-------------------

--

r

GE l Consul tants, Inc.

SOURCE CONTROL DRAFT VALUE ENGINEERING STUDY

60 PERCENT REMEDIAL DESIGN O 'CONNOR COMPANY SUPERFUND SITE AUGUSTA, MAINE

Supcrvisina Contractor:

GEl ConouiWQ, Inc. Suffolk Buildin& 53 Roaioool Drive Con:ord, New Hampshire (603) 224-7979

J 0 . Monn, LSP Senior Project Manager

03301 -8500

Settling Defendanl:

Central Maine Power Company Technical Services Departmem 41 Anthony Avenue Augusta. Maine 04330 (207) 626·9620

f!£.Lt dL Charles R. Nickersoo. PE Technical Coordimtor

February 13 , 1995

:;: . ~~ 2

~~ li- . ~i • z ::.o O'D i::!5-~

1:m." :~ is. ;;

~;.. ~

I r -,

~g.­~i 0:rQ .. %

5'~ r; :~ m

ia ~if

8~~~ u~s

This doc~nl ww prepared fry afour-member mufti-discipline design team assembltd by Central MaiM Powtr Company to complete remedial design for the O'Connor Company ~~ ~! Superfund Site. The design team membtr companies and their prinuJry project contacts wtre as follows : f~

CJlJlJI2IliJll iltJJ1JllLllili Pmjea Contaa ~ ~ GEl Consullants, Inc. Gtotnvironmental Consu/1anr Joanne 0. Morin, LSP Q

(Note: &{Hrvising Contractor) ~nior Project MtJMgtr n Qntral MaiM PO't'tltr Company Electrical, Mechanical, and Daniel E. Spaulding, P.E. Q

~ Tec:MiccU ~rvices DtpartrMnl Structural Engineering Civil Engineer

Sargent Diwrsift«l Services• Remediarion Conrractor David C. Jones (H.E. Sargtlll, Inc.) Project Manager

Woodard &: Cumu~, Inc. Enviro~~~Mnral Enginttring Henri J. Vincenr, P.E. Designer Senior Project Manager

This docruttellllWIS submintd pursuan1 to lht Consent Dtcrtt in lbUW Staus qfAnwjro ys Cmqal Mainc Power CORillQIOI Civil No. 9()..()3028, entend on Septem«r 3, 1991 , and tM EmltwJtjtm qf Signjljcant Ditruenqs approvtd and is.su~d by U.S. Environm~ntal Prot~ction

Ag~ncy on July 11, 1994.

·~noc~s principol awlwr (s) of docum~nr.

I r I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. JNTRODUCJ'ION

1.1 Purpose 1.2 Site Background

2. APPROACH TO VALUE ENGINEERING

2.1 The Oeslp Team 2.2 The Value Engineering Process

l. CONCEPTUAL VALUE ENGINEERING

3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5

4. INTERMEDIATE VALUE ENGINEERING

4.1 Overview 4.2 Sequence of Operalions4.3 Bam Demolition 4.4 Support Area Conscruction 4 . .5 Treatment P1ant Construction 4.6 Soil Stodl:piling and Covering 4.7 Location of Treatment Plant 4.8 Debris Wuhing 4.9 Process Water

