INDUSTRIAL HASTE CONTROL SITETECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

Consolidation of Off-site SoilOnto the IWC Site -

Recreational/AgriculturalScenario

WA No. 6 9 . 6 L 3 7 . 0

June 13. 1986

003239

B r-A -... ._, -- r . " "~-\' , " . ' ' •J£:.•. ; . - ; yi

r:3J^ 1 7 r '12- 1 7C 1;' ;:t':"^ • ^ ^ l'^'/fc ^1 1 ... ^..^- — - . - 1 1 ^ 1 1

June 1 3 , 1986

W 6 6 2 3 7 . B C

hr. Anthony GardnerI'.S. Er.vironrr.ental Protection

Agency/ m;&jion VIFirgt International Building28th Floor1 2 0 3 Flm StreetDalloa, Tcxa5 7 5 2 7 0

Dear M r . Gardner:

Enclosed Is tht= tychnical Memorandui-r. you requested thataddresses consolidation of contaminated offsite soils ontothe; IWC site/ asf-uir.ing recreational and/or agricultural useof the otib^te areas. The memorandum presents the rationalefor determining the quantity of offbite soil that should beconsolidated onto the sity and presents estimated costs forconductinc, this remedial action.

If you have an> questions, please call.

Bichar^ E. hocJSSPM/ XWC Site

D E / 7 C / & r 2 f c lEnclosurescc; Mike Harris, Ch2M HILL, Dallas

Clyde Kutchison, Black & Veatch, Ka)ii3a& City

^.r^^'^jf,t,M,Offnr- CH^MHIli &Ml(ln"j. 5W5^ 'SyracuSE. Encjh-w^-iCl. CO 30,? 771 OWO^0 Bw 22^)8. D^n^Qf CtA^OOO <s0222

003240

This technical memorandum presents the rationale for determining the

q u a n t i t y of contaminated of f - s i te soil which vould be consolidated onto the

IVC site under the recreat ional /agr icul tural land use scenario defined in the

endangerment assessment (EPA, l986b).

Results of soil and grounduater sampl ing at o f f - s i t e locations presented

in the Remedial Xnvest igat ion Report (RI) (EPA, 1986a) indicated the presence

of organic chemicals that do not occur na tu ra l ly , and inorganic elements at

concent cat ions above established background repor t ing l i m i t s .

Tha Endangerment Assessment report (EA) (EPA, l986b) q u a n t i f i e d the risks

associated w i t h exposure to the chemicals reported in the soil both on-site

and o f E site and the ground water in the artesian system o f f - s i t e . The risk

tl-om. thifta exposure scenarios (Res iden t i a l , Light Commercia l / Industr ia l , and

Recrea t iona l ) vere q u a n t i f i e d . A f o u r t h exposure set t ing, ag r i cu l tu ra l ,

vas presented but not q u a n t i f i e d . The risks associated v i th the

agr icul tural land use are assumed to be less than or equal to the risks

associated w i t h the residential land use because:

o Children are potent ia l ly exposed under the recreational land use andnot under the agr icu l tu ra l .

o Agr icu l tu ra l field vork in the area is l imi t ed because most of theland is pasture and not cul t ivated on an annual basis.

The residential and commercial / industr ia l scenarios included results of

soil samples (surface and subsurface borings) f rom 0-15 feet deep since

founda t ion excavation could bring contaminated subsurface material to the

surface. The quan t i f i ca t ion of risks £01: the recreational scenario was based

on surface soil samples only because contact w i th contaminated soils vould be

llBiLted to the surface soils. Combining the recreational and agricultucal

003241

scenarios would po ten t ia l ly provide an exposure to soils from a depth of 0-2

feet to Include the agr icul tura l plov zone. Therefore, the off-s ite soil

potentially requiring remedia t ion in accordance w i t h a recreational/

agricultural land use would be from the surface to a depth of 2 feet.

The first objective of remedial action at the IVC s i te , as defined in

Chapter 2 of the Feasibility Study (EPA, 1986c), is to evaluate remedial

alternatives vhich reduce or e l imina te the potent ia l for di rect contact w i t h

or ingestion of con taminants in the on-s i te surface soils and preclude the

transport of these surface con taminan t s to o f f - s i t e areas by sur face va ter or

airborne transport mechanisms. In accordance v i t h this object ive , it vas

determinad by the EPA tha t contaminated o f f - s i t e soil also be remedia ted .

