final work plan - records collections
TRANSCRIPT
III851
R-33-11-8-27
FINALWORK PLAN
REMEDIAL DESIGN FORCONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER
EXTRACTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEM
HELEVA LANDFILL SITELEHIGH COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
EPA WORK ASSIGNMENT NUMBER 37-08-3N59CONTRACT NUMBER 68-W8-0037
NUS PROJECT NUMBER 0224
MARCH 1989
AR30I889
IMUSCOPPORAnON 0-33-11-8-27WASTB MANAOBMBNT ••nVICB* QPOUPONE DEVON SQUARE. SUITE 3227&O. WEST LANCASTER AVENUEWAYNE. PENNSYLVANIA 19087(21S] S71-OSOO
FINAL WORK PLAN
REMEDIAL DESIGN FORCONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER
EXTRACTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEM
HELEVA LANDFILL SITELEHIGH COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
EPA WORK ASSIGNMENT NUMBER 37-08-3N59CONTRACT NUMBER 68-W8-0037
NUS PROJECT NUMBER 0224
MARCH 1989
SUBMITTED FOR NUS BY: APPROVED:
JUCGLORIEUX.P.E.PROJECT MANAGER ARCS III PROGR^WMANAGER
90
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................ 1-1
2.0 SITE BACKGROUND INFORMATION .............................................. 2-12.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ...................................... 2-12.2 SITE HISTORY ......................................................... 2-12.3 SITE GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY .................................. 2-42.4 PROBLEM DEFINITION ................................................. 2-82.5 THE RECORD OF DECISION (ROD) ...................................... 2-10
3.0 REMEDIAL DESIGN SCOPE ....................................................... 3-13.1 GENERALSCOPE ...................................................... 3-13.2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ............................................. 3-13.2.1 Groundwater Extraction System ........................................ 3-13.2.2 Groundwater Treatment System ........................................ 3-13.3 DATA REQUIREMENTS ................................................. 3-23.3.1 Aquifer Characterization .............................................. 3-23.3.2 Depth of Contamination ............................................... 3-23.3.3 Contaminated Groundwater Analysis ................................... 3-23.3.4 Required Level of Aquifer Cleanup ..................................... 3-43.3.5 Treatment System Site Soil Characteristics ............................... 3-4
4.0 TASK PLAN DESCRIPTION ....................................................... 4-14.1 TASK 1-PROJECTPLANNING ........................................... 4-14.1.1 Review of Existing Data ................................................ 4-24.1.2 Initial Value Engineering Review ....................................... 4-24.1.3 Predesign Meetings, Site Visits, and Surveys ............................. 4-34.1.4 Preparation of the Project Work Plan ................................... 4-34.1.5 Preparation of Project Operations Plan (POP) ............................ 4-34.2 TASK 2 - FIELD DATA ACQUISITION/SAMPLE ANALYSIS .................... 4-34.2.1 Procurement of Subcontractors ........................................ 4-44.2.2 Mobilization/Demobilization .......................................... 4-54.2.3 Field Investigations ................................................... 4-54.2.4 Sample Management ................................................ 4-134.2.5 Sampling and Analysis ................................................. 4-134.2.6 Quality Control and Data Validation ................................... 4-174.2.7 Data Evaluation/Report Preparation ................................... 4-174.3 TASK 3-TREATABILITY STUDIES/PILOT TESTING ......................... 4-184.4 TASK4- DATA EVALUATION .......................................... 4-184.5 TASK 5-PRELIMINARY DESIGN ........................................ 4-184.5.1 Preliminary Design Plans .............................................. 4-194.5.2 Unit Process/Equipment Selection ..................................... 4-194.5.3 Identification of Long Lead Procurement Items ......................... 4-194.5.4 Preliminary Construction Schedule and Cost Estimate .................... 4-204.6 TASK6-INTERMEDIATE DESIGN ....................................... 4-204.7 TASK 7-PREFINAL/FINAL DESIGN ............ * Q.Q. A .|. Q.Q. S......... 4-204.7.1 Prefinal/Final Design Plans and Specifications . «.*?.y.y. .* 5?.3. ......... 4-214.7.2 Prefinal/Final Construction Schedule and Cost Estimate .................. 4-224.7.3 Preparation of Bid Documents ........................................ 4-22
R3311827
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
SECTION PAGE
4.8 TASK 8-DESIGN SUPPORT ACTIVITIES .................................. 4-234.8.1 Preliminary Operation and Maintenance Plan ........................... 4-234.8.2 Site-Specific Health and Safety Guidelines .............................. 4-234.8.3 Permitting Requirements ............................................. 4-244.8.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control ..................................... 4-244.9 TASK 9-VALUE ENGINEERING ......................................... 4-244.9.1 Value Engineering Study ............................................. 4-254.9.2 Value Engineering Report ............................................ 4-254.10 TASK 10-COMMUNITY RELATIONS .................................... 4-254.11 TASK 11-PROJECTCLOSE-OUT ........................................ 4-25
5.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT APPROACH ............................................. 5-15.1 PROJECT ORGANIZATION .............................................. 5-15.2 PROJECT SCHEDULE ................................................... 5-3
REFERENCES ..................................................................... R-1
R3311827
TABLES
NUMBER PAGE
4-1 Pumping Test Program ......................................................... 4-104-2 Proposed Soil and Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Program ................... 4-14
FIGURES
NUMBER PAGE
2-1 Location Map .................................................................. 2-22-2 Site Study Area ................................................................. 2-32-3 Interpretive Geologic Site Map .................................................... 2-52-4 Interpretive Geologic Cross Sections .............................................. 2-72-5 TCE Contaminant Concentration Map ............................................ 2-93-1 Proposed Groundwater Treatment System ........................................ 3-34-1 Location Map for Proposed Monitoring Wells, Soil Borings, and Pumping Tests ....... 4-64-2 Pumping Test Water Treatment and Disposal System ............................... 4-85-1 Project Organization ............................................................ 5-25-2 Project Schedule ................................................................ 5-4
R33H827 iv AR30IS93
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following document is a Work Plan for the engineering design of a groundwater extraction andtreatment system at the Heleva Landfill Site in Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. NUS Corporation (NUS)has prepared this plan at the request of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as part ofwork assignment No. 37-08-3N59 under Contract No. 68-W8-0037.
This Work Plan is intended to define the tasks to be performed by NUS and will result in thesubmission of detailed construction plans, labor equipment and material specifications, and othernecessary bid documents to solicit quotations for the procurement and erection of a groundwaterextraction and treatment system, as described in the Record of Decision (ROD).
This Work Plan includes five sections. Section 1.0 consists of this brief introduction. Section 2.0provides site background information. Section 3.0 describes the scope of this remedial design.Section 4.0 outlines the various tasks of this project. Section 5.0 identifies key project personnel andpresents the proposed project management organization and schedule.
R3311827 1-1 Aft 30 I 8 95
HR30I896
2.0 SITE BACKGROUND INFORMATION
2.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Heleva Landfill Site consists of a 20-acre landfill, which is part of a 93-acre tract of land owned byMr. Stephen Heleva in North Whitehall Township, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. The site is boundedby legislative Route 39049 on the south, Township Route 687 (Hill Street) on the north, andLegislative Route 39038 (Main Street) on the west. The center of the site is located at 40°40'15"north latitude and 75°33'40" west longitude. Figure 2-1 shows the site location and Figure 2-2 showsthe study area.
Nearby communities include Ironton, located approximately 1/4 mile southwest of the site, andOrmrod, located approximately 1/4 mile to the southeast. The population of Ironton is about150 residents, while approximately 35 families reside in Ormrod. The Ironton Elementary School islocated within 1,500 feet south of the site. Five miles to the south of the site lies the City ofAllentown. Allentown and the adjacent City of Bethlehem have a combined population in excess of183,000 and a large integrated industrial base (NUS, 1985).