5. CONCLUSION

Value Engineering Study 60 Percent Remedial Design

s 7 12 13 IS

16 17 17 18 18 18 19 19 20

20

.... ~ ~ ­.•.-0

~if ~Q:;5 "I: ~~.=o :t; ~ .. ~ii~ -~!h

~~~i ~"~ ~ I Q n Q

= = .....

0.. "' r; m

-, r -,

~~ "' R~ ~-Value Engineering Study ... 60 Percent Remedial Design .- 2

:; :l.o.,.

·2· :f4 i:! • n!~ ~ m

~~1. INTRODUCTION =. ::­·~ ~;... [

1.1 Purpose

This document provides the: Value Engineering Study (YES) for the O'Connor Company

Superfund Site (Site) in Augusll. Maine. This YES is submitted by Central Mai ne Powe r

Company (CMP) in accordance with the Consent Decree lodged on December 7, 1990 and

entered on September 3, 1991, with the Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) signed

by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regional Administrator John P. DeVilla rs

on July 11 , 199-t, and Section 4e(J)(b)ii of the O'Connor Company Superfund Site Revised

Statement of Work (RSOW} dated October 20, 1994.

The purpose of this YES is to provide an early review of the design concept during

Remedial Desipt activities, and to provide a cost justification of major design decisions.

1.1 s.. _ ...

Previous salva&e and transformer recycling activities by the F. O'Connor Company led to

areas of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) rontaminated soils at the site. Principal features

on the Site include a large bam that formerly housed scrap operations, an Upland Marsh,

an adjlctnt "low area• of fill, NoQsurface water impoundments (Upper and Lower lagoons),

three former outdoor transformer YoQrk areas (TWA I,1WA II and TWA Ill) and a former

scnp storaae area. Note that the designation "Upland Marsh" was intended to indicate

JCO&faphic location and not a wetland classification. Site drainage is prindpally rontrolled

by a natural slope extending downward from the transformer work areas toward Riggs

Brook. Currently, the Upper and Lower lagoons located on the slope serve as detention

basins f'or surface water flow from the Upland Marsh .

l. APPROACH TO VALUE ENGINEERING

The Value Eng;neerin& coat is to satisfy the project's needs for quality, function and seMce

in the most cost-effective manner. Typically, a value engineering review of a project dtsign

I r I

=:.... .~ : ~

Value Engineering Study 60 Percent Remedial Design . ,. e ~ i ~0_..,-3­ :r4

;-E .-on involves a separate consuhant or connactor conducting an independent review of a :m"='

s ~ completed, or nearly completed design . AVES using this approach is intended to give the . a design a "fresh look" by developing alternative, less costly options than that specified in the " ~~ ~ original design. This approach, more crilical by natu re, is based on the premise that the

most cost effective solutions wi ll not be apparent to the designer. and if apparent. wi ll not 8• • always be chosen by the designe r. If the value engineering suggested by this independem ~ g~ review is accepted. then the project must often be redesigned to acoommodatc the changes. 222

~0~~i Another traditional application of value engineering is that undertaken by a oontractor after ~;~a completed design has been bid. Typically, cost savings identified at this stage are shared

between contractor and owner, and may also inYOive significa nt redesign costs. § ~ In an effort to gain the maximum benefit of potential value engineering savings while Qminimizing associated redesign 005U. CMP decided, at the beginning of the Remedial

Deslp. effort, to include a potential Remediation Contractor as a full member of the Project n Deslp. Team. H.E. Sar&cnt, lnc. (HES) or Stillwater, Mai ne was selected as a Design Team Q member in December 1993. Since that time HES has attended the Design Team's meetings,

and has received and reviewed the Project documentation as it has been developed. = Therefore, durin& the remedial desip process a contractor's perspective has been considered =...., as it affects the 005t-c:ffectiveness of the design and its ullimate constructibi lity. Additional­

ly, value cJllineerinJ became a Desian Team effort, early in the dc&ip process, because the

cost-c:ffectiveness of conceptual decisions were ronsidered. ~ the design continues to

develop, the process is ongoing; the expense or time and money in redesign is being

minimized. The objcctive of this approach is that the final Remedial Design is the sum of

many value conscious decisions.

The remediation or the Site is a complex project, in\Qiving many important considerations

in addition to rost. Among these are compliance with regulations, protcction of the

environment, safety of construction workers. and protection or the public. Each of these

factors affect cost and must be evaluated when choosing among alternative design concepts.

Another benefit of this approach to value engi neering is that when alternate designs arc

discussed among Team members. the contractor has the advantage of weighing both sides

of a presentation rather than working with the final decision as displayed in the Contract

Documcnli.

I r I

Value Engineering Study 60 Percent Remedial Design

-4­

The RSOW specifie1 that the VES is submined as a design deliverable at 60 perccm

(lntennediate) design. The Design Team has detennined that the VES would begin at the

submission of 30 percent (Conceptual) design, and continue through 60 percent design.

Accordingly, the YES will sepa rately address decisions made during the conceptual stage

leading to 30 percent design, and then address the furt her developmem of those conceptual

decisions as well as new issues considered in bringing the design from 30 percem to 60

percent .

In the beginning of ooncepcual design, many decisions are made on an intuitive basis, in

o rder to provide a beJ)nning to the design process. Three factors comribute to weighing

the relative vaJue of these early Intuitive desi gn decisions. First is the ove rall fa miliarity of

the project site and the requirements of the remedy by the settling defendant, CMP, and

the Remedial Oesian Supervisin& Contractor, GEl Consullants, Inc. (GEl). CMP has been

irtYOived with the site for nine years after its identification as a Potentially Responsible

Party (PRP) in 198S, and GEl became in\Oived with pre-design studies shortly after the

Record of Decision (ROD) was sianed in 1989. Individual members of the Desian Team,

specifically, Charles R. Nickerson, PE (CMP) and Joanne 0 . Morin, LSP (GEl) have

directed the project on a detailed basis from the beginning of their finn 's in\Oivement. AJ

the delipt developed and members were added to the Design Team, these lead individual's

depth of spedHc knowledce became invaluable.

The seoond factor ju5tifyi ng these intuitive decisions was the experience of the members

