MO-8487_8487_CA_RPTS_19901221_Remedial Alternatives

C 4
RANGER
INSURANCE
P.O. Box 2807, Houston, Texas 77252-2807
[phone]
December 21,
Tony Parker
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
919 N. Main Street
Mooresville, NC 28115
RE: Insured: Carolina Petroleum Distributors
Spill Location: Newton, North Carolina
Date of Loss: April 28, 1990
Dear Mr. Parker:
N. C. DEprr. OF NATURAL
RESOURCES AND
Colfl'ILNI. . DEVELOPAfLNr
DEC 2 7 1990
DIVISION OF ENVIROHIgUTAL MANAGEMENT
191NORESVI LE REGIONAL OFFICE
We're attaching copies of the remedial alternatives for treatment
submitted by ERM Southeast. It's our plan to have ERM conduct the
remediation on site on both the soils existing at the site and
those that have been temporarily stored off site. We will apply
for a permit to remove the soils from the City of Newton storage
site and place them back on the lot from where they were originally
removed for the purpose of remediation. A non -discharge permit
will be requested through Mike Parker. ERM will submit a formal
plan to you office shortly.
Best regards,
/J
r
Steve Hintze
Claims Supervisor
SH/vmc
cc: Harvey Cospers, Jr.
Golding, Meekins, Holden, Cospers and Stiles
Suite 1200, Cameron Brown Building
301 S. McDowell Street
Charlotte, NC 28204
Wesley Helms
Carolina Petroleum Distributors
P. O. Box 26806
Charlotte, NC 28221
OS-622

ERM-Southeast, inc.
Suite 216 • 7621 Little Avenue • Charlotte. North Carolina 28226 • [phone]
Mr. Steve Hintze
Environmental Loss Specialist
Ranger Insurance
10777 Westheimer
Houston, Texas 77042
Dear Mr. Hintze:
N. C. DEPT. Or NATURAL
DEC271990
DIVISION OF
December 12, 1990
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
ERM-Southeast, Inc. is pleased to submit for your review a report
which presents remedial alternatives for treatment of the
petroleum -affected soils associated with the tanker tailer accident
on April 28, 1990 in downtown Newton, North Carolina.
We desire to meet with you in order to discuss the effectiveness,
advantages and disadvantages of the various treatment technologies
presented in the report. There are a variety of options available
to implement the most cost effective corrective action plan.
If you have any questions concerning this report or costs
associated with remediating the site, then don't hesitate to call
me.
Sincerely,
ERM-Sout east, Inc.
Donald W. Hankins, P.G.
Hydrogeologist
The
Offices-of..ERM-Southeast in. Brentwood,. TN !. Marietta GA *,Charlotte.. -NC • Mobile -AL
An affiliate of -The Environmental Resources Management'Group with offices worldwide �`• �� "�
Group

S
December 12, 1990
Project 8269
W. C. DEPT. OF NATURAL
RESOU11CF.S AN;)
COMMUNITY
DEC 2 7 1990
MORN+sue i im WE[
PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
ABANDONED LOT AT INTERSECTION
OF HWY 321 AND HWY 10
AND SOIL STOCKPILE
NEWTON, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared for:
Steve Hintze
Ranger Insurance
10777 Westheimer
Houston, Texas 77042
[phone]
onald W. Hankins, P.G.
Hydrogeologist
Prepared By:
ERM-Southeast, Inc.
7621 Little Ave.
Suite 216
Charlotte, NC 28226
(704) 54'1-8345' __

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
SUMMARY OF THE SOIL BORING PROGRAMS
GUIDELINES FOR REMEDIAL ACTION
ESTIMATED VOLUME OF PETROLEUM -
AFFECTED SOIL
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
General Cost Calculations
Bioremediation
Landfill Disposal
On -site Thermal Treatment
Off -site Thermal Treatment by
Brick Manufacturer
Stockpile Aeration - Land Application
Asphalt Batching
Soil Venting
Conclusions
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 - Summary of Analytical Results
UST Excavation Confirmation Sampling
TABLE 2 - Summary of Analytical Results
Soil Boring Program
TABLE 3 - Summary of Cost Projections
Remedial Action Alternatives
PAGE
1
1
3
9
14
14
17
18
20
21
22
25
25
26
PAGE
6
15
17

