NCD982096653_20050516_Ram Leather Care Site_FRBCERCLA RD_Draft Preliminary Design Report for Soil Interim Remedy-OCR

I
I
I
I
I
I
D
fl
m
fi,
I
I
I
I
I
I
·1
I
I
I
SUPERFUND SECTION
Draft
· Report for Preliminary Design
Soil Interim Remedy
L ther Care Site Ram ea C nty North Carolina Charlotte, Mecklenburg ou '
May 16, 2005
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
m
D
u
D
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
DRAFT
Preliminary Design Report for Soil Interim Remedy
Ram Leather Care Site
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
USEPA Work Assignment 369-RDRD-A419
BVSPC Project No. 048369.0128
May 16, 2005
Prepared by
Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp.
1145 Sanctuary Parkway, Suite 475
Alpharetta, Georgia 30004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
I
u
D
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419
Preliminary Design Report for Soil Interim Remedy
Contents
Revision 0
May 16, 2005
Page No.
Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................................... AA-1
1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................ : .................... 1-l
1.1 Purpose and Scope .......................................................................................... 1-l
1.2 Report Organization ....................................................................................... 1-2
2.0 Site Conditions ......................................................................................................... 2-l
2.1 Site Location and Description ........................................................................ 2-1
2.2 Site History .................................................................................................... 2-2
2.3 Hydro geologic Setting .................................................................................... 2-8
2.3.1 Topography and Surface Drainage ........................................................ 2-8
2.3.2 Climate .................................................................................................. 2-8
2.3.3 Geology ................................................................................................. 2-8
2.3.4 Hydrogeology ...................................................................................... 2-l 0
2.4 Soil Characterization ....................................................................................... 2-l 0
2.4.1 Septic System/Septic Tank Drain Field ............................................... 2-I 0
2.4.2 Drainage Ditch/Culvert -North Area of Site ...................................... 2-1 l
2.4.3 Former Dumpster Area ........................................................................ 2-l l
2.4.4 Former Drum Storage Area ................................................................. 2-l l
3.0 Project Description .................................................................................................. 3-l
4.0 Design Criteria ........................................................................................................ .4-1
4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 4-l
4.2 Soil Cleanup Standards ................................................................................... 4-1
4.3 Soil Remediation Design Criteria ................................................................... 4-l
4.3.l Soil Confirmation Testing .................................................................... .4-l
4.3.2 Pre-Excavation Activities ...................................................................... 4-3
4.3.3 Soil Excavation and Disposal ................................................................ 4-3
4.3.4 Offsite Transportation and Disposal. ..................................................... 4-4
4.3.5 Soil Backfilling and Restoration ........................................................... 4-5
4.4 Air Monitoring ................................................................................................ 4-6
4.5 Land Acquisition and Easement Requirements ............................................. .4-6
4.6 Quality Assurance/Quality Control ............................................................... .4-6
4.7 Site Restoration .............................................................................................. 4-6
4.8 Reporting ....................................................................................................... .4-7
4. 9 Operations and Maintenance ......................................................................... .4-7
TOC-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
D
D
E
I
I
I
I
I
I
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A4 l 9
Preliminary Design Report for Soil Interim Remedy
Contents (Continued)
· Revision 0
May 16, 2005
Page No.
5.0 Basis ofDesign ........................................................................................................ 5-I
5.1 Design Assumptions ....................................................................................... 5-I
5 .2 Process Flow Diagrams .................................................................................. 5-3
5.3 Operation and Maintenance Provisions .......................................................... 5-3
5.4 Permitting ....................................................................................................... 5-3
6.0 Project Delivery Strategy ........................................................................................ 6-I
7.0 Preliminary Specifications ....................................................................................... 7-I
8.0 Preliminary Remedial Action Construction Schedule ............................................. 8-I
9.0 Preliminary Cost Estimate ....................................................................................... 9-1
10. 0 References ............................................................................................................. 10-1
Table 4-1
Table 9-1
Figure 1-1
Figure 2-1
Figure 2-2
Figure 4-1
Figure 4-2
Figure 5-1
Appendix A
Appendix B
Tables
Project Deliverables ................................................................................. .4-7
Preliminary Cost Estimate -Soil Interim Remedy .................................. 9-2
Site Vicinity Map
Site Layout Map
Figures
PCE Detections in Soil (1999) and Proposed Excavation Area
Detail of Soil Excavation Area
Confirmation Sample Layout
Process Flow Diagram for Soil Excavation
Appendices
Preliminary Remedial Action Construction Schedule
Preliminary Cost Estimate
TOC-2
I
I
I
fl
I
I
1.
I
I
I
I
I
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision 0
May 16, 2005 Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419
Preliminary Design Report for Soil Interim Remedy
amsl
ARAR
Black & Veatch
bis
BNA
CERCLA
CLP
CY
EPA
FFS
IROD
kg
MCL
MCDEP
NCDEM
NCDENR
NCDWM
NOV
O&M
OSHA
PCE
PPE
QA
QC
RA
RACER
RD
RI
SARA
SESD
sow
SSL
svoc
TAL
TCE
TCL
TCLP
USGS
voe
ug/kg
Acronyms and Abbreviations
above mean sea level
Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp.
below land surface
Base neutral acid
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Contract Laboratory Program
cubic yards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Focused Feasibility Study
Interim Record of Decision
Kilogram
Maximum contaminant level
Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
North Carolina Division of Solid Waste Management
Notice of Violation
Operations and maintenance
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Tetrachloroethylene
personal protective equipment
Quality assurance
Quality control
Remedial action
Remedial Action Cost Engineering and Requirements
Remedial design
Remedial Investigation
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
Science and Ecosystem Support Division
Statement of Work
soil screening level
Semi-volatile organic compound
target analyte list
Trichloroethylene
target compound list
toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
U.S. Geological Survey
Volatile organic compound
micrograms per kilogram
AA-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
0
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419
Preliminary Design Report for Soil Interim Remedy
1.0 Introduction
Revision 0
May 16, 2005
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under the authority of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
(SARA), has initiated procedures to conduct a Remedial Design (RD) at the Ram Leather
Care Site, located in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina (Figure 1-1 ). This
Preliminary Design Report has been prepared by Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp.
(Black & Veatch) under Contract Number 68-W-99-043 with EPA Region 4 and under
specific authorization of EPA Region 4 through Work Assignment Number 369-RDRD-
A419 Statement of Work (SOW) (EPA, 2004a), and in accordance with the Draft
Remedial Design Work Plan for the Ram Leather Care Site, dated December 6, 2004
(Black & Veatch, 2004). The Draft Remedial Design Work Plan for the Ram Leather
Care Site was approved by EPA on February 24, 2005.
1.1 Purpose and Scope
In accordance with the Remedial Design Work Plan and the SOW, Black & Veatch
presents this Preliminary Design Report (Report) for the interim soil remedy to be
performed at the Ram Leather Care Site (Site). This Report begins with the initial design
and ends with completion of approximately 30 percent of the conceptual design effort.
The interim soil remedy selected in the Interim Record of Decision (!ROD) for the Ram
Leather Care Site includes excavation, off-site transportation, and disposal (EPA, 2004b ).
The preparation of this Preliminary Design Report will address the interim soil remedy
and will include the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Design Criteria R_eport
Basis of Design Report, including a Summary and Detailed Justifications of
Assumptions.
Project Delivery Strategy and Scheduling
Preliminary Drawings and Schematics
Specifications Outline
Preliminary Remedial Action (RA) Schedule
Preliminary RA Cost Estimate
1-1
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419
Preliminary Design Report for Soil Interim Remedy
Revision 0
May 16, 2005
The submittals associated with this report will be used to define technical parameters
associated with the design of the soil interim remedy specified in the IROD, and to
develop a conceptual design that will be included in the bid documents furnished to
performance-based subcontractors for RA implementation. Therefore, it is assumed that
the Specifications Outline and Preliminary Drawings and Schematics will be simplistic
and general in nature. The conceptual design prepared by Black & Veatch will include
conceptual drawings and schematics only.
A Preliminary Design Report addressing the interim groundwater remedy will be
submitted under separate cover.
1.2 Report Organization
This Report is organized into the following sections:
• Section I contains the Introduction to this document.
• Section 2 contains a brief description of the Ram Leather Care Site,
including physical setting, geology, hydrogeology, and soil characterization.
• Section 3 presents a description of the proposed soil interim remedy and
each of its primary components.
• Section 4 presents the Design Criteria, including relevant design issues.
• Section 5 describes the Preliminary Basis of Design.
• Section 6 contains Black & Veatch's proposed Project Delivery Strategy.
• Section 7 contains the Preliminary Design Drawings.
• Section 8 consists of an outline of the proposed Project Specifications.
• Section 9 provides the estimated RA Schedule.
• Section IO provides a Preliminary RA Cost Estimate.
1-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
D
D
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419
Preliminary Design Report for Soil Interim Remedy
2.0 Site Conditions
2.1 Site Location and Description
Revision 0
May 16, 2005
The Ram Leather Care Site is located at 15100 Albemarle Road (Route 24/27) in a rural
area of eastern Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, just west of the Cabarrus County
line. The site is located at 35 ° 13' 41" North Latitude and 80° 36' 24.50" West
Longitude. The site is located approximately four miles west of the Charlotte city
boundary.
Ram Leather Care restored leather goods and operated as a dry cleaning facility.
Chlorinated hydrocarbon chemicals [primarily tetrachloroethylene (PCE) and petroleum
hydrocarbons (mineral spirits)] were used in the cleaning process. The dry cleaning
facility is no longer in operation. The site later operated as a weekend flea market;
however, it is now closed to the public.
A site vicinity map and a site location map are presented as Figures 1-1 and 2-1,
respectively. The site is presently zoned residential and is surrounded by residential
property. To the south is a 14-acre privately owned parcel. A small fishing pond is
located on the 14-acre parcel. To the east is an 8-acre privately owned parcel. To the
north is another privately owned parcel. To the west is an 18-acre privately owned
parcel. Albemarle Road and the Norfolk Southern Railroad are located north of the site.
A gravel road running southeast from the Ram Leather driveway provides access to two
residences and the small pond. A septic tank drain field is located in the southern portion
of the site. A former drinking water well (DW00l 1) is located in the northwest portion
of the site.
The IROD for Ram Leather Care describes several source categories; areas identified
were the septic tank/septic tank drain field, former dumpster area, surface water
ditch/culvert, and former drum storage area.
Septic Tank/Septic Tank Drain Field -A subsurface septic tank wastewater system has
been in operation at the site since 1977. The septic tank is located on the north side of the
Ram Leather Care building. Wastewater from the septic tank was pumped to a drain field
2-1
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419
Preliminary Design Report for Soil Interim Remedy
Revision 0
May 16, 2005
in the southern portion of the property. This partially vegetated area is unfenced and
accessible to the adjacent residents.
Former Dumpster Area -The former dumpster area (where filter burning occurred) is
located on the south side of the Ram Leather Care building. This area is currently covered
and serves as part of the gravel parking lot. The wastes generated at the site were placed
in the metal dumpster from 1977 until 1984. The dumpster has since been removed.
Surface Water/Ditch Culvert -Water from the northern portion of the site flows in a ditch
and through culverts under a railroad track and Route 24/27 to an intermittent stream
across the street from the site. Soil samples were collected from ditch locations just prior
to entering the culvert under the railroad track. The area was sampled to determine if
contamination is leaving the site via surface water drainage.
Former Drum Storage Area -After 1984, 55-gallon drums were used to store the waste
generated at the site. The former drum storage area is located next to the western part of
the building where drums were placed on a cement pad. A grassy area is adjacent to the
cement pad. Contamination in this area is due, in part, to drum leakage and spills. When
discovered in 1991, it was noted that the bungs had been left open allowing rain to enter
the drums and overflow. Areas of stained or stressed vegetatio,n have been observed in
the area adjacent to the drum storage area.
During the April 1999 investigation, a hole was uncovered adjacent to the drum pad. The
hole had been drilled and was approximately 10 inches in diameter. The hole had been
drilled to a depth in excess of 10 feet and is currently filled with collapsed material to a
depth of 10 feet. The drilled hole· was covered by a 55-gallon drum lid and cement. Air
monitoring conducted by EPA at the top of the hole indicated the presence of organic
compounds. It is not known whether the hole was due to a failed well installation
attempt, past sampling activities, or was used for past dumping of solvents. The hole
would have received storm water runoff from the drum storage area.
2.2 Site History
The majority of the operational history information presented below was obtained from
the Remedial Investigation Report, Phase I, dated March 14, 2000, and prepared by EPA
2-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
u
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
0
D
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No.369-RDRD-A419
Preliminary Design Report for Soil Interim Remedy
Revision 0
May 16, 2005
Region 4 Science and Ecosystem Support Division (SESD) (EPA, 2000). Additional
information was obtained from the Ram Leather Care IROD (EPA, 2004b).
The Ram Leather Care facility operated from 1977 to I 993. The building was
constructed in 1967 and housed a construction business owned by Mr. Worley until 1977.
On May 6, 1987, Ram Leather submitted its first Notification of Hazardous Waste
Activity. Ram Leather reported that it was a generator of less than 1,000 kilograms
(kg)/month of DOOi RCRA wastes (as defined in the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, 40 CFR 261.21). On June 8, 1987, EPA assigned the number NCO 982
096 653 to Ram Leather as a small quantity generator.
On April 6, 1991, during a complaint investigation of a demolition landfill on adjacent
property, Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection (MCDEP)
inspector discovered illegal open burning at the Ram Leather Care Site. The facility
operator was burning filters containing PCE. The facility was instructed to stop and
complied. MCDEP issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) for this burning.
On April 29, 1991, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (NCDENR) inspector visited the site. The inspector noted that the last
documented disposal of DOOi waste petroleum naphtha was on February 12, 1988. Mr.
Worley stated that the Dry Cleaners ·Trade Association had sent information that certain
petroleum-based dry cleaning solvents were no longer deemed hazardous waste and that
he had assumed that his waste was no longer hazardous. The inspector discovered a 250-
gallon above-ground storage tank of 000 I waste mineral spirits and 49 drums of liquid
waste in an outside waste storage area. Bungs were open, allowing rainwater to enter the
drums and waste to overflow. Logs and drum markings were not maintained. The drums
were standing in liquid. A composite sample of drum contents and a surface soil sample
were taken on May 2, 199 I.
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM), Water Quality
Section, was notified April 30, 1991, of a boiler blow-off in the storage area. A permit
had not been issued for the site, making this an illegal discharge. The area had been
recently graded to allow surface water runoff to flow toward Albemarle Road. A
drinking water well was noted within 50 feet of the storage area and was sampled on May
2-3
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419
Preliminary Design Report for Soil Interim Remedy
Revision 0
May 16, 2005
6, 1991, by MCDEP. Due to contamination found in the well, Ram Leather was advised to discontinue using the well for drinking. On May 13, 1991, all off-site drinking water wells within ½ mile were sampled. Two private residential wells were found to be contaminated.
