NCD980602163_20031010_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_Landfill Quantity Calculations-OCR

claul Road and Ramp Credit Tonnage
l of l
--'
Subject: Haul Road and Ramp Credit Tonnage
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 09:44:25 -0400
From: Bill Gallagher <[e-mail]>
To: John Funk <[e-mail]>, Pat Backus <[e-mail]>,
Jim Cloonan <[e-mail]>, Rob Holland <[e-mail]>
CC: Gary Duke <[e-mail]>, Dave Ditcher <[e-mail]>
All,
Attached is Shaw's calculation of the quantity of material in the haul
road and ramp that Shaw will treat at no cost to the state. The actual
volume from these areas is greater, but the additional material spilled
off of trucks or was tracked out of the landfill on tires. We also
hauled rocks that came off the screener back on the road to keep the
road passable during wet weather. These rocks are now being crushed and
processed.
Bill
Name: Haul Road and Ramp.doc rnH l R d d R d Type: WINWORD File (application/msword) ,::, au oa an amp. oc E d" b 64 · nco mg: ase
Download Status: Not downloaded with message
10/10/2003 10:04 AM
Contaminated Haul Road and Ramp Volume for Treatment
During the survey on 10/7/03 to locate the flags at the sample points in grid columns 1
through 3 the surveyors also located the perimeter of the remaining haul road and ramp.
Those points are shown on Figure 1. Connecting the dots shows the area to be 7050 ff.
The portion of the haul road included in this area extends 118.7 feet north of the NW
comer of the membrain liner.
As shown in Figure 2 the original access road extended north to a point 336 ft from the
comer of the membrane line. Thus road not covered in Figure 1 is
336-118.7=217.3 ft
The road as constructed was 16 ft wide. The surveyed portion of the road was 17.3 ft
wide at the north end and 21.6 ft wide at the south end. Use an average width of
(17.3 + 21.6)/2 = 19.45 ft
The road area not shown in Figure I is 217.3 * 19.45 = 4226.5 ft2 for a total area of
4226.5 + 7050 = 11,276.5 ft2•
Assuming we removed 6 inches of rock and 3 inches of contaminated soil the added
volume is 313.2 yd3• Using a density of 1.5 the added tonnage is 469.8 tons.
ROAD ANO RAMP AR[A IS 7oso sr. 118. 7' 17.3•y A B Fi8Ure 1. Nort1, End of HauJ Road and Ramp C D
~ -420' --------------------< ---80' -----50' -----r--50' -------123' -----,------117.2'-----~W//#//,0'/;,1/#$/###/#/////#//,0'//#t/,1W//#//##/$/#$/r/#$/##.0'/,W///#/t/$/;,1/l.1//;,1/;,1//#/#;,1///##$//$#///,0';,1/////#///;,1/;,1/l.1//;,1/#$///#///#/#$/.1/;,1///#//,0'/;,1/#/l.1/,W/#,W/l.1///#//#//l.1/,W$,0_ ~ 14,136 SF 8835 SF 8835 SF 21,716 SF I 20,709 SF ~ 18 I I ~ "' ~ ~ ~ ·: 18 ~ 1~ Ip 1~ ~ ~ Cl Q ~ >-~ ~ ~ ~-I~ ~ I . I:,; I . ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~ > ... .,, I> ~ <( ;;: > <( ~ I~ I c'i I~ -NORTH EDGE OF ~ ~ a. i'.'i "' GRID COLUMN 5 I a. i I~ lj lj ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I~ ~ 0 :r: u-L,... ~ I~ 1= I~ ~ ~ 0 0 u... ~ ¼ / 4''1/// /~ ; ~ ~ I ~ J I I~ I~ 1~ 1 I ) 0 I I I ;:::: ////////////., I ~ ~ ~'W###//#/2-0, ~¾ 1/-1/ % ~ % % % % % % % % 16' WIDE HAUL ROAD FOR CONTAMINATED MATERIAL ~ +--INITIAL BERM ~--------------336 o·--------------~ Figure 2. Entire Contaminated Haul Road and Ramps 176.7'
RE: Soil Density
1 of 1
Subje~t: RE: Soil Density
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 13:14:47 -0700
From: "Cloonan, Jim" <[e-mail]>
To: "Funk, John" <[e-mail]>, "'Pat Backus"' <[e-mail]>
Or 1.6 tons/CY, which could help explain tonnage. So much for Universal
constants
BTW Pat, I thought your view of the Shelby tube locations was well done (but
then I'm a Chem E).
-----Original Message-----
From: Funk, John
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 3:42 PM
To: 'Pat Backus'
Cc: Cloonan, Jim
Subject: RE: Soil Density
Results for four samples. Unit weights are in pounds per cubic foot (pcf).
1 -121.8 pcf at 20.07% moisture, 2 -116.2 pcf at 19.9% moisture, 3 -119.5
pcf at 15.94%, and 4 -121.9 pcf at 10.2% moisture.
-----Original Message-----
From: Pat Backus [mailto :pat .backus@ncmail .net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 2 :51 PM
To: John Funk
Subject: Soil Density
Anything back on the Shelby tube samples??
10/1/2003 9:54 AM
RE: Soil Samples on Thursday, ETC.
1 of2
Subject: RE: Soil Samples on Thursday, ETC.
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 11 :47:36 -0700
From: "Funk, John" <[e-mail]>
To: "'Pat Backus"' <[e-mail]>
CC: "Cloonan, Jim" <[e-mail]>
The range for compacted poorly graded sand-clay mix is 105 to 125 optimum
moisture range of 11-19%, silty-sands poorly graded range is 110-130 optimum
moisture 11-15%, These are compacted ranges at optimum moisture content,
If the in-place moisture is at the low or high side of optimum (proctor
moisture density curve) the density decreases. I bel ieve that the value used
of 110 is mid range .
