. . . . !, ' . . ' , , . ' ,
I _..,.. • '••••• .,,••• :.• • •••• • ~• ...... • :• ·••• ••r ~ • • • • .••• •••••• ••• • • • • •• -• •.•-••.• ~-•• • .',. • ~ •I••• • Document No. 4040-001-600 I 1 Feasibility Study Report I Koppers Texarkana Site I Texarkana, Texas ... I If\ \() I Volume 11 - Appendices (\J I I I I I I Prepared for KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. I Pittsburgh, PA I June 1988 I 1 ERT I An ENSR Company I 000185 I . · I , _ . ; . , _ . . - . . . ' - ......
I ii ~ I I I I
I (\J TREATABILl1Y STUDY REPORT KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. L0i I TEXARKANA, TEXAS '° ....C\I I 0
I Prepared for: KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. PREVIOUSLY OPERATED PROPERTY I TEXARKANA, TEXAS I Prepared by: KEYSTONE ENVIRONl\fENTAL RESOURCES, INC. I 440 COLLEGE PARK DRIVE MONROEVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA 15146 I I I PROJECT 157673-0S I FEBRUARY 1988 I I I I . I . ·. ' ' . -L . • I • . . ., . ·. ' '. .~ ' , ...... \ . . .
I TABLE OF CONTENTS I Page LIST 01· TABLES ...... 111 I LIST OF FIGURES ...... iii EXECtrTIVE SUI\IMARY ...... ES-1
I 1.0 l~TRODUCTION ...... 1-l I 2.1 Site History ...... 2-l 2.2 Site Description ...... 2~ 1 I"'\ I 3.0 STUDY OVERVIEW ...... 3- l Lf\ \() 3.1 Sample Collection ...... 3- 1 (\J
I 3-""2 Sarnple Analysis ...... ".. -t...... "' ...... c ...... ~ ...... , ...... + ...... ~3-1 3.3 Groundv,1ater Treatability ...... 3-l 3.4 Activated Carbon Adsorbtion Testing ...... 3-2 0 I 3.5 UV/Ozone Oxidation ...... 3-2 3.6 Biological Treatrnent ...... 3-3 3. 7 Soil Treattnent ...... 3-4 I -to TREATABILITI' STUDY SPECIFICS AND RESULTS ...... 4-l 4.1 Sample Collection ...... 4-1 I 4.2 Ground\vater Treatability ...... 4•3 4.3 Activated Carbon Adsorbtion ...... 4-4 4.4 ExSitu Soil Treatment (Soil Washing) ...... 4-6 I 4.5 lnSitu Soil Treatment (Soi! Column) ...... 4-6 4.6 U.V/O~one Oxidation 03 ...... 4-7 4.7 B1olog1cal Treatment ...... 4-8 I 4.8 Biological Treatment Units Discussion of Results ...... 4• 12 5.0 SU.rt·IIVIARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 5- l I APPE~DICES APPEND IX A Groundwater ONQC Sampling Data APPE~DIX B Carbon Adsorbtion ACT Results I APPENDIX C UV/Ozone Oxidation Results APPE"IDIX D Biolosical Treatment Intluet Results APPEND IX E Aeratmn Tank Treatment Results I APPESDIX F Fixed Film Treatment Results APPE~D IX G Fluidized Bed Treatment Results I I I I ii I .. •· • . • . • ·. I
I •- " . I LIST OF TABLES Page I 3-1 Analytical Methods - Water Analysis ...... 3- la I 3-2 Analytical Methods - Soil Analysis ...... 3-1 b 4-1 Jar Testi11g Results ...... 4-4a I Carbon Adsorption Isotherms ...... 4-Sa 4-3 03/lJV Screening Run Results ...... 4-8,ol I UV/Ozone 1·reatment ...... 4-8c I Biological Treatment Comparison ...... 4-12a Biological Treatment Phenolics Reduction ...... 4-l 3a I 0 I LIST OF FIGURES Groundwater Treatment Overview ...... 4-3.1 I Ozone Applied vs Naphthalene ...... -t-Sb I I I I I I I
I iii I I EXECUT[VE SU~tMARY
This document summarizes the results of performance testing conducted by I Keystone Environmental Resources, Inc. for the purpose of evaluating the technical feasibility of various treatment processes for the remediation of groundwater and soil I contaminated with coal tar related organics. The coal tar organics present in the soil and groundwater originated from the past operations of a former Koppers wood I treating and preserving plant.
The technologies examined herein have passed the initial screening process and have I Ui been considered for treatability investigation. The technologies considered in the I.{\ screening where based on the characterization work performed during the remedial \() I investig:Hion. The analytical results from surface water, groundwater and soil (\J samples, \1.,ere used as the basis to examine the different technologies. I C \Vith the exception of the Accelerated Carbon Testing performed by Calgon Carbon I Corporation, all treatability work was performed by Keystone Environmental Resources at the Science and Technology Center in Monroeville, PA. Groundwater and soil samples were collected by Keystone Field Service technicians for use in the I treatability work. All related analysis were performed by Keystone's Analytical I Division. Following pretreatment for removal of oil and grea.)e associated contaminants, three I groundwater methods were evaluated. These incJuded: (i) carbon adsorption, (ii) chemical oxidation, and (iii) biological treatment. Carbon adsorption treatment I included carbon adsorption isotherms and Accelerated Carbon Column Testing. Chemical oxidation focused on UV/Ozone Oxidation treatment. The biological treatment alternatives evaluated were: (i) activated sludge, (ii) aeration tank, (iii) I fixed film, and (iv) fluidized bed.
I In-situ and ex-situ soil treatment technologies were also evaluated. Five soil columns \•.:ere set up to investigate variations of bioreclamation treatment methodologies. In I addition1 soil washing was investigated for removal of contaminants from the soil matrix. I I ES-1 I I I With the exception of activated sludge treatment, all other groundwater treatment processes tested were successful for reduction of groundwater contaminants. The t\vo activated sludge treatment reactors were convened to an aeration tank and a I fixed film reactor when the data indicated the groundwater organic substrate was to I low to support an activated sludge biomass. Shortly following start-up of the soil columns , plugging occurred and the columns I were shut down. Soil washing was completed with preliminary successfu] results. Complete soil washing results will be issued as an addendum when all results are I available. '°lf\ Pretreatment result,; showed an 83% reduction of oil and grease with a I corresponding removal of 90. 7% of total PAH compounds. Carbon adsorbtion (\J'° isotherms and ACT results show reduction of TOC and naphthalene. UV~ C I Ozone/Oxidation reduced the total PAH concentration 88%. Aeration tank treatment reduced total PAH compounds >99%. Fixed film treatment reduced total I P AH compounds >86%. The best treatment was realized with the fluidized bed with > 99. 9% removal of total PAH compounds. I The data presented in this report can be used in a more detailed evaluation of these I and other technologies as needed for Feasibility Study (FS) purposes. I I I I I I I LO INIRQDUCTION Presented in this document are the results from treatability work performed as I partial fulfillment of the Feasibility Study (FS) for the Koppers Texarkana former wood~treating plant site in Texarkana, Texas. I Koppers and the U.S. EPA have conducted several separate surface and subsurface investigations and collected extensive soil and groundwater quality data at the Texarkana site. The results of these studies have identified the contaminants and extent of contamination. These data were used to select the treatability alternatives r for laboratory experimentation best suited for remediation. L(\
'°N I The focus of the study is to evaluate cleanup methods for soil and groundwater contamination from creosote compounds used in past wood treating operations. 0 I Data compiled during the remedial investigation was used in the evaluation and screening of technologies to be considered for treatability investigation.
I The results of the following studies demonstrate the treatability of groundwater and soil at the Texarkana site. This data can be used to determine the most feasible I treatment alternatives and for generating cost comparisons of the various treatment I alternatives. All results included with the exception of soil washing which wiH be issued as an I addendum.
Section 2 presents a brief background summary. A summary of each of the I technologies is given in Section 3. The procedures and results from the treatability work are presented in Section 4. Section 5 includes a brief summary and conclusion I of the results. I I I I I I I 2.0 BACKGROUND I 2.1 Site Histm Wood preserving and treating operations were initiated in 1903 by National Lumber I and Creosoting Company. National Lumber and Creosoting Company was acquired in 1931 by the Wood Preserving Corporation (subsidiary of Koppers). Koppers operated the facility from 1939 to 1961. Wood preservatives used at the site included I creosote, pentachlorophenol and chromated zinc chloride. The total site occupies
some 62 acres. In 1961, Koppers sold the site to Carver Terrace Inc., who developed CD I approximately 33.5 acres for residential housing. Carver Terrace sold the southern lJ\ half of the property to Bruce Kennedy, a ]ocal sand and gravel operator, who to date, '°N I has excavated two gravel pits approximately 700 feet long, 25 feet wide, and IS feet deep. I 0 2.2 Sire Description
I The Koppers Texarkana site is located in Bowie County, the northeastern most
county of Texast in the city of Texarkana. Texarkana, itself1 is actually situated on I the Texas~Arkansas state line. The 62•acre Koppers site is located within the Texas boundaries of Texarkana in the southern section of the city about 1 mile from the I T exas•Arkansas state line. I Locally, the site is bordered by the Texas and Pacific Railroad to the north, an unnamed tributary to the northwest, Wagner creek to the southwest, Jameson Street I to the south, and a drainage ditch to the southeast. The Koppers Texarkana site is generally flat. There is a drainage ditch to the east I and the Wagner Creek stream valley and gravel pits to the south. The site gently I slopes from the northeast to the southwest. The site geology consists of deposits which range from gravels to silts. These deposits I are found over the entire site from ground surface to a maximum depth of 24 feet.
Within the site) the area consists of a housing developmentt a former sand and gravel I operation, and a church. The housing development, Carver Terrace Subdivision,
I 2-1
-I I
I occupies the northern 33-1/2 acres and consists of 79 one-story houses. The Mt. Zion Missionary Baptist Church occupies a 1/2 acre lot just south of West Third Street and I west of Tilson Avenue. The remainder of the site, the southern 28 acres, is fenced and mvned by Mr. Bruce Kennedy of Kennedy Sand and Gravel Company. I I
I 0, m I \() (\J
I 0 I
I I I I I I I I I I 2-2 I J.O £11JDY OVERVIEW I .3.1 Sample CoJl~tion
Groundwater and soil samples used in the treatab:lity work were collected at the I Texarkana site by Keystone Field Services personnel. Stnct QAJQC and chain of I custody procedures were followed during sample collection Groundw.,atq I Groundwater samples used in the treatability work were collected from wells MW.z ~1\V-4, MW-5. ~W-6, MW-7 and OW-5. The samples were bailed and pumped into I 55 gallon drums for collection and transport.
I .Soil 0
I Both shallow and deep samples were collected for use in the treatability work. Shallow samples were collected with the use of a shovel. Deep soil samples (7-8 feet) were collected with the use of a backhoe. A 55 gallon drum and 5 gallon pails were I used for sample collection and transport.
I 3.2 Sample Analysis
I Both sample co11ectior nd analysis were performed by Keystone Environmental Resources. The mett1 used for the analysis of water and soil samples were I performed in accordance with strict QNQC and chain of custody procedures. The various analytical methods used in analysis of both water and soil samples are 1• presented in Tables 3· l and 3~2, respectively. I 3,3 Groundwater IreatabiUty I Pretreatment Prior to further treatment, gravity oil/water separation pretreatment was used for the removal oil and grease and suspended solids. Both cationic and anionic polymers were used to aid the separation and settling of the emulsified components and the
3-1 , , • - • • I
• . I I i ... ,, I
I TABLEJ•l KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. TEXARKANA, TX TREATABILl'IY STIJDY I ANALYTICAL METHODS WATER ANALYSIS I Paramettt M,thocJ Detection Limit B0D5 I EPA405.l Carbon (TOC) 1 mg/I COD EPA415.1 1 mg/I I EPA410.4 Cyanide, total 10 mg/I ~ EPA335.3 \() Oil & Grease 10 ug/1 EPA 413.1 \() I pH S mg/I EPA 150 C\I Phenols ( total recoverable) ...... EPA420.2 I Solids ( dissolved) 5 ug/J 0 EPA 160.l Solids (suspended) 1 mg/I EPA 160.2 S.:,lids ( total J 1 mg/I I EPA 160.3 Solids (volatile) I mg/I EPA 160.4 Metals 1 mg;1 I EPA200.7 Purgeable Aromatics CD EPA602 Phenolics CD EPA604 CD 11 Poiynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons EPA610 Volatile Organics CD EPA624 I Semi- Volatile Organics (AE/BN) CD EPA625 CD I I CD - Compound Dependent I I I I I TABLE3•2 KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. TEXARKANAt TX TREATABILl1Y STUDY I A..-.;AL YTICAL METIi ODS I SOIL A.'iALYSIS farameter Method Detection Lim it
I pH EPA 9045 Carbon (TOC) Wat key-Black 1000 rngikg I Solids(%)@ 105°C ASTMD2216 N Metals \() Be, Ed, Cr, Cu, Fe, Ni, Z EPA 6010 CD I (\J'° Lead (Pb) EPA 7421 500 mg/kg ..- I Mercury EPA 7471 100 ug:'k.g 0 Purgeable Halocarbons EPA8010 CD I Purgeable Aromatics EPA8020 CD Phenolics EPA8040 CD Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons EPA8310 CD ·I Petroleum Hydrocurbons EPA 3540/418.1 I 100 mg/kg
I I 11 CD- Compound Dependent I I
I
I I
I I
I I
I
I I 11 II 3-lb
I I
water. P AH reduction is achieved by removing the portion that stays within the oil I phase.
I 3.4 A<:th:ated Carbon Adsorntiqn Tesun2
I .-\ctivated carbon adsorption was evaluated as a potential treatment alternative. Carbon adsorption isotherm tests and Calgon's Accelerated Carbon Test (ACT) I ,.,.·ere performed to estimate the applicability of using. activated carbon for removal of contaminants in the groundwater at this site. The carbon adsorption isotherm tests I were conducted in order to estimate the adsorption capacity of the carbon at n different contaminant influent concentrations and the ACT test was performed ts '° determine the carbon usage rate. I '°(\I I Catbon Isotherms 0 Carbon adsorption isotherms can be used in the laboratory as a relatively simple I method to determine the feasibility of using granular activated carbon treatment. By using a set of sJmples with graduated doses of carbon, the distribution of the adsorbable compound can determined and plotted. This will indicate the amount of compound adsorbed per unit weight of carbon verses the con,;:entration of a I particular chemical compound in the applied influent. I Accelerated Ca_rbon Testini: The accelerated carbon treatment was contracted to Calgon Carbon Corporatior. by I Key.stone. The purpose of this testing is to determine the carbon use rate for removal of TOC and Naphthalene. The results from this and carbon isotherm testing were I used in the development of design data for engineering evaluation purposes. I J.5 UY/Ozone OxidatiQn CV/Oxidation using ozone for treatment of the groundwater wa~ investigated. I Owne is a powerful oxidizing agent which has the ability to degrade organic compounds through chemical oxidation. Among the list of chemicals that can be I successfully treated are purgeable organicst phenolics, PAH compounds and naphthalene. The use of ultraviolet light in combination with ozone has been shown I ' .,. • !I.-,, I .. , - r ..,. • - - • .
.. ,.,. ), L I L I • \ •
. - L • ."', • • • •· • •
' • ' ' r 0 I I to enhance the reactivity of ozone with certain chemical constituents. Ozone gas is produced in an ozone generator from either compressed air or oxygen. I The ozone gas is injected into an enclosed reactor of which the water to be treated is pumped through. Also in the reactor are a number of ultraviolet lamps. The reactcr I is designed with several chambers separated by baffles to provide intimate contact between the ozone enriched gas stream and the water to be treated. I 3.6 Biofoeical Treatment
I Activated Slud2e
I Activated sludge treatment is a proven technology for removal of biodegradable
chemical c~rnpounds generally present in wood prpservative site groundwaters and 0 I surface waters. However, it is _l)ossible that the organic substrate concentration in the groundwater is to low to sustain a microbial mass and thus maintain an activated I sludge treatment process.
The activated sludge process utilizes a biological slurry containing an active mass of I bacteria which is contacted with the wastewater in an aeration basin where microbial oxidation and assimilation (treatment) occur. In the basin, the organic components I of the wastewater serve as carbon and energy sources for microbial growth. The organic matter is converted into microbial cell tissue and oxidized end products I (mainly carbon dioxide). The mixture of the microbial mass and wastewater is referred to as the mixed liqucr. The mixed liquor flows from the aeration tank to a I settling tank where the biomass is separated from the treated wastewater ( effluent). A portion of the settled biomass is ret-ycled to the head of the aeration basin to maintain the desired mass of organisms in the basin. TI1e remaining sludge is I removed from the system for final stabilization and ultimate disposal. The sludge is I referred to as the wa5te sludge. The treated effluent is then left for discharge. I Aerati9n Tn.n.k Aeration tank treatment is similar to activated sludge treatment with the exception I that the mixed liquor suspended solids are discharged with the effluent rather than recycled. As with activated sludge treatment, it is possible that the organic substrate I . ' . . I . .. . ·. I ·. ' . . ~ . .. ;· :· . . . . . ; '. . ' ·,
. . . . . , . . - . . - .
I SPECTRIX MONROEVILLE
I TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF GC601 DATA
Sample: 87090546 I Sc,t.n-ce: TB Date Collected: oq/24/87 Descr1pt1on: OAIQC SAMPLES I Date Received: 09/25187 Date Ex ti-acted: 1()/03/87 I Date Anal·:t;:ed: :,)/(13/87
Pu~geable Halocarbons I U"\ 1,1,1-Trichloroeth~n~ .••..• : :o. 030 l,1.2,2-Tetrachloroethane •. : . (l. (>3(J '° t • 1 • 2-T ,· 1 ch l ,;:, 1- c, et ha 11e •••••• : ·: 1). 020 I (\J'° 1,1-01chloroethane .. , ••..•• : · (>. 050 1. l -D 1 ch 1 c,1·c:,ethene ••••••••• (l, t)5(l 1,2-Dichlcroben~ene •.••.••. .-·o. 1 s1:> 0 I 1,2-Dichloroethane ....••... ·().()JO I .2-D1~hloropropane ••.••••• (l. 1)3() 1 .3-01~hl0roben~ene •.....•. :·o. 300 I 1. 4-Dich 1 c,n::,ben;:ene •••••••• 0.250 2-Chlcroathylvinyl ether ••• 0. 130 81-c,mcd 1 ct-", 1 c<1-omethane ••••••• : .· (l • 1 (H) Bromoform .•....••.•.•...•.. : ·0.200 I C~rb6n Tetrachl0r1de ••..•.• :{0.100 Chlorocen~ene ... , ....••..•. 0.250 Chloroethane ....•....••.•.. : 0,250 c: f c1 ,- m • Ill • ,...... I Ch l ~• ~- : . 1). 05(1 D1bromochlorometh~ne .••.••. o. 1 (,o Methyl Bromide., •..•..•.... ·2. 0() I Methyl Chloride .•..•.•••..• • 0,250 Methvler,e Chlc11~1de ••..•..•• : OJ>51"1 "Tet1-,.1chlc,1-c,ethene ••••••••.• : :OJ:3()
Tr· l ch 1 c, re, f 11.1014 ome th a na. • • • • : -. 1). i)SO I Tr 1 ch 1 c,rc,ethene. • • • • • • • • • • • : · (l. 1(H) Vinyl Chloride .•••••••••••. : 0,250 c1s-1,3-Dichloropropene •••• : ·o.030 I t1-ar1s- t, 2-D1 r.h l c,roether,e,.. : · 0. 1)5,) t,-ans-1,3-Dtchlc,rc,pr,,pene., : ,).02(1 I I I ,I I ------
KOPPERS COMPANYt INC. TEXARKANA~ TEXAS GROUNDWATER QA/QC ANALYS~S
Drum Sample# T-TX-1 T-TX-2 T-TX-3 T-TX-4 T-TX-5 T-TX-6 T-TX-7
Parameters
TOC 45.9 46.6 75.5 49.2 49.8 4.20 60.2
COD 145 250 300 300 180 <10.0 200
Phenols ( 4-AAP) 0.263 0.254 1.23 0.332 0.302 0.008 0.341
Each sample is from I er more of the following wells: MW-2, M\V-3, MW-4, MW-5, MW-6and OW-S.
AU values reported in units ofmg/L
01 2666 concentration in the groundwater is to low to sustain a microbial mass and thus maintain an aeration tank treatment procesi..
fixed Film Reactor
The fixed film (or fixed bed) process is similar to aeration tank treatment. The difference is that the reactor is filled with a synthetic packing which provides support I for microbial grmvih and contact between the organic substrate and microbes.
FJ~iidi_zed Bed I r '° I Fluidized bed treatment is a proven technology for removal of biodegradable chemical compounds general\y present in wood pre>Crvative slte groundwaters and C\l'° surface waters. The process consists of a cylindrical column with a 0 I distribution/support plate located in its base. The column is partially filled "'ith a fine grained medium, such as sand. A tank is used as a reservoir from which water is I pumped through the column at a high flow rate to provide a stream of water necessary for fluidizing the bed. Growth of the microbes and contact with the I organic substrate takes place within the fluidized bed. I 3.7 Soil Trcatme,ru Both in situ and ex situ soil treatment were proposed for treatment of soils from the I site.
I In situ Soil Treatmfot
I The in situ soil treatment methodology investigated is more specifically referred to as in situ bioreclamation. In situ bioreclamation is a method for remediating soils and I groundwater aq11ifers contaminated with biodegradable materials through the addition of water enriched with nutrients and oxygen into the subsurface. This results in the enhanced growth and activity of bacteria which use the contaminants as I a source of carbon and energy to convert these materials to carbon dioxide and I water. I Field and laboratory studies confirm that naturally occurring bacteria have the ability I 3-4 I
I :o degrade phenolics and petroleum hydrocarbons (PAH compounds). In-situ ~ioreclamation can be employed in conjunction with soil extraction where significant volumes of soil are contaminated and existing structures make excavation I :mpractical.
I Ex sjtu Soil Ireatmen,
I Ex situ soil washing involves the removal of contaminants from the soil substrate, using a washing technique. It is a physical separation procedure for detoxifying I contaminated soil that involves the washing of the soil into a liquid medium. The ex situ process is carried out in equipment that is designed for contacting excavated soils I v.ith the liquid.
Removal of contaminants from the soil matrix involves both physical displacement of I loosely held contaminants and desorption of the contaminants that are more tightly I bound to the soil particles. I I I I I I I I I I I
I -t.o TREATABILIJY STlJDY SPECIFICS ANJl RESULIS I 4. t Sample Collection I Groundwater Sample~ Groundwater samples to be used in the treatability work were collected from wells I YIW-i MW•4, MW•5, MW-6, MW- 7 and OW•S. The samples were pumped or bailed and placed into 7 • SS gallon drums for collection and transport. Each of the I drums contained samples from 1 or more wells. I An effort was made to collect water and immiscible layers within the wells. For collection of the well samples, bottom fill teflon hailers. top fill stainless steel bailers and peristaltic pumps were used. I 0 Following collection of groundwater samples, a composite sample was made by I obtaining an aliquot from each drum, mixing it it\ a clean jar and distributing it into individual sample jars for QAfQC analytical purposes. The results from this I sampling indicate the initial quality of the groundwater to be used in treatability work and can be found in Appendix A. In addition, each drum was sampled for specific indicator parameters when it arrived at the research center in Monroeville. Theses I results can also be found in Appendix A.
I Upon arrival at the research center in Monroeville, each of the 55 gallon drums were designated with a sample code number. The sample codes are as follows, T*TX-1, T I TX•2, T-TX·3, T·TX-4, T~TX-5, T-TX~6, and T•TX-7. I Sgil Snmpks
Both shallow and deep soil samples were collected for use in the treatability work. I Shallow soil samples were collected with the use of a. shovel. Deep soil samples (7-8 I feet) were collected with tne use of a backhoe. A local contractor was hired to dig the deep sample with a backhoe. The deep I sample was obtained at the 7 - 8 feet level, within the saturated soil zone. This sample was used in the in situ (soil column) treatability work. I I 4-1 ------.
I I I Shallow soil samples were collected by Keystone !ield services personnel. A cleaned I shovel was used. These samples was placed in S gallon pails for transport. The shallow samples were used in the ex.situ (soil washing) treatability work. Deep I samples were used for the in-situ (bioreclamation) trearability work. Upon arrival at the research center in Monroeville, the samples codes were specified I for each of the sample containers. The codes and corresponding descriptions are listed below.
I Sample Description Sample Code C r-- Deep sample adjacent to church (55 gallon drum) T-TX.~8 I (\J'° Surface Soil near D\V•Ol I {5 gallon pail) T·TX-9 0 Surface soil under creor.ote I contaminated area (5 gallon pail) Surface soil from creosote ,I contaminated area (5 gallon pail) I Surface soil. from heavy naphthalene I comamination area (5 gallon pail) I Heplth And Sofen: The sampling plan for this site was reviewed by the KER Heahh and Safety Manager I prior to the sampling trip. The normal safety level, level D, was required at trus site. This is the minimal level of safety~ requiring a standard work uniform, steel toed I boots, safety goggles and a hard hat. In addition to the standard safety gear, an HGNU meter for measurement of the I presence of organic vapors was issued to the sampling crew. The HGNU meter was used to ensure that the level of vapors around soil and groundwater collection areas I were at a safe level. I I I 4.2 Gro.uQ.dwaty TuatabifitI
For all treatability work to follow, an equal aliquot of sample was taken from each of I the 7 ~ 55 gallon drumst composited and utilized. An overview of the groundwater I treatment steps is presented in Figure 4M 1. I et:etreatment Proccdur.e I t Standard jar testing procedures were used to screen several cationic and anionic polymers for the removal of oil & greases and suspended solids from the "°(\J I groundwater prior to further treatment. Composite samples of the groundwater 0 I were used in the jar testing evaluation. The Standard Oe~rating Procedure (SOP) #109, Jar Te,;ting Procedures, was I followed in te~ting this water. These procedures are as follows:
l. Add the cationic polymer first while stirring at 100 rpm. Continue stirring for I one minute.
I 2. Add anionic polymer and stir ar, additional thirty seconds.
I 3. Decrease the stirring speed to 20 rpm and stir for twenty minutes. I 4. After twenty minutes shut off the stirrer and let the scmple sit undisturbed for thirty minutes.
I 5. Remove the supernatant by siphoning and sample for the desired parameters.
Following the procedures described above, several combination of polymers were evaluated. Polymers that have prov0n successful for treating water of similar characteristics were targeted. The screining process involved a visible evaluation of the various polymers and their effectiveness to enhance gravity separation and settling of the emulsified compounds in the groundwater. From the visual screening, ------ FIGURE 4-1 Texarkana, TX GROUNDWATER TREATMENT OVERVlEW Groundwater Sampres
T-TX-1 T-TX-2 T-TX-4 · T-TX-5 , T-TX-6 T-TX-7
GR:U'-JD'NAlER COMPOStTE SAMPLE
PRETREAlMENT OIUWATER SEPARATION
I
CARBON AERATION AXED FLUtDlZED OZONE/UV ADSORBTION · TANK FILM BED
012672 I
the best polymers were used to treat a final sample for analytical testing for I confirmation. Both untreated and treated samples were submitted for analysis.
I Results
I The polymer combination that provided the best results were as follows: I Cationic polymer 300 ppm Amerfloc 10 Anionic polymer 4 ppm Amert1oc 5260 r<\ r-- I The treatment results are presented in Table 4-1. As indicated, the sample was analyzed for pH, oil & grease and PAH compounds. The pH was in the range of 6.5 '°N I ~ 7.0, so that pH adjustment was not required. Oil & grease removal was greater 0 I than 83 o/c with a corresponding removal of 90.7 % of the total P AH compounds. Prior to all further treatability work, the groundwater samples were pretreated with I this polymer combination. When a sample was needed for treatability, a composite was collected by taklng an equal aliquot from each drum and compositing it in a container of sufficient volume required for the specific application. This sample was I then pretreated and used in the treatability evaluation.
I 4,J Activated_Carhop,Adsorptimt
I A composite sample of groundwater was pretreated to remove oil & grease prior to activated carbon adsorption. Carbon adsorption isotherm tests and Ca]gon's I Accelerated Carbon Test (ACT) were performed to estimate the applicability of using activated carbon for removal of contaminants in the groundwater. The carbon adsorption is0therm tests were conducted in order to estimate the adsorption I capacity of the carbon and the ACT test was done to determine the carbon usage. I 11 I I I - . - ,. ,l . I , . • . ·. >\ ·' ·'
~ . . . - ' . ~ . . . I
I TABLE4~1 KOPPERS COMPA~Y, INC. TEXARKANA, TX TREATABILITY srunv I JAR TESTING RESULTS I Sample Percent Parameter Untreate,1 Treated Removal £'11 I ~H ~mits) 6.6 6.8 Oil . Grease (mg/1) 82.6 13.9 83.2 ,;;::;t I PAH Compounds (mg;1) ,- Acenaphthene 3370 44.4 98.7 Acenaphthylene <500 943 NA (\J'° I .-\.nthracene 845 25.1 97.0 ~ Benzor )a nthracene 418 0.28 99.9 0 Benzo a)pyrene 160 0.17 99.9 I Benzo b )fluoranthene 217 0.22 99.9 Benzo g,h,i)perylene 123 0.32 99.7 Benzo k)fluoranthene 88 0.08 99.9 I Chryscne 356 0.19 99.9 Dibenz( a,h )anthracene 96 0.31 99.7 F:Loranthene 1550 21.30 98.6 F!uorene 1970 223 88.7 I Tndeno( 1,2,3-c.d )pyrene 563 0.14 99.9 Pl:enanthrene 4560 208 9.5..t I Pyrene _Ji,~ 2.92 99.8 TOTAL DETECTABLE PAH 15,726 1,469.43 90.7 I Carbazole 815 176 78.4 I !\aphthalene 14,800 7,950 46.3 I NA - Not Applicable I I I I I I
I Cqrbon Isotherms
I frgcedure
I A composite groundwater sample was pretreated to remove emulsified oils & grease. In accordance with SOP # 104, carbon adsorption isotherms were performed on the I v,:ater. Ten 400 ml samples were combined with varying doses of carbon and agitated. A L{\ I one hour contact time was selected for the testing. The samples were allowed ro r- settle and then filtered. The filtrate was submitted for TOC and naphthalene '°(\I I analysis. A pretreatment and Odose (control) sample were included for analysis. I Result,s,
The results of the adsorption isotherm testing are summarized and presented in I Table 4~2. The adsorbate (naphthalene} was used to indicate the amount of ,1 naphthalene adsorbed per unit weight of carbon. As indicated in Table 4•2, the naphthalene was reduced to below detectable limits.
I From these results, amount of carbon necessary to adsorbed a given amount of naphthalt!ne can be determined. A conservative estimate indicates that 0.8188 mg I naphthalene is adsorbed per 0.4 grams carbon. I Am)erated Carbon Testin& I Procedurg A fifteen ga11on groundwater sample was pretreated by Keystone for removal of I emulsified oils and grease. The sample was shipped to Calgon Carbon Corporation I for accelerated carbon testing (ACT) for TOC and naphthalene removal efficiency. The ACT method is used to determine breakthrough for TOC and naphthalene. The test simulated a 10 gpm flow rate for a 4' diameter adsorber system for a total I simulated 2.588 miJlion gallons treated. I I ...... - .. . . 't I I TABLE4-2
TEXARKAJ•lfA 1 TX 'ffiEATABILI1Y STUDY I CARROS ADSORPTION ISOmER..\tS Parameter nII TQC(m~ Sample I • grams carbon/400 ml water)
I Raw* 6.2 44.5 6.20 0 6.9 35.4 2.05 0.2 7.1 3.44 .0054 \0 I r- 0.4 7.1 14.2 <0.003 0.8 7.1 6.5 <0.00J '° I N 2 7.2 81.1 <0.003 ~ 4 7.5 1.74 <0.003 0 I 10 7.8 2.15 <0.003 20 7.8 24.4 <0.003 I 40 7.8 2.01 <0.003 80 7.9 2.98 <0.003 II I (• )Raw is unflocc and unfiltered sample I I I 11 I I I I I - '
·. ~ . - - ':, 1 • ' r I
I Results
I The ACT test simulated an adsorber unit with 2000 tbs. of FS-300 carbon. Flow and
surface loading rates were 10 gpm and 0.8 gpm/ft2t respectively. The empty bed I contact time (EBCf) was 50 minutes. I The ACT was run for seven days. No naphthalene breakthrough had occurred by the end of the study. At study termination, the simulated performance was 180 days on+ line, 2.588 million gallons treated and a 0.8 lb/1000 gallon usage rate. The loading r I was 0.11 mg naphthalene/g F -300 carbon. r-
'°N I 4.4 Ex Situ S9iJ Treatment (Sqil_ Washin&) 0 I £1:ocedure
The soil \'-'ashing evaluation was performed to investigate the potential applicability I for soil excavation and decontamination and also to evaluate different surfactants for possible use with regard to surfactant in situ bioreclamation. The surfactants will be I used in bioreclamation for removal of tightly bound contaminants from the soil I matrix so that soil microbes can assimilate them more effectively. I A total of 5ve soils were washed to determine the most effective surfactants for each. Keystone's. Standard Operating Procedures were followed for all five runs. I Result§
I Soil washing results are not yet available and will be submitted as an addendum to I this report. I \1 4.5 ln SH11 Soil Treatment(SQilC,olu,mn} £rocedure
\1 Five soil columns were set up to determine the effectiveness of in situ soil treatment :a ~ I on the degradation of soil contaminants. The columns were loaded with soil taken I from the area adjacent to the Church, designated as T-TX·S. Three columns were to !"tin aerobically. Two of these columns were to use Hydrogen peroXJde (H2o2) as I :he oxygen source (proton donor) with one as a control; and two columns .::maerobically, using nitrate (N03) as a proton acceptor. Pretreated and nutrient I enriched groundwater was pumped into the columns. I
Within the first week of operation. the columns plugged sufficiently to restrict flow. co I It was determined that the soil sample was not as permeable as indicated by previous r- 5,Qjl testing. The columns were shut down and dismantled. Because of the '° I operational problems encountered, not enough data was collected to properly N evaluate this technology. In-situ soil treatment should remain as an option but will 0 I require future field testing if deemed feasible based on FS results. I 4.6 UV/Ozone Oxidation~ 0~ I P~tdure This phase of th~ study involved the evaluation of chemical oxidation by I ozone/ultraviolet light (03/tJV) for the destruction of groundwater contaminants. A groundwater composite sample was pretreated for removal of oil and grease as I described in section 4.2.
Keystones standard Operating Procedure #110 for 03/UV testing was foHowed. A I bench scale ozonation unit was used for the testing. The unit consisted of an ozone I generator and a 3-liter reaction vessel equipped with ultraviolet light. An initial screening run was performed to determine the optimum o3 dosage and I reaction time based on naphthalene removal. During the scrt!ening run, the unit was run in a batch mode with samples taken at the following time intervals (minutes): I 0( control), 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 20. I
I 4-7 I I Results I Samples frorn the screening run were analyzed for pH, naphthalene and TOC. The results from this testing are presented in Table 4~3. Also presented in this table are the oz.one usage rates indicating a 71 % utilization rate. These results show that as I the ozone dosage {03 applied) increase, the naphthalene and TOC values decrease. From these results, the optimum dosage and reaction time was ct1osen and a final run I was performed to generate treated samples for analysis.
I Figure -4~2 shows the relationship between the amount of ozone applied and removal of naphthalene. Based on this relationship, the first order reaction rate constant for I UV/ozone treated groundwater for C =Ce· K(O3 applied); I K = ~5.54722 (mg 03 used/lr l I The correlation coefficient for the fit of this line is r2-=0.9732. As indicated in Table 4-3, the greatest reduction occurred at approximately 7-9 I minutes. A 10 minute reaction time was chosen for the final run; this corresponds to an ozone dosage of approximately 244 mg/I. Treated and untreated samples were I submitted for the analysis. Table 4-4 shows the analytical resultst operating conditions, and percent removals for the treatment run. The results show a good removal for most P AH's and purgeable aromatics. In addition, a sarnple was I analyzed for purgeable halocarbons which can be found in Appendix C.
I 4. 7 Biological Ireatmen.t I Activat~d _Slyd~ I Protedure The activated sludge unit used in the bench•scale treatability work was a Horizon I Ecology bio-oxidation unit equipped with an internal clarifier. Biological solids in the reactor effluent were settled out in the clarifier and returned to the reactor mixed I liquor. Sludge was wasted from the system as required to maintain a specified solids I retention time. Nutrient addition and pH control were provided to the unit as I - - - - iilll ------TARI.I-: 4--' - - -
KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. TEXARKANA, TEXAS POP SITE OJiUV SCREENING RUN RESIJLTS
Reaction 0 Applied 03 Used [minutes~ img 6. Sample~ 0 3 Utilization pH Naphthalene Jl-1 i,mg o_lll Sample-l fo/o) TOC (unit~ tmg/1) I mgll,J
0 0 NC I 6.0 1.950 27.5 24.5 NC 3 6.4 J.850 97.6 81.6 NC 5 6.6 J.010 91.8 ]53 NC 7 6.7 0. !75 92.8 245 174 71 6.7 9 220 0.(}{)9 h."9.3 NC 6.6 ~• 11 <0.003 24.2 00 299 NC =,. 6.6 ]3 398 <0.003 21.4 284 71 6.6 15 367 <0.003 19.1 NC 6.5 ]7 462 <0.003 13.1 NC b.5 20 6]2 0.0074 17.9 473 77 6.5 <0J)03 14.6
NC ~ Not Calculated
01268() ------f[CURE 4 - 2 KOPPERS coo. INCO -rE:Xf-1RKFlNR ~ rt::XAS OZONE APPLIED vs~ NAPHTHALENE 1 .0 0 .. 5° 0.0
-0.5 ' C - CONCENTRATION OF NAPHTHALENE - l .0 ~ r,,. I 0:,, _J -1'.fi, 0- '-. 0) ...__,E -2 .. 0
r'\ -2_5 u '-J C -3.0 - -3.5 -4 .. 0. -4.5 0 -5 .. 0 0 25 50 75 t 00 1: 25 150 175 200 225 250 OZONE APPL I ED ( mg/d-,) 2 6 8 1 - - . ~ - - - - ... • u .. • .
t:I • ' - . ' • ..