On June 5, 1991, a North Carolina Hazardous Waste Inspector visited the Ram Leather
Care Site to provide instructions to Mr. Worley.· While there, Ram Leather requested a change in classification under RCRA because the 49 drums of D00 I hazardous waste present at the site were in excess of 6,000 kg, thereby exceeding small quantity generator
status. Mr. Worley stated that PCE filters were stored in a dumpster prior to disposal in a landfill. Stored hazardous wastes were shipped off-site for disposal on June 14, 1991.
Ram Leather was reclassified as a Large Quantity generator on June 17, 1991.
On June 24, 1991, an Imminent Action NOV (Docket #91-264) was issued to Ram Leather Care for Storage and Disposal of Hazardous Waste. The compliance schedule required submittal of a comprehensive sampling and analysis report by July 26, 1991, soil
removal with post-excavation samples by September 1, 1991, and removal of all
hazardous wastes by September I, 1991.
On July 2, 1991, an NOV was issued by NCDEM Groundwater Section for violation of groundwater quality standards. The NOV required remediation of contaminated soil and groundwater and provision of an alternate water supply to affected well owners (Parnell
and Beaver). On July 26, 1991, NCDEM Groundwater Section held in abeyance the order to remediate the site and deferred lead agency status to the North Carolina
Hazardous Waste Section. The NOV still required provision of alternate water supply to affected well owners. On August 2, 1991, Ram Leather responded to NCDEM by letter
and said that the two private residences had been provided with bottled water and on November 5, 1991, Ram Leather submitted a Technical and Field Data Report to
NCDENR.
On January 24, I 992, a Compliance Order with Administrative Penalty, Docket #92-068
was issued by the North Carolina Division of Solid Waste Management (NCDSWM).
This NOV stated that between I 977 and I 984, wastes generated from the use of chlorinated hydrocarbons were disposed of in a metal dumpster. After 1984, 55-gallon
2-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
D
I
E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419
Preliminary Design Report for Soil Interim Remedy
Revision 0
May 16, 2005
drums were used to store the solvents which were then transported off-site for recycling.
Between 1984 and 1988, wastes were also stored in an above-ground waste tank
supported by a concrete pad on the west side of the building. The NOV cited Ram
Leather for storage of hazardous waste on-site for longer than 90 days, improper or lack
of marking on hazardous waste containers, failure to file an annual report, discharge of
D00 I and F002 hazardous wastes onto the ground and into the groundwater, and failure
to submit a permit application. The NOV imposed a penalty.
On February 26, 1992, Ram Leather filed a petition for an Administrative hearing to
contest the order. On April 29, 1992, NOV Docket #92-232 was issued to Ram Leather
by the NC Hazardous Waste Section for failure to submit an annual report. On May 12,
1992, Ram Leather responded with the annual report and contested the NOV. Ram
Leather stated that generator status was based on amount generated, not stored. The
annual report stated that the following quantities of wastes were generated and shipped
off-site in 1991 :
Perchloroethylene/ignitable, D039 2,900 kg
Filters containing waste perchloroethylene/ignitable, D039 1,268 kg
Filters containing waste mineral spirits/ignitable, D00l
Waste mineral spirits/ignitable, D00l
700 kg
3,315kg
On July 17, 1992, Ram Leather provided a Soil Vapor Extraction Proposal to NCDENR
Attorney General's Office. A memo dated July 29, 1992, from the North Carolina
Hazardous Waste Inspector to the North Carolina Assistant Attorney General, states that
Ram Leather was not in compliance with NOV Docket #91-264. This memo also stated
that Ram Leather had made little attempt to meet the requirements of the order which
required removal of on-site contaminated soil.
On January 30, 1992, Mecklenburg County agam sampled area wells. NCDEM
communicated to Mr. Worley on March 16, 1992, that he was still required to provide
alternate water supply to residents with contaminated wells. It was suggested that Mr.
Worley consider a point of entry filter system. On July 15, 1992, Ram Leather sampled
three water supply wells including the new onsite well. An August IO, 1992, letter states
that Ram Leather continues to supply alternate water supplies to both residences. On
2-5
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A4 l 9
Preliminary Design Report for Soil Interim Remedy
Revision 0
May 16, 2005
August 26, 1992, Mecklenburg County again sampled area wells and determined that an
additional residential well was also contaminated. On March 18, 1993, Ram Leather
filed for Chapter 7 Voluntary Bankruptcy. On April 19, 1993, NCDEM requested that
the Commerce Finance Center pursue funding to provide a permanent alternate water
supply.
Additional well samples taken by Mecklenburg County on June 22, 1993, showed that
the well at 15205 Albemarle Road was contaminated. Subsequent tests have shown the
well to be clean. On September 8, 1993, NCDSWM Waste Management Branch referred
the site to the North Carolina Superfund Section for possible immediate action to provide
a reliable alternative water supply to the residents. A September 28, 1993, inspection
report stated that the Ram Leather facility was in Chapter 7 bankruptcy and had been
unable to comply in full with Compliance Order with Administrative Penalty Docket
#92-068. Alternative water was still being provided to area residents who would accept
it, but site cleanup had not progressed.
On February 16, 1994, the North Carolina Superfund Section requested that EPA
evaluate Ram Leather for a possible removal action and on March 16, 1994, the EPA
sampled on-site soil and neighboring wells. The EPA determined that wells surrounding
the site were below removal action levels and assigned the site a low priority for removal
action.
Between the EPA removal evaluation and September 26, 1995, a new deep well was
installed at the residence located across the street from the facility. The resident had
discontinued using bottled water and had resumed drinking the groundwater. The new
well was sampled during the North Carolina Superfund Section Site Inspection on
September 26, 1995. The well showed 204 parts per billion (ppb) of PCE, which was
much higher than any previous sampling results from that residence. The MCDEP also
sampled the well and found a high level of PCE. The NC Superfund Section again
requested an EPA removal action. The EPA sampled the well and determined that it
qualified for a high priority removal action.
In 1997, EPA's Emergency Response and Removal Branch conducted a follow-up
investigation to verify the findings of the State's 1995 investigation. Private wells in the
2-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
I
'I
I
I
I
D
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419
Preliminary Design Report for Soil Interim Remedy
Revision 0
May 16, 2005
vicinity of the site were sampled. The results indicated that the levels of contamination
exceeded the removal action level. Thus, in February 1997, point-of-entry carbon
filtration units were installed on the Parnell, Glosson, and Beaver wells. Each of these
wells has consistently shown chlorinated hydrocarbon contamination.
EPA SESD completed the first phase of the Remedial Investigation (RI) in 1999 to assess
the areal and vertical extent of contaminated soil and groundwater at the site, and to
determine whether additional potable wells adjacent to the site were contaminated. In
2000, EPA tasked COM to undertake additional groundwater studies (Phase II). The
main objectives of the additional studies were to determine the nature of the fracture
zones in the area and the extent of contamination in the fractured bedrock aquifer. A
review of the data collected suggests that the extent of contamination has been defined to
the north and west-northwest of the site, but remains to be defined on the southern side
and the east-northeast directions from the facility. Additionally, four private wells
sampled during the 2000 RI sampling event still showed unacceptable levels of
contamination (EPA, 2004b ).
The IROD for the Ram Leather Care site was issued on September 30, 2004 (EPA,
2004a). The interim remedy selected in the IROD includes Soil Alternative S3 -
Excavation, Off-Site Transportation, and Disposal at Subtitle D Landfill; and
Groundwater Alternative G3 -Pump and Treat with Physical/Chemical Treatment and
Groundwater Monitoring. The RD for the interim groundwater remedy will be submitted
under separate cover. The selected interim remedy meets the requirements of the two
mandatory threshold criteria: protection of human health and the environment and
compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements ( ARARs) while
providing the best balance of benefits and tradeoffs among the five balancing criteria,
including long-term effectiveness and permanence; short-term effectiveness;
implementability; reduction of mobility, toxicity, and volume through treatment; and
cost. The selected interim remedy also includes flexibility, to the extent possible, to
allow for future redevelopment of the site.
2-7
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419
Preliminary Design Report for Soil Interim Remedy
2.3 Hydrogeologic Setting
Revision 0
May 16, 2005
The majority of the geologic features of the site presented below were obtained from the Remedial Investigation Report, Phase I, dated March 14, 2000, and prepared by EPA Region 4 SESD (EPA, 2000).
2.3.J Topography and Surface Drainage
The total relief on the site is about 13 feet, ranging from a basin in the northwest corner at 717.2 feet above mean sea level (ams!) to the highest point of 730.4 feet ams! in the south. There are two overland flow paths for site drainage. The northern pathway flows through culverts under the railroad tracks and Route 24/27. This intermittent stream
continues for I ,500 feet until it joins a perennial stream. This perennial stream continues north for 1,000 feet and flows into a pond that is 800 feet long. The outfall from this pond
is an unnamed tributary to Caldwell Creek.
Runoff from the southern portion of the site flows south and enters a pond 1,000 feet to the south. The pond is 200 feet long. Several springs emerge along the overland flow pathway and in other areas between the site and the pond. The outfall from this pond flows 1,200 feet where it enters a larger pond. Outfall from this pond enters Wiley
Branch which leads to Clear Creek.
2.3.2 Climate
The area has a mean annual 45 inches of precipitation per year and a mean annual lake
evaporation of 41 inches per year, resulting in a net precipitation of 4 inches (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1979). The two-year 24-hour rainfall is 3.5 inches (U.S. Dept. of
Commerce, 1963). The site is outside the 500 year flood plain (Federal Emergency
Management Agency, I 993 ).
2.3.3 Geology
The soils at the site are classified as part of the Georgeville unit, characterized by a silty clay loam. The surface layer is a yellowish red silty clay loam, approximately 5 inches thick. Below this is about 4 feet of strongly acidic subsoil, the upper part of which is a red
silty clay. The lower part is a red silty clay loam. Under the subsoil is silt loam to
approximately 9 feet below land surface (bis). Depth to bedrock is about 42 feet bis
(Tingle, I 99 I).
2-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
u
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
! I
I
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A4 l 9
Preliminary Design Report for Soil Interim Remedy
Revision 0
May 16, 2005
The site is located in the western edge of the Carolina Slate Belt of North Carolina.
Classified as phyllites, these rocks are very fine in texture. The metavolcanic rock is
characterized by interbedded felsic to mafic tufts and flowrock. The residuum from the
fine grained slate forms the Georgeville series subsoil mentioned above (U.S. Dept. of
Agriculture, 1980; USGS, 1980).
Rock units in the area have undergone periods of deformation that have produced folding
and fractured planes in the rock, as well as brittle zones where the rock is crushed,
sheared, or faulted in some manner. As these rock types become weathered, soil profiles
develop that are characteristic of the original rock (also referred to as saprolite). The
rocks have been fractured during metamorphic phases and, in some cases, the fractures
have been "resealed" by quartz. As rock weathers, these quartz fillings are retained in the
soil indicating that fractures existed in the rock. In addition, remnant fractures can be
seen in the soil profile without quartz infilling as indicated by the presence of iron
staining along the fracture plane. The iron staining is a result of groundwater leaching
iron from the surrounding material. As groundwater travels along a fracture plane, the
iron is re-deposited along the plane. Fracture planes can be detected during drilling as
zones of weak-to-incompetent rock that are not resistant to the cutting action of the drill
bit. These fracture zones are typically water saturated.
Stratigraphy at the site consists of a saprolite layer, a partially weathered rock zone, and
the underlying fractured crystalline bedrock. The saprolite is clay-rich, residual material
derived from in-place weathering of bedrock. Typically, the saprolite is silty clay near the
surface. With increasing depth, the amount of silt, and fine-grained sand and gravel tend
to increase. Remnant fracture planes with quartz infilling appear in this layer. The
thickness of the saprolite in the vicinity of the site ranges from 24 to 42 feet. The range is
based on soil borings drilled in 1991 that showed auger refusal at 24 feet and the well log
for the onsite deep well that showed the depth to bedrock as approximately 42 feet bis.
This is consistent with the August 1999 drilling in which bedrock was encountered at
approximately 45 feet bis.
Underlying the saprolite is a partially weathered rock layer derived from the weathering
of bedrock. Partially weathered rock is composed of saprolite and fragments of weathered
bedrock. Grain sizes range from silts and clays to large boulders of unweathered bedrock.
2-9 .
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419
Preliminary Design Repon for Soil Interim Remedy
Revision 0
May 16, 2005
The weathering occurs in bedrock zones less resistant to physical and chemical
degradation (i.e., fault zones, stress relief fractures, and mineralogic zones).
2.3.4 Hydrogeology
Regionally, the water-bearing units that underlie the site represent an aquifer system
consisting of metamorphosed and fractured phyllite rocks of varying proportions and
thicknesses. The aquifer system underlying the site generally consists of the
saprolite/partially-weathered rock aquifer and the underlying fractured bedrock aquifer.
In the site area, the water is typically found in the saprolite aquifer and will generally
mimic the overlying land surface. The depth to water is approximately 26 feet.
Shallow groundwater movement is assumed to somewhat follow the topography. Based
on a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map, ground surface at the site slopes
to the southeast and the northwest, creating a groundwater divide. However, groundwater
flow is likely controlled by the presence of relict fractures present in the saprolite,
fractures in the partially-weathered as well as competent bedrock, and the steep dip of the
bedrock units to the northwest. Given the complexity of the bedrock at the site, the
direction of groundwater flow depends primarily on fractures, faults, bedding planes, etc.
2.4 Soil Characterization and Extent of Contamination
This section presents the results of surface and subsurface soil investigation activities
performed in 1999 as part of the Remedial Investigation, Phase I, conducted by EPA
Region 4 SESD (EPA, 2000). Soil sampling locations and chlorinated solvent results are
presented on Figure 2-2.
2.4.1 Septic System/Septic Tank Drain Field
A total of six locations associated with the septic system/septic tank drain field area were
sampled. Surface and subsurface soil samples were analyzed for volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), base neutral acids (BNAs), pesticides, and metals. Soil was
sampled in the area adjacent to the septic tank (SS I), the area adjacent to the pipeline
running south from the septic tank to the drain field (SS2), and the septic tank drain field
area (SS3 through SS6). Low concentrations of PCE and trichloroethylene (TCE) were
detected at 5 feet bis adjacent to the septic tank (SSI), and low levels of cis-DCE were
detected at IO feet bis at locations SS I and SS6. Chlorinated solvents were not detected
2-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
0
u
m
I
I
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No.369-RDRD-A419
Preliminary Design Report for Soil Interim Remedy
above conservative EPA generic soil screening
groundwater (EP A/540/R-95/128) in these areas.
2.4.2 Drainage Ditch/Culvert -North Area of Site
RevisionO
May 16, 2005
levels (SSLs) for protection of
Surface and subsurface soil samples were collected in the north drainage ditch/culvert
area (NDl). The surface soil sample was analyzed from voes, BNAs, pesticides, and
metals. The subsurface samples were analyzed for voes only. Low levels of PeE were
detected in subsurface soil samples collected from the ditch/culvert area. Chlorinated
solvents were not detected above conservative EPA generic SSLs for protection of
groundwater (EPA/540/R-95/128) in this area.
2.4.3 Former Dumpster Area
One surface soil sample was collected in the former dumpster area (DU2). The surface
soil sample was analyzed for voes, BNAs, pesticides, and metals. The collection of
additional surface and subsurface samples using direct push technology was not possible
due to the gravel parking lot in the dumpster area. Chlorinated solvents were not detected
in any sample collected in the former dumpster area.