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
PAGE
1. Location Map of Abandoned Lot and Public
Works Yard 2
2. Location of Soil Borings, Depth Interval of
Sample Collection and Corresponding Laboratory
Results
4
3. Schematic Map Depicting Stockpile Dimensions,
Soil Boring Locations and Analytical Data 5
4. PID Screening Locations Existing Excavation
Area, Abandoned Lot 7
5. PID Screening Locations, Drainage Ditch Area
Abandoned Lot 8
6. Estimated Boundary of Soils Affected by more
than 10 ppm TPH, Existing Excavation Area,
Abandoned Lot 10
7. Estimated Boundary of Soils Affected by more
than 10 ppm TPH, Drainage Ditch Area, Abandoned
Lot
11
8. Plan View of Cross-section A -A' and B-B' of
Existing Excavation Area, Abandoned Lot 12
9. Estimated Boundary of Soils Exceeding the 10
ppm Action Level, Cross -sections A -A' and B-B',
Abandoned Lot 13
10. Conceptual Plan of Stockpile Designed to
Passively Aerate Soils 23

INTRODUCTION
On April 28, 1990, a tanker trailer operated by Carolina Petroleum
Distributors overturned near the intersection of West "C" Street
(NC HWY 10) and West Side Boulevard (NC HWY 321) in downtown
Newton, North Carolina. The accident occurred during a rain storm.
According to precipitation records published by the National
Climatic Data Center, 0.63 inches of rain fell in the Newton -
Conover area on April 28th. Approximately 2,000 gallons of
unleaded gasoline were reported to have been released from the
tanker. Emergency workers for the Town of Newton diverted the flow
of gasoline and rain water from the road onto an abandoned lot
located near the site of the accident. The diverted gasoline and
rain water was allowed to infiltrate the surface soil at the site.
The emergency response contractor, Petroleum Environmental
Consultants, Inc., excavated approximately 600 cubic yards of
petroleum -affected soil from the abandoned lot within 24 hours of
the spill. The soil excavated from the lot is stockpiled at the
Town of Newton Public Works Yard. A map illustrating the location
of the abandoned lot and Public Works Yard is presented in Figure
1.
In September 1990, Ranger Insurance of Houston, Texas retained ERM-
Southeast, Inc. to implement a soil sampling and analyses plan
designed to determine the nature and extent of petroleum -affected
soils that may remain at the abandoned lot, as well as to evaluate
the concentration distribution of petroleum products in the soil
stockpiled at the Public.Works Yard. The data obtained from this
investigation has been used to estimate the volume of soil
requiring corrective action at the abandoned lot and Public Works
Yard. The soil boring program activities are documented in a
December 11, 1990 summary report prepared by ERM and are briefly
described in the following sections.
This. report presents a screening of remedial alternatives which
address the cleanup of petroleum -affected soils associated with the
April 28th tanker trailer accident.
SUMMARY OF SOIL BORING PROGRAMS
On September 21, 1990, ERM personnel conducted a soil boring
program at the abandoned lot and at the Public Works Yard
stockpile.
Two-3.5 inch diameter stainless steel hand augers were utilized to
collect the subsurface soil samples. Soil samples were collected
from the borings, logged by a geologist, placed in an appropriate
container and screened for volatile organic content with a
photoicnization detector (PID).
A total of 10 grab samples -and 4 composite samples were submitted
to a laboratory for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) analyses (SW-

Q
FIGURE 1. LOCATION OF ABANDONED
LOT AND PUBLIC WORKS YARD,
NEWTON, NORTH CAROLINA.
;T
IBLIC WORKS
'AR D
0 1000
SCALE IN FEET
ERM-SOUTHEAST, INC

846 Methods 3550 and 5030). The grab samples and the composite
samples were collected from the abandoned lot and soil stockpile,
repectively. Figure 2 illustrates the 10 grab sample soil boring
locations, the depth intervals of sample collection and the
laboratory results. The composite sample soil boring locations at
the stockpile, depth intervals of sample collection and laboratory
results are presented in Figure 3. The analytical data is
summarized in Table 1. Laboratory analyses were conducted by
Industrial and Environmental Analysts (IEA) of Cary, North
Carolina.
Additional borings were advanced along the drainage ditch and in
the existing excavation area in order to further assess the
distribution of petroleum -affected soils at the abandoned lot.
Soil samples collected and screened from these borings were
screened with the PID. Figures 4 and 5 depict the location of the
borings from which soil samples were screened with the PID, depth
of sample collection and the associated PID readings.
GUIDELINES FOR REMEDIAL ACTION
According to the oil Spill and Hazardous Substance Act of 1978
(NCGS 143-215.75) the party having, control over released petroleum
products must notify the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR) and undertake corrective
actions to restore the area affected by the discharge. All federal
corrective action requirements are also addressed in the Oil Spill
guidelines. In addition to these requirements, which concern soil
contamination, an unpermitted release of petroleum to the
subsurface in a manner that results in exceeding underground water
quality standards as stated in NCGS 143-215.1(a)(6) is a violation
of North Carolina law. In order to comply with North Carolina and
federal regulatory requirements, soil remediation efforts must be
conducted in a manner which eliminates potential threats to human
health and/or welfare resulting from exposure to contaminated
materials. This remedial action must also prevent further
environmental degradation associated with leaching of contaminants
into the ground waters of the State.
The action level or contaminant c
investigation or remedial steps i
products in soils. The 10 ppm
high as 85 ppm TPH contingent
Sensitivity Evaluation (SSE). A
ground water to contamination by
substances from a vadose zone so
the abandoned lot may be conduc
level for this pr
soils adjacent.to
oncentration that requires further
n North Carolina is 10 ppm for TPH
TPH value may be increased to as
upon DEHNR review of a Site
SSE examines the sensitivity of
the release of petroleum related
urce. The geologic conditions at
ive to elevating the TPH action
oject particularly in relation to the affected
West "C" Street.