'!I' - • • .... ., r,, • I r TABLE4-4 I KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. TEXARKAl•-iA. TX TREA TABILIT\' STUDY I UV/OZONE TRF.A ThlENT
ReZlcticn Time 10 minutes I Ozone Applied 24-i mg/I Ozone Csed 183 mg/I I Ozone L·tilization 75% Influent Effluent %Removal
(\1 I fl-H(units) 6.3 6.9 :-,.;A ro OC (mg.•l) 23.l 20.5 11.3 Purgeable Aromatics (ug/1) (\J'° I Benzene 40.8 20.4 50 ~ Ethvl Benzene 22.2 <20.0 > 10 0 Styrene <30.0 <30.0 NA I Tol•Jene 77.1 <20.0 >74 Total Xylenes 164.0 <30.0 >82 I LQf Ail~ Bitw Soluhilitt !!!aill. .I PAH Compounds ~aphthalene 2 3 :i., 700 54.60 <2.00 >96 Acenapthylene 3 10.0 <2.00 >80 I Acenaphthene 3 3,930 33.7 <2.00 >94 Fluorene 3 1,980 3.6 <2.00 >94 Pher.anthrene 3 1.290 2.150 0.672 69 I Anthracene 3 73 <0.500 <0.500 NA Fl uoranthe ne 4 260 0.444 0.500 NA Pvrene 4 135 0.508 0.547 NA Benzo(a)anthracene 4 14 0.053 <0.020 >62 I Chrvsene 4 2 <0.150 <0.150 NA Ben'zo( a )pyrene 5 3.8 <0.020 <0.020 NA Benzo(b )fluoranthene s 0.023 0.045 NA I Be nzo( k )fluoranthene 5 <0.020 0.020 NA Dibe n zo( a. h )ant hrace ne 5 2.49 <0.030 <0.030 NA Benzo(r,h,i )pyerlyene 6 <0.050 <0.050 NA lndeno 1,2,3-c,d)pytene I 6 I NA~ Not Applicable (*) - Total PAIi vnlue includes < detectable \'alues I I I necessary to maintain optimum conditions for biological growth. In addition, a temperature controller and heat source were provided to maintain a constant I temperature. The initial set up consisted of two 6.5 liter reactors with internal clarifiers. One unit I was operated with granular activated carbon and the other without carbon as a I control. The operation of the activated sludge reactor was to be carried out in two phases. Phase one consisted of startup and seed sludge washout. Phase Nm consisted of oc I steady state operation to run for 21 days. The units were seeded with an acclimated bi0logical seed sludge at an approximate concentration of 5000 mg;l. Initial influent '°(\J I feed flow was set at .9 ml/min. Within 3 days the feed rate was increased to 2.3 0 ml/min for an HRT ~ 2 days. Phase one was scheduled to run for 40 days,for an I SRT = 20 days (2 x 20 = 40 days) and phase two only long enough to collect a I sufficient number of samples for a statistical evaluation. Results I The TSS concentration within the activated sludge reactor~ steadily declined follov.ing start-up. An evaluation of the operation of each of the two units indicated I that the organic substrate concentration of the influent feed was to low to support an I activated sludge biomass. "fhe activated sludge unit was converted to an aeration tank treatment process and I the control unit was converted to a fixed film reactor. Each of these unit were evaluated separately and are presented below. I Aeration Tank I I The Horizon Ecology bio-oxidation unit was also used for the aeration tank reactori although no clarifier was used. The volume was maintained at 6.5 liters. The unit I was operated as a continuous flow through reactor with no provisions for solids settling or recycle. This unit was operated the same as the activated sludge unit I 4-9 I I above, except for the removal of the c1arifier and a different flow rate. This aeration tank influent flow rate was maintained at 1.29 ml/min. I ~utrient and pH control were provided to the unit. A temperature controller and a heat source were provided to maintain the reactor at 20 • 21 °c. The nutrients were I added to the influent tank. The influent for this unit was the same as for the other units. 1• Resjl)ts I The analytical results for influent sampling are summarized on weekly tables m appendix D. The influent was sampled on a weekly basis and is the same for each of I the 3 biological treatment units. In addition to the weekly tables, raw data for PAH 0 I compounds are included as well as a statistical summary for the data. Analytical results fr': the aeration tank are presented in Appendix E. Daily results I are summarized on weekly tables for the mixed liquor and effluent. GC/MS vo]atiles and semi volatile compounds for the effluent are also included in the appendi.x. I :vtethylene chloride was detected at 10 ug/l and acetone at 220 ug/l, though these two I compounds arc used for cleaning the glassware which may account for the presence of these compounds. Priority pollutant metals were analyzed and included in the !I appendix. Mercury was detected at 0.303 ug/1 and zinc at 246 ug1l. A statistical summary comparison with % removals for all biological units operated is presented I in Section 4.8. I Fixed Film Re.actot The Horizon Ecology bio-oxidation unit was al&o used in tilis application. No I provision for solids recycle was provided. The "fixed film" consisted of a beJ of bio rings suspended by wire mesh. The purpose of the fixed film is to provide a growth I support media for the bacteria. This allows a larger population of bacteria to stay in \I the reactor by limiting flushing of the microbes. I 111 11 I - l - . . - . ~- . ' - - - . : . - r , • • ~ Ir, • • ~ ~ • • ... •• • • I ~ I I Procedure The activated sludge control unit was converted to a fixed film reactor by removing I the internal clarifier and packing it with bio-rings. The bio-rings provided support for biological growth. The volume of this reactor was maintained at 6.5 liters. The I inflllent flow rate was 1.29 ml/min. On November 11, the reactor was re-seeded with biological sludge. Approximately 3000 ml of sludge was drained from the reactor and I replaced. The fixed film reactor was allowed to re-acclimate. Influent feed to the unit was from the same source as the other treatment units. m (lj I Following re-seeding, the fixed film reactor was operated for 17 days to allow for \() seed sludge washout prior to steady state sampling. On November 23, the first steady (\J I state samples were co11ected. 0 I Results I The summary of results for <-.he fixed film reactor are presented in Appendix F. Raw data for the mixed liquor and effluent are included. GC/IV1S volatiles and semi volatile compounds are also inducted in the appendix. Methylene chloride was I detected at 7 ug;l Priority pollutant metals were anal;·zed and included in the appendix. Mercury was detected at 1.15 ug/1 and zinc at 1430 ug/1. Influent results I are presented in Appendix D. A statistical summary comparison and % removals for I all biological units operated is presented in Section 4.8. The metals data is also presented in the appendix. The only compounds detected I were mercury at 1.15 ug/l and zinc at 1430 ug/l. I Fluidized Bed_Rea_ctor I Procedure The fluidized bed was constructed using a 111 diameter glass commn. The column bed I was packed with a fine grained growth support medium. The influent flow rate was maintained at 1.29 ml/min. for an HRT == J hours. I I I r > _... • , ~ .. ~ • • • ' , 1, • • , ... , " , i • ~ • . . I I Air and mitrients were introduxd to the recycle chamber. Ammonium phosphate dibasic was used to supply ammonia nitrogen and phosphate to the bacteria. The D.O. of the unit was measured in the recycle chamber and maint2ined at 7.0 or I above. Sulfuric acid (5%) addition was required to maintain the pH in the 7.0 - 7.5 range with a pH controller as the pH steadily increased once steady state was I reached. I Results The summary of results for the fluidized bed reactor and recyde chamber are I '°co presented in Appendix G. Raw data and a statistical summary are included. Daily results are summarized on weekly tables for the recycle chamber and effluent. "'N I GC'MS volatiles and !iiemi vo1atile compounds for the effluent are also included in the appendix. Methylene chloride was detected at 8 ug/1. Priority pollutant metals 0 I were analyzed and ioc1uded in the appendix. Cadmium was detected at 9.10 ug/1 and I zinc at 125 ug,1. Influent results are presented in Appendix D. A statistical comparison of all biological units operated is presented in Section 4.8. I I Overall, the results from the fluidized bed treatment show reduction to below the detection limit for nearly all soluble organics. No PAH compounds were detected in I any of the five sets of eftluent samples from the reactor. I 4.8 Biolo2ical Treat_me_nt Units Discussion. of Resujts A statistical comparison of influent and effluent data for each of the three biological I treatmtnt processes is presented in Table 4-5. Each of the processes show good reduction for concentrations of conventional parameters. I For the fixed film ;eactor, 51.6% of the TOC was removed, 48% of the BOD was removed as well as 32% of the COD. In addition, 86% of total P AH compounds I were removed as were 57% of the PCP and 93% of phenols ( 4-AAP). I In the effluent from the fluidized bedt oil & grease was detected at an average concentration of 7.32 mg/l. The concentration of oil & grease in effluent from the I aeration tank and fixed film reactors averaged 81.42 and 92.65 respectively. These concentrations indicate an increase in oil & grease levels. The geometric mean I I ------ TABLE ~-5 KOPPERS COMPANY, !NC. TEXARKANA, TEXAS TREATABILITY STUDY STATISTICAL SUMMARY BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT COMPARISON Parameters Influent. Fixed Film Aeration Tank Fluidized Bed Phenols (4-AAP) Mean Mean % REM Mean % REH 0.20 Mean%. REM TOC 0.019 92.69 0.019 92.69 BDL >99.99 BOD (5)-Total 25.87 12.53 51.56 14.88 42.48 7.35 24. 18 71.59 COD -Total 12.63 47.76 11. 11 54.05 3.31 86.31 Oil & Grease 12.83 49.6 31.89 48.S 33.26 13.2 6.11 81.88 PCP (ug/1) 92.65 + 81.42 + 7.32 + 41. 2' Cyanide -Total 11.8 56.79 23.9 41.99 BDL >99.99 BDL 0.01). NA BDL NA BDL >99.99 :If OF AQUEOUS PAH COMPOUNDS (ug/1) RINGS SOLUBILITY .:=- Acenaphthylene I 3 293. 13 I-' Acenaphthene snr.. >99.99 BDL )99.99 BDL >99.99 IV 3 3,930 182.33 BOL >99.99 OJ FJ.uorene BOL >99.99 BDL >99.99 3 1i980 105.57 RDL >99. 99, BDL Phenanthrene 3 1,290 >99.99 BDL >99.99 Anthracene 96.67 0.94 99.02 BDL >99.99 BDL 3 73 12.31 >99.99 Fluoranthene 0.64 94.80 BDL >99.99 BDL >99.99 4 260 9.06 1. 3,4 85.20 Pyrene BDL >99.99 1 4 135 BDL >9 9. 99 Benzo(aiantnracene 8.39 2.29 72.70 0.25 97.02 BDL >99.99 4 14 0.48 1. 59 + Chrysene 4 0.14 70.83 BDL >99.99 2 0.45 1.16 + 0.25 44.44 Ben2:o(a)pyrene 5 3.8 BDL >99.99 Benzc(b)fluoranthene o. :t.9 5.21 + 0.28 + BDL >99.99 5 0.28 8.86 Benzo(k)fluoranthene + 0.49 + BDL >99.99 5 0.10 2.11 + Dibenz(ah)anthracene 5 0 .13 i- BDL >99.99 2. 49 0.31 1.12 + Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 6 0.46 + BDL >99.99 0.28 11.34 + Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 6 0.60 11- BDL >9f,.99 0.20 8. 17 + 0.45 t- BDl.. TOTAL DETECTABLE PAH 364.50 >99.99 50 .18 86.23 1 2.80 99 • 23 BDL >99.99 Carbazole 112.00 BDL >99.99 BDL Naphthalene 2 31,700 >99.99 BDL >99.99 1296.19 1 BDL >9 9.99 BOL >99.99 BDL >99.99 % REM - Indicates % remov~l ( - ) Indicates an increase of the indicated parameter BDL - Below Detection Liwdt 0 1 2687 I reveals an oil & grease concentration of 14.95 mg/l for the aeration tank ar:d 16.53 I mg/} for the fixed film reactor. This number indicates that a large deviation was experienced for one of the data points, though this number remains comparativety I high1 it is more representative of the oil & grease concentrations. The aeration tank reactor showed a reduction of 93% for TOC, 42% for BOD and I 33% for the COD effluent concentrations. In addition, tota\ PAH compounds were I reduced 99%" PCP 42% and phenols (4•AAP) 93%. For the fluidized bed reactor, 72% of the TOC, 86% of the BOD and 82% of the o::., ii COD were removed. No PAH, phenols (4•AAP) .Jr Pentachlorophenol were (X) detected in the effluent for a removal >99.99%. I '°(\l Acid extractable pheno\ics are summarized for each of the three biological units in 0 Table 4·6. The results indicate a total reduction of 58.7% for the aeration tank I treatment process and 66.Sfc reduction for the fixed film reactor. The fluidized bed treatment unit demonstrated greater than 99% removal for total phenolics. Phenol I was detected in the effluent at 1.56 ug/1 and al) other compounds were be1ow the I detection limit. I I I I I I II 11 I 1,1 I TABLE 4-6 KOPPKfW <;i)Mf>ANY. I NC. TEXARKANA , TX TREA TAB! Ll TY $'fU!J'f BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT PHENOLICS REDUCTION Aeratio•n Tank Fixed Film .r'luidized Hc::d Acid Extractable Phenolics (ug/1) lnflu11;,.t Effluent % Removal Effluent % Removal Effluent % Removal 2,3,5,6-Tetrachlorophenol 5/J. ,;'I 19.7 66.3 17.2 '10. 6 <. l . 00 >~~-~ 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 23.9 4.96 .,~.2 4.84 ·,~. '! ,1 .00 >~9.9 2.4-Dichlorophenol 4.99 1. 7~ 64.9 1. 62 61. t, NA - Not Applicable 012689 , •• < - 1'. , •. - + , • • t • • • ~ • ~ • .. •-,, • • • • . , . . I I 5.0 SUMMARY AND CO1"CLUSlONS lnwsitu treatment of soils at this site could prove to be the most cost effective I alternative and should remJ.in as an alternative. The in•situ treatment alternative I must be further investigated with different soils prior to implementation. Soil washing results will be fon.varded as an adendum when the data becomes I avai\abte. The results indicate that activated sludge treatment is not a fe.::.sihte treatment 0 I a, alternative for this site and should not be considered further. '°N I Activated carbon adsorption showed good results for groundwater treatment. Both carbon adsorbtion isotherms and ACT results show reduction of TOC and 0 I naphthalene. I The three biologicJI treatment processest aeration tank fixed film and fluidized bed showed good results and should be included for further consideration. Aeration tank treatment reduced total PAH compounds >99%. Fixed film treatment reduced total I I P AH compounds >86% the best treatment was realized with the fluidized bed with I > 99.9% removal of total PAH compoundf>. Analytical results from UVwozone/Oxidation show good removal rates. Total PAH I were reduced 88%. Good removal rates were also realized for individual purgeable I aromatic compounds. I I I I I 5-l I I I I APPENDIX A (Groundwater QNQC Sampling Data) I ~ C, I C\I'° ~ I 0 I I I I I I I I I I I ""·-• c• ,~..._.,W'IJMIIIINI t I I KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. TEXARKANA, TEXAS I GROUNDWATER QA/QC COMPOSITE SAMPLE ANALYSIS Well Composite Field ]llank TdpBlank I PAR.\..\1ETER (mg/i) pH (units) 6.7 6.9 B0D5 27.5 8.1 I COD Sample: 87090544 I St,L1rce: QA/QC D~te Collectea: 09/24/87 Description: QA/DC SAMPLES I Date Received: 09/25.'a7 Date Ext1~acted: 10/05/87 I Date Ai,d 1 yzed: 1(>/05/87 P~rgeable H~locarbons I 1 • 1 • 1 - r r- i ch l c11- c, ethane ••.••• :<0.030 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane •• : Sam~le: 9?090545 I Source: F'B Date Cc, 1 l ec: t ed ~ (19/24/87 Oe$cription: QA/QC SAMPLES I Date Received: 09/25/87 Date E>: tl-i'c. ted: 10/(13/87 I Date Analy~ed= 1(1/()3/87 I Purgeable Halocarbons 1,1,1-Trichloroethane •••••• :<0.030 1,1,2~2-Tetrachloroethane .• :<0.030 I 1.1 9 2-Trichlorcethane •••••• , Tr- ic:hlc,rc,eth12ne •••••••••••• : <1).1 1)() Vi.11yl Chloride ••••••••••••• : ·::0.25() cis-1,3-Dichloropropene •••• :,0.300 trans-1,2-Dichloroethane •• , :<0.050 trans-1~3-Dichloroprapene •• :(0.200 I I The above results a~e reported in ug/L. I I II ! I I I I I APPENDIX 2-A MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM PCOC I m CONCENTRATIONS °' I (\J'° I 0 I I I I I I I I I 1• 2069T 4040-001-600 11 I, I APPENDIX 2-A MAXIMUM ANO MINIMUM CONCENTRATIONS OF PCOCs IN EACH MEDIUM I Tables summarizing maxi.1um and minimt J?COC concentrations, and their locations, are presented ~n this I Appendix. !fa PCOC was analyzed for and not detected in a particular medium, one half of the contract laboratory I detection limit was used as a substitute value. For a list of applicable detection limits see Appendix K of the RI Report I (ERT 1987). T~ble A-1 presents the maximum and minimum concentr~tions of PCOCs, and their locations, in Carver Terrace I surface soils. Note that at some Carve~ Terrace surface soil sampling locations, two samples, one from Oto 6 inches and the I other from 6 to 12 inches, were taken. The arithmetic average of these samples is used in determining maximum and minimum 0 concentrations. Maximum and minimum values in the RI Report I (ERT 1987) are not based on the average of these samples and may, therefore, be differPnt than the maximums and minimums I reported here. Table A-2 presents maximum and minimum concentrations of I PCOCs in Carver Terrace subsurface soils. Because utility workers were the exposed population and they were not expected I to dig deeper than 10 feet, deeper soils were not included in the summary and scenario. Table A-3 summarizes maximum and I minimum PCOC concentrations for Kennedy Sand and Gravel surface soils. Table A-4 summarizes maximum and minimum PCOC concentrations in sediments and Table A-5 summarizes maximum I and minimum PCOC concentrations is seeps. The concentration of PCOCs in the groundwater well used to evaluate the hypothetical 1• future groundwater scenario is presented in Table A-6. I I A-1 I I 2069T 4040-001-600 I L69cio 1ABlE iH Surm,1ary <. MAXIMUM PCOC CONCE NT RA il ON MlNlMUM LOCATION CONCCNTRATION LOCATION PCP------·------1 G(l(H.) fog/kg) Bl-L4 POT. CARC. PAH i<•20'3~(1 80() h.19/ky) h,g/kg) Bf:>-L7 MANY TOTAL PAH 2.S446e8 3£>() ------_11111 I I l!AWIUH NAWIUl1 11MIWM UNITS I CCNC LCCH!CN LCC~TiOti I PENTACHLCRO~HENOL US/KG 4000 BOO AC[NAP~7HE'1'E Ll5/K6 7~00 SLS2 IIMIV I AW~APH 1~nEUE JG.'KG 890 5L92 ~ll~Y ANTHRAC(~E UG/l'.G !30G SL82 l!A~Y ?S~ZOrGw:1,ERYLE~E U6/k6 161) "IA~v I '"~~:RP,·~~'fE 'IA'°IV co :aoo SLE2 "~'lV r: ~-.'~~:~: ()'. S90j WO•;! :-~Et~w~~~r~~~~~E~E :'W~"."~AL~~~ I ~E ,5 3:~';') (\J'° ,r.. I,: I (r\,', ...... •\- i ,I,, ...... ' . 0 I gE~Zc-~,o~-MF•CE~E Bs~zJ 1>:.-:,~El,e u~ -~1 ...... ~ ... ~ 11,. / I ~~=--s:~~ . .; . " .. ::?~\:: !.~ 1 ;~~~=~c~~f .... I ., 5 .• ~ . ~3 .. ~ I . :: e .• I I I I I A-3 I I • "" ... ' ...... vvnrm,u lir r1,1.11,1 Ill IWAQ: IDlL REM.Tl (0·2 FiETI FROK KENNED: B~ND AND 8RAVE~ "-•-... •..,•••-•u•-,..•-•----••••o ... .- ... ---~M-•,11,111, I ffAllKU" KAXINUN IUNIKU" MINIMUM CONC LOCATION CONC LOCATION UNitS...... -~~---M• 4•-••••••6 ------· -·------I DETECTED PCDC1 ----·-~·--·---···---6-· ~ENTACHLOROPHENOL I US/k6 800 KANY SM NANV ACENAP~THENE US/KS 160 NANV ACENAP~THYL£NE 160 HANY US/KG 4MO SL56 160 NANV I ANTHRACENE US/KS 160 ffANY 9ENZOf6HllPERVLENE 160 HAMY US/KB 160 ltANV la◊ IIANY FLUORANTHEN£ U6/K6 29000 SLSS FLUO~ENE 160 NANV I US/KS 160 NANY 160 KANY O"- 2-METHYLHAPHTHALEHE US/KG 160 JANY NAPHTHALENE t6u HANY C'- U6/K& 160 NAMY 160 ltANY PHENANTHRENE UG/K6 160 NANY I PYAENE 160 HANY (\J'° 06/KS 69000 SLSB 160 NANY ~ BEHZOIAlANTHRACENE UG/K6 160 NANY 160 MAt-:V 0 I 8ENl01AlPYRENE U6/K6 10000 SLS6 BENZO!BlKlFLUORANTHENES 160 NANV U6/K6 220000 SL58 160 MANY CHRYSEHE UG/KS 5000 SL56 DtBENZO!A,H)AHTHRACEHE l'iO HANV I U6/~G !60 NAMV !60 HANV tNOEN0(1 1 2,3-CO)PvRENE US/KS 1~000 SL56 160 "ANY ARSENIC 1 H6/K6 14,q SL5d 1 CHRONIUH HANY N6/K6 12 SL58 1 HANV COPPER HG/KS 9,68 SL58 2,5 LEn IIAHY 116/KG NA NA NA NA I HERCURV KG/KS NA NA ZlNC NA HA HG/KG 35,2 SL55 30,2 ~----~-----~-----~------·-· SLSB TOTAL PAH I ~&/KS 2q12,o 5L58 2560 MNV •••v••-••~••~••aw•••-~•-~~- POTENTIAL~Y US/KS 220000 SLSS I CARCIM06EM(C P~H %0 "ANY •-·~---•--d•--~-~·•8W••-~~6 I (uksg-!ll I I I I A-4 I I STATISTICAL SUNt!ARY OF PCoti FOUND 1N 5£~.llfNT MPIPU:S TWROUS!iJUT TH[ SITE. I ~-•--•a~•-••••-~•-••••••-•••••~••••-••••~••••--•• ff(HIKUK !UNJKUK ti:AX!MUK DETECTED PCOCs UNlTS IIAXIHUK I COHC ~OCArtON CONC LOCATION ·--·--4-•··-----~-M ...... -...... ___ ..,.""_ ·-•-•otl!oo,1>,&- --· ... ·-·-·- BENZENE US/KS 2.5 MAM¥ 21 I TOLIJ£HE US/KS S009 2.S HANY 39 TOTAi. lYlEHES U6/k6 SOM 2,5 lfANY 170 5009 ACENAPHTHEHE I U6/K6 160 HANY ACEHAPHTHVL£H£ U6/KG 19000 s,M 160 lfANY l60 AH!H~ACEHE 115/KS KANV 160 lfA~V 16000 5009 BEH10l6HilPERVLtNE US/KG 160 I FlUORAN THEliE NAM'! 160 IIANV 0 UG/KG 160 FLUOREH£ 1tANY 29000 5009 0 U6/K6 160 IMNY NAPHTHALENE US/KS 15000 S009 r--- 160 NANY 67000 I 2-~ETHYLNAPHTHALENE ~6/KG 5009 (\J PHENAHTHREN£ 1/lO MANY 27000 S009 U6/K6 160 ..- PVRE~E NANY 32000 5009 US/K6 160 I HANY 30000 SD-09 0 9ENZOIAIANTHRACEN£ U6/KG 160 11ANY 8£HZO:AJPYRENE US/KG 1100 SD2l 160 KAHY 160 BENZ018lFLUORANTH£NE tJG/KS 11ANY I 160 11ANV 14000 CHP.YSF,N£ US/KG sooq ltiO NANY 17000 DfBENIO!A 1HIANTHRACENt 'JS/KS S008 160 KANt lbO , I !NOENr(1,2,l-cn1PYREHE UGfl:'.6 !'IANV !60 IIANY t60 MNY ARS£HJC NS/KS 'ANY 10 CHROtlIUM 116/KS 5)01 !!ANY ti2 5007 I COPPER IIG/KG 2.5 lifRCURY IIANV 7,46 50:5 1161KG 0, I MANY c,q LEAD 116/KS SO!S 0.5 SDOl !60 I ZINC 116/KG 5007 --·-~--·~-~~-·•··~---~--.- 2 IIANY JbS SOOq TOTAl PAH 2560 l'IANV ~50120 s~o~ I ~~•·--~--•-~•-•••~--~•-~•A PO Wm ALLY 960 CAllCINOGEfi'lC PAH MNY 17800 SOOS I -~-··-·~--~••-&•--~---•4•• (suHd1tl I I I 11 A-5 I I I "tNilfU" tiIHilf!!# lfAltlfUH D£TECTED PCOCs UNlTS ftAfltfUll ~-W•-w~-•••-·•-·---~- COHC LOCATJCN COHC LOCATION ""·•-·--·-- ...... -.. •"511·--- ...... ---~•-•i.,• I ETHVLSENZEHE US/KS uoo s012-002 5400 TOLUENE UG/KS SN10·00t 500 s012-002 2900 TOTAL XYLEHES U6/K6 SN!0-001 I 3600 9012·002 5600 SNJ0-001 ACENAPHTHENE US/KG 1300"0 s012-002 ACENAPHTHYLEHE US/KS 130000 SD12-002 160 SD12-002 160 SD12·002 I ANTHRACENE UCIKS .6000 8EHZOC6HI>PERYLEN£ s012-002 46000 SDl2·002 U&IKG 160 SDt2-002 FLUORA~THENE US/k6 160 SJU2•002 100000 S1)12-002 100000 SDJ2·002 FLUOR£N£ UGIKG 120000 I so12~002 120000 S012w002 ~ 2·1f£THYLHAPHTHALEH£ UGIKS 170000 NAPHTHALENE SIU2-00l 170000 SD12•002 0 US/KS 400000 SD12-002 400000 PH£NANTHR£H£ U&/KG s012-002 r-- 310000 s012-002 310000 SD12-002 I PYREHE USIKG 100000 C\I SD12-002 100000 5012·002 ~ BEHZOIA)ANTHRACEHE UG!k'.G 25000 s012-002 25000 S012·002 0 I BEHZ0(9)FLUORAHTHEHE U6/K6 22000 CHRYSEHE SDl2-00Z 22000 so12-002 UGIKG 27000 S012-002 27000 lNOEHO(l,2,l·COlPYREH£ U61K6 SDJ2-002 160 s012-002 160 S012-002 I ARSENIC lf6/K6 1 HAHV CURDHIUH N6/K6 1 NANY COPPER l PIAHY l IIANY tl6/K6 1,S PIANY I lf(RCURY HG/KG 2,S KAMY 0,1 SWlO·00l 12 L£AD lfS/k'.6 o. S'12·002 o.s s0,2 .. 002 12 SUl~-001 ZINC 116/k'.6 20,7 I --···-··--··--·---y-··-6-~ 5012·002 22 SN!0-001 TOTAL PAH USIK6 1450480 5012-002 1450480 SD12-0C2 I ··-~~---·--··----·---··--- POTENTIALLY U6/K6 74160 CARClNOGENlC PAH S012·002 74160 s012-002 ~·-~··-~··-··-~-~-·-··-··- I PCOC I CONCENTRATION (ug/1) 0 POT. CARC. PAH TOTAL PAR NA BENZENE NA,. I 3 n ETHYLBENZENE 37 TOLUENE 2.5 TOTAL XYLENES I ARSENIC 25 CHROMIUM NA COPPER 5 I ZINC 12.5 LEAD 5600 MERCURY NA I NA NA: Indicates that the PCOC was not analyzed for. I I I I I I A-7 I I I I I APPENDIXB I (Carbon Adsorbtion ACT Results) ""0 r-- I (\J ...... I 0 I I I I I I I I I I I CALGON CARBON CORPORATION I I Technical Service Report No. 1187-38 I o::;;j 0 ,._... I (\J Feasibility Testing for the Removal of Nar/thalene and TOC from Groundwater ~ I 0 I Prepared For: I Keystone Environmental Monroeville, PA I .fI) I Author: ;Jt¼z · r. P. u;rtif~ 66jo I Date : ____J_a_nu_a_!_.Y_,_1_4..,.,_19_8_8 ______ DISTRIBUTION: KEYWORDS: I o. A. Bi scan Groundwater G. Gunnerson Napthalene F. Ho"· Mendicino Wood Preservative I R. M. Moskal FS-300 ACT I I I I Technica.l Service January 14. 19e8 T. P. Hartig Page 2 1· INTRODUC'TlON I The site of a former wood preservative plant in Texarkana. Texas is contaminated with napthalene and coal tar compounds. Cleanwup procedures h~ve been undertaken by Keystone Evnironmental Resources. This study will det~rmine the applicability I of activated carbon for decontaminating the ground~ater around the plant. SUHHA~Y Am> CONCLUSIONS I An ACT was performed. with 100 ppb breakthrough of napthalene as the objective. • The groundwater sample for the ACT differed from the reported characterization. I It contained 10 ppb of nad,thalene and 20 ppm of TOC. veraus a reported 2 ppm l..f\ na~halene and 36 ppm TOC. 0 • No nap-thalene breakthrough had occurred by the time of study termination. I (\.J • At study termination the simulated performance was 180 days Jn-line, 2.588 million gallons treated, and 4 0.8 lb/1000 gallon usage rate. The loading was 0 I 0.11 mg na'(lt:halene/g F-300. I RECOMMENDATIONS The water used for the ACT differed from the reported characterization. Spiking the filtered groundwater to achieve tne reported 2 ppm concentration of napthalene I and running another ACT is proposed. DISCUSSION I The ACT simulated a Hodel 3 adsorber with 2000 lbs of FS-300. Flow and surface loading rates were 10 gpm and 0.8 gpm/sq.ft. 1 respectively. The EBCT waJ 50 I minutes. See Table 2. The groundwater sample was brown and very hazy. Thia required a prefiltration step through glass fiber pads. The filtrat~ was amber and slightly hazy. The sample I had the odor of creosote. No na~halene odor was detected. The ACT was run for seven days. Pump failure resulted in study termination. No nanthalene breakthrough was detected 1 but five individual compound breakthroughs I were detected by TOC. See Figure 1. I All ACT effluents were water white and odorless. I I I I 1.. 1· I TABLE 1 keystone Environmental Texarkana. Texas Site I ACT t>ata toe Napthalene Effluent Sample &imul. Gallon_s Simul. Days I . -- . . .. .a sf.! ug/1 _ . Influent 20 1 17.139 10 1-19 1 • 5 (1 I 4 119.977 a.33 1 <1 6 188.536 13. 10 '°0 8 2 <1 ,..... 257.094 17.85 l. 5 10 325.652 <1 I 22.60 2.s <1 C\I 13 428.490 29.75 16 3.0 I TABLE 2 Keystone Environ~ental I Texarkana~ Texas Site I ACT Simulation Conditons I r- 0 ,..... Vessel: Model 3 I (\J Carbon: FS-300 0 I Flow Rate: 10 gpm I SLR: 0.80 gpm/sq. ft. EBCT: 45 Min I I I I I I I I I I -u•-o 0- • - FIGURE l roe RRF.AKTIUtOUG-H " , m,m , "f r;.; I . ! I t $ U· ,I.. l ' l 1! I l I I ' I ·r "'. t"""""""""l,,.,,11,HlllHHl"'I I I I [i l I 14 L! !ii {~' ' t • :; l \!I ' I I ' ii .. . . ' .l l ' l I : ;i I I ·I I·· I ' t' :•,, : ( I 12 I ' I I I H l I ! I I l I i I ., I l H l i l f ;,- t , lj 11111111n111H\1111111 u. u, , 1ntr1r11 fl_ I ! f :I: t t I 11 1 I I, 10 If ' P'" r• I '\: , '1 ii 1 L i l t ' :m Ir ft I i 1 Htl "' l I t I I . 8 fl. I : i ,{ r I H l t t • } t I 1 I I 1 ! r i I ., 6 11 . l j ;J, iJ ' . .i II I l !I l ii f i ,, 4 ' l I L I J[' I I I :1 ' t I [ T ; t ! ' 1\ 1 t t I l I •.1 I I.' ·. 1 I li : 1 :; r T ;; [' ! I I ). I I I ' ! ' ' :1' i ! 11 2 I ' ' l .! . ,, ' 11i '~ L J l " I fl 'I t· [' .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 l.O L>O 1 2 7 0 8 -2.0 MILLION GALLONS I I I I I APPENDIX 2-8 GEOMETRIC MEAN CONCENTRATIONS I (j-. 0 r I (\J I I I I I I I I I I I 2069T 4040-001-600 I APPENDIX 2-B SUMMARY OF DATA USED TO ESTIMATE GEOMETR!C MEAN PCOC I CONCENTRATIONS IN CARVER TERRACE SURFACE SOILS, KENNEDY SAND I AND GRAVEL SURFACE SOILS, AND SEDIMENTS I Carver Terrace The following steps were performed to estimate the I ge~metric mean concentration of PCOCs. 1. For each PCOC in Carver terrace surface soils, the 0 I lowest measured value was identified and usec to replace any sampling points at which the PCOC was not I detected. The lowest measured values in Carver Terrace surface soils are shown in Table B-1. I 2. Once all substitutions were completed, total ~PH and potentially carcinogenic PAB were summed for ~dch I sampling point. 3. At sampling points where two soil samples were taken I (one from o to 6 inches and the second from 6 to 12 I inches), results of the two samples were averaged for 11 all PCOCs. 4. These data were then used to estimate the geometric mean concentration of PCOCs in Carver Terrace surface I soils. 5. When estimating current PCOC concentrations in Carver I Terrace surface soils, areas covered by sod were assumed to have PCOC concentrations equal to the I lowest measured value. (The following sampling points are covered by sod: B2-L9; 82-LB; B2-L7; I PACE; STATION 10; STATION 9; B4-Ll2; 86-L6; 86-L7; B4-L22; B6~L8; B2-L6; B2-LS; 82-L4; B2-L2; 82-LJ; STATION 7; 2022; 2026; SL83-001; and, SL90-00l.) I PCOC concentrations for each sampling point are shown in Table B-2. The geometric mean concentration of each PCOC is also shown in Table B-2. 2069T 4040-001-600 I I I I Table B-1 I Minimum Measured Pcoc Concentrations at Carver Terrace I I PCOC MINIMUM CONCENTRATION r N PCP------1200 (ug/kg) ACENAPHTHENE 490 (ug/kg) I ACENAPTHYLENE 260 (ug/kg) 0 ANTHRACENE 280 (ug/kg) B(A)ANTHRACENE 200 (ug/kg) B(A}PYRENE 340 (ug/kg) I B(B&K)FLUORANTHENES 240 (ug/kg) B{GHI)PERYLENE 390 (ug/kg) CHRYSENE 320 (ug/kg) I DIB(AH)ANTHRACENE 400 (ug/kg) FLUORANTHENE 330 (ug/kg) , FLUORENE 470 (ug/kg} I(CD123)PYRENE 350 (ug/kg) I 2METHYLNAPHTHALENE 460 (ug/kg} NAPHTHALENE 490 (ug/kg} PHENANTHRENE 220 (ug/kg) I PYRENE 390 (ug/kg) ARSENIC 2.5 (mg/kg) CHROMIUM 2 (mg/kg) I COPPER 1 {mg/kg) ZINC 6 (mg/kg) LEAD 2. 5 (mg/kg) I MERCURY 0.16 (mg/kg) ======~~======;=~~====:======~:======~=~ I I I B-2 I I I I TABL£ s-a caaNTRATt~ Cf' PCOCs IN CSUM;R TERRACE SUQF'AC£ SO!LS ASSLJUNG T~T CCN::ENTRATrtwS tN SODDED ilR81S AR£ £00ll. TO Tl£ Lt).£ST Wll.E '81SURED. TlESE ~l£S ARE usa> IN TlE OJA~T stfHjlA!0, I O~IC PCOCS ARE IN U6IK6 t.WD H(IRGAHIC PCOCS ARE IN M6/K6, ==~-==-~~==:=~:;::====~======---==--==--=-=---==:-s======:~~==--==~== swit.£ 101'l CARC. LOCATION PCP ~ ~ ARSENIC OlbIIJI (nlPER ZIN: LEAD IE:RCURY I ______.. ___ -..-..---...~... -.. _.-.. ..---·------93-l12 1aoo 5~ 1850 2.S s 6.S 3J 34,&5 0,22 83-Lll I~ 5550 1880 2,'35 ll 25,S a...s l°'.05 0.11 83-LJ4 1200 S9010 42400 3.3 11 25 105 1l, 75 O,J55 I ~-..1 1200 SS..'O 1&50 2,5 2 l 6 2.S 0,16 92·U 1200 5520 1850 2,5 2 1 6 Z,5 O,l6 82--t. 7 1200 5520 1&50 2.s 2 I 6 2.5 0,16 Ma 1200 55..,0 1850 2.s z I 6 ,.s O.H~ C\I (HJ~ 1200 55..'0 1850 2,S 2 1 6 I Sl.58--001 ~ 84-ll 1200 44140 15705 23.25 18 10 .?60 21.15 0.16 r- 84-i.20 J.?00 '3835 4420 ,.s 10.~ a ~ 47. 35 (). I& STATION 3 1200 ~~ 1850 2,5 2 I 6 C\I I 844..12 1.?00 55.?0 1850 86~6 l200 55..'0 1850 't"'"" Eid.7 1200 5~ I) 1850 0 84--i.22 1200 5520 1850 I l:lb··U l.?00 ssao 1850 aOJ--001 2.5 2 1 332 51.0J--OH ,.5 2 1 4c4 84·-US t~ l9nO ISJOO l g 12 S"'..i2 57. 7 (). i£ SH.I 1200 7095 3145 ,.s 4 2 34a 4.2 0.16 I STATl!J( B I~ 26.800 18400 2.5 1 4 114 94-l17 li:00 24'~50 561090 914l4 16000 180140 84800 Sl.87- ' • • • • • • • '. • • , • • I • • ., . . . . :: , •' . '\ ; . .. . . \ ...... I 6. When estimating future PCOC concentrations in Carver I Terrace surface soils, sod is assumed to not have an effect on PCOC concentrations. The geometric mean concentration of each PCOC, is also shown in Tabl8 I B-3. These geometric mean concentrations of PAHs are then used to estimate future concentrations ano the I effect of degradation using half lives reported in the scientific literature (see Appendices 2-C and I 2-F). I I I I I I I I I I I I I B-4 I 2069T 4040-001-600 I I HIBi.£ 8-3 CDNCE~TAA7ICN ~ PCOCs IN C~RVER iE?RACE $t.1Rf'ACE SOILS AS&J!It«i TH'IT SODOING OF AN Afi'£AS !i'.IS \0 Er:F'fCT ON ;>COC CO'tC£N1RATIONS. ::U:E OEGRAl}Q110N I OF PAAs ~D r:(D0/PCOF rs ACC~TEO ~OR; MS£ 'At.LES ARE us£0 IN TH£ F'.UTURE ~!HO. OR®N IC PC0CS ARt IN [}';, "-G PJ40 l 'l!R~ IC PCOCS ARE : ~ ~I KG, I 4-+-~----==-~~z---==--~---~=-=----··-~-·-·-~-•:7":;%---=-----$-~~-·---:=-~------~-- SHJJU TOTI\. CARC, LOCATllll ~O) PAA pCif flf&Nlt Cl-lROMll.111 CU'.«R 21~ Lm> IUCURY ---•-----~---~------•----•--•~---•----~------w------~-•--~------•--~ a:1-ua 1200 5520 ia50 2.5 ~ &.~ j3 ~.s~ 0,205 I )r c: 8J-t13 1200 55::,0 1800 2. ,s 11 Li,J.·,J 84. :=; 10&.0S 0,16 B3·U4 1200 5'3010 '2WO 3. j 11 ~ 10S 'l1. 7S 0.3SS 82--i.3 lJOO 12100 .\JZ5 53 • .3~ S7.S 10.5 2~ 101. 7S 0.16 tj ~-\.8 la()O 131~ 1,s10~ 17 3\ Z1..\. '5 ~35 '-3.'35 (I, ! f> •~ e .._- I 2434~(, ,J 82-t..7 lJ(l(1 381,ZO !O. 15 14.S 16 M J..::'., 0,j4 PQCE l&l(l \ef.\'335 I (15.,.:>(140 e.ss ~(I, 5 12 4(), 5 'SO. €, \),\€, ,...._ 0-lJRCH 1200 672710 44.NO(I ...~ ~"' ~ g.? 3370 Sl 58---00 1 N I B4-l1 1200 44140 t570S 23.25 18 10 260 21.95 o. 16 8-4-L."O 1200 'la~ 44..~ 2.5 10.S s 1<. 47,'3'5 0.16 ~ STAlI~ 9 1200 48310 32800 2. 5 6. 2,7 32£, 0 84-Ll2 l200 235700 1"750 I 864-6 1200 112700 73750 ~""'L7 1200 45,:3100 2020'350 94-L22 1200 37790 21700 86-L6 !.?00 ~.M 11520 St..03--001 2. 5 ..] J 332 I &.OJ--014 2. 5 l 424 94-·i.15 121)() 2:'3nO 15...iOO 3 9 12 552 57. 1 o. 1t> ~ .. ' 84-U 1200 7095 31-\5 ... ,; 2 342 ,\,.: 0.1'3 STATI~ 8 I2(1() .?MOO 18400 2.5 1• 4 11.\ I 84-1.17 1200 2446450 561090 81--t4 16()(1() 100140 84800 Sl.87•1,,)()I 9l-l18 1200 188130 103385 2. 55 'J s 35 76, 4 0...... n BH. ..10 1.\600 33820 16125 2.6 1, 3 1J 41.6 o. 16 I Bl --l20 l~ 11025 5()1:i 2~ 5 5 4 2~ ~2.35 0,2'3 86--i.3 1200 16070 767~ 2~5 II IJ 27~~5 (I, 16 B64L• 120(1 10590 ~75 2.5 E, 2 Ei 29.a O. l & 96--l.12 1200 5520 ISSi) 2. 5 9 3.5' 217. S 17. 45 0, 16 I &a-l& \;?00 ~16,0 531b65 10. 4 19,5 12 3.\2 53. 15 ~\ 16 $2-t.5 1200 4566610 72J4'¾5 5,65 3 n 1072,5 11.a -0. 16 l'<·H 1200 6~35 24'101'5 l,5 &.5 $.S '33.S ::.4. 3 C. lf> 82;2 12\Xl 50050 25550 2.S 5 10,S j.38 30,95 0.16 I 82-l3 1200 3704135 ~~ t.,% 1,.s 1{)1 200,5 27, 'l o. 16 8S-L2 1200 2!0050 126750 2. 1 6. 5 10 HJJ 218,05 0.16 1 ,: srnn°" 1 \200 1~ 1~ '-•.J 6 2& 120 85--i23 1200 138330 67090 B5-l.13 1200 \li\S\() t31 'k." I The following steps were performed to estimate the I ge0metric mean concentration of PCOCs. 1. for each PCOC in Kennedy Sand and Gravel surface I soils, the lowest measured value was identified and used to replace any sampling points at which the PCOC I was not detected. If a PCOC was not detected in any surface soil samples, the method detection 1 imit was ~sed in place of no detects and J valves. I 2. Once all substitutions were completed, total PAH and potentially carcinogenic PAH were summed for each r I sampling point. (\J 3. These data were then used to estimate the geometric I mean concentration of PCOCs in Kennedy Sand and 0 Gravel surface soils. I 4. When estimating current PCOC concentrations in Kennedy Sand and Gravel surface soils degradation of PAHs was not accounted for. The geometric mean I concentration of each PCOC is also shown in Table B-4. 