This resulted in the second object ive of the remedial action (FS, Chapter 2 ) ,

vhich is to reduce the risk of exposure to contaminants o f f - s i t e to levels

acceptable for residential development . This vas to be accomplished by

removing contaminated o f f - s i te soils back onto the site. The aereal extent

and q u a n t i f y of o f f - s i t e soil to be consolidated on the site was based on the

residential scenario of the Endangerment Assessment (EPA, 1986b) in

accordance v i th site cleanup goals established by EPA. This memorandum

presents the areal extent and q u a n t i t y of soil to be consolidated on the site

based o" a recreational/agricultural land use scenario rather than

residential usa. Data for both the residential and recreational/agricultural

scenarios for both the residential and recreational/agricultural scenarios are

provided for comparative purposes.

lUsk-assaasernQnts for the residential scenario presented in the EA

indicate riska associated vi th chronic Intake (AIC) of soil by a child at

ra^Qs of 0.1 g/day, 1.0 ff/day and 10.0 g/day and by adults at 0.1 g/day. Risk

S1VM06106

003242

assessments for the recreational scenario are associated v i th subchronic

( A I S ) intake of soil by a child at the same rates. The AIC is an es t imate of

an exposure level that vould not be expected to cause adverse effects vhen

exposure occurs for a s ign i f ican t po r t i on of the lifespan. The AIS is an

estimate of an exposure level that vould not be expected to cause adverse

e f f e c t s vhen exposure occurs dur ing a l imited time interval ( i . e . , for an

i n t e r v a l vhich does not c o n s t i t u t e a s igni f icant por t ion of the l ifespan —

several months or less). ( E P A , 198';)

The greatest r isk under each scenario vas for a child at an an ingestion

rate of 10 g/day. This is the ra te of ingestion of the so-called "pica

chi ld" . The presence of th i s type of child and concurrent ingestion rate of

10 g/day is remote due Co present and projected land use patterns and

demographics for the s i te area. Since the probabi l i ty of a pica child l i v i n g

near the s i te is remote, the ^ore realistic ingestion rate of 1.0 g/day vas

determined by EPA to be an appt-of . t iate upper l imi t .

Us ing EPA acceptable subchronic intakes (AIS) for non-carcinogenic

chemicals, in conjunct ion v i th a dai ly intake of 1 gram of soil by a 10 kg

child under the recreational use scenario, the concentrations of the various

chemicals found in o f f - s i t e soils vere established vhich vould equal or exceed

the AIS. Calculations vere also performed to determine the concentrations of

carcinogenic chemicals in the soil vhich vould pose an excess l i f e t ime cancer

risk equal to or greater than 1 x 10" . These calculations were based on

the model presented in Appendix A of the Endangerment Assessment (EPA, 1986b).

The results of the AIS and excesa cancer risk calculations for all

samples vhich exceeded the l imits are shovn in Table 1. The corresponding

sample locations are shovn on Figure 1.

S1VM06106

003243

TABLE 1OFF-SITE SOIL CONTAMINANT SCREENING RESULTS

REW^TWAL/AGRICULTIJRAL USE

AIC

Sa»plii?g Risk Reported - „ChffBleaS,. Seaeion Listit Concentration Ketained Deleted Reason for Deletion

pptn ppm

CadiniuiR IVC-23-I3 2.9 54 X(Surface)

IVC-27-II 3.7 X Prairie Creek sedireen(Surface)

IVC-50-II 4.3 X Prairie Creek sedimen(Surface)

AIC Lead IVC-00-2,1983 U(Surface)

22-7 X Less than backgroundreporting l imi t of 26 ppm.

Retained indicates sample used as a basis for cleanup of contaminated soil.Deleted indicates sample not used ais a basis for cleanup of contaminated soil.Roman nusseral following sample station number indicates remedial investigation phase. Phase I vas performed in 1984; PhaseII vas performed in 1985.

No AIS available, an AIC provided instead.

