INAAP corrective measures study for process waste settling basin site 6 report Nov 2002

Description:	The final report of corrective measures study for process waste settling basin site 6 at Indiana Army Ammunition Plant prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in November 2002.The United States federal government began acquiring land in Charlestown, Indiana in 1940 to build a smokeless powder ordnance plant to supply the US military during World War II. Indiana Ordnance Works (IOW) Plant 1 and Hoosier Ordnance Plant (HOP) began production in 1941. In 1944, IOW Plant 2 construction began. On 30 Nov 1945 at the end of WWII, the three plants were combined and renamed Indiana Arsenal. Between 1 Nov 1961 and 1 Aug 1963, the plant was designated Indiana Ordnance Plant. After this time, it became Indiana Army Ammunition Plant (INAAP). Production of ordnance continued at the plant until 1992. After that time, the land and facilities were leased to private industry. A large portion of the land became Charlestown State Park. In October 2016, all the land and facilities were officially sold by the government. This item is part of a larger collection of items from INAAP that are kept at Charlestown Library. F I N A L R E P O R TCORRECTIVE MEASURES STUDYFOR PROCESS WASTE SETTLINGBASIN – SITE 6INDIANA ARMY AMMUNITION PLANTPrepared forU.S. Army Corps of EngineersLouisville DistrictNovember 2002Prepared by12120 Shamrock Plaza, Suite 300Omaha, Nebraska 68154TABLE OF CONTENTSQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site 6 final\processwaste_cmsrev1.doc\31-Oct-02 /OMA iExecutive Summary ..........................................................................................................................ES-1Section 1 Project Background....................................................................................................... 1-11.1 Purpose and Scope of Corrective Measures Study .................................. 1-11.2 Environmental Status ............................................................................... 1-11.3 Site History .............................................................................................. 1-2Section 2 Corrective Measure Objectives..................................................................................... 2-12.1 RCRA Corrective Action Goals............................................................... 2-12.2 Development of Media Cleanup Standards ............................................. 2-12.2.1 Current and Future Land Use....................................................... 2-22.2.2 Human Health Risk-Based Cleanup Levels................................. 2-22.2.3 Ecological Risk-Based Cleanup Levels ....................................... 2-32.2.3.1 Approach....................................................................... 2-32.2.3.2 Media and Chemicals of Potential Concern.................. 2-42.2.3.3 Not-To-Exceed Media Cleanup Levels ........................ 2-42.2.3.4 Residual Ecological Exposures..................................... 2-52.2.3.5 Corrective Measure Footprint ....................................... 2-52.2.4 Proposed Media Cleanup Standards ............................................ 2-52.3 Proposed Corrective Measure Objectives................................................ 2-5Section 3 Alternative Development ............................................................................................... 3-13.1 Corrective Measure Approach ................................................................. 3-13.1.1 Range of Potential Corrective Measures...................................... 3-13.1.2 Site Characteristics that Affect Design and Construction ofa Corrective Measure ................................................................... 3-13.1.2.1 Site Environment .......................................................... 3-13.1.2.2 Protection of Endangered Species ................................ 3-23.1.2.3 Areas and Volumes of Contaminated Media................ 3-33.1.2.4 Waste Characterization ................................................. 3-33.1.2.5 Condition of Existing Dam ........................................... 3-33.2 Identification and Screening of Potential Technologies .......................... 3-43.2.1 Initial Screening of Technologies and Process Options .............. 3-43.2.2 Final Screening of Technologies and Process Options................ 3-43.2.2.1 Screening Criteria for Process Options......................... 3-43.2.2.2 Summary of Screening Results..................................... 3-53.3 Identification of Corrective Measure Alternatives .................................. 3-63.3.1 CMA-1, No Action ...................................................................... 3-63.3.2 CMA-2, Dam Rehabilitation with Institutional Controls andMonitoring ................................................................................... 3-63.3.2.1 Description of CMA-2 .................................................. 3-63.3.2.2 Effectiveness-of CMA-2............................................... 3-83.3.2.3 Implementability-of CMA-2......................................... 3-83.3.3 CMA-3, Soil Cover and Dam Rehabilitation............................... 3-93.3.3.1 Description of CMA-3 .................................................. 3-9TABLE OF CONTENTSQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site 6 final\processwaste_cmsrev1.doc\31-Oct-02 /OMA ii3.3.3.2 Effectiveness-of CMA-3............................................. 3-113.3.3.3 Implementability-of CMA-3....................................... 3-113.3.4 CMA-4, Removal and Disposal................................................. 3-123.3.4.1 Description of CMA-4 ................................................ 3-123.3.4.2 Effectiveness-of CMA-4............................................. 3-133.3.4.3 Implementability-of CMA-4....................................... 3-133.3.5 CMA-5, In Situ Treatment and Dam Rehabilitation.................. 3-143.3.5.1 Description of CMA-5 ................................................ 3-143.3.5.2 Effectiveness-of CMA-5............................................. 3-163.3.5.3 Implementability-of CMA-5....................................... 3-16Section 4 Feasibility Level Cost Estimates................................................................................... 4-1Section 5 Detailed Screening of Alternatives............................................................................... 5-15.1 Detailed Screening Criteria...................................................................... 5-15.1.1 Threshold Criteria ........................................................................ 5-15.1.2 Balancing Criteria ........................................................................ 5-15.2 Detailed Screening Evaluation................................................................. 5-25.3 Comparison of Alternatives ..................................................................... 5-25.3.1 Threshold Criteria ........................................................................ 5-35.3.2 Balancing Criteria ........................................................................ 5-3Section 6 Proposed Corrective Measure Alternative................................................................... 6-16.1 Summary of Proposed Corrective Measure Alternative .......................... 6-16.2 Data Gaps and Uncertainties.................................................................... 6-3Section 7 References..................................................................................................................... 7-1List of TablesTable 2-1 Summary of Chemicals of Potential Ecological ConcernTable 3-1 Initial Screening of Remedial Technologies and Process OptionsTable 3-2 Final Screening of Remedial Technologies and Process OptionsTable 4-1 Cost Estimate Summary – CMA 2: Dam Rehabilitation with ICMTable 4-2 Cost Estimate Summary – CMA 3: Soil Cover and Dam Rehabilitationwith ICMTable 4-3 Cost Estimate Summary – CMA 4: Removal and DisposalTable 4-4 Cost Estimate Summary – CMA 5: In Situ Treatment and DamRehabilitation with ICMTable 4-5 Cost Sub-Element – Dam RehabilitationTable 4-6 Cost Sub-Element – MonitoringTable 4-7 Cost Sub-Element – Lined ChannelTable 4-8 Cost Sub-Element – Vegetated Soil CoverTABLE OF CONTENTSQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site 6 final\processwaste_cmsrev1.doc\31-Oct-02 /OMA iiiList of Tables (Continued)Table 4-9 Cost Sub-Element – Treatability StudyTable 4-10 Cost Sub-Element – In Situ TreatmentTable 4-11 Cost Sub-Element – Channel StabilizationTable 4-12 Cost Sub-Element – Soil Sampling to Monitor In Situ TreatmentTable 4-13 Comparison of Total Cost of Corrective Measure AlternativesTable 5-1 Evaluation of Corrective Measure AlternativesTable 5-2 Comparison of Residual Exposure Levels Before and After CorrectiveMeasure ImplementationList of FiguresFigure 1-1 Site Location MapFigure 2-1 Decision Diagram for Development of Corrective Measure ObjectivesFigure 2-2 Site Plan Showing Areas of Contaminated MediaFigure 3-1 Conceptual Site Plan of CMA-3 (Soil Cover and Dam Rehabilitation)Figure 3-2 Conceptual Site Plan of CMA-4 (Removal and Disposal)Figure 3-3 Conceptual Site Plan of CMA-5 (In Situ Treatment and DamRehabilitation)List of AttachmentsAttachment 1 INAAP Dam Rehabilitation Concept ReportList of AppendicesAppendix A Ecological Risk Characterization (Included on CD-ROM)Appendix B Ecological Risk Calculations (Included on CD-ROM)Note: Information contained in the Appendices is included in CD-ROM format. TheCD-ROM may be found at the back of this binder.Executive Summary Process Waste Settling Basin, Site 6, CMSQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site 6 final\processwaste_cmsrev1.doc\31-Oct-02 /OMA ES-1The following Corrective Measures Study (CMS) is based on data collected during the Phase IRemedial Investigation (RI) (Woodward-Clyde, 1998) and the Phase II Resource Conservationand Recovery Act (RCRA) Facility Investigation (RFI) (URS, 2001) completed at Jenny LindPond (Site 25) at the Indiana Army Ammunition Plant (INAAP).INAAP Background. INAAP currently encompasses approximately 9,790 acres in south-centralClark County, Indiana (Figure 1-1). Its southern boundary is approximately 6 miles north ofJeffersonville, Indiana and 10 miles from the Louisville, Kentucky metropolitan area that lies tothe south across the Ohio River. INAAP was a Government-Owned, Contractor-Operated(GOCO) military industrial installation that operated from 1941 to 1998. INAAP is inactive, andthe Army intends to transfer the property to a Local Reuse Authority (LRA) for commercialdevelopment or to the State of Indiana for inclusion in the state park system.Process Waste Settling Basin Background. The Process Waste Settling Basin was formed by theconstruction of a 25-foot high dam with a creosote treated wood overflow structure and spillwayacross the valley of the Jenny Lind Run. The basin received some portion of every effluent fromthe P & E Area (Site 63), including runoff from the Aniline Pond (Site 5) and South Ash SettlingBasin (Site 4), which were discharged to the Jenny Lind Run upstream of the Process WasteSettling Basin. In 1953, the Jenny Lind Flume (Site 54) was constructed to carry processwastewater and treated effluent from the P & E Area Sewage Treatment Plant (Site 10) along theJenny Lind Run. The flume, constructed of creosote treated lumber, emptied onto the ground inthe Jenny Lind Run just above the Process Waste Settling Basin.Scope of CMS. The scope of the CMS for the Process Waste Settling Basin includes:· Identifying remedial alternatives that are tailored to meet the corrective measureobjectives outlined in the Phase II RFI (URS, 2001) and further defined in this report· Developing remedial technologies and process options considered to be suitable for thesite and contaminant characteristics· Screening the corrective measure alternatives using the following criteria:– “Threshold criteria”: Protective of human health and the environment; attain mediacleanup standards; control source(s) of release; and comply with applicable wastemanagement standards– “Balancing criteria”: Long-term reliability and effectiveness; reduction of toxicity,mobility, or volume (TMV) of waste; short-term effectiveness; implementability; andcost· Recommending a proposed corrective measureThis CMS is “focused” in that only five corrective measure alternatives are evaluated in detail.Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments. Development of media cleanup levels specificto human health risk reduction is not warranted based on the results of the human health riskassessment. Carcinogenic risks totaled less than 1x10-5 and summed hazard indices were lessthan 1.0.Executive Summary Process Waste Settling Basin, Site 6, CMSQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site 6 final\processwaste_cmsrev1.doc\31-Oct-02 /OMA ES-2The ecological risk analysis is based on maximizing the reduction of potential exposure in orderto protect receptors while minimizing the extent of any corrective action to conserve resources.The ecological risk-based cleanup levels will reduce residual COPEC exposures to levels belowa threshold of concern. The intent of the cleanup levels developed in this CMS is to protectpopulations, rather than an individual organism, with the notable exception of the gray bat, alisted endangered species.Corrective Measure Objectives. The proposed corrective measure objectives for Site 6 arefocused on reduction of potential risk to ecological receptors. The proposed corrective measureobjectives are:· Reduce potential ecological exposures to all COPECs in the upper 2 feet of soil andsediment within the Process Waste Settling Basin site. Based on conservativemathematical modeling, significant exposure reduction with commensurate reduction inrisk potentials can be achieved by addressing three indicator chemicals as representativeof all COPECs evaluated for the sites. The indicator chemicals and their respective not-to-exceed media cleanup levels are:– Mercury, <3 mg/kg– Total PCBs, <0.1 mg/kg– Methoxyclor, <0.1 mg/kg (Methoxyclor has been found in soil/sediment at othersites within the Jenny Lind Run but not in any samples collected at Process WasteBasin)· Control the potential migration of all COPECs to off-site receptors that may result fromthe transport of contaminated soil and sediment.Alternatives Considered. The following nine Corrective Measures Alternatives (CMA) wereevaluated:· CMA-1: No Action· CMA-2: Dam Rehabilitation with Institutional Controls and Monitoring· CMA-3: Soil Cover and Dam Rehabilitation· CMA-4: Removal and Disposal· CMA-5: In Situ Treatment and Dam RehabilitationRecommended Corrective Measure Alternative. CMA-5 (In Situ Treatment and DamRehabilitation) is recommended as the preferred alternative. The primary elements of CMA-5include:· Selectively clear and regrade the site to develop contours suitable for erosion control.· Install erosion protection along the drainage channel through the basin, near its currentalignment.· Rehabilitate the existing dam to contain contaminated sediments that have filled in theProcess Waste Settling Basin.Executive Summary Process Waste Settling Basin, Site 6, CMSQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site 6 final\processwaste_cmsrev1.doc\31-Oct-02 /OMA ES-3· Introduce microorganisms and soil nutrients to the near-surface soil and sediment toenhance biodegradation of organic contaminants.· Introduce a variety of plant species, some that target extracting or immobilizing inorganiccontaminants and others that develop thick root mats for erosion control.