-----Original Message-----
From: Pat Backus [mailto :Pat .Backus@ncmail .net ]
Sent : Tuesday, September 23, 2003 2:34 PM
To: Funk, John
Subj ect : Re : Soil Samples on Thursday, ETC.
Also what criteria is used to determine which end of range you assume?
"Funk, John" wrote :
> Yes -In-place density is going tc be different than excavated density.
> Undisturbed in-place soil samples for property determination is best
> accomplished by Shelby Tube sampling. A drill rig is normally used to
drive
> the Shelby Tubes to the selected depth and a sample collected. DJ says
that
> we have Shelby tubes on-site that he could hand drive (shallow depth) for
> samples. A Shelby Tube is a spli t tube that allows for sample removal
> without disturbing the sample . We have been using 110 lb per cubic foot
for
> density -this is a mid-range valve to compacted sand/silty sand soils.
If
> you want to be involved, please let me know when you'll be on-site and DJ
> will take samples at locations you direct.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pat Backus [mailto :Pat [e-mail] t]
> Sent : Tuesday, September 23, 2003 1:46 PM
> To: Jim Cloonan; John Funk
> Subject : Soil Samples on Thursday, ETC.
>
> Bear with me , these are questions from a ChE and probably just
> repeating what others have said. There may be simple answers.
>
> To provide an estimated soil remaining, we need an accurate density. So
> far it seems like we are using assumptions. I don 't know the basis for
> the assumptions, the range of values, or the sensitivity of our
> conclusions to the assumptions. Do you?
>
> Assuming that the soil remaining is basically the same composition , it
> seems like density would be affected by compaction and moisture. A
> density on a sample placed in a jar and analyzed in the lab will not be
> the same as what is there . As they are excavating, they are breaking up
> the soil to promote drying. The surface soil wouldn 't have the same
> density as the material that has not been touched. (I think that is why
> it seems to be reproducing everytime I look at it .) Is there a way to
> determine in -place density? I think this would be good for both the
> estimate of the remaining soil and to review the original estimate .
09/23/2003 4:23 PM
RE: Soil Samples on Thursday, ETC.
2 of2
>
> Moisture level also affects density. At some point in time we will get
> the Shaw numbers. Shaw is looking at it from how much it is costing
> them, but we are paying for more treatment due to increased weight. I
> would like to look at the moisture of the feed say a few weeks before
> and after Hurricane Isabel . Call this a long shot, but if there is a
> difference I want to see if we can get some FEMA money. It may be chump
> change, but we need all we can get . DENR wanted to try this after
> Floyd, but there was nothing. If you could also provide the rainfall
> amounts at the site , it would be helpful.
>
> Your thoughts?
>
> Pat
09/23/2003 4:23 PM
RE: Soil Samples on Thursday, ETC.
Subject: RE: Soil Samples on Thursday, ETC.
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 13:15:07 -0700
From: "Funk, John" <[e-mail]>
To: "'Pat Backus"' <[e-mail]>
CC: "Cloonan, Jim" <[e-mail]>
Off course there is a source of error since the value selected makes a
significant difference. Using the soil survey maps of North Carolina
(published by county) a sandy loam(0-3% clay) moist, in-place bulk density
ranges from 1.6 to 1.8 grams/cubic centimeter (conversion is g/cc x 62.4 to
lbs/cf) (or 100 to 112 lbs/cf). A compacted range was looked at to
estimate tonnage -and the operative work here is estimate, and the ranges
were provided previously. Some compaction was assumed during placement of
the soil in the landfill. The bulk density will increase with moisture
content as the pore spaces in the soil fill with water to the point of
saturation. At too high a moisture content (or too dry) the soil will not
compact, it will be displaced by the equipment. If you want Dennis to do
Shelby tubes, let us know. I should caution you that Shelby tubes (which is
the best way to determine in-place properties) will still likely give a
range.
-----Original Message-----
From: Pat Backus [mailto :Pat .Backus @ncmail .n et ]
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 3:21 PM
To: Cloonan, Jim
Cc: Funk, John
Subject: Re: Soil Samples on Thursday, ETC.
I am concerned about the final estimate that we give Dempsey. We are short
on
money. Every tons makes a difference. A month ago we told him 70,000 tons.
A
week and a half ago we told him 78,000 tons. 78,400 tons has also been
floating
around. Like I said, to my untrained eye, it doesn't seem to be getting
much
smaller and there is soil in the barn and on the pads that isn't in the
treated
to date.
I don't know know about the density ranges or the criteria for using the
high
end versus the low end or the middle. It may not make a difference, but
until
you tell me it doesn't and why, I see it as a possible source of error. I
think
we are lucky to have been dealing with Dempsey. He has been reasonable. But
he/I need a number we can put some faith in and nothing that anyone has told
me
to date about how it is determined makes me feel any better about what we
will
give him.
To calculate a density based on treated soils would require a volume of
landfill
r emoved in order to incorporate the effect of compaction. I don't see how
you
could accurately estimate that and I think there in much more room for
error.
Are you sure of the slope of the excavated landfill? Are you sure of the
elevation of the soil? Or have I missed something?
l of 3 09/23/2003 4:40 PM
RE: Soil Samples on Thursday, ETC.
2 of3
I see the moisture/density as a possible defense against the change order.
But
I don 't want to go into it.
