NCD079044426_19980810_General Electric Co. Shepherd Farm_FRBCERCLA RD_Interim Report on Remedial Design for Soil-OCR

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HSI
GEOTRANS
A TETRA TECH COMPANY
Ms. Giezelle Bennett
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. EPA Region 4
100 Alabama Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104
1080 Holcomb Bridge Road
Building 100, Suite 190
Roswell, Georgia
30076
770-642-1000 FAX [phone]
---r.:r.EIVED
August l 0, 1998
AUG 111998
SUPERFUND SECTION
Reference: Interim Report on Remedial Design for Soil
GE/Shepherd Farm Site, East Flat Rock, NC
HSI Geo Trans Project No. N754-016
Dear Ms. Bennett:
Enclosed please find four (4) bound copies and one (1) unbound copy of
the above referenced report. This final report has incorporated your July I 6 and
29, 1998 comments on the June 30, 1998 version of the document. Report
additions include a description of the confim1ation sampling and a cost analysis.
cc:
P. \GE\DOCS\EPA\EPA20 WPO
Please call me if you have any questions.
Lee Humphrey (GELS)
David Mattison (NC DENR)
Peter Rich (HSI GeoTrans)
Sincerely,
-k~~
'-iv\
Todd Hageilieyer, P.G.
Senior Hydrogeologist
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
INTERIM REPORT ON REMEDIAL DESIGN FOR SOIL
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SUPERFUND SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
HSI GEO TRANS PROJECT No. N754-016
AUGUST 10, 1998
Prepared for:
GE Lighting Systems
3010 Spartanburg Highway
Hendersonville, NC 28792
Prepared by:
HSI GeoTrans, Inc.
1080 Holcomb Bridge Road
Building 100, Suite 190
Roswell, GA 30076
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table of Contents
I Introduction ............................................................... 1-1
2 ROD Remedy ............................................................. 2-1
3 Intermediate Design Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
3.1 DSI ........................................................... 3-l
3.2 Landfill A ...................................................... 3-1
3.2.1 Exploratory Trenching ...................................... 3-1
3 .2.2 Subsurface Soil Sampling ................................... 3-4
3.3 Shepherd Farm .................................................. 3-7
4 Proposed Modifications to ROD Remedy ....................................... 4-1
, 4.1 Landfill A ...................................................... 4-1
/ 4.2 Landfill B ...................................................... 4-3
4.3 Dry Sludge Impoundment ......................................... 4-4
4.4 Shepherd Farm .................................................. 4-7
5 References ................................................................ 5-1
APPENDIX A -Laboratory Reports (Form l's)
APPENDIX B -Chain of Custodies
APPENDIX C -Cost Comparison
11
I
I List of Figures
I 1-1. Site location .......................................................... 1-2
1-2. GE Subsite features .................................................... 1-3
I 1-3. Shepherd Farm Subsite features ........................................... 1-4
3-1. Location and results of surficial soil borings at the OSI ........................ 3-2
I 3-2.
3-3.
Location of the exploratory trenches ....................................... 3-3
Cross section of the northern trench ....................................... 3-5
3-4.
I 3-5.
3-6.
Cross section of the southern trench ....................................... 3-6
Location and results of the subsurface soil sampling at Landfill A ................ 3-8
Location and results of the subsurface soil sampling at Shepherd Farm ............ 3-9
I 4-1.
4-2.
Extent of Landfill A .................................................... 4-2
Extent of Landfill B .................................................... 4-5
I 4-3 .. ··· Extent of the OSI ...................................................... 4-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I iii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
List of Tables
3-1. Results of the subsurface soil sampling at Shepherd Farm ....................... 3-10
IV
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 Introduction
The General Electric (GE)/Shepherd Farm Site is located in East Flat Rock, North
Carolina. General site features are depicted on Figure 1-1. The site consists of two non-
contiguous areas referred to as the GE Subsite and Shepherd Farm Subsite. The GE Subsite
(Figure 1-2) is approximately 120 acres in size and includes the GE manufacturing and
distribution facilities. The Shepherd Farm Subsite (Figure 1-3) is approximately 50 acres in size
and is comprised of residential and agricultural land.
The Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA) for the site addresses soil and
groundwater at both subsites. The designs for soil and groundwater are proceeding in different
stages and different schedules. This report addresses only the soil portion of the RD/RA for the
GE Subsite.
The preliminary (30%) design for remediation of PCB-contaminated soil at Landfill A,
Landfill B, and the Dry Sludge lmpoundment (DSI) was completed in February I 998 (HSI
GeoTrans, 1998a). Additional data collection activities were completed in May 1998 in
accordance with the Intermediate Design Investigation Work Plan dated April 1998 (HSI
GeoTrans, 1998b).
The two purposes of this interim report are to (I) describe results of the soil data collected
since the 30% design in accordance of the Intermediate Design Investigation Work Plan and (2)
describe recommended modifications to the ROD remedy based on these new results. A pre-
final (90%) remedial design report and RA work plan for soil remediation at the GE Subsite will
be completed after agency review and approval of these recommended modifications.
Section 2 of this report summarizes the soil remediation goals and remedy described in
the ROD. The results of the soil investigations completed during the Intermediate Design
Investigation are described in Section 3. Laboratory reports (Form I's) and Chain of Custodies
for the data presented in Section 3 are provided in Appendix A. Proposed modifications to the
ROD remedy are discussed in Section 4. Section 5 is a list of references.
1-1
---------------- - - - - - - - --· - - - - - -
P:\ge\gis-rd60\workspac\subsite. wor
I I ~. Ii I ,. ··,~ =~_.____J__, □
fK
·hep
Fa
e']b
j I
I / I
0 600
SCALE IN FEET
CJ
mus
Site location
1200 WCATION East Flat Rock, NC
HSI CHECKEDBY PAW
CRAFTED BY MJW 1 1 GEOTRANs=m==NAMEc:J_SUB-SITE-~-R__J -
FIGURE:
A TURA TEQ-1 COMPANY DA.TE 6-29-98
-------------------P:\ge\gis-rd60\workspac\gesite. wor
0 500
SCALE IN FEET
I
-=t'.'a n dfi II A ._,,,._,';, ,,_
-, OSI
ond
# .andfilLB
I
mu;
1000 LOCATION
I
GE Subsite features
East Flat Rock, NC
-------------------P:\ge\gis--rd60\workspac\sfs1te. wor
I
~ Explanation
Soil excavation area
0
□_,J.1--,--------------
0
300
SCALE IN FEET
600
·u V
TITI.E
Shepherd Farm Subsite features
LOCATION East Flat Rock, NC
HSI CHECKEDBY PAW
DRAFTED BY MJVv 1 3 ,.. GEOTRANS r-,.,-,_-+S~F-SIT-E-.WO-R--< -
-A 'TTIRA TEa-t COMPANY DATE 6-29-98
FIGURE:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2RODRemedy
A remediation goal of IO parts per million (ppm) total PCBs was established in the
Record of Decision (ROD) (U.S. EPA, 1995a) for soil remediation at the GE Subsite. This goal
is based on the Baseline Risk Assessment and applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs).
The remedy described in the ROD for Landfill A, Landfill Band the DSI consists of a
multi-layered cap in areas exceeding a total PCB concentration of IO ppm. The multi-layered
cap includes a composite liner consisting of 18 inches of clay, a flexible membrane liner, and if
necessary, a drainage layer.
2-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3 Intermediate Design Data
This section presents the results of the soil investigations performed after the 30% design,
in accordance of the Intermediate Design Investigation Work Plan (HSI GeoTrans, 1998b).