2.2 SITE HISTORY
The site was originally a large, open-pit, iron ore mining operation. It began operating as a sanitarylandfill in 1967, receiving 250 to 350 tons/day of mixed refuse from the Allentown area. In addition,an undetermined amount of industrial wastes was reported to have been disposed of at the site asearly as 1967. These wastes are believed to include chlorinated hydrocarbon solvents in general andtrichloroethylene (TCE) in particular.
During the period 1974 to 1981, a hydrogeologic investigation of the site was conducted for theowner by Nassaux-Hemsley, Inc., in order to determine the information necessary to obtain a landfilloperation permit from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER). In anattempt to remediate the high levels of TCE, the site owner also installed, and attempted to operate,an experimental in-situ bioreclamation system. The project did not meet with approval from PADER.
On November 15,1979, the site was listed as potentially hazardous by PADER and theU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Site closure was ordered in 1981 by PADER. OnAugust 4,1982, the site was placed on the National Priority List (NPL) for hazardous waste sites in
R3311827 2-1 AR3QI897
R3311827 2-2 AB30I898
accordance with the Comprehensive Emergency Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)also known as "Superfund."
Following its closure in 1981, the site was covered by a clayey soil obtained from an adjacent borrowarea. The cover material does not support significant vegetation or completely prevent thepercolation of surface waters into the fill material. The cover has eroded to the point where parts ofthe fill are exposed (NUS, 1985).
In 1984, a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) was performed at the site to characterizethe nature and extent of contamination. Based on this RI/FS, the EPA promulgated a Record ofDecision (ROD) on March 22, 1985 outlining the selected approach for site remediation. As part ofthis approach, predesign studies were conducted in 1986 by Lawler, Matusky, & Skelly Engineers(LMS) and in 1987/88 by Sirrine Environmental Consultants (Sirrine) to further define the extent ofcontamination , verify the feasibility of various treatment technologies, and develop design criteriafor a groundwater remediation system. Also, as part of this approach, a RCRA-type landfill cap wasdesigned by Sirrine.
2.3 SITE GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY
The Heleva Landfill Site is located in the Great Valley Section of Valley and Ridge Province of easternPennsylvania. The Valley and Ridge Physiographic Province trends through southeasternPennsylvania in a northeast-southwest direction. The site is underlain by sedimentary rocks ofOrdovician Age, which may be as thick as 4,000 feet. There are three geologic units which underliethe Heleva Landfill. The stratigraphic order of these units from oldest to youngest are theBeekmantown Group, the Jacksonburg Formation, and the Martinsburg Formation. The sitegeology is presented on Figure 2-3.
The Beekmantown Group consists of gray dolomites and dolomitic limestone. The JacksonburgFormation is composed of two distinct members. The upper member is a gray to black, fine grainedargillaceous limestone and is known as the "cement rock." The lower member is a gray,thick-bedded limestone and is referred to as the "cement limestone." The Martinsburg Formationranges from a tan, poorly resistant shale to a dark gray to black, resistant slate. This formation wasidentified in a road cut north of the site, which may suggest that it is not present under the site.
The bedrock in the area of the Heleva site has a very complex structural pattern as a result ofnumerous episodes of tectonic activity. Originally, the rock formations under the site werehorizontal sedimentary layers, which have since been lifted and deformed by various stresses where
R33H827 2-4
R3311827 2-5
thrust faulting has appeared to have played a major role. Another equally supportable model isextensive isoclinal folding as the major structural feature as part of a nappe structure. This tectonicactivity has resulted in preferentially oriented fractures with primarily horizontal breaks alongbedding planes and some vertical breaks. Figure 2-4 contains two cross-sections as shown along A-A'in Figure 2-3. These sections depict the two different models which have been used to explain thecomplex structure and geology beneath the site.
The residual soils in the landfill area and the surrounding area are clayey silts with 5 to 10 percentfine to medium sand. Borings from previous studies indicate that alternating zones or layers ofcompetent rock occur between well-developed layers of residual soil.
The refuse at the landfill consists of varying thicknesses of municipal wastes and intermediate coverlayers. The refuse thickness ranges between 19 to 46 feet in areas that have been bored. The refuseis underlain by a residual clay loam soil which has a low permeability due to its density, high claycontent, and low relative moisture content The refuse is covered by a 1 to 2 foot cap which consistsof dessicated red to yellow siIty clay loam soil. This clay appears to have been excavated from an areaimmediately south of the site.
Groundwater flow beneath the study area occurs in both bedrock and unconsolidated deposits, andflows toward the east-southeast from the site. Groundwater flow is through pores within theunconsolidated material. Yield from wells within the deep clay loam residual soil is variable butextremely low. The groundwater flow within the bedrock is controlled by fractures and movesthrough joint sets, faults, bedding planes, solution channels, and along cleavage planes.Groundwater elevation in clustered well locations are nearly equal; therefore, the bedrock andunconsolidated material can be considered as a single unconfined aquifer.
Previous groundwater sampling indicates that contaminant transport follows the direction ofgroundwater flow, downgradient of the site. Groundwater discharges to Coplay Creek, RangerLake, and Whitehall Quarry as evidenced by the presence of contamination in these three waterbodies.
Water supplies are typically obtained from wells less than 1,000 feet deep, with most domestic wellsproducing sufficient water capacity at depths less than 300 feet. The Beekmantown dolomite is themost prolific water-bearing unit. The Jacksonburg Formation is a poor water-producing unit andmay actually inhibit groundwater storage and flow. The unconsolidated deposits in the study areaare not used as a source of water supply.
R3311827 2-6
§ - w? •"" " UJ
H U.
2 I s£cn£ s f-ui O iiI
uj QL< *o LU(A
eno
enwio
R3311827 2-7 AR30
A water balance at the site shows that 46 inches of precipitation falls at the site. Of this total, thegroundwater is recharged by 4inches, 16inches are accounted for by runoff, and 26inches areremoved by evapotranspiration.
The surface water at the site flows toward the south and southeast towards Coplay Creek andRanger Lake. In addition, surface water also flows into the onsite collection pond and intoTodd Lake.
Evidence of bedrock solutioning was common at the site in outcrops, rock cores, and airphotographs. According to the LMS study (January 1987) there is little risk of sinkhole formationunder the landfill but it is very likely that subsidence of the refuse within the landfill may occur dueto dewatering when groundwater is extracted for treatment.
As quoted from the LMS study, "Pumping of recovery wells to contain and remove contaminantsfrom the groundwater system will aggravate any unstable condition and may cause sinkholes tooccur within the first 2 years of pumping (LMS, 1987)."
2.4 PROBLEM DEFINITION
The most significant concern at the Heleva Landfill Site is the contamination of the localgroundwater resources. The various investigations mentioned earlier have shown that extensivegroundwater contamination has resulted from the disposal of chlorinated hydrocarbons.Significantly, the most recent of these investigations, prepared by Sirrine and entitled, "Source andGroundwater Remediations Alternatives," shows that the extent of contamination is considerablylarger than was estimated earlier, reaching beyond Coplay Creek and possibly to Ranger Lake.Figure 2-5 shows the estimated present location and contour of the contamination plume.
The primary groundwater contaminants are the volatile organics trichloroethylene (TCE) and trans-1,2-dichloroethylene (trans-1,2-DCE). Other significant contaminants include tetrachloroethylene(PCE) and vinyl chloride.
30 i 9-;
R3311827 2-8
2.5 THE RECORD OF DECISION (ROD)
The ROD for the Heleva Landfill site presented the following remedial approach:
Item 1 - Provide and install an alternate water supply by extending an existing 12-inchwater main approximately 1 mile from Ormrod to Ironton.
Item 2 - Install a cap on the 20-acre landfill that meets all the requirements of theResource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Item 3 - Construction of a surface water diversion system.
