INAAP corrective measures study for south ash settling basin & aniline pond sites 4 & 5 report Jul 2002
| Description: |
INAAP corrective measures study for south ash settling basin & aniline pond sites 4 & 5 report Jul 2002The revised final report of corrective measures study for south ash settling basin & aniline pond sites 4 & 5 at Indiana Army Ammunition Plant prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in July 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. R E V I S E D F I N A L R E P O R TCORRECTIVE MEASURES STUDY FORSOUTH ASH SETTLING BASIN &ANILINE POND – SITES 4 & 5INDIANA ARMY AMMUNITION PLANTPrepared forU.S. Army Corps of EngineersLouisville DistrictJuly 2002Prepared by12120 Shamrock Plaza, Suite 300Omaha, Nebraska 68154TABLE OF CONTENTSQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site4&5 final\anilinesouthash_cmsrev3 (revised final).doc\23-Jul-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 ................................2-22.2.2.1 Media and Chemicals of Potential Concern .................2-22.2.2.2 Potential Exposure Pathways.......................................2-32.2.2.3 Calculation of Human Health Risk-Based CleanupLevels .........................................................................2-32.2.2.4 Summary of Results ....................................................2-42.2.3 Ecological Risk-Based Cleanup Levels ......................................2-42.2.3.1 Approach.....................................................................2-42.2.3.2 Media and Chemicals of Potential Concern .................2-52.2.3.3 Preliminary Not-To-Exceed Media CleanupLevels .........................................................................2-62.2.3.4 Residual Ecological Exposures....................................2-62.2.3.5 Summary of Results ....................................................2-62.2.4 Proposed Media Cleanup Standards ...........................................2-62.3 Proposed Corrective Measure Objectives...............................................2-7Section 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 Resident Ecological Communities ...............................3-13.1.2.2 Protection of Endangered Species................................3-23.1.2.3 Areas and Volumes of Contaminated Media................3-23.1.2.4 Waste Characterization................................................3-3TABLE OF CONTENTSQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site4&5 final\anilinesouthash_cmsrev3 (revised final).doc\23-Jul-02 /OMA ii3.2 Identification and Screening of Potential Technologies..........................3-33.2.1 Initial Screening of Technologies and Process Options ..............3-33.2.2 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....................................3-43.3 Identification of Corrective Measure Alternatives..................................3-53.3.1 CMA-1, No Action....................................................................3-53.3.2 CMA-2, Institutional Controls and Monitoring ..........................3-53.3.2.1 Description of CMA-2.................................................3-53.3.2.2 Effectiveness-of CMA-2..............................................3-63.3.2.3 Implementability-of CMA-2........................................3-63.3.3 CMA-3, Containment with Institutional Controls andMonitoring.................................................................................3-63.3.3.1 Description of CMA-3.................................................3-63.3.3.2 Effectiveness-of CMA-3..............................................3-83.3.3.3 Implementability-of CMA-3........................................3-83.3.4 CMA-4, Removal and Disposal .................................................3-93.3.4.1 Description of CMA-4.................................................3-93.3.4.2 Effectiveness-of CMA-4............................................3-103.3.4.3 Implementability-of CMA-4......................................3-103.3.5 CMA-5, Solidification with Institutional Controls andMonitoring...............................................................................3-103.3.5.1 Description of CMA-5...............................................3-103.3.5.2 Effectiveness-of CMA-5............................................3-113.3.5.3 Implementability-of CMA-5......................................3-11Section 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 ...................................................................5-2TABLE OF CONTENTSQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site4&5 final\anilinesouthash_cmsrev3 (revised final).doc\23-Jul-02 /OMA iii5.3.1 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..................................................................6-1Section 7 References...........................................................................................................................7-1TABLE OF CONTENTSQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site4&5 final\anilinesouthash_cmsrev2.doc\13-Jun-02 /OMA ivList of TablesTable 2-1 Human Health Risk-Based Cleanup LevelsTable 2-2 Chemicals of Potential Ecological Concern and Preliminary RiskBased ConcentrationsTable 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: Institutional Controls andMonitoring (ICM)Table 4-2 Cost Estimate Summary – CMA 3: Containment with ICMTable 4-3 Cost Estimate Summary – CMA 4: Removal and LandfillTable 4-4 Cost Estimate Summary – CMA 5: Solidification with ICMTable 4-5 Cost Sub-Element – MonitoringTable 4-6 Cost Sub-Element – Channel ConstructionTable 4-7 Cost Sub-Element – Vegetated Soil CoverTable 4-8 Cost Sub-Element – SolidificationTable 4-9 Cost Sub-Element – Karst ImprovementTable 4-10 Comparison of Total Cost of Remedial AlternativesTable 5-1 Evaluation of Corrective Measure AlternativesTable 5-2 Residual Exposure Levels for the Organic COPECs Based onCorrective AlternativesTable 5-3 Residual Exposure Levels for the Inorganic COPECs Based onCorrective AlternativesList of FiguresFigure 1-1 Site Feature MapFigure 2-1 Decision Diagram for Development of Corrective Measure ObjectivesFigure 2-2 Site Plan with Ecological Risk-Based ConcentrationsFigure 3-1 Site Plan of Soil Cover and Solidification Area (Alternatives 3 and 5)Figure 3-2 Site Plan with Depth of Excavations for Alternative 4List of AppendixesAppendix A Ecological Risk CharacterizationAppendix B Ecological Risk CalculationsNote: Information contained in the Appendices is included in CD-ROM format. The CD-ROMmay be found at the back of this binder.South Ash Settling Basin &EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Aniline Pond (Sites 4 & 5)Q:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site4&5 final\anilinesouthash_cmsrev3 (revised final).doc\23-Jul-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 the South AshSettling Basin (Site 4) and the Aniline Pond (Site 5) 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.Site Background. The South Ash Settling Basin intermittently received slurried ash from thesouth coal-fired power plant from 1941 to 1972. The South Ash Settling Basin also receivedwastewater from the production of nitrobenzene, aniline, diphenylamine, and dimethylaniline,and may have received nitrocellulose waste (ASI 1994). The Aniline Pond was utilized from1940 through 1957. During World War II and the Korean Conflict, the Aniline Pond receivedwastewater from the production of nitrobenzene, aniline, diphenylamine, and dimethylaniline,and may have received nitrocellulose waste (USATHAMA 1980).Scope of CMS. The scope of the CMS for Sites 4 and 5 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 measure alternativeThis CMS is “focused” in that only five corrective measure alternatives are evaluated in detail.Human Health and Ecololgical Risk Assessments. The risk assessment resulted in a Hazard Index(HI) in excess of 1.0 for the hypothetical construction worker exposed to diphenylamine insurface soil, subsurface soil, and sediment at the South Ash Settling Basin and iron in surfacesoil, subsurface soil, and sediment at the Aniline Pond. The human health risk assessment foundSouth Ash Settling Basin &EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Aniline Pond (Sites 4 & 5)Q:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site4&5 final\anilinesouthash_cmsrev3 (revised final).doc\23-Jul-02 /OMA ES-2no other chemicals, carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic, that exceeded IDEM’s target for humanhealth risk.The 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 chemical of potential ecologicalconcern (COPEC) exposures to levels below a threshold of concern. The intent of the cleanuplevels developed in this CMS is to protect populations, rather than an individual organism, withthe notable exception of the gray bat, a listed endangered species. A total of 34 organiccompounds and 21 inorganic compounds were identified as COPECs during the ecological riskassessments for the two sites. All of these chemicals indicated some potential for risk due todirect exposures to impacted soil or sediment in the upper two feet at either the Aniline Pond orthe South Ash Settling Basin.Corrective Measure Objectives. The two sets of preliminary not-to-exceed media cleanup levelsfor the Aniline Pond and the South Ash Settling Basin are:· ³ 100 mg/kg DPA and/or ³ 500 mg/kg copper (Preliminary Not-To-Exceed CleanupLevel Set 1)· ³ 100 mg/kg DPA, ³ 500 mg/kg copper, and/or ³ 100 mg/kg lead (Preliminary Not-To-Exceed Cleanup Level Set 2)Addressing soil/sediment with more stringent levels than the Preliminary Not-to-Exceed CleanupLevel Set 2 would only minimally reduce additional exposure potentials.Alternatives Considered. The following five Corrective Measures Alternatives (CMAs) wereevaluated:· CMA-1: No Action· CMA-2: Institutional Controls and Monitoring (ICM)· CMA-3: Containment with ICM· CMA-4: Removal and Landfill· CMA-5: Solidification with ICMRecommended Corrective Measure Alternative. Based on the results of this CMS, CMA-3Containment with Institutional Controls and Monitoring is recommended as the preferredalternative. CMA-3 is recommended because it is protective of human health and theenvironment and is more cost-effective than other alternatives designed to provide a similardegree of protection. In addition, CMA-3 uses proven and reliable technology that is easily andreadily implementable. CMA-3, however, requires that the Army to retain long-term liability formanagement of contaminated media left in place, including sampling, analysis, and soil coverinspection and maintenance.The components of CMA-3 are outlined below:South Ash Settling Basin &EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Aniline Pond (Sites 4 & 5)Q:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site4&5 final\anilinesouthash_cmsrev3 (revised final).doc\23-Jul-02 /OMA ES-3· Institutional Controls– Land use restriction imposed on site use to prevent development on site, with futureadministrative checks to ensure that no development occurs· Long-Term Monitoring– Quarterly surface water and sediment sampling during the first year of the correctiveaction to develop a baseline– Annual surface water and sediment sampling during the remainder of the correctiveaction to compare against the baseline results to evaluate the effectiveness of thecontainment– Semi-annual site inspections and repair of the soil cover and drainage channel asnecessary to maintain long-term effectiveness· Containment– Containment of all areas of the site with contaminated media (soil or sedimentcontaining indicator chemicals above media cleanup standards)– Clearing vegetation and grading the site to develop positive drainage throughout– Installation of a 2-foot-thick vegetated soil cover– Drainage channel and outlet structure improvementsSECTIONONE BackgroundQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site4&5 final\anilinesouthash_cmsrev2.doc\13-Jun-02 /OMA 1-1This report is the focused Corrective Measures Study (CMS) for the Aniline Pond (Site 5) andSouth Ash Settling Basin (Site 4) 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 Aniline Pond and SouthAsh Settling Basin. The purpose of this focused CMS is to identify and evaluate potentialremedial alternatives for the Aniline Pond and South Ash Settling Basin. The Aniline Pond andSouth Ash Settling Basin are being addressed as a single site in this CMS because they are nearlycontiguous and contaminants of concern are similar.This CMS is based on data collected during the Phase I RI and Phase II RFI at the Aniline Pondand South Ash Settling 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 BackgroundQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site4&5 final\anilinesouthash_cmsrev2.doc\13-Jun-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 HISTORYThe Indiana Army Ammunition Plant (INAAP) currently encompasses approximately 9,790acres in south-central Clark County, Indiana (Figure 1-1). Its southern boundary isapproximately 6 miles north of Jeffersonville, Indiana and 10 miles from the Louisville,Kentucky metropolitan area that lies to the south across the Ohio River. INAAP was aGovernment-Owned, Contractor-Operated (GOCO) military industrial installation that operatedfrom 1941 to 1998. INAAP is inactive, and the Army intends to transfer the property to a LocalReuse Authority (LRA) for commercial development or to the State of Indiana for inclusion inthe state park system.The Aniline Pond was utilized from 1940 through 1957. During World War II and the KoreanConflict, the Aniline Pond received wastewater from the production of nitrobenzene, aniline,diphenylamine, and dimethylaniline, and may have received nitrocellulose waste (USATHAMA1980). The South Ash Settling Basin intermittently received slurried ash from the south coal-firedpower plant from 1941 to 1972. The South Ash Settling Basin also received wastewaterfrom the production of nitrobenzene, aniline, diphenylamine, and dimethylaniline, and may havereceived nitrocellulose waste (ASI 1994).