Appendix C-5

ENVIRONMENTAL SIMULATION PROGRAM INFORMATION

RR323272

feVr•*• *-Rr''43K*SSv v-f'.VfJjHE/' ; •C>-v*jK-V:'''V̂ fli*'-i?'rt}, ;

r̂ f̂ |̂ ^̂ ;̂t;̂|fJ ̂ '̂•'̂':i':

OLI Systems, Inc., the world leader in aqueous systems operating parameters is achieved via a series of easy-to-modeling, has developed a simulation software package read displays.called the Environmental Simulation Program (ESP) tomodel aqueous, conventional and complex chemical Flowsheet Simulation, which allows a user to simulatesystems. ESP was based upon on OLTs ProChem a single process unit or link together any process unitssoftware which has been refined throughout OLI's 20 simulating a complete plant operation. The facilitiesyear history. All major features of Prochem have been are available to model a process at steady state orincorporated into ESP. under transient (i.e., dynamic) conditions.

Thermodynamic Framework, a highly advanced,CHEMICAL PHENOMENA state-of-the-art framework' which is the basis for

predicting complex aqueous-based chemistry hiESP can model complex chemical phenomena, equilibrium with optional vapor, nonaqueous liquid, andincluding: solid phases.

• Interphase Equilibria between aqueous, organic ESP Databank, an extensive, high qualityliquid, vapor and multiple solids phases; thermodynamic and physical property databank of over

3,000 inorganic and organic species. All data is• Intraphase Equilibria including redox and verified and validated from source literature which is

speciation reactions; referenced in the databank. The databank, whichsupports the predictive thermodynamic framework of

• Biochemical Reactions; ESP, may additionally be used as a reference library.

• Reaction Kinetics; ESP Express, a facility which allows the user todefine, simulate, and display the results of stream

• Other Phenomena including ion exchange and studies; both single case as well as parametric casecoprecipitation, studies.

Flexible Feed Stream Definition, allows streamOLI SOFTWARE composition data to be supplied on either an ionic

species basis, or the more conventional molecularESP is a comprehensive computer simulation tool species concentration basis. The option to input datawhich allows the simulation, design, and optimization on an ionic basis is advantageous since laboratoryof a wide variety of chemical processes. For example, water sample analysis data, often the basis of anESP can simulate various environmental waste environmental simulation study, are normally expressedminimization, treatment, and remediation processes as in terms of ionic species concentrations.well as more conventional processes such as separationand distillation. Open Architecture, which allows ESP to run on

multiple software platforms, including PCs, RISCProChem is the aqueous chemistry solver upon which workstations, and VAX computers. Processes areESP is based. The facilities of ProChem support ESP. defined from a series of easy-to-follow windows. AnThese facilities include single and multistage steady import faculty allows interfacing to other databanks.state modeling,,as well as dynamic simulation.

CALCULATION TECHNIQUESESP FEATURES

ESP uses a highly advanced thermodynamic andESP provides a highly refined user interface for solving mathematical framework for predicting the equilibriumproblems. This interface allows access to many major properties of a chemical system. This predictivefeatures, including: framework is based upon:

Process Unit Simulation, which supports a wide • the Revised Helgeson Equation of State forvariety of commonly used environmental (e.g., predicting the standard state thermodynamicbioreactor, neutralizê and conventional (e.g., mixer, properties of all species, including organics, instripper) process units. Selection and specification of water,

AR323271*

• the Bromley-Zemaitis framework for the ESP COMPONENTSprediction of excess thermodynamic properties;

The Environmental Simulation Program (ESP) is• the Pitzer and Setschenow formulation for the organized into three software components:

prediction of the excess thermodynamic propertiescalculation of molecular species in water; and ESP Databook, a component which enables a user to

review and add to an extensive thermodynamic library• the Enhanced SRK Equation of State for the containing over 2,000 chemical species;

prediction of vapor and nonaqueous liquid phasethermodynamic properties. ESP Process, a component to simulate environmental

and conventional processes;

CALCULATION RANGES ESP Toolkit, a component which provides access toseveral important facilities including the

The extensive ESP databanks support the predictive WaterAnalyzer (defining feed streams based upon aframeworks, and allow chemical systems to be water analysis), DynaChem (dynamic processaccurately simulated over the following conditions: simulation), and ESP Express (convenient stream

studies).Aqueous Systems

This organization of ESP is summarized in a diagramTemperature 0 - 300 degrees C on the next page of this document.Pressure 0 - 500 barSpecies Concentration 0-30 molal

ESP DATABOOKNonaqueous Systems

ESP Databook allows the review of OLI's extensiveTemperature 0 -1200 degrees C databanks where the species physical andPressure 0 - 500 bar thermodynamic information are stored. The ESPSpecies Concentration 0-1.0 mole fraction databanks support the predictive thermodynamic

framework of the simulator and may also be used as areference library for information. Included are: most

OLI SUPPORT SERVICES species in the DIPPR Project 801 data compilation(DIPPR is the Design Institute for Physical Properties

OLI Systems, Inc. also offers a wide range of support which is administered by the American Institute ofservices for the software which include: Chemical Engineers); many additional species on the

United States EPA (Environmental Protection Agency)Hotline Support, which allows users to obtain List of Lists; and the European Red, Grey, and Blackguidance from OLI when trying to simulate difficult Lists. Additionally, ESP Databook has a facility forchemistry and new processes; creating private user databanks, to allow species not

covered in the OLI supplied databanks to be used inUpdate Service, which offers updates of the software simulations.or thermodynamic property databanks, as the needarises;

ESP DATABANKSData Service, which offers OLI's personnel to create"private" thermodynamic property databanks based on The ESP databanks also contain supportinguser chemistry. Requests are considered on a priority information on species properties. This informationbasis; and, includes literature references, data quality (i.e.,

accuracy) and, where applicable, source andProfessional Service, which offers OLI personnel to experimental data.model user chemistry and processes on an individuallybilled basis. The data for chemical species are organized into three

separate databanks which support a wide spectrum ofchemistry. These databanks are:

RR323275

ORGANIZATION OF ESP

ESPDATABOOK

DATABANKSPUBLICGEOCHEMLABUser Databanks

ESPPROCESS

User Descriptionof the Chemistry

CHEMISTRYMODEL

ESPTOOLKIT

CHEMISTRYMODEL

User Descriptionof the Chemistry

Full Chemiitry Pull ChemistryModel [Model

User Descriptionof the Process

PROCESSBUILD DYNACHEM

SimulationDescription File

ESPEXPRESS

SimulationDescription File

WATERANALYZER

PROCESSANALYSIS

DynaChemGraphicalDisplay

—————— fc.,4. —

ESP EXPRESSGraphicalDisplay

WATERANALYZER

Report

SimulationResults

PROCESSSUMMARY ——————————————I Stream to

Simulation Report ESp Process

AR323276

PUBLIC - This databank contains thermodynamic and property information for the particular mix of chemicalsphysical properties for nearly 3,000 different organic involved.and inorganic chemicals and is used by ESP Process to

^ carry out simulations. If the system involves reaction kinetics, sorptionphenomena, redox, or bioreactions; or if the feed

GEOCHEM - This databank contains approximately streams are to be described based upon a laboratory90 solid chemical species which are typically found hi water (i.e., ionic species) analysis, the user can supplygeological formations and which generally equilibrate additional information beyond the statement of thewith water over long periods of time. This databank ' molecular species involved.may also be used by ESP Process.