of the Design Team. GEl, Woodard &. Curran (W&.C), and CMP Technical Services

Department (TSD) each have extensive background in the oomponents of the Remedial

Design that they were responsible for. Additionally, the individuals assigned to the project

from each of these firms were senior, experienced personnel.

Third. the Site and the Remedy both restrict the number of options to be oonsidered in

design and construction in tenns of space utilization, sequence of operations and schedule.

Cost comparisons to juslify desip decisions were acoomplished during both 30% and 60%

design development, when clear chokes became apparent. If all other criteria for function

-, r -,

_,_

and quality were equal, then the most economical choices in terms of cost and schedule

were selected.

3. CONCEPTUAL VALUE ENGINEERING

l .t Sile Ullllutio.

Contaminated soil and sediment oontaining concentrations ofPCB's. carcinogenic polycyclic

aromatic hydrocarbons (cPAH's) above the target clean up goals (PCB's and cPAHs: IOppm)

are to be excavated and treated on-site using a solvent enraction process. Treated soil and

sediment meeting the target cleanup goals will be backfilled on-site in a ·Designated Area.•

Treated soil and sediment failing to achieve the target cleanup goals will require off site

disposal . Outside the Designated Area. soils and sediments between 1-IOppm PCBs and

cPAHs will be excavated and backfilled in the Designated Area without treatment. Soil

residues remainincafter sotvent enraction treatment that oontain lead concentrations above

248ppm,the 1989 Record of Decision Cleanup Standard, will be transported off-site for land

dispoul. If lead contaminated soil exceeds the tolicity characteristic concentration (TCLP

• !Sppm). this soil will undergo further treatment ror stabilization prior to off site land

dilf>OS&I.

Feedltock preparation for solvent extraction will be required, and will inYOive screening to

secrepte oversize particles. Oversized particles will be decontaminated by washing. rather

than treatment by the solvent e1traction process. Contaminated material passing through

the screenina operation will then be crushed to meet the maximum particle size required

ror solvent enraction. Feedstock preparadon will also inYOive blending or soils and

sediment by levels or contamination to muimiz.e the efficiency or the solvent extraction

process. Post-treatment processing may be: required to achieve the physical properties

necessary ror backfill in the Designated Area.

The functioning or the solvent extraction process is obviously key to the Remedy, and

represents the largest sincle cost item in the project. The production rate achieved by the

Solvent Extraction Contractor detennines the duration or the Remedy, and controls the

critical path of t he Remedial Action Schedule. Ancillary requirements to solvent extraction

include an on·Site laboratories for ana1ytical and physical property testing. decontamination

facilities. access roads, utilities. storaae and warehousing and office facilities . From a site

. ~ ~~

~: ~

~ ~ = • z~; ::.o:rQ ;-::!5'~ .n ~s; ~"' ~-ia ;;

::.­. ii ~

I r --,

-6­

utiliuuion standpoint. it was apparent to the Design Team that the location on the Site of

the solvent extraction plant and it's associated materials handling requirements was crit ical

to the success of the Remedy.

Other factors were identified that restricted the area available on the Site to locate the

physical plant necessary to accomplish solvent extraction in a practicable manner. Existing

wetlands, if disturbed. would have to be restored, and additional wetlands created to

maintain environmental balance. The diversion of clean site water, and the rollection and

treatment of site water from disturbed areas had to be accomplished, utilizing the

topography of the Site. Since the Upper and Lower Lagoons function as detention basins.

it was determin ed early in conceptual design to enhance these facilities. rather than create

new detention basi ns or build storage tanks. A waste water treatment facility would be

required to treat on-site stonn water and oonstruction dewatering from excavations.

Additionally, after the oompletion of the Source Control (SC) portion of the remedy, a

water treatment facility would be required to treat contaminated ground water fo r th e

Manaaement of Miaration (MOM) portion of the rem edy. MOM would also require the

instaUation of ground Wlter extraction and injection wells and piping to the MOM treatment

pant to complete the system .

lbus, areas on the site occupied by the Designated Area. wetlands. and the lagoons were

eliminated as potential locations for the soil processing physical plant. Ultimately and

larcely by this process of elimination it was determined that the best location for this plant

would be in the vicinity of the separately fenced area enclosing TWA III, in the no rthern

ponion of the site. This area also oontains the least amount of oontaminated soil tO be

excavated and temporarily stockpiled to allow erection of the soil processing plant.

Addition1lly, the 1rea is the highest elevation on the site, to facilitate storm water diversion

and oontainment. and is the furthest away from Route 17 and occupied structures. The

latter oonsideration was deemed important since the 501vent extraction plant would operate

on a 24 hour per day schedule, and this setbiCk would sem as a buffer to minimize impact

on nei&hbon, and the public in general.

The entrance and routin& of the access road to the soil processing area next needed to be

determined. A perpendicular intersection at the Site access road and Route 17 was

neceuary to aooomplish right and left turns onto and off of Route 17. Sight distances

cresting a vtrtkal cum just west of the project for eastbound Route 17 uaffic fixed the

R~.­~ ~ 2 if :rQs E ~ ~ ~~ =· ~ = ·I:"

:;:

~ = • z:l.o ;-::! • n ~'" ::­

~

J

-, r I

.,. location of the access road entrance. The majori ty of traffic was anticipated to enter the

site eastbound on Route 17, and depart westbound. A fu rthe r requi rement of routing the

access road was to minimize the need to decontaminate vehicles and equipment entering

and leaving the sile to those actually working in the contaminated areas. In order to

minimize disruption to existing wetlands, which encompass most of the fenced area directly

between Route 17 and the soil processing area, the Design Team decided to roUie the Clean

Access Road west of the fence line and across a narrow portion of wetlands. The narrow

wetland crossing will be constructed on soil stabilization fabric f\1 facilitate removal after

oomplction of Source Control for welland restoration. An additional benefit gained by the