----- 95 = 5' CONTOUR INTERVAL
O B-1 = BORING LOCATION
5'-6' = DEPTH IN FEET
420 ppm = TPH RESULTS IN PARTS .
PER MILLION
(SW-846 METHODS
5030/3550)
FIGURE 2. LOCATION OF SOIL BORINGS,
DEPTH INTERVAL -OF SAMPLE COLLECTION
AND CORRESPONDING LABORATORY RESULTS
ERM-SOUTHEAST, INC
_4 .

0
NOT TO SCALE
N'
1---
STOCKPILE
IN PUBLIC
►P
WORKS YARD
I
�
SP-4
2'-3' 30 — 98
I 1
° °
\ SP-3
2'-3' <2.0
° °
— <2.0
o _I 1 —
I�
° SP-2
°
2'-3' <2.0
\
-P-1
2'-3' 13 — <2.0
1
_ (TYP-)
�
�
STREET
E.
NOTE: STOCKPILE DIMENSIONS
LENGTH = 63 FEET
WIDTH = 32 FEET
HEIGHT = f6 FEET
LEGEND
SP-1 = COMPOSITE OF 3 BORINGS
2'-3' = DEPTH OF SAMPLE COLLECTION
30-98 = TPH (mg/kg) 3550 — 5030
(DIESEL — GAS)
= SOIL BORING LOCATION
FIGURE 3. SCHEMATIC MAP DEPICTING
STOCKPILE DIMENSIONS, SOIL BORING
LOCATIONS AND ANALYTICAL DATA �( ERM-SOUTHEAST, INC
AT . PUBLIC WORKS YARD, NEWTON, N.C.

Table 1
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Analytical Data
Soil Boring Survey
Abandoned Lot and Stockpile
Newton, North Carolina
October 17, 1990
Soil Boring #
Depth of Sample Collection
(feet below ground surface)
TPH
EPA 3550
(mg/kg)
EPA 5030
B-1
5'-6'
<2.0
420
B-2
1'-2'
<2.0
<2.0
B-3
2'-3'
<2.0
<2.0
B-4
21-3'
<2.0
<2.0
B-5
2'-3'
<2.0
3.3
B-6
1'-21
<2.0
<2.0
B-7
1'-2'
<2.0
8.3
B-8
4.5'-5.5'
<2.0
8.5
B-9
5'-6'
<2.0
180
B-10
5'-6'
<2.0
<2.0
SP-1
2'-3'
13
<2.0
SP-2
2'-3'
<2.0
11
SP-3
2'-3'
<2.0
<2.0
SP-4
2'-3'
.30
98
Note:
Method 3550 = GC-FID analyses for #2 fuel oil, kerosene, varsol
Method 5030 = GC-FID analyses for gasoline only
B denotes soil boring locations at the abandoned lot
SP denotes composite samples collected at soil stockpile
Analyses conducted by Industrial and Environmental Analysts, of -
Cary, North Carolina
- --6 -_ -

B-10
O
/ 1SFD
/ B-4 •PIDs8G
O / 1 2'
• PID-BG
B-3 1. 2'
O� O
DEEP PIT • I O
PID=8G 1 9�
3'-4'
B3-55 PID-8
O •� -2'
PID=8G B-2
. 02. O
95 •PID=BG
PID-BG PID---flG
PIO—BG PID-400
/
2'a3. PID—
B-6 ID350 2'-3' O PID=10 • • PID-8G
1'-2'
B-1 • PID=300
\D=440 Q 3'-4' �cSv
• PI 210 2.
\ 2'-3. .+
PID-BG • 10-200
1 —2. 2°-3'
O 0
LEGEND
`— 95 = 5' CONTOUR INTERVAL
G O B-1 = BORING LOCATION
0 20 • PIOa300 = PID SCREENING LOCATION
I II BG = BACKGROUND PID READING (0.6 ppm)
SCALE IN FEET 2'-3' = INTERVAL OF SAMPLE COLLECTION
FIGURE 4. PID SCREENING LOCATIONS
EXISTING EXCAVATION AREA.
ABANDONED LOT, _.NEWTON; N.C.. [� ERM-SOUTHEAST, INC.