2.4.4 Former Drum Storage Area
Surface and subsurface soil samples were collected in April and August 1999, to assess
the extent of soil contamination in the former drum storage area. Locations beginning
with the prefix DS (OS 1 through DS 10) were sampled in April 1999 and locations
beginning with RL (RL21 through RL28) were sampled in August 1999. In addition to
the samples collected from the general former drum storage area, samples were collected
from the 10-inch diameter hole (DS9) discovered by SESD staff during the investigation,
and from the area adjacent to the hole. During the August 1999 investigation, samples
were collected at five foot intervals between depths of 10-30 ft. Additional samples were
· collected at some locations at a depth of 45 ft ( deepest possible sampling depth before
reaching bedrock). Surface and subsurface soil samples collected in April 1999 were
analyzed for VOCs, BNAs, pesticides, and metals. All samples collected in August 1999
were analyzed for voes, and samples collected near the.drilled hole in August 1999
were analyzed for voes, metals, BNAs, and pesticides.
2-11
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419
Preliminary Design Report for Soil Interim Remedy
Revision 0
May 16, 2005
PCE was detected at five of seven surface soil sampling locations in the drum storage
area. At two of these locations, OSI [61 micrograms per kilogram (ug/kg)] and DS4 (! 10
ug/kg), surface soils exceeded the generic SSL for PCE (3 ug/kg). The level of PCE
detected in surface soil ranged from 2J ug/kg (DS2, DS5, and DS7) to 110 ug/kg (DS4).
No other VOCs were detected in the surface soil.
PCE and known PCE degradation products, TCE, DCE, and VC, were detected in
subsurface soils at the former drum storage area. PCE levels at the site ranged from less
than 1.0 ug/kg to 78,000 ug/kg (DS9). The highest concentration of PCE (78,000 ug/kg)
detected was collected from the 10-inch diameter hole at a depth of 10 feet bis. Adjacent
to the hole, 20,000 ug/kg of PCE was detected in boring RL27 at 25 feet bis. PCE was
detected in 34 of 40 subsurface soil samples. In 26 of these samples, subsurface soils
exceeded the generic SSL for PCE (3 ug/kg). TCE was detected in I 9 of the subsurface
samples ranging from 0.59 Jug/kg (RL23 at 20 feet bis) to 110 Jug/kg (RL28 at 45 feet
bis). The degradation product cis-DCE was detected in 20 of the subsurface samples
ranging from less than 1 ug/kg to 520 ug/kg (RL28 at 45 feet bis). Vinyl chloride was
detected in the drum storage area in five subsurface samples ranging from 2.6 J ug/kg
(RL28 at 20 feet bis) to 44 ug/kg (RL28 at 45 feet bis). In the drum storage area,
chlorinated solvents were detected in the soil down to the deepest sampling depth of 45
feet.
The data collected during the 1999 EPA RI, as well as earlier investigations, suggest that
soils and groundwater at neighboring private wells are contaminated with chlorinated
solvents typically associated with dry cleaning operations. Limited full scan data that
have been collected previously indicate that metals, SVOCs, and pesticides are not a
problem at the site. Soil contamination will be addressed in this preliminary design
report; whereas, groundwater contamination will be addressed under separate cover. As
proposed in the !ROD, Figure 2-2 indicates the area of soil contamination that will be
addressed as part of the interim removal action. The removal volume is based on the
depth to groundwater (approximately 26 feet bis) and the lateral extent of soils collected
during the RI that exceed the generic EPA SSL of 3 ug/kg for PCE. Based on this SSL,
approximately 3,500 cubic yards (CY) of surface and subsurface soils in the drum storage
area would need to be addressed as part of the interim action. Removing these soils, as
2-12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
n
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
0
B
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419
Preliminary Design Report for Soil Interim Remedy
Revision 0
May 16, 2005
proposed in the !ROD, would also address other VOC contaminants that may exceed
North Carolina concentrations for soil to groundwater leaching.
2-13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
D
0
u
I
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419
Preliminary Design Report for Soil Interim Remedy
3.0 Project Description
Revision 0
May 16, 2005
On-site contaminated soil is an ongoing source for groundwater contamination. The
Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) addressed the on-site source in order to minimize
additional release of source contaminants to groundwater. Remedial alternatives for the
area of contaminated soil identified during the RI were presented in the FFS.
Figure 2-2 indicates the area of soil contamination that will be addressed as part of the
interim remedial action. Although surface soil contaminant levels did not pose a human
health risk, as indicated above, contaminant levels in surface and subsurface soils may
still impact groundwater. The potential for soil contamination to impact groundwater in
conjunction with the maximum contaminant level (MCL) exceedances present in
groundwater suggest the need to develop a soil remediation goal based on groundwater
protection. The RI indicated that some site soils exceed the conservative generic soil
screening level (SSL) for PCE for protection of groundwater (3 ug/kg) (EPA 1540/R-
96/018). SSLs are risk-based concentrations derived from equations combining
exposure information assumptions with the EPA toxicity data. It should be noted that
SSLs are not considered national cleanup standards, but rather, are useful in identifying
and defining areas, contaminants, and conditions at a particular site that does not
require further federal attention. When a generic screening level is exceeded, it is
useful to develop a site-specific SSL. Figure 2-2 illustrates the approximate lateral
extent of soils that exceed the SSL of 3 ug/kg PCE based on the RI data. These soils
also exceed the North Carolina default number for soil to groundwater leaching for
PCE (7.4 ug/kg). While exceedances occurred at depths up to 40 feet bis, the depth of
soil that would actually be addressed in this interim action extends only to 26 feet bis,
the approximate depth to the groundwater table. Using the SSL allows the interim
action to target the potentially most problematic soils regarding contamination of
groundwater without impeding the ability to collect additional site data needed to
develop a final groundwater remedial action. Based on an SSL of 3 ug/kg of PCE in
soil for protection of groundwater, approximately 3,500 CY of surface and subsurface
soils in the drum storage area would need to be addressed as part of the interim action.
Since the lateral extent of soils with PCE exceeding 3 ug/kg has not been completely
delineated to the west and north, the volume of soils requiring removal is likely to
exceed the 3,500 cubic yard estimate. Addressing these soils would also address other
3-1
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419
Preliminary Design Report for Soil Interim Remedy
Revision 0
May 16, 2005
VOC contaminants that may exceed North Carolina concentrations for soil to
groundwater leaching.
The selected interim remedy for soils specifically provides for the following:
• Confirmation sampling of soil to verify the soils outside the boundaries of the
excavation area are below the SSL for PCE.
• Excavation [land surface to the water table (approximately O to 26 feet bis)] of
surface and subsurface soils (approximately 3,500 CY) which exceed the generic
EPA SSL of3 ug/kg for PCE (Figure 2-2).
• Dust control to minimize fugitive emissions.
• Air monitoring during removal activities to ensure safety of nearby residents and
workers.
• Loading and offsite transportation and disposal of soils at a Subtitle C or D
landfill. Excavated soils will be analyzed for waste characterization prior to
disposal to determine the appropriate landfill disposal location.
• Backfilling of excavated areas with certified clean fill, and final grading,
compacting, and restoration of the area including re-vegetation (seeding and
mulching).
Excavation of contaminated soils shall continue as necessary in the lateral directions,
where possible, except beneath the existing building, until the remaining soils achieve the
SSL for PCE. Excavation shall comply with all ARARs, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), and state standards. The interim soil action objective will be
met when confirmatory samples collected from the sidewalls of the excavation are below
the SSL for PCE.
3-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
n
D
D
B
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
u
0
D
m
II
I
L
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419
Preliminary Design Report for Soil Interim Remedy
4.0 Design Criteria
4.1 Introduction
Revision 0
May 16, 2005
The Design Criteria defines in detail the technical parameters upon which the design will
be based. Specifically, the Design Criteria shall include the preliminary design
assumptions and parameters, which may include (I) waste characterization; (2)
pretreating requirements; (3) volume and types of each medium requiring treatment; (4)
treatment schemes (including all media and byproducts), rates, and required qualities of
waste streams (i.e., input and output rates, influent and effluent qualities, potential air
emissions, and so forth); (5) performance standards; (6) long-term performance
monitoring and operations and maintenance (O&M) requirements; (7) compliance with
all ARARs, pertinent codes, and standards; (8) technical factors of importance to the
design and construction including use of currently accepted environmental control
measures, constructability of the design, and use of currently acceptable construction
· practices and techniques. The interim soil RA for this site consists of a single phase
surface and subsurface soil excavation and disposal. The anticipated limits of excavation
are presented in Figure 4-1. The remedy involves excavation and disposal of
contaminated soil, confirmation sampling, backfilling, and site restoration. The
following sections outline design criteria for major components of the soil interim RA.
4.2 Soil Cleanup Standards
The !ROD for the RAM Leather Care site, dated September 2004, establishes the soil
performance standard as described in Section 3. Soil not meeting this performance
standard will be excavated and sent off-site for disposal in a Subtitle C or D landfill.
4.3 Soil Remediation Design Criteria
All activities associated with the interim soil RA will be performed under a performance
work statement by a qualified soil remediation subcontractor.
4.3.1 Soil Confirmation Testing
Soil confirmation samples shall be collected from the presumed excavation walls prior to
soil excavation. Conducting confirmation sampling prior to excavation will enable the
4-1
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419
Preliminary Design Report for Soil Interim Remedy
Revision 0
May 16, 2005
subcontractor to plan the work sequences most efficiently and anticipate the actual limits
of excavation.
Samples will be collected from nine Geoprobe® borings located along the perimeter of the soil excavation area. Each boring will be advanced to IO feet bls and 20 feet bis where a confirmation soil sample will be collected at each depth (total of 18 confirmation
samples). The confirmatory sampling layout is presented in Figure 4-2. The IO-and 20-
foot sample depths have been selected for confirmation sampling due to high detections
of PCE at these depths in historical samples. The nine borings are spaced out as such; two per 50-foot wall, one per 25-foot wall, and one per each of the shorter length walls
(IO and l 5 feet). If a soil sample meets the performance standard (3 ug/kg for PCE), the quadrant or half of the excavation wall the sample was collected from will be assumed clean. However, if a soil sample exceeds the performance standard, the excavation wall
quadrant or half will be assumed contaminated.
Soil samples will be collected using EPA-approved sampling equipment and Encore®
samplers. All samples will be shipped to a pre-approved laboratory for analysis of VOCs (EPA Method 8260B).
The total number of confirmation samples is subject to change if any one of the first set ( l 8) of confirmation samples does not meet the performance standard. If a confirmation
sample does not meet the performance standard, a second confirmation sample shall be collected IO feet laterally from the failing sample and the excavation area shall be redefined outward in I 0-foot increments beyond the limits of excavation in the area of the failing samples. The confirmation sampling process will then be repeated in JO-foot
intervals until the soil meets the performance standard. For purposes of cost estimation,
it is assumed that all preliminary samples will exceed the performance standard and 18
additional samples and IO feet of over-excavation will be required around the north and west boundaries of the excavation area. Based on the dimensions of l 90 feet long by IO feet wide by 26 feet deep, the over-excavation represents approximately 1,830 CY of soil.
Concurrent with cleanup verification sampling (prior to any excavation work), worst-case
subsurface soil samples will be collected from three previously sampled borings [DS9 (I 0 feet bis), RL27 (25 feet bis), and RL24 (10 feet bis)] and analyzed for total VOCs and
4-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
R
D
I
B
I
a
I
I
I
I
I
a
0
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419
Preliminary Design Report for Soil Interim Remedy
Revision 0
May 16, 2005
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) VOCs. If these samples are highly
contaminated, as they were during the RI, and none fail the TCLP test, all soils shall be
classified as non-hazardous. Classifying the soils as non-hazardous would significantly
reduce costs because the excavated soils could be loaded directly into dump trucks and
would not require double-handling. Even if the most contaminated sampl,: fails the
TCLP, a correlation can be made between total PCE levels and TCLP PCE which should
eliminate the need for soil stockpiling and sampling for a large portion of the soils
targeted for removal. In developing costs, 25% of excavated soil is estimated for disposal
as hazardous.
4.3.2 Pre-Excavation Activities
Prior to soil excavation, two empty above ground storage tanks shall be re-located from
atop the concrete pad to a temporary location on-site prior to disposal in a Subtitle D
landfill. The former contents of these tanks are unknown and the bungs are missing. If
the storage tanks are steel, they may be disposed of at a metal recycler. Next, the
concrete pad (approximately 12 feet by 17 feet) shall be demolished and re-located to a
temporary location on-site prior to disposal in a Subtitle D landfill. A floor drain from
the building currently flows beneath the concrete pad; the exit point of this floor drain
shall be sealed with concrete at the face of the building foundation.
Based on the relatively small lateral area of the excavation and the absence of sloping
terrain within this area, a topographic survey will not be required. Vegetation within the
excavation area consists of grasses and brush less than 3 feet tall and may require
minimal clearing and grubbing. No trees are located within the excavation area.
Temporary safety fencing and silt fencing shall be installed prior to beginning excavation
activities.
4.3.3 Soil Excavation
Soil excavation shall be performed in two adjacent areas. Area 1 is approximately 25 feet
by 25 feet, and Area 2 is approximately 50 feet by 60 feet, as defined in the !ROD. As
shown on Figure 4-1, the anticipated excavation limit differs from the excavation limits
defined in the [ROD in order to ensure structural stability of the adjacent building;
however, the anticipated excavation area still accounts for all detectable limits of PCE in
soils in the drum storage area (no PCE was detected in soil sample DS3 located adjacent
4-3
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419
Preliminary Design Report for Soil Interim Remedy
Revision 0
May 16, 2005
to the building). Soils shall be excavated to the depth of the water table, or approximately 26 feet bis. Therefore, excavation width, excavation depth, and soil volume is subject to change based on engineering considerations and actual site conditions. Based on elevated detections of PCE in several subsurface soil samples, the excavation strategy shall strive to reduce the amount of potentially-hazardous soils by segregating low to medium level contaminated excavated soils from the most
contaminated portions of the excavation volume (see Section 4.3.3 for determining the leaching potential of excavated soils will be analyzed prior to disposal at a Subtitle C or D landfill).
Excavation shall be performed utilizing conventional means such as bulldozers, track hoes, and loaders. Dust will be suppressed using water. All excavation shall comply
with ARARs, OSHA, and state standards. Applicable OSHA standards include, but are not limited to, 29 CFR Part 19IO (Occupational Safety and Health Standards) and 29
CFR Part 1926 (Safety and Health Regulations for Construction). Appropriate safety and health measures pertaining to excavation access and egress, excavations more than 20 feet in depth, and excavations adjacent to a building foundation will be followed. More specifically, OSHA Standard 29 CFR Part 1926, Subpart P, Appendix B, Footnote 3, states that "sloping or benching for excavations greater than 20 feet deep shall be designed by a registered Professional Engineer." Sloping means the sides of the hole open out from the excavation, and benching is similar to sloping with steps cut into sides of the trench. Shoring to support the walls of the excavation may also be considered, if
determined appropriate by a registered Professional Engineer. To ensure proper design
and safety of the excavation and building support system, a geotechnical analysis shall be required.