selected routing of the access road is that the roadway fill will serve to intercept and divert

clean sto rm water entering the Site from the west.

From a vaJue engineering perspective, the Design Team approached site utilization on the

basis ofoptimizing the filed requirements of the site in terms of topography, contamination.

and drainaae. The solvent extraction plant is properly located. and the other soil processing

facilities for pre and post lreatment are in close proximity to reduce materials handling

effort. Support facilities such as parking. offices, laboratories and decontamination have

been loJically placed. also in close proximity. Given the relatively small size of the Site in

relation to its fixed requirements, the Design Team has optimized the task of site utilization.

In preparation of the oonceptual Remedial Action (RA) schedu le, the Design Team

determined that the SC phase of RA would require three const ruaion seasons to complete,

due to the short oonstructlon season afforded earthmoving operations in Maine. Excavation

can begin when the material to be excavated thaws and drains in the spring. and ends when

frost precludes attainin& oompaction of backfill in the winter. Since the solvent extraction

producdon rate is critical, one full construction season has been allocated to t 11cavate and

treat contaminated soil. This schedule is based on the quantity of oontaminated material

to be treated. with Input from pou:ntial vendors as to potential production rates.

The first and second oonstruction season (1996 &: 1997} would oonsist of site preparation

activities. 1be bam would be decontaminated and demolished. portions of the site cleared

and grubbed, and the site water treatment plant oonstructed. The access road. park.inc area.

sotvent extraction and soil processinc support areas would be completed. and the excavation,

~~

~: ~ ~ =;:rQ;-; :.~=oi= · I:"

= ~ s i~ i ::!." ~ m ;;

~

-, r -,

Value Engineering Study 60 Percent Remedial Design

.g.

segregation and stockpiling of contaminated soils would begin. Construction of the storm

water management system would be concurrent.

Storm water runoff from contaminated remediation areas must be oontrollcd to prevent

migration of sediments and contaminants off site. These areas include open excavations,

oovered stockpiles of contaminated soil awailing treatment, and the portion of the site

dedicated to the soil processing and ueatment facilities. However. storm water runoff from

contaminated areas that have not yet been excavated, and areas that are not contaminated,

need not be treated, and wi ll be diverted from the storm water collection and treatment

system in their current channels.

At the conceptual stage, it is envisioned that clean storm water flowi ng toward the site from

the no nh and west wi ll be Interrupted by the clean access road and parking area

embankments, and channeled by di tches at the outside edge of these embankm ents to two

low areas, one near the midpoint of the access road and the other at the no nheast corner

of the pirking Jot. Clean, divened storm water wi ll then pass from these low areas unde r

the ac:::cess road in culvens to the Upland Marsh. Clean stonn water flowing toward the site

from the non h and east will be divened to Ri~&~ Brook by a be nn along the northern edge

of the site, ouuide rontaminated areas.

Standard provisions for erosion oontrol induding silt fence, hay bales, check dams,

temporary seeding and other measures as required will be included in the Re medial Design.

Construction of the clean access road and pa rking lot at the begi nning of the project wi ll

serve to provide both the initial diversion of clean stonn water as well as access to 1WA

Ill, for excavation of contaminated soil and debris which will be stockpiled for subsequent

treatment the followi ng season. Other clean stonn water diversion, as well as protection of

uncontaminated areas v.ill be ac::complished by installing an impermeable cut-off wall along

the downstream edge of the Upland Marsh. Clean stonn water entering the Upland Marsh

between the clean access road and this cut-off wall will be divened via a clean water

collection riser connected to a dean water diversion pipe installed across the site and

discharging to Riggs Brook.

After the clean stonn water diversion construction Is accomplished. the contaminated a reas

are isolated. and runoff from oontaminated areas will be directed by aravity flow and/or

..., r I

Va lu e Engineering Study 60 Perce nt Remedial Design

-9­

pumped to the Upper and Lower lagoons. Both lagoons will be enlarged by excavating

contaminated sedi ment which will either be stockpiled for solvent extraction o r disposed of

off-site, and by constructing embankments around the lagoons with clean fill material.

Control st ructures to regulate water levels will be consuucted, and a pump station installed

at the Lower Lagoon tO lift water to the neatrnent plant.

The schedule for construction of the treatment plant building and procurement and

installation of equipment for the treatment system during the first season is critical. The

componenu of the system are standard to treatment systems of this nature, but still must

progress through solicitation of vendor quotes. selection of vendors, shop drawing

preparation and review, fabrication, delivery, installation and start-up.

All pads where oontaminated material will be handled or stockpiled will be constructed over

an HOPE oontainment liner, and will drain to the stonn water treatment system. In order

to minimize both the initial rost or oonstruction and the later oost or deoontamination or

the.st pads, the Desi&n Team decided to avoid ooncrete slabs where possible. Depending

on the oontractor selected. the solvent enraction plant may require a ooncrete slab with

intqral equipment foundations. Moo or the storaae area pads will consist or either stone

wearin& surface over sand cushion over the liner or, when non-porous surfaces are required.

a portland cement stabilized sand wearing surface will be placed over the liner. Thickness

ohhe wearin& surface will be minimized by oonstructin& adequate bearing strata under the

liners. Eoonomtcal decontamination or pad wearin& surfaces can then be accomplished by

removing oontaminated areas by millina or excavating. and either proct.Ssing through solvent

extraction prior to demobilization or the plant or disposal off-site.

The third oonstruction season (1998) will focus on the excavation and treatment of

oontaminated soil, and the backfillina or treated soil in the Designated Area. The majority

or remainin& oontamination is located in the vicinity o(Transfonner Work Areas I and II