5. When estimating future PCOC concentrations in Kennedy I Sand and Gravel surface soils, degradation of PAHs is assumed to occur. The future geometric mean I concentration of each PCOC, is shown in Table B-4. The same method was used to calculate Kennedy Sand I and Gravel degradation as was used for Carver Terrace (see Appendix 2-C). I I I I B-6 I 2069T 4040-001-600 I I I I TABLE B-4 GEOMETRIC MEAN PCOC CONCENTRATIONS IN KENNEDY SAND AND GRAVEL I CONCENTRATION OF PCOCs IN KENNEDY SAND ANO GRAVEL SURFACE SOILS ASSUMING THAT NON-DETECTS AND J VALUES ARE EQUAL TO THE LOWEST VALUE MEASURED OR ONE HALF THE METHOD DETECTION LIMIT IF THE PCOC WAS NOT DETECTED ANYWHERE I ON KENNEDY SAND AND GRAVEL PROPERTY. TWO GEOMETRIC MEANS ARE PRESENTED. ONE NOT ACCOUNTING FOR OEGRAGDATION AND THE OTHER TAKING DEGRADATION OF PAHs INTO ACCOUNT (HALF LIFE OF 1385 DAYS ts ASSUMED). ORGANIC PCOCS ~E I IN UG/KG AND INORGANIC PCOCS ARE IN MG/KG. r I GEOMETRIC MEAN WITH NO ACCOUNT FOR DEGRADATION OF PAH N SAMPLE TOTAL CARC. 0 I LOCATION PCP PAH PAH ARSENIC CHROMIUM COPPER ZINC SLSS-001 8.00E+02 3.58E+05 2.54E+05 l.49E+Ol l.20E+Ol 9.68E+OO 3.02E+Ol SL87-001 8.00E+02 9.57E+04 5.6JE+04 SLSS-001 8.00E+02 1.99E+05 1.17E+05 l.49E+Ol l.20E+Ol 9.68E+OO 3.52E+01 I SL56-001 8.00E+02 9.57E+04 5.63E+04 l.49E+Ol l.20E+Ol 9.68E+OO 3.45E+01 SL56-003 8.00E+02 9.58E+04 5.64E+04 l.49E+Ol 1.20E+Ol 9.68E+OO 3,47E+Ol I GEOME'rRIC------MEAN W/0 8.00E+02 1.44E+OS 8.82E+04 l.49E+Ol l.20E+Ol 9.68E+OO 3.36E+01 I DEGRADATION I GEOMETRIC MEAN ACCOUNTING FOR DEGRADATION OF PAH I ==~=~;~;i:i====~======~=;~;;~====~~~~-=~~==~======~=~=~~======~=:=~=~=~ LOCATION PCP PAH PAH ARSENIC CHROMIUM COPPER ZINC SL58-001 8.00E+02 2.55E+04 l.81E+04 l.49E+Ol l.20E+Ol 9.68E+OO 3.02E+Ol I SL87-001 8.00E+02 6.82E+03 4.01E+03 SLSS-001 8.00E+02 1.42E+04 8.36E+03 1.49E+Ol l.20E+01 9.68E+OO 3.52E+Ol SL56-001 8.00E+02 6.82E+03 4.0lE+Ol l.49E+Ol 1.20E+Ol 9.68E+OO 3.45E+Ol I SL56-003 8.00E+02 6.83E+03 4.02E+03 l.49E+Ol l.20E+Ol 9.68E+OO 3.47E+Ol GEOMETRIC MEAN WITH 8.00E+02 1.03E+04 6.29E+03 l.49E+Ol l.20~+01 9.68E+OO 3.36E+Ol I DEGRADATION ONE HALF OF THE METHOD DETECTION LIMIT USED IN PLACE OF NO DETECTS I AND J VALUES. I B-7 \I I Sediments I The following steps were performed to estimate the geometric mean concentration of PCOCs. I 1. For each PCOC in sediments, the lowest measured value I was identified and used to replace any sampling points at which the PCOC was not detected. If a PCOC was not detected in any sediment samples, the method I detection limit was used in instead. 2. Once all substitutions were completed, total PAH and r- I potentially carcinogenic PAH were summed for each sampling point. r I 3. These data were then used to estimate the geometric (\J mean concentration of PCOCs in sediments. The 0 I geometric mean concentration of each PCOC is also shown in Table B-5. I ,1 I I I I I I I B-8 I 2069T 4040-001-600 I I I I I G£()E1RIC ~ a:vaNT~rrnH 0:- PCOCs IN SEiH~rs I I (0 "(OC ~~~••:M"•:=a~~=~~~~~=ss=~:~~==-~=~~~~=~=%.=:i2~::~~~==••=:rtg.:;:~~===:====~••-==~~~::-==~~~ ►\'lTEN, I TOT!l TOTft. CARCIN, C\J SI#\£ PVGER EEMZ9£ TO.LO{ m.OIES ~ ~~ A:RSENlC CHROMJU!I CCPPER Z:1C 1..EAD 'lR'OJ~Y ~ ua;~~=d&:lli~=~~3~==~~~;=-u~~~-=~•~~=~=z.s-=-o=::o~~s~=-s~===:.;:3~=~====~~:as=-.::=~=~==•=-=~~=-==s=~ SOOHlOl ~. lOE+ S~mple: 87110145 I souree OU FINAL INF Date co 1 1 ectea~ 11109191 oescr,ot1on. TREATASILITY iTUCt I Date Rece i veo · 11/09187 Oate Extr-.actea. 1t/,23/37 oate Aharvzea: I 1 1 .'23/87 1,1,1-~r,cn1oro~thane . I : ·-3 .00 0 1, 1,a,2-Tetrach1oroetnane . {3. OC· (\I 1, 1 .a-Tr,cn1oroetnene <2 00 1, 1-0 c111oroetnane Jamp1e: 87110146 I $ource cu FINALE~~ Date ;011ecteCJ.; 11/00/87 Oescr,pt,on TAEATABlLIT~ ~T0Cf I Dote 1:1ece I veo 11/09/97 Oa te ='.;.;. t ractea: 11/2.3/e.7 Oate •na1vzea I 11/23/87 1,1, 1-Tr1cn1oroet~ene I <3 .00 1, 1,a.2-retracn1oroethane ,J 00 1,1 .2-Tr,~n10r~ethane N (,2 00 1, 1-01c1,101·oetnarie cc r ' _, 1,)0 I 1, 1-01cn1oro~tnene N ·- 5 vO 1.2-o,ch10-ocenzene , 15 0 1 ,a-o,cn,oroetnane 0 1,2-o,cn1orspropane ·- !<. 00 I 0 1,J-o,cn1or0Denzere 3.00 1,4-D,cn1orooenzene '-.:10. 0 ·25.0 l-Cn oroet0y!v,ny1 ~th~r I < f 3 0 or,:,meti,ar~~ Br•,:irno,:::1, en I •. 10 8romofo..,..m 0 carcon Tetracn1or,ce "20 ◊ •, ' 0 0 I en I c, roo,e11zene , - 2 3 0 Ch 1 ,:, r.._.,e t r,a11e _ •25 0 1:h I oroform_ •5 00 I 01Drom0cn1orometnane <. 1 0 0 Meu·w t Br,)m, ae ·50 0 Metnv1 ~n1or,ae .. Metnv1ene cnior,ae · 25 0 ' 5 •.)() I Tetr~cn1oroetnene : · 3 00 ir I en I oro, 1 uoro~,e tt1~·1e •.!- OC, 'fr- ,en 1oroetr,ene •10 0 I Vinyl ChlOl"'1de ·-25 0 crs-1 ,3-0,cnioropropene •30 0 trans-1 .a-01cn1oroethe~e ·.S 00 I trans-1,3-01cn1oropropene Zv C I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX 2-C CALCULATION OF CARVER TERRACE HALF LIVES I (\J (\J r I (\J I I I I I I I I I I I 2069T 4040-001-600 I I APPENDIX 2-C ESTIMATION OF AVERAGE PAH AND TCDD/TCDF I CONCENTRATION IN CARVER TERRACE I SURFACE SOILS FOR THE NEXT 70 YEARS The future scenario at Car-er Terrace assumes that PAHs I and TCOD/TCDF in the surface soil degrade. Thus exposure of residents will decrease with time. The following steps were I performed to estimate the average concentration of PAHs and TCDD/TCDF in Carver Terrace surface soils for the future I exposure scenario, i.e. the next 70 years. 1. The geometric mean concentration of PAH in Carver I Terrace surface soils, assuming no sod was in place, presented in Table B-3 of Appendix 2-B was used to I estimate the 70 year average concentration. 0 TCDD/TCDF equivalent concentrations were taken from I the RI report. 2. The upper 95 percentile of half-lives reported in the literatuLe for benzo(a)pyrene was used in this risk 11 assessment. This value was equal to 1385 days (see Appendix 2-F). The half-life of benzo(a)pyrene was I assumed to be representative of other PAHs. A half-life of 12 years wa~ used for TCDD/TCDF (EPA I 1986). 3. Annual decay ot PAHs and TCDD/TCDF was calculated I using the following for1.1ula: I I Where C is equal to PCOC concentration at the time specified by the subscript; tis equal to the time period during which the PCOC is decaying; and, k is I equal to the half-life of the PCOC. 4. The concentration at the end of each year of the 70 I year period was calculated. I 2069T 4040-001-600 I I 5. The average 50il concentration for the 70 year peri~d was then derived by summing the concentration at the I end of each year and dividing by 70, the total number of years. Initial concentration, concentrations at I the end of each of the years, and the average concentration for total PAH and for potentially I carcinogenic PAH and 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic equivalents are shown in Table C-1. I I I I 0 I I I I I I I I I C-2 I 2069T 4040-001-600 ,., vv•w.JV '-"-'" ~~ \I OJI\U ~N.UU,'l;lijji,jJfllJJ :lflJ)fj,W!jj,1;:jQ :1-J 3181/1 lh-Jt(, ·~ LZ ~ 0 ,o-:a·r IJ!llllf)illt ~311'1 •:18!JIW ,1-11,-, « ll)•~·J ~AT 10--J!f"I 0,/ IOtJ2"f •lWl ~~-~ Ol fOoll,?"1 ~lln tf·JtO'l 10<30i' ., to-3:lfT t<>-~·· 10,);Z'I ~JU"t ~:l't'J JOoltll'I t0-3/n tl-3',·t lOt~•f I0-30f't lC>-3.S'I 10-.31:R"l ,O-:'l'rl ~11,·1 10-~·1 Of-•D'J: ".:, lO-JClc 'I IO-~T l<>-3Wf " to.~·, 10-:.rt ~Jll't'I "l-, IOtlOZ'I *:Ii!'''1JC>-1t•n 01•3':lt"I ",, ro.~·t ~lOll'l l0-31t 'f ",, 10,.3)? ., !»-3U ·t W-:J')J:'I ",, 10,0~·1 l>0--3Wl o, ..... n l IQk E ( ~ 81:!E~ft.UE !Wt~ (&(h'~lU,r.S (M~ A, 1(• ~Ill~ i,•·!00- Hlll fOlQl ~ IN CAA'il~ IUl!>'.ltE 5UJlfAa 5(11t S •ll•IU 1/fO sao IJ.OlitJ~!C !l~ ,1,\) Sill\ "fNl •~k. : .I 'I{[ .Nllil!tlt.i.. "'"' -~;1 :v ·fM" :1-r, lNf:~ :ii YfAt ,,i·w ti/• li)·Tf~ff~,r t~ ;,,oo,-rc ~ I~ (Al>\H !!~1".l S\.IPI 111.l l&\11. <;. ,.;, ,._,. it•O 511() 6UJII( IAtC 1111.~ "1111 SOil .. ,.. ,.. " .. ,o !,00 (et,.(,..u 111:wi.. ~' I ;"t to,.t'_. ~-I lll"ln.M• lh'f ! bAt. 1Af· lilll c~. Al f (lllj:(b,f) llllllllc...... f . !llf: t&,(, ~f 11'< d•f ••tP~• rtl'E ~- ~IH 1'/EAR'.,t rr'l [ "''* • IF! l'tE'IRSI 111€ r _., •.'l ai.J z.. ~~-t 1-,~.J ,1}T. ,. '7'..f-01 J. &(>("lo() 0 •• I 2069T 4040-001-600 I I .. r I I I I APPENDIXD (Biological Treatment Influent Results) I a-. C\I r- I N ~ I 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix o I ~RGANLEPTIC THRESHOLDS FOR TASTE FOR ORGANIC PCOCS THRESHOLD I PCOC (ug/li.ter) REFERENCE PAH 20 b I BENZENE 500 C ETHYL BENZENE 140 C TOLUENE 250 b 0 o,m-XYLENE 300 C I I"""\ Organoleptic thresholds have not been derived for all r PAH. However, a threshold of 20 ug/liter is reported N I for acenapthene and has been used here to represent all PAH. b: Sax, N,I,, ed. 1986. Hazardous Chemicals Information Annual No. 1. Van Norstrand Reinhold Information I ServiceS:-NewYork, N.Y .. c: Verschueren, K.. 1983. Handbook of Environmental Oata Q!l Organic Chemicals, Second Edition, Van I Norstrand Reinhold company, New York, N.Y .. I I I I I I I I 0-1 I K1 1!•f·J.-l{:: ,•, •~'I Ai<,. ; ~i·• T" : · -i r l•. · 11 1 , • T Y T , • 1 ' I I l i 1 :-· ~~t·"tOr-•l,·1. ,n1n1·1,·y J n f] i,, 11 t ; MI Ji-, t ·1 ME/IN STD LOWER ~mi. l,T . - IJ!TEfl - .- ...... - -- -~· - - MAX VALUE A , · • · n ,'1 l, h t. h y I , • n ,.. j) 1.) •• ,,1•'\_ - 13 A,,, ·n:, 1--•h t.11.,•11,·· :n~.!18 -::v.. :~9 1 ~':~:). ~~f; 71: '; r, 1~1 • ' ~ :t '1 L, (I 1R?.,11 1rir.n1 H '~ . ';, 7 42. 4 723.00 '.l:j(I. ! ➔ (! t• l 11• I r°"ll·' /4 :- :,, . :~ ::s 1 ~,~:. ,90 l!i~,.[,'1 '!/. 1 .77 100.on 3Ufi.OO :):\f•,(17 II 4 1 4 : '. 1 !l . '! (/ . 'f ~ li•·t1-"1l1 th r·,,11, l I I ti • <. lH, F, 'f h~, l .4R ? 1 . ;'. () l):i. i 1 . 7 .-~ : ~ ( I ~,, . 1f>3.00 J':0 ' J ~ ~~ 1\11 t Ii r:1, ·•-11, · l i ! l ! l HH ~>i ~-~ 1.' :q l ~·.1..:i.20 147 . (l ll ! ' . I; I\ 1 . 7 l : : ' : J, : \ 1 : , :, . H :,~ I' I , 1 , , r ·, 11 1 h , . , 1, · ~ ~ 1 1 ,j I) .•; 3 '.' . (l f; !, . ~~:\ 1 f:i.H3 1 l l'•'t,•' ~ . !·d~ . ~) f, .i' e.. o ~: l 1 :~ ! :,' q 11 . ~;' I :, :~ '. ~ 1:5.0~ i - '. ➔ 3.41 16. ~HI l :,·' It ;; ' -, ( ,'.l I .-, tl t h I . , ' ' ' ~ t !' • '.'.. O!~ l 1 . '( :: R :14 17 ':,.] . ll.,'l "r 0•'1 :~ . 0 ;! :-1 . ill 1 . .. ~ ' l..9.~{l i r; . ", ~ > 'l11·y1,•··u, · . 7 !, t:i",.., ,.~ - 4 :, . : ·, :J 1 . ,~ (l .14 . 8 l P,-1, --:c, ( ., ) py ,·, ·n, · . ; : l . ';fl .40 .94 1 ~~ l .?n . .g [I 7 ., 1,3 . tl.', -~1 • . j 1!,-n :~n ( 1, .l fl tl·,l·:-ui t h"11•·· . ~'i : ~ 1!, , ' .28 F~ • 1 :3 .07 19 ().9 r1 Ii.{ ') ,, ..14 ',_,,') .~. ·n.'.:•, ( Ii ) fl '1n r:11) i.h,,n~• • ..t. • I,.~ ·~ 2. 18 . (1,5 10 Of: n II . ~F, .,_.~· . r-; n Tl i lu·•ri;-: ( ,,ll) ·111 th t','.l•~•"ll'" rn OR 2, ( I (I .,'q . n~:; JP (1,1 16 1 P,·11~,,(.1-1.l1, i lJ'••r:vl,'·11,, 4f, ·q 1 .21 ,, ;: !, ~: fl l 7 . -- . ') .1 :', . '. ~ ! nd,~11,, ( i :::; ,·,i lJ•Yl'• ·110 07 4 'l :, 4 '.'.fl . ~~ .1 ~~ . ? ~ ~ (If) OR (11: . : l: ! 46 -~4 Ti 1TAL T1F.TRCTAJ!!,F l'/'IH .'H:4. f,11 17 1 . R4 (I'/ (7,-, ,·b:,;:,, l, · r,:,.1 . 9/l l '.lf,. RR :J:: II . R fl .25 . :HJ 11~'..00 78. [W JI ..~, 6 H.i.10 .no j 1;~. on (1 ll 1384.00 1 :3f,f;. !}:) 1'hr,htti:1l,,11,, J1 i i :t . 112.on l ;~ 8" . 1 f ~ :·4 f; 1. on '.'?fi;'?. 4 4 .no 112.00 112.0(1 00 f=-:n a. n 1 l ,18. 1A 1]. 7f-,, 8.14 48~0.00 ,17f,4. 2t, t-I,,t,--: N•~i;t,"lt.lvr-, n:lmh••l' ( ) f .. r- :t!",''.:. r,,-,;.1,-T 1'.\ \ndj,•,'lt.,.•:-: ,1 ll p."lr:1m,~\.,-,.r 1ev~1. ti,-,~.-.-.: ''fl" indir"lh•:~ ••ni.rv J:\,--.1,-·w 11.--1.r-,·t~1hJ.-, 1,,--.v,·l ff\111,, ,,f r,·r-:r,r•,·tiv,.. p,11:ram!f'!t.("rr.. ------T~-•x.c'\rk.-=-1n:1. T;>'. T1•,.•,1 ·,l-i; i 1y '.·,1,13,ly lnfl,),·•111 l-·AH ll·;t,·, ::t1Mf LIN1; !11\Tfa: Rings : ~. , I ; : ll I l., i () ~'. f\, ,, ·11 :q,!1 thy l •·l"l•• Wl N,,v- P? lf; N!1V H? :~ :_1 - N,-,-v .0, '{ ~~ 7•,..-, :_rn -N,·,v W{ A, ·•·!i,9 J •h t.j., ·nr, . ., 4'.'.. 4 · 2. O\l 3 :,inn :w1, 114 ll ( l F' l •J(, !'•.!ll~" 100 ,2.no 3 lHRO J I ') 111 t 1r• l\ :-H, '1,_, '11 Pl t.l, rc-n,, :~ .2 0,200 :1?. . 5 :+ 1 ·.: '.~ p 1 -1-r (:8. 2 Ant 2i r,:¼, ·•""n,·· 0. Ml{) 73.8 (fl. :JOO ,J '1 ~~ F JI io, 1·,:-;inth-"ti• ... UL l f;. 83 , 0 . f, 0 0 J,"? ~ < 1 ;;;;:;o 1 G . :1 o ..:ioo ry r('nt"' 11. 2 3.'120 11. 8 7.32 4 1 :3 f1 1 ! ➔ . f, 8~n ~•.) ( Ci l cn1 th r:, •>:· 1, 'i B.98 3. 2f,0 e.77 4 1 '1 0 . :, 2 (). f;~,9 6.81 Ch ry:c:r'n;, (i . 1 4 t, U.811 (:. 831 4 ,," o. ~: n 7 P,t,n ,:,·, ,( :, ) py r<>n•· O. f, 18 o.::4,~ (J. 8 () ~> 3.8 0. \)f,13 . !,!J.1 n0n :-:o ( h, f 1 q, ·, r;in t..h••n.--. 0.0B2 {l, 080 0.332 ~ (I • 1 ~-~?, 0. ~1:33 1 i,) 0. 1 ~ 1 Ben,~o ( k l f 1 r,,n t h"'n.-:· f, n. m, (!, ~l 18 0,477 n. ():i!, ()' (If; ll i bt:"'n ;_•, ( ·"' h J ;m th r:\,.:,··n0 ~;, n. 11.1.9 0. 3 fi8 0. 144 2.49 · 0. 0~3(! <0,0~(l D,:n;,;u(g.h, i )p,:,ryi,··11•• <\i.030 0.347 H. ;J,47 fl 0. Of,(I r01p• n. (}6f, 14{, I nd••1p:, ( 1 :;:-i , ·d l py 0. 0.457 (I . 4 1 ~: t~ ,(l_{l:,(t ,fl.Of,o TUT/\!, !lFTE1~TAPLI~ i'All () (17 0 il.249 ll . ~: 1 :, 1 :,H4 (:,'1 r h:1:: •:, 1•:· :'\ 1 l 8 4:,R p JJ)(I N:q,}i l.}i ,'l I nr,,·• ,..? on r, '2.00 11 :: • l )I! ., ,1 l '100 ,1 ~l'. 1 !! 1; l) ~: . () (I 1 ,, I- ,I', ..,1 :, ''" N- , t ,, · N,_ •P ·, '. i '✓•"' n lJ Pl h,·, r ( f,.,r !lf) 0 {. !,,,wr-r cy 11 i 1-i,-l 'i c:, t,r-r. -, 1i r-, r:,m," h~ r lcv,e. 1 . N,-.i~:---: · • :1Pii -~,•,.: .. ~T·n't',ry l',-1,·,w \l..,t,·,,~t,hl,, [,0v,-. l ( l{liL \ , ,f l'"..':'.}.,,..,,('t.ivo) p:-n•;~m.-3t"..,.r~·.. ------.. - .. - - - - - i''. ( )t / 1' ,') I : I ' 1 ': : ( /\ t / Y , I f,; I ' .. - - 1 - 1 1 , .,. • 1·, • , 1 · 1 1 I t t 1 , , I\ ·tr - !· ! , y .. I y T, · x ·, r - -l ------1rit l 1 1, :,I t !\ll j1.-,•' '.'.!\Mt· L l N<, l f I\ T 1.-'. ·~/{ fie:·,~ (\'{ l\, . ~ r I ,,, r1 ri t. h ~/ i , . ri. , :• (HI \ • 11 q,!1 I :1• (1• • . ' . :: . uo ' .. : I '. I ? I, :·~. .n . .?oo I .f I • I I -t l; f r.. rt- [I ~ . U.!ilHl i\r1 1 , r·:1,·<,n•.· l). ~• !) 0 Fl 11, ,r,111 t h·~n•• r·y ro:-n,_. 3. 4 1 (! :1 . 0 1(1 fl.~ ll :'., , : ., ) .·, 11 t h r :e-1, • ~~ n F • n . :( :1 i, t~hn1fJ,n~ 0. :1 ~'.? Pr•n.::,, ( .'\ > pyt·•·r,,- (l • :'. :: R r,~, 1 { f~ •. hlf ln,·,r,1.nl'-h(•n,• 0 ..1'1,;} V,·h7,,, ( k \ flu, ,r ;:1r1 t.h•·n•·· o. l :1s Ili hr:-tJ;:; ( .'rh) anthrAc,·~l'V· n.2~,o g, p,•ry B~n::,, ( h, i ) lc-nr, 0. ;1:11 Tnd~1v, ( 12 3 .. ,:d) py r•m-:: 0.218 T 11TAL DETl?r:'TAPLK PAH fl I~ :1 r b;);: () l , • ·2.00 N,'"'lphtha len~ 2 . {\(\ N,, t . .,.: N~~g;ad i •.u· nnmb,· r { f,·, r !f ~. 'l:. l ,,,,,;.;,~ r c· I N,.t,.,.: "(I' iwlie:1t,,,,. •·nt,t·y indi.c't1t.,•~--: .·t tl r•:t r~rn,,.t.r:r level . P:,e.- J ,·,w I!(• tt), ·t.;1 h] ,, v, 1 ( 1 " I '••r,, ,t ,··r: int.. , t·f ,"• i· ~,r1s . ., •. L1 nr: r. .,f r,-,r:p,,.-,t,ivr: Pc:11'-"!met..-rr.. 012733 -~------KOPPERS COMPANY. INC. TEXARKANA• · TX TREATAB I LITY STUDY WEEKLY DATA SHEETS BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT INFLUENT DATA SAMPLING DATE 16-0ct-87 17-0ct-87 18-0ct-87 19·-0ct-87 20-Oct-87 21-0ct-87 22-0ct- pH {units) 6.5 5.8 Total P04-Hach 6 NH3-N Chemetrics <1 4.5 TSS 2.4 3.3 2.4 <1 vss 20 12 FSS 18 7 10 Pheno•ls (4-AAP) 5 TOC 8 B0D(5)-Total 0.356 COD-Total 38.1 Oil & Grease 31 TDS 112 TDFS <6 TDVS 188 PCP (ug/L} 120 Total Cyanide 68 Total Det. PAH(ug/L} Metals Phenolics {E?A 604) 1384.25 Phenolics (EPA 624) Vol. Org. {EPA 625) Phe-nols-Chemetrics 0 0 0 All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted. * See data in appendix. 012734 KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. TXX.AJUCANA, TX TREATABILITY STUDY WEEKLY DATA SHEETS BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT INFLUENT DATA SAMPLING DATE 23-0ct-87 24-0ct-87 25-0ct-81 26-0ct .. 87 27-0ct-67 28-0ct-87 29-0ct-87 ; pH (units) 6.25 6.15 Total P04-Hach 5.7 NH3-N Chemetrics 5.6 TSS 4 3.2 vss 240 FSS 228 Phenols (4-AAP) 12 TOC BOD(5)-Total 30.7 COD-Total Oil & Grease TDS TDFS TDVS PCP (ug/L) Total Cyanide Total Det. PAH(ug/L) Metals Phenolics (EPA 604} Phenolics (EPA 624) Vol. Org. (EPA 625) Phenols-Chemetrics 0 All values are in mg/L unl~ss otherwise noted. * See data in appendix. ------KOPPERS COKPIJff 9 INC. TEXARKANA, TX TRKATABILITY STUDY WEEKLY DATA SHEETS BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT INFLUENT DATA SAMPLING DATE 30-0ct-87 31-0ct-87 01-Nov-87 02-Nov-87 03-Nov-87 04-Nov-87 05-Nov-87 pH (units) 'Total P04-Hach 6.8 NB3-N Chemetrics 4.67 TSS 4 vss 16 FSS 14 Phenols (4-AAP) 2 TOC 0.401 BOD(5)-Total 29.7 COD-T,otal 14.3 Oil & Grease 80 TDS <6 TDFS 175 TDVS 119 PCP (ug/L) 56 Total Cyanide Total Det. PAH(ug/L) Metals 311. 344 Phenolics (EPA 604) Phenolics (EPA 624) Vol. Org. (EPA 625) Phenols-Chemetrics All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted. * See data in appendix. ------Lf.1.::2 ~O ROPPEllS COMPANY, INC. TEXARKANA. TX TREATABILITY STlJDY WEEKLY DATA SHEETS BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT INFLUENT DATA SAMPLING DATE 06-Nov-87 07-Nov-87 08-Nov-87 09-Nov-87 10-Nov-87 11-Nov-87 12-Nov-87 PH {units) Total PO4-Hach 6.7 NH3-N Chemetrics 5 TSS 4.8 VSS 17 FSS 9 Phenols (4-AAP) 8 TOC BOD(5)-Total COD-Total Oil & Grease TDS TDFS TDVS PCP (ug/L) Total Cyanide Total Det. PAH(ug/L) Metals Phenolics (EPA 604) Phenolics (EPA 624) Vol. Org. (EPA 625) Phenols-Chemetrics All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted. * See data in appendix. ------KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. l'E.X.ARXAHA, TX TREATA.BILITY STUDY WEEKLY DATA SHEETS BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT INFLUENT DATA SAMPLING DATE 13-Nov-87 14-Nov-87 15-Nov-87 16-Nov-87 17-Nov-87 18-Nov-87 pH (units) Total PO4-Hach 7 NH3-N Chemetrics 4.7 TSS 4.8 vss 45 FSS 21 Phenols (4-AAP) 24 TOC 0 .125 BOD{5)-Total 18.1 COD-Total 5.75 Oil & Grease 40 TDS 7.05 TDFS 185 TDVS 139 PCP (ug/L) 46 Total Cyanide Total Det. PAH(ug/L) Metals 7.778 Phenolics (EPA 604) Phenolics (EPA 624) Vol. Org. (EPA 625) Phenols-Chemetrics All values are in mg/L unless otherwis,e noted. * See data in appendix. ------'KOPPERS COM.PA.HY• INC. TEXAKRANA, TX TRKATABILITY STUDY WEEKLY DATA SHEETS BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT INFLUENT DATA SAMPLING DATE 20-Nov-87 21-Nov-87 22-Nov-87 23-Nov-87 24-Nov-87 25-Nov-,87 2,6-Nov-87 pH (units) Total P04-Hach 6.9 NH.3-N Ch.emetrics 5 TSS 4.8 vss 15 FSS 8 Phenols (4-AAP) 7 TOC 0.354 BOD(5)-Total 21. 3 COD-Total 15.5 Oil & Greas~ 65 TDS <6 TDFS 161 TDVS 123 PCP (ug/L) 38 Total Cyanide Total Det. PAH(ug/L) Metals 457.542 Phenolics (EPA 604) Phen-olics (EPA 624) Vol. Org. (EPA 625) Phenols-Chemetrics All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted. * See data jn appendix. ------017L2'.!-G KOPPERS COMPANY~ INC. TEXARXANA, TX TREATABILITY STUDY WEEKLY DATA SHEETS BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT INFLUENT DATA SAMPLING DATE 27-Nov-87 28-Nov-67 29-tfov-87 30-Nov-87 01-Dec-81 02-Dec-67 pH (units) Total P04-Hach 7 NH3-N Chemetrics 4 TSS 4.8 vss 25 FSS 9 Phenols (4-AAP) 16 TOC 0.213 BOD(5)-Total 2.1.4 COD-Total 11 Oil & Grease 80 TDS <6 TDFS 158 TDVS 112 PCP (uifit/L) 46 Total Cyanide 41.2 Total Det. PAH(ug/L) <0.01 Metals 17.315 Phenolics (EPA 604) Phenolics (EPA 624) * Vol. Org. (EPA 625) * Phenols-Chemetrics All values are in ms/L unless otherwise noted. * See data in appendix. ______I______KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. il"EXARKANA, 'TX TRKATAJHLITY STUDY WEEKLY DATA SHEETS BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT INFLUENT DATA SAMPLING DATE 04-Dec-87 05-Dec-87 0,6-Dec-87 07-Dec-87 08-Dec-87 09-Dec-87 10-Dec-87 pH (units) Total P04-Hach 7.2 NH3-N Chem,etrics 5.6 TSS 16. 4 VSS 21 FSS 8 Phenols (4-MP) 13 TOC 0.124 BOD(5)-Total 21.8 COD-Total 67.5 Oil & Grease 60 TDS <6 TDFS 163 TDVS 115 PCP (ug/L) Total Cyanide 48 Total Det. PAH(ug/L) Metals 8.591 Phenolics (EPA 604) Phenolics (EPA 624) Vol. Org. (EPA 625) Phenols-Chellletrics All values are in m.g/L unless otherwise noted. * See data in appendix. ------217LZ~C KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. 'l'EXAR.K.A.NA, TX TREATABILJ.TY STUDY WEEKLY DATA SHEETS BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT INFLUENT DATA SAMPLING DATE 11-Dec-87 12-Dec-87 pH (units) Total P04-Hach NB3-N Ch~metries TSS vss FSS Phenols (4-AAP) TOC BOD(5)-Total COD-Total Oil & Grease TDS TDFS TDVS PCP (ug/L) Total Cyanide Total Dt.3t. PP..H(ug/L) Metal:s Phenolics (EPA 604) Phenoli~s (EPA 624) Vol. Org. (EPA 625) Phenols-Chemetrics All values are in DlS'/L unless otherwise noted. * See data in appendix. ------SAMPLE NUMBER: TEX. INF I ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET [ ------~-----~--~.------~------~----~-----~---~------~-CAS # COMPOUND UG/L I'!'"'\ co10 CHLOROMETHANE ------~10 U C015 BROMOHETH,'\NE r- C0-20 VINYL CHLORIDE 10 U I 10 U (\j C025 CHLOAOElHANE 10 U "C"- C030 METHYLENE CHLORIDE C035 ACE-:"ONE'. 5 .. ~ . . ~ .. ~ . 4 .J 0 I 10 u C040 CARBON DISULFIDE 5 u C045 1, 1-0ICHLOROETHENE co,o 5 u 1, 1-DICHLOROETHANE s u I COSS TRANS-1,2-0ICHLOROETHENE COaO CHLOROFORM 5 u ~ u C06:5 1,2-D!CHLOROETHANE I Ct 10 2-BUTANONE 5 u C11~ 10 u 1, 1, 1-TR ICHLOROETHANE :, u C120 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE C12S VINYL ACETATE 5 U I Ci:30 10 U BROMODICHLOROMETHANE 5 U C140 1,~-DICHLOROPROPANE C170 :, u CIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE(Z) 5 U I c1,o TRICHLOROETHENE: :, u Ct:55 DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE :, u ClhO 1, 1,2-TRICHLOROETHAN~ I C165 BENZENE 3 U ~ u C145 TRANS-1,3-0lCHLOROPROPENE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET 'ABORATORY ~AME: SPECiRIX CASE NO.: -- ~AB SAMPLE !D NO.: 97!200401 QC RePORT NO. : &\MPLE MAT~!X: WATER CONTRACT NO.: -- ~TA RELEASE AUiHOR1ZED OY: ?-'1:f DATc SAMPLE RECEIVED: SEMI '·)OLAT I L.SS 'CNCENTRATI~N: LOW DATAFILE: 9U12004CO~ ~TC: F:;XTRAC7ED ... /.,)../_./1.J · ANALYZED: 1Z/14/87 riE OILUTION FACTOR: .... "!f:·.°. ... ------COMPOUND DETECTION AMOUNT I LIMIT FOUND ,---;;;;----;~~~~~------;~-~------~ '¥ 1J 12004C02 DETcCT:CN AMOUNT LIMlT FOUND I I I I I I 1s·r SPECTRIX oc a --- e I $AMPLE NUMBER: TEX. IN~. I ORGANICS ANA~VSIS OATA SHEET - PAGE 4 IBORATORY NAME: SPECTRlX MOUSTON CASE NO.: - 1C RE:POR T NO : -- ANA~YST: RB DATAFILE: 5U12004VO~ I S. TENTATIVELY lOENTIFIEO COMPOUNDS r I UQ/1!\J I NO NON-HSL COMPOUNDS ~OUND > 10t OF NEAAEST lNT. STD. I I J = ESTtMATED VALUE - At: 1 RESPONSE FACTOR rs ASSUMED I I I I I I I I I I I SAMPLE: TEX INF - PAGE , lAaOP.ATORY NAME. SP£CTRix coAPCP.ATION CASE NO.: -- OATA~lLE: ,ul2004C02 a. TENT AT t VEL V t 05£!-JT ! ;- 1 £.0 COMPOUNDS 1------·------CAS # SEMIVOLATtLE COMPOVND NAMES SCAN .. PURITY AMOUNT 1------,c.- UG/~ l1l""U#--S- PVRIOINE, 2, b-Oi:HETHVL- 359 i1/ 46 N ~ h f-J..f-/ BENZ0NITA ILE, 2-METHYL.- 6.:!7 frP,. 28 0 l1s -,,-, CYCLOHEXANEMETMANOL, .ALPHA. ,.ALPHA. ,4-TR 719 7~ 41 -11-1;-f ETHANGNE, 1-(4-~YOROXYPH£NY~)- 735 7,r 1-,$ -1s--r OENZOCBlTHIOPME~E 76/4 a,2, 26 t" 7-'"-..{, PHENOL, 2,4,6-fRlMETHYL- 783 g!>J 36 1.1-,r -1.1- -.3 BENZENE, 1-ETHVL-4-METHOXV- 821 a-, 50 I l11 , ... ,3 ...... 3 ISOOUINOL.INE 836 ifl,i. 24 /J-33-o tH-INOEN-1-0NE, i2,3-0IHYORO- 8:54 ?1/ ~'f l;,.,J QUINOLINE, 2-METHVL- es~ fll- 1<2H>-ISOGUINOLlNONE 1239 210 UNKNOWN-DOESN'T HATCH ANY LIBRARY SPECTRA 12S7 31 I UNKNOWN-DOESN'T HATCH ANY LlDRARV SPECTRA 1~33 I I £S IHATEO VALUE - A 1: 1 RESPONSE'. FACTOR IS ASSUMED I I - • ----- •-~-v ~~"7'!"~~._----,., \ ----~~.,.,,--~"'T"- ..--- ":!'-""""' ...,._ • - - ' ·~ ' . \ , ..... __ . ,_ ' ·, . . ' , I KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. I TEXARKANA, TX TR.EA TABILfIY STUDY I BIOLOGICAL TRFATMENT INFLUENT METALS DATA farametei: (ug/1) Inffut.n1 Antimony I <60.0 Arsenic <10.0 Beryllium I <5.00 Cadmium . ' ' . . : \ • • I • I I I I I APPENDIXE I (Aeration Tank Treatment Results) I I 0 I i I I I I 11 1• 1• 11 I• .. - - - - .. - - - ... ------ KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. TEXARKANA> TX TREATABILITY STUDY STATISTICAL SUMMARY AERATION TANK MIXED L.IQUOR DATA # OF 95% ex 90% LT Parameters------OBVS MEAN STD LOWER UPPER GM.EAN GSTD MIN MAX VALUE pH------(units) 51 7.34 .32 7.25 7.43 7.33 1.05 6.20 7.70 7.76 Temperature (Deg C) 51 21.97 1. 34 21.59 22.35 21.93 1.06 18.00 26.00 23.68 Flowrate (mls/min) 45 1.30 .04 1.28 1. 31 1.29 1.03 1.18 1.40 1. 35 TSS 50 222.96 562.71 60.22 385.70 41.67 5.14 5.00 2940.00 328.06 VSS 50 199.08 515.68 49.94 348.22 31.16 5.10 4.00 2660.00 279.53 FSS 50 23.88 49.25 9.64 38. 12· 8.85 3.44 .00 280.00 41.96 Dissolved Oxygen 49 9 .08 .52 8.93 9.23 9.07 1.06 8.00 11.20 9.71 Caustic Usage { mJ. s) 50 .25 .41 .13 .37 .90 1. 29 .00 1.50 1.24 D. o. Uptake 0 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .00 .0000 .00,00 .0000 .0000 Microscopic Observ. 0 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .00 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 All value$ are in mg/L unless otherwise noted.. Note: Flowrate indicates influent flow to unit. 012750 ------~------KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. TEXARKANA, TX TREATABILITY STUDY STATISTICAL SUMMARY AERATION TANK EFFLUENT DATA # OF Paramete•rs 95% CI OBVS MEAN STD LOWER UPPER 90% LT pH GMEAN GSTD MIN MAX ------=-==-=~-======-======-===-===-====-==-=-==-=-(units) 51 VALUE Phenols-C'hemetrics 7.00 .27 6.92 0 .0000 7.07 6.99 1.04 6.15 Total P04-Hach .0000 .0000 .0000 7.40 7.34 50 3.43 .66 .00 .0000 .0000 .0000 NH3-N Chemetrics 50 3.24 3.62 3.37 .0000 TSS 1.00 .03 .99 1. 21 2.00 5.30 50 201.87 1.00 1.00 1. 03 4.28 vss 497.87 57.88 345.86 . 80 1.00 1.04 50 182.40 39.48 4.97 6.00 FSS 459.94 49.38 315.42 2400.00 297.89 50 19. 47 39.66 31. 38 5.29 6.00 2240.00 PJ-~nols (4-AA.P) 5 8.00 30.94 6.96 3.57 256.15 Tl .: .02 .oo .01 .00 180.00 34.55 8 .02 .02 1.15 B0D(5)-Total 14.88 3.28 12.14 .01 .02 .02 s 11.11 17.61 14.57 1. 25 10.50 B0O(5)-Soluble 9.22 -.34 22.55 20.80 19.20 5 3.78 7.19 3.42 1.00 COD-Total 3.63 -.72 8.28 24.90 33.88 5 48.60 9.61 2.71 2.43 1. ?.O 9.88 COD-Soluble 36.67 60.53 47.80 8.29 Oil 5 33.00 5.70 1.23 35.00 60.00 & Grease 5 25.92 40.08 32.59 62.08 TDS 81.42 166.92 -125.80 1.20 25.00 40.00 5 288.64 14.95 40.87 TDFS 177.80 22.48 6 .16 6.00 380.00 5 149.90 205.70 176.72 147.67 TDV'S 121. 80 17.92 1.13 155.00 214.00 206.08 5 99.55 144.05 120.78 PCP 56.00 6.96 47.35 1. 15 100.00 150.00 144.80 (ug/L,) 1 64.65 55.63 Total 23.90 .oo 23.90 1. 14 45.00 64.00 65.58 Cyanide 1 23.9G 23.90 .00 'I'otal .01 .00 . 01 23.90 23.90 .00 Det. PAH(ug/L) 5 .01 .01 .00 Metals 2.80 1. 30 1.18 .01 .01 .00 0 4.41 2.51 1. 73 Phenolics .0000 .0000 .0000 1. 24 3.95 5.01 (EPA 604) 0 .0000 .00 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .00 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 ! All values are in mg/t unless otherwise noted. O 1 2 7 5 1 ------/-.{-1.·-·111\- f~ - - _, - - - l!ll'J T,,x.~rknn,:,, T>:: TtY•;d0hi 1 i ty :;t 11dy Stot.ist,i,•,-i,J :,umrn;11·y Af~ rA t. i r,r i T:1 n k !'AH Da t.a j:f (J.F' i➔ rl ~1: CI i':1 r;1mct,,,r::::: CtBV~~ MRAN STD 'HI'\, !.1 . - -· - Lf,Wf.:f? 11 I ·f · f< Ii - - .. - - - .. --- .. - ~ ~ - -· - r;M!•:f\N W(Til - - ·- - MIN . - - - ·- ...------MAX VA I.Ii r,: . - - - - - . ---- ...... _____ +. A,_:ena!-'h thy 1 P:':ue () -- . -·· - . (HIOO .0000 . oonr1 - - ...... - - - ...... - - Accn.-i.pli Ui•.:,!H:'· . (Ht(l(J .on .000() [l _onoo .noon .oono _ (I (l ('II .0000 .00!)() 0000 _ li(I Flii,,n~n•· (I .000(1 .ouou .0000 .0000 . 00(10 .0000 . ouni~ _()()00 . (HJ . ()(!(10 Phe:·n an th ren•::> () .ooon .0000 . O(Hl() .0000 .0000 .0000 ,(10()0 Anthrac~ne . (I 0 .000{1 • ()()0(1 0 _()(!()(! . 00()(! .uuoo Fl uc)rant.h"'n"'-' .0000 .ooon . 0(10() . r1 c1 0 .0000 . 0(100 _(JOOO .nnoo .000(! . 0000 .oono Pyn~ne , I . O(i (I 0 . ()(I . 0000 . (1000 . 01)00 . (10d0 .25 .01 . 1 ~- . :\ E, 'rt.: Denzo(a)anthr~cenP ... -.. ; 1.05 . 2f1 5 .14 . 07 . () fi . 2t: .2? Ch rye:,:n,-. . 2 :1 <')r-1 3 12 1.90 .flS . ,{. . 2f, .04 u) . ~{h ,_ . 'i.'( n,~nz,1( ,"I_ Jpyrer1e f, . ~; :) 1 _ 1 7 .21 .28 Hi . 0:¥ .4? .21-3 . :rn D,=-'nzo ( b} f hi,::-,t·an thene f, . ::'.4 1 .H3 1 l .49 . :: ·r . E, . R;:'. . 4f, . ~) t, B•c!nZo ( k) f 1 uoran th""'n"=" - 4 (! ~~. 26 . 11 ~. ' 1 :1 . Ofi . Of; _21 I ,..., . 7''I.. l . I n Di ben ~ (ah) an th t'fl,~<""n-=- 5 ✓- 1 . 7 8 ' (If, •• 11 .4P. ~ :~ ;~ 1H . ~ (I •. l B""11z,_1 ( g, h, i } p .. ry 1 r:,n~· .74 .41 [> . n{I . 2:_", t .Rl I :J . E1: l . Hf; . ~'.8 . ; l l '- '- I ndF-110 ( 1 '.:3 ,_·d) PY l:'':":n":'- f; . ;. ~ .. '" 1 . fiU _;q . 4 ~) .20 . :1 1 . : f q TOTAL DET~:CTABL~: . :: 0 . '( () .40 1 . 'fl; PAH 5 :::.80 1_30 16 . r, r, . K"' Ca. rh.':lZO 1 e- 1 . 1 R 4.41 2.~t 1 . ..I :1 .. 0 .000() .0000 : . :.'. 4 ~~ . u f' ':,. u 1 Nr.iph t h,"l l ':""ri<=,, .0Cl0() _(IOO() n . (l()(J 0 . () u . (l t ·10 .0000 . ()()()(1 .nono . 0(100 . OOC:O _ 001:n . () () .OOJO .OO()H .OGOU .noon N,:,t-=-: N,,g.:.t.iv,::--, n 1.imb':"r ( f,:·r ~1;1o/., Low,:,-r CI indir;.:1l~-.G -:ii (I f',:1rameter 1evf~l. N,_,t_.-~: "()" indi,~::1t.r:•:-,. ,;_•nt,ry Et,·,J,--)w Df't.,,.ctJ1bl,c: [,,-•v(•l (Bfll,) r,f recpective parameters. 012752 ------.. - - KOPPERS- -COMPANY,- INC.------Texarkana, TX Treatabiltty Study Aeration Tank PAH Data SAMPLING DATE Rings Acenaphthylene Sol. 23--Nov-87 30-Nov--87 04-Dec 3 B1 08 Dec a·, 12 lJ'°!C -s·, Acenaphthene <2.00 <2.00 <2.00 3 3930 <2.00 <2.00 Fluorene <2.00 <2.00 <2.00 < 7. 1JO 3 1980 <0.200 <2.00 Phenanthrene <0.200 <0.200 ".!).200 <0.200 Anthracene 3 1290 <0.500 <0.500 3 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 Fluoranthene 73 <0.500 <0.500 <0.500 4 26fl <0.500 <0.500 Pyrene <0.200 012753 ------KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. TKXARICA.NA I TX TRRATAB [ LlTY STUDY WEEKLY DATA SHEETS AERATION TANK MIXED LIQUOR DATA SAMPLING DATE 23-0ct-87 24-0ct-87 25-Oct-87 26-Oct-87 27-Oct-87 28-Oct-87 29-Oct- pH (units) 6.75 6.2 Temperature (Deg C) 6.45 6.9 6.85 6.9 20 21 21 7 Flowrate (mls/min) 21 21 21 21 TSS 1.29 1. 29 1. 29 VSS 2940 2260 1420 1.29 2660 940 760 G60 FSS 2120 1260 860 740 Dissolved Oxygen 280 140 160 570 80 20 90 Caustic Usage (mls} 8.8 9. 1 9 8.8 1 0.5 1 9 D. 0. Uptake 0.5 0 0 Microscopic Observ. 1 * * * * All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted. * * * Indicates that the test was performed. Note: Flowrate indicates influent flow to unit. 012754 ------~------KOPPERS COMPANY. INC. TEXARKANA. TX TREATABILITY STI.IDY WEEKLY DATA SHEETS AERATION TANK MIXED LIQUOR DATA SAMPLING DATE 30-Oct-87 31-Oct-87 01-Nov-87 02-Nov-87 03-Nov-87 04-Nov-87 05-Nov- pH (units} 6.9 7 6.9 7.3 7 Temperature 7.2 7.5 (Deg C} 21 22 21 21 23 23 23 Flowrate (mls/min) l. 29 1. 29 1.29 1. 29 1.29 1. 29 1.29 TSS 410 210 146 110 VSS 50 52 68 350 187 130 96 44. 46 55 FSS 60 23 16 14 Dissolved Oxygen 6 6 13 8 6.9 9 9.4 9 8.95 9 Caustic Usage (mls) 0 0 0 0 0 D. o. Uptake 1 1 Microscopic Observ. * * * * * * * All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted. * Indicates that the test was performed. Note: Flowrate indicates influent flow to unit. 0 1 2 7 5 5 ------KOPPERS COMPANY. INC. TKXARKANA, TX TREATA.BILITY sn;:;y WEEKLY DATA SHEETS AERATION TANK MIXED LIQUOR DATA SAMPLING DATE 06-Nov-87 07-Nov-87 08-Nov-87 09-Nov-87 10-Nov-87 11-Nov-87 12-Nov-t pH (units) 7.3 7.4 Temperature (Deg C) 7.4 7.3 7.3 7.4 Flowrate 21 21. 5 22 7.4 (rnls/min) 1. 24 24 23 18 TSS 1. 28 1. 29 1. 29 19 75 1.29 1. 29 1. 29 VSS 202 91 49 61 170 21 24 12 FSS 72 43 1_ 6 14 18 9 Dissolved Oxygen 32 19 6 9. 1 5 8 3 Caustic Usage (mls) 8.9 9 9 D. 0.5 0.5 9.3 9.5 10 0. Uptake 1. 5 0 0 Microscopic Observ. 0 0 * * * * All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted. * * Indicates that the test was performed. Note: Flowrate indicates influent flow to unit. 012756 ------~-----~--KOPPERS COMPANY~ INC. l"KXA.llK.AHA, TX TRKATABILITY STUl)Y WEEKLY DATA SHEE'fS AERATION TANK MIXED LIQUOR DATA SAMPLING DATE 13-Nov-87 14-Nov-87 15-tfov-s·, 16-Nov-87 17-Nov-87 1.3-Nov-67 19-Nov- pH (units) 7.4 Temperature {Deg C) 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.5 21 25 7.6 7.5 Flow-rate (mls/min) 25 26 24 .23 TSS 1. 29 1. 3 1. 28 21 1.28 1.29 l. 29 VSS 14 51 69 1. 29 11 15 29 9 8 FSS 41 51 10 3 10 24 9 5 Dissolved Oxygen 18 5 5 9.6 9 0 3 Caustic Usage (mls) 9.2 8.9 9 8.9 D. 0. 0 0 1 8.6 Uptake 0 0 Microscopic Observ. 0 * * * * .·;c: All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted. * * * Indicates that the test was performed. Note: Flowrate indicates influent flow to unit. 012757 ------KOPPERS COMPANY, [NC. TEXARKANA., n: T'RKATABILITY snroy WEEKLY DA'.tA SHEETS • AERATION TANK MIXED LIQUOR DATA SAMPLING DATE 20-Nov-87 21-Nov-87 22-Nov-87 23-Nov-87 24-Nov-87 25-Nov-87 26-Nov- pH (units) 7.5 Temperature (Deg C) 7.G 7.5 7.7 22 22 7.7 7.55 7.5 Flowrate (mls/min) 22 22 22 TSS l.29 1. 4 1. 3 22 23 18 1. 29 1. 29 vss 24 19 21 1. 34 FSS 11 16 57 54 40 12 15 34 Dissolved Oxygen 7 6 7 33 26' 10.8 6 23 21 Caustic Usage (mls) 9.5 9.3 11.2 14 D. 0 1 9.4 9.2 8.7 o. Uptake 0 0 0 Microscopic Observ. 0 0 * * * * * * :t: All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted. * ~ Indicate~ that the test was performed. Note: Flowrate indicates influent flow to unit. 012758 ------~ ------KOPPERS COHPANY 1 INC. TKXAIUCA.NA, TX nEATAIHLITY STUDY WEEKLY DATA SHEETS AERATION TANK MIXED LIQUOR DATA SAMPLING DATE 27-Nov-87 28-Nov-87 29-Nov-87 30-Nov-87 01-Dec-87 02-Dec-57 03-De"c- pH (units) 7.6 7.6 Temperature (Deg C) 7.55 7.6 7.6 7.5 Flowrate 22 22 22 7.6 (mls/min) 1. 38 22 22 22 22 TSS 1. 32 1.29 1. 29 45 1. 27 1.27 1.22 VSS 28 30 9 35 17 9 8 11 FSS 18 6 7 10 11 12 4 7 Dissolved Ox;,.gen 3 2 4 Caustic Usage (mls) 8. l1 8.75 9 8.4 4 0 8.9 3.7 9.2 D. 0. Uptake 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 Microscopic Observ. * * * * * All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted. * * * Indicates that the test was performed. Note: Flowrate indicates influent flow to unit. 012759 ------KOPPERS COMPANY. INC. TUA..RICANA, n: TllKATAB,ILITY STUDY WEEKLY DATA SHEETS AERATION TANK MIXED LIQUOR DATA SAMPLING DATE 04-0ec-87 05-Dec-87 06-Dec-87 07-Dec-87 08-Dec-87 09-Dec-87 10-Dec- pH (units) Ta-mperature (Deg C) 7.6 7.4 7.4 Flowrate 22 7.5 7.4 7.6 (mls/min) 22 22 22 7.6 TSS 1. 18 22 22 22 11 1. 38 l. 39 vss 9 11 1.4 1. 29 8 7 8 FSS 5 1 9 13 3 5 6 Dissolved Oxygen 4 4 7 9 Caustic Usage 9 9.15 2 2 (m1s) 9.2 9 2 4 D. 0. Uptake 0 0 9 8.5 8.85 0.5 0 0.5 Microscopic Observ. t 0 0 * * * * All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted. * * * * Indicates that the test was performed. Note: Flowrate indicates influent flow to unit. 012760 KOPPERS COKPAMY~ IMC. T!XA.R.KANA~ TX TREATABIL[TY snmy WEEKLY DATA SHEETS AERATION TANK MIXED LIQUOR DATA ll-Dec-87 12-Dec-87 SMiPLING DATE pH (units) Temperature (Deg C) 7.4 7.55 Flowrate (mls/min) 22 22 TSS 1. 