Once a Chemistry Model is built, it can be used for allLAB - This databank contains approximately 150 simulation studies that use this chemistry.primary anion and cation species and strictly supportsESP's facility for accepting a feed stream composition In Process Build, the user describes the processbased upon ionic concentrations. flowsheet to be simulated. This is achieved by

selecting individual unit operations from a series oficons for those currently supported by ESP. By

PRIVATE DATABANKS working with the screen menu interface, the user canprovide the information required to specify the

In addition to the OLI supplied databanks, the facility individual unit operations.is available for the user to create a private speciesdatabank to augment or override species data in the In Process Analysis, the execution and analysis of aOLI databanks. process flowsheet is accomplished using mformation

defined in Chemistry Model and Process Build.

REFERENCE LIBRARY In Process Summary, the user can direct a reportdescribing the simulation results to an appropriate

?"* The databanks can also be used as a reference library output device (i.e., disk, printer).•— - for species property information. The ESP Databook

program provides a high-level user interface and allowsthe user to access the values for physical and ESP SCRATCHPADthermodynamic property data as well as supportinginformation such as literature references, experimental In addition, the user has access to ESP Scratchpad withdata, species interactions and data quality (i.e., respect to process streams. This facility allows the useraccuracy). to select an individual stream in a process flowsheet

and perform additional "scratch pad" calculations.Such point calculations include: isothermal, adiabatic,

ESP PROCESS set pH, bubble point, dew point, etc.

ESP Process is the program which actually builds andexecutes cases in ESP. ESP Process is divided into ESP TOOLKITfour working parts, called Modes, which are:

ESP ToolKit is another ESP component which allows• Chemistry Model the user to access a number of additional faculties

Process Build including:• Process Analysis• Summary ProChem, provides the user with, among other things,

access to DynaChem, for dynamic simulation ofIn Chemistry Model, the user provides a simple processes based upon ESP chemistry.description of the molecular species involved in thechemical system to be simulated. From this ESP WaterAnalyzer, enables the user to store,description, ESP automatically generates the detailed manage, and reconcile individual ionic species labspeciation (e.g., ionic species in the aqueous solution), analyses prior to using these analyses as the basis forthe interphase and aqueous speciation equilibria molecular species feed streams in ESP Process.reactions and the required physical and thermodynamic

•

RR323277

Databook, descriptions of faculties for locating and Dynamic Modeling, descriptions of the scope andreviewing database information and procedures for principles of dynamic modeling (at present a ProChempreparing private databanks; DynaChem function);

Chemistry Models, procedures for building a basic Applications, collection of examples for all processchemistry model and inclusion of other chemical blocks and ToolKit blocks featuring plant modeling onphenomena; real engineering applications with engineering

troubleshooting aids;Process Modeling, principles for using ESP Process,containing a description of individual process blocks; Reference, index, keyword summary, detailed software

structure, and descriptions of the various softwareESP ToolKit, which contains instructions for using Action Key facilities available.ToolKit Blocks, including WaterAnalyzer and ESPExpress;

OLJ Systems, Inc.108 American Road

Morris Plains, NJ 07950Tel. (201) 539-4996Fax (201) 539-5922

RR323279

Development of a ComprehensiveEnvironmental Simulation Program

Marshall RafalPatrice Black

Stephen J. SandersPauline L TolmachRobert D. Young

OLI Systems, Inc.108 American Road

Morris Plains, NJ 07950

Prepared for presentation at

AIChE 1994 Spring National Meeting

April 17-21, 1994

flR323280

Introduction

Chemical engineering process simulation has evolved over the past 30 years to the point whereit is an important tool in the design, operation and optimization of processes throughout theProcess Industries. Initially designed to link separate programs describing the performance ofindividual unit operations in arbitrary sequences, the earliest flowsheet simulators allowed for theconvergence of recycle blocks and, in most cases, feedback control (also called spec/control)loops.

With the advent of more powerful computers, the best of these simulators incorporated costingand optimization facilities. With the further advent of a new and powerful generation of desktopcomputers and sophisticated software for the development of user interfaces, many of today'smajor commercial simulators provide powerful Graphical User Interfaces (called GUIs) allowingthe user the option of defining a simulation via interactive definition with Process Flow Diagrams(called PFDs).

The latter part of the 1980s presented a new challenge to flowsheet simulation, namely,environmental simulation. Environmental simulation can be thought of as anything whichaddresses the three major concerns of the regulatory agencies, namely:

1) Waste minimization.

2) Pretreatment (also called end-of-pipe treatment)

3) Remediation (both in-situ and ex-situ)

Environmental simulation provided a major new set of challenges to the field of processsimulation. These challenges can be summarized as follows:

1) The need for a comprehensive, predictive thermodynamic framework for aqueous basedsystems. This is because many environmental problems involve water.

2) The need for an engineering databank with coefficients to support prediction of virtuallyany chemistry from the Periodic Table; both inorganic and organic.

3) The need to carry out both steady-state and dynamic simulations. Many environmentalfeed streams are not steady-state in nature.

4) The need to rigorously simulate new and, heretofore unaddressed, unit operations. Theseinclude biotreatment, air and steam stripping (considering the possibility of solidsformation and plugging of the tower), neutralization, ion exchange, etc.

5) The need to define feed streams in new ways. For example, many environmental

-1-

AR32328I

simulations begin with a feed stream described hi terms of a "raw" laboratory wateranalysis rather than a well defined molecular ensemble. Alternatively, certainbiotreatment substrates can only be characterized by a very limited set of "lumped"characteristics; e.g., ThOD, TOC, BOD, etc.