where PCB oil was spilled durin& salvage operations, and Oowed downslope following to

natural drainage oourses towards Riggs Brook. The Designated Area, therefore, is physically

divided into lWO areas. The Design Team recognized that these two areas., which are

separated by a less oontaminated area. would facilitate phasin& of excavation and treatment,

After oonsultation Mth potential Soh'tnt Extraction Contractors, the Desip Team

eJtablished a sustained production rate that would be required or the solvent enraction

-,I r

Value Engineering Study 60 Percent Remedial Design

-10­

process of between 100 and I.SO tonS/day. This production rate evolved from balancing the

size and capacily (and resultant capilal rost) of the process cquipmcm with the ability to

accommoda te soil treatment in one season.

Critk:al to the eronomy of the Remedy is the ability of the Remedial Action Contractor

doing the sitework to utilize excavation and materials handling equipment standard to an

earthmoving contractor's equipment fleet. Track mounted backhoes will most likely be used

to accomplish excavation of contaminated materials. The relatively low production rat e of

the solvent extraction process will enable the excavation operation to easily keep pace.

The size, and hourly cost of excavators used will be governed by reach and depth of

excavation rather than suStained production requirements. A!lhough excavation of

contaminated materials will be up to twenty-five feet deep in some places, other excavations

will be shaUower, and allow the Remedial Action Contractor to plan for efficient and

ec:onomk:al equipment utilization.

HauJin&; of excavated materials to the soil processing area will be either by truck loaded

directly by the ucavator, or front end loader picking up a stockpile at the excavator and

carrying material to be processed. The choice of hauling equipment will be pemed by

haul distance. Materials brought to the soil processing area will need to be segregated by

contaminalion levels, and both methods of hauling will accommodate this need.

Pre-proceuin& of contaminated soil will vary according to soil type. Fill and topsoil will

need to be screened to rem ove both debris for separate decontamination and particles larger

ttlln the solvent extraction equipment will accept. The underlying clay and till, particularly

that excavated below the water table, will need to be dried, and clumps broken up by disc

harrow, rototilling or tracking with a bulldozer. The Design Team has also considered

using soil drying equipment such as a heated, rotary dryer. Final preprocessing require ­

menu for clay and till will be developed when the Solvent Extraction Contractor is selected.

Ovenize material will either be segrepted in the drying operation, or screened, depending

on the concentration of cobbles and boulden. The screening plant required for segregation

of material by size is typical to earthmoving contractor's equipment fleets. and required

production rate is readily attainable.

The crushina plant required to reduce e1cavated material to solvent extraction contractor

requiremenu for maximum particle size is also typical to earthmovin& contractor's

J

I r I

Value Engineering Study 60 Percent Remedial Design

·I I ·

equipment fl eets. Both the screening and crushing equipment owned by earthmovi ng

contractors is capable of much higher production rates than required by the project, since

they are designed to feed a fl eet of trucks in a pit or quarry operation. Although oversized

fo r this application, !he Design Team decided to allocate enough space on the site that a

typical contractor's screeninYcrushing operation could be set up rather than requiring the

contractor 10 mobilize a specialized, smalle r operation more consistent with the production

rates required. Mate rials handling In the screenintVcrushing plant is accomplished by

integral conveyors that accompany the plant. The conveyors wi ll feed two stockpiles. one

of OYersize materials destined for debris washing. and another going directly to solvent

extraction.

Materials handling in the solvent extraction plant area will vary by Contractor, however it

is envidoned that materials will generally be moved in either standard roll.off or custom

built containen sized to match the volume of the reactor vessel. Use of these containers

will preserve batch integrity for input and output, and will segregate batches failing to meet

clean up standards. Other advantages to handline the batches in bins or roll.off containers

are that they are stackable to conserve space, and can be covered. Other materials handline

equipment In the solvent extraction area would consist of a bucket loader or forklift to move

and stKt bins. The SoM:nt F..straction Contractor will be responsible for delivering treated

materials achlevin& taraet clean-up pis to a stockpile for the Remedial Action Contractor

to backfill into the Designated Areas.

Materials handling for backfilling and 6nal restoration will include load and haul uniu as

appropriate to bring material to the Designated Area, and a bulldozer and self powered

compactor to spread, shape and compact to finish contours.

From a value engineering perspective the Design Team has developed a rational sequence

of operations that will be described in a series of drawings depictine each phase of

operation. The phasine of the project wi ll be developed in greater detail as the design

procreues, and will vary in response to construction Issues as they are identified.

Important to value engineering is the ability to schedule the Remedy in IQ&ical and cost­

effective sequence. which has been done. Concurrent with the development of the sequence

of operations at the conceptual stage is the plannine to actually aa:omplish the Remedy

from a materials handline standpoint. The Design Team has provided for prosecution of

I r I

Value Engineering St udy 60 Percent Remedial Design

-12­

the project with materials handling with equipment com mon to an eanhmoving contracto(s

equipmem Oeet, and in so doing. will insure compethive bidding from the remediation

contractors.

Several stonn water issues were evaluated during conceptual design that deserve mention

in the YES, since the Design Team arrived at a cost justified decision in each case.

First, as previously mentioned. was the decision to use the existing lagoons for detention of

storm water ntther than creating a separate detention basin or smrage tanks on site. Since

the existi ng laaoons currently function as storm water detention basins. the Design Team

deddcd, when the development of the sequence of operations justified its feasibi lity, to