Just tell me the following and I'll get my own answers .. What is the
classification used for the soil in the landfill? What is the range of
density
for the soil? Describe why you assume the low density versus the high
density.
How does the degree of compaction effect the density?
"Cloonan, Jim" wrote :
> Pat -
>
> It seems like we have a delta of soil volume at time O vs. now. If we
> compare soils treated during that time and assume all soils have same
> density, can we not calculate a nominal density? At one point , we did a
> soil density measurement with Gallagher to determine how much to deduct
for
> treating the soil they spilled diesel on in the NW corner of site. I 'll
try
> to track that down .
>
> I still like the Cloonan universal soil constant of 1 .4 tons/CY, esp. for
> loose soil . Ditcher told me that due to sloping of stockpiles in landfill
> that rainfall doesn 't penetrate very far, maybe an inch or so . If so,
would
> not have major impact on overall soils (but still worth trying to get some
> FEMA money -do they pay faster than EPA in Cincinnati?).
>
> We need to be careful about the moisture/density calculations so that Shaw
> doesn't try to use them to bolster their frivolous pending change order.
>
> How much soil is left to be treated? As of today was 74,000 tons per
daily
> report -are we not getting close?
>
> Jim Cl .
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Funk, John
> Sent : Tuesday, September 23, 2003 2:18 PM
> To: 'Pat Backus '
> Cc : Cloonan, Jim
> Subject : RE: Soil Samples on Thursday, ETC.
>
> Yes -In-place density is going to be different than excavated density.
> Undisturbed in -place soil samples for property determination is best
> accomplished by Shelby Tube sampling. A drill rig is normally used to
drive
> the Shelby Tubes to the selected depth and a sample collected. DJ says
that
> we have Shelby tubes on-site that he could hand drive (shallow depth) for
> samples . A Shelby Tube is a split tube that allows for sample removal
> without disturbing the sample. We have been using 110 lb per cubic foot
for
> density -this is a mid-range valve to compacted sand/silty sand soils.
If
> you want to be involved, please let me know when you'll be on-site and DJ
> will take samples at locations you direct .
>
09/23/2003 4:40 PM
RE: Soil Samples on Thursday, ETC.
3 of3
> -----Original Message-----
> From : Pat Backus [ma ilto:Pat .Backus @ncm ail .net]
> Sent : Tuesday, September 23, 2003 1:46 PM
> To: Jim Cloonan; John Funk
> Subject : Soil Samples on Thursday, ETC.
>
> Bear with me, these are questions from a ChE and probably just
> repeating what o thers have said. There may be simple answers .
>
> To provide an estimated soil remaining, we need an accurate density . So
> far it seems like we are using assumptions. I don 't know the basis for
> the assumptions, the range of values, or the sensitivity of our
> conclusions to the assumptions . Do you?
>
> Assuming that the soil remaining is basically the same composition , it
> seems like density would be affected by compaction and moisture. A
> density on a sample placed in a jar and analyzed in the lab will not be
> the same as what is there . As they are excavating, they are breaking up
> the soil to promote drying . The surface soil wouldn 't have the same
> density as the material that has not been touched. (I think that is why
> it seems to be reproducing everytime I look at it.) Is there a way t o
> determine i n-place density? I think this would be good for both the
> estimate of the remaining soil and to review the original estimate.
>
> Moisture level also affects density . At some point in time we will get
> the Shaw numbers . Shaw is looking at it from how much it is costing
> them, but we are paying for more treatment due to increased weight . I
> would like to look at the moisture of the feed say a few weeks before
> and after Hurricane Isabel. Call this a long shot , but if there is a
> difference I want to see if we can get some FEMA money. It may be chump
> change , but we need all we can get . DENR wanted to try this after
> Floyd, but there was nothing. If you could also provide the rainfall
> amounts at the site, it would be helpful .
>
> Your thoughts?
>
> Pat
09/23/2003 4:40 PM
Landfill
Width
(ft)
188
230
230
WARREN COUNTY PCB LANDFILL
ESTIMATED TONNAGES
Tonnage
Landfill
Length Soil Density
(ft)
110 pcf 115 pcf
425 68 ,450 71 ,450
425 80,300 83,800
475 90,200 94,130
120 ocf
74,680
87,600
98,400
Note: Tonnages based upon 12' fill material volume range of 3000 to 4100 cubic yards,
Waste volume range of 40,100 to 51 ,210 cubic yards, and 12" sand layer plus 6"
clay liner (bottom) layer range of 3,000 to 5420 cubic yards. Assumed average
landfill depth is 20.5 feet, and bottom footprint is (75'-100') x 293 '.
For each additional 6" lift of clay liner material add:
6 " Clay Liner Tonnage
Landfill Landfill
Width Length Soil Density
(ft) (ft)
110 pcf 115 pcf 120 ocf
188 425 1,800 1,860 1,940
230 425 2,140 2,220 2,320
230 475 3,200 3,360 3,520
For each additional 12" lift of surface material add:
12 " Cover Tonnage
Landfill Landfill
Width Length Soil Density
(ft) (ft)
110 pcf 115 pcf 120 ocf
188 425 4,450 4,650 4,860
230 425 5,380 5,610 5,860
230 475 6,100 6,360 6,640
701 Corporate Cent e r Drive, Suite 475, Raleigh , North Ca r olina 27607
September 17, 2003
Mr. Dempsey Benton
Chief, Deputy Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
Re: Warren County PCB Landfill, Additional Soil Volume
Dear Mr. Benton
Earth Tech hereby advises the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) that the estimated quantity of soil requiring treatment at the Warren County PCB Landfill
has increased from 72,000 tons to approximately 78,000 tons.