6) The need for numerical solution algorithms capable of dealing with trace components.This arises both in terms of the need to predict chemical components at the ppm or, even,ppb levels as well as the need to predict ionic species in an aqueous stream.

7) The need for numerical solution algorithms capable of dealing with many more phases(e.g., solids) than ever before.

8) The need to be able to run extensive studies on single streams as an alternative toflowsheet simulation.

The subject of this paper is the Environmental Simulation Program (ESP) which was designedand implemented to deal with the special problems outlined above. In the material below, ESPwill be described in terms of the following elements:

1) The ESP Thermodynamic Framework which provides a predictive model for virtually anycombination of chemicals in water and which combines, in a thermodynamicallyconsistent fashion, with conventional models for other physical phases.

2) The ESP Databank which provides stored coefficients to cover a broad spectrum ofchemistry; both organic and inorganic.

3) The ESP Flowsheet Simulator which provides for both steady-state and dynamicsimulation of processes.

4) The ESP Unit Operations which provide for a broad spectrum of both conventional andenvironmental processes.

5) The ESP Water Analyzer which provides for feed streams to be defined on the basis ofa "raw" laboratory analysis.

6) The ESP Numerical Solution Algorithm which provides for the automatic initializationand solution of large sets of nonlinear algebraic equations with variables (unknowns)whose solution values can vary between l.OE-50 and greater than 1.0.

The ESP Numerical Solution Algorithm which provides for the consideration of up to 253physical phases (aqueous, gas, nonaqueous liquid and 250 solids) and the solution of theassociated equilibrium (and, optionally, kinetics, redox, coprecipitation, ion exchange,bioreaction) equations.

-2-

RR323282

7) The ESP Scratchpad and Survey Facility which provides for extensive studies ofindividual process and environmental streams.

The ESP Thermodvnamic Framework

The ESP Thermodynamic Framework is substantially described, in considerable detail, in (R-l).In brief, ESP utilizes conventional thermodynamic approaches for all nonaqueous phases (e.g.,SRK). The current implementation utilizes an SRK (R-2) with the Kabadi-Danner (R-3)extensions for both the gas and nonaqueous liquid phase and conventional thermodynamics forpure solids. Where solid solutions are involved (e.g., ion exchange and coprecipitation), regularsolution theory is used to describe the activity coefficients in the solid phase.

For the aqueous phase, ESP utilizes a thermodynamically consistent combination of:

1) The Revised Helgeson Equation of State (R-4, R-5, R-6) for the standard state partialmolal Gibbs free energy, enthalpy, entropy, heat capacity and volume.

2) A proprietary extension to the work of Bromley (R-7, R-8) and Meissner (R-9) for theexcess partial molal thermodynamic properties.

The significance of this framework is that, in addition to allowing for the regression ofappropriate data, it is backed by correlation and extrapolation formulations which allow for thethermodynamic properties of virtually and species in water to be predicted over the range of:

1) Temperature: 0-300'C

2) Pressure: 0-500 bar

3) Concentration: 0-30 molal

The ESP Databank

The objective for the ESP Databank was to provide for the calculation of all relevant propertiesin all physical phases for the full chemistry implied by the following::

1) Inorganic Chemistry - 92 Elements from the Periodic Table

2) Organic Chemistry - The combined organics of DIPPR 801 (R-10) and the EPA's List ofLists (R-ll). This leads to approximately 2300 target organic chemicals.

The challenge was, of course, to provide proper databanMng for the aqueous phase.

-3-

AR323283

The mission with respect to inorganic chemistry is quite formidable due to the fact that thepredictive aqueous framework is predicated on a complete description of speciation in theaqueous phase. The scope of this effort is best described in terms of a typical metal like iron.First, both principal oxidation states must be considered (Fe(+2) and Fe(+3)). Next, thespeciation of both oxidation states with every possible anion must be considered (e.g., the anionsof the halides, sulfur, selenium, arsenic, phosphorous, etc.). Next, the cation-anion interactionswhich are essential to the prediction of the excess thermodynamic properties must be regressedor estimated. Next, the possible solids which can form from any cation-anion pair must beconsidered. At present, ESP covers the inorganic chemistry of 58 elements from the PeriodicTable.

The mission with respect to organic chemistry can be broken down into three major categoriesof organics:

1) Sparingly soluble organics - The aqueous phase thermodynamic properties of species inthis group can be readily developed by a technique outlined in (R-12). The techniquedoes require having the solubility of the organic in water at least a single temperature.Where such data is unavailable, estimation techniques can be used (R-13).

2) Well soluble, non-electrolyte organics - Here the approach is to utilize binary VLE data,where available, to regress the necessary aqueous phase thermodynamic coefficients.

3) Well soluble, electrolyte organics - Here the approach is to utilize available data ofvarious types, but there is a great emphasis on unpublished correlation techniques to dealwith the thermodynamic databanking of a vast body of organic electrolytes (e.g., chelatingagents).

The overall target list for ESP, comprised of the union of the DIPPR 801 list and the USEPA'sList of List, calls for databanking for 2300 organic components. ESP currently provides for about1200 organics, the preponderance of which are sparingly soluble. The remainder, which arecurrently under development are primarily well soluble non-electrolyte and electrolyte organicsplus sparingly soluble organics for which solubility data is unavailable and for which the standardestimation methods for solubility do not readily apply.

The ESP Flowsheet Simulator

Our design objective for ESP was to provide the basic facilities of a modern flowsheet simulator.Our objectives, now achieved, are:

1) The ability to define flowsheets made up of a combination of conventional as well asenvironmental unit operations.

2) The ability to deal with one or more recycle streams.

-4-

AR323281*

3) The ability to deal with flowsheet feedforward and feedback controls (also known asspecs and controls) as well as manipulate operations.

4) The ability to describe the flowsheet in a easy, straightforward manner.

In addition, our further objective, not yet achieved, was to provide for both steady-state anddynamic simulation via the same simulator interface. We do currently provide a separatedynamic simulator, but the objective is to provide the same convenient ESP interface for bothmodes of operation.

The ESP Unit Operations

Our mission with regard to the unit operations is conveniently separated into conventional andenvironmental unit processes.

