HUNTON & WILLIAMS/ o 3

BRUSSELS, BELOIOM 2OOO PENNSTtVANIA AVEKtTE, N. W. RICHMOND. VIRGINIAWARSAW, POLAND FAIRFAX. VIRGIN.AHONG KONG WASHINGTON, D. C. 2OOO6 - 1812 NORFOLK. VIRGINIANEW YORK, NEW YORK RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA

ATLANTA. GEORGIA TELEPHONE (3O2) 955-I5OO KN

JEFFREY N. MATTW FACSIMILE (2O2) 778-saoi DMCTDIAL: (202)955-1552DAN J. JORDANGE* DIRECT DUL: (804)788-8609

September 11, 1995

Mr. Cesar LeeRemedial Project Manager (3HW21)SE PA Remedial SectionEnvironmental Protection AgencyRegion ffl

841 Chestnut BuildingPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania 19107

Metal Bank Cottman Avenue SiteSecond Request for Extension of Comment Period on

Proposed Plan and Notification of Dispute Resolution Claim

Dear Cesar:

On behalf of the Cottman Avenue PRP Group, we make a second request fora 30-day extension to the comment period on EPA's Proposed Plan for the CottmanAvenue Site. The extension is essential to enable the Group, EPA and otherinterested parties to evaluate the very significant findings yielded by the test pitsampling activities recently conducted at the site. The preliminary results of thesampling are enclosed along with this letter.

Also on behalf of the Group, we invoke the dispute resolution provision ofthe Administrative Order by Consent (AOC), Section XIV, as a result of EPA'srefusal to meet with PRP Group representatives to discuss data recently collected inaccordance with the AOC. The EPA has yet to provide the Group with final ||comments on the RI/FS Reports. The RI/FS process therefore is not complete, ilEPA's failure to meet represents a very serious concern in light of the new datawhich appear to contradict several key assumptions underlying the proposed remedyannounced by EPA in July of 1995. The Administrative Order forJhe_RIZFSobligates the Agencyjoeyaluate the significance of all site data. The dispute thatthe Group raises, however, could be resolved fairly and expeditiously if EPA willgrant a 30 day extension of the comment period and schedule a brief meeting duringthat scheduled period to evaluate the significance of the new data.

AR304575

HUNTON & WILLIAMS

Mr. Cesar LeeSeptember 11, 1995Page 2

I. Extension of Comment Period

There are several reasons why an extension of the comment period untilOctober 18, 1995 is necessary for EPA to consider all available information on theSite and for the Group to have a meaningful opportunity to comment on EPA'sProposed Plan. The most important reason for extending the comment period is theneed to incorporate into the remedy selection process the additional information thatthe Group is collecting for EPA's consideration. That information consists of (1)test pit data further defining the distribution of PCBs across the Site and (2)treatability testing data to determine if stabilization/solidification is a viable treatmentalternative for the Site. These data will provide EPA with information that isessential for the agency to make a final decision about the Site remedy. The resultsof the test pit work are enclosed and include data tables, a contour map of the areascontaining 25 ppm or greater of PCBs, and a calculation of the volume of soilcontaining that level of PCBs. This information demonstrates that EPA hassubstantially underestimated the volume of soil that would need to be excavated toachieve a cleanup goal of 25 ppm.

In addition to the need for EPA to consider this information, an extension isnecessary for the Group to comment meaningfully on the Plan. Section 117(a)(2)of CERCLA requires that EPA provide the public, including PRPs, a "reasonableopportunity for submission of written and oral comments" on the Plan. Thisopportunity must also be "meaningful" under the circumstances in which the Planis issued. United States v. Seymour Recycling Corp.. 679 F. Supp. 859, 864 (S.D.Ind. 1987). We described for you in our letter dated August 7, 1995, the reasonswhy, to be reasonable and meaningful for the Group, the opportunity to commentrequires a longer extension than EPA has provided.