0
7if
II
� ► ' `24� RCP
INV.-84.9PID\
I I 1-4' \ 3-4
I
I
PID=8G 1
I I 3,-4'
> 1 m J I I
W I
0
L I PI0=8G
F- /
c
W
._
P3'-4' B o 0
3 I /
9Q
I I
I . PID=BB.G / / O
0
B-3
�o O DEEP PR
I OH-5
C
0 95
I O B-8 /
/ H0
O
LEGEND
• PID=BG = PID SCREENING LOCATIONS
D 20
3'-4' = INTERVAL OF SAMPLE COLLECTION
SCALE IN FEAT
BG = BACKGROUND PID READING (0.6 ppm)
FIGURE 5. PID SCREENING LOCATIONS
DRAINAGE DITCH AREA ABANDONED LOT.
NEWTON, NORTH CAROLINA [�� - ERM SOUTHEAST, INC

ESTIMATED VOLUME OF PETROLEUM -AFFECTED SOIL
Laboratory analyses, PID screening, and olfactory and visual
observation of subsurface soil samples collected at the abandoned
lot indicate 2 areas of petroleum -affected soils. Plan views of
the site which illustrate these areas are presented in Figures 6
and 7. Analysis of the soil sample collected from Boring 1 and the
additional soil samples screened by the PID in the vicinity of the
excavation adjacent to the street indicate that an area measuring
approximately 25 feet by 25 feet contains soils with TPH
concentrations exceeding 10 ppm to a depth of approximately 12 feet
below the street level. The actual depth of the affected soils is
not confirmed at this time and may be greater than 12 feet. Cross -
sections of the excavation area which illustrate the estimated
boundary of soils exceeding 10 ppm TPH are presented in Figures 8
and 9. According to Mr. Jim Rand, District Engineer with the North
Carolina Department of Transportation - Right -of -Way Division,
soils may be excavated solely at a 45 degree angle within 6 feet of
the edge of the street curb. Mr. Rand stated that additional soil
excavation may jeopardize the stability of the street.
Analysis of the soil samples collected from Borings 7, 8 and 9 and
the additional soil samples screened by the PID along the drainage
ditch indicate that an irregularly shaped area measuring
approximately 20 feet by 15 feet and centered over Boring 9 is
affected by petroleum products. This area is estimated to contain
soils with TPH concentrations which exceed 10 ppm to a depth of
approximately 8 feet below the ground surface (Figure 7). The
actual depth of the affected soils is not confirmed at this time
and may be greater than 8 feet.
Excavating the areas shown in Figures 6 and 7 will generate
approximately 280 cubic yards of petroleum -affected soil:
West "C" Street Area
25 ft * 25 ft * 12 ft = 7,500 ft3 / 2 = 3,750 ft3
(soil volume divided in half due to the topography of
the excavation area)
3,750 ft3 / 27 ft3 per yd3 = 140 yd3
140 yd3 * 1.20(expansion factor) = 170 yd3
and
West Side Boulevard Drainage Ditch.Area
20 ft * 15 ft * 8 ft = 2,400 ft3
2,400 ft3 / 27 ft3 per yd3 = 90 yd3
-90 yd3 * 1.20(expansion factor) _ .110 yd3
Total Estimated Volume of -Petroleum Af.f.ected soil -_at. -the Abandoned
Lot : 170 yd3 + _ 110 .-yd3. = 2 8 0 __yd3

I�
B-10
O
/ 1SFD
90 /
/ B-4 • PID-BG
O / 1' 2' /
/ • PID-BG
BO 12'
DEEP PIT • ESTIMATED BOUNDARY OF
/ PID=B4 SOILS EXCEEDING 10 ppm 9C�
B-5 PI-8 ' TPH
O •19 2'
/95�
PID-8 G B-2
1•�2' O
•PID=BG •
• 1'-2'
PID-BG
1'-2' PID G
• 1'-2
PID-BG• ` PID-400
2'-3' 2'-3' G�
B-6 PID=350 2'-3'
O PID=10 • �• PID=BG
3'-4' • 1'-2' �;c•S
P10=450 BQ 1 3D_4 0�
\3,V PID-210
PID—BG \ • ,, lJ
1'-2' I0-200
2'-3'
O 0
�tiCs LEGEND
�-- — 95 = 5' CONTOUR INTERVAL
O B-1 = BORING LOCATION
0 20 �• • PID=300 = PID SCREENING LOCATION
I
BG - BACKGROUND PID READING (0.6 ppm)
SCALE IN FEET 2'-3' = INTERVAL OF SAMPLE COLLECTION