For the conventional processes we emphasized the major, customary components of a flowsheetsimulator, namely:

1) Mixer

2) Splitter

3) Heat Exchanger

4) Separator

5) Stripper

6) Absorber

7) Extractor

For the environmental processes, the following have been achieved, from our initial target list:

1) Neutralizer

2) Precipitator

3) Bioreactor

4) Clarifier

5) Combustor/Incinerator

-5-

AR323285

6) Air Stripper

7) Steam Stripper

8) Generalized Reactor (Kinetics and/or Equilibrium)

9) Generalized Tower (Scrubbers, Strippers, Extractors, Absorbers)

Phenomenologically, our models can be comprised of equilibrium kinetics, redox, coprecipitation,ion exchange and bioreaction. The default model, automatically created from a simple statementof flowsheet chemistry (i.e., components), accounts for all physical equilibria between as manyas 253 phases (gas, aqueous liquid, nonaqueous liquid, up to 250 independent solids) as well asall aqueous intraphase equilibria.

Still remaining to be done are the Carbon Adsorber and the Membrane Separator. In addition,a surface complexation model will be added to the roster of phenomena to allow for simulationof trace metals removal on "floes" such as ferric hydroxide and alumina.

The ESP Numerical Solution Algorithm

ESP's general problem involves the solution of relatively large sets (25-500) of nonlinearalgebraic equations. The equations normally represent a combination of physical phase equilibria,aqueous intraphase equilibria and material balances. However, in certain cases, the model alsomust provide for equations describing kinetics, ion exchange, coprecipitation, redox and/orbioreaction.

Since the solver for a flowsheet simulator must be extremely robust, ESP's mission providedseveral substantial barriers which had to be overcome to achieve the current robustimplementation. The major barriers were:

1) The development of an algorithm to provide initial guesses for the unknown variables ofthe equation set This is particularly formidable when the fact that the concentrations inthe aqueous phase can range over nearly 50 orders of magnitude is considered. A carefultopological analysis of the equation set, an effective search algorithm and the use of anenhanced Newton Method enabled this objective to be achieved.

2) The development of an algorithm to correctly determine the correct phase assemblage.This is quite formidable when one considers the fact that up to 253 phases can beconsidered. In addition, the objective was to allow for any phase, including the aqueous,to not exist The objective has now been achieved. Much of the approach is heuristicin nature and assimilates the benefits of many years of experience working this problem.

3) The development of an efficient algorithm. Full speciation models of aqueous systemscan be quite time consuming to compute, particularly where these models are coupled

-6-

&R323286

with tower programs or dynamic simulators which require the aqueous model to be solvedmany times per overall simulation. In addition, the computation of concentrated aqueoussystems, which involve numerous ion-ion interactions, adds greatly to the computationalburden. ESP benefits, again, from many years of experience working the problem.

The ESP Water Analyzer

Conventional process simulators provide for definition of chemistry and feed streams in termsof molecular chemical components. Presented in such form, all aqueous streams are necessarilyelectrically neutral since all of the constituent chemical components are themselves neutral.

Environmental simulation, more often than not, starts with feed stream(s) based upon "raw"laboratory quantitative analysis. These analyses are based upon water samples taken in the field(e.g., end-of-pipe, remediation site). Such samples are reported in terms of individual ions (e.g.,Na+), ion aggregates (e.g., total Fe), dissolved gases (e.g., CO2) or other neutral components(e.g., C6H6). The units are almost never expressed in mqles/hr or Ibs/hr, but, rather, in mg/1,ppm, molality, etc. Also, there are inherent errors in these analyses. Since they areexperimentally determined, they are never precisely electrically neutral and the sample, whencomputed by a reasonable aqueous model, will never tie precisely to certain reported, aggregatevariables such as pH.

The ESP Water Analyzer deals with all of these problems. It provides a framework for enteringthe process chemistry on the basis of ions, dissolved gases and neutral species. In addition, theESP Water Analyzer provides a framework for entering, validating, reconciling for pH andelectroneutrality and, finally, for converting the reconciled stream into a conventional molecularflowsheet stream for process simulation.

In addition, the ESP Water Analyzer provides for alternative units in accordance with thepredominant usage noted above. Since multiple samples are often taken at a given site both interms of geography and time, the Water Analyzer allows composite streams to be formed basedupon weighted averages of individual sample streams.

The ESP ScratchPad and Survey Facility

Some of the desired use of a simulator involves simply specifying a stream and carrying out oneor more "point" calculations and, where series of calculations is carried out, plotting the results.

In the case of an environmental simulator this is even more common. For example, defining astream and then carrying out a MpH Sweep," with or without precipitating reagents, is needed toinvestigate optimum conditions for trace metals removal. The ESP Scratchpad and Surveyfacility serves to enable just these sorts of studies.

Under ESP Scratchpad, the following single-case calculations are provided:

-7-

AR323287

1) Isothermal

2) Adiabatic

3) Bubble Point

4) Dew Point

5) Precipitation Point

6) Fixed pH

7) Fixed Target Species Composition

8) Fixed Overall Amount of Vapor

Under ESP Survey, multiple case runs can be easily defined based upon the following variablesbeing varied over a user specified range and increment:

1) pH

2) Temperature

3) Pressurej4) Component Inflow Rate

A table as well as plot facility is provided for analyzing the results of ESP Survey.

ESP Scratchpad and Survey can be used on a separately defined stream or, alternatively, on anystream from an already computed flowsheet

-8-

RR323288

References

(R-l) Rafal, M., Berthold, J.W., Scrivner, N.C. and Grise, S.L., Models forThermodynamic and Phase Equilibria Calculations, Edited by Stanley I. Sandier,Marcel Dekker, New York, 1994, Chapter 7, pp 607-670

(R-2) Soave, G., Chem. Eng. Sci., 27, 1197 (1972)

(R-3) Kabadi, V.N. and Danner, R.P., Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev., 24, 537(1955)

~'t

(R-4) Shock, EX., and Helgeson, H.C., Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 42, 2009 (1988)

(R-5) Shock, EX., and Helgeson, H.C., Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 54, 915 (1990).

(R-6) Shock, EX., Helgeson, H.C., and Sverjensky, D. A, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta,53, 2157 (1989)

(R-7) Bromley, L.A, J. Chem. Thermo., 4, 669 (1972)

(R-8) Bromley, L.A, AIChE J., 19(2), 313 (1973)

(R-9) Meissner, ELP., AIChE Symp. Ser. No. 173, 74, 124 (1978)

(R-10) Daubert, T.E., and Danner, R.P., Physical and Thermodynamic Properties of PureChemicals, Data compilation of DIPPR 801, Hemisphere, New York, 1989

(R-ll) EPA, "The 1987 Industrial Technology Division List of Analytes", Office ofWater Regulations and Standards (WH-422), 1987, pp51

(R-12) McKay, D., and Shiu, W.Y., J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data, 10, 1175 (1981)

(R-13) Lyman, W J., Reehl, W.F., and Rosenblatt, M.H., Handbook of Chemical PropertyEstimation Methods, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1982

-9-

*R323289

Appendix D

PERCOLATION TEST DATA AND MODELING RESULTS

AR323290

The percolation tests were conducted in shallow boreholes offset from soil boringsWB-2, WB-3, WB-4, and WB-5 as shown on Figure 1. The offset boreholes weredrilled with hollow-stem augers (6.5-inch-diameter) to a depth of 5 feet. Oneundisturbed, thin-wall tube sample (Shelby tube) was taken at the 3- to 5-foot intervalin each borehole. The tubes were sealed in the field and delivered to the laboratory forpermeability and classification testing.