The first reason is that the alternative proposed in EPA's Plan is not one ofthe twelve alternatives identified and evaluated in the Feasibility Study Report. TheGroup needs a minimum of 10 weeks to evaluate and prepare comments on analternative that was not evaluated during the many months when other alternativeswere under consideration. A second reason for extending the comment period is thata coordinated set of comments on the plan from the PRP Group will require at least90 days to prepare. Third, the Group requires additional time to collect, evaluateand provide to EPA the test pit and treatability testing information that will help theagency select the best remedy for the Site. These_data provide significant newinformationjbr the RI/FS Reports and, consequently, the administrative record onwhich EPA is making remedial decisions. EPA has never provided the Group withfinal comments on the RI/FS Reports, thereby making the RI/FS process as set out

AR30l*576

HTJNTON &. WILLIAMS

Mr. Cesar LeeSeptember 11, 1995Page 3

in the NCP and in the AOC (see Section Vm.F) incomplete. Evaluation andincorporation of the new data into the RI/FS is necessary before the RI/FS processwill be complete.

In order to consider this information fully as it develops the Record ofDecision, EPA should extend the comment period on the Proposed Plan an additional30 days. The PRP Group and EPA share an interest in ensuring that the remedyselected is the best possible remedy for the Site. Given the several years that thePRP Group has worked to investigate site conditions, and the millions of dollarsinvolved in that effort, it clearly is not unreasonable for EPA to grant an additional30 days to submit comments.

II. Dispute Resolution under AOC

Section XTV of the AOC authorizes the PRP Group to invoke disputeresolution in the event that the Group objects to any "EPA action or omission takenpursuant to this Consent Order." In this case, for the reasons discussed above, theGroup objects to EPA's failure to extend the comment period an additional 30 daysand to EPA's refusal, reported to Pete Swinick of EARTH TECH on September 7,to meet with Group representatives to discuss the test pit data. The Group thereforeinvokes Section XIV of the AOC, which requires EPA to respond to this letterwithin 14 days of the day on which you receive it. In the meantime, we request thatEPA meet with representatives of the PRP Group to discuss the reasons for invokingdispute resolution in this case.

If the comment period is extended an additional 30 days and if EPA agreesto a meeting within that time frame, the Group will withdraw its dispute.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss this request, please do nothesitate to call one of us.

Jeffrey N. MartinDan J. Jordanger

Group CounselEnclosures

AR30l*577

HUNTON & WILLIAMSMr. Cesar LeeSeptember 11, 1995Page 4

cc: Mr. Patrick Anderson (3HW21)Elizabeth Lukens, Esq. (3RC23)Cottman Avenue PRP GroupSteering CommitteeTechnical Committee

Mr. Peter P. SwinickJoseph P. Vitale, P.E.

AR3Q14578

MEMORANDUM9103/prap/field

Date: September 11, 1995

From: Peter Swinick & Joseph Vitale (EARTH TECH)

Subject: Test pit Program Summary

Enclosed with this memorandum are the following items:

• Analytical results from the testpit program;

• Contour maps showing the extent of contamination in subsurface soils in excess of 25 PPM ofPCBs and 10,000 PPM TPH:

• Volume calculations based this new testpit data as well as data collected during the RI; and

• - Revised cost estimates to implement Containment, Ex situ Stabilization, and Off-site disposaloptions based on the volume estimate.

In August 1995, EARTH TECH began the testpit sampling program to gather information in support ofour efforts to comment on EPA's proposed plan. The specific purpose of this program was to collectsamples in support of the S/S treatability studies and to characterize subsurface soils to determine thevolume of soils in excess of 25 PPM PCBs and 10,000 PPM TPH. The remainder of this memorandumpresents an overview of field activities, the estimated volume of soils in excess of proposed cleanup levels,and the estimated cost to implement Containment, Ex -situ stabilization, and Off-site disposal optionsconsidering the new volume estimate.

Overview of Field Activities

EARTH TECH installed 14 testpits to collect samples in support of the S/S treatability studies and tocharacterize subsurface soils in excess of the proposed cleanup levels. To install the testpits, we mobilizedtwice in the month of August. Under the first field effort beginning in the week of August 7, we collectedsoils samples from 3 testpits (TP-T-1, TP-T-2, and TP-T-3) to be used support of the S/S treatabilitystudies. This field effort began on August 7 and ended on August 11. Samples were sent to STCRemediation, Wastech, Fluid Tech, and EARTH TECH for treatability testing.