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_site4&5 final\anilinesouthash_cmsrev2.doc\13-Jun-02 /OMA 2-1It has already been determined that the Aniline Pond and South Ash Settling Basin sites do notpose imminent threats to human health and the environment. Therefore, interim action tostabilize the sites is not necessary or appropriate. Using highly conservative assumptions, thefollowing two preliminary corrective measure objectives were identified during the Phase II RFIto address environmental contamination at the sites:· Concentrations of chemicals of concern along several ecological pathways exceedestablished benchmarks. However, the primary pathways are exposures to chemicals ofconcern in sediment and transport of chemicals of concern in groundwater todowngradient caves. An objective of the corrective measure should be to reducepotential ecological exposures to acceptable levels through removal, stabilization,treatment, and/or covering.· At the Aniline Pond and South Ash Settling Basin, carcinogenic risks to humans meetIDEM and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acceptable risk levels.However, non-carcinogenic risks slightly exceed acceptable levels. An objective of thecorrective measure should be to reduce human exposures to soil and sediment in theupper two feet at both sites to acceptable levels through institutional controls, engineeringcontrols, and/or treatment.These preliminary corrective measure objectives are further delineated in this section to developproposed final corrective measure objectives for the Aniline Pond and South Ash 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 use· 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_site4&5 final\anilinesouthash_cmsrev2.doc\13-Jun-02 /OMA 2-2· Media cleanup levels: Media-specific concentrations of hazardous constituents developedusing available regulatory risk-based standards (e.g., maximum contaminant levels orstate standards for drinking water) or site-specific risk assessment.· 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 AnilinePond and South Ash Settling Basin sites. These risk assessments considered all chemicals ofpotential concern detected in environmental media during the Phase I RI and Phase II RFI. Theresults of the risk assessments are further developed to identify appropriate media cleanupstandards for the two sites, based on current and future land use, media and chemicals ofconcern, and potential exposure pathways.2.2.1 Current and Future Land UseThe Aniline Pond and South Ash Settling Basin sites are drainage features at the headwaters toJenny Lind Run. The Aniline Pond and South Ash Settling Basin sites were formerly used, whenthe plant was operating, as a disposal point for wastewater from production and powergeneration. Since the end of production at the plant in the early 1970s, these sites have not beenused for disposal of process wastewater. Therefore, current land use at both sites is “not used”.Institutional controls have already been implemented at both sites in the form of State legislationthat restricts the future land use to agricultural, commercial, industrial, or State park. Reasonablefuture land use is therefore restricted, and the sites are expected to remain as drainage featuresand will not be used as building sites for residential or commercial/industrial purposes. Aconservative future land use scenario for evaluation of human health risks iscommercial/industrial use.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 a major impact on the mediacleanup standards for the two sites. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) is therefore required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for any correctivemeasure that will impact the gray bat or its habitat.2.2.2 Human Health Risk-Based Cleanup LevelsMedia cleanup levels specific to human health risk reduction are developed in the followingsubsections.2.2.2.1 Media and Chemicals of Potential ConcernThe results of the human health risk assessment indicated that soil and sediment in the upper twofeet are the only media that pose a potential noncarcinogenic human health risk. The riskassessment resulted in a Hazard Index (HI) in excess of 1.0 for the hypothetical constructionSECTIONTWO Corrective Measure ObjectivesQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site4&5 final\anilinesouthash_cmsrev2.doc\13-Jun-02 /OMA 2-3worker exposed to diphenylamine in surface soil, subsurface soil, and sediment at the South AshSettling Basin and iron in surface soil, subsurface soil, and sediment at the Aniline Pond. Thehuman health risk assessment found no other chemicals, carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic, thatexceeded IDEM’s target for human health risk.Iron was the primary contributor to the calculated, noncarcinogenic risk at the Aniline Pond,accounting for 72 percent of the risk. N-nitrosodiphenylamine (or diphenylamine) was theprimary contributor to the calculated, noncarcinogenic risk at the South Ash Settling Basin,accounting for 95 percent of the risk. Therefore, soil/sediment cleanup levels were establishedfor these chemicals based on present and future land use. The laboratory could not differentiatebetween N-nitrosodiphenylamine and diphenylamine (DPA); therefore, the detected chemical ispresumed to be DPA since this chemical was formerly produced and used at the facility.2.2.2.2 Potential Exposure PathwaysThe potential exposure pathways that were considered in developing risk-based cleanup levelsfor soil/sediment are incidental ingestion of soil/sediment under the site worker or constructionworker exposure scenarios. It was assumed in the risk assessment that the site worker would beexposed to site contaminants only 25 days per year based on reasonable future land use (i.e.,buildings are not expected to be constructed within the settling basin and pond). Theconstruction worker was assumed to be exposed over a 56 day period in a single year for shortterm activities (i.e.; dredging).2.2.2.3 Calculation of Human Health Risk-Based Cleanup LevelsAll chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) were considered during the development of humanhealth risk-based cleanup levels. Cleanup levels were developed for those COPCs identified inthe risk assessment that significantly contribute to a receptor pathway risk that either: 1) exceedsa 1 x 10-5 cancer risk; or 2) exceeds a noncarcinogenic HI of 1.There are two methods that can be used to calculate cleanup levels. One method involvesrearranging the chemical intake equations to solve for the concentration term. Another method(shown below) is a simplified method based on site-specific exposure data and was used tocalculate cleanup levels for this CMS. A ratio between the target HQ or cancer risk and thecalculated HQ or cancer risk due to a specific chemical in a specific medium is calculated. Theproportion is:Target HQ or Cancer RiskCLCalculated HQor Cancer RiskEPC chemical ichemical ichemical i =where:EPC = exposure point concentrationCL = cleanup levelSECTIONTWO Corrective Measure ObjectivesQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site4&5 final\anilinesouthash_cmsrev2.doc\13-Jun-02 /OMA 2-4Cleanup levels for a target cancer risk of 1 x10-5 were calculated by rearranging the aboveequation as shown below:chemical ichemical i i Calculated HQor Cancer RiskTarget HQor Cancer RiskCL x chemical = EPC2.2.2.4 Summary of ResultsExposure point concentrations and risk calculations for total soil and surface soil are summarizedin Table 2-1for the Aniline Pond and South Ash Settling Basin. The lowest human health risk-basedcleanup levels result from the incidental ingestion of soil/sediment containing DPA by ahypothetical construction worker. The human health risk cleanup levels calculated for the siteworker and construction worker exposure pathways were multiplied by 95 percent for DPA and72 percent for iron. This lowers the calculated cleanup level to account for the fact that otherchemicals found on site, for which cleanup levels have not been calculated, contribute to theoverall human health risk.Proposed human health risk-based cleanup levels are summarized below.Proposed Human Health Risk-Based Cleanup LevelsChemical Site Worker, HI = 1 Construction Worker, HI = 1DPA 532,787 x 0.95 = 506,148 mg/kg 24,506 x 0.95 = 23,281 mg/kgIron 6,132,868 x 0.72 = 4,415,665 mg/kg 294,612 x 0.72 = 212,121 mg/kgThe above cleanup levels are based on risk assessment assumptions and calculations and do not,in some cases, represent concentrations that can occur naturally.2.2.3 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 to protectreceptors while minimizing the extent of any corrective action to conserve resources. Theecological risk-based cleanup levels developed below will result in a reduction of residualCOPEC exposures to levels below a threshold of concern.2.2.3.1 ApproachThe Aniline Pond and the South Ash Settling Basin have been combined into a single “exposureunit” due to the proximity and shared border of these sites and to the presence of nearly identicalecological habitat features. The ecological receptors selected during the baseline ecological riskassessments, which include species representative of both upland and pond habitats, are believedSECTIONTWO Corrective Measure ObjectivesQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site4&5 final\anilinesouthash_cmsrev3 (revised final).doc\23-Jul-02 /OMA 2-5to be functional here. The intent of the cleanup levels developed in this CMS is to protect apopulation rather than an individual organism.The establishment of ecological risk-based media cleanup standards was made following theiterative method as described by Schulz and Griffin (2001) as well as in guidance from Bower etal. (1996) and the National Academy of Sciences (1997, 1999). Two levels are developed withinthis process, a mean residual exposure concentration and a “not to exceed concentration”(Schultz and Griffin 2001). This approach applies the same methods used in the risk assessmentswhile iteratively censoring, with background or detection limit replacements, sample locationswithin the exposure unit until the residual exposure level meets an exposure known or believedto assure that no ecological harm would occur. The highest residual chemical concentration isthen the “not-to-exceed-level” and the mean residual exposure concentration is used to estimateresidual ecological risk. A flowchart depicting the process is presented as Figure 2-1. Thisprocess also results in the establishment of the remedial “footprint” within the exposure unit.Ecological risk-based concentrations are based on levels shown in the laboratory or in fieldstudies reported in the scientific literature to assure that no undue ecological harm would occurdue to the presence of chemical stressors within applicable media (i.e., soil, sediment, water, orbiological tissues). These ecological risk-based concentrations are presented in Appendix A forall ecological receptors. The iterative censoring process employed the hazard quotient (HQ) as ametric 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.2.2.3.2 Media and Chemicals of Potential ConcernThe applicable media evaluated at the sites include soil, sediment, surface water andgroundwater (as it may migrate into underground caves), and biological tissues used as food. Atotal of 34 organic compounds and 21 inorganic compounds were identified as chemicals ofpotential ecological concern (COPECs) during the ecological risk assessments for the two sites.All of these chemicals indicated some potential for risk due to direct exposures to impacted soilor sediment in the upper two feet at either the Aniline Pond or the South Ash Settling Basin. TheCOPECs considered for the two individual sites are listed according to applicable media in Table2-2. Because the two sites have been combined into a single exposure unit, the exposureassumptions have been modified and the exposures reevaluated.While all COPECs could be considered candidates for corrective action, not all pose a similar orsignificant risk for potential ecological harm. Further, not all media are applicable media for theevaluation of the corrective measures. Certain corrective measures include a modification of thesite to provide better drainage and to reduce, if not eliminate, ponding on the site. Thesecorrective measure alternatives would then reduce and/or eliminate the applicability of surfacewater and sediment as exposure media.SECTIONTWO Corrective Measure ObjectivesQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site4&5 final\anilinesouthash_cmsrev2.doc\13-Jun-02 /OMA 2-62.2.3.3 Preliminary Not-To-Exceed