Explanation of Significant Differences

Old American Zinc Plant Site

Fairmont City and Washington Park, Illinois

St. Clair and Madison Counties

June 2019

2

I. INTRODUCTION TO THE SITE AND STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

A. Site Name, Location, and Brief Description

The Old American Zinc Plant Site (IL000034355) (“Site” or “OAZ Site”) is located in

Fairmont City and Washington Park, St. Clair and Madison Counties, Illinois, and

consists of an approximately 132-acre Facility Area where former zinc smelting

operations were conducted, and areas surrounding the Facility Area where elevated

concentrations of metals associated with the historic smelter operations were found in

various media. The Site includes the following areas: the Facility Area; residential,

commercial, and vacant properties around the Facility Area; alleyways owned by the

Village of Fairmont City that have been filled or surfaced with slag; drainage ways that

receive drainage from the Facility Area; and shallow groundwater within and

immediately adjacent to the Facility Area. Figure 1 provides a Site Location Map.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is the lead agency for the

implementation of the remedial action. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(IEPA) serves as the support agency for Site activities, as described in the National

Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 C.F.R. § 300.500 - 300.515.

B. Statement of Purpose and Statutory Basis

This decision document sets forth the basis for issuing an Explanation of Significant

Differences (ESD) to the September 11, 2012 Record of Decision (ROD) for the OAZ

Site. U.S. EPA is issuing this ESD in accordance with Section 117(c) of the

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended

(CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. § 9617(c), and Section 300.435(c)(2)(i) of the NCP, 40 C.F.R. §

300.435(c)(2)(i).

An ESD is appropriate when the lead agency determines that the remedial action at a site

differs significantly in scope, performance, or cost from the selected remedy, but the

change to the remedial action does not fundamentally alter the selected remedy. The

purpose of an ESD is to describe the differences between the remedial action being

undertaken and the remedial action set forth in the ROD, and to explain the reasons such

changes are being made.

U.S. EPA, in consultation with IEPA, has determined that the adjustments to the remedial

action selected in the ROD that are described in this ESD are significant but do not

fundamentally alter the overall remedy for the site. Specifically, U.S. EPA is issuing this

ESD to document an increase in the estimated cost of the remedial action selected in the

ROD. Cost estimates presented in a ROD are expected to be accurate within a range of

+50% to -30%. Since issuance of the ROD for the OAZ Site, the estimated cost of the

remedial action has increased 291% above the cost estimate in the ROD, representing a

significant difference. This ESD also clarifies certain aspects of the ROD and adds

institutional controls (ICs) and engineering controls for additional areas of the Site,

namely for two areas containing structures such as building slabs and a parking lot which

are expected to remain in place under the selected remedy.

3

This ESD serves to document the above changes to the remedial action and provide an

explanation for the significant differences.

This ESD, and all the technical information and data relating to it, shall become part of

the Administrative Record for the Site in compliance with Section 300.825(a)(2) of the

NCP, 40 C.F.R. § 300.825(a)(2). The Administrative Record for the OAZ Site is

available for viewing at the following information repository locations:

• Fairmont City Library Center

2870 N. 44th Street

Fairmont City, IL 62201

(618) 482-3966

• Fairmont City Village Hall

2601 North 41st Street

Fairmont City, IL 62201

• U.S. EPA, Region 5

Superfund Records Center

77 W. Jackson Blvd., 7th floor

Chicago, Illinois 60604

II. SITE HISTORY, CONTAMINATION, AND SELECTED REMEDY

A. Site History

The OAZ Site includes a former zinc smelter facility located in Fairmont City, St. Clair

County, Illinois. U.S. EPA has identified the following potentially responsible parties

(PRPs) for the Site: 1) Blue Tee, Inc. (“Blue Tee”), corporate successor to historical long-

term (> 50 years) owner-operator; 2) XTRA Intermodal, Inc. (“XTRA”), one-time

lessor/current owner of Site property (since 1976); and 3) federal General Services

Administration (GSA), successor to lessee and one-time principal operator of the Site

facility during and after World War II.

In addition to the closed metals processing facility (the “Facility Area”), which

encompasses approximately 132 acres, the OAZ Site includes adjacent residential and

other areas where Site contamination exists. Most of the Site contamination is located

within St. Clair County, Illinois. However, the results from U.S. EPA’s remedial design

(RD) sampling indicate that some Site contamination is located within Madison County,

Illinois. The dividing line between these two counties is shown in Figure 1.

The Facility Area was historically used as a primary zinc smelter between 1916 and 1953

and produced slab zinc, zinc carbonate, cadmium, lead, and sulfuric acid. The primary

residue generated during the smelter’s operation was slag which was poured along the

northern and western boundary of the Facility Area in a molten state and allowed to cool

over time. According to historical aerial photographs, the slag piles were located along

the western and northern boundaries of the Facility Area and originally encompassed

4

more than 15 acres. The vitrified slag was allegedly transported to areas outside the

Facility Area by employees from the village, local business personnel, and area residents,

for use as fill and surfacing material.

The zinc furnace operations ceased in 1953, with subsequent operations limited to

roasting ores for other smelter facilities and the production of sulfuric acid. These

roasting operations continued until 1967 when American Zinc discontinued all

operations. Based on aerial photographs, all buildings and other facilities associated with

former smelting operations were razed between 1967 and 1978.

XTRA leased the Facility Area property from American Zinc (now Blue Tee Corporation

or Blue Tee) between 1976 and 1979 and purchased the property in 1979, including the

clinker and other smelter residues, minerals or metals located on the property. From 1976

to sometime after 2003, XTRA operated a transport trucking terminal on the Facility

Area which included the lease, storage, and maintenance of a diverse fleet of over-the-

road trailers, intermodal (also known as “piggy-back”) trailers, and intermodal

equipment. Beginning in 1976, XTRA ground and redistributed the stockpiled slag across

the Facility Area to build up and level the Facility Area for its trucking operations.

B. Site Contamination and Enforcement Actions

Initial investigations of the Site were conducted by IEPA in 1994 in response to citizen

complaints of blowing dust from the Facility Area resulting from grinding of vitrified

slag by XTRA for use as structural fill for its operations. An additional investigation was

conducted by Ecology & Environment for U.S. EPA in 1999 that included the collection

of soil and sediment samples from the Facility Area and adjacent residential properties.

The sampling conducted by U.S. EPA and IEPA found heavy metals in Facility Area

slag, soils, stream sediments, and adjacent residential properties at levels greater than

background or risk-based screening levels.