W
0
7-
N
B - 9 -�
5,-69
180 pp
B-8
4.5'-5.5'
8.5 ppm
I�
® PID=BG
T-4' B-10
O
' - 6'
ESTIMATED BOUNDARY 5
OF SOILS EXCEEDING / pp
10 ppm TPH
PID=BG /
® T-4'
1 / /
G�
= 0 20
v I �
SCALE IN FEET
0
LEGEND
• PID=BG = PID SCREENING LOCATIONS
3'-4' = INTERVAL OF SAMPLE COLLECTION
BG = BACKGROUND PID READING (0.6ppm)
s—a 0 = SOIL BORING LOCATION
iso ppm = TPH VALUE IN mg/kg
FIGURE 7. ESTIMATED BOUNDARY_ OF
SOILS AFFECTED BY MORE THAN loppm
TPH, DRAINAGE - DITCH -AREA.. ABANDONED ERM-SOUTHEAST, INC
LOT, NEWTON, NORTH CAROLING

i
I�
B-10
O /
/ 1SFD
g0 /
/ B-4 / •PID=BG
O 1 2
• PID=BG
B-3 1' 2'
0 O s�
DEEP PIT
PID-BG
3'-4' l'f'
B-6 PID=B '
O •1'-2•'
PID—BG B-2
• O
95 •PID=BG
8� .
PID=BG PID G
1'-2' • 1'-2
PID=BG PID=400
2'-3, 2'-3' GcS
B-6 • PID=350 2'-3'
/ PID-10 • • PID=BG
_ •
3'-4PI0=450 BO 3 D 400
2'
3' 4 / PID 10
PID-BG • ID-200.
1'-2' 2'-3'
\ O -
O �O
LEGEND
�— — 95 = 5' CONTOUR INTERVAL
O B-1 = BORING LOCATION
0 20 �• . PID-300 = PID SCREENING LOCATION
I I BG = BACKGROUND PID READING (0.6 ppm
SCALE IN FEET 2'-3' = INTERVAL OF SAMPLE COLLECTION
FIGURE 8. PLAN VIEW OF CROSS-SECTION
A -A' AND B-B' OF EXISTING EXCAVATIONf�
AREA, ABANDONED-. LOT, NEIITON, N.C. �llV ERM—SOUTHEAST, INC

0
B'
ESTIMATED BOUNDARY OF SOILS
�—EXCEEDING 10 ppm
Pll _400
40
FIGURE 9. ESTIMATED BOUNDARY OF SOE S
EXCEEDING THE 10 ppm ACTION LEVEL,
CROSS —SECTIONS A —A' AND B—B , ABANDONED
LOT, NEWTON, . NORTH - CAROLINA
ERM- S 0 UTHEA,S T, - INC
1 3

Analyses of the composite soil samples collected from the stockpile
indicate the presence of diesel fuel and gasoline t;e petroleum
products. This data corroborates that a diesel fuel released from
a similar tanker trailer accident in 1975 impacted soil at the
subject site. Only 1 of the composite samples (SP-4 = 128 ppm)
collected at the Public Works Yard, nonetheless, significantly
exceeds 10 ppm TPH. Analyses of the 3 other composite samples
indicated TPH values less than 15 ppm. The emergency response
contractor reported that the stockpile was comprised of
approximatley 600 yd3 of soil. Assuming that the entire volume of
stockpiled soil will be treated, the estimated total volume of
soils that require remedial action associated with tanker trailer
accident is, therefore, 280 yd3 600 yd3 = 880 yd3.
This is an estimated soil volume calculated based on scientific
judgment, the analytical data and PID readings available at this
time. A soil expansion coefficient of 20% has been assumed for
calculating the volume of soil excavated from the abandoned lot.
The estimated 880 yd3 soil volume will be used to compare costs
associated with different remedial action methods investigated by
ERM. A more accurate assessment of the volume of soils affected by
at least 10 ppm TPH would require additional soil borings. The
actual distribution and volume of affected soils,.however, will be
determined solely upon excavating the 2 areas at the abandoned lot
and the stockpiled soil at the Public Works Yard.
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
ERM-Southeast has conducted a screening of remedial technologies
for treatment of TPH-affected soils. The purpose of the screening
is identify various soil treatment methods that are applicable to
the soil volumes and geologic conditions at the Newton site. In
addition, preliminary cost projections have been developed for each
treatment method. The cost projections are presented solely for
the purpose of comparing the general cost for each treatment
method. In the next phase of work, ERM will prepare a remedial
action plan which will present design and operations details of the
selected remedial method. At that time, formal bids will be
requested from remedial contractors for the selected method and a
more accurate estimation of costs will be prepared. ERM assumes
that compacting the backfill will be sufficient grading to restore
the original topography at the site. Landscaping the abandoned lot
is not included in the cost projections. Table 2 summarizes the
cost projections associated with the soil treatment methods
discussed below.
General Cost Calculations
With the exception of soil venting, each of the investigated
remediation methods require excavating the affected soils. Soil
remediation subcontractors have provided informal quotes_ for the
major cost items associated with the various treatment methods.
__ 14 _