3.1 DSI
Nearly 210 soil samples have been collected historically in and around the OSI to
delineate the extent of PCBs in the soil. Additional surficial soil samples were collected at the
OSI on May 14, I 998 to confirm the western and northern boundaries of the impoundment. A
total of four soil samples were collected at a depth of O to I feet using a hand auger. The four
soil samples were analyzed for PCBs using EPA Method 8081. Figure 3-1 shows the location of
the surficial soil samples.
, Total PCB concentrations for the four additional samples ranged from not detected to
0.22 ~pm as shown on Figure 3-1. Laboratory reports (Form l's) are provided in Appendix A.
The extent of PCBs in and around the OSI has been determined.
All four surficial soil samples were split during collection. The split samples were
analyzed in the field using immunoassay kits. All four field-analyzed samples were reported as
not detected (less than I ppm) for PCBs. These field results are consistent with the laboratory
results.
3.2 Landfill A
3.2.1 Exploratory Trenching
Site investigations at Landfill A in 1997 included surface geophysics surveys (GPR and
EM), soil gas survey, surficial soil sampling, subsurface soil sampling, and groundwater
sampling (described in HSI GeoTrans, 1998a). The extent of Landfill A based on the PCB
concentrations in the surficial soil is depicted on Figure 3-2. The total area of surficial PCB
contamination is 0.9 acres. Based on the GPR data, the maximum depth of the debris in Landfill
A was determined to be eight feet. Landfill A was also visually inspected to a depth of 8 feet in
July 1997 when piping was installed for the accelerated groundwater remediation system
(AGRS). The location of the AGRS trench is depicted in Figure 3-2.
Exploratory trenching was performed in May I 998 at Landfill A to (I) confirm the lateral
and vertical delineation of the landfill provided by existing data and (2) to visually examine the
characteristics of the buried debris.
3-1
--- ---P:\ge\GIS-RD60\Workspac\DSl.wor
-0 • •
• y
•
0 ~
MW~
0
- -
0
0
-
0
DSl-16
ND ...
•
- -
0
Explanation
0
•
+
-$-
PCB concentrations (ppm) in surficial soil (0-1 ft) ( Law, 1990)
PCB concentration in surficial soil (0-1ft) less than 10 ppm (HSI GeoTrans, 1998)
PCB concentration in surficial soil (0-1ft) greater than 10 ppm (HSI Geo Trans, 1998)
Surficial soirsample (May 1998)
Monitor Well
- - - -- - - -
0
0
0
0
TITLE
0 100
SCALE IN FEET
Location and results of surficial
soil borings at the DSI
~ -N-
I
200
LOCATION GE Subsite, East Flat Rock, NC
CHECKED BY RTH
-HSI CAAFTEOBY MJW ~ ~~,;°'R~~ r:-":.-NAME---1r.o"'s::,.wo=Rc--------1
-..,,..,,:; 4-27-98
FIGURE:
3-1
-------------------P:\ge\gls-rd-60\workspac\LF A-tch3. wor
\\
Northern
75 foot trench
••
Explanation
1iii Areas of Suspected Buried Debris (Low Concentration)
liiiil! Areas of Suspected Buried Debris (High Concentration)
-O PCB concentrations less than 10 ppm
• PCB concentrations greater than 10 ppm
\~
0
0
-$-Monitor well
Area of disturbed soil
(based on GPR) .
Landfill A area with total
PCBs in surficial soil
greater than 10 ppm
(0.93 Acres)
TITLE
SCALE IN FEET
Location of exploratory trenches
LOCATION GE Subsite, East Flat Rock, NC
HSI CHECKEOBY PAW
DRAFTED BY MJW
~ -N-
I
FIGURE·
3-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Two trenches, 75 feet in length, were dug to a depth of9 to 10 feet using a backhoe. The
trenching was performed on June 8 and 9, 1998. The trenches were advanced both laterally and
vertically until native earth material was identified and visible debris was no longer present.
Excavated material was stored on a plastic liner near the trench and placed back into the trench at
the completion of the investigation. The top of the trench was brought to final grade using
approximately six inches of gravel.
Figure 3-2 shows the location of the two exploratory trenches. Cross-sections of the
northern and southern trench are depicted in Figures 3-3 and 3-4, respectively. Gray sand (fill)
was present from the base of the asphalt and gravel to a depth of approximately two feet. The fill
was underlain by reddish-orange silty clay (native saprolite ). Buried debris was identified at
several locations to a maximum depth of nine feet. Buried debris included metal banding, wire,
glass, and crushed drums or drum remnants containing solid paint residue and other gray
material. No buried, intact metal drums or other containers of liquid waste were identified.
Ashes and charred debris were present in the debris indicating that the debris was periodically
burned before burial. A sharp contact was observed between the debris and the native reddish-
orange silty clay. A chemical odor was present in some of the debris and soil with PIO readings
ranging from Oto 7.1 ppm. Much of the surficial soil (upper foot) contained a black residue
which may be the results of historic application of oil for dust suppression.
The trenching information supports the data obtained from the surface geophysics. Areas
of suspected buried debris with the high concentration geophysical designation were areas that
consistently contained buried debris, including metal. Areas of suspected buried debris with a
low concentration geophysical designation were either (I) more deeply buried debris or (2) semi-
consolidated sand. The depth to bedrock at Landfill A is 30 to 35 feet. The semi-consolidated
sand is heavily weathered bedrock that has not weathered as completely as the surrounding
material. The backhoe was capable of penetrating the semi-consolidated sand material. The
maximum depth of nine feet observed from the trenching is close to the maximum depth of eight
feet determined from the GPR data.
3.2.2 Subsurface Soil Sampling
The maximum vertical extent of the buried debris in Landfill A is 9 feet based on the
exploratory trenching. Additional subsurface soil sampling was performed to estimate the
vertical extent of PCB-contaminated soil inside the landfill area but outside the area of the buried
debris.
Subsurface soil samples were collected on May 22, 1998 at two locations in Landfill A;
one location was in the northern portion of the landfill and the other location was in the southern
portion of the landfill. Samples were collected at depths of I to 2 feet and 2 to 3 feet at each
location using a hand auger. The samples were analyzed using EPA Method 8081.
3-4
--- -- -- - - - - - -- -- - -
P:\GE\LF A"'3ed2.Jds
EM Results
of Debris ◄ High Concentration ►i.-----------------
.c
2
3
C. 4
"' 0
5
6
7
8
9
10
Feet from Western Edge
0 5 10 15 20
Gray sand and gravel with black residue
Red dirt
Buried debris/ trash
·,:--~-i---::Jsemi-consolidated sand and clay
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
$eniFconSolidat8d s'a_nd and c1aY
-------~------------
TITLE
LOCATION
Cross-section of the northern
trench at Landfill A
GE Subsite, East Flat Rock, NC
-HSI
~GEOTRANS
'o,CH,.;E;aCa,KE0D"'B'YtP.,AW;;----I FIGURE: 1 DRAFTED BY KMR t-~,,~~~NAM=,a--l~xs~,~cT~.m~--IJ.J
6-30-98
-
--- -
P:\GEILFA\xseci2.Jds
EM Results
of Debris
-
r--Low Concentration --
-
Feet from Western Edge
0 5 10 15
-
20
Gray sand and gravel with black residue
Red dirt
Buried debris/ trash
~:;·:_-=-~-.. / Semi-consolidated sand and clay
- -
25 30
- - - - - - ---
righ Concentratio,
35 40 45
r High Concentration ----,
50
TITI.E
LOCATION
55 60 65
Cross-section of the southern
trench at Landfill A
GE Subsite, East Flat Rock, NC
70 75
-HSI
~GEOTRANS
hacs.SE.eCaeKE,;-O;;;B,-Yt'ccAW~---1 FIGURE: DRAFTED BY KMR
1-~,.~'-E~NAME=c--'lcxs~,~c~, ... ~--13-4
S.30.98
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Total PCBs in the subsurface soil samples ranged 0.64 to I 00 ppm. Figure 3-5 displays
the vertical extent of PCBs at the two sample locations. As noted on Figure 3-5, results from the
subsurface soil samples are illustrated with the surface soil results that were collected in July,
1997 (HSI GeoTrans, 1998) to provide a vertical profile. A total PCB concentration of28 ppm
was detected at the two to three foot depth interval. These results indicate that the PCB-
contaminated soil may extend to a depth of at least three feet in areas outside the buried debris
trenches. Laboratory results are included in Appendix A. Confirmation sampling will be
performed during remediation.