0 0 8 0 1 4

003244

OFF-TABLE 1 (cont'd)

-SITE SOIL CONTAMINANT SCREENING RESULTSRECREATIONAL/AGRICULTURAL USE

Risk Chemical

AIC Lead

SamplingStation

IVC-16-I(Surface)

IVC-Z6-II(Surface)

TSC-17-I(Surface)IVC-17-II(Surface)IVC-20-T(Surface)IVC-24-I(Replicate 1)(Surface)(IVC-24-I(Replicaee 2)(Surface)

Risk ReportedLimit Concentrationppffi ppm

14 21

22

28

48

17

19

22

Retained Deleted Reason for Deletion

Prairie Creek sediment, remote from siteand less than background reporting limitof 26 ppm.

Prairie Creek sediment, remote from siteand less than bacJcground reporting limitof 26 ppm.

Prairie Creek sediment, remote from site.

X Prairie Creek sediment, remote from site.

X Remote from site and less than backgroundreporting limit of 26 ppm.

X Concentration less than backgroundreporting- limit of 26 ppfn.

X Concentration less than backgroundreporting limit of 26 ppm.

00 0 1 5'-S -s ., •S, •- aSKcs:!..... „•-.. i ..

003245

TABLE I (cont'd)OFF-SITE SOIL GOTAMINANT SCREENING RESULTS

RECmnOMAL/AGRrCULTOAL £JSR

Sisfe C^etsicalSamplingStation

rvc-24-r(Replicate 3)(Surface)

RiskUai£

ppfn

14

ReportedConcentrasion

PpER

19

Retained 1 Deieeed

X i

reason

Conc^n E rareporting

foT Deleiioa

tion less than backgroundHsRit of 26 ppm.

IVC-24-ICReplicate 4)(Surface)IWC-50-H(Surface)IVC-23-I(Surface)IVC-16-I(Surface)IVC-17-I(Surface)IVC-50-II(Surface)

X Concentration of other three replicatesless than background reporting limit of26 ppm.

X Prairie Creek sediment:, remote from site.

X Frairis Creek sediment, remote from sits.

X Prairie Creek sediment,, remote from siEe.

X Prairie Creek sediment, remote froin site.

003246

TABLE I (cont'd)

OFF-SITE SOIL CONTAKIEWT SCPEEMNG RESULTS£ECR£ATI(^AL/AGRICULTURAL USE

Sampling Ri?k ReportedStation Uadt Concen nation Ketained Deleted Reason for Deletion

B?C--24-I 530(Replicate 1)(Surface)

IVC-^4-1(Replicate 2)(Surface)

IVC-2A-I(Replicate 3)(Surface)

IVC-24-I(Replicate A)(Surface)

ZVC-25-I(Surface)

1430

1720

1400

2300' X

578

Less than background reporting limit ofU63 ppai.

Replicates 1 and ^ belov bac-kgroundreporting limit. Elevated levels ofmanganese not found in Phase 11 samplingor upgradient surface sample at IVC-48.

Less than background reporting limit ofU63 ppm.

RepliLaces I and 3 belov backgroundreporting liiait. Elevated levels ofmanganese not found in Phase II samplingor upgradient surface sample at iyc-4.8.

Less Ehan backgrotmd reporting l imit of14.63 ppm.

0 0 8 0 1 7i a-aifci(iJ. .3^.

003247

TABLE 1 (eonc'd?.SITE SOIL CONTAMINANT SCREEOTMS RESULTS

RECREATIONAL/AGRIOJLTURAL USE

Sisfe Checdcal

ass fifi'a^wip^?<COC2E^>

: • ''* "

^ - ,.:'„; ':tt - i • ; '

ATS tnefcel

EKcess Benzo-a^Cancer pyrene

SamplingStation

2%-&:»-££(Surface)

B?C-46-II(Six-face)

TBM7-II(Surface)

7W^A9-II(Surface)

IVC-49-H(Duplicate)(Surface)

IVC-54.-I:(Surface)

AVC-23-I(Surface)

iyc-23-s(Surface)

RiskUfflic

opm

530

200

^.005

ReportedCoBicentraEioTt

ppia

759

1310

662

1463

900

540

$02

2.3

1 2Retained Deleted

A

X

Y

^ X

x

2;

X

x

Reaso

Less;1A63

t'sss;1463

Less1&63

Equal1463

Less3A63

Less1453

m for Deletion

ehan baefcgxoond reporciog 15a5l ofpp<a.

lAaan background reporting liBit ofppra.

than bac&groisnd reporting XiiEil ofPPBI.

to bacAground reporting; limit ofppm.

chan background reporting 13iaiE ofppai.

than bacfcp-found reporting lafflit ofppia.

