4 9 co- feasibility study report barber orchard site ...4 9 0 feasibility study report section: toc...
TRANSCRIPT
4 9 CO-
Feasibility Study Report Barber Orchard Site
Haywood County, North Carolina
10086119
Prepared under
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
EPA Work Assignment 034-RICO-A4T9 Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
Barber Orchard Site
Prepared by
Black and Veatch Special Projects Corporation 1145 Sanctuary Parkway, Suite 475
Alpharetta, Georgia 30004
July 30, 2003
Feasibility Study Report Section TOC EPA Contract No."68-W.99043 Revision No. I Work AssignmcflrNtf 034-R1CO-A4T9 Revision Dale: J u l ^ ^ O O j
..Barber Orchard file.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 Site Background 1-2
1.1.1 Site Description 1-2 1.1.2 Operational History 1-4 1.1.3 Previous Investigations 1-5
1.2 Nature and Extent of Contamination 1-5 1.2.1 Soil Analytical Results 1-7
1.2.1.1 Surface Soil 1-7 1.2.1.2 Subsurface Soil 1-9 1.2.1.3 Surface Conclusions 1-12
1.2.2 Groundwater Contamination 1-12 1.2.2.1 Groundwater Analytical Results 1-13 1.2.2.2 Groundwater Conclusions 1-14
1.2.3 Surface Water and Sediment Contamination 1-15 1.2.3.1 Surface Water 1-15 1.2.3.2 Sediment 1-16 1.2.3.3 Conclusions 1-16
1.3 Contaminant Fate and Transport 1-18 1.3.1 Soils 1-18 1.3.2 Groundwater 1-19 1.3.3 Surface Water and Sediment 1-20 1.3.4 Air 1-21
1.4 Risk Assessment 1.4.1 Human Health 1.4.2 Ecological . ^ ^ ^ 4
2.0 IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING OF TECHNOLOGIES 2-1 2.1 Remedial Action Objectives 2-1
2.1.1 Surface Soil and Sediment RAOs 2-2 2.1.2 Subsurface Soil RAOs 2-2 2.1.3 Groundwater RAOs 2-3 2.1.4 Surface Water RAOs 2-3
I
4 9 CO
feasibility Study Report Section: TOC EPA Contract No 68-W-09043 Revision No. I Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 30. 2003 Barber Orchard Site Page 11 of is
2.2 CERCLA Compliance with ARARs '. 2-3 2.2.1 Chemical-Specific ARARs 2-5 2.2.2 Action-Specific ARARs 2-8 2.2.3 Location-Specific ARARs 2-8
2.3 Delineation of Areas and Volumes of Contaminated Media 2-8 2.3.1 Area and Volume of Contaminated Soil 2-8
2.3.1.1 Pesticide Distribution Lines 2-9 2.3.1.2 Surface Soil 2-9
2.3.2 Area and Volume of Contaminated Groundwater 2-10 2.4 General Response Actions 2-11 2.5 Identification and Screening Process 2-12 2.6 Technology Identification and Screening Results 2-14
2.6.1 No Action 2-15 2.6.2 Soil Technologies 2-15
2.6.2.1 Institutional Controls 2-15 2.6.2.2 Containment 2-16 2.6.2.3 Collection/Removal 2-17 2.6.2.4 Treatment 2-17 2.6.2.5 Disposal 2-19
2.6.3 Groundwater Technologies 2-20 2.6.3.1 Institutional Controls 2-20 2.6.3.2 Engineering Controls 2-23 2.6.3.3 Collection/Removal 2-23 2.6.3.4 Treatment 2-23 2.6.3.5 Disposal 2-24
3.0 DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES 3-1 3.1 Basis for Alternative Development 3-1 3.2 Description of Alternatives for Soil 3-2
3.2.1 Alternative SI: No Action 3-3 3.2.2 Alternative S2: Institutional Controls and Monitoring 3-3 3.2.3 Alternative S3: Capping, Institutional Controls and Monitoring 3-4 3.2.4 Alternative S4: Excavation, Treatment, and Off-Site Disposal of
Treated Soil 3-5 3.2.4.1 Residential Areas 3-5 3.2.4.2 Pesticide Distribution Piping 3-6
3.2.5 Alternative S5: Excavation, Treatment, and On-site (Point of Origin) Disposal of Contaminated Soil, Institutional Controls, and Monitoring 3-7
n
Feasibility Study Report Section: TOC EPA Contract No. 68-W.oo.043 Revision No. 1 Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date. Jul^S^J003 Barber Orchard Site J^^Mtix
3.2.6 Alternative S6: Excavation, Treatment, On-site Encapsulation in an Engineered Cell, Institutional Controls and Monitoring 3-9
3.2.7 Alternative S7: Phytoremediation 3-12 3.3 Description of Alternatives for Groundwater 3-13
3.3.1 Alternative GW1: No Action 3-14 3.3.2 Alternative GW2: Institutional, Engineering Controls, and
Monitored Natural Attenuation 3-14 3.3.3 Alternative GW3: Extraction of Groundwater, Abo veground
Treatment, and Discharge to a NPDES-permitted Outfall 3-15 3.4 Alternatives Retained for Detailed Analysis 3-16 3.5 Bench and Pilot Scale Treatability Studies 3-17
4.0 DETAILED EVALUATION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES 4-1 4.1 Introduction 4-1 4.2 Remedial Alternatives for Soil 4-2
4.2.1 Alternative SI - No Action 4-2 4.2.1.1 Description 4-2 4.2.1.2 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment . .4-3 4.2.1.3 Compliance with ARARs 4-3 4.2.1.4 Long-Term Effectiveness 4-3 4.2.1.5 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume 4-3 4.2.1.6 Short-Term Effectiveness 4-3 4.2.1.7 Implementability 4-3 4.2.1.8 Cost 4-3
4.2.2 Alternative S2 - Institutional Controls and Long-Term Monitoring . . . 4-4 4.2.2.1 Description ^flfctf 4.2.2.2 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment^^H 4.2.2.3 Compliance with ARARs ^ B R 4.2.2.4 Long-Term Effectiveness 4-5 4.2.2.5 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume 4-5 4.2.2.6 Short-Term Effectiveness 4-5 4.2.2.7 Implementability 4-5 4.2.2.8 Cost 4-5
4.2.3 Alternative S4 - Excavation, Treatment, and Off-site Disposal of Treated Soil 4-6 4.2.3.1 Description 4-6 4.2.3.2 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment . .4 -6 4.2.3.3 Compliance with ARARs 4-7 4.2.3.4 Long-Term Effectiveness 4-7
iii
4 9 0
Feasibility Study Report Section: TOC EPA Contract No. 68-W-99043 Revision No. 1 Work Assignment No 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date July 30. 2003 Barber Orchard Site Page iv of it
4.2.3.5 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume 4-7 4.2.3.6 Short-Term Effectiveness . ' . . . 4-7 4.2.3.7 Implementability 4-7 4.2.3.8 Cost 4-8
4.2.4 Alternative S5 - Excavation, Treatment, and On-site Disposal (Point of Origin) of Treated Soil 4-8 4.2.4.1 Description 4-8 4.2.4.2 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment . .4-9 4.2.4.3 Compliance with ARARs 4-9 4.2.4.4 Long-Term Effectiveness 4-9 4.2.4.5 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume 4-10 4.2.4.6 Short-Term Effectiveness 4-10 4.2.4.7 Implementability 4-10 4.2.4.8 Cost 4-10
4.2.5 Alternative S6 - Excavation, Treatment, On-site Encapsulation in an Engineered Cell 4-11 4.2.5.1 Description 4-11 4.2.5.2 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment .4-12 4.2.5.3 Compliance with ARARs 4-12 4.2.5.4 Long-Term Effectiveness 4-12 4.2.5.5 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume 4-12 4.2.5.6 Short-Term Effectiveness 4-12 4.2.5.7 Implementability 4-13 4.2.5.8 Cost 4-13
4.2.6 Alternative S7 - Phytoremediation 4-13 4.2.6.1 Description 4-13 4.2.6.2 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment .4-14 4.2.6.3 Compliance with ARARs 4-14 4.2.6.4 Long-Term Effectiveness 4-14 4.2.6.5 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume 4-14 4.2.6.6 Short-Term Effectiveness 4-15 4.2.6.7 Implementability 4-15 4.2.6.8 Cost 4-15
4.3 Remedial Alternatives for Groundwater 4-15 4.3.1 Alternative GW1 - No Action 4-15
4.3.1.1 Description 4-15 4.3.1.2 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment . 4-16 4.3.1.3 Compliance with ARARs 4-16 4.3.1.4 Long-Term Effectiveness 4-16
iv
Feasibility Study Report Section: TOC EPA Contract No. 68-W-99043 Revision No 1 Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4P5 Revision Date: Ju l \^^003 Barber Orchard Site ^ ^ ^ ^ V
4.3.1.5 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume 4-16 4.3.1.6 Short-Term Effectiveness 4-16 4.3.1.7 Implementability 4-16 4.3.1.8 Cost 4-16
4.3.2 Alternative GW2 - Institutional Controls, Alternative Water Supply, Well Abandonment, and MNA 4-17 4.3.2.1 Description 4-17 4.3.2.2 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment .4-18 4.3.2.3 Compliance with ARARs 4-18 4.3.2.4 Long-Term Effectiveness 4-18 4.3.2.5 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume 4-18 4.3.2.6 Short-Term Effectiveness 4-19 4.3.2.7 Implementability 4-19 4.3.2.8 Cost 4-19
4.3.3 Alternative GW3 - Groundwater Extraction, Treatment and Discharge to an NPDES-permitted Outfall 4-19 4.3.3.1 Description 4-19 4.3.3.2 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment .4-20 4.3.3.3 Compliance with ARARs 4-20 4.3.3.4 Long-Term Effectiveness 4-20 4.3.3.5 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume 4-20 4.3.3.6 Short-Term Effectiveness 4-21 4.3.3.7 Implementability 4-21 4.3.3.8 Cost 4-21
5.0 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES . ^ ^ U 5.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment ^ ^ ^ B 5.2 Compliance with ARARs ^ ^ K 5.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence 5-3 5.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume Through Treatment 5-4 5.5 Short-Term Effectiveness 5-6 5.6 Implementability 5-7 5.7 Cost '. 5-8
6.0 REFERENCES 6-1
v
4 9 00
Feasibility Study Report EPA Contract No. 68-W-99043 Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Barber Orchard Site
LIST OF APPENDICES
Section: TOC Revision No. I
Revision Date: July 30. 2003 Page vi of i.x
A Arsenic Mobility in Soils B Example North Carolina LURD C Preliminary Engineering Report - Water Service Improvements, Barber Orchard
Service Area D Soil Stabilization Treatability Study Scope of Work
LIST OF ADDENDA
Addendum 1: Nonresidential Arsenic in Soil RGOs
LIST OF TABLES
1 •2
3 4 5
1-6 2-1
2-2 2-3
2-4 2-5 2-6 2-7 2-8 2-9
10 1
4-1 4-2
Remedial Goal Options for Surface Soil Residential Land Use Remedial Goal Options for Surface Soil Commercial Use and Livestock Production Remedial Goal Options for Subsurface Soil Remedial Goal Options for Overburden Groundwater Remedial Goal Options for Bedrock Groundwater Remedial Goal Options for Richland Creek Surface Water Remedial Action Objectives, General Response Actions, and Remedial Technology Types Potential Chemical-Specific ARARs Proposed Remedial Goal Options for Soil Based on Residential and Nonresidential Land Use Preliminary Remedial Goal Options for Soil Leaching to Groundwater Pathway Proposed Remedial Goal Options for Groundwater Based on Residential Land Use Summary of Contaminants of Concern Potential Action-Specific ARARs Potential Location-Specific ARARs Screening of Remedial Technologies and Process Options for Soil Screening of Remedial Technologies and Process Options for Groundwater Development of Soil Alternatives Development of Groundwater Alternatives Cost Estimate for Alternative S2 - Institutional Controls and Monitoring Cost Estimate for Alternative S4 - Excavation, Treatment, and Off-Site Disposal
vi
Feasibility Study Repon Section: :OC EPA Contract No 68-W-99043 Revision No 1 Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: Jul^ Barber Orchard Site P j
Julv^^ft03
4-3 Cost Estimate for Alternative S5 - Excavation, Treatment, and On-Site (Point of Origin) Disposal, Institutional Controls, and Monitoring
4-4 Cost Estimate for Alternative S6 - Excavation, Treatment, On-Site Engineering Cell, Institutional Controls, and Monitoring
4-5 Cost Estimate for Alternative S7 - Phytoremediation 4-6 Cost Estimate for Alternative GW2 - Alternate Water Supply Construction, Well
Abandonment, Institutional Controls, and MNA 4-7 Cost Estimate for Alternative GW4 - Groundwater Extraction, Treatment, and Discharge 5-1 Summarv of Soil and Groundwater Alternative Costs
LIST OF FIGURES
1 -1 Barber Orchard Location Map 1-2 Topographic Relief Map 1 -3 Location of Surface Soil Grab Samples 1-4 Distribution of Phase II Sample Grids and Grab Sample Distribution 1-5 Soil Sample Data Applied to 5-Acre Parcels 1-6 Arsenic and Lead Detections Assigned to Surface Soil Grids 1 -7 Arsenic and Lead Detections on Photographic Base Map 1-8 Pesticide and PCB Detections Assigned to Surface Soil Grids 1 -9 Subsurface Soil Sample Location Map 1-10 Arsenic and Lead Detections in Subsurface Soils 1-11 Pesticide Detections in Subsurface Soils 1-12 Groundwater Sampling Locations 1-13 Arsenic and Lead Detections in Groundwater 1-14 Pesticide Detections in Groundwater 1-15 Surface Water and Sediment Sample Locations 1-16 Arsenic and Lead Detections in Surface Water 1-17 Pesticide Detections in Surface Water 1-18 Arsenic and Lead Detections in Sediment 1-19 Pesticide and PCB Detections in Sediment 2-1 Land Considered for Remediation 2-2 Lindane Concentrations > MCL in Groundwater 3-1 Possible Soil Stockpile/Treatment Areas 3-2 Proposed Groundwater Treatment Area (Alternative GW3)
vn
4 9 r . .->. •">
••.; u 'u
Feasibility Study Report EPA Contract No. 68-W-99043 Wotk Assignment No 034-RICO-A4T9 Barber Orchard Site
Section TOC Revision No. 1
Revision Date: July 30. 2003 Page viii of ix
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ug/L micrograms per liter ARAR applicable or relevant and appropriate response bgs below ground surface BHC betahexachlorocyclohexane BHHRA baseline human health risk assessment CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act cm/sec centimeters per second COC contaminant of concern COPC contaminant of potential concern DDD dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane DDE dichlorodiphenyldichloroethene DDT dichlorodiphenyltiichloroethane EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ER emergency response FS feasibility study gpm gallons per minute HI hazard index ICIP Institutional Control Implementation Plan LTM long-term monitoring LURD land-use restriction document MCL maximum contaminant level mg/kg milligrams per kilogram MNA monitored natural attenuation NCAC North Carolina Annotated Code NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan NPDES National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System O&M operation and maintenance PRG preliminary remediation goal RAO remedial action objective RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RGO remedial goal objective RI remedial investigation ROD record of decision RS restricted SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 SCML secondary maximum contaminant limit SESD Science and Ecosystems Support Division (EPA)
Vll l
Feasibility Study Report Section: TOC EPA Contract No. 68-W-99043 Revision No 1 Work Assignment No 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date J u l ^ f e ^ 0 3 Barber Orchard Site
SLERA screening-level ecological risk assessment SSL soil screening level SVOC semivolatile organic compound TBC to be considered TCLP toxicity characteristic leaching procedure TSD treatment, storage, and disposal VOC volatile organic compound
IX
4 9 0 0
Feasibility Study Report EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Work Assignment No 034-RICO-A4T9 Barber Orchard Site
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has initiated remedial investigation RI)/feasibility
study (FS) activities for the Barber Orchard site in Waynesville, Haywood County, North Carolina.
The RI/FS process is the methodology authorized by the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 as amended by the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) (i.e., Superfund program) for characterizing the nature and
extent of contamination and evaluating potential remedial options for risks to human health and the
environment posed by uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. Subpart F of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) establishes methods and criteria for
determining the appropriate extent of response authorized by CERCLA, as amended by SARA, and
outlines procedures for determining the nature and extent of contamination at a site as well as the
appropriate extent of remedy for the site.
This technical memorandum was prepared by Black and Veatch Special Projects Corp. (Black and
Veatch) for the EPA Region 4 under Contract Number 68-W-99-043, EPA Work Assignment
Number 034-RICO-A4T9 with assistance of their team subcontractor, Shaw Environmental, Inc.
This report fulfills the requirements of Task 12 of the approved EPA project work plan for the
Barber Orchard site dated November 21,2000 (Black and Veatch, 2001). This memorandum was
written in accordance with the document Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and
Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA (Interim Final), Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Directive 9355.3-01 (EPA, 1988a).
This technical memorandum presents the initial phases of the FS process for evaluating remedial
alternatives for the Barber Orchard site. The process consists of developing and evaluating remedial
action alternatives through the step-by-step development and evaluation of cleanup objectives,
general response actions, remedial technologies, and alternatives.
This document is organized into three sections. A description of the site and the site history are
summarized in this section. The nature and extent of contamination at the site and summaries of the
baseline human health risk assessment (BHHRA) and screening-level ecological risk assessment
Section I Revision No. 1
Revision Date: July 30, 2003 Page I of 24
Feasibility Sludy Report Section I EPA Contract No. 68-W-9°-043 Revision No. 1 Work Assignment No 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Dote: Ju l>J^^£3 Barber Orchard Site Pa
(SLERA) are also presented. In Section 2.0, remedial action objectives (RAO) are developed to
address the risks presented to human health and the environment by the site contamination.
Response actions are developed which will satisfy the RAOs. A wide range of technologies that are
applicable to the response actions and site characteristics are identified and screened which leads to
the assembly of alternatives. Effectiveness, implementability, and relative costs are the criteria used
to screen the technologies during this phase. In Section 3.0, general response actions and the process
options chosen to represent the various technology types are combined to form remedial action
alternatives. A range of remedial alternatives are developed from retained process options. The
alternatives are presented in Section 4.0. A summary and comparison of alternatives is presented
in Section 5.0. References cited in this document are presented in Section 6.0.
1.1 Site Background
1.1.1 Site Description
Barber Orchard is located in Hayvvood County, North Carolina, near the town of Waynesville
(Figure l-l). This area is depicted on the U.S. Geological Survey (1990) Hazelwood 7.5-minute
quadrangle. The geographic coordinates of the site are North Carolina State Plane Northing 791750
and Easting 641922. The site is located in the Blue Ridge physiographic province.
The former orchard occupies approximately 500 acres and was used to grow apples from li
1988. Topography across Barber Orchard is varied. The property is located on a northwest-'
slope situated between the Blue Ridge Parkway and U.S. Highway 23/74. The sections of the
property located nearest to US 23/74 are relatively flat, as they are located in the flood plain of
Richland Creek. To the southeast, the property rises sharply as it nears the Blue Ridge Parkway.
Surface elevations across Barber Orchard range from approximately 2.900 feet above mean sea level
along Richland Creek to around 4,000 feet above mean sea level at the property line for the Blue
Ridge Parkway (U.S. Geological Survey, 1990).
Figure 1-2 illustrates the topographic relief across the site. Variations in topography are controlled
by the underlying geology. Based on the drill logs, in general, where topography is most steep,
bedrock is close to the surface and flat areas tend to have thicker overburden. Of particular interest
4 9 Feasibility Study Rcpon Section I EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-W3 Revision No. 1 Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 30.2003 Barber Orchard Site Page 3 of 24
is the area between Streams B and D on Figure 1 -2, where the topography is characterized by a
relatively flat surface atop a fairly thick overburden zone. This flat zone consists of valley fill
(colluvium) that slopes upward from US 23/74 to just below the Blue Ridge Parkway. This area also
corresponds to the highest density of houses inside the former Orchard.
Paved and unpaved (single vehicle) roads are present along the hillsides to provide access to the
residential properties. Much of the property is terraced to allow the growing of apple trees on the
hillside. Apple trees are still present on some of the property. Although the former orchard occupies
a parcel of land that is approximately 500 acres, the RI extended to the edges of the watershed and
covered a parcel of approximately 725 acres. The boundaries of the watershed are defined by the
mountain top to the south, Richland Creek to the north, and two unnamed tributaries to
Richland Creek labeled Stream A (to the west) and Stream H (to the east) on Figure 1-2. Included
within the watershed boundaries are a mix of residential, agricultural, commercial, and undeveloped
properties.
The subsurface geology at Barber Orchard consists of unconsolidated soils and colluvium overlying
metamorphic bedrock. Bedrock consists of Biotite Gneiss of unknown stratigraphic position (North
Carolina Geological Survey, 1985). The unconsolidated materials consist of saprolite (weathered
bedrock that contains relic structures), soils (residuum created by weathering of bedrock), and
colluvium (poorly sorted soils, boulders, and cobbles deposited by gravity). This mantle of material
overlying bedrock tends to be thinner on steep slopes and prominences and thicker towards the valley
bottoms. The colluvium is most common in low-lying areas. Surface soils at the site consist of fine-
to medium-grained sands, silts and clays, and silty sands that transition to saprolite.
Groundwater occurs in both the unconsolidated materials and bedrock, with no evident barrier
between these groundwater zones. Groundwater occurrence is widespread in the overburden but is
restricted to fractures in bedrock. Bedrock wells located on the property range in depth from
approximately 100 feet below ground surface (bgs) to more than 700 feet bgs, and include both
potable water wells and monitoring wells installed during the RI field work. Groundwater in the
overburden is exploited to a limited extent, as is indicated by a few hand-dug wells and springs,
while most of the groundwater used in the area is extracted from bedrock wells. Groundwater
recharge occurs through surface water infiltration or precipitation. Groundwater discharge occurs
Feasibility Study Report Section I EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No I Work Assignment No 034-R1CO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 3fl Barber Orchard Site
ulv3t^UD3
through seepage into area creeks. The major surface water feature near the former orchard is
Richland Creek, located along the northern boundary of the site. Seven tributaries to Richland Creek
flow across the site and convey water from the higher elevations. At sporadic locations along some
of these tributaries a few small ponds are constructed.
1.1.2 Operational History The site is a former apple orchard that operated from 1908 to 1988. Apples were grown
commercially and harvested until bankruptcy closed the orchard. As with many commercial
agricultural operations, pesticides were commonly used. The pesticides were mixed at one or more
mixing stations, drained downhill to a compressor building, and pumped back up to the orchard
under considerable pressure (800 pounds per square inch) through an underground system of pipes.
The former mixing area is shown on Figure 1-2. This mixing area consisted of two 500-gallon
concrete tanks; allegedly, spills had occurred in this area (EPA, 2001a). Interviews with a former
orchard employee were conducted by EPA personnel who indicate that no diagrams showing the
location of the piping exist. A former employee of the orchard described the system as consisting
of five main lines which went up the hillside from the compressor at the orchard building located
at the base of the hill. The lines were 3- to 4-inch black iron. The central line went up to the mixing
area along the creek, with two additional lines on each side. The spacing of these main lines is not
documented. The main lines all had laterals consisting of I -inch black iron piping. Several of these
lines can still be seen in the road cuts for streets put in during development of the pros
Standpipes were installed approximately every 200 to 250 feet along the laterals. The stanj
were removed when operation of the system ceased. According to the former employee, the system
was used for pesticide spraying until the piping leakage became so bad that it was no longer efficient
to use. For several years after that it was used exclusively for water irrigation only. Eventually the
operators stopped using it altogether (Personal Communication, 2003).
The pipes were routinely flushed to prevent clogging; any pesticides present in the pipes were left
to run onto the ground. Reportedly, pipes would sometimes freeze and rupture in the winter, causing
them to leak. Information obtained from the former orchard operators and the North Carolina
Department of Agriculture Extension Agent indicated that the following pesticides were used at the
site: Captan, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), lead arsenate, Lorsban/Dursban, Lindane, and
Maneb. During the period when apples were produced commercially, it is suspected that long-term
4 9 nn<
Feasibility Study Report Section t
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. I
Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 30. 2003
Barber Orchard Site Page 5 of 24
application of pesticides and isolated spills occurred. Pesticides suspected at the site include lead
arsenate, DDT, Lindane, dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (DDD), endrin, and dieldrin (EPA, 2000;
EPA, 2001 a). After the bankruptcy, the former orchard land was parceled off and sold for residential
development
1.1.3 Previous Investigations In early 1999, the Haywood County Health Department sampled drinking water from one well at the
residence of a concerned homeowner in Barber Orchard. Pesticides were detected in this sample,
prompting a larger sampling effort by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources and the North Carolina Department of Agriculture. The larger effort sampled
approximately 90 drinking water sources (both wells and springs) and collected an undetermined
number of soil samples. This effort confirmed pesticide contamination in groundwater and arsenic,
lead, and pesticide contamination in soils. Results of this sampling were forwarded to the EPA for
an emergency response (ER) removal action evaluation in June of 1999.
In 1999, the EPA conducted additional testing of residential soils and drinking water in Barber
Orchard. Samples included 111 surface soil samples from 55 locations and 55 potable water
samples. Results showed elevated concentrations of arsenic, lead, and pesticides in soil from many
of the residential yards. In addition, pesticides were detected in samples from a majority of the
drinking water wells. Based on this data, a removal action was initiated in October 1999 and
completed by August 2000. This action removed surface soils (0 to 1 foot bgs) in the yards of
occupied properties where arsenic levels exceeded 40 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). The
excavated areas were backfilled with fill material from a source located away from the Barber
Orchard site and landscaped. The yards at 28 residences were included in this response (EPA, 2000;
EPA, 2001a).
1.2 Nature and Extent of Contamination The nature and extent of contamination identified in the RI report is summarized in this section.
Validated data from the RI field work and from samples collected by the EPA Science and
Ecosystems Support Division (SESD) in support of the ER action taken at the site in 1999 were used
to evaluate the nature and extent of contamination at the Barber Orchard Site. Further efforts to
Feasibility Study Report Section I EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. i Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Dste: J u l y ^ m ^ 3 Barber Orchard Site ? i ^ ^ ^
characterize the nature and extent of soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment contamination
at the Barber Orchard site were conducted during the RI/FS field activities conducted in June, July,
August, and November 2001, and January 2002. The field activities encompassed two phases of
work. During the Phase I field work, 14 monitoring wells and 20 soil borings were installed and
potable wells were located by a door-to-door survey. Forty-six surface soil grab samples,
2 composite surface soil samples, 45 subsurface soil samples, and 7 collocated surface water and
sediment samples were collected and submitted for analysis. Background sampling was also
conducted during this phase. Data from the Phase I sampling was used to evaluate and design the
Phase II sampling event. This included an evaluation of composite versus grab sampling for surface
soils and an evaluation and reduction in the number of parameters analyzed.
During the Phase II field work, groundwater samples were collected from 29 potable water wells and
14 monitoring wells, surface water/sediment samples were collected at 19 locations, and surface soil
composite samples were collected from 62 five-acre parcels. Each of the composite surface soil
samples was made-up of 8 individual grab samples (496 total grab samples). The results of the
investigation activities used to characterize the site were presented in the Draft Remedial
Investigation/Baseline Risk Assessment Report for the Barber Orchard site, submitted to EPA in
December 2002 (Black and Veatch, 2002), hereafter referred to as the Draft RI report.
Analyses performed for the RI generated both screening and definitive-level data. Screening
samples were collected to evaluate monitoring well screen placement during Phase I and to pi
data from the 8 samples that comprised each composite sample during Phase II. These surface soil
samples were analyzed by x-ray fluorescence for lead and arsenic to provide screening-level data for
each of the individual surface soil grab samples that were combined to prepare a composite sample
for laboratory analysis. A split sample from the composite was also analyzed by x-ray fluorescence
for comparison purposes. All other samples collected during the RI field work were analyzed to
produce definitive-level data. The laboratories used participate in the EPA Contract Laboratory
Program. Data validation was performed by EPA Region 4. With the exception of the samples
collected to determine background concentrations, all samples collected during Phase I were
analyzed for an analytical suite that included metals, organochlorine pesticides, organophosphate
pesticides, herbicides, pesticides/polychlorinated biphenyls, semivolatile organic compounds
(SVOC), and volatile organic compounds (VOC). Background samples were analyzed for metals
4 9 G O G 1
Feasibility Study Report Scclion I EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. I Work Assignment No 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 30, 2003 Barber Orchard Site Page 7 of 24
and organochlorine pesticides only. Details of the analytical program can be found in Section 3.0
of the Draft RJ report (Black and Veatch, 2002).
The EPA SESD data included analytical data from composite surface soil samples and potable water
well samples. Trie surface soil samples were incorporated into the RI data set, but the groundwater
samples were considered qualitatively only, since groundwater is transient and more recent
groundwater samples were collected during the RI field work.
The rationale for combining the data sets was discussed and selected during a conference call
between Shaw Environmental, Inc. (formerly IT Corporation [IT]) and Black and Veatch on
August 1, 2002 (Teleconference, 2002). Section 1.4 and Appendix I of the Draft RI report (Black
and Veatch, 2002) present the rationale and assumptions used to determine how the historical data
from EPA SESD data and grab sample data collected by IT were to be applied to the 5-acre grid
system.
1.2.1 Soil Analytical Results
1.2.1.1 Surface Soil. One-hundred and two 5-acre parcels were considered in the surface soil
discussion. Sixty-four of the parcels were sampled by IT and each had a composite sample
comprised of eight grab samples to represent the entire parcel. Thirty-one of the parcels have values
assigned from the composite samples collected during the ER. These grab samples were comprised
of between two and five samples. Seven parcels were assigned the values from a single surface soil
sample collected at a soil boring or monitoring well boring location. Six of the 5-acre boxes sampled
by IT also had an ER composite sample and the ER sample was deemed more contaminated;
therefore, the ER data was presented for these parcels. The method of assigning data to parcels is
presented in Section 1.4 of the Draft RI report (Black and Veatch, 2002).
Grab sampling locations for surface soils are shown in Figure 1-3. The locations of composite
samples collected by IT are shown in Figure 1-4. Figure 1-5 illustrates the distribution of grab and
composite samples collected by IT and the composite samples collected by EPA SESD during the
ER applied to the 5-acre grid parcels. The rationale for applying these data to the parcels is
explained in Section l .4 and Appendix I of the Draft RI report.
Feasibility Study Report Section I EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No I Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: Jul\ Barber Orchard Site Pa
Several inorganic and organic chemicals/analytes were detected in the surface soil. The major
groups of organic compounds detected in surface soil include chlorinated herbicides, pesticides,
S VOCs, and VOCs. The chlorinated herbicides, SVOCs, and VOCs were detected at low frequency
and low concentrations and are not used in the nature and extent discussion: however, they were used
in the risk assessments. The primary contaminants of concern (COC) for this site include arsenic,
lead, and pesticides. Tabular summaries of the surface soil data are provided in the Draft RI report
(Black and Veatch, 2002) as Tables 2.2, 4.1, and 4.2. Appendix A of the Draft RI report contains
all of the surface soil data.
Detections of arsenic, lead and pesticides are shown on Figures 1 -6, 1 -7, and 1 -8 respectively.
Figure 1-6 illustrates the distribution of arsenic and lead as applied to the 5-acre grid parcels. As
shown on the figure, arsenic was detected in 98 out of 102 5-acre parcels. All detections were at
levels exceeding the EPA Region 9 preliminary remediation goals (PRG) (EPA, 2002a) for
residential soils (0.389 mg/kg) and 42 of the detections were above the background value calculated
for arsenic in surface soil (11.0 mg/kg). Figure 1-6 shows that the highest levels of arsenic were
found within the boundaries of the former orchard where trees were either grown or still exist.
Remediated parcels are shown on this figure and are assumed to have clean surface soils. A small
parcel of elevated arsenic concentrations was located outside the orchard to the east. Grids PI 3 and
P14 and Q13 and Q14 had arsenic concentrations between 70 and 490 mg/kg. Fruit trees are present
on these parcels. Figure 1 -7 presents the same data overlain on an aerial photograph taken in JfHfc
This figure shows that the highest detections are collocated within areas where apple trees w ^ ^ ^ H
grown.
Definitive-level lead data applied to the 5-acre grids follow a similar pattern as observed for arsenic.
The highest concentrations appear within the former orchard and in a tract of land located east of the
orchard. This tract is composed of four of the 5-acre grid boxes. Lead results exceeded the
background value of 37.5 mg/kg in 45 of the 5-acre grids. Six of the grids contained samples with
lead concentrations in excess of 400 mg/kg, the EPA Region 9 residential PRG. All six of these
detections occurred within the former orchard in areas where trees are currently present or were
cultivated in the past. The residential PRG for lead was not exceeded at the P13, P14, Q13, Q14
grids east of the orchard.
4 9 0 0 : ':
Feasibility Study Rcpon Section 1 EPA Contract No 68-W.O9-043 Revision No. I Work Assignment No 034-R1CO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 30. 2003 Barber Orchard Site Page 9 of 24
Figure 1-8 presents the distribution of pesticides across the site. The values shown on the map are
applied to a grid of 5-acre parcels, as discussed in Section 1.4 of the Draft RI report (Black and
Veatch, 2002). As a reminder, it should be noted that these include data from samples collected
during the ER, composite samples collected by IT, and grab samples collected by IT.
Twenty pesticides were detected in the surface soils collected during the RI field work, and six of
these compounds were detected at concentrations exceeding their respective EPA Region 9 PRGs
(Tables 4.2 and 4.3 of the Draft RI report [Black and Veatch, 2002] present this data). The six
compounds that exceeded the PRG values were 4,4-DDD, 4,4-DDT, 4,4-dichloro-
diphenyldichloroethene (DDE), endrin, aldrin, and dieldrin. Sixteen of the 5-acre parcels had
samples with PRG exceedances, and these are indicated on Figure 1-8. As seen on the figure, most
of the PRG exceedances were located in areas within the former orchard. The two locations outside
of the orchard, PI 3 and Q13, were in an area where fruit trees are present.
1.2.1.2 Subsurface Soils. Subsurface soil samples were collected from hand auger locations
(used for background sampling), soil boring locations, and soil borings used for monitoring well
installation. These locations are illustrated on Figure 1-9. Subsurface soil samples were collected
in the l to 2, the 4 to 6, and the 8 to 10-foot bgs intervals where geologic conditions allowed. For
ten of the background sample locations, only the 1 to 3-foot interval was sampled in the subsurface
soils. The remaining 16 samples were from soil boring locations and the 1 to 3, 4 to 6, and 8 to
10-foot intervals attempted. Success of sampling decreased with depth due to refusal, as can be seen
in the following:
• In the 1 to 3-foot interval there were 26 potential samples, and 25 were collected. • In the 4 to 6-foot interval there were 16 potential samples; 10 were collected. • In the 8 to 10-foot interval there were 16 potential samples; 6 were collected.
As with the surface soil, arsenic and lead were used to indicate subsurface soil impacted by past
practices at Barber Orchard. Figure 1-10 shows the distribution of lead and arsenic detections in the
subsurface soils. Three intervals are discussed below: 1 to 3, 4 to 6, and 8 to 10 feet bgs.
Subsurface conditions prevented the collection of soil from all three intervals in every boring. Soil
samples were collected whenever possible. No subsurface soils were collected below 10 feet bgs.
Feasibility Study Report EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Work Assignment No 034-R1CO-A4T9 Barber Orchard Site
Likewise, pesticides will be the focus of the discussion for organic chemicals. Figure 1-11 presents
the distribution of pesticides in the subsurface soils.
1.2.1.2.1 1 to 3-foot interval
Metals. The majority of the detections for arsenic and lead in the subsurface soil samples were found
in the 1 to 3-foot interval. Of 26 locations where soil borings were installed, the 1 to 3-foot interval
was sampled at 25 locations. At the 26th location, N10-4782-MW007, no recovery was obtained
in the 1 to 3-foot interval. The boring was drilled on the side of a gravel road and abundant gravel
in the 1 to 3-foot interval prevented collection. Analyses of the 25 samples showed the concentration
of arsenic exceeded the EPA Region 9 residential PRG of 0.389 mg/kg for all samples (Figure 1-10).
Data summaries are provided in the Draft RI report as Tables 4.4 and 4.5 (Black and Veatch, 2002).
Arsenic concentrations exceeded the background value of 8.64 mg/kg at nine locations. All but one
of these locations were in areas where apple trees are present or had been grown in the past. The one
sample located outside the area of apple tree cultivation is M3-5657-SB002; the value there only
slightly exceeds the background value by 0.36 mg/kg.
Lead follows a similar pattern but exceeded the subsurface soil background value of 25.0 mg/kg at
a lower frequency. Six samples had lead concentrations greater than the background value. Of these
six, five lead exceedances were from samples that also exceeded background for arsenic, aj|^H|
were collected from areas within the former orchard. The distribution of lead in subsurface^^H
illustrated in Figure 1-10.
Pesticides. Seventeen pesticides were detected in samples from the 1 to 3-foot interval. Figure 1-11
shows the locations where pesticides were detected and the concentrations detected in subsurface
soil samples collected during the RI field work. Although several pesticides were detected, only two
(aldrin and dieldrin) exceeded the EPA Region 9 PRG values for residential soils. Both compounds
were detected in one sample (I12-4666-MW14) and this sample is located immediately downhill
and downgradient of the former pesticide mixing area (Figure 1-11).
1.2.1.2.2 4 to 6-foot interval
Section I Revision No !
Revision Date Julv '. Pag,
4 9 Feasibility Study Report Section 1 EPA Contract No. 68-W.09.043 Revision No 1 Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 30. 2003 Barber Orchard Site Page 11 of 24
Metals. Of 16 locations selected for sampling at the 4 to 6-foot interval, 10 samples were collected;
the remaining 6 were not collected due to poor recovery or drilling refusal. All samples collected
in the 4 to 6-foot interval showed detectable levels of arsenic, and all detections exceeded the EPA
Region 9 residential PRG of 0.389 mg/kg. However, arsenic was only detected above the
background concentration of 8.64 mg/kg at two locations, I12-4666-MW014 and Jl 1-3152-SB16
(Figure 1-10). Lead was detected in all 10 samples collected in the 4 to 6-foot interval, but did not
exceed the EPA Region 9 PRG value in 400 mg/kg in any samples. Lead did exceed the background
value of 25.02 mg/kg in one sample from location II2-4666-MWO14. As noted above, this location
corresponds to a point downhill and downgradient of the former pesticide mixing area at Barber
Orchard (Figure 1-10).
Pesticides. Pesticides were detected in six of the ten locations where a 4 to 6-foot interval sample
was collected. Thirteen pesticides were detected in these samples, but most detections were at low
concentrations and were qualified as estimated ("J" qualified). Only one location,
112-4666-MWO 14, had detections of pesticides that exceed the EPA Region 9 PRGs for subsurface
soil. The pesticides 4,4-DDD, 4,4-DDT, aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, and beta-betahexachlo-
rocyclohexane (BHC) were all detected at levels above their respective PRGs (Figure 1-11). Once
again, this location corresponds to a point downhill and downgradient of the former pesticide mixing
area at Barber Orchard.
1.2.1.2.3 8 to 10-foot interval
Metals. Of the 16 locations to be sampled, geologic conditions prevented ten samples from being
taken, leaving six samples for discussion. Arsenic was detected in all six of these samples at
concentrations that exceeded their respective EPA Region 9 PRG of 0.389 mg/kg. The background
value for arsenic in subsurface soils was not exceeded in any of the samples (Figure 1-10). Lead was
detected in all six samples at concentrations that exceed neither the background concentrations nor
the EPA Region 9 PRGs (Figure 1-10). No sample was collected at the 112-4666-MW014 location
due to refusal.
Pesticides. Only two pesticides, 4,4-DDE and 4,4-DDT, were detected once in the 8 to 10-foot
interval. Each detection occurred in separate samples, and both detections were at very low
Feasibility Study Rcpon EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Work Assignment No 034-R1CO-A4T9 Barber Orchard Site
concentrations. Both results were qualified "JN."
Region 9 PRG nor the background value. Results from the remaining four samples were nondetect
(Figure 1-11).
1.2.1.3 Soil Conclusions. As noted above, pesticide and metals contamination were expected
at this site. Previous work indicated that arsenic, lead, and pesticides were present in the surface soil.
The focus of this investigation was to collect data to characterize contaminants and delineate their
lateral and vertical extent. A review of the data indicated that elevated levels of lead, arsenic, and
organic pesticides were present within the former orchard boundaries, especially in areas where trees
were planted or currently growing. These contaminants were most likely to be found in the upper
4 feet of the soil. Organic pesticides, arsenic and lead were detected beyond the boundaries of the
former orchard, however, the concentrations outside the former orchard were significantly lower.
One exception to this observation is an area east of the orchard in Parcels Q13, Q14, P13,and PI 4.
This 20-acre area was planted with fruit trees and has elevated arsenic, lead, and pesticide levels.
1.2.2 Groundwater Contamination
Groundwater occurs in both the unconsolidated overburden and in bedrock fractures. There appears
to be no hydraulic barrier between the two zones, therefore, groundwater results for each zone are
presented together.
Groundwater samples collected by EPA Region 4 SESD from 55 potable water wells across th^^H Organochlorine pesticides, including alpha-BHC, beta-BHC, and Lindane (gamma-BHC), were
detected in several of the wells. The only organic pesticide that exceeded its maximum contaminant
level (MCL) for groundwater was Lindane. Concentrations of Lindane exceeded the MCL of
0.2 parts per billion in 5 of 55 wells. In addition, two wells contained lead above the MCL of 15
parts per billion. Although only the groundwater samples from the most current sampling event were
evaluated in the RI, the EPA SESD groundwater analytical results can be found in Table 2.3 and in
Appendix A of the Draft RJ report (Black and Veatch, 2002).
During the RI field work, groundwater was sampled from 8 bedrock monitoring wells, 29 potable
wells, 6 overburden monitoring wells, and 1 spring. These locations are shown on Figure 1-12.
Potable well samples were collected, whenever possible, at the wellhead.
•
Section I Revision No. 1
Revision Date: July 30^, PageJ
v 3 0 ^ M 3
Neither of these detections exceeded the EPA
4 9 001 Feasibility Study Report Section 1 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. I Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Dale: July 30, 2003 Barber Orchard Site Page 13 of 24
1.2.2.1 Groundwater Analytical Results. Detections of organic pesticides, lead and arsenic
were noted in several groundwater samples. The Draft RI report (Black and Veatch, 2002) presents
summaries of the data in Tables 4.9 and 4.10 and detected constituents in Tables 4.11 and 4.12.
Appendix A of the Draft RI Report (Black and Veatch, 2002) contains all of the groundwater results
evaluated in the RI.
Figure 1-13 presents arsenic and lead detections in groundwater collected during the RI. Arsenic was
detected in only 2 of 14 samples, and both are bedrock monitoring wells (I12-4666-MW016 and
E11 -2941 -M W011). Neither detection exceeded the federal MCL of 50 micrograms per liter (ug/L:).
The arsenic detection (13 jig/L) quantified in the groundwater sample collected from 112-4666-
MW016 did exceed the NCGW standard of 10 ^g/L. Arsenic was not detected in any of the potable
water samples. Lead was detected in 7 of 14 monitoring wells and 4 potable water locations. Two
of the monitoring wells, I12-4666-MW016 and 07-3418-MW005, had detections above the MCL
of 15 ug/L. Background well I12-4666-MW016 was located downgradient of the area where
pesticides were mixed and 07-3418-M W005 was an overburden well located outside the area where
trees were grown. The overburden well had a low yield and the samples are more turbid than other
wells sampled. Potable water samples exceeded the lead MCL at two locations: T10-5300-PW35
and M9-4782-PW22. Lead values in samples from these locations were slightly above the MCL.
M9-4782-PW22 was located in the heart of the orchard while T10 5300-PW35 was located outside
of the watershed to the east of Barber Orchard (Figure 1-13).
Six organic pesticides were detected in groundwater at the Barber Orchard site (Figure 1-14).
Seventeen of the groundwater sampling locations had at least one detection for an organic pesticide.
Of the 17 groundwater samples with detected pesticides, 12 were located within the area of the
former orchard; the remaining 5 were located outside the area where trees were grown, close to the
orchard boundary. No pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls, arsenic, or lead were detected in the
well (R6-8441-PW33) located at the Head Start facility.
Two of the monitoring wells installed during the RI field effort contained no organic pesticides
although they were in close proximity to residential wells that did contain some pesticides.
N10-4782-MW009 is located near M9-4782-PW22, and I12-4666-MW016 is located near
112-6401-PW17. The concentrations and the locations of the wells are presented on Figure 1-14.
Feasibility Study Report Section I EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 . Revision No 1 Work Assignment No 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date. July Barber Orchard Site Page
The cause of the difference is unknown, but may be related to well design and construction or the
monitoring wells intercepting different water-producing fractures than the potable wells. All
bedrock monitoring wells were constructed with a surface casing sealed in.bedrock. This was done
to prevent any contamination in the overburden from leaking down the well bore. It was
undocumented whether the domestic water wells were constructed with a sealed casing. This
potentially could have allowed the pump to pull water (and any contamination) directly from the
overburden zone into the well. If the domestic wells had good casing seals, contaminants observed
in these wells may have traveled via fracture under the influence of normal pumping.
1.2.2.2 Groundwater Conclusions. Activities related to orchard operations have impacted
groundwater within and immediately adjacent to the Barber Orchard site. Dissolved organic
pesticides were detected in monitoring wells, potable water wells, and springs. The primary
contaminants in groundwater were organic pesticides, including alpha-BHC, beta-BHC, delta-BHC,
Lindane, endrin, and endrin ketone. Groundwater contamination appears to have migrated from the
area where pesticides were applied (e.g., where apple trees were grown) to potable water wells and
a spring located adjacent to the orchard. The single spring sampled is located across Richland Creek
outside the boundary of the site. This presents two possibilities: l) groundwater from Barber
Orchard is underflowing the suspected surface water discharge point, Richland Creek, to discharge
upon the opposing hillside, or 2) a source of groundwater contamination is located upgradient of the
spring on the opposing hillside.
1.2.3 Surface Water and Sediment Contamination
Surface water and sediment samples were collected as collocated sampling points. Figure 1-15
shows the points sampled and the designations of the steams. Many of the small tributaries to
Richland Creek are unnamed. For the purpose of this discussion the streams are labeled Stream A
through Stream J. Figure l -15 shows the locations of the streams and the associated stream names.
Summary statistics and analytical data for surface water/sediment samples collected during the RI
can be found in the Draft RI report in Tables 4.13 through 4.16 and in Appendix A (Black and
Veatch, 2002). Data presented in this report are summarized onto figures in this memorandum.
4 9 nn
Feasibility Study Report EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Barber Orchard Site
Section i Revision No. I
Revision Date: July 30. 2003 Page 15 of 24
1.2.3.1 Surface Water. Arsenic was not detected in any of the surface water samples. Lead was
detected in 5 of 26 samples at low concentrations ranging from 1.9 ug/L to 23 ug/L (Figure 1-16).
These samples were collected in Streams C, D F, and G in the orchard and Stream J, across the
valley. Six organic pesticides (endrin; endrin ketone; heptachJor; alpha-BHC beta-BHC; and
4,4-DDT) were detected in samples collected during the RI fieldwork. Detected concentrations were
from samples collected in Streams B, D, H, Richland Creek, and at the confluence of Stream C and
Richland Creek. Figure 1-17 shows organic pesticide detections in surface water. All of the
detections were at low concentrations. Pesticides and inorganics exceeding National Recommended
Water Quality Criteria (EPA, 1999a) included detections of heptachlor, 4,4-DDT, alpha-BHC, and
beta-BHC. Heptachlor (3 exceedance) and 4,4-DDT (1 exceedance) were detected in the surface
water data set in concentrations exceeding NCSW standards. Most of the detections and the
locations with the largest number of detected constituents were located within the orchard footprint
(Figure 1-17). Single-chemical detections occurred at Q17-3988-SW025, S4-3066-SW005,
E8-DOT-SW011, A12-1322-SW010, and I16-7309-SW003. All of these locations but S W003 are
located outside the orchard boundary. SW005 is from Richland Creek and receives drainage from
the orchard. The two locations with multiple chemical detections, I12-4666-SW015 and
J8-4570-SW014, are both located on Stream D. Stream D drains the area where pesticides are
known to have been mixed and this area has subsurface soil contamination in the 4 to 6-foot interval
(see Section 1.2.1).
1.2.3.2 Sediment. Arsenic was detected in samples from 18 of the 26 sediment sampling
locations (Figure 1-18). Everywhere arsenic was detected it exceeded its EPA Region 9 PRG for
residential soil. At five of the locations, all within the former orchard, arsenic exceeded the
background value for sediment of 10.2 mg/kg. Arsenic was detected in sediment samples from
Streams B through H, Stream J, and Richland Creek (Figure 1-18). The occurrence of lead in
sediment is more widespread. Lead was detected at all 26 locations sampled. None of the detections
exceeded the Region 9 PRG of 400 mg/kg for residential soil; however, lead was at concentrations
above background levels in 15 of the 26 locations (Figure 1-18). Streams with sediment lead
concentrations exceeding background include Streams A through H and Richland Creek. The
highest concentrations of lead in sediment occurred in Streams C. D, and E at the same locations
where arsenic exceeded background values. All of these locations are well within the boundaries
of the former orchard.
Feasibility Study Report Section 1 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. 1 Work Assignment No 03-l-RICO-A<tT° Revision Date: July 30._2£ Barber Orchard Site Page 1
Twelve organic pesticides (4,4-DDD, 4,4-DDE, 4,4-DDT, endrin, endrin ketone gamma-chlordane,
cfoumaphos, aldrin, beta-BHC, delta-BHC, dieldrin, and endosulfan sulfate) were detected in
sediments collected at Barber Orchard. These chemicals were found in samples from Streams B
through H, Stream J, and Richland Creek (Figure 1-19). The greatest number of organic pesticides
and the highest concentrations of these compounds were from samples collected within Streams D
and E. The highest concentrations and largest list of constituents were detected in the sample
collected at J13-1004-SD019 from a pond that feeds stream D. Stream D flows from this pond by
the area used for pesticide mixing. Only alpha-BHC exceeded the EPA Region 9 PRG. The surface
(residential) soil PRG is applied to provide a screening tool for sediments. The exceedance of the
PRG occurred at only one location, 112-4666-SDO15. This location corresponds to a sampling point
immediately downstream from the area used to mix pesticides at the orchard. As noted above, this
former mixing area has contaminants in several media.
1.2.3.3 Conclusions. Surface water and sediment samples were collected from twelve streams
during the RI. The streams sampled can be grouped into three categories:
• Streams that flow through or border the areas where the apple orchard operated.
• Streams that flow from the opposing hillside across the valley and are not influenced by the orchard.
• Richland Creek, which is the largest stream in the area, receives drainage fro other two types. Richland Creek drains the valley that includes Barber Orchan surrounding land.
The contaminants scrutinized in this study include organic pesticides, lead, and arsenic. As might
be expected, the highest concentrations were found in areas where the orchard operated. In surface
water, arsenic was not detected, and lead was detected at four location inside and one location
outside the orchard boundary. Six organic pesticides were detected in surface water samples
collected during the RI fieldwork. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (EPA, 2002b)
were exceeded for heptachlor, 4,4-DDT, alpha-BHC, and beta-BHC at four sampling locations
directly influenced by the orchard and at one location (Q17-3988-SW025) adjacent to the orchard
in a residential area. Stream D, a tributary to Richland Creek, is the most impacted surface water,
4 9
Feasibility Study Report Section 1
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. I Work Assignment No 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 30. 2003 Barber Orchard Site Page 17 of 24
as evidenced by the number of chemicals and the concentrations detected. Stream D flows by and
drains the area around the former pesticide mixing area.
Lead and arsenic detections in sediment were more widespread than detections in surface water.
With one exception, A12-1322-SD010, lead concentrations detected above background were found
in sediments in streams draining Barber Orchard or bordering the site. Five samples had arsenic
concentrations above the background values, and all were from streams located within the orchard.
Twelve organic pesticides were found in samples from Streams B through H, Stream J, and Richland
Creek. The greatest number of organic pesticides and the highest concentrations of these compounds
were from samples collected within Streams D and E (located inside the orchard), and the highest
concentrations and largest list of constituents for any single sample were found in the sample
collected at J13-1004-SD019. This sample was collected from a pond that feeds Stream D.
Stream D flows from this pond by the area used for pesticide mixing. Only alpha-BHC was detected
in concentrations above this limit and the sample was collected in stream D.
1.3 Contaminant Fate and Transport Based on data collected for this RI report, data collected during the ER, and accounts provided in
the EPA summary document (EPA, 2000) the following sources of contamination were identified:
• The piping system that was used to drain pesticides to the compressor house and convey it to standpipes located in the orchard. Many of the pipes remain in place at the site. It is suspected that leaks from the pipes and any sediment contained within the pipes pose a continuing source. Samples collected during the ER contained high concentrations of lead and arsenic in sediment from some of these pipes (2,460,000 micrograms per ki logram [ug/kg] arsenic and 6,970,000 ug/kg lead) (EPA, 2000). The entire piping system was pressurized to deliver liquid pesticides to the trees
• Contaminated soils within the former orchard. Pesticides were sprayed on the trees from the underground piping system. Elevated levels of inorganics and pesticides provide a potential continuing source.
• The soils around the former mixing area. This area consists of piping, a concrete mixing box, and the surrounding soils. Although some of the surface soils were
Feasibility Study Report Section I EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No 1 Work Assignment No 034-R1CO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 30 Barber Orchard Site
::July30JM3
addressed during the ER, data from the Rl indicated that contamination remains in the subsurface soils.
1.3.1 Soils Contaminants in soil can migrate by several transport processes:
• Direct volatilization of the contaminant to air,
• Through the air adsorbed to particulate,
• In overland flow in rainwater runoff when adsorbed to suspended sediment, and
• Leaching into a dissolved phase that can be transported to groundwater and/or surface water.
Pesticides were sprayed on the apple trees from a flexible hoses attached to pressurized standpipes
located throughout the orchard (EPA, 2000). The airborne application of the chemicals led to
widespread concentrations of pesticides, arsenic, and lead in surface soil, and lower concentrations
in the subsurface soil. Data collected during the ER and RI support this observation. Detections for
lead, arsenic, and organic pesticides were most concentrated in areas cultivated for apples while,
although the chemicals were found in soils surrounding the former orchard, they occurred at lower
concentrations. Leaks and spills from the pesticide distribution system may also have contribL
to the contaminants detected in site soils. The highest concentrations of pesticides and the
varied number of compounds detected were found in the surface soils. Arsenic, lead, and org"
pesticides decreased, both in number of detections and in concentration, with depth. Likewise,
exceedances of PRGs and background values decreased with depth. Many of the analytes and
compounds used at the former orchard have physical properties that give them the tendency to adsorb
to soil particles and sediments, thus limiting migration. The decreases in concentrations and variety
of compounds with depth suggest that adsorption is an important fate mechanism for this site.
1.3.2 Groundwater
Activities related to orchard operations have impacted groundwater within and immediately around
the Barber Orchard site. Possible spills, leaks, and normal spraying have deposited organic
pesticides, lead, and arsenic into the environment. Probable leaching has led to dissolved
tribi^d
orglBr
4 9
Feasibility Study Report Section 1 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. 1 Work Assignment No 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 30,2003 Barber Orchard Site Page 19 of 24
constituents that were detected in the new monitoring wells, existing potable water wells, and
springs. Once in the groundwater, the contaminants migrated by advection and dispersion.