3.3 Shepherd Farm
Subsurface soil samples were collected at the Shepherd Farm Subsite to determine the
vertical extent ofVOCs in the soil where portions of drums were uncovered during the soil
excavation in the fall of 1997. Samples were collected at three different depths with a hand
auger and analyzed for VOCs using EPA CLP methods. Soil samples were also screened in the
field using a PID. Due to shallow refusal using the hand auger, three different boring were used
to obtain soil samples from the three depth intervals. The locations of the borings are shown on
Figure 3-6.
Table 3-1 summarizes the results of the soil sampling. PCE was the only VOC detected.
Concentrations of PCE ranged from not detected to 0. 13 ppm. Field screening measurements
using a PID were all 0.0. The low concentrations of PCE present in the subsurface indicate that
the former drum remnants were the likely historical source of PCE in the soil and groundwater.
This area was excavated to a depth of 1 foot during the Shepherd Farm soil excavation in the fall
of 1997.
3-7
- - ---------

-

-

-

-
-

-

-

-
P:lge\g1s-rd-60\workspac\LFA-sb.wor
MW-54
-$-
Expla11atio11 TITLE
o PCB concentration in surficial soil (0-111) less than 10 ppm (HSI GeoTrans, 1998)
• PCB concentration in surficial soil (0·111) greater than 10 ppm (HSI GeoTrans, 1998) LOCATION
+ · ·subsurface soil boring (May 1998) with depth and PCB concentration (ppm)
-$-Monitor well
I \
Note: LFA-11 and LFA-22
were sampled in July, 1997
(HSI GeoTrans, 1998)
0
\
\
\\
Dry Sludge
lmpoundment
100
SCALE IN FEET
Location and results of subsurface
soil sampling at Landfill A
GE Subsite, East Flat Rock, NC --

-
--. -----.
HSI CHECKED BY PAW
DRAFTED BY M.!V'.J
~ -N-
I
\
\
~ X
l r
200
FIGURE·
3-5
-------------------P:lgelgis-rd60\workspace\shep_sb.wor
~
Expla11atio11
Location of drum
remnants found during
pre-design sampling
+ Soil boring with PCE concentration
-$ Monitor well
Area of excavation
0
SFSB68
0.004J ppm
SFSB12 /
0.130 ppm SFSB34 0 + u (<0.012)
I,, +\ +
{~Location of , \!'--.__ b1e'drock outcropping
MW-62
-$-,JJMW-62A
50 100
SCALE IN FEET
I "--near creek
LOCATION
r------s
Locations and results of subsurface
soil sampling at Shepherd Farm
East Flat.Rock, NC
HSI CHECKEDBY PAW
CRAFTED BY MJW
C d GEQTRANS mNAMe shep_sb.woc
Al'TI'RATE~COMPANY DATE 6-15-98
~ -N-
I
FIGURE:
3-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 3-1. Results of subsurface soil sampling at Shepherd Farm.
SF SB 12 SF SB 34 SF SB 68
(depth of 1-2 fl) (depth of 3-4 ft) (depth of 6-8 fl)
ppm CLP Qual ppm CLP Qual ppm CLP Qual
VINYL CHLORIDE 0.013 u 0.012 u 0.012 u
METHYLENE CHLORIDE 0.005 J 0.004 J 0.003 J
1, 1 DICHLOROETHANE 0.013 u 0.012 u 0.012 u
CHLOROFORM 0.013 u 0.012 u 0.012 u
1,1,1 TRICHLOROETHANE 0.013 u 0.012 u 0.012 u
BENZENE 0.013 u 0.012 u 0.012 u I
1,2 DICHLOROETHANE 0.013 u 0.012 u 0.012 u
TRICHLOROETHENE 0.013 u 0.012 u 0.012 u
1,2 DICHLOROPROPANE 0.013 u 0.012 u 0.012 u
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE 0.013 u 0.012 u 0.012 u
TETRACHLOROETHENE 0.130 0.012 u 0.004 J
1, 1,2,2 TETRACHLOROETHANE 0.013 u 0.012 u 0.012 u
TRANS 1,2 DICHLOROETHENE 0.013 u 0.012 u 0.012 u
CIS 1,2 DICHLORORETHENE 0.013 u 0.012 u 0.012 u
CLP Qualifiers
U -Not detected
J -Estimated value
Dsi_tab.xls 8/10/98
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4 Proposed Modifications to ROD Remedy
This section outlines the proposed modifications to the ROD remedy for soils at the GE
Subsite. The modifications are proposed in response to additional information gathered since the
completion of the ROD in 1995 including data from the pre-design and intermediate design
investigations. A summary of the ROD remedy and the intermediate design investigations are
given in Sections 2 and 3, respectively.
4.1 Landfill A
Based upon the ROD definition, Landfill A is the area encompassing soil with PCB
concentrations greater than IO ppm. The area where PCB concentrations exceed IO ppm in
surficial soil at Landfill A is 0.9 acres, as depicted in Figure 3-2.
, In the Preliminary Design (30%) Report (HSI Geo Trans, I 998a), Landfill A was planned
to be'capped in a manner consistent with the ROD. Comments received from U.S. EPA (dated
March 11, 1998) indicated that the Agency would consider excavation of Landfill A and disposal
of the soil at the DSL This approach would be advantageous for several reasons. First, the DSI
will require fill in order to bring it to the grades necessary to facilitate drainage of the final cap
and cover. Soil and debris excavated from Landfill A would be used to help achieve the required.
grade at the DSL Secondly, consolidating all of the contaminated soil at the DSI simplifies the
remedy and eases monitoring and maintenance activities and costs. Finally, excavation of
Landfill A allows use of the restored area without concern for O&M on the cap or potential long-
term exposure to human and environmental receptors.
The areal extent of Landfill A is presented in Figure 4-1. The area of Landfill A is 1.3
acres and encompasses all of the area where total PCB concentrations in surficial soil exceed I 0
ppm, as well as, the geophysical anomalies. Excavated material will include soil exceeding I 0
ppm total PCBs and any drums or drum remnants. Landfill A has a depth of approximately nine
feet in the area of the buried trenches and a depth of approximately three feet in the area outside
the buried trenches. The volume of soil requiring excavation from Landfill A is estimated to be
11,000 cubic yards. This volume estimate is based on an area of0.5 acres to a depth of nine feet
(buried trenches) and an area of0.8 acres to a depth of3 feet.
Final excavation extent and depth will be determined by confirmation sampling for PCBs.
PCB RapidAssay® field test kits will be used to efficiently establish landfill boundaries during
excavation. Duplicates will collected for at least five percent of the soil samples for analysis at a
fixed lab for total PCB's using EPA Method 8081. The Remedial Action Work Plan will be
submitted with detailed information on the PCB RapidAssay® field test kits.