Item 4 - Construction of a gas venting system with monitoring and possible treatment.
Item 5 - A pre-design study which will involve test borings to more fully delineate the
location and magnitude of the source of contamination and to determine ifcollection of this source will be effective in reducing the contamination over theextent of the contaminated area. The pre-design study will also determine the
existence and magnitude of sinkhole activity in the area.
Item 6 - Based on the findings of the pre-design study, a source reduction programinvolving pumping and treatment of highly contaminated groundwater from thelandfill, will be implemented.
Item 7 - A treatment facility will be constructed on site and will treat the wastewaterdown to approved concentration levels before discharge into Coplay Creek.
Item 8 - A monitoring program during and subsequent to the remedial action. Thisincludes monitoring in compliance with RCRA regulations, monitoring of existingmonitoring wells, and periodic sampling and analysis of potentially affectedsurface water in the area.
Item 9 - Operation and maintenance will be implemented by the State of Pennsylvania onthe landfill cap, venting system, surface water diversion system, and monitoringprogram 6 months after construction of these systems. The source reduction andtreatment system will be operated as a remedial action for a period :of at least2 years and will be eligible for trust fund monies.
R3311827 2-10
/IR30I905
3.0 REMEDIAL DESIGN SCOPE
3.1 GENERAL SCOPE
This remedial design project will address the engineering of a groundwater extraction andtreatment system as described in Item 6 of the ROD. However, because the extent of contaminationis now believed to be much greater than when the ROD was written, (as mentioned in Section 2.4),the mandated extraction and treatment system will not only be designed to handle the highlycontaminated groundwater from the landfill, as called for in the ROD, but also remedy thecontaminated plume.
As required by Item 7 of the ROD, the treatment facility will be designed to remove thecontaminants from the extracted groundwater to levels acceptable for discharge to Coplay Creek.
3.2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
3.2.1 Groundwater Extraction System
The groundwater extraction system will be designed to achieve source control and contaminatedplume remediation. For this purpose, it is currently estimated that the system will consist of twoseparate arrays of recovery wells. The source control array will probably be similar to the systemdescribed in the LMS treatability study and consist of about five recovery wells located along thesoutheastern edge of the landfill, with each well pumping about 20gpm. The plume remediationarray is not well defined at this time, as the need for it has only recently been established. However,it is anticipated at this time that this array will also consist of about four to five recovery wells. Thesewells will probably be located along the known axis of the contaminated plume. The required rateof extraction will be based on the groundwater cleanup level mandated by EPA.
3.2.2 Groundwater Treatment System
As mentioned earlier, the treatment system will be designed to remove groundwater contaminantsto levels acceptable for discharge into Coplay Creek. For this purpose, it is currently anticipated thatthe treatment system will be essentially similar to that described in Section 8.4.2 of the LMStreatability study, although the throughput of the system will p&ijilaii/lM slliOfSantly higher toaccommodate the requirement for plume remediation. /At? X/Ol QOln £
R3311827 3-1
The present design calls for a three stage treatment system including pretreatment for equalization,pH adjustment iron and manganese removal; air stripping for removal of organic volatiles, includingTCE and trans-1,2-DCE; and biological treatment for removal of residual organic contaminants. Afourth stage with sand filtration, followed by granular activated carbon adsorption, may be requiredfor effluent polishing. The solid residues generated by the pretreatment and biological treatmentwill be processed by a sludge dewatering system. The proposed treatment system is shown onFigure 3-1.
3.3 DATA REQUIREMENTS
The data required to complete the engineering design of the mandated extraction and treatmentsystem are described in the paragraphs below:
3.3.1 Aquifer Characterization
Aquifer characterization data including such parameters as storativity, hydraulic conductivity, andspecific yield, are necessary to determine the number and location of recovery wells for optimumgroundwater interception. Some data are available, mostly for the area immediately downgradientof the landfill, as a result of the pumping test performed on monitoring well B-7 by LMS; but muchadditional information is required, especially for plume remediation in the far downgradient area.
3.3.2 Depth of Contamination
A determination of the depth of groundwater contamination is necessary to evaluate the overallvolume of water to be remediated and, thus, compute an estimate of the required remediation time.At present, this information is not available, as all the monitoring wells within the estimated plumearea show contamination down to maximum depth.
3.3.3 Contaminated Groundwater Analysis
A realistic chemical analysis of the contaminated groundwater is necessary for the accurate design ofthe required treatment system. It is important, in particular, to determine the level of contaminationto be expected in the groundwater extracted by the source control system as compared to that in thegroundwater extracted by the plume remediation system. It is equally important to determine theanalysis of the contaminated groundwater under "dynamic" conditions, that is, after the recoverywells have reached their hydraulic operating equilibrium.
R3311827 3-2 AR30I9Q7
roUJ
(I)!
COC
KQ
<
QU.0°a:o
COUJ
a:a.
R3311827 3-3
The LMS treatability study does provide some of this information, mostly for the source control/neardowngradient area. As for aquifer characterization, more data are required for the plumeremediation/far downgradient area.
3.3.4 Required Level of Aquifer Cleanup
The level of aquifer cleanup to be achieved must be determined for proper design of the plumeremediation array of recovery wells and for estimation of the required extraction flow andremediation time. At present, EPA has indicated that cleanup levels should meet MCLs and MCLGsfor the contaminants of concern. This means that TCE and vinyl chloride will have to be reduced to5.0 ppband 1.0 ppb, respectively, for plume remedi-s'. on.
3.3.5 Treatment System Site Soil Characteristics
Soil bearing data are required for the proposed treatment system site for proper design of theconcrete foundation for buildings and treatment process units.
R3311827
1 9 1 0
4.0 TASK PLAN DESCRIPTION
The following tasks constitute the work to be performed by NUS with the assistance ofsubcontractors as required. The task numbering system is based on standard task designations forremedial design as specified by EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER). Thetasks are as follows:
• Task 1 - Project Planning• Task 2 - Field Data Acquisition/Sample Analysis• Tasks - Treatability Studies/Pi lot Testing (Not Used)• Task 4 - Data Evaluation (Not Used)• Tasks - Preliminary Design• Task 6 - Intermediate Design (Not Used)• Task 7 - Prefinal/Final Design• Tasks - Design Support• Task 9 - Value Engineering• Task 10 - Community Relations• Task 11 - Project Completion/Close-Out
4.1 TASK1 - PROJECT PLANNING
Task 1 is currently being conducted and includes the following subtasks:
• Review of Existing Data• Initial Valve Engineering Review• Predesign Meetings, Site Visits, and Surveys• Preparation of Project Work Plan• Preparation of Project Operations Plan (POP)
R3311827 4-1
4.1.1 Review of Existing Data
Much data are available from the previous studies, as mentioned in Section 2.2. Five key documents
have been identified as relevant to this project:
• 1985 RI/FS prepared by NUS• 1985 ROD prepared by EPA• 1987 LMS Treatability Study• 1988 Sirrine Final Engineering Design Report
• 1988 Sirrine Source and Groundwater Remediation Alternatives Report
The information contained within these documents is being evaluated to ensure that all pertinentpredesign data are incorporated.
4.1.2 Initial Value Engineering Review
The purpose of this task is to identify and screen, during the project planning stage, designconsiderations which could substantially reduce project costs without compromising remedialefficiency. The NUS design team has identified several such potential considerations.
One consideration will be a comparison of the respective costs and technical benefits of separatetreatment systems for source control and plume remediation as opposed to a single system for both,as currently anticipated.
Another consideration, pertaining to the treatment system design, will be an evaluation of thepotential cost savings and increased efficiency which could result from combining the pretreatmentand air stripping units in a single equalization/pH adjustment/chemical precipitation/diffused airstripping vessel.