29 1. 22 vss 7 5 FSS 4 4 Dissolved Oxygen 3 1 Caustic Usage (mls) 8.7 8.6 D. 0. Uptake 0 0 Microscopic Observ. * * All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted. * Indicates that the te·i · was performed. Note: Flowrate indicP.ces influent flow to u.dt. O ·; 2 7 6 1 KOPPRRS COMPANY• INC. TE,(A.RKANA, TX TRKATABlLlTY STUDY WEEKLY DATA SHEETS AERATION TP.lllK EFFLUENT DATA SAMPLING DATE 23-0ct-87 24-0ct.-87 25-0ct-87 2(,-0ct-87 27-0ct-87 28-0ct.-87 29-0ct- pH (units) 6. 8 Phenols-Chemetrics 6.15 6.2 6.6 Total P04-Hach 6.6 6.7 7 NH3-N Chemetrics 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4 TSS <1 <1 <1 4 . .3 vss 120 2400 <1 <1 <1 2040 1600 900 FSS 108 2240 186(..' 630 12 1440 880 Phenols (4-AAP) 160 180 160 560 TOC 20 70 B0D{5)-Total BOD(t,)-Soluble 1 l. 7 COD-Total COD-Soluble Oil & Grease TDS TDFS TDVS PCP (ug/L) 'l'otal Cyanide Total Det. PAH(ug/L) Metals Phenolics [EPA 604) All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted. * See d~ta in appendix. 012762 ------KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. '·rEXARKANA. TX TRKATAB r I.ITY s·ruoy WEEKLY DATA SHEETS AERATION TANK EFFLUENT DATA SAMPLING DATE 30-0ct-87 31-0ct-87 01-Nov-87 02-Nov-87 03-Nov-87 04-Nov-87 pH (units) 7 6.7 Phenols-Chem-etrics 7.1 7.1 6.9 Total P04-Hach 6.7 7 NH3-N Chemetrics 3.7 3.5 3.8 <1 3.5 3.2 3 TSS <1 <1 <1 3.2 vss 420 370 <1 <1 <1 196 118 62 FSS 380 335 180 54 70 40 102 56 48 Phenols ( 4-A..A.P) 35 16 16 60 TOC 6 6 10 BOD(5)-Total 17.1 B0D(5)-Soluble COD-Total COD-Soluble Oil & Grease TDS TDFS TDVS PCP (ug/L) Total Cyanide Total Det. PAH(ug/L) Metals Phenolics (EPA 604) All values are in mg/t unless otherwise noted. * See data in appendix. 012763 ------KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. TF.XARKANA. TX TRKATABfUTY STUDY WEEKLY DATA SHEETS AERATION TANK EFFLUENT DATA SAMPLING DATE 06-Nov-87 07-Nov-87 08-Nov-87 09-Nov-87 10-Nov-87 11-Nov-87 12-Nov· pH (units) 6.9 Phenols-Chemetrics 6.8 6.8 6. 9, Total PO4-Hach 6.9 6.95 7 NH3-N Chemetrics 3 2.1 3.3 <1 3.2 3.2 3. l 'l'SS All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted. * See data in appendix. 012764 ------KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. TEXARKANA, TX TREATA.BILITY STIJl>Y WEEKLY DATA SHEETS .. AERATION TANK EFFLUENT DATA SAMPLING DATE 13-Nov-87 14-Nov-87 15-Nov-87 16-Nov-87 17-Nov-87 pH {units) 18-Nov-87 19-Nov-f 7.2 7 Phenols-Chemetrics 6.9 7.1 7 Total P04-Hach 7.3 7.15 NH'3-N Chemetrics 3.2 3 3 <1 2.9 3. I. 4.3 TSS <1 <1 <1 3.6 VSS 14 32 <1 <1 <1 41 18 23 FSS 11 24 31 6 10 3 13 21 6 Phenols (4-AAP) a 10 5 1 TOC 2 0 3 B00(5)-Total 10.S BOD(5)-Soluble COD-Total COD-Soluble Oil & Grease TDS TDFS TDVS PCP (ug/I.) Total Cyanide Total Det. PAH(ug/C.) Metals Phenolics (EPA 604) All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted. * See data in appendix. 012765 ------KOPPERS COMPAtlY. I NC. 'fF.XARKANA. TX TRF.ATAIHUTY STUDY WEEKLY DATA SHEETS AERATION TANK EFFLUENT DATA SAMPLING DATE 20-Nov-87 21-Nov-87 22-Nov-87 23-Nov-87 24-Nov-87 25-Nov-87 26-Nov- pH (units) 7.1 7.4 Phenols-Chemetrics 7.2 7.4 7.4 Total P04-Hach 7.2 7.25 3.2 3 NH3-N Chemetrics 3.2 3 3.2 TSS <1 <1 <1 3 3.3 16 <1 <1 <1 vss 19 17 10 <1 FSS 10 12 31 31 28 10 1 22 Phenols (4-AAP) 6 7 7 18 19 3 15 13 'I'OC 0.018 9 BOD(5)-Total 12.7 BOD(5)-Soluble 8.7 COD-Total 2.3 COD-Soluble 48 Oil & Grease 40 TDS <6 TDFS 164 TDVS 119 PCP (ug/L) 45 Total Cyanide Total Det. PAH(ug/L) Metals 3.952 Phenolics (EPA 604) All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted. * See data in appendix. 012766 ------KOPPERS COMPANY. lNC. TRXARkANA, TX TRRATABlLITY STUDY WEEKLY DATA SHEETS AERATION T'ANK EFFLUENT DATA SAMPLING DATE 27-Nov-87 28-Nov-87 29-Nov-87 30-Nov-87 01-Dec-87 02-Dec-87 03-Dec- pH (units) 7.1 Phenols-Chemetrics 7.25 7.2 7.1 Total P04-Hach 1.4 7.2 7 NH3-N Chemetrics 2 2.6 3 3.3 3 TSS <1 <1 <1 3 3 32 <1 012767 ------KOPPERS COMPANY• INC. TEXARKANA, TX TRRATABIUTY STUDY WEEKLY DATA SHEETS AERATION TANK EFFLUENT DATA SAMPLING DATE 04-Dec-87 05-Dec-87 06-Dec-87 07-Dec-87 08-Dec-87 09-Dec-87 10-Dec· pH (units) 7.3 6.6 Phenols-Chemetrics 6.9 7. 15 1.1s Total P04-Hach 7.15 1 NH3-N Chemetrics 3.2 3 3 <1 4.3 4.6 4.6 TSS <1 <1 0.8 4.1 vss 9 16 <1 <1 <1 13 7 10 FSS 7 11 10 11 8 Phenols 2 6 9 9 (4-AAP) 5 3 1 6 TOC 0.017 1 2 2 BOD(5)-Total 15.4 0.014 80D(5)-Soluble <1 20.8 COD-Total l. 2 24.9 COD-Soluble 45 9.88 Oil & Grease 25 55 TDS 380 35 TDFS 155 <6 TDVS 100 214 PCP (ug/L) 55 150 Total Cyanide 64 Total Det. PAH(ug/L) Metals 1.545 3.437 Phenolics (EPA 604) All values.are in mg/L unless otherwise * See data in appendix. noted. 012768 ------KOPPERS COMPANY. INC. TEXARKANA, .TX TREATASII.ITY STUDY WEEKLY DATA SHEETS AERATION TANK EFFLUENT DATA SAMPLING DATE 11-Dec-87 12-Dec-87 pH {units) Phenols-Chemetrics 6.9 7 Total P04-Hach NH3-N Chemetrics 4.2 5.3 TSS <1 <1 vss 8 6 FSS 6 6 Phenols (4-AAP) 2 0 TOC 0.014 BOD(5)-Total 15.8 B0D(5)-Soluble 5.93 COD-Total 1. 27 COD-Soluble 35 Oil & Grease 35 TOO 9.1 TDFS 178 TDVS 120 PCP (ug/L) 58 Total Cyanide Total Det. PAH(ug/L) Metals 1.242 Phenolics (EPA 604) All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted. * See data in appendix. 012769 ' • • I • • " I• i • _ ' • . • • - ... · . ·. . ______- -~:_·~----:___ _- . . ' .. · - .·- - . - . "' . f SPECTR!X DCM --- 8 SAMPLE NUMBER: AERATION TANA EFF. I ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET I SPECTRIX OC # --- - 8 SAMPLE NUMBER: AERATlON TANK S:FF ------~------I ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET LABO~ATORY NAME~ SPiCTRIX · .\0 SAMPLE :n NC. ; $71200404 CAS£ NO.: --- &MPL.::'. MAT~XX: WATER GC ~E?ORT NO.: ~- ~-TA R~L~ASE AUTHORIZED OY:~... CONTRACT NO.: --- OATc SAMPLE REce:tvEo: . !~,1(1.I~?. .. I C~NCENTRATIQN: LOW ltTE EXTRAC7ED: ... 1?/~l~.J DAiAFILE: 9U12004C04 • ii:: ANALVZE:O: 12/14/97 0 tt...Vi ION F'AC TOR: ..... J./: ~ ... ,------;::;::::------~;~~~;i;~------~~~~~;----;: (MICROGRAMS I LITER) r-, ------C315 PHENOL 40 U (\J C325 3ISC2-CHLOROETHYL)ETHE~ 40 U ...- ' C330 2-CHLOROPHENOL 40 U O C335 1.3-DtCHLOROBENZENE 40 U I C340 l.4-0ICHLOROBENZENE 40 U C:345 8ENZVL ALCOHOL 40 V C350 1,2-0ICHLOR00EN2ENE 40 U I C355 2-METHYLPH~NOL 40 U C360 BIS<2-CHLOROISOPROPYL>STHER 40 U C365 4-METHYLPHENOL 40 U I C370 N-NITROSODIP~OPVLAMINE 40 U C37~ HEXACHLORO~THANE 40 U C410 NITROBE'.NZENE 40 U I C415 IS0PH0R0NE 40 U C42.J 2-NtTROP14ENOL. 40 U C425 2,4-0IMETHYLPH~NOL 40 U C430 BENZ0IC ACID 200 U I C435 BtS<,-CHLOROETHOXY>M~THANE 40 U C440 2, 4-DICHLOROPl-fE:NOL 40 U C445 1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE 40 U I C4~0 NAPHiHALENE: 40 U C455 4-CHL.OROANILINE 40 U C460 H~XACHLOROBUTAOIENE 40 U C4o5 P-CHLORO-M-CRESOL 40 U I C470 2-METHYLNAPHrHALENE 40 U I C510 H~XACHLOROCYCLOPENTAOIENE 40 U C515 2, 4,6-TRtCHLOROPHENOL 40 U I C520 ~.4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL 200 U C52~ 2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE 40 U C330 2-NITROAN!LINE 200 U C53~ DIMfTHYL PHTHALATE 40 U C540 ACENAPHTHYLENE 40 U C545 3-NITROANI'.INE 200 U cs,o ACENAPHTHENE 40 U C555 2,4-DINITROPHENOL 200 U C~60 4-NtTROPHE'.NOL 200 U C565 0tBE:NZ0F'URAN 40 U ~~70 2, 4-0INit~OTOLUENE 40 U C57~ ~.6-0tNITROiOLUENE 40 U I SAMPLE NUM~ER: AERATION TANK ------'C:HIVOLAT!LE ORGANICS ANALY~IS DATA SHE'.Ei, CONT!NUED IATAFILE. qV120)4C04 DETECTION AMOUNT CQl"'POVND LIMIT FOUND I I I I I \1 ( I ' - • - • - - • -• -. • - - •. -l -. .-•. • -_ '-· •.. - ·• . -_ . - H - :. • - • - ' - • • ------0 - - - ' - • -~~--•--- • .1._ I ~ ,. • • • • - ' . , -. . • - f{..,_ ;.»-' ' . - . i - - " '. - . SPECTRIX OC # --- 8 I SAMPLE NUMBER: AERATION TAN~ EFF. I ------ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHE~T - PAGE 4 f aoRATORY ~..iAME. SPECTRIX HOUSTON CASE NC.: -- QC REPORT ~C: -- ANALYST: SC DATAFilE: 5Ul2004V04A 1 B. TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS I N UG/1..,-- 0 I NC. NON~HSL COMPOUNDS FOUND> 10Y. OF NEAREST INT. STD. I I J = ESTIMATED VALUE - A 1: 1 RESPONSE FACTOR IS ASSUMED I I I I I I I I . - - ~ - - - • : - - - :·_ • • , - : ~ ... • - - • - t - _- - -- - • • . - ' . -_ - ' - -· - . .~ - - - - . - . . - - - - - . - - ,_ . . . - . - ..... _ ,_ -· . , ' . - - -_ " • -- I_ - - - • SPECTRIX DC# --- I - 8 I SAMP~E: AERATION------TANK Eff ORGANIC3 ANALYSIS DATA SHEET ~PAGE 5 SPECTRIX CCRPQRATION CASE NO.: --- ANAL YSi. CEB DATAF1LE. 9U12004C04 B. TENTATIVELY ID€NT!FIEO COMPOUNDS CAS ~ SEMIVOLATILE COMPOUND NAMES SCAN# PURITY AMOUNT 1------;:: I NO NGN-HSL COMPOUNDS FOUND> 10¾ OF NEAREST INT. STD. I 0 I ESTIMATED VA 1 ~E - A 1: 1 RESPONSE FACTOR rs ASSUMED I I I I I I I I I , KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. TEXARKANA, TX TREATABILJ1YSTIJDY AERATION TANK METALS DATA Faramet~r (ug/1) Aeration Took I Antimony <60.0 Arsenic <10.0 Beryllium I <5.00 Cadmium <5.00 Chromium I <10.0 LI, Copper <25.0 r Lead <5.00 ,- I Mercury (\J 0.303 Nickel <40.0 0 I Selenium <5.00 Silver <10.0 Thallium I <10.0 Zinc I 246 I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX 2-E I HISTORIC USE DATA I I 0 II I I I I I I I I 2069T 4040-001-600 11 ~ I APPENDIX 2-E I HISTORIC USE AREA SURFACE SOIL DATA I Four historic use areas identified for the Koppers Texarkana Site are: (1) process area, (2) drip tracJ( area, (3) I treated lumber stor3ge areas, and (4) untreated lumber storage areas. Figure E-1 presents the locations of the four I above-mentioned areas within the site boundaries, tt is estimated that the process area covers approximately 4.1 acres, I the drip track area covers approximately 4.3 acres, the treated , lumber areas cover approximately 9.4 acres, and the untreated r lumber areas cover approximately 44.2 acres. r I Table E-1 presents a listing of the number of surface C\J soils analyzed for individual potential contaminants of concern 0 I (PCOCs) per historic use area. Table E-2 lists the number of surface soil samples analyzed per acre for each historic use area. This table was developed by dividing the number of 1• samples (Table l} by the approximate size of each historic use I area. Table E-2 indicates that an average of 2.1 surface soil samples per acre were analyzed within the drip track area, 0.40 I samples per acre were analyzed within the treated lumber storage areas, 0.43 samples per acre were analyzed within the I untreated lumber storage areas. I I I I I 2069T 4040-001-600 8LLZ io I' T11Bt.E 1!· l iNIIM8fR OF SQ:f'l:01\Cl! WlL ~E'S »lAIL\'Z,ED Vl"J'KIH fMICM IHSTolHt' ,r.,e Jl.llF..A ~U-.:2f.Ji~(!!l:£11! -~H.-~~~l-e~_ ~-"!ln_e(",el5. ~Ip T,rae~ TrO!>,U.-t, 1.\11111,~r U,rH tll!,at ed 1..\iroec ·---. --~- ~r.~ -~lta_ --~.tot~§__ 11rs-en1c , -~".ll!_:11§ 19!..•JR s 3 amllln 1- 18 JS 9 5 3 HI ~,r 9 JS 5 3 ,i..oc, 18 35 1 2 .,.l'<-ury 2 u 1 2J 2 2 Total PM 12 23 9 8 6 25 l'oH!flt telly <:ercl~t,e PM ◄ 8 9 8 6 2S Pfflt-acti.l~cl 9 48 8 6 :Uinc 2S 9 48 s 3 19 36 "'P1Pr~l11Dat'l" Sl:i:-e of aftad'i llr- ( Jller~s 62.0 - - - 1111 ------.. - - - - - I " I I TABLE B-2 I NUMBER OP SURFACE SAMPLES ANAL'lZW PER ACRE FOR liACH HISTORIC USE AREA I li!Jll'2ir gf a1n:,asg 1'1U i~ll:!rui aoah::Zied/Ac..ci;t Process E;Cdes Drip Track Treated Lwnber .A[i& area Untreated Lumber ru:ea§ At_e~§ Arsenic 2.19 I 1.16 0.32 (J'\ Chroal\JII 0.41 2.19 1.16 Copper 0.32 0.41 r- 2.19 1.16 Lead 0.32 0.41 r- I l.71 0.47 N Mercury 0.21 0.27 1.71 0,47 0.21 0.27 ~ Total PAH 2.19 1.86 0,64 0 I Potentially Carcinoqenlc PAH 0.57 2. 19 l.86 0,64 Pentachlorophenol 0.57 2.19 l.86 0,64 Zinc 0.57 2.19 1.16 I 0,32 0.43 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . , ~ . ., .. ./ . -~~-r1. .,., .. I -- :::·.:: ~""--=-' 0 . - ~ ·-~·-i-·· ,,...-----. \ - •· 00 0,~.L.. ::-.:= )' \ I ~ -1 r--- I ~ .,...,,,,...... ~1 C\I -i ~ * _-C::· :t ':= . 0 I ·- ~,:_\ •· I .... I l .I C -- . /'.,\ . -- -,. -- ...... L. ~ •,_ • I r·1• • UNTREATED ARUS I L.. ...J '!Aa, ..... , • PROCESS AREAS I ~-&.- "REA.TEO -m 1..JMBt:A MEAS I Ci DRIP TRACk I I I I I I E-4 I I I I I APPENDIXF (Fixed Film Treatment Results) I ~ a) r-- I (\J sr- I 0 I I I I I I I I I I I ------KOPPERS COMPANY. INC. T'EXARKANA, TX TREATABILITY STUDY STATIST!CA~ SUMMARY FIXED FILM MIXED LIQUOR DATA OF 95% CI 90% LT Parameters OBVS MEAN STD LOWER UPPER GMEAN GSTD MIN MAX VALUE ======- pH (units) 50 7.26 .34 7.16 7.35 7.25 1.05 6.25 7.70 7.70 Temperature (Deg C) 50 21.64 1.17 21.30 21.98 21.61 1.05 21.00 25.00 23.06 Flowrate (mls/min) 43 l. 28 .07 l.26 1.30 1.28 1.06 1.00 1.45 1.38 TSS 49 550.45 972.32 266.39 834.~0 99.03 7.50 3.00 3,710.00 1254.73 vss 49 500.04 893.63 238.97 761. 11 64.21 7.93 2.00 3390.00 1143.36 FSS 49 50.41 84.19 25.81 75.00 13.26 5.59 1.00 360.00 115.89 Dissolved Oxygen 49 9.17 .41 9.05 9.2.9 9.16 1.04 8.50 10.80 9.68 Caustic Usage (mls) 50 .44 1.04 .14 .14 .89 1.54 .00 7.00 1. 53 D. 0. Uptake 0 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .00 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 Microscopic Observ. 0 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .00 .0000 .0,000 .0000 .0000 All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted. Note: Flowrate indicates influent flow to unit. 012782 ------KOPPERS CO~ANY, INC. TEXARKANA, TX TREATABILITY STUDY STATISTICAL SOHM.ARY FIXED FILM EFFLUENT DATA # OF 95% CI 90% LT Parameters OBVS HEAN STD LOWER UPPER GMEAN GSTO, MIN MAX VALUE ------=-=----=-===-==-===-=====-~-======~======-======----=------pH (units) 50 6.99 .31 6.90 7.08 6.99 1.05 6.15 7.60 7.40 Pheno:s-Chemetrics 0 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .00 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 T·otal P04-Hach 49 3.88 .79 3.65 4.11 3.81 l. 22 3.00 5,. 70 4.90 NB3-N Chemetrics 49 1.36 .95 1.08 1.64 1.19 1. 56 1.00 4.80 2.09 TSS 49 553.56 1009.85 258.54 848.58 96.05 7.82 5.00 4800.00 1282.69 vss 49 500.8-8 921.74 231. 60 770.16 82.40 8.09 4.00 4310.00 1147.32 FSS 49 52.68 92.13 25.77 79.59 12.63 6.03 .oo 490.00 121. 53 Phenols (4-AAPl 5 .02 .00 .01 . O"'"' . 02 1.23 .01 .02 .02 TOC 8 12.53 2.61 10.35 14.72 12.23 l. 29 6.77 15.50 16.85 BOD(5)-Total 5 12.63 8.65 1.89 23.37 8.66 3.28 1.20 22.50 38.76 BOD(5)-Soluble 5 2.87 2.23 .10 5.64 2.27 2. 16 1.00 6.50 5.98 I COD-Total 5 49.60 l.4.77 31.26 67.94 48.12 1.30 40.00 7f 00 67.13 COD-Soluble 5 27.00 9.75 14.90 39. 10 24.84 1.67 10.00 35.00 47.40 Oil & Grease 5 92.65 190.28 ·-143. 58 3i8.87 16.43 6.35 6.00 433.00 168.90 TDS 5 186.40 28.32 1.51.24 221.56 184.64 1.17 146.00 226.00 224.57 TDFS 5 125.80 26.20 93.27 158.33 123.81 1.22 100.00 169.00 158.46 TDVS 5 60.60 10.62 47.41 73.79 59.83 1. 20 46.00 72.00 75.17 PCP (ug/L)· 1 17.80 .00 17.:30 17.80 17.80 .00 17.SO 17.80 .00 Total Cyanide 1 . 01 .co .01 .01 .01 .00 . 01 .01 .00 Total Det. PAH(ug/L) 5 50.17 87 .12 -57.98 158.33 17.53 4.51 4.11 205.59 117.04. Metals 0 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .00 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 Pheaolics (EPA 604) 0 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 . 00 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 All values are in l'lg/L unless otherwise noted. 012783 - .. Ktlf'I·!•'.J<:: (·; 1Mf·/\tr,, UW. ------T1~:zrnrkan:\,- TX- '[•r-•-,\- d,i \- i\y :·,t\1,\y------~;t.atb:t [,,,I .',11_mm,ry Fixed l•'i lm Y'Ail n,-1t .. c1 If !W !• ~. ~•T (: l '.11)",. l,T ! ', I !'.'11111• 't •.•r:3. I ll-',\J:~ MF.AN ~-;TD LllWF.F' . .., Of i•r-:k ( :t-rn,A.N <;:~TT, ------' MIN MAX VAL£!!~ - - - ~ -· ------. -~ -- ~· - - ~ ·- -- - ~~ ------/\, · (• o .::t p h t by l "' n c • (I IJ(l(JO - -· ... - . on(,o . U()(! ~I . O(HIO . UU . (l{lfl(l A,~,·-nni,h t hf"rte (I .O!ll!U .0000 'O(l!Hl .ooou . ouoo . U(Hl() I) I II It t . 011 11, , r· .-. n, · . 00!1(1 . 011(1(1 '(10(1(! (l!Hl(1 F I u ,(1(\(10 .ouoo .000() ouuo . (I() . 0(1(1(1 r·11 f'>t, ?Int. h c·•~llt"" . ll(HJO . UO(l(l .uoou 1 . \14 .00 . !l4 .84 ' ~~4 .on . ~¾4 Ant. h r.:ii ,',.:n e 1 .54 .00 .94 .on .64 . f, 4 • E34 .00 .n4 F 1 n n r .:i. n t. 1-H.~ n •=- ,3 1 .J4 .64 .nn 1 . f.7 ~ e. 1 f-..4H . 7 :{ J . (17 ! ·y t'f'n•· !\ ., . 2 ~~ .1. ?F: 4 I :l 2" ~!~-~ 4 :! 1 . ~)4 I . f,:·~ 7•·· I.i,c-r1 z·, ( .:1 l -:\n ~ h r,:,,_~""n"" ~ • 4 EO . ::! f i ~•. R2 4 . .'~'.) •' l . ~.~ ~·. sr; ] . '( 1 4. fH-1 ' ~,g ~)(l J: 4 . ,) :1 . l)r; 1:tiryr..1:·n•: ., 1 . 7f; F 6.31 2.88 1 . 8'.; :, . ~{4 . 71 4 . 11 P(··nz,} ( ·, ) Iiy r "': n ..-. ! ' 18 f;. 90 4 '.:!I !=i. 21 fl . ;>1 - R . ;: ti If;. 6K . c:·1 J' l .7~ 4 .40 :: l . 7 (1 ! r:,-_, n z, , l b ' f 1 u ,:, t· :~ t l t ht"· n (• •' ~. fa; 1 :-: . I'.: 1 :, . 37 1 {) . :=: :, :''/ . !f!", 1, l 4 4 . tff-, r.,.~ rt~< I ( 1~ I ,"l t. Fl" r. '.• .70 ~Jt,. 30 :~ 0 . t ~ :. ) f J I,:, r n JU ..' ') 1 1 -1. t,4 :·~.:~rl ~ • ~. Ci .R2 4.21 [Ii h,;::~n= ( ."'!h) ."1nthr21.cen~ ~ 18 e. 4 :: f,' (I:'. .. 7.7? 13.0E - 8 . ~' () 2 '.\. :t 4 C: :? . 8f, 4 . =~ :) .78 ;q ( I( I Renzo(g,h,i i p,::-n: l.,:n,.: 11 . 34 l ,'~ . l !i 1n.e.s l :1 ..·~ 4 ~k _o::; ;1. 82 4 . f) ~; I ndtc-nl• ( t ~~J eel,• py r·er1e ~· . ~)4 1H: . B 0 ::: r: . , \ ~, ''' 8. 17 14.20 !+ . 4 f: '. '~ •. , ( '. I T(ITAr. r ~. 7:1 Ii . 7 1 . ~~ ~~ !,() ? . f: I PETEr'.TAfn,F F'AH , I f (I :1:\. I : . l fl R7 \ ·.. f . \ \ [), l '., ~\ . ; ' : I l ? . :, 4 4 . ~. 1 r•1rt,.,::,,l,· ' 4. 12 :~ 0 ! 1. • ~. ~ i I 11 . n :1 0 . OOflO . '!000 .onon '(J(J(t(l N:,q.,h t lh., t •··w" .no .oono .onoo .0000 .00(10 0 . 0( ► {)0 .ooon .onno .uoon . (1(1 .000() .0000 .0000 .noon N, ,t,:-: N"".o.;,'1tiv~ numh,--r ( f,-.r nr,·t Lot-u,r CI iriLli,-·,1t.pn T\ n i,:,a.r-amet..~r level. N•,t.F, "O" indi,~·.,t,":'f; •'~rit.ry H-~iriw [l,,t. ..,,,-:i-.abl,,. L,s•v••l (8nL1 .. f t·•"f,f1t"'•·tiv~ parame-t.~rs. 012784 ------.. - - - - - KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. Texarkana, TX 'freat.c1:bi l i ty ~;tudy E' bced Film PAH Data SAMPf.,I NG DAT&: Rings f.o l . 2:\ Nov H7 :w Nov wr 04 [ 1, .• , • H'! t1~~c B'f Aceneiphthylene 3 OH 1~ Llec H'f <2.00 <2.00 <2.00 <2.00 <2.00 Acenaphthene 3 3930 Fluorene <2.00 <2.00 <2.00 <2.00 <2.00 3 1980 Phenanthrene <0.200 <0.200 (0.200 di. 20{1 di. ?.00 3 1290 o. !~a8 <0.500 • O.MlO <(l.~00 012785 - - - .. KOPPF.RS -COMPANY.- - - rnc. - - - TEXARKANA, TIC TR.KATABILITY STUDY WEEKLY DATA SHEETS FIXED FILM MIXED LIQUOR DATA SAMPLING DATE 23-0ct-87 24-0ct-87 25-Oct-87 26-Oct-87 27-Oct-87 28-Oct-87 29-Oct- pH (units} 6.6 6.25 Temperature (Deg C) 6.5 6.85 6.6 6.9 21 21. 5 21 6.6 Flowrate (mls/min) 21 21 21 21 TSS 1.29 3420 26£,0 1780 1. 29 vss 1240 900 290 FSS 3160 2560 1640 1160 260 800 270 Dissolved Oxygen 120 140 80 100 8.9 20 Caustic Uaage (mls) 9.3 8.8 8,9 8.95 1 1 1 9 D. 0. Optake 0 0 1 0 Microscopic Observ. * * * * * * All values are in alS'/L unless otherwise noted. * Indicates that the test was performed. Note: Flowrate indicates influent flow to unit. 012786 ------KOPPERS----- COMPANY, INC. --- TF.XARKANA, TX TRF.ATABIUTY STUDY WEEKLY DATA SHEETS FIXED FILM MIXED LIQUOR DATA SAMPLING DATE 30-0ct-87 31-0ct-87 01-Nov-87 0:2-Nov-87 03-Nov-87 04-Nov-87 pH {units) 7.4 1.4 Temperature (Deg C') 7.5 7 7.4 1.6 1 .., 21 21 • r Flowrate (mls/min) 21 21 22 23 1. 29 1. 29 1. 29 23 TSS 1. 29 1. 29 1. 22 1.29 vss 170 78 38 20 150 22 24 48'CI FSS 72 30 16 20 18 22 3& Dissolved Oxygen 6 8 4 9 9.1 4 2 10 Caustic Usage (mlsJ 9 9.6 9.3 9.1 D. 1 0 0 9.1 0. Uptake 0 0 0.5 0.5 Microscopic Observ. * * * * * All values are in mg/I, unless otherwise noted. * * * Indicates that the test was performed. Note: Flowrato indicates influent flow to unit. 0 1 2 7 8 ., ------'---- i; i' KOPPERS·------COMPAN'l\ !NC. •TF.XARKANA. TX TRl!ATABJLITY STUDY WEEKLY DAT'A SHEETS FIXED FILM MIXED LIQUOR DATA SAMPLING DATE: 06-Nov-87 07-Nov-87 08-Nov-87 09-Nov-87 10-Nov-87 11-Nov-87 12-Nov- pH (units) 7.6 Temperature 6.95 7 O)eg C) 21 7.1 1 6.9 Flowrate (mls/min) 21 23 22 21 1. 29 1.29 21 TSS l. 29 1. 29 1. 29 26 3770 1.29 vss 3280 1840 1600 20 3390 1280 FS.S 3040 1680 1440 D'issolved 6 380 1030 Oxygen 9.3 240 160 160 250 Caustic Usage (mls) 8.6 8.5 8.9 8.8 0 1 9.4 D. 0. Uptake 2 1 0 Microscopic Observ. 1 * * All values are J.n mg/L unless o-therwise noted. * * * * Indicates that the test was performed. Note: F.1!.owrate indicates influent flow to unit. 012788 ------~-KOPPERS COKPAHY. INC. TEXARKANA. TX TR£ATABILITY STUDY WEEKLY DATA SHEETS FIXED FILM HIX.ED LIQUOR DATA SAMPLING DATE 13-Nov-87 14-Nov-87 15-Nov-87 16-Nov-8? 17-Nov-87 18-Nov-67 19-Nov-, pH (units) 7.1 7.2 Temperature €Deg C) 7.1 7.1 7.2 7.45 7.2 FJ!.o,wrate 21 25 25 25 (mls/min) 1.29 24 24: 21.5 TSS 1. 3, 1. 29 1. 3 l. 3 1500 610 1.29 1. 29 V'SS 430 208 298 246 270 1360 560 390 FSS 116 262 224 230 Dissolved Oxygen 140 50 40 32 9'.4 9.3 36 22 40 Caustic Osage (mls) 9.1 9 9.1 8.7 8.9 0 0 0 D. 0. U'ptake 0 0 0 0.5 Microscopic Observ. * * * * * * All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted. * * Indicates that the test was performed. Note: Flowrate indicates influent flow to unit. 012789 ------KOPPERS C()KPANY. l~C. TEXARKANA. TX 1"R!ATAB1LITY' STUDY WEEKLY DATA SHEETS FIXED FILM MIXED LIQUOR DATA SAMPLING DATE 20-Nov-61 21-Nov-87 22-Nov-87 23-Nov-87 24-Nov-87 25-Nov-87 pH (units) 1.2 1.5 Temperature (Deg C) 7.3 7.7 7.65 1.4 7.6 Flowrate 22 21 21 21 (■ ls/min) l. 29 22 21 23 TSS 1.3 l. 3 1.29 1. 29 206 75 1. 29 1. 34 VSS 76 64 60 66 FSS 174 65 64 42 54 52 54. 36 32 H) 12 10 Dissolved Oxygen llO. 2 8 12 6 Caustic- Usage (mls) 9.8 10 10.8 9.6 0.5 0 0.5 9.5 8.7 D. 0. Uptake 0 0 0.5 0 Microscopic Observ. * * * * * * * * All values are in ng/L unl$ss otherwise noted.. * Indicates that the test was performed. Note: Flowrate indicates influent fl o,w to unit. 012790 ------KOPPERS COMPANY. INC. TF.XARICANIA, n TRRATABfUTY STUDY WEEKLY DATA SHEETS FIXED FILM MIXED LIQUOR DATA SAMPLING DATE 27-Nov-81 28-Nov-87 291-No-~-87 30-Nov-87 01-Dec-87 02-Dec-81 pH {units) Temperature 7.5 1.4 7.4 7.6 (Deg C)· 21 7.5 7.5 7.4 Flowrate (mls/mini) 21 21 21 21 1. 275 1. 22 21. 21 TSS 1. 36 1.45 l VSS 65 40 38 1e 1.29 60 36 7 19 9• FSS 32 14 5 5 4 15 8 Dissolved Oxygen 6 4 2 Caustic 9,2 9 9.2 4 1 Usage (mls) 8.9 9 9 D. 0 0.5 0 9.75 o. Uptake 0.5 0 0 0.5 Microscopic Observ. * * * * All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted. * * * * Indicates that the test was performed. Note: Flowrate indicates influent flow to unit. 012791 ------KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. TEXARKANA, TX TREATABILITY STUDY' WEEKLY DATA SHEETS FIXED FILM MIXED LIQUOR DATA SAMPLING DATE 04-Dec-87 05-Dec-87 06-Dec-87 07-Dec-87 08-Dec-87 09-Dec-87 10-Dec- pH (units) 7.5 7.3 Temperature (Deg C) 7.4 7.5 7.45 7.5 7.5 21 21 21 21 Flowrate (mls/min) 1. 32 21 21 22 1.04 1. 29 1. TSS 27 29 1.29 1. 38 vss 30 24 8 5 9 22 23 6 FSS 20 6 4 7 5 5 7 4 2 Dissolved Oxygen 9.1 1 2 1 Caustic Usage 9.3 9.35 9 9. l {mls) 0 0.5 8.8 9 D. 0. Uptake 0 0 0 0 * 0.5 Microscopic Observ. * * * * * * * All values are in mg/L. unless otherwise noted. * Indicates that the test was performed. Note:: Flo,wrate indicates influent flow to unit. 012792 ------KOPPERS COMPANY, me. TEXARKANA, TX TRKATABILITY STUDY WEEKLY DATA SHEETS FIXED FILM MIXED LIQUOR DATA SAMPLING DATE 11-Dec-87 12-Dec-87 pH (units) 7.3 7.5 Temperature (Deg C) 21 Flowrate (mls/min) 21 TSS l. 24 1. 22 vss 3 7 FSS 2 6 Dissolved Oxygen 1 1 9 9 Caustic Usage (mls) 0.5 D. 0. Uptake 0 Microscopic Observ. * * All valnes are in mg/L unless otherwise noted. * Indicates that the test was performed. Note~ Flowrat~ indicates influent flow to unit. 012793 ------KOPPERS COMPANY. IMC. TitXARICAKA • . TX TRKATABl:LITY STtIDY WEEKLY DATA SHEETS FIXED FILM EFFt.UENT DATA SAMPLING DATE 23-0ct-81 24-0ct-87 25-0ct-87 26-0ct-87 27-0ct-81 28-0ct-87 29-0ct- pH (units) 6.4 6. 15 6.25 Phenols-Chemetrics 6.55 6.4 6.4 6.9 Total P04-Hach 5.7 5 NH3-N Chem,etrics 5.3 4.6 4.6 4.6 TSS <1 All values are in mg/L unless o•therwise noted. * Se•e data in appendix. 01'2794 K.OPPE2S COMPANY. INC. TKXAR.ICANA. TX TREATAIHUTY STUDY WEEKLY DATA SHEETS FIXED FILM EFFLUENT DATA SAMPLING DATE 30-0ct-87 31-0ct-87 0l.-Nov-87 02-Nov-81 03-t;ov-87 04-Nov-87 pH (units) 7.3 7 Phenols-Chem.etrics 7.3 7.2 1.2 7.2 1.6 Total P04-Hach 5 3.3 NB3-N Chemetrics 3.5 3.2 3 3.1 3.2 1 2.4 2.4 TSS 4.8 4 4 4 vss 260 46 52 22 230 20 36 81 FSS 33 46 16 16 30 13 32 58 Phenols (4-AAP) 6 6 4 4 23 TOC B00(5)-Total 14.2 BOD(5)-Soluble COD·-Total COD-Soluble Oil & Grease TDS TDFS TDV'S PCP (ug/I,) Total Cyanide Total Det. PAH(ug/E.) Metals Phenolics (EPA 604) All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted. * See data in app,endix. 0 1 2 -, 9 5 ______; ______ KOPPERS COMPAHY. INC. TEXARICANA. TX TREATABll!.lTY S11.IDY WEEKLY DATA SHEETS FIXED FILM EFFLUENT DATA SAMPLING DATE 06-Nov-87 07-Nov-87 08-Nov-87 09-Nov-87 10-Nov-87 11-Nov-87 12-Nov· pH €units) 1 6.8 Phenols-Chemetrics 6.8 6.8 6.6 6."f To,tal P04-Hach 3.3 3.3 NH3-N Chemetrics 4 3.8 4.1 4.2 TSS 3.2 <1 <1 34.5 <1 <1 <1 vss 4800 3130 2140 1840 FSS 27.5 4310 1070 7 2900 1940 1660 870 Phenols (4-AAP) 490 230 200 TOC 180 200 BOD(5)-Total BOD(S)-Soluble COD-Total COD-Soluble Oil & Grease TDS TUFS TDVS PCP (ug/E.} Total Cyanide Total Det. PAH(ug/L,) Metals Phenolics (EPA 604) All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted. * See data in appendix. 012796 ------~KOPPERS COMPANY. INC. TEXARKANA. TX TRKATABfLlTY STUD·'f WEEKC.Y DATA SHEETS FIXED FILM EFFLUENT DATA SAMPLING DATE 13-Nov-87 14-Nov-87 15-No,v-R:7 16-Nov-87 17-Nov-87 18-Nov-87 19-Nov-- pH (units) 6.8 6.8 Phenols-Chemetrics 6.7 6.8 6.8 7 Total P04-Hach 7.1 4.4 4.2 - ... NH3-N Chemetri~s 4 4 4. 1 <1 <1 4 3.3 TSS <1 <1 <1 <1 vss 1020 800 580 <1 920 232 296 172 372 FSS 700 520 200 100 100 270 160 314 Phenols (4-AAP) 60 32 26 TOC 12 58 BOD{5)-Total 13.7 B0D(S.)-Soluble COD-Total COD-Soluble Oil & Grease TDS TDFS TDVS PCP (ug/L) Total Cyanide Total Det. PAH(ug/L) Metals Phenolics (EPA 604} Al 1 ·-ralues are in mg/L unless otherwise noted. * See data in appendix. 012797 ------KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. TEXARKANA, TX TREATABILITY STIJDY WEEKLY DATA SHEETS FIXED FILM EFFLUENT DA'F'A SAMPLING DATE 20-Nov-87 21-Nov-87 22-Nov-87 23-Nov-87 24-Nov-87 25-Nov-87 26-Nov-8 pH (units) 7 7.1 Phenols-Chemetrics 7.1 7.4 7. 15 Total P04-Hach 7.05 7.1 4 5 Nff3-N Chemetrics 4.2 3 3 TSS <1 1 <1 3 3 234 <1 <1 <1 vss 125 68 55 <1 FSS 198 110 66 60 48 58 41 53 Phenols (4-AAP), 36 15 10 48 44 8 13 12 TOC 0.016 4 BOD(5)-Total 11. 6 B0D(5}-Soluble 19 COD-Total 2.5 COD-Soluble 43 Oil & Grease <10 TDS <6 TDFS 226 TDVS 169 PCP (ug/L) 57 Total Cyanide Total Det. PAH(ug/L) Metals 205.59 Phenolics (EPA 604) All values a.re in mg/I. unless otherwise noted. * See data in appendix. 012798 ------KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. TEXARKANA • .TX TREATAll[LITY snmy WEEKLY DATA SHEETS FIXED fILM EFFLUENT DATA SAMPLING DATE 27-Nov-87 28-Nov-87 29-Nov-87 30-Nov-87 01-Dec-87 02-Dec-87 03-Dec- pH (units), 7 7.2 7.1 Phenols-Chemetrics 7.2 7.25 7.3 Total P04-Hach '7.2 5 3.3 NH3-N Chemetrics 3 3 3 3.3 TSS <1 <1 .::1 3 40 <1 012799 ------~OPPERS COMPANY. INC. TEXARKANA. TX TRKATABU.ITY' STUl)Y' WEEKLY DATA SHEETS FIXED FILM EFFLUEN'f DATA SAMPLING DATE 04-Dec-87 05-Dec-87 06-Dec-87 07-Dec-87 08-Dec-87 09-Dec-87 pH (units) 1.4 6.9 7.1 Phenols-Chemetrics 7.3 1.3 7.35 7.25 Total P04-Hach NH3-N 3 3.2 3 5.3 Chemetrics <1 4.6 4.3 4 TSS <1 All values are in mg/1:. unless otherwise noted. * See data in appendix. 01'2800 ______I ______ KOPPERS COK... :Jff • !NC. TEXARKANA. TX TRRA1'A.BTI.ITY STUDY WEEKLY DATA SHEETS FIXED FILM EFFLUENT DATA SAMPLING DATE l l-Dec-87 12·-Dec-87' pH (units.) 1 Phenols-Chemetrics 7.2 Total P04-Hach 4 NH3-N Chemetrics 5.3 TSS <1 <1 vss 6 5 FSS 5 5 1 Phenols (4-AAP) 0 TOC 0.011 BOD(5)-Total 13.2 B0D(5)-Soluble 7 .15 COD-Total 1.15 COD-Soluble 40 Oil & Grease 30 TDS 11. 6 TDFS 189 TDVS 119 PCP (ug/L) 70 Total Cyanide Total Det. PAH(ug/L) Meta.ls 4. 115 Phenolics (EPA 604) All values are in mg/£, unless otherwise noted. * See data in appendix. 012801 .-·---------~------ JC ~E~c~- NC. - :CNTR~~~ NC. 1:-01 ·37 =ATE SAMPL! RE:itVE~ :..:w OATAFiLE 5U12CO~vo~ :~.''JS/S7 ~!L~r:oN F4CTCP: !. :o ------~------.1 ______:~=-~------~=~~==~~------=::: ______N ,: :no c;...~=~cr-1E-:"i--iA;'\tE 10 u o -,: J l:, 3RCMC~E:;'HA:,.,E 10 U CD I ,::~Q ')!NYL ,:HLCR:;:e; 10 V C\J ,:J;:s ,:J..iL:PC~"'."HANE 10 U ~ C030 4ET~YL~NE CHLCR!~E ~ 7 I C035 ACETONE 10 5 J 0 CQ4Q CARBON DISVLFtDE 5 U C045 L 1-0ii'.:HLCROETHENE S U C--:)~Q L !-0!,:~LOR~ETHAN~ 5 V I. C055 7RANS-t.2-DI~HLCRO£THENE 5 U CC60 CHLO~O~QRM 5 U C~65 1, 2-0 ICHLQROETHANE 5 U I C110 ~-BUT~NCNE 10 U C 11 S 1, 1, 1 -TR 1CHLOROETHANE 5 U C120 CARBON TEiRACHLORIDE S V C 125 V rNYL ACETATE 10 U I Ct3O 0ROMODICHLOROMETHANE 5 U C140 1,2-0ICHLOROPROPANE 5 U C170 CIS-l,3=0ICHLGROPROPENE ·-: :N ~~ ~,: 7 ,'JC CAT~ S~MPL£ R£CEIV£~. ' .-:1. ;..;...:-4 ~..J/~/R 7 !.i:/14/97 DILUTION FACTOR ... 1/ t) DETECTION AMOUNT I ~IMIT FOUND n ,---;;;;----;~;;~~------;~-c------~<~JCROGRA~S 1 ~:Ti?J 0 .;3,2: J ! S < ~-•:HLCP.OETHY:,.) C:Tr1ER 40 1.; ~ :~=o :-~HLCRCPHENCL 40 U C335 ;,3-0iC~LDROOENZ£NE 40 U 0 I :340 : , 4-C: :Ht.SRC~EN:!N~ 40 U CJ45 3ENZYL A~COMOL 40 U C~50 :,~-OICHLCRCGENZ~NE ~OU 2-·~EiH YL? ~E!'iCL I 40 IJ C3c,O J!S<2-CHL0P.OISCPROPYL>EittER C:3o5 4-:'1EiMVLPr!E.NCL 40 U 40 U C3i0 N-NlTPOSODIPROPYLAMINE I C:375 ~EXAC~LOP.OETHANE 40 U C410 NITROBENZENE 40 U C41S !SOPHORONE 40 U I C420 ~-NITROPHENOL 40 U C425 2,4-DIME~HYLPHENOL 40 U C430 OENZOlC ACID 40 U C4:35 200 U I 3lSC2-CHLOROETHDXY>HETHANE 40 U C440 2,4-0ICHLORCPHENOL C445 1,2,4-TRICHLORCDENZENE 40 U C4,o NAPHTHALENE 40 U I C45'5 4-,:HLOR04.N tL INS: 40 U C460 HEXACHLOROBUTAOIENE 40 U C4o5 P-CHLORO-M-CRESOL 40 U C470 40 U I ~-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 40 U C510 HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTAOtENE C515 2, 4,6-T~ICHLOROPHENOL 40 U C520 2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL 40 U I 200 U C525 2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE CS30 2-N!TROAN!LINE 40 U 200 U C535 DIMETHYL PHTHALATE I C540 ACE:NAPHTHYLENE 40 U C~45 :J-NITROANIL.INE 40 U C550 ACENAPHTHENE 200 U I C555 2,4-DINITROPHENOL 40 U C5b0 200 U 4-NlTROPHENOL 2')0 U C565 OlBENZOFURAN C570 ~,4-DINITROTOLUENE 40 U I C51~ 2,a-DINITRQTOLUENE 40 U 40 U I I ------ A:"'1.0IJNT I F':VNO -~------~----~------cseo : I ::7-~'(L ~H7:-.iAL,~:r: 1 -lO U C985 ~-CHLGROPHE~YL ~-~ENYL 40 ·J .=1...uCRENE: 40 U 200 IJ I <;;;j ~-~~::N17~G-~-ME-HYL?MENCL .;:00 U C615 0 ~-N!~ROSCD!P~ENY~AMINE 40 tJ ~-8RC~OP~ENYL P~ENYL ETHER ..;c !J co C630 I ~EXAC~LCRCBE~ZENE 40 lJ (\I ?SNTACHL:RcP~E~CL ~•JO tJ 40 V 0 ~NT:-!RACE>H~ 40 U I C650 Jl-N-JUTYL P~THALATE 40 U C~55 =LvOR Al'-f"1r1i:::NE 40 u I F>Y 0 ENE 40 u C720 3VTYL GENZ~L PHT~ALATE 40 u C7~S J,J'-OiC~LCROBENZIDINE 80 u C730 3ENZ0(AJ~N1HRACENE 40 u I C7"J5 3!S<2-ETHYLHEXY~ 1 PHTHALATE 40 u C740 .;hRYSENE 40 u C760 01-N-OCTVL PHTHALATE 40 u C765 QENZ0(3}F~UORANTHENE 40 u I C770 3ENZOiKl~~UORANTHENE 40 u C775 3ENZO ------fu I ''GV , -N,_ ~ I 'tO NCN-~SL i::::lt•1PQUNDS FOUND :-, 10¾ OF NEAREST INT. STD. 0 I I J ~ ESTIMATED VAL~E - A 1. 1 RESPONSE FACTOR IS ASSUMED I I I I I I I I I I J. 00 I ~G NCN--~l : □ MP:UNOS F:UND > 10~ CF NEAREST INT STD. (\J I 0 I ESTI~ATED VALVE - A 1: 1 RESPONSE FACTOR 15 ASSUMED I I I I I I I I I I I I KOPPERS COMPA~Y, INC. TEXARKANA, TX TREA TABILln' STUDY I FIXED FILM METALS DATA Parameter (ug/1) I Fixed Fnm Antimony <60.0 Arsenic <10.0 I Beryllium <5.00 Cadmium <5.00 Chromium I <10.0 r--,,. Copper <25.0 0 Lead <5.00 ro I (.'\J Mercury 1.15 Nickel <40.0 0 t Selenium <5.00 Silver <10.0 I Thallium <10.0 Zinc I 1430 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX 2-F ESTIMATION OF A HALF-LIFE FOR I BENZO(a)PYRENE IN SURFACE SOILS co 0 OJ I N I I ;I I I I I I I I I I 2069T 4040-001-600 I I APPENDIX 2-F I ESTIMAtION OF A HALF-LIFE FOR BENZO(a}PYRENE I IN SUR~ACE SOI~S The USEPA has reported a half-life of 480 days for benzo I {a)pyrene B(a)P in soils {EPA 1986a). Because this value is not supported by a citation from the scientific literature, the 1:~erature was reviewed in order to develop a more reliable I estimate of the degradation of B(a)P in surface soils, (All PA3s are assumed to degrade at a rate equal to B(a)P because I the cancer potency of B(a}P is used herein to characterize all 0 carcinogenic PAHs.) 0 Table F-1 lists the half-lives found in the literature ro I N that may be of relevance to the conditions found at Carver I Terrace and Kennedy Sand and Gravel. The half-lives ranged 0 from 10 days to 1957 days, with a mean of 375 days and standard deviation of 614 days. (The mean was calculated by using 15 I days as the half life reported by Shilina et al. (1980).) To be protective of the public health, a half-life of 1385 days was selected. This half-life represents a value below Which 95$ ·>f. half=lives are expected to fall, ass~ming that the va:~es ,eported in the literature are representative of the rea! world. Ninety-five percent of all values in a normal distribution are expected to fall below the mean plus ~.645 standard deviations. Thus, the upper 95th percentile of half-lives was calculated by adding 1.645 standard deviations I (614 days) to the mean (375 days). The half-lives reported in the literature varied a great I deal, probably because many site-specific factors can influence the rate at which B(a}P degrades. Thus, the value used in this I risk assessment should not be interpreted as necessarily representative of soils in Texarkana or any other part of the I United States, More detailed analysis of the factors influencing degradation is needed to derive site-specific values. Of special note is the apparent rel~tively rapid I degradation of B(a)P in ~oils that have contained oil and PAHs for a long time compared to s~ils to which B(a)P has only 11 recently been added. This indicates r1at acclimation of the I 2069T 4040-001-600 I TABLE F-1 I SUMMARY IN THE LITERATURE I Half-Life (q~~~t References 1957 (a) 530 ( b) I 290 ( b) 220 (b) 57 (c) 147 ( d) I 85,6 ( d) 76.2 ( j ) I 10~15 (el 0 {a) Bossert, I.D. and R. Bartha. 