Media Cleanup LevelsBased on the analysis of COPECs that may have significant exposure potentials and on thedistribution of these COPECs within the sites, two sets of preliminary not-to-exceed cleanuplevels for soil and sediment were found to be effective at reducing estimated exposure potentials.The two sets of preliminary not-to-exceed media cleanup levels for the Aniline Pond and theSouth Ash Settling Basin are:· ³ 100 mg/kg DPA and/or ³ 500 mg/kg copper (Preliminary Not-To-Exceed CleanupLevel Set 1)· ³ 100 mg/kg DPA, ³ 500 mg/kg copper, and/or ³ 100 mg/kg lead (Preliminary Not-To-Exceed Cleanup Level Set 2)Addressing soil/sediment with more stringent levels than the Preliminary Not-to-Exceed CleanupLevel Set 2 would only minimally reduce additional exposure potentials.2.2.3.4 Residual Ecological ExposuresEither set of the preliminary cleanup levels would be effective in reducing the residual exposuresassociated with all 66 COPECs to levels considered acceptable in soil. However, the second setof preliminary cleanup levels (which includes a cleanup level for lead) would be more effectivein reducing salient residual food web exposure levels of lead for birds.2.2.3.5 Summary of ResultsArea footprints for both sets of Preliminary Not-To-Exceed Cleanup Levels are shown on Figure2-2. A corrective measure that follows the Preliminary Not-to-Exceed Cleanup Level Set 1would address an area of approximately 87,000 square feet having concentrations of DPA ³ 100mg/kg and/or concentrations of copper ³ 500 mg/kg. In contrast, a corrective measure thatfollows the Preliminary Not-To-Exceed Cleanup Level Set 2 would address approximately101,000 square feet of area with concentrations of DPA ³ 100 mg/kg, concentrations of copper ³500 mg/kg, and/or concentrations of lead ³ 100 mg/kg. This represents an area increase ofapproximately 14,000 square feet (or approximately 16%) if the Preliminary Cleanup Level Set 2is followed.Preliminary Cleanup Level Set 2 provides some additional reduction in exposure potentials witha 16% increase in the area to be remediated. A 16% increase in the area to be remediated wouldbe more protective at what is judged to be a tolerable cost increase (which would likely be lessthan a 16% increase in remediation costs). Therefore, the more protective set of cleanup levels(i.e., Preliminary Not-To-Exceed Cleanup Level Set 2) is proposed to achieve a greater degree ofecological protection.2.2.4 Proposed Media Cleanup StandardsBased on a comparison of media cleanup levels for human health protection versus ecologicalprotection, it is clear that the ecological risk-based cleanup levels are more stringent. In addition,SECTIONTWO Corrective Measure ObjectivesQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site4&5 final\anilinesouthash_cmsrev2.doc\13-Jun-02 /OMA 2-7there are far more COPECS to be considered for protection of ecological receptors (Table 2-1).None of the samples located outside of the area being addressed using ecological criteria(Preliminary Not-to-Exceed Cleanup Level Set 2) contained DPA or iron above their respectivehuman health risk-based cleanup levels. Achieving the ecological risk-based cleanup levelspresented in Table 2-1 will ensure protection of human health at the Aniline Pond and South AshSettling Basin.The following media cleanup standards are proposed:· Media of concern: Soil and sediment in the upper 2 feet of the ground surface· Not-to-exceed media cleanup levels: 100 mg/kg DPA, 500 mg/kg copper, and 100 mg/kglead (achieving the not-to-exceed media cleanup levels results in acceptable meanresidual exposure concentrations which are below screening levels for all 66 COPECs)· Points of compliance: The area of the Aniline Pond and South Ash Settling Basin and thedrainage point from the combined basin.· 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 Aniline Pond and South Ash Settling Basinsites are focused on reduction of potential risk to ecological receptors, with concurrent protectionof human health and the environment. The proposed corrective measure objectives are:· Reduce potential ecological exposures to all chemicals of potential concern in the upper 2feet of soil and sediment within the Aniline Pond and South Ash Settling Basin. Basedon conservative mathematical modeling, significant exposure reduction withcommensurate reduction in risk potentials can be achieved by addressing three indicatorchemicals as representative of all COPECs evaluated for the site. The indicatorchemicals and their respective not-to-exceed media cleanup levels are:– DPA, <100 mg/kg– Copper, <500 mg/kg– Lead, <100 mg/kg· Control potential migration of all COPECs to off-site receptors that may result from thetransport of contaminated soil and sediment in storm water runoff.TABLE 2-1HUMAN HEALTH RISK-BASED CLEANUP LEVELSSOUTH ASH BASIN & ANILINE POND (SITES 4 & 5)CL = EPC x Target HQ/Calculated HQReceptor Chemical UnitsNo. ofSamplesMaxDetectedConcMeanConc EPC HQ CLConstruction Worker N-Nitrosodiphenylamine (Site 4) mg/kg 65 120000 3045 76458 3.120 24506Iron (Site 5) mg/kg 36 466000 198614 309343 1.050 294612Site Worker N-Nitrosodiphenylamine (Site 4) mg/kg 32 13000 638 13000 0.024 532787Iron (Site 5) mg/kg 17 466000 252171 329335 0.054 6132868HQ - Hazard QuotientCL - Cleanup LevelEPC - Exposure Point Concentration is the 95% Upper confidence limit (UCL) on the logarithmic mean (Gilbert 1987) or themaximumQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_sites4 draft\Tables_rev1.xls Page 1of 1 6/13/02TABLE 2-2CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL CONCERN ANDPRELIMINARY RISK BASED CONCENTRATIONSSOUTH ASH BASIN & ANILINE POND (SITES 4 & 5)Organic COPECsPRBC(μg/L)Receptor orBackground(1) Organic COPECsPRBC(mg/kg)Receptor orBackground(1)4,4-DDE 0.016 Invertebrates 1,3-Dinitrobenzene 20 Benthos4,4-DDT 0.016 Invertebrates 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 230 BenthosAlpha-Benzenehexachloride 3.30 Invertebrates 2-Amino-4,6-Dinitrotoluene 20 BenthosBenzene 3,100 Amphibians 4,4-DDE 62.9 BenthosBis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 54.0 Amphibians 4,4-DDT 31.3 BenthosButylbenzyl phthalate 280 Amphibians 4-Amino-2,6-Dinitrotoluene 20 BenthosCarbazole 100 Plants Benzene 46 BenthosDieldrin 0.056 Invertebrates beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane 27.7 BenthosDi-n-butyl phthalate 697 Invertebrates Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 45,300 BenthosEthylbenzene 440 Amphibians Carbon Disulfide 0.92 BenthosGamma-Chlordane 1.06 Invertebrates Dieldrin 61.8 BenthosHeptachlor 1.26 Amphibians Diethyl phthalate 8.64 Benthosm/p-xylene 62,308 Amphibians Di-n-butyl phthalate 1017 BenthosDiphenylamine 332 Amphibians Diphenylamine 755 BenthosEndosulfan I 0.599 BenthosEndosulfan II 0.599 BenthosEndosulfan sulfate 1.09 BenthosLindane 4.99 BenthosNitrobenzene 270 BenthosPCB 1254 53.5 BenthosPhenol 31 BenthosTotal HMWPAHs 2,300 BenthosTotal LMWPAHs 1,200 BenthosXylenes, total 6.53 BenthosInorganic COPECsPRBC(μg/L)Receptor orBackground(1) Inorganic COPECsPRBC(mg/kg)Receptor orBackground(1)Aluminum 460 Plants Antimony 8.7 BackgroundAntimony 610 Plants Arsenic 48 BenthosBarium 60.3 Background Cadmium 1.4 BackgroundBeryllium 5.30 Invertebrates Chromium 120 BenthosCalcium 116,000 Invertebrates Copper 100 BenthosChromium 44 Invertebrates Iron 250,000 BenthosCobalt 10 Background Lead 82 BenthosCopper 11.3 Background Manganese 13,294 BackgroundCyanide 7.80 Amphibians Mercury 0.14 BackgroundIron 158 Invertebrates Nickel 70 BackgroundLead 18.9 Amphibians Zinc 540 BenthosMagnesium 82,000 InvertebratesManganese 103 BackgroundMercury 0.23 AmphibiansNickel 25.2 BackgroundSelenium 88.3 AmphibiansVanadium 80 AmphibiansZinc 40.7 BackgroundNotes:(1) When the PRBC is below INAAP upland soil background levels, the PRBC becomes the background levelCOPEC = Chemical of potential ecological concernPRBC = Preliminary risk based concentrationTotal LMWPAHs = Sum of the low molecular weight (<200 daltons) polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbonsTotal HMWPAHs = Sum of the high molecular weight (>200 daltons) polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbonsSurface Water Surface SedimentQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site4&5final\Tables_rev2(revised final) Page 1 of 2 7/23/02TABLE 2-2CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL CONCERN ANDPRELIMINARY RISK BASED CONCENTRATIONSSOUTH ASH BASIN & ANILINE POND (SITES 4 & 5)Organic COPECsPRBC(μg/kg)Receptor orBackground(1) Organic COPECsPRBC(μg/kg)Receptor orBackground(1)Diphenylamine 20,000 Invertebrates 1,3-Dinitrobenzene 609 ShrewNitrobenzene 40,000 Invertebrates2,4-Dinitrotoluene510 ShrewPhenol 79,000 Plants 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 11,918 ShrewBenzo(a)pyrene (TotalHMWPAHs)8,800,000 PlantsBenzene18,749 Shrewbis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 48,345 ShrewCarbazole 29,561 ShrewChlordane 895 ShrewDDT-r 5.68 ShrewDieldrin 21,558 ShrewEndrin 379 ShrewHeptachlor 95.2 ShrewTotla HMWPAHs 21,142 ShrewDiphenylamine 38.4 SnipePCB 1254 11.6 ShrewPhenanthrene 2,623 ShrewInorganic COPECsPRBC(mg/kg)Receptor orBackground(1) Inorganic COPECsPRBC(mg/kg)Receptor orBackground(1)Aluminum 28,958 Background Aluminum 28,958 BackgroundAntimony 8.66 Background Antimony 56.4 ShrewArsenic 23.7 Background Arsenic 23.7 BackgroundBarium 500 Plants Beryllium 13.3 ShrewChromium 107 Plants Barium 415.0 BackgroundCobalt 50 Plants Cadmium 0.85 BackgroundCopper 94 Plants Chromium 62 WoodcockCyanide 1.8 Plants Cobalt 49.31 BackgroundLead 833 Plants Copper 47.5 BackgroundMercury 12 Plants Lead 286.0 WoodcockNickel 100 Plants Mercury 0.14 BackgroundSelenium 10 Plants Nickel 172 ShrewThallium 5.17 Background Selenium 0.97 BackgroundVanadium 127 Plants Thallium 24.6 ShrewZinc 310 Plants Vanadium 64.9 BackgroundZinc 198 BackgroundNotes:(1) When the PRBC is below INAAP upland soil background levels, the PRBC becomes the background levelCOPEC = Chemical of potential ecological concernPRBC = Preliminary risk based concentrationTotal LMWPAHs = Sum of the low molecular weight (<200 daltons) polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbonsTotal HMWPAHs = Sum of the high molecular weight (>200 daltons) polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbonsSurface Soil FoodwebQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site4&5final\Tables_rev2(revised final) Page 2 of 2 7/23/02Q:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_sites4&5 draft\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 OBJECTIVESSITES 4 & 5 - SOUTH ASH SETTLINGBASIN & ANILINE PONDINDIANA 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_site4&5 final\anilinesouthash_cmsrev2.doc\13-Jun-02 /OMA 3-1This section presents the development of remedial technologies and assembly of technologiesinto corrective 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 for reasonablefuture land use (i.e., commercial/industrial). In order to achieve the proposed corrective measureobjective, this CMS will consider the following range of potential corrective measures:· Institutional Controls: Restrict public access to the site through land use restrictions.· Engineering Controls: Implement physical controls (e.g., fencing, protective covers, orremoval) to limit potential exposure to contaminated media and/or migration ofcontaminated media.· Treatment: Use in situ or ex situ treatment technologies to reduce the toxicity, mobility,and/or volume (TMV) of contaminants.