Each borehole was saturated, (maintained full of water) with potable water for aminimum of 24 hours prior to beginning the percolation tests. Just before starting thetests, each borehole was sounded to determine if any caving had occurred. Three ofthe. four boreholes (WB-3, WB-4, and WB-5) had some caving. Each borehole wascleaned out with a post hole digger to a 5-foot-depth. However, because of thegranular nature of the soils, the boreholes continued to cave and could not be keptopen to the full depth of 5 feet. As a result, the percolation tests were conducted inboreholes WB-3, WB-4, and WB-5 at depths of 37, 42, and 48 inches, respectively.The percolation test was conducted in borehole WB-2 at the full depth of 60 inches.Testing was conducted with potable water hi all four boreholes. A second percolationtest was conducted in borehole WB-2 with a sodium sulfate and sodium sulfide (30ppm) treatment solution to determine if the solution affected the percolation of thewaste material. The potable water remaining in the borehole from the originalpercolation test was allowed to completely drain. Then, the borehole was filled withtreatment solution and maintained full for one hour before beginning the percolationtest.

Because of the thickness of cover soil throughout the landfill, the percolation testconducted in borehole WB-2 was the only test conducted in waste material.Percolation tests in boreholes WB-3 and WB-4 were conducted in sandy cover soils,and the percolation test in borehole WB-5 was conducted in clayey silt cover soil.

Percolation test results are presented in graphical and tabular form on the followingpages.

AR32329I

CBO+3

"5

o1 ICO .3*- og 'W

3O+•*

"OCCO

CsJQQ

CO

C

JOOO0)Q.

(in) PB8H-

C

J3OC/)3O

CMiCO

CD

c

JSOOCDa.

inCM

oCN

C3in

BCDtoccCmo"43JOooCD

oin

o o o o o o C3LC3 T CO CM

(ui)

AR323293

PERCOLATION TEST - WB-2(Without Solution)

iiiiiiTiJin&l'Cnrtiull01248163060120180240260280300360420

IfDcpJlftnl0.01.02.03.56.08.011.018.027.035.040.041.543.044.547.049.0

fBeaiijIl' 59.0

58.057.055.553.051.048.041.032.024.019.017.516.014.512.010.0

l̂ iliPllil

11248

L_ 14

30606060202020.6060

«iiiii1.01.01.52.52.03.07.09.08.05.01.51.51.52.52.0

1.01.01.31.64.04.74.36.77.512.013.313.313.324.030.0

AR32329U

CoJ3OCO

CDHc

O

CDa.

«vCO

O

O

CD§

oola

C™C1"•̂*

CD•M(0oc

CO

Co• ̂H

CO"ooCDo Q-

CM

o o o o o o oO C=> O O C3 O CDco m «a- co CM «—

(W)

AR323295

PERCOLATION TEST - WB-2(With Solution)

î unĉ CnSjrtil0124816306090120150180210240270300

• 330360390420450

ffljim1.02.03.04.06.08.011.017.023.028.032.036.039.041.043.045.046.548.049.050.050.5

59.058.057.056.054.052.049.043.037.032.028.024.021.019.017.015.013.512.011.010.09.5

12ii;ii«iiii248143030303030303030303030303030

1.01.01.02.02.03.06.06.05.04.04.03.02.02.02.01.51.5 '1.01.00.5

1.01.02.02.04.04.75.05.06.07.57.510.015.0

- 15.015.020.020.030.030.060.0

flR323296

CBO"̂J3oCO4-»3O

CO1CO

Percolation Test

3 ICDto

S CCC_0to

3 "oo>_CDQ.

CO

CD CD CD CD CD CD CDin cp tri ca uri cs triCO CO CM CM >— •—

(UIJ PB9H

AR323297

PERCOLATION TEST - WB-3(Without Solution)

Time (min)0124816306080140

Depth (in)2.5-3.54.05.06.08.013.020.023.029.0

Head (in)34.533.533.032.031.029.024.017.014.08.0

t2-tl(ihin)

1124814302060

h2-hl(in)

1.00.51.01.02.05.07.03.06.0

Pcrc{minYiri)t

1.02.02.04.04.02.84.36.7,10.0

HR323298

C

30CO3OJC

••&•1QQ£

1

+JCO0Hc"43CO^̂ •H

Oo0a. • •i •

•

•

•

•

Hi ——————

•

• • ••

•

t_jCO

oinCM

CDs —

1CD

„ ^S rrLO mmmCBO"43

"5ou.CD

o Q.C3

csua

a

C 3 C 3 C 3 C D C D C D C DC D L n c D u r i c D L r i c D>«r co co CM CM »— .—

(U\) PB9H

AR323299

PERCOLATION TEST - WB-4(Without Solution)

.•:!Tiin'&(min$!0124816306080140200220240260320380

6.07.08.09.011.014.017.021.023.029.532.533.534.535.537.540.0

iMjfpji36.035.034.033.031.028.025.021.019.012.59.58.57.56.54.52.0

liiipriii.124814302060602020206060

Miipi1.01.01.02.03.03.04.02.06.53.01.01.01.02.02.5

.1.01.02.02.02.74.77.510.09.220.020.020.020.030.024.0

UR323300

o"43_3O

3O

IDiCO

I

co0h-C

oo0a.