After much discussion with EPA and NOAA on the details of the testpit sampling program, EARTHTECH began the second field effort beginning in the week of August 21. Over the course of 6 days.

«logo»

AR30i*579

EARTH TECH installed 11 testpits and collected three samples per testpit. Samples were collected fromthe 2 to 5 foot interval, the 5 to 10 foot interval, and the 10 to 15 foot interval. Each sample was analyzedfor total PCBs, TPH, and lead. Locations of these testpits are shown on Figure 1. The results of theseanalyses are presented in Table 2.

Soil Volume Estimates

To determine the volume of soil above the water table, we multiplied the depth of each soil interval by thearea determined by the contours presented in Attachment A. The contours developed enclose areas bydepth interval in excess of the proposed cleanup levels. The contours used in the analysis were based on RIsoil boring data and the recent testpit data which are presented in Tables 1 and 2. Based on this approach,the soil volume above the water table is approximately 32,000 cubic yards.

Revised Cost Estimates

We revised the cost estimates for the Containment, ex-situ Stabilization, and Off-site disposal optionsbased on the above volume determination and recent inquiries on the unit price of off-site disposal of PCBcontaminated wastes. The details of the cost estimate is presented in Attachment B.

AR30l*580

E A R T H

1" = 180f0 90 180 360

SCALE IN FEET

Figure 1Test Pit Location

AR30l*58l

Summary Table 1RI Sampling Results Cottman Ave/Metal Bank

Location

BlB2B3B4B5B6B768B9BIOBllB12B13B14B15B16B17BISB19B20B21B22B23SB-101SB-102SB-103SB-104SB- 105SB- 106SB-107SB- 108

TPHConcentrations in

0'-5'267030102150NT*285014786142905690NT148266922124008571085011500NTNT*NT*5655104004860NTNTNTNTNTNTNTNT

mg/kgDepth Interval

5' - 10' 10' - 15'NT1340359NT*211355148064547804590232<41.35108631280013190174006480NT*NT*1402158006213500NTNTNTNTNTNTNT

36007543120NT*56203143595631044703880106<4268906570108001436416010000NT*NT*6429977013600NT21008703100NT2800NTNT

PCBConcentrations in

0'-5'1.70.9490.2410.2*5.13<0.351.0684.22<0.902NT1

3.16NT3.2<9.3BDL26NT3.6*BDL*25

<0.177NTNTNTNTNTNTNTNT

mg/kgDepth Interval

5' - 10' 10' - 15'NT1.126<1.82.48*0.7030.3264.65<0.9070.39429

0.247<0.170.6<0.895

3.85420.976.3*13.7*6.56.67.85.3NTNTNTNT1.81.8<3.4

28<3.79<1.9NT*4.81<0.214BDL<0.96.6511.7<0.89<0.170.7818.2<6.30.43

7.54NT*0.37*8.70.344.7NT24.60.757.312151.1<1.8

Notes: 1. NT = Not Taken/Not Tested2. BDL = Below detection limit (detection limit was not provided in the RI)3. Shaded values are out of the specified depth interval.4. * = No backup data was provided in the Remedial Investigation5. The highest detection limit for all the PCB alochlors was used for the PCB

sampling results indicated as less than (<) a specific value.

EARTH TECHProject No. 9103 page I 9103/prap/tablestfPH-PCBJCLS

AR30U582

Summary Table 2August 1995 Test Pit Program

Sampling ResultsCottman Avenue/Metal Bank

Sample Laboratory TPH Total PCBs Total LeadIdentification Sample No. (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)

TP-1-5' 113997 1400 <2 1160TP-1-10' 113998 7000 22 323TP-1-121 113999 24000 10 671TP-4-5' 113994 52000 36 541TP-4-10* 113995 12000 45 2600TP-4-11.5' 113996 28000 50 1900TP-7-5' 114112 910 <2 429TP-7-10' 114113 19100 <2 1800TP-7-13' 104114 4200 <2 210TP-8-5' 114109 180 <2 75TP-8-101 114110 27 <2 330TP-8-15' 114111 1210 2 1780TP-9-5' 114105 3040 35 22700TP-9-101 114104 630 <2 10600TP-9-13' 114101 380 <2 356TP-11-51 114106 1630 <2 900TP-11-101 114107 6500 <2 1300TP-11-13' 114108 8200 <2 1200TP-12-5' 114216 1730 4.4 590TP-12-101 114217 2190 7.7 415TP-14-51 114212 2000 <2 82TP-14-7.51 114213 9000 <2 96TP-16-51 114218 2200 <2 264TP 16-8.5' 114219 9200 <2 2150TP-18-5' 114100 1020 <2 407TP-18-10' 114102 1520 <2 1000TP-18-121 114103 930 <2 1720TP-21-5' 114214 80 <2 38TP-21-7.51 114215 160 <2 750TP-T-1-5' 124470 28900 108 572TP-T-1-101 124469 13300 10.5 359TP-T-1-151 124465 52800 41 485TP-T-2-5' 124467 66100 230 673TP-T-2-10' 124466 51200 150 384TP-T-2-121 124464 16000 77 346TP-T-3-5' 124468 6420 0.77 574TP-T-3-10' 124463 6170 <1 1460TP-T-3-15' 124471 2240 0.87 243

EAR TH TECHProject No. 9103 page 1 9103/hsw/prap/tables/nt

AR3CH583

Attachment A

«k>go»

B_i? iB-t.^ ', *"'<»

BIO4

MW6 B-aO pwio

...BIOS

TP-J+*-"LEGEND \l 1 i£ J_ __ _ TOTAL PCBS CONCENTRATION

PARTS PER UHJUON (PPM)

+ B~U BORMC LOCATION (AUC./SEPT. 1«91)

08'04 BORMC LOCATION (MAY. 1993)

TP-1TESTPIT LOCATION (AUGUST, 1995)

0 50 100 200TESTPIT LOCATION (AUGUST, 1995) ^ —1 00

SCALE IN FEETFigure 1

TPH Concentration 2-5 FeetMetal Bank/Cottman Avenue

flR30l»585

\ FP-10

- B-21/1KW5

___ TOTAL PC8S CONCENTRATIONPARTS PER MUION (PPM)

BORWO LOCATION (AUG./SEPT. 1M1)

08'04 BORWC LOCATWH (MAY. 1993)

FP-J=100

0 50 100TCS1PIT LOCATION (AUCUST, 1995)

SCALE IN FEETFigure 2

TPH Concentration 5-10 FeetMetal Bank/Cottman Avenue

BOWN6 LOCATION (AUG./SEPT. 1S91)

BORINC LOCATION (MAY, 1993)

TP-J

Figure 3TPH Concentration 10-15 Feet

^^ Metal Bnnk/Cottman Avenue» R T H £) T I C I I —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

^ AR30l*587

B-1SA-2 TP-?

_ _ _ TOTAL PC8S CONONTRATIONPARTS PER MUJON (PPM)

B~13 BOXMG LOCATION (AUG./SEPT. 1981)

BORWO LOCATION (UAY. I99J)

T?7-/TESTPIT LOCATION (AUGUST. 199$)

SCALE IN FEETFigure 4

PCB Concentrations 2-5 Feet^ Metal Bank/Cottman Avenue

E A R T H fel I f C H ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

. . AR30U588

V- ivr10 1 *a-9 «r *7/lJ*• w • Ar - -•- -\w *B-1S/P-2 77>-^ B-M |

t/y*7 rp-js iJF-4* /Bm f**™ *r *.HHK T M' -

«-« .4>81M -x

APPffOX/MATT LOW*a*i*r !««:-—= — «-" "'" B- J

FP-12

LE2ENG_ _ _ TOTAL PCBS CONCENTRATION

PARTS PER MUION (PPM)