Yet another consideration will include the comparison of activated sludge versus rotatingbiocontactor (RBC) for biological treatment of the extracted groundwater and use of a belt filterpress or vacuum filter for sludge dewatering, as compared to the filter press currently shown.
R3311827 4-2 AR30I9I2
4.1.3 Predesiqn Meetings, Site Visits, and Surveys
This subtask includes NUS design team participation in predesign site visits, a project scopingmeeting, and meetings to review the draft Work Plan and draft POP. No surveying activities areanticipated.
A preliminary site visit occurred on October 20, 1988. A second, more thorough, visit was performedfrom November 15, to November 17, 1988, to inspect existing monitoring and private wells, verifytheir location, and evaluate their adequacy for the performance of pumping tests.
The scoping meeting took place on November 7, 1988 at EPA Region III offices.
The draft Work Plan and POP review meetings will probably take place at EPA Region III offices inJanuary and February, 1989, respectively.
4.1.4 Preparation of the Project Work Plan
This activity is currently ongoing. Draft and final versions of the Work Plan will be submitted inDecember 1988 and January 1989, respectively, in accordance with the project schedule shown inSection 5.2.
4.1.5 Preparation of the Project Operations Plan (POP)
Preparation of the POP will include a detailed description of field investigations, laboratory analysis,quality control/quality assurance procedures and a site-specific Health and Safety Plan. The draft andfinal version of the POP will be submitted in January and February 1989, respectively, in accordancewith the project schedule shown in Section 5.2.
4.2 TASK 2 - FIELD DATA ACQUISITION/SAMPLE ANALYSIS
Task 2 of this Remedial Design Project consists of seven subtasks as shown below:
• Procurement of Subcontractors• Mobilization/Demobilization• Field Investigations• Sample Management• Sampling and Analysis
R3311827 4-3
• Data Validation• Data Evaluation/Report Preparation
Field Investigations are scheduled to be initiated by late March 1989. Subcontractor specificationsshall be written and ready to be released by February 1989, as comments on the draft Work Plan arebeing received and the draft POP is being submitted. Evaluation of the subcontractor bids,subcontract awards, and scheduling of the mobilization of NUS and subcontractors will takeapproximately 4weeks. Field investigations are expected to be completed in 7weeks, barringinclement weather or other unexpected circumstances. Laboratory results of samples should bereceived, tabulated, and validated 6 weeks after the date they were shipped to the laboratory. Dataevaluation and preparation of a draft report is expected to take approximately 2 weeks. Reportreview by EPA is estimated to require 3 weeks. Incorporation of the comments in a final report willtake another 2 weeks. There will be some overlap of time between field investigation, sampleanalysis and validation, and data evaluation/report preparation. Thus, the total time expected forTask 2 is approximately 25 weeks.
4.2.1 Procurement of Subcontractors
Under this subtask, bid specifications will be prepared and subcontractors will be procured forspecific field activities associated with the design for groundwater remediation. The objective ofthese activities is to procure subcontractors at the earliest possible date to avoid delays in the start offield activities. The subcontracts that will be prepared as part of the initial tasks identified at thistime are:
• Subsurface drilling and monitoring well installation.
• Rental of necessary tanks, tanker trucks and moving equipment and hiring of the requireddriver and operators for the mobilization/demobilization of the pumping test watertreatment system and disposal of the treated water.
• Loading, manifesting, hauling and disposal of the spent granular activated carbon unitused for pumping test treatment.
• Loading, manifesting, hauling, and disposal of the sludge generated by the presettling ofthe pumping test water.
R3311827 4-4
4.2.2 Mobilization/Demobilization
This subtask will consist of field personnel orientation (NUS and subcontractor personnel) andequipment mobilization and will be performed at the initiation of each phase of field activities, asnecessary. A field team orientation meeting will be held to familiarize NUS and subcontractorpersonnel with the site history, health and safety requirements, and field procedures.
Equipment mobilization/demobilization may include, but will not be limited to, the setup andremoval of equipment for the following:
• Surveying• Field office trailer (command post)• Dri 1 1 i ng su bcontractor« Sampling• Health and safety and decontamination handling• Sanitary facilities• Utility hook-ups• Mobile on-site water treatment and disposal• Hydrogeologic monitoring during pumping tests
4.2.3 Field Investigations
This subtask includes drilling, sampling, and surveying two deep bedrock monitoring wells, and fivesoil borings, as well as performing four pumping tests of the bedrock aquifer. Locations of theproposed monitoring wells, soil borings, and pumping tests are illustrated in Figure 4-1.
Pumping Tests
Four pumping tests shall be performed for approximately 24 hours each, in selected locations asshown on Figure 4-1. Prior to each pumping test, a series of 1-hour step-drawdown test shall also beperformed.
The purposes of the pumping tests are as follows:
• Estimate volume of water within plume area.
• Estimate pumping rate for treatment plant design.
R3311827 4-5
• Identify preferred orientations of drawdown axes for use in determining optimumrecovery well placements.
• Identify capture zone sizes for pumping wells to aid in determining the number ofrecovery wells needed.
• Provide representative groundwater samples at appropriate intervals to assess waterquality variation overtime.
The time-drawdown and distance-drawdown data collected during the pumping tests shall beanalyzed using the most appropriate methods available. The pumping test data collected andanalyzed by the LMS treatability study shall be evaluated by the same techniques to maintain theconsistency of the data results. The results shall be utilized to enhance the present understanding oftrends of preferred permeability and to refine the locations and identifications of variations inhydraulic character, such as flow barriers and recharge sources as described by LMS (p. 5-7).
Prior to each pumping test, a step-drawdown test shall be performed on the well to be pumped. Thepurpose of a step-drawdown test is to show the trend of reduction in specific capacity withincreasing yields. Analysis of these data will be used to determine the optimum pumping rate foreach pumping test.
The water generated during the aquifer testing shall be surged and clarified in an on-site leasedtank, treated through purchased disposable granular activated carbon adsorption canisters, andtrucked from the test location to the on-site retention pond. Figure4-2 shows the proposedpumping test water treatment system. The exhausted activated carbon canisters shall be disposed ofin an off-site, RCRA approved incineration system or landfill. It is estimated that approximately200,000 gallons of water will be generated during this testing, including equipmentdecontamination. The contaminated sludge generated by the presettling of the pumping test waterand accumulated in the mobile tank will be periodically purged and disposed of to an off-site RCRAapproved facility. It is estimated that the sludge will contain about 1 percent (by weight) suspendedmaterials (mostly iron and manganese hydroxides) and that the total volume or sludge generatedwill be about 6,000 gallons.
R3311827 4-7 AR30I9I6
i§gin"
< 1
Oo <UJOT UJ< UJ C/5
O Z .
< Z *-
u (/) (Hi
< 51 mp: CM
<
R3311827 4-8 AR30I9I7
NUS conducted a 3-day inspection of the existing monitoring wells and private supply wells locatedin the vicinity of the Heleva Landfill site in November, 1988. The purpose of this site visit was toidentify wells which could be utilized for the proposed pumping test program. The wells to be usedfor pumping and for observation points during each pumping test were selected based on theirlocations relative to the pumping well and on data obtained during previous investigations alongwith information collected during the November 1988 site visit. Table 4-1 denotes the wells whichshall be used for each of the pumping tests.
Monitoring Well Drilling/Sampling
Two deep bedrock monitoring wells (MW-201 and MW-202) shall be drilled to determine the verticalextent of contaminant migration within the fractured bedrock aquifer. The locations and design ofthe two monitoring wells will also enable them to be used for pumping tests and possibly also asrecovery wells for the pump and treat system of the bedrock aquifer.