Groundwater contamination appears to have migrated from the area where pesticides were applied
(i.e., where the apples trees were grown) to potable water wells and a spring located adjacent to the
orchard. Dissolved pesticide contamination was found in both the overburden and bedrock zones.
The primary contaminants in groundwater are a subset of the organic pesticides used at the site and
include alpha-BHC, beta-BHC, delta-BHC, Lindane, endrin, and endrin ketone. Pesticides not seen
in groundwater but detected in soils and sediments all have higher have Kow and K^ values, and this
indicates a stronger tendency to adsorb to soils and sediments and not migrate. Arsenic was only
detected in two wells. El 1-2941-MW011 and I12-4666-MW016. Both of these wells are located
within the boundary of the former orchard. Lead detections were more widespread. With one
exception, T10-5300-PW35, lead was detected only in wells within the watershed boundary under
study. Contamination observed in bedrock groundwater is likely the result of two processes:
1) contaminant transport along fractures controlled by the observed downward vertical gradient, and
2) contaminant transport from the overburden zone to the bedrock zone as a result domestic well
pumping. Construction details for many of the domestic wells were not available, but it is suspected
that incomplete seals around potable well surface casings could have provided a pathway for
contaminants in the overburden groundwater to pass into the bedrock zone under the influence of
normal well pumping. Similarly, normal domestic well operation could result in contaminant
transport from the overburden zone via fractures that connect the well bore with the overburden
zone. Once in the bedrock aquifer, dissolved contaminants may remain in the aquifer, be removed
by domestic well use, or discharged to surface water bodies.
1.3.3 Surface Water and Sediment Contaminant migration into and within the surface water/sediment pathway can occur by several transport processes including:
• Overland flow in rainwater runoff when adsorbed to suspended sediment.
• Partitioning from surface water to sediment or vice versa.
• Leaching as a result rainwater infiltration through soil, into groundwater and subsequent discharge to surface water.
Feasibility Study Report EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Barber Orchard Site
Surface water and sediment samples were collected from twelve streams during the Rl for Barber
Orchard. These streams included tributaries to Richland Creek that flow through or border the areas
where the apple orchard operated, streams that drain the opposing hillside across the valley and
discharge to Richland Creek, and Richland Creek itself. The highest levels of organic pesticides,
arsenic and lead observed in surface water and sediment samples were from sampling locations
within streams that drain across Barber Orchard. In surface water, arsenic was not detected and lead
was detected at four locations inside and one location outside the orchard boundary. Six organic
pesticides were detected in surface water samples collected during the RI fieldwork. National
Recommended Water Quality Criteria (EPA, 2002b) were exceeded for heptachlor, 4,4-DDT,
alpha-BHC, and beta-BHC at four sampling locations directly influenced by the orchard, and one
location adjacent to the orchard in a residential area (Q17-3988-S W025). The most impacted stream
is Stream D, a tributary to Richland Creek, as indicated by the number of chemicals and the
concentrations detected. Stream D flows by and drains the area around the former pesticide mixing
area. The pesticides detected in surface water samples, like the pesticides detected in groundwater,
tend to have lower K^ and Kx values. This may suggest that other pesticides found in soils and
sediments and not detected in the aqueous media remain adsorbed to the matrix and are not currently
mobile.
It is likely that the streams flowing across Barber Orchard convey water that is a combinatiqjM||
overland flow and groundwater discharge. The gradient on these streams is steep in most p l ^ ^ |
It is possible that some lengths of stream may lose or gain surface water (and contaminants) from
the groundwater. This interaction was not studied during the RI but has been observed at other sites.
The similarity in detected contaminants (especially organic pesticides) between groundwater and
surface water suggests that some interaction may be taking place.
Lead and arsenic detection in sediment were more widespread than detections in surface water. With
one exception, A12-1322-SD010, lead concentrations detected above background were found in
sediments in streams draining Barber Orchard or bordering the site. Five samples had arsenic
concentrations above the background values and all were from steams located within the orchard.
•
Section I Revision No. 1
Revision Date: July 30^ Pagej
•30^^L
4 9 G
Feasibility Study Repon Section I EPA Contract No 68-W-99-043 Revision No I Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 30. 2003 Barber Orchard Site Page 21 of 24
Twelve organic pesticides were found in sediment samples from Streams B through H, Stream J, and
Richland Creek. The greatest number and highest concentrations of organic pesticides were from
samples collected within Streams D and E (located inside the orchard), and the highest
concentrations and largest list of constituents for any single sample are found in the sample collected
from a pond that feeds Stream D, J13-1004-SD019. Stream D flows from this pond , through the
former mixing area, and discharges to Richland Creek. The concentrations detected were compared
to EPA Region 9 PRGs for surface soils. Only alpha-BHC was detected in concentrations above this
limit and the sample was collected in stream D.
1.3.4 Air Migration of the contaminants at this site through the air pathway is not expected to be significant.
This may change if on-site activities disturb soils by excavations. Historically, air transport may
explain the lower levels of sprayed pesticides observed in soils adjacent to the former orchard.
1.4 Risk Assessment
1.4.1 Human Health A BHHRA for the Barber Orchard site was performed to evaluate potential human health risks
associated exposure to surface soil, subsurface soil, overburden and bedrock groundwater, surface
water, and sediment associated with the site. Surface soil was evaluated based on the analytical
results of 102 composite samples, each selected as representative of an individual 5-acre grid. A
contaminant-of-potential-concern (COPC) screening was performed initially to focus the BHHRA
on chemicals most likely to represent human health risks at the site. Risks associated with COPC
were evaluated for the following receptors and media:
• Current on-site resident - overburden groundwater and bedrock groundwater.
• Future on-site resident - overburden groundwater, bedrock groundwater, surface soil (direct contact and inhalation of suspended particulates), and homegrown produce (grown in surface soil).
• Small-scale beef/milk production (from cattle raised on the site and given site groundwater or surface water).
Feasibility Study Report Section i EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. 1 Work Assignment No. 034-R1CO-A4T9 Revision Date: July I Baiber Orchard Site Pagei
v 3 0 ^ ^ ^
Pond exposure (while swimming).
• On-site commercial worker - overburden groundwater, bedrock groundwater, surface soil (direct contact and inhalation of suspended particulates)
• Construction worker - overburden groundwater, bedrock groundwater, subsurface soil (direct contact and inhalation of suspended particulates).
• Adolescent visitor - surface soil (direct contact and inhalation of suspended particulates) and surface water from individual mountain streams.
• Sportsman - Richland Creek surface water contact and fish ingestion.
Based on the results of the risk characterization, COC were selected from COPC contributing
significantly to risk. At.the Barber Orchard site, it is known that pesticides, including arsenic and
lead constituents, were historically used; therefore, a determination was made that lead and all
surface soil COPC pesticides would be included as COC, regardless of contribution to risk. This
ensured that elevated remedial goal options (RGO) were derived for all surface soil samples whose
maximum detected concentrations exceeded the surface soil risk-based screening criteria. The
following chemicals were identified as COC in the various environmental media:
• Surface soil - arsenic, lead, manganese, thallium, DDD, DDE, DDT, aldrin, die, endrin, and eiidrin ketone.
• Homegrown produce (from surface soil) - barium, manganese, thallium, DDD, DDE, DDT, aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, endrin ketone, and benzo(a)pyrene.
• Subsurface soil - aluminum, arsenic, DDT, aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, and endrin ketone.
• Suspended particulates (from subsurface soil) - aluminum, barium, and manganese.
• Overburden groundwater - aluminum, arsenic, barium, chromium, copper, iron, manganese, vanadium, alpha-BHC, and Lindance.
• Bedrock groundwater - arsenic, alpha-BHC, Lindane, and chromium.
• Fish ingestion (from Richland Creek surface water) - DDT.
4 9 H Q • ^
Feasibility Study Report Section I EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. I Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 30. 2003 Barber Orchard Site Page 23 of 24
• Beef/milk ingestion (from surface soil) - thallium. DDT DDD, DDE. DDT, aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, and endrin ketone.
The above COCs are associated with one or more of the following receptors:
• Current resident - overburden groundwater.
• Future resident - surface soil, homegrown produce, overburden and bedrock groundwater.
• Construction worker - subsurface soil, suspended particulates, overburden and bedrock groundwater.
• Commercial worker - overburden groundwater.
• Sportsman - fish ingestion.
• Beef/Milk Ingestion
RGOs were developed for the COCs and receptors listed above. RGOs are presented in Tables 1 -1
through 1-6
1.4.2 Ecological
A SLERA performed at Barber Orchard was unable to definitively demonstrate negligible risk to
ecological receptors exposed to contaminated media. A number of contaminants present in the
media represent a potential adverse risk to receptors exposed to surface soil, surface water, and
sediment.
The preliminary COPCs presented in Tables N6-8 through N6-l l, included in Appendix N of the
Draft RJ report (Black and Veatch, 2002), shows that all contaminants were shown to have the
potential to cause unacceptable ecological risk at the Barber Orchard site. Based on the finding of
this SLERA, an SMDP meeting should take place to discuss the next step, problem formulation (i.e.,
Step 3 of the EPA ecological risk assessment process). The SMDP meeting should address the
following issues prior to initiating problem formulation:
Feasibility Study Report Section 1 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. I Work Assignment No 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: July Barber Orchard Site Page.
Potentially unacceptable levels of risk to ecological receptors directly exposed to preliminary COPCs in surface soil, sediment, surface water, and groundwater.
Potential food-chain biotransfer of bioaccumulative preliminary COPCs in surface soil, surface water, and sediment.
• The need for and/or type of sampling required to fill the data gaps and reduce uncertainty, as presented in succeeding sections.
4 9 0013
Feasibility Study Report Section 2 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99043
Revision No. I Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 30, 2003 Barber Orchard Site Page 1 of 25
2.0 IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING OF TECHNOLOGIES Investigative efforts and performance of a BHHRA of the soil, groundwater, sediment, and surface water
at the Barber Orchard site indicate that contaminants are present in these media at concentrations that pose
a potential risk to human health. Additionally, investigative efforts and performance of a SLERA of the
surface soil present at the site indicate that contaminants are present in this medium at concentrations that
pose a potential risk to the environment.
This section presents RAOs, general response actions, remedial technologies, and process options available
for remediation of contaminated media at the site. Site conditions indicate residential exposures to the
sediment in the shallow creeks on the Barber Orchard property would be very similar to residential
exposures to surface soil. Therefore, the discussions pertinent to surface soil will include the sediment in
the shallow drainageways across the site, but not to the sediment in Richland Creek.
The first step in the FS process is to establish the RAOs, which are site-specific goals for protecting human
health and the environment based on the nature and extent of contamination identified at the site. General
response actions are selected to satisfy the RAOs at the site. Each general response action consists of
specific remedial technologies and process options. These remedial technologies and process options are
screened by evaluating their applicability to the nature and extent of contamination and the site's physical
characteristics. Finally, the technologies and process options are screened according to their effectiveness,
implementability, and cost The technologies and process options that survive the screening processes are
retained for assembly into the remedial action alternatives, which are used to complete the FS process.
2.1 Remedial Action Objectives CERCLA, as amended by Section 121(b) of SARA, requires selection of remedial actions to attain a
degree of cleanup that ensures protection ofhuman health and the environment, are cost effective, and use
permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource technologies to the maximum extent
practicable. To satisfy CERCLA requirements, RAOs were developed for the Barber Orchard site.
RAOs will be used to develop general response actions for the site that are protective of the current and
future site residents, and the environment RAOs developed for contaminated soil, groundwater, surface
Feasibility Study Report EPA Contract No. 68-W-99043
Rcvisij
Work Assignment No. 034-RJCO-A4T9 Revision Date. Jul Barber Orchard Site
water, and sediment are discussed below and are presented in Table 2-1. Specific numerical cleanup goals
are discussed by media in Section 2.2.
RGOs for ecological receptors have not been determined as of July 2003. The remainder of this FS will
address actions to mitigate risks to human health. However, RGOs will be established upon completion
of the ecological risk assessment Once cleanup goals have been established for ecological receptors, an
FS addendum may need to be produced to address remedial actions to protect ecological receptors.
2.1.1 Surface Soil and Sediment RA Os
The COCs in surface soil and the sediment from the small creeks and streams draining the Barber Orchard
site include arsenic, lead, and the organochlorine pesticides 4,4-DDD, 4,4-DDE), 4,4-DDT, alpha-BHC,
aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, endrin ketone, and Lindane. The remediation goals for soil and creek sediments
are discussed in Sections 2.2.1 and 2.3.1. The RAOs developed for contaminated soils (and creek
sediments) at the site are to:
• Prevent ingestion, inhalation, or direct contact with soil containing constituents at concentrations in excess of total hazard indices (HI) greater than 1 and/or a cumulative excess lifetime cancer risk of 1E-06 for current residents.
• Prevent migration of contaminants to prevent degradation of natural resources J presence of the contaminants in the soil matrix presents a possible source for ground' contamination at the site.
2.1.2 Subsurface Soil RAOs
The COCs in subsurface soil include arsenic, 4,4-DDT, and endrin ketone. The remediation goals for
subsurface soil are discussed in Sections 2.2.1 and 2.3.1. The RAOs developed for contaminated
subsurface soils at the site are to:
• Prevent ingestion, inhalation, or direct contact with soil containing constituents at concentrations in excess of total His greater than 1 and/or a cumulative excess lifetime cancer risk of 1E-06 for a future or current construction worker.
4 9 0
Feasibility Study Report Section 2 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99043
Revision No. 1 Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 30. 2003 Barber Orchard Site Page 3 of 25
• Prevent migration of contaminants to prevent degradation of natural resources. The presence of the contaminants in the soil matrix presents a possible source for groundwater contamination at the site.
2.1.3 Groundwater RAOs
The COCs in groundwater include arsenic, lead, and the organochlorine pesticides 4,4-DDD, 4,4-DDE,
4,4-DDT, alpha-BHC, aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, endrin ketone, and Lindane. The RAOs developed for
contaminated groundwater at the site are to:
• Prevent ingestion or direct contact with groundwater containing constituents at concentrations in excess of current federal regulatory drinking water standards (MCLs) (EPA, 2002c), current North Carolina Groundwater Quality Standards, total His greater than l, and a cumulative excess lifetime cancer risk of greater than l E-06.
• Prevent migration of contaminants to prevent degradation of natural resources. This includes eliminating or mitigating the shallow groundwater to surface water pathway for the contaminants in groundwater at the site.
2.1.4 Surface Water RAOs
One COC, 4,4-DDT for Richland Creek surface water was identified during completion of the BHHRA.
As presented in Table 6-13 of the BHHRA, the sportsman fish ingestion RGO for this compound is
0.0000431 milligrams per liter. No surface water COCs (including 4,4-DDT) were identified in any of the
site drainages suggesting the 4,4-DDT in Richland Creek surface water did not originate solely from the
Barber Orchard site. For this reason, no RAOs have been developed for Richland Creek surface water
and this medium will not be considered under this FS.
2.2 CERCLA Compliance with ARARs Remedial actions must comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARAR) of federal
laws and more stringent, promulgated state laws. Applicable requirements are those cleanup standards,
controls, and other substantive environmental protection requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated
under federal or state law that specifically address a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant,
remedial action, location, or other circumstance at a Superfund site. Relevant requirements are those
Feasibility Study Report Section EPA Contract No. 68-W-99W3
Revisi Work Assignment No. 034-R1CO-A4T9 Revision Date: July Barber Orchard Site Pagi
cleanup standards, standards of control, or other substantive environmental provisions that do not directly
and fully address site conditions but address similar situations or problems to those encountered at a
Superfund site. Whether or not a requirement is appropriate (in addition to being relevant) will vary
depending on factors such as the duration of the response action, the form or concentration of the chemicals
present, the nature of the release, the availability of other standards that more directly match the
circumstances at the site, and other factors (EPA, 1997). EPA's Interim Guidance on Compliance with
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (EPA, 1987) and CERCLA Compliance with
Other Laws Manual Part II (EPA, 1989a) establish how requirements of federal and state laws are
generally identified and applied to remedial actions at CERCLA sites. ARARs are determined by applying
a two-tiered test to determine first whether the requirement is applicable or second to determine whether
the requirement is relevant and appropriate. The interim guidance defines "applicable" and "relevant and
appropriate" as follows:
• Applicable requirements means those cleanup standards, standards of control, and other substantive environmental protection requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under Federal or State law that specifically address a hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location, or other circumstance at a CERCLA site (EPA, 1987).
Relevant and appropriate requirements means those cleanup standards, standards^ control, and other substantive environmental protection requirements, criteria, or lirnit promulgated under Federal or State law that, while not "applicable" to a ha substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location, or other circumstance aTa CERCLA site, address problems or situations sufficiently similar to those encountered at the CERCLA site that their use is well suited to the particular site (EPA, 1987).
ndards of l imit^^^^ bazar^^^P
In addition, the guidances also identify nonpromulgated advisories or guidance documents issued by federal
or state governments as "to-be-considered" materials (TBCs) for the site. TBCs are not considered legally
enforceable and, therefore, are not considered to be applicable for the site but are evaluated along with
ARARs as part of the risk assessment to set protective cleanup goal targets. TBCs should be used in the
absence of ARARs, when ARARs are not sufficiently protective to develop cleanup goals, or when multiple
contaminants may be posing a cumulative risk (EPA, 1987). There are three types of ARARs:
chemical-specific, action-specific, and location-specific. Chemical-specific ARARs are usually health or
4 0 n 0
Feasibility Study Report Section 2 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99043
Revision No. 1 Work Assignment No. 034-R1CO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 30.2003 Barber Orchard Site Page 5 of 25
risk-based restrictions on the amount or concentration of a chemical that may be found in or discharge to
the environment Action-specific ARARs establish controls or restrictions on the remedial activities which
are part of the remedial solutioa Action-specific ARARs are triggered by the specific activity rather than
the chemicals present. Location-specific ARARs prevent damage to unique or sensitive areas, such as
floodplains, historic places, wetlands, and fragile ecosystems, and restrict other activities that are potentially
harmful because of where they take place. Chemical-specific, action-specific, and location-specific
ARARs for the Barber Orchard site have been preliminarily identified including a preliminary listing of
TBCs.
2.2.1 Chemical-Specific ARARs Chemical-specific ARARs set levels that are considered protective of human health and the environment
because they place restrictions on the concentration of the chemicals of interest in the designated media.
Chemical-specific ARARs also may indicate acceptable levels for discharge if discharge occurs as part of
a remedial activity. If a chemical has more than one such requirement that is an ARAR, compliance should
generally be to the more stringent level. Table 2-2 lists potential chemical-specific ARARs for the site.
Other chemical-specific criteria, standards, or guidance to be considered include the following:
• North Carolina Drinking Water Regulations (North Carolina Annotated Code [NCAC], 2002)
• North Carolina Surface Water Regulations (NCAC 2002).
• EPA Secondary MCLs (SMCL) (EPA, 2002c)
• EPA Region 9 Risk-Based Concentrations
• EPA Region 4 Sediment Effects and Screening Values for Hazardous Waste Sites (EPA, 2001b)
• Long et al. ER-L and ER-M Values (Long et al. 1995).
SMCLs are unenforceable, but EPA recommended, guidelines for drinking water (EPA, 2002c). The EPA
Region 9 preliminary remediation goal table lists concentrations based on a 1 E-06 cancer risk or a HI of
Feasibility Study Report Section 2 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99043
Work Assignment No. 034-RJCO-A4T9 Revision Date: J u h ^ ^ ^ B Barber Orchard Site P a [ ^ ^ ^ H
1.0 for tap water, ambient air, fish, and soil ingestion in industrial and residential settings (EPA, 2002c).
The RGOs for surface and subsurface soil, sediment (included with surface soil) and groundwater for the
Barber Orchard site (Tables 1 -1 through 1 -2) are risk-based and were selected based on concentrations
that a total HI greater than 1 and a cumulative excess lifetime cancer risk of greater than 1E-06. The
numerical values of chemical-specific ARARs and TBCs for soil are presented in Table 2-3. Remediation
goals have been identified for soil that are protective of a resident,-or an on-site construction worker. Two
numerical values for residential arsenic exposures have been presented on Table 2-3. The lower value, 20
mg/kg, is protective ofhuman health on developed properties. The higher value, 212 mg/kg is protective
ofhuman health on undeveloped properties, and on properties that will remain undeveloped in the future.
Risk calculations for this exposure scenario are included in Addendum 1 of this FS.
Eleven COCs exceeding RGOs in surface soils were identified in the human health risk assessment for the
on-site resident, including arsenic, lead, 4,4-DDD, 4,4-DDE, 4,4-DDT, alpha-BHC, Lindane, aldrin,
dieldrin, endrin, and endrin ketone. Due to past tree-spraying activities, these compounds are present
across a large percentage of the Barber Orchard site. RGOs were calculated for nine of these eleven
COCs (all of the above excluding alpha-BHC and Lindane) for an adolescent visitor. Three of these
COCs (arsenic, 4,4-DDT, and endrin ketone) exceed RGOs in subsurface soils for the on-site construction
worker exposure scenario.
The Barber Orchard site is underlain by groundwater containing organochlorine pesticides at concentrations
exceeding groundwater RGOs. The site-specific suite of pesticide compounds in groundwater samples
collected from site wells suggests these compounds originated from historic pesticide applications at the
orchard. However, these compounds must have been leached out of the overlying soils and been carried
to the groundwater by infiltrating surface waters. Pesticide compounds may still exist in site soils at levels
that are a threat to groundwater due to the continued infiltration of surface runoff. Table 2-4 presents
RGOs pertinent to the protection of groundwater beneath the site. These RGOs were developed based
on published standards, including:
• Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) Limits - The TCLP test is a leaching procedure generally completed to determine if a solid contains organic or inorganic
4 9
Feasibility Study Report Section 2 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99043
Revision No. I Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 30. 2003 Barber Orchard Site Page 7 of 25
compounds in sufficient concentrations that allow the substance to be classified as a characteristic hazardous waste. However, the TCLP limits can be used as a screening criteria to determine if Barber Orchard soils are a threat to underlying groundwater.
• Soil Screening Levels (SSL) guidance - EPA has published generic risk-based screening values for a suite of organic and inorganic compounds (EPA, 1996a). Included in this guidance document are SSLs pertinent to the soil leaching to groundwater pathway. SSL values for dilution attenuation factor 20 are used in Table 2-4 as preliminary RGOs for the soil to groundwater pathway.
A review of arsenic in surface soils as presented in Figure 1 -7, indicates 10 5-acre grids contain arsenic
above the preliminary soil leaching RGO of 100 mg/kg.
In addition, a discussion of arsenic mobility in soils is presented in Appendix A and the preliminary, site
specific arsenic leaching RGO is selected from the evaluation presented in Appendix. A. It is
recommended that site - specific soil to groundwater leaching RGOs be developed during a proposed soil
treatability study (see Section 3.0). As such, the concentrations presented on Table 2-4 should be
considered preliminary in nature and will likely be supplemented with site specific numbers.
Therefore, remedial technologies to address arsenic, lead and organochlorine pesticide contamination of
surface and subsurface soil will be developed and evaluated in the FS.
The numerical values of chemical-specific ARARs and TBCs for groundwater are presented in Table 2-5.
RGOs have been identified for groundwater that are protective of the on-site resident Groundwater RGOs
were developed for the same eleven COCs where site-specific RGOs were developed for surface soil
(arsenic, lead, 4,4-DDD, 4,4-DDE, 4,4-DDT, alpha-BHC, Lindane, aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, and endrin
ketone). Remedial technologies to address these constituents will be developed and evaluated in the FS.
As of June 2003, RGOs based on ecological receptors were not available for inclusion into this FS. This
FS may require revisions based upon the results of the ecological RGOs.
The COCs to be addressed by the FS are summarized by media in Table 2-6.
Feasibility Study Report Section 2 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99043
Revision^ Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: July : Barber Orchard Site Pagdl
is ion^j^^
2.2.2 Action-Specific ARARs
Action-specific requirements are not established for a specific contaminant, but rather by the activities that
are selected to accomplish the remedy. Action-specific ARARs may establish performance levels, actions,
or technologies as well as specific levels for discharged or residual contaminants. Table 2-67 presents the
potential action-specific ARARs for the site. The action-specific ARARs for each alternative will vary
depending on the technologies employed.
2.2.3 Location-Specific ARARs
Location-specific ARARs establish restrictions on concentrations of constituents or on conducting activities
solely because they are in specific locations such as wetlands, flood plains, historical places, or sensitive
habitats. Table 2-8 presents the potential location-specific ARARs for the site. The applicability or
relevancy and appropriateness of the location-specific ARARs will be determined further during the FS.
A discussion of when the ARAR would be applicable or relevant and appropriate is included in Table 2-9.
2.3 Delineation of Areas and Volumes of Contaminated Media
Information concerning the nature and extent of contamination in surface and subsurface soil, drainageway
sediments, and groundwater was used to estimate the volume of each contaminated media that will require
remediation. Areas of soil and groundwater that are contaminated with constituents at concentrati
exceeding the proposed RGOs for the COCs identified at the site have been delineated.
t i M ^
2.3.1 Area and Volume of Contaminated Soil
Surface soil RGOs are derived from the human health risk assessment values for a current residential land-
use scenario. These values are the lower of either an HI of l or a concentration that represents a
cumulative excess lifetime cancer risk of l E-06. Remedies will be developed and evaluated for two arsenic
cleanup RGOs. An RGO of 20 mg/kg will be applied to residential areas and areas evaluated as being
suitable for future residential housing. Based on the findings of the RI Report (Black and Veatch, 2002),
the metals arsenic and lead and the organochlorine pesticides identified as COCs generally occur together.
Arsenic concentrations will therefore be used as an indicator for where organochlorine pesticides exceeding
soil contaminants are present exceeding the RGO of 20 mg/kg. These areas are shown on Figure 2-1.
4 9
Feasibility Study Report Section 2 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99043
Revision No. I Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 30. 2003 Barber Orchard Site Page 9 of 25
Contaminated soil requiring cleanup includes the following:
• Shallow surface and subsurface soil under and immediately adjacent to the five main water distribution lines used for pesticide spraying - the sediment in the lines will be included in the estimated surface soil volume
• Surface and subsurface soil across the property that was negatively impacted by pesticide spraying
The areal extent of contaminated soil in the surface and subsurface zones is illustrated in Figure 2-1. The
location of the five main pesticide distribution lines is not shown on Figure 2-1.
2.3.1.1 Pesticide Distribution Lines. Assumptions used in developing this area estimate for the
pesticide distribution lines are as follows:
• There are five main distribution lines present at the site
• The length of each line is equal to the distance from the compressor house to the top of the study area (5,200 feet); length of the five main lines is (5,200 * 5 or 26,000 feet)
• The lines will be excavated with a backhoe or trackhoe containing a 3-foot wide bucket. The depth of each excavation is assumed to be 4 feet.
• The volume of soil recovered during pesticide line removal is estimated at 11,556 cubic yards.
2.3.1.2 Surface Soil. As presented in the RI Report surface soils were sampled on 5-acre grids. To
develop volume estimates for soil removal, these 5-acre soil grids were assigned to one of two groups:
• Category 1: If arsenic or lead concentrations exceeded the RGO the entire 5-acre block was included in this group. These 5-acre grids are proposed for remediation.
• Category 2: Unsampled 5-acre grids adjacent to or between sampled blocks that were included in Category 1 were also considered as contaminated and are proposed for remediation.
Feasibility Study Report Section 2 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99043
Revis^^^a Work Assignment No. 034-R1CO-A4T9 Revision Date: Julj^^^^B Bartw Orchard Site Pag^^^^P
Additional characterization efforts will be required to refine this area estimate. Individual 5-acre grids
proposed for remediation are presented on Figure 2-1. These blocks were cropped at the previous
orchard boundary. Areas within the previous orchard boundary where apple trees were not grown were
excluded from the volume estimate. These areas were identified on the 1999 aerial photograph shown as
part of Figure 2-1. Following these guidelines, the estimated overall area where surface application of
pesticides has had a negative impact on surface soils is 234 acres. Properties included in the previous
interim remedial actions were included in this total. These areas were included because actions were not
completed on all portions of each property. This 234 acre total contains roads, houses, outbuildings, which
will not be remediated. It is further assumed that this area contains "clean" or uncontaminated areas which
will not require action. Therefore the overall 234 acres has been reduced by a factor or 20% (46.8 acres)
to 187.2 acres.
The proposed actions will require the removal of contaminated surface soils. Removing a 1 -foot thick layer
of soil from these 187.2 acres would generate 302,017 cubic yards of soil.
2.3.2 Area and Volume of Contaminated Groundwater The calculation of either an area or volume of contaminated groundwater beneath the Barber Ore
was completed using the following assumptions:
• Porosity values in the saprolite were assumed to be 40%; metamorphic bedrock fracture porosity was assumed to be 5%. It should be noted that there is only a limited amount of data available to estimate a fracture porosity in bedrock. As a simplifying assumption, overall porosity for the rock column (saprolite/bedrock) is assumed to be 10%.
• The areal extent of pesticide detections in groundwater is shown in Figure 2-2. Lindane, for example, was detected in potable wells and in site monitoring wells in concentrations exceeding the RGO. A majority of these detections were quantified in the western portion of the area. The estimated areal extent of Lindane concentrations exceeding the RGO is approximated by a rectangle 3,000 feet long (between wells El 1-2941-MW011 and Stream E) by 3,000 feet wide (between monitoring well El 1 -2941-MW011 and potable well 7694-20-9736). This area is 9,000,000 square feet (approximately 206 acres).
4 9 H Feasibility Study Report Section 2 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99043
Revision No. 1 Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 30, 2003 Barber Orchard Site Page II of 2 J
• Assuming pesticides are detected in the groundwater column at an average thickness of 20 feet and using a combined average porosity estimate for the saprolite/bedrock of 10%, the volume of Lindane-contaminated water beneath the site is 134,640,000 gallons.
It should be noted that there has been no groundwater pesticide "hotspot" defined beneath the site although
pesticide detections are generally more common in the western portion of the site than the eastern portion
of the site.
2.4 General Response Actions General response actions have been identified for soil contamination at the Barber Orchard site. The
general response actions include:
• No action • Institutional controls • Containment • Collection/Removal • Treatment • Disposal
No action is where the site is left "as is" and no provisions are made for soil monitoring, control, or cleanup
of the contamination. Institutional controls involve the creation and implementation of controls (such as
zoning or access restrictions on affected properties) to minimize public and environmental contact with
contaminants at the site. Engineering controls are engineered or constructed controls, such as fencing, that
restrict human contact with site contaminants. Containment involves physical restrictions on contaminant
mobility in the different media. Collection/removal involves the direct physical removal of the
contamination. Treatment involves onsite and offsite measures to render the contaminated media less
hazardous. Disposal involves measures to relocate soil and/or groundwater in a manner that will reduce
its interaction with the public and the environment.
Remedial technologies and process options have been identified for each general response action.
Remedial technologies refer to general categories of technology types, and process options refer to specific
processes within each technology type. Table 2-1 lists the RAOs, general response actions, and the
Feasibility Study Report Section 2 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99043
Revisj Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: Ju Barber Orchard Site P a ^ ^ V
remedial technology types for soil and groundwater remediation at the site. The technologies identified are
typical of those used in the screening process for a site with contaminants similar to those associated with
the Barber Orchard site.
2.5 Identification and Screening Process Information submitted to the remediation and removal programs, since the inception of the EPA Superfund
program in 1980, repeatedly indicates that certain categories of sites have similar characteristics including
types of contaminants present, types of disposal practices, or ways in which environmental media are
affected. Based on the information acquired during the evaluation and cleaning up of designated sites, the
Superfund program has undertaken various initiatives to accelerate the pace of cleanups at National Priority
List sites. One such initiative has included developing presumptive remedies for sites with similar
characteristics in order to streamline the remediation planning process (EPA, 1993). This and other
initiatives have resulted in the publication of several guidance documents, directives, and policy statements
relevant to the FS for the Barber Orchard site. These publications include:
• Presumptive Remedies: Policy and Procedures (EPA, 1993). Encourages the use of presumptive remedies to streamline the site assessment process and to accelerate the remedy selection decisions.
b).^^is Presumptive Response Strategy and Ex-Situ Treatment Technologie Contaminated Ground Water at CERCLA Sites, Final Guidance (EPA, 1996b). guidance describes a presumptive response strategy which identifies presumptive technologies that use a phased approach for treatment of extracted groundwater where extraction and treatment is part of the remedy. The phased approach incorporates performance monitoring and post-construction refinements to enhance the overall effectiveness of the treatment technology. It also simplifies the selection of technologies for the ex-situ treatment component of a groundwater remedy and improves the technical basis for the selections. Additionally, it encourages the shifting of time and resources employed in remedy selection from ex-situ treatment to other more fundamental aspects of the groundwater remedy.
Presumptive Remedy for Metals-in-Soil Sites (EPA, 1999b). This guidance establishes preferred treatment technologies for metals-in-soil waste that is targeted for treatment and containment for low-level risk waste requiring remediation.
4 9 00
Feasibility Study Report Section 2 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99043
Revision No. 1 Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 30.2003 Barber Orchard Site Page 13 of 25
• Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide, 3rd Edition (U.S. Army Environmental Center, 1997). Includes a comprehensive listing of remediation technologies including those for metals-contaminated soil and groundwater.
• Treatment Technologies Screening Matrix (Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable, 2000). Website showing a comprehensive list of remediation technologies for soil and groundwater for a number of contaminants.
• Institutional Controls: A Guide to Implementing, Monitoring, and Enforcing Institutional Controls at Superfund, Brownfields, Federal Facility, UST and RCRA Corrective Action Cleanup (EPA, 2002d). Document describing institutional controls and how they are used; also describes ways to use institutional controls during remedial or corrective action.
An important facet of the streamlining effort is a reduction in the level of documentation and FS
requirements. EPA has identified technology screening as an area in which FS streamlining may be
appropriate. The technology screening for this FS has been reduced to a single screening step based on
the information presented by EPA (EPA, 1993). The initial step, which involved the identification and
preliminary screening based on technology implementability, was omitted, as is consistent with EPA
directives for evaluating and selecting remediation technologies in soil and groundwater.
The objective of the technology screening step is to select representative process options for each
technology simplifying the subsequent development and evaluation of remedial alternatives. The
remediation technologies and process options identified as potentially applicable were evaluated based on
effectiveness, implementability, and cost.
Process options were evaluated on their effectiveness relative to other options within the same technology
type. This evaluation focused on three main points:
• The potential effectiveness of process options in handling the estimated areas or volumes of contaminated media and meeting the goals identified in the general response actions.
Feasibility Study Report Section 2 EPA Contract No 68-W-99043
RevisiQa^i^^ Work Assignment No. 034-RJCO-A4T9 Revision Date: J u l y ^ ^ ^ B Barber Orchard S ite P a g c ^ ^ ^ H
• The effectiveness of the process options in protecting human health and the environment during the construction and implementation phases.
• The reliability and certainty of the process options with respect to the contaminants and conditions at the site.
The implementability of a process option encompasses both the technical and institutional feasibility of
implementing a process. Technical feasibility addresses the effectiveness of the technology based on site
conditions and contaminant characteristics. Institutional feasibility includes consideration of the ability to
obtain necessary permits for offsite actions; the availability of treatment, storage, or disposal (TSD)
facilities; and the availability of the necessary equipment and workers.
The cost evaluation includes a qualitative estimation of the capital and operation and maintenance (O&M)
costs associated with the process options. The greatest costs during site remediation are usually associated
with the degree to which the different technology types are used, not the specific process options.
The screening criteria were evaluated according to the relative importance of each screening criterion. The
most weight in the evaluation was given to the effectiveness criteria, followed by implementability and cost
criteria. When two or more options yielded comparable results, cost criteria were used to determine
option could achieve the most effective results.
2.6 Technology Identification and Screening Results Soil (surface and subsurface) remediation technologies were evaluated for amelioration of the areas with
contaminants concentrations above selected RAOs. The combined volume/area of contaminated soil to
be addressed is approximately 313,573 cubic yards. This volume includes soil to be removed from the
187.2 acres and 26,000 feet of pipeline. Groundwater restoration technologies were also evaluated at this
time, although the list of technologies applicable to pesticide contamination in fractured metamorphic
bedrock is limited.
Soil (surface and subsurface soil) and groundwater restoration technologies were screened using the
guidance documents cited in Section 2.5. The evaluation of the remedial technologies and process options
4 9 00
Feasibility Study Report Section 2 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99043
Revision No.\ Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 30.2003 Barber Orchard Site Page 15 of 25
for soil is presented in Table 2-9 and discussed in Section 2.6.2. The evaluation of the remedial
technologies and process options for groundwater is presented in Table 2-10 and further described in
Section 2.6.3. These technologies and process options represent a pool from which remedial alternatives
will be developed in Section 3.0. The rejected process options have been eliminated from consideration
and further discussion.
2.6.1 No Action A no action alternative is required for consideration in accordance with NCP. This option would serve as
a baseline against which the other technologies can be compared. Under this alternative, land and
groundwater use restrictions would not be implemented, and removal and/or treatment of contaminated soil
and groundwater would not be performed. This option would not provide any protection to the public or
environment and would be the least protective of all actions No action would require no capital
expenditures; however, 5-year regulatory reviews would be required in accordance with CERCLA.
2.6.2 Soil Technologies
2.6.2.1 Institutional Controls. This subsection discusses institutional controls as an option for
minimizing human risk. Institutional controls fall into four general categories: governmental controls (such
as zoning restrictions and building permits), informational devices (such as deed notices and signage),
proprietary controls (such as easements and covenants), and enforcement and permit tools (such as consent
decrees). The options retained are governmental controls and informational devices.
In addition to any particular institutional control that may be implemented at the Barber Orchard site, North
Carolina law requires full disclosure of environmental contamination and any land-use restrictions placed
on a residential property when ownership of the property is transferred (NCGS 47E-4), unless the transfer
is exempt from such disclosure.
2.6.2.1.1 Governmental controls. Under North Carolina law (NCGS Section 130A-310.3(f)) a
Declaration of Perpetual Land-Use Restriction can be voluntarily placed on a property. This document
is typically referred to as a land-use restriction document (LURD). Some benefits of this type of
Feasibility Study Report EPA Contract No. 68-W-99043
Work Assignment No. 03A-R1CO-A4T9 Barber Orchard Site
agreement are inclusion of the site on the state Superfund program inactive hazardous substance site
inventory, site recordation in the county register of deeds, and the fact that the restrictions follow the
property through conveyance (i.e., "run with the land"). The limitations on its effective use as a permanent
remedy include the fact that it is voluntary and must be agreed to by the land owner. Appendix B contains
a copy of a typical LURD.
Zoning ordinance restrictions and building permits would involve prohibiting the installation of new
structures in the area of the contamination and/or ensuring that construction activities within contaminated
areas are completed with no risk to human health. This alternative could be used in conjunction with other
technologies as a method for eliminating risk of human contact with contaminated soil. Its application to
the Barber Orchard site is limited by the potential that zoning ordinances may change and the fact that they
are controlled/enforced by local governmental entities.
2.6.2.1.2 Informational devices. Informational devices provide information and/or notification to
interested parties and the public regarding contamination which may have been left on site (e.g., through
capping or other in situ remedies). Typical informational devices include property deed notices and hazard
warnings (e.g., signs, monuments). The state of North Carolina's Superfund law provides for the
establishment of an inactive hazardous substance site inventory, which may also be considered a tyn^rf
informational device. A major drawback to the use of informational devices by themselves, is the f^^^H
they have no legal standing and are generally difficult to enforce. They may, however, add tome
protectiveness of a remedy when combined with other enforceable, more permanent remedies.
2.6.2.1.3 Monitoring. Long-term monitoring (LTM) (i.e., future sampling and analysis) is a component
of most remedial alternatives.
2.6.2.2 Containment. Containment technologies control the migration of contaminated surface soil from
the site due to erosion and transportation to surface water bodies via overland runoff. Containment also
would serve to prevent further contamination of the groundwater at the site due to subsurface soil leaching.
This response action would not remove contaminants from the she, but would minimize the risk of migration
of and contact with contamination. Containment options include the design and construction of either
•
Section 2
Revisioj
Revision Dale: July
Pag.
#
4 9 Feasibility Study Report Section 2 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99043
Revision No. 1 Work Assignment No. 034-R1CO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 30, 2003 Barber Orchard Site Page 17 of 25
permeable or impermeable caps. Both types of caps were retained for further consideration. Drainage
controls were retained for further consideration as they would be required for other types of remedial
actions, such as excavation.
2.6.2.2.1 Capping - permeable. A moderate permeability cap is a potentially applicable option for
remediation of the Barber Orchard site. A moderate permeability cap would consist of an earthen cover.
The cap would reduce or eliminate contact with contaminated soil and would control the amount of surface
water infiltration, thereby reducing the generation of leachate.
2.6.2.2.2 Capping - impermeable. A low permeability cap would also be applicable for remediation
of the Barber Orchard site. This type of cap would consist of a earthen/flexible membrane cap and would
be applicable to areas where leaching of contaminants from the soil to the groundwater is a significant
consideration. The earthen/flexible membrane design consists of a lower graded and compacted soil layer
capped with a geotextile fabric and covered with a final layer of soil. A low permeability cap would
essentially eliminate infiltration into the vadose zone and reduce or eliminate contact with contaminated soil.
2.6.2.2.3 Drainage controls. The establishment of new drainage patterns could minimize infiltration
in areas of contaminated soil. This alternative could work in conjunction with a number of other
alternatives.
2.6.2.3 Collection/Removal. Removal of the surface and subsurface soil that is contaminated can
prevent migration of contaminants offsite and achieve remedial objectives. The only remedial option
retained for this response action is extraction/excavation.
2.6.2.3.1 Soil extraction/excavation. Soil would be excavated at the site to extract the contaminated
material. In conjunction with soil removal, approximately 26,000 linear feet of pesticide distribution lines
would be removed and disposed of. The removal of contaminated soil would reduce further migration of
contaminants. The location, size, and depth of each extraction would be determined through further
Feasibility Study Report EPA Contract No. 68-W-99043
Work Assignment No. 034-R1CO-A4T9 Barber Orchard Site
contaminant delineation. Excavators and other digging equipment would typically be used to remove the
contaminated material down to the water table. Extracted soil would be removed, treated and disposed
of either on or off site or left untreated and transported to a TSD facility. The excavation would then be
backfilled with clean material.
2.6.2.4 Treatment. Treatment of the contaminated soil can be accomplished by treating the
contaminants in place (in situ) or extracting the contaminated media (ex situ) for treatment.
Phytoremediation (in-situ biological) and solidification and stabilization (ex-situ physical) technologies are
the treatment process options retained for development into alternatives.
2.6.2.4.1 Phytoremediation. Phytoremediation is the use of certain plants to clean up soil, sediment,
and water contaminated with metals and/or organic contaminants such as crude oil, solvents, and
polyaromatic hydrocarbons). Phytoremediation can be used to clean up contamination in several ways:
• Phytovolatilization: Plants take up water and organic contaminants through the roots, transport them to the leaves, and release the contaminants as a reduced of detoxified vapor into the atmosphere.
• Microorganism stimulation: Plants excrete and provide enzymes and organic substaj^b from their roots that simulate growth of microorganisms such as fungi and bacteria^^H microorganisms in the root zone then metabolize the organic contaminants. ^ ^ P
• Phytostabilization: Plants prevent contaminants from migrating by reducing runoff, surface erosion, and ground-water flow rates. "Hydraulic pumping" can occur when tree roots reach ground water, take up large amounts of water, control the hydraulic gradient, and prevent lateral migration of contaminants within a ground water zone.
• Phytoaccumulation/extraction: Plant roots can move metals from contaminated sites and transport them to leaves and stems for harvesting and disposal or metal recovery through smelting processes.
• Phytodegradarion by plants: Organic contaminants are absorbed inside the plant and metabolized (broken down) to non-toxic molecules by natural chemical processes within the plant.
•
Section 2
Revision Date. Jul; Pagi
.evis^^feL
'ag^^V
4 9 ?0
Feasibility Study Repon Section 2 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99043
Revision No. I Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 30.2003 Barber Orchard Site Pagel9of25
For the Barber Orchard site, phytoaccumulation could be used to remove metals from site surface soils.
Phytoremediation works on a variety of compounds, can be implemented in-situ or ex-situ, it is relatively
easy to implement and maintain, reduces the amount of wastes to be landfilled, and is environmentally
friendly. Phytoremediation may take several years or several growing seasons to work and in-situ cleanups
are restricted to sites with shallow contamination within the rooting zone. One concern with
phytoremediation is the possible affects on the food chain through ingestion by small animals of plant mass
that has bioaccumulated toxins. Phytoremediation will be retained for evaluation.
2.6.2.4.2 Solidification/stabilization ex situ. In this treatment process, soil must be extracted and
treated with a reagent to immobilize contamination. Large debris is removed from the soil and disposed
separately. Formulated reagents are physically mixed with the contaminated media and chemically bind
the contaminants, reducing the mobility ofhazardous substances in the environment through both physical
and chemical means. The solidification/stabilization techniques would be combined with disposal methods
to yield a product or material suitable for land disposal. If the material is to be returned to the site as fill
material, the final form of the stabilized/fixed material would need to exclude moisture and oxygen from the
contaminated material to prevent the continual oxidation and resulting acid production of the metal-laden
minerals within the soil.
2.6.2.5 Disposal. Soil that has been extracted, with or without further treatment, will require disposal.
Disposal options include offsite disposal for treated or untreated soil. Soil that has been excavated but is
determined to contain contaminants at concentrations below RGOs or that has been treated to levels below
RGOs may be replaced onsite.
2.6.2.5.1 Offsite disposal. Based on the alternative chosen, soil may either be simply excavated and
disposed or excavated and treated before being transported to a disposal facility. The material with
contaminant concentrations above the RGOs will require disposal. The only disposal option retained for
untreated soil containing contaminants that render the media hazardous is transportation to a hazardous
4 9 0 0 3 : Feasibility Sludy Report Section 3
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99043 Revision No. I
Work Assignment No 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 30. 2003
Barber Orchard Site Page 1 of 17
3.0 DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES
The remedial process options that were determined to be the most applicable for soil, and
groundwater for the Barber Orchard site are identified in Section 2.0. Alone, these process options
would not remediate the contaminated media; however, combining the individual process options
develops possible solutions for the contamination problem. The combinations of process options
are referred to as remedial alternatives. This section provides the basis for remedial alternative
development and describes the alternatives for soil and groundwater at the site.
3.1 Basis for Alternative Development This section discusses the basis used to formulate remedial alternatives for soil and groundwater at
the site. The retained process options described in Section 2.0 were developed into viable remedial
alternatives, which were formulated in accordance with EPA guidance criteria (EPA, 1988a; EPA,
1988b; EPA, 1989b; EPA, 1993).
The goals in developing the preliminary remedial alternatives are to provide both a range of cleanup
options and sufficient detail to adequately compare alternatives. The EPA guidance documents
recommend that alternatives be developed that achieve cleanup goals with varying time frames using
different methodologies. It is suggested that three general types of response actions be developed
and evaluated: the no action response, containment, and active restoration. Remedial alternatives
have been developed for all three general types of response actions to provide a range in the time
required for restoration.
The no action alternative would not involve any site actions. This response would rely on the natural
ability of the contaminated media to reduce contaminant concentrations through physical, chemical,
and biological processes until cleanup goals are met. However, no monitoring of the contaminated
media is implemented, so it is not possible to determine if any of these actions is occurring
Containment refers to minimizing the migration of contamination through horizontal or vertical
barriers and/or surface control. Alternatives incorporating the use of horizontal barriers, including
permeable capping, have been developed for site surface soils. No containment alternatives have
Feasibility Study Report Section 3 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99043 Revision No I Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 3 0 ^ ^ Barber Orchard Site P a g e ^ ^ ^ f
been developed for groundwater due to the presence of pesticides in the fractured metamorprnc
bedrock, a media where it is very difficult to construct barriers.
Active restoration refers to alternatives that reduce contaminant levels to the remediation goals by
treatment in the minimal time feasible. Active restoration alternatives generally reduce contaminant
levels more rapidly than containment alternatives and much more rapidly than the no action
alternative. However, active restoration alternatives generally entail higher costs. Higher costs result
from larger equipment costs and larger O&M costs necessary to process the contaminated media.
Alternatives have been developed that would provide active restoration of contaminated soil and
groundwater. The active restoration alternatives for soil include phytoremediation, excavation,
ex-situ stabilization and on- or off-site disposal options. Active restoration alternatives for
groundwater include extraction, treatment, and disposal and MNA options.
A fourth type of general response, institutional control, typically, is used to support the other three
general responses. For this site, the institutional controls have been included with remedial
alternatives that include zoning and/or deed restrictions for soil as well as zoning restrictions on the
drilling of new potable water wells and groundwater monitoring. In addition, one engineering
control, the development of an alternative water supply has been included in the FS evaluation
process.
CERCLA requires that remedial actions which result in any hazardous substances, pollutan
contaminants remaining at the site be subject to a five-year review. The purpose of the five _
review is to evaluate the implementation and performance of a remedy in order to determine if the
remedy is or will be protective of human and health and the environment. Several of the remedial
alternatives will result in contaminants remaining at the site.
3.2 Description of Alternatives for Soil This subsection discusses the remedial alternatives for contaminated soil at the site. Table 3-1
summarizes the alternatives by illustrating which process options are included in each alternative.
4 9 003
Feasibility Study Report Section 3
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99043 Revision No. 1
Work Assignment No. 034-R1CO-A4T9 Revision Dale: July 30, 2003
Barber Orchard Site Page 3 of 17
3.2.1 Alternative S1: No Action Alternative S l would not involve any remedial actions, and the site would remain in its present
condition. This alternative, required by the NCP and CERCLA, is a baseline alternative against
which the effectiveness of the other alternatives can be compared. Under the no action alternative,
the site is left "as is" and no funds would be expended for monitoring, control, or cleanup of the
contaminated soil. However, 5-year reviews of the site would be required under CERCLA;
therefore, funds would be expended to conduct the reviews. It is anticipated that each 5-year review
would consist of a site visit and report preparation.
3.2.2 Alternative S2: Institutional Controls and Monitoring Alternative S2 would involve the implementation of institutional controls and a soil erosion/creek
sedimentation monitoring plan. Under this alternative an Institutional Control Implementation Plan
(ICIP) would be written. The ICIP would contain a strategy for minimizing human health risks
through site access restrictions, the NC LURD, zoning ordinance restrictions, building permit
requirements and informational devices.
Institutional controls would not be effective in protecting current site residents from exposures to
contaminated soil and would only be marginally effective in mitigating additional development of
residential housing at the site.
Institutional controls potentially applicable to the Barber Orchard site include:
• Declaraction of Perpetual Land-Use Restriction (LURD) [NCGS Section 130A-310.3(F)]. - Land-use restriction is voluntarily placed on a property by the landowner. Appendix B contains a copy of a generic LURD.
• Zoning restriction placed on a property by Haywood County to restrict land use.
• Informational device - Inclusion of the property in federal and North Carolina State Superfund hazardous substance site inventory
An LTM plan would be written and implemented because contaminated surface soil would be left
in place. Because the metals do not biodegrade or attenuate through time, there is no reason to collect
surface soil samples in areas of known arsenic and lead contamination. However, erosion via surface
Feasibility Study Report Section 3 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99043 Revision No. 1 Work Assignment No 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 30^ Barber Orchard Site Pagej
y 3 0 ^ ^ L «e^^^k
rchara. runoff could transport soil contaminants to the small creeks and streams draining the orchanf
Surface water and sediment sampling for metals and pesticides and reporting will be completed on
an annual basis under this alternative. This alternative is subject to a 5-year review.
3.2.3 Alternative S3: Capping, Institutional Controls and Monitoring Alternative S3 entails the use of an impermeable cap over the areas of soil (including the distribution
lines) contaminated with arsenic, lead, and organochlorine pesticides. An impermeable cap has been
selected because of the presence of Lindane in both site soils and groundwater samples. The
presence of Lindane in groundwater samples suggests an impermeable cap would be required to
prevent further leaching of this pesticide from the soil to the groundwater. The cap would serve two
purposes. The presence of the cap will prohibit direct human contact with contaminated soil and
would prevent the infiltration of surface water into the subsurface, thereby eliminating the continued
leaching of pesticides from contaminated soils. Elements of the capping alternative would include:
Complete characterization of each grid recommended for remediation Clearing and grubbing Cap construction, final grading and revegetation LTM Establishment of institutional controls.
The primary component of the cap would be a high-density polyethylene geosynthetic liner. The
liner would be placed between two layers of clean, compacted soil, each approximately 12 i
thick. After construction and placement of the cap, the area would be graded to drain properly?
the site revegetated. A long-term monitoring plan would be implemented and institutional controls
would be established to inform the public that waste has remained on site.
. ine
This remedial alternative would be effective for preventing the migration of contamination to the
groundwater and would mitigate human and ecological exposure to the metals and pesticides.
However, the amount and concentration of arsenic and lead is not decreased and the capped areas
could not be used for building or be landscaped. Given the size of the site, capping 187.2 acres is
not feasible. Capping the property will prohibit further residential development.
4 9 003.^
Feasibility Study Report Section 3 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99043 Revision No. I Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 30, 2003 Barber Orchard Site Page 5 of 17
3.2.4 Alternative S4: Excavation, Treatment, and Off-Site Disposal of Treated Soil Actions proposed under this alternative will address soil contamination within the main portion of
the orchard and along the pesticide distribution lines. Figure 3-1 identifies four potential areas
(labeled Possible Stockpile Areas 1 through 4) where soil could be stockpiled for treatment/
stabilization during implementation of alternatives S4, S5, and S6.
3.2.4.1 Residential Areas. Alternative S4 would involve excavation and offsite disposal of soil
containing arsenic at concentrations higher than 20 mg/kg and/or lead at concentrations exceeding
400 mg/kg for activities associated with this option include:
• Complete characterization of each grid recommended for remediation • Clearing and grubbing to remove vegetative cover • Removal of the top 12 inches of soil exceeding surface soil RGOs • Sampling of subsurface soil • Removal of underlying subsurface soil exceeding subsurface soil RGOs • Final confirmatory sampling • Backfilling, regrading and revegetation • Disposal of soil.
Remediation efforts would begin by fully characterizing the property being considered for cleanup.
It is anticipated that a minimum of 10 surface soil samples would be required per 5-acre grid. It is
anticipated that arsenic would be used as an indicator compound and a portable on-site x-ray
fluorescence unit would be used to quantify arsenic concentrations across subject properties. The
arsenic detection limit for the x-ray fluorescence unit should be substantially below the RGO of 20
mg/kg. Based upon this analytical data set, areas proposed for removal would be fully delineated
and marked (i.e., not all of a single 5-acre grid would require remediation). Equipment would be
mobilized to the site, utilities marked and the areas would be cleared and grubbed. The
contaminated soil will be excavated to a depth of approximately 1-foot bgs and stockpiled on the
Barber Orchard site. Once the top 1-foot of soil has been removed the remediated areas will be
resampled and this set of analytical data will be screened against the subsurface soil RGO.
Excavation activities will be resumed and subsurface soils will be excavated, as indicated by the
analytical data. This iterative process will be completed until subsurface soils are excavated until
concentrations are below the RGO. After completion of the remedial action the excavated areas
would then be backfilled, regraded and revegetated. As there is no sanitary sewer system serving
Feasibility Study Report EPA Contract No. 68-W-99043 Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Barber Orchard Site
Section 3 Revision No. 1
Revision Dale: July 30.^ Pagc,
the area, care should be taken during excavation activities to protect septic systems.
i - 3 0 ^ ^ i
Stockpiled soil will be mixed with the selected stabilization agent to render the material
non-hazardous and the material will be transported to a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) Subtitle D landfill for disposal. It is anticipated that not all excavated soil will contain
contaminants in high enough concentrations to require stabilization. Soil will be stabilized at an
approximate rate of 100 tons per hour. Approximately one acre of land will be needed to set up the
treatment area. Initially, the untreated soil will be screened to remove debris and large boulders. The
selected stabilization agent will be added to the screened soil and mixed thoroughly using a pug mill.