It is proposed that Landfill A be excavated in place of the ROD remedy of capping. The
excavated soil and debris from Landfill A will be placed in the DSI and later capped with a clay
and geomembrane cap. The OSI has more than sufficient capacity to contain the excavated soil
from Landfill A. The interim design calculations reflect a DSI capacity ofup to 17,000 cubic
4-1
- - - - ---P:\gelgis--rd-60\workspac\lF A-ell.I. wor
RW-2 7
•♦
Expla11atio11
l!ill Areas of Suspected Buried Debris (Low Concentration)
ffl Areas of Suspected Buried Debris (High Concentration)
o PCB concentrations less than 10 ppm
• PCB concentrations greater than 10 ppm
----
-$-Monitor well
Area of disturbed soil
(basea on GPR)
--
TITI.£
LOCATION
-
0
- --
\
\
\ \
Dry Sludge
lmpoundment
100
SCALE IN FEET
Extent of Landfill A
GE Subsite, East Flat Rock, NC
- -
~ -N-
I
200
CHECKED BY PAW FIGURE: HSI '-DRAFT--,-D-ev_,_M_JW ____ _,
GEOTRANS S<ENAME LFA-EXTWOR 4-1
AffTRATEa-!COMPANY DATE 6-15-98
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
yards of soil and debris. The Landfill A excavation would be brought to grade using clean fill
similar to the fill used at the Shepherd Farm excavation.
Compared to the ROD remedy, the proposed modification is equally protective of human
health and the environment, compliant with all ARARs, and provides a practical solution for this
site. A cost comparison for the ROD remedy and the proposed excavation is provided in
Appendix C. The proposed excavation is 50 percent more expensive than the ROD cap and
approximately 20 percent more expensive than the geotextile cap proposed in the Preliminary
(30%) RD Report (HSI Geo Trans, 1998). Overall, the proposed remedy of excavating Landfills
A and B and capping the DSI is 16 percent more expensive than the ROD remedy of capping all
three sites. The costs are comparable. The slightly higher cost for the proposed remedy is
reasonable since it consolidates the site contaminants and provides a more permanent solution.
4.2 Landfill B
Similar to Landfill A, Landfill B is defined as the area encompassing soil with PCB
concentrations greater than IO mg/kg. Data obtained during the pre-design investigations (HSI
Geo Trans, 1998a) activities have allowed for the areal extent of Landfill B to be delineated as
shown in Figure 4-2. The area of Landfill B is approximately 0.1 acres and includes a portion of
the asphalt access road from Spartanburg Highway to the GE recreation center.
The ROD remedy for Landfill B was capping. In the Preliminary Design (30%) Report
(HSI Geo Trans, 1998a), it was proposed that Landfill B be excavated with PCB-contaminated
soil to be placed at the DSI. U.S. EPA comments dated March 11, 1998 indicated the Agency's
preliminary acceptance of this plan due to the relatively small volume of contaminated soil at
Landfill B.
The remedy proposed for Landfill B is excavation. Like Landfill A, excavation of
Landfill B will provide the fill material needed for the cap system at the DSI and will reduce
monitoring and maintenance requirements of the overall soil remedy. Excavated material will
include soil exceeding IO ppm total PCBs and any drums or drum remnants. The excavation will
include a portion of the road. The excavation would be brought to grade using clean fill similar
to the fill used at the Shepherd Farm excavation. Soil sampling performed during the Remedial
Investigation (U.S. EPA, 1995b) indicates that Landfill B has a maximum depth of three feet.
The surface geophysics indicates that the maximum depth of Landfill B is seven feet. The
volume of soil requiring excavation from Landfill B is approximately 500 cubic yards. This
estimate is based on an area of 0.1 acres and a depth of three feet.
Final excavation extent and depth will be determined by confirmation sampling for PCBs.
PCB RapidAssay® field test kits will be used to efficiently establish landfill boundaries during
excavation. Duplicates will collected for at least five percent of the soil samples for analysis at a
fixed lab for total PCB's using EPA Method 8081. The Remedial Action Work Plan will be
submitted with detailed information on the PCB RapidAssay® field test kits.
4-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Compared to the ROD remedy, the proposed modification is equally protective of human
health and the environment, compliant with all ARARs, and provides a practical solution for this
site. A cost comparison for the ROD remedy and the proposed excavation is provided in
Appendix C. The proposed excavation is approximately 20% less expensive than the ROD cap.
Overall, the proposed remedy of excavating Landfills A and B and capping the DSI is 16 percent
more expensive than the ROD remedy of capping all three sites. The costs are comparable. The
slightly higher cost for the proposed remedy is reasonable since it consolidates the site
contaminants and provides a more permanent solution.
4.3 Dry Sludge Impoundment
The areal extent of the DSI for remediation is defined by total PCB concentrations in the
surficial soil as shown in Figure 4-3. No significant modification to the ROD remedy is
proposed for the DSI. A multi-layer cap consisting of a flexible membrane and 18 inches of a
compacted, low-permeability soil will be placed over the DSI. A final cover of a drainage layer,
topsoil, and vegetation will control run-off and provide protection for the cap. Prior to
constructing the cap, contaminated soil excavated from Landfills A and B, as described in
Sections 4.1 and 4.2, respectively, will be placed in the DSI. This soil will be compacted in
place along with additional fill material to provide the final grades necessary for cap
construction.
4-4
-- - -- ---- -- -- - -- - --P :lge\gis-rd60\workspac\LFB-ext.wor
Expla11atio11
Extent of
Landfill B
(0.11 acres_)
Tool
shed
0
0 0
0
0
O PCB concentration in surficial soil (0-1ft) less than 10 ppm (HSI GeoTrans, 1998)
Small
pond
0
• PCB concentration in surficial soil (0-1ft) greater than 10 ppm (HSI Geo Trans, 1998)
Extent of Landfill B
0
0
T1TlE
LOCATION
0
recreation
center
100
SCALE IN FEET
Extent of Landfill B
200
GE Subsite, East Flat Rock, NC.
HS I ic°"--'--CKE=Dc::B.:..iY -•~T"----'-1 FIGURE:
DRAFTED ev PAW 4 2
,4 GEOTRANS mNAMe LFB-EXT.WOR -
-A TETRA TEO! COMPANY DA1E 6-28-98
- - -- - -- - - - -
P:\ge\GIS-RD60\DSl2.wor
'' 0 33.5 • 0 ,,
"' 0 • 15.3
"' •
,
MWO
,08
0
,,
0
' 0
0
Expla11atio11
0
•
+
PCB concentrations (ppm) in surficial soil (0-1 fl) ( Law, 1990)
PCB concentration in surficial soil (0-1ft) less than 10 ppm (HSI GeoTrans, 1998)
PCB concentration in surficial soil (0-1fl) greater than 10 ppm (HSI GeoTrans, 1998)
Surficial soil sample (May 1998) with PCB concentration (ppm)
Monitor Well
- -- - - --!!!!!!I
MW-37
-$-~ -N-
I
MW.,
0 100 200
SCALE IN FEET
TITIE
Extent of the OSI
LOCATION GE Subsite, East Flat Rock, NC
HS I CHECKED BY RTH
DRAFTED BY MJW
,4 ?!.?JQiR~~ >-'-"'_NAM_'_,~D~S~l2~.WO~R __ _,
-DATE 4-27-98
FIGURE·
4-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.4 Shepherd Farm
No modification to the ROD remedy is proposed for remediation of soil at Shepherd
Farm. Remedial action of the soil at Shepherd Farm has been performed. A total of7,200 cubic
yards of PCB-contaminated soil was excavated and placed in the OSI. The remedial action was
described in a draft report (HSI GeoTrans, 1998c). A final RA report that incorporates EPA's
comments on the draft report will be forthcoming.