Table 2.
Summary of Cost Projections
Remedial Action Alternatives
Abandoned Lot and Soil Stockpile
Newton, North Carolina
December 12, 1990
Treatment Technology
Projected Cost
Bioremediation ........................ $ 115,000
Landfill Disposal ..................... $ 231,000
to $ 157,000
On -site Thermal Treatment ............. $ 116,000
to $ 150,000
Off -site Thermal Treatment............. $ 112,000
to $ 119,000
Stockpile Aeration/Land Application ... $ 66,000
Asphalt Batching .................. not permitted
Soil Venting .................... not recommended
Note: The projected costs represent preliminary estimates for
general cost comparison purposes only. A more detailed
cost estimate will be developed during the next phase of
work.

These quotes may or may not have included the cost of excavating
the soils or providing backfill and compaction of th backfill.
In order to simplify comparison of the treatment methods, uniform
costs for ERM professional services, excavation of the soils at the
abandoned lot and stockpile, backfill and compaction work and
laboratory analyses are presented below. These estimated costs
have been added to the subcontractor cost projections where
applicable.
ERM Professional Services:
Preparation of a remedial action plan,
preparation and evaluation of subcontractor
bids, field work, preparation of summary
report $ 12,000
Excavation Work:
Track hoe and back hoe with operators solely
to excavate soils (15% markup) $ 6,000
Backfill and Compaction Work:
Fill @ $ 6/yd3 * 880 yd3 = $ 5,280
Labor and machinery to compact fill $ 2,000 $ 8,400
(15%_Markup)
Laboratory Analyses:
SW-846 Method 5030 for gasoline @
$ 115/sample * 10 samples in excavation area,
4 samples below the existing stockpile,
Assume 10 additional samples if treated soil is
backfilled plus transpaks and express
sample shipment
14 samples $ 1,750
24 samples $ 3,000
(15% markup)
16

Bioremediation
ERM has evaluated the application of enzymes, surfactants and
nutrients to petroleum -affected soil in order to enhance the
degradation of petroleum products by promoting the growth of
bacteria native to the soil. Ensite, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia
has developed a patented bioremediation solution referred to
as the "SafeSoil" process to clean up petroleum contamination
in soils.
This company will mobilize to the site, set up equipment,
excavate the soil, import the stockpiled soil to the lot, run
the soil through a hopper, charge the soil with nutrients and
place the treated soil back into the excavation and compact
the backfill for $ 80.00 per cubic yard. Approximately 300
cubic yards of soil can be processed in a day and a 14 day
aeration period has been reported as a sufficient amount of
time necessary to remediate petroleum -affected soil with this
treatment method. Bioremediating the soils could then be
completed in 2 to 3 weeks. An on -site staging area is
required in order to stockpile the soils during the treatment
process. The excavation will be left open during the
treatment of the soils. Accordingly, the cost of backfill is
not included in this cost projection. ERM will manage the
field operations and collect conformational soil samples in
the excavation and from the treated .stockpile prior to
backfilling. This cost does not reflect the acquisition of
permits. According to Ensite personnel, however, a permit is
not required by the State of North Carolina to remediate with
the "Safesoil" process.
Subcontractor Labor and Expenses:
880 yd3 @ $ 80/yd3 = $ 70,400 * 1.15 =
(includes 15% markup)
ERM Labor and Expenses:
Laboratory analyses:
Subtotal
20% Contingency
Say
$ 80,960
$ 12,000
$ 3,000
$ 95,960
$ 115,152
$ 115,000