Treated soil will be stockpiled onsite awaiting final disposition. No institutional controls or long-
term soil monitoring would be required under this option as no waste will be left in place.
3.2.4.2 Pesticide Distribution Piping. In addition to the gridded areas proposed for soil removal
the pesticide distribution piping will be removed and soil beneath and adjacent to the piping
excavated and disposed of. Activities associated with this option include:
Marking and delineating the pesticide distribution piping
Clearing and grubbing to remove vegetative cover
Removal of the piping and a 3-foot wide by 4-foot deep rectangle around distribution piping
1 ^ ^
Sampling of subsurface soil
Removal of underlying subsurface soil exceeding subsurface soil RGOs
Final confirmatory sampling
Backfilling, regrading and revegetation
Disposal of soil and sediment from inside the piping and the piping itself.
This iterative process will be completed until subsurface soils are excavated until concentrations are
below the RGO. After completion of the remedial action the excavated areas would then be
4 9 0 0 3 -
Feasibility Study Report Seaton 3 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99043 Revision No. I Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 30. 2003 Barber Orchard Site Page 7 of 17
backfilled with clean soil, regraded, and revegetated.
Sediment contained within the distribution line piping will be segregated from the soil and assumed
to be a characteristic hazardous waste. This material would need to be disposed of in a RCRA
Subtitle C landfill. Sediment mass/volume removed from the piping is assumed to average 7 pounds
per 100 linear feet of piping or approximately 2,000 pounds (1 ton). The piping will be RCRA -
cleaned and sold for scrap. Stockpiled sediment will be mixed with the selected stabilization agent
to render the material non-hazardous and the material will be transported to a RCRA Subtitle D
landfill for disposal. It is further assumed that 10% of the 11,556 yards of soil (1,156 yards) will
require disposal as a characteristic hazardous waste in a RCRA Subtitle C landfill. No institutional
controls or long-term soil monitoring would be required under this option as no waste will be left
in place.
This remedial alternative would remove the contaminated media from the site thereby preventing
human and ecological exposure to the contaminants. In addition, the remedy would be compatible
with continued residential development in the area. However, it is anticipated that off-site disposal
of this amount of soil will not be cost effective.
3.2.5 Alternative S5; Excavation, Treatment, and On-site (Point of Origin) Disposal
of Contaminated Soil, Institutional Controls, and Monitoring
Alternative S5 would involve excavation and on-site disposal (point of origin disposal) of soil
containing arsenic at concentrations higher than 20mg/kg and/or lead at concentration exceeding
400 mg/kg for lead. Activities associated with this option include:
• Complete characterization of each grid recommended for remediation • Clearing and grubbing to remove vegetative cover • Removal of the top 12 inches of soil exceeding surface soil RGOs • Sampling of subsurface soil • Removal of underlying subsurface soil exceeding subsurface soil RGOs • Excavation of an additional volume of clean subsurface soil • Treatment/stabilization of soil • Backfilling excavation with treated/stabilized soil • Regrading and revegetation.
Feasibility Sludy Repon Section 5 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99043 Revision No. I Work Assignment No 034-RICO-A-1T9 Revision Date: July 30^ Barber Orchard Site
Remediation efforts would begin by fully characterizing the property being considered for cleanup
It is anticipated that a minimum of 10 surface soil samples would be required per 5-acre grid.
Arsenic would be used as an indicator compound and a portable on-site x-ray fluorescence unit
would be used to quantify arsenic concentrations across subject properties. The arsenic detection
limit for the x-ray fluorescence unit should be substantially below the RGO of 20 mg/kg. This
analytical data set would be used to mark areas of each grid where removal actions would be
implemented (i.e., not all of a single 5-acre grid might require remediation). Equipment would be
mobilized to the site, utilities marked and the areas would be cleared and grubbed. The
contaminated soil will be excavated to a depth of approximately 1-foot bgs and stockpiled on the
Barber Orchard site. Once the top 1-foot of soil has been removed the remediated areas will be
resampled and this set of analytical data will be screened against the subsurface soil RGO.
Excavation activities will be resumed and subsurface soils will be excavated, as indicated by the
analytical data. This iterative process will be completed until subsurface soils are excavated until
concentrations are below the RGO. Stockpiled soil will be mixed with the selected stabilization
agent to render the material non-hazardous and ensure that the pesticide/metals are not present in the
material in concentrations that are a threat to groundwater. It is anticipated that not all soil will
contain contaminants in high enough concentrations to require stabilization. Soil will be stabilized
at an approximate rate of 100 tons per hour. Approximately one acre of land will be needed to set
up the treatment area. Initially, the untreated soil will be screened to remove debris and large
boulders. The selected stabilization agent will be added to the screened soil and mixed thoroui
using a pug mill. Treated soil will be stockpiled onsite awaiting final disposition. Jgh^L
Soil and sediment associated with the pesticide distribution piping will be handled in a like manner.
Sediment contained within the distribution line piping will be segregated from the soil and assumed
to be a characteristic hazardous waste. This material would need to be disposed of in a RCRA
Subtitle C landfill. Sediment mass/volume removed from the piping is assumed to average 7 pounds
per 100 linear feet of piping or approximately 2,000 pounds (1 ton). The piping will be RCRA-
cleaned and sold for scrap. Stockpiled sediment will be mixed with the selected stabilization agent
to render the material non-hazardous and the material will be transported to a RCRA Subtitle D
landfill for disposal. It is further assumed that 10% of the 11,556 yards of soil (1,156 yards) will
require disposal as a characterized hazardous waste in a RCRA Subtitle C landfill. No institutional
4 9 C03
Feasibility Study Report Section 3
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99043 Revision No. I
Work Assignment No. 034-R1CO-A4T9 Revision Date July 30. 2003 Barber Orchard Site Page 9 o f ! T
controls or long-term soil monitoring would be required under this option as no waste will be left
in place.
At this point additional clean subsurface soil will be excavated and stockpiled at the work site.
Treated/stabilized soil will be hauled to the excavation and the excavation filled to approximately
1-foot of the surface. Clean backfill will be placed, compacted, graded and the entire site
revegetated. A long-term monitoring plan would be implemented and institutional controls would
be established to inform the public that waste has remained on site.
This remedial alternative would be effective for preventing the migration of contamination to the
groundwater and would mitigate human and ecological exposure to the contaminants. However, the
amount and concentration of arsenic and lead is not decreased and continued monitoring of the area
would be required. In addition, excavation or digging in areas where buried, stabilized waste is
present is not viable making this alternative somewhat incompatible with continued residential use
of the area.
3.2.6 Alternative S6: Excavation, Treatment, On-site Encapsulation in an Engineered Cell, Institutional Controls and Monitoring
Alternative S6 would involve excavation and on-site disposal (point of origin disposal) of soil
containing arsenic at concentrations higher than 20mg/kg and/or lead at concentration exceeding
400 mg/kg for lead. Excavation site activities associated with this option include:
• Complete characterization of each grid recommended for remediation • Clearing and grubbing to remove vegetative cover • Removal of the top 12 inches soil exceeding surface soil RGOs. • Sampling of subsurface soil • Removal of underlying subsurface soil exceeding subsurface soil RGOs. • Backfilling the excavation with clean soil and • Regrading and revegetation.
Remediation efforts would begin by fully characterizing the property being considered for cleanup.
It is anticipated that a minimum of 10 surface soil samples would be required per 5-acre grid.
Arsenic would be used as an indicator compound and a portable on-site x-ray fluorescence unit
would be used to quantify arsenic concentrations across subject properties. The arsenic detection
Feasibility Sludy Report Secuon 3 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99043 Revision No. I Wort; Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Daw. July 30,J^ Barber Orchard Site Page 1
-•30^003
limit for the x-ray fluorescence unit should be substantially below the RGO of 20 mg/kg.
analytical data set; would be used to mark areas of each grid where removal actions would be
implemented (i.e., not all of a single 5-acre grid might require remediation). Equipment would be
mobilized to the site, utilities marked and the areas would be cleared and grubbed. The
contaminated soil will be excavated to a depth of approximately 1 -foot bgs and stockpiled on the
Barber Orchard site. Once the top 1 -foot of soil has been removed the remediated areas will be
resampled and this set of analytical data will be screened against the subsurface soil RGO.
Excavation activities will be resumed and subsurface soils will be excavated, as indicated by the
analytical data. This process will be completed until all subsurface soils exceeding RGOs are
excavated from the area.
In addition to activities completed at the excavation site, the following would occur:
Treatment/ stabilization of contaminated soil at the stockpile areas Construction of an engineered cell on the Barber Orchard property Filling the engineered cell, Final closing of the cell and Establishment of monitoring.
Stockpiled soil will be mixed with the selected stabilization agent to render the material
non-hazardous and ensure that the pesticide/ metals are not present in the material in concentrations
that are a threat to groundwater. Soil will be stabilized at an approximate rate of 100 tons per 1
Approximately one acre of land will be needed to set up the treatment area. Initially, the unto
soil will be screened to remove debris and large boulders. The selected stabilization agent will be
added to the screened soil and mixed thoroughly using a pug mill. Treated soil will be stockpiled
onsite awaiting final disposition. Treated soil will be placed and encapsulated in an engineered cell
located on the Barber Orchard property. It is estimated the cell footprint will cover an estimated 12
acres and will be engineered to hold approximately 300,000 cubic yards of treated soil. This area
assumes that the waste can be stacked approximately 20 feet high in the cell and that there is
negligible volume increase (less than 5%) due to addition of the stabilization agent. In cross-section,
the cell will consist of the following layers:
• Bottom section (~3 feet total thickness) will include:
e r h 4 ^
n t r e ^ ^ V
4 9 0036 Feasibility Study Report Section 3 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99043 Revision No. 1 Work Assignment No. 034.R1CO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 30, 2003 Barber Orchard Site Page 11 of n
• Two feet of low permeability compacted clay (1 x 10'7 centimeters per second [cm/sec] vertical permeability)
• 60-mil-thick high-density polyethylene geomembrane liner
• 1 foot of sand containing piping for a leachate collection system
• Minimum slope of 3% on landfill bottom
• Drainage net on interior side slopes
• Middle section (~20-feet total thickness) will include:
• Compacted stabilized soil
• Top section or cap (~5-feet total thickness) will include:
• 1 foot soil above the waste • 2 feet of low permeability compacted clay (1 x 10"7 cm/sec vertical
permeability) • 40 mil low-density polyethylene geomembrane liner • Drainage net • 2 feet-thick soil/ vegetative layer.
It should be noted that the bottom section of the cell must be at least 5 feet above static groundwater
level. A groundwater monitoring system will be put in place around the cell. Once filled and closed
the cell will require ongoing maintenance (mowing, sampling of monitoring wells, maintenance of
leachate system and cap cover, leachate disposal, etc). Cell construction will precede the soil
stabilization by approximately 2 months and will end approximately 2 months after the last treated
soil has been placed in the cell. It is anticipated that the cell could be co-located with one of the four
proposed stockpile areas. Once filled the cell would be closed and a long-term monitoring plan
would be implemented and institutional controls would be established to inform the public that waste
has remained on site.
Sediment contained within the distribution line piping will be segregated from the soil and assumed
to be a characteristic hazardous waste. This material would need to be disposed of in a RCRA
Subtitle C landfill. Sediment mass/volume removed from the piping is assumed to average 7 pounds
Feasibility Study Report Section 3 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99043 Revision No. 1 Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 30^ Baroer Orchard Site Page I
•30 TflfB
C R ? ^ per 100 linear feet of piping or approximately 2.000 pounds (1 ton). The piping will be RCF
cleaned and sold for scrap. Stockpiled sediment will be mixed with the selected stabilization agent
to render the material non-hazardous and the material will be transported to a RCRA Subtitle D
landfill for disposal. It is further assumed that 10% of the 11,556 yards of soil (1,156 yards) will
require disposal as a characteristic hazardous waste in a RCRA Subtitle C landfill. No institutional
controls or long-term soil monitoring would be required under this option as no waste will be left
in place.
This remedial alternative would be effective for preventing the migration of contamination to the
groundwater and would mitigate human and ecological exposure to the contaminants. However,
some portion of the site will be used as the soil containment area. Properly constructed, the closed,
engineered cell could function as a community use area (i.e., soccer field, park, community center,
etc.). No digging or development restrictions would be placed on the remediated properties, and,
therefore, the remedy would be compatible with continued residential development in the area.
3.2.7 Alternatives?: Phytoremediation Alternative S7 would be implemented following completion of the phytoremediation treatability study. As with the other soil alternatives, Alternative S7 would treat areas of the site containing arsenic concentrations exceeding 20 mg/kg and lead concentrations exceeding 400 mg/kg. Site activities would include:
Complete characterization of the site and selection of areas to be remediated Hand-planting Restricting access to planted areas Tending and harvesting Disposal of plant mass Monitoring soil concentrations.
Remediation efforts would begin by fully characterizing the property being considered for cleanup.
It is anticipated that arsenic would be used as an indicator compound and a portable on-site x-ray
fluorescence unit would be used to quantify arsenic and/or lead concentrations across subject
properties. Based upon this analytical data set, areas proposed for removal would be fully delineated
and marked (i.e., not all of a single 5-acre grid would require remediation). Equipment would be
4 9 Feasibility Study Rcpon Section 3 EPA Contract No 68-W-99043 Revision No. 1 Work Assignment No 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Dale: July 30, 2003 Barber Orchard Site Page 13 of I I
mobilized to the site, utilities marked and vegetation would be cleared from the site. It is anticipated
that most trees could be left standing.
The plants would then be hand-planted and site access to the planted areas would be restricted. To
treat lead and arsenic in soils two different plants would be used. These plants could be co-mingled
across an area. Human access to the planted areas would be restricted using temporary fencing or
natural site barriers until remediation efforts were complete. The plants would be tended and
monitored during the growing season and then harvested. Plant mass which has bioaccumulated lead
and arsenic would be disposed of as a CERCLA-regulated waste. Given the rates at which the plants
bioaccumulate metals, the harvested plant mass will likely be disposed as a characteristic hazardous
waste. Confirmatory soil samples would be collected and analyzed. If soil concentrations have not
reached below RGO levels the process would be repeated the next growing season.
Phytoremediation would not adequately remediate site soils below the growing plant root mass.
Some degree of subsurface contamination would likely remain on site. Institutional controls would
be needed for the properties where subsurface contaminants remain on site in concentrations
exceeding RGOs.
3.3 Description of Alternatives for Groundwater This subsection discusses the alternatives for remediation of contaminated groundwater at the Barber
Orchard site. Table 3-2 summarizes the alternatives by illustrating which process options are
included in each alternative.
3.3.1 Alternative GW1: No Action
Alternative GWl would not involve any remedial actions, and the site would remain in its present
condition. This alternative, required by the NCP and CERCLA, is a baseline alternative against
which the effectiveness of the other alternatives can be compared. Under the no action alternative,
the site is left "as is" and no funds would be expended for monitoring, control, or cleanup of the
contaminated groundwater. However, 5-year reviews of the site would be required under CERCLA;
therefore, funds would be expended to conduct the reviews. It is anticipated that each 5-year review
would consist of a site visit and report preparation.
Feasibility Study Report Section 3 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99043 Revision So. I Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 30. :00J Barber Orchard Site Page I m 3.3.2 Alternative GW2: Institutional, Engineering Controls, and Monitored Na
Attenuation Alternative GW2 entails the application of remedies to the Barber Orchard site to prevent human
exposure to groundwater containing unacceptable concentrations of pesticide compounds. Active
remediation is not considered as part of this alternative. Alternative GW2 consists of the following
specific technologies:
• Institutional Controls - Temporarily change status of groundwater beneath Barber Orchard site to restricted. As of June 2003, North Carolina law prohibits a water well driller from installing a well intended for domestic use in a contaminated aquifer. The NC LURD can be used by property owners to notify future owners of the groundwater contamination.
• Development of an alternative water supply - residents and businesses in the area relying on well water will be provided potable water from a non-contaminated source.
• Abandonment of existing potable water wells - residents and businesses in the area using water from impacted water wells will have those wells abandoned. Well abandonment will prevent future use of the well and eliminate the future migration of pesticide compounds via surface water infiltration around or down these well casings.
• Monitoring for Natural Attenuation/ Long-term monitoring - A monitoring program will be established to evaluate the progress of natural attenuation and track migration of the groundwater plume through time.
An estimated 80 residential and commercial water supply wells would require abandonment under
this alternative. All wells would be abandoned following North Carolina regulations for
abandonment of water wells.
Natural degradation rates for these pesticide compounds dissolved in water are slow and are not
expected to clean the aquifer in a timely manner. In addition to natural degradation in an aquifer,
the pesticide compounds will become adsorbed to soil particles and diluted due to mixing during
migration. These processes will also work to lower groundwater pesticide concentrations. To fully
4 9
Feasibility Siudy Repon Section 3 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99043 Revision No. 1 Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Dale: July 30. 2003 Barber Orchard Site Page 15 of 17
implement MNA additional monitoring wells would be required for monitoring of natural
attenuation and future plume migration and dispersion.
An alternative water supply is being constructed for the residents and commercial development
within and adjacent to the historic orchard. The preliminary engineering report for water service
improvements (McGill Associates, 2001) was issued on March 2001. This report recommended that
water be brought to the area by extending the Town of Waynesville water system to the orchard.
EPA issued a finding of no significant impact regarding this proposed alternative in the spring of
2003. It is anticipated that construction on the project will be underway during the winter 2004.
This alternative would be protective of human health but would not actively remediate site-related
groundwater contamination and would not restore groundwater beneath the site to a usable status.
If implemented, this alternative would be subject to a 5-year review.
3.3.3 Alternative GW3: Extraction of Groundwater, Aboveground Treatment, and Discharge to a NPDES-permitted Outfall
Groundwater Alternative 3 involves the extraction of groundwater via extraction wells, treatment
to remove dissolved pesticides and discharge of treated groundwater to an NPDES-permitted outfall
into Richland Creek. This type of system would actively remove contaminants from the groundwater
and would contain and prevent future migration of the plume. Components of this remedy include
development of an alternative water supply, engineering controls and long term monitoring (see
Alternative GW2 above). Under this alternative the alternative water supply would be constructed
and the existing residential and commercial wells would be abandoned. Additional monitoring wells
will be required to fully define the extent of groundwater containing Lindane or other pesticides
exceeding the RGO.
Figure 3-2 shows the proposed extraction well network and piping, groundwater treatment system
building, and effluent discharge point. There are 25 proposed extraction wells; 15 bedrock wells and
10 overburden/saprolite wells. Bedrock wells depths are estimated at 150 feet, while overburden
wells depths are estimated at 25 feet. Estimated pumping rates are 20 gallons per minute (gpm) from
each well. Estimated flow into the plant is 500 gpm. The treated effluent would be discharged into
Richland Creek through a permitted, point discharge regulated under the North Carolina NPDES
permit system.
u i ;
Feasibility Study Report Section 3 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99043 Revision No. 1 Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 30,20J Barber Orchard Site Page I
0 ,2001
The treatment system would be housed in a permanent treatment building constructed onsite.
proposed groundwater treatment system would involve running the influent through granular
activated carbon to remove organochlorine pesticide compounds and then discharging this treated
water to the creek.
It is proposed that groundwater monitoring would be conducted quarterly for the first two years,
semi-annually for the following three years, and annually thereafter. Additional monitoring wells
may be installed to optimize the monitoring process. The results of the monitoring would be
summarized in the 5-year review reports prepared for the administrative record.
Under this alternative, the alternative water supply has been included, as has the abandonment of
residential water wells.
3.4 Alternatives Retained for Detailed Analysis The NCP requires that the preliminary alternatives be subjected to an initial screening based on
effectiveness, implementability, and cost. The purpose of the initial screening is to eliminate those
alternatives that have adverse impacts on public health and the environment, are not applicable to
the contaminants and media at the site, or are much more expensive to implement than other
alternatives that provide essentially the same level of protection.
l ^ m ^ Soil remediation alternatives included for full evaluation include: no action (Alternative
Institutional controls (Alternative S2), Excavation, Treatment, and Off-Site Disposal of Treated
(Alternative S4), Excavation, Treatment, On-site (point of origin) Disposal or Treated Soil
(Alternative S5), Excavation, Treatment, On-site Encapsulation in an Engineered Cell (Alternative
S6), and (Alternative S7), Phytoremediation. The screening of potential groundwater remedial
technologies resulted in three distinct alternatives to be evaluated. All three alternatives will be fully
evaluated. The alternatives include no action (Alternative GW1), Institutional, Engineering
Controls, and Monitored Natural Attenuation (Alternative GW2), and groundwater extraction and
treatment (Alternatives GW3).
As previously stated, the no action alternative is required to be carried over into detailed analysis by
the NCP as a baseline against which the effectiveness of the other alternatives can be compared. The
4 9 003 Feasibility Study Rcpon Section 3
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99043 Revision No. I Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 30, 2003 Barber Orchard Site Page 17 of 17
FS guidance documents also state that alternatives should be developed that provide a range of remediation times.
3.5 Bench and Pilot Scale Treatability Studies Bench and pilot scale treatability studies are typically performed to collect additional data to better
evaluate the performance of potential remedial technologies. Bench scale treatability studies are
usually performed in a laboratory in which small volumes of waste are tested for the individual
parameters of a treatment technology. Pilot scale treatability studies are usually performed at the site
and are intended to simulate the physical and chemical parameters of the full-scale process. A
treatability study is required to determine:
• The type and volume of stabilization agent required to render the lead and arsenic in
soil immobile
• Site specific pesticide concentrations that are protective of groundwater
• The viability of phytoremediation, if phytoremediation is selected as an alternative
• The effectiveness of MNA as a remedial alternative.
Appendix A presents a brief scope of work that once completed will allow the project team to design
a full scale soil stabilization effort. No bench scale or pilot studies are proposed as part of this FS.
Adequate data exist to estimate cost, determine the effectiveness of the process options, and perform
a detailed evaluation of most of the soil and groundwater alternatives during the FS. Quantities of
contaminated media to be treated were estimated based on the extent of contamination as of July
2003.
It should be noted that determining the effectiveness of MNA generally requires the installation of
a monitoring well network specifically designed to evaluate MNA and the collection of multiple
rounds of groundwater analytical data spanning several years. As such, MNA may not be fully
evaluated for the site until the first 5-year review period has been completed for the Barber Orchard
site.
4 9
Feasibility Sludy Rcpon Section 4 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. I Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 30.2003 Barber Orchard Site Page I of 21
4.0 DETAILED EVALUATION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
4.1 Introduction The goal of this chapter is to introduce, assess, and communicate the relative costs, benefits, and
shortcomings of the remedial alternatives selected for detailed analysis. Evaluation criteria for the
detailed analysis of remedial alternatives are provided by the EPA in Guidance for Conducting
Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies under CERCLA (EPA, 1988a). These criteria are
based upon NCP, Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 300.430 (EPA, 1990). The results
of the detailed analysis of remedial alternatives for Barber Orchard will likely be presented in the
proposed plan and record of decision (ROD), or other public information documents, following the
consideration of state and federal regulatory and community input. The comparison of remedial
alternatives and recommendation of a preferred alternative for Barber Orchard are presented in the
next chapter.
The RJ/FS guidance (EPA, 1988a) provides nine evaluation criteria for assessing the alternatives
within the context of a comprehensive FS. These criteria cover regulatory, technical, cost,
institutional, and community considerations. When calculating present value costs, future monies
were discounted at a 7% rate. Generally, the two threshold criteria are:
• Protection of human health and the environment
• Compliance with ARARs.
The five balancing criteria are:
• Long-term effectiveness and permanence • Short-term effectiveness • Reduction in toxicity, mobility, and volume • Technical and administrative implementability • Alternative cost, including capital, O&M, and present value costs.
The final two criteria, which often are evaluated after the initial publication of the FS, are:
• State acceptance • Community acceptance.
Feasibility Study Report EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-OJ3 Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Barber Orchard Site
Section 4 Revision No. 1
Revision Date-. July 30^ Page J
The first seven criteria will be evaluated in this FS. The final two criteria will be evaluated thro
working-level discussions with state and federal regulators, as well as through the solicitation of
community input from public outreach activities (i.e., publication and dissemination of a proposed
plan or other public communication document). Costs for all remedies requiring O&M or long-term
monitoring were based on a 30-year life-cycle to provide a normalized cost comparison. A 7 percent
discount rate was applied when calculating present value costs. Once all of the FS criteria have been
adequately considered and a final remedy pathway is selected, a final remediation alternative will
be presented in an ROD or other appropriate document. The ROD (or alternative decision
document) will serve as the basis for additional remedial design and action at Barber Orchard.
4.2 Remedial Alternatives for Soil The following five remedial alternatives were selected for evaluation to achieve soil RAOs:
Alternative S1 - No action
Alternative S2 - Institutional Controls and Monitoring
Alternative S4 - Excavation, Treatment, and Off-site Disposal of Treated Soil
Alternative S5 - Excavation, Treatment, and On-site Disposal (Point of Origin) of Treated Soil
Alternative S6 - Excavation, Treatment, On-site Encapsulation in an Engineered
Alternative S7 - Phytoremediation.
4.2.1 Alternative S1 - No Action
•
4.2.1.1 Description. A no-action alternative is required by the NCP to be carried forward as a
baseline for detailed comparison. Under this alternative, no remedial action or monitoring would
be conducted for contaminated soil. This alternative fails to meet the RAOs at Barber Orchard.
4.2.1.2 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment. This alternative would
not protect human health or the environment because no action would be taken to reduce the
4 9 OQ-r
Feasibility Study Report Section 4 EPA Contract No 68-W-99-043 Revision No. 1 Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 30. 2003 Barber Orchard Site Page 3 of 21
concentration of soil COCs, and no action would be taken to prevent future receptors from exposure
to these COCs.
4.2.1.3 Compliance with ARARs. No location- or action-specific ARARs were identified that
need to be considered for this remedial alternative. This alternative would not meet chemical-
specific ARARs.
4.2.1.4 Long-Term Effectiveness. This alternative would not result in any permanent
reduction of risk to human and ecological receptors at the site. No periodic review would take place
to evaluate future site conditions.
4.2.1.5 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume. This alternative does not employ any
remedial component that would permanently or significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume
of contaminants in soil.
4.2.1.6 Short-Term Effectiveness. This alternative would not protect site workers or future
residents from exposure to soil COCs.
4.2.1.7 Implementability. There are no technical implementation issues associated with this alternative.
4.2.1.8 Cost. Minor costs associated with completing the 5-year review cycle (i.e., reviews at 5,
10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 years) are associated with this alternative. These costs are estimated at
approximately $ 12,936 present worth value.
4.2.2 Alternative S2 - Institutional Controls and Long-Term Monitoring
4.2.2.1 Description. This alternative entails the initiation of institutional controls and the
development of an LTM program for soil at the Barber Orchard site. Restrictions will be
permanently enforced to lessen human exposure to contaminated surface and subsurface soil at the
Barber Orchard site. This alternative fails to meet the RAOs at Barber Orchard.
Feasibilit>- Study Report EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Work Assignment No. 034-R1CO-A4T9 Barber Orchard Site
Soil institutional controls include
• LURD emplacement • Zoning restrictions • Informational devices.
The LTM program would focus on sampling site groundwater and the small creeks and streams
draining the area to determine if the presence of surface soil contamination is an ongoing contributor
to contamination in the streams via runoff from the contaminated land. The LTM would be limited
to annual sampling events for pesticides and metals from the drainage ways and groundwater
monitoring wells. The duration of the LTM program is projected to be 30 years.
4.2.2.2 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment Although Alternative
S2 does not reduce the concentration of contaminants in site soils it is more protective of human
health and the environment than no action. Although institutional controls cannot eliminate
exposure to the contaminated soils, land-use restrictions can reduce exposures for certain receptor
types (i.e., the construction worker). Institutional controls does little to mitigate exposures to
residents. If the LTM program detects the migration of significant levels of contamination toward
off-site receptors, remedial measures would have to be implemented.
4.2.2.3 Compliance with ARARs. No location-specific ARARs were identified that needLto
be considered for this remedial alternative. Action and chemical-specific ARARs to be consid^H are those dealing with management, transportation, and disposal of wastes regulated by EPA and HH State of North Carolina, and groundwater-protective ARARs. Excavation activities are regulated
under the North Carolina Erosion and Sedimentation Regulations. This alternative will not meet
chemical-specific ARARs.
4.2.2.4 Long-Term Effectiveness. The implementation of institutional controls and LTM
alternative would not entail any active removal, treatment, or containment technologies. Therefore,
this alternative would not be effective in achieving RAOs for the soil. Nevertheless, annual
sampling events are proposed as part of the LTM to evaluate future site conditions.
•
Section 4
Revision No. 1 Revision Date: July 30.
Paec4
2 ^ ^ ^ .
4 9 00
Feasibility Study Report Section * EPA Contract No 68-W-99-043 Revision No. 1 Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Dale: July 30, 2003 Barber Orchard S ite Page 5 of 21
4.2.2.5 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume. The implementation of Alternative S2
would not result in any reduction in the mobility, toxicity, or volume of contaminants other than
those attributable to natural processes.
4.2.2.6 Short-Term Effectiveness. Implementation of this alternative would not pose any
short-term risks to the community or site workers conducting monitoring activities.
4.2.2.7 Implementabllity. Alternative S2 is implementable. The sampling activities proposed
for completion during the LTM events are easily enacted. LURD or other institutional controls can
be enacted for the property contained within the Barber Orchard site. However, because the LURD
is a voluntary declaration, some percentage of property owners may opt not to attach the provisions
of the LURD to their property.
4.2.2.8 Cost The cost estimate for this alternative includes the following:
• Development of an Institutional Controls Implementation Plan (EPA, 2002d)
• Implementation of institutional controls - includes administrative costs associated with enacting the institutional controls
• Development of a work plan for LTM and sampling, analysis, data validation, data management, and reporting costs. Costs are presented for 30 years.
The capital cost of Alternative S2 is $701,000. Annual O&M costs are estimated at $223,021. The
net present worth for a 30-year LTM program is estimated at $2,863,000. The cost estimate is
presented in Table 4-1.
4.2.3 Alternative S4 - Excavation, Treatment, and Off-site Disposal of Treated Soil
4.2.3.1 Description. Remedial activities proposed under Alternative S4 include:
• Prepare appropriate documentation for completion of the remedial actions (work plan, safety plan, and erosion control plan)
Feasibility Study Report Section •» EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No 1 Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 30. 2003 Barber Orchard Site Page 6 of 3 ^
• Complete characterization of 187.2 acres of the site to fully evaluate the extent c ^ arsenic (>20 mg/kg) and lead (> 400 mg/kg) in site surface soils and arsenic (>87 mg/kg) in site subsurface soils.
• Mobilize equipment to the site.
• Complete the removal of the pesticide distribution piping and approximately 11,566 cubic yards of contaminated soil associated with removal of these lines and 302,017 cubic yards of site surface soil.
• Treat, through the addition of a stabilization agent, 313,683 cubic yards of soil. Dispose of the soil and piping. Of the 313,683 cubic yards of treated soil generated during the remedial action, it is assumed:
• An additional 2,000 pounds of sediment contained in the piping will require disposal as a characteristic hazardous waste in a RCRA Subtitle C landfill.
• Ten percent of the 11,566 cubic yards (1,156 cubic yards) will be disposed in a RCRA Subtitle C landfill.
• The remaining 312,524.4 cubic yards will be disposed in a RCRA Subtitle D landfill.
• Complete confirmatory or closure sampling.
• Backfill, regrade and revegetate the area.
• Prepare report of findings.
Because site contaminants will be removed no LTM or institutional controls will be required.
4.2.3.2 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment. Remedial actions
implemented under Alternative S4 will provide direct protection of human health and the
environment through the removal of the arsenic, lead and organochlorine pesticides in the surface
and subsurface soils.
4.2.3.3 Compliance with ARARs. No location-specific ARARs were identified that need to
be considered for this remedial alternative. Action and chemical-specific ARARs to be considered
are those dealing with management, transportation and disposal of wastes regulated by EPA and the
4 9
Feasibility Sludy Report EPA Comraci No. 68-W-99-043 Work Assignmcm No 034-R1CO-A4T9 Barber Orchard Site
state of North Carolina. Excavation activities are regulated under the North Carolina Erosion and
Sedimentation Regulations. This alternative will meet chemical-specific ARARs.
4.2.3.4 Long-Term Effectiveness. Implementation of Alternative S4 would result in a
significant and permanent reduction of the mass and concentrations of arsenic, lead and
organochlorine pesticides in site soils.
4.2.3.5 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume. Implementation of Alternative S4
would result in a significant reduction in the toxicity, mobility, and volume of arsenic, lead, and
organochlorine pesticides present at the site. Treatment/stabilization of the waste would significantly
reduce the mobility of the metals in soils. Remediation of soil would allow natural sedimentation
processes to remove residual contaminants from the small creeks and streams present at the site.
4.2.3.6 Short-Term Effectiveness. Implementation of this alternative would not pose any
short-term risks to the community or remediation workers. Remediation workers would be equipped
with the necessary safety and personal protective equipment and would conform to safety and health
standards specific to the site-related tasks. Engineered controls for erosion prevention and dust
suppression will be in place to protect residents during remediation activities. Estimated time to
remediate the soils under this option is approximately 12 months.
4.2.3.7 Implementability. The excavation, treatment, and off-site disposal of treated soil are
technically and administratively implementable. No engineering or regulatory restrictions stand in
the way of implementation although the roads and railroad crossings into and out of the Barber
Orchard residential development are not constructed for heavy truck traffic. Some of the roads in
the area may require upgrades.
4.2.3.8 Cost. The detailed cost evaluation associated with the implementation of Alternative S4
is presented in Table 4-2. The capital cost of Alternative S4 is $34,850,000. Present value costs are
estimated at $36,075,000. It should be noted that disposal costs for the soil may be estimated high
due to the fact that landfill soil cover is relatively difficult to find in this part of North Carolina.
Disposal costs could be negotiated down if a sufficient volume of soil was made available to a
landfill for daily cover.
•
Seciion 4 Revision No. I
Revision Dale: July 30. 2003 Page 7 of 21
Feasibility Study Report Section 4 EF A Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No 1 Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Dale: July 30. Barber Orchard Site Page
4.2.4 Alternative S5 - Excavation, Treatment, and On-site Disposal (Point of Origin) of Treated Soil
4.2.4.1 Description. Remedial activities proposed under Alternative S5 include:
• Prepare appropriate documentation for completion of the remedial actions (work plan, safety plan, and erosion control plan).
• Complete characterization of 187.2 acres of the site to fully evaluate the extent of arsenic (>20 mg/kg) and lead (>400 mg/kg) in site surface soils and arsenic (>87 mg/kg) in site subsurface soils.
• Mobilize equipment to the site.
• Complete the removal of 313,683 cubic yards of site surface and subsurface soil, the piping and soil beneath the piping.
• Complete confirmatory sampling.
• Remove additional subsurface soil (i.e., excess capacity to bury treated soil to a depth of 1 foot below grade).
Treat, through the addition of a stabilization agent, 313,683 cubic yards of soil Dispose of the soil and piping. Of the 313,683 cubic yards of treated soil genei during the remedial action, it is assumed:
sou.
• An additional 2,000 pounds of sediment contained in the piping will require disposal as a characteristic hazardous waste in a RCRA Subtitle C landfill.
• Ten percent of the 11,566 cubic yards (1,156 cubic yards) will be disposed in a RCRA Subtitle C landfill.
Backfill excavated areas with treated soil.
Regrade with 1 foot of clean soil and revegetate the area.
Prepare report of findings.
4 9 0 0 4
Feasibility Study Rcpon Section 4 EPA Contract No. 68-W.99-043 Revision No. 1 Work AssignmenlNo. 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 30. 2003 Barber Orchard Site Page9of2l
• Initiate institutional controls and LTM activities. Soil institutional controls include:
• LURD emplacement • Zoning restrictions • Informational devices.
This cost estimate assumes 10% of the soil removed during pesticide distribution line removal will
not be available for on-site disposal. This material will be disposed of in a RCRA Subtitle C landfill.
4.2.4.2 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment. Remedial actions implemented under Alternative S5 will provide direct protection of human health and the
environment through the treatment and stabilization of the arsenic, lead and organochlorine
pesticides in the surface and subsurface soils. Surface soil exposures will be mitigated because the
top of the treated soil will be a minimum 1 foot below grade and the treatment process can ensure
that overall subsurface arsenic concentrations are less than 87 mg/kg and no leaching of the metals
will occur.
4.2.4.3 Compliance with ARARs. No location-specific ARARs were identified that need to
be considered for this remedial alternative. Action-specific ARARs to be considered include the
North Carolina Erosion and Sedimentation Regulations and groundwater protection standards. This
alternative will meet chemical-specific ARARs.
4.2.4.4 Long-Term Effectiveness. Remedial actions implemented under Alternative S5 will
not result in a significant and permanent reduction of the mass and concentrations of arsenic, lead,
and organochlorine pesticides in site soils. However, the remedial actions would be a long-term
solution to unacceptable exposures to these compounds. LTM would be required for 30-years under
this alternative.
4.2.4.5 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume. Completion of Alternative S5 would
not result in a significant reduction in the toxicity and volume of arsenic, lead, and organochlorine
pesticides present at the site. Treatment/stabilization of the waste would significantly reduce the
mobility of the metals and pesticides in soils. A small percentage of the soil may contain high
enough concentrations of pesticides such that the material may not be left on-site. That volume of
Feasibility Study Report Section 4 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. I Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 30. 21 Barber Orchard Site Page 10
3 . 2 0 0 ^ ^
i tuni»^ soil will be disposed of in a RCRA Subtitle C landfill. Remediation of soil would allow nai
sedimentation processes to remove residual contaminants from the small creeks and streams present
at the site.
4.2.4.6 Short-Term Effectiveness. Implementation of this alternative would not pose any
short-term risks to the community or remediation workers. Remediation workers would be equipped
with the necessary safety and personal protective equipment and would conform to safety and health
standards specific to the site-related tasks. Engineered controls for erosion prevention and dust
suppression will be in place to protect residents during remediation activities. Estimated time to
remediate the soils under this option is approximately 12 months.
4.2.4.7 Implementability. This alternative is technically and administratively implementable.
The equipment needed for this remedial alternative is readily available. No engineering or regulatory
restrictions stand in the way of implementation although the roads and railroad crossings into and
out of the Barber Orchard residential development are not constructed for heavy truck traffic. Some
of the roads in the area may require upgrades to be able to handle the increased truck traffic.
4.2.4.8 Cost The detailed cost evaluation associated with the implementation of Alternative SS
for Barber Orchard is presented in Table 4-3. The capital cost of Alternative S5 is $ 11,866,000. The
present value cost estimate for Alternative S5 is $13,052,000.
4.2.5 Alternative S6 - Excavation, Treatment, On-site Encapsulation in Engineered Cell
4.2.5.1 Description. Remedial activities proposed under Alternative S6 include:
• Prepare appropriate documentation for completion of the remedial actions (work plan, safety plan, and erosion control plan).
• Complete a siting study and purchase property for the engineered cell.
• Complete characterization of 187.2 acres of the site to fully evaluate the extent of arsenic (>20 mg/kg) and lead (>400 mg/kg) in site surface soils and arsenic (>87 mg/kg) in site subsurface soils.
4 9 00
Feasibility Study Repon Section 4 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No I Work Assignment No 034-R1CO-A4T9 Revision Dale-. July 30. 2003 Barber Orchard Site Page 11 of 21
• Mobilize equipment to the site.
• Complete the removal of 313,683 cubic yards of site surface and subsurface soil, the piping and soil beneath the piping.
• Construct engineered cell.
• Treat, through the addition of a stabilization agent, 313,683 cubic yards of soil and fill cell
• Complete confirmatory or closure sampling across the site.
• Backfill excavated areas with clean fill; regrade and revegetate the area.
• Dispose of piping and sediment inside piping with pesticide concentrations exceeding leachate generation standards. This sediment (approximately 2,000 pounds) will go to a RCRA Subtitle C landfill.
• Cap and close cell.
• Prepare report of findings.
• Initiate institutional controls and LTM activities.
This cost estimate assumes 10% of the soil removed during pesticide distribution line removal will
not be available for on-site disposal. This material will be disposed of in a Subtitle C landfill.
4.2.5.2 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment. Remedial actions
implemented under Alternative S6 will protect human health and the environment through the
removal of the arsenic, lead and organochlorine pesticides in the surface and subsurface soils.
Treatment of these soils will render them acceptable for on-site disposal in an engineered cell.
4.2.5.3 Compliance with ARARs. No location-specific ARARs were identified that need to
be considered for this remedial alternative. Action-specific ARARs to be considered include the
North Carolina Erosion and Sedimentation Regulations and groundwater protection standards. This
alternative will meet chemical-specific ARARs.
Feasibility Study Rcpon Section 4 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No I Wcrk Assignment No 034-R1CO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 30 2 Barber Orchard Site Page 1
v V r \ ^ ^ 4.2.5.4 Long-Term Effectiveness. Remedial actions implemented under Alternative S6 w
not result in a significant and permanent reduction of the mass and concentrations of arsenic, lead,
and organochlorine pesticides in site soils. However, the remedial actions would be a long-term
solution to unacceptable exposures to these compounds. No contaminated material would be left
on-site and land-use restrictions would not be needed for the affected properties. LTM around the
engineered cap would be required under this alternative. LTM for a 30-year period has been
included in the cost estimate.
4.2.5.5 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume. Completion of Alternative S6 would
not result in a significant reduction in the toxicity and volume of arsenic, lead, and organochlorine
pesticides present at the site. Treatment/stabilization of the waste would significantly reduce the
mobility of the metals and pesticides in soils. A small percentage of the soil may contain high
enough concentrations of pesticides such that the material may not be left on-site. That volume of
soil will be disposed of in a RCRA Subtitle C landfill. Remediation of soil would allow natural
sedimentation processes to remove residual contaminants from the small creeks and streams present
at the site.
4.2.5.6 Short-Term Effectiveness. Implementation of this alternative would not pose any
short-term risks to the community or remediation workers. Remediation workers would be equipped
with the necessary safety and personal protective equipment and would conform to safety and health
standards specific to the site-related tasks. Engineered controls for erosion prevention and
suppression will be in place to protect residents during remediation activities. Estimated tirm
remediate the soils under this option is approximately 12 months.
4.2.5.7 Implementability. This alternative is technically and administratively implementable
although suitable land to build the engineered cell on will need to be acquired. The equipment
needed for this remedial alternative is readily available. No engineering or regulatory restrictions
stand in the way of implementation although the roads and railroad crossings into and out of the
Barber Orchard residential development are not constructed for heavy truck traffic. Some of the
roads in the area may require upgrades to be able to handle the increased truck traffic.
4.2.5.8 Cost. The detailed cost evaluation associated with the implementation of Alternative S6
Feasibility Study Report Section 4 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. I Work Assignment No. 034-R1CO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 30. 2003 Barber Orchard Site Pagel3of2l
for Barber Orchard is presented in Table 4-4. The capital cost of Alternative S5 is $ 10,548,000. The present value cost estimate for Alternative S6 is $10,956,000. Costs include the bulleted items presented in 4.2.3.1.
4.2.6 Alternative S7- Phytoremediation
4.2.6.1 Description. Remedial activities proposed under Alternative S7 include:
• Complete a treatability study to select the appropriate plants
• Prepare appropriate documentation for completion of the remedial actions (work plan • and safety plan)
• Complete characterization of acres of the site to fully evaluate the extent of arsenic (>20 mg/kg) and lead (>400 mg/kg) in site surface soils and arsenic (>87 mg/kg) in site subsurface soils
• Mobilize equipment to the site
• Hand-plant vegetation
• Restrict site access to planted areas using temporary fencing as required
• Tend and harvest plants
• Dispose of plant mass containing bioaccumulated metals properly
• Collect confirmatory soil samples
• Re-treat area(s), as required.
• Prepare report of findings.
Institutional controls may be required if subsurface contamination remains on site.
4.2.6.2 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment. Remedial actions implemented under Alternative S7 will provide direct protection of human health and the
environment through the removal of the arsenic and lead in the surface soils. Subsurface soils will
Feasibility Study Report EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Work Assignment No. 034-R1CO-A4T9 Barber Orchard Site
not be treated below the growing root mass of the plant
4.2.6.3 Compliance with ARARs. No location-specific ARARs were identified that need to
be considered for this remedial alternative. Disposal of the plant mass will need to be completed in
accordance with North Carolina Hazardous Waste Management Regulations. This option will meet
chemical-specific ARARs for metals.
4.2.6.4 Long-Term Effectiveness. Implementation of Alternative S7 would result in a
significant and permanent reduction of the mass and concentrations of arsenic and lead in site soils.
Organochlorine pesticide concentrations would not be reduced under the phytoremediation option.
However, these compounds are not the principal contributors to unacceptable human health risk, and
because they are organic compounds will degrade naturally over time. According to Howard, et al.,
(1991) organochlorine pesticides have half-lives in soil ranging from two weeks to approximately
15 years.
4.2.6.5 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume. Implementation of Alternative S7
would result in a significant reduction in the toxicity, mobility, and volume of arsenic and lead
present at the site. Bioaccumulation of the metals in the plant mass will significantly reduce the
volume of the waste. Remediation of soil would allow natural sedimentation processes to remove
residual contaminants from the small creeks and streams present at the site.
4.2.6.6 Short-Term Effectiveness. Implementation of this alternative would pose mining
short-term risks to the community or remediation workers. Remediation workers would be equipped
with the necessary safety and personal protective equipment and would conform to safety and health
standards specific to the site-related tasks. Temporary fencing will be installed to control site access
to areas being actively phytoremediated. Estimated time to remediate the soils under this option is
two years (two growing seasons).
4.2.6.7 Implementability. Phytoremediation is technically and administratively implementable.
However, it should be noted that there is limited data available on the implementation of
phytoremediation at this scale. Plant availability at this scale may limit the amount of acreage that
can be treated at one time.
Section 4 Revision No. I
Revision Dale: July 30, Page 14
l ^ M ^ ^
4 9 0 0 Feasibility Study Report Section 4 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99.043 Revision No. 1 Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date. July 30. 2003 Barber Orchard Site Page 15 of 21
4.2.6.8 Cost. The detailed cost evaluation associated with the implementation of Alternative S7
is presented in Table 4-5. The capital cost of Alternative S7 is $11,144,000. The present value cost
estimate for Alternative S7 is $11,718,650.
4.3 Remedial Alternatives for Groundwater The following three remedial alternatives were selected for evaluation to achieve groundwater
RAOs:
• Alternative GW1-No action
• Alternative GW2 - Institutional Controls, Engineering Controls and Monitored Natural Attenuation
• Alternative GW3 - Extraction of Groundwater, Aboveground Treatment, and Discharge to a NPDES-permitted outfall.
4.3.1 Alternative GW1 • No Action
4.3.1.1 Description. A no-action alternative is required by the NCP to be carried forward as a
baseline for detailed comparison. Under this alternative, no remedial action or monitoring would
be conducted for contaminated groundwater. This alternative fails to meet the RAOs at Barber
Orchard.
4.3.1.2 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment. This alternative
would not protect human health or the environment because no action would be taken to reduce the
concentration of groundwater COCs, and no action would be taken to prevent receptors from
exposure to these COCs.
4.3.1.3 Compliance with ARARs. No location- or action-specific ARARs were identified that
need to be considered for this remedial alternative. This alternative will not meet chemical-specific
ARARs (i.e., MCLs).
Feasibility Study Report Section -EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. I Work Assignment No. 034-R1CO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 30. Barber Orchard Site Page 16
4.3.1.4 Long-Term Effectiveness. This alternative would not result in any perman
reduction of risk to human and ecological receptors at the site. No periodic review would take place
to evaluate future site conditions.
4.3.1.5 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume. This alternative does not employ any
remedial component that would permanently or significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume
of contaminants in groundwater.
4.3.1.6 Short-Term Effectiveness. This alternative would not protect site workers or future
residents from exposure to groundwater COCs.
4.3.1.7 Implementability. There are no technical implementation issues associated with this
alternative.
4.3.1.8 Cost. Minor costs associated with completing the 5-year review cycle (i.e., reviews at 5,
10,15,20,25, and 30 years) are associated with the no action alternative. These costs are estimated
at $13,963 at present worth value.
4.3.2 Alternative GW2 - Institutional Controls, Alternative Water Supply, Abandonment, and MNA
4.3.2.1 Description. Alternative GW2 consists of the following specific technologies:
•
Institutional Controls -If a permitted, engineered call is selected as part of the soil remedy (Soil Alternative S6), change the status of groundwater beneath Barber Orchard site to restricted. The NC LURD can be used by property owners to notify future owners of the groundwater contamination.
Development of an alternative water supply - residents and businesses in the area relying on well water will be provided potable water from a non-contaminated source.
Abandonment of existing potable water wells - residents and businesses in the area using water from impacted water wells will have those wells abandoned. Well
4 9 C 0 4 /.
Feasibility Study Report Section 4 EPA Conlracl No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. I Work Assignmenl No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date- July 30.2003 Barber Orchard Site Page 17 of 21
abandonment will prevent future use of the well and eliminate the future migration of pesticide compounds via surface water infiltration around or down these well casings.
• Monitoring for Natural Attenuation/LTM - A monitoring program will be established to evaluate the progress of natural attenuation and track the migration of the groundwater plume through time.
An estimated 80 residential and commercial water supply wells would require abandonment under
this alternative. All wells would be abandoned following North Carolina guidance for abandonment
of water wells.
Natural degradation rates for these pesticide compounds dissolved in water are slow and are not
expected to remediate the aquifer in a timely manner. Under this alternative 25 additional
monitoring wells would be required for monitoring of natural attenuation and monitoring of future
plume migration and dispersion.
An alternative water supply is being constructed for the residents and commercial development
within and adjacent to the historic orchard. The preliminary engineering report for water service
improvements (McGill Associates, 2001) was issued on March 2001. This report recommended that
water be brought to the area by extending the Town of Waynesville water system to the orchard.
EPA issued a finding of no significant impact regarding this proposed alternative in the spring of
2003. It is anticipated that construction on the project will be underway during the winter 2004.
This alternative would be protective of human health but would not actively remediate site-related
groundwater contamination and would not restore groundwater beneath the site to a usable status.
If implemented, this alternative would be subject to a 5-year review.
4.3.2.2 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment Remedial actions
implemented under Alternative GW2 will protect human health by providing clean drinking water
to the Barber Orchard residents. The underlying groundwater supply will be protected by
abandoning the existing residential water wells. This will prevent the continued migration of
pesticide compounds to the groundwater via improperly constructed water wells. The contribution
of MNA to groundwater remediation beneath the site is unknown. Additional well installation and
sampling and analysis will be required to evaluate MNA's contribution to overall groundwater
remediation. However, given the site conditions, degradation of pesticide compounds through MNA
Feasibility Study Report Section 4 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No 1 Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 30, 2003. Barber Orchard Site Page 18 n ^ H
processes is expected to be minimal slow. Other MNA components such as dilution and absorptS^
will work to lower overall pesticide concentrations in groundwater.
4.3.2.3 Compliance with ARARs. Wells must be abandoned or installed in accordance with
North Carolina well drilling regulations. Institutional controls (groundwater protection standards)
are regulatory driven under North Carolina groundwater use regulations. There are no location-
specific ARARs identified for this alternative. This alternative will not meet chemical-specific
ARARs (i.e., MCLs).
4.3.2.4 Long-Term Effectiveness. If the contribution of natural biodegradation is relatively
low, remedial actions implemented under Alternative GW2 will not result in a significant and
permanent reduction of the mass and concentrations of organochlorine pesticides in groundwater.
However, the remedial actions would be a long-term solution to unacceptable exposures to these
compounds.
4.3.2.5 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume. Completion of Alternative S6 would not result in a significant reduction in the toxicity, mobility, and volume of the organochlorine pesticides present in the groundwater beneath the site.
4.3.2.6 Short-Term Effectiveness. Implementation of this alternative would not pose any
short-term risks to the community or remediation workers. Remediation workers would be equi
with the necessary safety and personal protective equipment and would conform to safety and h
standards specific to the site-related tasks. An alternative water supply could be available to
residents within 18 months. Well abandonment would take approximately 6 months.
4.3.2.7 Implementability. This alternative is technically and administratively implementable.
The extension of the city of Waynesville water supply line is being implemented by Haywood
County. The equipment needed for this remedial alternative is readily available. Abandonment of
water supply wells and the installation of additional wells can be completed in a timely manner.
4.3.2.8 Cost. The detailed cost evaluation associated with the implementation of Alternative GW2
for Barber Orchard is presented in Table 4-6. The capital cost of Alternative GW2 is $3,068,000.
4 9 0 0
Feasibility Study Report Section 4 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99.043 Revision No. 1
Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 30. 2003 Barber Orchard Site P a g c l 9 o f 2 l
Annual O&M costs for Alternative GW2 are estimated at $52,212.10. The present value cost
estimate for Alternative GW2 is $3,746,000.
4.3.3 Alternative GW3 - Groundwater Extraction, Treatment and Discharge to an NPDES-permitted Outfall
4.3.3.1 Description. Alternative GW3 consists of the following specific technologies:
• Complete characterization of the extent of the Barber Orchard pesticide groundwater plume.
• Completion of a design study to optimize overburden and bedrock extraction well locations.
• Installation of 25 groundwater extraction wells (15 bedrock wells and 10 overburden wells) and a monitoring well network to monitor effectiveness of the pump-and-treat system.
• Construction of a groundwater treatment plant capable of treating approximately 500 gpm of pesticide-contaminated groundwater.
• Discharge of the treated effluent to Richland Creek via an NPDES-permitted outfall.
• O&M of the plant for 30-years.
• Monitoring of the plume.
Because Haywood County is in the process of constructing the extension of the city of Waynesville
water line to the site, this technology is included in Alternative GW3.
4.3.3.2 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment. Remedial actions
implemented under Alternative GW3 will protect human health by providing clean drinking water
to the Barber Orchard residents. TTie groundwater beneath the site will be restored and contained
via the extraction and treatment system. However, given the track record of the extraction and
treatment technology it is not anticipated that the groundwater will be restored to below RGO
concentrations during the 30-year life of the system.
Feasibility Study Report Section •» EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. I Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Dale: July 30. 200^ Barber Orchard Site Page 20
4.3.3.3 Compliance with ARARs. Operation of the groundwater extraction and treatnv
system will need to meet North Carolina surface water discharge standards. No air emissions will
be generated by this process. Groundwater MCLs are chemical-specific ARARs that the system
must attempt to achieve. Wells must be installed or abandoned under North Carolina well drilling
regulations.
4.3.3.4 Long-Term Effectiveness. Remedial actions implemented under Alternative GW3
will result in a significant and permanent reduction of the mass and concentrations of organochlorine
pesticides in groundwater. However, given the track record of the extraction and treatment
technology it is not anticipated that the groundwater will be restored to below RGO concentrations
during the 30-year life of the system.
4.3.3.5 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume. Completion of Alternative GW3 would
result in a significant reduction in the toxicity, mobility, and volume of the organochlorine pesticides
present in the groundwater beneath the site. Containment or hydraulic control of the groundwater
plume (i.e., the overall plume area and volume will be reduced through time) is one overall benefit
of the groundwater extraction and treatment system.