4-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5 References
HSI Geo Trans, I 998a, Preliminary Design (30%) Report, General Electric/Shepherd Farm Site,
East Flat Rock, North Carolina.
HSI GeoTrans, 1998b, Intermediate Design Investigation Work Plan, General Electric/Shepherd
Farm Site, East Flat Rock, North Carolina.
HSI Geo Trans, 1998c, Remedial Action of Shepherd Farm Soil, General Electric/Shepherd Farm
Site, East Flat Rock, North Carolina (draft report dated March 5, 1998).
Law Environmental, 1990, Report of PCB-Contaminated Sediments Assessment.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995a. Record of Decision, General Electric-Shepherd
Farm NPL Site, East Flat Rock, North Carolina.
;
U.S: Environmental Protection Agency, 1995b. Remedial Investigation, General Electric-
Shepherd Farm NPL Site, East Flat Rock, North Carolina,
5-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX A
Laboratory Reports (Form I's)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Client Sample I.D.
Lab Sample I.D.
Method Blank I.D.
Quant. Factor
Aroclor-1016
Aroclor-1221
Aroclor-1232.
Aroclor-1242' ..
Aroclor~·1248 ·
Aroclor~1254\·.·:· '.·
Aroclor~l260
Date Received
Date Extracted
Date Analyzed
. --·-TABLE GC-1. 4
7098-lll0A
GE LIGHTING
Soil
8081 FOLYCHLORINATED BIFHENYLS (FCB"s)
All values are ug/Kg dry weight basis.
FBLK08
QC
60198-B02QC
FBLK08
1.00
u
U·' u
. 190X(
u
LFA-47 LFA-48
981110A-05 981110A-06
PBLK08 PBLK08
641. 5.88
Quant.
Limits·
with no
Dilution
U U 33.
U ·. U . 67.
U U 33.
U/ . ·U•.i'"'' . ••:•33,,, _:
U U 33.
... :::::,::.U'•,.
220X .,._ \: : i6ii~6J··•'• · ' i~~©\t •••·· > ,, r~i~-'
06/01/98
06/05/98
05/23/98
06/01/98
06/09/98
05/23/98
06/01/98
06/06/98
See Appendix for qualifier definitions
Note: Compound detection limit~ quantitation limit x quantitation factor
Quant. Fa~tor = a numerical value which takes into account any
variation in sample weight/volume, % moisture and
sample dilution.
008
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Client Sample I.D.
Lab Sample I.D.
Method Blank I.D.
Quant. Factor
Aroclor-1016
Aroclor., 1221.
Aroclor-1232
Aroclor"'l242.
Aroclors·1248
Aroclor-1254
Aroclcir~ 126 0 ..
Date Received
Date Extracted
Date Analyzed
--"TABLE GC-1.5
7098-lllOA
GE LIGHTING
8081 POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCB"s)
All values are ug/Kg dry weight basis.
LFA-49
981110A-07
PBLK08
24.7
u ·,u:.
u
<::::: .. ':?':. .. u
LFA-50
981110A-08
PBLK08
132.
u
)u ..
u
u u •.r:·•:·:/\/\.U ..... < : •. ,,, ......... :.· \:\ .......... \\•., ..... ,u .. , .. ,.,,, .. : .. \ .. · ... · .... ..
4200 28000
05/23/98
06/01/98
06/08/98
05/23/98
06/01/98
06/06/98
Soil
Quant.
Limits
with no
Dilution
33. ··.,.,::57..:~ ....
33.
.33: .. ~> ::·· 33 •..
33:}'.':•i
33.
See Appendix.for qualifier definitions
Note: Compound detection limit= quantitation limit x quantitation factor
Quant. Factor= a numerical value which takes into account any
variation in sample weight/volume,% moisture and
sample dilution. ·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Client Sample I.D.
Lab Sample I.D.
Method Blank I.D.
Quant. Factor
Aroclor-1016
Aroclor-122L,
Aroclor-1232
:Aroclor.-1242> •
Aroclor-·1248
·Aroclor'--1254 '>
Aroclor~l260
Date Received
Date Extracted
Date Analyzed
--·-TABLE GC-1.2
7098-lll0A
GE LIGHTING
8081 POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCB"s)
All values are ug/Kg dry weight basis.
DSI-17
981110A-02
PBLK85
1.33
u . u. u u,. u
/·'> t1-~§i
05/19/98
05/19/98
05/21/98
DSI-18
981110A-03
PBLK85
1. 20
u
u: ... u . u· u .u.c. •.
170
05/19/98
05/19/98
05/21/98
DSI-19
981110A-04
PBLK85
1.26
u ••._u>·'
u . •·u.
u
U//i'
220
05/19/98
05/19/98
05/21/98
See Appendix for qualifier definitions
Soil
Quant.
Limits
with no
Dilution
33.
·.67, ·
33.
· < .33 •• : .
33.
. : ,33 ~:.
33.
Note: Compound detection limit= quantitation limit x quantitation factor
Quant. Factor= a numerical value which takes into account any
variation in sampln weight/volume, % moisture and
sample dilution.
i • 006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Client Sample I.D.
Lab Sample I.D.
Method Blank I.D.
Quant. Factor
Aroclor-1016
Aroclor-12 21.: ·.•
Aroclor-1232
Aroclor~1242:::·
Aroclor0 1248
•Aroclor:~•1254t/•··••• ..
A:roclor-1260
Date Received
Date Extracted
Date Analyzed
-··-TABLE GC-1.1
7098-lll0A
GE LIGHTING
8081 POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCB"s)
All values are ug/Kg dry weight basis.
Method
Blank
051998-B02
PBLK85
1.00
u
•··u.···.
u
U\.· u
PBLK85
QC
51998-B02Q
PBLK85
1.00
u u u
190X u
.......... -.................. i > 1J.•·.•··
05/19/98
05/21/98
280X
05/19/98
05/21/98
DSI-16
981110A-01
PBLK85
1.45
u u u
· .• 1r·
u .)H.U>i••·.· ..
u
05/19/98
05/19/98
05/21/98
See Appendix .. for qualifier definitions
Soil
Quant.
Limits
with no
Dilution
33.
67.
33.
·•.33·.
33.
.• 33 .•..
33.
Note: Compound detection limit= quantitation limit x quantitation factor
Quant. Faator = a numerical value which takes into account any
variation in sample weight/volume,% moisture and
sample dilution.
005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
Client Sample I.D.
Lab Sample I.D.
Method Blank I.D.
Quant. Factor
Aroclor-1016
Aroclor.0 122:L: ·
Aroclor-1232
Aroclor.-1242•··
·Aroclor-•1248
A:c'oclox:'~1254/ ·
Aroclor-1260
Date Received
Date Extracted
Date Analyzed
-··-TABLE GC-1.0
7098-lll0A
GE LIGHTING
8081 POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCB"s)
All values are ug/L.
Method
Blank
052998-B04
PBLK07
1.00
u ·•u•.• u u:::.
u
iU' · u
05/29/98
06/02/98
TB 5/22/98
98lll0A-09
PBLK07
1.00
u u u
U(·
u u:::·•: u
05/23/98
05/29/98
06/02/98
See Appendix for qualifier definitions
Aqueous
Quant.
Limits·
with no
Dilution
1.0
2.0
1.0
::l.0·
1.0
1.0 i.o
Note: Compound detection limit~ quantitation limit x quantitation factor
Quant. Factor= a numerical value which takes into account any
variation in sample weight/volume, % moisture and
sample dilution.
004
I
I::
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Client Sample I.D.