Monitoring well MW-201 shall be situated immediately downgradient of the existing monitoringwell B-9 which contains a high concentration (42,000 wg/l) of TCE contamination, based on historicdata (see Figure 2-5). The total depth of MW-201 is proposed at 250 feet. This depth was chosen forcosting purposes, as it is approximately 50feet deeper into bedrock than the deepest nearbymonitoring well (B-8) which also contains a high concentration (6,500 yg/l) of TCE.
Monitoring well MW-202 shall be located near the leading edge of the estimated downgradientplume of TCE contamination. This location is directly upgradient of monitoring well MW-102, whichcontains a relatively high concentration (960 y/l) of TCE. For costing purposes, the total depth ofMW-202 is proposed is 150 feet which is approximately 50 feet deeper into bedrock than the deepestexisting monitoring well (MW-104) in the vicinity that contains TCE contamination (280 y/l). Theaforementioned TCE concentrations were derived from the highest recorded TCE values in thesewells, as recorded from available historic data. It may be necessary to extend the well borings deeperif contamination is present at the estimated total depth of both proposed monitoring wells.
Both monitoring wells will be drilled and installed using similar methods. Permanent casing shall beinstalled approximately 5 feet into bedrock. The borehole for each well shall then be advanced intobedrock until a discernable water-bearing zone is encountered but will be advanced no more than20 feet without stopping to collect a groundwater sample. Each aforementioned interval will thenbe isolated and sampled, using a submersible pump equipped with a packer. Sequential drilling and
R3311827 4-9
TABLE 4-1
PUMPING TEST PROGRAM
PumpingWell
MW-201
B-8
OrmrodCommunityWell
ContingentPumpingWell
B-12MW-4B
B-12MW-4B
To bedeterminedin the field
ObservationWell
MW-2BB-7MW-13BB-6MW-4BHelevaMW-10BB-13MW-9AMW-9BB-14B-8B-9FW-8B-11
B-13MW-201Cincilla orHelevaMW-4BMW-9AMW-9BB-7B-14B-4OrmrodCommunityWellMW-11AMW-11BB-12
B-14MW-11BMW-11AB-8B-11MW-12BB-13B-12MW-104MW-202Ken B. VickM&WMW-102
Rationale
Pumping well immediately downgradient ofcontaminant source.
Pumping well located in downgradient portionof plume with apparent anomalously highcontaminant concentration.
Pumping well located in downgradient portionof contaminant plume.
n O A 1 Q i QHit <J U » "* *
R3311827 4-10
TABLE 4-1PUMPING TEST PROGRAMPAGE TWO
PumpingWell
OrmrodCommunityWell(Continued)MW-202
ContingentPumpingWell
To bedeterminedin the field
To bedeterminedin the field
ObservationWell
ZieglerMW-101MW-103
OrmrodCommunityWellMW-102MW-104 ,ZieglerMW-101M&WMW-103Ken B. VickB-14MW-11BB-8B-11
Rationale
Pumping well located in downgradient portionof contaminant plume.
Pumping well located toward the leading edgeof the contaminant plume in the downgradientflow direction.
R3311827 4-11
sampling operations in each well boring will continue until a water-producing fracture isencountered that contains concentrations of volatile organic indicator compounds at or below theestablished allowable limits of these compounds in groundwater. The indicator compounds aredescribed in Section 4.2.5 of this Work Plan. Further details shall be described in the ProjectOperations Plan (POP).
The two proposed wells represent optimum utilization of time, resources, and funds for theexpected amount of data to be obtained. Two more deep wells, beyond the two currently planned(as suggested by PADER), would provide additional useful data, however, it is believed that the twoproposed wells will provide an adequate evaluation of the vertical distribution of contamination inthe bedrock. Rather than requiring four deep wells up front, two deep wells will first be drilled andthe investigation will be modified as needed if the results from these two wells indicate that morework is required. Scope modifications (to be decided on in consultation with EPA and PADER) couldinclude the following:
• If the results obtained from monitoring well MW-202 indicate an increase in groundwatercontamination with depth (based on field analysis) the NUS project geologist may requesta change in scope to add an additional downgradient well. The additional work wouldinvestigate the potential for deep groundwater contamination in the far downgradientplume area, to determine the additional volume of contaminated groundwater requiringtreatment.
• If field data indicates that further studies in the central plume area are necessary, existingwell B-8, which is drilled to a total depth of 200 feet, is an open borehole well. Therefore,the packer-pump sampling equipment (with an additional packer below the submersiblepump) can be lowered into place to isolate and sample the groundwater in 20 footincrements from the bottom of the well to the top. If the bottom interval is contaminated,then the NUS project geologist can request a change in scope to extend the total depth ofthe well and collect groundwater samples during drilling as described for the twoproposed wells in the POP.
Soil Borings
In addition to the drilling and installation of 2 monitoring wells, 5soil borings shall be drilled toinvestigate the soil properties relative to the area of the proposed location for the treatment facilityas shown in Figure 4-1. Each soil boring shall be drilled to auger refusal which is approximately50 feet in depth, for an estimated total footage of 250feet. Standard penetration tests
R3311827 4-12 AR3QI92
(ASTM D1586-84) will be performed, and soil samples collected at 5-foot intervals. Blow counts andlithologic descriptions will be recorded for each of the estimated 55 total split-spoon samples. Soilboring data will be used in determining the location of and developing construction specificationsfor the treatment facility. Based on soil data collected during previous investigations, it isanticipated that the underlying soils beneath the area of the proposed treatment facility should berelatively homogeneous in composition and, thus, should display similar physical parameters. Ifinconsistencies are encountered during the soil boring program, then further investigations of theunderlying material may be necessary, once the exact location and construction design of the facilityhas been determined.
Surveying
Following the installation of the two monitoring wells and the completion of the five soil borings,these data points shall be surveyed to determine their horizontal and vertical locations. This effortshall be discussed in more detail in the POP.
4.2.4 Sample Management
Under this subtask, NUS shall monitor the sampling program specified for the design phase ofgroundwater remediation at the Heleva Landfill. The sample manager shall be responsible formonitoring all samples collected in the field and for reporting the status of the sampling program tothe Project Manager. The following items are included in this subtask:
• Laboratory coordination• Sample tracking• Validation coordination• Data base organization
4.2.5 Sampling and Analysis
A total of approximately 55soil samples and 52 groundwater samples shall be collected during thefield investigation phase of this project. Table4-2 illustrates the sampling program and parametersto be analyzed during this subtask.
R3311827 4-13 AR301922
*.!-II i
3s.
Si58
If'•ra'
lo o
-It!ff-Sli
•a 5 a,C .5-8
III
12 S!.2 =: u. CLZ
oW VJll3 ,Z
eeLU5
at<a
3_>
'rotocol
a_
Siu
TAL Metals
<N
O
O
-
co
QceU
Ioa.d
5iu
<u15
IEN
0
o
-
00
a-1
Votocol
u
2£(J
TCLVolatiles
(N
(Nm
<N
(Nm
•£.U
"oso
a
<v»0.u
TCL BNAS
<N
O
O
-
CO
aj
"52!a._iU
354u
>
TCL Pesticides/ P
CBs
01
o
-
co
•&
oto
2
5a.u
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
o%
o
o
eo
?
<NC>te
S
<1/1CLU
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
01
o
0
CO
•&
ui
ss
CL
U
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
en
o
o
co
"&Eo
(NIfl
s
5iu
Nitrate- Ni
trogen (NO3-N)
en
o
o
co
Bi
oo
(Nsa
5CLU
(Ortho) Phosphorus
«n
o
o
CO
ll
en
5
5CLU
Alkalinity as CaCOa
en
o
o
co
1
S
5u
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD5)
en
o
o
eo
3itn
o
a
stCLd
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
en
o
0
CO
ll0
t*otn
s
?a.d
Ammonia Nitrogen (NHa-N)
en
o
0
CO
llO
mn
a
scLd
Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
en
o
o
CO
jloo
(N
£a
5!CL
U
Total Phosphorus
en
o
o
CO
R3311827 4-14 AH30I923
SIQC1£(/i55
<Z
MPUNGAND/!