· Monitoring: Monitor the sites 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 actions listed above may be implemented alone or in combination. Based on thecorrective action objectives and information obtained during the Phase I RI and Phase II RFI, thefollowing site-specific characteristics are considered to be relevant to the design and constructionof a corrective measure at the Aniline Pond and South Ash Settling Basin.3.1.2.1 Resident Ecological CommunitiesAs discussed within the ecological risk assessments for the Aniline Pond and South Ash SettlingBasin, the resident ecological communities (aquatic and terrestrial) are not overly significant inthe context of the landscape ecology of the INAAP grounds. Certain corrective measures cansignificantly alter and/or destroy portions of the resident on-site ecological communities. This isnot believed to be a critical consideration in the evaluation of potential technologies. No speciesof special concern (e.g., threatened or endangered) are resident within the site, nor does the siterepresent a critical habitat for any ecological species of special concern.It should be noted that the most relevant ecological receptors and chemicals, as identified withinthe risk assessments, are those that have a potential for transport and effects outside theadministrative boundaries of the study area. The destruction of all or portions of the residentecological communities represents a potential mechanism for reducing the exposure levels tonon-resident ecologically relevant receptors of concern. While such a scenario may not beoverly desirable it is a relevant and appropriate consideration.SECTIONTHREE Alternative DevelopmentQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site4&5 final\anilinesouthash_cmsrev2.doc\13-Jun-02 /OMA 3-23.1.2.2 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 karst features and water quality, by:– Prohibiting earth-moving activities and disturbance to natural vegetation within 100feet of a karst feature– When earth-moving activities are done more than 100 feet from a karst feature butwithin the drainage area of the karst feature, use appropriate erosion control measuresto prevent debris from entering the karst feature· 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 bat.Earthwork 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 not likely that the gray bat forages as far upgradient within the Jenny Lind Runas the Aniline Pond and South Ash Settling Basin, so disturbance of forest cover is not expectedto be a major issue. However, potential disturbance of karst features and erosion ofsoil/sediment into karst features could impact downstream water quality.The Aniline Pond and South Ash Settling Basin are in a karst feature. Therefore, all earthworkactivities will require special erosion control measures to minimize any disruption to karstfeatures that are likely connected to downgradient drainage and possibly caves. Based on themanagement prescriptions and location of contaminated media within the drainage channel, ESASection 7 consultation is required for any corrective action involving containment, removal, ortreatment at the Aniline Pond and South Ash Settling Basin.3.1.2.3 Areas and Volumes of Contaminated MediaContaminated media include soil and sediment containing DPA, copper, and/or lead above thenot-to-exceed media cleanup levels. The estimated areas of contaminated media in the uppertwo feet, as shown on Figure 2-1, were interpreted from available chemical data. The chemicaldata set includes 18 surface soil and sediment samples collected at the Aniline Pond, and the 33surface soil and sediment samples collected at the South Ash Settling Basin.The estimated volume of contaminated media is based on the visual examination and analyticalresults of recovered samples from the 32 borings completed at the Aniline Pond and South AshSECTIONTHREE Alternative DevelopmentQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site4&5 final\anilinesouthash_cmsrev2.doc\13-Jun-02 /OMA 3-3Settling Basin. The volume of contaminated media is material that appears to be ash or derivedfrom a former site process, as well as residual soil that contains any of the indicator chemicals atlevels above the not-to-exceed media cleanup levels. Additional characterization of thecontaminated media would be needed to effectively implement corrective measures involvingremoval or treatment of contaminated media.The estimated areas and volumes of contaminated media are listed below. The estimated area isthe surface soil to be covered or solidified as shown in Figure 3-1. The estimated volume is forthe subsurface soils to be removed as shown in Figure 3-2.Site Estimated Area Estimated VolumeAniline Pond 28,000 square feet 3,800 cubic yardsSouth Ash Settling Basin 77,000 square feet 20,100 cubic yardsTotal 105,000 square feet 24,000 cubic yards3.1.2.4 Waste CharacterizationTwo samples of contaminated media have been collected and tested using the toxicitycharacteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) to evaluate whether it is characteristically hazardous.Based on these test results, the sampled contaminated media are not characteristically hazardous.However, two tests are not likely to be representative of all contaminated media at the AnilinePond and South Ash Settling Basin. Further, some of the chemicals detected on site, includingDPA, are not on the regulatory list.If contaminated media are excavated as part of the corrective measure, some of the media mayeither be found to be characteristically hazardous or may contain chemicals at high enoughconcentrations to prevent disposal as a “special waste” in the local landfill. Therefore, correctivemeasure activities that involve removal of contaminated media from the site assume that 20percent of the contaminated media will be handled and disposed of as hazardous waste.3.2 IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING OF POTENTIAL TECHNOLOGIES3.2.1 Initial Screening of Technologies and Process OptionsCandidate remedial technologies and process options (process options include various methodsof implementing a remedial technology) have been reviewed for applicability at the Aniline Pondand South Ash Settling Basin sites. Technologies and process options that are not technicallyfeasible or do not apply to the site conditions and chemicals detected at the site have beenscreened out.The evaluation of applicability takes into consideration the practical nature of implementation,given the physical site conditions (e.g., location configuration and topography) and the waste orchemical characteristics (e.g., chemical types and extent). Remedial technologies and processoptions that are considered to be potentially applicable, based on the initial screening, are listedin Table 3-1.SECTIONTHREE Alternative DevelopmentQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site4&5 final\anilinesouthash_cmsrev2.doc\13-Jun-02 /OMA 3-43.2.2 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 (if possible) representative technology or process option foreach general corrective measure category.3.2.2.1 Screening Criteria for Process OptionsThe criteria for screening of process options consisted of effectiveness, implementability, andcost, as described below.EffectivenessThe evaluation of a technology’s effectiveness focuses on three primary considerations:· Ability to handle 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 includes consideration of the technical and administrativefeasibility of a process option. Implementability is characterized as readily implemented,moderately difficult, or difficult to implement relative to other process options underconsideration, based on experience and engineering judgment. The following factors wereconsidered as part of the implementability 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 as low, moderate, or high, based on engineering judgment and experience.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 certain process options. Some of the process options cannot be used as stand-alonetechnologies, but have been retained for use with another technology. The followingtechnologies were retained for assembly into corrective measure alternatives:SECTIONTHREE Alternative DevelopmentQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site4&5 final\anilinesouthash_cmsrev2.doc\13-Jun-02 /OMA 3-5Potential Corrective Measure Representative TechnologiesInstitutional Controls Land Use RestrictionsEngineering Controls through Containment Grading and Revegetation, Drainage ChannelImprovements, Soil CoverEngineering Controls through Removal and Landfilling Mechanical Excavation and Disposal atRCRA Subtitle D or C LandfillTreatment SolidificationMonitoring and Inspection Periodic Soil, Sediment and Surface WaterSampling and Site Inspections3.3 IDENTIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE MEASURE ALTERNATIVESCorrective measure alternatives (CMAs) were developed using the technologies and processoptions that passed through the above screening process. Five CMAs have been identified, asdescribed below.3.3.1 CMA-1, No ActionThis alternative assumes that no further corrective action would be implemented at the AnilinePond and South Ash Settling Basin. Human health and ecological risks would be thoseidentified in the respective baseline risk assessments presented in the Phase II RFI report (URS,2001). This alternative serves as a baseline to which other alternatives can be compared.3.3.2 CMA-2, Institutional Controls and Monitoring3.3.2.1 Description of CMA-2CMA-2 involves using institutional controls to restrict land use at the site and monitoring totrack potential changes in the location or level of contaminants to help make future riskmanagement decisions. The proposed institutional controls and monitoring include:· Land use restrictions on the site· Completing a baseline inventory of the site and annually monitoring the siteInstitutional 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. The entire site (i.e., the Aniline Pond and South Ash Settling Basin)is considered to be a karst feature. Because this alternative would leave the existingcontamination at the surface, it is assumed that a formal deed restriction to prevent constructionactivities would be implemented.SECTIONTHREE Alternative DevelopmentQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site4&5 final\anilinesouthash_cmsrev2.doc\13-Jun-02 /OMA 3-6The proposed monitoring would include a one-year, quarterly baseline inventory to develop adatabase for statistical analysis of current site conditions, followed by annual monitoring and sitevisits would then be needed to assure that site conditions were relatively static. This wouldinclude downstream sediment and surface water samples to evaluate potential off-site migration.Long term surface water and sediment monitoring would effectively document the migration ofthose media. Surface water and sediment monitoring would help to provide early warning ofpotential future increased exposure potential. A five-year review of the site and controls wouldbe used to assess the effectiveness of this option and make future risk management decisions.Sediment and surface water samples would be taken from installed, permanent sediment/surfacewater sampling stations. These sampling basins would be advantageous because samplescollected over time would be collected from the same location, and they would offer thecapability of monitoring sedimentation rates and sediment/surface water quality. The proposedsample stations would be located at two downstream locations from the South Ash Settling Basinto monitor potential migration along that drainage channel into Jenny Lind Run. These samplingstations would be part of a network of stations along the Jenny Lind Run that would be used tomonitor migration of sediment/surface water through the water shed. Other sites on the JennyLind Run drainage basin, including the P&E Flume, the Process Waste Settling Basin, and JennyLind Pond are being evaluated individually in separate CMS reports. For cost estimatingpurposes, the costs of two sediment/surface water sampling stations and long-term monitoringare included with the alternatives in this CMS.3.3.2.2 Effectiveness-of CMA-2Restrictions on current and future land use are expected to decrease potential human exposureand subsequent health risk from exposure to contaminated surface soil and sediment. However,land use restrictions have no effect on reduction of potential exposures to ecological receptors.Restrictions on earth moving activities within the site boundaries are expected to limitdisturbance to contaminated media and subsequent migration through erosion. Monitoring is aneffective risk management tool for tracking and evaluating the effect of potential futurecontaminant migration.3.3.2.3 Implementability-of CMA-2The institutional actions described above are expected to present minimal technical andadministrative difficulties. Long-term administrative oversight is required to maintain the landuse restriction and oversee monitoring. Coordination with the USFWS and IDEM is requiredduring the planning and reporting phases of the alternative.3.3.3 CMA-3, Containment with Institutional Controls and Monitoring3.3.3.1 Description of CMA-3CMA-3 involves containing the contaminated media with a vegetated soil cover to reduce thepotential for direct exposures to both human and ecological receptors and to control migration ofCOPECs caused by erosion and sediment transport. The institutional controls and monitoringSECTIONTHREE Alternative DevelopmentQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site4&5 final\anilinesouthash_cmsrev2.doc\13-Jun-02 /OMA 3-7discussed for CMA-2 will also be part of this alternative. The proposed containment activitiesinclude:· Regrading and stabilizing areas of the site with contaminated media at the surface todevelop slopes and grades more suitable for control of runoff and installing a 2-foot-thick,vegetated soil cover· Constructing a lined drainage channel through the site and protecting against erosionthrough the use of gravel and rip rap· Improving the existing sinkholes and culvert that drain the South Ash Settling BasinA conceptual plan and section of the proposed soil cover and drainage channel is shown onFigure 3-1. The area to be covered is about 105,000 square feet.Construction equipment will not be able to traffic over the very unstable surface soils andsediments at the Aniline Pond because of high moisture content and associated low strength.Therefore, the Aniline Pond dam should be breached to allow the soil and sediment to drain.Because gravity drainage from the soil and sediment is likely to be slow, it is assumed thesematerials will require some type of stabilization to allow construction equipment access over theAniline Pond site. A geogrid and crushed rock layer is the assumed stabilization procedure forthis CMS, and other stabilization methods such as soil admixtures should be evaluated duringdesign.To construct the soil cover, the site would be cleared of existing vegetation (except in theunstable areas in the Aniline Pond discussed above). Large tree roots would be grubbed out andany abandoned structures would be