1986. Structure (l) biodegradability relationship of polycyclic aromatic (\J I hydrocarbons in soil. Bull. Env. Contam. Tox., 37:490-495. 0 I ( b) Cooker, M.P. and R.C. Sims. 1987. The effect of temperature on polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon persistence I in an unacclimated agrecultural soil. Raz. Waste Haz. !-iat., 4:69-82. I (c) Groenewegen, D, and H. Stolp. 1976. Microbial breakdown of polyaromatic hydrocarbons. Zbl. Bakt. Hyg, I. Abt: I Orig., 8162: 225-232. I (d) Khesina, A. Ya., M.P. Shcherback, L.M. shabad, and l.S. Vostrov. 2969. Benzpyrene breakdown by the soil I microflora. Byulleten Ekxperimental 1 noi Biologii i Meditsiny., 68:70. As cited in Sims and Overcash 1983. I Fate of polynuclear aromatic compounds (PNAs) in soil-plant systems. Residue Reviews, 88:1-68. I (e) Shilina, A.I., L.V, Vaneeva and A.V. Zhuravleva, 1980. Benzo(a)pyrene persisetnce in the soil when it is I introduced with soil dust particles. Migr. Zagryaz. Vesh. Poch. Supred. Sredaleh, Tr. Vses. Soves., 2nd Bobvnikova, I Malakhovs, eds. pp, 100-105 CA95:198765. I 9776A I ~icrobiological community in the soil to the presence of PAHs may be necessary for rapid degradation. ri true, the PAHs in I Carver Terrace and Kennedy Sand and Gravel surface soils, which have contained PAHs for many years, may degrade Easter than the I rates assumed in this risk assessment. I I I co I (\J I 0 I I I I I I I I I F-3 I 2069T 4040-001-600 I I I I I APPENDIX 2-G ESTIMATION OF INHALATION RISKS OF UTILITY WORKERS FROM I VOLATILIZATION OF POTENTIALLY CARCINOGENIC PAH FROM N SUBSURFACE SOILS ro I N I 0 I I I I I I I I I I 2069T 4040-001-600 I I I I I I I APPENDIXG (Fluidized Bed Treatment Results) I t<'\ 'r" OJ I (\J 0:- I 0 I I I I I I I I I I I ------ KOPPERS COMPANY. INC. TEXARKANA, TX TREATABILITY STUDY STATISTICAL SUMMARY FLUIDIZED BED RECYCLE CHAMBER DATA # OF Parameters 95% CI OBVS HEAN s·;n LOWER 90% LT UPPER GMEAN GSTD MIN pH=-=------=--==---======-=-======-======-======-======--==-= (units) MAX VALUE 23 7.22 .34 7.07 Temperature (Deg C) 23 7.37 7.21 1.05 Flowrate 21. 67 1. 72 20.93 6.80 8.00 7. P':; (mls/min) 20 1.29 22.42 21.60 1.09 17.00 TSS .20 1.19 1. 24.00 ~4. :··? 0 .0000 38 1.27 1.16 .92 vss .0000 .0000 .0000 2.00 1. 53 0 .0000 .0000 .oo .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 FSS .0000 .0000 .00 .0000 0 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 Dissolved Oxygen 23 .0000 .00 .0000 8.41 .92 8.01 .0000 .0000 .0000 Caustic Usage (mls) 0 8.80 8.36 1.11 Acid .0000 .0000 .0000 7.10 11.00 3.5, Usage (mls) 18 .72 .0000 .00 .0000 .0000 D. 0. Uptake .65 .40 1.04 .0000 .0000 0 .0000 .0000 1.00 1. 40 .00 2.00 Microscopic Observ. .0000 .0000 1. 53 0 .0000 .0000 .00 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .00 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0(,'00 All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted. Note: Flowrate indicates influent floff to unit 012814 ------ KOPPFRS COMPANY, INC. TEXARKANA, TX TREATABILITY STUDY STATISTICAL SUMMARY FLUIDIZED BED EFFLUENT DATA # OF 95% CI 90% LT Parameters OBVS MEAN UPPER MAX VALUE ------STD LOWER GMEAN GSTD MIN pH------(units} 23 7.20 .24 7.09 7.30 7.19 1 .03 6.80 7.70 7.50 Phenols-Chemetrics 0 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .00 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 To,tal P04-Hach 23 3.52 .98 3.09 3.94 3.39 1. 32 2.00 5.60 4.80 NH3-N Chemetrics 23 1. 94 1.06 1.48 2.40 1.68 1. 74 1.00 3.60 3.37 TSS 22 4.68 2.46 3.59 5.77 3.97 1. 89 1.00 10.00 8.87 VSS 22 3.41 1. 74 2.64 4.18 2.96 1. 78 1.00 7.00 6.13 FSS 22 1. 27 1.20 .74 1. 81 1. 47 1.49 .00 4.00 2. 42 Phenols (4-AAP) 5 . 00 .00 .00 .00 . 01 1.00 .00 .00 .01 TOC 6 7.35 8.33 -1.40 16.09 5.17 2.27 2 .19 24.20 14.52 B00(5)-Total 5 3.31 3.39 -.90 7.52 2.26 2.58 1.00 9.00 7.47 B0D(5)-Soluble 5 l. 72 1. 61 -.28 3.72 1. 36 1.98 1.00 4.60 3.21 COD-Total 5 13.20 6.61 4.99 21. 41 12.24 1.49 10.00 25.00 20.30 COD-Soluble 5 10.40 .89 9.29 11. 51 10.37 1.08 10.00 12.00 11. 49 Oil & Grease 5 7.32 2.95 3.66 10.98 6.96 1.39 6.00 12.60 10.57 TDS 5 154.20 18.31 131.47 176.93 153.27 1. 13 125.00 172.00 179.44 TDFS 5 129.40 '.O. 92 115.84 142.96 129.05 1.08 119·.00 148.00 142.97 TDVS 5 24.80 12.36 9.46 40.14 21.05 2.08 6.00 39.00 53.09 PCP (ug/[,) 1 1.00 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .00 1.00 1.00 .00 Total Cyanide 1 .01 .00 . 01 .01 .01 .00 .01 .01 .00 Total Det. PAH(ug/L) 5 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 1.00 1.0000 .0000 .0000 1.0000 Metals 0 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .00 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 Phenolics (EPA 604) 0 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .00 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted. 012815 .. - - .. ------ t Ii! 'I I k. I r WI! ·1 d'IY, I l\fl • t 1 • , ii, 1 1 ir 1i , , 11 ., , 1, , IJh:f.HJNLMnTH-· !it(tl lll,l( r\l lf(E{)f{',fill Jl"y r I If I DJ ,' f'" l} Hf !) {\q1.tp{ tU~., SE) t ut1 ·1 I 1 t -~• # c,t f-.:111-q t ;•;of3/f17 . "', 1:? 1 8 / f~LPn~~~iht h·.·l 811,-, .• ·• • I)•_! 1\1 .: t.f•r,t .'" ( 1,' '• • ( I(} r,,11,t,i .• .' • i I( ► ,,'. (_ ,, ) ··:t;i _'.t f ~-~"" c_H t f·· I Hnr Pn~:• . •·.,I• (t(} . .-.::·. 00 . -~·- uo ,} . ( )() I ·.;;:ir ► . (_) ... , "-·' f 'hr>n,-:;rlf hr enp u. :,·oi) (). ·.•'( )( ) (). ~'(i() j .: •<:,,) c~ ~ ?( )l t -·. 1 •. ~',uo . (; • :"',O(l Hnt.hr.v f~nt-> o.sun ·1,.~:;uu : (_►~ ~.'.J(H_• l ; ... "d ~l I ::",Ui) I ] unr <'H,t hPIH• c,. (► • ~-;, H I ! I. ~ j1 1(1 .Jc~•~\( I '". , '(\() ;·•c ►() I ·yr Pnr• u. . (,. ~:•i /\) ( >., , ':(H ~ ·1 ~: .. ( I• • .'0'1 HF·n.~ c, < ,:·, 1 ani" hr ,,1.E·ir,,~ ·- .. o .. ">}() · ci •. :oo IJ. --. .-·o,) I J • 1 :(j1 ~ I •. 1 -I; '! I ( .t·ir v·- ,,,,p (I. ( J'. 'I I o. I l~'O 4 ~ I .. ( ~ .... I I ·1- ~ti•ri. t, \ ,, ) ,.·nE• ( I • I ~-' ( ' ( I. l "',, I pvr () • t '. ;, ' I ~ .. t ~ j ~ I , ) . t '-,, .I I)• (_!,_'IJ U. l)~'() Hf.•11.•n(/_1) f 1 u,1r·.-~ntt1P1H" (), (_I.'') . ()•II,'() . (}. U •."!_l 4 I. I l~'l) .Hen.·t) '. ! ~ t t Uf..!r .,-n-,t.t,PrH• . (_). (1:: ·, ► : (). (1;·0 •./. O'~:O u. u:·(> Q ) • I '. 'E ) I l 1 h r."'>o-t : ~ ,""lJ I I ,--cwo t-_ tr ,tf.. I_> r, I , : n. o:'() (). (1;"() i n. ,,·.--i, I I. I \ ~ •n I ! • ( ; ·, < l l ",() H,-n ·,, \q .h. J > pr.;,r ·.·l ~-1,1 0. ( .t.).t_l."'.(_) ! I• C1 \(1 t ~ .i I .J '. I ( ) I I Pl),> : u. q'.~() I). 0;:';(1 I ld•-•l);i I . ' ·.. i" d) f)'y'r- . o. U~•I) . (i. 1_1'. fl I ~ ) ,. ~ ) ~ i ~ I 111/f~I l;t 1 lnBU- f·'l)f! . I ) • l ) ':j ( ; •.l. {)::-,!_! tt f ) • ( I~•,, I• ( ► ... t ~~ j' t I ,,r b,-~~n f P I 1:., ! '') ( ) • ( )t ) p. (i() ( '• l l( ► ii. j ,q ? .. (_ ~, ~ t 1,-, r• I d I I' I J F1 r D~-" ',' • I ,0 .-- .. ,() , ' " t ) I ~ ~- .• I h) .• -'•(),I 012816 ~------KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. TEXARKANA. TX TREATASILlTT STUDY WEEKLY DATA SHEETS FLUIDIZED BED RECYCLE CHAMBER DATA SAMPLING DATE 20-Nov-87 21-Nov-87 22-Nov-87 23-Nov-87 24-Nov-87 25-Nov-87 26-Nov- pH (units) 7.6 7.8 Temperature (Deg C) 7.7 7.9 8 22 17 7 7.25 Flowrate (mls/min) 17 19 22 23 1. 29 1. 3 1. 3 24 TSS 1. 28 1.29 1. 29 1. V'SS 24 FSS Dissolved Oxygen 8.4 11 10.6 Caustic Usage (mls) 9.4 8.9 8.9 7.1 Acid Usage (mls) D·. 0. Uptake 2 Microscopic Observ. l * All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted. * * Indicates that the test was performed. Note: Flowrate indicates influent flow to unit. 012817 --~-----·------~ KOPPERS COlfPANY, fNC. TEV RKANA • TX TR:RA TAIH LI 'rY STUOY WEEKLY DATA SHEETS FLUIDIZED BED RECYCLE CHAMBER DATA SAMPLING DATE 27-Nov-87 28-Nov-S7 29-Nov-87 30-Nov-87 01-Dec-87 02-Dec-87 03-})~c.-E pH (units) 1.3 7.05 7.15 7 Temperature (Deg C) 22 6.95 6.8 6.~ Flowrate (mls/min) 22 22 22 23 1. 35 0.98 22 22 TSS 1.29 2 1. 3 vss 1. 14 1.18 FSS Dissolved Oxygen 8.2 8.35 8.5 Caustic Osage (mls) 7.9 7.8 8. 15 8.8 Acid Usage (mls) 2 1 D. 0. Uptake 1 1 0 1 Microscopic Observ. 1 * * All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted. * * * Indicates that the test was performed. Note: Flowrate indicates influent flow to unit. 012819 KOPPERS COMPANY. INC. TEXARKANAt n: TREATABILITY STUDY WEEKLY DATA SHEETS FLUIDIZED BED RECYCLE CHAMBER DATA SAMPLING DATE 04-Dec-~7 05-Dec-87 06-Dec-87 07-Dec-87 08-Dec-87 09-Dec-87 10-Dec-f pH (units} Temperature (Deg C) 6.9 6.9 6.95 22 7.2 7.1 7.2 Flowrate (mls/min) 22 22 22 7.1 'FSS 1. 29 22 23 23 vss 1. 29 l. 32 1. 35 FSS Dissolved Oxygen 8.25 Caustic Usage (m!s) 8.05 8.1 8.25 Acii Usage (mls) 8.1 7.2 7.7 1 D. 0. Uptake 0 1 0 Microscopic Observ. 0 0 0 * * * All values are in mg/i,. unless otherwise noted. * * * * Indicates that the test was performed. Note: Flowrate indicates influent flow to unit. 012819 ------KOPPERS COMPANY. INC. TI!XARKANA~ TX TREATABILITY STUDY WEEKLY DATA SHEETS FLUIDIZED BED RECYCLE CHAMBER DATA SAMPLING DATE ll-Dec-87 12-Dec-87 pH (unitsJ 7.15 Temperature (D·eg C) 7.2 Flowrate {mls/min) 22 21. 5 TSS 0.92 1. 32 vss FSS Dissolved Oxygen 7.9 Caustic Usage (mls) 7.8 Acid Usage (mls) D. 0. Uptake 0.5 0.5 Microscopic Observ. * * All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted. * Indicates that the test was performed. Note: Flowrate indicates influent flow to unit. - 012820 - .. - .. ------... - - - - KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. ff.URUNA~ TX TREATAIHLITY STUDY WEEKLY DATA SHEETS FLUIDIZED BED EFFLUENT DATA SAMPLING DATE iO-Nov-87 ll-Nov-87 12-Nov-87 13-Nov-87 14-Nov-87 15-Nov-87 pH (units) Phenols-Chemetr•cs Total P04-Hach NH3-N Chemetrics TSS vss FSS Phenols (4-AAP) TOC 24.2 BOD(5}-Total BOD(5)-Soluble COD-Total COD-Soluble Oil & Graas~ TDS TDFS TDVS PCP (ug/L} Total Cyanide Total Det. PAH(ug/L) Metals Phenolics (EPA 604 ), All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted. * See data in appendix. 012821 .. - - - .. - - - - - .. .. - - - - ... - KOPPERS COMPANY, [NC. TI:XARKANA, 'IT TREAT ABILITY STUDY WEEKLY DATA SHEETS FLUID I ZED BEi) F.FFUJENT DATA SAMPLI~G DATE 17-Nov-87 18-Nov-87 19-Nov-87 20-Nov-87 21-Nov-87 22-Nov-87 23-Nov-f pH (units} Phenols-Chemetrics 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.6 Total ?04-Hach NH3-N Chernetrics 2.8 2 2.5 2.5 TSS 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 vss 6 5 FSS 5 4 4 1 3 3 Phenvls (4-AAP) 2 4 2 1 'li'OC <0.005 B00(5)-Total 2.19 BOD(5)-Soluble <1 COD-Total <1 COD-Soluble 11 Oil & Grease TDS All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted. * See data in appendix. 012822 ------·-- KOPPERS GOMPANY, INC. TEXARKANA, TX TREATABlLITY STUDY WEEKLY DATA SHEETS FLUIDIZED BED EFFLUENT DATA SAMPLING DATE 24-Nov-87 25-Nov-87 26-Nov-87 27-Nov-81 28-Nov-87 29-Nov-87 30-Nov-l pH (units} 7.7 7.1 7.25 Phenols-Chemetric~ 7.1 6.85 7.1 6.9 Total P04-Hac.!1 2.1 2.1 Nff3-N Chemetrics 2.7 4 4.3 3.8 4.3 3.2 3.2 2.4 3.6 2.4 3.2 TSS 6 1. 6 6 4 7 6 vss 4 9 FSS 5 3 6 4 2 1 6 Pheno1s (4-AAP} 1 1 2 3 TOC <0.005 BOD(5)-Total 4.58 B0D(S)-Soluble 9 COD-Total 1 COD-Soluble 25 Oil & Grease 12 TDS <6 TDFS 172 TDVS 148 PCP (ug/L) 24 Total Cyanide <1 Total Det. PAH(ug/LJ, <0.01 Metals 0 Phenolics (EPA 604) * * All. values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted. * See data in appendix. 012823 ------KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. TEXARKANA. TX TREATAIHLITY STUDY WEEKLY DATA SHEETS FLUIDIZED BED EFFLUENT DATA SA.M'.PLING DATE 01-Dec-87 02-Dec-87 03-Dec-87 04-Dec-87 05-Dec-87 06-Dec-87 07-Dec- (units) pH 7.2 7 6.8 7 Phenols-Chemetrics 7 6.9 7.4 Total P04-Hach 2,8 3.3 2.8 3 3 3 5.8 NH3-N Chemetrics 1. 25 <1 TSS <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 10 2 3 4 4 5 1 vss 7 FSS 2 3 2 4 3 1 3 0 0 Phenols (4-AAPJ 2 0 2 0 TOC 0.005 BOD(5)-Total 5.32 BOD(S)-Soluble <1 COD-Total <1 COD-Soluble <10 Oil & Grease <10 TDS <6 TDFS 150 TDVS 127 PCP (ug/L) 23 Total Cyanide Total Det. PAH(ug/L) Metals 0 Phenolics (EPA 604) All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted. * See data in appendix. 012824 • • •••, • • <- a • • ~ • • •: • I • • • • • •, ------KOPPERS COMPANY. fNC. TEXARKANA. TX TRKATABILlTY STIJDY WEEKLY DATA SHEETS Ff,U I DJ ZF.D RF.D F.FFf,UF.N'r DATA SAMPLING DATE 08-Dec-87 09-Dec-87 10-Dec-87 11-Dec-87 12-Dec-87 pH {units)· 7.35 Phenols-Chemetrics 7.4 7.3 1.2 1.2 Total PO4-Ha:ch 4.3 5 4.5 4.3 NH3-N Chemetrics <1 5 TSS <1 <1 <1 <1 2 2 vss 1 8 3 2 2 FSS 1 6 3 0 0 0 Phenols (4-AAP} <0.005 2 0 TOC 0.005 BOD(5)-Total 3.31 3.85 4.47 BOD(5)-Soluble 4.6 1.1 COD-Total <1 COD-Soluble <10 <10 <10 Oil & Grease <10 TDS <6 166 12.6 TDFS 158 TDVS 127 39 126 PCP (ug/L) 32 Total Cyanide Total Det. PAH(ug/L) 0 Metals 0 Phenolics (EPA 604) All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted. * See data in appendix. 012825 ,. SAMP~E NUMB£R: F'LUtDlZEO BED EFF. ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SH~ET LOW DATAFILE: 5U12004V03 12/08/87 DILUTION FACTOR: t. 00 1------~~~-~------:~~~~~~~---~------··----~:~=------~oC010 Ct--iLOROMETHANE 10 U N C015 BROMOMETHANE 10 U OJ C020 VINYL. CHLORIDE 10 U I (\J CO2~ CHLOROETHANE 10 U C030 METHYLENE CHLORIDE s ...... 8 C035 ACETONE 10 u 0 I C040 CARBON DISULFIDE 5 IJ C045 1, 1-DICHLOROETHENE s u coso 1, 1-0ICHLOROETHANE 5 U I C055 TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE !5 u C060 CHLOROFORM s u C065 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE 5 U I C 110 2-BUTANONE'. 10 U Cl 15 l, 1, 1-TRICHLOROETHANE 5 U C120 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE 5 U Cl25 VINYL ACETATE'. 10 U I Ct30 BROMODICHLOROMETHANE ~ u C140 1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE 5 U C170 ClS-1,3-0lCHLOROPROPENE(Zl ~ u I C150 TRICHLOROETHENE , u C15!5 DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE :, u C160 1, 1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE :, u C165 BENZ£NE ~ u I C14:5 iRANS-1,3-DlCHLOROPROPENE • UNOETECTEO AT THE LISTED DETECTION LIMIT ~ COMPOUND IS PR~SENT, BUT BELOW THE LISTED DETECTION LIMii SPe:c,-.q ! X DC # --- • - e INST IO: 4~10 SAMP~E NUMBER: FLVIDIZEO BEO E~F ------I ORGANICS ANALYSI5 DATA SHEET L~DORATORY NAME SP~CTAIX CASE NO.: -- ~a SAMP~E !D NC. 8712C040J QC PEPO~T NO. AMPLE MAT~!X: WATEN CONTRACT NC --- ' ATA RELEASE AUTHORIZED BY:-p,t.. _. DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED: . ~~/•/~ 7- .. _ I SEMI l/QLAT ILES CONCENfRAT!JN: LOW ':J/ / 7 DATAFILE: qV12004C03 ATE EX TRAC 7ED: .. _I_~/ ~ . ~ IATE ANALYZ~D: 12/14/97 DILUTION FACTOR: ..... ,R._b_. _ r------OE:TECTtON AMOUNT r- CCMFOUND LIMIT FOUND N (MICROGRAMS/ LITER> t------co C:215 F>HENOL 20 U C\l C325 3IS<2-CHLCROETHYL>ETHER 20 u ....-- C:330 2-CHLOROPHENOL 20 u 0 I C335 1,3-DIC~LOROBENZENE 20 u C340 1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE 20 u C345 BS:NZYL ALCOHOL 20 u C350 1,2-DlCHLOROBENZENE 20 u I C355 2-METHYLPHENOL 20 u C:360 S!S<2-CHLOROISOP~OPYL)ETHER 20 u C365 4-METHYLPHENOL 20 u 'I C:370 ~-NITROSOOIPROPYLAMINE 20 u C375 HEXA:M~OROEfHANE 20 u C410 NITRuBENZENE 20 u I C415 lSOPHORONE 20 u C420 2-NITROPHE:NOL 20 u C425 2,4-0IMETHYLPHENOL 20 u C430 BENZOIC ACID 100 u I C435 81S C2-CHLOROETHOXY>METHANE 20 u C440 2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL 20 u C445 1,2,4-TRtCHLOROBENZENE 20 u I C450 NAPHTHALENE 20 u C4o5 4-CHLOROANILINE 20 u C460 HEXACHLOROOUTAOIENE 20 u I C46:, P-CHLORO-H-CRESO~ 20 u C470 2-HETHYLNAPHTHALENE 20 u C:510 HEXACHLORQCYCLOPENTADIENE 20 u C:515 2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENCL 20 u I C520 2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL 100 u C525 2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE 20 U C530 2-NITROANILINE 100 u I C535 DIHETHYL PHTHALATE 20 U C540 ACENAPHTHYLENE 20 u C :54:,. 3-NITROANILINE 100 u C550 ACENAPHTHENE 20 u I C555 2,4-D!NITROPHENOL 100 U CS60 4-NITROPHENOL.. 100 U C5b~ DI8ENZOFURAN 20 U I C:570 2, 4-DlNITROTOLUENE :?O u C37:5 2,6-DINITR □ TOLUENE 20 U I SAMPLE NUMBER; FLUIDIZED BEO I ...... _....,. ______..,. __ _ SEMIVOLAT!LE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET, CONTINUED loATAFILE: 9u12004co3 DETECTION AHOUNT COMPOUND L1Mit FOUND 1------ I ...... ------r~..,..•~•- • • - - - • -• "' • •-_, ~ff• M _..,.._ - • - --• • • ID: ~lS:F SPECTRIX DC# --- a I SAMPLE NUMBER: FLUID I ZE~D BED EFF. ------I ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET - PAGE 4 IBORATORY NAME: SPECTRIX HOUSTON CASE NO.: -- QC REPORT NO.: -- ANALYST: RCJ DATAFILE: 5U12004V03 1 8. TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS •------4'- ~s-~--~-~---~------~-~-----~--~~---~---~------~~------~-----~--~~~~----~ # VOLATILE COMPOUND NAHES SCAN# PUR ITV AMOUNT N I UG/~ 0 I NO NON-HSL COMPOUNDS FOUND> 101. OF NEAREST INT. STD. I I ~=ESTIMATED VALUE - A 1: 1 RESPONSE FACTOR IS ASSUMED I I I I I I I I I I SAMPLE: FLUIOIZEb 8&D Eff ORGANICS ANALYSt3 DATA ~HEET - PAGES lABORATORY NAME: SPECTRIX CORPORATION CASE NO.: --- REPORT NO.: --- ANALYS1 CEB DATAFILE: 9U12004C03 n. TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED COHPOUNOS 1------~-----~------~-- CAS # SEMIVOLAT!LE COMPOUND NAMES SCAN# PURITY AMOUNT 1------n- t<'I UG/1:o N I NO NON-HSL COMPOUNDS FOUNO ) 10~ OF NEAR~ST !NT.STD. I 0 I ESTIMATED VALUE - A 1: 1 RESPONSE FACTOR IS ASSUMED I I I I I I I I I I KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. TEXARKANA, TX TREATABILITY STUDY I FLUIDIZED BED METALS DATA I Pa_ram.eter (ug/1) Fluidized Bed I Antimony <60.0 Arsenic <10.0 Beryllium <5.00 I Cadmium 9.10 Chromium <10.0 I Copper <25.0 r-r, Lead <5.00 Mercury 00 I <0.200 N Nickel <40.0 I Selenium <5.00 0 Silver <10.0 Thallium <10.0 I Zinc 125 I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX 2-G ESTIMATION OF INHALATION RISKS OF UTlLIT'l WORKERS FROM I VOLATILIZATION or POTENTIALLY CARCINOGENIC PAH rROM SUBSURFACE SOILS I Risks associated with air concentrations of potentially carcinogenic PAH are derived in this appendix. the air I concentrations are based upon the maximum measured concentration of detected carcinogenic PAH in Carver Terrace I subsurface soils. The calculated air concentrations only consider volatilization and do not account for dispersion. (\J I Utlitity worker exposures were estimated based on the V\ assumptions detailed in Table 2-4. co I Compctation of Potential.1.Y carcinQgenic PAH Concentrations (\J in Air Above <:.Qil and Risks Associated with ThasB. A compound I in soil may be partitioned between the soil water, soil air and the soil constituents. The three main transport processes for a compound in soil to enter the atmosphere are: I • compound in soil to compound in solution • c~mpound in solution to compound in vapor phase in I soil air • compound in vapor phase in soil air to compound 1n I atmosphere (Lyman et al. 1982). I A compound may adhere strongly to dry soil, reducing its volatilization rate, but when soil is wetted the stronger I affinity of the water displaces the compound allowing volatilization to occur at a raster rate. However, if the concentration of a compound in soil becomes high enough so that I its chemical acti'lity approaches that of a pure compound, the presence or absence of water will not affect its volatilization I (Lyman et al. 1982). A pure compound can volatilize directly into a vapor. This calculation assumes that no pure compound I exists. I G-1 I 2069T 4040-001-600 I The partitioning of the compound between soil and water is determined by the partition coefficient, K , and fraction of I oc organic carbon, f oc , as shown by the following equation I (Mills et al. 1985): { 1) concentration _§_Qi 1 in ~ K f oc oc I concentration in soil water I The partitioning of the compound between soil water and soil air is determined by Henry's Constant, KH, as shown by the following equation (Mills et al. 1985): I tr\ ( 2) r;oncentratiQnjn_ soil ait. "" I 41. 6 K~ co concentration in soil water (atm-m /mole), N at 20°c I 0 The concentration of a compound in ~oil air can thus be I calculated for a given concentration of the compound in soil by combining equations 1 and 2. (3) !:;Dncentra.t__iQ.Q__in soj, 1 air. 11. 6 KH concentra~ion in soil Koc foe Table G-1 shows the concentration in the soil air I calculated from the maximum concentrations of detected potentially carcinogenic PAHs in Carver Terrace subsurface I soils. The concentrations of potentially carcinogenic PAH in the soil air surrounding the soil containing the PAH are very I low (Table G-1). Summing the concentration of each individual PAH re~ults in a total potentially carcinogenic PAH _. 3 I concentration of 1.39 x 10 6 (mg/m ). the concentration of potentially carcinogenic PAH in the atmoshpere above the soil I cannot exceed this concentration. Assuming that a utility worker breathes 16 cubic meters of soil air per day, that he or she is on site for 10 days per year and one year per lifetime, G-2 2069T 4040-001-600 ...... ""'. . . . ., . . , . . . - ' II . - , .. I I r . • , .- ' , . - . :t • - ' I . - . .- . . . I that the u~ility worker weighs 70 kilograms, and that all potentially carcinogenic PAH are as potent as benzo(a}pyrene, I his or her excess lifetime cancer risk is 1.43 x 10-9 . True risks will likely be orders of magnitude lower I b€cause true air concentrations will be orders of magnitude lower. Some of the mechanisms that have not been accounted for I in this analysis and that would result in low~r atmospheric concentrations are listed below. I 1. The soil containing the PAHs may be dry part of the I time, causing a decrease in the rate of volatilization. If there is no soil water, the PAHs cannot dissolve and then volatilize into the air. I 2. A cycling rate of the air above the soil will dilute the atmospheric concentration because fresh air, air I not containing PAHs from the site, will continually I be introduced into the area above the site. ii I I I I I I I I 2069T 4040-001-600 G-3 I ------ Table G· l CAl!.CULA.TIOH Of POTE~nALl:.Y CARCINOCENlC Pt.H IN AtR DUE TO VOLATILIZATION Shown are the caner:.tntiOl'iG of PCOCs in $OH ,uspor. Concentrations were- calculated onty for pGtentieHy carcioogen{c PAK detected (n Carver Terrace slksurface so.its. the air concentrations are based on the maKitlU!I concentrations detected. MAXI!Uf SOIL AfR COHCEN'TRAHON A.IR IC FG COHCENTRATiOH PCOC (ppb) oc ,~ COHCEIITRtHON' (ppb) (1119/m Hb) ieozo( a )•antnracene 9.50E+02 2.00E+Ol 8en:r;o(ll)pyr~ 4.t6e-05 2.00E-05 l.90E-07 4.70E+02: 5.501:+04 Set:1.to(a)fluorimthef'II: 2.94-E-05 L 70E·07 1.70E·09 a.30E:+O? 5.SOE+Ol Chr~ S.62E·04 a.soe-os !!..51j£•07 1.00E+Ol Z..OOE.+Ql 4.lTE.·05 2.ZOE·OS l.S0E·0.7 rout Potenti&tty Care. ?AH (a) rakel'I fr0111: Mabey, W.R. J.ij. Smith, R.T. Podotl, H.t... Johnson, f. Mitt, T.li. Chow, J. Gates, [.W. Pt'll'tridge, fl. Ju>er, and P. Vandenberg. 1982. Aquatic: Fate Process Data for Orgsnic Priority Pollutants. EPA Rept. No. 44/4·8T·014. (b) Conversi•on factors were taken from: verschueren, IC. 1981. K'andhook of Enviromiental Oat~ on Organic Chemic&ls (secc,nd edit10"0). ~an Morstrand Retnhola Co., Mew York. 012835 I I I I I I \0 ~ I r SOIL WASHING RESULTS t<'\ ADDENDUM co I TREA TABlLI1Y STUDY REPORT KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. (\j I 0 I Prepared for: KOPPERS COMPANY, INC I PREVIOUSLY OPERATED PROPER1Y TEXARKANA, TEXAS I Prepared by: I KEYSTONE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, INC. 440 COLLEGE PARK DRIVE I MONROEVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA 1S146 I PROJECT 157673-08 I I MARCH 1988 1• I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I LIST OF TABLES ••••••••••••••••--•• ••••••••••••••••••• .. •• .. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •>l.,; I 1,0 INTRODUCOON •.. •••••• .. ••• ..... ,...... u .. ••••••• .. ••• ...... ••••••o•• .. •••• .... • .. hu,...-u.-,,l•l 2.0 BACKGROUND ...... 2-l I 2.1 Ex Situ Soil Treatment (Soil Washing) ...... 2- l 3.0 PROCEDURES ...... 3-1 I 3.1 Soil Sampling ...... 3• l 00 3.2 Laboratory Procedures ...... 3· 2 tt'\ 00 4.0 RESULTS ...... 4• l I (\J 4.1 Phase I and Phase H ...... 4-1 ..... I 4.2 Phase III ...... 4-1 0 5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 5•1 I REFERENCES I I I I I I I I I ii I I • I LIST OF TABLES Page 4.1 Soil Washing Phase II Results - I Screening Run ...... , ...... 4-la 4-2 Soil Washing Phase Ill Results - I Soil Sample T•TX .. s ...... r ...... , ••• ., .... ., ...... , ...... 4•Ib 4.3 I ~~u ~::i:\:~~ ~~.~-~~~~~~~·~·························• .. ······ ...... 4-1c 4-4 Soil Washing Phase III Results - Soil Sample T-TX• l0.11: ...... ~ ...... 4-ld a I ti"\ 4.5 1 CX) I i~~~ ~:~1~fl!.~x~11 .~.~~~~~~~.~...... 4-2a N 4-6 Soil Washing_ P~ase III Results - I Soil Sample T-TX-12 ...... ,, ...... ,...... ~··· .. ······ ...... 4 .. zb 0 I I I I I I I I I I m I I 1..0 INTRODUCTTON The foJlowing report presents the results from the treatability evaluation for soil I washing for samples collected at the Koppers Company, Inc. Previously Operated Properties in Texarkana, Texas. This report is an addendum to the I "TREAT ABILITY STUDY REPORT", issued in February, 1988. I Included in this report is a background section describing the basics of soil washing, followed by the procedures and the results from the laboratory testing performed. Keystone's standard operating procedures for soil washing were fol1owed throughout I the testing. 0 -..:j" ro I (\J I 0 I I I I I I I I I II I I z.o QACKGROUND I 2.1 Ex Situ Soil Washin2 Ex situ soil washing refers to the excavation of contaminated soils and the subsequent I r.:::echanical washing of the soils in a slurry type reactor. The soil contaminants are transferred into the liquid phase. The soil reduced in contaminants is placed back I 0:1-site with the washwater containing the contaminants treated. Ex situ soil washing involves the removal of contaminants from the soil substrate, I using a mechanical washing technique. It is a physical separation procedure for "1'" contaminant removal from soil that involves the washing of the soil into a liquid co C\1 I medium. The process is carried out in equipment that is designed for contacting excavated soils with the liquid. Removal of contaminants from the soil matrix 0 I in\'olves both physical displacement of loosely held contaminants and desorption of the contaminants that are more tightly bound to the soil particles. I The separation of contaminants from soil particles depends on the relative wetability of the particle surfaces. The surface free energy of a particle is lowered by the I addition of surface active agents, i. e. surfactants. This creates a hydrophobic surface on the soH particles and therefore separates the soil from the contaminant particles. I The surfactant/water solution is then physically separated from the washing solution. I The cleaned soil partic1es are dewatered and returned to the site. The soil washing evaluation results can be used for more than one purpose. Soil I washing can be used at the site for ex situ washing , following excavation of the contaminated soil, or the surfactants can be applied to in situ treatment of the I contaminated soils. I I I I 2-1 I I I 3.0 PROCEDURES I 3. t Soil Samplini: Both shallow and deep samples were collected for use in the treatability work. I Shallow samples were collected with the use of a shovel. Deep soil samples (7a8 feet) were collected with the use of a backhoe. A 55 gallon drum and 5 gallon pails were I wed for sample collection and transport. A local contractor was hired to dig the deep samp1e with a backhoe. The deep N I sample was obtain at the 7§8 feet level, within the saturated soil zone. <::;;j" co I Shallow soil samples were collected by Keystone field services personnei. A cleaned N shovel was used. These samples was placed in 5 gallon pails for transport. The 0 I shallow samples were used in the ex situ (soil washing) treatability work. Deep samples were used for the in situ (bioreclamation) treatability work. I Cpon arrival at the re-;earch center in Monroeville, the sample codes were specified for each of the sample containers. The codes and corresponding descriptions are I listed below. I Sample Description Sample Code Deep sample adjacent T~TX~8 to church (55 gallon drum) I Surface soi1 near D W-01 (5 gallon pail) I Surface soil under creosote contami.:ated area (5 gallon pail) I Surface soil from creosote T-TX-11 contaminated area (5 gallon pail) Surface soil, from heavy naphthalene I contamination area (S gallon pail) I I I 3-1 I .. I I 3.2 Laboratory Procedures The procedure for determining the applicability of soil washing treatment was I :onducted in 3 phases. I Phase I involved the washing of several soil samples with different surfactants and visually evaluating the soils and wash solutions. Following each wash, the soil was I emersed in methylene chloride solution. The addition of creosote compounds darken the methylene chloride solution in relation to the concentration. From this observation the choice of surfactants is narrowed down. I tf'\ <:;;j" Phase II work involved washing the soil with the best visually observed surfactant or co I combination of surfactants. Generally, oil & grease (freon extractables) and N methylene chloride extractables analysis were performed on these samples. I 0 These two methods of analysis have been chosen because they indicate gross removal I of contaminants. Oil & grease analysis was performed because it is an EPA accepted method. Methylene chloride analysis was performed due to its greater affinity for I creosote compounds making it a better choice. Phase JII work involved the evaluation of the results obtained in Phase II and I choosing the best surfactant(s). A final washing is then conducted and the sample is I submitted for more extensive chemical analysis. A total of five soils were washed to determine the most effective surfactant or I combination of SL•rfactants for each different soil type collected. A two wash cycle was selected for soils from this site. A greater number of wash cycles can be I performed on a particular soil dependii1g on the cleanup criteria. The soil samples were screened with a 114 inch mesh prior to soil washing to remove I large pieces of foreign matter, i.e. pieces of wood, large cinder~and rocks. I The following procedure was followed for all five runs: I 1. Ail raw samples are premixed. I I I - I I 2. Impeller speed is set at 900 rpm. 3. 1000 grams of hot tap water within the temperature range of 45-so0c is I added to the soil wash unit. I pH of solution adjusted to 10 with 20% (by weight) NaOH. I 5. Surfactant added. 6. 500 gm raw soil in the soil wash unit. I q ,;:;t 7. Air is applied at a very low flow rate. ro I (\J 8. Soil is washed for 15 minutes while maintaining pH= 10. I 0 9. Wash procedure is repeated using 50% of initial surfactant dosage. Water is I added, the pH adjusted and surfactant added and washed another 15 minutes. I 10. In the final step, the washed soil is rinsed one or more times v.ith warm water~ the impeller speed maintained at 900 rpm and the air flow rate set on high. I I I I I I I I I 3-3 I I 4.0 RESULTS I 4.1 l!hase_l .11-nd Phas.e.Il Two separate screening runs were performed on each of the soils, using different I surfactant combinations that were visually chosen in Phase I (described above). Two surfactant combinations (#1 and #2) were evaluated based on Phase I results. Oil & I grease (freon extractables) and methylene chloride extractables analysis were used to evaluate surfactants from the screening run and are presented in Table 4-1. The % I removals are also included. These results were used in choosing the surfactant l..f\ combination for the final Phase II runs. <:::t ro N I 4.2 Phase III 0 I The screening run for T-TX-8 indicated better removals using the surfactant combination #2, which was chosen for the final run. As evidenced by the results in I Table 4-2, for the final run. both methylene chloride extractables and oil & grease showed similar reductions as in the screening run. The results indicate good I removals for other compounds. Pentachlorophenol (PCP) was reduced 87%. Toluene was reduced 97% and xylene 99%. PAH removal showed very good results I with a total P AH removal of 85%. For soil T-TX•9, surfactant combination #2 showed better removals and was chosen I for the final run. Soil washing results from the final run for soil T •TX .9 are presented in Table 4.3, Results from the final run show good overall removals. Oil I & grease and methylene chloride extractables were reduced 97 and 91 %, respectively. Both toluen'! and xylene were reduced >99.9%. Total PAH compounds were I reduced 60%. The results from the final treatment run for soil T·TX~lO can be found in Table 4-4. I Surfactant # 1 was chosen for the final treatment run. The results showed breater than 90% removals for both oil & grease and methylene chloride extractables. PCP I was reduced 86%. Petroleum hydrocarbonst benzene, and xylene were an reduced >99.9%. PAH concentration were relatively low in the soil and thus a total PAR I reduction of 35% was achieved. I 4-1 I --.------ TABLE 4-1 KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. TEXARKANA, 1'X 'FREA1'AB i I, TTY 81'UDV SOfL WASHING PUASR I I RESULTS SCREENING RUN WPt. W«"'i;ght Dry Weight Sample Oil & Grease Removals Me Chl Ext Oil &. Grease Me Chl Ext T-TX-8 RAW 738 Oil &. "Grease Me Chl Bxt. )480 891 1770 T-TX-8 #1 660 727 818 858 T-TX-8 #2 520 393 8 52 T-1'X-9 RAW 624 453 30 74 16200 42700 16981 T-TX-9· #1 44759 820 7610 981 T-TX-9 #2 967 9103 94 80 8120 1146 9621 T-TX-10 RAW 2040 93 79 12700 2321 14448 T-TX-10 #1 240 833 298 \035 T-TX-10 #2 253 87 9:J 653 314 810 ~ T-TX-11 RAW 18800 86 94 I 52700 20705 58040 ..... 'f-TX-11 #1 1650 9740 2102 12408 ~ T-TX-1 J #2 1390 90 79 8120 1762 1029Z T-TX-12 RAW 34200 91 82 65500 43456 83227 T-TX-12 #l 1570 5000 1990 6337 T-'FX-12 #2 33JO 8700 95 92 4240 11 U 1 90 87 Note: Me Chi Ext incticates Methyl~ne Ctaloride Extractables All values in units of mg/L 012846 ------ TABLE 4-2 KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. TEX'ARKANAt TX TREATAB[LI7Y STUDY SOIL WASHING PHASE II I RBSULTS SOlL SAMPLF. 