Earth Tech calculated the initial quantity of 72,000 tons based upon the landfill drawings and other
information provided in the Phase ill Final Design prepared by ETG Environmental and Barnes,
Ferland and Associates in March of 2000. The drawings depict the northern slope of the landfill
waste cell with an approximate 4: 1 slope. During excavation of the waste from the northern end of
the landfill in early August, Earth Tech and the remediation contactor Shaw Environment &
Infrastructure (Shaw) observed a change in slope of the landfill bottom at a location that coincided
with the projected toe of the 4: 1 north slope. Earth Tech and Shaw believed this defined the
bottom of the landfill. Upon further excavation of waste in late August and early September, it was
discovered that the bottom of the landfill did not slope up but remained flat for a distance of 20 to
30 feet. Now uncovered, the northern slope of the landfill waste cell is closer to a 2: 1 slope. This
change in slope corresponds to an increase in contaminated soil quantity of approximately 4,000
cubic yards or 6,000 tons.
The variance in the north slope of the landfill is not the first discrepancy discovered in the design
drawings. During excavation of the southern end of the landfill in December 2002, Earth Tech
discovered that the southeast comer of the landfill was approximately 16 feet wider than depicted
on the design drawings. At that time, Earth Tech excavated shallow test trenches at the northeast
comer of the landfill to determine the eastern and northern extent of the landfill. The test trenches
revealed that the northeast comer of the landfill coincided with the comer point depicted on the
design drawings as staked by the Aiken & Yelle, the surveyor retained by Shaw. Earth Tech was
unable to excavate the northwest comer of the landfill since that side of the landfill was used as a
haul road by Shaw to transport soil from the landfill to the treatment system. Earth Tech did not
excavate to the bottom of the landfill at the northern end for several reasons:
1. The landfill bottom was approximately 26 feet below ground surface and was not
accessible with the excavation equipment on hand,
2. Excavation of the necessary volume of waste material would have contaminated the clean
soils on top of the landfill, and
E A R T H ® T E C H
A tqca INTERNATIONAL LTD. COMPANY
Telephone
Facsimile
Mr. Dempsey Benton
September 17, 2003
Page2
3. Excavation to the bottom could have damaged the clay liner at the bottom of the landfill.
As a result, the actual geometry of the northern slope of the landfill waste cell was not
determined until the soil excavation reached that point.
During the week of September 811\ Earth Tech estimated the quantity of soil remaining in the
landfill and staged in the pole barn for treatment. It was determined that approximately 5,200 tons
of soil remained in the landfill and 1,000 tons of soil were in the pole barn. These estimates were
based on measurements taken in the landfill, an assumed soil density and the assumption that the
northwest comer would be at the location indicated on the design drawings. At the request of
DENR, Earth Tech collected samples of soil from the pole barn and from the landfill on September
11th to determine whether the remaining soil requires treatment. The soil samples were transported
to Paradigm Analytical Laboratories in Wilmington for analysis. The results were 310,000 ug/kg
(ppb) PCBs for soils in the pole barn; and 740,000 ug/kg, 220,000 ug/kg (and 180,000 ug/kg PCBs
for three soil samples collected in the landfill (laboratory results are attached). Based on the
legislative limit of 200 ug/kg and EPA regulatory requirements, the remaining soils must be treated
onsite or disposed off site.
Earth Tech reviewed three options for dealing with the additional soil: treatment onsite under the
existing contract, disposal offsite as a modification to the existing contract, and temporary storage
onsite with delayed onsite treatment or disposal off site.
Since the contract with Shaw is a firm unit price contract, Shaw and their thermal subcontractor
Midwest Soil Remediation (MSR) are contractually obligated to treat the soil for the contract
amount. The contract price for soil treatment is $88.40 per ton. The total cost for treatment of an
additional 6,000 tons would be $530,400.
Disposal of the additional soil offsite as a modification to the existing contract would require
shipment to and disposal at a landfill permitted by EPA to accept greater than 50 ppm PCBs. Shaw
is currently disposing of material that meets this criterion at Waste Management's landfill in
Emelle, AL. This is the closest landfill to the site that meets the EPA requirements for this soil. In
past discussions, Waste Management has indicated that their cost to transport and dispose of PCB
contaminated soil at their Emelle facility in the range of $120 to $150 per ton. The additional total
cost for this option would range from $720,000 to $900,000.
The final option is temporary storage on-site until additional funds became available to either treat
on-site or dispose off-site. The lined pond on the landfill site, which is currently used for storm
water collection, could be used to store the additional PCB contaminated soils. However, the
available storage volume is approximately 2,800 cubic yards versus volume of soil remaining in
the landfill of 3,500 cubic yards as of [date]. To store PCB soils, a leachate collection system
would have to be constructed in the pond, and the existing water treatment system would have to
remain to treat any leachate collected. A monitoring program would have to be instituted for the
storage period. Approval would have to be obtained from EPA Region 4 to do this. Under TSCA
regulations, storage of material in this manner is allowed for only one year. Shaw/MSR will
demobilize from the site before the end of the year for other projects. The EPA TSCA permit is
based on MSR' s system and would have be to redone if MSR could not come back. However, the
remaining volume of soils is typically not large enough to warrant re-mobilization of a thermal
treatment unit. At the end of the storage period, the only likely option available for disposal of the
soil would be to transport the soil to the Waste Management facility at Emelle. An estimate of the
EARTH@T EC H
A tqca INTERNATIONAL LID. COMPANY
Mr. Dempsey Benton
September 17, 2003
Page3
total cost of this option would require more investigation but would obviously exceed the other two
options.