4.3.4 O.ffsite Transportation and Disposal
Based on the elevated detections of PCE in several subsurface soil samples, the leaching potential of excavated soils will be analyzed prior to disposal at a Subtitle C or D landfill.
TCLP analyses will be conducted on samples collected by the contractor from the composite waste. For estimating purposes in this preliminary design report, it is assumed
that 25 percent of the excavated soils will be classified hazardous and 75 percent of the
excavated soils will be classified non-hazardous.
4-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
D
0
0
D
0
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A4 l 9
Preliminary Design Report for Soil Interim Remedy
Revision 0
May 16, 2005
The selected landfill shall be approved by EPA and a declaration of "contained-in" for the
non-hazardous soils should be made to NCDENR. "Contained-in" soils are defined as
soils that are not hazardous, but contain listed hazardous waste and therefore, must be
managed as hazardous waste. Since only soil is covered in this policy, the soil "contains"
listed waste and is managed "in" RCRA. The North Carolina Hazardous Waste Section
"Contained-in" Policy for Soil Contaminated with Listed Hazardous Waste shall be
consulted by the contractor to ensure all proper soil disposal policies and procedures are
adhered to (NCHWS, 2004). The contractor shall weigh the soils on-site with portable
scales and prepare the appropriate waste manifests for each load. Signed analysis and
chains of custody as well as a scope of work indicating how regulated materials were
identified and how regulated soils were segregated from the non-hazardous soils shall be
prepared. Completed manifests documenting that the soils have been properly disposed of
shall also be provided to EPA.
The nearest EPA Region 4 CERCLA-certified landfill for non-hazardous wastes from
Superfund sites (Subtitle D) is the BFI-Charlotte Motor Speedway Municipal Solid
Waste Landfill located approximately 16 miles from the Ram Leather Care site in
Concord, North Carolina. The nearest hazardous waste landfill is located in Emelle,
Alabama, which is located approximately 530 miles from the Ram Leather Care site.
In the event that 25 percent of the excavated soils are classified hazardous (per the
assumption made in Section 4.3.1), it is estimated that transportation to the Subtitle C
landfill located in Emelle, Alabama, could take up to 34 weeks (assuming one disposal
truck).
4.3.5 Soil Backfilling and Restoration
Clean backfill material will be obtained from a source approved by EPA. Backfill
material shall be certified clean, including documentation that backfill has been 1:ested for
target compound list (TCL) organics, target analyte list (TAL) metals, polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, and herbicides to ensure no contamination exists. Gravel
may also be used in the deeper portions of the excavation where compaction would be
difficult. After backfilling and compaction of soils within the excavation area, the site
will be graded to match the original topography of the site and all areas will b1! seeded
4-5
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419
Preliminary Design Report for Soil Interim Remedy
Revision 0
May 16, 2005
and mulched for re-stabilization. The RA subcontractor shall follow EPA Best
Management Practices for erosion and sediment control.
4.4 Air Monitoring
Air monitoring for VOCs and particulates shall be performed to ensure safety of on-site
workers and nearby residents and workers. The required action level will be determined
and specified in the final design. If this action level is reached, the contractor will stop
work and perform additional dust suppression measures as necessary.
4.5 Land Acquisition and Easement Requirements
No land acquisition or easement access will be required because all soil interim RA
activities are to be conducted on land belonging to Mr. Worley, the site owner. Access to
adjacent properties not owned by the site owner will not be required.
4.6 Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Design quality assurance/quality control (QNQC) will be critical to the successful
completion of the soil interim remedy. The work assignment QC measures for the
remedial design are described in the Remedial Design Work Plan dated December 6,
2004 (Black & Veatch, 2004). The major project deliverables defined in the work plan
and SOW that will be subject to the work assignment quality control measures are listed
in Table 4-1.
4-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
n
D
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
D
D
0
D
I
I
I
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A4l9
Preliminary Design Report for Soil Interim Remedy
Table 4-1
Project Deliverables
Project Deliverable
Design Criteria Report (included in this document)
Basis of Design Report (included in this document)
Response to Design Review Comments
List of Long-Lead Procurement Items
Pre-Final Design for Soil Interim Remedy
Pre-Final Response to Comments
Draft Subcontract Bid Documents
Final Subcontract Bid Documents
4.7 Site Restoration
Projected Date
of Submission
5/16/2005
5/16/2005
7/12/2005
8/17/2005
8/27/2005
9/29/2005
10/5/2005
11/9/2005
Revision 0
May 16, 2005
Number of
Copies
5
.
5
5
5
5
5
5
Excavation activities will disturb the site inside the limits of excavation shown in Figure
4-1 and potentially in the area immediately surrounding the excavation area. Plans and
specifications will require that the site be maintained in a neat and orderly fashion
throughout excavation and restoration activities. All excavation disturbances will be
restored to pre-excavation conditions to prevent safety hazards, erosion, and impacts to
the property owner.
4.8 Reporting
Draft and final completion report shall be prepared to summarize the soil remediation
activities. The completion report shall include, but are not limited to the following:
• Final limits of soil excavation area and actual depth of soil excavation area.
• Cleanup verification soil sample location figures, data tables, and laboratory
reports.
• Total volume of soil removed and disposed of as hazardous and non-hazardous
waste.
• Disposal facility information.
• Appropriate figures and drawings.
4-7
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A4l9
Preliminary Design Report for Soil Interim Remedy
Revision 0
May 16, 2005
In addition, a minimum of 4 progress reports shall be submitted to EPA Region 4 during
the duration of the field activities.
In the event that 25 percent of the excavated soils are classified hazardous (per the
assumption made in Section 4.3.1), it is estimated that transportation to the Subtitle C
landfill located in Emelle, Alabama, could take up to 34 weeks (assuming one disposal
truck). It is assumed that the draft completion report would be submitted to EPA at the
conclusion of the disposal of non-hazardous soils to the Subtitle D landfill and that the
final completion report would be submitted to EPA at the conclusion of the disposal of
hazardous soils to the Subtitle C landfill.
4.9 Operations and Maintenance
Minimum requirements for O&M activities and reporting by the interim RA
subcontractor shall include monitoring and inspecting the site for signs of soil
subsidence, building settling, and erosion and sedimentation. If any of these conditions
are observed, corrective actions shall be conducted as necessary until the problems are
mitigated and site vegetation is re-established. O&M shall be conducted quarterly in the
first year following the completion of the interim soil RA.
4-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
D
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
n
D
D
D
I
I
I
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A4 l 9
Preliminary Design Report for Soil Interim Remedy
5.0 Basis of Design
Revision 0
May 16, 2005
The Basis of Design presents a detailed description of the evaluations conducted to select
the design approach, and shall include a Summary and Detailed Justification of
Assumptions. This summary may include (I) calculations supporting the assumptions;
(2) a draft process flow diagram; (3) a detailed evaluation of how all ARARs will be met;
(4) a plan for minimizing environmental and public impacts; and (5) a plan for satisfying
pennitting requirements.
5.1 Design Assumptions
During preparation of this design, assumptions have been made regarding sequence of
work; work by others; property access; and fate, transport, and physical properties of the
contaminants of concern as they relate to remediation. A description of each of the
relevant assumptions is presented below, including a justification or supporting
documentation as to the accuracy and acceptability of each assumption.
• Prior to excavation, a Geoprobe® rig will be used to collect 18 cleanup
confinnation samples from 9 borings to be advanced along the limits of
excavation (Figure 4-2). Results will be received prior to the start of excavation.
This will enable the subcontractor to plan the work sequences most efficiently and
anticipate the actual limits of excavation.
• An additional 18 confinnation samples (from 9 borings) are because the
contamination in soils has not been delineated west and north of the proposed
excavation area.
• Confinnation samples will be analyzed by a Contract Laboratory Program (CLP)
laboratory ..
• Concurrent with confinnation sampling, worst-case subsurface soil samples will
be collected from three previously sampled borings (DS9, RL27, and RL24) and
analyzed for total VOCs and TCLP VOCs to initially characterize soil for
disposal. Loading and disposal costs may be greatly reduced if the dete1mination
is made that the most contaminated soils do not have the potential for leaching to
groundwater.
• Costs for multiple TCLP samples have been included in the event that the samples
collected from the three initial borings do not pass TCLP and require additional
segregation.
• A geotechnical investigation of the soils in the vicinity of the building will be
conducted concurrent with the confinnation sampling work. The geotechnical
data will be used by the contractor to prepare and submit a design/plan for a
5-1
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A4!9
Preliminary Design Report for Soil Interim Remedy
Revision 0
May 16, 2005
shoring system ( or alternate approach) signed and sealed by a North Carolina licensed Professional Engineer with proven competency in deep excavations and shoring systems.
• Removal and disposal of the concrete pad and empty aboveground storage tanks located on top of the pad will be conducted prior to soil removal. • Only grasses and brush less than 3 feet tall are present in the excavation area that may require minimal clearing and grubbing; costs associated with clearing and grubbing will not be included in the estimate.
• No access/egress ramp into the excavation area will be required because it is assumed that the excavation will be performed with all equipment remaining on the natural land surface.
• Shoring or sheet piling, if chosen as the support measure by the Professional Engineer, shall not hinder excavation adjacent to the building and therefore be installed parallel to the building side. If sloping along the other sidewalls is required, the additional soils excavated for sloping shall be stored and used as excavation backfill.
• No excavation shall be conducted beneath the adjacent building. • Only soils down to the water table will be excavated; future remediation efforts will account for contamination present below the water table. • Access to adjacent properties not owned by the site owner will not be required. • · No wetlands are present in the vicinity of the site. • Coordination and approval with water and land management county agencies will be required. A local erosion and sediment control permit will not be required because the area of disturbance is less than I acre; however, erosion and sedimentation control measures will be taken.
• No air emissions permit will be required. However, dust monitoring will be performed during soil removal activities and if health and safety action levels are exceeded dust suppression measures will be taken.
• No confirmation sampling of the base of excavation area will be performed because contamination is known to exist below the water table. • There will be no discharge into surrounding surface water bodies ( drainage ditch, pond south of the site).
• A total soil disposal volume of 5,330 CY is estimated. A volume of 3,500 CY is estimated based on the IROD excavation area. It is assumed that I ,830 CY of additional soils above the IROD volume will require removal. It is assumed that 75 percent of the volume (3,998 CY) will be classified non-hazardous and can be disposed in a Subtitle D landfill, and that 25 percent of the volume (1,332 CY) will be classified hazardous and will require disposal in a Subtitle C hazardous waste landfill.
• O&M shall include monitoring and inspecting the site for signs of soil and/or building subsidence, and erosion and sedimentation and shall be conducted
5-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
n
D
0
D
•
I
I
I
I
I
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A4 I 9
Preliminary Design Report for Soil Interim Remedy
Revision 0
May 16, 2005
quarterly in the first year following the completion of the interim soil RA. It is
assumed that minimal corrective action (i.e., reseeding) will be required during
each quarterly visit.
5.2 Process Flow Diagrams
Interim remedial activities at the site will generate two types of primary waste, including
contaminated soil and personal protective equipment (PPE).
Figure 5-1 shows a generalized process flow diagram for the contaminated soil waste.
Excavated soils will be sampled for waste determination then transported off-site for
· disposal in a Subtitle C or D landfill. Once excavation is complete, the interim RA
subcontractor will perform confirmatory sampling at the limits of excavation (ground
surface and excavation walls) to ensure that the soil meets the performance standard of 3
ug/kg for PCE. If the soil does not meet the performance standard, the RA subcontractor
shall excavate an additional 10 feet beyond the limits of excavation on the side(s)
exceeding the performance standard. The contractor will then sample again to determine
if the performance standard is met. The contractor will continue this process until the
performance standard is achieved. Upon meeting the performance standard, the
contractor will backfill the excavation.
5.3 Operation and Maintenance Provisions
Minimum requirements_ for O&M activities and reporting by the int,erim RA
subcontractor shall include monitoring and inspecting the site for signs of erosion and
sedimentation, and perform corrective actions as necessary until site vegetation is re-
established. O&M shall be conducted quarterly in the first year following the completion
of the interim soil RA.
5.4 Permitting
In accordance with the provisions of CERCLA and SARA Black & Veatch does not
anticipate the need for a formal federal, state, or local permit application and approval
process in order to perform the proposed RA. The work, however, will need to comply
with the intent of the applicable permits. Based on a review of the project, evaluating
ARARs, reviewing the !ROD, and contacting the Mecklenburg County engineer, permits
5-3
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A4!9
Preliminary Design Report for Soil Interim Remedy
Revision 0
May 16, 2005
are not required, but all work shall be coordinated with local water and land management
agencies.
5-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
u
u
D
n
D
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419
Preliminary Design Report for Soil Interim Remedy
6.0 Project Delivery Strategy
Revision 0
May 16, 2005
The proposed soil RA for this site should not be considered a simple soil excavation and
disposal project. Aspects of the RA which significantly contribute to its complexity are
as follows:
• The 26-foot proposed depth of excavation.
• The presence of the large facility building m the immediate vicinity of the
proposed 26-foot deep excavation.
• The need for a design of a shoring system along the excavation wall adjacent to
the facility building, and potentially along additional walls of the excavation.
• The unknown lateral extent of contaminated soils requiring removal.
Black & Veatch has devised a project delivery strategy which will allow the
subcontractors to develop accurate cost estimates, minimize their field inefficiencies and
costs, and minimize economic risk to the EPA. Key components of Black & Veatch's
strategy include, but are not limited to the following:
• The contractor will be required to perform soil cleanup confirmation sampling
( using a drill rig) prior to the start of any excavation work so that the exact
dimensions and layout of the excavation are determined in advance. This will
enable the contractor to optimize field activities including use of the limited work
area. This will also eliminate the need to wait on laboratory results which will
minimize downtime in the field. Costs for this work should be easy to estimate.
• The contractor will be required to conduct a geotechnical investigation of the soils
in the vicinity of the building concurrent with the confirmation sampling work.
Using the geotechnical data, the contractor will then be required to prepare and
submit a design/plan for a shoring and sloping system ( or alternate approach)
signed and sealed by a North Carolina licensed Professional Engineer with proven
competency in deep excavations and shoring systems. The costs of the
geotechnical investigation and design of the shoring system should also be easy to
estimate.
• The contractor will be required to submit a conceptual design and cost of their
proposed shoring and sloping plan with their cost proposal. This design and cost
will be the basis for potential cost adjustments if it is necessary to modify the
design based on the geotechnical investigation or actual field conditions.
6-1
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419
Preliminary Design Report for Soil Interim Remedy
Revision 0
May 16, 2005
• The two largest cost elements of the project, soil excavation and soil disposal, will be bid on a unit-cost basis. It is anticipated that soil excavation will be bid as $/CY in-place, and soil disposal will be bid as $/ton. Soil excavation may also be divided into two categories: soils above I 3 feet bis and soils below 13 feet bis. This approach will provide the contractor with incentive to maximize field efficiencies while at the same time limit economic risk to the EPA for slow progress or problems due to contractor inefficiencies. Utilizing the two different soil depth categories is intended to more accurately reflect the higher costs associated with the deeper excavation work.