0 0 8 0 1 8

003248

Ki «— Mt«ki

°»«™»»Wtmr t™.. lh«,W •qu.t i« ,». to.,, ,

" •rtto, u««t <iwk w>*•v —*»»» thw IN. M»Wrt tWB fyMt

--I 111. II.

' ^*• -

] -c'.W O»>M email i. 1*9*1

UM> n K».FMUMM »W

tMMV ft, WH

S E , * if

1 \ , ••

'• - • './ ^ •

1————————f 1j VW-9* SMW St. IHOr

I CWOUt * 5 pf»1 .**C M

f twuimw <Joa ,,

twei to fni»w c. t^iUkO If W»

«

«

(Mfr.JT «MUB I. BKWt

UJU> f» KMIPJ1U*MB MM'

trm— if, ws^OtBtMH ».TwiMtf «B

'*

003249

The list of locations with contaminant concentrations exceeding an Alb orexcess cancer risk vas reviewed to determine the areas of off-site soil to beconsolidated on the site. Samples were deleted from the list (screened out)for the following reasons:

o Remoteness from the Site: Using the sample data available it couldnot be determined that elevated levels of chemicals at theselocations were due to site disposal activities. For example, thesediment in Prairie Creek vas not Included for remediation becauseof its remoteness from the site and because samples taken in thedrainage paths between Prairie Creek and the site during thereaedial investigation did not shov elevated concentrations ofchemicals (EPA, 1986a). Also, the vacer in Prairie Creek did notshov elevated levels of chemicals ( E P A , 1 9 3 6 a ) . The endangermentassessment did not indicate adverse health effects froia the use ofvater frora Prairie Creek (EPA. 1 9 8 6 b ) .

o Concentration Less Than Background: The RI report (EPA, l986a)established background reporting limits. These limits vereestablished as the naturally occurring concentrations. The limitswere established based on literature reviews and chemical analysesof sampler avay from the site in areas unaffected by site activi-ties. Only samples vhich contain inorganic chemicils at concentra-tions in excess of these limits were considered as potentiallyelevated due to waste disposal activities at the site* Samplinglocations vith levels of chemicals greater than the risk limits butless than the naturally occurring background concentration reportinglimits were not considered for remediation. It is EPA policy not toremediate soils vhich contain chemicals at concentrations vhich aayconstitute a health risk but which are less than the naturallyoccurring background concentration.

One area vhich shoved concentrations of lead and manganese above theAIS risk limit (14 ppm and 530 ppm, respectively) and the backgroundreporting l i m i t (26 ppm and 1 , ^ 6 3 ppm, respectively), but was not selected for

No AIS available foe lead. An AlC is provided instead,

003250

remediation vas around IVC-24 (Phase I , 1984) . Of the six surface samples

collected at sampling station IVC-24, only one sample vas reported to contain

lead ( IVC-24-I» Repl icate 1) and tvo vece reported to conta in manganese

;, iCXVC-24-X, Replicate 2 & 4) at concentrations greater than the background

reporting l i m i t . Dupl icate samples at IVC-24 taken duciftg Phase II d id not

shov elevated levels of lead or manganese- Elevated levels of lead and

manganese vere not detected in an upgcadient sample collected at station

IVC-48. Therefore, this area vas not considered for remedia t ion .

The sample locations remaining a f t e r the screening process are shown in

Table 2.

Table 2' SAMPLE LOCATIONS REQUIRING REMEDIATION

Hisk

AIC1

AIS

AIS

Cancer/1 x 10 "

Sample

IVC-23

IWC-23

IVC-23

IVC-23

Locatic

(Phase

(Phase

(Phase

(Phase

m

I)

I)

I)

I)

SampleLocation

Surface

Surface

Surface

Surface

Chemical Con

Cadmium

Manganese

Mickel

Benzo-a-pyrene

c e n t r a t ippm

54

15^0

90;

2.3

AIS not available for Cadmium, AIC used instead

The results of. the screening ind ica te tha t , based on soil sampling at the

IVC s i te , only the area around Stat ion IVC-23 requires o f f - s i t e soil

remediation to meet acceptable l i m i t s for recreational/agricultural use.

