sdms docid 2025672 · project number 5061 mr rorn roman (3hs21) united states environmental...

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


TABLE 4 1SCREENING OF REMOVAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES


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


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


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


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


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


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


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



Residuals and Soil

Excavation with Off-Site

Disposal

ALTERNATIVE 3B



Residuals and Soil

Excavation with On-Site

Treatment and Re-Use ofTreated Soil

ALTERNATIVE 4


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




migration




migration

Most VOCs would be



migration

COMPLIANCE WITH ARARs

Compliance with

ARARs

No Complies with all ARARs

and TBCs

Complies with all ARARs

and TBCs


and TBCs


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


from the site permanentlyNo long term monitonng

would be required


from the site permanently

No long term monitoring

would be required

Most VOCs would be


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


Zones A C and D would

not reduce toxicity mobility

or volume Regeneration of

vapor phase GAC from SVE


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


volume of VOCs from Zone

B


Zones A B C and D would

not reduce toxicity mobility

or volume through on site

treatment of contaminants


TABLE 5 1COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMOVAL ACTION ALTERNATIVESVALMONT TCE SITEWEST HAZLETON, LUZERNE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIAPAGE 2 OF 3


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





Site Disposal for

Accessible Areas

ALTERNATIVE 3A



Residuals and Soli


Disposal

No significant risk to


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


used dunng soil removal


operation and monitoring




6 months for excavation



pilot test is required



ALTERNATIVE 3B



Residuals and Soil


Treatment and Re Use of

Treated Soil


increased truck traffic and

noise is anticipated No

other significant risk to


Engineering controls during

operation and transport

would be used during

implementation to mitigate

risks

No risk to workers


used during soil removal


operation LTTD operation

and monitoring




8 months for LTTD



pilot test is required LTTD

treatment of soil with high

fines content is difficult



ALTERNATIVE 4


Site Disposal


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


used during soil removal If

necessary a ventilation

system would be needed for

excavation work at Zone B



Less than 1 year forexcavation



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


No Action

ALTERNATIVE 2





Site Disposal for

Accessible Areas

ALTERNATIVE 3A



Residuals and Soil


Disposal

ALTERNATIVE 3B



Residuals and Soil


Treatment and Re-Use of

Treated Soil

ALTERNATIVE 4


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




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


equipment disposal

capacity and contractorsare generally available

Limited number of LTTD

contractor may affect

scheduling



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%


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



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


LUZERNE COUNTY PA

RLE NAME. 5061kp10dwgLDL PHL

FIGURE NUMBERFIGURE 1-20

SCALEAS NOTED

REV DATE11/6/02


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



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



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



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



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



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)




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



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


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


t = VT/Q(well)




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


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


(A sketch of the attached layout indicates that 58 wells will be sufficient)





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



<ft




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




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



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



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


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



SUBJECT Valmont TCE Site -Alternative 2 Excavation

BY JWL

CHECKED BY ,(fft • / <ft^

PAGE2of2

DATE 11/25/02

Zone D

TCE = 51 ug/kg


APPENDIX E-3

O CALCULATIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE 3A ji



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)




BY JWL

CHECKED BY

Al\.wA

PAGE2 of 4

DATE 11/25/02


Vpore = 3 138 Ft3


VT = V^ x 600

VT = 3138Ft3x600

VT = 1 883 000 Ft3


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



AOI = pi x ROI2

AOI = pix152 = 707Ft2



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








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




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)


1 otal flow rate is 51 = 91 scfm


M = 40 scfm x 1440 min/day x 0 075 Ib air/ft3 air x (0 0157 - 0 0115) Ib water/lb air






1 here will be one GAC system serving Zone B




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


TCE (or DCE) mass lb = soil mass kg x concentration ug/kg x lb/(454x 106)ug


TCE-199lb/100lbGAC




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


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


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


40 feet x 100 feet = 4 000 ft2


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


40 feet x 80 feet = 3 200 ft2


Volume

V = 3 200 ft2 x 9 5 feet = 30 400 ft3

V = 30 400 ft3 / 27 ft3/yd3 = 1 125 yd3



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


ZoneC

TCE = 106 ug/kg


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



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



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


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)




BY JWL

CHECKED BY"A- 'fntfi

PAGE2 of 4

DATE 11/25/02


Vpore = 3 138 Ft3


VT = V^ x 600

VT = 3138Ft3x600

VT = 1 883 000 Ft3


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



AOI = pi x ROI2

AOI = pix152 = 707Ft2






QT scfm = Q (well) x (number of SVE wells) x 1 25





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




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)


Total flow rate is 51 =91 scfm


M = 40 scfm x 1440 mm/day x 0 075 Ib air/ft3 air x (0 0157 - 0 011 (>) Ib watt r/lb air






There will be one GAC system serving Zone B




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


TCE (or DCE) mass lb = soil mass kg x concentration ug/kg x lb/(454 x 106)ug


TCE-199lb/100lbGAC




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


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



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


40 feetx 100 feet = 4 000 ft2


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


40 feet x 80 feet = 3 200 ft2


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


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

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


$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


$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


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


$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


$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


Subtotal

Quantity

1

45

3900666

1370

24000

1812

Unit

eaeaeaeaIsIs

dayea

miletoneacy

day

Subcontract

$247 50$400

$6500$800 00


$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


$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


(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


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


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


$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


Total YearCost


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


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)


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


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


$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


$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


Cost!

Subtotal

Total Field Cost


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


Cost)UUUUMhN I O/IINO 111UI IUNAL. WON I KULS


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)


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


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


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



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


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


Total YearCost


Present IWorth

$2 072 736 1000 $2 072 736$89856 0935 $84015$85 606 0~873 $74 734$94734 0816 $77303


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


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)


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


$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/


$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


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 /


$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


$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


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



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


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


Total YearCost


Present 1Worth 1

$3 700 282 $3 700 282 1 000 $3700282


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


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


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


services are generally available for Alternatives 2 and 3A


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


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




PAGE 1 OF 3

ATTACHMENT 2

CRITERION ALTERNATIVE 1C nCuOn

ALTERNATIVE 2Son vapor Extraction with

Off-Site Treatment ofResiduals and FocusedSoil Excavation with Off


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



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



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



PAGE 2 OF 3

CRITERION ALTERNATIVE 1No Action

ALTERNATIVE 2Soil Vapor Extraction with








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


VALMONT TCE SITEWEST HAZLETON LUZERNE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

PAGE 3 OF 3

CRITERION ALTERNATIVE 1mo Mcuon

ALTERNATIVE 2Sou vapor Extraction with



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




Uncertainty in the efficiencyof an SVE system SVEpilot test is requiredExcavation is a readilyimplementable technology


Excavation equipment SVEequipment disposalcapacity and contractorsare generally available



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


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


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


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


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


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


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


$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


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


$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


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!Total Direct!

Cost!

Total Direct Cost

Subtotal

Indirects on Total Direct Cost @ 30 /Profit on Total Direct Cost @ 10 /

Health & Safety Monitonng @ 2 /


$1912311 $75880 $189776 $44333 $2222301

$346029$222 230

Total Field Cost


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


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)


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


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


$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



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


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


Total YearCost


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