I

—— m-

m

«

«

,

0

CD0

CO

oCDCDCO

CD CCD inrs cECD

- i l^ C

too°. o

-CD fc.i£2 CD

O.

oCDCD

C3C3LO

C3

AR32330I

PERCOLATION TEST - WB-5(Without Solution)

Time (min)012610183262921071221421622222825597

Depth (in)2.02.02.53.03.54.04.55.56.06.57.07.27.38.08.522.0

Head (in)46.046.045.545.044.544.043.542.542.041.541.040.840.740.039.526.0

t2-tl;!(min)|

1144814303015IS202060605315

KZEWiSJiO;

0.00.50.50.50.50.51.00.50.50.50.20.10.70.513.5

&o$QWiffl

2.08.08.016.028.030.060.030.030.0100.0200.085.7120.0393.7

AR3233Q2

Fort Washington , Pa. 19034

Job No.: 94g086 Date 01-16-95Job Nam DERS : Dupont-Newport -South Landfill file no.086K-3Reviewed By T̂ir"»-—

E.N.Manuel

Summary of Undisturbed Triaxial Variable-Head Permeability Tests(ASTM D-5084) _________

DateReceived

01-03-94

01-03-94

01-03-94

SampleLabel

WB-2 SBT-1

WB-3 SBT-2

WB-4 SBT-3

DepthFt.

03-05

03-05

03-05

W.Co%

44.5

46.1

09.9

Ydpcf

67.2

69.4

100.3

So%

82.0

89.8

37.3

Octsf

0.36

0.36

0.36

W.Cf%

53.9

51.4

20.0

Sf%

99.0

99.8

98.9

kcm/sec

9.52x10A-5

3.97x10*-4

1.11 X10A-|J|

*

Initial hydraulic gradient used = 25+7-2 Where:Specific Gravity = 2.60 (Assumed) W.C=Initial or Final water Content

Yd=lnitial Dry DensityOc = Effective Consolidation Pressure UsedS=lnitial Degree of Saturationk=Coefficient of Permeability at 20 c

AR323303

******************************************

HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION OF LANDFILL PERFORMANCE **** ' HELP MODEL VERSION 3.01 (14 OCTOBER 1994) **** DEVELOPED BY ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY **** USAE WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION **** FOR USEPA RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY . **** **** **

PRECIPITATION DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\NEWP.D4TEMPERATURE DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\NEWT.D7SOLAR RADIATION DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\NEWS.D13EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA: C:\HELP3\NEWE.D11SOIL AND DESIGN DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\NEWWET.D10OUTPUT DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\gugs3.OUT

TIME:- 8:38 DATE:' 3/31/1995

TITLE: NEWPORT

NOTE: INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT OF THE LAYERS AND SNOW WATER WERECOMPUTED AS NEARLY STEADY-STATE VALUES BY THE PROGRAM.

LAYER

TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYERMATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 7

THICKNESS = 2 4 . 0 0 INCHESPOROSITY = 0.4730 VOL/VOLFIELD CAPACITY = 0.2220 VOL/VOLWILTING POINT = 0.1040 VOL/VOLINITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.3352 VOL/VOLEFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 0.520000001000E-03 CM/SEC

NOTE: SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY IS MULTIPLIED BY 1.80FOR ROOT CHANNELS IN TOP HALF OF EVAPORATIVE ZONE.

AR3E3301*

LAYER

TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYERMATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 10

THICKNESS = 228.00 INCHESPOROSITY = 0.3980 VOL/VOLFIELD CAPACITY = 0.2440 VOL/VOLWILTING'POINT = 0.1360 VOL/VOLINITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.3557 VOL/VOLEFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 0.119999997000E-03 CM/SEC

LAYER

TYPE 2 - LATERAL DRAINAGE LAYERMATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 10

THICKNESS = 48.00 INCHESPOROSITY = 0.3980 VOL/VOLFIELD CAPACITY ' = 0.2440 VOL/VOLWILTING POINT = 0.1360 VOL/VOLINITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.3843 VOL/VOLEFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 0.119999997000E-03 CM/SECSLOPE = 25.00 PERCENTDRAINAGE LENGTH = 10.0 FEET

LAYER

TYPE 3 - BARRIER SOIL LINERMATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 16

THICKNESS = 12.00 INCHESPOROSITY = 0.4270 VOL/VOLFIELD CAPACITY = 0.4180 VOL/VOLWILTING POINT = 0.3670 VOL/VOLINITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.4270 VOL/VOLEFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 0 .100000001000E-06 CM/SEC

GENERAL DESIGN AND EVAPORATIVE ZONE DATA

NOTE: SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER WAS COMPUTED FROM DEFAULTSOIL DATA BASE USING SOIL TEXTURE # 7 WITH APOOR STAND OF GRASS, A SURFACE SLOPE OF 3.%AND A SLOPE LENGTH OF 100. FEET.

SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER = '84.10FRACTION OF AREA ALLOWING RUNOFF = 100.0 PEAREA PROJECTED ON HORIZONTAL PLANE = 1.000 ACRES

EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH = 9.0 INCHESINITIAL WATER IN EVAPORATIVE ZONE =- 2.685 INCHES.UPPER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE = 4.257 INCHESLOWER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE = 0.936 INCHESINITIAL SNOW WATER = 0.000 INCHESINITIAL WATER IN LAYER MATERIALS = 112.711 • INCHESTOTAL INITIAL WATER = 112.711 INCHESTOTAL SUBSURFACE INFLOW = 0.00 INCHES/YEAR

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION AND WEATHER DATA

NOTE: EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA WAS OBTAINED FROM•WILMINGTON DELAWARE

MAXIMUM LEAF AREA INDEX = 1.00START OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) = 107END OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) = 298AVERAGE ANNUAL WIND SPEED = 9.20 MPHAVERAGE 1ST QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 67.00 %AVERAGE 2ND QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 67.00 %AVERAGE 3RD QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 72.00 %AVERAGE 4TH QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 71.00 %

NOTE: PRECIPITATION DATA FOR PHILADELPHIA PENNSYLVANIAWAS ENTERED FROM THE DEFAULT DATA FILE.

NOTE: TEMPERATURE DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USINGCOEFFICIENTS FOR WILMINGTON DELAWARE

NORMAL MEAN MONTHLY TEMPERATURE (DEGREES FAHRENHEIT)

JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC

31.20 33.20 41.80 52.40 62.20 71.2076.00 74.80 67.80 56.30 45.60 35.50

NOTE: SOLAR RADIATION DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USINGCOEFFICIENTS FOR WILMINGTON DELAWARE

STATION LATITUDE = 39.80 DEGREES

**************;

ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1979

INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT——- AR323-3M— ——-

PRECIPITATION 365.00 1324950.000 100.00

RUNOFF 40.306 146311.297 11.04

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 39.408 143049.562 10.8J

DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 3 279.8741 1015942.940 76.68

PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 5.412746 19648.270 1.48

AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4 40.3378

CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE J -0.001 -2.049 0.00

SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR ' 112.711 409142.125

SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 112.711 409140.062

SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0.000 0.000 0.00

SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR . 0.000 0.000 0.00

ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 0.0000 0.000 0.00

AVERAGE MONTHLY VALUES IN INCHES FOR YEARS 1979 THROUGH 1979

• JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC

PRECIPITATION

TOTALS • • 31.00 28.00 31.00 30.00 31.00 30.0031.00 31.00 30.00 31.00 30.00 31.00

STD. DEVIATIONS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

RUNOFF

TOTALS 10.932 4.695 4.839 1.920 1.639 1.5471.594 1'. 648 1.627 1.712 1.678 6.476

STD. DEVIATIONS 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0000.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

E VAPOTRANS PI RAT'1 ON

TOTALS 0.802 1.135 1.830 3.460 5.312 6.2706.447 4.805 3.669 2.711 " 1.945 , 1.021

STD. DEVIATIONS 0.000 0.000 0.000 H " tf.'OCrO 0 . 000 0.000

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 3

H| TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

1821

00

.5992

.9730

.0000

.0000

22.330923.7882

0.00000.0000

2324

00

.6365

.1033

. 0000

. 0000

2425

00

.4578

.6458

.0000

.0000

23.25.

0.0 .

87308185

00000000

2223

00

.3194

.3286

.0000

.0000

PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 '

TOTALS

STD . DEVIATIONS

AVERAGES OF

00

00

.4072

.4449

.0000

.0000

MONTHLY

DAILY AVERAGE HEAD ACROSS

AVERAGES

P̂ STD. DEVIATIONS

3438

0. 0

LAYER

.3363

.6286

.0000

.0000

0.4-2280.4609

0.00000.0000

AVERAGED

4

41.272240.4526

0.00000.0000

00

00

.4583

.4556

.0000

.0000

00

00

DAILY HEADS

4041

00

.1528

.5736

.0000

.0000

4142

00

.4586

.4773

.0000

.0000

0.0.

0.0.

46174706

00000000

00

00

.4399

.4551

.0000

.0000

(INCHES)

.9270

.3126

.0000

.0000

40.43.

0.0.

53723457

00000000

3939

00

.7246

.7903

.0000

.0000

*******************************************************************************

**************************

AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS

PRECIPITATION

RUNOFF

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION

**

&

LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED

******

(STD.

365

40

39

279

************

DEVIATIONS)

INCHES

.00 (

.306 (

.408 (

.87408 (

*****

FOR

***********

YEARS 1979

*******

THROUGH

CU. FEET

0

0.

0.

0.

.000)

0000)

0000)

00000)

1324950

146311

143049

1015942

.0

.30

.56

.940

**********

1979

PERCENT

100.

11.

10.

00

043

797

76.67783

PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH 5.41275 ( 0.00000) 19648.270 1.48294FROM LAYER 4

•]RAGE HEAD ACROSS TOP 40.338 ( 0.000)F LAYER 4 - - - -

CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -0.001 '( 0.0000) -2.05 0.000

PEAK DAILY VALUES FOR YEARS 1979 THROUGH 1979

(INCHES) (CU. FT.)

PRECIPITATION 1.00 3630.000

RUNOFF 4.097 14872.5986

DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 3 1.09873 3988.39111

PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 0.017516 63.58449

AVERAGE HEAD ACROSS LAYER 4 49.795

SNOW WATER 13.56 49207.2305

MAXIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0.4030

MINIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0.2220

AR323309

FINAL WATER STORAGE AT END OF YEAR 1979

LAYER (INCHES) (VOL/VOL)

1 8.0441 0.3352

2 81.0971 0.3557

3 18.4455 0.3843

4 5.1240 0.4270

SNOW WATER 0.000

*************************:

S >'

:****************

SR3233IO

TRAVEL TIME FOR SOLUTION

1 . Determine velocity of solution through saturated soil

Flux = 285 inches per year from results of HELP model run using 1-inch per dayinfiltration

xr, • 285in/yr .Velocity = ———————— = —————————— - —————— = 801m/yrWater Content .3557 (from HELP model run)

Velocity = 801 in/ yr x 1 ft / 12in

= 67ft/yr

Velocity = 0.18 ft/day

2. Time for solution to travel to bottom of contaminated material.

= Saturated travel time (23 feet) + time to saturate (17 feet)

Time to Saturate:

Initial moisture content = Wt = .2628 vol/vol

Saturated moisture content = W,̂ = .3557 vol/vol

A W = .0929 vol/vol

Maximum depth of unsaturated zone at beginning of treatment = 17 feet=> 17 feet x .0929 = 1.58 feet = 19 inches

Infiltration rate = .77 in/day

19"/.77" per day = 25 days additional time to saturate

Saturated travel time:

Thickest portion of unsaturated material is 23 feet.

Distance 23 feetTime = ———— = —————— = 128 daysVelocity 0.18 ft/day

Time = 128 days

Total time for solution to travel through to bottom of waste material.

Time to saturate unsaturated material (17 feet) = 25 days

Time to travel to bottom of contaminated material (23 feet) =128 days

= 158 days(5 months)

AR3233I2

Appendix £

REMEDIAL COST ESTIMATES

AR3233I3

DESCRIPTIONCONSTRUCTION:Soil CoverBerm Removal/Site SecurityAccess Road ConstructionDegradingGravel Base (12 inches)Erosion Control Productnstitutional ControlsVegetative BarrierFencing - 6 ft with barbed wireGate Entrance (Old Airport Road) - 6ft.Property Line Vegetative Barrier (1530 If)Culvert for Discharge from PondBasin RoadExcavation of Waste MaterialBackfilling, compaction and regradingRoadway resurfacing with blacktopTransportation of Waste MaterialStabilizationClearingTreatment

QUANTITY

8,0002,1008,000

430920

162080

36,81036,81033,30036,810

11177,000

UNITS

LS

SYCYSY

PLANTLFLS

PLANTLF

CYCYSQFTCY

ACRECY

$800,000.00

$1.00$15.00$0.50

$24.50$15.50$785.00$24.50$93.00

$15.00$20.00$0.50$1.00

$2,650.00$38.00

INSTRUCTION SUBTOTALMOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION (10%)HEALTH & SAFETY (5%)ENGINEERING/CONST. OVERSIGHT (15%)CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTALCONTINGENCY (20%)

$11,685,271$2,337

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE:Access Road and Fencing/BarrierCover Maintenance