4.3.3.6 Short-Term Effectiveness. Implementation of this alternative would not pose any
short-term risks to the community or remediation workers. Remediation workers would be equipped
with the necessary safety and personal protective equipment and would conform to safety and he
standards specific to the site-related tasks. System construction time is estimated to be 6 mon
Estimated time to remediate the groundwater under this option is greater than 30 years.
4.3.3.7 Implementability. This alternative is technically and administratively implementable
although effluent collection lines will need to be bored under the existing railroad tracks. In
addition, no studies have been done to determine if Richland Creek has the capacity to take an
additional 500 gpm of treated waste water. If this is impractical, another means to dispose of the
water will be required, such as deep well injection. The extension of the city of Waynesville's water
supply line is being implemented by Haywood County. The equipment needed for this remedial
alternative is readily available.
4 9 00 Feasibility Study Report Section 4 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No 1 Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 30, 2003 Bather Oichard Site Page 21 of 21
4.3.3.8 Cost. The detailed cost evaluation associated with the implementation of Alternative GW3
for Barber Orchard is presented in Table 4-7. The capital cost of Alternative GW3 is $5,458,000.
General O&M expenses for the groundwater extraction and treatment system are estimated at
$62,354.00. The present value cost estimate for Alternative GW2 is $6,434,000. Costs include the
bulleted items presented in 4.2.3.1
Feasibility Study Report Section 5 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. I Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 30. 2003 Barber Orchard Site Page 1 o,
5.0 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
This section compares the remediation alternatives on the basis of the evaluation criteria developed
and discussed in the introduction of Section 4.0. These criteria include the protection of human
health and the environment; compliance with ARARs; long-term effectiveness and permanence;
reduction in toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment; short-term effectiveness;
implementability; and costs.
5.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment Each alternative considered under this FS was evaluated for its ability to protect human health and
the environment. This evaluation is presented in the following:
• Soil Alternative S1: No Action - Because no remedial actions would be initiated under this alternative there is no resulting protection to human health and the environment.
• Soil Alternative S2: Institutional Controls and Long-Term Monitoring - Remedial actions completed under this alternative would be protective of human health due to the fact that access to contaminated media would be restricted. No protection to ecological receptors would be provided under this alternative.
• Soil Alternative S4: Excavation, Treatment, and Off-Site Disposal of Treated Soil -Remedial actions completed under this alternative would be fully protective of human health and the environment.
p ^ ^ F Soil Alternative S5: Excavation, Treatment, and On-site (Point of Origin) Dis] of Contaminated Soil - Although this action leaves treated waste in place, remedial actions completed under this alternative would be fully protective of human health and the environment.
Soil Alternative S6: Excavation, Treatment, and On-site Encapsulation in an Engineered Cell, Institutional Controls and Monitoring - Remedial actions completed under this alternative would be fully protective of human health and the environment.
Soil Alternative S7: Phytoremediation - Remedial measures completed under this alternative would be protective of human heath and the environment. Phytoremediation would remove the metals arsenic and lead from site soils. Pesticide compounds would reach acceptable soil concentrations via natural biodegradation.
4 9 0 0 5 '
Feasibility Study Report Section 5 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. I Work Assignment No 034-R1CO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 30. 2003 Barber Orchard Site Page 2 of 8
• Groundwater Alternative GWl: No Action - Because no remedial actions would be initiated under this alternative there is no resulting protection to human health and the environment.
• Groundwater Alternative GW2: Institutional, Engineering Controls, and Monitored Natural Attenuation - Remedial actions completed under this alternative would be protective of human health due to the fact that access to contaminated media would be restricted. Because, no risks were identified to ecological receptors due to the presence of contaminated groundwater, remedial actions are not needed to protect the environment.
• Groundwater Alternative GW3: Extraction of Groundwater, Aboveground Treatment, and Discharge to a NPDES-Permitted Outfall - Remedial actions completed under this alternative would be protective of human health because contaminants would be removed from the groundwater and due to the fact that access to contaminated media would be restricted. Because, no risks were identified to ecological receptors due to the presence of contaminated groundwater, remedial actions are not needed to protect the environment.
5.2 Compliance with ARARs Each alternative considered under this FS was evaluated for its ability to be implemented in compliance with ARARs. This evaluation is presented in the following:
• Soil Alternative S1: No Action - Because no remedial actions would be initiated under this alternative, Alternative SI does not comply with most location-, action-, and chemical-specific ARARs.
• Soil Alternative S2: Institutional Controls and Long-Term Monitoring - Remedial actions completed under this alternative could be implemented in compliance with location-, and action-, specific ARARs. This alternative will not meet chemical-specific ARARs.
• Soil Alternative S4: Excavation, Treatment, and Off-Site Disposal of Treated Soil -Remedial actions completed under this alternative could be implemented in compliance with location-, action-, and chemical-specific ARARs.
• Soil Alternative S5: Excavation, Treatment, and On-site (Point of Origin) Disposal of Contaminated Soil - Remedial actions completed under this alternative could be implemented in compliance with location-, action-, and chemical-specific ARARs.
Feasibility Sludy Report Section ? EPA Comract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No 1 Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 30;
Barber Orchard Site > Pagi
• in an
• Soil Alternative S6: Excavation, Treatment, and On-site Encapsulation in Engineered Cell, Institutional Controls and Monitoring - Remedial actions completed under this alternative could be implemented in compliance with location-, action-, and chemical-specific ARARs.
• Soil Alternative S7: Phytoremediation - Remedial actions completed under this alternative could be implemented in compliance with location-, and action-, specific ARARs. This alternative will not meet chemical-specific ARARs.
• Groundwater Alternative GW1: No Action - Because no remedial actions would be initiated under this alternative, Alternative G W1 does not comply with most location-, action-, and chemical-specific ARARs.
• Groundwater Alternative GW2: Institutional, Engineering Controls, and Monitored Natural Attenuation - Remedial actions completed under this alternative could be implemented in compliance with location-, and action-, specific ARARs. This alternative will not comply with chemical-specific ARARs.
• Groundwater Alternative G W3: Extraction of Groundwater, Aboveground Treatment, and Discharge to a NPDES-Permitted Outfall - Remedial actions completed under this alternative could be implemented in compliance with location-, and action-specific ARARs. This alternative may comply with chemical-specific ARARs given enough time.
5.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence Soil and groundwater alternatives were evaluated for long-term effectiveness and permanence i
following: •
Soil Alternative SI: No Action - No action is not a long-term or permanent solution to the presence of the contaminants in the soil at the Barber Orchard site.
Soil Alternative S2: Institutional Controls and Long-Term Monitoring - Remedial actions proposed under alternative S2 would be an effective, long-term solution to mitigate risk from exposures to soil at the Barber Orchard site. A long-term monitoring program would be needed to determine future sediment and groundwater contaminant trends.
Soil Alternative S4: Excavation, Treatment, and Off-Site Disposal of Treated Soil -Remedial actions proposed under alternative S4 would be an effective, long-term solution to mitigate risk from exposures to soil at the Barber Orchard site.
Q 9 O Q J Feasibility Sludy Report Section 5
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No 1
Work Assignment No. 034-R1CO-A4T9 Revision Date July 30. 2003
Barber Orchard Site Page 4 of 8
• Soil Alternative S5: Excavation, Treatment, and On-site (Point of Origin) Disposal of Contaminated Soil - Remedial actions proposed under alternative S5 would be an effective, long-term solution to mitigate risk from exposures to soil at the Barber Orchard site. A long-term monitoring program would be needed to determine future groundwater contaminant trends.
• Soil Alternative S6: Excavation, Treatment, and On-site Encapsulation in an Engineered Cell, Institutional Controls and Monitoring - Remedial actions proposed under alternative S6 would be an- effective, long-term solution to mitigate risk from exposures to soil at the Barber Orchard site. Long term operations and maintenance would be required for this alternative.
• Soil AltemativeS7: Phytoremediation - Remedial actions proposed under alternative S7 would be an effective, long-term solution to mitigate risk from exposures to metals in soil at the Barber Orchard site. The risk from pesticide compounds would remain in place.
• Groundwater Alternative GW1: No Action - No action is not a long-term or permanent solution to the presence of contaminants in the groundwater at the Barber Orchard site.
• Groundwater Alternative GW2: Institutional, Engineering Controls, and Monitored Natural Attenuation - Remedial actions proposed under alternative GW2 would mitigate risk from exposures to groundwater at the Barber Orchard site. A long-term monitoring program would be needed to determine future groundwater contaminant trends.
• Groundwater Alternative G W3: Extraction of Groundwater, Aboveground Treatment, and Discharge to a NPDES-Permitted Outfall - Remedial actions proposed under alternative GW3 would be an effective, long-term solution to mitigate risk from exposures to groundwater at the Barber Orchard site. Long term operations and maintenance would be required for this alternative.
5.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume Through Treatment The ability of each alternative evaluated under this FS to reduce the toxicity, mobility or volume of
contaminants present at the Barber Orchard site is summarized in the following:
• Soil Alternative SI: No Action - There is no reduction in the toxicity, mobility or volume of contaminants under the No Action alternative.
Feasibility Study Rcpon Section 5 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision NoJ. Wo.-fc Assignment No 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 30. Barber Orchard Sue Pag'
Soil Alternative S2: Institutional Controls and Long-Term Monitoring - There is no reduction in the toxicity, mobility or volume of contaminants under the No Action alternative.
Soil Alternative S4: Excavation, Treatment, and Off-Site Disposal of Treated Soil -Remedial actions proposed under alternative S4 would significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of soil contaminants at the Barber Orchard site.
Soil Alternative S5: Excavation, Treatment, and On-site (Point of Origin) Disposal of Contaminated Soil - Remedial actions proposed under alternative S5 would significantly reduce the toxicity and mobility of soil contaminants at the Barber Orchard site. The volume of soil contaminants would remain unchanged.
Soil Alternative S6: Excavation, Treatment, and On-site Encapsulation in an Engineered Cell, Institutional Controls and Monitoring - Remedial actions proposed under alternative S6 would significantly reduce the toxicity and mobility of soil contaminants at thekBarber Orchard site. The volume of soil contaminants would remain unchanged.
Soil Alternative S7: Phytoremediation - Remedial actions proposed under alternative S7 would significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of metals at the Barber Orchard site. The toxicity, mobility, and volume of pesticide compounds would remain unchanged.
Groundwater Alternative GW1: No Action - There is no reduction in the toxic,, mobility or volume of contaminants under the No Action alternative.
Groundwater Alternative GW2: Institutional, Engineering Controls, and Monitored Natural Attenuation - There is no little reduction in the toxicity, mobility or volume of contaminants under this alternative. It is unknown if natural biodegradation is breaking down pesticide compounds present in groundwater. Although there may be a reduction in the volume of contaminants present by MNA (a component of Alternative GW2) it is not anticipated to be significant and MNA of pesticide compounds is likely to be occurring at relatively slow rates.
Groundwater Alternative GW3: Extraction of Groundwater, Aboveground Treatment, and Discharge to a NPDES-Permitted Outfall - Remedial actions proposed under alternative GW3 would significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of groundwater contaminants at the Barber Orchard site.
4 9 005;;
Feasibility Sludy Report Section 5 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. I Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 30. 2003 Barber Orchard Site Page 6 of 8
5.5 Short-Term Effectiveness The short term effectiveness (i.e., length of time required for implementation and protection of
remediation workers and residents) of each alternative evaluated under this FS is summarized in the
following:
• Soil Alternative S1: No Action - There is no risk to the community or to remediation workers under this alternative. Cleanup goals would not be met within the 30-year planning period typically used by EPA.
• Soil Alternative S2: Institutional Controls and Long-Term Monitoring - There is no risk to the community or to remediation workers under this alternative. Cleanup goals would not be met within the 30-year planning period typically used by EPA.
• Soil Alternative S4: Excavation, Treatment, and Off-Site Disposal of Treated Soil -It is estimated that remedial actions proposed under alternative S4 would be completed in approximately 12 months. There is minimal risk to the community or to remediation workers under this alternative. Nearby residents may be exposed to contaminated dusts during the soil removal and installation of monitoring and extraction wells. These risks would be controlled by the use of dust suppressants. The risk to workers would be controlled by proper use of personal protection equipment and monitoring during site activities.
• Soil Alternative S5: Excavation, Treatment, and On-site (Point of Origin) Disposal of Contaminated Soil - It is estimated that remedial actions proposed under alternative S5 would be completed in approximately 12 months. Although treated wastes will remain on site there is minimal risk to the community or to remediation workers under this alternative. Nearby residents may be exposed to contaminated dusts during the soil removal and installation of monitoring and extraction wells. These risks would be controlled by the use of dust suppressants. The risk to workers would be controlled by proper use of personal protection equipment and monitoring during site activities.
• Soil Alternative S6: Excavation, Treatment, and On-site Encapsulation in an Engineered Cell, Institutional Controls and Monitoring - It is estimated that remedial actions proposed under alternative S5 would be completed in approximately 12 months. Although treated wastes will remain on site there is minimal risk to the community or to remediation workers under this alternative. Nearby residents may be exposed to contaminated dusts during the soil removal and installation of monitoring and extraction wells. These risks would be controlled by the use of dust suppressants. The risk to workers would be controlled by proper use of personal protection equipment and monitoring during site activities.
Feasibility Study Report Section 5 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-OJ3 Revision No Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date. July 30 Barber Orchard Site Pag'
•
Soil Alternative S7: Phytoremediation - It is estimated that remedial actions proposed under alternative S7 would be completed in approximately 2 growing seasons (i.e., two years). The results of the phytoremeidation treatability study will determine the actual duration of the remedial action. There are minimal risks to the community or to remediation workers under this alternative.
Groundwater Alternative GW1: No Action - There is no risk to the community or to remediation workers under this alternative. Cleanup goals would not be met within the 30-year planning period typically used by EPA.
Groundwater Alternative GW2: Institutional, Engineering Controls, and Monitored Natural Attenuation - Remedial activities proposed under this alternative could be implemented within approximately 18 months. There is no risk to the community or to remediation workers under this alternative. Cleanup goals would likely not be met within the 30-year planning period typically used by EPA.
Groundwater Alternative G W3: Extraction of Groundwater, Aboveground Treatment, and Discharge to a NPDES-Permitted Outfall - It is estimated that remedial actions proposed under alternative GW3 would be completed in approximately 18 months. There is no risk to the community or to remediation workers under this alternative.
5.6 Implementability All of the soil and groundwater alternatives involve simple known technologies and could be
implemented at the Barber Orchard site except for Alternative S7. Implementation considerati
for each alternative are discussed in the following:
• Soil Alternative S1: No Action - Alternative S1 would be easy to implement.
• Soil Alternative S2: Institutional Controls and Long-Term Monitoring - Alternative S2 would be easy to implement.
• Soil Alternative S4: Excavation, Treatment, and Off-Site Disposal of Treated Soil -Alternative S4 would be relatively easy to implement. The east-west rail crossing would require shoring to handle the increased short-term truck traffic.
• Soil Alternative S5: Excavation, Treatment, and On-site (Point of Origin) Disposal of Contaminated Soil - Alternative S5 would be relatively easy to implement. The east-west rail crossing would require shoring to handle the increased short-term truck traffic.
4 9 00 5 -•!
Feasibility Study Report Section 5 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. 1 Work Assignment No 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 30, 2003 Barber Orchard Site Page 8 of 8
• Soil Alternative S6: Excavation, Treatment, and On-site Encapsulation in an Engineered Cell, Institutional Controls and Monitoring - Alternative S6 is implementable. The east-west rail crossing would require shoring to handle the increased short-term truck traffic. In addition, land suitable for building a permanent treatment cell would need to be located and purchased.
• Soil Alternative S7: Phytoremediation - Phytoremediation of metals contaminated soils is an emerging technology. Implementation of this technology would be relatively difficult at the Barber Orchard site. It is unlikely that 187 acres of plants could be purchased. Phytoremediation of a site this large has, to date, not been completed.
• Groundwater Alternative GW1: No Action -; Alternative GW1 would be easy to implement.
• Groundwater Alternative GW2: Institutional, Engineering Controls, and Monitored Natural Attenuation - Alternative GW2 is implementable. The alternative water supply proposed under GW2 should be under construction during the winter of 2003-2004.
• Groundwater Alternative GW3: Extraction of Groundwater, Aboveground Treatment, and Discharge to a NPDES-Permitted Outfall - Alternative GW3 is implementable. The treatment of extracted groundwater (Alternatives GW3) will require adequate space to build a treatment system and access to Richland Creek. It is unknown if Richland Creek has the capacity to take approximately 500 gallons per minute of treated effluent.
5.7 Cost A cost summary for each remedial alternative proposed for Barber Orchard are presented in Table
5-1. Costs are presented as total cost and for soil remedies are presented on a per acre basis. As
shown on Table 5-1, Alternative S6: Excavation, Treatment and On-Site Disposal in an Engineered
Cell is the least expensive option for the active soil remedies (S4, S5, S6, and S7). The cost for this
alternative is $ 10,956,000. This alternative is followed by S7: Phytoremediation and S5: Excavation,
Treatment and On-site (Point of Origin) Disposal. Groundwater alternative costs range from
$3,409,000 to $6,434,000.
Feasibility Study Report Sccnon b EPA Contract No. 6S-W-99-043 Revision No. I Work Assignment No 034-R1CO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 3 0 . j Barber Orchard Site Pagi
6.0 REFERENCES
Black and Veatch, 2002, Draft Remedial Investigation/Baseline Risk Assessment Report, Barber Orchard, Haywood County, North Carolina, Submitted to EPA Region 4.
Black and Veatch, 2001, Final Work Plan, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Barber Orchard Site, Haywood County, North Carolina, Submitted to EPA Region 4, April.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable, 2000, Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable, Treatment Technologies Screening Matrix, online, www.frtr.gov.
Howard, Boothling, Jarvis, Meylar, and Michalenko, 1991. Environmental Degradation Rates, Lewis Publishing.
Long, E. R., D. D. MacDonald, S. L. Smith, and F. D. Calder, 1995, "Incidence of Adverse Biological Effects within Ranges of Chemical Concentrations in Marine and Estuarine Sediments," Environmental Management 19(l):81-97.
McGill Associates, 2001, Preliminary Engineering Report, Water Service Improvements Barber Orchard Service Area, Haywood County, North Carolina, March.
North Carolina Geological Survey, 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina, 1:5000,000 scale.
North Carolina Annotated Code (NCAC), 2002, Ground Water Quality Standards, 15A NCAC 02L.0202, August 1.
Personal Communication, 2003, Steve Spurlin, EPA Region 4 Remedial Action Manager for Barber Orchard to Randy Kurth, Shaw Environmental, Inc., Topic: Piping System History, April.
Teleconference, 2002, Randy Kurth, IT Corporation, and Ed Hicks, Black and Veatch, Topic: Data Combination, August 1.
U.S. Army Environmental Center, 1997, Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide, 3rd Edition.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2002a, Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs), 2002 Annual Updated San Francisco, California, October 1.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2002b, National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants, Office of Water, online.
4 9 0 0 3
Feasibility Study Report Section 6 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No 1 Work Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date July 30, 2003 Barber Orchard Site Page 2 of 3
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2002c, Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories, 2002 Edition, EPA 822-R-02-038, Office of Water, Summer.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2002d, Institutional Controls: A Guide to Implementing, Monitoring, and Enforcing Institutional Controls at Superfund, Brownfields, Federal Facility, UST and RCRA Corrective Action Cleanup .
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2001a, NPL Site Narrative for Barber Orchard, Barber Orchard, Waynesville, North Carolina, from www.epa.eov/superfunoVsites/nDl/ narl629.htm.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2001b, Region 4 Sediment Effects and Screening Values for Hazardous Waste Sites.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2000, HRS Documentation Record, Barber Orchard, NCSFN0406989, EPA Region 4, JNPA-435-2-3-R4, www.epa.gov/oerrpage/ superfund/sites/docrec/pdoc 1629.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1999a, National Recommended Water Quality Criteria - Correction, Office of Water, Washington, DC, EPA/822/Z-99/001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1999b, Presumptive Remedy for Metab-inSoil Sites, OSWER Directive 9355.0-72FS, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, September.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1997, Exposure Factors Handbook, Final, EPA/600/P-95/002Fa, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC, August.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1996a, Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA/540/R-95/128, NTIS No. PB96-963502.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1996b, Presumptive Response Strategy and Ex-Situ Treatment Technologies for Contaminated Ground Water at CERCLA Sites, Final Guidance, OSWER Directive 9283.1-12, October 1996.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1993, Presumptive Remedies: Policy and Procedures.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1989a, CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual: Part II. Clean Air Act and Other Environmental Statues and State Requirements, OSWER Directive 92341.1-02, August.
Feasibility Study Report Section 6 EPA Coniract No. 68-W-99-M3 Revision No. 1 Work Assignment No. 034-RJCO-A4T9 Revision Date: July 30. Barber Orchard Site Pagi
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1989b, Considerations in Ground Water Remediation at SuperfundSites, OSWER Directive 9355.4-03, October 18, 1989.
w U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1988a, Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA (Interim Final), Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Directive 9355.3-01.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1988b, Guidance on Remedial Actions for Contaminated Ground Water at Superfund Sites, OSWER Directive 9283.1 -2; EPA/540/G-88/003, December 1988.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1987, Interim Guidance on Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements, Office of Solid Waste and Economy Response, (OSWER) Directive 9234.0-05, July 9, 1997.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 1990, Hazelwood, North Carolina Quadrangle Map 1941, revised.
4 9 GO So
APPENDIX A
ARSENIC MOBILITY IN SOILS
Arsenic Mobility Factor In Soli At Barber Orchard Site
Arsenic mobility, bioavailability, and toxicity are highly dependent on its speciation. Arsenic is chemically similar to phosphorous and is typically present in soil environments as an anion in either of two valence states (arsenite ASO3'3 [As111] or arsenate AsO*'3
[Asv]. The arsenite anion is much more toxic to biological species and much more mobile (4-10 times) than the arsenate anion.
Adsorbtion-desorption on iron and aluminum oxide minerals is the main factor controlling arsenic behavior in soil and sediment. Maximal adsorption occurs at different pH for arsenite (pH 9.2) and arsenate (pH 5.5) as a function of the adsorbing mineral.
In pesticide contaminated soils arsenates (sodium arsenate, lead arsenate, and arsenic trioxide) are typically fixed in soils in a relatively insoluble state, and are not lost by leaching, however they may accumulate. Arsenate forms insoluble precipitates with iron, aluminum, and calcium. The formation of iron complexes is the most effective of the three in controlling arsenate mobility.
Changes in the soil environment over time, such as with the degredation of organic matter, changes in soil composition due to various remediation schemes, or natural weathering processes may also enhance arsenic mobility. Arsenite mobility is enhanced exposed to oxidizing conditions. Under acidic and oxidizing conditions, soil tends to leach large amounts of arsenic into groundwater due to a decrease in soil sorption for both arsenate and arsenite.
The Barber Orchard site has been characterized as being a clay soil with relatively high iron concentrations. Studies evaluating the relative mobility of metals under anaerobic landfill situations indicate this soil type to be relatively effective in retaining metal anions.
Soil Characteristics - Relative Mobility of Anions Through Soil (Korte et al., 1976) Soil
Wagram Ava Kalkaska Davidson Molokai Nicholson Fanno Mohave Mohave ca Anthony
pH meq/lOOg
4.2 4.5 4.7 6.2 6.2 6.7 7
7.3 7.8 7.8
CEC m2/g
2 19 10 9 14 37 33 10 12 6
Surface Area %
8.0 61.5 8.9
61.3 67.3 120.5 122.1 38.3 127.5 19.8
Free Iron Oxides %
0.6 4 1.8 17 23 5.6 3.7 1.7 2.5 1.8
Clay
4 31 5
61 52 49 46 11 40 15
Texture
loamy sand Silty clay loam Sand Clay Clay silty clay Silty clay Clay Sandy loam Clay loam Sandy loam
Arsenic Mobility^ hieh J ^ moder^^^P high ^ ^ low low low moderate high high high
Based on site historical information one could assume very low mobility of arsenate in the red clay soil at Barber Orchard. Applying factors to the above table, with low being 0-20% mobility, medium 21-60% and high 61-100%, the following calculation can be made:
(100 mg/kg total arsenic) "(0.10 mean mobility factor) / (20 TCLP factor) = 0.5 mg/l TCLP (RefEPA arsenic 14)
•
4 9 CO
APPENDIX B
EXAMPLE NORTH CAROLINA LURD
DECLARATION OF PERPETUAL LAND USE RESTRICTIONS
I insert site name] Site, [insert site county] County, North Carolina
The real property which is the subject of this Declaration is contaminated with hazardous substances, and is an INACTIVE HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE OR WASTE DISPOSAL SITE (hereinafter referred to as the "Site") as defined by North Carolina's Inactive Hazardous Sites Response Act, which consists of Section 130A-310 through Section 130A-310.19 of the North Carolina General Statutes (N.C.G.S.). This Declaration is part of a Remedial Action Plan for the Site that has been approved by the Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (or its successor in function), or his/her delegate, as authorized by N.C.G.S. Section 130A-310J(f). The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources shall hereinafter be referred to as "DENR."
[insert owner's name], [insert city & state of HQ if not a person] is the owner in fee simple of the Site, which is located at in the County of , City of , State of North Carolina, and is ["a portion of] the real property legally described in Deed Book —, Page— in the Office of the Register of Deeds for County. ["The Site is shown as on a survey plat that is recorded at Map Book —, Page— in the Office of the Register of Deeds for County.]
For the purpose of protecting public health and the environment, [insert owner's name], [use the following phrase when owner is acting through another: acting by and through, then insert name of attorney or other agent, follow with the following if represented by an attorney: , Esq.,] hereby declares that all of the Site shall be held, sold and conveyed subject to the following perpetual land use restrictions, which shall run with the land; shall be binding on all parties having any right, title or interest in the Site or any part thereof, their heirs, successors and assigns; and shall, as provided in N.C.G.S. Section 130A-310.3(f), be enforceable without regard to lack of privity of estate or contract, lack of benefit to particular land, or lack of any property interest in particular l a ^ ^ These restrictions shall continue in perpetuity and cannot be amended or canceled unless and ] ^ H the County Register of Deeds receives and records the written concurrence o r ^ ^ Secretary of DENR (or its successor in function), or his/her delegate.
PERPETUAL LAND USE RESTRICTIONS
[Suggested wording for most common restrictions; add restrictions necessary to ensure the integrity of any capped waste at the Site and use different restrictions and/or reword any of the below restrictions as appropriate.]
1. The Site shall be used exclusively for commercial or industrial purposes but shall not be used for child care centers, schools, parks, recreational areas, or athletic fields.
2. The Site shall be used for open space only and for no other purpose. "Open space" for purposes of this restriction means an undeveloped, natural area where the sole human use
•
4 9 00 53 shall be non-dermal recreational activities such as biking, running, hunting, fishing, and bird watching. The real property shall not be developed or utilized for residential, commercial or industrial purposes.
3. The Site shall not be used for sporting activities of any kind, including, but not limited to, golf, football, basketball, soccer, and baseball.
4. The Site shall not be used for any above- or below-ground construction, improvements (including, but not limited to, utilities, roads, and sidewalks). No alteration, disturbance or removal of the existing soil, landscape and contours shall occur other than erosion control measures approved by DENR or its successor in function.
5. The Site shall not be used for agricultural or grazing purposes or for timber production.
6. The Site shall not be used for kennels, private animal pens, or for riding clubs.
7. Any surface or underground water shall not be used for any purpose. The installation of groundwater wells or other devices for access to groundwater for any purpose other than monitoring groundwater quality is prohibited without prior approval by DENR, or its successor in function.
8. Groundwater beneath the Site shall not be used as a source of potable or irrigation water. The installation of groundwater wells or other devices for access to groundwater for any purpose other than monitoring groundwater quality is prohibited without prior approval by DENR, or its successor in function.
9. The Site shall not be used for mining, extraction of coal, oil, gas or any other minerals or non-mineral substances.
10. Mowing of vegetation and tree pruning is allowed on the Site.
11a. Activities necessary to maintain the security of the Site, prevent human exposure to contaminated materials, and to prevent erosion of the contaminated soil at the Site are permitted, if approved in advance by DENR or its successor in function.
or
11a. Activities necessary to maintain the security and structural integrity of the landfill at the Site are permitted, if approved in advance by DENR or its successor in function.
11 b. All other uses of the Site are prohibited, except as approved in writing by DENR or its successor in function.
12. The owner shall submit a letter report containing the notarized signature of the owner, annually on or before the anniversary date of the recordation of this Declaration^^ DENR, or its successor in function, confirming that this Declaration is still recorded "j^H Office of the County Register of Deeds and that activities and conditions at the Site ren^H in compliance with the land use restrictions herein.
ENFORCEMENT
The above land use restrictions shall be enforced by any owner, operator, or other party responsible for any part of the Site. The above land use restrictions may also be enforced by DENR through the remedies provided in N.C.G.S. Chapter BOA, Article 1, Part 2 or by means of a civil action, and may also be enforced by any unit of local government having jurisdiction over any part of the Site. Any attempt to cancel this Declaration without the approval of DENR or its successor in function shall constitute noncompliance with the Remedial Action Plan approved by DENR for the Site, and shall be subject to enforcement by DENR to the full extent of the law. Failure by any party required or authorized to enforce any of the above restrictions shall in no event be deemed a waiver of the right to do so thereafter as to the same violation or as to one occurring prior or subsequent thereto.
NOTICE
These land use restrictions are an integral part of the remedy for the contamination at the Site. Adherence to the restrictions is necessary to protect public health and the environment. In addition
to this Declaration, a Notice of Inactive Hazardous Substance or Waste Disposal Site, constituting a survey plat identifying the type, location and quantity of hazardous substances remaining on the Site and approved by DENR pursuant to N.C.G.S. Section 130A-310.8, [insert the appropriate phrase: has been or will soon hereafter be] recorded at the County Register of Deeds' Office [use if Notice already recorded at Book (insert #), Page (insert #)].
FUTURE SALES, LEASES. CONVEYANCES AND TRANSFERS
When any portion of the Site is sold, leased, conveyed or transferred, pursuant to N.C.G.S. Section 130A-310.8(e) the deed or other instrument of transfer shall contain in the description section, in no smaller type than that used in the body of the deed or instrument, a statement that the real property being sold, leased, conveyed, or transferred has been used as a hazardous substance or waste disposal site and a reference by book and page to the recordation of the Notice of Inactive Hazardous Substance or Waste Disposal Site referenced in the preceding paragraph above.
OWNER SIGNATURE
[Use the following when owner is individual acting for him/herself: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I execute these presents on this day of
4 Q n n ~. .".i 200_.]
[Use the following when owner is acting through another: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I, exercising power of attorney for (insert owner's name) execute
these presents on this day of , 200 .]
Signatory's name typed or printed:
[Also insert the following if owner acting through another: Signatory's title typed or printed: ]
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF
I, , a Notary Public, do hereby certify that personally appeared before me this day and
[insert the following language if owner signing: signed this Declaration.] [insert the following language where owner is acting through another: acknowledged that he/she is the -insert title- of -insert owner name- and that by authority duly given, and as the act of -insert owner's name- , the foregoing instrument was signed in -insert owner's name- name by such -insert title].
WITNESS my hand and official seal this day of , 200_.
Notary Public My Commission expires:
[SEAL]
APPROVAL AND CERTIFICATION OF THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
The foregoing Declaration of Perpetual Land Use Restrictions is hereby approved and certified.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
By:
(Insert typed name, position)
REGISTER OF DEEDS CERTIFICATION
The foregoing Declaration of Perpetual Land Use Restrictions is certified to be duly recorded at the date and time, and the Book and Page, shown on the first page hereof.
Register of Deeds for County By:
(signature)
(type or print name and title)
4 9 00 V -'•
APPENDIX C
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT-WATER SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS, BARBER ORCHARD SERVICE AREA
SENT BY: BLACK 4 VEATCH;
itay-a-03 UiDOpi Prorffsrtlt luwrfund
7706637634• MAY-30-03 11:00AM; PAGE 3
HU 882 1788 T-747 P 002 f-ttl
PREUMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
WATER SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS BARBER ORCHARD SERVICE AREA
HAYWOOD COUNTY, NORTH CAROUNA
MICHAEL T. DOWD, P.E
McCP! A S S O C I A T B S
Engineering • Planning • Finance Post Office Box 2259 AshevilU, North Carolina 28802
• • • M J t l « M , , \
MARCH, 2001
IT BY: BLACK & VEATCH;
r-ll-03 OliOOni FroHlerth Supirtund
7706637634; MAY•30 - 03 11:OOAM;
+ < M set a m T-747 P. OQS
4 9
PAGE 4
F-M:
G06
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I INTRODUCTION
SECTION II EXISTING CONDITIONS
SECTION III CRITICAL NEED FOR PROJECT
SECTION IV ALTERNATIVE ANALYSI8
SECTION V PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
SECTION VI SUMMARY
APPENDIX WELL ANALYSIS RESULTS
1-3
4
5
6-14
15-18
18-20
McGIU Asaoclrtw, P. A. 03/14/01
SENT BY: SLACK A VEATCH;
UKTU-M 0 J : 8 0 M Frertforth luwrf imd
7706637634; MAY-30-03 11:00AM;
+40« 582 I T U T-747 P.004
PAGE
t-nt
SECTION I INTRODUCTION
Barber Orchard la located at the southwestern comer of Haywood County.
North Carolina approximately 4 miles west of the Town of WaynesvUto, as shown
In Figure M. According to information provided by the Haywood County Hearth
Department (Health Department), the orchard was started in 1903 and operated
until the early 1980**. According to the Health Department, in the 1940's and
1050*8, Barber Orchard, like most of the agricultural Industry, relied heavily on a
group of organic chemicals commonly referred to as pesticides for the control of
nuisance Insects. It Is our understanding that some of the chemicals that were
used were Chlordane, Endrine and Lindane. The use of Chlordane and Endrine
was tegafly disallowed, along with a host of other pesticides in the earty 1970's.
The use of Lindane, however, remained legal and continued to be used at Barber
Orchard until the 1980's, according to Hearth Department personnel.
The orchard continued to operate until the earty 1980's when the Farm
Credit Service foreclosed on the property. The property was subsequently
subdivided Into 10 to 20 acre lots for sale on the private market Further
subdivision of these lots Into 1 to 5 acre lots has taken place over the past 15
years. Recent analyses of the private weDs serving the residents of this
Indicate the presence of the pesticide Lindane. Most of the walls sampled by the*
Health Department contain concentrations of the chemical that exceed the
allowable limit for drinking water set forth by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) of 0.0002 mg/L (40 CFR. 141.32.e.42). The results
of this sampling and analysis effort are appended to this report.
n TO
The purpose of this report is to investigate and identify alternative means
of providing safe drinking water to the residents of the Barber Orchard area. The
report wDI also identify possible funding sources for the recommended
improvements.
MeOOl Associates, PA. 09/14/01
T BY: BLACK & VEATCH; 7706637634; MAY-30-03 11:01AM; PAGE 6
- I W 3 n:Nra h«Hl.rthlaarfnd 44B4 H I I * T-MT P.OW/Da M8Z
- 4 9 0 0 6.':
Thla report contains a cost estimate for the recommended service plan.
along with a project map. which shows the location of the proposed
Improvements.
MeOniAssaotates.PJL 2 M / M M
SENT BY: BLACK & VEATCH;
ltay-H-01 n--1\tm froH(orth Jumrtund
7706637634; MAY-30-03 11:01AM; PAGE 7 +404 I K <T1> T-74T P.QOI/QH M82
HQURE1-1 LOCATION MAP
BARBER ORCHARD
MeOlU ftnailiKi, P-*. 03/14/01
IT BY: BLACK & VEATCH;
f-II-OS 01:0)pa froo-flgrth tupirtund
SECTION II
7706637634; MAY-30-03 11:01AM; PAQB B
44D4 HZ ITM T-T47 P.WT/DH M 8 I
4 9
EXISTING CONDITIONS
CO 63
Individual, private welia serve the residents of the Barber Orchard
Community and the surrounding areas. The closest municipal system b that of
the Town of Waynesviflo which is approximately 3.3 m8es east of the orchard.
Ninety (90) private wells are currently in use by the residents in this area.
All of these were sampled and analyzed for Lindane by the Health Department
Approximately one third were found to contain levels of Lindane that exceed the
0.0002 mg/L drinking water standard established by the USEPA, and another
one third were found to contain trace amounts of the chemical, The locations of
the wells that were sampled and the results of the chemical analyses are shown
on Figure 1M.
The area is primarily residential, however there are several small
businesses end other non-residential fadWe* that have been affected by the
contamination. There are approximately 78 individual residences and twelve (12)
non-residential facilities In the affected area. Using the State criteria of an
average dady demand of 400 gpd for residential connections and 100 gpd for
commercial connections, and the number of each type of connection cited above,
the current average dally demand for the affected area is approximately 32,400
gpd.
The current demand can be expected to grow at a significant rate over the
next 20 years provided that safe water is available. Most of the ansa m
subdivided Into small ( 1 - 2 acre lots) and one developer has already begun
marketing a 70 acre development In the orchard. In addition to the increase In
residences within the area, any future demand predictions should take into
account that the groundwater contamination plume may expand, encompassing
a larger area than Is currently affected.
HeOm Associates, P.A. oa/i«oi
6ENT BY: BLACK & VEATCH;
lhy-Zt-01 Ot iOln Fna-Morth Juwrfund
7706637634; MAY-30-03 11:01AM; PAGE 9
+404 111 8791 T-T4T P.BM/OM F-««
SECTION III CRITICAL NEED FOR PROJECT!
The majority of the wells located In the Barber Orchard community and
surrounding area are contaminated with the pestldde Lindane. According to the
USEPA, Lindane has been shown to damage the liver, kidney, nervous system,
and immune system of laboratory animals such as rats, mice, and dogs when the
animals are exposed at high levels during their lifetimes (40 C.F.R-141.32.e.42).
Some humans who were exposed to relatively large amounts of this chemical
also suffered damage to the nervous system and circulatory system (40 C.F.R.
141.32.e.42). As a result, residents in the area have been advised not to drink
the water from their wells and to limit bath and shower times to 10 minutes. The
vast majority of residents are now using bottled water.
Preliminary discussions between representatives of the Haywood County
Health Department and the Ground Water Section of the North Carolina Division
of Environmental Health indicate that no new wells will be permitted within the
affected area. Without the use of their privately owned wells, and with no
municipal water system available, the residents of the Barber Orchard community
are without a source of sate drinking water other than bottled water purchased at
retail locations.
in addition to the immediate needs of the residents without a current
source of safe drinking water, there is also a concern that additional residents in
the area who are not currently affected may be affected In the future, in the
absence of any sophisticated ground water modePng, it can be assumed that the
contamination plume will spread eastward towards Waynesvjlle as this area is
down gradient hydraulically from the orchard.
UcGtn Associates, P.A. 03/14/01
T BY: BLACK & VEATCH; 7706637634; MAY-30-03 11:02AM; PAGE 10
- M - » aiiOlai Free-North luprtund +404 Ml B7M T-74T P-OOI/RI M H
_ _ 4 9 C l
•
The purpose of this effort is to define a plan to provide safe drinking water
to the residents of the Barber Orchard community and surrounding areas
affected by the contaminated groundwater.
Three (3) primary alternatives are erasable to provide safe drinking water
to the residents of this area. The first alternative is to extend water service from
the nearby Town of Waynesvilie. The second is to drill a new well or wells near
the affected area but outside of the contamination zone. The third and final
alternative Is the installation of point of use treatment devices at the affected
residences. The following is a discussion of these alternatives.
ALTERNATIVE 1 - EXTENSION OF TOWN OP WAYNESVILLE SYSTEM
The nearest point In the distribution system of the Town of Waynesvilie Is
an 8-inoh water line located at the intersection of US 23 Business and Balsam
Road located approximately 3.3 miles east of the entrance to the orchard at
Barber Drive. However, to provide adequate flow to supply the Barber Orchard
•
community and provide capacity for future growth, it will be necessary to install
an additional connection to the WaynesvBle system. This connection would be
located 1000 feet eastward of the above referenced tie-in at another existing 8-
inch water main on US 23 Business Just west of Aliens Creek.
The minimum hydraullo gradient of the Waynesvilie distribution system Is
3040 feet above mean sea level (MSL). Assuming a minimum system pressure
of 30 pn, the topographioal boundary of the Waynesvilie service area is
approximately 2B71 feet above MSL (3040 - (30 psi x 2.3 fVpsi). The area
affected by the groundwater contamination ranges in elevation from roughly 2960
feet to approximately 3740 feet above MSL. Therefore, it is apparent that water
McOUl Associates, P.A. 0 03/14/01
•
SECTION IV ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
SENT BY: BLACK A VEATru-7706637634; U A V • , » . , , , „
' MAY-30-03 11:02AM- parr tarM-M Ot:Dl„ FroHlorth Iwrfunrf «04 JU ITiB W4T M.« /0« M M
support an additional 134 residential service connections 1(134 x 400 gpd) x V4
day)).
The pump station proposed will consist of two (2) ZOO gpm vertical turbine
pumps. The pump station would be sfeed to fill the 100,000-gallon storage tank
in a period of approximately 6 hours. The level in the 100,000-gallon storage
tank will control the pumps though a telemetry system. The station will be
daskjnsd for future expansion by providing room for the installation of two (2)
additional pumps and controls.
For those residences above 3330 feet above MSL, a second pressure
zone is required. This can be accomplished one of two ways.
Option One - Booster Pump Station and Ground Storage Tank
First, a second booster pump station could be installed at the
100,000-gallon tank that would pump to a second tank located at an
elevation of 3816 feet above MSL This would provide 30 psi of pressure
to the highest residence. As there are approximately 15 residences
currently in this boundary, and using an average dairy demand of 400
gallons per day per connection, the current average daily demand thi
would be exerted Is 6,000 gallons per day (gpd).
a^aaw
Due to the limited potential for growth in this area, no fire protection
is proposed for this pressure zone. It is felt that a tank sized large enough
to provide fire protection would not receive adequate demand to ensure
adequate turn over of the stored water. This could lead to water quality
problems such as low chlorine residual. Therefore, a 30,000-gallon tank Is
recommended for this pressure zone to satisfy current domestic demands
and provide room for moderate residential growth. Should it be desirable
McGifl Associates, P Jk. a 03/14/01
!LBY: BLACK 4 VEATCH-7 7 0 6 6 3 7 6 3 4 5 MAV.30.03 11:02AM;
-21-M OHDIp. >ror*orth Up.rf.no +404 Stt M l T - W P.OU/OH F-IK
^ ~ 4 9 006^ to provide sufficient storage capacity for tire protection In the upper area, a
76,000-gallon tank would be required.
To W this second tank, a 50-gpm duplex pump station is proposed-
This capacity was determined by the same criteria as described previously
for the 200-gpm-booster station. Also, as was the case with the lower
pump station, this will be designed with room for expansion. However, one
(1) future pump will be provided for Instead of two due to the limited growth
anticipated in this pressure zone.
Option Two - Hwdra-nneumatte System
Alternately, those customers not capable of being served by the
100,000-gallon tank by gravity could be served using a hydro-pneumatic
tank located near this storage tank. A pair of 50 gpm pumps that would
draw water from the 100,000-gallon storage tank would fill this tank.
The hydro-pneumatic tank would provide 20 to 30 psi of water
pressure to the highest customer. In this case, this customer is located at
an elevation of approximately 3760 feet above MSL. For this alternate, a
2000-gallon hydro-pneumatic tank would be required.
The primary difference between these two options has to do with the
ooncept of effective volume. While the entire volume of water stored In the
30,000-galton tank is usable, only 20% of the 2,000-galfon hydro-pneumatic tank.
or 400 gallons, are usable. This smaller usable volume will manifest itself as
shorter and more frequent pump cycles. This will cause the pumps to wear out
much sooner than if they were filling a larger tank with more usable volume
where pump cycles would be longer and less frequent.
For either of the above-described options, them will be some residences
that will be required have pressure-reducing valves (PRVs) installed on their
McQDl Associates, P A 0 03/14/01
6ENT BY: BLACK A VEATCH-7706637634; MAY-30-03 H ; 0 2 A « .
Uu-ltrtl K.0 I» ProHlorthfc.P.rtMd m t„ , m >U1 f\Xi/m ™*
service line to protect Interior plumbing and fixtures. In some eases, where the
system pressure Is greater than 100 psi, two (2) PRVs in series wW be required
to achieve the required pressure reduction as one PRV may not be able to
aocompiish this without incurring serious damage to the valve due to cavitation.
Figure fV-2 illustrates the two pressure zones described above.
ALTTERMATIVe 2 - MEW WELL SOURCE
This alternative involves siting and developing a protected new well or
wells to meet the derrrands of the affected residents. Due to the uncertainty of
the fate and transport of the contaminant In the groundwater, the siting of such a
weD must be handled with caution. It is possible that a site could be found that
would be safe from contamination, however the chances that this she would also
produce e well with sufficient quantity to provide for the residents of the area,
present and future, are unknown. There does exist e high yielding private well
m Vista View Estates, adjacent to the orchard. Although uncontaminated at the
present time, its dose proximity to the contaminated area eftnhiatea it as a viable
long-term solution due to the potential for future contamination If its use is
increased.
Should a higher yielding weD or wells be developed to meet the current
and future demands, the withdrawal of larger quantities of groundwater from
more singular sources will draw the contaminated groundwater toward the larger
well or wells. The groundwater in the mountainous area comes from random
cracks and fissures hi the rock formations that are interconnected below the
ground surface. There are not separate groundwater aquifers in this area as
exist in other areas with different terrain.
Taking these considerations into account ft may still be possible to locate
a new well or wells up gradient of the orchard that provide water of adequate
MeGIO Associate*. PJV. 10 0V14/01
T BY: BLACK & VEATCH; 7706637634; MAY-30-03 11:03AM; PAGE 14/23
•404B62I7BB 1-747 M11/02I H « '
SENT BY: BLACK 4 VEATCH-' 7706637634: UAV « „ „ , , , „
' MAY-30-03 11:05AM- p*rr NarfMI orozp. Fr«*orth Wund ^ ,„ I T M T . m f'.m/m MM
The distribution system tor the community would that detailed in
Alternative 1 with the exception of the transmission line from
the Waynesville system and the booster pump station on Balsam Road. Treated
water from the wells would be transmitted to a storaga tank in the orchard by a 4-
Inoh water main that would enter the orchard via Red Bank Road (see Figure IV-
1).
ALTNERATJVE 3 - POINT-OF-ENTRY TREATMENT DEVICES
This alternative consists of the Installation of point-of-entry treatment
devices at each individual residence affected by the contamination. As stated
previously, the USEPA has Identified the BAT for the removal of pesticides as
GAC adsorption. Residential OAC fitters can be instated on the main service
One In a residence or at selected fixtures. When Installed at a. specific fixture,
these devices are known as point-of-use treatment devices. The remainder of
this section deals with point-of-entry devices only.
The advantages of this alternative are: 1) It addresses the problem at its
source and, 2) it eliminates the cost of transporting safe water to the community.
The disadvantage of these devices is that without periodic maintenance, i.e.
replacing the carbon media, they cease to be effective, if left in service too long,,
the carbon media will become exhausted and will not remove any addttloi
organic contaminants in the water supply.
A typical point-of-entry treatment system tor a residential service would
consist of two-2) 10* diameter by 5' high fiberglass vessels arranged in series
each filled with 90 lbs. of GAC. The units would be Installed on the main service
line serving the house. Depending on the magnitude of the contamination, some
residences could suffice with only one of these vessels.
McOllI Associates, P.A. 14 03/14/01
7706637634; MAY-30-03 11:04AM; PAGE 16/23
+404 BQC iree T-T47 P.OIB/MJ F-IBZ
\ TtldlT&T?. TV..:* - p»m>r»cirT» WTJT T. RTTTNf AWE
SENT BY: BLACK 4 VEATCH;
karft-OI 02391M FrorHorth luptrfund 7706637634; MAY - 30 - 03 11:05AM; PAGE 1
+404 KZ IT98 T-T4T P.011/022 M82
TABLE V-1 WATER SERVICE TO BARBER ORCHARD COMMUNITY
ALTERNATIVE 1 -EXTENSION OF WAYNESVILLE SYSTEM PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
1
2
8
4
6
6 'V '
8 8
.,. 1» 11
12
IS
14
IS
16
17
18
18
20
21
22
23
24 14 as W " 38 24 30
' l l 1
100X00 (M. Cans Lined. Ballad SuirBaaa Baal Stnaga Tank,
CufnpMtt blstaBBd tod. SfeaWbili
loxoo Sal a m * Unad. Botad SMlnaaa SMst Slpraoa Tank,
Cemdata. installed tod SO Wort
200 OPM DueJax Beoaw Pump ScaDon, QonunBia, inataled
So OPU Duplex Banter Pump station, ComptBtB, tnataleif
irvvterUn, ^WalarUae B*VKBarUna 8" Water Una 4U Waka-Uno 2* WatarUne
* W Tapping Sleeve and VMv*
irsit>vs«« KTQataVaJwa
rQataVMia
eroatavawa
TOtmvtut
roa teVah*
2* Blow Off
Compart Dl Ftttnge
Pka Hydrant AaiemMy, MoMlng &-0*0) Vakra, fl* Dia, Hydmit Lag *nd
Hydrant
24* at 0.125- VVSI ThieKnaaa Steel EnakMment Pfw, Bciad and Jaekad
18* x 0.129- Wttl ThWmea* Staal EftcaaaraentPtpB, Bond and Jacked
Pavement Repair 1-1/JJWO«tH»
GiaMlOrhaRaHtr ROCK faljyBPOII
baUdiaW ' " * ^ Water IJannee
vJtthad M m Baddlna Baotrteal
J'Sf* * & &£° IKteo
'1.000 8,890
1
4
2
14
2D
7
12
12
10.000
27
70
4W
1.0M 5 0 T
"rW* 2X00 Wflo ?• loo
1 _ _
LS
IX
LS
LB
LS
kf LP V
—1> LF If
EA EA
KA
EA
BA
EA EA
EA
LB
EA
LF
LF
LF SV~* LP bY CY
"K I N
L8
865,455X0
•200,000.00
160,000.00
S165.000.00
•soxooxo
fa*U •22.Be MHxo Kixo 814.00 $11.00
84.000X0
81,200-00
81,000X0
8650.00
•800.00
8400.00
•900.00
ssooxo
32.00
sixooxo
1175.00
S15O.0O
525.00 812X0 810.00 ssoxfl
" 810.tifl woo.Ofl •20X0
860.000X0
8200,000.00
880X00.00
8188X00.00
880,000X0
387X60XO •81,400X0
8297X00.00 S380XOQXO 8112X00.00 883,600X0
•4X00.00
84X00.00
•2.000.00
89,ioaoo
•loxooxa fSJftlQJffQ
88X00X0
86,000X0
830.000.00
S43JO0X0
812^50.00
884,500.00
825X00X0 SBxoa.ob
•ia.iiad.'W 8120X0Q.no S20XD0X0 839,000X0 810,000X0 850,000.00
91,903,065.00 $190,397.00
160.000.00
8116,688.00
973.042.00 42,934,271X0
McGID Awocwtes, PJV. o
16 03/14/01
JT BY: BLACK A VEATCH;
* - « • « DliOln fronierth Svmrfiind
7706637634; "AV-30-03 11:05AM; PAGE 18/2^
•4W MI i m T-M7 P.OIT/UJ M61
4 9 006S
SECTION V PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Tables V-1 through V-3 provide cost estimates for the attwnatlveB
described in Section IV.
MoOUl Associate*, PJL 16 M/14/01
SENT BY: BLACK 4 VEATCH;
»VlH>3 OliOln Frcr-flortJi So wr fund 7706637634; MAY-30-03 11:06AM; PAGE 2
•4M « l ITM T-T4T P. MO/OK M81
TABLE V-3 WATER SERVICE TO BARBER ORCHARD COMMUNITY
ALTERNATIVE 3 - POINT-OF-CNTRY TREATMENT DEVICES PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
*UMp*amuam» nmtararAemw•OJJMasImk*n»4M*»l0Wrtwtat wndUamwmiltmcnnomtttnwn)
djwsmi •ytam. Otm*+>g**tm*Hy$mnimuMl»>aJlit»niamfhom.
The estimate shown in Table V-1 la tor option one, booster pump station and
ground storage tank. The preliminary cost estimate for the hydro-pneumatic tank
option (option two) differs from that shown in this table only in line Kern number 3.
Wfth this option, the 30,000-gallon storage tank would be replaced with a 2000-
gallon hydro-pneumatic tank with automatic air/water volume controls and an air
compressor for maintaining the air volume in the tank. The Installed cost of this
system Is approximately $15,000. Therefore, this option is $5,000 more
expensive on s construction cost basis than the first option and more costly to
operate and maintain due to increased pump usage. Additionally, the Town of
Waynesville prefers not utilize a hydro-pneumatic system to serve more than 15
service connections.
Because of the added cost of using a hydro-pneumatic tank, (he moi
complex operational issues discussed in Section rv and the above-mentioned
preference of the Town of Waynesville, the use of a 30,000-gallon ground
storage tank is the recommended alternate for the upper pressure zone.
M
•team Assodstas. P-A. 18 03/14/01
IT BY: BLACK & VEATCH;
•rtl-OJ OZiOSff ireHlorth tvmtmi 7708637634; MAY-30.Q3 11:06AU; P A Q E 2 0 / 2 3
+404HMTW T-T4T P.OII/DM M M
TABLE V-2 4 9 WATER 8ERVICe TO BARBER ORCHARD COMMUNnY
ALTERNATIVE 2 - DEVELOPMENT OF NEW WELLS PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
00 6r'
1
a
• 4
a
a
r
a
a
10
i i
«. 13
14 18
10
17
1»
10
20
21
23
n 34 2S
" ^ ^ -
- T S t ^ h k r e l u p i ^ V i U i kttafatlan, aid. DraJng mo
OMIW (iwa wata C *oo M •ado
«sgvmWWPiMp *M«T7bam.Xa'Tal"1
h u m aAC Cimiatlui«.