Tht* area o£ off-si te soil excavation in the vicini ty o£ IVC-23 is shown

as Area B on Figure 2. This area is nocih of the old sUlp pit at the

S1VH06106 11

003251

0 0 8 0 2 2

003252

nofthvest corner of the site. This area includes the surface water drainage

path leading off the site to the northwest, and is a migration route tor

contaminants of f -s i te . Surface soil samples in this drainage path near the

s i te shoved elevated levels of several contaminants. The area also contains a

coal refuse pile and high subsurface conductivity measurements vere detected

in this area during the remedial investigation (EPA, 1986a). This area of high

conduct iv i ty probably results f rom the contaminated soil, ground vater , and

maybe leachate from the coal pile.

The soil in this area would be excavated to a depth of 2 feet in

accordance v i t h the recreational/ agricultural land use scenario, instead of

?.5 feet for the residential scenario as noted in Appendix D of the FS. The

total excavation volume of Area B vould be 1600 cubic yards. This Is 3700

cubic yards less than the 5300 cubic yards of excavation under the residential

scenario presented in Appendix D of the FS.

A second area of off-si te soil to be excavated and consolidated on-site

is designated as Area C on Figure 2. Data presented in r.he RI report (EPA,

1986a) indicate that the s t r i p mine extended beyond the presently def ined

western site boundary, but did not extend beyond the county road at the vest

end of the site. The area between the western site boundary and the county

road vest of the site vas included in the of f -s i te soil excavation for the

following reasons:

o The magnetometer survey performed during the RI indicated highmagnetic anomalies v i th in this area, an Indication of thepossibility of buried drums. Soms of these drums could be near thesurface.

o The on-site perch-ad ground vater system extends into this area, andfche on-site perched ground vater is contaminated.

SIVM06106 13

003253

o Aeria l photos taken dur ing the 1960's and 1970's indicate that; thes t r ip mine extended to the county road and the landfill operationsalso extended into this area.

o This area was an entrance to the IVC s i t e . Spills may have occurredin this area during s i te operations.

Assuming tha t the cleanup goal is to remediate off -s i te soils for

agricul tural / recreat ional use ra ther than residential use, the excavation

depth vould only be 2 feet instead of the deeper excavations described in

Appendix D.

In conclusion, if the resident ial scenario (Appendix D of the

Feas ib i l i t y S tudy) is used as a basis for consolidation of o f f - s i t e soil onto

the s i t e , the result ing to ta l excavation vould range between approximate ly

36,000 cubic yards and approximately 26,000 cubic yards (see Appendix D of

PS) . However , i f a recreat ional /agr icul tural land use is the basis, then the

to ta l excavat ion q u a n t i t y vould be 4,600 cubic yards. The d i f ference between

the tvo scenarios is a reduction of 31,400 cubic yards (assuming the on-site

giound water is cleaned up) , or a reduction of 21,400 cubic yards (assuming

the on-site ground wate r is not cleaned up and excavation is l imi ted to the

soil and debris above the water table).

Costs

The cap i t a l cons t ruc t ion costs for the consolidation of o f f - s i t e soils

onto the si te, for the recreational/agricultural land use scenario, are shown

in Table 3. Table 4 presents the capital cost comparison between

consolidation of the of f -s i te soils for residential use and for

^•eereational/agricultural use. Table 4 presents Cha eo^t data for the six

remedial a l te rna t ives evaluated in Chapter 5 of tha Feasibility Study.

S1VM06106 14

003254

Table 3CAPITAL COSTS - CONSOLIDATION OF OFF-SITE SOILS ONTO THE SITE

RECREATIONAL/AGRICULTURAL LAND USE

Quantity46004600

UnitCubic YardCubic Yard

Unit;Cost5.003.00

TotalCost

23,00013,800

Item Q\

Excavate Off-site SoilsTransport & Spread Onsite and

CompactBackfill & Compact Off-site Areas 4600 Cubic Yard 8.00 36^800

Total $73,61)0

Table 4

CAPITAL COST COMPARISONOFF-SITE SOIL CONSOLIDATION

AlternativeNumber Resident ia l

416.000

576.000

Recreational/Agricul tural

$

73,600

73,600

CostD i f f e r e n t i a l

$

342,400

502,400

2, 5 & 10

6,9. & 14

1 Costs f r om FS Appendix B

Tables 5a through 5f present the total present worth costs details f o r

each of the six remedial ae t ion alternatives that were subject to a de t a i l ed

analysis In the FS. The cost details for both the residential and

recreat ional /agricul tural scenarios are shown in Tables 5a through 5f to

clearly shov the d i f ferences in costs. The tables are adapted f rom the cost

sumary tables in Chapter 5 of the Feasibility Study (EPA, 1986c).