1'-TX-8 ( St.a·fac:tant Combination #2) Wet Weight Dry Sample Weight Initial fo' i na l Ind lied Parameter (mg/Kg) Final % Oil & Grease 738 473 891 552 Methylene t'hlorirfP F.xt.. 38 1480 7 3:t 1770 Ventachlorophenol 855 52 3:l.5 4.60 40. \ 5.37 87 Petroleum Hydro~arbons 300 130 359 Benzene 152 58 <0.040 0.032 <0.048 ToluenP.- 0.038 NA 1. 530 0.040 1.848 Xylene 0.046 97 9.950 0. 09·7 12.0l7 0. 1 13 99 Aqueous # Of Solubility PAH Compounds (mg/Kg) Rings 8. t. 25 c. ug/L Naphthalene 2 3 l • 700 34t 21 Acenaphthylene 412 24.5 94 3 38.8 11. l 46.9 13.0 72 Acenaphthene 3 3,930 200 45.8 242 Fluorene 53.4 78 3 1,980 166 20.4 200 Phenanthrene 23.8 88 3: 1,290 481 60.5 581 Ant.h.racene 70.6 88 l 7 3, 116 t5.5 140 Fluoranthene 18.t 9-; 4 260 216 4 l. l 261 Pyrene 48.0 82 4 135 188 29.4 227 34.3 85 Benzo(atanthracene 4 14 47.! 16.2 56.9 18.9 67 Chrysene 4 z 50.2 16 .... 60.6 19.3 68 Benzo(aJpyrene 5 :.L 8 23.0 3.75 27.8 Benzo(bffluoranthen~ 4.4 84 5 38.4 6.95 46.4 8. l Benzo(kJfluoranthene 5 83 14.8 2.63 17.9 3. l 83 Dibenzo(a,h}anthracP.ne 5 2.49 }l.8 7.32 14.3 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 8.5 40 6 23.1 5.43 2.7.9 6.3 77 Indeno{l,2,3-cd)pyrene 6 12.5 4. 11 15.l Total PAH 4.8 68 1968 308 2376 359 85 NA - Not Applicable 0 1 2 8 4 7 ------ TABLE 4-3 KOPPf.:l,!'S COMPANY~ INC. Tt-~XARKANA ~ 'fX TREA"rABILlTY STUDY SOIL WASHING PHASE II l kESULTS SOI I. SAMPI,E T-TX-9 (Surfartant Combination 12 ► Wet Sample Weight Ory Weight. lni t.ia h Parameter ,mg/kg) Fin.al Initial Final %. Oil & Greasf'> Methylene Chloride Ext. 14HW 407 14:811 49:{ 42900 97 Pentachlorophenol 3390 45063 4.104 0.265 9l Petroleum Hydrocarbons 0.030 0.278 0-037 87 Benzene 2180 12:0 2290 145 94 0. 107 ,I\ lj 11 11'\o Toluene 0.025 v ... II. r., {ii.03,0 0.032 'l 3 Xylene <0.020 0.033 <0,024 ::-99_9 0.132 <0.030 0.139 <0.036 >999 Aqueous # or Scdubi l i t.y PAH Compounds (mg/~g ► Rings at 25 r.. ug/l. Naphthalene 2 31,700 < 1. 00 18.20 Acene:.ph\hylene 3 0 1 2 8 4 8 ------ TABLE 4-4 KOPPERS COM?ANYJ INC. TRXARKANA, TX TRF.ATA.B B~ I TV STUDY SOU. WASH SNG PHASF. 111 RF.SUI.TS SOU. SA.MPI.F. T-TX-10 ( $urfact-ant. Coinbi nat. ion t2) Sa ■ pl.e We,t WPight Dry Weight Initial Final Parameter tag/Kg) Initial Final ~ 0 i .t & Gt"Pl\SP. 2200 MPthylene Chloride Hxt. 113 2469 138 94 11500 Pentachlorophenol 920 12907 1121 91 ! . 4, 40 Petroleum Hydrocarbons o. 186 1.616 0.227 86 830 Benzene <100 932 <122 >99.9 Toluene o.o:;n (0.020 0.030 <0.024 0.058 >99.9 Xylene o.ozo o.oss 0.02:4i 6:?' 0. 125 <0.030 0 -140 <0.031 >99.9 Aqueous # Ot" Sol ubiJ i ty PA.H Compounds (mg/Kg) lh ngs Naphthalene a.t. 25 c. ug/L 2 31 t 700 3.81 Acenaphthylene 2.80 4 3.41 20 3 HIT • •• - -- •• • • • • • a. I • I ' ' ' I I The results for soil T-TX• l1 are in Table 4•5. Surfactant combination #2 was chosen from the screening run to be used in the final run. Oil & grease and methylene I chloride extractables were ,educed 94 and 89%, respectively, PCP was reduced 82% and petroleum hydrocarbons 93%. Benzene was reduced 60% and both toluene and I xylene were reduced >99.9%. Total PAH compounds were reduced 42%. Surfactant combination #1 wu chosen from the screening run for soil T•TX-12, to I be used in the final treatment run. Results from the final treatment run for soil T~ TX-12 can be found in Table 4-6. Results indicate that oil & grease, pentachlorophenol, petroleum hydrocarbons and xylene were all reduced >99.9%. I C Methylene chloride extractables were reduced 99.9%. Reduction of PAH lf\ compounds showed exceHent resu)ts with 99% reduction of total PAH compounds. ro I N I 0 I I I I I I I I I I 4-2 ------ 'rABLH 4-5 KOPPERS COM~ANY, lNC. TEXARKANA ► TX TRF.ATABll,JTY STOJW SOIL WASHlNG PHASE Ill ~ESlll,TS 80 fl, SAMPl,f<: T-TX-1 l (Surfactant Combination #2) Sample Wet Weight. Dry Weight Parameter (mg/Kg} Initial Final Init.ial Final X Oi 1 & Grea.si?. 18300 Methylene Chloride Rxt. 920 20288 I lJ 47 Pentachlorophenol 545.00 5250 "'\ 60421 6546 89 30.70 4.80 Petroleum Hydrocarbons 34.04 5.99 82 Benzene 47:rn 300 5240 314 93 I Toluene 0.069 0.025 0.017 0.202 0.031 60 Xylene <0.020 0.224 <0.025 0.416 <0.030 >9'9. 9 0.461 <0.037 >99.9 Aqueous # Of Solubility PAH Compounds (mg/Kg) Rings Naphthalene at 25 C, ug/L. 2 31700 ·Ace na ph thy 1 ene 18.0 34. l 3 20.0 42.5 NA Acenaphthene < t. 00 TABLE 4-6 KOPPFHS COMPANY, I NC. 'rP.XARKANA, TX TRF.ATA.BH,ITY STUl>Y SOI[. WASH l NG PHASE I I I. Rfo:SUt:rs SOIL SAMPLE T-'l'X-12 (Surfartant Combination #l) Sample Wet Weight Ory Weight Parameter (mg/Kg) Initial Final Initial Pinal % Oil & Grease 101000 Methylene Chloride Ext. <50.0 135570 <63,0 PentachlorophenoJ 112000 t73 150336 0.094 218 Petroleum HydrocarbonH <0.010 0. l 27 <0.013 4300 Benzene <100 5772 <126 <0.200 Toluene <0.020 <0.268 <0,025- <0.200 Xylene <0.020 <0.268 <0.025 5.26 <0.030 7.060 <0.038 ,z;i. I Aqueous IV # Of Solubility ~ PAH Compounds {mg/Kg) Rings Wapht.ha l ene a.t 25 Ct lJg/L 2 Acenapht.hylene 31,700 19700 189 3 26443 238 99 Acenaphthene 1120 4.98 3 1503 6.27 99.S Fluorene 3,930 317 8.80 3 l, 980 426 1 L 1 S7 Phenanthrene 244 8.62 328 3 l. 290 10,9 97 Anthrac-ene 1330 57.40 1785 3 73 69.7 72.3 96 Fluoranthene 4 2.8t 93.6 3.54 Pyrene 260 512 96 4 18.8 687 23.7 135 230 97 Benzo(a}anthracene 4 10.5 309 13.2 Chrysene 14 163 4.74 96 4 219 5.97 97 Benzo(a)pyrene 2 165 4.83 5 221 6.08 97 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 3.8 230 0.717 5 309 0.903 99.7 Benzo{k,fluoranthene 70.8 2.23 5 95.0 2,81 97 Dibenzo(a,h)anthrac~ne 3L5 1.01 5 2.49 42.3 1.27 97 Benzofg 1 h-i}perylene 63.4 3.56 6 85. I 4.48 95 Indeno(I,2,3-ed)pyrene 52.2 2.66 6 70. 1 3.35 95 Totat PAH 45.4 1. 81 60.9 2.28 96 24:\44 322 32677 406 99 NA - Not Applirahle 012852 I I 5.0 filJMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The laboratory treatability results presented show that ex situ soil washing is effective I !n reducing soil contaminant concentrations measured. I Based on a two wash cycle, soil washing of five different soils achieved the following reductions in soil contaminant concentrations with results reported on a dry weight I basis: ( i) oil & grease was reduced from an initial range of 900 - 136,000 mg/Kg to 140 - 1,150 mg/Kg, (ii) methylene chloride extractables. from an initial concentration range of 1,770 - 150,336 mg/Kg to 218 - 6,546, (iii) pentachlorophenol, from an initial 'I concentration range of 0.127 - 40.1 to <0.013 - 5.99 mg/Kg, (iv) petroleum hydrocarbons, from an initial concentration range of 359 - 5,112 mg/Kg to < 122 ~ 314 I mg/Kg, (v) benzene, from an initial concentration range of 0.030 - 1.848 mg/Kg to <0.025 - 0.046 mg/Kg, (vi) toluene, from an initial concentration range of 0.033 ~ 0 I 1.848 to <0.024 - 0.046 mg/Kg, (vii) xylene, from an initial concentration range of 0.139 - 12.017 to <0.037 - 0.113 mg/Kg, and (viii) total PAH's, from an initial I concentration range of 199 • 32,677 mg/Kg to 129 - 1,170 mg/Kg. ,1 The variations in the treated soil concentrations among the different soils tested is mainly attributable to the different physical/chemical interactions between a specific chemical and a specific soil type. These interactions account for the fact that I chemical compounds such as pentachlorophenol measured between <0.013 to 5.99 mg/Kg in treated soil while individual PAH's measured between <0.244 - 111 mg/Kg; I total PAH's in the treated soil ranged between 129 .. 1,170 mg/Kg. The level of PAH's in the treated soil is due to the fact that the particular soil type tested is such I that PAH's are tightly bound to the treated soil and will not solubilize into solution. Pentachlorophenol on the other hand, is not as tightly bound to the soiJ as PAH's are. I The absorptive capacity of a soil for PAH's has been investigated and shown to be highly correlated with the organic carbon content of the soiJ.1 The ability of the soil I to tightly bind hydrophobic contaminants can hinder the complete removal of these compounds. The relationship between organic matter in soils and the organic carbon I content of the soil can be estimated. Likewise, an estimation of the amount of these compounds that will not readily be released from the soil matrix, can be determined. I It is recommended that prior to further treatment, the organic carbon content and I 5 .. 1 I . . -~ . ., > \ ~_:_~~L-~~~~·-·_· ~_,,....,_ __ ~~-~--=f'""" ~~~------,--.'-~~~~ ~~~~-~_:_.~_ = • • ' I • ' • , I ' . . . . . I I clay content of the soil should be investigated and an estimation of the absorbed carbon be determined. I The fact that PAH's are so tightly bound to the treated soil infers that incineration, I some type of solvent washing, or thcnnal desorption may be needed if further reductions in soil PAH's are needed. In lieu of incineration, it may also be possible to support higher levels through a risk based approach which draws upon the fact I that PAH,s are very tightly bound to the soil. It is also possible that lower soil PAH concentrations could be achieved with more wash cycles. I q I.(\ co I N I I ,I I I I I I I I 1• II 5-2 i --- --~· ___: ___ \ - - - . -~ •-- - I - __ ..__ - --- ~--__:-_ -- / -• ,__ ---~~' --.------_,_------·:__----~-- -- __: ~----·--______r __ _ . . . ..,, . . I I BEfERENCES 1. Fu, J. K. "Aromatic Compound Solubility and Sorption Onto Soils in Solvent/Water Mixtures. PhD Dissertation, Carnegie MelJun University, I 1985. I I I ""L{\ I co (\f I 0 I I 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I \0 I.(\ I co (\I I 0 APPENDIX 6-A I COSTING TABLES ASSOCIATED WITH THE UNSATURATED I SOIL RESPONSE MEDIA UNIT ALTERNATIVES I I I I I I I I I 2069T 4040-001-600 \ . . . - . . .. . • , ..::. . ., ', . : . . . . • . ' . . l . . . ' . '. • . ·, . .. . . - . . ' • ' ' . I . . I ~ ~ • " ... .. • ,f ~ .. . . ,... . I I APPENDIX 6-A I UNSATURATED SOIL ALTERNATIVE COSTING TABLES This appendix presents pertinent information associated I wit~ the detailed ~valuation of the unsaturated soil alt~rnatives (Section 6.0). For the purposes of the detailed cost estimate for Alternatives SL-1, SL-2, SL-3, and SL-4, it I has been assumed that the areas to be sampled and/or possibly remediated are those that had been previously sodded as shown I on Figure 1. This assumption was used solely for cost r estimating purposes. Actual areas to be sampled and/or Lr', I remediated will be determined in the Record of Decision. co (\J Included in this appendix are the present worth tables for I the baseline cost evaluation; the capital and present worth 0 costs for the low cost evaluation; and the capital and present worth costs for the high cost evaluation. Also included in I this appendix is a listing of the major baseline unit costs and I the:r corresponding sources. I I I I I I I I I 2069T 4040-00l-600 ---rr·· . L t .,, .... ~..Ii.• ' . . . Fl~!J.Rf Al'e•as al Pol"l'IICI ,R.,.,"dlotlor, ------• I ALTERNATIVE SL•I: PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS cost PER YEAR PER $1000 0 2 3 4 I ...... - 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .... ---••••••••.,••• •••••-- ••••••••••••••coa•••••••••••••..,,.,..,,,.,.••• CAPITAL COST 27.0 ·················--~----··········· O&H COSTS 14.0 14 .0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 I TOTAL jNNUAL :::OST 27.0 14,0 11,,0 14.0 14,0 14.0 14.0 14.0 i4.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 ANNUAL DISCOOh~ RATEa10¾ 1 0.909 0.826 0.751 0.6a3 0.621 0,564 0.513 0.467 0.424 0.386 0.3' 0.319 NET PRESENT 1,l()RTH 2?.0 12.7 11.6 10.S I 9.6 8.7 7.9 7.2 6.5 5.9 5.4 4.9 4,5 I 13 11. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 21 23 24 25 ·-·-·······-···-·····--···------··········-·······~-~----············-····~---~----·······~· °'tJ"\ CAPITAL COST ro O&M COSTS 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 I 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 C\I TOTAL ANNUAL COSf 14.0 14.0 14,0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14,0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 ANNUAL OISCOUHi RATEM~Ot 0.29 0.263 0.239 0.218 I 0.198 0.18 0.164 0.149 0.135 0.123 0.112 o. 101 0.09Z NET PRE!ii::WT YORTH 4.1 3.7 3.3 3.1 2.8 1.5 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.3 I 26 27 28 29 30 ·-·-·--- ...... TOTAL NET PRESl!NT CA.PIT!',L COST I \IORfH O&H COSTS 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 (T KOOSANO s I s.) TOTAL ANNUAL COST 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 ...... - ...... ,& ...... I ANNUAL DISCOONT RATE~10X 0.084 0.076 0.069 0.063 0.057 NEt PRESENT ~TH 1.2 I 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 159.0 ...... -...... ~ ... -... .. I (P!J·SL1) I I ' .. : . ' ' 11 ' I I ALfEINATIYi SL•1: LOW CAPITAL COSTS NO ACTION/MONITOQING SENSITIVITY TOTAL COST COMPONENT QUAJITI TY tmlT I UNIT COST TOTAL cosr FACTOR COST - • .. • • • • • • • - • ...... • ■ ...... ■•• ...... - • • .. ... • • ...... - ...... I CARVER. TERRACE SOI LS: NO CAPITAL EXP£NOltllRES I BULK SOLIDS TO SE TREATED UITH GROJJID WATER: LOAD BULK SOLIDS 160 CY S.100 $16,00G FQJl 40·CY ROLL·OFFS 0.95 $15,200 CONTAINING !iOIL CUTTINGS I FRClM THE Ill C ON·SITE HAULING 160 CY S3 S480 HAULED to TNE GRAVEL PITS 1.0 1480 10 8E TP.EAtEO 8Y GROONO IIATU co'° I HEALTH & SAfETY liEEK S4,0QQ S4,000 I NCllKJES A ll&S OFf I CER: 0.95 '3,800 DURING R£M£01ATION; HNU, "',;- I RESPIRATot, CLOTHING 0 DIRECT CAPITAL cost I ...... ■ ENGINEERING &DESIGN (11X) I S.2, 143 I TOTAL CAPITAL COST I $25,519 APPROXIMATi TOTAL CAP!TAL COST I S.26,000 ClOU·SL1) I I I I I f - - - • r • - - - - ,- - I ' I I ' I I ALTEIUIATIVE SL·1: LOl4 PRISENT WORTH AHAlTStS COST PE• YEAR PER 11000 0 2 3 4 5 I ...... -...... 6 1 a 9 10 11 12 ·········-~········•·4·•····································•·4••···············~---······--· CAPITAL cost 26.0 o&M COSTS 14.0 1,, .0 14.0 14.0 14.~ 11,.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 I TOTAL ANNUAL COST 26.0 14.0 14.0 14,0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 ANNUAL OISCCI.JNt RATE8101 0.909 0,8Z6 0.751 0.'83 0."'21 0.564 0.513 0.447 0.424 0.386 0.35 0.319 NET PPEHNt IJORTH I 26.0 12.7 11.6 10.S 9.6 &.7 7.9 7.2 6.5 S.9 5.4 4.9 4.5 I 13 14 15 1!) 17 18 19 20 21 21 23 24 25 - ···-·····················~·-······-·········-·····················~·-··················~····· CAPITAL COST '°00 I o&M COSTS 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 (\J 14.0 14.0 14.0 14 .o 14.0 14.0 14.0 TOTAL ANNUAL cosr 14.0 14.0 u.o 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14 .0 14 .0 14.0 14.0 ~ ANNUAL DISCOONt RATEa10% 0.29 0.263 0.239 0.218 0.198 0.18 I 0.164 0.149 0.135 0.123 0.112 0.101 0.092 0 NEr PRESENT \o\')RTM 4.1 3.7 3.3 3, 1 2.8 2.5 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.3 I 27 28 29 30 TOTAL ········-·······~·-·-···~-.~---···~- NET PRESE!H tAPllAl COST I I/ORTH o&M c:osrs 14.0 14,0 14.0 14.0 14.0 (T KOOS AND s I s) TOTAL ANNUAL cosr 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 I ANNUAL DISCOONT RATEi10l 0.084 0.076 0.069 0.063 0.057 NET PRESENT IIORTN 1.2 1.1 1.0 0,9 o.a I 158.0 I (lPUSLl) I I I - .. - , . ! ,_ -. I I ALTERNATIVE SL·1: NIGH CAPITA~ COSTS UO ACTION/MONITORING SENSITIVITY CO$f C(MP()ffEII~ OUAIHITY I UNIT Ulllf COST TOTAL COST UCTCR ...... -...... "...... "',.,...... -...... I CARVER TERRACE SOILS: 110 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES I BULK SOllOS TO SE Tr!UTEO \.ll!K GROOHCI WATER: LOAl> IUU: SOLIDS 160 CY S100 116,000 FOUR 40·CY ROLL-OFFS 1.1 $~1,600 CONTAINING SOIL CUTTINGS I fl('j,1 lKE A.I 1.,,'\J ffll • SITE ll.MJL(NG tl!O CY S3 S480 HAULED TO THE GRAVEL PITS LO «80 TO se TREAtED 8Y GROOMO "° \/ATER ro I Hl:AL TN & SMETY lll!EK $4,"100 $4,000 INCLUO~S A H&S OFFICER 1.1 $4,400 "1 OURIHG A.EKEOIAflOH; HMU, or- I RESPfRAlOf!, CLOTHING 0 ...... ___ ...... ;, ...... ~ ...... , ...... Olt[CT CAPITAL cost I ...... ,...... "'" ...... ~.~ ...... ENGINEERING & DESIGN (~1X) I 12,473 I $4,496 TOTAL CAPITAl COST I $29,449 APP~OXIMAtE lOTAL CAPflAL COST I $29,000 (HI ·SU) I I I I I I I I ALTERNATIVE SL·1: HIGH PRESENT WRTH ANALYSIS COST P£R YEAR PER 11000 I 0. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ...... 9 10 11 12 ·-·- ... "' ...... - ..... - - ..... ■ ...... - •• - ...... - " •• - ...... ,.. .. - ...... - ...... Clift ll AL COST 19.0 o&M COSTS 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 I 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 TOTAL ANNUAL COST 29.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 11..0 ANNUAL DISCOUNT RAfE~10X 0.909 0.826 0.751 0.683 0.621 0.564 O.St3 0.467 0,424 0,386 0.35 0.319 I Nff PRESE•T IJORTH 29.0 12.7 11.6 10.S 9.6 8.7 7.9 7.2 6.5 5.9 5.4 4.C) 4.5 I r<', 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 21 23 24 2S ••••••••••••~'4''"'"'*••••••••~••~•••---•••••••••••••••••••••~•••••••••••a..-•••••••••~••~••~•••••~•• CAPltAL COST co"° I o&M COSTS 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 (\J 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 TOTAL ANNUAL COST 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 11•• 0 14.0 14.0 14.0 ~ ANNUAL OfSCClJNT RAfEi1C% 0.29 0,263 0.239 0.218 0.198 I 0.18 0.164 0.149 0.135 0.123 0.112 0.101 0.092 0 NEf PRESENT IJORTH 4.1 3.7 3.3 3.1 2.8 2.5 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.7 I 1.6 1.4 1.3 26 27 28 29 30 ...... TOTAL NET PRESENT CAPITAL COST I IJORtH o&H COSTS 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14 .o (THOUSAND $'s) TOTAL ANNUAL COST 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 ...... ,, - ...... + I ANNUAL DISCCUNT RATE~10% 0.084 0,076 0.069 0.063 0.057 NET PRESENT \JORfH 1.2 I 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 161.0 I (HPUSL 1) I I I I I I I I ALTERNATIVE SL-2: PRESENT I/ORTH ANALYSIS COST PER YEAR PER $1000 0 2 I 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ~2 ...... _ ... _ ...... •••·••■••• ...... ~.u--•···--•••••• ■ ... ,&,.- ...... , ...... __ ,...... __ ..,,.,...... , ...... CAP11At COSi 759.0 o&M COSTS 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 I TOTAL ANNUAL COST 759.0 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 ANNUAL DISCCllNT RATE@~0% 1 0.909 0.826 0.751 0.683 0.621 0.564 ::).513 0.467 0.424 0,386 0.35 0.319 I NET PRESENT IIORTH 759.0 4.7 4.3 3.9 3.6 3.2 2.9 2.7 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.7 I -.;j" 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 21 23 24 25 .... -...... - -.... -·-- ...... ----...... ··- ---••·· -- ...... CAP! TAL COST '°CX) I o&M COSTS 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 S.2 5.2 5.2 N TOfAL ANNUAL COST ._..... 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 s.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 I ANNUAL OISCCllNT RATE~10X 0.29 0.263 0.239 0.218 o.198 0.18 0.164 0.149 0.135 0.123 0.112 o. 101 0,092 0 NET PRESENT lt'ORlH 1.5 1.4 1.2 1 . 1 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 I 26 27 28 29 30 TOTAL -...... ____ .... "" ...... __ ,...,.., ------..__ -- ~--· ... WET PRESEWl 11 CAPITAL COST IJOR:TH o&M COSTS 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5,2 ( THOOSAND $ Is ) TOTAL ANNUAL COST 5.2 5.2 5.2 S.2 5.2 I ANNUAL OISCOUNT RATE~10% 0.084 0.076 0.069 0.063 0.057 I NET PRESENT I/ORTH 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 808.0 I I I I I I TABLE 6·3: ALTERNATIVE SL-2: LOU CAPITAL cosrs CAPPING/MONITORING/INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS SENSITIVITY TOTAL I COST C(X.!P~ENT OU.ANT lTY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMMENTS FACTOR COST .,,.,p ...... ~ I, ...... - ., .... - ..... " ...... - • - -...... --...... -.... - ...... ,.. .. ,...... ,__, ...... - . ~ ...... SITE PREPARATION 4.40 ACRES $1,450 $6,380 0.95 $6,061 INITIAL HON!Toi:IING I SAMPLING 22 OAYS $400 $8,800 8 SAMPLES/DAY COLLECTED 0.95 $8,360 ANALYSIS 116 SAMPLES $315 155,440 8 SAMPLES/LOT ANALYZED 0.95 $.52,668 fOR PAHs ANO ARSENIC I CAPPING: PRE\ltOOSLY SOOOED AR£A.S: EXCAVATION·(12") 7900 CY $15.00 $118,500 178,000 Sf; 20¾ BULKING 0.95 $112,575 I Oll·StlE HAULING 7Q0O CY $3 123,700 ttAUL to PITS, T~EAT VIA GY 1.0 $23,700 iJ1 TOPSOJL-(10") 5500 CY 17.50 $41,250 178,000 SF; 20¾ SULKING 0.95 $J9, 188 TOPSOIL·SPREAOlNG 5500 CY s2.oo $.11,000 0.95 $10,450 '°ro S00·(2") 19800 SY $3,55 $70,290 INCLUDES MATERIAL AND LABOR 0.95 $66,776 C\l I NEIJLY SOODED AREAS! ~ TOPSOIL· (10") 450 CY $7,50 t3,37!i 12,000 Sf; 20% BULKING 0,95 $3,206 TOPSOIL-SPREADING 450 CY $2.00 t900 0.95 $855 0 I soo (2 11 } 1300 SY $3.55 $4,615 INCLUDES MATERIAL ANO LABOR 0.95 $4,384 ESTABLISHMENT OF SOJL\SOO BARRIER: PER}001C INSPECTIONS 4 INSPECT ,1,200 M,800 $400 LABOR• TRAVEL/INSPECT 1.0 i'-,800 FERTILIZING 22 LOlS 1180 $3,960 $30/MONTH/LOT 0.95 $3,762 I MOYlNG 22 LOl'S $.720 $15,840 $120/MOIITII/LOt 0.95 MS,048 IJA T!:fi'. 22 LOTS $90 $1,980 $15/MONTH/LOT 0.95 $1,881 BULK SOLIDS TO BE TREATED BY GROUNO ijAJER: LOAD BULK SOLIOS 160 CY $100 $.16,000 FOUR 40·CY ROLL-OFFS 0.95 $15,200 CONTAINING SOIL CUTl'INGS FROM fHE RJ I ON· Sll'E HAUL ING 160 CY $3 $.480 HAULED ro THE GRAVEL PITS, 1.0 $4&) fO BE TREATED BY GROUND I/ATER HEAL TH & SAFETY t..fi \.IEEKS S-4,000 $l92,000 H&S OFFICER OURfNG INITIAL 0.95 $.182,400 I MONITORING ANO EXCAVATION (2 WEEKS/LOT); MWu, RESPIRATOR, CLOTHING I M--A••··. ■ ••~_., 0, ...... • ...... _ ...... ••• ...... 'I'.·--••· ■• ...... ~ ...... DIRECT CAPITAL cost S.551,794 ...... _ ...... ______,...... ~---····--······-···· .. ···"'·•- ...... -- I ENGINEERl~G & DESIGN (11t) $60,697 I CONllNGENCY (20%) S.110,359 I TOTAL CAPITAL COST I APPROMIMAlE TOTAL CAPITAL COST I ■ • • • ,:J • I . . ' I I ALTERNATIVE SL·2: LCl,I PRESEMl UOttK AMALYSIS COST PER YE.AR PER S100O I 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 11 12 ...... --..... -- ~ . -- ... ••••••,.••••,,.,.,.,.••~••••••,.•v~ ... ,••~•-••••••~,•••••• ••••-•••,•••~••~••••••• ■ •s••- ■••••••••~••• CAf>ll AL tOST 723.0 o&M cosrs 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 I s.2 5,2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 l'OtAL ANMUAl ::::)Sf 723.0 5.2 5,2 5.2 5.2 s.2 5 .2: 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 '5.2 ANMUAL DISCCUIT ~AiEi1ot 1 0.909 0.826 o. 751 0.683 0.621 0,564 0.513 0,467 0.424 0.386 0.35 0.319 I NET PRE$£NT lo'ORTH 723.0 4.7 4,3 3.9 3.6 3,2 2.9 2.7 2.4 2.2 2,0 1.8 L7 I 13 14 i5 16 17 18 \9 20 21 21 23 24 25 "° ...... •-·-·······~---···-·~~.~-····-·······~·--·· .. ~~•.,■~~---~-·····-·• .. ·········-·--··~-4- ■ CAPITAL COST (X)'° I o&M COSTS 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 N 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 TOTAL ANNUAL COST 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5,2 ..- AMNUAL DISCruNT RATE~1C;X. 0,29 0.263 0.239 0.218 0.198 0, 18 I 0.1$4 0.149 0.135 0.123 u.112 0.101 0.092 0 WEl P~EStijT 'IIORiH 1.S L4 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 ().9 o.a 0.7 I 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.'5 26 27 28 29 30 TOTAL ---~·---- .. ·•-- ...... , ...... ,.- ... lcEf PRESEIH I CAPITAL COST \IORTH o&H COSTS 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 s.2 ( TIUX.ISAHD $ I s) TOTAL AHMUAL COST 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 .. - .. -. -...... I AMMUAL OlSCa.utl RA1E~1~ O.OB4 0.076 0.069 0.063 0.057 I NET PRESl:NT 1.'0RTH 0.4 0,4 0.4 0.3 0.3 ...... ~IF- ...... I (LPIJSL2) I I I I I I I ALTEiJIAflVE SL-2: NIGH CAPITAL cosrs I CAPPING/MOHITOAING/INST ITUTIONAL CONTROLS SENSITIVIH TOUL I COST C()l;POltENT OUAHT I TY UNff UNIT COST TOTAL COST CCIIMENTS f'ACTOll COST .. + - ...... -. -...... " ...... • • ♦ ...... ,...... " ... + ...... SITE PREPARAT;OM 4.40 ACRES S1,4SO Ja,380 1.1 t7,018 INITIAL MONITORING I SAMPl lllG 22 OAYS V.00 SS,800 8 SAMPLES/CAY COLLECTED \.1 t9,680 ANALYSIS 176 UJIPUS $315 S55,440 8 SAMPLES/LOT ANALYZEO 1.1 S60,984 HIR PAHs ANO AASEN IC I CAPP I MG: PREVIOOSLV SOOOED AREAS: El I 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ...... ,...... CAPITAL COST 831.0 o&M COSTS 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 S.2 5.2 5.2 I TOTAL ANNUAL COST 831.0 S.2 5.2 s.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 S.2 5.2 5i.2 S.2 s.2 ANNUAL OISCCUMl RATEs10% 0.909 0,826 0.7'H 0,683 0.621 0.564 0.513 0.467 0.424 0.386 0.35 0.3~9 I NET PftfSENT \JORTH 831.0 4.7 4.3 3.9 3.6 3.2 2.9 2.7 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.7 OJ- I 1l 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 21 21 n 24 25 -~············~·-·········~-~-•···-·············~-·····~~---··············~~~•~--············ '°co CAPITAL COST N I o&M COSTS 5 .2: 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 S.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 TOTAL ANNUAL COST 5,2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 S.2 5.2 S.2 5.2 S.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 ~ I A.NNUAL OISCOONT RATE~1(X 0.29 0.263 0.239 0.218 0.198 o. 18 0.164 0.149 0.135 0.123 0.112 0.10f 0.092 0 NET PRESENT IJORT~ 1. 5 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 O.b 0.6 0.5 0.5 I U, 27 28 29 30 TOTAL ...... NET PIIESEMT I CAPITAL cosr wOUI! o&M COSTS S.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 (fHOOSANC> S's) fOTAL ANNUAL COST 5.2 S.2 5.2 5.Z 5.2 I AMNUAL DISC(lft4T RATEiiJi10~ 0,084 0.076 0.0,69 0.063 0.057 NET PRESENT liORT~ 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 I 880.0 _____ ...... I (MP\JS:..2) I I I I I I I I I I ALTERNATIVE SL·3: PRESENT 1./0RTH AHALYSJ$: 10 YEAR flEATHEMT COST PU YEAJI: PER 51000 0 2 3 I 4 5 6 7 s 9 -.... .,...... - .. --... 10 11 12 ...... ·---~- ...... ; ...... ,...... ,,...... ·- CAI> IT AL COSl \494.0 OU4 COSiS 72,0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 12.0 72.0 n.o 72.0 I TOTAL AHIIUH COST 1494.0 12.o 5,2 5.2 72.0 12.0 12.0 72.0 72.0 12.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 12.0 5.2 5.2 ANNUAL DIS(.CIAT RA.TEs1~ , 0.909 0.82h l),7S\ 0.6£13 0.621 0.S64 0.513 0.467 0.424 0.186 0.35 0.319 NE.f PUS,RT WRfll 1494.0 65.4 I 59.5 54.1 49.2 44.1 40.6 36.IJ 33.6 30.5 21.a 1.8 1.1 I O'> 13 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 2i 21 2.3 24 25 ...... ,fl ...... ~ ...... _ ... _ CAP I TAL CCS T co'° O&H COSTS 5.2 5.2 I 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5 .2 5.2 5.2 5.2 C\J rout ANNUAL COST 5.2 s.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 S.2 5.2 5.2 5,2 5.2 S.2 -r-- ANNUAL O(SOOJ.IIT u.rea1~ 5.2 s.z 5.2 5.2 0.29 0.263 0.239 0.218 0.198 0.18 I 0.164 0.11,9 0.135 0. \23 0.112 0.101 0.092 0 U!T PRESENT \.IOA:1~ 1.5 1.1, 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 o. "i 0.5 I 26 21 28 29 30 TOTAL I Cl,.P t 0.L COS t IIET PRESENl UORH! O&M cosrs 5.2 S.2 S.2 5.2 5.2 (TIIOJSANI) $'S} TOTAL ANNUAL cosr 5.2 5,2 5.2 5.2 5.2 ...... I AWUUAL DIS-CruMT RAT(i1Ql. 0.084 0.0~6 0.069 0.1)61 0.057 NEl PRESENT IJOl!TH 0.4 0.4 0.4 I 0,3 0.3 19S3.4 ------...... _, I I I - I . . . ------~ ~- -~-~-~~" - -. -~ ··~~~ '~, -~~--..----:.-----t~'--.--:"'1 ~i."'" ------.- -~~~-...:~-~~·-=------~~~ , - I .. ' . • .. _...... ~ ,,. ~ . I I ALTERNAflVE SL·3: LOIJ CAPllAL COSTS IN·SliU IJOOEGRAOATIOH SENSITIVITY TOTAL I cosr COb'ONENt QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL COST COIMENTS fACfOR COST SITE PREPAtATION 4.40 ACRES St ,4S0 So,380 0.95 S6,061 I INITIAL MONJfOQJNG SAMPLING 22 DAYS S400 SS,800 8 SAMPLES COlLECfEO/OAY 0.95 S8,J60 ANALYSIS 176 SAMPLES S315 SSS,440 8 SAMPLES/LOT ANALYZED 0.95 S52,~ I FOR PAH& AND ARSENIC INSTALL SPRINKLER SYSTEM 22 LOfS S2,000 $44,000 INCL. BOX AND METER 1.95 $41,800 IN·SITU sr I ...... ,...... ,,...... DIRECf CAPITAL COST S1,083, H9 ...... ·- ...... ,. ... ,...... - ...... ■ ...... -··-·· ...... , ...... I ENGINEERING &DESIGN (11\) $119,143 I CONTINGENCY (20%) S216,624 tOtAL CAPITAL COST t\,41&,886 I *"'*"******* I APPROXIMATE TOTAL CAPITAL COST t1,419,000 I (l0U·St3) I I I I ALTERNATIVE SL-3: LOY PRESENT \.'ORTH AIIAl.fSIS: 10 YEAR lREAYMENT COST PER YEAR PER 11000 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 I ..... __ ,._._,...,. ______9 10 11 12 ·•--..------· ...... ,.,,...... ; ... ,...... CAPITAL COST 1419.0 o&M COSTS 72,0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 5.? 5.2 I TOTAL AijNUAL :::,ST 1419.0 72,0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 12.0 72.0 5.2 5.2 ANNUAL OlSCCl,ll~ RATE~10¾ 1 0.909 0.826 0.751 0.683 0.621 0.564 o.sn 0.467 0.424 0.386 0,35 0.319 NET PRESl.~l IJORfH 1419.0 65.4 59.S I 54. 1 49.2 44.7 40.6 36.9 33.6 30.S 27.8 1.8 L7 I 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 21 2J 24 25 r ...... 'O. - - - .. - - ·------...... , ...... , ...... ~ ...... - ..... - - ··--- ...... CAPITAL CO<;T (0 I 0&>4 COSTS 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 s.2 5.2 5.2 ,.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 N 10TAL AUNUAL COST 5,2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 ANNUAL Disc~- RATEa1c~ 0.29 0.263 0.239 0.218 I 0.198 0.18 0.164 o. 149 0.135 o. 123 0.112 0.101 0.092 0 NET PRESENT IKJRTH 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 (J.5 0.5 I 26 27 28 29 lO iOTAt -··- ·--~~······-··--·•~---···-····-- NET PRESENT CAP lT AL COST I \XJRTH o&M COS,$ 5.2 S.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 (THOUSAND $• s) TOTAL ANNUAL COST 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 ...... ··--- I At.lt.lUAL DI SCOON ~ RATE@10% 0.084 0,076 0.069 0.063 0.057 NET PRES-EMT UORTH I 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 1878.4 I (LP\ISL3) I I I I I I I I ALTERNATIVE SL·3: H:GH CAPITAL COSTS [N·SITU BIOOEGRADAT1~ SEllSITIVITY TOTAL I COST COMPONENT QUA~TITY UNIT UNIT COtT TOTAL COST COMMENT$ FACTOR COST SITE PREPARATICIII 4.40 ACRES $1,450 ttl,380 1.1 $7,018 I INITIAL ~ONlTOlt:NG SAMPLING 22 DAYS $400 $8,800 8 SAMPLES cOLLECTEO/OAY t.1 $9,680 ANALYSIS 176 SAMPLES t31S $55,440 8 SAMPLES/LOT ANALYZED 1.1 $60,984 I FOQ PAHs ANO ARSENIC INSTALL SPRINKLER SYSTEM 22 LOTS $2,000 S44,000 INCL. BOX AND METER 1.1 $48,400 IN-SITU BIORECLI.MATIOU 7000 CY $135 $945,000 190,000 Sf TREA'i'Ei> TO 1.1 $1,039,500 I A DEPTff OF 1 FT; NO (\J BULKING r- BULK SOLIDS ro iE TREATED WITH GROOND WATER: co I LOAD 160 CY $100 $16,000 FOUR 40·CY ROLL·OFFS 1.1 S17,600 N CONTAINING $OIL CUTTINGS ~ 160 CY $3 S480 FROM THE RI HAULED TO rHE 1.0 SI.BO 0 I GRAVEL PITS TO BE TREATEO BY GROONO WATER HEAL TH & S.HETY 16 WEEKS $4,000 $64,000 H&S OFFICER DURING 1.1 S70,40G MONITORING & REMEOIAtJOU; I ffNu, RESPIRATOR DIRECT CAP:TAL COST $1,254,062 I ENGINEERIN~ & DESIGN (11¾) $137,947 I CONTINGENCY (20¾) S250,812 TOfAL CAPITAL COST Sl,642,821 I ...... I APPROXIMATE TOTAL CAPITAL COST $1,643,000 I (Hl·SL3) I I I I h -- iii M R ,- a· mm I I ALTERNATIVE SL·3: HIGH PRESENT IJORTH ANALYSIS: 10 VEAR TREATMENT COST PER YEAR PER $1000 0 2 I 3 4 5 6 7 CAPITAL CC~T 1643.0 o&M COSTS 72.0 72.0 72.0 72:.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 I TOTAL ANNUAL COST 1643 .o 72.0 72.0 72.0 5.2 5,2 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 ANNUAL DfSCOJtt7 RAtE~10'.( 0.909 72.0 5.2 ~-2 0.826 0.751 0.683 0,621 0.564 0.513 0.467 0.424 0.386 0.35 0.319 NET PRESENT IJORTH 1643.0 65.4 59.5 54. 1 [I 49.2 44,7 40.6 36.9 33.6 30.5 27.8 1.8 1. 7 I CAPIHL ':OST I o&l-1 COSTS 5.2 5.2 s.2 5.2 s.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 TOTAL ANNUAL cosr s.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5,2 5.2 5.2 ANNUAL DISCa.JffT RATE@10¾ 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 0.29 0.263 0.239 0.218 0.198 0.18 0.164 I 0.149 0.135 o. 123 0.112 o. 101 0.092 0 NET PRESENT IJORTH 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 I 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 26 21 28 29 30 TOTAL ...... __ ~-• .. -- ...... _.,.~-··-- I CAPITAL COST NET PRESENT o&.M COSTS UORTH 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 TOTAL ANNUAL COST (l'HOUSAND $'s) 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 ANNUAL OISCOUN! RATE@10% I 0.084 0.076 0.069 0.063 0.057 NET PRESENT IJORTH 0.4 0.4 0.4 O.J I 0.3 2102.4 I (HPIJSL3) I I I I I I I I ALTERNATIVE Sl·4(A): PRESENT l.'ORTH ANALYSIS COST PER VEAR PER $1000 0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 • .. • .. • • .. • • ... _. C • • • • • ~ ... ., -...... -.,. ... _ ...... ,...... _. -...... -· .... _, ... CAPITAL COST 2021.0 o&M COSTS 5.2 5.2 5.2 I 5.2 5.2 5.2 5,2 S,2 5.2 5.2 5.2 TOTAL ANNUAL C.OST 2021.0 5.2 5.2 5.2 S.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 S.2 s.2 5.2 ANNUAL DJSCIXP I NET PRESENT \.IORfH 2021.0 4.7 4.3 3.9 3.6 3.2 2.9 2.7 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.7 I <";;j' 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 21 23 24 25 ,- ...... _...... ~ ...... , .... _,...... _ ...... , ...... •-,oa .. CAP IT AL COST co I o&M cosrs 5.2 5.2 5,2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5,2 5.2 5.2 5.2 N TOTAL ANVUAL COST 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 ~ AMNUAL DISCCUNT RATE@10% 0.29 0.263 0.239 0.218 0.198 I 0.18 o.164 0.149 0.135 0.123 0.112 0. 101 0.092 0 NET PRESENT I.KIRTH 1.S 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 I 26 21 28 29 30 lOTAL ...... , ...... -~ ...... __ . .,.._ ... __ .,. __ ...... li!:T PREStlH :::APITAL COSi I \/ORTH o&JI COSTS 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 ( fHOOSAND $' s) TOTAl. ANNUAL COST 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 ...... --.... - .. "' ...... I ANNUAL DISCCUN! RATE&10% o.084 0.076 0.069 0.063 0.057 NET PRESENT IJORTH I 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 2070.0 I (Pli-Sl4A) I I I I I I ALTERNAf!