+ ~'3 BOXMC LOCATION (AUC./SEPT. 1991)

^ BORING LOCATION (MAY. 1993)

TESTPIT LOCATION (AUGUST. 1995) 1=1 00'0 SO 100 200

_______________________SCALE IN FEETFigure 5

PCB Concentration 5-10 FeetMetal Bank/Cottman Avenue

t A R T H HI T i e n —————————-————•—-————————————————————————

B-15/P-2 TP-7

7P-JJ B-21/MW15

_ _ _ TOTAL PC8S CONCENTRATIONPARTS PER MILLION (PPM)

BORW« LOCATION (AUG./SEPT. 1891)

B104BORMC LOCATION (MAY. 1993)

TP-J 1=100*50 100

TCSTPIT LOCATION (AUCUST. I99S)

SCALE IN FEETFigure 6

PCB Concentration 10-15 FeetMetal Bank/Cottman Avenue

AR30U590

Attachment B

Revised Cost Estimates

E A R T H S I T E C H

AR30l*59l

Containment with a Permeable Cap

The total volume of on-site material to be excavated for this alternative is 30,600 cubic yards.30,000 cubic yards will be excavated during the UST removal.600 cubic yards will be excavated from the courtyard.

Assumptions

1. The courtyard soils will be disposed of as a TOSCA waste.Rationale: Samples are over SO ppm Total PCBs

Sample ID ConcentrationTB1S 52 ppmTB2S 140 ppmTB2S(dup) 110 ppmCY-136 70 ppm

2 Concrete slab will be disposed of as a TOSCA waste.3 Conversion factor 1.5 tons/cy for soil and debris.4 The water table is at 15.0 ft below the surface.5 All the spoils generated during the removal of the UST will be screened to separate out

the debris6 All sediments placed on site will be used as backfill.

Total volume of sediments = 8900 cy+2850 cy = 11,750 cy? The on-site soil contains 20% debris/80% soil.8 The debris will be transported in trucks/trailers with a 20 cy capacity.

Transportation and Disposal Cost = $215+$1425/20=S286/cy9 Geognd Unit Cost = $2.00/square yard.10 The volume of soil to be disposed of off site = 0.8*30,000 cy + 30 cy =

=24000 + 30The addditional 30 cy of material is the USTs concrete slab.

9103/hsw/prap/containl.docAR30l*592

Coat Summary for Remedial Alternative : Containment(Addreaaing •oil above the water tablet

lle»N«.

3A3BJCIDIE3F3O

3H

31

3J3K

CMBftMWlM

Short Term MonMormg (ojuanoly - 2 yen)Lot* Ttn« Monitormt (•nmally yn 3 -30)DeedRaBncuomACCOM RMricuomW«nun»5iin»Public Educauen fnftaiExowuon md Dapoed of Courtyvd SoilExcmuonTnraporation end DuptMl of SoilBackfillConpicuonOradmfondSeeainf.

Rcmowl ml DupoMl of USTROKMlofSW)Examion (UST BM only)Roaonl/DiipoMlofMnkconunaRcpheancM Soil (BwfcTill in UST ttm only)CoapKaonSiamdanmi link niteaCollMion/Dnpoal of damns ""dHmdlins/Scranmc of Exemicd MMcfalTmpacuiion Bid Dupoal of Soil (UST only)Tnraponwon md Di KMl of DcbmMnccllmeaui

< u«ntlQr

600900600600600

3030000100001125011250

4

250030000360006030

Conuinmcni Sy*um (Sheet Pile Wall md UwhMe Collection)Sheet Pile WillTrcncninsBackfillCompccuonIvUnhola;HDPECoHecoonPipeMobiliauon/DanobiliauonNAPL Collection nd D«po«lNAPL Smnger lyitemDnimOrunheuoiConerate conuinneM vaDupoal of NAPLEkctncmi

MucdlineoiaExcmu Sediment md Reuon MudfltUenrableC*?•nd A Graml BorrowGndu*CoracvcuanQeogndXMfH/ToptOll