SgrakMi, C a m p * * . M L 89 e*L tank, maaHtop panp and
TmaammOuaaht
100*00 OaL OkMB Unod, W W Bndaiaaa Steal Steraoa Tank,
Comptota, Matted ted. am war*
30400 SaL Oten Unad. M M SMWaaaSMStonga Tank,
Caraptntt* umnaM tad. S M I V I M I
00 a m rJuptex Baoater Pump aaadon, Comotete. autaBLd
0 - W n a r U n a
4* water Una a- Water Uht
«*GaaivaMa
r O a t e V a t m
roatevaaw Compart DIRttna
n» hydrant Aiitwa^. Inaudtig 8* Gate Vatm. a- DU. Hydrant Lag
M HVIa BJat
ratios i « - xO.ias'vArili 'UaaaaafctMi
Cncaaamant Ptoa, tend and Jadkad
PawmantRapalr
RucA EacavvOon
• • t e d SaddO)
SM-WMtrSavtaa
Waarad Sana Boddtog
4-TiMii«aa(enMan<
ddteanea to M V • M B V Actutldbt
t
aw
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
104S0
• 4 0 0 B.B00
n 10
13
Kflaa
10
i a
490
1,000
1400
3.000 TO
600 3,000
• U j B B
LB
VF
EA
LB
UB
L8
LB
LB
LB
LT
if If
» EA
E *
LBS
EA
EA
LP
LP
CV
ov EA
TOW
u>
" • • . • " -
WZiKr'(&M
11040
•1,300.00
•10400.00
13400 00
tiojorjooo
oaojroa.no
iMjooom ( IOJOO
• 1 4 J 0
• 1 1 4 0 CSOQ40
•40040 •300,00
1840
41,00000
•000.00
•ISObOO
• 3 5 4 0
• 0 0 4 0
11040
(S0040
BX04Q
• 1 4 4 0 C 3 v T - r v a 1 l
" " . :
•MliZii Z M
— • 2 4 0 0 4 0
• 1 0 4 0 0 4 0
•X40TUN
• 1 0 4 0 0 4 0
0 0 0 , 0 0 0 4 0
M 0 4 0 0 4 0
$90400-00
•t>A<M040 0113400.00
• 8 9 4 0 0 4 0 • 1 0 4 0 0 4 0
• 4 4 0 0 4 0
• 3 4 0 0 4 0
•12,00040
•38,60040
• 0 4 0 0 4 0
• 0 4 4 0 0 4 0
CSRjOOOiOQ
•130400.00 •tiffi.ftMl Oft
• 3 8 4 0 0 4 0
•10400.00
S434004d
• 1 . 2 0 8 . 0 2 0 . 0 0 • 1 2 0 , 0 0 3 . 0 0
SSOfiQO-00
• 1 0 2 . 8 0 2 . 0 0
S84JB1JJ0 « 1 , U 0 r f i M . 0 D
Meow Associate*, f».A. 17 03*4/01
SENT BY: BLACK & VEATCH-«. ,«. . . ' 7706637634; MAY-30-03 U :06AM. pAQ,
WhBe all three (3) alternatives are technically feasible, the reoommended
alternative, and the bast selection for a long term solution is Attemative 1 -
Extension of the Town of Waynesvflle water system. The uncertainty of an
adequate well or wells combined with the added maintenance issue of monitoring
the QAC filters for contaminant breakthrough malces Attemative 2 a less
desirable option compared to Attemative 1. The primary disadvantage of
Alternative 3 is also related to operation and maintenance. At issue la who will
maintain the individual residential systems. Putting this responsibility at the
homeowner level leaves little or no room for error and no regulatory safety net as
would be the case If the system were part of an already regulated water system.
Therefore, it Is the recommendation of McGHI Associates, P A to provide water
to the Barber Orchard Community and surrounding area by extending the Town
of Waynesville water system to serve this area.
McGiD Assocttss, PA. 03rt*D1
IT BY: BLACK & VEATCH;
ttt-II-M n:OlM Prcr-Horth Surartind
SECTION VI
77oea37e34; MAY - 3 0 . 03 11 :OSAM ; PAGE 22/23
+4MSlZlftl T-T47 P-M1/UH Mil
• w 4 9 n 0 7.'
SUMMARY
Ground water contamination has recently been discovered in the Barber Orchard community and in the immediate surrounding areas. The majority of the wells being used In this area are contaminatiBd with the pesticide Lindane. Of these, most are contaminated at levels above the drinking water limit established by the EPA. This Preliminary Engineering Report has evaluated alternative methods of providing safe and reDabla drinking water to the residents this area. Three primary alternatives were considered:
1. Development of a new well or wells outside of the contamination zone to supply the community.
2. Extension of the Town of Waynesvtlle's water system to supply the community.
3. Installation of polnt-of-entry treatment devtoes-
All three alternatives are technically feasible methods for accomplishing the goal of providing safe drinking water to the residents of Barber Orchard. As Is shown-by the following Table VII-1, the most economical alternative is Alternative 3, followed by Alternative 2.
TABLE VIM WATER SERVICE TO BARBER ORCHARD COMMUNITY
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES AND ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
^iieg^^^^^Q^^^^Mii^^s^j!^Mi:S^
ALT. 1 - Extension of Waynasvllle System
ALT. 2 - Development of New Wells
ALT. 3 - Polnt-of-Entry Treatment DevlDes
$2,334,272.00 $1,830,584.00
$67,100.00
MeOlU Assocutw, P.A. 18 03/14/01
4 9 007
APPENDIX D
SOIL STABILIZATION TREATABILITY STUDY SCOPE OF WORK
3 11 0071. t
Memorandum
Date: July 25, 2003
RE: Derivation of Remedial Goal Options (RGOs) for Arsenic in Surface Soil on Nonresidential Property, Barber Orchard Site. Haywood County. North Carolina
A risk-based RGO of 212 milligrams per kilogram (rag/kg) was derived for arsenic in surface
soil on those parcels of the Barber Orchard site ("site") that are not currently being used for
residential purposes nor will be used as residential property in the foreseeable future. This
memorandum describes the approach used to derive this RGO, which is based on U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) risk assessment guidance (EPA 1995), EPA Region 4
policy on cleanup levels for arsenic in soil, the results of the Barber Orchard baseline human
health risk assessment (BHHRA) (Black & Veatch [B&V], 2003), and site-specific information
pertinent tor public health protection and risk management of the Barber Orchard site.
Background Information The following information was essential to the development of the nonresidential arsenic surface
soil RGO for Barber Orchard:
• Arsenic elicits both cancer and adverse noncancer health effects. It is Region 4 policy that a soil cleanup level for arsenic in soil be protective against noncancer effects (i.e., hazard quotient [HQ] of 1), and that the cancer risk does not exceed a cancer risk of 1E-4. Therefore, any RGO derived for Barber Orchard soil must be demonstrated as protectiv-for both noncancer and cancer endpoints.
' An adolescent visitor scenario was evaluated for risk in the BHHRA. (The risks associated with this visitor were less than the target cancer risk level [=1E-4J and target noncancer HQ [=1] in the BHHRA.) This individual was used as a starting point for nonresidential RGO development.
The adolescent scenario described in the previous bullet is based on an off-site resident who is assumed to be exposed to elevated levels of arsenic during visits to the site, but not while at his residence.
The Barber Orchard feasibility study (FS) proposes that residential areas be cleaned up to 20 mg/kg in residential areas. This concentration, though protective of even a young child resident, is above site background (background mean = 5.5 mg/kg). Because an
1
4 9 OCT:"'
ADDENDUM 1
NONRESIDENTIAL ARSENIC IN SOIL RGOs
30 years =) 10,500 days. The adolescent visitor is assumed to visit nonresidential areas 104 days
per years (BHHRA Appendix J Table 4.16).
For the purpose of calculating this cancer-based value, it is conservatively assumed that during
these 104 days per year (total of 1040 days over 10 years) that the individual receives all of his
exposure (e.g., ingestion of 100 mg of soil/day) in the nonresidential areas. It is assumed that on
all other days during which the individual is on site (total of 350 days per year), he is exposed to
Barber Orchard residential soil which has been cleaned up to the proposed RGO of 20 mg/kg.
The following table depicts the time periods of an exposed individual and the days per year that
he is exposed to residential or nonresidential soil. Note that for ease of illustration, the table
below shows exposure as being continuous from ages 1 through 30. For cancer risk, actual
exposure need not be continuous (except that to assume continuous exposure during early
childhood leads to lower risk-based concentration levels), but the main emphasis is on the
number of days exposed over the individual's lifetime.
Area
Residential
Nonresidential
Residential
Residential
Total Residential
Total Combined
Age Range
1-6
7-16
7-16
17-30
1-30
1-30
Days/year
350
104
(350-104=)246
350
(246 or 350)
350
Years
6
10
10
14
30
30
Total Days
2100
1040
2460
4900
9460
10500
The cancer-based residential level listed in Table 2-3 of the FS indicates that for an individuaB
exposed over the course of 30 years to an average daily arsenic soil concentration of 39 mg/day
(10,500 days on site), the estimated cancer risk would be 1E-4, which is consistent with the
cancer risk portion or EPA Region 4's arsenic soil cleanup policy. The total number of days
during the 30 years of exposure to which an individual would be exposed to residential soil is
9460. During these 9460 days, this individual would, therefore, be exposed to an assumed
arsenic concentration of 20 mg/kg. During the other 1040 days, in which the individual is
exposed to soil in nonresidential areas, he may be exposed to an average daily concentration,
"X", such that the overall average concentration to which he is exposed over the entire 30-year
3
4 9 00 individual may reside on Barber Orchard property (assumed to be cleaned up to an RGO of 20 mg/kg), and visit nonresidential portions on the Barber Orchard site, exposure to both residential and nonresidential soil concentrations of arsenic must be considered in deriving an RGO for the nonresidential areas.
• According to the assumptions used in the BHHRA, the adolescent visitor is exposed for a period of 10 years, during the ages of 7 through 16 years. Cancer risk is regarded as cumulative and is averaged over a (70-year) lifetime. Therefore, the nonresidential soil RGO for arsenic must factor in this 10-year period as part of the 30-year residential exposure assumed in the BHHRA.
• For noncancer assumptions, the residential RGO would have to be protective of exposure during this 10-year period (ages 7 through 16), factoring in residential as well as nonresidential exposure for this individual.
Cancer-based Calculations The initial calculation of nonresidential RGOs for a cancer value to be considered for use as an
RGO is based on Equation 1 (Equation 6.34 of the B H H R A ) :
EPC TR RGOcx = £= Eq. 1
ILCR ^
where:
RGOcoc = remedial goal option for a given COC, receptor and source medium, calculated (mg/kg for soil)
EPCC0C = exposure point concentration of the COC in the given medium (mg/kg for soil)
TR = target risk level (1 * 10"* for arsenic in soil) ILCR^,. = total incremental lifetime cancer risk for the COC, for a given
receptor added across all exposure pathways for a given source medium.
The cancer-based value for a resident (e.g., including continuous exposure from ages 1 through
30 years) is 39 mg/kg, as shown in Table 2-3 of the FS. As presented in Appendix J ("RAGS
D") Table 4.12 of the BHHRA, this is based on an exposure frequency of 350 days per year, over
a 30-year period in which 6 years are assumed to be early childhood exposure and 24 years are
adolescent/adult exposure. Therefore, the total number of days of exposure is (350 days/year *
2
relatively little exposure, the assumption that the visitor receives all exposure from nonresidential
areas is decidedly conservative overall. An additional area of uncertainty may be the a s s u m ^ ^ ^ B
that for cancer risk, the child and adult exposure periods were averaged together in the ^ ^ ^
calculation of the RGO. Alternatively, cancer risks associated with childhood could have been
broken out separately in the RGO calculation. (But this would have been complicated by the fact
that EPA Region 4 guidance states that only the child and adult life stages need to be evaluated
for residential cancer risks, and adolescent risks are not specifically divided out: to specifically
divide out an adolescent stage in the RGO derivation would have presented a slight
inconsistency). This would have had the net effect of increasing the RGO slightly. The general
uncertainties that pertain to risk assessment in general also apply to the derivation of this RGO:
such uncertainties may be found in Section 6.2.6.2 of the BHHRA and are not repeated in this
discussion.
References
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 2000, Toxicological Profile for Arsenic, Atlanta Georgia, September.
Black & Veatch [B&V], 2003, Remedial Investigation/Baseline Risk Assessment Report, Barber Orchard Site, Haywood County, North Carolina, July.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995, Supplemental Guidance to RAGS, Region 4 Bulletins, Human Health Risk Assessment, Region 4. Atlanta, Georgia, November.
7
4 9 0 0 7 period (10,500 days) does not exceed 39 mg/kg. Therefore, a cancer-based arsenic soil value
may be calculated for nonresidential exposure using the following equation:
X = [(10,500 days total x 39 mg/kg) - (9460 days residential * 20 mg/kg)] - 1040 days nonresidential = 212 mg/kg Eq.2
Noncancer Calculations The initial calculation of nonresidential RGOs is based on Equation 3 (Equation 6.34 of the
BHHRA) for a noncancer value to be considered for use as an RGO. RGOs for noncancer effects
are estimated as follows:
RGO. EPCcoc THQ
Eq. 3
where:
RGOC0
EPCcoc
THQ H Q C 0 C
remedial goal option for a given COC, receptor and source medium, calculated (mg/kg for soil) source-term concentration of the COC in the given medium (mg/kg for soil) target hazard quotient (1) total hazard quotient of the COC, for the receptor across all pathways for given source medium.
The above equation was used in the BHHRA to derive a noncancer risk-based concentration for
arsenic in surface soil of 22 mg/kg. The noncancer residential value indicates that a young child
exposed to an average daily concentration of 22 mg/kg throughout the 6-year period as an young
child would have an associated HQ of 1, which is consistent with the noncancer portion of the
EPA Region 4 policy.
The first step in calculating an RGO that would be protective for an adolescent Barber Orchard
resident who also visits nonresidential areas, would be to calculate a residential surface soil
arsenic RGO that would be protective of an average daily exposure for the adolescent, 350 days
per year. Consistent with EPA guidance (EPA, 1995), the BHHRA evaluated only the young
4
child for noncancer exposure. However, exposure variables for an adolescent resident would
result in a higher risk-based arsenic concentration. Rather than presenting complete exposuri
and risk calculations for an adolescent resident in this memorandum, the HQ for this individ
was calculated by taking the ratio of the exposure parameters used in the BHHRA for the
adolescent (Appendix J Table 4.16) to those used for the young child (Appendix J Table 4.13)
and multiplying these by the HQ of the young child presented in the BHHRA: separate
calcuations were performed for the two exposure routes, ingestion and dermal, that contributed to
the overall arsenic HQ for the young child.
The exposure parameter values for an adolescent resident would be that same as those for the
young child resident except for those shown in the following table:
Parameter
Soil ingestion rate (mg/day)
Body weight (kg)
Surface Area (cm2)
Overall Exposure Route Ratio of AdolescentChild
Young Child -Ingestion
200
15
-
Adolescent -Ingestion
100
45
-
0.167
Young Child -Dermal
-
15
2,800
Adolescent -Dermal
-
45
4,900
0.583
The arsenic HQ for surface soil exposure via incidental ingestion by the young child was 1.5
the BHHRA; the arsenic HQ for surface soil exposure via dermal contact by the young child
0.137 in the BHHRA (Table 7.3 of Appendix J). Using the exposure route adolescentxhild
exposure ratios shown in the table above yields an ingestion HQ of 0.259 and a dermal HQ of
0.080 for the adolescent. The combined adolescent HQ of 0.338 is based on the exposure point
concentration (EPC) of 36.4 mg/kg used in the BHHRA. Therefore, an overall noncancer-based
concentration for an adolescent resident can be calculated by inserting an HQ of 0.338 and an
EPC of 36.4 mg/kg in Equation 3 as shown below:
RGO. (36.4mg/*g)(l),
0.338 \mmglkg
5
4 9 0075
Therefore, an average surface soil arsenic concentration of 108 mg/kg is protective (based on an
HQ of 1) for an adolescent at Barber Orchard. This value would be protective to an adolescent
exposed over the course of 10 years, 350 days/year, to an average concentration of 108 mg/kg.
(Note that for noncancer exposure, it is more appropriate to discuss exposure on the basis of "350
days/year", rather than " 3,500 total days" because noncancer risk is not regarded as cumulative
in the same manner as cancer risk.) Of these 350 days per year exposed to Barber Orchard
surface soil, it is assumed that during 104 days per/year the adolescent is exposed to
nonresidential soil at concentration "Z"; the remaining 246 days/year on Barber Orchard, the
individual is exposed to residential soil assumed to be cleaned up to the residential RGO of 20
mg/kg. Therefore, during the 104 days of nonresidential exposure, an adolescent may be exposed
to a daily average nonresidential concentration "Z" such that the overall average concentration to
which he is exposed throughout the year does not exceed 108 mg/kg. Therefore, a cancer-based
arsenic soil value may be calculated for nonresidential exposure using the following equation:
Z = [(350 days/year total * 108 mg/kg) - (246 days/year residential * 20 mg/kg)] + 104 days/year nonresidential = 316 mg/kg Eq. 4
Conclusion and Discussion The cancer-based arsenic value of 212 mg/kg for the adolescent resident who visits
nonresidential site areas is recommended as the RGO for nonresidential Barber Orchard surface
soil. This value is less than the noncancer risk-based value of 316 mg/kg, which would result in
an estimated cancer risk of 1.49E-4. Both of these values offer protection against the a single
pica event by a young child. If a 15 kg child ingested 5 grams of soil at 212 mg/kg arsenic, the
resultant dose would be 0.07 mg arsenic/kg body weight. The estimated dose range at which
acute lethal effects in humans have been observed is 1 -3 mg arsenic/kilogram body weight
(Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR], 2000), which is more than an
order of magnitude greater than that of the pica child scenario for Barber Orchard soil.
Specific uncertainties of this RGO derivation include the assumption that the adolescent receptor
would receive all of his exposure from the nonresidential areas during the 104 days that he
spends at these areas. Although this assumption is arguably nonconservative for the dermal
exposure route, it is conservative for the ingestion route; because more than 75 percent of
exposure was via ingestion and because dermal exposure to the residential soil would add
6
relatively little exposure, the assumption that the visitor receives all exposure from nonresident!
areas is decidedly conservative overall. An additional area of uncertainty may be the assumptio
that for cancer risk, the child and adult exposure periods were averaged together in the
calculation of the RGO. Alternatively, cancer risks associated with childhood could have been
broken out separately in the RGO calculation. (But this would have been complicated by the fact
that EPA Region 4 guidance states that only the child and adult life stages need to be evaluated
for residential cancer risks, and adolescent risks are not specifically divided out; to specifically
divide out an adolescent stage in the RGO derivation would have presented a slight
inconsistency). This would have had the net effect of increasing the RGO slightly. The general
uncertainties that pertain to risk assessment in general also apply to the derivation of this RGO;
such uncertainties may be found in Section 6.2.6.2 of the BHHRA and are not repeated in this
discussion.
References
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 2000, Toxicological Profile for Arsenic, Atlanta Georgia, September.
Black & Veatch [B&V], 2003, Remedial Investigation/Baseline Risk Assessment Report, Barber Orchard Site, Haywood County, North Carolina, July.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995, Supplemental Guidance to RAGS, Region 4 Bulletins, Human Health Risk Assessment, Region 4, Atlanta, Georgia, November.
•
•
Table 1-1
Remedial Goal Options for Surface Soil Residential Land Use Barber Orchard Site
Haywood County, North Carolina
I j Rchemicat
8 llWetalx •Arsenic BBarium HManganese iThallium llorganochlorint Pesticides H4,4-DDD [4,4-DDE J4.4-DDT JAIdrin JDieldrin
lEndrin nEndrin ketone iSemrvolatile Organic* |Benzo(a)pyrene
EPC
(mg/lcg)
3.64E+01 2.31E+02 6.46E+02 2.63E+00
5.51 E-02 1.67E+00 9.34E+00 7.79E-03 2.09E-02 5.38E+00 3.11E-01
9.90E-02
Surface Soil Resident
ILCR
9 41E-05
2.29E-08 9.84E-07 5.49E-06 2 37E-07 596E-07
2.06E-O6
HQ
1.69 0 043 0.19 0.52
0.26 0 0037
0 0060 0.36 0.21
Homegrown Vegetables Resident
ILCR
185E-07 9.22E-06 2.29E-05 7.60E-05 244E-05
6.30E-06
HQ
2.53 5.90 0.83
0.84 094 0.19 8 21 2.68
Resident - Surface Soil
Cancer RGO (mg/kg) @1E-6
387E-01 NA NA NA
2.41 E*00 1.70E+00 1.70E+00 329E-02 3.50E-02
NA NA
4.81 E-02
@1E-5
387E+00 NA NA NA
2.41 E+01 1.70E*01 1.70E+01 3 29E-01 350E-01
NA NA
481E-01
@1E-4
3 87E+01 NA NA NA
2.41E+02 1 70E*02 1.7OE+02 3.29E+00 3.50E+00
NA NA
4 81E+00
Resident - Surface Soil
Noncancer RGO (mg/kg) @HQ=0 1
216E+00 5 40E+02 338E+02 50BE-01
NA NA
3.58E+00 2.09E-01 3.48E-01 1.50E+00 1 50E-01
NA
@HQ=1
2.16E+01 S40E+03 3 38E«03 508E+00
NA NA
358E«01 2.09E+00 348E«00 1.50E+01 1.50E*00
NA
@HO=3
6 47E+01 1 62E*04 1 01E*04 1.53E*01
NA NA
1 07E+02 6.26E*00 1 04E+01 4 51E+01 4 51E*00
NA
Resident Homegrown Vegetables 1
Cancer RGO (mg/kg) |
@1E-6
NA NA NA NA
2 98E-01 1 82E-01 4 09E-01 102E-O4 B.57E-04
NA NA
1.57E-02
Q1E-5
NA NA NA NA
2.9BE+00 1.B2E+00 409E<00 1.02E-03 8 57E-03
NA NA
1.57E-01
@1E-4 1
NA 1 NA 1 NA 1 NA
298E+01 1.82E*01 4.09E+01 1 02E-02 8.57E-02
NA NA
1.57E+00
Chemical
Metals Arsenic JBarium [Manganese Thallium
prganochlorlne Pesticides 4.4-DDD 4.4-DDE 4.4-DDT Aldrin Dieldrin Endrin Endrin ketone Semivolatilt Organlcs 8enzo(a)pyrene
EPC (mg/kg)
3.64E+01 2 31E+02 6 46E+02 2.63E+00
5.51 E-02 1.67E+00 9 34E+00 779E-03 2 09E-02 5.38E+00 3.11E-01
9.90E-02
Surface Soil Resident
ILCR
9.41E-05
2 29E-08 9.84E-07
5 49E-06 2.37E-07 5.96E-07
2 06E-06
HQ
169 0 043 0.19 052
0.26 00037
0.0060 0.36 0.21
Homegrown Vegetables Resident
ILCR
1 85E-07
922E-06 2.29E-05 7.60E-05 244E-05
630E-06
HQ
253 5.90 0.83
0.84 0.94
0.19 821 2 68
Resident - Homegrown Vegetables
Noncancer RGO (mg/kg)
@HQ=0.1
NA 913E+00 1 10E+01 3 18E-01
NA NA
1.11E+00 8.32E-04
1.09E-O2
6.55E-02 1.16E-02
NA
@HQ=1
NA 9.13E+01 1.10E«02 318E*00
NA NA
1 11E+01 832E-03
1.09E-01 655E-01 1.16E-01
NA
@HQ=3
NA 2 74E»02 3.29E+02 9.53E+00
NA NA
332E+01 2.50E-02 3.27E-01
1.96E+00 3.48E-01
NA
Resident
Ca @1E-6
3.87E-01 NA NA NA
2.65E-01 1.64E-01
3.29E-01 1 02E-04
8.36E-04 NA NA
1 18E-02
Homegrown Vegetables nd Surface Soil
ncer RGO (mg/kg) Q1E-5
3.87E+00 NA NA NA
265E*00 1.64E+00 3.29E+00 1.02E-03 836E-03
NA NA
1 18E-01
@1E-4
3.87E«01 NA NA NA
2 65E*01 1.64E+01 3.29E*01 1 02E-02 8 36 E-02
NA NA
1 18E«00
Resident E
Homegrown Vegetables nd Surface Soil
Noncancer RGO (mg/kg) @HQ=0.1
2.16E+O0 897E+00
1 06E+01 1 96E-01
NA
NA B.45E-01 8 29E-04
1 06E-O2 6.27E-02 1 08E-02
NA
_
@HQ=1
2.16E+01 8.97E+01 1 06E+02 1.96E+00
NA NA
8 45E*00 8.29E-03 1.06E-01
627E-01 1.08E-01
NA
@HQ=3
6.47E*01 2.69E*02 3.18E+02 5.87E+00
NA NA
253E*01 249E-02 3.17E-01 1.88E+00 323E-01
NA
Italics indicate that the chemical is not a chemical of concern (COC) for this receptor but values are included for information only EPC = exposure point concentration ILCR = incremental lifetime cancer risk HQ = noncancer hazard quotient RGO = rememdial goal option; "@1E-x" denotes the RGO at a target ILCR of "1E-x", and "@ HQ=x" denotes the RGO at a target HQ of V .
4 ^
CD CD - J
*
Table 1-2
Remedial Goal Options for Surface Soil Commercial Use and Livestock Production
Barber Orchard Haywood County, North Carolina
Chemical
Metals
Arsenic
Barium
Manganese
Thallium
Organochlorlne Peaticldes
4.4-DDD
4,4-DDE
4.4-DDT
Aldrin
Dieldrm
Endrin
Endrin ketone
Semlvolatlte Organlcs
Benzo(a)pvrene
EPC
(mg/kg)
3 6 4 E + 0 1
2 31E+02
6.46E+02
2 6 3 E + 0 0
5.51E-02
1 67E+O0
9.34E+00
7.79E-03
2 09E-02
5.38E+00
3.11E-01
Surface Soil
Commercial Worker
ILCR
1.10E-05
2 68E-09
1.15E-07
6.43E-07
2 81E-08
7.07E-08
9 .90E -02 I 2 83E-07
HQ
0.068
0.0017
0 0 0 8 0
0 0 2 0
0.011
0.00015
0.00025
0 0 1 7
0.010
Beef Consumption
Resident
ILCR
3.52E-08
124E-06
224E-05
793E-09
1.21E-07
3.88E-06
HQ
00013
0 0074
0.920
0.589
0.00007
000067
0.029
0.031
Milk Consumption
Resident
ILCR
596E-08
2.09E-06
3.77E-05
1.34E-08
2.03E-O7
657E-06
HQ
0.023
0.049
0 345
1.393
0.00017
0.0016
0 0 6 9
0.074
Commercial Worker*
Surface Soil
Cancer RGOs
8 1 E - 6
3.32E+00
NA
NA
NA
2.06E+01
1.45E+01
1 45E+01
2.78E-01
2.95E-01
NA
NA
3.50E-01
6 1 E - 5
332E+01
NA
NA
NA
206E+02
1.45E+02
1.45E+02
2.78E+00
2.95E+O0
NA
NA
350E+00
©1E-4
3.32E+02
NA
NA
NA
2.06E+03
1.45E+03
1 45E+03
278E+01
295E+01
NA
NA
350E+01
Commercial Worker"
Surface Soil
Noncancer RGOs
@HQ=0.1
5.33E+01
1.39E+04
810E+03
1 33E+01
NA
NA
8.82E+01
5.06E+00
8.44E+00
314E+01
314E+00
NA
@HQ=1
533E+02
1.39E+05
8.10E+04
1.33E+02
NA
NA
882E+02
5 0 6 E + 0 1
8.44E+01
3.14E+02
314E+01
NA
@HQ=3
1.60E+03
4 1BE+05
2.43E+05
399E+02
NA
NA
2.65E+03
1S2E+02
2.53E+02
9.42E+02
9 42E+01
NA
Beef Consumption
Surface Soil
Cancer RGO (mg/kg)
©1E-6
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.57E+00
1.35E+00
4.17E-01
982E-01
1 73E-01
NA
NA
2 55E-02
@1E-5
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.57E+01
1.35E+01
4 17E+00
9 82E+00
1 73E+00
NA
NA
2 55E-01
C1E-4
NA
NA
NA
NA
1 57E+02
1 35E+02
4.17E+01
9 82E+01
1 73E+01
NA
NA
2 55E+00
Beef Consumption
Surface Soil
Noncancer RGO (mg/kg)
6 H Q = 0 . 1
NA
>.78£+04
8.69E+03
2.86E-01
NA
NA
1 59E+O0
1 12E+01
3.09E+00
1.86E+01
VOOE+00
NA
g H C M
NA
I.78E+05
8.6SE+04
2.86E+00
NA
NA
159E+01
1 12E+02
3.09E+O1
1.86E+02
1.00E+01
NA
Q H Q - 3
NA
5.34E+05
2.81E+05
B59E+00
NA
NA
4.76E+01
3.36E+02
9.28E+01
557E+02
3.00E+O1
NA
Chemical
Metals
•Arsenic
Barium
Manganese
Thallium
Organochlorlne Pesticides
4,4-DDD
4.4-DDE
4.4-DOT
Aldrin
Dtekfnn
Endnn
Endrin ketone
Semlvolatlle Organlcs
Benzo(a)pyrene
EPC
(mg/kg)
3.64E+01
2 31E+02
6.46E+02
2.63E+00
5 5 1 E - 0 2
1 67E+00
9.34E+00
7.79E-03
209E-02
5 38E+00
3 11E-01
9.90E-02
Surface Soil
Commercial Worker
ILCR
1.10E-O5
26BE-09
1.15E-07
6.43E-07
281E-0B
707E-08
2.83E-07
H Q
0 0 6 8
0 0017
0 0 0 8 0
0 0 2 0
0 0 1 1
0 0 0 0 1 5
0 0 0 0 2 5
0 0 1 7
0 0 1 0
Beef Consumption
Resident
ILCR
3.52E-08
1 24E-06
2 24E-05
793E-09
1.21E-07
3.88E-06
HQ
0.0013
0.0074
0 920
0 5 8 9
0.00007
0.00067
0.029
0 031
Milk Cons umption
Resident
ILCR
596E-08
209E-06
3.77E-05
1 34E-08
2.03E-07
657E-06
HQ
0.023
0 049
0.345
1 393
000017
0 0 0 1 6
0.069
0 0 7 4
Milk Consumption
Surface Soil
Cancer RGO (mg/kg)
6 1 E - B
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.24E-01
800E-01
2 48E-01
5 81E-01
1 03E-01
NA
NA
1.51E-02
6 1 E - 5
NA
NA
NA
NA
9 2 4 E + 0 0
8.00E+00
2 48E+00
5.81E+00
1.03E+00
NA
NA
1.51E-01
B1E-4
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.24E+01
8 00E+O1
2.48E+01
5.81E+01
1 03E+01
NA
NA
1.51E+00
Milk Consumption
Surface Soi
Noncancer RGO (mg/kg)
<8HO=0.1
NA
1O2E+03
1.32E+03
7 63E-01
NA
NA
670E-01
4 72E+00
1 31E+00
7.84E+00
421E-01
NA
8 H Q = 1
NA
1 02E+04
1.32E+04
7.63E+00
NA
NA
6.70E+00
472E+01
1 31E+01
7.84E+01
421E+00
NA
© H Q = 3
NA
305E+04
3.97E+04
2.29E+01
NA
NA
2 0 1 E + 0 1
1.42E+02
3.92E+01
2.35E+02
1.26E+01
NA
Beef & Milk Consumption
Surface Soil
Cancer RGO (mg/kg)
©1E-6
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.S1E-01
5 03E-01
1.55E-01
3 65E-01
6 44E-02
NA
NA
9.48E-03
C 1 E - 5
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.81E»00
5 03E«00
1.55E*00
3 6 5 E » 0 0
644E-01
NA
NA
948E-02
t»1E-4
NA
NA
NA
NA
581E»01
5 03E«01
1.55E»01
365E«01
644E«00
NA
NA
9 48E-01
Beef & Milk Consumption
Surface Soil
Noncancer RGO (mg/kg)
^ H Q = 0 . 1
NA
9 62E*02
115E+03
2 08E-01
NA
NA
4.71E-01
3.32E+00
9.19E-01
5.51E+00
2.97E-01
NA
C H Q = 1
NA
9.62E+03
1.15E+04
2.08E+00
NA
NA
4.716+00
3.326+01
919E+00
551E+01
2.97E+00
NA
6 H Q = 3
NA
2.89E+04
345E+04
6.25E+00
NA
NA
1.41E+01
996E+01
2.76E+01
1.65E+02
8.90E+00
„ | Italics indicate that the chemical is not a chemical of concern (COC) tor this receptor but values are included tor intoirnatton only.
EPC = exposure point concentration in soil
ILCR s incremental lifetime cancer risk
HQ ° noncancer hazard quotient
RGO * rememdial goal opton; " © 1 E - X " denotes the RGO at a target ILCR of "1E-x". and "© H L > X " denotes the RGO at a target HQ of "x"
a No COC were identrhed for the commercial worker in the Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment (BHHRA). Values for residential COCs are shown for informational purposes rf a present or future afternatrve land-use is Wentified forr a given are of the site.
vo
CD CD •-•J
• • •
Table 1-3
Remedial Goal Options for Subsurface Soil Barber Orchard
Haywood County, North Carolina
Chemical
jMatils
[Aluminum [Arsenic palium Manganese
Organochlorlrw PasfJcidas W.4-DDT (Endrin ketone
EPC (mgitig)
5.03E»04 Z90E*02 2 80E«02 641E»02
1.90E»01 3.70E«00
Construction Worker
Direct Contact HQ
0.16 3.3
0.01 004
0.13 056
Construction Worker Dust tnhetabon
HQ
19
010 2.4
] Construction Worker
Direct Contact & Inhalation HQ
2.0 3 3
012 24
0.13 0.S6
Construction Worket
Direct Contact
Noncancer RGO (mg/ltg) OHQ=0 1 fflHQ=1 r$HQ=3
3.11E»04 311E»05 9.32E-05 873E*00 873E*01 262E»02 217E»01 217E»04 6.51E*04 1.46E»03 146E»04 4.37E'04
1.45E»01 1.45E*02 435E*02 6.58E-01 6 5tE-»00 1.96E*01
Construction Worker I Construction Worker
Inhalation of Dust Direct Contact 4 Dust Inhalation
Noncancer RGO (moAtg) Noncancer RGO (mgftg) ©HQ=0 1 (SHQ=1 QHQ=3
2 69E»03 2.69E*04 8 07E*04 NA NA NA
2 69E»02 2 69E*03 8 08E»03
269E*01 2.69E«02 8 0BE»02
NA NA NA NA NA NA
tJHQ=0,1 ftHQ=1 OHQ=3
2 4BE«03 2 48E«04 7.43E»04 8.73E«00 8.73Et01 2 62E«02 2 40E»02 2.40E*OJ 7 A9E*0J 2.64E»01 2.64E»02 7.93E»02
1.45E«01 1.45E*02 4.35E«02 6 58E-01 6 58E»00 1.97E*01 1
EPC = exposure point concentration HQ » noncancer hazard quotient
RGO = rememdial goal option-. "(B HQ=x" denote* the RGO at the to?get HO ot "x".
• • •
Table 1-4
Remedial Goal Options for Overburden Groundwater Barber Orchard
Haywood County, North Carolina
(chemical EPC (mg/L)
Metalx Aluminum 1.50E+02 Arsenic 5 90E-03 Barium 1.90E+00
[Chromium 2.20E-O1 Iron 1 90E+02 Manganese 1 30E+00 Vanadium 3 50E-01 Organochlorine Pesticide* alpha-BHC 9.90E-05 Igamma-BHC (Lindane) 2.50E-04
Resident ILCR HQ
9 6 V32E-04 13
1.7 5.8 41 1.8 3.6
1.21E-05 0.027 6.57E-06 0.078
Construction Worker
HQ
294 0.19 0.53 1 44
12.39 0.54 098
0.0038 0.0163
Commercial Worker
HQ
1.47 0096 027 0.72 6.20 0.27 0 49
00019
0.0082
Resident Cancer RGO (mg/L)
Q1E-6 @1E-5 @1E-4
NA NA NA 4.47E-05 4 47E-04 4 47E-03
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
8 19E-06 8.19E-05 8 19E-04 3.81 E-05 3 81E-04 3.81 E-03
Resident Noncancer RGO (mg/L)
@HQ=0.1 @HQ=1 @HQ=3
1 56E+00 1.56E*01 4.69E+01 4 68E-04 4.68E-03 1 40E-O2 1.10E-01 1.10E+00 329E+00 3.81 E-03 3 81E-02 1.14E-01 4 6BE-01 4 68E+00 1.40E+01 703E-O2 7.03E-01 2.11E+00 9 82E-03 9.82E-02 2 94E-01
366E-04 366E-03 1 10E-02 3.19E-04 3 19E-03 9.56E-03
Construction Worker Noncancer RGO (mg/L)
@HQ=0.1 @HQ=1 @HQ=3
5 11E+00 5.11E+01 1 53E+02 3 OBE-03 3 08E-02 9.24E-02 358£-0r 358E*00 107E*01 1 53E-02 1 53E-01 4.60E-01 1 53E*00 1 53E+01 460E*01 2 40E-01 2 40E+00 7.21E*00 3 58E-02 3 58E-01 1 07E+00
2 63E-03 2 63E-02 7.89E02 153E-03 1.53E-02 4.606-02
Commercial Worker Noncancer RGO (mg/L)
@HQ=0.1 @HQ=1 @HQ=3
1O2E+0t 1.02E*02 3 07E+02 6.J6E-03 6.16E-02 1.856-01 7.156-01 7.156*00 2 15E+01 3.076-02 307E-01 9.20E-O1 3 07E+00 3 07E+01 9.20E+01 A.806-01 4.80E*00 1.446*01 7.1SE-02 7.15E-01 2.156*00
5.266-03 5.266-02 1.58E-01 3 07E-O3 3 07E-O2 9.206-02
Italics indicate that the chemical is not a chemical of concern (COC) for this receptor but values are included for information only EPC = exposure point concentration ILCR = incremental lifetime cancer risk HQ - noncancer hazard quotient
RGO = rememdial goal option; "@1E-x" denotes the RGO at a target ILCR of "1E-x", and "@ HQ=x" denotes the RGO at a target HQ of "x".
VO
O CD
#
Table 1-6
Remedial Goal Options for Bedrock Groundwater Barber Orchard
Haywood County, North Carolina
Chemical
Metals Arsenic Chromium Organochlorine Pesticides alpha-BHC gamma-BHC (Lindane)
EPC (mg/l)
1.70E-03 4.15E-03
7.80E-05 1.20E-04
Resident ILCR HQ
3.80E-O5 0363 0.109
9.52E-06 2.97E-06
I Construction
Worker HQ
0.111 0.027
Resident Cancer RGO (mg/L)
@1E-6 @1E-5 @1E-4
447E-05 4.47E-04 4.47E-03 NA NA NA
8.19E-06 8.19E-05 8 19E-04 4.04E-05 4.04E-04 4 04E-03
Resident Noncancer RGO (mg/L)
@HQ=01 @HQ=1 @HQ=3
0.00047 00047 0.014 0 0038 0 038 0.1
NA NA NA NA NA NA
Construction Worker Noncancer RGO (mg/L)
@HQ=0.1 @HQ=1 @HQ=3
0.0015 0 015 0046 0 02 0.2 0.5
NA NA NA NA NA NA |
Italics indicate that the chemical is not a chemical of concern (COC) for this receptor but values are included for information only EPC = exposure point concentration ILCR = incremental lifetime cancer risk HQ = noncancer hazard quotient RGO = rememdial goal option; "@1E-x" denotes the RGO at a target ILCR of "1E-x". and "@ HQ=x" denotes the RGO at a target HQ of "x"
Table 1-6
Remedial Goal Options for Richland Creek Surface Water Barber Orchard
Haywood County, North Carolina
Chemical
Organochlorine Pesticides 4,4-DDT
EPC (mg/L)
9.10E-04
Fish Ingestion Sportsman
HQ
21.1
Fish Ingestion Sportsman
Noncancer RGO (mg/L) @HQ=0.1 @HQ=1 @HQ=3
4.31E-06 4.31E-05 1.29E-04
EPC = exposure point concentration for surface water HQ = noncancer hazard quotient RGO = rememdial goal option; "@ HQ=x" denotes the RGO at the target HQ of "x".
4 9 00 0 2 Table 2-1
Remedial Action Objectives, General Response Actions, and Remedial Technology Types Barber Orchard Site
Haywood County, North Carolina
Remedial Action Objectives
Surface Soil and Sediment For Human Health: Prevent ingestion, inhalation, or direct contact with soil containing constituents at concentrations in excess of total hazard indices (HI) greater than 1 and/or a cumulative excess lifetime cancer risk of 1E-06 for an onsite resident or onsite adolescent visitor.
For Environmental Protection: Prevent migration of contaminants to prevent areas where high contaminant-of-concern (COC) concentrations promote degradation of natural resources. The presence of the contaminants in the soil matrix presents a possible source for groundwater contamination at the site.
Groundwater For Human Health: Prevent ingestion or direct contact with groundwater containing constituents at concentrations in excess of current federal regulatory drinking water standards (maximum contaminant limits [MCL]), current North Carolina Groundwater Quality Standard MCLs, total His greater than 1, and a cumulative excess lifetime cancer risk of greater than 1 E-06 for an onsite resident.
For Environmental Protection: Prevent migration of contaminants to prevent degradation of natural resources. This includes eliminating or mitigating the shallow groundwater to surface water pathway for the contaminants in groundwater at the site.
Subsurface Soil For Human Health: Prevent ingestion, inhalation, or direct contact with soil containing constituents at concentrations in excess of total His greater than 1 and/or a cumulative excess lifetime cancer risk of 1 E-06 for an onsite construction worker.
For Environmental Protection: Prevent migration of contaminants to prevent areas where high COC concentrations promote degradation of natural resources. The presence of the contaminants in the soil matrix presents a possible source for groundwater contamination at the site.
General Response Actions
No Action
Institutional Control Actions
Containment Actions
Collection/Removal Actions
Treatment Actions
Disposal Actions
Remedial Technology Types
• No Action
• Engineering Controls - Alternative Drinking Water Source
• Institutional Controls - Access and Use Restrictions - Monitoring
• Containment - Hydraulic Controls
• Collection/Removal Technology - Soil Extraction/Excavation - Groundwater Extraction
• Treatment Technologies - Ex Situ Physical Treatment - Ex Situ Chemical Treatment - In Situ Biological Treatment
Disposal Technologies - Onsite Treated - Offsite Treated - Discharge to a NPDES-regulated
outfall
Table 2-2
Potential Chemical-Specific ARARs Barber Orchard Site
Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page 1 of 3)
Standards, Requirements, Criteria, or Limitations Citation Description Comments
FEDERAL
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
National Primary Drinking Water Standards
Clean Water Act
Toxic Pollutant Effluent Standards
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
National Pretreatment Standards
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
RCRA Groundwater Protection
40 United States Code (USC) 300
40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 141, Subpart B and G
Established maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) which are health-based standards for public water systems.
The MCLs may be relevant and appropriate to any on-site groundwater contamination.
33 USC Sect. 1251-1376
40 CFR Part 129
40 CFR Parts 122, 125
40 CFR Part 403
Establishes effluent standards or prohibitions for certain toxic pollutants: aldrin/dieldrin, dichloro-diphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), endrin, toxaphene, benzidine, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB).
Determines maximum concentrations for the discharge of pollutants from any point source into waters of the United States.
Sets standards to control pollutants that pass through or interfere with treatment processes in publicly owned treatment works or that may contaminate sewage sludge.
Potentially applicable to on-site discharges if site contaminants of concern include the subject contaminants.
Potentially applicable to on-site point source discharges.
Potentially applicable to remedies that involve discharge to publicly-owned treatment works (POTW).
40 USC 6905, 6912, 6924, 6925
40 CFR Part 264 Provides for groundwater protection standards, general monitoring requirements and technical requirements.
The RCRA standards could be relevant and appropriate for groundwater at the site if an onsite landfill is constructed.
0 Table 2-2
Potential Chemical-Specific ARARs Barber Orchard Site
Haywood County, North Carolina i
i
(Page 2 of 3) j
Standards, Requirements, Criteria, or Limitations
RCRA Solid Waste Disposal Facility Requirements
Clean Air Act
National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS)
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
Guidelines for Establishing Remediation Goals at RCRA Sites
Citation
40 CFR Part 257.3-4
Description
Provides for protection of groundwater at solid waste disposal facility.
Comments
May be applicable if remedial action includes provisions for an onsite landfill.
42 USC Sect. 7401-7642
40 CFR Part 50
40 CFR Part 61
.121(d)(2)(B)(ii)
EPA, Dec. 2002
Establishes standards for ambient air quality to protect public health and welfare.
Provides emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants for which no ambient air quality standard exists.
Provides alternative groundwater concentration limits for groundwater that discharges to a surface water body.
May be relevant or appropriate if remedial alternatives results in air emissions that migrate offsite.
May be relevant or appropriate if onsite treatment units with emissions are part of remedial actions.
Potentially applicable if contaminated groundwater discharges to a surface water body on site.
Not an ARAR - may be a "To-Be-Considered" requirement if goals are to be used as cleanup levels.
STATE
North Carolina Drinking Water Regulations
North Carolina Hazardous Waste Management Regulations
North Carolina Water Quality Standards
15ANCAC 18C.1500
15ANCAC 13A
15ANCAC2B, 2H, and2L
State primary drinking water standards; maximum contaminant levels (MCLs).
State regulations for identification of hazardous waste and groundwater protection.
Assignment of water quality standards; stream classifications; effluent standards. Establishes the permit program for point sources, stormwater; laboratory certification program; pretreatment program. Classification and standards of groundwater; corrective action.
The more stringent federal or state standards are considered relevant and appropriate for use as groundwater cleanup criteria.
Potentially applicable to remediation waste and > groundwater cleanup.
Potentially applicable to the discharge of contaminants to surface waters; discharge of contaminants to POTWs. '.
Table 2-2
Potential Chemical-Specific ARARs Barber Orchard Site
Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page 3 of 3)
Standards, Requirements, Criteria, or Limitations
North Carolina Air Quality Regulations
Guidelines for Assessment and Corrective Action
Inactive Hazardous Sites Program Guidelines for Assessment and Cleanup
Citation
15ANCAC2Dand2Q
NC, UST Section, April 2001
NC, Superfund Section, Jan. 2003
Description
Ambient air quality standards, NESHAPs, control of toxic air pollutants; Construction and operation permits; toxic air pollutant procedures.
Cleanup guidance for the remediation of USTs in North Carolina.
Cleanup guidance for the North Carolina Inactive Hazardous Site Cleanup Program.
| •-!
Comments
Potentially applicable to remedies utilizing air-emitting treatments (e.g., air stripping, on-site incineration).
Not an ARAR - may be a "To-Be-Considered' requirement if concentration limits are used as cleanup levels.
Not an ARAR - may be a "To-Be-Considered' requirement if concentration limits are used as cleanup levels.
Table 2-3
Proposed Remedial Goal Options for Soil Based on Residential Land Use Barber Orchard Site
Haywood County, North Carolina
Residential
Surface Soil Chemical Metals Arsenic
Lead Organochlorine Pesticides 4,4-DDD 4,4-DDE 4,4-DDT alpha-BHC Aldrin Oieldrin Endrin Endrin ketone gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Residential
Subsurface Soil
Chemical
Metals
Arsenic
Organochlorine Pesticides
4,4-DDT
Endrin ketone
BHHRA-based (mg/kg)"
Cancer @1E-6
0.39
NA
2.4 1.7 1.7 NC
0.033 0.035 NA NA NC
Noncancer @HQ=1
22
NA
NA NA 36 NC 2.1 3.5 15 1.5 NC
BHHRA-based"
Noncancer
@HQ=1
(mg/kg)
87
145
6.6
ARAR/TBCb
(mg/kg)
NA
NA
NA
ARAR/TBCb
(mg/kg)
20
400
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
CRQLC
(mg/kg)
3
0.00330
0.00330
CRQLC
(mg/kg)
3
2
0.00330 0.00330 0.00330 0.00170 0.00170 0.00330 0.00330 0.00330 0.00170
Proposed
RGOd
(mg/kg)
87
145
6.6
Proposed
RGO" (mg/kg)
20/212°
400
2.4 1.7 1.7
(none) 0.033 0.035
15 1.5
(none)
Basis for Selection
EPA Region 4 Policy
EPA Screening Guidance
1 E-6 cancer risk (BHHRA) 1 E-6 cancer risk (BHHRA) 1 E-6 cancer risk (BHHRA)
1 E-6 cancer risk (BHHRA) 1 E-6 cancer risk (BHHRA) noncaner risk @ HQ=1 (BHHRA) noncaner risk @ HQ=1 (BHHRA)
Basis for Selection
noncaner risk @ HQ=1 (BHHRA)
noncaner risk @ HQ=1 (BHHRA)
noncaner risk @ HQ=1 (BHHRA)
NA - Not applicable. NC - Not selected as a chemical of potential concern in the baseline human health risk assessment (BHHRA) for this medium. mg/kg - Milligrams per kilogram.
"Risk-based values are back-calculated using the methodology and assumptions of the BHHRA; "@1 E-6" denotes the remedial goal option (RGO) at a target incremental lifetime cancer risk of "1 E-6", and "@ HQ=1" denotes the RGO at a target hazard quotient of 1.
Applicable or relevent and appropriate requirements/to be considered" criteria.
'Contract-required quantitation limit. Sources: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2002, Multi-Media, Multi-Concentration, Inorganic Analytical Service for SuperfundL\LMQ5.2), Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D C , October (OSWER 9240.1-39FS); EPA, 2000, Multi-Media, Multi-Concentration, Organic Analytical Service forSuperfund (OLM04.2), Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C. (OSWER 9240.0-8-FSD).
"Proposed level selected for RGO among the listed criteria.
"The proposed RGO for arsenic developed/undeveloped property under a residential exposure scenario. The RGO for developed property is 20 mg/kg; the RGO for undeveloped property is 212 mg/kg.
4 9 Table 2-4
Preliminary Remedial Goal Options for Soil Leaching to Groundwater Pathway* Barber Orchard Site
Haywood County, North Carolina
Chemical
Metals Arsenic Lead
Organochlorine Pesticide 4,4-DDD 4,4-DDE 4,4,-DDT alpha -BHC Aldrin Dieldrin Endrin Endrin ketone gamma -BHC (Lindane)
TCLP
Estimate" (mg/kg)
100 100
IS
NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 8.0
SSLC
(mg/kg)
5.64 NA
16.0 54.0 32.0 0.5
0.0005 0.004
1.0 NA
0.009
CRQLd
(mg/kg)
3 2
0.00330 0.00330 0.00170 0.00170 0.00330 0.00330 0.00330 0.00330 0.00170
RGO* (mg/kg)
100 100
16.0 54.0 32.0 0.5
0.0005 0.004
1.0 NA
8.000
Basis for Selection
See arsenic mobility discussion - Appendix A TCLP estimate
SSL SSL SSL SSL SSL SSL SSL SSL
TCLP estimate
'Preliminary remedial goal option (RGO) based on literature values; a site-specific treatability study will establish proposed RGOs.
"Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure. TCLP limits can be used as a screening criteria to determine if Barber Orchard soils
are a threat to underlying groundwater. cSoil screening level. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has published generic risk-based screening values for a
suite of organic and inorganic compounds. Included in this guidance document are soil screening levels pertinent to the soil -leaching-to-groundwater pathway. SSL values for dilution attenuation factor 20 are used in Table 2-4 as preliminary RGOs for the soil-to-groundwater pathway.
"Contract-required quantitation limit. Sources: EPA, 2002, Multi-Media, Multi-Concentration, Inorganic Analytical Service for Superfund (ILM05.2), Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D C , October (OSWER 9240.1-39FS); EPA, 2000, Multi-Media, Multi-Concentration, Organic Analytical Service for Superfund (ILM04.2), Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D C , October (OSWER 9240.0-8-FSI).
'Proposed level selected for RGO among the listed criteria. NA - Not available. NR - Not regulated as a characteristic Resource Conservation and Recovery Act hazardous waste.
Table 2-5
Proposed Remedial Goal Options for Groundwater Based on Residential Land Use Barber Orchard Site
Haywood County, North Carolina
Chemical
Metals
Arsenic
Lead Organochlorlne Pesticides 4,4-DDD
4,4-DDE 4,4-DDT
alpha-BHC
Aldrin Dieldrin Endrin Endrin ketone gamma-BHC (Lindane)
BHHRA-based (mg/L)a
Cancer @1E-6
0.000045
NA
ND
ND ND
0.0000082
ND 0.0000026
NC
NC 0.000040
Noncancer @HQ=1
0.0047
NA
ND
ND ND
0.00037
ND 0.00050
NC
NC 0.0037
ARAR/TBC" (mg/L)
0.010
0.015
0.00014
NA 0.0001
0.000019"
NA 0.0000022
0.0020
0.0021' 0.0002
CRQLC
(mg/L)
0.001°
o.oor
0.0001
0.0001 0.0001
0.00005
0.00005 0.0001 0.0001
0.0001 0.00005
Proposed
RGO" (mg/L)
0.010
0.015
0.00014
(none)9
0.0001
0.00005
(none)9
0.0001 0.0020
0.0021 0.00005
Basis for Selection
NCGQS*
NCGQS
NCGQS
NCGQS
CRQL
CRQL NCWQS
NCWQS (total endrin compounds) CRQL
NA - Not applicable. ND - Not.detected in this medium. NC - Not selected as a chemical of potential concern in the baseline human health risk assessment (BHHRA) for this medium. mg/L - milligrams per liter aRisk-based values are back-calculated using the methodology and assumptions of the BHHRA; "@1 E-6" denotes the RGO at a target
incremental lifetime cancer risk of "1 E-6", and "@ HQ=1" denotes the RGO at a target hazard quotient of 1.
"Applicable or relevent and appropriate requirements/"to be considered" criteria cContract-required quantitation limit. Sources: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2002, Multi-Media, Multi-Concentration,
Inorganic Analytical Service for Superfund (ILM05.2), Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D C , October (OSWER 9240.1-39FS); EPA, 2000, Multi-Media, Multi-Concentration, Organic Analytical Service for Superfund (OLM04.2),
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C., OSWER 9240.0-8-FSD.
"Proposed level selected for RGO among the listed criteria.
'Assumes that inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrophotometry is used (EPA, 2000).
'North Carolina Water Quality Standards (15A NCAC 02L .0202)
'The EPA (2002) Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRG) Table may be consulted if this compound is detected in the future
groundwater samples.
"NCWQS for total BHC isomers.
'NCWQS for total endrin compounds. o
4 9 Table 2-6
Summary of Contaminants of Concern Barber Orchard Site
Haywood County, North Carolina
Chemical
Arsenic
Lead
4,4-DDD
4,4-DDE
4,4-DDT
alpha-BHC
gamma-BHC
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Endrin
Endrin Ketone
Soil
Xa
X
X
X
xa
X
X
X
X
X
Xa
Groundwater
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Surface Water
X
'Surface and subsurface soil contaminant of concern - other listed constituents are surface soil contaminants of concern only.
Table 2-7
Potential Action-Specific ARARs Barber Orchard Site
Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page 1 of 4)
Standards, Requirements, Criteria, or Limitations Citation Description Comments
FEDERAL
Solid Waste Disposal Act
Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices
Identification and Listing of Hazardous Wastes
Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste
Standards Applicable to Transporters of Hazardous Waste
Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities
40 United States Code (USC) 6901-6987
40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 257
40 CFR 261
40 CFR 262
40 CFR 263
40 CFR 264
Establishes criteria for use in determining which solid waste disposal facilities and practices pose a reasonable probability of adverse effects on health, and thereby constitute prohibited open dumps.
Defines those solid wastes which are subject to regulations as hazardous wastes under 40 CFR Parts 262-265 and Parts 124, 270, and 271.
Establishes standards for generators of hazardous waste.
Establishes standards which apply to persons transporting hazardous waste within the U.S.
Establishes minimum national standards which define the acceptable management of hazardous waste for owners and operators of facilities which treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste.
Potentially applicable if remedy involves onsite land disposal of solid waste.
Potentially applicable to the generation of remediation waste on site.
Potentially applicable to the generation of remediation waste on site.
Potentially applicable if remediation waste is transported on site and requires manifesting under 40 CFR 262.
Potentially applicable or relevant and appropriate if hazardous waste will be disposed of onsite.
O
Table 2-7
Potential Action-Specific ARARs Barber Orchard Site
Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page 2 of 4)
Standards, Requirements, Criteria, or Limitations Citation Description Comments
Interim Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities
40 CFR 265 Establishes minimum national standards which define the acceptable management of hazardous waste during the period of interim status and until certification of final closure or if the facility is subject to post-closure requirements, until post-closure responsibilities are fulfilled.
Potentially applicable or relevant and appropriate if hazardous waste will be disposed of onsite.