Based on these sampling events, U.S. EPA requested that PRP Blue Tee perform a time-

critical removal action (TCRA) at the Site. On July 21, 2000, U.S. EPA signed the initial

Action Memorandum to conduct a time-critical removal action. PRP Blue Tee entered

into an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent (AOC) with U.S.

EPA on March 22, 2002, under which Blue Tee agreed to conduct a TCRA to address

soils containing lead concentrations above the action level of 400 milligrams per

kilogram (mg/kg) for residential properties and 1,000 mg/kg for commercial/industrial

properties. Vacant lots were also sampled as part of the TCRA and a removal action was

taken at vacant lots located adjacent to residential areas if the vacant lots had soil lead

concentrations greater than 1,200 mg/kg.

The 2002-2003 TCRA included the sampling of 462 residential, commercial/industrial

and vacant properties for lead, arsenic, cadmium and zinc. Of the 462 properties sampled

during the TCRA, 209 properties were found to have soil lead concentrations greater than

the U.S. EPA-approved action levels. Of these, soil removal actions were performed on

152 properties. The remaining 57 properties were composed of 49 vacant lots with soil

lead concentrations less than 1,200 mg/kg, and eight residential properties where

5

permission to conduct the removal action was not granted by the property owner. The

excavated soils from the TCRA were placed in a temporary stockpile located on the north

side of the Facility Area immediately south of the existing slag piles.

On June 6, 2005, PRPs Blue Tee and GSA entered into an AOC to conduct a Remedial

Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for the OAZ Site. U.S. EPA issued a

Unilateral Administrative Order to PRP XTRA on June 6, 2005, directing XTRA to

participate and cooperate with the PRPs performing the RI/FS under the AOC. An RI was

conducted at the Site from May 2006 to January 2008. Additional properties within the

adjacent residential area were sampled to conduct a Human Health Risk Assessment. A

portion of the village alleyways were also sampled.

Based on the findings of the investigations, U.S. EPA issued a ROD on September 11,

2012. The major components of the selected remedy in the ROD include: excavation of

contaminated soil inside and outside of the Facility Area; consolidation of excavated soil

into an area on the facility property; capping the consolidated contaminated soil with a

24-inch low permeability, compacted soil barrier layer and a 12-inch vegetation cover

system; implementing ICs; establishing a groundwater management zone; and conducting

groundwater monitoring. The contaminants of concern (COCs) at the Site are lead,

arsenic, cadmium, zinc, and manganese.

In 2014, U.S. EPA entered into an AOC with PRPs Blue Tee and GSA for conducting the

RD of the selected remedy. In the 2015 pre-design investigation, additional data was

collected from the Facility Area and from 14 adjacent residential, commercial, and/or

vacant properties in order to complete the RD. However, in 2016, the entity responsible

for financing PRP Blue Tee’s work at the Site filed for bankruptcy and stopped paying

for the work, and PRP Blue Tee ceased performance of the RD. On December 6, 2016,

U.S. EPA notified the PRPs that U.S. EPA was taking over the work in order to complete

the RD at the Site.

On April 7, 2016, U.S. EPA published Superfund’s National Priorities List (NPL) Final

Rule in the Federal Register (81 FR 20252). This final rule added the OAZ Site to the

NPL.

After U.S. EPA took over the RD work, U.S. EPA identified some data gaps in PRP Blue

Tee’s work. U.S. EPA decided to expand the scope of the sampling effort in the adjacent

residential area and conducted additional sampling of more than 400 residential

properties and alleyways in 2017 and 2018.

On May 10, 2018, U.S. EPA approved an Action Memorandum to conduct a second

TCRA at the Site. The 2018 TCRA addressed approximately 65 properties which

contained lead- and arsenic-contaminated slag, and 4 village-owned alleyways

contaminated with slag.

C. Selected Remedy

The following are the major components of the remedy selected in the ROD:

6

• Excavation of all Facility Area source materials and affected soils exceeding the

residential human health Cleanup Levels (CLs) and consolidation in a 35-acre

consolidation area located on the Facility Area.

• Excavation of buried tarry materials on the Facility Area and characterization

prior to transport off-site for disposal.

• Excavation of affected grey powdery materials in a low-lying unvegetated area to

a depth of 1 foot, and consolidation of this material in the 35-acre consolidation

area.

• Excavation of above-ground and subsurface demolition debris and concrete

outside the 35-acre consolidation area, with crushing of the concrete above and

below grade, as necessary, for cover system stability before construction of the

cover system.

• Excavation of affected soils from the identified residential, commercial/industrial

or vacant properties or village alleyways (collectively known as “surrounding

properties”) with COCs above the applicable residential or commercial/industrial

human health CLs and consolidation of these excavated soils within the 35-acre

consolidation area, followed by backfilling with clean fill and restoring the

properties.

• Excavation of affected sediments within ditches or Rose Creek exceeding the

applicable human health or ecological CLs and consolidation of these affected

sediments within the 35-acre consolidation area.

• Installation of a cover system across the 35-acre consolidation area that consists

of a 24-inch low permeability, compacted soil barrier layer with a hydraulic

conductivity no greater than 1x10-7 with a 12-inch vegetated layer (total cover of

36 inches).

• Use of available on-site borrow soils meeting applicable CLs from areas outside

the 35-acre consolidation area to reduce the required volume of off-site imported

fill needed to construct the cover system.

• Grading of excavated areas to sustain positive drainage.

• Implementation of land use restrictions to maintain commercial/industrial land

use on the 35-acre consolidation area on the Facility Area.

• Implementation of land use restrictions to maintain commercial/industrial land

use on select commercial/industrial and vacant surrounding properties that are not

likely to be used for future residential development.

• Implementation of groundwater restrictions to prohibit well installation and use of

shallow affected groundwater.

• Surface water monitoring to verify the effectiveness of the remedy on reducing

transport of COCs via stormwater run-off to the man-made ditches.

• Groundwater monitoring to ensure that COCs in shallow groundwater are not

migrating off the Facility Area at concentrations exceeding upgradient

concentrations. If a statistically significant increase in groundwater concentrations

is observed over time, the remedy will be re-evaluated.

7

• Implementation of land use controls to record the presence of buried waste and

prohibit the disturbance of the cover system.

• Implementation of long-term operation and maintenance activities to maintain the

integrity of the cover system and other components of the remedy.

• Establishment of a groundwater management zone pursuant to regulations in the

Illinois Administrative Code related to Groundwater Quality (35 IAC, Subtitle F,

Chapter I, Part 620).