· Restrict land use at the site, complete a baseline site inventory, and monitor the siteannually.CMA-5 has an estimated present worth cost of about $3.5 million. CMA-5 for the followingreasons:· It is protective of human health and the environment (including ecological receptors)· It is equally or more cost-effective than other alternatives that would provide a similardegree of protection· It treats the upper two feet of contaminated soil and sediment (that portion which is“bioavailable”)· It can be implemented with less excavation/earthwork and associated disruption to theexisting habitat than other alternatives with similar levels of protection.CMA-5 will require that the Army retain long-term liability for management of contaminatedmedia left in place, including sampling, analysis, and site inspection and maintenance. CMA –4would eliminate the need for long-term management, but at a high cost estimated to be over $11million.CMA-5 includes the use of in situ treatment technologies to remediate the upper 2 feet of soil onsite. Although the effectiveness of this treatment and the length of time required to achieveprotective levels is uncertain, treatability testing would determine its feasibility prior to the full-scaleimplementation. If treatability testing determines that the use of in situ treatmenttechnologies is not technically feasible or cost-effective, then CMA-3 (Soil Cover and DamRehabilitation) may be recommended as a contingency alternative. If SMA-3 is recommendedas the contingency alternative, it could be readily implemented at a slightly increased cost (about$150,000, the cost of the treatability study) and an increased time to remediate (about one to twoyears, the length of time necessary to complete the treatablity test) over the costs and timeframedescribed for CMA-3 in Section 4.SECTIONONE Project BackgroundQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site 6 final\processwaste_cmsrev1.doc\31-Oct-02 /OMA 1-1This report is the focused Corrective Measures Study (CMS) for the Process Waste SettlingBasin (Site 6) located at the Indiana Army Ammunition Plant (INAAP).1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF CORRECTIVE MEASURES STUDYA Phase I Remedial Investigation (RI) (Woodward-Clyde, 1996) and a Phase II ResourceConservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facility Investigation (RFI) (URS, 2001) have beencompleted to characterize the physical and chemical conditions at the Process Waste SettlingBasin. The purpose of this focused CMS is to identify and evaluate potential remedialalternatives for the Process Waste Settling Basin.INAAP has an Installation Action Plan (IAP) that addresses all Environmental RestorationProgram (ERP) sites at the facility. The IAP includes a brief description of a preliminary siteremedy, an estimated cost to complete, and a schedule for completion. Updates to the IAP arecompleted annually.This CMS is based on data collected during the Phase I RI and Phase II RFI at the Process WasteSettling Basin. The scope of the CMS includes:· Identifying remedial alternatives that are tailored to meet the corrective measureobjectives outlined in the Phase II RFI (URS, 2001) and further defined in this report· Developing remedial technologies and process options considered to be suitable for thesite and contaminant characteristics· Screening the corrective measure alternatives using the following criteria:– “Threshold criteria”: Protective of human health and the environment; attain mediacleanup standards; control source(s) of release; and comply with applicable wastemanagement standards– “Balancing criteria”: Long-term reliability and effectiveness; reduction of toxicity,mobility, or volume (TMV) of waste; short-term effectiveness; implementability; andcost· Recommending a proposed corrective measureThis CMS is “focused” in that only five or fewer corrective measure alternatives are evaluated indetail.1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUSEnvironmental investigations and remediation at INAAP are being completed under the DoD’sDefense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP). The legal foundation for the DERP is theComprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA)and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). Specifically,CERCLA Section 120 applies to Federal Facilities, and SARA Section 211 establishes theDERP. The objectives of DERP are to identify and investigate sites with past hazardous wastedisposal or releases and to address them.SECTIONONE Project BackgroundQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site 6 final\processwaste_cmsrev1.doc\31-Oct-02 /OMA 1-2INAAP formerly had a RCRA permit for open burning of obsolete or spent explosives, and willbe receiving a RCRA post-closure care permit for long-term monitoring of a landfill.Consequently, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) is the leadagency providing oversight for all corrective measure activities at INAAP in accordance with theRCRA corrective action program. IDEM has developed the Risk Integrated System of Closure(RISC) Technical Resource Guidance Document (February 15, 2001) to serve as a flexibleframework for closure of sites under the RCRA corrective action program. The RISC guidance,RCRA corrective action program, and CERCLA remedial program are generally consistent witheach other and should result in similar environmental solutions.1.3 SITE HISTORYINAAP currently encompasses approximately 9,790 acres in south-central Clark County, Indiana(Figure 1-1). Its southern boundary is approximately 6 miles north of Jeffersonville, Indiana and10 miles from the Louisville, Kentucky metropolitan area that lies to the south across the OhioRiver. INAAP was a Government-Owned, Contractor-Operated (GOCO) military industrialinstallation that operated from 1941 to 1998. INAAP is inactive, and the Army intends totransfer the property to a Local Reuse Authority (LRA) for commercial development or to theState of Indiana for inclusion in the state park system.The Process Waste Settling Basin was formed by the construction of a 25-foot high dam with acreosote treated wood overflow structure and spillway across the valley of the Jenny Lind Run.The basin received some portion of every effluent from the Propellants and Explosives (P&E)Area (Site 63), including runoff from the Aniline Pond (Site 5) and South Ash Settling Basin(Site 4), which were discharged to the Jenny Lind Run upstream of the Process Waste SettlingBasin. In 1953, P&E Area Flume (Site 54) was constructed to carry process wastewater andtreated effluent from the P & E Area Sewage Treatment Plant (Site 10) along the Jenny LindRun. The flume, constructed of creosote treated lumber, emptied onto the ground in the JennyLind Run just above the Process Waste Settling Basin.A detailed site history and discussion of previous site investigations is presented in the Phase IIRFI report (URS, 2001).SECTIONTWO Corrective Measure ObjectivesQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site 6 final\processwaste_cmsrev1.doc\31-Oct-02 /OMA 2-1It has already been determined that the Process Waste Settling Basin does not pose imminentthreats to human health and the environment. Therefore, interim action to stabilize the site is notnecessary or appropriate. Using highly conservative assumptions, the following two preliminarycorrective measure objectives were identified during the Phase II RFI to address environmentalcontamination at the sites:· Exposures to chemicals of concern along several ecological pathways exceed establishedbenchmarks. The primary pathways include exposures to chemicals of concern insediment and transport of chemicals of concern in groundwater to downgradient caves.An objective of the corrective measure should be to reduce potential ecological exposuresto acceptable levels through removal, stabilization, treatment, and/or capping.· Carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks to humans meet IDEM and EPA acceptablelevels. Carcinogenic risks totaled less than 1x10-5 and summed hazard indices were lessthan 1.0. Based on this, the CMS does not need to address human health exposures atthis site; however, potential corrective measure alternatives at the Process Waste SettlingBasin should be evaluated in conjunction with the other sites along the Jenny Lind Rundrainage basin.These preliminary corrective measure objectives are further delineated in this section to developproposed final corrective measure objectives for the Process Waste Settling Basin.2.1 RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION GOALSFinal remedies implemented under RCRA are expected to achieve the following “thresholdcriteria”:· Protect human health and the environment· Attain media cleanup standards as appropriate for the current and reasonably anticipatedfuture land uses· Address the source(s) of releases to reduce or eliminate, to the extent practicable, furtherreleases of hazardous constituents that may pose a significant threat to human health orthe environment· Comply with applicable standards for waste management during the corrective measureThe EPA has developed these “threshold criteria” as an initial screening tool for potentialremedies. Remedies that meet the “threshold criteria” are further screened using “balancingcriteria” to identify a final remedy that provides an appropriate combination of attributes.2.2 DEVELOPMENT OF MEDIA CLEANUP STANDARDSOf the four “threshold criteria” listed above, attainment of media cleanup standards requires thedevelopment of standards that are site-specific and media-specific. The term media cleanupstandards typically refers to broad cleanup objectives and often includes:SECTIONTWO Corrective Measure ObjectivesQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site 6 final\processwaste_cmsrev1.doc\31-Oct-02 /OMA 2-2· Media cleanup levels: Media-specific concentrations of hazardous constituentsdeveloped using available regulatory risk-based standards (e.g., maximum contaminantlevels or state standards for drinking water) or site-specific risk assessments.· Point(s) of compliance: Location(s) at which the media cleanup levels are achieved.· Compliance time frame: Time period and schedule according to which the correctivemeasure will be implemented.Site-specific human health and ecological risk assessments have been completed for the ProcessWaste Settling Basin. These risk assessments considered all chemicals of potential concerndetected in environmental media during the Phase I RI and Phase II RFI. The results of the riskassessments are further developed to identify appropriate media cleanup standards based oncurrent and future land use, media and chemicals of concern, and potential exposure pathways.2.2.1 Current and Future Land UseThe Process Waste Settling Basin is a drainage feature within the valley of the Jenny Lind Run.This site was formerly used, when the plant was operating, as a disposal point for wastewaterfrom the P & E Area (Site 63) and other upstream sources emptying into the Jenny Lind Run.Since the end of production at the plant in the early 1970s, this site has not been used for disposalof process wastewater. Therefore, current land use at the Process Waste Settling Basin is “notused”.Institutional controls have already been implemented at the Process Waste Settling Basin in theform of state legislation that restricts the future land use to agricultural, commercial, industrial,or state park. Reasonable future land use is therefore restricted; the site is expected to remain asa drainage feature and will not be used as building sites for residential or commercial/industrialpurposes. A conservative future land use scenario for evaluation of human health risks includestransfer of the property to the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for inclusion inthe state park system.The Jenny Lind Run drainage basin supports a threatened and endangered species, the gray bat,and ecological concerns for the gray bat are expected to have an impact on the media cleanupstandards for the Process Waste Settling Basin. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService (USFWS) is therefore required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for anycorrective measure that will impact the gray bat or its habitat.2.2.2 Human Health Risk-Based Cleanup LevelsDevelopment of media cleanup levels specific to human health risk reduction is not warrantedbased on the results of the human health risk assessment. Carcinogenic risks totaled less than1x10-5 and summed hazard indices were less than 1.0. Refer to Section 7, Human Health RiskEvaluation, of the Process Waste Settling Basin Phase II RFI report for additional informationregarding the risk to human health.SECTIONTWO Corrective Measure ObjectivesQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site 6 final\processwaste_cmsrev1.doc\31-Oct-02 /OMA 2-32.2.3 Ecological Risk-Based Cleanup LevelsMedia cleanup levels specific to ecological risk reductions are presented in the followingsubsections. The media cleanup levels reflect conservative estimates using available site-specificdata, particularly regarding the occurrence, density, and behavior of potential receptors. Becausethese data are somewhat limited, intentionally conservative assumptions have been applied. Theecological risk analysis is based on maximizing the reduction of potential exposure in order toprotect receptors while minimizing the extent of any corrective action to conserve resources.The ecological risk-based cleanup levels developed below will reduce residual COPECexposures to levels below a threshold of concern.2.2.3.1 ApproachThe Process Waste Settling Basin, the former Jenny Lind Pond (Site 25), and a section of theP&E Flume within the Jenny Lind Run have been combined into a single “exposure unit”. Thesites were combined due to the proximity and shared border of these sites and to the presence ofnearly identical ecological habitat features. The ecological receptors selected during the baselineecological risk assessments, which included species representative of both riparian, floodplainforest, and pond habitats, are believed to be functional here. The intent of the cleanup levelsdeveloped in this CMS is to protect populations, rather than an individual organism, with thenotable exception of the gray bat, a listed endangered species.The ecological risk-based media cleanup standards were established following the iterativemethod described by Schulz and Griffin (2001), as well as guidance from Bower et al. (1996)and the National Academy of Sciences (1997, 1999). Two levels are developed within thisprocess, a mean residual exposure concentration and a “not to exceed concentration” (Schultzand Griffin 2001). This approach applies the same methods used in the risk assessments whileiteratively censoring, with background or detection limit replacements, sample locations withinthe exposure unit until the residual exposure level meets an exposure known or believed toassure that no ecological harm would occur. The highest residual chemical concentration is thenthe “not to exceed concentration” and the mean residual exposure concentration is used toestimate residual ecological risk. A flowchart depicting the process is presented as Figure 2-1.This process also results in the establishment of the remedial “footprint” within the exposureunit.Ecological risk-based concentrations are based on published laboratory or field studies to assurethat no undue ecological harm would occur due to the presence of chemical stressors withinapplicable media (i.e., soil, sediment, water, or biological tissues). These ecological risk-basedconcentrations are presented in Appendix A for all ecological receptors. The iterative censoringprocess employed the hazard quotient (HQ) as a metric of exposure and risk potential.In any CMS, uncertainty is relevant. Although uncertainty was unavoidable during thedevelopment of ecological corrective action objectives, most of the uncertainty is associated withthe degree to which exposures have been overestimated. A more detailed discussion of theapproach, assumptions, corrective measure scenarios evaluated, and residual risk analysis ispresented in Appendix A.SECTIONTWO Corrective Measure ObjectivesQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site 6 final\processwaste_cmsrev1.doc\31-Oct-02 /OMA 2-42.2.3.2 Media and Chemicals of Potential ConcernThe applicable media evaluated at the sites include soil, sediment, surface water that maymigrate into underground caves, and biological tissues used as food. The practical extent of“bioavailability” and biological activity is typically limited to the upper 2 feet of near surfacesoils and sediments. In fact, the most important biomass is found in the top 5 to 10 centimeters,the area where the vast majority of soil invertebrates live (Bookhout, 1996). Subsurface soils(soils deeper than 2 feet bgs) are not believed to constitute a complete exposure pathway forecological receptors (except in the limited case of deep-rooted plants). A total of 71 chemicalswere identified as chemicals of potential ecological concern (COPECs) during the ecological riskassessments for the three sites that compose the exposure unit. Two of the COPECs(fluoranthene and methoxychlor) identified in the surface water of Site 54, the P&E Flume, wereonly detected in the section of the flume outside the Jenny Lind Run. Additionally, 2,6-dinitrotoluene was identified as a COPEC for indirect exposures, via the food web, at Site 54 butnot detected within the Jenny Lind Run. Therefore the true number of COPECs within the JennyLind Run is 68.Not all of these COPECs were found to pose a potential risk based on the results of the sites’individual risk assessments. However, the exposure assumptions have been modified and theexposures have been reevaluated because the sites have been combined into a single exposureunit. Additionally, new data were obtained as part of the Tier III investigation of the Jenny LindRun, which specifically addressed the site-specific “bioavailability” of COPECs in a revisedexposure analysis (see Appendix A). This reevaluation and revised analysis identified 23chemicals that are considered candidates for corrective action; however, not all pose a similarrisk for potential ecological harm. These 23 COPECs are listed in Table 2-2.2.2.3.3 Not-To-Exceed Media Cleanup LevelsBased on further analysis of the 23 COPECs that may have significant exposure potentials (Table2-1) and the distribution of these COPECs within the sites, a set of not-to-exceed cleanup levelsfor soil and sediment were found to be effective at reducing estimated exposure potentials in theupper 2 feet. The not-to-exceed media cleanup levels for the Jenny Lind Run are:· 3 mg/kg mercury· 0.1 mg/kg total PCBs· 0.1 mg/kg methoxychlor (Methoxyclor was detected in samples collected at Jenny LindPond (Site 25) and the P&E Area Flume (Site54), but not in samples collected at theProcess Waste Settling Basin; based on the detections of methoxychlor, this chemical iscarried forward for all three Jenny Lind Run sites.)Addressing soil/sediment with contaminant concentrations more stringent than the not-to-exceedcleanup levels would only minimally reduce additional exposure potentials.SECTIONTWO Corrective Measure ObjectivesQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site 6 final\processwaste_cmsrev1.doc\31-Oct-02 /OMA 2-52.2.3.4 Residual Ecological ExposuresThe use of not-to-exceed cleanup levels would be effective in reducing the residual exposuresassociated with all COPECs to levels considered acceptable in water, sediment, soil and biota.However, these residual exposures assume that within the areas targeted for remediation, theselected alternative will be effective for all COPECs.2.2.3.5 Corrective Measure FootprintThe area within the Process Waste Settling Basin where surface soil and sediment samples werefound to contain chemical concentrations at or above the not-to exceed cleanup levels is shownon Figure 2-2. A total of 18 surface soil and sediment samples were collected at the ProcessWaste Settling Basin. This area is based on the interpretation of chemical data along withconsideration of the site topography (narrow valley) and depositional environment (settling andsedimentation). This area represents the remediation footprint that would need to be addressedto achieve the residual ecological exposure levels determined above.2.2.4 Proposed Media Cleanup StandardsThe following media cleanup standards are proposed:· Media of concern: Soil and sediment within 2 feet of the ground surface· Not-to-exceed media cleanup levels: 3 mg/kg mercury, 0.1 mg/kg total PCBs, and 0.1mg/kg methoxychlor (achieving the not-to-exceed media cleanup levels results inacceptable mean residual exposure concentrations for all COPECs)· Points of compliance: The area of the Process Waste Settling Basin and the drainagepoint at the basin’s dam.· Compliance time frame: Since no immediate threat has been identified, any time withinthe next 2 to 5 years should be protective.2.3 PROPOSED CORRECTIVE MEASURE OBJECTIVESThe proposed corrective measure objectives for the Process Waste Basin are focused onreduction of potential risk to ecological receptors. The proposed corrective measure objectivesare:· Reduce potential ecological exposures to all COPECs in the upper 2 feet of soil andsediment within the Process Waste Settling Basin. Based on conservative mathematicalmodeling, significant exposure reduction with commensurate reduction in risk potentialscan be achieved by addressing three indicator chemicals as representative of all COPECsevaluated for the sites. The indicator chemicals and their respective not-to-exceed mediacleanup levels are:– Mercury, <3 mg/kg– Total PCBs, <0.1 mg/kgSECTIONTWO Corrective Measure ObjectivesQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site 6 final\processwaste_cmsrev1.doc\31-Oct-02 /OMA 2-6– Methoxyclor, <0.1 mg/kg (Methoxyclor has been found in soil/sediment at other siteswithin the Jenny Lind Run but not in any samples collected at Process Waste Basin)· Control the potential migration of all COPECs to off-site receptors that may result fromthe transport of contaminated soil and sediment.TABLE 2-1SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL CONCERNSITE 6 - PROCESS WASTE SETTLING BASIN(Organics are in ppb,Inorganics are in ppm)Water Sediment Soil Food Web Lowest RBC ReceptorOrganic COPEC2,4-Dinitrotoluene X X 5.73E+02 BenthosBenzo(a)anthracene X XBenzo(a)pyrene X XBenzo(b)fluoranthene X XBenzo(g,h,i)perylene X XBenzo(k)fluoranthene X XCarbon disulfide X 1.51E+00 BenthosChrysene X XDibenz(a,h)anthracene X XFluoranthene X XIndeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene X XMethoxychlor X 1.86E+01 BenthosPCB 1254 X XPCB 1260 X XPyrene X XTotal HMWPAHs X X 2.30E+03 BenthosTotal PCBs X X 1.79E+01 Gray BatInorganic COPECAluminum X X X 1.46E+04 BackgroundAntimony X X 3.00E+00 BenthosArsenic X X X 1.34E+01 BackgroundBarium X X X 5.00E+02 PlantsCadmium X X 9.26E-01 Gray BatChromium X X X X 6.16E+01 WoodcockCobalt X X X 1.93E+01 BackgroundCopper X X X X 7.16E+01 Gray BatCyanide X X 1.80E+00 PlantsIron X X X 2.50E+05 BenthosLead X X X 1.28E+02 BenthosManganese X X X 1.51E+03 BackgroundMercury X X X X 1.06E+00 BenthosNickel X X X X 1.08E+02 Gray BatSelenium X X X 3.54E+00 BackgroundThallium X X X 3.54E+00 BackgroundVanadium X 1.27E+02 PlantsZinc X X X 1.49E+02 Gray BatNotes:COPEC = chemical of potential ecological concernX = was revealed to pose a potential risk under baseline conditions within the Jenny Lind RunLowest RBC = lowest risk-based concentration among the potentially exposed ecological receptorsHMWPAHs = high molecular weight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbonsPCBs = polychlorinated biphenylsUTFE = used the total concentration for the chemical class for the evaluation of risk (i.e ., Total HMWPAHs and Total PCBs)Receptor = the potentially exposed ecological receptor or receptor group with the lowest RBCBackground = The lowest RBC is below INAAP background levels therefore the background becomes the corrective measure objectiveUTFEUTFEUTFEUTFEUTFEUTFEUTFEUTFEUTFEUTFEUTFEUTFEQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site 6 final\Site 6 Tables_rev1.xls Page 1 of 1 11/4/02Q:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site 6 final\Decision Diagram11x17.docCompare datasets and develop correctivemeasure objectives that will be protective ofboth human health and ecological receptorsEvaluate Corrective Measure Alternatives usingthese corrective measure objectivesYes YesDRN BY:JLVPROJ #45FL99010G.00DATE:06/21/01REVISION:DECISION DIAGRAM FORDEVELOPMENT OF CORRECTIVEMEASURE OBJECTIVESSITE 6 - PROCESS WASTESETTLING BASININDIANA ARMY AMMUNITION PLANTFIG. NO:Select indicator chemical(s) for scenario analysis:Selected chemical(s) should:1. Be widespread within the area being evaluated2. Pose a significant risk potential to multiple ecological receptors3. Be collocated with other COPECsDoes the site pose a riskto ecological receptors?YesEvaluate indicator dataset:1. Locate a logical breakpoint in the ordered results for the indicator chemical (e.g., one subset has all 100mg/kg values and a second subset has 10 mg/kg values with few if any values [sample/locations] in-between)2. Censor all samples above the identified breakpoint in the ordered indicator chemical dataset3. Replace all inorganic data in censored samples with background concentrations for each COPEC4. Replace all organic data in censored samples with one-half reporting limit values for each COPEC1. Recalculate environmental exposure concentrations for all COPEC using censored datasets2. Recalculate all hazard quotients for all COPECs and relevant ecological receptorsEvaluate exposure (risk)reductions:Are all COPEC exposure potentialsreduced?NoSelect alternate oradditional indicatorchemical(s) forscenario analysisYesEvaluate significance ofresidual risks of all COPECs:Are all risks reduced to anacceptable level?NoSelect lower breakpointin indicator chemicaldatasetDoes the site pose arisk to human health?YesSelect chemicals of concernthat contribute to exceedanceof non-carcinogenic HI > 1.0and/or carcinogenic risk> 1x10-5Calculate a cleanup levelbased on a target HI = 1.0 for non-carcinogensand/or a target risk of 1x10-5for carcinogens using appropriate scenariosand receptorsCalculate residual riskwith cleanup levelincorporatedWill all risks bereduced to acceptablelevels?No Re-evaluate chemicalsof concernNoNo Further Actionrequired for humanhealth receptorsNoNo Further Actionrequired forecologicalreceptors2-1SECTIONTHREE Alternative DevelopmentQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site 6 final\processwaste_cmsrev1.doc\31-Oct-02 /OMA 3-1This section presents the development of remedial technologies and assembles technologies intocorrective measure alternatives.3.1 CORRECTIVE MEASURE APPROACH3.1.1 Range of Potential Corrective MeasuresThe proposed corrective measure objective developed in the previous section is aimed atprotection of ecological receptors, with concurrent protection of human health consistent withreasonable future land use (i.e., inclusion in the state park system). In order to achieve theproposed corrective measure objective, this CMS will consider the following range of potentialcorrective measures:· Institutional Controls: Restrict public access to the site through land use restrictions.· Engineering Controls: Implement physical controls (e.g., protective covers or removal) tolimit potential exposure to contaminated media and/or migration of contaminated media.· Treatment: Use in situ and/or ex situ treatment technologies to reduce the toxicity,mobility, and/or volume (TMV) of contaminants.· Monitoring: Monitor the site to ensure that the health and/or environmental protectionachieved by the corrective action is maintained.3.1.2 Site Characteristics that Affect Design and Construction of a Corrective MeasureThe corrective measures listed above may be implemented alone or in combination. Based onthe corrective measure objectives and information obtained during the Phase I RI and Phase IIRFI, the following site-specific characteristics are considered to be relevant to the design andconstruction of a corrective measure at the Process Waste Settling Basin.3.1.2.1 Site EnvironmentAs discussed within the ecological risk assessments for the sites associated with the Jenny LindRun (Sites 6, 25, and the relevant portion of 54), the resident ecological communities (aquaticand terrestrial) are not overly significant in the context of the landscape ecology of the INAAPgrounds. However, the habitat within the Jenny Lind Run is home to the endangered gray bat(Myotis grisescens) whose presence within the run has been confirmed by USFWS. Thisrequires the CMS to address the management objectives, conservation goals, and prescriptionsfor the Jenny Lind Run drainage basin within the context of ecological protection andconservation.The Process Waste Settling Basin is listed on the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory as ariverine wetland. Based on this, activities occurring at wetlands under the jurisdiction ofUSACE are regulated by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Corrective measures work at thesite would likely fall under the provisions of Nationwide Permit 38, Cleanup of Hazardous andToxic Waste, which requires notification of the USACE District Engineer. Depending onSECTIONTHREE Alternative DevelopmentQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site 6 final\processwaste_cmsrev1.doc\31-Oct-02 /OMA 3-2whether the selected alternative involves any dredging or filling of the wetland, some form ofmitigation may also be required.Consideration of impacts to cultural resources is mandated under Section 106 of the NationalHistoric Preservation Act (NHPA) as implemented by 36 CFR Part 800. Requirements includethe need to identify significant historic properties that may be impacted by the proposed action oralternatives. Historic properties are defined as archaeological sites, standing structures, or otherhistoric resources listed in or determined eligible for listing in the National Register of HistoricPlaces (NRHP) (36 CFR 60.4). Prior to commencing the design and construction of the selectedcorrective measure, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) will be contacted to verifythat the proposed project area contains no recorded historic properties.3.1.2.2 Protection of Endangered SpeciesThe ecosystem along the Jenny Lind Run supports the gray bat, a Federally-listed endangeredspecies. The gray bat uses caves in the Jenny Lind Run. An Endangered Species ManagementPlan and Environmental Assessment (ESMP/EA) for the gray bat, Myotis grisescens, has beencompleted (Tetra Tech, draft final, December 1999). The ESMP/EA developed managementobjectives, conservation goals, and prescriptions for the Jenny Lind Run drainage basin. Themanagement prescriptions relevant to this project include:· Incorporating gray bat habitat conservation guidelines into existing INAAP activities thatmight impact the gray bat, including environmental remediation· Protecting bat habitat by:– Prohibiting earth-moving activities and disturbance to natural vegetation within 100feet of a karst feature– Using appropriate erosion control measures to prevent debris from entering the karstfeature when earth-moving activities are done more than 100 feet from a karst featurebut within the drainage area of the karst feature– Prohibiting disturbance of the forest cover· If deviations from the management prescriptions are necessary, ESA Section 7consultation with USFWS Region 3 Bloomington Field Office is necessary to avoid orminimize impacts on the gray batEarthwork activities associated with corrective action, such as clearing and grubbing, placing fill,or excavating and stockpiling materials, would be considered a possible disturbance of the graybat habitat. It is likely that the gray bat forages as far upgradient within the Jenny Lind Run asthe Process Waste Settling Basin, so disturbance of forest cover may be an issue. Additionally,potential disturbance of karst features and erosion of soil/sediment into karst features couldimpact downstream water