Therefore, given the options available, Earth Tech recommends that DENR continue with on-site
treatment of the additional soil. Please feel free to contact me at [phone] if you have any
questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
Earth Tech, Inc.
d:1~ltn1
c: Mr. Mike Kelly, DENR
Ms. Pat Backus, DENR
Mr. Doug Edwards, SCO
Mr. Jim Cloonan
A fi/CO INTERNATIONAL LTD. COMPANY
PARADIGM ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES, INC.
5500 Business Drive
Mr. Dave Ditcher
Shaw Environmental -NC
Route 4 Box 426
Warrenton, NC 27589
Report Number: G515-521
Client Project ID: 827062
Dear Mr. Ditcher,
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
[phone]
Fax [phone]
September 15, 2003
Enclosed are the results of the analytical services performed under the
referenced project. Copies of this report and supporting data will be retained
in our files for a period of five years in the event they are required for future
reference. Any samples submitted to our laboratory will be retained for a
maximum of thirty (30) days from the date of this report unless other
arrangements are requested.
If there are any questions about the report or the services performed during this
project, please call for assistance. We will be happy to answer any questions or
concerns which you may have.
Thank you for using Paradigm Analytical Labs for your analytical services.
We look forward to working with you again on any additional analytical needs
which you may have.
Sincerely,
alytical Laboratories, Inc.
ry Director
J. Patrick Weaver
N.C. Certification #481 S.C. Certification #99029
PARADIGM ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES, INC.
Client Sample ID: WCLF-PB-1
Client Project ID: 827062
Lab Sample ID: 80496
Lab Project ID: G515-521
Matrix: Soil
Compound
Aroclor-1016
Aroclor-1221
Aroclor-1232
Aroclor-1242
Aroclor-1248
Aroclor-1254
Aroclor-1260
Surrogate Spike Recoveries
TCMX
Comments:
BQL = Below Quantitation Limit
NA = Not applicable, surrogate diluted out.
Results for PCBs
by EPA 8082
%SOLIDS: 83.9
Quantitation
Limit (ug/KG)
41000
41000
41000
41000
41000
41000
41000
Spike
Added
100
Date Collected: 9/11/03
Date Received: 9/12/03
Date Analyzed: 9/12/03
Analyzed By: CLP
Dilution: 500
Spike
Result
NA
Result
(ug/KG)
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
310000
Percent
Recovered
NA
Reviewed By : k__
N. C. Certification #481 S.C. Certification #99029
PARADIGM ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES, INC.
Client Sample ID: WCLF-LF-1
Client Project ID: 827062
Lab Sample ID: 80497
Lab Project ID: G515-521
Matrix: Soil
Compound
Aroclor-1016
Aroclor-1221
Aroclor-1232
Aroclor-1242
Aroclor-1248
Aroclor-1254
Aroclor-1260
Surrogate Spike Recoveries
TCMX
Comments:
BQL = Below Quantitation Limit
NA = Not applicable, surrogate diluted out.
Results for PCBs
by EPA 8082
%SOLIDS: 87.7
Quantitation
Limit (ug/KG)
47000
47000
47000
47000
47000
47000
47000
Spike
Added
100
Date Collected: 9/11/03
Date Received: 9/12/03
Date Analyzed 9/12/03
Analyzed By CLP
Dilution 500
Spike
Result
NA
Result
(ug/KG)
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
740000
Percent
Recovered
NA
Reviewed By: k
N.C. Certification #481 S.C. Certification #99029
PARADIGM ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES, INC.
Client Sample ID: WCLF-LF-2
Client Project ID: 827062
Lab Sample ID: 80498
Lab Project ID: G515-521
Matrix: Soil
Compound
Aroclor-1016
Aroclor-1221
Aroclor-1232
Aroclor-1242
Aroclor-1248
Aroclor-1254
Aroclor-1260
Surrogate Spike Recoveries
TCMX
Comments:
BQL = Below Quantitation Limit
NA = Not applicable, surrogate diluted out.
Results for PCBs
by EPA 8082
%SOLIDS: 87.2
Quantitation
Limit (ug/KG)
8800
8800
8800
8800
8800
8800
8800
Spike
Added
100
Date Collected: 9/11 /03
Date Received: 9/12/03
Date Analyzed: 9/12/03
Analyzed By: CLP
Dilution: 100
Spike
Result
NA
Result
(ug/KG)
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
220000
Percent
Recovered
NA
Reviewed By:~
N.C. Certification #481 S.C. Certification #99029
PARADIGM ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES, INC.
Client Sample ID: WCLF-LF-3
Client Project ID: 827062
Lab Sample ID: 80499
Lab Project ID: G515-521
Matrix: Soil
Compound
Aroclor-1016
Aroclor-1221
Aroclor-1232
Aroclor-1242
Aroclor-1248
Aroclor-1254
Aroclor-1260
Surrogate Spike Recoveries
TCMX
Comments:
BQL = Below Quantitation Limit
NA = Not applicable, surrogate diluted out.