• Pre-remedial design activities necessary for development of the RD including, but

not limited to: 1) confirmation of the downgradient extent of the shallow

groundwater exceedances of applicable Illinois Class I standards, Illinois Class II

standards, or federal maximum contaminant levels and/or to obtain statistically

supportable background metal concentrations; 2) soil sampling of the 29

residential, commercial/industrial or vacant properties sampled as part of the

TCRA or RI that require additional data to determine if action is required as part

of the final remedy, or where access was previously denied during the TCRA and

RI.

• Obtaining access agreements from all affected property owners in order to

implement the selected remedy.

• Installation of temporary fencing around the work areas for public safety.

• Location, marking, and notation of all utilities prior to any intrusive activities.

• Control of fugitive dust from the work areas during remediation through the use

of misters or water spraying for worker protection and to prevent air-borne

migration of metals via dust to the surrounding community.

• Use of best management practices and engineered controls (i.e. silt fencing,

diversion ditches, etc.) to control erosion and surface water run-on and run-off in

work areas in accordance with the site-specific Erosion Control Plan and

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to be generated as part of the pre-

mobilization activities.

• Use of an appropriate level of personal protective equipment during work

activities based on previous experience with investigations conducted at the Site

and in accordance with a site-specific Health and Safety Plan.

Specific actions prescribed under the selected remedy are detailed in the ROD.

III. BASIS FOR THE DOCUMENT

The purpose of this document is to explain the difference in cost in the selected remedy

for the OAZ Site, add ICs for the Site buildings and parking lot, and clarify certain

aspects of the selected remedy.

U.S. EPA took over work from PRP Blue Tee during the RD phase. U.S. EPA developed

and finalized a Basis of Design Report (BODR) for the Facility Area and a BODR for the

Surrounding Properties. The BODRs were based on both the Draft Final Remedial

Design Report developed by PRP Blue Tee and the ROD. Both BODRs developed by

U.S. EPA assumed that U.S. EPA, rather than a performing PRP, would conduct the

8

remaining work at the Site. U.S. EPA determined that the cost estimate developed by

PRP Blue Tee during the FS, which was then included in the ROD, was missing several

components and underestimated several other components. The differences in the cost

estimates are detailed in Section IV below. The Administrative Record has been updated

to include these documents and other relevant documents supporting this ESD.

Further descriptions of the changes are provided below. With these changes, the selected

remedy will continue to be protective and meet applicable or relevant and appropriate

requirements. In addition, all remedial action objectives remain unchanged and will

continue to be met. Because contamination will remain onsite at levels that do not allow

for unrestricted use and unlimited exposure, five-year reviews of the selected remedy for

the Site will be required.

IV. DESCRIPTION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES

The ROD cost estimate projected that the selected remedy would cost $11,335,000, and

that the RD would cost $100,000, for a total cost of $11,435,000. The recent BODRs

contain revised cost estimates based on new and/or updated information. The BODRs

estimate that the remedial action will cost an estimated $44,365,441 to implement, 291%

greater than the original cost estimate.

There are several reasons why the final remedial design cost estimate is significantly

higher than the ROD cost estimate. One of the major reasons is that several of the

components needed to implement the remedy were either underestimated or not

considered in the ROD cost estimate1 developed by PRP Blue Tee during the FS.

The major components that were either not considered or underestimated in the ROD cost

estimate that are driving the increase in cost are: remediation of the surrounding

properties; slag removal, hauling, and placing in the consolidation area; clay/borrow

removal, hauling, placing, and compaction in consolidation area and other on-site areas;

topsoil purchase and placing across the Site; clearing and grubbing; and project and

construction management costs. Table 1 contains a detailed breakdown of the cost

changes and shows which remedy components were either underestimated or not

included in the ROD cost estimate. The overall remedy has not changed except for the

additional ICs and remedy clarifications described in this ESD.

Another reason why the cost estimate in the final remedial design is higher than the ROD

cost estimate is because the design process revealed new information that, when

incorporated in the cost estimate, increased the estimated cost of the remedy. Pre-design

activities were conducted at the Site to further characterize the Facility Area and the

surrounding properties. The results indicate that the top soil needed as part of the Site

remedy is not available on site, as anticipated in the ROD, and will need to be purchased

and transported to the Site. The ROD also underestimated the amount of top soil that will

be required. Additionally, the ROD cost estimate did not take into account the amount of

1 It should be noted that estimated costs for several major remedy components of the other alternatives

evaluated in the ROD were also either underestimated or not considered. Therefore, costs for all the

original ROD alternatives (except the No Action alternative) would increase significantly.

9

clay needed to grade the Site, nor that the clay located on site will need to be excavated in

the location of the consolidation area and that excavation of contamination will be needed

in order to retrieve the clay. The sampling results from the surrounding properties also

increased the number of such properties that need remediation, although the ROD cost

estimate appears to not have included the cost of remediating surrounding properties or

minimally included them as part of the excavation costs. The cost estimate in the BODR

for the Surrounding Properties, which addressed approximately 67 surrounding properties

and 9 alleyways, is provided in Table 2 and resulted in an average per-property

remediation cost of $55,000 (see footnote 3 of Table 1). The cost estimate in the BODR

for the Surrounding Properties Addendum 1, which addressed approximately 84

properties and 1 alleyway, is provided in Table 3. However, U.S. EPA estimates that an

additional 41 surrounding properties not included in either the BODR for Surrounding

Properties or its Addendum 1 will likely need to be remediated. These additional

properties will be included in a future addendum to the BODR but are already included in

the revised cost estimate described in this ESD, shown in Table 1.

Though the ROD cost estimate did not include specific details, U.S. EPA assumes that

PRP Blue Tee, when developing the cost estimate, used lower labor rates than what

would be required if U.S. EPA implemented the remedy. The selected remedy had been

expected to be implemented by PRPs but is now expected to be implemented by U.S.

EPA.

The ROD cost estimate also did not include the line items associated with the cost of

project management and construction management to oversee the implementation of the

remedial action (see Table 1). These line items include contractor general and

administrative costs, contractor fee, program support, and professional liability insurance.

These costs are generally estimated to be about 11 percent of the construction costs for

the remedial action.

The ROD estimated the timeframe to implement the remedy to be 10 months. However,

based on the BODRs and the likelihood that U.S. EPA will need to incrementally fund

the cleanup work, U.S. EPA now estimates that the remedy will take 26 to 48 months to

complete.