D&M PRESENT WORTH (30 YRS @ i = 5%)rOTATC

TOTAL

$800,000

$8,000$31,500$4,000

$10,535$14,260

$785$15,190J$7,440

$552,150$736,200$16,650$36,810

$29,150$6,726,000$8,988,670$898,867$449,434

$1,348,301

3/28/95 AR3233U

DESCRIPTIONCONSTRUCTION:loll CoverBerm Removal/Site SecurityAccess Road ConstructionRegradingGravel Base (12 inches)Erosion Control Productnstitutional ControlsVegetative Barrier:encing - 6 ft with barbed wireGate Entrance (Old Airport Road) - 6ft.Property Line Vegetative Barrier (1530 If)Culvert for Discharge from PondBasin RoadExcavation of Waste MaterialBackfilling, compaction and regradingRoadway resurfacing with blacktopTransportation of Waste MaterialStabilizationClearingTreatment

QUANTITY

8,0002,1008,000

430920

162080

36,81036,81033,30036,810

16500,000

UNITS

LS

SYCYSY

PLANTLFLS

PLANTLF

CYCYSQFTCY

ACRECY

$800,000.00

$1.00$15.00$0.50

$24.50$15.50$785.00$24.50$93.00

$15.00$20.00$0.50$1.00

$2,650.00$38.00

CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTALMOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION (10%)HEALTH & SAFETY (5%)ENGINEERING/CONST. OVERSIGHT (15%)CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTALCONTINGENCY (20%)CQNST,RJJLQT1ONOPERATION & MAINTENANCE:Access Road and Fencing/BarrierCover Maintenance

O&M PRESENT WORTH (30 YRS @ i = 5%)TOTAL

TOTAL

$800,000

$8,000$31,500$4,000

$10,536$14,260

$785$15,190$7,440

$552,150$736,200$16,650$36,810

$42,400$19,000,000$21,275,920$2,127,592$1,063,796$3,191,388$27,658,696$5,531,739

$265.797$33,500,000

3/28/95 RR3233I5

IESTIMATETOR:immvf-m¥'DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNITS

UNITCOST TOTAL

CONSTRUCTION:Site PreparationClearing and GrubbingErosion Control Purchase & InstallationCut and filljradeHydroseedingInstitutional Controls::encing (6' w/ barbed wire)Jate Entrance (Old Airport Road, 6')Property Line Vegetative BarrierImpermeable Cap:Regrade AreaGeotextile Purchase & Installation40 mil HDPE cap installationieonet drain installationGeotextile Purchase & InstallationSoil Cover Purchase & PlacementTopsoil Cover Purchase & PlacementhlydroseedingSlurry WallChemical TreatmentWater Line & Tie-inSubsoil PlanterTractor (200HP)Sodium SulfateSodium SulfideCalcium CarbonateIrrigation EquipmentWell InstallationGroundwater SystemGroundwater Holding TankGroundwater Treatment

165,00025,000

1616

920

1,050

1677,44077,44077,44077,44038,72012,907

16225,000

16

15.815.850.41616

25,000

AcreLFCYAcreAcre

LFLS

Plant

AcreSYSYSYSYCYCYAcreSF

LSEAMOTon

, TonTonAcreEALSLS

MGAL

$3,190.00$1.39$2.00

$3,265.00$400.00

$15.50$785.00$25.00

$3,630.00$1.40$5.00$4.50$1.40$10.00$15.00$400.00$15.00

$30,000.00$30,000.00$8,000.00$113.00$725.00$150.00

$26,000.00$10,000.00$500,000.00$8,000.00

$5.00

$51,040$6,942$50,000$52,240$6,400

$14,260$785

$26,250

$58,080$108,416$387,200$348,480$108,416$387,200$193,600$6,400

$3,375,000

$30,000$30,000$48,000$1,785$11,455$7,560

$416,000$160,000$500.000$8,000

$125,000CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTALMOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION (10%)HEALTH & SAFETY (5%)ENGINEERING/CONST. OVERSIGHT (15%)

$6,518,509$651,851$325,925$977,776

CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTALCONTINGENCY (20%)

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE:MonitoringOperatorMowingCover repairFacility maintenanceGroundwater treatment

28816

33

LShoursmowAcreLS

MGAL

30,000.00100.00370.00

2,000.0010,000.00

5.00

$8,474,062$1,694,812

$30,000$2,800$2,960$32,000$10,000

$164ANNUAL O&M SUBTOTALCONTINGENCY (20%)

O&M PRESENT WORTH (30 YRS @ i = 5%) $1,437,410

3/28/95TOTAL $11,606,000

A D^OQ

WASTE VOLUME ESTIMATES

BasisLandfillSouth Basin RoadTotal

140,00037,000177,000

419,00081,000500,000

AR3233I7

*

CASE 1:

Q Soil cover cost is based on ROD lump sum of S800M, does not match FS cost for coverof S300M ($297,200; see Table H-15).

AR3233I8

CASE 2:

Q Again $800,000 used without known basis of number of units and unit costQ Primary difference with ROD remedy is:

• Clearing is based on 16 acres compared to 11 acres in FS estimate, ROD is very closeto this 6,755,1.50 FS (11 acres) 6,748,000 ROD (unknown acreage)

• Volume of waste is increase almost 3-fold (see Matt Brill calculations, checked byJoel Karmazyn)— Basin Road

From Matts Basin Road Figure 3, with calculations written on it:(640')(200') = 128,000 ft2 ( 3 acres)

— At 8'Depth (ROD)(8')(128,000 ft2) = 1,024,000 ft3 = 37,926 yd3Note: ROD volume is 36,810 yd3 used in estimates

— At 17' Depth(17')(128,000 ft3) = 2176000 ft3 = 80,593 yd3 or say 81,000 cy

Therefore, primary difference is in depth of waste used to calculate volumes (i.e.,8 feet versus 17 feet)

AR3233I9

SOUTH LANDFILL:

Also from Mart's notes, Figure 2, Woodward-Clyde drawing showing site topography andborings, with Mart's calculations also checked by Joel Karmazyn:

• Q Surface Area:1 600'(l,100')0/2) = 330,000 ft2 (triangle)

at 20' Thickness(20'X330,000 ft2) = 6,600,000ft3

= 244,444yd3= 245,000 cy

2 200'(1,100') = 220,000ft2at 17' Thickness(17')(220,000 ft3) = 3,740,000ft3

= 138,519yd

= 140,000yd

1 + 2 = 385,000 yd3+ Basin Road (81,000 yd3)

+ 466,000yd3+ Pond Material (Based on Matt Brill, unknown source of volume calc.)+ 34,000 yd3= 500,000yd3.

Therefore volume difference is most significant change which results in an increase inconstruction and engineering costs.

BR32332Q