Results for PCBs
by EPA 8082
%SOLIDS: 87.6
Quantitation
Limit (ug/KG)
8300
8300
8300
8300
8300
8300
8300
Spike
Added
100
Date Collected: 9/11 /03
Date Received: 9/12/03
Date Analyzed: 9/12/03
Analyzed By: CLP
Dilution: 100
Spike
Result
NA
Result
(ug/KG)
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
180000
Percent
Recovered
NA
Reviewed By L
N.C. Certification #481 S.C. Certification #99029
COC# J -< t '. l (_-) 'ARADIGM ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES, INC. 500 Business Drive, Wilmington, NC 28405 Chain-of Custody Record & Analytical Request hone: (910)-350-1903 FAX: (9 l0)-350-1557 lieut: Er,vesT /Jr<Je,.,w ddress: R T 'I 8v .x t/ ,_ 6 ddress: w"rre.,7o~ NC, J. ]S-81 uote #: _________ _ Project ID: 3'-;. Io (;,.. Contact: &-,.,,c_:sJ ;],-lJ vJ,../ Phone:ll.S-;i.) '-57 I 8' J 4 FaxG-aj,:;? '/; •g: Preservatives Sample ID I Date I Time !Matrix I "' rl f'!)IIO \J v 0 0 1,. Q.. vc elf-PB -I I~~ l,r,:1° I so, JI / I I I I✓ JI . elf-Lf~J __ 1s-,pToJ 1s~3s\rcJ1I I ✓ I I I I ✓ -----k------I I I✓ Date: / I $-cl' I-" J . Turnaround: 5fl ~ c PA "I TA T Job Number: ----'------P.O. Number: --,--------AnaJrses Page l of__,/,___ ReportTo: Er.N.~1-T J~ ~ tol'I, c,.,z,,,,~ ,., __j 1s:~-, Invoice To: 5 /-I 8 w £ + I Comments: /,Please specify any special reporting · ,, ,;, requirements Rll 511,.._rles-f)rC... 7~~/\lcr-TJ..11-S" v f pr-. Pc D 5Pl">c /Jl'y 1lJ f ,, -IA<~ ~" "'J l-,i Cl'71·~,-; Cr:, f ,,-Jti;,_1,· .>rJ () ,v/ .. iJ 7 ,di ·If --;.. l!~_f.'T"J IS: 'l,...l,c :' / I / J l.r~1a;l1r:s-~ 15011 I✓ I +--+--l--~--t--+--f--+--~-1 ---~-rf-.-+,,......D--:--~------ct.J· • L F -J I I I✓ -----··-·+---■1---+---+----l-■--+--+---1-__j_--l--1---;-----!----+--I ~d,t--l ~ N~ f:c.r-\-'-" -re.L\\_ ~\~.\~ L, --·-····-·-J--·-·-1 I I J,t,,-J,,:::-1..<,._.K<e.t>u-fh\:"°<-L-\,C..,,~->J • ---___ ,. ---t----·l---1---t--4--~-11--l---1--__j____J __ --t--+---1--__ ~ )( Cj / Cf S"'J-4 L 2. 'S -cl I---'--'~---'_:__-=-=--=---=::.__:_-=--'!__---··----··· ··--·-----------• I I I I I I G-7(£~7:2, ( --· -·--------------t------~-.--~~-r-~----'----L----------'----1---~---+--_..._ __ +--~--~---+----"'---------------Relinquished By ~te I Time -~~-~~--JZ,.:i-_____ _j~~l 11(.Ju Received Hy alk(/l:':f ~1-'ii~~-~~mp~rature j State Certification Requested ___ _ 1/J2/t3 1_9-60 {/,L ~==~--NC __ SC ___ Other __ ----------· -· .. . ---4-------1----+------------------<f------l---------t----------t SEE REVERSE FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS -----·· ........ ---~-----~----~-----------------~-----~~----__ __._ _________ L ______ ~~-------·-·-·-------·--·--------·-
FW: Surveyed Landfill Quantities
1 of2
Subject: FW: Surveyed Landfill Quantiti~s
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 13:51:31 -0400
From: "Duke, Gary" <[e-mail]>
To: "Jim Cloonan (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
· "John Funk (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Pat Backus (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Pat Backus (E-mail 2)" <[e-mail]>,
"Pat Backus (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Dennis Jones (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Rob Holland (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>
CC: "Bill Gallagher (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>
For those who were wondering what the hot topic for this week 's meeting would be,
see attach ed. If the 9 ,000 tons remaining as of 9/2 is correct , then coupled with
what we had treated as of then (just over 69 ,000) the total looks to be in the a r ea
of 78,000 tons !
I know my estimate last month was off because I had forgotten that the north slope
is much steeper than the south, which I had since cal cul ated could throw me off by
as much as 3-4 ,000 tons , bringing total to 75-76 ,000 tons . Surveyed figures are even
worse . I don 't know if Rob or DJ have been doing estimates recently.
Bill rai sed an interesting point . If 72 ,000 tons contract quantity was based in part
on truck weights when land fill was being buil t what a llowance , i f any, was made for
rain that fell while landfill was being built? As far as I know they did not pump
any out except what little was done much later with "Pat 's " leachate sump pump,
which woul d not have made much of a dent . With landfill catch area being what it is
every foot of rain during construction would have added about 2 ,700 tons , and 2 feet
ov er a 6 month period is not at all unusual there .
As part of moisture change order support I have calculated rain, open surface and
amount pumped from landfill, and for period October 02 through June 03 I show we had
pumped a l most a l l that would have fallen, difference would have added less than 1%
to amoun t of soil passed as of end June , so I don 't think that's contributed mu ch .
Pat told me this morning she has some money available to cover overage, but if we
decide these figures are anywhere near right it might be awfully close . We will
DE FINITELY need to do a change order, so start thinking about how big to make it . To
get it in time I will need to do it up while at site and get signatures so Pat can
take it back on Thursday and get it moving. I will need that to get PO amendment to
MSR before they go over 72 ,000 tons.
Gary Duke
Gary W. Duke , P.E.
Shaw Envir onmental & Infrastructure, Inc .