The buildings currently located on the Facility Area portion of the Site, as well as the

current parking lot around the main building, were built by PRP XTRA and are not part

of the original smelter facility. Thus, demolition of the buildings and removal of the

parking lot was not (and still are not) included as part of the selected remedy. However, it

is likely that contamination is located beneath the buildings and parking lot. Therefore,

ICs are required to ensure that building slabs/foundations and the parking lot around the

main building remain in place and in intact condition to serve as engineering controls to

prevent human exposure to the underlying contamination. The ICs and engineering

controls for these areas of the Site will serve to prohibit the disturbance and/or removal of

the existing building foundations/slabs and parking lot without prior written approval of

the U.S. EPA (in consultation with IEPA) or unless addressed by an approved Soil

Management Plan. The specific areas of PRP XTRA’s buildings and parking lot are

shown in Figure 2. The two purple-outlined areas are where the newly-required ICs and

10

engineering controls have been added to the selected remedy. Figure 2 also shows the

approximate location of the consolidation area, outlined in blue, where ICs were already

required by the ROD (i.e., maintain commercial/industrial land use, record the presence

of buried waste and prohibit the disturbance of the cover system). The recording of an

environmental restrictive covenant in accordance with the Illinois Uniform

Environmental Covenants Act, noting the presence of buried waste and provisions to

prevent disturbance of the cover system and/or engineering controls, is required for not

only the consolidation area but also the two specified areas containing existing buildings

and a parking lot.

In addition to the changes described above, this ESD also clarifies other aspects of the

ROD, as follows:

• The ROD calls for the excavation of affected soils from the identified residential,

commercial/industrial or vacant properties or village alleyways (surrounding

properties) with COCs above the applicable residential or commercial/industrial

human health CLs and consolidation of these excavated soils within the 35-acre

consolidation area, followed by backfilling with clean fill and restoring the

properties. This remedy component has not changed. However, the ROD

specifically identified some affected properties, which were listed in Table 1 of

the ROD. To clarify, that list was not intended to be exhaustive of all properties to

be sampled or remediated at the Site. During the RD, additional properties in the

project area were sampled and found to require remediation, and additional

properties remain to be sampled, some portion of which are likely to require

cleanup. This ESD clarifies that the list in Table 1 of the ROD was the list of

identified properties at the time the ROD was issued that needed sampling and/or

remediation. The intent of the ROD-selected remedy was to address all impacted

surrounding properties. The revised cost estimate in this ESD addresses an

estimated 193 properties and 10 alleyways that will likely need to be cleaned up

during the remedial action. The final number of properties requiring remediation

will not be known until all remedial design sampling is complete.

• In the ROD, one portion of the remedy description states that the borrow materials

would come from areas “outside” the 35-acre consolidation area, but other

sections of the ROD state that the use of available on-site borrow soils meeting

applicable CLs would be used to the extent practicable to construct the cover

system. The original intent of the selected remedy is reflected in language

contained in the FS and the Proposed Plan, with neither document specifying that

the materials would come only from outside the consolidation area. PRP Blue Tee

(who prepared the FS and the Draft Final Remedial Design Report prior to

ceasing work at the Site) anticipated that borrow materials would be retrieved

from under the location of the consolidation area, and this assumption is detailed

in the FS Report and Draft Final Remedial Design Report. This ESD therefore

clarifies and revises the 8th remedy-component bullet in Section II.C (“Selected

Remedy”) above. Instead of saying, “Use of available on-site borrow soils

meeting applicable CLs from areas outside the 35-acre consolidation area to

reduce the required volume of off-site imported fill needed to construct the cover

system,” the corrected wording of that remedy component is as follows:

11

o Use of available on-site borrow soils meeting applicable CLs to reduce the

required volume of off-site imported fill needed to construct the cover

system.

V. SUPPORT AGENCY COMMENTS

IEPA, as the support agency, has reviewed and supports the modifications to the remedy

described in this ESD. Appendix A contains IEPA’s written concurrence with this ESD.

VI. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

With the changes described in this ESD, the remedy for the OAZ Site will continue to

comply with Section 121 of CERCLA. The modified remedy will be protective of human

health and the environment, complies with the federal and state requirements which are

applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action (or justifies a waiver), and is

cost-effective. Since wastes will be left in place at the site above concentrations that

allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, five-year reviews will be conducted to

ensure that the remedy remains protective of human health and the environment, in

accordance with CERCLA Section 121 and the NCP.

VII. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION COMPLIANCE

U.S. EPA will make this ESD available to the public by placing it in the Administrative

Record which is available at the information repository locations listed above in Section

I.B. In coordination with IEPA, U.S. EPA also will ensure that a notice that briefly

summarizes this ESD and provides a basic reason for the remedy changes is published in

a newspaper of local circulation after the ESD is approved. By so doing, U.S. EPA will

meet the public participation requirements of Section 300.435(c)(2)(i) of the NCP, 40

C.F.R. § 300.435(c)(2)(i). EPA has allocated funds for placing such a notice.

VIII. AUTHORIZING SIGNATURE

Approved by:

6/14/2019

XDouglas Ballotti, Director

Superfund & Emergency Management Divisi...

Signed by: brown.jaime@epa.gov

FIGURES

Madison County

St. Clair CountyMadison County

St. Clair County

Figure 1S it e L o ca t io n M a pO l d A m e r ica n Z i n c P la n t S u p e r f u n d S i t e F a ir m o n t C i t y , I l l in o is

Legend

County Boundary

Facility Area Boundary

Surrounding Properties Boundary (Approximate)

R :\E N B G \0 0_ PR O J\E \EPA \O LD A M E RIC A NZ IN CS ITE \M A PS \RE P O RT \201 8\M ISC \F IG U R E 1-1_SITE _LO C ATIO N _M AP .M X D AE SP E JO 4/25/2018 3:40:10 P M

0 800 1,600

Feet$Notes:1. Basemap provided by ArcGIS Online World Street Map.