Landfill Disposal
A RCRA-permitted landfill located in Pinewood, South Carolina
and operated by Laidlaw Environmental, Inc. will accept all
the affected soil from the Ramcon site. The tipping fee at
this landfill is $ 90.00/ton + a $ 7.50 tax for out-of-state
waste. The soil may be hauled to the landfill by a Laidlaw
contracted courier for $ 475 / truck load. A truck can haul
a maximum of 21 tons a load. No costs are included for
obtaining waste approval for the soils.
Landfill Tipping Fee:
880 yd3 * 1.35 tons/yd3 = 1,188 tons
1,188 tons * $ 97.50 * 1.15 (15% markup) _ $ 133,200
Transportation:
1,188 tons @ 21 tons/truck * $ 475/truck =
$ 26,871 * 1.15 = $ 30,900 (15% markup) $ 30,900
ERM Labor and Expenses: $ 12,000
Excavation Work: $ 6,000
Backfill and Compaction Work: $ 8,400
Laboratory Analyses: $ 1,750
Subtotal $ 192,250
20% Contingency $ 230,700
Say $ 231,000
G and K Tank Services is licensed to aerate petroleum -affected
soils at their facility located in Sumter, South Carolina. G
and K Tank Services will mobilize to the site, excavate and
haul the affected soil to the South Carolina facility for
treatment for $ 75.00/ton. The soils will remain at this
facility.
Subcontractor Labor and Expenses:
1,188 tons * $ 75/ton = $ 89,100 * 1.15 = $ 102,500
(15% markup)
ERM Labor and Expenses: $ 12,000
Excavation Work: $ 6,000
Backfill and Compaction Work: $ 8,400
Laboratory Analyses:

Landfill Disposal (continued)
The sole landfill licensed to receive greater than 25 yd3 of
petroleum -affected soils in the greater Charlotte area is
managed by Browning -Ferris Industries. This landfill,
however, is only permitted to accept soils with TPH
concentrations less than 100 ppm. The landfill charges $30.00
per ton to accept soil. The soil can be hauled for $ 10.00
per ton. Assuming that 50% of the affected soils have action
levels that are less than 100 ppm, then 440 yd3 of soil could
be disposed at this landfill. The costs for hauling and
disposal of half of the soils at this facility is $ 27,500
(15% markup). Cost for excavating the soils, obtaining waste
approval and conducting conformational sampling are not
included. Given the volume of soils to be remediated at the
site, disposal at this landfill may be used to supplement an
on -site aeration or land application treatment method.
-19

On -site Thermal Treatment
Thermal treatment involves the on -site volatization of
petroleum -affected soils by incineration. Four thermal
treatment firms submitted verbal bids to mobilize an
incinerator unit to the site and treat the soils. The costs
associated with these firms to remediate the soils ranged from
$ 73,000 to $ 101,500.
Subcontractor Labor and Expenses:
(15% markup) $ 73,000 to $ 101,500
ERM Labor and Expenses: $ 12,000
Excavation Work: $ 6,000
Compaction Work: $ 2,600
Laboratory Analyses: $ 3,000
Subtotal $ 96,600 to $ 125,100
20% Contingency $ 115,920 to $ 150,120
Say $ 116, 000 to $ 150,000

r 6 h
Off -site Thermal Treatment by Brick Manufacturer
The State of North Carolina has recently approved a soil
remediation technology which involves the incorporation of
petroleum -affected soils into brick manufacturing operations.
The affected soils are blended with the typical brick clay and
as the bricks are baked in the kiln the petroleum products are
volatilized. Two brick manufacturers accept petroleum
affected soils in the greater Piedmont area of North Carolina,
the Cunningham Brick Yard located in Thomasville and the
Cherokee Sanford Group which operates several brick yards in
the vicinity of Sanford. The Cunningham facility and Cherokee
facilities charge $35/ton and $33/ton to incorporate affected
soils into their manufacturing operations, respectively. A
typical fee to haul soils from Newton to Thomasville is
approximately $12/ton and from Newton to Sanford is $18/ton.
Additional laboratory analyses required before shipment can be
accepted at a brickyard include 8240 and 8270, pH, and TCLP
Metals.
Subcontractor Labor and Expenses:
(15% markup) $ 64,200 to $ 69,700
ERM Labor and Expenses: $ 12,000
Excavation Work: $ 6,000
Backfill and Compaction Work: $ 8,400
Laboratory Analyses: $ 3,000
Subtotal $ 93,600 to $. 99,100
20% Contingency $ 112,320 to $ 118,920
Say $ 112,000 to $ 119, 000
_. _ 21

19 V
Stockpile Aeration
Stockpile aeration of petroleum contaminated soil is a
treatment method that utilizes passive volatization of
petroleum products in order to remediate the affected soils.
The petroleum -affected soils are stockpiled and monitored
until soil TPH concentration is reduced to 10 ppm.
A stockpile may be constructed to enhance the volatization of
petroleum products. Soil lifts are mixed with lime and
fertilizers in order to enhance the degradation of petroleum
products in the soil. Lifts of the soil mixture are then
alternated with layers of perforated tubing. Strategic
placement of the tubing allows air flow through the stockpile
and ultimately volatilize the petroleum. Figure 10 presents
a conceptual illustration of a typical stockpile designed to
remediate petroleum -affected soils. The stockpile is covered
with plastic and bermed in order to prevent soils or water
which has come in contact with the soils from impacting the
staging area. The stockpile is then sampled on a schedule
approved by DEHNR. Upon attaining an established cleanup
level, the soils are used to backfill the source excavation.
According to DEHNR officials, stockpile aeration does not
require a permit if the soils are stockpiled on -site and
placed back into the source excavation. The DEHNR will
consider the the off -site aeration of stockpiled petroleum -
affected soil prior to backfilling the source excavation on a
case -by -case basis. State approval of this corrective measure
is contingent upon review of a remedial action plan describing
the proposed treatment operations by regulatory officials. A
permit may be required.