Dradinf md SeedingKiofMnnns Well*l»(i«eelUn«MAnrnul Mmnumnct

S6000390067006700

I1100

1

6666

2751

3420034200342004S4001610016100

5

Untt

cylorn«yeyey

cy«jr»l*yeyhrpl«ylamey

ifeyeyeyafb

mac*•(«li

eyeyey•yeyey•

UnMCMl

HS25SSIOS3*5

SI50SI»1«SIOS3

S375SI6S5

S255J2«S

S15SI5SIOS3

S2.400S40

$60,000

S9.000S25S200

Sl.OOOSl<

S10.000

SI2stS3S2S1IS5

SIJOO

EnmeiM

S4.SOOJ229.500S6.000$1.100$3.000

$4.500$240,000$160,000SII2400$54.730SI OO$40,000$150,000

S9.ISO.OOO$1.726,100$1.000.000

$140.000$JIJOO$67.000$20.100$19.100S72.000S60.000

$54.000$150

$1.200$6.000

$10.000$500.000

$410.400$273.600$102.600$96.100S2S9.SOO$10.500$6,000

SI 26,000

CmftMCuH

$10,000$27,900Sl.OOO$35.000$245.100

SI 2.739.350

$1.701.150

S3.96I.OOO$1.316.000

O«MCMt

$1.000

$37.650$125

$1.200

$4.400$1.200

OAMTMBte

$301.900$75.600

$2 00

S4.000

$45 75

KOOO

Subtoul Altondm C-4 $20,II3>»EnguwcnntQIOH SZ01 1.000

$3.017.000

Tout S25.I4I.500

Total Pioent Wonh(n-30. i-O.StV) $27.954.000

EAKTHTECH

Cost Summary for Ramadial AKamativa : Ex Shu Stabilization with Containment(Addraaaing aoil abowa tha watar labial

IteaiNa.

12AI2B12C12D12E12F120

12H

12

rjrj*

IM

^AffWMHtmt

Short Tom Maniumi (quvtely - 2 y«n)La« Tern Manitanng (mmMlly yn 3 -30)Deed RancuoraAccm RatnanniW««i»Sir»Public Eduauon PnfiM<Exemuon md DupoMl of Cowtymd SoilExcmuonTnrapoiuuan mi Dupo«l of SoilBKldill (counyvd toil only)Coap*cuonGradii««idScedii«

Ro»ovmlindDupo«lofUSTRcmonlofSbbExamuon (UST **• only)Ranonl/DiipOHl ofunk eontcnuCompactionSutmclaning Unk wrfacttCollecuon/DupoMl of clennf MClH«ndlti«/Screcning of Exoraled MmaulTtmsponuion ind Dapoul of Defens (UST va only)Miiccllineoia

OuanHir

600900600600600

30300001000011750

42SOO300006030

Canuinmeni System (Sheet Pik Will nd LochMe Collecuon)Sheet Pile WillTrenchingBackfillCompKtionMmnolaHDPE Colleaion PipeMobihaiion/DemobiliationNAPL Collecuon md Dupo«lNAPL S«vw er lyuemDnjmDn*n haienConcrrtc roniainmem maDicpoul of N'APLElrcwaJ

MiacelianeouiLu»»u Sedmeni ind Reuort MudflmL» S«i SiabmaiionMotoiianonSeupDecon /DemobEjuxmion (PCB rat only)HaidJini Screenint of Excavated MauralSottdifiauaivSubiliBtion ProeatHandJmf of Subilind KUunalTfanaponauon ind Diipoul of Debnt (PCS veai onlyRefuMory ComplianceMjaotllmaoui