quality.The Process Waste Settling Basin is in a karst feature. Therefore, all earthwork activities willrequire special erosion control measures to minimize any disruption to karst features that arelikely connected to downgradient drainage and possibly caves. Based on the managementSECTIONTHREE Alternative DevelopmentQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site 6 final\processwaste_cmsrev1.doc\31-Oct-02 /OMA 3-3prescriptions and location of contaminated media within the drainage channel, ESA Section 7consultation is required for any corrective action at the Process Waste Settling Basin involvingcontainment, removal, or treatment.3.1.2.3 Areas and Volumes of Contaminated MediaSediment has filled in behind the existing Process Waste Settling Basin dam, and the sediment isnow about level with the top of the dam throughout the basin. The drainage channel meandersthrough the basin and has formed several backwater areas. The sediment is saturated andunstable, and in its current state is not capable of supporting construction vehicles or workers inmany areas throughout the basin. The estimated depths of sediment range from several feet atthe upstream end of the basin to about 22 feet thick at the dam. The total area of the basin isestimated at about 7.8 acres, and the total volume of sediment behind the dam is estimated atabout 66,000 cubic yards.Contaminated media at the Process Waste Settling Basin include surface soil and sedimentcontaining PCBs and mercury above the not-to-exceed media cleanup levels. The area ofcontaminated media is shown on Figure 2-2. The contaminated media are located in twoseparate areas within the limits of the Process Waste Settling Basin. The upstream area measuresapproximately 150,000 square feet and the downstream area measures about 26,000 square feet.The combined area covers approximately 180,000 square feet, about 4.1 acres. The depth ofcontaminated sediment averages about 8.2 feet below the upstream footprint, and about 11.5 feetbelow the downstream footprint. Using these average depths across the two areas, there is about45,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment below the upstream footprint and about 11,000cubic yards of contaminated sediment below the downstream footprint. The total volume ofcontaminated media within the Process Waste Settling Basin is estimated at about 56,000 cubicyards.3.1.2.4 Waste CharacterizationThe principle contaminants found within the Process Waste Settling Basin include PCBs, PAHs,and metals. One sample of contaminated media has been collected and tested using the toxicitycharacteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) to evaluate whether it is characteristically hazardous.This test result indicated that the sample was not characteristically hazardous. Because a singlesample is not representative of all contaminated media at Process Waste Settling Basin,additional characterization of contaminated media will likely be needed during any correctivemeasure that excavates or removes contaminated media.3.1.2.5 Condition of Existing DamThe Process Waste Settling Basin Dam is located about a mile upstream from the point whereJenny Lind Run discharges into the Ohio River. The dam was constructed in the 1940s. Designdrawings for the dam (dated February 18, 1941) and repair drawings (dated February 22, 1944)have been reviewed, and the dam was visually examined on March 28, 2002 by URS. A reporton these findings, along with options to repair the dam, is presented in Attachment 1.SECTIONTHREE Alternative DevelopmentQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site 6 final\processwaste_cmsrev1.doc\31-Oct-02 /OMA 3-4The Process Waste Settling Basin Dam axis is aligned in a generally north-south orientation. Itis an embankment dam with a concrete core wall reportedly socketed 2 feet into limestone rock.The design crest of the dam is shown as Elevation 485.0 feet, with the spillway crest at Elevation481.0 feet. The structure is shown to have a maximum section about 25 feet high with a crestabout 120 feet long. The earthen sections have approximately 2:1 side slopes. The core wallranges in thickness from 2 to 4 feet. The dam has a wooden sluice gate and sluice box in thevalley bottom and a wooden spillway channel, which passes over the central portion of the damembankment.Most of the upstream portion of the embankment is currently beneath the water surface. It isevident that the top of sediment against the upstream slope is nearly equal to the elevation of thespillway crest. This would result in about 25 feet of sediment at the dam’s maximum section.The dam is badly deteriorated, and the downstream portion of embankment beneath and adjacentto the spillway is severely eroded, exposing portions of the concrete core wall. The dam willneed to be rehabilitated for long-term stability and containment of the sediments behind theupstream embankment. This includes the reconstruction of the downstream portion of theembankment beneath and adjacent to the spillway and the construction of a new spillway. Inaddition, the sluice box should be either removed or properly abandoned and the trees currentlylocated on the embankment should be removed.3.2 IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING OF POTENTIAL TECHNOLOGIES3.2.1 Initial Screening of Technologies and Process OptionsCandidate remedial technologies and process options (which include the various methods ofimplementing a remedial technology) have been reviewed for applicability at the Process WasteSettling Basin. Technologies and process options that are not technically feasible or do not applyto the site conditions and contaminants of concern have been screened out.The evaluation of applicability takes the practical nature of implementation into consideration,given the physical site conditions (e.g., location configuration and topography) and the wastecharacteristics (e.g., chemical types and extent). Remedial technologies and process optionsconsidered to be potentially applicable, based on the initial screening, are listed in Table 3-1.3.2.2 Final Screening of Technologies and Process OptionsThe potentially applicable process options were further evaluated and screened to narrow thefield of potential options to a single (to the extent possible) representative technology or processoption for each general corrective measure category.3.2.2.1 Screening Criteria for Process OptionsThe criteria for screening process options included effectiveness, implementability, and cost, asdescribed below.SECTIONTHREE Alternative DevelopmentQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site 6 final\processwaste_cmsrev1.doc\31-Oct-02 /OMA 3-5EffectivenessThe evaluation of a technology’s effectiveness focuses on three primary considerations:· Ability to address the estimated areas of volumes of contaminated media and to meetcorrective measure objective· Potential effects on human health and the environment during implementation· Reliability and proven performance with respect to site conditions and chemicals ofpotential concernImplementabilityThe evaluation of implementability considers the technical and administrative feasibility of aprocess option. Implementability may be characterized as readily implemented, moderatelydifficult, or difficult to implement relative to other process options under consideration, based onexperience and engineering judgment. The following factors were considered as part of theimplementability evaluation:· Availability and capacity of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities· Availability of equipment and trained workers needed to implement the technologyCostThe cost evaluation was limited to a qualitative cost comparison that considers the capital andoperation, maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) costs of a particular process option. Costswere characterized on a relative basis as low, moderate, or high, based on experience andengineering judgment.3.2.2.2 Summary of Screening ResultsThe evaluation and screening process is presented in Table 3-2. Comments regardingeffectiveness, implementability, and relative cost are also provided in the table. Technologiesare identified as retained or not retained and screening comments are provided to justify theexclusion of process options. Some of the process options may not be effective as stand-alonetechnologies, but have been retained for use in combination with another technology. Thefollowing technologies were retained for assembly into corrective measure alternatives:General Corrective Measure Representative TechnologiesInstitutional Controls Land Use RestrictionsEngineering Controls throughContainmentGrading and Revegetation, Drainage Channel Improvements,Soil Cover, Dam RehabilitationEngineering Controls through Removaland LandfillingMechanical Excavation and Disposal at RCRA Subtitle D or CLandfillTreatment Phytoremediation and In-situ BioremediationMonitoring and Inspection Periodic Soil, Sediment and Surface Water Sampling and SiteInspectionsSECTIONTHREE Alternative DevelopmentQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site 6 final\processwaste_cmsrev1.doc\31-Oct-02 /OMA 3-63.3 IDENTIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE MEASURE ALTERNATIVESCorrective measure alternatives (CMAs) were developed based on the technologies and processoptions that passed the above screening process. The general corrective measures and theirrespective representative technologies were assembled into five CMAs as developed below.3.3.1 CMA-1, No ActionThis alternative assumes that no further corrective action would be implemented at the ProcessWaste Settling Basin. Human health and ecological risks would be those identified in therespective baseline risk assessments presented in the Phase II RFI report (URS, 2001). Thisalternative serves as a baseline to which other alternatives will be compared.3.3.2 CMA-2, Dam Rehabilitation with Institutional Controls and Monitoring3.3.2.1 Description of CMA-2CMA-2 involves rehabilitating the dam to contain the contaminated sediment behind the dam,while using institutional controls to restrict land use at the site and monitoring to track potentialchanges in the location or level of contaminants to help make future risk management decisions.The proposed institutional controls and monitoring include:· Rehabilitate the existing dam to contain the contaminated sediments that have filled inthe Process Waste Settling Basin.· Restrict land use on the site.· Complete a baseline site inventory and annually monitor the site.The existing dam is badly deteriorated and repairs are required for the dam to provide long-termcontainment of contaminated sediments. Access to the Process Waste Settling Basin dam islimited, and mobilization of construction equipment would be via the existing road cut throughthe steep valley embankment. The area south of the existing dam would need to be cleared andleveled to form a construction staging area.Options for the dam rehabilitation are discussed in Attachment 1. Repair of the dam usingcyclopean concrete has been judged to be a technically feasible and cost-effective remedy.Cyclopean concrete consists of large boulder to cobble size rocks with the void spaces betweenthe rocks filled with grout. The dam repairs would generally be completed as follows:· Install temporary erosion controls. Lower the impoundment pool, either by diversion orpumping in order to prevent water from flowing over the spillway. Water pumped fromthe site during dewatering activities will likely contain high levels of total suspendedsolids and will potentially contain some contaminants at levels of concern. Prior to itsdischarge this water will require testing and possibly treatment (e.g., filtration).· Remove trees and stumps from the embankment.SECTIONTHREE Alternative DevelopmentQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site 6 final\processwaste_cmsrev1.doc\31-Oct-02 /OMA 3-7· Excavate the eroded portions of the embankment along both spillway walls, sloping themback to a slope no steeper than 1.5:1. Remove loose and disturbed materials.· Carefully dismantle the spillway deck and sidewalls, leaving the timber framework inplace. Closer examination of the framework and core wall may warrant additionaltemporary lateral support, such as rakers, during construction.· Clean the muck and disturbed material from beneath the spillway area using appropriateequipment. A clamshell may be required.· Reconstruct the downstream embankment section by placing cyclopean concrete in thearea of the old spillway section and into the eroded areas on either side of the spillway.The cyclopean concrete would be placed in approximate 3-foot-thick lifts and groutedprior to placement of subsequent lifts. For cost estimating purposes, a downstream slopeof 2:1 was assumed; however, it may be possible to steepen this slope. Forming alongthe downstream slope will likely be required to constrain the grout flow.· Place riprap along spillway discharge into downstream channel for erosion protection.· Hydroseed the crest and downstream embankment slopes.· Remove temporary sediment and erosion control measures.A hydrologic/hydraulic analysis is required to adequately size and design the new spillway. Thecapacity of the new spillway must be adequate to manage the Spillway Design Flood, whichneeds to be selected based on hazard potential. There are currently no occupied structuresdownstream. There is an existing road and a bridge that cross the Jenny Lind Run about 1,000feet downstream of the Jenny Lind Pond dam (approximately 1.3 miles downstream from theProcess Waste Settling Basin Dam), but this road is not accessible to the public nor is itfrequently traveled. In addition, the flood plain downstream of the Process Waste Settling Basindam becomes quite broad before it empties into the Ohio River. Therefore, it is envisioned that,under current conditions, this dam would not pose a significant hazard to life or property shouldit fail. The primary consequences of a failure would be environmental, with sediments releaseddownstream. For the purposes of this CMS, it is assumed that the dam will be classified as lowhazard and that the typical Spillway Design Flood would be the 100-year storm event. Since thehydrologic/hydraulic analysis has not yet been completed, it is also assumed that the dam’soriginal design would survive the 100-year flood; the embankment and spillway crest would,therefore, be reconstructed to the current design elevations. This will need to be checked duringthe design phase.Institutional controls have already been implemented at the site in the form of state legislationthat restricts the future land use to agricultural, commercial, industrial, or state park. In addition,management prescriptions associated with the ESMP/EA restrict earthmoving operations within100 feet of a karst feature. It is assumed that these management prescriptions would preventman-caused disturbance of any contaminated media that is left in place. Formal deed restrictionsmay be needed if the current restrictions are judged to be inadequate in the prevention of such adisturbance.SECTIONTHREE Alternative DevelopmentQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site 6 final\processwaste_cmsrev1.doc\31-Oct-02 /OMA 3-8The proposed monitoring would include a yearlong, quarterly baseline inventory to develop adatabase for statistical analysis of current site conditions. Annual monitoring and site visitswould follow to document that site conditions remain relatively static. Monitoring wouldinclude collection and analysis of downstream sediment and surface water samples to evaluatepotential off-site contaminant migration. Additional surface water and sediment samples will becollected within the Process Waste Settling Basin to monitor long term conditions present at thesite itself. Subsequent surface water and sediment monitoring may provide an early warning offuture increased exposure potential. A five-year review of the site and controls would be