removed. Cleared vegetation can be mulched and reusedduring the establishment of final vegetative cover. The abandoned structures, which generallyconsist of steel or concrete, would be disposed of as construction debris.Prior to placing the soil cover, the site would be graded to establish even slopes with positivedrainage to a channel running through the central portion of the basin. Since grading wouldinvolve some disturbance of contaminated media, erosion control measures including dustcontrol would be required. The grading would include shallow excavation along the newdrainage channel to form an engineered cross section capable of handling runoff from theupstream drainage area during the selected design storm. The excavated materials would beincluded in the overall earthwork balance and used in the site grading.After grading has been completed, but prior to placement of the soil cover, a highly visiblematerial (e.g. an orange snow fence) will be placed over areas of contamination as a visualwarning.A locally available cohesive soil from a borrow area on the INAAP property would be importedfor use as the soil cover. The lower 18 inches of the soil cover would be compacted, and theupper 6 inches would be tilled and planted. Depending on the soil characteristics, amendmentsand nutrients may be added before tilling to improve the soil’s fertility. The surface would bevegetated with grasses and shrubs native to the area with special consideration given to long-termerosion control. The soil cover surface would be sloped to drain the area into the drainageSECTIONTHREE Alternative DevelopmentQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site4&5 final\anilinesouthash_cmsrev2.doc\13-Jun-02 /OMA 3-8channel. The drainage channel would be lined with a 30-mil HDPE liner, overlain by gravel andrip-rap to reduce erosion and sediment transport to downgradient areas. The drainage channelwould follow the existing channel as closely as possible to maintain the current flow system andwould terminate at the improved sinkholes. In addition, the outlet structure would be improvedas necessary serve as the basin’s overflow system.Given the karst conditions at the site, construction of sinkhole improvements is included as partof the corrective measure to prevent erosion and potential contaminant migration through thesinkhole to downgradient groundwater/surface water. Construction of sinkhole improvementswill also reduce long-term efforts needed to maintain the soil cover and drainage channel. It isassumed that the two sinkholes in the South Ash Settling Basin are connected, given the historyof solution channel karst in the area, and the overburden is assumed to be 10 feet thick. Thisleads to an assumed length of 50 feet of karst to treat at a depth of 10 feet bgs. Constructionactivities include excavation of the overburden soil to the solution feature, followed byplacement of a geotextile liner over the excavation surface to prevent soil and sediment transportthrough the solution feature. Limestone rip-rap would then be placed in the solution feature andthe excavation filled with sand.3.3.3.2 Effectiveness-of CMA-3The soil cover would decrease potential exposures to contaminated media and subsequentlyreduce potential ecological and human health risks. A soil cover would also limit the potentialfor migration of contaminated media caused by erosion and sedimentation processes. Thedrainage improvements would reduce the potential for transport of sediments downstream intothe Jenny Lind drainage network. Periodic site inspections and maintenance of the vegetatedcover and drainage channel, in conjunction with the surface water and sediment samplingdescribed under CMA-2, are expected to be necessary to maintain the protectiveness of thisalternative.3.3.3.3 Implementability-of CMA-3The activities proposed for CMA-3 are expected to present minimal technical and administrativedifficulties. Long-term administrative oversight is required to maintain the land use restrictionand oversee monitoring and maintenance of the constructed improvements. Coordination withthe USFWS and IDEM is required during the planning, construction, and reporting phases of thisalternative.The construction activities associated with CMA-3 can be implemented using traditionalconstruction techniques and earth moving equipment. The required equipment, manpower, andmaterials are locally available. Special considerations will be needed to control erosion causedby storm flows and wind during construction. OSHA 29 CFR 1910.120 (Hazwopper) trainedconstruction workers will be required during activities that involve direct contact withcontaminated media, such as grading and initial placement of the soil cover.SECTIONTHREE Alternative DevelopmentQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site4&5 final\anilinesouthash_cmsrev2.doc\13-Jun-02 /OMA 3-93.3.4 CMA-4, Removal and Disposal3.3.4.1 Description of CMA-4CMA-4 involves removing the contaminated media and transporting it to a permitted solid waste(Subtitle D) or a hazardous waste (Subtitle C) landfill. This alternative would eliminateexposure potentials caused by direct contact or migration of contaminated media. Following ashort-term monitoring program to confirm removal objectives have been achieved, no additionalinstitutional controls and monitoring would be necessary. The proposed removal and disposalactivities include:· Removal of all contaminated media found at levels above media cleanup standards· Disposal of affected media in a permitted landfill· Slope stabilization and improvements to the existing drainage outlet at the downstreamend of the South Ash Settling BasinA conceptual plan with excavation depths is shown on Figure 3-2.Prior to removal, the site would first be cleared and grubbed. Cleared vegetation can be mulchedand reused during the establishment of final vegetative cover used for slope stabilization. Thecontaminated media would be removed to a depth where contamination is determined throughtesting to be below media cleanup standards. Typically, this is done by developing a grid acrossthe contaminated area so samples can be collected from a known location. The grid sizes aregenerally based on a balance of cost and required statistical accuracy and precision. Theestimated volume of media to be removed is 24,000 cubic yards with an estimated weight of36,000 tons. Removal of the contaminated media would be done using conventional earthmoving equipment. Erosion control measures for storm water and wind would be requiredduring all activities that disturb contaminated media.TCLP analysis of two soil samples collected from the area of highest contaminant concentrationsfound during the RFI has determined that this soil is not characteristically hazardous. It ispossible that some of the excavated material will be found to be a hazardous waste and will needto be handled accordingly. It has been assumed that 80 percent of the contaminated media wouldbe handled as Subtitle D solid waste while the remaining 20 percent of contaminated mediawould be handled as Subtitle C hazardous waste. The Subtitle D solid waste can be transportedto the local RCRA Subtitle D landfill (i.e., Floyd Clark landfill) for disposal. The Floyd Clarklandfill is located in Clarksville, Indiana, about 20 miles from the site. The Subtitle C hazardouswaste can be transported to the nearest Subtitle C landfill, which is located in Peoria, Illinois.After the removal and successful confirmatory sampling has been completed, some grading andslope stabilization would be done to protect the site from excessive erosion. The surface wouldbe vegetated with grasses and shrubs native to the area with special consideration given to long-termerosion control. Because of the varied depths of excavation (up to 15 feet below existinggrade), a series of small ponds may form over several upstream portions of the basin. Areas offlow concentration, such as drainage channels and outlets from any deeper excavations whereponds may form, would be finished with a gravel and rip-rap lining designed to minimize erosionSECTIONTHREE Alternative DevelopmentQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site4&5 final\anilinesouthash_cmsrev2.doc\13-Jun-02 /OMA 3-10and sediment transport. An alternate approach (which is not included in the cost estimate for thisalternative) would be to import soil and develop positive drainage through the entire site, similarto CMA-3.As discussed above for CMA-3, construction of sinkhole improvements is included as part of thecorrective measure to prevent erosion and potential contaminant migration through the sinkholeto downgradient groundwater/surface water. It is assumed that there would be five sinkholes inthe excavated area and solution channel karst would be the most prevalent. At an averagesubsurface length of 25 feet, this leads to an assumed length of 125 feet of karst to treat at orslightly below the ground surface after excavation. The construction of the sinkholeimprovements would be similar to that described for CMA-3.3.3.4.2 Effectiveness-of CMA-4The removal of contaminated media would eliminate potential exposures and associatedecological and human health risks. Removal of contaminated media would also eliminatepotential future migration of contaminated media. Disposal of the contaminated media in a solidor hazardous waste landfill is expected to be a safe and effective means for permanent control ofthe material. However, the government would retain the long-term liability for the waste, whichmay include some financial risk if the landfill leaks and causes environmental or human healthrisks that require investigation and/or remediation.3.3.4.3 Implementability-of CMA-4The activities proposed for CMA-4 are expected to present minimal technical and administrativedifficulties. Because the contaminated media are removed and not left on site, long-termadministrative oversight is not required. Coordination with the USFWS and IDEM is requiredduring the planning, construction, and reporting phases of this alternative.The construction activities associated with CMA-4 can be implemented using traditionalconstruction techniques and earth moving equipment. Any foreseeable complications areexpected to be associated with removing the contaminated media from karst features and thepotentially steep slopes. The required equipment, manpower, and materials are locally available.Special considerations will be needed to control erosion caused by storm flows and wind duringconstruction. OSHA 29 CFR 1910.120 (Hazwopper) trained construction workers will berequired during activities that involve direct contact with contaminated media, such asexcavation and grading.3.3.5 CMA-5, Solidification with Institutional Controls and Monitoring3.3.5.1 Description of CMA-5CMA-5 involves containing the contaminated media by solidifying the upper 2 feet. This actionwould limit exposures to both human and ecological receptors and control migration of COPECscaused by erosion and sediment transport. The institutional controls and monitoring discussedfor CMA-2 would be part of this alternative. The proposed solidification activities include:SECTIONTHREE Alternative DevelopmentQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site4&5 final\anilinesouthash_cmsrev2.doc\13-Jun-02 /OMA 3-11· Pre-grading, including excavation and grading of the drainage channel section, to developpositive drainage throughout the entire site· Solidification of upper 2 feet of contaminated media· Improving the existing sinkholes and culvert that drain the South Ash Settling BasinThe area to be solidified is shown on Figure 3-1 and covers an estimated 105,000 square feet.Prior to grading, the site would be cleared of existing vegetation, large tree roots would begrubbed and abandoned structures would be removed. Cleared vegetation can be mulched andreused elsewhere on the facility, or can be given to the private mulching operation presently on-goingat another site on the facility. The abandoned structures, which generally consist of steelor concrete, would be disposed of as construction debris.Prior to solidification, the site would be graded to establish even contours with positive drainageto a channel running through the central portion of the basin. The grading and drainage channelimprovements would be completed similar to that proposed for CMA-3. Since grading wouldinvolve disturbance of contaminated media, erosion control measures including dust controlwould be required. Contaminated media that are excavated as part of the drainage channelimprovements would undergo the solidification process, along with the existing soils/sedimentsin the upper 2 feet of the site. After grading, the upper 2 feet of soil would be solidified. It isassumed that solidification would be done by excavating the upper 2 feet, mixing the excavatedsoil with solidification agents and water at a proper ratio, and returning the processed material tothe excavation. Alternately, this could be done using an auger/caisson system and injector headsto apply the solidification agents to soils to immobilize contaminants. After addition of thesolidification agents and moisture conditioning, the mixture would be rolled to compact andsmooth the surface. The remaining mass of material is expected to swell in volume from 25 to50 percent of the pre-solidification volume. The