—,CSS—SECT;ON VIEW A TO AI
' _ _
1 � I. ,` , teat
.................................... '...'...
_ Z!eet.....................................
1 I , ....:.:......:.:.:.:.:.:.....:.:.:. 0.._.:.:.:.:_ . .:
1 foot — I.........................................1'.......•.'.\
O.'.'.'.'..'.O .'.'.. O.'.'.'...'.O.'.'..'.'.
ttoot ! ....... �................ f .....
l I
ZS feet
to feet -
CROSS —cc- 1ON VIEW 8 TO 8'
—� i 4 feat
1 foot high berm surrouncing pile —
8 mi ¢iast= liner
4 nci perforated tuChq
4 mi dear plastic mvr
pad.ts mcm to cover .rth stts:I
...................... ..................
.lt,l I I,I I, � .I,IIII11 1 1 1 i
. .-. 1
I I I I.__(�
1 f I r ! TT 'T TTTT�r� •{�T
3.'.et
langth dcpmftm upod " soi voWme _ -
i
OVERHEAD ViE'N A, damn
/— oo-ty soa Plle
e feet
L— A
PREVALENT WINO DIRECTION
FIGURE 1O.CONCEPTUAL PLAN OF STOCKPILE
DESIGNED TO PASSIVELY AERATE
SOILS. EMI-SOatfmot. Inc.
EAvbSFAWwed It 01 =me
23

V 0 Is
Stockpile Aeration (coat.)
ERM Labor and Expenses:
Movement of Stockpile
trackhoe, trucks, front end loader
with operators including mobilization
demobilization and 15% markup
(assumes 1.5 work days for 600 yd3)
Excavation of 280 yd3 at abandoned lot
trackhoe for 1.5 days, solely bringing
soil to surface (15% markup)
Stockpile Construction for 880 yd3 of
soil, assumes soil has been excavated,
2 front end loader for 80 hours each
3 man work crew for 80 hours, 10 mil plastic
and piping (15% markup)
$ 21,000
$ 3,700
$ 1,700
$ 19,000
Soil Shredding Machinery
(1 month rental, 600 mile mob and
set up fee, 15% markup) $ 7,500
Laboratory Analyses: $ 1,750
Subtotal $ 54,650
20% Contingency $ 65,580
Say $ 66,000
Note: ERM Labor increased per additional field work and permitting
requirements. The soil shredder is necessary for the optimal
aeration of land applied or stockpiled soil. Scheduled long term
monitoring of soils and associated labor is not included in the
cost projection.
24

4 �1
Asphalt Batching
Involves incorporating affected soils into asphalt to be used
as road grade. This method has yet to be approved by the
DEHNR.
Soil venting
By applying a vacuum to extraction wells petroleum vapors may
be removed from affected soils. Under the pressure of the
vacuum, contaminants volatilize from the soil matrix and are
swept by air to the extraction wells. In order to utilize
venting the number of wells, well spacing, well location, well
construction, vacuum system and treatment system must be
addressed. ERM does not recommend venting in clay type soils,
affected by diesel fuel. Our experience indicates that the
ability of venting systems to volatilize diesel fuel and draw
air through clay rich soils similar to the geologic medium
encountered at the Ramcon site is limited. ERM also is
concerned about locating an extraction well network in the
loading dock area at the Ramcon building where there is a high
volume of heavy vehicle traffic. Other factors to consider
are air permitting requirements and the inability to predict
the duration of the venting necessary to reduce the
contamination to acceptable levels. ERM, therefore, does not
recommend soil venting.

10 F
Conclusions
This report identifies remedial alternatives and summarizes
preliminary cost projections associated with various soil treatment
methods that are applicable to remediating the petroleum -affected
soils at the Newton sites. The cost projections are presented
solely for the purpose of comparing the general cost for each
treatment method. ERM desires to prepare a formal proposal to
conduct a more detailed analysis of the effectiveness, reliability
and implementability for the preferred remedial technologies and
prepare a remedial action plan which will present design and
operations details of the selected remedial method. At that time,
formal bids will be requested from remedial contractors for the
selected method and a more accurate estimation of costs will be
prepared.