S
JNDWATER
S
Oa:U UJ
iVI §Q rf Q
s < ?? >
ill
i|i12 S3
•g•ss3J,c
•S.s§1= 25
S a•poT5 a.c O
Required
a1<
||Q o"
1*e Q.i|•5 "So
Number
ofTripl
Blanks
mM- S»-S
Number o
Equipmen
Rinsate B
lar
»*- VIO 01
PIrt«+-0 Ulu v^"p-1 £IA
SjF:Vc•£1!CI
1
[
£
O>
\ £
" Ul
'Ifl)1•o01in
Xa
._
ift
m
m
o
INI/)
£
"l1
\i
5I<ID5"
2!32§a.§h-
__
(N
m
w
o
(Nin
z
>»
iiisU uji<•o•5'Uu
IU3
!uu~Q.un
__
S
m
«
o
(Nin
2
^3j
1
ua•a•3"S
^
3n)0>
^
S
«
CO
fO
(NI/
•a c *j *o <u .2I 1 |.l !ic" tu '— ^ «» ^•J3 ^ a. c i* 5
I i1 i 1 i •=• - S — x ^ 35 s ll -isS -| 4« ii0 0 = 5 'g j*• -3 2 c la c1 1 fi i|"™ 4J VJ —— S. Q> ' —
^ gj W jjj 3o o di o -2 -rr ™*"* r- *2 '& at S .£ Jo 5 g,JS wo4) ^ 'P w M "O
1 S ce i §. en $nj > 01 C C oj (n
1 SS|I ?&5 Ii f 2 1 '2H* fit w " "Q Q.£3 k. 3 ni .— .y;w g J! g | g. gS O . m O w C3 a> .* m o .;0- ^ § S iT '3 S' ^ c h *~E"O^~"'5Q'1 i i til* i!I ^ 2 s ^ c g e l1 i * S S 3 s s °c .^ " o j _ = S ^ _ f _ jH^O >, . _ ± Q . ( U - ^ O " O
1 J 1 ^ ^ililtS 3 ,2 ^tt "c'lT-^S "CV ^ v . °^ — ^ J i J 3 E 3""3 S iS'o^'u •qora'a "Se
i 1 iill lilt If1 j i||| ||j| |!j g ^Sg^S-i; Tg -- ,.-o» '5 «i^*-htti-c'rt <5 ig <° w ^5*
1 I HIIli«lii| 11U S ?ii«3>°S.>'^Qe33 ^go J SiE'2'i.*! = ll s-8 s1^ s
f 1 5fli|||l{l||!|i
i I lilislilJHhl!>. J5 o xi oj L. ,2* *?*m^5'^a''c^^'"^ "u1j"a5i5EKQ.S;^^.£'le'»« S T? s::u>;«S,<:!,i>">cc*i' = !iN « a _t5^-a<|JC(i>o™BoSo'5P Jil IlliIlSlllllili
failgflS S* *• C *-• Q !S -niiiii s ^.S-II2S.S3 3 |a 111 §<<i« S a -i3 S T _ •?•= 2 «rtj H ? 01 *• y •••O *™ rn — >j r~ !5o 5 f3 C
^ w O -~ ^
"J> <? ™» U _ j j g£ rf IJ Qi *U 'E (T^ S> •ii t W W lil f— IJ i" — UJ
R33H827 4-15 flR30192i*
An estimated 24groundwater samples shall be collected at various intervals within the bedrockaquifer as part of the drilling program of the two proposed monitoring wells (MW-201, MW-202), asmentioned in Section 4.2.3. These samples shall be sent to an on-site field GC unit and analyzed forthe following indicator parameters:
• Trichloroethylene• Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
These indicator compounds were chosen due to their historical presence in the groundwater andbecause they pose a threat to human life and the environment.
The depth of both monitoring wells (MW-201, MW-202) will be based upon the analytical resultsreceived from the field GC unit. In addition, all 24 samples will be submitted to CRL for TCL volatilesanalysis. Full target compound list (TCL) analyses, along with additional analyses (relative to thegroundwater treatment design; see Table 4-2), shall also be performed on the last two samplescollected from each of the monitoring wells. This will be done to collect chemical data at thepresumed vertical limit of the contaminant plume in these two locations.
Approximately 28 groundwater samples shall be collected during the pumping test program. Agroundwater sample shall be collected prior to the pumping test and an additional sample shall becollected every 4hours throughout the test from the well being pumped. These samples shall besent to the on-site mobile field GC and analyzed for the indicator parameters mentioned earlier. Inaddition, the last sample collected during each pumping test shall also be analyzed for full TCLanalyses as well as additional analyses pertinent to the groundwater treatment design (seeTable 4-2). The rationale for this portion of the sampling program is to obtain data to assess waterquality variation over time. This information is necessary in order to design the most efficient andcost-effective treatment facility for the Heleva Landfill groundwater remediation.
In addition, each of the proposed 52 groundwater samples will be analyzed in the field for thefollowing:
• pH• Temperature• Specific conductance
The 55 soil samples shall be collected from the 5 soil borings for geotechnical description and will notrequire laboratory analyses.
R3311827 4-16 &e 3019 25
4.2.6 Quality Control and Data Validation
Laboratory quality control protocols are described in the USEPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP)Statement of Work (SOW) for inorganic and organic compounds. Quality control for all otheraspects of this task will be in accordance with the ARCS III Quality Assurance Program Plan.
Validation of measurements is a systematic process of reviewing a body of data to provide assurancethat these results are adequate for their intended use. The process includes the following activities:
• Auditing measurement system calibration and calibration verification.• Auditing quality control activities.• Screening data sets for outliers.• Reviewing data for technical credibility versus the sample site setting.• Auditing field sample data records and chain-of-custody.• Checking intermediate calculations.• Certifying the previous process.
NUS will perform these tasks following receipt of the data from the laboratories. The validation willbe done by chemists not associated with the laboratory and will adhere to the latest applicable EPARegion III validation protocols.
4.2.7 Data Evaluation/Report Preparation
Data evaluation will be initiated upon receipt of data from the field investigation and after sampleanalysis/data validation is completed. Data will be compared to project objectives and summarizedinto a usable format for data manipulation. Tables will be created to exhibit data, contaminantlevels will be plotted on site maps, and aquifer testing data will be plotted on graphs, with theresulting information displayed in tabular form. Also, during data evaluation, analytical and/ornumerical modeling will be performed using data collected from the study area. Contaminantmigration pathways will be refined and contaminant migration models will be tuned and calibratedto meet site-specific characteristics. The results of this task will be used in the design of thetreatment facility for groundwater remediation and, more specifically, to determine the following:
• Number, location, and depth of the required recovery wells• Estimated recovery well pumping rate
R3311827 4-17 A R 30 I 926
• Estimated duration of remediation• Extracted groundwater characterization
The specific subtasks of data evaluation are summarized below:
• Evaluate surface and subsurface soil geotechnical data
• Evaluate hydrogeologic dataEvaluate groundwater analytical dataEvaluate aquifer testing resultsPrepare bedrock potentiometric maps
The findings and conclusions of Task 2 will be presented as a predesign investigation report.
4.3 TASK 3 - TREATABILITY STUDIES/PILOT TESTING
The proposed treatment technologies are well-proven in nature and the LMS report has providedenough treatability data for a reliable design basis. For these reasons, no further treatability studiesor pi lot testing have been included as part of this remedial design.
4.4 TASK 4 - DATA EVALUATION
The only data requiring further evaluation for design purposes will be that generated as part ofTask 2, Field Data Acquisition/Analysis. As such, this data will be evaluated and reported on as partof Task 2 and not as a separate task.