finished surface will be hard and similar to apavement, and will not be capable of supporting vegetation.The same sinkhole improvement construction as described for CMA-3 would be included withthis alternative.3.3.5.2 Effectiveness-of CMA-5The solidified cover would decrease potential exposures to contaminated media andsubsequently reduce potential ecological and human health risks. The solidified cover wouldalso limit the potential for migration of contaminated media caused by erosion and sedimentationprocesses. Periodic site inspections and maintenance, in conjunction with the surface water andsediment sampling described under CMA-2, are expected to be necessary to maintain theprotectiveness of this alternative.3.3.5.3 Implementability-of CMA-5The activities proposed for CMA-5 are expected to present minimal technical and administrativedifficulties. Long-term administrative oversight is required to maintain the land use restrictionSECTIONTHREE Alternative DevelopmentQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site4&5 final\anilinesouthash_cmsrev2.doc\13-Jun-02 /OMA 3-12and oversee monitoring and maintenance of the constructed improvements. Coordination withthe USFWS and IDEM is required during the planning, construction, and reporting phases of thisalternative.The construction activities associated with CMA-5 can be implemented using traditionalconstruction techniques and earth moving equipment. The required equipment, manpower, andmaterials are generally available locally, depending on the solidification admixtures used.Design of the solidification typically involves laboratory testing to develop a cost-effective mixdesign. Design will also need to consider the increase in volume. Special considerations will beneeded to control erosion caused by storm flows and wind during construction. OSHA 29 CFR1910.120 (Hazwopper) trained construction workers will be required during activities thatinvolve direct contact with contaminated media, such as grading and solidification activities.TABLE 3-1INITIAL SCREENING OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND PROCESS OPTIONSSOUTH ASH BASIN & ANILINE POND (SITES 4 & 5)General 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.Engineering Controls- SurfaceSurfaceEnhancementPerimeter Fence Install fencing around contaminated areas to control site access. No. Method not effective in preventing access to ecologicalreceptors.Grading/Re-vegetationRe-grade soil and re-introduce native plant species to controlerosion.Yes.Drainage channelcontrolInstall drainage channel to control water run off. Yes.Engineering Controls- ContainmentCaps and Covers Soil Cover Install 24 inches of soil over a pre-graded surface to reduce contactpotential with contaminated surface soil/sediment, enhance erosioncontrol, and reduce potential leaching to groundwater.Yes.Geomembrane Cap Install impermeable geomembrane barrier over contaminatedvadose zone soils to reduce infiltration and minimize leaching ofcontaminants to groundwater.No. Added expense of geomembrane not warranted given siteconditions.Multi-layered Cap Install cap consisting of impermeable barrier, drainage layer, andprotective cover layer over contaminated vadose zone soils toreduce infiltration and minimize leaching of contaminants togroundwater.No. Added expense of multi-layered cap not warranted given siteconditions.Asphalt orConcrete CapInstall asphalt or concrete over contaminated vadose zone soils toreduce infiltration and minimize leaching of contaminants togroundwater.No. Asphalt/concrete cap typically used where final land use is aparking lot.Engineering Controls- RemovalSoil Excavation MechanicalExcavationExcavate contaminated soil in source area to remove source. Yes.Landfill Disposal 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. TCLP analysis indicates contaminated media are notcharacteristically hazardous.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 alternativesand existing landfill has been closed to further disposal.Q:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_sites4 draft\Tables_rev1.xls Page 1 of 2 6/13/02TABLE 3-1INITIAL SCREENING OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND PROCESS OPTIONSSOUTH ASH BASIN & ANILINE POND (SITES 4 & 5)General CorrectiveMeasure Technology Process Option Description ApplicabilityTreatment Biological NaturalAttenuationAllow naturally occurring processes (e.g. dispersion, volatilization,biodegradation, adsorption, and chemical reactions) to reducecontaminant levels.No. Natural attenuation processes not occurring at the site at ratesufficient to naturally attenuate contaminated soils to acceptablelevels.Composting Aerobically biodegrade contaminants in soils by mixing inamendments (bulking agents) and controlling environmentalNo. Metals are not treated by this method and high concentrationsof heavy metals are toxic to soil microbes.Phytoremediation Develop site to use plants to stabilize contamination. No. Contaminant concentrations and number of contaminantswould make it difficult to assess treatability.EnhancedBioremediationUse naturally occurring microorganisms (yeast, fungi, or bacteria)to degrade contaminants into less toxic or nontoxic substances.No. Existing high concentrations of metals are toxic to microbesneeded to accomplish biodegradation.Physical/ChemicalIncineration Thermally destroy contaminants in an incinerator. No. Not effective on heavy metals and high ash content of soils.Soil Washing Process contaminated soils/sediments through an attrition reactor toremove contamination from the soils.No. Percentage of soil fines is far above effective range for soilwashing.ChemicalExtractionProcess contaminated soils/sediments in an extractor with solventsor other extractant to separate contaminants from soil particles.No. High clay and fines content and high moisture renders processless effective and residuals require special handling.Solidification Physically bond or enclose soils/sediments into a stabilized mass, orinduce chemical reactions to stabilize contaminants to reduce theirmobility.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.Q:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_sites4 draft\Tables_rev1.xls Page 2 of 2 6/13/02TABLE 3-2FINAL SCREENING OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND PROCESS OPTIONSSOUTH ASH BASIN & ANILINE POND (SITES 4 & 5)GeneralCorrectiveMeasure Technology Process Option 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 UseRestrictionsDeed Restrictions Limits potential human exposures through legallyrestricting future land use. Does not reduce projectedexposures to ecological receptors.Feasible given site use and planned future use. Surveyand legal assistance required. Periodic future reviewsrequired.Low capital.Low O&M.YesEngineeringControlsSurfaceEnhancementGrading andRevegetationBeneficial for erosion and runoff control, but wouldleave contaminants on the surface. Would requireadditional corrective action to be effective. Reducesprojected ecological exposures to cave resources. Alsoreduces surface are of contaminated sediment, thusreducing projected aquatic foodweb ecologicalexposures.Routine earthwork constructibility is easy. RequiresSection 7 ESA consultation for approval.Low capital.Low O&M.YesDrainage channelimprovementsBeneficial to control surface water flow through pondand basin, but would leave contaminants on thesurface. Would require additional corrective action tobe effective. Reduces surface are of contaminatedsediment and projected aquatic foodweb exposurepotentials but may not be effective in reducing potentialexposures to cave resources.Routine earthwork constructibility is easy. RequiresSection 7 ESA consultation for USFW approval.Low capital.Low O&M.YesContainment Soil Cover Eliminates or reduces exposure in upper 24 inches ofland. Effective for protection of human receptors.Eliminates aquatic foodweb exposures and on-siteaquatic ecological community. This would eliminateall potential ecological sediment-exposure issues.Would also result in significant reduction of terrestrialecological exposure potentials to deep rooted plants anddirect exposures to fossorial animals.Routine earthwork constructibility is easy. RequiresSection 7 ESA consultation for USFW approval.Medium capital.Low O&M.YesRemoval MechanicalExcavationEliminates or reduces contaminant source material.Eliminates aquatic foodweb exposures and all potentialecological sediment-exposure issues with onlytemporay destruction of aquatic community. Wouldalso result in significant reduction of terrestrialecological exposure potentials.Routine earthwork constructibility is easy. RequiresSection 7 ESA consultation for USFW approval.Medium capital.No O&M.YesQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_sites4 draft\Tables_rev1.xls Page 1 of 2 6/13/02TABLE 3-2FINAL SCREENING OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND PROCESS OPTIONSSOUTH ASH BASIN & ANILINE POND (SITES 4 & 5)GeneralCorrectiveMeasure Technology Process Option Effectiveness Implementability Relative Cost (1)Retain?Disposal Off-site RCRASubtitle D LandfillEliminates or reduces potential for future release ofcontaminants into environment through controlledcontainment.Requires off-site transport and uses up local landfillspace.High capital.No O&M.YesTreatment Physical/ChemicalSolidification Eliminates or reduces migration potential by solidfyingcontaminants. Could not grow plants through solidfiedmass. Eliminates all potential ecological exposures butalso renders site uninhibitable for ecological receptorsfor a significant period of time.Commercially available process that requires minimaltreatability testing. Requires Section 7 ESAconsultation for USFW approval if implemented withinpond or basin.Medium capital.Low O&M.YesMonitoring SiteMonitoringSampling 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 laboratory are readily available. Low capital.Medium O&M.Yes(1) Relative cost represents subjective cost (high, medium, low) when comparing different process options.Q:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_sites4 draft\Tables_rev1.xls Page 2 of 2 6/13/02SECTIONFOUR Feasibility Level Cost EstimatesQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site4&5 final\anilinesouthash_cmsrev2.doc\13-Jun-02 /OMA 4-1The cost estimates in this CMS have been prepared to allow the comparison of costs among thevarious corrective measure alternatives to assist in making a site-specific risk managementdecision. The cost estimates include capital costs, annual operation and maintenance (O&M)costs, periodic costs and total present worth 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 2001.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 are scope contingency and bid contingency. Scope contingenciesaccount for changes and refinements to the scope of work that occur during final design as wellas changes that may occur during construction. Scope contingencies include provisions for theinherent uncertainties in characterizing contaminated media volumes and extent. Bidcontingencies cover unknown costs associated with construction or implementing the projectscope. Bid contingencies account for such items as the economic conditions at time of 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 4-9. Comments and/or assumptions used to develop the costs, along with quantityestimates, are listed in each line item within the cost estimate tables. The unit prices and generalcost estimating data were obtained from cost estimating references (R.S. Means 2001), costestimates for similar work, vendor quotes, guidance documents, and engineering judgment. Acomparison of costs among the various alternatives is provided in Table 4-10.The cost estimates provided in this CMS are intended to provide an accuracy range of –30 to +50percent of actual cost. The actual project cost will depend on actual labor and material cost,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 theSECTIONFOUR Feasibility Level Cost EstimatesQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site4&5 final\anilinesouthash_cmsrev2.doc\13-Jun-02 /OMA 4-2estimates provided in this study. Funding needs should be carefully evaluated, taking thesefactors into consideration before budgets are established.TABLE 4-1COST ESTIMATE SUMMARYCMA 2: INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS AND MONITORING (ICM)SITES 4 & 5 - SOUTH ASH SETTLING BASIN & ANILINE PONDSite: Aniline Pond and South Ash CMS Description:Location: Charlestown, INPhase: CMSBase Year: 2001Date: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 $35,196Contractor Overhead and Profit 20% $7,039Construction Subtotal $42,235Contingency 30% $12,671 20% scope + 10% bidConstruction Total $54,906EngineeringProject Management 10% $5,491 % of construction totalMonitoring Plans 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 WP, QAPP, HSPInstitutional Controls 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 Survey and legal descriptionEngineering Total $25,491TOTAL CAPITAL COST $80,396ANNUAL 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 $7,549Contingency 30% $2,265 20% scope + 10% bidO&M Activity Subtotal $9,814EngineeringProject Management 10% $981 % of O&M activity subtotalTechnical Support 20% $1,963 % of O&M activity subtotalEngineering Subtotal $2,944TOTAL ANNUAL O&M COST $12,758Control exposure by legal