As described in the Remedial Design Work Plan dated December 6, 2004 (Black & Veatch, 2004), documents related to the soil interim remedy include:
• Preliminary Design Report for Soil Interim Remedy (including: Basis of Design Report, Design Criteria Report, Project Delivery Strategy and Scheduling, Preliminary RA Schedule and Cost Estimate) and responding to all comments. • Long-Lead Procurement Items.
• Pre-Final Design for Soil Interim Remedy that incorporates any changes since the preliminary design submittal, and responding to all comments.
Concurrently with the preparation of the Pre-Final Design, the Draft and Final Subcontract Bid Documents will be prepared and submitted.
It is assumed that after completion of the above documents in this work assignment and the selection of a qualified performance-based soil remediation contractor, EPA Region 4 will complete the RA using these documents in a new work assignment under EPA Contract 68-W-99-043 or similar contract vehicle.
A performance-type specification is anticipated for the soil excavation and site restoration process as a feature of the project delivery strategy. Qualified RA subcontractors will be provided estimates of levels of site soil contamination, the estimated quantity of soils requiring excavation, and the standards required for both the off-site disposal of contaminated media and the restoration of the site. In addition, the subcontract bid document will present a performance-based work statement and performance-based metric goals as related to work completion and compensation. The
6-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
n
u
D
D
D
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419
Preliminary Design Report for Soil Interim Remedy
Revision 0
May 16, 2005
selected RA subcontractor will be required to design and implement an
excavation/restoration plan capable of achieving the required standards for rt:moval and
disposal of contaminated soil and restoration of the site.
Measurement and payment items will be structured to allow flexibility in adjusting the
implementation of the RA as a component of the project delivery schedule. The final
design will establish the following:
• Anticipated limits of soil excavation
• Engineering requirements for soil excavation
• Designation of the minimum requirements for the off-site disposal facility
• Requirements of the soil type and composition of fill material for site restoration
• Cleanup verification sampling frequency and analytical requirements
• Other features of the remediation
During the interim RA for soil at the site, the limits of excavation, the engineering design
for the excavation area, and the process of backfilling and restoration of !ht: site may
require adjustment to achieve the remediation objectives. Fixed unit pricing will be
incorporated into the Final Contract Documents to allow adjustments by the remediation
subcontractor, such as additional soil removal, with the approval or at the direction of
EPA Region 4.
The project delivery strategy will be in accordance with the Prime Contract, the Prime
Contract Small Business Utilization Goals, and the appropriate FAR clauses. A feature
of the project delivery strategy is to prepare the Final Contract Documents for subsequent
bidding and award to a Small Business. This will be accomplished by either pre-
qualifying only Small Businesses as potential subcontractors, or by giving preference to
Small Businesses in their bid evaluation. An important consideration during pre-
qualification will be to ensure that the Small Business employs or hires a consultant
registered Professional Engineer to perform the design of the excavation shoring.
Preference may be given in a I 0% price differential or a weighted evaluation process that
assigns higher points to a Small Business as part of an overall evaluation process firms.
6-3
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
I
0
0
B
0
D
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419
Preliminary Design Report for Soil Interim Remedy
7.0 Preliminary Specifications
Revision 0
May 16, 2005
The general outline of the performance work statement anticipated to be used for Pre-
Final and JOO-Percent Design Plans and Specifications include, but are not limited to the
following:
Section I -Introduction
• Project goals
• Purpose
• Summary of the site description, history, and previous characterization
activities
Section 2-Scope of Work
• Project objectives
• Overview of subcontractor services to be provided and contractor's
responsibilities
• Compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act
Section 3 -Requirements
•
•
•
•
•
•
General Overview
Site-Specific Plans, including a Remedial Action Work Plan and Site
Management Plan (which contains a Construction Health and Safety
Plan, a Field Sampling Plan, a Data Management Plan, a: Pollution
Control Mitigation Plan, and a Demobilization Plan)
Specifications Outline
Soil Excavation
Reporting
Summary of Performance Requirements
The subcontract bid document submission will also include the Bidding Requirements,
Subcontract Forms, Clarifications and Addenda, and Conceptual Drawings. Technical
specifications are anticipated to be included in bid proposals from the qualified RA soil
subcontractors.
7-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:1
I
I
I
I
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419
Preliminary Design Report for Soil Interim Remedy
Revision 0
May 16, 2005
8.0 Preliminary Remedial Action Construction Schedule
A preliminary ~ construction schedule is presented in Appendix A. The entire duration
of the schedule is approximately 7 months, which includes procurement, pre-
mobilization, field activities, and reporting. The schedule is based on the Notice to
Proceed being issued on February 24, 2006.
8-1
I
I
I,
I'
I
' I
I
I'
I
I'
i
I
I
I
I
i
I
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A4 l9
Preliminary Design Report for Soil Interim Remedy
9.0 Preliminary Cost Estimate
Revision 0
May 16, 2005
A preliminary RA construction cost estimate was prepared using Remedial Action Cost
Engineering and Requirements (RACER) software program as well as a standard spread
sheet estimate. Copies of the RACER outputs are provided in Appendix 8. Costs of
individual components of the soil interim RA were estimated using RACER, and these
costs are summarized on Table 9-1 along with legal fees, permits, and other licenses (5%
of capital costs), contractor fee (10% of capital costs), and contingency (15% of capital
costs). The preliminary cost estimate for the total present worth cost of the interim soil
remedy at the Ram Leather Care is $818,135.
It is noted that the present worth preliminary cost estimate presented in this design report
is approximately 29 percent lower than the cost estimate presented in the FFS and !ROD.
The most significant reduction in cost resulted from the difference is disposal fees. The
disposal foes for the closest Subtitle D landfill ($18/CY) and Subtitle C landfill ($28/CY)
were considerably less than the disposal fee at a Subtitle D landfill ($65/ton or $65/CY as
assumed in the estimate) that was developed in the FFS.
9-l
Table 9-1
Preliminary Cost Estimate -Soil Interim Remedy
Ram Leather care
Meci<Jenb1.1ry County, North Carolina
Soll Excavation, Off.aite Tranaport■tlon, and 0!1poN.I at Subtitle O L.■ndflll {3,998 CY) and Subtitle C L■ndflll (1,332 CY)
itemO .. c:riptlon
SITE-SPECIFIC PLANS
Remedial Action Wort Pl,n
PRE-EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES
Prot.Hional EnglnHring DHlgn
Eltlmated
Ynr Unltl Quantity
0 EA
Annual Coit Value In Prennt Worth Co,t1
UnH Price Pr■Mnt $ Value In Prenrit $
No 01,count Rate 7% Ol,count Rite
$6,715.29 6,715.29 8 715.29
Pel'Tnltting, geotechnical l111ting, and design for excavation ◄0,281.34
7,617,6◄
1,351.05
30,096.90
40 564,80
safety. 0 EA
EA
EA
DAY HR
40,281.34
2,539.28 $
-450.35 $
111.47 S
18.78 $
40.281.3◄ S
7,617.6◄ S
1,351.05 S
30,096.90 S
-40,564.80 S
Moblllzatlol\l09moblllzatlon
Mobi!tle Equipment
Mobillze Crew
Per Diem
Excavation Labor
GeoProbe
EXCAVATION
ln1taU 3 points for waste cl'laracterizatlon tesUng
lnstaa 18 points for confirmation sampling
'Confirmation sampling
Disposable sampler1
Soll voe analyns W■ate Characterization Slmpllnlil Prior to Excavation
(costs 11111 included below In Offsite Landfilling)
O.moUtlon
Remove cement p.ad and 2 empty AST1, transport,
and dispose of in loc■l landfill
Temporary Safety Fencing
Eroalon Control Me■aunis
Vlny1 silt len-ce with posts
H-■lth and Safety
Steel sheeUng for excavation reinforcement
Olsposable lateJC 11loves
Portable air sampler
Disposable Tyvek c:overalll and boot covers
Respirators-negative pressure
Soll Excavation
Excavator -IROD excavation area
Excavator -over-excavation
Plastic waste pile cover
Equipment decontamination
D1.11t Control
Watering truck-5 pauesJday ov&r 0.1 acre !or 21 days
Backfill Excavated Area with CIHn Fill (includes an extra
15% by volume to account for compaction, and (ncludes
delivery, spreading and compaction)
Grading and Comp,ctlng
S.edlng and VegetaUv• Cover
Off-Sit• L■ndflllln11
Vlaste chanictertzation -TCLP
Dump truck loading (Subtitle DJ
Dump truck transportation (Subt1Ue DJ
Dump truck transportation (SubtiUe C)
Bulk Solid Hazardous Waste Loading
Dump truck decontamination (for ha: waste)
O!sposal at Subtitle C Lafldflll (assumes 25% of total
volume)
Disposal at SubtiUe O Landfill (assumes 75% of total
volume)
R1portlng
Oran Completion Report, Final Completion Report, and ◄
Progress Reports
Subtotal
Legal fees, p11nnits, and oth11r licenses (5% of capital costs)
Contrador Fee (10% of capilll costs)
Contingeney (15% of capital c:osts)1
TOTAL Ca ital Coit
O&M ACTMTIES
O&M -1st Quarter following c:omp/11\ion
O&M -2nd Q1.11rter following completion
O&M -3rd Qu1rt11r fohowing completion
O&M -◄th Quarter following completion
TOTALO&M Co•t
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH 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
0.5
0,75
1
1.25
EA
EA
EA
EA
LS
L.F
3
3
270
2160
3
,0
39
39
LF 300
SF 7500
PAIR 500
WK 3
PAJR 65
EA •
CY 3500
CY 1830
SF 56293
EA 1
AC 1-4.5
CY 6130
AC 0.5
AC 0.5
EA 53
HR 25
HR 232
Ml 81620
CY 1532
EA 77
CY 1332
CY 3998
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
• • • •
• •
• •
•
-430.70 S
-430.70 S
7.57 $
19-4.27 S
571.13 S
S 2.22
$ 9.49 S
$ 0.20 $
$ 61.-48 $
S 5.41 S
$ 2-4.73 $
S 2.87 S
S 2.87 $
S 0.13 S
$ 308.65 S
$ 71.3◄
$ 9.12 S
S 8-4.34 $
S 3,505.60 $
$ 629.76 $
S 78.35 S
$ 79,35 $
$ 1.8-4 $
$ 1.63 $
$ 1-47,98 $
$ 26.00
S 18.00
• • • •
9,218.20 $
•
•
1,017.01 S
1,017.01 S
1,017.01 S
1 017.01 $
1,292.10 $
7,752.60 S
295.23 S
7,576.53 S
571.13 $
1,620.00
666.00
71,175,00 $
100,00 $
244.38 $
351,65 $
98.92 S
10,0-46.06 $
5,252.10 S
7,316.14 S
308.65 $
1,03-4.43 S
55,901.04 S
42,17 S
1,752.80 S
33,377.28 S
1,956.75 $
18,-409.20 S
150,180.60$
2,497.16 S
11,39-4.-46 S
37,296.00 $
71,96-4.00 S
9,218.20 $
627.103.80
31,355.19
82,710.38
9-4,065.57
815 234.94
1,017.01 S
1,017.01 S
1.017.01 S
1 017.01 $
3 051.03 S
$
1,292.10
7,752.60
295.23
7,578.53
571.13
1,620.00
666.00
71,175.00
100.00
2-4-4.38
351.65
96.92
10,046.08
5,252.10
7,318.1◄
308.85
1,034.43
55,901.04
42.17
1,752.80
33,377.28
1,958.75
18,409.20
150,180.80
2,-497.18
11,39-4.-46
37,298.00
71,96-4.00
9,218.20
827,103.80
31,355.19
62,7,10.38
9-4,065.57
115234.9-4
983.18
968.69
950.-48
934,53
2 900.35
818,135.29
NOTES:
R.148l69 -R.,., lulhtr\128• Praim"1oty O•liljJl\SciAC01m Soff, RO.xll/SUbC&O
A 7% ~ inlarnt rate -uaed in c:all;ulalklg present worth baaed on 1he EPA Supllffund gudanu
document A Guide 10 08.,./oping lll'ld Documerrting Colt EWmatu During th• Fealllbility Study (_,Uy 2000).
2 Conlini;ency {15%) ia incuded in the preMnl ~I cost baaed on the EPA S<Jpll'fln:I guidar>el doo:umenl A
Guide tr, Developing t>nd Docum«t/Jng Cost fatimatea Duting 11>8 Feaa1bil1ty study (~ 2000). Profit II not
inc:ude<I.
3 tt II ■Mltmed conflrmalx>n sampluwtl be -ly.:ed by• CLP; however, eoabl lllll indudad in the ettimalll IOI'
compari&oo.
4 TCLP includes 1he 3 s.mple,I analyzed prior to ucavalion.
I
I
I
,I
'I
I
' ,i
I
'I
" ,,
'.I
.. -, ,I ,,
I
,I
I
,"'\
I
5115.'2005 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
. I
·I
·1
I
I
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419
Preliminary Design Report for Soil Interim Remedy
10.0 References
Revision 0
May 16, 2005
Black & Veatch, 2004. Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp., Draft Remedial Design
Work Plan for the Ram Leather Care Site, December 6, 2004.
EPA, 2000. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Science and Ecosystem
Support Division, Remedial Investigation Report, Phase L March 14, 2000.
EPA, 2004a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Statement of Work for
the Remedial Design, Ram Leather Care Site, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina,
September 27, 2004.
EPA, 2004b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Interim Record of
Decision for the Ram Leather Care Site, September 2004.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1993. Flood Insurance Rate Map,
Mecklenburg County, N.C., Panel 130 of 210, February 3, 1993.
NCHWS, 2004. North Carolina Hazardous Waste Section. Contained-in Policy for Soil
Contaminated with Listed Hazardous Waste, Revised March 2004.
Tingle, 1991. William R. Tingle, Bold Research Labs, Technical and Field Data Report
for Ram Leather Care, October 30, 1991.
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1980. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Survey of
Mecklenburg County North Carolina, pp. 11-12 and sheet 9.
U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1963. U.S. Department of Commerce, Rainfall Frequency
Atlas of the United States, Technical Paper No. 40, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C., 1963.
U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1963. U.S. Department of Commerce, Climatic Atlas of the
United States, National Climatic Center, Asheville, N.C., 1979 .
USGS, 1980. U.S. Geologic Survey, Geologic Map of North Carolina, and Explanatory
Text., Bulletin Number 71, North Carolina Department of Conservation and
Development, 1958, and Heath, Ralph C., Basic Elements of Ground Water Hydrology
with Reference to Conditions in North Carolina, Open File Report 80-44, pp. 26-29.
IO-I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I Figures
I
I
I
I ,,
: I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LEGEND
COUNTY LIE
PARCEL B0UNONIY
++++++++f-RAILROAD
200
SCALE IN FEET N()RlH CAROi.ONA STATE PlNE, NAOl3
Soun:e: DES Resource Groups, Inc , S<JNey, August 15, 2002.
Mecklenl>UIIJ Co. Land Rea>tdl o;,., aerial phoograph, June 2001.
Adaplod tum · Mecklenl>UIII Co Land Rea><ds o;, , topographic attnbu10S,
Oc.,be,2002.