SiteLocation

111

Conrail Rd

Maryland Ave

State

Rte

111

Collinsville

Rd

N 45

th St

N 44

th St

Cookson Rd

Yoakum Ave

N 43

rd St

N 38

th St

N 42

nd St

Kinder St

Congress

Delmar St

N 41

st St

Maple Ave

Thomas Ave

Chiles St

Locust St

N 40

th St

N 48th St

N 39

th St

N 47th St

N 49th St N 61

st St

Roselake Rd

Belt A

ve

N 45

th St

N 41

st St

N 43

rd St

N 42

nd St

N 39

th St

N 38

th St

Existing buildingsto remain

Existing buildingsto remain

Figure 2I n s t i t u t io n a l C o n t r o lsO ld A m e r ic a n Z in c P l a n t S u p e r f u n d S i t e Fa i r m o n t C i t y , I l l in o is

Legend

Institutional control-Restricted to non-residential land use control

Institutional control-Engineering control to remain in place

Facility Area Boundary

\\B R O O K S ID E FILE S \G IS _S H A R E \E N B G \00_ P R O J\E \EPA \O LD A M E R IC A N Z IN C S IT E \M A P S \R E P O R T \2018\M IS C \F IG U R E 2-2_ IN S T IT U T IO N A L_C O N T R O LS .M X D JH A N S E N 1 11 /14 /2018 3 :21 :21 P M

0 250 500

Feet

Notes:

1. Google Earth Imagery Date: February 24, 2018.

TABLES

Old American Zinc Plant Superfund SiteTable 1: Remedial Action Cost Estimate Comparison

Item Qty ROD Cost Estimate Remedial Design Cost

Estimate Difference ($) % ChangePre-construction Activities

Implementation Plans/Submittals 120,000$ 50,000$ (70,000)$ -58%Post Design Support -$ 556,300$ 556,300$ 100%Pre-construction Meeting -$ 5,075$ 5,075$ 100%

Construction ActivitiesMobilization/Site Setup 181,500$ 109,245$ (72,255)$ -40%Survey 116,000$ 138,240$ 22,240$ 19%Cone Penetration Test (CPT) -$ 130,800$ 130,800$ 100%Temporary Facilities -$ 83,835$ 83,835$ 100%Install/Maintain erosion controls -$ 61,295$ 61,295$ 100%Clearing & Grubbing -$ 658,625$ 658,625$ 100%Air Monitoring -$ 229,000$ 229,000$ 100%Stormwater Management 87,500$ 442,092$ 354,592$ 405%Culvert Installation -$ 24,960$ 24,960$ 100%Culvert Installation -$ 5,250$ 5,250$ 100%Wheel Wash Decon Pad -$ 13,800$ 13,800$ 100%Construction Entrance Stabilization -$ 143,000$ 143,000$ 100%Double Swing Gate -$ 7,356$ 7,356$ 100%Double Sliding Gate -$ 24,752$ 24,752$ 100%Permanent Fencing -$ 123,596$ 123,596$ 100%Temporary Fencing -$ 48,400$ 48,400$ 100%Decommissioning Wells -$ 6,600$ 6,600$ 100%Well Installation 36,000$ 30,600$ (5,400)$ -15%Intial Well Monitoring -$ 15,531$ 15,531$ 100%Pulverizing Concrete Foundations -$ 190,000$ 190,000$ 100%Slag Removal Continuous Operation 4,732,750$ 3,123,600$ (1,609,150)$ -34%Clay Removal to Stockpile -$ 2,093,473$ 2,093,473$ 100%Slag Haul and Place in Consolidation Area -$ 3,548,434$ 3,548,434$ 100%Clay Haul and Place in Consolidation Area 566,000$ 2,415,546$ 1,849,546$ 327%Compact Clay -$ 445,606$ 445,606$ 100%Grade Site using Clay -$ 62,650$ 62,650$ 100%Stockpile Management -$ 925,650$ 925,650$ 100%Topsoil Layer 1,415,000$ 6,531,360$ 5,116,360$ 362%Seed, Mulch, Erosion Matting 52,500$ 311,000$ 258,500$ 492%Landscape Warranty -$ 37,320$ 37,320$ 100%Site Cleanup -$ 24,736$ 24,736$ 100%Final Survey -$ 15,097$ 15,097$ 100%Confirmation/Verification Sampling 168,000$ 82,655$ (85,345)$ -51%

Demobilization 75,000$ 50,127$ (24,873)$ -33%

Post Construction ActivitiesInstitutional Controls 12,000$ -$ (12,000)$ -100%Non-Hazardous Waste T&D -$ 13,500$ 13,500$ 100%Long Term Groundwater and Surface water monitoring -$ 495,929$ 495,929$ 100%Long Term Maintenance 1,133,000$ 781,351$ (351,649)$ -31%Final Report 60,000$ -$ (60,000)$ -100%Payment and Performance Bond 368,550$ 601,410$ 232,860$ 63%Contingency 1,474,200$ 3,608,458$ 2,134,258$ 145%

Subtotal: 10,598,000$ 28,266,254$ 17,668,254$ 167%

Project Management/Construction ManagementProject Management -$ 1,413,313$ 1,413,313$ 100%Construction Management -$ 1,695,975$ 1,695,975$ 100%Oversight Costs 737,100$ -$ (737,100)$ -100%

Total Capital Cost of Facility Area: 11,335,100$ 31,375,541$ 20,040,441$ 177%

RA Cost Estimate in BODR Surrounding Properties Remedial Design 1 -$ 4,054,900$ 4,054,900$ 100%RA Cost Estimate in BODR Surrounding Properties Remedial Design Addendum 2 -$ 6,680,000$ 6,680,000$ 100%RA Cost Estimate for Additional Surrounding Properties3 -$ 2,255,000$ 2,255,000$ 100%

Subtotal of Surrounding Properties: -$ 12,989,900$ 12,989,900$ 100%

Selected Remedy Cost Estimate: 11,335,100$ 44,365,441$ 33,030,341$ 291%

+20% 53,238,530$ -15% 37,710,625$

1. See Table 2 for detailed cost estimate from BODR Surrounding Properties Remedial Design

3. Assumes construction cost of $55,000 per property average based on Final Basis of Design Report for Surrounding Properties. Assumes 40% of unsampled properties (~41 properties) need to be remediated

Surrounding Properties Construction Cost Estimates

2. See Table 3 for detailed cost estimate from BODR Surrounding Properties Remedial Design Addendum 1

Table 2: Remedial Action Cost Estimate in Basis of Design Report - Surrounding Properties Remedial Design Old American Zinc Plant Superfund Site Surrounding PropertiesSt. Clair County, Illinois

Item Qty Unit Unit Price Total (Rounded) Notes

Pre‐construction Activities 1  LS 29,432$                  29,400$  

Work Plan, HASP/AHAs, schedule, training, premobilization submittals, performing initial borrow source sampling. Includes costs for submittal reviews and revisions. Pricing based on recent project experience.