restrictions.June 13, 2002Q:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site4 final\Sites 4 CMScost_rev2.xls Page 1 of 2 6/13/02TABLE 4-1COST ESTIMATE SUMMARYCMA 2: INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS AND MONITORING (ICM)SITES 4 & 5 - SOUTH ASH SETTLING BASIN & ANILINE PONDSite: Aniline Pond and South Ash CMS Description:Location: Charlestown, INPhase: CMSBase Year: 2001Date:Control exposure by legal restrictions.June 13, 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 $80,396 $80,396 1.0000 $80,396Annual O&M Cost 1-30 $382,734 $12,758 12.4090 $158,312Periodic 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$541,000 $266,758PRESENT VALUE TOTAL $267,000Q:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site4 final\Sites 4 CMScost_rev2.xls Page 2 of 2 6/13/02TABLE 4-2COST ESTIMATE SUMMARYCMA 3: CONTAINMENT WITH ICMSITES 4 & 5 - SOUTH ASH SETTLING BASIN & ANILINE PONDSite: Aniline Pond and South Ash CMS Description:Location: Charlestown, INPhase: CMSBase Year: 2001Date:CAPITAL COSTSDESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL NOTES/ASSUMPTIONSConstructionGeneral CondtionsMobilization/Demobilization 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 Equipment and manpowerSubmittals and Plans 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 WP, CQCP, EPP, SSHP, SWPPTemporary Facilities 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 Office trailer, fencing & signs, decon facilityH&S Meetings/Monitoring 2 MO $4,000 $8,000 Weekly crew meetingPost-Construction Submittals 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 As-builts, QC test reportsSubtotal $48,000Baseline 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 WorkSelective Demolition 1 LS $2,000 $2,000 Ash sump and basin outletErosion Controls 1 LS $3,000 $3,000 Silt fencing along central drainage channelKarst Improvement 50 LF $2,199.34 $109,967 Assume 2 sinkholes (See Sub-element)Subtotal $114,967Soil Cover and ChannelSoil Cover 2.5 ACRE $54,364 $135,911 See Sub-elementChannel 1,100 LF $50.07 $55,073 See Sub-elementQC Testing 5% $9,549 5% of soil cover and channel construction costSubtotal $200,533Contractor Overhead and Profit 20% $79,739Construction Subtotal $478,435Contingency 30% $143,531 20% scope + 10% bidConstruction Total $621,966EngineeringProject Management 8% $49,757 % of construction totalMonitoring Plans 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 WP, QAPP, HSPRemedial Design 15% $93,295 % of construction totalConstruction Management 10% $62,197 % of construction totalInstitutional Controls 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 Survey and legal descriptionEngineering Total $225,249TOTAL CAPITAL COST $847,215Install a vegetated soil cover over thecontaminated media to reduce exposure andmigration.June 13, 2002Q:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site4 final\Sites 4 CMScost_rev2.xls Page 1 of 2 6/13/02TABLE 4-2COST ESTIMATE SUMMARYCMA 3: CONTAINMENT WITH ICMSITES 4 & 5 - SOUTH ASH SETTLING BASIN & ANILINE PONDSite: Aniline Pond and South Ash CMS Description:Location: Charlestown, INPhase: CMSBase Year: 2001Date:Install a vegetated soil cover over thecontaminated media to reduce exposure andmigration.June 13, 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 $7,549Soil Cover and Channel MaintenanceVegetation Care and Replacement 1 LS $1,800 $1,800 10% of initial seeding cost (see sub-element)Erosion Control and Repair 1 LS $4,011 $4,011 2% of construction cost of soil cover andchannelSubtotal $5,811O&M Activity Subtotal $13,360Contingency 30% $4,008 20% scope + 10% bidO&M Activity Total $17,368Engineering During O&MProject Management 10% $1,737 % of O&M activity totalTechnical Support 20% $3,474 % of O&M activity totalEngineering Subtotal $5,210TOTAL ANNUAL O&M COST $22,578PERIODIC 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 $847,215 $847,215 1.0000 $847,215Annual O&M Cost 1-30 $677,335 $22,578 12.4090 $280,168Periodic 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$1,603,000 $1,155,433PRESENT VALUE TOTAL $1,155,000Q:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site4 final\Sites 4 CMScost_rev2.xls Page 2 of 2 6/13/02TABLE 4-3COST ESTIMATE SUMMARYCMA 4: REMOVAL AND LANDFILLSITES 4 & 5 - SOUTH ASH SETTLING BASIN & ANILINE PONDSite: Aniline Pond and South Ash CMS Description:Location: Charlestown, INPhase: CMSBase Year: 2001Date:CAPITAL COSTSDESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL NOTES/ASSUMPTIONSConstructionGeneral CondtionsMobilization/Demobilization 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 Equipment and manpowerSubmittals and Plans 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 WP, CQCP, EPP, SSHP, SWPP, SAP, T&DPlanTemporary Facilities 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 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 $7,500 $7,500 As-builts, QC test reportsSubtotal $151,500Baseline 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 WorkClearing and Grubbing 7 AC $3,175 $22,225 12 diam treesSelective Demolition 1 LS $2,000 $2,000 Ash sump and basin outletErosion Controls 1 LS $6,000 $6,000 Silt fencing along central drainage channel,replaced once during removalKarst Improvement 125 LF $2,199.34 $274,918 Assume 5 sinkholes (see sub-element)Subtotal $305,143Remove and LandfillExcavation/Handling/Loading 24,000 CY $6.50 $156,000 Trackhoe, loader, laborHaul to Landfill 19,200 CY $7.50 $144,000 20 mi. to landfillTreatment/Disposal Fees 28,800 TON $20 $576,000 1.5 tons/cy, includes tipping feesHaul to Landfill (Haz Waste) 4,800 CY $64.00 $307,200Treat/Disposal Fees (Hazardous) 7,200 TON $130 $936,000 1.5 tons/cy, includes tipping feesFine grade and seed 7 AC $7,260 $50,820QC Testing 5% $105,960 5% of removal/landfill costsSubtotal $2,275,980Contractor Overhead and Profit 20% $553,564Construction Subtotal $3,321,383Contingency 30% $996,415 20% scope + 10% bidConstruction Total $4,317,798EngineeringProject Management 6% $259,068 % of construction totalMonitoring Plans 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 WP, QAPP, HSPRemedial Design 12% $518,136 % of construction totalConstruction Management 8% $345,424 % of construction totalInstitutional Controls 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 Survey and legal descriptionEngineering Total $1,142,627TOTAL CAPITAL COST $5,460,425Remove contaminated media and haul to landfillto eliminate exposure and migration potential.June 13, 2002Q:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site4 final\Sites 4 CMScost_rev2.xls Page 1 of 2 6/13/02TABLE 4-3COST ESTIMATE SUMMARYCMA 4: REMOVAL AND LANDFILLSITES 4 & 5 - SOUTH ASH SETTLING BASIN & ANILINE PONDSite: Aniline Pond and South Ash CMS Description:Location: Charlestown, INPhase: CMSBase Year: 2001Date:Remove contaminated media and haul to landfillto eliminate exposure and migration potential.June 13, 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 $7,549O&M Activity Subtotal $7,549Contingency 30% $2,265 20% scope + 10% bidO&M Activity Total $9,814Engineering During O&MProject Management 10% $981 % of O&M activity totalTechnical Support 20% $1,963 % of O&M activity totalEngineering Subtotal $2,944TOTAL ANNUAL O&M COST $12,758PERIODIC COSTSDESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL NOTES/ASSUMPTIONSTOTAL PERIODIC COSTS $0PRESENT VALUE ANALYSISTOTAL TOTAL COST DISCOUNT PRESENTCOST TYPE YEAR COST PER YEAR FACTOR (7%) VALUE NOTESCapital Cost 0 $5,460,425 $5,460,425 1.0000 $5,460,425Annual O&M Cost 1-3 $38,273.43 $12,758 2.6240 $33,476$5,499,000 $5,493,901PRESENT VALUE TOTAL $5,494,000Q:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site4 final\Sites 4 CMScost_rev2.xls Page 2 of 2 6/13/02TABLE 4-4COST ESTIMATE SUMMARYCMA 5: SOLIDIFICATION WITH ICMSITES 4 & 5 - SOUTH ASH SETTLING BASIN & ANILINE PONDSite: Aniline Pond and South Ash CMS Description:Location: Charlestown, INPhase: CMSBase Year: 2001Date:CAPITAL COSTSDESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL NOTES/ASSUMPTIONSConstructionGeneral CondtionsMobilization/Demobilization 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 Equipment and manpowerSubmittals and Plans 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 WP, CQCP, EPP, SSHP, SWPPTemporary Facilities 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 Office trailer, fencing & signs, decon facilityH&S Meetings/Monitoring 2 MO $4,000 $8,000 Weekly crew meetingPost-Construction Submittals 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 As-builts, QC test reportsSubtotal $48,000Baseline 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 WorkSelective Demolition 1 LS $2,000 $2,000 Ash sump and basin outletErosion Controls 1 LS $3,000 $3,000 Silt fencing along central drainage channelKarst Improvement 50 LF $2,199.34 $109,967 Assume 2 sinkholes (see Sub-element)Subtotal $114,967Solidification and ChannelSolidification 7,800 CY $80.30 $626,375 See Sub-elementChannel 1,200 LF $50.07 $60,079 See Sub-elementQC Testing 5% $34,323 5% of solidification and channel construction costSubtotal $720,777Contractor Overhead and Profit 20% $183,788Construction Subtotal $1,102,728Contingency 30% $330,818 20% scope + 10% bidConstruction Total $1,433,546EngineeringProject Management 8% $114,684 % of construction totalMonitoring Plans 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 WP, QAPP, HSPRemedial Design 15% $215,032 % of construction totalConstruction Management 10% $143,355 % of construction totalInstitutional Controls 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 Survey and legal descriptionEngineering Total $493,070TOTAL CAPITAL COST $1,926,616Solidify the upper 2 feet of contaminated mediato decrease the mobility of the COPCs.June 13, 2002Q:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site4 final\Sites 4 CMScost_rev2.xls Page 1 of 2 6/13/02TABLE 4-4COST ESTIMATE SUMMARYCMA 5: SOLIDIFICATION WITH ICMSITES 4 & 5 - SOUTH ASH SETTLING BASIN & ANILINE PONDSite: Aniline Pond and South Ash CMS Description:Location: Charlestown, INPhase: CMSBase Year: 2001Date:Solidify the upper 2 feet of contaminated mediato decrease the mobility of the COPCs.June 13, 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 $7,549Channel MaintenanceErosion Control and Repair 1 LS $1,202 $1,202 2% of construction cost of channelSubtotal $1,202O&M Activity Subtotal $8,751Contingency 30% $2,625 20% scope + 10% bidO&M Activity Total $11,376Engineering During O&MProject Management 10% $1,138 % of O&M activity totalTechnical Support 20% $2,275 % of O&M activity totalEngineering Subtotal $3,413TOTAL ANNUAL O&M COST $14,788PERIODIC 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 $1,926,616 $1,926,616 1.0000 $1,926,616Annual O&M Cost 1-30 $443,655 $14,788 12.4090 $183,510Periodic 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$2,448,000 $2,138,177PRESENT VALUE TOTAL $2,138,000Q:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site4 final\Sites 4 CMScost_rev2.xls Page 2 of 2 6/13/02TABLE 4-5COST SUB-ELEMENTMONITORINGSITES 4 & 5 - SOUTH ASH SETTLING BASIN & ANILINE PONDSite: Aniline Pond and South Ash CMS Prepared By: JJSLocation: Charlestown, IN Date: 6/13/02Phase: CMS Checked By: JJHBase Year: 2001 Date: 6/13/02Work Statement:COST ANALYSISDESCRIPTION QTY UNIT LABOR EQUIP MTRLUNITTOTAL TOTAL NOTES/ASSUMPTIONSPlanning and Preparation 1 LS $1,000 $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000 Organization and planningTravel 3 LS $800 $150 $600 $1,550 $4,650 Airfare, Car Rental, Travel TimePer Diem 9 DY $0 $0 $85 $85 $765 Lodging and Food (3 people, 3 days)Inspection 2 DY $640 $0 $25 $665 $1,330 1 person (engineer)Sampling 2 DY $960 $50 $100 $1,110 $2,220 2 people, PPE and suppliesLaboratory Chemical Analysis 24 EA $450 $400 $50 $900 $21,600 10 surface water +2 QC; 10 sediment + 2 QCChemical Data QC Review 1 DY $640 $0 $0 $640 $640 ChemistDatabase (ERDMIS, GIS) 1 DY $1,040 $0 $0 $1,040 $1,040 Chemist and TechnicianReport 1 LS $4,000 $0 $500 $4,500 $4,500 Includes shippingSubtotal $37,745TOTAL COST PER SAMPLING ROUND $37,745SITE UNIT COST 20% $7,549Source of Cost Data:Cost Adjustment Checklist:FACTOR: NOTES:ü H&S Productivity (labor & equip only) Level D.ü Escalation to Base Year Current year (2001) is base year.Area Cost FactorSubcontractor Overhead and ProfitVisit site to inspect Jenny Lind Run drainage basin sites; collect surface water and sediment samples; have samples analyzed for SVOCs, VOCs, pest&PCB, nitroaromatics, and metals;and prepare report. Assumes that the Jenny Lind Run drainage basin will have a total of 10 sampling stations that are all sampled concurrently. Unit cost applied to Aniline Pond andSouth Ash Basin for 2 sampling stations = 20%.Q:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site4 final\Sites 4 CMScost_rev2.xls Page 1 of 1 6/13/02TABLE 4-6COST SUB-ELEMENTCHANNEL CONSTRUCTIONSITES 4 & 5 - SOUTH ASH SETTLING BASIN & ANILINE PONDSite: Aniline Pond and South Ash CMS Prepared By: JJSLocation: Charlestown, IN Date: 6/13/02Phase: CMS Checked By: JJHBase Year: 2001 Date: 6/13/02Work Statement:COST ANALYSISDESCRIPTION QTY UNIT LABOR EQUIP MTRLUNITTOTAL TOTAL NOTES/ASSUMPTIONSMobilization/demobilization 1 LS NA NA NA $1,000 $1,000 Subcontractor from within 25 milesExcavate Channel 1,463 CY $0.84 $1.10 $0 $1.94 $2,838 1.33 cy/lf x 1100 lf, 1.5 cy backhoe30-mil HDPE Liner 2,444 SY $3.51 $0.10 $2.70 $6.31 $15,422 20 wide x 1100 lfGeo-mat 2,444 SY $0.25 $0.10 $1.50 $1.85 $4,521 20 wide x 1100 lfGravel 611 TON $5.30 $5.46 $7.19 $17.95 $10,967 6 thick x 22,000 sfRip-Rap 1333 TON $0.53 $0.92 $6.29 $7.74 $10,317 At 100 dumped in placeImprove Basin Outlet 1 LS NA NA NA $5,000 $5,000 Repair and retrofit for channelSubtotal $50,066Subcontractor O&P 20% $10,013TOTALCOST $60,079UNIT COST PER LF OF CHANNEL $50.07Source of Cost Data:Cost Adjustment Checklist:FACTOR: NOTES:ü H&S Productivity (labor & equip only) Level D.