PemaaMcCapSand ± Ctvral BonwrOndtniCompactionOaoandLoam/TopamlGrading and SeeduM]Moniionng Welb

iscellancouiAnnual Maintenance

56000390067006700

tino

i66662S1

1S90190

1470030900IK

342003420034200414001610016100

5

Unit

eykmeyey«y

eyey9*Vtoadeyey

>reyeyeyeairb

c>eaeac*f«l*

1eyeyeyeyey

eyeyey«yeyeyt*

(taMCaat

SIS2S5S10S3SS

ItSOstSI6S3

S375$16SS

$216

SISSISSIOS3

$2.400$40

$60.000

$9.000S2S$200

$1.000$16

$10.000

Jl 37.500st$5

$120$5

$2S6

$12St$3$2Sit$5

$1.200

EzWMiM

$4.100$229.500$6.000$1.100$3.000

S4JOO$240,000$160.000$35.250$1400$40.000$130.000

$1.726.100$353.600

$140.000SSt.500$67.000$20,100$19.200$72.000$60,000

$54.000$150

$1.200$6.000

$10.000$500.000

$137.500$7.120$4.450

$1964.000$154.500$51.4tO1250.000

$1.000.000

$410.400$273.600$101600$96.100$219.100$*UOO$6.000

$126.000

Capital Cart

$10.000$27.900$1.000$35.000$245.100

$2,710.950

$1.701.150

S3.96I.OOO$4.569.050

Sl.3t6.000

O AM C«<

$1.000

$37.650$125

$1.200

$400$1.200

$4,000

OAMTatab

$301.900$75.600

S2JOO

$4.000

S4U7J

SO

$4.000

Subtotal Altemain* C-7 SI4.6S4.ISOEnnnecm«310K $1.465.000Conunamey«ISH $2.191000

Tool $11417.150

Total Pinem Won*(»-30.rO.S*) S2I.059.000

EMTHTECH

AR30I*595

Ex Situ Stabilization with Containment

The total volume of on-site material to be excavated for this alternative is 31,490 cubic yards.30,000 cubic yards will be excavated during the UST removal.600 cubic yards will be excavated from the courtyard.890 cubic yards will be excavated from areas centered around B-l and B-21.

Assumptions

1. The courtyard soils will be disposed of as a TSCA waste.Rationale: Samples are over 50 ppm Total PCBs

Sample ID ConcentrationTB1S 52 ppmTB2S 140 ppmTB2S(dup) 110 ppmCY-136 70 ppm

2 Concrete slab will be disposed of as a TSCA waste.3. Conversion factor 1.5 tons/cy for soil and debris.4 The water table is at 15.0 ft below the surface.5 All the spoils generated during the removal of the UST will be screened to separate out

the debris.6 All sediments placed on site will be used as backfill.

Total volume of sediments = 8900 cy+2850 cy = 11,750 cy7 The on-site soil contains 20% debris/80% soil.8 The debris will be transported in trucks/trailers with a 20 cy capacity.

Transportation and Disposal Cost = $215+$1425/20=$286/cy9 Geogrid Unit Cost = $2.00/square yard.10 Stabilized soil will expand 20%.11 The volume of material to be stabilized - 0.8*(30,000 cy + 890 cy) = 24,700 cy12. The volume of stabilized material to be handling (after stabilization) = 1.25*24700cy13 The volume of debris to be disposed of consists of the following:

30 cy from the USPs concrete slab;20% of 30,000 cy (UST area) - 6000 cy20% of 890 cy (PCB areas) = 178 cy

9103/hsw/prap/exsitul.doc

Off-Site Disposal with Containment

The total volume of on-site material to be excavated for this alternative is 31,490 cubic yards.30,000 cubic yards will be excavated during the UST removal.600 cubic yards will be excavated from the courtyard.890 cubic yards will be excavated from areas centered around B-l and B-21.

Assumptions

1. The courtyard soils will be disposed of as a TSCA waste.Rationale: Samples are over SO ppm Total PCBs

Sample ID ConcentrationTB1S 52 ppmTB2S 140 ppmTB2S(dup) 110 ppmCY-136 70 ppm

2. Concrete slab will be disposed of as a TSCA waste.3 Conversion factor 1.5 tons/cy for soil and debris.4. The water table is at 15.0 ft below the surface.5. All the spoils generated during the removal of the UST will be screened to separate out

the debris.6 All sediments placed on site will be used as backfill.