enhance the exininc Jaaoons, rather than build new. In fact, the only locations available ror

a new detention basin would have been downsklpe or the existing lagoons, and would

inYOive both disturbing the wetlands in the Rigas Brook area and costly construction.

Second. the RSOW envisioned draininc and collectinc existing surface water in the Upland

Marsh and Upper and J..ov..oer Lagoons and then transponinc this contaminated water off.

site for treatment and disposal, unless otherwise instructed by EPA. The Desian Team

determined that conJi rucdon and operation of an on-site treatment plant wu cost effective

when compared to truckinc to off-site disposal fo r stonn water runoff durin& SC operations.

Sinoe this treatment plant would be desianed to remOYe the same contaminants in stonn

water durin& SC operations that occurred in the existinc surface water in the lagoons, the

Desian Team ju<f&ed that treatinc this existinc surface water on site rather than truckinc to

an off-site treatment facility would be cost-effeaive.

Third. early in the conceptual desicn phase the discharge of treated effluent was envisioned

to be by spray irription on property owned by CMP directly acros.s Riggs Brook, east or the

Site. This property consists or approximately 70 acres or v.ooded terrain. At this early

stqe, however, discharce or treated effluent to Rigp Brook was thought to be: precluded

by State of Maine reculat ions ror drainace basins of less than ten square miles in size.

Funher lnvestiptions into the fc=asibility of spray irrigation revealed that the property

considered was difficult to access, and consisted of steep terrain with numerous ledge

outcrops and shallow soils. A one million gallon storace tank or lagoon would have to be

~~ ~ g c ­

~i :r~;E:4 ia ~~

:;: ~. •= ::.oz

;-::!• n1:m .. e

r -,I

-13­

constructed, since State regulalions typically prohibit wimer spraying. and the largest run off

would occu r with spring rains melting winu:r snow. Abutter's concerns about spraying

treated emuem from a contaminated site would have to be addressed, as well spray

irrigation prohibiting current wildlife and recreational uses of the property. Pennits would

probably have to be obtained since the property was not contiguous to the Site, and

additional wetland areas would be disturbed. Based on this infonnation, the Maine

Dcpanment of Environmental Protection agreed to conside r discharge of ueated effiuem

to Riggs Brook as an alternate during the SC portion of the Remedy. A technical

discussion of both alternatives was prepared by the Design Team, and presemed to the

EPA, Maine Department of Environmental Protection and the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Following this presentation, it was agreed that the preferred method of discharge was to

RiUS Brook with the stipulation that effluent quality could not adversely affect Riggs Brook

water quality and the effluent had to be treated to drinking water quality standards so as

to satisfy the substan tive requirements for a wwe water discharge permit.

The performance of the Remedial Action Supervising Contractor is critical to the success

of the remedy. CMP decided during conceptual design to perform this role with their own

forces, udlizinc the eapertise of their Technical Services Department to manaae and

administer several principal contracts, in a Construction Management approach.

The Technical Services Department has performed the Construction Management ofCMP ·s

construction procram for over twenty yean, and is fully capable of managing the cost,

schedule, safety and environmental impact of the Remedy. Other professional support

staff in CMP's orpnization in addition to TSD include the Purchasing. Environmental and

Licensing. Legal, Safety and Risk Management departments. The Site Construction

Manager, and some of the necessary professional and administrative personnel that will

comprise the project staff will have been inYOived in the Remedial Design, and are familiar

with the project. Cenain areas of eape rtise that CMP does not have in-house that are

needed durin& the ronstruction phase of the remedy will be provided by contracting with

outside consultaniS.

From a value engineering standpoint, CMP will realize significant savings by assuming the

role of Remedial Action Supervising Contractor. Their alternate choice would be to solicit

~~

~: ~ ~ ~if fQ;-;:4 =· i:·i:'

:; ~. =•zil.o .::!• n ~.,

;;­

~

-, r -,

Value Engineering Study 60 Percent Remedial Design

·1 4·

and hire an outside fi rm to accomplish this task. and although direct project cost would

probably be similar, the outside firm's fee will be saved.

CMP is fortunate in this regard to have these qualified in-house personnel who have been lnYOived in the design and construction of projects of equal size and complexity, and are familiar with the Construction Management delivery system. Most "owners" of Superfund Sites, to include the Department of Defense, typically hire an outside Remedial Action

Supervising Contractor to manage construction in the field.

CMP is structuring the srope of its contracts in its Conmuction Management approach in a cost effective manner. The SC phase of the Remedial Action will include a minimum of four principal contracts: (1) Remediation Contractor, (2) Solvent Extraction Contractor, (3) Waste Disposal Contractor, and (4) Verification Testing and Analysis Contractor. The Remediation Contractor will be responsible for excavation and feedstock preparation or contaminated materials, and will backfill treated materials and restore the site. The Remediation Contractor will also be responsible for constructing all temporary faci lities and utilitieJ, demolition of the bam, and debris washina:. CMP may also solicit proposals from a debris waahin& technoklgy contractor, and ir oost justified, would contract directly with a debris wuhln& contractor.

1be Solvent EltriClion Contractor will furnish and operate the solvent extraction plant. A

prequaliflcation process has been completed for this contractor, and a short list has been formed. The results of this prequalillcation are included in the Project Delivery Strategy (30 percent deliverable). This early interaction with oontractors was necessary to insure that the Desian Team was able to incorporate the technical requirements of the short-listed