4.5 TASK 5 - PRELIMINARY DESIGN
The goal of the Preliminary Design is to provide a complete process definition of the proposedgroundwater extraction and treatment systems and constitute a firm basis for the Prefinal/Finaldesign activities. It is estimated that Preliminary Design will result in completion of about 30 percentof the total engineering effort and that it will be executed within 13 weeks from June 1989 toSeptember 1989. The activities included in this task are as follows:
• Preliminary Design Plans• Unit Process/Equipment Selection• Identification of Long Lead Procurement Items• Preliminary Construction Schedule/Cost Estimate
R3311827 4-18 ftR30!927
It is anticipated that a formal review meeting will be held at EPA Region III offices after submission ofthe draft Preliminary Design package. Monthly progress review meetings will also be held either atEPA Region III or NUS' offices.
4.5.1 Preliminary Design Plans
The Preliminary Design plans will completely define the extraction and treatment system processdesign. As such, they will include:
• Process Flow Diagram(s) (PFD) and Mass Balance outlining all major process units, processstreams, and their composition.
• Engineering Flow Diagram(s) (EFDs), also referred to as piping and instrumentationdiagrams (P&IDs), showing all process units, piping, and valving, and instrumentationloops including for utilities distribution.
The preliminary design plans will also include site maps showing the proposed recovery wells andpreliminary treatment system lay-out drawings showing the location and dimension of the mainprocess units and architectural features in plan and elevation.
4.5.2 Unit Process/Equipment Selection
The choice and design of the various unit processes of the treatment system will be finalized. Inparticular, as part of this study, a decision will be made as to the necessity of tertiary treatmentincluding filtration and granular activated carbon adsorption. This activity will be closelycoordinated with the value engineering effort as described in Section 4.9.
A comprehensive process equipment list will be prepared grouping treatment units by type (vessels,pumps, filters, etc.) and, within each type, identifying individual pieces of equipment by name andfunction and providing a general description of their dimensions and operating characteristics.
4.5.3 Identification of Long Lead Procurement Items
Items of equipment or other nature which may require significant time to procure and thus couldimpact on the overall project schedule will be identified at this time. Among equipment items, only
R3311827 4-19
the required sludge dewatering unit(s) may be in this category. Among other items, permitrequirements will be evaluated.
4.5.4 Preliminary Construction Schedule and Cost Estimate
Based on the information prepared as part of the Preliminary Design, a preliminary constructionschedule will be outlined estimating the duration of all main activities and identifying projectmilestones and critical path.
Also at this time, a construction cost estimate will be prepared based on current design data. Thisestimate will include a determination of the required capital expenditure and operating andmaintenance costs, a present worth analysis based on the anticipated overall project duration, and asensitivity analysis evaluating the response of the cost estimates to changes in key design factors.
At this stage of the project, it is anticipated that the accuracy of the capital expenditure andoperating and maintenance cost estimates will be in the range of plus 40 percent to minus20 percent.
4.6 TASK 6 - INTERMEDIATE DESIGN
In accordance with instructions provided by EPA, as part of the Work Assignment document and asconfirmed during the project scoping meeting, no intermediate design review step is included in thisproject. The activities normally involved with this task will be executed as part of Task 7,Prefinal/Final Design.
4.7 TASK 7 - PREFINAL/FINAL DESIGN
The goal of the Prefinal/Final Design task is, as its name indicates, to complete the detailedengineering design of the proposed remedial system and, in particular, to prepare bid documents sothat quotations may be obtained from construction contractors for the Remedial Action. It isestimated that the Prefinal Design will result in the completion of about 90 percent of totalengineering, while the Final Design will result in 100 percent completion. The Prefinal/Final Designtask will be executed within an estimated 21 weeks, from September 1989 to March 1990. Theactivities involved are as follows:
R3311827 4-20 AR30I929
• Prefinai/Final Design Plans and Specifications• Prefinal/Final Construction Schedule/Cost Estimate• Preparation of Bid Documents
It is anticipated that formal project review meetings will be held at EPA Region III offices aftersubmission of the Prefinal and Final Design packages. In addition, monthly progress review meetingswill be held either at EPA Region III or NUS offices.
4.7.1 Prefinal/Final Design Plans and Specifications
As part of the Prefinal/Final Design, the process drawings mentioned in Section 4.5.1 will be revisedand finalized, as required, to reflect minor design changes that may occur at this stage of the project,such as line size changes or addition or deletion of valves.
The following other drawings will also be prepared:
• Prefinal/Final extraction wells location drawings.
• Prefinal/Final extraction wells design drawings.
• Prefinal/Final treatment system lay-out drawings, including plan and elevation views.
• Prefinal/Final detailed piping routing and valve location drawings.
• Prefinal/Final instrumentation drawings, including loop diagrams and control panel(s)drawings, as required.
• Prefinal/Final electrical drawings, including one line diagrams and motor control centerdrawings, as required.
R3311827 4-21 6R30I9
Technical specifications will also be prepared to thoroughly define the type of equipment and scopeof services to be provided for the remedial system. These specifications will describe individualequipment units, types of equipment, and generic labor and material services, including:
• Prefinal/Final technical specifications and purchase requisitions for all required processequipment such as packaged systems (biotreatment, clarifiers, filters, etc.), vessels,instruments, pumps, mixers, and blowers.
• Prefinal/Final technical specifications for types of equipment or material such as piping,valves, electrical equipment, buildings, structural steel, and concrete.
• Prefinal/Final technical specifications for materials and labor services, as may be required,such as extraction well drilling; concrete foundation pouring; mechanical, electrical, andinstrumentation equipment installation; building erection; painting and insulation.
4.7.2 Prefinal/Final Construction Schedule and Cost Estimate
The preliminary construction schedule prepared, as part of Task 5, will be amplified and/or revised asrequired to prepare a prefinal and, then, final schedule reflecting the full completion of design.
The preliminary cost estimates will also be revised to reflect the greater completeness of the design.Prefinal and final cost estimates will be prepared using actual vendors' quotations for all equipmentcosts and accurate take-offs of required labor and material, based on detailed engineering drawingsand specifications. The prefinal and final cost estimates will include a determination of the requiredcapital expenditure as well as operating and maintenance cost and present work analysis. Nosensitivity analysis will be included at this stage of the project, since it is assumed that the design hasbeen finalized. It is anticipated that the accuracy of the Prefinal and Final construction cost estimatewill be plus 15 percent to minus 10 percent.
4.7.3 Preparation of Bid Documents
The preparation of bid documents is essentially the first step in the procurement/constructionprocess and will consist of the preparation of information packages to be sent to candidateconstruction contractors. These packages will incorporate all relevant technical documents,including drawings and specifications, a request for proposal with instructions to bidders andproposal forms, and the appropriate procurement and construction terms and conditions.
R3311827 4-22
Depending on this project's specific requirements and EPA's request, preparation of bid documentswill either involve the gathering of a single package for submission to candidate general contractorsor the assembly of multiple specialized packages categorized by major construction contractingdisciplines such as mechanical and piping, civil and architectural, and electrical and instrumentation.
4.8 TASKS - DESIGN SUPPORT ACTIVITIES
This task groups a number of satellite activities directly related to this project, although not part ofthe main stream of design. For this project, these activities will mostly take place during the latterpart of the Prefinal/Final Design and their completion will require an estimated 12weeks fromDecember 1988 to March 1990. The design support activities include:
• Preliminary Operation and Maintenance Plan• Site Specific Health and Safety Guidelines• Permitting Requirements• Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Design support activities and the documents generated by these activities will be discussed andreviewed with EPA during the Prefinal/Final Design review meetings.
4.8.1 Preliminary Operation and Maintenance Plan
The preliminary operation and maintenance plan will consist of a preliminary operation andmaintenance manual as well as performance testing specifications for the proposed remedial system.