Total volume of sediments = 8900 cy+2850 cy = 11,750 cy7 The on-site soil contains 20% debris/80% soil.8 The debris will be transported in trucks/trailers with a 20 cy capacity

Transportation and Disposal Cost = $215+$1425/20=$286/cy9. Geogrid Unit Cost = $2.00/square yard.

9103/hsw/prap/offsitel.docAR30U596

Coat Summary for Remedial Alternative : Off She Diapoaal with Containment(Addreaaing eoil above the water table!

IttaCto.

I2A12B12CI2DI2EI2F12O

12H

121

\VI2K

12M

12K

f» aaaialaientfwVlaWVwnn

Short Tcm Monitorint (quanoly • 2 ywi)Long T«n» MonMonns (mwlly yn 3 -30)DMdReancucmACCM RMhcuomWarangSienB

Excmuon and DupoaU of Courtytri SoilExcrauonTmporlauon *nd Dupoul of SoilBecfcfillCompletionOradmfind Seeding

Renwwl md DupoMl ofUSTRewmlofSlabExcmuon (UST am only)Rnwotl/Dupoal ofttnk oonunuReplacement Soil (Backfill for UST «•)CoBjptcuonSinew Inning tank taitcaColUcuoi/Dupoaal of ckara«j atariI !•• ill'n B^Ti •• IHI II • iiffnl ai^ • 1 1 In 1 1 ' 1

Trmpocuuon A DopoMl of Soil (UST only)TiwpocttUon * DnpoMJ ofDebn* (UST only)MiKdlmeoui

Ovanttcr

600900«00400600

3030000100001125030000

4

25003000C3600060)0

Conuinmcm Synon (Sheet Pile Will ind LeKhtte Collecuon)Sheet Pile W«llTrtnehinfB«kfillConpKtionVUnhol«i IHOPE Collecuon PipeMotxliation/DemobihaiionNAPL Collection «nd DuposilNAPL Semnaer lyneniDnmE>nnihe«enConcrete conuintncnt mDupoMlofNAPLEkonctl

MoeellBMOutExava* Sediment *nd Reuore MudfliuOfT-Sile Duponl (TSDF)E«muon<PCB tnm only)tfandlmf/Screeninf of SoilTnraporuuon md Dupoul of SoilTnrapcnuon md Dupcad oTDebmPOTMOin(OrdltfXMl

Reptaocwm of Soil (PCB *e> only)Bedkfill (PCS •«. only)GradmsConptouon

PenneMc Cap

56000390067006700

11100

1

6666

2751

1901901061171

190190190

Umtt

eylamey«yey

«yeyerieyeyVadeytoneey

«feyeyeye*If•

eaa«e>«*ii

eyeyIoney

eyeyey

UnttCwt

SIS255(10S315

$150S*SICSIOS3

$375SI6$5

S255S2*6

SI5SI5SIOS3

S2.400S40

S60.000

S9.000S25S200

11.000S16

SI 0.000

st$5

S255szw

SIOSIS3

Estimlm

S4.tOOS229.500$6.000$1.100$3.000

M.500$340.000$ieaooo$11X500$90.000SIJOOS4aooo$150.000

$9.110,000$1.726.100$1.000,000

SMO.OOO$51.500$67.000S2Q.IOO$I9JOO$72,000$60.000

$54.000$150

$1 00$6.000

$10.000$500.000

$7.120$4.450

S272J40$50.953$250.000

swoo$7.120$1670

C««IMC«4

$10,000$27JOO$1.000$35.000$245.100

SI2.774.600

$1.701.150

S3.96I.OOOS5S4.S63

SIS.690

SI4M.OOO

OAMCMl

$1.000

$37.650$125

$1.200

$4.400SIJOO

OAMTettki

$301 00$75.600

$2JOO

$4.000

S45J7S

$4.000

Subtottl AMemetm C-12 S20.752J03Ennncamg^Km $2.075.000Comweency 915*4 $3.113.000

Toul S25.940J03

ToMlPnMMWonh(n-30.H).5H) SJS.7S3.000

EMTHTECH

AR30I>597