Lab Sample I.D.
Method Blank I.D.
Quant. Factor
Aroclor-1016
Aroclor-1221
·Aroclor-1232
Aroclor.-,1242 ·
·Aroclor-124 8
·Aroclor~l254
Aroclor-1260
Date Received
Date Extracted
Date Analyzed
----TABLE GC-1.3
7098-11:0A
GE LIGHTING
Soil
8081 POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCB"s)
All values are ug/Kg dry weight basis.
Method
Blank
060198-B02
PBLK08
1.00
06/01/98
06/04/98
PBLK08
MS
60198-B02MS
PBLK08
1.00
u
U·· u
Ui:. u ... c:.·u.:: ...
58 .x
06/01/98
06/04/98
PBLK08
MSD
060198-B02 Quant.
MSD Limits
PBLK08 with no
1.00 Dilution
U 33.
U . 67"
U 33. :::. .. ux.··· ·. 33.··.· .· ·
U 33.
•· ,/.•/U/ .•: .. /. •.··•·\):.33i./:•: .
58.X 33.
06/01/98
06/04/98
See Appendix for qualifier definitions
Note: Compound detection limit= quantitation limit x quantitation factor
Quant. Factor= a numerical value which takes into account any
variation in sample weight/volume,% moisture and
sample dilution.
007
I
I lA
VOLATILE ORGANICS AN~S-IS DATA SHEET
EPA SAMPJ.ui: cfO.
SF SB 12 I Lab Name: PACE ANALYTICAL SERVICES
Lab Code: PACE Case No. :
Contract:
SAS No.: SDG No.: 107527
Lab Sample ID: 10648434 I Matrix: (soil/water) SOIL
Sample wt/vol: 5.0 (g/mL) G Lab File ID: 15211
I Level: (low/med) LOW Dace Received: 05/21/98
Date Analyzed: 06/01/98
Dilution Factor: 1.0
~ Moisture: not dee. 25
IGc column: DB-624 ID: 0.32 (mm)
Soil Extract Volume: ____ (uL) Soil Aliquot Volume: ____ (uL)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CJ,S NO. COMPOUND
CONCENTRATION UNITS:
(ug/.L or ug/Kg) OG/KG
75-01-4---------Vinyl-Chloride
75-09-2---------Methylene Chloride
75-34-3---------1,1-Dichloroethane
67-66-J---------Chloroform
71-55-6---------1,l,l-Trichloroethane
71-43-2---------Benzene
107-06-2--------1,2-Dichloroethane
79-01-6---------Trichloroethene
78-87-5---------1,2-Dichloropropane
75-27-4---------Bromodichloromethane
127-18-4--------Tetrachloroethene
79-34-5---------1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroechane
156-60-5--------crans-l,2-Dichloroethene --
156-59-2--------cis-l,2-Dichloroethene --
FORM I VOA
Q
13 u
5 J
13 u
l.3 u
13 u
13 u
l.3 u
13 u
13 u
13 u
130
13 u
13 u
13 u
OLM03.0
100007
I
I lA
VOLATILE ORGANICS ANAL-YSIS DATA SHEET
I Lab Name: L'ACE ANALYTICAL SERVICES Contract:
SF SB 34
Lab Code: PACE Case No.: I Matrix: ( soil/water) SOIL
SAS No.: SDG No.: l.07527
Sample wt/vol: I Level: (low/med)
5.0 (g/mL) G
LOW
1 \-Moisture: not dee. 13
GC Column: DB-624 ID: 0.32 (mm)
Lab Sample ID: l.0648442
Lab File ID: 15212
Date Received: 05/21./98
Date Analyzed: 06/01/98
Dilution Factor: 1.0
I Soil Extract Volume: ____ (uL) Soil Aliquot Volume: ____ {uL)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONCENTRATION UNITS:
CAS NO. COMPOUND (ug/L or ug/Kg) UG/KG Q
75-01-4---------Vinyl Chloride l.2 u
75-09-2---------Methylene Chloride 4 J
75-34-3---------1,l.-Dichloroethane l.2 u
67-66-3---------Chloroform l.2 u
71.-55-6---------1,1,1-Trichloroethane l.2 u
71-43-2---------Benzene 12 u
107-06-2--------1,2-oichloroethane l.2 u
79-01-6---------Trichloroethene 12· u
78-87-5---------1,2-Dichloropropane l.2 u
75-27-4---------Bromodichloromethane 12 u
127-18-4--------Tetrachloroethene 12 u
79-34-5---------1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 12 u
156-60-5--------trans-1,2-Dichloroethene --l.2 u
156-59-2--------cis-1,2-Dichloroethene --12 u
FORM I VOA OLM03.0
lA EPA SAMPT.,IT. !TO .
I
I VOLATILE ORGANICS. ANAV<:Srs DATA SHEET
Name: PACE ANALYTICAL SERVICES
Code: PACE Case No.:
.Matrix: (soil/water) SOIL
Sample wt/vol: 5.0 (g/mL) G
contract:
SAS No.:
SF SB 68
SDG No.:. l.07527
Lab Sample m, l.0648459
Lab File m: l.521.3
I Level: (low/med) LOW Date Received: OS/21./98
Date Analyzed: 06/01/98
Dilution Factor: 1.0
~ Moisture: not dee. 16 I GC Column: DB-624 ID: 0.32 (mm)
Soil Extract Volume: ____ (uL) Soil Aliquot Volume:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CAS NO. COMPOUND
Chloride
CONCENTRATION UNITS:
(ug/L or ug/Kg) CTG/KG
75-01-4---------Vinyl
75-09-2---------Methylene Ch-loric!e
75-34-3---------1,l.-Dichloroethane
67-66-3---------Chloroform
71.-55-6---------1,1,1-Trichloroethane
71-43-2---------Benzene
101-06-2--------1,2-Dichloroethane
79-01-6---------Trichloroethene
78-87-5---------1,2-Dichloropropane
75-27-4---------Bromodichloromethane
127-18-4--------Tetrachloroethene
79-34-5---------1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
l.56-60-5--------trans-l,2-Dichloroethene --
l.56-59-2--------cis-l,2-Dichloroethene --
FORM I VOA
l.2
3
l.2
l.2
l.2
12
l.2
12
l.2
l.2
4
l.2
l.2
l.2
____ (uL)
Q
cr
J cr
lJ cr cr cr
lJ cr cr
J cr
lJ
lJ
· OLM03.0
I
I lA
VOLATILE ORGANICS ANALllS-IS DATA SHEET
I Lab Name: PACE ANALYTICAL SERVICES Contract:
SF SB 12MS
Lab Code: PACE case No.: I Matrix: (soil/water} SOIL
SAS No.: SDG No.: 107527
Lab Sample ID: 10648434MS
I Sample wt/vol:
Level: ( low/med}
5.0 (g/mL} G
LOW
1 t Moisture: not dee. 25
GC Column: DB-624 ID: 0.32 (mm)
Lab File ID: 15209
Date Received: 05/21/98
Date Analyzed: 06/0l/98
Dilution Factor: 1.0
I Soil Extract Volume: ____ (uL) Soil Aliquot Volume: ____ (uL}
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONCENTRATION UNITS:
C."'5 · NO. COMPOUND (ug/.L or ug/Kg} 1JG/KG Q
75-01-4---------vinyl Chloride 35
75-09-2--------·-Methylene Chloride 62
75-34-3---------1,l-Dichl.oroethane 54
67-66-3---------Chloroform 54
71-55-6---------1,1,1-Trichloroethane 52
71-43-2---------Benzene 52
107-06-2--------1,2-Dichloroethane 48
79-01-6---------Trichloroethene 53
78-87-5---------1,2-Dichloropropane 51
75-27-4---------Bromodichloromethane so
127-18-4--------Tetrachloroethene 190
79-34-5---------1,l,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 44
156-60-5--------trans-l,2-Dichloroethene --60
156-59-2--------cis-J.,2-Dichloroethene --56
FORM I VOA OLM03.0
1000'75
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIXB
Chain of Custodies
:,~,__..!lllljll@:....lld,ee~Atn.L....111;:D..ILJl~-Li!L-lllt!J:.....lll~iol!IZl,l1illljm..~a........::..._ .... _-___;;_s ~-,-rf-~-'~ ---- - - -395522
CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD
Analytical Request
/
::iient (_--,.,?';;~ .,~. ~ ....