used toassess the effectiveness of this option and to make future risk management decisions.Sediment and surface water samples would be collected from permanent sediment/surface watersampling stations. Permanent sampling stations would provide the ability to collect samplesfrom the same location, with the capability of monitoring sedimentation rates andsediment/surface water quality. The proposed sample stations would be located at two locations,one upstream and another downstream of the Process Waste Settling Basin. The samplingstations would become part of a network of stations along the Jenny Lind Run used to monitormigration of sediment/surface water throughout the water shed.3.3.2.2 Effectiveness-of CMA-2Dam rehabilitation will provide for long-term containment of the contaminated sediments thathave filled in the Process Waste Settling Basin. Annual inspections and a maintenance programwould be required to maintain the dam. Restrictions on current and future land use are expectedto maintain current site conditions (i.e., not used). Land use restrictions would keep humanhealth risks below levels of concern; however, they would not reduce the potential exposure ofecological receptors, which drive risk at the Process Waste Settling Basin. Monitoring is aneffective risk management tool for tracking and evaluating the effect of potential futurecontaminant migration.An important advantage of CMA-2 is that by restricting earthmoving activities in the basin to thearea around the dam, disturbance and migration of contaminated sediments would be minimal.Impact to habitat, such as removal of forest cover, would also be limited to the dam embankmentand staging area. Although this alternative would cause the least amount of short-termdisruption to the habitat, it offers little long-term exposure reduction to the contaminated mediafound at the surface of the basin upstream of the dam. The components of CMA-2 could beimplemented in conjunction with other remedial activities if a short-term disruption of habitatwithin the basin is acceptable to USFWS.3.3.2.3 Implementability-of CMA-2Dam rehabilitation, institutional controls, and monitoring are technically feasible and can bereadily implemented. The dam rehabilitation will require the services of a specialty contractor,but the construction methods are proven and the equipment, labor, and materials are readilyavailable. Stringent erosion control and dust control measures will be required duringconstruction to minimize migration of contaminants during all earthwork activities.SECTIONTHREE Alternative DevelopmentQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site 6 final\processwaste_cmsrev1.doc\31-Oct-02 /OMA 3-9The administrative feasibility may incur some difficulties. The anticipated difficulties wouldinvolve the prohibition of earthwork in a karst feature, prohibition of removal of forest cover,and limitations on construction access between March 15 to October 31. Special approval fromUSFWS would be required to implement this alternative. If approved, close coordination withthe USFWS and IDEM will be required during the planning, construction, and reporting phasesof the design and construction. Design of the dam rehabilitation will require the selection of aSpillway Design Flood, which may require input from DNR dam safety personnel.3.3.3 CMA-3, Soil Cover and Dam Rehabilitation3.3.3.1 Description of CMA-3CMA-3 involves containing the contaminated media beneath a vegetated soil cover and a linedchannel to reduce the potential for direct exposures to ecological receptors and to controlmigration of COPECs caused by erosion and sediment transport. In addition, the damrehabilitation, institutional controls, and monitoring described in CMA-2 are included as acomponent of CMA-3. Specific elements of this alternative include:· Selectively clear and regrade the site to develop contours suitable for runoff andstormwater control.· Construct a 2-foot-thick vegetated soil cover over the areas with contaminated soils andsediments.· Install a liner and erosion protection along the drainage channel through the basin, nearits current alignment.· Rehabilitate the existing dam to contain contaminated sediments that have filled in theProcess Waste Settling Basin.· Restrict land use on the site, complete a baseline site inventory, and annually monitor thesite.A conceptual plan showing the principal elements of CMA-3 is presented on Figure 3-1. Thevegetated soil cover will be placed over an area about 180,000 square feet in size, and thedrainage channel improvements will run the full length of the basin, about 2,100 linear feet.Access to the Process Waste Settling Basin is limited, and mobilization of constructionequipment would be via the existing road cut through the steep valley embankment. The areasouth of the existing dam would need to be cleared and leveled to form a construction stagingarea. In addition, an access road would need to be constructed, using crushed rock andgeotextiles, from this staging area to the west end of the site.The dam rehabilitation would be done as described in CMA-2. The sequencing of damrehabilitation construction with other earthwork activities should be determined during design, ifthis alternative is selected. The dam could be rehabilitated during an initial construction phase,and the soil cover and drainage channel improvements could be constructed as a separate laterphase. The spillway design will need to account for changes in the basin floor elevation thatwould be created by the addition of the soil cover. The soil cover material will decrease thewater storage capacity behind the dam which will result in increased peak flows over theSECTIONTHREE Alternative DevelopmentQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site 6 final\processwaste_cmsrev1.doc\31-Oct-02 /OMA 3-10spillway. As discussed above for CMA-2, a hydrologic/hydraulic analysis will be requiredduring design. An important input to this design is the selection of the appropriate SpillwayDesign Flood.The basin has filled in with sediments to approximately the spillway height of the dam. Thesediments are saturated to the top of the dam, and surface soils along the edge of the sedimentsare unstable due to steep slopes. Heavy construction equipment will not be able to traffic overmuch of the site as it exists; therefore, the site will require dewatering and stabilization forconstruction. Dewatering could be accomplished by lowering the impoundment pool and bypumping water from a series of sumps aligned through the length of the basin. Water pumpedfrom the site during dewatering activities will likely contain high levels of total suspended solidsand will potentially contain some contaminants at levels of concern. Prior to its discharge thiswater will require testing and possibly treatment (e.g., filtration).Unstable areas could be stabilized through the use of pozzolanic agents, geotextiles, geogrids,and/or aggregates, probably used in combination or applied separately in different areas based oncondition. Cutting back through some very steep rock outcrops may also be necessary to providefull access to the basin. It is assumed that the use of explosives will not be permitted by USFW,so the use of mechanical rock ripping equipment will probably be required.After site access and dewatering has been completed, the areas to be covered will be cleared ofexisting vegetation. In general, this activity will consist of hand clearing and use of smallequipment capable of tracking on soft ground. Most of the vegetation to be cleared consists ofgrasses and small shrubs that have grown up over the sediment surface. It may be advantageousto leave some of the vegetation and root mass in place to aid with stability for constructionequipment. Removal of trees that have grown up on the basin floor will be required to install thesoil cover. It may be possible to design the soil cover around some of the stands of larger treesin an effort to meet USFWS goals for protection of bat habitat. The cleared vegetation could bechipped and mulched for use on site during the establishment of the final vegetative cover.The site will be pre-graded to establish even slopes with positive drainage to the channel runningthrough the basin. The channel will be excavated to form a single channel (i.e., unbraided)through the entire length of the basin. The final channel alignment will generally follow theexisting alignment but will have a uniform width and cross section capable of handling runoff forthe design storm event. For purposes of this CMS, it is assumed that the channel will be linedwith a geomembrane that is tied into the soil cover, with stability for the geomembrane providedby a combination of geogrid and compacted soil or rock. The liner would be covered with acombination of crushed rock and riprap to hold the liner in place and protect the liner.Alternatively, a bioengineered, vegetated embankment may be designed to stabilize the channelbanks. A cross section illustrating the channel concept is shown on Figure 3-1.To establish the lined channel, excavation of an estimated 12,000 cubic yards will be required.Since this excavated material would include contaminated sediments, and because there is littlespace available in the basin to stockpile these materials for inclusion beneath the soil cover, it isassumed that these materials will be hauled to a licensed landfill for disposal. It is furtherassumed that 80 percent of the contaminated sediment will Subtitle D solid waste and theSECTIONTHREE Alternative DevelopmentQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site 6 final\processwaste_cmsrev1.doc\31-Oct-02 /OMA 3-11remaining 20 percent will be Subtitle C hazardous waste. The waste would actually becharacterized based on the analytical results of samples collected from the excavation. TheSubtitle D solid waste will be transported to the local RCRA Subtitle D landfill (e.g., ClarkFloyd landfill, located in Clarksville, Indiana, about 20 miles from the site) for disposal. TheSubtitle C hazardous waste will be transported to the nearest Subtitle C landfill.The soil cover will consist of cohesive soil from an uncontaminated borrow source locatedwithin INAAP; it will be imported to the basin and placed in a layer 24 inches thick. It isassumed that the soil cover will be placed directly over the pre-graded basin floor, bound by thechannel edge and the valley wall. Overall long-term erosion protection for the soil cover andchannel will be provided by a combination of vegetation, geotextiles, and rock. The final designof this alternative, if selected, should consider the many materials available to help stabilize thesite and to protect against erosion and migration of contaminated sediment.3.3.3.2 Effectiveness-of CMA-3In the long term, the soil cover, lined drainage channel, and dam will decrease potentialexposures to contaminated media and will subsequently reduce potential ecological exposurerisks. This combination will also limit the potential migration of contaminated media caused byerosion and sedimentation processes.In the short term, this alternative will require considerable disruption to the existing habitat. Thisalternative requires the use of earthmoving equipment throughout the basin. Current estimatesinclude excavation of about 12,000 cubic yards of soils and sediments along the channel andplacement of about 10,000 cubic yards of clay fill for the soil cover and channel work. Sometransport of contaminated sediments through karst features such as cracks, fissures, and sinkholesmay occur during excavation. Existing vegetation, including trees, will be removed in order toestablish the soil cover.The addition of the soil cover will restrict the flow through area within the basin which wouldtend to concentrate flood waters and could lead to severe erosion if not properly designed.Destabilization and erosion of the soil cover is likely to occur over time due to groundwaterseepage from the rocky embankments of the basin into or beneath the cover. Periodic siteinspections and maintenance of the vegetated cover, drainage channel, and dam will be necessaryto maintain the protectiveness of this alternative. The surface water and sediment samplingoutlined in CMA-2 will help to monitor the effectiveness of the alternative.3.3.3.3 Implementability-of CMA-3The activities proposed for CMA-3 present both technical and administrative difficulties.Technical difficulties are associated with constructability and include site remoteness, pooraccess, and instability of sediments and soils. Aside from these constructability issues, theconstruction activities associated with CMA-3 are not particularly challenging and the requiredequipment, manpower, and materials are locally available. Stringent erosion control and dustcontrol measures will be required during construction to minimize migration of contaminantsduring all earthwork activities.SECTIONTHREE Alternative DevelopmentQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site 6 final\processwaste_cmsrev1.doc\31-Oct-02 /OMA 3-12Administrative difficulties involve the prohibition of earthwork in a karst feature, the prohibitionof removal of forest cover, and the limitations on construction access between March 15 toOctober 31. Special approval from USFWS would be required to implement this alternative. Ifapproved, close coordination with the USFWS and IDEM will be required during the planning,construction, and reporting phases of this alternative. Design of the dam rehabilitation willrequire the selection of a Spillway Design Flood, which may require input from DNR dam safetypersonnel. Long-term administrative oversight will be required to maintain the land userestrictions and to oversee the monitoring and maintenance of the constructed improvements.3.3.4 CMA-4, Removal and Disposal3.3.4.1 Description of CMA-4CMA-4 involves removing the contaminated media and transporting it to a permitted landfill.This alternative would eliminate exposure potentials caused by direct contact or migration ofcontaminated media. The proposed removal and disposal activities include:· Remove contaminated soils and sediments where contaminant levels are above mediacleanup standards.· Characterize and dispose of contaminated media in a permitted solid waste landfill(Subtitle D) or a hazardous waste landfill (Subtitle C).