Interim Standards for Owners and Operators of New Hazardous Waste Land Disposal Facilities
Land Disposal
40 CFR 267
40 CFR 268
Establishes minimum national standards which define the acceptable management of hazardous waste for new land disposal facilities.
Establishes a timetable for restriction of burial of wastes and other hazardous materials.
Potentially applicable or relevant and appropriate if hazardous waste will be disposed of onsite.
Potentially applicable or relevant and appropriate if hazardous waste will be disposed of onsite.
Safe Drinking Water Act 42 USC Sect. 300(0
Standards for Owners and Operators of Public Water Supply System
40 CFR 141 Provides treatment (water quality) requirements for public water supply systems.
MCLs may be relevant and appropriate to the establishment of cleanup goals for groundwater contamination.
Clean Water Act 33 USC Sect. 1251-1376
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
40 CFR 122 and 125 Requires permits for the discharge of pollutants from any point source into waters of the United States.
A permit is not required for onsite CERCLA response actions, but the substantive requirements would apply if an alternative involved discharge into a creek or other surface water on site. A permit would be required if the discharge is to a creek or other surface water off site.
ID
Potential Action-Specific ARARs Barber Orchard Site
Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page 3 of 4)
Standards, Requirements, Criteria, or Limitations
National Pretreatment Standards
Toxic Pollutant Effluent Standards
Clean Air Act
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Noise Control Act of 1972
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
Hazardous Materials Transportation Regulations
Citation
40 CFR 403
40 CFR 129
Description
Sets standards to control pollutants which pass through or interfere with treatment processes in publicly owned treatment works or which may contaminate sewage sludge.
Establishes effluent standards or prohibitions for certain toxic pollutants: aldrin/dieldrin, DDT, endrin, toxaphene, benzidine, PCBs.
Comments
Potentially applicable to remedies which involve discharge to a publicly owned treatment works.
Potentially applicable to on-site discharges if site contaminants of concern include the subject contaminants.
42 USC Sect. 7401-7642
40 CFR 50.1-17. .50-.54;.150-.154 480-.489; 40 CFR 53.1-.33;40CFR 61.01-18 .50-112. 240-.247
42 USC Sect. 4901 et seq.
49 USC Sect. 1801-1813
49 CFR 107, 171-177
Treatment technology standard for emissions to air from incinerators, surface impoundments, waste piles, landfills, and fugitive emissions.
Federal activities must not result in noise that will jeopardize the health or welfare of public.
Regulates transportation of hazardous materials.
Potentially applicable to remedies which involve emissions governed by these standards (e.g., incineration, land treatment).
Potentially applicable to activities, such as drilling, that took place close to a public access point.
Only applicable to on-site shipments that utilize roadways accessible to the public. Typically applicable to off-site hazardous material shipments.
VJ
Table 2-7
Table 2-7
Potential Action-Specific ARARs Barber Orchard Site
Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page 4 of 4)
Standards, Requirements, Criteria, or Limitations Citation Description Comments
STATE
North Carolina Water Quality Standards; NPDES/stormwater program; groundwater protection.
North Carolina Hazardous Waste Management Regulations
North Carolina Solid Waste Management Regulations
North Carolina Erosion and Sedimentation Regulations
North Carolina Air Quality Regulations
15ANCAC2B, 2H, and 2L
15ANCAC13A
15ANCAC13B
15ANCAC4B
15ANCAC2Dand2Q
Assignment of water quality standards; stream classifications; effluent standards. Establishes the permit program for point sources and stormwater; laboratory certification program; pretreatment program. Classification and standards of groundwater; corrective action.
Standards for owners/operators for hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities and land disposal restrictions for listed and characteristic hazardous wastes such as may be needed and/or generated during or as a result of remediation actions.
Design, construction and operation of solid waste disposal facilities for municipal, industrial and other non-hazardous solid wastes.
Erosion and sedimentation control plans; design and performance standards.
Ambient air quality standards, NESHAPs, control of toxic air pollutants; Construction and operation permits; toxic air pollutant procedures.
Potentially applicable to the discharge of contaminants to surface waters; discharge of contaminants to POTWs.
Potentially applicable to remediation waste or the use of on-site treatment, storage, or disposal facilities.
Potentially relevant and appropriate for materials that are not regulated as hazardous waste if onsite or offsite disposal is implemented.
Potentially applicable to land-disturbing activities (e.g., excavation, soil treatment).
Potentially applicable to remedies utilizing air-emitting treatments (e.g., air stripping, on-site incineration).
VO
CD CD
Table 2-8
Potential Location-Specific ARARs Barber Orchard Site
Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page 1 of 2)
Standards, Requirements, Criteria, or Limitations Citation Description Comments
FEDERAL
National Historic Preservation Act
Archaeological and Historic Preservation
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
Endangered Species Act
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
16 USC 470 40 CFR 6.301(b) 36 CFR 800
16 USC 469 40 CFR 6.301(c)
16 USC 661-666
16 USC 1531 50 CFR 200 and 402
16 USC 703
Requires federal agencies to take into account the effect of any federally-assisted undertaking or licensing on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places.
Establishes procedures to provide for preservation of historical and archaeological data which might be destroyed through alteration of terrain as a result of a Federal construction project or a Federally licensed activity or program.
Requires consultation when Federal department or agency proposes or authorizes any modification of any stream or other water body and adequate provision for protection of fish and wildlife resources.
Requires action to conserve endangered species and/or critical habits upon which endangered species depend, includes consultation with Department of Interior.
Protects all common wild birds (with a few exceptions) and makes it unlawful for anyone to kill, capture, collect, possess, buy, sell, trade, ship, import, or export any migratory bird including feathers, parts, nests, or eggs.
Potentially applicable if remediation occurs within a historic district or if any archaeological resources are discovered during remedy implementation.
Potentially applicable if any historical/archaeological resources are discovered during remedy implementation.
Potentially applicable if remediation involves surface waterbody modification (e.g., dams, discharge to waterbody).
Potentially applicable if remediation occurs within range/habitat of endangered or threatened species.
Potentially applicable if remediation occurs within migratory bird range/habitat.
Table 2-8
Potential Location-Specific ARARs Barber Orchard Site
Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page 2 of 2)
Standards, Requirements, Criteria, or Limitations
Clean Water Act
Dredge or Fill Requirements (Section 404)
Executive Order on Protection of Wetlands
Executive Order on Flood Plain Management
Citation Description Comments
33 USC 1251 etseq.
40 CFR 230 and 231
Executive Order No. 11990 40 CFR 6.302(a) and Appendix A
Executive Order No. 11988
Requires permits for discharge of dredged or fill material into navigable waters.
Requires Federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, the adverse impacts associated with the destruction or loss of wetlands and to avoid support of new construction in wetlands if a practicable alternative exists.
Requires Federal agencies to evaluate the potential effects of actions they may take in a flood plain to avoid, to the extent possible, the adverse impacts associated with direct and indirect development of a flood plain.
Potentially applicable to remediation within wetlands.
Potentially applicable to remediation within wetlands.
Potentially applicable to remediation within a floodplain.
STATE
Discharges to Isolated Wetlands and Isolated Waters
North Carolina Solid Waste Management Regulations
15ANCAC2H.1301
15ANCAC Chapter 13B
Establishes permitting program for discharges into the subject water bodies.
Design, construction or operation of solid waste disposal facilities.
Potentially applicable or relevant and appropriate if on-site actions produce discharges to isolated wetlands/waters.
Potentially applicable if an on-site engineered waste disposal cell is selected as a remedy. I
Table 2-9
Screening of Remedial Technologies and Process Options for Soil Barber Orchard Site
Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page 1 of 6)
General Response Action
No Action
Institutional Controls
Remediation Technology
None
Access and Use Restrictions
Monitoring
Process Option
None
Zoning Ordinance Restrictions; LURD; informational devices
Soil Monitoring
Description
No Action
Zoning ordinances issued for property within potentially contaminated areas to restrict building structures or development. Use of N.C. LURD.
Short and/or long-term monitoring is implemented to record contamination levels, further delineate contamination area, and/or assess remedial performance.
Effectiveness
Does not improve surface or subsurface soil quality, minimize exposure from onsite or offsite contamination, nor control contaminant migration.
Effective for limiting human exposures to contamination, but is dependent upon long-term enforcement. Does not meet remedial action objectives unless combined with other actions. Not effective in reducing ecological risks.
Does not improve soil quality or control contaminant migration; soil contamination not likely vary over time. Not effective in reducing ecological risks.
Implementability
Readily Implemented.
Readily implemented initially; the prevention of zoning reclassification may be harder to implement long term. N.C. LURD is a voluntary action initiated by property owner.
Readily implementable; no additional equipment necessary.
Cost
No additional costs.
Negligible capital and O & M costs.
Negligible capital and O & M costs.
I Conclusion |
Retained as
required by
CERCLA to be
carried through to
detailed analysis of
alternatives.
Retained for all
alternatives as a
method for human
risk reduction for source area.
Although
ineffective as a
remedial
alternative,
additional soil
monitoring wil l be
completed at the
site.
Table 2-9
Screening of Remedial Technologies and Process Options for Soil Barber Orchard Site
Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page 2 of 6)
General Response Action
Remediation Technology Process Option Description Effectiveness Implementability Cost Conclusion
Containment Horizontal Barriers
Capping -Permeable
Material such as clean soil, crushed limestone, or gravel is placed over the contaminated soil or sediment, creating a barrier to human contact with contaminated media.
Effective for preventing human contact with contaminated media; does not mitigate soil as source for groundwater contamination.
Easily implemented; additional measures would be needed for source control.
Low capital and O & M costs.
Retained.
Although the area
proposed for
capping would be
large, capping
would el iminate
direct contact wi th
soil .
Capping -Impermeable
An impermeable barrier such as clay, soil/synthetic membrane, asphalt, asphaltic concrete, concrete, multi-layered chemical sealant/stabilizers is placed over source area to minimize infiltration, liquidation of contaminants, and subsequent migration of contaminants into the groundwater.
Would be effective for source migration to groundwater and sediment due to source area with high level of contaminants in soil.
Readily implemented, but would require additional drainage and detention structures.
Low capital and O & M costs.
Retained.
Although the area
proposed for
capping would be
large, capping
would el iminate
direct contact with
soil.
Surface Control Drainage Controls
New drainage patterns are established to minimtze infiltration in areas of contaminated soil.
Would be effective for source migration to groundwater and sediment due to source area with high level of contaminants in soil.
Readily implementable; required for storm water management.
Low capital and O & M costs.
Retained for further
consideration as a
support method for
soil actions.
CD CD
' -3
Table 2-9
Screening of Remedial Technologies and Process Options for Soil Barber Orchard Site
Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page 3 of 6)
General Response Action
Collection/Removal
Treatment
Remediation Technology
Soil Extraction
In Situ Physical
Process Option
Remove and Store Onsite
Remove and Dispose Offsite
Soil Flushing
Description
Soil excavated to remove contamination; material stored onsite to be treated or stabilized for permanent storage.
Excavate and remove soil to offsite permitted hazardous waste landfill.
Water with or without an additive (to enhance contaminant solubility) is applied to the soil or injected into the ground. Contaminants are leached into the groundwater, which is then extracted and treated.
Effectiveness
Would be effective in removing contamination source; however extraction process involves the withdrawal of large quantities of soil to remove contamination, thereby greatly increasing waste management requirements on the site.
Would be effective in completely removing contamination; large amounts of material would have to be transported potentially long distances for disposal.
Laboratory and field treatability studies must be performed under site-specific conditions before soil flushing is selected. Data is limited on effectiveness.
Implementability
Readily implementable using conventional equipment; requires room at the site to stockpile this material permanently.
Readily implementable using conventional grading and transportation equipment; excavations required are relatively shallow.
Difficult to implement; requires the extraction and treatment of all flushing volume in addition to existing contaminated groundwater.
Cost
Moderate capital costs; lowO&M costs.
Moderate capital costs; moderate O & M costs.
Low to moderate capital and 0 & M costs
Conclusion
Retained for further
consideration.
Retained for further
consideration.
Eliminated based
on uncertainty of
technology and
difficulty in
implementation.
O O \r
Table 2-9
Screening of Remedial Technologies and Process Options for Soil Barber Orchard Site
Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page 4 of 6)
General Response Action
Remediation Technology Process Option Description Effectiveness Implementabllity Cost Conclusion
Treatment (Continued)
Solidification/ Stabilization -Chemical Fixation
Physical mixing of contaminated soil and stabilizing reagents, formulated to chemically bind the contaminants in the soil. The soil mixture is then left in place.
Treatability study would be required prior to implementation on a larger scale. However, stabilization would likely be very effective.
Difficult to implement over this large an area. Treatment train would not be very complex.
Moderate capital and low O & M costs.
Eliminated based
on wastes
remaining in place
and difficulty In
implementation.
In Situ Chemical Electrokinetic Separation
Process uses electrochemical and electrokinetic processes to desorb, and then remove, metals from low permeability soil.
May be effective for high levels of contamination; may not work for arsenic contamination
Readily implementable; has significant electricity requirements.
Moderate to high capital and O & M costs
Eliminated based
on cost and
questionable
effectiveness.
In Situ Biological Treatment
Phytoremediation Involves the planting, care, and harvesting, and destruction of plants to remove contaminants from soils.
Laboratory studies completed at Western Carolina University have indicated a fern species can remove arsenic from soil. Data is limited on effectiveness.
Difficult to implement over this large an area.
Moderate to high capital and O&M costs.
Retained for
consideration.
Ex Situ Chemical/ Physical
Separation (Gravity or Sieving/Physical)
Concentration of contaminated solids through physical and chemical means. The processes detach contaminants from the medium (i.e., the soil, sand, and/or binding material that contains them).
Separation may not prove effective; segregated materials may have similar metals contamination, with no concentration or reduction in volume.
Implementable; however, may not remove contamination to RGO levels. Treatment would require removal, stockpiling, and storing of materials in addition to treatment or disposal of processed material.
Moderate to high capital and O & M costs.
Eliminated based
on questionable
effectiveness and
availability of more
cost-effective
measures. CD CD VO
• •
Table 2-9
Screening of Remedial Technologies and Process Options for Soil Barber Orchard Site
Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page 5 of 6)
General Response Action
Treatment (Continued)
Disposal
Remediation Technology
Ex Situ Chemical/ Physical
Ex Situ Chemical
Onsite
Process Option
Soil Washing
Solidification/ Stabilization
Chemical Extraction (Acid Extraction)
Replacement of Treated Soil
Description
Contaminants sorted onto fine soil particles are separated from bulk soil in an aqueous-based system on the basis of particle size. The wash water may be augmented with a basic leaching agent, surfactant, pH adjustment, or chelating agent to help remove heavy metals.
Excavation and physical mixing of soil with stabilizing reagents, formulated to chemically bind the contaminants in the soil. The soil mixture is then disposed of in a landfill or returned to the excavation and used as fill.
Waste contaminated soil and extractant are mixed in an extractor, dissolving the contaminants. The extracted solution is then placed in a separator, where the contaminants and extractant are separated for treatment and further use.
Treated soil is used for fill after being treated.
Effectiveness
The process may not remove concentrations of contaminants to RGO levels.
Treatability study would be required prior to implementation on a larger scale. However, stabilization would likely be very effective.
Acid extractions are generally more effective than soil washing, and requires physical separation for maximum effectiveness.
Effective means of disposal of treated soil from where it was excavated.
Implementability
Implementable, however, treatment train would include separation, washing, and treatment for wastewater generated.
Implementable; shallow depths of vadose zone for soil removal. Treatment train would not be very complex.
Implementable; commercial- scale units are in operation. Treated soil may require add neutralization
Readily implementable; however additional treatment may be required to meet RGO.
Cost
Moderate capital and high O & M costs.
Moderate capital and moderate 0 & M costs.
Moderate capital and 0 & M costs.
Low capital and n o O & M costs.
Conclusion |
Eliminated based
on questionable
effectiveness and
availability of more
cost-effective
measures-
Retained for further
consideration as
alternative.
Eliminated because
of complexity and
costs.
Retained for
consideration as a
disposal method
for treated soil.
Table 2-9
Screening of Remedial Technologies and Process Options for Soil Barber Orchard Site
Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page 6 of 6)
General Response Action
Disposal (Continued)
Remediation Technology
Offsite
Process Option
Haul Soil to Hazardous Waste Treatment Facility
Beneficial Reuse of Treated Soil
Description
Treated or untreated soil is hauled by truck for disposal at a hazardous waste treatment facility licensed to dispose of hazardous wastes.
Treated soil not remediated to the level of RGOs is conveyed to local landfill for use as daily cover or other beneficial use as designated by local authorities.
Effectiveness
Effective, but expensive and time consuming means of treated or untreated soil due to volume of soil.
Reuse of soil maximizes overall benefit of remediation and is useful to municipal landfills.
Implementability
Readily implementable; however, there are high hauling/disposal fees associated with this method
Implementation most likely will be thwarted by opposition from public driven by public perception problems.
Cost
Low capital and high 0 & M costs.
Low capital and 0 & M costs.
Conclusion
Retained for further
consideration as a
disposal method
for t reated soil.
Retained for further
consideration as a
disposal method
for treated soil.
• • •
Table 2-10
Screening of Remedial Technologies and Process Options for Groundwater Barber Orchard Site
Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page 1 of 4)
General Response Action
No Action
Institutional Controls
Engineering Controls
Remediation Technology
None
Access and Use Restrictions
Monitoring
Alternate Water Supplies
Well Abandonment
Process Option
None
Zoning Ordinance Restrictions: LURD, groundwater redassification loRS
Groundwater Monitoring
None
Well Abandonment
Description
No Action
Use existing North Carolina laws to restrict access to contaminated groundwater through the LURD or reclassify groundwater beneath the site to "RS" (restricted).
Short and/or long-term monitoring is implemented to record contamination levels, track migration, and/or assess remedial performance.
Development of an alternative water supply would replace contaminated on-site well water with an off-site clean source of potable water.
Well abandonment would consist of identifying at risk potable water wells and taking these wells out of service by abandoning the well.
Effectiveness
Does not improve groundwater quality, minimize exposure from onsite contamination, or control contaminant migration.
Effective for limiting human exposures to contamination onsite, but is dependent upon long-term enforcement.
Effective means to monitor contaminant migration and/or remedial action progress. Does not improve groundwater quality or control contaminant migration.
Effective in reducing risks to human health.
Effective in eliminating exposure pathways.
Implementability
Readily Implemented.
Readily implement able. Initially, the prevention of zoning reclassification may be harder to implement long term
Readily implementable. Most monitoring wells needed are currently in place.
Readily implementable.
Readily implementable.
Cost
No additional costs.
Negligible capital and O & M costs.
Low capital and moderate O & M costs.
High capital, low O&M.
Moderate capital; no O&M.
Conclusion
Retained as required by CERCLA to be carried through to detailed analysis of alternatives.
Retained for consideration
Retained for consideration as a support method for other alternatives.
Retained for consideration.
Retained for consideration.
Table 2-10
Screening of Remedial Technologies and Process Options for Groundwater Barber Orchard Site
Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page 2 of 4)
General Response Action
Containment
Remediation Technology
Horizontal Barriers
Vertical Barriers
Process Option
Capping
Slurry Wall
Grout Curtains
Description
An impermeable barrier such as clay, soil/synthetic membrane, asphalt, asphaltic concrete, concrete, multi-layered chemical sealant/stabilizers is placed over source area to minimize infiltration, liquidation of contaminants, and subsequent migration of contaminants into the groundwater.
Excavated trench around contaminated area is backfilled with a low permeability material such as soil-bentonite or cement bentonite mixtures to restrict or divert groundwater flow.
Grout is pressure-injected along contamination boundaries in a regular overlapping pattern of drilled holes to form a vertical, low-permeability barrier to restrict migration.
Effectiveness
Would be effective to mitigate source areas with high levels of contaminants in soil. Slows recharge of aquifer and subsequent migration of groundwater plumes. May interfere with hydraulic gradient.
Effective for prevention of groundwater migration in the saprolite.
Would not be effective due to depth of contamination.
Implementability
Implementable; would require the construction of drainage and detention structures.
Implementable in the saprolite; not implementable in the bedrock. A treatment or control system must also. be used to prevent a hydraulic gradient that is too large.
Difficult for depth and rock conditions. A groundwater treatment or control system must also be used to prevent a hydraulic gradient that is too large.
Cost
Low capital and 0 & M costs.
Moderate capital and low O & M costs.
High capital and low O & M costs.
Conclusion
Eliminated based on the size of the area requiring treatment.
Eliminated based on the large volumes of soil that would require treatment and/or disposal and the problems In installing a slurry wal l in bedrock.
Eliminated due to depth of contamination and difficulty of implementation.
to Table 2-10
Screening of Remedial Technologies and Process Options for Groundwater Barber Orchard Site
Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page 3 of 4)
General Response Action
Collection/Removal
Remediation Technology
Groundwater Extraction
Process Option
Extraction Wells
Description
Extraction wells and pumps are installed to collect contaminated groundwater for subsequent conveyance to treatment facilities.
Effectiveness
Effective means for removal of groundwater; however, may not be effective in the fractured bedrock terrain beneath the Barber Orchard site
Implementability
Readily implementable using conventional well drilling and extraction technology.
Cost
Moderate capital and high O & M costs.
Conclusion
Retained for
consideration.
VO
CD
o
Table 2-10
Screening of Remedial Technologies and Process Options for Groundwater Barber Orchard Site
Haywood County, North Carolina
•
(Page 4 of 4)
General Response Action
Treatment
Disposal
|
Remediation Technology
Ex Situ Physical
In Situ Biological
Onsite
Process Option
Adsorption/ Absorption
Monitored Natural Attenuation
Infiltration Galleries
Discharge to POTW via Sanitary Sewer
Discharge to Nearby Stream
Description
Contaminants concentrate at the surface of a sorbent (e.g. activated carbon) thereby reducing their concentration in the bulk liquid phase.
Evaluate ability of the natural system to biodegrade the organochlorine pesticides in groundwater.
Treated groundwater is discharged to the ground via an infiltration gallery.
Treated groundwater is discharged to sewer system for conveyance to a municipal publicly owned treatment works (POTW) for subsequent treatment and discharge.
Treated groundwater is discharged to nearby surface water provided nearby stream is available.
Effectiveness
Effective for the removal of organics from the aqueous phase.
Marginally effective on recalcitrant compounds like pesticides.
Effective means of disposal of treated groundwater which may also be used to enhance hydraulic containment.
Effective means of disposing of treated groundwater; however discharge must meet specified POTW limits.
Effective means of treated groundwater disposal; however process would requiring obtaining a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and meeting permit conditions.
Implementability
Implementable; however, may require testing. Recharging or replacement of sorbent material may be expensive.
Implementable; requires additional monitoring
Readily implementable; however it is subject to the availability of property and may require additional treatment to meet discharge permit conditions.
Potential administrative problems with POTW acceptance of treated groundwater..
Potential administrative issues with regard to obtaining and maintaining a NPDES permit.
Cost
Moderate to high capital cost and O & M costs.
Low to moderate capital costs.
Low capital and moderate 0 & M costs.
Low capital or high O & M costs.
Low capital and 0 &M costs.
Conclusion
Retained for consideration.
Retained for consideration.
Eliminated because of the terrain and soil and rock types
underlying Barber
Orchard.
Eliminated due to the distance from Barber Orchard to
the nearest sewer
(estimated a t
2.5 miles).
Retained for
consideration. Treated
groundwater could be discharged to Richland Creek.
=>
J1
Table 3-1
Development of Soil Alternatives Barber Orchard Site
Haywood County, North Carolina
General Response
Action
No Action
Institutional Controls
Containment
Collection/
Treatment
Disposal
Remedial Technology
None
Access and Use Restrictions
Horizontal Barriers
Surface Control
Soil Extraction
Ex Situ Physical/Chemical
On Site
In-situ Biological
Off Site
Process Option
None
Zoning Ordinance and Land Use Restrictions
Capping - Impermeable
Drainage Controls
Excavation
Solidification/ Stabilization
Replacement of Treated Soil
Phytoremediation
Hazardous/ Nonhazardous Waste Disposal Facility
Alternative
No Action
•
Alternative S2
Institutional Controls and Monitoring
•
Alternative S3 Capping,
Institutional Controls, and
Monitoring
•
•
•
•
Alternative S4 Excavation, Treatment,
and Off-Site Disposal of Treated Soil
•
•
•
•
Alternative SS Excavation, Treatment, Institutional
Controls, and On-Site
Disposal of Treated Soil
•
•
•
•
•
•
Alternative S6 Excavation,
Treatment, On-Site
Encapsulation in an Engineered
Cell, and Monitoring of Contaminated
Soil
•
•
•
•
•
•
Alternative S7 Phytoremediation
•
•
Note: Dots indicate the Process Option is included as part of an alternative. (
Table 3-2
Development of Groundwater Alternatives Barber Orchard Site
Haywood County, North Carolina
General Response
Action
No Action
Institutional Controls
Engineering Controls
Collection/ Removal
Treatment
Disposal
Remedial Technology
None
Monitoring
Alternate Water Supply
Water Well Abandonment
Groundwater Extraction
Ex Situ Physical
In Situ Biological
On Site
Process Option
None
Groundwater Monitoring, LURD
Extraction Wells
Adsorption
Monitored Natural Attenuation
Surface Water Discharge (NPDES outfall)
Alternative GW1 No Action
•
Alternative GW2 Institutional and
Engineering Controls and Monitored Natural
Attenuation
•
•
•
•
Alternative GW3 Extraction of Groundwater,
Aboveground Treatment with Discharge to Surface Water, and
Engineering Controls
•
Note: Dots indicate the Process Option is included as part of a specific alternative.
4>*
O i
CD -3
Table 4-1 4 9 010
Cost Estimate for Alternative S2 • Institutional Controls and Monitoring Feasibility Study
Barber Orchard, Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page l o t 9)
Alternative S2 Institutional Controls
and Monitoring
Labor Rates: Project Manager II (E11)
Senior Consultant I (El2) Sr. Geologist (E10)
Engineer/Scientist IV (E10) Hydrogeotogist (EOS)
Geologist (E08) Engineer/Scientist III (EOS) Engineer/Scientist II (E06) Engineer/Scientist I (E04)
H&S Coordinator (E09) Engineering Technician III (N08)
Draflsperson (N08) Word Processor (N06)
Data Entry Technician (E04) Chemist III (E06)
Database Manager (EOS) Secretary III (N06)
Mrg, Contract Admin (E09) Procurement Coordinator (N07)
$95.00 $106.00
$77.00 $77.00 $63.00 $60.00 $65.00 $53.00 $44.00 $70.00 $30.00 $50.00 $35.00 $44.00 $53.00 $63.00 $34.00 $76.00 $35.00
Date: 06/17/03
Travel: Mileage Per Diem Lodging Rental Car Airfare Rental Car FOGM
Analytical: Pesticides Metals
$0,360
$30.00
$55.00
$60.00
$800.00
$12.00
$133.00
$157.00
Scope: 1. Generate work plan, sampling and analysis plan, and health and safety plan. 2. Generate institutional controls implementation plan (ICIP) and implement institutional controls. 7. Assume 30 years of surface water / sediment monitoring and reporting.
1.0 Word Plan. SAP. and H&S Plan
Includes: 1. Labor to generate Work Plan, SAP
Service/Materials Office Labor
Project Manager 11 (E11)
Senior Consultant I (E12) Engineer/Scientist IV (E10)
Geologist (EOS) Engineer/Scientist III (EOS)
H&S Coordinator (E09) Chemist III (E06)
Secretary III (N06) Draflsperson (N08)
Word Processor (N06) Document Repro (Draft and Final)
and H&S Plan.
Unit
8 6 16 32 60 10 20 20 60 20 2
Unit Cost
$95.00 /hr $106.00 /hr
$77.00 /hr $60.00 /hr $65.00 /hr $70.00 /hr $53.00 /hr $34.00 /hr $50.00 mr $35.00 /hr
$1,000.00 lea
Cost
$760.00 $636.00
$1,232.00 $1,920.00 $3,900.00
$700.00 $1.060 00
$660.00 $3,000.00
$700.00 $2,000.00
Subtotal $16,588.00
4 9 Table 4-1
010
Cost Estimate for Alternative S2 - Institutional Controls and Monitoring Feasibility Study
Barber Orchard, Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page 2 of 9)
1 2.0 Sediment and Surface Water Sampling, Analysis and Reporting
Includes:
1. Surface water and sediment sampling for pesticides and metals 2. Data validation, interpretation, and reporting
3. Number of stations sampled each event = 4. Field crew: Two field technicians =
5. Sampling time (per well) > 6. Sampling time (per event) = 7. Stations sampled for pesticides = B. Stations sampled for metals • 9. 10% field duplicate analysis (per analytical) °
Data Management and QAJQC Assumptions: Data Entry Technician (E04)
Chemist III (E06) Database Manager (EOB) Senior Consultant I (E12)
Service/Materials Office Labor
Project Manager II (E11) Senior Consultant I (E12)
Engineer/Scientist III (EOS) Engineer/Scientist II (E06)
Data Entry Technician (E04) Chemist III (E06)
Database Manager (EOS) Secretary III (N06)
Draflsperson (N08) Word Processor (N06)
Field Labor. Geologist (E08)
Engineering Technician III (N08)
Materials: Sampling Equipment
Analytical: Pesticides
Metals Daily Shipping
Travel: Lodging
Per Diem
Unit
15 30 40 60 120 80 120 20 30 30
60 60
1
44 44 6
12 12
1.5 1
1 5 0.2
Unit Cost
$95.00 $106.00
$65.00
153.00 $44.00 $53.00 $63.00 $34.00 $50.00
$35.00
$60.00 $30.00
$500 00
$133.00 $157 00
$40.00
40 2
1.5 6
40 40 4
stations personnel hrs/station days
stations stations
hr/sample hr/sample hr/sample hr/sample
/hr /hr /hr /hr /hr /hr /hr /hr /hr /hr
/hr /hr
lea
lea lea lea
$55.00 /day $30.00 /day
Cost
$1,425.00 $3,180.00 $2,600.00 $3,180.00 $5,280.00 $4,240.00 $7,560.00
$680.00 $1,500.00 $1,050.00
$3,600.00 $1,800.00
$500.00
$5,852.00 $6,908.00
$240.00
$660.00 $360.00
Subtotal $50,615.00
Table 4-1
Cost Estimate for Alternative S2 - Institutional Controls and Monitoring Feasibility Study
Barber Orchard, Haywood County, North Carolina
4 9
(Page 3 of 9)
3 0 Installation of Additional Monltorlnq Wells
Includes: 1. Installation of additional monitoring wells using hollow-stem auger. All wells will be flush-mounted.
2. Development of new wells. 3. Well installation will be conducted by a drilling subcontractor under Shaw E&l supervision. 4. Wells will be constnjcted using 2-ln PVC with 10-fl 0.010 slot continuous wrap
Assumptions: 1. Number of new wells » 2. Construct and develop one well = 3. Average depth per well (ft) = 4 Total depth = 5. Installation field days =
Service/Materials Office Labor
Engineer/Scientist 111 (EOS) Procurement Coordinator (N07)
Secretary III (N06)
Field Labor Geologist (E08)
Engineering Technician III (N08)
Drilling Subcontractor Mobilization
Demobilization 2-inch borehole drilling
2-inch well construction Well Development
Surface Completion Decontamination
Cleanup IDW Disposal
Drill Crew Per Diem Civil Surveying
Travel: Lodging Perdiem
Rental Car Rental Car FOGM
Unit
8 8 8
500 500
1 1
3750 3750
25 25 25 25 25 50 3
100 100 52 52
25 2 days
150 ft/well 3750 ft
50
Unit Cost
$65.00 $35.00 $34.00
$60.00 $30.00
$2,750.00 $1,500.00
$18.00 $20.00 $80.00
$500.00 $100.00 $150.00 $500.00 $100.00
$1,200.00
days
/hr /hr /hr
/hr /hr
lea lea /ft m lea lea lea lea lea lea /day
$55.00 /day $30.00 /day $60.00 /day $12.00 lea
PVC screen.
Cost
$520.00 $280 00 $272.00
$30.000 00 $15,000.00
$2,750.00 $1,500.00
$67,500.00 $75,000.00
$2,000.00 $12,500.00
$2,500.00 $3,750.00
$12,500.00 $5,000.00 $3,000.00
$5,500.00 $3,000.00 $3,120.00
$624.00
Subtotal $246,316.00
Table 4-1 4 9 011
Cost Estimate for Alternative S2 • Institutional Controls and Monitoring Feasibility Study
Barber Orchard, Haywood County, North Carolina
(Pago 4 of 9)
4.0 Baseline Sampling and Analysis
Include*:
1. Groundwater monitoring for pesticides and metals. 2. Data validation, interpretation, and reporting. 3. Number of wells sampled each event = 4. Field crew: Two field technicians = 5. Sampling time (per well) = 6. Sampling time = 7. Wells sampled for pesticides = 8. Wells sampled for metals ° 9 .10% nek) duplicate analysis (per analytical) =
Data Management and QA/QC Assumptions: Data Entry Technician (E04)
Chemist III (E06) Database Manager (EOS)
Senior Consultant (E12)
Service/Materials Office Labor
Project Mgr II (E11) Sr Consultant I (E12)
Eng Scientist III (EOB) Eng Scientist I (E04)
Chemist III (E06) Database Manager (E08)
Sr. Consultant Draftsperson (N08)
Secretary III (N06) Word Processor (N06)
Field Labor Geologist (EOS)
Engineering Technician III (N08)
Materials: Sampling Equipment
Document Reproduction RDW Treatment and Disposal
Analytical: Pesticides
Metals Daily Shipping
Travel:
Lodging Perdiem
Rental Car Rental Car FOGM
Unit
15 10 40 156 105
157.5 21 20 30 30
150 150
1 1 1
55 55 15
30 30 30 30
50 wells (25 new 2 personnel 3 hrsfwell
15 days 50 wells 50 wells
5 wells
1.5 1
hr/sample hr/sample
1.5 hr/sampte 0.2
Unit Cost
$95.00 $106.00
$65.00 $44.00 $53.00 $63.00
$106.00 $50.00 $34.00 $35.00
$60.00 $30.00
$500.00 $1,000.00 $2,500.00
$133 00 $157.00
$40.00
hr/sample
/hr /hr /hr mr /hr /hr /hr /hr /hr /hr
/hr /hr
lea lea /LS
lea lea lea
$55.00 /day $30.00 /day $60.00 /day $12.00 lea
wells and 25 existing wells)
Cost
$1,425.00 $1,060.00 $2,600.00 $6,930.00 $5,565.00 $9,922.50 $2,226.00 $1,000.00 $1,020.00 $1,050.00
$9,000.00 $4,500.00
$500.00 $1,000.00 $2,500.00
$7,315.00 $8,635.00
$600.00
$1,650.00 $900.00
$1,800.00 $360.00
Subtotal $69,398.50
Table 4-1 4 9
Cost Estimate for Alternative S2 - Institutional Controls and Monitoring Feasibility Study
Barber Orchard, Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page 5 of 9)
5.0 First Year Quarterly Groundwater Sampling. Analysis. Data Management, and Reporting
Includes: 1. Four quarterly groundwater monitoring events for pesticides and metals during the first two years. 2. Data validation, evaluation, and preparation of annual report. 3. Number of wells sampled each event = 4. Field crew: Two field technicians and sampling coon 5. Sampling time (per well) = 6. Number of sampling events = 7. Sampling time (per year) = 8. Wells sampled for pesticides = 9. Wells sampled for metals = 10. 10% field duplicates for all analysis
.=
(per event per analytical) =
Data Management and QAJQC Assumptions: Data Entry Technician (E04)
Chemist III (E06) Database Manager (EOS) Senior Consultant I (E12)
Service/Materials Office Labor
Project Manager II (E11) Senior Consultant I (E12)
Engineer/Scientist III (E08) Engineer/Scientist it (E06)
Data Entry Technician (E04) Chemist III (E06)
Database Manager (E08) Senior Consultant 1 (E12)
Secretary III (N06) Draftsperson (N08)
Word Processor (N06)
Field Labor Geologist (EOS)
Engineering Technician III (N08) Engineering Technician III (NOB)
Materials: Sampling Equipment
Document Reproduction RDW Treatment and Disposal
Analytical: Pesticides
Metals
Daily Shipping
Travel: Per Diem
Lodging Rental Car
Rental Car FOGM
Unit
45 40 80 150
157.5 105
157.5 21 40 40 40
600 600 600
1 1 1
205 205
60
135 135 135 135
50 2.25
3 4
60 50 50 5
wells personnel hrs/well events days wells wells
1 5 hr/sample 1 hr/sample
1.5 hr/sample 0.2 hr/sample
Unit Cost
$95.00 $106.00
$65.00 $53.00 $44.00 $53.00 $63.00
$106.00 $34.00 $50.00 $35.00
$60.00 $30.00 $30.00
$500.00 $1,000.00 $2,500.00
$133.00 $157.00
$40 00
/hr /hr /hr /hr /hr /hr /hr /hr /hr /hr /hr
/hr /hr /hr
/ea tea /LS
lea lea
lea
$30.00 /day $55.00 /day $60.00 /day $12.00 /ea
Cost
$4,275.00 $4,240.00 $5,200.00 $7,950.00 $6,930.00 $5,565.00 $9,922.50 $2,226.00 $1,360.00 $2,000.00 $1,400.00
$36.000 00 $18,000.00 $18,000.00
$500.00 $1,000.00 $2,500.00
$27,265.00 $32,185.00
$2.400 00
$4,050.00 $7,425.00 $8,100.00 $1,620.00
Subtotal $200,393.50
4 9 Table 4-1
Cost Estimate for Alternative S2 • Institutional Controls and Monitoring Feasibility Study
Barber Orchard, Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page 6 of 9)
6.0 Seml-Annual Groundwater Sampling. Analysis, Data Management, and Reporting
Includes:
1. Groundwater monitoring events for pesticides and metals. 2. Data validation, evaluation, and preparation of annual report. 3. Number of wells sampled each event = 4. Field crew: Two field technicians and sampling coord. = 5. Sampling time (per well) = 6. Number of sampling events ° 7. Sampling time (per year) = 8. Wells sampled for pesticides •= 9. Wells sampled for metals » 10.10% field duplicates for all analysis (per event per analytical) =
Data Management and QA/QC Assumptions:
50 2.25
3 2
30 50 50
wells personnel
hra/well events
days wells wells
Data Entry Technician (E04)
Chemist III (E06) Database Manager (E0B) Senior Consultant I (E12)
Service/Materials Office Labor
Project Manager II (E11) Senior Consultant I (E12)
Engineer/Scientist III (E08) Engineer/Scientist II (E06)
Data Entry Technician (EM)
Chemist Ml (E06) Database Manager (EOS) Senior Consultant I (El2)
Secretary III (N06)
Draftsperson (N08) Word Processor (N06)
Field Labor Geologist (E08)
Engineering Technician III (N08) Engineering Technician III (N08)
Materials: Sampling Equipment
Document Reproduction RDW Treatment and Disposal
Analytical: Pesticides
Metals Daily Shipping
Travel: Per Diem
Lodging
Rental Car Rental Car FOGM
Unit
30 20
80 120
157.5 105
157.5
21 20
30 30
300 300 300
1 1 1
105 105 30
67.5
67.5
67.5 67.5
1.5 hr/sample 1 hr/sample
1.5 hr/sample 0.2 hr/sample
Unit Cost
$95.00 $106.00
$65.00 $53.00 $44.00 $53.00 $63.00
$106.00 $34.00
$50.00 $35.00
$60.00 $30.00 $30.00
$500.00 $1,000.00 $2,500.00
$133.00 $157.00
$40.00
/hr /hr
/hr /hr
mr /hr /hr /hr /hr /hr /hr
/hr mr /hr
lea lea
/LS
lea lea lea
$30.00 /day $55.00 /day
$60.00/day $12.00 lea
Cost
$2,850.00 $2,120.00
$5,200.00 $6,360.00 $6,930.00 $5,565.00 $9,922.50 $2,226.00
$680.00
$1,500.00 $1,050.00
$18.000 00 $9,000.00 S9.000.00
$500.00 $1,000.00 $2,500.00
$13,965.00 $16,485.00
$1,200.00
$2,025.00
$3,712.50
$4,050.00 $810.00
Subtotal $121,791.00
4 9 011 Table 4-1
Cost Estimate for Alternative S2 • Institutional Controls and Monitoring Feasibility Study
Barber Orchard, Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page 7 of 9)
7.0 One Event - Groundwater Sampling, Analysis. Data Management, and Reporting
Includes:
1. Groundwater monitoring for pesticides and metals. 2. Data validation, evaluation, and preparation of performance report. 3. Number of wells sampled each event= 50 wells 4. Field crew: Two field technicians and sampling coord. = 2.25 personnel 5. Sampling time (per well) = 3 hrs/well 6. Sampling time (per event) = 1S days 7. Wells sampled for pesticides = 50 wells 9. Wells sampled for metals = 50 wells 9 10% field duplicate analysis (per analytical) = 5
Data Management and QA/QC Assumptions: Data Entry Technician (E04)
Chemist III (E06) Database Manager (E08) Senior Consultant I (E12)
1.5 hr/sample 1 hr/sample
1.5 hr/sample 0.2 hr/sample
Service/Materials Office Labor:
Project Manager II (E11) Senior Consultant I (E12)
Engineer/Scientist III (EOS) Engineer/Scientist II (E06)
Data Entry Technician (E04) Chemist III (E06)
Database Manager (EOS) Senior Consultant I (E12)
Secretary III (N06) Draftsperson (NOB)
Word Processor (N06) Field Labor
Geologist (E08) Engineering Technician III (N08) Engineering Technician III (N08)
Materials: Sampling Equipment
Document Reproduction RDW Treatment and Disposal
Analytical: Pesticides
Metals Daily Shipping
Travel:
Lodging Perdiem
Rental Car Rental Car FOGM
Unit
30 20 80 120
157.5 105
157.5 21 20 30 30
150 150 150
1 1 1
55 55 15
3375 33.75 33.75 33.75
Unit Cost
$95.00 $106.00
$65.00 $53.00 $44.00 $53.00 $63.00
$106.00 $34.00 $50.00 $35.00
$60.00 $30.00 $30.00
$500.00 $1,000.00 $2,500.00
$133.00 $157.00
$40.00
/hr /hr /hr /hr /hr /hr /hr /hr /hr /hr /hr
/hr /hr /hr
lea
lea /LS
lea
lea lea
$30.00 /day $55.00 /day
$60.00 /day $12.00 lea
Cost
$2,850.00 $2,120.00 $S.200.00 $6,360.00 $6,930.00 $5,565.00 $9,922.50 $2,226.00
$680.00 $1,500.00 $1,050.00
$9,000.00 $4,500.00 $4,500.00
$500.00 $1,000.00 $2,500.00
$7,315.00 $8,635.00
$600.00
$1,012.50 $1,856.25 $2,025.00
$405.00
Subtotal $86,822.25
4 9 Table 4-1
Cost Estimate for Alternative S2 - Institutional Controls and Monitoring Feasibility Study
Barber Orchard, Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page B of 9)
8.0 ICIP and Implement Controls
Includes: 1 Labor to generate ICIP. 2. Implement controls.
Service/Materials Labor
Project Manager II (E11) Senior Consultant I (E12)
Engineer/Scientist III (E06)
Engineer/Scientist IV (E10) Geologist (E08)
Draftsperson (N08) Word Processor (N06)
Document Production (2 versions) Implement Controls
Unit
15
15 120
15 50
30 40
2 1
Unit Cost
$95.00 /hr $106.00 Ihr
$65.00 mr
$77.00 mr $60.00 mr
$50.00 /hr $35.00 mr
$500.00 lea $50,000.00 rt_S
Cost
$1,425.00 $1,590.00 $7,800.00 $1,155.00 $3,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,400.00 $1,000.00
$50,000.00
$68,870.00
9.0 Total Capital Cost
Includes: 1. Project Fee =
Service/Materials WP, SAP. HSS
Sed/Surface Water Samp Monitoring Well Install
Baseline Sampling and Analysis First Year Monit and Reporting
ICIP and Implementation
Project Fee (capital costs)
Unit
0.075
7.5 %
Unit Cost $16,588.00 lea $50,615.00 lea
$246,316.00 lea $69,398.50 lea
$200,393.50 lea
$68,870.00 lea $652,181.00 lea
Cost $16,588.00 $50,615.00
$246,316.00 $69,398.50
$200,393.50 $68,870.00 $48,913.58
Total Capital Cost $701,000
4 9 01 Table 4-1
Cost Estimate for Alternative S2 - Institutional Controls and MonKoring Feasibility Study
Barber Orchard, Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page 9 of 9)
10.0 Present Value Cost
Includes: 1. Total Capital Cost. 2. Semi-annual monitoring for years 2 through 5: sed/surface water and groundwater 3. Annual monitoring for years 6 through 30. 4. Project Fee = 5. Present value discount rate =
Service/Materials Unit Unit Cost Total Capital Cost
Monitoring for year 2 Monitoring for year 3 Monitoring for year 4 Monitoring for year 5 Monitoring for year 6 Monitoring for year 7 Monitoring for year 8 Monitoring for year 9
Monitoring for year 10 Monitoring for year 11 Monitoring for year 12 Monitoring for year 13 Monitoring for year 14 Monitoring for year 15 Monitoring for year 16 Monitoring for year 17
Monitoring for year 1B Monitoring for year 19 Monitoring for year 20 Monitoring for year 21 Monitoring for year 22 Monitoring for year 23 Monitoring for year 24 Monitoring for year 25 Monitoring for year 26 Monitoring for year 27 Monitoring for year 28 Monitoring for year 29 1 Monitoring for year 30 1
Project Fee (PV mont. costs onry) 0.0
7.5 % 7 %
1 $701,000.00 lea $223,021.00
1 $223,021.00 1 $223,021.00 t $223,021.00
$136,437.25 1 $136,437.25
$136,437.25 $136,437.25 $136,437.25
1 $136,437.25 $136,437.25 $136,437.25 $136,437.25 $136,437.25 $136,437.25 $136,437.25 $136,437.25 $136,437.25 $136,437.25 $136,437.25 $136,437.25 $136,437.25 $136,437.25 $136,437.25 $136,437.25 $136,437.25 $136,437.25 $136,437.25 $136,437.25
75 $4,303,015.25
/year /year /year /year /event /event /event /event /event /event /event /event /event /event /event /event /event /event /event /event /event /event /event /event /event /event /event /event /event /Is
Cost $701,000.00 $223,021.00 $223,021.00 $223,021.00 $223,021.00 $136,437.25 $136,437.25 $136,437.25 $136,437.25 $136,437.25 $136,437.25 $136,437.25 $136,437.25 $136,437.25 $136,437.25 $136,437.25 $136,437.25 $136,437.25 $136,437.25 $136,437.25 $136,437.25 $136,437.25 $136,437.25 $136,437.25 $136,437.25 $136,437.25 $136,437.25 $136,437.25 $136,437.25 $136,437.25 $322,726.14
Total Present Value Cost
Present Value
$701,000.00 $194,697.00 $181,985.14 $170,165.02 $159,013.97 $90,867.21 $85,000.41 $79,406.48 $74.22186 $69,310.12 $64,807.69 $60,578.14 $56,621.46 $52,937.65 $49,390.28 $46,252.23 $43,250.61 $40,385.43 $37,793.12 $35,200.81 $33,017.81 $30,834.82 $28,788.26 $26,878.14 $25,104.45 $23,467.21 $21,966.40 $20,465.59 $19,237.65 $17,873.28 $322,726
$2,863,244
Table 4-2 4 9 on?
Cost Estimate for Alternative S4 • Excavation, Treatment and Off-Site Disposal Feasibility Study
Barber Orchard, Haywood County, North Carolina
Alternative S4 Excavation, Treatment, and Off-Site Disposal
(Page 1 of 3)
Date: 06/17/03
Travel: Mileage
Per Diem Lodging Rental Car Airfare Rental Car FOGM
Analytical: Pesticides Metals
Labor Ratas: Project Manager II (E11) $95.00
Senior Consultant I (E12) J 106.00 Sr. Geologist (E10) $77.00
Engineer/Scientist IV (E10) $77.00 Hydrogeotogist (E08) $63.00
Geologist (E08) $60.00 Engineer/Scientist III (EOS) $65.00 Engineer/Scientist II (E06) $53.00 Engineer/Scientist I (E04) $44.00
H&S Coordinator (E09) $70.00 Engineering Technician III (N08) $30.00
Draftsperson (N08) $50.00 Word Processor (N06) $35.00
Data Entry Technician (E04) $44.00 Chemist III (E06) $53.00
Database Manager (E08) $63.00 Secretary III (N06) $34.00
Mrg, Contract Admin (E09) $76.00 Procurement Coordinator (N07) $35.00
Scope: 1. Generate work plan, sampling and analysis plan, and health and safety plan. 2. Generate detailed design (drawings and specifications). 3 Soil removal of-302,017 CY.
4. Stabilization of -300,861 CY of excavated soil. 5. Removal of -26,000 LF of pesticide distribution piping and surrounding soil (1156 CY). 5. Disposal of soil/sediment and piping.
$0,360 $30.00 $55.00 $60.00
$800.00 $12.00
$133.00 $157.00
1.0 Work Plan. SAP, and H&S Plan
Includes: 1. Labor to generate Work Plan, SAP
Service/Materials Office Labor
Project Manager II (E11) Senior Consultant I (E12)
Engineer/Scientist IV (E10) Geologist (E08)
Engineer/Scientist III (EOS) H&S Coordinator (E09)
Chemist III (E06) Secretary III (N06)
Draftsperson (NOB) Word Processor (N06)
Document Repro (Draft and Final)
and H&S Plan.
Unit
8 6 16 32 60 10 20 20 60 20 2
Unit Cost
$95.00 /hr $106.00 /Mr
$77.00 /hr $60.00 /hr $65.00 /hr $70.00 /hr $53.00 /hr $34.00 /hr $50.00 /hr
$35.00 /hr $1,000.00 lea
Cost
$760.00 $636 00
$1,232.00 $1,920.00 $3,900.00
$700.00 $1,060.00
$680.00 $3,000.00
$700.00 $2,000.00
Subtotal $16,588.00
Table 4-2 4 9
Cost Estimate for Alternative S4 • Excavation, Treatment, and Off-Site Disposal Feasibility Study
Barber Orchard, Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page 2 of 3)
2.0 Detailed Design. Drawings, and Specifications
Includes:
1. Labor to generate detailed design including drawings and specifications. 2. Site visit: Engineer/Scientist IV and Engineer/Scientist I.
Servica/Matertats Office Labor Project Manager II (E11) Senior Consultant I (E12) Engineer/Scientist IV (E10) Draftsperson (N06) Engineer/Scientist I (E04) Travel Document Repro (Draft and Final)
Unit
20 100 250 200 250
1 3
Unit Cost
$95.00 /hr $106.00 /hr
$77.00 /hr $50.00 /hr $44.00 /hr $1,000 /ea
$500 /ea
Cost
$1,900.00 $10,600.00 $19,250.00 $10.000 00 $11,000.00
$1,000.00 $1,500.00
Subtotal $55,250.00 3.0 Soil Remediation
Includes: 1. Characterization of grids recommended for remediation; assume samplingAesting using XRF unit: 2. Excavation activities include labor and equipment. 3. Removal of top 12" of soil exceeding surface soil RGO. 4. Re-characterization of subsurface soil. 5. Excavation of remaining soil exceeding subsurface soil RGO (if any). 6. Assume 100 tons of soil/hour for stabilization. 7. Disposal will include treated soil (300,861 CY). contaminated distnbution piping (26.000 LF). sediment from piping (1 ton). 8. Assume ~7 lb sediment per 100 LF of piping or - 1 ton will go to Subtitle "C" landfill with piping.
Service/Materials Includes: 1. Clearing and Grubbing 2. Erosion & Sediment Control 3. Borrow Soil & Delivery 4. Backfill/Compaction 5. Grading 6. Seeding & Mulching 7. Dust Control 8. Characterization/Re-charact 9. Pipe Removal & Cleaning 10. Stabilization of Soil 11. Property Lease 12. Disposal of Treated Soil 13. Disposal of Sediment and Pipin 14. Contingency (15%) 15. Construction Oversight 16. Office Oversight
Unit
187 10000
302000 302000 905080
8146 300 750
26000 207
7 498000
2 0.15 52 52
Unit Cost
$3,175.00 $2.50 $7.00
$16.00 $0.13
$46.00 $720.00 $121.00
$10.00 $12,400.00
$1,000.00 $38.00
$2,000.00 $30,124,551.40
$2,000.00 $600.00
/acre /LF /CY /CY /SY /MSF /day /day /LF /day month /ton /ton /ea /week
/week
Cost
$593 $25,
$2,114, $4,832,
$117, $374, $216,
$90, $260,
$2,566, $6.
$18,924, $3
$4,518 $104,
$31,
,725.00 ,000.00 ,000.00 000,00 660.40 716.00 000.00 750.00
.000.00 800.00 ,900.00 000.00 ,000.00 ,682.71 ,000.00 200.00
Subtotal $34,778,434.11 4.0 Total Capital Cost
Includes: Service/Materials
WP, SAP. H&S Detailed Design
Soil Remediation
Unit 1 1 1
Unit Cost $16,588.00 /ea $55,250.00 /ea
$34,778,434.11 /ea
Cost $16,588.00 $55,250.00
$34,778,434.11
Total Capital Cost $34,850,000
Table 4-2 4 9 01 Cost Estimate for Alternative S4 • Excavation, Treatment, and Off-Site Disposal
Feasibility Study Barber Orchard, Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page 3 of 3)
5 0 Present Value Cost
Includes:
1. Total Capital Cost. 2. Semi-Annual monitoring for years 1 through 5. 5 events 3. Annual monitoring for years 6 through 30 (25 events). 25 events 4. Project Fee =
5. Present value discount rate =
7 5 % 7 %
Service/Materials Unit Unit Cost Total Capital Cost
Monitoring for year 1 Monitoring for year 2 Monitoring for year 3 Monitoring tor year 4 Monitoring for year 5 Monitoring for year 6 Monitoring for year 7 Monitoring for year B Monitoring for year 9
Monitoring for year 10 Monitoring for year 11 Monitoring for year 12 Monitoring for year 13 Monitoring for year 14 Monitoring for year 15 Monitoring for year 16 Monitoring for year 17 Monitoring for year 18 Monitoring for year 19 Monitoring for year 20 Monitoring for year 21 Monitoring for year 22 Monitoring for year 23 Monitoring for year 24 Monitoring for year 25 Monitoring for year 26 Monitoring for year 27 Monitoring for year 28 Monitoring for year 29 Monitoring for year 30
Project Fee (monitoring costs only) 0.C
S34.850.000.00 lea 1 S144.087.50 /year 1 $144,087.50 /year 1 $144,087.50 /year 1 $144,087.50 /year
$144,087.50 /event $75,671.25 /event
1 $75,671.25/event 1 $75.671.25/event 1 $75,671.25 /event 1 $75,671.25/event
$75,671.25 /event $75,671.25 /event $75,671.25 /event $75,671.25 /event $75,671.25 /event $75,671.25 /event $75,671.25 /event $75,671.25 /event $75,671.25 /event $75,671.25 /event $75,671.25 /event $75.671.25 /event $75,671.25 /event $75,671.25 /event $75,671.25 (event $75,671.25 /event $75,671.25 /event $75,671 25 /event $75,671.25 /event $75,671.25 /event
75 $1,129,922.31 /Is
Cost $34,850,000.00
$144,087.50 $144,087.50 $144,087.50 $144,087.50 $144,087.50
$75,671.25 $75,671.25 $75,671.25 $75,671.25 $75,671.25 $75,671.25 $75,671.25 $75,671.25 $75,671.25 $75,671.25 $75,671.25 $75,671.25 $75,671.25 $75,671.25 $75,671.25 $75,671.25 $75,671.25 $75,671.25 $75,671.25 $75,671.25 $75,671.25 $75,671.25 $75,671.25 $75,671.25 $75,671.25 $84,744.17
Total Present Value Cost
Present Value $34,850,000.00
$125,788.39 $117,575.40 $109,938.76 $102,734.39 $95,530.01 $47,143.19 $44,040.67 $41,165.16 $38,441.00 $35,943.84 $33,598.04 $31,403.57 $29,360.45 $27,392.99 $25,652.55 $23,987.79 $22,398.69 $20,960.94 $19,523.18 $18,312.44 $17,101.70 $15,966.63 $14,907.24 $13,923.51 $13,015.46 $12,183.07 $11,350.69 $10,669.65 $9,912.93 $9,912.93
$84,744.17 $36,075,000
Table 4-3 / I Q
Cost Estimate for S5 - Excavation, Treatment, and On-Site (Point of Origin) Disposal, Institutional Controls, and Monitoring
Feasibility Study Barber Orchard, Haywood County, North Carolina
(Pagel of 9)
01 n
Alternative S5
Excavation, Treatment, and On-Site (Point of Origin) Disposal, Institutional Controls, and Monitoring
Date; 6/17/03
Travel: Mileage Per Diem Lodging
Rental Car Airfare Rental Car FOGM
Analytical:
Pesticides Metals
Labor Rates: Project Manager II (E11) $95.00 C7
Senior Consultant I (E12) $106.00 CS Sr. Geologist (E10) $77.00 C9
Engineer/Scientist IV (E10) $77.00 C10 Hydrogeologist (E08) $63.00 C11
Geologist (E08) $60.00 C12 Engineer/Scientist III (E08) $65.00 C13 Engineer/Scientist II (E06) $53.00 C14 Engineer/Scientist I (E04) $44.00 C15
H&S Coordinator (E09) $70.00 C16 Engineering Technician III (N08) $30.00 C17
Draftspereon (N08) $50.00 C18
Word Processor (N06) $35.00 C19 Data Entry Technician (E04) $44.00 C20
Chemist III (E06) $53.00 C21 Database Manager (E08) $63.00 C22
Secretary III (N06) $34.00 C23 Mrg, Contract Admin (E09) $76.00 C24
Procurement Coordinator (N07) $35.00 C25
Scope: 1. Generate work plan, sampling and analysis plan, and health and safety plan.