Correlation Study 1  LS 50,000$                  50,000$  Preparation of QAPP/QAPP Amendment, sample collection, and laboratory analysis. Assume 20 samples. To be performed concurrent with preconstruction activities.

Coordination Meeting 1  LS 2,522$   2,500$   Coordination meeting with city, county, and township representatives.

Mobilization 1  LS 86,746$                  86,700$  

Mobilize and demobilize equipment and materials to site and prepare staging areas. Document existing condition of haul routes with photos and videos. Pricing based on recent project experience.

Setup Facilities 1  LS 48,982$                  49,000$   Setup construction trailer, temporary SESC measures, facilities, stockpile areas, parking areas.

Community Relations, three (3) mtgs 1  LS 5,728$   5,700$  Assume three (3) public meetings throughout the course of construction.  Each meeting included labor for preparation and attendance.

Air Monitoring 155  DY 385$   59,700$  Labor, equipment, and materials to conduct air monitoring at residential properties and the FA, throughout the project construction.

Initial Preconstruction Meeting 68  EA 566$   38,500$  

Document existing property condition with digital photos and videos. Attendees include owner's representative, contractor, and landscaping subcontractor to prepare plant inventory. Assumes one meeting with Village to go over all alleyways.

Second Preconstruction Meeting 67  EA 293$   19,600$  Document Property Owner approval of the work to be performed.  Attendees include owner's representative, contractor, and landscaping subcontractor to prepare plant inventory.

Clearing and Site Preparation at Properties 67  EA 934$   62,600$  Clear & Grub grasses and root systems, removal of trash, debris, shrubs, swing sets, benches, and other obstructions.

Transport Yard Waste to FA ‐ Mixed 34  TN 37$   1,200$   Transport of trees, shrubs, miscellaneous wood, metal, and debris. Assume 0.5 ton per property.Tree Removal (2"‐4" dia) 3  EA 796$   2,400$   Based on actual costs incurred on a similar project (USS Lead).

Excavation 12,130  BCY 61$   739,900$  

Excavation with a small excavator and some by hand. Signage and protective measures for pedestrian traffic on sidewalks or streets, as required. SESC measures as required. Assumes overexcavation of some properties based on COC concentrations.

Demarcation Fabric 17,100  SF 1$   17,100$  High visibility fencing for excavations completed to 30 inches, and XRF screening results are above screening criteria. Estimated based on COC concentrations at maximum sample depth.

Transport Excavated Material to FA 16,980  TN 5$   84,900$  Transportation of soil to the Facility Area.  Conversion from BCY to TN based on what is being seen on other similar projects in the region.

Stabilize Stockpile 1  LS 92,452$                  92,500$  Assumes 2.5 acre footprint, covered with 4‐in of topsoil and a single seeding of completed stockpile.

Backfill ‐ General 5,760  BCY 48$   276,500$  Includes assistance with QA/QC sampling, purchase/delivery, installation, compaction, and density testing of general backfill. Includes additional fill material for overexcavation.

Backfill ‐ Topsoil 5,580  BCY 61$   340,400$   Includes assistance with QA/QC sampling, purchase/delivery, and installation of topsoil.

Backfill ‐ Select Topsoil 43  BCY 72$   3,100$   Includes assistance with QA/QC sampling, purchase/delivery, and installation of select topsoil. 

Backfill ‐ CA‐1 Aggregate 194  TN 49$   9,500$  Placed before the CA‐6 material in alleyways where excavation depth exceeds 18 inches. Assumed 6‐inch depth.

Backfill ‐ CA‐6 Aggregate 1,340  TN 49$   65,700$  Includes assistance with QA/QC sampling, purchase/delivery, installation, compaction, and density testing of gravel (IDOT CA‐6).

Street Sweeping 7  MO 5,623$   39,400$   Performed from start of excavation through topsoil placement.

Landscape ‐ Supply/Plant Perenials 100  EA 42$   4,200$   HCSS Estimate

Landscape ‐ Supply/Plant Shrubs 82  EA 139$   11,400$   HCSS Estimate

Landscape ‐ Supply/Plant Trees 3  EA 527$   1,600$   Based on RSMeans

Restoration ‐ Seeding Application and Maintenance 312  MSF 765$   238,700$  Includes 6‐week maintenance/watering period for each property (for up to a total of 10 watering events per property).

Landscape Warranty/Replacement 1  LS 30,703$                  30,700$  Allowance for reseeding and trees for replacement. Assume 12% of total landscaping/seed placement costs.

Restoration ‐ Wood Mulch 1,200  SF 1$   1,200$   Placement in garden areas, 3‐inches thick. Restoration ‐ Rock Mulch 10  CY 138$   1,400$   Placement in garden areas with existing rock mulch, 3‐inches thick.Restoration ‐ Weed Block 2,200  SF 0.29$   600$   Place beneath wood mulch and rock mulch.

Restoration ‐ Drain Tile Repair 5  EA 3,500$   17,500$   Allowance

Restoration ‐ Concrete Repair 150  CY 559$   83,900$  Assume 10 feet of repair at each property where access will occur from/over sidewalk (assumed 30 properties). Assume 6‐inches thick and 4.500 PSI

Restoration ‐ Asphalt 2,500  SF 6$   15,000$  Restoration of any damaged asphalt during backfill and restoration activities. Assume 3‐inches thick. IDOT A‐3 surface material.

Fence Replacement ‐ Chain Link 170  LF 34$   5,800$   Assume 2 8‐ft panels replaced at 15% of properties

Post Construction Meeting 67  EA 276$   18,500$  

Document issues identified during work, outstanding punch list items, and substantial completion at the property. Attendees include owner's representative, contractor, and landscaping subcontractor to prepare plant inventory. Assumes one meeting with Village to go over all alleyways.

Analytical Sampling 12  EA 1,223$   14,700$   Initial and QA/QC samples for general backfill, topsoil, etc.XRF Rental 7  MO 3,000$   21,000$   XRF rental for duration of project.

Demobilization 1  LS 34,804$                  34,800$  

Payment and Performance Bond 2.50% of 2,577,300$            64,400$  

Contingency 15% of 2,577,300$            386,600$  

Escalation ‐ Project to be executed in 2019 3% of 3,028,300$            90,800$  

SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION 3,119,100$  

Optional Items

Utility Locates TBD EA 260$   NA Unit pricing for utility locating, if determined necessary by owner's representative.

Surveys TBD EA 409$   NAUnit pricing for surveying, if determined necessary by owner's representative. Assumes a minimum 10 by‐10 foot grid and then use of a level and rod to measure elevations.