Figure 1-1
Site Vicinity Map
Ram Leather Site
Charlotte, North Carolina
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ~ I ®
-N-0 ~ I ~ I
DRINKING WATER WELL
MONITORING WELL
PRESUMED
DUMPSTER
LOCATION
_ ./"" SEPTIC g-DRAIN FIELD
HEAD BOX
/7">-._ ////
SEPTIC DRA!N
FIELD
LEGEND
100■-□--=11i-ii::o::i--=•-c::io!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!100
Site Layout Map
Ram Leather Care Site
1"=100'
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Figure
2-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SEPTIC
TANK
DU
_,,,,,.
~~...........-<? lz,l+i ~~
1.IU
l.2U
/
_,,,,,.
_,,,,.,,,
SEPTIC ~ DRAIN FIELD
HEAD BOX
~ ~~
APRIL 1999 SOIL SAMPLE LOCATIONS
AUGUST 1999 SOIL SAMPLE LOCATIONS
SOIL EXCAVATION AREA AS DEFINED IN THE IROD
NOTE: Concentrations In bold red letterlng
exceeded the EPA SSL of 3 ug/kg for PCE.
PCE Detections in Soil (1999)
and Proposed Excavation Area
Ram Leather Care Site
60 w
LEGEND
30 0
MM MM
1" = 60'
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
60
Figure
2-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ~
.A. e DS8
RL25
...
RL21
AREA 1
...
RL22
DRUM
STORAGE
AREA
APRIL 1999 SOIL SAMPLE LOCATIONS
AUGUST 1999 SOIL SAMPLE LOCATIONS
ND1 •
e DS1
SOIL EXCAVATION AREA AS DEFINED IN THE IROD
ANTICIPATED SOIL EXCAVATION AREA
Detail of Soil Excavation Area
Ram Leather Care Site
SS1 •
(§ SEPTIC
TANK
FLOOR DRAIN
FROM BUILDING
TO UNDERNEATH
CONCRETE PAD
LEGEND
30 15 0 MM MM M
1· = 30'
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
SS2 •
30
Figure
4-1
. -_J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ PLAN VIEW
l
30 15 0 -----1· = 30'
SIDE VIEW
30
• eosa
RL25
T 10·
26
_.__ ~-20' l +--------...... ---------.15•
12.5' 25' 37.5'
Two 50-foot excavation walls =
8 confirmation samples
NOTTO SCALE
e 0S1
~2~
T 10·
26
~-20' l
..,_ ______ ___,. 15'
12.5'
Three 25-foot
excavation walls =
6 confirmation samples
RAM Leather Care Site
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
@ SEPTIC
TANK
FLOOR DRAIN
FROM BUILDING
TO UNDERNEATH
CONCRETE PAD
5'
One 10-foot
excavation wall =
2 confirmation samples
7 .5'
10'
15'
20'
One 15-foot
excavation wall =
2 confirmation samples
Confirmation Sample Layout
LEGEND
• APRIL 1999 SOIL SAMPLE LOCATIONS
• AUGUST 1999 SOIL SAMPLE LOCATIONS
• CONFIRMATION BORING LOCATIONS
POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL CONFIRMATION
BORING LOCATIONS
• CONFIRMATION SAMPLE LOCATIONS
SOIL EXCAVATION AREA AS DEFINED
INTHE IROD
ANTICIPATED SOIL EXCAVATION AREA
NOTES:
Confirmation samples will be collected
from excavation sidewalls prior to
excavation using a GeoProbe.
Confirmation samples will be collected at
two depths in each confirmation borehole;
1 O' bis and 20' bis where higher levels of
PCE contamination were observed
previously.
A total of 18 preliminary confirmation
samples will be collected.
The quadrant or half of the sidewall from
which a sample meeting the performance
standard was collected is assumed clean.
It is assumed that an additional set of
confirmation samples will be collected 1 O'
outward from any failing sample at 1 O'
bis and 20' bis.
Additional sets of confirmation samples
will continue to be collected 1 O' outward
from any failing sample until all samples
meet the performance standard (3 ug/kg
for PCE).
The excavation area may be re-defined
based on confirmation sample results.
FIGURE
4-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ml I
Excavate Soil to
Limits on Drawings
Transportation and
Disposal at Subtitle C
or D Landfill
r--__ _______ ____,,
Personal Protective
Equipment
RAM Leather Care Site
Confirmation
Sampling
Does Not Meet
Performance Standard
Meets Performance
Standard
Backfill and
Restoration
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Excavation of Additional 1 O feet
Surrounding Excavation Area
in Area of Failing Sample(s)
Meets Performance
Standard
Process Flow Diagram for Soil Excavation FIGURE
5-1
I II PRQ.lrMrWt'YREMED,t,&.ACTIONCONSTAIJCTIClr\laoe:JU.E RAM LEATHER CARE SITE --I I I -..... -,.._ --...... -------·--If ,-~-~--~ "'' YV .,,. 4124 ... = .,. .... "' 7n7 "" .... ..,. .... W25 . ... tam .... ttl20 ,,,. 12'11 tit "'' ,,,. "'' "" .,,, ""' ... "" "' "" ... ..... 712 7nt mo '"' ,m .... .,.. . ... ,..,, ,us ,,,.. "" '"'' 12131 "" ,,,. "'' -.,,, ""' .. "22 ... .,,. Task 8 • Pttllmlll.l.ry Deslin 113 days Mon J/14/05 Wtd &117/05 I ~ ,..__,,,, Daip Rqat b Soa .__ Rmxdy .4S cb)S Mool/WOS Fri Sill/OS .,,, . ' ,..__,,,,Daip (,.. S«,;oo 6 Ob-"""') 4Sd.l)s Moal/14.QS F'ri5/UA>S ... , . El'A Rmcw-,..__,,,, Plas ,. .. ,. McaS/16'0.S Fri612UOS ..... .... j[ Ptdaiu,yDaipM ..... 2 .. ,. Moa 6127,0S Ttot61WOS -•F "-IOC-104,)S Wcd612MS T11t7/12A>$ mt 7112 7 El'Allmcw•"-IO°"""""" II days Wcd7/IM>S Wed 7/27/0S ""~ .... Vl!-.Ogltqat ISU)S n.712U)S Wcd&/17,0.S 11111 M1 IE EPA Review· VE Scrftllia& Report IS da)S Moa616/0S Fri 611.UOS ... c::::::::J -Task 9 • Us1 or Long-Lt1d Procuremtnt Items 2◄ days Thu 7f28/05 Tut 8130/05 0 0 List oflAoa·L<od Proctor""'"' I""" (So,1) IS da)'S Tint 7/21/0S Wed 1/17,0S ,,,.c==i.,,, ,, EPA Remw (SOil) ... ,. n.111u,s T..e813(WS IHI c:::J -IE= Task 11 • Ptt-Onal a.nd Flnal Dtslgn 75 days Thu 7f28/05 Wtd 11/9/05 ~ ~ Pre.Final Oa.ip 21 da,s Thta 7/21JOS llla 112.SA)S ,,,. l/2S EPAR.eview•Pre-Final.Ocsip IS c:b:)'S Fril/26.VS lll•9JISIOS -c==i.,,, -.. -FinllDaipM ...... 2 dlys Fri 9116'0S Moa9/IWOS ""D "'' I~ "-IOComm<oll IOda)'S Fri 9/l&OS n,, 9/lM>S ""c::J -£PA Re\ft · RcspollS,e IO Comnc:nts II cb)S Fri91)(W.5 FrilOflWS -:::::J ..... 0n•--e.t0oc.moots so .. ,. Thu 7/lM>S WcdJOfSJOj ,,,. ,.,, ..:.c==i-I ,. EPA Rcriew IS cb)'S n.10.'6'0.S WcdlOllM>S .. llold>bmly.~.aod~Rniew 1 .. ,. Tu 10:&Q.S Moll IOIICW.S Jo-+. , I~ I F..t -e.t ~ IOcb)'I n. 10f27,IO.S Wed llJ9A)S ..... "" J Task 12 • Po., R•mtdlal Dtsi&n Support JJ days Thu 11110/05 Mon llf26/05 .. 1-RfP ) .. ,. n.1111cw.s Moll 11114-VS 11111 "'" ._ 25 ---Rfl's ,. .. ,. TKIUISA:>.s Moa lV26'0S ""' ,..,,,. IE I Procurr:ment (Undu Nrw £PA Work Assignment) 26 days Tuo llf27/05 Tut 1/31/06 ' """"""""""' ...... IOcb)S T11elln7.io.S Mc:.l/9,1)6 =~ ,. EPA Approves SuboonlnC:t IOdl)S Toe 1/Jo.()6 MoolJ2JI06 11\1 1/D 7 e. ..... s.-.... s ... ,. fit 1124,1,)6 Moal})0,'1)6 .,,. ,,.. IE Noc.icelOProc«d I .. , n.ellll/06 Toe l/l1Al6 "'' '"' P~Moblllzatlon JO day, Wtd 2/1/06 Tuo J/l◄/06 ~ GeoteclutGI hlveaipUOIIIShorin, Design Pbft pcqaaration IS da)S WtdVIA)6 T1tel/llA)6 211 t...,__ ·-, r., Sllbmission of revised pbfts 10 EPA I.S dayS Wtd 2/2V06 Tuel/141{)6 2/22 -t::::::J 111◄ IE Fltld ActMtlts 90 day, Wtd 2/1/06 Tu• 616/06 ~ Confimwion toil u.rnpU.g ud anal)StS UdayS WcdVl/06 Tlle 2/21A>6 111t::=J,121 WISlC ch.u'ac:ICrization llfTIPlitl& and au!;sis Udays WcdVIJ06 Tuel/lll06 111 ~-, -., Mobiliulion of <qlUpffiffll lO JliC 1 .. ,. WcdJ/22'°6 Fri 2/2«16 "" I~ ta,u111dooor,.,..y,.__g•sittf<acloa , .. ,. Moe2/27I06 Toe2111A)6 ,m ,,,. Ocmolitiae ofCOIICl"CU p.t and two ASTs ... , Wed JJII06 Wed l/lJ06 "' ..........,..,_.,, ) .. ,. Tllo l/V06 Moa316'06 ... ,.. ..-s.a .......... -.... ................ ,oit 21 da)'I T.el/7/06 T .. -"' '" ..--s.a--_,..,_....,... (if-,.) 21 days Tae l/7/06 T1te4-'4'06 "' .,. I~ w,..ctunct,,iuuoo.....,._,...,,...,...,.,_,.) 21 da)S T.c l/7/06 Ttot4/-"' . R,mo,-;,lo(-. 1 .. ,. Wed4/SI06 Fri 417/06 .,, ~~-•• 8'ck!lliq.......-..-. .Sda)S ....4/10J06 Fri 4114'°6 .,. -.. Sc,c,tiq .... ._...._., l .. ,. MCN14117J06 Wed411M>6 I~ WaAe~ IOb:ftd.fill •s days Wcd4/S,06 Toc6/6'06 .,, Reporting JO days Wtd 617/06 Tut 7/18/06 h. ~ Dnl eon., ..... Rqat ...... Wed 617I06 T..e 714/06 i' Ji'" ~ Finll C.0.,lmoo Rq,on hb Wed 7/SI06 Toe 7111106 ,,, 17 7111 II II II Pnpcc. OtatOICONSTRUCTtCINSCHEOU.E I f~y~-I T .. ---♦ ........, 0 0 Aol9dUpT• ..... Up-◊ -Up---....., ... I I .._........, 0 0 I
ff
I
D
I
D
0
D
0
u
D
D
0
I
I
m
ti
m
I
I
Appendix A
Preliminary Remedial Action Construction Schedule
a
I
Ir
I
0
u
u
m Appendix B
I Preliminary Cost Estimate
E
I
I
I
I
i I
I
I
I
I
---..
Technology Detail Report
(without Markups)
Folder: Ram Leather Care
Project
Site
Name: Preliminary Design for Soil Interim Remedy
ID: Soil
Location: CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
Modifiers: Material 0.9865 (Modified)
Labor 0.6379 (Modified)
Equipment 0.933 (Modified)
Category: None
Report Fiscal Year
Option:
Name: Soil Excavation/Disposal (Subtitle C/D Landfill)
ID: Ram Leather
Type: None
Phase Element
Name: Remedial Action Work Plan
Type: Remedial Design
Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate
Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate
Approach: Ex Situ
Technology
Name: Remedial Design
Prime Markup: 100 %
Sub Markup: 0 %
Media/Waste Type: N/A
Secondary Media/Waste Type: Soil
Contaminant: Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs)
Secondary Contaminant: None
Markup Template: System Defaults
Comments: This estimate has been used to estimate costs associated with the preparation of
site-specific plans by the performance-based RA subcontractor. The level of effort
assumed for this task has been estimated using the Ex-Situ Performance Based
Disposal approach, moderate complexity, comprehensive level of detail at the RD
level, and at the Pre-Final Deisgn level within RACER.
Cost Database Date: 2003
Cost Type: System
Print Date: 5/16/2005 11:12:21 AM
This report for official U.S. Government use only.
~ iilil ;;;;
Page: 1 of 2
Element: Prefinal Design
Assembly Description
33220102 Project Manager
33220103 Office Manager
33220105 Project Engineer
33220106 Staff Engineer
33220109 Staff Scientist
33220110 ONQC Officer
33220111 Certified Industrial Hygienist
33220113 Secretarial/ Administrative
33220114 Word Processing/Clerical
33220115 Oraflsman/CADD
33240101 Other Direct Costs
Cost Database Date: 2003
Cost Type: System
Print Date: 5/16/2005 11 :12:21 AM
-
Technology Detail Report
(without Markups)
Unit of Material Labor Quantity Measure Unit Cost Unit Cost
10.00 HR 0.00 25.18
21.00 HR 0.00 35.84
17.00 HR 0.00 18.65
82.00 HR 0.00 14.86
115.00 HR 0.00 14.47
15.00 HR 0.00 32.96
33.00 HR 0.00 28.29
10.00 HR 0.00 9.41
75.00 HR 0.00 8.38
19.00 HR 0.00 12.99
1.00 LS 113.87 0.00
Equipment
Unit Cost
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total Element Cost
Total Technology Cost
This report for official U.S. Government use only.
Extended Cost
Cost Override
$251.84 D
$752.64 D
$316.97 D
$1,218.29 D
$1,664.03 D
$494.36 D
$933.56 D
$94.08 D
$628.78 D
$246.86 D
$113.87 121
$6,715.29
$6,715.29
Page: 2 of 2
ii!ii iii1ii 111111 ·-II:= 11B m l!!!9 --M ---
!!!!I = == == ·==' == == == c;;; ;;;;. --&iii lil!!ii .. liiliii
Technology Detail Report
(without Markups)
Folder: Ram Leather Care
Project
Site
Name: Preliminary Design for Soil Interim Remedy
ID: Soil
Location: CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
Modifiers: Material 0,9865 (Modified)
Labor 0,6379 (Modified)
Equipment 0,933 (Modified)
Category: None
Report Fiscal Year
Option:
Name: Soil Excavation/Disposal (Subtitle C/D Landfill)
ID: Ram Leather
Type: None
Phase Element
Name: Pre-work Engineering
Type: Remedial Action
Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate
Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate
Approach: None
Technology
Description: Design of excavation safety system and
access/egress, Site survey,
Name: PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER DESIGN
Prime Markup: 100 %
Sub Markup: 0 %
Media/Waste Type: N/A
Secondary Media/Waste Type: N/A
Contaminant: None
Secondary Contaminant: None
Markup Template: System Defaults
Comments: The permitting and engineering for site is estimated to be conducted by the RA
subcontractor for excavation design for building stability, personnel safety, and
access/egress,
Cost Database Date: 2003
Cost Type: System
Print Date: 5/16/2005 11: 10:29 AM
This report for official U.S. Government use only.