.:._jdress
1·
!----·~ --, .. _ -
.:,hone
Sampler Signature ~ I\
7
t\i.'\, \ \(\ t-1 • 'f · u-----
I r/,t 1,'J
._.., (I' 7 a
/ (1 L' r I -r ,\ -( ~
Additional Comments
2
\ i Is--, _)
Re ort To:
Bill To:
P.O.# I Billin Reference
Pro·ect Name/ No. j\ .. i::.:.:_... Y
(f) a: w z
<( ,_
z 0 (.)
PRESERVATIVES ANALYSES
f-~-~-~~-~-1REOUEST
0 w > a: w ::;-
(f) (.) w ,;_ a: 0 M I
Cl. (f) 0 "' 0 z £ z 0 rn ::, I > z
V y
\' J~
\·
Turn around Time
0 24 Hours
0 48 Hours
0 3-5 Days
0 1 Week 2 Weeks
0 Normal 14 Days
SAMPLE CONDITION
Pace Client No.
Pace Pro·ect Manaoer
Pace Pro·ect No.
• Requested Due Date:
REMARKS
Temp: 0c Received on Ice: Y / N Sealed Cooler: Y / N Samples Intact: YIN
SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR INSTRUCTIONS
-
8197
-- - -/.-.,. --~ - --- -- - -ti: / 'N TF,'(s
~.L:J CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY RECOR -/.
80 mse · oad, 0 m a ' d 0 {c/ {c, . JOB CODE: ' 0 e: 0 _ 6622 ax: -999-.,.. 0/':o.. .,-I ,.-
' ·, \ -, \ /rs,_'. ?-~ \ ( ~1" ·-~ ! le ~
i.; <.1 (...,-.,.! __ ~--.... \ \ \ / f;-IC· ": 'o I I
CLIENT: -. DATE: PAGE OF
ADDRESS: i· ,c v \1 I i _., ,,.:,;,:_._-., 4,. ru fjJ __ } (;.') 5k. I 'i o P.O.#:
I /7 7d ~ 1,7 · q <o;o ~ r;::1,l..i-'S, I PHONE: I 7 7 ;,/ G L/). -i (.J.,J FAX:-· · · · LOCATION: \.7y L-'"I i•-; --.:.•~-":::,
tJC,<..i \ -~c,:::i. T ~ ~~0-" \. ·y_,;_} DATEOF S-J'i-'1)
CLIENT PROJECT#: ~ ·i . ✓ PROJECT MANAGER: ' '~,~,..-./ COLLECTOR: COLLECTION.
-
-~ ~ . -.0 • ~.c ~<'\; n,lo ~q;,'l, ,,cf--co,.c 'be , ~ 'l, t,: ,::-; ,-I_ E£ o E
'r».qj ~{? ';>..rorr, ':" '-:, ~ (:, ~ ,~ ~Cb c.,«i" :'.l~· -~ ~'-~ ~ ~<::'q, , ~ -,
'or-,; ~o ~,<?> ~, s:>' 'be to' ~ 0 'l,; '$)..-: -s' ~ -~'l:'
Zc ~z
Sample
-0 0.
o'r-0i~q_~ ~q_~ :q_'<'-:q_'<'. q_~~ q_«--0",__ov <coQ v'v~ ;~ ~ ~~~~c; ..,.... q_",..,.,Q;
Eu .0 -
Sample Number Depth Time Type Container Type FIELD NOTES ~o 5~
i\<. I . I 1, f,-i le.)" c, \ )._ IJ I
l'--.C...., -\ l .-.-· I 11.,l, S '-·\ X IJ' I
t",,l..1 -I~ f-,_ t ' 171" L -·• \ ',. f.J I
t--.t....,. ,C\ ,_,,..\ I i,?o "-o, \ T. ·1-l ..
RELINQUISHED BY: (Signature) DATE/TIME RECEIVED BY: (Signature) DATE/TIME SAMPLE RECEIPT LABORATORY NOTES:
( I \ \-:(' ,fi11',l,\) Total Number of Containers
Chain of Custody Seals Y /N NA
If -
REtlNQUISHED BY: (Signature) DATE/TIM~ RECEIVED BY: (Signature) DATE/TIME. Seals Intact? Y /N NA , ' ' . j-: 1 . \
Received Good Cond./Cold
Notes:
-D
,jjress
-
;";amplej By (PR_~~T): //;.,·,:.-.: ::..;
. ..:~;7-------
3ampler Signature
' 1 ! I
2i I
' 3' !
7i I
si
'
Sr
~c= ~·
Sr
-se
'Sg
,,..-_..,, ) r;
.;dditional Comments
Date Sampled
-, L-
< .,,
!: ,', ~. ;-)
' ;
- - -
I ~-. ··-J._, ......... Re Ort To: ' 't:-,....:;. ,.:: i t_ ._ ,-.. _.-
Bill To: -=· C:: {:;.
P.O.# I Billin Reference
(f) PRESERVATIVES a: w z 0 <( w f-> z a: 0 w :I l) (f) l) u. w • ~ 0 a: 0 ~ I a. <fl 0 "' 0 cj z £ z 0 "' z ::, I > z
X
-
ANALYSES
REQUEST
- -
Turn around Time
• .. 0 24 Hours
- - -395521 -CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD
Analytical Request
_ ?ace Client No.
-
0 48 Hours l'-P_,,a,cces_,_Pc,roo,· es,Cc.t ,,M,,,ae,n,,aa,,,e"'-----------j 0 3-5 Days __
D 1 Week C 2 Wee~ ,_P_,,as:cec..:_Pc,ro'"· e,.,ce.l -"N"'o~. -------------t
D Normal 14 Days
'Requested Due Date:
REMARKS
• I
,. .,
SAMPLE CONDITION
Temp: 0c Received on Ice: Y / N Sealed Cooler: Y / N Samples Intact: Y / N
SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR INSTRUCTIONS 8197
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIXC
Cost Comparison
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Summary of the capital costs for the remedial alternatives at Landfills A and B
and Dry Sludge lmpoundment (see following pages for supporting calculations).
ROD Cap at DSI ROD Cap at DSI, Modified
ROD Cap and Excavation Cap at Landfill A*, and
at all 3 Areas at Landfills A and B Excavation at Landfill B
(Interim Soil RD Report) (Preliminary (30%) RD Report),
Landfill A 273,259 395,252 329,774
Landfill B 25,052 19,631 19,631
OSI 409,378 409,378 409,378
Total 707,689 824,261 758,783
• Cap alternative for Landfill A was presented in the Preliminary (30%) RD Report
(HSI Geo Trans, 1998) which included a durable geotextile barrier fabric for use
as a parking lot.