S1VM06106 15

003255

Table 5a

I PS ALTERNATIVE 2COST SUMMARY

INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTROL SITE

«Security Fence

l( Removal of Investigation

Derived Waste

Mobil izat ion/DetRob

SB CONSTRUCTION SUBTO

Bid Contingencie8 Scope Contingenc

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION

(

. \

® Scope Contingencies (15%)

H TOTAL ANNUAL O&M COSTS

ffi PRESENT WORTH 0^

TOTAL PRESENT WORT«

ConsolidaOn-site

ANNUAL O&H SUBTOTAL

C

T(

T(

Cost Corn

ontinued

P e r m i t t iService

3TAL IMPL

Engineet:

3TAL CAPI

^^^^^^

ponents

Moni to r i

Cion of Of f - s i t e Soils

ng and LDuring C

.EHENTATI

ing Design Costs W)

TAL COSTS

"g

iliza

»TAL

s (.15%)ics (10^)

COST

egalonstr

ON CO

COSTS

It COS

tion

Wuc t io

ST

T

n (8X)

11 IIIIB

Construct ion Costs ($) AnnualOperation

Recreational/ MaintenanceResidential Agricultural Costs (S)

23,000 23,000 66.8001

31.6002

32.200 32,200

416,000 73,600 0

38.200 38.200 0

25,000 25,000

534,400 192,000

80,200 28,80053.400 19.200

668,000 240,000

33,400 12,00053,400 19.200

754,800 271,200

45.300 16,300

800.100 287.500

67.7001

32.500°

10.2001

J^OO

77.9001

37.400'

389,400

(Residential) $1,189.500CP.ecreational/AgricultuEal) $676.900

liil

A

\0C\J

s WwW^'f& sMi

00000

-

1 First Year Monitoring Costs2 Thereafter

16

003256

Table 5bFS ALTERNATIVE 5COST SUMMARY

INDUSTRIAL VASTE CONTROL SITE

Cost ComponentsContinued Monitoring

Multi-layer CapSurface Vater DiversionSecurity PenceConsolidation of Off-site SoilsOn-siteRemoval of InvestigationDerived Waste ^Hobilization/DemobilinationCONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL

Bid Contingencies (15^)Scope Contingencies (10%)

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTPermitting and Legal (5%)Service During Construction (8X) 15?,000

TOTAL IMPLEMENTATION COST 2.218,200Engineering Design Costs (Q%) 177,500

TOTAL CAPITAL COSTSANNUAL O&M SUBTOTAL

Scope Contingencies (15^)

TOTAL ANNUAL O&M COSTS

PRESENT VORTH O&M COSTSTOTAL PRESENT VORTH COST

First Year Monitoring CostsThereafter

Construe

Residentia

23,000

886,900

73,^00

32.200

W.OOO

38,200

AO.QOQ

1,510,000

226,500226.500

1,963,000

98.200) 15?,000

2.218,200

12ZjJQQ2,395.700

72,37.

10.JL83.42,

tion Cos

Recr1 Agrj,

23

886

73

32,200

73,600

38,200

^0.000

1,167,

175,175.

1.517,

75,121.

1,715,

137,

1,852.

ts ($)

eational/cultural

,000

.900

,700

600

100100

800

900400

100

200

300

AnOper

' M a i n tCos

6631

4

438,

inuala t ion &enancet s ( $ )

.8001

.600-

,500

0

900

0

0

2001

000

8001

600"

0001

600

300

(Residential) S2,S3/*,000(Recreational/Agricultural) $2,290,600

17

003257

Table 5cFS ALTERNATIVE 6COST SUMMARY

INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTROL SITE

Cog t Components

Continued Monitoring

Slurry Vail. Pipe Drain,Treatment with- Rigid BarrierSurface Water Diversion

Security FenceNative Soil Cap

Consolidation of Off-site SoilsOn-site

Removal of InvestigationDerived WasteMobilization/DemobilizationCONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL

Bid Contingencies (15%)Scope Contingencies (W)

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 1Permitting and Legal (5%)Service During Construction W) 87 A.700