200 Horizon Center Blvd.
Trenton , NJ 08691-1904
phone [phone]
fax [phone]
work schedule 'A '
-----Ori ginal Message-----
From: Bil l Gallagher [mailto:cho@ a irma il .net]
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 1:16 PM
To : Duke , Gary
Subject : Surveyed Landfill Quantities
Gary, surveyed landfill quantities are attached .
Bill
09/11/2003 9: 15 AM
FW: Surveyed Landfill Quantities
2 of2
*****************Internet Email Confidentiality Footer******************
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message.
If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible
for del ivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver
this message to anyone . In such case, you should destroy this message
and noti fy the sender by reply email . Please advise immediately if you
or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this
ki nd. Opinions , conclusions and other information in this message that
do not rel ate to the official business of The Shaw Group Inc. or its
subsidiaries shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.
The Shaw Group Inc .
ht tp ://www.shawgrp.com
~ Survey.doc
Name: Survey.doc
Type: Microsoft Word Document (application/msword)
Encoding: base64
Description: Survey.doc
Download Status: Not downloaded with message
09/11/2003 9:15 AM
Gary, AES calculates the soil remaining to be treated at 6095 CY as of 9/2/03.
Call this 9000 tons. Assuming we maintain the August average of 251 tons per day we
would require 9000/251 = 3 5. 8 days to finish. Add 1.2 days for the material in the turn a
round and the road and we're at 37 days, or October 9th.
The survey drawing is attached.
1+60
.)411.O ~" .l◄0.0
m:1
1+50 r~I J20.0
1+20
J◄l!.O .,144.0 .H0.0 ~iU m:g
00 1+10
.)48,0 JUD J◄ O.O
Ii!:!
J527c+Oo
iii:i
!ifi
o+9o
~8.0 fii
m:i
o+Bo
J◄ B.0 JU.0 J◄0.0
m;i
m:g
JJ6.0 m:g J2◄.o
0+60
J52.0 J◄II.0 JU.0
m:1 ,.,
0+50
.l52.0 HII.O JU.O J◄0.0 JJG.O J320
o-t·4o .lS2.0
gi:1
o+·3o
J ◄~.o JU.O .)40,0 .lJ6.0
~:?/2□
;~:g
3 ti
J48D
,\440 .\400 JJ60 JJZ.O J280 J2◄.0 .120.0
.)48_0 .H◄C J◄OO .H6.0 .U20 J211.0 .U◄.O J20.0
J48.0 J◄◄O J40,0
JJG.O JJ2,0 J211 0 J24,0 J200
J411.0 J44.0 J40.0 J.16.0 332.0 .,211.0 J240 .,20.0
220.0
f Iii
.HIIO JOO J◄O.O "'' .H20 J211.0 J240
J200 ""'
.)◄11.0 JU.O .'1400 .l.l60 JJ2.0 J2II.O J240
J20.0 220.0
.H8.0 .H◄O J◄DO JJ6.0 J.U.O
J28.0 JHO 220.0
J520 J4ll.0 J◄◄.o .,,o.o JJ60 m:g
220.0
J~2.0 J◄ll,0 JU,0 J◄ O.O :B6.0 .H20
J4fl.O .l4◄.0 J•40.0 .lJ6.0
.1◄11.0 J440 .)40.0 .ns.o
Page 1 of2
Pat Backus
From: "Duke, Gary" <[e-mail]>
To: "Jim Cloonan (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>; "John Funk (E-mail)"
<[e-mail]>; "Pat Backus (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>; "Pat Backus (E-mail 2)"
<[e-mail]>; "Pat Backus (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>; "Dennis Jones (E-
mail)" <[e-mail]>; "Rob Holland (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "Bill Gallagher (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, September 08, 20031:51 PM
Attach: Survey.doc
Subject: FW: Surveyed Landfill Quantities
For those who were wondering what the hot topic for this week's meeting would be, see attached. If the
9,000 tons remaining as of 9/2 is correct, then coupled with what we had treated as of then Gust over 69,000)
the total looks to be in the area of 78,000 tons!
I know my estimate last month was off because I had forgotten that the north slope is much steeper than the
south, which I had since calculated could throw me off by as much as 3-4,000 tons, bringing total to 75-
76,000 tons. Surveyed figures are even worse. I don't know if Rob or DJ have been doing estimates recently.
Bill raised an interesting point. If 72,000 tons contract quantity was based in part on truck weights when
landfill was being built what allowance, if any, was made for rain that fell while landfill was being built? As
far as I know they did not pump any out except what little was done much later with "Pat's" leachate sump
pump, which would not have made much of a dent With landfill catch area being what it is every foot of rain
during construction would have added about 2,700 tons, and 2 feet over a 6 month period is not at all unusual
there.
As part of moisture change order support I have calculated rain, open surface and amount pumped from
landfill, and for period October 02 through June 03 I show we had pumped almost all that would have fallen,
difference would have added less than 1 % to amount of soil passed as of end June, so I don't think that's
contributed much.
Pat told me this morning she has some money available to cover overage, but if we decide these figures are
anywhere near right it might be awfully close. We will DEFINITELY need to do a change order, so start
thinking about how big to make it. To get it in time I will need to do it up while at site and get signatures so
Pat can take it back on Thursday and get it moving. I will need that to get PO amendment to MSR before
they go over 72,000 tons.
Gary Duke
Gary W. Duke, P.E.
Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc.
200 Horizon Center Blvd.
Trenton, NJ 08691-1904
phone [phone]
fax ( 609) 588-6300
work schedule 'A'
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Gallagher [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 1: 16 PM
To: Duke, Gary
Subject: Surveyed Landfill Quantities
9/9/2003
Gary, surveyed landfill quantities are attached.