tedulok:tgies. The short-listed contractors will tender formal quotations durin& sixty percent desiJn, so that the Desian Team may tailor the final project requirements particular to the selected contractor. Variables such as muimum feedstock particle size and moisture content as well as characteristics of the treated soil and physical layout of the equipment will be affected by contractor selection. The Solvent Extraction Contractor will be expected to mobilize and shake-down ifs plant at the bea:fnning of the 1998 construction season. Since a full size solvent extraction plant has yet to be fabricated, the selected contractor will need this early notice to proceed to meet schedule. The Design Team has made a cost-effective decision in bringing the SoNent Extraction Contractor on board early.

-, r -,

Value Engineering Study flO Percent Remedial Design

-IS·

Scope definition at the interfacts between the Remediation Contraaor and th e Solw.=nt

Extraction Co nt ractor has also been cost.effcctive. Heavy conmuction contractors that are experienced in remediation work will be solicited for prequalification for th e Remediation

Contractor's scope ofwork. The Remediation Contractor will prepare the feedstock for the

Solvent &traction Contractor, and will receive treated material from the Solvent Extraction

Contractor that has physical propenies suitable for backfilling. Both the Remediation

Contractor and Solvent &traction Contractor will accomplish their work on a "di rect-hire"

basis, with their own fo rces, minimizing subcontracted scope within their respective

packages. This is the objective of the Construction Management process. Contractors

should be required to accomplish wo rk that they typica lly do with their own forces: work

normally suboontracted by these cont ractors should be contracted directly to the Supervising

Contractor, assuring greater control, and eliminating general connactor's markup on

subcontracted scope.

'The MOM remedy in't'Olves the enraction and treatment of ground water from beneath the

site containin& llfJCt chemk:als exceedin& the followin& cleanup standards: PCBs (0.5 parts

per billion (PPB)), 1,4 dichlorobenzene (27ppb) and benzene (Sppb). In the ROD, it is

specified that tltracted around water will be pumped throu&h a granular filter to remove

partiallltes. suspended solids and oil dropleu. 1be around water will then be treated by

annular activ11ed carbon (GAC) to remove orpnic contaminanu. Treated ground water

will be diiCharaed into around water injcctton wells. This system is relatively straight

forward in tenns ofvaJue enpneerin&. Hyd~gic parameters will dictate the eJL:pected

rile the treated ground water can be reinjected. and thus will detennine now rates through

the treatment plant. Proc:eu equipment is selected and sized at 60 percent design. Oppor·

tunities for cost savings will eJL:ist both on an "or equal" basis with al ternate manufacturing

as well u substitutions with alternate equipment, so long as function and quality are

maintained. TheK evaluatiou will be made between 60 and 95 percent design, and

incorporated in the Constructibility Report.

During conceptual desip, CMP decided to suspend MOM Remedial Design at 30 percent

in order to pther more field data and determine if a separate free product oil recovery

phase would be ncctual)'. This phase could be performed prior to Sourct Control soil

ucavation and dewatering to avoid potential reoontaminatton of "dean soils" by the

I r I

Value Engineering Study 60 Percent Remedial Design

-16­

movement of free product oi l on top of the water table. Vacuum -en hanced pumping

systems may be able recover free product oils without lowering water k'Vcls significantly.

Haley and Aldrich. Inc. (H&A) has suggested to the Design Team that two additional

MOM remedial technologies be considered: a proprietary vacuum enhanced pumping

system known as 2-Phase Extraction which simultaneously recovers ground water and soil

vapors and/or linear bedrock blasting, which physically increases subsurface penneability

throu&h :he use of explosives. Both technologies have the p:nential to both reduce active

MOM remediation time and the number of extraction wells required. H&A has estimated

that if the MOM remediation could bt acoomplished in ten years with the 2-Phase

Extraction System rather than thiny years with a conve ntional pump and treat system, net

project savinp could be on the order of S900,CXX>. If the 2-Phase &traccion ca n be

completed in five years, which H&A believes is reasonable to expecc, net project savings

could be on the order of SI ,.SOO,CXX>. Thus, the decision to suspend MOM design to

consider these alternatives is rost-justified. The decision to suspend design at 30 percent

to perform additional field studies. and if warranted, a pilot test of a vacuum enhanced

system is rost-effective since this suspension will not affect the overall schedule of Remedial

Action.

Rigs Brook Monitorin& involves the long tenn monitorin& of wetland biota and sediments

in accordance with the schedule e$1:ablished during Remedial De.sign. The Desip Team has

sugcsted that il would be cost-effect ive to use the same off-site laboratory fo r both Riggs

Brook Monitoring and MOM Verification Testi ng and Analysis.

4. INTERM.EDIATE VALUE ENGINEERING

The 60 percent intennediate design for SC Remedial Action has been developed by the

Design Team, usina the same value engineering approach that was developed during

ronceptual design. Drawings have increased in number and detail, draft spccificatkms have

bun written from the concc pcual oulline, and calculations have been provided as design

backup. In addition, ronuact documents and qualifications of prequatified ron tractors have

been assembled. The Project Operations Plan (POP), Operation and Maintenance Plan and

.... = ~ ~ ~ .

~ ~ s •I ~; z o.O_...

,[~. ·-.n :~ ~m ;:a ~

~~ [

cc

-, r I

-17­

the Wetlands Construction and Monitoring Plan have been wriuen. Value engineering. as

it applies to these activities. is summarized in the followi ng sections.

The 60 percent submittal rontains 14 drawings that detail the sequence of on-site operations

for the SC Remedial Action. These drawings integrate sile utilization, storm water

management, excavalion and stockpiling of comami nat ed material, backfilling of treated

material, and final restoration. A narrative description of the sequence of operations is

found in the 60 percent Design Summary. The development of this detailed sequence of

operations is critical to the bidding contractor's understanding and pricing of the SC

Remedy. The successful Remediation Contractor will be allowed to vary from this sequence

of operations only upon appi'O\'al of an alternate plan by the Supervising Contractor (CMP),

and EPA. The sequence of operations will provide the basis for the SC Remedy schedule,

and wi ll be used by CMP to manage the project.

The level of detail in the 60 percent (lntennediate) oontract documents far exceeds a typical

earthmovine project, where as little as existin& and finish oontours are shown. The space