The preliminary operation and maintenance manual will thoroughly describe the extraction andtreatment systems, discussing the function of each equipment item and instrumentation controlloop. The manual will also provide process guidance for the start-up, routine operation andmonitoring, shut-down, and trouble shooting of the remedial system.
Also part of this activity will be the preparation of specifications that describe and set performancegoals for the post-construction acceptance testing of the remedial system.
4.8.2 Site-Specific Health and Safety Guidelines
Based on the knowledge of the site and the activities required for construction of the remedialsystem, Health and Safety guidelines will be prepared for the use of the construction contractors.
R3311827 4-23
These guidelines will be incorporated in the bid documents, as they will impact on constructionproductivity and, therefore, on construction costs.
4.8.3 Permitting Requirements
This activity will identify any permit which may be required before construction, during construction,or for operation of the remedial system. This activity will also define the necessary procedures forthe acquisition of the required permit and, if appropriate, initiate and/or complete these procedures.
The focus of this activity will be the determination of the need for, and potential application for, anNPDES permit for discharge of the treated groundwater into Coplay Creek.
4.8.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control
This activity involves the development of a Quality Assurance/Quality Control plan to ensure thefollowing:
• Engineering design and analysis are performed according to accepted guidelines andpractices.
• Reports and supporting data are consistent and valid.
• Methods are in place to ensure proper quality assurance/quality control duringconstruction.
In particular, this activity will include comprehensive checking of design calculations, drawings andtechnical specifications. This will also include senior review of deliverables.
4.9 TASK 9 - VALUE ENGINEERING
Value Engineering will focus on those design considerations identified during the initial screeningdescribed in Sect!on 4.1.2, as well as similar considerations identified later during this project. Theseconsiderations will be thoroughly evaluated and the most cost-efficient design approach will beselected. Value engineering will be an ongoing activity throughout the remedial design; however,most of the work will be concentrated during the latter part of the preliminary design, with someadditional activity during the Prefinal and Final Design phases. Value engineering activities include:
R33H827 4-24 ^8301933
• Value tngineering study• Value engineering report ^ ,
Value engineering activities and the documents generated from these activities will be discussed andreviewed with EPA during either the Preliminary Design or Prefinal/Final Design review meetings, asappropriate.
4.9.1 Value Engineering Study
The design considerations identified during the initial value engineering screening will be evaluatedfor effectiveness, ease of operation, reliability, and both short- and long-term estimated costs. Also,the Preliminary Design package will undergo a thorough multiparty review to identify potential costsaving design modifications, which will then be submitted to the same evaluation as describedabove. This process will be repeated with the Prefinal and Final Design packages, although the scopeof the potential modifications identified at these fate stages will generally not be as significant
4.9.2 Value Engineering Report
A value engineering report wit! be prepared, describing the various proposed cost-savings designmodifications and their evaluation as well as outlining the conclusions and recommendations to bedrawn from the value engineering study. - i :
4.10 TASK 10-COMMUNITYRELATIONS
Community relations activities for this project will be limited to attendance to public meetings, asmay be scheduled by arrangement between EPA and the local community. For planning purposes, itis anticipated that up to three such meetings will be held during the Remedial Design, including oneat the end of the project planning phase, one during the field investigations and one at the end oftheproject " . - : . . ' . . ; ,
4.11 TASK11 . PROJECT CLOSE-OUT t
Upon acceptance of the Final Design package, NUS will consolidate all records and files generatedunder this work assignment. NUS will also perform a final check to ensure that all requirements ofeach subcontract have been adequately fulfilled, that these subcontracts can be formally closed, andthat any final payment can be made. -
R3311827
5.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT APPROACH
5.1 PROJECT ORGANIZATION
Project organization is shown on Figure 5-1. The EPA Region III Project Officer and Remedial ProjectManager for the Heleva Landfill Site Remedial Design are Stephany Del R6 and Richard Watman,respectively. The NUS ARCS Ml Program Manager is Robert Stecik, who is responsible for all workperformed under the ARCS lit contract. The NUS Project Manager is Jean-Luc Glorieux, P.E., who isresponsible for this project technical quality, budget, schedule and deliverable*. Mr. Glorieux willalso be the prime liaison with Mr. Watman at EPA.
The NUS team assisting Mr. Glorieux will consist primarily of Mr. Mark Speranza, Civil/EnvironmentalEngineer, who will provide process design input, Mr. Patrick Falvey, P.E., Senior Design Engineer,who will provide detailed engineering design, Ms. Sandy Sarnick, Geologist, who will coordinatefield investigations and provide input in extraction well design, and Mr. Albert Finke, who willprovide cost estimating services. Additional support will be provided by Mr. Richard Bethel forgeology, Dr. James Ho and Dr. J. D. Chiou for groundwater modeling, Mr. Dennis Smith, CIH, fortoxicology/risk assessment, Mr. JohnMikan for Health and Safety, and Mr. Ralph Basinski forpermitting. Senior review will be provided by Ms. Vicki Pierce and Messrs. Richard Ninesteel, P.E.,and Robert McLaren, P.E.
"311827 5-1 fiR30!936
Suj- - z
atLU
RAM MANAGI
Ia.enZ
c£ 15 Z -J3 « < <o O -J 5UJ UJ S
ca x,a. ce.UluulJ
™5a.
S
STECIK
ec
ee
ECT MANAGE
Scea.Z
* U
bJ
^
ecUl
Z«•
S£•Ml
^
Ul
Ulcei
GLORIEUX
_i
Z
5|S
as
Hat2 >£ va <aD Z O«/» p .jz P 0O 5 U<E «3 _f Xui e3 uj OQ I S £
</»Z
NVESTIGATIO
;. BARNICK
QLU
"•
O <!
111 rf
a 18 S?O 5oe 2a.
z
UlQ >Ulfl ^
I 3S 'C3LU
Oz§ ujS ^1 1*/l "•s <v»O<J
5.2 PROJECT SCHEDULE
The proposed project schedule is shown on Figure 5-2. Major milestones are identified as follows:
Milestone
Work assignment receiptSite visit
Scoping meetingDraft Work Plan submission
Draft POP submissionFinal Work Plan submissionFinal POP submissionField data acquisitionPreliminary design submission
Prefinal design submissionFinal design submission
Lapsed Time(Weeks)
03.5
511
16.5
20.5
23
43
52
63
74
Completion Date
09/30/881 0/26/88
1 1/07/88
12/16/88
01/24/89
03/1 1/89
03/10/89
07/31/8909/29/89
12/18/89
02/26/90
R33H827 5-3
-d}
ER~
SQ
.1.
T
, § I1 1 i , I 1
R3311827
_-Ej ^Q _,§ r*.^ «2 O-ILU —= 5 ^ Vi (—iLJ-.r-
Q 5 J11 I3 a 3
£o SQ
a s * s
I 1i ss § |
S S g SS % 5i 5
g oj >- £•2 a: a: a:
i 1 1 1
5
S S ia. a. u.
SU uj
ME
SITE UISIT
SCOPING
SITE
I
! |
«• •
•f-
5-4 A R 30 1939
AR30I9140
REFERENCES
U.S. EPA Record of Decision No. RO3-85-011, dated March 1985.
NUS Final Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Report, dated September 1985 (ContractNo. 68-01-6699, Work Assignment 48-3L59, NUS Project No. S760).
Lawler, Matusky, & Skelly Engineers (LMS) Treatability Study Final Report, dated January 1987(Contract No. DAC 45-86-0050 for U.S. Corps of Engineers).
Sirrine Environmental Consultants (SEC) Final Engineering Report, dated February 1988 (SECProject No. F1514).
Sirrine Environmental Consultant (SEC) Source and Ground-Water Remediation Alternatives Report,dated July 1988 (SEC Project No. F1536).
R3311827 R-1 ARSU I 9'H