Bill
** ** *************Internet Email Confidentiality Footer******************
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message.
If you are not the addressee indicated in this message ( or responsible
for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver
this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message
and notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you
or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this
kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that
do not relate to the official business of The Shaw Group Inc. or its
subsidiaries shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.
The Shaw Group Inc.
http://www.shawgrp.com
Page 2 of2
9/9/2003
.. l1
Id -
5
6
7
8
9
A R C
,_, .-
\0 •v l!z 'tJ J O l!•
J. 7;.1 '!" '?_.3 'PI 7 ~ •~e , ~, ,_o ca
'!• ~jl ~J '._O la
~.5 S.• '.,.J '!Z '! '!◄ 7io •i, '¾-' 'l I!.'
~ ¼o l' ,-, '?• '! ,,, ~" ,,; 'to \ ~, ,
4+• '• .. t 1 !◄ '! ,,, 1!1 1i,◄ 1~1 ~ ~3 ~J I 7
\" '¼" ~, ~· \Cl ' jl ~· 'l 'l ~2 ~.5 !.' C,
Jl 07 Qo 0.7 1.2 1J 2.7 17 I.I O,o 02 O., 0.3 I 5
A B C
D
D
RE:,Revised Landfill tonnages
I of I
Subject: RE: Revised Landfill tonnages
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 08 : 18:43 -0800
From: "Cloonan, Jim'' <[e-mail]>
To: "Funk, John" <[e-mail]>,
"'Pat. [e-mail]"' <Pat. [e-mail]>
<<La nd fill-Tons .doc>>
Pat/John -
I discussed soil den s i t i es he r e with Pat Flood and we agreed t o change r a n ge
f o r fill materi als to 100 t o 120 p c f range . 100 p c f may be more r eal i s tic
because soil mo i stu re whe n saturated i s onl y around 15% (per Carl's change
orde r ), becau se Ga llaghe r s aid tha t materi al was great to t r eat because i t
was so g r a nular, a nd b ecaus e it is mor e i n l i n e with Cloonan 's Univers al
Soil Con s t ant of 1 .4 t on s/CY. I l eft dens ities the s ame f or the c l a y a nd
s urface materia l s because they have higher moisture c onte nt (around 2 0%) a nd
appear mo r e c l a y ey.
I don 't underst an d t h e d escripti o n gi v ing the basi s for the tonnages s o I
doubt Mi ke o r Dempsey will e i ther. I thi nk we n eed t o define this bette r .
Also , not c l ear to me from why lan dfill with same wi dth and l e n gth would
have different tonnages (see first t wo columns , h ave two wi t h same
wi dth/l e ngth, 230/425 a n d 230/475), n eed to e xpla in dimensi on in parentheses
under t he wi d th column. Al so, do n't we now h ave better handl e o n wi dth
based on test pitting? Se ems like we s houl d s h ow Dempsey three possi ble
ranges , five l ooks too l oose . J ust my though ts.
Jim Cl.
> -----ori gi nal Message -----
> From: Funk, John
> Sent : Monday, December 30, 2002 10:17 AM
> To : 'Pa t .backus@ncmail .net'; Cl oonan , J i m
> S ubject: Revi sed Landfill to,:nages
>
> attached tabl e was revised to include addi tional r ows f or increased width
> o f landf ill b o ttom this assumes t h at if the t op wi d t h inc reases b y 15 ' s o
> wo uld be b o ttom. << Fil e : Landfill-Tons.doc>>
~•·.-.-.-.. .-.-.-.-............ .., ••• , •••. .,. ......... _., • .,,._.,.,.,,._._._,_.,._._,.,.,..,,.,_.,_._._.,,. .• .-.· .................. _..-.,._..-,._.,.,.,.,...,.,. ......... .-.-_,,.,.,._._._..,, • .,_.,u_,.-.-,. ... ,u,·,.-.-.-.-.-.-.·.-.·•·•·.-.· ... ·.·.-,·,·•·•·•· ... ·.-.·.·• .. •· ... ·.·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•· ... ·.·•·•·•·•·•·"'•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•· ... • ... • ........................................ _.,._..._.,.,.,.,., .•
\ ] Name: Landfill-Tons.doc • ! ~ j Type: Microsoft Word Document (application/msword)
1(,.0 1Landfill-Tons.doc , E d' b 64 1 ~-~ i nco mg: ase ! !Download Status: Not downloaded with message
0 I /02/2003 11 :23 AM
Landfill Cap FAQs
Q . How much clean cap material has been recovered from the landfill and stored in the
east fenced section?
A. The last two cap stripping events covered 50 + 80 ft across the top of the landfill.
The landfill is 177 ft wide and we only took the 2 feet above the top liner. The clean cap
quantity is thus 1700 cubic yards (CY).
Q . How much material would be required to cover the landfill with one ft of clean cap?
A . The landfill area is 420 by 177 ft. Extend the cover 5 ft beyond this for blending
the new cap to grade for an area of 425 by 182 ft or 77,350 SF. A 1 ft cover would
require 2,865 CY.
Q. What would it cost to put a 1 ft and a 2 ft clean cap on the landfill?
A . On July 9 KPH trucking provided a verbal estimate of $125 per truckload for
importing soil to the landfill. A truck holds about 16 tons. Using 1.5 tons per CY the
cost of imported soil is $11. 72 per CY. A 1 ft cover would cost
(2,865 -1700) * $11.72 = $13,654
An additional foot of cover would increase the cost to:
$13,654+(2,865 * $11.72)=$47,231