· Restore the site by removing the dam, regrading and revegetating the valley slopes, andstabilizing the Jenny Lind Run channel.A conceptual plan showing the excavation depths and other principal elements of CMA-4 ispresented on Figure 3-2. The contaminated soils and sediments will be removed to an estimatedaverage depth of about 8.2 feet in the area of the upstream footprint and to an estimated averagedepth of about 11.5 feet in the area of the downstream footprint, as indicated on Figure 3-2.Removal to these depths is expected, based on the current chemical data set, to leave a layer ofsoil or sediments at least 24 inches thick (the practical extent of “bioavailability”) that does notcontain any of the indicator chemicals at concentrations above their respective not-to-exceedmedia cleanup levels. It should be noted, however, that these indicator chemicals were selectedby censoring surface soil and sediment data, so their application to subsurface soils may requiresome statistical refinement.Site access difficulties will be similar to those described for CMA-3; however, since thisalternative involves removal, unstable sediments can be excavated as construction progessesfrom one end of the basin to the other, and space for stockpiling will not be an issue. Prior toremoval, the site would first be cleared and grubbed of trees and shrubs. Cleared vegetationcould be mulched and reused during the establishment of final vegetation.Heavy construction equipment will not be able to traffic over much of the site as it exists;therefore, the site will require dewatering and stabilization for construction. Dewatering couldbe accomplished by lowering the impoundment pool and by pumping water from a series ofsumps aligned through the length of the basin. Water pumped from the site during dewateringactivities will likely contain high levels of total suspended solids and will potentially containSECTIONTHREE Alternative DevelopmentQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site 6 final\processwaste_cmsrev1.doc\31-Oct-02 /OMA 3-13some contaminants at levels of concern. Prior to its discharge this water will require testing andpossibly treatment (e.g., filtration).The estimated volume of soils and sediments to be excavated is approximately 56,000 cubicyards with an estimated weight of about 84,000 tons. Excavation of the contaminated materialcould be completed using conventional earthmoving equipment. Special erosion controlmeasures would be implemented and maintained during construction to prevent downgradientmigration of soils and sediments. The actual volume of soil to be excavated would be based on astatistical, confirmatory sampling round completed at the excavation’s bottom. If unacceptablecontaminant levels were found, additional excavation would be required and another round ofconfirmatory samples would then be collected and evaluated.Material will be characterized during excavation to determine the final disposal destination.Some of the excavated material may be characteristically hazardous and will need to be handledaccordingly. The Subtitle D solid waste will be transported to the local RCRA Subtitle D landfill(e.g., Clark Floyd landfill, located in Clarksville, Indiana, about 20 miles from the site) fordisposal. The Subtitle C hazardous waste will be transported to the nearest Subtitle C landfill.At present, it is estimated that 20 percent of the excavated material will be disposed of at theSubtitle C landfill.After the removal has been completed, the remaining sediments and soils will be graded toestablish finish site grades with even slopes and positive drainage. The channel will also be re-gradedat this time. The final channel alignment will generally follow the existing alignment.The dam will be demolished and removed from the site. Vegetation in combination withgeotextiles and rock will be used to stabilize the channel and to protect against erosion.3.3.4.2 Effectiveness-of CMA-4The removal of contaminated soils and sediments will eliminate potential ecological risks andcontaminant migration. This alternative would also eliminate the need for long-termmanagement of the site. Disposal of the contaminated material in a solid or hazardous wastelandfill is expected to be a safe and effective means to permanently control the material.However, the government would retain the long-term liability for the waste, which may includesome financial risk if the landfill leaks and causes environmental or human health risks thatwould then require investigation and/or remediation.This alternative will considerably alter the habitat within the Process Waste Settling Basin. Byremoving the contaminated sediments and dam, the site will not hold standing water. In theshort-term, trees and vegetation will be completely removed over the footprint of the basin floor.Considerable disruption is also expected due to the large amount of excavation and potential forsediment transport through karst features such as cracks, fissures, and sinkholes.3.3.4.3 Implementability-of CMA-4The activities proposed for CMA-4 present a few technical and several administrativedifficulties. Technical difficulties are associated with constructability, and include siteSECTIONTHREE Alternative DevelopmentQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site 6 final\processwaste_cmsrev1.doc\31-Oct-02 /OMA 3-14remoteness, poor access, and instability of sediments and soils. Excavation is expected to begenerally easier than installation of a soil cover because most of the unstable materials can beremoved as equipment advances into the basin. Aside from these constructability issues, theconstruction activities associated with CMA-4 are not particularly challenging and can beimplemented using traditional construction techniques and earthmoving equipment. Therequired equipment, manpower, and materials are locally available. Stringent erosion controland dust control measures will be required during construction to minimize migration ofcontaminants during all earthwork activities.Administrative difficulties involve the prohibition of earthwork in a karst feature, the prohibitionof removal of forest cover, and the limitations on construction access between March 15 toOctober 31. USFWS may not approve this alternative because it would significantly alter the bathabitat and it may be determined to be detrimental. If approved, close coordination with theUSFWS and IDEM will be required during the planning, construction, and reporting phases ofthis alternative. Because the contaminated media would be removed and not left on site, long-termadministrative oversight will not be required.3.3.5 CMA-5, In Situ Treatment and Dam Rehabilitation3.3.5.1 Description of CMA-5CMA-5 involves a combination of treatment and containment to address site contaminants.Contaminated media at the surface will be treated through the use of certain plants species,microorganisms, and soil nutrients. Contaminated sediment will be contained through theimproved erosion control of the selected plantings and through the dam rehabilitation. Theprimary elements of this alternative include:· Selectively clear and regrade the site to develop contours suitable for erosion control.· Install erosion protection along the drainage channel through the basin, near its currentalignment.· Rehabilitate the existing dam to contain contaminated sediments that have filled in theProcess Waste Settling Basin.· Introduce microorganisms and soil nutrients to the near-surface soil and sediment toenhance biodegradation of organic contaminants.· Introduce a variety of plant species, some that target extracting or immobilizing inorganiccontaminants and others that develop thick root mats for erosion control.· Restrict land use at the site, complete a baseline site inventory, and monitor the siteannually.The components of CMA-5 are shown on Figure 3-3. The area that would be treated measuresan estimated 180,000 square feet, or about 4.1 acres. The dam rehabilitation, land use restriction,and monitoring described for CMA-2 will be included as part of this alternative. However,additional monitoring is necessary to record the progress of the treatment. The sequencing ofdam rehabilitation construction with the in situ treatment activities should be determined duringSECTIONTHREE Alternative DevelopmentQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site 6 final\processwaste_cmsrev1.doc\31-Oct-02 /OMA 3-15design, if this alternative is selected. The dam could be rehabilitated as a separate constructionphase from the in situ treatment.Complete development of the treatment component of CMA-5 is difficult at this time becauseadditional data are needed to identify the appropriate plant species and microorganismsnecessary to address the COPECs. Additional information is also needed regarding soil types,properties and soil chemistry to aid in the design. At this time use of one or more of thefollowing in situ treatment options are considered feasible:· Bioremediation – the use of microorganisms including yeast, fungi, or bacteria to degradecontaminants under aerobic or anerobic conditions· Phytostabilzation – the use of plants to immobilize contaminants in soil throughabsorption and accumulation by roots, adsorption onto roots, or precipitation within theroot zone of plants, and the use of plants to prevent contaminant migration via wind andwater erosion, leaching, and soil dispersion· Rhyzodegradation – the breakdown of contaminants to less toxic materials throughmicrobial activity enhanced by the presence of plants’ rhizospheres, or root zones· Phytovolatilization – the use of plants to extract contaminants from soil or water andrelease them to the atmosphere; in this case it would involve the use of transgenic plantsto convert toxic methylmercury and ionic mercury [Hg(II)] to greatly detoxifiedelemental mercury [Hg(0)], which would then be released to the atmosphere in very lowconcentrationsBecause of these data limitations, the alternative description in this report is somewhat generic.It should be noted that individually each of the above technologies have been proven tosuccessfully treat contaminants at other sites. However, completion of a treatability study will benecessary to determine the effectiveness of one or more of the technologies under the siteconditions. It is assumed that treatability testing, which may include both bench and pilot scalestudies, will be completed to aid in identification of the appropriate microorganisms, soilamendments, and plant species necessary to remediate the site.Site access and dewatering issues will be similar to those described for CMA-3, except that thesite will not need to be dewatered to the same depth because only limited excavation is plannedunder this alternative. As in CMA-3, water pumped from the site during dewatering activitieswill likely contain high levels of total suspended solids and will potentially contain somecontaminants at levels of concern. Prior to its discharge this water will require testing andpossibly treatment (e.g., filtration).After site access and dewatering have been completed, the areas targeted for treatment will becleared or partially cleared of existing vegetation. In general, this activity will consist of handclearing and use of small equipment capable of tracking on soft ground. It may be advantageousto leave some of the vegetation and root mass in place for two reasons: the existing plants mayexhibit the phytoremediation characteristics desired for long-term use at the site, and the existingplant mass will help improve soil stability for construction equipment. Limited removal of treesSECTIONTHREE Alternative DevelopmentQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site 6 final\processwaste_cmsrev1.doc\31-Oct-02 /OMA 3-16is likely to be required throughout the bottom of the basin; however, the larger trees can be left inplace in order to meet USFWS goals for protection of bat habitat.Depending on the results of the research, the biodegradation of the contaminants may occuraerobically, anaerobically, or as a combination of both. Inoculated or indigenous cultures, alongwith nutrients and other soil amendments, will be introduced to the near surface soils andsediments to a depth of 12 to 24 inches. The cultures and nutrients could be applied by diskingor tilling. Alternately, a shallow injection of a slurried mixture may be required in areas that aretoo unstable to till. Following the above site preparation, the selected plant species will beintroduced and established. Hand planting will likely be required in unstable areas. It may benecessary to eliminate some existing vegetation immediately prior to planting. This may be donethrough a controlled burn or an applied herbicide, as allowed by USFWS.3.3.5.2 Effectiveness-of CMA-5The dam rehabilitation and phytostabilization will limit the potential for migration ofcontaminated media caused by erosion and sedimentation processes. Treatment of contaminatedmedia through bioremediation, rhyzoremediation, and phytovolatilization is expected to decreasepotential exposures to contaminated media and to subsequently reduce potential ecological andhuman health risks. Although both technologies have been demonstrated to be effective, theircombined effectiveness at the Process Waste Settling Basin can not be predicted based onexisting data. The design will require treatability testing to select and develop microorganismcultures, stands of plants, soil nutrients and admixtures, and planting schemes.Short-term impacts due to construction of this alternative would be more than those for damrehabilitation alone (i.e., CMA-2), but would be considerably less than those associated witheither the soil cover or removal alternatives. Impact to habitat, such as removal of forest cover,would be limited to the dam embankment, staging area, and selected areas of the site where othertypes of vegetation have been judged to provide greater benefit due to their phytoremediationcharacteristics. Areas that are cleared of vegetation will be quickly regrown and any impactshould not last longer than a single growing season.Periodic site inspections and maintenance of the vegetation, drainage channel, and dam will benecessary to maintain the protectiveness of this alternative. In addition to the surface water andsediment sampling outlined in CMA-2, additional sampling will be needed to document theprogress of treatment. It may be necessary to modify the treatment based on analysis of thesampling results. Modifications may include further inoculations of microorganisms and/ornutrients, as well as planting of different plant species.3.3.5.3 Implementability-of CMA-5The activities proposed for CMA-5 may present some technical difficulties, including thoseassociated with site accessibility and the identification of appropriate plant species. Difficultiesmay also arise with respect to the identification of appropriate microorganisms and plants thatare capable of addressing multiple chemical types without accumulating toxic concentrations ofchemicals. This alternative is innovative in that it would combine bioremediation withSECTIONTHREE Alternative DevelopmentQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site 6 final\processwaste_cmsrev1.doc\31-Oct-02 /OMA 3-17phytoremediation for treatment of several types of chemical wastes; therefore, there is no recordof proven reliability at similar sites. However, use of plants to stabilize sites against erosion andsediment transport (i.e., phytostabilization) is a proven and reliable technology that will beincorporated into the final design. Treatability testing, which may include both bench-scale andpilot-scale testing, should be completed before full-scale implementation.The construction activities can be implemented using traditional construction equipment andlabor. The required equipment, manpower, and materials are generally available locally.Stringent erosion control and dust control measures will be required during construction tominimize migration of contaminants during all earthwork activities.Administrative difficulties are the same as those described for CMA-2, and involve theprohibition of earthwork in a karst feature, the prohibition of removal of forest cover, and thelimitations on construction access between March 15 and October 31. Special approval fromUSFWS would be required to implement this alternative. If approved, close coordination withthe USFWS and IDEM will be required during the planning, construction, and reporting phasesof this alternative. Design of the dam rehabilitation will require the selection of a SpillwayDesign Flood, which may require input from DNR dam safety personnel. Long-termadministrative oversight will be required to maintain the land use restrictions and to oversee themonitoring and maintenance of the constructed improvements.TABLE 3-1INITIAL SCREENING OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND PROCESS OPTIONSSITE 6 - PROCESS WASTE SETTLING BASINGeneral CorrectiveMeasure Technology Process Option Description ApplicabilityNo Action None None Do nothing to achieve corrective action objectives. Yes, as baseline for comparison purposes.Institutional Actions Land UseRestrictionDeed Restrictions Place restrictions on property deed to control future land use. Yes.Perimeter Fence Install fencing around contaminated areas to control site access. No. Method not effective in preventing access to ecological receptors.Grading andRevegetationGrade soils/sediments to develop positive drainage and revegetatewith native plant species to control erosion.Yes.Armoring Install rip-rap or other engineered surface over prepared subgrade toenhance erosion control, prevent resuspension