Excavated Soil Staging Pile Management 1  LS 122,400$                NALabor, equipment and materials to shape/compact stockpile and removal/placement of poly sheeting on working face, as determined necessary by owner's representative.

Project Management/Construction Management

Administration/Contractor Oversight 25% of 3,119,100$            779,800$   CM, H&S, and CQM onsite, PM time

Owner's Representative Markup 5% of 3,119,100$            156,000$   per contract rates

Total Capital Cost: 4,054,900$  

CLASS 2 RANGE: 20% 4,865,900$  ‐15% 3,446,700$  

This construction cost estimate is not an offer for construction and/or project execution.  The construction cost estimate for this Design is an Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) Class 2 estimate and is assumed to represent the actual total installed cost. The estimate above is considered control‐level cost estimating, suitable for use in project budgeting and planning. This estimate has been prepared with partial design and engineering calculations. The level of accuracy for the class of estimate defines the upper and lower ranges of the cost estimate.  It is based upon the level of design detail and uncertainty associate with that level of detail.  For a Class 2 estimate, the accuracy range is +20% to ‐15%.  It would appear prudent that internal budget allowances account for the highest cost indicated by this range as well as other site specific allowances.  The cost estimate has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation and implementation from the information available at the time of the estimate.   The final costs of the project will depend on actual labor and material costs, competitive market conditions, implementation schedule, and other variable factors.  As a result, the final project costs will vary from the estimates presented herein.  Because of this, project feasibility and funding needs must be carefully reviewed prior to making specific financial decisions to help ensure proper project evaluation and adequate funding.

Page 1 of 1

Table 3: Remedial Action Cost Estimate in Basis of Design Report - Surrounding Properties Remedial Design Addendum 1Old American Zinc Plant Superfund Site Surrounding Properties, Addendum 1St. Clair County, Illinois

Item Qty Unita

Unit Price Total (Rounded) Notes

Preconstruction Activities ‐  EA ‐$   ‐$  

Assume that properties in the addendum will be performed under the same Work Pan, Health and Safety Plan/Activity Hazard Analyses, schedule, training, premobilization submittals, etc. as the properties included in the Revised Final Design. Per email from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on 5/2/2019, assume the same RA Contractor will remediate the properties and alleyways included in Revised Final Design and the properties and alleyways included in Addendum 1 under a single mobilization.

Correlation Study ‐  LS ‐$   ‐$  Assume that properties and alleyways in the addendum will be performed under the correlation study completed for the properties included in the Revised Final Design.

Coordination  Meeting ‐  EA ‐$   ‐$  

Coordination meeting with city, county, and township representatives. Per email from EPA on 5/2/2019, assume the same remedial action (RA) Contractor will remediate the properties and alleyways included in Revised Final Design and the properties and alleyways included in Addendum 1 under a single mobilization. Additional meeting(s) for the properties and alleyways included in Addendum 1 are not needed. Estimated costs for this meeting were included in the Revised Final Design and therefore are excluded from the addendum. 

Mobilization ‐  EA ‐$   ‐$  

Mobilize and demobilize equipment and materials to site and prepare staging areas. Document existing condition of haul routes with photos and videos. Per email from EPA on 5/2/2019, assume the same RA Contractor will remediate the properties and alleyways included in Revised Final Design and the properties and alleyways included in Addendum 1 under a single mobilization. Estimated costs for mobilization were included in the Revised Final Design and therefore are excluded from the addendum. 

Setup Facilities ‐  TN ‐$   ‐$  

Setup construction trailer, temporary soil erosion and sedimentation control measures, facilities, stockpile areas, parking areas. Per email from EPA on 5/2/2019, assume the same RA Contractor will remediate the properties and alleyways included in Revised Final Design and the properties and alleyways included in Addendum 1 under a single mobilization. Estimated costs for facilities setup were included in the Revised Final Design and therefore are excluded from the addendum. 

Community Relations, three (3) mtgs ‐  EA ‐$   ‐$  

Assume three (3) public meetings throughout the course of construction.  Each meeting included labor for preparation and attendance. Per email from EPA on 5/2/2019, assume the same RA Contractor will remediate the properties and alleyways included in Revised Final Design and the properties and alleyways included in Addendum 1 under a single mobilization. Estimated costs for these meetings were included in the Revised Final Design and therefore are excluded from the addendum.

Air Monitoring 165  DY 415$   68,500$Labor, equipment, and materials to conduct air monitoring at residential properties and alleyways included in the addendum and the Facility Area throughout the project construction.

Initial Preconstruction Meeting 85  EA 527$   44,800$Document existing property condition with digital photos and videos. Attendees include owner's representative, contractor, and landscaping subcontractor to prepare plant inventory.

Second Preconstruction Meeting 85  EA 283$   24,100$Document Property Owner approval of the work to be performed.  Attendees include owner's representative, contractor, and landscaping subcontractor to prepare plant inventory.

Clearing and Site Preparation at Properties 84  EA 1,024$   86,000$Clear & Grub grasses and root systems, removal of trash, debris, shrubs, swing sets, benches, and other obstructions. Clearing and grubbing is not required for the alleyway.

Transport Yard Waste ‐ Mixed 42  TN 9$ 400$   Transport of trees, shrubs, miscellaneous wood, metal, and debris. Assume 0.5 ton per property.Tree Removal (2"‐4" dia) 19  EA 885$   16,800$ Based on actual costs incurred on a similar project (USS Lead).

Excavation 24,235  BCY 61$ 1,478,100$  

Excavation with a small excavator and some by hand. Signage and protective measures for pedestrian traffic on sidewalks or streets, as required. SESC measures as required. Assumes overexcavation of some properties based on contaminant of concern (COC) concentrations.

Demarcation Fabric 58,167  SF 2.01$   116,900$  High visibility fencing for excavations completed to 30 inches, and XRF screening results are above screening criteria. Estimated based on COC concentrations at maximum sample depth.

Transport Material to Facility 33,930  TN 8$ 271,400$  Transportation of soil to the Facility Area.  Conversion from bank cubic yards (BCY) to ton (TN) based on what is being seen on other similar projects in the region.

Stabilize Staging Pile 1  LS 76,103$                 76,100$

Labor, equipment, and materials to slope, shape, and manage  material from addendum properties and alleyways in the staging pile at the Facility Area. Assumes 5 acre footprint with 4 inches of topsoil placed over staging pile before hydroseeding. Includes costs for additional topsoil and hydroseed of excavated material from properties included in addendum. Assumes hydroseeding will be conducted under same hydroseeding event as properties in Revised Final Design.