TOTAL IMPLEMENTATION COST 12,355,500Engineering Desig.. Costs W) 988,500

TOTAL CAPITAL COSTSANNUAL O&M SUBTOTAL

Construction Costs ($) Annual

Residential

55,000

6,772.700

73,700

34,200

158,100

576.000

15.400

125.000

7.810,000

1,562.0001.562.000

0.934.000

546,700) 874.700

2.355,500

988.500

3.344,000

Operation &Recreational/ MaintenanceAgricultural Costs (S)

55,000 66.8001

31,60Q2

6,772,700 117,5003

69,700'

73,700 0

34,200 900

158,100 3.000

73.600 0

15,400 0

125,000

7,307,700

1.461,5001,461,500

10.230,700

511,500818.500

11.560.700

693^600

12,254,300

70.7001 117,5C03

35,500" 69,700

Scope Contingencies (152)

T&TAL ANNUAL Q&H COSTS

PXBSBNT VO&TI: O&M COSTS

10.600;5,300'

81,300]40,800'

1.385.000

17.600;10,400

135,100;80,100

TOTAL PRESENT VORTH COST (Resider.lial) 514,729,000(Recreational/Agricultural) $13.639,300

Pirst Year Monitoring CoJtsThereat ee 18 First 5 Yes

Thereafter (25 Yrs)

003258

Table 5dPS ALTEPJiAIIVS 9

COST SUMMARYINDUSTRIAL VASTfi COTOOL SITS

Construclion Coata A^)

Recreational/R^Mg_»^al Agricultural

Annna\Operation ^

Maintenance_J^ts ($)

Continued Monitoring

Slurry Vail, Pipe Drain,Treatment v i th Rigid Barrier

Surface Vater Diversion

Security Fence

Nat ive Soil Cap

73,700

34,200

158,100

576,000

73.700

3^200

158.100

73.600Consolidation of O f f - s i t e SoilsOn-site

Removal of InvestigationDerived Waste

Mobi l i za t ion /Demobi l i za t ion

CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL

Bid Contingencies (20%)Scope Cont ingencies (20^) W, 900

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST

Permi t t ing and Legal (5%) .,-..,.-,...Service During Construct ion W) 532,000

TOTAL IMPLEMENTATION COST

Engineering Design Costs W) 601,_10Q

TOTAL CAPITAL C.OSTS 8,115,000

ANNUAL O&M SUBTOTAL

849,-i008^ 00

303,200485,OU

117,500369,700"

Scope Contingencies (15X)

TOTAL ANNUAL O&M COSTS

PRESENT VORTH O&M COSTS40,800^

JL 385,OOQTOTAL PRESENT WORTH COST (Residential) $9,500,000

(Recreational/Agricultural) $8,784,3001 First Year Monitoring Costs ' First 5 Yrs" Thereafter ,g Thereafter (25 Us^

003259

Tab la 5ePS ALTERNATIVE 10

COST SUHtlAKYINDUSTRIAL VASTS COHTROL SITE

Cos'. Coaponcnts

Continued Moni to r ing

Clay Cap

Surface Water Divacxfon

Sacuricy Pence

Consolidation oi O f E - x t t e SoilsOn-site

Druas-Fxcavation, OH-atieDisposal

Ranoval of Invest igat ionDerived Vasie

H o b i l i z a t ion/Datfiobi l i z a t i o n

COMST&UCTIOH SUBTOTAL

Bid Contingencies (153;)Scope Contingencies (102)

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST

Perai t t ing and Legal (5?) .^.J.uuuService During Construction (8X) 129^000

TOTAL IHPLEMENTATION COST 10.296.600

Engineering Design Costa (82) 823,700

TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS

AWUAL O&H SUBTOTAL

11.120,300

Scope Contingencies (15?)

TOTAL ANNUAL O&M COSTS

TOgENT WORTH O&M COSTS

'TOTAL PRESENT WORTH COST (Residential)(Recreational/Agricultural)

* First Year Monitoring Costs- Thereafter 20

Conttcuctlon Coals ($)

Residential

23.000

685,300

73,700

32.200

416,000

5.181,000

22,400

73,000

6.508,600

1,301,7001,101x700

9,112,000

455,600) 729.000

ftecreation&X/AericulCural

23,000

685,300

73.700

32.200

73,600

5.161,000

22.400

75^000

6.166,200

1.233,2001,233,200

8,632,600

431,600690,600

AnnualOperAlion 6

MaintenanceCoats (S»

66,BOO1

UfWQ2

3.500

0

900

0

0

——^L.