2. Generate detailed system design (drawings and specifications). 3. Excavation and stabilization of -302,017 CY of soil. 4. Install 25 new monitoring wells.
5. Baseline sampling and analysis of 50 monitoring wells (25 new and 25 existing). 6. Quarterly groundwater monitoring for the first year, semi-annual for years 2 through 5, annual for remaining years 7. Prepare performance-monitoring reports.
8. Assume 30 years of monitoring and reporting. 9. Generate institutional controls implementation plan (ICIP) and implement institutional controls.
$0,360
$30.00
$55.00
$60.00
$800.00
$12.00
$133.00
$157.00
1.0 Work Plan. SAP. H&S Plan
Includes: 1. Labor to generate work plan. SAP. H&S plan
Service/Materials Labor.
Project Manager II (El 1) Engineer/Scientist IV (E10)
Senior Consultant I (E12)
Engineer/Scientist HI (EOS) H and S Coordinator (E09)'
Chemist III (E06)
Geologist (EOS) Draftsperson (N08)
Secretary III (N06)
Word Processor (N06)
Document Production (2 versions)
Unit
8 16 6 32 10 20 60 60 20 20 2
Unit Cost
$95.00 /hr. $77.00 /hr
$106.00 /hr.
$65.00 Air. $70.00 /hr
$53.00 /hr.
$60.00 /hr. $50.00 /hr.
$34.00 /hr.
$35.00 lea
$1,000.00 lea
Cost
$760.00
$1,232.00
$636.00 $2,080.00
$700.00
$1,060.00
$3,600.00
$3,000.00 $680.00
$700.00
$2,000.00
Subtotal $16,448.00 I
Table 4-3 . ^
4 9 Cost Estimate for S5 - Excavation, Treatment and On-Site (Point of Origin) Disposal,
Institutional Controls, and Monitoring Feasibility Study
Barber Orchard, Haywood County, North Carolina
0
(Page 2 of 9)
2.0 Detailed Design, Drawings and Specifications
Includes:
1. Labor to generate detailed design including drawings and specifications 2. Site visit: Engineer/Scientist IV and Engineer/Scientist I
Service/Materials
Labor Project Manager II (E11)
Senior Consultant I (E12) Engineer/Scientist IV (E10)
Draftsperson (N08) Engineer/Scientist I (E04)
Travel Document Production (3 versions)
Unit
50
200 250
350 350
1 3
Unit Cost
$95.00 /hr.
$106.00 /hr. $77.00 /hr.
$50.00 /hr. $44.00 /hr.
$1,000.00 lea $500.00 lea
Cost
$4,750.00 $21,200.00 $19,250.00 $17,500.00 $15,400.00
$1,000.00 $1,500.00
Subtotal
3.0 Soil Remediation
Includes:
1. Characterization of grids recommended for remediation: assume sampling/testing using XRF unit: assume 187 acres or 38 grids. 2. Excavation activities include labor and equipment 3. Removal of top 12" of soil exceeding surface soil RGO. 4. Re-characterization of subsurface soil. 5. Excavation of remaining soil exceeding subsurface soil RGO (if any).
6. Assume 100 tons of soil/hour for stabilization.
Service/Materials Includes:
1. Clearing and Grubbing 2. Erosion & Sediment Control
3. Borrow Soil & Delivery 4. Backfill/Compaction
5. Grading
6. Seeding & Mulching 7. Dust Control
8. Characterization/Re-charact 10. Stabilization of Soil
11. Property Lease 14. Contingency (15%) 15. Construction Oversight 16. Office Oversight
Unit
187
10000
6 302000
905080 8146
300 750
207 7
0.15 52
52
Unit Cost
$3,175.00 $2.50
$7.00 $16.00
$0.13
$46 00 $720.00 $121.00
$12,400.00 $1,000.00
$8,823,593.40 $2,000.00
$600 00
/acre
/LF
/CY /CY
/SY /MSF
/day /day
/day
month lea /week
/week
Cost
$593,725.00 $25,000.00
$42.00 $4,832.000 00
$117,660.40 $374,71600 $216,000.00
$90,750.00 $2,566,800.00
$6,900.00 $1,323,539.01
$104,000.00 $31,200.00
Subtotal
$80,600.00
$10,282,332.41
4.0 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Manual
Includes: 1. Labor to generate O&M manual.
Service/Materials
Labor Project Manager II (E11)
Senior Consultant I (E12)
Engineer/Scientist IV (E10)
Draftsperson (N08)
Engineer/Scientist 1 (E04)
Document Production (3 versions)
Unit
10
20
60
80
160
2
Unit Cost
$95.00 /hr.
$106.00 /hr
$77.00 /hr
$50.00 /hr.
$44.00 mr $1,000.00 lea
Cost
$950.00
$2,120.00
$4,620.00
$4,000.00
$7,040.00
$2,000.00
Subtotal $20,730.00
Table 4-3 4 9 01 Cost Estimate for S5 - Excavation, Treatment, and On-Sita (Point of Origin) Disposal,
Institutional Controls, and Monitoring Feasibility Study
Barber Orchard, Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page 3 of 9)
5.0 installation of Additional Monitoring Wells
Includes: 1. Installation of additional monitoring wells using hollow-stem auger. All wells will be flush-mounted. 2. Development of new wells. 3. Well installation win be conducted by a drilling subcontractor under Shaw E&l supervision. 4. Wells will be constnicted using 2-in PVC with 10-ft 0.010 slot continuous wrap PVC screen.
Assumptions: 1. Number of new wells = 2. Construct and develop one well = 3. Average depth per well (ft) = 4. Total depth = 5. Installation field days =
Service/Materials Unit Office Labor
Engineer/Scientist III (E08) 8 Procurement Coordinator (N07) 8
Secretary III (N06) 8
Field Labor Geologist (E08)
Engineering Technician III (N08)
Drilling Subcontractor Mobilization
Demobilization 2-inch borehole drilling
2-inch well construction Well Development
Surface Completion Decontamination
Cleanup IDW Disposal
Drill Crew Per Diem Civil Surveying
Travel: Lodging Perdiem
Rental Car Rental Car FOGM
500 500
1 1
3750 3750 25 25 25 25 25 50 3
100 100 52 52
25 2 days
150 ft/well 3750 ft
50
Unit Cost
$65.00 $35.00 $34.00
$60.00 $30.00
$2,750.00 $1,500.00
$18.00 $20.00 $80.00
$500.00 $100.00 $150.00 $500.00 $100.00
$1,200.00
days
/hr /hr /hr
/hr /hr
lea lea
m m lea lea lea lea lea lea /day
$55.00 /day $30.00 /day $60.00 /day $12.00 lea
Cost
$520.00 $280 00 $272.00
$30,000.00 $15,000 00
$2,750.00 $1,500.00
$67,500.00 $75,000.00 $2,000.00
$12,500.00 $2,500.00 $3.750 00
$12,500.00 $5,000.00 $3,000.00
$5,500.00 $3,000.00 $3,120.00
$624.00
Subtotal $246,316.00
Table 4-3 4 9 U 1 L. J
Cost Estimate for S5 - Excavation, Treatment and On-Site (Point of Origin) Disposal, Institutional Controls, and Monitoring
Feasibility Study Barber Orchard, Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page 4 of 9)
1 6 0 Baseline Samplinn and Analysis
Includes: 1. Groundwater monitoring for pesticides and metals. 2. Data validation, interpretation, and reporting. 3. Number of wells sampled each event = 4. Field crew: Two field technicians = 5. Sampling time (per well) ° 6. Sampling time = 7. Wells sampled for pesticides = B. Wells sampled for metals = 9. 10% field duplicate analysis (par analytical) °
Data Management and QA/QC Assumptions: Data Entry Technician (E04)
Chemist III (E06) Database Manager (E08) Senior Consultant 1 (E12)
Service/Materials Office Labor
Project Manager II (E11) Senior Consultant I (E12)
Engineer/Scientist III (E08) Engineer/Scientist 1 (E04)
Data Entry Technician (E04) Chemist III (E06)
Database Manager (E08) Senior Consultant 1 (E12)
Draftsperson (N08) Secretary III (N06)
Word Processor (N06)
Field Labor Geologist (E08)
Engineering Technician III (N08)
Materials: Sampling Equipment
Document Reproduction RDW Treatment and Disposal
Analytical: Pesticides
Metals Daily Shipping
Travel: Lodging Perdiem
Unit
15 10 40 60
157.5 105
157.5 20 30 20 30
150 150
1 1 1
55 55 15
30 30
50 wells (25 new 2 personnel 3 hnVwell
15 days 50- wells 50 wells 5 wells
1.5 1
hr/sample hr/sample
1.5 hr/sample 0.2 hr/sample
Unit Cost
$95.00 $106.00 $65.00 $44.00 $44.00 $53.00 $63.00
$106.00 $50.00 $34.00 $35.00
$60.00 $30.00
$500 00 $1,000.00 $2,500.00
$133.00 $157.00 $40.00
/hr /hr /hr /hr /hr /hr /hr /hr /hr /hr /hr
/hr /hr
lea lea /LS
lea lea lea
$55.00 /day $30.00 /day
wells and 25 existing wells)
Cost
$1,425.00 $1,060.00 $2,600.00 $2,640.00 $6,930.00 $5,565.00 $9,922 50 $2,120.00 $1,500.00
$680.00 $1,050.00
$9,000.00 $4,500.00
$500.00 $1,000.00 $2,500.00
$7,315.00 $8,635.00
$600.00
$1,650.00 $900.00
Subtotal $72,092.50
•
Table 4-3 A n
Cost Estimate for S5 - Excavation, Treatment, and On-Site (Point of Origin) Disposal, Institutional Controls, and Monitoring
Feasibility Study Barber Orchard, Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page 5 of 9)
n 1 u :
6.0 First Year Quarterly Groundwater Sampl
Includes:
ng. Analysis Data Manaqoment. and Reporting
1 Four quarterly groundwater monitonng events for pesticides and metals during the first two years
2. Data validation, evaluation, and preparation of annual report.
3. Number of wells sampled each event = 4. Field crew: Two field technicians and sampling coord. =
5 Sampling time (per well) =
6 Number of sampling events = 7. Sampling time (per year) =
8 Wells sampled for pesticides = 9. Wells sampled for metals =
10. 10% field duplicates for all analysis (per event per analytical) =
Data Management and QA/QC Assumptions:
Data Entry Technician (E04) Chemist III (E06)
Database Manager (EOS) Senior Consultant I (E12)
Service/Materials
Office Labor Project Manager II ( E l l )
Senior Consultant I (E12) Engineer/Scientist III (E08) Engineer/Scientist II (E06)
Data Entry Technician (E04)
Chemist III (E06) Database Manager (EOS) Senior Consultant I (E12)
Secretary III (N06)
Draftsperson (N08) Word Processor (N06)
Field Labor. Geologist (EOS)
Engineering Technician III (NOS) Engineering Technician III (NOB)
Materials: Sampling Equipment
Document Reproduction
RDW Treatment and Disposal
Analytical: Pesticides
Metals
Daily Shipping
Travel:
Per Diem
Lodging
Unit
45 40
80
150 600 400 600 80
40
40
40
600
600 600
1 1
1
205
205
60
135
135
50 2.25
3
4 60
50 50
5
wells
personnel
hrs/well
events days
wells wells
15 hr/sample 1 hr/sample
1.5 hr/sample 0.2 hr/sample
Unit Cost
$95.00 $106.00
$65.00
$53.00 $44 00 $53.00 $63.00
$106.00
$34.00
$50.00
$35.00
$60.00
$30 00 $30.00
$500.00 $1,000.00
$2,500.00
$133.00 $157.00
$40.00
/hr mr mr
/hr mr
/hr /hr /hr
/hr
/hr
/hr
/hr
/hr /hr
lea lea
US
lea
lea
lea
$30.00 /day $55.00 /day
Cost
$4,275.00
$4,240.00 $5,200.00
$7,950.00 $26,400 00 $21,200.00 $37,800.00
$8,480 00 $1,360.00
$2,000.00
$1,400.00
$36,000.00
$18,000 00 $18,000.00
$500.00 $1,000.00
$2,500.00
$27,265.00
$32,185.00 $2,400.00
$4,050.00 $7,425.00
Subtotal $269,630.00
Table 4-3 4 9 01 Cost Estimate for S5 - Excavation, Treatment, and On-Site (Point of Origin) Disposal,
Institutional Controls, and Monitoring Feasibility Study
Barber Orchard, Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page 6 of 9)
I 7.0 Semi-Annual Groundwater Samplinq. Analysis. Data Management, and Reporting
Includes:
1. Groundwater monitoring events for pesticides and metals. 2. Data validation, evaluation, and preparation of annual report. 3. Number of wells sampled each event -4. Field crew: Two field technicians and sampling coord. =
5. Sampling time (per well) = 6 Number of sampling events =
7. Sampling time (per year) =
8 Wells sampled for pesticides = 9. Wells sampled for metals »
10. 10% field duplicates for all analysis (pei event per analytical) =
Data Management and QA/QC Assumptions:
Data Entry Technician (E04)
Chemist III (E06) Database Manager (E08)
Senior Consultant 1 (E12)
Service/Materials Office Labor
Project Manager II (E11) Senior Consultant I (E12)
Engineer/Scientist III (E08) Engineer/Scientist II (E06)
Data Entry Technician (E04) Chemist III (E06)
Database Manager (E08) Senior Consultant I (E12)
Secretary III (N06) Draflsperson (NOB)
Word Processor (N06)
Field Labor Geologist (E08)
Engineering Technician III (NOB)
Engineering Technician III (N08)
Materials:
Sampling Equipment Document Reproduction
RDW Treatment and Disposal
Analytical: Pesticides
Metals Daily Shipping
Travel: Per Diem
Lodging
Unit
30 20
80 120
300 200
300 40
20 30
30
300
300 300
1 1 1
105 105
30
67.5
67.5
1.5
1
50 2.25
3
2 30
50 50
5
wells personnel
hrs/well
events days
wells wells
hr/sample
hr/sample 1.5 hr/sample
0.2
Unit Cost
S95.00 $106.00
$65.00 $53.00
$44.00 $53.00
$63.00 $106.00
$34.00
$50.00
$35.00
$60.00 $30 00
$30.00
$500.00 $1.000 00 $2,500.00
$133.00 $157.00
$40.00
hr/sample
mr /hr /hr /hr
/hr /hr
/hr /hr
/hr
/hr
mr
/hr
/hr /hr
lea lea /LS
lea lea lea
$30.00 /day
$55.00 /day
Cost
$2,850.00 $2,120.00
$5,200.00 $6,360.00
$13,200.00
$10.600 00
$18,900.00 $4,240.00
$680.00
$1,500.00
$1,050.00
$18,000.00
$9,000.00 $9,000.00
$500.00 $1,000.00 $2,500.00
$13,965.00 $16,485.00
$1,200.00
$2.025 00
$3,712.50
Subtotal $144,087.50
Table 4-3 4 9 m •?
Cost Estimate for SS - Excavation, Treatment, and On-Slte (Point of Origin) Disposal, Institutional Controls, and Monitoring
Feasibility Study Barber Orchard, Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page 7 of 9)
I 9.0 One Event - Groundwater Sampling, Analysis. Data Management, and Reporting
Includes: 1. Groundwater monitoring for pesticides and metals.
2. Data validation, evaluation, and preparation of performance report. 3. Number of wells sampled each event =
4. Field crew: Two field technicians and sampling coord. = 5. Sampling time (per well) «
6. Sampling time (per event) ° 7. Wells sampled for pesticides =
9. Wells sampled for metals ° 9. 10% field duplicate analysis (per analytical) •=
Data Management and QA/QC Assumptl
Data Entry Technician (E04)
Chemist III (E06)
Database Manager (E08) Senior Consultant I (El2)
Service/Materials
Office Labor Project Manager II (E11)
Senior Consultant I (El2) Engineer/Scientist III (E08)
Engineer/Scientist II (E06) Data Entry Technician (EM)
Chemist III (E06) Database Manager (EOS)
Secretary III (N06)
Draftsperson (NOB) Word Processor (N06)
Field Labor. Geologist (E08)
Engineering Technician III (NOB)
Engineering Technician III (N08)
Materials: Sampling Equipment
Document Reproduction RDW Treatment and Disposal
Analytical:
Pesticides
Metals
Daily Shipping
Travel.
Lodging
Per Diem
ons:
Unit
15 10
40
50 157.5 105
157.5
30 30 30
150 150
150
1
1 1
55
55
15
33.75
33.75
1.5 1
50 wells
2.25 personnel
3
15 50
50 5
hrs/well
days wells
wells
hr/sample
hr/sample 1.5 hr/sample 0.2 hr/sample
Unit Cost
$95.00 $106.00
$65.00
$53.00 $44.00
$53.00 $63.00
$34.00 $50.00 $35.00
$60.00 $30.00 $30.00
$500.00
$1,000.00 $2.500 00
$133.00
$157.00
$40.00
/hr
/hr /hr
/hr /hr
/hr /hr
/hr /hr /hr
/hr /hr
/hr
lea
lea
US
lea
lea lea
$55.00 /day
$30.00 /day
Cost
$1,425.00
$1,060.00 $2,600.00
$3,180.00 $6,930.00 $5,565.00 $9,92250
$1,020.00
$1,500.00 $1,050.00
$9,000.00 $4,500.00
$4,500.00
$500.00
$1,000.00 $2,500.00
$7,315.00
$8,635.00
$600.00
$1,856.25
$1,012.50
Subtotal $75,671.25
Table 4-3 4 9 01 Cost Estimate for S5 - Excavation, Treatment and On-Site (Point of Origin) Disposal,
Institutional Controls, and Monitoring Feasibility Study
Barber Orchard, Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page 8 of 9)
10.0 ICIP and Implement Controls
Includes: 1 Labor to generate ICIP.
2. Implement controls.
Service/Materials
Labor: Project Manager II (E11)
Senior Consultant I (E12)
Engineer/Scientist III (EOS)
Engineer/Scientist IV (E10)
Geologist (EOS) Draftsperson (N08)
Word Processor (N06)
Document Production (2 versions)
Implement Controls
Unit
15
15
120
15
50
30
40
2 1
Unit Cost
$95.00 /hr
$106.00 /hr
$65.00 /hr
$77.00 /fir
$60.00 /hr
$50.00 /hr
$35.00 /hr
$500.00 lea
$50,000.00 /LS
Cost
$1,425.00 $1,590.00 $7,800.00 $1,155.00 $3,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,400.00 $1,000.00
$50,000.00
Subtotal 11.0 Total Capital Cost
Includes: 1. Project Fee •>
Service/Materials
WP, SAP. and H&S
Detailed Design
Soil Remediation
O&M Manual
Monitoring Well Installation Baseline Sampling and Analysis
First Year Quarterly mont. and rpt
ICIP and Implementation
Project Fee (capital costs)
Unit
0.075
7.5 %
Unit Cost
$16,448.00 lea
$80,600.00 lea $10,282,332.41 lea
$20,730.00 lea
$246,316.00 lea $72,092.50 lea
$269,630.00 lea
$68,870.00 lea
$11,057,018.91 lea
Cost
$16,448.00 $80,600.00
$10,282,332.41
$20,730.00
$246,316.00 $72,092.50
$269,630.00
$68,870.00
$829,276.42
Total Capital Cost $11,886,000
Table 4-3 4 9 012:1
•
Cost Estimate for S5 - Excavation, Treatment, and On-Site (Point of Origin) Disposal, Institutional Controls, and Monitoring
Feasibility Study Barber Orchard, Haywood County, North Carolina
(Pago 9 of 9)
12.0 Presont Value Cost
Includes: 1. Total Capital Cost. 2. Semi-Annual monitoring for years 2 through 5. 2 events
3. Annual monitoring for years 6 through 30 (25 events). 3 events
4. Project Fee = 5. Present value discount rate =
7.5 % 7 %
Service/Materials Unit Unit Cost
Total Capital Cost Monitoring for year 2
Monitoring for year 3 Monitoring for year 4
Monitoring for year 5 Monitoring for year 6 Monitoring for year 7
Monitoring for year 8
Monitoring for year 9
Monitoring for year 10
Monitoring for year 11
Monitoring for year 12 Monitoring for year 13
Monitoring for year 14 Monitoring for year IS Monitoring for year 16 Monitoring for year 17
Monitoring for year 18 Monitoring for year 19
Monitoring for year 20 Monitoring for year 21 Monitoring for year 22 Monitoring for year 23
Monitoring for year 24 Monitoring for year 25 Monitoring for year 26
Monitoring for year 27 Monitoring for year 28
Monitoring for year 29
Monitoring for year 30 Project Fee (monitoring costs only) 0.C
1 $11,886,000.00 lea 1 $144,087.50 /year
S144.087.50 /year $144,087.50 /year
$144,087.50 /year 1 $75,671.25 /event
t $75,671.25 /event 1 $75.671.25/event
1 $75,671.25 /event
$75,671.25 /event $75,671.25 /event
t $75,671.25 /event $75,671.25 /event
$75,671.25 /event $75,671.25 /event
$75,671.25 /event $75,671.25 /event
$75,671.25 /event $75,671.25 /event
$75,671.25 /event $75,671.25 /event $75,671.25 /event $75,671.25 /event
$75,671.25 /event $75,671.25 /event $75,671.25 /event
$75,671.25 /event $75,671.25 /event
$75,671.25 /event
$75,671.25 /event 75 $1,084,562.34 /Is
Cost
$11,886,000.00 $144,087.50
$144,087.50 $144,087.50 $144,087.50
$75,671.25
$75,671.25 $75,671.25
$75,671.25
$75,671.25 $75,671.25
$75,671.25 $75,671.25
$75,671.25 $75,671.25
$75,671.25 $75,671.25
$75,671.25 $75,671 25
$75,671.25 $75,671.25
$75,671.25 $75,671.25 $75,671.25 $75,671.25 $75,671 25
$75,671.25
$75,671.25 $75,671.25
$75,671.25
$81,342.18 Total Present Value Cost
Present Value
$11,886,000.00
$125,788.39 $117,575.40 $109,938.76 $102,734.39
$50,170.04 $47,143.19
$44,040.67
$41,165.16
$38,441.00 $35,943.84
$33,598.04 $31,403.57
$29,360.45 $27,392 99
$25,652.55 $23,987.79
$22,398.69 $20,960.94
$19,523.18 $18,312.44 $17,101.70
$15,966.63 $14,907.24
$13.92351 $13,015.46
$12,183.07 $11,350.69
$10.669 65 $9,912.93
$81,342.18 $13,052,000
Table 4-4 4 9 0129
•
Cost Estimate for AKemative S6 • Excavation, Treatment, On-Site Engineering Cell, Institutional Controls, and Monitoring Feasibility Study
Barber Orchard, Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page 1 of 8)
Alternative S6
Excavation, Treatment, On-Site Engineering Cell,
Institutional Controls, and Monitoring
Date: 06/17/03
Travel:
Mileage Per Diem
Lodging Rental Car Airfare
Rental Car FOGM
Analytical:
Pesticides Metals
Labor Rates:
Project Manager II (E11) $95.00 Senior Consultant I (E12) $106.00
Sr. Geologist (E10) $77.00 Engineer/Scientist IV (E10) $77.00
Hydrogeotogist (E08) $63.00
Geologist (E08) $60.00 Engineer/Scientist III (EOS) $65.00
Engineer/Scientist II (E06) $53.00 Engineer/Scientist I (E04) $44.00
HAS Coordinator (E09) $70.00 Engineering Technician III (N08) $30.00
Draftsperson (N08) $50.00 Word Processor (N06) $35.00
Data Entry Technician (E04) $44.00 Chemist III (E06) $53.00
Database Manager (E08) $63.00 Secretary III (N06) $34.00
Mrg, Contract Admin (E09) $76.00 Procurement Coordinator (N07) $35.00
Scope:
1. Generate work plan, sampling and analysis plan, and health and safety plan. 2. Generate detailed design (drawings and specifications).
3. Install 6 monitoring wells for long-term monitoring. 4. Engineering Cell installation.
5. O&M manual (cap and monitoring).
6. Quarterly groundwater monitoring for first year, semi-annual for years 2 through 5, annual for remaining years 7. Generate institutional controls implementation plan (ICIP) and implement institutional controls. 8. Excavation and stabilization of -302,017 CY of soil. 9. Assume 30 years of monitoring and reporting.
$0,360 $30.00 $55.00 $60.00
$800.00 $12.00
$133.00
$157.00
| 1.0 Work Plan, SAP, and H&S Plan
Includes: 1. Labor to generate Work Plan, SAP, and H&S Plan.
Service/Materials Office Labor
Project Manager II (E11)
Senior Consultant 1 (E12) Engineer/Scientist IV (E10)
Geologist (EOS) Engineer/Scientist III (E08)
H&S Coordinator (E09) Chemist III (E06)
Secretary III (N06)
Draftsperson (N08) Word Processor (N06)
Document Repro (Draft and Final)
Unit
8
6 16
32
60
10
20 20
60
20
2
Unit Cost
$95.00 /hr
$106.00 /hr $77.00 /hr $60.00 /hr
$65.00 /hr
$70.00 /hr
$53.00 /hr $34.00 /hr
$50.00 /hr
$35.00 /hr
$1,000.00 /ea
Cost
$760.00
$636.00 $1,232.00
$1,920.00
$3,900.00
$700.00 $1,060.00
$680.00
$3,000.00
$700.00 $2,000.00
Subtotal $16,588.00
Table 4-4 4 r. 1
•
Cost Estimate for Alternative S6 - Excavation, Treatment, On-Srte Engineering Cell, Institutional Controls, and Monitoring Feasibility Study
Barber Orchard, Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page 2 of 8)
2.0 Detailed Design. Drawings, and Specifications
Includes:
1. Labor to generate detailed design including drawings and specifications.
2. Site visit: Engineer/Scientist IV and Engineer/Scientist I.
Service/Materials
Office Labor Project Manager II (E11) Senior Consultant 1 (E12)
Engineer/Scientist IV (E10) Oraftsperson (N08)
Engineer/Scientist I (E04) Travel
Document Repro (Draft and Final)
Unit
50 200 350
400
350 1
3
Unit Cost
$95.00 /hr $106.00 mr
$77.00 /hr
$50.00 /hr $44.00 /hr
$1,000 lea
$500 lea
Cost
$4,750.00 $21.200 00 $26,950.00 $20,000.00 $15,400.00
$1,000.00 $1,500.00
Subtotal 3.0 Installation ot Additional Monitoring Wells
Includes: 1. Installation of additional monitoring wells using hollow-stem auger. All wells will be flush-mounted. 2. Development of new wells.
3. Well installation will be conducted by a drilling subcontractor under Shaw E&l supervision. 4. Wells will be constnjcted using 2-in PVC with 10-ft 0.010 slot continuous wrap PVC screen.
Assumptions: 1. Number of new wells = 2 Construct and develop one well =
3. Average depth per well (ft) » 4. Total depth » 5. Installation field days =
Service/Materials Office Labor
Engineer/Scientist III (E08)
Procurement Coordinator (N07) Secretary III (N06)
Field Labor.
Geologist (E08) Engineering Technician III (N08)
Drilling Subcontractor Mobilization
Demobilization
2-inch borehole drilling
2-inch well construction
Well Development Surface Completion
Decontamination
Cleanup IDW Disposal
Drill Crew Per Diem Civil Surveying
Travel:
Lodging
Perdiem
Rental Car Rental Car FOGM
Unit
8 8 8
120 120
1 1
900
900
6 6
6
6
6 12 1
24
24
12
12
6 2 days
150 900 ft
12 days
Unit Cost
$65.00 /hr $35.00 /hr $3400 /hr
$60.00 /hr $30.00 mr
$2,75000 lea $1,500.00 lea
$18.00 /ft
$20.00 /ft
$80 00 lea $50000 lea
$100.00 lea
$150.00 lea $500.00 lea
$100.00 lea
$1,200.00 /day
$55.00 /day
$30.00 /day
$60.00 /day $12 00 lea
Cost
$520.00 $280.00 $272 00
$7,200.00 $3,600.00
$2,750.00 $1,500.00
$16,200.00 $18,000.00
$480.00 $3,000.00
$600.00 $900.00
$3,000.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00
$1,320.00
$720.00
$720.00
$144.00
Subtotal
$90,800.00
$63,606.00
Table 4-4 4 9 01 Cost Estimate for Alternative S6 • Excavation, Treatment, On-Site Engineering Cell, Institutional Controls, and Monitoring
Feasibility Study
Barber Orchard, Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page 3 of 8)
4 0 On-Slte Engineering Cell
Includes:
1. Assume-12 acres for engineering cell. 2. Clearing and grubbing includes labor and equipment.
3. Assume soil cover (6* lifts) includes delivery, spreading, and compaction. 4. Clay material of 10E-7 cm/ses.
Service/Materials
Includes:
1. Clearing and Grubbing 2. Erosion & Sediment Control
3. Soil Cover 4. 40-mil LLDPE Liner
5. Drainage Net 6. Borrow Soil (clay) and Delivery
7. Sand 8. Leachate Piping
9. 60-mil HOPE Liner 10. Seeding, Vegetative Cover
11. Stabilization of Soil 12. Access Road (1500 ft)
13. Civil Surveying 14. Purchase Land
14. Contingency (10%) 15. Construction Oversight
16 Office Oversight
Unit
15 4000
3227
522720 740903
135521
24200 12800
522720 12
207 1
5 1
0.10 43 43
Unit Cost
$3,175.00 /acre $2.50 /LF $8.50 /CY $1.60 /SF
$0.46 /SF $19.26 /CY $11.17 /CY
$4.28 /LF
$2.13 /SF $14,854.00 /acre
$12,400.00 /day $12,000.00 lea
$1,200.00 /day $500,000.00 /LS
$8,073,895.94 lea $2,000.00 /wk
$600.00 /wk
Cost
$47,625.00
$10,000.00
$27,429.50 $836,352.00
$340,815.38 $2,610,134.46
$270,314.00 $54,784.00
$1,113,393.60 $178,248.00
$2,566,800 00
$12,000.00 $6,000.00
$500.000 00
$607,389.59 $86,000.00 $25,800.00
Subtotal $9,493,085.63
5.0 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Manual
Includes: 1. Labor to generate O&M manual.
Service/Materials
Labor Project Manager II (E11)
Senior Consultant I (E12)
Engineer/Scientist IV (E10) Draftsperson (N08)
Engineer/Scientist 1 (E04)
Document Production (2 versions)
Unit
10
20
60
80 160
2
Unit Cost
$95.00 /hr
$106.00 /hr
$77.00 mr $50.00 /hr $44.00 /hr
$1,000.00 lea
Cost
$950.00
$2,120.00 $4,620.00
$4,000.00 $7,040.00
$2,000.00
Subtotal $20,730.00
Table 4-4 4 9 0 1 3 J
Cost Estimate for Alternative S6 - Excavation, Treatment On-Site Engineering Cell, Institutional Controls, and Monitoring Feasibility Study
Barber Orchard, Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page 4 of 8)
6.0 First Year Quarterly Groundwater Sampling, Analysis, Data Management, and Reporting
Includes:
1. Groundwater monitoring for pesticides and metals. 2. Data validation, interpretation, and reporting. 3. Number of wells sampled each event =
4. Field crew: Two field technicians and sample coord. = 5. Sampling time (per well) = 6. Number of sampling events =
7. Sampling time (annual) = 8. Wells sampled for pesticides =
9. Wells sampled for metals =
10. 10% field duplicate analysis (per event for each analytical)
Data Management and QA/QC Assumptions:
Data Entry Technician (E04) Chemist III (E06)
Database Manager (EOS) Senior Consultant I (E12)
Service/Materials Office Labor
Project Manager II (E11)
Senior Consultant I (E12) Engineer/Scientist III (EOB) Engineer/Scientist II (E06)
Data Entry Technician (E04)
Chemist III (E06) Database Manager (EOB) Senior Consultant I (E12)
Secretary III (N06) Draftsperson (N08)
Word Processor (N06)
Field Labor Geologist (E08)
Engineering Technician III (N08)
Materials:
Sampling Equipment Document Reproduction
RDW Treatment and Disposal
Analytical: Pesticides
Metals Daily Shipping
Travel:
Per Diem Lodging
Unit
45 40
80 150
78
52 78
10.4
40 40 40
70
70
1 1
1
28
28
7
15.75
15.75
6 2.25
3 4
7 6
6 1
wells personnel
hrs/well events
days wells
wells wells
1.5 hr/sample
1 hr/sample
1.5 hr/sample
0.2
Unit Cost
S95.00 $106.00
$65.00 $53.00
$44.00
$53.00 $63.00
$106.00 $34.00
$50.00 $35.00
$60.00 $30.00
$500.00 $1,000.00
$2,500.00
$133.00
$157.00
$40.00
hr/sample
/hr
/hr /hr /hr
/hr /hr
/hr /hr
/hr /hr
/hr
/hr /hr
lea
lea
/LS
lea
lea
lea
$30.00 /day
$55.00 /day
Cost
$4,275.00 $4,240.00
$5,200.00 $7,950.00
$3,432.00 $2,756.00 $4,914.00 $1,102.40
$1,360.00 $2,000.00
$1,400.00
$4,200.00
$2,100.00
$500.00 $1,000.00
$2,500.00
$3,724.00
$4,396.00
$280.00
$472.50
$866.25 Quarterly Monitoring Subtotal $58,668.15
4 9 Hi?,-. Cost Estimate for Alternative S6 - Excavation, Treatment, On-Site Engineering Cell, Institutional Controls, and Monitoring
Feasibility Study Barber Orchard, Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page 5 of 8)
8.0 Semi-Annual Groundwater Sampling, Analysis. Data Management, and Reporting
Includes:
1. Groundwater monitoring for pesticides and metals. 2. Data validation, interpretation, and reporting.
3. Number of wells sampled each event = 4. Field crew: Two field technicians and sample coord. =
S. Sampling time (per well) = 6. Number of sampling events =
7. Sampling time (annual) => 8. Wells sampled for pesticides =
9. Wells sampled for metals = 10. 10% field duplicate analysis (per event for each analytical)
Data Management and QA/QC Assumptions: Data Entry Technician (E04)
Chemist III (E06) Database Manager (E08) Senior Consultant I (E12)
Service/Materials Office Labor
Project Manager II (E11)
Senior Consultant 1 (E12)
Engineer/Scientist III (EOS) Engineer/Scientist II (E06)
Data Entry Technician (E04) Chemist III (E06)
Database Manager (EOS) Secretary III (N06)
Draftsperson (NOB) Word Processor (N06)
Field Labor.
Geologist (EOS) Engineering Technician III (NOB)
Materials:
Sampling Equipment Document Reproduction
RDW Treatment and Disposal
Analytical: Pesticides
Metals Daily Shipping
Travel:
Per Diem
Lodging
Unit
30 20
B0 120
39 26
39 5.2 30 30
40 40
1
1 1
14
14
4
9
9
6 2.25
3 2 4
6
6 1
wells personnel
firs/well
events
days wells
wells wells
15 hr/sample 1 hr/sample
15 hr/sample 0.2
Unit Cost
195.00 $106.00
$65.00 $53.00
$44.00 $53.00
$63.00 $34.00 $50.00 $35.00
$60.00 $30.00
$500.00 $1,000.00
$2,500.00
$133.00 $157.00
$40.00
hr/sample
/hr /hr
/hr /hr
/hr /hr
/hr /hr /hr /hr
/hr
/hr
lea lea
/LS
lea
lea
lea
$30.00 /day
$55.00 /day
Cost
$2,850.00 $2,120.00
$5,200.00 $6,360.00
$1,716.00 $1,378.00
$2,457.00 $176.80
$1.500 00 $1,050.00
$2,400.00 $1.200 00
$500.00 $1,000.00
$2,500.00
$1,862.00 $2,198.00
$160.00
$270.00
$495 00 Semi-Annual Monitoring Subtotal $37,392.80
Table 4-4 4 9 01 3
Cost Estimate for Alternative S6 - Excavation, Treatment On-Site Engineering Cell, Institutional Controls, and MonKoring Feasibility Study
Barber Orchard, Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page 6 of 8)
9.0 ICIP and Implement Controls
Includes:
1 .Labor to generate ICIP.
2. Implement controls.
Service/Materials Labor
Project Manager II (E11) Senior Consultant I (E12)
Engineer/Scientist III (EOS)
Engineer/Scientist IV (E10)
Geologist (E08)
Draftsperson (N08)
Word Processor (N06)
Document Production (2 versions)
Implement Controls
Unrt
15
15
120 15
50 30
40
2 1
Unit Cost
S95.00 /hr $106.00 /hr
$65.00 mr
$77.00 /hr
$60.00 mr
$50.00 mr
$35.00 mr
$500.00 tea
$50,000.00 /LS
Cost
$1,425.00 $1,590.00
$7,800.00
$1,155.00
$3.000 00
$1,500.00
$1,400.00
$1,000.00
$50,000.00
Subtotal $68,870.00
Table 4-4 4 9 013 n:
Cost Estimate for Altemative S6 - Excavation, Treatment On-Slte Engineering Cell, Institutional Controls, and Monitoring Feasibility Study
Barber Orchard, Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page 7 of 8)
10.0 One Event • Groundwater Sampling. Analysis, Data Management, and Reporting
Includes:
1. One event of groundwater monitoring for pesticides and metals.
2. Data validation. Interpretation, and reporting. 3. Number of wells sampled each event = 4. Field crew: Two field technicians and sample coord. -5. Sampling time (per well) =
6. Number of sampling events =
6. Sampling time (per event) = 7. Wells sampled for pesticides °
8. Wells sampled for metals =
9 .10% field duplicate analysis (per analytical)
Data Management and QA/QC Assumptions:
Data Entry Technician (E04) Chemist III (E06)
Database Manager (E08)
Senior Consultant I (E12)
Service/Materials
Office Labor Project Manager II (E11)
#REF!
Engineer/Scientist III (EOS)
Engineer/Scientist II (E06) Data Entry Technician (E04)
Chemist III (E06) Database Manager (EOS)
Secretary III (N08) Dreftsperson (N08)
Word Processor (N06)
Field Labor Geologist (EOS)
Engineering Technician III (N08) Engineering Technician III (N08)
Materials:
Sampling Equipment Document Reproduction
RDW Treatment and Disposal
Analytical: Pesticides
Metals
Daily Shipping
Travel:
Per Diem
Lodging
Unit
15 10
40
60 75
50 75
30 30
30
20 20
20
1
1
1
7
7
2
4.5
4.5
6 wells
2.25 personnel
3 1
2
6 6
1
hrs/well
events days
wells
wells
wells
1.5 hr/sample 1 hr/sample
1.5 hr/sample
0.2 hr/sample
Unit Cost
$95.00 $106.00
$65.00
$53.00 $44.00
$53.00 $63.00
$34.00 $50.00
$35.00
$60.00 $30.00 $30.00
$500.00
$1,000.00 $2,500.00
$133.00
$157.00
$40.00
mr
mr /hr
/hr /hr
/hr mr
/hr /hr
/hr
mr /hr /hr
/ea tea
/LS
tea
lea
lea
$30.00 /day
$55.00 /day
Cost
$1,425.00
$1,060.00 $2,600.00
$3,180.00 $3,300.00
$2,650.00
$4,725.00
$1,020.00 $1,500.00
$1,050.00
$1,200.00 $600.00 $600.00
$500.00
$1,000.00 $2,500.00
$931.00
$1,099.00
$80.00
$135.00
$247.50
Subtotal $31,402.50
Table 4-4 4 9 M •7 r
Cost Estimate for Alternative S6 • Excavation, Treatment, On-Site Engineering Cell, Institutional Controls, and Monitoring Feasibility Study
Barber Orchard, Haywood County, North Carolina
11.0 Total Capital Cost
Includes:
1. Project Fee °
Service/Materials Unit WP. SAP. H&S
Detailed Design Additional Monitoring Wells
Engineering Cell Installation
O&M Manual 1 st year of quarterly mom. and rpt
ICIP and Implementation Project Fee (capital costs) 0.075
12.0 Present Value Cost
Includes: 1. Total Capital Cost.
2. Semi-annual monitoring tor years 2 through 5. 3. Annual monitoring lor years 6 through 30 (25 events) 4. Project Fee =
5. Present value discount rate =
Service/Materials Total Capital Cost
Monitoring for year 2 Monitoring for year 3 Monitoring lor year 4 Monitoring for year 5
Monitoring for year 6 Monitoring for year 7 Monitoring for year 8 Monitoring for year 9
Monitoring for year 10 Monitoring for year 11 Monitoring for year 12 Monitoring for year 13 Monitoring for year 14 Monitoring for year 15 Monitoring for year 16 Monitoring for year 17 Monitoring for year 1B Monitortng for year 19 Monitoring for year 20 Monitoring for year 21 Monitoring for year 22 Monitoring for year 23 Monitoring for year 24 Monitoring for year 25 Monitoring for year 26 Monitoring for year 27 Monitoring for year 28 Monitoring for year 29 Monitoring for year 30 t
Project Fee (PV mont. costs only) 0.075
(Page 8 of 8)
7.5 %
Unit Cost $16,588.00 lea $90,800.00 lea $63,606.00 lea
$9,493,085.53 lea
$20,730.00 lea $58,668.15 lea S6a.B70.00 lea
$9,812,347.68 lea
Cost $16,588.00 $90,800.00 $63,606.00
$9,493,085.53 $20,730.00 $58,668.15 $68,870.00
$735,926.08
Total Capital Cost $10,548,000
Jnlt Unit Cos
7.5 %
7 %
1 $10,548,000.00 lea
1 $37,392.80 1 $37,392.80 1 $37,392.80 1 $37,392.80
1 $31,402.50 1 $31,402.50
1 $31,402.50 1 $31,402.50
1 $31,402.50 1 $31,402.50
1 $31,402.50 1 $31,402.50
1 $31,402.50 1 $31,402.50
1 $31,402.50
1 $31,402.50 1 $31,402.50 1 $31,402.50 1 $31,402.50
1 $31,402.50
1 $31,402.50 1 $31,402.50
1 $31,402.50
1 $31,402.50 1 $31,402.50
1 $31,402.50 1 $31,402.50
1 $31,402.50
1 $31,402.50
075 $379,271.58
/year /year /year /year
/event /event
/event /event
/event /event
/event /event
/event /event
/event
/event /event /event (event
/event
/event /event /event
/event
/event /event
/event
/event /event
/Is
Cost
$10,548,000.00
$37,392.80 $37,392.80
$37,392.80 $37,392.80
$31,402.50 $31,402.50
$31,402.50 $31,402.50
$31,402.50 $31,402 50
$31,402.50 $31,402.50
$31,402.50 $31,402.50
$31.402 50
$31,402.50 $31,402.50 $31,402.50 $31,402.50
$31,402.50 $31,402.50
$31,402.50 $31,402.50
$31,402.50 $31,402.50
$31,402.50 $31,402.50
$31,402.50
$31,402.50 $28,445.37
Total Present Value Cost
Present Value
$10,548,000.00 $32,643.91 $30,512.52 $28,530.71 $26,661.07
$20,914.07 $19,563.76
$18,276.26 $17,082.96
$15,952.47 $14,916.19
$13,942.71 $13,032.04
$12,184.17 $11,367.71
$10,645.45 $9.954 59 $9,295.14 $8,698.49
$8,101.85
$7,599.41
$7,096.97
$6,625.93 $6,186.29
$5,778.06 $5,401.23
$5,055.80
$4,710.38
$4,427.75
$4,113.73 $28,445.37
$10,956,000
Table 4-5
Cost Estimate for Alternative S7 - Phytoremediation Feasibility Study
Barber Orchard, Haywood County, North Carolina
4 9 n
Alternative S7
Phytoremediation
Barber Orchard FS
(Page 1 of S)
Date: 06/17/03
Travel:
Mileage
Per Diem
Lodging
Rental Car
Airfare
Rental Car FOGM
Analytical:
Pesticides Metals
Labor Rates:
Project Manager II (E11) $95.00
Senior Consultant l (E 12) S106.00
Sr. Geologist (E10) $77.00
Engineer/Scientist IV (E10) $77.00
Hydrogeologist (E08) $63.00
Geologist (E08) $60.00
Engineer/Scientist III (E0B) $65.00
Engineer/Scientist II (E06) $53.00
Engineer/Scientist I (E04) $44.00
H4S Coordinator (E09) $70.00
Engineering Technician III (N06) $30.00
Draftsperson (N08) $50.00
Word Processor (N06) $35.00
Data Entry Technician (E04) $44.00
Chemist III (E06) $53.00 Database Manager (EOS) $63.00
Secretary III (N06) $34.00
Mrg, Contract Admin (E09) $76.00
Procurement Coordinator (N07) $35.00
Scope:
1. Generate work plan / design, sampling and analysis plan, and health and safety plan.
2. Complete Treatability Study for phytoremediation
3. Complete characterization of site
4. Site prep and planting of fems/india mustard
5. Fencing and covering
6. Harvesting an disposal - year 1
7 Harvesting and disposal - year 2
8. Closure sampling
$0,360 $30.00 $55.00 $60.00
$800.00
$12.00
$133.00 $157 00
1.0 Wor* Plan, SAP, and H&S Plan
Includes: 1. Labor to generate Work Plan. SAP
Service/Materials Office Labor
Project Manager II (E11) Senior Consultant I (E12)
Engineer/Scientist IV (E10) Geologist (E08)
Engineer/Scientist III (E08) H&S Coordinator (E09)
Chemist III (E06) Secretary III (N06)
Draftsperson (N08) Word Processor (N06)
Document Repro (Draft and Final)
and H&S Plan.
Unit
20 15 60 100 150 40 20 30 120 40 2
Unit Cost
$95.00 /hr $106.00 /hr
$77.00 /hr $60.00 /hr $65.00 /hr $70.00 /hr $53.00 /hr $34.00 /hr $50.00 /hr $35.00 /hr
$1,000.00 lea
Cost
$1,900.00 $1,590.00 $4,620.00 $6,000.00 $9,750.00 $2,800.00 $1,060.00 $1,020.00 $6,000.00 $1,400.00 $2,000.00
Subtotal $38,140.00
Table 4-5 n
Cost Estimate for Alternative S7 • Phytoremediation Feasibility Study
Barber Orchard, Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page 2 of 5)
2.0 Phytoremediation Treatability Study
Includes:
ServlcefMaterials Unit Phytoremediation Subcontractor 1
Unit Cost
$25,000.00 lea Cost $25,000.00
3.0 Characterization of the site
Includes: 1. Mobilization and ghdding of 187 acres (~38 grids )
2. Collection and analysis of 2 grids per 3 days
3. Arsenic analysis by field XRF unit
Service/Materials Office Labor
Engineer/Scientist III (E08) Procurement Coordinator (N07)
Secretary III (N06) Geologist (E08)
Chemist III (E06)
Field Labor Geologist (EOS)
Engineering Technician III (N08) Chemist III (E06)
Field Equipment XRF and Expendables
Travel Per Diem
Lodging Rental Car
Rental Car FOGM
Survey Subcontractor day rate: 3-man crew
Unit
8 8 8 16 16
570 570 570
57
171 171 342 342
2
Unit Cost
$65.00 /hr $35.00 /hr $34.00 /hr $60.00 /hr $53.00 /hr
$60.00 /hr $3000 /hr $53.00 /hr
$150.00 /day
$30.00 /day $55.00 /day $60.00 /day
$12.00 /day
$1,500.00 /day
Cost
$520.00 $280.00 $272.00 $960.00 $848.00
$34,200.00 $17,100.00 $30,210.00
$8,550.00
$5,130.00 $9,405.00
$20,520.00 $4,104.00
$3.000 00
Subtotal $135,099.00
Table 4-5
Cost Estimate for Alternative S7 - Phytoremedlation J. ^ Feasibility Study
Barber Orchard, Haywood County, North Carolina
0 1 7
(Page 3 of 5)
4.0 Site Preparation and Planting
loth
Assumptions 1. Plant spacing is 1 per two square feet or 20,000 plants per acre 2. Minimal vegetation clearing will be required. 3. Planting will be completed both mechanically and by hand
4. Will need to add lime to the soil no irrigation system is included here 6. Assume 2 acres per day or 93 days
Service/Materials Field Labor
Engineer/Scientist II (E06) Engineering Technician III (NOB
Travel Per Diem
Lodging Rental Car
Rental Car FOGM
Phytoremedlation Subcontractor
Plants Planting Fencing - Shade cloth
Unit
930 930
187 187 187 187
3740000 187 187
Unit Cost
$53.00 /hr $30.00 /hr
$30.00 /day $55.00 /day $60.00 /day
$12.00 /day
$2.00 lea $3,000.00 /acre $2,500.00 /acre
Cost
$49.290 00 $27,900.00
$5,610.00 $10,285.00 $11,220.00
$2,24400
$7,480,000.00 $561,000.00 $467,500.00
Subtotal $8,282,648.00
5.0 Harvesting
Includes: 1. Harvesting with a brush hog / tractor
2. One acres per day 187 days
3. Two tons of plant mass per acre to be disposed of as a hazardous waste • 4000 pounds * 2 seasons * 187 acres =
4. Waste disposed of as a hazardous waste
Service/Materials
Field Labor Engineer/Scientist II (E06)
Engineering Technician III (N08)
Travel Per Diem
Lodging Rental Car
Rental Car FOGM
Transportation and Disposal
Plant mass profiling
Plant mass trans and disposal
Unit
374 374
374 374 374
374
1
748
748 tons
Unit Cost
$53.00 /hr $30.00 /hr
$30 00 /day $55.00 /day $60.00 /day
$12.00 /day
$2,500.00 /Is
$2,000.00 /day
Cost
$19,822.00 $11,220.00
$11,220.00 $20,570.00 $22,440.00
$4,488.00
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00
$2.500 00
$1,496,000.00
Subtotal $1,588,260.00
Table 4-5
Cost Estimate for Alternative S7 - Phytoremediation / g p Feasibility Study H y U
Barber Orchard, Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page 4 of 5)
[ 6.0 Closure Sampling
Includes: 1. Soil sampling for metals only 2. Data validation, interpretation, and reporting. 3. Number of composite soil samples per acre = 4*187 4. Field crew: Two field technicians and sample coord. =
5. Sampling time (per sample) = 6. Number of sampling events ° 7. Sampling time (annual) = 9. Metal samples = 10. 10% field duplicate analysis (per event for each analytical)
Data Management and QA/QC Assumptions: Data Entry Technician (E04)
Chemist III (E06) Database Manager (E08) Senior Consultant 1 (E12)
Service/Materials Office Labor
Project Manager II (E11) Senior Consultant I (E12)
Engineer/Scientist III (EOS) Engineer/Scientist II (E06)
Data Entry Technician (E04) Chemist III (E06)
Database Manager (EOS) Senior Consultant 1 (El2)
Secretary III (N06) Drafisperson (NOS)
Word Processor (N06)
Field Labor Geologist (EOS)
Engineering Technician III (NOS)
Materials: Sampling Equipment
Analytical: Metals
Shipping (once per two days)
Travel: Per Diem
Lodging
Unit
45 40 BO 150
1234.5 823
1234.5 164.6
40 40 40
750 750
1
823 37
243.75 243.75
748 3.25
1 1
75 748 75
samples personnel
hrs/sample events days samples samples
1.5 hr/sample 1 hr/sample
1.5 hr/sample 0.2
Unit Cost
$95.00 $106.00
$65.00 $53.00 $44.00 $53.00 $63.00
$106.00 $34.00 $50.00 $35.00
$60.00 $30.00
$500.00
$100.00 $40.00
hr/sample
/hr /hr /hr /hr /hr /hr /hr /hr /hr /hr /hr
/hr /hr
lea
lea lea
$30.00 /day $55.00 /day
Cost
$4,275.00 $4.240 00 $5,200.00 $7,950.00
$54,318.00 $43,619.00 $77,773.50 $17,447.60
$1,360.00 $2,000.00 $1,400.00
$45,000.00 $22,500.00
$500.00
$82,300.00 $1,480.00
$7,312.50 $13,406.25
Subtotal $392,081.85
Table 4-5
Cost Estimate for Alternative S7 - Phytoremedlation Feasibility Study
Barber Orchard, Haywood County, North Carolina
4 9 014
(Page 5 of 5)
7.0 Reporting
Includes:
1. Labor to generate Remedial Action Report
Service/Materials Office Labor
Project Manager II (E11) Senior Consultant I (E12)
Engineer/Scientist IV (E10) Geologist (E08)
Engineer/Scientist III (E08) Chemist III (E06)
Word Processor (N06) Secretary III (N06)
Draftsperson (N08) Word Processor (N06)
Document Repro (Draft and Final)
Unit
20 15 60 100 150 100 20 30 120 40 2
Unit Cost
$95.00 /hr $106.00 /hr
$77.00 /hr $60.00 /hr $65.00 /hr $53.00 /hr $40.00 /hr $34.00 /hr $50.00 /hr $35.00 /hr
$1,000.00 tea
8.0 Total Capital Cost
Includes:
1. Project Fee »
Service/Materials WP. SAP. HSS
Site Characterization Site Prep and Planting
Harvesting Closure Sampling
Report
Project Fee (capital costs)
Unit
0.075
7.5 %
Unit Cost $38,140.00 /ea
$25,000.00 tea $8,282,648.00 tea
$1,588,260.00 tea $392,081.85 tea
$40,380.00 tea
$10,366,509.85 tea
Cost
$1,900.00 $1,590.00 $4,620.00 $6,000.00 $9,750.00 $5,300.00
$800.00 $1,020.00 $6,000.00 $1,400.00 $2,000.00
Subtotal
Cost $38,140.00
$25,000.00 $8,282,648.00 $1,588.260 00
$392,081.85
$40,380.00 $777,488.24
Total Capital Cost $11,144,000 9.0 Present value Cost
Includes: 1. Total Capital Cost. 2. O&M for years 1 through 6 3 Project Fee •> 4. Present value discount rate "
7.5 % 7 %
Service/Matertals Unit Unit Cost Total Capital Cost
Monitoring for year 1 Monitoring for year 2 Monitoring for year 3 Monitoring for year 4 Monitoring for year 5
$11,144,000.00 tea $150,000.00 /year $150,000.00 /year $150,000.00 /year $150,000.00 /year $150,000.00 /event
Cost $11,144,000.00
$150,000.00 $150,000.00 $150,000.00 $150,000.00 $150,000.00
Total Present Value Cost
Present Value $11,144,000.00
$130,950.00 $122,400.00 $114,450.00
$106,950.00 $99,900.00
$11,718,650
Table 4-6 4 9 01 Cost Estimate for Alternative GW2 - Altomatve Water Supply Construction, Well Abandonment,
Institutional Controls and MNA Barber Orchard
Alternative 2 Alt Water Supply, Inst Controls Engineering Controls and MNA
(Page 1 of 5)
I Bflrtwr OJUIBJUV
I Haywnorr County, N C : Date: 06/12/03
Labor Rates:
Project Manager II (E11) $95.00
Senior Consultant I (E12) $106.00
Sr. Geologist (E10) $77.00
Engineer/Scientist IV (E10) $77.00
Hydrogeologist (E08) $63.00
Geologist (EOS) $60.00
Engineer/Scientist III (EOS) $65.00
Engineer/Scientist II (E06) $53.00
Engineer/Scientist I (E04) $44.00
H&S Coordinator (E09) $70.00
Engineering Technician III (N08) $30.00
Draftsperson (N08) $50.00
Word Processor (N06) $35.00
Data Entry Technician (E04) $44.00
Chemist III (E06) $53.00 Database Manager (E08) $63.00
Secretary III (N06) $34.00
Mrg. Contract Admin (E09) $76.00
Procurement Coordinator (N07) $35.00
Travel:
Mileage
Per Diem
Lodging
Rental Car
Airfare
Rental Car FOGM
Analyt ical:
VOCs Chloride Nitrate/Nitrite
Sulfate
Total Organic Carbon
Methane/Ethane/Ethene
Dissolved Hydrogen Gas
Ferrous Iron
Sulfide
Metabolic Acids
Alkalinity
Scope:
1 Generate MNA work plan, sampling and analysis plan, and health and safety plan.
2 MNA Treatability Study
3. Semi-annual groundwater monitoring for the first two years, annual for years 2 through 5,
biennial for years 6 through 10, and monitoring every 5 years for years 11 through 30
4. Prepare performance-monitoring reports
5. Assume 30 years of monitoring and reporting
6. Construct Alternative Water Supply
7. Abandon residential wells
8. Institute institutional controls
1.0 Work Plan, Sampling and Analysis Plan, and Health and Safety Plan
Includes: 1. Labor to generate Work Plan, Sampling and Analysis Plan, and Health and Safety Plan
Service/Materials Office Labor.