~t SL•4(A): LOW CAPIT~i COSTS I EXCAVATION/SOIL WASHING SENSITIVITY TOTAL COST CCK'ONENT OUAMTITY UMIT UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMMENTS FACTOR cosr I ...... -...... ~ ...... -... SITE PREPARArtO'~ 4,4 ACRES S1,450 S6,380 0.9S S6,061 INITIAL MONiTORING I SAMPLIIIG 22 DAYS $400 38,800 8 SAMPLES COLLECTEO/OAY 0.95 $8,360 ANALYSIS 176 SAMPLES $315 155,440 8 SAMPLES/LOT ANALYZED 0,95 $52,668 I SOILS tROf,I THE CARVER TERRACE SUBDIVISION: EXCAVATION 8400 CY $15 1126,000 1 FT DEPTH OVER 190,000 0,95 $119,700 SF; 20¾ BULKING 8400 CY S3 $25,200 0.95 $23,940 Lf\ I r- BULK SOLIDS FROM THE KENNEDY SANO ANO GRAVEL PROPERTY: (X) LOAD 160 CY $100 $16,000 FOUR 40-CY ROLL·OFFS o.95 $15,200 N I ON· SITE HAULING 160 CY $3 $4SO 1.0 ~80 ~ 0 I SOIL WASHING TREATMENT SYStEH: TREATMENT SYSfEM M08/DEHOB 1 lP SUM $14,000 $14,000 1.0 S14,000 T~EAYMEkT EQUIP. RENTAL 12 MONTHS $58,000 l-696,000 INCLUOES REACTORS, 0,95 $661,200 (TREATED AT A RATE OF 2.5 TONS TANKS, M(XE:RS, I PER l!(llR a 10 HOJRS PzR DAY) HOPPERS CHEMl':AlS 1 LP ~ ..!M '18,000 $18,000 0.95 $17,100 UTILITIES 1 LP SUM $11,000 $11,000 0.95 $10,450 I U\l/OZONE 1 LP SUM $6,750 S6,7SO 0.95 $6,413 OPERATION & SUPERVISION 1 LP SUM $165,000 $165,000 0,95 $156,750 Alll MOM1T011.IMG \2 MONTIIS $3,000 U6,000 0.95 $34,200 BACKFILLING OF TREAfEO SOILS 8560 CY S3.00 $25,680 CARVER TE~RACE SOILS 0.95 $24,396 I AND BULK SOLIDS; PLACED WITHIN THE KS&G PROPERTY I s•~e RESTORATION: CU:A.N BACK.fl \.L- ( 1011 ) 7000 CY .. s.oo $35,000 ONLY fOR CARVER TERRACE 0.95 $33,250 AREA I SPREA.OIIIG 7000 CY s.2.00 $14,000 0.95 $13,300 SCIO (2") 21100 SY $3.55 S74,905 ONLY fOR CARVER TERRACE 0.95 $71,160 A.REA HEAL TH & SAfETY 52 WEEKS $4,000 $208,000 H&S DURING INITIAL 0.95 $197,600 I MOlH TOR I llG AND EXCAVATION/TREATMENT I DIRECT CAPITAL COST $1,466,227 ENGINEERING & OESIGN (11X) $161,285 I CONTINGENCY (20%) $293,245 I TOTAL CAPITAL COST $1,920,753 ...... I APPROXIMATE TOTAL CAPITAL COST $1,921,000 I (LO\HL4A) I I A.LTERNAflVE SL·4(A): LOU NET PRESEHf IJORTff ANALYS{S COST PER YEAR PER $1000 0 I 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ...... CAPITAL COST 1921.0 o&M COSTS 5.2 5.2 5,2 S.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 S.2 5.2 5.2 s.2 5.2 I TOTAL ANNUAL COST 1921.0 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 S.2 s.2 5.2 ANNUAL DISCOi.JNT RATEi10% 1 0.909 0.826 0.751 0.683 G.621 0.564 0.513 0.467 0.424 0.386 0.35 0.319 NEl PRESENT UORTH 1921.0 4.7 I 4.3 3,9 3.6 3.2 2.9 2.7 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.7 I 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 21 23 24 25 ..... ,, ...... - • - ...... - ...... - ...... - ...... ++ ...... - ...... , • ■ ...... + ...... CAPITAL COST CX) I O&M COSTS 5.2 5.2 5.2 (\I 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 s.2 5.2 TOTAL ANNUAL COST 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 S.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 ANNUAL ~ISCOUNT RATEi10% 0.29 n.263 I 0.239 0.218 0.198 0.18 0.164 0.149 0.135 0.123 0.112 0. 101 0.092 0 htf PRESENT UORrH 1.S 1.4 L2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 I 26 27 28 29 30 TCTAL .... -.... -...... NET ?RESENT I CAPITAL COST 1.'0RTH o&M COSTS 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 {THOJSAND S's) TOTAL ANNUAL COST 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 S.2 ... + ...... I ANNUAL C!SCOUNT RATEi101 0.084 0.076 0.069 0.063 0.057 I NEf P~ESENT 1.'0RfH i).4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 1970.0 I (LPIJSL4A) I I I I I I I I I.LTERNATIVE SL·4(A): HIGH CAPITAL COSTS EXCAVATION/SOIL UASHING COSl COK.oOIIEIH SENS I Tl VITV TOTAL I CUAtntrv UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL CCST COMMENTS FACTOR ~ ...... -..... - ...... - ., ...... COST . .. -..... - ... -. - ... - - • - • * ...... SITE PREPARATIO!l ...... --...... 4.4 ACRES $1,450 t6,380 INITIAL iWNIT~ING 1.1 $7,018 SAMPLUIG I 22 DAYS $400 $8,800 ANALYSIS 8 SAMPLES COLLECTED/DAV 1.1 $9,680 176 SAMPLES $315 $55,440 8 SAMPLES/LOT ANALYZED 1.1 $60,984 I I SOILS FR(X~ THE CARVEk 11:RRACE SUBDIVISION: EXCAVATfOW 8400 CY $15 $126,000 1 fT DEPTH OVER 190,000 1.1 $138,600 SF; 20% BULKING ON·SITE HAULING 8400 CV $3 $25,200 I 1.1 $27,720 r- BULK SOLIDS fROM THE KENNEDY SAHO ANO GRAVEL PROPERTY: r- LOAD 160 CV $100 $16,000 FCXJR 40-CV ROLL·OFfS ro ON·SltE HAULING 1. 1 $17,600 I 160 CY $3 .$480 (\J 1.0 tl.80 ...... I SOIL WASHING TREATME~T SYSTEM: 0 TREA,MENT SYSTEM MOB/DEMOB LP SUM $14,000 $14,000 lREATM:Nt EQUIP. RENtAL 1.0 $14,000 12 MOIHHS $58,000 $696,000 JNrLUDES REACTORS, (TREATED AT A RATE Of 2.S TONS 1.1 $765,600 TAHKS, MIXERS, I PER HOOR ~ 10 HOURS PER OAY) KOPPERS CHEMICALS 1 LP SUM $18,000 $18,0(10 UTIL IT JES 1.1 $19,800 1 LP SUH $11,000 $1\,000 UV/OZONE 1.1 $12,100 I 1 LP SUH $6,750 $6,750 OPERATION 1.1 $7,425 &SUPERVISION LP SUM $165,000 $165,000 AIR MONITORUIG 1. 1 $181,500 12 MONTHS $3,000 $36,000 1. t $39,600 BACKFILLING OF TREATED SOILS 8560 CY $3.00 $25,680 I CARVER TERRACE SOILS 1.1 $28,248 AHO BULK SOLIDS; PLACED UITHIN THE I SITE RESTORATION: KS&G PROPERTY CLEAJI BACKFILL-(10 11 ) 7000 CY $S,00 $35,000 ONLY FOR CARVER TERRACE 1. 1 $38,500 AREA SPREADING 7000 CY $2.00 M4,000 I SOD (2") 1. 1 $1S ,400 21100 SY $3.55 $74,905 ONLY FOR CARVER TERRACE 1.1 $82,396 AREA HEAL TH & SAFETY 52 \JEEKS $4,000 $208,000 I H&S OURING INITIAL 1.1 $228,800 MONITORING AND EXCAVATION/TREATMENt -...... -~- ...... ~ ...... -.. DIRECT CAPITAL COST ...... ~ ...... __ ..,_"'_ $1,695,451 ENGINEERING & DESIGN (11%) $186,500 CONTlNGENCV (20%) $339,090 TOTAL CAPltAL COST I $2,221,040 APPROXIMAiE TOTAL CAPITAL COST *""*"*"'**'"" t.?,221,000 (HI·SL4A) iiI 11 I I I ALTER~ATtV1: SL·4(A): HIGH PRESENT \IORlN ANALYSlr COST PER YEAR PER S1000 0 2 3 6 5 I ...... 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 .. ., ...... , ...... , ...... ~---- ...... _.,...... CAPilAL C03T 2221.0 o&M COSTS 5.2 S.2 5.2 5.Z s.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 I TOTAL ANNUAL COST 2221.0 5.2 s.2 s.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 s.2 5.2 s.2 ANNUAL DJSCCXJl,IT RATE@10% 1 0.909 0.826 0.751 0.683 0.621 0.564 0.513 0.467 0.424 0,386 0.35 0.319 I NET PRESENT k'ORTH 2221.0 4.7 4.3 3.9 3.6 3.2 2.9 2.7 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.7 I OJ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 21 23 24 25 r- ...... -...... --...... --...... "'. -...... -...... -...... , .. -...... ,,, ...... -...... CAPl"iAL COST co I o&M COSTS 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 N 5.2 5.2 s.2 s.2 5.2 5,2 s.2 5.2 5.2 TOTAL ANNUAL r.osr 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 ~ s.2 5.2 s.2 s.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5,2 5.2 ANMUAL OISCCXJNT RATE@1Cl 0,29 0.263 0.239 0.218 0.198 o. i8 0.164 I 0.149 0.135 0.123 0.112 0.101 J.092 0 MET P~£SENi IJORTK 1.S 1.4 1.2 1. 1 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 o.s o.s I 26 27 28 29 30 TOTAL ...... - ...... - ...... ,& - - ~ .. - - • ..., NET PRESENT CAPITAL COST I IJORTH O&M COSTS 5.2 5,2 5,2 5.2 5.2 (THOUSAND S'S) lOlAL ANNUAL COST 5.2 5 .2: 5.2 5.2 5.2 ...... -...... I A~NUAL OISCO,JMT RAtea101; 0.084 0.076 0.069 0.063 0.057 NET PRESENT IJORTH I 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 2270.0 I (HPl.JSL4A) I I I I I I I ,. ALTERNATIVE SL·4(B): PRESENT ~"OllTH ANALvs:s I cosr PER YEAR PER S1000 0 2 3 4 s 6 7 I ...... 3 9 10 11 12 ...... , ...... CAPITAL COST 3959.0 o&M COSTS 5.Z 5.2 5,2 5.2 5.2 5.2 s.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 s.2 I TOTAL ANNUAL COST 3959,0 5.2 5 .:' 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 ANNUAL D:~Nl RATE~10% 1 0.909 0.826 0.751 0.683 0.621 0.564 0.513 0.467 0.424 0.386 0.35 0.319 N~T PJIESENT IJORTH 3959.0 4.7 4.3 I 3.9 3.6 3.2 2.9 2.7 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.7 I 13 14 15 CT'- 16 17 18 19 20 21 21 23 24 25 •••••••-~••••••••••.,••••~••••••••-~+•k•A"'••••••••••••••••••••••••-•••••••-~••••••••-•••••---••• r- CAPITAL CO$• CX) O&M COSTS 5.2 5.2 I 5.2 s.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 s.2 5.2 N TOTAL ANNIJAi. COST 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5,2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 ~ ANNUAL DJSO'.:tl~T RATE~10X 0.29 0.263 0.239 0.218 0.198 0.18 0.164 0.149 o. 135 I 0.123 0.112 0.101 0.092 0 NET P'ltESl'MT \.'ORTH 1.5 1.4 r .2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 I 26 27 28 29 30 TOTAL -~·-········-.,·-···----·--·····• ...... NET PRESENT CAPITAL COST I l.'ORTH o&l-1 COSlS 5.2 5.2 S.2 5.2 5.2 CTHOUSAHD s Is) TOTAL ANNU~t COST S.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 ANNUAL OtSOOJNT RATE~10X 0.084 0,076 0.069 0.063 0.057 I . ; NET F>RESENT \JORTh 0.4 0.4 0.4 I 0.3 0.3 4008.0 ...... ~ ...... -.. -... ., .. " ...... - I I I I I I I I ! ALT~~NATIVE SL·4(8): L04J CAP(TAL COSTS EXCAVATION/ON-SITE INClNERATION/BACKflLL ASH COST C(M)ONEMr sENsnrvnv TOTAL I QUANTITY UMir UNIT cosr TOtAL COST COMMENTS ...... _.,.. .. ___ _,, ...... _ ...... FACroR cc~r ...... - ~ ...... - -...... , __, -...... -...... -...... "' .. SITE PR€PAA.A.Tt0N 4,4 ACRES $1,450 $6,380 I INITIAL NCN1TORING 0.95 $6,0o, SAMPUNG 22 OAYS $400 $8,800 8 SAMPLES COLLECTEO/OAY 0.95 $8,360 ANALYSIS 176 SAMPLES $315 $55,440 8 SAMPLES/LOT ANALVZEO 0.95 $52,668 I FOR PAHs AND ARSENIC SOILS FRCfC THf CARVER lERRACE SUBDIVISION: EXCAVATION 8400 CY $15 $126,000 1 FT DEPTH OVER 190,000 0.95 $119,700 I SF; 20% BULKlNG; EXCAVATE 0 1/2 OF A LOT AT A TlME ON·Sl"'."E PIAULlNG 8400 CY $3.00 $25,200 00 0.95 $23,940 cc I SULK SOllOS FlOM TKE KEHNEOY SAMO ANO GRAVEL PROPERTY: (\J LCAD 160 CY $100 $16,000 FOUR 40-CY ROLL·OffS 0.95 $15,200 ...... ON·Sl TE !!AUL!MG 160 CY t3.00 $/480 I 1.0 S/480 0 ON·SITE INCtNERATOR SYSTEM: MOB/00408 LP Sllf,4 $100,000 $100,000 I TEST BUli!M 1.0 $100,000 LP SUH $80,000 $80,000 1.0 $80,000 JNC l NER.A TI ON 8560 CV $250 S2, 140,000 SO CV PER OAV 0.95 $2,033,000 ELECTR & INSTRUM 1 LP SUH $95,000 $95,000 0.95 $90,250 I AIR MOit JTOJWIG 6 MONTHS $3,000 $18,000 0.95 $17, 100 ASH lES~lNG (DELlS;lNG) 1 LP SUH $100,000 $100,000 LO s100,ooo ASH SPREAD ING 4280 CY $3.50 $14,980 ASSUME 50% VOLUME LOSS; 0.95 $14,231 I PLACED ~ITMIN KS&G PROPERTY SITE RESTOR.ITJCU: CLEAN IUC~FILL-(10") 7000 CY $5.00 $35,000 I ONLY FOR CARVEi! TERRACE 0,95 $33,250 AREA SPl!:EAOING 7000 CY $2.00 $14,000 S00 (2•) 0.95 $13,300 21100 sv $3,55 S74,90S OULY fOR CARVER TERRACE 0.95 $71, 160 I AREA HEAL TH & SAFETY 28 I.IEE:<$ $4,000 $112,000 INCLUDES A H&s OFFICER 0.95 $106,(.QQ DURING REMEDlAllO~ ...... ___ ,. .... _ ...... _ .. ., ...... , .... DIRECT C.11.P!TAL COST $2,885, \00 ...... , ...... __ ---·--··-·--·-· ...... ENGINEERIMG & DESIGN (11%) I $317,361 CONTlllGEMCY (20¾) $517,020 TOTAL CAPITAL COST s3,n9,481 I 11·•·······"*"' APPROXIMATE TOTAL CAPITAL COST S3,779,000 I (LOIML4B) l FE a a I :: : nVYt•mttnzrm ::ver:ttnrA I I ALTERNATIVE Sl·4(B): LO\,/ PRESENT 1,/0RTH ANALYSIS COST PER YEAR PER ttOOO I J 2 3 4 - ~ .... --...... , .... - - ...... -. 5 6 7 e 9 10 11 12 CAPITAL COST ···-•·-····-···-····-·-··-----·-•···-·-···--···-······-····-····-·-··-······--··-···-····-·-·3n9.o o&M COSTS 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 I TOTAL ANNUAL COST 5.2 5.2 5.2 5 .2: 3779.0 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 ANNUAL OISC~T RATE~10% 5.2 5,2 5.2 5.2 5.2 ~ 0.909 0,826 5.2 5.2 5.2 5,2 0.751 0.683 0.621 0.564 0.513 0.467 0.424 0.386 0.35 0.319 NET PRESENT IJORTH I 3779.0 4,7 4.3 3.9 3.6 3.2 2.9 2.7 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.7 I 13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 21 21 23 24 25 00 CAPITAL COST -·-·· ······-•··· ·----·-···-····-·- ····-··-· ····--·-···--·-·--•-····--··-··- ···--·----···-·--- co I 0&M COSTS 5.2 5,2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 TOTAL ANNUAL COST 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 N 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5,2 5.2 5.2 ANNUAL DISCOUNT RATE~10% 5,2 5.2 5.2 5.2 0.29 0.263 0,239 0.218 5.2 5.2 5.2 5,2 0.198 0.18 0. 164 0.149 0.135 I 0.123 0.112 u. 101 0.092 0 NET PRESENT I/ORTH 1. 5 1.4 1.2 1.1 i.O 0.9 0.9 0.8 I 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 o.s 26 27 28 29 31) ...... ~ ...... , ..... TOTAL I CAPITAL COST !IEf PRESENT o&M COSTS UORTH 5.2 5.2 s.2 5.2 5,2 rorAL ANNUAL C~ST Cl HOOSANO s' s ) 5,2 5.2 S.2 5.2 5.2 ANNUAL DISCOUNT RAlE@10¾ ... -..... -...... _ ...... I 0.084 0.076 0.069 0.063 0.057 NET PRESENT I.JORTH 0.4 0.4 0.4 0,3 0.3 3828.0 -...... -...... _,...,.,,._ I (LPl,/SL48) I I 1• I I • I I ALTERNATIVE SL•4(B): HIGH CAPITAL COSTS EXCAVATION/ON·SITE INCINERATION/BACKFILL ASH cost C()olJ:>ONEIIT SENSITIVITY I QUA.UITY UNIT UNil r.osr TOTAL COST TOTAL ...... -... -...... COMMENTS FAClOR ·••11- ...... _...... COST + ... - ...... + - SITE PREPARAT:ON I 4.4 ACRES $1,450 $6,380 IIIITUL MONIT::JRJNG 1.1 $7,018 SAMPLING 22 DAYS $400 $8,800 ANALYSIS 8 SAMPLES COLLECTED/DAY 1.1 176 SAMPLES '315 $55,440 $9,680 I 8 SAMPLES/LOT ANALYZED 1.1 $60,?84 FOR PAHs AND ARSENIC SOILS FROM THE CARVEr TEkRACE SUBDIVISION: EXCAVATICII 8400 CY $15 $126,000 1 FT DEPTH OVER 190,000 1 .1 $138,600 I SF; 20% BULklllG; EXCAVATE (\J ON·SITE '!ALILrnG 1/2 OF A LOT AT A TIME cc 8400 ,;y $3.00 $25,200 1. 1 $27,720 co I BULK SOLIDS FR:::>M THh KENNEDY SAND AND GRAVEL PROPERTY: N LOAD 160 CY $100 $16,000 ...-- ON·SITE H;l,i.JLING FOUR 40·CY ROLL·OFFS 1. 1 $17,600 160 CY $3.00 $480 0 I I 1.0 $480 Oll·SITE INCI~fUTOR SYSTEM: MO"/OEMOS I 1 LP SUM $10il,OOO $100,000 TEST BURN 1.0 $~00,000 LP SUM $80,000 $80,000 I IIC I IIERA Tr :l:M 1.0 $80,000 ' 8560 CY $250 $2,140,000 ELECTR & !KSTRUM 50 CY PEP. DAY Lt s2,351,,ooo 1 LP SUM $95,000 $95,000 I AIR MONITQ!i!ING 1.1 $10t.,500 6 MONTHS $3,000 $18,000 ASH TE51I!l,.j (OELISTlNG) I. 1 $"19,800 1 LP SUM $100,000 $100,000 ASI! SPREADING ~ .o $lM,OOCI 4280 CY $3.50 f,14,980 ASSU~E SOX VOLUME LOSS; •. 1 $16,478 I PLACED UITffJN KS&G SITE RESTORATICl!i: PROPERTY CLEAN BACIC'.FlLL·(10"i 7000 CY $5.00 $35,000 I ONLY FOR CARVER TERRACE i.1 $38,500 SPREADING AREA 7000 CY $2.00 $14,000 SOD (2 11 ) 1. 1 $15,400 21100 SY $3.55 $74,905 I ONLY FOR CARVER TERRACE 1., !-82,396 HEALTH & SUETY AREA 28 WEEKS $4,000 $112,000 INCLUDES A H&S OFFICER 1.1 $123,200 DURING REMEDIATION I ...... _ ...... "' ...... DIRECT CAPITAL COST ■."" ... - .. + ...... ···············································································-·········································$3,296,356 ENGINEERING & DESIGN (11%) I $362,599 CONTINGENCY (20%) $659,271 I ~:==•====~~=====-======•===~======•=•~======•••=••======••••======~===Q•======TOTAL CAP!TAL COST $4,318,226 I *****"****** APPROXIMATE TOTAL CAPllAL COST $4,318,000 I (lll·SL4B)======•====•======•==•======•==•••=~=====•=•======••===••======•======•======m:: ■■■ ••=====~==•====•======I AlfERJ/ATIVE SL·4(8): H;:;11 PRESflH IJORTH ANALYSIS COST PER YEAR PER $1000 0 2 3 4 I --...... ~ .. -..... s 6 CAPITAL COST 4318.0 o&H COSTS 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 TOTAL ANNUAL COST 5.2 S.2 5.2 S.2 S.2 I 4318,0 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5,2 5.2 5,2 5.2 5.2 5.2 S.2 ANNUAL OJSCOONT RATE@10% 1 0.909 0.826 5,2 5.2 5.2 5.2 o, 151 0.683 0.621 0.564 0.513 0.467 0,424 0.386 0.35 0.319 NET PRESENT LIORTH 4318.0 4.7 4.3 I 3.9 3.6 3.2 2.9 2.7 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.7 I f<'i 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 21 23 24 25 ,._.,. •• ,._ • • ..,•••••••"' • • • •" • • • ,.. .. ,...,.., .,., • ••••••• .. ••••••""-••a • ._,.••••••••••••,.••••••• .a•"'•••'"'••••• ■••••• cc CAPITAL COST co o&M COSTS 5.2 5.2 I 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 (\J TOTAL AJ.IUUAL COST 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5,2 5.2 5.2 5 .2 5.2 5.2 5.2 ANNUAL OJSCOJNT RAtE~10¾ 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 S.2 0.29 0.263 0.239 0.218 5.2 5.2 S.2 0.198 o. 18 0.164 0.149 0.135 0.123 o. 112 0.101 0.092 0 I NET P~ESENT UORTH l.5 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 0,8 0.7 0.6 I 0.6 o.s 0,5 26 27 28 29 30 ...... _"" __ TOTAL I CAPITAL COST MET PR£SE!H o&M cosrs IIO!HH 5.2 5.2 s.2 5.2 5.2 lOTAL ANNUAL COST (t HOOSAMD l Is ) 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 ANNUAL OISCOONT RATE@10X I 0.084 0.076 0.069 0.063 0.057 NET PRESENT l.'l)RJH 0.4 0.4 0.4 O.l 0.3 I 4367.0 ~ ...... w • ..,.,.,..., • ., I (HPI.ISL4B) I I I I I I I I ALTElNAT(VE SL·4(82): PRESENT UCIRTK ANALYSIS COST PER YEAR PER itoOO 0 I 2 3 4 . . -... -.. -. -... -... .,. -- s 6 1 ...... -...... 10 11 12 CAPJT AL COST 5599.0 o&M COSTS 5,l 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 s.2 5.2 5.2 I TOTAL ANNUAL cost 5599.0 s.z 5.2 5.2 5.2 5,2 5.2 S.2 5.2 5.2 s.2 5.2 ANNUAL DISCaAIT RATEilOX 1 0.909 0.826 s.2 s.2 5.2 s.2 5.2 0,751 0.683 0,621 0.564 0,513 0.467 0,424 0,386 0,35 0.319 NET PRESfNT 1/()( I q 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 21 23 24 cc ...... , ...... 2S . CAP JT AL cosr (X) I 0&H COSTS s.2 5,2 5,Z s.2 5.2 s.2 s.z 5.2 N TOTAL ANNUAL cosr 5.2 5,2 5.2 5.2 s.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5,2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5,2 ANNUAL DISCCUJIT RATEQ10t 0.29 0,263 0.239 s.2 5,2 5,2 5.2 5.2 0,218 0.198 0.18 0,164 0.149 I 0, 135 0.123 0.112 0.101 0.092 MET PRESENT l.'OllTH 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.1 1,0 0.9 0.9 0.8 I 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 26 27 28 29 30 TOlAL I CAP lfA.L COST HET PRESENT o&M COSiS \KIii, TK 5.2 5.2 5.2 'i.2 5., TOT~L ilJtHUAL COST (tHOOSA.NO, i's) 5,2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5,2 A.NNJAL OISCOONt RAtE~10~ I 0.084 0.016 0.069 0.063 0.057 NET PRESENT wrntTH I 5648.0 .... ,...... - • ;,, ...... ;,, ...... ■ I I I I I I -I I ALTERNATIVE SL·4(B2}: LOU CAPITAL COSTS I EXCAVATION/OH·SITE INCINERAflOll/OFf·SfTE DISPOSAL Of ASH S£1-1SITIVITY TOTA.. cosr cc,&ONENT OUAUT ITY UN IT UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMMENTS FACTOR cos~ I ...... _ .. .,. SITE PREPARATION 4,4 ACRES $1,450 $6,380 0.95 U,06! INITIAL MOUilOfllNG I SAMPLl!fG 22 OAYS $400 $8,800 8 SAJ4PLES COllECfEO/OAY 0.95 $8,36G ANALYSIS 176 SAMJ>LES $315 $55,440 8 SAJIPLES/LOT ANALYZ!O 0.95 $52,668 FOR ~AHs AND ARSENIC SOILS FROM THE CARVER TERRACE SU801VfSIOH: I fXCAVATIC,, 8400 Cf $15 S.126,000 1 Fl OV~R 190,000 Sf; 0.95 $119,700 20X SULKING; EXCAV 1/2 OF I.[\ A LOT AT A TIME-1 ijEEK I ON-SITE !WJLING 8400 CY $3.00 S2S,200 0.<)5 $23,940 oc co BULK SOllDS Flc:»4 THi KENNEDY SANO AND GRAVEL PROPERTY: C\.l LOAO 160 CY S.100 $16,000 0,95 S15,200 I ON·SITE I\AULJNG 160 CY $3.00 $480 1.0 $480 ~ 0 OJI-SJfE INCINERATOR SYSTEM: I 1'«)8/0 EM08 1 LP SUM $100,000 $100,000 1.0 S100,000 risr BURN \ LP SUM $80,000 $80,000 1.0 $80,000 INCINEIU.TION 8560 CY $250 $2,140,000 50 CV PER OAY 0.95 $2,033,000 I ELEC'fR & JNSTRUM 1 LP SUM $95,000 S95,000 0.95 $90,250 AIR MONITO!HNG 6 MONYHS n,ooo $18,000 0.95 S17, 100 ASH TESTING (C>ELISTING) lf> SUM $100,000 S.100,000 1.0 $100,000 ASII DISPOSAL: I LOAbING ASH 428u CY $3.50 $14,980 ASSUHE SOX VOLUME LOSS; 0.95 $14,231 TRANSPOQ:TA T ION 99000 LH $4.00 $396,000 300 MILES ONE-~AY; 0.95 $376,200 13 CY/20 TON TRUCK~330 I LOADS DISPOSA.i. 4280 CY $200 $856,000 OISPOSEO AT AN Off·SITE 0.95 $813,200 SITE RESfORATIOU: I CLEA.JI BACKFILL·(10") 7000 CY $5.00 $35,000 ONLY FOR CARVER TERRACE 0.95 s:u,2so AREA SPREADING 7000 CY s2.oo $14,000 0.95 $13,300 I soo <2"> 21100 SY $3.55 S74,90S ONLY FOR CARVER TERRACE 0.95 U1, 1/,J AREA HEAL TH & SAFETY 28 WEEJ::S tt.,000 S 112,000 INCLUDES A H&S OFFICER 0,95 St06,400 DURING REMEOfAflON I ...... ,a...... - .. DIRECT CAPITAL COST $4,074,500 I ENGINEERING & DESIGN (11X} S448, 195 I TOTAL CAPITAL COST $5,337,595 APPROXIMATE TOTAL CAPITAL COST $5,338,000 I (LOIJSL4B2) I \I I I ALTERNATIVE SL·4(82): LO'J PRESENT \JORTH ANALYSIS COST PER YEAR PER $1000 0 2 3 4 ~ ~ ...... 5 I ...... 6 1 8 10 11 12 CAPITAL COST ······································•·································••·················-·5338.0 o&M COSTS s.2 5.2 5.2 TOTAL ANNUAL cosr s.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 I S338.0 5.2 5.2 s.2 s.2 S.2 5.2 5.2 ANNUAL DISCOUNT RATE~10% 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 0.909 0.826 0,751 s.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 0.683 0.621 0.564 0.513 0.467 0.424 0.386 0.35 0.319 NET P~ESENT WORTH 5338.0 4.1 4.3 3.9 I 3.6 3.2 2.9 2.7 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.7 I 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 21 23 24 25 '°0) CAPITAL COST ···················-····································-···-·············· ·······-··--···-·· 0) o&M COSTS 5.2 I 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 (\J TOTAL ANNUAL cosr 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 s.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 ANNUAL DfSCruNr RATEatox 5.2 5.2 S.2 5.2 5.2 0.29 0.263 C,239 0.218 5.2 5.2 5.2 0.198 0.18 0.164 0. 149 0.135 0.123 0.112 0.101 0.092 0 I NET PRESENT l.'ORlH 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 o.s I 26 27 28 29 30 TOTAL CAPITAL COST NET PRESENT I o&M COSTS 5,2 IIORTH 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 TOTAL AMNUAL COST (THCXJSAND $'s} 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 ANUUAL DISCOOUT RATEM10X 0.084 I 0.076 0.069 0.063 0.057 MEt PRESENT l.'ORTH 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 5387.0 I ...... --...... I (LPUSL482) I I I I I I ALTERNATIVE SL·4(B2): HIGH CAPITAL COSTS I EXCAVATION/ON·SITE tNCINERATION/OFF·SITE OlSPOSAL OF ASH SENSITIVITY WTAL COST CM>m1ENT OUANTrTY UNtT UNIT COST TOTAL COST FACTOR cosr I " ... ■ ...... SITE PREPARAT:ON 4.4 ACRES $1,450 $6,380 1.1 $7,018 INITIAL MONITO!i:JNG I SAMPLING 22 DAYS $400 $8,800 8 SAMPLES COLLECTED/DAY 1.1 $9,680 AMALYSIS 176 SAMPLES t315 $55,440 8 SAMPLES/LOT ANALYZED 1.1 $60,984 FOR PAHs AND ARSENIC I SOILS FROM THE CARVER TERRACE SUBOIVISION; EXCAVAT IOII 8400 CY $15 $126,000 1 Ft OVER 190,000 SF; 1. 1 $138,600 20% SULKING; EXCAV 1/2 Of ,...... A LOT AT A TIME-1 ~EEK I ON·SITE tt.WLING 8400 CY $3.00 $25,200 1.1 $27,720 co (X) BULK SOLIDS FR-:fl THE KENNEDY SANO ANO GRAVEL PROPERTY: (\J LOAD 160 CY $100 $16,000 FOUR 40·CY ROLL·OFFS 1.1 $17,600 I '(""" ON·SITE HAULING 160 CY $3.00 $480 1.0 $480 C, ON·SITE INCINEUTOR SYSTEM: I MOB/DEMOB LP SUM $100,000 $100,000 1.0 $100,000 lEST BURM 1 LP SUM $80,000 $80,000 1.0 $80,000 IMCINERATION 8560 CY $250 $2, 140,000 SO CY PER OAY 1.1 $2,354,000 I ELECTR & INSTRUM 1 LP SUM $95,000 $95,000 1.1 $104,500 AIR MONITOOIMG 6 MONTHS $3,000 $18,000 1. 1 $19,800 ASH TESTING (OELISTING) 1 LP SUM $100,000 $100,000 1.0 $100,000 I ASH OI SPOSAI.: LOADING ASH 4280 CY S3.SO $14,980 ASSUME 50% VOLUME LOSS; 1.1 $16,478 TRMISPOUATION 99000 LM ~.00 $396,000 300 MILES ONE·~AY; 1.1 t435,600 13 CY/20 TON TRUCK=330 LOA.OS DISPOSAL 4280 CY $200 $856,000 DISPOSED Al AN OFf·SITE 1 • 1 $941,600 SITE RESTORATIO,,,: CLEAN BACKf ILL· ( 10") 7000 CY $5.00 $35,000 ONLY FOR CARVER TERRACE 1. 1 $38,500 AREA SPREADING 7000 CY $2.00 $14,000 1.1 $15,400 I soo (2") 21100 SY $3.55 $74,905 ONLY FOR CARVER TERRACE 1.1 $82,396 AREA HEAL TH & SAFETY 28 IIEEKS $4,000 $112,000 INCLUDES A H&S OFFICER 1.1 $123,200 I DURING REMEDIATION ., ~ ... " ...... '" I O(RECT CAPITAL cost $4,673,556 ENGINEERIMG & DESIGN (11%) ~514,091 CONTlNGENCY (20X) $934,711 I TOTAL CAPITAL COST $6,122,358 (HI ·SL4i32) I I ALTER~ATIVE SL·4(82): HIGtt PRESENT I/ORTH ANALYSIS COST PER YEAR PER $1000 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 I ...... - ...... - - ..... ■ •• ~ .... 7 8 9 10 11 12 ...... _ •>- ...... ,_ ...... ···- ...... _ ...... -· ...... ____ ., ...... CAPITAL COST 6122.0 08.H COSTS 5.2 s.2 5.2 S.2 TOTAL AMNUAL 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 I COST 6122.0 5.2 S.2 5.2 5,2 5,2 5,2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 ANNUAL OISCCill&T RATE~10% 1 0.909 5,2 5.2 S.2 5.2 0.826 0,751 0.M3 0.621 0.564 0.513 0.467 0.424 0.386 0.35 0.319 NET PRESENT IJOR1H I 6122.0 4.7 4.3 3.9 3.6 :s .2 2.Y 2.7 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.8 , .7 rr I '-', 13: 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2, 2t 23 24 .,_ ...... ,...... , ...... -...... ______.., .. _____ . ___ ... _. __ .. ,._ ...... 25..,._ CAPITAL COST (X, I o&H cosrs 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5,2 5.2 5.2 C\i TOTAL AMNUAL COST 5.2 5.2 5,2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 s.2 S.2 5.2 5,2 ANNUAL OISCOONT RATE@10% 0.29 0.263 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 0.239 0.218 0, 198 0.18 0.164 0.149 I 0.135 0.123 0.112 o. 101 0.092 -a MEY Pfi:ESEN1 IJORTH 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 0,9 0.9 0.8 0,7 0.6 I 0.6 0.5 0.5 26 u 28 29 30 TOrAL I CAPITAL COST IIET PRESENT \A:)RTfl o&M COSTS 5,2 S.2 5,2 5.2 S.2 ('tHaJSAND $ 1 s) lOlAl ANNUAl. COST S.2 S.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 I ANNUAL DlSCOONT RATE~10¾ 0.084 0,076 0.069 0.063 0.057 WET PRESEMT ',IORTH 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 I 617\.o I (HPIJSL4B2) I I I I I I ALTERNATIVE SL·4(C): PRESENT \JORlH ANALYSIS COST PER VEAR PER $1000 I 0 2 3 ..... -...... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 CAP tr AL COST 21806.0----·····-····------·-·····----··------·-·-·············-·------··-·····• o&M COSTS 5.2 I 5.2 5_2 5.2 5.2 5,2 TOTAL AHNUAL COST 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 21806.0 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5,2 5.2 ANNUAL OJSCCXJNT RAlE@10% 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 0_909 0.826 o. 751 5.2 5.2 5.2 0.683 0.621 0.564 0.513 0.467 0.424 0.386 0.35 0.319 I NET PRESENT l.'ORTH 21806.0 4.7 4.3 3.9 3.6 3.2 2.9 2.7 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.7 I a-- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 21 23 24 co ...... , ...... _ . ..,_.,..,. .. _,._ ...... _ ...... , ...... 25 CAP IT AL COS f a) I o&H cos:s 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.7. 5.2 5.2 5_2 N TOTAL ANNUAL COST s_z 5.2 5.2 5.2 s_z 5.2 5.2 s.2 5.2 S.2 5.2 5.2 ...... ANNUAL DlSCOUNf RATE@10% 5.2 5.2 5.2 S.2 0.29 0.263 0,239 0.218 5.2 5.2 5.2 0.198 0.18 0.164 0.149 0. 135 0 I 0.123 0.112 0.101 0.092 ~ET PRESENl I/ORTH 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 I 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0,5 26 27 28 29 30 ...... -...... ___ ,. __ ,...... ______., ___ tofAL I CAPITAL COST NET PRESEIH C&M COSTS IJORTH 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5,2 TOTAL ANNUAL COST (l HOUSAND $ I s) 5.2 5.2 s.z 5.2 5.2 ANNUAL DISCOOMT RATE~10% ~--- ...... I 0.084 0.076 0.069 0.063 0.057 NET PRESENT \JORTH 0.4 0,4 0.4 0,3 0.3 I 21855.0 I I I I I I I I ALfERMATiVE SL·4(C): LOU CAPITAL COSTS e~CAVAllON\OFf·SlTE tNClNERAllON COST C(M>ONEJH SENSlltVllY I QUANfl1V UNIT UNIT COST fOTAL COST c~e,ns TOiA\. ., ...... -...... - -. -.... -.. - ...... -...... ,.. FACTOR ~ .. -. -...... -..... -.... COST ...... "" ...... -...... SllE PREPARAllOW. 4,4 ACRES t1,450 I S6,380 (},95 INITIAL MONJfOl!;ING S6,061 SAl4Pllll.G Z2 DAYS S400 SS,800 8 ANALYSIS SAMPLES COLLECTEO/OAV 0.95 $8,360 176 SAMPLES $315 555,440 I 8 SAMPLES/I.Of AMALVZEO 0,95 l52,66S fO!t PAKs AND ARS£HIC SOILS FROM THE CARVER TERRACE SUSOIVISIOM: EXCAVAf!s 8400 CY 115 1126,000 1 FT OEPTH OVER 190,000 tf; 0.95 $119,100 I 20% BUlKIHG; JS CY/~EEK C EXCAVATEO; PLACED !N 20- a-- GALLON CONTAINERS TRANSPORTATION 194100 LM ro $4 $776,400 300 Ml ONE·WAY; 13CY/20 I 0.95 S737,580 (\J TON TRUCK tl&ClN£~AiE 8400 CV tl,700 $14,280,000 ~ 0.95 $13,566,000 ":') I BULK SOLIDS 0 RC'f,t THE KEN!IEOY SAND ANO GRAVEL PROP~RTY; LOADING BUlK SOLIOS 160 CY $100 $16,000 tlH,NSPORH,How 0.95 1200 lM $4 S4,SOO l15,200 INCINERATE LO $4,800 160 CY $1,700 $272,000 I 0.95 $258,400 SllE RESTORATION: BACKFILL 00") I 7000 CY $5.00 $35,000 ONLY fOR CARVER TERRACE 0,95 AREA SPREAOI!IG 7000 CY $2.00 $14,000 soo (2"} 21\00 SY 0.95 $13,300 $3.55 $74,~S ONLY MR CARVER TERRACE 0,95 tlt, 160 AREA. I HEAL lH & SAFETY 244 \/EEKS $4,000 $976,000 H&s OFFICER DURING 0.95 S9l7,200 MoNttMl!lu & EKCAVATIO!I; HNu AHO RESPIRAlORS I ...... - ...... ,...... ,., ...... + ...... OIRECT CAPITAL COST $15,813,679 I ENGINEERING t DESIGN (111) $1,139,505 I CONtlHGEHCV (20X} I TOTAl CAPITAL COST t20, 7lS,919 APPROXIMATE TOTAL CAPITAL COST I $20,716,000 I I I ALTERNATIVE SL·4(C)~ LOU PRESEMT \JCRT~ ANALYSlS COST PER YEAR Pf~ $1000 I 0 2 3 _ ...... 4 5 6 7 ...... 8 9 10 11 12 ...... - ...... , ..... __ ...... ,...... _ ...... _ ...... -~- ...... J, ...... CAPlfAL cost 20716.0 OSM COSTS 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 I TOfAL ANNUAL 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 :osr 20716.0 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 s.2 s.2 5.2 5,2 A!INUAL DISCO..., RATEa110% 0,909 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 0.826 0.751 0,683 0.621 0.564 0.513 0.467 0,424 0.386 0,35 0.319 I NEl PRESENT IJORTH 20716.0 4.7 4.3 3.9 3.6 3.2 2.9 2.7 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.8 1. 7 I 0::-- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 21 23 24 25 CAPiTAl COST ··---·--··-·--··--···•- ...... '"' ...... __ .,. __ .,.. ... c.••-·•-- .... °'co I O&M COSTS s.2 5.2 S.2 S.2 5.2 N 5.2 s.2 5.2 5,2 5.2 lOtAL ANNUAL COST 5,2 S.2 5.2 s.2 5.2 5,2 '>-2 5.2 5.2 s.2 5.2 5.2 ~ ANNUAL OISCOOar RAT~a1Q¾ 0.29 0.263 5.2 5.2 'L.2 5.2 0.239 0.218 o.198 0.18 0.164 0 I 0.149 o.ns 0.12~ 0.112 0.101 o.on NEf PR~SENT \o'ORTH 1.5 1.4 1.2 L1 1.o 0.9 0.9 o.s I 0.7 0.6 0.6 o.s 0.5 26 27 28 29 30 -~ ...... -...... ____ .. ___ ...... TOTAL I CAPITAL COST MET PRESENT o&M COSTS IIORJH 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 TOTAL ANNUAL cosr (f HOU SMID $' s} 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 -"IINUAL DISCOOIH !UTEii110¾ I 0,084 0.076 0.069 0.063 0.057 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0,3 I 20765.0 ...... ,...... -...... -...... - "" .. I (lP\lSL4C) I I I 11 I I ALTERNATIVE SL·4(C): HIGH CAPITAL COSTS EXCAVAflON\OFF·SIT6 INCINERATION COST C()IPOHENT OUANTITY SENS111V1TY TOTAL I UNIT UNIT GOSf TOTAL cosr C~MENTS . . -..... -- --...... ~ ...... FACTOR COST ...... , ~ ...... - ... -...... -. ,. ,. . ··---- ...... SITE PREPARAr::,u 4.4 ACRES $1,450 $6,380 I INITIAL MONl'::I\ING 1.1 sr,o,a SAMPl,IMG 22 DAYS $400 W,800 8 SAMPL~S COLLECTEO/OAV All•LYSti 176 SAMPLES 1 .1 S9,680 $"315 'SSS,440 8 SAMPLts/LOl AIIAL 'ft.EU I 1.1 $60,984 fOR PAHs ANO ARSENIC SOI LS l'ttOf.4 TIIE CARVER TERRACE SUBOIVISION: UC/WAT£ 8400 CY $15 $126,000 1 FT DEPTH OVER 190,000 Sf; 1.1 $138,600 I 20¾ 8ULKlNG; 35 CY/UEEK C\l EXCAVAtEO; PLACE, IN 20- o-, GALLON CONTAINERS tR,i.1tsPOR. 71 ~ t Oil. w.100 Lk $4 tn6,4oo a) I 100 Ml ONE·UAY; \3CY/20 ,., $854,040 TON l"RUCI( N me INERJ,:'E 8400 CY $1,700 $14,280,000 1.1 S15,708,000 ~ 0 I BULK SOLIDS FltCJI THE KENNEDY SAND AND GltAVEL PROf>ERlY: LOADING IIU..K SOLIDS 160 CV $100 $16,000 TRANSPORTJ., !Oil 1. 1 $17,600 1200 LM $4 $4,800 INGl!lli.RA Tf 1.0 $4,800 160 CY St, 700 $272,000 I ,., $299,200 SliE RESTORAY!~: BACKFILL U011 ) 7000 I CY $5.00 $35,000 ONLY FOR CARVER fERRACE 1.1 $38,500 AREA SPREADlNG 7000 CY $2,00 $14,000 soo <2") 1. 1 $15,400 21100 SY $3.55 $74,905 I Oil.LY fOR CARVER TERRACE ,., $82,~96 A~H. ,: I '1EAL TH & SAFETY 244 VEEKS $4,000 $976,000 H&S OfflCER DURING 1.1 $1,073,6()0 MONITOll:ING & EXCAVATION; I KNu AND RESP(RATORS DIRECT CAPlTAL COST ...... , ...... $18,309,818 •• - ,. ... ., "' ••• --- ...... ,_ ... .,. -- -·~ .. -· ...... " ...... ~-- ...... ■ ..... __ ...... ■ ~,oc•• .. -- ...... ~ '""'-••+ ...... I ENGl!IEERING &OESlGN (,1t) $2,014,080 CONllNGENC1 t20~) I $3,661,964 I TOTAL CAPITAL cost ...... i23,9SS,861 APPR01114AlE iOlAL CAPltAL COST I $23,986,000 (Ht-SL4C) I AL TEil NA Tf VE I SL·4(C): HIGU PRESENT IIORTH ANALYSIS cosr PER YEAR PER $1000 I 0 2 ··--- ...... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 CAPITAL cosr 23986.0···········-·······-·····-·--···--·········-···············--······--···········-·······-···· o&M COSfS 5.2 5.2 I 5 .2 5.2 5.2 S.2 5.2 TOTAL ANNUAL :::::isr 23986.0 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 S.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 ANNUAL '.) I SCCUII ~ 5.2 5.2 5.2 RATEii110% 1 0.909 o.a26 751 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 o. 0.683 0.621 0.564 0.513 0.467 0.424 0.386 0.35 0.319 I NET PREs.tNr !.'ORTH 23986.0 4.7 4.3 3.9 3.6 3.2 2.9 2.7 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.7 I tr'i 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ()\ 21 21 23 24 25 CAPITAL COST ················-····-··--···-···········-···········---·-······--·······--······--···--···-· ro I o&fo4 COSTS 5.2 N 5.2 5.2 5.2 S.2 5.2 TOTAL ANNUAL COST 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 ANNUAL OISCOUM~ 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 .... RAfEiillu¾ 0.29 0.263 0.239 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 0.218 0.198 0.18 0.164 0.149 0 I 0.135 0.123 0.112 0.101 0.092 NET PRESE~T 1,/0RTH 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 I 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 o.s 26 27 28 29 30 ...... __ ..,_,.,. TOTAL I CAPITAL COST MET PRESENT 0&M COSTS IJORTII 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 TOTAL ANNUAL COST (TH()JSANO $ 1 s) 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 ANNUAL DISCOUNT R:ATE@10¾ I 0.084 0.076 0.069 0.063 0.057 NET PRESEkT IJORTH 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 I 24035.0 I (UPIISL4C) I I I I I I I ALTERNATIVE SL-4(0): PRESENT IJORTH ANALYSIS COST PER YEAR PER $1000 I 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 ··-··~- ...... ,_...... __ .. 8 9 10 11 12 ..... 'V .... - ...... ,...... - • - ...... ,. .... ·- - .... --~ ------· .. - • ., ...... - - .... - - CAPIU.L cosr 3854.0 OtM COSTS I 5.2 5.? 5.2 5.2 5.2 TOTAL ANMUAL COST 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 38S4.0 3.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5,2 5.2 5,2 5.2 5,2 s.2 AMNUAL orscou,s~ RAiEiiJ10% 1 0.909 0.826 5.2 5.2 5,2 5.2 o. 751 0.683 0.621 0.564 0.513 0.467 0.424 0,386 0.35 0.319 I NET PRESl-~T IJORTH 3854.0 4.7 4.3 3.9 3'.b 3.2 2.9 2.7 2.4 2.2 2.0 I 1.8 1. 7 ~ l3 14 15 16 17 t8 19 20 CJ-. 21 21 23 24 25 • .,.,..,...,.., .... • • • ■ ••• • • • .,.,.