Backfill ‐ General 11,278  CY 48$ 541,300$  

Includes assistance with quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) sampling, purchase/delivery, installation, compaction, and density testing of general backfill. Includes additional fill material for overexcavation.

Backfill ‐ Topsoil 11,838  CY 60$ 710,300$   Includes assistance with QA/QC sampling, purchase/delivery, and installation of topsoil.

Backfill ‐ Select Topsoil 204  CY 75$ 15,300$ Includes assistance with QA/QC sampling, purchase/delivery, and installation of select topsoil. 

Backfill ‐ CA‐1 Aggregate ‐  LS ‐$   ‐$  Placed before the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) CA‐6 material in alleyways where excavation depth exceeds 18 inches. Assumed 6‐inch depth.

Backfill ‐ CA‐6 Aggregate 722  TN 52$ 37,500$Includes assistance with QA/QC sampling, purchase/delivery, installation, compaction, and density testing of gravel (IDOT CA‐6).

Street Sweeping 7  MO 6,758$   47,300$Performed from start of excavation through topsoil placement for properties and alleyways included in addendum.

Landscape ‐ Supply/Plant Perenials 150  EA 43$ 6,500$ Heavy Construction Systems Specialists (HCSS) EstimateLandscape ‐ Supply/Plant Shrubs 216  EA 137$   29,600$ HCSS EstimateLandscape ‐ Supply/Plant Trees 19  EA 528$   10,000$ Based on RSMeans. 

Landscape ‐ Warranty/Replacement 1  LS 68,232$                 68,200$ Based on RSMeans.  Assume 12% die off. Includes perennials, shrubs, trees, and seeding

Restoration ‐ Seeding and Maintenance 645  MSF 810$   522,500$  Includes 6‐week maintenance/watering period for each property (for up to a total of 10 watering events per property).

Restoration ‐ Wood Mulch 5,513  SF 1$ 5,500$ Placement in garden areas, 3‐inches thick. Restoration ‐ Rock Mulch ‐  CY ‐$   ‐$   Placement in garden areas with existing rock mulch, 3‐inches thick.Restoration ‐ Weed Block 5,513  SF 0.29$   1,600$ Place beneath wood mulch and rock mulch.Restoration ‐ Drain Tile Repair 7  EA 3,782$   26,500$ Allowance

Restoration ‐ Concrete Repair 64  CY 550$   35,200$Assume 10 feet of repair at each property where access will occur from/over sidewalk (assumed 30 properties). Assume 6‐inches thick and 4,500 pounds per square inch

Restoration ‐ Asphalt 5,000  SF 10$ 50,000$Restoration of any damaged asphalt during backfill and restoration activities. Assume 3‐inches thick. IDOT A‐3 surface material.

Fence Replacement ‐ Chain Link 205  LF 32$ 6,600$ Assume 2 8‐ft panels replaced at 15% of properties

Post Construction Meeting 85  EA 270$   23,000$

Document issues identified during work, outstanding punch list items, and substantial completion at the property. Attendees include owner's representative, contractor, and landscaping subcontractor to prepare plant inventory. Assumes one meeting with Village to go over all alleyways.

Analytical Sampling 28  EA 1,150$   32,200$ Initial and QA/QC samples for general backfill, topsoil, etc.

XRF Rental 7  MO 3,000$   21,000$ X‐ray fluorescence (XRF) rental for properties and alleyways included in addendum.

Demobilization ‐  LS ‐$   ‐$  

Per email from EPA on 5/2/2019, assume the same RA Contractor will remediate the properties and alleyways included in Revised Final Design and the properties and alleyways included in Addendum 1 under a single mobilization. Estimated costs for demobilization were included in the Revised Final Design and therefore are excluded from the addendum. 

Payment and Performance Bond 2.50% of 4,373,200$            109,300$  

Contingency 15% of 4,373,200$            656,000$  

SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION 5,138,500$

Page 1 of 2

Table 3: Remedial Action Cost Estimate in Basis of Design Report - Surrounding Properties Remedial Design Addendum 1Old American Zinc Plant Superfund Site Surrounding Properties, Addendum 1St. Clair County, Illinois

Item Qty Unita

Unit Price Total (Rounded) Notes

Optional Items

Utility Locates TBD EA 260$   NA Unit pricing for utility locating, if determined necessary by owner's representative.

Surveys TBD EA 409$   NAUnit pricing for surveying, if determined necessary by owner's representative. Assumes a minimum 10 by‐10 foot grid and then use of a level and rod to measure elevations.

Excavated Soil Staging Pile Management 1  LS 122,400$               NALabor, equipment and materials to shape/compact stockpile and removal/placement of poly sheeting on working face, as determined necessary by owner's representative.

Project Management/Construction ManagementAdministration/Contractor Oversight 25% of 5,138,500$            1,284,600$   CM, H&S, and CQM onsite, PM time

Owner's Representative Markup 5% of 5,138,500$            256,900$   per contract rates

Total Capital Cost: 6,680,000$

CLASS 2 RANGE: 20% 8,016,000$  ‐15% 5,678,000$  

a EA = each; LS = lump sum; TN = tons; DY = days; BCY = bank cubic yards; SF = square feet; CY = cubic yards; MO = months; MSF = thousand square feet; LF = linear feetThis construction cost estimate is not an offer for construction and/or project execution.  The construction cost estimate for this Design is an Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) Class 2 estimate and is assumed to represent the actual total installed cost. The estimate above is considered control‐level cost estimating, suitable for use in project budgeting and planning. This estimate has been prepared with partial design and engineering calculations. The level of accuracy for the class of estimate defines the upper and lower ranges of the cost estimate.  It is based upon the level of design detail and uncertainty associate with that level of detail.  For a Class 2 estimate, the accuracy range is +20% to ‐15%.  It would appear prudent that internal budget allowances account for the highest cost indicated by this range as well as other site specific allowances.  The cost estimate has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation and implementation from the information available at the time of the estimate.   The final costs of the project will depend on actual labor and material costs, competitive market conditions, implementation schedule, and other variable factors.  As a result, the final project costs will vary from the estimates presented herein.  Because of this, project feasibility and funding needs must be carefully reviewed prior to making specific financial decisions to help ensure proper project evaluation and adequate funding.

Page 2 of 2

APPENDIX A

Illinois EPA Concurrence Letter