9,754,800

780,400

10.535.200

71.200J36.000'

10.7001

JL400

81.9001

41,400"

427.100

$11,547.400$10.962,300

003260

Table 5fFS ALTERNATIVE 14

COST SUHHAJtYINDUSTRIAL VASTE COWTBOL §116

Cost Coaponents

Continuad Honicor ing 23,000

32,200

<>996,000

576,000

^,6A2,000

15.AO-3

200.000

10, W, 600

i,572,7001^572,?00

13,630.000

681.500

1,090,400

15,^01,900

1,232,100

16,634,000

23,000

32,200

4,996,000

73,600

4.642,000

15,400

200,000

9,982,200

1,497,3001^97,300

l2»976,800

646.800

1,038,100

14.663,700

1,173,100

15,836.800

56,800l

"• a.600"

900

4l,0001

12,500"

0

0

Security Fance

excavation On-si lc RCRAVault Disposal

Coniolldatlon oi Of^-s l ie SoilsOn-iite

DruBa-Excavaiion, Of f - s i t eDisposal

Raaoval of I n v e s l i g a t i o nDerived Vaste

Hobiltzation/DantobUiisation

CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL

Bid Contingencies (153;)Scope Contingencies (103>)

tOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST

P B t B i t U n g and Legal OX)Service DuringConstruction (8X)

TOTAL IHPLEMEHTATION COST

Rnglnesring Design Costs (8%) J,232,100

TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS

ANNUAL O&H SUBTOTAL 108.700.45.000"

16,3001

6,8Q(T

t25.0001

M.SOO-

554,900

S&ope Contingencies (15%)

WAL ANNUAL O&H COSTS

fcSENT VOftTB O&M COSTS

'WAL PRESENT WORTH COST (Residential) $1^,188.900(SecreaEional/Agricultuial) $16.391,700

• First ?aar Konitoring Costs~ ThecsaEtar ^

CgMtruetion Cos's (S) AnnualOperation &

Recreational/ MaituanancaRasideniial Agrici? •.ural Costs (S)

003261

A potential cost savings o£ $313,000 to $1.090,000 can b« realized if the

recra/.tio.ial/agricultural land use scenario i» 6elecl«4 as fchfc basis for

o f f - s i t e soil consolidation in3l<.ad of the casideniial ^arid use scenario.

Table 5

SUMMARYPRESENT SUMMARY VORTH COMPARISON

OFF-SITE SOU CONSOl-IDATIO^

Cleanup

Res iden t i a lLand Use$ x 1000

1,190

2,83-i

14,729

9,500

11.5^7

17.189

Goals

Recreational/Agr icu l tu ra l

Land Use^ x 1000

677

2,291

13.639

8,78-i

10,962

16,392

Present Vor thD i f f e r e n t i a l

^ x 1000

513

M

1,090

716

585

797

RcBedlalalternative No.

6

9

10

14

EsUblishing the extent of reraediation of rhe o f f - s i t e soils according to

the recreailonal/agriculEural land use scenario does not eliminate the risk to

the public o f f - s i t e . In the absence of any off-aUe land use restr ict ions,

construction activit ies could be undertaken that may d is turb the soil deeper

than 2 faof and thus, bring contamina ted soil to the surface or expose

workers lo St>ntaniinanls during t;ie construction operations. The threat of

exposure to contaminated soil deeper than th<i 2 foot layer nmediatad under

the E-ecisfttltinal/agricultural scenario would still remain.i-irSit-'9'""- • •^3 '1 ! '".

22

003262

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Environmental Protection Agency, 1984. Health jt'fects Assessment forPolycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons PAH. U.S. EPA Environmental Criteriaan3 Assessment Off ice. September, ^Qn.

Environmental Protection Agency, March 31, 1986a, Industrial V^s^eControl Site Final Remedial Investigation (RI) Report, Volumes I and II.

Environmental Protection Agency, March 31, 19866, Industrial VasteCOiiUrol Site Final Endangerment Assessment.

Snvironmenta), Protection Agency, March 31, 1986c, Industr ial VasteControl Site Final Dra r t Feasibi l i ty Study Report.

23

003263