Page: 1 of 2
Assembly Description
33140203 Permitting/Engineering for Site
Cost Database Date: 2003
Cost Type: System
Print Date: 5/16/200511:10:29 AM
Technology Detail Report
(without Markups)
Unit of
Quantity Measure
1.00 EA
Material
Unit Cost
40,281.34
Labor
Unit Cost
0.00
Equipment
Unit Cost
0.00
Total Technology Cost
This report for official U.S. Government use only.
Extended Cost
Cost Override
$40,2a1 .34 D
$40,281.34
Page: 2 of 2
.. -- --li!!!!I -!!!!9 'I!!!! l!!!!9 m= ~ == == c.;:a --liiiiil ·lliii -
Technology Detail Report
(without Markups)
Folder: Ram Leather Care
Project
Site
Phase Element
Name: Preliminary Design for Soil Interim Remedy
ID: Soil
Location: CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
Modifiers: Material 0.9865 (Modified)
Labor 0.6379 (Modified)
Equipment 0.933 (Modified)
Category: None
Report Fiscal Year
Option:
Name: Soil Excavation/Disposal (Subtitle C/D Landfill)
ID: Ram Leather
Type: None
Name: Mobilization/Demobilization
Type: Remedial Action
Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate
Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate
Approach: Ex Situ
Cost Database Date: 2003
Cost Type: System
Print Date: 5/16/200510:57:34 AM
Media/Waste Type: N/A
Secondary Media/Waste Type: N/A
Contaminant: None
Secondary Contaminant: None
Markup Template: System Defaults
This report for official U.S. Government use only.
Page: 1 of 2
Technology
Assembly
17030110
33010114
33010201
33010202
Name: MOB/DEMOB
Prime Markup: 100 %
Sub Markup: O %
Comments: Assumptions:
Technology Detail Report
(without Markups)
3 man excavation crew for a total of 2160 hours (8 hr days, 90 days fieldwork) Assumes that the 3 person crew is mobilizing > 500 miles. Includes per diem for 3 people (90 days x 3 people).
Includes lump sum for 3 days of equipment mobilization.
Unit of Material Labor Description Quantity Measure Unit Cost Unit Cost
Construction Labor 2,160.00 HR 0.00 18.78
Mobilization Equipment (Soils) 3.00 LS 2,539.28 0.00
Mobilize Crew,>= 500 Miles, per Person 3.00 EA 450.35 0.00
Per Diem (per person) 270.00 DAY 111.47 0.00
Equipment
Unit Cost
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total Technology Cost
Cost Database Date: 2003
Cost Type: System
Print Date: 5/16/2005 10:57:34 AM
--liilill
This report for official U.S. Government use only.
Extended Cost
Cost Override
$40,554.22 D
$7,617.83 D
$1,351.04 D
$30,098.12 121
$79,621.20
Page: 2 of 2
------------
-11!!!!!!!1 -I!!!!!! -I!!!!!! l!!!!I r=, == == ·== ~ liiiiiia &iii &I a.
Technology Detail Report
(without Markups)
Folder: Ram Leather Care
Project
Site
Name:
ID:
Location:
Modifiers:
Category:
Report
Option:
Preliminary Design for Soil Interim Remedy
Soil
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
Material 0.9865 (Modified)
Labor 0.6379 (Modified)
Equipment 0.933 (Modified)
None
Fiscal Year
Name: Soil Excavation/Disposal (Subtitle C/D Landfill)
ID: Ram Leather
Type: None
Phase Element
Name: Soil Excavation Disposal
Type: Remedial Action
Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate
Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate
Approach: Ex Situ
Description: Level D safety
Cost Database Date: 2003
Cost Type: System
Print Date: 5/16/2005 9:31 :00 AM
Media/Waste Type: Soil
Secondary Media/Waste Type: N/A
Contaminant: Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs)
Secondary Contaminant: None
Markup Template: System Defaults
This report for official U.S. Government use only.
Page: 1 of 2
Technology Detail Report
(without Markups)
Technology
Name: GEOPROBE
Prime Markup: 100 %
Sub Markup: 0 %
Comments: Assumption:
3 points to 20 feet maximum for waste characterization soil sampling
18 points to 20 feet for preliminary soil confirmation sampling
18 points to 20 feet for additional soil confirmation sampling
Points will be installed by GeoProbe.
Assembly Description Unit of
Quantity Measure
Material
Unit Cost
33020662 Chem-Probe (Geo-Probe) per point 21.00 EA 430.70
Labor
Unit Cost
0.00
Equipment
Unit Cost
0.00
Total Technology Cost
Cost Database Date: 2003
Cost Type: System
Print Date: 5/16/2005 9:31 :00 AM
==
This report for official U.S. Government use only.
I!!!! -
Extended Cost
Cost Override
$9,044.12 D
$9,044.72
Page: 2 of 2
-- -
------!!!!!!!I ~ l!!!!!I l!!!!!I e!! e= == == ;;;; liai1 --.. --
Technology Detail Report
(without Markups)
Folder: Ram Leather Care
Project
Site
Name:
ID:
Location:
Modifiers:
Category:
Report
Option:
Preliminary Design for Soil Interim Remedy
Soil
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
Material 0.9865 (Modified)
Labor 0.6379 (Modified)
Equipment 0.933 (Modified)
None
Fiscal Year
Name: Soil Excavation/Disposal (Subtitle C/D Landfill)
ID: Ram Leather
Type: None
Phase Element
Name: Soil Excavation Disposal
Type: Remedial Action
Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate
Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate
Approach: Ex Situ
Description: Level D safety
Cost Database Date: 2003
Cost Type: System
Print Date: 5/16/200511:11:12AM
Media/Waste Type: Soil
Secondary Media/Waste Type: N/A
Contaminant: Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs)
Secondary Contaminant: None
Markup Template: System Defaults
This report for official U.S. Government use only.
Page: 1 of 3
liiil
Technology
Assembly
17020209
17020401
17030220
17030284
Name: Demolition, Pavements
Prime Markup: 100 %
Sub Markup: O %
Comments: Assumptions:
Technology Detail Report
(without Markups)
Cost to remove, load, and haul the concrete pad located in the drum storage area.
The pad is assumed to be 250 square feet (12' by 17') and 6 inches thick (4.63
CY).
The pad is assumed to be reinforced concrete.
The safety level is assumed to be D.
Load and Haul:
Two AST disposal amount estimated at 2 tons or 1. 7 CY.
Total volume for disposal estimated at 6.33 CY.
Disposal location assumed to be BFI-Charlotte Motor Speedway Landfill located in
Concord, Cabarrus County, NC, which is located 16 miles from the site. The dump
charge for this landfill is $18/CY.
Unit of Material Labor Description Quantity Measure Unit Cost Unit Cost
Demolish Rod Reinforced Concrete to 6" 4.63 CY 0.00 23.81 Thick with Power Equipment
Dump Charges 6.33 CY 18.00 0.00
910, 1.25 CY, Wheel Loader 2.00 HR 0.00 24.19
8 CY, Dump Truck 3.00 HR 0.00 19.95
Cost Database Date: 2003
Cost Type: System
Print Date: 5!16/200511:11:12AM
This report for official U.S. Government use only.
li1illii
Equipment Extended Cost
Unit Cost Cost Override
14.95 $179.46 D
0.00 $113.94 121
23.58 $95.55 D
40.77 $182.18 D
Page: 2 of 3
---- -11!!!!!!!1 I!!!!!!!! I!!!!! !!!!I !!!!!! ~ =s == == == --lliiiiR liliii a.a
Cost Database Date: 2003
Cost Type: System
Print Date: 5/16/2005 11 :11 :12 AM
Technology Detail Report
(without Markups)
Total Technology Cost
This report for official U.S. Government use only.
$571.13
Page: 3 of 3
Technology Detail Report
(without Markups)
Folder: Ram Leather Care
Project
Site
Name:
ID:
Location:
Modifiers:
Category:
Report
Option:
Preliminary Design for Soil Interim Remedy
Soil
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
Material 0.9865 (Modified)
Labor 0.6379 (Modified)
Equipment 0.933 (Modified)
None
Fiscal Year
Name: Soil Excavation/Disposal (Subtitle C/D Landfill)
ID: Ram Leather
Type: None
Phase Element
Name: Health and Safety Equipment
Type: Remedial Action
Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate
Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate
Approach: Ex Situ
Technology
Name: PPE
Prime Markup: 100 %
Sub Markup: O %
Comments: Assumptions:
Media/Waste Type: Soil
Secondary Media/Waste Type: Air
Contaminant: Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs)
Secondary Contaminant: None
Markup Template: System Defaults
65 changes of tyvek PPE coveralls and boot covers.
500 pair of disposable laytex gloves.
4 1 /2 face negative pressure respirators.
Cost Database Date: 2003
Cost Type: System
Print Date: 5/16/200511:13:32 AM
This report for official U.S. Government use only.
ilili iiil ilill -
Page: 1 of 2
-
----
Assembly Description
25010107 Personal Respirators, Negative pressure,
1/2 face, dual operation, maximum
33010421 Disposable Boot Covers (Tyvek)
33010423 Disposable Gloves (Latex)
33010425 Disposable Coveralls (Tyvek)
Cost Database Date: 2003
Cost Type: System
Print Date: 5/16/200511:13:32 AM
.. .. -
Technology Detail Report
(without Markups)
Unit of Material
I!!!!!!
Labor
Quantity Measure Unit Cost Unit Cost
4.00 EA 24.73 0.00
65.00 PAIR 1.11 0.00
500.00 PAIR 0.20 0.00
65.00 EA 4.30 0.00
em
Equipment
Unit Cost
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total Technology Cost
This report for official U.S. Government use only.
c:;;; liiliii
Extended Cost
Cost Override
$98.92 □
$72.14 □
$101.10 □
$279.66 □
$551.82
Page: 2 of 2
Technology Detail Report
(without Markups)
Folder: Ram Leather Care
Project
Site
Name: Preliminary Design for Soil Interim Remedy
ID: Soil
Location: CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
Modifiers: Material 0.9865 (Modified)
Labor 0.6379 (Modified)
Equipment 0.933 (Modified)
Category: None
Report Fiscal Year
Option:
Name: Soil Excavation/Disposal (Subtitle CID Landfill)
ID: Ram Leather
Type: None
Phase Element
Name: Health and Safety Equipment
Type: Remedial Action
Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate
Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate
Approach: Ex Situ
Technology
Name: AIR MONITORING
Prime Markup: 100 %
Sub Markup: 0 %
Media/Waste Type: Soil
Secondary Media/Waste Type: Air
Contaminant:, Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs)
Secondary Contaminant: None
Markup Template: System Defaults
Comments: Portable air monitoring equipment rental estimated for 3 weeks.
Cost Database Date: 2003
Cost Type: System
Print Date: 5/16/2005 11 :13:55 AM
- - - - -
This report for official U.S. Government use only.
---1iiii 1iiii1 11111 all i:= 1!11!!!1 !!!!!!I ..
Page: 1 of 2
--

-
-------I!!!!!! I!!!!!! I!!!! !!Im ==
Assembly Description
33020346 Portable Air Sampler, Continuous, Weekly
Rental .
Cost Database Date: 2003
Cost Type: System
Print Date: 5/16/2005 11 :13:55 AM
Technology Detail Report
(without Markups)
Unit of
Quantity Measure
3.00 WK
Material
Unit Cost
81.46
Labor
Unit Cost
0.00
Equipment
Unit Cost
0.00
Total Technology Cost
This report for official U.S. Government use only.
== r;;;; i;a;a ==
Extended Cost
Cost Override
$244.38 D
$244.38
Page: 2 of 2
Technology Detai"I Report
(without Markups) Folder: Ram Leather Care
Project
Site
Name: Preliminary Design tor Soil Interim Remedy
ID: Soil
Location: CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
Modifiers: Material 0.9865 (Modified)
Labor 0.6379 (Modified)
Equipment 0.933 (Modified)
Category: None
Report Fiscal Year
Option:
Name: Soil Excavation/Disposal (Subtitle C/D Landfill)
ID: Ram Leather
Type: None
Phase Element
Name: Soil Excavation Disposal
Type: Remedial Action
Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate
Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate
Approach: Ex Situ
Description: Level D safety
Cost Database Date: 2003
Cost Type: System
Print Date: 5/13/2005 3:32:50 PM
Media/Waste Type: Soil
Secondary Media/Waste Type: N/A
Contaminant: Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs)
Secondary Contaminant: None
Markup Template: System Defaults
This report for official U.S. Government use only.
Page: 1 of 3
- -----liilliiil lilii lil!ili1 Iii& --== -Ill!! ---111!!!!1
----11!!!!!1 -
Technology
l!!!!!9 I!!!!
Technology Detail Report
(without Markups)
== ==
Name: Excavation
Prime Markup: 100 %
Templates: System Soil-VOCs
Sub Markup: 0 %
Comments: Assumptions
Cost Database Date: 2003
Cost Type: System
Print Date: 5/13/2005 3:32:50 PM
Additional clearing and grubbing step riot necessary due to light amounts of
vegetation -will be done during excavation.
Erosion control mesures-300 linear feet of silt fence with posts is included.
Temporary security fence-300 linear feet is included.
IROD proposed Excavation Area -Two excavation areas (25' x 25' and 60'x 50')
are presented in IROD; excavation volume equals approx. 3,500 cubic yards to a
depth of 26 feet. Adjusted dimensions for input into RACER are 72. 7' x 50' x 26',
or 3,500 cubic yards.
Dust control with 3,000 gal water truck making 5 passes/day for 29 days (number
of days conducting fieldwork where dust may be generated) over a 0.1 acre area
estimated (total 14.5 acres). Multiple water truck passes per day were assumed
because of the potential for generation of dust during continuous digging activities.
Number of confirmation samples = 39
Disposable materials per sample is assumed to account for Encore samplers.
Soil is si!Vsilt-clay mixture
Safety level is C
53 TCLP analyses for excavated soil disposal included (1 sample/100 tons).
No dewatering required
Sheeting is used for sidewall protection (7,500 SF)
For excavation sidewall support, the cost of steel sheeting installed, pulled, and
salvaged to 25' was included.
Area preparation-grading and compacting after backfill estimated at 0.5 acres.
Seeding and vegetative cover estimated at 0.5 acres. This is greater than the
actual 0.1 acrea excavation area based on potential damage to surface cover by
heavy equipment in other areas of the site.
