0$0$0$0
$0
$0$0
$0
$0
$0
$0$0
TOTAL COST (Removal & Restoration) $0
nleyWalmontAlt 4 cost1\capcost (2) Page 4 of 7
7/7/2003 3 33 PM
VALMONT TCE SITEHazle Township and West Hazleton BoroughLuzerne County, PennsylvaniaAlternative 4 Excavation of All Contaminated Soil and Offsite DisposalOperation and Maintenance Costs per Year
1 Item Qty UnitUnit
CostSubtotal
Cost Notes 1
1 Energy Electric2 Equipment Maintenance3 Labor Mobilization/Demobilization Per Diem Supplies4 Quarterly Reports
Cost for One Year Operation(for third year use 1/2 amount)
0 kWh0 Is0 wk0 ea
$006$000
$925 00$4 000 00
$0$0$0$0
5% of Installation Cost1 visit per week 1 day
$0
nley\Valmont\Alt 4 cost1\op&mamt Page 5 of 7
7/7/2003 3 33 PM
VALMONT TCE SITEHazle Township and West Hazleton BoroughLuzerne County PennsylvaniaAlternative 4 Excavation of All Contaminated Soil and Offsite DisposalAnnual Sampling Cost
I Item
Sampling &
Analysis Air (1)
Sampling &
Analysis Air (2)
Reporting
TOTALS
Cost
Year!
$0
$0
$0
Cost
Year 2
$0
$0
$0
Cost
YearS
$0
$0
$0
$0
Notes I
Monitor soil gas for VOCs from five wellls in each zone beingtreated
Monitor two locations (Zone B header and GACVOCs
Reports Presentation and evaluation of resultsand recommendations
discharge) for
conclusions
(1) Quarterly
(2) Four times for Month 1 two times for Months 2 & 3 one time per month for Months 4+
riley\Valmont\Alt 4 costl \anulcost Page 6 of 7
7/7/2003 3 33 PM
VALMONT TCE SITEHazle Township and West Hazleton BoroughLuzerne County PennsylvaniaAlternative 4 Excavation of All Contaminated Soil and Offsite DisposalPresent Worth Analysis
1 YearCapitalCost
Annual SamplingCost
Operation &Maintenance Cost
Total YearCost
Annual DiscountRate at 7%
0 $3 700 282 $3 700 282 1 000
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH
Present IWorth )
$3 700 282
$3,700,282
riley\Valmont\Alt 4 cost1\pwa Page 7 of 7
U.S. P«stal ServiceI CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT
(Domestic Mail Only; N» Insurance Coverage Provided)
Certified Mail ProvidesQ A mailing receipt
B A unique identifier for your mailpiece
D A signature upon delivery
a A record of delivery kept by the Postal Service for two years
Important RemindersQ Certified Mail may ONLY be combined with First Class Mail or Priority Mail
Q Certified Mail is not available for any class of international mail
O NO INSURANCE COVERAGE IS PROVIDED with Certified Mail Forvaluables please consider Insured or Registered Mail
D For an additional fee a Return Receipt may be requested to provide proof ofdelivery To obtain Return Receipt service please complete and attach a ReturnReceipt (PS Form 3811) to the article and add applicable postage to cover thefee Endorse mailpiece Return Receipt Requested To receive a fee waiver fora duplicate return receipt a USPS postmark on your Certified Mail receipt isrequired
a For an additional fee delivery may be restricted to the addressee oraddressee s authorized agent Advise the clerk or mark the mailpiece with theendorsement Restricted Delivery
D If a postmark on the Certified Mail receipt is desired please present the article at the post office for postmarking If a postmark on the Certified Mailfeceipt is not needed detach and affix label with postage and mail
IMPORTANT Save this receipt and present it when making an inquiry
no r~— innn I-....A.., onm /D«..n»«\ -iniKni: in M -fnj-7