•■ ••••"'"'4-a• •--•••••._.,.,...,,..,~.,...,,..,...,.,.._. ... • ' 26 27 28 29 -so "'~---·······-•· ...... ____ ,... ___ .,.._,...,,...... TOTAL I CAPITAL co-:..r NET PR:ESEMT O&M COSTS IJORfH 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 TOTAL AMNUAL cosr (T HOUSAMO $ 's) 5.2 5.2 s.2 5.2 5.2 I ANNUAL DISCOUNT R\tE@10% C.Od4 0,076 0.069 0.063 0,057 NET PR~SENT IJORTH 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 I 3903.0 ...... ~ ... --. -... ~ ...... I {PII-SL4D) I I I I I I I ALTERHATlVE SL•4(D)t LCM CAPllAL toSlS I eKCAVATION/OFf•SITE LANDFILL SEIISlllVtl'f 101AL COST CM'ONENt llllANTITY UNIT UMlT COST TOfAI. cost CCAAENTS fACfOR cost I -...... -..... -...... - ...... +. , ...... --...... --.. • .. •••;••,.a• Sl TE PREPAAA r: OM 4.4 A.CRES $1,450 S.6,180 0.95 ~.06\ I INITIAL MONIT:::illNG SAMPLING 22 DAYS S400 $8,800 8 SM- I BULK SOLIDS Flt\'.M THE KENNEDY SAND ANO GRAVEL PROPERTY: LOAD 9Ull SOLIDS 160 CY $100 $16,000 FOUR 40·CY ROLL·OFFS 0.9S S1S,200 TRANSPORT 1200 LM $4.00 $4,80(, 1.0 $4,800 I DISPO$A!.. 160 CY S.20(1 S.?>2,eiJO 0.9S $30,400 SITE RESTORAT?OII: CLEAN BACX:FJLL (10 11 ) 7000 CY ss.oo $35,000 ONLY FOR CARVER TERRACE 0.95 Sl3,250 I AAEA SPREADING 7000 CY 12.00 $14,000 0.95 $13,300 soo (2"} 2HOO SY $3.S5 $74,905 ONLY ~Qi CARVER TERRACE 0.95 $71, 1'0 I AREA. HEALTH & SAFETY 28 UEE;(S 4000 $112,000 n&s OFFICER DURING 0.95 $106,400 I MONltORING & EXCAVA110tl; iiHu, ilES~lRA.lORS .. ,,,_ ...... -...... ~ ...... ~---~• ...... O!RECT CAPITAL COST s:>.,794,879 I ...... ,...~ ...... -a ...... I ENGINEERING & DESIGN (11X) S307,437 tONllNGE~CY (20X) S.556,976 I lOTAL CI.Pl1ll cost l3,661,291 I **••········ APPROXIMATE TDTAL CAPITAL COST $l,6b1,000 I (LO\l-SL4D) I I I ► I ALTERNAflVE SL·4(0): LOW PllfS!HT WOITH ANALYSIS COIT PER YEAR PER $1000 0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 ··········--~·-··· 8 9 10 11 12 ·····~-·-··~·-····~~--·-····••&·-·························~-···-·~~~-- ...... ~ ...... CAPITAL COSf 3661.0 OlJ4 cosrs 5,2 s.2 S,2 s.2 5.2 5.2 I TOTAL ANNUAL ~T 5.2 5.2 s.2 5,2 5.2 5.2 3661.0 s.2 5.2 5,2 s.2 5.2 5.2 AMN\.IAL OISCClJIT tATEQ10~ 5.2 5.2 5.2 5,% 5,2 5.2 1 0.909 o.eu. 0.751 O.li83 0,621 0.564 0.513 0.467 0.424 0,38b 0.35 O,ltt NET PRESENT WOll:fH I 3661.0 4.7 ,.3 J.9 3.6 3.2 VI 2.7 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.8 1,7 I 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 21 23 24 25 CAf>llAI. COST ...... ·················~·-·--····-······-················-···-·----····· .. ··· ...... , 00 o&M COSTS I s.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 (\J TOTAL AHNUA~ COST ,.2 5.2 5.2 5.2: 5 ,2 5.2 5,2 S.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 ANNUAL DISCQ.11~ RATiQ10i 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 0.29 0.263 0,239 0,218 0,198 0.1& 0,164 I 0,149 0,135 0.123 o.n2 0.101 0.092 0 NET PlfS(MT IIORTH 1.S 1,4 1.2 1. 1 1,0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 I 0.6 O.'i 0.5 26 27 24 29 30 TOTAi. ••••••••~•~~••••••••••••••••••~a•••• CAPITAL COST NET PRESENT I I/ORTH o&l-4 COSTS 5.2 5.2 i.2 5,2 5.2 (THOOSAHO S's) TOTAl AMNUll CO$T S.2: S.2 s.2 5,2 S.2 -...... -. -...... I ANNUAL OISCC,\.IN! RATEa10% 0.084 0.016 0,069 0.063 0.057 NET ~RESENT i.'ORTH 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 I 3710.0 I (LP\JSL4D) I I I I I I It . rt .. tr&♦ ±W:rtc( .I I ALTERNATIVE SL·~(O): NIGH WltAL COSTS EXCAVATIOff/OfF·SITE LANOflll HNSITIVITT TOTAL I COST COIPONEMT OUAHtl TY UJl IT UJllt COST TOTAL COSt C(IMMENTS FACfOR cosr ••••Ill • • ,._., • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .. • ...... SITE PREPWT!ON 4.4 ACRES tt,450 16,380 1.1 U,013 I INITIAL MOtillTOIIING SAMPLING 22 OAYS $400 ss,soo 3 SAMPLES COlLECTEO/DAY 1.t S9,6M AkAlYS1$ \76 SAMPLES $.315 tSS,440 a SAM?LES/LOT AMALYZEO L\ th0,981, I FM PAN& AND AASENJC SOILS FROM TIC£ CARVU llltllAte SUIOIVISlOH: EXCAYAT ION 8400 CY l15 $.126,000 1 FT OYER 190,000 SF; 1.1 S138,600 201 BIA.KING; EXCAV 1/2 OF r- I (J'. A LOT AT A TIMS·1 \/£EK 191,100 LM i-4.00 tno,400 300 MILIS ONE-ijAY, 1.1 $854,040 co t3 CVS PER 20 TON. TRUCt N I s 64 7 TrUJCt:. t.OAOS ~ OlSfOSAl t200 $1,68v,000 \, \ ti ,848,000 I 0 BULK SOLIDS fRCtl fltE K(!VfEDY SANO A1ID GRAVEL PROPERTY: LOAD BULi: SOLIDS 160 CY l 100 116,000 fQJR 40·CY ROLL·OFFS 1.1 "17,600 TRANSPOll:T 1200 LM «.oo S4,800 1.0 S4,800 I DISPOSAL t60 CY S.200 S32.,000 L1 tJS,200 SllE RESTORATION: I CLEAN SAO:ftll (\O•} 7000 CY $35,000 OllLY fQA CARVER TE~RA&E \.1 '38,SOO AP::A SPREMllNG 7000 CY S.2.00 114,000 1.1 $15,400 soo (2") 2.'100 sY 13.55 $74,905 ONLY FOR CAR.VER fERRACE 1.1 $81,396 I uu HEAL TN ,. s.ven 40-00 S\12,000 H&S OFFICER DURING LI $123,200 I MIJ!IITOitWG &fXCAVATIOtl; HNu, RESPIRATORS I DIRECT C.APJfAL COST '3,235,418 - ..... - ...... - - - ...... - - ...... - ...... - ...... - ...... - - ...... '"'."' ...... - ...... - ...... - •• -·•-•4-...... I ENGINEERlkG & DESIGM (t1X) 1355,896 t~NtlNGENCY (2.0i) $647,084 I TOTAL CAPITAL COST $4,238,397 I ...... ,u, I AJ>PROXIMAfE TOTAL CAPlfAL cosr S4, 2.38, 000 (Rl·Sl4D) I I I I AllE~NAllVE SL·4(0): HIGH PRESENT \/ORlH ANALYSIS COST PER YEAA PER i1000 0 I 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 .. HI 11 12 ··········-··~•-• ...... ,. .... ~ ...... ,...... ,, ...... ,...... , ...... ,, .... _~---·~---.#• CAPllAL COST 42:la.O O&M COSTS s.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 I TOTAL ANHUAL COST 4238.0 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5,2 ANNUAL DlSCOJllt RArea1~ 5.2 S.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 1 0.%9 0.326 0,751 o.~ 0.62\ 0,564 0.513 0,467 0.424 0.386 0.35 0,319 NET PRESENT 1/0RtH I 4236.0 4.7 4.3 3.9 3.6 3.2 2.9 Z.. 7 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.7 I CG l3 14 15 '6 11 18 19 20 21 21 23 24 25 o, CAPITAi. COST ·······-·······-···········································-····························--··· ro I o&J4 COSTS 5.2 5.2 5.2 (\J 5.2 5,2 5.2 S.2 5.2 lOfAL ANNUAL COST s.2 5.2 5.2 s.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 'L2 5.2 s.2 5.2 5.2 5.2, ANNUAL DISCCUNr RATE@\0,. 5.2 5.2 5.2 S.2 5.2 0,29 0.26., 0.239 0.21s 0, 194 o. '8 0, 164 I 0.149 0.135 0.123 0.112 0.101 0,092 0 WET PlESlNt IJORlK 1.'i 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 0,9 0.9 o.s 0.7 0.6 0.6 o.s o.s I 26 27 28 29 30 TOTAL ---- ..... ~ ...... __ ,. ___ ..,_··--- ...... , ...... MET PRESENT I CAP Il AL COST \lOfl:TH o&M COSTS 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 •;.2 TOTAL ANNUAL COST 0 I 2 3 4 5 6 . -----...... 7 8 9 10 11 12 ...... , ...... - ...... ,...... ,,, CAPITAL COST 615.0 O&H COSTS 7.6 7.6 7,6 7.6 1.6 I 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 TOTAL ANNUAL C..:,.ST 615.0 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 ANNUAL DISC I (j\ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 o, 20 21 21 23 24 25 .... ., ...... ~ .. ., ...... ,, ...... CAPllAL COST 00 I o&M COSTS 7.6 (\J 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7,6 TOTAL ANNUAL COST 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 1.6 7.6 ~ 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7,6 7.6 ANNUAL DISCOUNT RATE~10% 0.29 7.6 7.6 7.6 0.263 0.23Q 0.218 0.198 o. 18 0.164 0 I 0.149 0.135 0.123 0.112 0.101 0.092 NEr PRESENT I/ORTH 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.2 I 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 26 27 28 29 30 TOTAL .. ■• - - ...... - - ...... - - - ... ■ ..... - ...... - - - .... - I CAP IT Al COST NET PRESENT COSTS IJORTH o&M 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 TOTAL ANNUAL COST (TH(XJSAND $' s) 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 ANNUAL DISCOUNT RATE~10% I 0.084 0.076 0.069 0.063 0.057 NEi PR~SENf IJORlH 0.6 0,6 0.5 0.5 0.4 I 686.6 I (Pt.l·SL4E) I I I I I I I ALTERNATIVE SL·4(E): LOI.I CAPITAL COSTS EXCAVATION/PASSIVE ~OIL UASHING SEMSITIVlfY TOTAL COST C(M>{)NENT QUANTfTY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL COST COOMENTS I ...... ______., .. .., ...... , ..... FACTOR COSf -...... - .. --...... - ..... a, ...... a- .. - ...... -.. SITE PREPJ..RATION LP SUH $2,000 $2,000 I INITIAL HOf.llfCQING: 0.95 $1,900 SAM9LING 22 DAYS $400 $8,800 8 SAMPLES COLLECiEO/DAY 0.95 $8,360 ANALYSIS 176 SAMPLES t.315 SSS,440 8 SAMPLES/LOT ANALYZED 0.95 $52,668 I fOR PAHs ANO ARSENIC SOILS FR~ THE CARVER TERRACE SUBDIVISION: EXCAVATE 8400 CY $15 $126,000 1 FT OVER 190,000 SF; 0,95 $119,700 I 20¾ BULKING; EXCAVATE 1/2 Of 0 A LOT AT A TIME·l IJEEK Oll·SITE HAULING 8400 r,y $3 0 $25,200 HAULED TO lHE GRAVEL 0.95 $23,940 PITS; TO BE rREATED UlfH O' I GROONO IJATER (\J BULK SOLJ0S FRC'.»4 THE KENNEDY SAND AND GRAVEL PROPERTY: LOAD BULK SOLIDS 160 CY $100 0 I 116,000 FOOR 40·CY ROLL·OFFS 0.95 $15,200 ON·SITE HAULJNG 160 CY $3.00 $480 HAULED TO THE GRAVEL PITS 1.0 $480 TO SE TREATED IJITH I GROOND WATER SITE RESl(ll:IATION: CLEAH BACKFILL (10") 7000 CY $5.00 $35,000 ONLY FOR CARVER TERRACE 0.9S $33,250 I AREA SPREADING 7000 CY $2.00 $14,000 0.95 $13,300 SOD (2") 21100 SY $3.55 $.74,905 ONLY FOR CARVER TERRACE 0.95 $71, 160 I AREA !IEAL TH & SAFEtv 28 IJEEl I APPROXIMATE TOTAL CAPITAL cosr s58S,ooo I I I I I ALfERNATIVE SL·4(E): lOJ PRESENT ~TH AUALYSIS COST PER YEA! PER $1000 I 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ...... - ...... - ...... - ...... ¥ ...... ,,J, ...... CAPITAL cosr 585.0 I o&M COSTS 7,6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 fOTAL ANNUAL COST 585.0 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 1.6 1.6 ANNUAL DISCCUNT RArea1oi 0.909 0.826 0.751 0.683 0.621 0.564 0.513 o... 67 0.424 0.386 0,35 0.319 I NET PRESENT WORTH 585.0 6.9 6.3 5.7 5.2 4.7 4.3 3.9 3.5 3.2 2.9 z.1 2.4 I ~ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 21 23 24 25 ...... 0 CAPITAL COST I o&H COSTS 7.6 7.6 1.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 (\J°' TOlAl ANMUAL COST 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 ~ I ANNUAL DISCCUNT RATEu10l 0.29 0.263 0.2:39 0.218 0.198 0.18 0.164 0.149 0.135 0.123 0.112 0.101 0.092 0 NEY PRESENT WORTH 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 o.a 0.7 I 26 27 28 29 30 TOTAL ...... + ...... ■ .... - ...... NEt PRESENT I CAPITAL COST 1.'0RTK o&H COSTS 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 CTHOUSANO $ 's) TOTAL ANNUAL COST 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 I ANNUAL 01sco..m1 RAtEa,ox 0.084 0.076. 0.069 0.063 0.057 I NET PRESENT \JORTH 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 656.6 ... - ••• - ...... +. 11 (LP\JSL4E) I I I I I I I I I ALTHNATIVE 5L·4(U: IIIGK CAPITAL COSTI exCAVAtlON/PASSIVE SOIL VAJNING IENSITIY!TY JOHL. I COST aw>OMEln OUANllTY Ulflt \BUT toSl 10TAl COST COIM&JUS FACTOR COST .. .. • • .. .. - ..... + ...... • "' ...... ■ • 4 ••• .,. ••••••••••• .. "' . -...... SITE PREPARATION t LP SUH S2,000 U,001> ,.. 12,200 I INlflAL MONITOllNG: SAMPLIIIG 22 OAVS: t.400 sa,aoo 8 SAMPLES C:OLL!CTIO/DAY 1, t 19,640 ANALYSIS 176 SAMPLES i315 155,440 8 SAMPLES/LOT AUALYZEO 1.1 W.0,914 I F1'R PAHt AND AHENIC SOlLS FROM Tiff CAAVER TERRACE SUBDIVISION: EXCAVUt 8400 CY S.15 1126,000 \ FT OVER 1%,000 Sf; 1.1 ,11a,6'00 N I 2ft BULKING: EXCAVATE 1/l OF A LOT AT A TIME·t UEEK 0 ON·UU KAULING 8400 CT S3 llS,200 IIAIJLEO TO THE GAAVEL L1 s21,no o,. PITS; TO BE TREATED WITH N I GRCONO MAfER """"0 SULK SOLIDS F~c,,t THE KENNEDY SAND AND GRAVEi. PAOPEJI.TY; I LOAD BULK S-Ot.lOS 160 er 1100 116,0110 FOOR 40·CV ROLL·OFFS 1.1 117,600 Ofl ·St TE IWJll llG 160 CY tl.00 $480 MA\A.£0 to tHE GtA'/£1. Pits \.0 w.o TO SE fREATEO WITH I GROUIIO WATER SITE RE$~0RAtIOH: CLEAN BAC~FILL (10n) 7000 CY is.oo $35,000 ONLY FOf!: CARVER TERRACE 1.\ S33,500 I AREA SJ>REAOUIG 7000 CY s2.aa ,,,.,ooo 1., 1\5,400 SOD (211 ) 2\100 SY Sl.55 174,905 ONLY FM: CARVER TERll:ACE t,1 $32,396 I AREA HEALtH & SAFETY 28 WEEKS $4,000 S112,000 H&S OFflCl:R OURING 1.1 Sl23,200 MONITORING & EXCAVATION; I HNu, IUHiPIRATOI! +4•••++••·· I DIRECT CAPITAL COST S516,760 ENGINEERING & DESIGN (11~) 156,844 I CONTINGENCY (20¾) S103,3S2 I TOfAL CAPITAL cost $676,955 .... ,,...... I APPROXIMATE TOTAL CAPITAL COST s.677,DOO I {Hl·SL4E) I I I I ALTEINATIVE IL·4(E): NiGH PlEiENT ~TH ANALTIIS COIT PER YW PER 11000 I 0 1 2 l 4 5 7 a f 10 11 12 ...... -...... - ., ...... " ...... " -...... CAP ITAL COST 671.0 o&M COSTS 1., I 7.6 1.6 7.6 1.6 7.6 7.6 1.6 7.6 1.6 1., 7.6 TOTAL ANNUAL COST 677.0 7.6 1.6 7.6 7.6 7,6 7.6 7.6 7 .I, 7.6 7.6 1.6 7.6 ANMUAL Dileo..• tATH\Ol \ O.ffl 0.826 0.75\ 0.683 0.621 0.564 0.5'3 0.4o7 0."24 0.386 0.35 0.319 I WET PIESl•T t.a!TH ,n.o 6.9 6,3 5.7 ,.2 4.7 4.3 3.f J.!i 3.2 2.11 Z.1 2.4 I r<". 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 21 23 24 25 ...... C CAPITAL COST I OUI COSTS 1.6 7.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 7.6 7.6 7,6 1.6 1.6 1.6 N°' TOTAL ANNUAL COST 1.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 1.6 7.6 1.6 7.6 7.6 7 .I, 7.6 7.6 7.6 ... ANNUAL 0Isccurc~ U.TU10'.I 0.29 0.263 0.239 0.21& 0.19& o. ,a 0.164 0.149 I 0.135 0.123 0.112 o. to1 0.092 0 NET PRESl•T i.QQ:TH 2.2 2.0 t.8 '. 7 1.5 \.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0,7 I 26 27 211 l'1 30 TOTAL ...... "'"······••+•••- ...... Net PRESENT I CAPITA!. COST 111.'.)IUH 1.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 I (IIPVSL4E) I I I I I I - I l - • . . . . - , . " " -_ , ,. - - ~ ••-•- -~-~---.• - - •- • • _____,,., _, - - -r,-.- ,...._,.- -•-~..,_--r-...... ,.....~ --r"_...,...,1-,- • - - - ~ - . ' . ' . I SCl.lRCE INFORMAflON FM JU.JOit CCST ITEMS I I Sl.00/DAY; ASStMES i40/HOJR LABOR• EXPENSES ANALYSIS 1315/SAMPLE, HUS 1988 PRICE GlllOE I V.000/WEEt:'; ASSUMES LABOR COST o, i50.00/HCU~; ta00 A(MI(> TRIP; S200/WEt:' Fat tl:ESPll!ATOR; I i 150/\1£EK FOR; A KNU; AHD APPROX i850/\IEEK EXPENSES Pftl001C INSPE:TION lt,200/:NSPECTION; ASSUMES 150/HR LABOR• I $800 AOOIIO TRIP fqAVEL EXPENSE I 1100/CY; MEANS, 020 711.1120, 1988 fXCAVAT,:1N S15/CY; MIA.NS, 022 254,0050,1988 • HEALTH,SAFETV 0 I il/CY; MEANS, 022 266.1150, 1988, + HEALfHI.SAfETV I TOPSOIL S7.50/CV; VEN~ QUOlE I SOD 13.SS/SY; VENOOR QUOTE FElfHLIZING Sl80/LOT; i30/MOllTH/LOT·VENOOR QUOTE; USED 6 MONTHS I MOWING $720/LOT; $120/MONTH/L01·VENOOR OUOTE; USED 6 MONTKS WATEll $90/LOT; $15/MOl,jfH/LOT·VENOOR ilUOfE; USED 6 MOl,ITHS I 12,000/lOl; VENDM OUOlE; lNtl\JOES SOX ANO METER I IN-SlfU IIORECLAJCATIOM $135/CV; [EYSTON£ ENVIROMM£NTAl RES0URC£S ([ER) ESffMATE MECHANICAL so:~ ~ASijlNG ALL ASSOCIATED cosrs ARE (ER ESTIMATES TREATMENT UNI~ I ON-SITE INCIMERAfl I OFF·SJfE TRANSPOIITATIQN $4/LOAOEO MILE; COST FROM ERT PREVIOUS REPORTS I $2D0/CY; MEANS 020 717,6021, 1988 Off-SITE INttNE~ATION $1,700/CY; VENDOR QUOTE I CSt.·SWRCl I . , ' • <, , ' ,- . . . • '· , .. • • I.J • .. • , • ,- ' • • ~ , ~ . ~ ., __.:_~~~-~-~~~~- I . . . - . - - ,. l • ' .. ' j • ' I I I I I I I.(\ 0 I (\J°' I I APPENDIX 6-B COSTING TABLES ASSOCIATED WITH THE GROUND WATER I RESPONSE MEDIA UNIT AL'rERNATIVES I I I I I I I I I 2069T 4040-001-600 . t . _, .. ·:- . -· .. ' ...... ,, -:~---~- •, ~~.: .. -~ :',. ~~:. ~~--~~ :;~~ ~: ·_ ,. ' . ' I I' I I APPENDIX 6-B GROUND WATER ALTERNATIVE COSTING TABLE I This appendix presents the costing table used for the det~iled evaluation of the ground water alternatives (Section I 6.0;. Included are the tables for the baseline present worth evaluation; the capital and present wcrk tables for the low I cost evaluation: and the capital and present worth costs for the high cost evaluation. Also included in this appendix is a '°0 I listing of the major baseline unit costs and their 0-, corresponding sources. N I 0 ii I ii I I I I I I 2069T 4040-001-600 ALTERNATIVE GW·1: PRESENT lo'ORTH ANALYSIS I COST PER YEAR PER S1000 0 2 3 4 5 6 1 ---...... -. -.. 8 9 10 11 12 ••••••••••••~•~w••••••••••••••••••••••••~•••••••••+•••••••••••••••••••••••~•••••••••~•••••••• CAPITAL COST 45.0 o&M COSTS I 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 fOfAl ANNUAL cosr 45.0 9,0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9,0 ANNUAL DISCOONT RATE•10% 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 o.m 0.826 0. 751 0.683 0,621 0.564 0.513 0.467 0.424 0,386 0.35 0.310 I Nff PRESENT l.'()f:!JH 45.0 8.2 7.4 6.8 6. 1 5.6 5.1 4.6 4.2 3.8 3.5 3.2 2.9 I r- 13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 0 20 21 21 23 24 25 CAP IT Al COST -····~·-·-·····--·····--·-·········--··-······--···············~---····-··············~------I °'N O&M COSTS 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 TOTAL ANNUAL COST 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 0:-- 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 ANNUAL OJSCOUNT RAfEa10% 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 0 0.29 0.263 0.239 0.218 0.198 0.18 0.164 I 0, 149 0.135 0.123 0. 112 0.101 0.092 N£r PRESENT IJ()RTH 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.S 1,l I 1.2 1.1 LO 0.9 0.8 26 27 28 29 30 TOTAL ...... _,.. _____ ...... I NET PRESENY CAPITAL COST ~TH o&M COSTS 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 (ilfWSAND $ 'S) TOTAL ANNUAL COST 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 ...... - ...... ¥,.. ... I ANNUAL DISCOUNT RAT€@10X 0.084 0,076 0.069 0.063 0.057 NET PRESENT l.'ORTH 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 o.s I t29.a ... ---...... -- -..... -- - (PW t.111) I I ALTEINAllvt C\1·2A: Pt(SENT WCIITM UALYSIS COST Pll nu PH 11000 I CAPtl"'-1. c~~ 12,1,8.0 OLM COSTS JH.O JH.O JU.O lH.0 Jff.O 311.0 111.0 311.0 31'.0 311.0 l 1 LO 311.0 I rcTAL AMNUA~ ::sr 1248,0 311.0 311.0 311,0 311.0 31'.0 31 t .o 311.0 311 .o 3'1.0 1'1.0 Jn.o lt1.0 A"lfUAL 01sc::...~· RATEatai , 0.909 0.826 0.751 o.ea 0.621 o.w. 0.513 0.467 0.,2, 0.386 ~-15 0.319 1248.0 212.7 I 256.9 233 .l, 212.4 193. 1 175.4 159.S 145.Z 131 .9 121).0 108.9 99.Z I 1l 14 cc 15 t7 ,a 19 20 21 21 ...... ll 24 25 0 CAP IT Al COS ! ()\ ~ COSTS 111.0 I 3H.O 1n.o 311 .o 3H.O 311.0 311.0 31 t .o 3H.O 311,0 l\ 1.0 (\J Jn .o JI 1 .0 "Olo\l ANHlJA~ :::-ST 3'1.0 JH .0 111.0 3t \.0 311.0 311.0 311.0 311.O lH.O lH.O 311.0 JH.O 3H,O A~taJAL OtSCO..-T lo\TEe10~ O.M 0.263 0.219 0.211 (L\9& 0.1& I 0.\64 o. \49 o.ns 0. \Zl (L 1\2 0.10\ 0.042 0 MET Ptf1E-T WOl!r" 90.Z 81.1 74.3 67 .a 61.6 5-6.0 51.0 4id li2.0 31.3 34.8 31.4 21,6 I 26 27 21 29 30 fill~ ... •I>• ...... ,...... Qt H.lUUf CAPITAL COST I WlrK o&R COSTS 31 L'l 311.0 311.0 lH.O 31\.0 { TlfCIIS4NO t I I) TOTAL ANm,JA~ :osr 311.0 lt\.O 311.0 11 t.o 31LO I ·~~UAL 01sc~· tAf(i10~ 0.084 0.076 o. Ot,9 0.061 0. 057 NEf PRESENT lotltTN 26. t 23.6 21. S 19.l, I 17.7 4179.S I (P\/·GW2A) I I I I I I I I lLff.NAflVE GV·2(A): ~~ CAPlfAL cosrs ACTtVATIO WIOM COST C~~EIIT CIUillil't h' SEJISITIVUT TOTJ;., Uk IT UlltT COST TOO.I. COST ...... ' . Cai.MfllfS I ...... ~ . -...... ,,,101 cos, s1r1 HEP~IATION • ...... + ...... -...... LP SUN SS,000 H,000 WILL llJi..a.:IMIHT 0.9' 9 WILLS H,000 '4,S,000 14,7\a I Sl.:ISUU A:! :IU 1N SlS'EM: 0.95 S42, 150 CIJdlll : ..STALL 21'10 L, lSO S10l,OOO PIJMPS 0.fl 20 PUM,S SJ,000 U0,000 199,,SO S\JMP l U • lU, 0.95 I 20 IUMIIS 13,000 '60,000 H7,000 0.95 157,00() "',... '3,000 18,000 """ 0.911 17,600 IIECllAltGf •ttNCIIING (fN•SlfU SOIL FLUSN ING): I SNALLOal' *IENCH INSfAL L\UO UftOM I. 10,000 0-- 1500 L' us 137,SOO IIIIJICT JC- ~S GAL/DAY INJECTION IATE 0.9i 2 PlikPS 13,SOO 17,000 US,625 0 ,1,111, 0.95 u• SUK '35,000 ll5,000 U,6SO (j\ ILICT It : •STtYM G.fl I LP SUM S20,000 S20,000 Ul,250 (\J IIIJECT!Ctt TANK 0.95 LP SUM St0,000 110,000 S19,000 CltlNJC,ll.. fl!O $Y9fEM 1.0 ~ LP SUM H,000 15,000 110,000 I 1.0 SS,000 0 •~LlNG 01 fXCAVATlD SOILS ,1a4 tt(YCK ll~VltlCM: lXCA'ltA.Tl 2000 CY lt5 l!0,000 ON· SIT( "At.IL ING 0.913 \23,500 2000 CT u.oo '6,000 I KA.UlEO Oil ill£ lO TKE 0.9S \S,700 GlAVEL PITS; uureo vu. GlOJMO 11.UU GIICW,OwATf* U:EATM£1H •lANf · PIIE~(MINAIT lAllfl!WllK: SOIL '11.i. 4000 CT su~ W.,000 MvETU,tG 0.fl LP SUM ss.ooo SS,000 $60,800 0.9S S4, 750 ftEA11"(ijt s~sl!M: I OU\Cl/1.AI 1., S\lJ\ \lS,000 Sl5,0M Oll/\lltEfl U.4> l.O \' i.P S\JM '10,000 '16,000 S3'i, 000 U.tll At,S(jlp U!H r \,0 '16,000 1 LP SUM 140,000 '40,000 (NIT W8 nu. I 5400 i.lS \ .o S40,600 11.00 SS,000 P (, 1114i/PYRP1 Q.9S 1.P StJ4 147,000 S47,000 t4,?'SO Elf:CU & :1ST11UM 0,95 S44,6SO 1.P SUM taS,000 $85,000 AHCI l EOU ! •i;n 0,95 I 1 LP SIM sat,ooo S-81,000 SS0,750 OfREII PROC fAHKS t 0.95 S76, 950 LP SUM S45,000 S45 ,000 0.9S S42,750 ;ifALTII & S,HEtT 2t. wlEKS '4,000 196,000 I H&S oF,tCER DUIIING ExtAv; 0,95 191,200 H~u A)I{) RESPIRAlORS ·····• .. ··-·-· ...... -.... ~ ..... 0111£CT CAPITAl COST ...... - ..... $9\0, HS I •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• + •••••••••••• ENGINEERING l DESIGN (11\) l 100, 119 I CONflNGENCY Clot) I S182,035 I APPROXIMATE TOTAL CAPITAL COST S1,192,000 I • • • - • - • f • • • . . .. . - . . . - ...... ------. . . - \ ...... ,. ~ 'i . , - . I " I ALlERNATIVE G\I ZA: LOIJ PRESENT \IORTH ANALYSIS COSf PER VEAA PER $10-00 I ...... - - • ~ 4 ••••• - • CAP I TAL COS f 1192.0 oo-4 COSTS llt.O 3H.O 311.0 311.0 311.0 311.0 311.0 311.0 311.0 311 .o 311.0 311.0 I TOH.\. r..NlruA.1. :~T 1192..0 311.Q. 311.0 3.\LO 3\1.0 311.0 3H.0 3H.O 3H.O 1,1.0 311.0 31L0 311.0 ANNUAL OISCCl..tl~ RA.TEilQl 0,909 0.3;?6 0.151 0.683 0.621 0.564 0.513 0.41,7 0.424 0.366 0.35 0.319 IIEl PflESENT VOAHI 1192.0 I 282.7 256.9 233.6 212.4 193. 1 175.4 159.5 145.2 131.9 120.0 108.9 99.2 I C CAPITAL COST 0&1-1 COSTS 311.0 I 311.0 311.C 311.0 311.0 311.0 311.0 311 .0 311.0 311.0 311.0 311.0 311.0 N°' TOTAL AIINUAL 311.0 311.C, :::sr 311.0 311.0 311.0 311.0 311.0 311.0 311.0 311.0 311.0 311.0 311.0 ANNUAL OISCCl,.'11• flAtEa10l o.~ 0.263 0.239 0.2'8 0.1<;18 0. 18 I 0.164 0.149 0.135 0.123 0.112 0.101 0.092 0 ME~ PlESE~T WOil.TM qo_2: SL& 74.3 67.a 6\.6 56.0 51.0 46.3 42..0 JS.3 34.a JL4 28.6 I 26 27 23 29 30 TOTAL ····•- ... -~ ...... ~ ...... ~-- ...... NET P~ESENl CAPITAL COSl I IIOIHH o&lol COS"fS Jn.o 1,1.0 311.0 JH.O 311.0 (lHOUSANO $'s) TOlAL ANNUAL ;:;sr 311.0 311.0 311.0 311.0 311.0 I ANNUAL OISCClJh• RAT[~10\ 0.084 C.!:176 O.OM 0.063 0.057 I 26. 1 23.6 21.5 19.6 17.7 4123.5 I (LPWG112A) I I I I I I I I ALTERNATIVE GY·2{A): HIGH CAPITAL cosrs ACTIVATED CARBON COST CQI-IPC-EMT SEMSlTtVITY TOTAL QUAMflTY UNIT UNIT COST fOTAL COST COMMEMfS • • • ... y • • • • • r • • • • • • • • FACTOR I - .. - ¼ - ... - COST SITE PREPl~AflON ...... 4 •• ~ 1 LP SUM ss,ooo $5,000 li€LL REPLl:f~EMT 1. 1 t5,SOO 9 IIHLS SS,000 $45,000 I 'SUBSURFAC! ~~AlN SYS~E~: 1.1 $49,500 D~AINS :14~,ALL 2100 LF $SO $105,000 PUMPS 1.1 1'15,500 20 PUMPS $3,000 $60,000 SUMP HIS• .t.LL 1. 1 $66,000 I 20 SIJl,li>S $3,000 $60,000 PIPIMG 1.1 166,000 LP SUM $8,000 $8,000 1. 1 tS,800 R':c.HARGE illEWC.HING { Pl·S!TU SOIL FLUSHING): BASED UPON A 10,000 I SHALLO\J T~EMCH lNSTAL 150G -:- LF £25 $31,500 GAL/OAY lMJECTIOM RATE INJECTIOff PUHPS 1.1 ~1,250 2 PUMPS $3,500 $7,000 ..- Pl?IN(i 1.1 $7,700 U> SUM U5,000 $35,000 ELECT & rusrRuM 1.1 $38,500 I LP SUM $20,000 $20,000 °'(\J !NJECTIOM TAMK 1.1 sn,ooo LP SUM $10,000 $10,000 CHE~ICAL FEED SYSlE~ 1.0 $10,000 ..- LP SUM $S,ooo $5,000 I 1.0 $5,000 0 HANOLIMG Of EXCAVATED SOILS FR(),! TRENCH EXCAVATION: EXCAVAH: 2000 CY $15 $10,000 1.1 $33,000 2000 CY $3.00 $6,000 HAULED ON SITE TO THE I 1.1 $6,600 GRAVEL PITS; TREATED VIA GRruim \lATER GRCCJMD~ATER TREAlMENf PlAHT · PRELIMINARY f AR ttl\JORt::: SOIL FILL 4000 CY I $16 $64,000 1. 1 $70,400 SURVEY\ IIG ' LP SUM ss,ooo t.S,000 L l 15,SOO TREATMENT SYSTEM: I CfflCE/LM. LP SUM $35,000 $35,000 OIL/UA TER SEP 1.C'J t.JS,000 lP SUM $16,000 t16,000 CARD AOSORP UWIT 1.0 $16,000 1 LP SUM St.0,000 $40,000 l'I ll CARS fill 1.0 S40,000 I sooo LSS $1 '$5,000 i>IPIIJG/PUMPS ,., t.S,500 LP SUM t-47,000 S4 7 ,ooo EtFCTR & IMSTRUM 1., $5 l, 100 LP SUM sas,ooo $85,000 AIICIL EOUtPl>ll 1. 1 $9J, soo LP SUM S-81,000 $81,000 I OTHER PROC TANKS t.8Q, 100 LP SUM S-45,000 $.45,000 '-' 1.1 $49,500 HEAlil{ & SHE.TV 24 \.IEEKS $4,00(l $96,000 I H&S O~f!CER OURIMG EXCAV; L1 1,\'.!5,600 HMu A"D RESPIRATORS - • - ■ ••• - • - - I $1, OJ7, ISO ENGINEERING & DESIGN (11%) .. "' • * • - • - • 5 - '1114,087 CONTINGENCY (20X) I $207,430 TOTAL CAPIYAL cosr I APPROXIMATE TOTAL CAPITAL COST I (HI · G\J2A) . - . . . . . ~ " - ' . - , - ~ . - . ~ ' . . I AlfERNATIVE GU·2A: HIGH P~fSENT IJO.~TH ANALYSIS I cos~ PER VEA~ PE~ $1000 I CAP!fAL COST 1359.0 o&M COSTS 311.0 311.0 311.0 311.0 311.0 311.0 TOTAL ANNUAL :~Si 311.0 311.0 311.0 311.0 311.0 311.0 I 1359. 0 311.0 3H.O 311. 0 3\1.0 31'.0 311,0 311.0 ANNUAL DlSCW~~ RATE~10% 311.0 311.0 311.0 31L0 311.0 0.909 0.826 0.751 0.683 0.621 0.564 0.513 0.467 0.424 0.386 0.35 0,319 NET PRESfNT UORTH 1359.0 282.7 256.9 233.6 212.4 193. 1 175.4 I 159.5 145,2 131.9 120,0 108.9 99,2 I (\j CAPITAL COST O&M COSTS 311. 0 311.0 I 311.0 311. 0 311. 0 311. 0 311. 0 311.0 311.0 311. 0 511. 0 TOTAL ANNUAL C:'.JST 311.0 311.0 311. 0 311. 0 311.0 311.0 311.0 311.0 311. 0 311.0 ANNUAL DISCOUNT RAlE~10% 311.0 311.0 311.0 311.0 311.0 0.29 0.263 0.239 0.218 0.198 0.18 0.164 0.149 0.135 0.123 o. 112 o. rn1 0.092 0 I NET P~ESENT \JORTH 90,2 81.8 74.3 67 .8 61.6 56.0 51.0 46.3 42.0 38.3 34.S 31.4 28.6 I 26 27 29 30 TOl'A.L • ·- ~ ...... ·+••"-•• ...... CAPITAL COST NEl PRESENT I o&M COSTS WORTH 311.0 311.0 311.0 311.0 311.0 TOTAL ANNUAL COST ( H!OUSAND $Is) 311,0 311.0 311.0 311.0 311.0 ANNUAL DISCWNT RAlE@10X I 0.081, 0.076 ('J.069 0.063 0.057 26.1 23.6 21.5 19.6 17.7 I 4290.5 I (HPUGU2A) I I I I I I I "", ' I ALTERNATIVE GW-28: PRESENT IJORTH ANALYSIS COST PER YEAR PER $1000 0 2 3 I 4 5 6 7 8 9 Hl 1\ ,2 - • ~ .. ~ •• + ..... - - .... - • - ---...... -...... --· .. CAP Ir AL COST 1311.0 o&M COSTS 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324,0 I TOTAL ANNUAL ;::.:,s T 1311.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.J 324,0 A~NUAL DISCOL~· RATE@lO¾ 1 0.909 0.826 0.751 0.683 0.621 0.564 0.513 0.467 0.424 0.386 0.35 0.319 NET PRESikT WORTH 13'1.0 294.5 I 267.6 243.3 221.3 201.2 182.7 166.2 151.3 137.4 125.1 113.4 103.4 I f(\ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 21 23 24 25 ...... , ...... -t' ...... 5 •• CAPlfAL COST I o&M costs 324.0 324.0 °'(\J 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.,l :w,.o 324.0 TOTAL ANNUAL C~ST 324.0 324.0 ~ 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324 .o 324.0 ANNUAL DISCOUN- RATE@10¾ 0.29 0.263 0.239 I 0.218 0.198 0.18 0.164 0.149 0.13S 0.123 0.112 o. 101 0.092 0 NET PRES~Nr 'o/ORTH 94.0 85.2 77.4 70.6 64,2 58.3 53.1 48.3 43.7 39.9 36.3 32.7 29.8 I 26 27 28 29 30 TOTAL ·--- ...... ~••- ...... ~ ...... ltEt PRESE!l.f I CAPITAL COST llORTK o&M COSTS 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 (T HOUSANO $ I s ) WTAL ANNUAL c~sr 324.0 324.0 324.0 324,0 324.0 I ANNuAL 01scou~· OTF.ii110X C.084 0.076 0.069 0.063 0,057 I NET PRES£~i IJOR:TH 27.2 24.6 22.4 20.4 18.5 436S.O I (~\,I-G\l2B) I I I I I I I , I COST 'E• TIAI ,11 I I 000 I C,49 IT AL COST 12s2.o ~ COSTS 324.0 124.0 lZ4.0 12,.0 324.0 JZ4,0 ru.o u,.o lZ4,I) Ht..O :m,.o u,.o TOTAL ANNUAL ,csr \252.0 I 124.0 124.0 324.Q 324.0 324.0 32•.0 324.0 12,.0 12,.0 12,.0 124.0 324.0 t.ltw..lll Ott~• Ri\tli\Ol Q.909 0.126 o.n, 0,613 G,62\ O.t64 G,\11 0.467 0.414 0,116 '·" 0.1ft 12S2.Q 294.5 261.6 241,l 22t.l to, .z tl!.7 , ... 2 ,,, .J 131.4 \8,1 ,n., I 'G'S.4 I \4 \1 20 11 14 lS ,._,. ••••• •• ••••r.,.•• • •• • ,._ • ••• •••• •• • • ••••--••• .... ••••••+•••..-•••"'•••••a-•+ .... ,,_ • .,,._ • ..,.., ••+II•••••~•••••• CAPlHl COST OP COSfS 324.0 324.0 12,.0 324.0 w,.o 324.0 124.0 12,.e 12,.0 J24.0 12,.0 124 .0 ll4.0 I lOTlL AAMUAl CO\T 324.0 324.0 324,0 12,.0 Z24.0 124.0 12,.0 n,.o 124.Q 121,.0 12,.0 u,.o 124.0 AN:.UAL OISCWNi IATEa~oi 0.29 o.,?Al 0.239 o.z,a 0. 198 o. 11 0. 164 0.149 0.1n o.,n 0.112 o. ,o, 0.092 I NET PRESE!!T l,(ORTM 94.0 85.Z n., 70.6 64.2 58.l SJ, I 41.l 43.7 39.9 )6.3 12.7 H.1 I 26 7.7 2B 29 lO fOfA'- ,...... Jfll 'IIUIHT I CAPITAL COST WClfUII OIJ-I COSTS 124.0 l2:4. O 324.0 324.0 324.0 ('t!IQJSAHO S, I I) TOTAl AUNUAl cosr 324.0 3-2,.o 324.0 324,0 J24.0 I ANNUAL DISCOUNT RAfEit~ 0.004 0.076 0.069 o.063 O.OS7 27.2 24.6 22.4 20.4 ,a.s I I (LP\«i\/28) I I I I ii I 11 I Ai.flt•Afl~ G\f·l(I): \CW c»tt44 COSTI I 'LUIDlZIO WIOlt HO 1t11tt nvn, 'OTll COST c,-.,.ur «w,f u, Ulllt 1.111:T COIT fOU\ COIT CO(Kflffl f~TOI eon ~ ~ ••• t • ~ ••• I ...... ' ...... • ...... " + ...... " •• ~ .. .., ,. a • • • • • • 11rr ,.r~••1r10,, H,000 lS,000 O,M 14, 7'0 "' IUM WI~~ tfo.,:twt•' 9 Vl1.1.I 11,000 .. ,.ooo 0.9' 142,154 I MM,a:f Oil(~ J7 1•1•: l)U.1111 :•t~l~I. 1\01 V MO lt0,,000 o.M 149,150 r1.0:A!!111: l!Vl9S 10 ilU(ltl H,000 MO,OOG o.M n,,000 ~ :11s·, .. 1. zc UH U,000 a.M Hi',000 I ,,,1., L' NI la,000 "°·*M,000 a.'1 17,600 L{\ tlt•Uc.l • 11 lfCN I11G ttlAlNlMt S•ITfM: I OH lCl/1..U lPSUK 135,004 U5,QOO Lt us.ooc Ofl,W.f(f 11, l, IUM ll4,QOO ll6,000 LO 1\6,WO ,1.ulO ltD tUCf .. , ... IU,000 ll5,000 ,.. '35,0IQ I ,i'IIIGI 11\,oMPS \ I.I NC. \bS,000 US,000 t.fl w., .. no ILICJi £ fMSftuM \ vu W,000 US,000 t.91 SU,714 \ ,,o,,ooo ltQt ,000 ARCI L l!X.HPMT \JU O.t\ '"·"° I OTll'H '10C fJJrt.S \ u~ u W,000 US,000 6.fl l:61,7'S4 ll(ALfll t tU(lT 21, tlEUS '4,000 196,0GO 11&1 OHICH OUllHG f.9\ .. ,.200 UCAYll lGII; IIJfv Aldi IIDIUtQIS -L ...... ■ ...... 4-·••.f ...... ,...... ·- ,...... ··•- ...... I ...... _ ...... ,...... I 11,a,.na fOfAL CAPITAL COST , ...... ,...... ll ,Zll,000 I I I AL THlf,HI wt GV·ZCll: •IGII c»IT4 C0$1S I flUIOIZfD CAIIOI lfO lf#SI ffYJ 11 T~T.AL COIT CCl"IV.,,IIIUIT ~:TJTT UttlT Ulflf CCSf fOTltl ~f CCRMlltTI ,,cr01 COIT I ...... "' ... ' • C • ~ ~ •••• ...... ~ .. -1- • - .. ...- + ...... ,._ •• ...... ••• .. ••II• .. SUI Hflt.ft" 1011 i Ll"IUM IS, OC-0 IS,000 t.t \.S,ffl> WILL .«r . ..:t.Ml:11.f 9 wu.u IS,OGO u,.ooo '49,,oo I uu,.:1 ,..,,., syrt•: "' OtllU : •s•An 2f00 l, HO tUK,000 I.I IJT5,SOO no.r:•~ .,..,., 20 .,.,.11\#1 IJ,0® t.o,000 '-' ~.000 I ,._. :•rs-.. 1. zo n.000 ttQ,000 Lt 166,000 ,,,11G L'U ,.,r,oo S,,000 t.l l&,800 lfCWGI ••tl!CIIIIUG (IW·Sffij tolL 'LUINllfGJ: llMO U,OU A 10,000 GPO I s•,Ll~ ·•r-c• 1,s·•1.1. 1500 Lf u,.oo 137,SOO IIJ(CtlON IATI 1. \ \41 ,2SO '°~ fRJ(C!: :a .._.., l' IIUJ(JS u.soo 17,000 f.1 17,700 C',. ,1,1~ \,, 1W US,000 HS,000 f.l ua.wo N I fLICf ' : aJTllt,Ot u•u uo,ooc lle,000 f.l 122,0DO r1.1tcr:,. • AJrt; 1 L' UC S10,0CC StC,~ 1.0 tf0,000 """"'0 , ...,o. '£ED SUtl• " .. M,000 U,000 LO 15,000 I ltlJet.lllG, trCAYlTl~ IOIU ftCll fllli(k fJU.Y.U IOlt: fXCA'IA•E 2000 c, l\5 U0,000 1. 1 Ul,000 Olf·llfl 11.&i,;(.fN 1000 c, U.00 16.COO ~10 OIi Sltt TC GIAVII. l., '6,600 I ,1,s; rwr10 v14 GIClmO l#Afll ~A•(t •·[lfM(~f lt\.Allt · ,u1.lKlllJ.lT 1Atl""'101I: I iOfL ,: •• 4000 CT u, w,,,.,oao t,I 17G,40Cl 1UIVf,r:,; v, IUM H,QOQ u.~ LI IS,500 ft(ATM(k! s•s·,-~ I OHICI/.J.I \,Ju \15,{JQO in,oco f.O SJS,000 Oll/W:lfll Sfit, LJ SIil 116,000 S16,00ll 1.0 t16,000 'LUIO U: tU(f ,.,. tJS,000 IJS,000 LO llS,000 I JI fl lK/PUl!Pt LJI IUK W,000 165,000 t.t 171,SOO lll(ft & ,lt$T"" LJ 114' s.a,.ooo M.S,000 f.1 S9l,SOO uca 1ia.:"'~ t..JIIIR 1101.000 110\ ,DClO '-' it 11,100 I 0,1111 P«c u..ws LJIUM 1.65,000 M.S,OOC ,.t 171,SOG ~'- & su1~~ 1' lilfU:S 14,000 196,000 di OHIUt lltlfUNS '-1 ltOS,600 ffCAVA f ION; RUu AMO I tHPIUTGH I l1,090,4SO 1119 ,tso 1218,090 11 .,za,,to ••••••••••• ~rRATE tOfAL rAPlfAl COST U,421,000 I (Rl·MI) I ...... _·__ ... _ ·_. - . . . ______" ______:~_.:___: ___ .. _ ... ____ ...... , . ..:..,. . . . ' ' I I •LT(INATlVE GW·ZI: MIGK Pl£SENT WORTH ANALYSIS I CAPITAL CO$f 1,2a.o I ,&14 COSTS 324.0 12,.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.1) 324.0 f0TAl ANNUAL 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 c:~r 1,21.0 324.0 324.0 324,0 124.0 324.0 324,0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 AMi!VAL OISCOIJM' •lT(QIO,, , 0.909 a.au 0.7S1 G.613 0.621 0.564 0.513 0.467 0.424 0.386 0.1; 0.]iq I \428.0 %94,S 267.6 241.3 221.] 20\.2 1&2.7 \66,2 151.3 117,4 l2S.\ l\3,4 103.4 I r-- n 14 15 17 19 20 21 21 23 25 ...... ~ ...... ,...... ,..., ...... CAPITAL. COST I o&M COSTS 324,.o 324.0 324.0 12,.0 324.0 °'N 324.0 324.0 324.0 12,.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 T0fAL ANNUAL ccs· 324 .o 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 12,.0 124.0 321,.0 32,.0 324.0 ~WA.\. IUKOJMT UlH,\O\ 324.0 324.0 324.0 ll.29 O.Ul 0.2li 0.21, ~- i~i O. \& o. \64 o.v,<> 0 I 0.\35 0. \23 O.H2 (I. 10\ 0,092 NET PREse,· l«ltTH 94.0 ii.Z n.4 70.6 64.2 sa.1 !t3. \ I 48.3 43.7 39.9 3(d 32.7 29.8 lit 27 28 29 30 lOTAL ...... 4.~"'"'•-~ I CAP I UL COST IIU PiEs(Nl lA'llHH ~ COSTS 124.0 324.0 :m,.o 324,0 124.l) tlllruSANO l 'S) rOTAL AAIIUA~ cos~ 324.0 324.0 32,.0 u,.o 324.0 ...... -... .., ...... llfMU.ll DI SC(Uf T U ':' U 101 I 0.034 0,076 0.069 0.063 0.057 NET Pf!ESE,t:' .iotlfH 27.2 24.6. 22.11 I 20., !8.5 4482.0 ...... ~··· ...... I CIIPWG\128) I I I I I I ~--·---~.--- ..~~·--_,, _ __::__ •. ·.. :_ .:.. • ~---~--'-~--~~-~:':~-:~,-~~: ~·~:~~-c---~--~--,~---~-~-~~ ,; • - :·, -~ - • ' • • .. ,.- - .. • + ~ > r J ,o • \ _ I . . . I S(XJRCE INfORHATJON f~R J!AJOk COST ITEMS I Hf.r\L TH & SAi"EfY $4000/UEEK; ASSUMES LABOR cosr Of $)0.00/HC(JR; $800 ROUNO TRIP; i2c:;wEfK FOR RESP(RATOR; I $150/1/EEK FOR A HNU; ANO APPROX S85G/WEEK EXPENSES IIELL MON I TO/WIG $1000/WELL; LABOR AHO 1988 nus ANALYTICAL COSTS I EXCAVATION $15/CY; MEANS, 022 254.0050,1988 + HEAUlf&SAfEfY I $3/CY; MEANS, 022 266.1150, 1988 + HEALTH&SAFETY SOIL FILL $16/CY; KEYSTONE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES (KER) ESTIMAtE I SURVEYIIIG KEP. ESflMATE o:J SUBSURfACf DRAIN SYSTEM ORA!MS $50/LF; COsf FROH ERT PREVJO'JS REPORTS °'N I PUMPS $3,000/P\JMP; cosr FR()! ERT PREVIOUS REPORTS SUMP $3,000/SUMP; COST FROM ERT PREVIOUS REPORTS PtPIHG ta,000; COST fROH ERT PREVIOUS REl>ORtS 0 '£CHARGE TtfNCHING I TRENCH INSTALLATION ICER ESllHATE INJECrfON PI.Jf,4PS tER ESWIAtE Pfl>lltG ICER UTIMATE I ELECt t fNSTfl:UM KER ESTIMATE INJECTION TANK KER ESTIMAfE I CHEMICAL FEEO SYSTEM tER ESTIMATE OHJCE/LAI tER ESTIMME Ofl/UATER StPARAYOR KER ESTIMAtE I ACTIVATEO CARSON TREATMENT All ASSOCIATED COSTS ARE KER ESTIMATES SYSTEM I fLUIDIZEO CARBON SEO REACTOR All ASSOCIATEO COSTS ARE KER ESTIMATES I (G\l·SWRC) I I I I