ü Escalation to Base Year Current year (2001) is base year.Area Cost Factorü Subcontractor Overhead and ProfitInstall drainage channel through Aniline Pond and South Ash Settling Basin. Includes overexcavation and grading, 2 feet compacted clay, geotextile, gravel, and rip-rap. Assumesexcavated material left on site.2001 Means Heavy Construction Cost DataAggrock Quarries Sellersburg, INHedges Excavating Louisville, KYQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site4 final\Sites 4 CMScost_rev2.xls Page 1 of 1 6/13/02TABLE 4-7COST SUB-ELEMENTVEGETATED SOIL COVERSITES 4 & 5 - SOUTH ASH SETTLING BASIN & ANILINE PONDSite: Aniline Pond and South Ash CMS Prepared By: JJSLocation: Charlestown, IN Date: 6/13/02Phase: CMS Checked By: JJHBase Year: 2001 Date: 6/13/02Work Statement:COST ANALYSISDESCRIPTION QTY UNIT LABOR EQUIP MTRLUNITTOTAL TOTAL NOTES/ASSUMPTIONSMobilization/demobilization 1 LS NA NA NA $1,000 $1,000 Subcontractor from within 25 milesClear and grub 2.5 ACRE NA NA NA $3,175 $7,938 Trees to 12, includes chippingPregrading 1,960 CY $0.30 $0.93 $0.00 $1.23 $2,411 Average 6 inches of cut across siteGeo-grid 3,070 SY $0.25 $0.10 $1.70 $2.05 $6,294 For soil stabilizationGravel 770 TON $5.30 $5.46 $7.19 $17.95 $13,822 6 for soil stabilizationHaul and Spread Clay Fill 7,830 CY $3.36 $3.30 $0.00 $6.66 $52,1482 thick compacted, mtrl cost includes haul,onsite materialCompact Lower 18 5,870 CY $0.22 $0.41 $0.00 $0.63 $3,698 Sheepsfoot, select fill, 8 liftsFine grade and seed 12,100 SY $1.16 $0.18 $0.16 $1.50 $18,150 Includes fertilizerPlant establishment 3 MONTH $1,600 $800 $200 $2,600 $7,800 Check weekly, water as neededSubtotal $113,259Subcontractor O&P 20% $22,652TOTAL COST $135,911UNIT COST PER ACRE $54,364Source of Cost Data:Cost Adjustment Checklist:FACTOR: NOTES:ü H&S Productivity (labor & equip only) Level D.ü Escalation to Base Year Current year (2001) is base year.Area Cost Factorü Subcontractor Overhead and ProfitInstall 2-foot-thick, vegetated soil cover using locally available, cohesive soil. Clear and grub contaminated area and shred vegetation for on-site use as mulch. Pregrade site to developpositive drainage, install 18-inch thick compacted soil layer and place 6-inch loose layer. Fertilize and plant native grass mixture, and oversee planting for 3 months to ensure satisfactorycoverage.2001 Means Heavy Construction Cost DataHedges Excavating Louisville, KYQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site4 final\Sites 4 CMScost_rev2.xls Page 1 of 1 6/13/02TABLE 4-8COST SUB-ELEMENTSOLIDIFICATIONSITES 4 & 5 - SOUTH ASH SETTLING BASIN & ANILINE PONDSite: Aniline Pond and South Ash CMS Prepared By: JJSLocation: Charlestown, IN Date: 6/13/02Phase: CMS Checked By: JJHBase Year: 2001 Date: 6/13/02Work Statement:COST ANALYSISDESCRIPTION QTY UNIT LABOR EQUIP MTRLUNITTOTAL TOTAL NOTES/ASSUMPTIONSMobilization/demobilization 1 LS NA NA NA $10,000 $10,000 Set up processing plantClear and grub 2.5 ACRE NA NA NA $3,175 $7,938 Trees to 12, includes chippingExcavate and Haul to Process Area 7,780 CY $1.68 $2.20 $0 $3.88 $30,186 2 x 105,000 sfProcess Material 14,500 TON $1.68 $4.40 $25 $31.08 $450,660 Assume 25% admix of Portland cementHaul and Spread Processed Material 9,725 CY $0.33 $0.74 $0 $1.07 $10,406 2 thick compacted, mtrl cost includes haulCompact Processed Material 9,725 CY $0.22 $0.41 $0 $0.63 $6,127 Wheel, select fill, 8 liftsFine Grade to Finish Slopes 12,100 SY $0.21 $0.23 $0 $0.44 $5,324Subtotal $520,640Subcontractor O&P 20% $104,128TOTAL COST $624,768TOTAL UNIT COST PER CY $80.30Source of Cost Data:Cost Adjustment Checklist:FACTOR: NOTES:ü H&S Productivity (labor & equip only) Level D.ü Escalation to Base Year Current year (2001) is base year.Area Cost Factorü Subcontractor Overhead and ProfitSolidify the upper 2 feet of contaminated media in the Aniline and South Ash Basins. Clear and grub contaminated area and shred vegetation for on-site use as mulch. Pregrade site todevelop positive drainage. Excavate and process material by mixing in Portland cement (assumed to be mixed at 25% by weight) and water. Return material to excavation, place, compact,and fine grade.2001 Means Heavy Construction Cost DataHedges Excavating Louisville, KYQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site4 final\Sites 4 CMScost_rev2.xls Page 1 of 1 6/13/02TABLE 4-9COST SUB-ELEMENTKARST IMPROVEMENTSITES 4 & 5 - SOUTH ASH SETTLING BASIN & ANILINE PONDSite: Aniline Pond and South Ash CMS Prepared By: JJSLocation: Charlestown, IN Date: 6/13/02Phase: CMS Checked By: JJHBase Year: 2001 Date: 6/13/02Work Statement:COST ANALYSISDESCRIPTION QTY UNIT LABOR EQUIP MTRLUNITTOTAL TOTAL NOTES/ASSUMPTIONSExcavate and Stockpile 778 CY $3 $3.50 $0 $6.50 $5,057 Trackhoe, loader, laborSand 1200 TON $5.30 $5.46 $7.19 $17.95 $21,540 Fill excavation, 50 long plus loss to voidsRip-Rap 12 TON $0.53 $0.92 $6.29 $7.74 $93 2deep, 50 longGeotextile 390 SY $0.25 $0.10 $1.70 $2.05 $800 70 long, 50 wideCompact Sand 778 CY $0.13 $0.35 $0 $0.48 $373 Vibratory, 6 liftsHaul to Landfill (Haz Waste) 156 CY $64.00 $0 $0 $64.00 $9,984 320 mi. to landfillDisposal Fees (Hazardous) 234 TON $0 $0 $130.00 $130.00 $30,420 1.5 tons per cy, includes tipping feesHaul to Landfill 623 CY $1.88 $5.62 $0 $7.50 $4,673 20 mi. to landfillDisposal Fees 935 TON $0 $0 $20.00 $20.00 $18,700 1.5 tons per cy, includes tipping feesSubtotal $91,639Subcontractor O&P 20% $18,328TOTAL COST $109,967TOTAL UNIT COST PER LF $2,199.34Source of Cost Data:Cost Adjustment Checklist:FACTOR: NOTES:ü H&S Productivity (labor & equip only) Level D.ü Escalation to Base Year Current year (2001) is base year.Area Cost Factorü Subcontractor Overhead and ProfitImprove karst sinkholes to allow for drainage but to reduce sediment transport and erosion through karst features. Remove upper 10 feet of overburden material, grading the slopes to aminimum of two to one. Placing rip-rap material in the solution feature and a two-feet sand filter on top of the rip-rap. The excavation would then be filled in with sand to providedrainage.2001 Means Heavy Construction Cost DataHedges Excavating Louisville, KYQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site4 final\Sites 4 CMScost_rev2.xls Page 1 of 1 6/13/02TABLE 4-10COMPARISON OF TOTAL COST OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVESSITES 4 & 5 - SOUTH ASH SETTLING BASIN & ANILINE PONDSite: Aniline Pond and South Ash CMS Base Year: 2001Location: Charlestown, IN Date:Phase: CMSAlternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5DESCRIPTIONNO ACTIONINSTITUTIONALCONTROLS ANDMONITORING(ICM)CONTAINMENTWITH ICMREMOVAL ANDLANDFILLSOLIDIFICATIONWITH ICMTotal Project Duration (Years) 0 30 30 3 30Capital Cost $0 $80,396 $847,215 $5,460,425 $1,926,616Annual O&M Cost $0 $12,758 $22,578 $12,758 $14,788Total Periodic Cost $0 $78,000 $78,000 $0 $78,000Total Cost of Alternative $0 $541,000 $1,603,000 $5,499,000 $2,448,000Total Present Value of Alternative $0 $267,000 $1,155,000 $5,494,000 $2,138,000June 13, 2002Q:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site4 final\Sites 4 CMScost_rev2.xls Page 1 of 1 6/13/02SECTIONFIVE Detailed Screening of AlternativesQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site4&5 final\anilinesouthash_cmsrev2.doc\13-Jun-02 /OMA 5-1This section presents the detailed screening of corrective measure alternatives using EPA’s ninecriteria.5.1 DETAILED SCREENING CRITERIAThe corrective measure alternatives were analyzed in detail using EPA’s nine criteria that weredeveloped to address corrective measure requirements and considerations. The evaluationcriteria are described below, according to a functional class of threshold and balancing.Modifying criteria, which consist of state regulatory and community acceptance, are notaddressed in this CMS report. These modifying criteria can be documented and addressedthrough the agency and public review and comment process.5.1.1 Threshold CriteriaOverall protection of human health and the environment. This criterion provides a final check toassess whether the CMA provides adequate protection of human health and the environment.The assessment of overall protection draws from the assessments of other criteria, particularlyshort-term and long-term effectiveness and performance. This evaluation allows forconsideration of whether a CMA poses any unacceptable short-term, long-term, or cross-mediaimpacts resulting from remediation.Attain media cleanup standards. This criterion is used to determine whether the CMA will meetrelevant media cleanup objectives for the facility involved.Control sources of release. The purpose of this criterion is to evaluate whether or not the CMAwill reduce or eliminate, to the extent practicable, further releases that may impact human healthor the environment.Compliance with applicable standards for waste management. This criterion is used to evaluatehow wastes resulting from the corrective measure will be managed.5.1.2 Balancing CriteriaLong-term effectiveness and performance. This criterion addresses the risk remaining at the siteafter a particular CMA has been implemented and the corrective measure objectives have beenmet. The focus is on the risk posed by residuals and/or untreated wastes after the cleanup criteriahave been reached. The primary considerations of this criterion are the magnitude of residualrisk and the adequacy and reliability of long-term management controls to provide protectionfrom residuals.Reduction of TMV. This criterion addresses the statutory preference to implement correctiveactions that use treatment to permanently and significantly reduce the TMV of principalhazardous substances at a site. Each CMA is evaluated in terms of how the principal threat isaddressed through treatment, the quantity reduction, the degree of reduction, the degree ofirreversibility of treatment, and the type and quantity of residuals remaining after treatment.SECTIONFIVE Detailed Screening of AlternativesQ:\4599\fl010g00\inaap_cms_site4&5 final\anilinesouthash_cmsrev2.doc\13-Jun-02 /OMA 5-2Short-term effectiveness. This criterion assesses the short-term effectiveness of each CMA byconsidering the protection of the community and site workers during construction andimplementation of the CMA, the environmental impacts, and the time required to achieve thecorrective measure objectives.Implementability. This criterion assesses the implementability of each CMA in terms of itstechnical feasibility and the ability to construct and operate the necessary components.Technical feasibility considers the reliability of the proposed technology, the ease of undertakingadditional corrective measures if necessary, the ability to monitor its effectiveness, theavailability of resources, and the coordination requirements with other agencies.Cost. The cost of each CMA is developed as the sum of capital costs and operation andmaintenance (O&M) costs, including monitoring. Present value costs provide a common basisfor comparison. The cost estimates are intended to provide an accuracy range of –30 to +50percent of actual cost. Cost estimate details are provided in Section 4.5.2 DETAILED SCREENING EVALUATIONThe corrective measures alternative evaluation is presented in Table 5-1. The mean residualexposure levels for organic COPECs and inorganic COPECs are listed in Tables 5-2 and 5-3,respectively. These tables present the residual exposures for all of the COPECs and the mostsensitive ecological receptor for each of the COPECs after implementation of the alternative.Two exposure levels are presented, the mean exposure and the 95% upper confidence limit forthe mean exposure level.Multiple ecological receptors were evaluated, but only the most sensitive among the groupevaluated is presented on the tables. As each chemical can have different effects on differentecological receptors, the most sensitive receptor can vary. This can be seen in the tables where,for example in Table 5-1, the shrew is the most sensitive to total chlordane while the woodcockis the most sensitive to total DDT.To interpret the effectiveness of the alternatives, a “risk-based concentration” or RBC ispresented on the tables that can be directly compared to the residual exposure levels. Residualexposure levels that are below the RBC suggest no risk, whereas residual exposure levels abovethe RBC suggests a potential for adverse effects. Supporting information is provided by thefrequency of detection (e.g., how much impact is associated with elevated detection limits versusreal detected concentrati |
|---|---|
| Origin: | 2002-07-23 |
| Source: |
http://indianamemory.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15078coll17/id/33752 |
| 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.
This project is made possible by a grant from the U.S. Institute of Museum and Library Services, administered by the Indiana State Library.