of sediments duringflooding, and reduce potential ecological contact with contaminatedsurface soils/sediments.Yes.Drainage ChannelImprovementsRealign drainage channel to eliminate braiding; install a liner anderosion controls to prevent the migration of contaminated sediment.Yes.Dam Rehabilitation Repair existing dam to stabilize dam using compacted soil, rollercompacted concrete, rock, or cyclopean concrete. May involve re-sizingspillway, depending on the Spillway Design Flood.Yes.Vegetated SoilCoverInstall 24 inches of soil over a pre-graded surface to reduce potentialecological contact with contaminated surface soils/sediments,enhance erosion control, and reduce potential leaching togroundwater.Yes.Geomembrane Cap Install impermeable geomembrane barrier over contaminatedsoils/sediments to reduce potential ecological contact withcontaminated surface soils/sediments, enhance erosion control, andreduce potential leaching to groundwater.Yes.Multi-layered Cap Install cap consisting of impermeable barrier, drainage layer, andprotective cover layer over contaminated soils/sediments to reducepotential ecological contact with contaminated surfacesoils/sediments, enhance erosion control, and reduce potentialleaching to groundwater.No. Multi-layered cap will not provide additional protection over othertypes of covers given site conditions.Asphalt orConcrete CapInstall asphalt or concrete over contaminated vadose zone soils toreduce potential ecological contact with contaminated surfacesoils/sediments, enhance erosion control, and reduce potentialleaching to groundwater.No. Asphalt/concrete cap typically used only where final land use is aparking lot.MechanicalExcavationExcavate contaminated soils and sediments from source areas fortreatment or disposal.Yes.Dredging Dredge contaminated soils and sediments from source areas fortreatment or disposal.No. Area can be dewatered to eliminate the need to dredge.Off-site RCRASubtitle D LandfillDispose of contaminated soil excavated from the source area in anexisting off-site Subtitle D (solid waste) landfill.Yes.Off-site RCRASubtitle C LandfillDispose of contaminated soil excavated from the source area in anexisting off-site Subtitle C (hazardous waste) landfill.Yes.On-site Landfill Dispose of contaminated soil excavated from the source area in anew landfill constructed on site or at the existing on-site landfill.No. New landfill is not compatible with future land use alternatives andexisting landfill has been closed to further disposal.Engineered Controls SurfaceEnhancementContainmentSoil/SedimantRemovalLandfill DisposalQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site 6 final\Site 6 Tables_rev1.xls Page 1 of 3 11/4/02TABLE 3-1INITIAL SCREENING OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND PROCESS OPTIONSSITE 6 - PROCESS WASTE SETTLING BASINGeneral CorrectiveMeasure Technology Process Option Description ApplicabilityNaturalAttenuationAllow naturally occurring processes (e.g. dispersion, volatilization,biodegradation, adsorption, and chemical reactions) to reducecontaminant levels.No. Natural attenuation processes may not occur at a sufficient rate tonaturally reduce concentrations contaminants to acceptable levels.Composting Ex-situ treatment. Contaminated soil is excavated and mixed withbulking agents and organic amendments such as wood chips, hay,manure, and vegetative (e.g., potato) wastes. Proper amendmentselection ensure adequate porosity and provides a balance of carbonand nitrogen to promote thermophilic, microbial activity.No. Heavy metals may be toxic to microorganisms. Specifically used toremediate nitrocellulose fines.Phytoremediation In-situ treatment. Uses plants to remove, transfer, stabilize and/ordestroy contaminants. Contaminants may be either organic orinorganic. Typically not effective on strongly sorbed contaminants,such as PCB.Yes, but it requires testing to define plant species and may not remediatesoils as deep as two feet. Typically not effective at treating PCBs.EnhancedBioremediationIn-situ treatment. The activity of naturally occurring microbes isstimulated through the addition of nutrients or other amendments toenhance in situ biological degradation of organic contaminants orimmobilization of inorganic contaminants. Typically will have to beused in conjunction with another technology to address metals.Yes.AcidExtractionEx-situ treatment. Soil is first segregated. Then an acidic solvent isintroduced to preferentially remove the metal contaminant whileleaving non-regulated metals intact. Metal-laden solvent is thentreated to recover the metal contaminant for recycling.No. Higher clay content may reduce extraction efficiency and requirelonger contact times.ThermalDesorptionEx-situ treatment. Wastes are heated to volatilize water and organiccontaminants. A carrier gas or vacuum system transportsvolatilized water and organics to the gas treatment system.Yes.Soil Flushing In-situ treatment. Water, or water containing an additive to enhancecontaminant solubility, is applied to the soil or injected into theground water to raise the water table into the contaminated soilzone. Contaminants are leached into the ground water, which is thenextracted and treated.No. Low permeability or heterogeneous soils are difficult to treat.Soil Washing Ex-situ treatment. Contaminants sorbed onto fine soil particles areseparated from bulk soil in an aqueous-based system on the basis ofparticle size. The wash water may be augmented with a basicleaching agent, surfactant, pH adjustment, or chelating agent to helpremove organics and heavy metals.Yes.Dehalogenation Ex-situ treatment. Reagents are added to soils contaminated withhalogenated organics. The dehalogenation process is achieved byeither the replacement of the halogen molecules or thedecomposition and partial volatilization of the contaminants.Yes, but process is limited to the chlorinated compounds.Solidification/StabilizationIn-situ treatment. Contaminants are physically bound or enclosedwithin a stabilized mass (solidification), or chemical reactions areinduced between the stabilizing agent and contaminants to reducetheir mobility (stabilization).Yes.Treatment BiologicalPhysical/ChemicalQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site 6 final\Site 6 Tables_rev1.xls Page 2 of 3 11/4/02TABLE 3-1INITIAL SCREENING OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND PROCESS OPTIONSSITE 6 - PROCESS WASTE SETTLING BASINGeneral CorrectiveMeasure Technology Process Option Description ApplicabilityOxidation/ReductionEx-situ treatment. Oxidation/Reduction chemically convertshazardous contaminants to non-hazardous or less toxic compoundsthat are more stable, less mobile, and/or inert. The oxidizing agentsmost commonly used are ozone, hydrogen peroxide, hypochlorites,chlorine, and chlorine dioxide.No. Less effective against nonhalogenated VOCs and SVOCs, fuelhydrocarbons, and pesticides.Solvated ElectronTechnologyProcess uses alkali or alkaline earth metals dissolved in a variety ofsolvents to produce a solution of free electrons and metal cations.Ideally suited for treating mixed wastes.Yes.Monitoring Site Monitoring Sampling andInspectionPeriodically sample soil, sediment, and/or surface water to evaluatepotential contaminant migration. Inspect the site for erosion andsigns of environmental stress.Yes.Treatment(Continued)Physical/Chemical(Continued)Q:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site 6 final\Site 6 Tables_rev1.xls Page 3 of 3 11/4/02TABLE 3-2FINAL SCREENING OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND PROCESS OPTIONSSITE 6 - PROCESS WASTE SETTLING BASINGeneralCorrectiveMeasure TechnologyProcessOption Effectiveness Implementability Relative Cost (1)Retain?No Action None None Does not address any corrective action objective. No action required. No capital.No O&M.YesInstitutionalControlsLand UseRestrictionsDeedRestrictionsLimits potential human exposures and future activitiesthat may cause erosion of contaminated sedimentthrough legally restricting future land use. Does notreduce exposures to ecological receptors.Feasible given site use and planned future use. Surveyand legal assistance required. Periodic future reviewsrequired.Low capital.Low O&M.YesGrading andRevegetationBeneficial for erosion and runoff control, but wouldleave contaminants on the surface and may requireadditional corrective action to be effective. Reducespotential ecological exposures to cave resources causedby migration of contaminated sediment.Routine earthwork constructibility is easy after accessimprovements and dewatering. Requires Section 7 ESAconsultation for approval.Low capital.Low O&M.YesArmoring Provides significant protection against erosion andtransport of contaminated sediment. Eliminates orreduces all potential ecological sediment-exposureissues. Would also result in significant reduction ofterrestrial ecological exposure potentials due to deeprooted plants and direct exposures to fossorial animals.Routine earthwork constructibility is easy after accessimprovements and dewatering. Requires Section 7 ESAconsultation for USFWS approval.Low capital.Medium O&M.YesDrainageChannelImprovementsBeneficial to control surface water flow through basin,but would leave most contaminated sediment in place.Reduces exposed surface area of contaminated sedimentand aquatic foodweb exposure potentials.Routine earthwork constructibility is easy after accessimprovements and dewatering. Requires Section 7 ESAconsultation for USFWS approval.High capital.Low O&M.YesDamRehabilitationProvides containment of sediment trapped behind dambut would leave contaminated sediment in place.Controls flow of water through the basin. Reducespotential ecological exposures to cave resources causedby migration of contaminated sediment.Construction safety and difficult access will be majordesign issues. Requires Section 7 ESA consultation forUSFWS approval.High capital.Low O&M.YesVegetatedSoilCoverEliminates or reduces exposure in upper 24 inches ofland. Eliminates aquatic foodweb exposures as well aspotential ecological sediment-exposures. Would alsoresult in significant reduction of terrestrial ecologicalexposure potentials to due deep rooted plants and directexposures to fossorial animals.Routine earthwork constructibility is easy after accessimprovements and dewatering. Requires Section 7 ESAconsultation for USFWS approval.Medium capital.Low O&M.YesSurfaceEnhancementEngineeringControlsContainmentQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site 6 final\Site 6 Tables_rev1.xls Page 1 of 3 11/4/02TABLE 3-2FINAL SCREENING OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND PROCESS OPTIONSSITE 6 - PROCESS WASTE SETTLING BASINGeneralCorrectiveMeasure TechnologyProcessOption Effectiveness Implementability Relative Cost (1)Retain?Containment(Continued)GeomembraneCapEliminates or reduces exposure in upper 24 inches ofland. Eliminates aquatic foodweb exposures as well aspotential ecological sediment-exposures. Would alsoresult in significant reduction of terrestrial ecologicalexposure potentials to due deep rooted plants and directexposures to fossorial animals. Does not provide asignificant degree of additional protection over a soilcover for the added cost.Routine earthwork constructibility is easy after accessimprovements and dewatering. Requires Section 7 ESAconsultation for USFWS approval.High capital.Low O&M.NoRemoval MechanicalExcavationEliminates or reduces contaminant source material.Eliminates aquatic foodweb exposures and all potentialecological sediment-exposures, with temporarydestruction of aquatic community. Would also result insignificant reduction of terrestrial ecological exposurepotentials.Routine earthwork constructibility is easy. RequiresSection 7 ESA consultation for USFWS approval.Medium capital.No O&M.YesOff-siteSubtitle DLandfillEliminates or reduces potential for future release ofcontaminants into environment through controlledcontainment.Requires off-site transport and consumes landfill space. Low capital.No O&M.YesOff-siteSubtitle CLandfillEliminates or reduces potential for future release ofcontaminants into environment through controlledcontainment.Requires off-site transport and consumes landfill space. High capital.No O&M.YesPhytoremediation Eliminates or reduces contaminant mass throughprocesses including phytoextraction, phytodegradationand rhizodegradation. Transfers contaminants fromsoil/water to atmosphere in very low concentrationsthrough phytovolatilization. Eliminates or reducescontaminant migration through processes includingphytostabilization. Eliminates or reduces potential forRequires research to determine which plants can be usedfor rhyzoremediation and phytostatilization. The depthof the treatment zone is determined by plants used inphytoremediation. In most cases, it is limited to shallowsoils. Treatment may be seasonal. Some concern withanimal vectors.Low capital.Medium O&M.YesEnhancedBioremediationEliminates or reduces contaminant mass throughbiodegradation processes. Eliminates or reducespotential for future release of contaminants intoenvironment through treatment.Requires research to determine appropriatemicroorganisms and enhancements that can be used tooptimize remediation. The depth of the treatment zoneis typically five feet or less. Treatment activity may beseasonal.Low capital.Medium O&M.YesDisposalEngineeringControls(Continued)Treatment BiologicalQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site 6 final\Site 6 Tables_rev1.xls Page 2 of 3 11/4/02TABLE 3-2FINAL SCREENING OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND PROCESS OPTIONSSITE 6 - PROCESS WASTE SETTLING BASINGeneralCorrectiveMeasure TechnologyProcessOption Effectiveness Implementability Relative Cost (1)Retain?ThermalDesorptionEliminates contaminant mass. Eliminates or reducespotential for future release of contaminants intoenvironment through treatment.Commercially available process that requires minimaltreatability testing. Particle size and materials handlingrequirements that can impact applicability or cost atcertain sites. Heavy metals may produce a treated solidresidue that requires stabilization. Clay and silty soilsand high humic content soils increase reaction time as aresult of contaminant binding.High capital.No O&M.NoSoilWashingEliminates or reduces contaminant mass. Eliminates orreduces potential for future release of contaminants intoenvironment through treatment.Commercially available process that requires minimaltreatability testing. Complex waste mixtures (e.g.,metals with organics) make formulating washing fluiddifficult. High clay content will decrease effectiveness.High capital.No O&M.NoDehalogenation Eliminates or reduces contaminant mass. Eliminates orreduces potential for future release of contaminants intoenvironment through treatment.Commercially available process that requires minimaltreatability testing. High clay and moisture content willincrease treatment costs.High capital.No O&M.NoSolidification/StabilizationEliminates or reduces migration potential byimmobilizing contaminants within soil.Commercially available process that requires minimaltreatability testing. Eliminates all potential ecologicalexposures but also renders site uninhabitable forecological receptors for a significant period of time.The solidified material may hinder future site use.Plants will not grow in solidfied mass. Certain wastesare incompatible with different processes. Treatabilitystudies are generally required. Organics are generallynot immobilized.Medium capital.No O&M.NoSolvatedElectronTechnologyEliminates or reduces contaminant mass. Eliminates orreduces potential for future release of contaminants intoenvironment through treatment.Commercially available process that requires minimaltreatability testing. Produce byproduct salts that may betoxic to ecological receptors.High capital.No O&M.NoMonitoring Monitoring Sampling andInspectionUseful to document site conditions and to evaluatepotential migration and changes in concentrations withtime. Necessary to monitor effectiveness of anyconstructed corrective action.Technical staff and laboratories are readily available.Required for any action that leaves contaminants inplace.Low capital.Medium O&M.Yes(1) Relative cost presents subjective costs (high, medium, low) as compared to other process options within a particular technology group.Physical/ChemicalTreatment(Continued)Q:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site 6 final\Site 6 Tables_rev1.xls Page 3 of 3 11/4/02SECTIONFOUR Feasibility Level Cost EstimatesQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site 6 final\processwaste_cmsrev1.doc\31-Oct-02 /OMA 4-1Cost estimates have been prepared to compare costs among the various corrective measurealternatives and to assist in making a site-specific risk management decision. The cost estimatesinclude capital costs, annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, periodic costs and presentworth cost as defined below:· Capital costs are expenditures required to construct or install the corrective measure.Capital costs include only the expenditures that are initially incurred to implement anaction, including engineering design and construction costs. Capital costs do not includethe costs required to operate and maintain the corrective measure throughout its lifetime.