Project Manager II (E11) Senior Consultant I (E12)
Sr, Geologist (E10) Hydrogeologist (E08)
Geologist (EOS) Engineer/Scientist III (EOS)
H&S Coordinator (E09) Secretary III (N06)
Draftsperson (NOB)
Word Processor (N06) Document Repro (Draft and Final)
Unit
18 B
12 18
100 60 30 18 30 30 2
Unit Cost
$95.00 mr
$106.00 /hr $77.00 /hr $63.00 mr
$60.00 /hr $65.00 /hr $70.00 /hr $34.00 mr $50.00 mr $35.00 mr
$1,000 00 lea
2.0 MNA Treatability Study
Service/Materials
Treatability Study
Unit Unit Cost
$20,000.00 /ea
Cost
$1,710.00 $848 00
$924.00 $1,134.00
$6,000.00 $3,900.00 $2,100.00
$612.00 $1,500.00 $1,050.00 $2,000.00
Subtotal
Cost
$20,000.00
Subtotal
$0,360 $30.00 $55.00 $60.00
$800.00 $12.00
$131.00
$15.00
$15.00
$15.00
$100.00
$135.00
$135.00
$20.00 $20.00
$100.00 $10.00
$21,778.00
$20,000.00
Table 4-6 4 9 0 Cost Estimate for Alternative GW2 - Attematve Water Suppty Construction, Well Abandonment,
Institutional Controls and MNA Barber Orchard
(Page 2 of 5)
3.0 MNA Sampling and Reporting
Includes:
1. Two semi-annual groundwater monitoring events for pest, metals. MNA during the 1 st year
2. Data validation, evaluation, and preparation of annual report
3. Number of wells sampled each event = 4. Field crew: Two field technicians and sampling coord. =
5. Sampling time (per well) = 6. Number of sampling events = 7. Sampling time (per year) = 8. Wells sampled for pesticides/metals =
25 2.25
3 2 15
25
wells personnel
hrs/well events
days
wells
Data Management and QA/QC Assumptions:
Data Entry Technician (E04)
Chemist III (E06)
Database Manager (EOS) Senior Consultant 1 (E12)
Service/Materials Office Labor.
Project Manager II (E11)
Senior Consultant I (E12) Engineer/Scientist III (EOS) Engineer/Scientist II (E06)
Data Entry Technician (E04)
Chemist III (E06) Database Manager (E08)
Senior Consultant I (E12) Secretary III (N06)
Draftsperson (N08) Word Processor (N06)
Unit
30 20
80
120 65
43 65 9
20
30 30
1.5 hr/sample 1 hr/sample
1.5 hr/sample
0.2 hr/sample
Unit Cost
$95.00 /hr
$106.00 /hr $65.00 /hr
$53.00 /hr $44.00 /hr
$53.00 /hr $63.00 /hr
$106.00 mr $34.00 /hr
$50.00 /hr $35.00 /hr
Cost
$2,850.00 $2,120.00 $5,200.00 $6,360.00 $2,860.00 $2,279.00 $4,095.00
$954.00 $680.00
$1,500.00 $1,050.00
Field Labor
Geologist (E08) 37.5 Engineering Technician III (N08) 150 Engineering Technician III (NOB) 150
$60.00 /hr $30.00 /hr $30.00 /hr
$2,250.00 $4,500.00 $4,500.00
Materials: Sampling Equipment
Document Reproduction
RDW Treatment and Disposal
Analytical: Pesticides
Metals
Chloride
Nitrate/Nitrite Sulfate
Total Organic Carbon
Methane/Ethane/Ethene Dissolved Hydrogen Gas
Ferrous Iron Sulfide
Alkalinity
Daily Shipping
Travel:
Per Diem
Lodging
1 1
1
50 50
50 50 50
50
50 50
50 50
50
15
33.75
33.75
$500.00 lea $1,000.00 lea $2,500.00 /LS
$133.00 lea $155.00 lea
$15.00 lea
$1500 lea $15.00 lea
$100.00 lea
$135.00 lea $135.00 lea
$20.00 lea $20.00 lea
$10.00 lea
$40.00 lea
$30.00 /day $55.00 /day
$500.00 $1,000.00 $2,500.00
$6,650.00 $7,750.00
$750.00 $750.00 $750.00
$5,000.00
$6,750.00 $6,750.00
$1,000.00 $1,000.00
$500.00
$600 00
$1,012.50
$1,856.25
Subtotal $86,316.75
Table 4-S 4 9 0 1
Cost Estimate for Alternative GW2 - AKernatve Water Supply Construction, Well Abandonment Institutional Controls and MNA
Barber Orchard
(Page 3 of 5)
1 4.0 One Event - Groundwater Samplin
Includes:
3. Analysis. Data Management, and Reporting
1. Groundwater monitoring for pest, metals and MNA parameters 2. Data validation, evaluation, and preparation of performance report 3. Number of wells sampled each event = 4. Field crew: Two field technicians and sampling coord
5. Sampling time (per well) =
6. Sampling time (per event) = 7. Wells sampled for VOCs •=
8. Wells sampled for NAPs =
Data Management and QA/QC Assumptions: Data Entry Technician (E04)
Chemist III (E06)
Database Manager (E08)
Senior Consultant l(E12)
Service/Materials Office Labor
Project Manager II (El 1) Senior Consultant 1 (E12)
Engineer/Scientist III (E08) Engineer/Scientist II (E06)
Data Entry Technician (E04) Chemist III (E06)
Database Manager (EOS) Senior Consultant I (E12)
Secretary III (N06) Draftsperson (N08)
Word Processor (N06)
Field Labor
Geologist (E08) Engineering Technician III (N08) Engineering Technician III (N08)
Materials: Sampling Equipment
Document Reproduction RDW Treatment and Disposal
Analytical:
Pesticides Metals
Chloride Nitrate/Nitrite
Sulfate Total Organic Carbon
Methane/Ethane/Ethene Dissolved Hydrogen Gas
Ferrous Iron
Sulfide
Alkalinity Daily Shipping
Travel:
Lodging
Per Diem
Unit
15 10 40 60
64.5 43
64.5 8.6
20 30
30
20 80 80
1 1
1
25 25
25 25 25
25
25 25
25 25
25 8
18
18
=
1.5 1
1.5 0 2
Unit Cost
$95.00 $106 00
$65.00 $53.00
$44.00 $53.00
$63.00 $106.00
$34.00 $50.00
$35.00
$60.00
$30.00 $30.00
$500.00
$1.000 00 $2,500.00
$131.00 $155.00
$15.00 $15.00 $15.00
$100.00
$135.00 $135.00
$20.00
$20.00
$10.00
$40.00
25 2.25
3
8 25
18
wells personnel
hrs/well
days wells
wells
hr/sample hr/sample
hr/sample hr/sample
/hr /hr /hr /hr
/hr /hr
/hr /hr
mr /hr
/hr
/hr /hr /hr
lea
lea
/LS
lea
lea
lea lea
lea
lea
lea lea
lea
lea
lea
lea
$55.00 /day
$30.00 /day
Cost
$1,425.00 $1,060.00 $2,600.00 $3,180.00
$2.838 00 $2,279.00
$4,063.50 $911.60
$680.00 $1,500.00
$1,050.00
$1,200.00 $2,400.00 $2,400.00
$500.00
$1,000.00 $2,500.00
$3,275.00 $3,875.00
$375.00 $375.00
$375.00 $2,500.00
$3,375.00 $3,375.00
$500.00
$500.00
$250.00
$320.00
$990.00
$540.00
Subtotal $52,212.10
Table 4-6 4 9 0 1 A
Cost Estimate for Alternative GW2 - Altematve Water Supply Construction, Well Abandonment, Institutional Controls and MNA
Barber Orchard
6.0 Institutional Control Implemention Plan
Service/Mots rials
ICIP
Unit 1
7.0 Institutional Control Implemention
ServlceiMatertals Unit
Institutional Control Implem. 1
8.0 Construct ion of Alternative Water Supply
Service/Materials Unit
AWS Construction 1
9.0 Well Abandonment
(Page 4 of 5)
Unit Cost
$10,000.00 lea
Unit Cost
$50,000.00 lea
Unit Cost
$2,334,272.00 lea
Cost
$10,000.00
Subtotal
Cost
$50,000.00
Subtotal
Cost
$2,334,272.00
Subtotal
$10,000.00
$50,000.00
$2,334,272.00
1. Assumes 80 wells to abandon - 2 days per
Service/Materials
Office Labor
Project Manager II (E11)
Geologist (EOS)
Sr. Geologist (E10)
H&S Coordinator (E09)
Field Labor Geologist (EOS)
Dril l ing Subcontractor Mob/Demob
Well abandonment Site Restoration
Unit
10
20
10
12
1600
well at an
1 24.000
1
average of 300 feet per well
Unit Cost
$95.00 /hr
$60.00 /hr
$77.00 /hr
$70.00 /hr
$60.00 /hr
$20,000.00 /Is $8.00 ffi
$20,000 00 /Is
Cost
$950.00 S1.200.00
$770.00
$840.00
$96,000.00
$20,000.00 $192,000.00
$20,000.00
Subtotal $331,760.00
Table 4-6 4 9 n
Cost Estimate for Alternative GW2 - Arternatve Water Supply Construction, Well Abandonment,
Institutional Controls and MNA Barber Orchard
(Page 5 of 5)
10 0 Total Capital Cost
Includes: 1. Cost of work plan. SAP, and H&S plan, MNA TS. MNA year 1 and 2, ICIP and IC. AWS construction, and well abandonment 2. Project Fee = 7.5 %
Service/Materials Unit WP. SAP. and H&S
MNATS MNA Sampl / Reporting Yr1
ICIP IC Implementation AWS Construction Well Abandonment
Project Fee (capital costs) 0.075
Includes: 1. Total Capital Cost 3. Annual monitoring for years 3 through 5 = 4. Biennial monitoring for years 6 through 10 = 5. Monitoring every 5 years for years 10 through 30 = 8. Project Fee » 9. Present value discount rate =
Service/Materials Unit Total Capital Cost
Monitoring for year 2 Monitoring for year 3 Monitoring for year 4 Monitoring for year 5 Monitoring for year 6 Monitoring for year 7 Monitoring for year 8 Monitoring for year 9
Monitoring for year 10 Monitoring for year 11 Monitoring for year 12 Monitoring for year 13 Monitoring for year 14 Monitoring for year 15 Monitoring for year 16 Monitoring for year 17 Monitoring for year 18 Monitoring for year 19 Monitoring for year 20 Monitoring for year 21 Monitoring for year 22 Monitoring for year 23 Monitoring for year 24 Monitoring for year 25 Monitoring for year 26 Monitoring for year 27 Monitoring for year 28 Monitoring for year 29 Monitoring for year 30
Project Fee (monitoring costs only) 0.075
Unit Cost $21.778.00 lea $20,000.00 lea $86,316.75 lea $10,000.00 lea $50,000.00 lea
$2,334,272.00 lea $331,760.00 lea
$2,854,126.75 lea
3 events 3 events 4 events
7.5 % 7 %
Unit Cost $3,068,186.26 lea
$52,212.10 /event $52,212.10 /event $52,212.10 /event $52,212.10 /event $52,212.10 /event $52,212.10 /event $52,212.10 /event $52,212.10 /event $52,212.10 /event $52,212.10 /event $52,212.10 /event $52,212.10 /event $52,212.10 /event $52,212.10 /event $52,212.10 /event $52,212 10 /event $52,212.10 /event $52,212.10 /event $52,212.10 /event $52,212.10 /event $52,212.10 /event $52,212.10 /event $52,212.10 /event $52,212.10 /event S52.212.10 /event $52,212.10 /event $52,212.10 /event $52,212.10 /event $52,212.10 /event
$624,665.56 /Is
Cost $21,778.00 $20,000.00 $86,316.75 $10,000.00 $50,000.00
$2,334,272.00 $331,760.00 $214,059.51
Subtotal
Cost $3,068,186.26
$52,212.10 $52,212.10 $52,212.10 $52,212.10 $52,212.10 $52,212.10 $52,212.10 $52,212.10 $52,212.10 $52,212.10 $52,212.10 $52,212.10 $52,212.10 $52,212.10 $52,212.10 $52,212.10 $52,212.10 $52,212.10 $52,212.10 $52,212.10 $52,212.10 $52,212.10 $52,212.10 $52,212.10 $52,212.10 $52,212.10 $52,212.10 $52,212.10 $52,212.10 $46,849.92
Total Present Value Cost
$3,068,186.26
Present Value $3,068,186.26
$45,581.16 $42,605.07 $39,837.83 $39,837.83 $37,227.23 $34,773.26 $32,528.14 $30,387.44 $28,403.38 $26,523.75 $24,800.75 $23,182.17 $21,668.02 $20,258.29 $18,900.78 $17,699.90 $16,551.24 $15,454.78 $14,436.65 $13,470.72 $12,609.22 $11,799.93 $11,016.75 $10,285.78 $9,607 03 $8,980.48 $8,406.15 $7,831.82 $6.605 84
$46,849.92
$3,746,000
Table 4-7 4 9 Cost Estimate for Alternative GW4 - Groundwater Extraction, Treatment, and Discharge
Feasibility Study Barber Orchard, Haywood County, North Carolina
01
(Page 1 of 10)
Alternat ive GW3
Groundwater Extract ion, Treatment
and Discharge
Date: 02-Jun-03 Barber Orchard
Labor Rates: Project Manager II (E11)
Senior Consultant I (E12) Sr. Geologist (E10)
Engineer/Scientist IV (E10) Hydrogeotogist (EOS)
Geologist (EOS) Engineer/Scientist III (E08) Engineer/Scientist II (EOS) Engineer/Scientist 1 (E04)
H4S Coordinator (E09) Engineering Technician III (N08)
Oraftsperson (NOB) Word Processor (N06)
Data Entry Technician (E04) Chemist III (EOS)
Database Manager (EOS) Secretary III (N06)
Mrg. Contract Admin (E09) Procurement Coordinator (N07)
$95.00 $106.00 $77.00 $77.00 $63.00 $60.00 $65.00 $53.00 $44.00 $70.00 $30.00 $50.00 $35.00 $44.00 $53.00 $63.00 $34.00 $76.00 $35.00
C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 C1B C19 C20 C21 C22 C23 C24 C25
Travel: Mileage Per Diem Lodging Rental Car Airfare Rental Car FOGM
Analytical: VOCs Chloride Nitrate/Nitrite Sulfate Total Organic Carbon Methane/Ethane/Ethene Dissolved Hydrogen Gas Ferrous Iron Sulfide Metabolic Acids Alkalinity
$0,360 $30.00 $55.00 $60.00
$800.00 $12.00
$131.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00
$100.00 $135.00 $135.00
$20.00 $20.00
$100.00 $10.00
Scope: 1. Generate work plan, sampling and analysis plan, and health and safety plan.
2. Design study 3. Generate detailed system design (drawings and specifications). 4. Groundwater extraction, treatment. & discharge system installation. 5. Groundwater extraction, treatment. & discharge system O&M manual. 6. Groundwater extraction, treatment, & discharge system sampling and reporting. 7. Install 10 monitoring wells. 8. Run electrical power. 9. Quarterty groundwater monitoring for the first two years, semi-annual (or years 3 and 4, annual (or remaining years through 30. 10. Prepare performance-monitoring reports. 11 Assume 30 years of monitoring and reporting.
1.0 Work Plan. SAP. H&S Plan
Includes: t. Labor to generate work plan, SAP, HAS plan
Service/Materials Labor.
Project Manager II (E11) Engineer/Scientist IV (E10)
Senior Consultant 1 (E12) Engineer/Scientist III (E08)
Geologist (E08) Draftsperson (N0S)
H&S Coordinator (E09) Word Processor (N06)
Document Production (2 versions)
Unit
20 20 15 150 100 120 40 40 2
Unit Cost
$95.00 /hr. $77.00 /hr.
$106.00 /hr. $65.00 /hr. $60.00 /hr. $50.00 /hr. $70.00 /hr. $35.00 lea
$500.00 lea
Cost
$1,900.00 $1,540.00 $1,590.00 $9,750.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $2,800.00 $1,400.00 $1,000.00
Subtotal $31,980.00
Table 4-7 4 9 0 1 4 ?
Cost Estimate for Alternative GW4 • Groundwater Extraction, Treatment, and Discharge Feasibility Study
Barber Orchard, Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page 2 of 10)
2.0 Design Sludy
Includes: 1. Installation of 15 additional monitoring wells and piezometers using air hammer.
2. Development of new wells. 3. Geophysical and Hydrophysica! testing
4. Slug and aquifer testing (72-hour test)
Assumptions:
1. Number of new wells = 2. Construct and develop one well °
3. Average depth per well (ft) = 4. Total depm °
5. Installation field days =
Service/Materials Office Labor
Hydrogeologist (EOS)
Geologist (E08)
Engineer/Scientist II (E06)
Field Labor
Engineer/Scientist II (E06) Engineering Technician III (N08)
Field Equipment: Hermit / transducer rental
Geophysical and Hydrophysical
Testing Subcontractor
Testing (per well)
Drilling Subcontractor
Mobilization Demobilization
2-inch borehole drilling 2-inch well construction
Well Development Surface Completion
Decontamination
Cleanup
IDW Disposal
Drill Crew Per Diem Civil Surveying
Travel: Lodging Perdiem
Rental Car
Rental Car FOGMs
10 wells
Unit
8 8
8
500 500
1
10
1 1
2250 2250
15 15 15 15
15
30 2
50 50
50
50
15 2 days
150 ft/well 2250 ft
30
Unit Cost
$63.00
$60.00 $53.00
$53.00 $30.00
$10,000.00
$18,000.00
$2,750.00 $1,500.00
$18.00 $20.00
$80.00 $500.00 $100.00
$150.00
$500.00 $100.00
$1,200.00
days
/hr
/hr /hr
/hr
/hr
lea
lea
lea
lea
m m lea lea lea lea
lea lea /day
$55.00 /day $30 00 /day
$60.00 /day
$12.00 lea
Cost
$504.00 $480.00
$424.00
$26,500.00 $15,000.00
$10,000.00
$180,000.00
$2,750.00 $1,500.00
$40,500.00 $45,000.00
$1,200.00 $7,500.00 $1,500.00 $2,250.00
$7,500.00 $3,000.00 $1,800.00
$2,750.00
$1,500.00 $3,000.00
$600.00
Subtotal $355,258.00
Table 4-7 4 9 01 Cost Estimate for Alternative GW4 - Groundwater Extraction, Treatment, and Discharge
Feasibility Study Barber Orchard, Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page 3 of 10)
3.0 Detailed Design, Drawings and Specifications
Includes:
1. Labor to generate detailed design including drawings and specifications
2. Site visit: Engineer/Scientist IV and Engineer/Scientist I
Labor
Service/Materials
Project Manager II (E11)
Senior Consultant I (E12)
Engineer/Scientist IV (E10)
Draftsperson (N08) Engineer/Scientist 1 (E04)
Travel
Document Production (3 versions)
Unit
20
120 300
400 300
1
3
Unit Cost
$95.00 /hr. $106.00 /hr.
$77.00 /hr.
$50.00 /hr. $44.00 /hr.
$1,000.00 lea
$500.00 lea
Cost
$1,900.00 $12,720.00 $23,100.00 $20,000.00 $13,200.00 $1,000.00 $1,500.00
Subtotal $73,420.00
4.0 GWTS Construction
Includes: 1. Construction of groundwater treatment system (extraction wells, activated carbon treatment
2. Assume -25,000 LF piping ($15.00/LF).
piping, discharge).
3. Assume 10 RR for horizontal boring (includes casing, jacking pits preparation, mobilization a demobilization).
4. Assume electrical power will be ran to site -0.5 mile
Service/Materials
Includes: 1. Permitting 2. Extraction wells
3. Extraction wells pumps
4. Wellhead vaults 5. Wellhead instrumentation
6. Clearing and grubbing 7. Gravel access road (1500 ft)
8. Inf/Eff piping and trenching 9. Horizontal boring
10. Electrical power & control 11. Transformer
12. Grounding 13. Activated carbon
14. Concrete pad (10* x I f f) 15. Property purchase 16. Contingency (15%) 17. Construction oversight
18. Office oversight
Unit
1
25
25
25 25
0.15 12
12
Unit Cost
$5,000.00
$25,000.00
$3,000.00
$2,500.00 $1,600.00
$9,000.00 $12,000.00
$300,000.00 $52,000.00
$2,500.00
$35,000.00
$500.00 $63,000.00
$12,000.00 $100,000.00
$1,393,500.00 $2,000.00
$600.00
lea
lea
lea
lea lea
lea lea
lea lea
lea lea
lea lea
lea lea lea Avk
/wk
Cost
$5,000.00
$625,000.00
$75,000.00
$62,500.00 $40,000.00
$9,000.00 $12,000.00
$300,000.00 $52,000.00
$2,500.00 $35,000.00
$500.00 $63,000.00 $12,000.00
$100,000.00 $209,025.00
$24,000.00
$7,200.00
Subtotal $1,633,725.00
Table 4-7 4 9 n u
Cost Estimate for Alternative GW4 - Groundwater Extraction, Treatment, and Discharge
Feasibility Study
Barber Orchard, Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page 4 of 10)
5.0 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Manual
Includes: 1. Labor to generate O&M manual.
Service/Materials
Labor Project Manager II (E11)
Senior Consultant I (E12)
Engineer/Scientist IV (E10)
Draftsperson (N08)
Engineer/Scientist I (E04)
Document Production (3 versions)
Unit
10
20 60
80 160
2
Unit Cost
$95.00 /hr
$106.00 mr. $77.00 mr
$50.00 /hr. $44.00 mr.
$1,000.00 lea
Cost
$950.00
$2,120.00
$4,620.00
$4,000.00
$7.040 00
$2,000.00
Subtotal
6.0 System O&M and sampling
Includes: 1. Labor to operate the system (annual). 2. O&M materials (annual).
3. System sampling costs (startup and monthly) influent and effluent.
Service/Materials Labor (annual):
Engineer/Scientist III (E08) Engineer/Scientist I (E04)
Materials: O&M Materials (annual)
Carbon Changeout and Disposal Vacuum truck rental
Profile Transportation and disposal
Replacement carbon
Sampling: Sampling (startup)
Sampling (monthly)
Unit
120 800
1
1
1 1000
1000
20
24
Unit Cost
$65.00 $44.00
$10,000.00
$2,000.00
$40.00 $0.50
$1.05
$131.00
$131.00
mr. mr.
lea
/day
lea /lb
/lb
lea
lea
Cost
$7,800.00 $35,200.00
$10,000.00
$2,000.00 $40.00
$500.00
$1,050.00
$2,620.00
$3,144.00
Subtotal $62,354.00
Table 4-7 4 9 01
Cost Estimate for Alternative GW4 - Groundwater Extraction, Treatment, and Discharge Feasibility Study
Barber Orchard, Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page 5 of 10)
7.0 Installation of Additional Monitoring Wells
Includes: 1. Installation of additional monitonng wells using holtow-stem auger. All wells will be flush-mounted.
2. Development of new wells.
3. Well installation will be conducted by a drilling subcontractor under Shaw E&l supervision.
4. Wells will be constructed using 2-in PVC with 10-ft 0.010 slot continuous wrap PVC screen.
Assumptions: 1. Number of new wells =
2. Construct and develop one well ° 3. Average depth per well (ft) =
4. Total depth = 5. Installation field days =
Service/Materials
Office Labor Engineer/Scientist III (EOS)
Procurement Coordinator (N07) Secretary III (N06)
Unit
8 8
8
10
2 days 150 ft/well
1500 ft 20 days
Unit Cost
$65.00 /hr
$35.00 mr $34.00 /hr
Cost
$520.00 $280.00 $272.00
Field Labor Geologist (E08)
Engineering Technician III (N08)
Drilling Subcontractor. Mobilization
Demobilization 2-inch borehole drilling
2-inch well construction
Well Development
Surface Completion Decontamination
Cleanup
IDW Disposal Dnll Crew Per Diem
Civil Surveying
Travel: Lodging
Perdiem
Rental Car Rental Car FOGM
200 200
1 1
1500
1500 10
10 10 10
10
20 1
40 40
22 22
$60.00 $30.00
$2,750.00
$1,500.00 $18.00
$20.00
$80.00 $500.00
$100.00 $150.00
$500.00 $100.00
$1,200.00
/hr /hr
lea lea /ft
/ft
lea lea lea
lea
lea lea /day
$55.00 /day $30 00 /day $60.00 /day
$12.00 lea
$12,000.00
$6,000.00
$2,750.00 $1,500.00
$27,000.00 $30,000.00
$800.00 $5,000.00 $1,000.00
$1,500.00
$5,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,200.00
$2,200.00
$1,200.00
$1,320.00 $264.00
Subtotal $101,806.00
4 9 0 Table 4-7
Cost Estimate for Alternative GW4 - Groundwater Extraction, Treatment, and Discharge Feasibility Study
Barber Orchard, Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page 6 of 10)
1 8.0 Years One and Two Quarterly Groundwater Sampling, Analysis. Data Management, and Reporting
Includes:
1. Four quarterly groundwater monitoring events for pesticides and metals during the first two years. 2. Data validation, evaluation, and preparation of annual report.
3. Number of wells sampled each event <= 4. Field crew: Two field technicians and sampling coord. =
5. Sampling time (per well) = 6. Number of sampling events = 7. Sampling time (per year) •
8. Wells sampled for pesticides = 9. Wells sampled for metals = 10. 10% field duplicates for all analysis
Data Management and QA/QC Assumptions:
Data Entry Technician (E04)
Chemist III (E06)
Database Manager (EOS) Senior Consultant I (E12)
Service/Materials
Office Labor. Project Manager II (E11)
Senior Consultant I (E12)
Engineer/Scientist III (EOS) Engineer/Scientist II (E06)
Data Entry Technician (E04) Chemist III (E06)
Database Manager (E08) Senior Consultant 1 (E12)
Secretary III (N06) Draftsperson (N08)
Word Processor (N06)
Field Labor Geologist (E08)
Engineering Technician III (N08)
Engineering Technician III (N08)
Materials: Sampling Equipment
Document Reproduction ROW Treatment and Disposal
Analytical:
Pesticides
Metals Daily Shipping
Travel: Per Diem
Lodging
Unit
30 20
80 120 300
200
300 40
20 30
30
75 300
300
1
1 1
110
110 30
67.5 67.5
25 2.25
3 4
30 25 25
wells personnel
hrs/well events
days wells wells
1.5 hr/sample 1 hr/sample
1.5 hr/sample 0.2
Unit Cost
$95.00 $106.00
$65.00 $53.00 $44.00 $53.00
$63.00 $106.00
$34.00 $50.00
$35.00
$60.00
$30.00 $30.00
$500.00
$1,000.00
$2.500 00
$133.00
$157.00 $40.00
hr/sample
mr /hr
/hr /hr
/hr /hr
/hr /hr
/hr /hr
/hr
/hr
/hr
/hr
lea
lea
US
lea
lea lea
$30.00 /day
$55.00 /day
Cost
$2,850.00 $2,120.00
$5,200.00 $6,360.00
$13,200.00 $10,600.00
$18.900 00 $4,240.00
$680.00 $1,500.00
$1,050.00
$4,500.00
$9,000.00 $9,000.00
$500.00
$1,000.00 $2,500.00
$14,630.00
$17,270.00 $1,200.00
$2,025.00
$3,712.50
Subtotal $132,037.50
Table 4-7 4 9 0 1 5 3 Cost Estimate for Alternative GW4 - Groundwater Extraction, Treatment, and Discharge
Feasibility Study Barber Orchard, Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page 7 of 10)
9 0 Years 3 and 4 Scml-Annual Groundwater Sampl ing, Analysis. Data Management , and Report ing
Include*: 1. Four quarterty groundwater monitoring events tar pestiddes and metals during the first two years. 2. Data validation, evaluation, and preparation of annual report. 3. Number of weUs sampled each event = 4. Field crew: Two field technicians end sampling coord. = 5. Sampling time (per well) ° 6. Number of sampling events = 7. Sampling time (per year) = 8. Wells sampled for pesticides = 9. Wells sampled for metals = 10. 10% field duplicates for all analysis
25 2.25
3 2 15 25 25
wells personnel hrs/well events days wells wells
Data Management and QA/QC Assumptions: Data Entry Technician (E04)
Chemist III (E06) Database Manager (EOS) Senior Consultant I (E12)
Service/Materials Unit Office Labor
Project Manager II (E11) 30 Senior Consultant I (E12) 20
Engineer/Scientist III (EOS) BO Engineer/Scientist II (E06) 120
Data Entry Technician (E04) 150 Chemist III (E06) 100
Database Manager (E08) 150 Senior Consultant I (E12) 20
Secretary III (N06) 20 Draftsperson (N08) 30
Word Processor (N06) 30
Field Labor Geologist (EOS) 37.5
Engineering Technician III (NOB) 150 Engineering Technician III (N08) 150
Materials: Sampling Equipment 1
Document Reproduction 1 RDW Treatment and Disposal 1
Analytical:
Travel:
Pesticides 55 Metals 55
Daily Shipping 15
Per Diem 33.75 Lodging 33.75
1.5 hr/sample 1 hr/sample
1.5 hr/sample 0.2 hr/sample
Unit Cost
$95.00 mr $106.00 /hr $65.00 /hr $53.00 /hr $44.00 /hr $53.00 /hr $63.00 mr
$106.00 /hr $34.00 /hr $50.00 /hr $35.00 mr
$60.00 /hr $30.00 /hr $30.00 /hr
$500.00 lea $1,000.00 lea $2,500.00 US
$133.00 lea $157.00 lea $40.00 lea
$30.00 /day $55.00 /day
Cost
$2,850.00 $2,120.00 $5,200.00 $6,360.00 $6,600.00 $5,300.00 $9,450.00 $2,120.00
$680.00 $1,500.00 $1,050.00
$2,250.00 $4,500.00 $4,500.00
$500.00 $1,000.00 $2,500.00
$7,315.00 $8,635.00
$600.00
$1,012.50 $1,856.25
Subtotal $77,898.75
Table 4-7 4 9 m
Cost Estimate for AttematWe GW4 - Groundwater Extraction, Treatment, and Discharge Feasibility Study
Barber Orchard, Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page 8 of 10)
10 0 One Event - Groundwater Sampling, Analysis. Data Management, and Reporting
Includes:
1. Groundwater monitoring for pesticides and metals. 2. Data validation, evaluation, and preparation of performance report
3. Number of wells sampled each event = 4. Field crew: Two field technicians and sampling coord 5. Sampling time (per well) = 6. Sampling time (per event) =
7. Wells sampled for pesticides = 9. Wells sampled for metals = 9 .10% field duplicate analysis
Dam Management and QA/QC Assumptions:
Data Entry Technician (E04) Chemist III (E06)
Database Manager (E08) Senior Consultant I (E12)
Service/Materials Unit Office Labor
Project Manager II (E11) 15
Senior Consultant I (E12) 10
Engineer/Scientist III (EOS) 40 Engineer/Scientist II (E06) 60
Data Entry Technician (E04) 75 Chemist III (E06) 50
Database Manager (EOS) 75 Senior Consultant I (E12) 10
Secretary III (N06) 20 Draflsperson (N08) 30
Word Processor (N06) 30
Field Labor Geologist (E08) 20
Engineering Technician III (N08) 80
Engineering Technician III (N08) 80
Materials: Sampling Equipment 1
Document Reproduction 1 ROW Treatment and Disposal 1
Analytical:
Travel:
11.0 AWS Construction
Pesticides 28 Metals 28
Daily Shipping 8
Lodging Per Diem
18 18
25 wells 2.25 personnel
3 hrs/well 8 days
25 wells 25 wells
1.5 hr/sample 1 hr/sample
1.5 hr/sample 0.2 hr/sample
Unit Cost
$95.00 $106.00
$65.00 $53.00
$44.00 $53.00
$63.00 $106.00
$34.00 $50.00
$35.00
$60.00 $30.00
$30.00
$500.00
$1,000.00
$2.500 00
$131.00 $15.00 $40.00
/hr mr
/hr /hr /hr /hr
/hr /hr
/hr /hr /hr
mr
/hr
/hr
lea
lea /LS
lea tea
lea
$55 00 /day $30.00 /day
Cost
$1,425.00 $1,060.00 $2,600.00 $3,180.00 $3,300.00 $2,650.00 $4,725.00 $1,060.00
$680.00 $1,500.00 $1,050.00
$1,200.00 $2,400.00 $2,400.00
$500.00 $1,000.00 $2,500 00
$3,668.00 $420.00 $320.00
$990.00 $540.00
Subtotal $39,168.00
Service/Materials
AWS Construction
Unit
1
Unit Cost
$2,334,272.00 lea
Cost
$2,334,272.00
Subtotal $2,334,272.00
Table 4-7 4 9 Cost Estimate for Attemative GW4 - Groundwater Extraction, Treatment, and Discharge
Feasibility Study Barber Orchard, Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page 9 of 10)
12.0 Well Abandonment
1. Assumes 80 wells to abandon - 2 days per well at an average of 300 feet per well
Service/Materials
Office Labor Project Manager II (E11)
Geologist (EOS) Sr. Geologist (E10)
H&S Coordinator (E09)
Field Labor Geologist (E08)
Drilling Subcontractor Mob/Demob
Well abandonment
Site Restoration
Unit
10
20 10
12
1600
1 24,000
1
Unit Cost
$95.00 /hr
$60.00 /hr $77.00 /hr
$70.00 /hr
$60.00 /hr
$20,000.00 /Is $8.00 ffi
$20,000.00 /Is
Cost
$950.00 $1,200.00
$770 00 $840.00
$96,000.00
$20,000.00 $192,000.00
$20,000.00
Subtotal $331,760.00 13.0 Total Capital Cost
Includes: 1. Cost of work plan, SAP, and H&S plan, design study O and M Manual. O and M, MW installation
2. Project Fee •*
Service/Materials
WP, SAP, and H&S Design Study
Detailed Design GWTS Construction
O&M Manual System O&M and Sampling
Monitoring Well Installation Years 1 and 2 Quarterly mont. and rpt
AWS Construction
Well Abandonment
Project Fee (capital costs)
. detailed design, GWTS construction
Year 1 sampling and reporting,
Unit
0.075
7.5 %
Unit Cost
$31,980.00 lea $355,258.00 lea
$73,420.00 lea $1,633,725.00 lea
$20,730.00 lea $62,354.00 lea
$101,806.00 lea $132,037.50 lea
$2,334,272.00 lea
$331,760.00 lea $5,077,342.50 lea
\WS Construction and Well Abandonment
Cost
$31,980.00 $355,258.00
$73,420.00 $1,633,725.00
$20.730 00 $62,354.00
$101,806.00 $132,037.50
$2,334,272.00
$331,760.00 $380,800.69
Total Capital Cost $5,458,000
Table 4-7 4 9 n 1 c,..
Cost Estimate for Alternative GW4 - Groundwater Extraction, Treatment, and Discharge Feasibility Study
Barber Orchard, Haywood County, North Carolina
(Page 10 of 10)
•
12.0 Total Cost
Includes:
1. Total Capital Cost.
3. Annual monitoring for years 3 through 5 =
4. Biennial monitoring for years 6 through 10 =
3 events 3 events
5. Monitoring every 5 years for years 11 through 30 = 5 events
6. Project Fee »
7. Present value discount rate =
7.5 %
7 %
Service/Materials Unit Unit Cost
Total Capital Cost
P&T O&M for year 2
PAT, O&M for year 3
P&T. O&M for year 4
Monitoring year 3 and 4
Monitoring. P&T, O&M for year 5
Monitoring, P&T, O&M for year 6
P&T O&M for year 7
Monitoring, P&T. O&M for year 8
P&T O&M for year 9
Monitoring. P&T. O&M for year 10
P&T O&M for year 11
P&T O&M for year 12
P&T O&M tor year 13
P&T O&M for year 14
Monitoring and O&M for year 15
P&T O&M for yearl 6 P&T O&M for yean 7
P&T 0 & M for year18
P&T O&M for yearl 9 Monitoring and O&M for year 20
P&T O&M for year 21
P&T O&M for year 22
P&T O&M for year 23
P&T O&M for year 24
Monitoring and O&M for year 25
P&T O&M for year26
P&T O&M for year27
P&T 0 & M for year28
P&T O&M for year29
Monitoring and O&M for year 30
Project Fee (monitoring costs only) 0.C
S5.458.000.00 lea
S62.354.00 /event
$62,354.00 /event
$62,354.00 /event
$77,898.75 /event $101,522.00 /event
$101,522.00 /event
$62,354 00 /event
$101,522.00 /event
$62,354.00 /event
$101,522.00 /event
$62,354.00 /event
$62,354.00 /event $62,354.00 /event
$62,354.00 /event
$101,522.00 /event
$62,354.00 /event $62,354.00 /event
$62,354.00 /event
$62,354.00 /event
$101,522.00 /event
$62,354.00 /event
$62,354.00 /event
$62,354.00 /event
$62,354.00 /event
$101,522.00 /event
$62,354.00 /event
$62,354.00 /event $62,354.00 /event
$62,354.00 /event
$101,522.00 /event
75 $908,152.06 /Is
Cost
$5,458,000.00
$62,354.00
$62,354.00
$62,354.00
$77,898.75
$101,522.00
$101,522.00
$62,354.00
$101,522.00
$62,354.00
$101,522.00
$62,354.00
$62,354.00 $62,354.00
$62,354.00
$101,522.00 $62,354 00
$62,354.00
$62,354.00
$62,354.00
$101,522.00
$62,354.00
$62,354.00
$62,354.00
$62,354.00
$101.522 00
$62,354.00
$62,354.00 $62,354.00
$62,354.00
$101,522.00
$68,111.40
Total Present Value Cost
Present Value
$5,458,000.00 $54,435.04
$50,880.86
$47,576.10
$59,436.75
$72,385.19
$67,613.65
$38,846.54
$59,085.80
$33,920.58
$51,573.18
$29,618.15
$27,685.18
$25,876.91
$24,193.35
$36,750.96
$21,138.01
$19,766.22
$18,456.78
$17,240.88
$26,192.68
$15.058 49
$14,092.00
$13,156.69
$12,283.74
$18,680.05
$10,724.89
$10,038.99 $9,353.10
$8,791.91
$13,299.38
$68,111.40
$6,434,000
Table 5-1
Summary of Soil and Groundwater Remedial Alternative Costs, Barber Orchard Site
Haywood County, North Carolina
Alternative Total Capital Cost Total Present Value Cost Present Value Cost
(per acre basis)
Soil and Groundwater S1 andGWI: No Action $0.00 $12,936.00 $69.00
Soil S2: Institutional Controls and Monitoring
S4: Excavation, Treatment and Off-site Disposal
S5: Excavation, Treatment and On-site (Point of Origin) Disposal
S6: Excavation, Treatment and On-site Disposal in an Engineered Cell
S7: Phytoremedialion
$701,000.00
$34,850,000.00
$11,886,000.00
$10,548,000.00
$11,144,000.00
$2,863,000.00
$36,075,000.00
$13,052,000.00
$10,956,000.00
$11,718,650.00
$15,310.16
$192,914.44
$69,796.79
$58,588.23
$62,666.50
Groundwater GW2: Institutional Controls, Alternative Water Supply, Well Abandonment and MNA
GW3: Groundwater Extraction and Treatment and Discharge to an NPDES-permitted Outfall
$3,068,186.00
$5,458,000.00
$3,746,000.00
$6,434,000.00
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Haywood County
North Carolina
LEGEND / ^ ' Roads
/ v Streams
_ . : Watershed
J * Town
Figure 1-1 Barber Orchard Location Map
Barber Orchard Haywood County, NC Contract No. 68-W-99-043
fTCORPORATOi
U I O
f T I Watershed
Property lines
A / Topographic Contour (intorval = 60 feet)
• Roads
i\' Streams
—/—T s y~y~?~.?—7 ~r~ X:\barber\gisworkspace\output\iig1-2.pdf
X:\bartjerigiswortspacc\output\ftg1_3.pdf
X:VbarberNgisworicspace\output\fig 1-4. pdf
\ - / • • ~ - v ! ' • • ' • ;' Bb07>SLB' : I
/ ..'• '! \ . / I - * "
_B0u69SLA"-_l tic^zur.
U I O . ' j
/ V ' . I ' V
.-' I
• . ' - ' • , " - ' • ' ' ' . \_4-B0069SLB .- i I ^ . - r - ^Ba tB ISLB . =.- • r-f"'
y^BO02i[sLA- _ • . / ;^ j r r" . ," • '._V. ll^l^i
3 - i - ' ' ' ' : i--£---f"\~ \ ---":— Lf i . - - ;* -^ - ""^ ' t • . _•.:•_;
/ ^ > , / / ' / ; ^~^-
y .-y ,BPJ37SLA,1. BO037SL&
' . ' . • . ' . ' BO059.5LBr^££2iKr':.'. Ar' ,B BO070SLA • I ' - J * -
ijp-^-^JV.---.^ Iggg^gdJiLBOoaisiB x _ ^ .?..t^-w—__ - r ;—, >/ *
i -,-1 . . . . • - • r ~--y
' ' / : . V • -.BO038SLA-. ; . | j ?y BO007SLB . ' \ ' • . ' . . J j i •
f=—1 Grid square containing historical sample location
i j Grid square containing composite sample location (collected by IT Corporation)
1 Parcel assigned historical sample number
I I Remediated property I I Historically sampled property
r^-Ti Grid lines and grid identification number
' 1 Property lines
0 800 Feet
X:\carber\gisworXspace\outpuWig1_5.pdf
U . S . E P A R E G I O N I V
Unscannable Material Target Sheet
DocID: imm Site ID: MlSF^V^^S^
Site Name: &?<rp£t~ C>t-cl\c«rd
Nature of Material:
Map:
Photos:
Blueprints:
Slides:
Computer Disks:
CD-ROM:
Oversized Report:
Log Book:
Other (describe): Rj. <-6 '. (X^r\ UtA DeWl-iV-.rtc Cl&f.ifoftpl -to Sur6^v SmLQindz
Amount of material: £«., f-T.QraniC i(eod I>W4wc a s s i o ^ 4-6 5arfe.ce. Sol --Gt-ick
*Please contact the appropriate Records Center to view the material.*
U . S . E P A R E G I O N I V
Unscannable Material Target Sheet
DocID: ItoMlft Site ID: ^ISFM^y^^S 9
Site Name: &fi<rp£f~ C>reheard
Nature of Material:
Map:
Photos:
Blueprints:
Slides:
Computer Disks:
CD-ROM:
Oversized Report:
Log Book:
Other (describe):. FiW/, (-S>. fMiVJcle. C r%fl Vel&h'o«s Qi^y\A ~U
Amount of material: ^SarQu^, Soi(. find S> •
*Please contact the appropriate Records Center to view the material.*
x- i l l «&*'-*/) , /- •*
' \ \E11-2941*IW011\ \ . S J .•" -J? | f
V ' <.- ' L14-9736-SBO190 < ' " J " %\ ,'ifonob
/
•fe> l ^ l l - V , . "" / /nR« :5872-SI
-ft.-'-, t -
EtOI7-6345-SB< ) l
in. * I n Soil Boring Location
-\>- Monitoring Wetl Boring Location
Property Lines
/ j Roads
fi*f Streams
0 1000 Feet T20-BRP-SB01) O
Figure 1.-9 Subsurface Soil Sample Location Map
Barber Orchard Haywood County, NC Contract No. 68-W-99-043
[D
X:\ba rter^ji sworitspace\output\flg1_9.pdf
X:\t>art>ei^isi«orkspace\output\fig1_10.pdf
•rmortg.sworki(dWMMI'fll..ll pdl
' [
• V . .
LEGEND o Potable Well %>- Monitoring Well
] • - Spring Property Lines Roads
/ \ / Streams 0 1000 Feet Basemap provided by Haywood County GIS.
X:\barbertgisworkspaca\output\fig1_12.pdf
Figure 1-13 Arsenic and Lead Detections in Groundwater
Barber Orchard Haywood County. NC Contract No. 68-W-99-043
X^bart>ertgiswori!space\oijtput\rig1_13.p<l(
E7-M90-PW05 «. alpha-BHC 0 011 u g \ N beta-BHC 0 011 ugflA Endnn 0.079 ug/L \ gamma-BHC (Lindane)\0O24 ug/L
E11-2941-MW011 alpha-BHC 0.099 ug/L N bela-BHC 0.036 ugA. delta-BHC 0.043 ug/L N Endrin 0 014 ug/L J gamma-BHC (Lindane) 0.25 ug/L^
E11-2941-MW012 gamma-BHC (Lindane) 0.019 ug/L-
E11-2941-MW013 gamma-8HC (Lindane) 0.017 ug/L
E11-2941-MW014 alpha-BHC 0.078-U9/J. N Deta-BHC 0.036 ug/L' delta-BHC 0.077 ug/L Endrin 0.017 ug/L J gamma-BHC (Lindane) 0.12 ug/L
LEGEND -<£- Bedrock Monitoring Well Location
4 - Overburden Monitoring Well Location
O Potable Water Well Location (assume bedrock)
9 Overburden Potable Water
Well Location
• * • Spring Location
/ \ ' Extent of Pesticides in Groundwater
Pesticide and PCB analyses were conducted for each sample location. Only detected concentrations are shown.
I Property Lines
/ \ y Roads
/ \ / Streams
0 1000 Feet Basemap provided by Haywood County GiS.
Barber Orchard
Haywood County, N C
Contract No. 6 8 - W - 9 9 - 0 4 3
X:\bartjer\gisworkspace\output\fig1_i4.pdf
.•-/ \ N V \ ^ \
..V" "" 'X***!/
; N4-749o-swo2?" — N4>7490-Sb026
\ / / ' 7^
H5^583-SW001/'-HM583-Sb001
" / /
iA J
U-""
'.'--"-i--V—-""—~r'-i S4<j066-swdoJ" \ \ \ ' ] , jS4"-3066-St>065-'.
<Y-'-
s ^ J i / i / V 1 ^ X A / / ' •' >' 'A— HWJ5B3-SD001 V V / , . - - L6-346!WW004
W ^/:V%> • / / V 7 ^ / / /'T-M, ^^^^\t^r^^ 5-0 ' y ,->-=>- / / / / / ' N ^ ^ T T " / / ^ FB-DOT-SD011 „--<?<£-„ J~Ls&*~n.s^
l \
rfTiVi-^-i- 'M; I \ > . ( H S6^5254-SW023 1/
_ \ V ' " J ,"vS6-5254-JSb023 I O6-6010-SW017\ j :/,"• *> a&«>1<>-SD6l7 I . . ' / ^ - ' l i " U-.
*j^Kg?'r1426;SW0221 ' j i ! j
/ I
1 r / /DI2-6240.SW008
012-6240 SD008V,
M ;'*l1F1O;5329-SW012i ^ ..x-r \ :H£ / .• 'F,lb-5329-Sb012<V\ / \ , - * / « "~-~.j
I '--4- — L9-9840-SW018a
L9-9840-SDOT8/
AI2>1322-SW010 -A12-1322-SD010
7
y "
•Y W © ^ / '
• ^ ^ \
',A C12-6240-SW006\ ( )C12-6240-SD006^
D14-12SfrSW0 D14-1258-SCXM
X O O V - V " ' \ ' / I V L12-O554-SW02O'
issya-spoioC
1 *V Hi
8-SW013 \ \ \ . _ — \ - - ^ V / L12-0554-SD020 « - ^ . X'--'. !/v\/4r-a' I ; ^ ^
->L "Jb-v ? X M2-466&SW0)5\ / Ks—) C-..7 ' - O I / T 1 J I J nn-«5a-<
V ^ r x u - Y v ^ / \ ^ ' / \ - ^ i"'>^< >A/rri-7-T-/ 77 013-5829=SWQ24__
SD024 I
' /; \ y J13-10BJSD0-9 / ,-,VV-•V-U JYL J _J tf--i
__G14-7133rSWG„ \i/G14-/133-SD009
7, LEGEND
tfr^44-SW007 ,.^-7ioa.ouKvnl « .7K i j CIW17 II6-7309-SW003 T6-7544-SD007 j j ^ . j 3 p 9 - S D f l 0 3 .
® Surface Water and Sediment Sample Location
i | Property Lines
/ y Roads
^ ^ ^ Streams
K
1000 Feet
^
Basemap"pnSvicte(j,by HayvrooiJ'Cganly GIS. \
\ . \
A | ^ 77 " " " • - \ r\
•^ \ / v in —-, lrQl7'398B-SW025 ® Q1.7-3988;SD025 ]
Figure 1-15 Surface Water and Sediment Sample Locations
Barber Orchard Haywood County, NC Contract No. 68-W-99-043
X.-\barber\giswcf kspace\outpuWig t_ 15.pdf
D 1 ' / •:'.
Property Lines
/ y Roads ft/ Streams
Arsenic and lead analyses were conducted for each sample location. Only detected concentrations are shown.
1000 Feet Bsemap-pfoVlded by -taywobd'Cotjnty GIS
Figure 1-16 Arsenic and Lead Detections in Surface Water
Barber Orchard Haywood County, NC Contract No. 68-W-99-043
X AbartMrtgiswortspacetoutpuWig 1 _ 16.pdl
U 1 y '1
U i '/ :D
Q Sediment Sample Location Property Lines
/ y Roads y ^ y Streams
Arsenic and lead analyses were conducted lor each sample location. Only detected concentrations are shown.
1000 Feet Basernarxprovided b/myyvocfifcdunry Gl
Figure 1-18 Arsenic and Lead Detections in Sediment
Barber Orchard Haywood County. NC Contract No. 68-W-99-043
A:\Darber\gjsworKspace\oulpulVLgl _ld.pdl
0176
v H - A ^ xV~ •//
'!? "
/-./ . ,- .
322'SDOIO X _ » f > r , 3.2 ug/kg J l f / • V -
, x >--. , . ™ - . . 33ug/kg NJX ,<Y
/ V - l / \ - ^ \ ' V Endrir>-36.u»*g X / O >• "Endfin ketone 82 \tyt\y'
LEGEND
O Sediment Sample Location
[ j Property Lines
/ ^ Roads
^ ^ Streams
Analyses for pesticides and PCBs were conducted for each sample location. Only detected concentrations are shown.
1000 Feet
^Basemao provided bv Havwood Couh1vj3IS.
X:\oarber\gisworKspace\outpuTAfig1 _i9.pdf
x-%*?-
LEGEND n Orcnard Boundary n Watershed Boundary I 1 Land Excluded for Remedial Consideration
based on an absence of past agricultural practices
':... I Land Considered for Remediation based on arsenic concentration > 20 mg/kg within grid square
0 800 Feet
jure 2-1 Land Considered for Remediation
Barber Orchard Haywood County, NC Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Shaw Shaw ErMnonmental, Inc.
X.tt«rb«r\|a>K)ria(Mc^ouiput\bof»_flg2j_0Gl2a3 pcf
0173
LEGEND H Potable Well
with Lindane > MCL (historical data) + Overburden Well
with Lindane > MCL (Rl data) i Wells Sampled During Rl j Bedrock Monitoring Well
j Potable Well
4. Overburden Monitoring Well r~l Orchard Boundary I I Watershed Boundary ;/, Approximate Location of Mixing Area
,.\/ Pump House ".' .. Roads
Property Lines /\J Streams /\y Railroad
0 800 Feet
Figure 2-2 Lindane Concentrations > MCL in Groundwater
Barber Orchard Haywood County, NC Contract No. 68-W-99-043
S h a w ' Shaw Ervirorirriental, he
*U>wbw1flb»'orfcapuW»4HlUofl«Jig2_2_06t6a3.p<11
Xttarfav^pMWtooaorioutpuTlbahjlgai M1603 ptf
i LEGEND
j Groundwater Treatment System Building m Extraction Wells for Treatment System
firf Conceptual Piping for Treatment System / \ / Treatment System Area |~~1 Orchard Boundary l~~l Watershed Boundary . ., Roads
Property Lines f \ J Streams / \ / Railroad
800 Feet
titajfi_ng3_2_06l«Dj"«
Figure 3-2 Proposed Groundwater Treatment Area (Alternative GW3)
Barber Orchard Haywood County, NC
i Contract No. 68-W-99-043
S h a w Shaw ErMronrrental, I re