This report for official U.S. Government use only.
i;;;a llliiiil ma
Page: 2 of 3
iliil
Assembly Description
17030277 2 CY, Crawler-mounted, Hydraulic
Excavator
17030423 Unclassified Fill, 6" Lifts, Off-Site, Includes Delivery, Spreading, and Compaction
17030903 Steel Sheeting, Install, Pull and Salvage,
to 25 ft
18050201 Security Fence, Temporary
18050206 Silt Fences, Vinyl, 3' High with 7.5' Posts
18050402 Seeding, Vegetative Cover
18050413 Watering with 3,000-Gallon Tank Truck, per Pass
33020401 Disposable Materials per Sample
33021705 Targeted TCLP (Metals, Volatiles,
Semi-Volatiles only), Soil Analysis
33021720 Volatile Organic Analysis (SW 5035/SW 8260B), Soil Analysis
33080584 Plastic Laminate Waste Pile Cover
33170803 Decontaminate Heavy Equipment
Cost Database Date: 2003
Cost Type·. System
Print Date: 5/13/2005 3:32:50 PM
iiiiiil iiiill iii&
Technology Detail Report
(without Markups)
Unit of Material Labor Quantity Measure Unit Cost Unit Cost
3,500.37 CY 0.00 0.90
3,500.37 CY 5.34 1.12
7,500.00 SF 2.83 1.83
300.00 LF 1.27 1.97
300.00 LF 0.67 1.04
0.50 ACRE 3,362.41 50.62
14.50 ACRE 3.77 19.20
39.00 EA 7.57 0.00
53.00 EA 629.76 0.00
39.00 EA 194.27 0.00
36,943.14 SF 0.11 0.02
1.00 EA 0.00 308.65
Equipment
Unit Cost
1.97
2.66
2.95
2.16
0.00
50.78
29.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total Technology Cost
This report for official U.S. Government use only.
l!!!I
Extended Cost
Cost Override
$10,061.81 D
$31,936.33 D
$57,036.00 D
$1,620.60 D
$513.03 D
$1,731.91 D
$756.57 D
$295.12 D
$33,377.13 D
$7,576.42 D
$4,754.58 D
$308.65 D
$149,968.16
Page: 3 of 3
--1!!!!11
li!I ll!!!l!!!i!!I l!!!!!!I !!!!!!!I l!l!!!!!I l!!!!!!B I!!!! l!!!!!!!!I !!!!! I!!!!! ~ !!!IS == == == ;:;;a =a ;;;;;;a
Technology Detail Report
(without Markups)
Folder: Ram Leather Care
Project
Site
Name: Preliminary Design for Soil Interim Remedy
ID: Soil
Location: CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
Modifiers: Material 0.9865 {Modified)
Labor 0.6379 {Modified)
Equipment 0.933 {Modified)
Category: None
Report Fiscal Year
Option:
Name: Soil Excavation/Disposal {Subtitle C/D Landfill)
ID: Ram Leather
Type: None
Phase Element
Name: Soil Excavation Disposal
Type: Remedial Action
Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate
Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate
Approach: Ex Situ
Description: Level D safety
Cost Database Date: 2003
Cost Type: System
Print Date: 5/16/2005 9:07:10 AM
Media/Waste Type: Soil
Secondary Media/Waste Type: NIA
Contaminant: Volatile Organic Compounds
{VOCs)
Secondary Contaminant: None
Markup Template: System Defaults
This report for official U.S. Government use only.
Page: 1 of 2
==
Technology
Assembly
17030277
17030423
33080584
Name: Excavation
Prime Markup: 100 %
Sub Markup: 0 %
Comments: Assumptions
Technology Detail Report
(without Markups)
Cost for over-excavation of IROD proposed excavation area. Adjusted dimensions
for input into RACER are 190' x 10' x 26', or 1,830 cubic yards.
Safety level is C
Unit of Material Labor Description Quantity Measure Unit Cost Unit Cost
2 CY, Crawler-mounted, Hydraulic
Excavator 1,829.63 CY 0.00 0.90
Unclassified Fill, 6" Lifts, Off-Site, Includes 1,830.00
Delivery, Spreading, and Compaction
CY 5.34 1.12
Plastic Laminate Waste Pile Cover 19,350.24 SF 0.11 0.02
Equipment
Unit Cost
1.97
2.66
0.00
Total Technology Cost
Cost Database Date: 2003
Cost Type: System
Print Date: 5/16/2005 9:07:10 AM
==
This report for official U.S. Government use o~ly.
== 1!!!19
Extended Cost
Cost Override
$5,259.27 □
$16,696.37 □
$2,490.38 □
$24,446.02
Page: 2 of 2
-l!!!!!!!!!I -
l!!!!!!I !!!!!I! l!!!!!!I a! a! l!!!!!I !!!!I !!!I !!!I == == == == == ;;;; liaiiiil li&ii &ii
Technology Detail Report
(without Markups)
Folder: Ram Leather Care
Project
Site
Name:
ID:
Location:
Modifiers:
Category:
Report
Option:
Preliminary Design for Soil Interim Remedy
Soil
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
Material 0.9865 (Modified)
Labor 0.6379 (Modified)
Equipment 0.933 (Modified)
None
Fiscal Year
Name: Soil Excavation/Disposal (Subtitle C/D Landfill)
ID: Ram Leather
Type: None
Phase Element
Name: Soil Excavation Disposal
Type: Remedial Action
Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate
Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate
Approach: Ex Situ
Description: Level D safety
Cost Database Date: 2003
Cost Type: System
Print Date: 5/16/2005 10:33:36 AM
Media/Waste Type: Soil
Secondary Media/Waste Type: N/A
Contaminant: Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs)
Secondary Contaminant: None
Markup Template: System Defaults
This report for official U.S. Government use only.
Page: 1 of 2
liliiiil
Technology
Assembly
17020401
17030224
17030288
Technology Detail Report
(without Markups)
Name: Load and Haul
Prime Markup: 100 %
Sub Markup: 0 %
Comments: Soil disposed of as non-hazardous at a regular landfill.
Description
Dump Charges
The BFI Chartotte Motor Speedway Landfill located in Concord, Cabarrus County,
NC, is located 16 miles from the site. This is an EPA Region 4 CERCLA-certified
Subtitle D landfill. Dump charges ranges from $25-$27/ton (or approximately
$18/CY based on 1 CY= 1.5 ton).
A total volume of 5,330 CY (3,500 CY+1,830 CY) of soil was assumed to be
disposed. It is assumed that 75% (3,998 CY) of the volume will be classified
non-hazardous through TCLP testing.
For loading and transportation, a 15 percent factor has been applied to the volume
(3998 CY • 1.15 = 4,598 CY) to account for the expansion of the excavated soils.
Unit of Material Labor
Quantity Measure Unit Cost Unit Cost
3,998.00 CY 18.00 0.00
966. 4.0 CY, Wheel Loader 25.00 HR 0.00 24.19
26 CY, Semi Dump 232.00 HR 0.00 19.95
Equipment
Unit Cost
0.00
54.16
59.40
Total Technology Cost
Cost Database Date: 2003
Cost Type: System
Print Date: 5/16/2005 10:33:36 AM
This report for official U.S. Government use only.
111!11111 l!!!!!I 1!1111 I!!!!!! -1!!!!11 ----
Extended Cost
Cost Override
$71,964.00 121
$1,958.86 □
$18,410.36 □
$92,333.22
Page: 2 of 2
----
------l!!!!l!!I l!l!!!!!I I!!!!!!!! l!!!!!!!!I e!!! l!!!!!!I !!!!:!l!S == == == == lliiiil
Technology Detail Report
(without Markups)
Folder: Ram Leather Care
Project
Site
Name: Preliminary Design for Soil Interim Remedy
ID: Soil
Location: CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
Modifiers: Material 0.9865 (Modified)
Labor 0.6379 (Modified)
Equipment 0.933 (Modified)
Category: None
Report Fiscal Year
Option:
Name: Soil Excavation/Disposal (Subtitle CID Landfill)
ID: Ram Leather
Type: None
Phase Element
Name: Soil Excavation Disposal
Type: Remedial Action
Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate
Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate
Approach: Ex Situ
Description: Level D safety
Cost Database Date: 2003
Cost Type: System
Print Date: 5/16/2005 10:37:37 AM
Media/Waste Type: Soil
Secondary Media/Waste Type: N/A
Contaminant: Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs)
Secondary Contaminant: None
Markup Template: System Defaults
This report for official U.S. Government use only.
Page: 1 of 3
lililll
Technology
Assembly
33190102
33190218
33190311
33197264
Technology Detail Report
(without Markups)
Name: Off-site Transportation and Waste Disposal
Prime Markup: 100 %
Sub Markup: 0 %
Comments: Soil disposed of as hazardous (Subtitle C) prior to disposal (assumed stabilization is not required).
Description
Disposal is assumed to be conducted at the hazardous waste landfill in Emelle, Alabama (530 miles from the Ram Leather site). The dump charge for identified hazardous waste at this landfill is $41.60/ton (or $28/CY assuming 1 CY= 1.5 ton).
A total volume of 5,330 CY {3,500 CY+1,830 CY) of soil was assumed to be disposed. It is assumed that 25% (1,332 CY) of the volume will be classified as bulk solid hazardous waste.
For loading and transportation, a 15 percent factor has been applied to the volume (1,332CY • 1.15 = 1,532 CY) to account for the expansion of the excavated soils.
Unit of Material Labor Quantity Measure Unit Cost Unit Cost
Bulk Solid Hazardous Waste Loading Into 1,532.00 CY 0.00 0.48 Truck
Dump Truck Transportation Hazardous 81,620.00 Ml 1.84 0.00 Waste 1000+ Miles
Truck Washout/Decontamination 77.00 EA 147.98 0.00
Landfill Hazardous Solid Bulk Waste by 1,332.00 CY 28.00 0.00 CY
Cost Database Date: 2003
Cost Type: System
Print Date: 5/16/2005 10:37:37 AM
This report for official U.S. Government use only.
iiliili lillll liiililil liilil lliill l!!!l!!I l!!!l!!!I
Equipment Extended Cost
Unit Cost Cost Override
1.15 $2,506.81 D
0.00 $150,572.58 D
0.00 $11,394.08 D
0.00 $37,296.00 121
Page: 2 of 3
--
l!!!!!!!!!I II!!!!!! I!!!! l!!!!!!I !!!!!!I !!!!!!I l!!!!I !!!!!! == ~ == == == i;::; liiiiiiiiiil liiiiiiiiiil liiiiiliil iiliiil liiiiiiiil
Cost Database Date: 2003
Cost Type: System
Print Date: 5/16/2005 10:37:37 AM
Technology Detail Report
(without Markups)
Total Technology Cost
This report for official U.S. Government use only.
$201,769.46
Page: 3 of 3
Technology Detail Report
(without Markups)
Folder: Ram Leather Care
Project
Site
Name: Preliminary Design for Soil Interim Remedy
ID: Soil
Location: CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
Modifiers: Material 0.9865 (Modified}
Labor 0.6379 (Modified}
Equipment 0.933 (Modified)
Category: None
Report Fiscal Year
Option:
Name: Soil Excavation/Disposal (Subtitle CID Landfill)
ID: Ram Leather
Type: None
Phase Element
Name: Site-Closeout
Type: Site Close-out
Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate
Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate
Approach: None
Technology
Name: Site Close-Out Documentation
Prime Markup: 100 %
Sub Markup: O %
Comments: Assumes:
Media/Waste Type: N/A
Secondary Media/Waste Type: N/A
Contaminant: None
Secondary Contaminant: None
Markup Template: System Defaults
-Preparation of a Draft and Final Completion Report at the end of the project.
Cost Database Date: 2003
Cost Type: System
Print Date: 5/16/2005 11:02:52 AM
-Preparation of four progress reports during duration of project -Moderate project complexity
This report for official U.S. Government use only.
Page: 1 of 2
---
------Mil I!!!!!! !!!!!! ~ == == ;:;a liiiii lilii iiiii --
Element: Work Plans & Reports
Assembly Description
33220101 Senior Project Manager
33220102 Project Manager
33220104 Senior Staff Engineer
33220109 Staff Scientist
33220114 Word Processing/Clerical
33220115 Draftsman/GADD
Cost Database Date: 2003
Cost Type: System
PrintDate: 5/16/200511:02:52AM
Technology Detail Report
(without Markups)
Unit of Material Labor
Quantity Measure Unit Cost Unit Cost
26.00 HR 0.00 36.66
194.00 HR 0.00 30.71
5.00 HR 0.00 30.66
7.00 HR 0.00 17.65
166.00 HR 0.00 10.22
21.00 HR 0.00 15.84
Equipment
Unit Cost
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total Element Cost
Total Technology Cost
This report for official U.S. Government use only.
Extended Cost
Cost Override
$953.20 D
$5,958.24 D
$153.28 D
$123.52 D
$1,697.22 D
$332.74 D
$9,218.20
$9,218.20
Page: 2 of 2
Technology Detail Report
(without Markups)
Folder: Ram Leather Care
Project
Site
Name: Preliminary Design for Soil Interim Remedy
ID: Soil
Location: CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
Modifiers: Material 0.9865 (Modified)
Labor 0.6379 (Modified)
Equipment 0.933 (Modified)
Category: None
Report Fiscal Year
Option:
Name: Soil Excavation/Disposal (Subtitle C/D Landfill)
ID: Ram Leather
Type: None
Phase Element
Name: Site-Closeout
Type: Site Close-out
Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate
Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate
Approach: None
Technology
Name: Cleanup and Landscaping
Prime Markup: 100 %
Sub Markup: O %
Comments: Assumptions:
Media/Waste Type: N/A
Secondary Media/Waste Type: N/A
Contaminant: None
Secondary Contaminant: None
Markup Template: System Defaults
Operation and Maintenance for 4 quarters following completion of work.
Includes reseeding of 25% of the disturbed area.
Cost Database Date: 2003
Cost Type: System
Print Date: 5/16/2005 11:09:30 AM
Includes mobilization and fee and field technician for 6 hours of work.
This report for official U.S. Government use only.
---lililll iiiiil iiilll lillll
Page: 1 of 2
-
- -- -
Assembly Description
16029002 Mobilization & Fee
18050101 Area Preparation, 67% Level & 33%
Slope
18050401 Seeding, 67% Level & 33% Slope,
Hydroseeding
18050408 Fertilizer, Hydro Spread
18050413 Watering with 3.000-Gallon Tank Truck.
per Pass
33220112 Field Technician
Cost Database Date: 2003
Cost Type: System
Print Date: 5/16/2005 11 :09:30 AM
l!!!!!!!!!!!l I!!!!!!! l!!!!!!!I l!!l!ll ==
Technology Detail Report
(without Markups)
Unit of Material
==
Labor
Quantity Measure Unit Cost Unit Cost
1.00 JOB 789.20 0.00
0.12 ACRE 0.00 19.38
0.12 ACRE 349.32 56.14
0.25 ACRE 91.10 22.13
1.00 ACRE 3.77 19.20
6.00 HR 0.00 12.34
li:iiil liiiil
Equipment
Unit Cost
0.00
41.59
85.43
28.32
29.21
0.00
Total Technology Cost
This report for official U.S. Government use only.
iiii
Extended Cost
Cost Override
$789.20 D
$7.32 D
$58.91 D
$35.39 D
$52.18 D
$74.03 D
$1,017.01
Page: 2 of 2