· Annual O&M costs are those post-construction costs necessary to ensure or verify thecontinued effectiveness of a remedial action. They include all labor, equipment, andmaterial costs associated with activities such as monitoring, site inspections, and repairsto constructed improvements.· Periodic costs are those post-construction costs that occur periodically (but not at anannual frequency). For this CMS, periodic costs include five year review meetings heldto evaluate the overall effectiveness of the corrective measure.· The present worth cost is the amount of money needed in the base year to cover thefuture costs associated with a particular time period at a particular interest or discountrate. Computation of the present worth cost allows for comparison of future costsdiscounted to a base year. For this CMS, a discount rate of 7 percent was used. The baseyear for the estimate is 2002.Contingency costs have been added to both the capital costs and O&M costs to help reduce therisk of possible cost overruns. Contingencies are used to cover unknowns, unforeseencircumstances, or unanticipated conditions that cannot be determined from the known data. Thetwo types of contingencies added are scope contingency and bid contingency. Scopecontingencies account for changes and refinements to the scope of work that occur during finaldesign as well as changes that may occur during construction. Scope contingencies includeprovisions for the inherent uncertainties in characterizing contaminated media volumes andextent. Bid contingencies cover unknown costs associated with construction or implementingthe project scope. Bid contingencies account for such items as the economic conditions at timeof bidding, weather conditions, material supply conditions, and geotechnical unknowns.Cost estimate summaries for CMA-2 through CMA-5 are provided in Tables 4-1 through 4-4.Cost worksheets for specific sub-elements of the various alternatives are provided in Tables 4-5through 4-12. Comments and/or assumptions used to develop the costs, along with quantityestimates, are listed for each line item within the cost estimate tables. The unit prices andgeneral cost estimating data were obtained based on cost estimating references (e.g., RS Means2001), cost estimates for similar work, vendor quotes, guidance documents, and engineeringjudgment. A comparison of costs among the various alternatives is provided in Table 4-13.The cost estimates presented in this CMS are intended to provide an accuracy range of –30 to+50 percent of actual cost. The actual project cost will depend on actual labor and materialcosts, productivity, competitive market conditions, actual project scope and schedule, and othervariable factors. As a result of these factors, the actual project cost is likely to vary from theestimates provided in this study. Funding needs should be carefully evaluated, taking thesefactors into consideration before budgets are established.TABLE 4-1COST ESTIMATE SUMMARYCMA 2: DAM REHABILITATION WITH ICMSITE 6 - PROCESS WASTE SETTLING BASINSite: Process Waste Settling Basin (Site 6) Description:Location: Charlestown, INPhase: CMSBase Year: 2002Date:CAPITAL COSTSDESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL NOTES/ASSUMPTIONSConstructionBaseline SamplingQuarterly Monitoring 4 LS $7,549 $30,196 See sub-elementInstall Sampling Station 2 EA $2,500 $5,000 Fiberglass or plastic basinSubtotal $35,196Site PreparationConstruction Staging Area 1 LS $110,000 $110,000(50,000 sf area, excavate into bank, geotextile andcrushed rock along basin, culvert for ditch along accessroad)Dewatering 30 DAY $250 $7,5004 dia. trash pump , 300 GPM, weekly discharge tests,filtration/settling basin downstream of dam, includeslaborErosion Controls 1 MO $1,000 $1,000 Silt fencing/bales and laborSubtotal $118,500Site WorkDam Rehabilitation 1 LS $358,641 $358,641 See sub-elementSubtotal $358,641Contractor Overhead and Profit 20% $102,467Construction Subtotal $614,805Contingency 30% $184,441 20% scope + 10% bidConstruction Total $799,246EngineeringProject Management 6% $47,955 % of construction totalPre-Design Investigation 1 LS $10,000 $10,000Institutional Controls 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 Survey and legal descriptionRemedial Design 12% $95,910 % of construction totalMonitoring Plans 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 WP, QAPP, HSP, Dam O&MConstruction Management 8% $63,940 % of construction totalEngineering Total $242,804TOTAL CAPITAL COST $1,042,051ANNUAL O&M COSTSDESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL NOTES/ASSUMPTIONSO&M ActivitySite MonitoringAnnual Visit and Monitoring 1 LS $7,549 $7,549 See sub-elementSubtotal $7,549Dam MaintenanceErosion Control/Vegetation Care 1 LS $3,586.41 $3,586 1% of rehab costSubtotal $3,586Contingency 30% $3,341 20% scope + 10% bidO&M Activity Subtotal $14,476EngineeringProject Management 10% $1,448 % of O&M activity subtotalTechnical Support 15% $2,171 % of O&M activity subtotalEngineering Subtotal $3,619TOTAL ANNUAL O&M COST $18,095Repair dam to control migration, restrict future landuse, and monitor.November 4, 2002Q:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site 6 final\Site 6 CMS Cost_rev1.xls Page 1 of 2 11/4/02TABLE 4-1COST ESTIMATE SUMMARYCMA 2: DAM REHABILITATION WITH ICMSITE 6 - PROCESS WASTE SETTLING BASINSite: Process Waste Settling Basin (Site 6) Description:Location: Charlestown, INPhase: CMSBase Year: 2002Date:Repair dam to control migration, restrict future landuse, and monitor.November 4, 2002PERIODIC COSTSDESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL NOTES/ASSUMPTIONSFive Year ReviewsSite Visit and Meeting 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 4 people, 1 dayPlan Addenda 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 WP, QAPP, HSP (as found necessary)Subtotal $10,000Contingency (% of Sum) 30% $3,000 % of periodic costsTOTAL PERIODIC COSTS $13,000PRESENT VALUE ANALYSISTOTAL TOTAL COST DISCOUNT PRESENTCOST TYPE YEAR COST PER YEAR FACTOR (7%) VALUE NOTESCapital Cost 0 $1,042,051 $1,042,051 1.0000 $1,042,051Annual O&M Cost 1-30 $542,851 $18,095 12.4090 $224,541Periodic Cost 5 $13,000 $13,000 0.7130 $9,269Periodic Cost 10 $13,000 $13,000 0.5083 $6,608Periodic Cost 15 $13,000 $13,000 0.3624 $4,711Periodic Cost 20 $13,000 $13,000 0.2584 $3,359Periodic Cost 25 $13,000 $13,000 0.1842 $2,395Periodic Cost 30 $13,000 $13,000 0.1314 $1,708$1,663,000 $1,294,642PRESENT VALUE TOTAL $1,295,000Q:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site 6 final\Site 6 CMS Cost_rev1.xls Page 2 of 2 11/4/02TABLE 4-2COST ESTIMATE SUMMARYCMA 3: SOIL COVER AND DAM REHABILITATION WITH ICMSITE 6 - PROCESS WASTE SETTLING BASINSite: Process Waste Settling Basin (Site 6) Description:Location: Charlestown, INPhase: CMSBase Year: 2002Date:CAPITAL COSTSDESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL NOTES/ASSUMPTIONSConstructionGeneral CondtionsMobilization/Demobilization 1 LS $15,000 $15,000Submittals and Plans 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 WP, CQCP, EPP, SSHP, SWPPTemporary Facilities 6 MO $2,000 $12,000 Office trailer, fencing & signs, decon facilityH&S Meetings/Monitoring 6 MO $4,000 $24,000 Weekly crew meetingPost-Construction Submittals 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 As-builts, QC test reportsSubtotal $86,000Baseline SamplingQuarterly Monitoring 4 LS $7,549 $30,196 See sub-elementInstall Sampling Station 2 EA $2,500 $5,000 Fiberglass or plastic basinSubtotal $35,196Site PreparationConstruction Staging Area 1 LS $110,000 $110,000(50,000 sf area, excavate into bank, geotextileand crushed rock along basin, culvert for ditchalong access road)Dewatering 120 DAY $250 $30,0004 dia. trash pump , 300 GPM, weekly dischargetests, filtration/settling basin downstream ofdam, includes laborErosion Controls 6 MO $1,000 $6,000 Silt fencing/bales and laborAccess Road 1,500 LF $107 $160,500 (100 sf. geotextile/lf. road, 120 cf. crushedrock/lf. road, includes laborSubtotal $306,500Site WorkDam Rehabilitation 1 LS $358,641 $358,641 See sub-elementSoil Cover 4.1 ACRE $78,986 $323,841 See Sub-elementChannel 2,100 LF $794.13 $1,667,683 See Sub-elementQC Testing 5% $99,576 5% of soil cover and channel construction costSubtotal $2,449,742Contractor Overhead and Profit 20% $575,488Construction Subtotal $3,452,925Contingency 30% $1,035,878 20% scope + 10% bidConstruction Total $4,488,803EngineeringProject Management 5% $224,440 % of construction totalPre-Design Investigation 1 LS $20,000 $20,000Institutional Controls 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 Survey and legal descriptionRemedial Design 8% $359,104 % of construction totalMonitoring Plans 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 WP, QAPP, HSP, Dam O&MConstruction Management 6% $269,328 % of construction totalEngineering Total $897,873TOTAL CAPITAL COST $5,386,675Repair dam to control migration, installvegetated soil cover to reduce exposure andmigration, restrict future land use, and monitor.November 4, 2002Q:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site 6 final\Site 6 CMS Cost_rev1.xls Page 1 of 2 11/4/02TABLE 4-2COST ESTIMATE SUMMARYCMA 3: SOIL COVER AND DAM REHABILITATION WITH ICMSITE 6 - PROCESS WASTE SETTLING BASINSite: Process Waste Settling Basin (Site 6) Description:Location: Charlestown, INPhase: CMSBase Year: 2002Date:Repair dam to control migration, installvegetated soil cover to reduce exposure andmigration, restrict future land use, and monitor.November 4, 2002ANNUAL O&M COSTSDESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL NOTES/ASSUMPTIONSO&M ActivitySite MonitoringAnnual Visit and Monitoring 1 LS $7,549 $7,549 See sub-elementSubtotal $7,549Site MaintenanceDam 1 LS $3,586.41 $3,586 1% of rehab costSoil Cover and Channel 1 LS $19,915.24 $19,915 1% of construction cost of soil cover andchannelSubtotal $23,502O&M Activity Subtotal $31,051Contingency 30% $9,315 20% scope + 10% bidO&M Activity Total $40,366Engineering During O&MProject Management 10% $4,037 % of O&M activity totalTechnical Support 20% $8,073 % of O&M activity totalEngineering Subtotal $12,110TOTAL ANNUAL O&M COST $52,476PERIODIC COSTSDESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL NOTES/ASSUMPTIONSFive Year ReviewsSite Visit and Meeting 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 4 people, 1 dayPlan Addenda 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 WP, QAPP, HSP (as found necessary)Subtotal $10,000Contingency (% of Sum) 30% $3,000 % of periodic costsTOTAL PERIODIC COSTS $13,000PRESENT VALUE ANALYSISTOTAL TOTAL COST DISCOUNT PRESENTCOST TYPE YEAR COST PER YEAR FACTOR (7%) VALUE NOTESCapital Cost 0 $5,386,675 $5,386,675 1.0000 $5,386,675Annual O&M Cost 1-30 $1,574,268 $52,476 12.4090 $651,170Periodic Cost 5 $13,000 $13,000 0.7130 $9,269Periodic Cost 10 $13,000 $13,000 0.5083 $6,608Periodic Cost 15 $13,000 $13,000 0.3624 $4,711Periodic Cost 20 $13,000 $13,000 0.2584 $3,359Periodic Cost 25 $13,000 $13,000 0.1842 $2,395Periodic Cost 30 $13,000 $13,000 0.1314 $1,708$7,039,000 $6,065,895PRESENT VALUE TOTAL $6,066,000Q:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site 6 final\Site 6 CMS Cost_rev1.xls Page 2 of 2 11/4/02TABLE 4-3COST ESTIMATE SUMMARYCMA 4: REMOVAL AND DISPOSALSITE 6 - PROCESS WASTE SETTLING BASINSite: Process Waste Settling Basin (Site 6) Description:Location: Charlestown, INPhase: CMSBase Year: 2002Date:CAPITAL COSTSDESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL NOTES/ASSUMPTIONSConstructionGeneral CondtionsMobilization/Demobilization 1 LS $15,000 $15,000Submittals and Plans 1 LS $35,000 $35,000 WP, CQCP, EPP, SSHP, SWPP, SAP, T&DPlanTemporary Facilities 6 MO $2,000 $12,000 Office trailer, fencing & signs, decon facilityH&S Meetings/Monitoring 6 MO $4,000 $24,000 Weekly crew meetingAir Monitoring 6 MO $10,000 $60,000 Perimeter air monitoring for particulatePost-Construction Submittals 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 As-builts, QC test reports, Closure ReportSubtotal $171,000Baseline SamplingQuarterly Monitoring 4 LS $7,549 $30,196 See sub-elementInstall Sampling Station 2 EA $2,500 $5,000 Fiberglass or plastic basinSubtotal $35,196Site PreparationConstruction Staging Area 1 LS $110,000 $110,000(50,000 sf area, excavate into bank, geotextileand crushed rock along basin, culvert for ditchalong access road)Dewatering 120 DAY $250 $30,0004 dia. trash pump , 300 GPM, weekly dischargetests, filtration/settling basin downstream ofdam, includes laborErosion Controls 6 MO $1,000 $6,000 Silt fencing/bales and laborSubtotal $146,000Site WorkClearing and Grubbing 2 AC $3,175 $6,350 12 diam treesDam demolition 9,000 CF $25.00 $225,000 Concrete core removal, framing removal, haul toClark-Floyd landfill (20 mi)Excavation/Loading 56,423 CY $3.82 $215,536 Excavating: (300 H.P. dozer, common earth,300 haul)Haul and disposal of subtitle Dsolid waste45,138 CY $47.31 $2,135,498 Assume 80% of excavated material is Subtitle D,hauled to Clark-Floyd landfill (20 mi), includestipping fee ($20/ton, 1.5 ton/cy)Haul and disposal of subtitle Chazardous waste11,285 CY $253.00 $2,855,004 Assume 20% of excavated material is Subtitle C,hauled to Roachdale, IN (145 mi), includestipping fee ($85/ton,
Origin:	2002-07-23
Source:	http://indianamemory.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15078coll17/id/33746
Collection:	Clark County Collections
Rights:	http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/
Copyright:	Charlestown-Clark County Public Library provides access to these materials for educational and research purposes and makes no warranty with regard to their use for other purposes. The written permission of the copyright owners and/or holders of other rights such as publicity and/or privacy rights is required for distribution, reproduction, or other use of protected items beyond that allowed by fair use or other statutory exemptions. There may be content that is protected as works for hire copyright held by the party that commissioned the original work and/or under the copyright or neighboring-rights laws of other nations. Responsibility for making an independent legal assessment of an item and securing any necessary permissions ultimately rests with persons desiring to use the item.
Geography:	Charlestown, Clark County, Indiana 38.4357546,-85.6577676
Subjects:	Maps Indiana Ordnance Works (U.S.) Hoosier Ordnance Plant Indiana Arsenal Indiana Army Ammunition Plant Explosives Industry--Indiana Gunpowder, Smokeless Ordnance manufacture Black powder manufacture Facility One ICI Americas Inc Clark County (Ind.) Charlestown (Ind.) United States. Army Ordnance and Ordnance Stores INAAP

Further information on this record can be found at its source.