reatrictions of the Site and the oomplexity of interdependent tasks fully cost justify the

efforts of the Dt.lian Team, since a much clearer understanding is presented to the bidding

oontriCtOr.

Several oost-effective dedsions were made by the Desian Team in developing the sequence

of operations.

4.3 .... De..lilio•

During oonceptual design, lWO methods of demolishi~g the existing bam were discussed.

The bam Hrst will be decontaminated by vacuuming anddeanin& all oontaminated surfaces,

and either cleaning or milling oontaminated portions of the ooncrete slab and foundations .

Demolition was initially discussed as a diunantling operation. A5 dismantling would be a

labor intensive and potentially hazardous operation, the Design Team has provided a gravel

pad over geomembrane to the south and east of the bam to allow separation of oon­

tamlnated soil underneath the pad from cleaned demolition debris from the bam. This pad

will allow the Remediation Contractor to utilize a large excavator or other demolition

I r I

-18­

equipment to pull the structure down [n controlled stages onto the pad, sho uld the

contracto r dctennine thi s method to be more cost-effective. Additionally. an elisting gate

will provide access to the gravel pad directly from Route 17, and not interfere with

construction of the clean access road. An uisting decontamination pad adjacent tO the new

gravel pad will also be used during dcmolilion and loading of debris.

4.4 Sapport Area Ceastructkln

The current sequence of operations has divided construction of support faci lities fo r the soil

treatment process into twO years. Year I will include the Site access road. parking areas.

and portions of the soil processing and stora~ area that do not involve excavation of

contaminated soli. The completion of the support area construction will occur in Year 2,

just prior to winterization. This decision is oost-justified since it will allow the Supervising

and Remediation Conuactors early entry into their suppon areas, and defer excavation of

contaminated soil and debris in 1W A III to the end of the second construction season.

Durin& conceptual desip, the requirement for a water treatment plant for both the SC and

MOM pbues of the Remedy wu discussed. Earty in 60 percent desip, the Design Team

detennined that slpifk:ant cost savinp would be realized by building one treatment plant

capable of handling both phases of treatment. One building would be constructed. and

much of the process equipment needed for treatment of both requirements was similar. The

process equipment was sized on this basis, therefore, with provisions to install equipment

peculiar to the MOM remedy at a later date, when needed .

... 6 Soil SlockpUI•I ..c1 Ceveriq

The Design Team rtcO&flized that the various stockpiles of contaminated material would

need to be covered to minimize generation of contaminated stonn water run off and erosion

of contaminated soil. During Conceptual Otsign, the Design Team envisioned the use of

commercially available temporary structures such as manufactured by Rubb Building Syuems

or Sprung Instant Structurn. A1though usc of these structures is not precluded at 60

percent design, the Design Team has currently specified tarp-type oovers for stockpiles.

Funher lnfonnation regarding the type of cover and installation details will be presented

J

I r I

Value Engineering Study 60 Percent Remedial Design

-19·

during 95 percent design . Use of tarp-type covers, where appropriate, is a cost-effective

decision.

The 60 percent drawinp locate the SCJMOM Water Treatment plant east of the access road. This location inYOlves the construction of a retaining wall to minimize wetland

encroachment and requires pre-demolition of the bam. The Design Team decided to move

the building to the west of the access road. pending eval uation of setback requirements.

Thi s new location will be shown at 95% design. The new location moves th e Treatment

Plant away from the bam, for simpler demolition, and would require only frost walls for a

foundation. The new location alio maintains the Site roadway intersection with Route 17.

and preserves the uisting trees, which provide natural scree ning. The buildinc itself will

screen the Site's nearest neighbor during the Remediation. The decision to relocate the

Treatment ptant Buildina across the access road Is therdore proper and cost-effective.

Contaminated debris identified at the sile includes insulator fragments, scrap metal,wood

and ovenized stona. Stoneslc:obbleslboulders will be classified as ecologic debris if they are

IliFf than the reject screen size in the soil proceuin& plant for solvent extraction.

Additional debris wute streams that were identified during Remedial Design are tree

stumpiand root balls from clearin& contaminated ponions of the Site, bam decontamination

debri1, material currently stored inside the bam, and demolition debris from temporary Site

facilities during final restoration.

Debris with leu than SO ppm PCBs is not regulated under TSCA. and may be disposed of

as Subtitle 0 waste without treatment. Debris with greater than SO ppm PCBs will be

pressure washed or steam<&eaned (without surfactant) in the vehicle wash station to remove

v;ubte soil and stains, and resampled for PCBs.

Durina95 percent dcsip. the Desip Team will evaluate the cost-effectiveness of mobilizing

a debris wash in& technology contractor to treat the remaining debris versus off-site disposal

at a licensed RCRA/TSCA facility without treatment. From a value engineerin& standpoint,

the Design Team has handled the treatment or debris in a cost-effective manner.

I r -,

-20­

4.9 Prouu Water

During the SC portion of the Remedy. a dcpt"ndable source of clean water will be required

for dust control, debris washing. vehicle and equipment decontamination and other uses.

A cost analysis comparing construction of a holding tank in the SC Treatment Plant to store

treated effluent for these uses versus the cost of City of Augusta water was performed. This

analysis detennined that City water would be lw expensive and more dependable during

periods of droupu. Addilionally, the Design Team will consider adding a tee and valve to

the effluent piping of the Treatment Plant to provide process water for tanker uuck.s when

the treatment plant is running.

5. CONCLUSION

ThroUJh 60 percent Remedial Design, the Design Team has provided a value engineered

approach to the Remedy of the O'Connor Company Superfund Site. The Design Team has

considered value enJinetrin& in each or their decisions durin& the design process. and has

sua::cedcd in meetin&the project's requirements fo r quality, function and service in a c:ost­

effeclive manner.