Costs.xis
8/7/98
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I
I
I
I
' , ,
Landfill A -ROD cap
ACTIVITY UNIT COST UNITS
Site Prep -Asphalt Stripping $6.66 · SY
Purchase and Deliv Barrier Soil $11.50· CY
Spread/Compact Barrier Soil $2.56· CY
Clay CQA Testing $640.00 · TEST
Purchase, install, test GM $4.50· SY
Composite geonet (drainage) $5.00 · SY
Drainage Pipe $2.10 · LF
Purchase & Deliv Vegetative Soil $7.75· CY
Spread Vegetative Soil $1.77· CY
Purchase and deliv Fill $7.75· CY
Spread/Compact Fill $2.56-CY
Purchase and Deliv Topsoil* $22.75· CY
Spread Topsoil $1.77 · CY
Seed, Mulch, Fert. Topsoil $2.00 · SY
Subtotal
Contingencies %
TOTAL
• assumes soil available at High-Hope will meet specifications
QTY
6242 ·
3146 ·
3146·
20 ·
6292-
6292·
1100
2097·
2097.
850
850
1049·
1049 ·
6292·
20
TOTAL
$41,572
$36,179
$8,054
$12,800
$28,314
$31,460
$2,310
$16,254
$3,712
$6,588
$2,176
$23,857
$1,856
$12,584
$227,716
$45,543
$273,259
Costs.xis
8/7/98
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
Landfill A -Excavate Landfill and Restore/Repave
ACTIVITY UNIT COST UNITS
Site Prnparation
Asphalt Stripping $6.60 · SY
Excavation•
Excavate, backhoe (load truck) $2.70 CY
Haul to DSI $1.22 CY
Backfill•
Purchase and Deliver $7.75· CY
Spread fill $1.54· CY
Compact Fill (6" lifts) $0.63· CY
Site Restoration
Purchase and Deliv Subbase $27.50 · CY
Spread/Compact Subbase $5.00 · CY
Asphalt Binder Course (3") $5.40 · SY
Asphalt Wearing Course (3") $5.95 · SY
Subtotal
Contingencies %
TOTAL•
*Assumes concurrent mobilization with other activities
QTY
6292 ·
11000·
11000.
10600
10600
10600
2097·
2097 ·
6292·
6292·
20
TOTAL
$41,527
$29,700
$13,420
$82,150
$16,324
$6,678
$57,677
$10,487
$33,977
$37,437
$329,377
$65,875
$395,252
Costs.xis
8/7/98
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Landfill A -Alternate Cap of Asphalt
ACTIVITY UNIT COST
Site Preparation
Asphalt Stripping $6.60 •
Cap Installation
Purchase and Deliv Clay $11.50·
Spread/Compact Clay $2.56 ·
Clay CQA Testing $640.00 ·
Geotextile Separator Fabric $1.45
Drainage Pipe $2.10 ·
Purchase and Deliv Subbase $27.50 ·
Spread/Compact Subbase $5.00 ·
Asphalt Binder Course (3") $5.40·
Geotextile Barrier Fabric $2.00
Apply Tack Coat (0.2-0.3 gal) $0.80
Asphalt Wearing Course (3") $5.95·
Asphalt CQA Testing $200.00
Subtotal
Contingencies
TOTAL
UNITS
SY
CY
CY
TEST
SY
LF
CY
CY
SY
SY
SY
SY
TEST
%
QTY
6292•
3461 ·
3461 ·
20 ·
6292-
1100 ·
2097'
2097 ·
6292 ·
6292 ·
6292,
6292 •
16
20
TOTAL
$41,527
$39,797
$8,859
$12,800
$9,123
$2,310
$57,677
$10,487
$33,977
$12,584
$5,034
$37,437
$3,200
$274,812
$54,962
$329,774
Costs.xis
8/7/98
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Landfill B -ROD cap
ACTIVITY UNIT COST UNITS
Purchase and Deliv Barrier Soil $11.50, CY
Spread/Compact Barrier Soil $2.56 · CY
Clay CQA Testing $640.00 · TEST
Purchase, install, test GM $4.50· SY
Composite geonet (drainage) $5.00, SY
Drainage Pipe $2.10-LF
Purchase & Deliv Vegetative Soil $7.75 • CY
Spread Vegetative Soil $1.77· CY
Purchase and deliv Fill $7.75· CY
Spread/Compact Fill $2.56, CY
Purchase and Deliv Topsoil' $22.75· CY
Spread Topsoil $1.77, CY
Seed, Mulch, Fert. Topsoil $2.00 · SY
Subtotal
Contingencies %
TOTAL
• assumes soil available at High-Hope will meet specifications
QTY
336
336 ·
3·
678'
678 ·
330
224 ·
224 ·
85
85
112 ·
112,
672 ·
20
TOTAL
$3,865
$860
$1,920
$3,049
$3,388
$693
$1,737
$397
$659
$218
$2,549
$198
$1,344
$20,877
$4,175
$25,052
Costs.xis
8/7/98
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Landfill B -Excavate Landfill and Restore/Repave
ACTIVITY UNIT COST UNITS
Site Preparation
Asphalt Stripping $6.60 · SY
Clear and Grub $1,000.00 ACRE
Excavation*
Excavate, dozer $6.05 · CY
Excavate, backhoe (load truck) $1.73 · CY
Haul to OSI $1.22. CY
Backfill*
Purchase and Deliver $7.75· CY
Spread fill $1.54, CY
Compact Fill (6" lifts) $0.63· CY
Site Restoration
Purchase and Deliv Subbase $27.50· CY
Spread/Compact Subbase $5.00, CY
Asphalt Binder Course (3") $5.40, SY
Asphalt Wearing Course (3") $5.95, SY
Purchase and Deliv Topsoil $23.00, CY
Spread/Compact Topsoil $1.77. CY
Seed, Mulch, Fert. Topsoil $0.81 · SY
Subtotal
Contingencies %
TOTAL'
*Assumes concurrent mobilization with other activities
QTY
122 ·
0.14 ·
500,
500.
500-
550
550
550
41
41
122 ·
122 ·
93
93
550 ·
20
TOTAL
$807
$139
$3,025
$865
$610
$4,263
$847
$347
$1,120
$204
$659
$726
$2,139
$165
$446
$16,359
$3,272
$19,631
Costs.xis
8/7/98
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Dry Sludge lmpoundment -ROD Cap
ACTIVITY UNIT COST UNITS
Purchase and Deliv Barrier Soil $11.50 · CY
Spread/Compact Barrier Soil $2.56, CY
Clay CQA Testing $640.00 -TEST
Purchase, install, test GM $4.50 · SY
Composite geonet (drainage) $5.00. SY
Geotextile Filter Fabric $1.50 SY
Drainage Pipe $2.10 · LF
Gas Vent Stone $20.00 CY
Install gas piping and stone $5.00 LF
Passive Gas Vents $1,000.00 EA
Purchase & Deliv Vegetative Soil $7.75 • CY
Spread Vegetative Soil $1.77 · CY
Sideslope Fill $11.50 CY
Spread/Compact Sideslope Fill $2.56· CY
Purchase and Deliv Topsoil* $22.75 · CY
Spread Topsoil $1.77 · CY
Seed, Mulch, Fert. Topsoil $2.00. SY
Sod steep slopes $445.00 MSF
Drainage Structures $12.00 LF
Subtotal
Contingencies %
TOTAL
* assumes soil available at High-Hope will meet specifications
QTY
3942
3942
26
8470
8470
500
1200
31
425
2
2628
2628
5738
5738
1314
1314
8470
12
1700
20
TOTAL
$45,333
$10,092
$16,640
$38,115
$42,350
$750
$2,520
$630
$2,125
$2,000
$20,367
$4,652
$65,987
$14,689
$29,894
$2,326
$16,940
$5,340
$20,400
$341,148
$68,230
$409,378
Costs.xis
8/7/98